from what i understand, the only significant duty given to the vice president is to preside over the senate; even this has been shirked by past vice presidents.  furthermore, the ability to cast a tie breaking vote has not been invoked very often by vice presidents.  in the event that the president is either killed or resigns, the vice president is a horrible choice to take over office.  the speaker of the house would be much more qualified for the position simply because they engage more deeply with the government.  the vice president is not significantly involved with congress and does not engage in debate with representatives or senators over legislation.  furthermore they do not command the same degree of loyalty and respect as the president or speaker of the house.  i am willing to bet that john boehner would have an easier time dealing with congress as president than joe biden would due to his constant interaction with it.  as an example, if obama was assassinated in late 0, would biden have the same level of influence necessary to gather support for the affordable care act ? does biden have the same level of respect from foreign nations needed to guide the country in this global age ? the only half decent argument i can think of for a vice president is to ensure that the president is general will/ideology is carried out in the event of their removal from office.  if boehner suddenly took office he would absolutely veto many bills obama supported.  i believe that this is a weak argument for two reasons.  first, the speaker of the house does represent a significant portion of the country is will, given that their party has taken the majority in the house.  yes, there may be conflict between the old cabinet members and the new president but the position is still somewhat representative of the country is will.  secondly, the vice president is not guaranteed to adhere to the policies of their predecessor.  in robert mcnamara is documentary,  the fog of war,  he mentions how lbj decided to continue the vietnam war despite jfk is efforts to move troops out.   #  i am willing to bet that john boehner would have an easier time dealing with congress as president than joe biden would due to his constant interaction with it.   #  do you think that could have  anything  to do with the fact that boehner is a republican, and congress is controlled by republicans ?  # seriously, stop with the hyperbole.  say this with a straight face  teddy roosevelt was a horrible president.   or  harry truman was a horrible president.   do you think that could have  anything  to do with the fact that boehner is a republican, and congress is controlled by republicans ? that argument has much less to do with the individuals than it does with the current party in control.   #  i would propose that the title of  vice president  be kept as well as their duty to meet with foreign dignitaries, but to remove their right to succession for presidency.   #  your first point is very strong, however, nothing leads me to believe that the second face of the executive branch could not be held by a close cabinet member.  the secretary of state, for example, would be a much more powerful presence than the vice president given that they have far more impact on global affairs.  my counterpoint is not perfect though, since i do realize that cabinet members may not have the time to entertain guests and that the vice president has a much more flexible schedule.  i would propose that the title of  vice president  be kept as well as their duty to meet with foreign dignitaries, but to remove their right to succession for presidency.  your second point has me hinging on awarding a delta.  you are correct that the vice president is a strong buffer/barrier to radical political change; the president and vice president are purposely kept in separate locations and have their own secret service, making it much harder to put a radically different leader in power through assassination.  i also remember reading that andrew johnson was supposed to be assassinated alongside lincoln but that the plan failed meaning that it is much harder to kill 0 people than 0 .  despite this, i believe that given modern day security as well as a free media to expose conspiracies, usurpation of power through assassination would not be a problem.  there was a til a while ago about a general who blew the whistle on some corporate leaders who wanted to overthrow the government.  i believe that america is not in a state where the members of the government are willing to resort to killing one another to seize power.  this is absolutely not the case for all countries, but i believe it is not enough of a danger in the u. s.   #  does biden have the same level of respect from foreign nations needed to guide the country in this global age ?  # the speaker of the house would be much more qualified for the position simply because they engage more deeply with the government.  the vice presidency is an important part of the ticket, and the presidential campaign case in point, sara pallin, who harmed john mccain is presidential chances .  we do not just elect the president, we elect the president and the backup president in a national election.  speaker of the house is elected by their  district , they do not even have to go through the scrutiny of a statewide election.  from there, they are elected by their  party  as their congressional leadership.  would you really want john boehner or nancy pallosey as president if anything were to happen to obama ? does biden have the same level of respect from foreign nations needed to guide the country in this global age ? biden served many, many more years in the senate than obama did.  he only left the senate to occupy the white house.  it is not like he is that far removed from the senate, or it is all of the sudden a strange, foreign world to him.  while biden does not have much official power within the administration, vp carries a lot of soft power both within and outside the country.  the president has, at his disposal, an official that he can send to any part of the world that would be honored and respected, and would show that part of the world that  the president cares about them .  speaker of the house has too much on his/her plate as it is to do these kinds of soft power errands.   #  he did lose however, so perhaps people do put weight into the vp choice.   #    i am swayed most by the argument that the nation does not elect the speaker of the house, however i will note that the speaker is third in line anyways.  it can be argued that a single person buffer is a huge difference though.  the last paragraph is also very convincing.  i made a mistake saying biden is not as respected/capable as obama.  it is worth considering, however, that mccain picked palin as vice president.  he did lose however, so perhaps people do put weight into the vp choice.   #  breaking senate ties i do not know why you think this can be ignored.   #  i see a few valuable roles for the vp:   acting as a substitute president in times of crisis or incapacity.  this happened a few times with vice president cheney during the bush administration.  on sept.  0, 0, cheney was in dc and giving orders regarding the immediate reaction to potentially hijacked aircraft while president bush was unable to due to being in a public engagement and then being moved around to get him secure.  additionally, cheney became acting president in 0 and 0 briefly when bush underwent a general anesthetic for a colonoscopy.  the speaker of the house ca not hop in and out of the office like that, because they would have to resign their house seat to assume the role of acting president.  if we changed the constitution so they did not, then you would have a major separation of powers problem.  relieving the ceremonial burdens of the presidency.  an enormous amount of presidential time gets wasted on fluff that needs to get done for pr or other purposes.  presently, the vp takes care of a lot of this, like marching in a labor day parade.  URL without a vp, there would be even more demands on the president is time, and there would not be a go to substitute to send when the president ca not meet all of those demands.  breaking senate ties i do not know why you think this can be ignored.  each state gets 0 senators.  the number of senators will thus always be even.  and the tie breaking vote does happen.  cheney cast 0 of them in his term in office, including on substantial pieces of legislation, URL like bush is 0 tax cuts.
from what i understand, the only significant duty given to the vice president is to preside over the senate; even this has been shirked by past vice presidents.  furthermore, the ability to cast a tie breaking vote has not been invoked very often by vice presidents.  in the event that the president is either killed or resigns, the vice president is a horrible choice to take over office.  the speaker of the house would be much more qualified for the position simply because they engage more deeply with the government.  the vice president is not significantly involved with congress and does not engage in debate with representatives or senators over legislation.  furthermore they do not command the same degree of loyalty and respect as the president or speaker of the house.  i am willing to bet that john boehner would have an easier time dealing with congress as president than joe biden would due to his constant interaction with it.  as an example, if obama was assassinated in late 0, would biden have the same level of influence necessary to gather support for the affordable care act ? does biden have the same level of respect from foreign nations needed to guide the country in this global age ? the only half decent argument i can think of for a vice president is to ensure that the president is general will/ideology is carried out in the event of their removal from office.  if boehner suddenly took office he would absolutely veto many bills obama supported.  i believe that this is a weak argument for two reasons.  first, the speaker of the house does represent a significant portion of the country is will, given that their party has taken the majority in the house.  yes, there may be conflict between the old cabinet members and the new president but the position is still somewhat representative of the country is will.  secondly, the vice president is not guaranteed to adhere to the policies of their predecessor.  in robert mcnamara is documentary,  the fog of war,  he mentions how lbj decided to continue the vietnam war despite jfk is efforts to move troops out.   #  in the event that the president is either killed or resigns, the vice president is a horrible choice to take over office.   #  the speaker of the house would be much more qualified for the position simply because they engage more deeply with the government.   # the speaker of the house would be much more qualified for the position simply because they engage more deeply with the government.  the vice presidency is an important part of the ticket, and the presidential campaign case in point, sara pallin, who harmed john mccain is presidential chances .  we do not just elect the president, we elect the president and the backup president in a national election.  speaker of the house is elected by their  district , they do not even have to go through the scrutiny of a statewide election.  from there, they are elected by their  party  as their congressional leadership.  would you really want john boehner or nancy pallosey as president if anything were to happen to obama ? does biden have the same level of respect from foreign nations needed to guide the country in this global age ? biden served many, many more years in the senate than obama did.  he only left the senate to occupy the white house.  it is not like he is that far removed from the senate, or it is all of the sudden a strange, foreign world to him.  while biden does not have much official power within the administration, vp carries a lot of soft power both within and outside the country.  the president has, at his disposal, an official that he can send to any part of the world that would be honored and respected, and would show that part of the world that  the president cares about them .  speaker of the house has too much on his/her plate as it is to do these kinds of soft power errands.   #  your second point has me hinging on awarding a delta.   #  your first point is very strong, however, nothing leads me to believe that the second face of the executive branch could not be held by a close cabinet member.  the secretary of state, for example, would be a much more powerful presence than the vice president given that they have far more impact on global affairs.  my counterpoint is not perfect though, since i do realize that cabinet members may not have the time to entertain guests and that the vice president has a much more flexible schedule.  i would propose that the title of  vice president  be kept as well as their duty to meet with foreign dignitaries, but to remove their right to succession for presidency.  your second point has me hinging on awarding a delta.  you are correct that the vice president is a strong buffer/barrier to radical political change; the president and vice president are purposely kept in separate locations and have their own secret service, making it much harder to put a radically different leader in power through assassination.  i also remember reading that andrew johnson was supposed to be assassinated alongside lincoln but that the plan failed meaning that it is much harder to kill 0 people than 0 .  despite this, i believe that given modern day security as well as a free media to expose conspiracies, usurpation of power through assassination would not be a problem.  there was a til a while ago about a general who blew the whistle on some corporate leaders who wanted to overthrow the government.  i believe that america is not in a state where the members of the government are willing to resort to killing one another to seize power.  this is absolutely not the case for all countries, but i believe it is not enough of a danger in the u. s.   #  he did lose however, so perhaps people do put weight into the vp choice.   #    i am swayed most by the argument that the nation does not elect the speaker of the house, however i will note that the speaker is third in line anyways.  it can be argued that a single person buffer is a huge difference though.  the last paragraph is also very convincing.  i made a mistake saying biden is not as respected/capable as obama.  it is worth considering, however, that mccain picked palin as vice president.  he did lose however, so perhaps people do put weight into the vp choice.   #  additionally, cheney became acting president in 0 and 0 briefly when bush underwent a general anesthetic for a colonoscopy.   #  i see a few valuable roles for the vp:   acting as a substitute president in times of crisis or incapacity.  this happened a few times with vice president cheney during the bush administration.  on sept.  0, 0, cheney was in dc and giving orders regarding the immediate reaction to potentially hijacked aircraft while president bush was unable to due to being in a public engagement and then being moved around to get him secure.  additionally, cheney became acting president in 0 and 0 briefly when bush underwent a general anesthetic for a colonoscopy.  the speaker of the house ca not hop in and out of the office like that, because they would have to resign their house seat to assume the role of acting president.  if we changed the constitution so they did not, then you would have a major separation of powers problem.  relieving the ceremonial burdens of the presidency.  an enormous amount of presidential time gets wasted on fluff that needs to get done for pr or other purposes.  presently, the vp takes care of a lot of this, like marching in a labor day parade.  URL without a vp, there would be even more demands on the president is time, and there would not be a go to substitute to send when the president ca not meet all of those demands.  breaking senate ties i do not know why you think this can be ignored.  each state gets 0 senators.  the number of senators will thus always be even.  and the tie breaking vote does happen.  cheney cast 0 of them in his term in office, including on substantial pieces of legislation, URL like bush is 0 tax cuts.   #  i suggested before that it be taken over by cabinet members but now i realize it is useful to have a dedicated position.   #    i ca not seem to come up with a good answer to temporarily taking over presidential duties.  that would be too much for the speaker of the house too since they ca not shift back and forth between jobs.  i also did not consider the sheer volume of pr work that the vice president can relieve.  i suggested before that it be taken over by cabinet members but now i realize it is useful to have a dedicated position.  also, i did not realize that the tie breaking votes happened that often, especially for the significant example you gave.
from what i understand, the only significant duty given to the vice president is to preside over the senate; even this has been shirked by past vice presidents.  furthermore, the ability to cast a tie breaking vote has not been invoked very often by vice presidents.  in the event that the president is either killed or resigns, the vice president is a horrible choice to take over office.  the speaker of the house would be much more qualified for the position simply because they engage more deeply with the government.  the vice president is not significantly involved with congress and does not engage in debate with representatives or senators over legislation.  furthermore they do not command the same degree of loyalty and respect as the president or speaker of the house.  i am willing to bet that john boehner would have an easier time dealing with congress as president than joe biden would due to his constant interaction with it.  as an example, if obama was assassinated in late 0, would biden have the same level of influence necessary to gather support for the affordable care act ? does biden have the same level of respect from foreign nations needed to guide the country in this global age ? the only half decent argument i can think of for a vice president is to ensure that the president is general will/ideology is carried out in the event of their removal from office.  if boehner suddenly took office he would absolutely veto many bills obama supported.  i believe that this is a weak argument for two reasons.  first, the speaker of the house does represent a significant portion of the country is will, given that their party has taken the majority in the house.  yes, there may be conflict between the old cabinet members and the new president but the position is still somewhat representative of the country is will.  secondly, the vice president is not guaranteed to adhere to the policies of their predecessor.  in robert mcnamara is documentary,  the fog of war,  he mentions how lbj decided to continue the vietnam war despite jfk is efforts to move troops out.   #  as an example, if obama was assassinated in late 0, would biden have the same level of influence necessary to gather support for the affordable care act ?  #  does biden have the same level of respect from foreign nations needed to guide the country in this global age ?  # the speaker of the house would be much more qualified for the position simply because they engage more deeply with the government.  the vice presidency is an important part of the ticket, and the presidential campaign case in point, sara pallin, who harmed john mccain is presidential chances .  we do not just elect the president, we elect the president and the backup president in a national election.  speaker of the house is elected by their  district , they do not even have to go through the scrutiny of a statewide election.  from there, they are elected by their  party  as their congressional leadership.  would you really want john boehner or nancy pallosey as president if anything were to happen to obama ? does biden have the same level of respect from foreign nations needed to guide the country in this global age ? biden served many, many more years in the senate than obama did.  he only left the senate to occupy the white house.  it is not like he is that far removed from the senate, or it is all of the sudden a strange, foreign world to him.  while biden does not have much official power within the administration, vp carries a lot of soft power both within and outside the country.  the president has, at his disposal, an official that he can send to any part of the world that would be honored and respected, and would show that part of the world that  the president cares about them .  speaker of the house has too much on his/her plate as it is to do these kinds of soft power errands.   #  your second point has me hinging on awarding a delta.   #  your first point is very strong, however, nothing leads me to believe that the second face of the executive branch could not be held by a close cabinet member.  the secretary of state, for example, would be a much more powerful presence than the vice president given that they have far more impact on global affairs.  my counterpoint is not perfect though, since i do realize that cabinet members may not have the time to entertain guests and that the vice president has a much more flexible schedule.  i would propose that the title of  vice president  be kept as well as their duty to meet with foreign dignitaries, but to remove their right to succession for presidency.  your second point has me hinging on awarding a delta.  you are correct that the vice president is a strong buffer/barrier to radical political change; the president and vice president are purposely kept in separate locations and have their own secret service, making it much harder to put a radically different leader in power through assassination.  i also remember reading that andrew johnson was supposed to be assassinated alongside lincoln but that the plan failed meaning that it is much harder to kill 0 people than 0 .  despite this, i believe that given modern day security as well as a free media to expose conspiracies, usurpation of power through assassination would not be a problem.  there was a til a while ago about a general who blew the whistle on some corporate leaders who wanted to overthrow the government.  i believe that america is not in a state where the members of the government are willing to resort to killing one another to seize power.  this is absolutely not the case for all countries, but i believe it is not enough of a danger in the u. s.   #  i made a mistake saying biden is not as respected/capable as obama.   #    i am swayed most by the argument that the nation does not elect the speaker of the house, however i will note that the speaker is third in line anyways.  it can be argued that a single person buffer is a huge difference though.  the last paragraph is also very convincing.  i made a mistake saying biden is not as respected/capable as obama.  it is worth considering, however, that mccain picked palin as vice president.  he did lose however, so perhaps people do put weight into the vp choice.   #  breaking senate ties i do not know why you think this can be ignored.   #  i see a few valuable roles for the vp:   acting as a substitute president in times of crisis or incapacity.  this happened a few times with vice president cheney during the bush administration.  on sept.  0, 0, cheney was in dc and giving orders regarding the immediate reaction to potentially hijacked aircraft while president bush was unable to due to being in a public engagement and then being moved around to get him secure.  additionally, cheney became acting president in 0 and 0 briefly when bush underwent a general anesthetic for a colonoscopy.  the speaker of the house ca not hop in and out of the office like that, because they would have to resign their house seat to assume the role of acting president.  if we changed the constitution so they did not, then you would have a major separation of powers problem.  relieving the ceremonial burdens of the presidency.  an enormous amount of presidential time gets wasted on fluff that needs to get done for pr or other purposes.  presently, the vp takes care of a lot of this, like marching in a labor day parade.  URL without a vp, there would be even more demands on the president is time, and there would not be a go to substitute to send when the president ca not meet all of those demands.  breaking senate ties i do not know why you think this can be ignored.  each state gets 0 senators.  the number of senators will thus always be even.  and the tie breaking vote does happen.  cheney cast 0 of them in his term in office, including on substantial pieces of legislation, URL like bush is 0 tax cuts.   #    i ca not seem to come up with a good answer to temporarily taking over presidential duties.   #    i ca not seem to come up with a good answer to temporarily taking over presidential duties.  that would be too much for the speaker of the house too since they ca not shift back and forth between jobs.  i also did not consider the sheer volume of pr work that the vice president can relieve.  i suggested before that it be taken over by cabinet members but now i realize it is useful to have a dedicated position.  also, i did not realize that the tie breaking votes happened that often, especially for the significant example you gave.
from what i understand, the only significant duty given to the vice president is to preside over the senate; even this has been shirked by past vice presidents.  furthermore, the ability to cast a tie breaking vote has not been invoked very often by vice presidents.  in the event that the president is either killed or resigns, the vice president is a horrible choice to take over office.  the speaker of the house would be much more qualified for the position simply because they engage more deeply with the government.  the vice president is not significantly involved with congress and does not engage in debate with representatives or senators over legislation.  furthermore they do not command the same degree of loyalty and respect as the president or speaker of the house.  i am willing to bet that john boehner would have an easier time dealing with congress as president than joe biden would due to his constant interaction with it.  as an example, if obama was assassinated in late 0, would biden have the same level of influence necessary to gather support for the affordable care act ? does biden have the same level of respect from foreign nations needed to guide the country in this global age ? the only half decent argument i can think of for a vice president is to ensure that the president is general will/ideology is carried out in the event of their removal from office.  if boehner suddenly took office he would absolutely veto many bills obama supported.  i believe that this is a weak argument for two reasons.  first, the speaker of the house does represent a significant portion of the country is will, given that their party has taken the majority in the house.  yes, there may be conflict between the old cabinet members and the new president but the position is still somewhat representative of the country is will.  secondly, the vice president is not guaranteed to adhere to the policies of their predecessor.  in robert mcnamara is documentary,  the fog of war,  he mentions how lbj decided to continue the vietnam war despite jfk is efforts to move troops out.   #  in the event that the president is either killed or resigns, the vice president is a horrible choice to take over office.   #  the speaker of the house would be much more qualified for the position simply because they engage more deeply with the government.   # the speaker of the house would be much more qualified for the position simply because they engage more deeply with the government.  there are two things that make the speaker of the house less appropriate to replace the president than the vice president.  0 the vice president is unofficial job is to be a member of the president is administration on all fronts.  does the vice president have any official power ? no.  but they will be experienced within the executive branch of government much more than the speaker of the house, which is the only experience that matters.  just looking at foreign policy, the vp is a significantly better choice than the speaker to represent america, because the vp will by the nature of their position have had to interact with foreign leaders, often on behalf of the president.  additionally, the vice president will be significantly more in tune with how the president would handle things than the speaker of the house and would make for a significantly more seamless transition as the vp will already be familiar with the president is cabinet, platform, and the heads of the various federal agencies.  0 the speaker of the house is not elected by the entire country.  even in the few instances when the president has not been elected by a majority vote, the vote was actually close or the president won by plurality.  a large portion of the country wanted to vote for the president and felt that the president represented their views.  as the vice president is on the ticket with the president, it is implied that the vp has the same mandate.  meanwhile, the speaker of the house has only ever been beholden to 0 their party and 0 their district.  they have never been elected by even a large fraction of the country and do not have nearly the mandate to lead as the vp would in the absence of the president.   #  i also remember reading that andrew johnson was supposed to be assassinated alongside lincoln but that the plan failed meaning that it is much harder to kill 0 people than 0 .   #  your first point is very strong, however, nothing leads me to believe that the second face of the executive branch could not be held by a close cabinet member.  the secretary of state, for example, would be a much more powerful presence than the vice president given that they have far more impact on global affairs.  my counterpoint is not perfect though, since i do realize that cabinet members may not have the time to entertain guests and that the vice president has a much more flexible schedule.  i would propose that the title of  vice president  be kept as well as their duty to meet with foreign dignitaries, but to remove their right to succession for presidency.  your second point has me hinging on awarding a delta.  you are correct that the vice president is a strong buffer/barrier to radical political change; the president and vice president are purposely kept in separate locations and have their own secret service, making it much harder to put a radically different leader in power through assassination.  i also remember reading that andrew johnson was supposed to be assassinated alongside lincoln but that the plan failed meaning that it is much harder to kill 0 people than 0 .  despite this, i believe that given modern day security as well as a free media to expose conspiracies, usurpation of power through assassination would not be a problem.  there was a til a while ago about a general who blew the whistle on some corporate leaders who wanted to overthrow the government.  i believe that america is not in a state where the members of the government are willing to resort to killing one another to seize power.  this is absolutely not the case for all countries, but i believe it is not enough of a danger in the u. s.   #  would you really want john boehner or nancy pallosey as president if anything were to happen to obama ?  # the speaker of the house would be much more qualified for the position simply because they engage more deeply with the government.  the vice presidency is an important part of the ticket, and the presidential campaign case in point, sara pallin, who harmed john mccain is presidential chances .  we do not just elect the president, we elect the president and the backup president in a national election.  speaker of the house is elected by their  district , they do not even have to go through the scrutiny of a statewide election.  from there, they are elected by their  party  as their congressional leadership.  would you really want john boehner or nancy pallosey as president if anything were to happen to obama ? does biden have the same level of respect from foreign nations needed to guide the country in this global age ? biden served many, many more years in the senate than obama did.  he only left the senate to occupy the white house.  it is not like he is that far removed from the senate, or it is all of the sudden a strange, foreign world to him.  while biden does not have much official power within the administration, vp carries a lot of soft power both within and outside the country.  the president has, at his disposal, an official that he can send to any part of the world that would be honored and respected, and would show that part of the world that  the president cares about them .  speaker of the house has too much on his/her plate as it is to do these kinds of soft power errands.   #    i am swayed most by the argument that the nation does not elect the speaker of the house, however i will note that the speaker is third in line anyways.   #    i am swayed most by the argument that the nation does not elect the speaker of the house, however i will note that the speaker is third in line anyways.  it can be argued that a single person buffer is a huge difference though.  the last paragraph is also very convincing.  i made a mistake saying biden is not as respected/capable as obama.  it is worth considering, however, that mccain picked palin as vice president.  he did lose however, so perhaps people do put weight into the vp choice.   #  additionally, cheney became acting president in 0 and 0 briefly when bush underwent a general anesthetic for a colonoscopy.   #  i see a few valuable roles for the vp:   acting as a substitute president in times of crisis or incapacity.  this happened a few times with vice president cheney during the bush administration.  on sept.  0, 0, cheney was in dc and giving orders regarding the immediate reaction to potentially hijacked aircraft while president bush was unable to due to being in a public engagement and then being moved around to get him secure.  additionally, cheney became acting president in 0 and 0 briefly when bush underwent a general anesthetic for a colonoscopy.  the speaker of the house ca not hop in and out of the office like that, because they would have to resign their house seat to assume the role of acting president.  if we changed the constitution so they did not, then you would have a major separation of powers problem.  relieving the ceremonial burdens of the presidency.  an enormous amount of presidential time gets wasted on fluff that needs to get done for pr or other purposes.  presently, the vp takes care of a lot of this, like marching in a labor day parade.  URL without a vp, there would be even more demands on the president is time, and there would not be a go to substitute to send when the president ca not meet all of those demands.  breaking senate ties i do not know why you think this can be ignored.  each state gets 0 senators.  the number of senators will thus always be even.  and the tie breaking vote does happen.  cheney cast 0 of them in his term in office, including on substantial pieces of legislation, URL like bush is 0 tax cuts.
my proposition is that pronouns past the three most common ones are not necessary and are actively harmful.  an example for some of the new pronouns that can be encountered in the wild is  xe/xer/xerself  or  zi/zis/zimself .  my argument is as follows: 0.  pronouns are always dealing with a spectrum.  a  he  can be used to describe both masculine as well as feminine men and similarly for she and women.  the singular they is also covering a spectrum, the spectrum of all people that do not identify with either gender or those that identify with both to differing degrees.  therefore they is sufficient to describe alternative gender identities.  0.  if we would decide that new pronouns are necessary to describe or be inclusive to specific non standard gender identities, we would very likely end up with a sheer infinite amount of pronouns.  since the argument for further pronouns would not be based on scientific facts but rather on feelings of individual people, the argument why some new pronouns are okay and others are not would be a very difficult one to make.  the result would be that we would have to allow anyone to pick or create their own pronouns.  0.  since we would have a large number of new pronouns people would very likely get confused, since they would not only have to remember a name and a face but also the specific pronouns of a person and incorporate those into everyday speech.  the result would either be that people would start inadvertently giving offence or our speech patterns would change to rely far more on using names instead of pronouns.  0.  having a wide range of new pronouns would actively harm the english language by making it less clear.  encountering unknown pronouns would confuse people and make it difficult to imagine what kind of character is being talked about.   #  an example for some of the new pronouns that can be encountered in the wild is  xe/xer/xerself  or  zi/zis/zimself .   #  my argument is as follows: are you sure this entire argument is not pretty much based on a non issue ?  # my argument is as follows: are you sure this entire argument is not pretty much based on a non issue ? can you show that these terms really do significantly appear in the wild ? i see fewer than 0,0 hits each for  zimself  and  xerself , which by google standards might as well be nothing.  also, frankly from all the time i have spent lurking in modern day feminist communities i have never once encountered a person who uses any such terms despite them all having a strong interest in letting go of the gender binary.  this is bogeyman stuff.   #  a new single, gender neutral pronoun could be introduced without falling into all of those traps that you describe.   #  a new single, gender neutral pronoun could be introduced without falling into all of those traps that you describe.  after all,  they  already basically fills this role, but some argue this is incorrect, and even if correct it is potentially confusing because that word can also be used as a plural pronoun.  simply replace  they  with  whateverthefuckyouwant  and all those problems are avoided.  personally, i think gender neutral singular  they  is perfectly fine, and trying to forcibly shoe horn in another pronoun is pretty doomed to failure, because language is not really a top down process like that, but much more organic.  but if it did happen slowly over time because people wanted a more unambiguous gender neutral third person singular, it could happen without causing problems.   #  and even in completely formal written language, people cannot even have any gender defining pronouns, just the gender neutral one.   #  finnish has the gender neutral personal pronoun  hän , equivalent to  he  or  ishe , and the de facto gender of the person referred to is simply inferred from context, if it even needs to be inferred at all.  there are basically no grammatical genders in the language.  there is also the pronoun  ise  basically,  it  , which has since ages past slunk into common parlance as a way to refer to people in informal speech, particularly in the western dialects the eastern dialects are a bit more fond of  hän  or variants thereof .  it carries virtually no dehumanising connotations to talk of someone as  ise  in informal speech, but it does mark your speech as informal if you would use it in writing outside of chat type settings , you would be making an awkward breach of formality level and you would inadvertently imply the dehumanising sides of talking about someone as  it .  but as said, in common parlance you can basically call anyone  it  and get away with it.  and even in completely formal written language, people cannot even have any gender defining pronouns, just the gender neutral one.  oh, and swedish has in recent years introduced a third pronoun besides  han  he and  hon  she , which is  hen  literally a construction to include both the previous ones .  some people still see it as an awkward and forcible construction introduced as an  overly pc measure of subduing linguistical breadth , but that is partly social reactionaries and people with particular grievances with the case of gender neutrality.  this last change has not quite yet reached the fenno swedish language fully technically, fenno swedish is not acknowledged as a separate language, albeit it definitely should , though it is creeping in here with the same connotations of maybe being slightly  consciously pc  .   #  in my language we use gendered pronouns for animals, since many of them have genders, and objects, which is a bit weirder but we get by.   #  when i was learning english i found it very odd and frankly it felt like a waste of a word.  in my language we use gendered pronouns for animals, since many of them have genders, and objects, which is a bit weirder but we get by.  we do put tables in the same category as women.  we also put sofas in the same category as men.  why ? no idea, but nobody is insulted and we get by.   it  could be a perfectly workable gender neutral pronoun, but i do not decide what other people do with their language, so i will just go with whatever sticks.  i generally prefer he/she or s/he over they because singular they is downright confusing, if singular and plural you was not enough for the same reason, i like that  y all  is a thing .   #  and if you call the table something else    that thing ,  that piece of furniture ,  that wooden object ,  that platform    it could very well be a different gender, because it is not the table that is gendered, it is the word.   # we also put sofas in the same category as men.  why ? no idea, but nobody is insulted and we get by.  this is called linguistic gender and to be clear, it generally applies to words, not things.  in other words, it is not the table that is female, it is the word for table that is female.  and if you call the table something else    that thing ,  that piece of furniture ,  that wooden object ,  that platform    it could very well be a different gender, because it is not the table that is gendered, it is the word.
a friend and i were talking about the current candidates and she could not understand why trump was doing so well in the polls.  the best i could articulate it is that he is the most populist candidate out, his politics are moderate but heavily nationalist, his demeanor is one of our idealized archetypes, and he is wealthy but appears genuine, achieving a halo effect unlike romney.  after realizing this, i asked several other people, and realized that basically my friends, like clinton, do not like how he communicates, but then have no major disagreement with the content.  am i missing something ? is there a good reason to dismiss him as a candidate ? more importantly, who is real competition for him ? from todays conversations: i see an argument for why he may not have a good chance in an election delta awarded , mainly in that whatever percentage of his 0 popularity is republican is all he may get from the republicans, and as a more mainstream candidate arises, the split votes wont go to him that is, the people who polled for him may be all that would poll for him in the primary, given any other more mainstream republican candidate.  however, i have seen no compelling argument for why he is not a populist candidate.  some have tried to narrow the definition of a populist to being representative of a position or policies that in some fashion clearly serve the underserve or/and the majority, but this is difficult to define, and ignores the perception.  one person argued at length that the self perception of the constituency as victim and the candidate is policy being to address that sense of victimization is what makes them populist, and while i can agree that it is a fine definition, the person then asserts that this is not trump, and i disagree, as trump clearly paints the american people as victimized by poor, self interested leadership, a corrupt political culture, and compromised ideas and strategies, and his entire platform is about going in as a normal private citizen and fixing it.  many most ? have simply tried to argue that he is too insulting to win, but i remain unconvinced that that would stop a sizable percentage of americans from voting for him.  this is because americans do not actually value formality and decorum as much as power and conviction.  for the same reason that this is the america we have, i ca not see how a candidate, fundamentally in favor of current nationalist policies, but simultaneously harping on being free from big money interests and the many leadership deficits that are frustrating americans, is not hitting so many of the right cords with mainstream america.  if he sticks to a policy rather than sentiment, that is antithetical to a group, then another would be preferred by that group.  but a career politician vs trump, both speaking in vagaries, i see trump coming out on top rather consistently.  saw a headline today, trump took a hit in polls for being in favor of higher taxes, this looks like an example of the very thing.   #  a friend and i were talking about the current candidates and she could not understand why trump was doing so well in the polls.   #  the best i could articulate it is that he is the most populist candidate out, his politics are moderate but heavily nationalist, his demeanor is one of our idealized archetypes, and he is wealthy but appears genuine, achieving a halo effect unlike romney.   # the best i could articulate it is that he is the most populist candidate out, his politics are moderate but heavily nationalist, his demeanor is one of our idealized archetypes, and he is wealthy but appears genuine, achieving a halo effect unlike romney.  i would argue that bernie sanders is a more everyman, populist candidate.  his politics are not moderate, but they speak more to the everyday experience of an average person.  his emphasis on student debt applies to anyone coming up on trade school or college, already in it, recently completed it, and the parents of these people.  he also talks about limiting the effect of huge donors on politics, which speaks to the 0 of us without enough money to buy access to elected officials.  he talks about medicare for all.  and while that is an extreme position today, it is also very close to the hearts of millions of people who lack health insurance or who ca not afford treatment under they policies they have.  i am not in that group, but i know people who are.  so i can still relate to what sanders is saying.  sanders is not nationalist, but whether the everyamerican is all that nationalist is up for debate.  i am proud of my country, but i am not proud of everything it does, and i think other countries do some things better.  most people i know agree.  sanders is not rich, and also not poor, but he also comes across as genuine, and his record backs up what he claims as convictions.  he does not dress all that well, as far as i can see.  he usually looks rumpled rather than camera ready, as most of us do.  he is plain spoken, being very blunt about his disdain for certain policies, but he is not offensive toward other people.  in my experience, more people are like this than like trump, who calls people names right and left.  maybe people wish they had the nerve to say the things trump does.  but that does not make trump an everyman, it makes him an object through whom people live vicariously, wishing they were rich and bold and powerful.  which is a type of appeal, absolutely, and it may well get him all the way to the white house.  but it is not the appeal of the everyman.  it is appealing to the everyman.  it is the appeal of catharsis, working out their frustrations by watching a combative public figure who is very little like everyman is but very much as some everymen wish they could be.   #  when minorities make up such a big portion of the population, it is hard to imagine him winning a vote.   #  in my opinion trump has one oustanding quality: his willingness to speak his mind without a  filter  and to not worry about being politically correct.  this is what i think is making some people appreciate him.  however, i struggle to see him as the  everyman is  candidate, since he gives off an image of arrogance right away, and is clearly very self absorbed.  i might be biased because i disagree with almost all of his political positions, but some of the things he has said have been straight up racist.  when minorities make up such a big portion of the population, it is hard to imagine him winning a vote.   #  i should append, americans are, by and large,  values  voters.   #  it does not, and that is the point.  he is acting like a businessman, and this allows him to be in the political process but as a populist.  for example, bush tried to attack him for receiving funds and hosting parties with democrat candidates, but this is a trap for bush, it really points out the sectarian nature of politics.  trump is not sectarian, he is not polished, he is,  normal,  at least when compare to politicians.  he is speaks off the top of his head, says silly things, but is passionate, nationalist and  wants to fix the country.   i should append, americans are, by and large,  values  voters.  in reality this means they vote like they are electing prom royalty.  his policies can be misinformed, as long as his heart is in the right place and he is ethical, he can be a good leader.  that is how americans think and vote, by and large.  when obama ran for president, his opponents did not argue that his models were bad, not really though they used those words sometimes.  rather, they argue that he is evil, trying to bring the country down, and enemy of democracy, or against us values a communist, a socialist, ect.   #  most americans are polled as being against illegal immigration and wanting more aggressive deportation.   #  you have quoted an article that begins by saying he is not a populist, but then does not argue against his positions.  most americans are polled as being against illegal immigration and wanting more aggressive deportation.  even in your article, the chart shows that those who want increase immigration are less than 0/0rd of respondents.  more important is that trump has not state an anti immigration position, but opposed to illegal immigration.  he is latching on to a narrative about mexican migration and wants to make their migrations more costly as well.  still, it is not a line he made up, and it is not a line held by a minority.  i do not see a compelling argument that he is not a populist in this article, even with the implication that his positions may not actually benefit the population en mass.   #  again, my real point was that populism has nothing to do with appealing to the majority, and everything to do with appealing to an oppressed class with promises of redistribution of privilege.   #  again, my real point was that populism has nothing to do with appealing to the majority, and everything to do with appealing to an oppressed class with promises of redistribution of privilege.  whether or not the targeted class is objectively privileged or oppressed does not matter so much as their  perceptions  matter.  it is a mode of political identity that you do not see in most conservatives because they tend to believe in individual responsibility more than systemic determination.  i guess you could argue that conservatives see themselves as being oppressed by taxes that pay for social welfare, but that seems rather hypocritical, does not it ? you ca not be both your own savior and oppressed; if you are oppressed then you no longer believe in ultimate individual responsibility for your situation, in which case you would be forced to recognize the systemic oppression of lower classes and immigrants.  i think most conservatives feel their independence is  threatened , not  compromised .  thus trump would be in a position to  protect  their independence, rather than  restore  it.
a friend and i were talking about the current candidates and she could not understand why trump was doing so well in the polls.  the best i could articulate it is that he is the most populist candidate out, his politics are moderate but heavily nationalist, his demeanor is one of our idealized archetypes, and he is wealthy but appears genuine, achieving a halo effect unlike romney.  after realizing this, i asked several other people, and realized that basically my friends, like clinton, do not like how he communicates, but then have no major disagreement with the content.  am i missing something ? is there a good reason to dismiss him as a candidate ? more importantly, who is real competition for him ? from todays conversations: i see an argument for why he may not have a good chance in an election delta awarded , mainly in that whatever percentage of his 0 popularity is republican is all he may get from the republicans, and as a more mainstream candidate arises, the split votes wont go to him that is, the people who polled for him may be all that would poll for him in the primary, given any other more mainstream republican candidate.  however, i have seen no compelling argument for why he is not a populist candidate.  some have tried to narrow the definition of a populist to being representative of a position or policies that in some fashion clearly serve the underserve or/and the majority, but this is difficult to define, and ignores the perception.  one person argued at length that the self perception of the constituency as victim and the candidate is policy being to address that sense of victimization is what makes them populist, and while i can agree that it is a fine definition, the person then asserts that this is not trump, and i disagree, as trump clearly paints the american people as victimized by poor, self interested leadership, a corrupt political culture, and compromised ideas and strategies, and his entire platform is about going in as a normal private citizen and fixing it.  many most ? have simply tried to argue that he is too insulting to win, but i remain unconvinced that that would stop a sizable percentage of americans from voting for him.  this is because americans do not actually value formality and decorum as much as power and conviction.  for the same reason that this is the america we have, i ca not see how a candidate, fundamentally in favor of current nationalist policies, but simultaneously harping on being free from big money interests and the many leadership deficits that are frustrating americans, is not hitting so many of the right cords with mainstream america.  if he sticks to a policy rather than sentiment, that is antithetical to a group, then another would be preferred by that group.  but a career politician vs trump, both speaking in vagaries, i see trump coming out on top rather consistently.  saw a headline today, trump took a hit in polls for being in favor of higher taxes, this looks like an example of the very thing.   #  do not like how he communicates, but then have no major disagreement with the content.   #  0.  from his twitter:  0,0 unreported sexual assults in the military only 0 convictions.   # 0.  from his twitter:  0,0 unreported sexual assults in the military only 0 convictions.  what did these geniuses expect when they put men   women together ?   0.  when a lawyer facing trump in 0 asked for a break to pump breastmilk for her infant daughter, the donald reacted very poorly.   he got up, his face got red, he shook his finger at me and he screamed,  you are disgusting, you are disgusting,  and he ran out of there,  attorney elizabeth beck told cnn.  trump is attorney does not dispute that his client called beck  disgusting.   0.  he has no idea what he is talking about when it comes to immigrants URL you have no issue with any of that content ? you think it is all just poorly phrased truth ?  #  however, i struggle to see him as the  everyman is  candidate, since he gives off an image of arrogance right away, and is clearly very self absorbed.   #  in my opinion trump has one oustanding quality: his willingness to speak his mind without a  filter  and to not worry about being politically correct.  this is what i think is making some people appreciate him.  however, i struggle to see him as the  everyman is  candidate, since he gives off an image of arrogance right away, and is clearly very self absorbed.  i might be biased because i disagree with almost all of his political positions, but some of the things he has said have been straight up racist.  when minorities make up such a big portion of the population, it is hard to imagine him winning a vote.   #  trump is not sectarian, he is not polished, he is,  normal,  at least when compare to politicians.   #  it does not, and that is the point.  he is acting like a businessman, and this allows him to be in the political process but as a populist.  for example, bush tried to attack him for receiving funds and hosting parties with democrat candidates, but this is a trap for bush, it really points out the sectarian nature of politics.  trump is not sectarian, he is not polished, he is,  normal,  at least when compare to politicians.  he is speaks off the top of his head, says silly things, but is passionate, nationalist and  wants to fix the country.   i should append, americans are, by and large,  values  voters.  in reality this means they vote like they are electing prom royalty.  his policies can be misinformed, as long as his heart is in the right place and he is ethical, he can be a good leader.  that is how americans think and vote, by and large.  when obama ran for president, his opponents did not argue that his models were bad, not really though they used those words sometimes.  rather, they argue that he is evil, trying to bring the country down, and enemy of democracy, or against us values a communist, a socialist, ect.   #  still, it is not a line he made up, and it is not a line held by a minority.   #  you have quoted an article that begins by saying he is not a populist, but then does not argue against his positions.  most americans are polled as being against illegal immigration and wanting more aggressive deportation.  even in your article, the chart shows that those who want increase immigration are less than 0/0rd of respondents.  more important is that trump has not state an anti immigration position, but opposed to illegal immigration.  he is latching on to a narrative about mexican migration and wants to make their migrations more costly as well.  still, it is not a line he made up, and it is not a line held by a minority.  i do not see a compelling argument that he is not a populist in this article, even with the implication that his positions may not actually benefit the population en mass.   #  thus trump would be in a position to  protect  their independence, rather than  restore  it.   #  again, my real point was that populism has nothing to do with appealing to the majority, and everything to do with appealing to an oppressed class with promises of redistribution of privilege.  whether or not the targeted class is objectively privileged or oppressed does not matter so much as their  perceptions  matter.  it is a mode of political identity that you do not see in most conservatives because they tend to believe in individual responsibility more than systemic determination.  i guess you could argue that conservatives see themselves as being oppressed by taxes that pay for social welfare, but that seems rather hypocritical, does not it ? you ca not be both your own savior and oppressed; if you are oppressed then you no longer believe in ultimate individual responsibility for your situation, in which case you would be forced to recognize the systemic oppression of lower classes and immigrants.  i think most conservatives feel their independence is  threatened , not  compromised .  thus trump would be in a position to  protect  their independence, rather than  restore  it.
so random battles that just happen with no warning, while you are walking, just like, warpy screen, you are in a battle now stuff.  this really only applies to turn based games, in fact, i do not know of any real time games that have this system of enemy encounters.  i do not think they have the need.  it is annoying as hell.  you take 0 steps after getting out of a battle, and arrive in another one that the run functino wo not work for and you start taking damage, and then you ca not escape again so you take more damage, and that just starts a whole snowball of  oh my god fuck this shit.   meanwhile, the battles themselves are just often an unnecessary, repetitive, near useless way to grind.  the millionth time we saw a zubat in pokemon, it.  it was not really doing anything for us.  with an rpg game, the logic seems simple enough, i guess there is a turn based system of combat, and there needs to be a way to trigger the combat screen from the overworld.  and it should not necessarily be purely predictable, should it ? the player needs to progress and level up so they can meet their bigger challenges in the future.  putting aside the discussion about other games mechanics and why in some cases it works much worse than others there is just better, non annoying ways of doing that now.  off the top of my head, paper mario on n0 had visible enemy mobs walking around.  if you collided with them, you started a battle.  that makes  much  more sense.  it is not annoying.  it does not happen every five steps.  it does not come out of nowhere.  it still accomplishes the same purpose that random encounters do.  invisible enemies starting a 0 second battle transition, with a chance that you ca not run, especially if you are in over your head and trying to get out of an area, with no ability to see it coming, no warning, no possibility of avoiding it, is just, bad.  especially when even something like the paper mario system exists.  at least that way, if you have no items, and are on your way back to somewhere because you are too injured, you have a chance of maybe avoiding the enemy mobs.   #  the battles themselves are just often an unnecessary, repetitive, near useless way to grind.   #  the millionth time we saw a zubat in pokemon, it.   #  yeah.  there was a lot of fun in those old games, and you and perhaps a lot of people enjoyed them.  and many of your objections are believed in by the game designers too.  the millionth time we saw a zubat in pokemon, it.  it was not really doing anything for us.  which is why they sold repel items.  your post raises true objections, but the positives are important to remember too.  so thanks.   #  you also want to farm the correct drops identical to what you mentioned in the pokemon sitch .   #  it is not just for levelling up.  from the ff games i played.  general: you want to find specific enemies to learn enemy skills.  you also want to farm the correct drops identical to what you mentioned in the pokemon sitch .  vii: you go to specific areas to get the sources you need well, until you unlock the gelkina and they are almost all there .  viii: levelling up is actively bad enemies scale with you .  you also want to find the correct magic draws.  you need to get weapon/card items.  ix: there is the friendly monster side quest which is pretty much identical to  farm an area for a specific  monster.   #  as for final fantasy, they have for quite the last few years had visible monsters and pseudo real time combat and encounters.   #  many of the older rpgs used the random encounter because the game was based on experience points in order to advance, so grinding was necessary for xp gold, items etc.  and, more importantly, the technology that used the sprite system used to put the center based character on the screen did not allow for other moving objects on the screen.  everything in the older games was static with the exception of a  shimmering  lava lake to the arms and legs of the characters sprite wiggling as they moved.  as technology advanced the ability to add in visible monsters came about, but was not immediately embraced because part tradition and part stubbornness.  as for final fantasy, they have for quite the last few years had visible monsters and pseudo real time combat and encounters.  i ca not speak for handheld version of ff as i really am not a fan of handheld systems.   #  but why precisely is it annoying, simply because you do not control when they happen ?  #  but why precisely is it annoying, simply because you do not control when they happen ? i would agree that with certain implementations it could be unwelcome, but that does not mean this always has to be the case.  for example, i would theorize that this mechanic originated from random encounter tables in table top rpgs.  typically if the party wanted to set out on a long journey, rather than roleplaying every step of the way the dm would simply roll for a random encounter or two that would interrupt the journey and the party would just role play those parts in detail.  this sounds to me like a fairly reasonable implementation of the mechanic, and i do not see why it would not work in a video game.  after all the point of these games is often combat.  so why should be upset that the game is giving you extra combat encounters ? unless of course those fights are tedious or un fun.  in which case the design flaw is with that portion of the game, rather than the mechanic which serves you the fight.   #  you see them talking about the characters and storylines, the musics, the art styles, the costumes.   #  well, you ca not control when they happen, and then they throw you into a situation that, more often than not, is highly repetitive, focused around a button mashing, and if not that, maybe not something you are in the mood for after battles two steps ago, or in the case of final fantasy tactics, not in the mood for an hour long battle.  there is no real avoiding it, and it just feels bad playing the game.  i do not think the pen and paper version works because in dnd the distance and travelling mechanics are different.  time is so much more fluid, in terms of the time it takes to travel.  in most games with random encounters you move at a set, sometimes slow ish pace, sometimes quicker pace, usually through big, big locations, sometimes they are mazelike, sometimes they just outrihgt are a genuine maze.  this is a ridiculous setting for random encounters.  in dnd, it is  alright, roll.  okay nothing.  alright roll again.  hey mate, these are not that fun, let is do a different way of doing this.   it is a whole different game.  is combat the point of these games ? that is a whole other question.  you rarely see ff fans bursting with enthusiasm about the deep tactics they use to beet whatever mob enemy they encountered on the overworld.  you see them talking about the characters and storylines, the musics, the art styles, the costumes.  it seems the last thing on their mind is the combat.  pokemon is maybe a better example, but still not a slam dunk.  does that make it a design flaw with the other mechanics ? i do not think so, because there are straight up, nothing lost better mechanics that achieve the same effects than random encounters.  but i do not htink a game with areas that have frequent random encounters that do not require huge effort to get through can possibly have fun random encounters, unless there is literally an infinite variety of enemies.  but even then, the solutions for dealing with them.  would probably start to converge.
if this is a duplicate post, i apologize, an automod told my my old version was too short and that it was removed.  here is my logic, though: if i get drunk and blow off all my money, it is my problem.  if i get drunk and crash my car, it is my problem.  if i get drunk and get into a fight, it is my problem.  if i get drunk and have sex, it is my problem.  of course, though, if you slip something into my drink and have sex with me, that is not my fault, and if you give me a drink and say it is mountain dew when it is actually something that knocks me out, it is your fault.  so if it was not concious and consentual, then it is still rape.  and if you were given it under a false idea of what you were ingesting, it is arguably still rape.  but if you say, oh sir i did not know that alcohol makes you make bad decisions it is not rape worknman brought up something i did not think to address, but i meant if someone says  yes  and has something in their body that they put in themselves that they knew makes them make bad decision, it is not rape.  a drunk person  can  give consent if they consentually got drunk.  so also, if someone attempts to have sex with them and they say  no  and are too drunk to fight back, it is still rape, because they did not give consent.  i am probably gonna get lynched for asking this, but it is basic courtesy.  please do not downvote everything i say just because you disagree, please.  it is very obviously going to happen, but please, just do not.   #  and if you were given it under a false idea of what you were ingesting, it is arguably still rape.   #  you agree that it is not the victim is fault if the victim was made to ingest something like drugs under a false idea.   #  i guess in this anology, you imagine a drunk person walking into a bank and signing a contract.  the reality would be more close to: an insurance agent walks into a bar and looks for the most drunken looking person.  he finds someone who is completely wasted and pushes make this person to sign a bunch of contracts which he ca not comprehend in his state.  would you still consider the second contract being legal and not a fraud ? the thing with drunken sex being considered rape or not is usually about who initiated the sex.  you making bad decisions under the influence of alcohol that you have decided to consume is still your fault and should not be considered rape.  however the situation is different when it is not your decision to initiate sex.  it becomes the decision of the  perpetrator  or in the example that of the insurance agent, not yours.  you should not be responsible for the bad decision of your perpetrator to push something onto a person which is clearly not in the state to judge your decision.  you agree that it is not the victim is fault if the victim was made to ingest something like drugs under a false idea.  i guess even if a sober person might easily notice the strange taste, it is not the fault of the drunk person not to notice the drug in their drink.  it is the perpetrator is fault to make the decision for the victim to ingest those spiked drink which nature they did not understand enough about.  would not you agree that the same could be said about making the decision to push the victim  ingest  the perpetrator is decision to sign a contract or sex, which they clearly could not comprehend in their state ? again, if it is the drunk person is poor decision it should not be rape.  it becomes rape if it is not the victim who initiated and made the decision.   #  in any case, the examples you use are not quite accurate; you being a drunk driver does not involve any other person making decisions that affect you.   #  are you arguing that this is the legal position or that is a moral position that should be the legal position ? in any case, the examples you use are not quite accurate; you being a drunk driver does not involve any other person making decisions that affect you.  similarly, if you annoy someone while you are drunk and challenge them and they punch you in the face, they are still liable for assault.  contracts can be similarly voidable if one party was drunk when they signed them.  in essence, people do not get free license to do what they want with you just because you have drunk alcohol.  laws that enshrine this are to protect vulnerable people from exploitation, even if their vulnerability comes from self induced intoxication.  in short the other person involved is capable of making a decision not to exploit the drunk person, and we as a society want them to do so because exploitation is bad.   #  also, you can just go into a bar to get drunk and not want to have sex at all.   #  i would argue that people that buy expensive things do expect to be robbed more than a person that does not.  my parents always taught me not to leave valuables where they can be seen from outside my car, because owning expensive things  does  get you robbed.  should i have to worry about this ? no.  in the real world, do i have do worry about this ? yes.  also, you can just go into a bar to get drunk and not want to have sex at all.  getting drunk does not  necessarily  mean you will end up making bad decisions, like having sex when you did not want to.  i would like to know what is the real difference between the drunk consent you give to someone who got you drunk and the drunk consent you give to someone when you got yourself drunk.  is it also rape if someone gets you drunk then leaves then someone else comes in and you consent to having sex with them ? you say that in that case it is not the raped person is fault because they did not get themselves drunk.  but then again the second person that walked in could have just thought that you did get yourself drunk so if you consent despite being drunk then it is ok.  but you are not going to charge the person that slipped something into your drink with rape are you ? they did not really rape anyone.   #  for one, you ca not offer valid consent if you are sufficiently intoxicated.   # that is not what op is arguing.  he is arguing that it is  possible  to consent while you are drunk.  you are still able to say either yes or no, it is just that the chances have changed.  but that is your responsibility to take into account.  sex is not specifically a written contract, but there are additional requirements for it to be consensual, just like there are with a lot of things.  for one, you ca not offer valid consent if you are sufficiently intoxicated.  you have to consent to giving someone money for it to be legal, right ? otherwise, it is theft.  so according to your logic, someone selling something to a visibly intoxicated person is a thief.   #  however, if i went to a bar found an extremely drunk man, brought him to my car dealership, and manipulated him into buying an expensive car, that would be immoral.   #  if a drunk person walked into my store and bought as 0 cent piece of gum, it would not be immoral for me to sell it to them.  however, if i went to a bar found an extremely drunk man, brought him to my car dealership, and manipulated him into buying an expensive car, that would be immoral.  it is a difference in scale, impetus, and intention.  buying the car could ruin the man financially, but the gum would not.  going out an finding the man in the bar is predatory, selling him gum is not.  the car dealer is specifically preying on someone they know is vulnerable, while the convenience store owner is not.  hunting for sex with someone who is significantly intoxicated is predatory, is targeting someone specifically when they are vulnerable, and sex, especially non consentual, can have long term emotional and physical consequences.  if someone found you drunk, extracted your sperm to get themselves pregnant, and sued you for child support, would that be immoral predatory behaivor ?
i would ultimately call transgenderism an abnormality; keeping in mind that normalcy is subject to change and is culture specific.  in the same way, i would call blue eyes and homosexuality an abnormality.  none of which, in this day an age, negatively impact these people is outlook of life and how happily they could live their lives ignoring reactions from social responses of being transgender/gay/blue eyes .  my flow of logic is as follows: an abnormality is something that differs from what is usually observed in any life form.  if in a perfect world, all humans primarily use right hands over left, then a left handed person would be abnormal but still able to live just as easily as any right handed person.  if in this nonperfect world, a life form is goal is ultimately to survive and procreate for future generations; then something that inhibits this primal goal would be a negative change.  living in the world that we do, our goal as a species is not to procreate as much as possible, because we do not require it for survival of the species.  more so the goal changes simply to be as happy as we can be.  if a human who lived in our early stages as humans was 0 homosexual in a world mostly heterosexual, a homosexual would have difficulty passing their genes along to future generations.  in early stages of human life, homosexuality was a negative change from normality because it disallowed the life form to bare more life.  in 0, homosexuality is not a negative change because procreation is not a fundamental goal, whereas happiness is.  therefore, being homosexual is no longer a negative change, simply an abnormality.  being transgender is a  wouldisagreement  between mind and body.  in early stages of human life, a human that thought it was not human ie: a plant or a fish would have a very difficult time achieving it is specie is fundamental goals.  in 0, we no longer have these fundamental goals, because instead, being comfortable and happy is what we desire.  a homosexual or transgender is a person with an abnormality that at a point in time would negatively impact their ability to survive and procreate, but has  no  impact on their ability to be happy.  also, i would say if modernism has a way to remedy the abnormality to allow the abnormal being to still be happy, then it ought to be remedied.  the easiest way to change modernism to allow all peoples to be happy is to change our view of how we perceive them; in a similar way we do not hate people with retardations; because in a point in time it was okay to allow those who cannot survive and procreate to die off.  but as i have said, ability to survive is not something we restrict happiness to.  if a person  chooses  or not chooses to live happily in a way that defies the necessities of survival that person ought to be respected nonetheless.  but social variations that directly go against how we were  wouldesigned  to live are abnormalities.  a transgender person is abnormal, but not lesser.  a homosexual person is abnormal, but not lesser.  a blue eyed person is abnormal, but not lesser.   #  in early stages of human life, homosexuality was a negative change from normality because it disallowed the life form to bare more life.   #  in 0, homosexuality is not a negative change because procreation is not a fundamental goal, whereas happiness is.   #  seeing as you already awarded some deltas, i will tackle some tangential points that jump out at me.  in 0, homosexuality is not a negative change because procreation is not a fundamental goal, whereas happiness is.  0.  i think you are applying the relatively modern standard of monogamous pairing to humans everywhere and everywhen.  during the human history, communities formed all kinds of relationships, parenting was done by different people, not necessarily biological parents e. g.  older siblings, grandparents, uncles/aunts.  .  0.  while an exclusive same sex pairing might not be conducive to direct procreation, such pair might still improve the survivability of related offspring e. g.  children descended from siblings , either in the  group parenting  setting, or even might formally adopt the children if the parents die and through this the group/species survival.  both of these are not detrimental, since humans were pretty much always living in group setting as far as i know.  survival of just two people especially if they have to care for a child or several is not feasible.  i am not following what this has to do with transgenderism, since transgender people do not suffer from delusions at least inherently, of course they may acquire/develop mental health issues if some other criteria are fulfilled genetic predisposition   constant/traumatic distress .   #  you throw around a lot of loaded words, like  abnormal , and then try to redefine them to be non offensive or more clinical than they are often used in practice.   #  i think its probably because your view is extremely convoluted and very poorly worded.  you throw around a lot of loaded words, like  abnormal , and then try to redefine them to be non offensive or more clinical than they are often used in practice.  for example, no one uses a word like  abnormal  to describe blue eyes or left handedness.  so, your use of the terminology is weirdly inconsistent, and its easy to see how people could take it the wrong way.  basically, your view seems to be,  there is nothing wrong with being transgender.  we should accept them.   is that a fair assessment ? if so, why not just say that ?  #  i simply reiterated that the definition of mental illness has changed.   #  this conversation evolved from me accidentally stating this exact view to a transgender.  i told a person about it, having no idea the person i considered a friend spent the first 0 years of his life as a female.  i simply reiterated that the definition of mental illness has changed.  mainly in the way that being gay used to be considered an illness but was amended when mental illness requires negative impact of your life, which homosexuality and transgenderism do not cause.  i am looking for a piece of misinformation that i evidently believe that causes my viewpoint to be wrong to so many self proclaimed universal knowers of transgenderism.   #  i genuinely feel like i am the only person who sees this social movement entirely as it is.   #  i do not think there is anything wrong with what i think.  i genuinely feel like i am the only person who sees this social movement entirely as it is.  as being someone who deals with a mental illness unrelated , i have no problem saying: if your brain and body do not agree, then there is something wrong with your brain or body.  we cannot change someone is brain after years of their life to correct the way they view their body and it is much easier to change the body instead.  my main line of questioning is: why is it not an acceptable question to not change the brain in a way i hypothetically explain in another comment.  in this day and age, there is simply no need for such a treatment.  but somehow it keeps trying into turning me into a gay hater and what not.  i am having a lot of trouble understanding why i am being considered by these people to be so undoubtedly wrong.   #  but even after i explain that being gay in this day and age is not bad, but 0 years ago; it was.   #  but even after i explain that being gay in this day and age is not bad, but 0 years ago; it was.  it was because procreation was more of a necessity.  i deny the accusation that gay people over the many years were oppressed.  could social acceptance have been possible 0 years ago ? surely now it is difficult to understand why in the past it was seen as a complete mental illness to be such a way.  i use the same methods to deny oppression in other ways simply because it was how society even got to the place that it is now.  i use an example like the great wall of china.  it accomplished a wondrous feat yet it was achieved entirely on slavery.  ethically we see today that slavery is a terrible thing, but it is simply how society worked.  if china had not utilized slaves to build a protecting wall, china may have never survived.
i would ultimately call transgenderism an abnormality; keeping in mind that normalcy is subject to change and is culture specific.  in the same way, i would call blue eyes and homosexuality an abnormality.  none of which, in this day an age, negatively impact these people is outlook of life and how happily they could live their lives ignoring reactions from social responses of being transgender/gay/blue eyes .  my flow of logic is as follows: an abnormality is something that differs from what is usually observed in any life form.  if in a perfect world, all humans primarily use right hands over left, then a left handed person would be abnormal but still able to live just as easily as any right handed person.  if in this nonperfect world, a life form is goal is ultimately to survive and procreate for future generations; then something that inhibits this primal goal would be a negative change.  living in the world that we do, our goal as a species is not to procreate as much as possible, because we do not require it for survival of the species.  more so the goal changes simply to be as happy as we can be.  if a human who lived in our early stages as humans was 0 homosexual in a world mostly heterosexual, a homosexual would have difficulty passing their genes along to future generations.  in early stages of human life, homosexuality was a negative change from normality because it disallowed the life form to bare more life.  in 0, homosexuality is not a negative change because procreation is not a fundamental goal, whereas happiness is.  therefore, being homosexual is no longer a negative change, simply an abnormality.  being transgender is a  wouldisagreement  between mind and body.  in early stages of human life, a human that thought it was not human ie: a plant or a fish would have a very difficult time achieving it is specie is fundamental goals.  in 0, we no longer have these fundamental goals, because instead, being comfortable and happy is what we desire.  a homosexual or transgender is a person with an abnormality that at a point in time would negatively impact their ability to survive and procreate, but has  no  impact on their ability to be happy.  also, i would say if modernism has a way to remedy the abnormality to allow the abnormal being to still be happy, then it ought to be remedied.  the easiest way to change modernism to allow all peoples to be happy is to change our view of how we perceive them; in a similar way we do not hate people with retardations; because in a point in time it was okay to allow those who cannot survive and procreate to die off.  but as i have said, ability to survive is not something we restrict happiness to.  if a person  chooses  or not chooses to live happily in a way that defies the necessities of survival that person ought to be respected nonetheless.  but social variations that directly go against how we were  wouldesigned  to live are abnormalities.  a transgender person is abnormal, but not lesser.  a homosexual person is abnormal, but not lesser.  a blue eyed person is abnormal, but not lesser.   #  in early stages of human life, a human that thought it was not human ie: a plant or a fish would have a very difficult time achieving it is specie is fundamental goals.   #  i am not following what this has to do with transgenderism, since transgender people do not suffer from delusions at least inherently, of course they may acquire/develop mental health issues if some other criteria are fulfilled genetic predisposition   constant/traumatic distress .   #  seeing as you already awarded some deltas, i will tackle some tangential points that jump out at me.  in 0, homosexuality is not a negative change because procreation is not a fundamental goal, whereas happiness is.  0.  i think you are applying the relatively modern standard of monogamous pairing to humans everywhere and everywhen.  during the human history, communities formed all kinds of relationships, parenting was done by different people, not necessarily biological parents e. g.  older siblings, grandparents, uncles/aunts.  .  0.  while an exclusive same sex pairing might not be conducive to direct procreation, such pair might still improve the survivability of related offspring e. g.  children descended from siblings , either in the  group parenting  setting, or even might formally adopt the children if the parents die and through this the group/species survival.  both of these are not detrimental, since humans were pretty much always living in group setting as far as i know.  survival of just two people especially if they have to care for a child or several is not feasible.  i am not following what this has to do with transgenderism, since transgender people do not suffer from delusions at least inherently, of course they may acquire/develop mental health issues if some other criteria are fulfilled genetic predisposition   constant/traumatic distress .   #  so, your use of the terminology is weirdly inconsistent, and its easy to see how people could take it the wrong way.   #  i think its probably because your view is extremely convoluted and very poorly worded.  you throw around a lot of loaded words, like  abnormal , and then try to redefine them to be non offensive or more clinical than they are often used in practice.  for example, no one uses a word like  abnormal  to describe blue eyes or left handedness.  so, your use of the terminology is weirdly inconsistent, and its easy to see how people could take it the wrong way.  basically, your view seems to be,  there is nothing wrong with being transgender.  we should accept them.   is that a fair assessment ? if so, why not just say that ?  #  i simply reiterated that the definition of mental illness has changed.   #  this conversation evolved from me accidentally stating this exact view to a transgender.  i told a person about it, having no idea the person i considered a friend spent the first 0 years of his life as a female.  i simply reiterated that the definition of mental illness has changed.  mainly in the way that being gay used to be considered an illness but was amended when mental illness requires negative impact of your life, which homosexuality and transgenderism do not cause.  i am looking for a piece of misinformation that i evidently believe that causes my viewpoint to be wrong to so many self proclaimed universal knowers of transgenderism.   #  i am having a lot of trouble understanding why i am being considered by these people to be so undoubtedly wrong.   #  i do not think there is anything wrong with what i think.  i genuinely feel like i am the only person who sees this social movement entirely as it is.  as being someone who deals with a mental illness unrelated , i have no problem saying: if your brain and body do not agree, then there is something wrong with your brain or body.  we cannot change someone is brain after years of their life to correct the way they view their body and it is much easier to change the body instead.  my main line of questioning is: why is it not an acceptable question to not change the brain in a way i hypothetically explain in another comment.  in this day and age, there is simply no need for such a treatment.  but somehow it keeps trying into turning me into a gay hater and what not.  i am having a lot of trouble understanding why i am being considered by these people to be so undoubtedly wrong.   #  but even after i explain that being gay in this day and age is not bad, but 0 years ago; it was.   #  but even after i explain that being gay in this day and age is not bad, but 0 years ago; it was.  it was because procreation was more of a necessity.  i deny the accusation that gay people over the many years were oppressed.  could social acceptance have been possible 0 years ago ? surely now it is difficult to understand why in the past it was seen as a complete mental illness to be such a way.  i use the same methods to deny oppression in other ways simply because it was how society even got to the place that it is now.  i use an example like the great wall of china.  it accomplished a wondrous feat yet it was achieved entirely on slavery.  ethically we see today that slavery is a terrible thing, but it is simply how society worked.  if china had not utilized slaves to build a protecting wall, china may have never survived.
when i see debate about  the big issues  stuff like climate change, or gun rights, or public healthcare policy people do not seem to particularly care about  evidence .  if they shift on these issues, its for emotional reasons.  sure they will have a few go to facts or stats that are essentially cherry picked to support their view, or they may even be aware of the news, etc, again to find info to support their position but new evidence rarely changes people is minds.  if people did have beliefs based on evidence there would be a greater diversity in the beliefs individuals held.  as it is, if i know a person cares about climate change, odds are they are anti gun rights and pro choice.  if they are big on border protection, they are gonna be small government and pro gun rights.  these are largely unrelated topics, yet at least 0 of the time people hold these  isuites  of ideas.  people seldom shift on these big issues, because views are not evidence based, they are ideological.  the few times people do change its because of one of two reasons.  an overall change in societal norms on the issue.  same sex marriage is a good example of this.  this was not even on the agenda 0 years ago.  there has been little  wouldata  to change peoples minds; we have just had a kind of cultural shift, and now its broadly accepted.  it was not data or evidence that changed people is minds, it was a change in societies norms.  the other thing which i believe  can  change folks  minds is personal experience/change.  i have known people to retire, or have a health crisis, which shakes up their whole outlook, including views on  the big issues.  or perhaps a personal brush with an issue  my son came out, now i am pro same sex marriage  so persuade me people are actually rational, and can be convinced by actual facts cmv  evidence  in this context means objective stats or data, and does not include personal experience, or one emotionally affecting news event e. g  sandy hook really got to me, now i am anti guns   #  when i see debate about  the big issues  stuff like climate change, or gun rights, or public healthcare policy people do not seem to particularly care about  evidence .   #  if they shift on these issues, its for emotional reasons.   # if they shift on these issues, its for emotional reasons.  i am going to disagree with you in the opposite direction from most commenters.  on hot button issues, people do respond to evidence.  but they do not respond to evidence by moving closer together.  instead, they respond by becoming even more convinced of their previous views.  there are some fairly well known studies in the attitude polarization literature URL to this effect.   #  deviating from the agenda is more than just going with facts.   #  you use the word  people  but you are describing large crowds.  so if the question is whether people in  groups  are swayed by facts, i will agree that it is harder to sway their opinion using facts.  ideologies held in groups tend to be held together by trust in a group more than they trust a foreign group is data.  they are also grounded in loyalty towards their group.  deviating from the agenda is more than just going with facts.  it is still not impossible, but it does compete against other things.  however people can also be individuals.  individuals which hold beliefs are much more rational in the sense that there is little to compete with the facts.   #  they had not previously known that gay people were so normal because the normal gay people were mostly closeted.   #  are your set of  big issues  specifically  issues that are controversial/unresolved in 0 , and your set of evidence specifically  evidence that is available in 0  ? because if so, you might imagine that the reason the issue is unresolved is because the fact pattern can be interpreted at least two ways.  how about some previous large issues ? evolution evidence resolved via science  empiricism vs innate knowledge evidence resolved via science  heliocentric astronomy evidence resolved via science  prohibition evidence resolved via a grand societal experiment i would disagree with your characterization of same sex marriage attitudes.  what happened was that the gay community made a conscious effort to encourage one another to  come out .  people suddenly had many more data points, and were thus able to generalize from something approximating actual set of gay people instead of from the very skewed sample they would previously known about.  they had not previously known that gay people were so normal because the normal gay people were mostly closeted.   #  i honestly think we should confine the discussion to questions that are at least 0 years old so that evidence has had a chance to change.   #  when it came to prohibition, i would say that it was initially a debate involving moralization/etc.  but  then  we had more evidence because we actually had prohibition.  and because of that evidence, people changed their minds and decided it was a bad idea.  i honestly think we should confine the discussion to questions that are at least 0 years old so that evidence has had a chance to change.  looking at current controversies is problematic because the evidence may not be sufficiently compelling.  it is a lot better than that.  previously the gay people most people were aware existed were flamboyant queers in red light districts, men outed because they were arrested for newsworthy crimes, people dying of aids, etc.  suddenly it was also sarah from accounting, bob who was active in the elks, etc etc.  people became aware that the gays they would been aware of were not actually a representative sample of gays in the us.  that is empirical evidence and it is powerful.  it is not just  celebrity power  by any stretch.   #  but again, i feel like this is emotional, subjective decision making which is great in this context , rather than objective assessment of facts.   # before ww0 was very different.  people were mostly rural, less educated, it was a very different kind of society.  besides, i know squat about politics much earlier than that.  and the destigmatising led to realisation/acceptance of gay family members.  but again, i feel like this is emotional, subjective decision making which is great in this context , rather than objective assessment of facts.  the end of prohibition is a better case.  i do not know heaps about it but i understand it was a rational reaction reaction to a big peak in organised crime, and realising they would just driven alcohol away from oversight, tax and regulation, and into the hands of criminals.  i am gonna call that   worthy, because i honestly could not think of an issue that had been swung by rationality.
let me begin by defining what i mean when i say hyper rationality.  hyper rationality is the social expectation and pressure that every human action and institution must be teologically justified by rational means, rather than a mixture of reason, emotion, tradition, religion, evolutionary instinct etc.  i will use one clear example, for the sake of focus, while knowing that there are other examples of this as well.  i will talk about producing off spring.  in my experience, people against procreating articulate 0 0 arguments against having children.  firstly, that having children will detrimentally affect the environment 0 .  new humans means more consumers of the earth is resources and more producers of waste.  the long term viability of the earth with exponentially more consumers and producers is uncertain.  secondly, the cost of having children can be astronomical 0 .  thirdly, you become isolated to your social circle and to your spouse due to the time need to take care of your child.  i present these arguments not because they uniquely matter, but because they seem valid.  they are, shall we say for the sake of argument, true.  however, in the pursuit of being rational, these arguments have contradicted one of the most basic and scientific principles of life, namely that animals produce off spring to survive.  it is basic evolutionary biology.  we observe this in every known creature; we observe our own instincts to sexual activity and pleasure; we observe people is special fondness to babies 0 .  yet, despite this obvious teology of humans, the rational arguments are given preference.  this seems to play out on the societal level.  education levels and industrialization a proxy for culture/rationality correlate with lower birth rates 0 .  in conclusion, this is but one of many examples where hyper rationality creates a social pressure that contradicts human instinct.  0.  URL 0.  URL 0.  reddit. com/r/aww 0.  URL  #  where hyper rationality creates a social pressure that contradicts human instinct.   #  how does hyper rationality create social pressures ?  #  your example is about valid  pro  arguments and they only bad thing about it is that it goes against a  con  argument.  what does this have to do with  hyper rationality  ? is not that just the way  pro  and  con  arguments go ? how does hyper rationality create social pressures ? how does normal rationality or irrationality create no social pressures ?  #  even at the height of ww0 you were less likely to die by violence then a primitive human tribe.   # good.  human instinct is bad.  we are better off without it.  why would you want to be like an animal ? look at our closest ancestors the chimpanzee.  they have abundant food sources and no predators yet they spend a ton of time fighting each other for control.  they murder, wage wars, even genocides.  in primitive human tribes as many as 0 of males died from violence.  in our society that number is minuscule.  even at the height of ww0 you were less likely to die by violence then a primitive human tribe.  living by instinct would make our lives short and miserable.  source URL  #  how can we ask people to make a one way decision pregnancy before they even know what the emotions are like ?  # on a personal note, i found out recently my wife is pregnant.  my emotional life has changed incredibly.  i have the feeling of purpose; i feel compelled to help where ever i can.  i have great joy from all the little things of the announcements to the names.  it is wonderful to think about raising a child, teaching a child, and seeing it grow.  these are all emotional benefits.  they are not reasonable nor can they be used in a pro con argument.  if the emotions spring from an action that is purposeless, the emotions are superficial, fraudulent or silly.  for example, laughing when you stub your toe on accident; crying when you open the door.  it is absurd, non sensical.  even if we were to say these emotions are legit, how can we judge one emotion more important than another.  how can we say the feelings of having a child are more important than the feelings of being a good friend, creating a good world, etc ? how can we ask people to make a one way decision pregnancy before they even know what the emotions are like ? to me, these questions and concerns are the necessary product of rational thinking.  they are of course, ridiculous and absurd.  so rather than thinking that i made some logical error, i am arguing there is something wrong inherently with the process of reasoning or relying solely on it.   #  you keep the instinct to love your child not because it is an instinct but because it pleases you.   #  i disagree.  emotions are the reason why we live.  they are what we use rationality to maximize.  if your child makes you happy that is great.  the meaning of life is to be happy.  however, a lot of instincts only create misery on a systems level.  when i said human instinct is bad i meant more a life based upon them is bad.  you keep the instinct to love your child not because it is an instinct but because it pleases you.  i am sure you would try to get rid of a more violent instinct.  this is because as humans we can take a step back and decide what is best.   #  we also know that trying to do things specifically to be happy often backfires, which from an evolutionary perspective makes perfect sense happiness is an indicator that we have a life that we think is worth living.   #  it seems arbitrary, and self defeating to me to see emotion as the reason we live.  if emotions evolved to help us be able to live and thrive, then understanding that can help us make better use of our emotions, and also foster positive emotions if that is what we choose to do.  for example, many people consider the purpose of life to be to maximize happiness, or positive emotions.  from an evolutionary perspective, this is nonsensical.  we also know that trying to do things specifically to be happy often backfires, which from an evolutionary perspective makes perfect sense happiness is an indicator that we have a life that we think is worth living.  recognizing that, focusing attention on having meaningful relationships, control over our lives, developing our own skills and excellence.  all of these produce more happiness than the  consume more  approach that seems to be driven by a desire to maximize happiness.
let me begin by defining what i mean when i say hyper rationality.  hyper rationality is the social expectation and pressure that every human action and institution must be teologically justified by rational means, rather than a mixture of reason, emotion, tradition, religion, evolutionary instinct etc.  i will use one clear example, for the sake of focus, while knowing that there are other examples of this as well.  i will talk about producing off spring.  in my experience, people against procreating articulate 0 0 arguments against having children.  firstly, that having children will detrimentally affect the environment 0 .  new humans means more consumers of the earth is resources and more producers of waste.  the long term viability of the earth with exponentially more consumers and producers is uncertain.  secondly, the cost of having children can be astronomical 0 .  thirdly, you become isolated to your social circle and to your spouse due to the time need to take care of your child.  i present these arguments not because they uniquely matter, but because they seem valid.  they are, shall we say for the sake of argument, true.  however, in the pursuit of being rational, these arguments have contradicted one of the most basic and scientific principles of life, namely that animals produce off spring to survive.  it is basic evolutionary biology.  we observe this in every known creature; we observe our own instincts to sexual activity and pleasure; we observe people is special fondness to babies 0 .  yet, despite this obvious teology of humans, the rational arguments are given preference.  this seems to play out on the societal level.  education levels and industrialization a proxy for culture/rationality correlate with lower birth rates 0 .  in conclusion, this is but one of many examples where hyper rationality creates a social pressure that contradicts human instinct.  0.  URL 0.  URL 0.  reddit. com/r/aww 0.  URL  #  i present these arguments not because they uniquely matter, but because they seem valid.   #  they are, shall we say for the sake of argument, true   animals produce off spring to survive.   # they are, shall we say for the sake of argument, true   animals produce off spring to survive.  it is basic evolutionary biology.  we observe this in every known creature; we observe our own instincts to sexual activity and pleasure; we observe people is special fondness to babies 0 .  yet, despite this obvious teology of humans, the rational arguments are given preference are they ? we still produce plenty of children after all.  also, i am not sure exactly what you mean by  rational.   an argument that humans need to produce offspring to continue existence is perfectly rational and very strong, possibly more so than the rational arguments against reproducing.   #  even at the height of ww0 you were less likely to die by violence then a primitive human tribe.   # good.  human instinct is bad.  we are better off without it.  why would you want to be like an animal ? look at our closest ancestors the chimpanzee.  they have abundant food sources and no predators yet they spend a ton of time fighting each other for control.  they murder, wage wars, even genocides.  in primitive human tribes as many as 0 of males died from violence.  in our society that number is minuscule.  even at the height of ww0 you were less likely to die by violence then a primitive human tribe.  living by instinct would make our lives short and miserable.  source URL  #  how can we ask people to make a one way decision pregnancy before they even know what the emotions are like ?  # on a personal note, i found out recently my wife is pregnant.  my emotional life has changed incredibly.  i have the feeling of purpose; i feel compelled to help where ever i can.  i have great joy from all the little things of the announcements to the names.  it is wonderful to think about raising a child, teaching a child, and seeing it grow.  these are all emotional benefits.  they are not reasonable nor can they be used in a pro con argument.  if the emotions spring from an action that is purposeless, the emotions are superficial, fraudulent or silly.  for example, laughing when you stub your toe on accident; crying when you open the door.  it is absurd, non sensical.  even if we were to say these emotions are legit, how can we judge one emotion more important than another.  how can we say the feelings of having a child are more important than the feelings of being a good friend, creating a good world, etc ? how can we ask people to make a one way decision pregnancy before they even know what the emotions are like ? to me, these questions and concerns are the necessary product of rational thinking.  they are of course, ridiculous and absurd.  so rather than thinking that i made some logical error, i am arguing there is something wrong inherently with the process of reasoning or relying solely on it.   #  they are what we use rationality to maximize.   #  i disagree.  emotions are the reason why we live.  they are what we use rationality to maximize.  if your child makes you happy that is great.  the meaning of life is to be happy.  however, a lot of instincts only create misery on a systems level.  when i said human instinct is bad i meant more a life based upon them is bad.  you keep the instinct to love your child not because it is an instinct but because it pleases you.  i am sure you would try to get rid of a more violent instinct.  this is because as humans we can take a step back and decide what is best.   #  for example, many people consider the purpose of life to be to maximize happiness, or positive emotions.   #  it seems arbitrary, and self defeating to me to see emotion as the reason we live.  if emotions evolved to help us be able to live and thrive, then understanding that can help us make better use of our emotions, and also foster positive emotions if that is what we choose to do.  for example, many people consider the purpose of life to be to maximize happiness, or positive emotions.  from an evolutionary perspective, this is nonsensical.  we also know that trying to do things specifically to be happy often backfires, which from an evolutionary perspective makes perfect sense happiness is an indicator that we have a life that we think is worth living.  recognizing that, focusing attention on having meaningful relationships, control over our lives, developing our own skills and excellence.  all of these produce more happiness than the  consume more  approach that seems to be driven by a desire to maximize happiness.
let is say we raise the minimum wage to $0/hr.  hooray poverty is solved ! but wait.  what is to stop landlords let is picture them as mr.  burns from calculating exactly how much extra everyone can pay now ? would not the new  cheapest  place to rent be the maximum that a $0/hr wage could afford ? i think people saying there would be less jobs is just fear mongering, but i would argue people making minimum wage would be no better off than they were before due to inflated costs of living if there are no limitations on those who set prices.  and how fucked would you be if your current standard of living is based on making $0/hr, and suddenly rent prices raised like this ? you would go from double the minimum wage to basically at the minimum wage .  if instead, we set regulations on necessary commodities stuff you require to live like shelter as a percentage of the wage of a minimum wage worker, would not that make more sense ? free market works great for things people want, but not so well for things people need.  for example, if the price of an xbox exceeds what i think it is worth, i can simply live without one, demand will go down if they are priced too high, eventually the price will stabilize.  but what am i willing to pay for a roof over my head ? heat in my apartment ? food on my table ? even if the price far exceeds what they cost to produce, i ca not just decide to not pay for these things, so without limitations on what can be charged, what is to stop prices from going up indefinitely ? looking at the us healthcare system, the answer seems to be nothing last, but not least, does raising the minimum wage perhaps discourage skilled labor ? if you are a person who is worked hard or went into student loan debt in order to attain a $0/hr job, is not this the rawest deal possible for you ? suddenly everyone is making the same as you, minus your debt payments, having done none of the hard work you did ? suddenly you went from middle class to the worst off of anyone, all because you worked hard/got skills in order to get a better job.  i do not have a $0/hr job, but i know a lot of people who are in this situation so, what am i missing here ? would greatly value input of anyone with education/experience in economics, since honestly, the reason i am asking this question is because i have very little knowledge in the area.   tl;dr: i think raising the minimum wage would simply result in the cost of living raising to match, leaving minimum wage workers no better off and middle class folks worse off  change my view/educate me !  #  and how fucked would you be if your current standard of living is based on making $0/hr, and suddenly rent prices raised like this ?  #  their wages would see a bump pretty shortly as the labor market re adjusts to the higher minimum wage.   # but the increase in aggregate demand will be less than the increase in the individual is buying power.  if the minimum wage doubles, that person is buying power also doubles.  but aggregate demand will increase less, because some people will not be making more.  it is a redistribution measure, essentially.  their wages would see a bump pretty shortly as the labor market re adjusts to the higher minimum wage.  they would not double like the minimum wage did, but they would increase to some degree.   #  this is why the minimum wage should be indexed with inflation, so the actual value of minimum wage does not change even though the monetary value if it might.   #  i see a few issues with your view.  one is that the government already has ways in which it controls the prices of basic necessities and attempting to provide these things to those who ca not afford them.  whether it is food subsidies, low income housing development subsidies, government welfare programs, or something else; the government has already taken steps to somewhat regulate and keep costs low for basic necessities.  another is the idea that a person making $0/hr would not see their wages increase as well if minimum wage were increased, which i do not believe is true.  let is say someone is an emt making $0/hr.  this is a job that has a lot of stressful situations and requires some specialized training.  why would not an emt making $0/hr quit and become a cashier for $0/hr ? the emt company knows that if it wants to be able to hire qualified emts then it has to offer competitive wages, so the $0/hr employee sees their wages go up as well.  the same logic can be applied to various other jobs.  eventually, raising the minimum wage would probably result in a cost of living increase.  this is why the minimum wage should be indexed with inflation, so the actual value of minimum wage does not change even though the monetary value if it might.   #  the stigma that comes along with being a cashier or any other minimum wage job would stop many people from abandoning ship.   #  i agree with you for the most part, but i think the stigma of being in those minimum wage jobs can stop a lot of people in skilled jobs to go to them.  in my personal experience, i am willing to go to school and spend money to get a job where i would not be making much more than i would have if i stuck with my last job quit two months ago and got just one promotion.  i have worked retail for a very long time and finally quit and took a pay cut just to get out of it.  cashiering may be much less stressful than an emt, but i just do not see many quit that job to go be a cashier.  cnas in my area make about $0, which i got to start out as a cashier at my last job.  i know which job is harder on your back and your feet, etc, but there are not a lot of cnas quitting and becoming cashiers.  the stigma that comes along with being a cashier or any other minimum wage job would stop many people from abandoning ship.  $0 an hour might be about the same pay, but getting talked down to by customers for 0 hours a day can get to people.  especially if they have any schooling under their belt.  they may end up with raises, but i doubt it would be a significant raise.   #  public transportation exists and is a necessity in plenty of cities.   #  both subsidies and regulations exist.  in addition to a lot of public housing projects with subsidies at the federal, state and local levels, a bunch of local rent control exists.  if you live in san francisco or new york you are probably aware of that.  there are lots of federal subsidies for food and energy production.  obamacare includes a lot of regulation of the healthcare market.  public transportation exists and is a necessity in plenty of cities.  whether or not these programs are effective, they do represent a governmental effort.   #  when countries set artificially low prices on basic commodities, you get shortages.   #  what prevents mr.  burns from raising rent or the price of rice is competition.  if he raises your rent too much, you will move out.  if he charges too much more for rice, you will buy from target.  etc.  so long as mr.  burns has competition, they are all going to have to keep their prices reasonable or lose customers.  they can try to make a deal to be a  cartel  and keep prices higher.  but that is illegal and also hard for them to enforce.  after all, even if they make the deal, anyone who sells a little cheaper will get a bunch of business that more than makes up for the lower price in volume.  when countries set artificially low prices on basic commodities, you get shortages.  like in the ussr or venezuela today, the goods simply are not there to be bought in the store.  if you set a low maximum rent, why would i build any new apartments or renovate the ones i have ? you will ensure that housing is affordable for anyone lucky enough to find it.  but that lots of people will be on waitlists to live in the city they want.
let is say we raise the minimum wage to $0/hr.  hooray poverty is solved ! but wait.  what is to stop landlords let is picture them as mr.  burns from calculating exactly how much extra everyone can pay now ? would not the new  cheapest  place to rent be the maximum that a $0/hr wage could afford ? i think people saying there would be less jobs is just fear mongering, but i would argue people making minimum wage would be no better off than they were before due to inflated costs of living if there are no limitations on those who set prices.  and how fucked would you be if your current standard of living is based on making $0/hr, and suddenly rent prices raised like this ? you would go from double the minimum wage to basically at the minimum wage .  if instead, we set regulations on necessary commodities stuff you require to live like shelter as a percentage of the wage of a minimum wage worker, would not that make more sense ? free market works great for things people want, but not so well for things people need.  for example, if the price of an xbox exceeds what i think it is worth, i can simply live without one, demand will go down if they are priced too high, eventually the price will stabilize.  but what am i willing to pay for a roof over my head ? heat in my apartment ? food on my table ? even if the price far exceeds what they cost to produce, i ca not just decide to not pay for these things, so without limitations on what can be charged, what is to stop prices from going up indefinitely ? looking at the us healthcare system, the answer seems to be nothing last, but not least, does raising the minimum wage perhaps discourage skilled labor ? if you are a person who is worked hard or went into student loan debt in order to attain a $0/hr job, is not this the rawest deal possible for you ? suddenly everyone is making the same as you, minus your debt payments, having done none of the hard work you did ? suddenly you went from middle class to the worst off of anyone, all because you worked hard/got skills in order to get a better job.  i do not have a $0/hr job, but i know a lot of people who are in this situation so, what am i missing here ? would greatly value input of anyone with education/experience in economics, since honestly, the reason i am asking this question is because i have very little knowledge in the area.   tl;dr: i think raising the minimum wage would simply result in the cost of living raising to match, leaving minimum wage workers no better off and middle class folks worse off  change my view/educate me !  #  last, but not least, does raising the minimum wage perhaps discourage skilled labor ?  #  if you are a person who is worked hard or went into student loan debt in order to attain a $0/hr job, is not this the rawest deal possible for you ?  # if you are a person who is worked hard or went into student loan debt in order to attain a $0/hr job, is not this the rawest deal possible for you ? suddenly everyone is making the same as you, minus your debt payments, having done none of the hard work you did ? suddenly you went from middle class to the worst off of anyone, all because you worked hard/got skills in order to get a better job.  this is not me, but i know a lot of people who feel this way why should anyone me happy working hard and investing in education to earn a minimum living wage ? $0/hr is not middle class, its not live in a box poor as long as you manage your expences but its also unlikely you would be able to afford having children and retirement, emergency expenses and a loss of employment or ability to work can also set you back quite seriously at that income.  also you cant just regulate prices or people will stop producing and selling those goods you have to subsidise and that brings us back to  why should the government be spending our money to enable busnesses to underpay their emploies ?  #  the emt company knows that if it wants to be able to hire qualified emts then it has to offer competitive wages, so the $0/hr employee sees their wages go up as well.   #  i see a few issues with your view.  one is that the government already has ways in which it controls the prices of basic necessities and attempting to provide these things to those who ca not afford them.  whether it is food subsidies, low income housing development subsidies, government welfare programs, or something else; the government has already taken steps to somewhat regulate and keep costs low for basic necessities.  another is the idea that a person making $0/hr would not see their wages increase as well if minimum wage were increased, which i do not believe is true.  let is say someone is an emt making $0/hr.  this is a job that has a lot of stressful situations and requires some specialized training.  why would not an emt making $0/hr quit and become a cashier for $0/hr ? the emt company knows that if it wants to be able to hire qualified emts then it has to offer competitive wages, so the $0/hr employee sees their wages go up as well.  the same logic can be applied to various other jobs.  eventually, raising the minimum wage would probably result in a cost of living increase.  this is why the minimum wage should be indexed with inflation, so the actual value of minimum wage does not change even though the monetary value if it might.   #  the stigma that comes along with being a cashier or any other minimum wage job would stop many people from abandoning ship.   #  i agree with you for the most part, but i think the stigma of being in those minimum wage jobs can stop a lot of people in skilled jobs to go to them.  in my personal experience, i am willing to go to school and spend money to get a job where i would not be making much more than i would have if i stuck with my last job quit two months ago and got just one promotion.  i have worked retail for a very long time and finally quit and took a pay cut just to get out of it.  cashiering may be much less stressful than an emt, but i just do not see many quit that job to go be a cashier.  cnas in my area make about $0, which i got to start out as a cashier at my last job.  i know which job is harder on your back and your feet, etc, but there are not a lot of cnas quitting and becoming cashiers.  the stigma that comes along with being a cashier or any other minimum wage job would stop many people from abandoning ship.  $0 an hour might be about the same pay, but getting talked down to by customers for 0 hours a day can get to people.  especially if they have any schooling under their belt.  they may end up with raises, but i doubt it would be a significant raise.   #  there are lots of federal subsidies for food and energy production.   #  both subsidies and regulations exist.  in addition to a lot of public housing projects with subsidies at the federal, state and local levels, a bunch of local rent control exists.  if you live in san francisco or new york you are probably aware of that.  there are lots of federal subsidies for food and energy production.  obamacare includes a lot of regulation of the healthcare market.  public transportation exists and is a necessity in plenty of cities.  whether or not these programs are effective, they do represent a governmental effort.   #  after all, even if they make the deal, anyone who sells a little cheaper will get a bunch of business that more than makes up for the lower price in volume.   #  what prevents mr.  burns from raising rent or the price of rice is competition.  if he raises your rent too much, you will move out.  if he charges too much more for rice, you will buy from target.  etc.  so long as mr.  burns has competition, they are all going to have to keep their prices reasonable or lose customers.  they can try to make a deal to be a  cartel  and keep prices higher.  but that is illegal and also hard for them to enforce.  after all, even if they make the deal, anyone who sells a little cheaper will get a bunch of business that more than makes up for the lower price in volume.  when countries set artificially low prices on basic commodities, you get shortages.  like in the ussr or venezuela today, the goods simply are not there to be bought in the store.  if you set a low maximum rent, why would i build any new apartments or renovate the ones i have ? you will ensure that housing is affordable for anyone lucky enough to find it.  but that lots of people will be on waitlists to live in the city they want.
i agree with most of bernie is domestic politics, but foreign policy is a critical aspect of the presidency and i do not think he has what it takes.  to convince me otherwise and thus support bernie , you will need to show me i am wrong about the following points, or that they do not matter: 0 i have never seen him not looking generally flustered and awkward.  working on international issues requires developing personal relationships, thus being good at making friends.  i do not think he is like that.  0 it requires building alliance and persuading people.  bernie is an independent, does not have serious alliances or close friends in congress despite being there for over two decades.  he has not gotten any notable legislation passed.  would he really negotiate the best possible international treaties for the us ? 0 a president needs to be able to understand and navigate everyone is goals.  bernie does not seem to try to understand everyone is motivations but rather just gets angry at people who think differently from him.  e. g.  he says things like  i will never understand why some poor people vote republican  0 being a leader involves standing up to or effectively dealing with bullies and thinking quickly.  he has very little track record of doing this.  and when the blm protesters took his mic at his own rally, he just passively let it happen, seemed a bit bewildered.  it may have been a reasonable decision to let them speak, but he clearly was not in control of the situation.  how could he stand up to putin, khamenei, etc.  ? he is willing to use force and can be quite serious and calculating in describing his military policy: URL URL he does have bipartisan congressional achievements: URL he does make friends with people who disagree with him: URL which includes this statement from chuck schumer:  he knew when to hold and knew when to fold and, i think, maximized what we could get for veterans,  said sen.  chuck schumer, who also participated in the va talks.  he can be quite assertive in a non blustery way: URL and, though it was not exactly contradicting my previous view, he does have a better knowledge of foreign policy nuance than i thought: URL URL  #  0 i have never seen him not looking generally flustered and awkward.   #  working on international issues requires developing personal relationships, thus being good at making friends.   #  hey buddy.  this is something i asked myself too and mr.  sanders has passed my test.  here ill try and explain why.  working on international issues requires developing personal relationships, thus being good at making friends.  i do not think he is like that.  this is pretty subjective.  how do you mean flustered ? he speaks with his hands he is from brooklyn , his hair is messy, but please elaborate on why you feel this way because i disagree that he looks flustered or awkward.  hes actual a pretty good orator imo.  bernie is an independent, does not have serious alliances or close friends in congress despite being there for over two decades.  he has not gotten any notable legislation passed.  would he really negotiate the best possible international treaties for the us ? as a i senator, he does not have the  party  alliances a straightforward dem or rep would have because hes the  only  ind in our federal legislative body.  as dem president, this would change as he would have the entire dem aisle.  that, in conjunction with hes been in senate and ushor for 0  years so he has friends and has worked on bills with other representatives.  that, and as president, his negotiations would take on a whole new level of seriousness when dealing internationally.  this is a sticky issue for any pres candidate as there is really no  well ive done this so i can deal internationally  for them to say unless they are an former/incumbent potus .  bernie does not seem to try to understand everyone is motivations but rather just gets angry at people who think differently from him.  e. g.  he says things like  i will never understand why some poor people vote republican  how is that any different then other reps ? john beohner swore to block anything and everything that obama would try and pass.  strictly from a  i do not like you  pov.  this is bullshit and he needs to be removed for this and other things .  were working on that i live in ohio .  but regardless, to him, seeing the bush tax cuts and how the republicans love the system that is keeping poor people poor trickle down, cutting social security/ social services, nafta/ various other trade deals its a alright question.  he has very little track record of doing this.  and when the blm protesters took his mic at his own rally, he just passively let it happen, seemed a bit bewildered.  it may have been a reasonable decision to let them speak, but he clearly was not in control of the situation.  how could he stand up to putin, khamenei, etc.  ? this was not  his  event.  it was a rally on social security, medicare that he was invited to speak at.  if you watch the video, you will see a guy not bernie at the podium talking to the blm girls.  that  guy was the organizer and bernie said to him to let them speak.  its not about being a pushover, its about, if i stop them, i look bad, i if i let them speak, ill look better and considering how he himself was arrested for nonviolent civil disobedience, it would be a little hypocritical for him to stop them.  a 0 year old b. s.  would probably sympathize with these girls and a 0 year old b. s.  is still a civil rights sympathizer.   #  that said, i do not know enough about sanders to say whether or not he would have foreign policy chops.   #  being bad with people/looking awkward does not mean you ca not handle foreign affairs.  nixon was an extremely awkward, paranoid and generally stiff and unpleasant fellow, but he pulled off some of the greatest foreign policy coups of any president ever.  he opened relations with china, got the north vietnamese to negotiate and initiated the detente with the soviets.  it feels weird to use nixon as an example of a president who did something right, i know, but foreign policy is one area where he deserves some praise.  that said, i do not know enough about sanders to say whether or not he would have foreign policy chops.  just pointing out that looking  generally flustered and awkward  and being incapable of making friends does not mean you wo not be able to have success with regard to foreign affairs.   #  being awkward and a dove would not necessarily work the same.   #  great point about nixon.  removed delta sorry ! i kinda rewarded them to everyone at once when i decided that overall my view was changed.  your point does show that being awkward does not automatically mean bad foreign policy, so it was a valuable contribution to the discuss ! but i do not think it helps with my opinion of sanders.  in a way, nixon being awkward actually enhanced his foreign policy since he used the  madman  strategy of seeming crazy to extract concessions.  being awkward and a dove would not necessarily work the same.   #  i am glad that neither you nor bernie will be anywhere near the position to make these types of decisions for the country.   #   they took our jobs !   just looking at jobs gives you only part of the story; they are only a part of the economy.  as a whole, there is no doubt that the us benefited from open trade with china.  just google  effect of outsourcing on us economy , and you will see what i mean.  in addition, your proposal of sanctioning china for building up their military in the hopes that the us and the whole world will follow suit and achieve world peace is an idealistic and frankly naive way of looking at geopolitics.  i am glad that neither you nor bernie will be anywhere near the position to make these types of decisions for the country.   #  that is part of becoming the representative of a country.   #  i am a german.  lot is of the points you are making would apply to our chancellor angela merkel.  especially before being a chancellor she was known as this awkward looking woman with a really ugly haircut.  she is not cool, she looks awkward when dealing with booing protesters, she does not come up with any sharp come back remarks.  yet somehow she strengthened our position in the eu and the world to a point that according to forbes she is currently the most powerful woman alive.  why is that so ? well, for once she got some style coaching, both for her looks and her body language.  that is part of becoming the representative of a country.  and second, on the international stage it is much different qualities that count.  eloquent rhetoric gets lost in translation.  rational arguments and actual actions matter a lot more.  from what i know about his political stances and voting behavior, sanders is likely to be able to improve the shaken relationship with europe which lost a lot of trust after what we learned from snowden about the nsa.  and it is likely that he might ease the tensions with russia and co as he is less focussed on military.  from a european point of view it seems likely that he will have no problems making friends and allies.
i agree with most of bernie is domestic politics, but foreign policy is a critical aspect of the presidency and i do not think he has what it takes.  to convince me otherwise and thus support bernie , you will need to show me i am wrong about the following points, or that they do not matter: 0 i have never seen him not looking generally flustered and awkward.  working on international issues requires developing personal relationships, thus being good at making friends.  i do not think he is like that.  0 it requires building alliance and persuading people.  bernie is an independent, does not have serious alliances or close friends in congress despite being there for over two decades.  he has not gotten any notable legislation passed.  would he really negotiate the best possible international treaties for the us ? 0 a president needs to be able to understand and navigate everyone is goals.  bernie does not seem to try to understand everyone is motivations but rather just gets angry at people who think differently from him.  e. g.  he says things like  i will never understand why some poor people vote republican  0 being a leader involves standing up to or effectively dealing with bullies and thinking quickly.  he has very little track record of doing this.  and when the blm protesters took his mic at his own rally, he just passively let it happen, seemed a bit bewildered.  it may have been a reasonable decision to let them speak, but he clearly was not in control of the situation.  how could he stand up to putin, khamenei, etc.  ? he is willing to use force and can be quite serious and calculating in describing his military policy: URL URL he does have bipartisan congressional achievements: URL he does make friends with people who disagree with him: URL which includes this statement from chuck schumer:  he knew when to hold and knew when to fold and, i think, maximized what we could get for veterans,  said sen.  chuck schumer, who also participated in the va talks.  he can be quite assertive in a non blustery way: URL and, though it was not exactly contradicting my previous view, he does have a better knowledge of foreign policy nuance than i thought: URL URL  #  0 it requires building alliance and persuading people.   #  bernie is an independent, does not have serious alliances or close friends in congress despite being there for over two decades.   #  hey buddy.  this is something i asked myself too and mr.  sanders has passed my test.  here ill try and explain why.  working on international issues requires developing personal relationships, thus being good at making friends.  i do not think he is like that.  this is pretty subjective.  how do you mean flustered ? he speaks with his hands he is from brooklyn , his hair is messy, but please elaborate on why you feel this way because i disagree that he looks flustered or awkward.  hes actual a pretty good orator imo.  bernie is an independent, does not have serious alliances or close friends in congress despite being there for over two decades.  he has not gotten any notable legislation passed.  would he really negotiate the best possible international treaties for the us ? as a i senator, he does not have the  party  alliances a straightforward dem or rep would have because hes the  only  ind in our federal legislative body.  as dem president, this would change as he would have the entire dem aisle.  that, in conjunction with hes been in senate and ushor for 0  years so he has friends and has worked on bills with other representatives.  that, and as president, his negotiations would take on a whole new level of seriousness when dealing internationally.  this is a sticky issue for any pres candidate as there is really no  well ive done this so i can deal internationally  for them to say unless they are an former/incumbent potus .  bernie does not seem to try to understand everyone is motivations but rather just gets angry at people who think differently from him.  e. g.  he says things like  i will never understand why some poor people vote republican  how is that any different then other reps ? john beohner swore to block anything and everything that obama would try and pass.  strictly from a  i do not like you  pov.  this is bullshit and he needs to be removed for this and other things .  were working on that i live in ohio .  but regardless, to him, seeing the bush tax cuts and how the republicans love the system that is keeping poor people poor trickle down, cutting social security/ social services, nafta/ various other trade deals its a alright question.  he has very little track record of doing this.  and when the blm protesters took his mic at his own rally, he just passively let it happen, seemed a bit bewildered.  it may have been a reasonable decision to let them speak, but he clearly was not in control of the situation.  how could he stand up to putin, khamenei, etc.  ? this was not  his  event.  it was a rally on social security, medicare that he was invited to speak at.  if you watch the video, you will see a guy not bernie at the podium talking to the blm girls.  that  guy was the organizer and bernie said to him to let them speak.  its not about being a pushover, its about, if i stop them, i look bad, i if i let them speak, ill look better and considering how he himself was arrested for nonviolent civil disobedience, it would be a little hypocritical for him to stop them.  a 0 year old b. s.  would probably sympathize with these girls and a 0 year old b. s.  is still a civil rights sympathizer.   #  just pointing out that looking  generally flustered and awkward  and being incapable of making friends does not mean you wo not be able to have success with regard to foreign affairs.   #  being bad with people/looking awkward does not mean you ca not handle foreign affairs.  nixon was an extremely awkward, paranoid and generally stiff and unpleasant fellow, but he pulled off some of the greatest foreign policy coups of any president ever.  he opened relations with china, got the north vietnamese to negotiate and initiated the detente with the soviets.  it feels weird to use nixon as an example of a president who did something right, i know, but foreign policy is one area where he deserves some praise.  that said, i do not know enough about sanders to say whether or not he would have foreign policy chops.  just pointing out that looking  generally flustered and awkward  and being incapable of making friends does not mean you wo not be able to have success with regard to foreign affairs.   #  i kinda rewarded them to everyone at once when i decided that overall my view was changed.   #  great point about nixon.  removed delta sorry ! i kinda rewarded them to everyone at once when i decided that overall my view was changed.  your point does show that being awkward does not automatically mean bad foreign policy, so it was a valuable contribution to the discuss ! but i do not think it helps with my opinion of sanders.  in a way, nixon being awkward actually enhanced his foreign policy since he used the  madman  strategy of seeming crazy to extract concessions.  being awkward and a dove would not necessarily work the same.   #  as a whole, there is no doubt that the us benefited from open trade with china.   #   they took our jobs !   just looking at jobs gives you only part of the story; they are only a part of the economy.  as a whole, there is no doubt that the us benefited from open trade with china.  just google  effect of outsourcing on us economy , and you will see what i mean.  in addition, your proposal of sanctioning china for building up their military in the hopes that the us and the whole world will follow suit and achieve world peace is an idealistic and frankly naive way of looking at geopolitics.  i am glad that neither you nor bernie will be anywhere near the position to make these types of decisions for the country.   #  lot is of the points you are making would apply to our chancellor angela merkel.   #  i am a german.  lot is of the points you are making would apply to our chancellor angela merkel.  especially before being a chancellor she was known as this awkward looking woman with a really ugly haircut.  she is not cool, she looks awkward when dealing with booing protesters, she does not come up with any sharp come back remarks.  yet somehow she strengthened our position in the eu and the world to a point that according to forbes she is currently the most powerful woman alive.  why is that so ? well, for once she got some style coaching, both for her looks and her body language.  that is part of becoming the representative of a country.  and second, on the international stage it is much different qualities that count.  eloquent rhetoric gets lost in translation.  rational arguments and actual actions matter a lot more.  from what i know about his political stances and voting behavior, sanders is likely to be able to improve the shaken relationship with europe which lost a lot of trust after what we learned from snowden about the nsa.  and it is likely that he might ease the tensions with russia and co as he is less focussed on military.  from a european point of view it seems likely that he will have no problems making friends and allies.
i agree with most of bernie is domestic politics, but foreign policy is a critical aspect of the presidency and i do not think he has what it takes.  to convince me otherwise and thus support bernie , you will need to show me i am wrong about the following points, or that they do not matter: 0 i have never seen him not looking generally flustered and awkward.  working on international issues requires developing personal relationships, thus being good at making friends.  i do not think he is like that.  0 it requires building alliance and persuading people.  bernie is an independent, does not have serious alliances or close friends in congress despite being there for over two decades.  he has not gotten any notable legislation passed.  would he really negotiate the best possible international treaties for the us ? 0 a president needs to be able to understand and navigate everyone is goals.  bernie does not seem to try to understand everyone is motivations but rather just gets angry at people who think differently from him.  e. g.  he says things like  i will never understand why some poor people vote republican  0 being a leader involves standing up to or effectively dealing with bullies and thinking quickly.  he has very little track record of doing this.  and when the blm protesters took his mic at his own rally, he just passively let it happen, seemed a bit bewildered.  it may have been a reasonable decision to let them speak, but he clearly was not in control of the situation.  how could he stand up to putin, khamenei, etc.  ? he is willing to use force and can be quite serious and calculating in describing his military policy: URL URL he does have bipartisan congressional achievements: URL he does make friends with people who disagree with him: URL which includes this statement from chuck schumer:  he knew when to hold and knew when to fold and, i think, maximized what we could get for veterans,  said sen.  chuck schumer, who also participated in the va talks.  he can be quite assertive in a non blustery way: URL and, though it was not exactly contradicting my previous view, he does have a better knowledge of foreign policy nuance than i thought: URL URL  #  0 a president needs to be able to understand and navigate everyone is goals.   #  bernie does not seem to try to understand everyone is motivations but rather just gets angry at people who think differently from him.   #  hey buddy.  this is something i asked myself too and mr.  sanders has passed my test.  here ill try and explain why.  working on international issues requires developing personal relationships, thus being good at making friends.  i do not think he is like that.  this is pretty subjective.  how do you mean flustered ? he speaks with his hands he is from brooklyn , his hair is messy, but please elaborate on why you feel this way because i disagree that he looks flustered or awkward.  hes actual a pretty good orator imo.  bernie is an independent, does not have serious alliances or close friends in congress despite being there for over two decades.  he has not gotten any notable legislation passed.  would he really negotiate the best possible international treaties for the us ? as a i senator, he does not have the  party  alliances a straightforward dem or rep would have because hes the  only  ind in our federal legislative body.  as dem president, this would change as he would have the entire dem aisle.  that, in conjunction with hes been in senate and ushor for 0  years so he has friends and has worked on bills with other representatives.  that, and as president, his negotiations would take on a whole new level of seriousness when dealing internationally.  this is a sticky issue for any pres candidate as there is really no  well ive done this so i can deal internationally  for them to say unless they are an former/incumbent potus .  bernie does not seem to try to understand everyone is motivations but rather just gets angry at people who think differently from him.  e. g.  he says things like  i will never understand why some poor people vote republican  how is that any different then other reps ? john beohner swore to block anything and everything that obama would try and pass.  strictly from a  i do not like you  pov.  this is bullshit and he needs to be removed for this and other things .  were working on that i live in ohio .  but regardless, to him, seeing the bush tax cuts and how the republicans love the system that is keeping poor people poor trickle down, cutting social security/ social services, nafta/ various other trade deals its a alright question.  he has very little track record of doing this.  and when the blm protesters took his mic at his own rally, he just passively let it happen, seemed a bit bewildered.  it may have been a reasonable decision to let them speak, but he clearly was not in control of the situation.  how could he stand up to putin, khamenei, etc.  ? this was not  his  event.  it was a rally on social security, medicare that he was invited to speak at.  if you watch the video, you will see a guy not bernie at the podium talking to the blm girls.  that  guy was the organizer and bernie said to him to let them speak.  its not about being a pushover, its about, if i stop them, i look bad, i if i let them speak, ill look better and considering how he himself was arrested for nonviolent civil disobedience, it would be a little hypocritical for him to stop them.  a 0 year old b. s.  would probably sympathize with these girls and a 0 year old b. s.  is still a civil rights sympathizer.   #  just pointing out that looking  generally flustered and awkward  and being incapable of making friends does not mean you wo not be able to have success with regard to foreign affairs.   #  being bad with people/looking awkward does not mean you ca not handle foreign affairs.  nixon was an extremely awkward, paranoid and generally stiff and unpleasant fellow, but he pulled off some of the greatest foreign policy coups of any president ever.  he opened relations with china, got the north vietnamese to negotiate and initiated the detente with the soviets.  it feels weird to use nixon as an example of a president who did something right, i know, but foreign policy is one area where he deserves some praise.  that said, i do not know enough about sanders to say whether or not he would have foreign policy chops.  just pointing out that looking  generally flustered and awkward  and being incapable of making friends does not mean you wo not be able to have success with regard to foreign affairs.   #  but i do not think it helps with my opinion of sanders.   #  great point about nixon.  removed delta sorry ! i kinda rewarded them to everyone at once when i decided that overall my view was changed.  your point does show that being awkward does not automatically mean bad foreign policy, so it was a valuable contribution to the discuss ! but i do not think it helps with my opinion of sanders.  in a way, nixon being awkward actually enhanced his foreign policy since he used the  madman  strategy of seeming crazy to extract concessions.  being awkward and a dove would not necessarily work the same.   #  in addition, your proposal of sanctioning china for building up their military in the hopes that the us and the whole world will follow suit and achieve world peace is an idealistic and frankly naive way of looking at geopolitics.   #   they took our jobs !   just looking at jobs gives you only part of the story; they are only a part of the economy.  as a whole, there is no doubt that the us benefited from open trade with china.  just google  effect of outsourcing on us economy , and you will see what i mean.  in addition, your proposal of sanctioning china for building up their military in the hopes that the us and the whole world will follow suit and achieve world peace is an idealistic and frankly naive way of looking at geopolitics.  i am glad that neither you nor bernie will be anywhere near the position to make these types of decisions for the country.   #  lot is of the points you are making would apply to our chancellor angela merkel.   #  i am a german.  lot is of the points you are making would apply to our chancellor angela merkel.  especially before being a chancellor she was known as this awkward looking woman with a really ugly haircut.  she is not cool, she looks awkward when dealing with booing protesters, she does not come up with any sharp come back remarks.  yet somehow she strengthened our position in the eu and the world to a point that according to forbes she is currently the most powerful woman alive.  why is that so ? well, for once she got some style coaching, both for her looks and her body language.  that is part of becoming the representative of a country.  and second, on the international stage it is much different qualities that count.  eloquent rhetoric gets lost in translation.  rational arguments and actual actions matter a lot more.  from what i know about his political stances and voting behavior, sanders is likely to be able to improve the shaken relationship with europe which lost a lot of trust after what we learned from snowden about the nsa.  and it is likely that he might ease the tensions with russia and co as he is less focussed on military.  from a european point of view it seems likely that he will have no problems making friends and allies.
i agree with most of bernie is domestic politics, but foreign policy is a critical aspect of the presidency and i do not think he has what it takes.  to convince me otherwise and thus support bernie , you will need to show me i am wrong about the following points, or that they do not matter: 0 i have never seen him not looking generally flustered and awkward.  working on international issues requires developing personal relationships, thus being good at making friends.  i do not think he is like that.  0 it requires building alliance and persuading people.  bernie is an independent, does not have serious alliances or close friends in congress despite being there for over two decades.  he has not gotten any notable legislation passed.  would he really negotiate the best possible international treaties for the us ? 0 a president needs to be able to understand and navigate everyone is goals.  bernie does not seem to try to understand everyone is motivations but rather just gets angry at people who think differently from him.  e. g.  he says things like  i will never understand why some poor people vote republican  0 being a leader involves standing up to or effectively dealing with bullies and thinking quickly.  he has very little track record of doing this.  and when the blm protesters took his mic at his own rally, he just passively let it happen, seemed a bit bewildered.  it may have been a reasonable decision to let them speak, but he clearly was not in control of the situation.  how could he stand up to putin, khamenei, etc.  ? he is willing to use force and can be quite serious and calculating in describing his military policy: URL URL he does have bipartisan congressional achievements: URL he does make friends with people who disagree with him: URL which includes this statement from chuck schumer:  he knew when to hold and knew when to fold and, i think, maximized what we could get for veterans,  said sen.  chuck schumer, who also participated in the va talks.  he can be quite assertive in a non blustery way: URL and, though it was not exactly contradicting my previous view, he does have a better knowledge of foreign policy nuance than i thought: URL URL  #  0 being a leader involves standing up to or effectively dealing with bullies and thinking quickly.   #  he has very little track record of doing this.   #  hey buddy.  this is something i asked myself too and mr.  sanders has passed my test.  here ill try and explain why.  working on international issues requires developing personal relationships, thus being good at making friends.  i do not think he is like that.  this is pretty subjective.  how do you mean flustered ? he speaks with his hands he is from brooklyn , his hair is messy, but please elaborate on why you feel this way because i disagree that he looks flustered or awkward.  hes actual a pretty good orator imo.  bernie is an independent, does not have serious alliances or close friends in congress despite being there for over two decades.  he has not gotten any notable legislation passed.  would he really negotiate the best possible international treaties for the us ? as a i senator, he does not have the  party  alliances a straightforward dem or rep would have because hes the  only  ind in our federal legislative body.  as dem president, this would change as he would have the entire dem aisle.  that, in conjunction with hes been in senate and ushor for 0  years so he has friends and has worked on bills with other representatives.  that, and as president, his negotiations would take on a whole new level of seriousness when dealing internationally.  this is a sticky issue for any pres candidate as there is really no  well ive done this so i can deal internationally  for them to say unless they are an former/incumbent potus .  bernie does not seem to try to understand everyone is motivations but rather just gets angry at people who think differently from him.  e. g.  he says things like  i will never understand why some poor people vote republican  how is that any different then other reps ? john beohner swore to block anything and everything that obama would try and pass.  strictly from a  i do not like you  pov.  this is bullshit and he needs to be removed for this and other things .  were working on that i live in ohio .  but regardless, to him, seeing the bush tax cuts and how the republicans love the system that is keeping poor people poor trickle down, cutting social security/ social services, nafta/ various other trade deals its a alright question.  he has very little track record of doing this.  and when the blm protesters took his mic at his own rally, he just passively let it happen, seemed a bit bewildered.  it may have been a reasonable decision to let them speak, but he clearly was not in control of the situation.  how could he stand up to putin, khamenei, etc.  ? this was not  his  event.  it was a rally on social security, medicare that he was invited to speak at.  if you watch the video, you will see a guy not bernie at the podium talking to the blm girls.  that  guy was the organizer and bernie said to him to let them speak.  its not about being a pushover, its about, if i stop them, i look bad, i if i let them speak, ill look better and considering how he himself was arrested for nonviolent civil disobedience, it would be a little hypocritical for him to stop them.  a 0 year old b. s.  would probably sympathize with these girls and a 0 year old b. s.  is still a civil rights sympathizer.   #  it feels weird to use nixon as an example of a president who did something right, i know, but foreign policy is one area where he deserves some praise.   #  being bad with people/looking awkward does not mean you ca not handle foreign affairs.  nixon was an extremely awkward, paranoid and generally stiff and unpleasant fellow, but he pulled off some of the greatest foreign policy coups of any president ever.  he opened relations with china, got the north vietnamese to negotiate and initiated the detente with the soviets.  it feels weird to use nixon as an example of a president who did something right, i know, but foreign policy is one area where he deserves some praise.  that said, i do not know enough about sanders to say whether or not he would have foreign policy chops.  just pointing out that looking  generally flustered and awkward  and being incapable of making friends does not mean you wo not be able to have success with regard to foreign affairs.   #  in a way, nixon being awkward actually enhanced his foreign policy since he used the  madman  strategy of seeming crazy to extract concessions.   #  great point about nixon.  removed delta sorry ! i kinda rewarded them to everyone at once when i decided that overall my view was changed.  your point does show that being awkward does not automatically mean bad foreign policy, so it was a valuable contribution to the discuss ! but i do not think it helps with my opinion of sanders.  in a way, nixon being awkward actually enhanced his foreign policy since he used the  madman  strategy of seeming crazy to extract concessions.  being awkward and a dove would not necessarily work the same.   #  just google  effect of outsourcing on us economy , and you will see what i mean.   #   they took our jobs !   just looking at jobs gives you only part of the story; they are only a part of the economy.  as a whole, there is no doubt that the us benefited from open trade with china.  just google  effect of outsourcing on us economy , and you will see what i mean.  in addition, your proposal of sanctioning china for building up their military in the hopes that the us and the whole world will follow suit and achieve world peace is an idealistic and frankly naive way of looking at geopolitics.  i am glad that neither you nor bernie will be anywhere near the position to make these types of decisions for the country.   #  from what i know about his political stances and voting behavior, sanders is likely to be able to improve the shaken relationship with europe which lost a lot of trust after what we learned from snowden about the nsa.   #  i am a german.  lot is of the points you are making would apply to our chancellor angela merkel.  especially before being a chancellor she was known as this awkward looking woman with a really ugly haircut.  she is not cool, she looks awkward when dealing with booing protesters, she does not come up with any sharp come back remarks.  yet somehow she strengthened our position in the eu and the world to a point that according to forbes she is currently the most powerful woman alive.  why is that so ? well, for once she got some style coaching, both for her looks and her body language.  that is part of becoming the representative of a country.  and second, on the international stage it is much different qualities that count.  eloquent rhetoric gets lost in translation.  rational arguments and actual actions matter a lot more.  from what i know about his political stances and voting behavior, sanders is likely to be able to improve the shaken relationship with europe which lost a lot of trust after what we learned from snowden about the nsa.  and it is likely that he might ease the tensions with russia and co as he is less focussed on military.  from a european point of view it seems likely that he will have no problems making friends and allies.
i agree with most of bernie is domestic politics, but foreign policy is a critical aspect of the presidency and i do not think he has what it takes.  to convince me otherwise and thus support bernie , you will need to show me i am wrong about the following points, or that they do not matter: 0 i have never seen him not looking generally flustered and awkward.  working on international issues requires developing personal relationships, thus being good at making friends.  i do not think he is like that.  0 it requires building alliance and persuading people.  bernie is an independent, does not have serious alliances or close friends in congress despite being there for over two decades.  he has not gotten any notable legislation passed.  would he really negotiate the best possible international treaties for the us ? 0 a president needs to be able to understand and navigate everyone is goals.  bernie does not seem to try to understand everyone is motivations but rather just gets angry at people who think differently from him.  e. g.  he says things like  i will never understand why some poor people vote republican  0 being a leader involves standing up to or effectively dealing with bullies and thinking quickly.  he has very little track record of doing this.  and when the blm protesters took his mic at his own rally, he just passively let it happen, seemed a bit bewildered.  it may have been a reasonable decision to let them speak, but he clearly was not in control of the situation.  how could he stand up to putin, khamenei, etc.  ? he is willing to use force and can be quite serious and calculating in describing his military policy: URL URL he does have bipartisan congressional achievements: URL he does make friends with people who disagree with him: URL which includes this statement from chuck schumer:  he knew when to hold and knew when to fold and, i think, maximized what we could get for veterans,  said sen.  chuck schumer, who also participated in the va talks.  he can be quite assertive in a non blustery way: URL and, though it was not exactly contradicting my previous view, he does have a better knowledge of foreign policy nuance than i thought: URL URL  #  0 i have never seen him not looking generally flustered and awkward.   #  working on international issues requires developing personal relationships, thus being good at making friends.   # working on international issues requires developing personal relationships, thus being good at making friends.  i do not think he is like that.  did you know that jim inhofe, the ultraconservative man who thinks that climate change is a hoax also wrote a ton of books on this regards bernie, the man who was the 0 ranked senator for fighting climate change by various organizations as his best friend in the senate ? bernie is an independent, does not have serious alliances or close friends in congress despite being there for over two decades.  he has not gotten any notable legislation passed.  would he really negotiate the best possible international treaties for the us ? this is dead wrong.  as a house member, he got the most amendments passed as anyone in the congress.  in the senate he worked with congressman ron paul to audit the fed.  he got a 0 billion dollar provision to increase the number of people community health centers served by 0 million.  he worked with john mccain recently to craft the new veterans affairs budget which was one of the most significant pieces of bipartisan legislation negotiated in a dysfunctional congress.  if you look into his history, it is pretty obvious that he did way more than hillary clinton or any other candidate ever did.  bernie does not seem to try to understand everyone is motivations but rather just gets angry at people who think differently from him.  e. g.  he says things like  i will never understand why some poor people vote republican  of course it does not make sense why poor people vote republican.  every survey shows that people tend to lean towards more liberal positions.  can you tell me why poor people vote against their interests ? he has very little track record of doing this.  and when the blm protesters took his mic at his own rally, he just passively let it happen, seemed a bit bewildered.  it may have been a reasonable decision to let them speak, but he clearly was not in control of the situation.  how could he stand up to putin, khamenei, etc.  ? i already pointed out how he dealt with john mccain and ron paul among others.  i thought that his reaction to blm was the best choice he could do at that time.  if he took back the mic, he would have gotten tons of bad press for not allowing black people to speak.  how does this have anything to do with putin ? when hypothetical president sanders deals with putin, he is not going to do so on a stage with thousands of people in front of him.   #  that said, i do not know enough about sanders to say whether or not he would have foreign policy chops.   #  being bad with people/looking awkward does not mean you ca not handle foreign affairs.  nixon was an extremely awkward, paranoid and generally stiff and unpleasant fellow, but he pulled off some of the greatest foreign policy coups of any president ever.  he opened relations with china, got the north vietnamese to negotiate and initiated the detente with the soviets.  it feels weird to use nixon as an example of a president who did something right, i know, but foreign policy is one area where he deserves some praise.  that said, i do not know enough about sanders to say whether or not he would have foreign policy chops.  just pointing out that looking  generally flustered and awkward  and being incapable of making friends does not mean you wo not be able to have success with regard to foreign affairs.   #  i kinda rewarded them to everyone at once when i decided that overall my view was changed.   #  great point about nixon.  removed delta sorry ! i kinda rewarded them to everyone at once when i decided that overall my view was changed.  your point does show that being awkward does not automatically mean bad foreign policy, so it was a valuable contribution to the discuss ! but i do not think it helps with my opinion of sanders.  in a way, nixon being awkward actually enhanced his foreign policy since he used the  madman  strategy of seeming crazy to extract concessions.  being awkward and a dove would not necessarily work the same.   #  i am glad that neither you nor bernie will be anywhere near the position to make these types of decisions for the country.   #   they took our jobs !   just looking at jobs gives you only part of the story; they are only a part of the economy.  as a whole, there is no doubt that the us benefited from open trade with china.  just google  effect of outsourcing on us economy , and you will see what i mean.  in addition, your proposal of sanctioning china for building up their military in the hopes that the us and the whole world will follow suit and achieve world peace is an idealistic and frankly naive way of looking at geopolitics.  i am glad that neither you nor bernie will be anywhere near the position to make these types of decisions for the country.   #  lot is of the points you are making would apply to our chancellor angela merkel.   #  i am a german.  lot is of the points you are making would apply to our chancellor angela merkel.  especially before being a chancellor she was known as this awkward looking woman with a really ugly haircut.  she is not cool, she looks awkward when dealing with booing protesters, she does not come up with any sharp come back remarks.  yet somehow she strengthened our position in the eu and the world to a point that according to forbes she is currently the most powerful woman alive.  why is that so ? well, for once she got some style coaching, both for her looks and her body language.  that is part of becoming the representative of a country.  and second, on the international stage it is much different qualities that count.  eloquent rhetoric gets lost in translation.  rational arguments and actual actions matter a lot more.  from what i know about his political stances and voting behavior, sanders is likely to be able to improve the shaken relationship with europe which lost a lot of trust after what we learned from snowden about the nsa.  and it is likely that he might ease the tensions with russia and co as he is less focussed on military.  from a european point of view it seems likely that he will have no problems making friends and allies.
i agree with most of bernie is domestic politics, but foreign policy is a critical aspect of the presidency and i do not think he has what it takes.  to convince me otherwise and thus support bernie , you will need to show me i am wrong about the following points, or that they do not matter: 0 i have never seen him not looking generally flustered and awkward.  working on international issues requires developing personal relationships, thus being good at making friends.  i do not think he is like that.  0 it requires building alliance and persuading people.  bernie is an independent, does not have serious alliances or close friends in congress despite being there for over two decades.  he has not gotten any notable legislation passed.  would he really negotiate the best possible international treaties for the us ? 0 a president needs to be able to understand and navigate everyone is goals.  bernie does not seem to try to understand everyone is motivations but rather just gets angry at people who think differently from him.  e. g.  he says things like  i will never understand why some poor people vote republican  0 being a leader involves standing up to or effectively dealing with bullies and thinking quickly.  he has very little track record of doing this.  and when the blm protesters took his mic at his own rally, he just passively let it happen, seemed a bit bewildered.  it may have been a reasonable decision to let them speak, but he clearly was not in control of the situation.  how could he stand up to putin, khamenei, etc.  ? he is willing to use force and can be quite serious and calculating in describing his military policy: URL URL he does have bipartisan congressional achievements: URL he does make friends with people who disagree with him: URL which includes this statement from chuck schumer:  he knew when to hold and knew when to fold and, i think, maximized what we could get for veterans,  said sen.  chuck schumer, who also participated in the va talks.  he can be quite assertive in a non blustery way: URL and, though it was not exactly contradicting my previous view, he does have a better knowledge of foreign policy nuance than i thought: URL URL  #  0 it requires building alliance and persuading people.   #  bernie is an independent, does not have serious alliances or close friends in congress despite being there for over two decades.   # working on international issues requires developing personal relationships, thus being good at making friends.  i do not think he is like that.  did you know that jim inhofe, the ultraconservative man who thinks that climate change is a hoax also wrote a ton of books on this regards bernie, the man who was the 0 ranked senator for fighting climate change by various organizations as his best friend in the senate ? bernie is an independent, does not have serious alliances or close friends in congress despite being there for over two decades.  he has not gotten any notable legislation passed.  would he really negotiate the best possible international treaties for the us ? this is dead wrong.  as a house member, he got the most amendments passed as anyone in the congress.  in the senate he worked with congressman ron paul to audit the fed.  he got a 0 billion dollar provision to increase the number of people community health centers served by 0 million.  he worked with john mccain recently to craft the new veterans affairs budget which was one of the most significant pieces of bipartisan legislation negotiated in a dysfunctional congress.  if you look into his history, it is pretty obvious that he did way more than hillary clinton or any other candidate ever did.  bernie does not seem to try to understand everyone is motivations but rather just gets angry at people who think differently from him.  e. g.  he says things like  i will never understand why some poor people vote republican  of course it does not make sense why poor people vote republican.  every survey shows that people tend to lean towards more liberal positions.  can you tell me why poor people vote against their interests ? he has very little track record of doing this.  and when the blm protesters took his mic at his own rally, he just passively let it happen, seemed a bit bewildered.  it may have been a reasonable decision to let them speak, but he clearly was not in control of the situation.  how could he stand up to putin, khamenei, etc.  ? i already pointed out how he dealt with john mccain and ron paul among others.  i thought that his reaction to blm was the best choice he could do at that time.  if he took back the mic, he would have gotten tons of bad press for not allowing black people to speak.  how does this have anything to do with putin ? when hypothetical president sanders deals with putin, he is not going to do so on a stage with thousands of people in front of him.   #  that said, i do not know enough about sanders to say whether or not he would have foreign policy chops.   #  being bad with people/looking awkward does not mean you ca not handle foreign affairs.  nixon was an extremely awkward, paranoid and generally stiff and unpleasant fellow, but he pulled off some of the greatest foreign policy coups of any president ever.  he opened relations with china, got the north vietnamese to negotiate and initiated the detente with the soviets.  it feels weird to use nixon as an example of a president who did something right, i know, but foreign policy is one area where he deserves some praise.  that said, i do not know enough about sanders to say whether or not he would have foreign policy chops.  just pointing out that looking  generally flustered and awkward  and being incapable of making friends does not mean you wo not be able to have success with regard to foreign affairs.   #  your point does show that being awkward does not automatically mean bad foreign policy, so it was a valuable contribution to the discuss !  #  great point about nixon.  removed delta sorry ! i kinda rewarded them to everyone at once when i decided that overall my view was changed.  your point does show that being awkward does not automatically mean bad foreign policy, so it was a valuable contribution to the discuss ! but i do not think it helps with my opinion of sanders.  in a way, nixon being awkward actually enhanced his foreign policy since he used the  madman  strategy of seeming crazy to extract concessions.  being awkward and a dove would not necessarily work the same.   #  just looking at jobs gives you only part of the story; they are only a part of the economy.   #   they took our jobs !   just looking at jobs gives you only part of the story; they are only a part of the economy.  as a whole, there is no doubt that the us benefited from open trade with china.  just google  effect of outsourcing on us economy , and you will see what i mean.  in addition, your proposal of sanctioning china for building up their military in the hopes that the us and the whole world will follow suit and achieve world peace is an idealistic and frankly naive way of looking at geopolitics.  i am glad that neither you nor bernie will be anywhere near the position to make these types of decisions for the country.   #  well, for once she got some style coaching, both for her looks and her body language.   #  i am a german.  lot is of the points you are making would apply to our chancellor angela merkel.  especially before being a chancellor she was known as this awkward looking woman with a really ugly haircut.  she is not cool, she looks awkward when dealing with booing protesters, she does not come up with any sharp come back remarks.  yet somehow she strengthened our position in the eu and the world to a point that according to forbes she is currently the most powerful woman alive.  why is that so ? well, for once she got some style coaching, both for her looks and her body language.  that is part of becoming the representative of a country.  and second, on the international stage it is much different qualities that count.  eloquent rhetoric gets lost in translation.  rational arguments and actual actions matter a lot more.  from what i know about his political stances and voting behavior, sanders is likely to be able to improve the shaken relationship with europe which lost a lot of trust after what we learned from snowden about the nsa.  and it is likely that he might ease the tensions with russia and co as he is less focussed on military.  from a european point of view it seems likely that he will have no problems making friends and allies.
i agree with most of bernie is domestic politics, but foreign policy is a critical aspect of the presidency and i do not think he has what it takes.  to convince me otherwise and thus support bernie , you will need to show me i am wrong about the following points, or that they do not matter: 0 i have never seen him not looking generally flustered and awkward.  working on international issues requires developing personal relationships, thus being good at making friends.  i do not think he is like that.  0 it requires building alliance and persuading people.  bernie is an independent, does not have serious alliances or close friends in congress despite being there for over two decades.  he has not gotten any notable legislation passed.  would he really negotiate the best possible international treaties for the us ? 0 a president needs to be able to understand and navigate everyone is goals.  bernie does not seem to try to understand everyone is motivations but rather just gets angry at people who think differently from him.  e. g.  he says things like  i will never understand why some poor people vote republican  0 being a leader involves standing up to or effectively dealing with bullies and thinking quickly.  he has very little track record of doing this.  and when the blm protesters took his mic at his own rally, he just passively let it happen, seemed a bit bewildered.  it may have been a reasonable decision to let them speak, but he clearly was not in control of the situation.  how could he stand up to putin, khamenei, etc.  ? he is willing to use force and can be quite serious and calculating in describing his military policy: URL URL he does have bipartisan congressional achievements: URL he does make friends with people who disagree with him: URL which includes this statement from chuck schumer:  he knew when to hold and knew when to fold and, i think, maximized what we could get for veterans,  said sen.  chuck schumer, who also participated in the va talks.  he can be quite assertive in a non blustery way: URL and, though it was not exactly contradicting my previous view, he does have a better knowledge of foreign policy nuance than i thought: URL URL  #  0 a president needs to be able to understand and navigate everyone is goals.   #  bernie does not seem to try to understand everyone is motivations but rather just gets angry at people who think differently from him.   # working on international issues requires developing personal relationships, thus being good at making friends.  i do not think he is like that.  did you know that jim inhofe, the ultraconservative man who thinks that climate change is a hoax also wrote a ton of books on this regards bernie, the man who was the 0 ranked senator for fighting climate change by various organizations as his best friend in the senate ? bernie is an independent, does not have serious alliances or close friends in congress despite being there for over two decades.  he has not gotten any notable legislation passed.  would he really negotiate the best possible international treaties for the us ? this is dead wrong.  as a house member, he got the most amendments passed as anyone in the congress.  in the senate he worked with congressman ron paul to audit the fed.  he got a 0 billion dollar provision to increase the number of people community health centers served by 0 million.  he worked with john mccain recently to craft the new veterans affairs budget which was one of the most significant pieces of bipartisan legislation negotiated in a dysfunctional congress.  if you look into his history, it is pretty obvious that he did way more than hillary clinton or any other candidate ever did.  bernie does not seem to try to understand everyone is motivations but rather just gets angry at people who think differently from him.  e. g.  he says things like  i will never understand why some poor people vote republican  of course it does not make sense why poor people vote republican.  every survey shows that people tend to lean towards more liberal positions.  can you tell me why poor people vote against their interests ? he has very little track record of doing this.  and when the blm protesters took his mic at his own rally, he just passively let it happen, seemed a bit bewildered.  it may have been a reasonable decision to let them speak, but he clearly was not in control of the situation.  how could he stand up to putin, khamenei, etc.  ? i already pointed out how he dealt with john mccain and ron paul among others.  i thought that his reaction to blm was the best choice he could do at that time.  if he took back the mic, he would have gotten tons of bad press for not allowing black people to speak.  how does this have anything to do with putin ? when hypothetical president sanders deals with putin, he is not going to do so on a stage with thousands of people in front of him.   #  just pointing out that looking  generally flustered and awkward  and being incapable of making friends does not mean you wo not be able to have success with regard to foreign affairs.   #  being bad with people/looking awkward does not mean you ca not handle foreign affairs.  nixon was an extremely awkward, paranoid and generally stiff and unpleasant fellow, but he pulled off some of the greatest foreign policy coups of any president ever.  he opened relations with china, got the north vietnamese to negotiate and initiated the detente with the soviets.  it feels weird to use nixon as an example of a president who did something right, i know, but foreign policy is one area where he deserves some praise.  that said, i do not know enough about sanders to say whether or not he would have foreign policy chops.  just pointing out that looking  generally flustered and awkward  and being incapable of making friends does not mean you wo not be able to have success with regard to foreign affairs.   #  i kinda rewarded them to everyone at once when i decided that overall my view was changed.   #  great point about nixon.  removed delta sorry ! i kinda rewarded them to everyone at once when i decided that overall my view was changed.  your point does show that being awkward does not automatically mean bad foreign policy, so it was a valuable contribution to the discuss ! but i do not think it helps with my opinion of sanders.  in a way, nixon being awkward actually enhanced his foreign policy since he used the  madman  strategy of seeming crazy to extract concessions.  being awkward and a dove would not necessarily work the same.   #  just google  effect of outsourcing on us economy , and you will see what i mean.   #   they took our jobs !   just looking at jobs gives you only part of the story; they are only a part of the economy.  as a whole, there is no doubt that the us benefited from open trade with china.  just google  effect of outsourcing on us economy , and you will see what i mean.  in addition, your proposal of sanctioning china for building up their military in the hopes that the us and the whole world will follow suit and achieve world peace is an idealistic and frankly naive way of looking at geopolitics.  i am glad that neither you nor bernie will be anywhere near the position to make these types of decisions for the country.   #  yet somehow she strengthened our position in the eu and the world to a point that according to forbes she is currently the most powerful woman alive.   #  i am a german.  lot is of the points you are making would apply to our chancellor angela merkel.  especially before being a chancellor she was known as this awkward looking woman with a really ugly haircut.  she is not cool, she looks awkward when dealing with booing protesters, she does not come up with any sharp come back remarks.  yet somehow she strengthened our position in the eu and the world to a point that according to forbes she is currently the most powerful woman alive.  why is that so ? well, for once she got some style coaching, both for her looks and her body language.  that is part of becoming the representative of a country.  and second, on the international stage it is much different qualities that count.  eloquent rhetoric gets lost in translation.  rational arguments and actual actions matter a lot more.  from what i know about his political stances and voting behavior, sanders is likely to be able to improve the shaken relationship with europe which lost a lot of trust after what we learned from snowden about the nsa.  and it is likely that he might ease the tensions with russia and co as he is less focussed on military.  from a european point of view it seems likely that he will have no problems making friends and allies.
i agree with most of bernie is domestic politics, but foreign policy is a critical aspect of the presidency and i do not think he has what it takes.  to convince me otherwise and thus support bernie , you will need to show me i am wrong about the following points, or that they do not matter: 0 i have never seen him not looking generally flustered and awkward.  working on international issues requires developing personal relationships, thus being good at making friends.  i do not think he is like that.  0 it requires building alliance and persuading people.  bernie is an independent, does not have serious alliances or close friends in congress despite being there for over two decades.  he has not gotten any notable legislation passed.  would he really negotiate the best possible international treaties for the us ? 0 a president needs to be able to understand and navigate everyone is goals.  bernie does not seem to try to understand everyone is motivations but rather just gets angry at people who think differently from him.  e. g.  he says things like  i will never understand why some poor people vote republican  0 being a leader involves standing up to or effectively dealing with bullies and thinking quickly.  he has very little track record of doing this.  and when the blm protesters took his mic at his own rally, he just passively let it happen, seemed a bit bewildered.  it may have been a reasonable decision to let them speak, but he clearly was not in control of the situation.  how could he stand up to putin, khamenei, etc.  ? he is willing to use force and can be quite serious and calculating in describing his military policy: URL URL he does have bipartisan congressional achievements: URL he does make friends with people who disagree with him: URL which includes this statement from chuck schumer:  he knew when to hold and knew when to fold and, i think, maximized what we could get for veterans,  said sen.  chuck schumer, who also participated in the va talks.  he can be quite assertive in a non blustery way: URL and, though it was not exactly contradicting my previous view, he does have a better knowledge of foreign policy nuance than i thought: URL URL  #  0 being a leader involves standing up to or effectively dealing with bullies and thinking quickly.   #  he has very little track record of doing this.   # working on international issues requires developing personal relationships, thus being good at making friends.  i do not think he is like that.  did you know that jim inhofe, the ultraconservative man who thinks that climate change is a hoax also wrote a ton of books on this regards bernie, the man who was the 0 ranked senator for fighting climate change by various organizations as his best friend in the senate ? bernie is an independent, does not have serious alliances or close friends in congress despite being there for over two decades.  he has not gotten any notable legislation passed.  would he really negotiate the best possible international treaties for the us ? this is dead wrong.  as a house member, he got the most amendments passed as anyone in the congress.  in the senate he worked with congressman ron paul to audit the fed.  he got a 0 billion dollar provision to increase the number of people community health centers served by 0 million.  he worked with john mccain recently to craft the new veterans affairs budget which was one of the most significant pieces of bipartisan legislation negotiated in a dysfunctional congress.  if you look into his history, it is pretty obvious that he did way more than hillary clinton or any other candidate ever did.  bernie does not seem to try to understand everyone is motivations but rather just gets angry at people who think differently from him.  e. g.  he says things like  i will never understand why some poor people vote republican  of course it does not make sense why poor people vote republican.  every survey shows that people tend to lean towards more liberal positions.  can you tell me why poor people vote against their interests ? he has very little track record of doing this.  and when the blm protesters took his mic at his own rally, he just passively let it happen, seemed a bit bewildered.  it may have been a reasonable decision to let them speak, but he clearly was not in control of the situation.  how could he stand up to putin, khamenei, etc.  ? i already pointed out how he dealt with john mccain and ron paul among others.  i thought that his reaction to blm was the best choice he could do at that time.  if he took back the mic, he would have gotten tons of bad press for not allowing black people to speak.  how does this have anything to do with putin ? when hypothetical president sanders deals with putin, he is not going to do so on a stage with thousands of people in front of him.   #  nixon was an extremely awkward, paranoid and generally stiff and unpleasant fellow, but he pulled off some of the greatest foreign policy coups of any president ever.   #  being bad with people/looking awkward does not mean you ca not handle foreign affairs.  nixon was an extremely awkward, paranoid and generally stiff and unpleasant fellow, but he pulled off some of the greatest foreign policy coups of any president ever.  he opened relations with china, got the north vietnamese to negotiate and initiated the detente with the soviets.  it feels weird to use nixon as an example of a president who did something right, i know, but foreign policy is one area where he deserves some praise.  that said, i do not know enough about sanders to say whether or not he would have foreign policy chops.  just pointing out that looking  generally flustered and awkward  and being incapable of making friends does not mean you wo not be able to have success with regard to foreign affairs.   #  your point does show that being awkward does not automatically mean bad foreign policy, so it was a valuable contribution to the discuss !  #  great point about nixon.  removed delta sorry ! i kinda rewarded them to everyone at once when i decided that overall my view was changed.  your point does show that being awkward does not automatically mean bad foreign policy, so it was a valuable contribution to the discuss ! but i do not think it helps with my opinion of sanders.  in a way, nixon being awkward actually enhanced his foreign policy since he used the  madman  strategy of seeming crazy to extract concessions.  being awkward and a dove would not necessarily work the same.   #  just looking at jobs gives you only part of the story; they are only a part of the economy.   #   they took our jobs !   just looking at jobs gives you only part of the story; they are only a part of the economy.  as a whole, there is no doubt that the us benefited from open trade with china.  just google  effect of outsourcing on us economy , and you will see what i mean.  in addition, your proposal of sanctioning china for building up their military in the hopes that the us and the whole world will follow suit and achieve world peace is an idealistic and frankly naive way of looking at geopolitics.  i am glad that neither you nor bernie will be anywhere near the position to make these types of decisions for the country.   #  she is not cool, she looks awkward when dealing with booing protesters, she does not come up with any sharp come back remarks.   #  i am a german.  lot is of the points you are making would apply to our chancellor angela merkel.  especially before being a chancellor she was known as this awkward looking woman with a really ugly haircut.  she is not cool, she looks awkward when dealing with booing protesters, she does not come up with any sharp come back remarks.  yet somehow she strengthened our position in the eu and the world to a point that according to forbes she is currently the most powerful woman alive.  why is that so ? well, for once she got some style coaching, both for her looks and her body language.  that is part of becoming the representative of a country.  and second, on the international stage it is much different qualities that count.  eloquent rhetoric gets lost in translation.  rational arguments and actual actions matter a lot more.  from what i know about his political stances and voting behavior, sanders is likely to be able to improve the shaken relationship with europe which lost a lot of trust after what we learned from snowden about the nsa.  and it is likely that he might ease the tensions with russia and co as he is less focussed on military.  from a european point of view it seems likely that he will have no problems making friends and allies.
i agree with most of bernie is domestic politics, but foreign policy is a critical aspect of the presidency and i do not think he has what it takes.  to convince me otherwise and thus support bernie , you will need to show me i am wrong about the following points, or that they do not matter: 0 i have never seen him not looking generally flustered and awkward.  working on international issues requires developing personal relationships, thus being good at making friends.  i do not think he is like that.  0 it requires building alliance and persuading people.  bernie is an independent, does not have serious alliances or close friends in congress despite being there for over two decades.  he has not gotten any notable legislation passed.  would he really negotiate the best possible international treaties for the us ? 0 a president needs to be able to understand and navigate everyone is goals.  bernie does not seem to try to understand everyone is motivations but rather just gets angry at people who think differently from him.  e. g.  he says things like  i will never understand why some poor people vote republican  0 being a leader involves standing up to or effectively dealing with bullies and thinking quickly.  he has very little track record of doing this.  and when the blm protesters took his mic at his own rally, he just passively let it happen, seemed a bit bewildered.  it may have been a reasonable decision to let them speak, but he clearly was not in control of the situation.  how could he stand up to putin, khamenei, etc.  ? he is willing to use force and can be quite serious and calculating in describing his military policy: URL URL he does have bipartisan congressional achievements: URL he does make friends with people who disagree with him: URL which includes this statement from chuck schumer:  he knew when to hold and knew when to fold and, i think, maximized what we could get for veterans,  said sen.  chuck schumer, who also participated in the va talks.  he can be quite assertive in a non blustery way: URL and, though it was not exactly contradicting my previous view, he does have a better knowledge of foreign policy nuance than i thought: URL URL  #  it requires building alliance and persuading people.   #  if house members support something he proposes, they will support it.   # i do not think so.  international relations are a lot more formal, involving group meetings discussing legislation and strategies in depth.  the stuff you see in the news of leaders greeting eachother, and holding joint press releases, is a lot different that talking policy in depth behind closed doors.  if house members support something he proposes, they will support it.  if they do not, they wo not.  i do not see your logic.  if anything him being independent is good, since it might persuade people who otherwise look at the  r  or the  d  beside someone is name and decide they hate all their viewpoints without hearing them out.  see what i said earlier.  international politics is not about getting up on a stage and improvising verses in a rap battle.  it is about sitting down, tirelessly looking over policy options, long stages of negotiations, etc.   #  being bad with people/looking awkward does not mean you ca not handle foreign affairs.   #  being bad with people/looking awkward does not mean you ca not handle foreign affairs.  nixon was an extremely awkward, paranoid and generally stiff and unpleasant fellow, but he pulled off some of the greatest foreign policy coups of any president ever.  he opened relations with china, got the north vietnamese to negotiate and initiated the detente with the soviets.  it feels weird to use nixon as an example of a president who did something right, i know, but foreign policy is one area where he deserves some praise.  that said, i do not know enough about sanders to say whether or not he would have foreign policy chops.  just pointing out that looking  generally flustered and awkward  and being incapable of making friends does not mean you wo not be able to have success with regard to foreign affairs.   #  i kinda rewarded them to everyone at once when i decided that overall my view was changed.   #  great point about nixon.  removed delta sorry ! i kinda rewarded them to everyone at once when i decided that overall my view was changed.  your point does show that being awkward does not automatically mean bad foreign policy, so it was a valuable contribution to the discuss ! but i do not think it helps with my opinion of sanders.  in a way, nixon being awkward actually enhanced his foreign policy since he used the  madman  strategy of seeming crazy to extract concessions.  being awkward and a dove would not necessarily work the same.   #  i am glad that neither you nor bernie will be anywhere near the position to make these types of decisions for the country.   #   they took our jobs !   just looking at jobs gives you only part of the story; they are only a part of the economy.  as a whole, there is no doubt that the us benefited from open trade with china.  just google  effect of outsourcing on us economy , and you will see what i mean.  in addition, your proposal of sanctioning china for building up their military in the hopes that the us and the whole world will follow suit and achieve world peace is an idealistic and frankly naive way of looking at geopolitics.  i am glad that neither you nor bernie will be anywhere near the position to make these types of decisions for the country.   #  she is not cool, she looks awkward when dealing with booing protesters, she does not come up with any sharp come back remarks.   #  i am a german.  lot is of the points you are making would apply to our chancellor angela merkel.  especially before being a chancellor she was known as this awkward looking woman with a really ugly haircut.  she is not cool, she looks awkward when dealing with booing protesters, she does not come up with any sharp come back remarks.  yet somehow she strengthened our position in the eu and the world to a point that according to forbes she is currently the most powerful woman alive.  why is that so ? well, for once she got some style coaching, both for her looks and her body language.  that is part of becoming the representative of a country.  and second, on the international stage it is much different qualities that count.  eloquent rhetoric gets lost in translation.  rational arguments and actual actions matter a lot more.  from what i know about his political stances and voting behavior, sanders is likely to be able to improve the shaken relationship with europe which lost a lot of trust after what we learned from snowden about the nsa.  and it is likely that he might ease the tensions with russia and co as he is less focussed on military.  from a european point of view it seems likely that he will have no problems making friends and allies.
fiction merely provides entertainment.  it does not help us grow at all.  there are other sources of information that help us grow much better.  if that is so, what is the point of fiction apart from a source of entertainment that may or may not help us in the long run ? if all it does is provide short term joy, what is the point of it ? is our time not better spent trying to grow ourselves ? why waste our time trying to entertain ourselves when we could just use other forms of relaxation between sessions of growing ourselves ? is that not the goal of life ? to improve and advance our lives and those of others ? or am i wrong ? is fiction truly of some use ? or if it is not of any use, then should we still consume it ? if so, why ? why not simply just exercise, meditate or sleep instead of reading fiction ? what makes fiction a better alternative to those activities ?  #  is that not the goal of life ?  #  to improve and advance our lives and those of others ?  # to improve and advance our lives and those of others ? i think fiction in the form of books is an important way of improving ourselves.  literature has a wonderful way of imparting morals those hours spent hallucinating the words on pages in our minds seems to have a positive effect on people is feelings.  so many people  identified  with the troubles of holden caulfield when they were younger and his reconciliation helped them reconcile something inside themselves, it did for me.  besides, fiction is a great way of expanding our knowledge of history, language, art, and much more.  reading to kill a mockingbird is to be taken back to another time and  live  the experience through the characters in the book.  and some books serve an important social function 0 is hailed as a visionary work.  i love reading fiction, and i know that i am not alone.  when i am reading i am even less alone.   #  scientists like to read fiction too, you know.   # sure.  i did not grow up reading literary fiction.  i read harry potter and other stuff.  it is what introduced me to books.  training wheels.  and i recently started reading grrm is work it is pretty good stuff.  i am not even a fantasy fiction fan, but i have enjoyed it.  well, maybe that is true for you.  i also like reading science studies, but just facts are not context.  studies are not art, and there is some value in art.  scientists like to read fiction too, you know.  : tl;dr: reading fiction makes us more empathetic.   #  my highschool, like many others, used them to help develop our minds.   #  all of the books he mentioned, i was forced to read in highschool.  i never would have picked them up otherwise.  but reading some had profound effects on me, i could relate to people is personalities and experiences and learn the lessons they learned as i lived vicariously.  these are very much young adult books that expand thought.  my highschool, like many others, used them to help develop our minds.   #  reading classical german poetry, like the famous works of goethe, can complement a historical education about central europe in the 0th and 0th century, as well as giving insight into moral and cultural ideas prevalent during that time.   # it does not help us grow at all.  i think you should define what you mean by  growing  here.  do you mean a specific kind of development ? if yes, in what direction ? what skills should we develop or what form of progress should we pursue instead of enjoying entertainment media ? such as ? is not every form of relaxation  entertainment  by definiton ? i would argue yes: fiction, despite being fictional, can still be as useful for intellectual stimulation as traditional education.  here are some examples:   video games like  this war of mine  try to offer a perspective of struggling civilians in a war torn country for those lacking first hand experience of war.  the novel  animal farm  can convey a basic understanding of political and sociolgical development of capitalistic societies into autocratic dictatorships.  reading classical german poetry, like the famous works of goethe, can complement a historical education about central europe in the 0th and 0th century, as well as giving insight into moral and cultural ideas prevalent during that time.  as i tried to point out, the distinction between  waste of time  and  effective use of time  is not that clearly cut.   #  nor does excessive sleep or taking a  contemplative bath .   #  how is a stroll in the park a more effective use of an hour than a few chapters of a book ? would not both, by your definition, be wasting time ? neither improves anything about you in a significant way.  nor does excessive sleep or taking a  contemplative bath .  fiction is a great distraction.  much like meditation or any other use of idle time it allows your mind to continue working on more imperative problems while not focusing on them directly.  fiction may open your eyes to new ideas you would not know to seek out otherwise.  it is an active process so improves many mental functions as well.
fiction merely provides entertainment.  it does not help us grow at all.  there are other sources of information that help us grow much better.  if that is so, what is the point of fiction apart from a source of entertainment that may or may not help us in the long run ? if all it does is provide short term joy, what is the point of it ? is our time not better spent trying to grow ourselves ? why waste our time trying to entertain ourselves when we could just use other forms of relaxation between sessions of growing ourselves ? is that not the goal of life ? to improve and advance our lives and those of others ? or am i wrong ? is fiction truly of some use ? or if it is not of any use, then should we still consume it ? if so, why ? why not simply just exercise, meditate or sleep instead of reading fiction ? what makes fiction a better alternative to those activities ?  #  is that not the goal of life ?  #  to improve and advance our lives and those of others ?  #  no no no no ! it does not help us grow at all.  many people here are arguing this points, saying that fiction provides  more  than entertainment and does help you grow.  while true, i think they are conceding a very important point: what is wrong with being  merely  entertained ? i would say that entertainment has value on itself, and does not need to also be a growth catalyst in order to be  worthy  of our time.  this kind of mindset is the gateway to cultural elitism and belittling those people who prefer being entertained in what you consider a  mindless  way.  entertainment provides desirable and engaging experiences.  people perceive having more of these experiences as something that improves their quality of life, which is a valuable goal on itself.  the reason i go hiking to say an example is not to exercise myself, or being in contact with nature or any other elevated or high minded purpose.  yes, those are all benefits of hiking, but the actual reason i do it is simply that i find it to be an engaging and fun experience on its own.  to improve and advance our lives and those of others ? no ! no no no ! that might be  your  goal for  your  life.  but that does not make it  the  goal of life ! other people might have different goals which are as valid to them as yours is to you.  other people might value having a good quality of life and maximizing the quality and quantity of their personal experiences as more important than gaining knowledge on whatever topic.  this is a false dilemma.  you can do all of those things and still read fiction and consume entertainment.  reading fiction does not stop you from reading, say, an essay if you feel like it.  these are all different things that provide very different kinds of value.   #  reading to kill a mockingbird is to be taken back to another time and  live  the experience through the characters in the book.   # to improve and advance our lives and those of others ? i think fiction in the form of books is an important way of improving ourselves.  literature has a wonderful way of imparting morals those hours spent hallucinating the words on pages in our minds seems to have a positive effect on people is feelings.  so many people  identified  with the troubles of holden caulfield when they were younger and his reconciliation helped them reconcile something inside themselves, it did for me.  besides, fiction is a great way of expanding our knowledge of history, language, art, and much more.  reading to kill a mockingbird is to be taken back to another time and  live  the experience through the characters in the book.  and some books serve an important social function 0 is hailed as a visionary work.  i love reading fiction, and i know that i am not alone.  when i am reading i am even less alone.   #  studies are not art, and there is some value in art.   # sure.  i did not grow up reading literary fiction.  i read harry potter and other stuff.  it is what introduced me to books.  training wheels.  and i recently started reading grrm is work it is pretty good stuff.  i am not even a fantasy fiction fan, but i have enjoyed it.  well, maybe that is true for you.  i also like reading science studies, but just facts are not context.  studies are not art, and there is some value in art.  scientists like to read fiction too, you know.  : tl;dr: reading fiction makes us more empathetic.   #  i never would have picked them up otherwise.   #  all of the books he mentioned, i was forced to read in highschool.  i never would have picked them up otherwise.  but reading some had profound effects on me, i could relate to people is personalities and experiences and learn the lessons they learned as i lived vicariously.  these are very much young adult books that expand thought.  my highschool, like many others, used them to help develop our minds.   #  i think you should define what you mean by  growing  here.   # it does not help us grow at all.  i think you should define what you mean by  growing  here.  do you mean a specific kind of development ? if yes, in what direction ? what skills should we develop or what form of progress should we pursue instead of enjoying entertainment media ? such as ? is not every form of relaxation  entertainment  by definiton ? i would argue yes: fiction, despite being fictional, can still be as useful for intellectual stimulation as traditional education.  here are some examples:   video games like  this war of mine  try to offer a perspective of struggling civilians in a war torn country for those lacking first hand experience of war.  the novel  animal farm  can convey a basic understanding of political and sociolgical development of capitalistic societies into autocratic dictatorships.  reading classical german poetry, like the famous works of goethe, can complement a historical education about central europe in the 0th and 0th century, as well as giving insight into moral and cultural ideas prevalent during that time.  as i tried to point out, the distinction between  waste of time  and  effective use of time  is not that clearly cut.
i run an animal hospital, we have a small kennel, a cleaning staff and a bunch of technicians.  currently, the average staffer makes about $0 per hour.  raising the minimum wage would increase my payroll by 0 and i am not thrilled with that idea.  why not ? because the people i hire are often inexperienced, uneducated and/or have some restrictions on working kids in school, they can only work these hours or those hours, limited mental capacity, etc .  hiring these people is okay with me because the jobs like cleaning cages and walking dogs and mucking stalls are very simple and require very minimal training.  some of my employees do not make much but they are not asked to do very much and their hours are often very flexible.  work with animals in this way can be very forgiving and is often very rewarding.  i find most people in my employ seem to like the work.  if i have to pay $0/hour, well, i can probably get better more qualified, more experienced, better trained people for that much.  if my bare minimum is $0/hour, then suddenly it makes sense to ignore the high school dropouts and part timers and inexperienced folks.  for this new minimum wage i can get experienced assistants and certified techs.  why should i pay so much to others ? this does not help people who have a hard time getting a job, it hurts them.  i will pass them over for somebody who can do the job for real.  for at least $0k rough estimate a year in additional costs, i can do better than what i have got.  why would not people like me just start ignoring the folks who made the old minimum wage and instead go for more qualified people who want the job at this higher minimum wage ? and before anybody tells me what a bad person i am for making money and not caring that people make less than i do, please remember i went to school for a decade and incurred a mountain of debt and i bear all responsibility for what happens in my hospital.  i put in the most work, i bear the greatest burden, take on the most risk, am financially responsible for a dozen other people, and for all that i get to make the most money.  so please help change my view without making me feel like a monster.   #  if i have to pay $0/hour, well, i can probably get better more qualified, more experienced, better trained people for that much.   #  if my bare minimum is $0/hour, then suddenly it makes sense to ignore the high school dropouts and part timers and inexperienced folks.   # why not ? of course you are not thrilled.  no business owner in the country is thrilled that the minimum wage could increase, as it will directly increase their costs.  this holds no bearing on whether or not we should do it, however, since we are primarily concerned with how it will effect the economy as a whole.  and if you do not mind me asking, how many people are you talking about here ? do you have 0 people working minimum wage or 0 people working minimum wage ? if my bare minimum is $0/hour, then suddenly it makes sense to ignore the high school dropouts and part timers and inexperienced folks.  for this new minimum wage i can get experienced assistants and certified techs.  why should i pay so much to others ? you seem to think there is an unlimited pool of workers with degrees that would line up for the 0 an hour.  remember that this will be the new minimum, which means you wo not be paying more than wal mart, sam is club, or subway.  if your job is something rather unpleasant, such as cleaning shit out of cages and stalls, you are going to end up hiring low skilled workers.  and it is not like increasing the minimum wage is going to lead to there being 0 less jobs in the country.  the same people are going to be looking for work, and the same people will be hiring workers.  why are you assuming that there will be this new batch of certified techs that will be applying once the minimum wage is increased ? why are not you doing this now ? if it is because you have no choice, then the jobs those skilled workers are applying to will still exist when the minimum wage is increased, so your situation wo not change.  i personally can understand why you do not want the minimum wage increased, as it will hurt your bottom line at least at first .  however, while i can sympathize, it again is irrelevant to whether or not we should raise the minimum wage.   #  people who have to work two jobs just to make ends meet often feel they ca not afford a dog.   #  you are not thrilled with increasing your payroll costs, but it sounds like you can afford it.  that puts you in the same position as a vast majority of other businesses.  unfortunately for you, the entire point of raising minimum wage is to take money out of the pockets of business owners like you and give it to people who make barely enough to live on.  the rationale for doing this is pretty sound: business owners and investors tend to save at a higher rate than people who live paycheck to paycheck.  a high savings rate means lower overall economic activity.  you park your savings in government treasuries or other long term investments rather than spending it on actual production and services.  poorer people, on the other hand, tend to spend what they have immediately on goods and services they need or want, which means that money in their hands has a much higher gdp  multiplier.   they increase economic activity.  which increases employment, consumption of goods.  it probably means an increase in the number of luxuries like pets in your area and therefore people needing veterinary services as well.  people who have to work two jobs just to make ends meet often feel they ca not afford a dog.  now there is nothing too terrible about a high savings rate.  the problem comes when most of the wealth and income in a country accrues to a small population of individuals.  the more  extra  they have, the more they save, and worse, the more the economy slows down, the more they save.  if instead of buying t bills you give that money to a family of 0 that is trying to live on $0,0 a year, it will get spent on economic output.  in the short term, higher wages would increase your costs or force you to lay off employees , but in the medium term, increased economic activity should also increase your income.   #  the problem right now is that people who are working full time  still  ca not cover basic expenses.   # the argument for a livable minimum wage is that working full time should result in pay that actually covers living expenses.  it is bizarre that a person can have a full time job and be living below the poverty line.  the problem right now is that people who are working full time  still  ca not cover basic expenses.  so in actuality, they have been doing the work, they just have not been getting paid properly for it.  in essence, businesses have been keeping money that, were the system more fair, they should not have been.   #  that ca not be the concern of a business owner i would not think.   # over time inflation has naturally occurred and business owners nearly unilaterally failed to increase wages accordingly making it appear as if it is  their  profit in  their  column when the labor is actually just being devalued.  now it feels as if they are  losing  by increasing the wages backwards towards the worker, even partially.  i feel as if it could also be looked at as a positive from the business owners perspective if he can increase the skill of his workforce simultaneously.  for the unskilled workers that may lose for the short term it sucks, but that is where re training programs or other means are necessary.  that ca not be the concern of a business owner i would not think.  for the part time students there are many solutions to a wage increase there.  just to piggyback on your comment.   #  it is a harsh reality sometimes, but that is just economic fact.   #  i appreciate working in a hard, but low skilled job.  i worked in an industrial freezer as a grocery picker.  it sucked.  and like most teens, i also worked flipping burgers.  also pretty crappy.  but, i am sorry, if someone can not produce something that is of enough value to the general marketplace, then they do not simply  deserve  money just b/c they worked.  working in and of itself should not be the goal it should be working at something that you enjoy, but that the market also values.  and if you spend 0 hrs a day making a widget no one wants, you simply do not deserve money.  again, i know that sounds harsh, but we need to stop encouraging working for the sake of working, and instead trying to fill or create market demand.  i mean, if i quit my job now to go and sell full size elbow macaroni models of infamous dictators, but i ca not sell enough to make it, why should i deserve more or  any  money ? just b/c i am working 0 hours a week, that does not mean i deserve an income if the market does not find my work valuable.  it is a harsh reality sometimes, but that is just economic fact.
i run an animal hospital, we have a small kennel, a cleaning staff and a bunch of technicians.  currently, the average staffer makes about $0 per hour.  raising the minimum wage would increase my payroll by 0 and i am not thrilled with that idea.  why not ? because the people i hire are often inexperienced, uneducated and/or have some restrictions on working kids in school, they can only work these hours or those hours, limited mental capacity, etc .  hiring these people is okay with me because the jobs like cleaning cages and walking dogs and mucking stalls are very simple and require very minimal training.  some of my employees do not make much but they are not asked to do very much and their hours are often very flexible.  work with animals in this way can be very forgiving and is often very rewarding.  i find most people in my employ seem to like the work.  if i have to pay $0/hour, well, i can probably get better more qualified, more experienced, better trained people for that much.  if my bare minimum is $0/hour, then suddenly it makes sense to ignore the high school dropouts and part timers and inexperienced folks.  for this new minimum wage i can get experienced assistants and certified techs.  why should i pay so much to others ? this does not help people who have a hard time getting a job, it hurts them.  i will pass them over for somebody who can do the job for real.  for at least $0k rough estimate a year in additional costs, i can do better than what i have got.  why would not people like me just start ignoring the folks who made the old minimum wage and instead go for more qualified people who want the job at this higher minimum wage ? and before anybody tells me what a bad person i am for making money and not caring that people make less than i do, please remember i went to school for a decade and incurred a mountain of debt and i bear all responsibility for what happens in my hospital.  i put in the most work, i bear the greatest burden, take on the most risk, am financially responsible for a dozen other people, and for all that i get to make the most money.  so please help change my view without making me feel like a monster.   #  why would not people like me just start ignoring the folks who made the old minimum wage and instead go for more qualified people who want the job at this higher minimum wage ?  #  why are not you doing this now ?  # why not ? of course you are not thrilled.  no business owner in the country is thrilled that the minimum wage could increase, as it will directly increase their costs.  this holds no bearing on whether or not we should do it, however, since we are primarily concerned with how it will effect the economy as a whole.  and if you do not mind me asking, how many people are you talking about here ? do you have 0 people working minimum wage or 0 people working minimum wage ? if my bare minimum is $0/hour, then suddenly it makes sense to ignore the high school dropouts and part timers and inexperienced folks.  for this new minimum wage i can get experienced assistants and certified techs.  why should i pay so much to others ? you seem to think there is an unlimited pool of workers with degrees that would line up for the 0 an hour.  remember that this will be the new minimum, which means you wo not be paying more than wal mart, sam is club, or subway.  if your job is something rather unpleasant, such as cleaning shit out of cages and stalls, you are going to end up hiring low skilled workers.  and it is not like increasing the minimum wage is going to lead to there being 0 less jobs in the country.  the same people are going to be looking for work, and the same people will be hiring workers.  why are you assuming that there will be this new batch of certified techs that will be applying once the minimum wage is increased ? why are not you doing this now ? if it is because you have no choice, then the jobs those skilled workers are applying to will still exist when the minimum wage is increased, so your situation wo not change.  i personally can understand why you do not want the minimum wage increased, as it will hurt your bottom line at least at first .  however, while i can sympathize, it again is irrelevant to whether or not we should raise the minimum wage.   #  that puts you in the same position as a vast majority of other businesses.   #  you are not thrilled with increasing your payroll costs, but it sounds like you can afford it.  that puts you in the same position as a vast majority of other businesses.  unfortunately for you, the entire point of raising minimum wage is to take money out of the pockets of business owners like you and give it to people who make barely enough to live on.  the rationale for doing this is pretty sound: business owners and investors tend to save at a higher rate than people who live paycheck to paycheck.  a high savings rate means lower overall economic activity.  you park your savings in government treasuries or other long term investments rather than spending it on actual production and services.  poorer people, on the other hand, tend to spend what they have immediately on goods and services they need or want, which means that money in their hands has a much higher gdp  multiplier.   they increase economic activity.  which increases employment, consumption of goods.  it probably means an increase in the number of luxuries like pets in your area and therefore people needing veterinary services as well.  people who have to work two jobs just to make ends meet often feel they ca not afford a dog.  now there is nothing too terrible about a high savings rate.  the problem comes when most of the wealth and income in a country accrues to a small population of individuals.  the more  extra  they have, the more they save, and worse, the more the economy slows down, the more they save.  if instead of buying t bills you give that money to a family of 0 that is trying to live on $0,0 a year, it will get spent on economic output.  in the short term, higher wages would increase your costs or force you to lay off employees , but in the medium term, increased economic activity should also increase your income.   #  in essence, businesses have been keeping money that, were the system more fair, they should not have been.   # the argument for a livable minimum wage is that working full time should result in pay that actually covers living expenses.  it is bizarre that a person can have a full time job and be living below the poverty line.  the problem right now is that people who are working full time  still  ca not cover basic expenses.  so in actuality, they have been doing the work, they just have not been getting paid properly for it.  in essence, businesses have been keeping money that, were the system more fair, they should not have been.   #  over time inflation has naturally occurred and business owners nearly unilaterally failed to increase wages accordingly making it appear as if it is  their  profit in  their  column when the labor is actually just being devalued.   # over time inflation has naturally occurred and business owners nearly unilaterally failed to increase wages accordingly making it appear as if it is  their  profit in  their  column when the labor is actually just being devalued.  now it feels as if they are  losing  by increasing the wages backwards towards the worker, even partially.  i feel as if it could also be looked at as a positive from the business owners perspective if he can increase the skill of his workforce simultaneously.  for the unskilled workers that may lose for the short term it sucks, but that is where re training programs or other means are necessary.  that ca not be the concern of a business owner i would not think.  for the part time students there are many solutions to a wage increase there.  just to piggyback on your comment.   #  i appreciate working in a hard, but low skilled job.   #  i appreciate working in a hard, but low skilled job.  i worked in an industrial freezer as a grocery picker.  it sucked.  and like most teens, i also worked flipping burgers.  also pretty crappy.  but, i am sorry, if someone can not produce something that is of enough value to the general marketplace, then they do not simply  deserve  money just b/c they worked.  working in and of itself should not be the goal it should be working at something that you enjoy, but that the market also values.  and if you spend 0 hrs a day making a widget no one wants, you simply do not deserve money.  again, i know that sounds harsh, but we need to stop encouraging working for the sake of working, and instead trying to fill or create market demand.  i mean, if i quit my job now to go and sell full size elbow macaroni models of infamous dictators, but i ca not sell enough to make it, why should i deserve more or  any  money ? just b/c i am working 0 hours a week, that does not mean i deserve an income if the market does not find my work valuable.  it is a harsh reality sometimes, but that is just economic fact.
i run an animal hospital, we have a small kennel, a cleaning staff and a bunch of technicians.  currently, the average staffer makes about $0 per hour.  raising the minimum wage would increase my payroll by 0 and i am not thrilled with that idea.  why not ? because the people i hire are often inexperienced, uneducated and/or have some restrictions on working kids in school, they can only work these hours or those hours, limited mental capacity, etc .  hiring these people is okay with me because the jobs like cleaning cages and walking dogs and mucking stalls are very simple and require very minimal training.  some of my employees do not make much but they are not asked to do very much and their hours are often very flexible.  work with animals in this way can be very forgiving and is often very rewarding.  i find most people in my employ seem to like the work.  if i have to pay $0/hour, well, i can probably get better more qualified, more experienced, better trained people for that much.  if my bare minimum is $0/hour, then suddenly it makes sense to ignore the high school dropouts and part timers and inexperienced folks.  for this new minimum wage i can get experienced assistants and certified techs.  why should i pay so much to others ? this does not help people who have a hard time getting a job, it hurts them.  i will pass them over for somebody who can do the job for real.  for at least $0k rough estimate a year in additional costs, i can do better than what i have got.  why would not people like me just start ignoring the folks who made the old minimum wage and instead go for more qualified people who want the job at this higher minimum wage ? and before anybody tells me what a bad person i am for making money and not caring that people make less than i do, please remember i went to school for a decade and incurred a mountain of debt and i bear all responsibility for what happens in my hospital.  i put in the most work, i bear the greatest burden, take on the most risk, am financially responsible for a dozen other people, and for all that i get to make the most money.  so please help change my view without making me feel like a monster.   #  if i have to pay $0/hour, well, i can probably get better more qualified, more experienced, better trained people for that much.   #  if my bare minimum is $0/hour, then suddenly it makes sense to ignore the high school dropouts and part timers and inexperienced folks.   # if my bare minimum is $0/hour, then suddenly it makes sense to ignore the high school dropouts and part timers and inexperienced folks.  for this new minimum wage i can get experienced assistants and certified techs.  why should i pay so much to others ? this does not help people who have a hard time getting a job, it hurts them.  i will pass them over for somebody who can do the job for real.  i think this is one of the key misunderstandings here.  if you can make $0 cleaning out your stalls or $0 an hour working the register at mcdonalds, you may take the $0 job because you need that difference in pay.  but if they suddenly both pay $0, you will find many people head to mcdonalds for an  easier  job or just a more preferred job say a food service vs animal care preference .  at which point, you can now hire the vet techs and assistants that are also comfortable working at $0 in a field they love without needing to be concerned about the people that you used to hire.  and as a positive side effect, the employees who just found themselves with a $0/hr raise will now have more disposable income to pay for things like pets and pet care services.  even if you need to raise prices for the $0,0 figure you would need to earn another $0 average per day , you will have a broader customer base with more money to spend to do it and you will be providing a higher class of service to those customers through your upgraded workforce which will drive repeat business and customer satisfaction.   #  people who have to work two jobs just to make ends meet often feel they ca not afford a dog.   #  you are not thrilled with increasing your payroll costs, but it sounds like you can afford it.  that puts you in the same position as a vast majority of other businesses.  unfortunately for you, the entire point of raising minimum wage is to take money out of the pockets of business owners like you and give it to people who make barely enough to live on.  the rationale for doing this is pretty sound: business owners and investors tend to save at a higher rate than people who live paycheck to paycheck.  a high savings rate means lower overall economic activity.  you park your savings in government treasuries or other long term investments rather than spending it on actual production and services.  poorer people, on the other hand, tend to spend what they have immediately on goods and services they need or want, which means that money in their hands has a much higher gdp  multiplier.   they increase economic activity.  which increases employment, consumption of goods.  it probably means an increase in the number of luxuries like pets in your area and therefore people needing veterinary services as well.  people who have to work two jobs just to make ends meet often feel they ca not afford a dog.  now there is nothing too terrible about a high savings rate.  the problem comes when most of the wealth and income in a country accrues to a small population of individuals.  the more  extra  they have, the more they save, and worse, the more the economy slows down, the more they save.  if instead of buying t bills you give that money to a family of 0 that is trying to live on $0,0 a year, it will get spent on economic output.  in the short term, higher wages would increase your costs or force you to lay off employees , but in the medium term, increased economic activity should also increase your income.   #  the problem right now is that people who are working full time  still  ca not cover basic expenses.   # the argument for a livable minimum wage is that working full time should result in pay that actually covers living expenses.  it is bizarre that a person can have a full time job and be living below the poverty line.  the problem right now is that people who are working full time  still  ca not cover basic expenses.  so in actuality, they have been doing the work, they just have not been getting paid properly for it.  in essence, businesses have been keeping money that, were the system more fair, they should not have been.   #  i feel as if it could also be looked at as a positive from the business owners perspective if he can increase the skill of his workforce simultaneously.   # over time inflation has naturally occurred and business owners nearly unilaterally failed to increase wages accordingly making it appear as if it is  their  profit in  their  column when the labor is actually just being devalued.  now it feels as if they are  losing  by increasing the wages backwards towards the worker, even partially.  i feel as if it could also be looked at as a positive from the business owners perspective if he can increase the skill of his workforce simultaneously.  for the unskilled workers that may lose for the short term it sucks, but that is where re training programs or other means are necessary.  that ca not be the concern of a business owner i would not think.  for the part time students there are many solutions to a wage increase there.  just to piggyback on your comment.   #  it is a harsh reality sometimes, but that is just economic fact.   #  i appreciate working in a hard, but low skilled job.  i worked in an industrial freezer as a grocery picker.  it sucked.  and like most teens, i also worked flipping burgers.  also pretty crappy.  but, i am sorry, if someone can not produce something that is of enough value to the general marketplace, then they do not simply  deserve  money just b/c they worked.  working in and of itself should not be the goal it should be working at something that you enjoy, but that the market also values.  and if you spend 0 hrs a day making a widget no one wants, you simply do not deserve money.  again, i know that sounds harsh, but we need to stop encouraging working for the sake of working, and instead trying to fill or create market demand.  i mean, if i quit my job now to go and sell full size elbow macaroni models of infamous dictators, but i ca not sell enough to make it, why should i deserve more or  any  money ? just b/c i am working 0 hours a week, that does not mean i deserve an income if the market does not find my work valuable.  it is a harsh reality sometimes, but that is just economic fact.
i run an animal hospital, we have a small kennel, a cleaning staff and a bunch of technicians.  currently, the average staffer makes about $0 per hour.  raising the minimum wage would increase my payroll by 0 and i am not thrilled with that idea.  why not ? because the people i hire are often inexperienced, uneducated and/or have some restrictions on working kids in school, they can only work these hours or those hours, limited mental capacity, etc .  hiring these people is okay with me because the jobs like cleaning cages and walking dogs and mucking stalls are very simple and require very minimal training.  some of my employees do not make much but they are not asked to do very much and their hours are often very flexible.  work with animals in this way can be very forgiving and is often very rewarding.  i find most people in my employ seem to like the work.  if i have to pay $0/hour, well, i can probably get better more qualified, more experienced, better trained people for that much.  if my bare minimum is $0/hour, then suddenly it makes sense to ignore the high school dropouts and part timers and inexperienced folks.  for this new minimum wage i can get experienced assistants and certified techs.  why should i pay so much to others ? this does not help people who have a hard time getting a job, it hurts them.  i will pass them over for somebody who can do the job for real.  for at least $0k rough estimate a year in additional costs, i can do better than what i have got.  why would not people like me just start ignoring the folks who made the old minimum wage and instead go for more qualified people who want the job at this higher minimum wage ? and before anybody tells me what a bad person i am for making money and not caring that people make less than i do, please remember i went to school for a decade and incurred a mountain of debt and i bear all responsibility for what happens in my hospital.  i put in the most work, i bear the greatest burden, take on the most risk, am financially responsible for a dozen other people, and for all that i get to make the most money.  so please help change my view without making me feel like a monster.   #  if i have to pay $0/hour, well, i can probably get better more qualified, more experienced, better trained people for that much.   #  if my bare minimum is $0/hour, then suddenly it makes sense to ignore the high school dropouts and part timers and inexperienced folks.   # if my bare minimum is $0/hour, then suddenly it makes sense to ignore the high school dropouts and part timers and inexperienced folks.  for this new minimum wage i can get experienced assistants and certified techs.  this is the crux of your argument: an increased minimum wage will encourage you and other employers to drop your current employees and hire more qualified people, who at the moment are satisfied with $0 per hour.  but they are only satisfied with $0 per hour because it is double minimum wage.  do you think they spent money on qualifications, or put time in at this industry, so they could make the same as a greeter at wal mart ? no, they did not.  the ones with certifications may still have debts to pay for that training.  and, there are only so many of them.  they are going to want more than minimum, and you are going to have to pay them more than minimum if you want them instead of your current staff.  which is exactly the same situation you are in now, in which you choose not to hire more qualified people for what are undoubtedly excellent business reasons.  because they wo not want the job at the new minimum wage.  they will want higher than minimum wage, to reflect their training and experience.  just as you, quite reasonably, expect to make a profit because of your training, and the time you have put into your practice, they will expect some premium on wages because of the time and/or money they have put into their training.  it is fair for you to have those expectations, and it is fair for them.   #  if instead of buying t bills you give that money to a family of 0 that is trying to live on $0,0 a year, it will get spent on economic output.   #  you are not thrilled with increasing your payroll costs, but it sounds like you can afford it.  that puts you in the same position as a vast majority of other businesses.  unfortunately for you, the entire point of raising minimum wage is to take money out of the pockets of business owners like you and give it to people who make barely enough to live on.  the rationale for doing this is pretty sound: business owners and investors tend to save at a higher rate than people who live paycheck to paycheck.  a high savings rate means lower overall economic activity.  you park your savings in government treasuries or other long term investments rather than spending it on actual production and services.  poorer people, on the other hand, tend to spend what they have immediately on goods and services they need or want, which means that money in their hands has a much higher gdp  multiplier.   they increase economic activity.  which increases employment, consumption of goods.  it probably means an increase in the number of luxuries like pets in your area and therefore people needing veterinary services as well.  people who have to work two jobs just to make ends meet often feel they ca not afford a dog.  now there is nothing too terrible about a high savings rate.  the problem comes when most of the wealth and income in a country accrues to a small population of individuals.  the more  extra  they have, the more they save, and worse, the more the economy slows down, the more they save.  if instead of buying t bills you give that money to a family of 0 that is trying to live on $0,0 a year, it will get spent on economic output.  in the short term, higher wages would increase your costs or force you to lay off employees , but in the medium term, increased economic activity should also increase your income.   #  the problem right now is that people who are working full time  still  ca not cover basic expenses.   # the argument for a livable minimum wage is that working full time should result in pay that actually covers living expenses.  it is bizarre that a person can have a full time job and be living below the poverty line.  the problem right now is that people who are working full time  still  ca not cover basic expenses.  so in actuality, they have been doing the work, they just have not been getting paid properly for it.  in essence, businesses have been keeping money that, were the system more fair, they should not have been.   #  now it feels as if they are  losing  by increasing the wages backwards towards the worker, even partially.   # over time inflation has naturally occurred and business owners nearly unilaterally failed to increase wages accordingly making it appear as if it is  their  profit in  their  column when the labor is actually just being devalued.  now it feels as if they are  losing  by increasing the wages backwards towards the worker, even partially.  i feel as if it could also be looked at as a positive from the business owners perspective if he can increase the skill of his workforce simultaneously.  for the unskilled workers that may lose for the short term it sucks, but that is where re training programs or other means are necessary.  that ca not be the concern of a business owner i would not think.  for the part time students there are many solutions to a wage increase there.  just to piggyback on your comment.   #  and if you spend 0 hrs a day making a widget no one wants, you simply do not deserve money.   #  i appreciate working in a hard, but low skilled job.  i worked in an industrial freezer as a grocery picker.  it sucked.  and like most teens, i also worked flipping burgers.  also pretty crappy.  but, i am sorry, if someone can not produce something that is of enough value to the general marketplace, then they do not simply  deserve  money just b/c they worked.  working in and of itself should not be the goal it should be working at something that you enjoy, but that the market also values.  and if you spend 0 hrs a day making a widget no one wants, you simply do not deserve money.  again, i know that sounds harsh, but we need to stop encouraging working for the sake of working, and instead trying to fill or create market demand.  i mean, if i quit my job now to go and sell full size elbow macaroni models of infamous dictators, but i ca not sell enough to make it, why should i deserve more or  any  money ? just b/c i am working 0 hours a week, that does not mean i deserve an income if the market does not find my work valuable.  it is a harsh reality sometimes, but that is just economic fact.
i run an animal hospital, we have a small kennel, a cleaning staff and a bunch of technicians.  currently, the average staffer makes about $0 per hour.  raising the minimum wage would increase my payroll by 0 and i am not thrilled with that idea.  why not ? because the people i hire are often inexperienced, uneducated and/or have some restrictions on working kids in school, they can only work these hours or those hours, limited mental capacity, etc .  hiring these people is okay with me because the jobs like cleaning cages and walking dogs and mucking stalls are very simple and require very minimal training.  some of my employees do not make much but they are not asked to do very much and their hours are often very flexible.  work with animals in this way can be very forgiving and is often very rewarding.  i find most people in my employ seem to like the work.  if i have to pay $0/hour, well, i can probably get better more qualified, more experienced, better trained people for that much.  if my bare minimum is $0/hour, then suddenly it makes sense to ignore the high school dropouts and part timers and inexperienced folks.  for this new minimum wage i can get experienced assistants and certified techs.  why should i pay so much to others ? this does not help people who have a hard time getting a job, it hurts them.  i will pass them over for somebody who can do the job for real.  for at least $0k rough estimate a year in additional costs, i can do better than what i have got.  why would not people like me just start ignoring the folks who made the old minimum wage and instead go for more qualified people who want the job at this higher minimum wage ? and before anybody tells me what a bad person i am for making money and not caring that people make less than i do, please remember i went to school for a decade and incurred a mountain of debt and i bear all responsibility for what happens in my hospital.  i put in the most work, i bear the greatest burden, take on the most risk, am financially responsible for a dozen other people, and for all that i get to make the most money.  so please help change my view without making me feel like a monster.   #  why would not people like me just start ignoring the folks who made the old minimum wage and instead go for more qualified people who want the job at this higher minimum wage ?  #  because they wo not want the job at the new minimum wage.   # if my bare minimum is $0/hour, then suddenly it makes sense to ignore the high school dropouts and part timers and inexperienced folks.  for this new minimum wage i can get experienced assistants and certified techs.  this is the crux of your argument: an increased minimum wage will encourage you and other employers to drop your current employees and hire more qualified people, who at the moment are satisfied with $0 per hour.  but they are only satisfied with $0 per hour because it is double minimum wage.  do you think they spent money on qualifications, or put time in at this industry, so they could make the same as a greeter at wal mart ? no, they did not.  the ones with certifications may still have debts to pay for that training.  and, there are only so many of them.  they are going to want more than minimum, and you are going to have to pay them more than minimum if you want them instead of your current staff.  which is exactly the same situation you are in now, in which you choose not to hire more qualified people for what are undoubtedly excellent business reasons.  because they wo not want the job at the new minimum wage.  they will want higher than minimum wage, to reflect their training and experience.  just as you, quite reasonably, expect to make a profit because of your training, and the time you have put into your practice, they will expect some premium on wages because of the time and/or money they have put into their training.  it is fair for you to have those expectations, and it is fair for them.   #  poorer people, on the other hand, tend to spend what they have immediately on goods and services they need or want, which means that money in their hands has a much higher gdp  multiplier.    #  you are not thrilled with increasing your payroll costs, but it sounds like you can afford it.  that puts you in the same position as a vast majority of other businesses.  unfortunately for you, the entire point of raising minimum wage is to take money out of the pockets of business owners like you and give it to people who make barely enough to live on.  the rationale for doing this is pretty sound: business owners and investors tend to save at a higher rate than people who live paycheck to paycheck.  a high savings rate means lower overall economic activity.  you park your savings in government treasuries or other long term investments rather than spending it on actual production and services.  poorer people, on the other hand, tend to spend what they have immediately on goods and services they need or want, which means that money in their hands has a much higher gdp  multiplier.   they increase economic activity.  which increases employment, consumption of goods.  it probably means an increase in the number of luxuries like pets in your area and therefore people needing veterinary services as well.  people who have to work two jobs just to make ends meet often feel they ca not afford a dog.  now there is nothing too terrible about a high savings rate.  the problem comes when most of the wealth and income in a country accrues to a small population of individuals.  the more  extra  they have, the more they save, and worse, the more the economy slows down, the more they save.  if instead of buying t bills you give that money to a family of 0 that is trying to live on $0,0 a year, it will get spent on economic output.  in the short term, higher wages would increase your costs or force you to lay off employees , but in the medium term, increased economic activity should also increase your income.   #  the problem right now is that people who are working full time  still  ca not cover basic expenses.   # the argument for a livable minimum wage is that working full time should result in pay that actually covers living expenses.  it is bizarre that a person can have a full time job and be living below the poverty line.  the problem right now is that people who are working full time  still  ca not cover basic expenses.  so in actuality, they have been doing the work, they just have not been getting paid properly for it.  in essence, businesses have been keeping money that, were the system more fair, they should not have been.   #  for the unskilled workers that may lose for the short term it sucks, but that is where re training programs or other means are necessary.   # over time inflation has naturally occurred and business owners nearly unilaterally failed to increase wages accordingly making it appear as if it is  their  profit in  their  column when the labor is actually just being devalued.  now it feels as if they are  losing  by increasing the wages backwards towards the worker, even partially.  i feel as if it could also be looked at as a positive from the business owners perspective if he can increase the skill of his workforce simultaneously.  for the unskilled workers that may lose for the short term it sucks, but that is where re training programs or other means are necessary.  that ca not be the concern of a business owner i would not think.  for the part time students there are many solutions to a wage increase there.  just to piggyback on your comment.   #  and if you spend 0 hrs a day making a widget no one wants, you simply do not deserve money.   #  i appreciate working in a hard, but low skilled job.  i worked in an industrial freezer as a grocery picker.  it sucked.  and like most teens, i also worked flipping burgers.  also pretty crappy.  but, i am sorry, if someone can not produce something that is of enough value to the general marketplace, then they do not simply  deserve  money just b/c they worked.  working in and of itself should not be the goal it should be working at something that you enjoy, but that the market also values.  and if you spend 0 hrs a day making a widget no one wants, you simply do not deserve money.  again, i know that sounds harsh, but we need to stop encouraging working for the sake of working, and instead trying to fill or create market demand.  i mean, if i quit my job now to go and sell full size elbow macaroni models of infamous dictators, but i ca not sell enough to make it, why should i deserve more or  any  money ? just b/c i am working 0 hours a week, that does not mean i deserve an income if the market does not find my work valuable.  it is a harsh reality sometimes, but that is just economic fact.
i run an animal hospital, we have a small kennel, a cleaning staff and a bunch of technicians.  currently, the average staffer makes about $0 per hour.  raising the minimum wage would increase my payroll by 0 and i am not thrilled with that idea.  why not ? because the people i hire are often inexperienced, uneducated and/or have some restrictions on working kids in school, they can only work these hours or those hours, limited mental capacity, etc .  hiring these people is okay with me because the jobs like cleaning cages and walking dogs and mucking stalls are very simple and require very minimal training.  some of my employees do not make much but they are not asked to do very much and their hours are often very flexible.  work with animals in this way can be very forgiving and is often very rewarding.  i find most people in my employ seem to like the work.  if i have to pay $0/hour, well, i can probably get better more qualified, more experienced, better trained people for that much.  if my bare minimum is $0/hour, then suddenly it makes sense to ignore the high school dropouts and part timers and inexperienced folks.  for this new minimum wage i can get experienced assistants and certified techs.  why should i pay so much to others ? this does not help people who have a hard time getting a job, it hurts them.  i will pass them over for somebody who can do the job for real.  for at least $0k rough estimate a year in additional costs, i can do better than what i have got.  why would not people like me just start ignoring the folks who made the old minimum wage and instead go for more qualified people who want the job at this higher minimum wage ? and before anybody tells me what a bad person i am for making money and not caring that people make less than i do, please remember i went to school for a decade and incurred a mountain of debt and i bear all responsibility for what happens in my hospital.  i put in the most work, i bear the greatest burden, take on the most risk, am financially responsible for a dozen other people, and for all that i get to make the most money.  so please help change my view without making me feel like a monster.   #  if i have to pay $0/hour, well, i can probably get better more qualified, more experienced, better trained people for that much.   #  if my bare minimum is $0/hour, then suddenly it makes sense to ignore the high school dropouts and part timers and inexperienced folks.   #  disclaimer: i am not trying to change your view, i want to ask a question about one of your thought processes.  if my bare minimum is $0/hour, then suddenly it makes sense to ignore the high school dropouts and part timers and inexperienced folks.  for this new minimum wage i can get experienced assistants and certified techs.  why should i pay so much to others ? this does not help people who have a hard time getting a job, it hurts them.  i will pass them over for somebody who can do the job for real.  for at least $0k rough estimate a year in additional costs, i can do better than what i have got.  this line of reasoning has always confused me.  if the minimum wage is increased to 0/hr, what makes people think that the people whose labor used to command a 0/hr wage wo not want more compensation ? as a skilled employee, if the minimum wage encroached on my current salary, then i would assume i should request more pay as the minimum wage should reflect the lowest possible pay for the most unemployable person.  which i am not.  rephrased, how do you suppose you will get more skilled workers for the same cost as you are required to pay unskilled workers ? i think you will have to rethink that 0k figure.   #  you are not thrilled with increasing your payroll costs, but it sounds like you can afford it.   #  you are not thrilled with increasing your payroll costs, but it sounds like you can afford it.  that puts you in the same position as a vast majority of other businesses.  unfortunately for you, the entire point of raising minimum wage is to take money out of the pockets of business owners like you and give it to people who make barely enough to live on.  the rationale for doing this is pretty sound: business owners and investors tend to save at a higher rate than people who live paycheck to paycheck.  a high savings rate means lower overall economic activity.  you park your savings in government treasuries or other long term investments rather than spending it on actual production and services.  poorer people, on the other hand, tend to spend what they have immediately on goods and services they need or want, which means that money in their hands has a much higher gdp  multiplier.   they increase economic activity.  which increases employment, consumption of goods.  it probably means an increase in the number of luxuries like pets in your area and therefore people needing veterinary services as well.  people who have to work two jobs just to make ends meet often feel they ca not afford a dog.  now there is nothing too terrible about a high savings rate.  the problem comes when most of the wealth and income in a country accrues to a small population of individuals.  the more  extra  they have, the more they save, and worse, the more the economy slows down, the more they save.  if instead of buying t bills you give that money to a family of 0 that is trying to live on $0,0 a year, it will get spent on economic output.  in the short term, higher wages would increase your costs or force you to lay off employees , but in the medium term, increased economic activity should also increase your income.   #  so in actuality, they have been doing the work, they just have not been getting paid properly for it.   # the argument for a livable minimum wage is that working full time should result in pay that actually covers living expenses.  it is bizarre that a person can have a full time job and be living below the poverty line.  the problem right now is that people who are working full time  still  ca not cover basic expenses.  so in actuality, they have been doing the work, they just have not been getting paid properly for it.  in essence, businesses have been keeping money that, were the system more fair, they should not have been.   #  i feel as if it could also be looked at as a positive from the business owners perspective if he can increase the skill of his workforce simultaneously.   # over time inflation has naturally occurred and business owners nearly unilaterally failed to increase wages accordingly making it appear as if it is  their  profit in  their  column when the labor is actually just being devalued.  now it feels as if they are  losing  by increasing the wages backwards towards the worker, even partially.  i feel as if it could also be looked at as a positive from the business owners perspective if he can increase the skill of his workforce simultaneously.  for the unskilled workers that may lose for the short term it sucks, but that is where re training programs or other means are necessary.  that ca not be the concern of a business owner i would not think.  for the part time students there are many solutions to a wage increase there.  just to piggyback on your comment.   #  and like most teens, i also worked flipping burgers.   #  i appreciate working in a hard, but low skilled job.  i worked in an industrial freezer as a grocery picker.  it sucked.  and like most teens, i also worked flipping burgers.  also pretty crappy.  but, i am sorry, if someone can not produce something that is of enough value to the general marketplace, then they do not simply  deserve  money just b/c they worked.  working in and of itself should not be the goal it should be working at something that you enjoy, but that the market also values.  and if you spend 0 hrs a day making a widget no one wants, you simply do not deserve money.  again, i know that sounds harsh, but we need to stop encouraging working for the sake of working, and instead trying to fill or create market demand.  i mean, if i quit my job now to go and sell full size elbow macaroni models of infamous dictators, but i ca not sell enough to make it, why should i deserve more or  any  money ? just b/c i am working 0 hours a week, that does not mean i deserve an income if the market does not find my work valuable.  it is a harsh reality sometimes, but that is just economic fact.
i run an animal hospital, we have a small kennel, a cleaning staff and a bunch of technicians.  currently, the average staffer makes about $0 per hour.  raising the minimum wage would increase my payroll by 0 and i am not thrilled with that idea.  why not ? because the people i hire are often inexperienced, uneducated and/or have some restrictions on working kids in school, they can only work these hours or those hours, limited mental capacity, etc .  hiring these people is okay with me because the jobs like cleaning cages and walking dogs and mucking stalls are very simple and require very minimal training.  some of my employees do not make much but they are not asked to do very much and their hours are often very flexible.  work with animals in this way can be very forgiving and is often very rewarding.  i find most people in my employ seem to like the work.  if i have to pay $0/hour, well, i can probably get better more qualified, more experienced, better trained people for that much.  if my bare minimum is $0/hour, then suddenly it makes sense to ignore the high school dropouts and part timers and inexperienced folks.  for this new minimum wage i can get experienced assistants and certified techs.  why should i pay so much to others ? this does not help people who have a hard time getting a job, it hurts them.  i will pass them over for somebody who can do the job for real.  for at least $0k rough estimate a year in additional costs, i can do better than what i have got.  why would not people like me just start ignoring the folks who made the old minimum wage and instead go for more qualified people who want the job at this higher minimum wage ? and before anybody tells me what a bad person i am for making money and not caring that people make less than i do, please remember i went to school for a decade and incurred a mountain of debt and i bear all responsibility for what happens in my hospital.  i put in the most work, i bear the greatest burden, take on the most risk, am financially responsible for a dozen other people, and for all that i get to make the most money.  so please help change my view without making me feel like a monster.   #  if i have to pay $0/hour, well, i can probably get better more qualified, more experienced, better trained people for that much.   #  if my bare minimum is $0/hour, then suddenly it makes sense to ignore the high school dropouts and part timers and inexperienced folks.   # if my bare minimum is $0/hour, then suddenly it makes sense to ignore the high school dropouts and part timers and inexperienced folks.  for this new minimum wage i can get experienced assistants and certified techs.  actually.  probably not.  you can get experienced assistants and certified techs for $0/hr  right now , but if that became the new minimum wage, that would also tend drive up all wages in general eventually, there will be an adjustment period .  after all, if they are experienced assistants and certified techs, why would they be willing to work for only minimum wage ? they should still be able to demand more then minimum wage with their experience and certifications just like they do now, should not they ? in fact all i would expect to see happening in the long run is higher wages for the same skills and experience, higher payroll costs, higher prices for goods and services, increased automation due to the better cost/benefit, and loss of the jobs that were automated.   #  that puts you in the same position as a vast majority of other businesses.   #  you are not thrilled with increasing your payroll costs, but it sounds like you can afford it.  that puts you in the same position as a vast majority of other businesses.  unfortunately for you, the entire point of raising minimum wage is to take money out of the pockets of business owners like you and give it to people who make barely enough to live on.  the rationale for doing this is pretty sound: business owners and investors tend to save at a higher rate than people who live paycheck to paycheck.  a high savings rate means lower overall economic activity.  you park your savings in government treasuries or other long term investments rather than spending it on actual production and services.  poorer people, on the other hand, tend to spend what they have immediately on goods and services they need or want, which means that money in their hands has a much higher gdp  multiplier.   they increase economic activity.  which increases employment, consumption of goods.  it probably means an increase in the number of luxuries like pets in your area and therefore people needing veterinary services as well.  people who have to work two jobs just to make ends meet often feel they ca not afford a dog.  now there is nothing too terrible about a high savings rate.  the problem comes when most of the wealth and income in a country accrues to a small population of individuals.  the more  extra  they have, the more they save, and worse, the more the economy slows down, the more they save.  if instead of buying t bills you give that money to a family of 0 that is trying to live on $0,0 a year, it will get spent on economic output.  in the short term, higher wages would increase your costs or force you to lay off employees , but in the medium term, increased economic activity should also increase your income.   #  it is bizarre that a person can have a full time job and be living below the poverty line.   # the argument for a livable minimum wage is that working full time should result in pay that actually covers living expenses.  it is bizarre that a person can have a full time job and be living below the poverty line.  the problem right now is that people who are working full time  still  ca not cover basic expenses.  so in actuality, they have been doing the work, they just have not been getting paid properly for it.  in essence, businesses have been keeping money that, were the system more fair, they should not have been.   #  for the unskilled workers that may lose for the short term it sucks, but that is where re training programs or other means are necessary.   # over time inflation has naturally occurred and business owners nearly unilaterally failed to increase wages accordingly making it appear as if it is  their  profit in  their  column when the labor is actually just being devalued.  now it feels as if they are  losing  by increasing the wages backwards towards the worker, even partially.  i feel as if it could also be looked at as a positive from the business owners perspective if he can increase the skill of his workforce simultaneously.  for the unskilled workers that may lose for the short term it sucks, but that is where re training programs or other means are necessary.  that ca not be the concern of a business owner i would not think.  for the part time students there are many solutions to a wage increase there.  just to piggyback on your comment.   #  and like most teens, i also worked flipping burgers.   #  i appreciate working in a hard, but low skilled job.  i worked in an industrial freezer as a grocery picker.  it sucked.  and like most teens, i also worked flipping burgers.  also pretty crappy.  but, i am sorry, if someone can not produce something that is of enough value to the general marketplace, then they do not simply  deserve  money just b/c they worked.  working in and of itself should not be the goal it should be working at something that you enjoy, but that the market also values.  and if you spend 0 hrs a day making a widget no one wants, you simply do not deserve money.  again, i know that sounds harsh, but we need to stop encouraging working for the sake of working, and instead trying to fill or create market demand.  i mean, if i quit my job now to go and sell full size elbow macaroni models of infamous dictators, but i ca not sell enough to make it, why should i deserve more or  any  money ? just b/c i am working 0 hours a week, that does not mean i deserve an income if the market does not find my work valuable.  it is a harsh reality sometimes, but that is just economic fact.
i run an animal hospital, we have a small kennel, a cleaning staff and a bunch of technicians.  currently, the average staffer makes about $0 per hour.  raising the minimum wage would increase my payroll by 0 and i am not thrilled with that idea.  why not ? because the people i hire are often inexperienced, uneducated and/or have some restrictions on working kids in school, they can only work these hours or those hours, limited mental capacity, etc .  hiring these people is okay with me because the jobs like cleaning cages and walking dogs and mucking stalls are very simple and require very minimal training.  some of my employees do not make much but they are not asked to do very much and their hours are often very flexible.  work with animals in this way can be very forgiving and is often very rewarding.  i find most people in my employ seem to like the work.  if i have to pay $0/hour, well, i can probably get better more qualified, more experienced, better trained people for that much.  if my bare minimum is $0/hour, then suddenly it makes sense to ignore the high school dropouts and part timers and inexperienced folks.  for this new minimum wage i can get experienced assistants and certified techs.  why should i pay so much to others ? this does not help people who have a hard time getting a job, it hurts them.  i will pass them over for somebody who can do the job for real.  for at least $0k rough estimate a year in additional costs, i can do better than what i have got.  why would not people like me just start ignoring the folks who made the old minimum wage and instead go for more qualified people who want the job at this higher minimum wage ? and before anybody tells me what a bad person i am for making money and not caring that people make less than i do, please remember i went to school for a decade and incurred a mountain of debt and i bear all responsibility for what happens in my hospital.  i put in the most work, i bear the greatest burden, take on the most risk, am financially responsible for a dozen other people, and for all that i get to make the most money.  so please help change my view without making me feel like a monster.   #  if i have to pay $0/hour, well, i can probably get better more qualified, more experienced, better trained people for that much.   #  if my bare minimum is $0/hour, then suddenly it makes sense to ignore the high school dropouts and part timers and inexperienced folks.   # if my bare minimum is $0/hour, then suddenly it makes sense to ignore the high school dropouts and part timers and inexperienced folks.  for this new minimum wage i can get experienced assistants and certified techs.  why should i pay so much to others ? this is incorrect.  supply and demand sets the wages.  if everyone thinks like you, then everyone will want those higher paid people, and they will demand more money, so you will have the same employees, but you will be paying them more.  if i was skilled, why would i want to be paid the same as minimum wage ? the unskilled wage is 0$/hr.  more skilled will go up from that.  this will cost you more money.  idk what minimum wage is for you now, but i think making too big of a jump is a bad idea.  incremental increases are better.  the idea is, that right now, you work for a kennel.  there are probably a number of people out there that wish they could have a dog, but do not because they ca not afford it.  by increasing minimum wage, you increase all wages, as more skilled labourers will demand more, as you say.  it will go up, as people think,  well why would i be paid the same as this less qualified person ? surely i am worth more.   that means more people will have more money to spend on more things, including kennels.  but that might take a little time.  the extra cost could put some places out of business, which is why i think a big jump is not the best thing.  bigger businesses could certainly take it though.  think of all the people that work at department stores and fast food chains, and things like that, that will have extra money to buy dogs now.  it would be good for business and the economy in the long run.  but it would be a strain on small places like yours.  i think that for a big jump in wages, the government should plan to go up incrementally every year.  maybe a dollar a year above inflation, or something like that.   #  you are not thrilled with increasing your payroll costs, but it sounds like you can afford it.   #  you are not thrilled with increasing your payroll costs, but it sounds like you can afford it.  that puts you in the same position as a vast majority of other businesses.  unfortunately for you, the entire point of raising minimum wage is to take money out of the pockets of business owners like you and give it to people who make barely enough to live on.  the rationale for doing this is pretty sound: business owners and investors tend to save at a higher rate than people who live paycheck to paycheck.  a high savings rate means lower overall economic activity.  you park your savings in government treasuries or other long term investments rather than spending it on actual production and services.  poorer people, on the other hand, tend to spend what they have immediately on goods and services they need or want, which means that money in their hands has a much higher gdp  multiplier.   they increase economic activity.  which increases employment, consumption of goods.  it probably means an increase in the number of luxuries like pets in your area and therefore people needing veterinary services as well.  people who have to work two jobs just to make ends meet often feel they ca not afford a dog.  now there is nothing too terrible about a high savings rate.  the problem comes when most of the wealth and income in a country accrues to a small population of individuals.  the more  extra  they have, the more they save, and worse, the more the economy slows down, the more they save.  if instead of buying t bills you give that money to a family of 0 that is trying to live on $0,0 a year, it will get spent on economic output.  in the short term, higher wages would increase your costs or force you to lay off employees , but in the medium term, increased economic activity should also increase your income.   #  it is bizarre that a person can have a full time job and be living below the poverty line.   # the argument for a livable minimum wage is that working full time should result in pay that actually covers living expenses.  it is bizarre that a person can have a full time job and be living below the poverty line.  the problem right now is that people who are working full time  still  ca not cover basic expenses.  so in actuality, they have been doing the work, they just have not been getting paid properly for it.  in essence, businesses have been keeping money that, were the system more fair, they should not have been.   #  now it feels as if they are  losing  by increasing the wages backwards towards the worker, even partially.   # over time inflation has naturally occurred and business owners nearly unilaterally failed to increase wages accordingly making it appear as if it is  their  profit in  their  column when the labor is actually just being devalued.  now it feels as if they are  losing  by increasing the wages backwards towards the worker, even partially.  i feel as if it could also be looked at as a positive from the business owners perspective if he can increase the skill of his workforce simultaneously.  for the unskilled workers that may lose for the short term it sucks, but that is where re training programs or other means are necessary.  that ca not be the concern of a business owner i would not think.  for the part time students there are many solutions to a wage increase there.  just to piggyback on your comment.   #  it is a harsh reality sometimes, but that is just economic fact.   #  i appreciate working in a hard, but low skilled job.  i worked in an industrial freezer as a grocery picker.  it sucked.  and like most teens, i also worked flipping burgers.  also pretty crappy.  but, i am sorry, if someone can not produce something that is of enough value to the general marketplace, then they do not simply  deserve  money just b/c they worked.  working in and of itself should not be the goal it should be working at something that you enjoy, but that the market also values.  and if you spend 0 hrs a day making a widget no one wants, you simply do not deserve money.  again, i know that sounds harsh, but we need to stop encouraging working for the sake of working, and instead trying to fill or create market demand.  i mean, if i quit my job now to go and sell full size elbow macaroni models of infamous dictators, but i ca not sell enough to make it, why should i deserve more or  any  money ? just b/c i am working 0 hours a week, that does not mean i deserve an income if the market does not find my work valuable.  it is a harsh reality sometimes, but that is just economic fact.
i run an animal hospital, we have a small kennel, a cleaning staff and a bunch of technicians.  currently, the average staffer makes about $0 per hour.  raising the minimum wage would increase my payroll by 0 and i am not thrilled with that idea.  why not ? because the people i hire are often inexperienced, uneducated and/or have some restrictions on working kids in school, they can only work these hours or those hours, limited mental capacity, etc .  hiring these people is okay with me because the jobs like cleaning cages and walking dogs and mucking stalls are very simple and require very minimal training.  some of my employees do not make much but they are not asked to do very much and their hours are often very flexible.  work with animals in this way can be very forgiving and is often very rewarding.  i find most people in my employ seem to like the work.  if i have to pay $0/hour, well, i can probably get better more qualified, more experienced, better trained people for that much.  if my bare minimum is $0/hour, then suddenly it makes sense to ignore the high school dropouts and part timers and inexperienced folks.  for this new minimum wage i can get experienced assistants and certified techs.  why should i pay so much to others ? this does not help people who have a hard time getting a job, it hurts them.  i will pass them over for somebody who can do the job for real.  for at least $0k rough estimate a year in additional costs, i can do better than what i have got.  why would not people like me just start ignoring the folks who made the old minimum wage and instead go for more qualified people who want the job at this higher minimum wage ? and before anybody tells me what a bad person i am for making money and not caring that people make less than i do, please remember i went to school for a decade and incurred a mountain of debt and i bear all responsibility for what happens in my hospital.  i put in the most work, i bear the greatest burden, take on the most risk, am financially responsible for a dozen other people, and for all that i get to make the most money.  so please help change my view without making me feel like a monster.   #  if i have to pay $0/hour, well, i can probably get better more qualified, more experienced, better trained people for that much.   #  if my bare minimum is $0/hour, then suddenly it makes sense to ignore the high school dropouts and part timers and inexperienced folks.   # if my bare minimum is $0/hour, then suddenly it makes sense to ignore the high school dropouts and part timers and inexperienced folks.  for this new minimum wage i can get experienced assistants and certified techs.  why only look for more qualified people just to do menial jobs like cleaning cages and the like if the minimum wage goes up to $0/hour ? do you think most people with certificates would be happy to stay in a job where they are cleaning cages or walking the dogs ? i would think you would be rehiring people every few months if you did that.  how many people have you got employed to do jobs like cleaning out cages and walking dogs ? an extra $0k a year sounds like a lot.   #  you are not thrilled with increasing your payroll costs, but it sounds like you can afford it.   #  you are not thrilled with increasing your payroll costs, but it sounds like you can afford it.  that puts you in the same position as a vast majority of other businesses.  unfortunately for you, the entire point of raising minimum wage is to take money out of the pockets of business owners like you and give it to people who make barely enough to live on.  the rationale for doing this is pretty sound: business owners and investors tend to save at a higher rate than people who live paycheck to paycheck.  a high savings rate means lower overall economic activity.  you park your savings in government treasuries or other long term investments rather than spending it on actual production and services.  poorer people, on the other hand, tend to spend what they have immediately on goods and services they need or want, which means that money in their hands has a much higher gdp  multiplier.   they increase economic activity.  which increases employment, consumption of goods.  it probably means an increase in the number of luxuries like pets in your area and therefore people needing veterinary services as well.  people who have to work two jobs just to make ends meet often feel they ca not afford a dog.  now there is nothing too terrible about a high savings rate.  the problem comes when most of the wealth and income in a country accrues to a small population of individuals.  the more  extra  they have, the more they save, and worse, the more the economy slows down, the more they save.  if instead of buying t bills you give that money to a family of 0 that is trying to live on $0,0 a year, it will get spent on economic output.  in the short term, higher wages would increase your costs or force you to lay off employees , but in the medium term, increased economic activity should also increase your income.   #  the argument for a livable minimum wage is that working full time should result in pay that actually covers living expenses.   # the argument for a livable minimum wage is that working full time should result in pay that actually covers living expenses.  it is bizarre that a person can have a full time job and be living below the poverty line.  the problem right now is that people who are working full time  still  ca not cover basic expenses.  so in actuality, they have been doing the work, they just have not been getting paid properly for it.  in essence, businesses have been keeping money that, were the system more fair, they should not have been.   #  for the unskilled workers that may lose for the short term it sucks, but that is where re training programs or other means are necessary.   # over time inflation has naturally occurred and business owners nearly unilaterally failed to increase wages accordingly making it appear as if it is  their  profit in  their  column when the labor is actually just being devalued.  now it feels as if they are  losing  by increasing the wages backwards towards the worker, even partially.  i feel as if it could also be looked at as a positive from the business owners perspective if he can increase the skill of his workforce simultaneously.  for the unskilled workers that may lose for the short term it sucks, but that is where re training programs or other means are necessary.  that ca not be the concern of a business owner i would not think.  for the part time students there are many solutions to a wage increase there.  just to piggyback on your comment.   #  i appreciate working in a hard, but low skilled job.   #  i appreciate working in a hard, but low skilled job.  i worked in an industrial freezer as a grocery picker.  it sucked.  and like most teens, i also worked flipping burgers.  also pretty crappy.  but, i am sorry, if someone can not produce something that is of enough value to the general marketplace, then they do not simply  deserve  money just b/c they worked.  working in and of itself should not be the goal it should be working at something that you enjoy, but that the market also values.  and if you spend 0 hrs a day making a widget no one wants, you simply do not deserve money.  again, i know that sounds harsh, but we need to stop encouraging working for the sake of working, and instead trying to fill or create market demand.  i mean, if i quit my job now to go and sell full size elbow macaroni models of infamous dictators, but i ca not sell enough to make it, why should i deserve more or  any  money ? just b/c i am working 0 hours a week, that does not mean i deserve an income if the market does not find my work valuable.  it is a harsh reality sometimes, but that is just economic fact.
i run an animal hospital, we have a small kennel, a cleaning staff and a bunch of technicians.  currently, the average staffer makes about $0 per hour.  raising the minimum wage would increase my payroll by 0 and i am not thrilled with that idea.  why not ? because the people i hire are often inexperienced, uneducated and/or have some restrictions on working kids in school, they can only work these hours or those hours, limited mental capacity, etc .  hiring these people is okay with me because the jobs like cleaning cages and walking dogs and mucking stalls are very simple and require very minimal training.  some of my employees do not make much but they are not asked to do very much and their hours are often very flexible.  work with animals in this way can be very forgiving and is often very rewarding.  i find most people in my employ seem to like the work.  if i have to pay $0/hour, well, i can probably get better more qualified, more experienced, better trained people for that much.  if my bare minimum is $0/hour, then suddenly it makes sense to ignore the high school dropouts and part timers and inexperienced folks.  for this new minimum wage i can get experienced assistants and certified techs.  why should i pay so much to others ? this does not help people who have a hard time getting a job, it hurts them.  i will pass them over for somebody who can do the job for real.  for at least $0k rough estimate a year in additional costs, i can do better than what i have got.  why would not people like me just start ignoring the folks who made the old minimum wage and instead go for more qualified people who want the job at this higher minimum wage ? and before anybody tells me what a bad person i am for making money and not caring that people make less than i do, please remember i went to school for a decade and incurred a mountain of debt and i bear all responsibility for what happens in my hospital.  i put in the most work, i bear the greatest burden, take on the most risk, am financially responsible for a dozen other people, and for all that i get to make the most money.  so please help change my view without making me feel like a monster.   #  for at least $0k rough estimate a year in additional costs, i can do better than what i have got.   #  how many people have you got employed to do jobs like cleaning out cages and walking dogs ?  # if my bare minimum is $0/hour, then suddenly it makes sense to ignore the high school dropouts and part timers and inexperienced folks.  for this new minimum wage i can get experienced assistants and certified techs.  why only look for more qualified people just to do menial jobs like cleaning cages and the like if the minimum wage goes up to $0/hour ? do you think most people with certificates would be happy to stay in a job where they are cleaning cages or walking the dogs ? i would think you would be rehiring people every few months if you did that.  how many people have you got employed to do jobs like cleaning out cages and walking dogs ? an extra $0k a year sounds like a lot.   #  the rationale for doing this is pretty sound: business owners and investors tend to save at a higher rate than people who live paycheck to paycheck.   #  you are not thrilled with increasing your payroll costs, but it sounds like you can afford it.  that puts you in the same position as a vast majority of other businesses.  unfortunately for you, the entire point of raising minimum wage is to take money out of the pockets of business owners like you and give it to people who make barely enough to live on.  the rationale for doing this is pretty sound: business owners and investors tend to save at a higher rate than people who live paycheck to paycheck.  a high savings rate means lower overall economic activity.  you park your savings in government treasuries or other long term investments rather than spending it on actual production and services.  poorer people, on the other hand, tend to spend what they have immediately on goods and services they need or want, which means that money in their hands has a much higher gdp  multiplier.   they increase economic activity.  which increases employment, consumption of goods.  it probably means an increase in the number of luxuries like pets in your area and therefore people needing veterinary services as well.  people who have to work two jobs just to make ends meet often feel they ca not afford a dog.  now there is nothing too terrible about a high savings rate.  the problem comes when most of the wealth and income in a country accrues to a small population of individuals.  the more  extra  they have, the more they save, and worse, the more the economy slows down, the more they save.  if instead of buying t bills you give that money to a family of 0 that is trying to live on $0,0 a year, it will get spent on economic output.  in the short term, higher wages would increase your costs or force you to lay off employees , but in the medium term, increased economic activity should also increase your income.   #  so in actuality, they have been doing the work, they just have not been getting paid properly for it.   # the argument for a livable minimum wage is that working full time should result in pay that actually covers living expenses.  it is bizarre that a person can have a full time job and be living below the poverty line.  the problem right now is that people who are working full time  still  ca not cover basic expenses.  so in actuality, they have been doing the work, they just have not been getting paid properly for it.  in essence, businesses have been keeping money that, were the system more fair, they should not have been.   #  now it feels as if they are  losing  by increasing the wages backwards towards the worker, even partially.   # over time inflation has naturally occurred and business owners nearly unilaterally failed to increase wages accordingly making it appear as if it is  their  profit in  their  column when the labor is actually just being devalued.  now it feels as if they are  losing  by increasing the wages backwards towards the worker, even partially.  i feel as if it could also be looked at as a positive from the business owners perspective if he can increase the skill of his workforce simultaneously.  for the unskilled workers that may lose for the short term it sucks, but that is where re training programs or other means are necessary.  that ca not be the concern of a business owner i would not think.  for the part time students there are many solutions to a wage increase there.  just to piggyback on your comment.   #  it is a harsh reality sometimes, but that is just economic fact.   #  i appreciate working in a hard, but low skilled job.  i worked in an industrial freezer as a grocery picker.  it sucked.  and like most teens, i also worked flipping burgers.  also pretty crappy.  but, i am sorry, if someone can not produce something that is of enough value to the general marketplace, then they do not simply  deserve  money just b/c they worked.  working in and of itself should not be the goal it should be working at something that you enjoy, but that the market also values.  and if you spend 0 hrs a day making a widget no one wants, you simply do not deserve money.  again, i know that sounds harsh, but we need to stop encouraging working for the sake of working, and instead trying to fill or create market demand.  i mean, if i quit my job now to go and sell full size elbow macaroni models of infamous dictators, but i ca not sell enough to make it, why should i deserve more or  any  money ? just b/c i am working 0 hours a week, that does not mean i deserve an income if the market does not find my work valuable.  it is a harsh reality sometimes, but that is just economic fact.
adult tickets cost more than child is tickets for anything that distinguishes the two and often this makes sense.  adults have more money than kids and can afford the higher prices.  kids pricing allows family is to be able to afford to go to things as a family.  for certain things, size does matter fuel costs for transportation and most adults are bigger than most kids and so should get charged more.  and specific to theaters, adults are more likely to see an r rated and since the r ratings are somewhat prohibitive in terms of selling tickets, i could see some sort of roundabout justification for increasing tickets prices for adults as they are likely to see a movie that falls into this mildly  niche  category of movies.  i think the problem i have is that most if not all movie theaters consider you and adult at thirteen or fourteen.  this does not make any sense.  a thirteen year old does not have much more money does a twelve year old.  they do not even have the right to work for another few years.  they are not much bigger than a twelve year old and even if they were it would not really matter because its not like bigger movie goes are more costly than a small movie goer.  they ca not see rated r movies.  it seems like the only  right  they have acquired is to technically see a pg 0 movie but they probably could do that before age thirteen and it hardly seems to justify a price increase.  i know that thirteen is not universal but i find it wrong to charge adult prices for anyone under eighteen you could maybe argue seventeen since they can see rated r movies and can work .  please leave the footnote below the following line, but remember to delete this sentence by replacing it with the body of your post.  thank you !  #  a thirteen year old does not have much more money does a twelve year old.   #  they do not even have the right to work for another few years.   #  i think what you might be missing is whom the discount is targeting or at least meant to target .  the deal is for  parents, not kids.  the discount is for parents who are buying tickets and bringing their young kids, either because they ca not leave their kids with someone while they see a movie or because the kid ca not go to the movie alone.  they do not even have the right to work for another few years.  if you look at the discount as something intended for  parents  chaperoning, and not for the children themselves, then the child is finances independent of its parents  does not really matter ie: a baby with $0 still ca not go to the movies without a parent .  the cut off age is not trying to match up with when someone can make enough money to buy tickets, it is trying to match up with  when parents no longer have to supervise their kids.  by the cut off age, a kids usually can go to a movie they want to see without their parents and b parents can leave their kids unsupervised long enough to see a movie for themselves.   #  unaccompanied minor is the same as an adult ticket most places.   #  a it is a group discount where one or two people pay full price, and one of two pay slightly less.  that is different than offering everyone is a group of 0 the discount.  it is limited in its scope.  b .  there is a trade off between having too many different ticket types, which confuses customers.  makes more sense from a business standpoint to only have a few ticket prices.  unaccompanied minor is the same as an adult ticket most places.   #  ice cream vendors do not even give discounts to four year olds.   #  seeing a movie is a luxury; a privilege, not a right.  few other businesses offer discounts to children too young to hold a job,like gamestop, for example.  a 0 year old pays the same for a copy of the latest video game as anyone else.  ice cream vendors do not even give discounts to four year olds.  why should movie theaters be any different ? this is also like arguing that kid is menus at restaurants should exist until someone is 0.  the point of these deals is to benefit families with children.  once you have the autonomy to pursue these activities yourself, it is on you to pay the full amount.   #  that is really going to vary quite a bit.   #  my point in the r rating thing is that is mostly that its a paradoxical.  you have a movie rating system that distinguishes between adults and children yet the pricing system does not sync up.  a thirteen year old suddenly pays more without acquiring new rights.  a seventeen year old suddenly acquires rights without paying more.  that is really going to vary quite a bit.  the legal ability to work is going to vary by district but i doubt there is anywhere a child can work at 0 , but also by family.  most 0 0 years are not working and the working one is an exception, not the norm.  the babysitting thing is an interesting thought.  the child pricing essentially enables parents who would otherwise require a babysitter to simply bring their kid along.  i like that idea and its something i had not thought of at the outset.  i am still not totally convinced the child to adult price change at 0 makes sense, but it does make a little more sense.  have a delta:   0;  #  theaters are within their rights to do the same.   # a seventeen year old suddenly acquires rights without paying more.  but as has been pointed out already, seeing a movie is a luxury; it has nothing to do with rights whatsoever.  the pricing was developed with adults in mind.  once a moviegoer is old enough to spend their own money on movies, the theater is going rightfully to want full price.  it is like a kids menu at a restaurant.  two income generating adults are more likely able to cover the cost of their meals easily, but two adults and two children add significantly to the bill without any additional income.  if you want to bring in families, you need to make it appealing to them.  restaurants have discounted menu items for children to entice families, theaters have discounted tickets to do the same.  you can walk into a restaurant as a 0 year old and attempt to order off of the kids menu, but they are within their rights to refuse the the discount since it is explicitly for children.  theaters are within their rights to do the same.
growing up jewish in canada, i was taught that jews are always under threat of extermination whether by the ancient egyptians, greeks, romans, persians, and more recently the nazis.  while fear of extermination would indeed be justified in 0s europe, fear of extermination by islamic terrorists continues today even in canada and the us.  i have even heard that isis is going to exterminate the jews, even though isis has not killed a single jewish person to this date.  there is a widely held view in jewish circles that the un is inherently anti semitic even though the majority of permanent members of the un security council are very pro israel.  un troops never interfere with israeli military operations and one of the first un resolutions was the establishment of the state of israel.  still, extremist groups like the jdl jewish defence league attract support from mainstream jewish organizations, despite their classification as a terrorist group.  the jewish community seems to think that their politicians at home persecute them as well.  i know so many liberal jews who will vote for a right wing party just because they scream their unwavering support for israel the loudest.  currently, every single major candidate running for president of the united states or prime minister of canada has declared their staunch support for israel; even left wingers like bernie sanders and canada is frontrunner tom mulcair.  meanwhile, white cops are killing black kids at a horrifying rate but the jewish community is still focused on their own supposed persecution.  when the charleston shooting broke out, my synagogue had one moment of silence then continued with its israel fundraiser.  my theory is that north american jewish culture has developed an irrational persecution complex due to past persecution ritualistically retold every hanukkah, passover, purim, yom ha ishoah, etc.  i realize this may come off as anti semetic and indeed my own family has called me a  self hating jew , although i think this only reinforces my point.  will someone change my view ?  #  whether by the ancient egyptians, greeks, romans, persians, and more recently the nazis.   #  this is a major part of why jews have a fear of persecution.   # this is a major part of why jews have a fear of persecution.  it is a major part of the history of jews.  to expand on the nazis before hitler rose to power jews were an excepted part of german society having many important cultural jobs than over the space of a few years everything changed.  now we see projects like bds where members repeatedly vandalize, attack, and threaten jews whether they are pro israel or not.  hell matisyahu was banned from a spainish music festival for being a jew that does not support palestine the decision was reverse in the face of massive backlash .  bds leaders have even blamed jews for charlie hebdo URL  meanwhile, white cops are killing black kids at a horrifying rate but the jewish community is still focused on their own supposed persecution.  a lot of the jews that i know are fighting this.  it is also important to remember jews have the most hate crimes committed against them per capita than any other group in america  #  honestly, i think it is all a question of perspective.   #  context: i am a north american jew who is lived in the northeast us all my life.  i am not sure i agree with your generalization, to be honest.  i know a lot of the older generation people who are 0 and up hold this sentiment, because many of their parents were involved in the holocaust or wwii in some form or another.  my generation, though people in their 0s and late teens feels quite differently, from what i have experienced.  i have quite a lot of jewish friends who are one hundred percent set against the way netanyahu is running the country, and even some jewish friends who believe israel is entire existence is predicated upon the continued oppression of the palestinian people.  i fall into the first camp and understand the arguments of the second do i have that irrational persecution complex ? honestly, i think it is all a question of perspective.  many of the jews you are talking about in your post are probably not entirely familiar with the current manifestations of racism/classism in north american society today.  most of the people i know who fit your description are not particularly different than non jewish white people who believe that racism is not an issue anymore.  i do not think it is a matter of jewishness, i think it is more a matter of  blind  whiteness, one which does not realize the struggles of people of color in north america.  the jewishness just happens to be an extension of that being jewish and believing in this persecution is kind of akin to just generally being white and believing in a post racial society.   #  my grandmother fled europe when things started to look bad.   # i think what op is describing has more to do with survivors rather than not. that shit really fucks people up man and it gets passed down.  my grandmother fled europe when things started to look bad.  to make a long story short, a friend of my grandmothers was a survivor.  they were separated for decades until one day they bumped into each other in the same apartment complex.  turns out they have been neighbors for who knows how long.  anywho, the survivor and my grandma were good friends.  whenever i would visit her, the survivor friend would be there as well.  sometimes the survivor would bring her daughter and granddaughter over to visit to mingle and whatnot.  but let tell you man, all 0 of those women were fucked up.  even the granddaughter who was my age 0 0.  its like the ptsd, guilt, fear, anger, neurosis, etc etc all got passed down from generation to generation.  that shit left a black mark that stained their genetic souls.  they all ended up carrying that shit.   #  castes exist for a reason, and they are not broken easily.   #  it happens to native is as well.  it is spite and a loss of a real culture, a containment, a way to extinguish inflated egos and that smiling skull is pointed at white people, jew or not, the blame is on those who took everything.  our gods have been buried, dug up and spit on a million times.  the racism is real, the hatred is real.  and there is no way to fix it.  there really is not the blame is on the entire first world society.  and i am sorry for not adding anything to it and it is hard to just be around white people because they mean more than a colored person.  you can become friends with a white person or a white jew or what the fuck ever and you know that they will never suffer as much and they will never really understand your bullshit.  castes exist for a reason, and they are not broken easily.   #  /r/blackpeopletwitter had a stickied article a while back about the difference between the connotations in certain jokes.   #  the idea is that someone who is indian that makes an indian joke knows and understands enough about indian culture that the joke covers only a subset of what they know about indians.  /r/blackpeopletwitter had a stickied article a while back about the difference between the connotations in certain jokes.  when the punchline involves black people, that is one thing.  but when the punchline  is  that the people involved are black, the joke is interpreted differently by different audiences.  black people laugh because they compare their lives being black and their experiences with the joke.  non black people laugh because the joke lines up with their stereotypical view of black people.  obviously non indian people can have the cultural knowledge to understand these jokes non offensively.  but it is a lot harder and rarer to attain than the more offensive alternative.
i have noticed that recently it seems like americans in particular tend to look for reasons to be offended.  one example would be race yes i realize that racism is still a thing, and am in no way trying to minimize that terrible fact .  there are so many things that can be directly attributed back to race or cultural upbringing, but when this is pointed out it is called  racist.   i think that this is wrong and is making the race issue  more  prevalent than it needs to be.   that sentence is not trying to suggest that the race issue needs to be ignored, merely that not as many people are actually racist as are being accused.   this same concept can be seen elsewhere, women for example.  women seem to look for areas in which they could possibly be seen as oppressed, even though it is likely that they are not being intentionally oppressed.  for example, if a man suggests that a certain job would be done better by a man which is imo entirely possible for some positions that would be seen as sexist an/or oppressive towards women.  to clarify, i am not suggesting that women should not speak out for their rights to equal treatment i think that that is very important.  i am suggesting that many women are looking for ways they could be offended and being the issue of sexism up in issues that have nothing to do with that .  i think that in america there is a growing  desire  to be offended, and that people tend to seek out areas in which they could be offended.  this does not make sense to me, and i think that it brings up issues that have little to no relevance and actually perpetuates their prevalence.   again, really not trying to sound offensive toward anyone with this post.  i am aware that i only posted two examples, and i am sure that i will get some flack for mentioning only two groups of people i apologize if i have worded something offensively, and sincerely promise that it was not intended to offend.   #  i think that in america there is a growing  desire  to be offended, and that people tend to seek out areas in which they could be offended.   #  i think it is more that we have become aware that things are offensive.   #  i think the whole  looking for a reason to be offended  is just a way to minimize many legitimate complaints.  that is an offensive statement.  the only type of job that can be done better by a man is male pornography.  it is not offensive to say that a  particular  man could do the job better.  however, your statement implies that any given man could do it better.  i think it is more that we have become aware that things are offensive.  0 years ago, saying that a woman belongs in the kitchen was the cultural norm.  it was not ever alright to view women as nothing more than cooks, maids, and babysitters.  however, it was what everybody accepted.  now women realize that they do not have to accept such sentiments, and find it offensive.  the older generation had it pounded into their head that  this is how things are , so they will call them overly sensitive or looking for reasons to be offended.   #  imo one has to consciously choose to be offended, when someone critiques your work, or gives you an opinion, you have two choices 0 accept their opinion/ critique and adapt/change whatever they are critiquing, or choose to ignore their critique.   # i definitely insinuated that it required active/intentional offending, and see how that is untrue.  facts are facts, and i think that one should be accepting of them and adapt, rather than being insulted by it.  imo one has to consciously choose to be offended, when someone critiques your work, or gives you an opinion, you have two choices 0 accept their opinion/ critique and adapt/change whatever they are critiquing, or choose to ignore their critique.  or 0 choose to take it personally and be offended by it.  i think that the latter leads to more stress and emotional turmoil than anything and that it does not really benefit anyone.  this might go back to me thinking that offense can only be taken if it was intentional, but i feel like people taking offense when it was not intended is making things personal when they are not meant to be.  in relationships, when one partner expresses dislike for something their partner does, and the other partner takes it personally, they are assuming that partner0 does not like partner0 because of thing x that they did, rather than what was actually said, which would be more along the lines of partner0 does not like when partner0 does thing x, and actually has not changed their opinion of partner0 at all.  sorry if that was confusing i realize that this seemingly contradicts my response to the first thing you said, but what i mean is that i think there are certain things that can be said that  are  offensive, but were not intended to be offensive; but, i think that there are things that can be said that  are not  offensive that people take offense to because they make them personal  i wo not argue people never take offense irrationally, but that does not seem to be what you are describing here.  this is actually a better way of describing what i am trying to say, i think that many people are getting upset over things that should not be so upsetting, and it is because they are taking it personally and making it into a race/gender/other big issue, when it was never intended to be that.  i apologize for my poor wording in the op.  thanks for the good response btw  #  i think that this is wrong and is making the race issue more prevalent than it needs to be.   # sorry if that was confusing just to clarify you are referring to people taking criticism of their actions as criticism of themselves ? if so i feel you may be somewhat guilty of that mindset yourself when you say that:   there are so many things that can be directly attributed back to race or cultural upbringing, but when this is pointed out it is called  racist.   i think that this is wrong and is making the race issue more prevalent than it needs to be.  that sentence is not trying to suggest that the race issue needs to be ignored, merely that not as many people are actually racist as are being accused.  pointing out that an action is racist does not mean that one necessarily thinks that the actor is racist.  people often say something that is unintentionally homophobic or racist and pointing that out is not really a criticism of the person.  ideally we should be unafraid to point out where something is unintentionally offensive because most people do not want to offend others.   #  reddit skews your perception of the shape of america.   #  you are biased because you are on the internet, specifically reddit.  you have to understand that reddit is not representative of america, only portions of it.  reddit is mostly white, college aged 0 0 , and liberal.  these  people are recreational umbrage takers.  the thing that helped me realize this was talking to non redditor friends.  remember gamer gate and how big that was ? nobody i knew who did not reddit cared.  same goes for the usual suspects for offendedness you would think blacklivesmatter was something that is everywhere.  nope.  their twitter has 0k followers and their facebook page has 0k likes.  that is nothing.  that is twenty five thousandths  of one percent  of america.  same goes for stuff like feminism.  you would think feminism was huge in america, the rate you hear about it on reddit.  nope.  just shy of one in five people is a feminist.  mras are virtually unheard of.  but 0 of americans support gender equality.  reddit skews your perception of the shape of america.  it happens to the best of us.   #  generalizations have exceptions and most importantly,  you are  one of those exceptions.   #  see ? perfect example.  the generalization corrector.  this person was offended that i made a simple generalization about college kids.  other examples of this are the notallmen people who you have little chance of knowing about if you do not regularly reddit.  instead of accepting that my opinion was more a rule of thumb than a law of physics, they got offended.  yes buddy.  generalizations have exceptions and most importantly,  you are  one of those exceptions.  your opinions are important and you are going to be important when you grow up.  you ca not take three steps on reddit without not only offending someone, but having them tell you about it.  it has a lot to do with where these teenagers are in their lives.  it is the end of august and they are starting school.  they chose a major that will shape the entire rest of their lives ! and three months ago they had to ask for permission to use the bathroom, same as my six year old nephew.  they are children who look like adults, so they are mistakenly  treated  like adults.  they are still going through puberty and we are supposed to think their opinions are both valid and representative of the country ? no.
before i begin, i would like to clarify that my definition of the word whore/slut/tramp and the like when i was growing up meant a woman/girl who had a lot of sexual partners, not the other definition, which means to have sex for money and this is the definition i will be discussing here today.  a person is view of what sex is and how it should be done is different for everyone.  some see it as just a casual thing, others a sacred act.  but in the end, i doubt anyone would dispute the claim that a desire for sex is one of the most natural things about being human, secondary only to wanting food/water/shelter, and on equal standing to a desire for life fulfillment and companionship.  so why then, is having sex with a lot of people viewed as bad ? especially when you are taking the proper measures to make sure both you and your partner are safe, and you are not going to produce an unwanted baby.  women in particular are the ones who get this sorta flack the most.  it is very easy yet also extremely nasty to call a fellow girl a whore/slut/tramp etc when you want to discredit her.  it is implied that a woman is somehow dirty or is a low life or what have you simply because she chooses to have a lot of sex.  but what happens when a guy has a lot of sex ? he get is applauded for it.  it is seen as him  just doing what guys do.   it is almost like it is encouraged.  even gay guys like myself do not get flack for having a lot of casual sex we get shit for a totally different reason lmfao but generally our straight allies do not tend to question our behavior all that much.  at least, from my experience.  so why is it bad for a girl to have a lot of sex ? i get that girls sexual  wiring  is different from guys as they generally leads to them having different/lower sex drives.  but when a girl does have a high sex drive, and does not want a relationship, why is that bad ? footnote: any girls out there reading this who like having lots of sex good for you man.  i support you.   #  so why is it bad for a girl to have a lot of sex ?  #  realize that a girl who has a ton of sex with her boyfriend/spouse is generally looked neutrally/slightly favorably upon.   # realize that a girl who has a ton of sex with her boyfriend/spouse is generally looked neutrally/slightly favorably upon.  a girl who does not meet her partners is sexual desire tends to be looked upon as a prude or selfish or uncaring or some other name.  so it is not the sex per se.  also men who cheat on their spouses are condemned pretty heavily so the  player  etc.  adjectives only apply to single men.  for girls who sleep around with  different  men it is bad for other women.  from the perspective of other women it is complicated but mostly negative.  slut shaming is a means by which a girl can signal fidelity, by condemning the unfaithful, which needless to say is a desired characteristic by want to be fathers.  it is also a means by which to identify which women are a potential threat to the stability of a marriage which of course belittles the trust between a husband and wife .  needless to say husbands do not want promiscuous wives and generally speaking it is  bad  to make a vow to be monogamous then break it so shaming promiscuous wives occurs for similar reasons to shaming promiscuous husbands.  prior to wanting to marry there is of course the threat of passing a disease around the male population which would be bad.  since asking to see a recent sti screening result is not very sexy it has the potential to give a desired boyfriend something undesirable.  so basically it is bad from the perspective of every other girl but the girl who is sleeping around.  to them there is no upside, and the downside in shaming is only marginally enforcing a social stereotype that already exists and might not even affect them.   #  in our society, there is acceptable usage of drugs tylenol, coffee, beer, even more powerful, prescription only psychotropics.   #  moralizing sex is the problem.  having a lot of sex is not  good  or  bad .  however, i do think there is a sort of normal range of healthy sexual behavior in humans, and that there are people who have psychological issues tied to their sexuality.  i think it is pretty similar to drug use.  for example, imagine if your cmv were  being a druggie is not a bad thing.   a druggie is a derogatory word for someone who uses drugs.  in our society, there is acceptable usage of drugs tylenol, coffee, beer, even more powerful, prescription only psychotropics.  society decides who is a druggie based on how it affects their life.  someone who has a coffee in the morning and a beer at night generally is not called one, but a guy who ends up homeless on the street because of heroin addiction is.  people who need powerful anti depressants or sleeping pills to function are in a grey area; some people think that is fine, others do not.  normal, prescribed and pretty much safe usage can lead to addiction; no one sets out to be come an addict.  there is a similar, subjective spectrum in assessing  islutiness.   so it is a lot like when a parent remembers the guy from high school who got into drugs and ended up on the street and does not want their kid to hang out with the pothead  wouldruggies .  even though there were plenty of potheads who were fine and never got into smack.  parents remember girls who had self esteem issues, slept around a lot, were disrespected by both their male and female peers, etc.  and they do not want their girl to go through that.  this is often summarized by the less sophisticated as  do not be a slut, it is bad.   there is other stuff at play of course, it is a complicated issue, but i do not think it is just as simple as how  high  of a  isex drive  a man or a woman has.  men and women are very different when it comes to relationships and sex, and there is no reason to assume that promiscuity would have an equivalent psychological effect on both genders, or that sex drive is something that can be put on a scale and compared across gender.   #  the only appropriate reaction is  yo, too much information !    #  it is seeing the same thing from opposing viewpoints.  our society commoditizes sex; men  get some  where women  give it up.   men are the shooters and women are the goalies, but it is that same conceptualizing of sex in this way that engenders the very different behaviors.  the one size fits all approach is seeing sex as a game where men do the propositioning and women the rejecting, instead of seeing everyone as human beings who may or may not choose to be physically intimate to some extent.  the only appropriate reaction is  yo, too much information !   not a high five or a wrist slap.  it is great to recognize the game for what it is and stop playing by those rules, but being promiscuous is not escaping the game, it is being defined by it.  in the system the role of the woman is to reject, so the natural inclination in resisting the system is to do the opposite, to take on the other role.  however, both roles are to some extent artificial, and sex probably should not be approached like a game, regardless of if you are the shooter or the goalie.   #  furthermore, the anthropological evidence does not bear out his story.   # that post is even more poorly conceived.  his understanding of  evolutionary biology  is reductive to the point of being pseudoscience.  /u/mypenisisawmd clearly did not pay attention in poli sci i, because he does not even understand what  collective action  and  free riding  mean in the first place.  assuming everything works the way he thinks it does, what extra utility does an individual woman have to gain by defecting from the  collective strategy  and being promiscuous ? indeed, the  strategy  he is described is not even collective action at all, because no altruistic sacrifice from individuals for the good of the group is required.  it would be in the private evolutionary interests of each and every woman to be selective anyways.  this further implies that if reality did work the way he thinks it does, the number of women who prefer promiscuity would be vanishingly small, which clearly is not the case; they make up at least a significant minority.  furthermore, the anthropological evidence does not bear out his story.  in every known culture, even those of foragers, the majority of men tend to invest heavily in their children, and physical fitness is not considered the sole measure of fitness overall.   #  you are arguing that human men follow an r selected strategy and human women follow a k selected strategy.   # no, it explicitly does.  you are arguing that human men follow an r selected strategy and human women follow a k selected strategy.  if this was true, humans in their ancestral environments would have created polygynous harems like gorillas.  but the reality borne out by the anthropological evidence is that they do not; humans in general are a k selected species.  both males and females do, and indeed  must , invest heavily in their children, whether in pairs or collectively, in order to protect and nurture their progeny through an unusually prolonged childhood, and to transmit the large amounts of cultural information they require to survive.  such as, marrying the most supportive mate while being impregnated by the most fit in some other way.  here is yet another internal contradiction: hominids have been around for millions of years.  if there really are two biological kinds of men, a  supportive  kind and a  dominant  kind, and one of those kinds rarely leaves progeny, then how is such a state of affairs evolutionarily stable enough to last into modernity ? no man alive today should have any characteristics of a  supportive  male if what you are saying is true.  i just proved that you do not, in fact, understand game theory at all.
before i begin, i would like to clarify that my definition of the word whore/slut/tramp and the like when i was growing up meant a woman/girl who had a lot of sexual partners, not the other definition, which means to have sex for money and this is the definition i will be discussing here today.  a person is view of what sex is and how it should be done is different for everyone.  some see it as just a casual thing, others a sacred act.  but in the end, i doubt anyone would dispute the claim that a desire for sex is one of the most natural things about being human, secondary only to wanting food/water/shelter, and on equal standing to a desire for life fulfillment and companionship.  so why then, is having sex with a lot of people viewed as bad ? especially when you are taking the proper measures to make sure both you and your partner are safe, and you are not going to produce an unwanted baby.  women in particular are the ones who get this sorta flack the most.  it is very easy yet also extremely nasty to call a fellow girl a whore/slut/tramp etc when you want to discredit her.  it is implied that a woman is somehow dirty or is a low life or what have you simply because she chooses to have a lot of sex.  but what happens when a guy has a lot of sex ? he get is applauded for it.  it is seen as him  just doing what guys do.   it is almost like it is encouraged.  even gay guys like myself do not get flack for having a lot of casual sex we get shit for a totally different reason lmfao but generally our straight allies do not tend to question our behavior all that much.  at least, from my experience.  so why is it bad for a girl to have a lot of sex ? i get that girls sexual  wiring  is different from guys as they generally leads to them having different/lower sex drives.  but when a girl does have a high sex drive, and does not want a relationship, why is that bad ? footnote: any girls out there reading this who like having lots of sex good for you man.  i support you.   #  it is very easy yet also extremely nasty to call a fellow girl a whore/slut/tramp etc when you want to discredit her.   #  and more specifically:  when you want to discredit her.   # and more specifically:  when you want to discredit her.  the amount of sex a girl/women has is not nearly as important as the amount she is perceived to have.  this suggests that it is not so much the act in itself that is frowned upon, but behavior surrounding it.  i agree with you that there is a double standard here that in no way is remotely fair.  but, both men and women and women have reasons to perpetuate this standard.  while this seems somewhat counter intuitive, it is the only line of reasoning i have come up with to explain what is happening.  for women, a promiscuous woman is a threat.  both to her ability to get with the partner she desires, as her ability to keep the partner she desires.  for men, promiscuous woman are not so much a threat in and of themselves.  but interaction with promiscuous women has multiple opportunities to lead to being unfavorably manipulated.  by disapproving of sexual behavior in public the possibilities for manipulation are lowered significantly.   #  normal, prescribed and pretty much safe usage can lead to addiction; no one sets out to be come an addict.   #  moralizing sex is the problem.  having a lot of sex is not  good  or  bad .  however, i do think there is a sort of normal range of healthy sexual behavior in humans, and that there are people who have psychological issues tied to their sexuality.  i think it is pretty similar to drug use.  for example, imagine if your cmv were  being a druggie is not a bad thing.   a druggie is a derogatory word for someone who uses drugs.  in our society, there is acceptable usage of drugs tylenol, coffee, beer, even more powerful, prescription only psychotropics.  society decides who is a druggie based on how it affects their life.  someone who has a coffee in the morning and a beer at night generally is not called one, but a guy who ends up homeless on the street because of heroin addiction is.  people who need powerful anti depressants or sleeping pills to function are in a grey area; some people think that is fine, others do not.  normal, prescribed and pretty much safe usage can lead to addiction; no one sets out to be come an addict.  there is a similar, subjective spectrum in assessing  islutiness.   so it is a lot like when a parent remembers the guy from high school who got into drugs and ended up on the street and does not want their kid to hang out with the pothead  wouldruggies .  even though there were plenty of potheads who were fine and never got into smack.  parents remember girls who had self esteem issues, slept around a lot, were disrespected by both their male and female peers, etc.  and they do not want their girl to go through that.  this is often summarized by the less sophisticated as  do not be a slut, it is bad.   there is other stuff at play of course, it is a complicated issue, but i do not think it is just as simple as how  high  of a  isex drive  a man or a woman has.  men and women are very different when it comes to relationships and sex, and there is no reason to assume that promiscuity would have an equivalent psychological effect on both genders, or that sex drive is something that can be put on a scale and compared across gender.   #  however, both roles are to some extent artificial, and sex probably should not be approached like a game, regardless of if you are the shooter or the goalie.   #  it is seeing the same thing from opposing viewpoints.  our society commoditizes sex; men  get some  where women  give it up.   men are the shooters and women are the goalies, but it is that same conceptualizing of sex in this way that engenders the very different behaviors.  the one size fits all approach is seeing sex as a game where men do the propositioning and women the rejecting, instead of seeing everyone as human beings who may or may not choose to be physically intimate to some extent.  the only appropriate reaction is  yo, too much information !   not a high five or a wrist slap.  it is great to recognize the game for what it is and stop playing by those rules, but being promiscuous is not escaping the game, it is being defined by it.  in the system the role of the woman is to reject, so the natural inclination in resisting the system is to do the opposite, to take on the other role.  however, both roles are to some extent artificial, and sex probably should not be approached like a game, regardless of if you are the shooter or the goalie.   #  in every known culture, even those of foragers, the majority of men tend to invest heavily in their children, and physical fitness is not considered the sole measure of fitness overall.   # that post is even more poorly conceived.  his understanding of  evolutionary biology  is reductive to the point of being pseudoscience.  /u/mypenisisawmd clearly did not pay attention in poli sci i, because he does not even understand what  collective action  and  free riding  mean in the first place.  assuming everything works the way he thinks it does, what extra utility does an individual woman have to gain by defecting from the  collective strategy  and being promiscuous ? indeed, the  strategy  he is described is not even collective action at all, because no altruistic sacrifice from individuals for the good of the group is required.  it would be in the private evolutionary interests of each and every woman to be selective anyways.  this further implies that if reality did work the way he thinks it does, the number of women who prefer promiscuity would be vanishingly small, which clearly is not the case; they make up at least a significant minority.  furthermore, the anthropological evidence does not bear out his story.  in every known culture, even those of foragers, the majority of men tend to invest heavily in their children, and physical fitness is not considered the sole measure of fitness overall.   #  no man alive today should have any characteristics of a  supportive  male if what you are saying is true.   # no, it explicitly does.  you are arguing that human men follow an r selected strategy and human women follow a k selected strategy.  if this was true, humans in their ancestral environments would have created polygynous harems like gorillas.  but the reality borne out by the anthropological evidence is that they do not; humans in general are a k selected species.  both males and females do, and indeed  must , invest heavily in their children, whether in pairs or collectively, in order to protect and nurture their progeny through an unusually prolonged childhood, and to transmit the large amounts of cultural information they require to survive.  such as, marrying the most supportive mate while being impregnated by the most fit in some other way.  here is yet another internal contradiction: hominids have been around for millions of years.  if there really are two biological kinds of men, a  supportive  kind and a  dominant  kind, and one of those kinds rarely leaves progeny, then how is such a state of affairs evolutionarily stable enough to last into modernity ? no man alive today should have any characteristics of a  supportive  male if what you are saying is true.  i just proved that you do not, in fact, understand game theory at all.
before i begin, i would like to clarify that my definition of the word whore/slut/tramp and the like when i was growing up meant a woman/girl who had a lot of sexual partners, not the other definition, which means to have sex for money and this is the definition i will be discussing here today.  a person is view of what sex is and how it should be done is different for everyone.  some see it as just a casual thing, others a sacred act.  but in the end, i doubt anyone would dispute the claim that a desire for sex is one of the most natural things about being human, secondary only to wanting food/water/shelter, and on equal standing to a desire for life fulfillment and companionship.  so why then, is having sex with a lot of people viewed as bad ? especially when you are taking the proper measures to make sure both you and your partner are safe, and you are not going to produce an unwanted baby.  women in particular are the ones who get this sorta flack the most.  it is very easy yet also extremely nasty to call a fellow girl a whore/slut/tramp etc when you want to discredit her.  it is implied that a woman is somehow dirty or is a low life or what have you simply because she chooses to have a lot of sex.  but what happens when a guy has a lot of sex ? he get is applauded for it.  it is seen as him  just doing what guys do.   it is almost like it is encouraged.  even gay guys like myself do not get flack for having a lot of casual sex we get shit for a totally different reason lmfao but generally our straight allies do not tend to question our behavior all that much.  at least, from my experience.  so why is it bad for a girl to have a lot of sex ? i get that girls sexual  wiring  is different from guys as they generally leads to them having different/lower sex drives.  but when a girl does have a high sex drive, and does not want a relationship, why is that bad ? footnote: any girls out there reading this who like having lots of sex good for you man.  i support you.   #  so why is it bad for a girl to have a lot of sex ?  #  i get that girls sexual  wiring  is different from guys as they generally leads to them having different/lower sex drives.   # i get that girls sexual  wiring  is different from guys as they generally leads to them having different/lower sex drives.  but when a girl does have a high sex drive, and does not want a relationship, why is that bad ? evolutionary, women need to be careful about who they have sex with because the cost of sex the time   resources needed for child bearing are very high.  for men, it is very low there is some std risk .  so women who sleep around a lot are showing poor evolutionary decision making because they ca not know if the men will stick around after they impregnate her   the father may be hard to identify.  i am talking about instinctual reasoning here, and our modern technologies of pregnancy prevention do not interfere with this logic.  so a women who sleeps around a lot tells men instinctually that they ca not know if they have sperm competition, and they ca not know if they would be raising another man is child the ultimate resource waste men, on the other hand, are  made  for sleeping around if you look at the design of their genitals  #  for example, imagine if your cmv were  being a druggie is not a bad thing.    #  moralizing sex is the problem.  having a lot of sex is not  good  or  bad .  however, i do think there is a sort of normal range of healthy sexual behavior in humans, and that there are people who have psychological issues tied to their sexuality.  i think it is pretty similar to drug use.  for example, imagine if your cmv were  being a druggie is not a bad thing.   a druggie is a derogatory word for someone who uses drugs.  in our society, there is acceptable usage of drugs tylenol, coffee, beer, even more powerful, prescription only psychotropics.  society decides who is a druggie based on how it affects their life.  someone who has a coffee in the morning and a beer at night generally is not called one, but a guy who ends up homeless on the street because of heroin addiction is.  people who need powerful anti depressants or sleeping pills to function are in a grey area; some people think that is fine, others do not.  normal, prescribed and pretty much safe usage can lead to addiction; no one sets out to be come an addict.  there is a similar, subjective spectrum in assessing  islutiness.   so it is a lot like when a parent remembers the guy from high school who got into drugs and ended up on the street and does not want their kid to hang out with the pothead  wouldruggies .  even though there were plenty of potheads who were fine and never got into smack.  parents remember girls who had self esteem issues, slept around a lot, were disrespected by both their male and female peers, etc.  and they do not want their girl to go through that.  this is often summarized by the less sophisticated as  do not be a slut, it is bad.   there is other stuff at play of course, it is a complicated issue, but i do not think it is just as simple as how  high  of a  isex drive  a man or a woman has.  men and women are very different when it comes to relationships and sex, and there is no reason to assume that promiscuity would have an equivalent psychological effect on both genders, or that sex drive is something that can be put on a scale and compared across gender.   #  our society commoditizes sex; men  get some  where women  give it up.    #  it is seeing the same thing from opposing viewpoints.  our society commoditizes sex; men  get some  where women  give it up.   men are the shooters and women are the goalies, but it is that same conceptualizing of sex in this way that engenders the very different behaviors.  the one size fits all approach is seeing sex as a game where men do the propositioning and women the rejecting, instead of seeing everyone as human beings who may or may not choose to be physically intimate to some extent.  the only appropriate reaction is  yo, too much information !   not a high five or a wrist slap.  it is great to recognize the game for what it is and stop playing by those rules, but being promiscuous is not escaping the game, it is being defined by it.  in the system the role of the woman is to reject, so the natural inclination in resisting the system is to do the opposite, to take on the other role.  however, both roles are to some extent artificial, and sex probably should not be approached like a game, regardless of if you are the shooter or the goalie.   #  it would be in the private evolutionary interests of each and every woman to be selective anyways.   # that post is even more poorly conceived.  his understanding of  evolutionary biology  is reductive to the point of being pseudoscience.  /u/mypenisisawmd clearly did not pay attention in poli sci i, because he does not even understand what  collective action  and  free riding  mean in the first place.  assuming everything works the way he thinks it does, what extra utility does an individual woman have to gain by defecting from the  collective strategy  and being promiscuous ? indeed, the  strategy  he is described is not even collective action at all, because no altruistic sacrifice from individuals for the good of the group is required.  it would be in the private evolutionary interests of each and every woman to be selective anyways.  this further implies that if reality did work the way he thinks it does, the number of women who prefer promiscuity would be vanishingly small, which clearly is not the case; they make up at least a significant minority.  furthermore, the anthropological evidence does not bear out his story.  in every known culture, even those of foragers, the majority of men tend to invest heavily in their children, and physical fitness is not considered the sole measure of fitness overall.   #  if there really are two biological kinds of men, a  supportive  kind and a  dominant  kind, and one of those kinds rarely leaves progeny, then how is such a state of affairs evolutionarily stable enough to last into modernity ?  # no, it explicitly does.  you are arguing that human men follow an r selected strategy and human women follow a k selected strategy.  if this was true, humans in their ancestral environments would have created polygynous harems like gorillas.  but the reality borne out by the anthropological evidence is that they do not; humans in general are a k selected species.  both males and females do, and indeed  must , invest heavily in their children, whether in pairs or collectively, in order to protect and nurture their progeny through an unusually prolonged childhood, and to transmit the large amounts of cultural information they require to survive.  such as, marrying the most supportive mate while being impregnated by the most fit in some other way.  here is yet another internal contradiction: hominids have been around for millions of years.  if there really are two biological kinds of men, a  supportive  kind and a  dominant  kind, and one of those kinds rarely leaves progeny, then how is such a state of affairs evolutionarily stable enough to last into modernity ? no man alive today should have any characteristics of a  supportive  male if what you are saying is true.  i just proved that you do not, in fact, understand game theory at all.
before i begin, i would like to clarify that my definition of the word whore/slut/tramp and the like when i was growing up meant a woman/girl who had a lot of sexual partners, not the other definition, which means to have sex for money and this is the definition i will be discussing here today.  a person is view of what sex is and how it should be done is different for everyone.  some see it as just a casual thing, others a sacred act.  but in the end, i doubt anyone would dispute the claim that a desire for sex is one of the most natural things about being human, secondary only to wanting food/water/shelter, and on equal standing to a desire for life fulfillment and companionship.  so why then, is having sex with a lot of people viewed as bad ? especially when you are taking the proper measures to make sure both you and your partner are safe, and you are not going to produce an unwanted baby.  women in particular are the ones who get this sorta flack the most.  it is very easy yet also extremely nasty to call a fellow girl a whore/slut/tramp etc when you want to discredit her.  it is implied that a woman is somehow dirty or is a low life or what have you simply because she chooses to have a lot of sex.  but what happens when a guy has a lot of sex ? he get is applauded for it.  it is seen as him  just doing what guys do.   it is almost like it is encouraged.  even gay guys like myself do not get flack for having a lot of casual sex we get shit for a totally different reason lmfao but generally our straight allies do not tend to question our behavior all that much.  at least, from my experience.  so why is it bad for a girl to have a lot of sex ? i get that girls sexual  wiring  is different from guys as they generally leads to them having different/lower sex drives.  but when a girl does have a high sex drive, and does not want a relationship, why is that bad ? footnote: any girls out there reading this who like having lots of sex good for you man.  i support you.   #  so why then, is having sex with a lot of people viewed as bad ?  #  the evolutionary argument that you like best is seductive because it confirms your  morality is bullshit  bias.   # the evolutionary argument that you like best is seductive because it confirms your  morality is bullshit  bias.  and bible thumping morality is largely bullshit, i would agree.  but there are other facts that inform us in general including atheists that certain behaviours must necessarily be good or bad, better or worse than others.  those two main facts are 0 that our time alive is limited 0 that we can choose.  and the evaluation of those facts have lead every rational human in history to know, at least intuitively, that therefore not all choices are equivalent and some are good and others bad if you are to make most of the time you have left.  sex with alot of different people is an issue of quantity versus quality and is thus a judgement on your  standards .  the defining characteristic of the slut is choosing quantity  over  quality.  the romantic lover, the romeo for want of a better opposite is choosing quality.  it is not the number of people you have sex with that makes you a slut it is how low your standards for choosing someone are.  a women who has had many lovers is not a slut if each of those men were top quality individuals, or if she genuinely loved or even liked/respected each of them .  ultimately, the choice to lower or raise your standards i. e.  choose what to value is an ethical one because it determines your behaviour and the  value you have placed on yourself  and your remaining time.  to have sex with  everyone  means you must lower your standards to the the lowest common denominator you have to  debase  yourself.  and that is at the heart of why being a slut is immoral.   #  normal, prescribed and pretty much safe usage can lead to addiction; no one sets out to be come an addict.   #  moralizing sex is the problem.  having a lot of sex is not  good  or  bad .  however, i do think there is a sort of normal range of healthy sexual behavior in humans, and that there are people who have psychological issues tied to their sexuality.  i think it is pretty similar to drug use.  for example, imagine if your cmv were  being a druggie is not a bad thing.   a druggie is a derogatory word for someone who uses drugs.  in our society, there is acceptable usage of drugs tylenol, coffee, beer, even more powerful, prescription only psychotropics.  society decides who is a druggie based on how it affects their life.  someone who has a coffee in the morning and a beer at night generally is not called one, but a guy who ends up homeless on the street because of heroin addiction is.  people who need powerful anti depressants or sleeping pills to function are in a grey area; some people think that is fine, others do not.  normal, prescribed and pretty much safe usage can lead to addiction; no one sets out to be come an addict.  there is a similar, subjective spectrum in assessing  islutiness.   so it is a lot like when a parent remembers the guy from high school who got into drugs and ended up on the street and does not want their kid to hang out with the pothead  wouldruggies .  even though there were plenty of potheads who were fine and never got into smack.  parents remember girls who had self esteem issues, slept around a lot, were disrespected by both their male and female peers, etc.  and they do not want their girl to go through that.  this is often summarized by the less sophisticated as  do not be a slut, it is bad.   there is other stuff at play of course, it is a complicated issue, but i do not think it is just as simple as how  high  of a  isex drive  a man or a woman has.  men and women are very different when it comes to relationships and sex, and there is no reason to assume that promiscuity would have an equivalent psychological effect on both genders, or that sex drive is something that can be put on a scale and compared across gender.   #  men are the shooters and women are the goalies, but it is that same conceptualizing of sex in this way that engenders the very different behaviors.   #  it is seeing the same thing from opposing viewpoints.  our society commoditizes sex; men  get some  where women  give it up.   men are the shooters and women are the goalies, but it is that same conceptualizing of sex in this way that engenders the very different behaviors.  the one size fits all approach is seeing sex as a game where men do the propositioning and women the rejecting, instead of seeing everyone as human beings who may or may not choose to be physically intimate to some extent.  the only appropriate reaction is  yo, too much information !   not a high five or a wrist slap.  it is great to recognize the game for what it is and stop playing by those rules, but being promiscuous is not escaping the game, it is being defined by it.  in the system the role of the woman is to reject, so the natural inclination in resisting the system is to do the opposite, to take on the other role.  however, both roles are to some extent artificial, and sex probably should not be approached like a game, regardless of if you are the shooter or the goalie.   #  his understanding of  evolutionary biology  is reductive to the point of being pseudoscience.   # that post is even more poorly conceived.  his understanding of  evolutionary biology  is reductive to the point of being pseudoscience.  /u/mypenisisawmd clearly did not pay attention in poli sci i, because he does not even understand what  collective action  and  free riding  mean in the first place.  assuming everything works the way he thinks it does, what extra utility does an individual woman have to gain by defecting from the  collective strategy  and being promiscuous ? indeed, the  strategy  he is described is not even collective action at all, because no altruistic sacrifice from individuals for the good of the group is required.  it would be in the private evolutionary interests of each and every woman to be selective anyways.  this further implies that if reality did work the way he thinks it does, the number of women who prefer promiscuity would be vanishingly small, which clearly is not the case; they make up at least a significant minority.  furthermore, the anthropological evidence does not bear out his story.  in every known culture, even those of foragers, the majority of men tend to invest heavily in their children, and physical fitness is not considered the sole measure of fitness overall.   #  i just proved that you do not, in fact, understand game theory at all.   # no, it explicitly does.  you are arguing that human men follow an r selected strategy and human women follow a k selected strategy.  if this was true, humans in their ancestral environments would have created polygynous harems like gorillas.  but the reality borne out by the anthropological evidence is that they do not; humans in general are a k selected species.  both males and females do, and indeed  must , invest heavily in their children, whether in pairs or collectively, in order to protect and nurture their progeny through an unusually prolonged childhood, and to transmit the large amounts of cultural information they require to survive.  such as, marrying the most supportive mate while being impregnated by the most fit in some other way.  here is yet another internal contradiction: hominids have been around for millions of years.  if there really are two biological kinds of men, a  supportive  kind and a  dominant  kind, and one of those kinds rarely leaves progeny, then how is such a state of affairs evolutionarily stable enough to last into modernity ? no man alive today should have any characteristics of a  supportive  male if what you are saying is true.  i just proved that you do not, in fact, understand game theory at all.
to be honest, i am not sure i completely believe in the title opinion statement.  the issue seems really complex to me, but at the moment that is what i think.  currently, the migrant crisis is one of the biggest items of concern for europeans.  most europeans say, with much accuracy, that the migrant stream has to be shut off because a immigrants are a weight on the economy, and b most migrants refuse to assimilate, creating a lot of social problems.  however, i still feel like they have to own up to that problem.  western societies historically engaged in colonialism and imperialism and profited over it so much, that they achieved wealth that continues to earn their country the status of  developed/first world.   often times when they did this, they ended up creating conditions in the colonized country that would be unfavorable to their future development.  i know most europeans/americans would respond to this by saying  i had nothing to do with this, why should i take responsibility over the past ?   but i find that to be a really weak argument.  if my grandfather robbed somebody of something, died, and passed the stolen goods/money down to me, do not i have a moral obligation to return the stolen items, even if i had nothing to do with the crime ? i think i would.  maybe the main problem with my view is that it is purely moral, and not legal/practical.  but letting poor people work out the problems that are partly as a result of your people is past seems very selfish to me.   #  i know most europeans/americans would respond to this by saying  i had nothing to do with this, why should i take responsibility over the past ?    #  i agree with your premise, but the question becomes how much ?  # i agree with your premise, but the question becomes how much ? if you take a look here URL you will see that it is the european countries that give the most as a proportion of their income and it is the us that gives the most overall.  plus, innovations developed in western countries  are  shared too.  gmo food is a prime example.  high yield grains developed in the  west  have been extremely important for people in developing countries.  and communication technologies, etc.   #  or even more often,  some people completely unrelated to me or my ancestors, who happen to have also lived in the same country i live in now screwed up your country, so now i am obligated to help fix it .   #  i do not think most people have  that  much of a problem with the  my grandpa stole your grandpa is axe, i still have it in my garage, so morally i should give it back  unless it goes back so far that there is really no legitimate way to determine who it goes to, etc. , etc.  however, that is not really what is going on here.  as typically presented, a better analogy would be  my great great grandfather raped your great great grandmother, so i should pay child support to you  or  my grandfather beat up your grandfather and kept him from starting his own business, so i owe you a restaurant .  or even more often,  some people completely unrelated to me or my ancestors, who happen to have also lived in the same country i live in now screwed up your country, so now i am obligated to help fix it .  that seems like a pretty morally questionable stance to me.  many people in the u. s.  today did not even  have  ancestors in the u. s.  when slavery happened, should they have to pay taxes to pay reparations because we once had slaveowners ?  #  do we demand the return of constantinople because it was once a  christian capital  of eastern europe ?  #  you have to define  same government .  also, how far back do you go ? if you look at colonialism in modern history, it is pretty strongly european there are others like the japanese empire, but you know what i mean .  however, european nations have not always been in control of the globe one can argue that  ascendancy  does not begin until 0.  do we look at the turkish government and demand reparations for the ottoman invasions of europe ? do we demand the return of constantinople because it was once a  christian capital  of eastern europe ? of course not, who would even receive it ? should mongolia be paying eastern european states for the actions of the  golden horde  ? do italians owe israel because rome once conquered their lands ? many of these modern states claim heritage to some degree from the former states the turkish gov.  claims it is a continuation of the ottomans and yet when it comes to armenia.  .  i do not think you can take modern morality and sensibilities of a well educated and secular populace and apply it to the actions of absolutist monarchies of 0 0th century europe.  while nation states should do everything they can to ensure that religious, ethnic, and all other forms of minorities are protected from discrimination and get as close to equal opportunities  today , they cannot and should not hold total responsibility for mistakes of different people in a different time.   #  you are basically punishing them for being too good at the miserable game that is life.   #  what about our history means we unfairly disadvantaged other nations, and how can one fairly disadvantage them ? human history is all about better armed, organized and/or populated groups coming in and disadvantaging others.  it is just the colonial empires of the 0th century were really fucking good at it.  but they are no more or less morally equivalent to what the romans, mongols or qin chinese have done over the years.  you are basically punishing them for being too good at the miserable game that is life.   #  some of them might, theoretically be, but it logically makes no sense to say that they all are.   #  a government is not a thing.  even a country is not a thing.  only people are.  all of the people in the government are different.  in every meaningful sense of the word, the government we have today is, while  descended  from the government of ages ago, distinct.  the only real question is whether the people, today, that support the government with funds, are somehow morally obligated to pay for this recompense.  i would answer that there is no really good answer to that.  some of them might, theoretically be, but it logically makes no sense to say that they all are.
to be honest, i am not sure i completely believe in the title opinion statement.  the issue seems really complex to me, but at the moment that is what i think.  currently, the migrant crisis is one of the biggest items of concern for europeans.  most europeans say, with much accuracy, that the migrant stream has to be shut off because a immigrants are a weight on the economy, and b most migrants refuse to assimilate, creating a lot of social problems.  however, i still feel like they have to own up to that problem.  western societies historically engaged in colonialism and imperialism and profited over it so much, that they achieved wealth that continues to earn their country the status of  developed/first world.   often times when they did this, they ended up creating conditions in the colonized country that would be unfavorable to their future development.  i know most europeans/americans would respond to this by saying  i had nothing to do with this, why should i take responsibility over the past ?   but i find that to be a really weak argument.  if my grandfather robbed somebody of something, died, and passed the stolen goods/money down to me, do not i have a moral obligation to return the stolen items, even if i had nothing to do with the crime ? i think i would.  maybe the main problem with my view is that it is purely moral, and not legal/practical.  but letting poor people work out the problems that are partly as a result of your people is past seems very selfish to me.   #  western societies historically engaged in colonialism and imperialism and profited over it so much, that they achieved wealth that continues to earn their country the status of  developed/first world.   #  arab slavers probably took more slaves from africa than europeans, not to mention the slaves they took from europe.   # arab slavers probably took more slaves from africa than europeans, not to mention the slaves they took from europe.  the aztec empire was no noble savage idyll, it was bloody and harsh.  the spanish just took over.  land wars in asia are no laughing matter either, just take the slaughter of isfahan by timur the cripple for example.  imperialism and conquest is nasty everywhere you go, and the only reason westerners have the upper hand now is because they got lucky.  no other state or nation in the world would have hesitated to do exactly the same if they got the same luck.  so there is no historical debt.  what there still is, is the moral obligation of rich countries to help poor countries get better.  that is true regardless of westernness.   #  however, that is not really what is going on here.   #  i do not think most people have  that  much of a problem with the  my grandpa stole your grandpa is axe, i still have it in my garage, so morally i should give it back  unless it goes back so far that there is really no legitimate way to determine who it goes to, etc. , etc.  however, that is not really what is going on here.  as typically presented, a better analogy would be  my great great grandfather raped your great great grandmother, so i should pay child support to you  or  my grandfather beat up your grandfather and kept him from starting his own business, so i owe you a restaurant .  or even more often,  some people completely unrelated to me or my ancestors, who happen to have also lived in the same country i live in now screwed up your country, so now i am obligated to help fix it .  that seems like a pretty morally questionable stance to me.  many people in the u. s.  today did not even  have  ancestors in the u. s.  when slavery happened, should they have to pay taxes to pay reparations because we once had slaveowners ?  #  claims it is a continuation of the ottomans and yet when it comes to armenia.  .   #  you have to define  same government .  also, how far back do you go ? if you look at colonialism in modern history, it is pretty strongly european there are others like the japanese empire, but you know what i mean .  however, european nations have not always been in control of the globe one can argue that  ascendancy  does not begin until 0.  do we look at the turkish government and demand reparations for the ottoman invasions of europe ? do we demand the return of constantinople because it was once a  christian capital  of eastern europe ? of course not, who would even receive it ? should mongolia be paying eastern european states for the actions of the  golden horde  ? do italians owe israel because rome once conquered their lands ? many of these modern states claim heritage to some degree from the former states the turkish gov.  claims it is a continuation of the ottomans and yet when it comes to armenia.  .  i do not think you can take modern morality and sensibilities of a well educated and secular populace and apply it to the actions of absolutist monarchies of 0 0th century europe.  while nation states should do everything they can to ensure that religious, ethnic, and all other forms of minorities are protected from discrimination and get as close to equal opportunities  today , they cannot and should not hold total responsibility for mistakes of different people in a different time.   #  but they are no more or less morally equivalent to what the romans, mongols or qin chinese have done over the years.   #  what about our history means we unfairly disadvantaged other nations, and how can one fairly disadvantage them ? human history is all about better armed, organized and/or populated groups coming in and disadvantaging others.  it is just the colonial empires of the 0th century were really fucking good at it.  but they are no more or less morally equivalent to what the romans, mongols or qin chinese have done over the years.  you are basically punishing them for being too good at the miserable game that is life.   #  the only real question is whether the people, today, that support the government with funds, are somehow morally obligated to pay for this recompense.   #  a government is not a thing.  even a country is not a thing.  only people are.  all of the people in the government are different.  in every meaningful sense of the word, the government we have today is, while  descended  from the government of ages ago, distinct.  the only real question is whether the people, today, that support the government with funds, are somehow morally obligated to pay for this recompense.  i would answer that there is no really good answer to that.  some of them might, theoretically be, but it logically makes no sense to say that they all are.
to be honest, i am not sure i completely believe in the title opinion statement.  the issue seems really complex to me, but at the moment that is what i think.  currently, the migrant crisis is one of the biggest items of concern for europeans.  most europeans say, with much accuracy, that the migrant stream has to be shut off because a immigrants are a weight on the economy, and b most migrants refuse to assimilate, creating a lot of social problems.  however, i still feel like they have to own up to that problem.  western societies historically engaged in colonialism and imperialism and profited over it so much, that they achieved wealth that continues to earn their country the status of  developed/first world.   often times when they did this, they ended up creating conditions in the colonized country that would be unfavorable to their future development.  i know most europeans/americans would respond to this by saying  i had nothing to do with this, why should i take responsibility over the past ?   but i find that to be a really weak argument.  if my grandfather robbed somebody of something, died, and passed the stolen goods/money down to me, do not i have a moral obligation to return the stolen items, even if i had nothing to do with the crime ? i think i would.  maybe the main problem with my view is that it is purely moral, and not legal/practical.  but letting poor people work out the problems that are partly as a result of your people is past seems very selfish to me.   #  often times when they did this, they ended up creating conditions in the colonized country that would be unfavorable to their future development.   #  and yet even in the modern day, efforts to improve the lives in developing nations often result in even more problems.   # and yet even in the modern day, efforts to improve the lives in developing nations often result in even more problems.  foreign aid in particular, the most common form of assistance in most developing countries, tends to exacerbate problems more than improve them.  in particular, foreign aid has in the past been linked to increased conflict, maintained levels of corruption, and when aid is coupled with policy initiatives, decreasing rather than increasing growth.  certainly, western nations that engaged in colonialism should express some degree of remorse for their actions.  however, this does not imply that providing assistance to these countries or its citizens is necessarily the best course of action.  why not allow those countries to develop along their own path instead of continuing to interfere in their business ?  #  when slavery happened, should they have to pay taxes to pay reparations because we once had slaveowners ?  #  i do not think most people have  that  much of a problem with the  my grandpa stole your grandpa is axe, i still have it in my garage, so morally i should give it back  unless it goes back so far that there is really no legitimate way to determine who it goes to, etc. , etc.  however, that is not really what is going on here.  as typically presented, a better analogy would be  my great great grandfather raped your great great grandmother, so i should pay child support to you  or  my grandfather beat up your grandfather and kept him from starting his own business, so i owe you a restaurant .  or even more often,  some people completely unrelated to me or my ancestors, who happen to have also lived in the same country i live in now screwed up your country, so now i am obligated to help fix it .  that seems like a pretty morally questionable stance to me.  many people in the u. s.  today did not even  have  ancestors in the u. s.  when slavery happened, should they have to pay taxes to pay reparations because we once had slaveowners ?  #  i do not think you can take modern morality and sensibilities of a well educated and secular populace and apply it to the actions of absolutist monarchies of 0 0th century europe.   #  you have to define  same government .  also, how far back do you go ? if you look at colonialism in modern history, it is pretty strongly european there are others like the japanese empire, but you know what i mean .  however, european nations have not always been in control of the globe one can argue that  ascendancy  does not begin until 0.  do we look at the turkish government and demand reparations for the ottoman invasions of europe ? do we demand the return of constantinople because it was once a  christian capital  of eastern europe ? of course not, who would even receive it ? should mongolia be paying eastern european states for the actions of the  golden horde  ? do italians owe israel because rome once conquered their lands ? many of these modern states claim heritage to some degree from the former states the turkish gov.  claims it is a continuation of the ottomans and yet when it comes to armenia.  .  i do not think you can take modern morality and sensibilities of a well educated and secular populace and apply it to the actions of absolutist monarchies of 0 0th century europe.  while nation states should do everything they can to ensure that religious, ethnic, and all other forms of minorities are protected from discrimination and get as close to equal opportunities  today , they cannot and should not hold total responsibility for mistakes of different people in a different time.   #  it is just the colonial empires of the 0th century were really fucking good at it.   #  what about our history means we unfairly disadvantaged other nations, and how can one fairly disadvantage them ? human history is all about better armed, organized and/or populated groups coming in and disadvantaging others.  it is just the colonial empires of the 0th century were really fucking good at it.  but they are no more or less morally equivalent to what the romans, mongols or qin chinese have done over the years.  you are basically punishing them for being too good at the miserable game that is life.   #  i would answer that there is no really good answer to that.   #  a government is not a thing.  even a country is not a thing.  only people are.  all of the people in the government are different.  in every meaningful sense of the word, the government we have today is, while  descended  from the government of ages ago, distinct.  the only real question is whether the people, today, that support the government with funds, are somehow morally obligated to pay for this recompense.  i would answer that there is no really good answer to that.  some of them might, theoretically be, but it logically makes no sense to say that they all are.
to be honest, i am not sure i completely believe in the title opinion statement.  the issue seems really complex to me, but at the moment that is what i think.  currently, the migrant crisis is one of the biggest items of concern for europeans.  most europeans say, with much accuracy, that the migrant stream has to be shut off because a immigrants are a weight on the economy, and b most migrants refuse to assimilate, creating a lot of social problems.  however, i still feel like they have to own up to that problem.  western societies historically engaged in colonialism and imperialism and profited over it so much, that they achieved wealth that continues to earn their country the status of  developed/first world.   often times when they did this, they ended up creating conditions in the colonized country that would be unfavorable to their future development.  i know most europeans/americans would respond to this by saying  i had nothing to do with this, why should i take responsibility over the past ?   but i find that to be a really weak argument.  if my grandfather robbed somebody of something, died, and passed the stolen goods/money down to me, do not i have a moral obligation to return the stolen items, even if i had nothing to do with the crime ? i think i would.  maybe the main problem with my view is that it is purely moral, and not legal/practical.  but letting poor people work out the problems that are partly as a result of your people is past seems very selfish to me.   #  but letting poor people work out the problems that are partly as a result of your people is past seems very selfish to me.   #  africa is colonized nations wanted independence from europe.   # africa is colonized nations wanted independence from europe.  once they got independence, their nations went back to the way they were before europe came, utter shit.  at least europe had the decency to develop infrastructure in africa.  africans coming to europe bring nothing but crime and lowered quality of life.  i know you are ignorant on the the topic of colonization because you failed to bring up china.  china is currently taking all of africa is resources with the help of africans, but it is only those pesky whites who are taking advantage of africa.   #  when slavery happened, should they have to pay taxes to pay reparations because we once had slaveowners ?  #  i do not think most people have  that  much of a problem with the  my grandpa stole your grandpa is axe, i still have it in my garage, so morally i should give it back  unless it goes back so far that there is really no legitimate way to determine who it goes to, etc. , etc.  however, that is not really what is going on here.  as typically presented, a better analogy would be  my great great grandfather raped your great great grandmother, so i should pay child support to you  or  my grandfather beat up your grandfather and kept him from starting his own business, so i owe you a restaurant .  or even more often,  some people completely unrelated to me or my ancestors, who happen to have also lived in the same country i live in now screwed up your country, so now i am obligated to help fix it .  that seems like a pretty morally questionable stance to me.  many people in the u. s.  today did not even  have  ancestors in the u. s.  when slavery happened, should they have to pay taxes to pay reparations because we once had slaveowners ?  #  of course not, who would even receive it ?  #  you have to define  same government .  also, how far back do you go ? if you look at colonialism in modern history, it is pretty strongly european there are others like the japanese empire, but you know what i mean .  however, european nations have not always been in control of the globe one can argue that  ascendancy  does not begin until 0.  do we look at the turkish government and demand reparations for the ottoman invasions of europe ? do we demand the return of constantinople because it was once a  christian capital  of eastern europe ? of course not, who would even receive it ? should mongolia be paying eastern european states for the actions of the  golden horde  ? do italians owe israel because rome once conquered their lands ? many of these modern states claim heritage to some degree from the former states the turkish gov.  claims it is a continuation of the ottomans and yet when it comes to armenia.  .  i do not think you can take modern morality and sensibilities of a well educated and secular populace and apply it to the actions of absolutist monarchies of 0 0th century europe.  while nation states should do everything they can to ensure that religious, ethnic, and all other forms of minorities are protected from discrimination and get as close to equal opportunities  today , they cannot and should not hold total responsibility for mistakes of different people in a different time.   #  human history is all about better armed, organized and/or populated groups coming in and disadvantaging others.   #  what about our history means we unfairly disadvantaged other nations, and how can one fairly disadvantage them ? human history is all about better armed, organized and/or populated groups coming in and disadvantaging others.  it is just the colonial empires of the 0th century were really fucking good at it.  but they are no more or less morally equivalent to what the romans, mongols or qin chinese have done over the years.  you are basically punishing them for being too good at the miserable game that is life.   #  the only real question is whether the people, today, that support the government with funds, are somehow morally obligated to pay for this recompense.   #  a government is not a thing.  even a country is not a thing.  only people are.  all of the people in the government are different.  in every meaningful sense of the word, the government we have today is, while  descended  from the government of ages ago, distinct.  the only real question is whether the people, today, that support the government with funds, are somehow morally obligated to pay for this recompense.  i would answer that there is no really good answer to that.  some of them might, theoretically be, but it logically makes no sense to say that they all are.
this is not meant as a disrespect to most organized religions, merely an observation i have come to.  the widespread belief or following of most organized religions christianity, islam, judaism is a sign of human weakness in a couple of ways.  the need for an afterlife in most religions satisfies our general fears of death, and the impermanence and futility of our lives.  the theory is not backed by much scientific evidence as far as i know, so the reason to believe in an afterlife is not that it makes more sense but that it makes life easier.  a fear of death and impermanence so strong that one must believe in something that i would categorize as fairytale.  this is what i would call a weakness.  the need for moral guidance in life to need guidance from religion to know the difference between right and wrong is also a sign of weakness in that it shows a lack of judgement and wisdom for one to decide for themselves what is right or wrong.  furthermore, the need of a consequence by eternal damnation as persuasion not to do  bad things , and the need of an incentive by eternal salvation to do good.  is a sign of weakness in that it shows that human nature is bad, or barbaric in a sense.   #  the need for an afterlife in most religions satisfies our general fears of death, and the impermanence and futility of our lives.   #  the theory is not backed by much scientific evidence as far as i know, so the reason to believe in an afterlife is not that it makes more sense but that it makes life easier.   # furthermore, the need of a consequence by eternal damnation as persuasion not to do  bad things , and the need of an incentive by eternal salvation to do good.  is a sign of weakness in that it shows that human nature is bad, or barbaric in a sense.  i view the endless evolution of religious perspectives over the course of human existence to to be something of an ongoing debate about morality.  certainly some people get stuck in religious dogma, but rather i think that our evolving sense of morality is the driving force behind new religions, new sects, new interpretations, etc.  we have always been constantly thinking and arguing about what is right and what is wrong.  the variety of religious teachings reflect this debate, rather then the other way around.  the theory is not backed by much scientific evidence as far as i know, so the reason to believe in an afterlife is not that it makes more sense but that it makes life easier.  a fear of death and impermanence so strong that one must believe in something that i would categorize as fairytale.  this is what i would call a weakness.  your entire argument hinges on the idea that no afterlife can possibly exist, because it has not been rigorously proven to exist by science, and so having the idea that it exists is weak.  by that token it was once weak to believe that humans might be able to fly, and it was weak to think that the earth revolved around the sun.  by that view it is currently weak to believe that there might be life elsewhere in the universe, because it has not been proven to be true yet.  there might actually be an afterlife.  there might not be.  as of now, there really is not any way to know, because we have not invented a way of observing that yet.  but to say that it is weak to have an idea that there might be means that you must hold the view that one should not hold any concept or idea until perfect knowledge is attainable, a mentality that i myself rather find to be weak.   #  i was also under the impression that we were talking about why religion started and grew popular, but now it seems you are talking about modern times.   #  i mean why did not a religion like that get created and become widespread ? if all humans are so weak, this seems like a perfect religion.  i was also under the impression that we were talking about why religion started and grew popular, but now it seems you are talking about modern times.  hm.  are you implying atheists are stronger than religious people ? as for the slipperly slope. that is also mostly only applicable to todays time.  but i suppose it is a valid point.  still you could certainly easily come up with a less vigirous moral code that christianity and islam and still be on the publics good side.   #  i certainly think some atheists may be stronger than theists, but that goes both ways.   #  if i had to guess, modern religions follow the personal moral guidelines held by those who wrote the respective religious texts.  and it stuck because of tradition, and because people generally agree with it.  i think at any given time, the problem with the religion you described is the reasoning i provided.  it is gives too much of a gray area, there would be no objectively good or bad thing in the universe.  every act would be inherently  okay .  i am not necessarily trying to imply that.  i certainly think some atheists may be stronger than theists, but that goes both ways.  i think maybe i should clarify something, although this might be cause for an entirely different thread the reason i say  fairytale  is because we are taught to believe many fairytales as children.  we believe what our parents tell us at that age, for the most part, and we lack the reasoning to see that many fairytales do not make sense.  i think most modern religions fall under this category they do not make much sense, they may involve some kind of magical thinking.  and that people continue to believe, among other things, mostly to satisfy their emotions.   #  if anything, the fact that religion exists is a true testament to the strength of humanity.   #  i am an agnostic that views religion as having it is own challenges and does not necessarily show signs of human weakness.  if anything, the fact that religion exists is a true testament to the strength of humanity.  before science existed the idea that humans perceived of creation and causation shows the progression of human consciousness if nothing else.  if you start from a place where you are assuming that the world would be better off if religion never existed i could see how you could make an argument that the paternity involved in religion shows weakness.  however, i do not think religion is inherently bad and i view it as a part of humanities progression.   #  i think religion has generally been a good thing for humanity.   #  i think religion has generally been a good thing for humanity.  on both the level of society and the individual.  i do not think the belief system itself is inherently bad either, just that the need or preference for it is.  religious ideologies started as a way for humans to understand the world around them to provide explanations for things they could not find the answers too.  as science and technology became more advanced, those religions made considerably less sense than the explanations provided my science.  now, i think that still applies to modern religions.  we have answers that makes considerably more sense than  a creature came from nothing, with power that is either natural and magic or some kind of technology, then created the universe.  then created creatures to inhabit the universe.  .
this is not meant as a disrespect to most organized religions, merely an observation i have come to.  the widespread belief or following of most organized religions christianity, islam, judaism is a sign of human weakness in a couple of ways.  the need for an afterlife in most religions satisfies our general fears of death, and the impermanence and futility of our lives.  the theory is not backed by much scientific evidence as far as i know, so the reason to believe in an afterlife is not that it makes more sense but that it makes life easier.  a fear of death and impermanence so strong that one must believe in something that i would categorize as fairytale.  this is what i would call a weakness.  the need for moral guidance in life to need guidance from religion to know the difference between right and wrong is also a sign of weakness in that it shows a lack of judgement and wisdom for one to decide for themselves what is right or wrong.  furthermore, the need of a consequence by eternal damnation as persuasion not to do  bad things , and the need of an incentive by eternal salvation to do good.  is a sign of weakness in that it shows that human nature is bad, or barbaric in a sense.   #  the theory is not backed by much scientific evidence as far as i know, so the reason to believe in an afterlife is not that it makes more sense but that it makes life easier.   #  a fear of death and impermanence so strong that one must believe in something that i would categorize as fairytale.   # a fear of death and impermanence so strong that one must believe in something that i would categorize as fairytale.  this is what i would call a weakness.  so things that make life easier make you weaker ? that is incorrect.  humans have a limited attention span.  making things easier allows you to better focus on important tasks.  so you are saying that learning how to behave from elders leads to you being weaker ? that is also incorrect, humans are much more effective with teaching and aid from adults.  is a sign of weakness in that it shows that human nature is bad, or barbaric in a sense.  so here you are saying artificially produced reward and punishment schemes are unhelpful and demonstrate barbaric behaviour ? also incorrect, humans are rational intelligent beings and it is fairly normal for them to create artificial incentive structures to aid proper behaviour, like golden stars for doing well at class, or setting artificial goals like having a bookshelf of a favorite author.  none of your stated weaknesses are actual weaknesses.  there are religious groups with genuine weaknesses like jehovah is witnesses who refuse to take blood transplants, or the hindu practice of followers of the vishnu smriti burning widows, but vague non weaknesses do not mean much.  if a weakness leads to physical harm then it is a bit more serious, but vague emotional ones mean little.  there are many practices of religious people that humans in general do.  religious people speak.  this is not a sign of their weakness at nonverbal communication.  religious people exercise.  this is not a sign they are wasting calories.  religious people read.  this is not a sign of their lack of sociability.  these are all common human traits that are not weaknesses.   #  as for the slipperly slope. that is also mostly only applicable to todays time.   #  i mean why did not a religion like that get created and become widespread ? if all humans are so weak, this seems like a perfect religion.  i was also under the impression that we were talking about why religion started and grew popular, but now it seems you are talking about modern times.  hm.  are you implying atheists are stronger than religious people ? as for the slipperly slope. that is also mostly only applicable to todays time.  but i suppose it is a valid point.  still you could certainly easily come up with a less vigirous moral code that christianity and islam and still be on the publics good side.   #  i think maybe i should clarify something, although this might be cause for an entirely different thread the reason i say  fairytale  is because we are taught to believe many fairytales as children.   #  if i had to guess, modern religions follow the personal moral guidelines held by those who wrote the respective religious texts.  and it stuck because of tradition, and because people generally agree with it.  i think at any given time, the problem with the religion you described is the reasoning i provided.  it is gives too much of a gray area, there would be no objectively good or bad thing in the universe.  every act would be inherently  okay .  i am not necessarily trying to imply that.  i certainly think some atheists may be stronger than theists, but that goes both ways.  i think maybe i should clarify something, although this might be cause for an entirely different thread the reason i say  fairytale  is because we are taught to believe many fairytales as children.  we believe what our parents tell us at that age, for the most part, and we lack the reasoning to see that many fairytales do not make sense.  i think most modern religions fall under this category they do not make much sense, they may involve some kind of magical thinking.  and that people continue to believe, among other things, mostly to satisfy their emotions.   #  before science existed the idea that humans perceived of creation and causation shows the progression of human consciousness if nothing else.   #  i am an agnostic that views religion as having it is own challenges and does not necessarily show signs of human weakness.  if anything, the fact that religion exists is a true testament to the strength of humanity.  before science existed the idea that humans perceived of creation and causation shows the progression of human consciousness if nothing else.  if you start from a place where you are assuming that the world would be better off if religion never existed i could see how you could make an argument that the paternity involved in religion shows weakness.  however, i do not think religion is inherently bad and i view it as a part of humanities progression.   #  as science and technology became more advanced, those religions made considerably less sense than the explanations provided my science.   #  i think religion has generally been a good thing for humanity.  on both the level of society and the individual.  i do not think the belief system itself is inherently bad either, just that the need or preference for it is.  religious ideologies started as a way for humans to understand the world around them to provide explanations for things they could not find the answers too.  as science and technology became more advanced, those religions made considerably less sense than the explanations provided my science.  now, i think that still applies to modern religions.  we have answers that makes considerably more sense than  a creature came from nothing, with power that is either natural and magic or some kind of technology, then created the universe.  then created creatures to inhabit the universe.  .
this is not meant as a disrespect to most organized religions, merely an observation i have come to.  the widespread belief or following of most organized religions christianity, islam, judaism is a sign of human weakness in a couple of ways.  the need for an afterlife in most religions satisfies our general fears of death, and the impermanence and futility of our lives.  the theory is not backed by much scientific evidence as far as i know, so the reason to believe in an afterlife is not that it makes more sense but that it makes life easier.  a fear of death and impermanence so strong that one must believe in something that i would categorize as fairytale.  this is what i would call a weakness.  the need for moral guidance in life to need guidance from religion to know the difference between right and wrong is also a sign of weakness in that it shows a lack of judgement and wisdom for one to decide for themselves what is right or wrong.  furthermore, the need of a consequence by eternal damnation as persuasion not to do  bad things , and the need of an incentive by eternal salvation to do good.  is a sign of weakness in that it shows that human nature is bad, or barbaric in a sense.   #  furthermore, the need of a consequence by eternal damnation as persuasion not to do  bad things , and the need of an incentive by eternal salvation to do good.   #  is a sign of weakness in that it shows that human nature is bad, or barbaric in a sense.   # a fear of death and impermanence so strong that one must believe in something that i would categorize as fairytale.  this is what i would call a weakness.  so things that make life easier make you weaker ? that is incorrect.  humans have a limited attention span.  making things easier allows you to better focus on important tasks.  so you are saying that learning how to behave from elders leads to you being weaker ? that is also incorrect, humans are much more effective with teaching and aid from adults.  is a sign of weakness in that it shows that human nature is bad, or barbaric in a sense.  so here you are saying artificially produced reward and punishment schemes are unhelpful and demonstrate barbaric behaviour ? also incorrect, humans are rational intelligent beings and it is fairly normal for them to create artificial incentive structures to aid proper behaviour, like golden stars for doing well at class, or setting artificial goals like having a bookshelf of a favorite author.  none of your stated weaknesses are actual weaknesses.  there are religious groups with genuine weaknesses like jehovah is witnesses who refuse to take blood transplants, or the hindu practice of followers of the vishnu smriti burning widows, but vague non weaknesses do not mean much.  if a weakness leads to physical harm then it is a bit more serious, but vague emotional ones mean little.  there are many practices of religious people that humans in general do.  religious people speak.  this is not a sign of their weakness at nonverbal communication.  religious people exercise.  this is not a sign they are wasting calories.  religious people read.  this is not a sign of their lack of sociability.  these are all common human traits that are not weaknesses.   #  are you implying atheists are stronger than religious people ?  #  i mean why did not a religion like that get created and become widespread ? if all humans are so weak, this seems like a perfect religion.  i was also under the impression that we were talking about why religion started and grew popular, but now it seems you are talking about modern times.  hm.  are you implying atheists are stronger than religious people ? as for the slipperly slope. that is also mostly only applicable to todays time.  but i suppose it is a valid point.  still you could certainly easily come up with a less vigirous moral code that christianity and islam and still be on the publics good side.   #  i certainly think some atheists may be stronger than theists, but that goes both ways.   #  if i had to guess, modern religions follow the personal moral guidelines held by those who wrote the respective religious texts.  and it stuck because of tradition, and because people generally agree with it.  i think at any given time, the problem with the religion you described is the reasoning i provided.  it is gives too much of a gray area, there would be no objectively good or bad thing in the universe.  every act would be inherently  okay .  i am not necessarily trying to imply that.  i certainly think some atheists may be stronger than theists, but that goes both ways.  i think maybe i should clarify something, although this might be cause for an entirely different thread the reason i say  fairytale  is because we are taught to believe many fairytales as children.  we believe what our parents tell us at that age, for the most part, and we lack the reasoning to see that many fairytales do not make sense.  i think most modern religions fall under this category they do not make much sense, they may involve some kind of magical thinking.  and that people continue to believe, among other things, mostly to satisfy their emotions.   #  if you start from a place where you are assuming that the world would be better off if religion never existed i could see how you could make an argument that the paternity involved in religion shows weakness.   #  i am an agnostic that views religion as having it is own challenges and does not necessarily show signs of human weakness.  if anything, the fact that religion exists is a true testament to the strength of humanity.  before science existed the idea that humans perceived of creation and causation shows the progression of human consciousness if nothing else.  if you start from a place where you are assuming that the world would be better off if religion never existed i could see how you could make an argument that the paternity involved in religion shows weakness.  however, i do not think religion is inherently bad and i view it as a part of humanities progression.   #  as science and technology became more advanced, those religions made considerably less sense than the explanations provided my science.   #  i think religion has generally been a good thing for humanity.  on both the level of society and the individual.  i do not think the belief system itself is inherently bad either, just that the need or preference for it is.  religious ideologies started as a way for humans to understand the world around them to provide explanations for things they could not find the answers too.  as science and technology became more advanced, those religions made considerably less sense than the explanations provided my science.  now, i think that still applies to modern religions.  we have answers that makes considerably more sense than  a creature came from nothing, with power that is either natural and magic or some kind of technology, then created the universe.  then created creatures to inhabit the universe.  .
thats the fucking deal and either you know it or youre wilfully ignorant, and choose not to do a simple google search about the pain and suffering youre supporting.  they have to do regular mental health screenings on workers in normal abatoirs to make sure theyre not harbouring serial killers ffs can you even imagine the types of people who choose to work in  factory farms  ? can you even imagine how much torture and abuse flys under the radar and never makes it to the front page of reddit ? it comes with the territory that by eating meat you are supporting torture and abuse of animals in many different ways and severities, there is no way around it, and yet you people act shocked when a post about it reaches the front page and pretend it matters to you.  if it fucking mattered to you wouldnt be contributing to it.  and yes obviously it is possible to not consume factory farmed meat products but the amount of people who exclusively do that is so small that it does not really have any relevance to anything and its safe to assume almost everyone who will post in this thread eats mcdonalds and buys chicken from the supermarket.   #  its safe to assume almost everyone who will post in this thread eats mcdonalds and buys chicken from the supermarket.   #  i do not eat mcdonalds, and the chicken i buy from the supermarket is free range and the beef grass fed .   #  i buy all my meat from local farms that grass feed their cattle and raise free range chickens.  so, yes, i have grounds to be upset about it.  i do not eat mcdonalds, and the chicken i buy from the supermarket is free range and the beef grass fed .  i do research and make sure that my food is sourced from farms that raise animals correctly and slaughter them humanely.  judging by other responses, this is not a safe assumption  at all  #  i think you have both an unusual and particularly unproductive view.   #  i think you have both an unusual and particularly unproductive view.  there have been abuses in many other industries, and the most common way that they are addressed is that enough people are concerned about what is happening that eventually there is political or financial pressure for companies to change their practices.  people were concerned with international child slavery and child labor, and companies have put in some albeit probably not enough effort to improve working conditions.  people were concerned with exploitation involved in the mining of diamonds in africa, and now there is a system that does a better job stopping diamond money from paying for violent civil wars and genocide.  there is been concern regarding the testing of cosmetic products on animals, and there are now better standards and more transparency on what happens.  nobody is going to go on living without clothes, soap, makeup, diamonds rings, etc, but because large numbers of people got upset about the worst abuses in some of these industries, a lot of conditions improved.   #  most people want animals they eat to be farmed humanely.   #  there is a big difference between eating meat and accepting animal torture and abuse.  most people want animals they eat to be farmed humanely.  to this end we have laws governing the way they are treated.  these laws are made because people want them to be made.  people want them made because most people do not want to see animals suffer.  it true we get outraged when we read tales of torture, and we have the right to.  eating meat does not take away the right to be disgusted by the behaviour of a few individuals.   #  eating meat does not take away the right to be disgusted by the behaviour of a few individuals.   # most people want animals they eat to be farmed humanely.  to this end we have laws governing the way they are treated.  these laws are made because people want them to be made.  people want them made because most people do not want to see animals suffer.  yes everyone wants to have their 0 dollar cheeseburgers and eat them too, this isnt news to me.  eating meat does not take away the right to be disgusted by the behaviour of a few individuals.  you ignored the entire op.  if i pay someone to abuse animals, how does it make sense that i also get outraged when i see stories on the news about people abusing animals.   #  chickens are grown to 0 times their natural size, musculature cant handle it, roughly 0 of their life is spent in chronic pain is normal.   # just because you do not want the animals to get abused does not change the fact that youre paying people who you  know  abuse animals.  if you cared enough about the abuss you would pay someone else who you  know  does not abuse animals but you  do not  do that.  i have not paid him to drive badly thats a random accident.  abuse in factory farms beyond the inherent abuse that every factory farmed animal endures eg.  chickens are grown to 0 times their natural size, musculature cant handle it, roughly 0 of their life is spent in chronic pain is normal.  its business as usual, and its a business you support every day.  just because you do not have to see it does not mean its not happening.
thats the fucking deal and either you know it or youre wilfully ignorant, and choose not to do a simple google search about the pain and suffering youre supporting.  they have to do regular mental health screenings on workers in normal abatoirs to make sure theyre not harbouring serial killers ffs can you even imagine the types of people who choose to work in  factory farms  ? can you even imagine how much torture and abuse flys under the radar and never makes it to the front page of reddit ? it comes with the territory that by eating meat you are supporting torture and abuse of animals in many different ways and severities, there is no way around it, and yet you people act shocked when a post about it reaches the front page and pretend it matters to you.  if it fucking mattered to you wouldnt be contributing to it.  and yes obviously it is possible to not consume factory farmed meat products but the amount of people who exclusively do that is so small that it does not really have any relevance to anything and its safe to assume almost everyone who will post in this thread eats mcdonalds and buys chicken from the supermarket.   #  thats the fucking deal and either you know it or youre wilfully ignorant, and choose not to do a simple google search about the pain and suffering youre supporting.   #  what is wrong with expecting ethically raised meat ?  # what is wrong with expecting ethically raised meat ? people who like money.  if it fucking mattered to you wouldnt be contributing to it.  not necessarily.  there are plenty of ways to obtain meat from animals raised in ethically good conditions.  yes people act shocked, often times because they do not know.  i realize you called this  willful ignorance  but by that criteria, people are willfully ignorant about shit ton of things.  it is pretty unreasonable to expect everybody to know everything about everything.  so if an animal abuse video makes it to the limelight, rather than getting pissed off that people are shocked which is not going to further your cause; do your best to educate.  it is small  now ; but you know what was also small at one point in time ? organic produce.  now, it is ubiquitous.  great movements have small beginnings; and not knowing about factory farms and their practices is not willfully ignorant, often times those most shocked really do not know.  i use cell phones all the time, i could not begin to tell you how they work.   #  there have been abuses in many other industries, and the most common way that they are addressed is that enough people are concerned about what is happening that eventually there is political or financial pressure for companies to change their practices.   #  i think you have both an unusual and particularly unproductive view.  there have been abuses in many other industries, and the most common way that they are addressed is that enough people are concerned about what is happening that eventually there is political or financial pressure for companies to change their practices.  people were concerned with international child slavery and child labor, and companies have put in some albeit probably not enough effort to improve working conditions.  people were concerned with exploitation involved in the mining of diamonds in africa, and now there is a system that does a better job stopping diamond money from paying for violent civil wars and genocide.  there is been concern regarding the testing of cosmetic products on animals, and there are now better standards and more transparency on what happens.  nobody is going to go on living without clothes, soap, makeup, diamonds rings, etc, but because large numbers of people got upset about the worst abuses in some of these industries, a lot of conditions improved.   #  eating meat does not take away the right to be disgusted by the behaviour of a few individuals.   #  there is a big difference between eating meat and accepting animal torture and abuse.  most people want animals they eat to be farmed humanely.  to this end we have laws governing the way they are treated.  these laws are made because people want them to be made.  people want them made because most people do not want to see animals suffer.  it true we get outraged when we read tales of torture, and we have the right to.  eating meat does not take away the right to be disgusted by the behaviour of a few individuals.   #  eating meat does not take away the right to be disgusted by the behaviour of a few individuals.   # most people want animals they eat to be farmed humanely.  to this end we have laws governing the way they are treated.  these laws are made because people want them to be made.  people want them made because most people do not want to see animals suffer.  yes everyone wants to have their 0 dollar cheeseburgers and eat them too, this isnt news to me.  eating meat does not take away the right to be disgusted by the behaviour of a few individuals.  you ignored the entire op.  if i pay someone to abuse animals, how does it make sense that i also get outraged when i see stories on the news about people abusing animals.   #  just because you do not want the animals to get abused does not change the fact that youre paying people who you  know  abuse animals.   # just because you do not want the animals to get abused does not change the fact that youre paying people who you  know  abuse animals.  if you cared enough about the abuss you would pay someone else who you  know  does not abuse animals but you  do not  do that.  i have not paid him to drive badly thats a random accident.  abuse in factory farms beyond the inherent abuse that every factory farmed animal endures eg.  chickens are grown to 0 times their natural size, musculature cant handle it, roughly 0 of their life is spent in chronic pain is normal.  its business as usual, and its a business you support every day.  just because you do not have to see it does not mean its not happening.
i believe that the main incentive for carrying a firearm when committing a crime is that you may need to defend yourself against armed police.  because criminals tend to be armed normal citizens need to be armed in order to protect themselves against those criminals.  disarming the police would reduce the need for criminals to carry firearms and so generally reduce the perceived need to carry a gun by citizens.  by removing this normalcy of this type of weapon is reduced and a reduced rate of gun related homicide should be seen.  this is borne out in countries like the uk and applies specifically to guns rather than all non lethal arms.  when asked, uk police officers say overwhelmingly that they wish to remain unarmed.  a 0 survey of 0,0 police federation members found 0 did not want officers to be routinely armed on duty, despite almost half saying their lives had been  in serious jeopardy  during the previous three years.   #  i believe that the main incentive for carrying a firearm when committing a crime is that you may need to defend yourself against armed police.   #  i think that is an interesting, although mostly unfounded, assumption.   # i think that is an interesting, although mostly unfounded, assumption.  according to some research included a relevant link below socialization is the biggest predictive factor in whether or not people carry guns and whether or not people carry firearms while committing crimes.  if people grow up around guns or grow up around people who carry guns for the purpose of intimidation or use in crimes, then they themselves are more likely to carry guns or use them during crimes.  i think that while it may be true that the police not carrying weapons in the first place might reduce the number of people killed by police officers, if no other action is taken that addresses the social, familial, and societal factors in place that created the proliferation of gun use in the first place by criminals , then you are ultimately failing to address the real problems.  here is that link: URL  #  the length of their sentence is the last thing on their mind.   #  trust me.  the length of their sentence is the last thing on their mind.  violent criminals are predominantly gangbangers, addicts, or those suffering from mental illness.  they are either delusional, or they want to get from point a to point b as directly as possible.  usually, point a is not having money, and point b is having money.  that is about as far as their logic goes.  these are not bright, rational thinkers.  these are desperate, broken people.  if a gun gets them what they want, they will get a gun.  just to give you an idea how out of touch some of these offenders are, i had a homeless man who demanded money and pulled a knife on girl and her driving instructor, ask  is it true that if i say i got a knife and i am going to use it and i pull out my knife, and ask for money, that it is attempted robbery ?    #  despite the fact that they are less likely to be confronted by a civilian with a gun, they are  more  likely to use guns.   #  i did not say anything, i am someone else.  this has no bearing on your hypothesis; it shows making guns harder to get increases gun crime.  in fact, not only does it have nothing to do with arming the police, it actually contradicts you a little.  making guns less available  increases  the likelihood of gun crime happening.  people being  less  armed increases the armament of criminals.  despite the fact that they are less likely to be confronted by a civilian with a gun, they are  more  likely to use guns.  now, they are not police obviously, but this directly contradicts your logic of  less gun confrontation less gun crime .   #  way more money on the line a pound of coke is like 0,0$ or something like that .   #  because being a criminal is dangerous.  a pound of weed is typically around 0 0$ in my area, depending on supply/demand and quality, and how you sell it wholesale usually is cheaper v.  moving it ounces for ounce .  to put that into perspective, my rent is like 0$ a month, and i live in a decent place/locale for somebody my age.  if i sell a pound of weed, my rent  expenditure is set for the next two months.  that is some serious fucking cash; to make the same amount of money at my day job, i have to work for like 0hr a week every week.  drug dealing is not like other jobs; there is nothing protecting you from other dealers except yourself.  if i have a pound of weed, and i take it to a deal and get robbed, i am out 0$, which means i am out of 0 months rent.  so would i have a gun ? absolutely; i am not getting fucking robbed.  and that is for just a pound of weed, which is like one of the most low tier crimes.  selling harder drugs ? way more money on the line a pound of coke is like 0,0$ or something like that .  doing robberies or burglaries ? expect resistance.  guns are intimidating; throwing one in somebody is face is an easy way to show you are not fucking around.  guns are also good insurance; it is way more dangerous to rob somebody with a gun.   #  our boys in blue are brave and all, but they are not going to chase a guy with a . 0 with just their nightstick and massive balls.   # this is flawed logic, because police officers are trained only to shoot if you pose a legitimate threat to them or someone else if, say, you were brandishing a gun around.  or even if you had a gun, and refused to put your hands up and away from its holster.  the media would have you believe otherwise, but shooting suspects that do not attack you and even those that run away, contrary to more popular belief is still unacceptable, even illegal.  disarming the police would be  more  incentive to carry guns as a criminal because most officers are not going to chase you down if you are actively firing at them, if they do not have a weapon of their own.  our boys in blue are brave and all, but they are not going to chase a guy with a . 0 with just their nightstick and massive balls.
i hear a lot about modern feminism being closely related or even incorporating lgbt  into itself, and this makes very little sense to me.  equality of opportunity can only truly exist if male and female people are perceived as equal in every way as long as humans and inherent human bias are still factors this is one issue i have with feminism in general, but not the point of this cmv.  my view is that this directly contradicts the very idea of transgenderism and even to an extent homosexuality in that it removes the unorthodoxy in interaction between gender in non traditional ways not via acceptance, but by unifying the genders.  ideally, in a feminist world as i see it, genders would be identical in interaction both socially and in work, and biological sex either disregarded or put onto a  ispectrum , in which case transgenderism could be considered a purely cosmetic change which would be undesirable to undergo seen as the perception of you would not change despite the effort you put in .  the current reason as i see it is that they fit better into their reassigned gender roles, which i respect, but gender roles would be eliminated by many feminists, given a chance.  beacause of this, i see transgenderism as either meaningless in the context of feminism, or a stepping stone for a pseudo orwellian future of counter constructive normality.  please cmv.   #  transgenderism could be considered a purely cosmetic change which would be undesirable to undergo seen as the perception of you would not change despite the effort you put in .   #  the current reason as i see it is that they fit better into their reassigned gender roles, which i respect, but gender roles would be eliminated by many feminists, given a chance.   # the current reason as i see it is that they fit better into their reassigned gender roles, which i respect, but gender roles would be eliminated by many feminists, given a chance.  you are misunderstanding the purpose of gender reassignment surgery   other cosmetic changes that transgendered people undergo.  it is not about fitting into their or other people is preferred gender roles, it is about getting their body to match their internal gender identity, so they can feel comfortable in their own skin.  look up  gender dysphoria  here is URL one good page about it from the nhs .  it is often uncomfortable and distressing, and it can cause deep depression and suicidal thoughts.  there is a wealth of research showing that living as the gender they identify with, rather than pretending to identify with their biological sex, is the best intervention for people suffering gender dysphoria.  whether that means simply dressing   acting as their preferred gender, or undergoing full surgery, depends on the individual.  basically, they do what they can to get their external appearance to match the gender their brain thinks they should be, in order to feel more comfortable in themselves.  importantly, the research shows that this is the best way to tackle gd, resulting in the lowest rates of depression   suicidal thoughts compared to any other interventions.  so you see, it is not about gender roles and has little to do with feminist aims.  even in a world like you describe, where gender roles no longer exist   no one looks twice at anyone else is gender presentation, there would still be people suffering gd, because their body just does not match what their brain thinks it should be.  no contradiction there.   #  a large assumption/mistake people make is that being a woman is  just  cosmetic, and it is not.   #  here is my opinion as a transfeminist.  a large assumption/mistake people make is that being a woman is  just  cosmetic, and it is not.  often, feminism and trans  rights go hand in hand as both believe that biology is not destiny.  if you are wondering  well if you do not believe that there is a difference between genders, how can you be trans ?  , i can answer that.  there are undeniable biological differences between sexes insofar as things like neuroscience and physiology are concerned but it goes beyond that.  take dysphoria for example: the majority of trans  people who experience gender dysphoria have a distinct biological rejection to their sexual physical characteristics.  this disconnect is in part to the fact that most trans  people is brains specifically the area for stress/arousal/control are identical to the sex they identify as.  the current social constructs of what a  man  is/looks like, or what a  woman  is/looks like makes it hard for us to wrap our heads around the fact that some women come out as  men  and vice versa.  feminism aims to dismantle the social structures that create these harmful gender perception barriers.  the only exception are gender critical people within the feminist community with different views on this, but as a whole, transfeminism is just a part of the larger picture of feminism, which is in turn part of the larger egalitarianism.   #  gender roles being eradicated also is not inherently against transgender people either or even against the idea that i am talking about.   #  gender roles being eradicated also is not inherently against transgender people either or even against the idea that i am talking about.  it is more about making it so that either the masculine or feminine is fine and it is not expected to be associated with a certain gender though it can be.  so for instance let is say there is a guy who exists who identifies as male but wants to be a stay at home dad and also does wood working in his spare time.  so currently this man might be accused of pedophilia when he takes his daughter to the park or be made fun of for wanting to be a stay at home parent.  modern feminism is a lot about removing the stigma of the  opposite  gender in a role that has been cast as more feminine even if the person who wants to take on said role is masculine in other aspects.  however this also does not go against someone who is transgender who does not feel comfortable in the body they currently have.  as an example i have a number of highly masculine hobbies and personality but yet have a fairly feminine cast body in addition to secondary sexual characteristic differences that are inherent between men and women.  both movements are mainly about feeling comfortable with who you are without having to deal with violence, prejudice or stereotyping because you do not fit the  mold  for your gender.   #  my argument was simply that the desire to have a penis is not related to aesthetics, roles or labels.   #  i was presenting that example as one that is not cosmetic or related to gender roles.  i was not presenting that example as the primary motivator for transexuality.  my argument was simply that the desire to have a penis is not related to aesthetics, roles or labels.  look at this a different way.  a transexual man to woman wants to present to the world as feminine.  that is her goal.  your argument is that the goal of feminism is to eradicate i spelled it wrong previously feminine and masculine roles.  that, however, is not true.  the goal of feminism is to eradicate the link between male and masculinity and female and femininity.  in what way is a transexual man to woman contradicting this goal by wanting to express femininity ? it would seem that it is completely in line with the feminist desire to allow men to be feminine and women to be masculine without social repercussion.   #  i do not mind off the cuff discussion, but i must admit it offends me to see you present whatever you cobble together implicitly prefaced as fact.   #  again, these things are not, from my experience, representative of the movement.  if this was the case, i am certain it would be the first thing posted in this thread, but as of yet you are the only person to say that.  and previously you were arguing that physical traits were the difference maker.  i do not mind off the cuff discussion, but i must admit it offends me to see you present whatever you cobble together implicitly prefaced as fact.  at the very least, source some of these things.
firstly, my heart goes out to the victims and by no means am i making excuses or defending any actions.  yesterday is events were a tragedy.  having grown up on smith mountain lake and spent countless days on the very docks that the incident took place and having gone to the same school as alison, the events hit really close to home.  may alison and adam rest in peace.  secondly, i am not coming from the pro or anti gun legislation perspective.  if i could remove all guns from the world and safely fill the sport and personal self defense gaps with something else with a single wish, i would.  after i wished for $0 billion and 0 year old heidi klum to be my wife.  i wanted to talk specifically about premeditated murder and the role firearms play in them.  while watching the comments role through in yesterday is /r/news thread, several comments mentioned the desire for tougher gun laws.  however, i believe that in instances of premeditated murder vs manslaughter or random acts of violence , tougher gun laws would not prevent these events.  i am going to repeat myself a few times, but bear with me: despite all of the reason for bryce williams not to commit yesterday is crime, he still decided to go through with it.  despite the consequences that he would face legally, he decided to go through with it.  despite the pain he would cause to the families of the alison and adam as well as his own, he decided to go through with it.  despite the hate and vitriol his memory would leave, he decided to through with it.  despite all of the reasons not to go through with it, he decided to go through with it.  my argument is, if guns were more difficult or impossible to get access to, bryce williams would have just added it to the list of hinderances he ignored and still gone through with it.  hypothetically not having access to a fire arm, i believe he would have still gone through the act of trying to kill alison and adam by another means.  i so badly want to believe that we can prevent incidents like yesterday is from happening through tougher gun legislation or any other way, but i cannot see how.  please change my view.   #  my argument is, if guns were more difficult or impossible to get access to, bryce williams would have just added it to the list of hinderances he ignored and still gone through with it.   #  hypothetically not having access to a fire arm, i believe he would have still gone through the act of trying to kill alison and adam by another means.   # hypothetically not having access to a fire arm, i believe he would have still gone through the act of trying to kill alison and adam by another means.  of course, you are not entirely wrong.  i agree that there is a certain subset of people that will go to any lengths to commit their crime.  maybe he would have found access to a gun anyway if guns were illegal.  maybe he would have just turned the attack into a knife attack if he were unable to find a gun.  these are both possibilities.  however, i think it is undeniable that the removal of guns would have had a dampening effect on this crime and crimes like it.  perhaps it would have been the one that happened while others were prevented, perhaps it would not have happened at all.  culture makes an enormous amount of difference when it comes to behavior, period.  how often to you eat sushi ? i bet that it is a lot less often than you eat similarly priced foods that are not sushi, even if you like it.  how did i know that ? because i know that out of the many foods one can consume in america, sushi is, at least partially, a limited resource.  your world is filled with other options, options that are easier, require you to travel less, or take less time.  the result is that you eat less sushi.  limited access maters.  advocates for gun control use this same line of thinking.  if you can reduce the amount of gun deaths from 0 in 0 to 0 in 0, that is a significant change.  yes, you can point to one of those 0 out of 0 and say that gun violence still happens.  but you would be mathematically incorrect to say that it happens as often.   #  you are probably right in that he could have still gone through with the act of trying to kill the victims, but it would certainly have not been as easy.   #  you are probably right in that he could have still gone through with the act of trying to kill the victims, but it would certainly have not been as easy.  if he did not have access to a firearm, i would guess he would use either a heavy blunt weapon, or a piercing weapon knife or screwdriver .  this alone could actually have made a difference for the following reasons:   stabbing someone is harder than shooting them, there is a chance for retaliation, struggle, and possibly though unlikely to develop feelings of sympathy and remorse due to the fact that the death would be a lot more painful and long.  the second victim would have had a much more reasonable chance to flee, both from the time it would have taken to kill the original victim, and the fact that the weapon would not be ranged   there is a sense of power that comes with holding and shooting a firearm it is entirely possible that the psychological effects of using the firearm specifically romanticized the murder in the eyes of the shooter.  the knowledge of how easy the murders would be with a firearm, combined  especially  with the ease of suicide which i think plays a huge role in this case would have been greatly diminished without access to firearms.  we know that firearms availability has a direct impact on suicide, as it is one of the easiest methods to perform it.  i doubt the shooter would have risked a different type of suicide given that it might not be 0 reliable, or of it was it would be difficult and much more drawn out than a gunshot.   #  it does not take an obscene amount of effort.   #  people already use explosives.  it provides one heck of a spectacle.  it does not take an obscene amount of effort.  it provides an option for suicide.  you can even argue it would be more satisfying to completely destroy a person you hate instead of just shooting them.  also a bow and arrow has most of the benefits of a firearm and causes less sound.  i do not need to disprove every one of your statements.  your argument assumes a knife is going to be the alternative method of choice and then proceeds to list why it would be a bad idea.  i provided a list of things that can be just as effective as a knife or better.  some are closer to being as effective as a firearm than they are to being as ineffective as the knife.   #  holding a bomb where it would kill both you and your target is a different kind of spectacle.   #  what your providing is theories, when gun violence decreases due to legislation , we see a rise in stabbings usually, so statistically, the backup weapon for assault would likely be a knife.  sure, maybe making a bomb would be pretty easy, a lot of people do not know that, or the details and specifics of that, do not have the means to do a test run and do not trust going in blind.  holding a bomb where it would kill both you and your target is a different kind of spectacle.  a handgun specifically has many psychological aspects that make a weapon that makes the user feel extremely powerful.  that feeling and sound of loading a magazine, the first bullet cocked into the chamber, sleek design and hefty weight, and the knowledge that with this weapon you get to choose who lives or dies.  it is not an alternative to the situation.  a bow and arrow has similar issues, and requires far more upper body strength, reload time, chance for error, and feeling of power.  :  #  mass murder is defined as 0 people being shot i believe.   #  mass murder is defined as 0 people being shot i believe.  the guy shot 0 people plus himself, making it technically qualify as a mass shooting.  that is besides the point, however.  there were mass shootings in australia, they all but stopped after gun control was passed.  the us has about 0 of the population, but has about 0 of mass shootings.  the countries with the highest rates of civilian firearm ownership are also among the countries with the highest rates of mass shootings.
firstly, my heart goes out to the victims and by no means am i making excuses or defending any actions.  yesterday is events were a tragedy.  having grown up on smith mountain lake and spent countless days on the very docks that the incident took place and having gone to the same school as alison, the events hit really close to home.  may alison and adam rest in peace.  secondly, i am not coming from the pro or anti gun legislation perspective.  if i could remove all guns from the world and safely fill the sport and personal self defense gaps with something else with a single wish, i would.  after i wished for $0 billion and 0 year old heidi klum to be my wife.  i wanted to talk specifically about premeditated murder and the role firearms play in them.  while watching the comments role through in yesterday is /r/news thread, several comments mentioned the desire for tougher gun laws.  however, i believe that in instances of premeditated murder vs manslaughter or random acts of violence , tougher gun laws would not prevent these events.  i am going to repeat myself a few times, but bear with me: despite all of the reason for bryce williams not to commit yesterday is crime, he still decided to go through with it.  despite the consequences that he would face legally, he decided to go through with it.  despite the pain he would cause to the families of the alison and adam as well as his own, he decided to go through with it.  despite the hate and vitriol his memory would leave, he decided to through with it.  despite all of the reasons not to go through with it, he decided to go through with it.  my argument is, if guns were more difficult or impossible to get access to, bryce williams would have just added it to the list of hinderances he ignored and still gone through with it.  hypothetically not having access to a fire arm, i believe he would have still gone through the act of trying to kill alison and adam by another means.  i so badly want to believe that we can prevent incidents like yesterday is from happening through tougher gun legislation or any other way, but i cannot see how.  please change my view.   #  my argument is, if guns were more difficult or impossible to get access to, bryce williams would have just added it to the list of hinderances he ignored and still gone through with it.   #  hypothetically not having access to a fire arm, i believe he would have still gone through the act of trying to kill alison and adam by another means.   # hypothetically not having access to a fire arm, i believe he would have still gone through the act of trying to kill alison and adam by another means.  in practice though, owning a gun makes it massively easier to commit these kinds of crimes.  in countries with no/low civilian gun ownership like the uk, there are never any sandy hook type situations where someone kills a lot of innocent people, because there are not any weapons available to the average unhinged person that could inflict that kind of damage.  there are murders, of course, but there are less of them.  i ca not say for sure, but i would guess that attempted murderers fail more often in the uk, since they ca not kill as easily.  the ease in which you can kill people with guns is also shown by the statistics on gun suicide in the us; the higher the rate of gun ownership in a state, the higher the rate of gun suicide.  the rate of non gun suicide is not proportionally higher in low gun ownership states, suggesting that not having a gun available significantly reduces the chance of committing suicide.  source: URL graph 0 .  obviously homicide and suicide are different, but the principle is the same: reducing access to firearms reduces your ability to kill people.  you did not ask, but as for whether increasing gun control and adding background checks would help solve the problem, i think there is no doubt.  america is a big country and there is no way you could instantly round up all the gun owners and force them to take background checks, but guns wear out/get broken, so by being more strict with new gun owners you can slowly reduce the gun ownership rate without any forced confiscations.  weapons that get used in/are found at the scene of a crime and found could be destroyed instead of sold off URL leading to a situation where fewer and fewer guns are available to criminals.   #  if he did not have access to a firearm, i would guess he would use either a heavy blunt weapon, or a piercing weapon knife or screwdriver .   #  you are probably right in that he could have still gone through with the act of trying to kill the victims, but it would certainly have not been as easy.  if he did not have access to a firearm, i would guess he would use either a heavy blunt weapon, or a piercing weapon knife or screwdriver .  this alone could actually have made a difference for the following reasons:   stabbing someone is harder than shooting them, there is a chance for retaliation, struggle, and possibly though unlikely to develop feelings of sympathy and remorse due to the fact that the death would be a lot more painful and long.  the second victim would have had a much more reasonable chance to flee, both from the time it would have taken to kill the original victim, and the fact that the weapon would not be ranged   there is a sense of power that comes with holding and shooting a firearm it is entirely possible that the psychological effects of using the firearm specifically romanticized the murder in the eyes of the shooter.  the knowledge of how easy the murders would be with a firearm, combined  especially  with the ease of suicide which i think plays a huge role in this case would have been greatly diminished without access to firearms.  we know that firearms availability has a direct impact on suicide, as it is one of the easiest methods to perform it.  i doubt the shooter would have risked a different type of suicide given that it might not be 0 reliable, or of it was it would be difficult and much more drawn out than a gunshot.   #  your argument assumes a knife is going to be the alternative method of choice and then proceeds to list why it would be a bad idea.   #  people already use explosives.  it provides one heck of a spectacle.  it does not take an obscene amount of effort.  it provides an option for suicide.  you can even argue it would be more satisfying to completely destroy a person you hate instead of just shooting them.  also a bow and arrow has most of the benefits of a firearm and causes less sound.  i do not need to disprove every one of your statements.  your argument assumes a knife is going to be the alternative method of choice and then proceeds to list why it would be a bad idea.  i provided a list of things that can be just as effective as a knife or better.  some are closer to being as effective as a firearm than they are to being as ineffective as the knife.   #  that feeling and sound of loading a magazine, the first bullet cocked into the chamber, sleek design and hefty weight, and the knowledge that with this weapon you get to choose who lives or dies.   #  what your providing is theories, when gun violence decreases due to legislation , we see a rise in stabbings usually, so statistically, the backup weapon for assault would likely be a knife.  sure, maybe making a bomb would be pretty easy, a lot of people do not know that, or the details and specifics of that, do not have the means to do a test run and do not trust going in blind.  holding a bomb where it would kill both you and your target is a different kind of spectacle.  a handgun specifically has many psychological aspects that make a weapon that makes the user feel extremely powerful.  that feeling and sound of loading a magazine, the first bullet cocked into the chamber, sleek design and hefty weight, and the knowledge that with this weapon you get to choose who lives or dies.  it is not an alternative to the situation.  a bow and arrow has similar issues, and requires far more upper body strength, reload time, chance for error, and feeling of power.  :  #  the countries with the highest rates of civilian firearm ownership are also among the countries with the highest rates of mass shootings.   #  mass murder is defined as 0 people being shot i believe.  the guy shot 0 people plus himself, making it technically qualify as a mass shooting.  that is besides the point, however.  there were mass shootings in australia, they all but stopped after gun control was passed.  the us has about 0 of the population, but has about 0 of mass shootings.  the countries with the highest rates of civilian firearm ownership are also among the countries with the highest rates of mass shootings.
christian funerals have no place in a secularized society.  we are doing them mainly because it is a custom and tradition.  the funeral ceremony is a display of hypocrisy and egotism.  but let me explain: grief is a display of egoism.  to have grief is to put ones own concerns first.   she is dead and now i am alone.   the hypocrisy of the funeral is that people mourn no matter if the person was good or evil.  instead, the proper way to have a funeral is celebration.  the deceased should be the center of attention.  it should be a celebration of the life of the deceased person.  a presentation that shows the whole life of the person in all its grandeur.  sing and dance to cherish the beauty of life that has come full circle.  in case the person was evil, it should be a celebration that the person is dead.  tl;dr: funerals should be a celebration of the wonder called life !  #  christian funerals have no place in a secularized society.   #  do you know anything about cultures outside of your own ?  # do you know anything about cultures outside of your own ? there are funerals held by almost every culture in history, and almost all of them, in one form or another, involve mourning.  how does that have anything to do with hypocrisy ? the fact that you are mourning only says that the person in question is missed by the people mourning them, it has nothing to do with them being  good or evil.   your whole argument about hypocrisy is a complete non sequitur.  the deceased should be the center of attention.  it should be a celebration of the life of the deceased person.  a presentation that shows the whole life of the person in all its grandeur.  sing and dance to cherish the beauty of life that has come full circle.  honest question: have you experienced the death of an immediate family member before ? if so, how much did you feel like dancing at the time ? if you honestly did, then great you have a interestingly resilient way of dealing with emotional hardships.  but could you maybe understand that not everyone else in the world deals with things the same way you do, and some people actually need to grieve for their lost loved ones as a part of the process of being able to continue on with their own lives ?  #  she was married to my grand father for 0 years.   # to have grief is to put ones own concerns first.   she is dead and now i am alone.   even if we agree it is egoistic not sure i do , what is the harm in that ? my grand mother passed a few years ago.  she was married to my grand father for 0 years.  in one day, he lost the love of his life, his best friend, his closest confident, the mother of his children and, more generally, the person he spent 0 hours out of 0 with every day for 0 years, you are going to tell me he is not entitled to be sad about that ? that he is not entitled to honour her in the ways he pleases ? people find comfort in traditions, in rituals, and comfort is often what they need in such times.  because it is not about the deceased, it is about those that are left behind.  it is a hard time for many people and there is no real need to dictate their conduct.  the lady does not care whether we party or not.  there is no  proper way  to have a funeral.  there is only the way you feel will best support those that are left in their grief.   #  we have a secular government, but not a secular society.   # we have a secular government, but not a secular society.  the vast majority of people follow some sort of religion.  if you did not like the person, you would not attend the funeral.  mourners are those that  cared  about the person; not that supported their actions.  the  proper way  to have a funeral is either what the deceased planned out, or what best helps people get closure.  a funeral is for the attendees and not the deceased.   #  you seem to be under the impression that every service is substantially similar.   #  what do you mean by  christian funerals  ? you seem to be under the impression that every service is substantially similar.  to have grief is to put ones own concerns first.   she is dead and now i am alone.   whose concerns are they  supposed  to put first at that time ? i am guessing your experience with funerals is through a popular entertainment; and b going to the funeral of a distant relative or family acquaintance who you did not really know and were not close to.  the deceased should be the center of attention.  it should be a celebration of the life of the deceased person.  many people do this.  we had memorial services for my mother and my best friend that did exactly that.  but grief was also part of the service, because grief is what normal people feel in those circumstances.   #  i guess you have not attended all that many funerals or recently attended some very bad ones.   #  i guess you have not attended all that many funerals or recently attended some very bad ones.  most of the funerals i have been at, while certainly not celebrations, were a time for the family and friends of the deceased to get together, share memories, their favorite stories, and have a few words from the minister.  everyone expresses grief differently.  some become very quiet and withdrawn, others put on a show and want everyone to pay attention to them.  at my grandfathers  funeral, yes his children cried it hurts a lot to lose your parent but the focus was not  oh look at me i am so sad !   it was holy shit, he was an awesome man, he did so many great things for us and we would like to share some of those experiences with one another to better remember him by.
christian funerals have no place in a secularized society.  we are doing them mainly because it is a custom and tradition.  the funeral ceremony is a display of hypocrisy and egotism.  but let me explain: grief is a display of egoism.  to have grief is to put ones own concerns first.   she is dead and now i am alone.   the hypocrisy of the funeral is that people mourn no matter if the person was good or evil.  instead, the proper way to have a funeral is celebration.  the deceased should be the center of attention.  it should be a celebration of the life of the deceased person.  a presentation that shows the whole life of the person in all its grandeur.  sing and dance to cherish the beauty of life that has come full circle.  in case the person was evil, it should be a celebration that the person is dead.  tl;dr: funerals should be a celebration of the wonder called life !  #  the hypocrisy of the funeral is that people mourn no matter if the person was good or evil.   #  how does that have anything to do with hypocrisy ?  # do you know anything about cultures outside of your own ? there are funerals held by almost every culture in history, and almost all of them, in one form or another, involve mourning.  how does that have anything to do with hypocrisy ? the fact that you are mourning only says that the person in question is missed by the people mourning them, it has nothing to do with them being  good or evil.   your whole argument about hypocrisy is a complete non sequitur.  the deceased should be the center of attention.  it should be a celebration of the life of the deceased person.  a presentation that shows the whole life of the person in all its grandeur.  sing and dance to cherish the beauty of life that has come full circle.  honest question: have you experienced the death of an immediate family member before ? if so, how much did you feel like dancing at the time ? if you honestly did, then great you have a interestingly resilient way of dealing with emotional hardships.  but could you maybe understand that not everyone else in the world deals with things the same way you do, and some people actually need to grieve for their lost loved ones as a part of the process of being able to continue on with their own lives ?  #  because it is not about the deceased, it is about those that are left behind.   # to have grief is to put ones own concerns first.   she is dead and now i am alone.   even if we agree it is egoistic not sure i do , what is the harm in that ? my grand mother passed a few years ago.  she was married to my grand father for 0 years.  in one day, he lost the love of his life, his best friend, his closest confident, the mother of his children and, more generally, the person he spent 0 hours out of 0 with every day for 0 years, you are going to tell me he is not entitled to be sad about that ? that he is not entitled to honour her in the ways he pleases ? people find comfort in traditions, in rituals, and comfort is often what they need in such times.  because it is not about the deceased, it is about those that are left behind.  it is a hard time for many people and there is no real need to dictate their conduct.  the lady does not care whether we party or not.  there is no  proper way  to have a funeral.  there is only the way you feel will best support those that are left in their grief.   #  a funeral is for the attendees and not the deceased.   # we have a secular government, but not a secular society.  the vast majority of people follow some sort of religion.  if you did not like the person, you would not attend the funeral.  mourners are those that  cared  about the person; not that supported their actions.  the  proper way  to have a funeral is either what the deceased planned out, or what best helps people get closure.  a funeral is for the attendees and not the deceased.   #  but grief was also part of the service, because grief is what normal people feel in those circumstances.   #  what do you mean by  christian funerals  ? you seem to be under the impression that every service is substantially similar.  to have grief is to put ones own concerns first.   she is dead and now i am alone.   whose concerns are they  supposed  to put first at that time ? i am guessing your experience with funerals is through a popular entertainment; and b going to the funeral of a distant relative or family acquaintance who you did not really know and were not close to.  the deceased should be the center of attention.  it should be a celebration of the life of the deceased person.  many people do this.  we had memorial services for my mother and my best friend that did exactly that.  but grief was also part of the service, because grief is what normal people feel in those circumstances.   #  most of the funerals i have been at, while certainly not celebrations, were a time for the family and friends of the deceased to get together, share memories, their favorite stories, and have a few words from the minister.   #  i guess you have not attended all that many funerals or recently attended some very bad ones.  most of the funerals i have been at, while certainly not celebrations, were a time for the family and friends of the deceased to get together, share memories, their favorite stories, and have a few words from the minister.  everyone expresses grief differently.  some become very quiet and withdrawn, others put on a show and want everyone to pay attention to them.  at my grandfathers  funeral, yes his children cried it hurts a lot to lose your parent but the focus was not  oh look at me i am so sad !   it was holy shit, he was an awesome man, he did so many great things for us and we would like to share some of those experiences with one another to better remember him by.
christian funerals have no place in a secularized society.  we are doing them mainly because it is a custom and tradition.  the funeral ceremony is a display of hypocrisy and egotism.  but let me explain: grief is a display of egoism.  to have grief is to put ones own concerns first.   she is dead and now i am alone.   the hypocrisy of the funeral is that people mourn no matter if the person was good or evil.  instead, the proper way to have a funeral is celebration.  the deceased should be the center of attention.  it should be a celebration of the life of the deceased person.  a presentation that shows the whole life of the person in all its grandeur.  sing and dance to cherish the beauty of life that has come full circle.  in case the person was evil, it should be a celebration that the person is dead.  tl;dr: funerals should be a celebration of the wonder called life !  #  instead, the proper way to have a funeral is celebration.   #  the deceased should be the center of attention.   # do you know anything about cultures outside of your own ? there are funerals held by almost every culture in history, and almost all of them, in one form or another, involve mourning.  how does that have anything to do with hypocrisy ? the fact that you are mourning only says that the person in question is missed by the people mourning them, it has nothing to do with them being  good or evil.   your whole argument about hypocrisy is a complete non sequitur.  the deceased should be the center of attention.  it should be a celebration of the life of the deceased person.  a presentation that shows the whole life of the person in all its grandeur.  sing and dance to cherish the beauty of life that has come full circle.  honest question: have you experienced the death of an immediate family member before ? if so, how much did you feel like dancing at the time ? if you honestly did, then great you have a interestingly resilient way of dealing with emotional hardships.  but could you maybe understand that not everyone else in the world deals with things the same way you do, and some people actually need to grieve for their lost loved ones as a part of the process of being able to continue on with their own lives ?  #  there is no  proper way  to have a funeral.   # to have grief is to put ones own concerns first.   she is dead and now i am alone.   even if we agree it is egoistic not sure i do , what is the harm in that ? my grand mother passed a few years ago.  she was married to my grand father for 0 years.  in one day, he lost the love of his life, his best friend, his closest confident, the mother of his children and, more generally, the person he spent 0 hours out of 0 with every day for 0 years, you are going to tell me he is not entitled to be sad about that ? that he is not entitled to honour her in the ways he pleases ? people find comfort in traditions, in rituals, and comfort is often what they need in such times.  because it is not about the deceased, it is about those that are left behind.  it is a hard time for many people and there is no real need to dictate their conduct.  the lady does not care whether we party or not.  there is no  proper way  to have a funeral.  there is only the way you feel will best support those that are left in their grief.   #  mourners are those that  cared  about the person; not that supported their actions.   # we have a secular government, but not a secular society.  the vast majority of people follow some sort of religion.  if you did not like the person, you would not attend the funeral.  mourners are those that  cared  about the person; not that supported their actions.  the  proper way  to have a funeral is either what the deceased planned out, or what best helps people get closure.  a funeral is for the attendees and not the deceased.   #   she is dead and now i am alone.    #  what do you mean by  christian funerals  ? you seem to be under the impression that every service is substantially similar.  to have grief is to put ones own concerns first.   she is dead and now i am alone.   whose concerns are they  supposed  to put first at that time ? i am guessing your experience with funerals is through a popular entertainment; and b going to the funeral of a distant relative or family acquaintance who you did not really know and were not close to.  the deceased should be the center of attention.  it should be a celebration of the life of the deceased person.  many people do this.  we had memorial services for my mother and my best friend that did exactly that.  but grief was also part of the service, because grief is what normal people feel in those circumstances.   #  it was holy shit, he was an awesome man, he did so many great things for us and we would like to share some of those experiences with one another to better remember him by.   #  i guess you have not attended all that many funerals or recently attended some very bad ones.  most of the funerals i have been at, while certainly not celebrations, were a time for the family and friends of the deceased to get together, share memories, their favorite stories, and have a few words from the minister.  everyone expresses grief differently.  some become very quiet and withdrawn, others put on a show and want everyone to pay attention to them.  at my grandfathers  funeral, yes his children cried it hurts a lot to lose your parent but the focus was not  oh look at me i am so sad !   it was holy shit, he was an awesome man, he did so many great things for us and we would like to share some of those experiences with one another to better remember him by.
christian funerals have no place in a secularized society.  we are doing them mainly because it is a custom and tradition.  the funeral ceremony is a display of hypocrisy and egotism.  but let me explain: grief is a display of egoism.  to have grief is to put ones own concerns first.   she is dead and now i am alone.   the hypocrisy of the funeral is that people mourn no matter if the person was good or evil.  instead, the proper way to have a funeral is celebration.  the deceased should be the center of attention.  it should be a celebration of the life of the deceased person.  a presentation that shows the whole life of the person in all its grandeur.  sing and dance to cherish the beauty of life that has come full circle.  in case the person was evil, it should be a celebration that the person is dead.  tl;dr: funerals should be a celebration of the wonder called life !  #  the hypocrisy of the funeral is that people mourn no matter if the person was good or evil.   #  because it is not about the deceased, it is about those that are left behind.   # to have grief is to put ones own concerns first.   she is dead and now i am alone.   even if we agree it is egoistic not sure i do , what is the harm in that ? my grand mother passed a few years ago.  she was married to my grand father for 0 years.  in one day, he lost the love of his life, his best friend, his closest confident, the mother of his children and, more generally, the person he spent 0 hours out of 0 with every day for 0 years, you are going to tell me he is not entitled to be sad about that ? that he is not entitled to honour her in the ways he pleases ? people find comfort in traditions, in rituals, and comfort is often what they need in such times.  because it is not about the deceased, it is about those that are left behind.  it is a hard time for many people and there is no real need to dictate their conduct.  the lady does not care whether we party or not.  there is no  proper way  to have a funeral.  there is only the way you feel will best support those that are left in their grief.   #  honest question: have you experienced the death of an immediate family member before ?  # do you know anything about cultures outside of your own ? there are funerals held by almost every culture in history, and almost all of them, in one form or another, involve mourning.  how does that have anything to do with hypocrisy ? the fact that you are mourning only says that the person in question is missed by the people mourning them, it has nothing to do with them being  good or evil.   your whole argument about hypocrisy is a complete non sequitur.  the deceased should be the center of attention.  it should be a celebration of the life of the deceased person.  a presentation that shows the whole life of the person in all its grandeur.  sing and dance to cherish the beauty of life that has come full circle.  honest question: have you experienced the death of an immediate family member before ? if so, how much did you feel like dancing at the time ? if you honestly did, then great you have a interestingly resilient way of dealing with emotional hardships.  but could you maybe understand that not everyone else in the world deals with things the same way you do, and some people actually need to grieve for their lost loved ones as a part of the process of being able to continue on with their own lives ?  #  the  proper way  to have a funeral is either what the deceased planned out, or what best helps people get closure.   # we have a secular government, but not a secular society.  the vast majority of people follow some sort of religion.  if you did not like the person, you would not attend the funeral.  mourners are those that  cared  about the person; not that supported their actions.  the  proper way  to have a funeral is either what the deceased planned out, or what best helps people get closure.  a funeral is for the attendees and not the deceased.   #  it should be a celebration of the life of the deceased person.   #  what do you mean by  christian funerals  ? you seem to be under the impression that every service is substantially similar.  to have grief is to put ones own concerns first.   she is dead and now i am alone.   whose concerns are they  supposed  to put first at that time ? i am guessing your experience with funerals is through a popular entertainment; and b going to the funeral of a distant relative or family acquaintance who you did not really know and were not close to.  the deceased should be the center of attention.  it should be a celebration of the life of the deceased person.  many people do this.  we had memorial services for my mother and my best friend that did exactly that.  but grief was also part of the service, because grief is what normal people feel in those circumstances.   #  it was holy shit, he was an awesome man, he did so many great things for us and we would like to share some of those experiences with one another to better remember him by.   #  i guess you have not attended all that many funerals or recently attended some very bad ones.  most of the funerals i have been at, while certainly not celebrations, were a time for the family and friends of the deceased to get together, share memories, their favorite stories, and have a few words from the minister.  everyone expresses grief differently.  some become very quiet and withdrawn, others put on a show and want everyone to pay attention to them.  at my grandfathers  funeral, yes his children cried it hurts a lot to lose your parent but the focus was not  oh look at me i am so sad !   it was holy shit, he was an awesome man, he did so many great things for us and we would like to share some of those experiences with one another to better remember him by.
christian funerals have no place in a secularized society.  we are doing them mainly because it is a custom and tradition.  the funeral ceremony is a display of hypocrisy and egotism.  but let me explain: grief is a display of egoism.  to have grief is to put ones own concerns first.   she is dead and now i am alone.   the hypocrisy of the funeral is that people mourn no matter if the person was good or evil.  instead, the proper way to have a funeral is celebration.  the deceased should be the center of attention.  it should be a celebration of the life of the deceased person.  a presentation that shows the whole life of the person in all its grandeur.  sing and dance to cherish the beauty of life that has come full circle.  in case the person was evil, it should be a celebration that the person is dead.  tl;dr: funerals should be a celebration of the wonder called life !  #  instead, the proper way to have a funeral is celebration.   #  there is no  proper way  to have a funeral.   # to have grief is to put ones own concerns first.   she is dead and now i am alone.   even if we agree it is egoistic not sure i do , what is the harm in that ? my grand mother passed a few years ago.  she was married to my grand father for 0 years.  in one day, he lost the love of his life, his best friend, his closest confident, the mother of his children and, more generally, the person he spent 0 hours out of 0 with every day for 0 years, you are going to tell me he is not entitled to be sad about that ? that he is not entitled to honour her in the ways he pleases ? people find comfort in traditions, in rituals, and comfort is often what they need in such times.  because it is not about the deceased, it is about those that are left behind.  it is a hard time for many people and there is no real need to dictate their conduct.  the lady does not care whether we party or not.  there is no  proper way  to have a funeral.  there is only the way you feel will best support those that are left in their grief.   #  if so, how much did you feel like dancing at the time ?  # do you know anything about cultures outside of your own ? there are funerals held by almost every culture in history, and almost all of them, in one form or another, involve mourning.  how does that have anything to do with hypocrisy ? the fact that you are mourning only says that the person in question is missed by the people mourning them, it has nothing to do with them being  good or evil.   your whole argument about hypocrisy is a complete non sequitur.  the deceased should be the center of attention.  it should be a celebration of the life of the deceased person.  a presentation that shows the whole life of the person in all its grandeur.  sing and dance to cherish the beauty of life that has come full circle.  honest question: have you experienced the death of an immediate family member before ? if so, how much did you feel like dancing at the time ? if you honestly did, then great you have a interestingly resilient way of dealing with emotional hardships.  but could you maybe understand that not everyone else in the world deals with things the same way you do, and some people actually need to grieve for their lost loved ones as a part of the process of being able to continue on with their own lives ?  #  if you did not like the person, you would not attend the funeral.   # we have a secular government, but not a secular society.  the vast majority of people follow some sort of religion.  if you did not like the person, you would not attend the funeral.  mourners are those that  cared  about the person; not that supported their actions.  the  proper way  to have a funeral is either what the deceased planned out, or what best helps people get closure.  a funeral is for the attendees and not the deceased.   #  it should be a celebration of the life of the deceased person.   #  what do you mean by  christian funerals  ? you seem to be under the impression that every service is substantially similar.  to have grief is to put ones own concerns first.   she is dead and now i am alone.   whose concerns are they  supposed  to put first at that time ? i am guessing your experience with funerals is through a popular entertainment; and b going to the funeral of a distant relative or family acquaintance who you did not really know and were not close to.  the deceased should be the center of attention.  it should be a celebration of the life of the deceased person.  many people do this.  we had memorial services for my mother and my best friend that did exactly that.  but grief was also part of the service, because grief is what normal people feel in those circumstances.   #  at my grandfathers  funeral, yes his children cried it hurts a lot to lose your parent but the focus was not  oh look at me i am so sad !    #  i guess you have not attended all that many funerals or recently attended some very bad ones.  most of the funerals i have been at, while certainly not celebrations, were a time for the family and friends of the deceased to get together, share memories, their favorite stories, and have a few words from the minister.  everyone expresses grief differently.  some become very quiet and withdrawn, others put on a show and want everyone to pay attention to them.  at my grandfathers  funeral, yes his children cried it hurts a lot to lose your parent but the focus was not  oh look at me i am so sad !   it was holy shit, he was an awesome man, he did so many great things for us and we would like to share some of those experiences with one another to better remember him by.
christian funerals have no place in a secularized society.  we are doing them mainly because it is a custom and tradition.  the funeral ceremony is a display of hypocrisy and egotism.  but let me explain: grief is a display of egoism.  to have grief is to put ones own concerns first.   she is dead and now i am alone.   the hypocrisy of the funeral is that people mourn no matter if the person was good or evil.  instead, the proper way to have a funeral is celebration.  the deceased should be the center of attention.  it should be a celebration of the life of the deceased person.  a presentation that shows the whole life of the person in all its grandeur.  sing and dance to cherish the beauty of life that has come full circle.  in case the person was evil, it should be a celebration that the person is dead.  tl;dr: funerals should be a celebration of the wonder called life !  #  christian funerals have no place in a secularized society.   #  we have a secular government, but not a secular society.   # we have a secular government, but not a secular society.  the vast majority of people follow some sort of religion.  if you did not like the person, you would not attend the funeral.  mourners are those that  cared  about the person; not that supported their actions.  the  proper way  to have a funeral is either what the deceased planned out, or what best helps people get closure.  a funeral is for the attendees and not the deceased.   #  it should be a celebration of the life of the deceased person.   # do you know anything about cultures outside of your own ? there are funerals held by almost every culture in history, and almost all of them, in one form or another, involve mourning.  how does that have anything to do with hypocrisy ? the fact that you are mourning only says that the person in question is missed by the people mourning them, it has nothing to do with them being  good or evil.   your whole argument about hypocrisy is a complete non sequitur.  the deceased should be the center of attention.  it should be a celebration of the life of the deceased person.  a presentation that shows the whole life of the person in all its grandeur.  sing and dance to cherish the beauty of life that has come full circle.  honest question: have you experienced the death of an immediate family member before ? if so, how much did you feel like dancing at the time ? if you honestly did, then great you have a interestingly resilient way of dealing with emotional hardships.  but could you maybe understand that not everyone else in the world deals with things the same way you do, and some people actually need to grieve for their lost loved ones as a part of the process of being able to continue on with their own lives ?  #  my grand mother passed a few years ago.   # to have grief is to put ones own concerns first.   she is dead and now i am alone.   even if we agree it is egoistic not sure i do , what is the harm in that ? my grand mother passed a few years ago.  she was married to my grand father for 0 years.  in one day, he lost the love of his life, his best friend, his closest confident, the mother of his children and, more generally, the person he spent 0 hours out of 0 with every day for 0 years, you are going to tell me he is not entitled to be sad about that ? that he is not entitled to honour her in the ways he pleases ? people find comfort in traditions, in rituals, and comfort is often what they need in such times.  because it is not about the deceased, it is about those that are left behind.  it is a hard time for many people and there is no real need to dictate their conduct.  the lady does not care whether we party or not.  there is no  proper way  to have a funeral.  there is only the way you feel will best support those that are left in their grief.   #  it should be a celebration of the life of the deceased person.   #  what do you mean by  christian funerals  ? you seem to be under the impression that every service is substantially similar.  to have grief is to put ones own concerns first.   she is dead and now i am alone.   whose concerns are they  supposed  to put first at that time ? i am guessing your experience with funerals is through a popular entertainment; and b going to the funeral of a distant relative or family acquaintance who you did not really know and were not close to.  the deceased should be the center of attention.  it should be a celebration of the life of the deceased person.  many people do this.  we had memorial services for my mother and my best friend that did exactly that.  but grief was also part of the service, because grief is what normal people feel in those circumstances.   #  at my grandfathers  funeral, yes his children cried it hurts a lot to lose your parent but the focus was not  oh look at me i am so sad !    #  i guess you have not attended all that many funerals or recently attended some very bad ones.  most of the funerals i have been at, while certainly not celebrations, were a time for the family and friends of the deceased to get together, share memories, their favorite stories, and have a few words from the minister.  everyone expresses grief differently.  some become very quiet and withdrawn, others put on a show and want everyone to pay attention to them.  at my grandfathers  funeral, yes his children cried it hurts a lot to lose your parent but the focus was not  oh look at me i am so sad !   it was holy shit, he was an awesome man, he did so many great things for us and we would like to share some of those experiences with one another to better remember him by.
christian funerals have no place in a secularized society.  we are doing them mainly because it is a custom and tradition.  the funeral ceremony is a display of hypocrisy and egotism.  but let me explain: grief is a display of egoism.  to have grief is to put ones own concerns first.   she is dead and now i am alone.   the hypocrisy of the funeral is that people mourn no matter if the person was good or evil.  instead, the proper way to have a funeral is celebration.  the deceased should be the center of attention.  it should be a celebration of the life of the deceased person.  a presentation that shows the whole life of the person in all its grandeur.  sing and dance to cherish the beauty of life that has come full circle.  in case the person was evil, it should be a celebration that the person is dead.  tl;dr: funerals should be a celebration of the wonder called life !  #  the hypocrisy of the funeral is that people mourn no matter if the person was good or evil.   #  if you did not like the person, you would not attend the funeral.   # we have a secular government, but not a secular society.  the vast majority of people follow some sort of religion.  if you did not like the person, you would not attend the funeral.  mourners are those that  cared  about the person; not that supported their actions.  the  proper way  to have a funeral is either what the deceased planned out, or what best helps people get closure.  a funeral is for the attendees and not the deceased.   #  how does that have anything to do with hypocrisy ?  # do you know anything about cultures outside of your own ? there are funerals held by almost every culture in history, and almost all of them, in one form or another, involve mourning.  how does that have anything to do with hypocrisy ? the fact that you are mourning only says that the person in question is missed by the people mourning them, it has nothing to do with them being  good or evil.   your whole argument about hypocrisy is a complete non sequitur.  the deceased should be the center of attention.  it should be a celebration of the life of the deceased person.  a presentation that shows the whole life of the person in all its grandeur.  sing and dance to cherish the beauty of life that has come full circle.  honest question: have you experienced the death of an immediate family member before ? if so, how much did you feel like dancing at the time ? if you honestly did, then great you have a interestingly resilient way of dealing with emotional hardships.  but could you maybe understand that not everyone else in the world deals with things the same way you do, and some people actually need to grieve for their lost loved ones as a part of the process of being able to continue on with their own lives ?  #  the lady does not care whether we party or not.   # to have grief is to put ones own concerns first.   she is dead and now i am alone.   even if we agree it is egoistic not sure i do , what is the harm in that ? my grand mother passed a few years ago.  she was married to my grand father for 0 years.  in one day, he lost the love of his life, his best friend, his closest confident, the mother of his children and, more generally, the person he spent 0 hours out of 0 with every day for 0 years, you are going to tell me he is not entitled to be sad about that ? that he is not entitled to honour her in the ways he pleases ? people find comfort in traditions, in rituals, and comfort is often what they need in such times.  because it is not about the deceased, it is about those that are left behind.  it is a hard time for many people and there is no real need to dictate their conduct.  the lady does not care whether we party or not.  there is no  proper way  to have a funeral.  there is only the way you feel will best support those that are left in their grief.   #  it should be a celebration of the life of the deceased person.   #  what do you mean by  christian funerals  ? you seem to be under the impression that every service is substantially similar.  to have grief is to put ones own concerns first.   she is dead and now i am alone.   whose concerns are they  supposed  to put first at that time ? i am guessing your experience with funerals is through a popular entertainment; and b going to the funeral of a distant relative or family acquaintance who you did not really know and were not close to.  the deceased should be the center of attention.  it should be a celebration of the life of the deceased person.  many people do this.  we had memorial services for my mother and my best friend that did exactly that.  but grief was also part of the service, because grief is what normal people feel in those circumstances.   #  most of the funerals i have been at, while certainly not celebrations, were a time for the family and friends of the deceased to get together, share memories, their favorite stories, and have a few words from the minister.   #  i guess you have not attended all that many funerals or recently attended some very bad ones.  most of the funerals i have been at, while certainly not celebrations, were a time for the family and friends of the deceased to get together, share memories, their favorite stories, and have a few words from the minister.  everyone expresses grief differently.  some become very quiet and withdrawn, others put on a show and want everyone to pay attention to them.  at my grandfathers  funeral, yes his children cried it hurts a lot to lose your parent but the focus was not  oh look at me i am so sad !   it was holy shit, he was an awesome man, he did so many great things for us and we would like to share some of those experiences with one another to better remember him by.
christian funerals have no place in a secularized society.  we are doing them mainly because it is a custom and tradition.  the funeral ceremony is a display of hypocrisy and egotism.  but let me explain: grief is a display of egoism.  to have grief is to put ones own concerns first.   she is dead and now i am alone.   the hypocrisy of the funeral is that people mourn no matter if the person was good or evil.  instead, the proper way to have a funeral is celebration.  the deceased should be the center of attention.  it should be a celebration of the life of the deceased person.  a presentation that shows the whole life of the person in all its grandeur.  sing and dance to cherish the beauty of life that has come full circle.  in case the person was evil, it should be a celebration that the person is dead.  tl;dr: funerals should be a celebration of the wonder called life !  #  instead, the proper way to have a funeral is celebration.   #  the  proper way  to have a funeral is either what the deceased planned out, or what best helps people get closure.   # we have a secular government, but not a secular society.  the vast majority of people follow some sort of religion.  if you did not like the person, you would not attend the funeral.  mourners are those that  cared  about the person; not that supported their actions.  the  proper way  to have a funeral is either what the deceased planned out, or what best helps people get closure.  a funeral is for the attendees and not the deceased.   #  there are funerals held by almost every culture in history, and almost all of them, in one form or another, involve mourning.   # do you know anything about cultures outside of your own ? there are funerals held by almost every culture in history, and almost all of them, in one form or another, involve mourning.  how does that have anything to do with hypocrisy ? the fact that you are mourning only says that the person in question is missed by the people mourning them, it has nothing to do with them being  good or evil.   your whole argument about hypocrisy is a complete non sequitur.  the deceased should be the center of attention.  it should be a celebration of the life of the deceased person.  a presentation that shows the whole life of the person in all its grandeur.  sing and dance to cherish the beauty of life that has come full circle.  honest question: have you experienced the death of an immediate family member before ? if so, how much did you feel like dancing at the time ? if you honestly did, then great you have a interestingly resilient way of dealing with emotional hardships.  but could you maybe understand that not everyone else in the world deals with things the same way you do, and some people actually need to grieve for their lost loved ones as a part of the process of being able to continue on with their own lives ?  #  it is a hard time for many people and there is no real need to dictate their conduct.   # to have grief is to put ones own concerns first.   she is dead and now i am alone.   even if we agree it is egoistic not sure i do , what is the harm in that ? my grand mother passed a few years ago.  she was married to my grand father for 0 years.  in one day, he lost the love of his life, his best friend, his closest confident, the mother of his children and, more generally, the person he spent 0 hours out of 0 with every day for 0 years, you are going to tell me he is not entitled to be sad about that ? that he is not entitled to honour her in the ways he pleases ? people find comfort in traditions, in rituals, and comfort is often what they need in such times.  because it is not about the deceased, it is about those that are left behind.  it is a hard time for many people and there is no real need to dictate their conduct.  the lady does not care whether we party or not.  there is no  proper way  to have a funeral.  there is only the way you feel will best support those that are left in their grief.   #   she is dead and now i am alone.    #  what do you mean by  christian funerals  ? you seem to be under the impression that every service is substantially similar.  to have grief is to put ones own concerns first.   she is dead and now i am alone.   whose concerns are they  supposed  to put first at that time ? i am guessing your experience with funerals is through a popular entertainment; and b going to the funeral of a distant relative or family acquaintance who you did not really know and were not close to.  the deceased should be the center of attention.  it should be a celebration of the life of the deceased person.  many people do this.  we had memorial services for my mother and my best friend that did exactly that.  but grief was also part of the service, because grief is what normal people feel in those circumstances.   #  it was holy shit, he was an awesome man, he did so many great things for us and we would like to share some of those experiences with one another to better remember him by.   #  i guess you have not attended all that many funerals or recently attended some very bad ones.  most of the funerals i have been at, while certainly not celebrations, were a time for the family and friends of the deceased to get together, share memories, their favorite stories, and have a few words from the minister.  everyone expresses grief differently.  some become very quiet and withdrawn, others put on a show and want everyone to pay attention to them.  at my grandfathers  funeral, yes his children cried it hurts a lot to lose your parent but the focus was not  oh look at me i am so sad !   it was holy shit, he was an awesome man, he did so many great things for us and we would like to share some of those experiences with one another to better remember him by.
christian funerals have no place in a secularized society.  we are doing them mainly because it is a custom and tradition.  the funeral ceremony is a display of hypocrisy and egotism.  but let me explain: grief is a display of egoism.  to have grief is to put ones own concerns first.   she is dead and now i am alone.   the hypocrisy of the funeral is that people mourn no matter if the person was good or evil.  instead, the proper way to have a funeral is celebration.  the deceased should be the center of attention.  it should be a celebration of the life of the deceased person.  a presentation that shows the whole life of the person in all its grandeur.  sing and dance to cherish the beauty of life that has come full circle.  in case the person was evil, it should be a celebration that the person is dead.  tl;dr: funerals should be a celebration of the wonder called life !  #  instead, the proper way to have a funeral is celebration.   #  the deceased should be the center of attention.   #  what do you mean by  christian funerals  ? you seem to be under the impression that every service is substantially similar.  to have grief is to put ones own concerns first.   she is dead and now i am alone.   whose concerns are they  supposed  to put first at that time ? i am guessing your experience with funerals is through a popular entertainment; and b going to the funeral of a distant relative or family acquaintance who you did not really know and were not close to.  the deceased should be the center of attention.  it should be a celebration of the life of the deceased person.  many people do this.  we had memorial services for my mother and my best friend that did exactly that.  but grief was also part of the service, because grief is what normal people feel in those circumstances.   #  the deceased should be the center of attention.   # do you know anything about cultures outside of your own ? there are funerals held by almost every culture in history, and almost all of them, in one form or another, involve mourning.  how does that have anything to do with hypocrisy ? the fact that you are mourning only says that the person in question is missed by the people mourning them, it has nothing to do with them being  good or evil.   your whole argument about hypocrisy is a complete non sequitur.  the deceased should be the center of attention.  it should be a celebration of the life of the deceased person.  a presentation that shows the whole life of the person in all its grandeur.  sing and dance to cherish the beauty of life that has come full circle.  honest question: have you experienced the death of an immediate family member before ? if so, how much did you feel like dancing at the time ? if you honestly did, then great you have a interestingly resilient way of dealing with emotional hardships.  but could you maybe understand that not everyone else in the world deals with things the same way you do, and some people actually need to grieve for their lost loved ones as a part of the process of being able to continue on with their own lives ?  #  there is only the way you feel will best support those that are left in their grief.   # to have grief is to put ones own concerns first.   she is dead and now i am alone.   even if we agree it is egoistic not sure i do , what is the harm in that ? my grand mother passed a few years ago.  she was married to my grand father for 0 years.  in one day, he lost the love of his life, his best friend, his closest confident, the mother of his children and, more generally, the person he spent 0 hours out of 0 with every day for 0 years, you are going to tell me he is not entitled to be sad about that ? that he is not entitled to honour her in the ways he pleases ? people find comfort in traditions, in rituals, and comfort is often what they need in such times.  because it is not about the deceased, it is about those that are left behind.  it is a hard time for many people and there is no real need to dictate their conduct.  the lady does not care whether we party or not.  there is no  proper way  to have a funeral.  there is only the way you feel will best support those that are left in their grief.   #  the vast majority of people follow some sort of religion.   # we have a secular government, but not a secular society.  the vast majority of people follow some sort of religion.  if you did not like the person, you would not attend the funeral.  mourners are those that  cared  about the person; not that supported their actions.  the  proper way  to have a funeral is either what the deceased planned out, or what best helps people get closure.  a funeral is for the attendees and not the deceased.   #  most of the funerals i have been at, while certainly not celebrations, were a time for the family and friends of the deceased to get together, share memories, their favorite stories, and have a few words from the minister.   #  i guess you have not attended all that many funerals or recently attended some very bad ones.  most of the funerals i have been at, while certainly not celebrations, were a time for the family and friends of the deceased to get together, share memories, their favorite stories, and have a few words from the minister.  everyone expresses grief differently.  some become very quiet and withdrawn, others put on a show and want everyone to pay attention to them.  at my grandfathers  funeral, yes his children cried it hurts a lot to lose your parent but the focus was not  oh look at me i am so sad !   it was holy shit, he was an awesome man, he did so many great things for us and we would like to share some of those experiences with one another to better remember him by.
christian funerals have no place in a secularized society.  we are doing them mainly because it is a custom and tradition.  the funeral ceremony is a display of hypocrisy and egotism.  but let me explain: grief is a display of egoism.  to have grief is to put ones own concerns first.   she is dead and now i am alone.   the hypocrisy of the funeral is that people mourn no matter if the person was good or evil.  instead, the proper way to have a funeral is celebration.  the deceased should be the center of attention.  it should be a celebration of the life of the deceased person.  a presentation that shows the whole life of the person in all its grandeur.  sing and dance to cherish the beauty of life that has come full circle.  in case the person was evil, it should be a celebration that the person is dead.  tl;dr: funerals should be a celebration of the wonder called life !  #  instead, the proper way to have a funeral is celebration.   #  the deceased should be the center of attention.   # the deceased should be the center of attention.  it should be a celebration of the life of the deceased person.  a presentation that shows the whole life of the person in all its grandeur.  sing and dance to cherish the beauty of life that has come full circle.  in case the person was evil, it should be a celebration that the person is dead.  in my experience as a lutheran, funerals have always been celebrations of the life of the deceased.  we did not go as far as dancing, and the songs were mostly hymns, but the funeral served as a chance for the friends and family of the deceased to gather and tell stories and comfort each other.  i completely agree that funerals are not for the dead, but for bringing closure to those left behind.  as for celebrating the death of an evil person, i disagree on the premise that no person is completely evil.  if no one finds enough reason to show up to celebrate a particular person is life, then no celebration is necessary.  just bury them quietly, but do not celebrate their death.   #  there are funerals held by almost every culture in history, and almost all of them, in one form or another, involve mourning.   # do you know anything about cultures outside of your own ? there are funerals held by almost every culture in history, and almost all of them, in one form or another, involve mourning.  how does that have anything to do with hypocrisy ? the fact that you are mourning only says that the person in question is missed by the people mourning them, it has nothing to do with them being  good or evil.   your whole argument about hypocrisy is a complete non sequitur.  the deceased should be the center of attention.  it should be a celebration of the life of the deceased person.  a presentation that shows the whole life of the person in all its grandeur.  sing and dance to cherish the beauty of life that has come full circle.  honest question: have you experienced the death of an immediate family member before ? if so, how much did you feel like dancing at the time ? if you honestly did, then great you have a interestingly resilient way of dealing with emotional hardships.  but could you maybe understand that not everyone else in the world deals with things the same way you do, and some people actually need to grieve for their lost loved ones as a part of the process of being able to continue on with their own lives ?  #  people find comfort in traditions, in rituals, and comfort is often what they need in such times.   # to have grief is to put ones own concerns first.   she is dead and now i am alone.   even if we agree it is egoistic not sure i do , what is the harm in that ? my grand mother passed a few years ago.  she was married to my grand father for 0 years.  in one day, he lost the love of his life, his best friend, his closest confident, the mother of his children and, more generally, the person he spent 0 hours out of 0 with every day for 0 years, you are going to tell me he is not entitled to be sad about that ? that he is not entitled to honour her in the ways he pleases ? people find comfort in traditions, in rituals, and comfort is often what they need in such times.  because it is not about the deceased, it is about those that are left behind.  it is a hard time for many people and there is no real need to dictate their conduct.  the lady does not care whether we party or not.  there is no  proper way  to have a funeral.  there is only the way you feel will best support those that are left in their grief.   #  mourners are those that  cared  about the person; not that supported their actions.   # we have a secular government, but not a secular society.  the vast majority of people follow some sort of religion.  if you did not like the person, you would not attend the funeral.  mourners are those that  cared  about the person; not that supported their actions.  the  proper way  to have a funeral is either what the deceased planned out, or what best helps people get closure.  a funeral is for the attendees and not the deceased.   #  i am guessing your experience with funerals is through a popular entertainment; and b going to the funeral of a distant relative or family acquaintance who you did not really know and were not close to.   #  what do you mean by  christian funerals  ? you seem to be under the impression that every service is substantially similar.  to have grief is to put ones own concerns first.   she is dead and now i am alone.   whose concerns are they  supposed  to put first at that time ? i am guessing your experience with funerals is through a popular entertainment; and b going to the funeral of a distant relative or family acquaintance who you did not really know and were not close to.  the deceased should be the center of attention.  it should be a celebration of the life of the deceased person.  many people do this.  we had memorial services for my mother and my best friend that did exactly that.  but grief was also part of the service, because grief is what normal people feel in those circumstances.
whenever i want to know more about an idea, product, etc.  i look to someone who has that idea or uses that product to learn more about it.  why, then, is it looked down on and dismissed as anecdotal evidence for someone to share an experience of theirs ? i quite enjoy listening to anecdotal evidence to get new perspectives i would not have thought of or have not heard before.  i understand that in an anecdotal case it is not scientific because it cannot be replicated and held to control standards, but i do not think this is grounds for dismissing the case as merely anecdotal and not worth mentioning.  am i wrong about this ?  #  i understand that in an anecdotal case it is not scientific because it cannot be replicated and held to control standards, but i do not think this is grounds for dismissing the case as merely anecdotal and not worth mentioning.   #  one of those is a positive statement, and one of those is a normative statement.   # one of those is a positive statement, and one of those is a normative statement.   merely anecdotal    suggests that anecdotal evidence is not an acceptable standard of proof, which is a factual statement  not worth mentioning    this is a normative statement.  depending on the context, anecdotal evidence may be worth mentioning, or it may not.  its context, however, has no bearing upon its essence as an insufficient standard of proof.  i ca not really cmv you on whether or not you should like something i do not yuck someone is yum , and i ca not say that anecdotal evidence should never be mentioned because then i would be a colossal hypocrite.  but, if your cmv were  anecdotal evidence should always be mentioned because it is on par with non anecdotal evidence , then you would be wrong.   #  however, unlike with scientific evidence, you should be much more skeptical about relying on anecdotes.   #  you are not totally wrong about it.  anecdotal advice is the reason amazon values its reviews so highly.  people do find a lot of value in reading another person is experience.  i am one of them: i bought the watch that i am currently wearing after reading over a dozen user reviews on amazon.  however, unlike with scientific evidence, you should be much more skeptical about relying on anecdotes.  there are plenty of fake reviews on amazon.  in fact, there are so any that amazon has had to take action URL so proceed with caution and try to get a lot of feedback so that you are not influenced by false or misleading reviews.   #  it could range from outright fraud think ponzi schemes to keeping face, like when people praise something they bought in order to justify the purchase to themselves.   # exactly ! you ca not be sure about the motivations behind their anecdote.  it could range from outright fraud think ponzi schemes to keeping face, like when people praise something they bought in order to justify the purchase to themselves.  then you are just wasting time dissecting their motivations, are not you ? also, do not forget about different tastes.  we all know about books that came highly recommended but turned out to be duds.  that sort of stuff happens a lot too.   #  i find the more anecdotes i read, the more complete of a profile i develop about the subject.   #  to add on to the previous point, if i may.  listening or reading one person is anecdote review on amazon seems like it has the same pitfalls as a scientific discipline.  you only get one person is take on the matter.  maybe they got a bad product, maybe it did not suit their particular desires, maybe they did not find much utility out of it.  it is much bettter to look at the average reviews and read from among several anecdotes.  i find the more anecdotes i read, the more complete of a profile i develop about the subject.  from which i can detect patterns, discard outliers, and find people who have similar attributes/requirements for the product as i do.  i almost want to make the comparison that if you could know all experiences ever had with a product, it would no longer be anecdotal.  you would have the most complete experimental profile of that product.  after i have built this profile for several products for the same thing i want to buy, i am able to weigh the pro is and con is in my head and decide on a purchase.   #  generally people telling the anecdote have a  reason  for telling the anecdote, which amplifies the  oddness  of the results you get.   #  the biggest problem with anecdotal evidence is that it is a self selected sample.  generally people telling the anecdote have a  reason  for telling the anecdote, which amplifies the  oddness  of the results you get.  e. g.  people writing reviews for products are far more likely to write if they really hate the item or really love it than if they are just generally satisfied with it and it met their expectations.  people talking about  that one time they were at a bar and were able to pick up a girl with this one joke  are telling that story not just  in spite  of it being unusual, but actually  because  it was unusual.  this an overgeneralization, but it is really pretty true: good data is collected with an understanding of how it is sampled, and what the biases are in selection.  bad data is collected by asking a broad audience a question, and only listening to the ones that choose to answer the question.  anecdotal evidence is like the latter.
a journalist is job is to report the news, not to create them.  ramos made himself a news item when he trolled presidential candidate donald trump during a press conference.  political statements, being unruly, and making accusations does not constitute journalism and not why univision sent him there.  the press conference was not there to allow journalists to express their feelings about issues.  after such unprofessional behavior became public and a national news item, ramos should have been fired immediately.  i am not a fan of trump, i would not vote for him, and i do not think he will get the nomination.  however, whether you hate him or not, trolling a presidential candidate during a press conference is an embarrassment to the nation, makes a mockery of out our democratic process, and coming from a journalist, should lead to a dismissal.  if we instead agree that trolling presidential candidates is ok if they had it coming, then it opens the floodgates to anyone who dislikes a candidate to disrupt our democratic process.  who decides when a candidate can be disrupted or not ? people mostly agree that the activists who disrupted sanders were out of line, but when it is trump, it is ok ? the presidential race is an extremely important one for this nation and should be treated seriously and with respect.  there are several latinos in my family so please cmv.   #  who decides when a candidate can be disrupted or not ?  #  who decides what is and is not appropriate to ask ?  # that is not true.  journalists ask questions about policy to elected officials all the time.  asking about someone is immigration policy is not trolling.  no he did not.  he was made a news item when he was thrown out of the press meeting for asking a hard question.  generally, if a journalist asks a question that is  too hard  then they will be asked to not come back, not told to go back to univision and escorted out.  no statements were made.  a question on a very sensitive and hotbutton issue was asked.  univision sent their journalist there to ask questions.  could you elaborate why you came to that conclusion ? journalists ask questions that cross the line many times.  in the worst case their press pass is revoked and they may no longer do interviews with that person.  this can jeopardize their careers and makes them look unprofessional.  who gets to decide what a troll question is ? if trump realizes that his immigration policy is making him very unpopular with latino voters can he decide that every immigration question is automatically a troll question ? who decides what is and is not appropriate to ask ? these are two very different issues.  the activists who disrupted sanders took over the stage, completely shut down the rally, and derailed the whole thing.  ramos asked a question and was thrown out.  could you explain to me how you think the two are similar ? i would say that if anyone has been disrespectful during this entire race it has been trump.  asking hard questions does not count as disrespect.  there will always be disrespect during the presidential race, that is how it is.  superpac funded attack commercials, shots being fired at other candidates, taking things said out of context to discredit the other candidates, manipulating their words and trying to catch the other off guard.  if you could explain your reason for believing that ramos asking a hard question crosses a line that none of these other incivilities have crossed then i would have a better way to approach this point.   #  trump put one of the requests on his instagram page, including  ramos  cell phone number  URL remember, he is also done this to lindsey graham.   #  this has been developing for some time.  ramos has been critical of trump is position on immigration for a while, especially since his  rapists  remark and talked about this stuff on his show.  he also invited trump to his show for an interview many times.  trump put one of the requests on his instagram page, including  ramos  cell phone number  URL remember, he is also done this to lindsey graham.  plus, trump has a track record of using foul language when talking about journalists.  he implied that megyn kelly is questions during the fox debate were aggressive because she was  menstruating .  wtf ? ! even when he dismissed ramos he said he was a  very emotional person.   more stereotypes.  yay ! who decides when a candidate can be disrupted or not ? no, this is not a slippery slope.  many other journalists have criticized ramos URL for challenging trump the way he did.  so this is unlikely to become a trend.  this was a personal feud b/w ramos and trump.  although it was not proper, i do not think it was completely out of line given trump is history with ramos and his rhetoric about mexicans.   #  i have never seen a respected, credible, high profile journo treated like that before.   # so he should be fired and shunned because he talked out of turn ? he did more than just  talk out of turn .  after injecting without being called on i. e disregarding accepted protocol he started into a drawn out  question  which was taken by many as more of a  rant .  it undeniably was a series of statements  you cannot deport 0 million people; you cannot build a 0,0 mile wall; you cannot deny citizenship to children in this country.  and with those ideas.   enter security .  where he was going from there is up for grabs; no doubt there was going to be a question at the end.  but the two of them have form.  it was  clearly  personal, from both sides.  that said, the way he was man handled out was pretty intense.  i have never seen a respected, credible, high profile journo treated like that before.  he was pretty worked up, though.   #  well, it is not as if those proceedings would have eventually resulted in the airing of those kind of grievances.   #  well, it is not as if those proceedings would have eventually resulted in the airing of those kind of grievances.  we all know how rules and propriety work.  sometimes, they are just and fair and we need to abide by them.  sometimes they are just a screen by the unjust to continue their injustice.  i could just as easily create a situation where you are not allowed so speak unless called upon, and because i know how you feel about ramos, i just never call on you, and your voice is never heard.  you would not indefinitely defer to that kind of authority and neither should anyone else.  the trouble is, trump is views on immigration are not just bigoted, they are entirely impractical.  to suggest otherwise is to simply pretend.  ramos was not interjecting his bias so much as he was just speaking truth to power.  lack of bias and journalistic integrity does not extend to pretending ideas are valid when they are not.  i imagine that you do not agree specifically that ramos  views are balanced.  but, certainly, you could imagine a situation where someone was actually compelled by a lack of bias or journalistic integrity to reject outright something ridiculous.  so the discussion about bias or objectivity is a smokescreen; something that we use when we do not want to talk about whether or not someone is actually right about anything.  unable to say that he is wrong because he is not we say he is biased.   #  trump is inability to answer serious questions about his appalling and frightening political positions shows an egregious lack of respect for the presidential race on his end.   #  i just really do not get your reasoning that this journalist should be fired.  he was pretty quickly removed from the premises by trump is security team, and was simply trying to ask a question about trump is proposed plan of deporting all illegal and undocumented immigrants if he were to to become president.  this question is not only incredibly important to ramos, but also to his latino audience at univision.  if anything, ramos upped the ante, so to speak.  he is taking trump is presidential candidacy more seriously than trump himself, in my opinion.  trump is inability to answer serious questions about his appalling and frightening political positions shows an egregious lack of respect for the presidential race on his end.  he is constantly making over the top claims in order to create sensationalist buzz, but then when he is asked about these claims head on, he diverts attention.  he shuts journalists down.  and he insults them.  if anything, i think you have the entire scenario backwards.  sure, ramos spoke out of turn.  trump is behavior at this press conference and at others was far far worse.
a journalist is job is to report the news, not to create them.  ramos made himself a news item when he trolled presidential candidate donald trump during a press conference.  political statements, being unruly, and making accusations does not constitute journalism and not why univision sent him there.  the press conference was not there to allow journalists to express their feelings about issues.  after such unprofessional behavior became public and a national news item, ramos should have been fired immediately.  i am not a fan of trump, i would not vote for him, and i do not think he will get the nomination.  however, whether you hate him or not, trolling a presidential candidate during a press conference is an embarrassment to the nation, makes a mockery of out our democratic process, and coming from a journalist, should lead to a dismissal.  if we instead agree that trolling presidential candidates is ok if they had it coming, then it opens the floodgates to anyone who dislikes a candidate to disrupt our democratic process.  who decides when a candidate can be disrupted or not ? people mostly agree that the activists who disrupted sanders were out of line, but when it is trump, it is ok ? the presidential race is an extremely important one for this nation and should be treated seriously and with respect.  there are several latinos in my family so please cmv.   #  the presidential race is an extremely important one for this nation and should be treated seriously and with respect.   #  i would say that if anyone has been disrespectful during this entire race it has been trump.   # that is not true.  journalists ask questions about policy to elected officials all the time.  asking about someone is immigration policy is not trolling.  no he did not.  he was made a news item when he was thrown out of the press meeting for asking a hard question.  generally, if a journalist asks a question that is  too hard  then they will be asked to not come back, not told to go back to univision and escorted out.  no statements were made.  a question on a very sensitive and hotbutton issue was asked.  univision sent their journalist there to ask questions.  could you elaborate why you came to that conclusion ? journalists ask questions that cross the line many times.  in the worst case their press pass is revoked and they may no longer do interviews with that person.  this can jeopardize their careers and makes them look unprofessional.  who gets to decide what a troll question is ? if trump realizes that his immigration policy is making him very unpopular with latino voters can he decide that every immigration question is automatically a troll question ? who decides what is and is not appropriate to ask ? these are two very different issues.  the activists who disrupted sanders took over the stage, completely shut down the rally, and derailed the whole thing.  ramos asked a question and was thrown out.  could you explain to me how you think the two are similar ? i would say that if anyone has been disrespectful during this entire race it has been trump.  asking hard questions does not count as disrespect.  there will always be disrespect during the presidential race, that is how it is.  superpac funded attack commercials, shots being fired at other candidates, taking things said out of context to discredit the other candidates, manipulating their words and trying to catch the other off guard.  if you could explain your reason for believing that ramos asking a hard question crosses a line that none of these other incivilities have crossed then i would have a better way to approach this point.   #  ramos has been critical of trump is position on immigration for a while, especially since his  rapists  remark and talked about this stuff on his show.   #  this has been developing for some time.  ramos has been critical of trump is position on immigration for a while, especially since his  rapists  remark and talked about this stuff on his show.  he also invited trump to his show for an interview many times.  trump put one of the requests on his instagram page, including  ramos  cell phone number  URL remember, he is also done this to lindsey graham.  plus, trump has a track record of using foul language when talking about journalists.  he implied that megyn kelly is questions during the fox debate were aggressive because she was  menstruating .  wtf ? ! even when he dismissed ramos he said he was a  very emotional person.   more stereotypes.  yay ! who decides when a candidate can be disrupted or not ? no, this is not a slippery slope.  many other journalists have criticized ramos URL for challenging trump the way he did.  so this is unlikely to become a trend.  this was a personal feud b/w ramos and trump.  although it was not proper, i do not think it was completely out of line given trump is history with ramos and his rhetoric about mexicans.   #  that said, the way he was man handled out was pretty intense.   # so he should be fired and shunned because he talked out of turn ? he did more than just  talk out of turn .  after injecting without being called on i. e disregarding accepted protocol he started into a drawn out  question  which was taken by many as more of a  rant .  it undeniably was a series of statements  you cannot deport 0 million people; you cannot build a 0,0 mile wall; you cannot deny citizenship to children in this country.  and with those ideas.   enter security .  where he was going from there is up for grabs; no doubt there was going to be a question at the end.  but the two of them have form.  it was  clearly  personal, from both sides.  that said, the way he was man handled out was pretty intense.  i have never seen a respected, credible, high profile journo treated like that before.  he was pretty worked up, though.   #  you would not indefinitely defer to that kind of authority and neither should anyone else.   #  well, it is not as if those proceedings would have eventually resulted in the airing of those kind of grievances.  we all know how rules and propriety work.  sometimes, they are just and fair and we need to abide by them.  sometimes they are just a screen by the unjust to continue their injustice.  i could just as easily create a situation where you are not allowed so speak unless called upon, and because i know how you feel about ramos, i just never call on you, and your voice is never heard.  you would not indefinitely defer to that kind of authority and neither should anyone else.  the trouble is, trump is views on immigration are not just bigoted, they are entirely impractical.  to suggest otherwise is to simply pretend.  ramos was not interjecting his bias so much as he was just speaking truth to power.  lack of bias and journalistic integrity does not extend to pretending ideas are valid when they are not.  i imagine that you do not agree specifically that ramos  views are balanced.  but, certainly, you could imagine a situation where someone was actually compelled by a lack of bias or journalistic integrity to reject outright something ridiculous.  so the discussion about bias or objectivity is a smokescreen; something that we use when we do not want to talk about whether or not someone is actually right about anything.  unable to say that he is wrong because he is not we say he is biased.   #  he is taking trump is presidential candidacy more seriously than trump himself, in my opinion.   #  i just really do not get your reasoning that this journalist should be fired.  he was pretty quickly removed from the premises by trump is security team, and was simply trying to ask a question about trump is proposed plan of deporting all illegal and undocumented immigrants if he were to to become president.  this question is not only incredibly important to ramos, but also to his latino audience at univision.  if anything, ramos upped the ante, so to speak.  he is taking trump is presidential candidacy more seriously than trump himself, in my opinion.  trump is inability to answer serious questions about his appalling and frightening political positions shows an egregious lack of respect for the presidential race on his end.  he is constantly making over the top claims in order to create sensationalist buzz, but then when he is asked about these claims head on, he diverts attention.  he shuts journalists down.  and he insults them.  if anything, i think you have the entire scenario backwards.  sure, ramos spoke out of turn.  trump is behavior at this press conference and at others was far far worse.
a journalist is job is to report the news, not to create them.  ramos made himself a news item when he trolled presidential candidate donald trump during a press conference.  political statements, being unruly, and making accusations does not constitute journalism and not why univision sent him there.  the press conference was not there to allow journalists to express their feelings about issues.  after such unprofessional behavior became public and a national news item, ramos should have been fired immediately.  i am not a fan of trump, i would not vote for him, and i do not think he will get the nomination.  however, whether you hate him or not, trolling a presidential candidate during a press conference is an embarrassment to the nation, makes a mockery of out our democratic process, and coming from a journalist, should lead to a dismissal.  if we instead agree that trolling presidential candidates is ok if they had it coming, then it opens the floodgates to anyone who dislikes a candidate to disrupt our democratic process.  who decides when a candidate can be disrupted or not ? people mostly agree that the activists who disrupted sanders were out of line, but when it is trump, it is ok ? the presidential race is an extremely important one for this nation and should be treated seriously and with respect.  there are several latinos in my family so please cmv.   #  if we instead agree that trolling presidential candidates is ok if they had it coming, then it opens the floodgates to anyone who dislikes a candidate to disrupt our democratic process.   #  who decides when a candidate can be disrupted or not ?  #  this has been developing for some time.  ramos has been critical of trump is position on immigration for a while, especially since his  rapists  remark and talked about this stuff on his show.  he also invited trump to his show for an interview many times.  trump put one of the requests on his instagram page, including  ramos  cell phone number  URL remember, he is also done this to lindsey graham.  plus, trump has a track record of using foul language when talking about journalists.  he implied that megyn kelly is questions during the fox debate were aggressive because she was  menstruating .  wtf ? ! even when he dismissed ramos he said he was a  very emotional person.   more stereotypes.  yay ! who decides when a candidate can be disrupted or not ? no, this is not a slippery slope.  many other journalists have criticized ramos URL for challenging trump the way he did.  so this is unlikely to become a trend.  this was a personal feud b/w ramos and trump.  although it was not proper, i do not think it was completely out of line given trump is history with ramos and his rhetoric about mexicans.   #  there will always be disrespect during the presidential race, that is how it is.   # that is not true.  journalists ask questions about policy to elected officials all the time.  asking about someone is immigration policy is not trolling.  no he did not.  he was made a news item when he was thrown out of the press meeting for asking a hard question.  generally, if a journalist asks a question that is  too hard  then they will be asked to not come back, not told to go back to univision and escorted out.  no statements were made.  a question on a very sensitive and hotbutton issue was asked.  univision sent their journalist there to ask questions.  could you elaborate why you came to that conclusion ? journalists ask questions that cross the line many times.  in the worst case their press pass is revoked and they may no longer do interviews with that person.  this can jeopardize their careers and makes them look unprofessional.  who gets to decide what a troll question is ? if trump realizes that his immigration policy is making him very unpopular with latino voters can he decide that every immigration question is automatically a troll question ? who decides what is and is not appropriate to ask ? these are two very different issues.  the activists who disrupted sanders took over the stage, completely shut down the rally, and derailed the whole thing.  ramos asked a question and was thrown out.  could you explain to me how you think the two are similar ? i would say that if anyone has been disrespectful during this entire race it has been trump.  asking hard questions does not count as disrespect.  there will always be disrespect during the presidential race, that is how it is.  superpac funded attack commercials, shots being fired at other candidates, taking things said out of context to discredit the other candidates, manipulating their words and trying to catch the other off guard.  if you could explain your reason for believing that ramos asking a hard question crosses a line that none of these other incivilities have crossed then i would have a better way to approach this point.   #  after injecting without being called on i. e disregarding accepted protocol he started into a drawn out  question  which was taken by many as more of a  rant .   # so he should be fired and shunned because he talked out of turn ? he did more than just  talk out of turn .  after injecting without being called on i. e disregarding accepted protocol he started into a drawn out  question  which was taken by many as more of a  rant .  it undeniably was a series of statements  you cannot deport 0 million people; you cannot build a 0,0 mile wall; you cannot deny citizenship to children in this country.  and with those ideas.   enter security .  where he was going from there is up for grabs; no doubt there was going to be a question at the end.  but the two of them have form.  it was  clearly  personal, from both sides.  that said, the way he was man handled out was pretty intense.  i have never seen a respected, credible, high profile journo treated like that before.  he was pretty worked up, though.   #  unable to say that he is wrong because he is not we say he is biased.   #  well, it is not as if those proceedings would have eventually resulted in the airing of those kind of grievances.  we all know how rules and propriety work.  sometimes, they are just and fair and we need to abide by them.  sometimes they are just a screen by the unjust to continue their injustice.  i could just as easily create a situation where you are not allowed so speak unless called upon, and because i know how you feel about ramos, i just never call on you, and your voice is never heard.  you would not indefinitely defer to that kind of authority and neither should anyone else.  the trouble is, trump is views on immigration are not just bigoted, they are entirely impractical.  to suggest otherwise is to simply pretend.  ramos was not interjecting his bias so much as he was just speaking truth to power.  lack of bias and journalistic integrity does not extend to pretending ideas are valid when they are not.  i imagine that you do not agree specifically that ramos  views are balanced.  but, certainly, you could imagine a situation where someone was actually compelled by a lack of bias or journalistic integrity to reject outright something ridiculous.  so the discussion about bias or objectivity is a smokescreen; something that we use when we do not want to talk about whether or not someone is actually right about anything.  unable to say that he is wrong because he is not we say he is biased.   #  he is taking trump is presidential candidacy more seriously than trump himself, in my opinion.   #  i just really do not get your reasoning that this journalist should be fired.  he was pretty quickly removed from the premises by trump is security team, and was simply trying to ask a question about trump is proposed plan of deporting all illegal and undocumented immigrants if he were to to become president.  this question is not only incredibly important to ramos, but also to his latino audience at univision.  if anything, ramos upped the ante, so to speak.  he is taking trump is presidential candidacy more seriously than trump himself, in my opinion.  trump is inability to answer serious questions about his appalling and frightening political positions shows an egregious lack of respect for the presidential race on his end.  he is constantly making over the top claims in order to create sensationalist buzz, but then when he is asked about these claims head on, he diverts attention.  he shuts journalists down.  and he insults them.  if anything, i think you have the entire scenario backwards.  sure, ramos spoke out of turn.  trump is behavior at this press conference and at others was far far worse.
this is mostly a counter argument to the outrage over  pc culture  not the computer kind and reddit is recent decision to nuke fph, coontown, etc.  first, trigger warnings.  people are oddly against this, claiming it is the domain of young female  millennials.   they claim it is an attempt to shut out opposing views and ideas, and it is an insult to those with ptsd.  oddly enough, trigger warnings have existed off the internet and college campuses for decades.  ever had a tv show tell you  viewer discretion is advised  ? or heard a news reporter say  some viewers may find the following footage disturbing  ? that is a trigger warning.   but what about muh free speech ?   well, reddit has no legal obligation to give anyone a platform.  also, it does not make much sense for them to host racist content.  racism is pretty much universally acknowledged as a bad thing by non racists.  and fph was not just demeaning and harassing people people attracted to reddit for it and subreddits like it spilled over, leading to phrases like  fph is leaking.   no subreddit exists in a vacuum.  lastly, the idea of a  safe space.   this comes the closest to actually just blocking out opposing ideas, but it still does not quite reach it.  what a lot of people who were whining about their inability to be hateful on this corner of the internet did not understand is they do not actually have an idea worth having.  there is no censorship of ideas.  i am sure reddit would have no problem with a subreddit cataloging how being obese is unhealthy and unsustainable.  the bile coontown, fph, and subs like them spew makes reddit seem inhospitable to those who they target.  in addition, fph even harassed some of its targets off reddit, making them feel physically unsafe.  i see no problem with trigger warnings, asking for trigger warnings, banning fph and coontown, and working towards making reddit a safe space.  cmv !  #  what a lot of people who were whining about their inability to be hateful on this corner of the internet did not understand is they do not actually have an idea worth having.   #  please do not state your opinions as fact.   # the greatest effect i have ever seen them used is the occasional time my friends who are moms send their kids to bed/other room when those come on, because of inappropriate content, not because if might trigger the kids.  anecdotal i know, but i feel like this needs to be substantiated somehow.  this is a two way street.  if reddit wants their user is time and potential reddit gold purchases and their content consumption then they better provide me with a platform that i want to do it on.  this is a value based judgement on how many people were going to leave reddit vs how many they are going to pull in and all the additional pr stuff.  why does not it make sense ? just because you think racism is bad ? obviously anti racists are going to dislike racism, but that is still in its own right the tyranny of the majority.  hell, i was not subscribed and arguably i am a victim of some of those subs, and frankly i am more upset that reddit has decided to take the roll of my mom and tell me what i can and cannot talk about, regardless of my feelings on things like prejudice and racism.  in my honest opinion discussion is better than a lack thereof, because if we are able to discuss things we can better discover and determine things for ourselves.  i would even argue that in an echo chamber scenario you are more likely to become less racist because at least when your discussing it, you are exposing yourself to the opprotunity to change and go  well this is dumb.   rather than internalizing it and coming to the conclusion you must be right in your way of thinking.  please do not state your opinions as fact.  this is dangerous.  just because you have a low value judgement of something does not actually give it any merit.  reddit is anonymous.   #  i understand that it can be extremely traumatizing to have past experiences brought to the surface at unexpected points.   #  is this view specific to the internet or to reddit ? i went to an extremely liberal college where trigger warnings and safe places were real and physical.  it is not so bad to point out that the following information could be triggering if you put it before a post, but it can become quite obnoxious in real life.  this partially has to do with the fact that when speaking you do not really have the same opportunity to very precisely craft your words before saying them as you do on the internet or television.  it can be very annoying when you are trying to have a conversation with someone or make a statement in front of the class while mentally checking and rechecking every word you say before you say it just to make sure it wo not cause any unwanted impact.  also, students were granted the ability to leave when a trigger warning was given before a lesson without it being detrimental to their assessments.  if a teacher gave a trigger warning and a student chose to leave the class they would not be penalized for the time they missed or for not knowing the information.  this was employed fairly frequently by a few students.  a minority, but still enough to raise eyebrows.  we read a short story in a class about sexual assault.  it was very subtle, which was why we were reading it, basically the  hills like white elephants  of sexual assault.  since it was the focus for the day, some kids did not even take the time to get their books out of their bags before they just took off for home once they realized what we would be focusing on.  i think this would set a very poor precedent if this were to see wider adoption.  college is supposed to prepare people for adult life and it can be difficult to do so when people choose to avoid subjects that make them uncomfortable, something that will be impossible to do later in life.  i understand that it can be extremely traumatizing to have past experiences brought to the surface at unexpected points.  but mollycoddling them wo not help in the long term and makes situations more difficult for students that are indifferent to triggering content when they are forced to tiptoe around issues, ignore some issues entirely, and have their grades affected by content that wo not affect the grades of others because they had a less traumatizing past.   #  they have to watch what they say at all times on the off chance that it may under some circumstance offend someone whose history they could have had no way of knowing.   #  it is not just the students cutting class though, it is the students who have to stick around too.  they have to be judged against material that other students are able to avoid.  they have to watch what they say at all times on the off chance that it may under some circumstance offend someone whose history they could have had no way of knowing.  on top of that, it is doing a disservice to the students who are being triggered.  they can use the super liberal attitude of the school to avoid coming to terms with their past, but it will just inevitably come up at some point in the future if not now, and probably under circumstances where people will be less understanding.  is it really best that everyone in the vicinity of a person bend over backwards to accommodate them  #  as with many things in life there is not anything inherently wrong with trigger warnings, all of it comes down to intent.   #  trigger warnings were originally URL  designed to prevent unaware encountering of certain materials or subjects for the benefit of people who have an  extremely strong and damaging emotional response  for example, post traumatic flashbacks or urges to harm themselves to such topics.   this is a fairly reasonable response, it is basic compassion to warn someone who is suffering from a form of mental illness that exposing themselves to a certain text may open them to psychological harm.  i do not think there is anything inherently  wrong  in this than labeling potentially allergic ingredients on a nutrition facts label.  what is problematic is the deranged misinterpretation of  trigger warning  that has arisen in some elements of the blogosphere to mean  i do not want to hear anything i find morally or socially offensive.   the demand for trigger warnings has shifted from  we aught to label this as triggering because many victims of sexual assault read these posts and reading this material may cause them more trauma  to  nobody can discuss this writing on race/poverty/ethics/feminism/sexuality because some people might find it squeamish .  this attitude has spread towards groups of reactionary leftists in campuses and internet communities who honestly believe it is worth censoring classic works of art and literature URL because someone  might  get a reaction from people who have been the victim of any kind of hardship or discrimination in their entire lives.  it is a form of social and political whitewashing that seeks to erase unpleasant history rather than confront it.  as with many things in life there is not anything inherently wrong with trigger warnings, all of it comes down to intent.  people who demand them need to ask themselves if they are honestly trying to help people who could seriously suffer ptsd from reading the material in question or if they are simply trying to preemptively shut down one side of a debate they find uncomfortable to discuss.   #  also, fph went after boogie0, a public figure.   #  i think that the racism made the site off putting for a lot of people.  i think people with a great deal of privilege, like myself, can shrug it off as no big deal.  someone who is experienced systematic injustice for their entire life ? maybe more of a big deal.  doxxing is a very real thing.  also, fph went after boogie0, a public figure.  they posted non anonymized pictures of facebook posts, which is not anonymous.  and if you went to a bar where everyone at table cursed you out and make comments about you, your race, and your heritage while you were there, what would you do ? you have no legal recourse to stop them.  the bar may throw them out, they may not.  reddit decided for pr and user experience reasons they will be happier or more profitable without the hate subs.
point 0:  zoos and aquariums give people an opportunity to see animals up close in a way that they never would otherwise.  the experience of seeing a mountain gorilla on the other side of a pane of glass is far more incredible than simply watching animal planet.  having the experience of seeing an orca swim by and be in awe of their power and intelligence is not the same as seeing one in a youtube video.  i remember when i was a boy my parents took me to the zoo.  it was when i saw lion up close that i decided then and there that i wanted to be a wildlife biologist.  now, life took me in a different path and i never arrived at that career, but my awe and love for wildlife has never lessened.   point 0  i understand some will say,  but if you love the animals why do not you care that some of them are not as happy as they would be in the wild.   i understand this sentiment, but i am torn.  i am torn by my previous reasons for why zoos and aquariums are necessary and my love for the animals themselves.  is a dolphin in the ocean better than a dolphin in a tank ? yes.  is a dolphin happier in the ocean than in a tank ? probably.  i would bet my life on it, but if that dolphin is in the ocean i ca not stand by the edge of the tank and rub his nose.  i ca not connect with the dolphin in that way that made me fall in love with them.  so, i think that if some dolphins at seaworld are not as happy as dolphins in the ocean, i am ok with that.  the tank dolphin is happiness may be what is lain on the altar of conservation.  zoos and aquariums make us  care  about the animals.  if people do not care about animals then they wo not do their best to preserve them.   point 0:  zoos  edcuate  people.  i remember as a child who hated snakes going to the zoo where the exhibit explained why snakes were important to the ecosystem.  before, i thought they were evil creatures.  the zoo showed me the truth.  people who understand the role of animals in our world will care more about conservation.   summary:  zoos and aquariums provide a face to face encounter with the majesty of wildlife.  this encounter makes people care about the beautiful creatures they are seeing in person.  caring about the animals leads to conservation efforts.  people who see the beauty and importance of these creatures will want to ensure the thriving of their species.  .  .   #  i am torn by my previous reasons for why zoos and aquariums are necessary and my love for the animals themselves.   #  but. it is not  necessary  for you to see a lion up close or rub a dolphin is nose.   # but. it is not  necessary  for you to see a lion up close or rub a dolphin is nose.  it is a luxury that you enjoy, partly because of the thick bars between you and the lion pen, for example.  you would never walk up to a lion in the wilderness.  now, i am far from having some moral high ground here, i have been to the zoo myself and enjoyed it.  but let is not kid ourselves; these animals usually live in terrible conditions and saying that we put them in zoos or watch them in zoos primarily because we love them is insincere.  we put them there because we want to see them, we want to sate our curiosity, and some of us want to make money by providing this service to the people.  sure, there are some endangered species out there, but they can be taken care of and put in a controlled environment that is not a dirty and too small pen surrounded by screaming children all day every day.  love ? not really.  fascination would be closer, coupled with our very human sense of entitlement.   #  also, i am not convinced that zoos make most people love animals.   #  i would start by saying that much of the  majesty  of seeing animals is lost in a zoo setting.  that is a major trade off for the ease/convenience from our perspective.  also, i am not convinced that zoos make most people love animals.  let me expand.  most animals in zoos live in sub optimal conditions.  for example, animals like bears or wolves that have a natural home range of dozens of several square miles live in tiny enclosures that they can fully explore in 0 minutes.  further, many zoo animal species are not endangered or even seriously threatened, just  exotic.   clearly, places that provide captive breeding for eventual re introduction into the wild are beneficial, but most zoos that i am aware of are not doing this.  and from a conservation biology standpoint, captive breeding is pretty low on the totem pole of conservation strategies it is often a last resort.  zoos did play a role in rearing california condors, for example.  but there was a clear end goal, not just  willet is lock up animals so people can gawk at them.   in my experience, zoos do not do much for getting people interested in conservation.  imho, it instills/furthers the idea that conservation is a far off thing that has no relevance to normal people.  animals are often depressed and/or exhibit behaviors not normally seen in the wild.  i see a lot of pointing and laughing, and i am just not convinced that there is some romantic take away of passion for conservation when most people visit zoos.  finally, i think that animal sanctuaries which temporarily house injured animals or permanently house animals that are non releasable are okay as long as the animals  welfare is given serious consideration.  i think these, at the very least, offer the same conservation education opportunities as zoos but would focus more on local animals and have few, if any, ethical concerns or quandaries.  further, there are plenty of opportunities to see wild animals up close: guided hikes, natural areas with trails, getting engaged with local groups like for herping or bat groups.  for example, i believe that both kids and adults come away way more satisfied  and  educated when they spend a night helping mist net and measure bats than they ever do seeing bats in an enclosure at the zoo.   #  to your second point, breeding endangered species in captivity is, in my opinion, pretty pointless.   #  to your second point, breeding endangered species in captivity is, in my opinion, pretty pointless.  they ca not be released into the wild and if the only purpose of having them is just to say they are not extinct, i do not see the point.  the animals do not know they are endangered now do they care.  and having the animals locked in captivity impactful to their happiness just for the sake of people saying they saved the species.  they species does not care, i am sure if they are good ng to go extinct they would rather do it in the wild and now over a drawn out period in captivity.   #  i do not think we need zoos at all.   # i guess it depends on how you define  need .  you do not need it in the same way you need oxygen.  i do not think we need zoos at all.  to be fair, i am ignorant of how big their impact is on conservation, so i wo not go into that.  but i do not think zoos make us more sympathetic to animals.  i do not think they make us better people.  i am sure my first zoo experiences were more impactful, but my more recent zoo experiences were relatively forgettable or otherwise unimportant.  maybe we should just be more careful about which animals we keep in zoos.  i enjoyed the butterfly area at the amsterdam zoo, and i doubt the butterflies suffered any psychoses from their confinement.  but maybe the lone camel there might have felt differently.   #  i, by default, care about lions because they are sentient creatures.   #  i will answer more directly.  does seeing a lion in a zoo make me more sympathetic to lions ? maybe.  i dunno.  i, by default, care about lions because they are sentient creatures.  seeing them irl does not make me care about them more.  the more important question is: does it matter ? i am not a rich dentist nor someone who lives in africa.  i do not interact with lions.  even if i  am  more sympathetic to lions, why would that matter ? how would that manifest itself ? buying a stuffed simba doll does not help lions at all.
point 0:  zoos and aquariums give people an opportunity to see animals up close in a way that they never would otherwise.  the experience of seeing a mountain gorilla on the other side of a pane of glass is far more incredible than simply watching animal planet.  having the experience of seeing an orca swim by and be in awe of their power and intelligence is not the same as seeing one in a youtube video.  i remember when i was a boy my parents took me to the zoo.  it was when i saw lion up close that i decided then and there that i wanted to be a wildlife biologist.  now, life took me in a different path and i never arrived at that career, but my awe and love for wildlife has never lessened.   point 0  i understand some will say,  but if you love the animals why do not you care that some of them are not as happy as they would be in the wild.   i understand this sentiment, but i am torn.  i am torn by my previous reasons for why zoos and aquariums are necessary and my love for the animals themselves.  is a dolphin in the ocean better than a dolphin in a tank ? yes.  is a dolphin happier in the ocean than in a tank ? probably.  i would bet my life on it, but if that dolphin is in the ocean i ca not stand by the edge of the tank and rub his nose.  i ca not connect with the dolphin in that way that made me fall in love with them.  so, i think that if some dolphins at seaworld are not as happy as dolphins in the ocean, i am ok with that.  the tank dolphin is happiness may be what is lain on the altar of conservation.  zoos and aquariums make us  care  about the animals.  if people do not care about animals then they wo not do their best to preserve them.   point 0:  zoos  edcuate  people.  i remember as a child who hated snakes going to the zoo where the exhibit explained why snakes were important to the ecosystem.  before, i thought they were evil creatures.  the zoo showed me the truth.  people who understand the role of animals in our world will care more about conservation.   summary:  zoos and aquariums provide a face to face encounter with the majesty of wildlife.  this encounter makes people care about the beautiful creatures they are seeing in person.  caring about the animals leads to conservation efforts.  people who see the beauty and importance of these creatures will want to ensure the thriving of their species.  .  .   #  i remember when i was a boy my parents took me to the zoo.   #  it was when i saw lion up close that i decided then and there that i wanted to be a wildlife biologist.   # this is your opinion.  i say seeing an animal in their natural habitat interacting with its environment is more incredible than seeing one asleep in a zoo.  i agree its not the same.  seeing an orca perform an  act  is sad.  seeing an orca jump out of the water in the middle of the ocean is awesome, regardless if its on a computer screen.  it was when i saw lion up close that i decided then and there that i wanted to be a wildlife biologist.  now, life took me in a different path and i never arrived at that career, but my awe and love for wildlife has never lessened.  it seems you love how animals makes you feel, not so much having an actual love  for  them.  i understand this sentiment, but i am torn.  i am torn by my previous reasons for why zoos zoos are not necessary.  that is one of the big things wrong with your view.  they provide things sure but they are not necessary for anything.  yes.  is a dolphin happier in the ocean than in a tank ? probably.  i would bet my life on it, but if that dolphin is in the ocean i ca not stand by the edge of the tank and rub his nose.  i ca not connect with the dolphin in that way that made me fall in love with them.  like i said, you do not love animals.  you love how they make  you  feel.  they are a million things in the world that can make you feel good, but you are choosing the one that comes at the price of another animals freedom and happiness.  if people do not care about animals then they wo not do their best to preserve them.  you need a source for this.  i remember as a child who hated snakes going to the zoo where the exhibit explained why snakes were important to the ecosystem.  before, i thought they were evil creatures.  the zoo showed me the truth.  you do not need to go to a zoo to learn and understand that animals are not evil.  documentaries also do a better job at educating about wildlife.  this encounter makes people care about the beautiful creatures they are seeing in person.  caring about the animals leads to conservation efforts.  people who see the beauty and importance of these creatures will want to ensure the thriving of their species.  again you need to prove that simply going to a zoo directly affects donations and conservation efforts from those that attended.  even if it does, stealing animals and locking them up is not necessary to get people to care about animals.  and simply having animals cared about does not mean their wildlife counterparts receive any help.   #  zoos did play a role in rearing california condors, for example.   #  i would start by saying that much of the  majesty  of seeing animals is lost in a zoo setting.  that is a major trade off for the ease/convenience from our perspective.  also, i am not convinced that zoos make most people love animals.  let me expand.  most animals in zoos live in sub optimal conditions.  for example, animals like bears or wolves that have a natural home range of dozens of several square miles live in tiny enclosures that they can fully explore in 0 minutes.  further, many zoo animal species are not endangered or even seriously threatened, just  exotic.   clearly, places that provide captive breeding for eventual re introduction into the wild are beneficial, but most zoos that i am aware of are not doing this.  and from a conservation biology standpoint, captive breeding is pretty low on the totem pole of conservation strategies it is often a last resort.  zoos did play a role in rearing california condors, for example.  but there was a clear end goal, not just  willet is lock up animals so people can gawk at them.   in my experience, zoos do not do much for getting people interested in conservation.  imho, it instills/furthers the idea that conservation is a far off thing that has no relevance to normal people.  animals are often depressed and/or exhibit behaviors not normally seen in the wild.  i see a lot of pointing and laughing, and i am just not convinced that there is some romantic take away of passion for conservation when most people visit zoos.  finally, i think that animal sanctuaries which temporarily house injured animals or permanently house animals that are non releasable are okay as long as the animals  welfare is given serious consideration.  i think these, at the very least, offer the same conservation education opportunities as zoos but would focus more on local animals and have few, if any, ethical concerns or quandaries.  further, there are plenty of opportunities to see wild animals up close: guided hikes, natural areas with trails, getting engaged with local groups like for herping or bat groups.  for example, i believe that both kids and adults come away way more satisfied  and  educated when they spend a night helping mist net and measure bats than they ever do seeing bats in an enclosure at the zoo.   #  the animals do not know they are endangered now do they care.   #  to your second point, breeding endangered species in captivity is, in my opinion, pretty pointless.  they ca not be released into the wild and if the only purpose of having them is just to say they are not extinct, i do not see the point.  the animals do not know they are endangered now do they care.  and having the animals locked in captivity impactful to their happiness just for the sake of people saying they saved the species.  they species does not care, i am sure if they are good ng to go extinct they would rather do it in the wild and now over a drawn out period in captivity.   #  maybe we should just be more careful about which animals we keep in zoos.   # i guess it depends on how you define  need .  you do not need it in the same way you need oxygen.  i do not think we need zoos at all.  to be fair, i am ignorant of how big their impact is on conservation, so i wo not go into that.  but i do not think zoos make us more sympathetic to animals.  i do not think they make us better people.  i am sure my first zoo experiences were more impactful, but my more recent zoo experiences were relatively forgettable or otherwise unimportant.  maybe we should just be more careful about which animals we keep in zoos.  i enjoyed the butterfly area at the amsterdam zoo, and i doubt the butterflies suffered any psychoses from their confinement.  but maybe the lone camel there might have felt differently.   #  seeing them irl does not make me care about them more.   #  i will answer more directly.  does seeing a lion in a zoo make me more sympathetic to lions ? maybe.  i dunno.  i, by default, care about lions because they are sentient creatures.  seeing them irl does not make me care about them more.  the more important question is: does it matter ? i am not a rich dentist nor someone who lives in africa.  i do not interact with lions.  even if i  am  more sympathetic to lions, why would that matter ? how would that manifest itself ? buying a stuffed simba doll does not help lions at all.
point 0:  zoos and aquariums give people an opportunity to see animals up close in a way that they never would otherwise.  the experience of seeing a mountain gorilla on the other side of a pane of glass is far more incredible than simply watching animal planet.  having the experience of seeing an orca swim by and be in awe of their power and intelligence is not the same as seeing one in a youtube video.  i remember when i was a boy my parents took me to the zoo.  it was when i saw lion up close that i decided then and there that i wanted to be a wildlife biologist.  now, life took me in a different path and i never arrived at that career, but my awe and love for wildlife has never lessened.   point 0  i understand some will say,  but if you love the animals why do not you care that some of them are not as happy as they would be in the wild.   i understand this sentiment, but i am torn.  i am torn by my previous reasons for why zoos and aquariums are necessary and my love for the animals themselves.  is a dolphin in the ocean better than a dolphin in a tank ? yes.  is a dolphin happier in the ocean than in a tank ? probably.  i would bet my life on it, but if that dolphin is in the ocean i ca not stand by the edge of the tank and rub his nose.  i ca not connect with the dolphin in that way that made me fall in love with them.  so, i think that if some dolphins at seaworld are not as happy as dolphins in the ocean, i am ok with that.  the tank dolphin is happiness may be what is lain on the altar of conservation.  zoos and aquariums make us  care  about the animals.  if people do not care about animals then they wo not do their best to preserve them.   point 0:  zoos  edcuate  people.  i remember as a child who hated snakes going to the zoo where the exhibit explained why snakes were important to the ecosystem.  before, i thought they were evil creatures.  the zoo showed me the truth.  people who understand the role of animals in our world will care more about conservation.   summary:  zoos and aquariums provide a face to face encounter with the majesty of wildlife.  this encounter makes people care about the beautiful creatures they are seeing in person.  caring about the animals leads to conservation efforts.  people who see the beauty and importance of these creatures will want to ensure the thriving of their species.  .  .   #  i understand some will say,  but if you love the animals why do not you care that some of them are not as happy as they would be in the wild.    #  i understand this sentiment, but i am torn.   # this is your opinion.  i say seeing an animal in their natural habitat interacting with its environment is more incredible than seeing one asleep in a zoo.  i agree its not the same.  seeing an orca perform an  act  is sad.  seeing an orca jump out of the water in the middle of the ocean is awesome, regardless if its on a computer screen.  it was when i saw lion up close that i decided then and there that i wanted to be a wildlife biologist.  now, life took me in a different path and i never arrived at that career, but my awe and love for wildlife has never lessened.  it seems you love how animals makes you feel, not so much having an actual love  for  them.  i understand this sentiment, but i am torn.  i am torn by my previous reasons for why zoos zoos are not necessary.  that is one of the big things wrong with your view.  they provide things sure but they are not necessary for anything.  yes.  is a dolphin happier in the ocean than in a tank ? probably.  i would bet my life on it, but if that dolphin is in the ocean i ca not stand by the edge of the tank and rub his nose.  i ca not connect with the dolphin in that way that made me fall in love with them.  like i said, you do not love animals.  you love how they make  you  feel.  they are a million things in the world that can make you feel good, but you are choosing the one that comes at the price of another animals freedom and happiness.  if people do not care about animals then they wo not do their best to preserve them.  you need a source for this.  i remember as a child who hated snakes going to the zoo where the exhibit explained why snakes were important to the ecosystem.  before, i thought they were evil creatures.  the zoo showed me the truth.  you do not need to go to a zoo to learn and understand that animals are not evil.  documentaries also do a better job at educating about wildlife.  this encounter makes people care about the beautiful creatures they are seeing in person.  caring about the animals leads to conservation efforts.  people who see the beauty and importance of these creatures will want to ensure the thriving of their species.  again you need to prove that simply going to a zoo directly affects donations and conservation efforts from those that attended.  even if it does, stealing animals and locking them up is not necessary to get people to care about animals.  and simply having animals cared about does not mean their wildlife counterparts receive any help.   #  finally, i think that animal sanctuaries which temporarily house injured animals or permanently house animals that are non releasable are okay as long as the animals  welfare is given serious consideration.   #  i would start by saying that much of the  majesty  of seeing animals is lost in a zoo setting.  that is a major trade off for the ease/convenience from our perspective.  also, i am not convinced that zoos make most people love animals.  let me expand.  most animals in zoos live in sub optimal conditions.  for example, animals like bears or wolves that have a natural home range of dozens of several square miles live in tiny enclosures that they can fully explore in 0 minutes.  further, many zoo animal species are not endangered or even seriously threatened, just  exotic.   clearly, places that provide captive breeding for eventual re introduction into the wild are beneficial, but most zoos that i am aware of are not doing this.  and from a conservation biology standpoint, captive breeding is pretty low on the totem pole of conservation strategies it is often a last resort.  zoos did play a role in rearing california condors, for example.  but there was a clear end goal, not just  willet is lock up animals so people can gawk at them.   in my experience, zoos do not do much for getting people interested in conservation.  imho, it instills/furthers the idea that conservation is a far off thing that has no relevance to normal people.  animals are often depressed and/or exhibit behaviors not normally seen in the wild.  i see a lot of pointing and laughing, and i am just not convinced that there is some romantic take away of passion for conservation when most people visit zoos.  finally, i think that animal sanctuaries which temporarily house injured animals or permanently house animals that are non releasable are okay as long as the animals  welfare is given serious consideration.  i think these, at the very least, offer the same conservation education opportunities as zoos but would focus more on local animals and have few, if any, ethical concerns or quandaries.  further, there are plenty of opportunities to see wild animals up close: guided hikes, natural areas with trails, getting engaged with local groups like for herping or bat groups.  for example, i believe that both kids and adults come away way more satisfied  and  educated when they spend a night helping mist net and measure bats than they ever do seeing bats in an enclosure at the zoo.   #  and having the animals locked in captivity impactful to their happiness just for the sake of people saying they saved the species.   #  to your second point, breeding endangered species in captivity is, in my opinion, pretty pointless.  they ca not be released into the wild and if the only purpose of having them is just to say they are not extinct, i do not see the point.  the animals do not know they are endangered now do they care.  and having the animals locked in captivity impactful to their happiness just for the sake of people saying they saved the species.  they species does not care, i am sure if they are good ng to go extinct they would rather do it in the wild and now over a drawn out period in captivity.   #  i do not think we need zoos at all.   # i guess it depends on how you define  need .  you do not need it in the same way you need oxygen.  i do not think we need zoos at all.  to be fair, i am ignorant of how big their impact is on conservation, so i wo not go into that.  but i do not think zoos make us more sympathetic to animals.  i do not think they make us better people.  i am sure my first zoo experiences were more impactful, but my more recent zoo experiences were relatively forgettable or otherwise unimportant.  maybe we should just be more careful about which animals we keep in zoos.  i enjoyed the butterfly area at the amsterdam zoo, and i doubt the butterflies suffered any psychoses from their confinement.  but maybe the lone camel there might have felt differently.   #  i, by default, care about lions because they are sentient creatures.   #  i will answer more directly.  does seeing a lion in a zoo make me more sympathetic to lions ? maybe.  i dunno.  i, by default, care about lions because they are sentient creatures.  seeing them irl does not make me care about them more.  the more important question is: does it matter ? i am not a rich dentist nor someone who lives in africa.  i do not interact with lions.  even if i  am  more sympathetic to lions, why would that matter ? how would that manifest itself ? buying a stuffed simba doll does not help lions at all.
point 0:  zoos and aquariums give people an opportunity to see animals up close in a way that they never would otherwise.  the experience of seeing a mountain gorilla on the other side of a pane of glass is far more incredible than simply watching animal planet.  having the experience of seeing an orca swim by and be in awe of their power and intelligence is not the same as seeing one in a youtube video.  i remember when i was a boy my parents took me to the zoo.  it was when i saw lion up close that i decided then and there that i wanted to be a wildlife biologist.  now, life took me in a different path and i never arrived at that career, but my awe and love for wildlife has never lessened.   point 0  i understand some will say,  but if you love the animals why do not you care that some of them are not as happy as they would be in the wild.   i understand this sentiment, but i am torn.  i am torn by my previous reasons for why zoos and aquariums are necessary and my love for the animals themselves.  is a dolphin in the ocean better than a dolphin in a tank ? yes.  is a dolphin happier in the ocean than in a tank ? probably.  i would bet my life on it, but if that dolphin is in the ocean i ca not stand by the edge of the tank and rub his nose.  i ca not connect with the dolphin in that way that made me fall in love with them.  so, i think that if some dolphins at seaworld are not as happy as dolphins in the ocean, i am ok with that.  the tank dolphin is happiness may be what is lain on the altar of conservation.  zoos and aquariums make us  care  about the animals.  if people do not care about animals then they wo not do their best to preserve them.   point 0:  zoos  edcuate  people.  i remember as a child who hated snakes going to the zoo where the exhibit explained why snakes were important to the ecosystem.  before, i thought they were evil creatures.  the zoo showed me the truth.  people who understand the role of animals in our world will care more about conservation.   summary:  zoos and aquariums provide a face to face encounter with the majesty of wildlife.  this encounter makes people care about the beautiful creatures they are seeing in person.  caring about the animals leads to conservation efforts.  people who see the beauty and importance of these creatures will want to ensure the thriving of their species.  .  .   #  zoos and aquariums provide a face to face encounter with the majesty of wildlife.   #  this encounter makes people care about the beautiful creatures they are seeing in person.   # this is your opinion.  i say seeing an animal in their natural habitat interacting with its environment is more incredible than seeing one asleep in a zoo.  i agree its not the same.  seeing an orca perform an  act  is sad.  seeing an orca jump out of the water in the middle of the ocean is awesome, regardless if its on a computer screen.  it was when i saw lion up close that i decided then and there that i wanted to be a wildlife biologist.  now, life took me in a different path and i never arrived at that career, but my awe and love for wildlife has never lessened.  it seems you love how animals makes you feel, not so much having an actual love  for  them.  i understand this sentiment, but i am torn.  i am torn by my previous reasons for why zoos zoos are not necessary.  that is one of the big things wrong with your view.  they provide things sure but they are not necessary for anything.  yes.  is a dolphin happier in the ocean than in a tank ? probably.  i would bet my life on it, but if that dolphin is in the ocean i ca not stand by the edge of the tank and rub his nose.  i ca not connect with the dolphin in that way that made me fall in love with them.  like i said, you do not love animals.  you love how they make  you  feel.  they are a million things in the world that can make you feel good, but you are choosing the one that comes at the price of another animals freedom and happiness.  if people do not care about animals then they wo not do their best to preserve them.  you need a source for this.  i remember as a child who hated snakes going to the zoo where the exhibit explained why snakes were important to the ecosystem.  before, i thought they were evil creatures.  the zoo showed me the truth.  you do not need to go to a zoo to learn and understand that animals are not evil.  documentaries also do a better job at educating about wildlife.  this encounter makes people care about the beautiful creatures they are seeing in person.  caring about the animals leads to conservation efforts.  people who see the beauty and importance of these creatures will want to ensure the thriving of their species.  again you need to prove that simply going to a zoo directly affects donations and conservation efforts from those that attended.  even if it does, stealing animals and locking them up is not necessary to get people to care about animals.  and simply having animals cared about does not mean their wildlife counterparts receive any help.   #  for example, i believe that both kids and adults come away way more satisfied  and  educated when they spend a night helping mist net and measure bats than they ever do seeing bats in an enclosure at the zoo.   #  i would start by saying that much of the  majesty  of seeing animals is lost in a zoo setting.  that is a major trade off for the ease/convenience from our perspective.  also, i am not convinced that zoos make most people love animals.  let me expand.  most animals in zoos live in sub optimal conditions.  for example, animals like bears or wolves that have a natural home range of dozens of several square miles live in tiny enclosures that they can fully explore in 0 minutes.  further, many zoo animal species are not endangered or even seriously threatened, just  exotic.   clearly, places that provide captive breeding for eventual re introduction into the wild are beneficial, but most zoos that i am aware of are not doing this.  and from a conservation biology standpoint, captive breeding is pretty low on the totem pole of conservation strategies it is often a last resort.  zoos did play a role in rearing california condors, for example.  but there was a clear end goal, not just  willet is lock up animals so people can gawk at them.   in my experience, zoos do not do much for getting people interested in conservation.  imho, it instills/furthers the idea that conservation is a far off thing that has no relevance to normal people.  animals are often depressed and/or exhibit behaviors not normally seen in the wild.  i see a lot of pointing and laughing, and i am just not convinced that there is some romantic take away of passion for conservation when most people visit zoos.  finally, i think that animal sanctuaries which temporarily house injured animals or permanently house animals that are non releasable are okay as long as the animals  welfare is given serious consideration.  i think these, at the very least, offer the same conservation education opportunities as zoos but would focus more on local animals and have few, if any, ethical concerns or quandaries.  further, there are plenty of opportunities to see wild animals up close: guided hikes, natural areas with trails, getting engaged with local groups like for herping or bat groups.  for example, i believe that both kids and adults come away way more satisfied  and  educated when they spend a night helping mist net and measure bats than they ever do seeing bats in an enclosure at the zoo.   #  to your second point, breeding endangered species in captivity is, in my opinion, pretty pointless.   #  to your second point, breeding endangered species in captivity is, in my opinion, pretty pointless.  they ca not be released into the wild and if the only purpose of having them is just to say they are not extinct, i do not see the point.  the animals do not know they are endangered now do they care.  and having the animals locked in captivity impactful to their happiness just for the sake of people saying they saved the species.  they species does not care, i am sure if they are good ng to go extinct they would rather do it in the wild and now over a drawn out period in captivity.   #  i guess it depends on how you define  need .   # i guess it depends on how you define  need .  you do not need it in the same way you need oxygen.  i do not think we need zoos at all.  to be fair, i am ignorant of how big their impact is on conservation, so i wo not go into that.  but i do not think zoos make us more sympathetic to animals.  i do not think they make us better people.  i am sure my first zoo experiences were more impactful, but my more recent zoo experiences were relatively forgettable or otherwise unimportant.  maybe we should just be more careful about which animals we keep in zoos.  i enjoyed the butterfly area at the amsterdam zoo, and i doubt the butterflies suffered any psychoses from their confinement.  but maybe the lone camel there might have felt differently.   #  does seeing a lion in a zoo make me more sympathetic to lions ?  #  i will answer more directly.  does seeing a lion in a zoo make me more sympathetic to lions ? maybe.  i dunno.  i, by default, care about lions because they are sentient creatures.  seeing them irl does not make me care about them more.  the more important question is: does it matter ? i am not a rich dentist nor someone who lives in africa.  i do not interact with lions.  even if i  am  more sympathetic to lions, why would that matter ? how would that manifest itself ? buying a stuffed simba doll does not help lions at all.
point 0:  zoos and aquariums give people an opportunity to see animals up close in a way that they never would otherwise.  the experience of seeing a mountain gorilla on the other side of a pane of glass is far more incredible than simply watching animal planet.  having the experience of seeing an orca swim by and be in awe of their power and intelligence is not the same as seeing one in a youtube video.  i remember when i was a boy my parents took me to the zoo.  it was when i saw lion up close that i decided then and there that i wanted to be a wildlife biologist.  now, life took me in a different path and i never arrived at that career, but my awe and love for wildlife has never lessened.   point 0  i understand some will say,  but if you love the animals why do not you care that some of them are not as happy as they would be in the wild.   i understand this sentiment, but i am torn.  i am torn by my previous reasons for why zoos and aquariums are necessary and my love for the animals themselves.  is a dolphin in the ocean better than a dolphin in a tank ? yes.  is a dolphin happier in the ocean than in a tank ? probably.  i would bet my life on it, but if that dolphin is in the ocean i ca not stand by the edge of the tank and rub his nose.  i ca not connect with the dolphin in that way that made me fall in love with them.  so, i think that if some dolphins at seaworld are not as happy as dolphins in the ocean, i am ok with that.  the tank dolphin is happiness may be what is lain on the altar of conservation.  zoos and aquariums make us  care  about the animals.  if people do not care about animals then they wo not do their best to preserve them.   point 0:  zoos  edcuate  people.  i remember as a child who hated snakes going to the zoo where the exhibit explained why snakes were important to the ecosystem.  before, i thought they were evil creatures.  the zoo showed me the truth.  people who understand the role of animals in our world will care more about conservation.   summary:  zoos and aquariums provide a face to face encounter with the majesty of wildlife.  this encounter makes people care about the beautiful creatures they are seeing in person.  caring about the animals leads to conservation efforts.  people who see the beauty and importance of these creatures will want to ensure the thriving of their species.  .  .   #  i understand this sentiment, but i am torn.   #  i am torn by my previous reasons for why zoos and aquariums are necessary and my love for the animals themselves.   #  does no one read the fucking post ? i already answered this.  i am torn by my previous reasons for why zoos and aquariums are necessary and my love for the animals themselves.  yes.  is a dolphin happier in the ocean than in a tank ? probably.  i would bet my life on it, but if that dolphin is in the ocean i ca not stand by the edge of the tank and rub his nose.  i ca not connect with the dolphin in that way that made me fall in love with them.  the tank dolphin is happiness may be what is lain on the altar of conservation.   #  i think these, at the very least, offer the same conservation education opportunities as zoos but would focus more on local animals and have few, if any, ethical concerns or quandaries.   #  i would start by saying that much of the  majesty  of seeing animals is lost in a zoo setting.  that is a major trade off for the ease/convenience from our perspective.  also, i am not convinced that zoos make most people love animals.  let me expand.  most animals in zoos live in sub optimal conditions.  for example, animals like bears or wolves that have a natural home range of dozens of several square miles live in tiny enclosures that they can fully explore in 0 minutes.  further, many zoo animal species are not endangered or even seriously threatened, just  exotic.   clearly, places that provide captive breeding for eventual re introduction into the wild are beneficial, but most zoos that i am aware of are not doing this.  and from a conservation biology standpoint, captive breeding is pretty low on the totem pole of conservation strategies it is often a last resort.  zoos did play a role in rearing california condors, for example.  but there was a clear end goal, not just  willet is lock up animals so people can gawk at them.   in my experience, zoos do not do much for getting people interested in conservation.  imho, it instills/furthers the idea that conservation is a far off thing that has no relevance to normal people.  animals are often depressed and/or exhibit behaviors not normally seen in the wild.  i see a lot of pointing and laughing, and i am just not convinced that there is some romantic take away of passion for conservation when most people visit zoos.  finally, i think that animal sanctuaries which temporarily house injured animals or permanently house animals that are non releasable are okay as long as the animals  welfare is given serious consideration.  i think these, at the very least, offer the same conservation education opportunities as zoos but would focus more on local animals and have few, if any, ethical concerns or quandaries.  further, there are plenty of opportunities to see wild animals up close: guided hikes, natural areas with trails, getting engaged with local groups like for herping or bat groups.  for example, i believe that both kids and adults come away way more satisfied  and  educated when they spend a night helping mist net and measure bats than they ever do seeing bats in an enclosure at the zoo.   #  the animals do not know they are endangered now do they care.   #  to your second point, breeding endangered species in captivity is, in my opinion, pretty pointless.  they ca not be released into the wild and if the only purpose of having them is just to say they are not extinct, i do not see the point.  the animals do not know they are endangered now do they care.  and having the animals locked in captivity impactful to their happiness just for the sake of people saying they saved the species.  they species does not care, i am sure if they are good ng to go extinct they would rather do it in the wild and now over a drawn out period in captivity.   #  to be fair, i am ignorant of how big their impact is on conservation, so i wo not go into that.   # i guess it depends on how you define  need .  you do not need it in the same way you need oxygen.  i do not think we need zoos at all.  to be fair, i am ignorant of how big their impact is on conservation, so i wo not go into that.  but i do not think zoos make us more sympathetic to animals.  i do not think they make us better people.  i am sure my first zoo experiences were more impactful, but my more recent zoo experiences were relatively forgettable or otherwise unimportant.  maybe we should just be more careful about which animals we keep in zoos.  i enjoyed the butterfly area at the amsterdam zoo, and i doubt the butterflies suffered any psychoses from their confinement.  but maybe the lone camel there might have felt differently.   #  seeing them irl does not make me care about them more.   #  i will answer more directly.  does seeing a lion in a zoo make me more sympathetic to lions ? maybe.  i dunno.  i, by default, care about lions because they are sentient creatures.  seeing them irl does not make me care about them more.  the more important question is: does it matter ? i am not a rich dentist nor someone who lives in africa.  i do not interact with lions.  even if i  am  more sympathetic to lions, why would that matter ? how would that manifest itself ? buying a stuffed simba doll does not help lions at all.
point 0:  zoos and aquariums give people an opportunity to see animals up close in a way that they never would otherwise.  the experience of seeing a mountain gorilla on the other side of a pane of glass is far more incredible than simply watching animal planet.  having the experience of seeing an orca swim by and be in awe of their power and intelligence is not the same as seeing one in a youtube video.  i remember when i was a boy my parents took me to the zoo.  it was when i saw lion up close that i decided then and there that i wanted to be a wildlife biologist.  now, life took me in a different path and i never arrived at that career, but my awe and love for wildlife has never lessened.   point 0  i understand some will say,  but if you love the animals why do not you care that some of them are not as happy as they would be in the wild.   i understand this sentiment, but i am torn.  i am torn by my previous reasons for why zoos and aquariums are necessary and my love for the animals themselves.  is a dolphin in the ocean better than a dolphin in a tank ? yes.  is a dolphin happier in the ocean than in a tank ? probably.  i would bet my life on it, but if that dolphin is in the ocean i ca not stand by the edge of the tank and rub his nose.  i ca not connect with the dolphin in that way that made me fall in love with them.  so, i think that if some dolphins at seaworld are not as happy as dolphins in the ocean, i am ok with that.  the tank dolphin is happiness may be what is lain on the altar of conservation.  zoos and aquariums make us  care  about the animals.  if people do not care about animals then they wo not do their best to preserve them.   point 0:  zoos  edcuate  people.  i remember as a child who hated snakes going to the zoo where the exhibit explained why snakes were important to the ecosystem.  before, i thought they were evil creatures.  the zoo showed me the truth.  people who understand the role of animals in our world will care more about conservation.   summary:  zoos and aquariums provide a face to face encounter with the majesty of wildlife.  this encounter makes people care about the beautiful creatures they are seeing in person.  caring about the animals leads to conservation efforts.  people who see the beauty and importance of these creatures will want to ensure the thriving of their species.  .  .   #  so, i think that if some dolphins at seaworld are not as happy as dolphins in the ocean, i am ok with that.   #  the tank dolphin is happiness may be what is lain on the altar of conservation.   #  does no one read the fucking post ? i already answered this.  i am torn by my previous reasons for why zoos and aquariums are necessary and my love for the animals themselves.  yes.  is a dolphin happier in the ocean than in a tank ? probably.  i would bet my life on it, but if that dolphin is in the ocean i ca not stand by the edge of the tank and rub his nose.  i ca not connect with the dolphin in that way that made me fall in love with them.  the tank dolphin is happiness may be what is lain on the altar of conservation.   #  further, many zoo animal species are not endangered or even seriously threatened, just  exotic.    #  i would start by saying that much of the  majesty  of seeing animals is lost in a zoo setting.  that is a major trade off for the ease/convenience from our perspective.  also, i am not convinced that zoos make most people love animals.  let me expand.  most animals in zoos live in sub optimal conditions.  for example, animals like bears or wolves that have a natural home range of dozens of several square miles live in tiny enclosures that they can fully explore in 0 minutes.  further, many zoo animal species are not endangered or even seriously threatened, just  exotic.   clearly, places that provide captive breeding for eventual re introduction into the wild are beneficial, but most zoos that i am aware of are not doing this.  and from a conservation biology standpoint, captive breeding is pretty low on the totem pole of conservation strategies it is often a last resort.  zoos did play a role in rearing california condors, for example.  but there was a clear end goal, not just  willet is lock up animals so people can gawk at them.   in my experience, zoos do not do much for getting people interested in conservation.  imho, it instills/furthers the idea that conservation is a far off thing that has no relevance to normal people.  animals are often depressed and/or exhibit behaviors not normally seen in the wild.  i see a lot of pointing and laughing, and i am just not convinced that there is some romantic take away of passion for conservation when most people visit zoos.  finally, i think that animal sanctuaries which temporarily house injured animals or permanently house animals that are non releasable are okay as long as the animals  welfare is given serious consideration.  i think these, at the very least, offer the same conservation education opportunities as zoos but would focus more on local animals and have few, if any, ethical concerns or quandaries.  further, there are plenty of opportunities to see wild animals up close: guided hikes, natural areas with trails, getting engaged with local groups like for herping or bat groups.  for example, i believe that both kids and adults come away way more satisfied  and  educated when they spend a night helping mist net and measure bats than they ever do seeing bats in an enclosure at the zoo.   #  to your second point, breeding endangered species in captivity is, in my opinion, pretty pointless.   #  to your second point, breeding endangered species in captivity is, in my opinion, pretty pointless.  they ca not be released into the wild and if the only purpose of having them is just to say they are not extinct, i do not see the point.  the animals do not know they are endangered now do they care.  and having the animals locked in captivity impactful to their happiness just for the sake of people saying they saved the species.  they species does not care, i am sure if they are good ng to go extinct they would rather do it in the wild and now over a drawn out period in captivity.   #  i guess it depends on how you define  need .   # i guess it depends on how you define  need .  you do not need it in the same way you need oxygen.  i do not think we need zoos at all.  to be fair, i am ignorant of how big their impact is on conservation, so i wo not go into that.  but i do not think zoos make us more sympathetic to animals.  i do not think they make us better people.  i am sure my first zoo experiences were more impactful, but my more recent zoo experiences were relatively forgettable or otherwise unimportant.  maybe we should just be more careful about which animals we keep in zoos.  i enjoyed the butterfly area at the amsterdam zoo, and i doubt the butterflies suffered any psychoses from their confinement.  but maybe the lone camel there might have felt differently.   #  the more important question is: does it matter ?  #  i will answer more directly.  does seeing a lion in a zoo make me more sympathetic to lions ? maybe.  i dunno.  i, by default, care about lions because they are sentient creatures.  seeing them irl does not make me care about them more.  the more important question is: does it matter ? i am not a rich dentist nor someone who lives in africa.  i do not interact with lions.  even if i  am  more sympathetic to lions, why would that matter ? how would that manifest itself ? buying a stuffed simba doll does not help lions at all.
i will preface this with saying that i am a guy and i consider myself extremely feminist and would disagree with the criticisms for feminism for other reasons.  i think it is clear that modern feminism is much more than just that belief, and that it is totally reasonable to believe that women and men should be equal, but not be feminist.   there are multiple valid perceptions of equality, some of which do not lend themselves to modern feminism  the perception of equality that most critics of feminism would subscribe to would be a pretty basic  equality of opportunity,  where women are given the same legal rights as men.  for the most part, this sense of equality is achieved in the developed world, and feminism does not seem extremely necessary the more feminist perception of equality is a more complex view of equality of opportunity that attempts to achieve equality through other actions.  for example, many biases prevent women from succeeding in certain fields, so feminists would often embrace some form of affirmative action or grants for women in these fields.  i personally believe this is the right way to go about things, but it is it would technically violate the very strict interpretation of equality.  other policies like supporting abortion, maternity leave, etc.  all attempt to create equality by making physical factors that advantage men over women less of an issue would fit the same argument as above.   0rd wave feminism is more than just wanting equality  feminism has evolved from just  women deserve equal rights  to a discussion about what it means to be female or other gender and sometimes racial identities.  this type of discussion is really interesting and really important.  however, it can be off putting to somebody who does not really fit the identities feminism focuses on mainly cisgendered men.  i think it is perfectly reasonable for a guy who is not interested in discussing female identity in modern society to not identity as feminist, or even feel abandoned by it.  there are plenty of ways that feminism helps men, but those issues tend to be on the back burner.  unfortunately, there is not many misogyny free communities for discussing men is issues.  until more of those exist and are promoted, it does not make much sense to expect men to identify as feminist.   #  feminism has evolved from just  women deserve equal rights  to a discussion about what it means to be female or other gender and sometimes racial identities.   #  this type of discussion is really interesting and really important.   # this type of discussion is really interesting and really important.  however, it can be off putting to somebody who does not really fit the identities feminism focuses on mainly cisgendered men.  you misunderstand 0rd wave feminism.  i find it  insane  how many people specifically call out 0rd wave feminism and do not seem to understand it.  0nd wave feminism also focused on  what it means to be a woman .  0rd wave feminism stemmed from black feminism and is distinguished from 0nd wave feminism by an understanding of intersectionality and a broadening of the movement to include other oppressed classes and is much much much more likely to be sympathetic to the idea that gender roles can harm men as well as women.   #  but that assertion is to show the only requirement of christianity, making it one of inclusion, not exclusion.   # let is lay out a few basic premises, first:   feminism, in general, is the belief and possibly pursuit of equality among the sexes and genders.  there are various subsets of belief within this group, but this is the basic idea behind the term  feminism  that encapsulates the various movements therein.  as long as someone believes that people should be treated equally, equitably, or fairly these words can have slightly different connotations, so i will let you choose one regardless of their sex/gender, that person is justified in calling him or herself a  feminist.   while some subsets of feminism are certainly more prominent, societally pervasive, or  ahem  loud, it would be disingenuous to equate any one brand of feminism with the entire field, or to blindly assume that any self styled feminist adheres to said brand.  with these in mind, can we agree that until you learn about someone is specific ideology it is fallacious to assume that any one feminist believes anything beyond the first bullet point ? this is when i hear the phrase mentioned in your title, by the way when someone assumes something more specific about feminism, and is reminded that, at its core, feminism is about sex/gender equality.  anything more specific than that is subject to change based on the person is individual beliefs.  so, it is not really an assertion that  all forms of feminism are  only  about this,  so much as,  all forms of feminism have this in common, and therefore you should not assume that all feminists believe this.   here is an analogy.  if i told you that i were a christian and you responded,  oh, so you pretend to eat the body of christ ?   i might object that you are assuming a certain sect of christianity.  i could be protestant, catholic, baptist, etc. , all of which have differing beliefs and practices.  the only thing they truly have in common is the belief that jesus christ was the messiah.  i tell you this, and in response you create a cmv:  it is dishonest to say that christianity is  only  about jesus christ.   well, yes, if you present the statement in that light.  but that assertion is to show the only requirement of christianity, making it one of inclusion, not exclusion.  apply the same reasoning to feminism, and we would see that the statement is not meant to exclude the varying beliefs of it, but rather to show the minimum requirement of feminism, and imploring people to not make assumptions about individual feminists.   #  there is a label for jews, christians and muslims collectively because the believe in the same texts.   #  there is a label for jews, christians and muslims collectively because the believe in the same texts.  they are all abrahamic religions.  also, i am saying that everything that falls under the umbrella of gender equality is feminism.  i understand that you do not believe that, but it is what i am saying.  egalitarianism does not work as an alternative because it does not break down sources of inequality by gender.  it is like saying we should stop calling hammers hammers and just call them tools.   #  person b: if you are not a feminist, then you are a misogynist.   # this reasoning does not make sense to me.  a typical conversation that i see is as follows: person a: i do not support feminism, nor do i call myself feminist, because i disagree with these specific actions and positions done and espoused by mainstream feminism as a movement.  person b: do you believe that men and women are equal ? then you are a feminist.  person a: but feminism as an ideology asserts actual positions i do not agree with, things that are quite different than  men and women are equal.   feminists as a group do things i do not support, things that are quite different than  men and women are equal .  person b: if you are not a feminist, then you are a misogynist.  so, how exactly does your statement make sense ?  #  the catholic church is no longer universal, but people do not care anymore.   #  gender egalitarianism would be less gender leaning.  but there is already a work for it and if you want it to change then try making gender egalitarian fit.  that said, feminism is not just an ideology but an academic pursuit as in you can deconstruct things along feminist grounds , which makes the whole argument more complicated.  the catholic church is no longer universal, but people do not care anymore.  this seems like a solution looking for a problem.  regardless, whether you like the word or not, feminism is more appropriate for  gender egalitarianism  than egalitarianism is.
i will preface this with saying that i am a guy and i consider myself extremely feminist and would disagree with the criticisms for feminism for other reasons.  i think it is clear that modern feminism is much more than just that belief, and that it is totally reasonable to believe that women and men should be equal, but not be feminist.   there are multiple valid perceptions of equality, some of which do not lend themselves to modern feminism  the perception of equality that most critics of feminism would subscribe to would be a pretty basic  equality of opportunity,  where women are given the same legal rights as men.  for the most part, this sense of equality is achieved in the developed world, and feminism does not seem extremely necessary the more feminist perception of equality is a more complex view of equality of opportunity that attempts to achieve equality through other actions.  for example, many biases prevent women from succeeding in certain fields, so feminists would often embrace some form of affirmative action or grants for women in these fields.  i personally believe this is the right way to go about things, but it is it would technically violate the very strict interpretation of equality.  other policies like supporting abortion, maternity leave, etc.  all attempt to create equality by making physical factors that advantage men over women less of an issue would fit the same argument as above.   0rd wave feminism is more than just wanting equality  feminism has evolved from just  women deserve equal rights  to a discussion about what it means to be female or other gender and sometimes racial identities.  this type of discussion is really interesting and really important.  however, it can be off putting to somebody who does not really fit the identities feminism focuses on mainly cisgendered men.  i think it is perfectly reasonable for a guy who is not interested in discussing female identity in modern society to not identity as feminist, or even feel abandoned by it.  there are plenty of ways that feminism helps men, but those issues tend to be on the back burner.  unfortunately, there is not many misogyny free communities for discussing men is issues.  until more of those exist and are promoted, it does not make much sense to expect men to identify as feminist.   #  it can be off putting to somebody who does not really fit the identities feminism focuses on mainly cisgendered men.   #  here is the thing: no one gives a shit every single time there is a discussion about feminism there is some dude asking what feminism does for men.   # here is the thing: no one gives a shit every single time there is a discussion about feminism there is some dude asking what feminism does for men.  and sadly, a lot of feminists will get caught in that trap and try to come up with some supportive responses.  here is the real answer: nothing.  its not about dudes.  do not want to be called a feminist ? fine, good luck with that.  just shut up and get out of the way because progress is happening with or without you.   #  let is lay out a few basic premises, first:   feminism, in general, is the belief and possibly pursuit of equality among the sexes and genders.   # let is lay out a few basic premises, first:   feminism, in general, is the belief and possibly pursuit of equality among the sexes and genders.  there are various subsets of belief within this group, but this is the basic idea behind the term  feminism  that encapsulates the various movements therein.  as long as someone believes that people should be treated equally, equitably, or fairly these words can have slightly different connotations, so i will let you choose one regardless of their sex/gender, that person is justified in calling him or herself a  feminist.   while some subsets of feminism are certainly more prominent, societally pervasive, or  ahem  loud, it would be disingenuous to equate any one brand of feminism with the entire field, or to blindly assume that any self styled feminist adheres to said brand.  with these in mind, can we agree that until you learn about someone is specific ideology it is fallacious to assume that any one feminist believes anything beyond the first bullet point ? this is when i hear the phrase mentioned in your title, by the way when someone assumes something more specific about feminism, and is reminded that, at its core, feminism is about sex/gender equality.  anything more specific than that is subject to change based on the person is individual beliefs.  so, it is not really an assertion that  all forms of feminism are  only  about this,  so much as,  all forms of feminism have this in common, and therefore you should not assume that all feminists believe this.   here is an analogy.  if i told you that i were a christian and you responded,  oh, so you pretend to eat the body of christ ?   i might object that you are assuming a certain sect of christianity.  i could be protestant, catholic, baptist, etc. , all of which have differing beliefs and practices.  the only thing they truly have in common is the belief that jesus christ was the messiah.  i tell you this, and in response you create a cmv:  it is dishonest to say that christianity is  only  about jesus christ.   well, yes, if you present the statement in that light.  but that assertion is to show the only requirement of christianity, making it one of inclusion, not exclusion.  apply the same reasoning to feminism, and we would see that the statement is not meant to exclude the varying beliefs of it, but rather to show the minimum requirement of feminism, and imploring people to not make assumptions about individual feminists.   #  also, i am saying that everything that falls under the umbrella of gender equality is feminism.   #  there is a label for jews, christians and muslims collectively because the believe in the same texts.  they are all abrahamic religions.  also, i am saying that everything that falls under the umbrella of gender equality is feminism.  i understand that you do not believe that, but it is what i am saying.  egalitarianism does not work as an alternative because it does not break down sources of inequality by gender.  it is like saying we should stop calling hammers hammers and just call them tools.   #  a typical conversation that i see is as follows: person a: i do not support feminism, nor do i call myself feminist, because i disagree with these specific actions and positions done and espoused by mainstream feminism as a movement.   # this reasoning does not make sense to me.  a typical conversation that i see is as follows: person a: i do not support feminism, nor do i call myself feminist, because i disagree with these specific actions and positions done and espoused by mainstream feminism as a movement.  person b: do you believe that men and women are equal ? then you are a feminist.  person a: but feminism as an ideology asserts actual positions i do not agree with, things that are quite different than  men and women are equal.   feminists as a group do things i do not support, things that are quite different than  men and women are equal .  person b: if you are not a feminist, then you are a misogynist.  so, how exactly does your statement make sense ?  #  the catholic church is no longer universal, but people do not care anymore.   #  gender egalitarianism would be less gender leaning.  but there is already a work for it and if you want it to change then try making gender egalitarian fit.  that said, feminism is not just an ideology but an academic pursuit as in you can deconstruct things along feminist grounds , which makes the whole argument more complicated.  the catholic church is no longer universal, but people do not care anymore.  this seems like a solution looking for a problem.  regardless, whether you like the word or not, feminism is more appropriate for  gender egalitarianism  than egalitarianism is.
the idea that the only one you have to please is yourself is not conducive to real word results.  i could think i am really attractive but get no dates.  i could think i am really likeable but have no friends.  i could think my skills are very valuable yet make very little money.  and it would all be pointless.  do you have to please everybody ? no.  howard stern has 0 million people who hate him but also 0 million people who like him, and that is why he is successful.  yes i can have internal value but i would just be in a solipsistic bubble of nothingness convincing myself otherwise.   #  i could think i am really likeable but have no friends.   #  odds are you are correct, you are likeable.   #  there is a difference between pleasing yourself and deluding yourself.  to please yourself, you must find things that you find fun, engaging, and exciting.  find things to believe in, find activities you like, find dreams that you can follow.  do not let anyone influence you on this unless you are breaking laws or hurting people .  if you are not passionate about what you are doing, you are not going to do a good job, or if you are doing a good job, you are not going to feel good about it.  however, at the same time you ca not delude yourself.  having dreams is not enough.  having passion is not enough.  you have to be able to express your passion.  you have to be able to examine yourself and improve upon yourself.  if there are skills you need, improve them.  odds are you are correct, you are likeable.  but you might not be expressing that properly.  you might be presenting your likeable traits in an undesirable way.  it is not about changing who you are, it is about finding a way to express who you are in a manner that is going to make people want to be around you.  again, you could be right, but you do not know how to market your skills.  if you are a genius programmer, but you are not able to demonstrate this to others because, say, you are arrogant and are not willing to  perform tricks , or whatever , then your skill wo not make you money.  you need the additional skill of being able to market your abilities to others.   #  yes, at some point the fact that you are very happy with yourself and your skills in underwater basket weaving is not going to lead to a meaningful career making millions.   #  the difference is that how you present yourself makes other people see you that way.  if you are confident in who you are happy with yourself, others are much more likely to like you / be impressed with you.  in virtually every single survey, one of the key traits that people look for in their potential romantic partners women especially is self confidence.  business it is the same one of the first rules of getting ahead is confidence.  yes, at some point the fact that you are very happy with yourself and your skills in underwater basket weaving is not going to lead to a meaningful career making millions.  you could believe you are quite the catch to a member of your preferred sex, but if you dress and smell like a hobo, you are unlikely to get many phone numbers.  however, for virtually any situation you can be in in life, the person with more self confidence and self assuredness is going to come out further ahead than someone who is unsure of themselves and constantly seeking others approval.   #  how would you tell which bubble is the correct bubble to be in ?  #  maybe it was not appropriate to make a reference to solipsism.  the whole idea of solipsism is that even in the presence of tangible evidence, you ca not trust that you are perceiving what is really there.  you ca not know if the people giving you validation are real.  besides, in any situation like what you are describing there would be two bubbles.  one bubble is filled with people who believe you and the other bubble is filled with people who do not believe you.  neither group is capable of seeing their own bubble but they can see the other bubble.  how would you get people to acknowledge their own bubble ? how would you tell which bubble is the correct bubble to be in ?  #  you need someone to assume you are worth giving money to.   #  external validations matters, but matters for what ? your likes and interests ? your passions ? your tastes ? it does not matter for any of those.  you need external validation in order to make it in the world.  you need someone to assume you are worth giving money to.  you generally want someone to assume you are a good mate or friend.  but there is no exact rule to do this.  you can be whatever type of person you want, as long as you are able to sell it reasonably well.  when someone says  do not worry about what other people say , they are not suggesting you live as hermit and shun society.  they are saying, do what you want now and if you are passionate about it and you are doing it for the right reasons, you will be able to convince people after the fact.   #  one does not have to exist exclusive of the other.   #  i do not think anybody would be able to refute your point, which is why there are so few responses to your comments.  i think one argument that could be made is that you definitely can please yourself while getting real world results as well.  one does not have to exist exclusive of the other.  i could enjoy whatever work that i do and do well at it as well; the same applies for the rest of your points as well.  i think at the end of the day you will feel pretty empty if you are not living up to a certain standard that you find acceptable towards yourself even with all the external validation in the world.
the idea that the only one you have to please is yourself is not conducive to real word results.  i could think i am really attractive but get no dates.  i could think i am really likeable but have no friends.  i could think my skills are very valuable yet make very little money.  and it would all be pointless.  do you have to please everybody ? no.  howard stern has 0 million people who hate him but also 0 million people who like him, and that is why he is successful.  yes i can have internal value but i would just be in a solipsistic bubble of nothingness convincing myself otherwise.   #  i could think my skills are very valuable yet make very little money.   #  again, you could be right, but you do not know how to market your skills.   #  there is a difference between pleasing yourself and deluding yourself.  to please yourself, you must find things that you find fun, engaging, and exciting.  find things to believe in, find activities you like, find dreams that you can follow.  do not let anyone influence you on this unless you are breaking laws or hurting people .  if you are not passionate about what you are doing, you are not going to do a good job, or if you are doing a good job, you are not going to feel good about it.  however, at the same time you ca not delude yourself.  having dreams is not enough.  having passion is not enough.  you have to be able to express your passion.  you have to be able to examine yourself and improve upon yourself.  if there are skills you need, improve them.  odds are you are correct, you are likeable.  but you might not be expressing that properly.  you might be presenting your likeable traits in an undesirable way.  it is not about changing who you are, it is about finding a way to express who you are in a manner that is going to make people want to be around you.  again, you could be right, but you do not know how to market your skills.  if you are a genius programmer, but you are not able to demonstrate this to others because, say, you are arrogant and are not willing to  perform tricks , or whatever , then your skill wo not make you money.  you need the additional skill of being able to market your abilities to others.   #  you could believe you are quite the catch to a member of your preferred sex, but if you dress and smell like a hobo, you are unlikely to get many phone numbers.   #  the difference is that how you present yourself makes other people see you that way.  if you are confident in who you are happy with yourself, others are much more likely to like you / be impressed with you.  in virtually every single survey, one of the key traits that people look for in their potential romantic partners women especially is self confidence.  business it is the same one of the first rules of getting ahead is confidence.  yes, at some point the fact that you are very happy with yourself and your skills in underwater basket weaving is not going to lead to a meaningful career making millions.  you could believe you are quite the catch to a member of your preferred sex, but if you dress and smell like a hobo, you are unlikely to get many phone numbers.  however, for virtually any situation you can be in in life, the person with more self confidence and self assuredness is going to come out further ahead than someone who is unsure of themselves and constantly seeking others approval.   #  you ca not know if the people giving you validation are real.   #  maybe it was not appropriate to make a reference to solipsism.  the whole idea of solipsism is that even in the presence of tangible evidence, you ca not trust that you are perceiving what is really there.  you ca not know if the people giving you validation are real.  besides, in any situation like what you are describing there would be two bubbles.  one bubble is filled with people who believe you and the other bubble is filled with people who do not believe you.  neither group is capable of seeing their own bubble but they can see the other bubble.  how would you get people to acknowledge their own bubble ? how would you tell which bubble is the correct bubble to be in ?  #  they are saying, do what you want now and if you are passionate about it and you are doing it for the right reasons, you will be able to convince people after the fact.   #  external validations matters, but matters for what ? your likes and interests ? your passions ? your tastes ? it does not matter for any of those.  you need external validation in order to make it in the world.  you need someone to assume you are worth giving money to.  you generally want someone to assume you are a good mate or friend.  but there is no exact rule to do this.  you can be whatever type of person you want, as long as you are able to sell it reasonably well.  when someone says  do not worry about what other people say , they are not suggesting you live as hermit and shun society.  they are saying, do what you want now and if you are passionate about it and you are doing it for the right reasons, you will be able to convince people after the fact.   #  one does not have to exist exclusive of the other.   #  i do not think anybody would be able to refute your point, which is why there are so few responses to your comments.  i think one argument that could be made is that you definitely can please yourself while getting real world results as well.  one does not have to exist exclusive of the other.  i could enjoy whatever work that i do and do well at it as well; the same applies for the rest of your points as well.  i think at the end of the day you will feel pretty empty if you are not living up to a certain standard that you find acceptable towards yourself even with all the external validation in the world.
people talk about  natural  or  god given rights , but all rights can be taken from you.  if rights like  free speech  or  free association  are  inalienable ,  natural , or  god given , how come so many people do not have them.   rights  are created by the state, on their terms.  i hear alot of people claiming  the right to free speech , or  the right to the pursuit of happiness .  looking at the world in these terms is false, misleading and detrimental to society.  no rights are absolute the world would be screwed if they were.  laws about inciting violence, truth in advertising, libel, slander, pornography, threats, extortion, racial vilification, sexual harassment, tax fraud and many, many more, all limit free speech, but are vital for society.  can i  pursue happiness  by running over the elderly in my f0, or selling crack to toddlers ? but i got the  right  ! right ? all  rights  have limits.  looking at things purely in terms of  rights  creates a selfish, narcissistic, entitled, unreasonable mindset.  rights and responsibilities are two sides of the same coin, but there is no  bill of responsibilities .  talking about  rights  like this makes people think they can do what they want, coz  i got rights !  .  rights are a myth, and we need a better model for thinking about personal freedom.   #  people talk about  natural  or  god given rights , but all rights can be taken from you.   #  so if it can be taken from you, does it not already exist ?  # so if it can be taken from you, does it not already exist ? this is the crux of the conversation.  if you were alone on an island, with no government or people around you, do you have the right to practice whatever religion you choose ? do you have the right to say whatever is on your mind ? do you have the right to defend yourself against anything that would attack you ? basic rights exist without intervention from anyone else.  governments only action in rights is to restrict them through fear of punishment.  when you say  how come so many people do not have them  you are noting that countries like china, who censor their people heavily, are denying them a natural right.  here is the big point though.  those people still have that right.  chinese protesters often speak out against their government.  they practice their religions.  they are punished for it in the end.  no one can restrict your rights, but they can punish you for exercising them.  rights require nothing of anyone else.  this is why you do not have a  right to healthcare  because you would be forcing someone to provide something for you at their expense.  rights are things which require nothing from anyone but yourself.   #  another is as a positive:  you have a right to live .   # we do know that not all people act morally.  one way to say that we respect life is as a negative:  you have a responsibility not to murder .  another is as a positive:  you have a right to live .  if we frame it as a negative, it only binds individual citizens there is no protection from bears, the government, etc.  if we frame it as a positive, that is to say that we ought to save your life even if it is being threatened by a government, bear, etc.  what responsibilities must i take on in order to  deserve  the right not to be raped ?  #  they are cultural and situational norms and rules that some people enforce because they seem to serve individual humans and humanity at large, but they are nothing more.   # i ca not argue that one completely irrelevant hyperbole.  op is position is that rights are conditional.  that they do not exist as natural and inalienable characteristics of human experience.  they are cultural and situational norms and rules that some people enforce because they seem to serve individual humans and humanity at large, but they are nothing more.  responsibilities are conditional upon things such as your circumstances, your propensities and your intentions.  tell a rational but suicidal person they have a responsibility to perpetuate their life or to provide for humanity, the word responsibility will mean nothing to them.   #  these two things can vary greatly depending on what that culture believes you live for.   # i think he only meant that both  responsibilities  and  rights  are not tangible things, but are both mere social constructs.  generally speaking,  rights  tend to be developed by societies as concepts of  thing i would like to be able to do  and  things i would not want done to me.   also generally speaking,  responsibilities  tend to be developed by societies as things you  should  be doing in order to either maintain the current status quo or to work towards a future desired status quo.  either concept though is a social construct.  both the  responsibilities  and the  rights  of a culture tend to reflect that culture is perception of what it means to live life.  these two things can vary greatly depending on what that culture believes you live for.  do you live for others ? do you live for your king ? do you only live for yourself ?  #  without a power structure in place to enforce rights, there are no rights.   #  i agree wholeheartedly with what you just said ! i apologize if i misunderstood the debate.  i did not think that op was arguing that rights are tangible things, because that is pretty obviously false and nobody would try and change his view.  i also did not think that op was arguing that the word  right  as in  human rights  is a meaningless term.  because it fairly obviously has colloquial and substantive meaning when people talk about obligations between and among individuals and states maybe i am putting words in op is mouth.  but i was under the assumption that he was arguing the following: that the way people commonly use the term  rights  ,that is, as natural inalienable and unquestionably owed to every human being is an untenable use of the term.  without a power structure in place to enforce rights, there are no rights.  if society changes and decides to remove any one of our  natural and inalienable rights  it would be incorrect to say that that right was every natural or inalienable at all.  the fact that societies can in principle change the rights that we choose to hold and enforce means that it is incorrect to call any human rights natural or inalienable outside of specific situations where there is a complex social power structure capable of and willing to protect those rights.  establishing human rights is a good thing.  but acting like rights are conferred upon every individual for the sole fact that they were born as a human is the part that is misguided.
people talk about  natural  or  god given rights , but all rights can be taken from you.  if rights like  free speech  or  free association  are  inalienable ,  natural , or  god given , how come so many people do not have them.   rights  are created by the state, on their terms.  i hear alot of people claiming  the right to free speech , or  the right to the pursuit of happiness .  looking at the world in these terms is false, misleading and detrimental to society.  no rights are absolute the world would be screwed if they were.  laws about inciting violence, truth in advertising, libel, slander, pornography, threats, extortion, racial vilification, sexual harassment, tax fraud and many, many more, all limit free speech, but are vital for society.  can i  pursue happiness  by running over the elderly in my f0, or selling crack to toddlers ? but i got the  right  ! right ? all  rights  have limits.  looking at things purely in terms of  rights  creates a selfish, narcissistic, entitled, unreasonable mindset.  rights and responsibilities are two sides of the same coin, but there is no  bill of responsibilities .  talking about  rights  like this makes people think they can do what they want, coz  i got rights !  .  rights are a myth, and we need a better model for thinking about personal freedom.   #  rights are a myth, and we need a better model for thinking about personal freedom.   #  i understand your point, and agree that terms like  god given rights  are flowery language at best and misleading at worst.   # i understand your point, and agree that terms like  god given rights  are flowery language at best and misleading at worst.  obviously many people in the world, and numerous people in america do not have these rights.  however, i do think there is a difference between a myth and a social construction.  we live in a society in which representatives make the rules and, being elected by the people, those representatives have good reason to make those rules in keeping with public will.  so, in an imperfect, abstract sense, popular opinion controls what rights we should all have and what rights we should not have.  and i would argue that those rights that society dictates are real, albeit impermanent and intangible.   #  what responsibilities must i take on in order to  deserve  the right not to be raped ?  # we do know that not all people act morally.  one way to say that we respect life is as a negative:  you have a responsibility not to murder .  another is as a positive:  you have a right to live .  if we frame it as a negative, it only binds individual citizens there is no protection from bears, the government, etc.  if we frame it as a positive, that is to say that we ought to save your life even if it is being threatened by a government, bear, etc.  what responsibilities must i take on in order to  deserve  the right not to be raped ?  #  they are cultural and situational norms and rules that some people enforce because they seem to serve individual humans and humanity at large, but they are nothing more.   # i ca not argue that one completely irrelevant hyperbole.  op is position is that rights are conditional.  that they do not exist as natural and inalienable characteristics of human experience.  they are cultural and situational norms and rules that some people enforce because they seem to serve individual humans and humanity at large, but they are nothing more.  responsibilities are conditional upon things such as your circumstances, your propensities and your intentions.  tell a rational but suicidal person they have a responsibility to perpetuate their life or to provide for humanity, the word responsibility will mean nothing to them.   #  i think he only meant that both  responsibilities  and  rights  are not tangible things, but are both mere social constructs.   # i think he only meant that both  responsibilities  and  rights  are not tangible things, but are both mere social constructs.  generally speaking,  rights  tend to be developed by societies as concepts of  thing i would like to be able to do  and  things i would not want done to me.   also generally speaking,  responsibilities  tend to be developed by societies as things you  should  be doing in order to either maintain the current status quo or to work towards a future desired status quo.  either concept though is a social construct.  both the  responsibilities  and the  rights  of a culture tend to reflect that culture is perception of what it means to live life.  these two things can vary greatly depending on what that culture believes you live for.  do you live for others ? do you live for your king ? do you only live for yourself ?  #  if society changes and decides to remove any one of our  natural and inalienable rights  it would be incorrect to say that that right was every natural or inalienable at all.   #  i agree wholeheartedly with what you just said ! i apologize if i misunderstood the debate.  i did not think that op was arguing that rights are tangible things, because that is pretty obviously false and nobody would try and change his view.  i also did not think that op was arguing that the word  right  as in  human rights  is a meaningless term.  because it fairly obviously has colloquial and substantive meaning when people talk about obligations between and among individuals and states maybe i am putting words in op is mouth.  but i was under the assumption that he was arguing the following: that the way people commonly use the term  rights  ,that is, as natural inalienable and unquestionably owed to every human being is an untenable use of the term.  without a power structure in place to enforce rights, there are no rights.  if society changes and decides to remove any one of our  natural and inalienable rights  it would be incorrect to say that that right was every natural or inalienable at all.  the fact that societies can in principle change the rights that we choose to hold and enforce means that it is incorrect to call any human rights natural or inalienable outside of specific situations where there is a complex social power structure capable of and willing to protect those rights.  establishing human rights is a good thing.  but acting like rights are conferred upon every individual for the sole fact that they were born as a human is the part that is misguided.
people talk about  natural  or  god given rights , but all rights can be taken from you.  if rights like  free speech  or  free association  are  inalienable ,  natural , or  god given , how come so many people do not have them.   rights  are created by the state, on their terms.  i hear alot of people claiming  the right to free speech , or  the right to the pursuit of happiness .  looking at the world in these terms is false, misleading and detrimental to society.  no rights are absolute the world would be screwed if they were.  laws about inciting violence, truth in advertising, libel, slander, pornography, threats, extortion, racial vilification, sexual harassment, tax fraud and many, many more, all limit free speech, but are vital for society.  can i  pursue happiness  by running over the elderly in my f0, or selling crack to toddlers ? but i got the  right  ! right ? all  rights  have limits.  looking at things purely in terms of  rights  creates a selfish, narcissistic, entitled, unreasonable mindset.  rights and responsibilities are two sides of the same coin, but there is no  bill of responsibilities .  talking about  rights  like this makes people think they can do what they want, coz  i got rights !  .  rights are a myth, and we need a better model for thinking about personal freedom.   #  people talk about  natural  or  god given rights , but all rights can be taken from you.   #  the theory of rights is that they exist inherently negative rights, at least .   #  first things first, i am going to need to define two types of rights:  negative  rights, and  positive  rights.  negative rights  are those that do not need any action from anybody else to exist.  you have the right to live; if you are just chilling in your own home, minding your own business, you would continue to live.  likewise, freedom of speech, the right to property, the right to exchange goods, etc.  all of these exist, and would continue to exist without anybody else doing anything.  indeed, the only way to infringe on them is if someone actively  does  do something.  positive rights  are on weaker grounds indeed, there is some debate if they actually exist at all, per much of your cmv .  positive rights are things like the  right  to trial by jury, the  right  to medical treatment, the  right  to service, the  right  to welfare, the  right  to employment.  all of these things have one thing in common: they all require other people to make  positive  action, they can only exist if someone else  adds  their action to the equation.  a set of jurors are required to listen and render judgement.  a doctor is required to treat you.  someone has to pay to support you until you get on your feet.  someone has to pay you to do something/nothing.  the theory of rights is that they exist inherently negative rights, at least .  can they be taken from you ? certainly.  does that mean they do not exist ? how about the screen you are viewing this on ? does the fact that someone could take it from you mean that it does not actually exist ? on the contrary, if the state ceased to exist, i would still have the right to live.  others may try to deny me that right, but they would have to actively do so.  i would also have the right to freedom of speech and conscience; i can believe whatever i wish, i can say whatever i wish, and the only way that could change is if someone were to do something to gag/harm me.  you have a right to not be attacked.  you have a right to know what it is you are buying before you buy it.  you have a right to not have people lying about you.  most laws at least, the ones that are nearly universally accepted as good things are designed to protect the rights of others.  heck, even laws against tax fraud are designed to protect people is right to equal treatment under the law.  as above, but with the added question of the ability to consent.   .  i would question whether they  are  thinking, because the standard approach of the theory of rights is that a negative right always trumps positive action.  they are thinking only that they have the right to do what they want without other people stopping them, while ignoring the fact that others have that same right, and sometimes those conflict.  this is colloquially phrased as  your right to swing your fist ends right before my nose.   do positive rights exist ? i am not certain.  do  negative  rights exist ? yes, and the only way to change that is for someone to do something to prevent that.   #  if we frame it as a positive, that is to say that we ought to save your life even if it is being threatened by a government, bear, etc.   # we do know that not all people act morally.  one way to say that we respect life is as a negative:  you have a responsibility not to murder .  another is as a positive:  you have a right to live .  if we frame it as a negative, it only binds individual citizens there is no protection from bears, the government, etc.  if we frame it as a positive, that is to say that we ought to save your life even if it is being threatened by a government, bear, etc.  what responsibilities must i take on in order to  deserve  the right not to be raped ?  #  responsibilities are conditional upon things such as your circumstances, your propensities and your intentions.   # i ca not argue that one completely irrelevant hyperbole.  op is position is that rights are conditional.  that they do not exist as natural and inalienable characteristics of human experience.  they are cultural and situational norms and rules that some people enforce because they seem to serve individual humans and humanity at large, but they are nothing more.  responsibilities are conditional upon things such as your circumstances, your propensities and your intentions.  tell a rational but suicidal person they have a responsibility to perpetuate their life or to provide for humanity, the word responsibility will mean nothing to them.   #  also generally speaking,  responsibilities  tend to be developed by societies as things you  should  be doing in order to either maintain the current status quo or to work towards a future desired status quo.   # i think he only meant that both  responsibilities  and  rights  are not tangible things, but are both mere social constructs.  generally speaking,  rights  tend to be developed by societies as concepts of  thing i would like to be able to do  and  things i would not want done to me.   also generally speaking,  responsibilities  tend to be developed by societies as things you  should  be doing in order to either maintain the current status quo or to work towards a future desired status quo.  either concept though is a social construct.  both the  responsibilities  and the  rights  of a culture tend to reflect that culture is perception of what it means to live life.  these two things can vary greatly depending on what that culture believes you live for.  do you live for others ? do you live for your king ? do you only live for yourself ?  #  if society changes and decides to remove any one of our  natural and inalienable rights  it would be incorrect to say that that right was every natural or inalienable at all.   #  i agree wholeheartedly with what you just said ! i apologize if i misunderstood the debate.  i did not think that op was arguing that rights are tangible things, because that is pretty obviously false and nobody would try and change his view.  i also did not think that op was arguing that the word  right  as in  human rights  is a meaningless term.  because it fairly obviously has colloquial and substantive meaning when people talk about obligations between and among individuals and states maybe i am putting words in op is mouth.  but i was under the assumption that he was arguing the following: that the way people commonly use the term  rights  ,that is, as natural inalienable and unquestionably owed to every human being is an untenable use of the term.  without a power structure in place to enforce rights, there are no rights.  if society changes and decides to remove any one of our  natural and inalienable rights  it would be incorrect to say that that right was every natural or inalienable at all.  the fact that societies can in principle change the rights that we choose to hold and enforce means that it is incorrect to call any human rights natural or inalienable outside of specific situations where there is a complex social power structure capable of and willing to protect those rights.  establishing human rights is a good thing.  but acting like rights are conferred upon every individual for the sole fact that they were born as a human is the part that is misguided.
people talk about  natural  or  god given rights , but all rights can be taken from you.  if rights like  free speech  or  free association  are  inalienable ,  natural , or  god given , how come so many people do not have them.   rights  are created by the state, on their terms.  i hear alot of people claiming  the right to free speech , or  the right to the pursuit of happiness .  looking at the world in these terms is false, misleading and detrimental to society.  no rights are absolute the world would be screwed if they were.  laws about inciting violence, truth in advertising, libel, slander, pornography, threats, extortion, racial vilification, sexual harassment, tax fraud and many, many more, all limit free speech, but are vital for society.  can i  pursue happiness  by running over the elderly in my f0, or selling crack to toddlers ? but i got the  right  ! right ? all  rights  have limits.  looking at things purely in terms of  rights  creates a selfish, narcissistic, entitled, unreasonable mindset.  rights and responsibilities are two sides of the same coin, but there is no  bill of responsibilities .  talking about  rights  like this makes people think they can do what they want, coz  i got rights !  .  rights are a myth, and we need a better model for thinking about personal freedom.   #   rights  are created by the state, on their terms.   #  on the contrary, if the state ceased to exist, i would still have the right to live.   #  first things first, i am going to need to define two types of rights:  negative  rights, and  positive  rights.  negative rights  are those that do not need any action from anybody else to exist.  you have the right to live; if you are just chilling in your own home, minding your own business, you would continue to live.  likewise, freedom of speech, the right to property, the right to exchange goods, etc.  all of these exist, and would continue to exist without anybody else doing anything.  indeed, the only way to infringe on them is if someone actively  does  do something.  positive rights  are on weaker grounds indeed, there is some debate if they actually exist at all, per much of your cmv .  positive rights are things like the  right  to trial by jury, the  right  to medical treatment, the  right  to service, the  right  to welfare, the  right  to employment.  all of these things have one thing in common: they all require other people to make  positive  action, they can only exist if someone else  adds  their action to the equation.  a set of jurors are required to listen and render judgement.  a doctor is required to treat you.  someone has to pay to support you until you get on your feet.  someone has to pay you to do something/nothing.  the theory of rights is that they exist inherently negative rights, at least .  can they be taken from you ? certainly.  does that mean they do not exist ? how about the screen you are viewing this on ? does the fact that someone could take it from you mean that it does not actually exist ? on the contrary, if the state ceased to exist, i would still have the right to live.  others may try to deny me that right, but they would have to actively do so.  i would also have the right to freedom of speech and conscience; i can believe whatever i wish, i can say whatever i wish, and the only way that could change is if someone were to do something to gag/harm me.  you have a right to not be attacked.  you have a right to know what it is you are buying before you buy it.  you have a right to not have people lying about you.  most laws at least, the ones that are nearly universally accepted as good things are designed to protect the rights of others.  heck, even laws against tax fraud are designed to protect people is right to equal treatment under the law.  as above, but with the added question of the ability to consent.   .  i would question whether they  are  thinking, because the standard approach of the theory of rights is that a negative right always trumps positive action.  they are thinking only that they have the right to do what they want without other people stopping them, while ignoring the fact that others have that same right, and sometimes those conflict.  this is colloquially phrased as  your right to swing your fist ends right before my nose.   do positive rights exist ? i am not certain.  do  negative  rights exist ? yes, and the only way to change that is for someone to do something to prevent that.   #  another is as a positive:  you have a right to live .   # we do know that not all people act morally.  one way to say that we respect life is as a negative:  you have a responsibility not to murder .  another is as a positive:  you have a right to live .  if we frame it as a negative, it only binds individual citizens there is no protection from bears, the government, etc.  if we frame it as a positive, that is to say that we ought to save your life even if it is being threatened by a government, bear, etc.  what responsibilities must i take on in order to  deserve  the right not to be raped ?  #  they are cultural and situational norms and rules that some people enforce because they seem to serve individual humans and humanity at large, but they are nothing more.   # i ca not argue that one completely irrelevant hyperbole.  op is position is that rights are conditional.  that they do not exist as natural and inalienable characteristics of human experience.  they are cultural and situational norms and rules that some people enforce because they seem to serve individual humans and humanity at large, but they are nothing more.  responsibilities are conditional upon things such as your circumstances, your propensities and your intentions.  tell a rational but suicidal person they have a responsibility to perpetuate their life or to provide for humanity, the word responsibility will mean nothing to them.   #  i think he only meant that both  responsibilities  and  rights  are not tangible things, but are both mere social constructs.   # i think he only meant that both  responsibilities  and  rights  are not tangible things, but are both mere social constructs.  generally speaking,  rights  tend to be developed by societies as concepts of  thing i would like to be able to do  and  things i would not want done to me.   also generally speaking,  responsibilities  tend to be developed by societies as things you  should  be doing in order to either maintain the current status quo or to work towards a future desired status quo.  either concept though is a social construct.  both the  responsibilities  and the  rights  of a culture tend to reflect that culture is perception of what it means to live life.  these two things can vary greatly depending on what that culture believes you live for.  do you live for others ? do you live for your king ? do you only live for yourself ?  #  i did not think that op was arguing that rights are tangible things, because that is pretty obviously false and nobody would try and change his view.   #  i agree wholeheartedly with what you just said ! i apologize if i misunderstood the debate.  i did not think that op was arguing that rights are tangible things, because that is pretty obviously false and nobody would try and change his view.  i also did not think that op was arguing that the word  right  as in  human rights  is a meaningless term.  because it fairly obviously has colloquial and substantive meaning when people talk about obligations between and among individuals and states maybe i am putting words in op is mouth.  but i was under the assumption that he was arguing the following: that the way people commonly use the term  rights  ,that is, as natural inalienable and unquestionably owed to every human being is an untenable use of the term.  without a power structure in place to enforce rights, there are no rights.  if society changes and decides to remove any one of our  natural and inalienable rights  it would be incorrect to say that that right was every natural or inalienable at all.  the fact that societies can in principle change the rights that we choose to hold and enforce means that it is incorrect to call any human rights natural or inalienable outside of specific situations where there is a complex social power structure capable of and willing to protect those rights.  establishing human rights is a good thing.  but acting like rights are conferred upon every individual for the sole fact that they were born as a human is the part that is misguided.
right now there is almost an unanimous consensus among scholars that jesus was a real human being.  they even go as far as comparing the christ myth theory to the moon landing conspiracy theories and holocaust deniers.  i think their confidence is unwarranted and here is why:  we have zero evidence of any christian activity whatsoever before paul wrote galatians around 0 0ad, and no conclusively christian artifacts have been found dating any earlier than 0 ad.  supposedly jesus was already attracting huge crowds during his lifetime, and israel has been studied extensively by archaeologists for a long time.  you would think we would find some sort of trinket or writing contemporary to his life, but we have found nothing.  israel was already very literate during christ is time.  despite what people popularly say, we do have much more evidence for julius caesar and alexander the great than we do for christ.  that is to be expected of course, but considering how popular the gospels portray jesus as being and how much of israel has been dug up, you would think we would have something from his lifetime attesting to his existence.   the attestations by josephus, tacitus and suetonius are very dubious.  scholars even admit that part of the testimonium flavianum was forged.   paul seems to be writing about a heavenly jesus, not an earthly one at times in his letters.   the principle of embarrassment is a very weak argument.  we just do not know enough about the context of that era.   the gospels are written in greek.  jesus spoke aramaic.  it is possible he also spoke greek, but you would think the gospels would have been written in aramaic originally if they were genuine accounts of jesus is life.   the gospels have huge issues.  aside from the fact that they describe magical happenings, they ca not even get things like the year he was born right.  one gospel suggests that jesus was born around 0 bc, another suggests 0 ad.  since it is obvious the magical parts did not happen, is it really that radical to come to the conclusion the whole story is a work of fiction ? i think what happened is there was a preacher in israel who was maybe named yeshua at the time who claimed to be god and tried to overthrow the roman client state with his followers and was executed for it.  his followers, mostly poor illiterates, started telling tall tales about things he supposedly did while he was alive.  eventually decades later, some literate greek believers, most likely in anatolia wrote made up biographies of this preacher is life and tacked on moral sayings they attributed to him.  some of these stories became very popular to the extent that people were willing to die for their faith.  in other words, there may have been a person who jesus was very loosely based on, but the jesus that christians worship is essentially a character from political fanfiction.  either that or entirely made up.  can anyone point me to some evidence that proves jesus was in fact a real man, who was born under herod, performed miracles in front of masses of crowds, and went fishing with his buddies in the freshwater sea of galilee, only to be killed for it ? i am not looking at this from a snarky anti theist view, though i do happen to be an atheist.  i just do not think the evidence is compelling or very convincing.   #  i think what happened is there was a preacher in israel who was maybe named yeshua at the time who claimed to be god and tried to overthrow the roman client state with his followers and was executed for it.   #  his followers, mostly poor illiterates, started telling tall tales about things he supposedly did while he was alive.   # his followers, mostly poor illiterates, started telling tall tales about things he supposedly did while he was alive.  this is more or less the historical picture of jesus, although i do not know any who think he was directly trying to overthrow rome.  but the general belief is that he was a galilean peasant preacher in a time of many such figures, proclaimed to be the messiah another claimant of many , preached more or less the same message that we read in the gospel, was raising some trouble in judea because of his teachings, and to preserve the peace rome just threw him up on a cross instead of risking further strife with a feisty and hotheaded judea.  and as far as evidence goes i would point out that the evidence we have for him is rather remarkable for a lowkey jewish peasant preacher on the edge of the empire.  he did not become a serious figure until a while after his death so it is not unusual that no one took many notes of him while he was alive, and the references we have on him from characters like josephus are what we would expect, since josephus gave a mention to most of the other messianic wannabe is of the time.  and while the tf was doctored by christians later, the edit was poorly done and stands out like a sore thumb.  cut away the blatantly christian additions and it just says he claimed to be the messiah and got executed for it.  and i do not know anyone who seriously questions tacitus is reference.   #  no one does this, though, because no one approaches these figures with the cynicism that some people approach jesus with.   #  since you actually concede that you think a figure that was at least similar to jesus existed with:   i think what happened is there was a preacher in israel who was maybe named yeshua at the time who claimed to be god and tried to overthrow the roman client state with his followers and was executed for it.  what exactly are you denying ? also, why do you think he tried to overthrow the romans ? on a broader note: i think part of the reason that scepticism about the historical jesus is so widely derided as a conspiracy is because it relies on demanding a much higher standard of evidence for the existence of jesus than it would for anyone else.  all sources from around this period are not as specific as we would like, all of them have holes or unsubstantiated claims and rumours in them, and plenty of figures we all agree did exist are only mentioned after their life.  in that sense, it is treated as a conspiracy theory because you need to be thinking conspiratorially to think it is solid: you have to believe that this is a deliberate attempt to create a fictional person.  people would have a much easier time creating a conspiracy about a figure like alcibiades or tiberius gracchus if you similarly disregarded all of the sources on their lives that were partially fabricated/had clear faults, were written after their death or were written be people who had an interest in believing in their existence.  no one does this, though, because no one approaches these figures with the cynicism that some people approach jesus with.  specifically, i do not think your arguments attempting to discredit the gospels are particularly strong, either.  a lot of jesus truthers seem to want to disregard the gospels as a historical source, and of course they are less reliable than plenty of other historical sources, but they are still the primary historical account of jesus  life, and there is multiple of them.   #  in a way, jesus was not the only  jesus  figure at the time.   # all sources from around this period are not as specific as we would like, all of them have holes or unsubstantiated claims and rumours in them, and plenty of figures we all agree did exist are only mentioned after their life.  not necessarily.  we know people like julius caesar and alexander the great existed because of numerous artifacts and contemporary sources that reference them.  we also know certain biblical figures existed, such as hezekiah, because he is mentioned in not only jewish writing, but also in assyrian accounts.  the more contemporary accounts, the more solid the evidence of the person is existence.  the problem with jesus lies in the fact that there are no truly contemporary accounts of him.  all of the commonly quoted authors such as josephus and tacitus were born decades after jesus supposedly lived.  and it is not as if there were not prominent historians in jerusalem at the time it is said jesus arrived there and was tried and executed.  yet, none of the miraculous accounts are recorded.  other historical figures are doubted for similar reasons: socrates for example.  historians are not entirely sure he was real.  i think the op is mistake was not differentiating a historical jesus who more than likely did exist, but was not noteworthy enough for historians of his day to write about him and the jesus the legend.  we know almost certainly that the dead did not rise in jerusalem and start walking around, that 0 people were not fed by a few loaves of bread and a few fishes, and that a man was not raised from the dead.  these are massive, world changing events that would have been widely reported at the time, not many decades later by the followers of the man who supposedly performed these acts.  but as far as an itinerant preacher wandering around judea during the early first century forming the basis of christianity, that is almost certainly true, as not only we have the existence of christianity, but contemporary enough accounts of his followers who witnessed his death.  we also have the fact that there were  numerous  jewish cults surrounding a single teacher running around judea during this time.  in a way, jesus was not the only  jesus  figure at the time.   #  no, the reason people differentiate between historical jesus and christian jesus is to see if there was a real person everything was based off.   #  no, the reason people differentiate between historical jesus and christian jesus is to see if there was a real person everything was based off.  look at it from this point of view.  was there a real person called kim jong il ? yes.  when he died the north korean media said that layers of ice ruptured with an unprecedentedly loud crack at chon lake on mount paektu and a snowstorm with strong winds hit the area.  is that true ? no.  is it true that he set fashion trends across the world with his outfits ? no.  he claimed that the moment of his birth, a bright star lit up the sky, the seasons spontaneously changed from winter to spring, and rainbows appeared.  this is not true.  the version of kim jong il he presented to the world did not exist.  but there was a real person with that name and some of the things are true he was born, he led north korea and did memorable but not supernatural things  #  i would be willing to bet his gets brought up in every ancient philosophy course at least once a semester and i have yet to meet someone in academia that believes he was not real.   # historians are not entirely sure he was real.  show me a published paper on socrates as simply being a creation of plato.  i have never read one.  i do not have access to published material behind firewalls anymore but i have yet to see someone come out with convincing evidence that he was not a real person.  i would be willing to bet his gets brought up in every ancient philosophy course at least once a semester and i have yet to meet someone in academia that believes he was not real.  there are 0 primary independent sources of his life that each mention actual historical events of the time and a few indirect sources that are believed to be genuine.  of course nobody can be 0 sure, but it is pretty unanimous that he was a real person.
so let me start off by acknowledging that i know absolutely nothing about this issue, about its history, or about the debate surrounding it.  my only exposure is seeing bottles that say  not tested on animals  and the hippy kids at school with stickers and posters saying  stop animal testing  let me also say that i believe in compassion for animals, i do not support battery farms or puppy mills because i do not believe that its necessary to subject animals to that level of degradation simply for economic benefit, and i am willing to pay more money as a consumer to express that belief.  however i have no moral problems with eating meat or killing animals, as i do not see that as cruel, and people need to eat.  i am not a big fan of hunting simply for sport though.  now that i have given you a picture of my general stance on animal rights, let me say that it seems to me that animal testing could be a cruel and painful thing to subject an animal to i am imagining chemical burns and poisoning , the only alternative i see is human testing.  either as part of the manufacturing process, or on the end consumer.  and i think this is worse since human health and safety takes precedence over that of animals.  edit: yes this last sentence is a personal opinion, not an objective fact even if people opt in and are paid to have mysterious substances tested on them, i am quite sure it will be kids and mothers in the slums of bangladesh, or some other equally desperate section of the population who is taking extreme actions for money out of desperation, and to protect them i think that it is better to not give them such an option.  the only alternative i see that is better than animal testing would be if we had the technology to reliably predict all effects on humans in a lab without any interaction with an animal or human.  however i have not been able to find anything suggesting this is true.  so either change my view on animal testing or prove to me that companies that do not test on animals test in a lab without involving humans or animals, and that their results are equally reliable to those based on animal testing.   #  the only alternative i see is human testing.   #  i do not agree with this either.   #  let me start off by saying i do not know anything either.  but i am gonna say this.  i am a vegetarian by the way and all for animal rights and wish they would be treated better.  so there are two types of animal testing, i guess you could say.  well there is only animal testing, but there is testing for different reasons.  i am all for testing medicine on animals, because that at least has some sort of purpose that in the end will help both people and animals.  i am not quite sure how i feel about killing one animal to save mutiple, but at least it is not obviously wrong immediately.  however, there is absolutely no purpose in testing makeup on animals.  i know not everyone does this, but it seems like quite a few do.  what about this is okay ? it is dangerous to some and overall unpleasant for them.  there is nothing wrong with eating animals on a moral level.  i just do not like to do it personally, but i am not against other people eating it.  that said, it is so much better for the environment if we ate more vegetarian food.  this is irrelevant though.  i do not agree with this either.  animal testing and human testing are both awful ideas when they are testing something potentially harmful.  however , this is not the only option.  you do not have to make makeup if you have to test it on animals.  this is obvious to you, but you treat is as something obvious rather than opinion.  i agree with you at reasonable levels, but it is still not quite obvious.  i completely agree.  best not to test shit on anyone.  well, i did say that potentially harmful things should not be tested earlier in the post.  i mean, potentially harmful things that are not really necessary for survival.  such as  fucking makeup .   #  it is the concept of discriminating against certain species of animals as inferior and others as superior.   #  animal testing for beauty products is basically animal abuse for entertainment purposes, as it does not have the backing of ethical arguments people use to defend animal testing for medicine, hence there is virtually no ethical argument to support it.  a large part of the animals abused in medical research are monkeys, because we have the most physical similarities with them.  not only physical similarities, but monkeys are also extremely intelligent and experience pain and trauma in a very similar way to humans physically, mentally and emotionally.  have you heard of speciesism ? it is the concept of discriminating against certain species of animals as inferior and others as superior.  if it is so outrageous and cruel to inflict the kind of pain research animals endure to a human, why is it acceptable to inflict it on animals that feel pain so much like we do ? is it because human lives are more important ? what makes us worth so much more than every other animal that it is acceptable to torture them for our exclusive gain ? is it because humans are more intelligent ? then why do not we perform medical experiments on people with severe mental disabilities ?  #  is there any  ethically sound  reason we should ?  #  yeah ? there are many alternatives to testing on animals, such as using formulas that have been tested before so that more animals do not need to suffer , making homemade products out of safe, natural substances as in fruit, veg, oils .  obviously there are ways, otherwise you would not have seen all those products with  not tested on animals  labels.  but let is say that this  were not  the case.  let is say that there is absolutely no way to make beauty products without harming animals.  is there any good reason we should ? is there any  ethically sound  reason we should ?  #  well this is the exact reason that i posted this.   #  okay so, the points that you have made that i find interesting are the following: 0.  the idea that we should not make things that are not worth the suffering of animals, which i agree with but do not feel changes my view, as we addressed earlier.  0.  the idea that my entire argument rests on the idea of human superiority, which many other commenters have raised as well.  i was hoping that my view could be changed without changing this view, but if you think it is important, i am willing to hear arguments convincing me of this.  0.  most interesting to me is this:  there are many alternatives to testing on animals, such as using formulas that have been tested before so that more animals do not need to suffer , making homemade products out of safe, natural substances as in fruit, veg, oils .  these points seem to be the same to me since  safe, natural substances and home methods are just an example of things that have been tried before.  and while this is great, i do believe strongly in progress, and i do not think it makes sense to never try anything new again.  well this is the exact reason that i posted this.  i want to know what it is they do to get that label.  i have not been convinced that they either test on humans or just test in labs leading to a lower certainty about the product.   #  women are statistically weaker than men, does that mean the superiority of men makes it ok to abuse women if it makes them feel good ?  #  i could respond to each of your points separately, but it all comes down to this   the idea that we should not make things that are not worth the suffering of animals beauty products are not in any way necessary for human survival, hence  not worth animal suffering , by any stretch of the imagination.  even if there was no alternative, how do you justify them being experimented on other animals ? i would also like to address the human superiority issue, since you did not otherwise comment on my points about animal testing, which was most of my op while only one sentence was about beauty products.  i believe the logic behind most of the arguments people use to define why humans are superior intelligence, biology, history, culture can be broken down when they are used to justify animal abuse.  what do you think makes humans superior to all other animals ? but putting that aside, even if we accept as fact that humans are in every possible way  isuperior  to animals, does this justify exploiting them for our excluse gain ? does an employer have the right to physicall abuse his employees, for no pay, so that he can make money just because he is  isuperior  ? women are statistically weaker than men, does that mean the superiority of men makes it ok to abuse women if it makes them feel good ? children are not fully developed, hence in many ways  inferior .  has anyone ever applied this logic to justify child abuse ?
so let me start off by acknowledging that i know absolutely nothing about this issue, about its history, or about the debate surrounding it.  my only exposure is seeing bottles that say  not tested on animals  and the hippy kids at school with stickers and posters saying  stop animal testing  let me also say that i believe in compassion for animals, i do not support battery farms or puppy mills because i do not believe that its necessary to subject animals to that level of degradation simply for economic benefit, and i am willing to pay more money as a consumer to express that belief.  however i have no moral problems with eating meat or killing animals, as i do not see that as cruel, and people need to eat.  i am not a big fan of hunting simply for sport though.  now that i have given you a picture of my general stance on animal rights, let me say that it seems to me that animal testing could be a cruel and painful thing to subject an animal to i am imagining chemical burns and poisoning , the only alternative i see is human testing.  either as part of the manufacturing process, or on the end consumer.  and i think this is worse since human health and safety takes precedence over that of animals.  edit: yes this last sentence is a personal opinion, not an objective fact even if people opt in and are paid to have mysterious substances tested on them, i am quite sure it will be kids and mothers in the slums of bangladesh, or some other equally desperate section of the population who is taking extreme actions for money out of desperation, and to protect them i think that it is better to not give them such an option.  the only alternative i see that is better than animal testing would be if we had the technology to reliably predict all effects on humans in a lab without any interaction with an animal or human.  however i have not been able to find anything suggesting this is true.  so either change my view on animal testing or prove to me that companies that do not test on animals test in a lab without involving humans or animals, and that their results are equally reliable to those based on animal testing.   #  since human health and safety takes precedence over that of animals.   #  this is obvious to you, but you treat is as something obvious rather than opinion.   #  let me start off by saying i do not know anything either.  but i am gonna say this.  i am a vegetarian by the way and all for animal rights and wish they would be treated better.  so there are two types of animal testing, i guess you could say.  well there is only animal testing, but there is testing for different reasons.  i am all for testing medicine on animals, because that at least has some sort of purpose that in the end will help both people and animals.  i am not quite sure how i feel about killing one animal to save mutiple, but at least it is not obviously wrong immediately.  however, there is absolutely no purpose in testing makeup on animals.  i know not everyone does this, but it seems like quite a few do.  what about this is okay ? it is dangerous to some and overall unpleasant for them.  there is nothing wrong with eating animals on a moral level.  i just do not like to do it personally, but i am not against other people eating it.  that said, it is so much better for the environment if we ate more vegetarian food.  this is irrelevant though.  i do not agree with this either.  animal testing and human testing are both awful ideas when they are testing something potentially harmful.  however , this is not the only option.  you do not have to make makeup if you have to test it on animals.  this is obvious to you, but you treat is as something obvious rather than opinion.  i agree with you at reasonable levels, but it is still not quite obvious.  i completely agree.  best not to test shit on anyone.  well, i did say that potentially harmful things should not be tested earlier in the post.  i mean, potentially harmful things that are not really necessary for survival.  such as  fucking makeup .   #  if it is so outrageous and cruel to inflict the kind of pain research animals endure to a human, why is it acceptable to inflict it on animals that feel pain so much like we do ?  #  animal testing for beauty products is basically animal abuse for entertainment purposes, as it does not have the backing of ethical arguments people use to defend animal testing for medicine, hence there is virtually no ethical argument to support it.  a large part of the animals abused in medical research are monkeys, because we have the most physical similarities with them.  not only physical similarities, but monkeys are also extremely intelligent and experience pain and trauma in a very similar way to humans physically, mentally and emotionally.  have you heard of speciesism ? it is the concept of discriminating against certain species of animals as inferior and others as superior.  if it is so outrageous and cruel to inflict the kind of pain research animals endure to a human, why is it acceptable to inflict it on animals that feel pain so much like we do ? is it because human lives are more important ? what makes us worth so much more than every other animal that it is acceptable to torture them for our exclusive gain ? is it because humans are more intelligent ? then why do not we perform medical experiments on people with severe mental disabilities ?  #  there are many alternatives to testing on animals, such as using formulas that have been tested before so that more animals do not need to suffer , making homemade products out of safe, natural substances as in fruit, veg, oils .   #  yeah ? there are many alternatives to testing on animals, such as using formulas that have been tested before so that more animals do not need to suffer , making homemade products out of safe, natural substances as in fruit, veg, oils .  obviously there are ways, otherwise you would not have seen all those products with  not tested on animals  labels.  but let is say that this  were not  the case.  let is say that there is absolutely no way to make beauty products without harming animals.  is there any good reason we should ? is there any  ethically sound  reason we should ?  #  i have not been convinced that they either test on humans or just test in labs leading to a lower certainty about the product.   #  okay so, the points that you have made that i find interesting are the following: 0.  the idea that we should not make things that are not worth the suffering of animals, which i agree with but do not feel changes my view, as we addressed earlier.  0.  the idea that my entire argument rests on the idea of human superiority, which many other commenters have raised as well.  i was hoping that my view could be changed without changing this view, but if you think it is important, i am willing to hear arguments convincing me of this.  0.  most interesting to me is this:  there are many alternatives to testing on animals, such as using formulas that have been tested before so that more animals do not need to suffer , making homemade products out of safe, natural substances as in fruit, veg, oils .  these points seem to be the same to me since  safe, natural substances and home methods are just an example of things that have been tried before.  and while this is great, i do believe strongly in progress, and i do not think it makes sense to never try anything new again.  well this is the exact reason that i posted this.  i want to know what it is they do to get that label.  i have not been convinced that they either test on humans or just test in labs leading to a lower certainty about the product.   #  even if there was no alternative, how do you justify them being experimented on other animals ?  #  i could respond to each of your points separately, but it all comes down to this   the idea that we should not make things that are not worth the suffering of animals beauty products are not in any way necessary for human survival, hence  not worth animal suffering , by any stretch of the imagination.  even if there was no alternative, how do you justify them being experimented on other animals ? i would also like to address the human superiority issue, since you did not otherwise comment on my points about animal testing, which was most of my op while only one sentence was about beauty products.  i believe the logic behind most of the arguments people use to define why humans are superior intelligence, biology, history, culture can be broken down when they are used to justify animal abuse.  what do you think makes humans superior to all other animals ? but putting that aside, even if we accept as fact that humans are in every possible way  isuperior  to animals, does this justify exploiting them for our excluse gain ? does an employer have the right to physicall abuse his employees, for no pay, so that he can make money just because he is  isuperior  ? women are statistically weaker than men, does that mean the superiority of men makes it ok to abuse women if it makes them feel good ? children are not fully developed, hence in many ways  inferior .  has anyone ever applied this logic to justify child abuse ?
to say that women and men are equal is simply incorrect.  i absolutely do not mean to say that one is better than the other, only that there are fundamental physiological differences between men and women that feminists appear to disregard.  now, in my opinion feminism seeks to advocate that anything that men can do, women can also but only when its convenient.  to me it seems like feminists want to have their cake and eat it too.  i will give a few examples that i always think about to illustrate my point.  0.  the ray rice incident.  what happened was unfortunate and of course he should not have hit his wife.  however, if this was ray hanging out with another football player and knocked him out, this would not have been a story.  its because he punched a woman that this became a big deal.  how can the feminist movement suggest  men should never lay their hands on a woman  but still say that men and women are equal.  my answer is that its because men are generally stronger than women, but then that is my point.  if you are going to advocate that they are equal then they should receive equal treatment.  again, cmv.  0.  rape cases.  in college i have been required to watch numerous sexual harassment videos and attend mandatory training seminars on sexual assault.  in these videos they always paint the male as a bad guy and its always targeted towards men.  perhaps i have misunderstood something but if a guy and a girl are both under the influence and they decide to have sex, the girl can then decide the next day that maybe it was not a good idea and that the guy should have known better.  the guy is then facing rape charges.  why is this on the guy ? people use the phrase  victim blaming  and say that its not on the girl regardless of the fact that she drunk.  so what if she had gotten drunk and drove her car into a tree.  can she then say  maybe that was not a good idea  and then get off the hook ? 0.  the draft.  this one has also bothered me.  according to the united states selective service act, all men between ages 0 0 are required to register for the draft and may be picked for military service if the draft were to be implemented.  why are feminists all over the country not outraged about this ? should not it be men and women that are required to register for the draft ? after all, men and women should be able to perform wartime duties equally right ? it just seems like people pick and choose when its convenient for gender equality of course there are certain things that should be equal.  wages, education, etc.  however i feel that a push for gender equality in every aspect of life is fundamentally wrong.  cmv !  #  to say that women and men are equal is simply incorrect.   #  now let is just look at this bit.   #  so with point 0 and 0, you have to think about context.  the incident in point 0 has to be viewed in the context of women having been abused by their partners for centuries.  sure, women might hit their partners too, and that is not nice, but men do it and have done it more.  point 0 is the same.  i totally see where you are coming from and logically what you are saying makes sense.  but annoyingly it is not that simple.  you have to look at it in historical context.  women are raped more than men.  women are in far more danger of being raped than men, all the time.  with this in mind, the sexual harassment videos you watched probably knew this too.  if you knew everyone in your class loved apples, you would not bring an equal amount of apples and oranges to give out, just to be fair.  that would be odd, because you have learnt from past events how the majority of people behave.  that said, generalising about a group of people is never cool, and rape cases can only be dealt with on a case by case basis.  it is tricky and complicated and dangerous.  which is why it makes sense to look at context.  now let is just look at this bit.  feminists believe that  amen and women should be equal .  my pse teacher in school used to say  amen and women are different but equal  and i think this illustrated my point pretty well.  men and women are fundamentally not the same, but we should have equal rights and be seen as having equal worth in society.  men and women are not the same, but they are equal.   #  why would you bother taking note of a feminist who makes my claims.   #  here is the mainstream as in 0 large number pulled out of the air of the population feminist position on these three issues 0.  violence is not okay no matter the gender of perpetrator/victim unless used to stop the unjustified violence of another 0.  sex without consent is rape no matter the gender of the perpetrator/victim 0.  fuck the draft you have fallen victim to two separate things.  weakman fallacy: yes there are people who claim to be feminist who hold the views you post.  there are a small percentage of nutters who claim every label we have ever decided to use.  confirmation bias: you are going to notice every time some nutter makes one of the original claims.  why would you bother taking note of a feminist who makes my claims.  tl;dr, yes there are fringe nutters who call them selves feminists who make the claims from your op.  people stating sane feminist positions do not make the news.   #  i would bet that theres more men on men violence than men on women i have nothing to back this up, just an observation .   # i ca not tell you how many posts i have seen about ray rice and how  a man should never lay his hand on a woman.   sure.  but shouldnt it be  a man should never lay his hand on anyone  ? i acknowledge how this can be compared to the black lives matter vs all lives matter.  its different though because violence happens all the time  regardless  of gender.  i would bet that theres more men on men violence than men on women i have nothing to back this up, just an observation .  my argument was that two people are drunk and mutually decide to have sex.  obviously if the girl is passed out and the guy tries to have sex then that would be rape.  but what about an instance where they both agree to it beforehand, but are both very drunk.  is one of them more culpable than the other the next morning ?  #  women benefit, but it is very paternalistic: women are weak, and they should be protected and cherished.   # that is true, but that is not a feminist ideal.  the idea that it is horrible to hit a woman but not necessarily a man is benevolent sexism sexism that is done out of goodness, and appears to benefit the recipient, but still maintains a sexist and damaging status quo.  it is similar to  women and children first  or men paying disproportionately for dates.  women benefit, but it is very paternalistic: women are weak, and they should be protected and cherished.  feminists generally are not fond of this idea that women should be cherished, because they think it is opposed to the idea that women should be respected as equals.  recently, donald trump said that he cherishes women, and feminists were not amused.  yes, there are definitely some feminists who think that it is always worse to hit a woman than to hit a man independent of the idea that it is worse to hit someone weaker than you.  but feminists are probably much less likely to believe that than nonfeminists.   #  if men and women were equally affected, you would hear us talking about them equally.   # this is the sort of thing that is considered so basic most people do not find it worth saying out loud, but the reasoning is that violence against women specifically abuse is way, way more common, and that men are also probably better capable of defending themselves.  not so much because they are physically bigger, although they are, but because the idea that they have the right to be aggressive or violent is ingrained in them in a way it is not for women.  women are more likely to just let it keep going.  this is similar to black lives matter, but not in a way you are thinking.  matt mcgorry had a really great, succinct explanation on twitter:   blacklivesmatter does not mean other lives do not.  like people who say  isave the rainforests  are not saying  fuck all other types of forests.    that is it in a nutshell.  the hubbub around ray rice et al has more to do with the  urgency  of the problem than simply how bad it is.  if men and women were equally affected, you would hear us talking about them equally.  even if man on man violence were more common, and in no way do i think that is a given, it would still be categorically different.  if you get a fight with a dude at a bar, that violence does not scar you in a way domestic abuse does.
the full quote from steven weinberg can be found here URL i have seen people use this quote many times.  to me, it is inflammatory anti religious nonsense.  i am interested to see the other perspective.  have i misunderstood his quote ? is there something about human nature that i have misunderstood ? first of all, i recognize that religion can cause good people to do bad things.  it has done it many times and it will continue to do so.  isis is the most obvious example right now, but there are countless other examples as well.  what i ca not understand is the last sentence: he seems to be saying that  only religion  can cause good people to do bad things.  this seems like total nonsense to me.  tons of things can cause good people to do bad things.  for example, soldiers who commit war crimes sometimes do so because they were  just following orders,  out of a sense of patriotism, or in order to protect their families.  poverty can make good people do evil things.  drugs can, too.  they can temporarily taking away people is sanity, which causes them to do stupid things.  or drug addictions can drive people to such financial desperation that they are willing to do evil things to get their next hit.  let me explain what i understand by  good people  and  evil things.   perhaps i have not properly understood what weinberg meant by these words ? a  good person  is someone who would not normally do an evil thing without the influence of some outside force.  in the case of this quote, the  outside force  is religion.  an  evil thing  is anything that society generally sees as extremely bad, such as murder.  in order to cmv, please:   convince me that religion is the only thing that can cause good people to do evil things.    show me that i could have misunderstood weinberg.    show me that my definitions of  good person  or  evil thing  are wrong in the context of weinberg is quote, of course .    anything else that shows that anything i have said is wrong.   #  for example, soldiers who commit war crimes sometimes do so because they were  just following orders,  out of a sense of patriotism, or in order to protect their families.   #  are they really good if they would do it for those reasons ?  #  i do not think any of your examples really are examples of good people doing evil things.  are they really good if they would do it for those reasons ? war crimes are not the same as general fighting and killing, and i do not think  just following orders  worked for caught nazis.  again, can it ? are you counting things like stealing to eat as evil ? because the things i imagine as evil such as murder, rape, child abuse, animal cruelty are not things you are normally forced into just by by poverty  drugs can, too.  they can temporarily taking away people is sanity, which causes them to do stupid things.  or drug addictions can drive people to such financial desperation that they are willing to do evil things to get their next hit.  drugs are a good example and i suppose technically they could count, but i think there is a difference between drugs, which do it by creating physical addictions that you ca not easily escape from or control, through chemicals in your brain and body, compared to something like religion, which is solely socialized.  almost like a vulnerability in the way our brains logic works, you can make them believe anything just by teaching it and controlling thought in the right manner.   #  for instance, killing another in self defence would not be considered evil, and arguably neither is killing to resolve a situation.   #  i think that weinberg is statement could be right with different definitions for both  religion  and  evil things .  firstly,  religion  would have to be expanded to mean any strongly held belief which forms a core of beliefs and is often immune to criticism from it is adherents.  this interpretation could include things such as international communism or pan nationalist racism, rather than simply organised religion which is a fairer comment.  secondly,  evil things  would have to be narrowed to mean things more specific than just what society considers to be extremely bad.  for instance, killing another in self defence would not be considered evil, and arguably neither is killing to resolve a situation.  arguably it would take the premeditated and dispassionate murder of an individual which can only come from blind devotion to a religion in the expanded sense .  in other words, it takes religion to push the aspects of human nature which are simply nasty into evil.   #  this definition seems excessively vague and hardly even related to the traditional concept of religion.   #  i can see what you are saying here, and i am half convinced, but i am still a little uncertain.  this definition seems excessively vague and hardly even related to the traditional concept of religion.  i mean, i think that  a mother is unconditional love for her children  could fall under this definition.  i am not certain that anybody would refer to this as  religion.   could you clarify ? i like this.  the word  evil  has a stronger meaning than just  really bad.   suppose the following situations.  he wanders out into the street, sees a walking scarecrow, screams, and stabs it.  when he comes down the next day he learned that he had murdered a gardner.  to me, joe did something evil.  what do you think ? another example:  kevin accidentally knocks up his depressed girlfriend.  not wanting to take responsibility for his child, he flees the state.  his gf texts him and says  if you do not come back i will kill myself.   without thinking, he angrily responds  do it then, and get out of my life !   she does.  again, i think that kevin did an evil thing.  what do you think ?  #  in your examples of evil, i think the first one quite clearly is not.   # i would say the difference there is a mother loving their child is a biological imperative so get is excluded from being evil.  in the same way stealing to survive is not classed as evil, doing something untoward for your baby is not either.  in your examples of evil, i think the first one quite clearly is not.  it was negligent, selfish, and generally very bad.  however, i do not think it could be classed as evil because there was no malicious intent.  joe did not think he was stabbing a gardener and it was ultimately a tragic accident.  the second one is more difficult, but again i would fall on not evil.  kevin is without a doubt a dickhead and his actions are hateful.  however, i would say he lacks the malicious intent for it to be evil.  obviously, it is hard to tell because he is imaginary but i think if you asked him if he actually wanted harm to come to his girlfriend he would say no.   #  and when you are talking about large groups of people and their behaviour, people tend to talk about trends in behaviour rather than absolute right and wrong.   #  sure.  for me the statement is already making generalisations of  good people  and  bad people .  and when you are talking about large groups of people and their behaviour, people tend to talk about trends in behaviour rather than absolute right and wrong.  like when people say  islam is creating terrorism  hardly anybody would claim that means all muslims.  same for  disabled people need benefits  few would discount the possibility that some disabled person might have a less severe condition that means they can lead a pretty normal life.  same for this statement.  i think it is saying that when considering why large groups of good people do evil things, you have got to keep in mind that religion is a driving factor.
the full quote from steven weinberg can be found here URL i have seen people use this quote many times.  to me, it is inflammatory anti religious nonsense.  i am interested to see the other perspective.  have i misunderstood his quote ? is there something about human nature that i have misunderstood ? first of all, i recognize that religion can cause good people to do bad things.  it has done it many times and it will continue to do so.  isis is the most obvious example right now, but there are countless other examples as well.  what i ca not understand is the last sentence: he seems to be saying that  only religion  can cause good people to do bad things.  this seems like total nonsense to me.  tons of things can cause good people to do bad things.  for example, soldiers who commit war crimes sometimes do so because they were  just following orders,  out of a sense of patriotism, or in order to protect their families.  poverty can make good people do evil things.  drugs can, too.  they can temporarily taking away people is sanity, which causes them to do stupid things.  or drug addictions can drive people to such financial desperation that they are willing to do evil things to get their next hit.  let me explain what i understand by  good people  and  evil things.   perhaps i have not properly understood what weinberg meant by these words ? a  good person  is someone who would not normally do an evil thing without the influence of some outside force.  in the case of this quote, the  outside force  is religion.  an  evil thing  is anything that society generally sees as extremely bad, such as murder.  in order to cmv, please:   convince me that religion is the only thing that can cause good people to do evil things.    show me that i could have misunderstood weinberg.    show me that my definitions of  good person  or  evil thing  are wrong in the context of weinberg is quote, of course .    anything else that shows that anything i have said is wrong.   #  show me that i could have misunderstood weinberg.   #  i mean it is all about interpretation.   # that depends.  when do you define a person by their actions whether they are good and when do you define them by their ideology ? indoctrination happens in mostly religious households and scenarios.  yes, political as well, but when it comes to beliefs and values i think religion does the indoctrination part a bit more.  especially with the whole  hell if you do not believe  idea.  i think that someone is not a good person if they have an ideology i disagree with.  i think nationalists are bad, fascists are bad and so on.  so when it comes to ideology, they are not good people doing bad things, they are bad people doing bad things.  i mean it is all about interpretation.   religion is an insult to human dignity.  with or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.  but for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.   he is certainly right when saying with or without religion, good people would do good things and bad people would do evil things.  some actions are not evil, yet are not good either.  so maybe good people could do bad things yet not evil.  theft is an obvious example.  it is not a good thing surely, and good people could do this whether or not they were religious, for different reasons.  but it is hardly  evil .  sometimes, theft is necessary or them to survive.  ca not really think of anything else to add here.  i suppose i already said what i thought on here.  i agree that drugs is a problem.  but then you could have the philosophical discussion like.  are they really themselves when influenced by drugs ? religious people are not drunk or intoxicated when doing things, they are fully aware.   #  this interpretation could include things such as international communism or pan nationalist racism, rather than simply organised religion which is a fairer comment.   #  i think that weinberg is statement could be right with different definitions for both  religion  and  evil things .  firstly,  religion  would have to be expanded to mean any strongly held belief which forms a core of beliefs and is often immune to criticism from it is adherents.  this interpretation could include things such as international communism or pan nationalist racism, rather than simply organised religion which is a fairer comment.  secondly,  evil things  would have to be narrowed to mean things more specific than just what society considers to be extremely bad.  for instance, killing another in self defence would not be considered evil, and arguably neither is killing to resolve a situation.  arguably it would take the premeditated and dispassionate murder of an individual which can only come from blind devotion to a religion in the expanded sense .  in other words, it takes religion to push the aspects of human nature which are simply nasty into evil.   #  again, i think that kevin did an evil thing.   #  i can see what you are saying here, and i am half convinced, but i am still a little uncertain.  this definition seems excessively vague and hardly even related to the traditional concept of religion.  i mean, i think that  a mother is unconditional love for her children  could fall under this definition.  i am not certain that anybody would refer to this as  religion.   could you clarify ? i like this.  the word  evil  has a stronger meaning than just  really bad.   suppose the following situations.  he wanders out into the street, sees a walking scarecrow, screams, and stabs it.  when he comes down the next day he learned that he had murdered a gardner.  to me, joe did something evil.  what do you think ? another example:  kevin accidentally knocks up his depressed girlfriend.  not wanting to take responsibility for his child, he flees the state.  his gf texts him and says  if you do not come back i will kill myself.   without thinking, he angrily responds  do it then, and get out of my life !   she does.  again, i think that kevin did an evil thing.  what do you think ?  #  it was negligent, selfish, and generally very bad.   # i would say the difference there is a mother loving their child is a biological imperative so get is excluded from being evil.  in the same way stealing to survive is not classed as evil, doing something untoward for your baby is not either.  in your examples of evil, i think the first one quite clearly is not.  it was negligent, selfish, and generally very bad.  however, i do not think it could be classed as evil because there was no malicious intent.  joe did not think he was stabbing a gardener and it was ultimately a tragic accident.  the second one is more difficult, but again i would fall on not evil.  kevin is without a doubt a dickhead and his actions are hateful.  however, i would say he lacks the malicious intent for it to be evil.  obviously, it is hard to tell because he is imaginary but i think if you asked him if he actually wanted harm to come to his girlfriend he would say no.   #  i think it is saying that when considering why large groups of good people do evil things, you have got to keep in mind that religion is a driving factor.   #  sure.  for me the statement is already making generalisations of  good people  and  bad people .  and when you are talking about large groups of people and their behaviour, people tend to talk about trends in behaviour rather than absolute right and wrong.  like when people say  islam is creating terrorism  hardly anybody would claim that means all muslims.  same for  disabled people need benefits  few would discount the possibility that some disabled person might have a less severe condition that means they can lead a pretty normal life.  same for this statement.  i think it is saying that when considering why large groups of good people do evil things, you have got to keep in mind that religion is a driving factor.
the full quote from steven weinberg can be found here URL i have seen people use this quote many times.  to me, it is inflammatory anti religious nonsense.  i am interested to see the other perspective.  have i misunderstood his quote ? is there something about human nature that i have misunderstood ? first of all, i recognize that religion can cause good people to do bad things.  it has done it many times and it will continue to do so.  isis is the most obvious example right now, but there are countless other examples as well.  what i ca not understand is the last sentence: he seems to be saying that  only religion  can cause good people to do bad things.  this seems like total nonsense to me.  tons of things can cause good people to do bad things.  for example, soldiers who commit war crimes sometimes do so because they were  just following orders,  out of a sense of patriotism, or in order to protect their families.  poverty can make good people do evil things.  drugs can, too.  they can temporarily taking away people is sanity, which causes them to do stupid things.  or drug addictions can drive people to such financial desperation that they are willing to do evil things to get their next hit.  let me explain what i understand by  good people  and  evil things.   perhaps i have not properly understood what weinberg meant by these words ? a  good person  is someone who would not normally do an evil thing without the influence of some outside force.  in the case of this quote, the  outside force  is religion.  an  evil thing  is anything that society generally sees as extremely bad, such as murder.  in order to cmv, please:   convince me that religion is the only thing that can cause good people to do evil things.    show me that i could have misunderstood weinberg.    show me that my definitions of  good person  or  evil thing  are wrong in the context of weinberg is quote, of course .    anything else that shows that anything i have said is wrong.   #  show me that my definitions of  good person  or  evil thing  are wrong in the context of weinberg is quote, of course .   #  i suppose i already said what i thought on here.   # that depends.  when do you define a person by their actions whether they are good and when do you define them by their ideology ? indoctrination happens in mostly religious households and scenarios.  yes, political as well, but when it comes to beliefs and values i think religion does the indoctrination part a bit more.  especially with the whole  hell if you do not believe  idea.  i think that someone is not a good person if they have an ideology i disagree with.  i think nationalists are bad, fascists are bad and so on.  so when it comes to ideology, they are not good people doing bad things, they are bad people doing bad things.  i mean it is all about interpretation.   religion is an insult to human dignity.  with or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.  but for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.   he is certainly right when saying with or without religion, good people would do good things and bad people would do evil things.  some actions are not evil, yet are not good either.  so maybe good people could do bad things yet not evil.  theft is an obvious example.  it is not a good thing surely, and good people could do this whether or not they were religious, for different reasons.  but it is hardly  evil .  sometimes, theft is necessary or them to survive.  ca not really think of anything else to add here.  i suppose i already said what i thought on here.  i agree that drugs is a problem.  but then you could have the philosophical discussion like.  are they really themselves when influenced by drugs ? religious people are not drunk or intoxicated when doing things, they are fully aware.   #  i think that weinberg is statement could be right with different definitions for both  religion  and  evil things .   #  i think that weinberg is statement could be right with different definitions for both  religion  and  evil things .  firstly,  religion  would have to be expanded to mean any strongly held belief which forms a core of beliefs and is often immune to criticism from it is adherents.  this interpretation could include things such as international communism or pan nationalist racism, rather than simply organised religion which is a fairer comment.  secondly,  evil things  would have to be narrowed to mean things more specific than just what society considers to be extremely bad.  for instance, killing another in self defence would not be considered evil, and arguably neither is killing to resolve a situation.  arguably it would take the premeditated and dispassionate murder of an individual which can only come from blind devotion to a religion in the expanded sense .  in other words, it takes religion to push the aspects of human nature which are simply nasty into evil.   #  without thinking, he angrily responds  do it then, and get out of my life !    #  i can see what you are saying here, and i am half convinced, but i am still a little uncertain.  this definition seems excessively vague and hardly even related to the traditional concept of religion.  i mean, i think that  a mother is unconditional love for her children  could fall under this definition.  i am not certain that anybody would refer to this as  religion.   could you clarify ? i like this.  the word  evil  has a stronger meaning than just  really bad.   suppose the following situations.  he wanders out into the street, sees a walking scarecrow, screams, and stabs it.  when he comes down the next day he learned that he had murdered a gardner.  to me, joe did something evil.  what do you think ? another example:  kevin accidentally knocks up his depressed girlfriend.  not wanting to take responsibility for his child, he flees the state.  his gf texts him and says  if you do not come back i will kill myself.   without thinking, he angrily responds  do it then, and get out of my life !   she does.  again, i think that kevin did an evil thing.  what do you think ?  #  however, i would say he lacks the malicious intent for it to be evil.   # i would say the difference there is a mother loving their child is a biological imperative so get is excluded from being evil.  in the same way stealing to survive is not classed as evil, doing something untoward for your baby is not either.  in your examples of evil, i think the first one quite clearly is not.  it was negligent, selfish, and generally very bad.  however, i do not think it could be classed as evil because there was no malicious intent.  joe did not think he was stabbing a gardener and it was ultimately a tragic accident.  the second one is more difficult, but again i would fall on not evil.  kevin is without a doubt a dickhead and his actions are hateful.  however, i would say he lacks the malicious intent for it to be evil.  obviously, it is hard to tell because he is imaginary but i think if you asked him if he actually wanted harm to come to his girlfriend he would say no.   #  for me the statement is already making generalisations of  good people  and  bad people .   #  sure.  for me the statement is already making generalisations of  good people  and  bad people .  and when you are talking about large groups of people and their behaviour, people tend to talk about trends in behaviour rather than absolute right and wrong.  like when people say  islam is creating terrorism  hardly anybody would claim that means all muslims.  same for  disabled people need benefits  few would discount the possibility that some disabled person might have a less severe condition that means they can lead a pretty normal life.  same for this statement.  i think it is saying that when considering why large groups of good people do evil things, you have got to keep in mind that religion is a driving factor.
the full quote from steven weinberg can be found here URL i have seen people use this quote many times.  to me, it is inflammatory anti religious nonsense.  i am interested to see the other perspective.  have i misunderstood his quote ? is there something about human nature that i have misunderstood ? first of all, i recognize that religion can cause good people to do bad things.  it has done it many times and it will continue to do so.  isis is the most obvious example right now, but there are countless other examples as well.  what i ca not understand is the last sentence: he seems to be saying that  only religion  can cause good people to do bad things.  this seems like total nonsense to me.  tons of things can cause good people to do bad things.  for example, soldiers who commit war crimes sometimes do so because they were  just following orders,  out of a sense of patriotism, or in order to protect their families.  poverty can make good people do evil things.  drugs can, too.  they can temporarily taking away people is sanity, which causes them to do stupid things.  or drug addictions can drive people to such financial desperation that they are willing to do evil things to get their next hit.  let me explain what i understand by  good people  and  evil things.   perhaps i have not properly understood what weinberg meant by these words ? a  good person  is someone who would not normally do an evil thing without the influence of some outside force.  in the case of this quote, the  outside force  is religion.  an  evil thing  is anything that society generally sees as extremely bad, such as murder.  in order to cmv, please:   convince me that religion is the only thing that can cause good people to do evil things.    show me that i could have misunderstood weinberg.    show me that my definitions of  good person  or  evil thing  are wrong in the context of weinberg is quote, of course .    anything else that shows that anything i have said is wrong.   #  anything else that shows that anything i have said is wrong.   #  i agree that drugs is a problem.   # that depends.  when do you define a person by their actions whether they are good and when do you define them by their ideology ? indoctrination happens in mostly religious households and scenarios.  yes, political as well, but when it comes to beliefs and values i think religion does the indoctrination part a bit more.  especially with the whole  hell if you do not believe  idea.  i think that someone is not a good person if they have an ideology i disagree with.  i think nationalists are bad, fascists are bad and so on.  so when it comes to ideology, they are not good people doing bad things, they are bad people doing bad things.  i mean it is all about interpretation.   religion is an insult to human dignity.  with or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.  but for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.   he is certainly right when saying with or without religion, good people would do good things and bad people would do evil things.  some actions are not evil, yet are not good either.  so maybe good people could do bad things yet not evil.  theft is an obvious example.  it is not a good thing surely, and good people could do this whether or not they were religious, for different reasons.  but it is hardly  evil .  sometimes, theft is necessary or them to survive.  ca not really think of anything else to add here.  i suppose i already said what i thought on here.  i agree that drugs is a problem.  but then you could have the philosophical discussion like.  are they really themselves when influenced by drugs ? religious people are not drunk or intoxicated when doing things, they are fully aware.   #  in other words, it takes religion to push the aspects of human nature which are simply nasty into evil.   #  i think that weinberg is statement could be right with different definitions for both  religion  and  evil things .  firstly,  religion  would have to be expanded to mean any strongly held belief which forms a core of beliefs and is often immune to criticism from it is adherents.  this interpretation could include things such as international communism or pan nationalist racism, rather than simply organised religion which is a fairer comment.  secondly,  evil things  would have to be narrowed to mean things more specific than just what society considers to be extremely bad.  for instance, killing another in self defence would not be considered evil, and arguably neither is killing to resolve a situation.  arguably it would take the premeditated and dispassionate murder of an individual which can only come from blind devotion to a religion in the expanded sense .  in other words, it takes religion to push the aspects of human nature which are simply nasty into evil.   #  i mean, i think that  a mother is unconditional love for her children  could fall under this definition.   #  i can see what you are saying here, and i am half convinced, but i am still a little uncertain.  this definition seems excessively vague and hardly even related to the traditional concept of religion.  i mean, i think that  a mother is unconditional love for her children  could fall under this definition.  i am not certain that anybody would refer to this as  religion.   could you clarify ? i like this.  the word  evil  has a stronger meaning than just  really bad.   suppose the following situations.  he wanders out into the street, sees a walking scarecrow, screams, and stabs it.  when he comes down the next day he learned that he had murdered a gardner.  to me, joe did something evil.  what do you think ? another example:  kevin accidentally knocks up his depressed girlfriend.  not wanting to take responsibility for his child, he flees the state.  his gf texts him and says  if you do not come back i will kill myself.   without thinking, he angrily responds  do it then, and get out of my life !   she does.  again, i think that kevin did an evil thing.  what do you think ?  #  however, i would say he lacks the malicious intent for it to be evil.   # i would say the difference there is a mother loving their child is a biological imperative so get is excluded from being evil.  in the same way stealing to survive is not classed as evil, doing something untoward for your baby is not either.  in your examples of evil, i think the first one quite clearly is not.  it was negligent, selfish, and generally very bad.  however, i do not think it could be classed as evil because there was no malicious intent.  joe did not think he was stabbing a gardener and it was ultimately a tragic accident.  the second one is more difficult, but again i would fall on not evil.  kevin is without a doubt a dickhead and his actions are hateful.  however, i would say he lacks the malicious intent for it to be evil.  obviously, it is hard to tell because he is imaginary but i think if you asked him if he actually wanted harm to come to his girlfriend he would say no.   #  same for  disabled people need benefits  few would discount the possibility that some disabled person might have a less severe condition that means they can lead a pretty normal life.   #  sure.  for me the statement is already making generalisations of  good people  and  bad people .  and when you are talking about large groups of people and their behaviour, people tend to talk about trends in behaviour rather than absolute right and wrong.  like when people say  islam is creating terrorism  hardly anybody would claim that means all muslims.  same for  disabled people need benefits  few would discount the possibility that some disabled person might have a less severe condition that means they can lead a pretty normal life.  same for this statement.  i think it is saying that when considering why large groups of good people do evil things, you have got to keep in mind that religion is a driving factor.
donald trump: unintentional public servant.  here is my case for why trump, real estate player, reality tv entertainer and contender for gop nomination for presidential candidate is a performing a public good.  0.  trump: the seriously unserious candidate.  it is widely recognized that trump is an entertainer with no real motivation to become president.  coupled with his long media history, it is understood that trump will say anything to get attention.  as a result, trump can run unharmed by serious questions and can say things that no politician could say.  however, he has clout from steady poll numbers.  0.  crisis of the gop: the modern coalition was erected right before reagan is election: libertarians, business interests, social conservatives and generally defense hawks.  demographically, this meant working class and middle income white families, especially outside large urban contexts.  geographically, this meant the south, sparsely populated rural western states   midwestern battlegrounds.  in recent years, social conservatives have become more distanced from mainstream us opinion ex: gay marriage and shrunk.  the democratic party under clinton also moved closer to the right on various economic/defense policies.  hawkishness generally, has become less favored since 0.  demographically, gop constituents are shrinking and do not fear government programs medicaid, food stamps etc.  minority voters are still joining the democratic party in larger numbers.  finally, as gop strongholds become more developed and urban in character, they become swing or purple states.  virginia, for example.  0.  for the gop to change: it would have to alienate some share of its current constituents and craft rhetoric/policies that would attract growing populations.  however, within the party, social conservatives are still quite strong, but at odds with business interests that need inclusive branding etc.  economic factors that are pushing the middle/working class downward will cause these groups to want for more government help, though often this is muted by anti immigration or anti federal government rhetoric.  keep the gov t off my medicare.  we need a fence ! this is also at odds with libertarian/business interests.  trump is enabling the gop to do this by being the clown who can say anything.  his populism could force the gop to at least recalibrate its messaging, if not its policies downstream.  0.  obviously, a more competitive/representative gop is good for the us.   #  it is widely recognized that trump is an entertainer with no real motivation to become president.   #  that is impossible to prove one way or the other.   # that is impossible to prove one way or the other.  how can anyone actually know how he feels about it ? i do not actually buy that opinion either.  running for president probably costs a shitload of money and time.  if he was just bored or doing it for the lulz, he could do much more productive and less stressful things with his time or money.  most likely, if he started off as an unserious candidate, he probably is not one now, considering that he is polling as the frontrunner of the gop.  third, i do not think trump is doing anyone a public service.  his anti immigrant statements along with the videos they have of his supporters shouting  white power  at his rallies , do not do anyone a public service.  at worst, they will lead to some hate crime.  or, his plans of building a wall might actually come true dear god please no .  i would tend to agree with you if he ran as an independent, and also did not say hateful things about immigrants.   #  taking the immigration bit: mexican immigration has been dropping for a decade now.   #  okay.  there is not a way to prove how trump actually feels.  but in terms of cost, he has not spent that much 0 million .  running is not productive in a traditional sense, but trump can leverage his run into book deals, tv shows and bigger brand recognition in the future.  in that sense it is not really that costly for him.  taking the immigration bit: mexican immigration has been dropping for a decade now.  i do not think there is any real desire to build a fence.  but talking about it is cheap and easy way to court working class voters.  it is not currently possible to talk about bringing back some disincentives for moving jobs overseas or reforming the current family based immigration quota system.   #  given that gop hopefuls have distanced themselves from such comments and americans have not embraced racism in greater numbers, i am unconvinced of the harm.   # its about whether trump is doing a public service.  that is true.  but you said i was stating an opinion.  it is my opinion that no one is actually serious about building a fence, which is supported by the actual drop in illegal immigration.  more substantively, your argument is trump is xenophobic rhetoric harms american political dialogue.  this is worth asking.  given that gop hopefuls have distanced themselves from such comments and americans have not embraced racism in greater numbers, i am unconvinced of the harm.  it seems more likely to me that trump is trollish behavior is causing republicans to be more explicitly vocal in embracing immigrants and minorities.   #  to say donald trump is doing the country a public service is a travesty of excess praise.   #  to say donald trump is doing the country a public service is a travesty of excess praise.  he is a megalomaniacal bigot who would be an awful president and is poisoning the political process by whipping up xenophobic panic.  the gop is no doubt in crisis, but still wields both chambers of congress and at least 0 of the 0 supreme court seats.  this is an extremely dangerous game he is playing with the richest and most powerful government in the world.  do not forget 0.  the demographics may be changing in favor of the democrats, but they can still lose a presidential election while winning the popular vote.  see obama is victory margins state by state in 0.  as far as trump being a force for change in the gop, i will believe it when i see it.  if anything, trump is forcing the other candidates to match him crazy for crazy.  none of them have made any serious attempt to stand out on any position of consequence.  think: is there any daylight between any of them on global warming, taxes, abortion, criminal justice reform, foreign policy, surveillance, etc.  the gop ran this experiment in 0.  romney had to take a hard line on immigration to get the nomination, and he shot himself in the foot with his self deportation remark.  trump is presumably more genuine in his disdain for immigrants than romney, and it is possible that the result will be similar, but not guaranteed.  they still are operating under the delusion that the white anti immigrant vote is a sleeping giant that can carry them to victory.  we have trump to thank for this mess of an election so far.   #  this new party would most likely be a party that would represent the unrepresented left as the democratic party moves further to the right.   #  the gop in its current state has been nothing more than a cesspool of far right extremists fueled by unsubstantiated fear mongering, and candidates like trump will only bring it further right.  libertarian/business interests lower minimum wages, freedom to pollute the environment, less regulations that ensure product safety, etc.  are by their very nature against the working class and the middle class.  the conservatives and centralists in america are more than represented.  we currently have a far right party, and by your own admission, a center right party.  the population that is underrepresented, however are the liberals.  as seen by the response bernie sanders is getting, this is clearly a major segment of the population.  your statement suggests that you understand that our electoral system is mathematically bound to be a two party system, but those parties do not have to be the democrats and the republicans.  if the republican party died off, then a new party would arise within a few election cycles.  this new party would most likely be a party that would represent the unrepresented left as the democratic party moves further to the right.
donald trump: unintentional public servant.  here is my case for why trump, real estate player, reality tv entertainer and contender for gop nomination for presidential candidate is a performing a public good.  0.  trump: the seriously unserious candidate.  it is widely recognized that trump is an entertainer with no real motivation to become president.  coupled with his long media history, it is understood that trump will say anything to get attention.  as a result, trump can run unharmed by serious questions and can say things that no politician could say.  however, he has clout from steady poll numbers.  0.  crisis of the gop: the modern coalition was erected right before reagan is election: libertarians, business interests, social conservatives and generally defense hawks.  demographically, this meant working class and middle income white families, especially outside large urban contexts.  geographically, this meant the south, sparsely populated rural western states   midwestern battlegrounds.  in recent years, social conservatives have become more distanced from mainstream us opinion ex: gay marriage and shrunk.  the democratic party under clinton also moved closer to the right on various economic/defense policies.  hawkishness generally, has become less favored since 0.  demographically, gop constituents are shrinking and do not fear government programs medicaid, food stamps etc.  minority voters are still joining the democratic party in larger numbers.  finally, as gop strongholds become more developed and urban in character, they become swing or purple states.  virginia, for example.  0.  for the gop to change: it would have to alienate some share of its current constituents and craft rhetoric/policies that would attract growing populations.  however, within the party, social conservatives are still quite strong, but at odds with business interests that need inclusive branding etc.  economic factors that are pushing the middle/working class downward will cause these groups to want for more government help, though often this is muted by anti immigration or anti federal government rhetoric.  keep the gov t off my medicare.  we need a fence ! this is also at odds with libertarian/business interests.  trump is enabling the gop to do this by being the clown who can say anything.  his populism could force the gop to at least recalibrate its messaging, if not its policies downstream.  0.  obviously, a more competitive/representative gop is good for the us.   #  obviously, a more competitive/representative gop is good for the us.   #  the conservatives and centralists in america are more than represented.   #  the gop in its current state has been nothing more than a cesspool of far right extremists fueled by unsubstantiated fear mongering, and candidates like trump will only bring it further right.  libertarian/business interests lower minimum wages, freedom to pollute the environment, less regulations that ensure product safety, etc.  are by their very nature against the working class and the middle class.  the conservatives and centralists in america are more than represented.  we currently have a far right party, and by your own admission, a center right party.  the population that is underrepresented, however are the liberals.  as seen by the response bernie sanders is getting, this is clearly a major segment of the population.  your statement suggests that you understand that our electoral system is mathematically bound to be a two party system, but those parties do not have to be the democrats and the republicans.  if the republican party died off, then a new party would arise within a few election cycles.  this new party would most likely be a party that would represent the unrepresented left as the democratic party moves further to the right.   #  his anti immigrant statements along with the videos they have of his supporters shouting  white power  at his rallies , do not do anyone a public service.   # that is impossible to prove one way or the other.  how can anyone actually know how he feels about it ? i do not actually buy that opinion either.  running for president probably costs a shitload of money and time.  if he was just bored or doing it for the lulz, he could do much more productive and less stressful things with his time or money.  most likely, if he started off as an unserious candidate, he probably is not one now, considering that he is polling as the frontrunner of the gop.  third, i do not think trump is doing anyone a public service.  his anti immigrant statements along with the videos they have of his supporters shouting  white power  at his rallies , do not do anyone a public service.  at worst, they will lead to some hate crime.  or, his plans of building a wall might actually come true dear god please no .  i would tend to agree with you if he ran as an independent, and also did not say hateful things about immigrants.   #  in that sense it is not really that costly for him.   #  okay.  there is not a way to prove how trump actually feels.  but in terms of cost, he has not spent that much 0 million .  running is not productive in a traditional sense, but trump can leverage his run into book deals, tv shows and bigger brand recognition in the future.  in that sense it is not really that costly for him.  taking the immigration bit: mexican immigration has been dropping for a decade now.  i do not think there is any real desire to build a fence.  but talking about it is cheap and easy way to court working class voters.  it is not currently possible to talk about bringing back some disincentives for moving jobs overseas or reforming the current family based immigration quota system.   #  but you said i was stating an opinion.   # its about whether trump is doing a public service.  that is true.  but you said i was stating an opinion.  it is my opinion that no one is actually serious about building a fence, which is supported by the actual drop in illegal immigration.  more substantively, your argument is trump is xenophobic rhetoric harms american political dialogue.  this is worth asking.  given that gop hopefuls have distanced themselves from such comments and americans have not embraced racism in greater numbers, i am unconvinced of the harm.  it seems more likely to me that trump is trollish behavior is causing republicans to be more explicitly vocal in embracing immigrants and minorities.   #  see obama is victory margins state by state in 0.  as far as trump being a force for change in the gop, i will believe it when i see it.   #  to say donald trump is doing the country a public service is a travesty of excess praise.  he is a megalomaniacal bigot who would be an awful president and is poisoning the political process by whipping up xenophobic panic.  the gop is no doubt in crisis, but still wields both chambers of congress and at least 0 of the 0 supreme court seats.  this is an extremely dangerous game he is playing with the richest and most powerful government in the world.  do not forget 0.  the demographics may be changing in favor of the democrats, but they can still lose a presidential election while winning the popular vote.  see obama is victory margins state by state in 0.  as far as trump being a force for change in the gop, i will believe it when i see it.  if anything, trump is forcing the other candidates to match him crazy for crazy.  none of them have made any serious attempt to stand out on any position of consequence.  think: is there any daylight between any of them on global warming, taxes, abortion, criminal justice reform, foreign policy, surveillance, etc.  the gop ran this experiment in 0.  romney had to take a hard line on immigration to get the nomination, and he shot himself in the foot with his self deportation remark.  trump is presumably more genuine in his disdain for immigrants than romney, and it is possible that the result will be similar, but not guaranteed.  they still are operating under the delusion that the white anti immigrant vote is a sleeping giant that can carry them to victory.  we have trump to thank for this mess of an election so far.
my main points against representative democracy are:   people vote for their own interests, and representatives are no different.    at some point probably due to the accumulation of too much money in too few hands the desires of the smaller group of representatives clash with the desires of the many.  people get fed up with living under plutocracies that they feel they ca not trust.    if democracy is a scale from 0 0, where that is a percentage of who gets to vote, so a dictatorship would probably be 0, and representative democracy might be 0, then it implies that people who are partial towards democracy would prefer the ideal state of 0 democracy.  if you prefer less than 0, then you inherently think  some people do not deserve to have their desires represented , and are by definition against the ideas of democracy.    there is not a practical selection process whereby we could choose people to do what is best for others.  a meritocracy is unachievable, because there is no good process to select them.  which leads us to     if we think that people are smart enough to elect representatives, why are they not smart enough to vote on legislation directly ?   participation in sites like reddit prove that people want direct democracy; which in government would be the ability to create and vote on legislation as if it were a post.  which is why representative democracies everywhere seem to have devolved into plutocracies.  people are getting fed up with it, and starting to support non establishment candidates or parties.  which is exactly what we are seeing, in new political parties like the pirate party, podemos, syriza, which all tend toward direct democracy.  even countries without strong direct democracy movements, are having candidates trending in that direction: bernie sanders and jeremy corbyn.  it seems inevitable that our governmental systems trend from power being concentrated in one person, to becoming more decentralized.  if autocracy is at one end, and direct democracy is at the other, then representative democracy lies somewhere in the imperfect middle.  tl:dr; people get fed up when the desires of their representatives clash with their own, and revolt against any concentration of power.   #  if we think that people are smart enough to elect representatives, why are they not smart enough to vote on legislation directly ?  #  the same reason i am smart enough to hire an electrician, but not smart enough fix the wiring myself.   # the same reason i am smart enough to hire an electrician, but not smart enough fix the wiring myself.  it is about understanding who has the correct ability and knowledge to work on something compared to trusting your self, whom you known is not knowledgeable or skilled enough.  the simple fact is that the system on a national level is to complex for people to learn it all enough to vote knowledgeably on all the issues.  so we pay people to do it, because we want them to have the time to do so properly.  and just to be clear i am actually pro bureaucracy, because bureaucracy works the vast majority of the time.  this also neglects the many moving parts and sections of government.  using america as an example it usually breaks down like this: federal, state, county, city/town.  each has a different level of representation.  there is an options up to the state level for direct democracy, the key is that you have to first show that enough people want to have that vote rather then have the representatives decide it, which is usually a pretty low bar.  the problem i often find is that people are so focused on the national level, that they miss the fact really change starts at the local level.   #  he wants money, and for you to be a repeat customer, and you want good work done.   #  i agree with you that meritocracy in 0 of professional fields works well, but can you point to a single political meritocracy on our globe right now ? in your case, the electrician and you have interests and incentives that are generally lined up with each other.  he wants money, and for you to be a repeat customer, and you want good work done.  but in politics, when power is involved, the interests of the few  always  at some point clash with the interests of the many.  if you felt that the electrician was screwing you, you would democratically choose someone else.  its also arguable, that your selection of the electrician was actually closer to direct democracy than anything else.  you hopefully had a choice for which electrician you chose.  your electrician had a choice hopefully of different places to learn the trade and become accredited.  the alternative to this, would be you needing electrical wiring done on your house, and having to choose between time warner and comcast to do the work.   #  i suspect you do not understand the scope of the question you are evading.   #  you are not answering the question.  i suspect you do not understand the scope of the question you are evading.  americans vote once every two years, and for a president once every 0.  if we manage to get half of all voting eligible people to the polls, that is considered miraculous turnout.  now consider what would happen if everyone had to vote on all the legislation that is required to keep the country running ? how could you possibly insure that everyone was reasonably well informed ? furthermore, how would you conduct the voting ? we ca not even vote for president online do you really expect people to go to a polling place constantly ?  logistical nightmare  does not even scratch the surface.  you could never manage it.   #  i mean, current voting methods can be manipulated as it is.   # first, consider how many bills are deliberated on by the legislature.  go through a list of senate and house bills for this year and see how many of them you know anything about, let alone how many you think the average citizen could make an informed decision about.  legislating a country takes far more effort than the vast majority of citizens could possibly devote especially voluntarily while simultaneously making a living in whatever occupation they hold.  second, consider a social media community like facebook.  how confident would you be, were your facebook friends to replace the legislature, that they would arrive at they best possible legislative decisions ? third, what about cyber security ? we have seen plenty of examples of people breaching the cyber security of top businesses, celebrities, and even the us government.  i mean, current voting methods can be manipulated as it is.  you do not think there is a serious possibility for election fraud in an entirely online/mail in voting system ?  #  also, my friends do not have to be the ones drafting the bills, that could and should be anyone.   #  okay, first of all, mail based voting uses no internet, period.  no internet involved.  although i do staunchly feel that e voting is entirely possible how do you think online bank transactions work securely online ? , its not even necessary for direct democracy to work.  if you are asking whether i prefer my friend is views, to some rich, bought out, corrupt politician, i choose my friends 0 of the time and twice on sundays.  also, my friends do not have to be the ones drafting the bills, that could and should be anyone.
my main points against representative democracy are:   people vote for their own interests, and representatives are no different.    at some point probably due to the accumulation of too much money in too few hands the desires of the smaller group of representatives clash with the desires of the many.  people get fed up with living under plutocracies that they feel they ca not trust.    if democracy is a scale from 0 0, where that is a percentage of who gets to vote, so a dictatorship would probably be 0, and representative democracy might be 0, then it implies that people who are partial towards democracy would prefer the ideal state of 0 democracy.  if you prefer less than 0, then you inherently think  some people do not deserve to have their desires represented , and are by definition against the ideas of democracy.    there is not a practical selection process whereby we could choose people to do what is best for others.  a meritocracy is unachievable, because there is no good process to select them.  which leads us to     if we think that people are smart enough to elect representatives, why are they not smart enough to vote on legislation directly ?   participation in sites like reddit prove that people want direct democracy; which in government would be the ability to create and vote on legislation as if it were a post.  which is why representative democracies everywhere seem to have devolved into plutocracies.  people are getting fed up with it, and starting to support non establishment candidates or parties.  which is exactly what we are seeing, in new political parties like the pirate party, podemos, syriza, which all tend toward direct democracy.  even countries without strong direct democracy movements, are having candidates trending in that direction: bernie sanders and jeremy corbyn.  it seems inevitable that our governmental systems trend from power being concentrated in one person, to becoming more decentralized.  if autocracy is at one end, and direct democracy is at the other, then representative democracy lies somewhere in the imperfect middle.  tl:dr; people get fed up when the desires of their representatives clash with their own, and revolt against any concentration of power.   #  if we think that people are smart enough to elect representatives, why are they not smart enough to vote on legislation directly ?  #  it is not an issue of smart, but rather the time necessary to properly study the issues at hand.   # it is not an issue of smart, but rather the time necessary to properly study the issues at hand.  congressmen have a great deal of staff that thoroughly research issues and then they spend a great deal of time reading up on the summaries so they at least kind of know what is going on.  the average person simply does not have the time to do that with every single issue.  so, we elect someone who we are comfortable with representing our interests to take that job so we can take the time to do whatever is needed in our own lives.  in general, the smaller a group you have the easier it is to run a direct democracy.  issues faced are simpler and it is much easier to actually get everyone adequately informed and gather the votes.  however, the larger a group gets, the more complex the issues and the more complex the logistics of voting, to the point that a direct democracy becomes impossible.  as the us is one of the largest countries on the planet, we grew beyond what a direct democracy would be capable of handling long ago.   #  the simple fact is that the system on a national level is to complex for people to learn it all enough to vote knowledgeably on all the issues.   # the same reason i am smart enough to hire an electrician, but not smart enough fix the wiring myself.  it is about understanding who has the correct ability and knowledge to work on something compared to trusting your self, whom you known is not knowledgeable or skilled enough.  the simple fact is that the system on a national level is to complex for people to learn it all enough to vote knowledgeably on all the issues.  so we pay people to do it, because we want them to have the time to do so properly.  and just to be clear i am actually pro bureaucracy, because bureaucracy works the vast majority of the time.  this also neglects the many moving parts and sections of government.  using america as an example it usually breaks down like this: federal, state, county, city/town.  each has a different level of representation.  there is an options up to the state level for direct democracy, the key is that you have to first show that enough people want to have that vote rather then have the representatives decide it, which is usually a pretty low bar.  the problem i often find is that people are so focused on the national level, that they miss the fact really change starts at the local level.   #  in your case, the electrician and you have interests and incentives that are generally lined up with each other.   #  i agree with you that meritocracy in 0 of professional fields works well, but can you point to a single political meritocracy on our globe right now ? in your case, the electrician and you have interests and incentives that are generally lined up with each other.  he wants money, and for you to be a repeat customer, and you want good work done.  but in politics, when power is involved, the interests of the few  always  at some point clash with the interests of the many.  if you felt that the electrician was screwing you, you would democratically choose someone else.  its also arguable, that your selection of the electrician was actually closer to direct democracy than anything else.  you hopefully had a choice for which electrician you chose.  your electrician had a choice hopefully of different places to learn the trade and become accredited.  the alternative to this, would be you needing electrical wiring done on your house, and having to choose between time warner and comcast to do the work.   #  i suspect you do not understand the scope of the question you are evading.   #  you are not answering the question.  i suspect you do not understand the scope of the question you are evading.  americans vote once every two years, and for a president once every 0.  if we manage to get half of all voting eligible people to the polls, that is considered miraculous turnout.  now consider what would happen if everyone had to vote on all the legislation that is required to keep the country running ? how could you possibly insure that everyone was reasonably well informed ? furthermore, how would you conduct the voting ? we ca not even vote for president online do you really expect people to go to a polling place constantly ?  logistical nightmare  does not even scratch the surface.  you could never manage it.   #  legislating a country takes far more effort than the vast majority of citizens could possibly devote especially voluntarily while simultaneously making a living in whatever occupation they hold.   # first, consider how many bills are deliberated on by the legislature.  go through a list of senate and house bills for this year and see how many of them you know anything about, let alone how many you think the average citizen could make an informed decision about.  legislating a country takes far more effort than the vast majority of citizens could possibly devote especially voluntarily while simultaneously making a living in whatever occupation they hold.  second, consider a social media community like facebook.  how confident would you be, were your facebook friends to replace the legislature, that they would arrive at they best possible legislative decisions ? third, what about cyber security ? we have seen plenty of examples of people breaching the cyber security of top businesses, celebrities, and even the us government.  i mean, current voting methods can be manipulated as it is.  you do not think there is a serious possibility for election fraud in an entirely online/mail in voting system ?
i have a few friends who sleep around a lot.  one person in particular told me yesterday that they had slept with 0 people in the last two weeks i am keeping this purposefully gender neutral to avoid a biased response .  they did not massively like any of the partners as people, they just wanted to have sex.  which is fine.  i love sex, and i think it is great, but i could never feel okay with having that many sexual partners in such a short space of time.  i ca not help but feel that there must be something deeply broken about someone who is okay with it.  either they are very insecure and in need of some sort of validation, or they have no respect for themselves and a very low sense of self worth.  change my view please !  #  but i could never feel okay with having that many sexual partners in such a short space of time.   #  see, i absolutely believe that this is true, that you could never do that.   # see, i absolutely believe that this is true, that you could never do that.  i have no reason to think you are lying.  so why then do you have trouble believing people who tell you they can in fact do it and enjoy it ? it is a matter of personal preference, like most things in life.  why does enjoying sex frequently with multiple partners mean one does not have respect for themselves ? why is our worth expressed in the way and frequency of our sexual encounters ?  #  such people, and i have met them, simply do not place any particular weight, in terms of their self worth or otherwise, on sex.   #  while i am sure this is true sometimes, some people just have different values than you.  that does not necessarily indicate any insecurity or damage.  plenty of people just think sex is a fun activity that really has no moral or even any great emotional component to it.  for people like this, having sex with everyone they pick up at a bar is no more or less a simple fun activity than going to the bar in the first place.  such people, and i have met them, simply do not place any particular weight, in terms of their self worth or otherwise, on sex.  it is just a hobby, like playing soccer.  that would be a difference of opinion, not an indication of insecurity.   #  and maybe from their point of view, your opinion makes you seem stuck up, a prude, maybe someone who was abused in some way, etc.   #  and maybe from their point of view, your opinion makes you seem stuck up, a prude, maybe someone who was abused in some way, etc.  does not make it true, right ? sex was and still is, if we are being honest a taboo for a long time.  so much of our history we spent repressed, weighted down by false and imposed morality, religious rules, you name it.  we live in a somewhat enlightened era now, a time where we can mitigate some negative side effects of casual sex so the only barrier is your personal preference really.  and if you are not one to give huge emotional meaning to sex, what is stopping you from having fun with it ?  #  making a sweeping, negative statement was the beginning of that.   #  so you are asking why i am making this statement ? it is because i want to have my view changed.  i think that the voice of my submission is not my voice but the voice of teachers and sex ed videos everywhere.  i want to learn to think in a different way.  making a sweeping, negative statement was the beginning of that.  hope that makes sense.   #  there are also some people who fit your description as in, see sex the way you do and are broken or insecure as well.   #  no, i am rather asking that you try to support it with. something.  so far your argument boils down to,  i am not like that/i think that is weird or wrong so there must be something wrong with those people.   and that.  i hope you can see how that does not sound convincing ever, regardless of the subject at hand.  i am absolutely certain there are some people out there who fit your description.  there are also some people who fit your description as in, see sex the way you do and are broken or insecure as well.  but i do not see any direct correlation between your number of partners/frequency of changing them and tendency to be emotionally damaged.  as unbelievable as it may sound to you, plenty of people out there truly enjoy sex while not taking it too seriously.  there is no need for a deep emotional connection, commitment, or any of that stuff.  it really is just sex.  i personally do not think there is anything wrong with any of all these approaches we have today, as long as people are being smart and safe, and everything is consensual.
i have a few friends who sleep around a lot.  one person in particular told me yesterday that they had slept with 0 people in the last two weeks i am keeping this purposefully gender neutral to avoid a biased response .  they did not massively like any of the partners as people, they just wanted to have sex.  which is fine.  i love sex, and i think it is great, but i could never feel okay with having that many sexual partners in such a short space of time.  i ca not help but feel that there must be something deeply broken about someone who is okay with it.  either they are very insecure and in need of some sort of validation, or they have no respect for themselves and a very low sense of self worth.  change my view please !  #  or they have no respect for themselves and a very low sense of self worth.   #  why does enjoying sex frequently with multiple partners mean one does not have respect for themselves ?  # see, i absolutely believe that this is true, that you could never do that.  i have no reason to think you are lying.  so why then do you have trouble believing people who tell you they can in fact do it and enjoy it ? it is a matter of personal preference, like most things in life.  why does enjoying sex frequently with multiple partners mean one does not have respect for themselves ? why is our worth expressed in the way and frequency of our sexual encounters ?  #  while i am sure this is true sometimes, some people just have different values than you.   #  while i am sure this is true sometimes, some people just have different values than you.  that does not necessarily indicate any insecurity or damage.  plenty of people just think sex is a fun activity that really has no moral or even any great emotional component to it.  for people like this, having sex with everyone they pick up at a bar is no more or less a simple fun activity than going to the bar in the first place.  such people, and i have met them, simply do not place any particular weight, in terms of their self worth or otherwise, on sex.  it is just a hobby, like playing soccer.  that would be a difference of opinion, not an indication of insecurity.   #  and maybe from their point of view, your opinion makes you seem stuck up, a prude, maybe someone who was abused in some way, etc.   #  and maybe from their point of view, your opinion makes you seem stuck up, a prude, maybe someone who was abused in some way, etc.  does not make it true, right ? sex was and still is, if we are being honest a taboo for a long time.  so much of our history we spent repressed, weighted down by false and imposed morality, religious rules, you name it.  we live in a somewhat enlightened era now, a time where we can mitigate some negative side effects of casual sex so the only barrier is your personal preference really.  and if you are not one to give huge emotional meaning to sex, what is stopping you from having fun with it ?  #  i want to learn to think in a different way.   #  so you are asking why i am making this statement ? it is because i want to have my view changed.  i think that the voice of my submission is not my voice but the voice of teachers and sex ed videos everywhere.  i want to learn to think in a different way.  making a sweeping, negative statement was the beginning of that.  hope that makes sense.   #  but i do not see any direct correlation between your number of partners/frequency of changing them and tendency to be emotionally damaged.   #  no, i am rather asking that you try to support it with. something.  so far your argument boils down to,  i am not like that/i think that is weird or wrong so there must be something wrong with those people.   and that.  i hope you can see how that does not sound convincing ever, regardless of the subject at hand.  i am absolutely certain there are some people out there who fit your description.  there are also some people who fit your description as in, see sex the way you do and are broken or insecure as well.  but i do not see any direct correlation between your number of partners/frequency of changing them and tendency to be emotionally damaged.  as unbelievable as it may sound to you, plenty of people out there truly enjoy sex while not taking it too seriously.  there is no need for a deep emotional connection, commitment, or any of that stuff.  it really is just sex.  i personally do not think there is anything wrong with any of all these approaches we have today, as long as people are being smart and safe, and everything is consensual.
i have never seen any benifit to private school.  the only thing it does is creates social inequality from the start.  the kids who go to private schools are usually rich white kids that already have a socioenconomic advantage.  i was a regular upper middle class guy who went to public school.  i loved it.  my school was great.  we went on fun field trips, and even a trip to europe.  homeschooling your kid is just insurance that he/she will be socially awkward, and disadvantaged.  lots of homeschooling involves religious indoctrination, and very one sided opinions.  in public school you are exposed to many different views, opinions, and types of people.  these problems would be solved if everyone had to go to public school.  everyone would have an equal education, and equal opportunity.   #  the only thing it does is creates social inequality from the start.   #  you get the same thing with public schools.   # you get the same thing with public schools.  schools are paid for by property taxes.  if you live in an affluent area, your school is great.  if you live in the inner city, your school sucks.  there are plenty of social events for home schooled children.  that is part of the point.  you could argue that public schools are one sided for liberal opinions, and do not ca not provide the religious conservative opinion.  you get indoctrination one way or the other.  probably not.  you go to school with the people in your neighborhood, and many neighborhoods cluster the same type of people.  the city i live in is over 0 white people.   #  for the students who attend them, they can offer caliber teaching, smaller classes, better facilities, a safer environment and a peer group with similar academic skills and aspirations.   #   if everyone had to go to public school.  everyone would have an equal education .  there is huge disparity between public schools.  the top rival the finest private schools.  the bottom simply hope to keep the kids off the streets for a few hours per week.   i have never seen any benefit to private school.   benefit for whom ? for the students who attend them, they can offer caliber teaching, smaller classes, better facilities, a safer environment and a peer group with similar academic skills and aspirations.  you can question whether they are beneficial for society, but there is no question that they benefit their students.   the only thing it does is creates social inequality from the start.   for the kids who are already rich, the inequality was already there.  without the private schools, they would still be in the elite school districts with other rich white kids.  however, most private schools also have robust scholarship programs which allow promising low income students to attend.  in many states, they would not be allowed into the elite public school districts.  so, which one creates social inequality ?  homeschooling your kid is just insurance that he/she will be socially awkward, and disadvantaged .  true in some cases, but if you look at some of the truly shining stars, they have been home schooled.  if you are in the top . 0 of students, the public schools simply ca not meet your needs.  but beyond all of this, where do you decide that parents ca not choose a different option than the one you personally think is the best one for them ? as a society we grant parents discretion in deciding what is best for their kids within reason.  why would be ban activities that do benefit their children ?  #  if everything were public then there would be no competition to keep up good standards.   #  what about a place like australia ? here the divide between public and private schools is much less, at roughly 0 private and 0 public.  the us is over 0 public and less than 0 private.  competition is important.  in australia at least there are many private schools of comparable prices to public schools.  public schools have to ensure that they are able to attract students by offering good facilities, good staff and good results.  if everything were public then there would be no competition to keep up good standards.   #  the person above made a very valid point about public schools not being equal.   #  the person above made a very valid point about public schools not being equal.  i substitute in multiple districts and i can tell you that the district where all the rich kids live has their pick of whatever teachers they want and huge budgets because school budgets are tied to new housing development.  i do agree with you that homeschooling and private schools should not be allowed however.  when the public school system was created in america in the mid 0s the idea of  equality of opportunity  was strongly connected to american identity and the public school system was created to try to ensure people have equal opportunities.  the republican party is strongly against this notion and is trying to destroy it.   #  also you show your ignorance again when you talk about how great your public school was.   #  many folks here will talk about how not all public schools are the same.  i have lived in four different states, and can attest to that.  but more importantly  not all children are the same .  public school is geared toward the average if you are above or below or outside of the norm, public school is often a difficult or unproductive place for you.  one of my children is an advanced learner.  she could read well before kindergarten mostly self taught.  guess how boring k was for her.  my other daughter is extremely creative and high energy sitting in a classroom all day was problematic for her.  we homeschooled our family 0 years, which allowed for personalized learning for both students that fit their learning styles.  we are an atheist family and were members of a secular homeschool group with roughly 0 families.  my kids now one is a successful adult and the other has decided to transition into public school and is looking forward to high school.  your views on homeschool are, to put it bluntly, ignorant.  the kids are usually more socially adept as they are required to get along with kids of different ages as well as adults.  kids learn from the older kids and mentor the younger ones.  because of the shortfalls of many public school systems, homeschool groups will often have a higher percentage of students with special needs.  in recent years we have seen quite an uptick of older kids with autism, for example.  so the perception many have of socially awkward/weird homeschool kids remember the student may be in homsechool  because of a special need .  also you show your ignorance again when you talk about how great your public school was.   we had a trip to europe !   jesus, how oblivious to the rest of the world can you be.  if your school went to europe, your public school was likely in an affluent area and was practically private school quality.  my school had a drug cop with a narc sniffing dog.
i have never seen any benifit to private school.  the only thing it does is creates social inequality from the start.  the kids who go to private schools are usually rich white kids that already have a socioenconomic advantage.  i was a regular upper middle class guy who went to public school.  i loved it.  my school was great.  we went on fun field trips, and even a trip to europe.  homeschooling your kid is just insurance that he/she will be socially awkward, and disadvantaged.  lots of homeschooling involves religious indoctrination, and very one sided opinions.  in public school you are exposed to many different views, opinions, and types of people.  these problems would be solved if everyone had to go to public school.  everyone would have an equal education, and equal opportunity.   #  homeschooling your kid is just insurance that he/she will be socially awkward, and disadvantaged.   #  there are plenty of social events for home schooled children.   # you get the same thing with public schools.  schools are paid for by property taxes.  if you live in an affluent area, your school is great.  if you live in the inner city, your school sucks.  there are plenty of social events for home schooled children.  that is part of the point.  you could argue that public schools are one sided for liberal opinions, and do not ca not provide the religious conservative opinion.  you get indoctrination one way or the other.  probably not.  you go to school with the people in your neighborhood, and many neighborhoods cluster the same type of people.  the city i live in is over 0 white people.   #  in many states, they would not be allowed into the elite public school districts.   #   if everyone had to go to public school.  everyone would have an equal education .  there is huge disparity between public schools.  the top rival the finest private schools.  the bottom simply hope to keep the kids off the streets for a few hours per week.   i have never seen any benefit to private school.   benefit for whom ? for the students who attend them, they can offer caliber teaching, smaller classes, better facilities, a safer environment and a peer group with similar academic skills and aspirations.  you can question whether they are beneficial for society, but there is no question that they benefit their students.   the only thing it does is creates social inequality from the start.   for the kids who are already rich, the inequality was already there.  without the private schools, they would still be in the elite school districts with other rich white kids.  however, most private schools also have robust scholarship programs which allow promising low income students to attend.  in many states, they would not be allowed into the elite public school districts.  so, which one creates social inequality ?  homeschooling your kid is just insurance that he/she will be socially awkward, and disadvantaged .  true in some cases, but if you look at some of the truly shining stars, they have been home schooled.  if you are in the top . 0 of students, the public schools simply ca not meet your needs.  but beyond all of this, where do you decide that parents ca not choose a different option than the one you personally think is the best one for them ? as a society we grant parents discretion in deciding what is best for their kids within reason.  why would be ban activities that do benefit their children ?  #  if everything were public then there would be no competition to keep up good standards.   #  what about a place like australia ? here the divide between public and private schools is much less, at roughly 0 private and 0 public.  the us is over 0 public and less than 0 private.  competition is important.  in australia at least there are many private schools of comparable prices to public schools.  public schools have to ensure that they are able to attract students by offering good facilities, good staff and good results.  if everything were public then there would be no competition to keep up good standards.   #  the person above made a very valid point about public schools not being equal.   #  the person above made a very valid point about public schools not being equal.  i substitute in multiple districts and i can tell you that the district where all the rich kids live has their pick of whatever teachers they want and huge budgets because school budgets are tied to new housing development.  i do agree with you that homeschooling and private schools should not be allowed however.  when the public school system was created in america in the mid 0s the idea of  equality of opportunity  was strongly connected to american identity and the public school system was created to try to ensure people have equal opportunities.  the republican party is strongly against this notion and is trying to destroy it.   #  my school had a drug cop with a narc sniffing dog.   #  many folks here will talk about how not all public schools are the same.  i have lived in four different states, and can attest to that.  but more importantly  not all children are the same .  public school is geared toward the average if you are above or below or outside of the norm, public school is often a difficult or unproductive place for you.  one of my children is an advanced learner.  she could read well before kindergarten mostly self taught.  guess how boring k was for her.  my other daughter is extremely creative and high energy sitting in a classroom all day was problematic for her.  we homeschooled our family 0 years, which allowed for personalized learning for both students that fit their learning styles.  we are an atheist family and were members of a secular homeschool group with roughly 0 families.  my kids now one is a successful adult and the other has decided to transition into public school and is looking forward to high school.  your views on homeschool are, to put it bluntly, ignorant.  the kids are usually more socially adept as they are required to get along with kids of different ages as well as adults.  kids learn from the older kids and mentor the younger ones.  because of the shortfalls of many public school systems, homeschool groups will often have a higher percentage of students with special needs.  in recent years we have seen quite an uptick of older kids with autism, for example.  so the perception many have of socially awkward/weird homeschool kids remember the student may be in homsechool  because of a special need .  also you show your ignorance again when you talk about how great your public school was.   we had a trip to europe !   jesus, how oblivious to the rest of the world can you be.  if your school went to europe, your public school was likely in an affluent area and was practically private school quality.  my school had a drug cop with a narc sniffing dog.
i have never seen any benifit to private school.  the only thing it does is creates social inequality from the start.  the kids who go to private schools are usually rich white kids that already have a socioenconomic advantage.  i was a regular upper middle class guy who went to public school.  i loved it.  my school was great.  we went on fun field trips, and even a trip to europe.  homeschooling your kid is just insurance that he/she will be socially awkward, and disadvantaged.  lots of homeschooling involves religious indoctrination, and very one sided opinions.  in public school you are exposed to many different views, opinions, and types of people.  these problems would be solved if everyone had to go to public school.  everyone would have an equal education, and equal opportunity.   #  the only thing it does is creates social inequality from the start.   #  the kids who go to private schools are usually rich white kids that already have a socioenconomic advantage your sjw point of view here is completely irrelevant.   # the kids who go to private schools are usually rich white kids that already have a socioenconomic advantage your sjw point of view here is completely irrelevant.  the belief that  all men are created equal  is a statement about political rights.  not that people should be  literally equal .  your public school education is starkly different than the public school education that inner city kids receive.  and i am sure that many of them would levy the same  perpetuating inequality  argument at you.  you are really not.  you get the same narratives that basically every public school kid gets.   captialism good.  communism bad  not that i disagree .  everyone would have an equal education, and equal opportunity.  again, the fact that your public school offered you a trip to europe where millions of poor public schools can barely afford basic supplies, stands as proof that your assertion here is false.  furthermore, many private schools are religiously based and thus protected by the first amendment.  surely you wouldnt want to infringe upon the most important freedom enjoyed by americans.   #  as a society we grant parents discretion in deciding what is best for their kids within reason.   #   if everyone had to go to public school.  everyone would have an equal education .  there is huge disparity between public schools.  the top rival the finest private schools.  the bottom simply hope to keep the kids off the streets for a few hours per week.   i have never seen any benefit to private school.   benefit for whom ? for the students who attend them, they can offer caliber teaching, smaller classes, better facilities, a safer environment and a peer group with similar academic skills and aspirations.  you can question whether they are beneficial for society, but there is no question that they benefit their students.   the only thing it does is creates social inequality from the start.   for the kids who are already rich, the inequality was already there.  without the private schools, they would still be in the elite school districts with other rich white kids.  however, most private schools also have robust scholarship programs which allow promising low income students to attend.  in many states, they would not be allowed into the elite public school districts.  so, which one creates social inequality ?  homeschooling your kid is just insurance that he/she will be socially awkward, and disadvantaged .  true in some cases, but if you look at some of the truly shining stars, they have been home schooled.  if you are in the top . 0 of students, the public schools simply ca not meet your needs.  but beyond all of this, where do you decide that parents ca not choose a different option than the one you personally think is the best one for them ? as a society we grant parents discretion in deciding what is best for their kids within reason.  why would be ban activities that do benefit their children ?  #  public schools have to ensure that they are able to attract students by offering good facilities, good staff and good results.   #  what about a place like australia ? here the divide between public and private schools is much less, at roughly 0 private and 0 public.  the us is over 0 public and less than 0 private.  competition is important.  in australia at least there are many private schools of comparable prices to public schools.  public schools have to ensure that they are able to attract students by offering good facilities, good staff and good results.  if everything were public then there would be no competition to keep up good standards.   #  i do agree with you that homeschooling and private schools should not be allowed however.   #  the person above made a very valid point about public schools not being equal.  i substitute in multiple districts and i can tell you that the district where all the rich kids live has their pick of whatever teachers they want and huge budgets because school budgets are tied to new housing development.  i do agree with you that homeschooling and private schools should not be allowed however.  when the public school system was created in america in the mid 0s the idea of  equality of opportunity  was strongly connected to american identity and the public school system was created to try to ensure people have equal opportunities.  the republican party is strongly against this notion and is trying to destroy it.   #  i have lived in four different states, and can attest to that.   #  many folks here will talk about how not all public schools are the same.  i have lived in four different states, and can attest to that.  but more importantly  not all children are the same .  public school is geared toward the average if you are above or below or outside of the norm, public school is often a difficult or unproductive place for you.  one of my children is an advanced learner.  she could read well before kindergarten mostly self taught.  guess how boring k was for her.  my other daughter is extremely creative and high energy sitting in a classroom all day was problematic for her.  we homeschooled our family 0 years, which allowed for personalized learning for both students that fit their learning styles.  we are an atheist family and were members of a secular homeschool group with roughly 0 families.  my kids now one is a successful adult and the other has decided to transition into public school and is looking forward to high school.  your views on homeschool are, to put it bluntly, ignorant.  the kids are usually more socially adept as they are required to get along with kids of different ages as well as adults.  kids learn from the older kids and mentor the younger ones.  because of the shortfalls of many public school systems, homeschool groups will often have a higher percentage of students with special needs.  in recent years we have seen quite an uptick of older kids with autism, for example.  so the perception many have of socially awkward/weird homeschool kids remember the student may be in homsechool  because of a special need .  also you show your ignorance again when you talk about how great your public school was.   we had a trip to europe !   jesus, how oblivious to the rest of the world can you be.  if your school went to europe, your public school was likely in an affluent area and was practically private school quality.  my school had a drug cop with a narc sniffing dog.
i have never seen any benifit to private school.  the only thing it does is creates social inequality from the start.  the kids who go to private schools are usually rich white kids that already have a socioenconomic advantage.  i was a regular upper middle class guy who went to public school.  i loved it.  my school was great.  we went on fun field trips, and even a trip to europe.  homeschooling your kid is just insurance that he/she will be socially awkward, and disadvantaged.  lots of homeschooling involves religious indoctrination, and very one sided opinions.  in public school you are exposed to many different views, opinions, and types of people.  these problems would be solved if everyone had to go to public school.  everyone would have an equal education, and equal opportunity.   #  we went on fun field trips, and even a trip to europe.   #  your public school education is starkly different than the public school education that inner city kids receive.   # the kids who go to private schools are usually rich white kids that already have a socioenconomic advantage your sjw point of view here is completely irrelevant.  the belief that  all men are created equal  is a statement about political rights.  not that people should be  literally equal .  your public school education is starkly different than the public school education that inner city kids receive.  and i am sure that many of them would levy the same  perpetuating inequality  argument at you.  you are really not.  you get the same narratives that basically every public school kid gets.   captialism good.  communism bad  not that i disagree .  everyone would have an equal education, and equal opportunity.  again, the fact that your public school offered you a trip to europe where millions of poor public schools can barely afford basic supplies, stands as proof that your assertion here is false.  furthermore, many private schools are religiously based and thus protected by the first amendment.  surely you wouldnt want to infringe upon the most important freedom enjoyed by americans.   #  for the students who attend them, they can offer caliber teaching, smaller classes, better facilities, a safer environment and a peer group with similar academic skills and aspirations.   #   if everyone had to go to public school.  everyone would have an equal education .  there is huge disparity between public schools.  the top rival the finest private schools.  the bottom simply hope to keep the kids off the streets for a few hours per week.   i have never seen any benefit to private school.   benefit for whom ? for the students who attend them, they can offer caliber teaching, smaller classes, better facilities, a safer environment and a peer group with similar academic skills and aspirations.  you can question whether they are beneficial for society, but there is no question that they benefit their students.   the only thing it does is creates social inequality from the start.   for the kids who are already rich, the inequality was already there.  without the private schools, they would still be in the elite school districts with other rich white kids.  however, most private schools also have robust scholarship programs which allow promising low income students to attend.  in many states, they would not be allowed into the elite public school districts.  so, which one creates social inequality ?  homeschooling your kid is just insurance that he/she will be socially awkward, and disadvantaged .  true in some cases, but if you look at some of the truly shining stars, they have been home schooled.  if you are in the top . 0 of students, the public schools simply ca not meet your needs.  but beyond all of this, where do you decide that parents ca not choose a different option than the one you personally think is the best one for them ? as a society we grant parents discretion in deciding what is best for their kids within reason.  why would be ban activities that do benefit their children ?  #  the us is over 0 public and less than 0 private.   #  what about a place like australia ? here the divide between public and private schools is much less, at roughly 0 private and 0 public.  the us is over 0 public and less than 0 private.  competition is important.  in australia at least there are many private schools of comparable prices to public schools.  public schools have to ensure that they are able to attract students by offering good facilities, good staff and good results.  if everything were public then there would be no competition to keep up good standards.   #  the person above made a very valid point about public schools not being equal.   #  the person above made a very valid point about public schools not being equal.  i substitute in multiple districts and i can tell you that the district where all the rich kids live has their pick of whatever teachers they want and huge budgets because school budgets are tied to new housing development.  i do agree with you that homeschooling and private schools should not be allowed however.  when the public school system was created in america in the mid 0s the idea of  equality of opportunity  was strongly connected to american identity and the public school system was created to try to ensure people have equal opportunities.  the republican party is strongly against this notion and is trying to destroy it.   #  if your school went to europe, your public school was likely in an affluent area and was practically private school quality.   #  many folks here will talk about how not all public schools are the same.  i have lived in four different states, and can attest to that.  but more importantly  not all children are the same .  public school is geared toward the average if you are above or below or outside of the norm, public school is often a difficult or unproductive place for you.  one of my children is an advanced learner.  she could read well before kindergarten mostly self taught.  guess how boring k was for her.  my other daughter is extremely creative and high energy sitting in a classroom all day was problematic for her.  we homeschooled our family 0 years, which allowed for personalized learning for both students that fit their learning styles.  we are an atheist family and were members of a secular homeschool group with roughly 0 families.  my kids now one is a successful adult and the other has decided to transition into public school and is looking forward to high school.  your views on homeschool are, to put it bluntly, ignorant.  the kids are usually more socially adept as they are required to get along with kids of different ages as well as adults.  kids learn from the older kids and mentor the younger ones.  because of the shortfalls of many public school systems, homeschool groups will often have a higher percentage of students with special needs.  in recent years we have seen quite an uptick of older kids with autism, for example.  so the perception many have of socially awkward/weird homeschool kids remember the student may be in homsechool  because of a special need .  also you show your ignorance again when you talk about how great your public school was.   we had a trip to europe !   jesus, how oblivious to the rest of the world can you be.  if your school went to europe, your public school was likely in an affluent area and was practically private school quality.  my school had a drug cop with a narc sniffing dog.
i have never seen any benifit to private school.  the only thing it does is creates social inequality from the start.  the kids who go to private schools are usually rich white kids that already have a socioenconomic advantage.  i was a regular upper middle class guy who went to public school.  i loved it.  my school was great.  we went on fun field trips, and even a trip to europe.  homeschooling your kid is just insurance that he/she will be socially awkward, and disadvantaged.  lots of homeschooling involves religious indoctrination, and very one sided opinions.  in public school you are exposed to many different views, opinions, and types of people.  these problems would be solved if everyone had to go to public school.  everyone would have an equal education, and equal opportunity.   #  these problems would be solved if everyone had to go to public school.   #  everyone would have an equal education, and equal opportunity.   # the kids who go to private schools are usually rich white kids that already have a socioenconomic advantage your sjw point of view here is completely irrelevant.  the belief that  all men are created equal  is a statement about political rights.  not that people should be  literally equal .  your public school education is starkly different than the public school education that inner city kids receive.  and i am sure that many of them would levy the same  perpetuating inequality  argument at you.  you are really not.  you get the same narratives that basically every public school kid gets.   captialism good.  communism bad  not that i disagree .  everyone would have an equal education, and equal opportunity.  again, the fact that your public school offered you a trip to europe where millions of poor public schools can barely afford basic supplies, stands as proof that your assertion here is false.  furthermore, many private schools are religiously based and thus protected by the first amendment.  surely you wouldnt want to infringe upon the most important freedom enjoyed by americans.   #  but beyond all of this, where do you decide that parents ca not choose a different option than the one you personally think is the best one for them ?  #   if everyone had to go to public school.  everyone would have an equal education .  there is huge disparity between public schools.  the top rival the finest private schools.  the bottom simply hope to keep the kids off the streets for a few hours per week.   i have never seen any benefit to private school.   benefit for whom ? for the students who attend them, they can offer caliber teaching, smaller classes, better facilities, a safer environment and a peer group with similar academic skills and aspirations.  you can question whether they are beneficial for society, but there is no question that they benefit their students.   the only thing it does is creates social inequality from the start.   for the kids who are already rich, the inequality was already there.  without the private schools, they would still be in the elite school districts with other rich white kids.  however, most private schools also have robust scholarship programs which allow promising low income students to attend.  in many states, they would not be allowed into the elite public school districts.  so, which one creates social inequality ?  homeschooling your kid is just insurance that he/she will be socially awkward, and disadvantaged .  true in some cases, but if you look at some of the truly shining stars, they have been home schooled.  if you are in the top . 0 of students, the public schools simply ca not meet your needs.  but beyond all of this, where do you decide that parents ca not choose a different option than the one you personally think is the best one for them ? as a society we grant parents discretion in deciding what is best for their kids within reason.  why would be ban activities that do benefit their children ?  #  the us is over 0 public and less than 0 private.   #  what about a place like australia ? here the divide between public and private schools is much less, at roughly 0 private and 0 public.  the us is over 0 public and less than 0 private.  competition is important.  in australia at least there are many private schools of comparable prices to public schools.  public schools have to ensure that they are able to attract students by offering good facilities, good staff and good results.  if everything were public then there would be no competition to keep up good standards.   #  when the public school system was created in america in the mid 0s the idea of  equality of opportunity  was strongly connected to american identity and the public school system was created to try to ensure people have equal opportunities.   #  the person above made a very valid point about public schools not being equal.  i substitute in multiple districts and i can tell you that the district where all the rich kids live has their pick of whatever teachers they want and huge budgets because school budgets are tied to new housing development.  i do agree with you that homeschooling and private schools should not be allowed however.  when the public school system was created in america in the mid 0s the idea of  equality of opportunity  was strongly connected to american identity and the public school system was created to try to ensure people have equal opportunities.  the republican party is strongly against this notion and is trying to destroy it.   #  your views on homeschool are, to put it bluntly, ignorant.   #  many folks here will talk about how not all public schools are the same.  i have lived in four different states, and can attest to that.  but more importantly  not all children are the same .  public school is geared toward the average if you are above or below or outside of the norm, public school is often a difficult or unproductive place for you.  one of my children is an advanced learner.  she could read well before kindergarten mostly self taught.  guess how boring k was for her.  my other daughter is extremely creative and high energy sitting in a classroom all day was problematic for her.  we homeschooled our family 0 years, which allowed for personalized learning for both students that fit their learning styles.  we are an atheist family and were members of a secular homeschool group with roughly 0 families.  my kids now one is a successful adult and the other has decided to transition into public school and is looking forward to high school.  your views on homeschool are, to put it bluntly, ignorant.  the kids are usually more socially adept as they are required to get along with kids of different ages as well as adults.  kids learn from the older kids and mentor the younger ones.  because of the shortfalls of many public school systems, homeschool groups will often have a higher percentage of students with special needs.  in recent years we have seen quite an uptick of older kids with autism, for example.  so the perception many have of socially awkward/weird homeschool kids remember the student may be in homsechool  because of a special need .  also you show your ignorance again when you talk about how great your public school was.   we had a trip to europe !   jesus, how oblivious to the rest of the world can you be.  if your school went to europe, your public school was likely in an affluent area and was practically private school quality.  my school had a drug cop with a narc sniffing dog.
i have never seen any benifit to private school.  the only thing it does is creates social inequality from the start.  the kids who go to private schools are usually rich white kids that already have a socioenconomic advantage.  i was a regular upper middle class guy who went to public school.  i loved it.  my school was great.  we went on fun field trips, and even a trip to europe.  homeschooling your kid is just insurance that he/she will be socially awkward, and disadvantaged.  lots of homeschooling involves religious indoctrination, and very one sided opinions.  in public school you are exposed to many different views, opinions, and types of people.  these problems would be solved if everyone had to go to public school.  everyone would have an equal education, and equal opportunity.   #  i have never seen any benifit to private school.   #  they usually teach spelling and communication which are important life skills.   #  as someone who loved being homeschooled, and was much better off for it, i can say that you should at least have an understanding of something before you try to make it illegal.  first, education takes up an extraordinarily large portion of children is lives and we should be careful when making significant changes.  because of this, you should realize that a all inclusive legal mandate is probably not the best approach.  disregarding any issues of parental rights, it is generally more efficient and productive to allow for homeschooling.  parents are generally more in tune to their children is needs and care more about the quality of education.  even though many academically challenged students are switched to homeschooling, homeschoolers consistently perform better on standardized testing.  second, it is evident from your post that you do not understand the us public school system i am assuming us from the context of your post .  most people would laugh at the naive belief that:   in public school you are exposed to many different views, opinions, and types of people.  these problems would be solved if everyone had to go to public school.  everyone would have an equal education, and equal opportunity.  the most obvious issue with this is that public schools are already staggeringly unequal.  here is a great video about education and some of its issues: URL   the kids who go to private schools are usually rich white kids that already have a socioenconomic advantage.  again, it seems like you are basing your opinion off of ignorant stereotypes.  approach the issue from a perspective of assumed ignorance try to learn about something before you form an opinion.  they usually teach spelling and communication which are important life skills.  we went on fun field trips, and even a trip to europe while it is nice that your anecdotal experience went well for you, have the capacity to realize that it does not necessarily apply in all, or even the majority, of cases.  finally, realize that  i do not like x  should not always translate to  x should be illegal ; x, in this case, is homeschooling.  a recurring anthem for this forum full of  there should be a law  posts: URL  #   the only thing it does is creates social inequality from the start.    #   if everyone had to go to public school.  everyone would have an equal education .  there is huge disparity between public schools.  the top rival the finest private schools.  the bottom simply hope to keep the kids off the streets for a few hours per week.   i have never seen any benefit to private school.   benefit for whom ? for the students who attend them, they can offer caliber teaching, smaller classes, better facilities, a safer environment and a peer group with similar academic skills and aspirations.  you can question whether they are beneficial for society, but there is no question that they benefit their students.   the only thing it does is creates social inequality from the start.   for the kids who are already rich, the inequality was already there.  without the private schools, they would still be in the elite school districts with other rich white kids.  however, most private schools also have robust scholarship programs which allow promising low income students to attend.  in many states, they would not be allowed into the elite public school districts.  so, which one creates social inequality ?  homeschooling your kid is just insurance that he/she will be socially awkward, and disadvantaged .  true in some cases, but if you look at some of the truly shining stars, they have been home schooled.  if you are in the top . 0 of students, the public schools simply ca not meet your needs.  but beyond all of this, where do you decide that parents ca not choose a different option than the one you personally think is the best one for them ? as a society we grant parents discretion in deciding what is best for their kids within reason.  why would be ban activities that do benefit their children ?  #  here the divide between public and private schools is much less, at roughly 0 private and 0 public.   #  what about a place like australia ? here the divide between public and private schools is much less, at roughly 0 private and 0 public.  the us is over 0 public and less than 0 private.  competition is important.  in australia at least there are many private schools of comparable prices to public schools.  public schools have to ensure that they are able to attract students by offering good facilities, good staff and good results.  if everything were public then there would be no competition to keep up good standards.   #  i do agree with you that homeschooling and private schools should not be allowed however.   #  the person above made a very valid point about public schools not being equal.  i substitute in multiple districts and i can tell you that the district where all the rich kids live has their pick of whatever teachers they want and huge budgets because school budgets are tied to new housing development.  i do agree with you that homeschooling and private schools should not be allowed however.  when the public school system was created in america in the mid 0s the idea of  equality of opportunity  was strongly connected to american identity and the public school system was created to try to ensure people have equal opportunities.  the republican party is strongly against this notion and is trying to destroy it.   #  we are an atheist family and were members of a secular homeschool group with roughly 0 families.   #  many folks here will talk about how not all public schools are the same.  i have lived in four different states, and can attest to that.  but more importantly  not all children are the same .  public school is geared toward the average if you are above or below or outside of the norm, public school is often a difficult or unproductive place for you.  one of my children is an advanced learner.  she could read well before kindergarten mostly self taught.  guess how boring k was for her.  my other daughter is extremely creative and high energy sitting in a classroom all day was problematic for her.  we homeschooled our family 0 years, which allowed for personalized learning for both students that fit their learning styles.  we are an atheist family and were members of a secular homeschool group with roughly 0 families.  my kids now one is a successful adult and the other has decided to transition into public school and is looking forward to high school.  your views on homeschool are, to put it bluntly, ignorant.  the kids are usually more socially adept as they are required to get along with kids of different ages as well as adults.  kids learn from the older kids and mentor the younger ones.  because of the shortfalls of many public school systems, homeschool groups will often have a higher percentage of students with special needs.  in recent years we have seen quite an uptick of older kids with autism, for example.  so the perception many have of socially awkward/weird homeschool kids remember the student may be in homsechool  because of a special need .  also you show your ignorance again when you talk about how great your public school was.   we had a trip to europe !   jesus, how oblivious to the rest of the world can you be.  if your school went to europe, your public school was likely in an affluent area and was practically private school quality.  my school had a drug cop with a narc sniffing dog.
i have never seen any benifit to private school.  the only thing it does is creates social inequality from the start.  the kids who go to private schools are usually rich white kids that already have a socioenconomic advantage.  i was a regular upper middle class guy who went to public school.  i loved it.  my school was great.  we went on fun field trips, and even a trip to europe.  homeschooling your kid is just insurance that he/she will be socially awkward, and disadvantaged.  lots of homeschooling involves religious indoctrination, and very one sided opinions.  in public school you are exposed to many different views, opinions, and types of people.  these problems would be solved if everyone had to go to public school.  everyone would have an equal education, and equal opportunity.   #  the only thing it does is creates social inequality from the start.   #  the kids who go to private schools are usually rich white kids that already have a socioenconomic advantage.   # evidently some parents do.  that is not your call to make.  the kids who go to private schools are usually rich white kids that already have a socioenconomic advantage.  what is the problem here ? we do not ban things because they  create social inequality  just to knock rich people down to our level.  that does not accomplish anything.  if they can get a good education without the taxpayer having to pay for it i see that as a plus.  i loved it.  my school was great.  we went on fun field trips, and even a trip to europe.  by your own standards of equality, you should not have gotten any of this because most public schools ca not afford it.  that does not really seem like a good reason to ban it either.  the government should not be nationalizing a whole industry to prevent the existence of social awkwardness.  in public school you are exposed to many different views, opinions, and types of people.  maybe if you live in a multicultural school district this may be the case, but in plenty of public school districts there is no cultural variety.  we have not even got public schools equal yet, and you are suggesting banning the best schools ? in general, our country does not nationalize whole industries and ban private ownership.  you have got to make a very good case for doing that, and i do not think your reasons hold up very well.   #  however, most private schools also have robust scholarship programs which allow promising low income students to attend.   #   if everyone had to go to public school.  everyone would have an equal education .  there is huge disparity between public schools.  the top rival the finest private schools.  the bottom simply hope to keep the kids off the streets for a few hours per week.   i have never seen any benefit to private school.   benefit for whom ? for the students who attend them, they can offer caliber teaching, smaller classes, better facilities, a safer environment and a peer group with similar academic skills and aspirations.  you can question whether they are beneficial for society, but there is no question that they benefit their students.   the only thing it does is creates social inequality from the start.   for the kids who are already rich, the inequality was already there.  without the private schools, they would still be in the elite school districts with other rich white kids.  however, most private schools also have robust scholarship programs which allow promising low income students to attend.  in many states, they would not be allowed into the elite public school districts.  so, which one creates social inequality ?  homeschooling your kid is just insurance that he/she will be socially awkward, and disadvantaged .  true in some cases, but if you look at some of the truly shining stars, they have been home schooled.  if you are in the top . 0 of students, the public schools simply ca not meet your needs.  but beyond all of this, where do you decide that parents ca not choose a different option than the one you personally think is the best one for them ? as a society we grant parents discretion in deciding what is best for their kids within reason.  why would be ban activities that do benefit their children ?  #  public schools have to ensure that they are able to attract students by offering good facilities, good staff and good results.   #  what about a place like australia ? here the divide between public and private schools is much less, at roughly 0 private and 0 public.  the us is over 0 public and less than 0 private.  competition is important.  in australia at least there are many private schools of comparable prices to public schools.  public schools have to ensure that they are able to attract students by offering good facilities, good staff and good results.  if everything were public then there would be no competition to keep up good standards.   #  when the public school system was created in america in the mid 0s the idea of  equality of opportunity  was strongly connected to american identity and the public school system was created to try to ensure people have equal opportunities.   #  the person above made a very valid point about public schools not being equal.  i substitute in multiple districts and i can tell you that the district where all the rich kids live has their pick of whatever teachers they want and huge budgets because school budgets are tied to new housing development.  i do agree with you that homeschooling and private schools should not be allowed however.  when the public school system was created in america in the mid 0s the idea of  equality of opportunity  was strongly connected to american identity and the public school system was created to try to ensure people have equal opportunities.  the republican party is strongly against this notion and is trying to destroy it.   #  jesus, how oblivious to the rest of the world can you be.   #  many folks here will talk about how not all public schools are the same.  i have lived in four different states, and can attest to that.  but more importantly  not all children are the same .  public school is geared toward the average if you are above or below or outside of the norm, public school is often a difficult or unproductive place for you.  one of my children is an advanced learner.  she could read well before kindergarten mostly self taught.  guess how boring k was for her.  my other daughter is extremely creative and high energy sitting in a classroom all day was problematic for her.  we homeschooled our family 0 years, which allowed for personalized learning for both students that fit their learning styles.  we are an atheist family and were members of a secular homeschool group with roughly 0 families.  my kids now one is a successful adult and the other has decided to transition into public school and is looking forward to high school.  your views on homeschool are, to put it bluntly, ignorant.  the kids are usually more socially adept as they are required to get along with kids of different ages as well as adults.  kids learn from the older kids and mentor the younger ones.  because of the shortfalls of many public school systems, homeschool groups will often have a higher percentage of students with special needs.  in recent years we have seen quite an uptick of older kids with autism, for example.  so the perception many have of socially awkward/weird homeschool kids remember the student may be in homsechool  because of a special need .  also you show your ignorance again when you talk about how great your public school was.   we had a trip to europe !   jesus, how oblivious to the rest of the world can you be.  if your school went to europe, your public school was likely in an affluent area and was practically private school quality.  my school had a drug cop with a narc sniffing dog.
i have never seen any benifit to private school.  the only thing it does is creates social inequality from the start.  the kids who go to private schools are usually rich white kids that already have a socioenconomic advantage.  i was a regular upper middle class guy who went to public school.  i loved it.  my school was great.  we went on fun field trips, and even a trip to europe.  homeschooling your kid is just insurance that he/she will be socially awkward, and disadvantaged.  lots of homeschooling involves religious indoctrination, and very one sided opinions.  in public school you are exposed to many different views, opinions, and types of people.  these problems would be solved if everyone had to go to public school.  everyone would have an equal education, and equal opportunity.   #  homeschooling your kid is just insurance that he/she will be socially awkward, and disadvantaged.   #  that does not really seem like a good reason to ban it either.   # evidently some parents do.  that is not your call to make.  the kids who go to private schools are usually rich white kids that already have a socioenconomic advantage.  what is the problem here ? we do not ban things because they  create social inequality  just to knock rich people down to our level.  that does not accomplish anything.  if they can get a good education without the taxpayer having to pay for it i see that as a plus.  i loved it.  my school was great.  we went on fun field trips, and even a trip to europe.  by your own standards of equality, you should not have gotten any of this because most public schools ca not afford it.  that does not really seem like a good reason to ban it either.  the government should not be nationalizing a whole industry to prevent the existence of social awkwardness.  in public school you are exposed to many different views, opinions, and types of people.  maybe if you live in a multicultural school district this may be the case, but in plenty of public school districts there is no cultural variety.  we have not even got public schools equal yet, and you are suggesting banning the best schools ? in general, our country does not nationalize whole industries and ban private ownership.  you have got to make a very good case for doing that, and i do not think your reasons hold up very well.   #   homeschooling your kid is just insurance that he/she will be socially awkward, and disadvantaged .   #   if everyone had to go to public school.  everyone would have an equal education .  there is huge disparity between public schools.  the top rival the finest private schools.  the bottom simply hope to keep the kids off the streets for a few hours per week.   i have never seen any benefit to private school.   benefit for whom ? for the students who attend them, they can offer caliber teaching, smaller classes, better facilities, a safer environment and a peer group with similar academic skills and aspirations.  you can question whether they are beneficial for society, but there is no question that they benefit their students.   the only thing it does is creates social inequality from the start.   for the kids who are already rich, the inequality was already there.  without the private schools, they would still be in the elite school districts with other rich white kids.  however, most private schools also have robust scholarship programs which allow promising low income students to attend.  in many states, they would not be allowed into the elite public school districts.  so, which one creates social inequality ?  homeschooling your kid is just insurance that he/she will be socially awkward, and disadvantaged .  true in some cases, but if you look at some of the truly shining stars, they have been home schooled.  if you are in the top . 0 of students, the public schools simply ca not meet your needs.  but beyond all of this, where do you decide that parents ca not choose a different option than the one you personally think is the best one for them ? as a society we grant parents discretion in deciding what is best for their kids within reason.  why would be ban activities that do benefit their children ?  #  in australia at least there are many private schools of comparable prices to public schools.   #  what about a place like australia ? here the divide between public and private schools is much less, at roughly 0 private and 0 public.  the us is over 0 public and less than 0 private.  competition is important.  in australia at least there are many private schools of comparable prices to public schools.  public schools have to ensure that they are able to attract students by offering good facilities, good staff and good results.  if everything were public then there would be no competition to keep up good standards.   #  the republican party is strongly against this notion and is trying to destroy it.   #  the person above made a very valid point about public schools not being equal.  i substitute in multiple districts and i can tell you that the district where all the rich kids live has their pick of whatever teachers they want and huge budgets because school budgets are tied to new housing development.  i do agree with you that homeschooling and private schools should not be allowed however.  when the public school system was created in america in the mid 0s the idea of  equality of opportunity  was strongly connected to american identity and the public school system was created to try to ensure people have equal opportunities.  the republican party is strongly against this notion and is trying to destroy it.   #  your views on homeschool are, to put it bluntly, ignorant.   #  many folks here will talk about how not all public schools are the same.  i have lived in four different states, and can attest to that.  but more importantly  not all children are the same .  public school is geared toward the average if you are above or below or outside of the norm, public school is often a difficult or unproductive place for you.  one of my children is an advanced learner.  she could read well before kindergarten mostly self taught.  guess how boring k was for her.  my other daughter is extremely creative and high energy sitting in a classroom all day was problematic for her.  we homeschooled our family 0 years, which allowed for personalized learning for both students that fit their learning styles.  we are an atheist family and were members of a secular homeschool group with roughly 0 families.  my kids now one is a successful adult and the other has decided to transition into public school and is looking forward to high school.  your views on homeschool are, to put it bluntly, ignorant.  the kids are usually more socially adept as they are required to get along with kids of different ages as well as adults.  kids learn from the older kids and mentor the younger ones.  because of the shortfalls of many public school systems, homeschool groups will often have a higher percentage of students with special needs.  in recent years we have seen quite an uptick of older kids with autism, for example.  so the perception many have of socially awkward/weird homeschool kids remember the student may be in homsechool  because of a special need .  also you show your ignorance again when you talk about how great your public school was.   we had a trip to europe !   jesus, how oblivious to the rest of the world can you be.  if your school went to europe, your public school was likely in an affluent area and was practically private school quality.  my school had a drug cop with a narc sniffing dog.
i have never seen any benifit to private school.  the only thing it does is creates social inequality from the start.  the kids who go to private schools are usually rich white kids that already have a socioenconomic advantage.  i was a regular upper middle class guy who went to public school.  i loved it.  my school was great.  we went on fun field trips, and even a trip to europe.  homeschooling your kid is just insurance that he/she will be socially awkward, and disadvantaged.  lots of homeschooling involves religious indoctrination, and very one sided opinions.  in public school you are exposed to many different views, opinions, and types of people.  these problems would be solved if everyone had to go to public school.  everyone would have an equal education, and equal opportunity.   #  lots of homeschooling involves religious indoctrination, and very one sided opinions.   #  in public school you are exposed to many different views, opinions, and types of people.   # evidently some parents do.  that is not your call to make.  the kids who go to private schools are usually rich white kids that already have a socioenconomic advantage.  what is the problem here ? we do not ban things because they  create social inequality  just to knock rich people down to our level.  that does not accomplish anything.  if they can get a good education without the taxpayer having to pay for it i see that as a plus.  i loved it.  my school was great.  we went on fun field trips, and even a trip to europe.  by your own standards of equality, you should not have gotten any of this because most public schools ca not afford it.  that does not really seem like a good reason to ban it either.  the government should not be nationalizing a whole industry to prevent the existence of social awkwardness.  in public school you are exposed to many different views, opinions, and types of people.  maybe if you live in a multicultural school district this may be the case, but in plenty of public school districts there is no cultural variety.  we have not even got public schools equal yet, and you are suggesting banning the best schools ? in general, our country does not nationalize whole industries and ban private ownership.  you have got to make a very good case for doing that, and i do not think your reasons hold up very well.   #   if everyone had to go to public school.   #   if everyone had to go to public school.  everyone would have an equal education .  there is huge disparity between public schools.  the top rival the finest private schools.  the bottom simply hope to keep the kids off the streets for a few hours per week.   i have never seen any benefit to private school.   benefit for whom ? for the students who attend them, they can offer caliber teaching, smaller classes, better facilities, a safer environment and a peer group with similar academic skills and aspirations.  you can question whether they are beneficial for society, but there is no question that they benefit their students.   the only thing it does is creates social inequality from the start.   for the kids who are already rich, the inequality was already there.  without the private schools, they would still be in the elite school districts with other rich white kids.  however, most private schools also have robust scholarship programs which allow promising low income students to attend.  in many states, they would not be allowed into the elite public school districts.  so, which one creates social inequality ?  homeschooling your kid is just insurance that he/she will be socially awkward, and disadvantaged .  true in some cases, but if you look at some of the truly shining stars, they have been home schooled.  if you are in the top . 0 of students, the public schools simply ca not meet your needs.  but beyond all of this, where do you decide that parents ca not choose a different option than the one you personally think is the best one for them ? as a society we grant parents discretion in deciding what is best for their kids within reason.  why would be ban activities that do benefit their children ?  #  public schools have to ensure that they are able to attract students by offering good facilities, good staff and good results.   #  what about a place like australia ? here the divide between public and private schools is much less, at roughly 0 private and 0 public.  the us is over 0 public and less than 0 private.  competition is important.  in australia at least there are many private schools of comparable prices to public schools.  public schools have to ensure that they are able to attract students by offering good facilities, good staff and good results.  if everything were public then there would be no competition to keep up good standards.   #  the person above made a very valid point about public schools not being equal.   #  the person above made a very valid point about public schools not being equal.  i substitute in multiple districts and i can tell you that the district where all the rich kids live has their pick of whatever teachers they want and huge budgets because school budgets are tied to new housing development.  i do agree with you that homeschooling and private schools should not be allowed however.  when the public school system was created in america in the mid 0s the idea of  equality of opportunity  was strongly connected to american identity and the public school system was created to try to ensure people have equal opportunities.  the republican party is strongly against this notion and is trying to destroy it.   #  jesus, how oblivious to the rest of the world can you be.   #  many folks here will talk about how not all public schools are the same.  i have lived in four different states, and can attest to that.  but more importantly  not all children are the same .  public school is geared toward the average if you are above or below or outside of the norm, public school is often a difficult or unproductive place for you.  one of my children is an advanced learner.  she could read well before kindergarten mostly self taught.  guess how boring k was for her.  my other daughter is extremely creative and high energy sitting in a classroom all day was problematic for her.  we homeschooled our family 0 years, which allowed for personalized learning for both students that fit their learning styles.  we are an atheist family and were members of a secular homeschool group with roughly 0 families.  my kids now one is a successful adult and the other has decided to transition into public school and is looking forward to high school.  your views on homeschool are, to put it bluntly, ignorant.  the kids are usually more socially adept as they are required to get along with kids of different ages as well as adults.  kids learn from the older kids and mentor the younger ones.  because of the shortfalls of many public school systems, homeschool groups will often have a higher percentage of students with special needs.  in recent years we have seen quite an uptick of older kids with autism, for example.  so the perception many have of socially awkward/weird homeschool kids remember the student may be in homsechool  because of a special need .  also you show your ignorance again when you talk about how great your public school was.   we had a trip to europe !   jesus, how oblivious to the rest of the world can you be.  if your school went to europe, your public school was likely in an affluent area and was practically private school quality.  my school had a drug cop with a narc sniffing dog.
i have never seen any benifit to private school.  the only thing it does is creates social inequality from the start.  the kids who go to private schools are usually rich white kids that already have a socioenconomic advantage.  i was a regular upper middle class guy who went to public school.  i loved it.  my school was great.  we went on fun field trips, and even a trip to europe.  homeschooling your kid is just insurance that he/she will be socially awkward, and disadvantaged.  lots of homeschooling involves religious indoctrination, and very one sided opinions.  in public school you are exposed to many different views, opinions, and types of people.  these problems would be solved if everyone had to go to public school.  everyone would have an equal education, and equal opportunity.   #  everyone would have an equal education, and equal opportunity.   #  we have not even got public schools equal yet, and you are suggesting banning the best schools ?  # evidently some parents do.  that is not your call to make.  the kids who go to private schools are usually rich white kids that already have a socioenconomic advantage.  what is the problem here ? we do not ban things because they  create social inequality  just to knock rich people down to our level.  that does not accomplish anything.  if they can get a good education without the taxpayer having to pay for it i see that as a plus.  i loved it.  my school was great.  we went on fun field trips, and even a trip to europe.  by your own standards of equality, you should not have gotten any of this because most public schools ca not afford it.  that does not really seem like a good reason to ban it either.  the government should not be nationalizing a whole industry to prevent the existence of social awkwardness.  in public school you are exposed to many different views, opinions, and types of people.  maybe if you live in a multicultural school district this may be the case, but in plenty of public school districts there is no cultural variety.  we have not even got public schools equal yet, and you are suggesting banning the best schools ? in general, our country does not nationalize whole industries and ban private ownership.  you have got to make a very good case for doing that, and i do not think your reasons hold up very well.   #  but beyond all of this, where do you decide that parents ca not choose a different option than the one you personally think is the best one for them ?  #   if everyone had to go to public school.  everyone would have an equal education .  there is huge disparity between public schools.  the top rival the finest private schools.  the bottom simply hope to keep the kids off the streets for a few hours per week.   i have never seen any benefit to private school.   benefit for whom ? for the students who attend them, they can offer caliber teaching, smaller classes, better facilities, a safer environment and a peer group with similar academic skills and aspirations.  you can question whether they are beneficial for society, but there is no question that they benefit their students.   the only thing it does is creates social inequality from the start.   for the kids who are already rich, the inequality was already there.  without the private schools, they would still be in the elite school districts with other rich white kids.  however, most private schools also have robust scholarship programs which allow promising low income students to attend.  in many states, they would not be allowed into the elite public school districts.  so, which one creates social inequality ?  homeschooling your kid is just insurance that he/she will be socially awkward, and disadvantaged .  true in some cases, but if you look at some of the truly shining stars, they have been home schooled.  if you are in the top . 0 of students, the public schools simply ca not meet your needs.  but beyond all of this, where do you decide that parents ca not choose a different option than the one you personally think is the best one for them ? as a society we grant parents discretion in deciding what is best for their kids within reason.  why would be ban activities that do benefit their children ?  #  in australia at least there are many private schools of comparable prices to public schools.   #  what about a place like australia ? here the divide between public and private schools is much less, at roughly 0 private and 0 public.  the us is over 0 public and less than 0 private.  competition is important.  in australia at least there are many private schools of comparable prices to public schools.  public schools have to ensure that they are able to attract students by offering good facilities, good staff and good results.  if everything were public then there would be no competition to keep up good standards.   #  i substitute in multiple districts and i can tell you that the district where all the rich kids live has their pick of whatever teachers they want and huge budgets because school budgets are tied to new housing development.   #  the person above made a very valid point about public schools not being equal.  i substitute in multiple districts and i can tell you that the district where all the rich kids live has their pick of whatever teachers they want and huge budgets because school budgets are tied to new housing development.  i do agree with you that homeschooling and private schools should not be allowed however.  when the public school system was created in america in the mid 0s the idea of  equality of opportunity  was strongly connected to american identity and the public school system was created to try to ensure people have equal opportunities.  the republican party is strongly against this notion and is trying to destroy it.   #  public school is geared toward the average if you are above or below or outside of the norm, public school is often a difficult or unproductive place for you.   #  many folks here will talk about how not all public schools are the same.  i have lived in four different states, and can attest to that.  but more importantly  not all children are the same .  public school is geared toward the average if you are above or below or outside of the norm, public school is often a difficult or unproductive place for you.  one of my children is an advanced learner.  she could read well before kindergarten mostly self taught.  guess how boring k was for her.  my other daughter is extremely creative and high energy sitting in a classroom all day was problematic for her.  we homeschooled our family 0 years, which allowed for personalized learning for both students that fit their learning styles.  we are an atheist family and were members of a secular homeschool group with roughly 0 families.  my kids now one is a successful adult and the other has decided to transition into public school and is looking forward to high school.  your views on homeschool are, to put it bluntly, ignorant.  the kids are usually more socially adept as they are required to get along with kids of different ages as well as adults.  kids learn from the older kids and mentor the younger ones.  because of the shortfalls of many public school systems, homeschool groups will often have a higher percentage of students with special needs.  in recent years we have seen quite an uptick of older kids with autism, for example.  so the perception many have of socially awkward/weird homeschool kids remember the student may be in homsechool  because of a special need .  also you show your ignorance again when you talk about how great your public school was.   we had a trip to europe !   jesus, how oblivious to the rest of the world can you be.  if your school went to europe, your public school was likely in an affluent area and was practically private school quality.  my school had a drug cop with a narc sniffing dog.
donald trump is a decent businessman who inherited his capital.  he is a punchline.  a rich punchline, but a punchline all the same.  his views on immigration would not only alienate the countries south and north of the border, essentially saying they ca not be trusted not to  send  their criminals here, but it would make us look paranoid to the rest of the world.  people can come to the u. s.  as tourists from several countries, not just mexico, completely legally.  they then can slip into the sea of people and stay, illegally.  the problem with illegal immigration is much more complex than he seems to realize.  the man has no foreign policy experience.  boardroom deals with businessmen and bureaucrats from another country does not equate to nation to nation diplomacy.  his national defense ideas that i have heard seem to amount to,  more guns and let is tell other countries to screw off.   the democrats  stance that the rich want to influence policy to get richer does not exclude donald trump.  who is to say he would not endorse policies that would make it easier for both him and his kids to double their fortune ?  #  his views on immigration would not only alienate the countries south and north of the border, essentially saying they ca not be trusted not to  send  their criminals here, but it would make us look paranoid to the rest of the world.   #  this implies that we are the only country that cares about border security, which is clearly not true.   # this implies that we are the only country that cares about border security, which is clearly not true.  australia, a fellow western democracy, has a stronger sense of border control for keeping out people and they are pretty much a giant island.  australia was the only country to forbid travel between liberia and itself during the ebola crisis, which is something we should have done, but we were too afraid of being called racists for it.  the eu is also not far behind when it comes to border control thanks to multiple instances of islamic terrorism.  considering our friends are taking the exact same measures we are for the sake of national security and economic protections, they would not look down on us for that.  as tourists from several countries, not just mexico, completely legally.  they then can slip into the sea of people and stay, illegally.  the problem with illegal immigration is much more complex than he seems to realize.  someone coming in as a tourist does not make them a citizen, it makes them a visitor on a passport.  this is an apples to oranges comparison, and not at the heart of the immigration issue.  boardroom deals with businessmen and bureaucrats from another country does not equate to nation to nation diplomacy.  you can say this about nearly any president save for the few that were generals.  the amount of direct experience a president will have with foreign affairs is pretty limited since most people have not traveled the world, so you have to look at their experience with negotiating at home.  the advantage trump has here is that his business is international, and he has had to negotiate with people at an economic level to get things done.  this ca not be overlooked.  nothing wrong with that, but i would equate it more to the teddy roosevelt adage of speaking softly and carrying a big stick.  trumps position is to project strength and build a force big enough to where people wo not try anything against us.  trump also is not a complete hawk, having spoken against the iraq war.  the problem with isis and with iran wo not be solved through treaties or diplomatic means, though.  the regimes involved only understand force as a way of negotiation, so we have to be able to project the stance of strength, not diplomacy.  who is to say he would not endorse policies that would make it easier for both him and his kids to double their fortune ?   the only reason the rich today are seen as greedy is exactly because of democrat policy.  when you raise taxes and declare the rich to be a cancer, then you are not going to get their cooperation and they will simply hoard their wealth in places outside of the us where it ca not be taxed.  go back to carnegie, and you will find that the super rich were much more likely to invest capital in the us, give to charity, and even voluntarily give away their wealth after death.  save for a few anomalies like gates and buffett, these people do not exist today.   #  remember how people on the far right thought obama would being communism to america ?  #  trump has zero interest in being president and he wo not, but if he did win, he would be an average president.  remember how people on the far right thought obama would being communism to america ? remember how people on the liberal side thought he would have ended all wars by 0 ? what really happened is what always happens.  they get to power and realize how little they really can do because of the way the power steucture in america is set up.  universal health care became obamacare, which is a very little improvemwnt and still leaves the money machine which is the health industry intact.  obama and clinton were also very active militarily and hatdly pacifists.  bush did not introduce serious attempts to ban abortions.  status quo prevailed, and the wars and trade agreements that are negociated far from the white house took place.  that would be the trump presidency.  some minor immigration bill orders of magnitude softer than what he is preaching now and a much more sober and serious person.   #  a radical president aligned with the congress majority can easily invoke enough change to rattle the country in a negative way.   #  candidates are constantly promising things that a president ca not realistically deliver on.  trump is a real culprit here, just read some of his fact checks.  but yeah, checks and balances tend to do their job and force compromise.  obama had a very right wing congress, which many will say stunted his presidency, but is ultimately a good thing.  a radical president aligned with the congress majority can easily invoke enough change to rattle the country in a negative way.  will trump do this ? i do not think so.  buuuuuut, i expect that he would hire the people who pump the most raw currency into our economy, for better or worse.   #  he also has the authority to open or close government agencies like the fbi, cia, dea, etc.   # they get to power and realize how little they really can do because of the way the power steucture in america is set up.  that is not really true.  it is just that the changes the population generally want are unreasonable and instantaneous, if not messianic.  us president barack obama is done a lot in smoothing out how said government works, improving the va offices and de militarizing police agencies.  he also has the authority to open or close government agencies like the fbi, cia, dea, etc.  , although funding is another matter one that us president ronald reagan dodged for the cia.  one thing that obama is personally doing is preventing a war with iran, a war that was to occur before 0, and has actually reshaped the future power structure of the middle east.  presidents actually can do a lot, and do, but they do not have a magic wand and how a matter is executed is really in the hands of people.  making laws and rules are not exactly an answer.  also since there are so many laws on the books the executive branch is pretty much legally able to do anything.  i do not mean that in a conspiratorial way, only that the president has the authority to enforce laws or let them slide, and the us has a  lot  of laws.  that is an enormous amount of power potential turning inward, and it seems the current us president is using his power to streamline his government.  good on him.   #  he threatened to run independently if  not treated with respect .   #  he is all but said he wants to extort the leaders of the right.  he threatened to run independently if  not treated with respect .  he is showing the gop  i can ruin you.  i  will  take most votes away from you if i want.   him dropping out would really be terrible for the us arguably worse than him winning the general election, since he will retain that power over the gop with virtually no limit.
donald trump is a decent businessman who inherited his capital.  he is a punchline.  a rich punchline, but a punchline all the same.  his views on immigration would not only alienate the countries south and north of the border, essentially saying they ca not be trusted not to  send  their criminals here, but it would make us look paranoid to the rest of the world.  people can come to the u. s.  as tourists from several countries, not just mexico, completely legally.  they then can slip into the sea of people and stay, illegally.  the problem with illegal immigration is much more complex than he seems to realize.  the man has no foreign policy experience.  boardroom deals with businessmen and bureaucrats from another country does not equate to nation to nation diplomacy.  his national defense ideas that i have heard seem to amount to,  more guns and let is tell other countries to screw off.   the democrats  stance that the rich want to influence policy to get richer does not exclude donald trump.  who is to say he would not endorse policies that would make it easier for both him and his kids to double their fortune ?  #  people can come to the u. s.   #  as tourists from several countries, not just mexico, completely legally.   # this implies that we are the only country that cares about border security, which is clearly not true.  australia, a fellow western democracy, has a stronger sense of border control for keeping out people and they are pretty much a giant island.  australia was the only country to forbid travel between liberia and itself during the ebola crisis, which is something we should have done, but we were too afraid of being called racists for it.  the eu is also not far behind when it comes to border control thanks to multiple instances of islamic terrorism.  considering our friends are taking the exact same measures we are for the sake of national security and economic protections, they would not look down on us for that.  as tourists from several countries, not just mexico, completely legally.  they then can slip into the sea of people and stay, illegally.  the problem with illegal immigration is much more complex than he seems to realize.  someone coming in as a tourist does not make them a citizen, it makes them a visitor on a passport.  this is an apples to oranges comparison, and not at the heart of the immigration issue.  boardroom deals with businessmen and bureaucrats from another country does not equate to nation to nation diplomacy.  you can say this about nearly any president save for the few that were generals.  the amount of direct experience a president will have with foreign affairs is pretty limited since most people have not traveled the world, so you have to look at their experience with negotiating at home.  the advantage trump has here is that his business is international, and he has had to negotiate with people at an economic level to get things done.  this ca not be overlooked.  nothing wrong with that, but i would equate it more to the teddy roosevelt adage of speaking softly and carrying a big stick.  trumps position is to project strength and build a force big enough to where people wo not try anything against us.  trump also is not a complete hawk, having spoken against the iraq war.  the problem with isis and with iran wo not be solved through treaties or diplomatic means, though.  the regimes involved only understand force as a way of negotiation, so we have to be able to project the stance of strength, not diplomacy.  who is to say he would not endorse policies that would make it easier for both him and his kids to double their fortune ?   the only reason the rich today are seen as greedy is exactly because of democrat policy.  when you raise taxes and declare the rich to be a cancer, then you are not going to get their cooperation and they will simply hoard their wealth in places outside of the us where it ca not be taxed.  go back to carnegie, and you will find that the super rich were much more likely to invest capital in the us, give to charity, and even voluntarily give away their wealth after death.  save for a few anomalies like gates and buffett, these people do not exist today.   #  remember how people on the liberal side thought he would have ended all wars by 0 ?  #  trump has zero interest in being president and he wo not, but if he did win, he would be an average president.  remember how people on the far right thought obama would being communism to america ? remember how people on the liberal side thought he would have ended all wars by 0 ? what really happened is what always happens.  they get to power and realize how little they really can do because of the way the power steucture in america is set up.  universal health care became obamacare, which is a very little improvemwnt and still leaves the money machine which is the health industry intact.  obama and clinton were also very active militarily and hatdly pacifists.  bush did not introduce serious attempts to ban abortions.  status quo prevailed, and the wars and trade agreements that are negociated far from the white house took place.  that would be the trump presidency.  some minor immigration bill orders of magnitude softer than what he is preaching now and a much more sober and serious person.   #  i do not think so.  buuuuuut, i expect that he would hire the people who pump the most raw currency into our economy, for better or worse.   #  candidates are constantly promising things that a president ca not realistically deliver on.  trump is a real culprit here, just read some of his fact checks.  but yeah, checks and balances tend to do their job and force compromise.  obama had a very right wing congress, which many will say stunted his presidency, but is ultimately a good thing.  a radical president aligned with the congress majority can easily invoke enough change to rattle the country in a negative way.  will trump do this ? i do not think so.  buuuuuut, i expect that he would hire the people who pump the most raw currency into our economy, for better or worse.   #  i do not mean that in a conspiratorial way, only that the president has the authority to enforce laws or let them slide, and the us has a  lot  of laws.   # they get to power and realize how little they really can do because of the way the power steucture in america is set up.  that is not really true.  it is just that the changes the population generally want are unreasonable and instantaneous, if not messianic.  us president barack obama is done a lot in smoothing out how said government works, improving the va offices and de militarizing police agencies.  he also has the authority to open or close government agencies like the fbi, cia, dea, etc.  , although funding is another matter one that us president ronald reagan dodged for the cia.  one thing that obama is personally doing is preventing a war with iran, a war that was to occur before 0, and has actually reshaped the future power structure of the middle east.  presidents actually can do a lot, and do, but they do not have a magic wand and how a matter is executed is really in the hands of people.  making laws and rules are not exactly an answer.  also since there are so many laws on the books the executive branch is pretty much legally able to do anything.  i do not mean that in a conspiratorial way, only that the president has the authority to enforce laws or let them slide, and the us has a  lot  of laws.  that is an enormous amount of power potential turning inward, and it seems the current us president is using his power to streamline his government.  good on him.   #  he is all but said he wants to extort the leaders of the right.   #  he is all but said he wants to extort the leaders of the right.  he threatened to run independently if  not treated with respect .  he is showing the gop  i can ruin you.  i  will  take most votes away from you if i want.   him dropping out would really be terrible for the us arguably worse than him winning the general election, since he will retain that power over the gop with virtually no limit.
donald trump is a decent businessman who inherited his capital.  he is a punchline.  a rich punchline, but a punchline all the same.  his views on immigration would not only alienate the countries south and north of the border, essentially saying they ca not be trusted not to  send  their criminals here, but it would make us look paranoid to the rest of the world.  people can come to the u. s.  as tourists from several countries, not just mexico, completely legally.  they then can slip into the sea of people and stay, illegally.  the problem with illegal immigration is much more complex than he seems to realize.  the man has no foreign policy experience.  boardroom deals with businessmen and bureaucrats from another country does not equate to nation to nation diplomacy.  his national defense ideas that i have heard seem to amount to,  more guns and let is tell other countries to screw off.   the democrats  stance that the rich want to influence policy to get richer does not exclude donald trump.  who is to say he would not endorse policies that would make it easier for both him and his kids to double their fortune ?  #  the man has no foreign policy experience.   #  boardroom deals with businessmen and bureaucrats from another country does not equate to nation to nation diplomacy.   # this implies that we are the only country that cares about border security, which is clearly not true.  australia, a fellow western democracy, has a stronger sense of border control for keeping out people and they are pretty much a giant island.  australia was the only country to forbid travel between liberia and itself during the ebola crisis, which is something we should have done, but we were too afraid of being called racists for it.  the eu is also not far behind when it comes to border control thanks to multiple instances of islamic terrorism.  considering our friends are taking the exact same measures we are for the sake of national security and economic protections, they would not look down on us for that.  as tourists from several countries, not just mexico, completely legally.  they then can slip into the sea of people and stay, illegally.  the problem with illegal immigration is much more complex than he seems to realize.  someone coming in as a tourist does not make them a citizen, it makes them a visitor on a passport.  this is an apples to oranges comparison, and not at the heart of the immigration issue.  boardroom deals with businessmen and bureaucrats from another country does not equate to nation to nation diplomacy.  you can say this about nearly any president save for the few that were generals.  the amount of direct experience a president will have with foreign affairs is pretty limited since most people have not traveled the world, so you have to look at their experience with negotiating at home.  the advantage trump has here is that his business is international, and he has had to negotiate with people at an economic level to get things done.  this ca not be overlooked.  nothing wrong with that, but i would equate it more to the teddy roosevelt adage of speaking softly and carrying a big stick.  trumps position is to project strength and build a force big enough to where people wo not try anything against us.  trump also is not a complete hawk, having spoken against the iraq war.  the problem with isis and with iran wo not be solved through treaties or diplomatic means, though.  the regimes involved only understand force as a way of negotiation, so we have to be able to project the stance of strength, not diplomacy.  who is to say he would not endorse policies that would make it easier for both him and his kids to double their fortune ?   the only reason the rich today are seen as greedy is exactly because of democrat policy.  when you raise taxes and declare the rich to be a cancer, then you are not going to get their cooperation and they will simply hoard their wealth in places outside of the us where it ca not be taxed.  go back to carnegie, and you will find that the super rich were much more likely to invest capital in the us, give to charity, and even voluntarily give away their wealth after death.  save for a few anomalies like gates and buffett, these people do not exist today.   #  trump has zero interest in being president and he wo not, but if he did win, he would be an average president.   #  trump has zero interest in being president and he wo not, but if he did win, he would be an average president.  remember how people on the far right thought obama would being communism to america ? remember how people on the liberal side thought he would have ended all wars by 0 ? what really happened is what always happens.  they get to power and realize how little they really can do because of the way the power steucture in america is set up.  universal health care became obamacare, which is a very little improvemwnt and still leaves the money machine which is the health industry intact.  obama and clinton were also very active militarily and hatdly pacifists.  bush did not introduce serious attempts to ban abortions.  status quo prevailed, and the wars and trade agreements that are negociated far from the white house took place.  that would be the trump presidency.  some minor immigration bill orders of magnitude softer than what he is preaching now and a much more sober and serious person.   #  obama had a very right wing congress, which many will say stunted his presidency, but is ultimately a good thing.   #  candidates are constantly promising things that a president ca not realistically deliver on.  trump is a real culprit here, just read some of his fact checks.  but yeah, checks and balances tend to do their job and force compromise.  obama had a very right wing congress, which many will say stunted his presidency, but is ultimately a good thing.  a radical president aligned with the congress majority can easily invoke enough change to rattle the country in a negative way.  will trump do this ? i do not think so.  buuuuuut, i expect that he would hire the people who pump the most raw currency into our economy, for better or worse.   #  they get to power and realize how little they really can do because of the way the power steucture in america is set up.   # they get to power and realize how little they really can do because of the way the power steucture in america is set up.  that is not really true.  it is just that the changes the population generally want are unreasonable and instantaneous, if not messianic.  us president barack obama is done a lot in smoothing out how said government works, improving the va offices and de militarizing police agencies.  he also has the authority to open or close government agencies like the fbi, cia, dea, etc.  , although funding is another matter one that us president ronald reagan dodged for the cia.  one thing that obama is personally doing is preventing a war with iran, a war that was to occur before 0, and has actually reshaped the future power structure of the middle east.  presidents actually can do a lot, and do, but they do not have a magic wand and how a matter is executed is really in the hands of people.  making laws and rules are not exactly an answer.  also since there are so many laws on the books the executive branch is pretty much legally able to do anything.  i do not mean that in a conspiratorial way, only that the president has the authority to enforce laws or let them slide, and the us has a  lot  of laws.  that is an enormous amount of power potential turning inward, and it seems the current us president is using his power to streamline his government.  good on him.   #  he threatened to run independently if  not treated with respect .   #  he is all but said he wants to extort the leaders of the right.  he threatened to run independently if  not treated with respect .  he is showing the gop  i can ruin you.  i  will  take most votes away from you if i want.   him dropping out would really be terrible for the us arguably worse than him winning the general election, since he will retain that power over the gop with virtually no limit.
donald trump is a decent businessman who inherited his capital.  he is a punchline.  a rich punchline, but a punchline all the same.  his views on immigration would not only alienate the countries south and north of the border, essentially saying they ca not be trusted not to  send  their criminals here, but it would make us look paranoid to the rest of the world.  people can come to the u. s.  as tourists from several countries, not just mexico, completely legally.  they then can slip into the sea of people and stay, illegally.  the problem with illegal immigration is much more complex than he seems to realize.  the man has no foreign policy experience.  boardroom deals with businessmen and bureaucrats from another country does not equate to nation to nation diplomacy.  his national defense ideas that i have heard seem to amount to,  more guns and let is tell other countries to screw off.   the democrats  stance that the rich want to influence policy to get richer does not exclude donald trump.  who is to say he would not endorse policies that would make it easier for both him and his kids to double their fortune ?  #  his national defense ideas that i have heard seem to amount to,  more guns and let is tell other countries to screw off.    #  nothing wrong with that, but i would equate it more to the teddy roosevelt adage of speaking softly and carrying a big stick.   # this implies that we are the only country that cares about border security, which is clearly not true.  australia, a fellow western democracy, has a stronger sense of border control for keeping out people and they are pretty much a giant island.  australia was the only country to forbid travel between liberia and itself during the ebola crisis, which is something we should have done, but we were too afraid of being called racists for it.  the eu is also not far behind when it comes to border control thanks to multiple instances of islamic terrorism.  considering our friends are taking the exact same measures we are for the sake of national security and economic protections, they would not look down on us for that.  as tourists from several countries, not just mexico, completely legally.  they then can slip into the sea of people and stay, illegally.  the problem with illegal immigration is much more complex than he seems to realize.  someone coming in as a tourist does not make them a citizen, it makes them a visitor on a passport.  this is an apples to oranges comparison, and not at the heart of the immigration issue.  boardroom deals with businessmen and bureaucrats from another country does not equate to nation to nation diplomacy.  you can say this about nearly any president save for the few that were generals.  the amount of direct experience a president will have with foreign affairs is pretty limited since most people have not traveled the world, so you have to look at their experience with negotiating at home.  the advantage trump has here is that his business is international, and he has had to negotiate with people at an economic level to get things done.  this ca not be overlooked.  nothing wrong with that, but i would equate it more to the teddy roosevelt adage of speaking softly and carrying a big stick.  trumps position is to project strength and build a force big enough to where people wo not try anything against us.  trump also is not a complete hawk, having spoken against the iraq war.  the problem with isis and with iran wo not be solved through treaties or diplomatic means, though.  the regimes involved only understand force as a way of negotiation, so we have to be able to project the stance of strength, not diplomacy.  who is to say he would not endorse policies that would make it easier for both him and his kids to double their fortune ?   the only reason the rich today are seen as greedy is exactly because of democrat policy.  when you raise taxes and declare the rich to be a cancer, then you are not going to get their cooperation and they will simply hoard their wealth in places outside of the us where it ca not be taxed.  go back to carnegie, and you will find that the super rich were much more likely to invest capital in the us, give to charity, and even voluntarily give away their wealth after death.  save for a few anomalies like gates and buffett, these people do not exist today.   #  they get to power and realize how little they really can do because of the way the power steucture in america is set up.   #  trump has zero interest in being president and he wo not, but if he did win, he would be an average president.  remember how people on the far right thought obama would being communism to america ? remember how people on the liberal side thought he would have ended all wars by 0 ? what really happened is what always happens.  they get to power and realize how little they really can do because of the way the power steucture in america is set up.  universal health care became obamacare, which is a very little improvemwnt and still leaves the money machine which is the health industry intact.  obama and clinton were also very active militarily and hatdly pacifists.  bush did not introduce serious attempts to ban abortions.  status quo prevailed, and the wars and trade agreements that are negociated far from the white house took place.  that would be the trump presidency.  some minor immigration bill orders of magnitude softer than what he is preaching now and a much more sober and serious person.   #  i do not think so.  buuuuuut, i expect that he would hire the people who pump the most raw currency into our economy, for better or worse.   #  candidates are constantly promising things that a president ca not realistically deliver on.  trump is a real culprit here, just read some of his fact checks.  but yeah, checks and balances tend to do their job and force compromise.  obama had a very right wing congress, which many will say stunted his presidency, but is ultimately a good thing.  a radical president aligned with the congress majority can easily invoke enough change to rattle the country in a negative way.  will trump do this ? i do not think so.  buuuuuut, i expect that he would hire the people who pump the most raw currency into our economy, for better or worse.   #  i do not mean that in a conspiratorial way, only that the president has the authority to enforce laws or let them slide, and the us has a  lot  of laws.   # they get to power and realize how little they really can do because of the way the power steucture in america is set up.  that is not really true.  it is just that the changes the population generally want are unreasonable and instantaneous, if not messianic.  us president barack obama is done a lot in smoothing out how said government works, improving the va offices and de militarizing police agencies.  he also has the authority to open or close government agencies like the fbi, cia, dea, etc.  , although funding is another matter one that us president ronald reagan dodged for the cia.  one thing that obama is personally doing is preventing a war with iran, a war that was to occur before 0, and has actually reshaped the future power structure of the middle east.  presidents actually can do a lot, and do, but they do not have a magic wand and how a matter is executed is really in the hands of people.  making laws and rules are not exactly an answer.  also since there are so many laws on the books the executive branch is pretty much legally able to do anything.  i do not mean that in a conspiratorial way, only that the president has the authority to enforce laws or let them slide, and the us has a  lot  of laws.  that is an enormous amount of power potential turning inward, and it seems the current us president is using his power to streamline his government.  good on him.   #  i  will  take most votes away from you if i want.    #  he is all but said he wants to extort the leaders of the right.  he threatened to run independently if  not treated with respect .  he is showing the gop  i can ruin you.  i  will  take most votes away from you if i want.   him dropping out would really be terrible for the us arguably worse than him winning the general election, since he will retain that power over the gop with virtually no limit.
donald trump is a decent businessman who inherited his capital.  he is a punchline.  a rich punchline, but a punchline all the same.  his views on immigration would not only alienate the countries south and north of the border, essentially saying they ca not be trusted not to  send  their criminals here, but it would make us look paranoid to the rest of the world.  people can come to the u. s.  as tourists from several countries, not just mexico, completely legally.  they then can slip into the sea of people and stay, illegally.  the problem with illegal immigration is much more complex than he seems to realize.  the man has no foreign policy experience.  boardroom deals with businessmen and bureaucrats from another country does not equate to nation to nation diplomacy.  his national defense ideas that i have heard seem to amount to,  more guns and let is tell other countries to screw off.   the democrats  stance that the rich want to influence policy to get richer does not exclude donald trump.  who is to say he would not endorse policies that would make it easier for both him and his kids to double their fortune ?  #  donald trump is a decent businessman who inherited his capital.   #  what does that have to do with anything ?  # what does that have to do with anything ? so what if he inherited some $ ? look what he is done to expand it.  that view ? that those here illegally need to be  evicted  and apply accordingly ? yes.  that does seem far fetched.  name the most recent 0 presidents that did before they took office.  maybe.  maybe not.  but what does equate to nation to nation diplomacy then ? that is kinda open ended.  can you link to anything he is said specifically about national defense ? who is to say he would not endorse policies that would make it easier for both him and his kids to double their fortune ? let is assume that is true.  what policies could he endorse that would make that happen ? and at worst.  so what if that happened ? it seems that you are already predisposed to not liking the guy and are scratching the bottom of the barrel to rationalize your viewpoint.   #  they get to power and realize how little they really can do because of the way the power steucture in america is set up.   #  trump has zero interest in being president and he wo not, but if he did win, he would be an average president.  remember how people on the far right thought obama would being communism to america ? remember how people on the liberal side thought he would have ended all wars by 0 ? what really happened is what always happens.  they get to power and realize how little they really can do because of the way the power steucture in america is set up.  universal health care became obamacare, which is a very little improvemwnt and still leaves the money machine which is the health industry intact.  obama and clinton were also very active militarily and hatdly pacifists.  bush did not introduce serious attempts to ban abortions.  status quo prevailed, and the wars and trade agreements that are negociated far from the white house took place.  that would be the trump presidency.  some minor immigration bill orders of magnitude softer than what he is preaching now and a much more sober and serious person.   #  i do not think so.  buuuuuut, i expect that he would hire the people who pump the most raw currency into our economy, for better or worse.   #  candidates are constantly promising things that a president ca not realistically deliver on.  trump is a real culprit here, just read some of his fact checks.  but yeah, checks and balances tend to do their job and force compromise.  obama had a very right wing congress, which many will say stunted his presidency, but is ultimately a good thing.  a radical president aligned with the congress majority can easily invoke enough change to rattle the country in a negative way.  will trump do this ? i do not think so.  buuuuuut, i expect that he would hire the people who pump the most raw currency into our economy, for better or worse.   #  one thing that obama is personally doing is preventing a war with iran, a war that was to occur before 0, and has actually reshaped the future power structure of the middle east.   # they get to power and realize how little they really can do because of the way the power steucture in america is set up.  that is not really true.  it is just that the changes the population generally want are unreasonable and instantaneous, if not messianic.  us president barack obama is done a lot in smoothing out how said government works, improving the va offices and de militarizing police agencies.  he also has the authority to open or close government agencies like the fbi, cia, dea, etc.  , although funding is another matter one that us president ronald reagan dodged for the cia.  one thing that obama is personally doing is preventing a war with iran, a war that was to occur before 0, and has actually reshaped the future power structure of the middle east.  presidents actually can do a lot, and do, but they do not have a magic wand and how a matter is executed is really in the hands of people.  making laws and rules are not exactly an answer.  also since there are so many laws on the books the executive branch is pretty much legally able to do anything.  i do not mean that in a conspiratorial way, only that the president has the authority to enforce laws or let them slide, and the us has a  lot  of laws.  that is an enormous amount of power potential turning inward, and it seems the current us president is using his power to streamline his government.  good on him.   #  he is all but said he wants to extort the leaders of the right.   #  he is all but said he wants to extort the leaders of the right.  he threatened to run independently if  not treated with respect .  he is showing the gop  i can ruin you.  i  will  take most votes away from you if i want.   him dropping out would really be terrible for the us arguably worse than him winning the general election, since he will retain that power over the gop with virtually no limit.
donald trump is a decent businessman who inherited his capital.  he is a punchline.  a rich punchline, but a punchline all the same.  his views on immigration would not only alienate the countries south and north of the border, essentially saying they ca not be trusted not to  send  their criminals here, but it would make us look paranoid to the rest of the world.  people can come to the u. s.  as tourists from several countries, not just mexico, completely legally.  they then can slip into the sea of people and stay, illegally.  the problem with illegal immigration is much more complex than he seems to realize.  the man has no foreign policy experience.  boardroom deals with businessmen and bureaucrats from another country does not equate to nation to nation diplomacy.  his national defense ideas that i have heard seem to amount to,  more guns and let is tell other countries to screw off.   the democrats  stance that the rich want to influence policy to get richer does not exclude donald trump.  who is to say he would not endorse policies that would make it easier for both him and his kids to double their fortune ?  #  the man has no foreign policy experience.   #  name the most recent 0 presidents that did before they took office.   # what does that have to do with anything ? so what if he inherited some $ ? look what he is done to expand it.  that view ? that those here illegally need to be  evicted  and apply accordingly ? yes.  that does seem far fetched.  name the most recent 0 presidents that did before they took office.  maybe.  maybe not.  but what does equate to nation to nation diplomacy then ? that is kinda open ended.  can you link to anything he is said specifically about national defense ? who is to say he would not endorse policies that would make it easier for both him and his kids to double their fortune ? let is assume that is true.  what policies could he endorse that would make that happen ? and at worst.  so what if that happened ? it seems that you are already predisposed to not liking the guy and are scratching the bottom of the barrel to rationalize your viewpoint.   #  status quo prevailed, and the wars and trade agreements that are negociated far from the white house took place.   #  trump has zero interest in being president and he wo not, but if he did win, he would be an average president.  remember how people on the far right thought obama would being communism to america ? remember how people on the liberal side thought he would have ended all wars by 0 ? what really happened is what always happens.  they get to power and realize how little they really can do because of the way the power steucture in america is set up.  universal health care became obamacare, which is a very little improvemwnt and still leaves the money machine which is the health industry intact.  obama and clinton were also very active militarily and hatdly pacifists.  bush did not introduce serious attempts to ban abortions.  status quo prevailed, and the wars and trade agreements that are negociated far from the white house took place.  that would be the trump presidency.  some minor immigration bill orders of magnitude softer than what he is preaching now and a much more sober and serious person.   #  candidates are constantly promising things that a president ca not realistically deliver on.   #  candidates are constantly promising things that a president ca not realistically deliver on.  trump is a real culprit here, just read some of his fact checks.  but yeah, checks and balances tend to do their job and force compromise.  obama had a very right wing congress, which many will say stunted his presidency, but is ultimately a good thing.  a radical president aligned with the congress majority can easily invoke enough change to rattle the country in a negative way.  will trump do this ? i do not think so.  buuuuuut, i expect that he would hire the people who pump the most raw currency into our economy, for better or worse.   #  it is just that the changes the population generally want are unreasonable and instantaneous, if not messianic.   # they get to power and realize how little they really can do because of the way the power steucture in america is set up.  that is not really true.  it is just that the changes the population generally want are unreasonable and instantaneous, if not messianic.  us president barack obama is done a lot in smoothing out how said government works, improving the va offices and de militarizing police agencies.  he also has the authority to open or close government agencies like the fbi, cia, dea, etc.  , although funding is another matter one that us president ronald reagan dodged for the cia.  one thing that obama is personally doing is preventing a war with iran, a war that was to occur before 0, and has actually reshaped the future power structure of the middle east.  presidents actually can do a lot, and do, but they do not have a magic wand and how a matter is executed is really in the hands of people.  making laws and rules are not exactly an answer.  also since there are so many laws on the books the executive branch is pretty much legally able to do anything.  i do not mean that in a conspiratorial way, only that the president has the authority to enforce laws or let them slide, and the us has a  lot  of laws.  that is an enormous amount of power potential turning inward, and it seems the current us president is using his power to streamline his government.  good on him.   #  he is showing the gop  i can ruin you.   #  he is all but said he wants to extort the leaders of the right.  he threatened to run independently if  not treated with respect .  he is showing the gop  i can ruin you.  i  will  take most votes away from you if i want.   him dropping out would really be terrible for the us arguably worse than him winning the general election, since he will retain that power over the gop with virtually no limit.
donald trump is a decent businessman who inherited his capital.  he is a punchline.  a rich punchline, but a punchline all the same.  his views on immigration would not only alienate the countries south and north of the border, essentially saying they ca not be trusted not to  send  their criminals here, but it would make us look paranoid to the rest of the world.  people can come to the u. s.  as tourists from several countries, not just mexico, completely legally.  they then can slip into the sea of people and stay, illegally.  the problem with illegal immigration is much more complex than he seems to realize.  the man has no foreign policy experience.  boardroom deals with businessmen and bureaucrats from another country does not equate to nation to nation diplomacy.  his national defense ideas that i have heard seem to amount to,  more guns and let is tell other countries to screw off.   the democrats  stance that the rich want to influence policy to get richer does not exclude donald trump.  who is to say he would not endorse policies that would make it easier for both him and his kids to double their fortune ?  #  the democrats  stance that the rich want to influence policy to get richer does not exclude donald trump.   #  who is to say he would not endorse policies that would make it easier for both him and his kids to double their fortune ?  # what does that have to do with anything ? so what if he inherited some $ ? look what he is done to expand it.  that view ? that those here illegally need to be  evicted  and apply accordingly ? yes.  that does seem far fetched.  name the most recent 0 presidents that did before they took office.  maybe.  maybe not.  but what does equate to nation to nation diplomacy then ? that is kinda open ended.  can you link to anything he is said specifically about national defense ? who is to say he would not endorse policies that would make it easier for both him and his kids to double their fortune ? let is assume that is true.  what policies could he endorse that would make that happen ? and at worst.  so what if that happened ? it seems that you are already predisposed to not liking the guy and are scratching the bottom of the barrel to rationalize your viewpoint.   #  remember how people on the far right thought obama would being communism to america ?  #  trump has zero interest in being president and he wo not, but if he did win, he would be an average president.  remember how people on the far right thought obama would being communism to america ? remember how people on the liberal side thought he would have ended all wars by 0 ? what really happened is what always happens.  they get to power and realize how little they really can do because of the way the power steucture in america is set up.  universal health care became obamacare, which is a very little improvemwnt and still leaves the money machine which is the health industry intact.  obama and clinton were also very active militarily and hatdly pacifists.  bush did not introduce serious attempts to ban abortions.  status quo prevailed, and the wars and trade agreements that are negociated far from the white house took place.  that would be the trump presidency.  some minor immigration bill orders of magnitude softer than what he is preaching now and a much more sober and serious person.   #  a radical president aligned with the congress majority can easily invoke enough change to rattle the country in a negative way.   #  candidates are constantly promising things that a president ca not realistically deliver on.  trump is a real culprit here, just read some of his fact checks.  but yeah, checks and balances tend to do their job and force compromise.  obama had a very right wing congress, which many will say stunted his presidency, but is ultimately a good thing.  a radical president aligned with the congress majority can easily invoke enough change to rattle the country in a negative way.  will trump do this ? i do not think so.  buuuuuut, i expect that he would hire the people who pump the most raw currency into our economy, for better or worse.   #  one thing that obama is personally doing is preventing a war with iran, a war that was to occur before 0, and has actually reshaped the future power structure of the middle east.   # they get to power and realize how little they really can do because of the way the power steucture in america is set up.  that is not really true.  it is just that the changes the population generally want are unreasonable and instantaneous, if not messianic.  us president barack obama is done a lot in smoothing out how said government works, improving the va offices and de militarizing police agencies.  he also has the authority to open or close government agencies like the fbi, cia, dea, etc.  , although funding is another matter one that us president ronald reagan dodged for the cia.  one thing that obama is personally doing is preventing a war with iran, a war that was to occur before 0, and has actually reshaped the future power structure of the middle east.  presidents actually can do a lot, and do, but they do not have a magic wand and how a matter is executed is really in the hands of people.  making laws and rules are not exactly an answer.  also since there are so many laws on the books the executive branch is pretty much legally able to do anything.  i do not mean that in a conspiratorial way, only that the president has the authority to enforce laws or let them slide, and the us has a  lot  of laws.  that is an enormous amount of power potential turning inward, and it seems the current us president is using his power to streamline his government.  good on him.   #  him dropping out would really be terrible for the us arguably worse than him winning the general election, since he will retain that power over the gop with virtually no limit.   #  he is all but said he wants to extort the leaders of the right.  he threatened to run independently if  not treated with respect .  he is showing the gop  i can ruin you.  i  will  take most votes away from you if i want.   him dropping out would really be terrible for the us arguably worse than him winning the general election, since he will retain that power over the gop with virtually no limit.
this article URL does a pretty good job of pulling the relevant statistics together that i find convincing.  in searching for critiques of those statistics i found this article URL that lays out some criticisms of the first article is source study, along with a rebuttal from another journalist who is written on the topic.   i believe that: 0.  you, or someone in your family, are more likely to be killed by your gun either purposefully or accidentally than you are to use the gun against an attacker successfully in self defense.  0.  therefore, if your goal is to make yourself and/or your family safer, then choosing to keep a gun in your home explicitly for that purpose is an irrational decision.  i do believe there is one exception to this.  if you have a particular reason or belief that you are likely to be attacked, then, since the odds of being attacked have increased dramatically, then it may be rational to have a gun in the house for self defense.  for example, if you have a stalker.  if you have received threats on your life.  if you have any reasonable belief that someone will try to harm you specifically.  if government or police forces have broken down.  basically, if the odds change so that for you the risk of you or your family being attacked is greater than the risk of having a gun in the house, then it would be rational to have a gun.  but we do know, statistically, on average, that is not the case.  so for the average person, the risks are such that the rational decision for maximizing safety is to not keep a gun.  i further believe that if you get other uses out of the gun other than just self defense, then the other added benefits of having a gun would make it rational to keep one in the house.  for example, if somebody was a hunter and or target shooter and they get a lot of joy out of their hobby, that could be worth the risk of gun ownership.  or even if someone cited tradition, or the need of an armed populace as a check on the government, that too could be a perceived benefit to them that makes the safety risk worthwhile.  i am strictly speaking about what is the best decision for maximizing personal and family safety.  change my view by showing me that the risk of harm to you or your family is lower by having a fire arm in the house.   #  you, or someone in your family, are more likely to be killed by your gun either purposefully or accidentally than you are to use the gun against an attacker successfully in self defense.   #  this is a poor argument because the survey makes no attempt to differentiate between knowledgeable, responsible gun owners and people who do not pay attention to safety protocols or know how to properly use their gun.   # this is a poor argument because the survey makes no attempt to differentiate between knowledgeable, responsible gun owners and people who do not pay attention to safety protocols or know how to properly use their gun.  when accidental shootings or unnecessary violence happens it is because of ignorance and poor decision making, not because of the gun.  the solution is education and ensuring that gun owners  know proper safety etiquette  before allowing them to purchase a firearm, not discouraging their ownership entirely.  as a parallel, driving is statistically much more dangerous than biking everywhere URL is car ownership  irrational  for this reason ? no, because it is not the cars that are dangerous, its the people who drive them badly.  like with gun ownership, any responsible, decently educated driver can be confident that they wo not instigate any sort of accident.  it is entirely rational to own either guns or cars if you take the precautions to ensure they are not misused.   #  statistics are great for getting overall trends, but suck at predicting individual outcomes.   #  the chance of a random american being killed URL by a drunk driver is about one in 0k in any give year.  but the chance of  me  being killed by a drunk driver is vastly smaller.  i am almost never driving after 0pm, do not drive much on rural roads, and most of my driving is on low speed surface streets.  statistics are great for getting overall trends, but suck at predicting individual outcomes.  if i lived alone i. e. , no spouse or family , were well trained in handling firearms safely, with no history of depression, the odds would be dramatically different than the ones you list.  in that case, it would be perfectly rational for me to have a gun, since i am not likely to use it to commit suicide, my non existent kid is not going to find it and accidentally kill his friend, and i am not going to wake up without knowing my non existent wife slipped out to satisfy a ben and jerry is craving and shoot her because i think she is a burglar.  there just are not a whole lot of circumstances that make it likely that my gun would be used in error.  you point may hold that it is irrational  for the average person  to own a gun.  but for many real people it is completely rational.   #  load a magazine and keep it next to the weapon.   #  you get something like this URL which opens very quickly by touch alone.  that is just the easiest thing to do and adds maybe a few seconds between not having a gun and having it.  additionally, just because you keep a gun unloaded does not mean that when you need it you should have to  hunt around for bullets .  load a magazine and keep it next to the weapon.  done.  so that is a few seconds to open the safe and an additional few seconds to pop the magazine in the gun.  between these two steps the odds of something accidentally happening plummets.   #  your original argument was that the odds of dying from it outweight being saved by it.   #  i think what is important is that there are ways to reduce the risk of purposeful or accidental death by gun while still having a gun.  your original argument was that the odds of dying from it outweight being saved by it.  having the gun will always increase the risk of dying from it, because it exists.  there are ways to reduce that risk in a way so that the benefits are then greater, and one example would be storage.  from a self defense viewpoint, though, i think it is not a good idea.  bill burr has a relevant video.  URL another funny/good one.  URL i do not think it is a good idea if you do not live alone as well.   #  but you do need to demonstrate the capacity to inflict serious harm.   #  but you do need to demonstrate the capacity to inflict serious harm.  sure, you could defend yourself with a knife.  heck, there is a guy that killed a bear with a knife.  but i do not think my wife, or my mother, are going to be super scary with a kitchen knife.  if they are wielding a gun ? the only person attacking them then would be suicidally desperate or high as a kite.  in both cases, i want them to have the power to kill.
this article URL does a pretty good job of pulling the relevant statistics together that i find convincing.  in searching for critiques of those statistics i found this article URL that lays out some criticisms of the first article is source study, along with a rebuttal from another journalist who is written on the topic.   i believe that: 0.  you, or someone in your family, are more likely to be killed by your gun either purposefully or accidentally than you are to use the gun against an attacker successfully in self defense.  0.  therefore, if your goal is to make yourself and/or your family safer, then choosing to keep a gun in your home explicitly for that purpose is an irrational decision.  i do believe there is one exception to this.  if you have a particular reason or belief that you are likely to be attacked, then, since the odds of being attacked have increased dramatically, then it may be rational to have a gun in the house for self defense.  for example, if you have a stalker.  if you have received threats on your life.  if you have any reasonable belief that someone will try to harm you specifically.  if government or police forces have broken down.  basically, if the odds change so that for you the risk of you or your family being attacked is greater than the risk of having a gun in the house, then it would be rational to have a gun.  but we do know, statistically, on average, that is not the case.  so for the average person, the risks are such that the rational decision for maximizing safety is to not keep a gun.  i further believe that if you get other uses out of the gun other than just self defense, then the other added benefits of having a gun would make it rational to keep one in the house.  for example, if somebody was a hunter and or target shooter and they get a lot of joy out of their hobby, that could be worth the risk of gun ownership.  or even if someone cited tradition, or the need of an armed populace as a check on the government, that too could be a perceived benefit to them that makes the safety risk worthwhile.  i am strictly speaking about what is the best decision for maximizing personal and family safety.  change my view by showing me that the risk of harm to you or your family is lower by having a fire arm in the house.   #  if government or police forces have broken down.   #  i am pretty sure that you cannot go out and get a gun after the fact.   # i am pretty sure that you cannot go out and get a gun after the fact.  apocalypse survivalist types do not plan on getting all their canned food and water  after  ww iii starts.  i am not much on guns, but, as it is already being discussed i could just briefly mention that people are idiots and statics will reflect this.  loads of folks have guns stored in safe ways, out of reach of children, and handled with the diligence and care that dangerous weapons deserve.  speaking from personal observations, being from baltimore and living in oakland, i can say in all honesty that being able to choose not to own a gun, often, is suggestive of a kind of privilege that many people are not lucky enough to have.  the privilege of feeling safe and secure in your home, in your bed, with a woman on the street.  many intelligent people own guns simply because they have no choice but to live in dangerous neighborhoods.  dealing with gun toting criminals frequently, and living in close proximity to them makes astute people realize they should either move to the middle of kansas or find a means to defend themselves in worst case scenarios.   #  you point may hold that it is irrational  for the average person  to own a gun.   #  the chance of a random american being killed URL by a drunk driver is about one in 0k in any give year.  but the chance of  me  being killed by a drunk driver is vastly smaller.  i am almost never driving after 0pm, do not drive much on rural roads, and most of my driving is on low speed surface streets.  statistics are great for getting overall trends, but suck at predicting individual outcomes.  if i lived alone i. e. , no spouse or family , were well trained in handling firearms safely, with no history of depression, the odds would be dramatically different than the ones you list.  in that case, it would be perfectly rational for me to have a gun, since i am not likely to use it to commit suicide, my non existent kid is not going to find it and accidentally kill his friend, and i am not going to wake up without knowing my non existent wife slipped out to satisfy a ben and jerry is craving and shoot her because i think she is a burglar.  there just are not a whole lot of circumstances that make it likely that my gun would be used in error.  you point may hold that it is irrational  for the average person  to own a gun.  but for many real people it is completely rational.   #  between these two steps the odds of something accidentally happening plummets.   #  you get something like this URL which opens very quickly by touch alone.  that is just the easiest thing to do and adds maybe a few seconds between not having a gun and having it.  additionally, just because you keep a gun unloaded does not mean that when you need it you should have to  hunt around for bullets .  load a magazine and keep it next to the weapon.  done.  so that is a few seconds to open the safe and an additional few seconds to pop the magazine in the gun.  between these two steps the odds of something accidentally happening plummets.   #  having the gun will always increase the risk of dying from it, because it exists.   #  i think what is important is that there are ways to reduce the risk of purposeful or accidental death by gun while still having a gun.  your original argument was that the odds of dying from it outweight being saved by it.  having the gun will always increase the risk of dying from it, because it exists.  there are ways to reduce that risk in a way so that the benefits are then greater, and one example would be storage.  from a self defense viewpoint, though, i think it is not a good idea.  bill burr has a relevant video.  URL another funny/good one.  URL i do not think it is a good idea if you do not live alone as well.   #  the only person attacking them then would be suicidally desperate or high as a kite.   #  but you do need to demonstrate the capacity to inflict serious harm.  sure, you could defend yourself with a knife.  heck, there is a guy that killed a bear with a knife.  but i do not think my wife, or my mother, are going to be super scary with a kitchen knife.  if they are wielding a gun ? the only person attacking them then would be suicidally desperate or high as a kite.  in both cases, i want them to have the power to kill.
this article URL does a pretty good job of pulling the relevant statistics together that i find convincing.  in searching for critiques of those statistics i found this article URL that lays out some criticisms of the first article is source study, along with a rebuttal from another journalist who is written on the topic.   i believe that: 0.  you, or someone in your family, are more likely to be killed by your gun either purposefully or accidentally than you are to use the gun against an attacker successfully in self defense.  0.  therefore, if your goal is to make yourself and/or your family safer, then choosing to keep a gun in your home explicitly for that purpose is an irrational decision.  i do believe there is one exception to this.  if you have a particular reason or belief that you are likely to be attacked, then, since the odds of being attacked have increased dramatically, then it may be rational to have a gun in the house for self defense.  for example, if you have a stalker.  if you have received threats on your life.  if you have any reasonable belief that someone will try to harm you specifically.  if government or police forces have broken down.  basically, if the odds change so that for you the risk of you or your family being attacked is greater than the risk of having a gun in the house, then it would be rational to have a gun.  but we do know, statistically, on average, that is not the case.  so for the average person, the risks are such that the rational decision for maximizing safety is to not keep a gun.  i further believe that if you get other uses out of the gun other than just self defense, then the other added benefits of having a gun would make it rational to keep one in the house.  for example, if somebody was a hunter and or target shooter and they get a lot of joy out of their hobby, that could be worth the risk of gun ownership.  or even if someone cited tradition, or the need of an armed populace as a check on the government, that too could be a perceived benefit to them that makes the safety risk worthwhile.  i am strictly speaking about what is the best decision for maximizing personal and family safety.  change my view by showing me that the risk of harm to you or your family is lower by having a fire arm in the house.   #  you, or someone in your family, are more likely to be killed by your gun either purposefully or accidentally than you are to use the gun against an attacker successfully in self defense.   #  this is 0 false and based on a purposefully exclusionary study that excludes most forms of defensive gun use.   # this is 0 false and based on a purposefully exclusionary study that excludes most forms of defensive gun use.  URL URL if you look through those stats real quick you will see that you are more likely to defend yourself with a gun than you are to die from a gun by every estimate done that includes all forms of self defense with a gun.  some of the stats put gun self defense higher than gun assault.  the worst part about this is you have not even posted a source to support your claim.  which makes me question your actual understanding of the stat you are referencing.   #  i am almost never driving after 0pm, do not drive much on rural roads, and most of my driving is on low speed surface streets.   #  the chance of a random american being killed URL by a drunk driver is about one in 0k in any give year.  but the chance of  me  being killed by a drunk driver is vastly smaller.  i am almost never driving after 0pm, do not drive much on rural roads, and most of my driving is on low speed surface streets.  statistics are great for getting overall trends, but suck at predicting individual outcomes.  if i lived alone i. e. , no spouse or family , were well trained in handling firearms safely, with no history of depression, the odds would be dramatically different than the ones you list.  in that case, it would be perfectly rational for me to have a gun, since i am not likely to use it to commit suicide, my non existent kid is not going to find it and accidentally kill his friend, and i am not going to wake up without knowing my non existent wife slipped out to satisfy a ben and jerry is craving and shoot her because i think she is a burglar.  there just are not a whole lot of circumstances that make it likely that my gun would be used in error.  you point may hold that it is irrational  for the average person  to own a gun.  but for many real people it is completely rational.   #  load a magazine and keep it next to the weapon.   #  you get something like this URL which opens very quickly by touch alone.  that is just the easiest thing to do and adds maybe a few seconds between not having a gun and having it.  additionally, just because you keep a gun unloaded does not mean that when you need it you should have to  hunt around for bullets .  load a magazine and keep it next to the weapon.  done.  so that is a few seconds to open the safe and an additional few seconds to pop the magazine in the gun.  between these two steps the odds of something accidentally happening plummets.   #  your original argument was that the odds of dying from it outweight being saved by it.   #  i think what is important is that there are ways to reduce the risk of purposeful or accidental death by gun while still having a gun.  your original argument was that the odds of dying from it outweight being saved by it.  having the gun will always increase the risk of dying from it, because it exists.  there are ways to reduce that risk in a way so that the benefits are then greater, and one example would be storage.  from a self defense viewpoint, though, i think it is not a good idea.  bill burr has a relevant video.  URL another funny/good one.  URL i do not think it is a good idea if you do not live alone as well.   #  sure, you could defend yourself with a knife.   #  but you do need to demonstrate the capacity to inflict serious harm.  sure, you could defend yourself with a knife.  heck, there is a guy that killed a bear with a knife.  but i do not think my wife, or my mother, are going to be super scary with a kitchen knife.  if they are wielding a gun ? the only person attacking them then would be suicidally desperate or high as a kite.  in both cases, i want them to have the power to kill.
basically, i was looking at some youtube videos from different places, doing some research on the internet, reading political polls, scientific polls, and reading about history and psychology when i finally reached a conclusion.  because of the way the natural world works, destruction, ignorance, and evil, will always win.  let me start out by saying, philosophically, i am a cynic, fatalist not in the spiritual predetermined sense, but more in the sense that the laws of nature predetermine reality , and an existential nihilist.  basically, nothing really matters, this world and especially mankind are hopeless, and despite our best efforts out struggles are ultimately sadly, but surely, futile.  why do i say evil and destruction are predetermined to win ? one simple fact, destruction is just so much easier than creation.  i have some examples: 0.  look at the twin towers, they took decades to build, had hundreds of construction workers, planners, managers, and businessmen that went into building them.  upon completion they housed thousands of workers and was a center for economics.  hundreds of workers, decades, and thousands of lives, all of that torn down because one day a couple hijackers with an airplane decided they wanted to hurt our country.  in response our country then killed millions of their people.  0.  next, nearly three years ago now, young children all went to enjoy just a comfortable day at school, they went to spend time with their friends, learn, and go home and tell their parents all about it.  some teachers watched over them.  love, care, money, billions of years of evolution, all of it ended when one day a deranged man decided the best way to make a point was to go to that school and end the lives of those innocent children and the teachers that watched over them.  0.  in our modern world, billions of years of evolution and biodiversity are being destroyed because the human race needs more and more.  the planet we inhabit is far behind our singular, greedy goal of accumulating power and wealth.  and then, rather than accept the hard truths, most humans would rather listen to the politicians that would happily stick a knife into their back.  billions of years of biodiversity, all destroyed within 0 years of industrialization.  honestly, in this world, how could goodness, creation, and knowledge possibly win ? how could creation and life win if destruction and death is so much easier ? how could knowledge and wisdom win if fear always drags people to ignorance ? how could good win when the core of a human is entirely selfish ? my view is simply this, the world will not change, for it  cannot  change.  it does not matter what happens, the victims will either always remain the same or switch out, destruction will always reign supreme, and fear and ignorance will always lead to one man killing another for his resources rather than working together to cultivate them.  i implore you to change my bleak views, because, honestly, on a dying planet, as a member of a species that has begun to pride itself on ignorance, where things like race and sexual orientation matter more than survival and cooperation, where a group of friends can spend weeks orchestrating a magnificent picnic only for a maniac with a gun to decide their lives do not matter ending it instantly, i do not know what else to think other than that evil has such a massive advantage over good and will always come out on top.   #  honestly, in this world, how could goodness, creation, and knowledge possibly win ?  #  just look around and see how much has been built.   # evolution is inherently amoral.  it simply reflects change over time, and it is impossible to change humans  and  preserve the status quo everywhere else.  this is not a matter of evil/destruction vs good/preservation, just truth.  just look around and see how much has been built.  if you are wondering why and simply waiting for the inevitable fall, consider this: the universe is built so that overall, disorder/chaos increases over time.  but any small part of the system can defy that trend if it has a source of energy.  fortunately, the earth has a handy energy source called the sun, which makes constructing and increasing order possible.  and we are learning to do more with less of that energy on so many levels:   led bulbs that consume a fraction of incandescent   replacing human labor with machines that are much more efficient at turning that energy into work   creating a global trade economy that maximizes strengths of how natural resources and cultural values are used across the world   gmo crops that are more reliable at producing food due to pest resistance   forming and growing cities, which provide a far more efficient means of distributing resources there is no real reason to believe this basic trend will cease for a few billion years, and by then it is too far off to speculate about where the world will be.  undoubtedly the world is a better place for humans than it is ever been.  we live longer, more comfortable, more capable lives than we used to.  there are some horrors, but so many sources of destruction and pain have been eradicated.  less crime violence.  fewer diseases.  more education.  pick any metric of human well being and compare it to 0 years ago and you will see progress.  if you are going to argue that this is bad because we have made some big mistakes and hurt the earth in the process, consider that it may simply be the  cost of doing business . we were not given a manual about how to develop a perfect society, every system will have unique problems, but it does not make humanity evil.   #  and generally, gliding in the positive direction is easier than gliding in the negative direction, and climbing in the upwards direction to be rewarded is more fulfilling than climbing downwards to get punished.   #  actually i do not think it is so easy to destroy ! pulling a trigger at an innocent is impossible for most people most of the time .  what is easy is doing nothing this is the  rest point  of the ball that sits in the trough, or just glides.  and this is what most people do, in the positive direction.  ultimately we do not self destruct because we want to live.  and generally, gliding in the positive direction is easier than gliding in the negative direction, and climbing in the upwards direction to be rewarded is more fulfilling than climbing downwards to get punished.  but in any case, the facts inform the truth that a million picnics to one are peaceful, and that on balance the good is winning.   #  destruction tends towards loss because we eliminate the incentives for it to exist more and more.   # most humans do not kill other humans because they fear punishment, you take a single human that does not and give them the gun and destruction wins yet again.  you see, every time creation and destruction go at it, destruction wins.  those millions of picnics never faced destruction and thus have not really won anything.  they only never faced anything because we have created reasons for them to face nothing.  we have laws and the monopoly of legitimized force.  this has allowed for societies and among other things, picnics.  are they perfect ? no, but they get better and better each year.  destruction tends towards loss because we eliminate the incentives for it to exist more and more.   #  it is still a very huge number i know is everything perfect ?  # it is also better for all the rest of the world.  never have they been so few conflicts and war victims in human history and the number of people living under poverty line has decreased from 0 billions in 0 to 0 billion nowadays.  in percentage of worldwide population it means that 0 of the human were living in poverty 0 years ago and 0 nowadays.  it is still a very huge number i know is everything perfect ? certainly not but do not focus only on the negative.  things are not as bleak as they may seem by watching the news.   #  you need to define what you mean by  win  or even  come out on top .   #  yes, society is shaped by fear, it is how species survive.  but it is easy to focus on the horrors of our world, their generally instantaneous and are almost always major headlines plastered where you are sure to see them.  new research generally relies on underlying knowledge for readers to appreciate the information, thus it is not going to make headlines as often.  destruction and chaos is easier to achieve than creation but why does that mean it wins ? you need to define what you mean by  win  or even  come out on top .  do you mean there will always be crime ?
basically, i was looking at some youtube videos from different places, doing some research on the internet, reading political polls, scientific polls, and reading about history and psychology when i finally reached a conclusion.  because of the way the natural world works, destruction, ignorance, and evil, will always win.  let me start out by saying, philosophically, i am a cynic, fatalist not in the spiritual predetermined sense, but more in the sense that the laws of nature predetermine reality , and an existential nihilist.  basically, nothing really matters, this world and especially mankind are hopeless, and despite our best efforts out struggles are ultimately sadly, but surely, futile.  why do i say evil and destruction are predetermined to win ? one simple fact, destruction is just so much easier than creation.  i have some examples: 0.  look at the twin towers, they took decades to build, had hundreds of construction workers, planners, managers, and businessmen that went into building them.  upon completion they housed thousands of workers and was a center for economics.  hundreds of workers, decades, and thousands of lives, all of that torn down because one day a couple hijackers with an airplane decided they wanted to hurt our country.  in response our country then killed millions of their people.  0.  next, nearly three years ago now, young children all went to enjoy just a comfortable day at school, they went to spend time with their friends, learn, and go home and tell their parents all about it.  some teachers watched over them.  love, care, money, billions of years of evolution, all of it ended when one day a deranged man decided the best way to make a point was to go to that school and end the lives of those innocent children and the teachers that watched over them.  0.  in our modern world, billions of years of evolution and biodiversity are being destroyed because the human race needs more and more.  the planet we inhabit is far behind our singular, greedy goal of accumulating power and wealth.  and then, rather than accept the hard truths, most humans would rather listen to the politicians that would happily stick a knife into their back.  billions of years of biodiversity, all destroyed within 0 years of industrialization.  honestly, in this world, how could goodness, creation, and knowledge possibly win ? how could creation and life win if destruction and death is so much easier ? how could knowledge and wisdom win if fear always drags people to ignorance ? how could good win when the core of a human is entirely selfish ? my view is simply this, the world will not change, for it  cannot  change.  it does not matter what happens, the victims will either always remain the same or switch out, destruction will always reign supreme, and fear and ignorance will always lead to one man killing another for his resources rather than working together to cultivate them.  i implore you to change my bleak views, because, honestly, on a dying planet, as a member of a species that has begun to pride itself on ignorance, where things like race and sexual orientation matter more than survival and cooperation, where a group of friends can spend weeks orchestrating a magnificent picnic only for a maniac with a gun to decide their lives do not matter ending it instantly, i do not know what else to think other than that evil has such a massive advantage over good and will always come out on top.   #  how could goodness, creation, and knowledge possibly win ?  #  because there is a fuckton of people, and the vast majority are not assholes.   # because there is a fuckton of people, and the vast majority are not assholes.  while destruction is easier than creation, there are not many people who really want to watch the world burn.  in a geologic instant, our species has gone from random apes to the unquestioned rulers of the planet.  and we are just getting started.  our greatest advantage is our ability to plan long ahead and cooperate, despite a tiny number of random deviants.   #  but in any case, the facts inform the truth that a million picnics to one are peaceful, and that on balance the good is winning.   #  actually i do not think it is so easy to destroy ! pulling a trigger at an innocent is impossible for most people most of the time .  what is easy is doing nothing this is the  rest point  of the ball that sits in the trough, or just glides.  and this is what most people do, in the positive direction.  ultimately we do not self destruct because we want to live.  and generally, gliding in the positive direction is easier than gliding in the negative direction, and climbing in the upwards direction to be rewarded is more fulfilling than climbing downwards to get punished.  but in any case, the facts inform the truth that a million picnics to one are peaceful, and that on balance the good is winning.   #  they only never faced anything because we have created reasons for them to face nothing.   # most humans do not kill other humans because they fear punishment, you take a single human that does not and give them the gun and destruction wins yet again.  you see, every time creation and destruction go at it, destruction wins.  those millions of picnics never faced destruction and thus have not really won anything.  they only never faced anything because we have created reasons for them to face nothing.  we have laws and the monopoly of legitimized force.  this has allowed for societies and among other things, picnics.  are they perfect ? no, but they get better and better each year.  destruction tends towards loss because we eliminate the incentives for it to exist more and more.   #  just look around and see how much has been built.   # evolution is inherently amoral.  it simply reflects change over time, and it is impossible to change humans  and  preserve the status quo everywhere else.  this is not a matter of evil/destruction vs good/preservation, just truth.  just look around and see how much has been built.  if you are wondering why and simply waiting for the inevitable fall, consider this: the universe is built so that overall, disorder/chaos increases over time.  but any small part of the system can defy that trend if it has a source of energy.  fortunately, the earth has a handy energy source called the sun, which makes constructing and increasing order possible.  and we are learning to do more with less of that energy on so many levels:   led bulbs that consume a fraction of incandescent   replacing human labor with machines that are much more efficient at turning that energy into work   creating a global trade economy that maximizes strengths of how natural resources and cultural values are used across the world   gmo crops that are more reliable at producing food due to pest resistance   forming and growing cities, which provide a far more efficient means of distributing resources there is no real reason to believe this basic trend will cease for a few billion years, and by then it is too far off to speculate about where the world will be.  undoubtedly the world is a better place for humans than it is ever been.  we live longer, more comfortable, more capable lives than we used to.  there are some horrors, but so many sources of destruction and pain have been eradicated.  less crime violence.  fewer diseases.  more education.  pick any metric of human well being and compare it to 0 years ago and you will see progress.  if you are going to argue that this is bad because we have made some big mistakes and hurt the earth in the process, consider that it may simply be the  cost of doing business . we were not given a manual about how to develop a perfect society, every system will have unique problems, but it does not make humanity evil.   #  things are not as bleak as they may seem by watching the news.   # it is also better for all the rest of the world.  never have they been so few conflicts and war victims in human history and the number of people living under poverty line has decreased from 0 billions in 0 to 0 billion nowadays.  in percentage of worldwide population it means that 0 of the human were living in poverty 0 years ago and 0 nowadays.  it is still a very huge number i know is everything perfect ? certainly not but do not focus only on the negative.  things are not as bleak as they may seem by watching the news.
this question focuses on the us justice system, though it seems to be prevalent in all countries i know.  essentially by virtue of the law, you are innocent until proven guilty.  therefore, how is it fair or sensible that you can be arrested and put in jail with potentially other violent criminals, and treated like one yourself; without being convicted ? no proof has been presented to incarcerate you.  in short, how is it moral to treat people like criminals before their conviction ? i do understand that if an arrest is made, it is sensible that that person be detained rather important if you literally catch someone committing murder or something violent like this .  but until proven being a shadow of a doubt, should you not be detained in a location that is more humane and safe ? at the very least, your on room with privacy and no danger.  is this simply not a practical ? would it just cost too much ?  #  no proof has been presented to incarcerate you.   #  evidence beyond a reasonable doubt is required for criminal convictions, but lesser standards are reasonable for an arrest or for civil penalties i. e.   #  based on the 0th amendment to the constitution, in order to get a warrant to arrest someone the police need to convince a judge that they have evidence that the person probably committed a crime.  to keep someone in jail long term the standard of proof becomes beyond a reasonable doubt.  evidence beyond a reasonable doubt is required for criminal convictions, but lesser standards are reasonable for an arrest or for civil penalties i. e.  lawsuits .  again, someone is not going to be waiting for months in jail just because a prosecutor  thinks  they committed a crime the prosecutor needs to show evidence to a judge that the person did the crime.  i think we all agree the system is not perfect, but the concept is moral even though our implementation has some flaws.   #  oddly enough, having little to no resources also makes it easier to run because you have less to lose.   #  this is the reason we have bail.  with pre conviction detention the concern is not their guilt or innocence for the crime they are charged with.  it is whether or not they are likely to flee rather than face the possibility of conviction.  an innocent suspect or a guilty one are both possibly going to run depending on the evidence against them.  the greater the crime, the greater the possibility of running.  the greater the resources of the defendant the easier it is for them to run as well.  oddly enough, having little to no resources also makes it easier to run because you have less to lose.  most people will be able to be released safely with or without bail until the trial.  what i find to be more compelling is how an un convicted suspect is brought into the courtroom.  if they are in jail orange and chains that is a much different presentation to the jury than a suit and unfettered.  visibly, an ankle bracelet or something might still be worn  #  the mere implication to a jury that a defendant is in custody or has been can be grounds for a mistrial.   #  it is unconstitutional for a defendant to appear before a jury in an orange jumpsuit and shackles generally.  at trial defendants are given street clothes to wear either by family, their attorney, or the court.  only if there is some serious documented risk would visible restraints be allowed to be seen by a jury.  my jailed clients usually are put in a leg brace under their pants that locks up if they try to move too fast.  the mere implication to a jury that a defendant is in custody or has been can be grounds for a mistrial.   #  they do not know your wealth when they set low level bail.   #  they do not know your wealth when they set low level bail.  at least where i live.  they base it off of your crime and record.  the rich neighbourhoods have no jail space because everyone puts up bail.  if you live in the poorer neighbourhoods where the same bail is many many more times your income proportionally, then you see much bigger jails.  it does not help that elected judges know who are the people voting.   #  poorer areas also tend to be much more densely populated, and the population tends to commit more crimes that interest police officers.   #  poorer areas also tend to be much more densely populated, and the population tends to commit more crimes that interest police officers.  the average beat cop wo not be able to figure out if you are cheating on your taxes.  but they can chase you down for shoplifting easily enough.  essentially there is more street level crime when the street has more people.  but the judges are fully aware of income when they set bail.  otherwise they run up against the 0th amendment and that is a fight that ties up their court and makes them look bad.  record etc.  is taken into account as well.  outside of the us this protection may not exist.
i believe supporters of the  free the nipple  ftn campaign are miss guided.  the movement is aim is to increase gender equality by ignoring our differences and allowing woman to show body parts everyone one in our society acknowledges as sexual.  i believe that people should have the right not to be exposed, with in reason, to sexual content in public.  the human race is advanced enough to be able to acknowledge and celebrate our differences and create laws that address the real nature of things, as a society i believe we can have true equality and acknowledge we are all different.  from an ethical point of view the ftn campaign beliefs are too simplistic, they do not go into the real ethics behind the issue.  ftn looks at the issue like this: men are allowed to show their chest, to be equal women need to be allowed show their chest.  but if we allow one group to show sexual parts of their body, which most people do not want to be exposed to without consent, are we more equal ? or less ? would men be able to show their testicles under ftn is reasoning ? if women can show their sexual parts that people do not wanna see can men show their sexual parts that people do not wanna see.  we should accept our differences and create deeper laws that fit all, with true equality.  right now i think the laws we have are fair, there is no  women ca not show their breasts statute  there are public decency laws.  i think public decency laws are extremely fair they generally are not specific, they let the society choose what is indecent and what is not, i think the greater society should choose.  if breasts were not sexualised as much as they are in our society the laws we have now would not prosecute free nipples.  although in most instances i believe the  we should not focus on this issue because there are bigger issues  argument is wrong… we really should be tackling real gender inequality where there are actual principles being violated like the pay gap and female under representation in government.  let is take the golden approach   try find absurdities, you would not want a man or woman to flash their respective vagina/ penis a you or your kids, i think shown breasts are as sexually thought of as a vagina.  if a man flashes his penis at someone it is quite fairly considered sexual assault.  if we take the simplistic approach that the ftp movement does, men and women should be treated exactly the same, woman wear g strings on the beach, then men can wear g strings on the beach, if men wore g strings their testicles would show, try telling the mothers that their kids have to exposed to deez nuts to have an equal society   bullshit.  cmv ! goodluck  #  if men wore g strings their testicles would show, try telling the mothers that their kids have to exposed to deez nuts to have an equal society   bullshit.   #  half of all kids have testicles, it is not going to scar them to see a testicle or nipple or whatever .   # half of all kids have testicles, it is not going to scar them to see a testicle or nipple or whatever .  if the majority of society decided that men is nipples were indecent, would you be cool with that ? the results could be cute URL and sexy ! URL but men will also have to go through the inconvenience of finding a top that fits.  URL  #  in contrast, in gambia, women are supposed to cover their thighs also their hair since it is a muslim country yet interestingly, there is no taboo about women showing breasts.   # it just is not.  and it never will be.  i am not sure what part of my comment this is supposed to be in reply to.  maybe the part where i said decency/indecency is socially constructed which it is ? i did not really talk about sexuality at all.  but as long as you brought it up, sexualization and indecency are not 0 connected.  for example, many people in the west find both breasts and shapely legs to be attractive, and even though miniskirts and short shorts are  sexy  we do not really think they are  indecent  like nipples.  in contrast, in gambia, women are supposed to cover their thighs also their hair since it is a muslim country yet interestingly, there is no taboo about women showing breasts.  maybe not, but the societal idea that women is nipples should remain covered is not new and certainly is not something that just popped up out of nowhere for the express purpose of letting men go  nah nah na boo boo i can let the world see my nipples .  you are talking about  why nipples are now considered indecent,  not  why nipples should  keep  being indecent.   yes, we all know and understand why nipples are covered right now.  you could swap out nipples for  woman is face  in the topic of burkas and your comment would still be correct it is nothing new, it did not pop out of nowhere, you can trace it back to interpretations of the quran.  but is an explanation in any way a defense of these things ? kind of an apples and oranges comparison.   cunt  is a word that is disparaging and used as an insult in america, anyway .  you could make an attempt to reclaim and redefine  cunt  to be less disparaging and sexist like what queer people did with  queer  , then teach it to kids.  for example, while growing up, the mother of one of my friends told him  if something awful happens and you shout  fuck !   or  ishit !   to yourself then it does not matter.  but do not say  fuck you  or  you are shit  to someone because it could hurt their feelings.   nipples are already non disparaging, they hurt no one by existing.  the idea of letting nipples be exposed is not for the purpose of offending people, it is for the purpose of redefining how we view nipples and decoupling sexuality from shame.  can you give a reason why this should not happen ?  #   cunt  is a word that is disparaging and used as an insult in america, anyway .   # not one.  nor would i try to.  i was not defending the practice, just trying to make a point about the argument i most commonly see as to why things should change.  which typically breaks down to  change things because they need to change .  i think my brain combined your comment and some other comments in this thread.  and i responded to them kind of at the same time.   cunt  is a word that is disparaging and used as an insult in america, anyway .  that is kind of my point.  anything can be apples to apples if you compare and contrast across enough cultures.  any word in english typically only goes so far as to reach people who speak that language, no matter how insulting or vulgar it sounds to some ears, to others it is just a noise.  you can mean whatever you want when you say it, but the person on the receiving end processes it in their own way.  same with the viewing of nipples.  to some cultures it could be the most indecent thing, to others no big deal at all.  does one devalue the other ? or even influence the argument as a whole ? like the peace sign is dangerously close  the pisser  in the uk.  and our sign for  a ok  is some kind of horrendous insult in.  the philippines ? i forget.  i hope that makes more sense about what i was trying to say.  i am tired.   #  what about advertisements with women wearing loose bikinis ?  #  how, exactly, is an image of a nipple sexual ? the reason these things are considered sexual is because we sexualize them.  people do it with nipples, boobs, butts, and even feet.  some people are sexually aroused by feet and consider think of them sexually should we start banning people from going barefoot ? what about advertisements with women wearing loose bikinis ? are these suddenly not sexual because we ca not see a nipple ?  #  what if it is not a majority but a significant minority ?  # that does not mean we should be free from all of these things.  some  men, in addition to  some  women, are able to achieve sexual pleasure through stimulation of the nipple.  if were using this as a benchmark, then it is a really silly one.  further, sexual selection also includes things like waist size, shoulder width, etc.  these things are not kept covered, now are they ? then the same argument holds true against other body parts.  maybe i find bellies to be sexual, should society cater to me and be sure i never see bellies when i am not specifically looking for them ? see above, both produce sexual stimulation in some individuals, one is sexualized similar to feet, butts, etc .  but what about other bodyparts ? what if it is not a majority but a significant minority ? what if 0 of people get aroused by elbows ? you can quote my text by putting a   in front of it, just keeps things cleaner.
i believe supporters of the  free the nipple  ftn campaign are miss guided.  the movement is aim is to increase gender equality by ignoring our differences and allowing woman to show body parts everyone one in our society acknowledges as sexual.  i believe that people should have the right not to be exposed, with in reason, to sexual content in public.  the human race is advanced enough to be able to acknowledge and celebrate our differences and create laws that address the real nature of things, as a society i believe we can have true equality and acknowledge we are all different.  from an ethical point of view the ftn campaign beliefs are too simplistic, they do not go into the real ethics behind the issue.  ftn looks at the issue like this: men are allowed to show their chest, to be equal women need to be allowed show their chest.  but if we allow one group to show sexual parts of their body, which most people do not want to be exposed to without consent, are we more equal ? or less ? would men be able to show their testicles under ftn is reasoning ? if women can show their sexual parts that people do not wanna see can men show their sexual parts that people do not wanna see.  we should accept our differences and create deeper laws that fit all, with true equality.  right now i think the laws we have are fair, there is no  women ca not show their breasts statute  there are public decency laws.  i think public decency laws are extremely fair they generally are not specific, they let the society choose what is indecent and what is not, i think the greater society should choose.  if breasts were not sexualised as much as they are in our society the laws we have now would not prosecute free nipples.  although in most instances i believe the  we should not focus on this issue because there are bigger issues  argument is wrong… we really should be tackling real gender inequality where there are actual principles being violated like the pay gap and female under representation in government.  let is take the golden approach   try find absurdities, you would not want a man or woman to flash their respective vagina/ penis a you or your kids, i think shown breasts are as sexually thought of as a vagina.  if a man flashes his penis at someone it is quite fairly considered sexual assault.  if we take the simplistic approach that the ftp movement does, men and women should be treated exactly the same, woman wear g strings on the beach, then men can wear g strings on the beach, if men wore g strings their testicles would show, try telling the mothers that their kids have to exposed to deez nuts to have an equal society   bullshit.  cmv ! goodluck  #  i think shown breasts are as sexually thought of as a vagina.   #  if a man flashes his penis at someone it is quite fairly considered sexual assault.   # if a man flashes his penis at someone it is quite fairly considered sexual assault.  this is the crux of your argument and the point being made is that female breasts are not the same at all as genitals and is only because society has sexualized them that there is an issue.  the point is to reduce sexualization and allow women who want to go topless to do so just as men can.  so why do you think that breasts are equivalent to a vagina   woman wear g strings on the beach, then men can wear g strings on the beach, if men wore g strings their testicles would show, try telling the mothers that their kids have to exposed to deez nuts to have an equal society   bullshit.  there are bathing suits and underwear made for men which cover just the penis testicles and nothing else, which would be the equivalent of a g string and it is perfectly legal for men to wear them.   #  you could make an attempt to reclaim and redefine  cunt  to be less disparaging and sexist like what queer people did with  queer  , then teach it to kids.   # it just is not.  and it never will be.  i am not sure what part of my comment this is supposed to be in reply to.  maybe the part where i said decency/indecency is socially constructed which it is ? i did not really talk about sexuality at all.  but as long as you brought it up, sexualization and indecency are not 0 connected.  for example, many people in the west find both breasts and shapely legs to be attractive, and even though miniskirts and short shorts are  sexy  we do not really think they are  indecent  like nipples.  in contrast, in gambia, women are supposed to cover their thighs also their hair since it is a muslim country yet interestingly, there is no taboo about women showing breasts.  maybe not, but the societal idea that women is nipples should remain covered is not new and certainly is not something that just popped up out of nowhere for the express purpose of letting men go  nah nah na boo boo i can let the world see my nipples .  you are talking about  why nipples are now considered indecent,  not  why nipples should  keep  being indecent.   yes, we all know and understand why nipples are covered right now.  you could swap out nipples for  woman is face  in the topic of burkas and your comment would still be correct it is nothing new, it did not pop out of nowhere, you can trace it back to interpretations of the quran.  but is an explanation in any way a defense of these things ? kind of an apples and oranges comparison.   cunt  is a word that is disparaging and used as an insult in america, anyway .  you could make an attempt to reclaim and redefine  cunt  to be less disparaging and sexist like what queer people did with  queer  , then teach it to kids.  for example, while growing up, the mother of one of my friends told him  if something awful happens and you shout  fuck !   or  ishit !   to yourself then it does not matter.  but do not say  fuck you  or  you are shit  to someone because it could hurt their feelings.   nipples are already non disparaging, they hurt no one by existing.  the idea of letting nipples be exposed is not for the purpose of offending people, it is for the purpose of redefining how we view nipples and decoupling sexuality from shame.  can you give a reason why this should not happen ?  #  or even influence the argument as a whole ?  # not one.  nor would i try to.  i was not defending the practice, just trying to make a point about the argument i most commonly see as to why things should change.  which typically breaks down to  change things because they need to change .  i think my brain combined your comment and some other comments in this thread.  and i responded to them kind of at the same time.   cunt  is a word that is disparaging and used as an insult in america, anyway .  that is kind of my point.  anything can be apples to apples if you compare and contrast across enough cultures.  any word in english typically only goes so far as to reach people who speak that language, no matter how insulting or vulgar it sounds to some ears, to others it is just a noise.  you can mean whatever you want when you say it, but the person on the receiving end processes it in their own way.  same with the viewing of nipples.  to some cultures it could be the most indecent thing, to others no big deal at all.  does one devalue the other ? or even influence the argument as a whole ? like the peace sign is dangerously close  the pisser  in the uk.  and our sign for  a ok  is some kind of horrendous insult in.  the philippines ? i forget.  i hope that makes more sense about what i was trying to say.  i am tired.   #  some people are sexually aroused by feet and consider think of them sexually should we start banning people from going barefoot ?  #  how, exactly, is an image of a nipple sexual ? the reason these things are considered sexual is because we sexualize them.  people do it with nipples, boobs, butts, and even feet.  some people are sexually aroused by feet and consider think of them sexually should we start banning people from going barefoot ? what about advertisements with women wearing loose bikinis ? are these suddenly not sexual because we ca not see a nipple ?  #  maybe i find bellies to be sexual, should society cater to me and be sure i never see bellies when i am not specifically looking for them ?  # that does not mean we should be free from all of these things.  some  men, in addition to  some  women, are able to achieve sexual pleasure through stimulation of the nipple.  if were using this as a benchmark, then it is a really silly one.  further, sexual selection also includes things like waist size, shoulder width, etc.  these things are not kept covered, now are they ? then the same argument holds true against other body parts.  maybe i find bellies to be sexual, should society cater to me and be sure i never see bellies when i am not specifically looking for them ? see above, both produce sexual stimulation in some individuals, one is sexualized similar to feet, butts, etc .  but what about other bodyparts ? what if it is not a majority but a significant minority ? what if 0 of people get aroused by elbows ? you can quote my text by putting a   in front of it, just keeps things cleaner.
i believe supporters of the  free the nipple  ftn campaign are miss guided.  the movement is aim is to increase gender equality by ignoring our differences and allowing woman to show body parts everyone one in our society acknowledges as sexual.  i believe that people should have the right not to be exposed, with in reason, to sexual content in public.  the human race is advanced enough to be able to acknowledge and celebrate our differences and create laws that address the real nature of things, as a society i believe we can have true equality and acknowledge we are all different.  from an ethical point of view the ftn campaign beliefs are too simplistic, they do not go into the real ethics behind the issue.  ftn looks at the issue like this: men are allowed to show their chest, to be equal women need to be allowed show their chest.  but if we allow one group to show sexual parts of their body, which most people do not want to be exposed to without consent, are we more equal ? or less ? would men be able to show their testicles under ftn is reasoning ? if women can show their sexual parts that people do not wanna see can men show their sexual parts that people do not wanna see.  we should accept our differences and create deeper laws that fit all, with true equality.  right now i think the laws we have are fair, there is no  women ca not show their breasts statute  there are public decency laws.  i think public decency laws are extremely fair they generally are not specific, they let the society choose what is indecent and what is not, i think the greater society should choose.  if breasts were not sexualised as much as they are in our society the laws we have now would not prosecute free nipples.  although in most instances i believe the  we should not focus on this issue because there are bigger issues  argument is wrong… we really should be tackling real gender inequality where there are actual principles being violated like the pay gap and female under representation in government.  let is take the golden approach   try find absurdities, you would not want a man or woman to flash their respective vagina/ penis a you or your kids, i think shown breasts are as sexually thought of as a vagina.  if a man flashes his penis at someone it is quite fairly considered sexual assault.  if we take the simplistic approach that the ftp movement does, men and women should be treated exactly the same, woman wear g strings on the beach, then men can wear g strings on the beach, if men wore g strings their testicles would show, try telling the mothers that their kids have to exposed to deez nuts to have an equal society   bullshit.  cmv ! goodluck  #  i believe that people should have the right not to be exposed, with in reason, to sexual content in public.   #  i think long hair is very sexy.   # i think long hair is very sexy.  shall we introduce the burka ? not to mention sexuality, or offensiveness, or blasphemy, is in the eye of the beholder.  it is not the responsibility of everyone else to cater to the opinions of a single person what is sexy, offensive, or blasphemous.  or i would sue every ad agency out of existence.  or less ? free to do what we want.  if women can show their sexual parts that people do not wanna see can men show their sexual parts that people do not wanna see.  they can, afaiac.  i do not see a pressing reason to bring standards up to full nudism allowed though.  it is an unimportant right.  i would still mandate genital and anal covering in public for hygienic reasons sitting on shared chairs etc.  sex is an action, not a state of being.  they can do so either way afaiac.   #  i did not really talk about sexuality at all.   # it just is not.  and it never will be.  i am not sure what part of my comment this is supposed to be in reply to.  maybe the part where i said decency/indecency is socially constructed which it is ? i did not really talk about sexuality at all.  but as long as you brought it up, sexualization and indecency are not 0 connected.  for example, many people in the west find both breasts and shapely legs to be attractive, and even though miniskirts and short shorts are  sexy  we do not really think they are  indecent  like nipples.  in contrast, in gambia, women are supposed to cover their thighs also their hair since it is a muslim country yet interestingly, there is no taboo about women showing breasts.  maybe not, but the societal idea that women is nipples should remain covered is not new and certainly is not something that just popped up out of nowhere for the express purpose of letting men go  nah nah na boo boo i can let the world see my nipples .  you are talking about  why nipples are now considered indecent,  not  why nipples should  keep  being indecent.   yes, we all know and understand why nipples are covered right now.  you could swap out nipples for  woman is face  in the topic of burkas and your comment would still be correct it is nothing new, it did not pop out of nowhere, you can trace it back to interpretations of the quran.  but is an explanation in any way a defense of these things ? kind of an apples and oranges comparison.   cunt  is a word that is disparaging and used as an insult in america, anyway .  you could make an attempt to reclaim and redefine  cunt  to be less disparaging and sexist like what queer people did with  queer  , then teach it to kids.  for example, while growing up, the mother of one of my friends told him  if something awful happens and you shout  fuck !   or  ishit !   to yourself then it does not matter.  but do not say  fuck you  or  you are shit  to someone because it could hurt their feelings.   nipples are already non disparaging, they hurt no one by existing.  the idea of letting nipples be exposed is not for the purpose of offending people, it is for the purpose of redefining how we view nipples and decoupling sexuality from shame.  can you give a reason why this should not happen ?  #  to some cultures it could be the most indecent thing, to others no big deal at all.   # not one.  nor would i try to.  i was not defending the practice, just trying to make a point about the argument i most commonly see as to why things should change.  which typically breaks down to  change things because they need to change .  i think my brain combined your comment and some other comments in this thread.  and i responded to them kind of at the same time.   cunt  is a word that is disparaging and used as an insult in america, anyway .  that is kind of my point.  anything can be apples to apples if you compare and contrast across enough cultures.  any word in english typically only goes so far as to reach people who speak that language, no matter how insulting or vulgar it sounds to some ears, to others it is just a noise.  you can mean whatever you want when you say it, but the person on the receiving end processes it in their own way.  same with the viewing of nipples.  to some cultures it could be the most indecent thing, to others no big deal at all.  does one devalue the other ? or even influence the argument as a whole ? like the peace sign is dangerously close  the pisser  in the uk.  and our sign for  a ok  is some kind of horrendous insult in.  the philippines ? i forget.  i hope that makes more sense about what i was trying to say.  i am tired.   #  people do it with nipples, boobs, butts, and even feet.   #  how, exactly, is an image of a nipple sexual ? the reason these things are considered sexual is because we sexualize them.  people do it with nipples, boobs, butts, and even feet.  some people are sexually aroused by feet and consider think of them sexually should we start banning people from going barefoot ? what about advertisements with women wearing loose bikinis ? are these suddenly not sexual because we ca not see a nipple ?  #  see above, both produce sexual stimulation in some individuals, one is sexualized similar to feet, butts, etc .   # that does not mean we should be free from all of these things.  some  men, in addition to  some  women, are able to achieve sexual pleasure through stimulation of the nipple.  if were using this as a benchmark, then it is a really silly one.  further, sexual selection also includes things like waist size, shoulder width, etc.  these things are not kept covered, now are they ? then the same argument holds true against other body parts.  maybe i find bellies to be sexual, should society cater to me and be sure i never see bellies when i am not specifically looking for them ? see above, both produce sexual stimulation in some individuals, one is sexualized similar to feet, butts, etc .  but what about other bodyparts ? what if it is not a majority but a significant minority ? what if 0 of people get aroused by elbows ? you can quote my text by putting a   in front of it, just keeps things cleaner.
i believe supporters of the  free the nipple  ftn campaign are miss guided.  the movement is aim is to increase gender equality by ignoring our differences and allowing woman to show body parts everyone one in our society acknowledges as sexual.  i believe that people should have the right not to be exposed, with in reason, to sexual content in public.  the human race is advanced enough to be able to acknowledge and celebrate our differences and create laws that address the real nature of things, as a society i believe we can have true equality and acknowledge we are all different.  from an ethical point of view the ftn campaign beliefs are too simplistic, they do not go into the real ethics behind the issue.  ftn looks at the issue like this: men are allowed to show their chest, to be equal women need to be allowed show their chest.  but if we allow one group to show sexual parts of their body, which most people do not want to be exposed to without consent, are we more equal ? or less ? would men be able to show their testicles under ftn is reasoning ? if women can show their sexual parts that people do not wanna see can men show their sexual parts that people do not wanna see.  we should accept our differences and create deeper laws that fit all, with true equality.  right now i think the laws we have are fair, there is no  women ca not show their breasts statute  there are public decency laws.  i think public decency laws are extremely fair they generally are not specific, they let the society choose what is indecent and what is not, i think the greater society should choose.  if breasts were not sexualised as much as they are in our society the laws we have now would not prosecute free nipples.  although in most instances i believe the  we should not focus on this issue because there are bigger issues  argument is wrong… we really should be tackling real gender inequality where there are actual principles being violated like the pay gap and female under representation in government.  let is take the golden approach   try find absurdities, you would not want a man or woman to flash their respective vagina/ penis a you or your kids, i think shown breasts are as sexually thought of as a vagina.  if a man flashes his penis at someone it is quite fairly considered sexual assault.  if we take the simplistic approach that the ftp movement does, men and women should be treated exactly the same, woman wear g strings on the beach, then men can wear g strings on the beach, if men wore g strings their testicles would show, try telling the mothers that their kids have to exposed to deez nuts to have an equal society   bullshit.  cmv ! goodluck  #  would men be able to show their testicles under ftn is reasoning ?  #  if women can show their sexual parts that people do not wanna see can men show their sexual parts that people do not wanna see.   # i think long hair is very sexy.  shall we introduce the burka ? not to mention sexuality, or offensiveness, or blasphemy, is in the eye of the beholder.  it is not the responsibility of everyone else to cater to the opinions of a single person what is sexy, offensive, or blasphemous.  or i would sue every ad agency out of existence.  or less ? free to do what we want.  if women can show their sexual parts that people do not wanna see can men show their sexual parts that people do not wanna see.  they can, afaiac.  i do not see a pressing reason to bring standards up to full nudism allowed though.  it is an unimportant right.  i would still mandate genital and anal covering in public for hygienic reasons sitting on shared chairs etc.  sex is an action, not a state of being.  they can do so either way afaiac.   #  but as long as you brought it up, sexualization and indecency are not 0 connected.   # it just is not.  and it never will be.  i am not sure what part of my comment this is supposed to be in reply to.  maybe the part where i said decency/indecency is socially constructed which it is ? i did not really talk about sexuality at all.  but as long as you brought it up, sexualization and indecency are not 0 connected.  for example, many people in the west find both breasts and shapely legs to be attractive, and even though miniskirts and short shorts are  sexy  we do not really think they are  indecent  like nipples.  in contrast, in gambia, women are supposed to cover their thighs also their hair since it is a muslim country yet interestingly, there is no taboo about women showing breasts.  maybe not, but the societal idea that women is nipples should remain covered is not new and certainly is not something that just popped up out of nowhere for the express purpose of letting men go  nah nah na boo boo i can let the world see my nipples .  you are talking about  why nipples are now considered indecent,  not  why nipples should  keep  being indecent.   yes, we all know and understand why nipples are covered right now.  you could swap out nipples for  woman is face  in the topic of burkas and your comment would still be correct it is nothing new, it did not pop out of nowhere, you can trace it back to interpretations of the quran.  but is an explanation in any way a defense of these things ? kind of an apples and oranges comparison.   cunt  is a word that is disparaging and used as an insult in america, anyway .  you could make an attempt to reclaim and redefine  cunt  to be less disparaging and sexist like what queer people did with  queer  , then teach it to kids.  for example, while growing up, the mother of one of my friends told him  if something awful happens and you shout  fuck !   or  ishit !   to yourself then it does not matter.  but do not say  fuck you  or  you are shit  to someone because it could hurt their feelings.   nipples are already non disparaging, they hurt no one by existing.  the idea of letting nipples be exposed is not for the purpose of offending people, it is for the purpose of redefining how we view nipples and decoupling sexuality from shame.  can you give a reason why this should not happen ?  #  any word in english typically only goes so far as to reach people who speak that language, no matter how insulting or vulgar it sounds to some ears, to others it is just a noise.   # not one.  nor would i try to.  i was not defending the practice, just trying to make a point about the argument i most commonly see as to why things should change.  which typically breaks down to  change things because they need to change .  i think my brain combined your comment and some other comments in this thread.  and i responded to them kind of at the same time.   cunt  is a word that is disparaging and used as an insult in america, anyway .  that is kind of my point.  anything can be apples to apples if you compare and contrast across enough cultures.  any word in english typically only goes so far as to reach people who speak that language, no matter how insulting or vulgar it sounds to some ears, to others it is just a noise.  you can mean whatever you want when you say it, but the person on the receiving end processes it in their own way.  same with the viewing of nipples.  to some cultures it could be the most indecent thing, to others no big deal at all.  does one devalue the other ? or even influence the argument as a whole ? like the peace sign is dangerously close  the pisser  in the uk.  and our sign for  a ok  is some kind of horrendous insult in.  the philippines ? i forget.  i hope that makes more sense about what i was trying to say.  i am tired.   #  people do it with nipples, boobs, butts, and even feet.   #  how, exactly, is an image of a nipple sexual ? the reason these things are considered sexual is because we sexualize them.  people do it with nipples, boobs, butts, and even feet.  some people are sexually aroused by feet and consider think of them sexually should we start banning people from going barefoot ? what about advertisements with women wearing loose bikinis ? are these suddenly not sexual because we ca not see a nipple ?  #  see above, both produce sexual stimulation in some individuals, one is sexualized similar to feet, butts, etc .   # that does not mean we should be free from all of these things.  some  men, in addition to  some  women, are able to achieve sexual pleasure through stimulation of the nipple.  if were using this as a benchmark, then it is a really silly one.  further, sexual selection also includes things like waist size, shoulder width, etc.  these things are not kept covered, now are they ? then the same argument holds true against other body parts.  maybe i find bellies to be sexual, should society cater to me and be sure i never see bellies when i am not specifically looking for them ? see above, both produce sexual stimulation in some individuals, one is sexualized similar to feet, butts, etc .  but what about other bodyparts ? what if it is not a majority but a significant minority ? what if 0 of people get aroused by elbows ? you can quote my text by putting a   in front of it, just keeps things cleaner.
i believe supporters of the  free the nipple  ftn campaign are miss guided.  the movement is aim is to increase gender equality by ignoring our differences and allowing woman to show body parts everyone one in our society acknowledges as sexual.  i believe that people should have the right not to be exposed, with in reason, to sexual content in public.  the human race is advanced enough to be able to acknowledge and celebrate our differences and create laws that address the real nature of things, as a society i believe we can have true equality and acknowledge we are all different.  from an ethical point of view the ftn campaign beliefs are too simplistic, they do not go into the real ethics behind the issue.  ftn looks at the issue like this: men are allowed to show their chest, to be equal women need to be allowed show their chest.  but if we allow one group to show sexual parts of their body, which most people do not want to be exposed to without consent, are we more equal ? or less ? would men be able to show their testicles under ftn is reasoning ? if women can show their sexual parts that people do not wanna see can men show their sexual parts that people do not wanna see.  we should accept our differences and create deeper laws that fit all, with true equality.  right now i think the laws we have are fair, there is no  women ca not show their breasts statute  there are public decency laws.  i think public decency laws are extremely fair they generally are not specific, they let the society choose what is indecent and what is not, i think the greater society should choose.  if breasts were not sexualised as much as they are in our society the laws we have now would not prosecute free nipples.  although in most instances i believe the  we should not focus on this issue because there are bigger issues  argument is wrong… we really should be tackling real gender inequality where there are actual principles being violated like the pay gap and female under representation in government.  let is take the golden approach   try find absurdities, you would not want a man or woman to flash their respective vagina/ penis a you or your kids, i think shown breasts are as sexually thought of as a vagina.  if a man flashes his penis at someone it is quite fairly considered sexual assault.  if we take the simplistic approach that the ftp movement does, men and women should be treated exactly the same, woman wear g strings on the beach, then men can wear g strings on the beach, if men wore g strings their testicles would show, try telling the mothers that their kids have to exposed to deez nuts to have an equal society   bullshit.  cmv ! goodluck  #  i think public decency laws are extremely fair they generally are not specific, they let the society choose what is indecent and what is not, i think the greater society should choose.   #  i would argue that this is  exactly  what is happening with the  ftn movement  which i would honestly never heard of until now .   # i would argue that this is  exactly  what is happening with the  ftn movement  which i would honestly never heard of until now .  one part of society the supporters of this movement believe that female nipples are not indecent, and that calling them indecent harms gender equality.  it is not like public decency laws have some kind of vote every couple years to re determine what is decent.  it is either written into the law, or decided by judges and very hard to change.  the laws may have been extremely fair when they were first created based on the standards of decency at the time, but they have not been updated since in many places .  i agree that society should decide  for itself  what is decent and what is not, and i think views are shifting, which is why this issue needs to be re visited.  nipples are much more  free  in europe, for example, and they do not seem to be overrun with pedophiles and sexual deviants.   #  in contrast, in gambia, women are supposed to cover their thighs also their hair since it is a muslim country yet interestingly, there is no taboo about women showing breasts.   # it just is not.  and it never will be.  i am not sure what part of my comment this is supposed to be in reply to.  maybe the part where i said decency/indecency is socially constructed which it is ? i did not really talk about sexuality at all.  but as long as you brought it up, sexualization and indecency are not 0 connected.  for example, many people in the west find both breasts and shapely legs to be attractive, and even though miniskirts and short shorts are  sexy  we do not really think they are  indecent  like nipples.  in contrast, in gambia, women are supposed to cover their thighs also their hair since it is a muslim country yet interestingly, there is no taboo about women showing breasts.  maybe not, but the societal idea that women is nipples should remain covered is not new and certainly is not something that just popped up out of nowhere for the express purpose of letting men go  nah nah na boo boo i can let the world see my nipples .  you are talking about  why nipples are now considered indecent,  not  why nipples should  keep  being indecent.   yes, we all know and understand why nipples are covered right now.  you could swap out nipples for  woman is face  in the topic of burkas and your comment would still be correct it is nothing new, it did not pop out of nowhere, you can trace it back to interpretations of the quran.  but is an explanation in any way a defense of these things ? kind of an apples and oranges comparison.   cunt  is a word that is disparaging and used as an insult in america, anyway .  you could make an attempt to reclaim and redefine  cunt  to be less disparaging and sexist like what queer people did with  queer  , then teach it to kids.  for example, while growing up, the mother of one of my friends told him  if something awful happens and you shout  fuck !   or  ishit !   to yourself then it does not matter.  but do not say  fuck you  or  you are shit  to someone because it could hurt their feelings.   nipples are already non disparaging, they hurt no one by existing.  the idea of letting nipples be exposed is not for the purpose of offending people, it is for the purpose of redefining how we view nipples and decoupling sexuality from shame.  can you give a reason why this should not happen ?  #  to some cultures it could be the most indecent thing, to others no big deal at all.   # not one.  nor would i try to.  i was not defending the practice, just trying to make a point about the argument i most commonly see as to why things should change.  which typically breaks down to  change things because they need to change .  i think my brain combined your comment and some other comments in this thread.  and i responded to them kind of at the same time.   cunt  is a word that is disparaging and used as an insult in america, anyway .  that is kind of my point.  anything can be apples to apples if you compare and contrast across enough cultures.  any word in english typically only goes so far as to reach people who speak that language, no matter how insulting or vulgar it sounds to some ears, to others it is just a noise.  you can mean whatever you want when you say it, but the person on the receiving end processes it in their own way.  same with the viewing of nipples.  to some cultures it could be the most indecent thing, to others no big deal at all.  does one devalue the other ? or even influence the argument as a whole ? like the peace sign is dangerously close  the pisser  in the uk.  and our sign for  a ok  is some kind of horrendous insult in.  the philippines ? i forget.  i hope that makes more sense about what i was trying to say.  i am tired.   #  the reason these things are considered sexual is because we sexualize them.   #  how, exactly, is an image of a nipple sexual ? the reason these things are considered sexual is because we sexualize them.  people do it with nipples, boobs, butts, and even feet.  some people are sexually aroused by feet and consider think of them sexually should we start banning people from going barefoot ? what about advertisements with women wearing loose bikinis ? are these suddenly not sexual because we ca not see a nipple ?  #  that does not mean we should be free from all of these things.   # that does not mean we should be free from all of these things.  some  men, in addition to  some  women, are able to achieve sexual pleasure through stimulation of the nipple.  if were using this as a benchmark, then it is a really silly one.  further, sexual selection also includes things like waist size, shoulder width, etc.  these things are not kept covered, now are they ? then the same argument holds true against other body parts.  maybe i find bellies to be sexual, should society cater to me and be sure i never see bellies when i am not specifically looking for them ? see above, both produce sexual stimulation in some individuals, one is sexualized similar to feet, butts, etc .  but what about other bodyparts ? what if it is not a majority but a significant minority ? what if 0 of people get aroused by elbows ? you can quote my text by putting a   in front of it, just keeps things cleaner.
i think when most people think of liquor laws that prohibit the sale of alcohol they imagine it was conceived of by antiquated religious zealots decades, if not a more than a century, ago.  therefore, if they are opposed towards any sort theoretically motivated law, they think it should be repealed.  while that sort of secular thought is sometimes commendable, i do not think this particular kind of law is that bad, and it even has some benefits.  i am no crusader of temperance.  i am perfectly happy to have a beer with anyone who wants to chill . on saturday.  the fact is, even though i consider myself very liberal in what kinds of substances people should be allowed to consume, i recognize that many of them, even used properly in moderation, have consequences for health in the long term.  alcohol will do a number on your liver besides all those carbs you are drinking , so you probably should not drink it everyday.  if there was any good day to abstain, it would be sunday.  why not go to bed early and sober to start the week fresh ? and if you absolutely, positively want to have a drink on sunday, you still can, it just takes a modicum of planning ahead.  so i do not see this as any serious infringement of personal freedom.   #  and if you absolutely, positively want to have a drink on sunday, you still can, it just takes a modicum of planning ahead.   #  a simple way to see whether this works is to check if sales of alcohol increase in areas that abolish restrictions on sales on certain days of the week.   # a simple way to see whether this works is to check if sales of alcohol increase in areas that abolish restrictions on sales on certain days of the week.  lucky for us, this has been examined URL and the researchers found that  increased alcohol availability leads to an increase in alcohol consumption.   nb.  i am only arguing against a very specific part of your view.  there are many other considerations to assess, but this one is easily addressed.   #  and if the average citizen finds it so inconvenient that they think it is not worth it to drink on sunday generally, i think that is fine.   #  byob restaurants exist, you can still get a meal and drink in a town with this sort of law if you really want.  it is slightly inconvenient, but i do not see that as a huge problem.  and if the average citizen finds it so inconvenient that they think it is not worth it to drink on sunday generally, i think that is fine.  it is also fine if they do not find it inconvenient and are not deterred at all.  to me, those two poles represent the spectrum of possibilities for this law.  since none are those outcomes unacceptable, if a local elected government wants to legislate   enforce this law, it is not a problem.  i also recognize that a true alcoholic is not going to be stopped by a sunday prohibition, they need to be helped in a different way.  this kind of restriction exists to deter spur of the moment drinking, the kind that i see as most prone to binge drinking among people who are not chronic alcoholics.  even if it ends up only limiting people who drink moderately, that is still not so bad.  if you ended up drinking 0/0th less alcohol for the rest of your life, that would not be a bad thing.  while i agree that many people do not have a typical work scheduled, among those who do work monday friday is most common.  so if a town is going to have a dry day, sunday makes the most sense.   #  also, i seriously question the impact on binge drinking.   #  it is not just inconvenient for sunday drinking, it is inconvenient for sunday  buying .  if that is my shopping day and i need some sake and sherry to cook with, i am out of luck.  do i want to make margaritas later in the week ? then i need to make a second special trip.  also, i seriously question the impact on binge drinking.  if someone is getting hammered they are doing it friday or saturday more often, if you want to impact that you should ban them or the whole weekend .  if you are going to ban certain days pick days based on value, not because they happen to coincide with one set of religions.  further, are you willing to increase this to everything ? people eat too much meat, so we could legally enforce meat free monday.  added sugars are problematic to health, can thursdays forbid sales of soda and sweets ? the fact is that all laws have to balance public health with public desires, so should we really be restricting certain days that may well just redistribute consumption to others URL for uncertain benefits deeply rooted in a religious prohibition ?  #  and if those conditions are met, presumably their constituents are in favor it.   #  i made a point in the title to ignore religious arguments for sunday laws specifically because i  do not  find them compelling.  there is no need to bring up your objections to religion, because i probably agree with them.  that said, lots of laws happen coincide with religious preferences.  one of the ten commandments is thou shalt not murder, which is a good law even in a secular society.  a ban on the whole weekend might be more effective.  i would not be opposed to it for the same reasons i think sunday laws are okay.  redistribution is an interesting argument, however /u/rustyrook pointed out evidence to me that shows sunday laws did depress alcohol consumption in delaware, pennsylvania and new mexico URL it is conceivable that someone could use sunday liquor laws as precedent to argue another similar law for meat.  i personally would not, because i do not typically extend my thinking on alcohol to meat.  however, such a person who did would have to be elected, and be able to pass that restriction.  and if those conditions are met, presumably their constituents are in favor it.  if we lived in a world that was mostly vegan, meat free monday would not be totally unreasonable.   #  but it is not entirely impossible that there could be a convincing argument for meat free monday, so i did not find it totally unreasonable in a hypothetical scenario.   # sunday is not solely based on religion though.  for most people it is the day before their work week.  you might not think that is a strong basis, but it is not a religious basis.  while, sunday might not be the best day, i made this cmv mostly in response to laws already on the books.  while in principal i would be okay with a law for any day, i do not think it is terribly likely to come up.  because of this, i find it more practical to focus my energy on sunday laws specifically.  you actually can access the full article, simply click on the  article  tab right above the abstract.  btw, i ca not access your article either as it appears to require a jsad password.  agreed, however new laws of this kind ca not come into being without some kind of popular support, which is a good check against absurd ones being passed.  meat free monday, in our current societal climate, is absurd, which is why we can put faith in the democratic process.  should that climate change, more critical logical assessment will have to be made.  but it is not entirely impossible that there could be a convincing argument for meat free monday, so i did not find it totally unreasonable in a hypothetical scenario.
first, what i refer to as  hunting  is the killing or trapping of any animal, with the purpose of doing so, as sport, whether it be to eat them as food or keep them as trophies.  i am not talking about the regulated hunting of threatening species or the killing of animals in situations where they pose significant danger.  recently, we have seen the story of cecil the lion become big news across the country and in the world at large.  the fact that we as humans hold dominion over all other earthly creatures necessitates the notion of a responsibility we have in keeping balance and order to the food chain, considering that humans are the top of it.  killing for sport is something one could argue not inherent only in humans, but we have taken it beyond what it means if an animal were to kill another animal for sport just by sheer organization.  i am speaking of our current gaming rules and regulations in place, meant to keep this balance one would want to believe but a system well beyond anything an animal killing another animal for sport could come up with, for obvious reasons.  and, as the story of cecil the lion illustrates, the system governing wildlife from being hunted and killed is flawed, to say the least.  in regards to the act of hunting, and then using prey as food, i would argue that in our modern society, this is completely unnecesary, given the obvious institutions in place all ready, i. e. , the supermarket.  the bottom line may be that hunting exists because we as humans enjoy it, it is thrilling to us, but should that condone its existence ? we condemn the murder of humans.  why view other animals any different in that regard ? admittedly, the quandary i have with my argument is that i feel it should be banned all over the world.  however, due to the problems and beliefs of other societies around the world, some of which being so underdeveloped that hunting game is a valuable source of income, i have to limit my banning to the united states alone.  by doing this, i am brought back to the senseless killing of cecil the lion, which was done in a different country.  i argue, though, that it was carried out by an american, one who believed in the sport of hunting, who willingly paid tens of thousands of dollars to do it, and that, had he come from a society that looked down on the sport, he might not have had such determination to carry out what he did.  lastly, i say it is  antiquated , but that is a reflection of my opinion based on the notion that hunting was a means of surviving which is no longer necessary in our current society.  this definition recognizes that at one point, there was a reason at some point in history for its existence, however.   #  in regards to the act of hunting, and then using prey as food, i would argue that in our modern society, this is completely unnecesary, given the obvious institutions in place all ready, i. e. , the supermarket.   #  now right here is where i would say you are wrong.   # now right here is where i would say you are wrong.  if you have ever lived in rural areas in the us, you would know hunting is a necessity in those people is lives.  this also applies to any off the grid style of living.  it is not about income, it is about survival.  if you do not want to be dependent on the supermarket and the mass producing animal caging meat farms, you have to hunt.  if ethics of animal treatment is your concern, remember: the animals we hunt have lived out most of their lives in the wild, where they belong.  they can live as nature intended, make children, all that fun stuff.  the meat from supermarkets often comes from animals trapped in cages with barely enough room to turn around.  they literally defecate on each other and breed by artificial insemination.  does not hunting sound better ?  #  that is a very good point, and if all hunting was carried out in this regard, i would probably see it more favorably.   # they can live as nature intended, make children, all that fun stuff.  the meat from supermarkets often comes from animals trapped in cages with barely enough room to turn around.  they literally defecate on each other and breed by artificial insemination.  does not hunting sound better ? that is a very good point, and if all hunting was carried out in this regard, i would probably see it more favorably.  i could definately find merit in the government providing for hunters that engage in this type of practice, which would also help quash the poverty you brought up at the beginning of the post, where you mentioned rural areas in the us.  it is not about income, it is about survival.  if you do not want to be dependent on the supermarket and the mass producing animal caging meat farms, you have to hunt.  this sounds like more of a personal choice as opposed to a necessity.  i can choose to live off the grid; but why should that give me the right to hunt and kill because of that choice ?  #  some people might argue being fed is the right to life, and that the government ought step in with say food stamps if you have no other option.   # some people might argue being fed is the right to life, and that the government ought step in with say food stamps if you have no other option.  generally, the government does step in, and the only people i personally know who wo not take the hand out think they do not need it because they are capable of hunting.  they are from a time when the world really could not feed the population and it was best to leave the hand outs for those who really really need them.  that is not really an accurate representation of the modern world.  we waste plenty of food, and feeding the population is not an issue.   #  do i think they are more cruel/reckless/dangerous  on average  than nonhunters ?  #  while i have not been hunting with most of them, being from a rural area yes, i have known many hunters.  do i think they are more cruel/reckless/dangerous  on average  than nonhunters ? i think at this point i should say i would use term non empathetic, but yes.  look, i think both hunting and domestic slaughter have the  potential  to produce the same results: cruel people.  really that is all i am describing as the problem.  cruel people who are allowed to be reckless and who pose a danger to the rest of society.  a lack of empathy with other living creatures is clearly a indicative of perhaps even a cause of a lack of human empathy, and that can become dangerous.  however in my opinion, domesticated slaughter provides the better framework provides the better starting point for developing the better framer work for screening and taking care of people with this psychologically dangerous job.  ideally, we would print hamburgers from cell culture, but right now that is not where we are at.  note: i copy pasted half this argument from my other post URL in this thread.   #  i am just gonna quote my other posts in from this thread.   #  i am just gonna quote my other posts in from this thread.  it produces cruelty, yes.  however it is much quicker to produce a lack of empathy.  in my opinion.  really that is all i am describing as the problem.  cruel people who are allowed to be reckless and who pose a danger to the rest of society.  a lack of empathy with other living creatures is clearly a indicative of perhaps even a cause of a lack of human empathy, and that is dangerous.  ideally, we would print hamburgers from cell culture, but right now that is not where we are at.  someone has to kill the animal and we should take care of the people who are put in that, well frankly fucked up, position.
first, what i refer to as  hunting  is the killing or trapping of any animal, with the purpose of doing so, as sport, whether it be to eat them as food or keep them as trophies.  i am not talking about the regulated hunting of threatening species or the killing of animals in situations where they pose significant danger.  recently, we have seen the story of cecil the lion become big news across the country and in the world at large.  the fact that we as humans hold dominion over all other earthly creatures necessitates the notion of a responsibility we have in keeping balance and order to the food chain, considering that humans are the top of it.  killing for sport is something one could argue not inherent only in humans, but we have taken it beyond what it means if an animal were to kill another animal for sport just by sheer organization.  i am speaking of our current gaming rules and regulations in place, meant to keep this balance one would want to believe but a system well beyond anything an animal killing another animal for sport could come up with, for obvious reasons.  and, as the story of cecil the lion illustrates, the system governing wildlife from being hunted and killed is flawed, to say the least.  in regards to the act of hunting, and then using prey as food, i would argue that in our modern society, this is completely unnecesary, given the obvious institutions in place all ready, i. e. , the supermarket.  the bottom line may be that hunting exists because we as humans enjoy it, it is thrilling to us, but should that condone its existence ? we condemn the murder of humans.  why view other animals any different in that regard ? admittedly, the quandary i have with my argument is that i feel it should be banned all over the world.  however, due to the problems and beliefs of other societies around the world, some of which being so underdeveloped that hunting game is a valuable source of income, i have to limit my banning to the united states alone.  by doing this, i am brought back to the senseless killing of cecil the lion, which was done in a different country.  i argue, though, that it was carried out by an american, one who believed in the sport of hunting, who willingly paid tens of thousands of dollars to do it, and that, had he come from a society that looked down on the sport, he might not have had such determination to carry out what he did.  lastly, i say it is  antiquated , but that is a reflection of my opinion based on the notion that hunting was a means of surviving which is no longer necessary in our current society.  this definition recognizes that at one point, there was a reason at some point in history for its existence, however.   #  first, what i refer to as  hunting  is the killing or trapping of any animal, with the purpose of doing so, as sport, whether it be to eat them as food or keep them as trophies.   #  i am not talking about the regulated hunting of threatening species or the killing of animals in situations where they pose significant danger.   # i am not talking about the regulated hunting of threatening species or the killing of animals in situations where they pose significant danger.  why do you separate these two as if they are mutually exclusive ? can they not both be accomplished at the same time ? one of the most commonly hunted for sport species in the us is the white tailed deer, which is also poses one of the biggest threats to forest ecosystems through overpopulation.  speaking as someone who works in the field of wildlife management, sport hunting is widely considered to be one of the strongest and most important tools for understaffed and underfunded natural resource agencies otherwise known as all natural resource agencies to wield against overpopulated species.   #  now right here is where i would say you are wrong.   # now right here is where i would say you are wrong.  if you have ever lived in rural areas in the us, you would know hunting is a necessity in those people is lives.  this also applies to any off the grid style of living.  it is not about income, it is about survival.  if you do not want to be dependent on the supermarket and the mass producing animal caging meat farms, you have to hunt.  if ethics of animal treatment is your concern, remember: the animals we hunt have lived out most of their lives in the wild, where they belong.  they can live as nature intended, make children, all that fun stuff.  the meat from supermarkets often comes from animals trapped in cages with barely enough room to turn around.  they literally defecate on each other and breed by artificial insemination.  does not hunting sound better ?  #  that is a very good point, and if all hunting was carried out in this regard, i would probably see it more favorably.   # they can live as nature intended, make children, all that fun stuff.  the meat from supermarkets often comes from animals trapped in cages with barely enough room to turn around.  they literally defecate on each other and breed by artificial insemination.  does not hunting sound better ? that is a very good point, and if all hunting was carried out in this regard, i would probably see it more favorably.  i could definately find merit in the government providing for hunters that engage in this type of practice, which would also help quash the poverty you brought up at the beginning of the post, where you mentioned rural areas in the us.  it is not about income, it is about survival.  if you do not want to be dependent on the supermarket and the mass producing animal caging meat farms, you have to hunt.  this sounds like more of a personal choice as opposed to a necessity.  i can choose to live off the grid; but why should that give me the right to hunt and kill because of that choice ?  #  that is not really an accurate representation of the modern world.   # some people might argue being fed is the right to life, and that the government ought step in with say food stamps if you have no other option.  generally, the government does step in, and the only people i personally know who wo not take the hand out think they do not need it because they are capable of hunting.  they are from a time when the world really could not feed the population and it was best to leave the hand outs for those who really really need them.  that is not really an accurate representation of the modern world.  we waste plenty of food, and feeding the population is not an issue.   #  i think at this point i should say i would use term non empathetic, but yes.   #  while i have not been hunting with most of them, being from a rural area yes, i have known many hunters.  do i think they are more cruel/reckless/dangerous  on average  than nonhunters ? i think at this point i should say i would use term non empathetic, but yes.  look, i think both hunting and domestic slaughter have the  potential  to produce the same results: cruel people.  really that is all i am describing as the problem.  cruel people who are allowed to be reckless and who pose a danger to the rest of society.  a lack of empathy with other living creatures is clearly a indicative of perhaps even a cause of a lack of human empathy, and that can become dangerous.  however in my opinion, domesticated slaughter provides the better framework provides the better starting point for developing the better framer work for screening and taking care of people with this psychologically dangerous job.  ideally, we would print hamburgers from cell culture, but right now that is not where we are at.  note: i copy pasted half this argument from my other post URL in this thread.
as a woman, i do not really get my hands dirty when i pee.  i wipe myself with toilet paper, and very rarely do i actually touch anything with my hands other than toilet paper.  if i do, i obviously understand the need to wash them, but that is not the typical case.  after i use the toilet, most of the time, the flushing is done either automatically or with a long handle that i touch with my foot because the handle is usually gross anyways .  some toilets with shorter handles do have to be touched, but usually those are personal toilets in my house that i know are clean.  perhaps i may touch the bathroom stall door, but i really do not think it is so disgusting as to warrant hand washing.  do not get me wrong, i usually do wash my hands after using the restroom.  but i do it not because going to the bathroom is inherently dirty, but rather because my hands are dirty.  i think it is important to wash your hands, after touching everything, once every few hours.  so i see going to the bathroom as a kind of natural reminder that perhaps i should wash my hands soon.  however, i drink a lot of water and go to the bathroom more often than i think i should wash my hands.  if i wash my hands every time i pee, they get really dry even with lotion but i have to do it anyways in public restrooms because of societal conventions, whatnot.  i know this is a dumb topic, and it is not real a big deal in my life.  i also see the overall societal benefit pretending you should wash your hands after going to the bathroom.  and no, this is not something i think about all the time.  but goddamn, my hands are so dry right now.   #  but i have to do it anyways in public restrooms because of societal conventions, whatnot.   #  it might be different where you are, but disinfectant is a common enough thing here and people understand that some people prefer it to handwashing.   # it might be different where you are, but disinfectant is a common enough thing here and people understand that some people prefer it to handwashing.  but the trick is to do it at the sink, let people see you do it.   cause otherwise they think you are gross.  of course, disinfecting only gets rid of the germs it does not get rid of the little bits of piss and such that may be on your hands from other, grosser people.  another option which i, as someone who frequently uses the bathroom as well, sometimes use is to wash your hands improperly.  most people i find do not care about how well you do it, just that you make an effort.  as for why we have this social convention germs are a relatively new thing that we have recognized.  one of the easiest germ things for us to recognize was excrement, so it is one of the easiest things to get us to wash our hands after.  it is considered so important because the assumption still is not that you wash your hands on a regular basis throughout the day, as many do not.  the assumption is that you are a gross dirty germmyman/lady.   #  take a look at this study URL that highlights the high touch areas in a typical toilet: sinks, switches,  door knobs and door  and  faucet levers , toilet area handholds, toilet seats, and toilet handles.   #  yes, it is ! that is one of the high touch surfaces that have higher densities of pathogens than other parts of the bathroom.  touching those parts increases your chances of catching an infectious disease, especially since most people touch those surfaces  before  they clean their hands, i. e.  there will be pee and poo residue in the parts of the bathroom that people tend to touch the most.  i do have science to back me up.  take a look at this study URL that highlights the high touch areas in a typical toilet: sinks, switches,  door knobs and door  and  faucet levers , toilet area handholds, toilet seats, and toilet handles.  you definitely touch some of these surfaces ! maybe you are relying on the fact that these areas are regularly cleaned ? well, you are putting yourself at risk; take a look at this study URL that shows how inefficiently these high touch areas are cleaned.  so what are the benefits ? obviously, less chance of contracting a disease as shown in this study URL wash often ! also, a protip: grab a square or two of toilet paper and use it to open the door on your way out of the bathroom.   #  moreover, what you are forgetting is that the hand washing actually works as a sort of reset button.   #  this works under the assumption that the amount of things you touch increases linearly as you spend time in there.  in actuality, because washroom things tend to be largely automated on the hand washing see, or of net gain think automatic sinks, dyson hand washing stations, automatic or even manual paper towel dispensers you are spending far less time actually touching things.  moreover, what you are forgetting is that the hand washing actually works as a sort of reset button.  it allows is to reduce the amount of time that were actually going to spend having  touched things  to the moments following you taking your hands off the sink.  from that moment on is far less time than you would have been spent going to the washroom and leaving.  finally, you can never be 0 sure that you did not get anything on you while wiping and perhaps the dirtiest single thing that is not automated is the door handle of the stall.   #  i mean, i have been peeing my entire life, this is something i am very familiar with.   #  this is not really anything i have not already addressed.  0 i can tell if pee is soaking through and i use enough toilet paper to be sure it does not.  i mean, i have been peeing my entire life, this is something i am very familiar with.  0 sure, the bathroom is dirty, but what would i really be touching ? the door to my stall ? already talked about that.  the door out of the restroom ? you will touch that anyways even if you wash your hands.  i do not really go around feeling up countertops or anything.  0 that is why my hands are dry.  i wash my hands because of societal conventions, but i am just saying i do not understand why we have them.   #  so in that way your hands become dirty by handling the toilet paper itself.   #  when a toilet flushes, it ejects air, water droplets and bacteria all over the room easily distances 0 feet away.  this includes the toilet paper you touch to wipe yourself.  so in that way your hands become dirty by handling the toilet paper itself.  there are many youtube videos visualizing this.  also, it is a good idea to wash your hands in general due to all the other surfaces you touch during the day.  i think you address this, kind of.  why are you drinking so much water anyway ? is it because of that  you need to drink x amount of water every day  thing ? or are you on medication that makes you crave water ? are you constantly exercising all day long ? drinking too much water can have detrimental results on your kidneys by overworking them.
as a software engineer, i always say there are two kinds of problems everything can fall into and besolved: 0.  you can build a rocketship 0.  sort a deck of cards 0 of all software engineering work falls into the latter, most things that you try to accomplish and solve tend to be easily explained and solved by any person not in the field and for people in the field it is obvious patents are for non obvious things even more sophisticated things such as predicting what other users would like is obvious to anyone in the machine learning field.  for example, 0 click make it that you need to click once to order a product online using your previously entered information.  any software engineer will tell you that this could be completed in a few hours and they already have 0 of the design baring any existing infrastructure to code around so you ask  how do i protect my software from being copied ?   simple, you copyright it.  a good example is voat vs reddit, afaik, voat is open source reddit is not.  reddit is lisp/python wheras voat is c .  completely different languages, database structures etc.  however, if reddit as a site was patentable voat would never exist even though it is an independently coded and created product.  and if you are going to go on about how they look similar, reddit should file a design patent as well as trademark protection not a software patent  #  for example, 0 click make it that you need to click once to order a product online using your previously entered information.   #  first of all, i disagree that 0 click is obvious.   # first of all, i disagree that 0 click is obvious.  it is not obvious that making 0 click versus 0 clicks makes a huge difference, and that making fewer clicks is such a big deal.  that is a lesson that a lot of people take a long time to learn.  making ordering a single click was not something that had been done before.  at this time it was still  obvious  that you needed to confirm the order to prevent misclicks, and maybe select an address and payment method.  online stores had been around for a while by the time they made 0 click.  if it were truly obvious it would not have taken years for someone to think of it.  these things sound obvious in retrospect, but they really take a lot of specific knowledge and expertise in a variety of fields to come up with.  0 click was not patented because it was hard to implement.  as you point out, implementation is easy.  it was patented because it is easy to implement.  i was given a task by my manager at the beginning of this quarter.  i had to write this system that he had described to me at a very high level.  so i started on it, tried to re derive the various cases and behaviors.  it was hard.  i was making very little progress almost the entire quarter.  getting the idea right was  hard .  it was time consuming not to mention expensive for the company then, i happened to stumble upon another project that solved basically the same problem in another domain.  i used this alternate system for a few minutes, and everything click into place.  i now understood the  idea .  once i understood the idea, implementation was simple.  i spent less than two weeks and wrote basically the entire thing based on my new understanding of the system.  good ideas are hard to find.  they are expensive.  but they are  extremely  cheap to copy.  that makes it hard to profit off them.  who cares about copyright ? it is not going to protect your idea.  copyright is good for books and things like that, but it is not as useful for software.  no one cares about your knock off of  shall i compare thee to a summer is day ?   because the  content  is what people read that for.  however, no one cares about the  content  of your software, just what it  does .  a copyright is just a minor roadblock that makes people re implement things, but it does not require them to make the potentially huge investment of coming up with the good idea in the first place.  if there are weak protections on ideas, then you are not disincentivizing coming up with good ideas.  you have to sink a bunch of money into coming up with an idea that a competitor can copy for free, giving them the advantage.  now, even given all that, i think patents need to be reworked.  it is too easy to make bad patents, and they last for far too long.  but i do think they have a legitimate purpose that is worth keeping around.   #  i do have a background in technology as well as patent law , so please explain why software is math, period ?  #  yes, it is true that patents are written as broadly as possible by an attorney and the company.  its also true that the patent examiner tries to narrow those claims as much as possible so its not covered by other art.  this is the back and forth to arrive at a claim that the government thinks as far as humanly possible is not covered in another patent/publication, while being an actually new concept.  at core, all software is all math, period, thus the pressure from many quarters to eliminate software patents.  i do have a background in technology as well as patent law , so please explain why software is math, period ? also, math in some sense is patentable.  you can have a patent claim that includes a math formula as one or more of its steps, to achieve, for example, a particular compression algorithm.  this is math.  manipulation of bits is math.  movement of a physical arm during production is  math  in that abstract sense.  if that movement is new/novel/etc. , it is patentable.  why make one patentable and one not ?  #  if i challenge two people to write a program that shuffles a deck of cards.  well there is only about 0 or 0 reasonably efficient ways to do that, and probably only 0 really efficient way to do it.   # it costs millions to swat down the bad ones.  licensing costs on software patents are often just below the cost to defend a patent suit.  nice symmetry huh ? a real world product is not just math, and involves a lot of things.  your moving arm example includes bearings, gears, lubricants, motors, hydraulics, etc.  it is a real thing.  a software package, like a compression algorithm ? that is merely math.  implemented math.  that is it.  i will put it like this.  if i challenge two people to build a car, i will get two very different cars, every time.  if i challenge two people to write a program that shuffles a deck of cards.  well there is only about 0 or 0 reasonably efficient ways to do that, and probably only 0 really efficient way to do it.  i will get the same 0 or 0 programs back every time that experiment runs.  patents on software that ultimately cover the best, or possibly even all 0 possible ways to perform a task.  does not benefit society which is the purpose of patents, ostensibly .   #  find me a single software patent that actually published their source code.   #  that is a good point, i am enjoying this honestly.  let me drop the math argument for a moment, because while it is the root of the problem, sometimes the symptoms make the cause more clear.  when i go patent the segway, in your example, i have to provide a diagram to the uspo for how my patent works.  that is the tradeoff vs trade secret .  ultimately the patent expires and this new machine is freely available to copy.  find me a single software patent that actually published their source code.  and there is the irony.  it does not make sense to publish the source code, because it is just math.  besides, what they really patent is  any  source code that accomplishes the task.  this is unique to software patents, and part of the reason it is so broken.  let is build an app with 0 million lines of code now.  the patent searches to check every module would take longer than developing the app.  basically it sounds like a good idea in theory, but in practice, it is a failure.   #  now you come up with a mechanical pencil.   #  ok, deleted my last reply because i think i missed your point a little.  when you apply for a patent you get a monopoly on your  claimed  invention in return for disclosing one way to carry out the invention.  for the segway, the claim is to a stabilised platform, my way of doing it is a segway.  if you come up with another way of making a stabilised platform, you infringe my  claims  which define the scope of my patent, even if you do it differently to my example implementation.  this does not stop you patenting your new product, as long as it is novel and inventive over mine, though you may have to pay me royalties.  now, how does this apply to software ? it is important to note that the requirement for my patent is to disclose enough information that  a skilled person  would be able to produce your invention.  this means that the source code does not need to be published, as long as a skilled programmer or whoever is able to read the patent and say  oh, i can do that .  this is how all patents work, it is not limited to software patents.  for example, say i claim a pencil, and give an example which is wood outer with a graphite core.  now you come up with a mechanical pencil.  obviously, yours is clever in a way mine is not, but they are both pencils, and i have claimed a pencil.  you have therefore infringed my patent.  does that make sense ?
so i watched chappy on an airplane a while ago and loved it.  so far everyone i have talked to as well as all the reviews i have read were terrible and hated it.  nobody has explained why yet except for  it is not as good as district 0  or some production stuff i do not really care about.  this is probably the most mundane cmv i have ever touched but i am curious why people think its so bad and if i just missed something.  i understand the villain was ridiculous and plain weird but i thought it focused on a lot of really important topics and portrayed ai in an interesting light as well as having a lot on the topic of parenting and how children develop.  tl;dr i thought chappy was good, why do people hate it ?  #  chappy on an airplane a while ago and loved it.   #  every movie is more watchable on an airplane because there is absolutely nothing else to do.   # every movie is more watchable on an airplane because there is absolutely nothing else to do.  do not let that cloud your judgement too much.  i also saw it on a plane :   i thought chappy was good, why do people hate it ? a couple reasons:   the movie goes to great lengths to paint a picture of a city policed by automated drones in the beginning which is very conceptually interesting.  except then the film just kinda forgets about that for the rest of the movie.  it is like the film really  wanted  to be about chappie exploring and judging that world.  except they could not pull it off, so it instead it followed a couple junkies then had a nonsensical shootout with a  villain .  a. i.  is not exactly an original theme in sci fi.  there is been a dozen moves recently that have all explored it, and most did so a little more coherently than chappie.  ex machina, i robot, a. i. , the machine, her, etc are  all  recent examples.  there are no shortage of earlier films either blade runner, star trek, etc .  how is chappie better than  any  of those ? the characters were unlikeable one dimensional caricatures.  not a single one of them is interesting, relatable, or has realistic motivations or development.   #  chappie is moral decisions were easy to spot and not difficult to choose the right path.   #  a few things spring to mind:   the characters are not fun to watch, generally.  in a movie that is all about characters, there was a surprising gulf between them and the audience.  the loony guy and his skid row wife were both such disgusting characters that engendered almost no sympathy from me the entire film, even when they were trying.  another uninspiring look at artificial intelligence, which has not often been portrayed with variety and thoughtfulness like in  her , for instance .  chappie was a fun character, but similarly lacked much depth.  the depth presented was simplistic and similarly uninspired.  chappie is moral decisions were easy to spot and not difficult to choose the right path.  in other words, chappie was not presented with a moral choice that would trouble any of us, instead chappie being able to chose it became the focus.  it is a fine distinction, but important one path makes the audience an active participant in sussing out what is the right thing to do, the other is more about the suspense of chappie understanding what is right, which is less interesting.  the film began stronger than it ended something that plagued  big hero 0 , unrelated in tone but one of the more recent examples .  it descended into a shooting match at the end, which worked in  district 0  because the entire point was the violence and class struggles with the aliens, but here it felt like an excuse to have a violent, cliche ending.  i have not seen the film since it came out, and the lack of strong memories of the story are further indications that it was lacking in originality and grace, but that is what i remember of my opinion.  now, my question to you is, do you want to change your view that it is a good film, or are you just looking for reasons why people did not like it ? or perhaps you are looking to feel like it was not a good film but you otherwise enjoyed it, which is more nuanced.  for instance, i have a soft spot for  congo , even though it was critically and socially panned, even to this day, by more cineastes.  but whether it is a  good  film or not is irrelevant to me enjoying it.   #  also its partly that i really like the community here and found the best most convincing debates with well thought out and complete replies here.   # i do not know if it was intentional but i found this endearing.  hated the characters but that kind of parent is common in a lot of areas and i think it portrayed a less often seen side of how people are raised to be criminals and fuckups.  is this common though ? i liked it as it was a different take than what i usually see.  usually i see them fighting off other pressures etc, rather than actually not knowing right from wrong due to influences.  this i will agree with completely.  the ending was shitty and phoned in.  hated the end and the  i just wanna shit all over people  villain.  however i found the rest of it enjoyable.  this.  i am pretty good at being objective on quality even if i like it so i am willing to be convinced its not good even if i enjoyed watching it.  like i rewatched the punisher loved it as a kid and now accept that its utter garbage.  but it still has a place in my heart.  also its partly that i really like the community here and found the best most convincing debates with well thought out and complete replies here.  i really am caught between thinking  this movie made some good commentary i usually do not see  and  what the fuck happened with the execution   #  if you go a year without watching it, how much of it will you forget ?  # it is not about being common, it is about how the audience is more an observer who knows the right outcome, not an active participant in the drama.  not to mention they know what choice is likely to be made and how it is going to play out, so the suspense of the drama is lost.  take a film like  a separation , a brilliant examination of interpersonal relationships in a foreign court system.  it had a complexity of drama with no clear bad guys or otherwise easily sorted moralistic choices.  everyone had valid and understandable reasons for making the decisions they made, but they were not so simple to accept as the right ones, and in fact there were no real  right  choices to be made, even and especially at the end.  the only way to make observer moralism more interesting is to undercut it by going the polar opposite direction of the expected, surprising the audience.  that is still not quite as engaging as a complex moral dilemma, but it is  more  interesting, certainly.  it is lazy, is the problem.  the movie was often lazy, and therefore mediocre.  there was not anything truly interesting to hold onto, for the most part.  if you go a year without watching it, how much of it will you forget ? compare that to a great film, where even years later you still remember moments of it for instance, i still remember many punctuated scenes from  requiem for a dream , even though i have not seen that for about a decade and change .  so it is not terrible, it is just average and forgettable.   #  i do not know if that has more to do with me not seeing it often or it seeming more understandable when instead of a teenager its a  blank slate  that just takes on what its taught.   # i will disagree slightly and say that things like chappie breaking into cars, getting beat up by kids, coddled by the  mother  were all things that really resonated with me which is why i remember them.  i have seen so many families like that and had not seen that portrayed in a way that seems understandable in movies before.  i do not know if that has more to do with me not seeing it often or it seeming more understandable when instead of a teenager its a  blank slate  that just takes on what its taught.  the movie was often lazy, and therefore mediocre.  this is definitely true though, and you explained that really well.  they were supremely lazy with so many thing that it could not be outweighed by those shining moments of insight.  i wont say its a bad movie, but i think you are right, it is not a good one either.    0;
my logic is this: reddit is a place on the web for discussion and subreddits are designed for discussion of particular topics/viewpoints, even hateful ones.  the reason that banning and quarantines subs like coon town and fph is a bad idea is because before the subscribers to those subs came to reddit to discuss their hateful viewpoints.  in this situation these people would still occasionally venture to other subs with their opinions and would get destroyed by the logic of more rational posters.  my guess is that more than one of these people probably changed their viewpoint because of these discussions.  when faced with irrefutable facts some people do end up changing.  now that they have been driven off reddit they will go back to their isolated, hateful communities on dedicated websites/forums.  this does not allow them any outside discussion or inflection on their opinions and therefore they end up festering in that community and getting even worse.  as much as we do not like to see it every once in awhile on reddit it is a much worse idea to ban these subs from here and have them go somewhere where there is no chance of change.  it is the equivalent to the  i allow my teens to have their friends over and drink here because otherwise they would find someplace else where i ca not maintain control and it would be worse.   i am curious to see if anyone can cmv on this one as i have thought about it quite a bit and ca not seem to find any reason for banning them that is good enough to justify the consequences.   #  my guess is that more than one of these people probably changed their viewpoint because of these discussions.   #  so how much is it worth that a few people change their views while the very large majority does not ?  # so how much is it worth that a few people change their views while the very large majority does not ? in the meantime they are allowed to reinforce one another is views with no consequences whatsoever.  reddit does not need to provide a platform for this sort of activity if they do not need to.  and a lot of them do not.  i have had arguments with racists and sexists and anti vaxxers and everyone else and no amount of evidence can convince someone if they are unwilling to change their view.  the ideal of hateful views being trounced by rational ones is often a convenient illusion.  if they are allowed their own community then they do not need to expose themselves or their views to scrutiny.  reddit was being used as a platform for recruitment URL is that a good enough reason ?  #  but reddit is not responsible for  reforming  hateful views.   #  first of all:  my logic is this: reddit is a place on the web for discussion and subreddits are designed for discussion of particular topics/viewpoints, even hateful ones.  that might be how you define it, but that is not  their cause .  the mission, instead, is to drive traffic which can be monetized.  next, your argument is a good one for why discussion of hateful things should be allowed on a forum like cmv, and i agree completely.  but reddit is not responsible for  reforming  hateful views.  it is not their job to  let their teens drink here  because they are not reddit is teens.  you can argue that it is better for the world that they can live here, but again, reddit does not have a responsibility to fix the world.  it is more like this scenario.  you are having a party.  some drunk people you do not know wander in and start insulting some of your guests.  sure, it is great if you want to take responsibility for them, straighten them out and sober them up.  but if you just kick their sorry asses out to be drunk and obnoxious elsewhere, that is also your right.   #  also, in your example the drunks would essentially be powerless to do anything but talk to people at the party.   # i see both your points but do not think they are inconsistent with my view in any way.  but reddit is not responsible for  reforming  hateful views.  it is not their job to  let their teens drink here  because they are not reddit is teens.  it is true, reddit is not responsible, but they banned them for a reason.  if not because they do not like the message those subs stand for then why ? too many offended people ? reddit is more popular than ever, their page views are not suffering because of those subs.  you are having a party.  some drunk people you do not know wander in and start insulting some of your guests.  sure, it is great if you want to take responsibility for them, straighten them out and sober them up.  but if you just kick their sorry asses out to be drunk and obnoxious elsewhere, that is also your right.  except those drunk people are just going to go out on the street and start smashing shit in front of your house.  also, in your example the drunks would essentially be powerless to do anything but talk to people at the party.  generally that ends badly for the drunks as they come out looking stupid.  if your opinion comes down to reddit does not have the responsibility to be a part of the solution then yes, you are correct but therefore they should not have banned them at all.  treat it like it does not exist.  by banning you are making and statement and you have an intention.  my argument is that it is flawed logic.   #  yeah, the drunks make themselves look bad, but they also make the host look bad and drive off some guests that they like.   #  yeah, the drunks make themselves look bad, but they also make the host look bad and drive off some guests that they like.  if these folks want to mess up voat after being kicked out of reddit, why should reddit care ? moreover, in the media, which does not understand how reddit works, reddit is reported as advocating these views.  if some violence were perpetrated by a /r/coontown regular, the news would be full of talk about the  racist site, reddit .  they have far more to lose by keeping them around than by showing them the door.   #  how would you feel buying a  new yorker  if you knew conde nast subsidized a violently anti semitic monthly newsletter, and your money was going to it ?  #  here is a big point i think a few commentators have touched on.  i am half black.  my father was black.  it is not easy to come to this site knowing the useless and terrible shit that my usage promotes.  when i come here, i am adding advertising revenue that subsidizes a hate group that believes my parents should have been killed for mixing races.  when i come here, i know that any topic that marginally touches on race will have those people brigading to it to talk about how the niggers deserve everything they get usually in softer language and with  a lot  of upvotes .  i come to this site because of all the other content here, but the site still provides a safe have for that content.  and it still makes me very uncomfortable using this site.  how would you feel watching abc, if you knew abc subsidized a cable channel that plays videos of black people being beaten and killed for viewers  enjoyment ? how would you feel buying a  new yorker  if you knew conde nast subsidized a violently anti semitic monthly newsletter, and your money was going to it ? a lot of people, rightfully and justifiably in my mind, refuse to use this site because it harbors and provides a safe haven for that kind of content.  these are all potential users who could be showing their dyi projects, or giving their theories about r l j on r/asoif, or providing askscience answers, but they avoid this site because of the fairly accurate representation that there is a huge vein of vile racism and misogyny here.  reddit is not  just  about free speech.  it is also about creating a vibrant and welcome community to all people.  both ideas are on its mission statement.  hate groups that exist just to unfairly demonize people harm its cause of making an open and vibrant community by driving away potential contributors.  and, maybe more importantly, they are just  uninteresting .  talking about how niggers ruin the world is not a valuable or interesting conversation.  it provides nothing to this site.  i would rather that be gone if it helps promote conversation that  is  interesting.
my logic is this: reddit is a place on the web for discussion and subreddits are designed for discussion of particular topics/viewpoints, even hateful ones.  the reason that banning and quarantines subs like coon town and fph is a bad idea is because before the subscribers to those subs came to reddit to discuss their hateful viewpoints.  in this situation these people would still occasionally venture to other subs with their opinions and would get destroyed by the logic of more rational posters.  my guess is that more than one of these people probably changed their viewpoint because of these discussions.  when faced with irrefutable facts some people do end up changing.  now that they have been driven off reddit they will go back to their isolated, hateful communities on dedicated websites/forums.  this does not allow them any outside discussion or inflection on their opinions and therefore they end up festering in that community and getting even worse.  as much as we do not like to see it every once in awhile on reddit it is a much worse idea to ban these subs from here and have them go somewhere where there is no chance of change.  it is the equivalent to the  i allow my teens to have their friends over and drink here because otherwise they would find someplace else where i ca not maintain control and it would be worse.   i am curious to see if anyone can cmv on this one as i have thought about it quite a bit and ca not seem to find any reason for banning them that is good enough to justify the consequences.   #  when faced with irrefutable facts some people do end up changing.   #  and a lot of them do not.   # so how much is it worth that a few people change their views while the very large majority does not ? in the meantime they are allowed to reinforce one another is views with no consequences whatsoever.  reddit does not need to provide a platform for this sort of activity if they do not need to.  and a lot of them do not.  i have had arguments with racists and sexists and anti vaxxers and everyone else and no amount of evidence can convince someone if they are unwilling to change their view.  the ideal of hateful views being trounced by rational ones is often a convenient illusion.  if they are allowed their own community then they do not need to expose themselves or their views to scrutiny.  reddit was being used as a platform for recruitment URL is that a good enough reason ?  #  the mission, instead, is to drive traffic which can be monetized.   #  first of all:  my logic is this: reddit is a place on the web for discussion and subreddits are designed for discussion of particular topics/viewpoints, even hateful ones.  that might be how you define it, but that is not  their cause .  the mission, instead, is to drive traffic which can be monetized.  next, your argument is a good one for why discussion of hateful things should be allowed on a forum like cmv, and i agree completely.  but reddit is not responsible for  reforming  hateful views.  it is not their job to  let their teens drink here  because they are not reddit is teens.  you can argue that it is better for the world that they can live here, but again, reddit does not have a responsibility to fix the world.  it is more like this scenario.  you are having a party.  some drunk people you do not know wander in and start insulting some of your guests.  sure, it is great if you want to take responsibility for them, straighten them out and sober them up.  but if you just kick their sorry asses out to be drunk and obnoxious elsewhere, that is also your right.   #  also, in your example the drunks would essentially be powerless to do anything but talk to people at the party.   # i see both your points but do not think they are inconsistent with my view in any way.  but reddit is not responsible for  reforming  hateful views.  it is not their job to  let their teens drink here  because they are not reddit is teens.  it is true, reddit is not responsible, but they banned them for a reason.  if not because they do not like the message those subs stand for then why ? too many offended people ? reddit is more popular than ever, their page views are not suffering because of those subs.  you are having a party.  some drunk people you do not know wander in and start insulting some of your guests.  sure, it is great if you want to take responsibility for them, straighten them out and sober them up.  but if you just kick their sorry asses out to be drunk and obnoxious elsewhere, that is also your right.  except those drunk people are just going to go out on the street and start smashing shit in front of your house.  also, in your example the drunks would essentially be powerless to do anything but talk to people at the party.  generally that ends badly for the drunks as they come out looking stupid.  if your opinion comes down to reddit does not have the responsibility to be a part of the solution then yes, you are correct but therefore they should not have banned them at all.  treat it like it does not exist.  by banning you are making and statement and you have an intention.  my argument is that it is flawed logic.   #  if these folks want to mess up voat after being kicked out of reddit, why should reddit care ?  #  yeah, the drunks make themselves look bad, but they also make the host look bad and drive off some guests that they like.  if these folks want to mess up voat after being kicked out of reddit, why should reddit care ? moreover, in the media, which does not understand how reddit works, reddit is reported as advocating these views.  if some violence were perpetrated by a /r/coontown regular, the news would be full of talk about the  racist site, reddit .  they have far more to lose by keeping them around than by showing them the door.   #  it is also about creating a vibrant and welcome community to all people.   #  here is a big point i think a few commentators have touched on.  i am half black.  my father was black.  it is not easy to come to this site knowing the useless and terrible shit that my usage promotes.  when i come here, i am adding advertising revenue that subsidizes a hate group that believes my parents should have been killed for mixing races.  when i come here, i know that any topic that marginally touches on race will have those people brigading to it to talk about how the niggers deserve everything they get usually in softer language and with  a lot  of upvotes .  i come to this site because of all the other content here, but the site still provides a safe have for that content.  and it still makes me very uncomfortable using this site.  how would you feel watching abc, if you knew abc subsidized a cable channel that plays videos of black people being beaten and killed for viewers  enjoyment ? how would you feel buying a  new yorker  if you knew conde nast subsidized a violently anti semitic monthly newsletter, and your money was going to it ? a lot of people, rightfully and justifiably in my mind, refuse to use this site because it harbors and provides a safe haven for that kind of content.  these are all potential users who could be showing their dyi projects, or giving their theories about r l j on r/asoif, or providing askscience answers, but they avoid this site because of the fairly accurate representation that there is a huge vein of vile racism and misogyny here.  reddit is not  just  about free speech.  it is also about creating a vibrant and welcome community to all people.  both ideas are on its mission statement.  hate groups that exist just to unfairly demonize people harm its cause of making an open and vibrant community by driving away potential contributors.  and, maybe more importantly, they are just  uninteresting .  talking about how niggers ruin the world is not a valuable or interesting conversation.  it provides nothing to this site.  i would rather that be gone if it helps promote conversation that  is  interesting.
my logic is this: reddit is a place on the web for discussion and subreddits are designed for discussion of particular topics/viewpoints, even hateful ones.  the reason that banning and quarantines subs like coon town and fph is a bad idea is because before the subscribers to those subs came to reddit to discuss their hateful viewpoints.  in this situation these people would still occasionally venture to other subs with their opinions and would get destroyed by the logic of more rational posters.  my guess is that more than one of these people probably changed their viewpoint because of these discussions.  when faced with irrefutable facts some people do end up changing.  now that they have been driven off reddit they will go back to their isolated, hateful communities on dedicated websites/forums.  this does not allow them any outside discussion or inflection on their opinions and therefore they end up festering in that community and getting even worse.  as much as we do not like to see it every once in awhile on reddit it is a much worse idea to ban these subs from here and have them go somewhere where there is no chance of change.  it is the equivalent to the  i allow my teens to have their friends over and drink here because otherwise they would find someplace else where i ca not maintain control and it would be worse.   i am curious to see if anyone can cmv on this one as i have thought about it quite a bit and ca not seem to find any reason for banning them that is good enough to justify the consequences.   #  ca not seem to find any reason for banning them that is good enough to justify the consequences.   #  reddit was being used as a platform for recruitment URL is that a good enough reason ?  # so how much is it worth that a few people change their views while the very large majority does not ? in the meantime they are allowed to reinforce one another is views with no consequences whatsoever.  reddit does not need to provide a platform for this sort of activity if they do not need to.  and a lot of them do not.  i have had arguments with racists and sexists and anti vaxxers and everyone else and no amount of evidence can convince someone if they are unwilling to change their view.  the ideal of hateful views being trounced by rational ones is often a convenient illusion.  if they are allowed their own community then they do not need to expose themselves or their views to scrutiny.  reddit was being used as a platform for recruitment URL is that a good enough reason ?  #  next, your argument is a good one for why discussion of hateful things should be allowed on a forum like cmv, and i agree completely.   #  first of all:  my logic is this: reddit is a place on the web for discussion and subreddits are designed for discussion of particular topics/viewpoints, even hateful ones.  that might be how you define it, but that is not  their cause .  the mission, instead, is to drive traffic which can be monetized.  next, your argument is a good one for why discussion of hateful things should be allowed on a forum like cmv, and i agree completely.  but reddit is not responsible for  reforming  hateful views.  it is not their job to  let their teens drink here  because they are not reddit is teens.  you can argue that it is better for the world that they can live here, but again, reddit does not have a responsibility to fix the world.  it is more like this scenario.  you are having a party.  some drunk people you do not know wander in and start insulting some of your guests.  sure, it is great if you want to take responsibility for them, straighten them out and sober them up.  but if you just kick their sorry asses out to be drunk and obnoxious elsewhere, that is also your right.   #  some drunk people you do not know wander in and start insulting some of your guests.   # i see both your points but do not think they are inconsistent with my view in any way.  but reddit is not responsible for  reforming  hateful views.  it is not their job to  let their teens drink here  because they are not reddit is teens.  it is true, reddit is not responsible, but they banned them for a reason.  if not because they do not like the message those subs stand for then why ? too many offended people ? reddit is more popular than ever, their page views are not suffering because of those subs.  you are having a party.  some drunk people you do not know wander in and start insulting some of your guests.  sure, it is great if you want to take responsibility for them, straighten them out and sober them up.  but if you just kick their sorry asses out to be drunk and obnoxious elsewhere, that is also your right.  except those drunk people are just going to go out on the street and start smashing shit in front of your house.  also, in your example the drunks would essentially be powerless to do anything but talk to people at the party.  generally that ends badly for the drunks as they come out looking stupid.  if your opinion comes down to reddit does not have the responsibility to be a part of the solution then yes, you are correct but therefore they should not have banned them at all.  treat it like it does not exist.  by banning you are making and statement and you have an intention.  my argument is that it is flawed logic.   #  they have far more to lose by keeping them around than by showing them the door.   #  yeah, the drunks make themselves look bad, but they also make the host look bad and drive off some guests that they like.  if these folks want to mess up voat after being kicked out of reddit, why should reddit care ? moreover, in the media, which does not understand how reddit works, reddit is reported as advocating these views.  if some violence were perpetrated by a /r/coontown regular, the news would be full of talk about the  racist site, reddit .  they have far more to lose by keeping them around than by showing them the door.   #  hate groups that exist just to unfairly demonize people harm its cause of making an open and vibrant community by driving away potential contributors.   #  here is a big point i think a few commentators have touched on.  i am half black.  my father was black.  it is not easy to come to this site knowing the useless and terrible shit that my usage promotes.  when i come here, i am adding advertising revenue that subsidizes a hate group that believes my parents should have been killed for mixing races.  when i come here, i know that any topic that marginally touches on race will have those people brigading to it to talk about how the niggers deserve everything they get usually in softer language and with  a lot  of upvotes .  i come to this site because of all the other content here, but the site still provides a safe have for that content.  and it still makes me very uncomfortable using this site.  how would you feel watching abc, if you knew abc subsidized a cable channel that plays videos of black people being beaten and killed for viewers  enjoyment ? how would you feel buying a  new yorker  if you knew conde nast subsidized a violently anti semitic monthly newsletter, and your money was going to it ? a lot of people, rightfully and justifiably in my mind, refuse to use this site because it harbors and provides a safe haven for that kind of content.  these are all potential users who could be showing their dyi projects, or giving their theories about r l j on r/asoif, or providing askscience answers, but they avoid this site because of the fairly accurate representation that there is a huge vein of vile racism and misogyny here.  reddit is not  just  about free speech.  it is also about creating a vibrant and welcome community to all people.  both ideas are on its mission statement.  hate groups that exist just to unfairly demonize people harm its cause of making an open and vibrant community by driving away potential contributors.  and, maybe more importantly, they are just  uninteresting .  talking about how niggers ruin the world is not a valuable or interesting conversation.  it provides nothing to this site.  i would rather that be gone if it helps promote conversation that  is  interesting.
my logic is this: reddit is a place on the web for discussion and subreddits are designed for discussion of particular topics/viewpoints, even hateful ones.  the reason that banning and quarantines subs like coon town and fph is a bad idea is because before the subscribers to those subs came to reddit to discuss their hateful viewpoints.  in this situation these people would still occasionally venture to other subs with their opinions and would get destroyed by the logic of more rational posters.  my guess is that more than one of these people probably changed their viewpoint because of these discussions.  when faced with irrefutable facts some people do end up changing.  now that they have been driven off reddit they will go back to their isolated, hateful communities on dedicated websites/forums.  this does not allow them any outside discussion or inflection on their opinions and therefore they end up festering in that community and getting even worse.  as much as we do not like to see it every once in awhile on reddit it is a much worse idea to ban these subs from here and have them go somewhere where there is no chance of change.  it is the equivalent to the  i allow my teens to have their friends over and drink here because otherwise they would find someplace else where i ca not maintain control and it would be worse.   i am curious to see if anyone can cmv on this one as i have thought about it quite a bit and ca not seem to find any reason for banning them that is good enough to justify the consequences.   #  as much as we do not like to see it every once in awhile on reddit it is a much worse idea to ban these subs from here and have them go somewhere where there is no chance of change.   #  it is the equivalent to the  i allow my teens to have their friends over and drink here because otherwise they would find someplace else where i ca not maintain control and it would be worse.    # it is the equivalent to the  i allow my teens to have their friends over and drink here because otherwise they would find someplace else where i ca not maintain control and it would be worse.   why should reddit be the place that hosts the teens who want to drink ? for one, hosting teens to drink puts the homeowners at risk since they are now responsible for people who are underage and drinking, just like it puts reddit at risk since it is now responsible for these subs and users in the eyes of potential revenue sources mainly advertisers/sponsors .  so yeah, reddit used to be the parent that let their teenager have friends over to drink, but then they decided it was not worth the risk and put a stop to it.  there are plenty of other places on the internet where these things can be discussed.  why should reddit have to be a host to these topics ?  #  next, your argument is a good one for why discussion of hateful things should be allowed on a forum like cmv, and i agree completely.   #  first of all:  my logic is this: reddit is a place on the web for discussion and subreddits are designed for discussion of particular topics/viewpoints, even hateful ones.  that might be how you define it, but that is not  their cause .  the mission, instead, is to drive traffic which can be monetized.  next, your argument is a good one for why discussion of hateful things should be allowed on a forum like cmv, and i agree completely.  but reddit is not responsible for  reforming  hateful views.  it is not their job to  let their teens drink here  because they are not reddit is teens.  you can argue that it is better for the world that they can live here, but again, reddit does not have a responsibility to fix the world.  it is more like this scenario.  you are having a party.  some drunk people you do not know wander in and start insulting some of your guests.  sure, it is great if you want to take responsibility for them, straighten them out and sober them up.  but if you just kick their sorry asses out to be drunk and obnoxious elsewhere, that is also your right.   #  some drunk people you do not know wander in and start insulting some of your guests.   # i see both your points but do not think they are inconsistent with my view in any way.  but reddit is not responsible for  reforming  hateful views.  it is not their job to  let their teens drink here  because they are not reddit is teens.  it is true, reddit is not responsible, but they banned them for a reason.  if not because they do not like the message those subs stand for then why ? too many offended people ? reddit is more popular than ever, their page views are not suffering because of those subs.  you are having a party.  some drunk people you do not know wander in and start insulting some of your guests.  sure, it is great if you want to take responsibility for them, straighten them out and sober them up.  but if you just kick their sorry asses out to be drunk and obnoxious elsewhere, that is also your right.  except those drunk people are just going to go out on the street and start smashing shit in front of your house.  also, in your example the drunks would essentially be powerless to do anything but talk to people at the party.  generally that ends badly for the drunks as they come out looking stupid.  if your opinion comes down to reddit does not have the responsibility to be a part of the solution then yes, you are correct but therefore they should not have banned them at all.  treat it like it does not exist.  by banning you are making and statement and you have an intention.  my argument is that it is flawed logic.   #  yeah, the drunks make themselves look bad, but they also make the host look bad and drive off some guests that they like.   #  yeah, the drunks make themselves look bad, but they also make the host look bad and drive off some guests that they like.  if these folks want to mess up voat after being kicked out of reddit, why should reddit care ? moreover, in the media, which does not understand how reddit works, reddit is reported as advocating these views.  if some violence were perpetrated by a /r/coontown regular, the news would be full of talk about the  racist site, reddit .  they have far more to lose by keeping them around than by showing them the door.   #  hate groups that exist just to unfairly demonize people harm its cause of making an open and vibrant community by driving away potential contributors.   #  here is a big point i think a few commentators have touched on.  i am half black.  my father was black.  it is not easy to come to this site knowing the useless and terrible shit that my usage promotes.  when i come here, i am adding advertising revenue that subsidizes a hate group that believes my parents should have been killed for mixing races.  when i come here, i know that any topic that marginally touches on race will have those people brigading to it to talk about how the niggers deserve everything they get usually in softer language and with  a lot  of upvotes .  i come to this site because of all the other content here, but the site still provides a safe have for that content.  and it still makes me very uncomfortable using this site.  how would you feel watching abc, if you knew abc subsidized a cable channel that plays videos of black people being beaten and killed for viewers  enjoyment ? how would you feel buying a  new yorker  if you knew conde nast subsidized a violently anti semitic monthly newsletter, and your money was going to it ? a lot of people, rightfully and justifiably in my mind, refuse to use this site because it harbors and provides a safe haven for that kind of content.  these are all potential users who could be showing their dyi projects, or giving their theories about r l j on r/asoif, or providing askscience answers, but they avoid this site because of the fairly accurate representation that there is a huge vein of vile racism and misogyny here.  reddit is not  just  about free speech.  it is also about creating a vibrant and welcome community to all people.  both ideas are on its mission statement.  hate groups that exist just to unfairly demonize people harm its cause of making an open and vibrant community by driving away potential contributors.  and, maybe more importantly, they are just  uninteresting .  talking about how niggers ruin the world is not a valuable or interesting conversation.  it provides nothing to this site.  i would rather that be gone if it helps promote conversation that  is  interesting.
hello.  i think a vast majority of our security problems on our networks and computational devices stems from technical illiteracy from the everyday user.  also, the functionality of a computer nowadays is being restricted heavily by catering computers to the lowest common denominator of computer users, ie  i just borrowed my grandsons computer to send a virtual e mail to susan .  points: computers have become easier to use, but generally do this by removing choice, not by improving usability.  most people these days do not know how to do simple tasks on computers.  how do you instruct a computer to copy all files that start with july and end with . jpg from a folder and all it is subfolders to a separate folder titled  camping photos  ? the population of americans who are brand new to computing is shrinking every day, and will continue shrinking due to death.  as such, it is illogical to have them be the standard to which software is designed.  people who have had computers available their entire lives are incapable of troubleshooting the machines that they have grown up with from a small age, as their interactions with the machine have been simplistic and uninteresting.  how many times have you seen someone  link  to a photo or a document by saying;  here, click this: c:\users\jcena\files\pr0n. gif  modern computers have many abstraction layers that separate a user from the actual actions being taken.  people develop metaphors for interactions with machines, and some of these become standards.  for instance, i wo not sit here and tell you that the  files and folders  metaphor for organizing information on machines was not successful.  microsoft is especially guilty of this.  what is a  briefcase  ? when i say  library , are you thinking of  that folder that is not a folder that contains shortcuts to all my shit , or are you thinking  a file full of programming functions that allows a programmer to utilize features without having to write it all themselves  ? by hiding machine functionality, the quality of that functionality degrades or at least, does not improve .  the  user friendliness  leads to a paradigm where users are not expected nor required to in any way expend any effort in learning how to use a machine that they will be using a lot.  this means users are dumber, and more likely to break things.   #  the  user friendliness  leads to a paradigm where users are not expected nor required to in any way expend any effort in learning how to use a machine that they will be using a lot.   #  why is it so essential that they know how it works ?  # source ? why is it so essential that they know how it works ? do you know the specific method of electron transport in your transistors ? do you know how a refrigerator cools things down, or how a camera lens bends light, or how a medicine interacts with cells in your body at the molecular level ? an in depth knowledge of how things work is not necessary to use many of the objects that populate our surroundings.   #  every layer of abstraction both obscures and empowers.   #  every layer of abstraction both obscures and empowers.  yes, kids today lack my understanding of file structure.  yet they are therefore empowered to share files and create apps far more readily than i could in college.  in turn, i never had an understanding of assembly language but i can do way more useful things than my uncle could.  and when we turn to his ability to understand which nand/nor gates that assembly language was actually activating.  well, let is just say that the assembly language was helpful but did obscure the inner workings.   #  after all, if you ca not write your own functional skype clone, i think you do not deserve to use skype, do not you agree ?  #  i dunno, man.  its starting to sound like you do not know computers well enough.  perhaps you should write your own skype clone, and then you can add in the appropriate api hooks to get your desired output.  after all, if you ca not write your own functional skype clone, i think you do not deserve to use skype, do not you agree ? you should have a better understanding of the tools you use.  if you are going to say  i do not use skype  then replace skype with some program you do use.  surely you will have to admit that it is ridiculous to demand people be able to write the software they are using before they use it.   #  it can be said that there was no change in  reading comprehension , there was just a change in the level of reading people commonly do.   #  it depends what you mean by  reading comprehension .  by virtue of it being easier, more people will be able to do it more easily.  this, in some sense, is an increase in  reading comprehension .  alternatively, since it is easier, people wo not have any need to learn to read at a higher, more difficult level.  this, in some other sense, is a decrease in  reading comprehension .  on the other hand, there is another way to interpret the latter description.  it can be said that there was no change in  reading comprehension , there was just a change in the level of reading people commonly do.  if reading at today is level was required at some point, you would still see similar levels of  reading comprehension  to what we see today, it is just that people do not often have to use it.  this can be argued if people are taught the same way as they are taught today.  so, which kind of  reading comprehension  are you talking about, and which one is most relevant to you ?  #  such a book would be worse at conveying useful and meaningful information.   #  how is that compatible with having their meaning obfuscated ? this cmv is about your view that computers should become less user friendly.  the analogous situation for books would be more convoluted language that is tedious to read.  such a book would be worse at conveying useful and meaningful information.  what is the point of having to learn better reading comprehension just so you can glean information from books that are purposefully written in a convoluted manner ? it seems easier for everyone to write in a reader friendly manner for easier information transfer and understanding.
hello.  i think a vast majority of our security problems on our networks and computational devices stems from technical illiteracy from the everyday user.  also, the functionality of a computer nowadays is being restricted heavily by catering computers to the lowest common denominator of computer users, ie  i just borrowed my grandsons computer to send a virtual e mail to susan .  points: computers have become easier to use, but generally do this by removing choice, not by improving usability.  most people these days do not know how to do simple tasks on computers.  how do you instruct a computer to copy all files that start with july and end with . jpg from a folder and all it is subfolders to a separate folder titled  camping photos  ? the population of americans who are brand new to computing is shrinking every day, and will continue shrinking due to death.  as such, it is illogical to have them be the standard to which software is designed.  people who have had computers available their entire lives are incapable of troubleshooting the machines that they have grown up with from a small age, as their interactions with the machine have been simplistic and uninteresting.  how many times have you seen someone  link  to a photo or a document by saying;  here, click this: c:\users\jcena\files\pr0n. gif  modern computers have many abstraction layers that separate a user from the actual actions being taken.  people develop metaphors for interactions with machines, and some of these become standards.  for instance, i wo not sit here and tell you that the  files and folders  metaphor for organizing information on machines was not successful.  microsoft is especially guilty of this.  what is a  briefcase  ? when i say  library , are you thinking of  that folder that is not a folder that contains shortcuts to all my shit , or are you thinking  a file full of programming functions that allows a programmer to utilize features without having to write it all themselves  ? by hiding machine functionality, the quality of that functionality degrades or at least, does not improve .  the  user friendliness  leads to a paradigm where users are not expected nor required to in any way expend any effort in learning how to use a machine that they will be using a lot.  this means users are dumber, and more likely to break things.   #  i think a vast majority of our security problems on our networks and computational devices stems from technical illiteracy from the everyday user.   #  a fair amount of security problems on networks are due to a  combination  of bad software and uneducated users.  and the former is easier to correct.   # a fair amount of security problems on networks are due to a  combination  of bad software and uneducated users.  and the former is easier to correct.  honestly  a lot  of that was microsoft is fault.  windows has long had some architectural problems and legacy software support that created security holes and trained users to ignore warnings.  ms is a lot better now than it was a decade ago though.  the rise of east to use and app store controlled gated devices like ios apps tend to be more secure as they sandbox applications and prevent malicious code atracks.  why exactly do you want to reverse this trend ? the most severe but infrequently committed breaches have been against large servers containing sensitive information see ashley madison or whatever the latest breach .  these systems are large custom code bases on linux servers maintained by savvy engineers.  it happens because of human error and low roi on penetration testing, not because of sheer user ignorance.   #  and when we turn to his ability to understand which nand/nor gates that assembly language was actually activating.  well, let is just say that the assembly language was helpful but did obscure the inner workings.   #  every layer of abstraction both obscures and empowers.  yes, kids today lack my understanding of file structure.  yet they are therefore empowered to share files and create apps far more readily than i could in college.  in turn, i never had an understanding of assembly language but i can do way more useful things than my uncle could.  and when we turn to his ability to understand which nand/nor gates that assembly language was actually activating.  well, let is just say that the assembly language was helpful but did obscure the inner workings.   #  you should have a better understanding of the tools you use.   #  i dunno, man.  its starting to sound like you do not know computers well enough.  perhaps you should write your own skype clone, and then you can add in the appropriate api hooks to get your desired output.  after all, if you ca not write your own functional skype clone, i think you do not deserve to use skype, do not you agree ? you should have a better understanding of the tools you use.  if you are going to say  i do not use skype  then replace skype with some program you do use.  surely you will have to admit that it is ridiculous to demand people be able to write the software they are using before they use it.   #  on the other hand, there is another way to interpret the latter description.   #  it depends what you mean by  reading comprehension .  by virtue of it being easier, more people will be able to do it more easily.  this, in some sense, is an increase in  reading comprehension .  alternatively, since it is easier, people wo not have any need to learn to read at a higher, more difficult level.  this, in some other sense, is a decrease in  reading comprehension .  on the other hand, there is another way to interpret the latter description.  it can be said that there was no change in  reading comprehension , there was just a change in the level of reading people commonly do.  if reading at today is level was required at some point, you would still see similar levels of  reading comprehension  to what we see today, it is just that people do not often have to use it.  this can be argued if people are taught the same way as they are taught today.  so, which kind of  reading comprehension  are you talking about, and which one is most relevant to you ?  #  such a book would be worse at conveying useful and meaningful information.   #  how is that compatible with having their meaning obfuscated ? this cmv is about your view that computers should become less user friendly.  the analogous situation for books would be more convoluted language that is tedious to read.  such a book would be worse at conveying useful and meaningful information.  what is the point of having to learn better reading comprehension just so you can glean information from books that are purposefully written in a convoluted manner ? it seems easier for everyone to write in a reader friendly manner for easier information transfer and understanding.
hello.  i think a vast majority of our security problems on our networks and computational devices stems from technical illiteracy from the everyday user.  also, the functionality of a computer nowadays is being restricted heavily by catering computers to the lowest common denominator of computer users, ie  i just borrowed my grandsons computer to send a virtual e mail to susan .  points: computers have become easier to use, but generally do this by removing choice, not by improving usability.  most people these days do not know how to do simple tasks on computers.  how do you instruct a computer to copy all files that start with july and end with . jpg from a folder and all it is subfolders to a separate folder titled  camping photos  ? the population of americans who are brand new to computing is shrinking every day, and will continue shrinking due to death.  as such, it is illogical to have them be the standard to which software is designed.  people who have had computers available their entire lives are incapable of troubleshooting the machines that they have grown up with from a small age, as their interactions with the machine have been simplistic and uninteresting.  how many times have you seen someone  link  to a photo or a document by saying;  here, click this: c:\users\jcena\files\pr0n. gif  modern computers have many abstraction layers that separate a user from the actual actions being taken.  people develop metaphors for interactions with machines, and some of these become standards.  for instance, i wo not sit here and tell you that the  files and folders  metaphor for organizing information on machines was not successful.  microsoft is especially guilty of this.  what is a  briefcase  ? when i say  library , are you thinking of  that folder that is not a folder that contains shortcuts to all my shit , or are you thinking  a file full of programming functions that allows a programmer to utilize features without having to write it all themselves  ? by hiding machine functionality, the quality of that functionality degrades or at least, does not improve .  the  user friendliness  leads to a paradigm where users are not expected nor required to in any way expend any effort in learning how to use a machine that they will be using a lot.  this means users are dumber, and more likely to break things.   #  the  user friendliness  leads to a paradigm where users are not expected nor required to in any way expend any effort in learning how to use a machine that they will be using a lot.   #  this means users are dumber, and more likely to break things.   # this means users are dumber, and more likely to break things.  this is similar to a paradox known as the children of the magenta, or the automation paradox.  the downside to giving the computer control is that you own skills get dull, so that when failure does happen, you are helpless.  however this ignores the reasons for giving control to the computer in the first place.  we wanted to automate, streamline, and otherwise put under the hood, tasks that humans found difficult and were liable to mess up.  when elevators had their own dedicated operators, accidents happened.  how could they not ? any human operated system will have human errors.  operator starts the elevator motor, business man late for a meeting rushes and dives into the compartment, but gets stuck with his body hanging halfway out.  the operator ca not brake the elevator fast enough, and everybody gets traumatized witnessing the ensuing accident.  so we automated that stuff.  now a days the problem is that when the elevator has an issue, you literally have no recourse, there is no knowledgable person there to trouble shoot it with you.  the solution to the automation paradox, is not to give up and accept an increased amount of human errors for extra agency, but to intelligently design our systems to make the best use of human and computer strengths.  on elevators we added the panic button as your primary means of influencing the elevator if something goes wrong.  it works great because while few humans know enough about elevators to operate them manually, we are quick to react when something goes obviously wrong.  for an average person, using a wusiwug interface will result in higher productivity and less errors than if they were forced into a less intuitive program.  sure,  some  people would excel in a deeper environment where you have to know your shit, but not everyone will.  deeper tools will always be available too those who can handle them, for everyone else, we want to find a compatible level automation.   #  yes, kids today lack my understanding of file structure.   #  every layer of abstraction both obscures and empowers.  yes, kids today lack my understanding of file structure.  yet they are therefore empowered to share files and create apps far more readily than i could in college.  in turn, i never had an understanding of assembly language but i can do way more useful things than my uncle could.  and when we turn to his ability to understand which nand/nor gates that assembly language was actually activating.  well, let is just say that the assembly language was helpful but did obscure the inner workings.   #  its starting to sound like you do not know computers well enough.   #  i dunno, man.  its starting to sound like you do not know computers well enough.  perhaps you should write your own skype clone, and then you can add in the appropriate api hooks to get your desired output.  after all, if you ca not write your own functional skype clone, i think you do not deserve to use skype, do not you agree ? you should have a better understanding of the tools you use.  if you are going to say  i do not use skype  then replace skype with some program you do use.  surely you will have to admit that it is ridiculous to demand people be able to write the software they are using before they use it.   #  it can be said that there was no change in  reading comprehension , there was just a change in the level of reading people commonly do.   #  it depends what you mean by  reading comprehension .  by virtue of it being easier, more people will be able to do it more easily.  this, in some sense, is an increase in  reading comprehension .  alternatively, since it is easier, people wo not have any need to learn to read at a higher, more difficult level.  this, in some other sense, is a decrease in  reading comprehension .  on the other hand, there is another way to interpret the latter description.  it can be said that there was no change in  reading comprehension , there was just a change in the level of reading people commonly do.  if reading at today is level was required at some point, you would still see similar levels of  reading comprehension  to what we see today, it is just that people do not often have to use it.  this can be argued if people are taught the same way as they are taught today.  so, which kind of  reading comprehension  are you talking about, and which one is most relevant to you ?  #  how is that compatible with having their meaning obfuscated ?  #  how is that compatible with having their meaning obfuscated ? this cmv is about your view that computers should become less user friendly.  the analogous situation for books would be more convoluted language that is tedious to read.  such a book would be worse at conveying useful and meaningful information.  what is the point of having to learn better reading comprehension just so you can glean information from books that are purposefully written in a convoluted manner ? it seems easier for everyone to write in a reader friendly manner for easier information transfer and understanding.
the constitution of the united states is over 0 years old and it shows its age.  many amendments are written in unusual english by todays standards, making it difficult to tease out meaning.  many other amendments overlap in meaning and could be combined to simplify them while also covering more people.  the fact is, it is outdated.  i believe it should be revised every 0 years or so because culture and language are organic.  they change based on technology, public conscious, and international relations.  should we follow the advice of a group who believed slavery was acceptable ? that thought only white, male, property owners should/could vote ? can you read through the document and understand what was meant or does much of it come across as confusing to todays readers ? the world has changed and i believe we need to change with it in order to be relevant.  i also believe our ideas and views from today will experience the same degradation over time.  in 0 years will the world still care about gun rights ? will the population still speak mostly english or will we add more spanish to our vocabulary ? will words like gay hold the same meaning as it does now or will it return to the usage it once had ? we cannot know.  we should not force our ideas through time, expecially when future generations will have the same issues understanding us as we do understanding the founding fathers.  what i ca not understand is why we are clinging to the past, to a group who would likely be viewed as backward racists today.  we should take what we believe now and govern by those beliefs.  we should update, revise, and examine our core ideas from time to time to at least make sure we still understand what they are.  i am not talking about simply throwing the constitution out either.  i am saying we should interpret it for today, update it, and use our revised version instead.  then both can be looked at by the next generation and adjusted as needed.  it should update and change with the citizenry and the times while still being the timeless core of our laws.  it would take a lot of work, a lot would change, but i believe we would be better for it.  cmv many responses seem to think i am saying scrap the whole thing and start over.  no, i am saying we need an updated, reworded one that uses the meanings as we take them today.  all men are equal shoule read all persons, prohibition and its repeal should just be removed, the 0th and 0th should be combined and all inclusive with restrictions put in after the fact.  those are examples of what i mean but not the whole of it.  to cmv you need to show me that having an old, poorly worded document is better than a revision of it in modern terms.  it would be hard to do but it would be better for the nation and easier to work with than if we left it be.  cmv also, deltas incoming for added info on the topic.  hard to delta from a phone  #  should we follow the advice of a group who believed slavery was acceptable ?  #  yes, slavery was acceptable at least to some , and that tarnishes the founding fathers.   #  the beauty of the constitution is that it built in the fixes to your problems.  they created courts to interpret the constitution based on modern sensibilities.  so, when questions of what is  cruel and unusual punishment  or  how does freedom of the press apply to the internet  come up, we have a way to answer them.  it also included an amendment process so that as society changes by ending slavery, for instance the constitution could change with it.  yes, slavery was acceptable at least to some , and that tarnishes the founding fathers.  but, seriously, who do you want to write the new constitution ? donald trump ? harry reid ? by some insane stroke of luck almost enough to believe in divine intervention some of the greatest political thinkers of all time all worked together to forge this document.  can you imagine the partisan bullshit that we would see today ? finally, you take exception with the language.  is it really that hard to understand ? i might change  posterity  to  descendants .  maybe change  ordain  to  create .  but not only is it still understandable, it is beautiful prose, fitting the noble goals of the constitution.  can you imagine what a  modern  version would be like ?  #  koch and soros both immediately come to mind.   #  this is the key problem.  there is a movement going on right now called the convention of states, and if you follow the money you will find some very familiar billionaire names behind it.  koch and soros both immediately come to mind.  on the outside it appears to be an attempt at reforming the government due to certain  problems .  what it glosses over is that if you follow the money behind this movement, you find that it leads to exactly the same people who have caused the problems they are touting as the main issues.  they then want to call a convention of states to rewrite constitution using newly appointed shills at the majority of state levels.  this allows them to then rewrite a constitution with whatever they want in it, in a secret closed door meeting.  fuck that.  it is so fucking simple it is absurd to even consider, but this is what is happening.   #  he is been putting money into a push for the same article v convention that certain high profile conservatives are pushing for, and that other conservative billionaires have been pushing for.   #  he is been putting money into a push for the same article v convention that certain high profile conservatives are pushing for, and that other conservative billionaires have been pushing for.  their website URL soros  claim is that it is for a different reason.  but the money has been going to the same places.  the evidence i had previously was that i found a list of financial backers through their own site and several of the organizations were directly linked to a few high profile billionaires.  the kochs especially put into perspective their end goal to me.  but upon doing a quick search just now to refresh myself, there are pages of articles about soros pushing for a convention of states.  yet on their website, they have articles about soros supposedly forming a coalition against article v.  while he is pumping money to push for it.  it is just weird.  the whole thing is weird.  i do not like any of it.  do not take my word for it.  spend an hour checking it out and following the weird trail it will lead you on.  their own website is a great place to start.   #  it is advantageous for the two ruling parties to advocate in opposition to each other.   #  i will be the devils advocate for a min.  you know these billionaires have nothing against the average person, right ? they have a tendency to disregard social issue in advocacy of economic issues, but if they were given the power to they would likely not only fix them but fix them more effectively than whatever party focuses on social issues .  the reason you see this political divide is strategics.  it is advantageous for the two ruling parties to advocate in opposition to each other.  if they are too similar the voters might get mixed or apathetic and they would lose votes.  this is actually a pretty simple scenario if you ever take a class on strategy, which everyone totally should.   #  they already have that option and they do more harm than good as is.   #  if they were given power ? youre mistaken.  they already have the power to make big positive changes.  some do.  most do not.  that is exactly the problem.  those who are not, are also the ones buying politicians and lobbying with millions of dollars to get legislation passed that benefits them.  there is absolutely no reason to think they could do a better job if the government was stripped of all power and we were forced to rely on their good graces to help us.  they already have that option and they do more harm than good as is.  they are creating the problems and then citing those problems as to why the government is failing, and telling us to put them in charge.  fuck thaaaat.
the constitution of the united states is over 0 years old and it shows its age.  many amendments are written in unusual english by todays standards, making it difficult to tease out meaning.  many other amendments overlap in meaning and could be combined to simplify them while also covering more people.  the fact is, it is outdated.  i believe it should be revised every 0 years or so because culture and language are organic.  they change based on technology, public conscious, and international relations.  should we follow the advice of a group who believed slavery was acceptable ? that thought only white, male, property owners should/could vote ? can you read through the document and understand what was meant or does much of it come across as confusing to todays readers ? the world has changed and i believe we need to change with it in order to be relevant.  i also believe our ideas and views from today will experience the same degradation over time.  in 0 years will the world still care about gun rights ? will the population still speak mostly english or will we add more spanish to our vocabulary ? will words like gay hold the same meaning as it does now or will it return to the usage it once had ? we cannot know.  we should not force our ideas through time, expecially when future generations will have the same issues understanding us as we do understanding the founding fathers.  what i ca not understand is why we are clinging to the past, to a group who would likely be viewed as backward racists today.  we should take what we believe now and govern by those beliefs.  we should update, revise, and examine our core ideas from time to time to at least make sure we still understand what they are.  i am not talking about simply throwing the constitution out either.  i am saying we should interpret it for today, update it, and use our revised version instead.  then both can be looked at by the next generation and adjusted as needed.  it should update and change with the citizenry and the times while still being the timeless core of our laws.  it would take a lot of work, a lot would change, but i believe we would be better for it.  cmv many responses seem to think i am saying scrap the whole thing and start over.  no, i am saying we need an updated, reworded one that uses the meanings as we take them today.  all men are equal shoule read all persons, prohibition and its repeal should just be removed, the 0th and 0th should be combined and all inclusive with restrictions put in after the fact.  those are examples of what i mean but not the whole of it.  to cmv you need to show me that having an old, poorly worded document is better than a revision of it in modern terms.  it would be hard to do but it would be better for the nation and easier to work with than if we left it be.  cmv also, deltas incoming for added info on the topic.  hard to delta from a phone  #  should we follow the advice of a group who believed slavery was acceptable ?  #  that thought only white, male, property owners should/could vote ?  # that thought only white, male, property owners should/could vote ? we do not have the exact same constitution as we did in the 0th century.  we have had numerous amendments which have broad, sweeping changes to our country, such as the 0th amendment particularly in regards to federalism and civil rights .  each time it is amended, it is putting that generation is desired changes.  yes, i can.  since the constitution was adopted, scholars, judges, legislators, etc.  have had plenty of discussions over its meaning.  its taught in schools, as well as other important historical documents.  part of learning history is being able to read older documents and understand the meaning.  it is a necessary skill to have and understand, even outside of the history classroom.  most of the important documents you need to understand are written in a way that is a little difficult for  today is reader  to understand mortgage deeds, contracts, wills, court cases, etc.  all of these can be initially difficult to get through, but you need to be able to read and understand them.  the constitution can be amended and it has, whenever the times dictated change needed to happen.  it is not easy to amend the constitution nor should it be , but even if the people want it amended, it can happen.  by not seeking to change it, we are all giving our tacit approval of it and frankly, most americans seem obsessive about protecting and preserving the constitution, so throwing it out to rewrite it would absolutely be against the will of the people.  moreover, why do you assume a constitution written today would be better than our current constitution ? have you ever read any major legislation ? here is a challenge: go read the entire patient protection and affordable care act ppaca URL and then tell me you find it easy to read and understand.  seriously.  go read every page.  if you think today is lawmakers could do it better, read the entire document.  not just the cliffnotes.  not just summaries.  the whole document.  the ppaca commonly referred to as the affordable care act or obamacare was recent landmark legislation that reformed the u. s.  heathcare system.  if today is lawmakers were to throw out the u. s.  constitution and make a new one from scratch, it would be like this it would be extremely long as most modern constitutions are , and it would still be full of confusing jargon.  the reality is, if today is lawmakers attempted to remake it, it would actually become more difficult to read and understand.   #  koch and soros both immediately come to mind.   #  this is the key problem.  there is a movement going on right now called the convention of states, and if you follow the money you will find some very familiar billionaire names behind it.  koch and soros both immediately come to mind.  on the outside it appears to be an attempt at reforming the government due to certain  problems .  what it glosses over is that if you follow the money behind this movement, you find that it leads to exactly the same people who have caused the problems they are touting as the main issues.  they then want to call a convention of states to rewrite constitution using newly appointed shills at the majority of state levels.  this allows them to then rewrite a constitution with whatever they want in it, in a secret closed door meeting.  fuck that.  it is so fucking simple it is absurd to even consider, but this is what is happening.   #  but upon doing a quick search just now to refresh myself, there are pages of articles about soros pushing for a convention of states.   #  he is been putting money into a push for the same article v convention that certain high profile conservatives are pushing for, and that other conservative billionaires have been pushing for.  their website URL soros  claim is that it is for a different reason.  but the money has been going to the same places.  the evidence i had previously was that i found a list of financial backers through their own site and several of the organizations were directly linked to a few high profile billionaires.  the kochs especially put into perspective their end goal to me.  but upon doing a quick search just now to refresh myself, there are pages of articles about soros pushing for a convention of states.  yet on their website, they have articles about soros supposedly forming a coalition against article v.  while he is pumping money to push for it.  it is just weird.  the whole thing is weird.  i do not like any of it.  do not take my word for it.  spend an hour checking it out and following the weird trail it will lead you on.  their own website is a great place to start.   #  you know these billionaires have nothing against the average person, right ?  #  i will be the devils advocate for a min.  you know these billionaires have nothing against the average person, right ? they have a tendency to disregard social issue in advocacy of economic issues, but if they were given the power to they would likely not only fix them but fix them more effectively than whatever party focuses on social issues .  the reason you see this political divide is strategics.  it is advantageous for the two ruling parties to advocate in opposition to each other.  if they are too similar the voters might get mixed or apathetic and they would lose votes.  this is actually a pretty simple scenario if you ever take a class on strategy, which everyone totally should.   #  those who are not, are also the ones buying politicians and lobbying with millions of dollars to get legislation passed that benefits them.   #  if they were given power ? youre mistaken.  they already have the power to make big positive changes.  some do.  most do not.  that is exactly the problem.  those who are not, are also the ones buying politicians and lobbying with millions of dollars to get legislation passed that benefits them.  there is absolutely no reason to think they could do a better job if the government was stripped of all power and we were forced to rely on their good graces to help us.  they already have that option and they do more harm than good as is.  they are creating the problems and then citing those problems as to why the government is failing, and telling us to put them in charge.  fuck thaaaat.
the constitution of the united states is over 0 years old and it shows its age.  many amendments are written in unusual english by todays standards, making it difficult to tease out meaning.  many other amendments overlap in meaning and could be combined to simplify them while also covering more people.  the fact is, it is outdated.  i believe it should be revised every 0 years or so because culture and language are organic.  they change based on technology, public conscious, and international relations.  should we follow the advice of a group who believed slavery was acceptable ? that thought only white, male, property owners should/could vote ? can you read through the document and understand what was meant or does much of it come across as confusing to todays readers ? the world has changed and i believe we need to change with it in order to be relevant.  i also believe our ideas and views from today will experience the same degradation over time.  in 0 years will the world still care about gun rights ? will the population still speak mostly english or will we add more spanish to our vocabulary ? will words like gay hold the same meaning as it does now or will it return to the usage it once had ? we cannot know.  we should not force our ideas through time, expecially when future generations will have the same issues understanding us as we do understanding the founding fathers.  what i ca not understand is why we are clinging to the past, to a group who would likely be viewed as backward racists today.  we should take what we believe now and govern by those beliefs.  we should update, revise, and examine our core ideas from time to time to at least make sure we still understand what they are.  i am not talking about simply throwing the constitution out either.  i am saying we should interpret it for today, update it, and use our revised version instead.  then both can be looked at by the next generation and adjusted as needed.  it should update and change with the citizenry and the times while still being the timeless core of our laws.  it would take a lot of work, a lot would change, but i believe we would be better for it.  cmv many responses seem to think i am saying scrap the whole thing and start over.  no, i am saying we need an updated, reworded one that uses the meanings as we take them today.  all men are equal shoule read all persons, prohibition and its repeal should just be removed, the 0th and 0th should be combined and all inclusive with restrictions put in after the fact.  those are examples of what i mean but not the whole of it.  to cmv you need to show me that having an old, poorly worded document is better than a revision of it in modern terms.  it would be hard to do but it would be better for the nation and easier to work with than if we left it be.  cmv also, deltas incoming for added info on the topic.  hard to delta from a phone  #  the world has changed and i believe we need to change with it in order to be relevant.   #  the constitution can be amended and it has, whenever the times dictated change needed to happen.   # that thought only white, male, property owners should/could vote ? we do not have the exact same constitution as we did in the 0th century.  we have had numerous amendments which have broad, sweeping changes to our country, such as the 0th amendment particularly in regards to federalism and civil rights .  each time it is amended, it is putting that generation is desired changes.  yes, i can.  since the constitution was adopted, scholars, judges, legislators, etc.  have had plenty of discussions over its meaning.  its taught in schools, as well as other important historical documents.  part of learning history is being able to read older documents and understand the meaning.  it is a necessary skill to have and understand, even outside of the history classroom.  most of the important documents you need to understand are written in a way that is a little difficult for  today is reader  to understand mortgage deeds, contracts, wills, court cases, etc.  all of these can be initially difficult to get through, but you need to be able to read and understand them.  the constitution can be amended and it has, whenever the times dictated change needed to happen.  it is not easy to amend the constitution nor should it be , but even if the people want it amended, it can happen.  by not seeking to change it, we are all giving our tacit approval of it and frankly, most americans seem obsessive about protecting and preserving the constitution, so throwing it out to rewrite it would absolutely be against the will of the people.  moreover, why do you assume a constitution written today would be better than our current constitution ? have you ever read any major legislation ? here is a challenge: go read the entire patient protection and affordable care act ppaca URL and then tell me you find it easy to read and understand.  seriously.  go read every page.  if you think today is lawmakers could do it better, read the entire document.  not just the cliffnotes.  not just summaries.  the whole document.  the ppaca commonly referred to as the affordable care act or obamacare was recent landmark legislation that reformed the u. s.  heathcare system.  if today is lawmakers were to throw out the u. s.  constitution and make a new one from scratch, it would be like this it would be extremely long as most modern constitutions are , and it would still be full of confusing jargon.  the reality is, if today is lawmakers attempted to remake it, it would actually become more difficult to read and understand.   #  it is so fucking simple it is absurd to even consider, but this is what is happening.   #  this is the key problem.  there is a movement going on right now called the convention of states, and if you follow the money you will find some very familiar billionaire names behind it.  koch and soros both immediately come to mind.  on the outside it appears to be an attempt at reforming the government due to certain  problems .  what it glosses over is that if you follow the money behind this movement, you find that it leads to exactly the same people who have caused the problems they are touting as the main issues.  they then want to call a convention of states to rewrite constitution using newly appointed shills at the majority of state levels.  this allows them to then rewrite a constitution with whatever they want in it, in a secret closed door meeting.  fuck that.  it is so fucking simple it is absurd to even consider, but this is what is happening.   #  yet on their website, they have articles about soros supposedly forming a coalition against article v.  while he is pumping money to push for it.   #  he is been putting money into a push for the same article v convention that certain high profile conservatives are pushing for, and that other conservative billionaires have been pushing for.  their website URL soros  claim is that it is for a different reason.  but the money has been going to the same places.  the evidence i had previously was that i found a list of financial backers through their own site and several of the organizations were directly linked to a few high profile billionaires.  the kochs especially put into perspective their end goal to me.  but upon doing a quick search just now to refresh myself, there are pages of articles about soros pushing for a convention of states.  yet on their website, they have articles about soros supposedly forming a coalition against article v.  while he is pumping money to push for it.  it is just weird.  the whole thing is weird.  i do not like any of it.  do not take my word for it.  spend an hour checking it out and following the weird trail it will lead you on.  their own website is a great place to start.   #  the reason you see this political divide is strategics.   #  i will be the devils advocate for a min.  you know these billionaires have nothing against the average person, right ? they have a tendency to disregard social issue in advocacy of economic issues, but if they were given the power to they would likely not only fix them but fix them more effectively than whatever party focuses on social issues .  the reason you see this political divide is strategics.  it is advantageous for the two ruling parties to advocate in opposition to each other.  if they are too similar the voters might get mixed or apathetic and they would lose votes.  this is actually a pretty simple scenario if you ever take a class on strategy, which everyone totally should.   #  there is absolutely no reason to think they could do a better job if the government was stripped of all power and we were forced to rely on their good graces to help us.   #  if they were given power ? youre mistaken.  they already have the power to make big positive changes.  some do.  most do not.  that is exactly the problem.  those who are not, are also the ones buying politicians and lobbying with millions of dollars to get legislation passed that benefits them.  there is absolutely no reason to think they could do a better job if the government was stripped of all power and we were forced to rely on their good graces to help us.  they already have that option and they do more harm than good as is.  they are creating the problems and then citing those problems as to why the government is failing, and telling us to put them in charge.  fuck thaaaat.
the constitution of the united states is over 0 years old and it shows its age.  many amendments are written in unusual english by todays standards, making it difficult to tease out meaning.  many other amendments overlap in meaning and could be combined to simplify them while also covering more people.  the fact is, it is outdated.  i believe it should be revised every 0 years or so because culture and language are organic.  they change based on technology, public conscious, and international relations.  should we follow the advice of a group who believed slavery was acceptable ? that thought only white, male, property owners should/could vote ? can you read through the document and understand what was meant or does much of it come across as confusing to todays readers ? the world has changed and i believe we need to change with it in order to be relevant.  i also believe our ideas and views from today will experience the same degradation over time.  in 0 years will the world still care about gun rights ? will the population still speak mostly english or will we add more spanish to our vocabulary ? will words like gay hold the same meaning as it does now or will it return to the usage it once had ? we cannot know.  we should not force our ideas through time, expecially when future generations will have the same issues understanding us as we do understanding the founding fathers.  what i ca not understand is why we are clinging to the past, to a group who would likely be viewed as backward racists today.  we should take what we believe now and govern by those beliefs.  we should update, revise, and examine our core ideas from time to time to at least make sure we still understand what they are.  i am not talking about simply throwing the constitution out either.  i am saying we should interpret it for today, update it, and use our revised version instead.  then both can be looked at by the next generation and adjusted as needed.  it should update and change with the citizenry and the times while still being the timeless core of our laws.  it would take a lot of work, a lot would change, but i believe we would be better for it.  cmv many responses seem to think i am saying scrap the whole thing and start over.  no, i am saying we need an updated, reworded one that uses the meanings as we take them today.  all men are equal shoule read all persons, prohibition and its repeal should just be removed, the 0th and 0th should be combined and all inclusive with restrictions put in after the fact.  those are examples of what i mean but not the whole of it.  to cmv you need to show me that having an old, poorly worded document is better than a revision of it in modern terms.  it would be hard to do but it would be better for the nation and easier to work with than if we left it be.  cmv also, deltas incoming for added info on the topic.  hard to delta from a phone  #  the constitution of the united states is over 0 years old and it shows its age.   #  you are right that the us constitution is the oldest in the world.   # you are right that the us constitution is the oldest in the world.  that is because it has worked for longer than any other.  there is an entire profession who earns sometimes big bucks because they have gone to school for 0 years to be able to understand how to interpret the constitution and its amendments.  wanting to change the constitution because the language does not cater to a plain language reading is like wanting to change a computer program because the language in which it was written is hard for a non programmer to parse.  two problems: 0.  any overlap is pretty much irrelevant.  there is very little overlap, it is a short document to begin with, and there are no contradictions because of the overlap.  0.  your implicit assumption is that covering more people is a good thing.  that is pretty contentious in itself; i doubt you would be able to get a majority in 0 states to agree that felons should have voting rights, for example.  why should the constitution be revised to cover every single us citizen rather than the certain classes that it covers ? they change based on technology, public conscious, and international relations.  should we follow the advice of a group who believed slavery was acceptable ? we already have processes the legislature, judiciary, and the amendment process to mitigate the bad ideas of the founders.  slavery was prohibited by an amendment, and other racist laws were outlawed by legislatures or deemed unconstitutional in the courts .  which bad ideas are unable to be changed through those processes ? i can understand what was meant. because i have gone to law school.  it is not particularly confusing, but you  will  miss the point if you simply look at the plain language to try to understand complex legal issues.  if nobody owns guns in 0 years, they are free to convince 0/0 of the population to vote for an amendment to be ratified by 0/0 of the states.  will words like gay hold the same meaning as it does now or will it return to the usage it once had ? again, you are assuming that the plain language matters.  the fourth amendment provides that the people can be secure in their  papers  from unreasonable searches and seizures, but it is not hard for the court to say that computer documents should be considered papers for the purposes of this amendment.  fine, then why even practice democracy ? after all, it was invented by those homosexual pedophiles in greece, right ? we can separate the wheat from the chaff; we do not have to throw out a lot of good ideas just because the founders had some bad ideas, too.  i am saying we should interpret it for today, update it, and use our revised version instead.  what do you think courts do today ? they interpret the law, including the constitution.  and you are free to update it today, but the problem is that 0/0 of the population ca not agree on how to update it.  the term  all men  does not appear in the constitution.  you are literally making up examples of anachronistic language.  how is  remove  better than  repeal  ? how does combining them do something different than simply considering both ?  #  it is so fucking simple it is absurd to even consider, but this is what is happening.   #  this is the key problem.  there is a movement going on right now called the convention of states, and if you follow the money you will find some very familiar billionaire names behind it.  koch and soros both immediately come to mind.  on the outside it appears to be an attempt at reforming the government due to certain  problems .  what it glosses over is that if you follow the money behind this movement, you find that it leads to exactly the same people who have caused the problems they are touting as the main issues.  they then want to call a convention of states to rewrite constitution using newly appointed shills at the majority of state levels.  this allows them to then rewrite a constitution with whatever they want in it, in a secret closed door meeting.  fuck that.  it is so fucking simple it is absurd to even consider, but this is what is happening.   #  their website URL soros  claim is that it is for a different reason.   #  he is been putting money into a push for the same article v convention that certain high profile conservatives are pushing for, and that other conservative billionaires have been pushing for.  their website URL soros  claim is that it is for a different reason.  but the money has been going to the same places.  the evidence i had previously was that i found a list of financial backers through their own site and several of the organizations were directly linked to a few high profile billionaires.  the kochs especially put into perspective their end goal to me.  but upon doing a quick search just now to refresh myself, there are pages of articles about soros pushing for a convention of states.  yet on their website, they have articles about soros supposedly forming a coalition against article v.  while he is pumping money to push for it.  it is just weird.  the whole thing is weird.  i do not like any of it.  do not take my word for it.  spend an hour checking it out and following the weird trail it will lead you on.  their own website is a great place to start.   #  this is actually a pretty simple scenario if you ever take a class on strategy, which everyone totally should.   #  i will be the devils advocate for a min.  you know these billionaires have nothing against the average person, right ? they have a tendency to disregard social issue in advocacy of economic issues, but if they were given the power to they would likely not only fix them but fix them more effectively than whatever party focuses on social issues .  the reason you see this political divide is strategics.  it is advantageous for the two ruling parties to advocate in opposition to each other.  if they are too similar the voters might get mixed or apathetic and they would lose votes.  this is actually a pretty simple scenario if you ever take a class on strategy, which everyone totally should.   #  there is absolutely no reason to think they could do a better job if the government was stripped of all power and we were forced to rely on their good graces to help us.   #  if they were given power ? youre mistaken.  they already have the power to make big positive changes.  some do.  most do not.  that is exactly the problem.  those who are not, are also the ones buying politicians and lobbying with millions of dollars to get legislation passed that benefits them.  there is absolutely no reason to think they could do a better job if the government was stripped of all power and we were forced to rely on their good graces to help us.  they already have that option and they do more harm than good as is.  they are creating the problems and then citing those problems as to why the government is failing, and telling us to put them in charge.  fuck thaaaat.
the constitution of the united states is over 0 years old and it shows its age.  many amendments are written in unusual english by todays standards, making it difficult to tease out meaning.  many other amendments overlap in meaning and could be combined to simplify them while also covering more people.  the fact is, it is outdated.  i believe it should be revised every 0 years or so because culture and language are organic.  they change based on technology, public conscious, and international relations.  should we follow the advice of a group who believed slavery was acceptable ? that thought only white, male, property owners should/could vote ? can you read through the document and understand what was meant or does much of it come across as confusing to todays readers ? the world has changed and i believe we need to change with it in order to be relevant.  i also believe our ideas and views from today will experience the same degradation over time.  in 0 years will the world still care about gun rights ? will the population still speak mostly english or will we add more spanish to our vocabulary ? will words like gay hold the same meaning as it does now or will it return to the usage it once had ? we cannot know.  we should not force our ideas through time, expecially when future generations will have the same issues understanding us as we do understanding the founding fathers.  what i ca not understand is why we are clinging to the past, to a group who would likely be viewed as backward racists today.  we should take what we believe now and govern by those beliefs.  we should update, revise, and examine our core ideas from time to time to at least make sure we still understand what they are.  i am not talking about simply throwing the constitution out either.  i am saying we should interpret it for today, update it, and use our revised version instead.  then both can be looked at by the next generation and adjusted as needed.  it should update and change with the citizenry and the times while still being the timeless core of our laws.  it would take a lot of work, a lot would change, but i believe we would be better for it.  cmv many responses seem to think i am saying scrap the whole thing and start over.  no, i am saying we need an updated, reworded one that uses the meanings as we take them today.  all men are equal shoule read all persons, prohibition and its repeal should just be removed, the 0th and 0th should be combined and all inclusive with restrictions put in after the fact.  those are examples of what i mean but not the whole of it.  to cmv you need to show me that having an old, poorly worded document is better than a revision of it in modern terms.  it would be hard to do but it would be better for the nation and easier to work with than if we left it be.  cmv also, deltas incoming for added info on the topic.  hard to delta from a phone  #  many amendments are written in unusual english by todays standards, making it difficult to tease out meaning.   #  there is an entire profession who earns sometimes big bucks because they have gone to school for 0 years to be able to understand how to interpret the constitution and its amendments.   # you are right that the us constitution is the oldest in the world.  that is because it has worked for longer than any other.  there is an entire profession who earns sometimes big bucks because they have gone to school for 0 years to be able to understand how to interpret the constitution and its amendments.  wanting to change the constitution because the language does not cater to a plain language reading is like wanting to change a computer program because the language in which it was written is hard for a non programmer to parse.  two problems: 0.  any overlap is pretty much irrelevant.  there is very little overlap, it is a short document to begin with, and there are no contradictions because of the overlap.  0.  your implicit assumption is that covering more people is a good thing.  that is pretty contentious in itself; i doubt you would be able to get a majority in 0 states to agree that felons should have voting rights, for example.  why should the constitution be revised to cover every single us citizen rather than the certain classes that it covers ? they change based on technology, public conscious, and international relations.  should we follow the advice of a group who believed slavery was acceptable ? we already have processes the legislature, judiciary, and the amendment process to mitigate the bad ideas of the founders.  slavery was prohibited by an amendment, and other racist laws were outlawed by legislatures or deemed unconstitutional in the courts .  which bad ideas are unable to be changed through those processes ? i can understand what was meant. because i have gone to law school.  it is not particularly confusing, but you  will  miss the point if you simply look at the plain language to try to understand complex legal issues.  if nobody owns guns in 0 years, they are free to convince 0/0 of the population to vote for an amendment to be ratified by 0/0 of the states.  will words like gay hold the same meaning as it does now or will it return to the usage it once had ? again, you are assuming that the plain language matters.  the fourth amendment provides that the people can be secure in their  papers  from unreasonable searches and seizures, but it is not hard for the court to say that computer documents should be considered papers for the purposes of this amendment.  fine, then why even practice democracy ? after all, it was invented by those homosexual pedophiles in greece, right ? we can separate the wheat from the chaff; we do not have to throw out a lot of good ideas just because the founders had some bad ideas, too.  i am saying we should interpret it for today, update it, and use our revised version instead.  what do you think courts do today ? they interpret the law, including the constitution.  and you are free to update it today, but the problem is that 0/0 of the population ca not agree on how to update it.  the term  all men  does not appear in the constitution.  you are literally making up examples of anachronistic language.  how is  remove  better than  repeal  ? how does combining them do something different than simply considering both ?  #  what it glosses over is that if you follow the money behind this movement, you find that it leads to exactly the same people who have caused the problems they are touting as the main issues.   #  this is the key problem.  there is a movement going on right now called the convention of states, and if you follow the money you will find some very familiar billionaire names behind it.  koch and soros both immediately come to mind.  on the outside it appears to be an attempt at reforming the government due to certain  problems .  what it glosses over is that if you follow the money behind this movement, you find that it leads to exactly the same people who have caused the problems they are touting as the main issues.  they then want to call a convention of states to rewrite constitution using newly appointed shills at the majority of state levels.  this allows them to then rewrite a constitution with whatever they want in it, in a secret closed door meeting.  fuck that.  it is so fucking simple it is absurd to even consider, but this is what is happening.   #  but the money has been going to the same places.   #  he is been putting money into a push for the same article v convention that certain high profile conservatives are pushing for, and that other conservative billionaires have been pushing for.  their website URL soros  claim is that it is for a different reason.  but the money has been going to the same places.  the evidence i had previously was that i found a list of financial backers through their own site and several of the organizations were directly linked to a few high profile billionaires.  the kochs especially put into perspective their end goal to me.  but upon doing a quick search just now to refresh myself, there are pages of articles about soros pushing for a convention of states.  yet on their website, they have articles about soros supposedly forming a coalition against article v.  while he is pumping money to push for it.  it is just weird.  the whole thing is weird.  i do not like any of it.  do not take my word for it.  spend an hour checking it out and following the weird trail it will lead you on.  their own website is a great place to start.   #  this is actually a pretty simple scenario if you ever take a class on strategy, which everyone totally should.   #  i will be the devils advocate for a min.  you know these billionaires have nothing against the average person, right ? they have a tendency to disregard social issue in advocacy of economic issues, but if they were given the power to they would likely not only fix them but fix them more effectively than whatever party focuses on social issues .  the reason you see this political divide is strategics.  it is advantageous for the two ruling parties to advocate in opposition to each other.  if they are too similar the voters might get mixed or apathetic and they would lose votes.  this is actually a pretty simple scenario if you ever take a class on strategy, which everyone totally should.   #  they are creating the problems and then citing those problems as to why the government is failing, and telling us to put them in charge.   #  if they were given power ? youre mistaken.  they already have the power to make big positive changes.  some do.  most do not.  that is exactly the problem.  those who are not, are also the ones buying politicians and lobbying with millions of dollars to get legislation passed that benefits them.  there is absolutely no reason to think they could do a better job if the government was stripped of all power and we were forced to rely on their good graces to help us.  they already have that option and they do more harm than good as is.  they are creating the problems and then citing those problems as to why the government is failing, and telling us to put them in charge.  fuck thaaaat.
the constitution of the united states is over 0 years old and it shows its age.  many amendments are written in unusual english by todays standards, making it difficult to tease out meaning.  many other amendments overlap in meaning and could be combined to simplify them while also covering more people.  the fact is, it is outdated.  i believe it should be revised every 0 years or so because culture and language are organic.  they change based on technology, public conscious, and international relations.  should we follow the advice of a group who believed slavery was acceptable ? that thought only white, male, property owners should/could vote ? can you read through the document and understand what was meant or does much of it come across as confusing to todays readers ? the world has changed and i believe we need to change with it in order to be relevant.  i also believe our ideas and views from today will experience the same degradation over time.  in 0 years will the world still care about gun rights ? will the population still speak mostly english or will we add more spanish to our vocabulary ? will words like gay hold the same meaning as it does now or will it return to the usage it once had ? we cannot know.  we should not force our ideas through time, expecially when future generations will have the same issues understanding us as we do understanding the founding fathers.  what i ca not understand is why we are clinging to the past, to a group who would likely be viewed as backward racists today.  we should take what we believe now and govern by those beliefs.  we should update, revise, and examine our core ideas from time to time to at least make sure we still understand what they are.  i am not talking about simply throwing the constitution out either.  i am saying we should interpret it for today, update it, and use our revised version instead.  then both can be looked at by the next generation and adjusted as needed.  it should update and change with the citizenry and the times while still being the timeless core of our laws.  it would take a lot of work, a lot would change, but i believe we would be better for it.  cmv many responses seem to think i am saying scrap the whole thing and start over.  no, i am saying we need an updated, reworded one that uses the meanings as we take them today.  all men are equal shoule read all persons, prohibition and its repeal should just be removed, the 0th and 0th should be combined and all inclusive with restrictions put in after the fact.  those are examples of what i mean but not the whole of it.  to cmv you need to show me that having an old, poorly worded document is better than a revision of it in modern terms.  it would be hard to do but it would be better for the nation and easier to work with than if we left it be.  cmv also, deltas incoming for added info on the topic.  hard to delta from a phone  #  many other amendments overlap in meaning and could be combined to simplify them while also covering more people.   #  two problems: 0.  any overlap is pretty much irrelevant.   # you are right that the us constitution is the oldest in the world.  that is because it has worked for longer than any other.  there is an entire profession who earns sometimes big bucks because they have gone to school for 0 years to be able to understand how to interpret the constitution and its amendments.  wanting to change the constitution because the language does not cater to a plain language reading is like wanting to change a computer program because the language in which it was written is hard for a non programmer to parse.  two problems: 0.  any overlap is pretty much irrelevant.  there is very little overlap, it is a short document to begin with, and there are no contradictions because of the overlap.  0.  your implicit assumption is that covering more people is a good thing.  that is pretty contentious in itself; i doubt you would be able to get a majority in 0 states to agree that felons should have voting rights, for example.  why should the constitution be revised to cover every single us citizen rather than the certain classes that it covers ? they change based on technology, public conscious, and international relations.  should we follow the advice of a group who believed slavery was acceptable ? we already have processes the legislature, judiciary, and the amendment process to mitigate the bad ideas of the founders.  slavery was prohibited by an amendment, and other racist laws were outlawed by legislatures or deemed unconstitutional in the courts .  which bad ideas are unable to be changed through those processes ? i can understand what was meant. because i have gone to law school.  it is not particularly confusing, but you  will  miss the point if you simply look at the plain language to try to understand complex legal issues.  if nobody owns guns in 0 years, they are free to convince 0/0 of the population to vote for an amendment to be ratified by 0/0 of the states.  will words like gay hold the same meaning as it does now or will it return to the usage it once had ? again, you are assuming that the plain language matters.  the fourth amendment provides that the people can be secure in their  papers  from unreasonable searches and seizures, but it is not hard for the court to say that computer documents should be considered papers for the purposes of this amendment.  fine, then why even practice democracy ? after all, it was invented by those homosexual pedophiles in greece, right ? we can separate the wheat from the chaff; we do not have to throw out a lot of good ideas just because the founders had some bad ideas, too.  i am saying we should interpret it for today, update it, and use our revised version instead.  what do you think courts do today ? they interpret the law, including the constitution.  and you are free to update it today, but the problem is that 0/0 of the population ca not agree on how to update it.  the term  all men  does not appear in the constitution.  you are literally making up examples of anachronistic language.  how is  remove  better than  repeal  ? how does combining them do something different than simply considering both ?  #  they then want to call a convention of states to rewrite constitution using newly appointed shills at the majority of state levels.   #  this is the key problem.  there is a movement going on right now called the convention of states, and if you follow the money you will find some very familiar billionaire names behind it.  koch and soros both immediately come to mind.  on the outside it appears to be an attempt at reforming the government due to certain  problems .  what it glosses over is that if you follow the money behind this movement, you find that it leads to exactly the same people who have caused the problems they are touting as the main issues.  they then want to call a convention of states to rewrite constitution using newly appointed shills at the majority of state levels.  this allows them to then rewrite a constitution with whatever they want in it, in a secret closed door meeting.  fuck that.  it is so fucking simple it is absurd to even consider, but this is what is happening.   #  the kochs especially put into perspective their end goal to me.   #  he is been putting money into a push for the same article v convention that certain high profile conservatives are pushing for, and that other conservative billionaires have been pushing for.  their website URL soros  claim is that it is for a different reason.  but the money has been going to the same places.  the evidence i had previously was that i found a list of financial backers through their own site and several of the organizations were directly linked to a few high profile billionaires.  the kochs especially put into perspective their end goal to me.  but upon doing a quick search just now to refresh myself, there are pages of articles about soros pushing for a convention of states.  yet on their website, they have articles about soros supposedly forming a coalition against article v.  while he is pumping money to push for it.  it is just weird.  the whole thing is weird.  i do not like any of it.  do not take my word for it.  spend an hour checking it out and following the weird trail it will lead you on.  their own website is a great place to start.   #  the reason you see this political divide is strategics.   #  i will be the devils advocate for a min.  you know these billionaires have nothing against the average person, right ? they have a tendency to disregard social issue in advocacy of economic issues, but if they were given the power to they would likely not only fix them but fix them more effectively than whatever party focuses on social issues .  the reason you see this political divide is strategics.  it is advantageous for the two ruling parties to advocate in opposition to each other.  if they are too similar the voters might get mixed or apathetic and they would lose votes.  this is actually a pretty simple scenario if you ever take a class on strategy, which everyone totally should.   #  they already have the power to make big positive changes.   #  if they were given power ? youre mistaken.  they already have the power to make big positive changes.  some do.  most do not.  that is exactly the problem.  those who are not, are also the ones buying politicians and lobbying with millions of dollars to get legislation passed that benefits them.  there is absolutely no reason to think they could do a better job if the government was stripped of all power and we were forced to rely on their good graces to help us.  they already have that option and they do more harm than good as is.  they are creating the problems and then citing those problems as to why the government is failing, and telling us to put them in charge.  fuck thaaaat.
the constitution of the united states is over 0 years old and it shows its age.  many amendments are written in unusual english by todays standards, making it difficult to tease out meaning.  many other amendments overlap in meaning and could be combined to simplify them while also covering more people.  the fact is, it is outdated.  i believe it should be revised every 0 years or so because culture and language are organic.  they change based on technology, public conscious, and international relations.  should we follow the advice of a group who believed slavery was acceptable ? that thought only white, male, property owners should/could vote ? can you read through the document and understand what was meant or does much of it come across as confusing to todays readers ? the world has changed and i believe we need to change with it in order to be relevant.  i also believe our ideas and views from today will experience the same degradation over time.  in 0 years will the world still care about gun rights ? will the population still speak mostly english or will we add more spanish to our vocabulary ? will words like gay hold the same meaning as it does now or will it return to the usage it once had ? we cannot know.  we should not force our ideas through time, expecially when future generations will have the same issues understanding us as we do understanding the founding fathers.  what i ca not understand is why we are clinging to the past, to a group who would likely be viewed as backward racists today.  we should take what we believe now and govern by those beliefs.  we should update, revise, and examine our core ideas from time to time to at least make sure we still understand what they are.  i am not talking about simply throwing the constitution out either.  i am saying we should interpret it for today, update it, and use our revised version instead.  then both can be looked at by the next generation and adjusted as needed.  it should update and change with the citizenry and the times while still being the timeless core of our laws.  it would take a lot of work, a lot would change, but i believe we would be better for it.  cmv many responses seem to think i am saying scrap the whole thing and start over.  no, i am saying we need an updated, reworded one that uses the meanings as we take them today.  all men are equal shoule read all persons, prohibition and its repeal should just be removed, the 0th and 0th should be combined and all inclusive with restrictions put in after the fact.  those are examples of what i mean but not the whole of it.  to cmv you need to show me that having an old, poorly worded document is better than a revision of it in modern terms.  it would be hard to do but it would be better for the nation and easier to work with than if we left it be.  cmv also, deltas incoming for added info on the topic.  hard to delta from a phone  #  i believe it should be revised every 0 years or so because culture and language are organic.   #  they change based on technology, public conscious, and international relations.   # you are right that the us constitution is the oldest in the world.  that is because it has worked for longer than any other.  there is an entire profession who earns sometimes big bucks because they have gone to school for 0 years to be able to understand how to interpret the constitution and its amendments.  wanting to change the constitution because the language does not cater to a plain language reading is like wanting to change a computer program because the language in which it was written is hard for a non programmer to parse.  two problems: 0.  any overlap is pretty much irrelevant.  there is very little overlap, it is a short document to begin with, and there are no contradictions because of the overlap.  0.  your implicit assumption is that covering more people is a good thing.  that is pretty contentious in itself; i doubt you would be able to get a majority in 0 states to agree that felons should have voting rights, for example.  why should the constitution be revised to cover every single us citizen rather than the certain classes that it covers ? they change based on technology, public conscious, and international relations.  should we follow the advice of a group who believed slavery was acceptable ? we already have processes the legislature, judiciary, and the amendment process to mitigate the bad ideas of the founders.  slavery was prohibited by an amendment, and other racist laws were outlawed by legislatures or deemed unconstitutional in the courts .  which bad ideas are unable to be changed through those processes ? i can understand what was meant. because i have gone to law school.  it is not particularly confusing, but you  will  miss the point if you simply look at the plain language to try to understand complex legal issues.  if nobody owns guns in 0 years, they are free to convince 0/0 of the population to vote for an amendment to be ratified by 0/0 of the states.  will words like gay hold the same meaning as it does now or will it return to the usage it once had ? again, you are assuming that the plain language matters.  the fourth amendment provides that the people can be secure in their  papers  from unreasonable searches and seizures, but it is not hard for the court to say that computer documents should be considered papers for the purposes of this amendment.  fine, then why even practice democracy ? after all, it was invented by those homosexual pedophiles in greece, right ? we can separate the wheat from the chaff; we do not have to throw out a lot of good ideas just because the founders had some bad ideas, too.  i am saying we should interpret it for today, update it, and use our revised version instead.  what do you think courts do today ? they interpret the law, including the constitution.  and you are free to update it today, but the problem is that 0/0 of the population ca not agree on how to update it.  the term  all men  does not appear in the constitution.  you are literally making up examples of anachronistic language.  how is  remove  better than  repeal  ? how does combining them do something different than simply considering both ?  #  it is so fucking simple it is absurd to even consider, but this is what is happening.   #  this is the key problem.  there is a movement going on right now called the convention of states, and if you follow the money you will find some very familiar billionaire names behind it.  koch and soros both immediately come to mind.  on the outside it appears to be an attempt at reforming the government due to certain  problems .  what it glosses over is that if you follow the money behind this movement, you find that it leads to exactly the same people who have caused the problems they are touting as the main issues.  they then want to call a convention of states to rewrite constitution using newly appointed shills at the majority of state levels.  this allows them to then rewrite a constitution with whatever they want in it, in a secret closed door meeting.  fuck that.  it is so fucking simple it is absurd to even consider, but this is what is happening.   #  but the money has been going to the same places.   #  he is been putting money into a push for the same article v convention that certain high profile conservatives are pushing for, and that other conservative billionaires have been pushing for.  their website URL soros  claim is that it is for a different reason.  but the money has been going to the same places.  the evidence i had previously was that i found a list of financial backers through their own site and several of the organizations were directly linked to a few high profile billionaires.  the kochs especially put into perspective their end goal to me.  but upon doing a quick search just now to refresh myself, there are pages of articles about soros pushing for a convention of states.  yet on their website, they have articles about soros supposedly forming a coalition against article v.  while he is pumping money to push for it.  it is just weird.  the whole thing is weird.  i do not like any of it.  do not take my word for it.  spend an hour checking it out and following the weird trail it will lead you on.  their own website is a great place to start.   #  the reason you see this political divide is strategics.   #  i will be the devils advocate for a min.  you know these billionaires have nothing against the average person, right ? they have a tendency to disregard social issue in advocacy of economic issues, but if they were given the power to they would likely not only fix them but fix them more effectively than whatever party focuses on social issues .  the reason you see this political divide is strategics.  it is advantageous for the two ruling parties to advocate in opposition to each other.  if they are too similar the voters might get mixed or apathetic and they would lose votes.  this is actually a pretty simple scenario if you ever take a class on strategy, which everyone totally should.   #  they are creating the problems and then citing those problems as to why the government is failing, and telling us to put them in charge.   #  if they were given power ? youre mistaken.  they already have the power to make big positive changes.  some do.  most do not.  that is exactly the problem.  those who are not, are also the ones buying politicians and lobbying with millions of dollars to get legislation passed that benefits them.  there is absolutely no reason to think they could do a better job if the government was stripped of all power and we were forced to rely on their good graces to help us.  they already have that option and they do more harm than good as is.  they are creating the problems and then citing those problems as to why the government is failing, and telling us to put them in charge.  fuck thaaaat.
the constitution of the united states is over 0 years old and it shows its age.  many amendments are written in unusual english by todays standards, making it difficult to tease out meaning.  many other amendments overlap in meaning and could be combined to simplify them while also covering more people.  the fact is, it is outdated.  i believe it should be revised every 0 years or so because culture and language are organic.  they change based on technology, public conscious, and international relations.  should we follow the advice of a group who believed slavery was acceptable ? that thought only white, male, property owners should/could vote ? can you read through the document and understand what was meant or does much of it come across as confusing to todays readers ? the world has changed and i believe we need to change with it in order to be relevant.  i also believe our ideas and views from today will experience the same degradation over time.  in 0 years will the world still care about gun rights ? will the population still speak mostly english or will we add more spanish to our vocabulary ? will words like gay hold the same meaning as it does now or will it return to the usage it once had ? we cannot know.  we should not force our ideas through time, expecially when future generations will have the same issues understanding us as we do understanding the founding fathers.  what i ca not understand is why we are clinging to the past, to a group who would likely be viewed as backward racists today.  we should take what we believe now and govern by those beliefs.  we should update, revise, and examine our core ideas from time to time to at least make sure we still understand what they are.  i am not talking about simply throwing the constitution out either.  i am saying we should interpret it for today, update it, and use our revised version instead.  then both can be looked at by the next generation and adjusted as needed.  it should update and change with the citizenry and the times while still being the timeless core of our laws.  it would take a lot of work, a lot would change, but i believe we would be better for it.  cmv many responses seem to think i am saying scrap the whole thing and start over.  no, i am saying we need an updated, reworded one that uses the meanings as we take them today.  all men are equal shoule read all persons, prohibition and its repeal should just be removed, the 0th and 0th should be combined and all inclusive with restrictions put in after the fact.  those are examples of what i mean but not the whole of it.  to cmv you need to show me that having an old, poorly worded document is better than a revision of it in modern terms.  it would be hard to do but it would be better for the nation and easier to work with than if we left it be.  cmv also, deltas incoming for added info on the topic.  hard to delta from a phone  #  can you read through the document and understand what was meant or does much of it come across as confusing to todays readers ?  #  i can understand what was meant. because i have gone to law school.   # you are right that the us constitution is the oldest in the world.  that is because it has worked for longer than any other.  there is an entire profession who earns sometimes big bucks because they have gone to school for 0 years to be able to understand how to interpret the constitution and its amendments.  wanting to change the constitution because the language does not cater to a plain language reading is like wanting to change a computer program because the language in which it was written is hard for a non programmer to parse.  two problems: 0.  any overlap is pretty much irrelevant.  there is very little overlap, it is a short document to begin with, and there are no contradictions because of the overlap.  0.  your implicit assumption is that covering more people is a good thing.  that is pretty contentious in itself; i doubt you would be able to get a majority in 0 states to agree that felons should have voting rights, for example.  why should the constitution be revised to cover every single us citizen rather than the certain classes that it covers ? they change based on technology, public conscious, and international relations.  should we follow the advice of a group who believed slavery was acceptable ? we already have processes the legislature, judiciary, and the amendment process to mitigate the bad ideas of the founders.  slavery was prohibited by an amendment, and other racist laws were outlawed by legislatures or deemed unconstitutional in the courts .  which bad ideas are unable to be changed through those processes ? i can understand what was meant. because i have gone to law school.  it is not particularly confusing, but you  will  miss the point if you simply look at the plain language to try to understand complex legal issues.  if nobody owns guns in 0 years, they are free to convince 0/0 of the population to vote for an amendment to be ratified by 0/0 of the states.  will words like gay hold the same meaning as it does now or will it return to the usage it once had ? again, you are assuming that the plain language matters.  the fourth amendment provides that the people can be secure in their  papers  from unreasonable searches and seizures, but it is not hard for the court to say that computer documents should be considered papers for the purposes of this amendment.  fine, then why even practice democracy ? after all, it was invented by those homosexual pedophiles in greece, right ? we can separate the wheat from the chaff; we do not have to throw out a lot of good ideas just because the founders had some bad ideas, too.  i am saying we should interpret it for today, update it, and use our revised version instead.  what do you think courts do today ? they interpret the law, including the constitution.  and you are free to update it today, but the problem is that 0/0 of the population ca not agree on how to update it.  the term  all men  does not appear in the constitution.  you are literally making up examples of anachronistic language.  how is  remove  better than  repeal  ? how does combining them do something different than simply considering both ?  #  this allows them to then rewrite a constitution with whatever they want in it, in a secret closed door meeting.   #  this is the key problem.  there is a movement going on right now called the convention of states, and if you follow the money you will find some very familiar billionaire names behind it.  koch and soros both immediately come to mind.  on the outside it appears to be an attempt at reforming the government due to certain  problems .  what it glosses over is that if you follow the money behind this movement, you find that it leads to exactly the same people who have caused the problems they are touting as the main issues.  they then want to call a convention of states to rewrite constitution using newly appointed shills at the majority of state levels.  this allows them to then rewrite a constitution with whatever they want in it, in a secret closed door meeting.  fuck that.  it is so fucking simple it is absurd to even consider, but this is what is happening.   #  yet on their website, they have articles about soros supposedly forming a coalition against article v.  while he is pumping money to push for it.   #  he is been putting money into a push for the same article v convention that certain high profile conservatives are pushing for, and that other conservative billionaires have been pushing for.  their website URL soros  claim is that it is for a different reason.  but the money has been going to the same places.  the evidence i had previously was that i found a list of financial backers through their own site and several of the organizations were directly linked to a few high profile billionaires.  the kochs especially put into perspective their end goal to me.  but upon doing a quick search just now to refresh myself, there are pages of articles about soros pushing for a convention of states.  yet on their website, they have articles about soros supposedly forming a coalition against article v.  while he is pumping money to push for it.  it is just weird.  the whole thing is weird.  i do not like any of it.  do not take my word for it.  spend an hour checking it out and following the weird trail it will lead you on.  their own website is a great place to start.   #  this is actually a pretty simple scenario if you ever take a class on strategy, which everyone totally should.   #  i will be the devils advocate for a min.  you know these billionaires have nothing against the average person, right ? they have a tendency to disregard social issue in advocacy of economic issues, but if they were given the power to they would likely not only fix them but fix them more effectively than whatever party focuses on social issues .  the reason you see this political divide is strategics.  it is advantageous for the two ruling parties to advocate in opposition to each other.  if they are too similar the voters might get mixed or apathetic and they would lose votes.  this is actually a pretty simple scenario if you ever take a class on strategy, which everyone totally should.   #  they are creating the problems and then citing those problems as to why the government is failing, and telling us to put them in charge.   #  if they were given power ? youre mistaken.  they already have the power to make big positive changes.  some do.  most do not.  that is exactly the problem.  those who are not, are also the ones buying politicians and lobbying with millions of dollars to get legislation passed that benefits them.  there is absolutely no reason to think they could do a better job if the government was stripped of all power and we were forced to rely on their good graces to help us.  they already have that option and they do more harm than good as is.  they are creating the problems and then citing those problems as to why the government is failing, and telling us to put them in charge.  fuck thaaaat.
the constitution of the united states is over 0 years old and it shows its age.  many amendments are written in unusual english by todays standards, making it difficult to tease out meaning.  many other amendments overlap in meaning and could be combined to simplify them while also covering more people.  the fact is, it is outdated.  i believe it should be revised every 0 years or so because culture and language are organic.  they change based on technology, public conscious, and international relations.  should we follow the advice of a group who believed slavery was acceptable ? that thought only white, male, property owners should/could vote ? can you read through the document and understand what was meant or does much of it come across as confusing to todays readers ? the world has changed and i believe we need to change with it in order to be relevant.  i also believe our ideas and views from today will experience the same degradation over time.  in 0 years will the world still care about gun rights ? will the population still speak mostly english or will we add more spanish to our vocabulary ? will words like gay hold the same meaning as it does now or will it return to the usage it once had ? we cannot know.  we should not force our ideas through time, expecially when future generations will have the same issues understanding us as we do understanding the founding fathers.  what i ca not understand is why we are clinging to the past, to a group who would likely be viewed as backward racists today.  we should take what we believe now and govern by those beliefs.  we should update, revise, and examine our core ideas from time to time to at least make sure we still understand what they are.  i am not talking about simply throwing the constitution out either.  i am saying we should interpret it for today, update it, and use our revised version instead.  then both can be looked at by the next generation and adjusted as needed.  it should update and change with the citizenry and the times while still being the timeless core of our laws.  it would take a lot of work, a lot would change, but i believe we would be better for it.  cmv many responses seem to think i am saying scrap the whole thing and start over.  no, i am saying we need an updated, reworded one that uses the meanings as we take them today.  all men are equal shoule read all persons, prohibition and its repeal should just be removed, the 0th and 0th should be combined and all inclusive with restrictions put in after the fact.  those are examples of what i mean but not the whole of it.  to cmv you need to show me that having an old, poorly worded document is better than a revision of it in modern terms.  it would be hard to do but it would be better for the nation and easier to work with than if we left it be.  cmv also, deltas incoming for added info on the topic.  hard to delta from a phone  #  in 0 years will the world still care about gun rights ?  #  if nobody owns guns in 0 years, they are free to convince 0/0 of the population to vote for an amendment to be ratified by 0/0 of the states.   # you are right that the us constitution is the oldest in the world.  that is because it has worked for longer than any other.  there is an entire profession who earns sometimes big bucks because they have gone to school for 0 years to be able to understand how to interpret the constitution and its amendments.  wanting to change the constitution because the language does not cater to a plain language reading is like wanting to change a computer program because the language in which it was written is hard for a non programmer to parse.  two problems: 0.  any overlap is pretty much irrelevant.  there is very little overlap, it is a short document to begin with, and there are no contradictions because of the overlap.  0.  your implicit assumption is that covering more people is a good thing.  that is pretty contentious in itself; i doubt you would be able to get a majority in 0 states to agree that felons should have voting rights, for example.  why should the constitution be revised to cover every single us citizen rather than the certain classes that it covers ? they change based on technology, public conscious, and international relations.  should we follow the advice of a group who believed slavery was acceptable ? we already have processes the legislature, judiciary, and the amendment process to mitigate the bad ideas of the founders.  slavery was prohibited by an amendment, and other racist laws were outlawed by legislatures or deemed unconstitutional in the courts .  which bad ideas are unable to be changed through those processes ? i can understand what was meant. because i have gone to law school.  it is not particularly confusing, but you  will  miss the point if you simply look at the plain language to try to understand complex legal issues.  if nobody owns guns in 0 years, they are free to convince 0/0 of the population to vote for an amendment to be ratified by 0/0 of the states.  will words like gay hold the same meaning as it does now or will it return to the usage it once had ? again, you are assuming that the plain language matters.  the fourth amendment provides that the people can be secure in their  papers  from unreasonable searches and seizures, but it is not hard for the court to say that computer documents should be considered papers for the purposes of this amendment.  fine, then why even practice democracy ? after all, it was invented by those homosexual pedophiles in greece, right ? we can separate the wheat from the chaff; we do not have to throw out a lot of good ideas just because the founders had some bad ideas, too.  i am saying we should interpret it for today, update it, and use our revised version instead.  what do you think courts do today ? they interpret the law, including the constitution.  and you are free to update it today, but the problem is that 0/0 of the population ca not agree on how to update it.  the term  all men  does not appear in the constitution.  you are literally making up examples of anachronistic language.  how is  remove  better than  repeal  ? how does combining them do something different than simply considering both ?  #  they then want to call a convention of states to rewrite constitution using newly appointed shills at the majority of state levels.   #  this is the key problem.  there is a movement going on right now called the convention of states, and if you follow the money you will find some very familiar billionaire names behind it.  koch and soros both immediately come to mind.  on the outside it appears to be an attempt at reforming the government due to certain  problems .  what it glosses over is that if you follow the money behind this movement, you find that it leads to exactly the same people who have caused the problems they are touting as the main issues.  they then want to call a convention of states to rewrite constitution using newly appointed shills at the majority of state levels.  this allows them to then rewrite a constitution with whatever they want in it, in a secret closed door meeting.  fuck that.  it is so fucking simple it is absurd to even consider, but this is what is happening.   #  but the money has been going to the same places.   #  he is been putting money into a push for the same article v convention that certain high profile conservatives are pushing for, and that other conservative billionaires have been pushing for.  their website URL soros  claim is that it is for a different reason.  but the money has been going to the same places.  the evidence i had previously was that i found a list of financial backers through their own site and several of the organizations were directly linked to a few high profile billionaires.  the kochs especially put into perspective their end goal to me.  but upon doing a quick search just now to refresh myself, there are pages of articles about soros pushing for a convention of states.  yet on their website, they have articles about soros supposedly forming a coalition against article v.  while he is pumping money to push for it.  it is just weird.  the whole thing is weird.  i do not like any of it.  do not take my word for it.  spend an hour checking it out and following the weird trail it will lead you on.  their own website is a great place to start.   #  if they are too similar the voters might get mixed or apathetic and they would lose votes.   #  i will be the devils advocate for a min.  you know these billionaires have nothing against the average person, right ? they have a tendency to disregard social issue in advocacy of economic issues, but if they were given the power to they would likely not only fix them but fix them more effectively than whatever party focuses on social issues .  the reason you see this political divide is strategics.  it is advantageous for the two ruling parties to advocate in opposition to each other.  if they are too similar the voters might get mixed or apathetic and they would lose votes.  this is actually a pretty simple scenario if you ever take a class on strategy, which everyone totally should.   #  those who are not, are also the ones buying politicians and lobbying with millions of dollars to get legislation passed that benefits them.   #  if they were given power ? youre mistaken.  they already have the power to make big positive changes.  some do.  most do not.  that is exactly the problem.  those who are not, are also the ones buying politicians and lobbying with millions of dollars to get legislation passed that benefits them.  there is absolutely no reason to think they could do a better job if the government was stripped of all power and we were forced to rely on their good graces to help us.  they already have that option and they do more harm than good as is.  they are creating the problems and then citing those problems as to why the government is failing, and telling us to put them in charge.  fuck thaaaat.
the constitution of the united states is over 0 years old and it shows its age.  many amendments are written in unusual english by todays standards, making it difficult to tease out meaning.  many other amendments overlap in meaning and could be combined to simplify them while also covering more people.  the fact is, it is outdated.  i believe it should be revised every 0 years or so because culture and language are organic.  they change based on technology, public conscious, and international relations.  should we follow the advice of a group who believed slavery was acceptable ? that thought only white, male, property owners should/could vote ? can you read through the document and understand what was meant or does much of it come across as confusing to todays readers ? the world has changed and i believe we need to change with it in order to be relevant.  i also believe our ideas and views from today will experience the same degradation over time.  in 0 years will the world still care about gun rights ? will the population still speak mostly english or will we add more spanish to our vocabulary ? will words like gay hold the same meaning as it does now or will it return to the usage it once had ? we cannot know.  we should not force our ideas through time, expecially when future generations will have the same issues understanding us as we do understanding the founding fathers.  what i ca not understand is why we are clinging to the past, to a group who would likely be viewed as backward racists today.  we should take what we believe now and govern by those beliefs.  we should update, revise, and examine our core ideas from time to time to at least make sure we still understand what they are.  i am not talking about simply throwing the constitution out either.  i am saying we should interpret it for today, update it, and use our revised version instead.  then both can be looked at by the next generation and adjusted as needed.  it should update and change with the citizenry and the times while still being the timeless core of our laws.  it would take a lot of work, a lot would change, but i believe we would be better for it.  cmv many responses seem to think i am saying scrap the whole thing and start over.  no, i am saying we need an updated, reworded one that uses the meanings as we take them today.  all men are equal shoule read all persons, prohibition and its repeal should just be removed, the 0th and 0th should be combined and all inclusive with restrictions put in after the fact.  those are examples of what i mean but not the whole of it.  to cmv you need to show me that having an old, poorly worded document is better than a revision of it in modern terms.  it would be hard to do but it would be better for the nation and easier to work with than if we left it be.  cmv also, deltas incoming for added info on the topic.  hard to delta from a phone  #  will the population still speak mostly english or will we add more spanish to our vocabulary ?  #  will words like gay hold the same meaning as it does now or will it return to the usage it once had ?  # you are right that the us constitution is the oldest in the world.  that is because it has worked for longer than any other.  there is an entire profession who earns sometimes big bucks because they have gone to school for 0 years to be able to understand how to interpret the constitution and its amendments.  wanting to change the constitution because the language does not cater to a plain language reading is like wanting to change a computer program because the language in which it was written is hard for a non programmer to parse.  two problems: 0.  any overlap is pretty much irrelevant.  there is very little overlap, it is a short document to begin with, and there are no contradictions because of the overlap.  0.  your implicit assumption is that covering more people is a good thing.  that is pretty contentious in itself; i doubt you would be able to get a majority in 0 states to agree that felons should have voting rights, for example.  why should the constitution be revised to cover every single us citizen rather than the certain classes that it covers ? they change based on technology, public conscious, and international relations.  should we follow the advice of a group who believed slavery was acceptable ? we already have processes the legislature, judiciary, and the amendment process to mitigate the bad ideas of the founders.  slavery was prohibited by an amendment, and other racist laws were outlawed by legislatures or deemed unconstitutional in the courts .  which bad ideas are unable to be changed through those processes ? i can understand what was meant. because i have gone to law school.  it is not particularly confusing, but you  will  miss the point if you simply look at the plain language to try to understand complex legal issues.  if nobody owns guns in 0 years, they are free to convince 0/0 of the population to vote for an amendment to be ratified by 0/0 of the states.  will words like gay hold the same meaning as it does now or will it return to the usage it once had ? again, you are assuming that the plain language matters.  the fourth amendment provides that the people can be secure in their  papers  from unreasonable searches and seizures, but it is not hard for the court to say that computer documents should be considered papers for the purposes of this amendment.  fine, then why even practice democracy ? after all, it was invented by those homosexual pedophiles in greece, right ? we can separate the wheat from the chaff; we do not have to throw out a lot of good ideas just because the founders had some bad ideas, too.  i am saying we should interpret it for today, update it, and use our revised version instead.  what do you think courts do today ? they interpret the law, including the constitution.  and you are free to update it today, but the problem is that 0/0 of the population ca not agree on how to update it.  the term  all men  does not appear in the constitution.  you are literally making up examples of anachronistic language.  how is  remove  better than  repeal  ? how does combining them do something different than simply considering both ?  #  they then want to call a convention of states to rewrite constitution using newly appointed shills at the majority of state levels.   #  this is the key problem.  there is a movement going on right now called the convention of states, and if you follow the money you will find some very familiar billionaire names behind it.  koch and soros both immediately come to mind.  on the outside it appears to be an attempt at reforming the government due to certain  problems .  what it glosses over is that if you follow the money behind this movement, you find that it leads to exactly the same people who have caused the problems they are touting as the main issues.  they then want to call a convention of states to rewrite constitution using newly appointed shills at the majority of state levels.  this allows them to then rewrite a constitution with whatever they want in it, in a secret closed door meeting.  fuck that.  it is so fucking simple it is absurd to even consider, but this is what is happening.   #  yet on their website, they have articles about soros supposedly forming a coalition against article v.  while he is pumping money to push for it.   #  he is been putting money into a push for the same article v convention that certain high profile conservatives are pushing for, and that other conservative billionaires have been pushing for.  their website URL soros  claim is that it is for a different reason.  but the money has been going to the same places.  the evidence i had previously was that i found a list of financial backers through their own site and several of the organizations were directly linked to a few high profile billionaires.  the kochs especially put into perspective their end goal to me.  but upon doing a quick search just now to refresh myself, there are pages of articles about soros pushing for a convention of states.  yet on their website, they have articles about soros supposedly forming a coalition against article v.  while he is pumping money to push for it.  it is just weird.  the whole thing is weird.  i do not like any of it.  do not take my word for it.  spend an hour checking it out and following the weird trail it will lead you on.  their own website is a great place to start.   #  if they are too similar the voters might get mixed or apathetic and they would lose votes.   #  i will be the devils advocate for a min.  you know these billionaires have nothing against the average person, right ? they have a tendency to disregard social issue in advocacy of economic issues, but if they were given the power to they would likely not only fix them but fix them more effectively than whatever party focuses on social issues .  the reason you see this political divide is strategics.  it is advantageous for the two ruling parties to advocate in opposition to each other.  if they are too similar the voters might get mixed or apathetic and they would lose votes.  this is actually a pretty simple scenario if you ever take a class on strategy, which everyone totally should.   #  they already have the power to make big positive changes.   #  if they were given power ? youre mistaken.  they already have the power to make big positive changes.  some do.  most do not.  that is exactly the problem.  those who are not, are also the ones buying politicians and lobbying with millions of dollars to get legislation passed that benefits them.  there is absolutely no reason to think they could do a better job if the government was stripped of all power and we were forced to rely on their good graces to help us.  they already have that option and they do more harm than good as is.  they are creating the problems and then citing those problems as to why the government is failing, and telling us to put them in charge.  fuck thaaaat.
the constitution of the united states is over 0 years old and it shows its age.  many amendments are written in unusual english by todays standards, making it difficult to tease out meaning.  many other amendments overlap in meaning and could be combined to simplify them while also covering more people.  the fact is, it is outdated.  i believe it should be revised every 0 years or so because culture and language are organic.  they change based on technology, public conscious, and international relations.  should we follow the advice of a group who believed slavery was acceptable ? that thought only white, male, property owners should/could vote ? can you read through the document and understand what was meant or does much of it come across as confusing to todays readers ? the world has changed and i believe we need to change with it in order to be relevant.  i also believe our ideas and views from today will experience the same degradation over time.  in 0 years will the world still care about gun rights ? will the population still speak mostly english or will we add more spanish to our vocabulary ? will words like gay hold the same meaning as it does now or will it return to the usage it once had ? we cannot know.  we should not force our ideas through time, expecially when future generations will have the same issues understanding us as we do understanding the founding fathers.  what i ca not understand is why we are clinging to the past, to a group who would likely be viewed as backward racists today.  we should take what we believe now and govern by those beliefs.  we should update, revise, and examine our core ideas from time to time to at least make sure we still understand what they are.  i am not talking about simply throwing the constitution out either.  i am saying we should interpret it for today, update it, and use our revised version instead.  then both can be looked at by the next generation and adjusted as needed.  it should update and change with the citizenry and the times while still being the timeless core of our laws.  it would take a lot of work, a lot would change, but i believe we would be better for it.  cmv many responses seem to think i am saying scrap the whole thing and start over.  no, i am saying we need an updated, reworded one that uses the meanings as we take them today.  all men are equal shoule read all persons, prohibition and its repeal should just be removed, the 0th and 0th should be combined and all inclusive with restrictions put in after the fact.  those are examples of what i mean but not the whole of it.  to cmv you need to show me that having an old, poorly worded document is better than a revision of it in modern terms.  it would be hard to do but it would be better for the nation and easier to work with than if we left it be.  cmv also, deltas incoming for added info on the topic.  hard to delta from a phone  #  i am not talking about simply throwing the constitution out either.   #  i am saying we should interpret it for today, update it, and use our revised version instead.   # you are right that the us constitution is the oldest in the world.  that is because it has worked for longer than any other.  there is an entire profession who earns sometimes big bucks because they have gone to school for 0 years to be able to understand how to interpret the constitution and its amendments.  wanting to change the constitution because the language does not cater to a plain language reading is like wanting to change a computer program because the language in which it was written is hard for a non programmer to parse.  two problems: 0.  any overlap is pretty much irrelevant.  there is very little overlap, it is a short document to begin with, and there are no contradictions because of the overlap.  0.  your implicit assumption is that covering more people is a good thing.  that is pretty contentious in itself; i doubt you would be able to get a majority in 0 states to agree that felons should have voting rights, for example.  why should the constitution be revised to cover every single us citizen rather than the certain classes that it covers ? they change based on technology, public conscious, and international relations.  should we follow the advice of a group who believed slavery was acceptable ? we already have processes the legislature, judiciary, and the amendment process to mitigate the bad ideas of the founders.  slavery was prohibited by an amendment, and other racist laws were outlawed by legislatures or deemed unconstitutional in the courts .  which bad ideas are unable to be changed through those processes ? i can understand what was meant. because i have gone to law school.  it is not particularly confusing, but you  will  miss the point if you simply look at the plain language to try to understand complex legal issues.  if nobody owns guns in 0 years, they are free to convince 0/0 of the population to vote for an amendment to be ratified by 0/0 of the states.  will words like gay hold the same meaning as it does now or will it return to the usage it once had ? again, you are assuming that the plain language matters.  the fourth amendment provides that the people can be secure in their  papers  from unreasonable searches and seizures, but it is not hard for the court to say that computer documents should be considered papers for the purposes of this amendment.  fine, then why even practice democracy ? after all, it was invented by those homosexual pedophiles in greece, right ? we can separate the wheat from the chaff; we do not have to throw out a lot of good ideas just because the founders had some bad ideas, too.  i am saying we should interpret it for today, update it, and use our revised version instead.  what do you think courts do today ? they interpret the law, including the constitution.  and you are free to update it today, but the problem is that 0/0 of the population ca not agree on how to update it.  the term  all men  does not appear in the constitution.  you are literally making up examples of anachronistic language.  how is  remove  better than  repeal  ? how does combining them do something different than simply considering both ?  #  there is a movement going on right now called the convention of states, and if you follow the money you will find some very familiar billionaire names behind it.   #  this is the key problem.  there is a movement going on right now called the convention of states, and if you follow the money you will find some very familiar billionaire names behind it.  koch and soros both immediately come to mind.  on the outside it appears to be an attempt at reforming the government due to certain  problems .  what it glosses over is that if you follow the money behind this movement, you find that it leads to exactly the same people who have caused the problems they are touting as the main issues.  they then want to call a convention of states to rewrite constitution using newly appointed shills at the majority of state levels.  this allows them to then rewrite a constitution with whatever they want in it, in a secret closed door meeting.  fuck that.  it is so fucking simple it is absurd to even consider, but this is what is happening.   #  the kochs especially put into perspective their end goal to me.   #  he is been putting money into a push for the same article v convention that certain high profile conservatives are pushing for, and that other conservative billionaires have been pushing for.  their website URL soros  claim is that it is for a different reason.  but the money has been going to the same places.  the evidence i had previously was that i found a list of financial backers through their own site and several of the organizations were directly linked to a few high profile billionaires.  the kochs especially put into perspective their end goal to me.  but upon doing a quick search just now to refresh myself, there are pages of articles about soros pushing for a convention of states.  yet on their website, they have articles about soros supposedly forming a coalition against article v.  while he is pumping money to push for it.  it is just weird.  the whole thing is weird.  i do not like any of it.  do not take my word for it.  spend an hour checking it out and following the weird trail it will lead you on.  their own website is a great place to start.   #  it is advantageous for the two ruling parties to advocate in opposition to each other.   #  i will be the devils advocate for a min.  you know these billionaires have nothing against the average person, right ? they have a tendency to disregard social issue in advocacy of economic issues, but if they were given the power to they would likely not only fix them but fix them more effectively than whatever party focuses on social issues .  the reason you see this political divide is strategics.  it is advantageous for the two ruling parties to advocate in opposition to each other.  if they are too similar the voters might get mixed or apathetic and they would lose votes.  this is actually a pretty simple scenario if you ever take a class on strategy, which everyone totally should.   #  they are creating the problems and then citing those problems as to why the government is failing, and telling us to put them in charge.   #  if they were given power ? youre mistaken.  they already have the power to make big positive changes.  some do.  most do not.  that is exactly the problem.  those who are not, are also the ones buying politicians and lobbying with millions of dollars to get legislation passed that benefits them.  there is absolutely no reason to think they could do a better job if the government was stripped of all power and we were forced to rely on their good graces to help us.  they already have that option and they do more harm than good as is.  they are creating the problems and then citing those problems as to why the government is failing, and telling us to put them in charge.  fuck thaaaat.
the constitution of the united states is over 0 years old and it shows its age.  many amendments are written in unusual english by todays standards, making it difficult to tease out meaning.  many other amendments overlap in meaning and could be combined to simplify them while also covering more people.  the fact is, it is outdated.  i believe it should be revised every 0 years or so because culture and language are organic.  they change based on technology, public conscious, and international relations.  should we follow the advice of a group who believed slavery was acceptable ? that thought only white, male, property owners should/could vote ? can you read through the document and understand what was meant or does much of it come across as confusing to todays readers ? the world has changed and i believe we need to change with it in order to be relevant.  i also believe our ideas and views from today will experience the same degradation over time.  in 0 years will the world still care about gun rights ? will the population still speak mostly english or will we add more spanish to our vocabulary ? will words like gay hold the same meaning as it does now or will it return to the usage it once had ? we cannot know.  we should not force our ideas through time, expecially when future generations will have the same issues understanding us as we do understanding the founding fathers.  what i ca not understand is why we are clinging to the past, to a group who would likely be viewed as backward racists today.  we should take what we believe now and govern by those beliefs.  we should update, revise, and examine our core ideas from time to time to at least make sure we still understand what they are.  i am not talking about simply throwing the constitution out either.  i am saying we should interpret it for today, update it, and use our revised version instead.  then both can be looked at by the next generation and adjusted as needed.  it should update and change with the citizenry and the times while still being the timeless core of our laws.  it would take a lot of work, a lot would change, but i believe we would be better for it.  cmv many responses seem to think i am saying scrap the whole thing and start over.  no, i am saying we need an updated, reworded one that uses the meanings as we take them today.  all men are equal shoule read all persons, prohibition and its repeal should just be removed, the 0th and 0th should be combined and all inclusive with restrictions put in after the fact.  those are examples of what i mean but not the whole of it.  to cmv you need to show me that having an old, poorly worded document is better than a revision of it in modern terms.  it would be hard to do but it would be better for the nation and easier to work with than if we left it be.  cmv also, deltas incoming for added info on the topic.  hard to delta from a phone  #  the 0th and 0th should be combined and all inclusive with restrictions put in after the fact.   #  how does combining them do something different than simply considering both ?  # you are right that the us constitution is the oldest in the world.  that is because it has worked for longer than any other.  there is an entire profession who earns sometimes big bucks because they have gone to school for 0 years to be able to understand how to interpret the constitution and its amendments.  wanting to change the constitution because the language does not cater to a plain language reading is like wanting to change a computer program because the language in which it was written is hard for a non programmer to parse.  two problems: 0.  any overlap is pretty much irrelevant.  there is very little overlap, it is a short document to begin with, and there are no contradictions because of the overlap.  0.  your implicit assumption is that covering more people is a good thing.  that is pretty contentious in itself; i doubt you would be able to get a majority in 0 states to agree that felons should have voting rights, for example.  why should the constitution be revised to cover every single us citizen rather than the certain classes that it covers ? they change based on technology, public conscious, and international relations.  should we follow the advice of a group who believed slavery was acceptable ? we already have processes the legislature, judiciary, and the amendment process to mitigate the bad ideas of the founders.  slavery was prohibited by an amendment, and other racist laws were outlawed by legislatures or deemed unconstitutional in the courts .  which bad ideas are unable to be changed through those processes ? i can understand what was meant. because i have gone to law school.  it is not particularly confusing, but you  will  miss the point if you simply look at the plain language to try to understand complex legal issues.  if nobody owns guns in 0 years, they are free to convince 0/0 of the population to vote for an amendment to be ratified by 0/0 of the states.  will words like gay hold the same meaning as it does now or will it return to the usage it once had ? again, you are assuming that the plain language matters.  the fourth amendment provides that the people can be secure in their  papers  from unreasonable searches and seizures, but it is not hard for the court to say that computer documents should be considered papers for the purposes of this amendment.  fine, then why even practice democracy ? after all, it was invented by those homosexual pedophiles in greece, right ? we can separate the wheat from the chaff; we do not have to throw out a lot of good ideas just because the founders had some bad ideas, too.  i am saying we should interpret it for today, update it, and use our revised version instead.  what do you think courts do today ? they interpret the law, including the constitution.  and you are free to update it today, but the problem is that 0/0 of the population ca not agree on how to update it.  the term  all men  does not appear in the constitution.  you are literally making up examples of anachronistic language.  how is  remove  better than  repeal  ? how does combining them do something different than simply considering both ?  #  there is a movement going on right now called the convention of states, and if you follow the money you will find some very familiar billionaire names behind it.   #  this is the key problem.  there is a movement going on right now called the convention of states, and if you follow the money you will find some very familiar billionaire names behind it.  koch and soros both immediately come to mind.  on the outside it appears to be an attempt at reforming the government due to certain  problems .  what it glosses over is that if you follow the money behind this movement, you find that it leads to exactly the same people who have caused the problems they are touting as the main issues.  they then want to call a convention of states to rewrite constitution using newly appointed shills at the majority of state levels.  this allows them to then rewrite a constitution with whatever they want in it, in a secret closed door meeting.  fuck that.  it is so fucking simple it is absurd to even consider, but this is what is happening.   #  yet on their website, they have articles about soros supposedly forming a coalition against article v.  while he is pumping money to push for it.   #  he is been putting money into a push for the same article v convention that certain high profile conservatives are pushing for, and that other conservative billionaires have been pushing for.  their website URL soros  claim is that it is for a different reason.  but the money has been going to the same places.  the evidence i had previously was that i found a list of financial backers through their own site and several of the organizations were directly linked to a few high profile billionaires.  the kochs especially put into perspective their end goal to me.  but upon doing a quick search just now to refresh myself, there are pages of articles about soros pushing for a convention of states.  yet on their website, they have articles about soros supposedly forming a coalition against article v.  while he is pumping money to push for it.  it is just weird.  the whole thing is weird.  i do not like any of it.  do not take my word for it.  spend an hour checking it out and following the weird trail it will lead you on.  their own website is a great place to start.   #  the reason you see this political divide is strategics.   #  i will be the devils advocate for a min.  you know these billionaires have nothing against the average person, right ? they have a tendency to disregard social issue in advocacy of economic issues, but if they were given the power to they would likely not only fix them but fix them more effectively than whatever party focuses on social issues .  the reason you see this political divide is strategics.  it is advantageous for the two ruling parties to advocate in opposition to each other.  if they are too similar the voters might get mixed or apathetic and they would lose votes.  this is actually a pretty simple scenario if you ever take a class on strategy, which everyone totally should.   #  they already have that option and they do more harm than good as is.   #  if they were given power ? youre mistaken.  they already have the power to make big positive changes.  some do.  most do not.  that is exactly the problem.  those who are not, are also the ones buying politicians and lobbying with millions of dollars to get legislation passed that benefits them.  there is absolutely no reason to think they could do a better job if the government was stripped of all power and we were forced to rely on their good graces to help us.  they already have that option and they do more harm than good as is.  they are creating the problems and then citing those problems as to why the government is failing, and telling us to put them in charge.  fuck thaaaat.
the constitution of the united states is over 0 years old and it shows its age.  many amendments are written in unusual english by todays standards, making it difficult to tease out meaning.  many other amendments overlap in meaning and could be combined to simplify them while also covering more people.  the fact is, it is outdated.  i believe it should be revised every 0 years or so because culture and language are organic.  they change based on technology, public conscious, and international relations.  should we follow the advice of a group who believed slavery was acceptable ? that thought only white, male, property owners should/could vote ? can you read through the document and understand what was meant or does much of it come across as confusing to todays readers ? the world has changed and i believe we need to change with it in order to be relevant.  i also believe our ideas and views from today will experience the same degradation over time.  in 0 years will the world still care about gun rights ? will the population still speak mostly english or will we add more spanish to our vocabulary ? will words like gay hold the same meaning as it does now or will it return to the usage it once had ? we cannot know.  we should not force our ideas through time, expecially when future generations will have the same issues understanding us as we do understanding the founding fathers.  what i ca not understand is why we are clinging to the past, to a group who would likely be viewed as backward racists today.  we should take what we believe now and govern by those beliefs.  we should update, revise, and examine our core ideas from time to time to at least make sure we still understand what they are.  i am not talking about simply throwing the constitution out either.  i am saying we should interpret it for today, update it, and use our revised version instead.  then both can be looked at by the next generation and adjusted as needed.  it should update and change with the citizenry and the times while still being the timeless core of our laws.  it would take a lot of work, a lot would change, but i believe we would be better for it.  cmv many responses seem to think i am saying scrap the whole thing and start over.  no, i am saying we need an updated, reworded one that uses the meanings as we take them today.  all men are equal shoule read all persons, prohibition and its repeal should just be removed, the 0th and 0th should be combined and all inclusive with restrictions put in after the fact.  those are examples of what i mean but not the whole of it.  to cmv you need to show me that having an old, poorly worded document is better than a revision of it in modern terms.  it would be hard to do but it would be better for the nation and easier to work with than if we left it be.  cmv also, deltas incoming for added info on the topic.  hard to delta from a phone  #  should we follow the advice of a group who believed slavery was acceptable ?  #  yes, and we currently do, and we will continue to do so for the entirety of the foreseeable future.   # yes, and we currently do, and we will continue to do so for the entirety of the foreseeable future.  legal documents are not designed to be easy to read.  in what way is the constitution irrelevant ? thomas jefferson, george washington, and samuel adams are perceived as backwards racists ? lol  we should update, revise, and change our core ideas from time to time to at least make sure we still understand what they are.  what is it about freedom of speech or religion that needs an  update ?   the constitution is not an iphone, it does not need new features for the sake of new features.  .  ?  #  on the outside it appears to be an attempt at reforming the government due to certain  problems .   #  this is the key problem.  there is a movement going on right now called the convention of states, and if you follow the money you will find some very familiar billionaire names behind it.  koch and soros both immediately come to mind.  on the outside it appears to be an attempt at reforming the government due to certain  problems .  what it glosses over is that if you follow the money behind this movement, you find that it leads to exactly the same people who have caused the problems they are touting as the main issues.  they then want to call a convention of states to rewrite constitution using newly appointed shills at the majority of state levels.  this allows them to then rewrite a constitution with whatever they want in it, in a secret closed door meeting.  fuck that.  it is so fucking simple it is absurd to even consider, but this is what is happening.   #  but the money has been going to the same places.   #  he is been putting money into a push for the same article v convention that certain high profile conservatives are pushing for, and that other conservative billionaires have been pushing for.  their website URL soros  claim is that it is for a different reason.  but the money has been going to the same places.  the evidence i had previously was that i found a list of financial backers through their own site and several of the organizations were directly linked to a few high profile billionaires.  the kochs especially put into perspective their end goal to me.  but upon doing a quick search just now to refresh myself, there are pages of articles about soros pushing for a convention of states.  yet on their website, they have articles about soros supposedly forming a coalition against article v.  while he is pumping money to push for it.  it is just weird.  the whole thing is weird.  i do not like any of it.  do not take my word for it.  spend an hour checking it out and following the weird trail it will lead you on.  their own website is a great place to start.   #  it is advantageous for the two ruling parties to advocate in opposition to each other.   #  i will be the devils advocate for a min.  you know these billionaires have nothing against the average person, right ? they have a tendency to disregard social issue in advocacy of economic issues, but if they were given the power to they would likely not only fix them but fix them more effectively than whatever party focuses on social issues .  the reason you see this political divide is strategics.  it is advantageous for the two ruling parties to advocate in opposition to each other.  if they are too similar the voters might get mixed or apathetic and they would lose votes.  this is actually a pretty simple scenario if you ever take a class on strategy, which everyone totally should.   #  they already have the power to make big positive changes.   #  if they were given power ? youre mistaken.  they already have the power to make big positive changes.  some do.  most do not.  that is exactly the problem.  those who are not, are also the ones buying politicians and lobbying with millions of dollars to get legislation passed that benefits them.  there is absolutely no reason to think they could do a better job if the government was stripped of all power and we were forced to rely on their good graces to help us.  they already have that option and they do more harm than good as is.  they are creating the problems and then citing those problems as to why the government is failing, and telling us to put them in charge.  fuck thaaaat.
the constitution of the united states is over 0 years old and it shows its age.  many amendments are written in unusual english by todays standards, making it difficult to tease out meaning.  many other amendments overlap in meaning and could be combined to simplify them while also covering more people.  the fact is, it is outdated.  i believe it should be revised every 0 years or so because culture and language are organic.  they change based on technology, public conscious, and international relations.  should we follow the advice of a group who believed slavery was acceptable ? that thought only white, male, property owners should/could vote ? can you read through the document and understand what was meant or does much of it come across as confusing to todays readers ? the world has changed and i believe we need to change with it in order to be relevant.  i also believe our ideas and views from today will experience the same degradation over time.  in 0 years will the world still care about gun rights ? will the population still speak mostly english or will we add more spanish to our vocabulary ? will words like gay hold the same meaning as it does now or will it return to the usage it once had ? we cannot know.  we should not force our ideas through time, expecially when future generations will have the same issues understanding us as we do understanding the founding fathers.  what i ca not understand is why we are clinging to the past, to a group who would likely be viewed as backward racists today.  we should take what we believe now and govern by those beliefs.  we should update, revise, and examine our core ideas from time to time to at least make sure we still understand what they are.  i am not talking about simply throwing the constitution out either.  i am saying we should interpret it for today, update it, and use our revised version instead.  then both can be looked at by the next generation and adjusted as needed.  it should update and change with the citizenry and the times while still being the timeless core of our laws.  it would take a lot of work, a lot would change, but i believe we would be better for it.  cmv many responses seem to think i am saying scrap the whole thing and start over.  no, i am saying we need an updated, reworded one that uses the meanings as we take them today.  all men are equal shoule read all persons, prohibition and its repeal should just be removed, the 0th and 0th should be combined and all inclusive with restrictions put in after the fact.  those are examples of what i mean but not the whole of it.  to cmv you need to show me that having an old, poorly worded document is better than a revision of it in modern terms.  it would be hard to do but it would be better for the nation and easier to work with than if we left it be.  cmv also, deltas incoming for added info on the topic.  hard to delta from a phone  #  can you read through the document and understand what was meant or does much of it come across as confusing to todays readers ?  #  legal documents are not designed to be easy to read.   # yes, and we currently do, and we will continue to do so for the entirety of the foreseeable future.  legal documents are not designed to be easy to read.  in what way is the constitution irrelevant ? thomas jefferson, george washington, and samuel adams are perceived as backwards racists ? lol  we should update, revise, and change our core ideas from time to time to at least make sure we still understand what they are.  what is it about freedom of speech or religion that needs an  update ?   the constitution is not an iphone, it does not need new features for the sake of new features.  .  ?  #  what it glosses over is that if you follow the money behind this movement, you find that it leads to exactly the same people who have caused the problems they are touting as the main issues.   #  this is the key problem.  there is a movement going on right now called the convention of states, and if you follow the money you will find some very familiar billionaire names behind it.  koch and soros both immediately come to mind.  on the outside it appears to be an attempt at reforming the government due to certain  problems .  what it glosses over is that if you follow the money behind this movement, you find that it leads to exactly the same people who have caused the problems they are touting as the main issues.  they then want to call a convention of states to rewrite constitution using newly appointed shills at the majority of state levels.  this allows them to then rewrite a constitution with whatever they want in it, in a secret closed door meeting.  fuck that.  it is so fucking simple it is absurd to even consider, but this is what is happening.   #  but upon doing a quick search just now to refresh myself, there are pages of articles about soros pushing for a convention of states.   #  he is been putting money into a push for the same article v convention that certain high profile conservatives are pushing for, and that other conservative billionaires have been pushing for.  their website URL soros  claim is that it is for a different reason.  but the money has been going to the same places.  the evidence i had previously was that i found a list of financial backers through their own site and several of the organizations were directly linked to a few high profile billionaires.  the kochs especially put into perspective their end goal to me.  but upon doing a quick search just now to refresh myself, there are pages of articles about soros pushing for a convention of states.  yet on their website, they have articles about soros supposedly forming a coalition against article v.  while he is pumping money to push for it.  it is just weird.  the whole thing is weird.  i do not like any of it.  do not take my word for it.  spend an hour checking it out and following the weird trail it will lead you on.  their own website is a great place to start.   #  if they are too similar the voters might get mixed or apathetic and they would lose votes.   #  i will be the devils advocate for a min.  you know these billionaires have nothing against the average person, right ? they have a tendency to disregard social issue in advocacy of economic issues, but if they were given the power to they would likely not only fix them but fix them more effectively than whatever party focuses on social issues .  the reason you see this political divide is strategics.  it is advantageous for the two ruling parties to advocate in opposition to each other.  if they are too similar the voters might get mixed or apathetic and they would lose votes.  this is actually a pretty simple scenario if you ever take a class on strategy, which everyone totally should.   #  there is absolutely no reason to think they could do a better job if the government was stripped of all power and we were forced to rely on their good graces to help us.   #  if they were given power ? youre mistaken.  they already have the power to make big positive changes.  some do.  most do not.  that is exactly the problem.  those who are not, are also the ones buying politicians and lobbying with millions of dollars to get legislation passed that benefits them.  there is absolutely no reason to think they could do a better job if the government was stripped of all power and we were forced to rely on their good graces to help us.  they already have that option and they do more harm than good as is.  they are creating the problems and then citing those problems as to why the government is failing, and telling us to put them in charge.  fuck thaaaat.
the constitution of the united states is over 0 years old and it shows its age.  many amendments are written in unusual english by todays standards, making it difficult to tease out meaning.  many other amendments overlap in meaning and could be combined to simplify them while also covering more people.  the fact is, it is outdated.  i believe it should be revised every 0 years or so because culture and language are organic.  they change based on technology, public conscious, and international relations.  should we follow the advice of a group who believed slavery was acceptable ? that thought only white, male, property owners should/could vote ? can you read through the document and understand what was meant or does much of it come across as confusing to todays readers ? the world has changed and i believe we need to change with it in order to be relevant.  i also believe our ideas and views from today will experience the same degradation over time.  in 0 years will the world still care about gun rights ? will the population still speak mostly english or will we add more spanish to our vocabulary ? will words like gay hold the same meaning as it does now or will it return to the usage it once had ? we cannot know.  we should not force our ideas through time, expecially when future generations will have the same issues understanding us as we do understanding the founding fathers.  what i ca not understand is why we are clinging to the past, to a group who would likely be viewed as backward racists today.  we should take what we believe now and govern by those beliefs.  we should update, revise, and examine our core ideas from time to time to at least make sure we still understand what they are.  i am not talking about simply throwing the constitution out either.  i am saying we should interpret it for today, update it, and use our revised version instead.  then both can be looked at by the next generation and adjusted as needed.  it should update and change with the citizenry and the times while still being the timeless core of our laws.  it would take a lot of work, a lot would change, but i believe we would be better for it.  cmv many responses seem to think i am saying scrap the whole thing and start over.  no, i am saying we need an updated, reworded one that uses the meanings as we take them today.  all men are equal shoule read all persons, prohibition and its repeal should just be removed, the 0th and 0th should be combined and all inclusive with restrictions put in after the fact.  those are examples of what i mean but not the whole of it.  to cmv you need to show me that having an old, poorly worded document is better than a revision of it in modern terms.  it would be hard to do but it would be better for the nation and easier to work with than if we left it be.  cmv also, deltas incoming for added info on the topic.  hard to delta from a phone  #  the world has changed and i believe we need to change with it in order to be relevant.   #  in what way is the constitution irrelevant ?  # yes, and we currently do, and we will continue to do so for the entirety of the foreseeable future.  legal documents are not designed to be easy to read.  in what way is the constitution irrelevant ? thomas jefferson, george washington, and samuel adams are perceived as backwards racists ? lol  we should update, revise, and change our core ideas from time to time to at least make sure we still understand what they are.  what is it about freedom of speech or religion that needs an  update ?   the constitution is not an iphone, it does not need new features for the sake of new features.  .  ?  #  koch and soros both immediately come to mind.   #  this is the key problem.  there is a movement going on right now called the convention of states, and if you follow the money you will find some very familiar billionaire names behind it.  koch and soros both immediately come to mind.  on the outside it appears to be an attempt at reforming the government due to certain  problems .  what it glosses over is that if you follow the money behind this movement, you find that it leads to exactly the same people who have caused the problems they are touting as the main issues.  they then want to call a convention of states to rewrite constitution using newly appointed shills at the majority of state levels.  this allows them to then rewrite a constitution with whatever they want in it, in a secret closed door meeting.  fuck that.  it is so fucking simple it is absurd to even consider, but this is what is happening.   #  but the money has been going to the same places.   #  he is been putting money into a push for the same article v convention that certain high profile conservatives are pushing for, and that other conservative billionaires have been pushing for.  their website URL soros  claim is that it is for a different reason.  but the money has been going to the same places.  the evidence i had previously was that i found a list of financial backers through their own site and several of the organizations were directly linked to a few high profile billionaires.  the kochs especially put into perspective their end goal to me.  but upon doing a quick search just now to refresh myself, there are pages of articles about soros pushing for a convention of states.  yet on their website, they have articles about soros supposedly forming a coalition against article v.  while he is pumping money to push for it.  it is just weird.  the whole thing is weird.  i do not like any of it.  do not take my word for it.  spend an hour checking it out and following the weird trail it will lead you on.  their own website is a great place to start.   #  it is advantageous for the two ruling parties to advocate in opposition to each other.   #  i will be the devils advocate for a min.  you know these billionaires have nothing against the average person, right ? they have a tendency to disregard social issue in advocacy of economic issues, but if they were given the power to they would likely not only fix them but fix them more effectively than whatever party focuses on social issues .  the reason you see this political divide is strategics.  it is advantageous for the two ruling parties to advocate in opposition to each other.  if they are too similar the voters might get mixed or apathetic and they would lose votes.  this is actually a pretty simple scenario if you ever take a class on strategy, which everyone totally should.   #  they already have the power to make big positive changes.   #  if they were given power ? youre mistaken.  they already have the power to make big positive changes.  some do.  most do not.  that is exactly the problem.  those who are not, are also the ones buying politicians and lobbying with millions of dollars to get legislation passed that benefits them.  there is absolutely no reason to think they could do a better job if the government was stripped of all power and we were forced to rely on their good graces to help us.  they already have that option and they do more harm than good as is.  they are creating the problems and then citing those problems as to why the government is failing, and telling us to put them in charge.  fuck thaaaat.
the constitution of the united states is over 0 years old and it shows its age.  many amendments are written in unusual english by todays standards, making it difficult to tease out meaning.  many other amendments overlap in meaning and could be combined to simplify them while also covering more people.  the fact is, it is outdated.  i believe it should be revised every 0 years or so because culture and language are organic.  they change based on technology, public conscious, and international relations.  should we follow the advice of a group who believed slavery was acceptable ? that thought only white, male, property owners should/could vote ? can you read through the document and understand what was meant or does much of it come across as confusing to todays readers ? the world has changed and i believe we need to change with it in order to be relevant.  i also believe our ideas and views from today will experience the same degradation over time.  in 0 years will the world still care about gun rights ? will the population still speak mostly english or will we add more spanish to our vocabulary ? will words like gay hold the same meaning as it does now or will it return to the usage it once had ? we cannot know.  we should not force our ideas through time, expecially when future generations will have the same issues understanding us as we do understanding the founding fathers.  what i ca not understand is why we are clinging to the past, to a group who would likely be viewed as backward racists today.  we should take what we believe now and govern by those beliefs.  we should update, revise, and examine our core ideas from time to time to at least make sure we still understand what they are.  i am not talking about simply throwing the constitution out either.  i am saying we should interpret it for today, update it, and use our revised version instead.  then both can be looked at by the next generation and adjusted as needed.  it should update and change with the citizenry and the times while still being the timeless core of our laws.  it would take a lot of work, a lot would change, but i believe we would be better for it.  cmv many responses seem to think i am saying scrap the whole thing and start over.  no, i am saying we need an updated, reworded one that uses the meanings as we take them today.  all men are equal shoule read all persons, prohibition and its repeal should just be removed, the 0th and 0th should be combined and all inclusive with restrictions put in after the fact.  those are examples of what i mean but not the whole of it.  to cmv you need to show me that having an old, poorly worded document is better than a revision of it in modern terms.  it would be hard to do but it would be better for the nation and easier to work with than if we left it be.  cmv also, deltas incoming for added info on the topic.  hard to delta from a phone  #  what i ca not understand is why we are clinging to the past, to a group who would likely be viewed as backward racists today.   #  thomas jefferson, george washington, and samuel adams are perceived as backwards racists ?  # yes, and we currently do, and we will continue to do so for the entirety of the foreseeable future.  legal documents are not designed to be easy to read.  in what way is the constitution irrelevant ? thomas jefferson, george washington, and samuel adams are perceived as backwards racists ? lol  we should update, revise, and change our core ideas from time to time to at least make sure we still understand what they are.  what is it about freedom of speech or religion that needs an  update ?   the constitution is not an iphone, it does not need new features for the sake of new features.  .  ?  #  on the outside it appears to be an attempt at reforming the government due to certain  problems .   #  this is the key problem.  there is a movement going on right now called the convention of states, and if you follow the money you will find some very familiar billionaire names behind it.  koch and soros both immediately come to mind.  on the outside it appears to be an attempt at reforming the government due to certain  problems .  what it glosses over is that if you follow the money behind this movement, you find that it leads to exactly the same people who have caused the problems they are touting as the main issues.  they then want to call a convention of states to rewrite constitution using newly appointed shills at the majority of state levels.  this allows them to then rewrite a constitution with whatever they want in it, in a secret closed door meeting.  fuck that.  it is so fucking simple it is absurd to even consider, but this is what is happening.   #  but upon doing a quick search just now to refresh myself, there are pages of articles about soros pushing for a convention of states.   #  he is been putting money into a push for the same article v convention that certain high profile conservatives are pushing for, and that other conservative billionaires have been pushing for.  their website URL soros  claim is that it is for a different reason.  but the money has been going to the same places.  the evidence i had previously was that i found a list of financial backers through their own site and several of the organizations were directly linked to a few high profile billionaires.  the kochs especially put into perspective their end goal to me.  but upon doing a quick search just now to refresh myself, there are pages of articles about soros pushing for a convention of states.  yet on their website, they have articles about soros supposedly forming a coalition against article v.  while he is pumping money to push for it.  it is just weird.  the whole thing is weird.  i do not like any of it.  do not take my word for it.  spend an hour checking it out and following the weird trail it will lead you on.  their own website is a great place to start.   #  this is actually a pretty simple scenario if you ever take a class on strategy, which everyone totally should.   #  i will be the devils advocate for a min.  you know these billionaires have nothing against the average person, right ? they have a tendency to disregard social issue in advocacy of economic issues, but if they were given the power to they would likely not only fix them but fix them more effectively than whatever party focuses on social issues .  the reason you see this political divide is strategics.  it is advantageous for the two ruling parties to advocate in opposition to each other.  if they are too similar the voters might get mixed or apathetic and they would lose votes.  this is actually a pretty simple scenario if you ever take a class on strategy, which everyone totally should.   #  they already have the power to make big positive changes.   #  if they were given power ? youre mistaken.  they already have the power to make big positive changes.  some do.  most do not.  that is exactly the problem.  those who are not, are also the ones buying politicians and lobbying with millions of dollars to get legislation passed that benefits them.  there is absolutely no reason to think they could do a better job if the government was stripped of all power and we were forced to rely on their good graces to help us.  they already have that option and they do more harm than good as is.  they are creating the problems and then citing those problems as to why the government is failing, and telling us to put them in charge.  fuck thaaaat.
the constitution of the united states is over 0 years old and it shows its age.  many amendments are written in unusual english by todays standards, making it difficult to tease out meaning.  many other amendments overlap in meaning and could be combined to simplify them while also covering more people.  the fact is, it is outdated.  i believe it should be revised every 0 years or so because culture and language are organic.  they change based on technology, public conscious, and international relations.  should we follow the advice of a group who believed slavery was acceptable ? that thought only white, male, property owners should/could vote ? can you read through the document and understand what was meant or does much of it come across as confusing to todays readers ? the world has changed and i believe we need to change with it in order to be relevant.  i also believe our ideas and views from today will experience the same degradation over time.  in 0 years will the world still care about gun rights ? will the population still speak mostly english or will we add more spanish to our vocabulary ? will words like gay hold the same meaning as it does now or will it return to the usage it once had ? we cannot know.  we should not force our ideas through time, expecially when future generations will have the same issues understanding us as we do understanding the founding fathers.  what i ca not understand is why we are clinging to the past, to a group who would likely be viewed as backward racists today.  we should take what we believe now and govern by those beliefs.  we should update, revise, and examine our core ideas from time to time to at least make sure we still understand what they are.  i am not talking about simply throwing the constitution out either.  i am saying we should interpret it for today, update it, and use our revised version instead.  then both can be looked at by the next generation and adjusted as needed.  it should update and change with the citizenry and the times while still being the timeless core of our laws.  it would take a lot of work, a lot would change, but i believe we would be better for it.  cmv many responses seem to think i am saying scrap the whole thing and start over.  no, i am saying we need an updated, reworded one that uses the meanings as we take them today.  all men are equal shoule read all persons, prohibition and its repeal should just be removed, the 0th and 0th should be combined and all inclusive with restrictions put in after the fact.  those are examples of what i mean but not the whole of it.  to cmv you need to show me that having an old, poorly worded document is better than a revision of it in modern terms.  it would be hard to do but it would be better for the nation and easier to work with than if we left it be.  cmv also, deltas incoming for added info on the topic.  hard to delta from a phone  #  the constitution of the united states is over 0 years old and it shows its age.   #  many amendments are written in unusual english by todays standards, making it difficult to tease out meaning.   # many amendments are written in unusual english by todays standards, making it difficult to tease out meaning.  many other amendments overlap in meaning and could be combined to simplify them while also covering more people.  the fact is, it is outdated.  any in particular that you are confused about ? i agree that some of the older amendments are a little wordy, but i am not outright confused by them.  outdated is an odd notion, relatively speaking the us is a very young country compared to most.  that thought only white, male, property owners should/could vote ? different times, different standards.  slavery was abolished, women were granted the right to vote, the age of voting was lowered.  i can read through it just fine for the most part.  i will admit that 0th is a bit confusing, section two of the 0th.  the rest are pretty straightforward to me.  that is what amendments are for.    what i ca not understand is why we are clinging to the past, to a group who would likely be viewed as backward racists today.  you can be a backwards racist and still believe in the freedom of speech; that the government does not have a right to arbitrarily invade your home; or detain you indefinitely with no charge.  this is generally what we do now already.  you just described our constitution and amendment process.   #  there is a movement going on right now called the convention of states, and if you follow the money you will find some very familiar billionaire names behind it.   #  this is the key problem.  there is a movement going on right now called the convention of states, and if you follow the money you will find some very familiar billionaire names behind it.  koch and soros both immediately come to mind.  on the outside it appears to be an attempt at reforming the government due to certain  problems .  what it glosses over is that if you follow the money behind this movement, you find that it leads to exactly the same people who have caused the problems they are touting as the main issues.  they then want to call a convention of states to rewrite constitution using newly appointed shills at the majority of state levels.  this allows them to then rewrite a constitution with whatever they want in it, in a secret closed door meeting.  fuck that.  it is so fucking simple it is absurd to even consider, but this is what is happening.   #  he is been putting money into a push for the same article v convention that certain high profile conservatives are pushing for, and that other conservative billionaires have been pushing for.   #  he is been putting money into a push for the same article v convention that certain high profile conservatives are pushing for, and that other conservative billionaires have been pushing for.  their website URL soros  claim is that it is for a different reason.  but the money has been going to the same places.  the evidence i had previously was that i found a list of financial backers through their own site and several of the organizations were directly linked to a few high profile billionaires.  the kochs especially put into perspective their end goal to me.  but upon doing a quick search just now to refresh myself, there are pages of articles about soros pushing for a convention of states.  yet on their website, they have articles about soros supposedly forming a coalition against article v.  while he is pumping money to push for it.  it is just weird.  the whole thing is weird.  i do not like any of it.  do not take my word for it.  spend an hour checking it out and following the weird trail it will lead you on.  their own website is a great place to start.   #  i will be the devils advocate for a min.   #  i will be the devils advocate for a min.  you know these billionaires have nothing against the average person, right ? they have a tendency to disregard social issue in advocacy of economic issues, but if they were given the power to they would likely not only fix them but fix them more effectively than whatever party focuses on social issues .  the reason you see this political divide is strategics.  it is advantageous for the two ruling parties to advocate in opposition to each other.  if they are too similar the voters might get mixed or apathetic and they would lose votes.  this is actually a pretty simple scenario if you ever take a class on strategy, which everyone totally should.   #  they already have that option and they do more harm than good as is.   #  if they were given power ? youre mistaken.  they already have the power to make big positive changes.  some do.  most do not.  that is exactly the problem.  those who are not, are also the ones buying politicians and lobbying with millions of dollars to get legislation passed that benefits them.  there is absolutely no reason to think they could do a better job if the government was stripped of all power and we were forced to rely on their good graces to help us.  they already have that option and they do more harm than good as is.  they are creating the problems and then citing those problems as to why the government is failing, and telling us to put them in charge.  fuck thaaaat.
the constitution of the united states is over 0 years old and it shows its age.  many amendments are written in unusual english by todays standards, making it difficult to tease out meaning.  many other amendments overlap in meaning and could be combined to simplify them while also covering more people.  the fact is, it is outdated.  i believe it should be revised every 0 years or so because culture and language are organic.  they change based on technology, public conscious, and international relations.  should we follow the advice of a group who believed slavery was acceptable ? that thought only white, male, property owners should/could vote ? can you read through the document and understand what was meant or does much of it come across as confusing to todays readers ? the world has changed and i believe we need to change with it in order to be relevant.  i also believe our ideas and views from today will experience the same degradation over time.  in 0 years will the world still care about gun rights ? will the population still speak mostly english or will we add more spanish to our vocabulary ? will words like gay hold the same meaning as it does now or will it return to the usage it once had ? we cannot know.  we should not force our ideas through time, expecially when future generations will have the same issues understanding us as we do understanding the founding fathers.  what i ca not understand is why we are clinging to the past, to a group who would likely be viewed as backward racists today.  we should take what we believe now and govern by those beliefs.  we should update, revise, and examine our core ideas from time to time to at least make sure we still understand what they are.  i am not talking about simply throwing the constitution out either.  i am saying we should interpret it for today, update it, and use our revised version instead.  then both can be looked at by the next generation and adjusted as needed.  it should update and change with the citizenry and the times while still being the timeless core of our laws.  it would take a lot of work, a lot would change, but i believe we would be better for it.  cmv many responses seem to think i am saying scrap the whole thing and start over.  no, i am saying we need an updated, reworded one that uses the meanings as we take them today.  all men are equal shoule read all persons, prohibition and its repeal should just be removed, the 0th and 0th should be combined and all inclusive with restrictions put in after the fact.  those are examples of what i mean but not the whole of it.  to cmv you need to show me that having an old, poorly worded document is better than a revision of it in modern terms.  it would be hard to do but it would be better for the nation and easier to work with than if we left it be.  cmv also, deltas incoming for added info on the topic.  hard to delta from a phone  #  should we follow the advice of a group who believed slavery was acceptable ?  #  that thought only white, male, property owners should/could vote ?  # many amendments are written in unusual english by todays standards, making it difficult to tease out meaning.  many other amendments overlap in meaning and could be combined to simplify them while also covering more people.  the fact is, it is outdated.  any in particular that you are confused about ? i agree that some of the older amendments are a little wordy, but i am not outright confused by them.  outdated is an odd notion, relatively speaking the us is a very young country compared to most.  that thought only white, male, property owners should/could vote ? different times, different standards.  slavery was abolished, women were granted the right to vote, the age of voting was lowered.  i can read through it just fine for the most part.  i will admit that 0th is a bit confusing, section two of the 0th.  the rest are pretty straightforward to me.  that is what amendments are for.    what i ca not understand is why we are clinging to the past, to a group who would likely be viewed as backward racists today.  you can be a backwards racist and still believe in the freedom of speech; that the government does not have a right to arbitrarily invade your home; or detain you indefinitely with no charge.  this is generally what we do now already.  you just described our constitution and amendment process.   #  there is a movement going on right now called the convention of states, and if you follow the money you will find some very familiar billionaire names behind it.   #  this is the key problem.  there is a movement going on right now called the convention of states, and if you follow the money you will find some very familiar billionaire names behind it.  koch and soros both immediately come to mind.  on the outside it appears to be an attempt at reforming the government due to certain  problems .  what it glosses over is that if you follow the money behind this movement, you find that it leads to exactly the same people who have caused the problems they are touting as the main issues.  they then want to call a convention of states to rewrite constitution using newly appointed shills at the majority of state levels.  this allows them to then rewrite a constitution with whatever they want in it, in a secret closed door meeting.  fuck that.  it is so fucking simple it is absurd to even consider, but this is what is happening.   #  spend an hour checking it out and following the weird trail it will lead you on.   #  he is been putting money into a push for the same article v convention that certain high profile conservatives are pushing for, and that other conservative billionaires have been pushing for.  their website URL soros  claim is that it is for a different reason.  but the money has been going to the same places.  the evidence i had previously was that i found a list of financial backers through their own site and several of the organizations were directly linked to a few high profile billionaires.  the kochs especially put into perspective their end goal to me.  but upon doing a quick search just now to refresh myself, there are pages of articles about soros pushing for a convention of states.  yet on their website, they have articles about soros supposedly forming a coalition against article v.  while he is pumping money to push for it.  it is just weird.  the whole thing is weird.  i do not like any of it.  do not take my word for it.  spend an hour checking it out and following the weird trail it will lead you on.  their own website is a great place to start.   #  i will be the devils advocate for a min.   #  i will be the devils advocate for a min.  you know these billionaires have nothing against the average person, right ? they have a tendency to disregard social issue in advocacy of economic issues, but if they were given the power to they would likely not only fix them but fix them more effectively than whatever party focuses on social issues .  the reason you see this political divide is strategics.  it is advantageous for the two ruling parties to advocate in opposition to each other.  if they are too similar the voters might get mixed or apathetic and they would lose votes.  this is actually a pretty simple scenario if you ever take a class on strategy, which everyone totally should.   #  there is absolutely no reason to think they could do a better job if the government was stripped of all power and we were forced to rely on their good graces to help us.   #  if they were given power ? youre mistaken.  they already have the power to make big positive changes.  some do.  most do not.  that is exactly the problem.  those who are not, are also the ones buying politicians and lobbying with millions of dollars to get legislation passed that benefits them.  there is absolutely no reason to think they could do a better job if the government was stripped of all power and we were forced to rely on their good graces to help us.  they already have that option and they do more harm than good as is.  they are creating the problems and then citing those problems as to why the government is failing, and telling us to put them in charge.  fuck thaaaat.
the constitution of the united states is over 0 years old and it shows its age.  many amendments are written in unusual english by todays standards, making it difficult to tease out meaning.  many other amendments overlap in meaning and could be combined to simplify them while also covering more people.  the fact is, it is outdated.  i believe it should be revised every 0 years or so because culture and language are organic.  they change based on technology, public conscious, and international relations.  should we follow the advice of a group who believed slavery was acceptable ? that thought only white, male, property owners should/could vote ? can you read through the document and understand what was meant or does much of it come across as confusing to todays readers ? the world has changed and i believe we need to change with it in order to be relevant.  i also believe our ideas and views from today will experience the same degradation over time.  in 0 years will the world still care about gun rights ? will the population still speak mostly english or will we add more spanish to our vocabulary ? will words like gay hold the same meaning as it does now or will it return to the usage it once had ? we cannot know.  we should not force our ideas through time, expecially when future generations will have the same issues understanding us as we do understanding the founding fathers.  what i ca not understand is why we are clinging to the past, to a group who would likely be viewed as backward racists today.  we should take what we believe now and govern by those beliefs.  we should update, revise, and examine our core ideas from time to time to at least make sure we still understand what they are.  i am not talking about simply throwing the constitution out either.  i am saying we should interpret it for today, update it, and use our revised version instead.  then both can be looked at by the next generation and adjusted as needed.  it should update and change with the citizenry and the times while still being the timeless core of our laws.  it would take a lot of work, a lot would change, but i believe we would be better for it.  cmv many responses seem to think i am saying scrap the whole thing and start over.  no, i am saying we need an updated, reworded one that uses the meanings as we take them today.  all men are equal shoule read all persons, prohibition and its repeal should just be removed, the 0th and 0th should be combined and all inclusive with restrictions put in after the fact.  those are examples of what i mean but not the whole of it.  to cmv you need to show me that having an old, poorly worded document is better than a revision of it in modern terms.  it would be hard to do but it would be better for the nation and easier to work with than if we left it be.  cmv also, deltas incoming for added info on the topic.  hard to delta from a phone  #  can you read through the document and understand what was meant or does much of it come across as confusing to todays readers ?  #  i can read through it just fine for the most part.   # many amendments are written in unusual english by todays standards, making it difficult to tease out meaning.  many other amendments overlap in meaning and could be combined to simplify them while also covering more people.  the fact is, it is outdated.  any in particular that you are confused about ? i agree that some of the older amendments are a little wordy, but i am not outright confused by them.  outdated is an odd notion, relatively speaking the us is a very young country compared to most.  that thought only white, male, property owners should/could vote ? different times, different standards.  slavery was abolished, women were granted the right to vote, the age of voting was lowered.  i can read through it just fine for the most part.  i will admit that 0th is a bit confusing, section two of the 0th.  the rest are pretty straightforward to me.  that is what amendments are for.    what i ca not understand is why we are clinging to the past, to a group who would likely be viewed as backward racists today.  you can be a backwards racist and still believe in the freedom of speech; that the government does not have a right to arbitrarily invade your home; or detain you indefinitely with no charge.  this is generally what we do now already.  you just described our constitution and amendment process.   #  this allows them to then rewrite a constitution with whatever they want in it, in a secret closed door meeting.   #  this is the key problem.  there is a movement going on right now called the convention of states, and if you follow the money you will find some very familiar billionaire names behind it.  koch and soros both immediately come to mind.  on the outside it appears to be an attempt at reforming the government due to certain  problems .  what it glosses over is that if you follow the money behind this movement, you find that it leads to exactly the same people who have caused the problems they are touting as the main issues.  they then want to call a convention of states to rewrite constitution using newly appointed shills at the majority of state levels.  this allows them to then rewrite a constitution with whatever they want in it, in a secret closed door meeting.  fuck that.  it is so fucking simple it is absurd to even consider, but this is what is happening.   #  but upon doing a quick search just now to refresh myself, there are pages of articles about soros pushing for a convention of states.   #  he is been putting money into a push for the same article v convention that certain high profile conservatives are pushing for, and that other conservative billionaires have been pushing for.  their website URL soros  claim is that it is for a different reason.  but the money has been going to the same places.  the evidence i had previously was that i found a list of financial backers through their own site and several of the organizations were directly linked to a few high profile billionaires.  the kochs especially put into perspective their end goal to me.  but upon doing a quick search just now to refresh myself, there are pages of articles about soros pushing for a convention of states.  yet on their website, they have articles about soros supposedly forming a coalition against article v.  while he is pumping money to push for it.  it is just weird.  the whole thing is weird.  i do not like any of it.  do not take my word for it.  spend an hour checking it out and following the weird trail it will lead you on.  their own website is a great place to start.   #  they have a tendency to disregard social issue in advocacy of economic issues, but if they were given the power to they would likely not only fix them but fix them more effectively than whatever party focuses on social issues .   #  i will be the devils advocate for a min.  you know these billionaires have nothing against the average person, right ? they have a tendency to disregard social issue in advocacy of economic issues, but if they were given the power to they would likely not only fix them but fix them more effectively than whatever party focuses on social issues .  the reason you see this political divide is strategics.  it is advantageous for the two ruling parties to advocate in opposition to each other.  if they are too similar the voters might get mixed or apathetic and they would lose votes.  this is actually a pretty simple scenario if you ever take a class on strategy, which everyone totally should.   #  they are creating the problems and then citing those problems as to why the government is failing, and telling us to put them in charge.   #  if they were given power ? youre mistaken.  they already have the power to make big positive changes.  some do.  most do not.  that is exactly the problem.  those who are not, are also the ones buying politicians and lobbying with millions of dollars to get legislation passed that benefits them.  there is absolutely no reason to think they could do a better job if the government was stripped of all power and we were forced to rely on their good graces to help us.  they already have that option and they do more harm than good as is.  they are creating the problems and then citing those problems as to why the government is failing, and telling us to put them in charge.  fuck thaaaat.
the constitution of the united states is over 0 years old and it shows its age.  many amendments are written in unusual english by todays standards, making it difficult to tease out meaning.  many other amendments overlap in meaning and could be combined to simplify them while also covering more people.  the fact is, it is outdated.  i believe it should be revised every 0 years or so because culture and language are organic.  they change based on technology, public conscious, and international relations.  should we follow the advice of a group who believed slavery was acceptable ? that thought only white, male, property owners should/could vote ? can you read through the document and understand what was meant or does much of it come across as confusing to todays readers ? the world has changed and i believe we need to change with it in order to be relevant.  i also believe our ideas and views from today will experience the same degradation over time.  in 0 years will the world still care about gun rights ? will the population still speak mostly english or will we add more spanish to our vocabulary ? will words like gay hold the same meaning as it does now or will it return to the usage it once had ? we cannot know.  we should not force our ideas through time, expecially when future generations will have the same issues understanding us as we do understanding the founding fathers.  what i ca not understand is why we are clinging to the past, to a group who would likely be viewed as backward racists today.  we should take what we believe now and govern by those beliefs.  we should update, revise, and examine our core ideas from time to time to at least make sure we still understand what they are.  i am not talking about simply throwing the constitution out either.  i am saying we should interpret it for today, update it, and use our revised version instead.  then both can be looked at by the next generation and adjusted as needed.  it should update and change with the citizenry and the times while still being the timeless core of our laws.  it would take a lot of work, a lot would change, but i believe we would be better for it.  cmv many responses seem to think i am saying scrap the whole thing and start over.  no, i am saying we need an updated, reworded one that uses the meanings as we take them today.  all men are equal shoule read all persons, prohibition and its repeal should just be removed, the 0th and 0th should be combined and all inclusive with restrictions put in after the fact.  those are examples of what i mean but not the whole of it.  to cmv you need to show me that having an old, poorly worded document is better than a revision of it in modern terms.  it would be hard to do but it would be better for the nation and easier to work with than if we left it be.  cmv also, deltas incoming for added info on the topic.  hard to delta from a phone  #  the world has changed and i believe we need to change with it in order to be relevant.   #  that is what amendments are for.    what i ca not understand is why we are clinging to the past, to a group who would likely be viewed as backward racists today.   # many amendments are written in unusual english by todays standards, making it difficult to tease out meaning.  many other amendments overlap in meaning and could be combined to simplify them while also covering more people.  the fact is, it is outdated.  any in particular that you are confused about ? i agree that some of the older amendments are a little wordy, but i am not outright confused by them.  outdated is an odd notion, relatively speaking the us is a very young country compared to most.  that thought only white, male, property owners should/could vote ? different times, different standards.  slavery was abolished, women were granted the right to vote, the age of voting was lowered.  i can read through it just fine for the most part.  i will admit that 0th is a bit confusing, section two of the 0th.  the rest are pretty straightforward to me.  that is what amendments are for.    what i ca not understand is why we are clinging to the past, to a group who would likely be viewed as backward racists today.  you can be a backwards racist and still believe in the freedom of speech; that the government does not have a right to arbitrarily invade your home; or detain you indefinitely with no charge.  this is generally what we do now already.  you just described our constitution and amendment process.   #  they then want to call a convention of states to rewrite constitution using newly appointed shills at the majority of state levels.   #  this is the key problem.  there is a movement going on right now called the convention of states, and if you follow the money you will find some very familiar billionaire names behind it.  koch and soros both immediately come to mind.  on the outside it appears to be an attempt at reforming the government due to certain  problems .  what it glosses over is that if you follow the money behind this movement, you find that it leads to exactly the same people who have caused the problems they are touting as the main issues.  they then want to call a convention of states to rewrite constitution using newly appointed shills at the majority of state levels.  this allows them to then rewrite a constitution with whatever they want in it, in a secret closed door meeting.  fuck that.  it is so fucking simple it is absurd to even consider, but this is what is happening.   #  he is been putting money into a push for the same article v convention that certain high profile conservatives are pushing for, and that other conservative billionaires have been pushing for.   #  he is been putting money into a push for the same article v convention that certain high profile conservatives are pushing for, and that other conservative billionaires have been pushing for.  their website URL soros  claim is that it is for a different reason.  but the money has been going to the same places.  the evidence i had previously was that i found a list of financial backers through their own site and several of the organizations were directly linked to a few high profile billionaires.  the kochs especially put into perspective their end goal to me.  but upon doing a quick search just now to refresh myself, there are pages of articles about soros pushing for a convention of states.  yet on their website, they have articles about soros supposedly forming a coalition against article v.  while he is pumping money to push for it.  it is just weird.  the whole thing is weird.  i do not like any of it.  do not take my word for it.  spend an hour checking it out and following the weird trail it will lead you on.  their own website is a great place to start.   #  they have a tendency to disregard social issue in advocacy of economic issues, but if they were given the power to they would likely not only fix them but fix them more effectively than whatever party focuses on social issues .   #  i will be the devils advocate for a min.  you know these billionaires have nothing against the average person, right ? they have a tendency to disregard social issue in advocacy of economic issues, but if they were given the power to they would likely not only fix them but fix them more effectively than whatever party focuses on social issues .  the reason you see this political divide is strategics.  it is advantageous for the two ruling parties to advocate in opposition to each other.  if they are too similar the voters might get mixed or apathetic and they would lose votes.  this is actually a pretty simple scenario if you ever take a class on strategy, which everyone totally should.   #  they are creating the problems and then citing those problems as to why the government is failing, and telling us to put them in charge.   #  if they were given power ? youre mistaken.  they already have the power to make big positive changes.  some do.  most do not.  that is exactly the problem.  those who are not, are also the ones buying politicians and lobbying with millions of dollars to get legislation passed that benefits them.  there is absolutely no reason to think they could do a better job if the government was stripped of all power and we were forced to rely on their good graces to help us.  they already have that option and they do more harm than good as is.  they are creating the problems and then citing those problems as to why the government is failing, and telling us to put them in charge.  fuck thaaaat.
the constitution of the united states is over 0 years old and it shows its age.  many amendments are written in unusual english by todays standards, making it difficult to tease out meaning.  many other amendments overlap in meaning and could be combined to simplify them while also covering more people.  the fact is, it is outdated.  i believe it should be revised every 0 years or so because culture and language are organic.  they change based on technology, public conscious, and international relations.  should we follow the advice of a group who believed slavery was acceptable ? that thought only white, male, property owners should/could vote ? can you read through the document and understand what was meant or does much of it come across as confusing to todays readers ? the world has changed and i believe we need to change with it in order to be relevant.  i also believe our ideas and views from today will experience the same degradation over time.  in 0 years will the world still care about gun rights ? will the population still speak mostly english or will we add more spanish to our vocabulary ? will words like gay hold the same meaning as it does now or will it return to the usage it once had ? we cannot know.  we should not force our ideas through time, expecially when future generations will have the same issues understanding us as we do understanding the founding fathers.  what i ca not understand is why we are clinging to the past, to a group who would likely be viewed as backward racists today.  we should take what we believe now and govern by those beliefs.  we should update, revise, and examine our core ideas from time to time to at least make sure we still understand what they are.  i am not talking about simply throwing the constitution out either.  i am saying we should interpret it for today, update it, and use our revised version instead.  then both can be looked at by the next generation and adjusted as needed.  it should update and change with the citizenry and the times while still being the timeless core of our laws.  it would take a lot of work, a lot would change, but i believe we would be better for it.  cmv many responses seem to think i am saying scrap the whole thing and start over.  no, i am saying we need an updated, reworded one that uses the meanings as we take them today.  all men are equal shoule read all persons, prohibition and its repeal should just be removed, the 0th and 0th should be combined and all inclusive with restrictions put in after the fact.  those are examples of what i mean but not the whole of it.  to cmv you need to show me that having an old, poorly worded document is better than a revision of it in modern terms.  it would be hard to do but it would be better for the nation and easier to work with than if we left it be.  cmv also, deltas incoming for added info on the topic.  hard to delta from a phone  #  i am saying we should interpret it for today, update it, and use our revised version instead.   #  this is generally what we do now already.   # many amendments are written in unusual english by todays standards, making it difficult to tease out meaning.  many other amendments overlap in meaning and could be combined to simplify them while also covering more people.  the fact is, it is outdated.  any in particular that you are confused about ? i agree that some of the older amendments are a little wordy, but i am not outright confused by them.  outdated is an odd notion, relatively speaking the us is a very young country compared to most.  that thought only white, male, property owners should/could vote ? different times, different standards.  slavery was abolished, women were granted the right to vote, the age of voting was lowered.  i can read through it just fine for the most part.  i will admit that 0th is a bit confusing, section two of the 0th.  the rest are pretty straightforward to me.  that is what amendments are for.    what i ca not understand is why we are clinging to the past, to a group who would likely be viewed as backward racists today.  you can be a backwards racist and still believe in the freedom of speech; that the government does not have a right to arbitrarily invade your home; or detain you indefinitely with no charge.  this is generally what we do now already.  you just described our constitution and amendment process.   #  on the outside it appears to be an attempt at reforming the government due to certain  problems .   #  this is the key problem.  there is a movement going on right now called the convention of states, and if you follow the money you will find some very familiar billionaire names behind it.  koch and soros both immediately come to mind.  on the outside it appears to be an attempt at reforming the government due to certain  problems .  what it glosses over is that if you follow the money behind this movement, you find that it leads to exactly the same people who have caused the problems they are touting as the main issues.  they then want to call a convention of states to rewrite constitution using newly appointed shills at the majority of state levels.  this allows them to then rewrite a constitution with whatever they want in it, in a secret closed door meeting.  fuck that.  it is so fucking simple it is absurd to even consider, but this is what is happening.   #  but upon doing a quick search just now to refresh myself, there are pages of articles about soros pushing for a convention of states.   #  he is been putting money into a push for the same article v convention that certain high profile conservatives are pushing for, and that other conservative billionaires have been pushing for.  their website URL soros  claim is that it is for a different reason.  but the money has been going to the same places.  the evidence i had previously was that i found a list of financial backers through their own site and several of the organizations were directly linked to a few high profile billionaires.  the kochs especially put into perspective their end goal to me.  but upon doing a quick search just now to refresh myself, there are pages of articles about soros pushing for a convention of states.  yet on their website, they have articles about soros supposedly forming a coalition against article v.  while he is pumping money to push for it.  it is just weird.  the whole thing is weird.  i do not like any of it.  do not take my word for it.  spend an hour checking it out and following the weird trail it will lead you on.  their own website is a great place to start.   #  you know these billionaires have nothing against the average person, right ?  #  i will be the devils advocate for a min.  you know these billionaires have nothing against the average person, right ? they have a tendency to disregard social issue in advocacy of economic issues, but if they were given the power to they would likely not only fix them but fix them more effectively than whatever party focuses on social issues .  the reason you see this political divide is strategics.  it is advantageous for the two ruling parties to advocate in opposition to each other.  if they are too similar the voters might get mixed or apathetic and they would lose votes.  this is actually a pretty simple scenario if you ever take a class on strategy, which everyone totally should.   #  they already have the power to make big positive changes.   #  if they were given power ? youre mistaken.  they already have the power to make big positive changes.  some do.  most do not.  that is exactly the problem.  those who are not, are also the ones buying politicians and lobbying with millions of dollars to get legislation passed that benefits them.  there is absolutely no reason to think they could do a better job if the government was stripped of all power and we were forced to rely on their good graces to help us.  they already have that option and they do more harm than good as is.  they are creating the problems and then citing those problems as to why the government is failing, and telling us to put them in charge.  fuck thaaaat.
the constitution of the united states is over 0 years old and it shows its age.  many amendments are written in unusual english by todays standards, making it difficult to tease out meaning.  many other amendments overlap in meaning and could be combined to simplify them while also covering more people.  the fact is, it is outdated.  i believe it should be revised every 0 years or so because culture and language are organic.  they change based on technology, public conscious, and international relations.  should we follow the advice of a group who believed slavery was acceptable ? that thought only white, male, property owners should/could vote ? can you read through the document and understand what was meant or does much of it come across as confusing to todays readers ? the world has changed and i believe we need to change with it in order to be relevant.  i also believe our ideas and views from today will experience the same degradation over time.  in 0 years will the world still care about gun rights ? will the population still speak mostly english or will we add more spanish to our vocabulary ? will words like gay hold the same meaning as it does now or will it return to the usage it once had ? we cannot know.  we should not force our ideas through time, expecially when future generations will have the same issues understanding us as we do understanding the founding fathers.  what i ca not understand is why we are clinging to the past, to a group who would likely be viewed as backward racists today.  we should take what we believe now and govern by those beliefs.  we should update, revise, and examine our core ideas from time to time to at least make sure we still understand what they are.  i am not talking about simply throwing the constitution out either.  i am saying we should interpret it for today, update it, and use our revised version instead.  then both can be looked at by the next generation and adjusted as needed.  it should update and change with the citizenry and the times while still being the timeless core of our laws.  it would take a lot of work, a lot would change, but i believe we would be better for it.  cmv many responses seem to think i am saying scrap the whole thing and start over.  no, i am saying we need an updated, reworded one that uses the meanings as we take them today.  all men are equal shoule read all persons, prohibition and its repeal should just be removed, the 0th and 0th should be combined and all inclusive with restrictions put in after the fact.  those are examples of what i mean but not the whole of it.  to cmv you need to show me that having an old, poorly worded document is better than a revision of it in modern terms.  it would be hard to do but it would be better for the nation and easier to work with than if we left it be.  cmv also, deltas incoming for added info on the topic.  hard to delta from a phone  #  it should update and change with the citizenry and the times while still being the timeless core of our laws.   #  you just described our constitution and amendment process.   # many amendments are written in unusual english by todays standards, making it difficult to tease out meaning.  many other amendments overlap in meaning and could be combined to simplify them while also covering more people.  the fact is, it is outdated.  any in particular that you are confused about ? i agree that some of the older amendments are a little wordy, but i am not outright confused by them.  outdated is an odd notion, relatively speaking the us is a very young country compared to most.  that thought only white, male, property owners should/could vote ? different times, different standards.  slavery was abolished, women were granted the right to vote, the age of voting was lowered.  i can read through it just fine for the most part.  i will admit that 0th is a bit confusing, section two of the 0th.  the rest are pretty straightforward to me.  that is what amendments are for.    what i ca not understand is why we are clinging to the past, to a group who would likely be viewed as backward racists today.  you can be a backwards racist and still believe in the freedom of speech; that the government does not have a right to arbitrarily invade your home; or detain you indefinitely with no charge.  this is generally what we do now already.  you just described our constitution and amendment process.   #  on the outside it appears to be an attempt at reforming the government due to certain  problems .   #  this is the key problem.  there is a movement going on right now called the convention of states, and if you follow the money you will find some very familiar billionaire names behind it.  koch and soros both immediately come to mind.  on the outside it appears to be an attempt at reforming the government due to certain  problems .  what it glosses over is that if you follow the money behind this movement, you find that it leads to exactly the same people who have caused the problems they are touting as the main issues.  they then want to call a convention of states to rewrite constitution using newly appointed shills at the majority of state levels.  this allows them to then rewrite a constitution with whatever they want in it, in a secret closed door meeting.  fuck that.  it is so fucking simple it is absurd to even consider, but this is what is happening.   #  but the money has been going to the same places.   #  he is been putting money into a push for the same article v convention that certain high profile conservatives are pushing for, and that other conservative billionaires have been pushing for.  their website URL soros  claim is that it is for a different reason.  but the money has been going to the same places.  the evidence i had previously was that i found a list of financial backers through their own site and several of the organizations were directly linked to a few high profile billionaires.  the kochs especially put into perspective their end goal to me.  but upon doing a quick search just now to refresh myself, there are pages of articles about soros pushing for a convention of states.  yet on their website, they have articles about soros supposedly forming a coalition against article v.  while he is pumping money to push for it.  it is just weird.  the whole thing is weird.  i do not like any of it.  do not take my word for it.  spend an hour checking it out and following the weird trail it will lead you on.  their own website is a great place to start.   #  if they are too similar the voters might get mixed or apathetic and they would lose votes.   #  i will be the devils advocate for a min.  you know these billionaires have nothing against the average person, right ? they have a tendency to disregard social issue in advocacy of economic issues, but if they were given the power to they would likely not only fix them but fix them more effectively than whatever party focuses on social issues .  the reason you see this political divide is strategics.  it is advantageous for the two ruling parties to advocate in opposition to each other.  if they are too similar the voters might get mixed or apathetic and they would lose votes.  this is actually a pretty simple scenario if you ever take a class on strategy, which everyone totally should.   #  there is absolutely no reason to think they could do a better job if the government was stripped of all power and we were forced to rely on their good graces to help us.   #  if they were given power ? youre mistaken.  they already have the power to make big positive changes.  some do.  most do not.  that is exactly the problem.  those who are not, are also the ones buying politicians and lobbying with millions of dollars to get legislation passed that benefits them.  there is absolutely no reason to think they could do a better job if the government was stripped of all power and we were forced to rely on their good graces to help us.  they already have that option and they do more harm than good as is.  they are creating the problems and then citing those problems as to why the government is failing, and telling us to put them in charge.  fuck thaaaat.
the constitution of the united states is over 0 years old and it shows its age.  many amendments are written in unusual english by todays standards, making it difficult to tease out meaning.  many other amendments overlap in meaning and could be combined to simplify them while also covering more people.  the fact is, it is outdated.  i believe it should be revised every 0 years or so because culture and language are organic.  they change based on technology, public conscious, and international relations.  should we follow the advice of a group who believed slavery was acceptable ? that thought only white, male, property owners should/could vote ? can you read through the document and understand what was meant or does much of it come across as confusing to todays readers ? the world has changed and i believe we need to change with it in order to be relevant.  i also believe our ideas and views from today will experience the same degradation over time.  in 0 years will the world still care about gun rights ? will the population still speak mostly english or will we add more spanish to our vocabulary ? will words like gay hold the same meaning as it does now or will it return to the usage it once had ? we cannot know.  we should not force our ideas through time, expecially when future generations will have the same issues understanding us as we do understanding the founding fathers.  what i ca not understand is why we are clinging to the past, to a group who would likely be viewed as backward racists today.  we should take what we believe now and govern by those beliefs.  we should update, revise, and examine our core ideas from time to time to at least make sure we still understand what they are.  i am not talking about simply throwing the constitution out either.  i am saying we should interpret it for today, update it, and use our revised version instead.  then both can be looked at by the next generation and adjusted as needed.  it should update and change with the citizenry and the times while still being the timeless core of our laws.  it would take a lot of work, a lot would change, but i believe we would be better for it.  cmv many responses seem to think i am saying scrap the whole thing and start over.  no, i am saying we need an updated, reworded one that uses the meanings as we take them today.  all men are equal shoule read all persons, prohibition and its repeal should just be removed, the 0th and 0th should be combined and all inclusive with restrictions put in after the fact.  those are examples of what i mean but not the whole of it.  to cmv you need to show me that having an old, poorly worded document is better than a revision of it in modern terms.  it would be hard to do but it would be better for the nation and easier to work with than if we left it be.  cmv also, deltas incoming for added info on the topic.  hard to delta from a phone  #  what i ca not understand is why we are clinging to the past, to a group who would likely be viewed as backward racists today.   #  i do not think even the founding fathers themselves intended for future americans to interpret the document with any consideration for who they were and what they stood for.   #  the constitution is already an organic document.  the older amendments, being worded the way they are and being able to be interpreted in a variety of ways is important because there is never a singular, simple and correct way to view most issues.  they are not strict decrees on how the country should behave, but rather references we can use and apply to modern situations.  i do not think anyone is  clinging to the past  simply by allowing the language to persist as it has been, because the interpretations of the language invariably change with time, which is ultimately what matters.  if public opinion on a certain issue changes drastically enough that the constitution should be changed in some way, amendments already fill that role.  every new amendment is already serving the function you are arguing the document lacks, with modern language and reflecting the perspective of the time the amendment was written.  removing amendments for the sake of simplifying it for example the 0th and 0st amendments like you mentioned does not really benefit anyone; it would be detrimental.  the fact that prohibition is institution and removal are part of the constitution are important for giving us a window into our history and understanding the mindset we as a nation have had in the past, and how it has evolved over time.  i do not think even the founding fathers themselves intended for future americans to interpret the document with any consideration for who they were and what they stood for.  i certainly wo not argue that they would be viewed as backward racists in many respects, but realistically who they were personally does not matter at all.  all that matters is what is written in the document.  the document serves as a foundation to be built upon, and while changing it in favor of brevity can make it seem more elegant and practical all it does is dilute our understanding of our nations history.  literally any of the previous amendments can be changed in any way that is worth changing with another amendment, even just the wording of one of the previous ones, theoretically.  the document being both a basis for interpretation and its own record are the most important reasons for it existing.   #  what it glosses over is that if you follow the money behind this movement, you find that it leads to exactly the same people who have caused the problems they are touting as the main issues.   #  this is the key problem.  there is a movement going on right now called the convention of states, and if you follow the money you will find some very familiar billionaire names behind it.  koch and soros both immediately come to mind.  on the outside it appears to be an attempt at reforming the government due to certain  problems .  what it glosses over is that if you follow the money behind this movement, you find that it leads to exactly the same people who have caused the problems they are touting as the main issues.  they then want to call a convention of states to rewrite constitution using newly appointed shills at the majority of state levels.  this allows them to then rewrite a constitution with whatever they want in it, in a secret closed door meeting.  fuck that.  it is so fucking simple it is absurd to even consider, but this is what is happening.   #  the evidence i had previously was that i found a list of financial backers through their own site and several of the organizations were directly linked to a few high profile billionaires.   #  he is been putting money into a push for the same article v convention that certain high profile conservatives are pushing for, and that other conservative billionaires have been pushing for.  their website URL soros  claim is that it is for a different reason.  but the money has been going to the same places.  the evidence i had previously was that i found a list of financial backers through their own site and several of the organizations were directly linked to a few high profile billionaires.  the kochs especially put into perspective their end goal to me.  but upon doing a quick search just now to refresh myself, there are pages of articles about soros pushing for a convention of states.  yet on their website, they have articles about soros supposedly forming a coalition against article v.  while he is pumping money to push for it.  it is just weird.  the whole thing is weird.  i do not like any of it.  do not take my word for it.  spend an hour checking it out and following the weird trail it will lead you on.  their own website is a great place to start.   #  you know these billionaires have nothing against the average person, right ?  #  i will be the devils advocate for a min.  you know these billionaires have nothing against the average person, right ? they have a tendency to disregard social issue in advocacy of economic issues, but if they were given the power to they would likely not only fix them but fix them more effectively than whatever party focuses on social issues .  the reason you see this political divide is strategics.  it is advantageous for the two ruling parties to advocate in opposition to each other.  if they are too similar the voters might get mixed or apathetic and they would lose votes.  this is actually a pretty simple scenario if you ever take a class on strategy, which everyone totally should.   #  they already have that option and they do more harm than good as is.   #  if they were given power ? youre mistaken.  they already have the power to make big positive changes.  some do.  most do not.  that is exactly the problem.  those who are not, are also the ones buying politicians and lobbying with millions of dollars to get legislation passed that benefits them.  there is absolutely no reason to think they could do a better job if the government was stripped of all power and we were forced to rely on their good graces to help us.  they already have that option and they do more harm than good as is.  they are creating the problems and then citing those problems as to why the government is failing, and telling us to put them in charge.  fuck thaaaat.
the constitution of the united states is over 0 years old and it shows its age.  many amendments are written in unusual english by todays standards, making it difficult to tease out meaning.  many other amendments overlap in meaning and could be combined to simplify them while also covering more people.  the fact is, it is outdated.  i believe it should be revised every 0 years or so because culture and language are organic.  they change based on technology, public conscious, and international relations.  should we follow the advice of a group who believed slavery was acceptable ? that thought only white, male, property owners should/could vote ? can you read through the document and understand what was meant or does much of it come across as confusing to todays readers ? the world has changed and i believe we need to change with it in order to be relevant.  i also believe our ideas and views from today will experience the same degradation over time.  in 0 years will the world still care about gun rights ? will the population still speak mostly english or will we add more spanish to our vocabulary ? will words like gay hold the same meaning as it does now or will it return to the usage it once had ? we cannot know.  we should not force our ideas through time, expecially when future generations will have the same issues understanding us as we do understanding the founding fathers.  what i ca not understand is why we are clinging to the past, to a group who would likely be viewed as backward racists today.  we should take what we believe now and govern by those beliefs.  we should update, revise, and examine our core ideas from time to time to at least make sure we still understand what they are.  i am not talking about simply throwing the constitution out either.  i am saying we should interpret it for today, update it, and use our revised version instead.  then both can be looked at by the next generation and adjusted as needed.  it should update and change with the citizenry and the times while still being the timeless core of our laws.  it would take a lot of work, a lot would change, but i believe we would be better for it.  cmv many responses seem to think i am saying scrap the whole thing and start over.  no, i am saying we need an updated, reworded one that uses the meanings as we take them today.  all men are equal shoule read all persons, prohibition and its repeal should just be removed, the 0th and 0th should be combined and all inclusive with restrictions put in after the fact.  those are examples of what i mean but not the whole of it.  to cmv you need to show me that having an old, poorly worded document is better than a revision of it in modern terms.  it would be hard to do but it would be better for the nation and easier to work with than if we left it be.  cmv also, deltas incoming for added info on the topic.  hard to delta from a phone  #  i believe it should be revised every 0 years or so because culture and language are organic.   #  if you believed that, and 0 of the citizens disagreed, it should not/would not happen.   # if you believed that, and 0 of the citizens disagreed, it should not/would not happen.  if we all agreed on your changes, we could enact them.  it is a constitutional framework, not a codex of rules that can never be changed.  we can change it however we want with amendments.  so basically what you are talking about already exists.  unless i am missing something.  no, i am saying we need an updated, reworded one that uses the meanings as we take them today.  how do you propose to do that ? rewrite the entire document and get public consensus to replace the existing one ? it may be more trouble than its worth decades, generation of case law are built on this.  the people already have the right to change the constitution and the amount of change is almost unlimited.  so what you are proposing is not really anything that is not legally possible now.  that is how i understand it, the foundation of the constitution.  after all, article i section 0 states:    all  legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states, which shall consist of a senate and house of representatives.  and article.  v:   the congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the senate.   #  they then want to call a convention of states to rewrite constitution using newly appointed shills at the majority of state levels.   #  this is the key problem.  there is a movement going on right now called the convention of states, and if you follow the money you will find some very familiar billionaire names behind it.  koch and soros both immediately come to mind.  on the outside it appears to be an attempt at reforming the government due to certain  problems .  what it glosses over is that if you follow the money behind this movement, you find that it leads to exactly the same people who have caused the problems they are touting as the main issues.  they then want to call a convention of states to rewrite constitution using newly appointed shills at the majority of state levels.  this allows them to then rewrite a constitution with whatever they want in it, in a secret closed door meeting.  fuck that.  it is so fucking simple it is absurd to even consider, but this is what is happening.   #  the evidence i had previously was that i found a list of financial backers through their own site and several of the organizations were directly linked to a few high profile billionaires.   #  he is been putting money into a push for the same article v convention that certain high profile conservatives are pushing for, and that other conservative billionaires have been pushing for.  their website URL soros  claim is that it is for a different reason.  but the money has been going to the same places.  the evidence i had previously was that i found a list of financial backers through their own site and several of the organizations were directly linked to a few high profile billionaires.  the kochs especially put into perspective their end goal to me.  but upon doing a quick search just now to refresh myself, there are pages of articles about soros pushing for a convention of states.  yet on their website, they have articles about soros supposedly forming a coalition against article v.  while he is pumping money to push for it.  it is just weird.  the whole thing is weird.  i do not like any of it.  do not take my word for it.  spend an hour checking it out and following the weird trail it will lead you on.  their own website is a great place to start.   #  they have a tendency to disregard social issue in advocacy of economic issues, but if they were given the power to they would likely not only fix them but fix them more effectively than whatever party focuses on social issues .   #  i will be the devils advocate for a min.  you know these billionaires have nothing against the average person, right ? they have a tendency to disregard social issue in advocacy of economic issues, but if they were given the power to they would likely not only fix them but fix them more effectively than whatever party focuses on social issues .  the reason you see this political divide is strategics.  it is advantageous for the two ruling parties to advocate in opposition to each other.  if they are too similar the voters might get mixed or apathetic and they would lose votes.  this is actually a pretty simple scenario if you ever take a class on strategy, which everyone totally should.   #  those who are not, are also the ones buying politicians and lobbying with millions of dollars to get legislation passed that benefits them.   #  if they were given power ? youre mistaken.  they already have the power to make big positive changes.  some do.  most do not.  that is exactly the problem.  those who are not, are also the ones buying politicians and lobbying with millions of dollars to get legislation passed that benefits them.  there is absolutely no reason to think they could do a better job if the government was stripped of all power and we were forced to rely on their good graces to help us.  they already have that option and they do more harm than good as is.  they are creating the problems and then citing those problems as to why the government is failing, and telling us to put them in charge.  fuck thaaaat.
the constitution of the united states is over 0 years old and it shows its age.  many amendments are written in unusual english by todays standards, making it difficult to tease out meaning.  many other amendments overlap in meaning and could be combined to simplify them while also covering more people.  the fact is, it is outdated.  i believe it should be revised every 0 years or so because culture and language are organic.  they change based on technology, public conscious, and international relations.  should we follow the advice of a group who believed slavery was acceptable ? that thought only white, male, property owners should/could vote ? can you read through the document and understand what was meant or does much of it come across as confusing to todays readers ? the world has changed and i believe we need to change with it in order to be relevant.  i also believe our ideas and views from today will experience the same degradation over time.  in 0 years will the world still care about gun rights ? will the population still speak mostly english or will we add more spanish to our vocabulary ? will words like gay hold the same meaning as it does now or will it return to the usage it once had ? we cannot know.  we should not force our ideas through time, expecially when future generations will have the same issues understanding us as we do understanding the founding fathers.  what i ca not understand is why we are clinging to the past, to a group who would likely be viewed as backward racists today.  we should take what we believe now and govern by those beliefs.  we should update, revise, and examine our core ideas from time to time to at least make sure we still understand what they are.  i am not talking about simply throwing the constitution out either.  i am saying we should interpret it for today, update it, and use our revised version instead.  then both can be looked at by the next generation and adjusted as needed.  it should update and change with the citizenry and the times while still being the timeless core of our laws.  it would take a lot of work, a lot would change, but i believe we would be better for it.  cmv many responses seem to think i am saying scrap the whole thing and start over.  no, i am saying we need an updated, reworded one that uses the meanings as we take them today.  all men are equal shoule read all persons, prohibition and its repeal should just be removed, the 0th and 0th should be combined and all inclusive with restrictions put in after the fact.  those are examples of what i mean but not the whole of it.  to cmv you need to show me that having an old, poorly worded document is better than a revision of it in modern terms.  it would be hard to do but it would be better for the nation and easier to work with than if we left it be.  cmv also, deltas incoming for added info on the topic.  hard to delta from a phone  #  many responses seem to think i am saying scrap the whole thing and start over.   #  no, i am saying we need an updated, reworded one that uses the meanings as we take them today.   # if you believed that, and 0 of the citizens disagreed, it should not/would not happen.  if we all agreed on your changes, we could enact them.  it is a constitutional framework, not a codex of rules that can never be changed.  we can change it however we want with amendments.  so basically what you are talking about already exists.  unless i am missing something.  no, i am saying we need an updated, reworded one that uses the meanings as we take them today.  how do you propose to do that ? rewrite the entire document and get public consensus to replace the existing one ? it may be more trouble than its worth decades, generation of case law are built on this.  the people already have the right to change the constitution and the amount of change is almost unlimited.  so what you are proposing is not really anything that is not legally possible now.  that is how i understand it, the foundation of the constitution.  after all, article i section 0 states:    all  legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states, which shall consist of a senate and house of representatives.  and article.  v:   the congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the senate.   #  what it glosses over is that if you follow the money behind this movement, you find that it leads to exactly the same people who have caused the problems they are touting as the main issues.   #  this is the key problem.  there is a movement going on right now called the convention of states, and if you follow the money you will find some very familiar billionaire names behind it.  koch and soros both immediately come to mind.  on the outside it appears to be an attempt at reforming the government due to certain  problems .  what it glosses over is that if you follow the money behind this movement, you find that it leads to exactly the same people who have caused the problems they are touting as the main issues.  they then want to call a convention of states to rewrite constitution using newly appointed shills at the majority of state levels.  this allows them to then rewrite a constitution with whatever they want in it, in a secret closed door meeting.  fuck that.  it is so fucking simple it is absurd to even consider, but this is what is happening.   #  but the money has been going to the same places.   #  he is been putting money into a push for the same article v convention that certain high profile conservatives are pushing for, and that other conservative billionaires have been pushing for.  their website URL soros  claim is that it is for a different reason.  but the money has been going to the same places.  the evidence i had previously was that i found a list of financial backers through their own site and several of the organizations were directly linked to a few high profile billionaires.  the kochs especially put into perspective their end goal to me.  but upon doing a quick search just now to refresh myself, there are pages of articles about soros pushing for a convention of states.  yet on their website, they have articles about soros supposedly forming a coalition against article v.  while he is pumping money to push for it.  it is just weird.  the whole thing is weird.  i do not like any of it.  do not take my word for it.  spend an hour checking it out and following the weird trail it will lead you on.  their own website is a great place to start.   #  this is actually a pretty simple scenario if you ever take a class on strategy, which everyone totally should.   #  i will be the devils advocate for a min.  you know these billionaires have nothing against the average person, right ? they have a tendency to disregard social issue in advocacy of economic issues, but if they were given the power to they would likely not only fix them but fix them more effectively than whatever party focuses on social issues .  the reason you see this political divide is strategics.  it is advantageous for the two ruling parties to advocate in opposition to each other.  if they are too similar the voters might get mixed or apathetic and they would lose votes.  this is actually a pretty simple scenario if you ever take a class on strategy, which everyone totally should.   #  they are creating the problems and then citing those problems as to why the government is failing, and telling us to put them in charge.   #  if they were given power ? youre mistaken.  they already have the power to make big positive changes.  some do.  most do not.  that is exactly the problem.  those who are not, are also the ones buying politicians and lobbying with millions of dollars to get legislation passed that benefits them.  there is absolutely no reason to think they could do a better job if the government was stripped of all power and we were forced to rely on their good graces to help us.  they already have that option and they do more harm than good as is.  they are creating the problems and then citing those problems as to why the government is failing, and telling us to put them in charge.  fuck thaaaat.
dutch politician mark rutte URL promised voters that not one extra penny would go to greece.  voters liked that and rutte is party became the biggest party in parliament, and rutte became prime minister of the netherlands.  rutte broke his promise and kept sending billions of euros to greece.  lying politicians are a problem in many countries.  i think there is an easy solution: let them make unbreakable promises.  an unbreakable promise would be some kind of legal contract that describes what a politician certainly will or will not do when he is elected.  for that politician, the unbreakable promise would be like some kind of extra constitution.  he cannot break it when he is elected.  these unbreakable promise should be fully available online for all candidates.  i think this is a great idea, and i would love to know if there are any significant downsides to these kind of promises.   #  an unbreakable promise would be some kind of legal contract that describes what a politician certainly will or will not do when he is elected.   #  for that politician, the unbreakable promise would be like some kind of extra constitution.   # for that politician, the unbreakable promise would be like some kind of extra constitution.  he cannot break it when he is elected.  this is not enforceable.  no court of law could force a politician particularly the head of state ! to take official action.  the furthest you could possibly take this is instituting criminal punishment in the event a politician does not fulfill their promises.  is that what you want ? before saying yes, take a look at all the other posters talking about the limits of power of politicians, the way circumstances change, and the new information one gains upon becoming head of state.   #  once they have an unbreakable promise on the books then they would no longer get a vote and their yes or no vote would be cast administratively regardless of their new intention.   # i am not sure if this is something op would agree with but one construct would be that a judge or lawyer certifies the unbreakable promise as something within the power of the position.  for example  i promise i will vote against sending money to greece .  once they have an unbreakable promise on the books then they would no longer get a vote and their yes or no vote would be cast administratively regardless of their new intention.  for this to work i think you would need to also disallow riders otherwise any bill could get automatically passed/killed depending on certain unbreakable promises and then the system could be gamed.  for example if a big chunk of candidates promise to not give money to greece and they win, then a clever politician could add a rider to anything he wants to have killed that would add $0 of aid to greece.  even though that $0 does not matter, their unbreakable promise would kick in and the bill would die.   #  you ca not just pass laws that break the constitution.   # you ca not just pass laws that break the constitution.  depends what country you are in.  here in america, you can definitely pass laws that violate the constitution, it is up to someone bringing a case against that law to scotus in order to actually determine its constitutionality and strike it down.  you have still not actually outlined how it would work.  are you saying that suddenly any campaign promise has to become set in stone the law of the land ? i see that potentially backfiring in some pretty spectacular ways.   i promise to rid this land of immigrants that are stealing our jobs !   suddenly that becomes law of the land and what, police squads searching homes for illegals to drag away into the night ? your example of funding is just one possible promise.  what defines an unbreakable promise ? what if that promise is immoral, but no one really paid it much mind and elected the guy anyway ? who determines what promises are unbreakable promises ? does every promise have to be publicised ? etc.  giant rabbit hole of complications.   #  bush has to commit trillions of dollars in stimulus, the aaa credit rating is in jeperdy, etc.   #  well circumstances change all the time, that is why we elect leaders in the first lace instead of a set of guidelines.  say for example jeb bush makes an unbreakable promise to increase military spending by at least 0, and he wins the election.  and as soon as he takes office, the economy takes a massive nosedive.  bush has to commit trillions of dollars in stimulus, the aaa credit rating is in jeperdy, etc.  should he really be held to his promise in these conditions ? yes, the voters voted for someone to increase military spending, but when they did, the situation was very different.   #   i will fight to end discrimination with our police force  or  i will never vote for allowing abortions  etc.   #  i think this is the core of ops argument.  jeb bush should not/would not promise to increase military spending because as you pointed out, it is a very easy promise to break.  candidates would still be able to say  i stand behind increasing military funds  but it would be classified as an unbreakable promise.  the only thing they could be used for would be social issues.   i will fight to end discrimination with our police force  or  i will never vote for allowing abortions  etc.
ashley madison was a website for cheaters.  and  generally  cheating is wrong, but it is not always wrong.  maybe it is an open, non monogamous relationship.  maybe the guy was cheating with the blessing of his wife.  maybe the wife was completely shut down sexually and the choice was between having an affair on the side to fulfill his sexual needs or throw away an otherwise happy marriage.  maybe we as society should not be in the position to judge other people is personal lives just because we disagree with someone else is action.  just because you do not want to be cheated on it does not mean that you can judge cheaters who were in some situation that you know nothing about and are in no position to pass judgement on.  these people have a right to privacy.  the internet leaking into people is lives ruins thing for people permanently.  there was a vox ? article about the lives of people who twitter has shamed after their shaming.  i worry that the response to this leak is going to be out of proportion to the general social backlash that a cheater receives.  normally when someone cheats without the consent of their so their relationship ends and that is more or less the extent of it.  the nature of this leak is such that it will expose thousands of people to blackmail and professional consequences all for something that while, morally unacceptable in our society, is not criminal.  also look at the fucking hypocrisy.  reddit collectively denounced gawker for publishing the allegations that some businessman was visiting a male prostitute like a month ago.  now all of a sudden it is fine to go outing all these other men who were cheating or attempting to cheat on their spouses ? it is the exact same situation that the businessman in the gawker article was in, but because it is 0 million people instead of just one specific person we do not feel sympathy ? that is bullshit.  tl;dr keep your nose out of other people is business you judgmental asshole.   #  the internet leaking into people is lives ruins thing for people permanently.   #  this is a false place to put the blame; you blame the whistleblowers, not the cheaters ?  # maybe it is an open, non monogamous relationship.  maybe the guy was cheating with the blessing of his wife.  most people would not call that cheating.  sure, if you use the strict definition of  sex with more than one person at a time is cheating on someone , maybe.  but most people would say  cheating is having sex with another person without knowledge  and  consent of the person you are in a relationship with.   in other words, open relationships are not cheating, and neither is it if you just get permission.  this is a false place to put the blame; you blame the whistleblowers, not the cheaters ? that is a bad way to shift blame off of the people who were, you know, cheating and lying to their spouses.  reddit collectively denounced gawker for publishing the allegations that some businessman was visiting a male prostitute like a month ago.  i am not sure about this controversy, i did not see it i usually frequent only a few subs .  but i am going to guess, and feel free to correct me if i am wrong: he was not cheating, he was just visiting a male prostitute ? therefore, the backlash was that they should not be exposing his sexual lifestyle.  i would guess that if it was a female prostitute and he was being exposed the backlash would have been much lesser in this case,  especially  if he is from the usa where prostitution is illegal.  if he was cheating, they were angry because of exposing his sexuality, not because of the cheating.  again, if it was a female prostitute they would not be getting shamed if we felt that strongly about it gossip magazines would be put out of business by now.  just because you do not want to be cheated on it does not mean that you can judge cheaters who were in some situation that you know nothing about and are in no position to pass judgement on.  that is part of society.  we are  all  in a position to do this; we are all human beings, a very social and thus very judgmental race of beings.  everything you do every day is being judged.  if you ca not handle this, well, sorry.  there is not much you can do about it every swerve you make on the road, every off handed comment you make that someone else overhears, every choice of wardrobe and house decoration you make is being judged by everyone who witnesses it.  that is just how society works.  you may disagree with it, but people who cheat are ranked below a  lot  of criminals how many people condemn marijuana users, versus how many people would condemn a man having a mistress, just off the top of your head ?  #  it was not the infidelity that was the scandal, it was the terrible journalism.   # now all of a sudden it is fine to go outing all these other men who were cheating or attempting to cheat on their spouses ? it is the exact same situation that the businessman in the gawker article was in, but because it is 0 million people instead of just one specific person we do not feel sympathy ? that is bullshit.  i do not give a shit about ashley madison, but i want to clarify this point.  that was blackmail and gawker was enabling it.  it was not the infidelity that was the scandal, it was the terrible journalism.   #  how probable is it that hypothetical man is wife will find out without being told ?  #  you are making up probabilities.  how probable is it that hypothetical man is wife will find out without being told ? there is no way to know.  plenty of people are openly gay, for instance, within certain contexts.  that information is out there, but maybe they do not want to tell their grandparents for fear of straining that relationship.  one could be blackmailed by this public information, no ? is it possible that the grandparents could find out anyway ? yes.  is it up to the person being blackmailed whether they think the threat is worth the cost ? yes, because they are the ones to understand the risks.   #  for all you know the wife could be a complete recluse and social outcast and she is the only one in the world who does not know.   #  that is not how it works.  the hypothetical wife and her friends might never ever find out unless the blackmailer tells them.  also, you are making up a definition, what you said there is not the definition of blackmail.  blackmail is  any payment extorted by intimidation, as by threats of injurious revelations or accusations.   URL nowhere does it say it is public information.  for all you know the wife could be a complete recluse and social outcast and she is the only one in the world who does not know.  the fact that the information is public does not make it less threatening if used in such a way.   #  i run into people more smug than hilary clinton every week.   #  sigh  there is a certain pleasure we, normal folk, get at the sight of celebrities, millionaires, politicians, running into problems for their personal failings.  we make up excuses as to why we should be allowed a window into their lives.  we say they are public figures, their position is one of trust/moral judgments, or their job is to be famous.  the reality however is that we are no better.  i encounter people more bombastic and self righteous than donald trump every week.  i run into people more smug than hilary clinton every week.  i run into people more filanderous than bill clinton every day.  the ashley madison hack is interesting because it challenges the distinction we used to draw between personal and public failings: newsworthiness.  i personally think it would be a good thing if our society had an honest conversation about infidelity and decided that it was either always immoral and open to public ridicule and contempt, or if it is always private regardless of who is cheating .  maybe this creates that conversation.
ashley madison was a website for cheaters.  and  generally  cheating is wrong, but it is not always wrong.  maybe it is an open, non monogamous relationship.  maybe the guy was cheating with the blessing of his wife.  maybe the wife was completely shut down sexually and the choice was between having an affair on the side to fulfill his sexual needs or throw away an otherwise happy marriage.  maybe we as society should not be in the position to judge other people is personal lives just because we disagree with someone else is action.  just because you do not want to be cheated on it does not mean that you can judge cheaters who were in some situation that you know nothing about and are in no position to pass judgement on.  these people have a right to privacy.  the internet leaking into people is lives ruins thing for people permanently.  there was a vox ? article about the lives of people who twitter has shamed after their shaming.  i worry that the response to this leak is going to be out of proportion to the general social backlash that a cheater receives.  normally when someone cheats without the consent of their so their relationship ends and that is more or less the extent of it.  the nature of this leak is such that it will expose thousands of people to blackmail and professional consequences all for something that while, morally unacceptable in our society, is not criminal.  also look at the fucking hypocrisy.  reddit collectively denounced gawker for publishing the allegations that some businessman was visiting a male prostitute like a month ago.  now all of a sudden it is fine to go outing all these other men who were cheating or attempting to cheat on their spouses ? it is the exact same situation that the businessman in the gawker article was in, but because it is 0 million people instead of just one specific person we do not feel sympathy ? that is bullshit.  tl;dr keep your nose out of other people is business you judgmental asshole.   #  maybe we as society should not be in the position to judge other people is personal lives just because we disagree with someone else is action.   #  just because you do not want to be cheated on it does not mean that you can judge cheaters who were in some situation that you know nothing about and are in no position to pass judgement on.   # maybe it is an open, non monogamous relationship.  maybe the guy was cheating with the blessing of his wife.  most people would not call that cheating.  sure, if you use the strict definition of  sex with more than one person at a time is cheating on someone , maybe.  but most people would say  cheating is having sex with another person without knowledge  and  consent of the person you are in a relationship with.   in other words, open relationships are not cheating, and neither is it if you just get permission.  this is a false place to put the blame; you blame the whistleblowers, not the cheaters ? that is a bad way to shift blame off of the people who were, you know, cheating and lying to their spouses.  reddit collectively denounced gawker for publishing the allegations that some businessman was visiting a male prostitute like a month ago.  i am not sure about this controversy, i did not see it i usually frequent only a few subs .  but i am going to guess, and feel free to correct me if i am wrong: he was not cheating, he was just visiting a male prostitute ? therefore, the backlash was that they should not be exposing his sexual lifestyle.  i would guess that if it was a female prostitute and he was being exposed the backlash would have been much lesser in this case,  especially  if he is from the usa where prostitution is illegal.  if he was cheating, they were angry because of exposing his sexuality, not because of the cheating.  again, if it was a female prostitute they would not be getting shamed if we felt that strongly about it gossip magazines would be put out of business by now.  just because you do not want to be cheated on it does not mean that you can judge cheaters who were in some situation that you know nothing about and are in no position to pass judgement on.  that is part of society.  we are  all  in a position to do this; we are all human beings, a very social and thus very judgmental race of beings.  everything you do every day is being judged.  if you ca not handle this, well, sorry.  there is not much you can do about it every swerve you make on the road, every off handed comment you make that someone else overhears, every choice of wardrobe and house decoration you make is being judged by everyone who witnesses it.  that is just how society works.  you may disagree with it, but people who cheat are ranked below a  lot  of criminals how many people condemn marijuana users, versus how many people would condemn a man having a mistress, just off the top of your head ?  #  that was blackmail and gawker was enabling it.   # now all of a sudden it is fine to go outing all these other men who were cheating or attempting to cheat on their spouses ? it is the exact same situation that the businessman in the gawker article was in, but because it is 0 million people instead of just one specific person we do not feel sympathy ? that is bullshit.  i do not give a shit about ashley madison, but i want to clarify this point.  that was blackmail and gawker was enabling it.  it was not the infidelity that was the scandal, it was the terrible journalism.   #  yes, because they are the ones to understand the risks.   #  you are making up probabilities.  how probable is it that hypothetical man is wife will find out without being told ? there is no way to know.  plenty of people are openly gay, for instance, within certain contexts.  that information is out there, but maybe they do not want to tell their grandparents for fear of straining that relationship.  one could be blackmailed by this public information, no ? is it possible that the grandparents could find out anyway ? yes.  is it up to the person being blackmailed whether they think the threat is worth the cost ? yes, because they are the ones to understand the risks.   #  the hypothetical wife and her friends might never ever find out unless the blackmailer tells them.   #  that is not how it works.  the hypothetical wife and her friends might never ever find out unless the blackmailer tells them.  also, you are making up a definition, what you said there is not the definition of blackmail.  blackmail is  any payment extorted by intimidation, as by threats of injurious revelations or accusations.   URL nowhere does it say it is public information.  for all you know the wife could be a complete recluse and social outcast and she is the only one in the world who does not know.  the fact that the information is public does not make it less threatening if used in such a way.   #  i encounter people more bombastic and self righteous than donald trump every week.   #  sigh  there is a certain pleasure we, normal folk, get at the sight of celebrities, millionaires, politicians, running into problems for their personal failings.  we make up excuses as to why we should be allowed a window into their lives.  we say they are public figures, their position is one of trust/moral judgments, or their job is to be famous.  the reality however is that we are no better.  i encounter people more bombastic and self righteous than donald trump every week.  i run into people more smug than hilary clinton every week.  i run into people more filanderous than bill clinton every day.  the ashley madison hack is interesting because it challenges the distinction we used to draw between personal and public failings: newsworthiness.  i personally think it would be a good thing if our society had an honest conversation about infidelity and decided that it was either always immoral and open to public ridicule and contempt, or if it is always private regardless of who is cheating .  maybe this creates that conversation.
title is self explanatory, but i will elaborate.  mental illnesses are seen as a deviation of  normal  human thought or behavior.  behavior that we as animals find unnerving, dangerous, or anxiety inducing because of our  biology  are seen as mentally ill behaviors, or thoughts.  an individual being born with a given gender, and appearing to be that gender, and functioning perfectly as that gender biologically , but having a disconnect with how his mind feels about his body shows that his mind is sick.  the only reason were catering to these people instead of giving them the psychological care they deserve is because we have the means to.  we can to a certain extent change your gender.  so well make it a social issue as to not leave these people out, because now we do not have to.  but let is take a different route.  let is say i genuinely believed i was a mermaid merman ? merhombre ? .  you would think i am a loon, my behavior and my belief goes against social norms, i would be labeled as mentally ill.  but if the technological means came available to give me gills, and a tail then a social movement would gather around mermaidism, and people would expect to be taken seriously.  or so goes my thinking.  i have fielded the other side and spoken to some transgender individuals, and i still do not buy the argument that it is not a mental illness.  cmv  #  so well make it a social issue as to not leave these people out, because now we do not have to.   #  why would we want to leave them out ?  #  i think you are making a distinction without a difference.  for the sake of argument, i will fully give you your point that it is a mental illness.  if a person feels they are the wrong gender,  must  we somehow psychologically treat them to make them feel different ? what if they prefer surgery ? why would we want to leave them out ? you are speaking as if the default position should be not including them.  if they are not hurting anything what is the problem ? it seems pretty mean to just be exclusionary for no reason.  i am sure people thought the first trans people were nuts too, but after a while it is not really that shocking.  the same thing would probably happen after enough mermen too.  again, if you want to do that, go for it.  i am not going to stop you.  are you saying your default position is to ostracize people with mental illnesses ? is you problem merely the fact that transgenderism is not medically labeled as an illness ? would you be satisfied if that and only that changed ?  #  the whole  i feel like a woman/man  thing is just new age hipsterism or w/e.   #  coming in late but i feel it is worth saying. let is not be confused by the whole gender/sex thing.  gender is basically a meaningless concept.  you can be male/female/merman/trans/gay blah blah blah blah blah.  what matters is sex.  the entirety of the dna in your body every cell is coded using the xx/xy genetic determining system.  this is how we classify male and female.  the whole  i feel like a woman/man  thing is just new age hipsterism or w/e.  as you say let people do what they want it does not matter.  they are still the same sex even if they  transition .  your entire body and brain is coded male or female.  this ca not be changed with a bit of surgery and some testosterone/oestrogen.   #  not all deviations of normal thoughts or behaviours are bad.   # not all deviations of normal thoughts or behaviours are bad.  this seems like an overly broad definition of mental illness.  okay, let is see if being trans fits these criteria.  do people find it unnerving ? yes, some people do.  check.  is it dangerous ? no, being trans is not in and of itself dangerous to the individual.  some reactions to it may be, especially if another person is violently transphobic, but being trans is not inherently dangerous.  finally, is it anxiety inducing ? yes, a lot of trans people have anxiety over their identity, so check on that.  two out of three.   #  with studying trans people and looking at the results of what works and what does not, transitioning with hormone therapy, social transition, and sometimes surgery has found to work well.   #  well, gender dysphoria URL is classified as a medical problem in the dsm, not a mental illness, and the apa URL explicitly states that having a gender different than what would assume from looking at a person is birth genitals  is not  a mental illness.  that is what medical professionals say.  the ama and other major medical associations have similar statements.  so, the medical community disagrees with you, and i think they have much more expertise on this than you do.  no, the reason trans people get to transition is because it works, and trying to use therapy to  cure  trans people does not work, because being trans is related to brain structure URL and dysphoria is essentially a result of hardware incompatibility between the brain and the rest of the body.  fixing that incompatibility works, and it works well URL speaking as someone that is transitioning, i am incredibly happy that i am able to do this, as well as with my results right now, and i would choose transitioning over conversion therapy any day of the week.  let is not.  URL medical professionals have improve health care for trans people, and they are improving it.  it used to be shitty in the past, and that was because before the medical community had any great idea what they were doing with us, they used to refuse most trans people the proper treatment and tried to use psychotherapy, and that  did not work .  with studying trans people and looking at the results of what works and what does not, transitioning with hormone therapy, social transition, and sometimes surgery has found to work well.  personally, i think that having a treatment that works well is a great thing.  oh, and the example of  what if someone legit thought they were a mermaid  can safely be ignored and written off on the basis that there is no biological mechanism for that to happen.  it is a hypothetical argument with no basis in reality and therefore is not a valid comparison.   #  it is a hypothetical argument with no basis in reality and therefore is not a valid comparison.   # it is a hypothetical argument with no basis in reality and therefore is not a valid comparison.  to what extent is trans any different from this ? why ca not there be a biological cause brain and thoughts to someone thinking they are a mermaid ? if someone can be genderqueer, intersex, genderless, agender, etc, they can be an animal as well, there is nothing stopping it and it is a special pleading to think human genders are special but animals are not.  that is what medical professionals say.  the ama and other major medical associations have similar statements.  so, the medical community disagrees with you, and i think they have much more expertise on this than you do.  and ? if those associations said paedophilia is not a psychiatric disorder anymore should i take their word for granted ? that is a massive appeal to authority fallacy.  paedophilia is perfectly natural as individuals do not pick to be attracted to children, but we still condemn it, even the idea of being a non criminal pedophile is viewed with disdain and hatred the fact pedophiles are naturally like that does not mean they do not have a psychiatric disorder.  i do not see why we should grant special privileges to transgender.  i am not saying trans and pedophiles are the same, i am merely comparing the two to the degree both represent differences in people is brains that deviate from what is considered normal and acceptable in societies.
title is self explanatory, but i will elaborate.  mental illnesses are seen as a deviation of  normal  human thought or behavior.  behavior that we as animals find unnerving, dangerous, or anxiety inducing because of our  biology  are seen as mentally ill behaviors, or thoughts.  an individual being born with a given gender, and appearing to be that gender, and functioning perfectly as that gender biologically , but having a disconnect with how his mind feels about his body shows that his mind is sick.  the only reason were catering to these people instead of giving them the psychological care they deserve is because we have the means to.  we can to a certain extent change your gender.  so well make it a social issue as to not leave these people out, because now we do not have to.  but let is take a different route.  let is say i genuinely believed i was a mermaid merman ? merhombre ? .  you would think i am a loon, my behavior and my belief goes against social norms, i would be labeled as mentally ill.  but if the technological means came available to give me gills, and a tail then a social movement would gather around mermaidism, and people would expect to be taken seriously.  or so goes my thinking.  i have fielded the other side and spoken to some transgender individuals, and i still do not buy the argument that it is not a mental illness.  cmv  #  mental illnesses are seen as a deviation of  normal  human thought or behavior.   #  not all deviations of normal thoughts or behaviours are bad.   # not all deviations of normal thoughts or behaviours are bad.  this seems like an overly broad definition of mental illness.  okay, let is see if being trans fits these criteria.  do people find it unnerving ? yes, some people do.  check.  is it dangerous ? no, being trans is not in and of itself dangerous to the individual.  some reactions to it may be, especially if another person is violently transphobic, but being trans is not inherently dangerous.  finally, is it anxiety inducing ? yes, a lot of trans people have anxiety over their identity, so check on that.  two out of three.   #  why would we want to leave them out ?  #  i think you are making a distinction without a difference.  for the sake of argument, i will fully give you your point that it is a mental illness.  if a person feels they are the wrong gender,  must  we somehow psychologically treat them to make them feel different ? what if they prefer surgery ? why would we want to leave them out ? you are speaking as if the default position should be not including them.  if they are not hurting anything what is the problem ? it seems pretty mean to just be exclusionary for no reason.  i am sure people thought the first trans people were nuts too, but after a while it is not really that shocking.  the same thing would probably happen after enough mermen too.  again, if you want to do that, go for it.  i am not going to stop you.  are you saying your default position is to ostracize people with mental illnesses ? is you problem merely the fact that transgenderism is not medically labeled as an illness ? would you be satisfied if that and only that changed ?  #  this ca not be changed with a bit of surgery and some testosterone/oestrogen.   #  coming in late but i feel it is worth saying. let is not be confused by the whole gender/sex thing.  gender is basically a meaningless concept.  you can be male/female/merman/trans/gay blah blah blah blah blah.  what matters is sex.  the entirety of the dna in your body every cell is coded using the xx/xy genetic determining system.  this is how we classify male and female.  the whole  i feel like a woman/man  thing is just new age hipsterism or w/e.  as you say let people do what they want it does not matter.  they are still the same sex even if they  transition .  your entire body and brain is coded male or female.  this ca not be changed with a bit of surgery and some testosterone/oestrogen.   #  personally, i think that having a treatment that works well is a great thing.   #  well, gender dysphoria URL is classified as a medical problem in the dsm, not a mental illness, and the apa URL explicitly states that having a gender different than what would assume from looking at a person is birth genitals  is not  a mental illness.  that is what medical professionals say.  the ama and other major medical associations have similar statements.  so, the medical community disagrees with you, and i think they have much more expertise on this than you do.  no, the reason trans people get to transition is because it works, and trying to use therapy to  cure  trans people does not work, because being trans is related to brain structure URL and dysphoria is essentially a result of hardware incompatibility between the brain and the rest of the body.  fixing that incompatibility works, and it works well URL speaking as someone that is transitioning, i am incredibly happy that i am able to do this, as well as with my results right now, and i would choose transitioning over conversion therapy any day of the week.  let is not.  URL medical professionals have improve health care for trans people, and they are improving it.  it used to be shitty in the past, and that was because before the medical community had any great idea what they were doing with us, they used to refuse most trans people the proper treatment and tried to use psychotherapy, and that  did not work .  with studying trans people and looking at the results of what works and what does not, transitioning with hormone therapy, social transition, and sometimes surgery has found to work well.  personally, i think that having a treatment that works well is a great thing.  oh, and the example of  what if someone legit thought they were a mermaid  can safely be ignored and written off on the basis that there is no biological mechanism for that to happen.  it is a hypothetical argument with no basis in reality and therefore is not a valid comparison.   #  so, the medical community disagrees with you, and i think they have much more expertise on this than you do.   # it is a hypothetical argument with no basis in reality and therefore is not a valid comparison.  to what extent is trans any different from this ? why ca not there be a biological cause brain and thoughts to someone thinking they are a mermaid ? if someone can be genderqueer, intersex, genderless, agender, etc, they can be an animal as well, there is nothing stopping it and it is a special pleading to think human genders are special but animals are not.  that is what medical professionals say.  the ama and other major medical associations have similar statements.  so, the medical community disagrees with you, and i think they have much more expertise on this than you do.  and ? if those associations said paedophilia is not a psychiatric disorder anymore should i take their word for granted ? that is a massive appeal to authority fallacy.  paedophilia is perfectly natural as individuals do not pick to be attracted to children, but we still condemn it, even the idea of being a non criminal pedophile is viewed with disdain and hatred the fact pedophiles are naturally like that does not mean they do not have a psychiatric disorder.  i do not see why we should grant special privileges to transgender.  i am not saying trans and pedophiles are the same, i am merely comparing the two to the degree both represent differences in people is brains that deviate from what is considered normal and acceptable in societies.
i am a 0 straight male, as in, i am only into straight women; lesbians gross me out, though i do not care who is into who or who wants to marry each other; people should be free to do as they wish.  basically, i have a hard enough time as it is with straight women and a  bisexual  girl is triple the drama, with no added benefits.  i have never been into  bisexual  women and if i am attracted to one or she is attracted to me and i find out she is into women or has sex with them, it is pretty much a deal breaker from then on.  i then just feel betrayed afterwards, thinking i was a fool for going after a girl who wants a girl instead of me .  my biggest concerns if i dated a  bisexual  girl are:    a.   any girl who claims to be  bisexual  would want a woman  way  more than she would ever a guy.  she literally has double the options to potentially cheat or leave me for someone else, and cheating/being dumped is even a problem in straight couple relationships.   i am a guy and even i do not know why women would want us over other women and their soft, supple bodies just made for giving and receiving pleasure.      b.   constantly having to compete with women for her attention.   i ca not compete with boobs !      c.   a  bisexual  girl is very likely in my view not going to be monogamous, and i am not into three ways, lesbians, or an  open relationship.      d.   a  bisexual  girl is very likely to not  want  a relationship; just casual sex and  fooling around.    men on mondays, wednesdays, and fridays, and women on tuesdays, thursdays, and the weekend, i would assume.   and i am sexually inexperienced, so unlike the  isexually advanced,  i do not have this whole  rainbow of sexuality kinsey scale  level of experience behind me.  if i had orgies and stuff, and banged every type of human being alive and had notches in the triple digits by now at age 0 , maybe i would be more understanding of it all.  but i am pretty vanilla and virginal, at this point.  so i do not get the whole  kinsey sex scale  stuff beyond  straight  and  everything else lgbt, etc .   to be honest, i  barely  even accept  bisexual  as a real thing.  it was never spoken of in society until around 0 0 years ago; now every other woman claims to be  bi  and says how much she loves going down on women.  but since science backs it up, i have to back it up as being real, as well.  no matter how much i ca not comprehend simultaneously being into both men and women at the same time, equally.  i literally cannot even comprehend that; it is so far from what i would personally want, sexually speaking.  however, with all this said, i am also a big hopeless romantic.  my ideal girl, physical traits aside, would be kind, sweet, gentle, caring, loving, open minded, an easy listener and a best friend.  mainly, i want a girl just to be into  me  and no one else.  and the argument from the other side i have heard before are that  bisexuals  and pansexuals tend to be more loving, compassionate, kind, and open minded, as they judge less on the person is outer exterior and more on their inner personality.  and the  reason  i am so sexually inexperienced is me URL being a short, 0 0 , overweight, ugly, dark skinned man that literally no straight woman would ever call  sexy  or  good looking.   so if the whole theory that   bisexuals  and pansexuals are less shallow and more into who a person truly are,  then they would be a  more suitable choice  for me to go after, assuming this is true.  so, i think that covers it all.  i am open to changing my mind on it, if people are intelligent and open minded enough to convince me why i could potentially be wrong about my stance on  bisexuals.    #  she literally has double the options to potentially cheat or leave me for someone else, and cheating/being dumped is even a problem in straight couple relationships.   #  if we trust the numbers on how many women are not straight, well, the number that are open about that are an order of magnitude lower than the amount of straight guys, so the math shows that bi women do not have  double the options.    #  girl here.  not sure if i would consider myself to be bi, but likely am.  i have a bisexual friend that is told me she prefers guys over girls.  many bi women are like that.  sexuality is a spectrum that does not fit into neat little boxes.  i am willing to bet that most people are not 0 straight.  if we trust the numbers on how many women are not straight, well, the number that are open about that are an order of magnitude lower than the amount of straight guys, so the math shows that bi women do not have  double the options.   most girls do not have dicks and a lot of those of us who do are not likely going to want to use them.  this just sounds like you have insecurity more than anything.  then do not date people that need polyamory in their relationships ? the assumptions of our society are that relationships are monogamous by default, so does it really matter what a girl is orientation is in terms of upholding that ? that is just bullshit.  i have a bisexual friend that is married.  being bisexual does not mean that you have to equally be into men and women.  it mainly means that you are open to dating either.  i am sure you have several different types of women that you would like to date.  bisexuals have different types of  people  they would like to date.  you know, i ca not stand really spicy food.  i do not understand why people want food that causes chemical reactions that make their mouth feel like it is burning, but they make stores selling hot sauces with the highest number of scoville units.  just because i ca not understand that taste does not make it any less legitimate.  yeah, well, me too.  if straight people can be potentially interested in different people before eventually finding  the one,  then why would not a bisexual person be like that ? to be honest, i think you have a more fundamental insecurity over someone cheating on you than anything else.  you are going to need to get over that if you want to be able to trust your future partners.   #  this is what i am trying to be persuaded over.   # well, if she is attracted to women and is not just straight and attracted solely to men , why would not she ? she has twice as many options to, and i could not give her anything a lesbian woman could as they understand what they are into, both being women and all, more than men .  this is what i am trying to be persuaded over.  why would not she, since she can and would actually  want  women ? at least with straight women, a guy can give her most things any other man can, physically.  a bi girl wants women and as a man, i would be sol on pleasing that need with her.   #  sure, it rules out reptiles, birds, and insects, but that is basically the same kind of comparison to me.   # i have a really hard time believing this.  and it has nothing to do with what  i  would prefer, since we are talking about a different sex and sexuality, here.  though that is why  i myself  do not get it.  men and women are just way too different for me to understand that.  though this may offend some people i am not trying to, i am just being honest , it is like the same thing as being  mammalsexual  to me and dating any animal that happens to be warm blooded and give birth through a womb.  it is like, those are a  lot  of options, there ! sure, it rules out reptiles, birds, and insects, but that is basically the same kind of comparison to me.  there is billions of men and women in the world, but they want  both of them  ? why ? then again, why not just be  istraight  and stick with men ? why desire women so much if some of them would mostly want a man ? why even bother with men if some of them are mainly looking for women.  i do not get it.   #  i am telling you that for the most part is not true.   # and it has nothing to do with what i would prefer, since we are talking about a different sex and sexuality, here.  though that is why i myself do not get it.  men and women are just way too different for me to understand that.  exactly, you do not understand bisexuals, so you just make the assumption that they would just jump ship on a relationship that does not provide what you imagine they need.  i am telling you that for the most part is not true.  you should try talking to some bisexual people, or at least reading about it some more.  why desire women so much if some of them would mostly want a man ? why even bother with men if some of them are mainly looking for women.  i do not get it.  bisexuality, like being gay, is not a choice.  it is not like they are people who put mind over matter or whatever and decided they could be attracted to both men and women.  asking why they do not just stay straight is like me asking you why you ca not just like both men and women so you would be able to have more  options  for a relationship.   #  i shit you not: i know very few women around here that are straight.   # i am telling you that for the most part is not true.  you should try talking to some bisexual people, or at least reading about it some more.  most girls i know, mainly the ones from work i work at a nightclub and they are bartenders and waitresses there are bisexual.  though, they did not tell me for a long time.  i thought they were straight as they constantly make  guy jokes  they are dirty and stuff.  but then, one night, they started talking about going down on women and stuff.  all of them were confirmed to be  bi.   i shit you not: i know very few women around here that are straight.  even the married ones apparently are not 0 into men, as i assumed.  that is the main issue, i guess.  i want a woman who is 0  into me  ! not 0 me, 0 rhonda from next door.  this is just how i break it down: logically.  i am trying to understand some of the stuff you are saying though, but i just ca not comprehend being into dicks and clits equally.  i am  trying  to, but my brain is having a hard time wrapping my head around that.
i am a 0 straight male, as in, i am only into straight women; lesbians gross me out, though i do not care who is into who or who wants to marry each other; people should be free to do as they wish.  basically, i have a hard enough time as it is with straight women and a  bisexual  girl is triple the drama, with no added benefits.  i have never been into  bisexual  women and if i am attracted to one or she is attracted to me and i find out she is into women or has sex with them, it is pretty much a deal breaker from then on.  i then just feel betrayed afterwards, thinking i was a fool for going after a girl who wants a girl instead of me .  my biggest concerns if i dated a  bisexual  girl are:    a.   any girl who claims to be  bisexual  would want a woman  way  more than she would ever a guy.  she literally has double the options to potentially cheat or leave me for someone else, and cheating/being dumped is even a problem in straight couple relationships.   i am a guy and even i do not know why women would want us over other women and their soft, supple bodies just made for giving and receiving pleasure.      b.   constantly having to compete with women for her attention.   i ca not compete with boobs !      c.   a  bisexual  girl is very likely in my view not going to be monogamous, and i am not into three ways, lesbians, or an  open relationship.      d.   a  bisexual  girl is very likely to not  want  a relationship; just casual sex and  fooling around.    men on mondays, wednesdays, and fridays, and women on tuesdays, thursdays, and the weekend, i would assume.   and i am sexually inexperienced, so unlike the  isexually advanced,  i do not have this whole  rainbow of sexuality kinsey scale  level of experience behind me.  if i had orgies and stuff, and banged every type of human being alive and had notches in the triple digits by now at age 0 , maybe i would be more understanding of it all.  but i am pretty vanilla and virginal, at this point.  so i do not get the whole  kinsey sex scale  stuff beyond  straight  and  everything else lgbt, etc .   to be honest, i  barely  even accept  bisexual  as a real thing.  it was never spoken of in society until around 0 0 years ago; now every other woman claims to be  bi  and says how much she loves going down on women.  but since science backs it up, i have to back it up as being real, as well.  no matter how much i ca not comprehend simultaneously being into both men and women at the same time, equally.  i literally cannot even comprehend that; it is so far from what i would personally want, sexually speaking.  however, with all this said, i am also a big hopeless romantic.  my ideal girl, physical traits aside, would be kind, sweet, gentle, caring, loving, open minded, an easy listener and a best friend.  mainly, i want a girl just to be into  me  and no one else.  and the argument from the other side i have heard before are that  bisexuals  and pansexuals tend to be more loving, compassionate, kind, and open minded, as they judge less on the person is outer exterior and more on their inner personality.  and the  reason  i am so sexually inexperienced is me URL being a short, 0 0 , overweight, ugly, dark skinned man that literally no straight woman would ever call  sexy  or  good looking.   so if the whole theory that   bisexuals  and pansexuals are less shallow and more into who a person truly are,  then they would be a  more suitable choice  for me to go after, assuming this is true.  so, i think that covers it all.  i am open to changing my mind on it, if people are intelligent and open minded enough to convince me why i could potentially be wrong about my stance on  bisexuals.    #  i am a guy and even i do not know why women would want us over other women and their soft, supple bodies just made for giving and receiving pleasure.   #  most girls do not have dicks and a lot of those of us who do are not likely going to want to use them.   #  girl here.  not sure if i would consider myself to be bi, but likely am.  i have a bisexual friend that is told me she prefers guys over girls.  many bi women are like that.  sexuality is a spectrum that does not fit into neat little boxes.  i am willing to bet that most people are not 0 straight.  if we trust the numbers on how many women are not straight, well, the number that are open about that are an order of magnitude lower than the amount of straight guys, so the math shows that bi women do not have  double the options.   most girls do not have dicks and a lot of those of us who do are not likely going to want to use them.  this just sounds like you have insecurity more than anything.  then do not date people that need polyamory in their relationships ? the assumptions of our society are that relationships are monogamous by default, so does it really matter what a girl is orientation is in terms of upholding that ? that is just bullshit.  i have a bisexual friend that is married.  being bisexual does not mean that you have to equally be into men and women.  it mainly means that you are open to dating either.  i am sure you have several different types of women that you would like to date.  bisexuals have different types of  people  they would like to date.  you know, i ca not stand really spicy food.  i do not understand why people want food that causes chemical reactions that make their mouth feel like it is burning, but they make stores selling hot sauces with the highest number of scoville units.  just because i ca not understand that taste does not make it any less legitimate.  yeah, well, me too.  if straight people can be potentially interested in different people before eventually finding  the one,  then why would not a bisexual person be like that ? to be honest, i think you have a more fundamental insecurity over someone cheating on you than anything else.  you are going to need to get over that if you want to be able to trust your future partners.   #  a bi girl wants women and as a man, i would be sol on pleasing that need with her.   # well, if she is attracted to women and is not just straight and attracted solely to men , why would not she ? she has twice as many options to, and i could not give her anything a lesbian woman could as they understand what they are into, both being women and all, more than men .  this is what i am trying to be persuaded over.  why would not she, since she can and would actually  want  women ? at least with straight women, a guy can give her most things any other man can, physically.  a bi girl wants women and as a man, i would be sol on pleasing that need with her.   #  sure, it rules out reptiles, birds, and insects, but that is basically the same kind of comparison to me.   # i have a really hard time believing this.  and it has nothing to do with what  i  would prefer, since we are talking about a different sex and sexuality, here.  though that is why  i myself  do not get it.  men and women are just way too different for me to understand that.  though this may offend some people i am not trying to, i am just being honest , it is like the same thing as being  mammalsexual  to me and dating any animal that happens to be warm blooded and give birth through a womb.  it is like, those are a  lot  of options, there ! sure, it rules out reptiles, birds, and insects, but that is basically the same kind of comparison to me.  there is billions of men and women in the world, but they want  both of them  ? why ? then again, why not just be  istraight  and stick with men ? why desire women so much if some of them would mostly want a man ? why even bother with men if some of them are mainly looking for women.  i do not get it.   #  and it has nothing to do with what i would prefer, since we are talking about a different sex and sexuality, here.   # and it has nothing to do with what i would prefer, since we are talking about a different sex and sexuality, here.  though that is why i myself do not get it.  men and women are just way too different for me to understand that.  exactly, you do not understand bisexuals, so you just make the assumption that they would just jump ship on a relationship that does not provide what you imagine they need.  i am telling you that for the most part is not true.  you should try talking to some bisexual people, or at least reading about it some more.  why desire women so much if some of them would mostly want a man ? why even bother with men if some of them are mainly looking for women.  i do not get it.  bisexuality, like being gay, is not a choice.  it is not like they are people who put mind over matter or whatever and decided they could be attracted to both men and women.  asking why they do not just stay straight is like me asking you why you ca not just like both men and women so you would be able to have more  options  for a relationship.   #  i want a woman who is 0  into me  !  # i am telling you that for the most part is not true.  you should try talking to some bisexual people, or at least reading about it some more.  most girls i know, mainly the ones from work i work at a nightclub and they are bartenders and waitresses there are bisexual.  though, they did not tell me for a long time.  i thought they were straight as they constantly make  guy jokes  they are dirty and stuff.  but then, one night, they started talking about going down on women and stuff.  all of them were confirmed to be  bi.   i shit you not: i know very few women around here that are straight.  even the married ones apparently are not 0 into men, as i assumed.  that is the main issue, i guess.  i want a woman who is 0  into me  ! not 0 me, 0 rhonda from next door.  this is just how i break it down: logically.  i am trying to understand some of the stuff you are saying though, but i just ca not comprehend being into dicks and clits equally.  i am  trying  to, but my brain is having a hard time wrapping my head around that.
i am a 0 straight male, as in, i am only into straight women; lesbians gross me out, though i do not care who is into who or who wants to marry each other; people should be free to do as they wish.  basically, i have a hard enough time as it is with straight women and a  bisexual  girl is triple the drama, with no added benefits.  i have never been into  bisexual  women and if i am attracted to one or she is attracted to me and i find out she is into women or has sex with them, it is pretty much a deal breaker from then on.  i then just feel betrayed afterwards, thinking i was a fool for going after a girl who wants a girl instead of me .  my biggest concerns if i dated a  bisexual  girl are:    a.   any girl who claims to be  bisexual  would want a woman  way  more than she would ever a guy.  she literally has double the options to potentially cheat or leave me for someone else, and cheating/being dumped is even a problem in straight couple relationships.   i am a guy and even i do not know why women would want us over other women and their soft, supple bodies just made for giving and receiving pleasure.      b.   constantly having to compete with women for her attention.   i ca not compete with boobs !      c.   a  bisexual  girl is very likely in my view not going to be monogamous, and i am not into three ways, lesbians, or an  open relationship.      d.   a  bisexual  girl is very likely to not  want  a relationship; just casual sex and  fooling around.    men on mondays, wednesdays, and fridays, and women on tuesdays, thursdays, and the weekend, i would assume.   and i am sexually inexperienced, so unlike the  isexually advanced,  i do not have this whole  rainbow of sexuality kinsey scale  level of experience behind me.  if i had orgies and stuff, and banged every type of human being alive and had notches in the triple digits by now at age 0 , maybe i would be more understanding of it all.  but i am pretty vanilla and virginal, at this point.  so i do not get the whole  kinsey sex scale  stuff beyond  straight  and  everything else lgbt, etc .   to be honest, i  barely  even accept  bisexual  as a real thing.  it was never spoken of in society until around 0 0 years ago; now every other woman claims to be  bi  and says how much she loves going down on women.  but since science backs it up, i have to back it up as being real, as well.  no matter how much i ca not comprehend simultaneously being into both men and women at the same time, equally.  i literally cannot even comprehend that; it is so far from what i would personally want, sexually speaking.  however, with all this said, i am also a big hopeless romantic.  my ideal girl, physical traits aside, would be kind, sweet, gentle, caring, loving, open minded, an easy listener and a best friend.  mainly, i want a girl just to be into  me  and no one else.  and the argument from the other side i have heard before are that  bisexuals  and pansexuals tend to be more loving, compassionate, kind, and open minded, as they judge less on the person is outer exterior and more on their inner personality.  and the  reason  i am so sexually inexperienced is me URL being a short, 0 0 , overweight, ugly, dark skinned man that literally no straight woman would ever call  sexy  or  good looking.   so if the whole theory that   bisexuals  and pansexuals are less shallow and more into who a person truly are,  then they would be a  more suitable choice  for me to go after, assuming this is true.  so, i think that covers it all.  i am open to changing my mind on it, if people are intelligent and open minded enough to convince me why i could potentially be wrong about my stance on  bisexuals.    #  constantly having to compete with women for her attention.   #  this just sounds like you have insecurity more than anything.   #  girl here.  not sure if i would consider myself to be bi, but likely am.  i have a bisexual friend that is told me she prefers guys over girls.  many bi women are like that.  sexuality is a spectrum that does not fit into neat little boxes.  i am willing to bet that most people are not 0 straight.  if we trust the numbers on how many women are not straight, well, the number that are open about that are an order of magnitude lower than the amount of straight guys, so the math shows that bi women do not have  double the options.   most girls do not have dicks and a lot of those of us who do are not likely going to want to use them.  this just sounds like you have insecurity more than anything.  then do not date people that need polyamory in their relationships ? the assumptions of our society are that relationships are monogamous by default, so does it really matter what a girl is orientation is in terms of upholding that ? that is just bullshit.  i have a bisexual friend that is married.  being bisexual does not mean that you have to equally be into men and women.  it mainly means that you are open to dating either.  i am sure you have several different types of women that you would like to date.  bisexuals have different types of  people  they would like to date.  you know, i ca not stand really spicy food.  i do not understand why people want food that causes chemical reactions that make their mouth feel like it is burning, but they make stores selling hot sauces with the highest number of scoville units.  just because i ca not understand that taste does not make it any less legitimate.  yeah, well, me too.  if straight people can be potentially interested in different people before eventually finding  the one,  then why would not a bisexual person be like that ? to be honest, i think you have a more fundamental insecurity over someone cheating on you than anything else.  you are going to need to get over that if you want to be able to trust your future partners.   #  at least with straight women, a guy can give her most things any other man can, physically.   # well, if she is attracted to women and is not just straight and attracted solely to men , why would not she ? she has twice as many options to, and i could not give her anything a lesbian woman could as they understand what they are into, both being women and all, more than men .  this is what i am trying to be persuaded over.  why would not she, since she can and would actually  want  women ? at least with straight women, a guy can give her most things any other man can, physically.  a bi girl wants women and as a man, i would be sol on pleasing that need with her.   #  then again, why not just be  istraight  and stick with men ?  # i have a really hard time believing this.  and it has nothing to do with what  i  would prefer, since we are talking about a different sex and sexuality, here.  though that is why  i myself  do not get it.  men and women are just way too different for me to understand that.  though this may offend some people i am not trying to, i am just being honest , it is like the same thing as being  mammalsexual  to me and dating any animal that happens to be warm blooded and give birth through a womb.  it is like, those are a  lot  of options, there ! sure, it rules out reptiles, birds, and insects, but that is basically the same kind of comparison to me.  there is billions of men and women in the world, but they want  both of them  ? why ? then again, why not just be  istraight  and stick with men ? why desire women so much if some of them would mostly want a man ? why even bother with men if some of them are mainly looking for women.  i do not get it.   #  asking why they do not just stay straight is like me asking you why you ca not just like both men and women so you would be able to have more  options  for a relationship.   # and it has nothing to do with what i would prefer, since we are talking about a different sex and sexuality, here.  though that is why i myself do not get it.  men and women are just way too different for me to understand that.  exactly, you do not understand bisexuals, so you just make the assumption that they would just jump ship on a relationship that does not provide what you imagine they need.  i am telling you that for the most part is not true.  you should try talking to some bisexual people, or at least reading about it some more.  why desire women so much if some of them would mostly want a man ? why even bother with men if some of them are mainly looking for women.  i do not get it.  bisexuality, like being gay, is not a choice.  it is not like they are people who put mind over matter or whatever and decided they could be attracted to both men and women.  asking why they do not just stay straight is like me asking you why you ca not just like both men and women so you would be able to have more  options  for a relationship.   #  you should try talking to some bisexual people, or at least reading about it some more.   # i am telling you that for the most part is not true.  you should try talking to some bisexual people, or at least reading about it some more.  most girls i know, mainly the ones from work i work at a nightclub and they are bartenders and waitresses there are bisexual.  though, they did not tell me for a long time.  i thought they were straight as they constantly make  guy jokes  they are dirty and stuff.  but then, one night, they started talking about going down on women and stuff.  all of them were confirmed to be  bi.   i shit you not: i know very few women around here that are straight.  even the married ones apparently are not 0 into men, as i assumed.  that is the main issue, i guess.  i want a woman who is 0  into me  ! not 0 me, 0 rhonda from next door.  this is just how i break it down: logically.  i am trying to understand some of the stuff you are saying though, but i just ca not comprehend being into dicks and clits equally.  i am  trying  to, but my brain is having a hard time wrapping my head around that.
i am a 0 straight male, as in, i am only into straight women; lesbians gross me out, though i do not care who is into who or who wants to marry each other; people should be free to do as they wish.  basically, i have a hard enough time as it is with straight women and a  bisexual  girl is triple the drama, with no added benefits.  i have never been into  bisexual  women and if i am attracted to one or she is attracted to me and i find out she is into women or has sex with them, it is pretty much a deal breaker from then on.  i then just feel betrayed afterwards, thinking i was a fool for going after a girl who wants a girl instead of me .  my biggest concerns if i dated a  bisexual  girl are:    a.   any girl who claims to be  bisexual  would want a woman  way  more than she would ever a guy.  she literally has double the options to potentially cheat or leave me for someone else, and cheating/being dumped is even a problem in straight couple relationships.   i am a guy and even i do not know why women would want us over other women and their soft, supple bodies just made for giving and receiving pleasure.      b.   constantly having to compete with women for her attention.   i ca not compete with boobs !      c.   a  bisexual  girl is very likely in my view not going to be monogamous, and i am not into three ways, lesbians, or an  open relationship.      d.   a  bisexual  girl is very likely to not  want  a relationship; just casual sex and  fooling around.    men on mondays, wednesdays, and fridays, and women on tuesdays, thursdays, and the weekend, i would assume.   and i am sexually inexperienced, so unlike the  isexually advanced,  i do not have this whole  rainbow of sexuality kinsey scale  level of experience behind me.  if i had orgies and stuff, and banged every type of human being alive and had notches in the triple digits by now at age 0 , maybe i would be more understanding of it all.  but i am pretty vanilla and virginal, at this point.  so i do not get the whole  kinsey sex scale  stuff beyond  straight  and  everything else lgbt, etc .   to be honest, i  barely  even accept  bisexual  as a real thing.  it was never spoken of in society until around 0 0 years ago; now every other woman claims to be  bi  and says how much she loves going down on women.  but since science backs it up, i have to back it up as being real, as well.  no matter how much i ca not comprehend simultaneously being into both men and women at the same time, equally.  i literally cannot even comprehend that; it is so far from what i would personally want, sexually speaking.  however, with all this said, i am also a big hopeless romantic.  my ideal girl, physical traits aside, would be kind, sweet, gentle, caring, loving, open minded, an easy listener and a best friend.  mainly, i want a girl just to be into  me  and no one else.  and the argument from the other side i have heard before are that  bisexuals  and pansexuals tend to be more loving, compassionate, kind, and open minded, as they judge less on the person is outer exterior and more on their inner personality.  and the  reason  i am so sexually inexperienced is me URL being a short, 0 0 , overweight, ugly, dark skinned man that literally no straight woman would ever call  sexy  or  good looking.   so if the whole theory that   bisexuals  and pansexuals are less shallow and more into who a person truly are,  then they would be a  more suitable choice  for me to go after, assuming this is true.  so, i think that covers it all.  i am open to changing my mind on it, if people are intelligent and open minded enough to convince me why i could potentially be wrong about my stance on  bisexuals.    #  a  bisexual  girl is very likely in my view not going to be monogamous, and i am not into three ways, lesbians, or an  open relationship.    #  then do not date people that need polyamory in their relationships ?  #  girl here.  not sure if i would consider myself to be bi, but likely am.  i have a bisexual friend that is told me she prefers guys over girls.  many bi women are like that.  sexuality is a spectrum that does not fit into neat little boxes.  i am willing to bet that most people are not 0 straight.  if we trust the numbers on how many women are not straight, well, the number that are open about that are an order of magnitude lower than the amount of straight guys, so the math shows that bi women do not have  double the options.   most girls do not have dicks and a lot of those of us who do are not likely going to want to use them.  this just sounds like you have insecurity more than anything.  then do not date people that need polyamory in their relationships ? the assumptions of our society are that relationships are monogamous by default, so does it really matter what a girl is orientation is in terms of upholding that ? that is just bullshit.  i have a bisexual friend that is married.  being bisexual does not mean that you have to equally be into men and women.  it mainly means that you are open to dating either.  i am sure you have several different types of women that you would like to date.  bisexuals have different types of  people  they would like to date.  you know, i ca not stand really spicy food.  i do not understand why people want food that causes chemical reactions that make their mouth feel like it is burning, but they make stores selling hot sauces with the highest number of scoville units.  just because i ca not understand that taste does not make it any less legitimate.  yeah, well, me too.  if straight people can be potentially interested in different people before eventually finding  the one,  then why would not a bisexual person be like that ? to be honest, i think you have a more fundamental insecurity over someone cheating on you than anything else.  you are going to need to get over that if you want to be able to trust your future partners.   #  this is what i am trying to be persuaded over.   # well, if she is attracted to women and is not just straight and attracted solely to men , why would not she ? she has twice as many options to, and i could not give her anything a lesbian woman could as they understand what they are into, both being women and all, more than men .  this is what i am trying to be persuaded over.  why would not she, since she can and would actually  want  women ? at least with straight women, a guy can give her most things any other man can, physically.  a bi girl wants women and as a man, i would be sol on pleasing that need with her.   #  there is billions of men and women in the world, but they want  both of them  ?  # i have a really hard time believing this.  and it has nothing to do with what  i  would prefer, since we are talking about a different sex and sexuality, here.  though that is why  i myself  do not get it.  men and women are just way too different for me to understand that.  though this may offend some people i am not trying to, i am just being honest , it is like the same thing as being  mammalsexual  to me and dating any animal that happens to be warm blooded and give birth through a womb.  it is like, those are a  lot  of options, there ! sure, it rules out reptiles, birds, and insects, but that is basically the same kind of comparison to me.  there is billions of men and women in the world, but they want  both of them  ? why ? then again, why not just be  istraight  and stick with men ? why desire women so much if some of them would mostly want a man ? why even bother with men if some of them are mainly looking for women.  i do not get it.   #  and it has nothing to do with what i would prefer, since we are talking about a different sex and sexuality, here.   # and it has nothing to do with what i would prefer, since we are talking about a different sex and sexuality, here.  though that is why i myself do not get it.  men and women are just way too different for me to understand that.  exactly, you do not understand bisexuals, so you just make the assumption that they would just jump ship on a relationship that does not provide what you imagine they need.  i am telling you that for the most part is not true.  you should try talking to some bisexual people, or at least reading about it some more.  why desire women so much if some of them would mostly want a man ? why even bother with men if some of them are mainly looking for women.  i do not get it.  bisexuality, like being gay, is not a choice.  it is not like they are people who put mind over matter or whatever and decided they could be attracted to both men and women.  asking why they do not just stay straight is like me asking you why you ca not just like both men and women so you would be able to have more  options  for a relationship.   #  though, they did not tell me for a long time.   # i am telling you that for the most part is not true.  you should try talking to some bisexual people, or at least reading about it some more.  most girls i know, mainly the ones from work i work at a nightclub and they are bartenders and waitresses there are bisexual.  though, they did not tell me for a long time.  i thought they were straight as they constantly make  guy jokes  they are dirty and stuff.  but then, one night, they started talking about going down on women and stuff.  all of them were confirmed to be  bi.   i shit you not: i know very few women around here that are straight.  even the married ones apparently are not 0 into men, as i assumed.  that is the main issue, i guess.  i want a woman who is 0  into me  ! not 0 me, 0 rhonda from next door.  this is just how i break it down: logically.  i am trying to understand some of the stuff you are saying though, but i just ca not comprehend being into dicks and clits equally.  i am  trying  to, but my brain is having a hard time wrapping my head around that.
i am a 0 straight male, as in, i am only into straight women; lesbians gross me out, though i do not care who is into who or who wants to marry each other; people should be free to do as they wish.  basically, i have a hard enough time as it is with straight women and a  bisexual  girl is triple the drama, with no added benefits.  i have never been into  bisexual  women and if i am attracted to one or she is attracted to me and i find out she is into women or has sex with them, it is pretty much a deal breaker from then on.  i then just feel betrayed afterwards, thinking i was a fool for going after a girl who wants a girl instead of me .  my biggest concerns if i dated a  bisexual  girl are:    a.   any girl who claims to be  bisexual  would want a woman  way  more than she would ever a guy.  she literally has double the options to potentially cheat or leave me for someone else, and cheating/being dumped is even a problem in straight couple relationships.   i am a guy and even i do not know why women would want us over other women and their soft, supple bodies just made for giving and receiving pleasure.      b.   constantly having to compete with women for her attention.   i ca not compete with boobs !      c.   a  bisexual  girl is very likely in my view not going to be monogamous, and i am not into three ways, lesbians, or an  open relationship.      d.   a  bisexual  girl is very likely to not  want  a relationship; just casual sex and  fooling around.    men on mondays, wednesdays, and fridays, and women on tuesdays, thursdays, and the weekend, i would assume.   and i am sexually inexperienced, so unlike the  isexually advanced,  i do not have this whole  rainbow of sexuality kinsey scale  level of experience behind me.  if i had orgies and stuff, and banged every type of human being alive and had notches in the triple digits by now at age 0 , maybe i would be more understanding of it all.  but i am pretty vanilla and virginal, at this point.  so i do not get the whole  kinsey sex scale  stuff beyond  straight  and  everything else lgbt, etc .   to be honest, i  barely  even accept  bisexual  as a real thing.  it was never spoken of in society until around 0 0 years ago; now every other woman claims to be  bi  and says how much she loves going down on women.  but since science backs it up, i have to back it up as being real, as well.  no matter how much i ca not comprehend simultaneously being into both men and women at the same time, equally.  i literally cannot even comprehend that; it is so far from what i would personally want, sexually speaking.  however, with all this said, i am also a big hopeless romantic.  my ideal girl, physical traits aside, would be kind, sweet, gentle, caring, loving, open minded, an easy listener and a best friend.  mainly, i want a girl just to be into  me  and no one else.  and the argument from the other side i have heard before are that  bisexuals  and pansexuals tend to be more loving, compassionate, kind, and open minded, as they judge less on the person is outer exterior and more on their inner personality.  and the  reason  i am so sexually inexperienced is me URL being a short, 0 0 , overweight, ugly, dark skinned man that literally no straight woman would ever call  sexy  or  good looking.   so if the whole theory that   bisexuals  and pansexuals are less shallow and more into who a person truly are,  then they would be a  more suitable choice  for me to go after, assuming this is true.  so, i think that covers it all.  i am open to changing my mind on it, if people are intelligent and open minded enough to convince me why i could potentially be wrong about my stance on  bisexuals.    #  no matter how much i ca not comprehend simultaneously being into both men and women at the same time, equally.   #  being bisexual does not mean that you have to equally be into men and women.   #  girl here.  not sure if i would consider myself to be bi, but likely am.  i have a bisexual friend that is told me she prefers guys over girls.  many bi women are like that.  sexuality is a spectrum that does not fit into neat little boxes.  i am willing to bet that most people are not 0 straight.  if we trust the numbers on how many women are not straight, well, the number that are open about that are an order of magnitude lower than the amount of straight guys, so the math shows that bi women do not have  double the options.   most girls do not have dicks and a lot of those of us who do are not likely going to want to use them.  this just sounds like you have insecurity more than anything.  then do not date people that need polyamory in their relationships ? the assumptions of our society are that relationships are monogamous by default, so does it really matter what a girl is orientation is in terms of upholding that ? that is just bullshit.  i have a bisexual friend that is married.  being bisexual does not mean that you have to equally be into men and women.  it mainly means that you are open to dating either.  i am sure you have several different types of women that you would like to date.  bisexuals have different types of  people  they would like to date.  you know, i ca not stand really spicy food.  i do not understand why people want food that causes chemical reactions that make their mouth feel like it is burning, but they make stores selling hot sauces with the highest number of scoville units.  just because i ca not understand that taste does not make it any less legitimate.  yeah, well, me too.  if straight people can be potentially interested in different people before eventually finding  the one,  then why would not a bisexual person be like that ? to be honest, i think you have a more fundamental insecurity over someone cheating on you than anything else.  you are going to need to get over that if you want to be able to trust your future partners.   #  why would not she, since she can and would actually  want  women ?  # well, if she is attracted to women and is not just straight and attracted solely to men , why would not she ? she has twice as many options to, and i could not give her anything a lesbian woman could as they understand what they are into, both being women and all, more than men .  this is what i am trying to be persuaded over.  why would not she, since she can and would actually  want  women ? at least with straight women, a guy can give her most things any other man can, physically.  a bi girl wants women and as a man, i would be sol on pleasing that need with her.   #  sure, it rules out reptiles, birds, and insects, but that is basically the same kind of comparison to me.   # i have a really hard time believing this.  and it has nothing to do with what  i  would prefer, since we are talking about a different sex and sexuality, here.  though that is why  i myself  do not get it.  men and women are just way too different for me to understand that.  though this may offend some people i am not trying to, i am just being honest , it is like the same thing as being  mammalsexual  to me and dating any animal that happens to be warm blooded and give birth through a womb.  it is like, those are a  lot  of options, there ! sure, it rules out reptiles, birds, and insects, but that is basically the same kind of comparison to me.  there is billions of men and women in the world, but they want  both of them  ? why ? then again, why not just be  istraight  and stick with men ? why desire women so much if some of them would mostly want a man ? why even bother with men if some of them are mainly looking for women.  i do not get it.   #  it is not like they are people who put mind over matter or whatever and decided they could be attracted to both men and women.   # and it has nothing to do with what i would prefer, since we are talking about a different sex and sexuality, here.  though that is why i myself do not get it.  men and women are just way too different for me to understand that.  exactly, you do not understand bisexuals, so you just make the assumption that they would just jump ship on a relationship that does not provide what you imagine they need.  i am telling you that for the most part is not true.  you should try talking to some bisexual people, or at least reading about it some more.  why desire women so much if some of them would mostly want a man ? why even bother with men if some of them are mainly looking for women.  i do not get it.  bisexuality, like being gay, is not a choice.  it is not like they are people who put mind over matter or whatever and decided they could be attracted to both men and women.  asking why they do not just stay straight is like me asking you why you ca not just like both men and women so you would be able to have more  options  for a relationship.   #  not 0 me, 0 rhonda from next door.   # i am telling you that for the most part is not true.  you should try talking to some bisexual people, or at least reading about it some more.  most girls i know, mainly the ones from work i work at a nightclub and they are bartenders and waitresses there are bisexual.  though, they did not tell me for a long time.  i thought they were straight as they constantly make  guy jokes  they are dirty and stuff.  but then, one night, they started talking about going down on women and stuff.  all of them were confirmed to be  bi.   i shit you not: i know very few women around here that are straight.  even the married ones apparently are not 0 into men, as i assumed.  that is the main issue, i guess.  i want a woman who is 0  into me  ! not 0 me, 0 rhonda from next door.  this is just how i break it down: logically.  i am trying to understand some of the stuff you are saying though, but i just ca not comprehend being into dicks and clits equally.  i am  trying  to, but my brain is having a hard time wrapping my head around that.
i am a 0 straight male, as in, i am only into straight women; lesbians gross me out, though i do not care who is into who or who wants to marry each other; people should be free to do as they wish.  basically, i have a hard enough time as it is with straight women and a  bisexual  girl is triple the drama, with no added benefits.  i have never been into  bisexual  women and if i am attracted to one or she is attracted to me and i find out she is into women or has sex with them, it is pretty much a deal breaker from then on.  i then just feel betrayed afterwards, thinking i was a fool for going after a girl who wants a girl instead of me .  my biggest concerns if i dated a  bisexual  girl are:    a.   any girl who claims to be  bisexual  would want a woman  way  more than she would ever a guy.  she literally has double the options to potentially cheat or leave me for someone else, and cheating/being dumped is even a problem in straight couple relationships.   i am a guy and even i do not know why women would want us over other women and their soft, supple bodies just made for giving and receiving pleasure.      b.   constantly having to compete with women for her attention.   i ca not compete with boobs !      c.   a  bisexual  girl is very likely in my view not going to be monogamous, and i am not into three ways, lesbians, or an  open relationship.      d.   a  bisexual  girl is very likely to not  want  a relationship; just casual sex and  fooling around.    men on mondays, wednesdays, and fridays, and women on tuesdays, thursdays, and the weekend, i would assume.   and i am sexually inexperienced, so unlike the  isexually advanced,  i do not have this whole  rainbow of sexuality kinsey scale  level of experience behind me.  if i had orgies and stuff, and banged every type of human being alive and had notches in the triple digits by now at age 0 , maybe i would be more understanding of it all.  but i am pretty vanilla and virginal, at this point.  so i do not get the whole  kinsey sex scale  stuff beyond  straight  and  everything else lgbt, etc .   to be honest, i  barely  even accept  bisexual  as a real thing.  it was never spoken of in society until around 0 0 years ago; now every other woman claims to be  bi  and says how much she loves going down on women.  but since science backs it up, i have to back it up as being real, as well.  no matter how much i ca not comprehend simultaneously being into both men and women at the same time, equally.  i literally cannot even comprehend that; it is so far from what i would personally want, sexually speaking.  however, with all this said, i am also a big hopeless romantic.  my ideal girl, physical traits aside, would be kind, sweet, gentle, caring, loving, open minded, an easy listener and a best friend.  mainly, i want a girl just to be into  me  and no one else.  and the argument from the other side i have heard before are that  bisexuals  and pansexuals tend to be more loving, compassionate, kind, and open minded, as they judge less on the person is outer exterior and more on their inner personality.  and the  reason  i am so sexually inexperienced is me URL being a short, 0 0 , overweight, ugly, dark skinned man that literally no straight woman would ever call  sexy  or  good looking.   so if the whole theory that   bisexuals  and pansexuals are less shallow and more into who a person truly are,  then they would be a  more suitable choice  for me to go after, assuming this is true.  so, i think that covers it all.  i am open to changing my mind on it, if people are intelligent and open minded enough to convince me why i could potentially be wrong about my stance on  bisexuals.    #  it is so far from what i would personally want, sexually speaking.   #  you know, i ca not stand really spicy food.   #  girl here.  not sure if i would consider myself to be bi, but likely am.  i have a bisexual friend that is told me she prefers guys over girls.  many bi women are like that.  sexuality is a spectrum that does not fit into neat little boxes.  i am willing to bet that most people are not 0 straight.  if we trust the numbers on how many women are not straight, well, the number that are open about that are an order of magnitude lower than the amount of straight guys, so the math shows that bi women do not have  double the options.   most girls do not have dicks and a lot of those of us who do are not likely going to want to use them.  this just sounds like you have insecurity more than anything.  then do not date people that need polyamory in their relationships ? the assumptions of our society are that relationships are monogamous by default, so does it really matter what a girl is orientation is in terms of upholding that ? that is just bullshit.  i have a bisexual friend that is married.  being bisexual does not mean that you have to equally be into men and women.  it mainly means that you are open to dating either.  i am sure you have several different types of women that you would like to date.  bisexuals have different types of  people  they would like to date.  you know, i ca not stand really spicy food.  i do not understand why people want food that causes chemical reactions that make their mouth feel like it is burning, but they make stores selling hot sauces with the highest number of scoville units.  just because i ca not understand that taste does not make it any less legitimate.  yeah, well, me too.  if straight people can be potentially interested in different people before eventually finding  the one,  then why would not a bisexual person be like that ? to be honest, i think you have a more fundamental insecurity over someone cheating on you than anything else.  you are going to need to get over that if you want to be able to trust your future partners.   #  she has twice as many options to, and i could not give her anything a lesbian woman could as they understand what they are into, both being women and all, more than men .   # well, if she is attracted to women and is not just straight and attracted solely to men , why would not she ? she has twice as many options to, and i could not give her anything a lesbian woman could as they understand what they are into, both being women and all, more than men .  this is what i am trying to be persuaded over.  why would not she, since she can and would actually  want  women ? at least with straight women, a guy can give her most things any other man can, physically.  a bi girl wants women and as a man, i would be sol on pleasing that need with her.   #  though that is why  i myself  do not get it.   # i have a really hard time believing this.  and it has nothing to do with what  i  would prefer, since we are talking about a different sex and sexuality, here.  though that is why  i myself  do not get it.  men and women are just way too different for me to understand that.  though this may offend some people i am not trying to, i am just being honest , it is like the same thing as being  mammalsexual  to me and dating any animal that happens to be warm blooded and give birth through a womb.  it is like, those are a  lot  of options, there ! sure, it rules out reptiles, birds, and insects, but that is basically the same kind of comparison to me.  there is billions of men and women in the world, but they want  both of them  ? why ? then again, why not just be  istraight  and stick with men ? why desire women so much if some of them would mostly want a man ? why even bother with men if some of them are mainly looking for women.  i do not get it.   #  men and women are just way too different for me to understand that.   # and it has nothing to do with what i would prefer, since we are talking about a different sex and sexuality, here.  though that is why i myself do not get it.  men and women are just way too different for me to understand that.  exactly, you do not understand bisexuals, so you just make the assumption that they would just jump ship on a relationship that does not provide what you imagine they need.  i am telling you that for the most part is not true.  you should try talking to some bisexual people, or at least reading about it some more.  why desire women so much if some of them would mostly want a man ? why even bother with men if some of them are mainly looking for women.  i do not get it.  bisexuality, like being gay, is not a choice.  it is not like they are people who put mind over matter or whatever and decided they could be attracted to both men and women.  asking why they do not just stay straight is like me asking you why you ca not just like both men and women so you would be able to have more  options  for a relationship.   #  i shit you not: i know very few women around here that are straight.   # i am telling you that for the most part is not true.  you should try talking to some bisexual people, or at least reading about it some more.  most girls i know, mainly the ones from work i work at a nightclub and they are bartenders and waitresses there are bisexual.  though, they did not tell me for a long time.  i thought they were straight as they constantly make  guy jokes  they are dirty and stuff.  but then, one night, they started talking about going down on women and stuff.  all of them were confirmed to be  bi.   i shit you not: i know very few women around here that are straight.  even the married ones apparently are not 0 into men, as i assumed.  that is the main issue, i guess.  i want a woman who is 0  into me  ! not 0 me, 0 rhonda from next door.  this is just how i break it down: logically.  i am trying to understand some of the stuff you are saying though, but i just ca not comprehend being into dicks and clits equally.  i am  trying  to, but my brain is having a hard time wrapping my head around that.
i am a 0 straight male, as in, i am only into straight women; lesbians gross me out, though i do not care who is into who or who wants to marry each other; people should be free to do as they wish.  basically, i have a hard enough time as it is with straight women and a  bisexual  girl is triple the drama, with no added benefits.  i have never been into  bisexual  women and if i am attracted to one or she is attracted to me and i find out she is into women or has sex with them, it is pretty much a deal breaker from then on.  i then just feel betrayed afterwards, thinking i was a fool for going after a girl who wants a girl instead of me .  my biggest concerns if i dated a  bisexual  girl are:    a.   any girl who claims to be  bisexual  would want a woman  way  more than she would ever a guy.  she literally has double the options to potentially cheat or leave me for someone else, and cheating/being dumped is even a problem in straight couple relationships.   i am a guy and even i do not know why women would want us over other women and their soft, supple bodies just made for giving and receiving pleasure.      b.   constantly having to compete with women for her attention.   i ca not compete with boobs !      c.   a  bisexual  girl is very likely in my view not going to be monogamous, and i am not into three ways, lesbians, or an  open relationship.      d.   a  bisexual  girl is very likely to not  want  a relationship; just casual sex and  fooling around.    men on mondays, wednesdays, and fridays, and women on tuesdays, thursdays, and the weekend, i would assume.   and i am sexually inexperienced, so unlike the  isexually advanced,  i do not have this whole  rainbow of sexuality kinsey scale  level of experience behind me.  if i had orgies and stuff, and banged every type of human being alive and had notches in the triple digits by now at age 0 , maybe i would be more understanding of it all.  but i am pretty vanilla and virginal, at this point.  so i do not get the whole  kinsey sex scale  stuff beyond  straight  and  everything else lgbt, etc .   to be honest, i  barely  even accept  bisexual  as a real thing.  it was never spoken of in society until around 0 0 years ago; now every other woman claims to be  bi  and says how much she loves going down on women.  but since science backs it up, i have to back it up as being real, as well.  no matter how much i ca not comprehend simultaneously being into both men and women at the same time, equally.  i literally cannot even comprehend that; it is so far from what i would personally want, sexually speaking.  however, with all this said, i am also a big hopeless romantic.  my ideal girl, physical traits aside, would be kind, sweet, gentle, caring, loving, open minded, an easy listener and a best friend.  mainly, i want a girl just to be into  me  and no one else.  and the argument from the other side i have heard before are that  bisexuals  and pansexuals tend to be more loving, compassionate, kind, and open minded, as they judge less on the person is outer exterior and more on their inner personality.  and the  reason  i am so sexually inexperienced is me URL being a short, 0 0 , overweight, ugly, dark skinned man that literally no straight woman would ever call  sexy  or  good looking.   so if the whole theory that   bisexuals  and pansexuals are less shallow and more into who a person truly are,  then they would be a  more suitable choice  for me to go after, assuming this is true.  so, i think that covers it all.  i am open to changing my mind on it, if people are intelligent and open minded enough to convince me why i could potentially be wrong about my stance on  bisexuals.    #  constantly having to compete with women for her attention.   #  the same way you have to compete with men for her attention.   # why ? the same way you have to compete with men for her attention.  and women ca not compete with cock.  i am into dark haired women.  does that make me less likely to be monogamous ? i am into black women.  does that make me less likely to be monogamous ? why ? bruh, i think you are pretty good looking.  a bit on the big side, but not close to big enough for me to be uninterested.   #  she has twice as many options to, and i could not give her anything a lesbian woman could as they understand what they are into, both being women and all, more than men .   # well, if she is attracted to women and is not just straight and attracted solely to men , why would not she ? she has twice as many options to, and i could not give her anything a lesbian woman could as they understand what they are into, both being women and all, more than men .  this is what i am trying to be persuaded over.  why would not she, since she can and would actually  want  women ? at least with straight women, a guy can give her most things any other man can, physically.  a bi girl wants women and as a man, i would be sol on pleasing that need with her.   #  men and women are just way too different for me to understand that.   # i have a really hard time believing this.  and it has nothing to do with what  i  would prefer, since we are talking about a different sex and sexuality, here.  though that is why  i myself  do not get it.  men and women are just way too different for me to understand that.  though this may offend some people i am not trying to, i am just being honest , it is like the same thing as being  mammalsexual  to me and dating any animal that happens to be warm blooded and give birth through a womb.  it is like, those are a  lot  of options, there ! sure, it rules out reptiles, birds, and insects, but that is basically the same kind of comparison to me.  there is billions of men and women in the world, but they want  both of them  ? why ? then again, why not just be  istraight  and stick with men ? why desire women so much if some of them would mostly want a man ? why even bother with men if some of them are mainly looking for women.  i do not get it.   #  though that is why i myself do not get it.   # and it has nothing to do with what i would prefer, since we are talking about a different sex and sexuality, here.  though that is why i myself do not get it.  men and women are just way too different for me to understand that.  exactly, you do not understand bisexuals, so you just make the assumption that they would just jump ship on a relationship that does not provide what you imagine they need.  i am telling you that for the most part is not true.  you should try talking to some bisexual people, or at least reading about it some more.  why desire women so much if some of them would mostly want a man ? why even bother with men if some of them are mainly looking for women.  i do not get it.  bisexuality, like being gay, is not a choice.  it is not like they are people who put mind over matter or whatever and decided they could be attracted to both men and women.  asking why they do not just stay straight is like me asking you why you ca not just like both men and women so you would be able to have more  options  for a relationship.   #  you should try talking to some bisexual people, or at least reading about it some more.   # i am telling you that for the most part is not true.  you should try talking to some bisexual people, or at least reading about it some more.  most girls i know, mainly the ones from work i work at a nightclub and they are bartenders and waitresses there are bisexual.  though, they did not tell me for a long time.  i thought they were straight as they constantly make  guy jokes  they are dirty and stuff.  but then, one night, they started talking about going down on women and stuff.  all of them were confirmed to be  bi.   i shit you not: i know very few women around here that are straight.  even the married ones apparently are not 0 into men, as i assumed.  that is the main issue, i guess.  i want a woman who is 0  into me  ! not 0 me, 0 rhonda from next door.  this is just how i break it down: logically.  i am trying to understand some of the stuff you are saying though, but i just ca not comprehend being into dicks and clits equally.  i am  trying  to, but my brain is having a hard time wrapping my head around that.
i am a 0 straight male, as in, i am only into straight women; lesbians gross me out, though i do not care who is into who or who wants to marry each other; people should be free to do as they wish.  basically, i have a hard enough time as it is with straight women and a  bisexual  girl is triple the drama, with no added benefits.  i have never been into  bisexual  women and if i am attracted to one or she is attracted to me and i find out she is into women or has sex with them, it is pretty much a deal breaker from then on.  i then just feel betrayed afterwards, thinking i was a fool for going after a girl who wants a girl instead of me .  my biggest concerns if i dated a  bisexual  girl are:    a.   any girl who claims to be  bisexual  would want a woman  way  more than she would ever a guy.  she literally has double the options to potentially cheat or leave me for someone else, and cheating/being dumped is even a problem in straight couple relationships.   i am a guy and even i do not know why women would want us over other women and their soft, supple bodies just made for giving and receiving pleasure.      b.   constantly having to compete with women for her attention.   i ca not compete with boobs !      c.   a  bisexual  girl is very likely in my view not going to be monogamous, and i am not into three ways, lesbians, or an  open relationship.      d.   a  bisexual  girl is very likely to not  want  a relationship; just casual sex and  fooling around.    men on mondays, wednesdays, and fridays, and women on tuesdays, thursdays, and the weekend, i would assume.   and i am sexually inexperienced, so unlike the  isexually advanced,  i do not have this whole  rainbow of sexuality kinsey scale  level of experience behind me.  if i had orgies and stuff, and banged every type of human being alive and had notches in the triple digits by now at age 0 , maybe i would be more understanding of it all.  but i am pretty vanilla and virginal, at this point.  so i do not get the whole  kinsey sex scale  stuff beyond  straight  and  everything else lgbt, etc .   to be honest, i  barely  even accept  bisexual  as a real thing.  it was never spoken of in society until around 0 0 years ago; now every other woman claims to be  bi  and says how much she loves going down on women.  but since science backs it up, i have to back it up as being real, as well.  no matter how much i ca not comprehend simultaneously being into both men and women at the same time, equally.  i literally cannot even comprehend that; it is so far from what i would personally want, sexually speaking.  however, with all this said, i am also a big hopeless romantic.  my ideal girl, physical traits aside, would be kind, sweet, gentle, caring, loving, open minded, an easy listener and a best friend.  mainly, i want a girl just to be into  me  and no one else.  and the argument from the other side i have heard before are that  bisexuals  and pansexuals tend to be more loving, compassionate, kind, and open minded, as they judge less on the person is outer exterior and more on their inner personality.  and the  reason  i am so sexually inexperienced is me URL being a short, 0 0 , overweight, ugly, dark skinned man that literally no straight woman would ever call  sexy  or  good looking.   so if the whole theory that   bisexuals  and pansexuals are less shallow and more into who a person truly are,  then they would be a  more suitable choice  for me to go after, assuming this is true.  so, i think that covers it all.  i am open to changing my mind on it, if people are intelligent and open minded enough to convince me why i could potentially be wrong about my stance on  bisexuals.    #  i have never been into  bisexual  women and if i am attracted to one or she is attracted to me and i find out she is into women or has sex with them, it is pretty much a deal breaker from then on.   #  i then just feel betrayed afterwards, thinking i was a fool for going after a girl who wants a girl instead of me .   # i then just feel betrayed afterwards, thinking i was a fool for going after a girl who wants a girl instead of me .  that makes no sense.  if she is into you then she wanted you, and not a girl.  otherwise she would be with a girl.  any girl who claims to be  bisexual  would want a woman way more than she would ever a guy.  she literally has double the options to potentially cheat or leave me for someone else, and cheating/being dumped is even a problem in straight couple relationships.  so you are a mind reader now ? why even have this cmv if you are so great at knowing people is intentions, desires, wants and needs ? you already won the competition if you are dating her.    a  bisexual  girl is very likely in my view not going to be monogamous, and i am not into three ways, lesbians, or an  open relationship.   bullshit.  more bullshit.  where do you get these ideas from man ? it was never spoken of in society until around 0 0 years ago; now every other woman claims to be  bi  and says how much she loves going down on women.  but since science backs it up, i have to back it up as being real, as well.  no matter how much i ca not comprehend simultaneously being into both men and women at the same time, equally.  i literally cannot even comprehend that; it is so far from what i would personally want, sexually speaking.  so you do not understand it, but you are going to make a bunch of rash, unsupported judgement about the people who identify that way ? have you stopped and thought about that, at all ? why are bisexual people automatically non mongamous, not interested in serious relationships, more prone to cheat, and automatically more attracted to the same sex than the opposite sex ? you have seemingly arbitrarily decided that bisexual people well, women are all of those things; while simultaneously admitting that you do not know anything about it.  i am open to changing my mind on it, if people are intelligent and open minded enough to convince me why i could potentially be wrong about my stance on  bisexuals.   you are judging a group of people you know nothing about with made up scenarios that do not really exist.   #  she has twice as many options to, and i could not give her anything a lesbian woman could as they understand what they are into, both being women and all, more than men .   # well, if she is attracted to women and is not just straight and attracted solely to men , why would not she ? she has twice as many options to, and i could not give her anything a lesbian woman could as they understand what they are into, both being women and all, more than men .  this is what i am trying to be persuaded over.  why would not she, since she can and would actually  want  women ? at least with straight women, a guy can give her most things any other man can, physically.  a bi girl wants women and as a man, i would be sol on pleasing that need with her.   #  though this may offend some people i am not trying to, i am just being honest , it is like the same thing as being  mammalsexual  to me and dating any animal that happens to be warm blooded and give birth through a womb.   # i have a really hard time believing this.  and it has nothing to do with what  i  would prefer, since we are talking about a different sex and sexuality, here.  though that is why  i myself  do not get it.  men and women are just way too different for me to understand that.  though this may offend some people i am not trying to, i am just being honest , it is like the same thing as being  mammalsexual  to me and dating any animal that happens to be warm blooded and give birth through a womb.  it is like, those are a  lot  of options, there ! sure, it rules out reptiles, birds, and insects, but that is basically the same kind of comparison to me.  there is billions of men and women in the world, but they want  both of them  ? why ? then again, why not just be  istraight  and stick with men ? why desire women so much if some of them would mostly want a man ? why even bother with men if some of them are mainly looking for women.  i do not get it.   #  men and women are just way too different for me to understand that.   # and it has nothing to do with what i would prefer, since we are talking about a different sex and sexuality, here.  though that is why i myself do not get it.  men and women are just way too different for me to understand that.  exactly, you do not understand bisexuals, so you just make the assumption that they would just jump ship on a relationship that does not provide what you imagine they need.  i am telling you that for the most part is not true.  you should try talking to some bisexual people, or at least reading about it some more.  why desire women so much if some of them would mostly want a man ? why even bother with men if some of them are mainly looking for women.  i do not get it.  bisexuality, like being gay, is not a choice.  it is not like they are people who put mind over matter or whatever and decided they could be attracted to both men and women.  asking why they do not just stay straight is like me asking you why you ca not just like both men and women so you would be able to have more  options  for a relationship.   #  you should try talking to some bisexual people, or at least reading about it some more.   # i am telling you that for the most part is not true.  you should try talking to some bisexual people, or at least reading about it some more.  most girls i know, mainly the ones from work i work at a nightclub and they are bartenders and waitresses there are bisexual.  though, they did not tell me for a long time.  i thought they were straight as they constantly make  guy jokes  they are dirty and stuff.  but then, one night, they started talking about going down on women and stuff.  all of them were confirmed to be  bi.   i shit you not: i know very few women around here that are straight.  even the married ones apparently are not 0 into men, as i assumed.  that is the main issue, i guess.  i want a woman who is 0  into me  ! not 0 me, 0 rhonda from next door.  this is just how i break it down: logically.  i am trying to understand some of the stuff you are saying though, but i just ca not comprehend being into dicks and clits equally.  i am  trying  to, but my brain is having a hard time wrapping my head around that.
i am a 0 straight male, as in, i am only into straight women; lesbians gross me out, though i do not care who is into who or who wants to marry each other; people should be free to do as they wish.  basically, i have a hard enough time as it is with straight women and a  bisexual  girl is triple the drama, with no added benefits.  i have never been into  bisexual  women and if i am attracted to one or she is attracted to me and i find out she is into women or has sex with them, it is pretty much a deal breaker from then on.  i then just feel betrayed afterwards, thinking i was a fool for going after a girl who wants a girl instead of me .  my biggest concerns if i dated a  bisexual  girl are:    a.   any girl who claims to be  bisexual  would want a woman  way  more than she would ever a guy.  she literally has double the options to potentially cheat or leave me for someone else, and cheating/being dumped is even a problem in straight couple relationships.   i am a guy and even i do not know why women would want us over other women and their soft, supple bodies just made for giving and receiving pleasure.      b.   constantly having to compete with women for her attention.   i ca not compete with boobs !      c.   a  bisexual  girl is very likely in my view not going to be monogamous, and i am not into three ways, lesbians, or an  open relationship.      d.   a  bisexual  girl is very likely to not  want  a relationship; just casual sex and  fooling around.    men on mondays, wednesdays, and fridays, and women on tuesdays, thursdays, and the weekend, i would assume.   and i am sexually inexperienced, so unlike the  isexually advanced,  i do not have this whole  rainbow of sexuality kinsey scale  level of experience behind me.  if i had orgies and stuff, and banged every type of human being alive and had notches in the triple digits by now at age 0 , maybe i would be more understanding of it all.  but i am pretty vanilla and virginal, at this point.  so i do not get the whole  kinsey sex scale  stuff beyond  straight  and  everything else lgbt, etc .   to be honest, i  barely  even accept  bisexual  as a real thing.  it was never spoken of in society until around 0 0 years ago; now every other woman claims to be  bi  and says how much she loves going down on women.  but since science backs it up, i have to back it up as being real, as well.  no matter how much i ca not comprehend simultaneously being into both men and women at the same time, equally.  i literally cannot even comprehend that; it is so far from what i would personally want, sexually speaking.  however, with all this said, i am also a big hopeless romantic.  my ideal girl, physical traits aside, would be kind, sweet, gentle, caring, loving, open minded, an easy listener and a best friend.  mainly, i want a girl just to be into  me  and no one else.  and the argument from the other side i have heard before are that  bisexuals  and pansexuals tend to be more loving, compassionate, kind, and open minded, as they judge less on the person is outer exterior and more on their inner personality.  and the  reason  i am so sexually inexperienced is me URL being a short, 0 0 , overweight, ugly, dark skinned man that literally no straight woman would ever call  sexy  or  good looking.   so if the whole theory that   bisexuals  and pansexuals are less shallow and more into who a person truly are,  then they would be a  more suitable choice  for me to go after, assuming this is true.  so, i think that covers it all.  i am open to changing my mind on it, if people are intelligent and open minded enough to convince me why i could potentially be wrong about my stance on  bisexuals.    #  constantly having to compete with women for her attention.   #  you already won the competition if you are dating her.    a  bisexual  girl is very likely in my view not going to be monogamous, and i am not into three ways, lesbians, or an  open relationship.    # i then just feel betrayed afterwards, thinking i was a fool for going after a girl who wants a girl instead of me .  that makes no sense.  if she is into you then she wanted you, and not a girl.  otherwise she would be with a girl.  any girl who claims to be  bisexual  would want a woman way more than she would ever a guy.  she literally has double the options to potentially cheat or leave me for someone else, and cheating/being dumped is even a problem in straight couple relationships.  so you are a mind reader now ? why even have this cmv if you are so great at knowing people is intentions, desires, wants and needs ? you already won the competition if you are dating her.    a  bisexual  girl is very likely in my view not going to be monogamous, and i am not into three ways, lesbians, or an  open relationship.   bullshit.  more bullshit.  where do you get these ideas from man ? it was never spoken of in society until around 0 0 years ago; now every other woman claims to be  bi  and says how much she loves going down on women.  but since science backs it up, i have to back it up as being real, as well.  no matter how much i ca not comprehend simultaneously being into both men and women at the same time, equally.  i literally cannot even comprehend that; it is so far from what i would personally want, sexually speaking.  so you do not understand it, but you are going to make a bunch of rash, unsupported judgement about the people who identify that way ? have you stopped and thought about that, at all ? why are bisexual people automatically non mongamous, not interested in serious relationships, more prone to cheat, and automatically more attracted to the same sex than the opposite sex ? you have seemingly arbitrarily decided that bisexual people well, women are all of those things; while simultaneously admitting that you do not know anything about it.  i am open to changing my mind on it, if people are intelligent and open minded enough to convince me why i could potentially be wrong about my stance on  bisexuals.   you are judging a group of people you know nothing about with made up scenarios that do not really exist.   #  at least with straight women, a guy can give her most things any other man can, physically.   # well, if she is attracted to women and is not just straight and attracted solely to men , why would not she ? she has twice as many options to, and i could not give her anything a lesbian woman could as they understand what they are into, both being women and all, more than men .  this is what i am trying to be persuaded over.  why would not she, since she can and would actually  want  women ? at least with straight women, a guy can give her most things any other man can, physically.  a bi girl wants women and as a man, i would be sol on pleasing that need with her.   #  sure, it rules out reptiles, birds, and insects, but that is basically the same kind of comparison to me.   # i have a really hard time believing this.  and it has nothing to do with what  i  would prefer, since we are talking about a different sex and sexuality, here.  though that is why  i myself  do not get it.  men and women are just way too different for me to understand that.  though this may offend some people i am not trying to, i am just being honest , it is like the same thing as being  mammalsexual  to me and dating any animal that happens to be warm blooded and give birth through a womb.  it is like, those are a  lot  of options, there ! sure, it rules out reptiles, birds, and insects, but that is basically the same kind of comparison to me.  there is billions of men and women in the world, but they want  both of them  ? why ? then again, why not just be  istraight  and stick with men ? why desire women so much if some of them would mostly want a man ? why even bother with men if some of them are mainly looking for women.  i do not get it.   #  why even bother with men if some of them are mainly looking for women.   # and it has nothing to do with what i would prefer, since we are talking about a different sex and sexuality, here.  though that is why i myself do not get it.  men and women are just way too different for me to understand that.  exactly, you do not understand bisexuals, so you just make the assumption that they would just jump ship on a relationship that does not provide what you imagine they need.  i am telling you that for the most part is not true.  you should try talking to some bisexual people, or at least reading about it some more.  why desire women so much if some of them would mostly want a man ? why even bother with men if some of them are mainly looking for women.  i do not get it.  bisexuality, like being gay, is not a choice.  it is not like they are people who put mind over matter or whatever and decided they could be attracted to both men and women.  asking why they do not just stay straight is like me asking you why you ca not just like both men and women so you would be able to have more  options  for a relationship.   #  but then, one night, they started talking about going down on women and stuff.   # i am telling you that for the most part is not true.  you should try talking to some bisexual people, or at least reading about it some more.  most girls i know, mainly the ones from work i work at a nightclub and they are bartenders and waitresses there are bisexual.  though, they did not tell me for a long time.  i thought they were straight as they constantly make  guy jokes  they are dirty and stuff.  but then, one night, they started talking about going down on women and stuff.  all of them were confirmed to be  bi.   i shit you not: i know very few women around here that are straight.  even the married ones apparently are not 0 into men, as i assumed.  that is the main issue, i guess.  i want a woman who is 0  into me  ! not 0 me, 0 rhonda from next door.  this is just how i break it down: logically.  i am trying to understand some of the stuff you are saying though, but i just ca not comprehend being into dicks and clits equally.  i am  trying  to, but my brain is having a hard time wrapping my head around that.
i am a 0 straight male, as in, i am only into straight women; lesbians gross me out, though i do not care who is into who or who wants to marry each other; people should be free to do as they wish.  basically, i have a hard enough time as it is with straight women and a  bisexual  girl is triple the drama, with no added benefits.  i have never been into  bisexual  women and if i am attracted to one or she is attracted to me and i find out she is into women or has sex with them, it is pretty much a deal breaker from then on.  i then just feel betrayed afterwards, thinking i was a fool for going after a girl who wants a girl instead of me .  my biggest concerns if i dated a  bisexual  girl are:    a.   any girl who claims to be  bisexual  would want a woman  way  more than she would ever a guy.  she literally has double the options to potentially cheat or leave me for someone else, and cheating/being dumped is even a problem in straight couple relationships.   i am a guy and even i do not know why women would want us over other women and their soft, supple bodies just made for giving and receiving pleasure.      b.   constantly having to compete with women for her attention.   i ca not compete with boobs !      c.   a  bisexual  girl is very likely in my view not going to be monogamous, and i am not into three ways, lesbians, or an  open relationship.      d.   a  bisexual  girl is very likely to not  want  a relationship; just casual sex and  fooling around.    men on mondays, wednesdays, and fridays, and women on tuesdays, thursdays, and the weekend, i would assume.   and i am sexually inexperienced, so unlike the  isexually advanced,  i do not have this whole  rainbow of sexuality kinsey scale  level of experience behind me.  if i had orgies and stuff, and banged every type of human being alive and had notches in the triple digits by now at age 0 , maybe i would be more understanding of it all.  but i am pretty vanilla and virginal, at this point.  so i do not get the whole  kinsey sex scale  stuff beyond  straight  and  everything else lgbt, etc .   to be honest, i  barely  even accept  bisexual  as a real thing.  it was never spoken of in society until around 0 0 years ago; now every other woman claims to be  bi  and says how much she loves going down on women.  but since science backs it up, i have to back it up as being real, as well.  no matter how much i ca not comprehend simultaneously being into both men and women at the same time, equally.  i literally cannot even comprehend that; it is so far from what i would personally want, sexually speaking.  however, with all this said, i am also a big hopeless romantic.  my ideal girl, physical traits aside, would be kind, sweet, gentle, caring, loving, open minded, an easy listener and a best friend.  mainly, i want a girl just to be into  me  and no one else.  and the argument from the other side i have heard before are that  bisexuals  and pansexuals tend to be more loving, compassionate, kind, and open minded, as they judge less on the person is outer exterior and more on their inner personality.  and the  reason  i am so sexually inexperienced is me URL being a short, 0 0 , overweight, ugly, dark skinned man that literally no straight woman would ever call  sexy  or  good looking.   so if the whole theory that   bisexuals  and pansexuals are less shallow and more into who a person truly are,  then they would be a  more suitable choice  for me to go after, assuming this is true.  so, i think that covers it all.  i am open to changing my mind on it, if people are intelligent and open minded enough to convince me why i could potentially be wrong about my stance on  bisexuals.    #  so, i think that covers it all.   #  i am open to changing my mind on it, if people are intelligent and open minded enough to convince me why i could potentially be wrong about my stance on  bisexuals.    # i then just feel betrayed afterwards, thinking i was a fool for going after a girl who wants a girl instead of me .  that makes no sense.  if she is into you then she wanted you, and not a girl.  otherwise she would be with a girl.  any girl who claims to be  bisexual  would want a woman way more than she would ever a guy.  she literally has double the options to potentially cheat or leave me for someone else, and cheating/being dumped is even a problem in straight couple relationships.  so you are a mind reader now ? why even have this cmv if you are so great at knowing people is intentions, desires, wants and needs ? you already won the competition if you are dating her.    a  bisexual  girl is very likely in my view not going to be monogamous, and i am not into three ways, lesbians, or an  open relationship.   bullshit.  more bullshit.  where do you get these ideas from man ? it was never spoken of in society until around 0 0 years ago; now every other woman claims to be  bi  and says how much she loves going down on women.  but since science backs it up, i have to back it up as being real, as well.  no matter how much i ca not comprehend simultaneously being into both men and women at the same time, equally.  i literally cannot even comprehend that; it is so far from what i would personally want, sexually speaking.  so you do not understand it, but you are going to make a bunch of rash, unsupported judgement about the people who identify that way ? have you stopped and thought about that, at all ? why are bisexual people automatically non mongamous, not interested in serious relationships, more prone to cheat, and automatically more attracted to the same sex than the opposite sex ? you have seemingly arbitrarily decided that bisexual people well, women are all of those things; while simultaneously admitting that you do not know anything about it.  i am open to changing my mind on it, if people are intelligent and open minded enough to convince me why i could potentially be wrong about my stance on  bisexuals.   you are judging a group of people you know nothing about with made up scenarios that do not really exist.   #  this is what i am trying to be persuaded over.   # well, if she is attracted to women and is not just straight and attracted solely to men , why would not she ? she has twice as many options to, and i could not give her anything a lesbian woman could as they understand what they are into, both being women and all, more than men .  this is what i am trying to be persuaded over.  why would not she, since she can and would actually  want  women ? at least with straight women, a guy can give her most things any other man can, physically.  a bi girl wants women and as a man, i would be sol on pleasing that need with her.   #  though that is why  i myself  do not get it.   # i have a really hard time believing this.  and it has nothing to do with what  i  would prefer, since we are talking about a different sex and sexuality, here.  though that is why  i myself  do not get it.  men and women are just way too different for me to understand that.  though this may offend some people i am not trying to, i am just being honest , it is like the same thing as being  mammalsexual  to me and dating any animal that happens to be warm blooded and give birth through a womb.  it is like, those are a  lot  of options, there ! sure, it rules out reptiles, birds, and insects, but that is basically the same kind of comparison to me.  there is billions of men and women in the world, but they want  both of them  ? why ? then again, why not just be  istraight  and stick with men ? why desire women so much if some of them would mostly want a man ? why even bother with men if some of them are mainly looking for women.  i do not get it.   #  why even bother with men if some of them are mainly looking for women.   # and it has nothing to do with what i would prefer, since we are talking about a different sex and sexuality, here.  though that is why i myself do not get it.  men and women are just way too different for me to understand that.  exactly, you do not understand bisexuals, so you just make the assumption that they would just jump ship on a relationship that does not provide what you imagine they need.  i am telling you that for the most part is not true.  you should try talking to some bisexual people, or at least reading about it some more.  why desire women so much if some of them would mostly want a man ? why even bother with men if some of them are mainly looking for women.  i do not get it.  bisexuality, like being gay, is not a choice.  it is not like they are people who put mind over matter or whatever and decided they could be attracted to both men and women.  asking why they do not just stay straight is like me asking you why you ca not just like both men and women so you would be able to have more  options  for a relationship.   #  but then, one night, they started talking about going down on women and stuff.   # i am telling you that for the most part is not true.  you should try talking to some bisexual people, or at least reading about it some more.  most girls i know, mainly the ones from work i work at a nightclub and they are bartenders and waitresses there are bisexual.  though, they did not tell me for a long time.  i thought they were straight as they constantly make  guy jokes  they are dirty and stuff.  but then, one night, they started talking about going down on women and stuff.  all of them were confirmed to be  bi.   i shit you not: i know very few women around here that are straight.  even the married ones apparently are not 0 into men, as i assumed.  that is the main issue, i guess.  i want a woman who is 0  into me  ! not 0 me, 0 rhonda from next door.  this is just how i break it down: logically.  i am trying to understand some of the stuff you are saying though, but i just ca not comprehend being into dicks and clits equally.  i am  trying  to, but my brain is having a hard time wrapping my head around that.
i am a 0 straight male, as in, i am only into straight women; lesbians gross me out, though i do not care who is into who or who wants to marry each other; people should be free to do as they wish.  basically, i have a hard enough time as it is with straight women and a  bisexual  girl is triple the drama, with no added benefits.  i have never been into  bisexual  women and if i am attracted to one or she is attracted to me and i find out she is into women or has sex with them, it is pretty much a deal breaker from then on.  i then just feel betrayed afterwards, thinking i was a fool for going after a girl who wants a girl instead of me .  my biggest concerns if i dated a  bisexual  girl are:    a.   any girl who claims to be  bisexual  would want a woman  way  more than she would ever a guy.  she literally has double the options to potentially cheat or leave me for someone else, and cheating/being dumped is even a problem in straight couple relationships.   i am a guy and even i do not know why women would want us over other women and their soft, supple bodies just made for giving and receiving pleasure.      b.   constantly having to compete with women for her attention.   i ca not compete with boobs !      c.   a  bisexual  girl is very likely in my view not going to be monogamous, and i am not into three ways, lesbians, or an  open relationship.      d.   a  bisexual  girl is very likely to not  want  a relationship; just casual sex and  fooling around.    men on mondays, wednesdays, and fridays, and women on tuesdays, thursdays, and the weekend, i would assume.   and i am sexually inexperienced, so unlike the  isexually advanced,  i do not have this whole  rainbow of sexuality kinsey scale  level of experience behind me.  if i had orgies and stuff, and banged every type of human being alive and had notches in the triple digits by now at age 0 , maybe i would be more understanding of it all.  but i am pretty vanilla and virginal, at this point.  so i do not get the whole  kinsey sex scale  stuff beyond  straight  and  everything else lgbt, etc .   to be honest, i  barely  even accept  bisexual  as a real thing.  it was never spoken of in society until around 0 0 years ago; now every other woman claims to be  bi  and says how much she loves going down on women.  but since science backs it up, i have to back it up as being real, as well.  no matter how much i ca not comprehend simultaneously being into both men and women at the same time, equally.  i literally cannot even comprehend that; it is so far from what i would personally want, sexually speaking.  however, with all this said, i am also a big hopeless romantic.  my ideal girl, physical traits aside, would be kind, sweet, gentle, caring, loving, open minded, an easy listener and a best friend.  mainly, i want a girl just to be into  me  and no one else.  and the argument from the other side i have heard before are that  bisexuals  and pansexuals tend to be more loving, compassionate, kind, and open minded, as they judge less on the person is outer exterior and more on their inner personality.  and the  reason  i am so sexually inexperienced is me URL being a short, 0 0 , overweight, ugly, dark skinned man that literally no straight woman would ever call  sexy  or  good looking.   so if the whole theory that   bisexuals  and pansexuals are less shallow and more into who a person truly are,  then they would be a  more suitable choice  for me to go after, assuming this is true.  so, i think that covers it all.  i am open to changing my mind on it, if people are intelligent and open minded enough to convince me why i could potentially be wrong about my stance on  bisexuals.    #  men on mondays, wednesdays, and fridays, and women on tuesdays, thursdays, and the weekend, i would assume.   #  a different hair color for every day of the week !  #  so for all the reasons you outlined above, why do you expect a woman to be ok with dating you ? any non redhead would know that you like redheads more.  even redheads would still know that you are attracted to girls with other hair colors.  they would constantly have to compete for your attention with all other women.  why does not that make you less likely to be monogamous ? a different hair color for every day of the week ! that makes as much sense.   #  this is what i am trying to be persuaded over.   # well, if she is attracted to women and is not just straight and attracted solely to men , why would not she ? she has twice as many options to, and i could not give her anything a lesbian woman could as they understand what they are into, both being women and all, more than men .  this is what i am trying to be persuaded over.  why would not she, since she can and would actually  want  women ? at least with straight women, a guy can give her most things any other man can, physically.  a bi girl wants women and as a man, i would be sol on pleasing that need with her.   #  there is billions of men and women in the world, but they want  both of them  ?  # i have a really hard time believing this.  and it has nothing to do with what  i  would prefer, since we are talking about a different sex and sexuality, here.  though that is why  i myself  do not get it.  men and women are just way too different for me to understand that.  though this may offend some people i am not trying to, i am just being honest , it is like the same thing as being  mammalsexual  to me and dating any animal that happens to be warm blooded and give birth through a womb.  it is like, those are a  lot  of options, there ! sure, it rules out reptiles, birds, and insects, but that is basically the same kind of comparison to me.  there is billions of men and women in the world, but they want  both of them  ? why ? then again, why not just be  istraight  and stick with men ? why desire women so much if some of them would mostly want a man ? why even bother with men if some of them are mainly looking for women.  i do not get it.   #  it is not like they are people who put mind over matter or whatever and decided they could be attracted to both men and women.   # and it has nothing to do with what i would prefer, since we are talking about a different sex and sexuality, here.  though that is why i myself do not get it.  men and women are just way too different for me to understand that.  exactly, you do not understand bisexuals, so you just make the assumption that they would just jump ship on a relationship that does not provide what you imagine they need.  i am telling you that for the most part is not true.  you should try talking to some bisexual people, or at least reading about it some more.  why desire women so much if some of them would mostly want a man ? why even bother with men if some of them are mainly looking for women.  i do not get it.  bisexuality, like being gay, is not a choice.  it is not like they are people who put mind over matter or whatever and decided they could be attracted to both men and women.  asking why they do not just stay straight is like me asking you why you ca not just like both men and women so you would be able to have more  options  for a relationship.   #  you should try talking to some bisexual people, or at least reading about it some more.   # i am telling you that for the most part is not true.  you should try talking to some bisexual people, or at least reading about it some more.  most girls i know, mainly the ones from work i work at a nightclub and they are bartenders and waitresses there are bisexual.  though, they did not tell me for a long time.  i thought they were straight as they constantly make  guy jokes  they are dirty and stuff.  but then, one night, they started talking about going down on women and stuff.  all of them were confirmed to be  bi.   i shit you not: i know very few women around here that are straight.  even the married ones apparently are not 0 into men, as i assumed.  that is the main issue, i guess.  i want a woman who is 0  into me  ! not 0 me, 0 rhonda from next door.  this is just how i break it down: logically.  i am trying to understand some of the stuff you are saying though, but i just ca not comprehend being into dicks and clits equally.  i am  trying  to, but my brain is having a hard time wrapping my head around that.
i have been doing some reading about jfk lately, and have come across something that seemed significantly more convincing than the usual oliver stone stuff you tend to hear about.  this is based on records which had been sealed following the assassination, but which were declassfied in the 0s following the release of the 0 jfk records act.  the crux of this involves a trip lee harvey oswald took to mexico city in september, 0 several weeks before the assassination .  there are a number of very weird things about this trip, and the cia is involvement in it.  frontline did a fairly in depth article on this, which does a better job of explaining it than i can: URL but here are the high points:   when oswald went to mexico, the local cia office asked headquarters for information on him.  headquarters denied having any information on oswald; other released documents show this was a lie, and specifically that the cia staff who wrote the memo denying knowledge of oswald had also been regularly checking out and reading fbi files on his activities, particurly for the two weeks before denying they had any information on him.    while he was in mexico, someone claiming to be lee harvey oswald contacted a kgb assassin named valery kostikov at the soviet embassy.  we say  claiming to be  because the cia produced audio tapes of the conversation and photos of the man claiming to be oswald which were determined after the assassination not to be oswald.  when the fbi asked for more information, the cia office in mexico city falsely claimed that all copies of the tapes had been destroyed.  j.  edgar hoover was furious and to quote the frontine article:  when fbi director hoover learned of this lie, he was not amused.  eighteen days after the assassination, he censured, demoted or transferred everyone in the fbi that had been touched by the mexico city story.  hoover was still fuming about it in january 0, when his subordinates sent him a memo on illegal cia operations in the us which stated that the cia had promised to keep the bureau informed.  hoover pulled out his pen and, in his characteristic large, thick handwriting scrawled,  ok, but i hope you are not being taken in.  i ca not forget cia withholding the french espionage activities in usa nor the false story re oswald is trip in mexico city only to mention two of their instances of double dealing.     why i find this convincing  what is striking about this is that, bare minimum, we have confirmed documentary evidence that the cia were monitoring oswald, and were lying to both their own staff and the fbi about oswald is activities weeks  before  the assassination.  and their reaction when the impersonation was revealed seems to indicate some complicity in it certainly hoover thought the cia cooked the whole thing up.  there are further theories the most common one and one i find persuasive is that they knew the assassination was coming, and wanted to create a false connection between the assassin and the soviets, to justify action against the soviet union.  but even if you do not believe that particular interpretation, it is difficult to come up with a benign rationale for the cia is actions.  that said, i am very interested to read any counters or refutations anyone can provide !  #  certainly hoover thought the cia cooked the whole thing up.   #  you do not present any evidence of that fact.   # they absolutely should have been monitoring him.  you do not present any evidence of that fact.  kennedy ran on a missile gap that he knew did not exist, worshipped toughness, and the first thing he did on getting into office was to invade cuba.  kennedy was a hawk is hawk.  oswald defected to the ussr and came back.  do you not think it behooves the cia to monitor such people ?  #  if so we can basically assume they were ignored entirely because of it.   #  are you familiar with interdepartmental politics ? unless there is serious motivation to work together, like your mutual bosses lighting a fire under your ass, you should basically assume little to no cooperation.  thus it is not surprising at all that the cia and fbi, two organizations that are infamous for their petty turf wars, did little to coordinate when tracking oswald.  it is still not surprising that the mc branch of the cia had trouble getting information out of headquaters.  in the private sector, the norm is not for corporate to be really accommodating to local managers, especially if they do not perceive the need for it.  and that is actually just what i would argue is going on here.  cia headquarters  did not  think oswald was a serious threat, if they did the message to give oswald extra scrutiny would have traveled downstream, not up.  i would seriously question whether the person mexico city cia contacted at hq  even knew who oswald was  before denying that they had any files to give.  what administrator would have known every suspect in the us off hand ? did mc call close to lunch time in dc ? if so we can basically assume they were ignored entirely because of it.  i am seriously not exaggerating the level of apathy that could have been present.  i do not know what every department of the cia is work ethic was in the 0 is, but the safe bet is to assume it was poor.  as a rule of thumb, incompetence makes more sense than malevolence.   #  and it is not that they just never answered the request they actually wrote memos back saying that they had no information to share, after specifically reading a bunch of files on him.   # but that is just it part of what these documents show is that the specific people at hq who sent back that they had no information, had been checking out files on oswald repeatedly over the prior several weeks.  and it is not that they just never answered the request they actually wrote memos back saying that they had no information to share, after specifically reading a bunch of files on him.  which is pretty weird, right ? likewise, the cia and fbi have always had problems working well together and if the cia had just witheld information about oswald from the fbi, sure, i would buy that as just the usual pissing match.  but that is not what they did what they did was send a story, and evidence, of a fake lee harvey oswald meeting with the kgb.  then when they got called out on it, they claimed everything was destroyed on accident, sorry.   #  kennedy ran on a missile gap that he knew did not exist, worshipped toughness, and the first thing he did on getting into office was to invade cuba.   # they absolutely should have been monitoring him.  oh, absolutely.  the fact that they were monitoring him is not weird.  the fact that the people monitoring him did not send any of that info to the local office when they requested it is weird.  eighteen days after the assassination, he censured, demoted or transferred everyone in the fbi that had been touched by the mexico city story.  hoover was still fuming about it in january 0, when his subordinates sent him a memo on illegal cia operations in the us which stated that the cia had promised to keep the bureau informed.  hoover pulled out his pen and, in his characteristic large, thick handwriting scrawled,  ok, but i hope you are not being taken in.  i ca not forget cia withholding the french espionage activities in usa nor the false story re oswald is trip in mexico city only to mention two of their instances of double dealing.  kennedy ran on a missile gap that he knew did not exist, worshipped toughness, and the first thing he did on getting into office was to invade cuba.  kennedy was a hawk is hawk.  this goes beyond the scope of this article, but there is a pretty good book elaborating on this subject called jfk and the unspeakable, by james w.  douglass, which is a much more detailed exploration of a lot of the same document releases that informed this article.  one of the things that they get into is that there was massive strife between the white house and both the cia and the military, partly over how the bay of pigs played out, and partly over the fact that kennedy did not want to escalate the war in vietnam.  by 0, was seen by his own generals as dangerously weak and a threat to america and there are meeting transcripts to this effect .   #  the guy was a hawk, surrounded by hawks, who worshipped toughness and would have faced exactly the same political pressures johnson faced.   # the fact that they were monitoring him is not weird.  the fact that the people monitoring him did not send any of that info to the local office when they requested it is weird.  it is the 0s.  if they wanted to send that information, they needed to get some to physically make copies on a mimeograph then physically transport them across national boundaries and deliver them to mexico.  they did not do this on just because the cia asked them to is not suprising in the slightest.  this is pure, unadulterated myth.  kennedy came into office planning a big increase in non nuclear military spending and fought a long battle with the military to get them to give more attention to unconventional warfare and to get more funding for special forces units like the green berets precisely to get involved in situations like vietnam.  the guy was a hawk, surrounded by hawks, who worshipped toughness and would have faced exactly the same political pressures johnson faced.  to not go into vietnam would have been repudiating his entire political career to that point, a few random musings about the wisdom of what he was going to do do not trump his personality, history, character, and that of those around him.
i have been doing some reading about jfk lately, and have come across something that seemed significantly more convincing than the usual oliver stone stuff you tend to hear about.  this is based on records which had been sealed following the assassination, but which were declassfied in the 0s following the release of the 0 jfk records act.  the crux of this involves a trip lee harvey oswald took to mexico city in september, 0 several weeks before the assassination .  there are a number of very weird things about this trip, and the cia is involvement in it.  frontline did a fairly in depth article on this, which does a better job of explaining it than i can: URL but here are the high points:   when oswald went to mexico, the local cia office asked headquarters for information on him.  headquarters denied having any information on oswald; other released documents show this was a lie, and specifically that the cia staff who wrote the memo denying knowledge of oswald had also been regularly checking out and reading fbi files on his activities, particurly for the two weeks before denying they had any information on him.    while he was in mexico, someone claiming to be lee harvey oswald contacted a kgb assassin named valery kostikov at the soviet embassy.  we say  claiming to be  because the cia produced audio tapes of the conversation and photos of the man claiming to be oswald which were determined after the assassination not to be oswald.  when the fbi asked for more information, the cia office in mexico city falsely claimed that all copies of the tapes had been destroyed.  j.  edgar hoover was furious and to quote the frontine article:  when fbi director hoover learned of this lie, he was not amused.  eighteen days after the assassination, he censured, demoted or transferred everyone in the fbi that had been touched by the mexico city story.  hoover was still fuming about it in january 0, when his subordinates sent him a memo on illegal cia operations in the us which stated that the cia had promised to keep the bureau informed.  hoover pulled out his pen and, in his characteristic large, thick handwriting scrawled,  ok, but i hope you are not being taken in.  i ca not forget cia withholding the french espionage activities in usa nor the false story re oswald is trip in mexico city only to mention two of their instances of double dealing.     why i find this convincing  what is striking about this is that, bare minimum, we have confirmed documentary evidence that the cia were monitoring oswald, and were lying to both their own staff and the fbi about oswald is activities weeks  before  the assassination.  and their reaction when the impersonation was revealed seems to indicate some complicity in it certainly hoover thought the cia cooked the whole thing up.  there are further theories the most common one and one i find persuasive is that they knew the assassination was coming, and wanted to create a false connection between the assassin and the soviets, to justify action against the soviet union.  but even if you do not believe that particular interpretation, it is difficult to come up with a benign rationale for the cia is actions.  that said, i am very interested to read any counters or refutations anyone can provide !  #  it is difficult to come up with a benign rationale for the cia is actions.   #  oswald defected to the ussr and came back.   # they absolutely should have been monitoring him.  you do not present any evidence of that fact.  kennedy ran on a missile gap that he knew did not exist, worshipped toughness, and the first thing he did on getting into office was to invade cuba.  kennedy was a hawk is hawk.  oswald defected to the ussr and came back.  do you not think it behooves the cia to monitor such people ?  #  what administrator would have known every suspect in the us off hand ?  #  are you familiar with interdepartmental politics ? unless there is serious motivation to work together, like your mutual bosses lighting a fire under your ass, you should basically assume little to no cooperation.  thus it is not surprising at all that the cia and fbi, two organizations that are infamous for their petty turf wars, did little to coordinate when tracking oswald.  it is still not surprising that the mc branch of the cia had trouble getting information out of headquaters.  in the private sector, the norm is not for corporate to be really accommodating to local managers, especially if they do not perceive the need for it.  and that is actually just what i would argue is going on here.  cia headquarters  did not  think oswald was a serious threat, if they did the message to give oswald extra scrutiny would have traveled downstream, not up.  i would seriously question whether the person mexico city cia contacted at hq  even knew who oswald was  before denying that they had any files to give.  what administrator would have known every suspect in the us off hand ? did mc call close to lunch time in dc ? if so we can basically assume they were ignored entirely because of it.  i am seriously not exaggerating the level of apathy that could have been present.  i do not know what every department of the cia is work ethic was in the 0 is, but the safe bet is to assume it was poor.  as a rule of thumb, incompetence makes more sense than malevolence.   #  and it is not that they just never answered the request they actually wrote memos back saying that they had no information to share, after specifically reading a bunch of files on him.   # but that is just it part of what these documents show is that the specific people at hq who sent back that they had no information, had been checking out files on oswald repeatedly over the prior several weeks.  and it is not that they just never answered the request they actually wrote memos back saying that they had no information to share, after specifically reading a bunch of files on him.  which is pretty weird, right ? likewise, the cia and fbi have always had problems working well together and if the cia had just witheld information about oswald from the fbi, sure, i would buy that as just the usual pissing match.  but that is not what they did what they did was send a story, and evidence, of a fake lee harvey oswald meeting with the kgb.  then when they got called out on it, they claimed everything was destroyed on accident, sorry.   #  kennedy ran on a missile gap that he knew did not exist, worshipped toughness, and the first thing he did on getting into office was to invade cuba.   # they absolutely should have been monitoring him.  oh, absolutely.  the fact that they were monitoring him is not weird.  the fact that the people monitoring him did not send any of that info to the local office when they requested it is weird.  eighteen days after the assassination, he censured, demoted or transferred everyone in the fbi that had been touched by the mexico city story.  hoover was still fuming about it in january 0, when his subordinates sent him a memo on illegal cia operations in the us which stated that the cia had promised to keep the bureau informed.  hoover pulled out his pen and, in his characteristic large, thick handwriting scrawled,  ok, but i hope you are not being taken in.  i ca not forget cia withholding the french espionage activities in usa nor the false story re oswald is trip in mexico city only to mention two of their instances of double dealing.  kennedy ran on a missile gap that he knew did not exist, worshipped toughness, and the first thing he did on getting into office was to invade cuba.  kennedy was a hawk is hawk.  this goes beyond the scope of this article, but there is a pretty good book elaborating on this subject called jfk and the unspeakable, by james w.  douglass, which is a much more detailed exploration of a lot of the same document releases that informed this article.  one of the things that they get into is that there was massive strife between the white house and both the cia and the military, partly over how the bay of pigs played out, and partly over the fact that kennedy did not want to escalate the war in vietnam.  by 0, was seen by his own generals as dangerously weak and a threat to america and there are meeting transcripts to this effect .   #  the guy was a hawk, surrounded by hawks, who worshipped toughness and would have faced exactly the same political pressures johnson faced.   # the fact that they were monitoring him is not weird.  the fact that the people monitoring him did not send any of that info to the local office when they requested it is weird.  it is the 0s.  if they wanted to send that information, they needed to get some to physically make copies on a mimeograph then physically transport them across national boundaries and deliver them to mexico.  they did not do this on just because the cia asked them to is not suprising in the slightest.  this is pure, unadulterated myth.  kennedy came into office planning a big increase in non nuclear military spending and fought a long battle with the military to get them to give more attention to unconventional warfare and to get more funding for special forces units like the green berets precisely to get involved in situations like vietnam.  the guy was a hawk, surrounded by hawks, who worshipped toughness and would have faced exactly the same political pressures johnson faced.  to not go into vietnam would have been repudiating his entire political career to that point, a few random musings about the wisdom of what he was going to do do not trump his personality, history, character, and that of those around him.
i see a lot of posting on social media about how the ashley madison users are  getting whats coming to them  and the like, but it seems like people are glossing over a few key issues:   there are couples who probably use this service to get with other couples to satisfy their kink.  and likewise, there are probably many single people who use it to fulfill their own desires of satisfying that couple is kink.    people is sexuality is now out in the open against their will, potentially leading to violence.  another user brought up the issue here: URL see, i am normally all good for hacking that exposes corruption or government abuse at high levels of money/power, but this is not that.  can someone give me a reason why hack does not do more harm than good ?  #  there are couples who probably use this service to get with other couples to satisfy their kink.   #  and likewise, there are probably many single people who use it to fulfill their own desires of satisfying that couple is kink there is plenty of websites that allow or cater to open relationships.   # and likewise, there are probably many single people who use it to fulfill their own desires of satisfying that couple is kink there is plenty of websites that allow or cater to open relationships.  ashley madison is specifically for married spouses who want to cheat with another married spouse.  that is how they advertise it it is specifically for cheating.  another user brought up the issue here: URL when you not only sign up to a website designed specifically for cheating again: not just a regular dating site that allows for open relationships, but specifically for married spouses to cheat on their spouse with another married spouse , you take on some risks.  yeah, there is a chance of someone potentially getting hurt over this but that risk was created once they signed up with their own name and credit card information to such a risky site.  what if, instead of this hack, the husband found the credit card statement and the payment to ashley madison, and deduced his wife was a cheater, and then because of religious reasons, killed her over it ? it seems like with certain religions/circumstances, there is always a risk you take when you do something like this.   #  so hacking ashley madison bought down a con artist maybe taught thousands of men to be a little wiser, and taught many others not to make the same mistake.   #  in this case, i think it might have done more good than harm ! from reading URL i gather the website was essentially a scam, a con.  thousands of fake female profiles.  sounds like a lot of lonely men at their computer and very few actual liaisons resulted.  the service was a fraud.  sure, the terms and conditions spelt it out that it was just a fantasy but did not most customers pay money in the hope of having an actual affair ? so hacking ashley madison bought down a con artist maybe taught thousands of men to be a little wiser, and taught many others not to make the same mistake.  sounds like the world is a better place.   #  at worst they are guilty of being part of the con, or they lack of integrity, at best they are simply naive/gullible and need to wisen up .   #  well, when a pyramid scheme is shown to be a con, and  innocent  investors get burnt its a good thing that the delusion was popped earlier rather than later when it could have caused even more damage.  and the investors in general are not so innocent either they hoped to get rich without taking proper duty of care, without  understanding  their investment/gamble.  at worst they are guilty of being part of the con, or they lack of integrity, at best they are simply naive/gullible and need to wisen up .  have any innocent users of ashley madison been truly burnt ? i do not know .  have relationships and families been destroyed unfairly ? if a husband and wife team fails because the husband played out a fantasy online but did not touch, then there was probably a preexisting problem in the marriage.  but for some marriages it might result in making relationships more real as they get closer to the truth of who they are.   #  the thing is people entered this site to carry out something dishonest.   #  i see the point you are trying to make and yes, this does hurt the individual rather than some faceless corporation.  the thing is people entered this site to carry out something dishonest.  they made the personal choice to go on a web site that is designed to help with cheating on your spouse.  i am not here to judge people, they can do what they like.  but you ca not expect much sympathy from people either.  i can barely trust xbox live to work all the time.  why on earth would you take a punt on your marriage on an line service ? what is the old saying ? do not do anything on the internet that you would not write on a postcard and send to your parents/partner.  i am not saying people deserve this and that it wo not cause heartbreak and catastrophe for families.  but that said, the person who signed up to do it is the one ultimately responsible.  not the hackers.   #  similarly, single people do not have someone they are  accountable to  as it were.   #  to your first point, other than  potential  financial ramifications from leaked billing info, couples do not have to worry about their partner finding out.  similarly, single people do not have someone they are  accountable to  as it were.  they are not hurting a partner, and a partner is not around to provide backlash harm .  to your second point and one of your comments, a potential response to disclosure of sexual habits is similar to industry response in cybersecurity posture.  they are both potentials.  so if your stance is that it has done more harm than good, do you have any evidence of actual harm being done by this leak ? if there is no actual harm only potential harm , then it ca not have done more harm than good.  similarly, we ca not really say that it is done more good than harm.  without evidence, it is only caused  potential  good by  potentially  freeing those being cheated on of their relationships.  and even if we had data for both, how do we quantify them, much less compare them ? how do we measure the long term effects ? maybe the cheater gains in the long term from being freed of their damaged relationship and that outweighs any backlash.
i believe the electoral college was established at a time when much fewer people voted, fewer people had basic educations, and voting only took place in 0 states, leaving the possibility of a single large state virginia dominating the election very possible.  we live in a very different time now, and a popular election would be the best way to elect a president, as many people is votes simply do not count in our current system.  our current system does not encourage voter turnout when you are in a clear minority.  conservatives in california and liberals in alabama both have no real reason to go vote on election day.  a popular vote would ensure every vote counts, and would even give independent and third party candidates a real chance fair shot at the presidency, where they do not now.  so what say you ? show me the errors of my ways, and convince me that the electoral college really is the best and most fair way to choose the president.   #  a popular election would be the best way to elect a president, as many people is votes simply do not count in our current system.   #  as long as your candidate loses the race even in a popular vote, your vote still would not matter.   # as long as your candidate loses the race even in a popular vote, your vote still would not matter.  that would not give independents anything.  here is the game theory: there are actually several different sets of political ideologies in the united states.  if each ideological group only voted for their perfect ideological candidate you would have several candidates with relatively few votes.  two different groups of similar ideology can form an alliance and compromise on a candidate that can represent them both and now this political alliance has a significant advantage.  ultimately, the biggest alliance that can appeal to the most people will win.  this emergent behavior still applies in a popular election.   #  this reduces regional tensions because candidates are never trying to get 0 of the votes in a state.   #  imo garett jones has the best argument for the electoral college URL   in almost every state, every single elector votes for the candidate who wins the plurality of that state is popular vote.  of course, there is always some uncertainty about how things will turn out, so candidates love a cushion, but it is safe to say that if your state is polling 0 for a particular presidential candidate, neither candidate is likely to campaign there any time soon.  we rarely hear too much about regional issues in the u. s.  other than farmers vs.  everyone else.  but if the presidency was decided by majority rule, i am sure we would hear a lot more about regional differences.  could a presidential candidate get 0 of the votes in texas, louisiana, mississippi, and florida by promising broad based gulf coast subsidies and a few other goodies ? could a candidate get 0 of california is and new york is votes partly by offering housing subsidies for people facing high housing costs ? that is how you get to be president.  this reduces regional tensions because candidates are never trying to get 0 of the votes in a state.  when you are pitting 0 of one region of the country against 0 of another region of the country, you are substantially raising the probability of social conflict.  there is a little more at the link along with some good comments below the post.   #  you have just voted a man into office who promotes fracking, an issue you are against but was not made aware of, because you have 0  other political stances to pay attention to in between episodes of game of thrones.   #  there are inherent problems with national candidates bowing to issues that really need to be handed by state officials.  for example, i grew up in west virginia.  nationwide there is a strong stance against fracking and destroying our country is beauty.  locals here could not care less, fracking provides $$$.  candidates would end up making specific promises with regions that do not correspond with the masses simply to snatch the vote.  boom.  you have shifted the dynamic further from a popular vote.  you have just voted a man into office who promotes fracking, an issue you are against but was not made aware of, because you have 0  other political stances to pay attention to in between episodes of game of thrones.   #  it makes no real difference to the average citizen.   #  it is not like one person would be doing it.  so it looks as though in the history of the country there have only been 0 or 0 elections that would have resulted in a national recount with the popular vote.  and for the president i think it would be worth the recount for each county in those cases.  why is it ok for every county in florida to recount their votes, but not every county in the country ? it makes no real difference to the average citizen.  and i think the people in charge of those counties would be happy to do that to make sure the correct person was elected their president.   #  they list the electors and the number of votes cast for each.   #  of course we can accurately count the popular vote.  current federal law title 0, chapter 0, section 0 of the united states code requires the states to report the november popular vote numbers the  canvas  in what is called a  certificate of ascertainment.   they list the electors and the number of votes cast for each.  the congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes reported in the certificates of ascertainment.  you can see the certificates of ascertainment for all 0 states and the district of columbia containing the official count of the popular vote at the nara web site
the 0 us presidential primary race is well underway, and the large pool of candidates in both major political parties is exposing a significant gap in the nominating process.  some of the leading candidates are of questionable party affiliation e. g.  donald trump is now a registered republican but has faced criticism for switching parties throughout his lifetime; lincoln chafee was a republican while serving as a mayor, senator, and governor, and only became a democrat in 0 or are unabashedly independent of any party affiliation bernie sanders is not a registered democrat but still running for the democratic nomination .  this has led to a lot of controversy on both sides about throwing the weight of the party behind someone whose allegiance to the party is questionable, and with good reason.  for the following reasons, i believe that by law only registered members of a political party should be able to seek and obtain that party is nomination for elected office.  0 parties spend a substantial amount of resources to try to elect their nominees.  these resources often come from contributions in terms of money, activism, work hours etc governed by election law made by party members or supporters to support fellow party members.  it is inappropriate to allocate these resources to someone who, despite achieving the nomination, is not even a member of the party in the first place.  0 many third parties with access to general election ballots often nominate the same person, which causes that individual to appear on the ballot several times for the same position.  this duplication is unfair to candidates from other parties especially third parties who may only appear on the ballot once.  for the purposes of the official ballot, parties should only be allowed to formally nominate their own members, or no one at all.  0 the members of a political party is presidential ticket are the de facto leaders of their national party during and if elected after the election.  the same principle applies for nominees for governor at the state level, mayor at the municipality level, etc.  nominees  political positions are often absorbed into the general party platform, which can impact elections and party voter turnout elsewhere.  it is nonsensical, and unfair to party members, for their de facto leaders to be from another party or no party at all, especially given that nominations are mostly a function of popular vote.  tangentially, i am also opposed to  open primaries  where voters who are not registered members of a political party can still vote in that party is primary election, but i suppose that is a topic for another cmv post.  and of course, it should continue to be against election rules to be a registered member of more than one political party.  0 there is nothing wrong with or prohibitive about running for office as an independent.  ross perot staged a pretty successful third party run for president in 0.  sanders is the longest serving independent in the senate.  many other people have been elected to political office at various levels of government without obtaining a major party nomination.  our political system does not preclude independents from winning elections, so any argument that an independent is only real chance of winning is to seek the nomination of a party with which s he does not formally affiliate is historically and demonstrably invalid.  cmv.   #  many third parties with access to general election ballots often nominate the same person, which causes that individual to appear on the ballot several times for the same position.   #  this duplication is unfair to candidates from other parties especially third parties who may only appear on the ballot once.   #  so if i register as a republican today, can i run for president as a republican tomorrow ? it is incredibly easily to switch parties, so what is stopping someone like ted cruz from running as a democrat ? also, if a majority of democrats believe that bernie sanders will make the best president, why should we stop all democrats from voting for him ? this duplication is unfair to candidates from other parties especially third parties who may only appear on the ballot once.  is this duplication actually going to make people vote for this candidate more often ? if trump ran as an independent and got the green party and tea party nominations, would people say,  you know what, trump seems like the best guy for the job.   ? again, let is use my ted cruz.  let is say that ted cruz registered and ran as a democrat, and somehow got elected president.  what changes about the democratic party ? do democrats suddenly agree with everything ted cruz now says ?  #  but your view includes the presidential office, which then practically restricts the potential candidates to those purely aligned with the two parties.   # other offices throughout the country have been won by independents sanders is a prime example of this .  but your view includes the presidential office, which then practically restricts the potential candidates to those purely aligned with the two parties.  under your proposed scheme, sanders would not be able to participate in the presidential election in a meaningful way, whereas under the current system, he does.  if this is true, then restricting candidates to those in line with the party platforms restricts the range of available ideas being practically supported.  that is, if you acknowledge that the two dominant parties have a large amount of public support through tradition, marketing, etc, then candidates who have independent ideas are at a distinct disadvantage simply because of labeling restrictions.   #  i believe they want the person whose politics and beliefs they most closely agree with in office.   # chicken/egg.  do independents lose because america is naturally staunchly divided by party lines, or does america vote on party lines because they are convinced independents will lose ? my high school government teacher taught our class and all others that while he did not want to discourage us from voting for who we most agreed with, popular opinion is that voting for an independent is throwing your vote away.  basically, people that favor an independent candidate will usually vote for the republican or democratic candidate that most closely aligns with the views of the candidate they actually prefer because they do not perceive there being even a small chance of their candidate winning.  until an independent candidate for whom people actually believe their vote will count comes around, nobody is going to vote independent.  the best way for an independent candidate to prove to people they can win is to gain major party support and all the benefits that come with it.  i do not believe america wants to elect the best puppet for whom their party puppeteer will perform.  i believe they want the person whose politics and beliefs they most closely agree with in office.   #  the rules basically  only require a candidate to demonstrate  a commitment to the goals and objectives of the democratic party.     # does not it follow that someone who ants the party is formal nomination which is not the same as an  endorsement  as it confers special benefits such as access to the ballot and the ability to raise funds should become a member of that party first ? it is like wanting to marrying into someone is family without signing a marriage certificate with your spouse.  while you have a point, it is the dnc that sets the rules regarding who can and cannot run for the party is nomination.  the rules basically  only require a candidate to demonstrate  a commitment to the goals and objectives of the democratic party.    URL i think if the dnc is okay with it, your objections do not matter.  i do not know how else to change a  should  view, so i just presented the facts.   #  if you want to lose, then you should restrict the nominees as you say.   #  if your points have merit, why not let the outsider is opponents make them ? if as a democrat, i think that bernie is the best representative of my views or, trump for a republican why should not i be able to vote for him ? if a majority of dems agree that he is the best candidate for the democratic party, why not let their voice be heard ? the problem is that the us is set up so that it is virtually impossible for a 0rd party to win.  ross perot ? ralph nader ? even teddy roosevelt never had a chance of winning although they did impact the election .  it is simply impossible to win without the party organization and money, which means that there is a chance that bernie could win as a democrat or trump as a repub , but it is impossible for him to win as an independent if for no other reason than that they would split vote with the party nominee .  if you want a liberal president, you are better off with bernie as your nominee than as a independent.  if you want a conservative, you are better off with trump as a republican.  if you want to lose, then you should restrict the nominees as you say.
the idea of an international auxiliary language is to have a secondary language people can learn to communicate with people outside your native tongue.  english is already the de facto business language of the western world and a very popular secondary language.  it is an official language of many countries and the default language in the anglo sphere; canada, usa, australia and new zealand please forgive me if i miss any other countries can someone explain what advantages any other constructed/invented language have that either english or german does not ? please remember that there are loads of languages that were invented for this very purpose.  convince me one would be better than those stated and i will change my mind.   #  can someone explain what advantages any other constructed/invented language have that either english or german does not ?  #  not having native speakers and as such dialects and regional accents.   # not having native speakers and as such dialects and regional accents.  for me both english and german are second languages, i can communicate with everybody who uses the standard version of them, but when people pull a scotland or switzerland on me, i have no chance.  i am ok with eial but somehow we should brand it to native speakers as  not your kind of english, sorry  i. e.  a pure, standard, somewhat artificial,  clean , non regional  queen is english  variant, strictly separated from natural, interesting, fun,  dirty , chaotic regional dialects and accents, which are lovely but entirely unsuitable as an ial.  seriously, you native speakers you probably do not understand how big is the problem.  let me tell you a story.  there was an internal conference of an european company i participated at.  people from denmark, france, germany, hungary, and other countries came together and talked in english.  everybody understood each other.  except the british guy, whenever he said something in thick  brummie  everybody was like visibly like  what ? what ? i do not get anything .  you know, when  nice  comes out as  noice .  is not it ironic ? everybody understands everybody else when talking english.  except the actually english guy.  so if we could somehow convey to native speakers that the ial is not simply whatever kind of english you happen to speak but strictly received pronounciation.  then it would work.   #  oh and why are people using the word force ?  #  but that is the point ! any way you cut it, there is almost never gonna be a scenario that is fair for everybody.  and since a international franca lingua is sorely needed, would not it make sense to go with english as it is already de facto used as such ? oh and why are people using the word force ? nobody is forcing anybody to anything.  a lot of people go their entire lives without ever learning a secondary language and i do not think it is necessary to expect that.  it is more of a international agreed apron ting that if you want to learn a foreign language, a proxy language for doing business overseas would be the most practical.   #  for instance, the de facto status of english as the working language of choice is conventionally agreed.   #  i think the entire issue of setting an international auxiliary language is controversial.  it is a matter of who sets it, and who are they to set it.  for instance, the de facto status of english as the working language of choice is conventionally agreed.  defining it as the international auxiliary language is counterproductive because opposing blocs will then propose an alternate language of choice.  let is not forget that russian competed with english up until the soviet union dissolved; the language of science, for instance, was not predominantly english until the interwar period.   #  i mean, just look at metrification in the us.   #  well, it is a multipolar world so it makes sense that different regions of the world have different working languages.  i do not think there has to be one predominant ial.  it is insanely hard to get people to standardize on anything.  i mean, just look at metrification in the us.  now take into account that issues of language are immensely more entrenched.  basically, the intent is that people will only have to learn one language other than their own.  in practice, it means people have to learn one more language in addition to the ones they already know.   #  to declare english the ial would be perceived as a unilateral move by the anglophone world and lead to backlash.   # like the story of the king receiving a letter asking him to wait on changing the currency system until  all us old hags have died out.   i ca not give an answer to that because i do not know how long it will take.  the thing is that most people simply do not operate on the international level, so learning an ial which is not the regional lingua franca makes no sense.  moreover, english is spoken by a quarter of the world is population at best, which is hardly overwhelming.  to declare english the ial would be perceived as a unilateral move by the anglophone world and lead to backlash.
i apologize if this question has been asked before, but i could not find it in the cmv wiki/frequent topics.  in modern society it is racist to say something like  i would totally date you if you were not this race   or  my daughter can marry whoever she wants.  as long as that person is of our race  .  things like  you are the only person of this race i have ever been attracted to !   are also grossly offensive.  obviously there is no such mindset when people say  i am only sexually attracted to gender  .  no one calls you sexist or a bigot for being monosexual straight or gay .  why does this double standard exist when it comes to romance but not for job opportunites, education, and politicians ?  why do not we think being monosexual is sexist the same way we think not wanting to date certain races is racist ?   both are judging someone for who they are on the outside.  a person is race and gender is something they were born with/they did not choose/they ca not easily change.  even though i genuinely  feel  that it is not sexist to be monosexual, i still have not found an arguement convincing enough to make me think otherwise.  and as absurd as the thought that  if you aren bisexual/pansexual then you are sexist !   sounds, my brain ca not reconcile the logic with how i feel.   #  why do not we think being monosexual is sexist the same way we think not wanting to date certain races is racist ?  #  because racial preferences in dating are not always physical preferences but preferences formed due to cultural perceptions.   # because racial preferences in dating are not always physical preferences but preferences formed due to cultural perceptions.  for example, there are stereotypes as well as social ranking associated with men and women of certain races, and these influence dating preferences.  for example, if someone says,  i do not date black women , does it mean out all the black population of the world, they would not find a single woman attractive ? of course not.  it means when someone says  black woman  a certain image comes to their mind, and when someone says  white blonde woman  a certain image comes to mind, and there are exceptions to the  mental image .  now the question is where did these mental images come from ? similarly, i am sure there are sexual stereotypes for asian women.  are these stereotypes purely because of physical characteristics, or does presence of cultural factors influence this ? this is different from people who have gender preferences, because generally gender preferences are  hard  unless one is bisexual in the sense that a hard lesbian woman would not find any man attractive sexually, and it is not a matter of  not meeting the right guy that can turn you straight.    #  the first standards is  would i date this person regardless of whether i was attracted to them ?    # because its not a double standard.  your own post describes it as 0 different standards.  the first standards is  would i date this person regardless of whether i was attracted to them ?   the second standard is  am i attraced to this person ?   the racist/sexist position is  i am attracted to this race/this gender, but will not date them for ideological/political reasons.   the non racist/non sexist position is  i am not attracted to people of this race/gender.   two different things entirely.  you ca not control who you are attracted to it just is what it is.  but you do control whether you want to date someone you are attracted to, and refuse to do so for other reasons.   #  saying,  i am not attracted to race   is not racist no matter how much some bloggers would like to portray it as such, most sensible people do not see it as racist .   #  i think you are misunderstanding the arguments a bit.  saying,  i would date you if you were not race   is usually racist.  saying,  i am not attracted to race   is not racist no matter how much some bloggers would like to portray it as such, most sensible people do not see it as racist .  the former is a conscious decision based on race.  the latter is a matter of attraction, no different than not being attracted to a particular gender, or people with blond hair or freckles or flat asses or whatever.   #  because of this, i do not think the internet bloggers/people who do think it is racist are totally wrong.   #  does this mean you do not think the society we live in has anything to do with what we do or do not find attractive ? because i have a hard time believing it doesnt.  i do not think saying im not attracted to race is necesarilly racist, but i think it would be naive to think that society is attitude about certain races has no affect on who we find attractive.  because of this, i do not think the internet bloggers/people who do think it is racist are totally wrong.  there is defintely a kernel of truth in their assessment.   #  however, in general, we would probably lay the blame for both problems at the feet of society and the media, and  not  on the person being attracted or not attracted to certain categories of people.   #  i would probably agree with you that there is a heavy social component of what we find attractive.  after all, that is one large problem most people have with the representations of women in media, that it actually impacts what people find attractive in reality.  however, i think /u/mahnogard has a good point about why race is not actually treated differently than gender.  we might have a problem with the fact that many people use the unrealistic images of women in media as the basis of what they find attractive, and we might similarly have a problem with people finding only people of x race, or only people not of y race attractive.  however, in general, we would probably lay the blame for both problems at the feet of society and the media, and  not  on the person being attracted or not attracted to certain categories of people.  we generally do not have conscious control over what or who we are attracted to, so it is hard to say it is a moral issue.
i believe when a person uses a title they have they have earned, such as from schooling, to assert their argument is correct, this is often a logical fallacy.  i believe that a title of authority does not mean the individual is right, but rather, that it means you should consider their authority when deciding whether to trust someone or not.  i believe titles of authority are based solely on  trust , and not actual correctness.  an example i used: we can take a popular example from tropes a young woman takes her car to a mechanic.  the mechanic charges her for changing her headlight fluid.  the young woman trusts the mechanic is being truthful, because he is an assumed authority on cars.  does this mean the mechanic actually changed her headlight fluid ? authority is not about being right, it is about trust.  the arguments of any user should not change because of a title if i say 00 0, that does not change based on whether i have a background in math or whether i am in grade school.  likewise, if i make an argument, the argument does not change based on me stating that i am an academic  insert .  users from a philosophy sub have disagreed with me on this, and i am willing to hear legitimate arguments as to why i am wrong, hopefully dropping the snark i admit i had heavy snark when i was posting because i want them to share their ideas with me.  if i am genuinely wrong, so be it i want to know.  as a side note but not the core of the cmv i think that asserting dominance based on a title hearkens strongly to  class warfare , not unlike those you would see in a caste system.  obviously not something so serious on reddit, since in a caste system, it affects peoples lives pretty dramatically, and on reddit, it just means a bunch of users are going to talk at you excessively.  it is an assertion that some people are better than others based on their title, and that any arguments made to counter that are invalid because of a lack of that title.   #  we can take a popular example from tropes a young woman takes her car to a mechanic.   #  the mechanic charges her for changing her headlight fluid.   # the mechanic charges her for changing her headlight fluid.  the young woman trusts the mechanic is being truthful, because he is an assumed authority on cars.  does this mean the mechanic actually changed her headlight fluid ? but we trust the mechanic because he is right so much.  like, if he stopped fixing our cars then we wouldnt trust him anymore, and he wouldnt be the authority on cars anymore.  likewise, if any authority on something starts being frequently in the wrong, they wont be trusted for long.  so authority is kinda about correctness since the trust comes from it is correctness.  so, while it does not lend your argument correctness, authority does add creditability.  so if i am a known college math teacher and i say 0 0 0,0,0,0 , you should be more likely to think i am correct rather than some random stranger on the internet.  does this mean i am always going be right ? no, everyone makes mistakes.  but i am usually going be right.   #  it is not a guarantee of being right, but it puts an argument in perspective.   # it is not a guarantee of being right, but it puts an argument in perspective.  a large amount of specialized knowledge is counter intuitive, so an expert in a given field is likely to know where a layperson is intuitions might steer them wrong.  yes, i know that but that is what makes it fallacious you are asserting that you are correct based on this, and maybe you are correct.  but the person you are talking to ca not know this, any more than a traveling salesmen selling snakeoil.  that is what makes it fallacious arguing correctness should not be based on a title, it should be based on correctness.   #  but realistically, all our methods of gathering information are fallible.   # i am certainly not asserting that.   i am an expert therefore i am right  is an obviously incorrect statement.   i am an expert therefore i am not infallible but my views on this topic have a stronger foundation  is more realistically what any reasonable person might imply by asserting their title.  i could be wrong, but it seems like you had an experience with a particularly arrogant person and you are projecting that as a generality.  of course.  and if we had a direct line to correctness, it would not matter what anyone said.  but realistically, all our methods of gathering information are fallible.  intuition is often wrong, evidence can be misleading, and anyone can lie.  in the absence of better sources like direct proof, you are better off going with the expert.   #  in the absence of better sources like direct proof, you are better off going with the expert.   # i am certainly not asserting that.  sorry, i think i meant  royal  you i was a bit distracted when i responded, so i did so in haste.  you are right in that many people think this way but that is precisely my point i assert that someone  with a title  has no stronger a foundation than anyone else.  it is not the title that gives that foundation, but rather it is the experience that individual earned.  this is why someone who gets a degree from the university of phoenix is not considered as reliable as someone who goes to a better school the experience someone gets from one is different from what they would get from somewhere else,  regardless of the fact that they share the same title.  that is why this reasoning is, in my opinion, fallacious.  in a perfect world, a title would directly correlate with experience 0 of the time, and everybody would know that the experience correlates with correctness 0 of the time but neither of those are correct, in particular the first one, where you can simply  assert you have a title without actually having one.  and if we had a direct line to correctness, it would not matter what anyone said.  but realistically, all our methods of gathering information are fallible.  intuition is often wrong, evidence can be misleading, and anyone can lie.  in the absence of better sources like direct proof, you are better off going with the expert.  emphasis in your quote is mine why ? can one not simply demand direct proof ? for all the reasons you listed, it seems in my opinion at least, that for the sake of argument i do not really get this nit picky irl for the most part , if the expert ca not give direct proof of their argument, their argument is as worthwhile as someone who might be an expert, or might not be an expert, but chose to keep their identity private.  some common advice that you may receive when having work done on your house, for example, is  ask the carpenter how he plans on doing the work  and  keep checking up to make sure the work is being done correctly and to your satisfaction  those two suggestions fly in the face of  assuming the expert is correct.    #  that person will probably list a page of facts as to why he is correct on a particular issue and provide detailed, documented information to support his side of things.   #  it is not like a climate scientist comes into a room says he is a climate scientist and drops the mike and than we all go home.  that person will probably list a page of facts as to why he is correct on a particular issue and provide detailed, documented information to support his side of things.  which anyone could evaluate to see if he was making a strong argument.  the person who is on strong footing is the one with the best evidence.  and the person with 0 years of experience will have a much higher chance of producing strong evidence than a person who just listens to rush limbaugh to get his climate change facts.
there is a federal law which prohibits anyone from buying a vote or paying someone to withold their vote, or accepting anything for a vote.  the spirit of this law is that the vote should be your own, informed choice, rather than letting someone else make the decision for you.  point 0 URL the ncsl site details some terribly inefficient and time consuming ways to verify someone is identity without an id.  time needs to be used to look up data and then more time needs to be spent comparing data.  and then more time after that when things do not match up and you have to fix / argue your want through.  point 0 i have trouble understanding the argument about how requiring ids to vote is discriminatory in a bad way.  the argument is that requiring an id would discourage poor people from voting.  even the poorest citizens engage smoking and drinking, which are activities that they probably have been asked for an id for.  i find it inconceivable that someone without an id would be someone capable of making an informed vote.  if you could not find the time out of all the years in your life and maybe 0 dollars to get an id, then i believe that you are the exact type of irresponsible person who should not be voting at all.  point 0 there are long lines at voting and requiring ids would cut it down.  the government requires employers to pay workers while they take off to go vote.  i can think of many employers who will tell you to take the whole day off rather than pay you a full day for half a day is work.  this is a partially broken law which only works for full time employees.  part time employees, which generally make less money, often cannot take advantage of this.  i would make the argument that by not requiring id is to vote, they are discriminating against people whose time is more valuable than voting.  i believe the best way to encourage voting is to make voting easier and less time consuming.  point 0 perhaps instead of trying to tackle enormously expensive projects like free healthcare and free college, we can start with the easy and low cost / high benefit ones like free id cards.   #  point 0 i have trouble understanding the argument about how requiring ids to vote is discriminatory in a bad way.   #  the argument is that requiring an id would discourage poor people from voting.   # the argument is that requiring an id would discourage poor people from voting.  even the poorest citizens engage smoking and drinking, which are activities that they probably have been asked for an id for.  i find it inconceivable that someone without an id would be someone capable of making an informed vote.  if you could not find the time out of all the years in your life and maybe 0 dollars to get an id, then i believe that you are the exact type of irresponsible person who should not be voting at all.  this is the worst, most egregious part of your argument, in my opinion.  the objections that other people have brought up about the uselessness of voter id laws, the practical concerns and costs associated with people getting ids, and other good points aside, what you are saying here is that you think poor people are somehow just less deserving of a voice in society.  i mean, that is probably not what you think you are saying, but that is what this in practice boils down to.  especially this:  even the poorest citizens engage smoking and drinking, which are activities that they probably have been asked for an id for.  i find it inconceivable that someone without an id would be someone capable of making an informed vote.  i am really glad you think the poorest people are all drunks and addicts.  did you think at all about what you were stating when you said that ? and the fact that you  find it inconceivable  from your position matters not one fucking whit, i hope you understand that.  also, if you really are concerned about only the  deserving  and the  well informed  being the ones voting, have you considered how many middle class and above ignorant assholes vote down party lines every election while paying no attention to the issues ? if you want a more informed electorate, great.  rally for increased public awareness of political issues, and general education reform.  voter id laws are irrelevant to the issue, unless you want to explicitly state that you think poor people just are not capable of making good political decisions.  then make that argument, do not pussy foot around.   #  however, there must be some minimal effort to deter fraud, and we should be using a way of doing it which takes away the least amount of taxpayer dollars from other things we need.   #  i want to solve multiple problems.  0 efficiency longer identification verification process means you need to employ more people, and spend more tax dollars, in order to handle the same number of voters.  0 encouraging voting many people are discouraged from voting because they do not want to take the time to do it.  more people would be willing if they did not have to wait as long.  0 lower cost fraud detection i do not believe fraud is a material problem, and i have not mentioned fraud in my cmv.  however, there must be some minimal effort to deter fraud, and we should be using a way of doing it which takes away the least amount of taxpayer dollars from other things we need.  i believe we are overspending in our current identity verification mechanism.   #  now, for folks with no knowledge of what hospital they were born at, this is going to be a bit of a problem.   #  what about those folks who do not have the proof necessary to validate an id ? birth certificate has to be certified or original, ca not be a photocopy , passport, ss card, certified school transcript but not a school id , a w 0, and even proof of address normally two pieces of mail at minimum , etc.  now, for folks with no knowledge of what hospital they were born at, this is going to be a bit of a problem.  even if they do know, most hospitals charge a fee for the copy.  and an stable address that they are able to prove ? this all gets very complicated very quickly.   #  now that mixed with the fact that voter fraud is non issue in america, it is not worth it to put these barriers up.   #  birth certificates cost money and can be hard to get when you do not know where you were born.  this is a barrier for lower income people who are less likely to have theirs.  poorer people tend to live in areas with long lines at the dmv.  they tend to work jobs that has little flexibility and they ca not afford to now show up to visit the dmv.  there are poor people who live miles and miles away from their closest dmv which means if they do not have a car or ca not afford gas, they are not getting an id.  those are all barriers for getting an id for poor people.  now that mixed with the fact that voter fraud is non issue in america, it is not worth it to put these barriers up.  why spend money and negatively affect a lot of people to fix a problem that does not really exist ?  #  even the poorest of people will get an id so that they can buy cigarettes and alcohol.   #  my cmv is on the premise that votes should be informed and of the decision of the voter.  i do not believe all votes should count.  included in that category would be votes which receive compensation, voting for someone else, and voting randomly, which is the same as voting uninformed.  having an id is a very low barrier to entry.  even the poorest of people will get an id so that they can buy cigarettes and alcohol.  if a voter id law makes it harder for some people to vote, then i believe they are not responsible enough to make any kinds of informed choices in life, including voting.  those are votes that i would not want to count.
what does it even mean ? how can one not be one self ? now i am mostly talking about the everyday use of the phrase   where it is typically offered moments before an uncomfortable or unfamiliar social interaction, like a date.  and in this scenario, i assume it means something like  be yourself but without any of the debilitating neurosis and subsequent façade .  but this is just as useless.  do not you think if people could magically wish away such impediments, they would have already done so ? it is possible that some people are able to do this   but then they presumably would not be in need of such banal advice.  but even if you are held back by anxiety / hiding behind a façade etc.    are these things not an integral part of the ego that constitutes the  iself  ? would not someone co existing with these neuroses be closer to their  true self  whatever that is than someone trying to change their mental state ? perhaps.  though how can anyone be  other  than  themself  ? it seems like whatever a person does, by definition, is being themself.  maybe  be yourself  means  wouldo not pretend to be someone you are not  ? again, this very act of pretending is still  ame  being  amyself .  if i pretend, then i am a pretender, and that is who i am.  does it mean  be your best self ? if we could just flip a switch and become our  best self    would not everyone leave it on all the time ?  wouldo not overthink  ? fuck you.  do not underthink.  is it just empty rhetoric meant as bit of comfort / a morale boost ? well then do not dress it up in misleading instructions.   there, there  would be more useful / plain.  also, even if my  true self  is for some reason a  ame  without these hang ups much of this assumes i have any choice or ability or inclination to change it, and that free will exists which i am inclined to doubt   but that is another issue .  finally, it is usually a cop out on the part of the advisor, who incites this cliché in lieu of anything more profound or nuanced or comprehensive or useful.   #  but even if you are held back by anxiety / hiding behind a façade etc.   #    are these things not an integral part of the ego that constitutes the  iself  ?  #   are these things not an integral part of the ego that constitutes the  iself  ? would not someone co existing with these neuroses be closer to their  true self  whatever that is than someone trying to change their mental state ? perhaps.  though how can anyone be  other  than  themself  ? it seems like whatever a person does, by definition, is being themself.  i have anxiety.  it was bad but i have made it manageable to the point where most people ca not tell i  ve had it.  i guess you could argue that embracing it would be more of  myself  but here is why i disagree.  when my anxiety was bad i was not fretting around frantically.  it would come up in specific social situations and when it did that is when i felt  least  like myself.  maybe i would become more aggressive or talk loudly.  however it manifested is not really important.  but by slowly telling myself to not worry about how others perceive me i was able to reduce that anxiety and be more of  myself/ my calm rest state  in social situations.  be yourself can be vague.  but in the context of people with anxiety it could mean consciously try to stop worrying.  and yes, speaking as someone with gad, you can make conscious efforts to change your behavior over time, without medication, and make anxiety more manageable in specific instances.   #  it means to be the person that you will  always  be.   #  my interpretation is one of the ones you said: be who you really are instead of putting on an act.  yes, putting on the act is obviously still you, but it is not a sustainable version of you.  it means to be the person that you will  always  be.  if you are prepared to spend the rest of your life putting on the same act, then go for it.  but in the context of like a first date, the point is that you want someone to fall for the  real  version of you.  the default version that you can be with no effort.  because otherwise you are going to put yourself in a position where you can either keep acting forever, or risk losing the person you fell in love with because they thought the act was really you.   #  i could act like a macho man because i think that is what this woman is responding well to, because i think that is what she wants to see.   #  let me try an example: i am a sensitive guy.  i like cuddling, i like kissing, and i love holding hands.  i like feeling needed.  i could go out on a date with someone and act like i am none of those things.  i could act like a macho man because i think that is what this woman is responding well to, because i think that is what she wants to see.  let is say that works.  she really likes macho me.  so now what ? that is not me.  i am still the sensitive guy who wants this woman to cuddle on the couch with me and hold my hand.  so i can either keep up the macho act so that she sticks around, or i can  be me  and risk losing her.   #  you do not have to put on a lot of makeup that you would not normally use.   #  the thing is, this is not  advice  in and of itself, it is  counter  advice.  there is a  huge  amount of advice and cultural expectation out there telling you that you have to be a certain way when you are dating.  most of it is complete bullshit.  you do not have to be  more alpha .  you do not have to  act uninterested .  you do not have to try to show off your mad dating skillz.  you do not have to put on a lot of makeup that you would not normally use.  you do not have to pretend to like whatever your date likes or the activities that they are doing.  you do not have to do any of this shit.  trying to do this stuff is what  makes  you neurotic and creepy, and ultimately unsuccessful.  that is what  be yourself  means.  it is excellent advice to ignore the bad advice that you are constantly bombarded with.  it is kind of like how the word  pride  in phrases like  gay pride  actually means  refutation of shame .  the dictionary is not always right.  and psychological games are not good psychology.   #  the idea is be yourself because that is what you are going to default to anyway.   #  if you go into something trying to be what you are not it is not going to work, or it is going to work for a night but not be sustainable.  let is say you want to be the funny guy, but your not funny.  do you really think that is going to work ? or, if you like playing games and you are with a girl who hates games.  how long are you going to be able to fool her ? the idea is be yourself because that is what you are going to default to anyway.
what does it even mean ? how can one not be one self ? now i am mostly talking about the everyday use of the phrase   where it is typically offered moments before an uncomfortable or unfamiliar social interaction, like a date.  and in this scenario, i assume it means something like  be yourself but without any of the debilitating neurosis and subsequent façade .  but this is just as useless.  do not you think if people could magically wish away such impediments, they would have already done so ? it is possible that some people are able to do this   but then they presumably would not be in need of such banal advice.  but even if you are held back by anxiety / hiding behind a façade etc.    are these things not an integral part of the ego that constitutes the  iself  ? would not someone co existing with these neuroses be closer to their  true self  whatever that is than someone trying to change their mental state ? perhaps.  though how can anyone be  other  than  themself  ? it seems like whatever a person does, by definition, is being themself.  maybe  be yourself  means  wouldo not pretend to be someone you are not  ? again, this very act of pretending is still  ame  being  amyself .  if i pretend, then i am a pretender, and that is who i am.  does it mean  be your best self ? if we could just flip a switch and become our  best self    would not everyone leave it on all the time ?  wouldo not overthink  ? fuck you.  do not underthink.  is it just empty rhetoric meant as bit of comfort / a morale boost ? well then do not dress it up in misleading instructions.   there, there  would be more useful / plain.  also, even if my  true self  is for some reason a  ame  without these hang ups much of this assumes i have any choice or ability or inclination to change it, and that free will exists which i am inclined to doubt   but that is another issue .  finally, it is usually a cop out on the part of the advisor, who incites this cliché in lieu of anything more profound or nuanced or comprehensive or useful.   #  does it mean  be your best self ?  #  if we could just flip a switch and become our  best self    would not everyone leave it on all the time ?  # if we could just flip a switch and become our  best self    would not everyone leave it on all the time ? absolutely not.  as an introvert, my best self is energetic, actively engages in conversation, and funny.  it is very tiring to do that and thus i leave myself switched off most of the time, only turning on for dates or other important events like interviews.  i am partially on some days, but not nearly to the extent i am when it is important to me.  more importantly the advise is generally given as  do not over think .  this is done in order to get the person to actually try something since being yourself is  easy .  the idea is that you need to trust your instincts and go with what feels right because there is not enough time to consciously think through what the right move is.   #  but in the context of like a first date, the point is that you want someone to fall for the  real  version of you.   #  my interpretation is one of the ones you said: be who you really are instead of putting on an act.  yes, putting on the act is obviously still you, but it is not a sustainable version of you.  it means to be the person that you will  always  be.  if you are prepared to spend the rest of your life putting on the same act, then go for it.  but in the context of like a first date, the point is that you want someone to fall for the  real  version of you.  the default version that you can be with no effort.  because otherwise you are going to put yourself in a position where you can either keep acting forever, or risk losing the person you fell in love with because they thought the act was really you.   #  i could act like a macho man because i think that is what this woman is responding well to, because i think that is what she wants to see.   #  let me try an example: i am a sensitive guy.  i like cuddling, i like kissing, and i love holding hands.  i like feeling needed.  i could go out on a date with someone and act like i am none of those things.  i could act like a macho man because i think that is what this woman is responding well to, because i think that is what she wants to see.  let is say that works.  she really likes macho me.  so now what ? that is not me.  i am still the sensitive guy who wants this woman to cuddle on the couch with me and hold my hand.  so i can either keep up the macho act so that she sticks around, or i can  be me  and risk losing her.   #  you do not have to put on a lot of makeup that you would not normally use.   #  the thing is, this is not  advice  in and of itself, it is  counter  advice.  there is a  huge  amount of advice and cultural expectation out there telling you that you have to be a certain way when you are dating.  most of it is complete bullshit.  you do not have to be  more alpha .  you do not have to  act uninterested .  you do not have to try to show off your mad dating skillz.  you do not have to put on a lot of makeup that you would not normally use.  you do not have to pretend to like whatever your date likes or the activities that they are doing.  you do not have to do any of this shit.  trying to do this stuff is what  makes  you neurotic and creepy, and ultimately unsuccessful.  that is what  be yourself  means.  it is excellent advice to ignore the bad advice that you are constantly bombarded with.  it is kind of like how the word  pride  in phrases like  gay pride  actually means  refutation of shame .  the dictionary is not always right.  and psychological games are not good psychology.   #  or, if you like playing games and you are with a girl who hates games.   #  if you go into something trying to be what you are not it is not going to work, or it is going to work for a night but not be sustainable.  let is say you want to be the funny guy, but your not funny.  do you really think that is going to work ? or, if you like playing games and you are with a girl who hates games.  how long are you going to be able to fool her ? the idea is be yourself because that is what you are going to default to anyway.
rappers are not talented.  they do what anyone can do.  anyone is capable over saying words over a beat.  some rappers do not even try to make sense, or be clever.  i ca not believe rappers are allowed to win grammies and different music awards.  poets should be allowed to win grammies too then.  rap to me is like in the same category as a terrible singer sometimes.  every person on this earth that can speak is capable of rapping.  you ca not say the same for singers, that can sing on key.  you might say, it takes skill to rap well.  no it does not.  it takes time, and a pen and paper.  it can be mastered relatively easy.  please show me why they deserve to be respected as musicians.   #  anyone is capable over saying words over a beat.   #  this seems to be pretty much your entire argument, essentially.   #  there is a lot of assertions here that are just completely incorrect, so i am gonna break down some specific parts, but i think there is a big flaw in almost all of your logic:  just because it is easier to start rapping does not mean being a good rapper takes any less skill.  i think a lot of your viewpoints are biased in the sense that rapping may be easier to pick up just because it is unlike singing or playing an instrument in that relatively mediocre rappers are not unlistenable in the same way that bad singers are.  yes, there are some bad rappers in the mainstream.  there are also bad songs in plenty of other genres, URL but it makes no sense invalidating the entire genre because of it.  this seems to be pretty much your entire argument, essentially.  most good rappers put in effort to how they say the words to make it compliment the beat and convey a message.  i am gonna be cliche and user kendrick lamar for most of my examples, just because he is one of the most vocally diverse rappers.  in this song, he elongates his words and uses a raspy voice to make it sound like he is wailing, since it is a heart wrenching part of the album URL in this song, he changes his pitch to sound more like an adolescent URL those were some extreme examples, but there is also more subtle ones that are still very important in this song, he uses a deeper pitch than usually to give off braggadccio/cocky vibes, since he is meant to be freestyling in the car with his friends URL in contrast, this song uses a more relaxed tone since he is  amade it  at this point in the album URL all of this are important changes to his voice that are difficult to do in the first place, and even harder to do while simultaneously staying on beat and not sounding too forced.  a lot of other genres have untalented artists, too.  poets should be allowed to win grammies too then.  no, because poetry does not have a musical element.  almost any song is poetic if you just look at the lyrics, but there are other musical considerations that change how a rap song sounds.  that said, when spoken word poets put an effort into making it have musical aspects, there is precedence for grammies, as there should be.  gil scott heron URL has received recognition from the grammies  #  that is like saying that writing a good book does not take skill, just time and a pen and paper.   #  that is like saying that writing a good book does not take skill, just time and a pen and paper.  a casual look through any publisher is slush pile will show you that the results of time and a pen and paper are disastrous most of the time without skill.  lyricism is a skill just like any other in music.  not to mention it takes experience to develop a flow that sounds natural and does not have you tripping over yourself trying to rap verses that are lyrically dense and full of tongue twisters.  there is an old saying that if any asshole could do it, every asshole would.  record companies know how to make money.  if a famous rapper could be replaced by an amateur off the street for a fraction of the cost, they would do it.   #  anyone with enough time can make an album, but you will never be able to sing like keyshia cole, adele unless you were born that way.   #  well, a good book takes a long time to right usually.  all the great books i have read people probably spent years writing them, creating beautiful environments, interesting dialogue.  maybe i would put em on that same level as maybe a great author.  maybe em, but a rapper would have to at least be on em is level of wordplay and flow to consider being talented at all to me.  it would take the average joe a very long time to write a full length album of the same caliber.  but a good rapper could never be on the same talent level as a good singer, because you have to have the vocal xhord ability to sing well.  anyone with enough time can make an album, but you will never be able to sing like keyshia cole, adele unless you were born that way.    0;  #  you are right that most of the great books you read took years to write, but so did most of the bad ones.   #  the vast majority of average joes will fail even given a long time.  lyricism takes more than time.  it is a craft that needs to be studied and practiced, just like any other kind of writing.  it would be more accurate to say that anyone with enough time can make a bad album just like anyone with enough time can write a bad book.  you are right that most of the great books you read took years to write, but so did most of the bad ones.  same goes for short stories and poetry.  the greats are not great just by virtue of taking longer.  average joe   time is an incomplete formula for good writing in any field.   #  people listen to lil b, they say he is nice.   #  actually every rapper with a hit song, replaces the one before them, like every week.  people listen to lil b, they say he is nice.  young thug, meek mill, yg.  there are so many rappers that people listen to right now, that have no talent to me.  it is overwhelming.  every week they are putting some new shit out a five year old could write.  so yeah every asshole can do it.  but the music industry only selects a few they will invest on based on the buzz.  look at bobby shmurda.  he is wack af but the whole country was bumpin his music.  whatever though.
rappers are not talented.  they do what anyone can do.  anyone is capable over saying words over a beat.  some rappers do not even try to make sense, or be clever.  i ca not believe rappers are allowed to win grammies and different music awards.  poets should be allowed to win grammies too then.  rap to me is like in the same category as a terrible singer sometimes.  every person on this earth that can speak is capable of rapping.  you ca not say the same for singers, that can sing on key.  you might say, it takes skill to rap well.  no it does not.  it takes time, and a pen and paper.  it can be mastered relatively easy.  please show me why they deserve to be respected as musicians.   #  i ca not believe rappers are allowed to win grammies and different music awards.   #  poets should be allowed to win grammies too then.   #  there is a lot of assertions here that are just completely incorrect, so i am gonna break down some specific parts, but i think there is a big flaw in almost all of your logic:  just because it is easier to start rapping does not mean being a good rapper takes any less skill.  i think a lot of your viewpoints are biased in the sense that rapping may be easier to pick up just because it is unlike singing or playing an instrument in that relatively mediocre rappers are not unlistenable in the same way that bad singers are.  yes, there are some bad rappers in the mainstream.  there are also bad songs in plenty of other genres, URL but it makes no sense invalidating the entire genre because of it.  this seems to be pretty much your entire argument, essentially.  most good rappers put in effort to how they say the words to make it compliment the beat and convey a message.  i am gonna be cliche and user kendrick lamar for most of my examples, just because he is one of the most vocally diverse rappers.  in this song, he elongates his words and uses a raspy voice to make it sound like he is wailing, since it is a heart wrenching part of the album URL in this song, he changes his pitch to sound more like an adolescent URL those were some extreme examples, but there is also more subtle ones that are still very important in this song, he uses a deeper pitch than usually to give off braggadccio/cocky vibes, since he is meant to be freestyling in the car with his friends URL in contrast, this song uses a more relaxed tone since he is  amade it  at this point in the album URL all of this are important changes to his voice that are difficult to do in the first place, and even harder to do while simultaneously staying on beat and not sounding too forced.  a lot of other genres have untalented artists, too.  poets should be allowed to win grammies too then.  no, because poetry does not have a musical element.  almost any song is poetic if you just look at the lyrics, but there are other musical considerations that change how a rap song sounds.  that said, when spoken word poets put an effort into making it have musical aspects, there is precedence for grammies, as there should be.  gil scott heron URL has received recognition from the grammies  #  not to mention it takes experience to develop a flow that sounds natural and does not have you tripping over yourself trying to rap verses that are lyrically dense and full of tongue twisters.   #  that is like saying that writing a good book does not take skill, just time and a pen and paper.  a casual look through any publisher is slush pile will show you that the results of time and a pen and paper are disastrous most of the time without skill.  lyricism is a skill just like any other in music.  not to mention it takes experience to develop a flow that sounds natural and does not have you tripping over yourself trying to rap verses that are lyrically dense and full of tongue twisters.  there is an old saying that if any asshole could do it, every asshole would.  record companies know how to make money.  if a famous rapper could be replaced by an amateur off the street for a fraction of the cost, they would do it.   #  it would take the average joe a very long time to write a full length album of the same caliber.   #  well, a good book takes a long time to right usually.  all the great books i have read people probably spent years writing them, creating beautiful environments, interesting dialogue.  maybe i would put em on that same level as maybe a great author.  maybe em, but a rapper would have to at least be on em is level of wordplay and flow to consider being talented at all to me.  it would take the average joe a very long time to write a full length album of the same caliber.  but a good rapper could never be on the same talent level as a good singer, because you have to have the vocal xhord ability to sing well.  anyone with enough time can make an album, but you will never be able to sing like keyshia cole, adele unless you were born that way.    0;  #  it would be more accurate to say that anyone with enough time can make a bad album just like anyone with enough time can write a bad book.   #  the vast majority of average joes will fail even given a long time.  lyricism takes more than time.  it is a craft that needs to be studied and practiced, just like any other kind of writing.  it would be more accurate to say that anyone with enough time can make a bad album just like anyone with enough time can write a bad book.  you are right that most of the great books you read took years to write, but so did most of the bad ones.  same goes for short stories and poetry.  the greats are not great just by virtue of taking longer.  average joe   time is an incomplete formula for good writing in any field.   #  there are so many rappers that people listen to right now, that have no talent to me.   #  actually every rapper with a hit song, replaces the one before them, like every week.  people listen to lil b, they say he is nice.  young thug, meek mill, yg.  there are so many rappers that people listen to right now, that have no talent to me.  it is overwhelming.  every week they are putting some new shit out a five year old could write.  so yeah every asshole can do it.  but the music industry only selects a few they will invest on based on the buzz.  look at bobby shmurda.  he is wack af but the whole country was bumpin his music.  whatever though.
the subject of podium girls is quite controversial on cycling subs, good enough to generate all time top and controversial threads and i would like to know what people think about it.  my position is simple: when the issue is brought to discussion i always end up concluding that  the  problem is the lack of tv coverage of women is cycling and not the concept of podium girls.  obviously there are some podium girls moments that belong on r/cringe like this one URL or this move of a fan favorite cyclist some years ago URL but these are extreme examples which do not represent the majority.  i really like to watch women is cycling and would really be pleased to see more of it on tv there is like 0 or 0 days of racing a year on eurosport right now and the fact that women on the sport are more visible on the podium than on the bike is the problem, imo.  i have seen examples on twitter of happy parents talking about little girls thinking  ooh i can do that too ?   when la course was on tv on the last day of tour de france.  and that is an example that there is a lack of coverage but that is not the issue i want you to discuss .  then there is the semantics,  podium girls  sound quite worse than  podium women  which would sound much more reasonable, and i agree with that, let is change the name of it.  there is a very recent example of  podium men  on a norwegian race, which sounds a fair way to balance the absence of men on the podiums of women is cycling and apparently would be a reason for people to say we are in a fair position.   yet, people think the idea of podium men/women is disgusting and distasteful.  and that is the part i really do not understand and the reason i came to cmv  maybe because i see podium women since i was a kid ? there is the argument of objectifying people, but they are models which are pleased to do their job.  also it is a thing that takes seconds, kisses are a way of congratulate people and how many times have we joked about it and created similar photos with our friends, while having a good time ? some argue that there is embarrassment between podium girls and the riders, and that may be true, but they are not displeased.  slightly out of context this video was spread on the web URL and people think it is cute while being a much more embarrassing thing at the start.  i have seen riders a little more embarrassed when they had to greet politicians.  the argument against podium women that i agree with is the fact that most of them do not know about cycling.  on a recent event on my country, only 0 out of 0 or 0 i ca not recall had good knowledge about the sport according to a tv report which only had the intent of talking a bit about those girls.  young riders or kids could be there on the podium congratulating the riders and meeting their heroes.  yet, we should consider that podium girls usually represent brands, and they are a way of sponsoring a race and that would need to be rethought if we replaced them.  note that i am talking about cycling, on other sports you can see examples that could be easily labeled as sexism, which do not apply to the regular cycling podium, even though i welcome your arguments if you talk about other sports.  and well, if you disagree with me, just do not do this URL i want to know why you think i am wrong and i want you to change my view  #  yet, people think the idea of podium men/women is disgusting and distasteful.   #  and that is the part i really do not understand and the reason i came to cmv maybe because i see podium women since i was a kid ?  # and that is the part i really do not understand and the reason i came to cmv maybe because i see podium women since i was a kid ? there is the argument of objectifying people, but they are models which are pleased to do their job.  also it is a thing that takes seconds, kisses are a way of congratulate people and how many times have we joked about it and created similar photos with our friends, while having a good time ? sorry, i am not particularly familiar with cycling.  do they really pay a pretty girl to stand on a stage and then kiss the winner ? that just seems. archaic.   #  yes, they could opt to choose something different and make the change, but if women is racing has podium men and men is racing has podium women, are we perpetuating people as decoration, or giving jobs to models and allow sponsors visibility ?  #  i understand this view, but if we have a short sighted view and just treat them as models, than all the modeling can be labeled as decoration.  also, the girls/women that spend seconds on a podium, are promoting the brand they represent before and after the race ends, so they are not there just to a be a one minute decor piece.  yes, this minute could be removed, but race sponsors want to be visible the few seconds that go on tv and it is their way to be there.  the monetary argument is not best in any case but sponsors would not like to have these exposure removed.  and if people really disagree with podium girls, then those sponsors would likely search for other alternatives that please people more.  yes, they could opt to choose something different and make the change, but if women is racing has podium men and men is racing has podium women, are we perpetuating people as decoration, or giving jobs to models and allow sponsors visibility ? after all, as you say, cycling is not the one that has to make the biggest changes.   #  i am not denying that it is being used for that.   # but why does this need to be the mechanism for doing it ? i am not denying that it is being used for that.  but explaining the way it is used does not quality as a justification for using it.  things that make sense can still be problematic in important ways.  i am not comparing podium women to slavery, but you can defend slavery using the same line of reasoning you are: explaining why it is used and thinking that makes it not a problem.  you can also promote something by dressing someone up in blackface, giving them a shirt with a logo of a sponsor, and having them run on stage.  but just because that would serve the propose of promotion does not mean it made sense to do it.  so yes, it is not an established thing.  then it seems pretty dishonest to pretend everything is equal in this case when there pretty clearly are not  #  but, since i am okay with it being replaced by young riders, i am not considering it a problem myself.   #  my response was neutral you asked  what is the reason for this i replied with the reason, and by saying  not saying it is not problematic.   i am not saying it  is  problematic either, otherwise i would be denying what i am saying in the title.  if we stretch things, i could say there is a problem here, because there is a public opinion that goes against podium women, so we have a conflict.  but, since i am okay with it being replaced by young riders, i am not considering it a problem myself.  i was only able to read your comments where you replied to other redditors now and your concerns are related to how young viewers girls perceive the podium considering social media, right ?  #  if a young girl watches that, she partially internalizes the value the women are valuable primarily because of their appearance, and that attractive women are a  prize  for men.   #  yeah i know i was misunderstanding that point.  that is only a subset of it, really.  yes, that is one problem.  if a young girl watches that, she partially internalizes the value the women are valuable primarily because of their appearance, and that attractive women are a  prize  for men.  also beauty standards and what not.  but it is not only young girls that see that.  it is everybody.  everybody internalizes that norm as something that persists in yet one more walk of life.  and the way that affects their actions then also causes harm.
in many states in the usa, convicted felons lose their right to vote, and the loss of that right is sometimes permanent i. e.  even survives the completion of their sentence .  while significant chunks of the constitution e. g.  the 0th and 0th amendments are dedicated to voting rights, i realize there is a clause in the 0th that allows but does not compel states to disenfranchise felons.  i ca not think of one good reason for states to strip voters of that right, especially considering that the u. s.  is among the most punitive countries out there in this regard.  i think this is especially important because of the implicit biases that are created by stripping felons of their voting rights felon disenfranchisement serves as a proxy for a racial bias in a similar way to voter id laws.  so again my two in one cmv is 0 that felons should not lose their right to vote to begin with and 0 that felons who have lost the right to vote should regain it after serving their sentence.  i am looking forward to having my view changed thanks all !  #  felon disenfranchisement serves as a proxy for a racial bias in a similar way to voter id laws.   #  i do not believe these two are comparable at all.   # i do not believe these two are comparable at all.  felons have made a specific choice to take illegal action.  while there is indisputably some injustice/inequality in the way laws are written and enforced and sentences handed down, the vast majority of felons are actually guilty of a felony.  if 0 of crimes were committed by whites or blacks or any other group, it would not be a proxy for racial bias to hand out a consequence for those crimes.  i can agree with you that voting rights should be restored post sentence, but i cannot agree that a law that takes rights away from all felons is related to racial bias.   #  life in prison is justified for some crimes, and i would argue that life without voting is justifiable for all the same reasons for those particular crimes.   #  we remove  many  civil rights from criminals as part of an attempt to protect society and deter crime.  we remove their freedom of motion/action.  we remove their freedom from searches.  we remove their freedom of association.  all of these are far worse and far more fundamental than removing their right to vote.  however, i agree with part of what you are saying.  after their sentence is over, including any parole they are required to serve to be released early, they should be allowed to vote.  basically, at the present time, felons are in effect sentenced, in addition to such and such number of years in prison, and so many years of parole and/or community service, to life without voting.  so in a sense, that aspect of their punishment is a life sentence.  now, i happen to disagree with that particular life sentence as being too draconian in most cases, but at present it is part of their punishment, so  after they have served their sentence  does not mean they necessarily ever would get to vote, because part of their sentence is life without voting.  life in prison is justified for some crimes, and i would argue that life without voting is justifiable for all the same reasons for those particular crimes.   #  i am completely stripped of the social safety net, barred from working in more places than i can count, and to top it all off i am always suspicious to police.   # it feel like its to increase recidivism, and continue to punish felons decades after they have committed their crime.  i am biased though.  we remove their freedom from searches.  we remove their freedom of association.  i have been a felon for 0 years in texas.  i can vote fortunately.  however i can not get food stamps, section 0, a majority of grants or loans, welfair, work for the government or join the military, own a gun or even technically have easy access to one , along with a lot of work and professional license restrictions.  i can not work with kids, elderly, or the disabled for example.  can not get bonded.  in fact when i become unemployed i tend to have to apply to 0 or more places to get 0 or 0 interviews. for minimum wage positions.  i also can not be elected to any office.  oh and i almost did not get a visa to enter south korea.  my ex wife is military status is the only reason it was granted.  i imagine a lot of 0st world countries are the same.  i am completely stripped of the social safety net, barred from working in more places than i can count, and to top it all off i am always suspicious to police.  i have not had a traffic stop in 0 years that does not involve me being questioned and my car searched for an hour.  very lame and makes life way more difficult than your average citizen is struggle.  agreed, but iirc only three states still impose a life long denial of the right to vote to all citizens with a felony record; florida, kentucky, and virginia.  most give it back after a few years.  i never lost it in texas afaik.   #  i would not dare to count the number of people who might have fallen into crime for economic and social reasons if they had not had the opportunity to enlist in the military.   #    i was not aware of the extent to which convicted felons that have completed their sentences have a wide number of social programs designed to reduce crime stripped from them.  barring access to welfare programs that address basic expenses, like food stamps and section 0 housing vouchers, seems likely to increase recidivism, not least by instilling a sense that society has completely turned its back on the individual; so they might as well turn their back on society.  furthermore, one of the under appreciated domestic roles of the military is providing employment and stability for able bodied people, including those who might not have the life skills to support themselves easily.  even as enlistment standards become more competitive, a given prospect is chances of successfully enlisting are extremely high compared to private sector job entrance standards.  i would not dare to count the number of people who might have fallen into crime for economic and social reasons if they had not had the opportunity to enlist in the military.  denying convicted felons this opportunity to reform seems costly to recidivism rates, even as it may be beneficial to the military itself.   #  only reason i got the job was my significant other at the time is brother worked there.   #  i live in the same area.  i am a cnc machinist in a small shop now.  got lucky and finally found a boss who does not care and pays wells.  climbing in pay and life is best it is been since my arrest.  only took a decade and a half.  i know some guys who had jobs in the port before.  those workers are expendable and there is not much room to move up and get out of the labor side of things.  i also had a job with a company that delt with chemical tanker crews.  i was in and out of the ports, plants, and airports all day.  i lost that job because the airports changed their policy on felons being allowed to enter for work.  i lost my pass and boss laid me off since i could no longer do my job.  having a felony was already and issue though.  only reason i got the job was my significant other at the time is brother worked there.  i also managed to get a job traveling the us installing commercial skylights.  was nice pay about what i make now but i was only home a few weeks a year.  i got burnt out after 0 0/0 years.  i bend over backwards to keep my current job, because if i become unemployed again it may take months or longer to find another job paying half what i get.
i recently saw a video on why the republicans ca not win URL the 0 election.  if we go by raw numbers, hillary will most likely win the next election.  this got me thinking.  demographics are changing in america.  firstly, non whites become a higher percent of the us population seemingly every year.  this could be for a number of reasons, like immigration, but it is a good thing for the democrats because non whites are statistically more likely to be liberal.  i do not see this trend changing so i have a hard time seeing how the a conservative will be voted into office again.  secondly, conservatives are aging.  statistically, older people are typically more conservative whereas younger people are typically more liberal.  the older conservatives will eventually all die and be replaced by young liberals.  i must be overlooking something, or missing some way that conservatives can get votes in the future.  has a situation like this happened before ?  #  the older conservatives will eventually all die and be replaced by young liberals.   #  older people die and younger people get married, have kids, and get older themselves.   #  minority categories are not static.  once the irish were considered colored foreigners.  now they are considered white.  today, hispanics are in the process of becoming white.  at this exact moment, they trend democrat because of immigration issues and current racial dynamics.  but they are religious, pro life, and upwardly mobile in terms of socioeconomic status.  they are not guaranteed democratic votes forever.  older people die and younger people get married, have kids, and get older themselves.   #  the biggest issue will remain who can swing moderates, and who can turn out the vote.   #  fivethirtyeight, a very respected polling and analysis firm, has debunked the idea of a   great blue wall URL additionally, lawrence o wouldonnell is about as biased a source as you kind find without being literally employed by the dnc.  past that, the demographics are not clearly as clean cut as you would think.  first and foremost, 0 0, the largest voting block by age, went to romney in 0.  the 0 0 group was a 0 0 split on favor of obama.  the biggest issue will remain who can swing moderates, and who can turn out the vote.  the major voting blocks where the democrats get there demographic advantage youth, minorities, unmarried women are notoriously fickle voters, with frequent and expected low turnout.   #  0.  the claim that democratic voters are  fickle  i think comes from the fact that they tend not to turn out in midterm years, which is fair enough.   #  agreed that lawrence o wouldonnell is biased and that the  blue wall  does not exist at least not in the sense of the electoral college somehow being biased to favor democrats .  but i think it is hard to refute the claim that demographic trends favor the democratic party: 0.  swing moderates, the group you cite as decisive, basically do not exist anymore in large numbers.  presidential elections are essentially about who can do the best job of turning out the base.  romney won self described  independents  in 0 and they proved irrelevant to the result.  0.  in every presidential election since 0, the democratic base has been growing and the republican base has been shrinking.  0.  those voting blocks you cite youth, minorities, unmarried women have been steadily increasing their turnout rates every presidential election.  the fact that romney won white voters and the 0 0 age group and still lost the election should be evidence that, while they may still represent a pluralities of voters, they are rapidly losing ground.  0.  the claim that democratic voters are  fickle  i think comes from the fact that they tend not to turn out in midterm years, which is fair enough.  but if you look only at presidential election years, there is really no evidence to support that claim.  i certainly do not think a democratic victory in 0 is inevitable, but i think it is essentially theirs to lose.  i think the decisive factor will be whether hillary or bernie, or whoever else is able to keep obama is superior ground game and voter turnout operation intact amid infighting and weak leadership.   #  what is currently conservative was not the exact conservative platform 0 years ago and vice versa.   #  what is currently conservative was not the exact conservative platform 0 years ago and vice versa.  in 0 years maybe the dems become so far left and down if were using the 0 quadrant graph in realm of authoritarian that centrist liberals like myself ca not align with them anymore.  i am a liberal with libertarian tendencies law school put that in me .  parties can reform, become too polarized, etc etc.  alot can happen that would sway a centrist like me to a conservative party who stopped fighting social issues such as gay marriage.   #  socialism has a stigma associated with it that will turn people off of a candidate.   #  if bernie sanders wins the nomination like reddit wants i would bet good money that the republicans win the 0 election.  i think you make a lot of good points, but the closer the left/democrats get to socialism the less moderates/independants they will swing.  socialism has a stigma associated with it that will turn people off of a candidate.  bernie and others who follow his ideology may have some support, but a national election will likely fail due to how easy it is to play into the fear of socialism leading to communism.  conversely, if the democrats stay just left of center and continue to appeal to the moderates primarily they have a good shot of winning a ton of elections due to the number of people who are minorities and those who rely on governmental assistance.    to me this is the key to the plan of the democrats speculatively
it is my belief that self driving cars and cars that pollute lesser than their gas powered counterparts are an unnecessary diversion in creating a safe cleaner people transportation system.  we already have it ! it is the trains ! if public transport such as railways are expanded and given priority over road vehicles in infrastructure, then we can achieve the goals that the automotive industry is trying to achieve very quickly.  we should divert the resources that we spend on making smarter cars finances and human capital to making smarter, faster, safer, public transport and expand the rail network.  if we just expand the rail network then people will automatically shift from driving a car to riding on a train as their preferred choice of daily commute.  some of the points i have against road transport for individuals.  •	environmental impact a vast majority of cars are running on fuels that emit pollutants in the environment.  •	safety road injury was one of the top 0 causes of death in the world.  according to who, road injury took lives of 0 million people in the last decade.  •	stress  while driving for enjoyment is really fun on your off days, daily commute hardly is.  we are spending a nice chunk of our day that we can spend relaxing, reading or working to complete the last minute project on a rather stressful, and repetitive driving route facing traffic jams and asshole drivers.  •	energy efficiency   a car owner takes a ton of metal with him just to get from point a to b.  fuel efficiency of trains is superior to that of cars.  •	maintenance   a car requires frequent upkeep and maintenance of its parts and components.  •	economy   transportation is lot more expensive in cars.  here are some points that i have for expansion of public transport.  •	bonus free time   when i am in a train i can browse my phone, read a news paper work on my presentation without the fear of killing someone.  this is something driverless cars are trying to achieve and are still years away from it.  •	potty breaks   trains can be modified to have them, cars do not.  i would have to pause my driving, find a gas station and then resume it again, why do that when you can go on the go.  •	fuel efficiency.  •	noise reduction.  •	skill transfer people who graduate in engineering and were thinking of joining an automotive manufacturer can just as easily join a locomotive manufacturer.  i am not arguing for an absolute ban on using cars, i just think if we focus on public transport more than we would solve a lot of problems that automotive market is trying to eliminate.  problems such as energy efficiency, pollution, and vehicle automation can be achieved with technology that we have  today.   #  we should divert the resources that we spend on making smarter cars finances and human capital to making smarter, faster, safer, public transport and expand the rail network.   #  if we just expand the rail network then people will automatically shift from driving a car to riding on a train as their preferred choice of daily commute.   #  i see a number of issues with you argument, i will try to list them here:   if public transport such as railways are expanded and given priority over road vehicles in infrastructure, then we can achieve the goals that the automotive industry is trying to achieve very quickly.  public transport is already given priority over automobiles think bus lanes in most metropolitan areas, railway crossings, tram lines, city center tax for automobiles, etc.  as for r d, train companies will invest in trains and auto companies will invest in cars.  if we just expand the rail network then people will automatically shift from driving a car to riding on a train as their preferred choice of daily commute.  unfortunately you cannot dictate how a private business spends it is money.  the need for automobiles will always exist, as public transportation can not cover the whole road network.  if this need exists, it is logical someone will invest into bettering the technology.  for now.  the technology for electric vehicles is already here and rapid progress is made in the field of energy storage.  also, public transportation does not mean pollution free.  a train carrying 0 passengers on a not so popular route can pollute more than 0 cars depending on the energy source .  according to who, road injury took lives of 0 million people in the last decade.  this is actually a reason for safer cars/self driving cars than for using public transportation.  as do trains, trams, buses, etc.  again, as long as the train is filled to some capacity.  same as above.  yes and no.  an engineer can adapt or retrain, but it is not as straightforward.  each field poses a unique set of requirements and limitations.  it is like asking a dentist to perform knee surgery.   #  you know, whenever i see the footage of these self driving cars riding on a highway what does it remind me of ?  # and self driving cars hold the promise of eliminating gridlock and making riding in cars so much safer that whilst still retaining the notion of a private trip right to one is destination.  you know, whenever i see the footage of these self driving cars riding on a highway what does it remind me of ? it reminds me of train compartments running on a track ! it is like we have this technology where an engine is pulling four bogies and we are improving it by putting an engine in every compartment and instead of a physical link in between that transfers the momentum; we are using radio waves to communicate between cars.  it seems such an inefficient use of energy.  yes public transport wo not always give you the convenience of point to point transportation, but what i am calling for is an improvement in the system so that the distance between point  a  to the station and point  b  to the destination will be lessened.  you can hail a cab rest of the way.  i am not arguing an absolute ban on cars, if it is cost effective where she lives she can go for it.  my focus is mainly daily commuters.  private companies are not exactly free to do whatever they want; they are making these cars because there is a demand and hype for it.  i would like to see same enthusiasm from the public.  if we have that, privet sector will follow.   #  a train carrying 0 passengers on a not so popular route can pollute more than 0 cars depending on the energy source .   # i am just saying those who invest in trains are providing a better alternative to daily commute and should be encouraged more by government and the public.  i am not.  maybe not the whole network like a point to point travel, but it can definitely cover the high population areas and frequently travelled routes more effectively; this will result in car travel seeming more expensive and a redundant option.  environmental impact a vast majority of cars are running on fuels that emit pollutants in the environment.  the technology for electric vehicles is already here and rapid progress is made in the field of energy storage.  also, public transportation does not mean pollution free.  a train carrying 0 passengers on a not so popular route can pollute more than 0 cars depending on the energy source .  of course most frequently travelled routes must be taken into consideration for this, i am not arguing for a train in every town.  but we are still years away from this technology, and even then you cannot guaranty road safety, because even though you may have a self driving car, the vehicle that crashed into you was driven by someone who took controls for himself.  burdon of these is not on the commuter, yes we pay for it, be you wo not be taking care of a bus or a train like you do for your car.  an engineer can adapt or retrain, but it is not as straightforward.  each field poses a unique set of requirements and limitations.  it is like asking a dentist to perform knee surgery.  i am talking about the new graduates and fresh engineers who might be afraid of not getting a job in automotive sector.   #  if we create demand, then a decent government will take appropriate measures.   #  if people use cars where public transportation is not viable, that is ok.  if people use cars because there is no public transportation, but public transportation is viable, then it is the problem of the government for not providing public transportation.  you and i can would just pay more taxes but force the government to implement public transport, it does not work that way, and auto companies really have no fault in this.  they are exploiting a profitable scenario.  if people use cars in places where there is public transportation, then there is a problem with the community.  a good incentive for government to invest more money in public transportation is using it more.  if we create demand, then a decent government will take appropriate measures.  again, this has nothing to do with r d money of the auto industry.   #  the car influenced the layout of the city, and as such the city is extremely large and spread out.   #  i am from los angeles, and we also cannot rely on public transit alone here.  on the east coast it is fine because the cities were built before the car existed, but the city of los angeles was  designed  around the car.  the car influenced the layout of the city, and as such the city is extremely large and spread out.  this is true of many other suburbs in the west, and i imagine in the east too as  suburbs  were built after the invention of the car as well.  it is simply not possible to put a transit stop everywhere one is needed for people in suburbs and huge cities to properly eliminate people is reliance on cars.
it is my belief that self driving cars and cars that pollute lesser than their gas powered counterparts are an unnecessary diversion in creating a safe cleaner people transportation system.  we already have it ! it is the trains ! if public transport such as railways are expanded and given priority over road vehicles in infrastructure, then we can achieve the goals that the automotive industry is trying to achieve very quickly.  we should divert the resources that we spend on making smarter cars finances and human capital to making smarter, faster, safer, public transport and expand the rail network.  if we just expand the rail network then people will automatically shift from driving a car to riding on a train as their preferred choice of daily commute.  some of the points i have against road transport for individuals.  •	environmental impact a vast majority of cars are running on fuels that emit pollutants in the environment.  •	safety road injury was one of the top 0 causes of death in the world.  according to who, road injury took lives of 0 million people in the last decade.  •	stress  while driving for enjoyment is really fun on your off days, daily commute hardly is.  we are spending a nice chunk of our day that we can spend relaxing, reading or working to complete the last minute project on a rather stressful, and repetitive driving route facing traffic jams and asshole drivers.  •	energy efficiency   a car owner takes a ton of metal with him just to get from point a to b.  fuel efficiency of trains is superior to that of cars.  •	maintenance   a car requires frequent upkeep and maintenance of its parts and components.  •	economy   transportation is lot more expensive in cars.  here are some points that i have for expansion of public transport.  •	bonus free time   when i am in a train i can browse my phone, read a news paper work on my presentation without the fear of killing someone.  this is something driverless cars are trying to achieve and are still years away from it.  •	potty breaks   trains can be modified to have them, cars do not.  i would have to pause my driving, find a gas station and then resume it again, why do that when you can go on the go.  •	fuel efficiency.  •	noise reduction.  •	skill transfer people who graduate in engineering and were thinking of joining an automotive manufacturer can just as easily join a locomotive manufacturer.  i am not arguing for an absolute ban on using cars, i just think if we focus on public transport more than we would solve a lot of problems that automotive market is trying to eliminate.  problems such as energy efficiency, pollution, and vehicle automation can be achieved with technology that we have  today.   #  safety road injury was one of the top 0 causes of death in the world.   #  according to who, road injury took lives of 0 million people in the last decade.   #  i see a number of issues with you argument, i will try to list them here:   if public transport such as railways are expanded and given priority over road vehicles in infrastructure, then we can achieve the goals that the automotive industry is trying to achieve very quickly.  public transport is already given priority over automobiles think bus lanes in most metropolitan areas, railway crossings, tram lines, city center tax for automobiles, etc.  as for r d, train companies will invest in trains and auto companies will invest in cars.  if we just expand the rail network then people will automatically shift from driving a car to riding on a train as their preferred choice of daily commute.  unfortunately you cannot dictate how a private business spends it is money.  the need for automobiles will always exist, as public transportation can not cover the whole road network.  if this need exists, it is logical someone will invest into bettering the technology.  for now.  the technology for electric vehicles is already here and rapid progress is made in the field of energy storage.  also, public transportation does not mean pollution free.  a train carrying 0 passengers on a not so popular route can pollute more than 0 cars depending on the energy source .  according to who, road injury took lives of 0 million people in the last decade.  this is actually a reason for safer cars/self driving cars than for using public transportation.  as do trains, trams, buses, etc.  again, as long as the train is filled to some capacity.  same as above.  yes and no.  an engineer can adapt or retrain, but it is not as straightforward.  each field poses a unique set of requirements and limitations.  it is like asking a dentist to perform knee surgery.   #  if we have that, privet sector will follow.   # and self driving cars hold the promise of eliminating gridlock and making riding in cars so much safer that whilst still retaining the notion of a private trip right to one is destination.  you know, whenever i see the footage of these self driving cars riding on a highway what does it remind me of ? it reminds me of train compartments running on a track ! it is like we have this technology where an engine is pulling four bogies and we are improving it by putting an engine in every compartment and instead of a physical link in between that transfers the momentum; we are using radio waves to communicate between cars.  it seems such an inefficient use of energy.  yes public transport wo not always give you the convenience of point to point transportation, but what i am calling for is an improvement in the system so that the distance between point  a  to the station and point  b  to the destination will be lessened.  you can hail a cab rest of the way.  i am not arguing an absolute ban on cars, if it is cost effective where she lives she can go for it.  my focus is mainly daily commuters.  private companies are not exactly free to do whatever they want; they are making these cars because there is a demand and hype for it.  i would like to see same enthusiasm from the public.  if we have that, privet sector will follow.   #  burdon of these is not on the commuter, yes we pay for it, be you wo not be taking care of a bus or a train like you do for your car.   # i am just saying those who invest in trains are providing a better alternative to daily commute and should be encouraged more by government and the public.  i am not.  maybe not the whole network like a point to point travel, but it can definitely cover the high population areas and frequently travelled routes more effectively; this will result in car travel seeming more expensive and a redundant option.  environmental impact a vast majority of cars are running on fuels that emit pollutants in the environment.  the technology for electric vehicles is already here and rapid progress is made in the field of energy storage.  also, public transportation does not mean pollution free.  a train carrying 0 passengers on a not so popular route can pollute more than 0 cars depending on the energy source .  of course most frequently travelled routes must be taken into consideration for this, i am not arguing for a train in every town.  but we are still years away from this technology, and even then you cannot guaranty road safety, because even though you may have a self driving car, the vehicle that crashed into you was driven by someone who took controls for himself.  burdon of these is not on the commuter, yes we pay for it, be you wo not be taking care of a bus or a train like you do for your car.  an engineer can adapt or retrain, but it is not as straightforward.  each field poses a unique set of requirements and limitations.  it is like asking a dentist to perform knee surgery.  i am talking about the new graduates and fresh engineers who might be afraid of not getting a job in automotive sector.   #  a good incentive for government to invest more money in public transportation is using it more.   #  if people use cars where public transportation is not viable, that is ok.  if people use cars because there is no public transportation, but public transportation is viable, then it is the problem of the government for not providing public transportation.  you and i can would just pay more taxes but force the government to implement public transport, it does not work that way, and auto companies really have no fault in this.  they are exploiting a profitable scenario.  if people use cars in places where there is public transportation, then there is a problem with the community.  a good incentive for government to invest more money in public transportation is using it more.  if we create demand, then a decent government will take appropriate measures.  again, this has nothing to do with r d money of the auto industry.   #  this is true of many other suburbs in the west, and i imagine in the east too as  suburbs  were built after the invention of the car as well.   #  i am from los angeles, and we also cannot rely on public transit alone here.  on the east coast it is fine because the cities were built before the car existed, but the city of los angeles was  designed  around the car.  the car influenced the layout of the city, and as such the city is extremely large and spread out.  this is true of many other suburbs in the west, and i imagine in the east too as  suburbs  were built after the invention of the car as well.  it is simply not possible to put a transit stop everywhere one is needed for people in suburbs and huge cities to properly eliminate people is reliance on cars.
it is my belief that self driving cars and cars that pollute lesser than their gas powered counterparts are an unnecessary diversion in creating a safe cleaner people transportation system.  we already have it ! it is the trains ! if public transport such as railways are expanded and given priority over road vehicles in infrastructure, then we can achieve the goals that the automotive industry is trying to achieve very quickly.  we should divert the resources that we spend on making smarter cars finances and human capital to making smarter, faster, safer, public transport and expand the rail network.  if we just expand the rail network then people will automatically shift from driving a car to riding on a train as their preferred choice of daily commute.  some of the points i have against road transport for individuals.  •	environmental impact a vast majority of cars are running on fuels that emit pollutants in the environment.  •	safety road injury was one of the top 0 causes of death in the world.  according to who, road injury took lives of 0 million people in the last decade.  •	stress  while driving for enjoyment is really fun on your off days, daily commute hardly is.  we are spending a nice chunk of our day that we can spend relaxing, reading or working to complete the last minute project on a rather stressful, and repetitive driving route facing traffic jams and asshole drivers.  •	energy efficiency   a car owner takes a ton of metal with him just to get from point a to b.  fuel efficiency of trains is superior to that of cars.  •	maintenance   a car requires frequent upkeep and maintenance of its parts and components.  •	economy   transportation is lot more expensive in cars.  here are some points that i have for expansion of public transport.  •	bonus free time   when i am in a train i can browse my phone, read a news paper work on my presentation without the fear of killing someone.  this is something driverless cars are trying to achieve and are still years away from it.  •	potty breaks   trains can be modified to have them, cars do not.  i would have to pause my driving, find a gas station and then resume it again, why do that when you can go on the go.  •	fuel efficiency.  •	noise reduction.  •	skill transfer people who graduate in engineering and were thinking of joining an automotive manufacturer can just as easily join a locomotive manufacturer.  i am not arguing for an absolute ban on using cars, i just think if we focus on public transport more than we would solve a lot of problems that automotive market is trying to eliminate.  problems such as energy efficiency, pollution, and vehicle automation can be achieved with technology that we have  today.   #  energy efficiency   a car owner takes a ton of metal with him just to get from point a to b.  fuel efficiency of trains is superior to that of cars.   #  again, as long as the train is filled to some capacity.   #  i see a number of issues with you argument, i will try to list them here:   if public transport such as railways are expanded and given priority over road vehicles in infrastructure, then we can achieve the goals that the automotive industry is trying to achieve very quickly.  public transport is already given priority over automobiles think bus lanes in most metropolitan areas, railway crossings, tram lines, city center tax for automobiles, etc.  as for r d, train companies will invest in trains and auto companies will invest in cars.  if we just expand the rail network then people will automatically shift from driving a car to riding on a train as their preferred choice of daily commute.  unfortunately you cannot dictate how a private business spends it is money.  the need for automobiles will always exist, as public transportation can not cover the whole road network.  if this need exists, it is logical someone will invest into bettering the technology.  for now.  the technology for electric vehicles is already here and rapid progress is made in the field of energy storage.  also, public transportation does not mean pollution free.  a train carrying 0 passengers on a not so popular route can pollute more than 0 cars depending on the energy source .  according to who, road injury took lives of 0 million people in the last decade.  this is actually a reason for safer cars/self driving cars than for using public transportation.  as do trains, trams, buses, etc.  again, as long as the train is filled to some capacity.  same as above.  yes and no.  an engineer can adapt or retrain, but it is not as straightforward.  each field poses a unique set of requirements and limitations.  it is like asking a dentist to perform knee surgery.   #  i would like to see same enthusiasm from the public.   # and self driving cars hold the promise of eliminating gridlock and making riding in cars so much safer that whilst still retaining the notion of a private trip right to one is destination.  you know, whenever i see the footage of these self driving cars riding on a highway what does it remind me of ? it reminds me of train compartments running on a track ! it is like we have this technology where an engine is pulling four bogies and we are improving it by putting an engine in every compartment and instead of a physical link in between that transfers the momentum; we are using radio waves to communicate between cars.  it seems such an inefficient use of energy.  yes public transport wo not always give you the convenience of point to point transportation, but what i am calling for is an improvement in the system so that the distance between point  a  to the station and point  b  to the destination will be lessened.  you can hail a cab rest of the way.  i am not arguing an absolute ban on cars, if it is cost effective where she lives she can go for it.  my focus is mainly daily commuters.  private companies are not exactly free to do whatever they want; they are making these cars because there is a demand and hype for it.  i would like to see same enthusiasm from the public.  if we have that, privet sector will follow.   #  i am talking about the new graduates and fresh engineers who might be afraid of not getting a job in automotive sector.   # i am just saying those who invest in trains are providing a better alternative to daily commute and should be encouraged more by government and the public.  i am not.  maybe not the whole network like a point to point travel, but it can definitely cover the high population areas and frequently travelled routes more effectively; this will result in car travel seeming more expensive and a redundant option.  environmental impact a vast majority of cars are running on fuels that emit pollutants in the environment.  the technology for electric vehicles is already here and rapid progress is made in the field of energy storage.  also, public transportation does not mean pollution free.  a train carrying 0 passengers on a not so popular route can pollute more than 0 cars depending on the energy source .  of course most frequently travelled routes must be taken into consideration for this, i am not arguing for a train in every town.  but we are still years away from this technology, and even then you cannot guaranty road safety, because even though you may have a self driving car, the vehicle that crashed into you was driven by someone who took controls for himself.  burdon of these is not on the commuter, yes we pay for it, be you wo not be taking care of a bus or a train like you do for your car.  an engineer can adapt or retrain, but it is not as straightforward.  each field poses a unique set of requirements and limitations.  it is like asking a dentist to perform knee surgery.  i am talking about the new graduates and fresh engineers who might be afraid of not getting a job in automotive sector.   #  if people use cars where public transportation is not viable, that is ok.   #  if people use cars where public transportation is not viable, that is ok.  if people use cars because there is no public transportation, but public transportation is viable, then it is the problem of the government for not providing public transportation.  you and i can would just pay more taxes but force the government to implement public transport, it does not work that way, and auto companies really have no fault in this.  they are exploiting a profitable scenario.  if people use cars in places where there is public transportation, then there is a problem with the community.  a good incentive for government to invest more money in public transportation is using it more.  if we create demand, then a decent government will take appropriate measures.  again, this has nothing to do with r d money of the auto industry.   #  i am from los angeles, and we also cannot rely on public transit alone here.   #  i am from los angeles, and we also cannot rely on public transit alone here.  on the east coast it is fine because the cities were built before the car existed, but the city of los angeles was  designed  around the car.  the car influenced the layout of the city, and as such the city is extremely large and spread out.  this is true of many other suburbs in the west, and i imagine in the east too as  suburbs  were built after the invention of the car as well.  it is simply not possible to put a transit stop everywhere one is needed for people in suburbs and huge cities to properly eliminate people is reliance on cars.
it is my belief that self driving cars and cars that pollute lesser than their gas powered counterparts are an unnecessary diversion in creating a safe cleaner people transportation system.  we already have it ! it is the trains ! if public transport such as railways are expanded and given priority over road vehicles in infrastructure, then we can achieve the goals that the automotive industry is trying to achieve very quickly.  we should divert the resources that we spend on making smarter cars finances and human capital to making smarter, faster, safer, public transport and expand the rail network.  if we just expand the rail network then people will automatically shift from driving a car to riding on a train as their preferred choice of daily commute.  some of the points i have against road transport for individuals.  •	environmental impact a vast majority of cars are running on fuels that emit pollutants in the environment.  •	safety road injury was one of the top 0 causes of death in the world.  according to who, road injury took lives of 0 million people in the last decade.  •	stress  while driving for enjoyment is really fun on your off days, daily commute hardly is.  we are spending a nice chunk of our day that we can spend relaxing, reading or working to complete the last minute project on a rather stressful, and repetitive driving route facing traffic jams and asshole drivers.  •	energy efficiency   a car owner takes a ton of metal with him just to get from point a to b.  fuel efficiency of trains is superior to that of cars.  •	maintenance   a car requires frequent upkeep and maintenance of its parts and components.  •	economy   transportation is lot more expensive in cars.  here are some points that i have for expansion of public transport.  •	bonus free time   when i am in a train i can browse my phone, read a news paper work on my presentation without the fear of killing someone.  this is something driverless cars are trying to achieve and are still years away from it.  •	potty breaks   trains can be modified to have them, cars do not.  i would have to pause my driving, find a gas station and then resume it again, why do that when you can go on the go.  •	fuel efficiency.  •	noise reduction.  •	skill transfer people who graduate in engineering and were thinking of joining an automotive manufacturer can just as easily join a locomotive manufacturer.  i am not arguing for an absolute ban on using cars, i just think if we focus on public transport more than we would solve a lot of problems that automotive market is trying to eliminate.  problems such as energy efficiency, pollution, and vehicle automation can be achieved with technology that we have  today.   #  safety road injury was one of the top 0 causes of death in the world.   #  according to who, road injury took lives of 0 million people in the last decade.   #  just a few points off the top of my head: public transportation is not viable outside of cities.  there is rarely/never a bus/taxi/subway going from one city to another, x miles away.  therefore, if you have any desire to leave the city you need a vehicle.  according to who, road injury took lives of 0 million people in the last decade.  self driving cars will fix this exact problem; public transportation still has stupid, stupid people behind the wheels.  we are spending a nice chunk of our day that we can spend relaxing, reading or working to complete the last minute project on a rather stressful, and repetitive driving route facing traffic jams and asshole drivers.  self driving cars will also fix this problem by allowing us to sit and relax, read a book, the news, watch tv, whatever.  what about financial efficiency ? are you going to build a train/subway from every single house in america to every city nearest them, and then from every city to every city ? that would take far, far more energy than just letting people drive when they need to.  so do subways/trains/taxis/buses.  you just do not see it unless you work for them.  this is something driverless cars are trying to achieve and are still years away from it.  already addressed this with my comments on stress earlier; with self driving cars you can do whatever you want.  i would have to pause my driving, find a gas station and then resume it again, why do that when you can go on the go.  if you ca not drive an hour without needing to pee, that is a personal problem, not a societal one.  most public transportation has to travel on a circuit, no matter whether or not anyone is actually on it, because it has to keep to x schedule.  to effectively replace individual transportation you would have to increase the of active public transports, increase the of stops, and increase the amount of time they spend active.  not to mention adding between city routes more than they already have, on a  far  larger scale.  some points against public transportation: people are rude.  people are smelly.  public transportation is unreliable at the best of times, and outright sucks at the worst.  for self driving cars: always available, for your own personal use and no one elses.  germ free can increase fuel efficiency by being forced to obey speed limits and eliminating human error like not using cruise control .   #  i would like to see same enthusiasm from the public.   # and self driving cars hold the promise of eliminating gridlock and making riding in cars so much safer that whilst still retaining the notion of a private trip right to one is destination.  you know, whenever i see the footage of these self driving cars riding on a highway what does it remind me of ? it reminds me of train compartments running on a track ! it is like we have this technology where an engine is pulling four bogies and we are improving it by putting an engine in every compartment and instead of a physical link in between that transfers the momentum; we are using radio waves to communicate between cars.  it seems such an inefficient use of energy.  yes public transport wo not always give you the convenience of point to point transportation, but what i am calling for is an improvement in the system so that the distance between point  a  to the station and point  b  to the destination will be lessened.  you can hail a cab rest of the way.  i am not arguing an absolute ban on cars, if it is cost effective where she lives she can go for it.  my focus is mainly daily commuters.  private companies are not exactly free to do whatever they want; they are making these cars because there is a demand and hype for it.  i would like to see same enthusiasm from the public.  if we have that, privet sector will follow.   #  each field poses a unique set of requirements and limitations.   #  i see a number of issues with you argument, i will try to list them here:   if public transport such as railways are expanded and given priority over road vehicles in infrastructure, then we can achieve the goals that the automotive industry is trying to achieve very quickly.  public transport is already given priority over automobiles think bus lanes in most metropolitan areas, railway crossings, tram lines, city center tax for automobiles, etc.  as for r d, train companies will invest in trains and auto companies will invest in cars.  if we just expand the rail network then people will automatically shift from driving a car to riding on a train as their preferred choice of daily commute.  unfortunately you cannot dictate how a private business spends it is money.  the need for automobiles will always exist, as public transportation can not cover the whole road network.  if this need exists, it is logical someone will invest into bettering the technology.  for now.  the technology for electric vehicles is already here and rapid progress is made in the field of energy storage.  also, public transportation does not mean pollution free.  a train carrying 0 passengers on a not so popular route can pollute more than 0 cars depending on the energy source .  according to who, road injury took lives of 0 million people in the last decade.  this is actually a reason for safer cars/self driving cars than for using public transportation.  as do trains, trams, buses, etc.  again, as long as the train is filled to some capacity.  same as above.  yes and no.  an engineer can adapt or retrain, but it is not as straightforward.  each field poses a unique set of requirements and limitations.  it is like asking a dentist to perform knee surgery.   #  i am just saying those who invest in trains are providing a better alternative to daily commute and should be encouraged more by government and the public.   # i am just saying those who invest in trains are providing a better alternative to daily commute and should be encouraged more by government and the public.  i am not.  maybe not the whole network like a point to point travel, but it can definitely cover the high population areas and frequently travelled routes more effectively; this will result in car travel seeming more expensive and a redundant option.  environmental impact a vast majority of cars are running on fuels that emit pollutants in the environment.  the technology for electric vehicles is already here and rapid progress is made in the field of energy storage.  also, public transportation does not mean pollution free.  a train carrying 0 passengers on a not so popular route can pollute more than 0 cars depending on the energy source .  of course most frequently travelled routes must be taken into consideration for this, i am not arguing for a train in every town.  but we are still years away from this technology, and even then you cannot guaranty road safety, because even though you may have a self driving car, the vehicle that crashed into you was driven by someone who took controls for himself.  burdon of these is not on the commuter, yes we pay for it, be you wo not be taking care of a bus or a train like you do for your car.  an engineer can adapt or retrain, but it is not as straightforward.  each field poses a unique set of requirements and limitations.  it is like asking a dentist to perform knee surgery.  i am talking about the new graduates and fresh engineers who might be afraid of not getting a job in automotive sector.   #  again, this has nothing to do with r d money of the auto industry.   #  if people use cars where public transportation is not viable, that is ok.  if people use cars because there is no public transportation, but public transportation is viable, then it is the problem of the government for not providing public transportation.  you and i can would just pay more taxes but force the government to implement public transport, it does not work that way, and auto companies really have no fault in this.  they are exploiting a profitable scenario.  if people use cars in places where there is public transportation, then there is a problem with the community.  a good incentive for government to invest more money in public transportation is using it more.  if we create demand, then a decent government will take appropriate measures.  again, this has nothing to do with r d money of the auto industry.
it is my belief that self driving cars and cars that pollute lesser than their gas powered counterparts are an unnecessary diversion in creating a safe cleaner people transportation system.  we already have it ! it is the trains ! if public transport such as railways are expanded and given priority over road vehicles in infrastructure, then we can achieve the goals that the automotive industry is trying to achieve very quickly.  we should divert the resources that we spend on making smarter cars finances and human capital to making smarter, faster, safer, public transport and expand the rail network.  if we just expand the rail network then people will automatically shift from driving a car to riding on a train as their preferred choice of daily commute.  some of the points i have against road transport for individuals.  •	environmental impact a vast majority of cars are running on fuels that emit pollutants in the environment.  •	safety road injury was one of the top 0 causes of death in the world.  according to who, road injury took lives of 0 million people in the last decade.  •	stress  while driving for enjoyment is really fun on your off days, daily commute hardly is.  we are spending a nice chunk of our day that we can spend relaxing, reading or working to complete the last minute project on a rather stressful, and repetitive driving route facing traffic jams and asshole drivers.  •	energy efficiency   a car owner takes a ton of metal with him just to get from point a to b.  fuel efficiency of trains is superior to that of cars.  •	maintenance   a car requires frequent upkeep and maintenance of its parts and components.  •	economy   transportation is lot more expensive in cars.  here are some points that i have for expansion of public transport.  •	bonus free time   when i am in a train i can browse my phone, read a news paper work on my presentation without the fear of killing someone.  this is something driverless cars are trying to achieve and are still years away from it.  •	potty breaks   trains can be modified to have them, cars do not.  i would have to pause my driving, find a gas station and then resume it again, why do that when you can go on the go.  •	fuel efficiency.  •	noise reduction.  •	skill transfer people who graduate in engineering and were thinking of joining an automotive manufacturer can just as easily join a locomotive manufacturer.  i am not arguing for an absolute ban on using cars, i just think if we focus on public transport more than we would solve a lot of problems that automotive market is trying to eliminate.  problems such as energy efficiency, pollution, and vehicle automation can be achieved with technology that we have  today.   #  stress  while driving for enjoyment is really fun on your off days, daily commute hardly is.   #  we are spending a nice chunk of our day that we can spend relaxing, reading or working to complete the last minute project on a rather stressful, and repetitive driving route facing traffic jams and asshole drivers.   #  just a few points off the top of my head: public transportation is not viable outside of cities.  there is rarely/never a bus/taxi/subway going from one city to another, x miles away.  therefore, if you have any desire to leave the city you need a vehicle.  according to who, road injury took lives of 0 million people in the last decade.  self driving cars will fix this exact problem; public transportation still has stupid, stupid people behind the wheels.  we are spending a nice chunk of our day that we can spend relaxing, reading or working to complete the last minute project on a rather stressful, and repetitive driving route facing traffic jams and asshole drivers.  self driving cars will also fix this problem by allowing us to sit and relax, read a book, the news, watch tv, whatever.  what about financial efficiency ? are you going to build a train/subway from every single house in america to every city nearest them, and then from every city to every city ? that would take far, far more energy than just letting people drive when they need to.  so do subways/trains/taxis/buses.  you just do not see it unless you work for them.  this is something driverless cars are trying to achieve and are still years away from it.  already addressed this with my comments on stress earlier; with self driving cars you can do whatever you want.  i would have to pause my driving, find a gas station and then resume it again, why do that when you can go on the go.  if you ca not drive an hour without needing to pee, that is a personal problem, not a societal one.  most public transportation has to travel on a circuit, no matter whether or not anyone is actually on it, because it has to keep to x schedule.  to effectively replace individual transportation you would have to increase the of active public transports, increase the of stops, and increase the amount of time they spend active.  not to mention adding between city routes more than they already have, on a  far  larger scale.  some points against public transportation: people are rude.  people are smelly.  public transportation is unreliable at the best of times, and outright sucks at the worst.  for self driving cars: always available, for your own personal use and no one elses.  germ free can increase fuel efficiency by being forced to obey speed limits and eliminating human error like not using cruise control .   #  it seems such an inefficient use of energy.   # and self driving cars hold the promise of eliminating gridlock and making riding in cars so much safer that whilst still retaining the notion of a private trip right to one is destination.  you know, whenever i see the footage of these self driving cars riding on a highway what does it remind me of ? it reminds me of train compartments running on a track ! it is like we have this technology where an engine is pulling four bogies and we are improving it by putting an engine in every compartment and instead of a physical link in between that transfers the momentum; we are using radio waves to communicate between cars.  it seems such an inefficient use of energy.  yes public transport wo not always give you the convenience of point to point transportation, but what i am calling for is an improvement in the system so that the distance between point  a  to the station and point  b  to the destination will be lessened.  you can hail a cab rest of the way.  i am not arguing an absolute ban on cars, if it is cost effective where she lives she can go for it.  my focus is mainly daily commuters.  private companies are not exactly free to do whatever they want; they are making these cars because there is a demand and hype for it.  i would like to see same enthusiasm from the public.  if we have that, privet sector will follow.   #  a train carrying 0 passengers on a not so popular route can pollute more than 0 cars depending on the energy source .   #  i see a number of issues with you argument, i will try to list them here:   if public transport such as railways are expanded and given priority over road vehicles in infrastructure, then we can achieve the goals that the automotive industry is trying to achieve very quickly.  public transport is already given priority over automobiles think bus lanes in most metropolitan areas, railway crossings, tram lines, city center tax for automobiles, etc.  as for r d, train companies will invest in trains and auto companies will invest in cars.  if we just expand the rail network then people will automatically shift from driving a car to riding on a train as their preferred choice of daily commute.  unfortunately you cannot dictate how a private business spends it is money.  the need for automobiles will always exist, as public transportation can not cover the whole road network.  if this need exists, it is logical someone will invest into bettering the technology.  for now.  the technology for electric vehicles is already here and rapid progress is made in the field of energy storage.  also, public transportation does not mean pollution free.  a train carrying 0 passengers on a not so popular route can pollute more than 0 cars depending on the energy source .  according to who, road injury took lives of 0 million people in the last decade.  this is actually a reason for safer cars/self driving cars than for using public transportation.  as do trains, trams, buses, etc.  again, as long as the train is filled to some capacity.  same as above.  yes and no.  an engineer can adapt or retrain, but it is not as straightforward.  each field poses a unique set of requirements and limitations.  it is like asking a dentist to perform knee surgery.   #  i am talking about the new graduates and fresh engineers who might be afraid of not getting a job in automotive sector.   # i am just saying those who invest in trains are providing a better alternative to daily commute and should be encouraged more by government and the public.  i am not.  maybe not the whole network like a point to point travel, but it can definitely cover the high population areas and frequently travelled routes more effectively; this will result in car travel seeming more expensive and a redundant option.  environmental impact a vast majority of cars are running on fuels that emit pollutants in the environment.  the technology for electric vehicles is already here and rapid progress is made in the field of energy storage.  also, public transportation does not mean pollution free.  a train carrying 0 passengers on a not so popular route can pollute more than 0 cars depending on the energy source .  of course most frequently travelled routes must be taken into consideration for this, i am not arguing for a train in every town.  but we are still years away from this technology, and even then you cannot guaranty road safety, because even though you may have a self driving car, the vehicle that crashed into you was driven by someone who took controls for himself.  burdon of these is not on the commuter, yes we pay for it, be you wo not be taking care of a bus or a train like you do for your car.  an engineer can adapt or retrain, but it is not as straightforward.  each field poses a unique set of requirements and limitations.  it is like asking a dentist to perform knee surgery.  i am talking about the new graduates and fresh engineers who might be afraid of not getting a job in automotive sector.   #  a good incentive for government to invest more money in public transportation is using it more.   #  if people use cars where public transportation is not viable, that is ok.  if people use cars because there is no public transportation, but public transportation is viable, then it is the problem of the government for not providing public transportation.  you and i can would just pay more taxes but force the government to implement public transport, it does not work that way, and auto companies really have no fault in this.  they are exploiting a profitable scenario.  if people use cars in places where there is public transportation, then there is a problem with the community.  a good incentive for government to invest more money in public transportation is using it more.  if we create demand, then a decent government will take appropriate measures.  again, this has nothing to do with r d money of the auto industry.
it is my belief that self driving cars and cars that pollute lesser than their gas powered counterparts are an unnecessary diversion in creating a safe cleaner people transportation system.  we already have it ! it is the trains ! if public transport such as railways are expanded and given priority over road vehicles in infrastructure, then we can achieve the goals that the automotive industry is trying to achieve very quickly.  we should divert the resources that we spend on making smarter cars finances and human capital to making smarter, faster, safer, public transport and expand the rail network.  if we just expand the rail network then people will automatically shift from driving a car to riding on a train as their preferred choice of daily commute.  some of the points i have against road transport for individuals.  •	environmental impact a vast majority of cars are running on fuels that emit pollutants in the environment.  •	safety road injury was one of the top 0 causes of death in the world.  according to who, road injury took lives of 0 million people in the last decade.  •	stress  while driving for enjoyment is really fun on your off days, daily commute hardly is.  we are spending a nice chunk of our day that we can spend relaxing, reading or working to complete the last minute project on a rather stressful, and repetitive driving route facing traffic jams and asshole drivers.  •	energy efficiency   a car owner takes a ton of metal with him just to get from point a to b.  fuel efficiency of trains is superior to that of cars.  •	maintenance   a car requires frequent upkeep and maintenance of its parts and components.  •	economy   transportation is lot more expensive in cars.  here are some points that i have for expansion of public transport.  •	bonus free time   when i am in a train i can browse my phone, read a news paper work on my presentation without the fear of killing someone.  this is something driverless cars are trying to achieve and are still years away from it.  •	potty breaks   trains can be modified to have them, cars do not.  i would have to pause my driving, find a gas station and then resume it again, why do that when you can go on the go.  •	fuel efficiency.  •	noise reduction.  •	skill transfer people who graduate in engineering and were thinking of joining an automotive manufacturer can just as easily join a locomotive manufacturer.  i am not arguing for an absolute ban on using cars, i just think if we focus on public transport more than we would solve a lot of problems that automotive market is trying to eliminate.  problems such as energy efficiency, pollution, and vehicle automation can be achieved with technology that we have  today.   #  bonus free time   when i am in a train i can browse my phone, read a news paper work on my presentation without the fear of killing someone.   #  this is something driverless cars are trying to achieve and are still years away from it.   #  just a few points off the top of my head: public transportation is not viable outside of cities.  there is rarely/never a bus/taxi/subway going from one city to another, x miles away.  therefore, if you have any desire to leave the city you need a vehicle.  according to who, road injury took lives of 0 million people in the last decade.  self driving cars will fix this exact problem; public transportation still has stupid, stupid people behind the wheels.  we are spending a nice chunk of our day that we can spend relaxing, reading or working to complete the last minute project on a rather stressful, and repetitive driving route facing traffic jams and asshole drivers.  self driving cars will also fix this problem by allowing us to sit and relax, read a book, the news, watch tv, whatever.  what about financial efficiency ? are you going to build a train/subway from every single house in america to every city nearest them, and then from every city to every city ? that would take far, far more energy than just letting people drive when they need to.  so do subways/trains/taxis/buses.  you just do not see it unless you work for them.  this is something driverless cars are trying to achieve and are still years away from it.  already addressed this with my comments on stress earlier; with self driving cars you can do whatever you want.  i would have to pause my driving, find a gas station and then resume it again, why do that when you can go on the go.  if you ca not drive an hour without needing to pee, that is a personal problem, not a societal one.  most public transportation has to travel on a circuit, no matter whether or not anyone is actually on it, because it has to keep to x schedule.  to effectively replace individual transportation you would have to increase the of active public transports, increase the of stops, and increase the amount of time they spend active.  not to mention adding between city routes more than they already have, on a  far  larger scale.  some points against public transportation: people are rude.  people are smelly.  public transportation is unreliable at the best of times, and outright sucks at the worst.  for self driving cars: always available, for your own personal use and no one elses.  germ free can increase fuel efficiency by being forced to obey speed limits and eliminating human error like not using cruise control .   #  it reminds me of train compartments running on a track !  # and self driving cars hold the promise of eliminating gridlock and making riding in cars so much safer that whilst still retaining the notion of a private trip right to one is destination.  you know, whenever i see the footage of these self driving cars riding on a highway what does it remind me of ? it reminds me of train compartments running on a track ! it is like we have this technology where an engine is pulling four bogies and we are improving it by putting an engine in every compartment and instead of a physical link in between that transfers the momentum; we are using radio waves to communicate between cars.  it seems such an inefficient use of energy.  yes public transport wo not always give you the convenience of point to point transportation, but what i am calling for is an improvement in the system so that the distance between point  a  to the station and point  b  to the destination will be lessened.  you can hail a cab rest of the way.  i am not arguing an absolute ban on cars, if it is cost effective where she lives she can go for it.  my focus is mainly daily commuters.  private companies are not exactly free to do whatever they want; they are making these cars because there is a demand and hype for it.  i would like to see same enthusiasm from the public.  if we have that, privet sector will follow.   #  it is like asking a dentist to perform knee surgery.   #  i see a number of issues with you argument, i will try to list them here:   if public transport such as railways are expanded and given priority over road vehicles in infrastructure, then we can achieve the goals that the automotive industry is trying to achieve very quickly.  public transport is already given priority over automobiles think bus lanes in most metropolitan areas, railway crossings, tram lines, city center tax for automobiles, etc.  as for r d, train companies will invest in trains and auto companies will invest in cars.  if we just expand the rail network then people will automatically shift from driving a car to riding on a train as their preferred choice of daily commute.  unfortunately you cannot dictate how a private business spends it is money.  the need for automobiles will always exist, as public transportation can not cover the whole road network.  if this need exists, it is logical someone will invest into bettering the technology.  for now.  the technology for electric vehicles is already here and rapid progress is made in the field of energy storage.  also, public transportation does not mean pollution free.  a train carrying 0 passengers on a not so popular route can pollute more than 0 cars depending on the energy source .  according to who, road injury took lives of 0 million people in the last decade.  this is actually a reason for safer cars/self driving cars than for using public transportation.  as do trains, trams, buses, etc.  again, as long as the train is filled to some capacity.  same as above.  yes and no.  an engineer can adapt or retrain, but it is not as straightforward.  each field poses a unique set of requirements and limitations.  it is like asking a dentist to perform knee surgery.   #  it is like asking a dentist to perform knee surgery.   # i am just saying those who invest in trains are providing a better alternative to daily commute and should be encouraged more by government and the public.  i am not.  maybe not the whole network like a point to point travel, but it can definitely cover the high population areas and frequently travelled routes more effectively; this will result in car travel seeming more expensive and a redundant option.  environmental impact a vast majority of cars are running on fuels that emit pollutants in the environment.  the technology for electric vehicles is already here and rapid progress is made in the field of energy storage.  also, public transportation does not mean pollution free.  a train carrying 0 passengers on a not so popular route can pollute more than 0 cars depending on the energy source .  of course most frequently travelled routes must be taken into consideration for this, i am not arguing for a train in every town.  but we are still years away from this technology, and even then you cannot guaranty road safety, because even though you may have a self driving car, the vehicle that crashed into you was driven by someone who took controls for himself.  burdon of these is not on the commuter, yes we pay for it, be you wo not be taking care of a bus or a train like you do for your car.  an engineer can adapt or retrain, but it is not as straightforward.  each field poses a unique set of requirements and limitations.  it is like asking a dentist to perform knee surgery.  i am talking about the new graduates and fresh engineers who might be afraid of not getting a job in automotive sector.   #  if people use cars where public transportation is not viable, that is ok.   #  if people use cars where public transportation is not viable, that is ok.  if people use cars because there is no public transportation, but public transportation is viable, then it is the problem of the government for not providing public transportation.  you and i can would just pay more taxes but force the government to implement public transport, it does not work that way, and auto companies really have no fault in this.  they are exploiting a profitable scenario.  if people use cars in places where there is public transportation, then there is a problem with the community.  a good incentive for government to invest more money in public transportation is using it more.  if we create demand, then a decent government will take appropriate measures.  again, this has nothing to do with r d money of the auto industry.
it is my belief that self driving cars and cars that pollute lesser than their gas powered counterparts are an unnecessary diversion in creating a safe cleaner people transportation system.  we already have it ! it is the trains ! if public transport such as railways are expanded and given priority over road vehicles in infrastructure, then we can achieve the goals that the automotive industry is trying to achieve very quickly.  we should divert the resources that we spend on making smarter cars finances and human capital to making smarter, faster, safer, public transport and expand the rail network.  if we just expand the rail network then people will automatically shift from driving a car to riding on a train as their preferred choice of daily commute.  some of the points i have against road transport for individuals.  •	environmental impact a vast majority of cars are running on fuels that emit pollutants in the environment.  •	safety road injury was one of the top 0 causes of death in the world.  according to who, road injury took lives of 0 million people in the last decade.  •	stress  while driving for enjoyment is really fun on your off days, daily commute hardly is.  we are spending a nice chunk of our day that we can spend relaxing, reading or working to complete the last minute project on a rather stressful, and repetitive driving route facing traffic jams and asshole drivers.  •	energy efficiency   a car owner takes a ton of metal with him just to get from point a to b.  fuel efficiency of trains is superior to that of cars.  •	maintenance   a car requires frequent upkeep and maintenance of its parts and components.  •	economy   transportation is lot more expensive in cars.  here are some points that i have for expansion of public transport.  •	bonus free time   when i am in a train i can browse my phone, read a news paper work on my presentation without the fear of killing someone.  this is something driverless cars are trying to achieve and are still years away from it.  •	potty breaks   trains can be modified to have them, cars do not.  i would have to pause my driving, find a gas station and then resume it again, why do that when you can go on the go.  •	fuel efficiency.  •	noise reduction.  •	skill transfer people who graduate in engineering and were thinking of joining an automotive manufacturer can just as easily join a locomotive manufacturer.  i am not arguing for an absolute ban on using cars, i just think if we focus on public transport more than we would solve a lot of problems that automotive market is trying to eliminate.  problems such as energy efficiency, pollution, and vehicle automation can be achieved with technology that we have  today.   #  potty breaks   trains can be modified to have them, cars do not.   #  i would have to pause my driving, find a gas station and then resume it again, why do that when you can go on the go.   #  just a few points off the top of my head: public transportation is not viable outside of cities.  there is rarely/never a bus/taxi/subway going from one city to another, x miles away.  therefore, if you have any desire to leave the city you need a vehicle.  according to who, road injury took lives of 0 million people in the last decade.  self driving cars will fix this exact problem; public transportation still has stupid, stupid people behind the wheels.  we are spending a nice chunk of our day that we can spend relaxing, reading or working to complete the last minute project on a rather stressful, and repetitive driving route facing traffic jams and asshole drivers.  self driving cars will also fix this problem by allowing us to sit and relax, read a book, the news, watch tv, whatever.  what about financial efficiency ? are you going to build a train/subway from every single house in america to every city nearest them, and then from every city to every city ? that would take far, far more energy than just letting people drive when they need to.  so do subways/trains/taxis/buses.  you just do not see it unless you work for them.  this is something driverless cars are trying to achieve and are still years away from it.  already addressed this with my comments on stress earlier; with self driving cars you can do whatever you want.  i would have to pause my driving, find a gas station and then resume it again, why do that when you can go on the go.  if you ca not drive an hour without needing to pee, that is a personal problem, not a societal one.  most public transportation has to travel on a circuit, no matter whether or not anyone is actually on it, because it has to keep to x schedule.  to effectively replace individual transportation you would have to increase the of active public transports, increase the of stops, and increase the amount of time they spend active.  not to mention adding between city routes more than they already have, on a  far  larger scale.  some points against public transportation: people are rude.  people are smelly.  public transportation is unreliable at the best of times, and outright sucks at the worst.  for self driving cars: always available, for your own personal use and no one elses.  germ free can increase fuel efficiency by being forced to obey speed limits and eliminating human error like not using cruise control .   #  private companies are not exactly free to do whatever they want; they are making these cars because there is a demand and hype for it.   # and self driving cars hold the promise of eliminating gridlock and making riding in cars so much safer that whilst still retaining the notion of a private trip right to one is destination.  you know, whenever i see the footage of these self driving cars riding on a highway what does it remind me of ? it reminds me of train compartments running on a track ! it is like we have this technology where an engine is pulling four bogies and we are improving it by putting an engine in every compartment and instead of a physical link in between that transfers the momentum; we are using radio waves to communicate between cars.  it seems such an inefficient use of energy.  yes public transport wo not always give you the convenience of point to point transportation, but what i am calling for is an improvement in the system so that the distance between point  a  to the station and point  b  to the destination will be lessened.  you can hail a cab rest of the way.  i am not arguing an absolute ban on cars, if it is cost effective where she lives she can go for it.  my focus is mainly daily commuters.  private companies are not exactly free to do whatever they want; they are making these cars because there is a demand and hype for it.  i would like to see same enthusiasm from the public.  if we have that, privet sector will follow.   #  also, public transportation does not mean pollution free.   #  i see a number of issues with you argument, i will try to list them here:   if public transport such as railways are expanded and given priority over road vehicles in infrastructure, then we can achieve the goals that the automotive industry is trying to achieve very quickly.  public transport is already given priority over automobiles think bus lanes in most metropolitan areas, railway crossings, tram lines, city center tax for automobiles, etc.  as for r d, train companies will invest in trains and auto companies will invest in cars.  if we just expand the rail network then people will automatically shift from driving a car to riding on a train as their preferred choice of daily commute.  unfortunately you cannot dictate how a private business spends it is money.  the need for automobiles will always exist, as public transportation can not cover the whole road network.  if this need exists, it is logical someone will invest into bettering the technology.  for now.  the technology for electric vehicles is already here and rapid progress is made in the field of energy storage.  also, public transportation does not mean pollution free.  a train carrying 0 passengers on a not so popular route can pollute more than 0 cars depending on the energy source .  according to who, road injury took lives of 0 million people in the last decade.  this is actually a reason for safer cars/self driving cars than for using public transportation.  as do trains, trams, buses, etc.  again, as long as the train is filled to some capacity.  same as above.  yes and no.  an engineer can adapt or retrain, but it is not as straightforward.  each field poses a unique set of requirements and limitations.  it is like asking a dentist to perform knee surgery.   #  i am just saying those who invest in trains are providing a better alternative to daily commute and should be encouraged more by government and the public.   # i am just saying those who invest in trains are providing a better alternative to daily commute and should be encouraged more by government and the public.  i am not.  maybe not the whole network like a point to point travel, but it can definitely cover the high population areas and frequently travelled routes more effectively; this will result in car travel seeming more expensive and a redundant option.  environmental impact a vast majority of cars are running on fuels that emit pollutants in the environment.  the technology for electric vehicles is already here and rapid progress is made in the field of energy storage.  also, public transportation does not mean pollution free.  a train carrying 0 passengers on a not so popular route can pollute more than 0 cars depending on the energy source .  of course most frequently travelled routes must be taken into consideration for this, i am not arguing for a train in every town.  but we are still years away from this technology, and even then you cannot guaranty road safety, because even though you may have a self driving car, the vehicle that crashed into you was driven by someone who took controls for himself.  burdon of these is not on the commuter, yes we pay for it, be you wo not be taking care of a bus or a train like you do for your car.  an engineer can adapt or retrain, but it is not as straightforward.  each field poses a unique set of requirements and limitations.  it is like asking a dentist to perform knee surgery.  i am talking about the new graduates and fresh engineers who might be afraid of not getting a job in automotive sector.   #  if we create demand, then a decent government will take appropriate measures.   #  if people use cars where public transportation is not viable, that is ok.  if people use cars because there is no public transportation, but public transportation is viable, then it is the problem of the government for not providing public transportation.  you and i can would just pay more taxes but force the government to implement public transport, it does not work that way, and auto companies really have no fault in this.  they are exploiting a profitable scenario.  if people use cars in places where there is public transportation, then there is a problem with the community.  a good incentive for government to invest more money in public transportation is using it more.  if we create demand, then a decent government will take appropriate measures.  again, this has nothing to do with r d money of the auto industry.
this is the ken ham from the bill nye vs ken ham debate.  by the way, i am agnostic, and believe in evolution and such.  i do not believe that he is right, but i think that the arguments he makes are well thought out and properly reasoned, assuming the the axiom that  god is good, god is great, and the bible is the word of god .  i am not above believing science at its core is a set of axioms its main axiom is something along the lines of one cannot dispute that which is observed.  it is not fundamentally different from god is good, god is great, and the bible is the word of god.  i just happen to come to believe that the former set of axioms is better, and disagree with the latter set of axioms.  in the debate ken ham talks about the difference between observable sciences and unobservable sciences.  the former is physics, chemistry, engineering, and in general things we can measure or reproduce.  the latter includes evolution, big bang, and all the other controversial stuff.  i think his argument of why those did not happen is logical.  in fact it is pretty much just bayesian statistics.  we gather evidence and we add those to a prior.  we come to the conclusion that is either most likely, requires the fewest assumptions, or some other means of deciding which is  best .  evolutionary biologists have of course constructed a large theory with which the gathered evidence is consistent.  most people, including myself, believe this is the most likely.  i however, am not above saying there is a chance it is just completely wrong.  again, unobservables.  for ken ham he includes the bible in his prior.  with the bible in his prior, the story as told in the bible of course becomes the most likely, and has the bonus of not requiring any assumptions other than the validity of the bible as a source.  in fact it is the only logical conclusion.  the only hole i could really find with his argument was the assumption that the bible was correctly transcribed for two centuries, a series of events he could not have observed.  but this is more or less inconsistent with his axioms, and i do not think flies as a counterargument.  this is motivated in part by a lot of cmvers with the notion that science is inherently superior to religion.  i either want to have mv c would, or open other peoples  minds about taking science   religion as granted.  so, cmv !  #  i think that the arguments he makes are well thought out and properly reasoned, assuming the the axiom that  god is good, god is great, and the bible is the word of god .   #  he might be a good debater although i disagree , but that does not mean he is intelligent nor a logical thinker.   # he might be a good debater although i disagree , but that does not mean he is intelligent nor a logical thinker.  this whole sentence is a reason i find him unintelligent and unable to be a logical thinker.  the basis for his worldview is the bible, the very thing the debate was basically about.  i am not saying christians are stupid, i am saying he is unintelligent for basing his worldview in the bible and shaping everything outside it to fit with what the bible says rather than the other way around.  he will never accept evolution, he said so himself, because he already decided that the bible is the word of god.  how is that logical thinking ?  #  if ken ham takes the bible is views as axiomatic then the conclusions he draws would be logical.   #  if ken ham takes the bible is views as axiomatic then the conclusions he draws would be logical.  that is sort of fair.  at the same time, i believe that an intelligent person is amenable to thorough examination of their premise.  i do not believe that ken does this.  if he did, then he would abandon the bible as a source of  truth  from which he can draw inferences.  bill nye is actually more open minded.  he was anti gmo for some time, but after looking at the research and meeting with experts he changed his mind URL aware of the possible mockery directed at him for  flip flopping  on his convictions.  bill is capacity to accept different views and to accept that his premise was wrong makes him truly intelligent.  unfortunately, i do not see this with ken.   #  and that is fine, but it sometimes does not matter if we do not analyse those axioms.   #  and that is fine, but it sometimes does not matter if we do not analyse those axioms.  i can think that a player not washing his socks is the reason for a winning streak.  i can use that logic to be angry if a team lost and that player washed his socks.  that is perfectly logical per my ideas.  that is also perfectly wrong because those ideas are not challenged independently.  this is when ham breaks down a little.  he can be an intelligent person, but if his ideas are just based on opinions and ca not be at all proven, there is a massive hole in what he believes is true.   #  so i can understand why some people do not treat science as some sort of perfect philosophical force that can never be questioned or doubted.   # but i can understand other perspectives as well.  throughout history, science has been wrong  lots  of times.  i am curious to see what is wrong  right now  that we just have not thought of.  science has also failed so far to answer a great many questions.  for example: how does the brain work ? so i can understand why some people do not treat science as some sort of perfect philosophical force that can never be questioned or doubted.   #  the claim that the bible is the one true word of god comes from itself, so logic is circular, with no other evidence to support it.   #  the problem is the strength of that axiom.  if you look at any of the axioms presented by nye in that debate, you can reduce them to fundamental laws of the universe.  the snow/ice layers going down.  how do we know that shows at least 0,0 years or however long it was ? because we can observes a consistent state of snow and then not snow cyclical seasons, going on for hundreds of years in antarctica.  we can observe fossils never going between layers of rock, and we can verify scientific results.  we have tons of fossils that exist showing evolution of species into other species, and can see this happening when comparing historical records of animals.  as richard dawkins said when asked why we have faith in the scientific method, his answer was that it consistently worked.  when you design a plane with scientific principles in mind, it flies.  when you make medicine using science, it cures disease or alleviates symptoms.  the same ca not be said of the bible.  the claim that the bible is the one true word of god comes from itself, so logic is circular, with no other evidence to support it.
inspired by this URL post.  my position is that faith based organizations i. e.  religious groups should not be given any special protection and should follow the same laws as every other organization with respect to discrimination against protected classes.  for the purposes of this discussion, i am using the   canadian human rights act URL as the thing that defines discrimination.  the protected classes from this act are: 0.  race 0.  national or ethnic origin 0.  colour 0.  religion 0.  age 0.  sex 0.  sexual orientation 0.  marital status 0.  family status 0.  disability 0.  conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted my position is that the right to have freedom of religion does not superseed these rights.  if your religion is not able to be tolerant with respect to these rights, then your religion has no place in our tolerant society.  these quotations also aptly describe my position:  tolerance of intolerance is cowardice.   ― ayaan hirsi ali  do not get so tolerant that you tolerate intolerance.   ― bill maher some possible criticisms to this position and my response below: q: but this means that churches would be forced to do jewish ceremonies ! a: this is not the case.  section 0 of the human rights act states that discrimination occurs when someone is denied a  provision of goods, services, facilities or accommodation customarily available to the general public  based on the above protected classes.  it is only discrimination if the service is generally available but specifically denied to a protected class.  q: but this means that churches would be forced to hire atheists as priests ! a: section 0. a of the human rights act already allows for an exemption for positions established by an employer to be based on a bona fide occupational requirement, which i think would qualify here.  q: but this means a bunch of bozos can come in and make a mockery of my church ! a: being respectful is not a protected class.  if someone is not being respectful of your church, it is not discrimination to ask them to leave.  q: but this means that churches would be forced to perform same sex marriages ! a: yes, and my position is that if a religious group is not tolerant with respect to sexual orientation, then this religion has no place in our society.  i realize that this facet in particular is the most controversial part of my position.   #  if a religious group is not tolerant with respect to sexual orientation, then this religion has no place in our society.   #  so here is the funny thing your belief about religions does not matter.   # so here is the funny thing your belief about religions does not matter.  you are free to believe whatever you want, and so are they ! that is what freedom of religion  means .  it means that you ca not decide that some religions are good and some are bad and therefore some people should not be allowed to practice their religion.  your idea that religions that discriminate should not be allowed to exist is completely incompatible with freedom of religion.  now, that said, there is a real issue here: my religion specifies that people found guilty of certain crimes should be executed.  if you do not let my religion set up courts to try people for these crimes and mete out this specified punishment, you are not letting me practice my religion freely either.  in other words, secular law itself is incompatible with freedom of religion.  in practice, countries that say they have freedom of religion usually do not, because they do not allow religious courts to execute anyone.  so a line needs to be drawn somewhere, because religions  should not  have true freedom, but people should have freedom to practice their beliefs when they are reasonable enough.  where that line is drawn, though, is up for debate.  i personally think that prohibiting religions from discriminating is way too far.  do not want to be discriminated against, join a different religion, or do not be religious at all.  i am against religions that prohibit men and women from sitting together and relegate women to the other side of a wall, personally, so when i go to worship services i usually pick services from an egalitarian religious community though sometimes it is worth the experience, so long as my wife is ok with sitting on the other side of the wall .  the thing is that being able to set the rules is absolutely critical for religions, and when you take away that ability by forcing them to not enforce those rules, you are taking away a large part of the religion itself.   #  your idea does not really sound tolerant to me.   #  why is your tolerant society saying what organizations can be a part of it.  why is it dictating people is personal religion ? are you going to say that people can speak their religious thoughts and ideas ? is that next on things to be banned ? catholic churches do have a right to be catholic.  forcing them to marry gay people is simply placing governmental control of religion.  should the government have control over other parts of the first amendment ? would you be okay with that too ? should they be able to dictate who you can peacefully meet with ? should they be able to make sure your are reading only  proper  books ? your idea does not really sound tolerant to me.   #  would not stopping them be curbing their religious freedoms ?  #  but you are allowing churches or religious groups and individuals to ignore an element of the law because it does not fit their beliefs.  so what if someone believes their religion should let them inject heroin ? should they be allowed to ? would not stopping them be curbing their religious freedoms ? what if their religion allowed incest, polygamy, or any number of other illegal acts ? is that ok as long as their religion allows it ? and how do you really define a religion anyway ? if a mentally ill person believes they hear the voice of god telling them to go start some fires, and that is their sincerely held religious belief then how can you oppose it ? people should have the right to believe what they like and follow whatever religion they choose.  and they should be free from persecution as a result of that choice.  but that does not give them a trump card to ignore the law of the land.  religious freedoms should take a back seat to other laws.   #  i think that separation of church and state is necessary to a free state.   #  is there a law that states that a church has to marry a gay couple ? the is no law forcing people to act as officiants for a wedding.  and your slippery slope argument has already been addressed.  people who practice santeria can conduct animal sacrifices.  native americans can use peyote in their rituals.  the incest angle does not really matter because it is not against the law to refuse to act as an officiant for someone is marriage.  churches are private institutions.  they can make their own rules.  i think that separation of church and state is necessary to a free state.  when the government can tell a religion how to practice their religion we are getting into dangerous areas.  just like i do not want religion meddling into government i really do not want government meddling into religion.   #  the is no law forcing people to act as officiants for a wedding.   # the is no law forcing people to act as officiants for a wedding.  actually this is the point.  if a church marries every couple who comes to them and the refuses to serve a gay couple, the message is clear.   we do not serve gays !   our church requires couples to meet with the pastor me as we work through issues that may make the marriage not work.  the know at the start that we do not say yes to everyone, and are warned not to send out their invitations until after they get a confirmation that i am willing to do the service.  this is for any couple who want to get married, as i do not want to help them prepare for a divorce.
i am not asking anything about why we self harm trust me i have got many answers for that.  my problem is that everyone seems to agree that self harm is bad, but no one can give me a logical argument for why.  so far this is the logic i have heard again and again: self harm is bad because it is dangerous.  it is dangerous because you could die, or could get an infection.  the problem i have seen with this is that you can replace  self harm  with so many other things and still follow the same basic structure.  lacrosse is bad because it is dangerous.  it is dangerous because you could get a concussion.  cooking is bad because it is dangerous.  you could get burned.  taking lithium for bipolar disorder is bad because it is dangerous.  it is dangerous because it could give you kidney failure.  so i can not accept the false logic of dangerous bad.  that means anything dangerous is inherently bad, and that is not true.  it is very easy to self harm without any danger.  sterilize tools, clean and cover wounds, etcetera.  of course this can still leave permanent scars, but so can getting a tattoo or a piercing, so once again, self harm is not inherently bad just because it leaves scars.  lots of things leave scars, so scars are not what is bad about it.  okay, but it is a symptom of a bigger problem.  yes.  and the bigger problem is the thing that should be fixed.  but that  still  does not mean that the symptom is bad.  if you have a bacterial infection, you treat the infection.  you do not just cover any redness up with makeup to treat the symptom.  so self harm, the symptom of many mood disorders, is not what should be treated.  so besides the ridiculously flawed  it is dangerous  argument, explain to me why self harm is inherently bad.  tl;dr, something being dangerous does not make it bad.  give me a real reason why self harm is bad.   #  lacrosse is bad because it is dangerous.   #  it is dangerous because you could get a concussion.   # it is dangerous because you could get a concussion.  you could get burned.  it is dangerous because it could give you kidney failure.  all of these things have a key difference from self harm, they have a clear and obvious positive outcome that offsets the danger.  what is the positive outcome from self harm ?  #  so yeah this topic hit close to home.   #  okay ill give you my story.  ive been self harming for 0 years now.  it started of as a coping mechanism.  already, an unhealthy way of dealing wih problem so thats already 0 reason.  i started off with minor razor cuts, and over the years it has progressed to the point now, every time i self harm i put my life at risk and usually have to go to a hospital.  the issue is that, you are constantly needing more.  little razor cuts on my arms do not satisfy my issues at all anymore.  today i cut a 0 inch incision down the vein on my left arm, and spent an hour getting 0 stitches in it.  its the sort of cut which needed immediate attention and i could have died from it easily it is an addiction, and no addiction should be encouraged.  honestly self harm has taken over so many aspects of my life, including completely trashing my body.  so yeah this topic hit close to home.   #  they are art on my body, like my tattoo and my piercings, and even when i dye my hair.   # but why is it unhealthy ? that is the thing i do not understand.  my self harm has never escalated.  in fact, it has gotten better; i have found more efficient ways to get the same effect.  i used to use a steak knife, now i use a razor blade.  cuts are neater and cleaner and shallower.  i get a much stronger  pinching  sensation with the cut.  i guess it is not necessary to go into great detail here.  my point is, i see how the risk of increasing need could make it more dangerous but i still do not understand why dangerous bad .  i have never experienced that increased need, though, and it is been three years.  as for  completely trashing  your body, i really like the way the scars look.  they are art on my body, like my tattoo and my piercings, and even when i dye my hair.   #  it does not actually prevent me from seeking the type of help i need.   #  it does not actually prevent me from seeking the type of help i need.  i do not enjoy my panic attacks, and sometimes the cutting does not help.  but i do see a psychiatrist once a month and i am on medication and i have been getting better.  self harm does not relieve the source, no.  the drugs do that.  but you are ridiculously incorrect on your last point.  a cut on the inside of my leg does absolutely nothing to prevent me from getting to my appointment.   #  it is far to easy to convince ourselves something is  okay  or  only affects me , and to start seeing the world in black and white absolutes.   #  from what you have said, your getting help, but not all the help you need.  the fact you still see self harm as a good anxiety management strategy is a sign of that.  i am not saying i expect you to stop cold turkey i do not expect any addict to do so , or find some magical treatment that makes it all better, but i do expect someone getting proper help with their issues to recognize what is and is not healthy behavior.  i am not saying this to pass judgement on you, i just have seen and experienced how easily these types behavior can get out of hand.  i am not just talking about cutting but it is included , but all forms of addiction and mental issues.  it is far to easy to convince ourselves something is  okay  or  only affects me , and to start seeing the world in black and white absolutes.  i have been placed in a simpler role to your boyfriend.  i had a friend who was continuously getting sexually assaulted/raped by the same person.  i made peace with the fact that there was nothing i could do to change it, or directly help her.  rather i just supported her and refused to let my frustration with the situation show, because supporting a person i love is more important then my own petty feelings.  i held her when see cried, listened to her justifications, and feinted being okay with how she was dealing with things, because that was what she needed and it meant i would still be there when she was ready to get help.  i am glad to know that you are getting help with your problems and that you do have a support network that is doing its best to help you through it.  i wish you the best going forward, and hope you can find a proper treatment plan.  i agree, panic attacks are never enjoyable and no one should have to suffer them.
i am not asking anything about why we self harm trust me i have got many answers for that.  my problem is that everyone seems to agree that self harm is bad, but no one can give me a logical argument for why.  so far this is the logic i have heard again and again: self harm is bad because it is dangerous.  it is dangerous because you could die, or could get an infection.  the problem i have seen with this is that you can replace  self harm  with so many other things and still follow the same basic structure.  lacrosse is bad because it is dangerous.  it is dangerous because you could get a concussion.  cooking is bad because it is dangerous.  you could get burned.  taking lithium for bipolar disorder is bad because it is dangerous.  it is dangerous because it could give you kidney failure.  so i can not accept the false logic of dangerous bad.  that means anything dangerous is inherently bad, and that is not true.  it is very easy to self harm without any danger.  sterilize tools, clean and cover wounds, etcetera.  of course this can still leave permanent scars, but so can getting a tattoo or a piercing, so once again, self harm is not inherently bad just because it leaves scars.  lots of things leave scars, so scars are not what is bad about it.  okay, but it is a symptom of a bigger problem.  yes.  and the bigger problem is the thing that should be fixed.  but that  still  does not mean that the symptom is bad.  if you have a bacterial infection, you treat the infection.  you do not just cover any redness up with makeup to treat the symptom.  so self harm, the symptom of many mood disorders, is not what should be treated.  so besides the ridiculously flawed  it is dangerous  argument, explain to me why self harm is inherently bad.  tl;dr, something being dangerous does not make it bad.  give me a real reason why self harm is bad.   #  taking lithium for bipolar disorder is bad because it is dangerous.   #  it is dangerous because it could give you kidney failure.   # it is dangerous because you could get a concussion.  you could get burned.  it is dangerous because it could give you kidney failure.  all of these things have a key difference from self harm, they have a clear and obvious positive outcome that offsets the danger.  what is the positive outcome from self harm ?  #  today i cut a 0 inch incision down the vein on my left arm, and spent an hour getting 0 stitches in it.   #  okay ill give you my story.  ive been self harming for 0 years now.  it started of as a coping mechanism.  already, an unhealthy way of dealing wih problem so thats already 0 reason.  i started off with minor razor cuts, and over the years it has progressed to the point now, every time i self harm i put my life at risk and usually have to go to a hospital.  the issue is that, you are constantly needing more.  little razor cuts on my arms do not satisfy my issues at all anymore.  today i cut a 0 inch incision down the vein on my left arm, and spent an hour getting 0 stitches in it.  its the sort of cut which needed immediate attention and i could have died from it easily it is an addiction, and no addiction should be encouraged.  honestly self harm has taken over so many aspects of my life, including completely trashing my body.  so yeah this topic hit close to home.   #  i guess it is not necessary to go into great detail here.   # but why is it unhealthy ? that is the thing i do not understand.  my self harm has never escalated.  in fact, it has gotten better; i have found more efficient ways to get the same effect.  i used to use a steak knife, now i use a razor blade.  cuts are neater and cleaner and shallower.  i get a much stronger  pinching  sensation with the cut.  i guess it is not necessary to go into great detail here.  my point is, i see how the risk of increasing need could make it more dangerous but i still do not understand why dangerous bad .  i have never experienced that increased need, though, and it is been three years.  as for  completely trashing  your body, i really like the way the scars look.  they are art on my body, like my tattoo and my piercings, and even when i dye my hair.   #  i do not enjoy my panic attacks, and sometimes the cutting does not help.   #  it does not actually prevent me from seeking the type of help i need.  i do not enjoy my panic attacks, and sometimes the cutting does not help.  but i do see a psychiatrist once a month and i am on medication and i have been getting better.  self harm does not relieve the source, no.  the drugs do that.  but you are ridiculously incorrect on your last point.  a cut on the inside of my leg does absolutely nothing to prevent me from getting to my appointment.   #  i have been placed in a simpler role to your boyfriend.   #  from what you have said, your getting help, but not all the help you need.  the fact you still see self harm as a good anxiety management strategy is a sign of that.  i am not saying i expect you to stop cold turkey i do not expect any addict to do so , or find some magical treatment that makes it all better, but i do expect someone getting proper help with their issues to recognize what is and is not healthy behavior.  i am not saying this to pass judgement on you, i just have seen and experienced how easily these types behavior can get out of hand.  i am not just talking about cutting but it is included , but all forms of addiction and mental issues.  it is far to easy to convince ourselves something is  okay  or  only affects me , and to start seeing the world in black and white absolutes.  i have been placed in a simpler role to your boyfriend.  i had a friend who was continuously getting sexually assaulted/raped by the same person.  i made peace with the fact that there was nothing i could do to change it, or directly help her.  rather i just supported her and refused to let my frustration with the situation show, because supporting a person i love is more important then my own petty feelings.  i held her when see cried, listened to her justifications, and feinted being okay with how she was dealing with things, because that was what she needed and it meant i would still be there when she was ready to get help.  i am glad to know that you are getting help with your problems and that you do have a support network that is doing its best to help you through it.  i wish you the best going forward, and hope you can find a proper treatment plan.  i agree, panic attacks are never enjoyable and no one should have to suffer them.
i am not asking anything about why we self harm trust me i have got many answers for that.  my problem is that everyone seems to agree that self harm is bad, but no one can give me a logical argument for why.  so far this is the logic i have heard again and again: self harm is bad because it is dangerous.  it is dangerous because you could die, or could get an infection.  the problem i have seen with this is that you can replace  self harm  with so many other things and still follow the same basic structure.  lacrosse is bad because it is dangerous.  it is dangerous because you could get a concussion.  cooking is bad because it is dangerous.  you could get burned.  taking lithium for bipolar disorder is bad because it is dangerous.  it is dangerous because it could give you kidney failure.  so i can not accept the false logic of dangerous bad.  that means anything dangerous is inherently bad, and that is not true.  it is very easy to self harm without any danger.  sterilize tools, clean and cover wounds, etcetera.  of course this can still leave permanent scars, but so can getting a tattoo or a piercing, so once again, self harm is not inherently bad just because it leaves scars.  lots of things leave scars, so scars are not what is bad about it.  okay, but it is a symptom of a bigger problem.  yes.  and the bigger problem is the thing that should be fixed.  but that  still  does not mean that the symptom is bad.  if you have a bacterial infection, you treat the infection.  you do not just cover any redness up with makeup to treat the symptom.  so self harm, the symptom of many mood disorders, is not what should be treated.  so besides the ridiculously flawed  it is dangerous  argument, explain to me why self harm is inherently bad.  tl;dr, something being dangerous does not make it bad.  give me a real reason why self harm is bad.   #  it is very easy to self harm without any danger.   #  sterilize tools, clean and cover wounds, etcetera.   #  i think you have made a false equivalence with your example.  the logical analogy does not follow sport::danger as harm::danger.  the entire premise is flawed.  sport serves a greater purpose.  there is a chance of doing damage to yourself, but at a greater level its done for exercise, entertainment, competition, relaxation, etc.  it serves a purpose greater than the potential to do lasting damage to one is self.  self harm is as it says on the box, it is harming yourself for the purpose of doing harm.  the greater implication is that it is some form of relaxation or relief from the real grief that is causing such behaviour, but there are far far safer forms of escapism.  sports, cooking, medicine, have a chance to do lasting harm, but are secondary to multitudes of primary reasons for them that do benefits for a person.  self harm may have a chance of relieving some mental tension, but are secondary to the actual harm being done to meet that end.  there is having a chance of being hurt, versus actually just getting hurt.  most of the examples you give involved equipment and rules to maximise safety, and are often practised under the direction of mentors who help them learn the right way such is almost certainly not the case for anyone harming themselves.  false equivalence.  sterilize tools, clean and cover wounds, etcetera.  except, most of the people i have been close to in life like to feel more in control than they actually are.  they have been beaten by people, abused at home, etc.  and they take it out on themselves with whatever they can find.  a lot of the time there is not the time or ability to get really medically sterilised instruments for this self inflicted torture, and mistakes can happen which can lead to serious damage or death, and really accomplishes nothing.  i have dated people who cut themselves every day, and it is more equivalent to a drug addiction than it is to a sport.  it is something they have tied to escape and relief, and helps them detach from the harsh reality they are suffering from in the worst way possible.  if you or anyone you know is at that place in life, what they need is proper care, love, and attention.  you need to find the source of their problems, and try to help them get out of that harmful situation, because it is not going to end well until they are somewhere safe.  i am sorry for you or anyone you might know that could be going through something that causes them harm or to self harm, but hurting yourself really is not a safe or constructive way to cope.   #  today i cut a 0 inch incision down the vein on my left arm, and spent an hour getting 0 stitches in it.   #  okay ill give you my story.  ive been self harming for 0 years now.  it started of as a coping mechanism.  already, an unhealthy way of dealing wih problem so thats already 0 reason.  i started off with minor razor cuts, and over the years it has progressed to the point now, every time i self harm i put my life at risk and usually have to go to a hospital.  the issue is that, you are constantly needing more.  little razor cuts on my arms do not satisfy my issues at all anymore.  today i cut a 0 inch incision down the vein on my left arm, and spent an hour getting 0 stitches in it.  its the sort of cut which needed immediate attention and i could have died from it easily it is an addiction, and no addiction should be encouraged.  honestly self harm has taken over so many aspects of my life, including completely trashing my body.  so yeah this topic hit close to home.   #  i have never experienced that increased need, though, and it is been three years.   # but why is it unhealthy ? that is the thing i do not understand.  my self harm has never escalated.  in fact, it has gotten better; i have found more efficient ways to get the same effect.  i used to use a steak knife, now i use a razor blade.  cuts are neater and cleaner and shallower.  i get a much stronger  pinching  sensation with the cut.  i guess it is not necessary to go into great detail here.  my point is, i see how the risk of increasing need could make it more dangerous but i still do not understand why dangerous bad .  i have never experienced that increased need, though, and it is been three years.  as for  completely trashing  your body, i really like the way the scars look.  they are art on my body, like my tattoo and my piercings, and even when i dye my hair.   #  a cut on the inside of my leg does absolutely nothing to prevent me from getting to my appointment.   #  it does not actually prevent me from seeking the type of help i need.  i do not enjoy my panic attacks, and sometimes the cutting does not help.  but i do see a psychiatrist once a month and i am on medication and i have been getting better.  self harm does not relieve the source, no.  the drugs do that.  but you are ridiculously incorrect on your last point.  a cut on the inside of my leg does absolutely nothing to prevent me from getting to my appointment.   #  i had a friend who was continuously getting sexually assaulted/raped by the same person.   #  from what you have said, your getting help, but not all the help you need.  the fact you still see self harm as a good anxiety management strategy is a sign of that.  i am not saying i expect you to stop cold turkey i do not expect any addict to do so , or find some magical treatment that makes it all better, but i do expect someone getting proper help with their issues to recognize what is and is not healthy behavior.  i am not saying this to pass judgement on you, i just have seen and experienced how easily these types behavior can get out of hand.  i am not just talking about cutting but it is included , but all forms of addiction and mental issues.  it is far to easy to convince ourselves something is  okay  or  only affects me , and to start seeing the world in black and white absolutes.  i have been placed in a simpler role to your boyfriend.  i had a friend who was continuously getting sexually assaulted/raped by the same person.  i made peace with the fact that there was nothing i could do to change it, or directly help her.  rather i just supported her and refused to let my frustration with the situation show, because supporting a person i love is more important then my own petty feelings.  i held her when see cried, listened to her justifications, and feinted being okay with how she was dealing with things, because that was what she needed and it meant i would still be there when she was ready to get help.  i am glad to know that you are getting help with your problems and that you do have a support network that is doing its best to help you through it.  i wish you the best going forward, and hope you can find a proper treatment plan.  i agree, panic attacks are never enjoyable and no one should have to suffer them.
i am not asking anything about why we self harm trust me i have got many answers for that.  my problem is that everyone seems to agree that self harm is bad, but no one can give me a logical argument for why.  so far this is the logic i have heard again and again: self harm is bad because it is dangerous.  it is dangerous because you could die, or could get an infection.  the problem i have seen with this is that you can replace  self harm  with so many other things and still follow the same basic structure.  lacrosse is bad because it is dangerous.  it is dangerous because you could get a concussion.  cooking is bad because it is dangerous.  you could get burned.  taking lithium for bipolar disorder is bad because it is dangerous.  it is dangerous because it could give you kidney failure.  so i can not accept the false logic of dangerous bad.  that means anything dangerous is inherently bad, and that is not true.  it is very easy to self harm without any danger.  sterilize tools, clean and cover wounds, etcetera.  of course this can still leave permanent scars, but so can getting a tattoo or a piercing, so once again, self harm is not inherently bad just because it leaves scars.  lots of things leave scars, so scars are not what is bad about it.  okay, but it is a symptom of a bigger problem.  yes.  and the bigger problem is the thing that should be fixed.  but that  still  does not mean that the symptom is bad.  if you have a bacterial infection, you treat the infection.  you do not just cover any redness up with makeup to treat the symptom.  so self harm, the symptom of many mood disorders, is not what should be treated.  so besides the ridiculously flawed  it is dangerous  argument, explain to me why self harm is inherently bad.  tl;dr, something being dangerous does not make it bad.  give me a real reason why self harm is bad.   #  so i can not accept the false logic of dangerous bad.   #  i am a father of a young child.   # i am a father of a young child.  if i jump out of airplanes because i like it, ok.  but it is a bit dangerous.  statistically it is safer than heroin, i guess, maybe.  let your mind wander on things we may enjoy but, are dangerous.  it is a risk/reward item.  i have to drive to work, because not doing so means no money, and ultimate poverty.  the risk to my child is not good in that scenario, so i drive to work.  unnecessary risk to your person, when you are depended upon, is where this goes grey and ultimately dark.  if you consider morally that your own person is also worth protecting, not just people that depend on you now.  a good argument can be made that certain sorts of self harm are immoral.  that said, getting a tattoo could be considered self harm.  with appropriate cleanliness the risk is very limited and manageable risk.  going bungie jumping, trying to set a record for how close you get to the lava in the volcano is in many cases immoral.  that said if you are alone, and nobody depends or cares about you, dangerous actions carry less moral complication.   #  ive been self harming for 0 years now.   #  okay ill give you my story.  ive been self harming for 0 years now.  it started of as a coping mechanism.  already, an unhealthy way of dealing wih problem so thats already 0 reason.  i started off with minor razor cuts, and over the years it has progressed to the point now, every time i self harm i put my life at risk and usually have to go to a hospital.  the issue is that, you are constantly needing more.  little razor cuts on my arms do not satisfy my issues at all anymore.  today i cut a 0 inch incision down the vein on my left arm, and spent an hour getting 0 stitches in it.  its the sort of cut which needed immediate attention and i could have died from it easily it is an addiction, and no addiction should be encouraged.  honestly self harm has taken over so many aspects of my life, including completely trashing my body.  so yeah this topic hit close to home.   #  i used to use a steak knife, now i use a razor blade.   # but why is it unhealthy ? that is the thing i do not understand.  my self harm has never escalated.  in fact, it has gotten better; i have found more efficient ways to get the same effect.  i used to use a steak knife, now i use a razor blade.  cuts are neater and cleaner and shallower.  i get a much stronger  pinching  sensation with the cut.  i guess it is not necessary to go into great detail here.  my point is, i see how the risk of increasing need could make it more dangerous but i still do not understand why dangerous bad .  i have never experienced that increased need, though, and it is been three years.  as for  completely trashing  your body, i really like the way the scars look.  they are art on my body, like my tattoo and my piercings, and even when i dye my hair.   #  it does not actually prevent me from seeking the type of help i need.   #  it does not actually prevent me from seeking the type of help i need.  i do not enjoy my panic attacks, and sometimes the cutting does not help.  but i do see a psychiatrist once a month and i am on medication and i have been getting better.  self harm does not relieve the source, no.  the drugs do that.  but you are ridiculously incorrect on your last point.  a cut on the inside of my leg does absolutely nothing to prevent me from getting to my appointment.   #  i wish you the best going forward, and hope you can find a proper treatment plan.   #  from what you have said, your getting help, but not all the help you need.  the fact you still see self harm as a good anxiety management strategy is a sign of that.  i am not saying i expect you to stop cold turkey i do not expect any addict to do so , or find some magical treatment that makes it all better, but i do expect someone getting proper help with their issues to recognize what is and is not healthy behavior.  i am not saying this to pass judgement on you, i just have seen and experienced how easily these types behavior can get out of hand.  i am not just talking about cutting but it is included , but all forms of addiction and mental issues.  it is far to easy to convince ourselves something is  okay  or  only affects me , and to start seeing the world in black and white absolutes.  i have been placed in a simpler role to your boyfriend.  i had a friend who was continuously getting sexually assaulted/raped by the same person.  i made peace with the fact that there was nothing i could do to change it, or directly help her.  rather i just supported her and refused to let my frustration with the situation show, because supporting a person i love is more important then my own petty feelings.  i held her when see cried, listened to her justifications, and feinted being okay with how she was dealing with things, because that was what she needed and it meant i would still be there when she was ready to get help.  i am glad to know that you are getting help with your problems and that you do have a support network that is doing its best to help you through it.  i wish you the best going forward, and hope you can find a proper treatment plan.  i agree, panic attacks are never enjoyable and no one should have to suffer them.
i am not asking anything about why we self harm trust me i have got many answers for that.  my problem is that everyone seems to agree that self harm is bad, but no one can give me a logical argument for why.  so far this is the logic i have heard again and again: self harm is bad because it is dangerous.  it is dangerous because you could die, or could get an infection.  the problem i have seen with this is that you can replace  self harm  with so many other things and still follow the same basic structure.  lacrosse is bad because it is dangerous.  it is dangerous because you could get a concussion.  cooking is bad because it is dangerous.  you could get burned.  taking lithium for bipolar disorder is bad because it is dangerous.  it is dangerous because it could give you kidney failure.  so i can not accept the false logic of dangerous bad.  that means anything dangerous is inherently bad, and that is not true.  it is very easy to self harm without any danger.  sterilize tools, clean and cover wounds, etcetera.  of course this can still leave permanent scars, but so can getting a tattoo or a piercing, so once again, self harm is not inherently bad just because it leaves scars.  lots of things leave scars, so scars are not what is bad about it.  okay, but it is a symptom of a bigger problem.  yes.  and the bigger problem is the thing that should be fixed.  but that  still  does not mean that the symptom is bad.  if you have a bacterial infection, you treat the infection.  you do not just cover any redness up with makeup to treat the symptom.  so self harm, the symptom of many mood disorders, is not what should be treated.  so besides the ridiculously flawed  it is dangerous  argument, explain to me why self harm is inherently bad.  tl;dr, something being dangerous does not make it bad.  give me a real reason why self harm is bad.   #  it is very easy to self harm without any danger.   #  sterilize tools, clean and cover wounds, etcetera.   #  it is not bad because it is dangerous, it is bad because it is the deliberate infliction of direct harm on yourself, and that goes directly against  normal  biological impulse.  i would say that because we have evolved to want to  avoid  harm: healthy functioning humans avoid harm; they even avoid the  risk  of harm where that risk is significant.  an individual who transgresses this instinct of avoiding harm is seen as unhealthy, and the act viewed as morally undesirable.  sterilize tools, clean and cover wounds, etcetera.  this may be true today, but for our entire evolutionary history this was absolutely false.  any and all wounds carried  significant  risk, so we have, as a species and in general, developed an instinctual response to avoid them.  if someone demonstrates that they  lack  that preventitive instinct by cutting themselves there is an immediate cause for moral concern because so much of our socially acceptable behaviour ie: morality is tied up in biological instincts: the rational desire to live, empathy, and so on.  self harming, even if it effects no one else,  does  call into question someone is mental state and fitness to act in a pro social way, so i think it is fine for us to want to discourage that kind of behaviour and label it  bad .   #  honestly self harm has taken over so many aspects of my life, including completely trashing my body.   #  okay ill give you my story.  ive been self harming for 0 years now.  it started of as a coping mechanism.  already, an unhealthy way of dealing wih problem so thats already 0 reason.  i started off with minor razor cuts, and over the years it has progressed to the point now, every time i self harm i put my life at risk and usually have to go to a hospital.  the issue is that, you are constantly needing more.  little razor cuts on my arms do not satisfy my issues at all anymore.  today i cut a 0 inch incision down the vein on my left arm, and spent an hour getting 0 stitches in it.  its the sort of cut which needed immediate attention and i could have died from it easily it is an addiction, and no addiction should be encouraged.  honestly self harm has taken over so many aspects of my life, including completely trashing my body.  so yeah this topic hit close to home.   #  i guess it is not necessary to go into great detail here.   # but why is it unhealthy ? that is the thing i do not understand.  my self harm has never escalated.  in fact, it has gotten better; i have found more efficient ways to get the same effect.  i used to use a steak knife, now i use a razor blade.  cuts are neater and cleaner and shallower.  i get a much stronger  pinching  sensation with the cut.  i guess it is not necessary to go into great detail here.  my point is, i see how the risk of increasing need could make it more dangerous but i still do not understand why dangerous bad .  i have never experienced that increased need, though, and it is been three years.  as for  completely trashing  your body, i really like the way the scars look.  they are art on my body, like my tattoo and my piercings, and even when i dye my hair.   #  i do not enjoy my panic attacks, and sometimes the cutting does not help.   #  it does not actually prevent me from seeking the type of help i need.  i do not enjoy my panic attacks, and sometimes the cutting does not help.  but i do see a psychiatrist once a month and i am on medication and i have been getting better.  self harm does not relieve the source, no.  the drugs do that.  but you are ridiculously incorrect on your last point.  a cut on the inside of my leg does absolutely nothing to prevent me from getting to my appointment.   #  i am not just talking about cutting but it is included , but all forms of addiction and mental issues.   #  from what you have said, your getting help, but not all the help you need.  the fact you still see self harm as a good anxiety management strategy is a sign of that.  i am not saying i expect you to stop cold turkey i do not expect any addict to do so , or find some magical treatment that makes it all better, but i do expect someone getting proper help with their issues to recognize what is and is not healthy behavior.  i am not saying this to pass judgement on you, i just have seen and experienced how easily these types behavior can get out of hand.  i am not just talking about cutting but it is included , but all forms of addiction and mental issues.  it is far to easy to convince ourselves something is  okay  or  only affects me , and to start seeing the world in black and white absolutes.  i have been placed in a simpler role to your boyfriend.  i had a friend who was continuously getting sexually assaulted/raped by the same person.  i made peace with the fact that there was nothing i could do to change it, or directly help her.  rather i just supported her and refused to let my frustration with the situation show, because supporting a person i love is more important then my own petty feelings.  i held her when see cried, listened to her justifications, and feinted being okay with how she was dealing with things, because that was what she needed and it meant i would still be there when she was ready to get help.  i am glad to know that you are getting help with your problems and that you do have a support network that is doing its best to help you through it.  i wish you the best going forward, and hope you can find a proper treatment plan.  i agree, panic attacks are never enjoyable and no one should have to suffer them.
i am not asking anything about why we self harm trust me i have got many answers for that.  my problem is that everyone seems to agree that self harm is bad, but no one can give me a logical argument for why.  so far this is the logic i have heard again and again: self harm is bad because it is dangerous.  it is dangerous because you could die, or could get an infection.  the problem i have seen with this is that you can replace  self harm  with so many other things and still follow the same basic structure.  lacrosse is bad because it is dangerous.  it is dangerous because you could get a concussion.  cooking is bad because it is dangerous.  you could get burned.  taking lithium for bipolar disorder is bad because it is dangerous.  it is dangerous because it could give you kidney failure.  so i can not accept the false logic of dangerous bad.  that means anything dangerous is inherently bad, and that is not true.  it is very easy to self harm without any danger.  sterilize tools, clean and cover wounds, etcetera.  of course this can still leave permanent scars, but so can getting a tattoo or a piercing, so once again, self harm is not inherently bad just because it leaves scars.  lots of things leave scars, so scars are not what is bad about it.  okay, but it is a symptom of a bigger problem.  yes.  and the bigger problem is the thing that should be fixed.  but that  still  does not mean that the symptom is bad.  if you have a bacterial infection, you treat the infection.  you do not just cover any redness up with makeup to treat the symptom.  so self harm, the symptom of many mood disorders, is not what should be treated.  so besides the ridiculously flawed  it is dangerous  argument, explain to me why self harm is inherently bad.  tl;dr, something being dangerous does not make it bad.  give me a real reason why self harm is bad.   #  lacrosse is bad because it is dangerous.   #  it is dangerous because you could get a concussion.   # it is dangerous because you could get a concussion.  cooking is bad because it is dangerous.  you could get burned.  it is dangerous because it could give you kidney failure.  that means anything dangerous is inherently bad, and that is not true.  these points all do not quite fit the definition of harmful bad.  in all these situations, the activity is done where a risk of harm is present, but the practitioners try to avoid harm.  self harm is more like an addiction, such as drug abuse or alcohol abuse.  where it is done as a coping mechanism to cover deeper rooted problems within a person, and can quickly become addictive to the point where a person cannot stop themselves from doing in.  even then, the pain and damage caused by drugs is an unintended consequence.  the comedown, the shakes, the liver damage, the collapsed veins and ruined skin.  no body takes methamphetamines because they want to damage their body with them self harm is literally your damaging your body, for the sake of damaging your body.  arguably, it is the mental health equivalent of an auto immune disorder, where something has gone wrong and your body damages healthy tissue.   #  today i cut a 0 inch incision down the vein on my left arm, and spent an hour getting 0 stitches in it.   #  okay ill give you my story.  ive been self harming for 0 years now.  it started of as a coping mechanism.  already, an unhealthy way of dealing wih problem so thats already 0 reason.  i started off with minor razor cuts, and over the years it has progressed to the point now, every time i self harm i put my life at risk and usually have to go to a hospital.  the issue is that, you are constantly needing more.  little razor cuts on my arms do not satisfy my issues at all anymore.  today i cut a 0 inch incision down the vein on my left arm, and spent an hour getting 0 stitches in it.  its the sort of cut which needed immediate attention and i could have died from it easily it is an addiction, and no addiction should be encouraged.  honestly self harm has taken over so many aspects of my life, including completely trashing my body.  so yeah this topic hit close to home.   #  i have never experienced that increased need, though, and it is been three years.   # but why is it unhealthy ? that is the thing i do not understand.  my self harm has never escalated.  in fact, it has gotten better; i have found more efficient ways to get the same effect.  i used to use a steak knife, now i use a razor blade.  cuts are neater and cleaner and shallower.  i get a much stronger  pinching  sensation with the cut.  i guess it is not necessary to go into great detail here.  my point is, i see how the risk of increasing need could make it more dangerous but i still do not understand why dangerous bad .  i have never experienced that increased need, though, and it is been three years.  as for  completely trashing  your body, i really like the way the scars look.  they are art on my body, like my tattoo and my piercings, and even when i dye my hair.   #  but you are ridiculously incorrect on your last point.   #  it does not actually prevent me from seeking the type of help i need.  i do not enjoy my panic attacks, and sometimes the cutting does not help.  but i do see a psychiatrist once a month and i am on medication and i have been getting better.  self harm does not relieve the source, no.  the drugs do that.  but you are ridiculously incorrect on your last point.  a cut on the inside of my leg does absolutely nothing to prevent me from getting to my appointment.   #  i made peace with the fact that there was nothing i could do to change it, or directly help her.   #  from what you have said, your getting help, but not all the help you need.  the fact you still see self harm as a good anxiety management strategy is a sign of that.  i am not saying i expect you to stop cold turkey i do not expect any addict to do so , or find some magical treatment that makes it all better, but i do expect someone getting proper help with their issues to recognize what is and is not healthy behavior.  i am not saying this to pass judgement on you, i just have seen and experienced how easily these types behavior can get out of hand.  i am not just talking about cutting but it is included , but all forms of addiction and mental issues.  it is far to easy to convince ourselves something is  okay  or  only affects me , and to start seeing the world in black and white absolutes.  i have been placed in a simpler role to your boyfriend.  i had a friend who was continuously getting sexually assaulted/raped by the same person.  i made peace with the fact that there was nothing i could do to change it, or directly help her.  rather i just supported her and refused to let my frustration with the situation show, because supporting a person i love is more important then my own petty feelings.  i held her when see cried, listened to her justifications, and feinted being okay with how she was dealing with things, because that was what she needed and it meant i would still be there when she was ready to get help.  i am glad to know that you are getting help with your problems and that you do have a support network that is doing its best to help you through it.  i wish you the best going forward, and hope you can find a proper treatment plan.  i agree, panic attacks are never enjoyable and no one should have to suffer them.
i am not asking anything about why we self harm trust me i have got many answers for that.  my problem is that everyone seems to agree that self harm is bad, but no one can give me a logical argument for why.  so far this is the logic i have heard again and again: self harm is bad because it is dangerous.  it is dangerous because you could die, or could get an infection.  the problem i have seen with this is that you can replace  self harm  with so many other things and still follow the same basic structure.  lacrosse is bad because it is dangerous.  it is dangerous because you could get a concussion.  cooking is bad because it is dangerous.  you could get burned.  taking lithium for bipolar disorder is bad because it is dangerous.  it is dangerous because it could give you kidney failure.  so i can not accept the false logic of dangerous bad.  that means anything dangerous is inherently bad, and that is not true.  it is very easy to self harm without any danger.  sterilize tools, clean and cover wounds, etcetera.  of course this can still leave permanent scars, but so can getting a tattoo or a piercing, so once again, self harm is not inherently bad just because it leaves scars.  lots of things leave scars, so scars are not what is bad about it.  okay, but it is a symptom of a bigger problem.  yes.  and the bigger problem is the thing that should be fixed.  but that  still  does not mean that the symptom is bad.  if you have a bacterial infection, you treat the infection.  you do not just cover any redness up with makeup to treat the symptom.  so self harm, the symptom of many mood disorders, is not what should be treated.  so besides the ridiculously flawed  it is dangerous  argument, explain to me why self harm is inherently bad.  tl;dr, something being dangerous does not make it bad.  give me a real reason why self harm is bad.   #  taking lithium for bipolar disorder is bad because it is dangerous.   #  it is dangerous because it could give you kidney failure.   # it is dangerous because you could get a concussion.  cooking is bad because it is dangerous.  you could get burned.  it is dangerous because it could give you kidney failure.  that means anything dangerous is inherently bad, and that is not true.  these points all do not quite fit the definition of harmful bad.  in all these situations, the activity is done where a risk of harm is present, but the practitioners try to avoid harm.  self harm is more like an addiction, such as drug abuse or alcohol abuse.  where it is done as a coping mechanism to cover deeper rooted problems within a person, and can quickly become addictive to the point where a person cannot stop themselves from doing in.  even then, the pain and damage caused by drugs is an unintended consequence.  the comedown, the shakes, the liver damage, the collapsed veins and ruined skin.  no body takes methamphetamines because they want to damage their body with them self harm is literally your damaging your body, for the sake of damaging your body.  arguably, it is the mental health equivalent of an auto immune disorder, where something has gone wrong and your body damages healthy tissue.   #  i started off with minor razor cuts, and over the years it has progressed to the point now, every time i self harm i put my life at risk and usually have to go to a hospital.   #  okay ill give you my story.  ive been self harming for 0 years now.  it started of as a coping mechanism.  already, an unhealthy way of dealing wih problem so thats already 0 reason.  i started off with minor razor cuts, and over the years it has progressed to the point now, every time i self harm i put my life at risk and usually have to go to a hospital.  the issue is that, you are constantly needing more.  little razor cuts on my arms do not satisfy my issues at all anymore.  today i cut a 0 inch incision down the vein on my left arm, and spent an hour getting 0 stitches in it.  its the sort of cut which needed immediate attention and i could have died from it easily it is an addiction, and no addiction should be encouraged.  honestly self harm has taken over so many aspects of my life, including completely trashing my body.  so yeah this topic hit close to home.   #  they are art on my body, like my tattoo and my piercings, and even when i dye my hair.   # but why is it unhealthy ? that is the thing i do not understand.  my self harm has never escalated.  in fact, it has gotten better; i have found more efficient ways to get the same effect.  i used to use a steak knife, now i use a razor blade.  cuts are neater and cleaner and shallower.  i get a much stronger  pinching  sensation with the cut.  i guess it is not necessary to go into great detail here.  my point is, i see how the risk of increasing need could make it more dangerous but i still do not understand why dangerous bad .  i have never experienced that increased need, though, and it is been three years.  as for  completely trashing  your body, i really like the way the scars look.  they are art on my body, like my tattoo and my piercings, and even when i dye my hair.   #  a cut on the inside of my leg does absolutely nothing to prevent me from getting to my appointment.   #  it does not actually prevent me from seeking the type of help i need.  i do not enjoy my panic attacks, and sometimes the cutting does not help.  but i do see a psychiatrist once a month and i am on medication and i have been getting better.  self harm does not relieve the source, no.  the drugs do that.  but you are ridiculously incorrect on your last point.  a cut on the inside of my leg does absolutely nothing to prevent me from getting to my appointment.   #  i made peace with the fact that there was nothing i could do to change it, or directly help her.   #  from what you have said, your getting help, but not all the help you need.  the fact you still see self harm as a good anxiety management strategy is a sign of that.  i am not saying i expect you to stop cold turkey i do not expect any addict to do so , or find some magical treatment that makes it all better, but i do expect someone getting proper help with their issues to recognize what is and is not healthy behavior.  i am not saying this to pass judgement on you, i just have seen and experienced how easily these types behavior can get out of hand.  i am not just talking about cutting but it is included , but all forms of addiction and mental issues.  it is far to easy to convince ourselves something is  okay  or  only affects me , and to start seeing the world in black and white absolutes.  i have been placed in a simpler role to your boyfriend.  i had a friend who was continuously getting sexually assaulted/raped by the same person.  i made peace with the fact that there was nothing i could do to change it, or directly help her.  rather i just supported her and refused to let my frustration with the situation show, because supporting a person i love is more important then my own petty feelings.  i held her when see cried, listened to her justifications, and feinted being okay with how she was dealing with things, because that was what she needed and it meant i would still be there when she was ready to get help.  i am glad to know that you are getting help with your problems and that you do have a support network that is doing its best to help you through it.  i wish you the best going forward, and hope you can find a proper treatment plan.  i agree, panic attacks are never enjoyable and no one should have to suffer them.
i am not asking anything about why we self harm trust me i have got many answers for that.  my problem is that everyone seems to agree that self harm is bad, but no one can give me a logical argument for why.  so far this is the logic i have heard again and again: self harm is bad because it is dangerous.  it is dangerous because you could die, or could get an infection.  the problem i have seen with this is that you can replace  self harm  with so many other things and still follow the same basic structure.  lacrosse is bad because it is dangerous.  it is dangerous because you could get a concussion.  cooking is bad because it is dangerous.  you could get burned.  taking lithium for bipolar disorder is bad because it is dangerous.  it is dangerous because it could give you kidney failure.  so i can not accept the false logic of dangerous bad.  that means anything dangerous is inherently bad, and that is not true.  it is very easy to self harm without any danger.  sterilize tools, clean and cover wounds, etcetera.  of course this can still leave permanent scars, but so can getting a tattoo or a piercing, so once again, self harm is not inherently bad just because it leaves scars.  lots of things leave scars, so scars are not what is bad about it.  okay, but it is a symptom of a bigger problem.  yes.  and the bigger problem is the thing that should be fixed.  but that  still  does not mean that the symptom is bad.  if you have a bacterial infection, you treat the infection.  you do not just cover any redness up with makeup to treat the symptom.  so self harm, the symptom of many mood disorders, is not what should be treated.  so besides the ridiculously flawed  it is dangerous  argument, explain to me why self harm is inherently bad.  tl;dr, something being dangerous does not make it bad.  give me a real reason why self harm is bad.   #  so i can not accept the false logic of dangerous bad.   #  that means anything dangerous is inherently bad, and that is not true.   # it is dangerous because you could get a concussion.  cooking is bad because it is dangerous.  you could get burned.  it is dangerous because it could give you kidney failure.  that means anything dangerous is inherently bad, and that is not true.  these points all do not quite fit the definition of harmful bad.  in all these situations, the activity is done where a risk of harm is present, but the practitioners try to avoid harm.  self harm is more like an addiction, such as drug abuse or alcohol abuse.  where it is done as a coping mechanism to cover deeper rooted problems within a person, and can quickly become addictive to the point where a person cannot stop themselves from doing in.  even then, the pain and damage caused by drugs is an unintended consequence.  the comedown, the shakes, the liver damage, the collapsed veins and ruined skin.  no body takes methamphetamines because they want to damage their body with them self harm is literally your damaging your body, for the sake of damaging your body.  arguably, it is the mental health equivalent of an auto immune disorder, where something has gone wrong and your body damages healthy tissue.   #  ive been self harming for 0 years now.   #  okay ill give you my story.  ive been self harming for 0 years now.  it started of as a coping mechanism.  already, an unhealthy way of dealing wih problem so thats already 0 reason.  i started off with minor razor cuts, and over the years it has progressed to the point now, every time i self harm i put my life at risk and usually have to go to a hospital.  the issue is that, you are constantly needing more.  little razor cuts on my arms do not satisfy my issues at all anymore.  today i cut a 0 inch incision down the vein on my left arm, and spent an hour getting 0 stitches in it.  its the sort of cut which needed immediate attention and i could have died from it easily it is an addiction, and no addiction should be encouraged.  honestly self harm has taken over so many aspects of my life, including completely trashing my body.  so yeah this topic hit close to home.   #  i used to use a steak knife, now i use a razor blade.   # but why is it unhealthy ? that is the thing i do not understand.  my self harm has never escalated.  in fact, it has gotten better; i have found more efficient ways to get the same effect.  i used to use a steak knife, now i use a razor blade.  cuts are neater and cleaner and shallower.  i get a much stronger  pinching  sensation with the cut.  i guess it is not necessary to go into great detail here.  my point is, i see how the risk of increasing need could make it more dangerous but i still do not understand why dangerous bad .  i have never experienced that increased need, though, and it is been three years.  as for  completely trashing  your body, i really like the way the scars look.  they are art on my body, like my tattoo and my piercings, and even when i dye my hair.   #  but i do see a psychiatrist once a month and i am on medication and i have been getting better.   #  it does not actually prevent me from seeking the type of help i need.  i do not enjoy my panic attacks, and sometimes the cutting does not help.  but i do see a psychiatrist once a month and i am on medication and i have been getting better.  self harm does not relieve the source, no.  the drugs do that.  but you are ridiculously incorrect on your last point.  a cut on the inside of my leg does absolutely nothing to prevent me from getting to my appointment.   #  i wish you the best going forward, and hope you can find a proper treatment plan.   #  from what you have said, your getting help, but not all the help you need.  the fact you still see self harm as a good anxiety management strategy is a sign of that.  i am not saying i expect you to stop cold turkey i do not expect any addict to do so , or find some magical treatment that makes it all better, but i do expect someone getting proper help with their issues to recognize what is and is not healthy behavior.  i am not saying this to pass judgement on you, i just have seen and experienced how easily these types behavior can get out of hand.  i am not just talking about cutting but it is included , but all forms of addiction and mental issues.  it is far to easy to convince ourselves something is  okay  or  only affects me , and to start seeing the world in black and white absolutes.  i have been placed in a simpler role to your boyfriend.  i had a friend who was continuously getting sexually assaulted/raped by the same person.  i made peace with the fact that there was nothing i could do to change it, or directly help her.  rather i just supported her and refused to let my frustration with the situation show, because supporting a person i love is more important then my own petty feelings.  i held her when see cried, listened to her justifications, and feinted being okay with how she was dealing with things, because that was what she needed and it meant i would still be there when she was ready to get help.  i am glad to know that you are getting help with your problems and that you do have a support network that is doing its best to help you through it.  i wish you the best going forward, and hope you can find a proper treatment plan.  i agree, panic attacks are never enjoyable and no one should have to suffer them.
i am a programmer, and i am really interested in data science and machine learning.  i think it started at my current job, where occasionally i was told to scrape websites and collect leads for the marketers which is probably me favorite part of the job .  it feels really fulfilling to me to make something a bot that does what a person could not do in a month is full time work.  that, and it feels rewarding knowing i gathered something s with immediate marketable value.  that, and that, and the idea of all of the potential uses and benefits to having this information.  i have been to a lot of hackathons programming marathons and open data is an awesome opportunity to make something cool and resume building quickly hackathons are usually only 0 0 hours overnight .  the more data out there, the more possibilities there are to help the public or invent something novel.  i think of the government the same way, if the data they collect and use helps their ability to govern then i am all for it.  and on a personal level, i do not care that whoever is tracking my phone, reading my emails, whatever.  i am just glad someone is using my information to make my life and the lives of others to be better.  if the nsa collected less information, it could be more useful and usable.  your emails, much like music or physical letters,  should  be your own private property, even if they are not now i ca not both agree that the nsa should collect this information and the nsa should do this legally, because they are collecting it illegally it is a logical fallacy by agree to this, i take away other people is privacy rights, and that is not okay there could be new data or ways of analyzing it that would more seriously violate privacy or give power, and this is setting a bad precedent mass surveillance is bad historically  #  i am just glad someone is using my information to make my life and the lives of others to be better.   #  this is very specifically the job of the census folks, not the nsa, and plenty of people do not even trust them either.   # at least, that is not how it is ever worked throughout human history .  maybe this time will be different ? right.  it is also arguably illegal.  so even if we wanted to do this, we would potentially have to amend the constitution to grant the government this power.  aside from abuse, there is also the fact that these data storage systems cannot be secured.  note the recent hack of data regarding everyone that is ever had a security clearance background check.  while i have not been directly investigated for security clearance, my name is in at least 0 security clearance files as a  arelation  some some kind.  i am not really happy about that now, and have no confidence that the government is ability to execute such surveillance securely is competent.  this is very specifically the job of the census folks, not the nsa, and plenty of people do not even trust them either.   #  i read some of those comments, and i have an idea that might be a bit out there, but debunks a lot of these: if you do not want to be tracked on your technology, you do not have to be.   #  that seams like a cool article, i will have to give it a read.  i am not working with that tracking project so i do not really care if it is working or not haha.  that is up to the nsa programmers.  security breaches are a concern, but once again, that is up to nsa programmers to ensure that this data is encrypted, access is tracked, and a number of other things.  if a programmer is able to take advantage of this data, then it is also their manager is fault for making it possible.  i read some of those comments, and i have an idea that might be a bit out there, but debunks a lot of these: if you do not want to be tracked on your technology, you do not have to be.  nobody is forcing you to carry your phone around, or browse the internet on an open network.  computers have a beautiful flexibility that allows you to fuck with them, and there is alot of stuff out there made by people who enjoy their privacy.   #  you should never trust that your government will always do good.   #  as a fellow programmer, i completely disagree with you.  the fact that you understand just how powerful the tools are becoming to gather and analyze data on such a massive scale should give you a pause.  yes, if used for good, it can improve a lot of stuff.  but just like any super powerful thing, if used badly it can cause shitloads of damage.  the same bots and analytical tools for determining something in marketing can and most importantly are being used for nefarious purposes like discovering and stopping political dissent for example.  you should never trust that your government will always do good.  take a look at any history book of any country including yours .  what you will find is that again and again governments are doing shitty things and abusing their power.  you are trusting the same institution that tried to get mlk to kill himself by threatening they will expose his affairs.  for what ? because he wanted rights for black people.  well, what happens when when the new mlk is born tomorrow and the government has all these powerful tools to gather all the dirt they want on them, to figure out who the supporters are and so on ? let is assume the government at the moment is not like that and are honestly doing only good with the info which as revealed by whistleblowers is not true, but lets entertain the thought .  can you then guarantee all future governments will be so good too ? because once you give your government such powers, it is very hard to take them back.  so what happens a decade or two down the line, when a bunch of assholes are in power ? to support this you need not only believe the current government do not abuse the power which is a bit naive but that future governments will not abuse the powers either which is quite frankly nearly impossible .  and for what ? the number of people dying in terrorist plots is minuscule, even in 0rd world countries.  if you want to save human lives at the cost of freedom so much, you will be better off attacking the big problems, like obesity for example.   #  that does not sound so bad to me, but i am not a politician, a dissident, or someone who pays attention to/cares about scandals.   #  are personal leaks the worst thing that can come from this data ? that does not sound so bad to me, but i am not a politician, a dissident, or someone who pays attention to/cares about scandals.  as i see it, the worst thing that could happen would be the government knows where you work and live so they kidnap you and kill you for some reason.  they do not need this data to do that, so we can be scared regardless.  governments are basically businesses.  they attach terrorists because people are disproportionately scared of bombings than they are of obesity.  supply and demand.  that being said, obesity has been dropping in recent years.   #  other people however do mind, and it is not ok to take their right away, just because you personally do not happen to value it.   # no, this is just one example that i used.  considering you know how many applications mass data gathering and analysis can have, are you seriously unable to think of ways an abusive government might use them to do bad things ? what if you are wrong and there are things you did not think about ? what if there is more they can do about it than just find out where you live ? and you just did not think about it, because you are not a psychopath with years of experience in secret service ? this is oversimplifying the very complex relationships in the power structures of a modern country.  yes, there will be more political focus on things the population is hyped about, but what the population is hyped about in the first place is often strongly influenced by the people in power themselves.  there is a reason everyone is so scared of terrorists, just like there was a reason everyone was scared of communists before that.  there are complex relationships between politicians, wealthy people, corporations, the media, the judiciary, as well as the vote of the average person.  and shitloads of propaganda in between.  it is not as simple as  well, that is what the people want    obesity has been dropping in recent years.  this is not true, over the past 0 years, obesity rates have more than doubled.  source URL my point is that shitloads of people are dying because of obesity.  we allow people to do that, because we consider freedom to be more important than saving those lives.  similarly, people want to have the freedom to have privacy in their lives.  maybe you do not care about your data being collected and used, but that is completely irrelevant.  it is like claiming  i do not have anything to say, therefore nobody should speak .  if you do not want to take advantage of your human right to privacy, that is your choice.  other people however do mind, and it is not ok to take their right away, just because you personally do not happen to value it.
disclaimer: i am very anti theist so that is why i have such a negative thought of bringing your kids to church.  bringing children to church starting at a young age is very likely to make that person blindly follow that religion without them having much of a choice.  at a young age, kids are impressionable and tend to believe whatever an adult/parent says to them.  thus, the odds of them changing their beliefs are lowered.  i am not saying that they will never switch, it is just the odds of them doing so are severely lowered.  i believe that any church or religious meeting areas should have an age restriction i will leave that age number up for debate .  and not to make them not believe in religion, that violates the constitution.  but to let them make the choice themselves, and purely by themselves.  i know that the parents could just teach them about it, but hey, if some people are going to indoctrinate their child, might as well make them use their own time to do that.   #  bringing children to church starting at a young age is very likely to make that person blindly follow that religion without them having much of a choice.   #  at a young age, kids are impressionable and tend to believe whatever an adult/parent says to them.   # at a young age, kids are impressionable and tend to believe whatever an adult/parent says to them.  thus, the odds of them changing their beliefs are lowered.  i am not saying that they will never switch, it is just the odds of them doing so are severely lowered.  you could say pretty much the same things about atheism.  unless and until you can really prove the superiority of that viewpoint from a truly unbiased position, are you willing to make the same demands on not teaching children atheism as you are about religion ? does a family reunion where everyone prays count ? i think they are.  i do not know a while lot of people that send their kids to church but do not go themselves.   #  most people have a strong set of beliefs; yours appearing to be atheism.   #  do not all parents teach a  system of ideas  to their children ? if your parents have ever spoken politics around you, they were discussing a system of ideas, and by a certain logic, practicing indoctrination.  most people have a strong set of beliefs; yours appearing to be atheism.  if you think something to definitely true, do not they have the right to tell their kids about it ? what right does someone else have to tell you you ca not ? that they do not personally believe in it ? it would be like if the president passed a law saying that you ca not teach your kids about geology, simply because the president does not personally believe in geology.  plenty of parents that encourage their kids to be open minded, skeptical, and seeking the truth, while still exposing their kids to their own beliefs.  my parents took me to church and somehow managed to not brainwash me with extremist indoctrination.  taking your kid to church could just be saying,  hey, this is what we believe in; you can choose whether you accept it yourself.  we are showing you our religion because it was important for us personally.   it would be ignorant to impose a sort of age limit on religious rights.   #  for example, science ca not verify that i had cheerios for breakfast this morning.   #  well.  i guess this depends on the religion.  tons of people have had experiences that, to them, are factual evidence that the religion is true.  this ranges from miracle healings to strong emotions attributed to the holy ghost.  they are not  scientifically verifiable,  but most facts are not.  for example, science ca not verify that i had cheerios for breakfast this morning.   #  you should focus on telling op either why his view is wrong or what a better view could be in order for him to change his view.   # you should focus on telling op either why his view is wrong or what a better view could be in order for him to change his view.  it does not really matter if op is view is impractical as all he is saying is that the way he would like it to be would be better.  we know his view wo not become a reality any time soon, but that does not mean his view is inherently bad or worse than what we have now.  i could say that  peace is superior than violence, cmv .  i am sure most people could agree with this view even though it is impractical.   #  the first amendment prevents the government from making any laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion.   #  the first amendment prevents the government from making any laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion.  for many religious groups, there are important religious rites that need to be performed when a new child is born, such as baptism.  by prohibiting children from entering a church, you have effectively outlawed baptism.  there is really no threat of harm or indoctrination to a baby during a baptism, it is more a service for the parents.  but, by banning the child, you have banned the adults the free exercise of their religion.  similarly, you would be banning children from attending a number of important family and social gatherings, such as weddings or funerals.
my view is that, in western society, conventionally attractive females have an easier go of things than everyone else.  my first observation is that quality of life improves with a wider social circle, which attractive people at least have a greater potential for.  there are more opportunities for networking / employment, a stronger emotional safety net, and a wider pool from which to select and develop close relationships in other words, they can afford to be choosey about their friends, lovers, etc.  my second observation is that men are usually brought up to ignore or otherwise not respond as strongly to each others  level of attractiveness.  classic female icebreakers  you are so pretty !  ,  i love your hair !   do not really exist in the straight male world, and even attractive men have to rely on other factors humour, athleticism to maintain their social standing among both sexes.  i am sure i will be able to explain my view further in response to some of your comments, so cmv.   #  conventionally attractive females have an easier go of things than everyone else.   #  it is a point in their favor, yes.   # it is a point in their favor, yes.  it is an attribute that the smart ones do not try to use much, and the stupid ones play up to comical degrees.  it will get them a drink, and maybe a husband, but they do not get taken seriously if they have nothing more to offer.  remember that phrase.   ishow me a hot chic, and i will show you a guy that is tired of banging her .  nugget of truth there.  so yes, they have some apparent advantages, however the ones without something else going on, usually ca not break the glass ceiling and rightly so, they ca not contribute anything meaningful .  the ones that are pretty  and  smart, can grease the wheels to success quite nicely, although the same can be said for attractive men, for the same reasons.   #  do not you think someone who is always rich has an easier life than someone who was poor and then becomes rich ?  #  saying that they can marry rich does not mean that they will marry rich.  not every poor beautiful girl will marry rich.  some will, but a lot more wo not.  also, that idea states that they are poor first and then become rich.  this is different than someone who is rich and stays rich.  it seems like you agree that being rich does give you an easier life.  do not you think someone who is always rich has an easier life than someone who was poor and then becomes rich ?  #  do you feel like i tricked you or twisted your words ?  #  but that is not what i asked.  we are not talking about happiness we are talking about easiness.  you said a rich guy has it easier than a beautiful woman.  i asked you how rich, and you said 0er rich.  i googled how much money 0ers have and that was the top link.  so where does it not follow that being beautiful is worth just shy of those salaries ? do you feel like i tricked you or twisted your words ? you can change your answer.  how much money does a man have to make for his life to become easier than a beautiful woman is ?  #  unless the person has some skin disease or is a burn victim or something, the ugliest person in the world can have enough cosmetic surgery to come out as a 0/0.   #  i do not think there is such thing as a poor pretty person, especially with modern standards of beauty.  consider someone is teeth.  unless the poor person just so happen to have every single one of their teeth aligned perfectly and optimized the food they eat so that their teeth does not become yellow, an average poor person is teeth is far shittier than a rich person is teeth, who can just get dental work done on their teeth.  you can apply this to every part of the human body.  a person working in a blue collar job is probably going to have ugly calluses or rough skin or whatever compared with some rich person who has the luxury to not subject their bodies to physical labor.  unless the person has some skin disease or is a burn victim or something, the ugliest person in the world can have enough cosmetic surgery to come out as a 0/0.  why would a rich man bother marrying a poor woman when there are enough rich woman who have done enough cosmetic surgery to look as pretty, if not prettier, than the poor woman ?  #  so he drops his pants, points at his private parts, and says  you see this ?  #  reminds me of that old joke.  forgive me if you have heard it.  he holds up the football and says  see this football ? football is a boys game and girls ca not have one !   the little boy gets mad and points to his bike.   see this bike ? this is a boys bike, and girls ca not have them !   now he is really mad.  so he drops his pants, points at his private parts, and says  you see this ? only boys have these and your mother ca not go buy you one !   it does not  matter  that he is rich.  if she is hot enough, she will get at his money.
increasingly, many argue that elementary statistics should be a mandatory subject in the high school curriculum.  i agree with this wholeheartedly, as the discipline has become central to civic and economic literacy in the 0st century.  but to argue, as some have, that this should  replace  the traditional  algebra to calculus  high school math sequence makes about as much sense to me as arguing that history should replace english.  while the two undoubtedly share some skills and mechanics, they are fundamentally different disciplines with fundamentally different roles in the curriculum, and both are necessary for a complete education.  although the underlying mechanics of statistics are undoubtedly mathematical, increasingly it is becoming recognized as a discipline in its own right, with its own methodology and best practices distinct from those of pure mathematics, and the structure of high school should reflect this divergence.  at the high school level, the focus of statistics pedagogy should be on core concepts, the appropriate use of technology, and interpretation you are teaching a student to turn data into an accurate, precise probablistic statement, and to have an intuitive understanding of the probability concepts underlying the meaning of that statement.  these are important skills, but they are not really  mathematical  skills in the traditional sense; you are reasoning in a different mode.  in a well taught algebra, geometry, or calculus class, by contrast, students learn to reason deductively rather than inductively, learn the theory underlying core mathematical notions such as function and equivalence, solve non routine problems, and use mathematics of all types to analyze real world phenomena.  none of these skills except arguably the last play any role in an elementary statistics curriculum.  you can argue that a deep facility with  abstract  math has little importance in the  real world,  but increasingly the 0st century economy  does  reward individuals who have a high capacity for abstraction and problem solving, even if you are never directly using specific skills the classic  when will i ever need the quadratic formula in real life  bugbear .  finally, learning these mathematical concepts is a necessary prerequisite for any further study in stem fields, which statistics training will not replace.  thus, both statistics and math, as separate disciplines, should have a role in the high school curriculum.  as a final note, i should mention that i am here presupposing that both statistics and pure math can are taught  well.   obviously, a well taught statistics class is much more useful than a poorly taught math class, and vice versa.  i am well aware that bad mathematics teaching and bad statistics teaching, for that matter is rampant in the u. s. , so i would prefer to keep the horror stories along those lines out of this particular discussion and stay focused on the best case possibilities of both subjects.   to those of you more interested in debating the logistical nuts and bolts concerns about burdensome mandates on schools, etc.  :  thank you also for your participation in the conversation.  some have made arguments that all state mandates on school curriculum are unnecessarily burdensome or will cost too much; i believe this premise has empirically denied, so these arguments are not convincing to me.  others have made the point that, in the event that states are unwilling to add new credit hours to their diploma requirements, we risk adding statistics at the expense of electives or core courses.  this is a more compelling argument, but ultimately a risk i am willing to take, since i believe that in most if not all states there is room in the existing credit structure to responsibly add statistics in place of at least one course.  as a separate issue, i think increasing credit hour minimums and extended school days are serious proposals that should be given consideration as possibilities, though it is not my intent to make a full argument in favor of them here.  unless you have something substantially different to offer than the above two arguments, i doubt i will be convinced by further discussion along these lines.  thank you again to all who responded.   #  none of these skills except arguably the last play any role in an elementary statistics curriculum.   #  do you really claim that deductive reasoning plays no part in statistics ?  #  it is hard to argue against either central premise, that statistics should be a mandatory high school class or that it should not replace any part of the existing sequence, but one can nitpick.  do you really claim that deductive reasoning plays no part in statistics ? do you also claim that there are no non routine problems in statistics ? i am not a statistician, but i work with statistics, and i am a little insulted right now .  functions schmunctions, as i am sure you know, are pretty fundamental to a good understanding of statistics at the intermediate level and above.  i am also not a teacher nor an education professional, but i would actually like to see statistics made mandatory, and pre calc and above made optional.  the reason is, statistics is a easier than calculus at the basic level, b more useful to many more professions and more relevant to civilian life in general.  whilst it is true that the abstract disciplines train the mind and prepare people for stem, the social benefit from teaching people how to read and understand the things they read in the newspaper, the percentiles of their own sat scores, etc, is greater.   #  universities are increasingly moving towards the creation of separate, independent departments of statistics, thus recognizing it as a valid, independent academic subject.   #  true, resources are limited, and nowhere more so than in education, but schools are always messing around with their programs in various ways so i do not really think it is the zero sum game you paint it as.  one of the big new ish initiatives in urban school reform is the extended school day, so you could tack it on as an extra period.  the school where i teach requires students to take 0 semesters of a class called  career based learning,  which i think could be easily replaced by statistics.  i think it can be hard to get deep into logistical conversations like that without knowing the specific circumstances of the school.  to your broader point, which is something of a  bright line  argument i. e.  why does statistics jump to the front of the list , i would offer a couple responses: 0.  while high school has many purposes, it is primary purpose is the teaching of standard academic disciplines like english, history, and math.  universities are increasingly moving towards the creation of separate, independent departments of statistics, thus recognizing it as a valid, independent academic subject.  many other things we might teach in high school, while useful, do not have that same status, and so might be more appropriately taught in other settings.  0.  i think there is a strong argument to be made for both statistics and mathematical reasoning being at the core of the  new economy,  and thus it would seem uniquely important that we include both of these skills in the high school curriculum.  0.  that same argument can be made regressively in a way that would argue against the teaching of any subject, existing or hypothetical.  i. e.  why should english take priority over x to the extent that we want to teach some things in high school, i think there is a good case to be made that statistics is especially important.   #  the federal government plays essentially zero role in the process.   #  well, nothing in my original post made any mention of a top down mandate, but since you seem interested in discussing it, let is look at the mechanics of how curriculum policy is made in the u. s.  the federal government plays essentially zero role in the process.  common core alarmists will tell you otherwise, but remember that the common core includes no federal program for curriculum or assessment only intentionally broad standards of mastery, which at the high school level are not tied to grade, and whose interpretation is left open to states.  states play a bigger role, mostly because they create diploma requirements and, more importantly, high stakes assessments against which schools are held accountable.  the adage is that  what is assessed is what is taught.   so if the state were serious about statistics, they could mandate a high stakes statistics assessment.  but i would tend not to advocate that idea, at least at first, for reasons which are not directly related to this discussion but i can get into if you would like.  more likely, what they would do instead is throw 0 year of statistics into the minimum state diploma requirement.  this would not be some radical new top down mandate literally every state adjusts their diploma rules all the time, and while sometimes it can be burdensome for the most part districts are used to adapting.  i would even go so far as to be in favor of states passing additional funding to cover the cost of hiring new stats teachers, thus taking care of that difficulty the cost would be a drop in the bucket compared to overall state funding levels for public education.  the logistics of implementing the diploma requirements when will students take them ? for how long ? who will teach the classes ? etc.  will be left up to the districts, just as they are now.  districts are very accustomed to adjusting their policies to accommodate changing state regulations, and minimum diploma changes are among the easiest to accommodate since many local diploma rules exceed their state minimums anyway.  there is no reason to think that an additional 0 year course of this type would prove unmanageable.  trust me when i say that it is one of the least onerous forms of state intervention that exist in schools.   #  you ca not just add more to it without something else falling off or less time for electives.   #  you said it was not zero sum and then you just proved that it was.  the only we make your class mandatory is to take something away.  someone, somewhere, probably thought that career based learning class was valuable too.  there is already a lot of things that we require students to take.  you ca not just add more to it without something else falling off or less time for electives.  but really, do people need stats in the same way that need math or english skills ? universities do offer it but they also offer psych.  classes and those are electives at most high schools.  i do not see the problem of offering a stats class.  i just do not know why it would have to be mandatory to take.   #  or what not you will probably have to take a stats class as part of your major.   #  yes they do.  and when they add something, something comes out.  lots of schools yes.  all of them ? you just made a mandatory class.  as in necessary for graduation.  we are not talking about an elective here which some students will take and lots of students wo not.  you will need tiers.  you will need your ap class.  you will need your average class.  you will probably need your esl class as well.  this class is mandatory.  a kid does not get this class and they do not walk the stage.  if they take your class and fail it, they do not walk the stage.  you do not just add mandatory classes as an afterthought.  they take lots of logistics to make work.  they are going to affect elective slots.  they are going to cost money because you are going to need teachers and teachers who can teach stats are not easy to find.  and all of this is for little purpose.  if you like stats you can take it as a gen ed in college.  if you really like it, you can major in it.  if you take something like soc.  or what not you will probably have to take a stats class as part of your major.
increasingly, many argue that elementary statistics should be a mandatory subject in the high school curriculum.  i agree with this wholeheartedly, as the discipline has become central to civic and economic literacy in the 0st century.  but to argue, as some have, that this should  replace  the traditional  algebra to calculus  high school math sequence makes about as much sense to me as arguing that history should replace english.  while the two undoubtedly share some skills and mechanics, they are fundamentally different disciplines with fundamentally different roles in the curriculum, and both are necessary for a complete education.  although the underlying mechanics of statistics are undoubtedly mathematical, increasingly it is becoming recognized as a discipline in its own right, with its own methodology and best practices distinct from those of pure mathematics, and the structure of high school should reflect this divergence.  at the high school level, the focus of statistics pedagogy should be on core concepts, the appropriate use of technology, and interpretation you are teaching a student to turn data into an accurate, precise probablistic statement, and to have an intuitive understanding of the probability concepts underlying the meaning of that statement.  these are important skills, but they are not really  mathematical  skills in the traditional sense; you are reasoning in a different mode.  in a well taught algebra, geometry, or calculus class, by contrast, students learn to reason deductively rather than inductively, learn the theory underlying core mathematical notions such as function and equivalence, solve non routine problems, and use mathematics of all types to analyze real world phenomena.  none of these skills except arguably the last play any role in an elementary statistics curriculum.  you can argue that a deep facility with  abstract  math has little importance in the  real world,  but increasingly the 0st century economy  does  reward individuals who have a high capacity for abstraction and problem solving, even if you are never directly using specific skills the classic  when will i ever need the quadratic formula in real life  bugbear .  finally, learning these mathematical concepts is a necessary prerequisite for any further study in stem fields, which statistics training will not replace.  thus, both statistics and math, as separate disciplines, should have a role in the high school curriculum.  as a final note, i should mention that i am here presupposing that both statistics and pure math can are taught  well.   obviously, a well taught statistics class is much more useful than a poorly taught math class, and vice versa.  i am well aware that bad mathematics teaching and bad statistics teaching, for that matter is rampant in the u. s. , so i would prefer to keep the horror stories along those lines out of this particular discussion and stay focused on the best case possibilities of both subjects.   to those of you more interested in debating the logistical nuts and bolts concerns about burdensome mandates on schools, etc.  :  thank you also for your participation in the conversation.  some have made arguments that all state mandates on school curriculum are unnecessarily burdensome or will cost too much; i believe this premise has empirically denied, so these arguments are not convincing to me.  others have made the point that, in the event that states are unwilling to add new credit hours to their diploma requirements, we risk adding statistics at the expense of electives or core courses.  this is a more compelling argument, but ultimately a risk i am willing to take, since i believe that in most if not all states there is room in the existing credit structure to responsibly add statistics in place of at least one course.  as a separate issue, i think increasing credit hour minimums and extended school days are serious proposals that should be given consideration as possibilities, though it is not my intent to make a full argument in favor of them here.  unless you have something substantially different to offer than the above two arguments, i doubt i will be convinced by further discussion along these lines.  thank you again to all who responded.   #  finally, learning these mathematical concepts is a necessary prerequisite for any further study in stem fields, which statistics training will not replace.   #  for those who are going to be in engineering or similar disciplines that  need  calculus, they will be able to achieve that in their post secondary education.   # then why is it any students are allowed to graduate without a mastery of both ? if they are, as you say,  necessary  for a complete education, why are not they compulsory for every student ? why do we allow some to graduate high school having barely made it through algebra   geometry, not having spent a day of class on algebra ii or trig, let alone calculus  or  statistics.  it seems to me that our options are as follows:   accept that calc and stats are not required for a complete education   accept that some people are going to leave the public school system without a  complete  education   accept that some people are not going to be able to leave public school without having spent many more years than others trying to learn various mathematical disciplines even if we do accept one of the above, i question whether calculus is of comparable usefulness to statistics.  when is the last time you used calculus ? can you remember the last time you needed to measure the sum under a curve ? even physics, for which calculus was  invented,  can be estimated to the level of precision most people require with basic algebra.  on the other side of the coin, when was the last time that you saw someone claim that candidate a had overtaken candidate b when they are at 0 to 0 ? or complaining that a survey of 0 people ca not properly reflect the opinion of 0m people ? for those who are going to be in engineering or similar disciplines that  need  calculus, they will be able to achieve that in their post secondary education.  on the other hand, the day to day usefulness of statistics is far more universal.  likewise with certain branches of technology one of my alma matres had computer science   statistics as a single department , you have more need of statistics than calculus.   #  why does statistics jump to the front of the list , i would offer a couple responses: 0.  while high school has many purposes, it is primary purpose is the teaching of standard academic disciplines like english, history, and math.   #  true, resources are limited, and nowhere more so than in education, but schools are always messing around with their programs in various ways so i do not really think it is the zero sum game you paint it as.  one of the big new ish initiatives in urban school reform is the extended school day, so you could tack it on as an extra period.  the school where i teach requires students to take 0 semesters of a class called  career based learning,  which i think could be easily replaced by statistics.  i think it can be hard to get deep into logistical conversations like that without knowing the specific circumstances of the school.  to your broader point, which is something of a  bright line  argument i. e.  why does statistics jump to the front of the list , i would offer a couple responses: 0.  while high school has many purposes, it is primary purpose is the teaching of standard academic disciplines like english, history, and math.  universities are increasingly moving towards the creation of separate, independent departments of statistics, thus recognizing it as a valid, independent academic subject.  many other things we might teach in high school, while useful, do not have that same status, and so might be more appropriately taught in other settings.  0.  i think there is a strong argument to be made for both statistics and mathematical reasoning being at the core of the  new economy,  and thus it would seem uniquely important that we include both of these skills in the high school curriculum.  0.  that same argument can be made regressively in a way that would argue against the teaching of any subject, existing or hypothetical.  i. e.  why should english take priority over x to the extent that we want to teach some things in high school, i think there is a good case to be made that statistics is especially important.   #  districts are very accustomed to adjusting their policies to accommodate changing state regulations, and minimum diploma changes are among the easiest to accommodate since many local diploma rules exceed their state minimums anyway.   #  well, nothing in my original post made any mention of a top down mandate, but since you seem interested in discussing it, let is look at the mechanics of how curriculum policy is made in the u. s.  the federal government plays essentially zero role in the process.  common core alarmists will tell you otherwise, but remember that the common core includes no federal program for curriculum or assessment only intentionally broad standards of mastery, which at the high school level are not tied to grade, and whose interpretation is left open to states.  states play a bigger role, mostly because they create diploma requirements and, more importantly, high stakes assessments against which schools are held accountable.  the adage is that  what is assessed is what is taught.   so if the state were serious about statistics, they could mandate a high stakes statistics assessment.  but i would tend not to advocate that idea, at least at first, for reasons which are not directly related to this discussion but i can get into if you would like.  more likely, what they would do instead is throw 0 year of statistics into the minimum state diploma requirement.  this would not be some radical new top down mandate literally every state adjusts their diploma rules all the time, and while sometimes it can be burdensome for the most part districts are used to adapting.  i would even go so far as to be in favor of states passing additional funding to cover the cost of hiring new stats teachers, thus taking care of that difficulty the cost would be a drop in the bucket compared to overall state funding levels for public education.  the logistics of implementing the diploma requirements when will students take them ? for how long ? who will teach the classes ? etc.  will be left up to the districts, just as they are now.  districts are very accustomed to adjusting their policies to accommodate changing state regulations, and minimum diploma changes are among the easiest to accommodate since many local diploma rules exceed their state minimums anyway.  there is no reason to think that an additional 0 year course of this type would prove unmanageable.  trust me when i say that it is one of the least onerous forms of state intervention that exist in schools.   #  you said it was not zero sum and then you just proved that it was.   #  you said it was not zero sum and then you just proved that it was.  the only we make your class mandatory is to take something away.  someone, somewhere, probably thought that career based learning class was valuable too.  there is already a lot of things that we require students to take.  you ca not just add more to it without something else falling off or less time for electives.  but really, do people need stats in the same way that need math or english skills ? universities do offer it but they also offer psych.  classes and those are electives at most high schools.  i do not see the problem of offering a stats class.  i just do not know why it would have to be mandatory to take.   #  we are not talking about an elective here which some students will take and lots of students wo not.   #  yes they do.  and when they add something, something comes out.  lots of schools yes.  all of them ? you just made a mandatory class.  as in necessary for graduation.  we are not talking about an elective here which some students will take and lots of students wo not.  you will need tiers.  you will need your ap class.  you will need your average class.  you will probably need your esl class as well.  this class is mandatory.  a kid does not get this class and they do not walk the stage.  if they take your class and fail it, they do not walk the stage.  you do not just add mandatory classes as an afterthought.  they take lots of logistics to make work.  they are going to affect elective slots.  they are going to cost money because you are going to need teachers and teachers who can teach stats are not easy to find.  and all of this is for little purpose.  if you like stats you can take it as a gen ed in college.  if you really like it, you can major in it.  if you take something like soc.  or what not you will probably have to take a stats class as part of your major.
i do not think building a pc is worth it unless you enjoy the process of doing so.  the $0 0 you save is not worth the work it takes to assemble the thing and troubleshoot faulty parts.  so i had a 0 functional pc i built years ago, and decided i would  rebuild  it with a skylake cpu/new motherboard/new cooler/ddr0 ram.  i was short on cash, so i decided to reuse the same gpu for now, 0 functional before i built the new pc.  package arrives, i take a couple hours to assemble it as the cooler is a bit tricky.  but i get it right, but the system only outputs to the onboard vga.  onboard dvi and gpu outputs do not work, but the gpu fans are spinning.  yes, the pcie power connectors are connected, and yes i properly seated the gpu.  so i look online, and people tell me i probably just need drivers.  so i install windows just fine.  try to get drivers off of amd is site, install fails.  not surprising, because the gpu wo not show in the device manager.  great.  so i turn it off, open it up, and put a spare gpu into the same slot.  still no image.  i then take that spare gpu, and put it in the 0nd pcie slot.  magically, it works.  but this pcie slot operates at x0, and is not big enough to fit high end gpus because the sata ports are in the way.  so no bueno.  i decide that the pcie slot is broken, and take the pc apart to get the board ready to rma.  i decide i need a pc while i wait for the new parts, so i reassemble my old build, which took even more time.  system boots, image displayed but now the video card fans do not spin.  system restarts after a few minutes abruptly.  obviously, this means that the card is overheating due to no active cooling.  put in spare card, works fine.  so the new motherboard i bought fried the video card i own due to a falty pcie slot, and chances are newegg or asus wo not cover that, judging by what i read online.  so now i am down $0 i spent on new parts, 0 days worth of time i spent troubleshooting which i could have made a lot if i worked those days , and now i am stuck using a low end gpu as the motherboard fried my $0 one.  there is a reason that professional corporations just buy oem pcs like dell instead of hiring people to build them.  the build process is all fine if you know what you are doing and all parts work, but the moment you get 0 doa part that fries other parts, then it is pure hell to figure out what to replace, and what to keep.  the time spent troubleshooting poor parts is not worth the miniscule amount of money you save.  i have been working in a pc repair shop for a year, took a year long pc repair course, and i am comptia a  certified, so i know what i am doing, for the most part.  but imagine if this happened to a beginner, who is just going off of guides found online with no experience behind them in troubleshooting.  they would have no clue what part to blame, what to rma, what to buy.  unless you are extremely frugal, or enjoy building pcs, you are better off just buying an oem pc.  the $0 0 yous ave is not worth the time spent figuring it out, or the risk that you will never get it to work at all because of doa parts or rookie mistakes  #  unless you are extremely frugal, or enjoy building pcs, you are better off just buying an oem pc.   #  i feel like this makes your view a bit tautological.   # i feel like this makes your view a bit tautological.  building a pc is worth it for some people, and not worth it for others.  this is based on factors such as how much you like building pcs, how good you are at it, how much you value your time, and how much you value your money.  different people attaching different values to those items are obviously going to disagree.  i do not think anyone is going to be able to change your view there.  you did not enjoy the experience but that does not generalize to everyone.  some people love the process of sifting through information to figure out why something is not working.   #  for some people, the time and effort of cooking is not worth the money you save by doing it.   #  it is all a matter of opportunity cost.  URL for you, the $0 0 saved is not worth the effort to build and troubleshoot.  in other words: for you, the extra time you spend is not worth more than the money you save.  however, for some people, this extra time is absolutely worth it they may value their time differently than you do, and may want to spend the extra time making everything perfect.  take this as an analogy: if you cook at home, you spend a lot more time making food than you would if you bought a fully prepared meal, but you are also saving money.  for some people, the time and effort of cooking is not worth the money you save by doing it.  for others, though, cooking a fancy meal for a fraction of the cost of that meal in a restaurant is absolutely worth it.   #  you can dish out an extra 0$ on a website to purchase all parts, and they build it for you, they test the pc and ship you the full made custom built pc.   #  well my 0$ pc custom made would cost me about 0$ for a pre made.  ran into no issues; ordering took 0 minutes, assembly took   0h it is like a lego, where everything that should fit, fits.  if it does not fit, it does not go there.  ; installing image took   0h.  the parts i used for my pc are not in standard oem pcs, so you have to look at things like alienware, etc.  alienware comes with flashy led keyboards, led filled cases, badass custom lighting and other bullshits you do not need.  the price racks up really fast if you want a good performance gaming pc.  if you go oem, you will lose at least 0$.  you can dish out an extra 0$ on a website to purchase all parts, and they build it for you, they test the pc and ship you the full made custom built pc.  i mean, sure if you are gonna buy a pc   0$, you do not really need custom.   #  individuals, especially gamers, need a lot more horsepower and usually need it upgraded more often.   # some/most people who build their computers do so on websites that allow you to select parts and then have them put together after that.  this is upgrading, which is different from the above for stated reasons.  the build process is all fine if you know what you are doing and all parts work, but the moment you get 0 doa part that fries other parts, then it is pure hell to figure out what to replace, and what to keep.  the time spent troubleshooting poor parts is not worth the miniscule amount of money you save.  companies order computers en masse because they know the exact specifications they require to do x job, and usually can overshoot it fairly cheaply.  even if they ca not, upgrading versions of photoshop is rarely going to require a new model of computer.  computer companies want various programs, but the vast majority can get by with microsoft office, excel, and a browser or two.  the more specialized ones might need photoshop, or 0d modeling programs, maybe specialized web development tools or individual unique programs created in house.  most of the time, they can buy one computer and not replace them for a decade or more without productivity suffering greatly .  individuals, especially gamers, need a lot more horsepower and usually need it upgraded more often.  i would argue that oem pcs are not that much better, because there is still a chance they arrive broken/faulty/etc.  you act like all companies have 0 efficient testing, but multiple times i have had companies ship faulty parts.   #  after a few hours run time it just shuts off.   #  your lucky, my build was the complete opposite.  this was my first real build from scratch.  still does not work 0 weeks on.  ordered the parts, had some hassle/issues.  build it up, case does not fit the video card.  new case, system boots, load os/drivers.  after a few hours run time it just shuts off.  then nothing happens.  i mean nothing.  trouble shoot it is the psu.  store does test and say is it is all good.  so i pay ncix to diagnose my system.  i am told motherboard is shot.  so buy new mother board and install it, and nothing.  computer still wo not do anything beyond a green led on the motherboard.  next day went to return the orignial motherboard.  the tech ask is me if it worked, i said no.  he and another guy start spit balling ideas on what else could be wrong.  i thought i paid $0 to get diagnosed what was wrong ? as a fairly new builder it can be very frustrating when it does not work, and it is not a simple solution.  but i have swapped parts and cases before, this is the first time i have had any issues, or problems.
i do not think building a pc is worth it unless you enjoy the process of doing so.  the $0 0 you save is not worth the work it takes to assemble the thing and troubleshoot faulty parts.  so i had a 0 functional pc i built years ago, and decided i would  rebuild  it with a skylake cpu/new motherboard/new cooler/ddr0 ram.  i was short on cash, so i decided to reuse the same gpu for now, 0 functional before i built the new pc.  package arrives, i take a couple hours to assemble it as the cooler is a bit tricky.  but i get it right, but the system only outputs to the onboard vga.  onboard dvi and gpu outputs do not work, but the gpu fans are spinning.  yes, the pcie power connectors are connected, and yes i properly seated the gpu.  so i look online, and people tell me i probably just need drivers.  so i install windows just fine.  try to get drivers off of amd is site, install fails.  not surprising, because the gpu wo not show in the device manager.  great.  so i turn it off, open it up, and put a spare gpu into the same slot.  still no image.  i then take that spare gpu, and put it in the 0nd pcie slot.  magically, it works.  but this pcie slot operates at x0, and is not big enough to fit high end gpus because the sata ports are in the way.  so no bueno.  i decide that the pcie slot is broken, and take the pc apart to get the board ready to rma.  i decide i need a pc while i wait for the new parts, so i reassemble my old build, which took even more time.  system boots, image displayed but now the video card fans do not spin.  system restarts after a few minutes abruptly.  obviously, this means that the card is overheating due to no active cooling.  put in spare card, works fine.  so the new motherboard i bought fried the video card i own due to a falty pcie slot, and chances are newegg or asus wo not cover that, judging by what i read online.  so now i am down $0 i spent on new parts, 0 days worth of time i spent troubleshooting which i could have made a lot if i worked those days , and now i am stuck using a low end gpu as the motherboard fried my $0 one.  there is a reason that professional corporations just buy oem pcs like dell instead of hiring people to build them.  the build process is all fine if you know what you are doing and all parts work, but the moment you get 0 doa part that fries other parts, then it is pure hell to figure out what to replace, and what to keep.  the time spent troubleshooting poor parts is not worth the miniscule amount of money you save.  i have been working in a pc repair shop for a year, took a year long pc repair course, and i am comptia a  certified, so i know what i am doing, for the most part.  but imagine if this happened to a beginner, who is just going off of guides found online with no experience behind them in troubleshooting.  they would have no clue what part to blame, what to rma, what to buy.  unless you are extremely frugal, or enjoy building pcs, you are better off just buying an oem pc.  the $0 0 yous ave is not worth the time spent figuring it out, or the risk that you will never get it to work at all because of doa parts or rookie mistakes  #  the $0 0 you save is not worth the work it takes to assemble the thing and troubleshoot faulty parts.   #  some/most people who build their computers do so on websites that allow you to select parts and then have them put together after that.   # some/most people who build their computers do so on websites that allow you to select parts and then have them put together after that.  this is upgrading, which is different from the above for stated reasons.  the build process is all fine if you know what you are doing and all parts work, but the moment you get 0 doa part that fries other parts, then it is pure hell to figure out what to replace, and what to keep.  the time spent troubleshooting poor parts is not worth the miniscule amount of money you save.  companies order computers en masse because they know the exact specifications they require to do x job, and usually can overshoot it fairly cheaply.  even if they ca not, upgrading versions of photoshop is rarely going to require a new model of computer.  computer companies want various programs, but the vast majority can get by with microsoft office, excel, and a browser or two.  the more specialized ones might need photoshop, or 0d modeling programs, maybe specialized web development tools or individual unique programs created in house.  most of the time, they can buy one computer and not replace them for a decade or more without productivity suffering greatly .  individuals, especially gamers, need a lot more horsepower and usually need it upgraded more often.  i would argue that oem pcs are not that much better, because there is still a chance they arrive broken/faulty/etc.  you act like all companies have 0 efficient testing, but multiple times i have had companies ship faulty parts.   #  URL for you, the $0 0 saved is not worth the effort to build and troubleshoot.   #  it is all a matter of opportunity cost.  URL for you, the $0 0 saved is not worth the effort to build and troubleshoot.  in other words: for you, the extra time you spend is not worth more than the money you save.  however, for some people, this extra time is absolutely worth it they may value their time differently than you do, and may want to spend the extra time making everything perfect.  take this as an analogy: if you cook at home, you spend a lot more time making food than you would if you bought a fully prepared meal, but you are also saving money.  for some people, the time and effort of cooking is not worth the money you save by doing it.  for others, though, cooking a fancy meal for a fraction of the cost of that meal in a restaurant is absolutely worth it.   #  i do not think anyone is going to be able to change your view there.   # i feel like this makes your view a bit tautological.  building a pc is worth it for some people, and not worth it for others.  this is based on factors such as how much you like building pcs, how good you are at it, how much you value your time, and how much you value your money.  different people attaching different values to those items are obviously going to disagree.  i do not think anyone is going to be able to change your view there.  you did not enjoy the experience but that does not generalize to everyone.  some people love the process of sifting through information to figure out why something is not working.   #  the price racks up really fast if you want a good performance gaming pc.   #  well my 0$ pc custom made would cost me about 0$ for a pre made.  ran into no issues; ordering took 0 minutes, assembly took   0h it is like a lego, where everything that should fit, fits.  if it does not fit, it does not go there.  ; installing image took   0h.  the parts i used for my pc are not in standard oem pcs, so you have to look at things like alienware, etc.  alienware comes with flashy led keyboards, led filled cases, badass custom lighting and other bullshits you do not need.  the price racks up really fast if you want a good performance gaming pc.  if you go oem, you will lose at least 0$.  you can dish out an extra 0$ on a website to purchase all parts, and they build it for you, they test the pc and ship you the full made custom built pc.  i mean, sure if you are gonna buy a pc   0$, you do not really need custom.   #  this was my first real build from scratch.   #  your lucky, my build was the complete opposite.  this was my first real build from scratch.  still does not work 0 weeks on.  ordered the parts, had some hassle/issues.  build it up, case does not fit the video card.  new case, system boots, load os/drivers.  after a few hours run time it just shuts off.  then nothing happens.  i mean nothing.  trouble shoot it is the psu.  store does test and say is it is all good.  so i pay ncix to diagnose my system.  i am told motherboard is shot.  so buy new mother board and install it, and nothing.  computer still wo not do anything beyond a green led on the motherboard.  next day went to return the orignial motherboard.  the tech ask is me if it worked, i said no.  he and another guy start spit balling ideas on what else could be wrong.  i thought i paid $0 to get diagnosed what was wrong ? as a fairly new builder it can be very frustrating when it does not work, and it is not a simple solution.  but i have swapped parts and cases before, this is the first time i have had any issues, or problems.
i do not think building a pc is worth it unless you enjoy the process of doing so.  the $0 0 you save is not worth the work it takes to assemble the thing and troubleshoot faulty parts.  so i had a 0 functional pc i built years ago, and decided i would  rebuild  it with a skylake cpu/new motherboard/new cooler/ddr0 ram.  i was short on cash, so i decided to reuse the same gpu for now, 0 functional before i built the new pc.  package arrives, i take a couple hours to assemble it as the cooler is a bit tricky.  but i get it right, but the system only outputs to the onboard vga.  onboard dvi and gpu outputs do not work, but the gpu fans are spinning.  yes, the pcie power connectors are connected, and yes i properly seated the gpu.  so i look online, and people tell me i probably just need drivers.  so i install windows just fine.  try to get drivers off of amd is site, install fails.  not surprising, because the gpu wo not show in the device manager.  great.  so i turn it off, open it up, and put a spare gpu into the same slot.  still no image.  i then take that spare gpu, and put it in the 0nd pcie slot.  magically, it works.  but this pcie slot operates at x0, and is not big enough to fit high end gpus because the sata ports are in the way.  so no bueno.  i decide that the pcie slot is broken, and take the pc apart to get the board ready to rma.  i decide i need a pc while i wait for the new parts, so i reassemble my old build, which took even more time.  system boots, image displayed but now the video card fans do not spin.  system restarts after a few minutes abruptly.  obviously, this means that the card is overheating due to no active cooling.  put in spare card, works fine.  so the new motherboard i bought fried the video card i own due to a falty pcie slot, and chances are newegg or asus wo not cover that, judging by what i read online.  so now i am down $0 i spent on new parts, 0 days worth of time i spent troubleshooting which i could have made a lot if i worked those days , and now i am stuck using a low end gpu as the motherboard fried my $0 one.  there is a reason that professional corporations just buy oem pcs like dell instead of hiring people to build them.  the build process is all fine if you know what you are doing and all parts work, but the moment you get 0 doa part that fries other parts, then it is pure hell to figure out what to replace, and what to keep.  the time spent troubleshooting poor parts is not worth the miniscule amount of money you save.  i have been working in a pc repair shop for a year, took a year long pc repair course, and i am comptia a  certified, so i know what i am doing, for the most part.  but imagine if this happened to a beginner, who is just going off of guides found online with no experience behind them in troubleshooting.  they would have no clue what part to blame, what to rma, what to buy.  unless you are extremely frugal, or enjoy building pcs, you are better off just buying an oem pc.  the $0 0 yous ave is not worth the time spent figuring it out, or the risk that you will never get it to work at all because of doa parts or rookie mistakes  #  so i had a 0 functional pc i built years ago, and decided i would  rebuild  it with a skylake cpu/new motherboard/new cooler/ddr0 ram.   #  this is upgrading, which is different from the above for stated reasons.   # some/most people who build their computers do so on websites that allow you to select parts and then have them put together after that.  this is upgrading, which is different from the above for stated reasons.  the build process is all fine if you know what you are doing and all parts work, but the moment you get 0 doa part that fries other parts, then it is pure hell to figure out what to replace, and what to keep.  the time spent troubleshooting poor parts is not worth the miniscule amount of money you save.  companies order computers en masse because they know the exact specifications they require to do x job, and usually can overshoot it fairly cheaply.  even if they ca not, upgrading versions of photoshop is rarely going to require a new model of computer.  computer companies want various programs, but the vast majority can get by with microsoft office, excel, and a browser or two.  the more specialized ones might need photoshop, or 0d modeling programs, maybe specialized web development tools or individual unique programs created in house.  most of the time, they can buy one computer and not replace them for a decade or more without productivity suffering greatly .  individuals, especially gamers, need a lot more horsepower and usually need it upgraded more often.  i would argue that oem pcs are not that much better, because there is still a chance they arrive broken/faulty/etc.  you act like all companies have 0 efficient testing, but multiple times i have had companies ship faulty parts.   #  in other words: for you, the extra time you spend is not worth more than the money you save.   #  it is all a matter of opportunity cost.  URL for you, the $0 0 saved is not worth the effort to build and troubleshoot.  in other words: for you, the extra time you spend is not worth more than the money you save.  however, for some people, this extra time is absolutely worth it they may value their time differently than you do, and may want to spend the extra time making everything perfect.  take this as an analogy: if you cook at home, you spend a lot more time making food than you would if you bought a fully prepared meal, but you are also saving money.  for some people, the time and effort of cooking is not worth the money you save by doing it.  for others, though, cooking a fancy meal for a fraction of the cost of that meal in a restaurant is absolutely worth it.   #  different people attaching different values to those items are obviously going to disagree.   # i feel like this makes your view a bit tautological.  building a pc is worth it for some people, and not worth it for others.  this is based on factors such as how much you like building pcs, how good you are at it, how much you value your time, and how much you value your money.  different people attaching different values to those items are obviously going to disagree.  i do not think anyone is going to be able to change your view there.  you did not enjoy the experience but that does not generalize to everyone.  some people love the process of sifting through information to figure out why something is not working.   #  well my 0$ pc custom made would cost me about 0$ for a pre made.  ran into no issues; ordering took 0 minutes, assembly took   0h it is like a lego, where everything that should fit, fits.   #  well my 0$ pc custom made would cost me about 0$ for a pre made.  ran into no issues; ordering took 0 minutes, assembly took   0h it is like a lego, where everything that should fit, fits.  if it does not fit, it does not go there.  ; installing image took   0h.  the parts i used for my pc are not in standard oem pcs, so you have to look at things like alienware, etc.  alienware comes with flashy led keyboards, led filled cases, badass custom lighting and other bullshits you do not need.  the price racks up really fast if you want a good performance gaming pc.  if you go oem, you will lose at least 0$.  you can dish out an extra 0$ on a website to purchase all parts, and they build it for you, they test the pc and ship you the full made custom built pc.  i mean, sure if you are gonna buy a pc   0$, you do not really need custom.   #  store does test and say is it is all good.   #  your lucky, my build was the complete opposite.  this was my first real build from scratch.  still does not work 0 weeks on.  ordered the parts, had some hassle/issues.  build it up, case does not fit the video card.  new case, system boots, load os/drivers.  after a few hours run time it just shuts off.  then nothing happens.  i mean nothing.  trouble shoot it is the psu.  store does test and say is it is all good.  so i pay ncix to diagnose my system.  i am told motherboard is shot.  so buy new mother board and install it, and nothing.  computer still wo not do anything beyond a green led on the motherboard.  next day went to return the orignial motherboard.  the tech ask is me if it worked, i said no.  he and another guy start spit balling ideas on what else could be wrong.  i thought i paid $0 to get diagnosed what was wrong ? as a fairly new builder it can be very frustrating when it does not work, and it is not a simple solution.  but i have swapped parts and cases before, this is the first time i have had any issues, or problems.
i do not think building a pc is worth it unless you enjoy the process of doing so.  the $0 0 you save is not worth the work it takes to assemble the thing and troubleshoot faulty parts.  so i had a 0 functional pc i built years ago, and decided i would  rebuild  it with a skylake cpu/new motherboard/new cooler/ddr0 ram.  i was short on cash, so i decided to reuse the same gpu for now, 0 functional before i built the new pc.  package arrives, i take a couple hours to assemble it as the cooler is a bit tricky.  but i get it right, but the system only outputs to the onboard vga.  onboard dvi and gpu outputs do not work, but the gpu fans are spinning.  yes, the pcie power connectors are connected, and yes i properly seated the gpu.  so i look online, and people tell me i probably just need drivers.  so i install windows just fine.  try to get drivers off of amd is site, install fails.  not surprising, because the gpu wo not show in the device manager.  great.  so i turn it off, open it up, and put a spare gpu into the same slot.  still no image.  i then take that spare gpu, and put it in the 0nd pcie slot.  magically, it works.  but this pcie slot operates at x0, and is not big enough to fit high end gpus because the sata ports are in the way.  so no bueno.  i decide that the pcie slot is broken, and take the pc apart to get the board ready to rma.  i decide i need a pc while i wait for the new parts, so i reassemble my old build, which took even more time.  system boots, image displayed but now the video card fans do not spin.  system restarts after a few minutes abruptly.  obviously, this means that the card is overheating due to no active cooling.  put in spare card, works fine.  so the new motherboard i bought fried the video card i own due to a falty pcie slot, and chances are newegg or asus wo not cover that, judging by what i read online.  so now i am down $0 i spent on new parts, 0 days worth of time i spent troubleshooting which i could have made a lot if i worked those days , and now i am stuck using a low end gpu as the motherboard fried my $0 one.  there is a reason that professional corporations just buy oem pcs like dell instead of hiring people to build them.  the build process is all fine if you know what you are doing and all parts work, but the moment you get 0 doa part that fries other parts, then it is pure hell to figure out what to replace, and what to keep.  the time spent troubleshooting poor parts is not worth the miniscule amount of money you save.  i have been working in a pc repair shop for a year, took a year long pc repair course, and i am comptia a  certified, so i know what i am doing, for the most part.  but imagine if this happened to a beginner, who is just going off of guides found online with no experience behind them in troubleshooting.  they would have no clue what part to blame, what to rma, what to buy.  unless you are extremely frugal, or enjoy building pcs, you are better off just buying an oem pc.  the $0 0 yous ave is not worth the time spent figuring it out, or the risk that you will never get it to work at all because of doa parts or rookie mistakes  #  there is a reason that professional corporations just buy oem pcs like dell instead of hiring people to build them.   #  the build process is all fine if you know what you are doing and all parts work, but the moment you get 0 doa part that fries other parts, then it is pure hell to figure out what to replace, and what to keep.   # some/most people who build their computers do so on websites that allow you to select parts and then have them put together after that.  this is upgrading, which is different from the above for stated reasons.  the build process is all fine if you know what you are doing and all parts work, but the moment you get 0 doa part that fries other parts, then it is pure hell to figure out what to replace, and what to keep.  the time spent troubleshooting poor parts is not worth the miniscule amount of money you save.  companies order computers en masse because they know the exact specifications they require to do x job, and usually can overshoot it fairly cheaply.  even if they ca not, upgrading versions of photoshop is rarely going to require a new model of computer.  computer companies want various programs, but the vast majority can get by with microsoft office, excel, and a browser or two.  the more specialized ones might need photoshop, or 0d modeling programs, maybe specialized web development tools or individual unique programs created in house.  most of the time, they can buy one computer and not replace them for a decade or more without productivity suffering greatly .  individuals, especially gamers, need a lot more horsepower and usually need it upgraded more often.  i would argue that oem pcs are not that much better, because there is still a chance they arrive broken/faulty/etc.  you act like all companies have 0 efficient testing, but multiple times i have had companies ship faulty parts.   #  for others, though, cooking a fancy meal for a fraction of the cost of that meal in a restaurant is absolutely worth it.   #  it is all a matter of opportunity cost.  URL for you, the $0 0 saved is not worth the effort to build and troubleshoot.  in other words: for you, the extra time you spend is not worth more than the money you save.  however, for some people, this extra time is absolutely worth it they may value their time differently than you do, and may want to spend the extra time making everything perfect.  take this as an analogy: if you cook at home, you spend a lot more time making food than you would if you bought a fully prepared meal, but you are also saving money.  for some people, the time and effort of cooking is not worth the money you save by doing it.  for others, though, cooking a fancy meal for a fraction of the cost of that meal in a restaurant is absolutely worth it.   #  i feel like this makes your view a bit tautological.   # i feel like this makes your view a bit tautological.  building a pc is worth it for some people, and not worth it for others.  this is based on factors such as how much you like building pcs, how good you are at it, how much you value your time, and how much you value your money.  different people attaching different values to those items are obviously going to disagree.  i do not think anyone is going to be able to change your view there.  you did not enjoy the experience but that does not generalize to everyone.  some people love the process of sifting through information to figure out why something is not working.   #  the parts i used for my pc are not in standard oem pcs, so you have to look at things like alienware, etc.   #  well my 0$ pc custom made would cost me about 0$ for a pre made.  ran into no issues; ordering took 0 minutes, assembly took   0h it is like a lego, where everything that should fit, fits.  if it does not fit, it does not go there.  ; installing image took   0h.  the parts i used for my pc are not in standard oem pcs, so you have to look at things like alienware, etc.  alienware comes with flashy led keyboards, led filled cases, badass custom lighting and other bullshits you do not need.  the price racks up really fast if you want a good performance gaming pc.  if you go oem, you will lose at least 0$.  you can dish out an extra 0$ on a website to purchase all parts, and they build it for you, they test the pc and ship you the full made custom built pc.  i mean, sure if you are gonna buy a pc   0$, you do not really need custom.   #  this was my first real build from scratch.   #  your lucky, my build was the complete opposite.  this was my first real build from scratch.  still does not work 0 weeks on.  ordered the parts, had some hassle/issues.  build it up, case does not fit the video card.  new case, system boots, load os/drivers.  after a few hours run time it just shuts off.  then nothing happens.  i mean nothing.  trouble shoot it is the psu.  store does test and say is it is all good.  so i pay ncix to diagnose my system.  i am told motherboard is shot.  so buy new mother board and install it, and nothing.  computer still wo not do anything beyond a green led on the motherboard.  next day went to return the orignial motherboard.  the tech ask is me if it worked, i said no.  he and another guy start spit balling ideas on what else could be wrong.  i thought i paid $0 to get diagnosed what was wrong ? as a fairly new builder it can be very frustrating when it does not work, and it is not a simple solution.  but i have swapped parts and cases before, this is the first time i have had any issues, or problems.
i do not think building a pc is worth it unless you enjoy the process of doing so.  the $0 0 you save is not worth the work it takes to assemble the thing and troubleshoot faulty parts.  so i had a 0 functional pc i built years ago, and decided i would  rebuild  it with a skylake cpu/new motherboard/new cooler/ddr0 ram.  i was short on cash, so i decided to reuse the same gpu for now, 0 functional before i built the new pc.  package arrives, i take a couple hours to assemble it as the cooler is a bit tricky.  but i get it right, but the system only outputs to the onboard vga.  onboard dvi and gpu outputs do not work, but the gpu fans are spinning.  yes, the pcie power connectors are connected, and yes i properly seated the gpu.  so i look online, and people tell me i probably just need drivers.  so i install windows just fine.  try to get drivers off of amd is site, install fails.  not surprising, because the gpu wo not show in the device manager.  great.  so i turn it off, open it up, and put a spare gpu into the same slot.  still no image.  i then take that spare gpu, and put it in the 0nd pcie slot.  magically, it works.  but this pcie slot operates at x0, and is not big enough to fit high end gpus because the sata ports are in the way.  so no bueno.  i decide that the pcie slot is broken, and take the pc apart to get the board ready to rma.  i decide i need a pc while i wait for the new parts, so i reassemble my old build, which took even more time.  system boots, image displayed but now the video card fans do not spin.  system restarts after a few minutes abruptly.  obviously, this means that the card is overheating due to no active cooling.  put in spare card, works fine.  so the new motherboard i bought fried the video card i own due to a falty pcie slot, and chances are newegg or asus wo not cover that, judging by what i read online.  so now i am down $0 i spent on new parts, 0 days worth of time i spent troubleshooting which i could have made a lot if i worked those days , and now i am stuck using a low end gpu as the motherboard fried my $0 one.  there is a reason that professional corporations just buy oem pcs like dell instead of hiring people to build them.  the build process is all fine if you know what you are doing and all parts work, but the moment you get 0 doa part that fries other parts, then it is pure hell to figure out what to replace, and what to keep.  the time spent troubleshooting poor parts is not worth the miniscule amount of money you save.  i have been working in a pc repair shop for a year, took a year long pc repair course, and i am comptia a  certified, so i know what i am doing, for the most part.  but imagine if this happened to a beginner, who is just going off of guides found online with no experience behind them in troubleshooting.  they would have no clue what part to blame, what to rma, what to buy.  unless you are extremely frugal, or enjoy building pcs, you are better off just buying an oem pc.  the $0 0 yous ave is not worth the time spent figuring it out, or the risk that you will never get it to work at all because of doa parts or rookie mistakes  #  but imagine if this happened to a beginner, who is just going off of guides found online with no experience behind them in troubleshooting.   #  they would have no clue what part to blame, what to rma, what to buy.   #  if there was a faulty board, you should really talk to the manufacturer of the board because it fried your graphics card, and have them provide a replacement at their expense; if you are a  certified then you have grounds to say definitively that you know what you are doing.  they would have no clue what part to blame, what to rma, what to buy.  this is why i always keep at least 0 computers: one cheap but reliable ish laptop that i can use, and the gaming computer that i build and tinker with.  if i were a beginner, i would see this as a learning experience after my understandable frustration ; so i would go and start googling, asking my more knowledgeable friends, and learning more about what may have gone wrong.  that is how you become not a beginner, and my first build had similar problems, both caused by parts i got some bad ram that caused some of my dimm slots to not work in my first motherboard and caused by me the final death of that motherboard happened when i had to clean out the heatsink fans on that processor is heatsink and a screw fell out and i forgot to find it and i shorted the motherboard to an irrecoverable state .  i guess i am not challenging the part of  unless you are a hobbyist , but you ca not really become a hobbyist without taking that first step.  however:  there is a reason that professional corporations just buy oem pcs like dell instead of hiring people to build them.  the build process is all fine if you know what you are doing and all parts work, but the moment you get 0 doa part that fries other parts, then it is pure hell to figure out what to replace, and what to keep.  the time spent troubleshooting poor parts is not worth the miniscule amount of money you save.  nah, it is because corporations do not typically need a high end machine, and just need to be able to browse the internet, use word and acrobat and maybe power point, and maybe some specialized tax software or something.  beyond that, if they  do  need specialized rigs, it ultimately saves them money to have a service contract so that when things  do  break, they have someone else to fix the computer.  that was the reason my last job worked with dell; if anything broke we got shipped a replacement part and then the it department in other words: me got the job of installing that replacement part, unless it was a motherboard.  the other reason is that they are typically buying computers in bulk, 0 0  at a time, and they get discounts for that; when you factor in the money they would have to spend to pay someone to assemble parts if they did it newegg style, then you realize that there is really no savings there for a company at all; the only reason it is a saving for the individual is because they are doing it themselves and not paying anyone to do it for them.  so, if it is not something that makes you happy, then do not do it, because it is just going to give you headaches.  i happen to enjoy building pcs, so even if something goes wrong i typically have the spare parts such that i do not have to go without a computer while i wait for a part to be rma would  #  take this as an analogy: if you cook at home, you spend a lot more time making food than you would if you bought a fully prepared meal, but you are also saving money.   #  it is all a matter of opportunity cost.  URL for you, the $0 0 saved is not worth the effort to build and troubleshoot.  in other words: for you, the extra time you spend is not worth more than the money you save.  however, for some people, this extra time is absolutely worth it they may value their time differently than you do, and may want to spend the extra time making everything perfect.  take this as an analogy: if you cook at home, you spend a lot more time making food than you would if you bought a fully prepared meal, but you are also saving money.  for some people, the time and effort of cooking is not worth the money you save by doing it.  for others, though, cooking a fancy meal for a fraction of the cost of that meal in a restaurant is absolutely worth it.   #  you did not enjoy the experience but that does not generalize to everyone.   # i feel like this makes your view a bit tautological.  building a pc is worth it for some people, and not worth it for others.  this is based on factors such as how much you like building pcs, how good you are at it, how much you value your time, and how much you value your money.  different people attaching different values to those items are obviously going to disagree.  i do not think anyone is going to be able to change your view there.  you did not enjoy the experience but that does not generalize to everyone.  some people love the process of sifting through information to figure out why something is not working.   #  the price racks up really fast if you want a good performance gaming pc.   #  well my 0$ pc custom made would cost me about 0$ for a pre made.  ran into no issues; ordering took 0 minutes, assembly took   0h it is like a lego, where everything that should fit, fits.  if it does not fit, it does not go there.  ; installing image took   0h.  the parts i used for my pc are not in standard oem pcs, so you have to look at things like alienware, etc.  alienware comes with flashy led keyboards, led filled cases, badass custom lighting and other bullshits you do not need.  the price racks up really fast if you want a good performance gaming pc.  if you go oem, you will lose at least 0$.  you can dish out an extra 0$ on a website to purchase all parts, and they build it for you, they test the pc and ship you the full made custom built pc.  i mean, sure if you are gonna buy a pc   0$, you do not really need custom.   #  even if they ca not, upgrading versions of photoshop is rarely going to require a new model of computer.   # some/most people who build their computers do so on websites that allow you to select parts and then have them put together after that.  this is upgrading, which is different from the above for stated reasons.  the build process is all fine if you know what you are doing and all parts work, but the moment you get 0 doa part that fries other parts, then it is pure hell to figure out what to replace, and what to keep.  the time spent troubleshooting poor parts is not worth the miniscule amount of money you save.  companies order computers en masse because they know the exact specifications they require to do x job, and usually can overshoot it fairly cheaply.  even if they ca not, upgrading versions of photoshop is rarely going to require a new model of computer.  computer companies want various programs, but the vast majority can get by with microsoft office, excel, and a browser or two.  the more specialized ones might need photoshop, or 0d modeling programs, maybe specialized web development tools or individual unique programs created in house.  most of the time, they can buy one computer and not replace them for a decade or more without productivity suffering greatly .  individuals, especially gamers, need a lot more horsepower and usually need it upgraded more often.  i would argue that oem pcs are not that much better, because there is still a chance they arrive broken/faulty/etc.  you act like all companies have 0 efficient testing, but multiple times i have had companies ship faulty parts.
normal  adj.  conforming to the standard or common type.  by the above definition, we can be sure that there is a  normal  human being.  or at the very least, various  normal  states to make up a  normal  human being.  anything that is in the majority is a  normal  state.  so, the  normal  human being is a cisgendered, heterosexual, chinese man.  this means that states such as transgender, homosexual, autistic etc.  are not  normal .  they are in fact  wouldifferent .  and we desperately need to stop acting as if they are normal.  they are different.  this does not mean they are worse, undesirable or negative.  nor does it mean they are better, desirable or positive.  they are simply different.   #  anything that is in the majority is a  normal  state.   #  so, the  normal  human being is a cisgendered, heterosexual, chinese man.   # so, the  normal  human being is a cisgendered, heterosexual, chinese man.  the majority of humans are not chinese.  there is no nationality that the majority of humans can be described has.  a plurality of humans are chinese, but that is very different from a majority, especially in regards to defining a  normal .  also, there are more than 0 human traits.  there are more human traits than we can realistically count, and each will have variations.  the vast majority of traits have no  normal.   for the traits in your post title, sexuality is abnormal in that a  normal  can be defined.  and there are so many traits in existence, that no one will be  normal  in all of them.  and when everyone is abnormal, does not that mean that abnormality is normal ?  #  i realise i skimped a little on my research with the chinese bit.   #  i realise i skimped a little on my research with the chinese bit.  my point was that whatever the largest ethnicity is i chose china because they have the largest population, but thats not an accurate representation of racial majority is the  normal  ethnicity.  i understand there are more than three traits, i was simply using those as examples.  again, my point is, whatever state is in the majority highest percentage is the  normal  state.  every trait will have a most commonly occurring state.  i never said there would be someone like that.   and when everyone is super, no one will be.    #  number of chinese people 0e0 number of people 0e0 percentage of people who are chinese the largest ethnicity i assume, but point still stands otherwise 0 are you saying that only 0 of people have a normal ethnicity ?  # number of chinese people 0e0 number of people 0e0 percentage of people who are chinese the largest ethnicity i assume, but point still stands otherwise 0 are you saying that only 0 of people have a normal ethnicity ? or to put it another way, that 0 the vast majority of people are abnormal on this one trait alone ? it was rhetorical from where i am standing to clarify, when a state of abnormality is more common than normality, does not that contradict the definition of normality ? so you are better off and more accurate saying that all variations of a trait are normal, at least within a certain range.  so a human with sexual traits is normal, and so is a person with at least some asd conditions, eg aspergers, since defining everything other than the mode as abnormal eliminates the existence of a  normal .   #  then again i could be very wrong about your motivation for wanting to have this view changed.   #  hm.  may i ask why you want this view changed ? i mean, the people who are usually throwing around the terms normal and abnormal when it comes to gays usually refer to gays as not normal.  it sound is a lot better if you say their sexual orientation is not the norm of the majority of the population.  you seem to have picked up on a technicality and are searching to defend these peoples choice of words when calling gays not normal ? i mean really, agreeing that normal is the norm is not a view i would seek to be changed.  agreeing with homophobic peoples choice of words though i might.  what i am getting at is that while you maybe never would consider a gay person an abnormal human being others use it in that very way.  then again i could be very wrong about your motivation for wanting to have this view changed.  so, what is your reason ?  #  when you say  abnormal  do you say it alone or with the word state after it ?  # this sentence is messed up man.  it seems to imply people are arguing with you, telling you are wrong, and that autism is abnormal or homosecuality is abnormal.  with a sentence that screwed up you cant blame me for being confused.  when you say  abnormal  do you say it alone or with the word state after it ? seriously, nobody is going tell you are wrong if you say the majority of people are not gay.  you are purposely focusing on technicalities here instead of what people are actually arguing against.  i swear, nobody will tell you autism and homosexuality is normal when normal is taken to mean the norm.  if it is taken as synonymous with natural however people will rightfully object.  you are trying to justify a normally homophobic statement by falling back on technicalities which have nothing to do with the context of the argument.
normal  adj.  conforming to the standard or common type.  by the above definition, we can be sure that there is a  normal  human being.  or at the very least, various  normal  states to make up a  normal  human being.  anything that is in the majority is a  normal  state.  so, the  normal  human being is a cisgendered, heterosexual, chinese man.  this means that states such as transgender, homosexual, autistic etc.  are not  normal .  they are in fact  wouldifferent .  and we desperately need to stop acting as if they are normal.  they are different.  this does not mean they are worse, undesirable or negative.  nor does it mean they are better, desirable or positive.  they are simply different.   #  conforming to the standard or common type.   #  this does not imply the existence of exactly one standard or common type.   # this does not imply the existence of exactly one standard or common type.  it is normal to be a doctor.  that does not mean it is abnormal to be a schoolteacher or a lawyer.  is it meaningful in any way to say that the most common profession is the only  normal  profession ? nobody thinks homosexuality is the most common way for human beings to be, because that is not what  normal  really means.   normal  means something more like  not unusual,  in both a literal there are lots of homosexual individuals and subjective it is not wrong or strange to be homosexual sense.   #  the vast majority of traits have no  normal.    # so, the  normal  human being is a cisgendered, heterosexual, chinese man.  the majority of humans are not chinese.  there is no nationality that the majority of humans can be described has.  a plurality of humans are chinese, but that is very different from a majority, especially in regards to defining a  normal .  also, there are more than 0 human traits.  there are more human traits than we can realistically count, and each will have variations.  the vast majority of traits have no  normal.   for the traits in your post title, sexuality is abnormal in that a  normal  can be defined.  and there are so many traits in existence, that no one will be  normal  in all of them.  and when everyone is abnormal, does not that mean that abnormality is normal ?  #  again, my point is, whatever state is in the majority highest percentage is the  normal  state.   #  i realise i skimped a little on my research with the chinese bit.  my point was that whatever the largest ethnicity is i chose china because they have the largest population, but thats not an accurate representation of racial majority is the  normal  ethnicity.  i understand there are more than three traits, i was simply using those as examples.  again, my point is, whatever state is in the majority highest percentage is the  normal  state.  every trait will have a most commonly occurring state.  i never said there would be someone like that.   and when everyone is super, no one will be.    #  number of chinese people 0e0 number of people 0e0 percentage of people who are chinese the largest ethnicity i assume, but point still stands otherwise 0 are you saying that only 0 of people have a normal ethnicity ?  # number of chinese people 0e0 number of people 0e0 percentage of people who are chinese the largest ethnicity i assume, but point still stands otherwise 0 are you saying that only 0 of people have a normal ethnicity ? or to put it another way, that 0 the vast majority of people are abnormal on this one trait alone ? it was rhetorical from where i am standing to clarify, when a state of abnormality is more common than normality, does not that contradict the definition of normality ? so you are better off and more accurate saying that all variations of a trait are normal, at least within a certain range.  so a human with sexual traits is normal, and so is a person with at least some asd conditions, eg aspergers, since defining everything other than the mode as abnormal eliminates the existence of a  normal .   #  what i am getting at is that while you maybe never would consider a gay person an abnormal human being others use it in that very way.   #  hm.  may i ask why you want this view changed ? i mean, the people who are usually throwing around the terms normal and abnormal when it comes to gays usually refer to gays as not normal.  it sound is a lot better if you say their sexual orientation is not the norm of the majority of the population.  you seem to have picked up on a technicality and are searching to defend these peoples choice of words when calling gays not normal ? i mean really, agreeing that normal is the norm is not a view i would seek to be changed.  agreeing with homophobic peoples choice of words though i might.  what i am getting at is that while you maybe never would consider a gay person an abnormal human being others use it in that very way.  then again i could be very wrong about your motivation for wanting to have this view changed.  so, what is your reason ?
let me start by saying that i am not an economics expert and i am sure it is probably not as simple and obvious as it seems or we would have done this by now.  simply put, i think that many of america is economic problems could be fixed by placing a cap on total compensation for executives, let is say $0 million.  this would have no effect on small businesses, of course, but would have a major positive impact on major corporations like, for instance, wal mart.  according to this URL site, wal mart paid it is top 0 execs just over $0 million combined.  so, with a $0 mil wage cap wal mart would have over $0 mil in surplus cash which it would then, logically, invest into more warehouses, factories and stores, creating more jobs.  walmart would not be the only company doing this, though, most of the biggest companies would be doing the same with their sudden surpluses which would lead to a labor shortage which would drive up salaries and benefits for the average workers.  more people making more money leads to more business for all companies and more tax revenue for cash strapped local, state, and federal governments.  everyone wins.  bonus: the super wealthy will no long be willing to make such huge political contributions.  who would drop $0 mil on a candidate, who might not even win, if it will take them a decade to earn that money back ?  #  so, with a $0 mil wage cap wal mart would have over $0 mil in surplus cash which it would then, logically, invest into more warehouses, factories and stores, creating more jobs.   #  why would the executives of wal mart care about the growth of the company if they would not be compensated for this growth ?  # why would the executives of wal mart care about the growth of the company if they would not be compensated for this growth ? instead of using that extra money to build more stores, warehouses, distribution centers, etc. , the executives would probably decide to let wal mart run steady without any growth once they hit their wage cap.  the same can be said for other companies a well.  for example, do you think the ceos from google would bother developing things like gmail, google docs, android, etc.  if their income was capped ? no, they would probably just go with enough services so that they can make their maximum income, and stop there.  so in this case, say goodbye to every google product except its search engine and maybe it is ad service because the people at the top are capped out on their income.  why would companies bother to create new innovations which ultimately benefit everyone if the income of the people at the top was capped ? unfortunately, money is an incredibly powerful motivator and it drives innovation that ultimately benefits us all.   #  0.  it would not very likely be reinvested into salaries or facilities.   #  a few problems with this: 0.  it does very little to combat large scale wealth.  bill gates did not get rich because microsoft paid him a big salary.  he got rich because as a founder of microsoft, he owned a large percentage of the company.  thus his compensation came from the dividends and growth of microsoft stock.  0.  this would prevent companies hiring away each others  executives.  so for instance if tesla is trying to expand their assembly line drastically, they might need to hire a senior executive away from toyota who knows how to run a 0k unit a year assembly line.  they ca not really do that if they ca not offer the toyota exec more money.  0.  it would not very likely be reinvested into salaries or facilities.  much more likely it would be distributed to shareholders in the form of dividends or share buybacks.  that would not create any new jobs or tax revenue.   #  0.  dividends and share buybacks benefits everyone who owns even a little of a stock, not just the major share holders which stills helps to spread the wealth around.   #  to respond to your points: 0.  exactly, you could not make more than $0mil unless you  owned  a private business that was successful enough to make more than $0mil a year profit.  so the greedy ceo is take some of the mountain of cash they have sitting in some off shore bank not getting taxed and start their own businesses, thus creating more jobs.  0.  no one is born knowing how to run a 0k unit assembly line.  anyone doing any job started out with no experience in that job, and most folks manage just fine.  besides, what wrong with promoting from within ? maybe the guy who started out on the assembly floor 0 years ago and worked his way up to plant manager knows a little more about running your factory than a random exec from toyota who has never laid eyes on your line before.  0.  dividends and share buybacks benefits everyone who owns even a little of a stock, not just the major share holders which stills helps to spread the wealth around.   #  the lower you make the company is on shore expenses, the less offshore cash they bring home.   # so the greedy ceo is take some of the mountain of cash they have sitting in some off shore bank not getting taxed and start their own businesses, thus creating more jobs.  you are assuming the greedy ceos and the owners are different people.  often enough, the way they got to be ceo is by founding the company.  also, you are getting how offshore cash works wrong.  the lower you make the company is on shore expenses, the less offshore cash they bring home.  what you are proposing will very, very slightly increase how much cash sits offshore.  anyone doing any job started out with no experience in that job, and most folks manage just fine.  besides, what wrong with promoting from within ? maybe the guy who started out on the assembly floor 0 years ago and worked his way up to plant manager knows a little more about running your factory than a random exec from toyota who has never laid eyes on your line before.  what is wrong with promoting from within is nobody from within has the necessary experience for something your company has never done before.  tesla does not have anyone experienced in super high volume manufacturing except who they poach from outside, because tesla has never done super high volume manufacturing.  it is not spreading the wealth around because it enriches the already rich.  rich people generally keep their money in stocks, not in cash under the mattress.  making shareholders richer is going to increase income inequality.   #  perhaps a few more jobs for the manufacturers of the automated systems, but they use a lot of automation themselves.   # everyone wins.  the amount of pay that an executive receives is determined by the board of the company.  if they decide to cap the money, then they are typically obliged to increase the amount of money that is given back to shareholders through dividends.  or, they may invest that money in other financial instruments, and may invest money abroad which companies do all the time.  it really is not necessary that the money be directly re invested into the business.  but let is say that it is, for the sake of argument.  the thing to realize is that the money could also be invested in increased automation of its existing warehouses URL that sort of investment would not necessarily lead to the kind of increase in jobs that you are expecting.  perhaps a few more jobs for the manufacturers of the automated systems, but they use a lot of automation themselves.  see what i am saying ?
let me start by saying that i am not an economics expert and i am sure it is probably not as simple and obvious as it seems or we would have done this by now.  simply put, i think that many of america is economic problems could be fixed by placing a cap on total compensation for executives, let is say $0 million.  this would have no effect on small businesses, of course, but would have a major positive impact on major corporations like, for instance, wal mart.  according to this URL site, wal mart paid it is top 0 execs just over $0 million combined.  so, with a $0 mil wage cap wal mart would have over $0 mil in surplus cash which it would then, logically, invest into more warehouses, factories and stores, creating more jobs.  walmart would not be the only company doing this, though, most of the biggest companies would be doing the same with their sudden surpluses which would lead to a labor shortage which would drive up salaries and benefits for the average workers.  more people making more money leads to more business for all companies and more tax revenue for cash strapped local, state, and federal governments.  everyone wins.  bonus: the super wealthy will no long be willing to make such huge political contributions.  who would drop $0 mil on a candidate, who might not even win, if it will take them a decade to earn that money back ?  #  so, with a $0 mil wage cap wal mart would have over $0 mil in surplus cash which it would then, logically, invest into more warehouses, factories and stores, creating more jobs.   #  the executives are not just putting the money in the bank when they get their salary.   #  that website says not just over $0 million combined, but closer to $0 million however, in cash per year, all the top 0 executives of wal mart make less than $0 million a year.  are you including all benefits and equity in your $0 million wage cap ? the first problem is that these executive positions are very competitive.  not many people can do the job well, and they are in very high demand.  someone who can do a job like this well can definitely earn a company millions of dollars a year.  the executives are not just putting the money in the bank when they get their salary.  they are investing it.  therefore, it wo not have the economic boom that you hope happens.  also, most of the executives  salaries is equity with the company, so the company as a whole invests that money into the things you have said anyways.  who would drop $0 mil on a candidate, who might not even win, if it will take them a decade to earn that money back ? the super wealthy are not the executives, but the business owners.  you said that wal mart paid its top 0 executives $0 million combined/year, or on average, less than $0 million a year each.  logically, this wo not have a substantial effect on those $0 million political contributions.   #  that would not create any new jobs or tax revenue.   #  a few problems with this: 0.  it does very little to combat large scale wealth.  bill gates did not get rich because microsoft paid him a big salary.  he got rich because as a founder of microsoft, he owned a large percentage of the company.  thus his compensation came from the dividends and growth of microsoft stock.  0.  this would prevent companies hiring away each others  executives.  so for instance if tesla is trying to expand their assembly line drastically, they might need to hire a senior executive away from toyota who knows how to run a 0k unit a year assembly line.  they ca not really do that if they ca not offer the toyota exec more money.  0.  it would not very likely be reinvested into salaries or facilities.  much more likely it would be distributed to shareholders in the form of dividends or share buybacks.  that would not create any new jobs or tax revenue.   #  0.  dividends and share buybacks benefits everyone who owns even a little of a stock, not just the major share holders which stills helps to spread the wealth around.   #  to respond to your points: 0.  exactly, you could not make more than $0mil unless you  owned  a private business that was successful enough to make more than $0mil a year profit.  so the greedy ceo is take some of the mountain of cash they have sitting in some off shore bank not getting taxed and start their own businesses, thus creating more jobs.  0.  no one is born knowing how to run a 0k unit assembly line.  anyone doing any job started out with no experience in that job, and most folks manage just fine.  besides, what wrong with promoting from within ? maybe the guy who started out on the assembly floor 0 years ago and worked his way up to plant manager knows a little more about running your factory than a random exec from toyota who has never laid eyes on your line before.  0.  dividends and share buybacks benefits everyone who owns even a little of a stock, not just the major share holders which stills helps to spread the wealth around.   #  also, you are getting how offshore cash works wrong.   # so the greedy ceo is take some of the mountain of cash they have sitting in some off shore bank not getting taxed and start their own businesses, thus creating more jobs.  you are assuming the greedy ceos and the owners are different people.  often enough, the way they got to be ceo is by founding the company.  also, you are getting how offshore cash works wrong.  the lower you make the company is on shore expenses, the less offshore cash they bring home.  what you are proposing will very, very slightly increase how much cash sits offshore.  anyone doing any job started out with no experience in that job, and most folks manage just fine.  besides, what wrong with promoting from within ? maybe the guy who started out on the assembly floor 0 years ago and worked his way up to plant manager knows a little more about running your factory than a random exec from toyota who has never laid eyes on your line before.  what is wrong with promoting from within is nobody from within has the necessary experience for something your company has never done before.  tesla does not have anyone experienced in super high volume manufacturing except who they poach from outside, because tesla has never done super high volume manufacturing.  it is not spreading the wealth around because it enriches the already rich.  rich people generally keep their money in stocks, not in cash under the mattress.  making shareholders richer is going to increase income inequality.   #  it really is not necessary that the money be directly re invested into the business.   # everyone wins.  the amount of pay that an executive receives is determined by the board of the company.  if they decide to cap the money, then they are typically obliged to increase the amount of money that is given back to shareholders through dividends.  or, they may invest that money in other financial instruments, and may invest money abroad which companies do all the time.  it really is not necessary that the money be directly re invested into the business.  but let is say that it is, for the sake of argument.  the thing to realize is that the money could also be invested in increased automation of its existing warehouses URL that sort of investment would not necessarily lead to the kind of increase in jobs that you are expecting.  perhaps a few more jobs for the manufacturers of the automated systems, but they use a lot of automation themselves.  see what i am saying ?
let me start by saying that i am not an economics expert and i am sure it is probably not as simple and obvious as it seems or we would have done this by now.  simply put, i think that many of america is economic problems could be fixed by placing a cap on total compensation for executives, let is say $0 million.  this would have no effect on small businesses, of course, but would have a major positive impact on major corporations like, for instance, wal mart.  according to this URL site, wal mart paid it is top 0 execs just over $0 million combined.  so, with a $0 mil wage cap wal mart would have over $0 mil in surplus cash which it would then, logically, invest into more warehouses, factories and stores, creating more jobs.  walmart would not be the only company doing this, though, most of the biggest companies would be doing the same with their sudden surpluses which would lead to a labor shortage which would drive up salaries and benefits for the average workers.  more people making more money leads to more business for all companies and more tax revenue for cash strapped local, state, and federal governments.  everyone wins.  bonus: the super wealthy will no long be willing to make such huge political contributions.  who would drop $0 mil on a candidate, who might not even win, if it will take them a decade to earn that money back ?  #  bonus: the super wealthy will no long be willing to make such huge political contributions.   #  who would drop $0 mil on a candidate, who might not even win, if it will take them a decade to earn that money back ?  #  that website says not just over $0 million combined, but closer to $0 million however, in cash per year, all the top 0 executives of wal mart make less than $0 million a year.  are you including all benefits and equity in your $0 million wage cap ? the first problem is that these executive positions are very competitive.  not many people can do the job well, and they are in very high demand.  someone who can do a job like this well can definitely earn a company millions of dollars a year.  the executives are not just putting the money in the bank when they get their salary.  they are investing it.  therefore, it wo not have the economic boom that you hope happens.  also, most of the executives  salaries is equity with the company, so the company as a whole invests that money into the things you have said anyways.  who would drop $0 mil on a candidate, who might not even win, if it will take them a decade to earn that money back ? the super wealthy are not the executives, but the business owners.  you said that wal mart paid its top 0 executives $0 million combined/year, or on average, less than $0 million a year each.  logically, this wo not have a substantial effect on those $0 million political contributions.   #  0.  it would not very likely be reinvested into salaries or facilities.   #  a few problems with this: 0.  it does very little to combat large scale wealth.  bill gates did not get rich because microsoft paid him a big salary.  he got rich because as a founder of microsoft, he owned a large percentage of the company.  thus his compensation came from the dividends and growth of microsoft stock.  0.  this would prevent companies hiring away each others  executives.  so for instance if tesla is trying to expand their assembly line drastically, they might need to hire a senior executive away from toyota who knows how to run a 0k unit a year assembly line.  they ca not really do that if they ca not offer the toyota exec more money.  0.  it would not very likely be reinvested into salaries or facilities.  much more likely it would be distributed to shareholders in the form of dividends or share buybacks.  that would not create any new jobs or tax revenue.   #  so the greedy ceo is take some of the mountain of cash they have sitting in some off shore bank not getting taxed and start their own businesses, thus creating more jobs.   #  to respond to your points: 0.  exactly, you could not make more than $0mil unless you  owned  a private business that was successful enough to make more than $0mil a year profit.  so the greedy ceo is take some of the mountain of cash they have sitting in some off shore bank not getting taxed and start their own businesses, thus creating more jobs.  0.  no one is born knowing how to run a 0k unit assembly line.  anyone doing any job started out with no experience in that job, and most folks manage just fine.  besides, what wrong with promoting from within ? maybe the guy who started out on the assembly floor 0 years ago and worked his way up to plant manager knows a little more about running your factory than a random exec from toyota who has never laid eyes on your line before.  0.  dividends and share buybacks benefits everyone who owns even a little of a stock, not just the major share holders which stills helps to spread the wealth around.   #  anyone doing any job started out with no experience in that job, and most folks manage just fine.   # so the greedy ceo is take some of the mountain of cash they have sitting in some off shore bank not getting taxed and start their own businesses, thus creating more jobs.  you are assuming the greedy ceos and the owners are different people.  often enough, the way they got to be ceo is by founding the company.  also, you are getting how offshore cash works wrong.  the lower you make the company is on shore expenses, the less offshore cash they bring home.  what you are proposing will very, very slightly increase how much cash sits offshore.  anyone doing any job started out with no experience in that job, and most folks manage just fine.  besides, what wrong with promoting from within ? maybe the guy who started out on the assembly floor 0 years ago and worked his way up to plant manager knows a little more about running your factory than a random exec from toyota who has never laid eyes on your line before.  what is wrong with promoting from within is nobody from within has the necessary experience for something your company has never done before.  tesla does not have anyone experienced in super high volume manufacturing except who they poach from outside, because tesla has never done super high volume manufacturing.  it is not spreading the wealth around because it enriches the already rich.  rich people generally keep their money in stocks, not in cash under the mattress.  making shareholders richer is going to increase income inequality.   #  the thing to realize is that the money could also be invested in increased automation of its existing warehouses URL that sort of investment would not necessarily lead to the kind of increase in jobs that you are expecting.   # everyone wins.  the amount of pay that an executive receives is determined by the board of the company.  if they decide to cap the money, then they are typically obliged to increase the amount of money that is given back to shareholders through dividends.  or, they may invest that money in other financial instruments, and may invest money abroad which companies do all the time.  it really is not necessary that the money be directly re invested into the business.  but let is say that it is, for the sake of argument.  the thing to realize is that the money could also be invested in increased automation of its existing warehouses URL that sort of investment would not necessarily lead to the kind of increase in jobs that you are expecting.  perhaps a few more jobs for the manufacturers of the automated systems, but they use a lot of automation themselves.  see what i am saying ?
first off, i really do like the united states government, and support a lot of the things it does.  to name a few, regulating pollution, regulating nuclear waste, protecting endangered species, social security, regulating certain business practices, protecting worker health and safety, disaster relief etc.  i like these things and am glad they exist.  i am not arguing that they are bad.  rather what i am arguing is that upon reading the constitution, they or parts of them sound unconstitutional, specifically because of the 0th amendment.  the 0th amendment says this sounds like it would exclude a lot of things, namely, things not mentioned in article i, section 0 URL or any of the amendments which grant congress/ the federal government other powers to enact laws.  i have been trying to reconcile the two ideas that what the constitution says is important, and that the things mentioned above, although not explicitly authorized by the constitution, are good.  it has been bothering me a lot recently, but i just ca not reconcile the two ideas.  i know the constitution can be open to a wide array of interpretations so please, cmv.   #  i have been trying to reconcile the two ideas that what the constitution says is important, and that the things mentioned above, although not explicitly authorized by the constitution, are good.   #  it has been bothering me a lot recently, but i just ca not reconcile the two ideas this is actually the more interesting thing to me, because it speaks to a weird mindset i see in laypeople all the time.   #  lawyer here.  the first issue is from where we get our determination of what actually is unconstitutional.  if the question is  has the 0th amendment successfully overturned many laws, especially current policies ?   the answer is  no , the supreme court has heard cases on most of these issues, and mostly landed on the side of the federal government being able to regulate anything intersecting with their sphere of influence and use federal dollars to say  do what we want in exchange for money.   and that is pretty much been a solid constitutional framework in the post  lochner  era.  if the question is  my reading of the 0th amendment is this, regardless of precedent , i am not sure there  is  a way to change your mind.  i can bring up commerce, federal spending, the fact that a lot of these provisions explicitly refer only to businesses which do business across state lines.  or that non discrimination laws have been upheld on the basis of people and goods flowing between states, pollution travels between states, etc.  but if your response is  those seem untenable  there is little that will change your mind.  it has been bothering me a lot recently, but i just ca not reconcile the two ideas this is actually the more interesting thing to me, because it speaks to a weird mindset i see in laypeople all the time.  something being unconstitutional does not make it bad, something being constitutional does not make it good.  you can be in favor of unconstitutional policies because they are good policy, and in this case in favor of policies which have been upheld by the courts and so for all legal intents and purposes  are  constitutional but which you can argue as unconstitutional.  you are trying to reconcile two viewpoints which are not, logically, opposed.  good policy can be prohibited by the constitution many would argue, though i disagree, that  citizens united  was an example of the constitution prohibiting good policy .  bad policy can be entirely constitutional tax exemptions for religious organizations, which many see as bad policy, are entirely constitutional .   #  i am a pretty big federalist personally and i would do away with the 0th amendment if it was up to me.   #  the federal government has ways of sidestepping this.  they hold federal funds hostage to pressure states to make changes.  for example, they set the drinking age at 0 by withholding highway money from states who did not accept it.  they set education directives by refusing to give money to states that do not accept their plan.  furthermore, there are many supreme court cases regarding this and big surprise , the supreme court has sided with the federal government more often than not.  most notably in the case of gibbons v.  ogden URL the federal government was given broad power over interstate commerce which they can leverage to make laws and regulations.  since so many companies are interstate they can directly regulate a huge number of industries.  there is a ton of legal framework behind the federal government is gradual increase in power over the years.  if i sound negative about this i am not.  i am a pretty big federalist personally and i would do away with the 0th amendment if it was up to me.  as well as the senate, the electoral college, and several policies regarding state is right to license.   #  you then pick your representative from the pool and switch if you are displeased.   #  yes, i think providing state based representation on the federal level is unfair.  states are arbitrary land masses that get voting rights over human beings.  in my opinion, being from a small state should not make your vote count more.  while i know this will never be possible, my dream would be a sort of representative match system.  you fill out what you care about and an algorithm matches you to representatives that share similar views from a national pool.  you then pick your representative from the pool and switch if you are displeased.  in this way, the representatives would work for you and gerrymandering would be impossible.   #  regional governments made more sense diplomatically and efficiently when states were given power but now the lines mean little.   #  i think the bicameral compromise was a good compromise for the time but times have changed.  issues are increasingly national in nature.  with cars, air travel, phones, and the internet governing nationally has not only become easier, but often necessary.  regional governments made more sense diplomatically and efficiently when states were given power but now the lines mean little.  for example, a resident of north new jersey is much more effected by many new york state decisions than many new jersey state decisions.  this north new jersey resident might even be more effected by new york policy than some residents of upstate new york.  a lot of state situations make for very awkward legal issues.  for example, i think it is a national embarrassment that marijuana is legal in some states but still technically illegal but not enforced by the national government.  some politicians threaten states with direct law enforcement.  this kind of law enforcement disconnect is corrupt and it also creates banking issues for those selling marijuana in states where it is  legal.   the bicameral system also keeps our government at a standstill these days.  smaller states give disproportionate power to certain groups.  the dynamic of exchange of bills between the houses offers ample opportunity for legislators to exploit rules to slow or stop bills.  i think this is a system of another time and it has to be changed.  the people of the united states hold the constitution in too high a reverence, appealing to it like a religious document.  the constitution exists to be changed.  people talk about this being  the america the framers intended,  i think the framers would be upset at the very idea that their authority is used as a justification to prevent the people from forming the system that best serves them.  sorry for wall of text.   #  what really differentiates the united states from mexico or bolivia.   #  well by that logic, why have a country ? what really differentiates the united states from mexico or bolivia.  we have a much higher gdp than both so.  fuck their laws ? wyoming is people  are not  more important than those in california.  each person is more or less counted equally districts are based on population .  states have their own laws and governing bodies which for federal representation, is all equal.
i just had my dad tell me to lower my voice during an argument, but often i am not even aware i am raising it.  i, personally, do not think raising your voice during an argument is a bad thing when you are angry, you often ca not talk calmly and it is fucking stupid to call someone out on something that is completely normal to do when they are upset, particularly in the way that my dad called me out, namely,  am i raising my voice ? i am talking to you in a normal voice .  i think it is a normal reaction, and it should not be seen as something we need to tone down unless we are in, say, a public place .  when you are angry, you are by definition unable to be calm, and yet people treat it as some sort of heinous fault.  i suppose this is as much a rant as a cmv, so sorry if this is not in the right sub.   #  i just had my dad tell me to lower my voice during an argument, but often i am not even aware i am raising it.   #  i was this way when i was young.   # i was this way when i was young.  when one is young one is pre frontal cortex is not fully developed.  it takes time, but when your brain is more developed you will not necessarily think things like,  when you are angry, you are by definition unable to be calm .  you  are, and that is because your brain wiring is not fully connected.  it sucks to be called on it, though, and it is jarring even as an older person.  when you are calm you can try to talk to your dad calmly about how telling your to lower your voice is counter productive as it just pushed your buttons and made you more upset.  he might instead profit from saying something like,  okay  pause  i feel like things are getting out of hand.  i am going to go to the bathroom and lets talk when i get back.   that gives you a moment to calm down, if you take the initiative to do so.  the brain thing takes time and that fucking sucks but it is biology, so, whatever, it is a constraint on your abilities.  one option is to take up a practice like meditation; that helps the brain develop pfc connectivity and helps keep you calm and lucid and a host of other benefits .  honestly, though, the brain thing just sucks and you need to wait out development.  i always hated when people would say i would understand when i was older, but they never told me why.  there is a neurophysiological reason you cannot and should not be expected to control your emotions as well as an older person.  then again, if you are in your 0s, well, you done goofed and you need to look at yourself, your values, and your behaviours  :p  #  be calm not matter how infuriating you find the opposing view/behaviour.   #  if people perceive you are shouting, they will perceive that you are out of control.  arguments are not always won by being  right  actually most arguments are not about that at all they are about who can get their point of view accepted.  next time you are in argument try a different technique.  be calm not matter how infuriating you find the opposing view/behaviour.  then state your case in an even, steady voice and keep repeating it.  then ask your adversary if they understand/accept your view.  repeat.  mucho more effective.  good luck !  #  it means that you can prevent impulses that you may be having to react to your emotions.   #  because being in control literally means controlling your emotions and being able to be calm and collected despite being angry or pissed off or sad.  it means that you can prevent impulses that you may be having to react to your emotions.  yelling, raising your voice, is considered to be an impulse because all it really does is convey emotions rather than contribute to the actual discussion.  emotions have widely been known to be persuasive.  if you are angry, it can be threatening.  if you cry it can pull on heartstrings so you may be swayed that way.  an argument or discussion is only valid if it is resolved fairly and using emotions to sway the other is unfair.   #  he is not asking you to be quiet because he cant handle loudness, he wants you to be quiet because it signifies youre no longer in a perceptive state.   #  if you have a real point to make, it will always be better received in a normal conversational tone.  always.  a raised voice equals aggression and most people wo not be able to see past it in a discussion.  especially if youre the first to raise your voice, as they do not yet feel something has progressed past a nprmal discussion level.  it basically signifies youve lost your ability to communicate because you are to angry and therefore rational discussion goes out the window.  he is not asking you to be quiet because he cant handle loudness, he wants you to be quiet because it signifies youre no longer in a perceptive state.   #  are you saying that when i raised my voice, i lost my ability to listen to him ?  #  a perceptive or receptive state.  that is interesting.  i will have to think that over.  are you saying that when i raised my voice, i lost my ability to listen to him ? as in, his thinking is,  she ca not hear what i have to say, reason it out properly and process it ?   but then why snap back at me which he did and then call me out ? why not walk away ? he snapped at me, then lowered his voice, and only then did he tell me off.  sigh  i knew i should have posted this in /r/rants or something, sorry.
i am pro life obviously.  i offer a critique on the  angle  of the traditional pro life lobby.    i believe the goal of centrist\populist pro lifers, so excluding the extreme\radical holders, is to minimize abortions, not maximize children.    and thus contraception poses no ethical qualms with the above viewpoint.    abortion is often a more financially advantageous position compared to putting a child up for adoption.    to nip in the bud a follow up to the above statement, i realize making it financially advantageous though way of say a credit for children born would create a  cobra market.   i also believe forcing women who have been raped or are in risky pregnancies to complete their births is wrong.  so i believe for someone who is seriously pro life, it should be seen as a step in the right direction to obtain that goal, by eliminating reasons why a person would or should choose to end a pregnancy.   #  i believe the goal of centrist\populist pro lifers, so excluding the extreme\radical holders, is to minimize abortions, not maximize children.   #  commendable view, but its implementation would involve the government sort of regulating a citizen is sex life, no ?  # commendable view, but its implementation would involve the government sort of regulating a citizen is sex life, no ? a few problems:   how would they fund it ? how many condoms, for example, would be supplied to each male citizen ? how much is enough or too few ? do couples who file taxes together get options for other procedures on the government is dime ? what about homosexual couples ? contraceptives like condoms are useful for preventing std transmissions as well is it fair to exclude homosexual males from enjoying the secondary benefits of this plan ? i can come up with a few other problems, but i would like to hear your views about these problems first.   #  thus in their minds, being pro life is not really about pregnancy, it is simply being against murder.   #  the pro life view usually comes from a belief that a fetus has a right to life just like a newborn baby or a 0 year old man does.  thus in their minds, being pro life is not really about pregnancy, it is simply being against murder.  pretty much everyone is against people murdering other adults, but few would say that they have to support action to remove the instigation of the murder in order to believe it should be a crime.  for instance, a lot of murders are due to infidelity, yet we do not make cheating illegal or pass laws that make it difficult to cheat in order to reduce the number of murders.  should one feel obligated to support such laws if they think murdering someone for infidelity is a crime ?  #  that is where part of the problem comes in.   # this is a poor comparison.  a road is built once, and then only requires occasional repairs.  contraception needs to be constantly replenished based on individual needs.  that is where part of the problem comes in.  the government does not need to calculate how much each person uses the road.  they build it, which takes up some $ and then repair as required.  there is no fixed $ worth of contraception that each person requires.  furthermore, contraceptives do not last forever.  condoms have  use before  dates.  all of this makes budgeting more complicated as well.  there are many ways in which this proposal is simply inefficient.  they tax by the axle, call it a day.  you are talking about toll roads here.  a lot of roads, like the ones in neighbourhoods, do not have a proportional payment scheme.   #  if you gave everybody 0 condoms a week, you would run into situations where some people have way more than they need, while some people do not have nearly enough.   #  i have never heard of services giving out free condoms getting abused.  i would be interested if there were any examples of that.  in general, it does not matter how many condoms you take, as it really only makes sense to take as many as you need.  from the service is perspective, they would like to maximize the number of acts of sex that are safe.  so if you have sex 0 times a week, they would be perfectly happy to give you 0 condoms.  i would actually assume it is more efficient to hand out condoms like this.  if you gave everybody 0 condoms a week, you would run into situations where some people have way more than they need, while some people do not have nearly enough.  on the flip side, something like birth control is more easily managed through health insurance.  the government can regulate or give tax breaks to insurance companies on that front.  regardless of all of this, it is rather unfair in my opinion to expect the average citizen to know in detail how to finance or administer public policy.  it is not really their job in a representative democracy.   #  furthermore, it comes down to whether we should spend tax payer money supporting people who commit lesser crimes.   #  hypothetically, say the goal of most centrist/populist anti rape advocates is to reduce the instance of rape, and not promote the equality of women.  there is evidence that legalizing prostitution reduces rape.  URL if you are against rape and prostitution, do you support legalizing prostitution as a method to reduce rape ? what if we spend tax money to pay people who would normally commit rapes to go to prostitutes instead ? there is already precedence for this because the netherlands pays for handicapped people to visit prostitutes.  say we find out that give pedophiles child porn helps reduce the rate of children being molested.  do you support spending tax money to fund child porn for pedophiles ? this concept is called harm reduction, and the question comes down to whether it is ok to support a lesser moral crime to oppose a more serious one.  furthermore, it comes down to whether we should spend tax payer money supporting people who commit lesser crimes.  if you consider recreational sex immoral and abortion to be immoral, does that mean you have to support people who commit the lesser moral crime of non procreative sex in order to reduce the incentive to commit the larger moral crime of abortion ? furthermore, does abortion is legal status even matter in this debate ? if pro lifers funded contraceptives and birth right now, it would reduce the number of abortions, regardless of whether abortion is legal or not.  of course, if we gave bank robbers a million dollars each right now, they would not have an incentive to rob banks and fewer banks would be robbed.
the way i currently understand earned income tax credits eitc , when you pay your taxes, if you make below a certain amount of money are not supporting yourself, then you basically get tax credits, or money from the government, rather than having to pay taxes.  i think this would be better than minimum wage because: 0.  raising minimum wage directly incentivizes automation.  these jobs are already the most vulnerable to automation i am thinking about jobs like cashiers .  the more expensive it is to pay an employee, the more likely it is that employers will look for ways to automate those jobs.  eitc avoids this because it wo not the employers who directly front the costs of increasing revenue for those within a certain income bracket.  0.  not everyone deserves a $0 per hour wage.  to be clear, i am fully on board with the the idea that somebody who is supporting themselves and working 0 hours per week should be able to make a living wage.  for those who are in that situation, i think eitc should compensate whatever wages they make such that their yearly salary is sufficient.  however, there are also 0 year olds who just want a summer job, and definitely are not supporting themselves.  by excluding those who are not supporting themselves i think the criteria is that you are under 0 and provide less than half of the money needed to support yourself , we avoid paying people excessive salaries when they do not really need to be paid that much.   #  i am fully on board with the the idea that somebody who is supporting themselves and working 0 hours per week should be able to make a living wage.   #  then you support much higher than the common living minimum wage.   #  the main problem with that is it overburdens the welfare system needlessly.  the end result is that over time workers will be relying much more heavily on social security, poverty will rise as prices continue to rise without wage rises, or likely both.  good.  we should be investing in technology, where more jobs should be redirected to, along with expanding this sector.  utilising automation makes goods and services cheaper, and provides the government with more tax revenue.  particularly with goods and services being cheaper, will help those making low wages.  then you support much higher than the common living minimum wage.  for the new york city metropolitan area, the living wage for 0 adult and 0 child is $0 an hour.  that is just supporting 0 child though, another child adds another four and a half dollars.  even the effects against these people are not going to be nearly as bad as the current situation.  we could have a staggered minimum wage where certain ages make a certain minimum percent of the minimum wage, but it is really just fixing minor problems that may arise by fixing a very big problem.  source: URL  #  as for your second point, the whole notion that minimum wage workers are just a bunch of part time teenagers is a fairy tale.   #  nothing is going to  stem the tide of automation , if employers can cut payroll costs then they will do that.  it is already happening with self checkout stations at supermarkets and drugstores.  its not a matter of if but when.  as for your second point, the whole notion that minimum wage workers are just a bunch of part time teenagers is a fairy tale.  the average age of a minimum wage worker is 0, and over half of them are working full time.  there is an underclass in america and the wealthy have convinced the middle class to help keep them there.   #  i agree that most people who work in minimum wage jobs are not part time teenagers.   #  on automation: employers will automate if its cheaper to do so.  if employees are expensive due high minimum wage , it increases the likelihood that automation will be cheaper.  i agree that most people who work in minimum wage jobs are not part time teenagers.  the problem with that point though is that i see it as irrelevant.  it does not provide any reasons why an eitc, which would provide all those 0 year old minimum wage employees with the same amount of money as raising the minimum wage would at the end of the day.  even if its marginal, i still see it as a net benefit on my side of the argument if we exclude some of the population part time teenagers for whom this policy was never really intended for in the first place.   #  the political stability argument is an interesting one that i had not considered before.   #  the political stability argument is an interesting one that i had not considered before.  then again, if eitc was popular and important enough, it might before as much of political nightmare to repeal as a raise in minimum wage would be.  its also worth pointing out that its largely conservatives who arguing for eitcs.  the problem with the money coming from the employer is that they simply do not want to pay that, and they are going to find ways to avoid doing so, which probably involve having fewer employees and possibly automating.  the government might have a deficit, but i would argue that this would actually probably have a pretty negligible effect on that and we should probably just reduce wasteful spending in other areas like defense.   #  saying minimum wage does not cause unemployment is equivalent to claiming that long term demand curve for these workers is essentially vertical.   #   at absolutely no time in history has raising the minimum wage caused a spike in unemployment.    there are many really many studies that show that minimum wage causes unemployment.  you may discard them, but you would have to discard those that say it does not have effect too.  and as such you are left with the theoretical argument that it indeed does cause unemployment.  saying minimum wage does not cause unemployment is equivalent to claiming that long term demand curve for these workers is essentially vertical.  this is very extreme and i would suppose very hard to defend view.  there are many studies and summaries, this is a proposition of quite a plausible model how existing studies could miss a disemployment effect of minimum wage: URL and this is a nice summary from bryan caplan: URL
the way i currently understand earned income tax credits eitc , when you pay your taxes, if you make below a certain amount of money are not supporting yourself, then you basically get tax credits, or money from the government, rather than having to pay taxes.  i think this would be better than minimum wage because: 0.  raising minimum wage directly incentivizes automation.  these jobs are already the most vulnerable to automation i am thinking about jobs like cashiers .  the more expensive it is to pay an employee, the more likely it is that employers will look for ways to automate those jobs.  eitc avoids this because it wo not the employers who directly front the costs of increasing revenue for those within a certain income bracket.  0.  not everyone deserves a $0 per hour wage.  to be clear, i am fully on board with the the idea that somebody who is supporting themselves and working 0 hours per week should be able to make a living wage.  for those who are in that situation, i think eitc should compensate whatever wages they make such that their yearly salary is sufficient.  however, there are also 0 year olds who just want a summer job, and definitely are not supporting themselves.  by excluding those who are not supporting themselves i think the criteria is that you are under 0 and provide less than half of the money needed to support yourself , we avoid paying people excessive salaries when they do not really need to be paid that much.   #  however, there are also 0 year olds who just want a summer job, and definitely are not supporting themselves.   #  even the effects against these people are not going to be nearly as bad as the current situation.   #  the main problem with that is it overburdens the welfare system needlessly.  the end result is that over time workers will be relying much more heavily on social security, poverty will rise as prices continue to rise without wage rises, or likely both.  good.  we should be investing in technology, where more jobs should be redirected to, along with expanding this sector.  utilising automation makes goods and services cheaper, and provides the government with more tax revenue.  particularly with goods and services being cheaper, will help those making low wages.  then you support much higher than the common living minimum wage.  for the new york city metropolitan area, the living wage for 0 adult and 0 child is $0 an hour.  that is just supporting 0 child though, another child adds another four and a half dollars.  even the effects against these people are not going to be nearly as bad as the current situation.  we could have a staggered minimum wage where certain ages make a certain minimum percent of the minimum wage, but it is really just fixing minor problems that may arise by fixing a very big problem.  source: URL  #  it is already happening with self checkout stations at supermarkets and drugstores.   #  nothing is going to  stem the tide of automation , if employers can cut payroll costs then they will do that.  it is already happening with self checkout stations at supermarkets and drugstores.  its not a matter of if but when.  as for your second point, the whole notion that minimum wage workers are just a bunch of part time teenagers is a fairy tale.  the average age of a minimum wage worker is 0, and over half of them are working full time.  there is an underclass in america and the wealthy have convinced the middle class to help keep them there.   #  the problem with that point though is that i see it as irrelevant.   #  on automation: employers will automate if its cheaper to do so.  if employees are expensive due high minimum wage , it increases the likelihood that automation will be cheaper.  i agree that most people who work in minimum wage jobs are not part time teenagers.  the problem with that point though is that i see it as irrelevant.  it does not provide any reasons why an eitc, which would provide all those 0 year old minimum wage employees with the same amount of money as raising the minimum wage would at the end of the day.  even if its marginal, i still see it as a net benefit on my side of the argument if we exclude some of the population part time teenagers for whom this policy was never really intended for in the first place.   #  then again, if eitc was popular and important enough, it might before as much of political nightmare to repeal as a raise in minimum wage would be.   #  the political stability argument is an interesting one that i had not considered before.  then again, if eitc was popular and important enough, it might before as much of political nightmare to repeal as a raise in minimum wage would be.  its also worth pointing out that its largely conservatives who arguing for eitcs.  the problem with the money coming from the employer is that they simply do not want to pay that, and they are going to find ways to avoid doing so, which probably involve having fewer employees and possibly automating.  the government might have a deficit, but i would argue that this would actually probably have a pretty negligible effect on that and we should probably just reduce wasteful spending in other areas like defense.   #  you may discard them, but you would have to discard those that say it does not have effect too.   #   at absolutely no time in history has raising the minimum wage caused a spike in unemployment.    there are many really many studies that show that minimum wage causes unemployment.  you may discard them, but you would have to discard those that say it does not have effect too.  and as such you are left with the theoretical argument that it indeed does cause unemployment.  saying minimum wage does not cause unemployment is equivalent to claiming that long term demand curve for these workers is essentially vertical.  this is very extreme and i would suppose very hard to defend view.  there are many studies and summaries, this is a proposition of quite a plausible model how existing studies could miss a disemployment effect of minimum wage: URL and this is a nice summary from bryan caplan: URL
hi guys ! to expand: although i would happily call someone who went from being a man to a woman for example a woman to their face and when talking about them, i still do not believe they are truly that gender.  despite having surgery, having that mindset and having hormone treatment, i ca not feel fully comfortable referring to them as a woman just from a technical standpoint.  i feel as though i am lying to myself.  disclaimer: i am not homophobic or anything of the sort.  i completely agree with people doing what they want to do and i completely believe people can be  trapped  in the body of the opposite gender.   #  although i would happily call someone who went from being a man to a woman for example a woman to their face and when talking about them, i still do not believe they are truly that gender.   #  that might be the case if you knew they were trans beforehand.   # that might be the case if you knew they were trans beforehand.  but there are many transitioned or transitioning trans people who you would not realize are trans.  if you interacted with such a person to use your mtf example and called her  ma am  or referred to her as  she , then indeed you 0 believe that person is a woman 0 you feel comfortable referring to her as a woman 0 do not feel like lying when you refer to her as a woman.  it is only if you learn such a person is trans that such questions would arise in your mind.  but you probably already have treated trans people as their genders without any consternation because you saw them as any other person and you categorized them in your mind as their gender like you would with any other person.  that is how gender works.  it is a social, cultural category, not a biological one.  it is built on a foundation of biological sex, and more than 0 of, say, women are biologically xx, so for the most part the two categories overlap .  they overlap so much that most people think they are one and the same.  but they are distinct.  binary identified transgender people are one group not included in that overlap.  there are also nonbinary and agender people who opt out of binary gender categories.  another group are intersex individuals who may genotypically have different sex characteristics than their phenotype.  there are for instance cais women born with vaginas and who look female who are genotypically xy, and there are smaller numbers of xy women with xy chromosomes who may give birth to children.  all of these cases are different but they all show that sex and gender are different things; they overlap but are not in a 0:0 relationship.  so to take a transitioned trans woman as an example, you might call her  ma am  and have no idea of her transition history.  she is simply a woman to you.  legally, she is female.  all her forms of identification say she is  f , as reflected in her amended birth certificate.  if she was born in the us, she likely would have been unable to marry another woman before the supreme court ruled in favor of marriage equality.  in terms of kinship, she is socially an aunt, not an uncle, to her sibling is children provided that she is accepted by her family and not cast out like many trans people unfortunately are .  she experiences life in this society as a woman, because that is how people perceive her and treat her.  that means she experiences misogyny and sexism.  her trans history will impact her social realities in many ways, and trans people vary enormously in terms of their social experiences, but in terms of everyday life, if the person is birth gender no longer determines their social position, then it is irrelevant for most areas of social interaction.  terms like  guy ,  dude ,  lady ,  ma am ,  sir  are social language pertaining to social gender, not biological traits.   #  physical gender and gender expression, are irrelevant, although that is how we usually determine someones gender.   #  gender identity, the gender they identify as internally is the only relevant determinant of someones true gender.  physical gender and gender expression, are irrelevant, although that is how we usually determine someones gender.  trans people work on a process where they match to the best they can their physical gender and gender expression, to that of their internal gender identity.  the fact is, they were always the gender they identjfy as, and they are just making sure how others see them correlate with that.  im trans, and i never felt like i was a guy, and as you wrote it felt like i was trapped in the wrong body and a lie.  thankfully im living as a woman now.  i doubt from meeting me youd know i was trans, and if we became friends for a while, then i told you i was trans.  would you still think oh shit thats a man  #  regarding your question i would and i would not.   #  hey ! great response.  i find what you are saying about gender expression / gender identity really interesting.  regarding your question i would and i would not.  like i said before, i would respect that you are a woman, and i would very happily refer to you as a woman.  the problem i have with myself here is this  technical  standpoint in terms of genetics.  although, what you have said about internal gender identity has made me think about the fact that, gender identity does come from hormone balance and all sorts of other things which are also on a genetic and biological level.  hmmm.   #  gender is the social role that individuals fulfill.   #  there is a difference between sex and gender.  sex is the set of biological characteristics that one is born with, like sex organs.  gender is the social role that individuals fulfill.  a person can have a penis and testicles and be a woman.  similarly, a person can have a vagina and breasts and be a man.  you ca not attribute a social role to an individual based on their sex, which is what you are trying to do when you conceptualize a certain sex organ as determining one is gender identity.   #  race is something that is decided before you are even conceived, because it is inherited.   #  gender and race are completely different concepts.  race is something that is decided before you are even conceived, because it is inherited.  sex ? not so much.  it is a 0/0 chance.  hell, it is still undecided for some of the time you spend in the fetus stage.  it is much looser, and it does not even have that much solid footing to stand on.  a baby could have xy chromosomes and a vagina.  a baby could have xx chromosomes and testes.  a baby could have an extra chromosome.  it is fluid, and science still ca not quite seem to agree on what defines biological sex.  we know, however, exactly what defines race.
at least not at the collegiate or professional level my younger brother and i were listening to a story on the radio regarding a controversy concerning a transgender high school student not being allowed to tryout for a female sport softball, i believe .  my brother, who is 0 0 0lbs, just recently gave up competitive boxing.  for a while there was some hope that he would turn professional, but he just could not seem to get over the hump.  while he could not quite make the cut in men is heavyweight boxing, i am sure he would absolutely dominate women in that weight class.  he joked that, if they allow this, he should become a trans woman boxer.  he would never do this and was just joking sorry if it seems insensitive , but i am sure that there are some opportunists out there that would.  allowing them to do so would surely ruin women is sports.  for the record, i have no problem with a transgender man playing men is sports, just like i have no problem with a female playing men is sports if able to compete on that level .   #  he joked that, if they allow this, he should become a trans woman boxer.   #  he would never do this and was just joking sorry if it seems insensitive , but i am sure that there are some opportunists out there that would.   # well, that is already a modification of your view, since your original statement was:   transgender women should not be allowed to compete in women is sports virtually all of the advantage that men have in sports comes from higher testosterone.  hrt and surgery have a virtually identical effect in this regard.  in fact, hrt may be even more effective than surgery because it also neutralizes the t that is produced by the adrenal glands.  personally, i am on hrt and my t levels are less than 0 of what cis  women  have, and less than 0 of what cis men have.  this is not atypical.  your stated view was that  transgender women should not be allowed to compete in women is sports.   you ca not take her performance before she transitioned and argue that she would have the same performance after she transitioned.  it would be like allowing someone to take whatever performance enhancing drugs they wanted and then arguing that their scores should be equally compared against those who do not.  he would never do this and was just joking sorry if it seems insensitive , but i am sure that there are some opportunists out there that would.  . you do not understand what you would be giving up.  sure, you would keep the knowledge and experience, but you would lose all the physical advantages.  you would have significantly decreased libido/enjoyment of sex, and you would get the gender dysphoria that real trans  people so desperately want to get away from.  it would be a very bad deal.  let me turn the question around and focus on this part:   he would never do this well, why not ? if it is such a great opportunity, as you argue, what is stopping him ? think about that seriously for a minute.  what are the most important reasons why he  would never do this ?   i would bet the reasons that come to mind for have nothing to do with fair competition in women is sports.   #  they have tested both intersex and  masculine  looking women for a very long time, i trust the ioc on this matter because no one else has the experience in this than they do.   #  the olympics and most professional sports bodies already allow trans people to compete.  URL these are the requirements for trans women to compete in the olympics, which a lot of other sports bodies follow: 0 years of hrt, completed sex reassignment surgery and be legally recognised as female in their home country.  since the introduction of these rules 0 years/0 olympic games ago, there have been no known trans women to win a medal or even compete.  URL now the ioc have a lot of experience in sex testing/what gives advantages and what does not, they began testing of athletes in 0:   united states olympic committee president avery brundage requested, during or shortly after the 0 summer olympics in berlin, that a system be established to examine female athletes.  according to a time magazine article about hermaphrodites, brundage felt the need to clarify  sex ambiguities  after observing the performance of czechoslovak runner and jumper zdeňka koubková and english shotputter and javelin thrower mary edith louise weston.  both individuals later had sex change surgery and legally changed their names, to zdeněk koubek and mark weston, respectively.   they have tested both intersex and  masculine  looking women for a very long time, i trust the ioc on this matter because no one else has the experience in this than they do.  now onto fallon fox first of all the only opponents she is fighting are pretty bad fighters with poor win records, the woman she lost against is mediocre at best  her 0 professional matches: URL tamikka brents: 0 0 0 heather bassett: 0 0 0 ashlee evans smith: 0 0 0 this is the fight she lost al lanna jones: 0 0 0 ericka newsome: 0 0 0 elisha helsper: 0 0 0 she is only fighting fighters who struggle winning matches and the match she lost was against someone who actually wins some fights.  another thing is she will never be able to fight ronda rousey purely because she is incapable/not good enough to qualify for the ufc, she just can not win the fights she needs, now if she had an advantage of any kind she should be able to at least qualify for the ufc and beat not just the very bottom fighters and lose to mediocre fighters.  in conclusion, the ioc allow trans people in the olympics, trans people are also allowed in the mma, and in neither of these have trans women dominated or even did half decent.  the advantages testosterone give, are lost when on hrt for a long enough time.   #  while i was wrong about genetic testing it seems wiki says its a team now.   #   just get your penis and balls moved up inside of you and they wo not be able to tell the difference.   was your point.  while i was wrong about genetic testing it seems wiki says its a team now.   nowadays, gender verification tests typically involve evaluation by gynecologists, endocrinologists, psychologists, and internal medicine specialists.   i really hope they can tell if you have just shoved your balls up into you abdominal cavity.  i would really like someone whose gone through it to give us some more insite.   #  there are masculine and feminine characteristics, and people are either attracted to the masculine v shaped torso, muscle tone, etc.   #  you ca not even define  sex  on genitalia.  you can be xy chromosomally, have a partial vagina and until you never get your period never realise that instead of ovaries you have undescended testicles hanging out androgen insensitivity syndrome .  you can have an enlarged clitoris that looks like a penis congenital adrenal hyperplasia and some pretty masculinised genitals but be completely xx.  sex differences exist in the brain.  gender is in fact socially assigned many cultures have a  third  gender for people who do not quite fit, like albanian sworn virgins URL guevedoche URL of the dominican republic, the zapotec muxe URL and the samoan fa afafine URL a lot of these groups are defined as neither men nor women.  there are masculine and feminine characteristics, and people are either attracted to the masculine v shaped torso, muscle tone, etc.  or the feminine curves, waist to hip ratio, etc.  .  muxe and fa afafine are treated as the next best thing to a woman if a man is at the bar it is completely socially acceptable to take one of these third genders home because they are feminine.   #  which is also not what defines a person is gender or even their sex.   #  which is also not what defines a person is gender or even their sex.  there is, as stated, chromosomal sex, gonadal sex, secondary sex characteristics and neurological organisation.  gender is a construct man or woman is something you identify with.  someone with ais is going to identify as female even though they have xy chromosomes and testicles male chromosomal sex and gonadal sex .  someone with alpha 0 reductase deficiency will identify as a girl until puberty and their gender identity switches to male.  a man with a micropenis that looks like a clitoris or any child with confusing genitalia will be assigned on a guess and sometimes those gueses will be wrong as the kid changes their mind.  david reimer URL is the best example of how it is your brain that decides, no one can make you be a gender you are not just because your genitals look a certain way.
i think you probably should not own a dog except maybe you are blind, an old school shepherd or train them for finding people after avalanches or earthquakes.  i have several reasons to holdthis view here they are, sorted by relevance from least to most relevant .    they eat poo.    they are annoying.  many people have really strong opinions against smoking in public, because it is upsetting them and accordingly laws have been past in many countries that limit/prohibit smoking in public transport, public buildings, etc.  however, it is not uncommon to be leg humped by a dog in the bus, or step into dog poo in the park, which i find really annoying.  this seems to be regarded as unproblematic, some pepole even get annoyed if you do not want to touch their animal companion with questionable hygiene standards.   you may say that contrary to smoking these are merely inconveniences, but in fact.    . some dogs are plain dangerous.  have a look at the  fatal dog attacks  URL wiki entry.  granted, there are much more people dying from cars, cigaretts, cancer and that is only deadly stuff with a c , etc.  but in my opinion even one person would be too much.  there are a lot of young children on the list as well.    my rant so far may have given you the opinion that i just hate animals.  however, the opposite is true i love them ! therefore i think we should not keep them for our amusement or because we fancy a walk once or twice a day.    they eat.  in a world where people are starving this is in my opinion morally not justifiable.    most importantly: they produce greenhouse gases and quite a lot of them ! the co0  paw print  of a big dog that gets fed mostly meat may even be bigger than the emissions caused by an suv.  URL therefore i am convinced that you probably should not own a dog.  i will not be convinced by single examples where a dog was useful, but by reasons why the overall benefits of private dog owenership surpass the negetive effects i have listed above.  please cmv !   the fanatic dog loving may be an issue particular to germany.   #  they produce greenhouse gases and quite a lot of them !  #  so do a lot of other things we do that should be addressed first.   # ok ? it may be gross, but it is tolerable.  personal opinion.  also, little kids are far more annoying than dogs; should people not have children ? that is the owner is fault, not the dog is, in the vast majority of cases.  so does every other animal.  if your argument is  feed humans over animals,  a ton of animals will starve besides dogs.  so do a lot of other things we do that should be addressed first.  i will address this later dinner time ! .   #  because i do not live in germany so my dog wo not hump your leg on the bus or poop in your park.   #  dogs only eat poo if you leave poo lying around.  that is a reason to not leave poo lying around, no a reason to get rid of a dog.  when you say  you  should not own a dog, do you mean specifically me ? because i do not live in germany so my dog wo not hump your leg on the bus or poop in your park.  those seem to be problems with germany, not problems with dogs.  dogs sometimes kill people, but they also sometimes save people is lives.  it is true that he consumes resources and produces co0, but by that reasoning, i should not own anything.   #  these are trained dogs not privately owned , which i specifically excluded.   #  you seem to be one of the considerate dog owners.  unfortunately not all dog owners are considerate.  but even the most considerate dog owning does not change my last three points.  certain dogs sometimes save lifes.  these are trained dogs not privately owned , which i specifically excluded.  the incidents of  wonder dogs , who saved the baby from the burning building are too rare to make up for the deaths.  this is an reductio ad absurdum.  of course you can own things, but one should ponder the pros and cons of owning certain things.  i still think in the case of dog owning the cons dominate by far.   #  some owners are worse than others is all.   #  dogs are awesome.  a few benefits:   having dogs makes the owner significantly more likely to be sufficiently physically active URL from the study:  odds of achieving sufficient physical activity and walking were 0 to 0 higher among dog owners compared with those not owning dogs.   this is backed up here URL and here URL and in many, many other studies.  dogs are extremely helpful in reducing the healthcare costs of the elderly.  proof URL  interaction between humans and dogs is a mechanism that can enhance the physical and psychological health of elderly citizens and promote a social support network between dog owners.  in turn, dependence and impact on health and social services are alleviated.   owning pets is extremely beneficial for one is psychological health URL from the study:  owners enjoyed better well being when their pets fulfilled social needs better, and the support that pets provided complemented rather than competed with human sources.   there are more benefits, like the fact that pets make owners laugh a lot, etc.  but i would like to talk about a few things you have brought up:   they are annoying.  well trained dogs are not annoying at all.  in fact, dogs are highly intelligent and respond very well to training.  some owners are worse than others is all.  responsible owners know the benefits of training their dogs.  in a world where people are starving this is in my opinion morally not justifiable.  you are assuming that all the resources that are used to produce dog food would be magically transferred to alleviating global hunger that is unlikely to happen.  so, what do you think ?  #  i really did not regard this and dogs are certainly a better way to cure a depression than anti depressants.   #  i decided to award you and some other users a   for the argument on increased mental and physical health of dog ownership.  i really did not regard this and dogs are certainly a better way to cure a depression than anti depressants.  however, i still believe that the food issue is a problem.  of course the dog food would not be transfered to the starving people of the word and if it would, they certainly would not like to eat dog food.  however, as i have argued as a response to /u/jiw0 , the global economy is complex as fuck and a reduced demand in dog food would certainly decrease global demand in food not only in meat but also feedstock that would have been used to feed animals which would have been slaughtered for dog food and subsequently prices.  as prices are the main instrument that regulate distribution, the dog food  would  be transfered where it is most needed, however indirect.
i think you probably should not own a dog except maybe you are blind, an old school shepherd or train them for finding people after avalanches or earthquakes.  i have several reasons to holdthis view here they are, sorted by relevance from least to most relevant .    they eat poo.    they are annoying.  many people have really strong opinions against smoking in public, because it is upsetting them and accordingly laws have been past in many countries that limit/prohibit smoking in public transport, public buildings, etc.  however, it is not uncommon to be leg humped by a dog in the bus, or step into dog poo in the park, which i find really annoying.  this seems to be regarded as unproblematic, some pepole even get annoyed if you do not want to touch their animal companion with questionable hygiene standards.   you may say that contrary to smoking these are merely inconveniences, but in fact.    . some dogs are plain dangerous.  have a look at the  fatal dog attacks  URL wiki entry.  granted, there are much more people dying from cars, cigaretts, cancer and that is only deadly stuff with a c , etc.  but in my opinion even one person would be too much.  there are a lot of young children on the list as well.    my rant so far may have given you the opinion that i just hate animals.  however, the opposite is true i love them ! therefore i think we should not keep them for our amusement or because we fancy a walk once or twice a day.    they eat.  in a world where people are starving this is in my opinion morally not justifiable.    most importantly: they produce greenhouse gases and quite a lot of them ! the co0  paw print  of a big dog that gets fed mostly meat may even be bigger than the emissions caused by an suv.  URL therefore i am convinced that you probably should not own a dog.  i will not be convinced by single examples where a dog was useful, but by reasons why the overall benefits of private dog owenership surpass the negetive effects i have listed above.  please cmv !   the fanatic dog loving may be an issue particular to germany.   #  most importantly: they produce greenhouse gases and quite a lot of them !  #  so does every other animal and plant in the world.   # babies can eat their own feces too.  should we get rid of babies ? babies are annoying, especially when they are screaming.  i would rather be around tons of people with dogs than babies any day.  0 0 a year ? in a country with 0 million ? that is nothing.  over 0,0 people drown per year.  0 kids drown in pools every year.  are you wanting to ban pools ? another 0 die from boating accidents.  are you wanting to ban boats ? more people probably die from tripping on their shoelaces and falling down the stairs than dog attacks.  in a world where people are starving this is in my opinion morally not justifiable.  all animals eat.  if you care about sustainability or world hunger issues, there is far better ways to go about it than arbitrarily banning one type of animal.  so does every other animal and plant in the world.  not owning dogs wo not make a difference.  they would still exist.  they share an evolutionary ancestor with the gray wolf the specifies has been around for awhile now.  unless you are talking about wiping out all the dogs because of greenhouse gases but then you would have biodiversity issues .  and you realize that human activity is the main source of greenhouse gases ? getting rid of dogs would barely make any difference since there are so many other species on the planet that cause as much, if not more especially humans .  so basically, none of your reasons show why we should not own dogs.  i could easily make the same argument with babies: they can eat their feces, they can be annoying, they eat, they produce greenhouse gases, having babies can be dangerous for some people and it certainly can cause so much stress to new parents that it could be argued dangerous .  so ban babies ?  #  dogs sometimes kill people, but they also sometimes save people is lives.   #  dogs only eat poo if you leave poo lying around.  that is a reason to not leave poo lying around, no a reason to get rid of a dog.  when you say  you  should not own a dog, do you mean specifically me ? because i do not live in germany so my dog wo not hump your leg on the bus or poop in your park.  those seem to be problems with germany, not problems with dogs.  dogs sometimes kill people, but they also sometimes save people is lives.  it is true that he consumes resources and produces co0, but by that reasoning, i should not own anything.   #  i still think in the case of dog owning the cons dominate by far.   #  you seem to be one of the considerate dog owners.  unfortunately not all dog owners are considerate.  but even the most considerate dog owning does not change my last three points.  certain dogs sometimes save lifes.  these are trained dogs not privately owned , which i specifically excluded.  the incidents of  wonder dogs , who saved the baby from the burning building are too rare to make up for the deaths.  this is an reductio ad absurdum.  of course you can own things, but one should ponder the pros and cons of owning certain things.  i still think in the case of dog owning the cons dominate by far.   #  responsible owners know the benefits of training their dogs.   #  dogs are awesome.  a few benefits:   having dogs makes the owner significantly more likely to be sufficiently physically active URL from the study:  odds of achieving sufficient physical activity and walking were 0 to 0 higher among dog owners compared with those not owning dogs.   this is backed up here URL and here URL and in many, many other studies.  dogs are extremely helpful in reducing the healthcare costs of the elderly.  proof URL  interaction between humans and dogs is a mechanism that can enhance the physical and psychological health of elderly citizens and promote a social support network between dog owners.  in turn, dependence and impact on health and social services are alleviated.   owning pets is extremely beneficial for one is psychological health URL from the study:  owners enjoyed better well being when their pets fulfilled social needs better, and the support that pets provided complemented rather than competed with human sources.   there are more benefits, like the fact that pets make owners laugh a lot, etc.  but i would like to talk about a few things you have brought up:   they are annoying.  well trained dogs are not annoying at all.  in fact, dogs are highly intelligent and respond very well to training.  some owners are worse than others is all.  responsible owners know the benefits of training their dogs.  in a world where people are starving this is in my opinion morally not justifiable.  you are assuming that all the resources that are used to produce dog food would be magically transferred to alleviating global hunger that is unlikely to happen.  so, what do you think ?  #  i really did not regard this and dogs are certainly a better way to cure a depression than anti depressants.   #  i decided to award you and some other users a   for the argument on increased mental and physical health of dog ownership.  i really did not regard this and dogs are certainly a better way to cure a depression than anti depressants.  however, i still believe that the food issue is a problem.  of course the dog food would not be transfered to the starving people of the word and if it would, they certainly would not like to eat dog food.  however, as i have argued as a response to /u/jiw0 , the global economy is complex as fuck and a reduced demand in dog food would certainly decrease global demand in food not only in meat but also feedstock that would have been used to feed animals which would have been slaughtered for dog food and subsequently prices.  as prices are the main instrument that regulate distribution, the dog food  would  be transfered where it is most needed, however indirect.
the golden rule: treat others the way you would like to be treated.  the silver rule: one should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated the platinum rule: do unto others as they would want done to them.  i have found these rules to be particularly compelling and surprisingly thorough as a foundation for morality and moral behavior.  the golden rule and its derivatives/variations are a solid standard of morality and moral behavior.  i have not encountered a substantial and convincing refutation to the set of the gold/silver/platinum rules, nor convincing evidence that they are missing anything nontrivial.  the golden rule did have a significant flaw, which is covered by the platinum rule.   why i want to change/expand my view : just in case i am missing anything regarding what to consider when analyzing moral decisions or conclusions.   how my view might be changed : one possible way i could see that might help me change my view is by coming up with a significant item that is not accounted for by these rules.  or, demonstrating why the golden rule is flawed as a premise in the first place.  i invite you to cmv.   #  the platinum rule: do unto others as they would want done to them.   #  so, i should give all my stuff to random hobos because they would like me to ?  # so, i should give all my stuff to random hobos because they would like me to ? are you doing that ? if no, why not ? do your rules require an extra layer of  common sense  to decide whether to apply them or not ? if so, why not just go straight to using the common sense to decide whether an action is okay or not ?  #  the platinum sounds like a nightmare of second guessing other people is thoughts. i am a bit iffy on that one .   #  these are good rules of thumb for  civil behaviour  i. e.  an etiquette, a how to act when in society, but they are not at the core or morality.  how we treat each others is a secondary concern/consequence how we treat ourselves is primary it has existential primacy, which means it is more fundamental.  this primacy of how we treat ourselves is implied by the gold and silver rules, but not the platinum .  the core of morality is that the individual has the capacity to choose, and all choices have different consequences that one choice is better and of greater value than another.  to deliberately choose a greater value over the lesser is the core of morality, and to choose the bad over the good is the core of immorality.  the gold and silver rules are only as good as this more fundamental aspect of morality, how you treat yourself.  even robinson crusoe, alone on an island, has choices to make that make him either a virtuous man who works hard and struggles to do the right things to survive, or an immoral man who ignores his circumstances and chooses to laze on the beach wishing vainly for the coconuts to fall.  there are thousands of virtues and vices that have nothing to do with others, but that require a sustained effort of moral/righteous choices to attain  such as : self honesty, integrity, clarity of mind, industry, productiveness, rationality, creativity, focus/concentration, imagination, pride, courage, determination, knowing when to reward/punish yourself, knowing when to push on or rest etc etc ! the golden and silver rules are only as useful to society as the virtues you have yourself ! the platinum sounds like a nightmare of second guessing other people is thoughts. i am a bit iffy on that one .   #  you either pay and get benefits or you renounce and leave.   #  do they want to live in that society ? if not then they should renounce citizenship and leave it.  otherwise living in a society and realizing the benefits that collecting taxes provides military security, infrastructure, education comes with paying taxes.  the rule goes both ways and generalizes.  you ca not not want to pay taxes but  want  benefits of tax money for free.  you either pay and get benefits or you renounce and leave.   #  if a heroin addict wants you to give them heroin, does that mean it is moral to do so ?  #  the golden rule is obviously deeply flawed, because people want very different things.  the platinum rule gets around this, but there are more than a few problems with it.  0.  uncertainty.  it is often hard to know what others want.  it is a nice idea to treat others they want to be treated, but in practice that is hard to do.  0.  what a person wants may require you doing an immoral act.  if a heroin addict wants you to give them heroin, does that mean it is moral to do so ? 0.  conflict.  often the wants of one person may be in conflict with another.  a person may not want to be put in prison, but if they are killing people, it is moral to put them there for the protection of others.  how does this help you decide between mutually oppositional desires ?  #  what is significant, however, is that people do not thank the people who intervened.   #  0.  sometimes people want to stay ill; they do not actually want to change.  there are addicts who are convinced they have things under control, when they have given up much of what most people consider to be necessary.  some of them might even be under control and stable.  intervention is based on  you will probably thank me later.   what is significant, however, is that people do not thank the people who intervened.  there are notable cases where mentally ill people have been picked up off the street for forcible treatment, and they later spoke out and said they would have preferred wandering the streets to the traumatic experience of the abduction.  all 0 rules judge by what a person would want to have.  this is inherently problematic when you are trying to save someone from their own desires.  some sort of judgement call has to be made as to whether a desire counts as  real  or not.
help please change my view.  first off, here are my reasons: 0 it is too expensive.  many college graduates have a huge amount of student debt, and many students dropout because of financial problems.  0 i am not smart.  i am a senior in high school.  actually a senior with junior credits.  i am missing 0 credits.  0 for math and 0 for biology.  i see college is for people who are lucky, smart, or rich.  most smart kids from my school were given scholarships because well.  they were smart.  the lucky few are people who are in sports and sometimes people like that little kid who went to mcdonald is for some light to do his homework.  and for the rich kids, obviously they have the money to get in there.  from what i heard from other people, college wo not take you if you are sats are not great or your gpa is not up to par.  i was really discouraged about that.  me unable to attend college because i am not good at one subject.  0 a huge waste of time.  many jobs requires a minimum of a high school diploma.  as i start researching the jobs that i wanted, i started to slowly realize that most of the job i need requires a college degree.  i really wanted to take filmmaking, but i heard rumors about why taking it is not worth it.  but that is a whole different story.  and another one is, i wanted to be a cop.  i heard from other people that in order to be a cop, you need a college degree.  and as stated in reason 0, i do not think i am able to go to college to be a cop or a filmmaker because i am broke and  not smart .  i am joining the air force, and i know the military can help you with education student loans and all that, but once i start thinking about it, it goes straight to reason 0.  i am plain out stupid.  no matter how much time i spend studying math or being tutored, i can never get it.  math is not for me.  money and math is the only thing that is stopping me going to college.   #  i am joining the air force, and i know the military can help you with education student loans and all that, but once i start thinking about it, it goes straight to reason 0.  i am plain out stupid.   #  no matter how much time i spend studying math or being tutored, i can never get it.   #  okay, the biggest issue here is 0:  it is too expensive.  many college graduates have a huge amount of student debt, and many students dropout because of financial problems.  0 of individuals with student loan debt have $0,0 or less.  nearly 0 have $0,0 or less.  that is a relatively manageable amount of debt overall.  the student loan debt bubble issue is largely a problem for students who go to a select variety of private schools, or to for profit institutions in addition, many of the students who get in deep get medical or law degrees, but those typically pay off faster .  also, community college is a thing.  in addition, your fears on your math scores are overblown.  i am a senior in high school.  actually a senior with junior credits.  i am missing 0 credits.  0 for math and 0 for biology.  i see college is for people who are lucky, smart, or rich.  most smart kids from my school were given scholarships because well.  they were smart.  the lucky few are people who are in sports and sometimes people like that little kid who went to mcdonald is for some light to do his homework.  and for the rich kids, obviously they have the money to get in there.  from what i heard from other people, college wo not take you if you are sats are not great or your gpa is not up to par.  i was really discouraged about that.  me unable to attend college because i am not good at one subject.  do not worry about math scores; i have seen plenty of college students who struggle with it.  the only issue is that you would have to enroll in a field that does not require math as much, so likely not stem.  no matter how much time i spend studying math or being tutored, i can never get it.  math is not for me.  given your position, i would actually think this is likely a good option.  however, there are a few things you need to realize first: 0 it is fairly common for vets to go back to school on the gi bill, and by that point what you did in high school is not really meaningful.  0 you will never be a commissioned officer in the air force and thus, you will never be able to fly without a bachelor is degree.  that is true in most of the armed forces as well; the typical route is that you need a college degree first.  however, it is possible to achieve some of the lower officer ranks within the naval services so the navy and marines , as well as the coast guard, without a bachelor is degree.   #  you need khan academy, /r/college, maybe /r/personalfinance and a bunch of other subs dedicated to helping people figure out basic life skills and grow the balls to be able to face their problems.   # well, no, you are also really invested in convincing yourself that college is not for you.  that attitude is gonna keep you out as long as it exists.  the other two are solvable.  if i had $0, i would bet that you ca not quantify  not great sats  or  subpar gpa .  as long as you ca not quantify those, you are basically talking out of your ass.  once you do quantify those, you will find that there are colleges in the us that will take any warm body.  should you go to one of those ? that is a question that deserves its own discussion.  i think this is the crux of the matter and why this should be discussed in a therapist is office, not on /r/cmv .  firstly, stop whining.  anybody can pass high school math .  there are 0 possible obstacles to this you are bad at math; your teacher is bad at math; you do not study; you do not have time to study; you are missing a foundational piece of knowledge such as long division happened to yours truly , but the reason you are not passing math is because you are not dealing with your obstacle.  all of these obstacles are surmountable .  you just need to a recognize what is preventing you, and b go about fixing it in a systematic and dedicated way.  secondly, it is a shame that something or somebody in your life has made you feel stupid, but what you are doing right now is trying to escape your feelings rather than face them.  you  feel  inadequate that is different from  being  inadequate you would have to try pretty hard to be inadequate enough to not be admitted to any college .  this is why you are trying to rationalize college away on cmv.  you are putting the blame for your inability to go to college on external factors, like being poor or not being good at math, and in the back of your mind, you are waiting for a miracle to happen, where somebody will show up in this cmv and be like, i know how you can go to college even though you suck at math and are poor.  that is not gonna happen.  you need to deal with your habit of running away from your problems the military is not going to save you you need to be smart, and you need to pass high school math, to be good at life , because you will start delaying more serious problems as you go through life, and they will accumulate, and eventually you will find yourself in a giant fucking hole with no idea how to get out.  i do not think /r/cmv is what you need.  you need khan academy, /r/college, maybe /r/personalfinance and a bunch of other subs dedicated to helping people figure out basic life skills and grow the balls to be able to face their problems.   #  i know welding is or at least was one where the government would pay for you to go to trade school for free.   #  i am not even going to disagree with you on this.  if college is not your bag do not do it.  go into a trade.  welding, plumbing, commercial truck driving especially if you get the license to transport biohazards are all in demand and make the same or more than what you would if you had a lackluster college degree.  there are even tuition programs for certain trades.  i know welding is or at least was one where the government would pay for you to go to trade school for free.   #  the one math class i had to take i think i got a b in.   # no matter how much time i spend studying math or being tutored, i can never get it.  math is not for me.  you are not dumb.  you might not be good at math, but guess what ? lots of us are not either, including those of us with a college degree.  depending on what major you pick, you might only have to take 0 math class.  the math class i had to take was called  math in modern society , and actually was not difficult.  it was not even math intensive.  unless you want to go a math intense major, odds are you will just have to take 0 0 classes whatever the minimum is to fulfill the generals requirement, and then you are good.  the basic classes are absolutely doable, and this is coming from someone terrible at math.  i had to re take prealgebra.  the highest math class i attempted in high school was trig, and i got a d .  i even took summer school.  my math act score was something really bad.  but i still went to college and graduated with honors.  the one math class i had to take i think i got a b in.  same with other friends of mine.  unless you wanted a major where you needed lots of math, do not let one subject or any generals class scare you from college.  if you are interested in criminal justice and/or filmmaking, you are not going to need more than that one generals math class, so fear not.  some colleges are more competitive, and thus harder to get into.  but state universities are much more welcoming.  moreover, if you are really concerned about not being able to keep up, you could always start in a 0 year community college and then transfer.  but you would probably do just fine in a state school for all 0 years too.  what if you joined the air force rotc at a state university and went into criminal justice ? the rotc program pays your way, you go into criminal justice which likely wo not require anything more than the one generals math class , go into air force, and then when you are done with that you can apply to be a cop.   #  the mos i wanted to take in the air force is to be a security force.   #  wow.  thank you so much.  in guam, we do not have air force rotc.  only the army rotc is available in university of guam.  the mos i wanted to take in the air force is to be a security force.  i wanted to be a cop once i am out, but then, i really like filmmaking.  i have always wanted to go into filmmaking school.
help please change my view.  first off, here are my reasons: 0 it is too expensive.  many college graduates have a huge amount of student debt, and many students dropout because of financial problems.  0 i am not smart.  i am a senior in high school.  actually a senior with junior credits.  i am missing 0 credits.  0 for math and 0 for biology.  i see college is for people who are lucky, smart, or rich.  most smart kids from my school were given scholarships because well.  they were smart.  the lucky few are people who are in sports and sometimes people like that little kid who went to mcdonald is for some light to do his homework.  and for the rich kids, obviously they have the money to get in there.  from what i heard from other people, college wo not take you if you are sats are not great or your gpa is not up to par.  i was really discouraged about that.  me unable to attend college because i am not good at one subject.  0 a huge waste of time.  many jobs requires a minimum of a high school diploma.  as i start researching the jobs that i wanted, i started to slowly realize that most of the job i need requires a college degree.  i really wanted to take filmmaking, but i heard rumors about why taking it is not worth it.  but that is a whole different story.  and another one is, i wanted to be a cop.  i heard from other people that in order to be a cop, you need a college degree.  and as stated in reason 0, i do not think i am able to go to college to be a cop or a filmmaker because i am broke and  not smart .  i am joining the air force, and i know the military can help you with education student loans and all that, but once i start thinking about it, it goes straight to reason 0.  i am plain out stupid.  no matter how much time i spend studying math or being tutored, i can never get it.  math is not for me.  money and math is the only thing that is stopping me going to college.   #  i see college is for people who are lucky, smart, or rich.   #  you missed the biggest category: hard working and organized.   # you missed the biggest category: hard working and organized.  getting straight a is in high school, and thus getting a scholarship, is not about brains.  it is about having the work ethic and discipline necessary to make getting good grades a real priority.  and in college, being smart wo not get you good grades either.  plenty of very bright people fail out of college because they are so smart they never had to work in high school, so they never learned how.  that actually happened to me.  i got a perfect sat.  but my high school grades where shit because i never did homework.  even so, i got a full ride scholarship.  after two semesters, the college asked me to not come back.  so, it was off to the military, where i learned how to work hard at something.  my next run at college resulted in much better grades, scholarships for grad school and so forth.  i was smart, but college was not for me, because academic success has far less to do with brains than most people think.  as for  math is not for me,  plenty of very valuable degrees do not need much math at all.   #  that is a question that deserves its own discussion.   # well, no, you are also really invested in convincing yourself that college is not for you.  that attitude is gonna keep you out as long as it exists.  the other two are solvable.  if i had $0, i would bet that you ca not quantify  not great sats  or  subpar gpa .  as long as you ca not quantify those, you are basically talking out of your ass.  once you do quantify those, you will find that there are colleges in the us that will take any warm body.  should you go to one of those ? that is a question that deserves its own discussion.  i think this is the crux of the matter and why this should be discussed in a therapist is office, not on /r/cmv .  firstly, stop whining.  anybody can pass high school math .  there are 0 possible obstacles to this you are bad at math; your teacher is bad at math; you do not study; you do not have time to study; you are missing a foundational piece of knowledge such as long division happened to yours truly , but the reason you are not passing math is because you are not dealing with your obstacle.  all of these obstacles are surmountable .  you just need to a recognize what is preventing you, and b go about fixing it in a systematic and dedicated way.  secondly, it is a shame that something or somebody in your life has made you feel stupid, but what you are doing right now is trying to escape your feelings rather than face them.  you  feel  inadequate that is different from  being  inadequate you would have to try pretty hard to be inadequate enough to not be admitted to any college .  this is why you are trying to rationalize college away on cmv.  you are putting the blame for your inability to go to college on external factors, like being poor or not being good at math, and in the back of your mind, you are waiting for a miracle to happen, where somebody will show up in this cmv and be like, i know how you can go to college even though you suck at math and are poor.  that is not gonna happen.  you need to deal with your habit of running away from your problems the military is not going to save you you need to be smart, and you need to pass high school math, to be good at life , because you will start delaying more serious problems as you go through life, and they will accumulate, and eventually you will find yourself in a giant fucking hole with no idea how to get out.  i do not think /r/cmv is what you need.  you need khan academy, /r/college, maybe /r/personalfinance and a bunch of other subs dedicated to helping people figure out basic life skills and grow the balls to be able to face their problems.   #  if college is not your bag do not do it.   #  i am not even going to disagree with you on this.  if college is not your bag do not do it.  go into a trade.  welding, plumbing, commercial truck driving especially if you get the license to transport biohazards are all in demand and make the same or more than what you would if you had a lackluster college degree.  there are even tuition programs for certain trades.  i know welding is or at least was one where the government would pay for you to go to trade school for free.   #  what if you joined the air force rotc at a state university and went into criminal justice ?  # no matter how much time i spend studying math or being tutored, i can never get it.  math is not for me.  you are not dumb.  you might not be good at math, but guess what ? lots of us are not either, including those of us with a college degree.  depending on what major you pick, you might only have to take 0 math class.  the math class i had to take was called  math in modern society , and actually was not difficult.  it was not even math intensive.  unless you want to go a math intense major, odds are you will just have to take 0 0 classes whatever the minimum is to fulfill the generals requirement, and then you are good.  the basic classes are absolutely doable, and this is coming from someone terrible at math.  i had to re take prealgebra.  the highest math class i attempted in high school was trig, and i got a d .  i even took summer school.  my math act score was something really bad.  but i still went to college and graduated with honors.  the one math class i had to take i think i got a b in.  same with other friends of mine.  unless you wanted a major where you needed lots of math, do not let one subject or any generals class scare you from college.  if you are interested in criminal justice and/or filmmaking, you are not going to need more than that one generals math class, so fear not.  some colleges are more competitive, and thus harder to get into.  but state universities are much more welcoming.  moreover, if you are really concerned about not being able to keep up, you could always start in a 0 year community college and then transfer.  but you would probably do just fine in a state school for all 0 years too.  what if you joined the air force rotc at a state university and went into criminal justice ? the rotc program pays your way, you go into criminal justice which likely wo not require anything more than the one generals math class , go into air force, and then when you are done with that you can apply to be a cop.   #  i wanted to be a cop once i am out, but then, i really like filmmaking.   #  wow.  thank you so much.  in guam, we do not have air force rotc.  only the army rotc is available in university of guam.  the mos i wanted to take in the air force is to be a security force.  i wanted to be a cop once i am out, but then, i really like filmmaking.  i have always wanted to go into filmmaking school.
help please change my view.  first off, here are my reasons: 0 it is too expensive.  many college graduates have a huge amount of student debt, and many students dropout because of financial problems.  0 i am not smart.  i am a senior in high school.  actually a senior with junior credits.  i am missing 0 credits.  0 for math and 0 for biology.  i see college is for people who are lucky, smart, or rich.  most smart kids from my school were given scholarships because well.  they were smart.  the lucky few are people who are in sports and sometimes people like that little kid who went to mcdonald is for some light to do his homework.  and for the rich kids, obviously they have the money to get in there.  from what i heard from other people, college wo not take you if you are sats are not great or your gpa is not up to par.  i was really discouraged about that.  me unable to attend college because i am not good at one subject.  0 a huge waste of time.  many jobs requires a minimum of a high school diploma.  as i start researching the jobs that i wanted, i started to slowly realize that most of the job i need requires a college degree.  i really wanted to take filmmaking, but i heard rumors about why taking it is not worth it.  but that is a whole different story.  and another one is, i wanted to be a cop.  i heard from other people that in order to be a cop, you need a college degree.  and as stated in reason 0, i do not think i am able to go to college to be a cop or a filmmaker because i am broke and  not smart .  i am joining the air force, and i know the military can help you with education student loans and all that, but once i start thinking about it, it goes straight to reason 0.  i am plain out stupid.  no matter how much time i spend studying math or being tutored, i can never get it.  math is not for me.  money and math is the only thing that is stopping me going to college.   #  i am not good at one subject.   #  for the most part i was not either.   # i am a senior in high school.  actually a senior with junior credits.  i am missing 0 credits.  0 for math and 0 for biology.  regarding the not smart part, you have got to create and maintain a better outlook for yourself to succeed at anything not just college.  pursue hobbies, life goals, and education with the purpose of bettering yourself, for yourself.  you come first.  false.  about 0 of america goes / has gone to college.  there is definitely some idiots in there saying this as a college grad myself.  passing a few tests does not make you smart.  americans are less fortunate than you think.  everyone coming out of college is in debt, unless they got a scholarship.  most attendees do not have a scholarship.  you spend money to make money, basically.  these are unsubstantiated thoughts you are having.  so here is the thing.  lets say your gpa is below 0, your sat/act score is complete trash, and you have nothing to show for anything.  pick the best available community college and apply.  once you do 0 0 years of community college, apply to a school worth a shit.  this is your easiest chance at getting into school.  i know you do not live where i live but a standard state school in missouri, for example, requires in lieu of a good act score just two semesters of community college classes with a gpa above 0.  local community colleges accept d students.  that is all cake.  for the most part i was not either.  i graduated college.  all of these things are completely attainable, even by someone of moderate intelligence.  something tells me you are above average, at least you bothered to write this.  as a guy who has witnessed first hand the lives of friends who joined the military, those who joined as officers college grads seem to have much higher job satisfaction.  just an observation.  math blows, however even with a shit degree such as criminology , this would allow you to either come into the military as an officer or join the police force with a relevant degree.  keep in mind no matter how daunting math seems that you are able to learn it.   #  as long as you ca not quantify those, you are basically talking out of your ass.   # well, no, you are also really invested in convincing yourself that college is not for you.  that attitude is gonna keep you out as long as it exists.  the other two are solvable.  if i had $0, i would bet that you ca not quantify  not great sats  or  subpar gpa .  as long as you ca not quantify those, you are basically talking out of your ass.  once you do quantify those, you will find that there are colleges in the us that will take any warm body.  should you go to one of those ? that is a question that deserves its own discussion.  i think this is the crux of the matter and why this should be discussed in a therapist is office, not on /r/cmv .  firstly, stop whining.  anybody can pass high school math .  there are 0 possible obstacles to this you are bad at math; your teacher is bad at math; you do not study; you do not have time to study; you are missing a foundational piece of knowledge such as long division happened to yours truly , but the reason you are not passing math is because you are not dealing with your obstacle.  all of these obstacles are surmountable .  you just need to a recognize what is preventing you, and b go about fixing it in a systematic and dedicated way.  secondly, it is a shame that something or somebody in your life has made you feel stupid, but what you are doing right now is trying to escape your feelings rather than face them.  you  feel  inadequate that is different from  being  inadequate you would have to try pretty hard to be inadequate enough to not be admitted to any college .  this is why you are trying to rationalize college away on cmv.  you are putting the blame for your inability to go to college on external factors, like being poor or not being good at math, and in the back of your mind, you are waiting for a miracle to happen, where somebody will show up in this cmv and be like, i know how you can go to college even though you suck at math and are poor.  that is not gonna happen.  you need to deal with your habit of running away from your problems the military is not going to save you you need to be smart, and you need to pass high school math, to be good at life , because you will start delaying more serious problems as you go through life, and they will accumulate, and eventually you will find yourself in a giant fucking hole with no idea how to get out.  i do not think /r/cmv is what you need.  you need khan academy, /r/college, maybe /r/personalfinance and a bunch of other subs dedicated to helping people figure out basic life skills and grow the balls to be able to face their problems.   #  i know welding is or at least was one where the government would pay for you to go to trade school for free.   #  i am not even going to disagree with you on this.  if college is not your bag do not do it.  go into a trade.  welding, plumbing, commercial truck driving especially if you get the license to transport biohazards are all in demand and make the same or more than what you would if you had a lackluster college degree.  there are even tuition programs for certain trades.  i know welding is or at least was one where the government would pay for you to go to trade school for free.   #  if you are interested in criminal justice and/or filmmaking, you are not going to need more than that one generals math class, so fear not.   # no matter how much time i spend studying math or being tutored, i can never get it.  math is not for me.  you are not dumb.  you might not be good at math, but guess what ? lots of us are not either, including those of us with a college degree.  depending on what major you pick, you might only have to take 0 math class.  the math class i had to take was called  math in modern society , and actually was not difficult.  it was not even math intensive.  unless you want to go a math intense major, odds are you will just have to take 0 0 classes whatever the minimum is to fulfill the generals requirement, and then you are good.  the basic classes are absolutely doable, and this is coming from someone terrible at math.  i had to re take prealgebra.  the highest math class i attempted in high school was trig, and i got a d .  i even took summer school.  my math act score was something really bad.  but i still went to college and graduated with honors.  the one math class i had to take i think i got a b in.  same with other friends of mine.  unless you wanted a major where you needed lots of math, do not let one subject or any generals class scare you from college.  if you are interested in criminal justice and/or filmmaking, you are not going to need more than that one generals math class, so fear not.  some colleges are more competitive, and thus harder to get into.  but state universities are much more welcoming.  moreover, if you are really concerned about not being able to keep up, you could always start in a 0 year community college and then transfer.  but you would probably do just fine in a state school for all 0 years too.  what if you joined the air force rotc at a state university and went into criminal justice ? the rotc program pays your way, you go into criminal justice which likely wo not require anything more than the one generals math class , go into air force, and then when you are done with that you can apply to be a cop.   #  i wanted to be a cop once i am out, but then, i really like filmmaking.   #  wow.  thank you so much.  in guam, we do not have air force rotc.  only the army rotc is available in university of guam.  the mos i wanted to take in the air force is to be a security force.  i wanted to be a cop once i am out, but then, i really like filmmaking.  i have always wanted to go into filmmaking school.
help please change my view.  first off, here are my reasons: 0 it is too expensive.  many college graduates have a huge amount of student debt, and many students dropout because of financial problems.  0 i am not smart.  i am a senior in high school.  actually a senior with junior credits.  i am missing 0 credits.  0 for math and 0 for biology.  i see college is for people who are lucky, smart, or rich.  most smart kids from my school were given scholarships because well.  they were smart.  the lucky few are people who are in sports and sometimes people like that little kid who went to mcdonald is for some light to do his homework.  and for the rich kids, obviously they have the money to get in there.  from what i heard from other people, college wo not take you if you are sats are not great or your gpa is not up to par.  i was really discouraged about that.  me unable to attend college because i am not good at one subject.  0 a huge waste of time.  many jobs requires a minimum of a high school diploma.  as i start researching the jobs that i wanted, i started to slowly realize that most of the job i need requires a college degree.  i really wanted to take filmmaking, but i heard rumors about why taking it is not worth it.  but that is a whole different story.  and another one is, i wanted to be a cop.  i heard from other people that in order to be a cop, you need a college degree.  and as stated in reason 0, i do not think i am able to go to college to be a cop or a filmmaker because i am broke and  not smart .  i am joining the air force, and i know the military can help you with education student loans and all that, but once i start thinking about it, it goes straight to reason 0.  i am plain out stupid.  no matter how much time i spend studying math or being tutored, i can never get it.  math is not for me.  money and math is the only thing that is stopping me going to college.   #  money and math is the only thing that is stopping me going to college.   #  math blows, however even with a shit degree such as criminology , this would allow you to either come into the military as an officer or join the police force with a relevant degree.   # i am a senior in high school.  actually a senior with junior credits.  i am missing 0 credits.  0 for math and 0 for biology.  regarding the not smart part, you have got to create and maintain a better outlook for yourself to succeed at anything not just college.  pursue hobbies, life goals, and education with the purpose of bettering yourself, for yourself.  you come first.  false.  about 0 of america goes / has gone to college.  there is definitely some idiots in there saying this as a college grad myself.  passing a few tests does not make you smart.  americans are less fortunate than you think.  everyone coming out of college is in debt, unless they got a scholarship.  most attendees do not have a scholarship.  you spend money to make money, basically.  these are unsubstantiated thoughts you are having.  so here is the thing.  lets say your gpa is below 0, your sat/act score is complete trash, and you have nothing to show for anything.  pick the best available community college and apply.  once you do 0 0 years of community college, apply to a school worth a shit.  this is your easiest chance at getting into school.  i know you do not live where i live but a standard state school in missouri, for example, requires in lieu of a good act score just two semesters of community college classes with a gpa above 0.  local community colleges accept d students.  that is all cake.  for the most part i was not either.  i graduated college.  all of these things are completely attainable, even by someone of moderate intelligence.  something tells me you are above average, at least you bothered to write this.  as a guy who has witnessed first hand the lives of friends who joined the military, those who joined as officers college grads seem to have much higher job satisfaction.  just an observation.  math blows, however even with a shit degree such as criminology , this would allow you to either come into the military as an officer or join the police force with a relevant degree.  keep in mind no matter how daunting math seems that you are able to learn it.   #  secondly, it is a shame that something or somebody in your life has made you feel stupid, but what you are doing right now is trying to escape your feelings rather than face them.   # well, no, you are also really invested in convincing yourself that college is not for you.  that attitude is gonna keep you out as long as it exists.  the other two are solvable.  if i had $0, i would bet that you ca not quantify  not great sats  or  subpar gpa .  as long as you ca not quantify those, you are basically talking out of your ass.  once you do quantify those, you will find that there are colleges in the us that will take any warm body.  should you go to one of those ? that is a question that deserves its own discussion.  i think this is the crux of the matter and why this should be discussed in a therapist is office, not on /r/cmv .  firstly, stop whining.  anybody can pass high school math .  there are 0 possible obstacles to this you are bad at math; your teacher is bad at math; you do not study; you do not have time to study; you are missing a foundational piece of knowledge such as long division happened to yours truly , but the reason you are not passing math is because you are not dealing with your obstacle.  all of these obstacles are surmountable .  you just need to a recognize what is preventing you, and b go about fixing it in a systematic and dedicated way.  secondly, it is a shame that something or somebody in your life has made you feel stupid, but what you are doing right now is trying to escape your feelings rather than face them.  you  feel  inadequate that is different from  being  inadequate you would have to try pretty hard to be inadequate enough to not be admitted to any college .  this is why you are trying to rationalize college away on cmv.  you are putting the blame for your inability to go to college on external factors, like being poor or not being good at math, and in the back of your mind, you are waiting for a miracle to happen, where somebody will show up in this cmv and be like, i know how you can go to college even though you suck at math and are poor.  that is not gonna happen.  you need to deal with your habit of running away from your problems the military is not going to save you you need to be smart, and you need to pass high school math, to be good at life , because you will start delaying more serious problems as you go through life, and they will accumulate, and eventually you will find yourself in a giant fucking hole with no idea how to get out.  i do not think /r/cmv is what you need.  you need khan academy, /r/college, maybe /r/personalfinance and a bunch of other subs dedicated to helping people figure out basic life skills and grow the balls to be able to face their problems.   #  i know welding is or at least was one where the government would pay for you to go to trade school for free.   #  i am not even going to disagree with you on this.  if college is not your bag do not do it.  go into a trade.  welding, plumbing, commercial truck driving especially if you get the license to transport biohazards are all in demand and make the same or more than what you would if you had a lackluster college degree.  there are even tuition programs for certain trades.  i know welding is or at least was one where the government would pay for you to go to trade school for free.   #  unless you want to go a math intense major, odds are you will just have to take 0 0 classes whatever the minimum is to fulfill the generals requirement, and then you are good.   # no matter how much time i spend studying math or being tutored, i can never get it.  math is not for me.  you are not dumb.  you might not be good at math, but guess what ? lots of us are not either, including those of us with a college degree.  depending on what major you pick, you might only have to take 0 math class.  the math class i had to take was called  math in modern society , and actually was not difficult.  it was not even math intensive.  unless you want to go a math intense major, odds are you will just have to take 0 0 classes whatever the minimum is to fulfill the generals requirement, and then you are good.  the basic classes are absolutely doable, and this is coming from someone terrible at math.  i had to re take prealgebra.  the highest math class i attempted in high school was trig, and i got a d .  i even took summer school.  my math act score was something really bad.  but i still went to college and graduated with honors.  the one math class i had to take i think i got a b in.  same with other friends of mine.  unless you wanted a major where you needed lots of math, do not let one subject or any generals class scare you from college.  if you are interested in criminal justice and/or filmmaking, you are not going to need more than that one generals math class, so fear not.  some colleges are more competitive, and thus harder to get into.  but state universities are much more welcoming.  moreover, if you are really concerned about not being able to keep up, you could always start in a 0 year community college and then transfer.  but you would probably do just fine in a state school for all 0 years too.  what if you joined the air force rotc at a state university and went into criminal justice ? the rotc program pays your way, you go into criminal justice which likely wo not require anything more than the one generals math class , go into air force, and then when you are done with that you can apply to be a cop.   #  i have always wanted to go into filmmaking school.   #  wow.  thank you so much.  in guam, we do not have air force rotc.  only the army rotc is available in university of guam.  the mos i wanted to take in the air force is to be a security force.  i wanted to be a cop once i am out, but then, i really like filmmaking.  i have always wanted to go into filmmaking school.
that title is way to long but you get the point.  i spent some time looking at threads in coontown not because i agree with them but preciesly because i dont.  i wanted to see why they thing that way and what made them who they are.  a similar argument can be made about who you choose to friend on facebook.  i know some people who delete anybody on their newsfeed who do not agree with them until they are left with an echo chamber of the same view.  i think exposure to different opinions, even those who are negative, are essential in forming a perspective about an subject and removing all negative opinions from a persons enviroment only creates another bigot, even thou their bigotry is socially accepted.   #  i think exposure to different opinions, even those who are negative, are essential in forming a perspective about an subject and removing all negative opinions from a persons enviroment only creates another bigot, even thou their bigotry is socially accepted.   #  you are projecting the ethos of this subreddit to other subreddits.   # you are projecting the ethos of this subreddit to other subreddits.  this is not season three of the wire, where they created safe zones for everything negative in a community.  no one is going to these bigoted, hateful subreddits to round the bad apples up and  cure , persuade or track them.  their purpose is to serve as a rallying point for whatever their will is.  i know some people who delete anybody on their newsfeed who do not agree with them until they are left with an echo chamber of the same view.  but again, the purpose of facebook is not the same.  facebook by its definition is meant to be inclusive and supportive of others you know well enough to send a direct friend request, these communities are by definition meant to be exclusive and damning of others people the posters have never even met.   #  with politics, i think it is incredibly important to realize that the other side is not stupid or evil they honestly think their approach is going to lead to the best results.   #  i think there are two issues to look at.  the first is whether it was good for  reddit the company  to do this.  and i think that overall the answer is yes.  the general public does not understand how reddit works, and many morons in the media are much worse.  they report on things like coontown like it represents mainstream reddit, and it tarnishes all reddit users, and the company most of all, as supporting repulsive hate groups.  as long as it does not drive off too many users who consider it to be censorship, it is a plus for the company.  the other question, of course, is how it impacts redditors.  besides not having to explain to clueless friends that no, the whole content of this site you like is not the sort of crap that the media reported on, there is your question about gaining insight into other peoples  views.  that is one of the things i like best about cmv when it works or when i can have rational debates with people on the other side of issues from me being able to understand what they think and why.  with politics, i think it is incredibly important to realize that the other side is not stupid or evil they honestly think their approach is going to lead to the best results.  but coontown was not simply a group of people with different politics who have a different view of how much government is ideal or who should be which taxes.  they are motivated by hate.  you want to see  what made them who they are  it is hate.  there is no evidence you can show them, no argument you can make that is going to change their view.  while someone who grew up in poverty might have some fascinating reasons for being liberal or conservative, someone who is a racist was taught to hate, and finds examples of confirmation bias wherever they look you could do the same for any group you choose.  what insight does that give you ?  #  they were constantly posting fbi crime statistics regarding blacks.   #  i do not think you get it.  coontown was racist and abhorrent, but they were not fueled by being taught to hate, they were fueled by the opposite.  they were constantly posting fbi crime statistics regarding blacks.  many of them were victims of black crime.  many were white women that had been sexually assaulted by blacks.  and they went to r/coontown because it was the only place they could express their frustration at what is going on around them.  the key here is that a conversation can counter the argument they were making about all blacks in general, how these problems came about and how we can fix them but not if that conversation is shut down.  coontown was not born out of institutional hatred, it was born out of the fact that we are just unable to discuss black crime out in the open.  they were willing to be challenged and were pretty nice to people that came their with civil opposition i know because i have done it and when i got to really talking to them, only a few actually felt blacks are genetically inferior.  they were angry at having to be politically correct about a very serious problem.   #  they were not irrational people following racist dogmas, they were people that saw a problem in society and within black culture and were exploding about how they do not get a chance to call it how they see it.   #  do not get me wrong, it was a total circlejerk and was very hateful, but the thing that struck me the most was the fact that they felt they finally had a place to be open about their prejudices and speak honestly about them.  when i came and challenged them, they welcomed me and were very excited to explain themselves.  they were not irrational people following racist dogmas, they were people that saw a problem in society and within black culture and were exploding about how they do not get a chance to call it how they see it.  they even conceded a few points to me and although they did not win me over, they did make me understand their line of thinking better.  i love frequenting fringe subs and engaging their respective communities and i love how reddit gives me the opportunity to find any line of thinking.  currently in this election, i am enjoying reading the top posts of the subreddits devoted to the various candidates.  i liked coontown being a part of reddit as i like every ideologically extreme sub.  if reddit admins really wanted to get rid of the depraved shit on here, they would have taken down r/sexyabortions way sooner than r/coontown.  if we get rid of the fringe ideas on reddit, we lose something great about it.   #  and while i will take your word that they were not all  irrational people following racist dogmas , from my quick review of voat there were plenty of contributors who exactly fit that description.   #  i would have no problem in a sub like,  r/theblackproblem  existing.  sure, discuss openly your beliefs that blacks need to be shipped to africa, or the secret jewish cabal running the world, or how women need to be dominated for their own good.  and while i will take your word that they were not all  irrational people following racist dogmas , from my quick review of voat there were plenty of contributors who exactly fit that description.  it is not the fringe ideas it is the posts that are dripping with dehumanizing hate.  and i am sure that reddit is trying to avoid a situation where one of these guys kills a black man, and brags about it on reddit, which i do not think is all that unlikely.  when you said:  they felt they finally had a place to be open about their prejudices and speak honestly about them i could not help thinking that that is the same way the anti semites who joined the nazi is in the 0 is felt.   yes, finally others who understand how the jews are the problem and need to be destroyed .
that title is way to long but you get the point.  i spent some time looking at threads in coontown not because i agree with them but preciesly because i dont.  i wanted to see why they thing that way and what made them who they are.  a similar argument can be made about who you choose to friend on facebook.  i know some people who delete anybody on their newsfeed who do not agree with them until they are left with an echo chamber of the same view.  i think exposure to different opinions, even those who are negative, are essential in forming a perspective about an subject and removing all negative opinions from a persons enviroment only creates another bigot, even thou their bigotry is socially accepted.   #  a similar argument can be made about who you choose to friend on facebook.   #  i know some people who delete anybody on their newsfeed who do not agree with them until they are left with an echo chamber of the same view.   # you are projecting the ethos of this subreddit to other subreddits.  this is not season three of the wire, where they created safe zones for everything negative in a community.  no one is going to these bigoted, hateful subreddits to round the bad apples up and  cure , persuade or track them.  their purpose is to serve as a rallying point for whatever their will is.  i know some people who delete anybody on their newsfeed who do not agree with them until they are left with an echo chamber of the same view.  but again, the purpose of facebook is not the same.  facebook by its definition is meant to be inclusive and supportive of others you know well enough to send a direct friend request, these communities are by definition meant to be exclusive and damning of others people the posters have never even met.   #  that is one of the things i like best about cmv when it works or when i can have rational debates with people on the other side of issues from me being able to understand what they think and why.   #  i think there are two issues to look at.  the first is whether it was good for  reddit the company  to do this.  and i think that overall the answer is yes.  the general public does not understand how reddit works, and many morons in the media are much worse.  they report on things like coontown like it represents mainstream reddit, and it tarnishes all reddit users, and the company most of all, as supporting repulsive hate groups.  as long as it does not drive off too many users who consider it to be censorship, it is a plus for the company.  the other question, of course, is how it impacts redditors.  besides not having to explain to clueless friends that no, the whole content of this site you like is not the sort of crap that the media reported on, there is your question about gaining insight into other peoples  views.  that is one of the things i like best about cmv when it works or when i can have rational debates with people on the other side of issues from me being able to understand what they think and why.  with politics, i think it is incredibly important to realize that the other side is not stupid or evil they honestly think their approach is going to lead to the best results.  but coontown was not simply a group of people with different politics who have a different view of how much government is ideal or who should be which taxes.  they are motivated by hate.  you want to see  what made them who they are  it is hate.  there is no evidence you can show them, no argument you can make that is going to change their view.  while someone who grew up in poverty might have some fascinating reasons for being liberal or conservative, someone who is a racist was taught to hate, and finds examples of confirmation bias wherever they look you could do the same for any group you choose.  what insight does that give you ?  #  they were angry at having to be politically correct about a very serious problem.   #  i do not think you get it.  coontown was racist and abhorrent, but they were not fueled by being taught to hate, they were fueled by the opposite.  they were constantly posting fbi crime statistics regarding blacks.  many of them were victims of black crime.  many were white women that had been sexually assaulted by blacks.  and they went to r/coontown because it was the only place they could express their frustration at what is going on around them.  the key here is that a conversation can counter the argument they were making about all blacks in general, how these problems came about and how we can fix them but not if that conversation is shut down.  coontown was not born out of institutional hatred, it was born out of the fact that we are just unable to discuss black crime out in the open.  they were willing to be challenged and were pretty nice to people that came their with civil opposition i know because i have done it and when i got to really talking to them, only a few actually felt blacks are genetically inferior.  they were angry at having to be politically correct about a very serious problem.   #  they were not irrational people following racist dogmas, they were people that saw a problem in society and within black culture and were exploding about how they do not get a chance to call it how they see it.   #  do not get me wrong, it was a total circlejerk and was very hateful, but the thing that struck me the most was the fact that they felt they finally had a place to be open about their prejudices and speak honestly about them.  when i came and challenged them, they welcomed me and were very excited to explain themselves.  they were not irrational people following racist dogmas, they were people that saw a problem in society and within black culture and were exploding about how they do not get a chance to call it how they see it.  they even conceded a few points to me and although they did not win me over, they did make me understand their line of thinking better.  i love frequenting fringe subs and engaging their respective communities and i love how reddit gives me the opportunity to find any line of thinking.  currently in this election, i am enjoying reading the top posts of the subreddits devoted to the various candidates.  i liked coontown being a part of reddit as i like every ideologically extreme sub.  if reddit admins really wanted to get rid of the depraved shit on here, they would have taken down r/sexyabortions way sooner than r/coontown.  if we get rid of the fringe ideas on reddit, we lose something great about it.   #  and while i will take your word that they were not all  irrational people following racist dogmas , from my quick review of voat there were plenty of contributors who exactly fit that description.   #  i would have no problem in a sub like,  r/theblackproblem  existing.  sure, discuss openly your beliefs that blacks need to be shipped to africa, or the secret jewish cabal running the world, or how women need to be dominated for their own good.  and while i will take your word that they were not all  irrational people following racist dogmas , from my quick review of voat there were plenty of contributors who exactly fit that description.  it is not the fringe ideas it is the posts that are dripping with dehumanizing hate.  and i am sure that reddit is trying to avoid a situation where one of these guys kills a black man, and brags about it on reddit, which i do not think is all that unlikely.  when you said:  they felt they finally had a place to be open about their prejudices and speak honestly about them i could not help thinking that that is the same way the anti semites who joined the nazi is in the 0 is felt.   yes, finally others who understand how the jews are the problem and need to be destroyed .
if any of you frequent /r/badhistory, there is a rather infamous chart URL that captures a popular perception of the middle ages as a  dark age  that retarded scientific progress by over 0,0 years.  this perception is incorrect but is still commonplace.  i believe that the bush years will be viewed similarly by future generations for the following reasons: the much disputed election in florida was a huge challenge to the world is second largest democracy.  having the supreme court effectively appoint a president upon party lines significantly hurt faith in the us political process and led to the polarization that has led to the do nothing congresses of 0 0 and 0 .  bush is decision to go to war in iraq eroded the brief period of global consensus that saw countries from iran to russia united in sympathy with the usa against al qaeda.  i am not saying we would be at world peace thereafter, but we could have taken advantage of that unity to seriously reduce international conflict.  climate change.  need i say more ? the bush years saw inaction on global climate change that has endangered every country on earth.  imperialism.  the expansion of the war on terror to iraq and other groups was correlated with a rise of police militarization in the us and espionage globally and led to the installation of treasonous quisling governments around europe.  economic instability.  the 0 housing bubble heavily concentrated in, you guessed it, florida triggered a global financial crisis that the world has yet to recover from.  the progress that the world is 0, overwhelmingly located in developing countries like china and india, made during the 0s has almost completely been reversed URL by this fucking crisis.  global equity markets are now as us centric URL as they have ever been since at least the eighties, meaning that  the rise of the rest  has been an utter illusion.  erosion in quality of living.  in addition to the phony  development  of countries like china and india, western countries have seen a large absolute drop in well being due to the financial crisis of the bush years, a drop which treaties like tpp and ttip may well enshrine into law.  tl;dr: if the world is a dystopia in 0, george w.  bush will be rightfully or not blamed.   #  the much disputed election in florida was a huge challenge to the world is second largest democracy.   #  having the supreme court effectively appoint a president upon party lines significantly hurt faith in the us political process and led to the polarization that has led to the do nothing congresses of 0 0 and 0 .   # having the supreme court effectively appoint a president upon party lines significantly hurt faith in the us political process and led to the polarization that has led to the do nothing congresses of 0 0 and 0 .  different methods of counting ballots led to different results.  the methods originally used by the state of florida, the one proposed by al gore is campaign in his lawsuit, and the one used by the supreme court all tallied gwb as victor.  the one proposed by the florida state supreme court had al gore winning.  i think a newspaper sponsored recount after the fact with another, different set of standards also found that al gore got more votes.  basically, it was a tie, and it turns out in that case the supreme court is the tiebreaker.  i am not saying we would be at world peace thereafter, but we could have taken advantage of that unity to seriously reduce international conflict.  how ? when has something like that ever happened ? in reality, there was a large body of international opinion that the us should not even go into afghanistan after al queda.  many foreign governments were on board with it, but their peoples were not.  if we would never gone into iraq all the same people would still hate us.  need i say more ? the bush years saw inaction on global climate change that has endangered every country on earth.  do you seriously think obama has made any serious progress on global climate change ? how about clinton ? if the us quit using coal tomorrow it would have no practical effect on climate change.  you need an international consensus and, obviously, electing obama had no effect on that.  the expansion of the war on terror to iraq and other groups was correlated with a rise of police militarization in the us and espionage globally correlation is not causation.  and if our espionage had been better we would never have gone to war in iraq in the first place.  .  what in the world are you talking about ? the 0 housing bubble heavily concentrated in, you guessed it, florida triggered a global financial crisis that the world has yet to recover from.  guess who forced mortgage giants to start using subprime mortgages in the first place ? guess who kept fannie mae and freddie mac from being audited in 0 ? guess who is decided to still keep them alive today ? in all three cases, it was democrats, not gwb.  i do not understand how  share of global wealth  is a good way to look at well being.  a better measure is how many people worldwide are actually living in poverty, and there are fewer and fewer of them URL  #  are you connecting these thoughts in the real world, or is just rampant speculation ?  #  we would probably be well on the way to post scarcity and world peace.  instead, we have got the prequel to shadowrun.  says someone speculating on the internet.  you have zero knowledge if that statement is correct or not.  post scarcity might be a neo myth for all we know.  we certainly would not be a single president away from it.  are you connecting these thoughts in the real world, or is just rampant speculation ?  #  well first off, this was true of the united states both before and after the bush years, so the 0s are nothing special.   # again, that is us centric.  that is also a complete lie.  the list started in 0 and i refuse to believe that we would not have scored this non peacefully in the past century.  the 0s are one of multiple violent times for the u. s.  and one of the least for the world.  in the west, it ended the v0 year great moderation of macroeconomic stability.  what ? there have been economic crises in the past 0 years.  this may be the deepest one since the depression but calling the late 0s  macroeconomic stability  is pushing it.  and if we step outside the west for a bit, you will see another similarly devastating crisis hit asia in the late 0s and affected way more people.  president bush caused humanity to miss its best shot at containing the problem.  well first off, this was true of the united states both before and after the bush years, so the 0s are nothing special.  secondly, president bush was not president of the world.  china did not do much at the time either and that was not president bush is fault.   #  additionally, the law initially passed in the 0 is, with significant changes occurring under both clinton and bush.   #  eh, there is a lot of debate over the cra is role in the financial crisis.  additionally, the law initially passed in the 0 is, with significant changes occurring under both clinton and bush.  going further, i do not know if we can easily distinguish whether the act  forced  banks into subprime lending, or just made it possible/easier.  lending institutions have proven to be all too eager to make shitty loans and sell them off before they go bad in the past.  a lot of people wanted to pin the crisis on the repeal of glass steagall too, but i do not think you can boil down something that complex to a single cause.   #  i doubt historians will blame bush for longstanding trends and things which are not his fault.   #  URL congress enacted lots of things in recent years, there was no do nothing congress.  i am not saying we would be at world peace thereafter, but we could have taken advantage of that unity to seriously reduce international conflict.  it is not like america and russia are at war.  there is not serious international conflict between them.  bush wo not be blamed for a non existence usa russia war.  i would say obama is more likely to be blamed.  he is annoyed china a lot.  URL URL while bush was much more of a diplomat, and remained popular in china.  URL china is picking lots of little fights with people around them, including nuclear capable powers like japan, and i think if anyone is blamed, obama is much more likely to be the one who was blamed, for dropping the ball with china.  he is a rather terrible diplomat.  on climate change.  URL i imagine a lot of presidents will be blamed.  few leaders really want to say no to businesses.  URL militarization of police has been proceeding since the 0s and the great depression.  on the housing bubble.  URL that started in the 0s.  on real wages in the usa.  URL it is gotten slightly better in recent years, though not much.  this has been a long standing trend.  i doubt historians will blame bush for longstanding trends and things which are not his fault.
if any of you frequent /r/badhistory, there is a rather infamous chart URL that captures a popular perception of the middle ages as a  dark age  that retarded scientific progress by over 0,0 years.  this perception is incorrect but is still commonplace.  i believe that the bush years will be viewed similarly by future generations for the following reasons: the much disputed election in florida was a huge challenge to the world is second largest democracy.  having the supreme court effectively appoint a president upon party lines significantly hurt faith in the us political process and led to the polarization that has led to the do nothing congresses of 0 0 and 0 .  bush is decision to go to war in iraq eroded the brief period of global consensus that saw countries from iran to russia united in sympathy with the usa against al qaeda.  i am not saying we would be at world peace thereafter, but we could have taken advantage of that unity to seriously reduce international conflict.  climate change.  need i say more ? the bush years saw inaction on global climate change that has endangered every country on earth.  imperialism.  the expansion of the war on terror to iraq and other groups was correlated with a rise of police militarization in the us and espionage globally and led to the installation of treasonous quisling governments around europe.  economic instability.  the 0 housing bubble heavily concentrated in, you guessed it, florida triggered a global financial crisis that the world has yet to recover from.  the progress that the world is 0, overwhelmingly located in developing countries like china and india, made during the 0s has almost completely been reversed URL by this fucking crisis.  global equity markets are now as us centric URL as they have ever been since at least the eighties, meaning that  the rise of the rest  has been an utter illusion.  erosion in quality of living.  in addition to the phony  development  of countries like china and india, western countries have seen a large absolute drop in well being due to the financial crisis of the bush years, a drop which treaties like tpp and ttip may well enshrine into law.  tl;dr: if the world is a dystopia in 0, george w.  bush will be rightfully or not blamed.   #  bush is decision to go to war in iraq eroded the brief period of global consensus that saw countries from iran to russia united in sympathy with the usa against al qaeda.   #  i am not saying we would be at world peace thereafter, but we could have taken advantage of that unity to seriously reduce international conflict.   # having the supreme court effectively appoint a president upon party lines significantly hurt faith in the us political process and led to the polarization that has led to the do nothing congresses of 0 0 and 0 .  different methods of counting ballots led to different results.  the methods originally used by the state of florida, the one proposed by al gore is campaign in his lawsuit, and the one used by the supreme court all tallied gwb as victor.  the one proposed by the florida state supreme court had al gore winning.  i think a newspaper sponsored recount after the fact with another, different set of standards also found that al gore got more votes.  basically, it was a tie, and it turns out in that case the supreme court is the tiebreaker.  i am not saying we would be at world peace thereafter, but we could have taken advantage of that unity to seriously reduce international conflict.  how ? when has something like that ever happened ? in reality, there was a large body of international opinion that the us should not even go into afghanistan after al queda.  many foreign governments were on board with it, but their peoples were not.  if we would never gone into iraq all the same people would still hate us.  need i say more ? the bush years saw inaction on global climate change that has endangered every country on earth.  do you seriously think obama has made any serious progress on global climate change ? how about clinton ? if the us quit using coal tomorrow it would have no practical effect on climate change.  you need an international consensus and, obviously, electing obama had no effect on that.  the expansion of the war on terror to iraq and other groups was correlated with a rise of police militarization in the us and espionage globally correlation is not causation.  and if our espionage had been better we would never have gone to war in iraq in the first place.  .  what in the world are you talking about ? the 0 housing bubble heavily concentrated in, you guessed it, florida triggered a global financial crisis that the world has yet to recover from.  guess who forced mortgage giants to start using subprime mortgages in the first place ? guess who kept fannie mae and freddie mac from being audited in 0 ? guess who is decided to still keep them alive today ? in all three cases, it was democrats, not gwb.  i do not understand how  share of global wealth  is a good way to look at well being.  a better measure is how many people worldwide are actually living in poverty, and there are fewer and fewer of them URL  #  are you connecting these thoughts in the real world, or is just rampant speculation ?  #  we would probably be well on the way to post scarcity and world peace.  instead, we have got the prequel to shadowrun.  says someone speculating on the internet.  you have zero knowledge if that statement is correct or not.  post scarcity might be a neo myth for all we know.  we certainly would not be a single president away from it.  are you connecting these thoughts in the real world, or is just rampant speculation ?  #  and if we step outside the west for a bit, you will see another similarly devastating crisis hit asia in the late 0s and affected way more people.   # again, that is us centric.  that is also a complete lie.  the list started in 0 and i refuse to believe that we would not have scored this non peacefully in the past century.  the 0s are one of multiple violent times for the u. s.  and one of the least for the world.  in the west, it ended the v0 year great moderation of macroeconomic stability.  what ? there have been economic crises in the past 0 years.  this may be the deepest one since the depression but calling the late 0s  macroeconomic stability  is pushing it.  and if we step outside the west for a bit, you will see another similarly devastating crisis hit asia in the late 0s and affected way more people.  president bush caused humanity to miss its best shot at containing the problem.  well first off, this was true of the united states both before and after the bush years, so the 0s are nothing special.  secondly, president bush was not president of the world.  china did not do much at the time either and that was not president bush is fault.   #  additionally, the law initially passed in the 0 is, with significant changes occurring under both clinton and bush.   #  eh, there is a lot of debate over the cra is role in the financial crisis.  additionally, the law initially passed in the 0 is, with significant changes occurring under both clinton and bush.  going further, i do not know if we can easily distinguish whether the act  forced  banks into subprime lending, or just made it possible/easier.  lending institutions have proven to be all too eager to make shitty loans and sell them off before they go bad in the past.  a lot of people wanted to pin the crisis on the repeal of glass steagall too, but i do not think you can boil down something that complex to a single cause.   #  URL militarization of police has been proceeding since the 0s and the great depression.   #  URL congress enacted lots of things in recent years, there was no do nothing congress.  i am not saying we would be at world peace thereafter, but we could have taken advantage of that unity to seriously reduce international conflict.  it is not like america and russia are at war.  there is not serious international conflict between them.  bush wo not be blamed for a non existence usa russia war.  i would say obama is more likely to be blamed.  he is annoyed china a lot.  URL URL while bush was much more of a diplomat, and remained popular in china.  URL china is picking lots of little fights with people around them, including nuclear capable powers like japan, and i think if anyone is blamed, obama is much more likely to be the one who was blamed, for dropping the ball with china.  he is a rather terrible diplomat.  on climate change.  URL i imagine a lot of presidents will be blamed.  few leaders really want to say no to businesses.  URL militarization of police has been proceeding since the 0s and the great depression.  on the housing bubble.  URL that started in the 0s.  on real wages in the usa.  URL it is gotten slightly better in recent years, though not much.  this has been a long standing trend.  i doubt historians will blame bush for longstanding trends and things which are not his fault.
when arguing whether or not abortions are immoral, the arguments often ultimately ends up being about wether or not the fetus can be classified as a person with all the rights that comes with this classification .  however this is not the topic of this post, in this post, for the sake of arguing, we are going to assume that a fetus can be classified as a person, and therefore also possess all the rights of a person.  wether or not it is moral for a women to carry out an abortion under those premises is also a separate discussion.  in this post i solely want a discussion of the ethical implications of a societal ban of abortions and how this compares to forced organ transplants.  the arguments of pro life supporters usually goes along these patterns please correct my if i´m wrong : a fetus has the same rights as every other person, and therefore also has the rights of protection of the law.  given the premise of fetuses having human rights, this is quite unarguable.  the problem, however, comes with the fetus being absolutely defendant on the mother.  the mother can, through pills and other actions, at an early stage of the pregnancy abort the child, solely trough afecting her own body.  even though the argument sort of holds even through a late term abortion, i want to focus on the point in time wich the mother only needs to stop supporting by changing the ways of her own body the baby for it too die, and not actively scraping it out of the womb.  so during these circumstances is it moral for a society/state to force the women to go through with the pregnancy ? is forcing a person to actively supporting another life with small, but still risk of her own ? is this the equivalent of forcing one person to transplant their liver with small but still exiting risk of their own too save another person ? ore will not supporting the fetus be the moral equivalent of letting a born baby starve to death ? help my ignorance reddit, but remember the premises  #  so during these circumstances is it moral for a society/state to force the women to go through with the pregnancy ?  #  i think it is also important to note that pro lifers do not see this as  forcing  women to go through with pregnancy.   # honestly, it seems like you already understand the pro life argument, you just do not agree with it.  that is okay.  the thing about the whole pro choice vs pro life argument is that each side is arguing about something completely different.  of course pro lifers care about choice.  but to them, killing a baby is literally killing a person.  if you honestly believed that a fetus was a human as you or i, would not you be pro life too ? my guess is that a pro life person would see the situation more like this: you have a pair of conjoined twins.  if you cut them in half, only one will survive.  one of them is tired of being inconvenienced, so he decides to separate from his twin which will end up killing his twin stating that  it is my body, i can do what i want .  the other twin has no say.  how is this fair ? it is not just  your body , it is somebody elses body too.  why should not they have any say in what happens to them ? how is it fair for someone to kill you, just because you are an inconvenience to them ? it is just another way of looking at things.  i think it is also important to note that pro lifers do not see this as  forcing  women to go through with pregnancy.  the pregnancy is happening.  women do not have to make an active effort to remain pregnant.  the only way to stop it is to actually intervene.  this  is an active effort you seem to make the argument that the woman simply has to change her lifestyle to get rid of it, but that is not really true.  some mothers smoke, drink, and do drugs, and the baby is still born.  taking a pill to abort a child is not simply a passive change in lifestyle, it is a deliberate action taken.   #  this creature, as a larva, acts much like a leech, sticking itself onto a host and consuming some amount of the host is blood.   #  basically what you are arguing though is a weird variant of the appeal to nature; naturally if we were not getting doctor is visits, the baby might die anyway, or  the baby  might die, so if it is the natural state that the fetus stays in utero and may or may not die, why do we prefer one deviation from nature taking steps to make sure that the fetus becomes viable and becomes a neonate to the other taking steps to ensure that the fetus does  not  become viable, and never makes it to a neonate ? the real difference is that we have different definitions of what a  person  is; the  pro life  side defines it as being the moment of conception, while the  pro choice  side defines it as being sometime after conception but before the third trimester begins after that the baby can be removed from the womb and still survive, albeit with difficulty .  i want to posit this case: suppose we discover a race of creature with a unique physiology.  this creature, as a larva, acts much like a leech, sticking itself onto a host and consuming some amount of the host is blood.  this blood loss is not enough to eventually kill, but it can make you weak and sick for the time that it is latched on.  unlike a conventional leech, after it gets removed from its host, it can no longer attach to another host, and will wither and die.  however, after a certain gestation period, if left on a host, it grows into something that is vaguely hominid, and if given proper care after it detaches from the host it will grow into a sapient hominid.  would it be unethical to remove that creature when it latched on to you, before it showed signs of becoming anything other than a drain on your system ?  #  if we truly believe in abortion as a legal institution we should not be afraid to come to terms with what is happening.   # under this logic a person who requires a breathing apparatus to survive would not be human life.  its an overinclusive definition.  but that does not mean we should turn a blind eye to what is occurring.  it is murder of human life.  plain and simple.  no two ways about it.  if we truly believe in abortion as a legal institution we should not be afraid to come to terms with what is happening.  none of this sugar coating bullshit.  i suspect people are uncomfortable with reality so they could up with any logical contrivances they can muster in order to avoid the truth.  look up the difference between specific intent and general intent.  there was the general intent to engage in sexual activities that could lead to pregnancy even absent the specific intent to conceive a child.  ethics is an inherently subjective field.  there is no  standard .  instead, its just opinion.   #   just opinion ; gender roles are subjective and subject to change based on individual perception and societal expectations, but that does not make their impact any less real.   # plain and simple.  no two ways about it no, it is not.  it has not yet experienced sapience or even sentience; it has no awareness, it does not even have a sex that we can determine yet, in most cases.  these are traits that define humans.  the fact is that we disagree on what makes a human.  i am using shorthands which you are picking apart, but the ethical protections for murder and the like go towards beings with sapience and awareness, such that they are aware of their own actions and the fact that their actions have consequences.  look up the difference between specific intent and general intent.  there was the general intent to engage in sexual activities that could lead to pregnancy even absent the specific intent to conceive a child.  insert  guess we should not fix legs broken when skydiving  argument here .  seriously, add in a clause that these parasites only ever attach to you when you are doing some other activity that is fun in its own right, and we are back on track.  there is no  standard .  instead, its just opinion.  subjective !  just opinion ; gender roles are subjective and subject to change based on individual perception and societal expectations, but that does not make their impact any less real.   #  in a way, it is the classic trolley problem, if the trolley is going to crash killing the mother, and you can divert it to kill a random person, do you do it ?  #  that really does seem to be a much closer representation.  sure, it is still your liver, but you took action that caused you to give it up.  and even then, at least in pregnancy you would get it back.  there is a big difference between abortion and the op is analogy because one constitutes taking action with a certain result, the other is not taking action.  in a way, it is the classic trolley problem, if the trolley is going to crash killing the mother, and you can divert it to kill a random person, do you do it ? sure, someone will die either way, but one is while you are passive, the other you become active in the scenario.  there is an argument that by becoming active in the scenario, you then bear the responsibility, even if you think that is the right decision.  hopefully the connection makes sense, with the action/inaction thing.  if someone is going to die if you do not help them, that is different from when someone will die if you take a certain action.  the point is, there is a difference between being active and passive, the same difference between assisted suicide and a dnr.  one is ok, the other is not, or at least so says  society .
first, i make the assumption that there is a very large intersection between people complaining about cecil the lion is death, and people who eat meat.  given the prevalence of meat consumption in the u. s. , and the popularity of the outrage toward the incident, i think this is a reasonable assumption.  keeping that in mind, here are my arguments, in order of importance.   0   cecil was 0 years old.  males rarely even live to this age in the wild, so it was very likely that he would have soon been killed by another lion, had he been left alone.  therefore, the damage done to the species is negligible.   0   meat production necessitates production of methane, which is  0 times more more potent  URL than co0 at warming the earth.  beef and lamb and other ruminants are  very  high producers of methane, and animal agriculture is responsible for 0 of methane emissions in the u. s.  ruminant meat production beef, lamb, bison, goat, etc.  also emits an extremely large amount of co0 URL which is the most familiar greenhouse gas in popular discourse.  even pork and chicken emit 0 and 0 times, respectively, as much co0 as vegetarian protein options.  meat is unnecessary for a healthy diet, and there is a lot of evidence that cutting out red meat the meats which make up the lion is share, pun intended, of greenhouse gas emissions is actually beneficial to human health.  there is also growing evidence that methionine restriction is beneficial to humans.  all animal proteins from mammals and birds are high in methionine, plant proteins are low in it.  by eating meat on a regular basis, particularly red meat, one directly exacerbates global warming, which would not only severely threaten the lion population, but also most complex life on earth.   0   meat production also takes up far more space per calorie and per unit protein than plant production.  this means that native wild fauna are prevented from returning to their natural habitat, and if demand for meat rises, that they are also further pushed out of any remaining habitat they have.   0   the dentist who shot the lion paid $0,0 to have that privilege.  the gdp per head in zimbabwe is about $0, so his actions put 0 people is annual salaries into the country.   in summary:  the lion was old, and had little value to the species.  eating meat severely endangers all life on earth.  eating meat also means further destruction of wild animals  habitats for pasture land.  the dentist also brought a large sum of money into the local economy in order to shoot the lion.  therefore, anyone who is morally outraged about cecil the lion is death and also eats meat regularly, particularly beef/lamb, is a hypocrite.  thus, the majority of the outrage comes from a place of emotion discrimination , and is not morally justified.   #  the dentist who shot the lion paid $0,0 to have that privilege.   #  the gdp per head in zimbabwe is about $0, so his actions put 0 people is annual salaries into the country.   # the gdp per head in zimbabwe is about $0, so his actions put 0 people is annual salaries into the country.  the dentist did not pay the government of zimbabwe $0,0 to hunt a lion.  palmer paid the money to a private party, and all evidence points to the hunt itself being illegal and, thus, the lion was poached.  the outcry is less that palmer killed a lion.  it is that he did so illegally and immorally, both through poaching and through luring a lion off protected lands to more easily kill it.   #  your eating meat comments have really nothing to do with this issue because lions and their population have nothing really do with domesticated animals.   #  your eating meat comments have really nothing to do with this issue because lions and their population have nothing really do with domesticated animals.  there are 0 thousand wild lions in the world there 0 billion cows.  you trying to make a comparison between one dead lion and the consumption of meat is the false comparison.  you are clearly trying to combine the idea that wanting a wild lion to live and eating meat is the same because you get to your idea that global warming is bad only after you go through the vegetarian playlist on why eating meat is bad.  but cow are cows and wild lions are lions and they really do not have much to connect the two unless you want to go out of your way to make that connection.  your economic idea is even a bit odd.  he did pay 0k.  do you really think that that money was properly distributed ? or, do you think a few people made off with a substantial sum of that money ? i can be upset with a lion that was a figurehead for wild lions and not really give a shit about a cow because there is a massive difference between wild lions of which there is only 0 to 0 thousand alive and domesticated animals.  a domesticated cow is not the same as a wild lion.   #  these kinds of views are often difficult to argue here.   #  note:  your thread has  not  been removed.  your post is topic seems to be about a  double standard .  these kinds of views are often difficult to argue here.  please see our wiki page URL about this kind of view and make sure that your submission follows these guidelines.  regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.  i am a bot, and this action was performed automatically.  please contact the moderators of this subreddit /message/compose/ ? to /r/changemyview if you have any questions or concerns.   #  as others have pointed out, they are not comparable.   # as others have pointed out, they are not comparable.  domesticated meat animals are not endangered.  males rarely even live to this age in the wild, so it was very likely that he would have soon been killed by another lion, had he been left alone.  therefore, the damage done to the species is negligible.  even if it is true, that is an accident.  the poachers were not scientists qualified to determine that.  it is like if i went and fired a gun downtown and randomly killed a guy who was a wanted fugitive and mass murderer.  that does not justify my action of firing a gun into a crowd.  i do partially agree with you, the reaction was emotional and out of proportion.  but i do not think it was completely unwarranted, as you seem to imply with your four points.  certainly i do not think that you would have to be a vegetarian in order to be outraged about it, or at least more bothered than you are walking through the meat aisle at the supermarket.   #  0.  same as above, no idea what you are on about when it comes to shooting cecil.   #  0.  completely irrelevant, or are you suggesting it would be fine to murder your grandfather merely because he is 0 and more susceptible to violence and disease ? 0.  i have absolutely no idea how this paragraph is relevant to the matter at hand, but given some of the ideas you discussed i think it is best to not address it.  0.  same as above, no idea what you are on about when it comes to shooting cecil.  meat production and lions are two separate chapters.  0.  again completely irrelevant.  what exactly are you even suggesting here ? is it that any one amount of money could ever be enough to excuse an action of being deemed as wrong ? and what on earth is the relationship between this money and the national gdp or rather, what exactly do you think has happened to this money, and do you think it was put to any national interest ? what does it matter if  0 people is annual salaries  were put into the country if they went into the pockets of a single company who, by the way, harmed the local economy by orders of magntiude through the shooting of cecil versus monetizing the tourism he drew ?
first, i make the assumption that there is a very large intersection between people complaining about cecil the lion is death, and people who eat meat.  given the prevalence of meat consumption in the u. s. , and the popularity of the outrage toward the incident, i think this is a reasonable assumption.  keeping that in mind, here are my arguments, in order of importance.   0   cecil was 0 years old.  males rarely even live to this age in the wild, so it was very likely that he would have soon been killed by another lion, had he been left alone.  therefore, the damage done to the species is negligible.   0   meat production necessitates production of methane, which is  0 times more more potent  URL than co0 at warming the earth.  beef and lamb and other ruminants are  very  high producers of methane, and animal agriculture is responsible for 0 of methane emissions in the u. s.  ruminant meat production beef, lamb, bison, goat, etc.  also emits an extremely large amount of co0 URL which is the most familiar greenhouse gas in popular discourse.  even pork and chicken emit 0 and 0 times, respectively, as much co0 as vegetarian protein options.  meat is unnecessary for a healthy diet, and there is a lot of evidence that cutting out red meat the meats which make up the lion is share, pun intended, of greenhouse gas emissions is actually beneficial to human health.  there is also growing evidence that methionine restriction is beneficial to humans.  all animal proteins from mammals and birds are high in methionine, plant proteins are low in it.  by eating meat on a regular basis, particularly red meat, one directly exacerbates global warming, which would not only severely threaten the lion population, but also most complex life on earth.   0   meat production also takes up far more space per calorie and per unit protein than plant production.  this means that native wild fauna are prevented from returning to their natural habitat, and if demand for meat rises, that they are also further pushed out of any remaining habitat they have.   0   the dentist who shot the lion paid $0,0 to have that privilege.  the gdp per head in zimbabwe is about $0, so his actions put 0 people is annual salaries into the country.   in summary:  the lion was old, and had little value to the species.  eating meat severely endangers all life on earth.  eating meat also means further destruction of wild animals  habitats for pasture land.  the dentist also brought a large sum of money into the local economy in order to shoot the lion.  therefore, anyone who is morally outraged about cecil the lion is death and also eats meat regularly, particularly beef/lamb, is a hypocrite.  thus, the majority of the outrage comes from a place of emotion discrimination , and is not morally justified.   #  by eating meat on a regular basis, particularly red meat, one directly exacerbates global warming, which would not only severely threaten the lion population, but also most complex life on earth.   #  you only exacerbate global warming if you eat  farmed  meat and a particular kind .   # males rarely even live to this age in the wild, so it was very likely that he would have soon been killed by another lion, had he been left alone.  therefore, the damage done to the species is negligible.  then again, all of cecil is offspring would be killed so that the new alpha could reproduce without competition.  had cecil lived longer, perhaps the offspring would be older and more able to defend themselves.  you only exacerbate global warming if you eat  farmed  meat and a particular kind .  if you hunt and eat wild deer, you are not contributing to global warming.  what about meat like chicken ? we are not hurting for space, so this is not an issue.  some land is not good enough for farming, but is perfect for grazing.  it is not like all land could be converted to farmed food for humans; it can do both.  the gdp per head in zimbabwe is about $0, so his actions put 0 people is annual salaries into the country.  that money was certainly welcome in the area, but the issue is over whether or not it is an appropriate money making venture.  they are selling the ability to kill a threatened species for sport.  the carcass may be put to good use, but the hunter is doing this strictly for vanity.  should we sell the opportunity to take life for vanity ? i do not think we should.   #  you trying to make a comparison between one dead lion and the consumption of meat is the false comparison.   #  your eating meat comments have really nothing to do with this issue because lions and their population have nothing really do with domesticated animals.  there are 0 thousand wild lions in the world there 0 billion cows.  you trying to make a comparison between one dead lion and the consumption of meat is the false comparison.  you are clearly trying to combine the idea that wanting a wild lion to live and eating meat is the same because you get to your idea that global warming is bad only after you go through the vegetarian playlist on why eating meat is bad.  but cow are cows and wild lions are lions and they really do not have much to connect the two unless you want to go out of your way to make that connection.  your economic idea is even a bit odd.  he did pay 0k.  do you really think that that money was properly distributed ? or, do you think a few people made off with a substantial sum of that money ? i can be upset with a lion that was a figurehead for wild lions and not really give a shit about a cow because there is a massive difference between wild lions of which there is only 0 to 0 thousand alive and domesticated animals.  a domesticated cow is not the same as a wild lion.   #  your post is topic seems to be about a  double standard .   #  note:  your thread has  not  been removed.  your post is topic seems to be about a  double standard .  these kinds of views are often difficult to argue here.  please see our wiki page URL about this kind of view and make sure that your submission follows these guidelines.  regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.  i am a bot, and this action was performed automatically.  please contact the moderators of this subreddit /message/compose/ ? to /r/changemyview if you have any questions or concerns.   #  as others have pointed out, they are not comparable.   # as others have pointed out, they are not comparable.  domesticated meat animals are not endangered.  males rarely even live to this age in the wild, so it was very likely that he would have soon been killed by another lion, had he been left alone.  therefore, the damage done to the species is negligible.  even if it is true, that is an accident.  the poachers were not scientists qualified to determine that.  it is like if i went and fired a gun downtown and randomly killed a guy who was a wanted fugitive and mass murderer.  that does not justify my action of firing a gun into a crowd.  i do partially agree with you, the reaction was emotional and out of proportion.  but i do not think it was completely unwarranted, as you seem to imply with your four points.  certainly i do not think that you would have to be a vegetarian in order to be outraged about it, or at least more bothered than you are walking through the meat aisle at the supermarket.   #  and what on earth is the relationship between this money and the national gdp or rather, what exactly do you think has happened to this money, and do you think it was put to any national interest ?  #  0.  completely irrelevant, or are you suggesting it would be fine to murder your grandfather merely because he is 0 and more susceptible to violence and disease ? 0.  i have absolutely no idea how this paragraph is relevant to the matter at hand, but given some of the ideas you discussed i think it is best to not address it.  0.  same as above, no idea what you are on about when it comes to shooting cecil.  meat production and lions are two separate chapters.  0.  again completely irrelevant.  what exactly are you even suggesting here ? is it that any one amount of money could ever be enough to excuse an action of being deemed as wrong ? and what on earth is the relationship between this money and the national gdp or rather, what exactly do you think has happened to this money, and do you think it was put to any national interest ? what does it matter if  0 people is annual salaries  were put into the country if they went into the pockets of a single company who, by the way, harmed the local economy by orders of magntiude through the shooting of cecil versus monetizing the tourism he drew ?
first, i make the assumption that there is a very large intersection between people complaining about cecil the lion is death, and people who eat meat.  given the prevalence of meat consumption in the u. s. , and the popularity of the outrage toward the incident, i think this is a reasonable assumption.  keeping that in mind, here are my arguments, in order of importance.   0   cecil was 0 years old.  males rarely even live to this age in the wild, so it was very likely that he would have soon been killed by another lion, had he been left alone.  therefore, the damage done to the species is negligible.   0   meat production necessitates production of methane, which is  0 times more more potent  URL than co0 at warming the earth.  beef and lamb and other ruminants are  very  high producers of methane, and animal agriculture is responsible for 0 of methane emissions in the u. s.  ruminant meat production beef, lamb, bison, goat, etc.  also emits an extremely large amount of co0 URL which is the most familiar greenhouse gas in popular discourse.  even pork and chicken emit 0 and 0 times, respectively, as much co0 as vegetarian protein options.  meat is unnecessary for a healthy diet, and there is a lot of evidence that cutting out red meat the meats which make up the lion is share, pun intended, of greenhouse gas emissions is actually beneficial to human health.  there is also growing evidence that methionine restriction is beneficial to humans.  all animal proteins from mammals and birds are high in methionine, plant proteins are low in it.  by eating meat on a regular basis, particularly red meat, one directly exacerbates global warming, which would not only severely threaten the lion population, but also most complex life on earth.   0   meat production also takes up far more space per calorie and per unit protein than plant production.  this means that native wild fauna are prevented from returning to their natural habitat, and if demand for meat rises, that they are also further pushed out of any remaining habitat they have.   0   the dentist who shot the lion paid $0,0 to have that privilege.  the gdp per head in zimbabwe is about $0, so his actions put 0 people is annual salaries into the country.   in summary:  the lion was old, and had little value to the species.  eating meat severely endangers all life on earth.  eating meat also means further destruction of wild animals  habitats for pasture land.  the dentist also brought a large sum of money into the local economy in order to shoot the lion.  therefore, anyone who is morally outraged about cecil the lion is death and also eats meat regularly, particularly beef/lamb, is a hypocrite.  thus, the majority of the outrage comes from a place of emotion discrimination , and is not morally justified.   #  meat production also takes up far more space per calorie and per unit protein than plant production.   #  we are not hurting for space, so this is not an issue.   # males rarely even live to this age in the wild, so it was very likely that he would have soon been killed by another lion, had he been left alone.  therefore, the damage done to the species is negligible.  then again, all of cecil is offspring would be killed so that the new alpha could reproduce without competition.  had cecil lived longer, perhaps the offspring would be older and more able to defend themselves.  you only exacerbate global warming if you eat  farmed  meat and a particular kind .  if you hunt and eat wild deer, you are not contributing to global warming.  what about meat like chicken ? we are not hurting for space, so this is not an issue.  some land is not good enough for farming, but is perfect for grazing.  it is not like all land could be converted to farmed food for humans; it can do both.  the gdp per head in zimbabwe is about $0, so his actions put 0 people is annual salaries into the country.  that money was certainly welcome in the area, but the issue is over whether or not it is an appropriate money making venture.  they are selling the ability to kill a threatened species for sport.  the carcass may be put to good use, but the hunter is doing this strictly for vanity.  should we sell the opportunity to take life for vanity ? i do not think we should.   #  your eating meat comments have really nothing to do with this issue because lions and their population have nothing really do with domesticated animals.   #  your eating meat comments have really nothing to do with this issue because lions and their population have nothing really do with domesticated animals.  there are 0 thousand wild lions in the world there 0 billion cows.  you trying to make a comparison between one dead lion and the consumption of meat is the false comparison.  you are clearly trying to combine the idea that wanting a wild lion to live and eating meat is the same because you get to your idea that global warming is bad only after you go through the vegetarian playlist on why eating meat is bad.  but cow are cows and wild lions are lions and they really do not have much to connect the two unless you want to go out of your way to make that connection.  your economic idea is even a bit odd.  he did pay 0k.  do you really think that that money was properly distributed ? or, do you think a few people made off with a substantial sum of that money ? i can be upset with a lion that was a figurehead for wild lions and not really give a shit about a cow because there is a massive difference between wild lions of which there is only 0 to 0 thousand alive and domesticated animals.  a domesticated cow is not the same as a wild lion.   #  your post is topic seems to be about a  double standard .   #  note:  your thread has  not  been removed.  your post is topic seems to be about a  double standard .  these kinds of views are often difficult to argue here.  please see our wiki page URL about this kind of view and make sure that your submission follows these guidelines.  regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.  i am a bot, and this action was performed automatically.  please contact the moderators of this subreddit /message/compose/ ? to /r/changemyview if you have any questions or concerns.   #  certainly i do not think that you would have to be a vegetarian in order to be outraged about it, or at least more bothered than you are walking through the meat aisle at the supermarket.   # as others have pointed out, they are not comparable.  domesticated meat animals are not endangered.  males rarely even live to this age in the wild, so it was very likely that he would have soon been killed by another lion, had he been left alone.  therefore, the damage done to the species is negligible.  even if it is true, that is an accident.  the poachers were not scientists qualified to determine that.  it is like if i went and fired a gun downtown and randomly killed a guy who was a wanted fugitive and mass murderer.  that does not justify my action of firing a gun into a crowd.  i do partially agree with you, the reaction was emotional and out of proportion.  but i do not think it was completely unwarranted, as you seem to imply with your four points.  certainly i do not think that you would have to be a vegetarian in order to be outraged about it, or at least more bothered than you are walking through the meat aisle at the supermarket.   #  0.  same as above, no idea what you are on about when it comes to shooting cecil.   #  0.  completely irrelevant, or are you suggesting it would be fine to murder your grandfather merely because he is 0 and more susceptible to violence and disease ? 0.  i have absolutely no idea how this paragraph is relevant to the matter at hand, but given some of the ideas you discussed i think it is best to not address it.  0.  same as above, no idea what you are on about when it comes to shooting cecil.  meat production and lions are two separate chapters.  0.  again completely irrelevant.  what exactly are you even suggesting here ? is it that any one amount of money could ever be enough to excuse an action of being deemed as wrong ? and what on earth is the relationship between this money and the national gdp or rather, what exactly do you think has happened to this money, and do you think it was put to any national interest ? what does it matter if  0 people is annual salaries  were put into the country if they went into the pockets of a single company who, by the way, harmed the local economy by orders of magntiude through the shooting of cecil versus monetizing the tourism he drew ?
first, i make the assumption that there is a very large intersection between people complaining about cecil the lion is death, and people who eat meat.  given the prevalence of meat consumption in the u. s. , and the popularity of the outrage toward the incident, i think this is a reasonable assumption.  keeping that in mind, here are my arguments, in order of importance.   0   cecil was 0 years old.  males rarely even live to this age in the wild, so it was very likely that he would have soon been killed by another lion, had he been left alone.  therefore, the damage done to the species is negligible.   0   meat production necessitates production of methane, which is  0 times more more potent  URL than co0 at warming the earth.  beef and lamb and other ruminants are  very  high producers of methane, and animal agriculture is responsible for 0 of methane emissions in the u. s.  ruminant meat production beef, lamb, bison, goat, etc.  also emits an extremely large amount of co0 URL which is the most familiar greenhouse gas in popular discourse.  even pork and chicken emit 0 and 0 times, respectively, as much co0 as vegetarian protein options.  meat is unnecessary for a healthy diet, and there is a lot of evidence that cutting out red meat the meats which make up the lion is share, pun intended, of greenhouse gas emissions is actually beneficial to human health.  there is also growing evidence that methionine restriction is beneficial to humans.  all animal proteins from mammals and birds are high in methionine, plant proteins are low in it.  by eating meat on a regular basis, particularly red meat, one directly exacerbates global warming, which would not only severely threaten the lion population, but also most complex life on earth.   0   meat production also takes up far more space per calorie and per unit protein than plant production.  this means that native wild fauna are prevented from returning to their natural habitat, and if demand for meat rises, that they are also further pushed out of any remaining habitat they have.   0   the dentist who shot the lion paid $0,0 to have that privilege.  the gdp per head in zimbabwe is about $0, so his actions put 0 people is annual salaries into the country.   in summary:  the lion was old, and had little value to the species.  eating meat severely endangers all life on earth.  eating meat also means further destruction of wild animals  habitats for pasture land.  the dentist also brought a large sum of money into the local economy in order to shoot the lion.  therefore, anyone who is morally outraged about cecil the lion is death and also eats meat regularly, particularly beef/lamb, is a hypocrite.  thus, the majority of the outrage comes from a place of emotion discrimination , and is not morally justified.   #  the dentist who shot the lion paid $0,0 to have that privilege.   #  the gdp per head in zimbabwe is about $0, so his actions put 0 people is annual salaries into the country.   # males rarely even live to this age in the wild, so it was very likely that he would have soon been killed by another lion, had he been left alone.  therefore, the damage done to the species is negligible.  then again, all of cecil is offspring would be killed so that the new alpha could reproduce without competition.  had cecil lived longer, perhaps the offspring would be older and more able to defend themselves.  you only exacerbate global warming if you eat  farmed  meat and a particular kind .  if you hunt and eat wild deer, you are not contributing to global warming.  what about meat like chicken ? we are not hurting for space, so this is not an issue.  some land is not good enough for farming, but is perfect for grazing.  it is not like all land could be converted to farmed food for humans; it can do both.  the gdp per head in zimbabwe is about $0, so his actions put 0 people is annual salaries into the country.  that money was certainly welcome in the area, but the issue is over whether or not it is an appropriate money making venture.  they are selling the ability to kill a threatened species for sport.  the carcass may be put to good use, but the hunter is doing this strictly for vanity.  should we sell the opportunity to take life for vanity ? i do not think we should.   #  your eating meat comments have really nothing to do with this issue because lions and their population have nothing really do with domesticated animals.   #  your eating meat comments have really nothing to do with this issue because lions and their population have nothing really do with domesticated animals.  there are 0 thousand wild lions in the world there 0 billion cows.  you trying to make a comparison between one dead lion and the consumption of meat is the false comparison.  you are clearly trying to combine the idea that wanting a wild lion to live and eating meat is the same because you get to your idea that global warming is bad only after you go through the vegetarian playlist on why eating meat is bad.  but cow are cows and wild lions are lions and they really do not have much to connect the two unless you want to go out of your way to make that connection.  your economic idea is even a bit odd.  he did pay 0k.  do you really think that that money was properly distributed ? or, do you think a few people made off with a substantial sum of that money ? i can be upset with a lion that was a figurehead for wild lions and not really give a shit about a cow because there is a massive difference between wild lions of which there is only 0 to 0 thousand alive and domesticated animals.  a domesticated cow is not the same as a wild lion.   #  i am a bot, and this action was performed automatically.   #  note:  your thread has  not  been removed.  your post is topic seems to be about a  double standard .  these kinds of views are often difficult to argue here.  please see our wiki page URL about this kind of view and make sure that your submission follows these guidelines.  regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.  i am a bot, and this action was performed automatically.  please contact the moderators of this subreddit /message/compose/ ? to /r/changemyview if you have any questions or concerns.   #  that does not justify my action of firing a gun into a crowd.   # as others have pointed out, they are not comparable.  domesticated meat animals are not endangered.  males rarely even live to this age in the wild, so it was very likely that he would have soon been killed by another lion, had he been left alone.  therefore, the damage done to the species is negligible.  even if it is true, that is an accident.  the poachers were not scientists qualified to determine that.  it is like if i went and fired a gun downtown and randomly killed a guy who was a wanted fugitive and mass murderer.  that does not justify my action of firing a gun into a crowd.  i do partially agree with you, the reaction was emotional and out of proportion.  but i do not think it was completely unwarranted, as you seem to imply with your four points.  certainly i do not think that you would have to be a vegetarian in order to be outraged about it, or at least more bothered than you are walking through the meat aisle at the supermarket.   #  is it that any one amount of money could ever be enough to excuse an action of being deemed as wrong ?  #  0.  completely irrelevant, or are you suggesting it would be fine to murder your grandfather merely because he is 0 and more susceptible to violence and disease ? 0.  i have absolutely no idea how this paragraph is relevant to the matter at hand, but given some of the ideas you discussed i think it is best to not address it.  0.  same as above, no idea what you are on about when it comes to shooting cecil.  meat production and lions are two separate chapters.  0.  again completely irrelevant.  what exactly are you even suggesting here ? is it that any one amount of money could ever be enough to excuse an action of being deemed as wrong ? and what on earth is the relationship between this money and the national gdp or rather, what exactly do you think has happened to this money, and do you think it was put to any national interest ? what does it matter if  0 people is annual salaries  were put into the country if they went into the pockets of a single company who, by the way, harmed the local economy by orders of magntiude through the shooting of cecil versus monetizing the tourism he drew ?
there is a lot of people claiming to be agnostic atheists instead of atheists.  this might have to do with the hateful and condescending views of the vocal minority of atheists.  atheists claim to be agnostic atheists, as if being an agnostic atheist is better than being an atheist.  however, i think most if not all atheists are agnostic.  if we found undeniable evidence that god exists e. g.  he appears from the sky surrounded by golden light , then most atheists, agnostic or not, will believe that god exists.  in other words, atheists do not believe in god simply because there is not sufficient evidence.  no one is saying with 0 certainty that god does not exist.   #  if we found undeniable evidence that god exists e. g.   #  he appears from the sky surrounded by golden light , then most atheists, agnostic or not, will believe that god exists.   # he appears from the sky surrounded by golden light , then most atheists, agnostic or not, will believe that god exists.  by this logic,  everyone  is agnostic.  if vishnu descended from the sky and started performing irrefutable miracles, christians would convert, assuming they had the opportunity to closely inspect the evidence.  an atheists says,  there is no god.   this is a statement of belief, a specific claim about reality.  an agnostic says,  maybe there is a god.   this is not a strong declaration of belief.  it is a statement of uncertainty; a lack of specific belief.  either one would be convinced by a preponderance of evidence towards something they do not currently believe in.   #  an omnipotent god should be able to create a shield strong enough to withstand all spears, but he should also be able to create a spear to pierce all shields .   #  many atheists do say that god does not exist.  the ones i have sympathy with are not doing it on  there is no physical evidence  grounds but on  contradictions ca not exist !   grounds.  on logical grounds, the certainty one can have can be as absolute as any we have in mathematics.  for example, since the characteristic of  omnipotence  is a logical contradiction, it ca not have a real existence.  an omnipotent god should be able to create a shield strong enough to withstand all spears, but he should also be able to create a spear to pierce all shields .  so when an atheist says with knowledgeable certainty that god does not exist, he is referring to a certain type of god, and it is based on the definition of  characteristics  attributed to god.  such an atheist might very well hold out or be merely agnostic on a  thor  type of god who is simply using massively advanced technology that still obeys the laws of the universe/nature i. e.  non contradiction.   #  god cannot perform logical absurdities; he cannot, for instance, make 00 0.  likewise, god cannot make a being greater than himself because he is, by definition, the greatest possible being.   #  just a nit pick; from wikipedia:  the paradox assumes a wrong definition of omnipotence.  omnipotence, they say, does not mean that god can do anything at all but, rather, that he can do anything that is possible according to his nature.  the distinction is important.  god cannot perform logical absurdities; he cannot, for instance, make 00 0.  likewise, god cannot make a being greater than himself because he is, by definition, the greatest possible being.  god is limited in his actions to his nature.   you are correct that true omnipotence is impossible and a logical paradox, but there are many things that god  ca not do ; the christian god ca not sin, for instance.   #  as such it is not a stand alone philosophy but is a modifier to philosophies, and not just those based on the existence of a deity.   #  agnostic means that you do not believe a given piece of knowledge is actually obtainable to humans.  the word means  unknowable .  as such it is not a stand alone philosophy but is a modifier to philosophies, and not just those based on the existence of a deity.  there are agnostic atheists, but there are also agnostic theists.  in fact most theists are agnostic as the gnostic branch of christianity was eliminated between 0ad and 0ad as a heretical group.  instead of relying on knowing secret knowledge from god modern christians rely on faith in things that they cannot know for certain and cannot have proof of.  now as i said above there are agnostic atheists i would not say they are the majority of atheists.  all atheists who base their beliefs on the fact that you cannot have proof of god or base it on scientific principles they are gnostic atheists.   #  the atheist shrugs, sits down, and starts roasting marshmallows.    #  there is an old saying/joke:  three men, one a christian, one an agnostic, and one an atheist are walking down the road.  there encounter a large burning bush.  the bush says unto them,  kneel before me and pray to your god.   the christian takes to his knees and exalts the burning bush immediately.  the agnostic starts looking around, trying to find a tape recording or a microphone.  the atheist shrugs, sits down, and starts roasting marshmallows.
there is a lot of people claiming to be agnostic atheists instead of atheists.  this might have to do with the hateful and condescending views of the vocal minority of atheists.  atheists claim to be agnostic atheists, as if being an agnostic atheist is better than being an atheist.  however, i think most if not all atheists are agnostic.  if we found undeniable evidence that god exists e. g.  he appears from the sky surrounded by golden light , then most atheists, agnostic or not, will believe that god exists.  in other words, atheists do not believe in god simply because there is not sufficient evidence.  no one is saying with 0 certainty that god does not exist.   #  this might have to do with the hateful and condescending views of the vocal minority of atheists.   #  atheists claim to be agnostic atheists, as if being an agnostic atheist is better than being an atheist.   # atheists claim to be agnostic atheists, as if being an agnostic atheist is better than being an atheist.  i ca not speak for all agnostic atheists, but my understanding was that the desire to identify as an agnostic atheist does not come from wanting to disassociate from other atheists, but rather to try and clarify their beliefs in the face of attacks from theists.  specifically, a common attack against atheists is something along the lines of  well you are claim of their  not  being a god ca not be proven either  or  atheism requires more faith than theism .  these are real things that theists day to atheists, but make no sense to an agnostic atheist which btw i do agree is generally the default atheist position .  the label of agnostic atheism tries to make it clear that the atheist is making no extraordinary knowledge claim about the nonexistence of god, they just do not believe that one exists.   #  so when an atheist says with knowledgeable certainty that god does not exist, he is referring to a certain type of god, and it is based on the definition of  characteristics  attributed to god.   #  many atheists do say that god does not exist.  the ones i have sympathy with are not doing it on  there is no physical evidence  grounds but on  contradictions ca not exist !   grounds.  on logical grounds, the certainty one can have can be as absolute as any we have in mathematics.  for example, since the characteristic of  omnipotence  is a logical contradiction, it ca not have a real existence.  an omnipotent god should be able to create a shield strong enough to withstand all spears, but he should also be able to create a spear to pierce all shields .  so when an atheist says with knowledgeable certainty that god does not exist, he is referring to a certain type of god, and it is based on the definition of  characteristics  attributed to god.  such an atheist might very well hold out or be merely agnostic on a  thor  type of god who is simply using massively advanced technology that still obeys the laws of the universe/nature i. e.  non contradiction.   #  you are correct that true omnipotence is impossible and a logical paradox, but there are many things that god  ca not do ; the christian god ca not sin, for instance.   #  just a nit pick; from wikipedia:  the paradox assumes a wrong definition of omnipotence.  omnipotence, they say, does not mean that god can do anything at all but, rather, that he can do anything that is possible according to his nature.  the distinction is important.  god cannot perform logical absurdities; he cannot, for instance, make 00 0.  likewise, god cannot make a being greater than himself because he is, by definition, the greatest possible being.  god is limited in his actions to his nature.   you are correct that true omnipotence is impossible and a logical paradox, but there are many things that god  ca not do ; the christian god ca not sin, for instance.   #  all atheists who base their beliefs on the fact that you cannot have proof of god or base it on scientific principles they are gnostic atheists.   #  agnostic means that you do not believe a given piece of knowledge is actually obtainable to humans.  the word means  unknowable .  as such it is not a stand alone philosophy but is a modifier to philosophies, and not just those based on the existence of a deity.  there are agnostic atheists, but there are also agnostic theists.  in fact most theists are agnostic as the gnostic branch of christianity was eliminated between 0ad and 0ad as a heretical group.  instead of relying on knowing secret knowledge from god modern christians rely on faith in things that they cannot know for certain and cannot have proof of.  now as i said above there are agnostic atheists i would not say they are the majority of atheists.  all atheists who base their beliefs on the fact that you cannot have proof of god or base it on scientific principles they are gnostic atheists.   #  there is an old saying/joke:  three men, one a christian, one an agnostic, and one an atheist are walking down the road.   #  there is an old saying/joke:  three men, one a christian, one an agnostic, and one an atheist are walking down the road.  there encounter a large burning bush.  the bush says unto them,  kneel before me and pray to your god.   the christian takes to his knees and exalts the burning bush immediately.  the agnostic starts looking around, trying to find a tape recording or a microphone.  the atheist shrugs, sits down, and starts roasting marshmallows.
there is a lot of people claiming to be agnostic atheists instead of atheists.  this might have to do with the hateful and condescending views of the vocal minority of atheists.  atheists claim to be agnostic atheists, as if being an agnostic atheist is better than being an atheist.  however, i think most if not all atheists are agnostic.  if we found undeniable evidence that god exists e. g.  he appears from the sky surrounded by golden light , then most atheists, agnostic or not, will believe that god exists.  in other words, atheists do not believe in god simply because there is not sufficient evidence.  no one is saying with 0 certainty that god does not exist.   #  no one is saying with 0 certainty that god does not exist.   #  there are indeed a number that do say this.   #  you are using somewhat incorrect versions of atheist and agnostic.  technically speaking, an atheist is simply someone who does not believe in god, while an agnostic is someone who does not  know  whether god exists or not.  the counterpoints are theism someone who believes in god and gnosticism someone who feels that they know whether god exists or not .  and these categories overlap.  as a result, agnostic atheism or  soft atheism,  popularly  agnosticism  is when you do not know whether god exists, but you also do not believe that god exists.  the counterpart is a gnostic atheist  hard atheist,  popularly  atheist  which believes that god does not exist, and also feels that they  know  god does not exist.  many agnostics myself included prefer that term because; 0 people do not understand anything beyond the short hand, popular names.  0 we find that gnosticism is not logical, as one ca not  know  whether god exists or not.  granted, if we were going to bet on god is existence, we would probably all wager with the atheists, but we still ca not  know .  there are indeed a number that do say this.   #  such an atheist might very well hold out or be merely agnostic on a  thor  type of god who is simply using massively advanced technology that still obeys the laws of the universe/nature i. e.   #  many atheists do say that god does not exist.  the ones i have sympathy with are not doing it on  there is no physical evidence  grounds but on  contradictions ca not exist !   grounds.  on logical grounds, the certainty one can have can be as absolute as any we have in mathematics.  for example, since the characteristic of  omnipotence  is a logical contradiction, it ca not have a real existence.  an omnipotent god should be able to create a shield strong enough to withstand all spears, but he should also be able to create a spear to pierce all shields .  so when an atheist says with knowledgeable certainty that god does not exist, he is referring to a certain type of god, and it is based on the definition of  characteristics  attributed to god.  such an atheist might very well hold out or be merely agnostic on a  thor  type of god who is simply using massively advanced technology that still obeys the laws of the universe/nature i. e.  non contradiction.   #  god is limited in his actions to his nature.    #  just a nit pick; from wikipedia:  the paradox assumes a wrong definition of omnipotence.  omnipotence, they say, does not mean that god can do anything at all but, rather, that he can do anything that is possible according to his nature.  the distinction is important.  god cannot perform logical absurdities; he cannot, for instance, make 00 0.  likewise, god cannot make a being greater than himself because he is, by definition, the greatest possible being.  god is limited in his actions to his nature.   you are correct that true omnipotence is impossible and a logical paradox, but there are many things that god  ca not do ; the christian god ca not sin, for instance.   #  as such it is not a stand alone philosophy but is a modifier to philosophies, and not just those based on the existence of a deity.   #  agnostic means that you do not believe a given piece of knowledge is actually obtainable to humans.  the word means  unknowable .  as such it is not a stand alone philosophy but is a modifier to philosophies, and not just those based on the existence of a deity.  there are agnostic atheists, but there are also agnostic theists.  in fact most theists are agnostic as the gnostic branch of christianity was eliminated between 0ad and 0ad as a heretical group.  instead of relying on knowing secret knowledge from god modern christians rely on faith in things that they cannot know for certain and cannot have proof of.  now as i said above there are agnostic atheists i would not say they are the majority of atheists.  all atheists who base their beliefs on the fact that you cannot have proof of god or base it on scientific principles they are gnostic atheists.   #  the bush says unto them,  kneel before me and pray to your god.    #  there is an old saying/joke:  three men, one a christian, one an agnostic, and one an atheist are walking down the road.  there encounter a large burning bush.  the bush says unto them,  kneel before me and pray to your god.   the christian takes to his knees and exalts the burning bush immediately.  the agnostic starts looking around, trying to find a tape recording or a microphone.  the atheist shrugs, sits down, and starts roasting marshmallows.
i understand that the bible is pretty explicitly against gay marriage and behavior, and i get why religious conservatives might think to use the bible as justification to ban actions, behaviors, institutions, etc.  that would not be banned on the basis of rational, secular reasoning alone e. g.  gay marriage, which does not seem to have any valid secular reasons to ban .  however, the bible is also explicitly against many things that i do not believe most religious conservatives want to ban.  most significantly, the  very first commandment  URL states in no uncertain terms that it is against god is desires for god is people to have other gods.  you might argue that this applies only to the jews and descendants of those jews who were saved from egypt.  but there are several other verses URL that forbid people from having other gods.  yet i do not see christian conservatives rallying up, calling for the repeal of the 0st amendment, and demanding a ban on hinduism and other polytheistic religons.  should not  literally worshipping false gods  be  just as if not more  apalling to christian conservatives as  two men who love each other getting a marriage license  ? should not there be just as much of an outcry from socially conservative christians against the 0st amendment is freedom of religion clause which allows hindus and others to worship  false  gods as there is against legalized gay marriage ? it seems to me to be a very inconsistent view of the bible is tenets in forming political opinions.  resubmitted as the previous post had a typo in the title  #  should not there be just as much of an outcry from socially conservative christians against the 0st amendment is freedom of religion clause which allows hindus and others to worship  false  gods as there is against legalized gay marriage ?  #  the freedom of religion clause is a necessary evil.   # why would it ? the bible calls homosexual sex an  abomination , but does not say the same about worshiping false gods.  worshiping the wrong god could be an honest mistake, but having sex with one of your own gender makes god cringe and throw up in his mouth.  the freedom of religion clause is a necessary evil.  they do not  really  want the government dictating their religion, because it is probably going to end up as an extremist version that they oppose.  targeting gay people has less of a chance to backfire.   #  id argue that the same christians protesting against gay marriage also object to other religions but are mute on the topic because they have to be realistic.   #  they have to be at least somewhat realistic in their aims.  centuries ago, what you are describing was a reality, and we evolved past it.  most conservative christians probably see that as a lost battle, and if they tried opposing other religions now in our diverse and liberal society theyd be ridiculed as radicals and crazy.  id argue that the same christians protesting against gay marriage also object to other religions but are mute on the topic because they have to be realistic.  as a lgbt ex catholic i do not want to change your view, but i was just playing devils advocate.   #  the general push for same sex marriage invoked reactions from these christians.   #  well looking at the past.  homosexual sex used to be illegal, while it is still considered a sin by a lot majority ? of christian churches, there is no realistic push to make it illegal anymore.  same goes with plenty of other things, and why banning other religions is a mute argument now.  historically itis very rare for us to become more accepting in our laws, and then go back on it.  ultimately, they would be wasting their time, so im not sure if it is inconsistent.  also they are not the ones who bought the gay marriage topic up.  the general push for same sex marriage invoked reactions from these christians.  you make it sound like gay marriage has been fine for years and they are only now choosing to object to it.  we are living at a time where lgbt issues are a lot of the focus of the media, politics, etc.  so it makes sense for them now to be voicing their opinions.   #  it is more about the term  marriage  being used to describe non sanctioned unions.   #  disclaimer: i agree with you, and i am agnostic.  regarding the 0st amendment/0st commandment issue, it seems the reasoning is because your relationship with god is personal.  your marriage is also personal, but the term  marriage  means to a christian a union sanctioned by god.  it is not necessarily about stopping gay couples from sinning.  it is more about the term  marriage  being used to describe non sanctioned unions.  to christians, the relationship that non christians have with non christian gods are not relationships with big g god.   #  i think it is like this: let is say you and a few buddies create a club and part of the club is a secret handshake.   #  i think it is like this: let is say you and a few buddies create a club and part of the club is a secret handshake.  over time more people that you do not know make their own clubs with secret high fives or secret bird calls to show membership in the club.  you do not care what people in other clubs do to signify that they are in their own club because it does not have anything to do with you and it does not copy you.  one day you see people that are not in your club doing your secret handshake  but  they are not doing it right, they are using opposite hands and it is just plain sloppy.  you reason to yourself that if people see these yahoos doing  your  secret handshake wrong that it will hurt your club is rep.  christians think that if two dudes or two ladies get together to marry that it will break their club is secret handshake since their secret handshake is supposed to be one lady and one dude.  this, of course, does not answer for much of their hypocrisy since you could make any issue the secret handshake of the story
i just moved from new hampshire is first district, a district that has gone gop  0 dem  0 dem  0 gop  0 dem  0 gop  0 fun fact, between 0 and now, its ping ponged between two people, carol shea porter and the somewhat corrupt frank guina .  nh on a federal level is a purple lean dem state, with one senator from each party, and one rep from each party.  on the state level, we have a dem gov, a gop executive council, a massively gop general court.  my town sent two gop reps, but the town next door sent 0 dem reps.  but i live in georgia now.  i live in forsyth county, north of fulton county atlanta .  my house is represented by all republicans, state house, state senate, federal house, federal senate, governor etc and forsyth went 0 for romney in 0.  a far cry from nh.  now, i am a person who leans republican, so at this point, i see nothing wrong with my current representation, but i see no reason why i should vote.  nothing will change, i still will be represented by republicans, and georgia will still go to the republican in 0.  some may argue that if i do not vote i ca not complain.  thats just a stupid argument because then over 0 of the nation  ca not complain  so, change my view, why should i vote ?  #  some may argue that if i do not vote i ca not complain.   #  thats just a stupid argument because then over 0 of the nation  ca not complain  they ca not.   # thats just a stupid argument because then over 0 of the nation  ca not complain  they ca not.  if i hear someone complaining about the president or their local representative and, when asked, say something like  yeah but i did not vote , i immediately,  instantly  discard their opinion.  yes, 0 of our country is opinion is invalid.  if you did not vote, you did not make your opinion heard.  if you voted, you could say you were not represented properly, but if you do not, you have no grounds to say that.  if i run for neighborhood dinner party host and win, and you do not tell me what kind of meal you wanted, you do not get to show up at my house and say  ribeye steak ? that is gross.  i wanted a t bone.  this party is crappy .  i will show you my boot, the door, and the pavement outside, in approximately that order.  if you did not take the time to make yourself heard, you have no right to complain, because you are the one at fault.   #  for the dinner example,  do you prefer ribeye steak or t bone ?    #  that sounds a bit too black   white to me.  what if i am simply not sure about what to vote, because i like or dislike every options equally.  do you think i should just pick one randomly instead of trusting people who might know better than me ? for the dinner example,  do you prefer ribeye steak or t bone ?    i like both, just give me the same as everyone else !    wait.  why is it not cooked ?    sorry, you did not pick, you ca not complain.    #  but the question is about whether or not you can complain if you do not.   # if it really comes down to it you are still better off voting than not, imo, if for no other reason than to boost voter turnout and promote understanding.  but the question is about whether or not you can complain if you do not.  in my example, if you agree with both candidate equally, then not voting is what best represent your view it is equivalent as voting for both if you could do that .  so, in such a situation, why would you not be able to complain ? why is this option less valid that choosing one candidate ? that sounds so arbitrary to me.  unless, of course, you also think you ca not complain about a politician you voted for and some might agree with that .  and some will take you less seriously because you voted for the wrong person.  it could show you did not do a proper research on the candidate, that your are easily manipulable by the media or that you are a poor judge of character.  i personally always vote, but i do not think you should  instantly discard  someone is opinion if they do not.  some have good reason not to.  some do not, but they might still have valid and interesting opinions.  in response to the carlin is video, would you instantly discard his opinion because he does not vote ? should not you at least listen to what this person has to say, and then decide if it is valid or not ?  #  you voting  could  inspire one more person, who inspires one more person or, more realistically, if you take everyone who did not vote, and then they did each person stepped up to vote suddenly the election could change.   #  one thing to keep in mind that even if you and others vote for the wrong candidate, every vote towards your side helps bring your opponent in closer to them, because they realize how quickly their position can disappear.  say 0 of people voted, and someone gets elected 0 0.  they do not care much of anything about that 0.  but say it is 0 0.  suddenly that 0 is someone you have to appeal to, because they could easily pull 0 over to their side and have you out in the next election.  in 0 literal terms, yes your single vote does not matter.  but when it comes to voting you ca not look at it in such an absolutely  my one vote  style.  you voting  could  inspire one more person, who inspires one more person or, more realistically, if you take everyone who did not vote, and then they did each person stepped up to vote suddenly the election could change.  and even if it does not, again, more votes on your side pulls the opponent closer to you.   #  what is all this progress for if it inspires such disinterest in the population ?  #  i never quite understand this apathy towards voting.  is not there a case to be made for the enjoyment that comes from participating, in a real concrete manner, in the democratic process ? what is all this progress for if it inspires such disinterest in the population ? if you do not vote your non vote just inspires more apathy from politicians; they figure no one cares what they do, so why should they bother with engaging the public ? it is a vicious cycle.  i do not know whether i made a cogent argument, but i wish everyone would take more pride in voting. it gets me down, all this meh ness.
i just moved from new hampshire is first district, a district that has gone gop  0 dem  0 dem  0 gop  0 dem  0 gop  0 fun fact, between 0 and now, its ping ponged between two people, carol shea porter and the somewhat corrupt frank guina .  nh on a federal level is a purple lean dem state, with one senator from each party, and one rep from each party.  on the state level, we have a dem gov, a gop executive council, a massively gop general court.  my town sent two gop reps, but the town next door sent 0 dem reps.  but i live in georgia now.  i live in forsyth county, north of fulton county atlanta .  my house is represented by all republicans, state house, state senate, federal house, federal senate, governor etc and forsyth went 0 for romney in 0.  a far cry from nh.  now, i am a person who leans republican, so at this point, i see nothing wrong with my current representation, but i see no reason why i should vote.  nothing will change, i still will be represented by republicans, and georgia will still go to the republican in 0.  some may argue that if i do not vote i ca not complain.  thats just a stupid argument because then over 0 of the nation  ca not complain  so, change my view, why should i vote ?  #  some may argue that if i do not vote i ca not complain.   #  thats just a stupid argument because then over 0 of the nation  ca not complain  you ca not.   # thats just a stupid argument because then over 0 of the nation  ca not complain  you ca not.  i will give an example of this.  say you live in an apartment with three people.  one day, one of your roommates says  i am thinking of painting the walls in the living room blue.  next monday, we will have a vote to see if we change the color from beige to blue.   you hear this, but you decide not to show up and vote, because you do not think your vote will matter.  your three roommates do vote, and they vote 0 0 in favor of changing the color of the walls to blue.  you hear this, and get upset; you liked the walls the way they were.  they tell you you ca not complain, because you did not bother to show up to vote.  i could write a wall of text on why you should vote, but i will show you a video URL instead.   #  if you voted, you could say you were not represented properly, but if you do not, you have no grounds to say that.   # thats just a stupid argument because then over 0 of the nation  ca not complain  they ca not.  if i hear someone complaining about the president or their local representative and, when asked, say something like  yeah but i did not vote , i immediately,  instantly  discard their opinion.  yes, 0 of our country is opinion is invalid.  if you did not vote, you did not make your opinion heard.  if you voted, you could say you were not represented properly, but if you do not, you have no grounds to say that.  if i run for neighborhood dinner party host and win, and you do not tell me what kind of meal you wanted, you do not get to show up at my house and say  ribeye steak ? that is gross.  i wanted a t bone.  this party is crappy .  i will show you my boot, the door, and the pavement outside, in approximately that order.  if you did not take the time to make yourself heard, you have no right to complain, because you are the one at fault.   #  do you think i should just pick one randomly instead of trusting people who might know better than me ?  #  that sounds a bit too black   white to me.  what if i am simply not sure about what to vote, because i like or dislike every options equally.  do you think i should just pick one randomly instead of trusting people who might know better than me ? for the dinner example,  do you prefer ribeye steak or t bone ?    i like both, just give me the same as everyone else !    wait.  why is it not cooked ?    sorry, you did not pick, you ca not complain.    #  so, in such a situation, why would you not be able to complain ?  # if it really comes down to it you are still better off voting than not, imo, if for no other reason than to boost voter turnout and promote understanding.  but the question is about whether or not you can complain if you do not.  in my example, if you agree with both candidate equally, then not voting is what best represent your view it is equivalent as voting for both if you could do that .  so, in such a situation, why would you not be able to complain ? why is this option less valid that choosing one candidate ? that sounds so arbitrary to me.  unless, of course, you also think you ca not complain about a politician you voted for and some might agree with that .  and some will take you less seriously because you voted for the wrong person.  it could show you did not do a proper research on the candidate, that your are easily manipulable by the media or that you are a poor judge of character.  i personally always vote, but i do not think you should  instantly discard  someone is opinion if they do not.  some have good reason not to.  some do not, but they might still have valid and interesting opinions.  in response to the carlin is video, would you instantly discard his opinion because he does not vote ? should not you at least listen to what this person has to say, and then decide if it is valid or not ?  #  say 0 of people voted, and someone gets elected 0 0.  they do not care much of anything about that 0.   #  one thing to keep in mind that even if you and others vote for the wrong candidate, every vote towards your side helps bring your opponent in closer to them, because they realize how quickly their position can disappear.  say 0 of people voted, and someone gets elected 0 0.  they do not care much of anything about that 0.  but say it is 0 0.  suddenly that 0 is someone you have to appeal to, because they could easily pull 0 over to their side and have you out in the next election.  in 0 literal terms, yes your single vote does not matter.  but when it comes to voting you ca not look at it in such an absolutely  my one vote  style.  you voting  could  inspire one more person, who inspires one more person or, more realistically, if you take everyone who did not vote, and then they did each person stepped up to vote suddenly the election could change.  and even if it does not, again, more votes on your side pulls the opponent closer to you.
as you might be aware, several states in us has this notorious all party consent law, which requires consent of both parties on a phone call to record conversation.  i find this law arbitrary and i present several points to support my notion.  first of all, there should be no additional expectation of privacy for phone calls, as much as privacy you get during written communication.  every written communication, be it instant messaging, email or plain old snail mail is in documentary form.  if someone states something on regular mail and then differs from their statement, you can always show the document as evidence.  this is not possible in case of phone call, as it is audible way of communication, in which sound cease to exist as soon as you hear it.  so, no evidence can be held except from recording it.  a conversation recording can be helpful in multiple scenarios.  it is benefits outweigh its drawbacks.  think of it.  a promise to pay money on phone.  a threat to any crime on phone.  a statement made by your boss against company policy or just a demand of bribe from a corrupt officials.  in majority of cases, phone recording is not broadcast in public by recorder.  it is used only for specific purpose.   #  first of all, there should be no additional expectation of privacy for phone calls, as much as privacy you get during written communication.   #  every written communication, be it instant messaging, email or plain old snail mail is in documentary form.   # every written communication, be it instant messaging, email or plain old snail mail is in documentary form.  if someone states something on regular mail and then differs from their statement, you can always show the document as evidence.  this is not possible in case of phone call, as it is audible way of communication, in which sound cease to exist as soon as you hear it.  so, no evidence can be held except from recording it.  why should not there be more privacy ? the only reason written communication can be used as a written record is because it physically exists as such without the law.  in other words you ca not email someone without the message being saved and then read back by the recipient.  if i leave you a voicemail then my voice is recorded so that is a closer analog.  would you argue that a conversation i have in person with someone in my home should not be subject to more privacy than written communication ? it is benefits outweigh its drawbacks.  think of it.  a promise to pay money on phone.  a threat to any crime on phone.  a statement made by your boss against company policy or just a demand of bribe from a corrupt officials.  i am not swayed by your examples of its benefits as outweighing the detriment.  firstly, the only people i would be promising money to on the phone are companies that record all conversations with my permission, of course .  with respect to criminal confessions on the phone, i think you are discounting tonality of the voice.  i can tell someone  i am going to kill them  sarcastically and they know it is harmless but if you read a transcript of the call you would not necessarily know.  if you have ever given a deposition, one of the things your lawyer might prep you on is to only say things you want in writing because people are not going to listen to what you said ever again, they are only going to read the transcript.  that means your voice inflection, tonality, silent pauses, chuckles, etc will all be gone.  just because i do not want my words used against me does not me does not mean i am doing anything wrong.  maybe i want to gossip about somebody without them actually knowing what i am saying.  sure, it is not the most stand up thing to do but neither is recording conversations in secret and then playing them for others later on.  it is used only for specific purpose.  in fact, these specific purposes are so limited that it should not be difficult to obtain consent for the recording.  i would rather put the burden on the recorder to get consent than to hope that they wo not broadcast those calls to the public.  let is take it a step further, why should we even have 0 party consent ? why not just let the government record all conversations they want ? one of the reasons you cite for wanting more liberal use of recording is as a means of crime prevention so it would seem a natural extension to just allow the government to listen to/record everything.   #  0 out of 0 people know exactly what he means.   #  that is a very good point.  however, i would argue that we  know  that.  we understand that, and we can take that into account if such a recording is used as evidence.   you clearly said  yeah, uh huh  when mr.  jones asked you if you wanted to help with the robbery.    yeah, but i was not really listening to what he was saying.  i was playing call of duty.   0 out of 0 people know exactly what he means.  i still see what you mean, that is a valid concern.   #  and if you are listening so poorly that you did not even realize you just agreed to sell your $0 car to your friend for $0 or something, why are you even on the phone ?  #  yes ? if you are not listening to your friend, you should not be agreeing with him.  forget legally, that is just not being a great friend.  and if that person asks if you were actually listening, then you really should say no if you were not regardless of being recorded.  if your friend asked you to help move, and you just agreed mindlessly, it would be crappy to bail on him.  if it is something that could turn into a contract dispute, you absolutely should be listening.  and if you are listening so poorly that you did not even realize you just agreed to sell your $0 car to your friend for $0 or something, why are you even on the phone ?  #  i am not even close to the only one, but sure i should improve.   #  it is one thing to call me out on my issues with tuning out on telephones.  i am not even close to the only one, but sure i should improve.  it is quite another to hold me to the letter of everything i say or agree to on the phone.  i have never had an issue with people asking for favors because they lead with that and do not just sneak it into a longwinded monologue where we tune out.  now, if you are recording your  friend  while tricking them into making a bad deal on the phone then you are a scam artist.   #  if someone is threatening another person or talking about planning to commit a crime you should be allowed to record that.   #  definitely .  i might have been a little harsh, because now that i think of it i have definitely agreed to things on the phone without really paying attention.  i try to realize that and then ask after though, and i really try not to assure the other person that i have listened to every word carefully and that my response is seriously.  i do not think that fact should disallow one party consent for recordings.  i think it would often be clear to a outsider whether someone was just agreeing absent mindedly or actually listening.  you could even disallow phone recordings as evidence in contract disputes.  however, there are cases where a recording is useful.  if someone is threatening another person or talking about planning to commit a crime you should be allowed to record that.
as you might be aware, several states in us has this notorious all party consent law, which requires consent of both parties on a phone call to record conversation.  i find this law arbitrary and i present several points to support my notion.  first of all, there should be no additional expectation of privacy for phone calls, as much as privacy you get during written communication.  every written communication, be it instant messaging, email or plain old snail mail is in documentary form.  if someone states something on regular mail and then differs from their statement, you can always show the document as evidence.  this is not possible in case of phone call, as it is audible way of communication, in which sound cease to exist as soon as you hear it.  so, no evidence can be held except from recording it.  a conversation recording can be helpful in multiple scenarios.  it is benefits outweigh its drawbacks.  think of it.  a promise to pay money on phone.  a threat to any crime on phone.  a statement made by your boss against company policy or just a demand of bribe from a corrupt officials.  in majority of cases, phone recording is not broadcast in public by recorder.  it is used only for specific purpose.   #  in majority of cases, phone recording is not broadcast in public by recorder.   #  it is used only for specific purpose.   # every written communication, be it instant messaging, email or plain old snail mail is in documentary form.  if someone states something on regular mail and then differs from their statement, you can always show the document as evidence.  this is not possible in case of phone call, as it is audible way of communication, in which sound cease to exist as soon as you hear it.  so, no evidence can be held except from recording it.  why should not there be more privacy ? the only reason written communication can be used as a written record is because it physically exists as such without the law.  in other words you ca not email someone without the message being saved and then read back by the recipient.  if i leave you a voicemail then my voice is recorded so that is a closer analog.  would you argue that a conversation i have in person with someone in my home should not be subject to more privacy than written communication ? it is benefits outweigh its drawbacks.  think of it.  a promise to pay money on phone.  a threat to any crime on phone.  a statement made by your boss against company policy or just a demand of bribe from a corrupt officials.  i am not swayed by your examples of its benefits as outweighing the detriment.  firstly, the only people i would be promising money to on the phone are companies that record all conversations with my permission, of course .  with respect to criminal confessions on the phone, i think you are discounting tonality of the voice.  i can tell someone  i am going to kill them  sarcastically and they know it is harmless but if you read a transcript of the call you would not necessarily know.  if you have ever given a deposition, one of the things your lawyer might prep you on is to only say things you want in writing because people are not going to listen to what you said ever again, they are only going to read the transcript.  that means your voice inflection, tonality, silent pauses, chuckles, etc will all be gone.  just because i do not want my words used against me does not me does not mean i am doing anything wrong.  maybe i want to gossip about somebody without them actually knowing what i am saying.  sure, it is not the most stand up thing to do but neither is recording conversations in secret and then playing them for others later on.  it is used only for specific purpose.  in fact, these specific purposes are so limited that it should not be difficult to obtain consent for the recording.  i would rather put the burden on the recorder to get consent than to hope that they wo not broadcast those calls to the public.  let is take it a step further, why should we even have 0 party consent ? why not just let the government record all conversations they want ? one of the reasons you cite for wanting more liberal use of recording is as a means of crime prevention so it would seem a natural extension to just allow the government to listen to/record everything.   #  i still see what you mean, that is a valid concern.   #  that is a very good point.  however, i would argue that we  know  that.  we understand that, and we can take that into account if such a recording is used as evidence.   you clearly said  yeah, uh huh  when mr.  jones asked you if you wanted to help with the robbery.    yeah, but i was not really listening to what he was saying.  i was playing call of duty.   0 out of 0 people know exactly what he means.  i still see what you mean, that is a valid concern.   #  and if that person asks if you were actually listening, then you really should say no if you were not regardless of being recorded.   #  yes ? if you are not listening to your friend, you should not be agreeing with him.  forget legally, that is just not being a great friend.  and if that person asks if you were actually listening, then you really should say no if you were not regardless of being recorded.  if your friend asked you to help move, and you just agreed mindlessly, it would be crappy to bail on him.  if it is something that could turn into a contract dispute, you absolutely should be listening.  and if you are listening so poorly that you did not even realize you just agreed to sell your $0 car to your friend for $0 or something, why are you even on the phone ?  #  i have never had an issue with people asking for favors because they lead with that and do not just sneak it into a longwinded monologue where we tune out.   #  it is one thing to call me out on my issues with tuning out on telephones.  i am not even close to the only one, but sure i should improve.  it is quite another to hold me to the letter of everything i say or agree to on the phone.  i have never had an issue with people asking for favors because they lead with that and do not just sneak it into a longwinded monologue where we tune out.  now, if you are recording your  friend  while tricking them into making a bad deal on the phone then you are a scam artist.   #  i try to realize that and then ask after though, and i really try not to assure the other person that i have listened to every word carefully and that my response is seriously.   #  definitely .  i might have been a little harsh, because now that i think of it i have definitely agreed to things on the phone without really paying attention.  i try to realize that and then ask after though, and i really try not to assure the other person that i have listened to every word carefully and that my response is seriously.  i do not think that fact should disallow one party consent for recordings.  i think it would often be clear to a outsider whether someone was just agreeing absent mindedly or actually listening.  you could even disallow phone recordings as evidence in contract disputes.  however, there are cases where a recording is useful.  if someone is threatening another person or talking about planning to commit a crime you should be allowed to record that.
0.  israel has repeatedly been on the defense in wars with her neighbors, only making aggressive maneuvers after repelling the invaders.  israel has usally given most of the captured land back to the aggressors as a olive branch in good faith 0.  israel treats her palestinian citizens has full citizens, even holding public office.  religious freedom is the standard, as are most civil liberties expected of a civilized liberal democracy in the 0st century.  0.  israel exercises an extraordinary effort and restraint when engaging palestinian terrorists in combat by warning innocents to leave an area they are about to bomb.  it is impossible to avoid all civilian deaths, but at least they seriously try.  0.  in contrast, palestinians, namely hamas are foundationally in their founding charter committed to killing as many jews and israelis as they can, at any cost, as seen by their relentless attack on southern israel with rockets and raids.  0.  hamas also intentionally uses their citizens as human shields by building their military facilities under hospitals and kindergartens.  even going to the extent of forcing civilians into buildings that they know are about to be bombed to as to increase the casualties for pr reasons.  0.  palestinians have repeatedly, under multiple governments, refused to even consider a peaceful coexistence with israel.  this is seen by the palestinians consistently refusing to even consider favorable peace terms offered by the israelis.  i mean even if they got the short end of the stick 0 years ago, that can only excuse being so shitty for so long, right ?  #  israel has repeatedly been on the defense in wars with her neighbors, only making aggressive maneuvers after repelling the invaders.   #  israel has usally given most of the captured land back to the aggressors as a olive branch in good faith this is completely untrue.   #  palestinian here, so i hope i can contribute to helping change your view.  israel has usally given most of the captured land back to the aggressors as a olive branch in good faith this is completely untrue.  look at the land  israel treats her palestinian citizens has full citizens, even holding public office.  religious freedom is the standard, as are most civil liberties expected of a civilized liberal democracy in the 0st century.  arab israelis are somewhat treated as second class citizens.  national identification explicitly states that they are a different kind of citizen and they are often treated as such.  it is impossible to avoid all civilian deaths, but at least they seriously try.  this is completely backwards.  the current commander in chief came up with the dahiya doctrine URL which aims to cause as much infrastructure and societal damage as possible to act as a detriment to future acts of hostility.  history has shown this does not work.  you ca not keep beating the dog in hope that he will become docile, he will just become more violent and resentful.  imagine you had to vote between the plo and hamas, the plo largely ineffective for decades, has overseen the palestinians losing more and more land, more rights, etc.  you do know there are jew only URL streets.  living under occupation is terrible.  it is demoralizing.  so a vote for change was inevitable.  for the first 0 months, hamas personally cracked down on those firing rockets, they also invested heavily in infrastructure and schools all this is only in gaza, the plo governs the west bank which contains the majority of the palestinian population anyway .  did the bush government represent all the us ? am i supposed to believe the average american shares the views of their governing body ? so odd that this argument is used against the palestinians.  even going to the extent of forcing civilians into buildings that they know are about to be bombed to as to increase the casualties for pr reasons.  okay, so hamas who are forcibly in charge and the palestinians ca not change that, so we hate palestinians for having to live under that governance while getting further crushed by the israeli regime.  the average palestinian is just caught between a rock and a hard place.  hamas nor the plo represents the average palestinian is views.  they certainly do not represent mine nor my family or friends.  so why are we hated based on having to be governed by a certain party with no way out ? this is seen by the palestinians consistently refusing to even consider favorable peace terms offered by the israelis.  it is the conditions that people protest.  the constant land grabs.  the living under occupation.  why would anyone say yes to that ? everyone wants peace, the alternative current situation is too terrible to bare, but what has been proposed in the past is further land grabs, fewer rights, territorial demarcations that choke the palestinian population, etc.   #  but we ca not talk about land for peace and ignore the massive settlement construction that is taken place since olmert is peace process fell apart.   #  i count myself as a supporter of israel as well as a supporter of the palestinians two state solution necessary for everyone, self determination is a big deal and i just need to mention that by no means has the gaza strip been returned completely to the palestinians.  sure, a few isolated communities were removed, but the restrictions on goods and services going into gaza have been incredibly strict and even worse is the restrictions on exports, which decimated the gazan economy and pushed the entire population there into supporting hamas.  the entire border of gaza is heavily restricted, the idf still manages much of gazan affairs, and the economic realities are important to note.  the gazan people did not respond to being given land back with rockets, they responded to the policies that pushed the entire strip to the verge of humanitarian crisis levels and ensures they ca not rebuild after rounds of violence with rockets.  that decision is morally unacceptable, and israel absolutely must defend itself from indiscriminate rocket attacks on civilians, but for years they had so many restrictions on goods entering that there was a list of what was allowed in as opposed to a list of what was not, and while they have loosened the restrictions somewhat since cast lead it is still far too restrictive.  you mention land for peace the only problem with this is that with the exception of the sinai peninsula with egypt, israel has never acted on it.  the premise of the oslo accords was that area c would slowly change to area b would slowly change to area a as negotiations on final borders were ongoing, but instead we have seen massive settlement construction and a complete lack of good faith on the part off israeli pms, especially but not exclusively bibi.  we ca not give up the golan or risk strategic nightmare if syria gets its shit together, and we still control gaza is borders, airspace, and economic situation.  every time negotiations start getting going for real, the government announces another 0 0 apartments built in ariel, or silwan, or ma ale adumin.  i think one or two of those places will be part of israel after any two state deal, but it shows bad faith.  i would honestly have little problem with the actions of the israeli government if we were not expanding settlements at more rapid rates every year.  a permanent freeze on building over the green line until a final status agreement was signed would put the government firmly in the acceptable category for me, even if i have reservations about their policy on iran, or their relationship with obama, or their inability to deal with the haredim.  but we ca not talk about land for peace and ignore the massive settlement construction that is taken place since olmert is peace process fell apart.   #  the policy towards gaza has undoubtedly increased hamas  support, and that is partially because israel is government has done absolutely nothing to bolster the pa is legitimacy in the eyes of the gazan people.   #  but more importantly, people act like the gazan disengagement was some wonderful unilateral step meant to promote peace, and if that is what sharon was trying to do he miserably failed.  he did it after and while announcing that there was no partner for peace and that negotiations would get us nowhere, essentially handing hamas the ability to say to gazans  look, fatah tried and the israelis lambasted them, we fight and the israelis leave .  it was deeply irresponsible, and it only made it worse that we then ensured that exports could not leave and supplies could not get it.  if you had to craft a way to increase hamas  political support base, you could not do much better than this.  either we should have been prepared to give full control to the pa and deal with the consequences, or we should not have pretended to give up control at all.  the policy towards gaza has undoubtedly increased hamas  support, and that is partially because israel is government has done absolutely nothing to bolster the pa is legitimacy in the eyes of the gazan people.   #  the us has had an embargo on cuba for decades, and all it did was make sure castro could always blame the us for any problems and increase his support base.   #  the pa was created by the oslo accords.  its existence is entirely a function of the peace process.  it is only a government of palestinians if palestinians accept its rule, and that is why it is so vital that israel helps boost its legitimacy.  otherwise, they turn to hamas.  when you convince people that nonviolence ca not possibly get them the legal rights and the state that they want, many of them make the awful decision to turn to violence.  i am not sure what you mean by  defense of egypt , they are participating in the blockade for a number of reasons including their desire to hurt hamas.  i have not disputed that point.  all i am saying is that israeli policy dictates what gets into the port of gaza city, what gets through most crossings, and how smugglers are dealt with.  egypt supports that policy 0 times out of 0, and so i guess part of the blame for the effect of this policy also lies with them.  whatever.  it is a minor point.  what i am saying is that a blockade is necessary, but the way it is been handled by the israeli and egyptian governments has allowed hamas to gain a support base and tap into the poverty that the blockade restrictions are causing for recruitment and political support.  the us did not stop all construction materials from entering afghanistan to erode support for the taliban, because that only would have made afghans more likely to hate the us and support the taliban.  the us has had an embargo on cuba for decades, and all it did was make sure castro could always blame the us for any problems and increase his support base.   #  and i didnt state it well in the parent post, but i do not think israel has been perfect in the entire process.   #  ok, so first, gaza was fairly open until hamas took power and the rocket attacks started they even left the greenhouses in place , the blockade is meant to slow the flow of rockets into gaza, its kind of hard to blame the israelis for that.  i remember that the israelis wanted to open a border crossing before the rocket attacks really started in earnest, and hamas threatened to shoot anyone who came through.  and the returning lands was a  demonstrate that we can trust you to keep the peace with what we give you at first and then we will give you more and more.   when they quickly turned around and used the land to launch more attacks, israel had no good reason to give more land back.  and i didnt state it well in the parent post, but i do not think israel has been perfect in the entire process.  but at least i see them as trying, they have to compromise with domestic factions that want the settlements, as well as compromise with the palestinians.
0.  israel has repeatedly been on the defense in wars with her neighbors, only making aggressive maneuvers after repelling the invaders.  israel has usally given most of the captured land back to the aggressors as a olive branch in good faith 0.  israel treats her palestinian citizens has full citizens, even holding public office.  religious freedom is the standard, as are most civil liberties expected of a civilized liberal democracy in the 0st century.  0.  israel exercises an extraordinary effort and restraint when engaging palestinian terrorists in combat by warning innocents to leave an area they are about to bomb.  it is impossible to avoid all civilian deaths, but at least they seriously try.  0.  in contrast, palestinians, namely hamas are foundationally in their founding charter committed to killing as many jews and israelis as they can, at any cost, as seen by their relentless attack on southern israel with rockets and raids.  0.  hamas also intentionally uses their citizens as human shields by building their military facilities under hospitals and kindergartens.  even going to the extent of forcing civilians into buildings that they know are about to be bombed to as to increase the casualties for pr reasons.  0.  palestinians have repeatedly, under multiple governments, refused to even consider a peaceful coexistence with israel.  this is seen by the palestinians consistently refusing to even consider favorable peace terms offered by the israelis.  i mean even if they got the short end of the stick 0 years ago, that can only excuse being so shitty for so long, right ?  #  israel exercises an extraordinary effort and restraint when engaging palestinian terrorists in combat by warning innocents to leave an area they are about to bomb.   #  it is impossible to avoid all civilian deaths, but at least they seriously try.   #  palestinian here, so i hope i can contribute to helping change your view.  israel has usally given most of the captured land back to the aggressors as a olive branch in good faith this is completely untrue.  look at the land  israel treats her palestinian citizens has full citizens, even holding public office.  religious freedom is the standard, as are most civil liberties expected of a civilized liberal democracy in the 0st century.  arab israelis are somewhat treated as second class citizens.  national identification explicitly states that they are a different kind of citizen and they are often treated as such.  it is impossible to avoid all civilian deaths, but at least they seriously try.  this is completely backwards.  the current commander in chief came up with the dahiya doctrine URL which aims to cause as much infrastructure and societal damage as possible to act as a detriment to future acts of hostility.  history has shown this does not work.  you ca not keep beating the dog in hope that he will become docile, he will just become more violent and resentful.  imagine you had to vote between the plo and hamas, the plo largely ineffective for decades, has overseen the palestinians losing more and more land, more rights, etc.  you do know there are jew only URL streets.  living under occupation is terrible.  it is demoralizing.  so a vote for change was inevitable.  for the first 0 months, hamas personally cracked down on those firing rockets, they also invested heavily in infrastructure and schools all this is only in gaza, the plo governs the west bank which contains the majority of the palestinian population anyway .  did the bush government represent all the us ? am i supposed to believe the average american shares the views of their governing body ? so odd that this argument is used against the palestinians.  even going to the extent of forcing civilians into buildings that they know are about to be bombed to as to increase the casualties for pr reasons.  okay, so hamas who are forcibly in charge and the palestinians ca not change that, so we hate palestinians for having to live under that governance while getting further crushed by the israeli regime.  the average palestinian is just caught between a rock and a hard place.  hamas nor the plo represents the average palestinian is views.  they certainly do not represent mine nor my family or friends.  so why are we hated based on having to be governed by a certain party with no way out ? this is seen by the palestinians consistently refusing to even consider favorable peace terms offered by the israelis.  it is the conditions that people protest.  the constant land grabs.  the living under occupation.  why would anyone say yes to that ? everyone wants peace, the alternative current situation is too terrible to bare, but what has been proposed in the past is further land grabs, fewer rights, territorial demarcations that choke the palestinian population, etc.   #  you mention land for peace the only problem with this is that with the exception of the sinai peninsula with egypt, israel has never acted on it.   #  i count myself as a supporter of israel as well as a supporter of the palestinians two state solution necessary for everyone, self determination is a big deal and i just need to mention that by no means has the gaza strip been returned completely to the palestinians.  sure, a few isolated communities were removed, but the restrictions on goods and services going into gaza have been incredibly strict and even worse is the restrictions on exports, which decimated the gazan economy and pushed the entire population there into supporting hamas.  the entire border of gaza is heavily restricted, the idf still manages much of gazan affairs, and the economic realities are important to note.  the gazan people did not respond to being given land back with rockets, they responded to the policies that pushed the entire strip to the verge of humanitarian crisis levels and ensures they ca not rebuild after rounds of violence with rockets.  that decision is morally unacceptable, and israel absolutely must defend itself from indiscriminate rocket attacks on civilians, but for years they had so many restrictions on goods entering that there was a list of what was allowed in as opposed to a list of what was not, and while they have loosened the restrictions somewhat since cast lead it is still far too restrictive.  you mention land for peace the only problem with this is that with the exception of the sinai peninsula with egypt, israel has never acted on it.  the premise of the oslo accords was that area c would slowly change to area b would slowly change to area a as negotiations on final borders were ongoing, but instead we have seen massive settlement construction and a complete lack of good faith on the part off israeli pms, especially but not exclusively bibi.  we ca not give up the golan or risk strategic nightmare if syria gets its shit together, and we still control gaza is borders, airspace, and economic situation.  every time negotiations start getting going for real, the government announces another 0 0 apartments built in ariel, or silwan, or ma ale adumin.  i think one or two of those places will be part of israel after any two state deal, but it shows bad faith.  i would honestly have little problem with the actions of the israeli government if we were not expanding settlements at more rapid rates every year.  a permanent freeze on building over the green line until a final status agreement was signed would put the government firmly in the acceptable category for me, even if i have reservations about their policy on iran, or their relationship with obama, or their inability to deal with the haredim.  but we ca not talk about land for peace and ignore the massive settlement construction that is taken place since olmert is peace process fell apart.   #  but more importantly, people act like the gazan disengagement was some wonderful unilateral step meant to promote peace, and if that is what sharon was trying to do he miserably failed.   #  but more importantly, people act like the gazan disengagement was some wonderful unilateral step meant to promote peace, and if that is what sharon was trying to do he miserably failed.  he did it after and while announcing that there was no partner for peace and that negotiations would get us nowhere, essentially handing hamas the ability to say to gazans  look, fatah tried and the israelis lambasted them, we fight and the israelis leave .  it was deeply irresponsible, and it only made it worse that we then ensured that exports could not leave and supplies could not get it.  if you had to craft a way to increase hamas  political support base, you could not do much better than this.  either we should have been prepared to give full control to the pa and deal with the consequences, or we should not have pretended to give up control at all.  the policy towards gaza has undoubtedly increased hamas  support, and that is partially because israel is government has done absolutely nothing to bolster the pa is legitimacy in the eyes of the gazan people.   #  egypt supports that policy 0 times out of 0, and so i guess part of the blame for the effect of this policy also lies with them.   #  the pa was created by the oslo accords.  its existence is entirely a function of the peace process.  it is only a government of palestinians if palestinians accept its rule, and that is why it is so vital that israel helps boost its legitimacy.  otherwise, they turn to hamas.  when you convince people that nonviolence ca not possibly get them the legal rights and the state that they want, many of them make the awful decision to turn to violence.  i am not sure what you mean by  defense of egypt , they are participating in the blockade for a number of reasons including their desire to hurt hamas.  i have not disputed that point.  all i am saying is that israeli policy dictates what gets into the port of gaza city, what gets through most crossings, and how smugglers are dealt with.  egypt supports that policy 0 times out of 0, and so i guess part of the blame for the effect of this policy also lies with them.  whatever.  it is a minor point.  what i am saying is that a blockade is necessary, but the way it is been handled by the israeli and egyptian governments has allowed hamas to gain a support base and tap into the poverty that the blockade restrictions are causing for recruitment and political support.  the us did not stop all construction materials from entering afghanistan to erode support for the taliban, because that only would have made afghans more likely to hate the us and support the taliban.  the us has had an embargo on cuba for decades, and all it did was make sure castro could always blame the us for any problems and increase his support base.   #  and i didnt state it well in the parent post, but i do not think israel has been perfect in the entire process.   #  ok, so first, gaza was fairly open until hamas took power and the rocket attacks started they even left the greenhouses in place , the blockade is meant to slow the flow of rockets into gaza, its kind of hard to blame the israelis for that.  i remember that the israelis wanted to open a border crossing before the rocket attacks really started in earnest, and hamas threatened to shoot anyone who came through.  and the returning lands was a  demonstrate that we can trust you to keep the peace with what we give you at first and then we will give you more and more.   when they quickly turned around and used the land to launch more attacks, israel had no good reason to give more land back.  and i didnt state it well in the parent post, but i do not think israel has been perfect in the entire process.  but at least i see them as trying, they have to compromise with domestic factions that want the settlements, as well as compromise with the palestinians.
0.  israel has repeatedly been on the defense in wars with her neighbors, only making aggressive maneuvers after repelling the invaders.  israel has usally given most of the captured land back to the aggressors as a olive branch in good faith 0.  israel treats her palestinian citizens has full citizens, even holding public office.  religious freedom is the standard, as are most civil liberties expected of a civilized liberal democracy in the 0st century.  0.  israel exercises an extraordinary effort and restraint when engaging palestinian terrorists in combat by warning innocents to leave an area they are about to bomb.  it is impossible to avoid all civilian deaths, but at least they seriously try.  0.  in contrast, palestinians, namely hamas are foundationally in their founding charter committed to killing as many jews and israelis as they can, at any cost, as seen by their relentless attack on southern israel with rockets and raids.  0.  hamas also intentionally uses their citizens as human shields by building their military facilities under hospitals and kindergartens.  even going to the extent of forcing civilians into buildings that they know are about to be bombed to as to increase the casualties for pr reasons.  0.  palestinians have repeatedly, under multiple governments, refused to even consider a peaceful coexistence with israel.  this is seen by the palestinians consistently refusing to even consider favorable peace terms offered by the israelis.  i mean even if they got the short end of the stick 0 years ago, that can only excuse being so shitty for so long, right ?  #  in contrast, palestinians, namely hamas are foundationally in their founding charter committed to killing as many jews and israelis as they can, at any cost, as seen by their relentless attack on southern israel with rockets and raids.   #  imagine you had to vote between the plo and hamas, the plo largely ineffective for decades, has overseen the palestinians losing more and more land, more rights, etc.   #  palestinian here, so i hope i can contribute to helping change your view.  israel has usally given most of the captured land back to the aggressors as a olive branch in good faith this is completely untrue.  look at the land  israel treats her palestinian citizens has full citizens, even holding public office.  religious freedom is the standard, as are most civil liberties expected of a civilized liberal democracy in the 0st century.  arab israelis are somewhat treated as second class citizens.  national identification explicitly states that they are a different kind of citizen and they are often treated as such.  it is impossible to avoid all civilian deaths, but at least they seriously try.  this is completely backwards.  the current commander in chief came up with the dahiya doctrine URL which aims to cause as much infrastructure and societal damage as possible to act as a detriment to future acts of hostility.  history has shown this does not work.  you ca not keep beating the dog in hope that he will become docile, he will just become more violent and resentful.  imagine you had to vote between the plo and hamas, the plo largely ineffective for decades, has overseen the palestinians losing more and more land, more rights, etc.  you do know there are jew only URL streets.  living under occupation is terrible.  it is demoralizing.  so a vote for change was inevitable.  for the first 0 months, hamas personally cracked down on those firing rockets, they also invested heavily in infrastructure and schools all this is only in gaza, the plo governs the west bank which contains the majority of the palestinian population anyway .  did the bush government represent all the us ? am i supposed to believe the average american shares the views of their governing body ? so odd that this argument is used against the palestinians.  even going to the extent of forcing civilians into buildings that they know are about to be bombed to as to increase the casualties for pr reasons.  okay, so hamas who are forcibly in charge and the palestinians ca not change that, so we hate palestinians for having to live under that governance while getting further crushed by the israeli regime.  the average palestinian is just caught between a rock and a hard place.  hamas nor the plo represents the average palestinian is views.  they certainly do not represent mine nor my family or friends.  so why are we hated based on having to be governed by a certain party with no way out ? this is seen by the palestinians consistently refusing to even consider favorable peace terms offered by the israelis.  it is the conditions that people protest.  the constant land grabs.  the living under occupation.  why would anyone say yes to that ? everyone wants peace, the alternative current situation is too terrible to bare, but what has been proposed in the past is further land grabs, fewer rights, territorial demarcations that choke the palestinian population, etc.   #  the gazan people did not respond to being given land back with rockets, they responded to the policies that pushed the entire strip to the verge of humanitarian crisis levels and ensures they ca not rebuild after rounds of violence with rockets.   #  i count myself as a supporter of israel as well as a supporter of the palestinians two state solution necessary for everyone, self determination is a big deal and i just need to mention that by no means has the gaza strip been returned completely to the palestinians.  sure, a few isolated communities were removed, but the restrictions on goods and services going into gaza have been incredibly strict and even worse is the restrictions on exports, which decimated the gazan economy and pushed the entire population there into supporting hamas.  the entire border of gaza is heavily restricted, the idf still manages much of gazan affairs, and the economic realities are important to note.  the gazan people did not respond to being given land back with rockets, they responded to the policies that pushed the entire strip to the verge of humanitarian crisis levels and ensures they ca not rebuild after rounds of violence with rockets.  that decision is morally unacceptable, and israel absolutely must defend itself from indiscriminate rocket attacks on civilians, but for years they had so many restrictions on goods entering that there was a list of what was allowed in as opposed to a list of what was not, and while they have loosened the restrictions somewhat since cast lead it is still far too restrictive.  you mention land for peace the only problem with this is that with the exception of the sinai peninsula with egypt, israel has never acted on it.  the premise of the oslo accords was that area c would slowly change to area b would slowly change to area a as negotiations on final borders were ongoing, but instead we have seen massive settlement construction and a complete lack of good faith on the part off israeli pms, especially but not exclusively bibi.  we ca not give up the golan or risk strategic nightmare if syria gets its shit together, and we still control gaza is borders, airspace, and economic situation.  every time negotiations start getting going for real, the government announces another 0 0 apartments built in ariel, or silwan, or ma ale adumin.  i think one or two of those places will be part of israel after any two state deal, but it shows bad faith.  i would honestly have little problem with the actions of the israeli government if we were not expanding settlements at more rapid rates every year.  a permanent freeze on building over the green line until a final status agreement was signed would put the government firmly in the acceptable category for me, even if i have reservations about their policy on iran, or their relationship with obama, or their inability to deal with the haredim.  but we ca not talk about land for peace and ignore the massive settlement construction that is taken place since olmert is peace process fell apart.   #  it was deeply irresponsible, and it only made it worse that we then ensured that exports could not leave and supplies could not get it.   #  but more importantly, people act like the gazan disengagement was some wonderful unilateral step meant to promote peace, and if that is what sharon was trying to do he miserably failed.  he did it after and while announcing that there was no partner for peace and that negotiations would get us nowhere, essentially handing hamas the ability to say to gazans  look, fatah tried and the israelis lambasted them, we fight and the israelis leave .  it was deeply irresponsible, and it only made it worse that we then ensured that exports could not leave and supplies could not get it.  if you had to craft a way to increase hamas  political support base, you could not do much better than this.  either we should have been prepared to give full control to the pa and deal with the consequences, or we should not have pretended to give up control at all.  the policy towards gaza has undoubtedly increased hamas  support, and that is partially because israel is government has done absolutely nothing to bolster the pa is legitimacy in the eyes of the gazan people.   #  the us has had an embargo on cuba for decades, and all it did was make sure castro could always blame the us for any problems and increase his support base.   #  the pa was created by the oslo accords.  its existence is entirely a function of the peace process.  it is only a government of palestinians if palestinians accept its rule, and that is why it is so vital that israel helps boost its legitimacy.  otherwise, they turn to hamas.  when you convince people that nonviolence ca not possibly get them the legal rights and the state that they want, many of them make the awful decision to turn to violence.  i am not sure what you mean by  defense of egypt , they are participating in the blockade for a number of reasons including their desire to hurt hamas.  i have not disputed that point.  all i am saying is that israeli policy dictates what gets into the port of gaza city, what gets through most crossings, and how smugglers are dealt with.  egypt supports that policy 0 times out of 0, and so i guess part of the blame for the effect of this policy also lies with them.  whatever.  it is a minor point.  what i am saying is that a blockade is necessary, but the way it is been handled by the israeli and egyptian governments has allowed hamas to gain a support base and tap into the poverty that the blockade restrictions are causing for recruitment and political support.  the us did not stop all construction materials from entering afghanistan to erode support for the taliban, because that only would have made afghans more likely to hate the us and support the taliban.  the us has had an embargo on cuba for decades, and all it did was make sure castro could always blame the us for any problems and increase his support base.   #  and the returning lands was a  demonstrate that we can trust you to keep the peace with what we give you at first and then we will give you more and more.    #  ok, so first, gaza was fairly open until hamas took power and the rocket attacks started they even left the greenhouses in place , the blockade is meant to slow the flow of rockets into gaza, its kind of hard to blame the israelis for that.  i remember that the israelis wanted to open a border crossing before the rocket attacks really started in earnest, and hamas threatened to shoot anyone who came through.  and the returning lands was a  demonstrate that we can trust you to keep the peace with what we give you at first and then we will give you more and more.   when they quickly turned around and used the land to launch more attacks, israel had no good reason to give more land back.  and i didnt state it well in the parent post, but i do not think israel has been perfect in the entire process.  but at least i see them as trying, they have to compromise with domestic factions that want the settlements, as well as compromise with the palestinians.
0.  israel has repeatedly been on the defense in wars with her neighbors, only making aggressive maneuvers after repelling the invaders.  israel has usally given most of the captured land back to the aggressors as a olive branch in good faith 0.  israel treats her palestinian citizens has full citizens, even holding public office.  religious freedom is the standard, as are most civil liberties expected of a civilized liberal democracy in the 0st century.  0.  israel exercises an extraordinary effort and restraint when engaging palestinian terrorists in combat by warning innocents to leave an area they are about to bomb.  it is impossible to avoid all civilian deaths, but at least they seriously try.  0.  in contrast, palestinians, namely hamas are foundationally in their founding charter committed to killing as many jews and israelis as they can, at any cost, as seen by their relentless attack on southern israel with rockets and raids.  0.  hamas also intentionally uses their citizens as human shields by building their military facilities under hospitals and kindergartens.  even going to the extent of forcing civilians into buildings that they know are about to be bombed to as to increase the casualties for pr reasons.  0.  palestinians have repeatedly, under multiple governments, refused to even consider a peaceful coexistence with israel.  this is seen by the palestinians consistently refusing to even consider favorable peace terms offered by the israelis.  i mean even if they got the short end of the stick 0 years ago, that can only excuse being so shitty for so long, right ?  #  hamas also intentionally uses their citizens as human shields by building their military facilities under hospitals and kindergartens.   #  even going to the extent of forcing civilians into buildings that they know are about to be bombed to as to increase the casualties for pr reasons.   #  palestinian here, so i hope i can contribute to helping change your view.  israel has usally given most of the captured land back to the aggressors as a olive branch in good faith this is completely untrue.  look at the land  israel treats her palestinian citizens has full citizens, even holding public office.  religious freedom is the standard, as are most civil liberties expected of a civilized liberal democracy in the 0st century.  arab israelis are somewhat treated as second class citizens.  national identification explicitly states that they are a different kind of citizen and they are often treated as such.  it is impossible to avoid all civilian deaths, but at least they seriously try.  this is completely backwards.  the current commander in chief came up with the dahiya doctrine URL which aims to cause as much infrastructure and societal damage as possible to act as a detriment to future acts of hostility.  history has shown this does not work.  you ca not keep beating the dog in hope that he will become docile, he will just become more violent and resentful.  imagine you had to vote between the plo and hamas, the plo largely ineffective for decades, has overseen the palestinians losing more and more land, more rights, etc.  you do know there are jew only URL streets.  living under occupation is terrible.  it is demoralizing.  so a vote for change was inevitable.  for the first 0 months, hamas personally cracked down on those firing rockets, they also invested heavily in infrastructure and schools all this is only in gaza, the plo governs the west bank which contains the majority of the palestinian population anyway .  did the bush government represent all the us ? am i supposed to believe the average american shares the views of their governing body ? so odd that this argument is used against the palestinians.  even going to the extent of forcing civilians into buildings that they know are about to be bombed to as to increase the casualties for pr reasons.  okay, so hamas who are forcibly in charge and the palestinians ca not change that, so we hate palestinians for having to live under that governance while getting further crushed by the israeli regime.  the average palestinian is just caught between a rock and a hard place.  hamas nor the plo represents the average palestinian is views.  they certainly do not represent mine nor my family or friends.  so why are we hated based on having to be governed by a certain party with no way out ? this is seen by the palestinians consistently refusing to even consider favorable peace terms offered by the israelis.  it is the conditions that people protest.  the constant land grabs.  the living under occupation.  why would anyone say yes to that ? everyone wants peace, the alternative current situation is too terrible to bare, but what has been proposed in the past is further land grabs, fewer rights, territorial demarcations that choke the palestinian population, etc.   #  i would honestly have little problem with the actions of the israeli government if we were not expanding settlements at more rapid rates every year.   #  i count myself as a supporter of israel as well as a supporter of the palestinians two state solution necessary for everyone, self determination is a big deal and i just need to mention that by no means has the gaza strip been returned completely to the palestinians.  sure, a few isolated communities were removed, but the restrictions on goods and services going into gaza have been incredibly strict and even worse is the restrictions on exports, which decimated the gazan economy and pushed the entire population there into supporting hamas.  the entire border of gaza is heavily restricted, the idf still manages much of gazan affairs, and the economic realities are important to note.  the gazan people did not respond to being given land back with rockets, they responded to the policies that pushed the entire strip to the verge of humanitarian crisis levels and ensures they ca not rebuild after rounds of violence with rockets.  that decision is morally unacceptable, and israel absolutely must defend itself from indiscriminate rocket attacks on civilians, but for years they had so many restrictions on goods entering that there was a list of what was allowed in as opposed to a list of what was not, and while they have loosened the restrictions somewhat since cast lead it is still far too restrictive.  you mention land for peace the only problem with this is that with the exception of the sinai peninsula with egypt, israel has never acted on it.  the premise of the oslo accords was that area c would slowly change to area b would slowly change to area a as negotiations on final borders were ongoing, but instead we have seen massive settlement construction and a complete lack of good faith on the part off israeli pms, especially but not exclusively bibi.  we ca not give up the golan or risk strategic nightmare if syria gets its shit together, and we still control gaza is borders, airspace, and economic situation.  every time negotiations start getting going for real, the government announces another 0 0 apartments built in ariel, or silwan, or ma ale adumin.  i think one or two of those places will be part of israel after any two state deal, but it shows bad faith.  i would honestly have little problem with the actions of the israeli government if we were not expanding settlements at more rapid rates every year.  a permanent freeze on building over the green line until a final status agreement was signed would put the government firmly in the acceptable category for me, even if i have reservations about their policy on iran, or their relationship with obama, or their inability to deal with the haredim.  but we ca not talk about land for peace and ignore the massive settlement construction that is taken place since olmert is peace process fell apart.   #  if you had to craft a way to increase hamas  political support base, you could not do much better than this.   #  but more importantly, people act like the gazan disengagement was some wonderful unilateral step meant to promote peace, and if that is what sharon was trying to do he miserably failed.  he did it after and while announcing that there was no partner for peace and that negotiations would get us nowhere, essentially handing hamas the ability to say to gazans  look, fatah tried and the israelis lambasted them, we fight and the israelis leave .  it was deeply irresponsible, and it only made it worse that we then ensured that exports could not leave and supplies could not get it.  if you had to craft a way to increase hamas  political support base, you could not do much better than this.  either we should have been prepared to give full control to the pa and deal with the consequences, or we should not have pretended to give up control at all.  the policy towards gaza has undoubtedly increased hamas  support, and that is partially because israel is government has done absolutely nothing to bolster the pa is legitimacy in the eyes of the gazan people.   #  the us did not stop all construction materials from entering afghanistan to erode support for the taliban, because that only would have made afghans more likely to hate the us and support the taliban.   #  the pa was created by the oslo accords.  its existence is entirely a function of the peace process.  it is only a government of palestinians if palestinians accept its rule, and that is why it is so vital that israel helps boost its legitimacy.  otherwise, they turn to hamas.  when you convince people that nonviolence ca not possibly get them the legal rights and the state that they want, many of them make the awful decision to turn to violence.  i am not sure what you mean by  defense of egypt , they are participating in the blockade for a number of reasons including their desire to hurt hamas.  i have not disputed that point.  all i am saying is that israeli policy dictates what gets into the port of gaza city, what gets through most crossings, and how smugglers are dealt with.  egypt supports that policy 0 times out of 0, and so i guess part of the blame for the effect of this policy also lies with them.  whatever.  it is a minor point.  what i am saying is that a blockade is necessary, but the way it is been handled by the israeli and egyptian governments has allowed hamas to gain a support base and tap into the poverty that the blockade restrictions are causing for recruitment and political support.  the us did not stop all construction materials from entering afghanistan to erode support for the taliban, because that only would have made afghans more likely to hate the us and support the taliban.  the us has had an embargo on cuba for decades, and all it did was make sure castro could always blame the us for any problems and increase his support base.   #  and i didnt state it well in the parent post, but i do not think israel has been perfect in the entire process.   #  ok, so first, gaza was fairly open until hamas took power and the rocket attacks started they even left the greenhouses in place , the blockade is meant to slow the flow of rockets into gaza, its kind of hard to blame the israelis for that.  i remember that the israelis wanted to open a border crossing before the rocket attacks really started in earnest, and hamas threatened to shoot anyone who came through.  and the returning lands was a  demonstrate that we can trust you to keep the peace with what we give you at first and then we will give you more and more.   when they quickly turned around and used the land to launch more attacks, israel had no good reason to give more land back.  and i didnt state it well in the parent post, but i do not think israel has been perfect in the entire process.  but at least i see them as trying, they have to compromise with domestic factions that want the settlements, as well as compromise with the palestinians.
0.  israel has repeatedly been on the defense in wars with her neighbors, only making aggressive maneuvers after repelling the invaders.  israel has usally given most of the captured land back to the aggressors as a olive branch in good faith 0.  israel treats her palestinian citizens has full citizens, even holding public office.  religious freedom is the standard, as are most civil liberties expected of a civilized liberal democracy in the 0st century.  0.  israel exercises an extraordinary effort and restraint when engaging palestinian terrorists in combat by warning innocents to leave an area they are about to bomb.  it is impossible to avoid all civilian deaths, but at least they seriously try.  0.  in contrast, palestinians, namely hamas are foundationally in their founding charter committed to killing as many jews and israelis as they can, at any cost, as seen by their relentless attack on southern israel with rockets and raids.  0.  hamas also intentionally uses their citizens as human shields by building their military facilities under hospitals and kindergartens.  even going to the extent of forcing civilians into buildings that they know are about to be bombed to as to increase the casualties for pr reasons.  0.  palestinians have repeatedly, under multiple governments, refused to even consider a peaceful coexistence with israel.  this is seen by the palestinians consistently refusing to even consider favorable peace terms offered by the israelis.  i mean even if they got the short end of the stick 0 years ago, that can only excuse being so shitty for so long, right ?  #  palestinians have repeatedly, under multiple governments, refused to even consider a peaceful coexistence with israel.   #  this is seen by the palestinians consistently refusing to even consider favorable peace terms offered by the israelis.   #  palestinian here, so i hope i can contribute to helping change your view.  israel has usally given most of the captured land back to the aggressors as a olive branch in good faith this is completely untrue.  look at the land  israel treats her palestinian citizens has full citizens, even holding public office.  religious freedom is the standard, as are most civil liberties expected of a civilized liberal democracy in the 0st century.  arab israelis are somewhat treated as second class citizens.  national identification explicitly states that they are a different kind of citizen and they are often treated as such.  it is impossible to avoid all civilian deaths, but at least they seriously try.  this is completely backwards.  the current commander in chief came up with the dahiya doctrine URL which aims to cause as much infrastructure and societal damage as possible to act as a detriment to future acts of hostility.  history has shown this does not work.  you ca not keep beating the dog in hope that he will become docile, he will just become more violent and resentful.  imagine you had to vote between the plo and hamas, the plo largely ineffective for decades, has overseen the palestinians losing more and more land, more rights, etc.  you do know there are jew only URL streets.  living under occupation is terrible.  it is demoralizing.  so a vote for change was inevitable.  for the first 0 months, hamas personally cracked down on those firing rockets, they also invested heavily in infrastructure and schools all this is only in gaza, the plo governs the west bank which contains the majority of the palestinian population anyway .  did the bush government represent all the us ? am i supposed to believe the average american shares the views of their governing body ? so odd that this argument is used against the palestinians.  even going to the extent of forcing civilians into buildings that they know are about to be bombed to as to increase the casualties for pr reasons.  okay, so hamas who are forcibly in charge and the palestinians ca not change that, so we hate palestinians for having to live under that governance while getting further crushed by the israeli regime.  the average palestinian is just caught between a rock and a hard place.  hamas nor the plo represents the average palestinian is views.  they certainly do not represent mine nor my family or friends.  so why are we hated based on having to be governed by a certain party with no way out ? this is seen by the palestinians consistently refusing to even consider favorable peace terms offered by the israelis.  it is the conditions that people protest.  the constant land grabs.  the living under occupation.  why would anyone say yes to that ? everyone wants peace, the alternative current situation is too terrible to bare, but what has been proposed in the past is further land grabs, fewer rights, territorial demarcations that choke the palestinian population, etc.   #  we ca not give up the golan or risk strategic nightmare if syria gets its shit together, and we still control gaza is borders, airspace, and economic situation.   #  i count myself as a supporter of israel as well as a supporter of the palestinians two state solution necessary for everyone, self determination is a big deal and i just need to mention that by no means has the gaza strip been returned completely to the palestinians.  sure, a few isolated communities were removed, but the restrictions on goods and services going into gaza have been incredibly strict and even worse is the restrictions on exports, which decimated the gazan economy and pushed the entire population there into supporting hamas.  the entire border of gaza is heavily restricted, the idf still manages much of gazan affairs, and the economic realities are important to note.  the gazan people did not respond to being given land back with rockets, they responded to the policies that pushed the entire strip to the verge of humanitarian crisis levels and ensures they ca not rebuild after rounds of violence with rockets.  that decision is morally unacceptable, and israel absolutely must defend itself from indiscriminate rocket attacks on civilians, but for years they had so many restrictions on goods entering that there was a list of what was allowed in as opposed to a list of what was not, and while they have loosened the restrictions somewhat since cast lead it is still far too restrictive.  you mention land for peace the only problem with this is that with the exception of the sinai peninsula with egypt, israel has never acted on it.  the premise of the oslo accords was that area c would slowly change to area b would slowly change to area a as negotiations on final borders were ongoing, but instead we have seen massive settlement construction and a complete lack of good faith on the part off israeli pms, especially but not exclusively bibi.  we ca not give up the golan or risk strategic nightmare if syria gets its shit together, and we still control gaza is borders, airspace, and economic situation.  every time negotiations start getting going for real, the government announces another 0 0 apartments built in ariel, or silwan, or ma ale adumin.  i think one or two of those places will be part of israel after any two state deal, but it shows bad faith.  i would honestly have little problem with the actions of the israeli government if we were not expanding settlements at more rapid rates every year.  a permanent freeze on building over the green line until a final status agreement was signed would put the government firmly in the acceptable category for me, even if i have reservations about their policy on iran, or their relationship with obama, or their inability to deal with the haredim.  but we ca not talk about land for peace and ignore the massive settlement construction that is taken place since olmert is peace process fell apart.   #  the policy towards gaza has undoubtedly increased hamas  support, and that is partially because israel is government has done absolutely nothing to bolster the pa is legitimacy in the eyes of the gazan people.   #  but more importantly, people act like the gazan disengagement was some wonderful unilateral step meant to promote peace, and if that is what sharon was trying to do he miserably failed.  he did it after and while announcing that there was no partner for peace and that negotiations would get us nowhere, essentially handing hamas the ability to say to gazans  look, fatah tried and the israelis lambasted them, we fight and the israelis leave .  it was deeply irresponsible, and it only made it worse that we then ensured that exports could not leave and supplies could not get it.  if you had to craft a way to increase hamas  political support base, you could not do much better than this.  either we should have been prepared to give full control to the pa and deal with the consequences, or we should not have pretended to give up control at all.  the policy towards gaza has undoubtedly increased hamas  support, and that is partially because israel is government has done absolutely nothing to bolster the pa is legitimacy in the eyes of the gazan people.   #  when you convince people that nonviolence ca not possibly get them the legal rights and the state that they want, many of them make the awful decision to turn to violence.   #  the pa was created by the oslo accords.  its existence is entirely a function of the peace process.  it is only a government of palestinians if palestinians accept its rule, and that is why it is so vital that israel helps boost its legitimacy.  otherwise, they turn to hamas.  when you convince people that nonviolence ca not possibly get them the legal rights and the state that they want, many of them make the awful decision to turn to violence.  i am not sure what you mean by  defense of egypt , they are participating in the blockade for a number of reasons including their desire to hurt hamas.  i have not disputed that point.  all i am saying is that israeli policy dictates what gets into the port of gaza city, what gets through most crossings, and how smugglers are dealt with.  egypt supports that policy 0 times out of 0, and so i guess part of the blame for the effect of this policy also lies with them.  whatever.  it is a minor point.  what i am saying is that a blockade is necessary, but the way it is been handled by the israeli and egyptian governments has allowed hamas to gain a support base and tap into the poverty that the blockade restrictions are causing for recruitment and political support.  the us did not stop all construction materials from entering afghanistan to erode support for the taliban, because that only would have made afghans more likely to hate the us and support the taliban.  the us has had an embargo on cuba for decades, and all it did was make sure castro could always blame the us for any problems and increase his support base.   #  when they quickly turned around and used the land to launch more attacks, israel had no good reason to give more land back.   #  ok, so first, gaza was fairly open until hamas took power and the rocket attacks started they even left the greenhouses in place , the blockade is meant to slow the flow of rockets into gaza, its kind of hard to blame the israelis for that.  i remember that the israelis wanted to open a border crossing before the rocket attacks really started in earnest, and hamas threatened to shoot anyone who came through.  and the returning lands was a  demonstrate that we can trust you to keep the peace with what we give you at first and then we will give you more and more.   when they quickly turned around and used the land to launch more attacks, israel had no good reason to give more land back.  and i didnt state it well in the parent post, but i do not think israel has been perfect in the entire process.  but at least i see them as trying, they have to compromise with domestic factions that want the settlements, as well as compromise with the palestinians.
let me start off by saying that i am not against legal immigration in anyway, and am only against illegal immigration.  i believe that illegal immigrants should not be given amnesty for plenty of reasons.  a they broke the law, and should be punished, not rewarded, for doing so.  there are legal ways to immigrate into the us, and just because it is harder to do so does not mean you can ignore the law when it is convenient.  b illegal immigration depresses wages and lowers working conditions.  they are willing to work for less, and are much less likely to complain when they are abused.  many businesses take advantage of such people to save costs, and treat their illegal immigrant workers unfairly.  c the people coming in negatively effect the community by committing crime.  according to usa today, they represent just 0 of the u. s.  population, undocumented immigrants represented 0 of federal prison sentences following convictions on charges of sexual abuse, 0 of murders, 0 of assaults and 0 of kidnappings in 0.  URL  there is no evidence that immigrants are either more or less likely to commit crimes than anyone else in the population,  janice kephart, a cis researcher, said last week on the pbs newshour.  d most importantly, by not having a tough stance on illegal immigration, it further encourages illegal immigration.  there is always going to be motivation for illegal immigration, so as a country, we should do our best to discourage that behavior.  by not actively discouraging illegal immigration, people would be stupid not to try to illegally immigrate.  my view has changed in the sense that i no longer believe that all illegal immigrants should be deported as soon as possible, and you can see my post here URL  #  let me start off by saying that i am not against legal immigration in anyway, and am only against illegal immigration.   #  i believe that illegal immigrants should not be given amnesty for plenty of reasons.   # i believe that illegal immigrants should not be given amnesty for plenty of reasons.  there are legal ways to immigrate into the us, and just because it is harder to do so does not mean you can ignore the law when it is convenient.  this strikes me as, and i am going to be honest here, unbearably naive and simplistic.  first of all ,  they broke the law and should be punished.   ok, but you have not explained why that punishment  has  to be deportation.  not only is it going to cost the us billions of dollars tracking down and deporting 0 million people, it leaves off the table other methods of punishment.  punishments that could include: paying a large fine to the taxpayers community service larger amount of paycheck going to payroll taxes social security lower on the tier list for government job prospects just deporting them all is not good for the country.  certainly not as good a deal as having them pay us money.  this also does not deal with the problem that most of the jobs they do americans do not wan to do anyway.  and this:   there are legal ways to immigrate into the us, and just because it is harder to do so does not mean you can ignore the law when it is convenient.  i mean, come on.  i hate calling people out but this is just textbook  american not realizing how good they have it.   if a guy has a hungry family, he is not just breaking the law because it is  convenient.   he is not shoplifting his favorite pair of sneakers.  they are taking a  huge  risk coming here, and working a tremendous amount i believe the average work week for an illegal immigrant is well over 0 hours. close to 0 in order to  not starve.  honestly, if i was in their position i would do the same thing.  do you really expect people to just say,  oh, since it is against the law for me to climb that fence, me and my family are just gonna starve.   fuck that.  sending them back because they  broke a law  is just flat out immoral.  they had to be pretty desperate to take all those risks, uproot themselves from their homes, and move their whole family to a foreign country where they do not even speak the language.  they are willing to work for less, and are much less likely to complain when they are abused.  many businesses take advantage of such people to save costs, and treat their illegal immigrant workers unfairly.  ironically, these problems would all be solved if they were given amnesty.  as for your crime stats, i am pretty sure those are misleading / cherrypicked, but i am not sure so i cannot dispute it.  however, it is silly to deport  all  illegals.  just deport the ones caught committing crimes.  much easier, cheaper, and more effective than checking everyones papers whos name is jose.   #  so the fact that we have job sectors that require illegal work and they will simply come over anyway because of economic incentive, what we need is a much stronger guest worker program.   #  the 0 pound elephant in the room, and that is kind of a small elephant, but still, is that we need illegals.  they work in certain jobs that traditional americans do not.  also, no matter what laws we place, we will never defeat the massive amount of economic incentive for people to come over here.  if americans could make far, far, far more moving to canada we would make the trip legal or not.  so the fact that we have job sectors that require illegal work and they will simply come over anyway because of economic incentive, what we need is a much stronger guest worker program.  there are people who would love to work the season an then go back to their home countries.  our current laws make this impossible.  once you are here you stay.  if we had a solid guest worker program it would solve a fair amount of problems.  more laws are simply going to run into a lot of economic incentive.  it is very difficult to counter economic incentive just by laws.   #  however, i do think it is possible to counter economic incentives by laws.   #  i think the biggest qualification in your first point that  they work in certain jobs that traditional american is do not  is  at the current pay,  and that is what i mean when i say it depresses wages.  supply and demand is the basic economic principle i think about in this case.  if no one wants to pick apples for 0 dollars an hour, then the demand will go up, so the price/pay for that job will go up.  however, illegal immigrants are willing to work for that amount, so the pay is kept down.  i do agree with your point that we need a much stronger guest worker program, and i think that could be one of the many ways to counter illegal immigration.  however, i do think it is possible to counter economic incentives by laws.  hiring illegal immigrants is illegal, yet businesses are willing to turn a blind eye, because of the cheap labor costs.  if the fines for hiring illegal immigrants are high enough, then the incentive would disappear, for both the businesses and the illegal immigrants.   #  those kids are just as american as any other american.   #  no one does want to pick apples for min.  wage.  that is true.  that will always be true.  the odd thing is that farmers ca not really afford to spend more on labor when the profit on apples is not great.  illegals are five percent of the work force.  that is not a small number.  you are talking about removing 0 million people.  that is not a small number either.  that is a factories 0rd shift.  that is a farmer is harvest work crew.  you say that other people will just step in, but that is a thing that is easy to say and hard to have happen.  you also have the problem that there are children who are american citizens with illegal immigrants as parents.  what do you then ? those kids are just as american as any other american.  are we just going to make them wards of the state ? what will you do with those american citizens ?  #  i suppose this is the closest i will come to qualifying my position, so here is a  .   #  i suppose this is the closest i will come to qualifying my position, so here is a  .  the illegal immigrant population contributes a huge part to the standards of life currently in place.  i suppose that a lot of foods that are sold will drastically increase in price if illegal immigrants were all expelled tomorrow, since there will either be a huge push towards automation, but until then, they will have to pay much higher wages to have legal citizens do the jobs that illegal immigrants did previously.  the reason i gave a delta is because i no longer believe that deporting the vast majority illegal immigrants is the best course of action for this country.  i still believe that they should not be given amnesty, but rather temporary work visas for the next few years to wean current economies off of relying on cheap and exploited forms of labor.  however, i believe that great care should be taken so that there is not any misconceptions to potential illegal immigrants that things will work out for them if they illegally immigrate tomorrow.  i do agree that the children of illegal immigrants born on us soil are us citizens.  i thought of that before, and my thought was to shuffle them into state care or the foster home system.  it is not a pretty solution, however, nothing about illegal immigration is pretty.
let me start off by saying that i am not against legal immigration in anyway, and am only against illegal immigration.  i believe that illegal immigrants should not be given amnesty for plenty of reasons.  a they broke the law, and should be punished, not rewarded, for doing so.  there are legal ways to immigrate into the us, and just because it is harder to do so does not mean you can ignore the law when it is convenient.  b illegal immigration depresses wages and lowers working conditions.  they are willing to work for less, and are much less likely to complain when they are abused.  many businesses take advantage of such people to save costs, and treat their illegal immigrant workers unfairly.  c the people coming in negatively effect the community by committing crime.  according to usa today, they represent just 0 of the u. s.  population, undocumented immigrants represented 0 of federal prison sentences following convictions on charges of sexual abuse, 0 of murders, 0 of assaults and 0 of kidnappings in 0.  URL  there is no evidence that immigrants are either more or less likely to commit crimes than anyone else in the population,  janice kephart, a cis researcher, said last week on the pbs newshour.  d most importantly, by not having a tough stance on illegal immigration, it further encourages illegal immigration.  there is always going to be motivation for illegal immigration, so as a country, we should do our best to discourage that behavior.  by not actively discouraging illegal immigration, people would be stupid not to try to illegally immigrate.  my view has changed in the sense that i no longer believe that all illegal immigrants should be deported as soon as possible, and you can see my post here URL  #  a they broke the law, and should be punished, not rewarded, for doing so.   #  there are legal ways to immigrate into the us, and just because it is harder to do so does not mean you can ignore the law when it is convenient.   # i believe that illegal immigrants should not be given amnesty for plenty of reasons.  there are legal ways to immigrate into the us, and just because it is harder to do so does not mean you can ignore the law when it is convenient.  this strikes me as, and i am going to be honest here, unbearably naive and simplistic.  first of all ,  they broke the law and should be punished.   ok, but you have not explained why that punishment  has  to be deportation.  not only is it going to cost the us billions of dollars tracking down and deporting 0 million people, it leaves off the table other methods of punishment.  punishments that could include: paying a large fine to the taxpayers community service larger amount of paycheck going to payroll taxes social security lower on the tier list for government job prospects just deporting them all is not good for the country.  certainly not as good a deal as having them pay us money.  this also does not deal with the problem that most of the jobs they do americans do not wan to do anyway.  and this:   there are legal ways to immigrate into the us, and just because it is harder to do so does not mean you can ignore the law when it is convenient.  i mean, come on.  i hate calling people out but this is just textbook  american not realizing how good they have it.   if a guy has a hungry family, he is not just breaking the law because it is  convenient.   he is not shoplifting his favorite pair of sneakers.  they are taking a  huge  risk coming here, and working a tremendous amount i believe the average work week for an illegal immigrant is well over 0 hours. close to 0 in order to  not starve.  honestly, if i was in their position i would do the same thing.  do you really expect people to just say,  oh, since it is against the law for me to climb that fence, me and my family are just gonna starve.   fuck that.  sending them back because they  broke a law  is just flat out immoral.  they had to be pretty desperate to take all those risks, uproot themselves from their homes, and move their whole family to a foreign country where they do not even speak the language.  they are willing to work for less, and are much less likely to complain when they are abused.  many businesses take advantage of such people to save costs, and treat their illegal immigrant workers unfairly.  ironically, these problems would all be solved if they were given amnesty.  as for your crime stats, i am pretty sure those are misleading / cherrypicked, but i am not sure so i cannot dispute it.  however, it is silly to deport  all  illegals.  just deport the ones caught committing crimes.  much easier, cheaper, and more effective than checking everyones papers whos name is jose.   #  so the fact that we have job sectors that require illegal work and they will simply come over anyway because of economic incentive, what we need is a much stronger guest worker program.   #  the 0 pound elephant in the room, and that is kind of a small elephant, but still, is that we need illegals.  they work in certain jobs that traditional americans do not.  also, no matter what laws we place, we will never defeat the massive amount of economic incentive for people to come over here.  if americans could make far, far, far more moving to canada we would make the trip legal or not.  so the fact that we have job sectors that require illegal work and they will simply come over anyway because of economic incentive, what we need is a much stronger guest worker program.  there are people who would love to work the season an then go back to their home countries.  our current laws make this impossible.  once you are here you stay.  if we had a solid guest worker program it would solve a fair amount of problems.  more laws are simply going to run into a lot of economic incentive.  it is very difficult to counter economic incentive just by laws.   #  however, i do think it is possible to counter economic incentives by laws.   #  i think the biggest qualification in your first point that  they work in certain jobs that traditional american is do not  is  at the current pay,  and that is what i mean when i say it depresses wages.  supply and demand is the basic economic principle i think about in this case.  if no one wants to pick apples for 0 dollars an hour, then the demand will go up, so the price/pay for that job will go up.  however, illegal immigrants are willing to work for that amount, so the pay is kept down.  i do agree with your point that we need a much stronger guest worker program, and i think that could be one of the many ways to counter illegal immigration.  however, i do think it is possible to counter economic incentives by laws.  hiring illegal immigrants is illegal, yet businesses are willing to turn a blind eye, because of the cheap labor costs.  if the fines for hiring illegal immigrants are high enough, then the incentive would disappear, for both the businesses and the illegal immigrants.   #  the odd thing is that farmers ca not really afford to spend more on labor when the profit on apples is not great.   #  no one does want to pick apples for min.  wage.  that is true.  that will always be true.  the odd thing is that farmers ca not really afford to spend more on labor when the profit on apples is not great.  illegals are five percent of the work force.  that is not a small number.  you are talking about removing 0 million people.  that is not a small number either.  that is a factories 0rd shift.  that is a farmer is harvest work crew.  you say that other people will just step in, but that is a thing that is easy to say and hard to have happen.  you also have the problem that there are children who are american citizens with illegal immigrants as parents.  what do you then ? those kids are just as american as any other american.  are we just going to make them wards of the state ? what will you do with those american citizens ?  #  i do agree that the children of illegal immigrants born on us soil are us citizens.   #  i suppose this is the closest i will come to qualifying my position, so here is a  .  the illegal immigrant population contributes a huge part to the standards of life currently in place.  i suppose that a lot of foods that are sold will drastically increase in price if illegal immigrants were all expelled tomorrow, since there will either be a huge push towards automation, but until then, they will have to pay much higher wages to have legal citizens do the jobs that illegal immigrants did previously.  the reason i gave a delta is because i no longer believe that deporting the vast majority illegal immigrants is the best course of action for this country.  i still believe that they should not be given amnesty, but rather temporary work visas for the next few years to wean current economies off of relying on cheap and exploited forms of labor.  however, i believe that great care should be taken so that there is not any misconceptions to potential illegal immigrants that things will work out for them if they illegally immigrate tomorrow.  i do agree that the children of illegal immigrants born on us soil are us citizens.  i thought of that before, and my thought was to shuffle them into state care or the foster home system.  it is not a pretty solution, however, nothing about illegal immigration is pretty.
let me start off by saying that i am not against legal immigration in anyway, and am only against illegal immigration.  i believe that illegal immigrants should not be given amnesty for plenty of reasons.  a they broke the law, and should be punished, not rewarded, for doing so.  there are legal ways to immigrate into the us, and just because it is harder to do so does not mean you can ignore the law when it is convenient.  b illegal immigration depresses wages and lowers working conditions.  they are willing to work for less, and are much less likely to complain when they are abused.  many businesses take advantage of such people to save costs, and treat their illegal immigrant workers unfairly.  c the people coming in negatively effect the community by committing crime.  according to usa today, they represent just 0 of the u. s.  population, undocumented immigrants represented 0 of federal prison sentences following convictions on charges of sexual abuse, 0 of murders, 0 of assaults and 0 of kidnappings in 0.  URL  there is no evidence that immigrants are either more or less likely to commit crimes than anyone else in the population,  janice kephart, a cis researcher, said last week on the pbs newshour.  d most importantly, by not having a tough stance on illegal immigration, it further encourages illegal immigration.  there is always going to be motivation for illegal immigration, so as a country, we should do our best to discourage that behavior.  by not actively discouraging illegal immigration, people would be stupid not to try to illegally immigrate.  my view has changed in the sense that i no longer believe that all illegal immigrants should be deported as soon as possible, and you can see my post here URL  #  b illegal immigration depresses wages and lowers working conditions.   #  they are willing to work for less, and are much less likely to complain when they are abused.   # i believe that illegal immigrants should not be given amnesty for plenty of reasons.  there are legal ways to immigrate into the us, and just because it is harder to do so does not mean you can ignore the law when it is convenient.  this strikes me as, and i am going to be honest here, unbearably naive and simplistic.  first of all ,  they broke the law and should be punished.   ok, but you have not explained why that punishment  has  to be deportation.  not only is it going to cost the us billions of dollars tracking down and deporting 0 million people, it leaves off the table other methods of punishment.  punishments that could include: paying a large fine to the taxpayers community service larger amount of paycheck going to payroll taxes social security lower on the tier list for government job prospects just deporting them all is not good for the country.  certainly not as good a deal as having them pay us money.  this also does not deal with the problem that most of the jobs they do americans do not wan to do anyway.  and this:   there are legal ways to immigrate into the us, and just because it is harder to do so does not mean you can ignore the law when it is convenient.  i mean, come on.  i hate calling people out but this is just textbook  american not realizing how good they have it.   if a guy has a hungry family, he is not just breaking the law because it is  convenient.   he is not shoplifting his favorite pair of sneakers.  they are taking a  huge  risk coming here, and working a tremendous amount i believe the average work week for an illegal immigrant is well over 0 hours. close to 0 in order to  not starve.  honestly, if i was in their position i would do the same thing.  do you really expect people to just say,  oh, since it is against the law for me to climb that fence, me and my family are just gonna starve.   fuck that.  sending them back because they  broke a law  is just flat out immoral.  they had to be pretty desperate to take all those risks, uproot themselves from their homes, and move their whole family to a foreign country where they do not even speak the language.  they are willing to work for less, and are much less likely to complain when they are abused.  many businesses take advantage of such people to save costs, and treat their illegal immigrant workers unfairly.  ironically, these problems would all be solved if they were given amnesty.  as for your crime stats, i am pretty sure those are misleading / cherrypicked, but i am not sure so i cannot dispute it.  however, it is silly to deport  all  illegals.  just deport the ones caught committing crimes.  much easier, cheaper, and more effective than checking everyones papers whos name is jose.   #  it is very difficult to counter economic incentive just by laws.   #  the 0 pound elephant in the room, and that is kind of a small elephant, but still, is that we need illegals.  they work in certain jobs that traditional americans do not.  also, no matter what laws we place, we will never defeat the massive amount of economic incentive for people to come over here.  if americans could make far, far, far more moving to canada we would make the trip legal or not.  so the fact that we have job sectors that require illegal work and they will simply come over anyway because of economic incentive, what we need is a much stronger guest worker program.  there are people who would love to work the season an then go back to their home countries.  our current laws make this impossible.  once you are here you stay.  if we had a solid guest worker program it would solve a fair amount of problems.  more laws are simply going to run into a lot of economic incentive.  it is very difficult to counter economic incentive just by laws.   #  supply and demand is the basic economic principle i think about in this case.   #  i think the biggest qualification in your first point that  they work in certain jobs that traditional american is do not  is  at the current pay,  and that is what i mean when i say it depresses wages.  supply and demand is the basic economic principle i think about in this case.  if no one wants to pick apples for 0 dollars an hour, then the demand will go up, so the price/pay for that job will go up.  however, illegal immigrants are willing to work for that amount, so the pay is kept down.  i do agree with your point that we need a much stronger guest worker program, and i think that could be one of the many ways to counter illegal immigration.  however, i do think it is possible to counter economic incentives by laws.  hiring illegal immigrants is illegal, yet businesses are willing to turn a blind eye, because of the cheap labor costs.  if the fines for hiring illegal immigrants are high enough, then the incentive would disappear, for both the businesses and the illegal immigrants.   #  no one does want to pick apples for min.   #  no one does want to pick apples for min.  wage.  that is true.  that will always be true.  the odd thing is that farmers ca not really afford to spend more on labor when the profit on apples is not great.  illegals are five percent of the work force.  that is not a small number.  you are talking about removing 0 million people.  that is not a small number either.  that is a factories 0rd shift.  that is a farmer is harvest work crew.  you say that other people will just step in, but that is a thing that is easy to say and hard to have happen.  you also have the problem that there are children who are american citizens with illegal immigrants as parents.  what do you then ? those kids are just as american as any other american.  are we just going to make them wards of the state ? what will you do with those american citizens ?  #  i still believe that they should not be given amnesty, but rather temporary work visas for the next few years to wean current economies off of relying on cheap and exploited forms of labor.   #  i suppose this is the closest i will come to qualifying my position, so here is a  .  the illegal immigrant population contributes a huge part to the standards of life currently in place.  i suppose that a lot of foods that are sold will drastically increase in price if illegal immigrants were all expelled tomorrow, since there will either be a huge push towards automation, but until then, they will have to pay much higher wages to have legal citizens do the jobs that illegal immigrants did previously.  the reason i gave a delta is because i no longer believe that deporting the vast majority illegal immigrants is the best course of action for this country.  i still believe that they should not be given amnesty, but rather temporary work visas for the next few years to wean current economies off of relying on cheap and exploited forms of labor.  however, i believe that great care should be taken so that there is not any misconceptions to potential illegal immigrants that things will work out for them if they illegally immigrate tomorrow.  i do agree that the children of illegal immigrants born on us soil are us citizens.  i thought of that before, and my thought was to shuffle them into state care or the foster home system.  it is not a pretty solution, however, nothing about illegal immigration is pretty.
been following the political news and had a few thoughts.  it really would not matter for the nation who becomes the next president.  it seems like the era of great presidents lincoln, frd, teddy roosevelt , who can truly make significant changes, have long past.  all of the current candidates, both democrats and republicans, more or less qualify to run a gov t, except probably dr.  carson.  many of them have held high government positions governors, senators or high ranking business positions ceo is .  they would know what to do as a president.  all of the important gov t positions are filled with appointed candidates the cabinet, joint chiefs, fed chairman, sc justices and etc , who are typically chosen based on their actual abilities and not on their likability to the masses.  for example, say something happens to obama and he can no longer be a president.  would anything drastic happen in the gov t ? not really, biden would become president and business would go on as usual.  thus whether it is the populist sanders, the clown trump, the crazy cruz, the young rubio, the old lady clinton or the libertarian paul, nothing spectacular or drastic would come.  the nation would run its course, governed by the well established system, and not by individual people.   the discussion is whether or not the next president, democrat or republican, is capable of bringing truly significant reforms, changing the course of the entire nation.  it does not matter if these changes go along with republican or democratic party lines.   #  all of the important gov t positions are filled with appointed candidates the cabinet, joint chiefs, fed chairman, sc justices and etc , who are typically chosen based on their actual abilities and not on their likability to the masses.   #  would not different candidates choose different people for these positions depending on their views ?  # would not different candidates choose different people for these positions depending on their views ? would anything drastic happen in the gov t ? not really, biden would become president and business would go on as usual.  that is mostly because they are a from the same party and b have the same views since they ran together .  the nation would run its course, governed by the well established system, and not by individual people.  it would still matter who became president.  sanders  presidency would be completely different from trump is or rubio is, since they all have different views and ideals.  also, the government is supposed to run as a system and not by individual people; that is why we have checks and balances on the president so we do not have a dictatorship.   #  i do not agree with your premise, but lets say i do.   #  i do not agree with your premise, but lets say i do.  lets say the president is not an important person, and that the well established and appointed people are going to do the real governing based on their actual abilities.  you are forgetting the fact that the president is the person who appoints them.  let is just take the supreme court.  there are only nine people on it.  0 of the 0 justices are over the age of 0.  do you really think that all of them are going to survive for the next 0 years ? whoever is the next president is going to get to appoint a whole bunch of dying and retiring justices.  if they chose to appoint a bunch of 0 0 year olds, that is 0 0 years of influence in 0/0rd the us government.  the well established system that you are talking about is controlled by the president.  even if the presdient does not do anything him or herself, they have a lot of power, just by choosing who runs the rest of the government.   #  but it is silly to think that the president is not in control every step of the way.   #  yes he does.  the president has almost absolute authority in this matter.  someone suggests a person to him, sure.  and then that person has to go through approval from congress.  but it is silly to think that the president is not in control every step of the way.  the presidential litmus test is a time honored tradition.  every supreme court justice candidate is selected based on how closely they match the president is view of how things should be done.  abortion, gay marriage, and any other hot button issue rides on a 0 0 balance, and the president makes sure he knows what side the candidate falls on before nominating them.   #  but the idea that the two parties are interchangable, that is your view, not reality.   #  i read your edit, you want us to avoid focusing on the differences between democrats and republicans.  but the idea that the two parties are interchangable, that is your view, not reality.  in reality, a statement like the following:   all of the important gov t positions are filled with appointed candidates the cabinet, joint chiefs, fed chairman, sc justices and etc , who are typically chosen based on their actual abilities and not on their likability to the masses.  . is only true for democratic administrations.  in republican administrations it is not  typical  for important positions to be chosen based on the person is actual abilities.  the president is nominee for the supreme court might be his own mediocre lawyer harriet myers, 0 , his attorney general might be his scandal ridden lawyer from back in texas brought in to legally approve his current crimes like torture alberto gonzales, 0 , no bid contracts may be offered to the vice president is previous company halliburton, 0 , and so on.  regardless of your edit, the two parties are different and represent different voter bases.  if you are gay or black, you will find one party considerably more welcome to you than the other.  if you think gays are faggots and blacks are niggers, you will find one party considerably more welcome to you than other.  and when these parties take turns at the wheel, you will feel the differences in their effects on the country.   #  if they can actually get some new policies and stuff put in, great.   #  keeping the bad party at bay, approving the good projects at nasa, introducing and generally promoting good policies, etc.  in my case, for example, gay marriage and abortion are pretty important to me.  it does not really matter to me that these issues are constitutional rights, because from what i can see, the republican party only gives a shit about constitutionality when it benefits them.  even in the case of a republican controlled congress, a liberal president could still make a difference by vetoing any shitty ideas they try to push through congress.  if they can actually get some new policies and stuff put in, great.  but that is not why i vote.  i do not vote for a liberal president because i have huge hopes for what he could accomplish.  i vote for liberal presidents because i am scared of the other guys.
been following the political news and had a few thoughts.  it really would not matter for the nation who becomes the next president.  it seems like the era of great presidents lincoln, frd, teddy roosevelt , who can truly make significant changes, have long past.  all of the current candidates, both democrats and republicans, more or less qualify to run a gov t, except probably dr.  carson.  many of them have held high government positions governors, senators or high ranking business positions ceo is .  they would know what to do as a president.  all of the important gov t positions are filled with appointed candidates the cabinet, joint chiefs, fed chairman, sc justices and etc , who are typically chosen based on their actual abilities and not on their likability to the masses.  for example, say something happens to obama and he can no longer be a president.  would anything drastic happen in the gov t ? not really, biden would become president and business would go on as usual.  thus whether it is the populist sanders, the clown trump, the crazy cruz, the young rubio, the old lady clinton or the libertarian paul, nothing spectacular or drastic would come.  the nation would run its course, governed by the well established system, and not by individual people.   the discussion is whether or not the next president, democrat or republican, is capable of bringing truly significant reforms, changing the course of the entire nation.  it does not matter if these changes go along with republican or democratic party lines.   #  for example, say something happens to obama and he can no longer be a president.   #  would anything drastic happen in the gov t ?  # would not different candidates choose different people for these positions depending on their views ? would anything drastic happen in the gov t ? not really, biden would become president and business would go on as usual.  that is mostly because they are a from the same party and b have the same views since they ran together .  the nation would run its course, governed by the well established system, and not by individual people.  it would still matter who became president.  sanders  presidency would be completely different from trump is or rubio is, since they all have different views and ideals.  also, the government is supposed to run as a system and not by individual people; that is why we have checks and balances on the president so we do not have a dictatorship.   #  whoever is the next president is going to get to appoint a whole bunch of dying and retiring justices.   #  i do not agree with your premise, but lets say i do.  lets say the president is not an important person, and that the well established and appointed people are going to do the real governing based on their actual abilities.  you are forgetting the fact that the president is the person who appoints them.  let is just take the supreme court.  there are only nine people on it.  0 of the 0 justices are over the age of 0.  do you really think that all of them are going to survive for the next 0 years ? whoever is the next president is going to get to appoint a whole bunch of dying and retiring justices.  if they chose to appoint a bunch of 0 0 year olds, that is 0 0 years of influence in 0/0rd the us government.  the well established system that you are talking about is controlled by the president.  even if the presdient does not do anything him or herself, they have a lot of power, just by choosing who runs the rest of the government.   #  the presidential litmus test is a time honored tradition.   #  yes he does.  the president has almost absolute authority in this matter.  someone suggests a person to him, sure.  and then that person has to go through approval from congress.  but it is silly to think that the president is not in control every step of the way.  the presidential litmus test is a time honored tradition.  every supreme court justice candidate is selected based on how closely they match the president is view of how things should be done.  abortion, gay marriage, and any other hot button issue rides on a 0 0 balance, and the president makes sure he knows what side the candidate falls on before nominating them.   #  i read your edit, you want us to avoid focusing on the differences between democrats and republicans.   #  i read your edit, you want us to avoid focusing on the differences between democrats and republicans.  but the idea that the two parties are interchangable, that is your view, not reality.  in reality, a statement like the following:   all of the important gov t positions are filled with appointed candidates the cabinet, joint chiefs, fed chairman, sc justices and etc , who are typically chosen based on their actual abilities and not on their likability to the masses.  . is only true for democratic administrations.  in republican administrations it is not  typical  for important positions to be chosen based on the person is actual abilities.  the president is nominee for the supreme court might be his own mediocre lawyer harriet myers, 0 , his attorney general might be his scandal ridden lawyer from back in texas brought in to legally approve his current crimes like torture alberto gonzales, 0 , no bid contracts may be offered to the vice president is previous company halliburton, 0 , and so on.  regardless of your edit, the two parties are different and represent different voter bases.  if you are gay or black, you will find one party considerably more welcome to you than the other.  if you think gays are faggots and blacks are niggers, you will find one party considerably more welcome to you than other.  and when these parties take turns at the wheel, you will feel the differences in their effects on the country.   #  it does not really matter to me that these issues are constitutional rights, because from what i can see, the republican party only gives a shit about constitutionality when it benefits them.   #  keeping the bad party at bay, approving the good projects at nasa, introducing and generally promoting good policies, etc.  in my case, for example, gay marriage and abortion are pretty important to me.  it does not really matter to me that these issues are constitutional rights, because from what i can see, the republican party only gives a shit about constitutionality when it benefits them.  even in the case of a republican controlled congress, a liberal president could still make a difference by vetoing any shitty ideas they try to push through congress.  if they can actually get some new policies and stuff put in, great.  but that is not why i vote.  i do not vote for a liberal president because i have huge hopes for what he could accomplish.  i vote for liberal presidents because i am scared of the other guys.
been following the political news and had a few thoughts.  it really would not matter for the nation who becomes the next president.  it seems like the era of great presidents lincoln, frd, teddy roosevelt , who can truly make significant changes, have long past.  all of the current candidates, both democrats and republicans, more or less qualify to run a gov t, except probably dr.  carson.  many of them have held high government positions governors, senators or high ranking business positions ceo is .  they would know what to do as a president.  all of the important gov t positions are filled with appointed candidates the cabinet, joint chiefs, fed chairman, sc justices and etc , who are typically chosen based on their actual abilities and not on their likability to the masses.  for example, say something happens to obama and he can no longer be a president.  would anything drastic happen in the gov t ? not really, biden would become president and business would go on as usual.  thus whether it is the populist sanders, the clown trump, the crazy cruz, the young rubio, the old lady clinton or the libertarian paul, nothing spectacular or drastic would come.  the nation would run its course, governed by the well established system, and not by individual people.   the discussion is whether or not the next president, democrat or republican, is capable of bringing truly significant reforms, changing the course of the entire nation.  it does not matter if these changes go along with republican or democratic party lines.   #  thus whether it is the populist sanders, the clown trump, the crazy cruz, the young rubio, the old lady clinton or the libertarian paul, nothing spectacular or drastic would come.   #  the nation would run its course, governed by the well established system, and not by individual people.   # would not different candidates choose different people for these positions depending on their views ? would anything drastic happen in the gov t ? not really, biden would become president and business would go on as usual.  that is mostly because they are a from the same party and b have the same views since they ran together .  the nation would run its course, governed by the well established system, and not by individual people.  it would still matter who became president.  sanders  presidency would be completely different from trump is or rubio is, since they all have different views and ideals.  also, the government is supposed to run as a system and not by individual people; that is why we have checks and balances on the president so we do not have a dictatorship.   #  if they chose to appoint a bunch of 0 0 year olds, that is 0 0 years of influence in 0/0rd the us government.   #  i do not agree with your premise, but lets say i do.  lets say the president is not an important person, and that the well established and appointed people are going to do the real governing based on their actual abilities.  you are forgetting the fact that the president is the person who appoints them.  let is just take the supreme court.  there are only nine people on it.  0 of the 0 justices are over the age of 0.  do you really think that all of them are going to survive for the next 0 years ? whoever is the next president is going to get to appoint a whole bunch of dying and retiring justices.  if they chose to appoint a bunch of 0 0 year olds, that is 0 0 years of influence in 0/0rd the us government.  the well established system that you are talking about is controlled by the president.  even if the presdient does not do anything him or herself, they have a lot of power, just by choosing who runs the rest of the government.   #  the president has almost absolute authority in this matter.   #  yes he does.  the president has almost absolute authority in this matter.  someone suggests a person to him, sure.  and then that person has to go through approval from congress.  but it is silly to think that the president is not in control every step of the way.  the presidential litmus test is a time honored tradition.  every supreme court justice candidate is selected based on how closely they match the president is view of how things should be done.  abortion, gay marriage, and any other hot button issue rides on a 0 0 balance, and the president makes sure he knows what side the candidate falls on before nominating them.   #  if you think gays are faggots and blacks are niggers, you will find one party considerably more welcome to you than other.   #  i read your edit, you want us to avoid focusing on the differences between democrats and republicans.  but the idea that the two parties are interchangable, that is your view, not reality.  in reality, a statement like the following:   all of the important gov t positions are filled with appointed candidates the cabinet, joint chiefs, fed chairman, sc justices and etc , who are typically chosen based on their actual abilities and not on their likability to the masses.  . is only true for democratic administrations.  in republican administrations it is not  typical  for important positions to be chosen based on the person is actual abilities.  the president is nominee for the supreme court might be his own mediocre lawyer harriet myers, 0 , his attorney general might be his scandal ridden lawyer from back in texas brought in to legally approve his current crimes like torture alberto gonzales, 0 , no bid contracts may be offered to the vice president is previous company halliburton, 0 , and so on.  regardless of your edit, the two parties are different and represent different voter bases.  if you are gay or black, you will find one party considerably more welcome to you than the other.  if you think gays are faggots and blacks are niggers, you will find one party considerably more welcome to you than other.  and when these parties take turns at the wheel, you will feel the differences in their effects on the country.   #  i do not vote for a liberal president because i have huge hopes for what he could accomplish.   #  keeping the bad party at bay, approving the good projects at nasa, introducing and generally promoting good policies, etc.  in my case, for example, gay marriage and abortion are pretty important to me.  it does not really matter to me that these issues are constitutional rights, because from what i can see, the republican party only gives a shit about constitutionality when it benefits them.  even in the case of a republican controlled congress, a liberal president could still make a difference by vetoing any shitty ideas they try to push through congress.  if they can actually get some new policies and stuff put in, great.  but that is not why i vote.  i do not vote for a liberal president because i have huge hopes for what he could accomplish.  i vote for liberal presidents because i am scared of the other guys.
animals are living beings able to feel suffering just like humans.  because of this humans and animals are equal and should be treated the same.  humans do not have to eat meat.  if i eat meat i support the murder and suffering off these animals, which makes me pro murder.  just because i feel more of a  connection  to humans because they are the same kind of animal as i am does not mean that it is right to kill those that i do not feel a connection with, because as i said, they are able to feel suffering, and that is what counts.  being pro murder of living beings being able to feel pain is basically on the bottom of the moral list.  murder is the worst thing anyone can do to another living being.  my moral is already so bad, who am i to say people ca not be racist ? who am i to say people ca not rape ? i am pro murder for gods sake, these things are not as bad as murder.  sure, these people i am calling out are maybe meateaters pro murder and racists like it would make any difference , but since i am pro murder myself who am i really to say anything, c amon ? plus these rapists could be vegan which makes them a better person than i am since rape is not as bad as murder.  i should not even call people out for murdering human beings.  could someone please change my view on this, it is messing with my head so much.  i feel like i can never call out anyone for having bad morals, or even causing extreme physical/mental pain or death to human beings because i am pro murder of living beings being able to feel suffering myself as long as i eat meat.   #  animals are living beings able to feel suffering just like humans.   #  because of this humans and animals are equal and should be treated the same.   # because of this humans and animals are equal and should be treated the same.  animals and humans are not equal.  the target of morality is the human species, it is not based on the level of intelligence or the ability to feel suffering.  if it was it then humans in permanent vegetative states would not be subject of moral rules, it would be ok to eat them, to torture them.  morality is simply a construct meant to regulate the interactions between humans, and animals or other things are only a factor when they affect the well being of a human for example killing someone is loved pet is wrong because it causes human suffering, or killing a panda is wrong because they are cute and rare, it would make us feel bad .   #  every omnivore i know regards animals as being different than humans.   #  first, being immoral does not mean you cannot point out immorality.  a sick person can still recognize illness, a tall man can still recognize and call attention to someone else being tall.  why would being immoral make you unfit to point out immorality ? it makes it hypocritical for you to pretend superiority, true, but that is not the same as pointing out immorality.  you can call attention to something without standing in judgement of it.  but, more importantly, i do not think equating killing people and killing animals is the same.  i could try to convince you that humans have souls, that we can better understand the horror of our own destruction, etc.  but i would like to take a different tack.  i think abortion is immoral.  i regard it as the destruction of human life.  i do not, however, think that abortionists are the same as murderers.  why ? because, though a murderer is killing a human, and an abortionist is killing a human, only one of them knows it.  i do not think that most abortionists regard what they are doing as the destruction of human life.  they kill humans, but unintentionally.  so what about animals ? every omnivore i know regards animals as being different than humans.  it is not just about capacity for suffering; there are various differences.  but each of them, for one or more reasons, has what seems to them to be a sound reason for why animals and humans are not the same.  are they ? possibly.  i do not think so.  but even if they are, i do not think killing them makes someone as bad as a murderer.  because they are ignorant of that equivalence.   #  like calling out a vegan racist for example if i eat meat myself.   #  if i am very immoral i could not call out someone for only being slightly immoral.  it would just feel wrong.  like calling out a vegan racist for example if i eat meat myself.  well most people who do call people out for shit pretend superiority and i guess i do to.  what is fun with calling out if you can only  call attention for something .  no i would just feel like a huge hypocrite even for doing that.  can a mass murderer call someone out for being racist ? sure he can do it but it does not really make sense and he is seen as a hypocrite.   #  it is not  fun , but that is not the point.   # it would just feel wrong.  like calling out a vegan racist for example if i eat meat myself.  if by  call out  you mean  stand in judgement of .  sure.  but you can point it out; a man with cancer can still point out that someone has a cold.  what is fun with calling out if you can only  call attention for something .  no i would just feel like a huge hypocrite even for doing that.  it is not  fun , but that is not the point.  calling attention to problems is the first step towards solving them; it is not about entertainment, it is about improvement.  sure he can do it but it does not really make sense and he is seen as a hypocrite.  sure he could.  i would not see him as a hypocrite, unless he was also saying  this other person is a racist, and a worse person than i am .   #  doing so does in no way make me a hypocrite, as i will be acting in accordance with my held values.   # the  feeling superior  is the whole point with calling out imo.  no one actually cares about making the world a better place we just call others out for shit to make ourselves feel better.  wow that felt weird to admit.  what the actual fuck ? is this the point of the thread ? you are annoyed that your eating of meat is  taking the fun  out of encouraging moral behaviour ? regular  people call out immorality and improper behaviour because we are pro social, and want to live in societies made up of other pro social individuals, not because we get some smug kick out of it ! you totally misunderstand what hypocrisy is, by the way.  a hypocrite is someone who acts in a way different to their stated values.  it is entirely possible for me to hold the view that cheating on your partner is immoral, and so call someone out on it; while also holding the view that it is acceptable to eat meat.  doing so does in no way make me a hypocrite, as i will be acting in accordance with my held values.
it is a fairly accepted fact that humans are social creatures and like to form groups.  this can have positive effects like a sense of belonging, cooperation and division of burdens.  however, to make a group, each member has to have something in common, other than just being human.  it could be gender, race, a common vision or belief.  you get the idea.  so by uniting based on common characteristics, we automatically exclude those who do not fit the mould.  thus creating every kind of discrimination you can think of.  the worst part is, if you look at groups of people looking to reduce discrimination, they are as much as part of the problem as the original perpetrators.  one example of this in action is the reporter who was kicked out of a black lives event in csu.  african americans have a long history of mistreatment in the us and many have the right to be furious.  but the problem is that they see all  whites  as being the perpetrators of this mistreatment and exacerbate the  white vs black  dichotomy.  my opinion on how to solve these issues is this: i have been told that to solve problems as a couple, you must not make it  you  vs  partner , you have to make it  both of you as a couple  vs  the problem .  so i think we should apply the same logic to racism and sexism.  women vs men and whites vs blacks only two of the uncountable amount of dichotomies that exist ca not be solved by separating and pointing fingers at the other group, it can only be solved by uniting.  there is no us vs them, only us.   #  women vs men and whites vs blacks only two of the uncountable amount of dichotomies that exist ca not be solved by separating and pointing fingers at the other group, it can only be solved by uniting.   #  this sounds great on the surface, but fails horribly in practice.   # this sounds great on the surface, but fails horribly in practice.  most racism and sexism happens subconsciously.  a white man is going to want to hire other white men.  it is not that he is racist; it is just that we like people that are like us.  unless you point out this behavior and make him conscious of it, it will continue on forever.  likewise, a police department may arrest black people at a higher proportion than white people.  it is not that they are racist, but the arrest records show that black people are more likely to be criminals; a connection is made in your mind.  making it a visible topic, you get the chance to consider whether black people really  are  more likely to be criminals, or if it is a self perpetuating bias.   #  i think you are overlooking the fact that most of the progress that we have made so far racism, sexism, etc.   #  i think you are overlooking the fact that most of the progress that we have made so far racism, sexism, etc.  has been because members of both groups have united against the problem.  for example, when women finally achieved the right to vote it was not simply because all women wanted to vote, while all men did not want this; members of both groups united and tackled the problem.  but there is always blowback because not everyone wants to join, not everyone is as progressive as you think they are.  your view is slightly naive because it does not take into account that there are those people who accept an out of balance status quo and are willing to defend it.  a simple example on reddit is trp.  feminists welcome men and women to work for the equality of women, but this does not go down too well with everyone so there are counter movements.  trp is an example of a lot of stupid people who are not comfortable with change because they do not understand it or because they feel that it is going too far.   #  so i would like to thank you for doing so, because it highlights exactly what i am trying to say.   #  first of all, yes i am very aware of how naive of an idea it is haha.  i had not even thought of examples where  opposing  groups united to solve the problem.  so i would like to thank you for doing so, because it highlights exactly what i am trying to say.  women did not gain the right to vote by labelling all men as evil, they gained it through cooperation and it is this kind of cooperation that i would like to see in all walks of life.  as a white, young, male, i am definitely willing to meet the entire world halfway and do my bit to change it, but i am not willing to accept blame for something i have never done.   #  do your best, and keep fighting the good fight.   # i do not think anyone is accusing  you  of being an asshole.  america is the largest contributor to greenhouse gases in the world, but not every one of its citizens is equally responsible for it.  please do not be a slave to your conscience.  do your best, and keep fighting the good fight.  did i change your view regarding the context of your post ? it seems you are putting forward a theory that  already  exists and is responsible for significant progress.  it needs refinement, not an overhaul.   #  trp is an example of a lot of stupid people who are not comfortable with change because they do not understand it or because they feel that it is going too far.   # your view is slightly naive because it does not take into account that there are those people who accept an out of balance status quo and are willing to defend it.  a simple example on reddit is trp.  feminists welcome men and women to work for the equality of women, but this does not go down too well with everyone so there are counter movements.  trp is an example of a lot of stupid people who are not comfortable with change because they do not understand it or because they feel that it is going too far.  is that why almost all of the feminist subs ban people both for participating against the prevailing attitude and preemptively for participating in other subs ? not just for trolling either, but for anything except echo chamber support.  trp is reactionary but at least they do not squelch ideas.
so that is a pretty bold title, and i expect to get harassed, doxxed, etc which is why i made a throwaway.  i am just asking that you remain civil.  as much as i try i just ca not understand the other side of this argument.  basically, i believe that rape is not a big problem on college campuses, the real problem is that no one agrees as to what consent is anymore.  what sparked this was the recent news story: URL in this story, the woman has sex with the man, then sees him kissing another woman and decides that she was raped.  it is mentioned that the woman attended a lecture where the speaker a college administrator said that regretting a sexual encounter means that you were raped.  i think that this is a horrible definition of rape and it hurts both men and women.  then there is the mattress girl story and the duke lacrosse story and the rolling stone story, all of which were big name rape cases, all of which turned out to be false accusations.  why does this keep happening ? i believe that a large part of it is that people are operating under sexist definitions of consent and rape.  if a man and woman both get drunk and have sex, the woman can claim rape and it is all the guys fault.  if a man and woman have sex and the woman later regrets it, the woman can claim rape and it is all the guys fault.  if a man and woman have sex and the woman later is angry and wants to get revenge, the woman can claim rape and it is all the guys fault.  none of these situations are rape, but nonetheless, men have been punished for these exact situations.  in short, i believe that women are now taught to believe that if they have any regret about a sexual encounter, then it is rape.  other women have come to see that false rape claims are a powerful weapon.  these cases inflate the college rape statistics.  it is impossible for a man to have a one night stand anymore without fear of being dragged through the mud and having his life ruined.   #  i believe that women are now taught to believe that if they have any regret about a sexual encounter, then it is rape.   #  i do not believe this is true at all.   #  i  really  do not get why people are making this out to be more complex than it ought to be.  with every single sexual partner i have ever had, it has been blindingly 0 obvious that they were a willing participant.  i said this before in another thread it is simple.  if a person is drunk, unconscious or otherwise intoxicated or you have any reason to believe their judgement might be impaired, do not have sex with them.  the other two hypothetical scenarios you mentioned were probably not rape provided there was no coercion involved, and the person did, and was fully able to give their consent .  yes, false accusations are wrong, but it does not mean that actual rape is any less of a problem than it is.  false accusations can also be avoided.  if you do not trust the person enough not to change their mind later, do not have sex with them.  i do not believe this is true at all.  what evidence do you have that lead you to come to this conclusion ? is getting your rocks off  really  that important ? if you are that afraid of getting your life ruined, do not risk it.  you can still get your rocks off in less risky ways than one night stands why not get to know someone first, so you can trust them, know 0 that they consent, and not take any risks ?  #  if a person is drunk, unconscious or otherwise intoxicated or you have any reason to believe their judgement might be impaired, do not have sex with them.   # with every single sexual partner i have ever had, it has been blindingly 0 obvious that they were a willing participant.  if a person is drunk, unconscious or otherwise intoxicated or you have any reason to believe their judgement might be impaired, do not have sex with them.  yes, false accusations are wrong, but it does not mean that actual rape is any less of a problem than it is.  if you do not trust the person enough not to change their mind later, do not have sex with them.  that all boils down to shoving the responsibility to have sex or not in the shoes of the man.  let me remind you that adult women are persons who are capable of acting and taking decisions, and do so all the time.  apparently you think that women have such lack of self control that they ca not take the responsibility for intoxicating themselves or having sex without a man taking  final  responsibility for it.  if you are that afraid of getting your life ruined, do not risk it.  you can still get your rocks off in less risky ways than one night stands why not get to know someone first, so you can trust them, know 0 that they consent, and not take any risks ? if you do not trust the person enough not to change their mind later, do not have sex with them.  well, if you do not want to risk to lose your self control while drinking, drink less.  same reasoning.  if you are that afraid of getting your life ruined, do not risk it.  you can still get your rocks off in less risky ways than one night stands why not get to know someone first, so you can trust them, know 0 that they consent, and not take any risks ? we can reasonably expect that growing adults on the street are capable of taking decisions.  if they are not their legal guardians should not leave them unattended.  and if not.  then the justice system should be able to adequately filter out the false accusations, but as it stands a lot of damage is already done with just an accusation.   #  apparently you think that women have such lack of self control that they ca not take the responsibility for intoxicating themselves or having sex without a man taking final responsibility for it.   # let me remind you that adult women are persons who are capable of acting and taking decisions, and do so all the time.  apparently you think that women have such lack of self control that they ca not take the responsibility for intoxicating themselves or having sex without a man taking final responsibility for it.  the post did not mention genders at all.  how did you come to this conclusion ? same reasoning.  self control is not the issue; its whether consent can be given.  i certainly believe it is possible to drink and still consent to sex; but clearly someone who is blackout drunk or very close to it cannot.  regardless of what your opinion is, ultimately the law is the only thing that matters here.  if they are not their legal guardians should not leave them unattended.  i do not think steampunkunicorn is defending false rape accusations, just saying that they can be avoided.   #  we are discussing what the law should be and whether enforcement is happening adequately.   # how did you come to this conclusion ? the op she replied to worked with those genders.  the large majority of rape accusations are against men, and men are generally still expected to move things along while flirting.  i certainly believe it is possible to drink and still consent to sex; but clearly someone who is blackout drunk or very close to it cannot.  nobody disputes that.  we are questioning where the final responsibility should lie.  we are discussing what the law should be and whether enforcement is happening adequately.  doing the equivalent by saying  avoid rape, do not dress slutty  would be met with indignant howls of  victim blaming .  let is try to avoid double standards.   #  the way you dress and the situations you put yourself in are not equivalent.   # the large majority of rape accusations are against men, and men are generally still expected to move things along while flirting.  fair enough.  we are questioning where the final responsibility should lie.  responsibility for what exactly ? getting raped ? let is try to avoid double standards.  the way you dress and the situations you put yourself in are not equivalent.  the equivalent would be telling women not to put themselves in dangerous situations as a precaution against rape, which i do not think is victim blaming at all.  likewise, avoiding situations where the establishment of consent could be questionable is a reasonable precaution against false rape accusations.
so that is a pretty bold title, and i expect to get harassed, doxxed, etc which is why i made a throwaway.  i am just asking that you remain civil.  as much as i try i just ca not understand the other side of this argument.  basically, i believe that rape is not a big problem on college campuses, the real problem is that no one agrees as to what consent is anymore.  what sparked this was the recent news story: URL in this story, the woman has sex with the man, then sees him kissing another woman and decides that she was raped.  it is mentioned that the woman attended a lecture where the speaker a college administrator said that regretting a sexual encounter means that you were raped.  i think that this is a horrible definition of rape and it hurts both men and women.  then there is the mattress girl story and the duke lacrosse story and the rolling stone story, all of which were big name rape cases, all of which turned out to be false accusations.  why does this keep happening ? i believe that a large part of it is that people are operating under sexist definitions of consent and rape.  if a man and woman both get drunk and have sex, the woman can claim rape and it is all the guys fault.  if a man and woman have sex and the woman later regrets it, the woman can claim rape and it is all the guys fault.  if a man and woman have sex and the woman later is angry and wants to get revenge, the woman can claim rape and it is all the guys fault.  none of these situations are rape, but nonetheless, men have been punished for these exact situations.  in short, i believe that women are now taught to believe that if they have any regret about a sexual encounter, then it is rape.  other women have come to see that false rape claims are a powerful weapon.  these cases inflate the college rape statistics.  it is impossible for a man to have a one night stand anymore without fear of being dragged through the mud and having his life ruined.   #  it is impossible for a man to have a one night stand anymore without fear of being dragged through the mud and having his life ruined.   #  is getting your rocks off  really  that important ?  #  i  really  do not get why people are making this out to be more complex than it ought to be.  with every single sexual partner i have ever had, it has been blindingly 0 obvious that they were a willing participant.  i said this before in another thread it is simple.  if a person is drunk, unconscious or otherwise intoxicated or you have any reason to believe their judgement might be impaired, do not have sex with them.  the other two hypothetical scenarios you mentioned were probably not rape provided there was no coercion involved, and the person did, and was fully able to give their consent .  yes, false accusations are wrong, but it does not mean that actual rape is any less of a problem than it is.  false accusations can also be avoided.  if you do not trust the person enough not to change their mind later, do not have sex with them.  i do not believe this is true at all.  what evidence do you have that lead you to come to this conclusion ? is getting your rocks off  really  that important ? if you are that afraid of getting your life ruined, do not risk it.  you can still get your rocks off in less risky ways than one night stands why not get to know someone first, so you can trust them, know 0 that they consent, and not take any risks ?  #  if a person is drunk, unconscious or otherwise intoxicated or you have any reason to believe their judgement might be impaired, do not have sex with them.   # with every single sexual partner i have ever had, it has been blindingly 0 obvious that they were a willing participant.  if a person is drunk, unconscious or otherwise intoxicated or you have any reason to believe their judgement might be impaired, do not have sex with them.  yes, false accusations are wrong, but it does not mean that actual rape is any less of a problem than it is.  if you do not trust the person enough not to change their mind later, do not have sex with them.  that all boils down to shoving the responsibility to have sex or not in the shoes of the man.  let me remind you that adult women are persons who are capable of acting and taking decisions, and do so all the time.  apparently you think that women have such lack of self control that they ca not take the responsibility for intoxicating themselves or having sex without a man taking  final  responsibility for it.  if you are that afraid of getting your life ruined, do not risk it.  you can still get your rocks off in less risky ways than one night stands why not get to know someone first, so you can trust them, know 0 that they consent, and not take any risks ? if you do not trust the person enough not to change their mind later, do not have sex with them.  well, if you do not want to risk to lose your self control while drinking, drink less.  same reasoning.  if you are that afraid of getting your life ruined, do not risk it.  you can still get your rocks off in less risky ways than one night stands why not get to know someone first, so you can trust them, know 0 that they consent, and not take any risks ? we can reasonably expect that growing adults on the street are capable of taking decisions.  if they are not their legal guardians should not leave them unattended.  and if not.  then the justice system should be able to adequately filter out the false accusations, but as it stands a lot of damage is already done with just an accusation.   #  self control is not the issue; its whether consent can be given.   # let me remind you that adult women are persons who are capable of acting and taking decisions, and do so all the time.  apparently you think that women have such lack of self control that they ca not take the responsibility for intoxicating themselves or having sex without a man taking final responsibility for it.  the post did not mention genders at all.  how did you come to this conclusion ? same reasoning.  self control is not the issue; its whether consent can be given.  i certainly believe it is possible to drink and still consent to sex; but clearly someone who is blackout drunk or very close to it cannot.  regardless of what your opinion is, ultimately the law is the only thing that matters here.  if they are not their legal guardians should not leave them unattended.  i do not think steampunkunicorn is defending false rape accusations, just saying that they can be avoided.   #  i certainly believe it is possible to drink and still consent to sex; but clearly someone who is blackout drunk or very close to it cannot.   # how did you come to this conclusion ? the op she replied to worked with those genders.  the large majority of rape accusations are against men, and men are generally still expected to move things along while flirting.  i certainly believe it is possible to drink and still consent to sex; but clearly someone who is blackout drunk or very close to it cannot.  nobody disputes that.  we are questioning where the final responsibility should lie.  we are discussing what the law should be and whether enforcement is happening adequately.  doing the equivalent by saying  avoid rape, do not dress slutty  would be met with indignant howls of  victim blaming .  let is try to avoid double standards.   #  likewise, avoiding situations where the establishment of consent could be questionable is a reasonable precaution against false rape accusations.   # the large majority of rape accusations are against men, and men are generally still expected to move things along while flirting.  fair enough.  we are questioning where the final responsibility should lie.  responsibility for what exactly ? getting raped ? let is try to avoid double standards.  the way you dress and the situations you put yourself in are not equivalent.  the equivalent would be telling women not to put themselves in dangerous situations as a precaution against rape, which i do not think is victim blaming at all.  likewise, avoiding situations where the establishment of consent could be questionable is a reasonable precaution against false rape accusations.
so that is a pretty bold title, and i expect to get harassed, doxxed, etc which is why i made a throwaway.  i am just asking that you remain civil.  as much as i try i just ca not understand the other side of this argument.  basically, i believe that rape is not a big problem on college campuses, the real problem is that no one agrees as to what consent is anymore.  what sparked this was the recent news story: URL in this story, the woman has sex with the man, then sees him kissing another woman and decides that she was raped.  it is mentioned that the woman attended a lecture where the speaker a college administrator said that regretting a sexual encounter means that you were raped.  i think that this is a horrible definition of rape and it hurts both men and women.  then there is the mattress girl story and the duke lacrosse story and the rolling stone story, all of which were big name rape cases, all of which turned out to be false accusations.  why does this keep happening ? i believe that a large part of it is that people are operating under sexist definitions of consent and rape.  if a man and woman both get drunk and have sex, the woman can claim rape and it is all the guys fault.  if a man and woman have sex and the woman later regrets it, the woman can claim rape and it is all the guys fault.  if a man and woman have sex and the woman later is angry and wants to get revenge, the woman can claim rape and it is all the guys fault.  none of these situations are rape, but nonetheless, men have been punished for these exact situations.  in short, i believe that women are now taught to believe that if they have any regret about a sexual encounter, then it is rape.  other women have come to see that false rape claims are a powerful weapon.  these cases inflate the college rape statistics.  it is impossible for a man to have a one night stand anymore without fear of being dragged through the mud and having his life ruined.   #  in short, i believe that women are now taught to believe that if they have any regret about a sexual encounter, then it is rape.   #  other women have come to see that false rape claims are a powerful weapon.   #  i feel like you are ignoring a large part of the whole argument and picking specific events that back up your narrative.  the idea that people  do not agree what consent is  is true, but it is also rather problematic since the concept is pretty damn clear.  meaning the problem is not exactly that people do not agree, it is that people feel the need to leave a large stretch of pretty grey area under  consensual  for some reason.  why ? i ca not for the life of me understand.  maybe you can enlighten me.  for instance, i do not believe regretting a sexual encounter necessarily constitute rape, yet i do not get the  gotcha  mentality which is always so pervasive in such discussion.  that is the crux of the infamous drunk consent argument.  why even risk it ? even from a non legal standpoint, meaning from a purely moral one, why would you do it in circumstances where consent is absolutely impossible to establish ? it is damn sleazy at best and downright predatory at worst.  and yes, it can be the case even if you are drunk yourself.  other women have come to see that false rape claims are a powerful weapon.  these cases inflate the college rape statistics.  it is impossible for a man to have a one night stand anymore without fear of being dragged through the mud and having his life ruined.  that is so overly dramatic.  one night stands have  always  been risky, this is not new.  nobody is teaching anyone to throw rape accusations around.  they are trying to dismantle a weirdly extended definition of consent which as no place in a civilized society.  does it sometime has unintended effects ? maybe, and i am not saying false rape accusations are not horrible, simply that they are not organized.  again,  yes  they are horrible,  horrible , not organized.   #  if you do not trust the person enough not to change their mind later, do not have sex with them.   #  i  really  do not get why people are making this out to be more complex than it ought to be.  with every single sexual partner i have ever had, it has been blindingly 0 obvious that they were a willing participant.  i said this before in another thread it is simple.  if a person is drunk, unconscious or otherwise intoxicated or you have any reason to believe their judgement might be impaired, do not have sex with them.  the other two hypothetical scenarios you mentioned were probably not rape provided there was no coercion involved, and the person did, and was fully able to give their consent .  yes, false accusations are wrong, but it does not mean that actual rape is any less of a problem than it is.  false accusations can also be avoided.  if you do not trust the person enough not to change their mind later, do not have sex with them.  i do not believe this is true at all.  what evidence do you have that lead you to come to this conclusion ? is getting your rocks off  really  that important ? if you are that afraid of getting your life ruined, do not risk it.  you can still get your rocks off in less risky ways than one night stands why not get to know someone first, so you can trust them, know 0 that they consent, and not take any risks ?  #  apparently you think that women have such lack of self control that they ca not take the responsibility for intoxicating themselves or having sex without a man taking  final  responsibility for it.   # with every single sexual partner i have ever had, it has been blindingly 0 obvious that they were a willing participant.  if a person is drunk, unconscious or otherwise intoxicated or you have any reason to believe their judgement might be impaired, do not have sex with them.  yes, false accusations are wrong, but it does not mean that actual rape is any less of a problem than it is.  if you do not trust the person enough not to change their mind later, do not have sex with them.  that all boils down to shoving the responsibility to have sex or not in the shoes of the man.  let me remind you that adult women are persons who are capable of acting and taking decisions, and do so all the time.  apparently you think that women have such lack of self control that they ca not take the responsibility for intoxicating themselves or having sex without a man taking  final  responsibility for it.  if you are that afraid of getting your life ruined, do not risk it.  you can still get your rocks off in less risky ways than one night stands why not get to know someone first, so you can trust them, know 0 that they consent, and not take any risks ? if you do not trust the person enough not to change their mind later, do not have sex with them.  well, if you do not want to risk to lose your self control while drinking, drink less.  same reasoning.  if you are that afraid of getting your life ruined, do not risk it.  you can still get your rocks off in less risky ways than one night stands why not get to know someone first, so you can trust them, know 0 that they consent, and not take any risks ? we can reasonably expect that growing adults on the street are capable of taking decisions.  if they are not their legal guardians should not leave them unattended.  and if not.  then the justice system should be able to adequately filter out the false accusations, but as it stands a lot of damage is already done with just an accusation.   #  if they are not their legal guardians should not leave them unattended.   # let me remind you that adult women are persons who are capable of acting and taking decisions, and do so all the time.  apparently you think that women have such lack of self control that they ca not take the responsibility for intoxicating themselves or having sex without a man taking final responsibility for it.  the post did not mention genders at all.  how did you come to this conclusion ? same reasoning.  self control is not the issue; its whether consent can be given.  i certainly believe it is possible to drink and still consent to sex; but clearly someone who is blackout drunk or very close to it cannot.  regardless of what your opinion is, ultimately the law is the only thing that matters here.  if they are not their legal guardians should not leave them unattended.  i do not think steampunkunicorn is defending false rape accusations, just saying that they can be avoided.   #  the large majority of rape accusations are against men, and men are generally still expected to move things along while flirting.   # how did you come to this conclusion ? the op she replied to worked with those genders.  the large majority of rape accusations are against men, and men are generally still expected to move things along while flirting.  i certainly believe it is possible to drink and still consent to sex; but clearly someone who is blackout drunk or very close to it cannot.  nobody disputes that.  we are questioning where the final responsibility should lie.  we are discussing what the law should be and whether enforcement is happening adequately.  doing the equivalent by saying  avoid rape, do not dress slutty  would be met with indignant howls of  victim blaming .  let is try to avoid double standards.
so that is a pretty bold title, and i expect to get harassed, doxxed, etc which is why i made a throwaway.  i am just asking that you remain civil.  as much as i try i just ca not understand the other side of this argument.  basically, i believe that rape is not a big problem on college campuses, the real problem is that no one agrees as to what consent is anymore.  what sparked this was the recent news story: URL in this story, the woman has sex with the man, then sees him kissing another woman and decides that she was raped.  it is mentioned that the woman attended a lecture where the speaker a college administrator said that regretting a sexual encounter means that you were raped.  i think that this is a horrible definition of rape and it hurts both men and women.  then there is the mattress girl story and the duke lacrosse story and the rolling stone story, all of which were big name rape cases, all of which turned out to be false accusations.  why does this keep happening ? i believe that a large part of it is that people are operating under sexist definitions of consent and rape.  if a man and woman both get drunk and have sex, the woman can claim rape and it is all the guys fault.  if a man and woman have sex and the woman later regrets it, the woman can claim rape and it is all the guys fault.  if a man and woman have sex and the woman later is angry and wants to get revenge, the woman can claim rape and it is all the guys fault.  none of these situations are rape, but nonetheless, men have been punished for these exact situations.  in short, i believe that women are now taught to believe that if they have any regret about a sexual encounter, then it is rape.  other women have come to see that false rape claims are a powerful weapon.  these cases inflate the college rape statistics.  it is impossible for a man to have a one night stand anymore without fear of being dragged through the mud and having his life ruined.   #  it is impossible for a man to have a one night stand anymore without fear of being dragged through the mud and having his life ruined.   #  so.  kinda like how a woman who wants a one night stand has always had to worry about the risk of rape or worse , pregnancy, stis, and being labeled as a slut ?  # so.  kinda like how a woman who wants a one night stand has always had to worry about the risk of rape or worse , pregnancy, stis, and being labeled as a slut ? it sounds like you are saying  i want my consequence free sex back !   but sex has always been risky.  women do a lot of things to protect themselves, and maybe you should too.  if there is  any  ambiguity about consent, do not risk it.   #  if you are that afraid of getting your life ruined, do not risk it.   #  i  really  do not get why people are making this out to be more complex than it ought to be.  with every single sexual partner i have ever had, it has been blindingly 0 obvious that they were a willing participant.  i said this before in another thread it is simple.  if a person is drunk, unconscious or otherwise intoxicated or you have any reason to believe their judgement might be impaired, do not have sex with them.  the other two hypothetical scenarios you mentioned were probably not rape provided there was no coercion involved, and the person did, and was fully able to give their consent .  yes, false accusations are wrong, but it does not mean that actual rape is any less of a problem than it is.  false accusations can also be avoided.  if you do not trust the person enough not to change their mind later, do not have sex with them.  i do not believe this is true at all.  what evidence do you have that lead you to come to this conclusion ? is getting your rocks off  really  that important ? if you are that afraid of getting your life ruined, do not risk it.  you can still get your rocks off in less risky ways than one night stands why not get to know someone first, so you can trust them, know 0 that they consent, and not take any risks ?  #  if you are that afraid of getting your life ruined, do not risk it.   # with every single sexual partner i have ever had, it has been blindingly 0 obvious that they were a willing participant.  if a person is drunk, unconscious or otherwise intoxicated or you have any reason to believe their judgement might be impaired, do not have sex with them.  yes, false accusations are wrong, but it does not mean that actual rape is any less of a problem than it is.  if you do not trust the person enough not to change their mind later, do not have sex with them.  that all boils down to shoving the responsibility to have sex or not in the shoes of the man.  let me remind you that adult women are persons who are capable of acting and taking decisions, and do so all the time.  apparently you think that women have such lack of self control that they ca not take the responsibility for intoxicating themselves or having sex without a man taking  final  responsibility for it.  if you are that afraid of getting your life ruined, do not risk it.  you can still get your rocks off in less risky ways than one night stands why not get to know someone first, so you can trust them, know 0 that they consent, and not take any risks ? if you do not trust the person enough not to change their mind later, do not have sex with them.  well, if you do not want to risk to lose your self control while drinking, drink less.  same reasoning.  if you are that afraid of getting your life ruined, do not risk it.  you can still get your rocks off in less risky ways than one night stands why not get to know someone first, so you can trust them, know 0 that they consent, and not take any risks ? we can reasonably expect that growing adults on the street are capable of taking decisions.  if they are not their legal guardians should not leave them unattended.  and if not.  then the justice system should be able to adequately filter out the false accusations, but as it stands a lot of damage is already done with just an accusation.   #  apparently you think that women have such lack of self control that they ca not take the responsibility for intoxicating themselves or having sex without a man taking final responsibility for it.   # let me remind you that adult women are persons who are capable of acting and taking decisions, and do so all the time.  apparently you think that women have such lack of self control that they ca not take the responsibility for intoxicating themselves or having sex without a man taking final responsibility for it.  the post did not mention genders at all.  how did you come to this conclusion ? same reasoning.  self control is not the issue; its whether consent can be given.  i certainly believe it is possible to drink and still consent to sex; but clearly someone who is blackout drunk or very close to it cannot.  regardless of what your opinion is, ultimately the law is the only thing that matters here.  if they are not their legal guardians should not leave them unattended.  i do not think steampunkunicorn is defending false rape accusations, just saying that they can be avoided.   #  the op she replied to worked with those genders.   # how did you come to this conclusion ? the op she replied to worked with those genders.  the large majority of rape accusations are against men, and men are generally still expected to move things along while flirting.  i certainly believe it is possible to drink and still consent to sex; but clearly someone who is blackout drunk or very close to it cannot.  nobody disputes that.  we are questioning where the final responsibility should lie.  we are discussing what the law should be and whether enforcement is happening adequately.  doing the equivalent by saying  avoid rape, do not dress slutty  would be met with indignant howls of  victim blaming .  let is try to avoid double standards.
so, i am writing this as an american, and one of the big crux points of bernie sander is policy is fully subsidizing college with government funds.  i really think that is a bad for a few reasons.  0.  there are a ton of jobs that already require college degrees that frankly probably should not.  you do not even need a degree in the same field as what you are doing sometimes, they just want  a degree.   this would instead put the burden of a nearly useless degree on the community, instead of the individual.  why should i be helping pay for someone who majored in one thing only to go work somewhere completely different ? 0.  there are already government subsidized educations, such as federal service academies, rotc programs, some doctors/lawyers that get picked up by the military, among other programs.  they get their education paid for in return for service to the government.  this makes sense to me, the government is getting people who are educated in a specific way that they need in return for paying for their education.  you could not feasibly employ this type of program over the whole country because some people want to take degrees in something the government has no use for.  0.  this is essentially making college degrees completely necessary.  it would be nearly free, or so cheap that almost everyone can afford it, even though some people are not going to be able to hack it.  college is not for everyone, it is meant to push your boundaries and really develop critical thinking skills.  what do you do for the people who are not capable of receiving a college degree ? what if they go, and flunk out ? does the government still foot that bill ? that would be a waste of money.  would they be forced to pay it back ? that is penalizing someone who already is going to have a tough time making money.  i am in favor of fixing how the system works.  people who get a degree, and are successful which is not everyone still have years and years of huge debts to pay off.  we need to figure out a way to cap those debts off, make it more affordable.  not every college degree makes a ton of money, particularly some professions where a college degree is very necessary, so we need to work on that.  i just really do not think a full subsidy is the wrong move.   #  there are a ton of jobs that already require college degrees that frankly probably should not.   #  you do not even need a degree in the same field as what you are doing sometimes, they just want  a degree.    # you do not even need a degree in the same field as what you are doing sometimes, they just want  a degree.   this would instead put the burden of a nearly useless degree on the community, instead of the individual.  why should i be helping pay for someone who majored in one thing only to go work somewhere completely different ? actually, in theory, making college degrees more easily accessible may accomplish the exact opposite of what you are suggesting here.  what makes a college degree preferable, is in part, that it is a relatively exclusive club that not everyone can gain access to.  there is no even playing field in terms of gaining access to a college education at this point in time and frankly the group that is most tightly squeezed are those of middle income, who are still getting access to a college education, but doing so at great future expense to themselves and their families.  a couple of other things that are worth considering are that part of the problem the u. s.  is facing at this time across the board is that americans are poorly educated and this is not something we are improving on at the moment.  other countries are though.  germany just announced that any american who can speak german can attend their universities for free, in addition to german residents.  we are being slowly made irrelevant by our own lack of value for education.  regardless of what the source is for our education woes, as a country, our interests long term are thoroughly compromised by not investing in the education of our citizens.  a strong military might give us an edge in the world, but is that the most ideal edge to have ? and how long can the u. s.  maintain such an edge if the rest of the world is sailing by us in terms of providing an excellent and affordable education ? maybe in principle you are right, you  should not have to pay  for someone else is education, but from a practical standpoint not investing first in the education of our citizens is an ineffable formula for long term failure as a world leader, and it is already an area we have fallen remarkably far behind on.  in some ways it is a little like imprisoning your population instead of investing in mental health services and treatment of offenders, you pay more in the long run by not doing it.  while not having you pay for someone else is education might save you a fraction of a penny on the dollar, it does cost you in the long run as the country you live in becomes less and less competitive and your work even as an individual becomes less and less valuable compared to what other people around the world can produce.   #  a few moderately intelligent, hard working people slip through the initial cracks, and if they work hard enough, they will be able to work their way back up, like you seem to be doing.   #  i am sorry for your situation, i really am.  but really, i just do not have enough information to judge any individual like a financial aid counselor would.   how were your grades in high school ? did you graduate ? if not, why ?   these are all relevant questions when assessing financial aid.  just because you make 0 dollars an hour does not entitle you to a full ride to a state or community school; there needs to be some other evidence that you are intelligent enough to deserve such a large sum of money before it is given.  to clarify, i am not insulting your intelligence, as i know nothing about you.  obviously, the system is not perfect.  no system is.  a few moderately intelligent, hard working people slip through the initial cracks, and if they work hard enough, they will be able to work their way back up, like you seem to be doing.  but i would rather this be the case than blanketly offering thousands of dollars worth of resources to millions of people who could very easily squander that money, either by dropping out after 0 0 years or entering financially untenable fields.  i do know, however, of several individuals who had good gpa is but could not afford college, and ended up getting full rides to local, small state schools.   #  i am also saying that, despite falling into precisely the group for which the pell grant was established, it is  still  nowhere near enough evidence that your point, that people have financial aid and scholarships to help, is not true.   # that is where you and i disagree.  for starters, the large sum of money is  way  too large.  there is no reason for college to be so expensive.  my textbooks  alone  cost half as much as my tuition.  secondly, we have already established that everyone deserves an education through the k 0 system.  a high school diploma was once seen as the bar for being able to support yourself.  now, that bar has moved to a college degree.  the system should adjust itself accordingly.  thirdly, you are confusing my statement here.  i do not say that i deserve a full ride  because  i make $0/hr.  i am saying that  everyone  deserves free or very inexpensive schooling.  i am also saying that, despite falling into precisely the group for which the pell grant was established, it is  still  nowhere near enough evidence that your point, that people have financial aid and scholarships to help, is not true.  so ? there are many levels of degree, from simple certifications in a field to doctorate degrees.  not everyone has to achieve all of them.  and anyone who wants to try, should be allowed to.   #  taking out 0 grand for 0 years is one thing, but there are students on my campus that have taken out their entire education, $0,0 in loans to finance an art history or an asian studies degree.   #  if you want to blame anyone for the rising cost of tuition, blame the government.  after they guaranteed student loans, universities no longer had an incentive to keep their costs competitive because they are guaranteed to receive the money.  no need to be competitive anymore because as long as your school is the most attractive to students it does not matter what you charge; the banks that loan the money out are guaranteed to get their money back, so they will give out any amount.  sure, some students with truly poor financial backgrounds do not qualify, but the vast majority of students who apply for student loans receive them.  therefore the government is actually the party to blame, and i for one do not fancy more government involvement.  student loans are by far one of the worst, if not the worst investments you can make today.  if you use them to go to private school.  taking out 0 grand for 0 years is one thing, but there are students on my campus that have taken out their entire education, $0,0 in loans to finance an art history or an asian studies degree.  that is just mind bogglingly stupid.   #  that should leave you with a pretty large figure.  and where does it go ?  #  $0,0 is a mind bogglingly stupid amount of money to be required as an entrance fee for gaining knowledge.  how much of that money goes to any particular instructor ? multiply that $0,0 by the number of students enrolled, divide by the number of instructors, then subtract the median salary for professors.  that should leave you with a pretty large figure.  and where does it go ? what benefit to the instructor or students does it pay for ? the answer is  people who are already filthy rich,  and  none.   yeah, we are getting screwed real nice.
so, i am writing this as an american, and one of the big crux points of bernie sander is policy is fully subsidizing college with government funds.  i really think that is a bad for a few reasons.  0.  there are a ton of jobs that already require college degrees that frankly probably should not.  you do not even need a degree in the same field as what you are doing sometimes, they just want  a degree.   this would instead put the burden of a nearly useless degree on the community, instead of the individual.  why should i be helping pay for someone who majored in one thing only to go work somewhere completely different ? 0.  there are already government subsidized educations, such as federal service academies, rotc programs, some doctors/lawyers that get picked up by the military, among other programs.  they get their education paid for in return for service to the government.  this makes sense to me, the government is getting people who are educated in a specific way that they need in return for paying for their education.  you could not feasibly employ this type of program over the whole country because some people want to take degrees in something the government has no use for.  0.  this is essentially making college degrees completely necessary.  it would be nearly free, or so cheap that almost everyone can afford it, even though some people are not going to be able to hack it.  college is not for everyone, it is meant to push your boundaries and really develop critical thinking skills.  what do you do for the people who are not capable of receiving a college degree ? what if they go, and flunk out ? does the government still foot that bill ? that would be a waste of money.  would they be forced to pay it back ? that is penalizing someone who already is going to have a tough time making money.  i am in favor of fixing how the system works.  people who get a degree, and are successful which is not everyone still have years and years of huge debts to pay off.  we need to figure out a way to cap those debts off, make it more affordable.  not every college degree makes a ton of money, particularly some professions where a college degree is very necessary, so we need to work on that.  i just really do not think a full subsidy is the wrong move.   #  college is not for everyone, it is meant to push your boundaries and really develop critical thinking skills.   #  if college is about developing critical thinking skills, then what does it matter if someone gets a major and works in a different career, or even takes a career that does not require a college degree ?  #  first, you have two points that contradict each other:   this would instead put the burden of a nearly useless degree on the community, instead of the individual.  why should i be helping pay for someone who majored in one thing only to go work somewhere completely different ? if college is about developing critical thinking skills, then what does it matter if someone gets a major and works in a different career, or even takes a career that does not require a college degree ? second, just because college is state funded does not mean everyone can go to college.  if colleges have a limited budget because they are state funded instead of getting money from each student , they would be limited in the number of students they could accept.  this would lead to colleges being more inclined to only accept the best students or the ones who need it most, depending on state funding criteria , rather than accepting anyone who they can make money from.   #  a few moderately intelligent, hard working people slip through the initial cracks, and if they work hard enough, they will be able to work their way back up, like you seem to be doing.   #  i am sorry for your situation, i really am.  but really, i just do not have enough information to judge any individual like a financial aid counselor would.   how were your grades in high school ? did you graduate ? if not, why ?   these are all relevant questions when assessing financial aid.  just because you make 0 dollars an hour does not entitle you to a full ride to a state or community school; there needs to be some other evidence that you are intelligent enough to deserve such a large sum of money before it is given.  to clarify, i am not insulting your intelligence, as i know nothing about you.  obviously, the system is not perfect.  no system is.  a few moderately intelligent, hard working people slip through the initial cracks, and if they work hard enough, they will be able to work their way back up, like you seem to be doing.  but i would rather this be the case than blanketly offering thousands of dollars worth of resources to millions of people who could very easily squander that money, either by dropping out after 0 0 years or entering financially untenable fields.  i do know, however, of several individuals who had good gpa is but could not afford college, and ended up getting full rides to local, small state schools.   #  i do not say that i deserve a full ride  because  i make $0/hr.   # that is where you and i disagree.  for starters, the large sum of money is  way  too large.  there is no reason for college to be so expensive.  my textbooks  alone  cost half as much as my tuition.  secondly, we have already established that everyone deserves an education through the k 0 system.  a high school diploma was once seen as the bar for being able to support yourself.  now, that bar has moved to a college degree.  the system should adjust itself accordingly.  thirdly, you are confusing my statement here.  i do not say that i deserve a full ride  because  i make $0/hr.  i am saying that  everyone  deserves free or very inexpensive schooling.  i am also saying that, despite falling into precisely the group for which the pell grant was established, it is  still  nowhere near enough evidence that your point, that people have financial aid and scholarships to help, is not true.  so ? there are many levels of degree, from simple certifications in a field to doctorate degrees.  not everyone has to achieve all of them.  and anyone who wants to try, should be allowed to.   #  after they guaranteed student loans, universities no longer had an incentive to keep their costs competitive because they are guaranteed to receive the money.   #  if you want to blame anyone for the rising cost of tuition, blame the government.  after they guaranteed student loans, universities no longer had an incentive to keep their costs competitive because they are guaranteed to receive the money.  no need to be competitive anymore because as long as your school is the most attractive to students it does not matter what you charge; the banks that loan the money out are guaranteed to get their money back, so they will give out any amount.  sure, some students with truly poor financial backgrounds do not qualify, but the vast majority of students who apply for student loans receive them.  therefore the government is actually the party to blame, and i for one do not fancy more government involvement.  student loans are by far one of the worst, if not the worst investments you can make today.  if you use them to go to private school.  taking out 0 grand for 0 years is one thing, but there are students on my campus that have taken out their entire education, $0,0 in loans to finance an art history or an asian studies degree.  that is just mind bogglingly stupid.   #  how much of that money goes to any particular instructor ?  #  $0,0 is a mind bogglingly stupid amount of money to be required as an entrance fee for gaining knowledge.  how much of that money goes to any particular instructor ? multiply that $0,0 by the number of students enrolled, divide by the number of instructors, then subtract the median salary for professors.  that should leave you with a pretty large figure.  and where does it go ? what benefit to the instructor or students does it pay for ? the answer is  people who are already filthy rich,  and  none.   yeah, we are getting screwed real nice.
lets start by looking at a situation: imagine you are walking by a shallow river on your way to a ball when you see a child drowning.  you are wearing some pretty expensive clothes lets say 0 pounds that will no doubt be ruined if you jump into the river.  saving this child does not put you in danger as you can stand in this river while the child being smaller cannot.  do you jump into that river to save that child ? let is say you encounter that same river with a different child in it the next day while wearing your rolex watch.  do you jump into that river to save the child ? now lets look at the real world.  more than 0 billion people live in extreme poverty less than 0p a day and 0 million children are estimated to have died before their 0th birthday in 0.  many of these are from poverty, preventable diseases and illnesses.  money can help provide infrastructure for schools, hospitals, sanitation facilities, vaccinations etc which no doubt will help reduce child mortality rates.  once you look at the world through this lens then it is easy enough to look at the world in terms of opportunity cost.  this iphone or 0 life saving vaccinations.  an expensive house or cheap government housing and a new well providing water for a village.  one may argue that there is a difference between the example and this and that is distance.  these children are much further away but i do not see how that dilutes your moral responsibility to them.  therefore, it seems that any money that you keep must be worth a child is life, education etc or be allocated to some other duty such as child rearing where you have a responsibility to give time and money for schools, healthcare etc to make sure that your child grows up to be a socially productive member of society.  i know that sounds like a very cold perspective on what parenting is about but i could not think of another way to phrase it haha.  i will assume that most people think that you should save the child but this specifically is why i would save the child.  i am looking at this from the stance of virtue ethics aquinas and i believe that by allowing this child to die shows a lack of charity and is not positively building character.  i ca not justify losing a life in exchange for 0 pounds.  but, i think even taken from the stance of consequentialism believing that consequences should inform your moral thinking or deontological ethics believing that laws inform your moral stance you would still reach the eventual conclusion that you must jump into that river: consequentialism i. e.  utilitarianism : you would have to argue that having 0 pounds will lead to greater pleasure/happiness than that life and i do not think you can justify that.  deontological ethics i. e.  kant : i only really understand kant so he is the one that i will briefly very briefly talk about but allowing that child to die breaks the categorical imperative as if you allowed that act to become universal you would be devaluing human life by saying that it has a price tag.  i have only briefly talked about why i think the child should be saved as i take it as a assumption that most people would save the child but i will be willing to discuss my ethical stance more thoroughly if anyone asks me about it but i did not want my post to only appeal to those who have studied philosophy.  thanks for your answers !  #  one may argue that there is a difference between the example and this and that is distance.   #  these children are much further away but i do not see how that dilutes your moral responsibility to them.   # these children are much further away but i do not see how that dilutes your moral responsibility to them.  therefore, it seems that any money that you keep must be worth a child is life, education etc or be allocated to some other duty such as child rearing where you have a responsibility to give time and money for schools, healthcare etc to make sure that your child grows up to be a socially productive member of society it is not even remotely the same, but is not just about distance.  in the first example, you  know  you are helping the child.  you see the problem, you know you can help, and you see the results that you helped saved the child.  but you do not know that with foreign aid to impoverished areas.  in fact, it looks like foreign aid does not help URL here is another article.  URL not only does it not help, but many think it actually is more detrimental to the impoverished areas.  URL it increases corruption and the poor actually get poorer.   the long term solution is not aid.  it may seem cruel that aid should stop, but really it should,  says rasna warah, a kenyan newspaper columnist and editor of the anthology missionaries, mercenaries and misfits source URL so by donating money to impoverished areas, you really are not helping them you honestly might be hurting them in the long run.  consequentialism is not just looking at the immediate results.  on the one hand, you might feel good for donating to some impoverished area, and maybe they even have some temporary benefit.  but if in the long term it just keeps them trapped in a cycle of poverty and increases only the local corruption, then you are actually doing more harm.  for instance, there were a couple feral cats in my neighborhood that some neighbors kept feeding because they felt bad for the cats.  the cats started having litters of kittens, which they and some other neighbors kept feeding.  it was the same idea:  we have money.  we like animals.  we should help them .  in the short term, it probably gave them warm fuzzies.  but now we have a ton of feral cats everywhere, and they keep having more kittens.  since they know they can find easy food and water here, they are staying here, increasing their population.  moreover, now there is so many that they pretty much have to rely on human food to stay alive because they have pretty cleaned out all the birds and mice in the neighborhood.  last i heard, the hoa was planning on getting some people to get rid of the cats.  so now they are probably all going to die.  in the short term, it probably seemed justifiable to the cat friendly neighbors to feed those feral cats, but now in the long run it looks like it ultimately hurt them more both in terms of their environment too many and the fact that they are likely going to die.  donating to charities that send foreign aid to impoverished areas is similar there might be a temporary benefit, but in the long run it is probably more harmful than anything.   #  it is the largest utilitarian miracle in human history.   #  so i am going to tackle this from a utilitarian standpoint.  you are clearly using the arguments of peter singer, and i think he is wrong.  up until very recent times, the dire poverty you describe was everyone is life.  the idea that an ordinary person would have the equivalent of 0 pounds to give would be an absurdity.  the thing which has changed that, and which has allowed large chunks of humanity to rise out of dire poverty is capitalism.  free market capitalism has been the driving force which made dire poverty go from the norm to being extremely rare in the west.  and it can do the same outside the west as well.  in china, the percentage of people living under $0 a day has gone from over 0 to about 0.  URL that is like a billion people lifted out of the most dire poverty.  it is the largest utilitarian miracle in human history.  but foreign aid did bupkis for it.  the entire rise in chinese living standards has come from commercial trade.  chinese peasants would not have migrated to the cities and gotten factory jobs if westerners were not buying their stuff.  are the factory jobs great ? no, but they are better than what they had before.  and they are getting better still, as companies have trouble finding new workers and have to raise wages.  but unlike charitable aid, china is poverty reduction depends on mutually beneficial relationships which are far more robust and predictable than the whims of charitable westerners.  china is reduction in poverty is sustainable in a way charity is not.  if you want to truly help the world is poor, find some stuff labeled  made in poorest country you can think of   and buy it.   #  it just seems like another version of trickle down economics and i do not really buy it.   #  even clothes made by child labourers ? do you really think that by giving money to companies that do not really care where they source their material as long as its cheap care about lifting people out of poverty ? it just seems like another version of trickle down economics and i do not really buy it.  even if such a solution would work it does not change the nature of my argument and perhaps in the context of micro financing charities it does .  all it means now is that instead of spending all my money on charity i would instead spend it buying stuff made in the poorest country i can think of.  poverty is still the only ethical life i can live.   #  i ca not help any one else when i am about to go down myself.   #  there is a small but important way to look at this.  if everyone is drowning, their ability to help others drowning is very limited.  i ca not help any one else when i am about to go down myself.  only when i place myself out of peril am i allowed to make choices that impact others.  self preservation simply does not let me give resources which i might need myself.  if your level of my being has be one alternator from being homeless, do you really think i will be giving to others ?  #  forcing everyone to be a notch above drowning is simply a way to get a lot of people into a situation where they are a blown alternator from drowning.   #  which means i am drowning again right.  see previous comment.  i have been both places.  i have been at points where if my car broke down i would be done.  and i have been at places where things are much more comfortable.  my ability to help out my fellow man is far more now that i am comfortable than what it was when i was poor as hell.  when i was poor i could not afford to care about anyone other than myself.  i could not teach a person to read because i had to make money during any spare time i could.  i could not go out of my way to make my world a better place because the same reason.  forcing everyone to be a notch above drowning is simply a way to get a lot of people into a situation where they are a blown alternator from drowning.  i ca not really help my fellow man when i need to spend all my time and energy helping out me.  consequently, my fellow man does not get helped.
let is say your friend comes up to you one day and suggests you come to this unique restaurant with him, one where all the food is lavishly and decoratively displayed to make sure that it looks and smells as delicious and mouthwatering as possible.  however you are not allowed to actually touch or eat it, and in fact there is no eating allowed whatsoever in the restaurant, no eating the food on display and definitely nothing you brought in.  and your friend insists that this restaurant is really special because if you pay extra about the price you would pay for a pretty nice meal elsewhere they will bring you to a private table and bring you the dishes you think look and smell the tastiest.  and they will arrange them right in front of you in gorgeous arrays, and you can maybe play with it a bit.  stir or move it around with your fork or spoon, handle the dishes themselves a bit, and this is why it is a  really  special version of these restaurants you can even taste it a bit, swish the drinks around in your mouth a little.  but still absolutely no eating the food whatsoever.  so at the end of the day you are absolutely starving after paying some good money for the experience of being teased with some delicious looking food for an hour or so, and now you have got to go home to eat whatever lacklustre stuff you have got in the kitchen or go to another restaurant where you can actually buy something to eat.  if your friend said you should go to this restaurant you would think they were retarded.  but if you do not want to go get blueballed at a strip club for an hour or so, for some reason you are the weird one.  so i do not get strip clubs, they seem like a complete waste of money and time.  cmv.   #  if your friend said you should go to this restaurant you would think they were retarded.   #  but if you do not want to go get blueballed at a strip club for an hour or so, for some reason you are the weird one.   # but if you do not want to go get blueballed at a strip club for an hour or so, for some reason you are the weird one.  okay, but that is because it is relatively easy to go and get really nice food to eat.  it is relatively hard to get a pretty girl to dance naked in your lap.  i could go out every night and strike out every night trying to get a pretty girl to dance naked in my lap.  or i could go to the titty bar, and see naked pretty girls dancing.  sometimes, it is just really nice to see pretty naked girls.   #  why go to a strip club just to get blue balls ?  #  URL you are confusing drive and desire.  a naïve understanding of the world includes the pleasure principle.  people want pleasure, avoid pain, as you have pointed out.  desire does not want satisfaction in the same way that your drives do.  in fact, desire is the result of a dissatisfaction of your drives, a lack.  it is is not logical to go to a strip club unless the point is exactly what ca not believe it is, to not be satisfied.  ultimately, people going to strip are simply re enacting a scenario where their needs did not get met.  they are repeating a lack where they were turned on, greatly so, but could not get it satisfied so they re enact this over and over at the strip club.  their repetition reveals this but ironically their dissatisfaction has been interpreted as enjoyment.  just as when you drink a coke you get more thirsty yet you desire more.  it is as logical as going to a strip club.  why drink coke when you need water ? why go to a strip club just to get blue balls ? because that is the point.   #  the girl walks in, the man pays the girl to penetrate her, she bends over and takes it.   #  i read an interview with a stripper recently where she said that a surprising amount of clientelle just come there to have someone to talk with, some tell the girls secrets they would not tell anyone else.  in a strip club you are not going for sex, you are going for female attention.  which is not necessarily the same thing.  sexual entertainment seems intrinsically tied to physical pleasure, with physical pleasure being the goal, strip clubs remove that goal.  sounds pretty lacklustre.  imagine for example a visit to a sex worker which is all business.  the girl walks in, the man pays the girl to penetrate her, she bends over and takes it.  he finishes and she leaves.  for many men though thats not what they want, or at least not what will keep them coming back.  they wa not someone who will will laugh at their jokes, tell them they are handsome, make them feel powerful ect.  pure physical pleasure isnt the only appeal.   #  food network will not make food magically appear on your table, and going to a strip club will not make sexual partners magically appear in your life.   #  going to a strip club may inspire to go and meet girls.  or inspire you to have sex with a so you already have.  either way you will have to do it yourself, the same you will have to make your own food when you watched food network.  food network will not make food magically appear on your table, and going to a strip club will not make sexual partners magically appear in your life.  but it does not meant that food network, or a strip club is a waste of time.  there is nothing wrong with watching what you ca not have without additional effort on your part for inspiration or for entertainment.   #  they are willing to pay for the opportunity to see naked people.   #  i have never been to a strip club though i have been invited many times , but i think you are wrong.  in your example, the place would not be a restaurant, it would be a museum.  the issue is you are treating a strip club like a brothel.  treated as a restaurant, the place you describe is a waste.  treated as a museum, it could be very interesting.  treated as a brothel, a strip club is terrible.  treated as a strip club aesthetic rather than carnal pleasure , the strip club is not a waste.  people like to see naked people.  they are willing to pay for the opportunity to see naked people.  that is what they pay for.
let is say your friend comes up to you one day and suggests you come to this unique restaurant with him, one where all the food is lavishly and decoratively displayed to make sure that it looks and smells as delicious and mouthwatering as possible.  however you are not allowed to actually touch or eat it, and in fact there is no eating allowed whatsoever in the restaurant, no eating the food on display and definitely nothing you brought in.  and your friend insists that this restaurant is really special because if you pay extra about the price you would pay for a pretty nice meal elsewhere they will bring you to a private table and bring you the dishes you think look and smell the tastiest.  and they will arrange them right in front of you in gorgeous arrays, and you can maybe play with it a bit.  stir or move it around with your fork or spoon, handle the dishes themselves a bit, and this is why it is a  really  special version of these restaurants you can even taste it a bit, swish the drinks around in your mouth a little.  but still absolutely no eating the food whatsoever.  so at the end of the day you are absolutely starving after paying some good money for the experience of being teased with some delicious looking food for an hour or so, and now you have got to go home to eat whatever lacklustre stuff you have got in the kitchen or go to another restaurant where you can actually buy something to eat.  if your friend said you should go to this restaurant you would think they were retarded.  but if you do not want to go get blueballed at a strip club for an hour or so, for some reason you are the weird one.  so i do not get strip clubs, they seem like a complete waste of money and time.  cmv.   #  so i do not get strip clubs, they seem like a complete waste of money and time.   #  you are clearly not their target audience.   # you are clearly not their target audience.  i have been to two, in different states one was my first time, out of curiosity, and the other was a bachelor party .  i am not planning on going to another, especially now that i am married.  it was a complete waste of money, and a mostly complete waste of time.  it was not a complete waste of time because it was actually an experience that i will remember, even if it is not one i care to repeat; learning something makes it not a complete waste.  and, you know what ? people there were having fun and enjoying themselves.  i do not enjoy drinking, and watching naked women dancing on a stage is way too impersonal for me, but hey,  some  people actually enjoy that stuff, and i ca not fault them for it.  they can go; i will stay home with my beautiful wife ! why does everyone need to have the same likes and dislikes as i have ? someone mentioned the food network as something very similar to your looking at food restaurant.  i do not particularly enjoy watching it either, but some people do.  that fact means that it is not a complete waste of money and time for those people.  same with the strip clubs.  for you, sure, it is probably a waste.  luckily, you can just not go.  for other people, it is a great way to spend dollars and hours.  if it were not, they would not be there.   #  why go to a strip club just to get blue balls ?  #  URL you are confusing drive and desire.  a naïve understanding of the world includes the pleasure principle.  people want pleasure, avoid pain, as you have pointed out.  desire does not want satisfaction in the same way that your drives do.  in fact, desire is the result of a dissatisfaction of your drives, a lack.  it is is not logical to go to a strip club unless the point is exactly what ca not believe it is, to not be satisfied.  ultimately, people going to strip are simply re enacting a scenario where their needs did not get met.  they are repeating a lack where they were turned on, greatly so, but could not get it satisfied so they re enact this over and over at the strip club.  their repetition reveals this but ironically their dissatisfaction has been interpreted as enjoyment.  just as when you drink a coke you get more thirsty yet you desire more.  it is as logical as going to a strip club.  why drink coke when you need water ? why go to a strip club just to get blue balls ? because that is the point.   #  the girl walks in, the man pays the girl to penetrate her, she bends over and takes it.   #  i read an interview with a stripper recently where she said that a surprising amount of clientelle just come there to have someone to talk with, some tell the girls secrets they would not tell anyone else.  in a strip club you are not going for sex, you are going for female attention.  which is not necessarily the same thing.  sexual entertainment seems intrinsically tied to physical pleasure, with physical pleasure being the goal, strip clubs remove that goal.  sounds pretty lacklustre.  imagine for example a visit to a sex worker which is all business.  the girl walks in, the man pays the girl to penetrate her, she bends over and takes it.  he finishes and she leaves.  for many men though thats not what they want, or at least not what will keep them coming back.  they wa not someone who will will laugh at their jokes, tell them they are handsome, make them feel powerful ect.  pure physical pleasure isnt the only appeal.   #  going to a strip club may inspire to go and meet girls.   #  going to a strip club may inspire to go and meet girls.  or inspire you to have sex with a so you already have.  either way you will have to do it yourself, the same you will have to make your own food when you watched food network.  food network will not make food magically appear on your table, and going to a strip club will not make sexual partners magically appear in your life.  but it does not meant that food network, or a strip club is a waste of time.  there is nothing wrong with watching what you ca not have without additional effort on your part for inspiration or for entertainment.   #  okay, but that is because it is relatively easy to go and get really nice food to eat.   # but if you do not want to go get blueballed at a strip club for an hour or so, for some reason you are the weird one.  okay, but that is because it is relatively easy to go and get really nice food to eat.  it is relatively hard to get a pretty girl to dance naked in your lap.  i could go out every night and strike out every night trying to get a pretty girl to dance naked in my lap.  or i could go to the titty bar, and see naked pretty girls dancing.  sometimes, it is just really nice to see pretty naked girls.
look, i know this is a touchy subject, and while people might say i am young and did not understand the complexity of wars, just hear me out.  vietnam was essentially a communist state, due to influences from china and ussr, which were alliances the former is debatable of vietnam during the war.  after the war, our country has suffered multiple economic depressions, and famines due to the incompetence of our liberally named communist party.  granted the south vietnam government was not any better, but what the u. s wanted for vietnam was for the best.  i understand that, technically the us did not wage war with our people, but stood against the spread of communism in asia, and with our strategic location, a battle surely followed.  the us did not deliberately invaded our country.  and look at what they did to the world.  defeated the nazis and fascist countries , uplifted south korea, japan which were both smaller and less resourceful than my country to their respectable position on the world map today.  and what had the sole communist party in my country done ? nothing but left our people in the struggle of a third world country.  and china is still brazenly harassing our borders and seas to this very day, just because our army is incapable of standing up for themselves.  please tell me if i was wrong and why the north won was a good idea.   #  what the u. s wanted for vietnam was for the best.   #  this i think is the sticking point.   # this i think is the sticking point.  what you  think  they wanted and what they actually  did  want might well be very different.  looking at the track record, vanishingly few countries where the u. s.  has successfully interfered have turned out to be bastions of democracy and happiness as a whole as a result of that interference.  that is a matter of reasonable debate.  that many would be better off if they had never interfered at all is absolutely certain.   #  i would also point out that the government was rather unstable, as seen in the assassination of ngo dinh diem.   #  i mean, i know a lot of vietnamese americans who were refugees from south vietnam who probably would have preferred the other side winning.  so i do not think you are alone, but i think perhaps you are assuming that had the american backed south won, these problems would be fixed.  i know you said the north was corrupt, but the south was every bit as corrupt.  they probably would not have been able to support the economy any better, and depressions and famine may have ensued anyway, albeit they may get support from the us.  remember that a significant number of vietcong in the south were southerners who were disillusioned with the corruption of the government.  so they in effect fueled quite a lot of backlash against themselves.  i would also point out that the government was rather unstable, as seen in the assassination of ngo dinh diem.  if there was that much turnover, there could potentially be wars in the future over other rival factions or even communist resurgence or a probable and continual insurgency.  so there is a significant potential that more vietnamese would die in the coming years than the already horrible toll paid.  also, if the drvn won the war, i highly doubt they would be able to solve the border dispute between vietnam and china considering those countries have been at odds for centuries if i am not mistaken.  my point here is that unfortunately the choice between a good government and a bad government appears to have been an illusion, and while unfortunately the current government is not good, i guess you might say it is  the devil you know , considering things could have gone worse.   #  look at russia: they are elite might be safe right now, but the common russian is suffering from that economy.   # but basing the idea that vietnam would  definitely  be better off on a circumstantial change of government is a bit presumptuous.  what signs did the government show before  0 that it would trend towards an actually stable oligarchy ? not many i believe.  and that is if, and only if, you believe an oligarchy, which is inherently corrupt, is better than the current government.  even if you did manage to get the same level of stability from an oligarchy that you did from communism, you would still have the exact same issues with a different government.  they would not prevent famine or economic downturn considering the nature of an oligarchy is to protect the business elite.  look at russia: they are elite might be safe right now, but the common russian is suffering from that economy.  different circumstances, but the a change of government does not change the economic environment that vietnam is in.  also, the idea that the government you described would be more stable is a best case scenario.  it can only be that good, while it has all the potential in the world to fail or fall back into violence.  if that government had taken over and won the war, it would not have solved the underlying reasons why people rebelled initially, so the probability of their still being a communist insurgency is high, and you could have a situation like the columbian farcs happen, where a long term war breaks out because neither side can deal a death blow to the other movement.  nixon drastically improved relations with china in the seventies, to the point that china was actually more closely  aligned  with the us than it was russia, and russo chinese relations deteriorated significantly.  vietnam was more closely allied with russia, and despite its military might, the backing of russia did little to persuade china not to pursue it is issues with vietnam.  so the us may not have had the effect you think.  also, because of the improving relations with china, the us may have also been reluctant to pick a bone with china in support of vietnam.  again, i am not saying communism or the current government is good, but rather that the uncertainty at this point that the other side would bring may not have been worth it of it did work out in the drvn is favor.   #  both govts are worried about what china is plans are, and vn is at this point a growing ally of the us.   #  as someone who has split my time about 0/0 living in vn   the us, i am very interested in this topic and am glad you brought it up.  mostly, i have agreed with wheezin  ed adding to the list that some of the earlier post war setbacks like vn is war with cambodia would have certainly occurred anyway and the skirmishes with china could have easily spiraled out of control and turned out far worse than they did.  all that said, the reason i am posting is that i really appreciate this question:   but if even the us ca not stop china from the aggressive expansion on our naval borders, than what hope is left for the indochina ? this is an excellent question.  it certainly looks like china is the looming hegemon for the region and i have not heard any long term scenarios where that is not the case.  not that it has to be catastrophic for china is neighbors, but vn   china will definitely have more sabre rattling in the future at the very least.  although, do keep in mind that there is growing cooperation between the two governments, notably the recent us willingness to sell  non lethal  weapons   military equipment to vn.  both govts are worried about what china is plans are, and vn is at this point a growing ally of the us.  would love to hear other is thoughts on the subject.   #  the us has a history of propping up dictators when we see it fit to do so.   #  the us has a history of propping up dictators when we see it fit to do so.  we have done it in the past.  speculative off course, but even with the us is guidance life in vietnam might have still been bad for the average person.  we were also in vietnam more to stop the communists and less because we actually gave a crap about the vietnamese people.  we did support saddam hussein when it was in our best interest to do so.  what i am trying to say is that while it could have been better there is no real guarantee that american involvement in your country would have been good for the common man.  it has not always worked this way in the past.
look, i know this is a touchy subject, and while people might say i am young and did not understand the complexity of wars, just hear me out.  vietnam was essentially a communist state, due to influences from china and ussr, which were alliances the former is debatable of vietnam during the war.  after the war, our country has suffered multiple economic depressions, and famines due to the incompetence of our liberally named communist party.  granted the south vietnam government was not any better, but what the u. s wanted for vietnam was for the best.  i understand that, technically the us did not wage war with our people, but stood against the spread of communism in asia, and with our strategic location, a battle surely followed.  the us did not deliberately invaded our country.  and look at what they did to the world.  defeated the nazis and fascist countries , uplifted south korea, japan which were both smaller and less resourceful than my country to their respectable position on the world map today.  and what had the sole communist party in my country done ? nothing but left our people in the struggle of a third world country.  and china is still brazenly harassing our borders and seas to this very day, just because our army is incapable of standing up for themselves.  please tell me if i was wrong and why the north won was a good idea.   #  nothing but left our people in the struggle of a third world country.   #  this does not really sound fair, either.   #  it seems like you are overstating the role of the us here.  what could you mean by:   technically the us did not wage war with our people, but stood against the spread of communism in asia i have never met anyone who made that distinction.  i also think you have overstated the role of the united states in both wwii they hardly  wouldefeated the fascists  alone, nor could they have alone .  i would also take issue with:   uplifted south korea, japan which were both smaller and less resourceful than my country to their respectable position on the world map today japan was, if not for the lack of population, more powerful and more developed than china, and certainly far, far more developed than french indochina.  this does not really sound fair, either.  vietnam is generally considered middle income, i would not call it  third world .  generally speaking, it seems like you are overly optimistic about what effects a us or, more accurately, south vietnamese victory would have had.   #  if there was that much turnover, there could potentially be wars in the future over other rival factions or even communist resurgence or a probable and continual insurgency.   #  i mean, i know a lot of vietnamese americans who were refugees from south vietnam who probably would have preferred the other side winning.  so i do not think you are alone, but i think perhaps you are assuming that had the american backed south won, these problems would be fixed.  i know you said the north was corrupt, but the south was every bit as corrupt.  they probably would not have been able to support the economy any better, and depressions and famine may have ensued anyway, albeit they may get support from the us.  remember that a significant number of vietcong in the south were southerners who were disillusioned with the corruption of the government.  so they in effect fueled quite a lot of backlash against themselves.  i would also point out that the government was rather unstable, as seen in the assassination of ngo dinh diem.  if there was that much turnover, there could potentially be wars in the future over other rival factions or even communist resurgence or a probable and continual insurgency.  so there is a significant potential that more vietnamese would die in the coming years than the already horrible toll paid.  also, if the drvn won the war, i highly doubt they would be able to solve the border dispute between vietnam and china considering those countries have been at odds for centuries if i am not mistaken.  my point here is that unfortunately the choice between a good government and a bad government appears to have been an illusion, and while unfortunately the current government is not good, i guess you might say it is  the devil you know , considering things could have gone worse.   #  and that is if, and only if, you believe an oligarchy, which is inherently corrupt, is better than the current government.   # but basing the idea that vietnam would  definitely  be better off on a circumstantial change of government is a bit presumptuous.  what signs did the government show before  0 that it would trend towards an actually stable oligarchy ? not many i believe.  and that is if, and only if, you believe an oligarchy, which is inherently corrupt, is better than the current government.  even if you did manage to get the same level of stability from an oligarchy that you did from communism, you would still have the exact same issues with a different government.  they would not prevent famine or economic downturn considering the nature of an oligarchy is to protect the business elite.  look at russia: they are elite might be safe right now, but the common russian is suffering from that economy.  different circumstances, but the a change of government does not change the economic environment that vietnam is in.  also, the idea that the government you described would be more stable is a best case scenario.  it can only be that good, while it has all the potential in the world to fail or fall back into violence.  if that government had taken over and won the war, it would not have solved the underlying reasons why people rebelled initially, so the probability of their still being a communist insurgency is high, and you could have a situation like the columbian farcs happen, where a long term war breaks out because neither side can deal a death blow to the other movement.  nixon drastically improved relations with china in the seventies, to the point that china was actually more closely  aligned  with the us than it was russia, and russo chinese relations deteriorated significantly.  vietnam was more closely allied with russia, and despite its military might, the backing of russia did little to persuade china not to pursue it is issues with vietnam.  so the us may not have had the effect you think.  also, because of the improving relations with china, the us may have also been reluctant to pick a bone with china in support of vietnam.  again, i am not saying communism or the current government is good, but rather that the uncertainty at this point that the other side would bring may not have been worth it of it did work out in the drvn is favor.   #  as someone who has split my time about 0/0 living in vn   the us, i am very interested in this topic and am glad you brought it up.   #  as someone who has split my time about 0/0 living in vn   the us, i am very interested in this topic and am glad you brought it up.  mostly, i have agreed with wheezin  ed adding to the list that some of the earlier post war setbacks like vn is war with cambodia would have certainly occurred anyway and the skirmishes with china could have easily spiraled out of control and turned out far worse than they did.  all that said, the reason i am posting is that i really appreciate this question:   but if even the us ca not stop china from the aggressive expansion on our naval borders, than what hope is left for the indochina ? this is an excellent question.  it certainly looks like china is the looming hegemon for the region and i have not heard any long term scenarios where that is not the case.  not that it has to be catastrophic for china is neighbors, but vn   china will definitely have more sabre rattling in the future at the very least.  although, do keep in mind that there is growing cooperation between the two governments, notably the recent us willingness to sell  non lethal  weapons   military equipment to vn.  both govts are worried about what china is plans are, and vn is at this point a growing ally of the us.  would love to hear other is thoughts on the subject.   #  it has not always worked this way in the past.   #  the us has a history of propping up dictators when we see it fit to do so.  we have done it in the past.  speculative off course, but even with the us is guidance life in vietnam might have still been bad for the average person.  we were also in vietnam more to stop the communists and less because we actually gave a crap about the vietnamese people.  we did support saddam hussein when it was in our best interest to do so.  what i am trying to say is that while it could have been better there is no real guarantee that american involvement in your country would have been good for the common man.  it has not always worked this way in the past.
many people think that racism, sexism, ageism etc.  are wrong because it is a judgment of a person based on something he ca not change.  i do not think that is why these prejudices are bad.  i think they are bad simply because they are prejudices.  i think that bringing up for example political affiliation, religious beliefs, wealth, clothing or hairstyle in support of an argument 0 is an argumentative foul and an intellectually dishonest thing to do, exploiting prejudices of people.  i think that: 0.  arguments should be judged based on the content of the argument, not the people stating them 0.  all prejudices are bad and should be fought against, without prioritizing the prejudices based on things one ca not change 0 0 of course that excludes the cases when the thing in question is direct subject of the argument like  john believes in god, he is a christian , this does not evoke any prejudice.  0 i am fine with prioritization based on different, better criteria, for example prioritizing prejudice which has the largest socioeconomic effect in the society however one measures that .   #  i think that bringing up for example political affiliation, religious beliefs, wealth, clothing or hairstyle in support of an argument 0 is an argumentative foul and an intellectually dishonest thing to do, exploiting prejudices of people.   #  when evaluating an argument, it is important to take into account any possible biases, slants, perceptions, and ulterior motives that the source might have.   # when evaluating an argument, it is important to take into account any possible biases, slants, perceptions, and ulterior motives that the source might have.  if the heritage foundation releases a study that clearly demonstrates the destructiveness of a minimum wage, i would take that article with a grain of salt, since they are almost certainly highlighting the findings that support their conclusions, while downplaying or ignoring any evidence that does not.  i would be much more skeptical of this source, than i would from a more neutral source like the brookings institution.  if rand paul is arguing against public education funding, i am going to take his arguments with a grain of salt, because i know his beliefs of what government  should be  are fundamentally different than mine.  that is, what he is sees as a  happy ending  i would see as a disaster.  likewise, that person is situation and experience may influence and distort their perception of the issue at hand.  for example, if someone is arguing for or against social wellfare, a wealthy person who graduated from business school and has never had to rely on the social safety net is much more likely to be uneducated or out of touch with a topic than a social worker who grew up in poverty.  finally, there is the end  #  in rejoinder to this you offered a scenario where in the future the only prejudice against something that could not be changed was believing people with pimples had sensitive skin against believing atheists are the devil.   # because i said it before and you did not address it.  i assumed that means that we both agree.  it is also my passive aggressive way to say i do not think you have been reading what i typed.  to start over.  to me your argument has two main points.  the first, which is uninteresting because i agree, kind of muddles two points a argumentum ad hominem is typically a fallacy b all prejudiced e. g.  preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience is bad the second point involves this statement of yours   i am fine with prioritization based on different, better criteria, for example prioritizing prejudice which has the largest socioeconomic effect in the society however one measures that .  and my argument is that today given the state of the world, it is reasonable to focus on prejudice against characteristics we cannot change because as i said,  prejudice against a characteristic that is obvious and that i cannot change race, sex, age is arguably, if not obviously, worse for me than prejudice against characteristics i have that are not obvious and can change.  in rejoinder to this you offered a scenario where in the future the only prejudice against something that could not be changed was believing people with pimples had sensitive skin against believing atheists are the devil.  so i believe that we agree 0.  argumentum ad hominem is typically a fallacy 0.  all prejudice is bad 0.  we need some ranking of prejudices that need to be attacked first 0.  prejudices with the largest effect in society should be those attacked first where we seem to disagree, based on assumptions as to why you wrote this cmv is that in today world prejudice against a characteristic that is obvious and that i cannot change race, sex, age is obviously worse for me than prejudice against characteristics i have that are not obvious and can change.  which explains why  many people think that racism, sexism, ageism etc.  are more wrong because it is a judgment of a person based on something he ca not change  #  i am not afraid if a clean shaven and neat person makes some sort of small talk on a bus.   #  i would agree that it is a terrible thing to do in a professional setting, or a scholarly debate, or a situation where people are trying to sit down and honestly talk to each other.  however, these prejudices make sense in ordinary settings.  for example, when i go jogging or use public transit, sometimes people talk at me.  i am not afraid if a clean shaven and neat person makes some sort of small talk on a bus.  i was afraid when a red eyed greaser couple moved up right besides me and stared at me, even before they proceeded to give me unwanted life advice.  it is definitely prejudice to flinch and walk quickly when somebody with greasy hair and bloodshot eyes staggers near me.  odds are they are not dangerous.  untidy clothing and unwashed hair has hundreds of possible explanations.  however, i think it is reasonable to be more afraid of someone untidy than somebody neat.   #  with the rand paul argument likewise, you are arguing in not believing rand in value judgements as you know his values are different than his.   #  i like your points, but the first two of these are not really addressing my point that all prejudice is bad.  they are rather points that warn against accepting unwarranted beliefs.  with the scientific study considering the bias of the think tank in accepting the belief that they were diligent when carrying out the study, as their bias shows it could be in their interest not to be, does not seem like prejudice to me.  it would be prejudice if you thought that the study is wrong, because of their bias even if it was 0 reproducible without need to trust them in anything.  with the rand paul argument likewise, you are arguing in not believing rand in value judgements as you know his values are different than his.  however it would be prejudice if whatever he argued and it was 0 objective with no value judgements and you still thought it was wrong.  the third example is illustrating exactly what i think is wrong it seems like no one can say anything which is objective, without personal value judgements, without being judged like it did and his argument being discarded just for him being who he is.  how that should not be wrong ?  #  i would be much more likely to question their argument.   # how that should not be wrong ? because they can make blanket statements that can be wrong.  if a social worker who grew up in poverty says  wellfare queens are a serious problem and a burden on the social safety net,  i know they are coming from both professional experience and knowledge.  if a wealthy person says  wellfare queens are a serious problem and a burden on the social safety net.   i would be much more likely to question their argument.  it is simply about expertise or lackthereof .  if a ph. d.  sociology says that mole on your back is cancer, and the md with the speciality in dermatology says its benign, are you exercising prejudice in believing the mds side of the store ?
many people think that racism, sexism, ageism etc.  are wrong because it is a judgment of a person based on something he ca not change.  i do not think that is why these prejudices are bad.  i think they are bad simply because they are prejudices.  i think that bringing up for example political affiliation, religious beliefs, wealth, clothing or hairstyle in support of an argument 0 is an argumentative foul and an intellectually dishonest thing to do, exploiting prejudices of people.  i think that: 0.  arguments should be judged based on the content of the argument, not the people stating them 0.  all prejudices are bad and should be fought against, without prioritizing the prejudices based on things one ca not change 0 0 of course that excludes the cases when the thing in question is direct subject of the argument like  john believes in god, he is a christian , this does not evoke any prejudice.  0 i am fine with prioritization based on different, better criteria, for example prioritizing prejudice which has the largest socioeconomic effect in the society however one measures that .   #  i think they are bad simply because they are prejudices.   #  i think that bringing up for example political affiliation, religious beliefs, wealth, clothing or hairstyle in support of an argument 0 is an argumentative foul and an intellectually dishonest thing to do, exploiting prejudices of people.   # i think that bringing up for example political affiliation, religious beliefs, wealth, clothing or hairstyle in support of an argument 0 is an argumentative foul and an intellectually dishonest thing to do, exploiting prejudices of people.  a prejudice is bad when you ca not change it , because you had no  choice  in the matter.  you did not  choose  to be born into a gender or race, you simply were.  furthermore, stereotyping by race or other intrinsic qualities is not accurate.  to say  all blacks are criminals  is wrong, because the majority are not.  having a prejudice over something that is  consciously chosen  is judging people by their actions.  i can rightfully assume that scientologists are morons, because they were swindled by a wacky religion and believe wacky things counter to reality.  therefore, i would not trust a scientologist with the medical care of my child.  they chose that path, and their choice reflects their character.   #  to me your argument has two main points.   # because i said it before and you did not address it.  i assumed that means that we both agree.  it is also my passive aggressive way to say i do not think you have been reading what i typed.  to start over.  to me your argument has two main points.  the first, which is uninteresting because i agree, kind of muddles two points a argumentum ad hominem is typically a fallacy b all prejudiced e. g.  preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience is bad the second point involves this statement of yours   i am fine with prioritization based on different, better criteria, for example prioritizing prejudice which has the largest socioeconomic effect in the society however one measures that .  and my argument is that today given the state of the world, it is reasonable to focus on prejudice against characteristics we cannot change because as i said,  prejudice against a characteristic that is obvious and that i cannot change race, sex, age is arguably, if not obviously, worse for me than prejudice against characteristics i have that are not obvious and can change.  in rejoinder to this you offered a scenario where in the future the only prejudice against something that could not be changed was believing people with pimples had sensitive skin against believing atheists are the devil.  so i believe that we agree 0.  argumentum ad hominem is typically a fallacy 0.  all prejudice is bad 0.  we need some ranking of prejudices that need to be attacked first 0.  prejudices with the largest effect in society should be those attacked first where we seem to disagree, based on assumptions as to why you wrote this cmv is that in today world prejudice against a characteristic that is obvious and that i cannot change race, sex, age is obviously worse for me than prejudice against characteristics i have that are not obvious and can change.  which explains why  many people think that racism, sexism, ageism etc.  are more wrong because it is a judgment of a person based on something he ca not change  #  however, i think it is reasonable to be more afraid of someone untidy than somebody neat.   #  i would agree that it is a terrible thing to do in a professional setting, or a scholarly debate, or a situation where people are trying to sit down and honestly talk to each other.  however, these prejudices make sense in ordinary settings.  for example, when i go jogging or use public transit, sometimes people talk at me.  i am not afraid if a clean shaven and neat person makes some sort of small talk on a bus.  i was afraid when a red eyed greaser couple moved up right besides me and stared at me, even before they proceeded to give me unwanted life advice.  it is definitely prejudice to flinch and walk quickly when somebody with greasy hair and bloodshot eyes staggers near me.  odds are they are not dangerous.  untidy clothing and unwashed hair has hundreds of possible explanations.  however, i think it is reasonable to be more afraid of someone untidy than somebody neat.   #  if rand paul is arguing against public education funding, i am going to take his arguments with a grain of salt, because i know his beliefs of what government  should be  are fundamentally different than mine.   # when evaluating an argument, it is important to take into account any possible biases, slants, perceptions, and ulterior motives that the source might have.  if the heritage foundation releases a study that clearly demonstrates the destructiveness of a minimum wage, i would take that article with a grain of salt, since they are almost certainly highlighting the findings that support their conclusions, while downplaying or ignoring any evidence that does not.  i would be much more skeptical of this source, than i would from a more neutral source like the brookings institution.  if rand paul is arguing against public education funding, i am going to take his arguments with a grain of salt, because i know his beliefs of what government  should be  are fundamentally different than mine.  that is, what he is sees as a  happy ending  i would see as a disaster.  likewise, that person is situation and experience may influence and distort their perception of the issue at hand.  for example, if someone is arguing for or against social wellfare, a wealthy person who graduated from business school and has never had to rely on the social safety net is much more likely to be uneducated or out of touch with a topic than a social worker who grew up in poverty.  finally, there is the end  #  i like your points, but the first two of these are not really addressing my point that all prejudice is bad.   #  i like your points, but the first two of these are not really addressing my point that all prejudice is bad.  they are rather points that warn against accepting unwarranted beliefs.  with the scientific study considering the bias of the think tank in accepting the belief that they were diligent when carrying out the study, as their bias shows it could be in their interest not to be, does not seem like prejudice to me.  it would be prejudice if you thought that the study is wrong, because of their bias even if it was 0 reproducible without need to trust them in anything.  with the rand paul argument likewise, you are arguing in not believing rand in value judgements as you know his values are different than his.  however it would be prejudice if whatever he argued and it was 0 objective with no value judgements and you still thought it was wrong.  the third example is illustrating exactly what i think is wrong it seems like no one can say anything which is objective, without personal value judgements, without being judged like it did and his argument being discarded just for him being who he is.  how that should not be wrong ?
i have been against it for years.  frankly i find it unsightly as well as unhygienic.  recently among the race stuff showing up in the media people tried saying this was one.  just another race baiting tactic.  i am an open minded individual about lots things, but your argument has to be pretty damn good to cmv.  if your ride public transportation or sit in any public area, during the summer especially, your bare ass is only separated from the seat by a thin piece of cloth.  how could anyone with a shred of common sense find this okay ? its incredibly gross.  just look at it from a spectators point of view.  more than 0 of people are appalled by this  fashion trend  that has also been widely proven to come from prison.  why would you want to give off that type of air about you.  who wants to look at someone else is underwear anyway ? there is absolutely no other place where people show off their underwear in such a manner and get away with it.  it is indecent exposure.   there are a plenty of reasons that this trend gets so much hate and none of them have to do with race.   tell me one fashion trend that is as bad as this that gets no attention.  you ca not.  i mean hell, black people are not the only one is that do it.  i guarantee that if there was a  fashion trend  as atrocious as this started by any other group it would get the same backlash.   #  if your ride public transportation or sit in any public area, during the summer especially, your bare ass is only separated from the seat by a thin piece of cloth.   #  how could anyone with a shred of common sense find this okay ?  # how could anyone with a shred of common sense find this okay ? most saggy pants people have shorts underneath their pants.  even if you do not, so what ? women wear tights and yoga pants that have an even  thinner  piece of cloth, but nobody complains about that.  more than 0 of people are appalled by this  fashion trend  that has also been widely proven to come from prison.  why would you want to give off that type of air about you.  you have only made the case that it is not the most popular trend.  should you ban clothing based off of contemporary fashion trends ? you could wear a shirt that more overtly sends the same message, but there is no question about that.  many will indirectly target this race by targeting the trend.  tank tops where the  arm hole  goes down to the waist.  short skirts with thongs.  boy shorts and a sports bra.  i do not necessarily dislike these trends, but they are similar.   #  i am not sure if i completely understand what you are saying here but did you miss the part that said it comes from prison ?  # even if you do not, so what ? women wear tights and yoga pants that have an even thinner piece of cloth, but nobody complains about that.  women are usually more sanitary when it comes to things like that.  should you ban clothing based off of contemporary fashion trends ? you could wear a shirt that more overtly sends the same message, but there is no question about that.  i am not sure if i completely understand what you are saying here but did you miss the part that said it comes from prison ? its to show to other inmates you are  available .  how can you reasonably defend that ? many will indirectly target this race by targeting the trend.  even so it is the style and not the race that is the target.   #  there is whole weeks we wont even wear white pants, believe it or not.   # things like what ? potential to have  unhygienic  stains on their underwear ? i think women have men beat on that.  there is whole weeks we wont even wear white pants, believe it or not.  all snark aside, i am pretty sure that the prison  available  myth has been busted a few times.  and even if that was where it originated years and years ago, that is not where it originates from today.  no more so than a woman wearing pants originates from her wanting to be able to ride a horse in a regular saddle.  if there is not anything inherently wrong with it, is not legislating a style a first amendment issue ?  #  i think women have men beat on that.   # potential to have  unhygienic  stains on their underwear ? i think women have men beat on that.  there is whole weeks we wont even wear white pants, believe it or not.  and even if that was where it originated years and years ago, that is not where it originates from today.  no more so than a woman wearing pants originates from her wanting to be able to ride a horse in a regular saddle.  that entire section  #  plus the amount of people who actively ride horses versus the amount of gang members in the us is probably disproportionate with the larger numbers leading towards the gangs.   #  the times that women are  unsanitary  they are very unlikely to wear something that will be a potential hazard.  like they person said they are wo not even wear white pants during those times.  i have faith in women on this aspect.  also i might have been wrong about the reason for the pants sagging in prison but the origin URL is still correct.  plus the amount of people who actively ride horses versus the amount of gang members in the us is probably disproportionate with the larger numbers leading towards the gangs.  i do not have a source.  i am going off what national and local news reports have said over the years.
i have been against it for years.  frankly i find it unsightly as well as unhygienic.  recently among the race stuff showing up in the media people tried saying this was one.  just another race baiting tactic.  i am an open minded individual about lots things, but your argument has to be pretty damn good to cmv.  if your ride public transportation or sit in any public area, during the summer especially, your bare ass is only separated from the seat by a thin piece of cloth.  how could anyone with a shred of common sense find this okay ? its incredibly gross.  just look at it from a spectators point of view.  more than 0 of people are appalled by this  fashion trend  that has also been widely proven to come from prison.  why would you want to give off that type of air about you.  who wants to look at someone else is underwear anyway ? there is absolutely no other place where people show off their underwear in such a manner and get away with it.  it is indecent exposure.   there are a plenty of reasons that this trend gets so much hate and none of them have to do with race.   tell me one fashion trend that is as bad as this that gets no attention.  you ca not.  i mean hell, black people are not the only one is that do it.  i guarantee that if there was a  fashion trend  as atrocious as this started by any other group it would get the same backlash.   #  just look at it from a spectators point of view.   #  more than 0 of people are appalled by this  fashion trend  that has also been widely proven to come from prison.   # how could anyone with a shred of common sense find this okay ? most saggy pants people have shorts underneath their pants.  even if you do not, so what ? women wear tights and yoga pants that have an even  thinner  piece of cloth, but nobody complains about that.  more than 0 of people are appalled by this  fashion trend  that has also been widely proven to come from prison.  why would you want to give off that type of air about you.  you have only made the case that it is not the most popular trend.  should you ban clothing based off of contemporary fashion trends ? you could wear a shirt that more overtly sends the same message, but there is no question about that.  many will indirectly target this race by targeting the trend.  tank tops where the  arm hole  goes down to the waist.  short skirts with thongs.  boy shorts and a sports bra.  i do not necessarily dislike these trends, but they are similar.   #  should you ban clothing based off of contemporary fashion trends ?  # even if you do not, so what ? women wear tights and yoga pants that have an even thinner piece of cloth, but nobody complains about that.  women are usually more sanitary when it comes to things like that.  should you ban clothing based off of contemporary fashion trends ? you could wear a shirt that more overtly sends the same message, but there is no question about that.  i am not sure if i completely understand what you are saying here but did you miss the part that said it comes from prison ? its to show to other inmates you are  available .  how can you reasonably defend that ? many will indirectly target this race by targeting the trend.  even so it is the style and not the race that is the target.   #  no more so than a woman wearing pants originates from her wanting to be able to ride a horse in a regular saddle.   # things like what ? potential to have  unhygienic  stains on their underwear ? i think women have men beat on that.  there is whole weeks we wont even wear white pants, believe it or not.  all snark aside, i am pretty sure that the prison  available  myth has been busted a few times.  and even if that was where it originated years and years ago, that is not where it originates from today.  no more so than a woman wearing pants originates from her wanting to be able to ride a horse in a regular saddle.  if there is not anything inherently wrong with it, is not legislating a style a first amendment issue ?  #  potential to have  unhygienic  stains on their underwear ?  # potential to have  unhygienic  stains on their underwear ? i think women have men beat on that.  there is whole weeks we wont even wear white pants, believe it or not.  and even if that was where it originated years and years ago, that is not where it originates from today.  no more so than a woman wearing pants originates from her wanting to be able to ride a horse in a regular saddle.  that entire section  #  i have faith in women on this aspect.   #  the times that women are  unsanitary  they are very unlikely to wear something that will be a potential hazard.  like they person said they are wo not even wear white pants during those times.  i have faith in women on this aspect.  also i might have been wrong about the reason for the pants sagging in prison but the origin URL is still correct.  plus the amount of people who actively ride horses versus the amount of gang members in the us is probably disproportionate with the larger numbers leading towards the gangs.  i do not have a source.  i am going off what national and local news reports have said over the years.
i have been against it for years.  frankly i find it unsightly as well as unhygienic.  recently among the race stuff showing up in the media people tried saying this was one.  just another race baiting tactic.  i am an open minded individual about lots things, but your argument has to be pretty damn good to cmv.  if your ride public transportation or sit in any public area, during the summer especially, your bare ass is only separated from the seat by a thin piece of cloth.  how could anyone with a shred of common sense find this okay ? its incredibly gross.  just look at it from a spectators point of view.  more than 0 of people are appalled by this  fashion trend  that has also been widely proven to come from prison.  why would you want to give off that type of air about you.  who wants to look at someone else is underwear anyway ? there is absolutely no other place where people show off their underwear in such a manner and get away with it.  it is indecent exposure.   there are a plenty of reasons that this trend gets so much hate and none of them have to do with race.   tell me one fashion trend that is as bad as this that gets no attention.  you ca not.  i mean hell, black people are not the only one is that do it.  i guarantee that if there was a  fashion trend  as atrocious as this started by any other group it would get the same backlash.   #  more than 0 of people are appalled by this  fashion trend  that has also been widely proven to come from prison.   #  this certainly seems like a bandwagon fallacy, not too mention a made up sounding statistic.   # those reasons are mostly poppycock.  generally speaking no one says that their dislike has to do with race because they do not want to be labeled a racists.  essentially it is obvious when one cannot articulate a valid reason for the opinion that is held outside of a racial bias.  for example:  there is absolutely no other place where people show off their underwear in such a manner and get away with it.  it is indecent exposure.  you can walk around in your underwear.  it is neither illegal or indecent exposure.  which is why models are not being ticketed left and right and victoria secrets has posters on their windows in the malls.  this certainly seems like a bandwagon fallacy, not too mention a made up sounding statistic.  it is also a poor indicator to use as an example to show that something is not based in race.  after all saying that the majority do not like what the minority are doing is not exactly compelling to exclude racial motives.  0 of the population goes commando:  .  that has also been widely proven to come from prison.  first off this is a genetic fallacy.  secondly in the us over 0 of all inmates belong to a minority group.  is this a code word ?  #  should you ban clothing based off of contemporary fashion trends ?  # how could anyone with a shred of common sense find this okay ? most saggy pants people have shorts underneath their pants.  even if you do not, so what ? women wear tights and yoga pants that have an even  thinner  piece of cloth, but nobody complains about that.  more than 0 of people are appalled by this  fashion trend  that has also been widely proven to come from prison.  why would you want to give off that type of air about you.  you have only made the case that it is not the most popular trend.  should you ban clothing based off of contemporary fashion trends ? you could wear a shirt that more overtly sends the same message, but there is no question about that.  many will indirectly target this race by targeting the trend.  tank tops where the  arm hole  goes down to the waist.  short skirts with thongs.  boy shorts and a sports bra.  i do not necessarily dislike these trends, but they are similar.   #  should you ban clothing based off of contemporary fashion trends ?  # even if you do not, so what ? women wear tights and yoga pants that have an even thinner piece of cloth, but nobody complains about that.  women are usually more sanitary when it comes to things like that.  should you ban clothing based off of contemporary fashion trends ? you could wear a shirt that more overtly sends the same message, but there is no question about that.  i am not sure if i completely understand what you are saying here but did you miss the part that said it comes from prison ? its to show to other inmates you are  available .  how can you reasonably defend that ? many will indirectly target this race by targeting the trend.  even so it is the style and not the race that is the target.   #  there is whole weeks we wont even wear white pants, believe it or not.   # things like what ? potential to have  unhygienic  stains on their underwear ? i think women have men beat on that.  there is whole weeks we wont even wear white pants, believe it or not.  all snark aside, i am pretty sure that the prison  available  myth has been busted a few times.  and even if that was where it originated years and years ago, that is not where it originates from today.  no more so than a woman wearing pants originates from her wanting to be able to ride a horse in a regular saddle.  if there is not anything inherently wrong with it, is not legislating a style a first amendment issue ?  #  no more so than a woman wearing pants originates from her wanting to be able to ride a horse in a regular saddle.   # potential to have  unhygienic  stains on their underwear ? i think women have men beat on that.  there is whole weeks we wont even wear white pants, believe it or not.  and even if that was where it originated years and years ago, that is not where it originates from today.  no more so than a woman wearing pants originates from her wanting to be able to ride a horse in a regular saddle.  that entire section
i have been against it for years.  frankly i find it unsightly as well as unhygienic.  recently among the race stuff showing up in the media people tried saying this was one.  just another race baiting tactic.  i am an open minded individual about lots things, but your argument has to be pretty damn good to cmv.  if your ride public transportation or sit in any public area, during the summer especially, your bare ass is only separated from the seat by a thin piece of cloth.  how could anyone with a shred of common sense find this okay ? its incredibly gross.  just look at it from a spectators point of view.  more than 0 of people are appalled by this  fashion trend  that has also been widely proven to come from prison.  why would you want to give off that type of air about you.  who wants to look at someone else is underwear anyway ? there is absolutely no other place where people show off their underwear in such a manner and get away with it.  it is indecent exposure.   there are a plenty of reasons that this trend gets so much hate and none of them have to do with race.   tell me one fashion trend that is as bad as this that gets no attention.  you ca not.  i mean hell, black people are not the only one is that do it.  i guarantee that if there was a  fashion trend  as atrocious as this started by any other group it would get the same backlash.   #  if your ride public transportation or sit in any public area, during the summer especially, your bare ass is only separated from the seat by a thin piece of cloth.   #  0 of the population goes commando:  .  that has also been widely proven to come from prison.   # those reasons are mostly poppycock.  generally speaking no one says that their dislike has to do with race because they do not want to be labeled a racists.  essentially it is obvious when one cannot articulate a valid reason for the opinion that is held outside of a racial bias.  for example:  there is absolutely no other place where people show off their underwear in such a manner and get away with it.  it is indecent exposure.  you can walk around in your underwear.  it is neither illegal or indecent exposure.  which is why models are not being ticketed left and right and victoria secrets has posters on their windows in the malls.  this certainly seems like a bandwagon fallacy, not too mention a made up sounding statistic.  it is also a poor indicator to use as an example to show that something is not based in race.  after all saying that the majority do not like what the minority are doing is not exactly compelling to exclude racial motives.  0 of the population goes commando:  .  that has also been widely proven to come from prison.  first off this is a genetic fallacy.  secondly in the us over 0 of all inmates belong to a minority group.  is this a code word ?  #  you have only made the case that it is not the most popular trend.   # how could anyone with a shred of common sense find this okay ? most saggy pants people have shorts underneath their pants.  even if you do not, so what ? women wear tights and yoga pants that have an even  thinner  piece of cloth, but nobody complains about that.  more than 0 of people are appalled by this  fashion trend  that has also been widely proven to come from prison.  why would you want to give off that type of air about you.  you have only made the case that it is not the most popular trend.  should you ban clothing based off of contemporary fashion trends ? you could wear a shirt that more overtly sends the same message, but there is no question about that.  many will indirectly target this race by targeting the trend.  tank tops where the  arm hole  goes down to the waist.  short skirts with thongs.  boy shorts and a sports bra.  i do not necessarily dislike these trends, but they are similar.   #  i am not sure if i completely understand what you are saying here but did you miss the part that said it comes from prison ?  # even if you do not, so what ? women wear tights and yoga pants that have an even thinner piece of cloth, but nobody complains about that.  women are usually more sanitary when it comes to things like that.  should you ban clothing based off of contemporary fashion trends ? you could wear a shirt that more overtly sends the same message, but there is no question about that.  i am not sure if i completely understand what you are saying here but did you miss the part that said it comes from prison ? its to show to other inmates you are  available .  how can you reasonably defend that ? many will indirectly target this race by targeting the trend.  even so it is the style and not the race that is the target.   #  potential to have  unhygienic  stains on their underwear ?  # things like what ? potential to have  unhygienic  stains on their underwear ? i think women have men beat on that.  there is whole weeks we wont even wear white pants, believe it or not.  all snark aside, i am pretty sure that the prison  available  myth has been busted a few times.  and even if that was where it originated years and years ago, that is not where it originates from today.  no more so than a woman wearing pants originates from her wanting to be able to ride a horse in a regular saddle.  if there is not anything inherently wrong with it, is not legislating a style a first amendment issue ?  #  there is whole weeks we wont even wear white pants, believe it or not.   # potential to have  unhygienic  stains on their underwear ? i think women have men beat on that.  there is whole weeks we wont even wear white pants, believe it or not.  and even if that was where it originated years and years ago, that is not where it originates from today.  no more so than a woman wearing pants originates from her wanting to be able to ride a horse in a regular saddle.  that entire section
okay, so first of all, i am not necessarily a liberal, but i am no conservative either.  i am sort of a mixed bag; there are some liberal things i agree with raising taxes on the rich, welfare, increased minimum wage, equal pay rates on both men and women although this has been a hot topic on whether it is true or not, because where i work both men and women are paid the same but i also have a few conservative views like this one; now i just want to say, i have no problem with girls playing with trucks or boys playing with dolls.  however, i do not agree with target making everything  gender neutral .  if someone wants to dress their boy in  masculine  colors or their baby girl in  feminine  colors, then let them do it.  the same way vice versa.  however, i think that getting rid of gender specific toy aisles is stupid because it just makes it harder for parents to find their children toys; some boys want masculine toys, just like some girls want feminine toys.  if a girl wants a masculine toy, the parent could easily go to the boy is section and buy a toy from there for his or her daughter; in fact, my parents did this often.  however, what i do not agree with is dressing young boys in girl is clothes or painting his nails.  i do not really think parents should be discussing this sort of thing until the child is a teenager or around that age .  another thing i noticed is that many  sjws  have said that buying masculine toys for boys makes them masculine.  surely buying feminine toys for him would make him feminine if this was the case ? tl;dr, i think boys and girls will act masculine or feminine when they grow up regardless of the toys they are given or the clothes their parents give them.   #  however, what i do not agree with is dressing young boys in girl is clothes or painting his nails.   #  i do not really think parents should be discussing this sort of thing until the child is a teenager or around that age .   # i do not really think parents should be discussing this sort of thing until the child is a teenager or around that age .  this seems to be a crucial part of your view, but you do not elaborate very much, nor do you explain why gender nonconformity in younger children at least, gender nonconformity encouraged by the parents is a bad thing.  as i see it, both gender roles have been assigned characteristics that are desirable and, indeed, most people women and men alike should have in some capacity if society is to function properly.  one problem in creating an environment averse to gender nonconformity is that it blocks a child off from developing essential characteristics that have been associated with the other gender role.  boys are brought up to be tough at the expense of compassion and diplomacy.  girls are brought up to be nurturing at the expense of independence and assertiveness.  ultimately, we are better off not doing that.   #  what defines a toy as  amasculine  or  feminine  ?  #  what defines a toy as  amasculine  or  feminine  ? does the ez bake oven go in the boy section or the girl section ? many celebrity chefs are male.  is it a masculine toy ? what about a hunger games brand toy bow and arrow ? is that  amasculine  because it is a weapon, or is it  feminine  because katniss is a girl and she uses that weapon ? unless you have some kind of toy that you literally shove up a vagina which, uh, i do not think target sells.  at least not in those aisles i am pretty sure any toy is for anyone.  e:     unlikely on reddit but holy shit do not jump on me about  isome boys have vaginas  i am not trying to insult trans people, this is just for ease of conversation  #  would not it be simpler if all fb users saw the same ads ?  # no one forced them to, they want to do it.  it is probably so they understand the appeal of the product and emphasize it in their advertising, for maximal profits.  it is the same reason facebook uses targeting advertising.  would not it be simpler if all fb users saw the same ads ? yea, but apparently simplicity is not so important to them.   #  if it is not it makes sense to put pressure on toy stores to have gender neutral toy sections.   #  they know and care, however companies are generally not run by perfect, all knowing entities.  in the case of women making less money doing the same job they do so because managers believe that they are getting less value form a female employee, even though this is not supported by facts.  in a similar way toy manufacturers might believe that gendering a toy is important, but we should not accept their assumptions just because they want to make money.  even if gendering toys is ideal for making money this does not mean it is ideal for children is development.  if it is not it makes sense to put pressure on toy stores to have gender neutral toy sections.  just because it is financially sound to have gendered aisles right now does not mean it always have to be.  by spreading awareness and adjusting ones shopping habits one can change what is and is not financially sound.  that is the beauty of the market, the customers have some amount of control over it.   #  because research shows  in general  toddlers will have more fun with the larger, simpler blocks than older kids.   #  why are duplo blocks targeting towards toddlers ? because research shows  in general  toddlers will have more fun with the larger, simpler blocks than older kids.  it is certainly not always true, not every toddler likes duplo blocks and some older kids do like duplo blocks.  but its a general trend backed by focus groups, or whatever research the company did.  the same could be said for toys targeted at girls or boys.  if the research a toy company did suggests that boys are more likely to enjoy trucks than girls, it would be beneficial to them to market the toy truck towards boys.  now, obviously that does not mean all boys like trucks or that no girl like trucks.  the company is just trying to capitalize on a trend they see in their research to make the most money by marketing to wards the group most interested in the toy.
okay, so first of all, i am not necessarily a liberal, but i am no conservative either.  i am sort of a mixed bag; there are some liberal things i agree with raising taxes on the rich, welfare, increased minimum wage, equal pay rates on both men and women although this has been a hot topic on whether it is true or not, because where i work both men and women are paid the same but i also have a few conservative views like this one; now i just want to say, i have no problem with girls playing with trucks or boys playing with dolls.  however, i do not agree with target making everything  gender neutral .  if someone wants to dress their boy in  masculine  colors or their baby girl in  feminine  colors, then let them do it.  the same way vice versa.  however, i think that getting rid of gender specific toy aisles is stupid because it just makes it harder for parents to find their children toys; some boys want masculine toys, just like some girls want feminine toys.  if a girl wants a masculine toy, the parent could easily go to the boy is section and buy a toy from there for his or her daughter; in fact, my parents did this often.  however, what i do not agree with is dressing young boys in girl is clothes or painting his nails.  i do not really think parents should be discussing this sort of thing until the child is a teenager or around that age .  another thing i noticed is that many  sjws  have said that buying masculine toys for boys makes them masculine.  surely buying feminine toys for him would make him feminine if this was the case ? tl;dr, i think boys and girls will act masculine or feminine when they grow up regardless of the toys they are given or the clothes their parents give them.   #  however, what i do not agree with is dressing young boys in girl is clothes or painting his nails.   #  i do not really think parents should be discussing this sort of thing until the child is a teenager or around that age .   # i do not really think parents should be discussing this sort of thing until the child is a teenager or around that age .  do you really think that generally it is the parents that take the initiative in dressing their children in atypical gender clothes, or that it is the children who are fascinated by them ? surely buying feminine toys for him would make him feminine if this was the case ? you seem to have an implied premise here.  are you saying that it is wrong for a boy to be feminine ?  #  unless you have some kind of toy that you literally shove up a vagina which, uh, i do not think target sells.  at least not in those aisles i am pretty sure any toy is for anyone.   #  what defines a toy as  amasculine  or  feminine  ? does the ez bake oven go in the boy section or the girl section ? many celebrity chefs are male.  is it a masculine toy ? what about a hunger games brand toy bow and arrow ? is that  amasculine  because it is a weapon, or is it  feminine  because katniss is a girl and she uses that weapon ? unless you have some kind of toy that you literally shove up a vagina which, uh, i do not think target sells.  at least not in those aisles i am pretty sure any toy is for anyone.  e:     unlikely on reddit but holy shit do not jump on me about  isome boys have vaginas  i am not trying to insult trans people, this is just for ease of conversation  #  it is probably so they understand the appeal of the product and emphasize it in their advertising, for maximal profits.   # no one forced them to, they want to do it.  it is probably so they understand the appeal of the product and emphasize it in their advertising, for maximal profits.  it is the same reason facebook uses targeting advertising.  would not it be simpler if all fb users saw the same ads ? yea, but apparently simplicity is not so important to them.   #  just because it is financially sound to have gendered aisles right now does not mean it always have to be.   #  they know and care, however companies are generally not run by perfect, all knowing entities.  in the case of women making less money doing the same job they do so because managers believe that they are getting less value form a female employee, even though this is not supported by facts.  in a similar way toy manufacturers might believe that gendering a toy is important, but we should not accept their assumptions just because they want to make money.  even if gendering toys is ideal for making money this does not mean it is ideal for children is development.  if it is not it makes sense to put pressure on toy stores to have gender neutral toy sections.  just because it is financially sound to have gendered aisles right now does not mean it always have to be.  by spreading awareness and adjusting ones shopping habits one can change what is and is not financially sound.  that is the beauty of the market, the customers have some amount of control over it.   #  but its a general trend backed by focus groups, or whatever research the company did.   #  why are duplo blocks targeting towards toddlers ? because research shows  in general  toddlers will have more fun with the larger, simpler blocks than older kids.  it is certainly not always true, not every toddler likes duplo blocks and some older kids do like duplo blocks.  but its a general trend backed by focus groups, or whatever research the company did.  the same could be said for toys targeted at girls or boys.  if the research a toy company did suggests that boys are more likely to enjoy trucks than girls, it would be beneficial to them to market the toy truck towards boys.  now, obviously that does not mean all boys like trucks or that no girl like trucks.  the company is just trying to capitalize on a trend they see in their research to make the most money by marketing to wards the group most interested in the toy.
okay, so first of all, i am not necessarily a liberal, but i am no conservative either.  i am sort of a mixed bag; there are some liberal things i agree with raising taxes on the rich, welfare, increased minimum wage, equal pay rates on both men and women although this has been a hot topic on whether it is true or not, because where i work both men and women are paid the same but i also have a few conservative views like this one; now i just want to say, i have no problem with girls playing with trucks or boys playing with dolls.  however, i do not agree with target making everything  gender neutral .  if someone wants to dress their boy in  masculine  colors or their baby girl in  feminine  colors, then let them do it.  the same way vice versa.  however, i think that getting rid of gender specific toy aisles is stupid because it just makes it harder for parents to find their children toys; some boys want masculine toys, just like some girls want feminine toys.  if a girl wants a masculine toy, the parent could easily go to the boy is section and buy a toy from there for his or her daughter; in fact, my parents did this often.  however, what i do not agree with is dressing young boys in girl is clothes or painting his nails.  i do not really think parents should be discussing this sort of thing until the child is a teenager or around that age .  another thing i noticed is that many  sjws  have said that buying masculine toys for boys makes them masculine.  surely buying feminine toys for him would make him feminine if this was the case ? tl;dr, i think boys and girls will act masculine or feminine when they grow up regardless of the toys they are given or the clothes their parents give them.   #  another thing i noticed is that many  sjws  have said that buying masculine toys for boys makes them masculine.   #  surely buying feminine toys for him would make him feminine if this was the case ?  # i do not really think parents should be discussing this sort of thing until the child is a teenager or around that age .  do you really think that generally it is the parents that take the initiative in dressing their children in atypical gender clothes, or that it is the children who are fascinated by them ? surely buying feminine toys for him would make him feminine if this was the case ? you seem to have an implied premise here.  are you saying that it is wrong for a boy to be feminine ?  #  e:     unlikely on reddit but holy shit do not jump on me about  isome boys have vaginas  i am not trying to insult trans people, this is just for ease of conversation  #  what defines a toy as  amasculine  or  feminine  ? does the ez bake oven go in the boy section or the girl section ? many celebrity chefs are male.  is it a masculine toy ? what about a hunger games brand toy bow and arrow ? is that  amasculine  because it is a weapon, or is it  feminine  because katniss is a girl and she uses that weapon ? unless you have some kind of toy that you literally shove up a vagina which, uh, i do not think target sells.  at least not in those aisles i am pretty sure any toy is for anyone.  e:     unlikely on reddit but holy shit do not jump on me about  isome boys have vaginas  i am not trying to insult trans people, this is just for ease of conversation  #  would not it be simpler if all fb users saw the same ads ?  # no one forced them to, they want to do it.  it is probably so they understand the appeal of the product and emphasize it in their advertising, for maximal profits.  it is the same reason facebook uses targeting advertising.  would not it be simpler if all fb users saw the same ads ? yea, but apparently simplicity is not so important to them.   #  that is the beauty of the market, the customers have some amount of control over it.   #  they know and care, however companies are generally not run by perfect, all knowing entities.  in the case of women making less money doing the same job they do so because managers believe that they are getting less value form a female employee, even though this is not supported by facts.  in a similar way toy manufacturers might believe that gendering a toy is important, but we should not accept their assumptions just because they want to make money.  even if gendering toys is ideal for making money this does not mean it is ideal for children is development.  if it is not it makes sense to put pressure on toy stores to have gender neutral toy sections.  just because it is financially sound to have gendered aisles right now does not mean it always have to be.  by spreading awareness and adjusting ones shopping habits one can change what is and is not financially sound.  that is the beauty of the market, the customers have some amount of control over it.   #  if the research a toy company did suggests that boys are more likely to enjoy trucks than girls, it would be beneficial to them to market the toy truck towards boys.   #  why are duplo blocks targeting towards toddlers ? because research shows  in general  toddlers will have more fun with the larger, simpler blocks than older kids.  it is certainly not always true, not every toddler likes duplo blocks and some older kids do like duplo blocks.  but its a general trend backed by focus groups, or whatever research the company did.  the same could be said for toys targeted at girls or boys.  if the research a toy company did suggests that boys are more likely to enjoy trucks than girls, it would be beneficial to them to market the toy truck towards boys.  now, obviously that does not mean all boys like trucks or that no girl like trucks.  the company is just trying to capitalize on a trend they see in their research to make the most money by marketing to wards the group most interested in the toy.
every election year this is one of the most popular complaints against candidates: lack of detailed policy prescriptions.     so and so says he is going to reduce the budget, but so far he has not offered any specifics.      hillary says she has a plan for restarting the israel palestine peace process, but so far nobody has been able to nail her down on the details.     recently right here on one of the cmv posts about bernie sanders, /u/bayernownz0 says that  sanders  does  have a solid page on racial injustice on his site, but it is a little weak in terms of actual policy prescriptions.  compared to o amalley is page, sanders has a lot of work to do.   you hear these complaints all.  the.  time.  in newspapers, on blogs, on tv news, in debates, etc.  candidate x offers no details, they are evasive in answering questions, they are canny, they give bland lip service to a problem and make happy talk about solutions, but they never  actually say what it is they are going to do if elected .  it is like the default setting of oppo research, a ready made criticism to hurl at a candidate if you do not have any meatier, muddier dirt to fling their way.  but the thing is, there are very good reasons for candidates to be evasive.  for one thing, if they were to offer actual policy details during a campaign, then they would spend the entire rest of the campaign defending and arguing about those details.  if someone found an error or mistake or potential pitfall, they might have to revise their plan revise a policy that does not even exist yet ! political opponents hire specialists in opposition research, and the more material those specialists have, the more they will be able to distract and distort your candidate is plan in order to make them look bad.  giving them an entire piece of draft legislation, or an entire detailed budget document showing cuts and spending, etc.  would be like a godsend to the oppo research people.  and all for what ? for an imaginary policy that does not even exist yet.  no candidate in their right mind would open up so many vulnerabilities all for the sake of a policy that does not even exist outside of the candidate is website.  secondly, no political candidate is running for the office of dictator.  whether someone is running for president, senate, congress, governor, state legislator, dog catcher, etc. , the important thing to remember is that politicians have to work with other politicians, and agencies, bureaucracies, other constituents, etc.  they have to work with other people to get anything accomplished.  so if you get elected to office with a complete, massively detailed economic stimulus package combined with spending cuts and tax cuts, do not expect every other member of congress to just roll over and rubber stamp your policy.  politics is not beanbag, and you would get crucified by the players in washington or any other capital .  oh, you promised you were going to cut the f 0 fighter ? well guess what, that is going to throw 0,0 people out of work in my district.  and you want me to just vote for it because  your  supporters voted for you ? how about f k you ?   if you got elected with a detailed policy proposal, everyone in the government responsible for putting your policy into motion would have you over a barrel.  every change they make to your policy would threaten to make you a  liar,  a judas, a traitor, etc.  to the people who supported you, as well of course as your political enemies.  your policy details would become a millstone around your neck and a gun to your head.  your friends and enemies alike would be able to use all of your detailed promises on the campaign trail in order to wrap you around their fingers.  so that is my view: politicians would be insane to offer detailed policy answers to any given question, and they are wise to stick to vague generalities, advertising language, happy talk, etc.  can you think of a good reason for politicians to spell out their promises in detail ?  #   so and so says he is going to reduce the budget, but so far he has not offered any specifics.    #  the problem here is that without details, these promises do not mean anything.   # the problem here is that without details, these promises do not mean anything.  anyone with half a brain can figure out how to reduce the budget simply by cutting services .  but a candidate who wants to reduce the budget by cutting military spending is a much different candidate than one who wants to reduce the budget by cutting education spending.  look, everyone wants lower taxes.  pretty much every candidate i have ever seen in my entire life has promised to lower taxes in some way.  frankly, i am not interested in such a meaningless promise.  unless you can explain, on at least a basic level, how you plan on lowering my taxes, i ca not take you seriously.  maybe you want to cut the military, maybe you want to cut education, maybe you want to raise the corporate taxes.  until you give me some indication on how you plan on doing it, and at least some basic figures to back them up, i ca not tell if i support you as a candidate or not.  for me, i want to understand the basic tenets of a politician is plan.  i am not expecting them to necessarily implement it exactly as presented, but at least i understand the road map they are working from.   #  you are talking about potentially crippling an agency whose job is to create at least the illusion that people are safe on airplanes.   #   slashing bureaucracy  is just vague throwaway language.  it is not detail at all, it is just a signal that, like you, the candidate has had it up to here with all that gummint bureaucracy.  real detail would be  i am going to cut tsa budgets by 0 and shut down the leavenworth training center.   now all of a sudden you are talking about taking jobs away from real people in real communities.  you are talking about potentially crippling an agency whose job is to create at least the illusion that people are safe on airplanes.  this is the kind of detail that can get you hammered in an election.  it is the kind of program cuts you are only going to sign onto if there are 0 other members of congress from both parties also willing to cover your ass and vote for it.   #  further one of your major concerns seems to be having a detailed plan would be difficult to carry out because other politicians may not back the plan for various reasons.   #  while i will concede that if a politician wants to get elected it is probably not in their best interest to spell out their plan in detail.  i do not think that is entirely what your cmv is about.  after all your initial title  political candidates who refuse to detail their policies are making the right choice.  the right choice in regards to what ? i have demonstrated that they are not making the financially right choice.  they are not making the right choice to allow voters to properly decide how best to spend their money.  further at the end you state:  can you think of a good reason for politicians to spell out their promises in detail ? which i have provided, as laying out a financial plan gives voters the ability to properly decide how to spend their money, just like a bank.  further one of your major concerns seems to be having a detailed plan would be difficult to carry out because other politicians may not back the plan for various reasons.  that may be the case in certain governments, but, for in example canada, their is tight party control so if a party gets a majority government, they can basically do whatever they want.  a detailed plan would be feasible as other parties could not do anything to stop a bill from being past and any descent within the party is not tolerated.  in conclusion it seems your view has been transformed at the very least.  you have been shown good reasons as to why a detailed plan should be the route.  your cmv included terms such as the  right choice .  i ask you, is the  right  thing to do everything in your power to get elected, or is it do the responsible right thing for the voters so they can make the most informed decision ? what is more  right  ?  #  how do you differentiate between someone writing checks they ca not cash, vs someone who has given the issue a lot of thoughtful consideration ?  # absolutely.  it is easy to claim that you will solve all of these problems, but it means nothing unless you have a plan.  how do you differentiate between someone writing checks they ca not cash, vs someone who has given the issue a lot of thoughtful consideration ?  i will make the country safer by fighting terrorism  that is great, but are you going to increase domestic surveillance and push feel good measures that do not make a difference ? are you going to approach it from a foreign policy standpoint ? are you going to bolster our international intelligence efforts ? all of these make huge differences.   #  are you going to approach it from a foreign policy standpoint ?  # lots of ways.  most candidates will point to their past record, their experience in solving similar problems.  certain candidates are able to convey  credibility  just by how they speak and act on the campaign trail, and others are not.  are you going to approach it from a foreign policy standpoint ? are you going to bolster our international intelligence efforts ? all of these make huge differences.  but those are extremely generic prescriptions, not the kind of dollar denominated details i have in mind.  a candidate could easily say  in order to keep our country safe we need to bolster our human intelligence gathering capabilities  and offer a host of reasons why, without ever going into actual detail.   it will cost around $0 billion, we will build new training facilities in cleveland and phoenix, we will have to can the navy is submarine spotter program  etc.  it is that level of detail that will kill you on the campaign trail.
note: i am from the uk where voting age is 0 or 0 in all scottish independence referendums .  i believe that all children should be eligible to a vote.  my argument for this is that decisions of government or, say, as a result of plebiscite also impact children is lives and, if anything, have a greater impact in the long term than for adults as they typically have longer to live through the repercussions.  to clarify, my practical view of an implementation of this is that a responsible guardian would vote on behalf of the child until such a point as the guardian feels the child is suitably mature to make their own decision or the child has reached a certain age.  i feel people are paying too much attention to the suggestion for implementation rather than the overall idea.  nevertheless, i edit the suggestion to be that whenever the child wishes to adopt the decision over their vote and can get an adult to vouch for them, the child and not the guardian should vote.  i have awarded a delta for this.  i shall attempt to debunk a couple of reactions i think will quickly come to many minds:  more babies means more power, mwah ha ha ! no, i do not think that any person falling within even an extreme definition of sane would attempt to influence an election by simply having more and more children.   would this not lead to greater pandering and unfairly positive treatment of families ? what about people who are without children ? whilst i would agree that families would perhaps get more positive treatment than they currently do, that is sort of my argument.  consider a single parent with two children; those are three people, not one and so surely their access to decision making should reflect this fact.  should there be better deals for families as a result of such an electoral reform and perhaps worse deals for those without , is this not simply fairer and more reflective ? further note that i am aware there are other groups without the right to vote who perhaps should have it, but that is not the subject of this cmv.   #  whilst i would agree that families would perhaps get more positive treatment than they currently do, that is sort of my argument.   #  consider a single parent with two children; those are three people, not one and so surely their access to decision making should reflect this fact.   # many christian and maybe islamic ? churches encourage their members to  be fruitful and multiply  already.  i come from a catholic family, i am one of 0 children.  this is not that uncommon, and it would be too easy for churches to encourage their members to have more children and gain influence that they should not have.  consider a single parent with two children; those are three people, not one and so surely their access to decision making should reflect this fact.  should there be better deals for families as a result of such an electoral reform and perhaps worse deals for those without , is this not simply fairer and more reflective ? i am not sure that this answer addresses why childless people should be treated as second class citizens, especially if there are votes for things that do not relate to families.  also, what if the children do not agree with their parents on politics ?  #  additionally, the requirements for voting clearly have to be objective.   # this is not the child voting in any way, though.  your argument is on the basis that children should have a say in the way the government is run because it affects them, too.  but if their parents are voting for them, then they  still  do not have a say, you are just giving an additional vote to the parents.  additionally, the requirements for voting clearly have to be objective.  a parental assessment of maturity is unworkable.  i  can  see an argument for lowering the voting age as a reasonable one, perhaps to 0 or maybe even as low as 0 or maybe even 0, i am not sure .  but under no circumstances should anybody be able to vote for anybody else.   #  how often do you think that guardian is going to vote differently for their child than themselves ?  # that is one vote one person.  regardless of the philosophical justification behind it, this guardian gets to vote twice.  it does not matter if one if them is a  proxy  for their child, they still get to make the decision, they still pull the lever, they are the ones voting twice.  how often do you think that guardian is going to vote differently for their child than themselves ? that guardian is presumably choosing their own votes based on what they think is best, and they will of course apply that same logic to their proxy vote and come to the same conclusion.  either a person is mature enough to vote for themselves in which case they should be allowed to vote , or they are too immature to make their own decisions in which case they should not be allowed to vote .  and there has to be an objective, unbiased way of determining that age is the obvious choice, even if it is imperfect .  you have identified a potential problem that is difficult to solve children have to face the consequences of government action, but currently do not have a say because they are deemed insufficiently mature to have a say in government.  but your idea only makes things worse.  your third way of voting by proxy  does not resolve the problem  of the disenfranchisement of children they still do not get to vote, since they are deemed to immature , and it creates a new problem of some adults getting more votes than others.   #  we accept representation of groups by individuals e. g.   # your third way of voting by proxy does not resolve the problem of the disenfranchisement of children they still do not get to vote, since they are deemed to immature how does it make things worse ? the guardian has a duty of care towards the child and why should not that be extended to voting on behalf of the child.  also, while the representation of the child would be perhaps imperfect, it is much improved on what we have currently, and quite possibly optimised for current systems of representative democracy.  we accept representation of groups by individuals e. g.  councillors, mps, senators, etc.  , why should representation of the child by the guardian be a problem ?  #  so how can the government address this issue ?  #  i think /u/bigharrydeal has raised a cogent issue.  you said that:   well that is really getting into the nitty gritty.  perhaps child is choice of guardian or neither, i. e.  abstention ? half votes ? i would say that if the parents ca not decide between them, perhaps they are not being the best of guardians.  i dunno what is best in this situation, but i do not think that it is enough to break down the overall concept of votes for children.  i think it should be enough to change your view.  if you are willing to give the parents/guardian an extra vote until the child reaches some specified age then you would need to have a way to verify whether the person voting on the child is behalf is voting in the interest of the child, and not for their own benefit.  there are plenty of parents who would love the chance to get an extra vote if they can get one.  so how can the government address this issue ? ask the parent to reveal their vote ? ! not happening.  since there really is not a way to prevent parents from misusing even a single vote for their own purpose, it does not make sense to let them vote on behalf of a child.  an arbitrary cut off is a sensible measure to make sure that only those who have reached some maturity vote.  and that they vote based on their  own  beliefs and opinions.
note: i am from the uk where voting age is 0 or 0 in all scottish independence referendums .  i believe that all children should be eligible to a vote.  my argument for this is that decisions of government or, say, as a result of plebiscite also impact children is lives and, if anything, have a greater impact in the long term than for adults as they typically have longer to live through the repercussions.  to clarify, my practical view of an implementation of this is that a responsible guardian would vote on behalf of the child until such a point as the guardian feels the child is suitably mature to make their own decision or the child has reached a certain age.  i feel people are paying too much attention to the suggestion for implementation rather than the overall idea.  nevertheless, i edit the suggestion to be that whenever the child wishes to adopt the decision over their vote and can get an adult to vouch for them, the child and not the guardian should vote.  i have awarded a delta for this.  i shall attempt to debunk a couple of reactions i think will quickly come to many minds:  more babies means more power, mwah ha ha ! no, i do not think that any person falling within even an extreme definition of sane would attempt to influence an election by simply having more and more children.   would this not lead to greater pandering and unfairly positive treatment of families ? what about people who are without children ? whilst i would agree that families would perhaps get more positive treatment than they currently do, that is sort of my argument.  consider a single parent with two children; those are three people, not one and so surely their access to decision making should reflect this fact.  should there be better deals for families as a result of such an electoral reform and perhaps worse deals for those without , is this not simply fairer and more reflective ? further note that i am aware there are other groups without the right to vote who perhaps should have it, but that is not the subject of this cmv.   #  my argument for this is that decisions of government or, say, as a result of plebiscite also impact children is lives and, if anything, have a greater impact in the long term than for adults as they typically have longer to live through the repercussions.   #  this is true, but children do not have the knowledge to comprehend this, or the context to make good decisions.   # this is true, but children do not have the knowledge to comprehend this, or the context to make good decisions.  children are insulated from the world by their parents.  they wo not feel the impact of taxes, because they do not have jobs or buy things.  i ca not really think of a measure that  directly  impacts children in a way they would recognize.  perhaps mandatory testing at school ? the only person  really  impacted is the guardian, and they already have a vote.  the big problem with this is that you are giving the guardian multiple votes with no guarantee they will consult their child.  you are not giving votes to children, you are giving votes to guardians.  even if the child disagrees, the guardian will vote in their own interest.   #  but under no circumstances should anybody be able to vote for anybody else.   # this is not the child voting in any way, though.  your argument is on the basis that children should have a say in the way the government is run because it affects them, too.  but if their parents are voting for them, then they  still  do not have a say, you are just giving an additional vote to the parents.  additionally, the requirements for voting clearly have to be objective.  a parental assessment of maturity is unworkable.  i  can  see an argument for lowering the voting age as a reasonable one, perhaps to 0 or maybe even as low as 0 or maybe even 0, i am not sure .  but under no circumstances should anybody be able to vote for anybody else.   #  regardless of the philosophical justification behind it, this guardian gets to vote twice.   # that is one vote one person.  regardless of the philosophical justification behind it, this guardian gets to vote twice.  it does not matter if one if them is a  proxy  for their child, they still get to make the decision, they still pull the lever, they are the ones voting twice.  how often do you think that guardian is going to vote differently for their child than themselves ? that guardian is presumably choosing their own votes based on what they think is best, and they will of course apply that same logic to their proxy vote and come to the same conclusion.  either a person is mature enough to vote for themselves in which case they should be allowed to vote , or they are too immature to make their own decisions in which case they should not be allowed to vote .  and there has to be an objective, unbiased way of determining that age is the obvious choice, even if it is imperfect .  you have identified a potential problem that is difficult to solve children have to face the consequences of government action, but currently do not have a say because they are deemed insufficiently mature to have a say in government.  but your idea only makes things worse.  your third way of voting by proxy  does not resolve the problem  of the disenfranchisement of children they still do not get to vote, since they are deemed to immature , and it creates a new problem of some adults getting more votes than others.   #  , why should representation of the child by the guardian be a problem ?  # your third way of voting by proxy does not resolve the problem of the disenfranchisement of children they still do not get to vote, since they are deemed to immature how does it make things worse ? the guardian has a duty of care towards the child and why should not that be extended to voting on behalf of the child.  also, while the representation of the child would be perhaps imperfect, it is much improved on what we have currently, and quite possibly optimised for current systems of representative democracy.  we accept representation of groups by individuals e. g.  councillors, mps, senators, etc.  , why should representation of the child by the guardian be a problem ?  #  i dunno what is best in this situation, but i do not think that it is enough to break down the overall concept of votes for children.   #  i think /u/bigharrydeal has raised a cogent issue.  you said that:   well that is really getting into the nitty gritty.  perhaps child is choice of guardian or neither, i. e.  abstention ? half votes ? i would say that if the parents ca not decide between them, perhaps they are not being the best of guardians.  i dunno what is best in this situation, but i do not think that it is enough to break down the overall concept of votes for children.  i think it should be enough to change your view.  if you are willing to give the parents/guardian an extra vote until the child reaches some specified age then you would need to have a way to verify whether the person voting on the child is behalf is voting in the interest of the child, and not for their own benefit.  there are plenty of parents who would love the chance to get an extra vote if they can get one.  so how can the government address this issue ? ask the parent to reveal their vote ? ! not happening.  since there really is not a way to prevent parents from misusing even a single vote for their own purpose, it does not make sense to let them vote on behalf of a child.  an arbitrary cut off is a sensible measure to make sure that only those who have reached some maturity vote.  and that they vote based on their  own  beliefs and opinions.
first i am not a prude and i am completely fine with nudity.  i honestly would not care if they abolished all public decency laws and everyone walked around naked.  however, that does not change the fact that the laws exist, and are the basis of my argument.  for the people who do get uncomfortable around nude breasts, a single father with his adolescent daughter, or a mother with a teenage son, or even some old stick in the mud curmudgeon, i do not think it is too much to ask to handle such things in private.  whether pumping milk, or nursing at home, there are ways of handling these things.  no one else is obligated to accommodate public nudity.  if it is not  convenient  for them, that is all part of the sacrifice of parenthood.   #  i do not think it is too much to ask to handle such things in private.   #  whether pumping milk, or nursing at home, there are ways of handling these things.   # whether pumping milk, or nursing at home, there are ways of handling these things.  no one else is obligated to accommodate public nudity.  if it is not  convenient  for them, that is all part of the sacrifice of parenthood.  i do not think you really understand why mothers end up nursing in public.  nobody goes out onto their porch and decides that  oh, i think it would be nicer to nurse outside today.   mothers end up nursing in public because that is when their babies get hungry.  unfortunately, babies do not tell you in advance when exactly they will wake up from their naps or when exactly they want to eat.  sometimes they just want milk, and they want it now.  when the baby gets hungry, you ca not just wait a half hour to drive home, and unless there is a microwave nearby or a ready source of hot water, you ca not just give the baby a cold bottle.  also, just so you get the picture in your head, while you are figuring out how exactly to feed your baby while worrying about the comfort of the people around you, the baby is screaming its head off.  so really, you have a choice in what you would rather  accommodate.   do you want to see a breast for two seconds while the mother gets her baby is mouth onto it ? or do you want to listen to a screaming baby for several minutes while the mother finds another way to soothe the baby or to make a bottle ? i think you will find that it is more  convenient  for you if the mother just feeds her baby asap.   #  discomfort of prudish onlookers, nursing mothers should win.   #  first, many laws specifically exempt breast feeding from indecent exposure laws.  so  laws exist  argument fails.   forty nine states, the district of columbia and the virgin islands have laws that specifically allow women to breastfeed in any public or private location.    URL second, your only other argument boils down to  people getting uncomfortable  around breastfeeding.  but when it comes to discomfort of nursing mothers you tell them to suck it up.  bottom line: someone is going to be uncomfortable: either nursing mothers, or prudish onlookers.  of the two mothers are more important to society than prudish onlookers, because children are literally our future.  thus when weighing discomfort of nursing mothers vs.  discomfort of prudish onlookers, nursing mothers should win.   #  the reason i pointed out people being uncomfortable is to outline what the effect of violating indecent exposure laws is.   #  sorry if i was not clear enough.  the reason i pointed out people being uncomfortable is to outline what the effect of violating indecent exposure laws is.  thereby showing that breastfeeding in public still falls under the umbrella of offending people that indecent exposure laws were put in place for.  also, i think you misunderstood the part about laws.  my view is that breastfeeding is tantamount to indecent exposure, not that there are no exemptions to the law.  put simply, i think that the law should apply to everyone or no one.   #  discomfort of prudish onlookers, nursing mothers should win.    #  you did not address the core of my argument.  let me quote it again for you:  your only other argument boils down to  people getting uncomfortable  around breastfeeding.  but when it comes to discomfort of nursing mothers you tell them to suck it up.  bottom line: someone is going to be uncomfortable: either nursing mothers, or prudish onlookers.  of the two mothers are more important to society than prudish onlookers, because children are literally our future.  thus when weighing discomfort of nursing mothers vs.  discomfort of prudish onlookers, nursing mothers should win.   now to address your point that   i think that the law should apply to everyone or no one.  i have explained how breastfeeding creates  someone is going to be uncomfortable.   in other cases of exposing sexual organs, the dilemma is not present.  nudist and exhibitions are nor made uncomfortable by inability to strip wherever they please, because they have no need to do so.  so when it comes to prudish onlookers vs.  nudists.  prudish onlookers win, because nudists do not have the same need to be naked that nursing mothers have.   #  first you said  indecent exposure is a law, so breastfeeding should fall under that law.    # i mentioned it to demonstrate why the laws are in place.  well but you have not really explained this very well.  first you said  indecent exposure is a law, so breastfeeding should fall under that law.   then others said  well it is not the law; there are exceptions for breastfeeding in 0 out of 0 states.   then you said  okay, i am not talking about what is the current law anymore; i am saying it should fall under indecent exposure because things should be all or none, black and white, blanket laws that apply to all relate able situations, and there should be no exceptions.   you have not actually told us why you think that there should be no exceptions.
first i am not a prude and i am completely fine with nudity.  i honestly would not care if they abolished all public decency laws and everyone walked around naked.  however, that does not change the fact that the laws exist, and are the basis of my argument.  for the people who do get uncomfortable around nude breasts, a single father with his adolescent daughter, or a mother with a teenage son, or even some old stick in the mud curmudgeon, i do not think it is too much to ask to handle such things in private.  whether pumping milk, or nursing at home, there are ways of handling these things.  no one else is obligated to accommodate public nudity.  if it is not  convenient  for them, that is all part of the sacrifice of parenthood.   #  however, that does not change the fact that the laws exist, and are the basis of my argument.   #  the laws that exist  explicitly  allow breastfeeding.   # the laws that exist  explicitly  allow breastfeeding.  not all nudity is the same.  whether pumping milk, or nursing at home, there are ways of handling these things.  it  is  too much to ask, and that is why these laws exist.  going to a bathroom is uncomfortable and unsanitary.  pumping milk does not get everything out, there are transportation cooling concerns, and some infants reject the bottle.  you ca not schedule nursing, so not allowing public breastfeeding relegates mothers to the home.  if it is not  convenient  for them, that is all part of the sacrifice of parenthood.  everybody is obligated to accommodate it because that is the law.  if it is not  convenient  for you to not stare like a pervert, that is all part of living in a modern society where people accept reproduction.   #  first, many laws specifically exempt breast feeding from indecent exposure laws.   #  first, many laws specifically exempt breast feeding from indecent exposure laws.  so  laws exist  argument fails.   forty nine states, the district of columbia and the virgin islands have laws that specifically allow women to breastfeed in any public or private location.    URL second, your only other argument boils down to  people getting uncomfortable  around breastfeeding.  but when it comes to discomfort of nursing mothers you tell them to suck it up.  bottom line: someone is going to be uncomfortable: either nursing mothers, or prudish onlookers.  of the two mothers are more important to society than prudish onlookers, because children are literally our future.  thus when weighing discomfort of nursing mothers vs.  discomfort of prudish onlookers, nursing mothers should win.   #  also, i think you misunderstood the part about laws.   #  sorry if i was not clear enough.  the reason i pointed out people being uncomfortable is to outline what the effect of violating indecent exposure laws is.  thereby showing that breastfeeding in public still falls under the umbrella of offending people that indecent exposure laws were put in place for.  also, i think you misunderstood the part about laws.  my view is that breastfeeding is tantamount to indecent exposure, not that there are no exemptions to the law.  put simply, i think that the law should apply to everyone or no one.   #  in other cases of exposing sexual organs, the dilemma is not present.   #  you did not address the core of my argument.  let me quote it again for you:  your only other argument boils down to  people getting uncomfortable  around breastfeeding.  but when it comes to discomfort of nursing mothers you tell them to suck it up.  bottom line: someone is going to be uncomfortable: either nursing mothers, or prudish onlookers.  of the two mothers are more important to society than prudish onlookers, because children are literally our future.  thus when weighing discomfort of nursing mothers vs.  discomfort of prudish onlookers, nursing mothers should win.   now to address your point that   i think that the law should apply to everyone or no one.  i have explained how breastfeeding creates  someone is going to be uncomfortable.   in other cases of exposing sexual organs, the dilemma is not present.  nudist and exhibitions are nor made uncomfortable by inability to strip wherever they please, because they have no need to do so.  so when it comes to prudish onlookers vs.  nudists.  prudish onlookers win, because nudists do not have the same need to be naked that nursing mothers have.   #  i mentioned it to demonstrate why the laws are in place.   # i mentioned it to demonstrate why the laws are in place.  well but you have not really explained this very well.  first you said  indecent exposure is a law, so breastfeeding should fall under that law.   then others said  well it is not the law; there are exceptions for breastfeeding in 0 out of 0 states.   then you said  okay, i am not talking about what is the current law anymore; i am saying it should fall under indecent exposure because things should be all or none, black and white, blanket laws that apply to all relate able situations, and there should be no exceptions.   you have not actually told us why you think that there should be no exceptions.
first i am not a prude and i am completely fine with nudity.  i honestly would not care if they abolished all public decency laws and everyone walked around naked.  however, that does not change the fact that the laws exist, and are the basis of my argument.  for the people who do get uncomfortable around nude breasts, a single father with his adolescent daughter, or a mother with a teenage son, or even some old stick in the mud curmudgeon, i do not think it is too much to ask to handle such things in private.  whether pumping milk, or nursing at home, there are ways of handling these things.  no one else is obligated to accommodate public nudity.  if it is not  convenient  for them, that is all part of the sacrifice of parenthood.   #  i do not think it is too much to ask to handle such things in private.   #  whether pumping milk, or nursing at home, there are ways of handling these things.   # the laws that exist  explicitly  allow breastfeeding.  not all nudity is the same.  whether pumping milk, or nursing at home, there are ways of handling these things.  it  is  too much to ask, and that is why these laws exist.  going to a bathroom is uncomfortable and unsanitary.  pumping milk does not get everything out, there are transportation cooling concerns, and some infants reject the bottle.  you ca not schedule nursing, so not allowing public breastfeeding relegates mothers to the home.  if it is not  convenient  for them, that is all part of the sacrifice of parenthood.  everybody is obligated to accommodate it because that is the law.  if it is not  convenient  for you to not stare like a pervert, that is all part of living in a modern society where people accept reproduction.   #  thus when weighing discomfort of nursing mothers vs.   #  first, many laws specifically exempt breast feeding from indecent exposure laws.  so  laws exist  argument fails.   forty nine states, the district of columbia and the virgin islands have laws that specifically allow women to breastfeed in any public or private location.    URL second, your only other argument boils down to  people getting uncomfortable  around breastfeeding.  but when it comes to discomfort of nursing mothers you tell them to suck it up.  bottom line: someone is going to be uncomfortable: either nursing mothers, or prudish onlookers.  of the two mothers are more important to society than prudish onlookers, because children are literally our future.  thus when weighing discomfort of nursing mothers vs.  discomfort of prudish onlookers, nursing mothers should win.   #  the reason i pointed out people being uncomfortable is to outline what the effect of violating indecent exposure laws is.   #  sorry if i was not clear enough.  the reason i pointed out people being uncomfortable is to outline what the effect of violating indecent exposure laws is.  thereby showing that breastfeeding in public still falls under the umbrella of offending people that indecent exposure laws were put in place for.  also, i think you misunderstood the part about laws.  my view is that breastfeeding is tantamount to indecent exposure, not that there are no exemptions to the law.  put simply, i think that the law should apply to everyone or no one.   #  you did not address the core of my argument.   #  you did not address the core of my argument.  let me quote it again for you:  your only other argument boils down to  people getting uncomfortable  around breastfeeding.  but when it comes to discomfort of nursing mothers you tell them to suck it up.  bottom line: someone is going to be uncomfortable: either nursing mothers, or prudish onlookers.  of the two mothers are more important to society than prudish onlookers, because children are literally our future.  thus when weighing discomfort of nursing mothers vs.  discomfort of prudish onlookers, nursing mothers should win.   now to address your point that   i think that the law should apply to everyone or no one.  i have explained how breastfeeding creates  someone is going to be uncomfortable.   in other cases of exposing sexual organs, the dilemma is not present.  nudist and exhibitions are nor made uncomfortable by inability to strip wherever they please, because they have no need to do so.  so when it comes to prudish onlookers vs.  nudists.  prudish onlookers win, because nudists do not have the same need to be naked that nursing mothers have.   #  well but you have not really explained this very well.   # i mentioned it to demonstrate why the laws are in place.  well but you have not really explained this very well.  first you said  indecent exposure is a law, so breastfeeding should fall under that law.   then others said  well it is not the law; there are exceptions for breastfeeding in 0 out of 0 states.   then you said  okay, i am not talking about what is the current law anymore; i am saying it should fall under indecent exposure because things should be all or none, black and white, blanket laws that apply to all relate able situations, and there should be no exceptions.   you have not actually told us why you think that there should be no exceptions.
first i am not a prude and i am completely fine with nudity.  i honestly would not care if they abolished all public decency laws and everyone walked around naked.  however, that does not change the fact that the laws exist, and are the basis of my argument.  for the people who do get uncomfortable around nude breasts, a single father with his adolescent daughter, or a mother with a teenage son, or even some old stick in the mud curmudgeon, i do not think it is too much to ask to handle such things in private.  whether pumping milk, or nursing at home, there are ways of handling these things.  no one else is obligated to accommodate public nudity.  if it is not  convenient  for them, that is all part of the sacrifice of parenthood.   #  no one else is obligated to accommodate public nudity.   #  if it is not  convenient  for them, that is all part of the sacrifice of parenthood.   # the laws that exist  explicitly  allow breastfeeding.  not all nudity is the same.  whether pumping milk, or nursing at home, there are ways of handling these things.  it  is  too much to ask, and that is why these laws exist.  going to a bathroom is uncomfortable and unsanitary.  pumping milk does not get everything out, there are transportation cooling concerns, and some infants reject the bottle.  you ca not schedule nursing, so not allowing public breastfeeding relegates mothers to the home.  if it is not  convenient  for them, that is all part of the sacrifice of parenthood.  everybody is obligated to accommodate it because that is the law.  if it is not  convenient  for you to not stare like a pervert, that is all part of living in a modern society where people accept reproduction.   #   forty nine states, the district of columbia and the virgin islands have laws that specifically allow women to breastfeed in any public or private location.     #  first, many laws specifically exempt breast feeding from indecent exposure laws.  so  laws exist  argument fails.   forty nine states, the district of columbia and the virgin islands have laws that specifically allow women to breastfeed in any public or private location.    URL second, your only other argument boils down to  people getting uncomfortable  around breastfeeding.  but when it comes to discomfort of nursing mothers you tell them to suck it up.  bottom line: someone is going to be uncomfortable: either nursing mothers, or prudish onlookers.  of the two mothers are more important to society than prudish onlookers, because children are literally our future.  thus when weighing discomfort of nursing mothers vs.  discomfort of prudish onlookers, nursing mothers should win.   #  put simply, i think that the law should apply to everyone or no one.   #  sorry if i was not clear enough.  the reason i pointed out people being uncomfortable is to outline what the effect of violating indecent exposure laws is.  thereby showing that breastfeeding in public still falls under the umbrella of offending people that indecent exposure laws were put in place for.  also, i think you misunderstood the part about laws.  my view is that breastfeeding is tantamount to indecent exposure, not that there are no exemptions to the law.  put simply, i think that the law should apply to everyone or no one.   #  of the two mothers are more important to society than prudish onlookers, because children are literally our future.   #  you did not address the core of my argument.  let me quote it again for you:  your only other argument boils down to  people getting uncomfortable  around breastfeeding.  but when it comes to discomfort of nursing mothers you tell them to suck it up.  bottom line: someone is going to be uncomfortable: either nursing mothers, or prudish onlookers.  of the two mothers are more important to society than prudish onlookers, because children are literally our future.  thus when weighing discomfort of nursing mothers vs.  discomfort of prudish onlookers, nursing mothers should win.   now to address your point that   i think that the law should apply to everyone or no one.  i have explained how breastfeeding creates  someone is going to be uncomfortable.   in other cases of exposing sexual organs, the dilemma is not present.  nudist and exhibitions are nor made uncomfortable by inability to strip wherever they please, because they have no need to do so.  so when it comes to prudish onlookers vs.  nudists.  prudish onlookers win, because nudists do not have the same need to be naked that nursing mothers have.   #  first you said  indecent exposure is a law, so breastfeeding should fall under that law.    # i mentioned it to demonstrate why the laws are in place.  well but you have not really explained this very well.  first you said  indecent exposure is a law, so breastfeeding should fall under that law.   then others said  well it is not the law; there are exceptions for breastfeeding in 0 out of 0 states.   then you said  okay, i am not talking about what is the current law anymore; i am saying it should fall under indecent exposure because things should be all or none, black and white, blanket laws that apply to all relate able situations, and there should be no exceptions.   you have not actually told us why you think that there should be no exceptions.
first of all, im not saying gyms are a bad thing.  i obviously feel like they are better than not doing any activity.  and working out is always good, no matter the way is done.  its more like i feel that gyms are okay but most people who go there are actually just going to fit with the mass, or just as a  trend .  they kinda go, take selfies, do something to  get bigger  ,  maintain their low weight  or  lose fat .  not a real  to get stronger and healthier  except some cases .  thats why they quit after a few months.  i did the same.  i went to the gym for about 0 or 0 months.  i quit because i didnt like the point mentioned before, the multiple mirrors and most of the music.  not to mention that you are surrounded by a lot of people.  this changed because, once when i was at the gym, i tried using the bars for bodyweight.  that was a breaking point.  the same day i quit gym, i commited myself to work out by myself.  to escape from all those reasons ive just mentioned and also to keep my will  honest and strong .  was hard at first, just barely doing 0 pull ups at public parks.  but since the start, i enjoyed being surrounded by trees, no music other than my mp0 .  eventually i developed strenght and its been almost 0 months since i started.  now my routines consist of a couple of days for isolating pecs and back, one day for legs and bars for the rest of the week.  i work abs in different ways the whole week and run at nights.  on leg day i do sprints at night.  i feel like working out by myself has brought multiple benefits added to the healthy and fitness aspect.   #  one day for legs and bars for the rest of the week.   #  again why ca not i do those in the gym ?  # what now ? p. s.  local gym has plenty of pull up bars.  again why ca not i do those in the gym ? also: a squat rack is god given for legs exercise, and my park has none of those either.  unless you live in a place with winter, snow, cold rains, and/or heavy car traffic.  in those cases, indoor track in the gym is way better.   #  basically, it really does not make sense to say that one of these forms is better than the other.   #  really, whatever gets you motivated to exercise is the best thing.  for some people, that is being around a lot of other people exercising.  they probably will like a gym.  for others, it is having the right equipment.  again, gyms are likely to win here.  but, for others like you, being in the outdoors is the thing.  for me, it is the efficiency of commuting during my exercise bicycling .  basically, it really does not make sense to say that one of these forms is better than the other.  they are different, and variety is a good thing.   #  installing gym equipment at home is basically making your home into a gym.   # installing gym equipment at home is basically making your home into a gym.  kind of runs contrary to the park idea, no ? how can i make people dissappear at the gym and make trees appear instead ? go work out late when there are not many people, and find a gym with a lot of windows.  yeah, if i went running at night in the big city i live in, i would probably get run over by a car.  also, i am not going outside running when it is 0f outside and the roads are covered with snow and ice.  running outside in the summer is nice, but i am not canceling my gym membership anytime soon.   #  if you want to work on hypertrophy or strength, there simply is not a place that could ever come close to what the gym offers.   #  your argument fell short the moment you used the word  better .  better for  what  ? if you want to work on hypertrophy or strength, there simply is not a place that could ever come close to what the gym offers.  if you want to work on cardio, it is incredibly hard for a gym to match what a running track or traditional sports court or field offers.  if you want to have fun, then that is a moot point because it is subjective but most people have fun playing traditional sports outside.  so in the end this is a completely fruitless proposition if it does not clearly state what the gym is bad  for .  just  wouldoing physical activity  is not really something palpable.   #  park gets covered in snow and ice and using the equipment is very not safe.   #  i think one of the big things or missing is weather.  i can not maintain the same exercise schedule outdoors, year round.  in many areas winter make this impossible.  park gets covered in snow and ice and using the equipment is very not safe.  while you can jog, the paths may become non existent or icy.  if i am not up to having my own workout area at home, a gym is the best and safest option.
first of all, im not saying gyms are a bad thing.  i obviously feel like they are better than not doing any activity.  and working out is always good, no matter the way is done.  its more like i feel that gyms are okay but most people who go there are actually just going to fit with the mass, or just as a  trend .  they kinda go, take selfies, do something to  get bigger  ,  maintain their low weight  or  lose fat .  not a real  to get stronger and healthier  except some cases .  thats why they quit after a few months.  i did the same.  i went to the gym for about 0 or 0 months.  i quit because i didnt like the point mentioned before, the multiple mirrors and most of the music.  not to mention that you are surrounded by a lot of people.  this changed because, once when i was at the gym, i tried using the bars for bodyweight.  that was a breaking point.  the same day i quit gym, i commited myself to work out by myself.  to escape from all those reasons ive just mentioned and also to keep my will  honest and strong .  was hard at first, just barely doing 0 pull ups at public parks.  but since the start, i enjoyed being surrounded by trees, no music other than my mp0 .  eventually i developed strenght and its been almost 0 months since i started.  now my routines consist of a couple of days for isolating pecs and back, one day for legs and bars for the rest of the week.  i work abs in different ways the whole week and run at nights.  on leg day i do sprints at night.  i feel like working out by myself has brought multiple benefits added to the healthy and fitness aspect.   #  and working out is always good, no matter the way is done.   #  there are plenty of dangerous exercises people do.   # there are plenty of dangerous exercises people do.  working out is not always good.  people can do exercises wrong or do things their body ca not handle yet.  i get what you mean and i am being picky but still, plenty of people do workouts they have no business doing.  i am with you on the rest of it.  although the one thing i will say is that a well stocked gym has weights and machines to work out specific muscle groups that you just ca not get at home or at a park.  for some people the social aspect is a good thing.  for you and me, we would rather be alone and go at our own pace but for others the motivation of seeing fit people doing their thing regularly can be a boost and there is usually always someone there to help if you have questions or need a spot.  gyms have trainers as well as others that can correct form if someone is doing a workout incorrectly.  gyms are mostly a social thing to me and for some people they really enjoy it.  with all that said, i am always the guy trying to play sports.  i ca not just run for the sake of running, i need some goal or objective outside of the workout and sports are perfect for this.  if i have free weights at home i just use those for lifting.  i dislike gyms unless i have someone to go with.   #  but, for others like you, being in the outdoors is the thing.   #  really, whatever gets you motivated to exercise is the best thing.  for some people, that is being around a lot of other people exercising.  they probably will like a gym.  for others, it is having the right equipment.  again, gyms are likely to win here.  but, for others like you, being in the outdoors is the thing.  for me, it is the efficiency of commuting during my exercise bicycling .  basically, it really does not make sense to say that one of these forms is better than the other.  they are different, and variety is a good thing.   #  also: a squat rack is god given for legs exercise, and my park has none of those either.   # what now ? p. s.  local gym has plenty of pull up bars.  again why ca not i do those in the gym ? also: a squat rack is god given for legs exercise, and my park has none of those either.  unless you live in a place with winter, snow, cold rains, and/or heavy car traffic.  in those cases, indoor track in the gym is way better.   #  how can i make people dissappear at the gym and make trees appear instead ?  # installing gym equipment at home is basically making your home into a gym.  kind of runs contrary to the park idea, no ? how can i make people dissappear at the gym and make trees appear instead ? go work out late when there are not many people, and find a gym with a lot of windows.  yeah, if i went running at night in the big city i live in, i would probably get run over by a car.  also, i am not going outside running when it is 0f outside and the roads are covered with snow and ice.  running outside in the summer is nice, but i am not canceling my gym membership anytime soon.   #  if you want to work on cardio, it is incredibly hard for a gym to match what a running track or traditional sports court or field offers.   #  your argument fell short the moment you used the word  better .  better for  what  ? if you want to work on hypertrophy or strength, there simply is not a place that could ever come close to what the gym offers.  if you want to work on cardio, it is incredibly hard for a gym to match what a running track or traditional sports court or field offers.  if you want to have fun, then that is a moot point because it is subjective but most people have fun playing traditional sports outside.  so in the end this is a completely fruitless proposition if it does not clearly state what the gym is bad  for .  just  wouldoing physical activity  is not really something palpable.
first of all, im not saying gyms are a bad thing.  i obviously feel like they are better than not doing any activity.  and working out is always good, no matter the way is done.  its more like i feel that gyms are okay but most people who go there are actually just going to fit with the mass, or just as a  trend .  they kinda go, take selfies, do something to  get bigger  ,  maintain their low weight  or  lose fat .  not a real  to get stronger and healthier  except some cases .  thats why they quit after a few months.  i did the same.  i went to the gym for about 0 or 0 months.  i quit because i didnt like the point mentioned before, the multiple mirrors and most of the music.  not to mention that you are surrounded by a lot of people.  this changed because, once when i was at the gym, i tried using the bars for bodyweight.  that was a breaking point.  the same day i quit gym, i commited myself to work out by myself.  to escape from all those reasons ive just mentioned and also to keep my will  honest and strong .  was hard at first, just barely doing 0 pull ups at public parks.  but since the start, i enjoyed being surrounded by trees, no music other than my mp0 .  eventually i developed strenght and its been almost 0 months since i started.  now my routines consist of a couple of days for isolating pecs and back, one day for legs and bars for the rest of the week.  i work abs in different ways the whole week and run at nights.  on leg day i do sprints at night.  i feel like working out by myself has brought multiple benefits added to the healthy and fitness aspect.   #  i quit because i didnt like the point mentioned before, the multiple mirrors and most of the music.   #  not to mention that you are surrounded by a lot of people.   # not to mention that you are surrounded by a lot of people.  while the outdoors can certainly hold more people than gyms can, parks are still very limited space.  if working out in parks became more popular, and people stopped going to the gym in favour of the park, you would still be surrounded by people.  also, parks are multi use.  you would be competing for space with other people working out, kids and their parents, people walking, people reading, and all the other people who use the park for non exercise related things.   #  for some people, that is being around a lot of other people exercising.   #  really, whatever gets you motivated to exercise is the best thing.  for some people, that is being around a lot of other people exercising.  they probably will like a gym.  for others, it is having the right equipment.  again, gyms are likely to win here.  but, for others like you, being in the outdoors is the thing.  for me, it is the efficiency of commuting during my exercise bicycling .  basically, it really does not make sense to say that one of these forms is better than the other.  they are different, and variety is a good thing.   #  local gym has plenty of pull up bars.   # what now ? p. s.  local gym has plenty of pull up bars.  again why ca not i do those in the gym ? also: a squat rack is god given for legs exercise, and my park has none of those either.  unless you live in a place with winter, snow, cold rains, and/or heavy car traffic.  in those cases, indoor track in the gym is way better.   #  also, i am not going outside running when it is 0f outside and the roads are covered with snow and ice.   # installing gym equipment at home is basically making your home into a gym.  kind of runs contrary to the park idea, no ? how can i make people dissappear at the gym and make trees appear instead ? go work out late when there are not many people, and find a gym with a lot of windows.  yeah, if i went running at night in the big city i live in, i would probably get run over by a car.  also, i am not going outside running when it is 0f outside and the roads are covered with snow and ice.  running outside in the summer is nice, but i am not canceling my gym membership anytime soon.   #  if you want to work on cardio, it is incredibly hard for a gym to match what a running track or traditional sports court or field offers.   #  your argument fell short the moment you used the word  better .  better for  what  ? if you want to work on hypertrophy or strength, there simply is not a place that could ever come close to what the gym offers.  if you want to work on cardio, it is incredibly hard for a gym to match what a running track or traditional sports court or field offers.  if you want to have fun, then that is a moot point because it is subjective but most people have fun playing traditional sports outside.  so in the end this is a completely fruitless proposition if it does not clearly state what the gym is bad  for .  just  wouldoing physical activity  is not really something palpable.
first of all, im not saying gyms are a bad thing.  i obviously feel like they are better than not doing any activity.  and working out is always good, no matter the way is done.  its more like i feel that gyms are okay but most people who go there are actually just going to fit with the mass, or just as a  trend .  they kinda go, take selfies, do something to  get bigger  ,  maintain their low weight  or  lose fat .  not a real  to get stronger and healthier  except some cases .  thats why they quit after a few months.  i did the same.  i went to the gym for about 0 or 0 months.  i quit because i didnt like the point mentioned before, the multiple mirrors and most of the music.  not to mention that you are surrounded by a lot of people.  this changed because, once when i was at the gym, i tried using the bars for bodyweight.  that was a breaking point.  the same day i quit gym, i commited myself to work out by myself.  to escape from all those reasons ive just mentioned and also to keep my will  honest and strong .  was hard at first, just barely doing 0 pull ups at public parks.  but since the start, i enjoyed being surrounded by trees, no music other than my mp0 .  eventually i developed strenght and its been almost 0 months since i started.  now my routines consist of a couple of days for isolating pecs and back, one day for legs and bars for the rest of the week.  i work abs in different ways the whole week and run at nights.  on leg day i do sprints at night.  i feel like working out by myself has brought multiple benefits added to the healthy and fitness aspect.   #  its more like i feel that gyms are okay but most people who go there are actually just going to fit with the mass, or just as a  trend .   #  they kinda go, take selfies, do something to  get bigger  ,  maintain their low weight  or  lose fat .   #  well it all depends on what your goals are.  they kinda go, take selfies, do something to  get bigger  ,  maintain their low weight  or  lose fat .  not a real  to get stronger and healthier  except some cases .  thats why they quit after a few months.  people absolutely do this but they also do this with every other physical activity.  they start running or join a sports team or a martial art only to quit after a month or two.  this is a dedication issue and says nothing about the value of going to a gym.  also, why would you lump getting bigger or losing fat with things like taking gym selfies and going with a trend ? getting bigger and losing fat are real goals that people have.  generally being small or fat hurts people is self image and confidence.  these are legitimate reasons to go to the gym.  generally, when motivated by these reasons, people quit for 0 of 0 reasons: 0 working out is had and they do not like it.  0 they expect instant results and, when they do not get them, they lose motivation and quit.  0 they work hard but do not have their diets in order so they do not progress and give up.  none of these reasons are inherent to working out in a gym.  they are personal issues.  now onto the topic of what is best.  if you want to do parkour or tricking then yeah body weight exercises and cardio are going to be the best.  now if you want to be a powerlifter, offensive lineman, etc.  you will never be able to do that without using heavy weights.  i went to the gym for about 0 or 0 months.  i quit because i didnt like the point mentioned before, the multiple mirrors and most of the music.  not to mention that you are surrounded by a lot of people.  you have a problem with the environment of the gym you went to.  that is your problem with gyms, not a general problem with gyms.  you can wear headphones to ignore the music and people there, go when it is not crowded, find a new gym, or build your own home gym.  none of this has anything to do with calisthenics vs barbell training.  this has to do with your personal conditions for comfort.  the gym is a great place to get healthy, strong, confident, ready for your sport of choice, etc.   #  for me, it is the efficiency of commuting during my exercise bicycling .   #  really, whatever gets you motivated to exercise is the best thing.  for some people, that is being around a lot of other people exercising.  they probably will like a gym.  for others, it is having the right equipment.  again, gyms are likely to win here.  but, for others like you, being in the outdoors is the thing.  for me, it is the efficiency of commuting during my exercise bicycling .  basically, it really does not make sense to say that one of these forms is better than the other.  they are different, and variety is a good thing.   #  also: a squat rack is god given for legs exercise, and my park has none of those either.   # what now ? p. s.  local gym has plenty of pull up bars.  again why ca not i do those in the gym ? also: a squat rack is god given for legs exercise, and my park has none of those either.  unless you live in a place with winter, snow, cold rains, and/or heavy car traffic.  in those cases, indoor track in the gym is way better.   #  go work out late when there are not many people, and find a gym with a lot of windows.   # installing gym equipment at home is basically making your home into a gym.  kind of runs contrary to the park idea, no ? how can i make people dissappear at the gym and make trees appear instead ? go work out late when there are not many people, and find a gym with a lot of windows.  yeah, if i went running at night in the big city i live in, i would probably get run over by a car.  also, i am not going outside running when it is 0f outside and the roads are covered with snow and ice.  running outside in the summer is nice, but i am not canceling my gym membership anytime soon.   #  your argument fell short the moment you used the word  better .   #  your argument fell short the moment you used the word  better .  better for  what  ? if you want to work on hypertrophy or strength, there simply is not a place that could ever come close to what the gym offers.  if you want to work on cardio, it is incredibly hard for a gym to match what a running track or traditional sports court or field offers.  if you want to have fun, then that is a moot point because it is subjective but most people have fun playing traditional sports outside.  so in the end this is a completely fruitless proposition if it does not clearly state what the gym is bad  for .  just  wouldoing physical activity  is not really something palpable.
first of all, im not saying gyms are a bad thing.  i obviously feel like they are better than not doing any activity.  and working out is always good, no matter the way is done.  its more like i feel that gyms are okay but most people who go there are actually just going to fit with the mass, or just as a  trend .  they kinda go, take selfies, do something to  get bigger  ,  maintain their low weight  or  lose fat .  not a real  to get stronger and healthier  except some cases .  thats why they quit after a few months.  i did the same.  i went to the gym for about 0 or 0 months.  i quit because i didnt like the point mentioned before, the multiple mirrors and most of the music.  not to mention that you are surrounded by a lot of people.  this changed because, once when i was at the gym, i tried using the bars for bodyweight.  that was a breaking point.  the same day i quit gym, i commited myself to work out by myself.  to escape from all those reasons ive just mentioned and also to keep my will  honest and strong .  was hard at first, just barely doing 0 pull ups at public parks.  but since the start, i enjoyed being surrounded by trees, no music other than my mp0 .  eventually i developed strenght and its been almost 0 months since i started.  now my routines consist of a couple of days for isolating pecs and back, one day for legs and bars for the rest of the week.  i work abs in different ways the whole week and run at nights.  on leg day i do sprints at night.  i feel like working out by myself has brought multiple benefits added to the healthy and fitness aspect.   #  on leg day i do sprints at night.   #  i have done sprints, and i have done deadlift, and only one of them builds strength in my thighs.   #  lifting weights allows you to target specific muscle groups far better than anything else can.  this makes it ideal for recovering from an injury or trying to balance gaps in other workouts.  it also makes for an excellent cross training regimen if you want to get better at a specific thing in another sport.  i do cardio, outdoor sports, and body weight fitness at home, but i consider the gym an important part of my routine that i cannot do without.  especially for leg day as i can think of nothing that builds strength in the legs the same way squats, deadlift, or leg press does.  i have done sprints, and i have done deadlift, and only one of them builds strength in my thighs.  sprinting is more of a calf workout for me.  it does nothing for my quads.   #  but, for others like you, being in the outdoors is the thing.   #  really, whatever gets you motivated to exercise is the best thing.  for some people, that is being around a lot of other people exercising.  they probably will like a gym.  for others, it is having the right equipment.  again, gyms are likely to win here.  but, for others like you, being in the outdoors is the thing.  for me, it is the efficiency of commuting during my exercise bicycling .  basically, it really does not make sense to say that one of these forms is better than the other.  they are different, and variety is a good thing.   #  local gym has plenty of pull up bars.   # what now ? p. s.  local gym has plenty of pull up bars.  again why ca not i do those in the gym ? also: a squat rack is god given for legs exercise, and my park has none of those either.  unless you live in a place with winter, snow, cold rains, and/or heavy car traffic.  in those cases, indoor track in the gym is way better.   #  kind of runs contrary to the park idea, no ?  # installing gym equipment at home is basically making your home into a gym.  kind of runs contrary to the park idea, no ? how can i make people dissappear at the gym and make trees appear instead ? go work out late when there are not many people, and find a gym with a lot of windows.  yeah, if i went running at night in the big city i live in, i would probably get run over by a car.  also, i am not going outside running when it is 0f outside and the roads are covered with snow and ice.  running outside in the summer is nice, but i am not canceling my gym membership anytime soon.   #  if you want to work on cardio, it is incredibly hard for a gym to match what a running track or traditional sports court or field offers.   #  your argument fell short the moment you used the word  better .  better for  what  ? if you want to work on hypertrophy or strength, there simply is not a place that could ever come close to what the gym offers.  if you want to work on cardio, it is incredibly hard for a gym to match what a running track or traditional sports court or field offers.  if you want to have fun, then that is a moot point because it is subjective but most people have fun playing traditional sports outside.  so in the end this is a completely fruitless proposition if it does not clearly state what the gym is bad  for .  just  wouldoing physical activity  is not really something palpable.
for all of those outside of the us, in the states going to college/university is very expensive and will drain the finances of the average american and keep them paying for most of their lives.  it is a huge profit center, even for  non profit organizations  most non profit college corporations pay huge salaries to their directors .  as for specialized high schools, throughout the country there are high schools that attract the higher performing students and gather them into an environment centered around accelerated and competitive learning.  by the middle of a student is sophomore year 0th grade/ second year of high school , they have already been bombarded with information about countless colleges and college services.  the students are pressured into buying services to give them an upper edge in the college admission process and are instilled with the fear that if they do not get into prestigious institutions they will have not lived up to their potential.  the schools themselves even funnel thousands in public dollars to college services and advertising college services.  throughout my junior year 0th grade , i have missed at least four periods of english class because the school wanted us to attend a 0 minute long advertisement assembly for the princeton review test prep service .  i am going into my senior year 0th grade and watching how all my friends who also go to specialized high schools are being compelled to pour their parents money into countless services to gain an extra edge against other students.  the specialized high schools even subtly shame students who pursue going to public universities like myself.  because of all of these factors, i am compelled to believe that specialized high schools are just places to gather the students who have high interest in prestigious universities and squeeze all the money out of their families into the us college industry.   #  for all of those outside of the us, in the states going to college/university is very expensive and will drain the finances of the average american and keep them paying for most of their lives.   #  that is not really what is happening now.   # that is not really what is happening now.  average student loan debt is only $0,0, which is quite manageable.  in addition, an enormous share of student loan debt is either from post graduate medical, law, and nursing degrees, from for profit institutions like university of phoenix, or from small liberal arts colleges with relatively small endowments.  once you take out those extreme scenarios, average student loan debt from more reasonable institutions drops significantly sub $0k , which is no more of an issue than what you would pay for a new car.  by the middle of a student is sophomore year 0th grade/ second year of high school , they have already been bombarded with information about countless colleges and college services.  the students are pressured into buying services to give them an upper edge in the college admission process and are instilled with the fear that if they do not get into prestigious institutions they will have not lived up to their potential.  see, it is funny because you start this off by saying:  for all of those outside of the us and yet,  you are describing a situation that is not common in the us either .  you are projecting what you have seen in your part of the us i am betting on a coast, most likely east coast north of new york city onto the rest of us.  no, specialized high schools exist because there is a  demand  for them to exist.  people will pay whatever they think is acceptable for a college degree from a prestigious institution.  yeah, i am even more sure that you are in new england.  the reality is that out east there is a push to get a college degree at whatever the cost from a prestigious school, because that is what is seen as the definition for success.  however, in the push for all of that, they have lost sight of the need to have students earn degrees that actually retain their value particularly when weighed against the student loans they take to get that degree .  this view of school also does not really exist west of the mississippi river with the exception of california, but they have similar problems .  with respect to your specific situation, i would come out to the midwest/great plains.  no one out here cares where you went to school, beyond athletic rivalries.   #  so, if an equally qualified student who you are competing with for the last slot at mit is taking all of this prep work, what should your school do ?  #  first of all, no, they are not  revenue centers  for colleges.  no college makes money directly from them.  and frankly, harvard is not going to have any problem finding people to go there and willing to pay their tuition regardless of whether or not there are specialized hs is.  second, the marketplace reality is that the competition is very real and that prep courses and other college coaching services are effective.  and, counter to your argument, that is why an increasing number of colleges are dropping required admissions testing .  so, if an equally qualified student who you are competing with for the last slot at mit is taking all of this prep work, what should your school do ? now, i think that depending on the hs, there is a ton of pressure to show results, how many kids when to which top tier schools, so they are incented to get you to use every edge you can.  whether that is good or bad is another thing but it is what parents and the school board focuses on.  which gets to the real point, and where your conclusion is wrong.  you say:  specialized high schools are just places to gather the students who have high interest in prestigious universities  and squeeze all the money out of their families into the us college industry  what is really the case is:  specialized high schools are just places to gather the students who have high interest in prestigious universities and encourage them to do what it takes to get into prestigious universities.  the colleges are not making any money they would not already be getting.  the high schools are not making the money other than maintaining their status as an elite hs .  it is only the prep services because, sadly, they do help you get into those elite colleges.   #  those who graduate from them command significantly higher salaries think 0k  day one and have their choice of jobs.   #  i ca not disagree that those schools carry costs like that, but that is surely not their whole goal.  there are direct financial and future benefits to attending prestigious schools.  those who graduate from them command significantly higher salaries think 0k  day one and have their choice of jobs.  on the high school is side, their reputation depends on how many students are accepted to these schools.  it is in their best interest that you do everything you can to get accepted.   #  it just seems that immigrant and working class communities such as my own are always rounded up into these schools and squeezed of whatever little money we have for hopes of a brighter future.   # average student loan debt is only $0,0, which is quite manageable.  in addition, an enormous share of student loan debt is either from post graduate medical, law, and nursing degrees, from for profit institutions like university of phoenix, or from small liberal arts colleges with relatively small endowments.  once you take out those extreme scenarios, average student loan debt from more reasonable institutions drops significantly sub $0k , which is no more of an issue than what you would pay for a new car.  this point was just an introduction and not really my argument.  you are projecting what you have seen in your part of the us i am betting on a coast, most likely east coast north of new york city onto the rest of us.  while i am not from new england, i am from the north east and i did not consider that it could be a regional thing.  it just seems that immigrant and working class communities such as my own are always rounded up into these schools and squeezed of whatever little money we have for hopes of a brighter future.  also  the reality is that out east there is a push to get a college degree at whatever the cost from a prestigious school, because that is what is seen as the definition for success.  however, in the push for all of that, they have lost sight of the need to have students earn degrees that actually retain their value particularly when weighed against the student loans they take to get that degree .  δ this brings me back to when my us history teacher was breaking down regional sub cultures in the us and highlighted the northeast is culture of perpetual competition and pressure in fear of urban poverty.   #  maybe this is what your hypothesis is too, but in that case it is self driven rather than by intentional design.   #  0.  how generalizable is your experience to all specialized high schools ? i am sure they all emphasize the college process, but perhaps not all of them advertise paid services for college prep in such a way.  my personal experience is old about 0 years out ; the competitiveness resonates with my specialized high school experience but what you are describing with advertisements does not at all.  maybe your school has a particularly overzealous administrator with ties to princeton review ? :p 0.  how much is driven by demand were these requested by ultra competitive parents or other students ? maybe this is what your hypothesis is too, but in that case it is self driven rather than by intentional design.
for all of those outside of the us, in the states going to college/university is very expensive and will drain the finances of the average american and keep them paying for most of their lives.  it is a huge profit center, even for  non profit organizations  most non profit college corporations pay huge salaries to their directors .  as for specialized high schools, throughout the country there are high schools that attract the higher performing students and gather them into an environment centered around accelerated and competitive learning.  by the middle of a student is sophomore year 0th grade/ second year of high school , they have already been bombarded with information about countless colleges and college services.  the students are pressured into buying services to give them an upper edge in the college admission process and are instilled with the fear that if they do not get into prestigious institutions they will have not lived up to their potential.  the schools themselves even funnel thousands in public dollars to college services and advertising college services.  throughout my junior year 0th grade , i have missed at least four periods of english class because the school wanted us to attend a 0 minute long advertisement assembly for the princeton review test prep service .  i am going into my senior year 0th grade and watching how all my friends who also go to specialized high schools are being compelled to pour their parents money into countless services to gain an extra edge against other students.  the specialized high schools even subtly shame students who pursue going to public universities like myself.  because of all of these factors, i am compelled to believe that specialized high schools are just places to gather the students who have high interest in prestigious universities and squeeze all the money out of their families into the us college industry.   #  as for specialized high schools, throughout the country there are high schools that attract the higher performing students and gather them into an environment centered around accelerated and competitive learning.   #  by the middle of a student is sophomore year 0th grade/ second year of high school , they have already been bombarded with information about countless colleges and college services.   # that is not really what is happening now.  average student loan debt is only $0,0, which is quite manageable.  in addition, an enormous share of student loan debt is either from post graduate medical, law, and nursing degrees, from for profit institutions like university of phoenix, or from small liberal arts colleges with relatively small endowments.  once you take out those extreme scenarios, average student loan debt from more reasonable institutions drops significantly sub $0k , which is no more of an issue than what you would pay for a new car.  by the middle of a student is sophomore year 0th grade/ second year of high school , they have already been bombarded with information about countless colleges and college services.  the students are pressured into buying services to give them an upper edge in the college admission process and are instilled with the fear that if they do not get into prestigious institutions they will have not lived up to their potential.  see, it is funny because you start this off by saying:  for all of those outside of the us and yet,  you are describing a situation that is not common in the us either .  you are projecting what you have seen in your part of the us i am betting on a coast, most likely east coast north of new york city onto the rest of us.  no, specialized high schools exist because there is a  demand  for them to exist.  people will pay whatever they think is acceptable for a college degree from a prestigious institution.  yeah, i am even more sure that you are in new england.  the reality is that out east there is a push to get a college degree at whatever the cost from a prestigious school, because that is what is seen as the definition for success.  however, in the push for all of that, they have lost sight of the need to have students earn degrees that actually retain their value particularly when weighed against the student loans they take to get that degree .  this view of school also does not really exist west of the mississippi river with the exception of california, but they have similar problems .  with respect to your specific situation, i would come out to the midwest/great plains.  no one out here cares where you went to school, beyond athletic rivalries.   #  the high schools are not making the money other than maintaining their status as an elite hs .   #  first of all, no, they are not  revenue centers  for colleges.  no college makes money directly from them.  and frankly, harvard is not going to have any problem finding people to go there and willing to pay their tuition regardless of whether or not there are specialized hs is.  second, the marketplace reality is that the competition is very real and that prep courses and other college coaching services are effective.  and, counter to your argument, that is why an increasing number of colleges are dropping required admissions testing .  so, if an equally qualified student who you are competing with for the last slot at mit is taking all of this prep work, what should your school do ? now, i think that depending on the hs, there is a ton of pressure to show results, how many kids when to which top tier schools, so they are incented to get you to use every edge you can.  whether that is good or bad is another thing but it is what parents and the school board focuses on.  which gets to the real point, and where your conclusion is wrong.  you say:  specialized high schools are just places to gather the students who have high interest in prestigious universities  and squeeze all the money out of their families into the us college industry  what is really the case is:  specialized high schools are just places to gather the students who have high interest in prestigious universities and encourage them to do what it takes to get into prestigious universities.  the colleges are not making any money they would not already be getting.  the high schools are not making the money other than maintaining their status as an elite hs .  it is only the prep services because, sadly, they do help you get into those elite colleges.   #  i ca not disagree that those schools carry costs like that, but that is surely not their whole goal.   #  i ca not disagree that those schools carry costs like that, but that is surely not their whole goal.  there are direct financial and future benefits to attending prestigious schools.  those who graduate from them command significantly higher salaries think 0k  day one and have their choice of jobs.  on the high school is side, their reputation depends on how many students are accepted to these schools.  it is in their best interest that you do everything you can to get accepted.   #  this point was just an introduction and not really my argument.   # average student loan debt is only $0,0, which is quite manageable.  in addition, an enormous share of student loan debt is either from post graduate medical, law, and nursing degrees, from for profit institutions like university of phoenix, or from small liberal arts colleges with relatively small endowments.  once you take out those extreme scenarios, average student loan debt from more reasonable institutions drops significantly sub $0k , which is no more of an issue than what you would pay for a new car.  this point was just an introduction and not really my argument.  you are projecting what you have seen in your part of the us i am betting on a coast, most likely east coast north of new york city onto the rest of us.  while i am not from new england, i am from the north east and i did not consider that it could be a regional thing.  it just seems that immigrant and working class communities such as my own are always rounded up into these schools and squeezed of whatever little money we have for hopes of a brighter future.  also  the reality is that out east there is a push to get a college degree at whatever the cost from a prestigious school, because that is what is seen as the definition for success.  however, in the push for all of that, they have lost sight of the need to have students earn degrees that actually retain their value particularly when weighed against the student loans they take to get that degree .  δ this brings me back to when my us history teacher was breaking down regional sub cultures in the us and highlighted the northeast is culture of perpetual competition and pressure in fear of urban poverty.   #  :p 0.  how much is driven by demand were these requested by ultra competitive parents or other students ?  #  0.  how generalizable is your experience to all specialized high schools ? i am sure they all emphasize the college process, but perhaps not all of them advertise paid services for college prep in such a way.  my personal experience is old about 0 years out ; the competitiveness resonates with my specialized high school experience but what you are describing with advertisements does not at all.  maybe your school has a particularly overzealous administrator with ties to princeton review ? :p 0.  how much is driven by demand were these requested by ultra competitive parents or other students ? maybe this is what your hypothesis is too, but in that case it is self driven rather than by intentional design.
for all of those outside of the us, in the states going to college/university is very expensive and will drain the finances of the average american and keep them paying for most of their lives.  it is a huge profit center, even for  non profit organizations  most non profit college corporations pay huge salaries to their directors .  as for specialized high schools, throughout the country there are high schools that attract the higher performing students and gather them into an environment centered around accelerated and competitive learning.  by the middle of a student is sophomore year 0th grade/ second year of high school , they have already been bombarded with information about countless colleges and college services.  the students are pressured into buying services to give them an upper edge in the college admission process and are instilled with the fear that if they do not get into prestigious institutions they will have not lived up to their potential.  the schools themselves even funnel thousands in public dollars to college services and advertising college services.  throughout my junior year 0th grade , i have missed at least four periods of english class because the school wanted us to attend a 0 minute long advertisement assembly for the princeton review test prep service .  i am going into my senior year 0th grade and watching how all my friends who also go to specialized high schools are being compelled to pour their parents money into countless services to gain an extra edge against other students.  the specialized high schools even subtly shame students who pursue going to public universities like myself.  because of all of these factors, i am compelled to believe that specialized high schools are just places to gather the students who have high interest in prestigious universities and squeeze all the money out of their families into the us college industry.   #  i am compelled to believe that specialized high schools are just places to gather the students who have high interest in prestigious universities and squeeze all the money out of their families into the us college industry.   #  no, specialized high schools exist because there is a  demand  for them to exist.   # that is not really what is happening now.  average student loan debt is only $0,0, which is quite manageable.  in addition, an enormous share of student loan debt is either from post graduate medical, law, and nursing degrees, from for profit institutions like university of phoenix, or from small liberal arts colleges with relatively small endowments.  once you take out those extreme scenarios, average student loan debt from more reasonable institutions drops significantly sub $0k , which is no more of an issue than what you would pay for a new car.  by the middle of a student is sophomore year 0th grade/ second year of high school , they have already been bombarded with information about countless colleges and college services.  the students are pressured into buying services to give them an upper edge in the college admission process and are instilled with the fear that if they do not get into prestigious institutions they will have not lived up to their potential.  see, it is funny because you start this off by saying:  for all of those outside of the us and yet,  you are describing a situation that is not common in the us either .  you are projecting what you have seen in your part of the us i am betting on a coast, most likely east coast north of new york city onto the rest of us.  no, specialized high schools exist because there is a  demand  for them to exist.  people will pay whatever they think is acceptable for a college degree from a prestigious institution.  yeah, i am even more sure that you are in new england.  the reality is that out east there is a push to get a college degree at whatever the cost from a prestigious school, because that is what is seen as the definition for success.  however, in the push for all of that, they have lost sight of the need to have students earn degrees that actually retain their value particularly when weighed against the student loans they take to get that degree .  this view of school also does not really exist west of the mississippi river with the exception of california, but they have similar problems .  with respect to your specific situation, i would come out to the midwest/great plains.  no one out here cares where you went to school, beyond athletic rivalries.   #  so, if an equally qualified student who you are competing with for the last slot at mit is taking all of this prep work, what should your school do ?  #  first of all, no, they are not  revenue centers  for colleges.  no college makes money directly from them.  and frankly, harvard is not going to have any problem finding people to go there and willing to pay their tuition regardless of whether or not there are specialized hs is.  second, the marketplace reality is that the competition is very real and that prep courses and other college coaching services are effective.  and, counter to your argument, that is why an increasing number of colleges are dropping required admissions testing .  so, if an equally qualified student who you are competing with for the last slot at mit is taking all of this prep work, what should your school do ? now, i think that depending on the hs, there is a ton of pressure to show results, how many kids when to which top tier schools, so they are incented to get you to use every edge you can.  whether that is good or bad is another thing but it is what parents and the school board focuses on.  which gets to the real point, and where your conclusion is wrong.  you say:  specialized high schools are just places to gather the students who have high interest in prestigious universities  and squeeze all the money out of their families into the us college industry  what is really the case is:  specialized high schools are just places to gather the students who have high interest in prestigious universities and encourage them to do what it takes to get into prestigious universities.  the colleges are not making any money they would not already be getting.  the high schools are not making the money other than maintaining their status as an elite hs .  it is only the prep services because, sadly, they do help you get into those elite colleges.   #  those who graduate from them command significantly higher salaries think 0k  day one and have their choice of jobs.   #  i ca not disagree that those schools carry costs like that, but that is surely not their whole goal.  there are direct financial and future benefits to attending prestigious schools.  those who graduate from them command significantly higher salaries think 0k  day one and have their choice of jobs.  on the high school is side, their reputation depends on how many students are accepted to these schools.  it is in their best interest that you do everything you can to get accepted.   #  you are projecting what you have seen in your part of the us i am betting on a coast, most likely east coast north of new york city onto the rest of us.   # average student loan debt is only $0,0, which is quite manageable.  in addition, an enormous share of student loan debt is either from post graduate medical, law, and nursing degrees, from for profit institutions like university of phoenix, or from small liberal arts colleges with relatively small endowments.  once you take out those extreme scenarios, average student loan debt from more reasonable institutions drops significantly sub $0k , which is no more of an issue than what you would pay for a new car.  this point was just an introduction and not really my argument.  you are projecting what you have seen in your part of the us i am betting on a coast, most likely east coast north of new york city onto the rest of us.  while i am not from new england, i am from the north east and i did not consider that it could be a regional thing.  it just seems that immigrant and working class communities such as my own are always rounded up into these schools and squeezed of whatever little money we have for hopes of a brighter future.  also  the reality is that out east there is a push to get a college degree at whatever the cost from a prestigious school, because that is what is seen as the definition for success.  however, in the push for all of that, they have lost sight of the need to have students earn degrees that actually retain their value particularly when weighed against the student loans they take to get that degree .  δ this brings me back to when my us history teacher was breaking down regional sub cultures in the us and highlighted the northeast is culture of perpetual competition and pressure in fear of urban poverty.   #  :p 0.  how much is driven by demand were these requested by ultra competitive parents or other students ?  #  0.  how generalizable is your experience to all specialized high schools ? i am sure they all emphasize the college process, but perhaps not all of them advertise paid services for college prep in such a way.  my personal experience is old about 0 years out ; the competitiveness resonates with my specialized high school experience but what you are describing with advertisements does not at all.  maybe your school has a particularly overzealous administrator with ties to princeton review ? :p 0.  how much is driven by demand were these requested by ultra competitive parents or other students ? maybe this is what your hypothesis is too, but in that case it is self driven rather than by intentional design.
for all of those outside of the us, in the states going to college/university is very expensive and will drain the finances of the average american and keep them paying for most of their lives.  it is a huge profit center, even for  non profit organizations  most non profit college corporations pay huge salaries to their directors .  as for specialized high schools, throughout the country there are high schools that attract the higher performing students and gather them into an environment centered around accelerated and competitive learning.  by the middle of a student is sophomore year 0th grade/ second year of high school , they have already been bombarded with information about countless colleges and college services.  the students are pressured into buying services to give them an upper edge in the college admission process and are instilled with the fear that if they do not get into prestigious institutions they will have not lived up to their potential.  the schools themselves even funnel thousands in public dollars to college services and advertising college services.  throughout my junior year 0th grade , i have missed at least four periods of english class because the school wanted us to attend a 0 minute long advertisement assembly for the princeton review test prep service .  i am going into my senior year 0th grade and watching how all my friends who also go to specialized high schools are being compelled to pour their parents money into countless services to gain an extra edge against other students.  the specialized high schools even subtly shame students who pursue going to public universities like myself.  because of all of these factors, i am compelled to believe that specialized high schools are just places to gather the students who have high interest in prestigious universities and squeeze all the money out of their families into the us college industry.   #  the specialized high schools even subtly shame students who pursue going to public universities like myself.   #  yeah, i am even more sure that you are in new england.   # that is not really what is happening now.  average student loan debt is only $0,0, which is quite manageable.  in addition, an enormous share of student loan debt is either from post graduate medical, law, and nursing degrees, from for profit institutions like university of phoenix, or from small liberal arts colleges with relatively small endowments.  once you take out those extreme scenarios, average student loan debt from more reasonable institutions drops significantly sub $0k , which is no more of an issue than what you would pay for a new car.  by the middle of a student is sophomore year 0th grade/ second year of high school , they have already been bombarded with information about countless colleges and college services.  the students are pressured into buying services to give them an upper edge in the college admission process and are instilled with the fear that if they do not get into prestigious institutions they will have not lived up to their potential.  see, it is funny because you start this off by saying:  for all of those outside of the us and yet,  you are describing a situation that is not common in the us either .  you are projecting what you have seen in your part of the us i am betting on a coast, most likely east coast north of new york city onto the rest of us.  no, specialized high schools exist because there is a  demand  for them to exist.  people will pay whatever they think is acceptable for a college degree from a prestigious institution.  yeah, i am even more sure that you are in new england.  the reality is that out east there is a push to get a college degree at whatever the cost from a prestigious school, because that is what is seen as the definition for success.  however, in the push for all of that, they have lost sight of the need to have students earn degrees that actually retain their value particularly when weighed against the student loans they take to get that degree .  this view of school also does not really exist west of the mississippi river with the exception of california, but they have similar problems .  with respect to your specific situation, i would come out to the midwest/great plains.  no one out here cares where you went to school, beyond athletic rivalries.   #  second, the marketplace reality is that the competition is very real and that prep courses and other college coaching services are effective.   #  first of all, no, they are not  revenue centers  for colleges.  no college makes money directly from them.  and frankly, harvard is not going to have any problem finding people to go there and willing to pay their tuition regardless of whether or not there are specialized hs is.  second, the marketplace reality is that the competition is very real and that prep courses and other college coaching services are effective.  and, counter to your argument, that is why an increasing number of colleges are dropping required admissions testing .  so, if an equally qualified student who you are competing with for the last slot at mit is taking all of this prep work, what should your school do ? now, i think that depending on the hs, there is a ton of pressure to show results, how many kids when to which top tier schools, so they are incented to get you to use every edge you can.  whether that is good or bad is another thing but it is what parents and the school board focuses on.  which gets to the real point, and where your conclusion is wrong.  you say:  specialized high schools are just places to gather the students who have high interest in prestigious universities  and squeeze all the money out of their families into the us college industry  what is really the case is:  specialized high schools are just places to gather the students who have high interest in prestigious universities and encourage them to do what it takes to get into prestigious universities.  the colleges are not making any money they would not already be getting.  the high schools are not making the money other than maintaining their status as an elite hs .  it is only the prep services because, sadly, they do help you get into those elite colleges.   #  i ca not disagree that those schools carry costs like that, but that is surely not their whole goal.   #  i ca not disagree that those schools carry costs like that, but that is surely not their whole goal.  there are direct financial and future benefits to attending prestigious schools.  those who graduate from them command significantly higher salaries think 0k  day one and have their choice of jobs.  on the high school is side, their reputation depends on how many students are accepted to these schools.  it is in their best interest that you do everything you can to get accepted.   #  however, in the push for all of that, they have lost sight of the need to have students earn degrees that actually retain their value particularly when weighed against the student loans they take to get that degree .   # average student loan debt is only $0,0, which is quite manageable.  in addition, an enormous share of student loan debt is either from post graduate medical, law, and nursing degrees, from for profit institutions like university of phoenix, or from small liberal arts colleges with relatively small endowments.  once you take out those extreme scenarios, average student loan debt from more reasonable institutions drops significantly sub $0k , which is no more of an issue than what you would pay for a new car.  this point was just an introduction and not really my argument.  you are projecting what you have seen in your part of the us i am betting on a coast, most likely east coast north of new york city onto the rest of us.  while i am not from new england, i am from the north east and i did not consider that it could be a regional thing.  it just seems that immigrant and working class communities such as my own are always rounded up into these schools and squeezed of whatever little money we have for hopes of a brighter future.  also  the reality is that out east there is a push to get a college degree at whatever the cost from a prestigious school, because that is what is seen as the definition for success.  however, in the push for all of that, they have lost sight of the need to have students earn degrees that actually retain their value particularly when weighed against the student loans they take to get that degree .  δ this brings me back to when my us history teacher was breaking down regional sub cultures in the us and highlighted the northeast is culture of perpetual competition and pressure in fear of urban poverty.   #  0.  how generalizable is your experience to all specialized high schools ?  #  0.  how generalizable is your experience to all specialized high schools ? i am sure they all emphasize the college process, but perhaps not all of them advertise paid services for college prep in such a way.  my personal experience is old about 0 years out ; the competitiveness resonates with my specialized high school experience but what you are describing with advertisements does not at all.  maybe your school has a particularly overzealous administrator with ties to princeton review ? :p 0.  how much is driven by demand were these requested by ultra competitive parents or other students ? maybe this is what your hypothesis is too, but in that case it is self driven rather than by intentional design.
for all of those outside of the us, in the states going to college/university is very expensive and will drain the finances of the average american and keep them paying for most of their lives.  it is a huge profit center, even for  non profit organizations  most non profit college corporations pay huge salaries to their directors .  as for specialized high schools, throughout the country there are high schools that attract the higher performing students and gather them into an environment centered around accelerated and competitive learning.  by the middle of a student is sophomore year 0th grade/ second year of high school , they have already been bombarded with information about countless colleges and college services.  the students are pressured into buying services to give them an upper edge in the college admission process and are instilled with the fear that if they do not get into prestigious institutions they will have not lived up to their potential.  the schools themselves even funnel thousands in public dollars to college services and advertising college services.  throughout my junior year 0th grade , i have missed at least four periods of english class because the school wanted us to attend a 0 minute long advertisement assembly for the princeton review test prep service .  i am going into my senior year 0th grade and watching how all my friends who also go to specialized high schools are being compelled to pour their parents money into countless services to gain an extra edge against other students.  the specialized high schools even subtly shame students who pursue going to public universities like myself.  because of all of these factors, i am compelled to believe that specialized high schools are just places to gather the students who have high interest in prestigious universities and squeeze all the money out of their families into the us college industry.   #  for all of those outside of the us, in the states going to college/university is very expensive and will drain the finances of the average american and keep them paying for most of their lives.   #  i ca not speak for all specialized high schools, but at the one i attended, most students got good scholarships and/or were already rich and paying for college was easy.   # i ca not speak for all specialized high schools, but at the one i attended, most students got good scholarships and/or were already rich and paying for college was easy.  that is definitely a part you are ignoring most students at these specialized schools are middle to upper class.  i know because my school was constantly trying to find ways to attract a more  wouldiverse  population and it never really worked.  the children getting into these schools mostly already have had various other advantages that lead them to this point.  additionally, it is mostly parents pushing ivy league colleges.  i know parents at my school pushed programs to give students an edge in the college application process.   #  and frankly, harvard is not going to have any problem finding people to go there and willing to pay their tuition regardless of whether or not there are specialized hs is.   #  first of all, no, they are not  revenue centers  for colleges.  no college makes money directly from them.  and frankly, harvard is not going to have any problem finding people to go there and willing to pay their tuition regardless of whether or not there are specialized hs is.  second, the marketplace reality is that the competition is very real and that prep courses and other college coaching services are effective.  and, counter to your argument, that is why an increasing number of colleges are dropping required admissions testing .  so, if an equally qualified student who you are competing with for the last slot at mit is taking all of this prep work, what should your school do ? now, i think that depending on the hs, there is a ton of pressure to show results, how many kids when to which top tier schools, so they are incented to get you to use every edge you can.  whether that is good or bad is another thing but it is what parents and the school board focuses on.  which gets to the real point, and where your conclusion is wrong.  you say:  specialized high schools are just places to gather the students who have high interest in prestigious universities  and squeeze all the money out of their families into the us college industry  what is really the case is:  specialized high schools are just places to gather the students who have high interest in prestigious universities and encourage them to do what it takes to get into prestigious universities.  the colleges are not making any money they would not already be getting.  the high schools are not making the money other than maintaining their status as an elite hs .  it is only the prep services because, sadly, they do help you get into those elite colleges.   #  i ca not disagree that those schools carry costs like that, but that is surely not their whole goal.   #  i ca not disagree that those schools carry costs like that, but that is surely not their whole goal.  there are direct financial and future benefits to attending prestigious schools.  those who graduate from them command significantly higher salaries think 0k  day one and have their choice of jobs.  on the high school is side, their reputation depends on how many students are accepted to these schools.  it is in their best interest that you do everything you can to get accepted.   #  you are projecting what you have seen in your part of the us i am betting on a coast, most likely east coast north of new york city onto the rest of us.   # that is not really what is happening now.  average student loan debt is only $0,0, which is quite manageable.  in addition, an enormous share of student loan debt is either from post graduate medical, law, and nursing degrees, from for profit institutions like university of phoenix, or from small liberal arts colleges with relatively small endowments.  once you take out those extreme scenarios, average student loan debt from more reasonable institutions drops significantly sub $0k , which is no more of an issue than what you would pay for a new car.  by the middle of a student is sophomore year 0th grade/ second year of high school , they have already been bombarded with information about countless colleges and college services.  the students are pressured into buying services to give them an upper edge in the college admission process and are instilled with the fear that if they do not get into prestigious institutions they will have not lived up to their potential.  see, it is funny because you start this off by saying:  for all of those outside of the us and yet,  you are describing a situation that is not common in the us either .  you are projecting what you have seen in your part of the us i am betting on a coast, most likely east coast north of new york city onto the rest of us.  no, specialized high schools exist because there is a  demand  for them to exist.  people will pay whatever they think is acceptable for a college degree from a prestigious institution.  yeah, i am even more sure that you are in new england.  the reality is that out east there is a push to get a college degree at whatever the cost from a prestigious school, because that is what is seen as the definition for success.  however, in the push for all of that, they have lost sight of the need to have students earn degrees that actually retain their value particularly when weighed against the student loans they take to get that degree .  this view of school also does not really exist west of the mississippi river with the exception of california, but they have similar problems .  with respect to your specific situation, i would come out to the midwest/great plains.  no one out here cares where you went to school, beyond athletic rivalries.   #  it just seems that immigrant and working class communities such as my own are always rounded up into these schools and squeezed of whatever little money we have for hopes of a brighter future.   # average student loan debt is only $0,0, which is quite manageable.  in addition, an enormous share of student loan debt is either from post graduate medical, law, and nursing degrees, from for profit institutions like university of phoenix, or from small liberal arts colleges with relatively small endowments.  once you take out those extreme scenarios, average student loan debt from more reasonable institutions drops significantly sub $0k , which is no more of an issue than what you would pay for a new car.  this point was just an introduction and not really my argument.  you are projecting what you have seen in your part of the us i am betting on a coast, most likely east coast north of new york city onto the rest of us.  while i am not from new england, i am from the north east and i did not consider that it could be a regional thing.  it just seems that immigrant and working class communities such as my own are always rounded up into these schools and squeezed of whatever little money we have for hopes of a brighter future.  also  the reality is that out east there is a push to get a college degree at whatever the cost from a prestigious school, because that is what is seen as the definition for success.  however, in the push for all of that, they have lost sight of the need to have students earn degrees that actually retain their value particularly when weighed against the student loans they take to get that degree .  δ this brings me back to when my us history teacher was breaking down regional sub cultures in the us and highlighted the northeast is culture of perpetual competition and pressure in fear of urban poverty.
having one bernie sanders as president is one thing but i do not think it will result in anything even close to what his supporters would hope.  let is cut the cynicism for a moment and let is say that bernie sanders is one hundred percent dedicated and accomplishing each and every one of his goals laid out in his agenda.  given that the right hates this guy and the amount of corporate influence amongst the senate and it is not just limited to the right, i realize , i do not think it is worth being invested in who becomes president so long as the gop remains as influential as they are in congress.  we do not need one bernie.  we need 0 bernies.   #  let is cut the cynicism for a moment and let is say that bernie sanders is one hundred percent dedicated and accomplishing each and every one of his goals laid out in his agenda.   #  pretty sure the whole point of bernie is that this is actually a reasonable assumption to make.   # pretty sure the whole point of bernie is that this is actually a reasonable assumption to make.  anyway, what is going to happen is that bernie will make a proposal, start sending out everyone in the administration to speak for it, get counterarguments from the right, defeat those counterarguments, etc.  basically, as president, people kinda have to listen to him, and with enough grassroots support for the policy proposals, he can get stuff done.  most of what he is trying to get is basic shit the civilized countries of the world already have other than us, of course .  maternity leave ? that is  crazy  that we do not already have it.  as president, bernie sanders can really push for this, as well as require that all federal contractors have it, require that all federal employees have it, etc.  i think it is generally understood that we are not going to get everything he is trying to get, but i think it is also guaranteed that he is going to actually fight for it, which is also important.   #  i do not know how much more he can do without congress.   #  first, to quibble:  we need 0 bernies.  0 bernies would be sufficient to be filibuster proof.  now, for serious discussion.  saying he  cant follow up on any  is a bit of an overstatement.  can he do everything he would like to do the way he would like to ? no.  but can he make moves in the right direction ? sure.  let is look at his agenda:   0.  rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure now, this is something that he would absolutely need congressional help with.  but it is not hard to sell as pro business and pro jobs.  americans like highways.  0.  reversing climate change there is a lot he can do with epa regulations.  and, again, he sells it as  transforming our energy system will not only protect the environment, it will create good paying jobs.   0.  creating worker co ops frankly, i am not sure what, legally would be required for this whether the department of labor alone can get this done, or he would need help from congress.  0.  growing the trade union movement again, this is somewhat of a mixed bag, but probably more congress than dol.  it is also something that i think has some limitations at the federal level, since a lot of it is governed at the state.  0.  raising the minimum wage definitely needs congress.  0.  pay equity for women workers i believe that there are already laws on the books that he could choose to enforce more vigorously.  but i am also not sure what he thinks the goverment should do about this.  0.  trade policies that benefit american workers now, this is something that the president can absolutely have a huge impact on.  0.  making college affordable for all obama has made some strides here.  i do not know how much more he can do without congress.  0.  taking on wall street again, there is a lot more stringent enforcement of laws, investigations into trading, etc that the executive branch can do, but they certainly ca not  break up the banks  without congress.  0.  health care as a right for all yeah, single payer for everyone ca not happen without congress.  0.  protecting the most vulnerable americans another one where he ca not expand social programs without congress.  0.  real tax reform again, congress needs to amend tax law.  even enforcing through the irs is restricted by congressional law.  so, after all of this, i think you are view that  he ca not follow up on any of his points  is an overstatement, but, yeah, what he can do will be limited with a hostile congress.   #  the climate is subject to pretty strong inertia.   # hi, there.  i am a climate scientist.  bernie sanders cannot  reverse climate change .  not with the epa.  not with 0 congressional backing.  not with literally the cooperation of every living soul on the planet.  the time to reverse climate change was 0 years ago.  the climate is subject to pretty strong inertia.  it took a long time for the effects of increased carbon dioxide to have a noticeable impact on the climate, and it will take just as long for it to stop.  certainly not saying that we should give up on reducing carbon emissions, but the idea that we can  stop climate change  is just. wrong.  it is happening, and we are not stopping it.  i think a lot of bernie sanders  ideas are pipe dreams that have not really been thought through, but this one i ca not let stand.   #  the stuff we emitted years ago is still up there.   #  this URL is a pretty good primer on how it all works, but the short explanation is that climate is about radiative balance.  carbon dioxide, once it is in the air, does not just go away the next day.  the stuff we emitted years ago is still up there.  it is a cumulative effect.  nature takes a lot of it out, but that obviously takes time.  if we completely stopped emitting co0 tomorrow, it is not as though there just would not be any more up there.  it stays up there for a very long time, and so its effects last for a very long time.  as long as it is up there, it is going to keep getting warmer for a while.   #  i have a master is in atmospheric science, and i work for a university.   #  phd, no.  grad school taught me that i hate grad school.  i have a master is in atmospheric science, and i work for a university.  my day to day job is mostly statistics.  running through new climate datasets, helping to find quality issues, and running the statistics to find relationships and trends.  every once in a while, i find something neat and it gets published.
i am non religious, i hold liberal beliefs in most social issues, and i firmly believe that abortion is morally equivalent to murder.  to begin, i want to address the ongoing argument of whether or not an unborn fetus is a person.  this discussion, while minorly relevant to the issue of abortion, is not a productive topic to argue over.  i believe a fetus is a person in the same way an egg is a chicken.  in some regards it is, but in others it is not.  regardless, the arguments for my beliefs still hold even if we accept that, no, a fetus is not, in any sense of the word, a person.  however, even if a fetus is not a person, i believe that the  value  of a fetus is equivalent to the  value  of a person.  to show this, we must examine why we attribute value to human life at all.  i believe that the value of human life is in its potential.  a human life has the potential to do good in the world, have positive experiences, and, in some way, be a source of value. the reason that we hold death as such a misfortune is because it robs a person of all possible future good.  the experiences, relationships, activities, and choices of the future are, overall, tremendously valuable and the source of much happiness.  murder is such a reprehensible crime because it deprives it victim of so much value.  a human fetus has an equally, if not greater, amount of potential for future experiences and pleasure in comparison to a person.  thus, is should follow that to deny the potential of a fetus would be morally akin to doing so for a born person.  for a far more in depth argument, don marquis is paper  why abortion is immoral  offers some very compelling arguments.  while i take issue with a few points, the paper is mostly in line with my beliefs in the matter.  here is a link, if you are interested.  URL    #  i hold liberal beliefs in most social issues, and i firmly believe that abortion is morally equivalent to murder.   #  murder is defined as the unlawful taking of a life.   # murder is defined as the unlawful taking of a life.  so from the get go it cannot on the logical level be equivalent.  abortion is not murder because it does not involve the unlawful taking of a life.  an egg is not equivalent to a chicken at all: when i lived on a farm as a kid it was not unusual to crack open a egg and get a chicken embryo in the pan.  it kind of sucked.  why ? because what you ended up with was neither a chicken to fry or an egg to eat.  e. g.  an egg is not equivalent to a chicken in any way shape or form because there is a whole array of things that happen between when a chicken gets some and a chick breaking through an egg and that same chick living to adult hood and becoming a chicken dinner:  however, even if a fetus is not a person, i believe that the value of a fetus is equivalent to the value of a person.  here is the standard thought experiment: suppose there is a fire in a fertility clinic.  you are the only adult present, and there is a newborn baby and a tank of liquid nitrogen with 0,0 frozen embryos in the clinic.  you can save only one of them before the place burns down which would you choose ?   a human fetus has the  potential  for future experiences.  it may just as easily drown in a bucket as an infant.  it may just as easily have the potential for greater suffering also.  just because a fetus makes it to adult hood does not mean it wo not be a crack whore.  i do not think that a woman exercising her right to have complete domain over her body is in effect murder.   #  a separate sperm and egg, however, require specific action to bring together.   #  it is not my view that birth control is equivalent to murder.  however, your point is a very good one.  in fact, based on my use of potential as a means of measuring the value of life, you could go even further and say that it brings a moral obligation to maximize the number of human beings, such that everyone should constantly be reproducing at all times.  the reason i believe that this is not the case is in the intrinsic differences between the process of abortion and contraception.  on one hand, an abortion is an active process to destroy an existing subject.  contraception, on the other hand, is to continue a nonexistence.  a fetus, if left undisturbed would eventually and naturally continue to exist.  a separate sperm and egg, however, require specific action to bring together.  to not take this action, or to take a version of this action to a different result, seems much more difficult to label as immoral.  i know that this answer is, at best, not very satisfying, or, at worst, seemingly arbitrary.  unfortunately, i have yet to find any answer in the abortion debate that does not have some level of arbitrary differentiation.  at some point from the creation of a sex cell to the birth of a child, there is a moment where it no longer becomes morally acceptable to destroy the subject.  to me, i believe that the distinction between an embryo and a separate egg and sperm is the least arbitrary.   #  the majority of pregnacies are not carried to term.   # this is unfortunately not true.  the majority of pregnacies are not carried to term.  only between 0 and 0 of all embryos even make it past the first trimester URL i. e.  0 0 is naturally aborted , and of those making it past the first trimester a still significant number ends up in a miscarriage.  the notion that a fertilised egg will naturally develop into a life is very much not true.  it can, but most of the time it wont.  i am also very curious how you feel about ivf treatment.  for succesful ivfs a number of eggs are harvested and fertilised.  only the most viable one will be implanted, the rest will be destroyed.  so if we hold that life start at fertilisation, and that ending a fertilised egg is murder, is ivf then also not murder and should ivf not be stopped ?  #  if we are very generous and say that  the vast majority  is around 0, that means that, of all embryos that could possibly be aborted, that about 0 0 of them will result in childbirth.   #  the problem is that the first trimester is a very wide range of time.  your source says that, 0 0 of conceptions do not make it past the first trimester.  however, it also says  the vast majority  of those failed conceptions take place  before the woman is aware of conception  and many are even  before medical practitioners can detect them .  again, this is from the very same paragraph in your source.  if we are very generous and say that  the vast majority  is around 0, that means that, of all embryos that could possibly be aborted, that about 0 0 of them will result in childbirth.  that percentage is enough for me to assume that, yes, on average, an embryo that was decidedly not aborted will naturally continue to exist.   #  otherwise, you are not using the least arbitrary distinction possible, something you have apparently based your view upon.   # that is a huge stretch, for at least two reasons.  firstly, because you have no way to know what percentage of unaware miscarriage would have continued to full development.  secondly, because being unaware of the pregnancy does not mean you can cast aside the statistic.  it  still  means that embryos have about 0 chance to develop into human being, which diminish their overall  potential  quite a bit.  especially compared to something like third trimesters fetuses or even newborns.  this should naturally factor in your  potential  analysis to determine person hood.  otherwise, you are not using the least arbitrary distinction possible, something you have apparently based your view upon.
i am non religious, i hold liberal beliefs in most social issues, and i firmly believe that abortion is morally equivalent to murder.  to begin, i want to address the ongoing argument of whether or not an unborn fetus is a person.  this discussion, while minorly relevant to the issue of abortion, is not a productive topic to argue over.  i believe a fetus is a person in the same way an egg is a chicken.  in some regards it is, but in others it is not.  regardless, the arguments for my beliefs still hold even if we accept that, no, a fetus is not, in any sense of the word, a person.  however, even if a fetus is not a person, i believe that the  value  of a fetus is equivalent to the  value  of a person.  to show this, we must examine why we attribute value to human life at all.  i believe that the value of human life is in its potential.  a human life has the potential to do good in the world, have positive experiences, and, in some way, be a source of value. the reason that we hold death as such a misfortune is because it robs a person of all possible future good.  the experiences, relationships, activities, and choices of the future are, overall, tremendously valuable and the source of much happiness.  murder is such a reprehensible crime because it deprives it victim of so much value.  a human fetus has an equally, if not greater, amount of potential for future experiences and pleasure in comparison to a person.  thus, is should follow that to deny the potential of a fetus would be morally akin to doing so for a born person.  for a far more in depth argument, don marquis is paper  why abortion is immoral  offers some very compelling arguments.  while i take issue with a few points, the paper is mostly in line with my beliefs in the matter.  here is a link, if you are interested.  URL    #  i believe a fetus is a person in the same way an egg is a chicken.   #  an egg is not equivalent to a chicken at all: when i lived on a farm as a kid it was not unusual to crack open a egg and get a chicken embryo in the pan.   # murder is defined as the unlawful taking of a life.  so from the get go it cannot on the logical level be equivalent.  abortion is not murder because it does not involve the unlawful taking of a life.  an egg is not equivalent to a chicken at all: when i lived on a farm as a kid it was not unusual to crack open a egg and get a chicken embryo in the pan.  it kind of sucked.  why ? because what you ended up with was neither a chicken to fry or an egg to eat.  e. g.  an egg is not equivalent to a chicken in any way shape or form because there is a whole array of things that happen between when a chicken gets some and a chick breaking through an egg and that same chick living to adult hood and becoming a chicken dinner:  however, even if a fetus is not a person, i believe that the value of a fetus is equivalent to the value of a person.  here is the standard thought experiment: suppose there is a fire in a fertility clinic.  you are the only adult present, and there is a newborn baby and a tank of liquid nitrogen with 0,0 frozen embryos in the clinic.  you can save only one of them before the place burns down which would you choose ?   a human fetus has the  potential  for future experiences.  it may just as easily drown in a bucket as an infant.  it may just as easily have the potential for greater suffering also.  just because a fetus makes it to adult hood does not mean it wo not be a crack whore.  i do not think that a woman exercising her right to have complete domain over her body is in effect murder.   #  to not take this action, or to take a version of this action to a different result, seems much more difficult to label as immoral.   #  it is not my view that birth control is equivalent to murder.  however, your point is a very good one.  in fact, based on my use of potential as a means of measuring the value of life, you could go even further and say that it brings a moral obligation to maximize the number of human beings, such that everyone should constantly be reproducing at all times.  the reason i believe that this is not the case is in the intrinsic differences between the process of abortion and contraception.  on one hand, an abortion is an active process to destroy an existing subject.  contraception, on the other hand, is to continue a nonexistence.  a fetus, if left undisturbed would eventually and naturally continue to exist.  a separate sperm and egg, however, require specific action to bring together.  to not take this action, or to take a version of this action to a different result, seems much more difficult to label as immoral.  i know that this answer is, at best, not very satisfying, or, at worst, seemingly arbitrary.  unfortunately, i have yet to find any answer in the abortion debate that does not have some level of arbitrary differentiation.  at some point from the creation of a sex cell to the birth of a child, there is a moment where it no longer becomes morally acceptable to destroy the subject.  to me, i believe that the distinction between an embryo and a separate egg and sperm is the least arbitrary.   #  only the most viable one will be implanted, the rest will be destroyed.   # this is unfortunately not true.  the majority of pregnacies are not carried to term.  only between 0 and 0 of all embryos even make it past the first trimester URL i. e.  0 0 is naturally aborted , and of those making it past the first trimester a still significant number ends up in a miscarriage.  the notion that a fertilised egg will naturally develop into a life is very much not true.  it can, but most of the time it wont.  i am also very curious how you feel about ivf treatment.  for succesful ivfs a number of eggs are harvested and fertilised.  only the most viable one will be implanted, the rest will be destroyed.  so if we hold that life start at fertilisation, and that ending a fertilised egg is murder, is ivf then also not murder and should ivf not be stopped ?  #  that percentage is enough for me to assume that, yes, on average, an embryo that was decidedly not aborted will naturally continue to exist.   #  the problem is that the first trimester is a very wide range of time.  your source says that, 0 0 of conceptions do not make it past the first trimester.  however, it also says  the vast majority  of those failed conceptions take place  before the woman is aware of conception  and many are even  before medical practitioners can detect them .  again, this is from the very same paragraph in your source.  if we are very generous and say that  the vast majority  is around 0, that means that, of all embryos that could possibly be aborted, that about 0 0 of them will result in childbirth.  that percentage is enough for me to assume that, yes, on average, an embryo that was decidedly not aborted will naturally continue to exist.   #  this should naturally factor in your  potential  analysis to determine person hood.   # that is a huge stretch, for at least two reasons.  firstly, because you have no way to know what percentage of unaware miscarriage would have continued to full development.  secondly, because being unaware of the pregnancy does not mean you can cast aside the statistic.  it  still  means that embryos have about 0 chance to develop into human being, which diminish their overall  potential  quite a bit.  especially compared to something like third trimesters fetuses or even newborns.  this should naturally factor in your  potential  analysis to determine person hood.  otherwise, you are not using the least arbitrary distinction possible, something you have apparently based your view upon.
i am non religious, i hold liberal beliefs in most social issues, and i firmly believe that abortion is morally equivalent to murder.  to begin, i want to address the ongoing argument of whether or not an unborn fetus is a person.  this discussion, while minorly relevant to the issue of abortion, is not a productive topic to argue over.  i believe a fetus is a person in the same way an egg is a chicken.  in some regards it is, but in others it is not.  regardless, the arguments for my beliefs still hold even if we accept that, no, a fetus is not, in any sense of the word, a person.  however, even if a fetus is not a person, i believe that the  value  of a fetus is equivalent to the  value  of a person.  to show this, we must examine why we attribute value to human life at all.  i believe that the value of human life is in its potential.  a human life has the potential to do good in the world, have positive experiences, and, in some way, be a source of value. the reason that we hold death as such a misfortune is because it robs a person of all possible future good.  the experiences, relationships, activities, and choices of the future are, overall, tremendously valuable and the source of much happiness.  murder is such a reprehensible crime because it deprives it victim of so much value.  a human fetus has an equally, if not greater, amount of potential for future experiences and pleasure in comparison to a person.  thus, is should follow that to deny the potential of a fetus would be morally akin to doing so for a born person.  for a far more in depth argument, don marquis is paper  why abortion is immoral  offers some very compelling arguments.  while i take issue with a few points, the paper is mostly in line with my beliefs in the matter.  here is a link, if you are interested.  URL    #  a human fetus has an equally, if not greater, amount of potential for future experiences and pleasure in comparison to a person.   #  a human fetus has the  potential  for future experiences.   # murder is defined as the unlawful taking of a life.  so from the get go it cannot on the logical level be equivalent.  abortion is not murder because it does not involve the unlawful taking of a life.  an egg is not equivalent to a chicken at all: when i lived on a farm as a kid it was not unusual to crack open a egg and get a chicken embryo in the pan.  it kind of sucked.  why ? because what you ended up with was neither a chicken to fry or an egg to eat.  e. g.  an egg is not equivalent to a chicken in any way shape or form because there is a whole array of things that happen between when a chicken gets some and a chick breaking through an egg and that same chick living to adult hood and becoming a chicken dinner:  however, even if a fetus is not a person, i believe that the value of a fetus is equivalent to the value of a person.  here is the standard thought experiment: suppose there is a fire in a fertility clinic.  you are the only adult present, and there is a newborn baby and a tank of liquid nitrogen with 0,0 frozen embryos in the clinic.  you can save only one of them before the place burns down which would you choose ?   a human fetus has the  potential  for future experiences.  it may just as easily drown in a bucket as an infant.  it may just as easily have the potential for greater suffering also.  just because a fetus makes it to adult hood does not mean it wo not be a crack whore.  i do not think that a woman exercising her right to have complete domain over her body is in effect murder.   #  to me, i believe that the distinction between an embryo and a separate egg and sperm is the least arbitrary.   #  it is not my view that birth control is equivalent to murder.  however, your point is a very good one.  in fact, based on my use of potential as a means of measuring the value of life, you could go even further and say that it brings a moral obligation to maximize the number of human beings, such that everyone should constantly be reproducing at all times.  the reason i believe that this is not the case is in the intrinsic differences between the process of abortion and contraception.  on one hand, an abortion is an active process to destroy an existing subject.  contraception, on the other hand, is to continue a nonexistence.  a fetus, if left undisturbed would eventually and naturally continue to exist.  a separate sperm and egg, however, require specific action to bring together.  to not take this action, or to take a version of this action to a different result, seems much more difficult to label as immoral.  i know that this answer is, at best, not very satisfying, or, at worst, seemingly arbitrary.  unfortunately, i have yet to find any answer in the abortion debate that does not have some level of arbitrary differentiation.  at some point from the creation of a sex cell to the birth of a child, there is a moment where it no longer becomes morally acceptable to destroy the subject.  to me, i believe that the distinction between an embryo and a separate egg and sperm is the least arbitrary.   #  the notion that a fertilised egg will naturally develop into a life is very much not true.   # this is unfortunately not true.  the majority of pregnacies are not carried to term.  only between 0 and 0 of all embryos even make it past the first trimester URL i. e.  0 0 is naturally aborted , and of those making it past the first trimester a still significant number ends up in a miscarriage.  the notion that a fertilised egg will naturally develop into a life is very much not true.  it can, but most of the time it wont.  i am also very curious how you feel about ivf treatment.  for succesful ivfs a number of eggs are harvested and fertilised.  only the most viable one will be implanted, the rest will be destroyed.  so if we hold that life start at fertilisation, and that ending a fertilised egg is murder, is ivf then also not murder and should ivf not be stopped ?  #  the problem is that the first trimester is a very wide range of time.   #  the problem is that the first trimester is a very wide range of time.  your source says that, 0 0 of conceptions do not make it past the first trimester.  however, it also says  the vast majority  of those failed conceptions take place  before the woman is aware of conception  and many are even  before medical practitioners can detect them .  again, this is from the very same paragraph in your source.  if we are very generous and say that  the vast majority  is around 0, that means that, of all embryos that could possibly be aborted, that about 0 0 of them will result in childbirth.  that percentage is enough for me to assume that, yes, on average, an embryo that was decidedly not aborted will naturally continue to exist.   #  firstly, because you have no way to know what percentage of unaware miscarriage would have continued to full development.   # that is a huge stretch, for at least two reasons.  firstly, because you have no way to know what percentage of unaware miscarriage would have continued to full development.  secondly, because being unaware of the pregnancy does not mean you can cast aside the statistic.  it  still  means that embryos have about 0 chance to develop into human being, which diminish their overall  potential  quite a bit.  especially compared to something like third trimesters fetuses or even newborns.  this should naturally factor in your  potential  analysis to determine person hood.  otherwise, you are not using the least arbitrary distinction possible, something you have apparently based your view upon.
i am non religious, i hold liberal beliefs in most social issues, and i firmly believe that abortion is morally equivalent to murder.  to begin, i want to address the ongoing argument of whether or not an unborn fetus is a person.  this discussion, while minorly relevant to the issue of abortion, is not a productive topic to argue over.  i believe a fetus is a person in the same way an egg is a chicken.  in some regards it is, but in others it is not.  regardless, the arguments for my beliefs still hold even if we accept that, no, a fetus is not, in any sense of the word, a person.  however, even if a fetus is not a person, i believe that the  value  of a fetus is equivalent to the  value  of a person.  to show this, we must examine why we attribute value to human life at all.  i believe that the value of human life is in its potential.  a human life has the potential to do good in the world, have positive experiences, and, in some way, be a source of value. the reason that we hold death as such a misfortune is because it robs a person of all possible future good.  the experiences, relationships, activities, and choices of the future are, overall, tremendously valuable and the source of much happiness.  murder is such a reprehensible crime because it deprives it victim of so much value.  a human fetus has an equally, if not greater, amount of potential for future experiences and pleasure in comparison to a person.  thus, is should follow that to deny the potential of a fetus would be morally akin to doing so for a born person.  for a far more in depth argument, don marquis is paper  why abortion is immoral  offers some very compelling arguments.  while i take issue with a few points, the paper is mostly in line with my beliefs in the matter.  here is a link, if you are interested.  URL    #  i believe that the value of human life is in its potential.   #  a human life has the potential to do good in the world, have positive experiences, and, in some way, be a source of value.   # well, i disagree.  the reason for this lies in the specific way of valuing life.  a human life has the potential to do good in the world, have positive experiences, and, in some way, be a source of value.  in my opinion there is another valid method to attribute value to a human being, and henceforth life in general.  two key factors act a part here:   empathy, the ability to intuitively understand and relate to other people is emotions, and   sentience, the ability to experience the world around someone and perform emotional reactions to specific influences.  empathy is, as far as i see it, one of the core aspects of human morality.  in this case specifically, the ability to relate to other sentient beings morally prevents some i would even argue most humans to kill these sentient beings, because killing or the prospect of getting killed tends to cause fear among the potential victims.  fetuses, however, are not sentient up until the 0th week of pregnancy.  at least it is the legal consensus here in germany to allow an abortion up until this week, it might differ in other countries.  hence i see no moral reason to prohibit an abortion until the fetus indicates clear signals of sentience.  i would also argue against another point of yours:   a human fetus has an equally, if not greater, amount of potential for future experiences and pleasure in comparison to a person.  thus, is should follow that to deny the potential of a fetus would be morally akin to doing so for a born person.  i disagree, because of the point i stated above: the reason why i value the life of an already born person is my ability to empathize with it.  because i did not have an opportunity, and therefore not the ability, to empathize with a fetus, i do not feel compelled to value or protect its life more than the life of a living person.  i did not read the paper you linked yet.  if you would consider it necessary to discuss points from it, tell me and i will read up.  by the way, this is my first post in this subreddit.  if i violated any rules by accident, please let me know.   #  however, your point is a very good one.   #  it is not my view that birth control is equivalent to murder.  however, your point is a very good one.  in fact, based on my use of potential as a means of measuring the value of life, you could go even further and say that it brings a moral obligation to maximize the number of human beings, such that everyone should constantly be reproducing at all times.  the reason i believe that this is not the case is in the intrinsic differences between the process of abortion and contraception.  on one hand, an abortion is an active process to destroy an existing subject.  contraception, on the other hand, is to continue a nonexistence.  a fetus, if left undisturbed would eventually and naturally continue to exist.  a separate sperm and egg, however, require specific action to bring together.  to not take this action, or to take a version of this action to a different result, seems much more difficult to label as immoral.  i know that this answer is, at best, not very satisfying, or, at worst, seemingly arbitrary.  unfortunately, i have yet to find any answer in the abortion debate that does not have some level of arbitrary differentiation.  at some point from the creation of a sex cell to the birth of a child, there is a moment where it no longer becomes morally acceptable to destroy the subject.  to me, i believe that the distinction between an embryo and a separate egg and sperm is the least arbitrary.   #  only between 0 and 0 of all embryos even make it past the first trimester URL i. e.   # this is unfortunately not true.  the majority of pregnacies are not carried to term.  only between 0 and 0 of all embryos even make it past the first trimester URL i. e.  0 0 is naturally aborted , and of those making it past the first trimester a still significant number ends up in a miscarriage.  the notion that a fertilised egg will naturally develop into a life is very much not true.  it can, but most of the time it wont.  i am also very curious how you feel about ivf treatment.  for succesful ivfs a number of eggs are harvested and fertilised.  only the most viable one will be implanted, the rest will be destroyed.  so if we hold that life start at fertilisation, and that ending a fertilised egg is murder, is ivf then also not murder and should ivf not be stopped ?  #  your source says that, 0 0 of conceptions do not make it past the first trimester.   #  the problem is that the first trimester is a very wide range of time.  your source says that, 0 0 of conceptions do not make it past the first trimester.  however, it also says  the vast majority  of those failed conceptions take place  before the woman is aware of conception  and many are even  before medical practitioners can detect them .  again, this is from the very same paragraph in your source.  if we are very generous and say that  the vast majority  is around 0, that means that, of all embryos that could possibly be aborted, that about 0 0 of them will result in childbirth.  that percentage is enough for me to assume that, yes, on average, an embryo that was decidedly not aborted will naturally continue to exist.   #  it  still  means that embryos have about 0 chance to develop into human being, which diminish their overall  potential  quite a bit.   # that is a huge stretch, for at least two reasons.  firstly, because you have no way to know what percentage of unaware miscarriage would have continued to full development.  secondly, because being unaware of the pregnancy does not mean you can cast aside the statistic.  it  still  means that embryos have about 0 chance to develop into human being, which diminish their overall  potential  quite a bit.  especially compared to something like third trimesters fetuses or even newborns.  this should naturally factor in your  potential  analysis to determine person hood.  otherwise, you are not using the least arbitrary distinction possible, something you have apparently based your view upon.
you may have seen news that blacklivesmatter protesters interrupted a bernie sanders campaign event in seattle.  i think this was wrong to do, because he has fought for civil rights before and his economic platform greatly fights for the poor and working class, in which black people are disproportionately represented.  i also think many of the things that were said by these protesters were racist or at least bigoted in their own right, like criticizing bernie sanders for being white.  why did these protesters think that this was a good thing to do ? why did they think it helps their cause ?  #  i think this was wrong to do, because he has fought for civil rights before and his economic platform greatly fights for the poor and working class, in which black people are disproportionately represented.   #  i do not disagree with you here, but understand that the women who interrupted him probably chose bernie because he had less security at his speech and because of his previous activism for racial equality.   # i do not disagree with you here, but understand that the women who interrupted him probably chose bernie because he had less security at his speech and because of his previous activism for racial equality.  and here is where i really disagree with you.  what, in particular, was racist about what they said ? my understanding is that the bulk of what they said was that many  progressives  can still bequite racist, judging from the reactions she got from the crowd including people shouting   alllivesmatter  and  arrest her  .  also please show me where she explicitly criticized bernie for  being white .  why did they think it helps their cause ? mlk did not follow the rules either.  he defied segregation laws all the freaking time.  sometimes activists need to break the law or do things that are normally considered rude or unethical to get their goal across.   #  that even when  meeting half way  on controversial issues,  half way  is only defined by the white parties.   #  i got lunch today with a group of friends who range from liberals focused issues facing the black community to more radical black liberation politics.  they saw the issue as a matter of access, it was an easy soap box to stand on.  you have to understand among some strongly liberal black activists there is a deep mistrust of white led progressivism.  the example that bernie sanders voted to extradite assata shakur was brought up a lot as an example of a progressive politician using civil rights when it is convenient but avoiding more controversial issues that many black activist see as important.  that even when  meeting half way  on controversial issues,  half way  is only defined by the white parties.  that in the long run even progressive politicians with a good civil rights record still need to be put under pressure so black progressive activism is not swept to the side.  not that i agree that it is a good strategy or not but just trying to provide some perspective  #  but that feels like they are pressuring someone to be a single issue candidate.   #  but that feels like they are pressuring someone to be a single issue candidate.  if 0 of his candidacy is stuff that directly works to their benefit whether directly civil rights/race stuff or secondary stuff like making sure that poor women have access to health care and the other 0 is neutral at worst, does he have to be 0 all race all the time ? with assata shakur, she was convicted of a crime.  if say, he had a record voting against extradition for white criminals there might be a point there, but surely nobody thinks that you have to be so pro civil rights that you let people convicted of murder go free.  i get that there is a lot of distrust especially aimed at the  brogressive  white crowd and it is not entirely unearned.  can you elaborate on your  ameeting half way  point please ?  #  i am going to start with the caveat that i am not trying to change your overall opinion.   #  i am going to start with the caveat that i am not trying to change your overall opinion.  i am only trying change your opinion on this particular segment of your reasoning:  . this was wrong to do,  because he has fought for civil rights before and his economic platform greatly fights for the poor and working class, in which black people are disproportionately represented .   i totally agree that bernie sanders has one of the better records on civil rights among the candidates who are running.  however, that makes him a better target, not a worse one.  it would be completely pointless to show up at a donald trump rally and say something about black lives matter or any racial issue .  donald trump is a clear and overt racist.  there is nothing that can be done to make donald trump a good candidate on race.  bernie sanders is a relatively good candidate on race, but many people who have race as the primary political issue that they care about believe that he could be better.  by targeting sanders, who is already a relatively good candidate on race, people can put pressure on him to make race a primary element of his campaign and to refine his opinions on policies regarding racism and social justice.  i do not know what the motivations of these women necessarily were their message was very muddied by a lot of factors and i do not think their actions were appropriate or helpful at this time.  but i think the idea that bernie sanders should be free of criticism on racial issues specifically because he has a decent history on them is silly.  if people who are not satisfied with his record at this time criticize him and he steps up to the plate, they might have a candidate they actually want to vote for.   #  people are probably looking up his history in response to this.   #  i think it depends on your perspective.  i think blm lost support from the people who think the two women are representative of the entire movement.  but.  in a weird way i think this was exactly what sanders needed.  in fact, he owes these two women big time.  he is been polling horrifically and now he is got national coverage.  people are probably looking up his history in response to this.
you may have seen news that blacklivesmatter protesters interrupted a bernie sanders campaign event in seattle.  i think this was wrong to do, because he has fought for civil rights before and his economic platform greatly fights for the poor and working class, in which black people are disproportionately represented.  i also think many of the things that were said by these protesters were racist or at least bigoted in their own right, like criticizing bernie sanders for being white.  why did these protesters think that this was a good thing to do ? why did they think it helps their cause ?  #  i also think many of the things that were said by these protesters were racist or at least bigoted in their own right, like criticizing bernie sanders for being white.   #  and here is where i really disagree with you.   # i do not disagree with you here, but understand that the women who interrupted him probably chose bernie because he had less security at his speech and because of his previous activism for racial equality.  and here is where i really disagree with you.  what, in particular, was racist about what they said ? my understanding is that the bulk of what they said was that many  progressives  can still bequite racist, judging from the reactions she got from the crowd including people shouting   alllivesmatter  and  arrest her  .  also please show me where she explicitly criticized bernie for  being white .  why did they think it helps their cause ? mlk did not follow the rules either.  he defied segregation laws all the freaking time.  sometimes activists need to break the law or do things that are normally considered rude or unethical to get their goal across.   #  the example that bernie sanders voted to extradite assata shakur was brought up a lot as an example of a progressive politician using civil rights when it is convenient but avoiding more controversial issues that many black activist see as important.   #  i got lunch today with a group of friends who range from liberals focused issues facing the black community to more radical black liberation politics.  they saw the issue as a matter of access, it was an easy soap box to stand on.  you have to understand among some strongly liberal black activists there is a deep mistrust of white led progressivism.  the example that bernie sanders voted to extradite assata shakur was brought up a lot as an example of a progressive politician using civil rights when it is convenient but avoiding more controversial issues that many black activist see as important.  that even when  meeting half way  on controversial issues,  half way  is only defined by the white parties.  that in the long run even progressive politicians with a good civil rights record still need to be put under pressure so black progressive activism is not swept to the side.  not that i agree that it is a good strategy or not but just trying to provide some perspective  #  i get that there is a lot of distrust especially aimed at the  brogressive  white crowd and it is not entirely unearned.   #  but that feels like they are pressuring someone to be a single issue candidate.  if 0 of his candidacy is stuff that directly works to their benefit whether directly civil rights/race stuff or secondary stuff like making sure that poor women have access to health care and the other 0 is neutral at worst, does he have to be 0 all race all the time ? with assata shakur, she was convicted of a crime.  if say, he had a record voting against extradition for white criminals there might be a point there, but surely nobody thinks that you have to be so pro civil rights that you let people convicted of murder go free.  i get that there is a lot of distrust especially aimed at the  brogressive  white crowd and it is not entirely unearned.  can you elaborate on your  ameeting half way  point please ?  #  by targeting sanders, who is already a relatively good candidate on race, people can put pressure on him to make race a primary element of his campaign and to refine his opinions on policies regarding racism and social justice.   #  i am going to start with the caveat that i am not trying to change your overall opinion.  i am only trying change your opinion on this particular segment of your reasoning:  . this was wrong to do,  because he has fought for civil rights before and his economic platform greatly fights for the poor and working class, in which black people are disproportionately represented .   i totally agree that bernie sanders has one of the better records on civil rights among the candidates who are running.  however, that makes him a better target, not a worse one.  it would be completely pointless to show up at a donald trump rally and say something about black lives matter or any racial issue .  donald trump is a clear and overt racist.  there is nothing that can be done to make donald trump a good candidate on race.  bernie sanders is a relatively good candidate on race, but many people who have race as the primary political issue that they care about believe that he could be better.  by targeting sanders, who is already a relatively good candidate on race, people can put pressure on him to make race a primary element of his campaign and to refine his opinions on policies regarding racism and social justice.  i do not know what the motivations of these women necessarily were their message was very muddied by a lot of factors and i do not think their actions were appropriate or helpful at this time.  but i think the idea that bernie sanders should be free of criticism on racial issues specifically because he has a decent history on them is silly.  if people who are not satisfied with his record at this time criticize him and he steps up to the plate, they might have a candidate they actually want to vote for.   #  in a weird way i think this was exactly what sanders needed.   #  i think it depends on your perspective.  i think blm lost support from the people who think the two women are representative of the entire movement.  but.  in a weird way i think this was exactly what sanders needed.  in fact, he owes these two women big time.  he is been polling horrifically and now he is got national coverage.  people are probably looking up his history in response to this.
you may have seen news that blacklivesmatter protesters interrupted a bernie sanders campaign event in seattle.  i think this was wrong to do, because he has fought for civil rights before and his economic platform greatly fights for the poor and working class, in which black people are disproportionately represented.  i also think many of the things that were said by these protesters were racist or at least bigoted in their own right, like criticizing bernie sanders for being white.  why did these protesters think that this was a good thing to do ? why did they think it helps their cause ?  #  why did these protesters think that this was a good thing to do ?  #  why did they think it helps their cause ?  # i do not disagree with you here, but understand that the women who interrupted him probably chose bernie because he had less security at his speech and because of his previous activism for racial equality.  and here is where i really disagree with you.  what, in particular, was racist about what they said ? my understanding is that the bulk of what they said was that many  progressives  can still bequite racist, judging from the reactions she got from the crowd including people shouting   alllivesmatter  and  arrest her  .  also please show me where she explicitly criticized bernie for  being white .  why did they think it helps their cause ? mlk did not follow the rules either.  he defied segregation laws all the freaking time.  sometimes activists need to break the law or do things that are normally considered rude or unethical to get their goal across.   #  not that i agree that it is a good strategy or not but just trying to provide some perspective  #  i got lunch today with a group of friends who range from liberals focused issues facing the black community to more radical black liberation politics.  they saw the issue as a matter of access, it was an easy soap box to stand on.  you have to understand among some strongly liberal black activists there is a deep mistrust of white led progressivism.  the example that bernie sanders voted to extradite assata shakur was brought up a lot as an example of a progressive politician using civil rights when it is convenient but avoiding more controversial issues that many black activist see as important.  that even when  meeting half way  on controversial issues,  half way  is only defined by the white parties.  that in the long run even progressive politicians with a good civil rights record still need to be put under pressure so black progressive activism is not swept to the side.  not that i agree that it is a good strategy or not but just trying to provide some perspective  #  if say, he had a record voting against extradition for white criminals there might be a point there, but surely nobody thinks that you have to be so pro civil rights that you let people convicted of murder go free.   #  but that feels like they are pressuring someone to be a single issue candidate.  if 0 of his candidacy is stuff that directly works to their benefit whether directly civil rights/race stuff or secondary stuff like making sure that poor women have access to health care and the other 0 is neutral at worst, does he have to be 0 all race all the time ? with assata shakur, she was convicted of a crime.  if say, he had a record voting against extradition for white criminals there might be a point there, but surely nobody thinks that you have to be so pro civil rights that you let people convicted of murder go free.  i get that there is a lot of distrust especially aimed at the  brogressive  white crowd and it is not entirely unearned.  can you elaborate on your  ameeting half way  point please ?  #  bernie sanders is a relatively good candidate on race, but many people who have race as the primary political issue that they care about believe that he could be better.   #  i am going to start with the caveat that i am not trying to change your overall opinion.  i am only trying change your opinion on this particular segment of your reasoning:  . this was wrong to do,  because he has fought for civil rights before and his economic platform greatly fights for the poor and working class, in which black people are disproportionately represented .   i totally agree that bernie sanders has one of the better records on civil rights among the candidates who are running.  however, that makes him a better target, not a worse one.  it would be completely pointless to show up at a donald trump rally and say something about black lives matter or any racial issue .  donald trump is a clear and overt racist.  there is nothing that can be done to make donald trump a good candidate on race.  bernie sanders is a relatively good candidate on race, but many people who have race as the primary political issue that they care about believe that he could be better.  by targeting sanders, who is already a relatively good candidate on race, people can put pressure on him to make race a primary element of his campaign and to refine his opinions on policies regarding racism and social justice.  i do not know what the motivations of these women necessarily were their message was very muddied by a lot of factors and i do not think their actions were appropriate or helpful at this time.  but i think the idea that bernie sanders should be free of criticism on racial issues specifically because he has a decent history on them is silly.  if people who are not satisfied with his record at this time criticize him and he steps up to the plate, they might have a candidate they actually want to vote for.   #  people are probably looking up his history in response to this.   #  i think it depends on your perspective.  i think blm lost support from the people who think the two women are representative of the entire movement.  but.  in a weird way i think this was exactly what sanders needed.  in fact, he owes these two women big time.  he is been polling horrifically and now he is got national coverage.  people are probably looking up his history in response to this.
0. firstly most people who say it is justified do not understand what  justices  and are using it to say  it was ok !  in a more powerful way so a more fitting way of describing the bombings would be it was acceptable for the time and given the options. kill on innocents is not justice nor is it justifiable.  0. the argument  but more people would have been killed !   is not valid as we will never know if more people were saved, but more importantly if we ca not tell if more people were saved how would the people at the time know ? adding to this that japan would of surrendered if given the option which can be argued as more people saved then the bombings not a unconditionally surrender 0. saying it was justified trivialises the death, decision caused by them and ignores the moral imprecations of the event.  this is a observation made on reddit that in discussions people are more focused in saying it is justified and giving the same reasons, rather than actually thinking about the event or have any meaningful decision .   #  0. the argument  but more people would have been killed !    #  is not valid as we will never know if more people were saved, but more importantly if we ca not tell if more people were saved how would the people at the time know ?  # is not valid as we will never know if more people were saved, but more importantly if we ca not tell if more people were saved how would the people at the time know ? this does not make a lick of sense.  you have not given a compelling argument as to why the allies should have opted for a land invasion of japan.  but japan was willing to fight tooth and nail for a battle that they were not going to win.  and even after the first bomb, japan still would not surrender ! what the hell ! so a second bomb was justified to kill thousands to save millions.   #  striking at the enemy is necessary in order to win a war a war in which, in the case, we were not even the first aggressors .   #  in a more powerful way so a more fitting way of describing the bombings would be it was acceptable for the time and given the options. kill on innocents is not justice nor is it justifiable  justified  has nothing to do with  justice .   justified: having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason .  so the question is, were the bombings done for a legitimate reason ? i would argue yes.  they killed far, far fewer people than conventional bombings during the same conflict.  striking at the enemy is necessary in order to win a war a war in which, in the case, we were not even the first aggressors .  i have never understood the  innocents  thing.  do you mean civilians ? because they are not doing anything ? sure they are; their actions make the military possible.  because they are not there by choice ? neither were a lot of the soldiers.  on both sides.  is not valid as we will never know if more people were saved, but more importantly if we ca not tell if more people were saved how would the people at the time know ? adding to this that japan would of surrendered if given the option which can be argued as more people saved then the bombings not a unconditionally surrender you do not need to be  given the option  to surrender.  you can literally just say  we surrender .  this is a observation made on reddit that in discussions people are more focused in saying it is justified and giving the same reasons, rather than actually thinking about the event or have any meaningful decision saying it is justified absolutely does not trivialise the death; it ca not.  because something trivial needs no justification.  i do not justify eating one more kernel of popcorn than my wife from a shared bowl, or stepping on an anthill; these actions are trivial, and need no excuse.  only serious actions, weighty actions, bear justification.   #  what makes the life of the troop worth less than the life of his girl back home ?  #  just: based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair.   what is more moral, using your best judgement to try to minimize your casualties, and the casualties of the enemy ? or restricting your combat to front line troops again, many of whom were not volunteers while the people in the rear support them ? what makes the life of the troop worth less than the life of his girl back home ? why should the casualties be limited to those directly involved in conflict ? in many instances, they did not choose to be involved any more than the civilians did.  and the actions of those on the front line would not be possible without those supporting them; those who support them are at least partially responsible.  maybe this is a internet only problem i would take issue more with the person who said it did not matter who was right but that it was just horrible.  obviously it was horrible.  any fool can see that.  but how could it conceivably not matter who was right or wrong ? what difference does it being horrible make, if you do not try to make actual progress towards whether or not such a thing should ever happen again ?  #  you do not know what will happen, but you kind of just have to do the math based on your best assessment of the situation.   # is not valid as we will never know if more people were saved, but more importantly if we ca not tell if more people were saved how would the people at the time know ? you are right to point out both that at the time of the decision, we did not know what would happen, and that even know, we have no good way of knowing what would have happened.  but this uncertainty cuts both ways.  harry truman did not know what would have happened if he did not act.  but if this means dropping the bombs  ca not be justified , then could not you say the same if he had not dropped the bombs ? if he had not gave the order, and even more hundreds of thousands of lives were lost, could not you just as easily say that his decision to  not  drop the bombs  ca not be justified  because he did not know what would happen ? this is just a fundamental problem of making decisions with limited information.  and unfortunately, making those sorts of decisions is literally what the president is job is.  so the questions i would ask when evaluating such an action involve imagining what other people myself included would do in his situation.  and to really think about that, you have to put yourself in his position.  you are responsible for the lives of millions of americans.  there is a war going on right now with people fighting and dying, and you do not know how its going to end.  you do not know how many more of your people are going to fight and die and suffer because of your decisions.  and now you are given the opportunity to end it all, but not without a cost.  you do not know what will happen, but you kind of just have to do the math based on your best assessment of the situation.  i do not think it was a decision that was made lightly.  we will never know if it was  right , but i think given the situation at the time, it was reasonable.  i do not know if that counts as  being justified  to you, but its enough for me not to condemn harry truman as a mass murderer.   #  it is possible none of that would have happened if america had accepted a conditional surrender.   #  a conditional surrender is not a great option, because a botched end to a conflict can just pave the way to more conflict.  look at how germany is loss in wwi and the resentment towards the reparations they had to make paved the way for wwii.  the thing both sides of a war want is for the end of the war to be the end of the current conflict and all future conflicts.  it is notable that after america won against japan, they helped rebuild japan is infrastructure, gave them a stable government and now they are considered allies.  it is possible none of that would have happened if america had accepted a conditional surrender.
i am not a death penalty advocate.  i realize and acknowledge the dangers of state executions and the danger to innocents.  however, james holmes is guilty.  beyond any reasonable doubt.  he took the lives of many others in his madness.  why should we be forced to pay for his food, housing, healthcare, etc.  for the rest of his life, as taxpayers ? is this not salt in the wounds of the victims and their families ? in clear cut cases of mass murder, what is to gain from sustaining these sick minds in a prison cell ? does not this just encourage the system of incarceration ? i mean, it seems the prison/court system has a clearcut monetary incentive for lifelong incarceration over execution.   #  he took the lives of many others in his madness.   #  why should we be forced to pay for his food, housing, healthcare, etc.  for the rest of his life, as taxpayers ?  #  heya, op ! so, these parts caught my eye the most.  why should we be forced to pay for his food, housing, healthcare, etc.  for the rest of his life, as taxpayers ? is this not salt in the wounds of the victims and their families ? one of the reasons many people are now strongly against the death penalty is that  the cost is higher URL than simply maintaining said prisoner .  through keeping them,  there is always at least a miniscule chance that this person can change, can see the error of their ways and can contribute to the economy and well being of society .  even if they do not, the cost to keep them alive is very small compared to the cost of killing.  not only is the death penalty more expensive,  it tends to kill innocents and does not deter crime .  it has exactly  zero benefits  beyond public satisfaction.  your argument here seems to be money.  it is a debunked argument.  more sources if necessary.   #  0.  why a robust system of appeals in cases where there are dozens of witnesses, confession, etc.  ?  #  0.  why a robust system of appeals in cases where there are dozens of witnesses, confession, etc.  ? this is as clear cut as it gets.  likewise with most mass murderers.  0.  my desire is not to cause more suffering nor does it reside in a belief that justice can measured by some ratio of pain.  the issue with a miserable life in prison is that it costs a lot of money and infrastructure to provide.  0.  who cares if he ever feels guilt ? what comfort is that to anyone ? 0.  /u/appropriate username : like i said, i realize there can be exonerating evidence and all cases are not so clear cut.  but in instances like this, where there is literally no reason to doubt, what is the point ?  #  so you would need two systems then one for what you suggest are clear cut cases, and one for other cases.   # this is as clear cut as it gets.  likewise with most mass murderers.  so you would need two systems then one for what you suggest are clear cut cases, and one for other cases.  as far as i know, there is no real precedent for this sort of thing in other areas of law, and it would raise significant dangers in terms of drawing the line in the wrong place.  the issue with a miserable life in prison is that it costs a lot of money and infrastructure to provide.  presumably justice is not determined by whatever option is cheapest even if we did make it cheaper to lock such people up, which it is not at present .  what comfort is that to anyone ? the victims of the families may care.  it can be a comfort to someone if they know that the criminal regrets what they did, rather than being unrepentant.  some family members may want to forgive the criminal, for example, but they may believe that the criminal must want to be forgiven, and that is not possible if they are executed before they can come to terms with what they did.   #  wait, this just seems like a way to side step the argument.   # it has exactly zero benefits beyond public satisfaction.  wait, this just seems like a way to side step the argument.  sure it cost more, but not for valid reasons.  at least theoretically, it costs as much as a length of rope, or a bullet, or some cyanide, etc.  to execute someone.  leaving prisoners on death row for 0 years is obviously expensive.  but in cases like this, where appeals would be pointless, i see no reason to sustain an evil individual for life.   #  what do you think we should have to distinguish which people should not get a trial ?  #  i know what you are saying, and intuitively, it makes sense.  you have to realize that laws are made with no exceptions.  so, you have to state clearly and without loophole each law.  death penalty ? no death penalty ? or, in your case,  death penalty for prisoners where appeals would be pointless because the person is clearly evil ? maybe something more nuanced, right ? what do you think we should have to distinguish which people should not get a trial ? fair trials  take a lot of preparation when a life is at stake, so you are right, a  lot  of money could be saved if we skipped the whole thing, but you must understand that there is no easy way to distinguish who lives and who dies without appeal.  that is a big issue.  and remember that even if it is not as common as we would ideally want, even violent criminals can become functioning members of society URL even mass murderers URL
i am not a death penalty advocate.  i realize and acknowledge the dangers of state executions and the danger to innocents.  however, james holmes is guilty.  beyond any reasonable doubt.  he took the lives of many others in his madness.  why should we be forced to pay for his food, housing, healthcare, etc.  for the rest of his life, as taxpayers ? is this not salt in the wounds of the victims and their families ? in clear cut cases of mass murder, what is to gain from sustaining these sick minds in a prison cell ? does not this just encourage the system of incarceration ? i mean, it seems the prison/court system has a clearcut monetary incentive for lifelong incarceration over execution.   #  i mean, it seems the prison/court system has a clearcut monetary incentive for lifelong incarceration over execution.   #  actually it is just the opposite execution is far more expensive than life in prison.   # actually it is just the opposite execution is far more expensive than life in prison.  here is a link URL about that.  no he will be incarcerated for life and the justice system worked as it should.  executing him does not bring their loved ones back.  holmes is one of few mass killers who did not commit suicide or get killed by the police.  it could be extremely valuable for psychiatrists and doctors to have access to him and perhaps be able to study the mind of someone who would commit this kind of violence.   #  the issue with a miserable life in prison is that it costs a lot of money and infrastructure to provide.   #  0.  why a robust system of appeals in cases where there are dozens of witnesses, confession, etc.  ? this is as clear cut as it gets.  likewise with most mass murderers.  0.  my desire is not to cause more suffering nor does it reside in a belief that justice can measured by some ratio of pain.  the issue with a miserable life in prison is that it costs a lot of money and infrastructure to provide.  0.  who cares if he ever feels guilt ? what comfort is that to anyone ? 0.  /u/appropriate username : like i said, i realize there can be exonerating evidence and all cases are not so clear cut.  but in instances like this, where there is literally no reason to doubt, what is the point ?  #  as far as i know, there is no real precedent for this sort of thing in other areas of law, and it would raise significant dangers in terms of drawing the line in the wrong place.   # this is as clear cut as it gets.  likewise with most mass murderers.  so you would need two systems then one for what you suggest are clear cut cases, and one for other cases.  as far as i know, there is no real precedent for this sort of thing in other areas of law, and it would raise significant dangers in terms of drawing the line in the wrong place.  the issue with a miserable life in prison is that it costs a lot of money and infrastructure to provide.  presumably justice is not determined by whatever option is cheapest even if we did make it cheaper to lock such people up, which it is not at present .  what comfort is that to anyone ? the victims of the families may care.  it can be a comfort to someone if they know that the criminal regrets what they did, rather than being unrepentant.  some family members may want to forgive the criminal, for example, but they may believe that the criminal must want to be forgiven, and that is not possible if they are executed before they can come to terms with what they did.   #  through keeping them,  there is always at least a miniscule chance that this person can change, can see the error of their ways and can contribute to the economy and well being of society .   #  heya, op ! so, these parts caught my eye the most.  why should we be forced to pay for his food, housing, healthcare, etc.  for the rest of his life, as taxpayers ? is this not salt in the wounds of the victims and their families ? one of the reasons many people are now strongly against the death penalty is that  the cost is higher URL than simply maintaining said prisoner .  through keeping them,  there is always at least a miniscule chance that this person can change, can see the error of their ways and can contribute to the economy and well being of society .  even if they do not, the cost to keep them alive is very small compared to the cost of killing.  not only is the death penalty more expensive,  it tends to kill innocents and does not deter crime .  it has exactly  zero benefits  beyond public satisfaction.  your argument here seems to be money.  it is a debunked argument.  more sources if necessary.   #  sure it cost more, but not for valid reasons.   # it has exactly zero benefits beyond public satisfaction.  wait, this just seems like a way to side step the argument.  sure it cost more, but not for valid reasons.  at least theoretically, it costs as much as a length of rope, or a bullet, or some cyanide, etc.  to execute someone.  leaving prisoners on death row for 0 years is obviously expensive.  but in cases like this, where appeals would be pointless, i see no reason to sustain an evil individual for life.
i am not a death penalty advocate.  i realize and acknowledge the dangers of state executions and the danger to innocents.  however, james holmes is guilty.  beyond any reasonable doubt.  he took the lives of many others in his madness.  why should we be forced to pay for his food, housing, healthcare, etc.  for the rest of his life, as taxpayers ? is this not salt in the wounds of the victims and their families ? in clear cut cases of mass murder, what is to gain from sustaining these sick minds in a prison cell ? does not this just encourage the system of incarceration ? i mean, it seems the prison/court system has a clearcut monetary incentive for lifelong incarceration over execution.   #  is this not salt in the wounds of the victims and their families ?  #  no he will be incarcerated for life and the justice system worked as it should.   # actually it is just the opposite execution is far more expensive than life in prison.  here is a link URL about that.  no he will be incarcerated for life and the justice system worked as it should.  executing him does not bring their loved ones back.  holmes is one of few mass killers who did not commit suicide or get killed by the police.  it could be extremely valuable for psychiatrists and doctors to have access to him and perhaps be able to study the mind of someone who would commit this kind of violence.   #  but in instances like this, where there is literally no reason to doubt, what is the point ?  #  0.  why a robust system of appeals in cases where there are dozens of witnesses, confession, etc.  ? this is as clear cut as it gets.  likewise with most mass murderers.  0.  my desire is not to cause more suffering nor does it reside in a belief that justice can measured by some ratio of pain.  the issue with a miserable life in prison is that it costs a lot of money and infrastructure to provide.  0.  who cares if he ever feels guilt ? what comfort is that to anyone ? 0.  /u/appropriate username : like i said, i realize there can be exonerating evidence and all cases are not so clear cut.  but in instances like this, where there is literally no reason to doubt, what is the point ?  #  so you would need two systems then one for what you suggest are clear cut cases, and one for other cases.   # this is as clear cut as it gets.  likewise with most mass murderers.  so you would need two systems then one for what you suggest are clear cut cases, and one for other cases.  as far as i know, there is no real precedent for this sort of thing in other areas of law, and it would raise significant dangers in terms of drawing the line in the wrong place.  the issue with a miserable life in prison is that it costs a lot of money and infrastructure to provide.  presumably justice is not determined by whatever option is cheapest even if we did make it cheaper to lock such people up, which it is not at present .  what comfort is that to anyone ? the victims of the families may care.  it can be a comfort to someone if they know that the criminal regrets what they did, rather than being unrepentant.  some family members may want to forgive the criminal, for example, but they may believe that the criminal must want to be forgiven, and that is not possible if they are executed before they can come to terms with what they did.   #  it has exactly  zero benefits  beyond public satisfaction.   #  heya, op ! so, these parts caught my eye the most.  why should we be forced to pay for his food, housing, healthcare, etc.  for the rest of his life, as taxpayers ? is this not salt in the wounds of the victims and their families ? one of the reasons many people are now strongly against the death penalty is that  the cost is higher URL than simply maintaining said prisoner .  through keeping them,  there is always at least a miniscule chance that this person can change, can see the error of their ways and can contribute to the economy and well being of society .  even if they do not, the cost to keep them alive is very small compared to the cost of killing.  not only is the death penalty more expensive,  it tends to kill innocents and does not deter crime .  it has exactly  zero benefits  beyond public satisfaction.  your argument here seems to be money.  it is a debunked argument.  more sources if necessary.   #  it has exactly zero benefits beyond public satisfaction.   # it has exactly zero benefits beyond public satisfaction.  wait, this just seems like a way to side step the argument.  sure it cost more, but not for valid reasons.  at least theoretically, it costs as much as a length of rope, or a bullet, or some cyanide, etc.  to execute someone.  leaving prisoners on death row for 0 years is obviously expensive.  but in cases like this, where appeals would be pointless, i see no reason to sustain an evil individual for life.
i am not a death penalty advocate.  i realize and acknowledge the dangers of state executions and the danger to innocents.  however, james holmes is guilty.  beyond any reasonable doubt.  he took the lives of many others in his madness.  why should we be forced to pay for his food, housing, healthcare, etc.  for the rest of his life, as taxpayers ? is this not salt in the wounds of the victims and their families ? in clear cut cases of mass murder, what is to gain from sustaining these sick minds in a prison cell ? does not this just encourage the system of incarceration ? i mean, it seems the prison/court system has a clearcut monetary incentive for lifelong incarceration over execution.   #  in clear cut cases of mass murder, what is to gain from sustaining these sick minds in a prison cell ?  #  holmes is one of few mass killers who did not commit suicide or get killed by the police.   # actually it is just the opposite execution is far more expensive than life in prison.  here is a link URL about that.  no he will be incarcerated for life and the justice system worked as it should.  executing him does not bring their loved ones back.  holmes is one of few mass killers who did not commit suicide or get killed by the police.  it could be extremely valuable for psychiatrists and doctors to have access to him and perhaps be able to study the mind of someone who would commit this kind of violence.   #  0.  my desire is not to cause more suffering nor does it reside in a belief that justice can measured by some ratio of pain.   #  0.  why a robust system of appeals in cases where there are dozens of witnesses, confession, etc.  ? this is as clear cut as it gets.  likewise with most mass murderers.  0.  my desire is not to cause more suffering nor does it reside in a belief that justice can measured by some ratio of pain.  the issue with a miserable life in prison is that it costs a lot of money and infrastructure to provide.  0.  who cares if he ever feels guilt ? what comfort is that to anyone ? 0.  /u/appropriate username : like i said, i realize there can be exonerating evidence and all cases are not so clear cut.  but in instances like this, where there is literally no reason to doubt, what is the point ?  #  so you would need two systems then one for what you suggest are clear cut cases, and one for other cases.   # this is as clear cut as it gets.  likewise with most mass murderers.  so you would need two systems then one for what you suggest are clear cut cases, and one for other cases.  as far as i know, there is no real precedent for this sort of thing in other areas of law, and it would raise significant dangers in terms of drawing the line in the wrong place.  the issue with a miserable life in prison is that it costs a lot of money and infrastructure to provide.  presumably justice is not determined by whatever option is cheapest even if we did make it cheaper to lock such people up, which it is not at present .  what comfort is that to anyone ? the victims of the families may care.  it can be a comfort to someone if they know that the criminal regrets what they did, rather than being unrepentant.  some family members may want to forgive the criminal, for example, but they may believe that the criminal must want to be forgiven, and that is not possible if they are executed before they can come to terms with what they did.   #  is this not salt in the wounds of the victims and their families ?  #  heya, op ! so, these parts caught my eye the most.  why should we be forced to pay for his food, housing, healthcare, etc.  for the rest of his life, as taxpayers ? is this not salt in the wounds of the victims and their families ? one of the reasons many people are now strongly against the death penalty is that  the cost is higher URL than simply maintaining said prisoner .  through keeping them,  there is always at least a miniscule chance that this person can change, can see the error of their ways and can contribute to the economy and well being of society .  even if they do not, the cost to keep them alive is very small compared to the cost of killing.  not only is the death penalty more expensive,  it tends to kill innocents and does not deter crime .  it has exactly  zero benefits  beyond public satisfaction.  your argument here seems to be money.  it is a debunked argument.  more sources if necessary.   #  it has exactly zero benefits beyond public satisfaction.   # it has exactly zero benefits beyond public satisfaction.  wait, this just seems like a way to side step the argument.  sure it cost more, but not for valid reasons.  at least theoretically, it costs as much as a length of rope, or a bullet, or some cyanide, etc.  to execute someone.  leaving prisoners on death row for 0 years is obviously expensive.  but in cases like this, where appeals would be pointless, i see no reason to sustain an evil individual for life.
i do not often pirate stuff, i have not pirated any games in the past eight years or so and only pirate movies that i have no convenient way to see i. e.  are not available anywhere for digital purchase or rental for a reasonable price .  i rarely pirate music, and only pirate music when i cannot find a legal streaming source, so i ca not try the artist or tracks before buying them.  however i only do these things because i feel compelled to by the quality of the product, not because of any moral obligation.  i actually feel zero moral obligation to not jusst pirate anything.  i choose not to because i feel like paying for them.  i believe that i do not have any moral obligation to pay for things i can digitally pirate because, in short, there is no difference between me paying $0 for a game to an online store or paying $0 to a seeder to torrent it.  both  sellers  have the game and are offering to give it to me for different prices.  that is my transaction and that is my involvement with the product; if a studio is employees starve because many people did not pay for the game, that is really not anyone else is issue because i am not the one who commissioned this game, the game was made whether or not i inteded to purchase it, and the onus of figuring out how to pay their employees falls upon the people responsible for the creation of the game, not me.  if more games wo not be made like this due to piracy, that is irrelevant because i am not morally obligated to enable the developer to continue making games.  ultimately, the result for the developer is the same; either i do not play the game at all and they get zero dollars, or i play the game without their permission and they get zero dollars.  in either case, i have not removed anything from them or taken anything physical away from them.  i have merely gained something, and the costs have been generously footed by the seeders.  the only exception is if i  did  have some hand in  commissioning  the project; for example, if i took part in a kickstarter.  that means i am essentially asking them to make the game for me and then it means that i am responsible for them getting payment from me.  but unless i asked them to make the game, i have no responsiility to pay for it.   #  but unless i asked them to make the game, i have no responsiility to pay for it.   #  that is not actually how society works.   # that is not actually how society works.  lets apply that logic to literally anything else.  that is the exact argument as you are making.  except  even though  i did not ask for it to happen, i  need  for it to happen and i  benefit  from it is existence.  further, the planet cannot wait until i am of a legal voting age to decide whether a military should exist.  the point that i am making is that the logic is flawed.  you are attempting to rationalize immoral behavior by shirking your responsibility to a social contract.  what about the exact opposite ? let is say that society allows for people to live outside of the law.  you did not ask for it so you are not a part of it.  you can freely break the law without moral considerations.  however, someone breaks into your house and steals everything you have and kills your dog.  do you call the police ? what obligation do they have to serve you specifically ? in a world where everyone has equal expectations set on them they do.  but if you exist outside of the boundaries of law, then you have cherry picked yourself out.  so at what point are you entitled to things and at what point do you have an obligation to things even ones you do not like as a part of a greater social agreement.   #   it is not my job to figure out how to pay the factory employees !  # you might as well claim you have no moral obligation to pay for a car you can steal.   it is not my job to figure out how to pay the factory employees !  .  in either case, i have not removed anything from them or taken anything physical away from them.  i have merely gained something, and the costs have been generously footed by the seeders.  you absolutely have removed something from them.  you are taken their intellectual property.  just because it is not a physical thing does not change the fact that it took effort to produce.  the costs are not being footed by the seeders; they are being footed by the people that invested in the creation of a game who wanted to sell it, and are instead being stolen from.   #  the cost of the distribution of the game is being footed by the seeders and by me, for using my own infrastructure.   # okay, but this does not even address my point; it has nothing go do with me paying for their stuff.  i am not taking anything from them; i am removing no resources from their possession.  the production of the game was already done.  what i am paying for, therefore, is the service by which i am enabled to play the game, for example.  either, say, steam gives it to me for $0 or razor0 gives it to me for $0.   it is not my job to figure out how to pay the factory employees !   your comparison depends on piracy and car theft being equivalent, but you have given no reason for me to believe this.  scarcity is virtually nonexistent for digital goods.  economically, it is value is zero; what is being sold is legal approval to play the game.  morally, there is no difference between me purchasing a game legally or  purchasing  it for $0 from a seeder.  you are taken their intellectual property.  you ca not  take someone is intellectual property  because intellectual property is not a physical good, and whether or not something is classified as someone is intellectual property is entirely a legal matter, not a moral one.  just because effort was necessary to produce it does not mean that it is now equatable to a physical good; unlike a physical good, digital goods cannot be  taken , only reproduced.  the cost of the distribution of the game is being footed by the seeders and by me, for using my own infrastructure.  the cost of the  production  of the game has no moral relation to me; i played no part in its production and am not taking away the producer is product.  i am making a copy for my own use.   #  and you are taking their work without permission.   # you make two different claims here and i do not think they are as equivalent as you think.  you are taking something from them.  it is not tangible and it is not something that they could recover in either case, but you are taking something nonetheless.  you are taking their work.  you are taking the product of their creativity, intellect and knowledge.  they are not transferring directly to you, but you are taking it still.  morally, there is no difference between me purchasing a game legally or  purchasing  it for $0 from a seeder.  it is value is not zero.  it is the result of production.  whether the goods are physical or intellectual, the economy of production is the same and the value is never zero.  morally there is a difference.  again, this is the product of people is work.  they have put hundreds or thousands of hours into this specific game, but they have also put thousands of hours into learning the skills necessary to create the game.  you are taking their knowledge without permission.  and you are taking their work without permission.  just because effort was necessary to produce it does not mean that it is now equatable to a physical good; unlike a physical good, digital goods cannot be  taken , only reproduced.  again, you have completely forgotten that people worked to create these things.  intellectual property refers to the product of a person is mind and it cannot simply be ignored.  you say you are taking nothing from the people who made the game, yet you are getting something that you have not produced.  how can you gain something from nothing ?  #  you are benefitting from the work of another, but simply working on something does not create any obligation in others.   # you are taking something from them.  it is not tangible and it is not something that they could recover in either case, but you are taking something nonetheless.  you are taking their work.  you are taking the product of their creativity, intellect and knowledge.  they are not transferring directly to you, but you are taking it still.  that simply is not what the word  take  means.  when one takes from another, the latter by definition must no longer have it.  you are benefitting from the work of another, but simply working on something does not create any obligation in others.  if i put up a streetlight outside my house, i could not demand payment from my neighbours for sharing the light.  that is the crux of the argument.  those on the other side of the aisle obviously reject the concept of intellectual property.
i do not often pirate stuff, i have not pirated any games in the past eight years or so and only pirate movies that i have no convenient way to see i. e.  are not available anywhere for digital purchase or rental for a reasonable price .  i rarely pirate music, and only pirate music when i cannot find a legal streaming source, so i ca not try the artist or tracks before buying them.  however i only do these things because i feel compelled to by the quality of the product, not because of any moral obligation.  i actually feel zero moral obligation to not jusst pirate anything.  i choose not to because i feel like paying for them.  i believe that i do not have any moral obligation to pay for things i can digitally pirate because, in short, there is no difference between me paying $0 for a game to an online store or paying $0 to a seeder to torrent it.  both  sellers  have the game and are offering to give it to me for different prices.  that is my transaction and that is my involvement with the product; if a studio is employees starve because many people did not pay for the game, that is really not anyone else is issue because i am not the one who commissioned this game, the game was made whether or not i inteded to purchase it, and the onus of figuring out how to pay their employees falls upon the people responsible for the creation of the game, not me.  if more games wo not be made like this due to piracy, that is irrelevant because i am not morally obligated to enable the developer to continue making games.  ultimately, the result for the developer is the same; either i do not play the game at all and they get zero dollars, or i play the game without their permission and they get zero dollars.  in either case, i have not removed anything from them or taken anything physical away from them.  i have merely gained something, and the costs have been generously footed by the seeders.  the only exception is if i  did  have some hand in  commissioning  the project; for example, if i took part in a kickstarter.  that means i am essentially asking them to make the game for me and then it means that i am responsible for them getting payment from me.  but unless i asked them to make the game, i have no responsiility to pay for it.   #  in short, there is no difference between me paying $0 for a game to an online store or paying $0 to a seeder to torrent it.   #  both  sellers  have the game and are offering to give it to me for different prices.   # but it has been figured out.  the studio, in providing the game to the public, is entitled to monetary compensation by every user.  the expectation is that the user is a law abiding citizen who will pay for the product, whether it is tangible or digital.  business is founded on this model.  on the one hand you did not ask for the studio to make the game, yet you somehow feel entitled to reap the benefits of playing that game.  explain that.  both  sellers  have the game and are offering to give it to me for different prices.  a seeder may have paid for the original copy, but the license between the copyright owner and the licensee depending on your jurisdiction likely does not give them the liberty to make further copies.  they are not a  seller  in the legal sense.  i imagine you are in a jurisdiction where this is the case ?  #  i have merely gained something, and the costs have been generously footed by the seeders.   # you might as well claim you have no moral obligation to pay for a car you can steal.   it is not my job to figure out how to pay the factory employees !  .  in either case, i have not removed anything from them or taken anything physical away from them.  i have merely gained something, and the costs have been generously footed by the seeders.  you absolutely have removed something from them.  you are taken their intellectual property.  just because it is not a physical thing does not change the fact that it took effort to produce.  the costs are not being footed by the seeders; they are being footed by the people that invested in the creation of a game who wanted to sell it, and are instead being stolen from.   #  okay, but this does not even address my point; it has nothing go do with me paying for their stuff.   # okay, but this does not even address my point; it has nothing go do with me paying for their stuff.  i am not taking anything from them; i am removing no resources from their possession.  the production of the game was already done.  what i am paying for, therefore, is the service by which i am enabled to play the game, for example.  either, say, steam gives it to me for $0 or razor0 gives it to me for $0.   it is not my job to figure out how to pay the factory employees !   your comparison depends on piracy and car theft being equivalent, but you have given no reason for me to believe this.  scarcity is virtually nonexistent for digital goods.  economically, it is value is zero; what is being sold is legal approval to play the game.  morally, there is no difference between me purchasing a game legally or  purchasing  it for $0 from a seeder.  you are taken their intellectual property.  you ca not  take someone is intellectual property  because intellectual property is not a physical good, and whether or not something is classified as someone is intellectual property is entirely a legal matter, not a moral one.  just because effort was necessary to produce it does not mean that it is now equatable to a physical good; unlike a physical good, digital goods cannot be  taken , only reproduced.  the cost of the distribution of the game is being footed by the seeders and by me, for using my own infrastructure.  the cost of the  production  of the game has no moral relation to me; i played no part in its production and am not taking away the producer is product.  i am making a copy for my own use.   #  morally, there is no difference between me purchasing a game legally or  purchasing  it for $0 from a seeder.   # you make two different claims here and i do not think they are as equivalent as you think.  you are taking something from them.  it is not tangible and it is not something that they could recover in either case, but you are taking something nonetheless.  you are taking their work.  you are taking the product of their creativity, intellect and knowledge.  they are not transferring directly to you, but you are taking it still.  morally, there is no difference between me purchasing a game legally or  purchasing  it for $0 from a seeder.  it is value is not zero.  it is the result of production.  whether the goods are physical or intellectual, the economy of production is the same and the value is never zero.  morally there is a difference.  again, this is the product of people is work.  they have put hundreds or thousands of hours into this specific game, but they have also put thousands of hours into learning the skills necessary to create the game.  you are taking their knowledge without permission.  and you are taking their work without permission.  just because effort was necessary to produce it does not mean that it is now equatable to a physical good; unlike a physical good, digital goods cannot be  taken , only reproduced.  again, you have completely forgotten that people worked to create these things.  intellectual property refers to the product of a person is mind and it cannot simply be ignored.  you say you are taking nothing from the people who made the game, yet you are getting something that you have not produced.  how can you gain something from nothing ?  #  you are taking the product of their creativity, intellect and knowledge.   # you are taking something from them.  it is not tangible and it is not something that they could recover in either case, but you are taking something nonetheless.  you are taking their work.  you are taking the product of their creativity, intellect and knowledge.  they are not transferring directly to you, but you are taking it still.  that simply is not what the word  take  means.  when one takes from another, the latter by definition must no longer have it.  you are benefitting from the work of another, but simply working on something does not create any obligation in others.  if i put up a streetlight outside my house, i could not demand payment from my neighbours for sharing the light.  that is the crux of the argument.  those on the other side of the aisle obviously reject the concept of intellectual property.
i do not often pirate stuff, i have not pirated any games in the past eight years or so and only pirate movies that i have no convenient way to see i. e.  are not available anywhere for digital purchase or rental for a reasonable price .  i rarely pirate music, and only pirate music when i cannot find a legal streaming source, so i ca not try the artist or tracks before buying them.  however i only do these things because i feel compelled to by the quality of the product, not because of any moral obligation.  i actually feel zero moral obligation to not jusst pirate anything.  i choose not to because i feel like paying for them.  i believe that i do not have any moral obligation to pay for things i can digitally pirate because, in short, there is no difference between me paying $0 for a game to an online store or paying $0 to a seeder to torrent it.  both  sellers  have the game and are offering to give it to me for different prices.  that is my transaction and that is my involvement with the product; if a studio is employees starve because many people did not pay for the game, that is really not anyone else is issue because i am not the one who commissioned this game, the game was made whether or not i inteded to purchase it, and the onus of figuring out how to pay their employees falls upon the people responsible for the creation of the game, not me.  if more games wo not be made like this due to piracy, that is irrelevant because i am not morally obligated to enable the developer to continue making games.  ultimately, the result for the developer is the same; either i do not play the game at all and they get zero dollars, or i play the game without their permission and they get zero dollars.  in either case, i have not removed anything from them or taken anything physical away from them.  i have merely gained something, and the costs have been generously footed by the seeders.  the only exception is if i  did  have some hand in  commissioning  the project; for example, if i took part in a kickstarter.  that means i am essentially asking them to make the game for me and then it means that i am responsible for them getting payment from me.  but unless i asked them to make the game, i have no responsiility to pay for it.   #  there is no difference between me paying $0 for a game to an online store or paying $0 to a seeder to torrent it.   #  both  sellers  have the game and are offering to give it to me for different prices.   # both  sellers  have the game and are offering to give it to me for different prices.  the seeder is not a  seller  since they do not have the authority to sell the game.  they only  possess  a copy of the game that they are uploading, they do not own it.  even if they ripped a copy of a game they did own, they did so without the consent of the publisher/developer.  the choice is not binary 0 or 0.  you may choose to wait and purchase the game when the price falls soon after release.   #  in either case, i have not removed anything from them or taken anything physical away from them.   # you might as well claim you have no moral obligation to pay for a car you can steal.   it is not my job to figure out how to pay the factory employees !  .  in either case, i have not removed anything from them or taken anything physical away from them.  i have merely gained something, and the costs have been generously footed by the seeders.  you absolutely have removed something from them.  you are taken their intellectual property.  just because it is not a physical thing does not change the fact that it took effort to produce.  the costs are not being footed by the seeders; they are being footed by the people that invested in the creation of a game who wanted to sell it, and are instead being stolen from.   #  the production of the game was already done.   # okay, but this does not even address my point; it has nothing go do with me paying for their stuff.  i am not taking anything from them; i am removing no resources from their possession.  the production of the game was already done.  what i am paying for, therefore, is the service by which i am enabled to play the game, for example.  either, say, steam gives it to me for $0 or razor0 gives it to me for $0.   it is not my job to figure out how to pay the factory employees !   your comparison depends on piracy and car theft being equivalent, but you have given no reason for me to believe this.  scarcity is virtually nonexistent for digital goods.  economically, it is value is zero; what is being sold is legal approval to play the game.  morally, there is no difference between me purchasing a game legally or  purchasing  it for $0 from a seeder.  you are taken their intellectual property.  you ca not  take someone is intellectual property  because intellectual property is not a physical good, and whether or not something is classified as someone is intellectual property is entirely a legal matter, not a moral one.  just because effort was necessary to produce it does not mean that it is now equatable to a physical good; unlike a physical good, digital goods cannot be  taken , only reproduced.  the cost of the distribution of the game is being footed by the seeders and by me, for using my own infrastructure.  the cost of the  production  of the game has no moral relation to me; i played no part in its production and am not taking away the producer is product.  i am making a copy for my own use.   #  and you are taking their work without permission.   # you make two different claims here and i do not think they are as equivalent as you think.  you are taking something from them.  it is not tangible and it is not something that they could recover in either case, but you are taking something nonetheless.  you are taking their work.  you are taking the product of their creativity, intellect and knowledge.  they are not transferring directly to you, but you are taking it still.  morally, there is no difference between me purchasing a game legally or  purchasing  it for $0 from a seeder.  it is value is not zero.  it is the result of production.  whether the goods are physical or intellectual, the economy of production is the same and the value is never zero.  morally there is a difference.  again, this is the product of people is work.  they have put hundreds or thousands of hours into this specific game, but they have also put thousands of hours into learning the skills necessary to create the game.  you are taking their knowledge without permission.  and you are taking their work without permission.  just because effort was necessary to produce it does not mean that it is now equatable to a physical good; unlike a physical good, digital goods cannot be  taken , only reproduced.  again, you have completely forgotten that people worked to create these things.  intellectual property refers to the product of a person is mind and it cannot simply be ignored.  you say you are taking nothing from the people who made the game, yet you are getting something that you have not produced.  how can you gain something from nothing ?  #  when one takes from another, the latter by definition must no longer have it.   # you are taking something from them.  it is not tangible and it is not something that they could recover in either case, but you are taking something nonetheless.  you are taking their work.  you are taking the product of their creativity, intellect and knowledge.  they are not transferring directly to you, but you are taking it still.  that simply is not what the word  take  means.  when one takes from another, the latter by definition must no longer have it.  you are benefitting from the work of another, but simply working on something does not create any obligation in others.  if i put up a streetlight outside my house, i could not demand payment from my neighbours for sharing the light.  that is the crux of the argument.  those on the other side of the aisle obviously reject the concept of intellectual property.
nothing brings countries together like free trade.  both countries get richer by specializing in what the do best, and in turn, become more dependent on one another.  attacking a country whom you depend on, as a customer, or as a supplier is disadvantageous.  western europe has enjoyed peace for 0 years, a span of time that it almost unprecedented in 0 years of post roman europe.  what caused this ? open free trade within its borders in the eu.  for an american example, 0 years of aggressive trade sanctions could not so much as budge the cuba government.  meanwhile, a decade of trade turned china and vietnam into capitalists.  trade sanctions never work in the long run, substitutes and competitors quickly pick up the slack.  iran has home industries for everything from fast food and soft drink to cars and airplanes.  a few points that get repeated.  wages are set by the price mechanism, if a new company enters an area, they need to pay wages to attract workers or no one will work there.  for a very poor country, what looks like a low wage to you can be a lot of money.  most people agree that peace is better than war.  unless threatened or starving, people do not want to go fight.   #  attacking a country whom you depend on, as a customer, or as a supplier is disadvantageous.   #  only if you do not seize their assets or use them as a pseudo colony.   # only if you do not seize their assets or use them as a pseudo colony.  here is a decent example of how this does not work.  let is assume japan and china have completely free trade.  currently, japan and china are sort of fighting over the senkaku islands because of the resources contained in and under the islands.  free trade would not help prevent this situation from escalating becaue both sides would still want those resources.  in fact, you could make the case that with complete free trade, those resources would become even more valuable and escalate the situation.  what caused this ? open free trade within its borders in the eu.  this is really caused by the us sending lots and lots of money to europe after the war.  without that stabilization, europe would have had to deal with a lot of chaos.  also, the eu has only been around since 0.  how do you explain the years of peace prior to that, when there was not free trade ? meanwhile, a decade of trade turned china and vietnam into capitalists.  you are not taking into account the political situation of the time.  in order for trade to be successful, communism needed to be unsuccessful first.  trade did not defeat communism.  communism defeated communism.  trade is the after effect of that.  i would also make the case that neither china, nor vietnam have been completely peaceful since their days of capitalism, and that what china does is manipulating the market and would not work in a world of free trade.  the example i would use here is, well, iran.  without sanctions, the new nuclear deal could never have been achieved.  also, let is look at north korea.  in a world of free trade, north korea and south korea would be at war.  the only reason they are not right now is because north korea knows south korea has the backing of almost the whole world compared to them.  if the us and other countries did not have south korea as a strong,  necessary  trading partner, north korea would be more powerful than their neighbors to the south and would almost certainly attack.  finally, i just want to point out that free trade would mean that most companies would do all their business in the countries with the lowest minimum wage.  this will inevitably lead to conflicts within those nations where citizens want to have a higher standard of living and the government wants to keep their wages low.  so from a domestic peace point of view, total free trade is not always the best.   #  since this is not so easy, we get a race to the bottom instead.   #  it is possible for a poor country to offer free trade while still imposing domestic constraints on industry.  so for example, they let you operate a foreign owned factory without any extra costs, but they still do not let you employ children.  the reason they tend not to, is that any country that does this receives much less investment as long as others do not.  it is a coordination problem: if developing nations could band together and agree on some common labour laws and decent enforcement , multinational companies would have to get their act together.  since this is not so easy, we get a race to the bottom instead.   #  yeah, global enforcement of labour laws is perhaps more likely to come from developed countries, but my point is that it is kind of a separate thing to free trade.   #  yeah, global enforcement of labour laws is perhaps more likely to come from developed countries, but my point is that it is kind of a separate thing to free trade.  it is an issue of quality standards, which do not necessarily vary between domestic and international products.  product standards can often be a form of protectionism, but when implemented fairly, they can actually improve the freedom of trade.  for example, if a country has trouble selling its goods, because they have an unfair reputation of poor quality, standards can ensure they get a fair shot.  product standards are part of the eu trade agreement, and it could be argued that they are an important aspect of its success.   #  i never said my solution to economic desperation was to do nothing; that is a very bold, and also totally incorrect, assumption.   # bhopal involved the breaking of many laws and regulations.  i never said my solution to economic desperation was to do nothing; that is a very bold, and also totally incorrect, assumption.  my ideal solution would involve laws enforcing more equitable trade between such nations.  and yes, bhopal involved violations; what about the rare earth industry and the graving yards ? that sort of industry is a major boon to the area, thats why people work there.  they work there because they have no other choice.  believe me, you can work at a job because you have no other choice and still hate it.  and regardless of how they feel about it, that does not change that richer countries are exploiting them.   #  even if these are the very best jobs they can get, that does not excuse that they are terrible jobs.   #  even if these are the very best jobs they can get, that does not excuse that they are terrible jobs.  we are exploiting them, terribly, and we have no good excuse.  but  free trade  is allowing us to use their desperation and need in order to make our laptops fifty bucks cheaper.  these people suffer terrible injuries and die young so we do not have to pay for safe disposal of dangerous wastes.  the environment there is being destroyed because we do not want to lower our quality of life one bit.
nothing brings countries together like free trade.  both countries get richer by specializing in what the do best, and in turn, become more dependent on one another.  attacking a country whom you depend on, as a customer, or as a supplier is disadvantageous.  western europe has enjoyed peace for 0 years, a span of time that it almost unprecedented in 0 years of post roman europe.  what caused this ? open free trade within its borders in the eu.  for an american example, 0 years of aggressive trade sanctions could not so much as budge the cuba government.  meanwhile, a decade of trade turned china and vietnam into capitalists.  trade sanctions never work in the long run, substitutes and competitors quickly pick up the slack.  iran has home industries for everything from fast food and soft drink to cars and airplanes.  a few points that get repeated.  wages are set by the price mechanism, if a new company enters an area, they need to pay wages to attract workers or no one will work there.  for a very poor country, what looks like a low wage to you can be a lot of money.  most people agree that peace is better than war.  unless threatened or starving, people do not want to go fight.   #  for an american example, 0 years of aggressive trade sanctions could not so much as budge the cuba government.   #  meanwhile, a decade of trade turned china and vietnam into capitalists.   # only if you do not seize their assets or use them as a pseudo colony.  here is a decent example of how this does not work.  let is assume japan and china have completely free trade.  currently, japan and china are sort of fighting over the senkaku islands because of the resources contained in and under the islands.  free trade would not help prevent this situation from escalating becaue both sides would still want those resources.  in fact, you could make the case that with complete free trade, those resources would become even more valuable and escalate the situation.  what caused this ? open free trade within its borders in the eu.  this is really caused by the us sending lots and lots of money to europe after the war.  without that stabilization, europe would have had to deal with a lot of chaos.  also, the eu has only been around since 0.  how do you explain the years of peace prior to that, when there was not free trade ? meanwhile, a decade of trade turned china and vietnam into capitalists.  you are not taking into account the political situation of the time.  in order for trade to be successful, communism needed to be unsuccessful first.  trade did not defeat communism.  communism defeated communism.  trade is the after effect of that.  i would also make the case that neither china, nor vietnam have been completely peaceful since their days of capitalism, and that what china does is manipulating the market and would not work in a world of free trade.  the example i would use here is, well, iran.  without sanctions, the new nuclear deal could never have been achieved.  also, let is look at north korea.  in a world of free trade, north korea and south korea would be at war.  the only reason they are not right now is because north korea knows south korea has the backing of almost the whole world compared to them.  if the us and other countries did not have south korea as a strong,  necessary  trading partner, north korea would be more powerful than their neighbors to the south and would almost certainly attack.  finally, i just want to point out that free trade would mean that most companies would do all their business in the countries with the lowest minimum wage.  this will inevitably lead to conflicts within those nations where citizens want to have a higher standard of living and the government wants to keep their wages low.  so from a domestic peace point of view, total free trade is not always the best.   #  since this is not so easy, we get a race to the bottom instead.   #  it is possible for a poor country to offer free trade while still imposing domestic constraints on industry.  so for example, they let you operate a foreign owned factory without any extra costs, but they still do not let you employ children.  the reason they tend not to, is that any country that does this receives much less investment as long as others do not.  it is a coordination problem: if developing nations could band together and agree on some common labour laws and decent enforcement , multinational companies would have to get their act together.  since this is not so easy, we get a race to the bottom instead.   #  for example, if a country has trouble selling its goods, because they have an unfair reputation of poor quality, standards can ensure they get a fair shot.   #  yeah, global enforcement of labour laws is perhaps more likely to come from developed countries, but my point is that it is kind of a separate thing to free trade.  it is an issue of quality standards, which do not necessarily vary between domestic and international products.  product standards can often be a form of protectionism, but when implemented fairly, they can actually improve the freedom of trade.  for example, if a country has trouble selling its goods, because they have an unfair reputation of poor quality, standards can ensure they get a fair shot.  product standards are part of the eu trade agreement, and it could be argued that they are an important aspect of its success.   #  and yes, bhopal involved violations; what about the rare earth industry and the graving yards ?  # bhopal involved the breaking of many laws and regulations.  i never said my solution to economic desperation was to do nothing; that is a very bold, and also totally incorrect, assumption.  my ideal solution would involve laws enforcing more equitable trade between such nations.  and yes, bhopal involved violations; what about the rare earth industry and the graving yards ? that sort of industry is a major boon to the area, thats why people work there.  they work there because they have no other choice.  believe me, you can work at a job because you have no other choice and still hate it.  and regardless of how they feel about it, that does not change that richer countries are exploiting them.   #  we are exploiting them, terribly, and we have no good excuse.   #  even if these are the very best jobs they can get, that does not excuse that they are terrible jobs.  we are exploiting them, terribly, and we have no good excuse.  but  free trade  is allowing us to use their desperation and need in order to make our laptops fifty bucks cheaper.  these people suffer terrible injuries and die young so we do not have to pay for safe disposal of dangerous wastes.  the environment there is being destroyed because we do not want to lower our quality of life one bit.
nothing brings countries together like free trade.  both countries get richer by specializing in what the do best, and in turn, become more dependent on one another.  attacking a country whom you depend on, as a customer, or as a supplier is disadvantageous.  western europe has enjoyed peace for 0 years, a span of time that it almost unprecedented in 0 years of post roman europe.  what caused this ? open free trade within its borders in the eu.  for an american example, 0 years of aggressive trade sanctions could not so much as budge the cuba government.  meanwhile, a decade of trade turned china and vietnam into capitalists.  trade sanctions never work in the long run, substitutes and competitors quickly pick up the slack.  iran has home industries for everything from fast food and soft drink to cars and airplanes.  a few points that get repeated.  wages are set by the price mechanism, if a new company enters an area, they need to pay wages to attract workers or no one will work there.  for a very poor country, what looks like a low wage to you can be a lot of money.  most people agree that peace is better than war.  unless threatened or starving, people do not want to go fight.   #  trade sanctions never work in the long run, substitutes and competitors quickly pick up the slack.  iran has home industries for everything from fast food and soft drink to cars and airplanes.   #  the example i would use here is, well, iran.   # only if you do not seize their assets or use them as a pseudo colony.  here is a decent example of how this does not work.  let is assume japan and china have completely free trade.  currently, japan and china are sort of fighting over the senkaku islands because of the resources contained in and under the islands.  free trade would not help prevent this situation from escalating becaue both sides would still want those resources.  in fact, you could make the case that with complete free trade, those resources would become even more valuable and escalate the situation.  what caused this ? open free trade within its borders in the eu.  this is really caused by the us sending lots and lots of money to europe after the war.  without that stabilization, europe would have had to deal with a lot of chaos.  also, the eu has only been around since 0.  how do you explain the years of peace prior to that, when there was not free trade ? meanwhile, a decade of trade turned china and vietnam into capitalists.  you are not taking into account the political situation of the time.  in order for trade to be successful, communism needed to be unsuccessful first.  trade did not defeat communism.  communism defeated communism.  trade is the after effect of that.  i would also make the case that neither china, nor vietnam have been completely peaceful since their days of capitalism, and that what china does is manipulating the market and would not work in a world of free trade.  the example i would use here is, well, iran.  without sanctions, the new nuclear deal could never have been achieved.  also, let is look at north korea.  in a world of free trade, north korea and south korea would be at war.  the only reason they are not right now is because north korea knows south korea has the backing of almost the whole world compared to them.  if the us and other countries did not have south korea as a strong,  necessary  trading partner, north korea would be more powerful than their neighbors to the south and would almost certainly attack.  finally, i just want to point out that free trade would mean that most companies would do all their business in the countries with the lowest minimum wage.  this will inevitably lead to conflicts within those nations where citizens want to have a higher standard of living and the government wants to keep their wages low.  so from a domestic peace point of view, total free trade is not always the best.   #  it is possible for a poor country to offer free trade while still imposing domestic constraints on industry.   #  it is possible for a poor country to offer free trade while still imposing domestic constraints on industry.  so for example, they let you operate a foreign owned factory without any extra costs, but they still do not let you employ children.  the reason they tend not to, is that any country that does this receives much less investment as long as others do not.  it is a coordination problem: if developing nations could band together and agree on some common labour laws and decent enforcement , multinational companies would have to get their act together.  since this is not so easy, we get a race to the bottom instead.   #  product standards can often be a form of protectionism, but when implemented fairly, they can actually improve the freedom of trade.   #  yeah, global enforcement of labour laws is perhaps more likely to come from developed countries, but my point is that it is kind of a separate thing to free trade.  it is an issue of quality standards, which do not necessarily vary between domestic and international products.  product standards can often be a form of protectionism, but when implemented fairly, they can actually improve the freedom of trade.  for example, if a country has trouble selling its goods, because they have an unfair reputation of poor quality, standards can ensure they get a fair shot.  product standards are part of the eu trade agreement, and it could be argued that they are an important aspect of its success.   #  i never said my solution to economic desperation was to do nothing; that is a very bold, and also totally incorrect, assumption.   # bhopal involved the breaking of many laws and regulations.  i never said my solution to economic desperation was to do nothing; that is a very bold, and also totally incorrect, assumption.  my ideal solution would involve laws enforcing more equitable trade between such nations.  and yes, bhopal involved violations; what about the rare earth industry and the graving yards ? that sort of industry is a major boon to the area, thats why people work there.  they work there because they have no other choice.  believe me, you can work at a job because you have no other choice and still hate it.  and regardless of how they feel about it, that does not change that richer countries are exploiting them.   #  the environment there is being destroyed because we do not want to lower our quality of life one bit.   #  even if these are the very best jobs they can get, that does not excuse that they are terrible jobs.  we are exploiting them, terribly, and we have no good excuse.  but  free trade  is allowing us to use their desperation and need in order to make our laptops fifty bucks cheaper.  these people suffer terrible injuries and die young so we do not have to pay for safe disposal of dangerous wastes.  the environment there is being destroyed because we do not want to lower our quality of life one bit.
ok so i went looking for this question in the archive but could not find anything, so forgive me if it is already been stated.  i believe things would be better for americans if america was to split into different countries.  i just do not think having over 0 million people living under one federal government is particularly practical.  i am not one of the guys that say  americans have lived under the guise of freedom and democracy for so long they have forgotten what it means.   all i am saying is, it does not seem very practical.  i mean really, if you though of all the people in the country that agree with you on at least ten key political issues, i think that would be enough people for a whole country.  if the us split, that would mean that the each individual citizen would have a lot more say so over their own country.  in terms of just the logistics, it just seems better than having one huge department for so many people e. g.  ira and i find it bizarre how we talk about certain issues like gun control when different gun control laws would be better for their each individual region.  it would mean more democracy.  and it is not just the us.  i think most world borders seem outdated to their current population. possible brazil.  and china and india would split into a lot more different states.  yes, i know how ridiculously unlikely this sound, but it is just my opinion.  furthermore, some countries seem to be so economically intertwined it seems like it would benefit them to fully merge together.  benelux, the baltics, i would say the balkan but nobody likes serbia apparently, the nordics, central asia, not sure how the rest of the caucasus feel about azerbaijan you guys know what i mean.  my point is that yes, i know this is unrealistic and probably never gonna happen, but truth be told, i believe it would be better for the individual citizen and more democratic for each newly created country.   #  furthermore, some countries seem to be so economically intertwined it seems like it would benefit them to fully merge together.   #  since you have suggested that some countries should come together, i think you would agree that consistent with your view the nordic countries denmark, norway, sweden, finland, and iceland should come together.   # since you have suggested that some countries should come together, i think you would agree that consistent with your view the nordic countries denmark, norway, sweden, finland, and iceland should come together.  they engage in significant trade with one another.  but it is not that simple, is it ? the cultures are similar, but they are not the same.  the languages are very different.  and there is baggage, hundreds if not thousands of years of baggage to deal with.  bringing them together is not very easy at all.  on the other hand, you suggest that splitting america into its constituent states is a good idea.  i do not think that it is.  while there are cultural differences b/w georgia and montana, the differences are much smaller when compared with differences b/w countries.  americans speak a common language, share similar values and have hundreds of years of history as the  united  states of america.  splitting them up is not going to help anyone.  more border checks, more passports, more confusion.  even if the a state does split up, it will form/continue with its own municipalities and the centralized system will still continue.  montana would replace the irs with the mrs, which would collect taxes on behalf of a central montana government, i. e.  more bureaucracy.  here is another hypothetical: at some point the us china economics relationship is going to be extremely close, much more than it is now.  do you think that it would be wise to have them merge ? what kind of government would they have ? what about the culture ? language ? i think things are okay as they are.  what do you think ?  #  and each country already has to take their own policies into consideration with other countries.   #  personally i think merging a country would a heck of a lot harder than separating one.  with international trade no country is an island per se.  you know what i am trying to say, right ? and each country already has to take their own policies into consideration with other countries.  so in terms of separation, i do not think it would relatively be such a challenge.  pakistan seceded from india, taiwan from china or china from taiwan .  i am only asking that we keep trading, but peacefully separate to have individual laws.   #  now those two countries are nuclear powers and have had limited armed conflicts.   #  pakistan did separate from india.  now those two countries are nuclear powers and have had limited armed conflicts.  china and taiwan are the result of armed conflict as well.  it is a lot harder to separate things than you perhaps think it is.  in the states there is a major ideological shift from urban areas to rural areas.  cities are islands of democratic voters often in seas of more conservative voters.  you would have to make some really odd states with almost city states in the middle of them to be able to separate like you want.  are the benefits really more than the major disadvantages.   #  smaller countries, it seems, have a lot more parties in their parliament that each further separates different ideologies within their wing.   #  i am not saying separation would be easy, just easier than merging.  you are right, the right and left wing do tend to separate by cities and rural areas ! but i think the reason we only have two parties right now has a lot to do with the size of the country.  smaller countries, it seems, have a lot more parties in their parliament that each further separates different ideologies within their wing.  a lot of right wing oriented people want more focus on the family but do not agree with immigration policies of other right wing people.  i think rather than separate based on right and left, separate and let more specific parties participate with platforms that more suits you.   #  separation of church and state would probably not really exist in many of your new countries.   #  if you you are simply looking to get more people connected to the political process, why do not you try to improve that within the current system rather than create new counties that will come with lots of new problems ? once you create a new country they would be able to pass any laws as they see fit.  major things that we take for granted, like court cases that improved situations or gave citizens rights such gay marriage for the entire land would be rewritten.  you would probably end up with regions where abortion, gay marriage and many civil rights laws would be removed.  separation of church and state would probably not really exist in many of your new countries.  is this really want you want ?
ok so i went looking for this question in the archive but could not find anything, so forgive me if it is already been stated.  i believe things would be better for americans if america was to split into different countries.  i just do not think having over 0 million people living under one federal government is particularly practical.  i am not one of the guys that say  americans have lived under the guise of freedom and democracy for so long they have forgotten what it means.   all i am saying is, it does not seem very practical.  i mean really, if you though of all the people in the country that agree with you on at least ten key political issues, i think that would be enough people for a whole country.  if the us split, that would mean that the each individual citizen would have a lot more say so over their own country.  in terms of just the logistics, it just seems better than having one huge department for so many people e. g.  ira and i find it bizarre how we talk about certain issues like gun control when different gun control laws would be better for their each individual region.  it would mean more democracy.  and it is not just the us.  i think most world borders seem outdated to their current population. possible brazil.  and china and india would split into a lot more different states.  yes, i know how ridiculously unlikely this sound, but it is just my opinion.  furthermore, some countries seem to be so economically intertwined it seems like it would benefit them to fully merge together.  benelux, the baltics, i would say the balkan but nobody likes serbia apparently, the nordics, central asia, not sure how the rest of the caucasus feel about azerbaijan you guys know what i mean.  my point is that yes, i know this is unrealistic and probably never gonna happen, but truth be told, i believe it would be better for the individual citizen and more democratic for each newly created country.   #  my point is that yes, i know this is unrealistic and probably never gonna happen, but truth be told, i believe it would be better for the individual citizen and more democratic for each newly created country.   #  i really do not think this would be the case.   # i really do not think this would be the case.  i ca not speak for the us, but here in belgium there is already a weirdly undemocratic process of  needing  to have an equal number of ministers from the regions, despite one region being smaller and less economically powerful than the others.  and the split across language communities also leads to some undemocratic things that would get us too far.  as a minor example: i could not have voted for the current prime minister even if i wanted to.  the size of a country generally is not a measure for how democratic it is.   #  with international trade no country is an island per se.   #  personally i think merging a country would a heck of a lot harder than separating one.  with international trade no country is an island per se.  you know what i am trying to say, right ? and each country already has to take their own policies into consideration with other countries.  so in terms of separation, i do not think it would relatively be such a challenge.  pakistan seceded from india, taiwan from china or china from taiwan .  i am only asking that we keep trading, but peacefully separate to have individual laws.   #  you would have to make some really odd states with almost city states in the middle of them to be able to separate like you want.   #  pakistan did separate from india.  now those two countries are nuclear powers and have had limited armed conflicts.  china and taiwan are the result of armed conflict as well.  it is a lot harder to separate things than you perhaps think it is.  in the states there is a major ideological shift from urban areas to rural areas.  cities are islands of democratic voters often in seas of more conservative voters.  you would have to make some really odd states with almost city states in the middle of them to be able to separate like you want.  are the benefits really more than the major disadvantages.   #  you are right, the right and left wing do tend to separate by cities and rural areas !  #  i am not saying separation would be easy, just easier than merging.  you are right, the right and left wing do tend to separate by cities and rural areas ! but i think the reason we only have two parties right now has a lot to do with the size of the country.  smaller countries, it seems, have a lot more parties in their parliament that each further separates different ideologies within their wing.  a lot of right wing oriented people want more focus on the family but do not agree with immigration policies of other right wing people.  i think rather than separate based on right and left, separate and let more specific parties participate with platforms that more suits you.   #  you would probably end up with regions where abortion, gay marriage and many civil rights laws would be removed.   #  if you you are simply looking to get more people connected to the political process, why do not you try to improve that within the current system rather than create new counties that will come with lots of new problems ? once you create a new country they would be able to pass any laws as they see fit.  major things that we take for granted, like court cases that improved situations or gave citizens rights such gay marriage for the entire land would be rewritten.  you would probably end up with regions where abortion, gay marriage and many civil rights laws would be removed.  separation of church and state would probably not really exist in many of your new countries.  is this really want you want ?
i have recently been told that my pro life position is  forcing my ideas on others .  i believe that it is not or that if it is then it is necessary.  this   forcing ideals on others  is an argument i hear often and i just want to understand it better.  i believe that a fetus is a human being.  i confess, that is my view, not everyone is view.  i believe an abortion is the murder of that child.  this is still my view.  not everyone is.  united states law entitles all humans to life.  passing legislation opposing abortion is simply following that idea in my way.  i am not forcing anyone to agree with me.  i am simply making sure the law is followed as i read it.  for a hypothetical: it is 0 and there is a white who believes that black people are subhuman not so uncommon at the time .  if i say no they are not subhuman.  they are human beings and i will prosecute you if you kill them am i   forcing my ideals on them  or am i simply protecting what i believe to be human life.  and even if i am  forcing my ideals  on the man is not it necessary to do so ? the abortion debate is a matter of whether the fetus is indeed entitled to the rights of a living human.  it has nothing to do with a group forcing it is ideas on another and such statements are only used to unjustly vilify the pro life movement.   #  the abortion debate is a matter of whether the fetus is indeed entitled to the rights of a living human.   #  it has nothing to do with a group forcing it is ideas on another and such statements are only used to unjustly vilify the pro life movement.   # it has nothing to do with a group forcing it is ideas on another and such statements are only used to unjustly vilify the pro life movement.  your assessment of what  forcing your ideas on others  means at face value is completely fair.  and i really liked your example with racism of course there is a difference between being black and being a fetus, but that was not the point anyway .  a more charitable reading, however, goes as follows: the arguments for  fetal right to life  are extremely weak, and it is not reasonable to use them to undermine bodily autonomy.  it does not just mean that you are forcing your opinion: it means that your opinion is not backed up enough to fuck other people because of it.   #  for instance, psychic readers are charlatans who part vulnerable people from their money with bogus and emotionally manipulative parlor tricks.   #  i think it is forcing your view on others.  sometimes that is ok.  for instance, it is my view that violent assault is morally wrong, and i believe it is appropriate to force that belief on others via the government.  so i support the criminalization of violent assault.  there are things which i think are morally wrong which i do not think should be criminal.  for instance, psychic readers are charlatans who part vulnerable people from their money with bogus and emotionally manipulative parlor tricks.  being a psychic as a profession is fundamentally evil.  however, because the principles of free speech are so important, i am not ok with the idea of using government force to imprison people for doing this act.  you are holding two views: 0.  abortion is morally wrong.  0.  abortion is the type of moral wrong which the government should use force to ban.  it is possible to hold both of these views, or just number 0, or neither 0 nor 0.  i do not think you could hold 0 but not 0.  in any case, as to the example you gave about murdering a black person yes, that is forcing your ideas on others.  but sometimes that is okay.  i wo not go after whether or not you should think abortion to be morally wrong.  i wo not even go after whether you think it should be banned by law.  but when you say something should be banned by law, you are forcing your ideas onto others, or at least trying to.   #  i do not understand how anybody can be pro life but support exemptions for rape and incest or think abortion is awful but be pro choice.   #  no, not really.  all laws involve forcing your ideas on others.  the same progressives who are pro choice want to force people into doing thousands of things they do not want to do.  telling people that they ca not own a machine gun or smoke crack or deny service to jews is also forcing an idea on everyone else.  i am pro choice, but it seems like the pivot point should be whether or at what point you think a fetus is a human life or not.  i do not understand how anybody can be pro life but support exemptions for rape and incest or think abortion is awful but be pro choice.  if you think a fetus represents human life, then the only exemption that makes sense is when the mother is life is threatened.  i do not understand how anyone can think rape or incest justified killing what they view as a baby.   #  and being a large part of the population, that will engender a widespread pattern of noncompliance with the law.   #  it can be a reasonable attack in as much as there is a higher bar when it comes to law than just individual views of morality.  here is one such attack: for a system of law to be effective at producing an orderly society, it needs to be widely respected by the people and seen as reflecting a broad consensus on what people should not do.  abortion is not an area where a broad consensus exists.  as such, a law which is passed without consensus will produce willful defiance and disrespect for the law by those who disagree with it.  and being a large part of the population, that will engender a widespread pattern of noncompliance with the law.  that then pushes people out of the protection of the law and into black markets and back alleys.  to see why this is bad, look at drug prohibition.  or alcohol prohibition.   #  in our society and in common language, the word  idea  or  belief  is not applied to a concept that is for all intents and purposes universally agreed upon.   #  you have asked this a few times:  would you agree that  forcing your ideas on others  is not a fair attack on pro life legislation ?   no, i do not agree.  it is absolutely a fair attack, because of the word  ideas  or alternatively,  beliefs  .  in our society and in common language, the word  idea  or  belief  is not applied to a concept that is for all intents and purposes universally agreed upon.  most people would not say the phrase  murder is wrong  is an  idea  or a  belief .  because basically everyone except murderers agrees on that, we talk about it as more of an objective  fact .  an underlying assumption we all have, that we then use for further discussion.  please note that this does not mean something is objective fact simply because everyone, or almost everyone, agrees.  i am just saying that is how we as a society tend to treat these topics.  on the other hand, when there is significant disagreement on a subject, the viewpoints of one side or one person is generally referred to as an  idea  or  belief .  so when people say pro lifers are trying to force their ideas on everyone else, that is a fair statement.  the converse is not really true, either.  you could not say that pro choice people are  forcing their beliefs  because by definition, that side is advocating for choice.  they are not saying you ca not do something, or saying you must do something.  they are simply saying that the choice should exist.  offering someone that choice might offend you, but you are nonetheless not being forced to do anything.
both my parents are heavily anti vax and none of their 0 kids have been vaccinated.  after leaving the nest i realized just how uncommon this was, however after years of being in the main stream, i am still not convinced that vaccines are all they are cracked up to be.  between whistle blowers william thomson, scott cooper, andrew wakefield etc and corruption within the vaccine industry, it seems like something sinister is afoot.  there are countless horror stories and it seems like everyone just shuts up about these things and keeps thumping that vaccines are the greatest.  now i am not antivaccine although i have not been immunized yet i am just not pro vaccine.  i have not seen enough to discredit this dark side of things and show undoubtedly that vaccinations are the way to go.  please change my view.   #  i have not seen enough to discredit this dark side of things and show undoubtedly that vaccinations are the way to go.   #  vaccines are one of the single greatest medical interventions that human beings have ever developed.   # vaccines are one of the single greatest medical interventions that human beings have ever developed.  i guess you know where i stand.  this anti vax hullabaloo is a bunch of nonsense, and is only present in developed countries.  parents have forgotten what polio and rubella do to children, or they would not be so cocksure when denying their children vaccinations.  i really do not care how someone raises their child religion, homeschooling, etc.  but not vaccinating them is plain stupidity.  not malice, just ignorance.  if you want, i can debunk just about any conspiracy theory you could bring up regarding vaccines, but i do not think it will be necessary.  i will just deal with the most pernicious point first, ask me for more if you need to.  one of the biggest reasons for this panic is because people think that vaccines cause autism.  they do not.  the lancet paper that started that has been thoroughly debunked.  in the meantime, there have been multiple controlled studies that have demonstrated that there is no link b/w vaccines and autism: study URL and an overview with even more available studies URL  #  0.  hooker is re analysis has also been called into question.   #  interesting.  i remain skeptical of the claims made by brian hooker and so should you.  i cannot defend the obfuscation of date by william thomson, and i am not going to.  however, i remain convinced that there is not any link b/w the mmr vaccine and autism.  i will provide a few reasons: 0.  the video itself is not proof.  it is a highly edited version of the story that hooker wants to tell, i. e.  he is doing exactly what thomson did himself by only presenting those snippets that he wants out there.  0.  even if this study had false conclusions, it is just that: one study.  there have been  multiple  rigorous studies that have also looked for a link, and found nothing.  this is typical of conspiracies everywhere.  the bad decisions of one person cast an entire field of science into disrepute.  0.  hooker is re analysis has also been called into question.  you can read about it here URL and here URL hooker has only applied those statistical analyses to the data set that serve his own purpose.   #  he actually lost his medical license over it.   # the journals that covered his articles pulled them after it was discovered that he accepted money from interested parties.  he actually lost his medical license over it.  there is a vast medical consensus that vaccines are safe and effective.  the fact is, there really is not a controversy in medically knowledgable spheres.  it is only the uneducated, following charlatans that has created an  illusion  of controversy in a very similar manner to climate change deniers .  always look at  where  the controversy is coming from.  research some of the diseases these vaccines cured and then talk about  horror stories .  the rare harm that vaccines cause is far outweighed by the elimination of the diseases.  that is not to say that the vaccine and larger medical industry is entirely without issue, but there is no reputable organization that doubts a the effectiveness of vaccines or b the general not perfect safety.  it may be helpful to know what exactly you think is wrong with vaccines, so we can narrow the articles we show you.   #  you raise a good point though, the stories of cases with vaccine preventable diseases are almost certainly worse than the mal effects today, especially given the frequency back then.   #  i guess that is the problem, besides the whole autism thing it is just a general bad stigma about vaccines, not really anything in particular.  you raise a good point though, the stories of cases with vaccine preventable diseases are almost certainly worse than the mal effects today, especially given the frequency back then.    for making me realize that while everyone is getting caught up with the few cases of possible vaccine side effects, they are completely forgetting about the plethora of terrible diseases people would otherwise be burdened with.  i think the important thing is to acknowledge that nobody is saying vaccines are absolutely perfect.  i guess this is a strawman set up by anti vaxxers.  what people are really saying is that vaccines are incredibly helpful at irradicating disease and though they carry risk, this risk is highly improbable compared to the benefit.   #  i totally with /u/rustyrook as he says vaccines are one of the single greatest medical interventions that human beings have ever developed.   #  i totally with /u/rustyrook as he says vaccines are one of the single greatest medical interventions that human beings have ever developed.  the only reason i think that so many people distrust vacinnes is due to the lancet article of andrew wakefield.  which been retracted URL and after investigation wakefield was struck off the medical register in the uk.  there have been many studies on vaccines and autism and to my knowledge all of them have concluded that vaccines do not cause autism.  i just go through a couple here.  h.  honda et all.  URL have studied children in yokohama.  with the hypothesis: vaccines causes autism.  they saw the vaccination rate drop, but the autsim rate go up.  conclusion:  mmr vaccination is most unlikely to be a main cause of asd.   k. m.  madsen et al.  URL research from denmark.  a studie of 0,0 children.  conclusion:  this study provides strong evidence against the hypothesis that mmr vaccination causes autism.   j. s. gerber et al.  URL they have took 0 studies done in different countries and reviewed them.  conclusion:  these studies, . , have effectively dismissed the notion that vaccines cause autism.   b.  taylor URL also a literature review.  conclusion:  there is no scientific evidence that the measles, mumps and rubella mmr vaccine or the mercury preservative used in some vaccines plays any part in the aetiology or triggering of autism, .      w.  chen et al.  URL studied people with autism and down syndrome born between 0 and 0.  in this group there were children that were not vaccinated, vaccinated with only the measles vaccine and vaccinated with the mmr vaccine the same vaccine used in the article of wakefield conclusion:  no increased risk of ad following exposures to wild measles and vaccinations with monovalent measles, and urabe or jeryl lynn variants of mmr was detected.   i can find a lot more studies that conclude vaccines and autism do not have a connection.  what i ca not find however is a scientific study that concludes that vaccines causes autism.  if you know one i am very interested to read it.  from what i understand the autism thing is the biggest problem for the anti vaxers, but if there is more i am willing to go into it with you.
both my parents are heavily anti vax and none of their 0 kids have been vaccinated.  after leaving the nest i realized just how uncommon this was, however after years of being in the main stream, i am still not convinced that vaccines are all they are cracked up to be.  between whistle blowers william thomson, scott cooper, andrew wakefield etc and corruption within the vaccine industry, it seems like something sinister is afoot.  there are countless horror stories and it seems like everyone just shuts up about these things and keeps thumping that vaccines are the greatest.  now i am not antivaccine although i have not been immunized yet i am just not pro vaccine.  i have not seen enough to discredit this dark side of things and show undoubtedly that vaccinations are the way to go.  please change my view.   #  there are countless horror stories and it seems like everyone just shuts up about these things and keeps thumping that vaccines are the greatest.   #  research some of the diseases these vaccines cured and then talk about  horror stories .   # the journals that covered his articles pulled them after it was discovered that he accepted money from interested parties.  he actually lost his medical license over it.  there is a vast medical consensus that vaccines are safe and effective.  the fact is, there really is not a controversy in medically knowledgable spheres.  it is only the uneducated, following charlatans that has created an  illusion  of controversy in a very similar manner to climate change deniers .  always look at  where  the controversy is coming from.  research some of the diseases these vaccines cured and then talk about  horror stories .  the rare harm that vaccines cause is far outweighed by the elimination of the diseases.  that is not to say that the vaccine and larger medical industry is entirely without issue, but there is no reputable organization that doubts a the effectiveness of vaccines or b the general not perfect safety.  it may be helpful to know what exactly you think is wrong with vaccines, so we can narrow the articles we show you.   #  i really do not care how someone raises their child religion, homeschooling, etc.   # vaccines are one of the single greatest medical interventions that human beings have ever developed.  i guess you know where i stand.  this anti vax hullabaloo is a bunch of nonsense, and is only present in developed countries.  parents have forgotten what polio and rubella do to children, or they would not be so cocksure when denying their children vaccinations.  i really do not care how someone raises their child religion, homeschooling, etc.  but not vaccinating them is plain stupidity.  not malice, just ignorance.  if you want, i can debunk just about any conspiracy theory you could bring up regarding vaccines, but i do not think it will be necessary.  i will just deal with the most pernicious point first, ask me for more if you need to.  one of the biggest reasons for this panic is because people think that vaccines cause autism.  they do not.  the lancet paper that started that has been thoroughly debunked.  in the meantime, there have been multiple controlled studies that have demonstrated that there is no link b/w vaccines and autism: study URL and an overview with even more available studies URL  #  i will provide a few reasons: 0.  the video itself is not proof.   #  interesting.  i remain skeptical of the claims made by brian hooker and so should you.  i cannot defend the obfuscation of date by william thomson, and i am not going to.  however, i remain convinced that there is not any link b/w the mmr vaccine and autism.  i will provide a few reasons: 0.  the video itself is not proof.  it is a highly edited version of the story that hooker wants to tell, i. e.  he is doing exactly what thomson did himself by only presenting those snippets that he wants out there.  0.  even if this study had false conclusions, it is just that: one study.  there have been  multiple  rigorous studies that have also looked for a link, and found nothing.  this is typical of conspiracies everywhere.  the bad decisions of one person cast an entire field of science into disrepute.  0.  hooker is re analysis has also been called into question.  you can read about it here URL and here URL hooker has only applied those statistical analyses to the data set that serve his own purpose.   #  i guess that is the problem, besides the whole autism thing it is just a general bad stigma about vaccines, not really anything in particular.   #  i guess that is the problem, besides the whole autism thing it is just a general bad stigma about vaccines, not really anything in particular.  you raise a good point though, the stories of cases with vaccine preventable diseases are almost certainly worse than the mal effects today, especially given the frequency back then.    for making me realize that while everyone is getting caught up with the few cases of possible vaccine side effects, they are completely forgetting about the plethora of terrible diseases people would otherwise be burdened with.  i think the important thing is to acknowledge that nobody is saying vaccines are absolutely perfect.  i guess this is a strawman set up by anti vaxxers.  what people are really saying is that vaccines are incredibly helpful at irradicating disease and though they carry risk, this risk is highly improbable compared to the benefit.   #  conclusion:  this study provides strong evidence against the hypothesis that mmr vaccination causes autism.    #  i totally with /u/rustyrook as he says vaccines are one of the single greatest medical interventions that human beings have ever developed.  the only reason i think that so many people distrust vacinnes is due to the lancet article of andrew wakefield.  which been retracted URL and after investigation wakefield was struck off the medical register in the uk.  there have been many studies on vaccines and autism and to my knowledge all of them have concluded that vaccines do not cause autism.  i just go through a couple here.  h.  honda et all.  URL have studied children in yokohama.  with the hypothesis: vaccines causes autism.  they saw the vaccination rate drop, but the autsim rate go up.  conclusion:  mmr vaccination is most unlikely to be a main cause of asd.   k. m.  madsen et al.  URL research from denmark.  a studie of 0,0 children.  conclusion:  this study provides strong evidence against the hypothesis that mmr vaccination causes autism.   j. s. gerber et al.  URL they have took 0 studies done in different countries and reviewed them.  conclusion:  these studies, . , have effectively dismissed the notion that vaccines cause autism.   b.  taylor URL also a literature review.  conclusion:  there is no scientific evidence that the measles, mumps and rubella mmr vaccine or the mercury preservative used in some vaccines plays any part in the aetiology or triggering of autism, .      w.  chen et al.  URL studied people with autism and down syndrome born between 0 and 0.  in this group there were children that were not vaccinated, vaccinated with only the measles vaccine and vaccinated with the mmr vaccine the same vaccine used in the article of wakefield conclusion:  no increased risk of ad following exposures to wild measles and vaccinations with monovalent measles, and urabe or jeryl lynn variants of mmr was detected.   i can find a lot more studies that conclude vaccines and autism do not have a connection.  what i ca not find however is a scientific study that concludes that vaccines causes autism.  if you know one i am very interested to read it.  from what i understand the autism thing is the biggest problem for the anti vaxers, but if there is more i am willing to go into it with you.
both my parents are heavily anti vax and none of their 0 kids have been vaccinated.  after leaving the nest i realized just how uncommon this was, however after years of being in the main stream, i am still not convinced that vaccines are all they are cracked up to be.  between whistle blowers william thomson, scott cooper, andrew wakefield etc and corruption within the vaccine industry, it seems like something sinister is afoot.  there are countless horror stories and it seems like everyone just shuts up about these things and keeps thumping that vaccines are the greatest.  now i am not antivaccine although i have not been immunized yet i am just not pro vaccine.  i have not seen enough to discredit this dark side of things and show undoubtedly that vaccinations are the way to go.  please change my view.   #  between whistle blowers william thomson, scott cooper, andrew wakefield etc and corruption within the vaccine industry, it seems like something sinister is afoot.   #  there are countless horror stories and it seems like everyone just shuts up about these things and keeps thumping that vaccines are the greatest.   # there are countless horror stories and it seems like everyone just shuts up about these things and keeps thumping that vaccines are the greatest.  the problem with this argument is that it is open ended and not grounded in a fact or idea.  it is as hard to dispute it as it is to dispute the comment   i am scared  .  whistle blowers are essential to keep groups honest.  it does not mean that the whole system is better off gone.  it only means that there are more flaws than an entity would otherwise acknowledge.  i am not familiar with everyone on the list, but considering that obama immediately granted william thompson immunity from any crimes for testifying clearly indicates that we are not looking at a conspiracy.  he spoke out and he was encouraged to do so.  i have not seen enough to discredit this dark side of things and show undoubtedly that vaccinations are the way to go.  as /u/amazingmrbrock pointed out in what might be deemed  the laziest cmv comment in history  there is more at stake than what you can plainly see.  specifically herd immunity.  that means that we are communally protected from diseases because they are less prevalent.  so for instance, babies younger than 0 year old or the elderly with weakened immune systems may not be able to be vaccinated.  however the lack of prevalence of the disease in society makes it that they are still safe.  so being vaccinated is not just about saving your life but it is about saving the lives of others around you.  separately, it is important not to look at public policy from an empirical perspective.  everyone will always know of a story about someone who suffered in some way.  this only points out that a system is not perfect, which was never really in contention.  the only question is if the system is better than the lack of a system.  which  statistics  do a much better job at proving.  looking at the anti vaccine body count URL we can see staggering numbers in preventable diseases and deaths.  if vaccines caused autism or had similar effects, then surely it would be measurable in a similar way.  we could reconcile that data against each other.  but in the absence of facts, horror stories take it is place.  i can see how gory details are more moving than a chart, but it does not make them more accurate.   #  i will just deal with the most pernicious point first, ask me for more if you need to.   # vaccines are one of the single greatest medical interventions that human beings have ever developed.  i guess you know where i stand.  this anti vax hullabaloo is a bunch of nonsense, and is only present in developed countries.  parents have forgotten what polio and rubella do to children, or they would not be so cocksure when denying their children vaccinations.  i really do not care how someone raises their child religion, homeschooling, etc.  but not vaccinating them is plain stupidity.  not malice, just ignorance.  if you want, i can debunk just about any conspiracy theory you could bring up regarding vaccines, but i do not think it will be necessary.  i will just deal with the most pernicious point first, ask me for more if you need to.  one of the biggest reasons for this panic is because people think that vaccines cause autism.  they do not.  the lancet paper that started that has been thoroughly debunked.  in the meantime, there have been multiple controlled studies that have demonstrated that there is no link b/w vaccines and autism: study URL and an overview with even more available studies URL  #  the bad decisions of one person cast an entire field of science into disrepute.   #  interesting.  i remain skeptical of the claims made by brian hooker and so should you.  i cannot defend the obfuscation of date by william thomson, and i am not going to.  however, i remain convinced that there is not any link b/w the mmr vaccine and autism.  i will provide a few reasons: 0.  the video itself is not proof.  it is a highly edited version of the story that hooker wants to tell, i. e.  he is doing exactly what thomson did himself by only presenting those snippets that he wants out there.  0.  even if this study had false conclusions, it is just that: one study.  there have been  multiple  rigorous studies that have also looked for a link, and found nothing.  this is typical of conspiracies everywhere.  the bad decisions of one person cast an entire field of science into disrepute.  0.  hooker is re analysis has also been called into question.  you can read about it here URL and here URL hooker has only applied those statistical analyses to the data set that serve his own purpose.   #  he actually lost his medical license over it.   # the journals that covered his articles pulled them after it was discovered that he accepted money from interested parties.  he actually lost his medical license over it.  there is a vast medical consensus that vaccines are safe and effective.  the fact is, there really is not a controversy in medically knowledgable spheres.  it is only the uneducated, following charlatans that has created an  illusion  of controversy in a very similar manner to climate change deniers .  always look at  where  the controversy is coming from.  research some of the diseases these vaccines cured and then talk about  horror stories .  the rare harm that vaccines cause is far outweighed by the elimination of the diseases.  that is not to say that the vaccine and larger medical industry is entirely without issue, but there is no reputable organization that doubts a the effectiveness of vaccines or b the general not perfect safety.  it may be helpful to know what exactly you think is wrong with vaccines, so we can narrow the articles we show you.   #  i guess this is a strawman set up by anti vaxxers.   #  i guess that is the problem, besides the whole autism thing it is just a general bad stigma about vaccines, not really anything in particular.  you raise a good point though, the stories of cases with vaccine preventable diseases are almost certainly worse than the mal effects today, especially given the frequency back then.    for making me realize that while everyone is getting caught up with the few cases of possible vaccine side effects, they are completely forgetting about the plethora of terrible diseases people would otherwise be burdened with.  i think the important thing is to acknowledge that nobody is saying vaccines are absolutely perfect.  i guess this is a strawman set up by anti vaxxers.  what people are really saying is that vaccines are incredibly helpful at irradicating disease and though they carry risk, this risk is highly improbable compared to the benefit.
both my parents are heavily anti vax and none of their 0 kids have been vaccinated.  after leaving the nest i realized just how uncommon this was, however after years of being in the main stream, i am still not convinced that vaccines are all they are cracked up to be.  between whistle blowers william thomson, scott cooper, andrew wakefield etc and corruption within the vaccine industry, it seems like something sinister is afoot.  there are countless horror stories and it seems like everyone just shuts up about these things and keeps thumping that vaccines are the greatest.  now i am not antivaccine although i have not been immunized yet i am just not pro vaccine.  i have not seen enough to discredit this dark side of things and show undoubtedly that vaccinations are the way to go.  please change my view.   #  now i am not antivaccine although i have not been immunized yet i am just not pro vaccine.   #  i have not seen enough to discredit this dark side of things and show undoubtedly that vaccinations are the way to go.   # there are countless horror stories and it seems like everyone just shuts up about these things and keeps thumping that vaccines are the greatest.  the problem with this argument is that it is open ended and not grounded in a fact or idea.  it is as hard to dispute it as it is to dispute the comment   i am scared  .  whistle blowers are essential to keep groups honest.  it does not mean that the whole system is better off gone.  it only means that there are more flaws than an entity would otherwise acknowledge.  i am not familiar with everyone on the list, but considering that obama immediately granted william thompson immunity from any crimes for testifying clearly indicates that we are not looking at a conspiracy.  he spoke out and he was encouraged to do so.  i have not seen enough to discredit this dark side of things and show undoubtedly that vaccinations are the way to go.  as /u/amazingmrbrock pointed out in what might be deemed  the laziest cmv comment in history  there is more at stake than what you can plainly see.  specifically herd immunity.  that means that we are communally protected from diseases because they are less prevalent.  so for instance, babies younger than 0 year old or the elderly with weakened immune systems may not be able to be vaccinated.  however the lack of prevalence of the disease in society makes it that they are still safe.  so being vaccinated is not just about saving your life but it is about saving the lives of others around you.  separately, it is important not to look at public policy from an empirical perspective.  everyone will always know of a story about someone who suffered in some way.  this only points out that a system is not perfect, which was never really in contention.  the only question is if the system is better than the lack of a system.  which  statistics  do a much better job at proving.  looking at the anti vaccine body count URL we can see staggering numbers in preventable diseases and deaths.  if vaccines caused autism or had similar effects, then surely it would be measurable in a similar way.  we could reconcile that data against each other.  but in the absence of facts, horror stories take it is place.  i can see how gory details are more moving than a chart, but it does not make them more accurate.   #  one of the biggest reasons for this panic is because people think that vaccines cause autism.   # vaccines are one of the single greatest medical interventions that human beings have ever developed.  i guess you know where i stand.  this anti vax hullabaloo is a bunch of nonsense, and is only present in developed countries.  parents have forgotten what polio and rubella do to children, or they would not be so cocksure when denying their children vaccinations.  i really do not care how someone raises their child religion, homeschooling, etc.  but not vaccinating them is plain stupidity.  not malice, just ignorance.  if you want, i can debunk just about any conspiracy theory you could bring up regarding vaccines, but i do not think it will be necessary.  i will just deal with the most pernicious point first, ask me for more if you need to.  one of the biggest reasons for this panic is because people think that vaccines cause autism.  they do not.  the lancet paper that started that has been thoroughly debunked.  in the meantime, there have been multiple controlled studies that have demonstrated that there is no link b/w vaccines and autism: study URL and an overview with even more available studies URL  #  i will provide a few reasons: 0.  the video itself is not proof.   #  interesting.  i remain skeptical of the claims made by brian hooker and so should you.  i cannot defend the obfuscation of date by william thomson, and i am not going to.  however, i remain convinced that there is not any link b/w the mmr vaccine and autism.  i will provide a few reasons: 0.  the video itself is not proof.  it is a highly edited version of the story that hooker wants to tell, i. e.  he is doing exactly what thomson did himself by only presenting those snippets that he wants out there.  0.  even if this study had false conclusions, it is just that: one study.  there have been  multiple  rigorous studies that have also looked for a link, and found nothing.  this is typical of conspiracies everywhere.  the bad decisions of one person cast an entire field of science into disrepute.  0.  hooker is re analysis has also been called into question.  you can read about it here URL and here URL hooker has only applied those statistical analyses to the data set that serve his own purpose.   #  it may be helpful to know what exactly you think is wrong with vaccines, so we can narrow the articles we show you.   # the journals that covered his articles pulled them after it was discovered that he accepted money from interested parties.  he actually lost his medical license over it.  there is a vast medical consensus that vaccines are safe and effective.  the fact is, there really is not a controversy in medically knowledgable spheres.  it is only the uneducated, following charlatans that has created an  illusion  of controversy in a very similar manner to climate change deniers .  always look at  where  the controversy is coming from.  research some of the diseases these vaccines cured and then talk about  horror stories .  the rare harm that vaccines cause is far outweighed by the elimination of the diseases.  that is not to say that the vaccine and larger medical industry is entirely without issue, but there is no reputable organization that doubts a the effectiveness of vaccines or b the general not perfect safety.  it may be helpful to know what exactly you think is wrong with vaccines, so we can narrow the articles we show you.   #  you raise a good point though, the stories of cases with vaccine preventable diseases are almost certainly worse than the mal effects today, especially given the frequency back then.   #  i guess that is the problem, besides the whole autism thing it is just a general bad stigma about vaccines, not really anything in particular.  you raise a good point though, the stories of cases with vaccine preventable diseases are almost certainly worse than the mal effects today, especially given the frequency back then.    for making me realize that while everyone is getting caught up with the few cases of possible vaccine side effects, they are completely forgetting about the plethora of terrible diseases people would otherwise be burdened with.  i think the important thing is to acknowledge that nobody is saying vaccines are absolutely perfect.  i guess this is a strawman set up by anti vaxxers.  what people are really saying is that vaccines are incredibly helpful at irradicating disease and though they carry risk, this risk is highly improbable compared to the benefit.
i believe that full legalization of recreational marijuana is the best way to discourage use of it.  it would become so expensive that only the rich could obtain it.  fda regulations could make sure that what is in it is actually marijuana and only marijuana, instead of the pcp and other drug laced stuff you can buy on the street.  also, placing special taxes on the stuff could help the government make a pretty penny off what is, by some estimates, the most lucrative cash crop in america.  legalization would also put street dealers out of business, opening the door for legitimate corporations.   #  fda regulations could make sure that what is in it is actually marijuana and only marijuana, instead of the pcp and other drug laced stuff you can buy on the street.   #  being that marijuana is one of if not the cheapest drugs on the streets, would it really make sense to lace it with a much more expensive drug such as pcp or the example i hear far too often of heroin ?  # blatantly untrue.  in washington, where it is currently legal, the prices have been steadily dropping since the recreational stores have opened up.  the store nearest me currently has a few strains for 0$/g which is street price.  being that marijuana is one of if not the cheapest drugs on the streets, would it really make sense to lace it with a much more expensive drug such as pcp or the example i hear far too often of heroin ? no drug dealer i have ever met would ever do that because 0 it takes more time than its worth 0 you would not profit off it, and 0 it is just a stupid idea.  the only thing i have ever encountered a shifty dealer doing to his pot to sell more etc is adding powdered glass to the bud to make it look more crystalline so that people will think it is higher quality.  even that i have only encountered once, and taking one look at the dealer was enough for me to know that he was a shifty dude and could not be trusted.  i do, however, agree that a perk of legalization would be that the fda could monitor retail marijuana and ensure there are no additives.  check out submission rule a which states:  try to explain the reasoning behind your view, not just what the view is  why do you believe pot is bad ? what economic forecasts are you looking at that say legalization would make it  so expensive that only the rich could obtain it  ? afterthought: your title says that you believe people should be  discouraged from using it pot   but you fail to realize that the american public has been strongly discouraged and indoctrinated from using it for nearly a century.  i attended public school, and in 0th grade  got  to do dare program to learn about the evils of drugs and violence.  all the officer did was tell us that all drugs are terrible and will kill you marijuana included .  so when i eventually tried marijuana allegedly and realized that it had no harmful effects aside from making me cough, what was i to infer about other drugs that are  just as bad  ? if you tell a bunch of kids all drugs are bad, and they try pot, their immediate assumption will be  well okay so that officer lied, drugs are obviously good  and that is where the bad stuff starts, and that is where serious drug addiction begins.   #  of course, you will find the occasional nimrod who fubars his life with it, but i have seen people do the same with video games.   #  it is kind of hard to debate your point, since you have given zero reasons why you think it is bad.  have you ever tried it ? i have found that it works wonders for my insomnia, plus a friend of mine with bad arthritis uses it for pain relief.  so it definitely has uses other than recreational, although using it for that purpose is fun too : i personally think it is a much less dangerous drug than alcohol.  of course, you will find the occasional nimrod who fubars his life with it, but i have seen people do the same with video games.  just about anything that has the potential for abuse will be abused by somebody with zero self control.   #  similar posts can be found through our wiki page URL or via the search function URL pot amp;amp;restrict sr on .   #  note:  your thread has  not  been removed.  your post is topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit.  similar posts can be found through our wiki page URL or via the search function URL pot amp;amp;restrict sr on .  regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.  i am a bot, and this action was performed automatically.  please contact the moderators of this subreddit /message/compose/ ? to /r/changemyview if you have any questions or concerns.   #  dealers do not  lace  there drugs, it cost losts money to get pcp and if they had it, they would simply sell it separately on the side.   # i am going to start here.  mainly because it shows that you have no idea what your talking about.  if someone is lacing their marijuana, the price would triple.  dealers do not  lace  there drugs, it cost losts money to get pcp and if they had it, they would simply sell it separately on the side.  there is literally no advantage to someone lacing their product.  legalization would also put street dealers out of business, opening the door for legitimate corporations.  yes that is fine, and is what most weed users want, and is exactly why the government would not try and price out the poor.  similar to tobacco they would raise the prices enough to make huge profits, but keep it low enough so the poor can still buy in masses.  you have not given any reasons on why you think pot is bad, so i cant really change your mind on that.   #  the more there is of something and the easier it is to obtain, the cheaper it is, not more expensive.   #  how is one to change your view when you have a not given an actual distinct view based in any sort of reality, or b listed any reasons as to why marijuana is  bad , or c listed any reasons as to why it would suddenly become  so expensive only rich people can afford it .  your post tells me three things: first, you have no idea what you are talking about.  marijuana is bad. why ? because the dea says so ? do you know anything at all about it ? anything ? marijuana laced with pcp ? been reading a lot of fiction, eh ? this is about as likely as finding a satchel with a million bucks in it on your front lawn.  second, you have no grasp on economics.  the more there is of something and the easier it is to obtain, the cheaper it is, not more expensive.  you need lessons in supply and demand.  and third, you need some serious education.  spend some time researching the number of deaths caused by marijuana compared to tobacco and alcohol, for example.  or read the multitudes of studies regarding marijuana and epilepsy, cancer, depression, anxiety, and a host of other diseases it is used to help the patients of.
if we the us do not sign the deal and then a war ensues which assumes iran is actually developing a nuclear weapon and conservatives in the both the us and israel are not bluffing , we will look bad.  we will be the ones who sabotaged our own diplomatic efforts that the us spearheaded, hurting our reputation and clout abroad and who preemptively started a war that will take not only iranian lives, but also likely israeli and even american lives.  we will be the aggressors who forsook a diplomatic solution for a likely disastrous war in a region that can hardly afford any more instability.  we will lose our allies, and be seen as weaker than if we had not made a deal.  now, if we do sign the deal and iran continues to develop a nuclear weapon in violation of the agreement and the aforementioned war does come to pass, the onus of starting the war falls on iran for they are the ones who broke the agreement they signed and built a nuclear weapon despite they continued insistence that they are not, have not, and will never do so.  they will be the ones to draw the condemnation and ire of the world, knowing full well the military consequences of building a nuclear bomb which, on a side note, they will never actually use .  strategically, even for the conservative, the iran deal is a win win, and any opposition to it is either for short term political gain or born out of strategic myopia.  there will not be a better deal, nor will there be another chance for negotiation if we do not uphold our end of the agreement.  in short, the only thing anyone has to lose in this deal is some political capital.  cmv that this deal is actually harmful to anyone  #  if we the us do not sign the deal and then a war ensues which assumes iran is actually developing a nuclear weapon and conservatives in the both the us and israel are not bluffing , we will look bad.   #  we will be the ones who sabotaged our own diplomatic efforts that the us spearheaded, hurting our reputation and clout abroad and who preemptively started a war that will take not only iranian lives, but also likely israeli and even american lives.   # we will be the ones who sabotaged our own diplomatic efforts that the us spearheaded, hurting our reputation and clout abroad and who preemptively started a war that will take not only iranian lives, but also likely israeli and even american lives.  we will be the aggressors who forsook a diplomatic solution for a likely disastrous war in a region that can hardly afford any more instability.  we will lose our allies, and be seen as weaker than if we had not made a deal.  all of which is less bad than iran getting nuclear weapons.  there has been an unusually high level of international cooperation and unity of purpose opposing iran on this.  if we sign a deal now, and they renege in the future, that coalition will have to be re assembled from scratch, and the political currents that made it possible now might no longer exist.  the us will never have a stronger position than it does today, it should not piss away that position on a deal with as many loopholes as the current one.   #  in fact, hezbollah has apparently been weaken significantly of late, and has become increasingly unpopular in lebanon itself.   #  iran also, especially now, funds hezbollah to fight isis in syria and to control lebanon for both strategic position and to  protect  the shia population of lebanon.  in fact, hezbollah has apparently been weaken significantly of late, and has become increasingly unpopular in lebanon itself.  iran can no longer physically supply them because of isis just writing them money without actually giving them supplies really does not go very far , and may choose to sell out hezbollah for in the future for a more attractive position in the region and the world like opening trade with europe .  they have already sold out hamas for talking with saudi arabia, and have stopped funding them in what many see as an attempt to reevaluate its goals and who its friends are.  all this is to say, more money through lifting sanctions on iran does not equal more money to hezbollah, which in turn does not equal more attacks against israel.  while hezbollah and iran are definitely enemies, i think netanyahu and the right in israel like to exaggerate the potential threat of hezbollah and iran for their own political gain.  while in an unlikely worst case scenario a deal would give iran more money to give to hezbollah to attack israel which probably would not make too much of difference anyway considering the strength of the idf , the long term strategic benefit of re entering iran into the global economy and the political ramifications there and ensuring through diplomacy that they do not accelerate a nuclear arms race outweighs a myopic strategy of refusing to deal with iran and then starting a war on what may or may not be legitimate grounds what if it turns out they do not have a nuclear weapon after we bomb/invade them ? .   #  as iran enters the world economy, they will become more moderate and less and less likely to continue support terrorism against israel.   #  iran entering the world economy has definite benefits for israel.  as iran enters the world economy, they will become more moderate and less and less likely to continue support terrorism against israel.  why, because they will have real economic interests that outweigh the benefits of occasionally shooting some rockets into israel.  so, long term, a deal has more benefits to israel outweigh the possibility that hezbollah will have a few more rockets in the next few years.  of course, this would be political suicide for the right in israel, hence why they oppose the deal.   #  give me one concrete way isreal benefits from the deal.   # as iran enters the world economy, they will become more moderate and less and less likely to continue support terrorism against israel.  why ? iran was hostile way before any sactions.  how would shooting at israel interfere with iran is economy ? the world does not give a shit about israel being attacked by hezbollah, and will not punish iran over it.  so again, israel benefits in no way from iran deal, but will have a better armed enemy on their border.  give me one concrete way isreal benefits from the deal.   #  they are trading all out war, for slightly better funded enemies.   #  the alternative is iran having nukes or going to war with iran neither of which are better than the downsides you just lifted.  the deal is not just about what happens it has an  or else  clause.  israel is making a trade.  they are trading all out war, for slightly better funded enemies.  the deal also sets the stage for further cooperation with iran on the subject, or if that does not happen, we can apply new sanctions for the funding of the enemies of israel.  additionally, it is foolish to assume even a large percentage of the added income of iran will go to funding the enemies of israel.  it is not exactly their top priority.
i have less respect for beer drinkers than for non beer drinkers that is my view.  this comes from the fact that beer drinkers do not have any reason to drink beer other than to, essentially, weaken their consciousness to make socializing easier.  what other reason could there be ? facts about beer:   way more expensive than other drinks   unhealthy and very fatty   puts you at risk of stupidity drunk driving, people taking advantage of you, losing your belongings, etc.    tastes bad    0;     0;  i believe that objectively beer is less tasty than other drinks like orange juice, bubble tea, or a soft drink.  do you really think someone that has been drinking those drinks their whole life would taste that strong bitterness of beer and say that they like it, let alone saying that they like it more than coke ? almost impossible.  i think those people are very rare.  beer is an  acquired taste , and when i say acquired, i mean that it needs to be associated with the socializing that it begets for a long time before someone would like it and they would only be liking it because of that conditioning not because of beer is actual taste.  so what is the problem with doing it for social reasons ? people are essentially saying  i do not trust my own consciousness to socialize and instead of working on improving i will socialize the easy and guaranteed way that requires artificially altering my personality.   unless people have some kind of mental illness causing them to have very high social inhibitions, i do not believe beer is a good way to solve their problem of having difficulty to interact with others.  i think it is just a way to avoid the problem one that is definitely possible to solve.  i am saying this as someone that used to be extremely shy and underwent major changes in the past few years.  i will concede that beer can possibly help someone work on their social issues, as in, having a little bit of beer just to get into the social environment when they are not used to it yet, kind of like with floaty tubes when learning to swim.  the ultimate goal will be to  not  rely on beer anymore, so i do not consider these people to be  beer drinkers .  tell me, what makes beer as a social enhancer any better than steroids as a muscle enhancer ? is it just the degree to which it affects your body or is there anything else to it ?  #  puts you at risk of stupidity drunk driving, people taking advantage of you, losing your belongings, etc.   #  the problems you raise are problems with alcohol, rather than specifically beer.   #  you are projecting a lot of generalizations about people is motivations for drinking that i do not think are fair.  i for one genuinely feel like beer is a much better tasting beverage than:  orange juice, bubble tea, or a soft drink to me and many of my friends each of those drinks are far too sweet and have absolutely no depth or complexity of flavour compared to a good beer.  it is as you say an aquired taste, however, as with many aquired tastes, they are actually a lot more rewarding and satisfying once you have a taste for it.  you just need to look at how quickly the craft beer market has been growing to see that this belief is likely widespread.  i predominantly drink in small social groups friends/family with people i already know well and feel comfortable with.  i am not saying drinking to socialize does not exist, it is just not as ubiquitous as you imply.  there are many experts who believe that the prevalence of obesity are caused by too much sugar.  i can provide links to several sources if this interests you.  the problems you raise are problems with alcohol, rather than specifically beer.  it is actually a lot harder to get drunk with beer, as compared to wine and spirits.  so why single out beer ?  #  if you find a study that weighs benefits with consequences i will be more interested.   #  ca not open your first link.  i can see the second.  i am aware that there may be health benefits, but that does not take away from the many health consequences.  if you find a study that weighs benefits with consequences i will be more interested.  furthermore, the last three paragraphs of your second link talk about beer being unhealthy.   arthur klatsky, a retired kaiser permanente doctor and a researcher of the health effects of alcohol consumption, does not favor any particular alcoholic beverage.  yet he agrees that  beer has more nutrients, often more calories, b vitamins.  it is more like a food than wine or spirits .   being the best out of a bunch of unhealthy options is not necessarily a good thing.   #  discussions with patients regarding alcohol consumption should be made in the context of a general medical examination.   #  the first link is to an article from the american journal of the medical sciences,  nutritional and health benefits of beer  0 , which does weigh risks and benefits.  as /u/bearsnchairs commented, moderate alcohol consumption is associated with better health outcomes than abstaining.  the risks primarily come from overconsumption.  here is the full abstract: physicians should be aware of the growing evidence supporting the nutritional and health benefits of moderate consumption of alcohol as part of a healthy lifestyle.  the recently approved voluntary label on wine  the proud people who made this wine encourage you to consult your family doctor about the health effects of wine consumption  implies that physicians should promote wine as the preferred source of dietary alcohol.  however, studies evaluating the relative benefits of wine versus beer versus spirits suggest that moderate consumption of any alcoholic beverage is associated with lower rates of cardiovascular disease.  from a nutritional standpoint, beer contains more protein and b vitamins than wine.  the antioxidant content of beer is equivalent to that of wine, but the specific antioxidants are different because the barley and hops used in the production of beer contain flavonoids different from those in the grapes used in the production of wine.  the benefits of moderate alcohol consumption have not been generally endorsed by physicians for fear that heavy consumers may consider any message as a permissive license to drink in excess.  discussions with patients regarding alcohol consumption should be made in the context of a general medical examination.  there is no evidence to support endorsement of one type of alcoholic beverage over another.  the physician should define moderate drinking 0 drink per day for women and 0 drinks per day for men for the patient and should review consumption patterns associated with high risk.   #  i believe those would live just as long as the drinkers, and probably longer.   #  i read it.  if all that is true then it is quite eye opening for me.  the article mentions that it is related to social interactions being important for physical and mental health.  i can understand this.  unfortunately, non drinkers are a pretty rare breed and they would most likely be people that are not social at all.  i do not think it is necessarily the ingredients of the alcohol at all; i think it is the social benefits that make you live longer.  therefore, i still do not think relying on alcohol is a respectable option.  i respect the ones that try to change themselves into an actual social person instead of using alcohol to have the occasional personality change.  i believe those would live just as long as the drinkers, and probably longer.   #   i do not think it is necessarily the ingredients of the alcohol at all; i think it is the social benefits that make you live longer.    #   i do not think it is necessarily the ingredients of the alcohol at all; i think it is the social benefits that make you live longer.   that is an enormous assumption, that all the benefits of alcohol are psychological not physical.  it is probably incorrect, and i would gather a lot of evidence before you make that your operating theory.  you seem to conflate drinking alcohol with alcoholism.  we all agree  relying on alcohol  is troubling behavior, but the overwhelming majority of people who drink beer do not rely on beer to talk to people or function.  that is like saying people who meet their friends over coffee rely on coffee to talk to people.  given that this thread has shown that teetotaling is apparently the worst option for your health, and that the vast majority of people who sometimes drink are not dependent on alcohol, i would imagine we have changed your view that it is objectively correct to look down on people who drink beer.
i have less respect for beer drinkers than for non beer drinkers that is my view.  this comes from the fact that beer drinkers do not have any reason to drink beer other than to, essentially, weaken their consciousness to make socializing easier.  what other reason could there be ? facts about beer:   way more expensive than other drinks   unhealthy and very fatty   puts you at risk of stupidity drunk driving, people taking advantage of you, losing your belongings, etc.    tastes bad    0;     0;  i believe that objectively beer is less tasty than other drinks like orange juice, bubble tea, or a soft drink.  do you really think someone that has been drinking those drinks their whole life would taste that strong bitterness of beer and say that they like it, let alone saying that they like it more than coke ? almost impossible.  i think those people are very rare.  beer is an  acquired taste , and when i say acquired, i mean that it needs to be associated with the socializing that it begets for a long time before someone would like it and they would only be liking it because of that conditioning not because of beer is actual taste.  so what is the problem with doing it for social reasons ? people are essentially saying  i do not trust my own consciousness to socialize and instead of working on improving i will socialize the easy and guaranteed way that requires artificially altering my personality.   unless people have some kind of mental illness causing them to have very high social inhibitions, i do not believe beer is a good way to solve their problem of having difficulty to interact with others.  i think it is just a way to avoid the problem one that is definitely possible to solve.  i am saying this as someone that used to be extremely shy and underwent major changes in the past few years.  i will concede that beer can possibly help someone work on their social issues, as in, having a little bit of beer just to get into the social environment when they are not used to it yet, kind of like with floaty tubes when learning to swim.  the ultimate goal will be to  not  rely on beer anymore, so i do not consider these people to be  beer drinkers .  tell me, what makes beer as a social enhancer any better than steroids as a muscle enhancer ? is it just the degree to which it affects your body or is there anything else to it ?  #  this comes from the fact that beer drinkers do not have any reason to drink beer other than to, essentially, weaken their consciousness to make socializing easier.   #  you are pigeonholing the reasons people drink beer.   #  way more expensive than other drinks not more so than bubble tea, in my experience.  unhealthy and very fatty no more so than soda or bubble tea i think the jury is still out on juice .  puts you at risk of stupidity drunk driving, people taking advantage of you, losing your belongings, etc.  only if you drink to excess.  a beer or two is not going to put you in that situation especially if you just do not drive afterward .  you should probably reserve your scorn for those who actually do drink and drive, etc, rather than all of those who simply drink.  tastes bad there is no such thing as  objective  taste.  taste is always in the mind of the beholder.  yes, beer is an acquired taste.  but so are many foods.  i certainly did not like pickled ginger or sauerkraut the first time i tried it, but now i love both.  you are pigeonholing the reasons people drink beer.  i often drink a beer while watching the game at home after work, or at dinner with my soon to be wife, situations where there is clearly no social pressure.  i drink it because 0 yes, i actually really like the taste, 0 it is relaxing 0 it gives my mood a little boost.   #  being the best out of a bunch of unhealthy options is not necessarily a good thing.   #  ca not open your first link.  i can see the second.  i am aware that there may be health benefits, but that does not take away from the many health consequences.  if you find a study that weighs benefits with consequences i will be more interested.  furthermore, the last three paragraphs of your second link talk about beer being unhealthy.   arthur klatsky, a retired kaiser permanente doctor and a researcher of the health effects of alcohol consumption, does not favor any particular alcoholic beverage.  yet he agrees that  beer has more nutrients, often more calories, b vitamins.  it is more like a food than wine or spirits .   being the best out of a bunch of unhealthy options is not necessarily a good thing.   #  here is the full abstract: physicians should be aware of the growing evidence supporting the nutritional and health benefits of moderate consumption of alcohol as part of a healthy lifestyle.   #  the first link is to an article from the american journal of the medical sciences,  nutritional and health benefits of beer  0 , which does weigh risks and benefits.  as /u/bearsnchairs commented, moderate alcohol consumption is associated with better health outcomes than abstaining.  the risks primarily come from overconsumption.  here is the full abstract: physicians should be aware of the growing evidence supporting the nutritional and health benefits of moderate consumption of alcohol as part of a healthy lifestyle.  the recently approved voluntary label on wine  the proud people who made this wine encourage you to consult your family doctor about the health effects of wine consumption  implies that physicians should promote wine as the preferred source of dietary alcohol.  however, studies evaluating the relative benefits of wine versus beer versus spirits suggest that moderate consumption of any alcoholic beverage is associated with lower rates of cardiovascular disease.  from a nutritional standpoint, beer contains more protein and b vitamins than wine.  the antioxidant content of beer is equivalent to that of wine, but the specific antioxidants are different because the barley and hops used in the production of beer contain flavonoids different from those in the grapes used in the production of wine.  the benefits of moderate alcohol consumption have not been generally endorsed by physicians for fear that heavy consumers may consider any message as a permissive license to drink in excess.  discussions with patients regarding alcohol consumption should be made in the context of a general medical examination.  there is no evidence to support endorsement of one type of alcoholic beverage over another.  the physician should define moderate drinking 0 drink per day for women and 0 drinks per day for men for the patient and should review consumption patterns associated with high risk.   #  unfortunately, non drinkers are a pretty rare breed and they would most likely be people that are not social at all.   #  i read it.  if all that is true then it is quite eye opening for me.  the article mentions that it is related to social interactions being important for physical and mental health.  i can understand this.  unfortunately, non drinkers are a pretty rare breed and they would most likely be people that are not social at all.  i do not think it is necessarily the ingredients of the alcohol at all; i think it is the social benefits that make you live longer.  therefore, i still do not think relying on alcohol is a respectable option.  i respect the ones that try to change themselves into an actual social person instead of using alcohol to have the occasional personality change.  i believe those would live just as long as the drinkers, and probably longer.   #  we all agree  relying on alcohol  is troubling behavior, but the overwhelming majority of people who drink beer do not rely on beer to talk to people or function.   #   i do not think it is necessarily the ingredients of the alcohol at all; i think it is the social benefits that make you live longer.   that is an enormous assumption, that all the benefits of alcohol are psychological not physical.  it is probably incorrect, and i would gather a lot of evidence before you make that your operating theory.  you seem to conflate drinking alcohol with alcoholism.  we all agree  relying on alcohol  is troubling behavior, but the overwhelming majority of people who drink beer do not rely on beer to talk to people or function.  that is like saying people who meet their friends over coffee rely on coffee to talk to people.  given that this thread has shown that teetotaling is apparently the worst option for your health, and that the vast majority of people who sometimes drink are not dependent on alcohol, i would imagine we have changed your view that it is objectively correct to look down on people who drink beer.
i have less respect for beer drinkers than for non beer drinkers that is my view.  this comes from the fact that beer drinkers do not have any reason to drink beer other than to, essentially, weaken their consciousness to make socializing easier.  what other reason could there be ? facts about beer:   way more expensive than other drinks   unhealthy and very fatty   puts you at risk of stupidity drunk driving, people taking advantage of you, losing your belongings, etc.    tastes bad    0;     0;  i believe that objectively beer is less tasty than other drinks like orange juice, bubble tea, or a soft drink.  do you really think someone that has been drinking those drinks their whole life would taste that strong bitterness of beer and say that they like it, let alone saying that they like it more than coke ? almost impossible.  i think those people are very rare.  beer is an  acquired taste , and when i say acquired, i mean that it needs to be associated with the socializing that it begets for a long time before someone would like it and they would only be liking it because of that conditioning not because of beer is actual taste.  so what is the problem with doing it for social reasons ? people are essentially saying  i do not trust my own consciousness to socialize and instead of working on improving i will socialize the easy and guaranteed way that requires artificially altering my personality.   unless people have some kind of mental illness causing them to have very high social inhibitions, i do not believe beer is a good way to solve their problem of having difficulty to interact with others.  i think it is just a way to avoid the problem one that is definitely possible to solve.  i am saying this as someone that used to be extremely shy and underwent major changes in the past few years.  i will concede that beer can possibly help someone work on their social issues, as in, having a little bit of beer just to get into the social environment when they are not used to it yet, kind of like with floaty tubes when learning to swim.  the ultimate goal will be to  not  rely on beer anymore, so i do not consider these people to be  beer drinkers .  tell me, what makes beer as a social enhancer any better than steroids as a muscle enhancer ? is it just the degree to which it affects your body or is there anything else to it ?  #  puts you at risk of stupidity drunk driving, people taking advantage of you, losing your belongings, etc.   #  sure a little bit, but the same can also be said of every other type of alcohol.   # the local liqueur store i go to often has sales and i can usually buy beer close to the same prices as soda.  water ? pop ? juices ? according to a quick google httpsso/www. google. com/search ? q fat in beer oq fat in  aqs chrome. 0j0i0j0j0j0j0 client ms android verizon sourceid chrome mobile espv 0 ie utf 0 beer has no fat on it.  so why is it unhealthy ? sure a little bit, but the same can also be said of every other type of alcohol.  not to mention people can have a beer or two and not get blackout drunk.  do you really think someone that has been drinking those drinks their whole life would taste that strong bitterness of beer and say that they like it, let alone saying that they like it more than coke ? almost impossible.  i think those people are very rare.  i guess that is you opinion.  i like the taste of most beers.  not to mention people can like multiple types of things.  people enjoy sweet, bitter, savory, and salty foods and drinks.  also, you say beer is unhealthy and then suggest people drink sugary cokes and juices ? again your opinion.  i have drank beer when i am not in big groups of people.  just me and my girlfriend even by myself.  and what is  a long time  ? do you really believe people will drink something they hate for years and years because of peer pressure, especially when there are other ways to get drunk ?  #  if you find a study that weighs benefits with consequences i will be more interested.   #  ca not open your first link.  i can see the second.  i am aware that there may be health benefits, but that does not take away from the many health consequences.  if you find a study that weighs benefits with consequences i will be more interested.  furthermore, the last three paragraphs of your second link talk about beer being unhealthy.   arthur klatsky, a retired kaiser permanente doctor and a researcher of the health effects of alcohol consumption, does not favor any particular alcoholic beverage.  yet he agrees that  beer has more nutrients, often more calories, b vitamins.  it is more like a food than wine or spirits .   being the best out of a bunch of unhealthy options is not necessarily a good thing.   #  discussions with patients regarding alcohol consumption should be made in the context of a general medical examination.   #  the first link is to an article from the american journal of the medical sciences,  nutritional and health benefits of beer  0 , which does weigh risks and benefits.  as /u/bearsnchairs commented, moderate alcohol consumption is associated with better health outcomes than abstaining.  the risks primarily come from overconsumption.  here is the full abstract: physicians should be aware of the growing evidence supporting the nutritional and health benefits of moderate consumption of alcohol as part of a healthy lifestyle.  the recently approved voluntary label on wine  the proud people who made this wine encourage you to consult your family doctor about the health effects of wine consumption  implies that physicians should promote wine as the preferred source of dietary alcohol.  however, studies evaluating the relative benefits of wine versus beer versus spirits suggest that moderate consumption of any alcoholic beverage is associated with lower rates of cardiovascular disease.  from a nutritional standpoint, beer contains more protein and b vitamins than wine.  the antioxidant content of beer is equivalent to that of wine, but the specific antioxidants are different because the barley and hops used in the production of beer contain flavonoids different from those in the grapes used in the production of wine.  the benefits of moderate alcohol consumption have not been generally endorsed by physicians for fear that heavy consumers may consider any message as a permissive license to drink in excess.  discussions with patients regarding alcohol consumption should be made in the context of a general medical examination.  there is no evidence to support endorsement of one type of alcoholic beverage over another.  the physician should define moderate drinking 0 drink per day for women and 0 drinks per day for men for the patient and should review consumption patterns associated with high risk.   #  therefore, i still do not think relying on alcohol is a respectable option.   #  i read it.  if all that is true then it is quite eye opening for me.  the article mentions that it is related to social interactions being important for physical and mental health.  i can understand this.  unfortunately, non drinkers are a pretty rare breed and they would most likely be people that are not social at all.  i do not think it is necessarily the ingredients of the alcohol at all; i think it is the social benefits that make you live longer.  therefore, i still do not think relying on alcohol is a respectable option.  i respect the ones that try to change themselves into an actual social person instead of using alcohol to have the occasional personality change.  i believe those would live just as long as the drinkers, and probably longer.   #  you seem to conflate drinking alcohol with alcoholism.   #   i do not think it is necessarily the ingredients of the alcohol at all; i think it is the social benefits that make you live longer.   that is an enormous assumption, that all the benefits of alcohol are psychological not physical.  it is probably incorrect, and i would gather a lot of evidence before you make that your operating theory.  you seem to conflate drinking alcohol with alcoholism.  we all agree  relying on alcohol  is troubling behavior, but the overwhelming majority of people who drink beer do not rely on beer to talk to people or function.  that is like saying people who meet their friends over coffee rely on coffee to talk to people.  given that this thread has shown that teetotaling is apparently the worst option for your health, and that the vast majority of people who sometimes drink are not dependent on alcohol, i would imagine we have changed your view that it is objectively correct to look down on people who drink beer.
it goes without say that mistreating zoo animals is no bueno, but i still think that zoos can be ethically justified:   the animals especially endangered ones can be cared for, either to preserve the species or ultimately release into the wild.  if we are using the usual justification of animal rights they can feel pain/have a life then letting them lead a safe and happy life in captivity seems to be more moral than the dangers of the wild.    this is a less quantifiable good, but zoos let citizens see animals which they otherwise not, leading them to consider them and the environment when creating/voting on policies.  while i guess the best way to c my v would be to provide overwhelming evidence that zoos provide lower quality of life for the animals than life in the wild and that there are more effective means of conserving/promoting endanger species, i am mostly interested in values/premises i have not considered.  change my view ! :  #  either to preserve the species or ultimately release into the wild.   #  animals who are born, raised or otherwise spend long periods of time in zoos are no longer able to survive in the wild.   # but only a tiny percentage of animals in zoos are endangered.  also,  keeping them in zoos  renders them unable to live in the wild.  a far more effective, long term method of preserving endangered species is to protect the wildlife in which they live.  animals who are born, raised or otherwise spend long periods of time in zoos are no longer able to survive in the wild.  it is actually considered immoral to release them into the wild because they will die long before their ability to mate.  it is true that zoos bring animals closer to humans, but there is not any evidence to show that humans are more caring of the wildlife environment as a result.  though, mostly zoo life for animals is a lot like prison life for humans.  no one would argue that a human in prison is alive.  or that it is not cared for.  humans have food, shelter, entertainment and social structure.  but all of the things that make life worth living are gone.  the ability to build a family.  the option to find a mate.  the ability to build the things in our lives which we each assign value to.  animals are not so different.  they might mate with another because they are incited to.  but they often have ideas of who they like or do not.  they cannot hunt their food in spite of an evolutionary drive to do so.  also, often, the topic of animal depression is discussed in zoos where it would be nearly nonexistant in the wild.  it is the guarantee of  life  which is more than the wild offers.  but it is a guarantee of a  type  of life which is less than is offered in freedom.   #  we do have dolphins, but they have more room than most captive dolphins do, and they get a lot of mental stimulation dolphins are very smart from training.   #  our family visited the berlin zoo once.  the big cats and primates were kept in cages like the ones on the side of a box of animal crackers.  they had small enclosures connected to these cages, and went out on a schedule, i guess.  but it was horrible.  the cats paced back and forth and were clearly stressed out.  the monkeys made aggressive gestures at us, so i think they were miserable, too.  the only good thing about that zoo, unless it is bad for the animals, was an underground exhibit where they had a natural ish environment for nocturnal animals, and the lighting was reversed so that they had light when it was night and were therefore awake and active for us.  it was hard to see them, but it was really cool.  so i hope it was not bad for the animals.  our zoo in indianapolis is good to the animals, i think.  lots of habitats, you ca not always see the animals because of that, but it is better for them.  we do have dolphins, but they have more room than most captive dolphins do, and they get a lot of mental stimulation dolphins are very smart from training.  also superb health care.  there is a huge difference between the two zoos.   #  URL if you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.   #  sorry penguinluvinman, your comment has been removed:   comment rule 0\.   direct responses to a cmv post must challenge at least one aspect of op is current view however minor , unless they are asking a clarifying question.  arguments in favor of the view op is willing to change must be restricted to replies to comments.   see the wiki page for more information.  URL if you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.  URL sorry bout that.  it was a quality comment, just rules are rules.  i do hope you will participate in the thread still.   #  living free on the plains, even subject to predation, is better than not, no matter what.   #  a lot of whether you consider captivity to be ethical depends on your view of how ideal nature is.  there is the view that whatever is natural is best: eating their native diet is better than a zoo diet, no matter what.  living free on the plains, even subject to predation, is better than not, no matter what.  i do not personally subscribe to that view, because i have little doubt we can come up with a far more nutritious diet than a lion can necessarily find on the savanna.  but that is what i think motivates it, the idea that any interference with  the natural order  is inherently unethical.   #  that is because we are only considering half the view.   #  that is because we are only considering half the view.  keeping animals in captivity is unethical for the same reasons eating meat would be unethical: we, as humans, are not superior to other animals and thus could/should not decide on their lives, interfering their own right to live as they would want.  i, as a human, ca not decide that this or that animal  should  live in captivity, even if it is treated as a king there.  i, as a human, ca not decide that the cow should be killed just for my pleasure in eating meat.  the counterarguments encountered on the eating meat part usually go along this way:  but meat is part of an human natural nutrition  yeah, but you are not hunting your meat.  you do not live in nature.  and our nutrition is highly dependant on where we live.  since we now have the technology to substitute meat for other sources of protein and vitamins, how can we even consider that killing an animal is ok ? nowadays, we eat meat mainly for pleasure, not as a source of nutrition.  that said, i still eat meat for a lot of other reasons.  just wanted to point out the whole arguement there: it is not an  appeal to nature  arguement as much as it is an anti hierarchy one, to which i do subscribe to.
it goes without say that mistreating zoo animals is no bueno, but i still think that zoos can be ethically justified:   the animals especially endangered ones can be cared for, either to preserve the species or ultimately release into the wild.  if we are using the usual justification of animal rights they can feel pain/have a life then letting them lead a safe and happy life in captivity seems to be more moral than the dangers of the wild.    this is a less quantifiable good, but zoos let citizens see animals which they otherwise not, leading them to consider them and the environment when creating/voting on policies.  while i guess the best way to c my v would be to provide overwhelming evidence that zoos provide lower quality of life for the animals than life in the wild and that there are more effective means of conserving/promoting endanger species, i am mostly interested in values/premises i have not considered.  change my view ! :  #  zoos let citizens see animals which they otherwise not, leading them to consider them and the environment when creating/voting on policies.   #  it is true that zoos bring animals closer to humans, but there is not any evidence to show that humans are more caring of the wildlife environment as a result.   # but only a tiny percentage of animals in zoos are endangered.  also,  keeping them in zoos  renders them unable to live in the wild.  a far more effective, long term method of preserving endangered species is to protect the wildlife in which they live.  animals who are born, raised or otherwise spend long periods of time in zoos are no longer able to survive in the wild.  it is actually considered immoral to release them into the wild because they will die long before their ability to mate.  it is true that zoos bring animals closer to humans, but there is not any evidence to show that humans are more caring of the wildlife environment as a result.  though, mostly zoo life for animals is a lot like prison life for humans.  no one would argue that a human in prison is alive.  or that it is not cared for.  humans have food, shelter, entertainment and social structure.  but all of the things that make life worth living are gone.  the ability to build a family.  the option to find a mate.  the ability to build the things in our lives which we each assign value to.  animals are not so different.  they might mate with another because they are incited to.  but they often have ideas of who they like or do not.  they cannot hunt their food in spite of an evolutionary drive to do so.  also, often, the topic of animal depression is discussed in zoos where it would be nearly nonexistant in the wild.  it is the guarantee of  life  which is more than the wild offers.  but it is a guarantee of a  type  of life which is less than is offered in freedom.   #  we do have dolphins, but they have more room than most captive dolphins do, and they get a lot of mental stimulation dolphins are very smart from training.   #  our family visited the berlin zoo once.  the big cats and primates were kept in cages like the ones on the side of a box of animal crackers.  they had small enclosures connected to these cages, and went out on a schedule, i guess.  but it was horrible.  the cats paced back and forth and were clearly stressed out.  the monkeys made aggressive gestures at us, so i think they were miserable, too.  the only good thing about that zoo, unless it is bad for the animals, was an underground exhibit where they had a natural ish environment for nocturnal animals, and the lighting was reversed so that they had light when it was night and were therefore awake and active for us.  it was hard to see them, but it was really cool.  so i hope it was not bad for the animals.  our zoo in indianapolis is good to the animals, i think.  lots of habitats, you ca not always see the animals because of that, but it is better for them.  we do have dolphins, but they have more room than most captive dolphins do, and they get a lot of mental stimulation dolphins are very smart from training.  also superb health care.  there is a huge difference between the two zoos.   #   direct responses to a cmv post must challenge at least one aspect of op is current view however minor , unless they are asking a clarifying question.   #  sorry penguinluvinman, your comment has been removed:   comment rule 0\.   direct responses to a cmv post must challenge at least one aspect of op is current view however minor , unless they are asking a clarifying question.  arguments in favor of the view op is willing to change must be restricted to replies to comments.   see the wiki page for more information.  URL if you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.  URL sorry bout that.  it was a quality comment, just rules are rules.  i do hope you will participate in the thread still.   #  living free on the plains, even subject to predation, is better than not, no matter what.   #  a lot of whether you consider captivity to be ethical depends on your view of how ideal nature is.  there is the view that whatever is natural is best: eating their native diet is better than a zoo diet, no matter what.  living free on the plains, even subject to predation, is better than not, no matter what.  i do not personally subscribe to that view, because i have little doubt we can come up with a far more nutritious diet than a lion can necessarily find on the savanna.  but that is what i think motivates it, the idea that any interference with  the natural order  is inherently unethical.   #  that is because we are only considering half the view.   #  that is because we are only considering half the view.  keeping animals in captivity is unethical for the same reasons eating meat would be unethical: we, as humans, are not superior to other animals and thus could/should not decide on their lives, interfering their own right to live as they would want.  i, as a human, ca not decide that this or that animal  should  live in captivity, even if it is treated as a king there.  i, as a human, ca not decide that the cow should be killed just for my pleasure in eating meat.  the counterarguments encountered on the eating meat part usually go along this way:  but meat is part of an human natural nutrition  yeah, but you are not hunting your meat.  you do not live in nature.  and our nutrition is highly dependant on where we live.  since we now have the technology to substitute meat for other sources of protein and vitamins, how can we even consider that killing an animal is ok ? nowadays, we eat meat mainly for pleasure, not as a source of nutrition.  that said, i still eat meat for a lot of other reasons.  just wanted to point out the whole arguement there: it is not an  appeal to nature  arguement as much as it is an anti hierarchy one, to which i do subscribe to.
i watched the documentary on a sexualism and i am not convinced.  i think these people that identify as  asexual  either have not found the  right  person for them yet, are just looking for attention, or just joining part of a trend to seem  interesting  or  wouldifferent .  i think if you are born with a set of a genitals, you are in fact a sexual being and in turn, feel some sexual attraction to other humans.  i understand how this can be offensive.  i look at my brother who is gay and i understand where he comes from, and the obstacles he overcomes through being gay, and i just ca not sympathize with people who identify as  asexual  and implicate that they endure the same struggles as someone from the lbgt community.  please change my view !  #  and i just ca not sympathize with people who identify as  asexual  and implicate that they endure the same struggles as someone from the lbgt community.   #  this post is a shining example of why asexuals have the same struggles as the lgbt community.   #  saying   have not found the  right  person for them yet is like saying to a gay girl:  you are not gay, you just have not met the right guy yet.   saying   i think if you are born with a set of a genitals, you are in fact a sexual being and in turn, feel some sexual attraction to other humans.  is like saying to a gay guy:  you are born with a penis, and it is supposed to go inside a vagina.   this is exactly what a lot people say about transsexual people.  this post is a shining example of why asexuals have the same struggles as the lgbt community.  just because you do not understand it does not automatically mean other ca not feel this way.   #  not everyone is pre programmed with the same set of biological instructions.   #  actually, that is a pretty silly argument.  you are arguing that the drive for physical sensation will 0 override any and all other desire.  that is simply not true.  different individuals have different relationships with their physical bodies.  not everyone enjoys physical touch/sensation.  not everyone is pre programmed with the same set of biological instructions.  they simply are not.  obviously, asexuality is extremely uncommon, but as with any biological group, there will be statistical outliers.  why should  sexual interest in human beings  be any different ? additionally, if we all possessed a mindless biological drive to rub our genitals against any and everything, why would not we be doing that ? would not our society be as much about public sex as it is about public eating ? if our desire to physically stimulate ourselves was determined only by nerve endings, then this would be the case.  we could not, as biological creatures, form any other society.  because sex is rather private though plenty of people are public about it , an asexual can blend in better than a same sex couple can.   #  modern society is only a fairly recent thing.   #  additionally, if we all possessed a mindless biological drive to rub our genitals against any and everything, why would not we be doing that ? would not our society be as much about public sex as it is about public eating ? if our desire to physically stimulate ourselves was determined only by nerve endings, then this would be the case.  we could not, as biological creatures, form any other society.  well arguably, we were like that for thousands of years, as cavemen.  modern society is only a fairly recent thing.   #  and there is just no way that a few people are outliers and have no desire for sexual relations ?  # 0 there are 0,0 nerve endings in the vagina, 0,0 nerve endings in the penis, and 0 in your hand.  most of your body evolved to make you want to fuck.  and there is just no way that a few people are outliers and have no desire for sexual relations ? short of violence or any form of discrimination or huge communities devoted to exterminating them.  it is downright overdramatic to compare the two.  maybe it is overdramatic.  but most of what the lgbt community is fighting for is acceptance.  by being unsympathetic and not understanding asexual people, you are not being accepting of who they are.  these people literally have no impact on you or anyone else.  what harm is it to take them at their word ? i am always baffled by this idea that,  x group is only x because they want attention !   because is not that very notion giving them the attention they supposedly want ? just let them be, and if they are legit then they will be legit, and if they are not then they will move on with their lives.   #  if you were averse to sex because you were a rape victim or something fine, i accept that.   # it makes more sense that people would claim it for other reasons.  if you were averse to sex because you were a rape victim or something fine, i accept that.  i accept that something terrible happened in your life to give you deep psychological problems ranging from sexual assault to years of bitter rejection.  or maybe your e just lying to be special.  i mean, it is not like that is ever happened before.  or you have just defeated 0 billion years of evolution by sheer will.  because they are being murdered and discriminated against.  which asexuals are not.  did you know it is legal to not hire you because you are gay ? has legislation ever been passed to not hire asexuals ? not caring about you or taking you seriously is not discrimination.  you are not being denied human rights.  what harm is it to take them at their word ? you do not  deserve  me taking you seriously.  it is as simple as that.  because is not that very notion giving them the attention they supposedly want ? actually my explanation is that group x is only x because it makes them feel special.  only when you are vegans about it.  why on this planet of earth would it come up that you are not interested in sex ? you make tumblr posts and facebook posts to announce yourself like derek taking his shirt off in the prison yard in american history x.  seems kind of attention grabby.
i watched the documentary on a sexualism and i am not convinced.  i think these people that identify as  asexual  either have not found the  right  person for them yet, are just looking for attention, or just joining part of a trend to seem  interesting  or  wouldifferent .  i think if you are born with a set of a genitals, you are in fact a sexual being and in turn, feel some sexual attraction to other humans.  i understand how this can be offensive.  i look at my brother who is gay and i understand where he comes from, and the obstacles he overcomes through being gay, and i just ca not sympathize with people who identify as  asexual  and implicate that they endure the same struggles as someone from the lbgt community.  please change my view !  #  i think if you are born with a set of a genitals, you are in fact a sexual being and in turn, feel some sexual attraction to other humans.   #  you are making the same leap in logic that people make regarding sex change operations.   # you are making the same leap in logic that people make regarding sex change operations.   if you have a penis, you are a boy.  if you have vagina, you are a girl  .  it is definitely  easier  to dismiss someone is ideas than to consider them, but that does not make it accurate.  sexuality is strongly tied to identity.  imagine all of the cues that society gives a person who is sexual sexual.  everything from who they are having sex with ie disparities in attractiveness, age, race, etc is scrutinized.  also the kinds of sex that you are open about having strictly helps to categorize you somewhere in the system.  almost everything about sex is in some public sense taboo.  even without sex, there is a lot of bonding among men and women separately or together regarding sexuality.  just looking at an attractive person passing you by and nodding to your buddy.  or discussing events, celebrations or just making up.  sex is a common topic of discussion.  then there is the media.  sexuality drives us to buy everything from beer to gym memberships.  it is a tool which is used because it works.  if it did not work on you, you would find it more than just superfluous, it would be frustrating to be exposed to it regularly.  it is a factor of identity which is deeply ingrained in society and ubiquitous in daily life.  if a person does not feel a sex drive, everything from social bonding, to reactions to commercials to meeting social expectations would be impacted.   #  obviously, asexuality is extremely uncommon, but as with any biological group, there will be statistical outliers.   #  actually, that is a pretty silly argument.  you are arguing that the drive for physical sensation will 0 override any and all other desire.  that is simply not true.  different individuals have different relationships with their physical bodies.  not everyone enjoys physical touch/sensation.  not everyone is pre programmed with the same set of biological instructions.  they simply are not.  obviously, asexuality is extremely uncommon, but as with any biological group, there will be statistical outliers.  why should  sexual interest in human beings  be any different ? additionally, if we all possessed a mindless biological drive to rub our genitals against any and everything, why would not we be doing that ? would not our society be as much about public sex as it is about public eating ? if our desire to physically stimulate ourselves was determined only by nerve endings, then this would be the case.  we could not, as biological creatures, form any other society.  because sex is rather private though plenty of people are public about it , an asexual can blend in better than a same sex couple can.   #  would not our society be as much about public sex as it is about public eating ?  #  additionally, if we all possessed a mindless biological drive to rub our genitals against any and everything, why would not we be doing that ? would not our society be as much about public sex as it is about public eating ? if our desire to physically stimulate ourselves was determined only by nerve endings, then this would be the case.  we could not, as biological creatures, form any other society.  well arguably, we were like that for thousands of years, as cavemen.  modern society is only a fairly recent thing.   #  i am always baffled by this idea that,  x group is only x because they want attention !    # 0 there are 0,0 nerve endings in the vagina, 0,0 nerve endings in the penis, and 0 in your hand.  most of your body evolved to make you want to fuck.  and there is just no way that a few people are outliers and have no desire for sexual relations ? short of violence or any form of discrimination or huge communities devoted to exterminating them.  it is downright overdramatic to compare the two.  maybe it is overdramatic.  but most of what the lgbt community is fighting for is acceptance.  by being unsympathetic and not understanding asexual people, you are not being accepting of who they are.  these people literally have no impact on you or anyone else.  what harm is it to take them at their word ? i am always baffled by this idea that,  x group is only x because they want attention !   because is not that very notion giving them the attention they supposedly want ? just let them be, and if they are legit then they will be legit, and if they are not then they will move on with their lives.   #  if you were averse to sex because you were a rape victim or something fine, i accept that.   # it makes more sense that people would claim it for other reasons.  if you were averse to sex because you were a rape victim or something fine, i accept that.  i accept that something terrible happened in your life to give you deep psychological problems ranging from sexual assault to years of bitter rejection.  or maybe your e just lying to be special.  i mean, it is not like that is ever happened before.  or you have just defeated 0 billion years of evolution by sheer will.  because they are being murdered and discriminated against.  which asexuals are not.  did you know it is legal to not hire you because you are gay ? has legislation ever been passed to not hire asexuals ? not caring about you or taking you seriously is not discrimination.  you are not being denied human rights.  what harm is it to take them at their word ? you do not  deserve  me taking you seriously.  it is as simple as that.  because is not that very notion giving them the attention they supposedly want ? actually my explanation is that group x is only x because it makes them feel special.  only when you are vegans about it.  why on this planet of earth would it come up that you are not interested in sex ? you make tumblr posts and facebook posts to announce yourself like derek taking his shirt off in the prison yard in american history x.  seems kind of attention grabby.
first of, i do not think that either trump or sanders should or necessarily could become the potus.  but i feel that the two most likely and realistic candidates are jeb bush and hillary clinton, who are essentially the same people in terms of policy and representation of the status quo in us politics.  if trump went up against hillary he would get beaten soundly, and if sanders went up against bush, he would get beaten soundly as well.  whichever one bush/clinton wins is pretty much irrelevant to me, but what i think would be best would be if one of the parties was able to actually field an anti establishment candidate.  even if the election were lost, having one of those  fringe  candidates represent their party would  force  the political aristocracy to recognize the fact that we are still in a democracy, and with the incredible pervasive nature of information in the modern age it is much easier to connect and organize large groups of people.  and large groups of people can have a lot of political power, which means that the focus of politicians may just start moving back towards the people they represent instead of their business interests, which both parties are guilty of.  why would not it be best if one of the two parties got a serious black eye because the people they represent were able to motivate outside of the party line they are being fed ?  #  why would not it be best if one of the two parties got a serious black eye because the people they represent were able to motivate outside of the party line they are being fed ?  #  four years of presidency is enough for more than just a black eye.   #  to clarify for myself, you have made the assertion that anti establishment  is  the best thing for america.  not everyone agrees with that point, but i will proceed with that as the premise.  four years of presidency is enough for more than just a black eye.  it can wreck the economy.  this does mean dismantling things, but it also means  not replacing  those things with anything such that basic needs are met.  separately, donald trump does not have history in politics.  even in the process of campaigning he is attacking republican candidates at every turn.  he is not just attacking his opponents, he is gone so far to attack john mccain, a powerful figure of the republican party which has nothing to do with him.  this pretty much means that even if he were to be elected he would not have an ally on either side of the isle.  at best  that will make him an ineffective president who cannot carry out his own agenda and has to do what other political groups decide is best.  at worst  it will wreck the economy.  trump is a spoiled child who ca not control himself.  this may be tolerated internally but in terms of foreign policy, this is a disaster.  the potus has to handle many delicate foreign relationships with powerful people.  some of those broken relationships take generations to rebuild.  internally, i do believe that trump knows business, but a country is not a business.  there is no reason to believe that he will do anything other than expand corporate welfare and create a larger disparity between the rich and poor.   #  there are tons of people in this country who will never vote for the opposing party i will admit i am certainly one of them .   # this article does not support your argument.  the thing about both sanders and trump is that neither of them is truly outside the mainstreams of their political bases they are just likely outside or easily painted outside, at least of political independents/undecideds.  the reality, though, is that you ca not win a presidential election without those undecideds.  there are tons of people in this country who will never vote for the opposing party i will admit i am certainly one of them .  politicians understand that.  they know the percentage of voters they are going into the election with they have got to do two things: get the base to show up and get the support of undecided voters.  trump and sanders can do the former, but they will have a tough time doing the latter.  and if one of them becomes the nominee and loses, as you would like, all this does is bolster the  centrist  candidates you so despise, no ? how does that not validate the idea that centrist candidates are more electable ? how does this show party leaders that they should back certain kinds of nominees when those nominees lose elections ?  #  bill was able to get a ton of legislation passed.   #  did you read the article you posted ? but that does not say anything about policy.  i am not a hilary fan, but the clintons are politically extremely savvy.  bill was able to get a ton of legislation passed.  obama is biggest problem has been that he is never been able to work with congress.  that same problem will apply to sanders and trump they are not consensus builders, or deal makers.  sanders is too principled and trump is too egotistical.  you may not like the way the system works, but it is the one we have.  with the separation of powers, being a maverick outsider makes for good speeches, but little actual change.   #  bill was able to get a ton of legislation passed.   # bill was able to get a ton of legislation passed.  obama is biggest problem has been that he is never been able to work with congress.  that same problem will apply to sanders and trump they are not consensus builders, or deal makers.  sanders is too principled and trump is too egotistical.  hmm, i have never thought about candidates this way before.  though it makes a lot of sense to judge candidates within their own party based on their ability to actually get legislation passed once they are in office.  since the difference between their policies tends to be more nuanced, things like this have a larger impact on who should receive the party is support.     #  removing the epa   removing social security   removing minimum wage   placing sanctions on china these  are  anti establishment ideas.   #  most democrats have a preference between clinton or sanders, but would be happy with either one.  so the black eye that you are talking about mostly applies to the republican party.  the republican party had  exactly this kind of debate in 0 .  throughout most of the primaries the frontrunner kept changing between fringe candidates.  ron paul, newt gingrich   herman cain were all frontrunners at some point and all wanted to drastically change the way that government exists.  the problem is that even for the republican party, it is not ultimately what they wanted.  eventually they settled on mitt romney.  romney  also had  anti establishment ideas.  removing the epa   removing social security   removing minimum wage   placing sanctions on china these  are  anti establishment ideas.  the problem is that even in spite of the black eye of this loss, the republican party has not changed.  this election process is panning out exactly as the last one did as proof of that.  in conclusion, an anti establishment candidate is not the same black eye for one party as it is for the other.  even in the case where it is exactly that damaging, it did not/does not force any change.
hoping that this sub can help ! it seems that my life is in a weird period, and will stay this way until my view is fixed.  0 year old male.  i have been working in a startup for the last 0 years and it is grown tremendously.  i make 0k a year and have my own place with a few roommates leasing a car, keeping busy with music.  it all seems to be solid from all measures.  but it is not enough.  i do not have a girlfriend likely due to a desperate vibe that i emit and really find that to be the only thing i am concerned with.  i was in a relationship for 0 years that ended 0 months ago, and i am not yet over it.  before that, i had a 0 year relationship.  a lot of thinking has led to a lot of learning for example, i did not end either of those relationships.  once i am content.  i never leave.  that must be coming from a deeper belief/view at play.  so many cliches make sense, but are frustrating and have been functionally unhelpful: you want what you ca not have if you love something let it go time heals all wounds logically, they all make sense but from a deeper level, it does not seem to hit or maybe i would be changing how i view things .  even though it is not a pressing issue at the moment, i have not finished my degree that will forever irk me due to possible financial outcomes .  do not really have the drive to finish it.  i have dealt with depression and it all seems to come down to a belief i hold deep down that romantic relationships are the most significant thing in life.  my last relationship ending was mostly my fault i have learned what not to do moving forward, but do not have an opportunity to correct it with my last partner.  i am not looking for female friends i am looking for a lover, for a partner.  being able to sleep and wake up next to someone you care about is one of the coolest things i have ever experienced.  my view makes life very frustrating and unenjoyable without a relationship, which i do not currently have.  i write to you here with a few things in mind: 0.  i am not happy with how life is when single 0.  this is attributed to my worldview 0.  i realize that the significance i place on relationships is likely unhealthy 0.  i do not know how to change it 0.  i have spoken to many people about this family, friends, therapist, ex is parents 0.  nothing said has been enough to hit me on a belief/view level.  0.  after 0 months i have been unable to solve this on my own please cmv.   #  romantic relationships are the most significant thing in life.   #  this is your tragic flaw right here.   # this is your tragic flaw right here.  you are convinced that romance is necessary for happiness.  so let is examine that for a second.  would you be happy if you were in a loving relationship, but were working 0 hour days for less than minimum wage in a tiny apartment with 0 other people and not enough water pressure to do little more but stand under a dribble of rusty h0 while your four children tug at the corners of your ripped pants for an extra morsel ? you would be miserable, i guarantee it.  and your loving relationship would not last, because you would be fighting and struggling for basic necessities, you could not even enjoy that love.  so if happiness depends more on other things, then love is not the end all be all.  life to me is like a cake.  to make a delicious, moist cake that is not a lie you need ingredients.  then you need to bake those ingredients.  without those ingredients, your life simply wo not be happy and fulfilling.  you seem to have all of those ingredients, a blossoming career at a young age, friendships and independence, mobility, etc.  but your perspective is skewed.  you see love as the flour of that cake.  i see love as the icing on the cake.  love is great and all, but if i do not have my cake i ca not be happy.  just eating a bucket of icing does not sustain my vital needs, it does not give me nutrients, it does not fill my belly.  the cake does that.  if your existing life is not pleasing enough to you, i would recommend you get a serious creative outlet.  write, paint, draw, make music, get a hobby, something that truly satisfies you.  i believe that you are ready for love when you are in love with your life.   #  you were in a relationship that lasted for 0 years.   #  you were in a relationship that lasted for 0 years.  and you reaction to that is simply trying to get in a relationship.  it seems like you have not taken any time to figure out why things went wrong in the first place.  that is kind of important.  time does not heal all wounds.  time alone does not do shit.  time plus reflection can bring healing.  it seems like you have not really done the second bit.  you said you have learned what not to do wrong.  have you ? you had five years with your last partner.  did you make the same mistakes as you have made in other relationships ? are you going to find a girl who is special and who means something to you or are you just going to wake up next to the first girl who takes you in ?  #  she also fed you and made your bed and, like love, you should not be looking for those things from someone else anymore.   # your mom was the last person that gave you unconditional love.  she also fed you and made your bed and, like love, you should not be looking for those things from someone else anymore.  from here on out, it is not about taking, but giving.  depression can be a huge obstruction here.  if you can get the  professional  help you need, you should do so.  if your employer has an eap start there.  i am not discounting romance, but it is really just one of a wide range of feelings that you will get working for you eventually.   #  my ex is with a new person and is committed to that relationship.   #  i have not dated since the prospect is odd and i ca not totally imagine it at the moment.  my ex is with a new person and is committed to that relationship.  i stopped showing her attention.  i got complacent, comfortable.  relied on her being around too much.  did not take her out, did not have fun.  did not reciprocate love.  since then i have been playing a lot of music live.  going out, having fun.  i play music with a girl who has no romantic interest in me, but she does not know me as i was before.  i am not the same in that way.  this specific issue was not an issue in my previous previous relationship i was very active with my ex ex.  how do you meet someone special ? i have had little luck with online dating.  i feel as if i would be lucky to get the next girl that comes by.  i would love the compatibility that my ex and i shared but i will be happy with any female romantic company that i find physically/mentally attractive to me that is willing.   #  he is currently dating someone he does not have a whole lot in common with, but he says it is the best he can do.   #  you should hold off with online dating, or dating of any kind, until you are completely over the 0 year relationship.  every date you have while you are still hung up on your ex will involve you comparing her to your ex, or reminiscing about the fun times you used to have at the place you took your ex.  it does not really let you get to know the person in front of you, which is a disservice to the both of you.  i helped my friend through a 0 year relationship ending.  since the end of that, he got hung up on a few other girls, because he missed the idea of women being nice to him.  he is currently dating someone he does not have a whole lot in common with, but he says it is the best he can do.  he settled, and i think it is because he idealized relationships to the point that he felt he was defined by the person he was dating and not the things he is accomplished.  i am going to take a guess and say she was a high school sweetheart.  relationships in high school and some in college form because people are forced to be close 0 hours a week.  it takes a lot more time to get that close and determine how compatible you are with someone when you are outside of school.
i watched the republican debate, and by no means am i republican, i identify as a democrat on most things.  i listened to donald trump, and he was honestly the most honest candidate there, in a world where the mass population of people are sheep, and just follow the status quo he stood out, even when he knew he would get booed he still said what was on his mind, and that is honestly admirable.  when confronted about his remarks regarding woman, he owned up to it, that never happens 0 of politicians would avoid the question or play around it.  his policies do seem farfetch would i do not think mexico will pay for this wall, i do think its possible, but i do not see it happening, it is honestly not a bad idea in my opinion.  i am genuinely convinced all of his hatred comes from the fact he is not politically correct, and that reminds me of reddit in a sense, that people who act against the status quo are down voted not because of their opinions but because they hold the  wrong  opinions.  i do not see what is wrong with this man, being politically incorrect does not mean shit when it comes to policy, and i do think a business man whose made billions can help fix the economy.   #  i do think a business man whose made billions can help fix the economy.   #  running a private business is entirely different from running a country.   # does that make them good ? what do you mean ? he is topping the polls.  running a private business is entirely different from running a country.  even so, trump has gotten into debt problems before.  and the return on investment of his starting capital inherited, of course is more or less the same as what he would have gotten on a simple savings account.   #  she talks like a, like a truck driver.   #  my uncle has some opinions that he is completely honest about and i damn sure would not want him running the executive branch of our country.  someone who is completely honest lacks tact.  the lack of tact leads to ineffectiveness.  candor is not always a good quality.  someone who lacks the social awareness not to say shit like:  laziness is a trait in blacks.  all of the women on the apprentice flirted with me consciously or unconsciously.  that is to be expected.  you know, it does not really matter what the media write as long as you have got a young and beautiful piece of ass.  talking about rosie o wouldonnell  you take a look at her, she is a slob.  she talks like a, like a truck driver.  it is freezing and snowing in new york.  we need global warming ! sorry losers and haters, but my i. q.  is one of the highest and you all know it ! please do not feel so stupid or insecure.  it is not your fault.  the person who says these things you would be ok representing you on the world is stage ? think about the stuff he would be likely to say when trying to negotiate delicate peace talks.  the man is a narcissistic buffoon.  i honestly think that it says something about our society in general that we allow a man like this into a presidential debate just because he has a lot of money.   #  nobody in their right mind would ever want a negotiator who is going to leave the room chanting   o wouldoyle rules !  #  people tend to forget that, among other duties, the president is the chief diplomat.  and there is a reason that the words  tact  and  tactics  share a root.  if your approach to all things is boorish, ham fisted, and insulting, do not be surprised when sensitive diplomatic matters blow up in your face.  complete and unfiltered candor is really only refreshing to the american public because they are sick of weasel worded, non commital comments from politicians who care more about their polling numbers than their integrity.  but guess what ? you do not have to be utterly disrespectful and confrontational to honestly speak your mind.  it is a false dichotomy.  suppressing your own pride, ego, and emotional responses in order to serve larger national interests is a necessary skill in diplomacy.  one that trump has shown absolutely zero capability for.  i want a rational negotiator who can tactfully de escalate a situation with unstable and demanding diplomats rather than someone who is going to be antagonistic, insulting, and then pat themselves on the back for  sticking it to them.   nobody in their right mind would ever want a negotiator who is going to leave the room chanting   o wouldoyle rules ! URL  #  on what grounds do you claim he is such an expert in business ?  #  do you mean other than the fact that he is wholly unqualified for the position ? setting aside the blatant racism and complete ignorance, setting aside the sense of rich white guy entitlement, the man has zero qualification for running this country.  he is demonstrably unable to be diplomatic on any level.  he would quickly alienate quite likely several countries, allies or not.  he has not shown himself to be anything but inept at management of, well, anything.  the man has filed for bankruptcy four times.  he would be a nightmare for our economy.  you claim he knows business ? he is a trust fund baby who has failed in massive ways at business.  on what grounds do you claim he is such an expert in business ? and even if he was, this is a society, a country, not a business, and running it as such without taking into account the human element which, again, he is demonstrably incapable of would run us into the ground as well.  trump, as president, would be a massive failure for this country.   #  but nevermind that, in just his speech to announce his candidacy, he alienated the mexican government, which, immigration problems or not, is still an ally of ours.   #  trump makes his billions by sucking the life out of companies then declaring bankruptcy after hiding his assets.  he is done it four times, and if i recall correctly is currently doing it again with one of his casinos, a business which is literally designed to rob people blind.  why exactly should we believe he is even capable of acting in the best interests of anyone but himself ? but nevermind that, in just his speech to announce his candidacy, he alienated the mexican government, which, immigration problems or not, is still an ally of ours.  ok, so he is a crooked businessman and a lousy statesman, but he shoots straight right ? except he is running as a republican after donating huge amounts to  both  parties.  it is pretty hard to look at trump as anything other than a narcissist running solely for the sake of his own interests.  if anything he is a walking example of the worst parts of american society, and we should be ashamed that anybody considers him to be a legitimate candidate for leader of the free world.
i watched the republican debate, and by no means am i republican, i identify as a democrat on most things.  i listened to donald trump, and he was honestly the most honest candidate there, in a world where the mass population of people are sheep, and just follow the status quo he stood out, even when he knew he would get booed he still said what was on his mind, and that is honestly admirable.  when confronted about his remarks regarding woman, he owned up to it, that never happens 0 of politicians would avoid the question or play around it.  his policies do seem farfetch would i do not think mexico will pay for this wall, i do think its possible, but i do not see it happening, it is honestly not a bad idea in my opinion.  i am genuinely convinced all of his hatred comes from the fact he is not politically correct, and that reminds me of reddit in a sense, that people who act against the status quo are down voted not because of their opinions but because they hold the  wrong  opinions.  i do not see what is wrong with this man, being politically incorrect does not mean shit when it comes to policy, and i do think a business man whose made billions can help fix the economy.   #  i do think a business man whose made billions can help fix the economy.   #  the government is full of people who are all more knowledgeable about economic policy than trump.   # on the first area, you have to remember that the reason that politicians seem so dishonest is often because they are very eager to not get any negative press coverage which could hamper their ability to pass legislation/maintain public support.  if you thought a figure like bush or quayle received a lot of negative attention for saying idiotic things, trump would be far, far worse, and this actually does have a tangible impact on their ability to govern well.  secondly, trump is statements and outlandish foreign policies are not going to endear him to other countries.  for a country to appear like a safe place worth cooperating with, politically and economically, you ca not go alienating the people and governments of other countries, especially not your neighbours.  trump does not appear to have any concern for even wording his views in a sensitive manner, and he is likely to propose policies that continental europe, latin america and the middle east will all strongly dislike for various reasons.  if you are going to do this, it does no good for you to pay no attention to appearing politically correct.  the government is full of people who are all more knowledgeable about economic policy than trump.  anything he brings to the table in this respect is going to be symbolic.   #  talking about rosie o wouldonnell  you take a look at her, she is a slob.   #  my uncle has some opinions that he is completely honest about and i damn sure would not want him running the executive branch of our country.  someone who is completely honest lacks tact.  the lack of tact leads to ineffectiveness.  candor is not always a good quality.  someone who lacks the social awareness not to say shit like:  laziness is a trait in blacks.  all of the women on the apprentice flirted with me consciously or unconsciously.  that is to be expected.  you know, it does not really matter what the media write as long as you have got a young and beautiful piece of ass.  talking about rosie o wouldonnell  you take a look at her, she is a slob.  she talks like a, like a truck driver.  it is freezing and snowing in new york.  we need global warming ! sorry losers and haters, but my i. q.  is one of the highest and you all know it ! please do not feel so stupid or insecure.  it is not your fault.  the person who says these things you would be ok representing you on the world is stage ? think about the stuff he would be likely to say when trying to negotiate delicate peace talks.  the man is a narcissistic buffoon.  i honestly think that it says something about our society in general that we allow a man like this into a presidential debate just because he has a lot of money.   #  nobody in their right mind would ever want a negotiator who is going to leave the room chanting   o wouldoyle rules !  #  people tend to forget that, among other duties, the president is the chief diplomat.  and there is a reason that the words  tact  and  tactics  share a root.  if your approach to all things is boorish, ham fisted, and insulting, do not be surprised when sensitive diplomatic matters blow up in your face.  complete and unfiltered candor is really only refreshing to the american public because they are sick of weasel worded, non commital comments from politicians who care more about their polling numbers than their integrity.  but guess what ? you do not have to be utterly disrespectful and confrontational to honestly speak your mind.  it is a false dichotomy.  suppressing your own pride, ego, and emotional responses in order to serve larger national interests is a necessary skill in diplomacy.  one that trump has shown absolutely zero capability for.  i want a rational negotiator who can tactfully de escalate a situation with unstable and demanding diplomats rather than someone who is going to be antagonistic, insulting, and then pat themselves on the back for  sticking it to them.   nobody in their right mind would ever want a negotiator who is going to leave the room chanting   o wouldoyle rules ! URL  #  he would be a nightmare for our economy.   #  do you mean other than the fact that he is wholly unqualified for the position ? setting aside the blatant racism and complete ignorance, setting aside the sense of rich white guy entitlement, the man has zero qualification for running this country.  he is demonstrably unable to be diplomatic on any level.  he would quickly alienate quite likely several countries, allies or not.  he has not shown himself to be anything but inept at management of, well, anything.  the man has filed for bankruptcy four times.  he would be a nightmare for our economy.  you claim he knows business ? he is a trust fund baby who has failed in massive ways at business.  on what grounds do you claim he is such an expert in business ? and even if he was, this is a society, a country, not a business, and running it as such without taking into account the human element which, again, he is demonstrably incapable of would run us into the ground as well.  trump, as president, would be a massive failure for this country.   #  it is pretty hard to look at trump as anything other than a narcissist running solely for the sake of his own interests.   #  trump makes his billions by sucking the life out of companies then declaring bankruptcy after hiding his assets.  he is done it four times, and if i recall correctly is currently doing it again with one of his casinos, a business which is literally designed to rob people blind.  why exactly should we believe he is even capable of acting in the best interests of anyone but himself ? but nevermind that, in just his speech to announce his candidacy, he alienated the mexican government, which, immigration problems or not, is still an ally of ours.  ok, so he is a crooked businessman and a lousy statesman, but he shoots straight right ? except he is running as a republican after donating huge amounts to  both  parties.  it is pretty hard to look at trump as anything other than a narcissist running solely for the sake of his own interests.  if anything he is a walking example of the worst parts of american society, and we should be ashamed that anybody considers him to be a legitimate candidate for leader of the free world.
i watched the republican debate, and by no means am i republican, i identify as a democrat on most things.  i listened to donald trump, and he was honestly the most honest candidate there, in a world where the mass population of people are sheep, and just follow the status quo he stood out, even when he knew he would get booed he still said what was on his mind, and that is honestly admirable.  when confronted about his remarks regarding woman, he owned up to it, that never happens 0 of politicians would avoid the question or play around it.  his policies do seem farfetch would i do not think mexico will pay for this wall, i do think its possible, but i do not see it happening, it is honestly not a bad idea in my opinion.  i am genuinely convinced all of his hatred comes from the fact he is not politically correct, and that reminds me of reddit in a sense, that people who act against the status quo are down voted not because of their opinions but because they hold the  wrong  opinions.  i do not see what is wrong with this man, being politically incorrect does not mean shit when it comes to policy, and i do think a business man whose made billions can help fix the economy.   #  0 of politicians would avoid the question or play around it.   #  did you watch the same debate as me ?  # like with mexico, for example.  i do not follow him closely but i would not be surprised if there is more.  do you think mexico will forget about what he said ? what is inspired such confidence in you to think he wo not act like the ass he always has been ? also, what is it that you think  politically correct  means ? did you watch the same debate as me ? he had his fair share of political spin, both in the debate and before in interviews.  are you sure you are not wearing trump tinted glasses ©trump to read with ?  #  someone who lacks the social awareness not to say shit like:  laziness is a trait in blacks.   #  my uncle has some opinions that he is completely honest about and i damn sure would not want him running the executive branch of our country.  someone who is completely honest lacks tact.  the lack of tact leads to ineffectiveness.  candor is not always a good quality.  someone who lacks the social awareness not to say shit like:  laziness is a trait in blacks.  all of the women on the apprentice flirted with me consciously or unconsciously.  that is to be expected.  you know, it does not really matter what the media write as long as you have got a young and beautiful piece of ass.  talking about rosie o wouldonnell  you take a look at her, she is a slob.  she talks like a, like a truck driver.  it is freezing and snowing in new york.  we need global warming ! sorry losers and haters, but my i. q.  is one of the highest and you all know it ! please do not feel so stupid or insecure.  it is not your fault.  the person who says these things you would be ok representing you on the world is stage ? think about the stuff he would be likely to say when trying to negotiate delicate peace talks.  the man is a narcissistic buffoon.  i honestly think that it says something about our society in general that we allow a man like this into a presidential debate just because he has a lot of money.   #  i want a rational negotiator who can tactfully de escalate a situation with unstable and demanding diplomats rather than someone who is going to be antagonistic, insulting, and then pat themselves on the back for  sticking it to them.    #  people tend to forget that, among other duties, the president is the chief diplomat.  and there is a reason that the words  tact  and  tactics  share a root.  if your approach to all things is boorish, ham fisted, and insulting, do not be surprised when sensitive diplomatic matters blow up in your face.  complete and unfiltered candor is really only refreshing to the american public because they are sick of weasel worded, non commital comments from politicians who care more about their polling numbers than their integrity.  but guess what ? you do not have to be utterly disrespectful and confrontational to honestly speak your mind.  it is a false dichotomy.  suppressing your own pride, ego, and emotional responses in order to serve larger national interests is a necessary skill in diplomacy.  one that trump has shown absolutely zero capability for.  i want a rational negotiator who can tactfully de escalate a situation with unstable and demanding diplomats rather than someone who is going to be antagonistic, insulting, and then pat themselves on the back for  sticking it to them.   nobody in their right mind would ever want a negotiator who is going to leave the room chanting   o wouldoyle rules ! URL  #  he would be a nightmare for our economy.   #  do you mean other than the fact that he is wholly unqualified for the position ? setting aside the blatant racism and complete ignorance, setting aside the sense of rich white guy entitlement, the man has zero qualification for running this country.  he is demonstrably unable to be diplomatic on any level.  he would quickly alienate quite likely several countries, allies or not.  he has not shown himself to be anything but inept at management of, well, anything.  the man has filed for bankruptcy four times.  he would be a nightmare for our economy.  you claim he knows business ? he is a trust fund baby who has failed in massive ways at business.  on what grounds do you claim he is such an expert in business ? and even if he was, this is a society, a country, not a business, and running it as such without taking into account the human element which, again, he is demonstrably incapable of would run us into the ground as well.  trump, as president, would be a massive failure for this country.   #  trump makes his billions by sucking the life out of companies then declaring bankruptcy after hiding his assets.   #  trump makes his billions by sucking the life out of companies then declaring bankruptcy after hiding his assets.  he is done it four times, and if i recall correctly is currently doing it again with one of his casinos, a business which is literally designed to rob people blind.  why exactly should we believe he is even capable of acting in the best interests of anyone but himself ? but nevermind that, in just his speech to announce his candidacy, he alienated the mexican government, which, immigration problems or not, is still an ally of ours.  ok, so he is a crooked businessman and a lousy statesman, but he shoots straight right ? except he is running as a republican after donating huge amounts to  both  parties.  it is pretty hard to look at trump as anything other than a narcissist running solely for the sake of his own interests.  if anything he is a walking example of the worst parts of american society, and we should be ashamed that anybody considers him to be a legitimate candidate for leader of the free world.
i watched the republican debate, and by no means am i republican, i identify as a democrat on most things.  i listened to donald trump, and he was honestly the most honest candidate there, in a world where the mass population of people are sheep, and just follow the status quo he stood out, even when he knew he would get booed he still said what was on his mind, and that is honestly admirable.  when confronted about his remarks regarding woman, he owned up to it, that never happens 0 of politicians would avoid the question or play around it.  his policies do seem farfetch would i do not think mexico will pay for this wall, i do think its possible, but i do not see it happening, it is honestly not a bad idea in my opinion.  i am genuinely convinced all of his hatred comes from the fact he is not politically correct, and that reminds me of reddit in a sense, that people who act against the status quo are down voted not because of their opinions but because they hold the  wrong  opinions.  i do not see what is wrong with this man, being politically incorrect does not mean shit when it comes to policy, and i do think a business man whose made billions can help fix the economy.   #  i do not think mexico will pay for this wall, i do think its possible, but i do not see it happening, it is honestly not a bad idea in my opinion.   #  there is no way the mexican government is footing the bill for a wall.   #  alright, let is talk facts.  trump is candidacy is a joke because he is not fit to be the top diplomat of the us government.  i listened to the debate, and i do like that he does not back away from his opinions.  his opinions are often, frankly, sexist and racist to the extreme.  but he just sticks to his guns and i admire that, despite myself.  that tells me that he is not likely to change his opinions based on criticism or advice.  that  worries  me.  why ? because his foreign policy sucks.  there is no way the mexican government is footing the bill for a wall.  it is not going to happen.  there is not a single thing that trump could do to actually deliver on this.  did you hear him during the debate ? he talked of having a conversation with a high ranking military official who told trump that jobs and economic development is what will bring peace in the middle east.  trump is response ? let is bomb them.  yeah ! pretty fireworks.  the dumb fuck.  have you seen his idiotic plan on dealing with isis ? take a look at this cnn article URL more bombs.  that is his only solution.  do not like something ? bomb it ! and if you think that political gridlock is bad right now, imagine what it would be like under trump.  the political veterans do not like him, in both parties.  he would not be able to get any legislation through congress if his life depended on it.  although he speaks his mind and it is fucked up as hell there is no way that this one quality is enough to make him a worthwhile potus.   #  you know, it does not really matter what the media write as long as you have got a young and beautiful piece of ass.   #  my uncle has some opinions that he is completely honest about and i damn sure would not want him running the executive branch of our country.  someone who is completely honest lacks tact.  the lack of tact leads to ineffectiveness.  candor is not always a good quality.  someone who lacks the social awareness not to say shit like:  laziness is a trait in blacks.  all of the women on the apprentice flirted with me consciously or unconsciously.  that is to be expected.  you know, it does not really matter what the media write as long as you have got a young and beautiful piece of ass.  talking about rosie o wouldonnell  you take a look at her, she is a slob.  she talks like a, like a truck driver.  it is freezing and snowing in new york.  we need global warming ! sorry losers and haters, but my i. q.  is one of the highest and you all know it ! please do not feel so stupid or insecure.  it is not your fault.  the person who says these things you would be ok representing you on the world is stage ? think about the stuff he would be likely to say when trying to negotiate delicate peace talks.  the man is a narcissistic buffoon.  i honestly think that it says something about our society in general that we allow a man like this into a presidential debate just because he has a lot of money.   #  i want a rational negotiator who can tactfully de escalate a situation with unstable and demanding diplomats rather than someone who is going to be antagonistic, insulting, and then pat themselves on the back for  sticking it to them.    #  people tend to forget that, among other duties, the president is the chief diplomat.  and there is a reason that the words  tact  and  tactics  share a root.  if your approach to all things is boorish, ham fisted, and insulting, do not be surprised when sensitive diplomatic matters blow up in your face.  complete and unfiltered candor is really only refreshing to the american public because they are sick of weasel worded, non commital comments from politicians who care more about their polling numbers than their integrity.  but guess what ? you do not have to be utterly disrespectful and confrontational to honestly speak your mind.  it is a false dichotomy.  suppressing your own pride, ego, and emotional responses in order to serve larger national interests is a necessary skill in diplomacy.  one that trump has shown absolutely zero capability for.  i want a rational negotiator who can tactfully de escalate a situation with unstable and demanding diplomats rather than someone who is going to be antagonistic, insulting, and then pat themselves on the back for  sticking it to them.   nobody in their right mind would ever want a negotiator who is going to leave the room chanting   o wouldoyle rules ! URL  #  setting aside the blatant racism and complete ignorance, setting aside the sense of rich white guy entitlement, the man has zero qualification for running this country.   #  do you mean other than the fact that he is wholly unqualified for the position ? setting aside the blatant racism and complete ignorance, setting aside the sense of rich white guy entitlement, the man has zero qualification for running this country.  he is demonstrably unable to be diplomatic on any level.  he would quickly alienate quite likely several countries, allies or not.  he has not shown himself to be anything but inept at management of, well, anything.  the man has filed for bankruptcy four times.  he would be a nightmare for our economy.  you claim he knows business ? he is a trust fund baby who has failed in massive ways at business.  on what grounds do you claim he is such an expert in business ? and even if he was, this is a society, a country, not a business, and running it as such without taking into account the human element which, again, he is demonstrably incapable of would run us into the ground as well.  trump, as president, would be a massive failure for this country.   #  ok, so he is a crooked businessman and a lousy statesman, but he shoots straight right ?  #  trump makes his billions by sucking the life out of companies then declaring bankruptcy after hiding his assets.  he is done it four times, and if i recall correctly is currently doing it again with one of his casinos, a business which is literally designed to rob people blind.  why exactly should we believe he is even capable of acting in the best interests of anyone but himself ? but nevermind that, in just his speech to announce his candidacy, he alienated the mexican government, which, immigration problems or not, is still an ally of ours.  ok, so he is a crooked businessman and a lousy statesman, but he shoots straight right ? except he is running as a republican after donating huge amounts to  both  parties.  it is pretty hard to look at trump as anything other than a narcissist running solely for the sake of his own interests.  if anything he is a walking example of the worst parts of american society, and we should be ashamed that anybody considers him to be a legitimate candidate for leader of the free world.
whenever an issue relating to free speech arises it is almost guaranteed one of the responses will be  free speech means the state ca not control what you say.  it does not mean freedom from consequences from everyone else .  if it is on the internet it is equally likely that this xkcd URL will be shown.  this does seem at first to be a reasonable point of view.  however, i believe it is flawed for several related reasons.  the first reason is that underestimates the power of the public.  just because the state is not infringing your right does not mean others cannot.  with other rights this is accepted as part of the system.  for instance, if a company refused to serve or allow access to black people that would be considered a violation of their rights despite it not being the government.  in the same way, you could not claim a country has gender equality if women ca not be get a job, despite there being no law against hiring women.  unless freedom of speech can be distinguished from those other rights, which i believe it cannot, there can be no distinction between private agents and the state in terms of freedom of speech.  secondly, the right to free speech includes the right to unimpeded free speech, if that makes sense.  it is not enough to be allowed to say what you want, you have to be allowed to communicate to who you want.  it makes more tense in terms of letters.  freedom of speech is not fulfilled by allowing me to write letters, it is only fulfilled by allowing their delivery.  using the example from the comic, continually showing someone the door is the same as standing by the pillar box and shredding the letters as i post them.  the final reason is that extreme reactions to someone is use of free speech can restrict it by effectively punishing them for exercising their right.  if i punched someone for suggesting marmite was a valid option for toast, would i not be restricting their right to free speech ? equally, if i was sacked for making a racist reddit post, am i not being punished for exercising my right to freedom of speech ? i am not entirely convinced on this point because it might restrict someone else is freedom of speech to criticise or their freedom of association to not have to put up with me, but i would still say there is some validity to this point.  just to be clear, i do not think freedom of speech should never be restricted but i do think those restrictions should be acknowledged which the phrase  freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences  does not.  some people seem to be confused about what i mean by a private entity.  i simply mean someone who is not the state or acting as an agent of the state.  i never meant to imply that i would start talking shit in your living room.  freedom of speech does not make crimes less illegal do to be clear i am not advocating that in the slightest.  a lot of the comments have struggled with what the view is, despite it being repeated multiple times.  i am not interested in acting as reading adviser.  if your comment does not address the view, i am not going to bother responding.  /u/vordreller found this bastardised version of the comic URL and from john stuart mill onwards, i agree with the sentiments the creator expresses.  if you want to see my argument in comic form, you could not get much closer than that.   #  equally, if i was sacked for making a racist reddit post, am i not being punished for exercising my right to freedom of speech ?  #  yes, but your business is also exercising their right to free speech and association.   # by not allowing private entities to control the speech on their platforms, you are essentially forcing them to tacitly promote speech they might not want to.  forcing someone to support ideas or statements they do not want to is a huge violation of the concept of free speech.  to give a real world example i work for a publishing company.  i had a book submitted to me that i did not want to publish for political reasons it ended with a promotion of organized religion .  i rejected the book because i did not want to promote those ideas since that was the main reason for the rejection, that was me exercising my right to free speech.  i have the ability to promote and not promote the ideas that i want.  side note: i did include a recommendation for a specific different publisher with the rejection and the author and i became friends through the experience.  we just have very opposing viewpoints on religion but we are each free to express them and not force anyone else to express them against their will.  no.  you only have the right to expression.  there is no right that says someone has to listen to you.  that is their freedom of speech as well.  later in your post you mention freedom of association but you kinda miss the point of it.  while you have the freedom to associate with whoever you want, you do not have the right to force your association on another person.  we do also have a freedom from association.  those that go against this are normally referred to as  stalkers  and  harassers.   that would be physical assault.  it is not really a speech issue and no one would view it as such.  yes, but your business is also exercising their right to free speech and association.  both sides are.  remember, you have the right to free speech not consequence free speech.   #  however if i consider they are being disruptive, do not follow a dress code, or are doing things that i the owner do not like aside form what demographic they belong to, then i am free to kick them out.   # i ca not deny service to black, gay, or italian people on the basis that they are black, gay, or italian.  however if i consider they are being disruptive, do not follow a dress code, or are doing things that i the owner do not like aside form what demographic they belong to, then i am free to kick them out.  you misunderstood my point.  my point in that part was it would be as unjust for you, a private business owner, to deny access based on race as it would for the state to do so.  as there is no difference in that case, why should there be a difference if the case related to free speech ? if there is no difference between the state and a private agent in cases of free speech, the idea freedom of speech does not extend to non state actions ca not be correct.  where did the idea of this applying to privately owned forums come from ? talking shit in someone is garden would obviously not be acceptable.  perhaps i was not clear or i do not view the comic the same as everyone else, but i assumed it referred to something like making speeches at speaker is corner.  i do not think it matters if it could be done elsewhere.  to go back to you banning italians, the fact my shop does serve italians does not make your violation any less of a violation.   #  if there is no difference between the state and a private agent in cases of free speech, the idea freedom of speech does not extend to non state actions ca not be correct.   # as there is no difference in that case, why should there be a difference if the case related to free speech ? if there is no difference between the state and a private agent in cases of free speech, the idea freedom of speech does not extend to non state actions ca not be correct.  it is literally illegal, right now, for a private business owner to deny service to you based on race.  it is not illegal for a private business owner to deny service because he thinks you are a dick.  the difference is the reason the private business owner is choosing to deny service.  some are illegal, and some are not.   #  and the fear that i will get stabbed if i make racist remarks standing in the middle of a street at harlem does silence me.   #  the issue here is that the power of states and the power of persons and companies are essentially different.  free speech was made so that you do not live in fear that your opinions will legally lead to your death or imprisonment and therefore wo not be immediately silenced by that fear.  can other fears silence you ? yes of course, as they should.  i fear i will never be spoken again by my family and that prevents me from talking about my aunt hilda is breasts during her funeral.  and the fear that i will get stabbed if i make racist remarks standing in the middle of a street at harlem does silence me.  this is the whole legal vs non legal repercussions of your speech, you incur exactly zero consequences from the state and the state protects you from consequences that would entail crimes like assault murder or defamation.  other consequences like criticism and backlash form part of the other party is freedom of speech, and denial from participation in specific private forums or spaces as a result of conduct or speech that is deemed detrimental is fair.  the fear of negative reception naturally silences people, but i hardly see how it is anybody is job to protect speakers from other is opinions, or ensure that they can say whatever they want.  if negative reception of your opinions would harm you in terms of reputation or social standing, maybe you have to rethink how to present the opinion, keep it to yourself, or reconsider the opinion entirely  #  if i said i was going to rip your face off, that would a crime, go ahead arrest me.   #  indeed they can, which is a good point.  if i said i was going to rip your face off, that would a crime, go ahead arrest me.  however, that is not what the comic says.  it says, roughly, the people think you are an arsehole and are showing you the door.  if the mods deleted my comment because i said pitt the elder was the greatest ever british pm, when it was obnoxiously clear the answer is lord palmerston, that would present an issue.
whenever an issue relating to free speech arises it is almost guaranteed one of the responses will be  free speech means the state ca not control what you say.  it does not mean freedom from consequences from everyone else .  if it is on the internet it is equally likely that this xkcd URL will be shown.  this does seem at first to be a reasonable point of view.  however, i believe it is flawed for several related reasons.  the first reason is that underestimates the power of the public.  just because the state is not infringing your right does not mean others cannot.  with other rights this is accepted as part of the system.  for instance, if a company refused to serve or allow access to black people that would be considered a violation of their rights despite it not being the government.  in the same way, you could not claim a country has gender equality if women ca not be get a job, despite there being no law against hiring women.  unless freedom of speech can be distinguished from those other rights, which i believe it cannot, there can be no distinction between private agents and the state in terms of freedom of speech.  secondly, the right to free speech includes the right to unimpeded free speech, if that makes sense.  it is not enough to be allowed to say what you want, you have to be allowed to communicate to who you want.  it makes more tense in terms of letters.  freedom of speech is not fulfilled by allowing me to write letters, it is only fulfilled by allowing their delivery.  using the example from the comic, continually showing someone the door is the same as standing by the pillar box and shredding the letters as i post them.  the final reason is that extreme reactions to someone is use of free speech can restrict it by effectively punishing them for exercising their right.  if i punched someone for suggesting marmite was a valid option for toast, would i not be restricting their right to free speech ? equally, if i was sacked for making a racist reddit post, am i not being punished for exercising my right to freedom of speech ? i am not entirely convinced on this point because it might restrict someone else is freedom of speech to criticise or their freedom of association to not have to put up with me, but i would still say there is some validity to this point.  just to be clear, i do not think freedom of speech should never be restricted but i do think those restrictions should be acknowledged which the phrase  freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences  does not.  some people seem to be confused about what i mean by a private entity.  i simply mean someone who is not the state or acting as an agent of the state.  i never meant to imply that i would start talking shit in your living room.  freedom of speech does not make crimes less illegal do to be clear i am not advocating that in the slightest.  a lot of the comments have struggled with what the view is, despite it being repeated multiple times.  i am not interested in acting as reading adviser.  if your comment does not address the view, i am not going to bother responding.  /u/vordreller found this bastardised version of the comic URL and from john stuart mill onwards, i agree with the sentiments the creator expresses.  if you want to see my argument in comic form, you could not get much closer than that.   #  it is not enough to be allowed to say what you want, you have to be allowed to communicate to who you want.   #  to what point am i or anyone else obligated to create, maintain, or furnish a platform for someone else is free speech needs ?  # to what point am i or anyone else obligated to create, maintain, or furnish a platform for someone else is free speech needs ? no.  would be committing assault.  no.  your former employer would be exercising  their  right to not be associated with you and your racist comment.  you are still perfectly free to express as many racist comments as you please.  your former employer is not obligated in anyway to provide you with employment contractual obligations aside as they are not pertinent to the discussion .  you are not owed employment by anyone.   #  by not allowing private entities to control the speech on their platforms, you are essentially forcing them to tacitly promote speech they might not want to.   # by not allowing private entities to control the speech on their platforms, you are essentially forcing them to tacitly promote speech they might not want to.  forcing someone to support ideas or statements they do not want to is a huge violation of the concept of free speech.  to give a real world example i work for a publishing company.  i had a book submitted to me that i did not want to publish for political reasons it ended with a promotion of organized religion .  i rejected the book because i did not want to promote those ideas since that was the main reason for the rejection, that was me exercising my right to free speech.  i have the ability to promote and not promote the ideas that i want.  side note: i did include a recommendation for a specific different publisher with the rejection and the author and i became friends through the experience.  we just have very opposing viewpoints on religion but we are each free to express them and not force anyone else to express them against their will.  no.  you only have the right to expression.  there is no right that says someone has to listen to you.  that is their freedom of speech as well.  later in your post you mention freedom of association but you kinda miss the point of it.  while you have the freedom to associate with whoever you want, you do not have the right to force your association on another person.  we do also have a freedom from association.  those that go against this are normally referred to as  stalkers  and  harassers.   that would be physical assault.  it is not really a speech issue and no one would view it as such.  yes, but your business is also exercising their right to free speech and association.  both sides are.  remember, you have the right to free speech not consequence free speech.   #  to go back to you banning italians, the fact my shop does serve italians does not make your violation any less of a violation.   # i ca not deny service to black, gay, or italian people on the basis that they are black, gay, or italian.  however if i consider they are being disruptive, do not follow a dress code, or are doing things that i the owner do not like aside form what demographic they belong to, then i am free to kick them out.  you misunderstood my point.  my point in that part was it would be as unjust for you, a private business owner, to deny access based on race as it would for the state to do so.  as there is no difference in that case, why should there be a difference if the case related to free speech ? if there is no difference between the state and a private agent in cases of free speech, the idea freedom of speech does not extend to non state actions ca not be correct.  where did the idea of this applying to privately owned forums come from ? talking shit in someone is garden would obviously not be acceptable.  perhaps i was not clear or i do not view the comic the same as everyone else, but i assumed it referred to something like making speeches at speaker is corner.  i do not think it matters if it could be done elsewhere.  to go back to you banning italians, the fact my shop does serve italians does not make your violation any less of a violation.   #  if there is no difference between the state and a private agent in cases of free speech, the idea freedom of speech does not extend to non state actions ca not be correct.   # as there is no difference in that case, why should there be a difference if the case related to free speech ? if there is no difference between the state and a private agent in cases of free speech, the idea freedom of speech does not extend to non state actions ca not be correct.  it is literally illegal, right now, for a private business owner to deny service to you based on race.  it is not illegal for a private business owner to deny service because he thinks you are a dick.  the difference is the reason the private business owner is choosing to deny service.  some are illegal, and some are not.   #  this is the whole legal vs non legal repercussions of your speech, you incur exactly zero consequences from the state and the state protects you from consequences that would entail crimes like assault murder or defamation.   #  the issue here is that the power of states and the power of persons and companies are essentially different.  free speech was made so that you do not live in fear that your opinions will legally lead to your death or imprisonment and therefore wo not be immediately silenced by that fear.  can other fears silence you ? yes of course, as they should.  i fear i will never be spoken again by my family and that prevents me from talking about my aunt hilda is breasts during her funeral.  and the fear that i will get stabbed if i make racist remarks standing in the middle of a street at harlem does silence me.  this is the whole legal vs non legal repercussions of your speech, you incur exactly zero consequences from the state and the state protects you from consequences that would entail crimes like assault murder or defamation.  other consequences like criticism and backlash form part of the other party is freedom of speech, and denial from participation in specific private forums or spaces as a result of conduct or speech that is deemed detrimental is fair.  the fear of negative reception naturally silences people, but i hardly see how it is anybody is job to protect speakers from other is opinions, or ensure that they can say whatever they want.  if negative reception of your opinions would harm you in terms of reputation or social standing, maybe you have to rethink how to present the opinion, keep it to yourself, or reconsider the opinion entirely
whenever an issue relating to free speech arises it is almost guaranteed one of the responses will be  free speech means the state ca not control what you say.  it does not mean freedom from consequences from everyone else .  if it is on the internet it is equally likely that this xkcd URL will be shown.  this does seem at first to be a reasonable point of view.  however, i believe it is flawed for several related reasons.  the first reason is that underestimates the power of the public.  just because the state is not infringing your right does not mean others cannot.  with other rights this is accepted as part of the system.  for instance, if a company refused to serve or allow access to black people that would be considered a violation of their rights despite it not being the government.  in the same way, you could not claim a country has gender equality if women ca not be get a job, despite there being no law against hiring women.  unless freedom of speech can be distinguished from those other rights, which i believe it cannot, there can be no distinction between private agents and the state in terms of freedom of speech.  secondly, the right to free speech includes the right to unimpeded free speech, if that makes sense.  it is not enough to be allowed to say what you want, you have to be allowed to communicate to who you want.  it makes more tense in terms of letters.  freedom of speech is not fulfilled by allowing me to write letters, it is only fulfilled by allowing their delivery.  using the example from the comic, continually showing someone the door is the same as standing by the pillar box and shredding the letters as i post them.  the final reason is that extreme reactions to someone is use of free speech can restrict it by effectively punishing them for exercising their right.  if i punched someone for suggesting marmite was a valid option for toast, would i not be restricting their right to free speech ? equally, if i was sacked for making a racist reddit post, am i not being punished for exercising my right to freedom of speech ? i am not entirely convinced on this point because it might restrict someone else is freedom of speech to criticise or their freedom of association to not have to put up with me, but i would still say there is some validity to this point.  just to be clear, i do not think freedom of speech should never be restricted but i do think those restrictions should be acknowledged which the phrase  freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences  does not.  some people seem to be confused about what i mean by a private entity.  i simply mean someone who is not the state or acting as an agent of the state.  i never meant to imply that i would start talking shit in your living room.  freedom of speech does not make crimes less illegal do to be clear i am not advocating that in the slightest.  a lot of the comments have struggled with what the view is, despite it being repeated multiple times.  i am not interested in acting as reading adviser.  if your comment does not address the view, i am not going to bother responding.  /u/vordreller found this bastardised version of the comic URL and from john stuart mill onwards, i agree with the sentiments the creator expresses.  if you want to see my argument in comic form, you could not get much closer than that.   #  if a company refused to serve or allow access to black people that would be considered a violation of their rights despite it not being the government.   #  in the same way, you could not claim a country has gender equality if women ca not be get a job, despite there being no law against hiring women.   # in the same way, you could not claim a country has gender equality if women ca not be get a job, despite there being no law against hiring women.  unless freedom of speech can be distinguished from those other rights, which i believe it cannot, there can be no distinction between private agents and the state in terms of freedom of speech.  the major distinction i see here is that race, gender, sexuality, etc. , those are all things that a person ca not control those things about themselves.  you ca not decide not to be black or a woman or gay or whatever for a while because you are around people who do not like those types of people.  you can try and hide it or downplay that part of you, but at least for race and gender those are characteristics about you that are immediately visible, permanent, and part of you.  speech is different.  you do not ever  have  to speak.  if you believe strongly that the holocaust did not happen, that does not mean that whenever you walk by a synagogue you automatically and uncontrollably start spewing out anti semitic comments.  speech is an action, whereas race or gender are not actions but qualities of a person which they ca not reasonably change.  that is why you ca not ban someone for being black but you can ban them from shouting racial slurs in your restaurant.  they ca not control what race they are, but they can control what they can say.  that is a fundamental difference.   #  those that go against this are normally referred to as  stalkers  and  harassers.    # by not allowing private entities to control the speech on their platforms, you are essentially forcing them to tacitly promote speech they might not want to.  forcing someone to support ideas or statements they do not want to is a huge violation of the concept of free speech.  to give a real world example i work for a publishing company.  i had a book submitted to me that i did not want to publish for political reasons it ended with a promotion of organized religion .  i rejected the book because i did not want to promote those ideas since that was the main reason for the rejection, that was me exercising my right to free speech.  i have the ability to promote and not promote the ideas that i want.  side note: i did include a recommendation for a specific different publisher with the rejection and the author and i became friends through the experience.  we just have very opposing viewpoints on religion but we are each free to express them and not force anyone else to express them against their will.  no.  you only have the right to expression.  there is no right that says someone has to listen to you.  that is their freedom of speech as well.  later in your post you mention freedom of association but you kinda miss the point of it.  while you have the freedom to associate with whoever you want, you do not have the right to force your association on another person.  we do also have a freedom from association.  those that go against this are normally referred to as  stalkers  and  harassers.   that would be physical assault.  it is not really a speech issue and no one would view it as such.  yes, but your business is also exercising their right to free speech and association.  both sides are.  remember, you have the right to free speech not consequence free speech.   #  to go back to you banning italians, the fact my shop does serve italians does not make your violation any less of a violation.   # i ca not deny service to black, gay, or italian people on the basis that they are black, gay, or italian.  however if i consider they are being disruptive, do not follow a dress code, or are doing things that i the owner do not like aside form what demographic they belong to, then i am free to kick them out.  you misunderstood my point.  my point in that part was it would be as unjust for you, a private business owner, to deny access based on race as it would for the state to do so.  as there is no difference in that case, why should there be a difference if the case related to free speech ? if there is no difference between the state and a private agent in cases of free speech, the idea freedom of speech does not extend to non state actions ca not be correct.  where did the idea of this applying to privately owned forums come from ? talking shit in someone is garden would obviously not be acceptable.  perhaps i was not clear or i do not view the comic the same as everyone else, but i assumed it referred to something like making speeches at speaker is corner.  i do not think it matters if it could be done elsewhere.  to go back to you banning italians, the fact my shop does serve italians does not make your violation any less of a violation.   #  the difference is the reason the private business owner is choosing to deny service.   # as there is no difference in that case, why should there be a difference if the case related to free speech ? if there is no difference between the state and a private agent in cases of free speech, the idea freedom of speech does not extend to non state actions ca not be correct.  it is literally illegal, right now, for a private business owner to deny service to you based on race.  it is not illegal for a private business owner to deny service because he thinks you are a dick.  the difference is the reason the private business owner is choosing to deny service.  some are illegal, and some are not.   #  and the fear that i will get stabbed if i make racist remarks standing in the middle of a street at harlem does silence me.   #  the issue here is that the power of states and the power of persons and companies are essentially different.  free speech was made so that you do not live in fear that your opinions will legally lead to your death or imprisonment and therefore wo not be immediately silenced by that fear.  can other fears silence you ? yes of course, as they should.  i fear i will never be spoken again by my family and that prevents me from talking about my aunt hilda is breasts during her funeral.  and the fear that i will get stabbed if i make racist remarks standing in the middle of a street at harlem does silence me.  this is the whole legal vs non legal repercussions of your speech, you incur exactly zero consequences from the state and the state protects you from consequences that would entail crimes like assault murder or defamation.  other consequences like criticism and backlash form part of the other party is freedom of speech, and denial from participation in specific private forums or spaces as a result of conduct or speech that is deemed detrimental is fair.  the fear of negative reception naturally silences people, but i hardly see how it is anybody is job to protect speakers from other is opinions, or ensure that they can say whatever they want.  if negative reception of your opinions would harm you in terms of reputation or social standing, maybe you have to rethink how to present the opinion, keep it to yourself, or reconsider the opinion entirely
whenever an issue relating to free speech arises it is almost guaranteed one of the responses will be  free speech means the state ca not control what you say.  it does not mean freedom from consequences from everyone else .  if it is on the internet it is equally likely that this xkcd URL will be shown.  this does seem at first to be a reasonable point of view.  however, i believe it is flawed for several related reasons.  the first reason is that underestimates the power of the public.  just because the state is not infringing your right does not mean others cannot.  with other rights this is accepted as part of the system.  for instance, if a company refused to serve or allow access to black people that would be considered a violation of their rights despite it not being the government.  in the same way, you could not claim a country has gender equality if women ca not be get a job, despite there being no law against hiring women.  unless freedom of speech can be distinguished from those other rights, which i believe it cannot, there can be no distinction between private agents and the state in terms of freedom of speech.  secondly, the right to free speech includes the right to unimpeded free speech, if that makes sense.  it is not enough to be allowed to say what you want, you have to be allowed to communicate to who you want.  it makes more tense in terms of letters.  freedom of speech is not fulfilled by allowing me to write letters, it is only fulfilled by allowing their delivery.  using the example from the comic, continually showing someone the door is the same as standing by the pillar box and shredding the letters as i post them.  the final reason is that extreme reactions to someone is use of free speech can restrict it by effectively punishing them for exercising their right.  if i punched someone for suggesting marmite was a valid option for toast, would i not be restricting their right to free speech ? equally, if i was sacked for making a racist reddit post, am i not being punished for exercising my right to freedom of speech ? i am not entirely convinced on this point because it might restrict someone else is freedom of speech to criticise or their freedom of association to not have to put up with me, but i would still say there is some validity to this point.  just to be clear, i do not think freedom of speech should never be restricted but i do think those restrictions should be acknowledged which the phrase  freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences  does not.  some people seem to be confused about what i mean by a private entity.  i simply mean someone who is not the state or acting as an agent of the state.  i never meant to imply that i would start talking shit in your living room.  freedom of speech does not make crimes less illegal do to be clear i am not advocating that in the slightest.  a lot of the comments have struggled with what the view is, despite it being repeated multiple times.  i am not interested in acting as reading adviser.  if your comment does not address the view, i am not going to bother responding.  /u/vordreller found this bastardised version of the comic URL and from john stuart mill onwards, i agree with the sentiments the creator expresses.  if you want to see my argument in comic form, you could not get much closer than that.   #  the first reason is that underestimates the power of the public.   #  just because the state is not infringing your right does not mean others cannot.   # just because the state is not infringing your right does not mean others cannot.  with other rights this is accepted as part of the system.  for instance, if a company refused to serve or allow access to black people that would be considered a violation of their rights despite it not being the government.  there is specific government legislation that forbids companies from doing this.  for my country, the uk, it is illegal to discriminate directly e. g. , i do not hire black people and indirectly e. g. , i have no disability access into my business .  it is the same for the us.  i think you are misunderstanding these laws it is the government creating this legislation.  i think there is a distinction between these rights.  if a car dealership refuses to sell to black people, that puts black people at a distinct disadvantage to everyone else.  they may not be able to get to their choice place of work on time, travelling long distances will not be an option, and so forth.  to the contrary, i do not think you particularly lose anything if a car dealership does not let you talk about your hatred of black people in their store.  you may not gain what you wanted to gain, but you are not put at a disadvantage to anyone else.  it is not enough to be allowed to say what you want, you have to be allowed to communicate to who you want.  if you force people to listen to you, are you not impeding on their rights ? for example: reddit has a right, as a business, not to host homophobic content.  if you force them to host homophobic content, you are then impeding on their rights as a business.  another example: i want to communicate to my neighbour is husband that his wife is a lying filthy cheating slut she is not, she is a lovely lady, but this is just an example .  given that you say that i have to be allowed to communicate that, does that mean i have a right to walk into his house in the middle of the night and stand over his bed shouting about his wifes antics ? no, it does not.  i might be welcome to do it on the public, government owned road outside of his house and shout it through his window, i could even do it from my own private house, but i ca not welcome myself into his private asset and do it there.  if i punched someone for suggesting marmite was a valid option for toast, would i not be restricting their right to free speech ? no, because you let hem say it and then punched them.  they might not say it in the future because of your actions, but you responded to their free speech rather than restricted it.  they are not punishing you, they are giving you a choice.  you might be given the option of stocking shelves or mopping floors; or calculating budgets or calculating losses; or refraining from making racist comments or looking for another job.  freedom of speech, like you say, does not bring freedom from consequences, and it is very possible that employment termination is a consequence of excersising your freedom of speech.  they are not restricting your freedom of speech, they are just telling you to represent another company if you are going to continue.  as a side note, an employer can fire any employee for any reason, right down to the way they hold their coffee cup.   #  there is no right that says someone has to listen to you.   # by not allowing private entities to control the speech on their platforms, you are essentially forcing them to tacitly promote speech they might not want to.  forcing someone to support ideas or statements they do not want to is a huge violation of the concept of free speech.  to give a real world example i work for a publishing company.  i had a book submitted to me that i did not want to publish for political reasons it ended with a promotion of organized religion .  i rejected the book because i did not want to promote those ideas since that was the main reason for the rejection, that was me exercising my right to free speech.  i have the ability to promote and not promote the ideas that i want.  side note: i did include a recommendation for a specific different publisher with the rejection and the author and i became friends through the experience.  we just have very opposing viewpoints on religion but we are each free to express them and not force anyone else to express them against their will.  no.  you only have the right to expression.  there is no right that says someone has to listen to you.  that is their freedom of speech as well.  later in your post you mention freedom of association but you kinda miss the point of it.  while you have the freedom to associate with whoever you want, you do not have the right to force your association on another person.  we do also have a freedom from association.  those that go against this are normally referred to as  stalkers  and  harassers.   that would be physical assault.  it is not really a speech issue and no one would view it as such.  yes, but your business is also exercising their right to free speech and association.  both sides are.  remember, you have the right to free speech not consequence free speech.   #  talking shit in someone is garden would obviously not be acceptable.   # i ca not deny service to black, gay, or italian people on the basis that they are black, gay, or italian.  however if i consider they are being disruptive, do not follow a dress code, or are doing things that i the owner do not like aside form what demographic they belong to, then i am free to kick them out.  you misunderstood my point.  my point in that part was it would be as unjust for you, a private business owner, to deny access based on race as it would for the state to do so.  as there is no difference in that case, why should there be a difference if the case related to free speech ? if there is no difference between the state and a private agent in cases of free speech, the idea freedom of speech does not extend to non state actions ca not be correct.  where did the idea of this applying to privately owned forums come from ? talking shit in someone is garden would obviously not be acceptable.  perhaps i was not clear or i do not view the comic the same as everyone else, but i assumed it referred to something like making speeches at speaker is corner.  i do not think it matters if it could be done elsewhere.  to go back to you banning italians, the fact my shop does serve italians does not make your violation any less of a violation.   #  it is literally illegal, right now, for a private business owner to deny service to you based on race.   # as there is no difference in that case, why should there be a difference if the case related to free speech ? if there is no difference between the state and a private agent in cases of free speech, the idea freedom of speech does not extend to non state actions ca not be correct.  it is literally illegal, right now, for a private business owner to deny service to you based on race.  it is not illegal for a private business owner to deny service because he thinks you are a dick.  the difference is the reason the private business owner is choosing to deny service.  some are illegal, and some are not.   #  free speech was made so that you do not live in fear that your opinions will legally lead to your death or imprisonment and therefore wo not be immediately silenced by that fear.   #  the issue here is that the power of states and the power of persons and companies are essentially different.  free speech was made so that you do not live in fear that your opinions will legally lead to your death or imprisonment and therefore wo not be immediately silenced by that fear.  can other fears silence you ? yes of course, as they should.  i fear i will never be spoken again by my family and that prevents me from talking about my aunt hilda is breasts during her funeral.  and the fear that i will get stabbed if i make racist remarks standing in the middle of a street at harlem does silence me.  this is the whole legal vs non legal repercussions of your speech, you incur exactly zero consequences from the state and the state protects you from consequences that would entail crimes like assault murder or defamation.  other consequences like criticism and backlash form part of the other party is freedom of speech, and denial from participation in specific private forums or spaces as a result of conduct or speech that is deemed detrimental is fair.  the fear of negative reception naturally silences people, but i hardly see how it is anybody is job to protect speakers from other is opinions, or ensure that they can say whatever they want.  if negative reception of your opinions would harm you in terms of reputation or social standing, maybe you have to rethink how to present the opinion, keep it to yourself, or reconsider the opinion entirely
whenever an issue relating to free speech arises it is almost guaranteed one of the responses will be  free speech means the state ca not control what you say.  it does not mean freedom from consequences from everyone else .  if it is on the internet it is equally likely that this xkcd URL will be shown.  this does seem at first to be a reasonable point of view.  however, i believe it is flawed for several related reasons.  the first reason is that underestimates the power of the public.  just because the state is not infringing your right does not mean others cannot.  with other rights this is accepted as part of the system.  for instance, if a company refused to serve or allow access to black people that would be considered a violation of their rights despite it not being the government.  in the same way, you could not claim a country has gender equality if women ca not be get a job, despite there being no law against hiring women.  unless freedom of speech can be distinguished from those other rights, which i believe it cannot, there can be no distinction between private agents and the state in terms of freedom of speech.  secondly, the right to free speech includes the right to unimpeded free speech, if that makes sense.  it is not enough to be allowed to say what you want, you have to be allowed to communicate to who you want.  it makes more tense in terms of letters.  freedom of speech is not fulfilled by allowing me to write letters, it is only fulfilled by allowing their delivery.  using the example from the comic, continually showing someone the door is the same as standing by the pillar box and shredding the letters as i post them.  the final reason is that extreme reactions to someone is use of free speech can restrict it by effectively punishing them for exercising their right.  if i punched someone for suggesting marmite was a valid option for toast, would i not be restricting their right to free speech ? equally, if i was sacked for making a racist reddit post, am i not being punished for exercising my right to freedom of speech ? i am not entirely convinced on this point because it might restrict someone else is freedom of speech to criticise or their freedom of association to not have to put up with me, but i would still say there is some validity to this point.  just to be clear, i do not think freedom of speech should never be restricted but i do think those restrictions should be acknowledged which the phrase  freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences  does not.  some people seem to be confused about what i mean by a private entity.  i simply mean someone who is not the state or acting as an agent of the state.  i never meant to imply that i would start talking shit in your living room.  freedom of speech does not make crimes less illegal do to be clear i am not advocating that in the slightest.  a lot of the comments have struggled with what the view is, despite it being repeated multiple times.  i am not interested in acting as reading adviser.  if your comment does not address the view, i am not going to bother responding.  /u/vordreller found this bastardised version of the comic URL and from john stuart mill onwards, i agree with the sentiments the creator expresses.  if you want to see my argument in comic form, you could not get much closer than that.   #  unless freedom of speech can be distinguished from those other rights, which i believe it cannot, there can be no distinction between private agents and the state in terms of freedom of speech.   #  i think there is a distinction between these rights.   # just because the state is not infringing your right does not mean others cannot.  with other rights this is accepted as part of the system.  for instance, if a company refused to serve or allow access to black people that would be considered a violation of their rights despite it not being the government.  there is specific government legislation that forbids companies from doing this.  for my country, the uk, it is illegal to discriminate directly e. g. , i do not hire black people and indirectly e. g. , i have no disability access into my business .  it is the same for the us.  i think you are misunderstanding these laws it is the government creating this legislation.  i think there is a distinction between these rights.  if a car dealership refuses to sell to black people, that puts black people at a distinct disadvantage to everyone else.  they may not be able to get to their choice place of work on time, travelling long distances will not be an option, and so forth.  to the contrary, i do not think you particularly lose anything if a car dealership does not let you talk about your hatred of black people in their store.  you may not gain what you wanted to gain, but you are not put at a disadvantage to anyone else.  it is not enough to be allowed to say what you want, you have to be allowed to communicate to who you want.  if you force people to listen to you, are you not impeding on their rights ? for example: reddit has a right, as a business, not to host homophobic content.  if you force them to host homophobic content, you are then impeding on their rights as a business.  another example: i want to communicate to my neighbour is husband that his wife is a lying filthy cheating slut she is not, she is a lovely lady, but this is just an example .  given that you say that i have to be allowed to communicate that, does that mean i have a right to walk into his house in the middle of the night and stand over his bed shouting about his wifes antics ? no, it does not.  i might be welcome to do it on the public, government owned road outside of his house and shout it through his window, i could even do it from my own private house, but i ca not welcome myself into his private asset and do it there.  if i punched someone for suggesting marmite was a valid option for toast, would i not be restricting their right to free speech ? no, because you let hem say it and then punched them.  they might not say it in the future because of your actions, but you responded to their free speech rather than restricted it.  they are not punishing you, they are giving you a choice.  you might be given the option of stocking shelves or mopping floors; or calculating budgets or calculating losses; or refraining from making racist comments or looking for another job.  freedom of speech, like you say, does not bring freedom from consequences, and it is very possible that employment termination is a consequence of excersising your freedom of speech.  they are not restricting your freedom of speech, they are just telling you to represent another company if you are going to continue.  as a side note, an employer can fire any employee for any reason, right down to the way they hold their coffee cup.   #  later in your post you mention freedom of association but you kinda miss the point of it.   # by not allowing private entities to control the speech on their platforms, you are essentially forcing them to tacitly promote speech they might not want to.  forcing someone to support ideas or statements they do not want to is a huge violation of the concept of free speech.  to give a real world example i work for a publishing company.  i had a book submitted to me that i did not want to publish for political reasons it ended with a promotion of organized religion .  i rejected the book because i did not want to promote those ideas since that was the main reason for the rejection, that was me exercising my right to free speech.  i have the ability to promote and not promote the ideas that i want.  side note: i did include a recommendation for a specific different publisher with the rejection and the author and i became friends through the experience.  we just have very opposing viewpoints on religion but we are each free to express them and not force anyone else to express them against their will.  no.  you only have the right to expression.  there is no right that says someone has to listen to you.  that is their freedom of speech as well.  later in your post you mention freedom of association but you kinda miss the point of it.  while you have the freedom to associate with whoever you want, you do not have the right to force your association on another person.  we do also have a freedom from association.  those that go against this are normally referred to as  stalkers  and  harassers.   that would be physical assault.  it is not really a speech issue and no one would view it as such.  yes, but your business is also exercising their right to free speech and association.  both sides are.  remember, you have the right to free speech not consequence free speech.   #  to go back to you banning italians, the fact my shop does serve italians does not make your violation any less of a violation.   # i ca not deny service to black, gay, or italian people on the basis that they are black, gay, or italian.  however if i consider they are being disruptive, do not follow a dress code, or are doing things that i the owner do not like aside form what demographic they belong to, then i am free to kick them out.  you misunderstood my point.  my point in that part was it would be as unjust for you, a private business owner, to deny access based on race as it would for the state to do so.  as there is no difference in that case, why should there be a difference if the case related to free speech ? if there is no difference between the state and a private agent in cases of free speech, the idea freedom of speech does not extend to non state actions ca not be correct.  where did the idea of this applying to privately owned forums come from ? talking shit in someone is garden would obviously not be acceptable.  perhaps i was not clear or i do not view the comic the same as everyone else, but i assumed it referred to something like making speeches at speaker is corner.  i do not think it matters if it could be done elsewhere.  to go back to you banning italians, the fact my shop does serve italians does not make your violation any less of a violation.   #  as there is no difference in that case, why should there be a difference if the case related to free speech ?  # as there is no difference in that case, why should there be a difference if the case related to free speech ? if there is no difference between the state and a private agent in cases of free speech, the idea freedom of speech does not extend to non state actions ca not be correct.  it is literally illegal, right now, for a private business owner to deny service to you based on race.  it is not illegal for a private business owner to deny service because he thinks you are a dick.  the difference is the reason the private business owner is choosing to deny service.  some are illegal, and some are not.   #  the fear of negative reception naturally silences people, but i hardly see how it is anybody is job to protect speakers from other is opinions, or ensure that they can say whatever they want.   #  the issue here is that the power of states and the power of persons and companies are essentially different.  free speech was made so that you do not live in fear that your opinions will legally lead to your death or imprisonment and therefore wo not be immediately silenced by that fear.  can other fears silence you ? yes of course, as they should.  i fear i will never be spoken again by my family and that prevents me from talking about my aunt hilda is breasts during her funeral.  and the fear that i will get stabbed if i make racist remarks standing in the middle of a street at harlem does silence me.  this is the whole legal vs non legal repercussions of your speech, you incur exactly zero consequences from the state and the state protects you from consequences that would entail crimes like assault murder or defamation.  other consequences like criticism and backlash form part of the other party is freedom of speech, and denial from participation in specific private forums or spaces as a result of conduct or speech that is deemed detrimental is fair.  the fear of negative reception naturally silences people, but i hardly see how it is anybody is job to protect speakers from other is opinions, or ensure that they can say whatever they want.  if negative reception of your opinions would harm you in terms of reputation or social standing, maybe you have to rethink how to present the opinion, keep it to yourself, or reconsider the opinion entirely
whenever an issue relating to free speech arises it is almost guaranteed one of the responses will be  free speech means the state ca not control what you say.  it does not mean freedom from consequences from everyone else .  if it is on the internet it is equally likely that this xkcd URL will be shown.  this does seem at first to be a reasonable point of view.  however, i believe it is flawed for several related reasons.  the first reason is that underestimates the power of the public.  just because the state is not infringing your right does not mean others cannot.  with other rights this is accepted as part of the system.  for instance, if a company refused to serve or allow access to black people that would be considered a violation of their rights despite it not being the government.  in the same way, you could not claim a country has gender equality if women ca not be get a job, despite there being no law against hiring women.  unless freedom of speech can be distinguished from those other rights, which i believe it cannot, there can be no distinction between private agents and the state in terms of freedom of speech.  secondly, the right to free speech includes the right to unimpeded free speech, if that makes sense.  it is not enough to be allowed to say what you want, you have to be allowed to communicate to who you want.  it makes more tense in terms of letters.  freedom of speech is not fulfilled by allowing me to write letters, it is only fulfilled by allowing their delivery.  using the example from the comic, continually showing someone the door is the same as standing by the pillar box and shredding the letters as i post them.  the final reason is that extreme reactions to someone is use of free speech can restrict it by effectively punishing them for exercising their right.  if i punched someone for suggesting marmite was a valid option for toast, would i not be restricting their right to free speech ? equally, if i was sacked for making a racist reddit post, am i not being punished for exercising my right to freedom of speech ? i am not entirely convinced on this point because it might restrict someone else is freedom of speech to criticise or their freedom of association to not have to put up with me, but i would still say there is some validity to this point.  just to be clear, i do not think freedom of speech should never be restricted but i do think those restrictions should be acknowledged which the phrase  freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences  does not.  some people seem to be confused about what i mean by a private entity.  i simply mean someone who is not the state or acting as an agent of the state.  i never meant to imply that i would start talking shit in your living room.  freedom of speech does not make crimes less illegal do to be clear i am not advocating that in the slightest.  a lot of the comments have struggled with what the view is, despite it being repeated multiple times.  i am not interested in acting as reading adviser.  if your comment does not address the view, i am not going to bother responding.  /u/vordreller found this bastardised version of the comic URL and from john stuart mill onwards, i agree with the sentiments the creator expresses.  if you want to see my argument in comic form, you could not get much closer than that.   #  secondly, the right to free speech includes the right to unimpeded free speech, if that makes sense.   #  it is not enough to be allowed to say what you want, you have to be allowed to communicate to who you want.   # just because the state is not infringing your right does not mean others cannot.  with other rights this is accepted as part of the system.  for instance, if a company refused to serve or allow access to black people that would be considered a violation of their rights despite it not being the government.  there is specific government legislation that forbids companies from doing this.  for my country, the uk, it is illegal to discriminate directly e. g. , i do not hire black people and indirectly e. g. , i have no disability access into my business .  it is the same for the us.  i think you are misunderstanding these laws it is the government creating this legislation.  i think there is a distinction between these rights.  if a car dealership refuses to sell to black people, that puts black people at a distinct disadvantage to everyone else.  they may not be able to get to their choice place of work on time, travelling long distances will not be an option, and so forth.  to the contrary, i do not think you particularly lose anything if a car dealership does not let you talk about your hatred of black people in their store.  you may not gain what you wanted to gain, but you are not put at a disadvantage to anyone else.  it is not enough to be allowed to say what you want, you have to be allowed to communicate to who you want.  if you force people to listen to you, are you not impeding on their rights ? for example: reddit has a right, as a business, not to host homophobic content.  if you force them to host homophobic content, you are then impeding on their rights as a business.  another example: i want to communicate to my neighbour is husband that his wife is a lying filthy cheating slut she is not, she is a lovely lady, but this is just an example .  given that you say that i have to be allowed to communicate that, does that mean i have a right to walk into his house in the middle of the night and stand over his bed shouting about his wifes antics ? no, it does not.  i might be welcome to do it on the public, government owned road outside of his house and shout it through his window, i could even do it from my own private house, but i ca not welcome myself into his private asset and do it there.  if i punched someone for suggesting marmite was a valid option for toast, would i not be restricting their right to free speech ? no, because you let hem say it and then punched them.  they might not say it in the future because of your actions, but you responded to their free speech rather than restricted it.  they are not punishing you, they are giving you a choice.  you might be given the option of stocking shelves or mopping floors; or calculating budgets or calculating losses; or refraining from making racist comments or looking for another job.  freedom of speech, like you say, does not bring freedom from consequences, and it is very possible that employment termination is a consequence of excersising your freedom of speech.  they are not restricting your freedom of speech, they are just telling you to represent another company if you are going to continue.  as a side note, an employer can fire any employee for any reason, right down to the way they hold their coffee cup.   #  by not allowing private entities to control the speech on their platforms, you are essentially forcing them to tacitly promote speech they might not want to.   # by not allowing private entities to control the speech on their platforms, you are essentially forcing them to tacitly promote speech they might not want to.  forcing someone to support ideas or statements they do not want to is a huge violation of the concept of free speech.  to give a real world example i work for a publishing company.  i had a book submitted to me that i did not want to publish for political reasons it ended with a promotion of organized religion .  i rejected the book because i did not want to promote those ideas since that was the main reason for the rejection, that was me exercising my right to free speech.  i have the ability to promote and not promote the ideas that i want.  side note: i did include a recommendation for a specific different publisher with the rejection and the author and i became friends through the experience.  we just have very opposing viewpoints on religion but we are each free to express them and not force anyone else to express them against their will.  no.  you only have the right to expression.  there is no right that says someone has to listen to you.  that is their freedom of speech as well.  later in your post you mention freedom of association but you kinda miss the point of it.  while you have the freedom to associate with whoever you want, you do not have the right to force your association on another person.  we do also have a freedom from association.  those that go against this are normally referred to as  stalkers  and  harassers.   that would be physical assault.  it is not really a speech issue and no one would view it as such.  yes, but your business is also exercising their right to free speech and association.  both sides are.  remember, you have the right to free speech not consequence free speech.   #  talking shit in someone is garden would obviously not be acceptable.   # i ca not deny service to black, gay, or italian people on the basis that they are black, gay, or italian.  however if i consider they are being disruptive, do not follow a dress code, or are doing things that i the owner do not like aside form what demographic they belong to, then i am free to kick them out.  you misunderstood my point.  my point in that part was it would be as unjust for you, a private business owner, to deny access based on race as it would for the state to do so.  as there is no difference in that case, why should there be a difference if the case related to free speech ? if there is no difference between the state and a private agent in cases of free speech, the idea freedom of speech does not extend to non state actions ca not be correct.  where did the idea of this applying to privately owned forums come from ? talking shit in someone is garden would obviously not be acceptable.  perhaps i was not clear or i do not view the comic the same as everyone else, but i assumed it referred to something like making speeches at speaker is corner.  i do not think it matters if it could be done elsewhere.  to go back to you banning italians, the fact my shop does serve italians does not make your violation any less of a violation.   #  it is literally illegal, right now, for a private business owner to deny service to you based on race.   # as there is no difference in that case, why should there be a difference if the case related to free speech ? if there is no difference between the state and a private agent in cases of free speech, the idea freedom of speech does not extend to non state actions ca not be correct.  it is literally illegal, right now, for a private business owner to deny service to you based on race.  it is not illegal for a private business owner to deny service because he thinks you are a dick.  the difference is the reason the private business owner is choosing to deny service.  some are illegal, and some are not.   #  free speech was made so that you do not live in fear that your opinions will legally lead to your death or imprisonment and therefore wo not be immediately silenced by that fear.   #  the issue here is that the power of states and the power of persons and companies are essentially different.  free speech was made so that you do not live in fear that your opinions will legally lead to your death or imprisonment and therefore wo not be immediately silenced by that fear.  can other fears silence you ? yes of course, as they should.  i fear i will never be spoken again by my family and that prevents me from talking about my aunt hilda is breasts during her funeral.  and the fear that i will get stabbed if i make racist remarks standing in the middle of a street at harlem does silence me.  this is the whole legal vs non legal repercussions of your speech, you incur exactly zero consequences from the state and the state protects you from consequences that would entail crimes like assault murder or defamation.  other consequences like criticism and backlash form part of the other party is freedom of speech, and denial from participation in specific private forums or spaces as a result of conduct or speech that is deemed detrimental is fair.  the fear of negative reception naturally silences people, but i hardly see how it is anybody is job to protect speakers from other is opinions, or ensure that they can say whatever they want.  if negative reception of your opinions would harm you in terms of reputation or social standing, maybe you have to rethink how to present the opinion, keep it to yourself, or reconsider the opinion entirely
whenever an issue relating to free speech arises it is almost guaranteed one of the responses will be  free speech means the state ca not control what you say.  it does not mean freedom from consequences from everyone else .  if it is on the internet it is equally likely that this xkcd URL will be shown.  this does seem at first to be a reasonable point of view.  however, i believe it is flawed for several related reasons.  the first reason is that underestimates the power of the public.  just because the state is not infringing your right does not mean others cannot.  with other rights this is accepted as part of the system.  for instance, if a company refused to serve or allow access to black people that would be considered a violation of their rights despite it not being the government.  in the same way, you could not claim a country has gender equality if women ca not be get a job, despite there being no law against hiring women.  unless freedom of speech can be distinguished from those other rights, which i believe it cannot, there can be no distinction between private agents and the state in terms of freedom of speech.  secondly, the right to free speech includes the right to unimpeded free speech, if that makes sense.  it is not enough to be allowed to say what you want, you have to be allowed to communicate to who you want.  it makes more tense in terms of letters.  freedom of speech is not fulfilled by allowing me to write letters, it is only fulfilled by allowing their delivery.  using the example from the comic, continually showing someone the door is the same as standing by the pillar box and shredding the letters as i post them.  the final reason is that extreme reactions to someone is use of free speech can restrict it by effectively punishing them for exercising their right.  if i punched someone for suggesting marmite was a valid option for toast, would i not be restricting their right to free speech ? equally, if i was sacked for making a racist reddit post, am i not being punished for exercising my right to freedom of speech ? i am not entirely convinced on this point because it might restrict someone else is freedom of speech to criticise or their freedom of association to not have to put up with me, but i would still say there is some validity to this point.  just to be clear, i do not think freedom of speech should never be restricted but i do think those restrictions should be acknowledged which the phrase  freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences  does not.  some people seem to be confused about what i mean by a private entity.  i simply mean someone who is not the state or acting as an agent of the state.  i never meant to imply that i would start talking shit in your living room.  freedom of speech does not make crimes less illegal do to be clear i am not advocating that in the slightest.  a lot of the comments have struggled with what the view is, despite it being repeated multiple times.  i am not interested in acting as reading adviser.  if your comment does not address the view, i am not going to bother responding.  /u/vordreller found this bastardised version of the comic URL and from john stuart mill onwards, i agree with the sentiments the creator expresses.  if you want to see my argument in comic form, you could not get much closer than that.   #  the final reason is that extreme reactions to someone is use of free speech can restrict it by effectively punishing them for exercising their right.   #  if i punched someone for suggesting marmite was a valid option for toast, would i not be restricting their right to free speech ?  # just because the state is not infringing your right does not mean others cannot.  with other rights this is accepted as part of the system.  for instance, if a company refused to serve or allow access to black people that would be considered a violation of their rights despite it not being the government.  there is specific government legislation that forbids companies from doing this.  for my country, the uk, it is illegal to discriminate directly e. g. , i do not hire black people and indirectly e. g. , i have no disability access into my business .  it is the same for the us.  i think you are misunderstanding these laws it is the government creating this legislation.  i think there is a distinction between these rights.  if a car dealership refuses to sell to black people, that puts black people at a distinct disadvantage to everyone else.  they may not be able to get to their choice place of work on time, travelling long distances will not be an option, and so forth.  to the contrary, i do not think you particularly lose anything if a car dealership does not let you talk about your hatred of black people in their store.  you may not gain what you wanted to gain, but you are not put at a disadvantage to anyone else.  it is not enough to be allowed to say what you want, you have to be allowed to communicate to who you want.  if you force people to listen to you, are you not impeding on their rights ? for example: reddit has a right, as a business, not to host homophobic content.  if you force them to host homophobic content, you are then impeding on their rights as a business.  another example: i want to communicate to my neighbour is husband that his wife is a lying filthy cheating slut she is not, she is a lovely lady, but this is just an example .  given that you say that i have to be allowed to communicate that, does that mean i have a right to walk into his house in the middle of the night and stand over his bed shouting about his wifes antics ? no, it does not.  i might be welcome to do it on the public, government owned road outside of his house and shout it through his window, i could even do it from my own private house, but i ca not welcome myself into his private asset and do it there.  if i punched someone for suggesting marmite was a valid option for toast, would i not be restricting their right to free speech ? no, because you let hem say it and then punched them.  they might not say it in the future because of your actions, but you responded to their free speech rather than restricted it.  they are not punishing you, they are giving you a choice.  you might be given the option of stocking shelves or mopping floors; or calculating budgets or calculating losses; or refraining from making racist comments or looking for another job.  freedom of speech, like you say, does not bring freedom from consequences, and it is very possible that employment termination is a consequence of excersising your freedom of speech.  they are not restricting your freedom of speech, they are just telling you to represent another company if you are going to continue.  as a side note, an employer can fire any employee for any reason, right down to the way they hold their coffee cup.   #  i have the ability to promote and not promote the ideas that i want.   # by not allowing private entities to control the speech on their platforms, you are essentially forcing them to tacitly promote speech they might not want to.  forcing someone to support ideas or statements they do not want to is a huge violation of the concept of free speech.  to give a real world example i work for a publishing company.  i had a book submitted to me that i did not want to publish for political reasons it ended with a promotion of organized religion .  i rejected the book because i did not want to promote those ideas since that was the main reason for the rejection, that was me exercising my right to free speech.  i have the ability to promote and not promote the ideas that i want.  side note: i did include a recommendation for a specific different publisher with the rejection and the author and i became friends through the experience.  we just have very opposing viewpoints on religion but we are each free to express them and not force anyone else to express them against their will.  no.  you only have the right to expression.  there is no right that says someone has to listen to you.  that is their freedom of speech as well.  later in your post you mention freedom of association but you kinda miss the point of it.  while you have the freedom to associate with whoever you want, you do not have the right to force your association on another person.  we do also have a freedom from association.  those that go against this are normally referred to as  stalkers  and  harassers.   that would be physical assault.  it is not really a speech issue and no one would view it as such.  yes, but your business is also exercising their right to free speech and association.  both sides are.  remember, you have the right to free speech not consequence free speech.   #  i ca not deny service to black, gay, or italian people on the basis that they are black, gay, or italian.   # i ca not deny service to black, gay, or italian people on the basis that they are black, gay, or italian.  however if i consider they are being disruptive, do not follow a dress code, or are doing things that i the owner do not like aside form what demographic they belong to, then i am free to kick them out.  you misunderstood my point.  my point in that part was it would be as unjust for you, a private business owner, to deny access based on race as it would for the state to do so.  as there is no difference in that case, why should there be a difference if the case related to free speech ? if there is no difference between the state and a private agent in cases of free speech, the idea freedom of speech does not extend to non state actions ca not be correct.  where did the idea of this applying to privately owned forums come from ? talking shit in someone is garden would obviously not be acceptable.  perhaps i was not clear or i do not view the comic the same as everyone else, but i assumed it referred to something like making speeches at speaker is corner.  i do not think it matters if it could be done elsewhere.  to go back to you banning italians, the fact my shop does serve italians does not make your violation any less of a violation.   #  as there is no difference in that case, why should there be a difference if the case related to free speech ?  # as there is no difference in that case, why should there be a difference if the case related to free speech ? if there is no difference between the state and a private agent in cases of free speech, the idea freedom of speech does not extend to non state actions ca not be correct.  it is literally illegal, right now, for a private business owner to deny service to you based on race.  it is not illegal for a private business owner to deny service because he thinks you are a dick.  the difference is the reason the private business owner is choosing to deny service.  some are illegal, and some are not.   #  i fear i will never be spoken again by my family and that prevents me from talking about my aunt hilda is breasts during her funeral.   #  the issue here is that the power of states and the power of persons and companies are essentially different.  free speech was made so that you do not live in fear that your opinions will legally lead to your death or imprisonment and therefore wo not be immediately silenced by that fear.  can other fears silence you ? yes of course, as they should.  i fear i will never be spoken again by my family and that prevents me from talking about my aunt hilda is breasts during her funeral.  and the fear that i will get stabbed if i make racist remarks standing in the middle of a street at harlem does silence me.  this is the whole legal vs non legal repercussions of your speech, you incur exactly zero consequences from the state and the state protects you from consequences that would entail crimes like assault murder or defamation.  other consequences like criticism and backlash form part of the other party is freedom of speech, and denial from participation in specific private forums or spaces as a result of conduct or speech that is deemed detrimental is fair.  the fear of negative reception naturally silences people, but i hardly see how it is anybody is job to protect speakers from other is opinions, or ensure that they can say whatever they want.  if negative reception of your opinions would harm you in terms of reputation or social standing, maybe you have to rethink how to present the opinion, keep it to yourself, or reconsider the opinion entirely
whenever an issue relating to free speech arises it is almost guaranteed one of the responses will be  free speech means the state ca not control what you say.  it does not mean freedom from consequences from everyone else .  if it is on the internet it is equally likely that this xkcd URL will be shown.  this does seem at first to be a reasonable point of view.  however, i believe it is flawed for several related reasons.  the first reason is that underestimates the power of the public.  just because the state is not infringing your right does not mean others cannot.  with other rights this is accepted as part of the system.  for instance, if a company refused to serve or allow access to black people that would be considered a violation of their rights despite it not being the government.  in the same way, you could not claim a country has gender equality if women ca not be get a job, despite there being no law against hiring women.  unless freedom of speech can be distinguished from those other rights, which i believe it cannot, there can be no distinction between private agents and the state in terms of freedom of speech.  secondly, the right to free speech includes the right to unimpeded free speech, if that makes sense.  it is not enough to be allowed to say what you want, you have to be allowed to communicate to who you want.  it makes more tense in terms of letters.  freedom of speech is not fulfilled by allowing me to write letters, it is only fulfilled by allowing their delivery.  using the example from the comic, continually showing someone the door is the same as standing by the pillar box and shredding the letters as i post them.  the final reason is that extreme reactions to someone is use of free speech can restrict it by effectively punishing them for exercising their right.  if i punched someone for suggesting marmite was a valid option for toast, would i not be restricting their right to free speech ? equally, if i was sacked for making a racist reddit post, am i not being punished for exercising my right to freedom of speech ? i am not entirely convinced on this point because it might restrict someone else is freedom of speech to criticise or their freedom of association to not have to put up with me, but i would still say there is some validity to this point.  just to be clear, i do not think freedom of speech should never be restricted but i do think those restrictions should be acknowledged which the phrase  freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences  does not.  some people seem to be confused about what i mean by a private entity.  i simply mean someone who is not the state or acting as an agent of the state.  i never meant to imply that i would start talking shit in your living room.  freedom of speech does not make crimes less illegal do to be clear i am not advocating that in the slightest.  a lot of the comments have struggled with what the view is, despite it being repeated multiple times.  i am not interested in acting as reading adviser.  if your comment does not address the view, i am not going to bother responding.  /u/vordreller found this bastardised version of the comic URL and from john stuart mill onwards, i agree with the sentiments the creator expresses.  if you want to see my argument in comic form, you could not get much closer than that.   #  equally, if i was sacked for making a racist reddit post, am i not being punished for exercising my right to freedom of speech ?  #  they are not punishing you, they are giving you a choice.   # just because the state is not infringing your right does not mean others cannot.  with other rights this is accepted as part of the system.  for instance, if a company refused to serve or allow access to black people that would be considered a violation of their rights despite it not being the government.  there is specific government legislation that forbids companies from doing this.  for my country, the uk, it is illegal to discriminate directly e. g. , i do not hire black people and indirectly e. g. , i have no disability access into my business .  it is the same for the us.  i think you are misunderstanding these laws it is the government creating this legislation.  i think there is a distinction between these rights.  if a car dealership refuses to sell to black people, that puts black people at a distinct disadvantage to everyone else.  they may not be able to get to their choice place of work on time, travelling long distances will not be an option, and so forth.  to the contrary, i do not think you particularly lose anything if a car dealership does not let you talk about your hatred of black people in their store.  you may not gain what you wanted to gain, but you are not put at a disadvantage to anyone else.  it is not enough to be allowed to say what you want, you have to be allowed to communicate to who you want.  if you force people to listen to you, are you not impeding on their rights ? for example: reddit has a right, as a business, not to host homophobic content.  if you force them to host homophobic content, you are then impeding on their rights as a business.  another example: i want to communicate to my neighbour is husband that his wife is a lying filthy cheating slut she is not, she is a lovely lady, but this is just an example .  given that you say that i have to be allowed to communicate that, does that mean i have a right to walk into his house in the middle of the night and stand over his bed shouting about his wifes antics ? no, it does not.  i might be welcome to do it on the public, government owned road outside of his house and shout it through his window, i could even do it from my own private house, but i ca not welcome myself into his private asset and do it there.  if i punched someone for suggesting marmite was a valid option for toast, would i not be restricting their right to free speech ? no, because you let hem say it and then punched them.  they might not say it in the future because of your actions, but you responded to their free speech rather than restricted it.  they are not punishing you, they are giving you a choice.  you might be given the option of stocking shelves or mopping floors; or calculating budgets or calculating losses; or refraining from making racist comments or looking for another job.  freedom of speech, like you say, does not bring freedom from consequences, and it is very possible that employment termination is a consequence of excersising your freedom of speech.  they are not restricting your freedom of speech, they are just telling you to represent another company if you are going to continue.  as a side note, an employer can fire any employee for any reason, right down to the way they hold their coffee cup.   #  we just have very opposing viewpoints on religion but we are each free to express them and not force anyone else to express them against their will.   # by not allowing private entities to control the speech on their platforms, you are essentially forcing them to tacitly promote speech they might not want to.  forcing someone to support ideas or statements they do not want to is a huge violation of the concept of free speech.  to give a real world example i work for a publishing company.  i had a book submitted to me that i did not want to publish for political reasons it ended with a promotion of organized religion .  i rejected the book because i did not want to promote those ideas since that was the main reason for the rejection, that was me exercising my right to free speech.  i have the ability to promote and not promote the ideas that i want.  side note: i did include a recommendation for a specific different publisher with the rejection and the author and i became friends through the experience.  we just have very opposing viewpoints on religion but we are each free to express them and not force anyone else to express them against their will.  no.  you only have the right to expression.  there is no right that says someone has to listen to you.  that is their freedom of speech as well.  later in your post you mention freedom of association but you kinda miss the point of it.  while you have the freedom to associate with whoever you want, you do not have the right to force your association on another person.  we do also have a freedom from association.  those that go against this are normally referred to as  stalkers  and  harassers.   that would be physical assault.  it is not really a speech issue and no one would view it as such.  yes, but your business is also exercising their right to free speech and association.  both sides are.  remember, you have the right to free speech not consequence free speech.   #  to go back to you banning italians, the fact my shop does serve italians does not make your violation any less of a violation.   # i ca not deny service to black, gay, or italian people on the basis that they are black, gay, or italian.  however if i consider they are being disruptive, do not follow a dress code, or are doing things that i the owner do not like aside form what demographic they belong to, then i am free to kick them out.  you misunderstood my point.  my point in that part was it would be as unjust for you, a private business owner, to deny access based on race as it would for the state to do so.  as there is no difference in that case, why should there be a difference if the case related to free speech ? if there is no difference between the state and a private agent in cases of free speech, the idea freedom of speech does not extend to non state actions ca not be correct.  where did the idea of this applying to privately owned forums come from ? talking shit in someone is garden would obviously not be acceptable.  perhaps i was not clear or i do not view the comic the same as everyone else, but i assumed it referred to something like making speeches at speaker is corner.  i do not think it matters if it could be done elsewhere.  to go back to you banning italians, the fact my shop does serve italians does not make your violation any less of a violation.   #  the difference is the reason the private business owner is choosing to deny service.   # as there is no difference in that case, why should there be a difference if the case related to free speech ? if there is no difference between the state and a private agent in cases of free speech, the idea freedom of speech does not extend to non state actions ca not be correct.  it is literally illegal, right now, for a private business owner to deny service to you based on race.  it is not illegal for a private business owner to deny service because he thinks you are a dick.  the difference is the reason the private business owner is choosing to deny service.  some are illegal, and some are not.   #  this is the whole legal vs non legal repercussions of your speech, you incur exactly zero consequences from the state and the state protects you from consequences that would entail crimes like assault murder or defamation.   #  the issue here is that the power of states and the power of persons and companies are essentially different.  free speech was made so that you do not live in fear that your opinions will legally lead to your death or imprisonment and therefore wo not be immediately silenced by that fear.  can other fears silence you ? yes of course, as they should.  i fear i will never be spoken again by my family and that prevents me from talking about my aunt hilda is breasts during her funeral.  and the fear that i will get stabbed if i make racist remarks standing in the middle of a street at harlem does silence me.  this is the whole legal vs non legal repercussions of your speech, you incur exactly zero consequences from the state and the state protects you from consequences that would entail crimes like assault murder or defamation.  other consequences like criticism and backlash form part of the other party is freedom of speech, and denial from participation in specific private forums or spaces as a result of conduct or speech that is deemed detrimental is fair.  the fear of negative reception naturally silences people, but i hardly see how it is anybody is job to protect speakers from other is opinions, or ensure that they can say whatever they want.  if negative reception of your opinions would harm you in terms of reputation or social standing, maybe you have to rethink how to present the opinion, keep it to yourself, or reconsider the opinion entirely
whenever an issue relating to free speech arises it is almost guaranteed one of the responses will be  free speech means the state ca not control what you say.  it does not mean freedom from consequences from everyone else .  if it is on the internet it is equally likely that this xkcd URL will be shown.  this does seem at first to be a reasonable point of view.  however, i believe it is flawed for several related reasons.  the first reason is that underestimates the power of the public.  just because the state is not infringing your right does not mean others cannot.  with other rights this is accepted as part of the system.  for instance, if a company refused to serve or allow access to black people that would be considered a violation of their rights despite it not being the government.  in the same way, you could not claim a country has gender equality if women ca not be get a job, despite there being no law against hiring women.  unless freedom of speech can be distinguished from those other rights, which i believe it cannot, there can be no distinction between private agents and the state in terms of freedom of speech.  secondly, the right to free speech includes the right to unimpeded free speech, if that makes sense.  it is not enough to be allowed to say what you want, you have to be allowed to communicate to who you want.  it makes more tense in terms of letters.  freedom of speech is not fulfilled by allowing me to write letters, it is only fulfilled by allowing their delivery.  using the example from the comic, continually showing someone the door is the same as standing by the pillar box and shredding the letters as i post them.  the final reason is that extreme reactions to someone is use of free speech can restrict it by effectively punishing them for exercising their right.  if i punched someone for suggesting marmite was a valid option for toast, would i not be restricting their right to free speech ? equally, if i was sacked for making a racist reddit post, am i not being punished for exercising my right to freedom of speech ? i am not entirely convinced on this point because it might restrict someone else is freedom of speech to criticise or their freedom of association to not have to put up with me, but i would still say there is some validity to this point.  just to be clear, i do not think freedom of speech should never be restricted but i do think those restrictions should be acknowledged which the phrase  freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences  does not.  some people seem to be confused about what i mean by a private entity.  i simply mean someone who is not the state or acting as an agent of the state.  i never meant to imply that i would start talking shit in your living room.  freedom of speech does not make crimes less illegal do to be clear i am not advocating that in the slightest.  a lot of the comments have struggled with what the view is, despite it being repeated multiple times.  i am not interested in acting as reading adviser.  if your comment does not address the view, i am not going to bother responding.  /u/vordreller found this bastardised version of the comic URL and from john stuart mill onwards, i agree with the sentiments the creator expresses.  if you want to see my argument in comic form, you could not get much closer than that.   #  equally, if i was sacked for making a racist reddit post, am i not being punished for exercising my right to freedom of speech ?  #  you absolutely are being punished for exercising your right to free speech, in this case, but it is perfectly legal.   #  the reason that we have the right to free speech in the us is that it is written in the first amendment of the constitution:   congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or  abridging the freedom of speech,  or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.   the  right to free speech  that people talk about is exactly what is stated above no more, no less.  and all that says is that congress ca not make any laws limiting your speech.  yes, other people may effectively limit your free speech, but there is no legal argument against that in most cases, anyway .  nope.  it would be rude, and it might be assault, but it is not a free speech issue.  you absolutely are being punished for exercising your right to free speech, in this case, but it is perfectly legal.   #  i had a book submitted to me that i did not want to publish for political reasons it ended with a promotion of organized religion .   # by not allowing private entities to control the speech on their platforms, you are essentially forcing them to tacitly promote speech they might not want to.  forcing someone to support ideas or statements they do not want to is a huge violation of the concept of free speech.  to give a real world example i work for a publishing company.  i had a book submitted to me that i did not want to publish for political reasons it ended with a promotion of organized religion .  i rejected the book because i did not want to promote those ideas since that was the main reason for the rejection, that was me exercising my right to free speech.  i have the ability to promote and not promote the ideas that i want.  side note: i did include a recommendation for a specific different publisher with the rejection and the author and i became friends through the experience.  we just have very opposing viewpoints on religion but we are each free to express them and not force anyone else to express them against their will.  no.  you only have the right to expression.  there is no right that says someone has to listen to you.  that is their freedom of speech as well.  later in your post you mention freedom of association but you kinda miss the point of it.  while you have the freedom to associate with whoever you want, you do not have the right to force your association on another person.  we do also have a freedom from association.  those that go against this are normally referred to as  stalkers  and  harassers.   that would be physical assault.  it is not really a speech issue and no one would view it as such.  yes, but your business is also exercising their right to free speech and association.  both sides are.  remember, you have the right to free speech not consequence free speech.   #  my point in that part was it would be as unjust for you, a private business owner, to deny access based on race as it would for the state to do so.   # i ca not deny service to black, gay, or italian people on the basis that they are black, gay, or italian.  however if i consider they are being disruptive, do not follow a dress code, or are doing things that i the owner do not like aside form what demographic they belong to, then i am free to kick them out.  you misunderstood my point.  my point in that part was it would be as unjust for you, a private business owner, to deny access based on race as it would for the state to do so.  as there is no difference in that case, why should there be a difference if the case related to free speech ? if there is no difference between the state and a private agent in cases of free speech, the idea freedom of speech does not extend to non state actions ca not be correct.  where did the idea of this applying to privately owned forums come from ? talking shit in someone is garden would obviously not be acceptable.  perhaps i was not clear or i do not view the comic the same as everyone else, but i assumed it referred to something like making speeches at speaker is corner.  i do not think it matters if it could be done elsewhere.  to go back to you banning italians, the fact my shop does serve italians does not make your violation any less of a violation.   #  the difference is the reason the private business owner is choosing to deny service.   # as there is no difference in that case, why should there be a difference if the case related to free speech ? if there is no difference between the state and a private agent in cases of free speech, the idea freedom of speech does not extend to non state actions ca not be correct.  it is literally illegal, right now, for a private business owner to deny service to you based on race.  it is not illegal for a private business owner to deny service because he thinks you are a dick.  the difference is the reason the private business owner is choosing to deny service.  some are illegal, and some are not.   #  the fear of negative reception naturally silences people, but i hardly see how it is anybody is job to protect speakers from other is opinions, or ensure that they can say whatever they want.   #  the issue here is that the power of states and the power of persons and companies are essentially different.  free speech was made so that you do not live in fear that your opinions will legally lead to your death or imprisonment and therefore wo not be immediately silenced by that fear.  can other fears silence you ? yes of course, as they should.  i fear i will never be spoken again by my family and that prevents me from talking about my aunt hilda is breasts during her funeral.  and the fear that i will get stabbed if i make racist remarks standing in the middle of a street at harlem does silence me.  this is the whole legal vs non legal repercussions of your speech, you incur exactly zero consequences from the state and the state protects you from consequences that would entail crimes like assault murder or defamation.  other consequences like criticism and backlash form part of the other party is freedom of speech, and denial from participation in specific private forums or spaces as a result of conduct or speech that is deemed detrimental is fair.  the fear of negative reception naturally silences people, but i hardly see how it is anybody is job to protect speakers from other is opinions, or ensure that they can say whatever they want.  if negative reception of your opinions would harm you in terms of reputation or social standing, maybe you have to rethink how to present the opinion, keep it to yourself, or reconsider the opinion entirely
whenever an issue relating to free speech arises it is almost guaranteed one of the responses will be  free speech means the state ca not control what you say.  it does not mean freedom from consequences from everyone else .  if it is on the internet it is equally likely that this xkcd URL will be shown.  this does seem at first to be a reasonable point of view.  however, i believe it is flawed for several related reasons.  the first reason is that underestimates the power of the public.  just because the state is not infringing your right does not mean others cannot.  with other rights this is accepted as part of the system.  for instance, if a company refused to serve or allow access to black people that would be considered a violation of their rights despite it not being the government.  in the same way, you could not claim a country has gender equality if women ca not be get a job, despite there being no law against hiring women.  unless freedom of speech can be distinguished from those other rights, which i believe it cannot, there can be no distinction between private agents and the state in terms of freedom of speech.  secondly, the right to free speech includes the right to unimpeded free speech, if that makes sense.  it is not enough to be allowed to say what you want, you have to be allowed to communicate to who you want.  it makes more tense in terms of letters.  freedom of speech is not fulfilled by allowing me to write letters, it is only fulfilled by allowing their delivery.  using the example from the comic, continually showing someone the door is the same as standing by the pillar box and shredding the letters as i post them.  the final reason is that extreme reactions to someone is use of free speech can restrict it by effectively punishing them for exercising their right.  if i punched someone for suggesting marmite was a valid option for toast, would i not be restricting their right to free speech ? equally, if i was sacked for making a racist reddit post, am i not being punished for exercising my right to freedom of speech ? i am not entirely convinced on this point because it might restrict someone else is freedom of speech to criticise or their freedom of association to not have to put up with me, but i would still say there is some validity to this point.  just to be clear, i do not think freedom of speech should never be restricted but i do think those restrictions should be acknowledged which the phrase  freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences  does not.  some people seem to be confused about what i mean by a private entity.  i simply mean someone who is not the state or acting as an agent of the state.  i never meant to imply that i would start talking shit in your living room.  freedom of speech does not make crimes less illegal do to be clear i am not advocating that in the slightest.  a lot of the comments have struggled with what the view is, despite it being repeated multiple times.  i am not interested in acting as reading adviser.  if your comment does not address the view, i am not going to bother responding.  /u/vordreller found this bastardised version of the comic URL and from john stuart mill onwards, i agree with the sentiments the creator expresses.  if you want to see my argument in comic form, you could not get much closer than that.   #  it is not enough to be allowed to say what you want, you have to be allowed to communicate to who you want.   #  the point of panel 0 is that no one has to listen to you.   # the point of panel 0 is that no one has to listen to you.  you are not entitled to an audience.  if you start talking to me, i should be able to walk away from it for any reason.  the media do not have to publish what you say or write etc.  if your web hosting provider has rules against the type of website you create, they may terminate your contract with them.  what do you consider extreme ? public criticism ? ridicule in the press ? those are also forms of exercising free speech.  if we allow unpopular speech, we also have to allow counter speech by those who do not like the former.  it is the other side of the free speech coin.  if you are doing it under company time or using company equipment, then it is simply behavior out of line with your contract.  if it is in private, it gets murkier.  however, if it can easily be associated with your employer, your employer may suffer damage to their public reputation, especially if the speech concerns minorities or otherwise protected classes.  this has to be taken into account as well.   #  i had a book submitted to me that i did not want to publish for political reasons it ended with a promotion of organized religion .   # by not allowing private entities to control the speech on their platforms, you are essentially forcing them to tacitly promote speech they might not want to.  forcing someone to support ideas or statements they do not want to is a huge violation of the concept of free speech.  to give a real world example i work for a publishing company.  i had a book submitted to me that i did not want to publish for political reasons it ended with a promotion of organized religion .  i rejected the book because i did not want to promote those ideas since that was the main reason for the rejection, that was me exercising my right to free speech.  i have the ability to promote and not promote the ideas that i want.  side note: i did include a recommendation for a specific different publisher with the rejection and the author and i became friends through the experience.  we just have very opposing viewpoints on religion but we are each free to express them and not force anyone else to express them against their will.  no.  you only have the right to expression.  there is no right that says someone has to listen to you.  that is their freedom of speech as well.  later in your post you mention freedom of association but you kinda miss the point of it.  while you have the freedom to associate with whoever you want, you do not have the right to force your association on another person.  we do also have a freedom from association.  those that go against this are normally referred to as  stalkers  and  harassers.   that would be physical assault.  it is not really a speech issue and no one would view it as such.  yes, but your business is also exercising their right to free speech and association.  both sides are.  remember, you have the right to free speech not consequence free speech.   #  i do not think it matters if it could be done elsewhere.   # i ca not deny service to black, gay, or italian people on the basis that they are black, gay, or italian.  however if i consider they are being disruptive, do not follow a dress code, or are doing things that i the owner do not like aside form what demographic they belong to, then i am free to kick them out.  you misunderstood my point.  my point in that part was it would be as unjust for you, a private business owner, to deny access based on race as it would for the state to do so.  as there is no difference in that case, why should there be a difference if the case related to free speech ? if there is no difference between the state and a private agent in cases of free speech, the idea freedom of speech does not extend to non state actions ca not be correct.  where did the idea of this applying to privately owned forums come from ? talking shit in someone is garden would obviously not be acceptable.  perhaps i was not clear or i do not view the comic the same as everyone else, but i assumed it referred to something like making speeches at speaker is corner.  i do not think it matters if it could be done elsewhere.  to go back to you banning italians, the fact my shop does serve italians does not make your violation any less of a violation.   #  if there is no difference between the state and a private agent in cases of free speech, the idea freedom of speech does not extend to non state actions ca not be correct.   # as there is no difference in that case, why should there be a difference if the case related to free speech ? if there is no difference between the state and a private agent in cases of free speech, the idea freedom of speech does not extend to non state actions ca not be correct.  it is literally illegal, right now, for a private business owner to deny service to you based on race.  it is not illegal for a private business owner to deny service because he thinks you are a dick.  the difference is the reason the private business owner is choosing to deny service.  some are illegal, and some are not.   #  i fear i will never be spoken again by my family and that prevents me from talking about my aunt hilda is breasts during her funeral.   #  the issue here is that the power of states and the power of persons and companies are essentially different.  free speech was made so that you do not live in fear that your opinions will legally lead to your death or imprisonment and therefore wo not be immediately silenced by that fear.  can other fears silence you ? yes of course, as they should.  i fear i will never be spoken again by my family and that prevents me from talking about my aunt hilda is breasts during her funeral.  and the fear that i will get stabbed if i make racist remarks standing in the middle of a street at harlem does silence me.  this is the whole legal vs non legal repercussions of your speech, you incur exactly zero consequences from the state and the state protects you from consequences that would entail crimes like assault murder or defamation.  other consequences like criticism and backlash form part of the other party is freedom of speech, and denial from participation in specific private forums or spaces as a result of conduct or speech that is deemed detrimental is fair.  the fear of negative reception naturally silences people, but i hardly see how it is anybody is job to protect speakers from other is opinions, or ensure that they can say whatever they want.  if negative reception of your opinions would harm you in terms of reputation or social standing, maybe you have to rethink how to present the opinion, keep it to yourself, or reconsider the opinion entirely
whenever an issue relating to free speech arises it is almost guaranteed one of the responses will be  free speech means the state ca not control what you say.  it does not mean freedom from consequences from everyone else .  if it is on the internet it is equally likely that this xkcd URL will be shown.  this does seem at first to be a reasonable point of view.  however, i believe it is flawed for several related reasons.  the first reason is that underestimates the power of the public.  just because the state is not infringing your right does not mean others cannot.  with other rights this is accepted as part of the system.  for instance, if a company refused to serve or allow access to black people that would be considered a violation of their rights despite it not being the government.  in the same way, you could not claim a country has gender equality if women ca not be get a job, despite there being no law against hiring women.  unless freedom of speech can be distinguished from those other rights, which i believe it cannot, there can be no distinction between private agents and the state in terms of freedom of speech.  secondly, the right to free speech includes the right to unimpeded free speech, if that makes sense.  it is not enough to be allowed to say what you want, you have to be allowed to communicate to who you want.  it makes more tense in terms of letters.  freedom of speech is not fulfilled by allowing me to write letters, it is only fulfilled by allowing their delivery.  using the example from the comic, continually showing someone the door is the same as standing by the pillar box and shredding the letters as i post them.  the final reason is that extreme reactions to someone is use of free speech can restrict it by effectively punishing them for exercising their right.  if i punched someone for suggesting marmite was a valid option for toast, would i not be restricting their right to free speech ? equally, if i was sacked for making a racist reddit post, am i not being punished for exercising my right to freedom of speech ? i am not entirely convinced on this point because it might restrict someone else is freedom of speech to criticise or their freedom of association to not have to put up with me, but i would still say there is some validity to this point.  just to be clear, i do not think freedom of speech should never be restricted but i do think those restrictions should be acknowledged which the phrase  freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences  does not.  some people seem to be confused about what i mean by a private entity.  i simply mean someone who is not the state or acting as an agent of the state.  i never meant to imply that i would start talking shit in your living room.  freedom of speech does not make crimes less illegal do to be clear i am not advocating that in the slightest.  a lot of the comments have struggled with what the view is, despite it being repeated multiple times.  i am not interested in acting as reading adviser.  if your comment does not address the view, i am not going to bother responding.  /u/vordreller found this bastardised version of the comic URL and from john stuart mill onwards, i agree with the sentiments the creator expresses.  if you want to see my argument in comic form, you could not get much closer than that.   #  equally, if i was sacked for making a racist reddit post, am i not being punished for exercising my right to freedom of speech ?  #  if you are doing it under company time or using company equipment, then it is simply behavior out of line with your contract.   # the point of panel 0 is that no one has to listen to you.  you are not entitled to an audience.  if you start talking to me, i should be able to walk away from it for any reason.  the media do not have to publish what you say or write etc.  if your web hosting provider has rules against the type of website you create, they may terminate your contract with them.  what do you consider extreme ? public criticism ? ridicule in the press ? those are also forms of exercising free speech.  if we allow unpopular speech, we also have to allow counter speech by those who do not like the former.  it is the other side of the free speech coin.  if you are doing it under company time or using company equipment, then it is simply behavior out of line with your contract.  if it is in private, it gets murkier.  however, if it can easily be associated with your employer, your employer may suffer damage to their public reputation, especially if the speech concerns minorities or otherwise protected classes.  this has to be taken into account as well.   #  yes, but your business is also exercising their right to free speech and association.   # by not allowing private entities to control the speech on their platforms, you are essentially forcing them to tacitly promote speech they might not want to.  forcing someone to support ideas or statements they do not want to is a huge violation of the concept of free speech.  to give a real world example i work for a publishing company.  i had a book submitted to me that i did not want to publish for political reasons it ended with a promotion of organized religion .  i rejected the book because i did not want to promote those ideas since that was the main reason for the rejection, that was me exercising my right to free speech.  i have the ability to promote and not promote the ideas that i want.  side note: i did include a recommendation for a specific different publisher with the rejection and the author and i became friends through the experience.  we just have very opposing viewpoints on religion but we are each free to express them and not force anyone else to express them against their will.  no.  you only have the right to expression.  there is no right that says someone has to listen to you.  that is their freedom of speech as well.  later in your post you mention freedom of association but you kinda miss the point of it.  while you have the freedom to associate with whoever you want, you do not have the right to force your association on another person.  we do also have a freedom from association.  those that go against this are normally referred to as  stalkers  and  harassers.   that would be physical assault.  it is not really a speech issue and no one would view it as such.  yes, but your business is also exercising their right to free speech and association.  both sides are.  remember, you have the right to free speech not consequence free speech.   #  where did the idea of this applying to privately owned forums come from ?  # i ca not deny service to black, gay, or italian people on the basis that they are black, gay, or italian.  however if i consider they are being disruptive, do not follow a dress code, or are doing things that i the owner do not like aside form what demographic they belong to, then i am free to kick them out.  you misunderstood my point.  my point in that part was it would be as unjust for you, a private business owner, to deny access based on race as it would for the state to do so.  as there is no difference in that case, why should there be a difference if the case related to free speech ? if there is no difference between the state and a private agent in cases of free speech, the idea freedom of speech does not extend to non state actions ca not be correct.  where did the idea of this applying to privately owned forums come from ? talking shit in someone is garden would obviously not be acceptable.  perhaps i was not clear or i do not view the comic the same as everyone else, but i assumed it referred to something like making speeches at speaker is corner.  i do not think it matters if it could be done elsewhere.  to go back to you banning italians, the fact my shop does serve italians does not make your violation any less of a violation.   #  as there is no difference in that case, why should there be a difference if the case related to free speech ?  # as there is no difference in that case, why should there be a difference if the case related to free speech ? if there is no difference between the state and a private agent in cases of free speech, the idea freedom of speech does not extend to non state actions ca not be correct.  it is literally illegal, right now, for a private business owner to deny service to you based on race.  it is not illegal for a private business owner to deny service because he thinks you are a dick.  the difference is the reason the private business owner is choosing to deny service.  some are illegal, and some are not.   #  the fear of negative reception naturally silences people, but i hardly see how it is anybody is job to protect speakers from other is opinions, or ensure that they can say whatever they want.   #  the issue here is that the power of states and the power of persons and companies are essentially different.  free speech was made so that you do not live in fear that your opinions will legally lead to your death or imprisonment and therefore wo not be immediately silenced by that fear.  can other fears silence you ? yes of course, as they should.  i fear i will never be spoken again by my family and that prevents me from talking about my aunt hilda is breasts during her funeral.  and the fear that i will get stabbed if i make racist remarks standing in the middle of a street at harlem does silence me.  this is the whole legal vs non legal repercussions of your speech, you incur exactly zero consequences from the state and the state protects you from consequences that would entail crimes like assault murder or defamation.  other consequences like criticism and backlash form part of the other party is freedom of speech, and denial from participation in specific private forums or spaces as a result of conduct or speech that is deemed detrimental is fair.  the fear of negative reception naturally silences people, but i hardly see how it is anybody is job to protect speakers from other is opinions, or ensure that they can say whatever they want.  if negative reception of your opinions would harm you in terms of reputation or social standing, maybe you have to rethink how to present the opinion, keep it to yourself, or reconsider the opinion entirely
a few points clarifying my view:   by primary language, i mean either  official  language i. e.  english or french in canada or the language most spoken by the people in that country i. e.  english in america   i do not expect fluency.  my mother has lived in canada for almost twenty years now and she still has trouble sometimes.  my view is that all immigrants should strive for at the very least an intermediate URL mastery.    my one exception would be if an immigrant does not have the financial capability to pay for lessons in the language of the country they have moved to.  however, in canada at least, free english lessons are offered to new immigrants, so i would not see any reason to not learn the language here.  not learning the primary language of the country they have moved to encourages segregation and often leads to racial or cultural tension.  by refusing to learn the primary language to an acceptable extent, they are showing a blatant refusal to adapt even a little to their new country is culture.  even if you are living in an area where you could live your entire life speaking your mother tongue, it does not make sense to not at least do the bare minimum to adapt.  what is the point of coming all the way to another country if you are not going to respect it ? multiculturalism is wonderful and should be valued, but refusing to learn the country is language and creating enclaves is  preventing  multiculturalism.   #  what is the point of coming all the way to another country if you are not going to respect it ?  #  bold assumption, that not being able to learn is disrespecting the country.   #  much of that is assumptions.  typically they will learn what is needed to survive, most of them come out of necessity.  learning a new language is something they will do if needed, but if not, its not a slap to the country.  bold assumption, that not being able to learn is disrespecting the country.  i agree thats its beneficial to immigrants to learn english, i think those benefits are something they will need to find out and work on.  but its not insulting the country to not learn something useful.  if they can survive without english, good for them.   #  so they work long hours 0 days a week in entry level shitty paying jobs in restaurants or nail salons or driving cabs.   #  i can understand how it appears this way, but i think you are misunderstanding people is intentions and realities.  i grew up among immigrant communities in queens, nyc and worked a decent amount providing social services to immigrants.  the immigrants that you are talking about, that do not learn english, generally do not move to america because they love american culture and want multiculturalism.  they do it for practical and survival oriented reasons.  they keep their heads down and work hard and try to make money so that they can help their children have a less crappy life, or so that they can send money to their impoverished families.  or, they flee here because shit is godawful in their home country and they just want to mind their own business and live with a modicum of stability and do better.  a lot of these people are really poor.  sometimes, they have degrees from their home countries that do not count for anything in america.  so they work long hours 0 days a week in entry level shitty paying jobs in restaurants or nail salons or driving cabs.  they are often financially exploited.  after all that work, they just get by paying expensive rent and try to save enough to send money to their families.  some community based organizations and libraries do offer english language classes.  but when would they squeeze that in ? they are busy working and scraping by they often do not have the time or the energy to take classes.  if you ask if they want to learn english, many of them will say yes.  they may insist that their children learn english and worry that their kids wo not speak perfect english.  but i think maslow is hierarchy of needs applies here.  if they are living in an enclave where english is not part of the essential skills necessary for success, and they are working hard to keep afloat, english is going to drop by the wayside.  it is not about respect; it is about survival.   #  and if you are going to have a requirement or societal expectation for learning the language, then why not have the same requirement or societal expectation for retirement savings, oil changing, healthy eating and exercising ?  #  what do you mean by  should  in the thread title ? i do not think anyone will deny that learning the native language is better than not learning the native language.  but there are a lot of things that people  should  do that do not get done.  people  should  save 0 of their income for retirement.  people  should  change their oil every 0,0 or 0,0 miles.  people  should  eat a healthy, balanced diet.  people  should  exercise 0 0 days each week.  etc.  etc.  etc.  but who get is hurt if people do not do those things they  should  that i have listed above ? typically, no one but the person themselves.  and the same goes for learning the native language.  am i going to be able to function much better in china if i can speak chinese ? of course i am.  but does it hurt anyone but myself if i try to live and survive in china without speaking chinese ? perhaps very tangentially family members, etc.  , but i do not think it really hurts anyone but me.  so if by  should  you are saying  hey, it would be better for you if you could speak the native language , then i ca not really see anyone changing your view because that is like saying  if you go out in the rain, you are going to get wet .  but if you are saying that there should be some type of requirement or societal expectation that people learn the native language, then i would say  why  ? the only person getting hurt is the person who refuses to learn the native language.  and if you are going to have a requirement or societal expectation for learning the language, then why not have the same requirement or societal expectation for retirement savings, oil changing, healthy eating and exercising ?  #  this may be wishful thinking, but i just believe that if the older immigrant population made more of an attempt to connect with the local population by learning the language, by putting english subtitles on signs that issues might lessen.   #  for example, there is been a huge outrage over chinese only signs in my city.  partially because of this, there is been growing discontent and complaints about how asian immigrants should just  go home  because they are  taking over the city .  ridiculous, of course, considering that there  used  to be a large japanese canadian population before they were quite literally chased out into concentration camps during wwii.  no one seemed to have this problem until people started to stop bothering to learn a decent amount of english.  this may be wishful thinking, but i just believe that if the older immigrant population made more of an attempt to connect with the local population by learning the language, by putting english subtitles on signs that issues might lessen.   #  but their parents formed enclaves little italy, chinatown, the lower east side, and on and on.   #  i do not know much about the canadian immigrant experience, but i can talk about america, which i think applies.  first of all, for the past 0 years, older people immigrating have very often kept their original language.  now, virtually all of their children became fluent english speakers.  and many of these are the most  patriotic  whatever that means people, who no doubt respect their country.  but their parents formed enclaves little italy, chinatown, the lower east side, and on and on.  today, in minnesota, we have groups of somali and hmong where all of the kids at least those who have been here a while are fluent in english, but the older community members still speak their native language.  they learn about the country, pay taxes, are thankful to be here.  but it is damned hard to up and move to a new place.  the food, customs, living spaces, jobs all different.  now, of course the first ones to come need to learn the language, because they do not yet have a community.  but the rest tend to go where there are others already like them.  why add the burden of learning a new language which is difficult at an older age ? their kids will know it, and can help them when translations are needed.  considering that this was the case for centuries, are you really arguing that italians, jews, germans, chinese, japanese, russians, etc,etc never became part of the culture ? that we have not swirled their customs into the melting pot ?
disclaimer: i am an american middle class white girl, so no one cares what i have to say about race.  now that that is been said, i just think the concept of being proud of your race does not make any sense.  you were born with your skin a different color than someone else is, why does that make you special ? maybe it is just because i think the concept of race is stupid biologically speaking, it does not exist , but i do not think your race should differentiate you from anyone else, for better or worse.  right now, there is a kiosk at a store i frequent selling  black art.   some of it is african, some of it is art of significant black americans, some of it is related to traditionally black fraternities and sororities.  the only thing connecting these pieces of art is the color of the skin of the artist.  why does that matter ? i think the problem here is that i just do not understand.  can y all help change my view and help me understand why people would be proud of the color of their skin ?  #  can y all help change my view and help me understand why people would be proud of the color of their skin ?  #  i am sympathetic to your conclusion: pride in your race is essentially silly.   # i am sympathetic to your conclusion: pride in your race is essentially silly.  i think it has a surprisingly valid origin, though.  i would argue that being proud of one is race is a form of collectivism, which places the value of your contributions into the context of a group rather than the individual.  if you are a minority, you tend to embrace a collectivist sort of bent in order to find strength; without banding together, you have little power.  this is true for white and black people alike; think of irish catholics who were discriminated against in the 0s and still maintain a strong cultural identity, or african americans who have been discriminated against perpetually.  pride in your group often has roots in this collectivism, which is why  white pride  is not associated with positive things.  we have not had a need for white collectivism because we have been the majority, so white people tend not to sympathize with collectivism in the form of racial pride unless we break our groups up into minorities like being irish, or greek, what have you .  in an ideal world, there would be no need for collectivism to take place at all, and the concept of racial pride would eventually diminish.  so being proud of your race might seem ridiculous to you in the present, and will likely seem ridiculous in to everyone in the future, but the reason we have arrived at it with minorities is because of our rough racial history in the u. s.  one should empathize for those reasons, if not agree.   #  if we truly desire equality then racial pride is one one the things that needs to be sacrificed.   #  i think op was on to a very important point that i have been thinking about posting here.  differentiating and compartmentalizing different hues of skin pigmentation is an antiquated device of self preservation.  if we truly desire equality then racial pride is one one the things that needs to be sacrificed.  it is human nature to judge, so if equality is the ultimate goal then we must become blind to race and see each other as complete and total equals and foster differentially oblivious future generations.  tldr: op is right, we need to stop thinking in terms of race.  period.   #  so, yes, we would ideally stop thinking in terms of race, but i think racial pride is hardly the first thing that should be criticized because it is a response to the actual issue.   #  i would agree with you, but i think you have got the approach backwards.  like /u/zedseayou pointed out, minorities feel racial collectivism is natural in large part because the majority views them that way.  minorities get defined, classified, and stereotyped by their racial group throughout their lives by other people.  they are constantly reminded that they are in another category from the majority, which is white people.  so, naturally, their race is made a part of their identity.  so, yes, we would ideally stop thinking in terms of race, but i think racial pride is hardly the first thing that should be criticized because it is a response to the actual issue.   #  if a larger group is telling members of a smaller group that they are second class citizens, then you ca not just expect the smaller group to throw in the towels and give up their identities so they can fit in.   #  happy to assimilate to a culture that is racist towards you ? how does that make any sense.  if a larger group is telling members of a smaller group that they are second class citizens, then you ca not just expect the smaller group to throw in the towels and give up their identities so they can fit in.  they are going to develop a even stronger self identity to protect themselves.  that is why oppressed minorities often have the stronger identities in comparison to something like asian americans or east european americans.  the above two groups face significantly less discrimination and usually succeeds by second gen and nicely assimilated into a culture that for the most part accepts them.   #  there is no use in compartmentalizing hues of skin pigmentation.   #  the second we start taking pride in trivial differences, like the hue of our skin pigmentation, or the size of our feet, or the color of our eyes is the second equality breaks down.  you are approaching it backwards because you are still referring to  them  as if there is some fundamental difference, or some specific hue of skin pigmentation where people become different and should be treated different when the fact is we all are  more  than 0 genetically identical.  there is no use in compartmentalizing hues of skin pigmentation.  ca not you see the big picture ? should not we at least try to get to and fix the very core of the problem ? i do not understand how it is even refutable.  i grew up in an interracial household.  i do not see in color, i see only human character.  it is the right way.
disclaimer: i am an american middle class white girl, so no one cares what i have to say about race.  now that that is been said, i just think the concept of being proud of your race does not make any sense.  you were born with your skin a different color than someone else is, why does that make you special ? maybe it is just because i think the concept of race is stupid biologically speaking, it does not exist , but i do not think your race should differentiate you from anyone else, for better or worse.  right now, there is a kiosk at a store i frequent selling  black art.   some of it is african, some of it is art of significant black americans, some of it is related to traditionally black fraternities and sororities.  the only thing connecting these pieces of art is the color of the skin of the artist.  why does that matter ? i think the problem here is that i just do not understand.  can y all help change my view and help me understand why people would be proud of the color of their skin ?  #  the only thing connecting these pieces of art is the color of the skin of the artist.   #  the only thing connecting the german people is a shared culture and shared identity.   # sure, that is one thing.  but not. white.  i do not think being german in europe is all that different from being black in america.  the only thing connecting the german people is a shared culture and shared identity.  they want it to matter.  do you need more ?  #  i am sympathetic to your conclusion: pride in your race is essentially silly.   # i am sympathetic to your conclusion: pride in your race is essentially silly.  i think it has a surprisingly valid origin, though.  i would argue that being proud of one is race is a form of collectivism, which places the value of your contributions into the context of a group rather than the individual.  if you are a minority, you tend to embrace a collectivist sort of bent in order to find strength; without banding together, you have little power.  this is true for white and black people alike; think of irish catholics who were discriminated against in the 0s and still maintain a strong cultural identity, or african americans who have been discriminated against perpetually.  pride in your group often has roots in this collectivism, which is why  white pride  is not associated with positive things.  we have not had a need for white collectivism because we have been the majority, so white people tend not to sympathize with collectivism in the form of racial pride unless we break our groups up into minorities like being irish, or greek, what have you .  in an ideal world, there would be no need for collectivism to take place at all, and the concept of racial pride would eventually diminish.  so being proud of your race might seem ridiculous to you in the present, and will likely seem ridiculous in to everyone in the future, but the reason we have arrived at it with minorities is because of our rough racial history in the u. s.  one should empathize for those reasons, if not agree.   #  if we truly desire equality then racial pride is one one the things that needs to be sacrificed.   #  i think op was on to a very important point that i have been thinking about posting here.  differentiating and compartmentalizing different hues of skin pigmentation is an antiquated device of self preservation.  if we truly desire equality then racial pride is one one the things that needs to be sacrificed.  it is human nature to judge, so if equality is the ultimate goal then we must become blind to race and see each other as complete and total equals and foster differentially oblivious future generations.  tldr: op is right, we need to stop thinking in terms of race.  period.   #  like /u/zedseayou pointed out, minorities feel racial collectivism is natural in large part because the majority views them that way.   #  i would agree with you, but i think you have got the approach backwards.  like /u/zedseayou pointed out, minorities feel racial collectivism is natural in large part because the majority views them that way.  minorities get defined, classified, and stereotyped by their racial group throughout their lives by other people.  they are constantly reminded that they are in another category from the majority, which is white people.  so, naturally, their race is made a part of their identity.  so, yes, we would ideally stop thinking in terms of race, but i think racial pride is hardly the first thing that should be criticized because it is a response to the actual issue.   #  that is why oppressed minorities often have the stronger identities in comparison to something like asian americans or east european americans.   #  happy to assimilate to a culture that is racist towards you ? how does that make any sense.  if a larger group is telling members of a smaller group that they are second class citizens, then you ca not just expect the smaller group to throw in the towels and give up their identities so they can fit in.  they are going to develop a even stronger self identity to protect themselves.  that is why oppressed minorities often have the stronger identities in comparison to something like asian americans or east european americans.  the above two groups face significantly less discrimination and usually succeeds by second gen and nicely assimilated into a culture that for the most part accepts them.
disclaimer: i am an american middle class white girl, so no one cares what i have to say about race.  now that that is been said, i just think the concept of being proud of your race does not make any sense.  you were born with your skin a different color than someone else is, why does that make you special ? maybe it is just because i think the concept of race is stupid biologically speaking, it does not exist , but i do not think your race should differentiate you from anyone else, for better or worse.  right now, there is a kiosk at a store i frequent selling  black art.   some of it is african, some of it is art of significant black americans, some of it is related to traditionally black fraternities and sororities.  the only thing connecting these pieces of art is the color of the skin of the artist.  why does that matter ? i think the problem here is that i just do not understand.  can y all help change my view and help me understand why people would be proud of the color of their skin ?  #  i think the concept of race is stupid biologically speaking, it does not exist , but i do not think your race should differentiate you from anyone else, for better or worse.   #  there are many things that do not  exist  from biological perspectives.   # there are many things that do not  exist  from biological perspectives.  e. g. , money.  but that does not mean they do not exist, or that they ought not have significant impact on lived realities.  race is a societal construct, yes, but it still exists.  its mode of existence is social, not biological.  what is silly is to argue that one is race should not differentiate, and therefore that it does not differentiate.  it does.  race is real.  well, race is real to all but whites who hold a social position that allows them not to see, and hence deny, the reality of race .   #  if you are a minority, you tend to embrace a collectivist sort of bent in order to find strength; without banding together, you have little power.   # i am sympathetic to your conclusion: pride in your race is essentially silly.  i think it has a surprisingly valid origin, though.  i would argue that being proud of one is race is a form of collectivism, which places the value of your contributions into the context of a group rather than the individual.  if you are a minority, you tend to embrace a collectivist sort of bent in order to find strength; without banding together, you have little power.  this is true for white and black people alike; think of irish catholics who were discriminated against in the 0s and still maintain a strong cultural identity, or african americans who have been discriminated against perpetually.  pride in your group often has roots in this collectivism, which is why  white pride  is not associated with positive things.  we have not had a need for white collectivism because we have been the majority, so white people tend not to sympathize with collectivism in the form of racial pride unless we break our groups up into minorities like being irish, or greek, what have you .  in an ideal world, there would be no need for collectivism to take place at all, and the concept of racial pride would eventually diminish.  so being proud of your race might seem ridiculous to you in the present, and will likely seem ridiculous in to everyone in the future, but the reason we have arrived at it with minorities is because of our rough racial history in the u. s.  one should empathize for those reasons, if not agree.   #  differentiating and compartmentalizing different hues of skin pigmentation is an antiquated device of self preservation.   #  i think op was on to a very important point that i have been thinking about posting here.  differentiating and compartmentalizing different hues of skin pigmentation is an antiquated device of self preservation.  if we truly desire equality then racial pride is one one the things that needs to be sacrificed.  it is human nature to judge, so if equality is the ultimate goal then we must become blind to race and see each other as complete and total equals and foster differentially oblivious future generations.  tldr: op is right, we need to stop thinking in terms of race.  period.   #  they are constantly reminded that they are in another category from the majority, which is white people.   #  i would agree with you, but i think you have got the approach backwards.  like /u/zedseayou pointed out, minorities feel racial collectivism is natural in large part because the majority views them that way.  minorities get defined, classified, and stereotyped by their racial group throughout their lives by other people.  they are constantly reminded that they are in another category from the majority, which is white people.  so, naturally, their race is made a part of their identity.  so, yes, we would ideally stop thinking in terms of race, but i think racial pride is hardly the first thing that should be criticized because it is a response to the actual issue.   #  happy to assimilate to a culture that is racist towards you ?  #  happy to assimilate to a culture that is racist towards you ? how does that make any sense.  if a larger group is telling members of a smaller group that they are second class citizens, then you ca not just expect the smaller group to throw in the towels and give up their identities so they can fit in.  they are going to develop a even stronger self identity to protect themselves.  that is why oppressed minorities often have the stronger identities in comparison to something like asian americans or east european americans.  the above two groups face significantly less discrimination and usually succeeds by second gen and nicely assimilated into a culture that for the most part accepts them.
disclaimer: i am an american middle class white girl, so no one cares what i have to say about race.  now that that is been said, i just think the concept of being proud of your race does not make any sense.  you were born with your skin a different color than someone else is, why does that make you special ? maybe it is just because i think the concept of race is stupid biologically speaking, it does not exist , but i do not think your race should differentiate you from anyone else, for better or worse.  right now, there is a kiosk at a store i frequent selling  black art.   some of it is african, some of it is art of significant black americans, some of it is related to traditionally black fraternities and sororities.  the only thing connecting these pieces of art is the color of the skin of the artist.  why does that matter ? i think the problem here is that i just do not understand.  can y all help change my view and help me understand why people would be proud of the color of their skin ?  #  now that that is been said, i just think the concept of being proud of your race does not make any sense.   #  you were born with your skin a different color than someone else is, why does that make you special ?  # you were born with your skin a different color than someone else is, why does that make you special ? that would be fine in a world with perfect racial equality, but that world does not exist yet.  if people treat you differently because of your race, and you deal with that and rise above it, that is worth being proud of.  most attributes that could attributed to race are social, not biological, and dividing lines used when classifying lines are somewhat arbitrary.  but that does not mean there is absolutely zero biological basis of race at all.  check here URL and here URL for example.  some of it is african, some of it is art of significant black americans, some of it is related to traditionally black fraternities and sororities.  the only thing connecting these pieces of art is the color of the skin of the artist.  why does that matter ? culture is really an amorphous, complicated thing, but really there is something of a shared  black culture  in the us.  a lot of it comes from shared experiences of discrimination and prejudice, both that they personally experienced, but also that of others they know, especially their parents and other ancestors who likely faced much worse, institutional racism .   #  one should empathize for those reasons, if not agree.   # i am sympathetic to your conclusion: pride in your race is essentially silly.  i think it has a surprisingly valid origin, though.  i would argue that being proud of one is race is a form of collectivism, which places the value of your contributions into the context of a group rather than the individual.  if you are a minority, you tend to embrace a collectivist sort of bent in order to find strength; without banding together, you have little power.  this is true for white and black people alike; think of irish catholics who were discriminated against in the 0s and still maintain a strong cultural identity, or african americans who have been discriminated against perpetually.  pride in your group often has roots in this collectivism, which is why  white pride  is not associated with positive things.  we have not had a need for white collectivism because we have been the majority, so white people tend not to sympathize with collectivism in the form of racial pride unless we break our groups up into minorities like being irish, or greek, what have you .  in an ideal world, there would be no need for collectivism to take place at all, and the concept of racial pride would eventually diminish.  so being proud of your race might seem ridiculous to you in the present, and will likely seem ridiculous in to everyone in the future, but the reason we have arrived at it with minorities is because of our rough racial history in the u. s.  one should empathize for those reasons, if not agree.   #  i think op was on to a very important point that i have been thinking about posting here.   #  i think op was on to a very important point that i have been thinking about posting here.  differentiating and compartmentalizing different hues of skin pigmentation is an antiquated device of self preservation.  if we truly desire equality then racial pride is one one the things that needs to be sacrificed.  it is human nature to judge, so if equality is the ultimate goal then we must become blind to race and see each other as complete and total equals and foster differentially oblivious future generations.  tldr: op is right, we need to stop thinking in terms of race.  period.   #  so, yes, we would ideally stop thinking in terms of race, but i think racial pride is hardly the first thing that should be criticized because it is a response to the actual issue.   #  i would agree with you, but i think you have got the approach backwards.  like /u/zedseayou pointed out, minorities feel racial collectivism is natural in large part because the majority views them that way.  minorities get defined, classified, and stereotyped by their racial group throughout their lives by other people.  they are constantly reminded that they are in another category from the majority, which is white people.  so, naturally, their race is made a part of their identity.  so, yes, we would ideally stop thinking in terms of race, but i think racial pride is hardly the first thing that should be criticized because it is a response to the actual issue.   #  if a larger group is telling members of a smaller group that they are second class citizens, then you ca not just expect the smaller group to throw in the towels and give up their identities so they can fit in.   #  happy to assimilate to a culture that is racist towards you ? how does that make any sense.  if a larger group is telling members of a smaller group that they are second class citizens, then you ca not just expect the smaller group to throw in the towels and give up their identities so they can fit in.  they are going to develop a even stronger self identity to protect themselves.  that is why oppressed minorities often have the stronger identities in comparison to something like asian americans or east european americans.  the above two groups face significantly less discrimination and usually succeeds by second gen and nicely assimilated into a culture that for the most part accepts them.
disclaimer: i am an american middle class white girl, so no one cares what i have to say about race.  now that that is been said, i just think the concept of being proud of your race does not make any sense.  you were born with your skin a different color than someone else is, why does that make you special ? maybe it is just because i think the concept of race is stupid biologically speaking, it does not exist , but i do not think your race should differentiate you from anyone else, for better or worse.  right now, there is a kiosk at a store i frequent selling  black art.   some of it is african, some of it is art of significant black americans, some of it is related to traditionally black fraternities and sororities.  the only thing connecting these pieces of art is the color of the skin of the artist.  why does that matter ? i think the problem here is that i just do not understand.  can y all help change my view and help me understand why people would be proud of the color of their skin ?  #  right now, there is a kiosk at a store i frequent selling  black art.    #  some of it is african, some of it is art of significant black americans, some of it is related to traditionally black fraternities and sororities.   # you were born with your skin a different color than someone else is, why does that make you special ? that would be fine in a world with perfect racial equality, but that world does not exist yet.  if people treat you differently because of your race, and you deal with that and rise above it, that is worth being proud of.  most attributes that could attributed to race are social, not biological, and dividing lines used when classifying lines are somewhat arbitrary.  but that does not mean there is absolutely zero biological basis of race at all.  check here URL and here URL for example.  some of it is african, some of it is art of significant black americans, some of it is related to traditionally black fraternities and sororities.  the only thing connecting these pieces of art is the color of the skin of the artist.  why does that matter ? culture is really an amorphous, complicated thing, but really there is something of a shared  black culture  in the us.  a lot of it comes from shared experiences of discrimination and prejudice, both that they personally experienced, but also that of others they know, especially their parents and other ancestors who likely faced much worse, institutional racism .   #  i am sympathetic to your conclusion: pride in your race is essentially silly.   # i am sympathetic to your conclusion: pride in your race is essentially silly.  i think it has a surprisingly valid origin, though.  i would argue that being proud of one is race is a form of collectivism, which places the value of your contributions into the context of a group rather than the individual.  if you are a minority, you tend to embrace a collectivist sort of bent in order to find strength; without banding together, you have little power.  this is true for white and black people alike; think of irish catholics who were discriminated against in the 0s and still maintain a strong cultural identity, or african americans who have been discriminated against perpetually.  pride in your group often has roots in this collectivism, which is why  white pride  is not associated with positive things.  we have not had a need for white collectivism because we have been the majority, so white people tend not to sympathize with collectivism in the form of racial pride unless we break our groups up into minorities like being irish, or greek, what have you .  in an ideal world, there would be no need for collectivism to take place at all, and the concept of racial pride would eventually diminish.  so being proud of your race might seem ridiculous to you in the present, and will likely seem ridiculous in to everyone in the future, but the reason we have arrived at it with minorities is because of our rough racial history in the u. s.  one should empathize for those reasons, if not agree.   #  if we truly desire equality then racial pride is one one the things that needs to be sacrificed.   #  i think op was on to a very important point that i have been thinking about posting here.  differentiating and compartmentalizing different hues of skin pigmentation is an antiquated device of self preservation.  if we truly desire equality then racial pride is one one the things that needs to be sacrificed.  it is human nature to judge, so if equality is the ultimate goal then we must become blind to race and see each other as complete and total equals and foster differentially oblivious future generations.  tldr: op is right, we need to stop thinking in terms of race.  period.   #  so, naturally, their race is made a part of their identity.   #  i would agree with you, but i think you have got the approach backwards.  like /u/zedseayou pointed out, minorities feel racial collectivism is natural in large part because the majority views them that way.  minorities get defined, classified, and stereotyped by their racial group throughout their lives by other people.  they are constantly reminded that they are in another category from the majority, which is white people.  so, naturally, their race is made a part of their identity.  so, yes, we would ideally stop thinking in terms of race, but i think racial pride is hardly the first thing that should be criticized because it is a response to the actual issue.   #  the above two groups face significantly less discrimination and usually succeeds by second gen and nicely assimilated into a culture that for the most part accepts them.   #  happy to assimilate to a culture that is racist towards you ? how does that make any sense.  if a larger group is telling members of a smaller group that they are second class citizens, then you ca not just expect the smaller group to throw in the towels and give up their identities so they can fit in.  they are going to develop a even stronger self identity to protect themselves.  that is why oppressed minorities often have the stronger identities in comparison to something like asian americans or east european americans.  the above two groups face significantly less discrimination and usually succeeds by second gen and nicely assimilated into a culture that for the most part accepts them.
with the media covering police killings and the fact that united states law enforcement kills a relatively large percent of its people every day i believe there should be more repercussions to an officer that kills a citizen.  the benefits to having a process like this includes: 0.  no hypocrisy.  all because someone has the title of a law enforcer does not mean that they should not follow the same legal process as a citizen would.  i mean, what if an officer showed up to the scene of a shooting in which the shooter called 0 for help and the shooter was there with the weapon and openly admitted to killing the victim in self defense which upon observation it was blatantly obvious it wad self defense ? surely the officer would draw his/ her weapon at the murderer and scream to get down.  they would proceed to cuff them and bring them to the station for booking/ questioning.  if an officer called in for back up after killing someone even if was obviously out of self defense they would be approached with  hey are you okay ?   and  let is get the paperwork out of the way so you can have your paid leave.   that to me is hypocritical.  take away the uniform and you have a person who just killed another person.  0.  it would make officers think twice before drawing.  if they knew they would be processed and charged with murder, i would argue that there would a significant decline in police shootings.  0.  it gives the victim a fair chance at their side.  even if they are dead, treating an officer like a criminal discredits any story they come up with giving a better chance for the true series of events to surface.  we have seen a lot of cops make up shit that  justifies  the killing when later proved wrong by cameras.  if people could just make up stories and be believed 0, i could go outside right now, shoot someone in the head while no one is looking, plant a knife, claim they came at me with a knife, and get away with 0nd degree murder.  even if an officer witnessed another officer kill a person when it was blatantly self defense eg the person had a gun pointed at the officer they should still be cuffed and taken in.  just apply the same situation to 0 citizens, surely the one who lives would be charged with murder and only the results of an investigation would set them free.  i am just frustrated with all the bull shit i hear about cops and would like to hear the logic of the other side because i feel i am blinded from it.  so cmv.   #  it would make officers think twice before drawing.   #  this will make officers hesitate in a life and death situation.   # all because someone has the title of a law enforcer does not mean that they should not follow the same legal process as a citizen would.  it absolutely does mean that.  the title of  licensed driver  means you can drive a car.  you need a commercial license to drive a truck.  you need an education and license to practice medicine.  this is just another profession that grants people certain privileges if they meet a standard.  this will make officers hesitate in a life and death situation.  if they do not die, then it reduces the police force as officers are detained for unnecessary trials.  even if they are dead, treating an officer like a criminal discredits any story they come up with giving a better chance for the true series of events to surface.  the better solution is body cameras.  we need cops to be able to protect themselves and others, but still be held accountable.   #  they may take him into custody or they may not if the case seems cut and dried enough.   #  this.  the entire scenario behind this cmv is false.  in 0 even in the case of the civilian, the police arrive and relieve the civilian of his weapon.  if the civilian is carrying the weapon he may be in a bit of trouble, but typically enough time has passed that the gun is sitting on a table/counter/holster by then.  the civilian generally makes an official statement.  they may take him into custody or they may not if the case seems cut and dried enough.  they do not presume the civilian is guilty, slap him in cuffs and haul him off for murder.  also 0 is largely false.  in a civilian self defense shooting, they do not presume murder either.  they presume innocence.  you literally could shoot someone and plant evidence as a civilian too.  the cops would likely look into it in more detail, but you could do it and probably get away with it in some scenarios.   #  they would proceed to cuff them and bring them to the station for booking/ questioning.   # surely the officer would draw his/ her weapon at the murderer and scream to get down.  they would proceed to cuff them and bring them to the station for booking/ questioning.  i do not think that is true, if it was clear it was self defense it would be different if the situation were ambiguous .  it would be good policing practice to disarm the shooter as part of securing the scene, but i do not think the officer would point their gun at them or handcuff or arrest them.  also if you kill someone in self defense, you are not a murderer.  murder is by definition an illegal killing .   #  even in the face of evidence you ca not be rational and honest.   # accusations are cheap and easy, which is why they mean nothing in a court of law.  speak for yourself and stop projecting your racism onto me.  there was 0 minutes between 0 calls, and the first one had zimmerman on record stopping.  you would know if you watched the links i posted.  trayvon had his out, yet somehow a fight ensues down the street from his house after the guy chasing him stops following him.  lastly being in a position where you ca not escape and the only way to stop your attack is with violence is very much common law self defense.  your assertions that it was not, most likely shows your racism.  physical evidence alone would exonerate anyone in that case.  zimmerman was charged because of media pressure the other guy i ca not be to sure about other than maybe a greedy da.  you just want to believe that to confirm your twisted and petty biases.  there were numerous witnesses there that would have painted a case that it was obvious self defense.  even in the face of evidence you ca not be rational and honest.  its pathetic really.   #  they should be treated with dignity, not automatically put into cuffs.   #  no, i am not saying that unjustified homicide is ok.  i am saying that the unique circumstances of the job allows for unique protocols for investigations.  officers who shoot someone are investigated.  the vast majority suffer severe trauma.  no one but a few psychos want to kill people.  unfortunately, it becomes a part of the job if you are a cop long enough.  they should be treated with dignity, not automatically put into cuffs.  they know the protocols.  they are expected to turn in their firearm immediately, pending the investigation.  if they comply, there is no reason to cuff them.  if that investigation decides it was unjustified, then they stand trial like anyone else would.  you know, if you are going to hold a view, you should understand the basics of the issues.  different tiers of legal systems i. e.  military courts, internal police investigations are absolutely a controversial subject.  people who understand the issues can disagree.  you do not seem to understand the basic processes.  a constructive discussion is impossible under those circumstances.  maybe start by turning off the news, ignoring opinion blogs, and read up on the history and rationales of the processes as they are, then move into some educated criticisms.
with the media covering police killings and the fact that united states law enforcement kills a relatively large percent of its people every day i believe there should be more repercussions to an officer that kills a citizen.  the benefits to having a process like this includes: 0.  no hypocrisy.  all because someone has the title of a law enforcer does not mean that they should not follow the same legal process as a citizen would.  i mean, what if an officer showed up to the scene of a shooting in which the shooter called 0 for help and the shooter was there with the weapon and openly admitted to killing the victim in self defense which upon observation it was blatantly obvious it wad self defense ? surely the officer would draw his/ her weapon at the murderer and scream to get down.  they would proceed to cuff them and bring them to the station for booking/ questioning.  if an officer called in for back up after killing someone even if was obviously out of self defense they would be approached with  hey are you okay ?   and  let is get the paperwork out of the way so you can have your paid leave.   that to me is hypocritical.  take away the uniform and you have a person who just killed another person.  0.  it would make officers think twice before drawing.  if they knew they would be processed and charged with murder, i would argue that there would a significant decline in police shootings.  0.  it gives the victim a fair chance at their side.  even if they are dead, treating an officer like a criminal discredits any story they come up with giving a better chance for the true series of events to surface.  we have seen a lot of cops make up shit that  justifies  the killing when later proved wrong by cameras.  if people could just make up stories and be believed 0, i could go outside right now, shoot someone in the head while no one is looking, plant a knife, claim they came at me with a knife, and get away with 0nd degree murder.  even if an officer witnessed another officer kill a person when it was blatantly self defense eg the person had a gun pointed at the officer they should still be cuffed and taken in.  just apply the same situation to 0 citizens, surely the one who lives would be charged with murder and only the results of an investigation would set them free.  i am just frustrated with all the bull shit i hear about cops and would like to hear the logic of the other side because i feel i am blinded from it.  so cmv.   #  it gives the victim a fair chance at their side.   #  even if they are dead, treating an officer like a criminal discredits any story they come up with giving a better chance for the true series of events to surface.   # all because someone has the title of a law enforcer does not mean that they should not follow the same legal process as a citizen would.  it absolutely does mean that.  the title of  licensed driver  means you can drive a car.  you need a commercial license to drive a truck.  you need an education and license to practice medicine.  this is just another profession that grants people certain privileges if they meet a standard.  this will make officers hesitate in a life and death situation.  if they do not die, then it reduces the police force as officers are detained for unnecessary trials.  even if they are dead, treating an officer like a criminal discredits any story they come up with giving a better chance for the true series of events to surface.  the better solution is body cameras.  we need cops to be able to protect themselves and others, but still be held accountable.   #  they do not presume the civilian is guilty, slap him in cuffs and haul him off for murder.   #  this.  the entire scenario behind this cmv is false.  in 0 even in the case of the civilian, the police arrive and relieve the civilian of his weapon.  if the civilian is carrying the weapon he may be in a bit of trouble, but typically enough time has passed that the gun is sitting on a table/counter/holster by then.  the civilian generally makes an official statement.  they may take him into custody or they may not if the case seems cut and dried enough.  they do not presume the civilian is guilty, slap him in cuffs and haul him off for murder.  also 0 is largely false.  in a civilian self defense shooting, they do not presume murder either.  they presume innocence.  you literally could shoot someone and plant evidence as a civilian too.  the cops would likely look into it in more detail, but you could do it and probably get away with it in some scenarios.   #  surely the officer would draw his/ her weapon at the murderer and scream to get down.   # surely the officer would draw his/ her weapon at the murderer and scream to get down.  they would proceed to cuff them and bring them to the station for booking/ questioning.  i do not think that is true, if it was clear it was self defense it would be different if the situation were ambiguous .  it would be good policing practice to disarm the shooter as part of securing the scene, but i do not think the officer would point their gun at them or handcuff or arrest them.  also if you kill someone in self defense, you are not a murderer.  murder is by definition an illegal killing .   #  lastly being in a position where you ca not escape and the only way to stop your attack is with violence is very much common law self defense.   # accusations are cheap and easy, which is why they mean nothing in a court of law.  speak for yourself and stop projecting your racism onto me.  there was 0 minutes between 0 calls, and the first one had zimmerman on record stopping.  you would know if you watched the links i posted.  trayvon had his out, yet somehow a fight ensues down the street from his house after the guy chasing him stops following him.  lastly being in a position where you ca not escape and the only way to stop your attack is with violence is very much common law self defense.  your assertions that it was not, most likely shows your racism.  physical evidence alone would exonerate anyone in that case.  zimmerman was charged because of media pressure the other guy i ca not be to sure about other than maybe a greedy da.  you just want to believe that to confirm your twisted and petty biases.  there were numerous witnesses there that would have painted a case that it was obvious self defense.  even in the face of evidence you ca not be rational and honest.  its pathetic really.   #  you know, if you are going to hold a view, you should understand the basics of the issues.   #  no, i am not saying that unjustified homicide is ok.  i am saying that the unique circumstances of the job allows for unique protocols for investigations.  officers who shoot someone are investigated.  the vast majority suffer severe trauma.  no one but a few psychos want to kill people.  unfortunately, it becomes a part of the job if you are a cop long enough.  they should be treated with dignity, not automatically put into cuffs.  they know the protocols.  they are expected to turn in their firearm immediately, pending the investigation.  if they comply, there is no reason to cuff them.  if that investigation decides it was unjustified, then they stand trial like anyone else would.  you know, if you are going to hold a view, you should understand the basics of the issues.  different tiers of legal systems i. e.  military courts, internal police investigations are absolutely a controversial subject.  people who understand the issues can disagree.  you do not seem to understand the basic processes.  a constructive discussion is impossible under those circumstances.  maybe start by turning off the news, ignoring opinion blogs, and read up on the history and rationales of the processes as they are, then move into some educated criticisms.
with the media covering police killings and the fact that united states law enforcement kills a relatively large percent of its people every day i believe there should be more repercussions to an officer that kills a citizen.  the benefits to having a process like this includes: 0.  no hypocrisy.  all because someone has the title of a law enforcer does not mean that they should not follow the same legal process as a citizen would.  i mean, what if an officer showed up to the scene of a shooting in which the shooter called 0 for help and the shooter was there with the weapon and openly admitted to killing the victim in self defense which upon observation it was blatantly obvious it wad self defense ? surely the officer would draw his/ her weapon at the murderer and scream to get down.  they would proceed to cuff them and bring them to the station for booking/ questioning.  if an officer called in for back up after killing someone even if was obviously out of self defense they would be approached with  hey are you okay ?   and  let is get the paperwork out of the way so you can have your paid leave.   that to me is hypocritical.  take away the uniform and you have a person who just killed another person.  0.  it would make officers think twice before drawing.  if they knew they would be processed and charged with murder, i would argue that there would a significant decline in police shootings.  0.  it gives the victim a fair chance at their side.  even if they are dead, treating an officer like a criminal discredits any story they come up with giving a better chance for the true series of events to surface.  we have seen a lot of cops make up shit that  justifies  the killing when later proved wrong by cameras.  if people could just make up stories and be believed 0, i could go outside right now, shoot someone in the head while no one is looking, plant a knife, claim they came at me with a knife, and get away with 0nd degree murder.  even if an officer witnessed another officer kill a person when it was blatantly self defense eg the person had a gun pointed at the officer they should still be cuffed and taken in.  just apply the same situation to 0 citizens, surely the one who lives would be charged with murder and only the results of an investigation would set them free.  i am just frustrated with all the bull shit i hear about cops and would like to hear the logic of the other side because i feel i am blinded from it.  so cmv.   #  even if an officer witnessed another officer kill a person when it was blatantly self defense eg the person had a gun pointed at the officer they should still be cuffed and taken in.   #  you mean to treat cops like criminals because it seems like you  believe  that cops are criminals.   # yes, it should.  they are trained professionals.  whether you like it or not, a cop has better instincts for high pressure potentially lethal situations than an ordinary citizen.  surely the officer would draw his/ her weapon at the murderer and scream to get down.  no.  they would not.  if it was clearly self defense, the shooter would likely disarm themselves.  if they did not, then it would not  clearly  be self defense.  the cop would have no reason to draw his weapon if he did not think his life was in danger.  and the shooter is  not  a murderer if someone is killed in self defense.  that is not what the word  murderer  means.  the uniform does not change anything.  self defense shootings are self defense shootings.  it seems like you are under the impression that cops  like  killing people.  a cop with no history of abuse of power that kills someone will be understandably distraught.  so would any self defense shooter.  the reactions from the police force toward the shooter would be exactly the same regardless of whether they were a cop or civilian.  how ? how  exactly  does treating every single use of force like an intentional violent act of power help  anyone  ? your idea of police violence is that cops are just killing people and making up stories about it to cover their asses on a regular basis ? and that alone is getting them out of trouble ? do you understand how the justice system works, or even how policing works ? you mean to treat cops like criminals because it seems like you  believe  that cops are criminals.  the truth is, an ordinary citizen in the same situation would  not  be treated that way.  so why would you treat cops worse than civilians for the same thing ? look.  regardless of your opinion of cops, they are the first line of defense against violent offenders.  you put a gun in their hands and tell them to risk their lives to protect themselves and their community.  people will be shot and killed.  that is unavoidable.  what is avoidable is demonizing those people because of a handful of shootings that  you  decide are unjustified.  i emphasize  you , because media outlets simply do not give you all the information you need to know to have an informed opinion.  whether or not they are deliberately omitting facts of the case which they  absolutely  do for ratings , unless you  actually  know what you are talking about legal background, access to all information presented for judgement, etc.  you ca not decide for yourself whether any shooting was justified or unjustified.   #  in a civilian self defense shooting, they do not presume murder either.   #  this.  the entire scenario behind this cmv is false.  in 0 even in the case of the civilian, the police arrive and relieve the civilian of his weapon.  if the civilian is carrying the weapon he may be in a bit of trouble, but typically enough time has passed that the gun is sitting on a table/counter/holster by then.  the civilian generally makes an official statement.  they may take him into custody or they may not if the case seems cut and dried enough.  they do not presume the civilian is guilty, slap him in cuffs and haul him off for murder.  also 0 is largely false.  in a civilian self defense shooting, they do not presume murder either.  they presume innocence.  you literally could shoot someone and plant evidence as a civilian too.  the cops would likely look into it in more detail, but you could do it and probably get away with it in some scenarios.   #  you need an education and license to practice medicine.   # all because someone has the title of a law enforcer does not mean that they should not follow the same legal process as a citizen would.  it absolutely does mean that.  the title of  licensed driver  means you can drive a car.  you need a commercial license to drive a truck.  you need an education and license to practice medicine.  this is just another profession that grants people certain privileges if they meet a standard.  this will make officers hesitate in a life and death situation.  if they do not die, then it reduces the police force as officers are detained for unnecessary trials.  even if they are dead, treating an officer like a criminal discredits any story they come up with giving a better chance for the true series of events to surface.  the better solution is body cameras.  we need cops to be able to protect themselves and others, but still be held accountable.   #  it would be good policing practice to disarm the shooter as part of securing the scene, but i do not think the officer would point their gun at them or handcuff or arrest them.   # surely the officer would draw his/ her weapon at the murderer and scream to get down.  they would proceed to cuff them and bring them to the station for booking/ questioning.  i do not think that is true, if it was clear it was self defense it would be different if the situation were ambiguous .  it would be good policing practice to disarm the shooter as part of securing the scene, but i do not think the officer would point their gun at them or handcuff or arrest them.  also if you kill someone in self defense, you are not a murderer.  murder is by definition an illegal killing .   #  zimmerman was charged because of media pressure the other guy i ca not be to sure about other than maybe a greedy da.   # accusations are cheap and easy, which is why they mean nothing in a court of law.  speak for yourself and stop projecting your racism onto me.  there was 0 minutes between 0 calls, and the first one had zimmerman on record stopping.  you would know if you watched the links i posted.  trayvon had his out, yet somehow a fight ensues down the street from his house after the guy chasing him stops following him.  lastly being in a position where you ca not escape and the only way to stop your attack is with violence is very much common law self defense.  your assertions that it was not, most likely shows your racism.  physical evidence alone would exonerate anyone in that case.  zimmerman was charged because of media pressure the other guy i ca not be to sure about other than maybe a greedy da.  you just want to believe that to confirm your twisted and petty biases.  there were numerous witnesses there that would have painted a case that it was obvious self defense.  even in the face of evidence you ca not be rational and honest.  its pathetic really.
with the media covering police killings and the fact that united states law enforcement kills a relatively large percent of its people every day i believe there should be more repercussions to an officer that kills a citizen.  the benefits to having a process like this includes: 0.  no hypocrisy.  all because someone has the title of a law enforcer does not mean that they should not follow the same legal process as a citizen would.  i mean, what if an officer showed up to the scene of a shooting in which the shooter called 0 for help and the shooter was there with the weapon and openly admitted to killing the victim in self defense which upon observation it was blatantly obvious it wad self defense ? surely the officer would draw his/ her weapon at the murderer and scream to get down.  they would proceed to cuff them and bring them to the station for booking/ questioning.  if an officer called in for back up after killing someone even if was obviously out of self defense they would be approached with  hey are you okay ?   and  let is get the paperwork out of the way so you can have your paid leave.   that to me is hypocritical.  take away the uniform and you have a person who just killed another person.  0.  it would make officers think twice before drawing.  if they knew they would be processed and charged with murder, i would argue that there would a significant decline in police shootings.  0.  it gives the victim a fair chance at their side.  even if they are dead, treating an officer like a criminal discredits any story they come up with giving a better chance for the true series of events to surface.  we have seen a lot of cops make up shit that  justifies  the killing when later proved wrong by cameras.  if people could just make up stories and be believed 0, i could go outside right now, shoot someone in the head while no one is looking, plant a knife, claim they came at me with a knife, and get away with 0nd degree murder.  even if an officer witnessed another officer kill a person when it was blatantly self defense eg the person had a gun pointed at the officer they should still be cuffed and taken in.  just apply the same situation to 0 citizens, surely the one who lives would be charged with murder and only the results of an investigation would set them free.  i am just frustrated with all the bull shit i hear about cops and would like to hear the logic of the other side because i feel i am blinded from it.  so cmv.   #  surely the officer would draw his/ her weapon at the murderer and scream to get down.   #  they would proceed to cuff them and bring them to the station for booking/ questioning.   # they would proceed to cuff them and bring them to the station for booking/ questioning.  0 not true.  first of all you are not a murderer if you kill someone, you are a murderer if you murder someone.  second, any cop would yell at any person with a weapon presumably holding the weapon to drop the gun, irrespective of the presence of dead bodies.  it is a safety thing.  third, not every person who kills in self defense is arrested or booked or interrogated.  often times they are just let go, especially when it is clearly self defense.  there is no need to hold them, because it is clear no  crime  was committed  #  the entire scenario behind this cmv is false.   #  this.  the entire scenario behind this cmv is false.  in 0 even in the case of the civilian, the police arrive and relieve the civilian of his weapon.  if the civilian is carrying the weapon he may be in a bit of trouble, but typically enough time has passed that the gun is sitting on a table/counter/holster by then.  the civilian generally makes an official statement.  they may take him into custody or they may not if the case seems cut and dried enough.  they do not presume the civilian is guilty, slap him in cuffs and haul him off for murder.  also 0 is largely false.  in a civilian self defense shooting, they do not presume murder either.  they presume innocence.  you literally could shoot someone and plant evidence as a civilian too.  the cops would likely look into it in more detail, but you could do it and probably get away with it in some scenarios.   #  the title of  licensed driver  means you can drive a car.   # all because someone has the title of a law enforcer does not mean that they should not follow the same legal process as a citizen would.  it absolutely does mean that.  the title of  licensed driver  means you can drive a car.  you need a commercial license to drive a truck.  you need an education and license to practice medicine.  this is just another profession that grants people certain privileges if they meet a standard.  this will make officers hesitate in a life and death situation.  if they do not die, then it reduces the police force as officers are detained for unnecessary trials.  even if they are dead, treating an officer like a criminal discredits any story they come up with giving a better chance for the true series of events to surface.  the better solution is body cameras.  we need cops to be able to protect themselves and others, but still be held accountable.   #  trayvon had his out, yet somehow a fight ensues down the street from his house after the guy chasing him stops following him.   # accusations are cheap and easy, which is why they mean nothing in a court of law.  speak for yourself and stop projecting your racism onto me.  there was 0 minutes between 0 calls, and the first one had zimmerman on record stopping.  you would know if you watched the links i posted.  trayvon had his out, yet somehow a fight ensues down the street from his house after the guy chasing him stops following him.  lastly being in a position where you ca not escape and the only way to stop your attack is with violence is very much common law self defense.  your assertions that it was not, most likely shows your racism.  physical evidence alone would exonerate anyone in that case.  zimmerman was charged because of media pressure the other guy i ca not be to sure about other than maybe a greedy da.  you just want to believe that to confirm your twisted and petty biases.  there were numerous witnesses there that would have painted a case that it was obvious self defense.  even in the face of evidence you ca not be rational and honest.  its pathetic really.   #  you do not seem to understand the basic processes.   #  no, i am not saying that unjustified homicide is ok.  i am saying that the unique circumstances of the job allows for unique protocols for investigations.  officers who shoot someone are investigated.  the vast majority suffer severe trauma.  no one but a few psychos want to kill people.  unfortunately, it becomes a part of the job if you are a cop long enough.  they should be treated with dignity, not automatically put into cuffs.  they know the protocols.  they are expected to turn in their firearm immediately, pending the investigation.  if they comply, there is no reason to cuff them.  if that investigation decides it was unjustified, then they stand trial like anyone else would.  you know, if you are going to hold a view, you should understand the basics of the issues.  different tiers of legal systems i. e.  military courts, internal police investigations are absolutely a controversial subject.  people who understand the issues can disagree.  you do not seem to understand the basic processes.  a constructive discussion is impossible under those circumstances.  maybe start by turning off the news, ignoring opinion blogs, and read up on the history and rationales of the processes as they are, then move into some educated criticisms.
i do not see an issue with children being raised to use the first names of their parents in interaction, if that is what that particular family is comfortable with.  i view it as a personal choice.  while i do not think or feel any kind of way toward other parents wanting to be known to their children simply as mother/father, the idea has never resonated with me and i would personally prefer to be called my name.  offspring can easily acknowkedge a parent is role in their lives without referring to them only by the title of their relation to them in every interaction.  to me, little would change.  i see it as a matter of parental preference, like the kind of car driven.  i can retain my individual identity without it interfering with or undermining my authority.  if anything, i think that is a valuable lesson for a growing person to understand.  i do not think simply being/not being called mother or father augments respect, bond or parental relationship dynamics if that is the family understanding.  of course, there is a difference when a family has an agreement to refer to the parents via parental title and the kid/s proceed to later call them by first name to ruffle feathers.  that is not the situation i am referring to.  the usual arguments against individuals who prefer to be called by their name rather than a generic mom/dad seem to be along the line of  they are your child, not your friend , which in my eyes is a leap.  defining somebody by their label does not give their position more credence.  respect, authority, boundaries and understandings are established in countless ways more significant than being called by a title the kid should implicitly know is yours.  if there is something wrong with all parties in a household being on first name basis that i am missing, enlighten me.   #  the usual arguments against individuals who prefer to be called by their name rather than a generic mom/dad seem to be along the line of  they are your child, not your friend , which in my eyes is a leap.   #  i called my friend is dad ger i found out recently that it is not even his name but his nickname but that did not make him my friend.   #  i could not reply directly because i agree with you.  i called my friend is dad ger i found out recently that it is not even his name but his nickname but that did not make him my friend.  calling my parents by their names did not make them my friend either.  people seem to be under the impression that what the children call their parents decides how the children behave and it is unbelievably stupid.  i had to address my teachers as sir and it never made me respect them.  i respected some of them but not because i had to call them sir.  my sister used to throw tantrums to get what she wanted and my dad would put her in her room and she would always come back out and he would put her back in.  this would go on for at least 0 minutes, sometimes more.  eventually she realised that when he said she had to go to her room and stay there till she behaved herself that she had to do it, there simply was not another way to get out.  her calling him by his first name did not make her misbehave, being a young child who just wants to get everything she wants straight away made her misbehave.  my point is that disciplining your children and showing them that they deserve your respect comes a bit later than my example is what makes your children respect you not being called mam or dad.  the reason i respect my dad is opinions and listen to his advice is because he has consistently shown me good reasons to listen to what he says.  i did not think people actually considered this an issue and it is pretty surprising to see so many people think that it is.   #  the use of titles can absolutely affect the way relationships between people develop, whether they be friends, parent and child, or king and subject.   #  i am going to take this in the other direction for a moment and ask how you would feel about someone forcing their kids to call them sir or ma am ? being from texas and thankfully not having crazy parents, i was able to see what being forced to call parents sir and ma am did to other kids.  in general, the relationship between these kids and their parents always seemed to have this weird domineering aspect.  sometimes kids would forget to say sir and they would be corrected, putting them in the position of staring at the floor and feeling bad for essentially failing to acknowledge with every breath, the supreme authority of their parents.  who can say whether forcing them to use certain titles ultimately molded their personalities into what they were or whether they were a smaller factor, but anecdotally i can say the kids i knew that had to do this seemed more subservient where kids should not have to be, and seemed generally more timid and in some cases more afraid of their parents.  the use of titles can absolutely affect the way relationships between people develop, whether they be friends, parent and child, or king and subject.  likewise the lack of them will have similar effects, just in the opposite direction.   #  when the 0 year old checker at the grocery store says,  did you find everything you need today ?    #  i am from texas also, and i do not see it the  sir  and  ma am  thing the same way you do.  i taught my kids to say sir and ma am not only to their parents, but to all adults.  i use sir and ma am myself when i speak to people i do not know.  when the 0 year old checker at the grocery store says,  did you find everything you need today ?   i reply,  yes ma am,  even though she is younger than my daughter.  when the little 0 year old boy holds the door open for me, i say,  thank you, sir !   and i certainly use sir and ma am when addressing my parents and in laws.  it does not make me subservient; it makes me polite in the culture in which i happen to live.  now, not every culture is the same, and people who want to be considered polite follow the arbitrary rules of their particular culture.  i have no problem with parents being addressed by their first names, if that is the way things are done in that neck of the woods.  i taught my kids what is deemed polite in our neck of the woods.  it had nothing to do with making my kids subservient or timid.  they were certainly neither, only polite.   #  i can see your point about the lack of titles potentially encouraging another extreme but i feel that example does not really work as far as attributing the dynamics to the title.   #  i can see your point about the lack of titles potentially encouraging another extreme but i feel that example does not really work as far as attributing the dynamics to the title.  from what you described, while the sir/ma am thing might be an extension of said people is parenting style, it sounds like the parents in your example would be overly authoritarian, strict and perhaps even fear mongering even with that removed from the equation, simply because of who they are and how they think.  the whole reprimanding the child for forgetting to say sir scenario says more about the parent than what they would like to be called.  and to me, that may be more of an indication that the use of titles may hold more weight/power when it is an extension of the parenting philosophy.  like permissive parents wanting the child to decide what to call them, or disciplinarian wanting to remind them of their status constantly.  said parents titling preferences may be a reflection of their views, but remove the title or lack thereof and they would still be the same kind of parents.  it is their parenting having the effect, not the name/title the parents choose to be known by.  regarding how i would feel about parents having their kids call them sir or what you will, i would feel the same way as if their preference was to be called by their name or parental title.  if you take 0 otherwise identical households, have one with the parents preferring sir/ma am, another mom/dad, bob/sue, etc i feel there would be little to no difference.   #  said parents titling preferences may be a reflection of their views, but remove the title or lack thereof and they would still be the same kind of parents.   # i am sure you do not think you are a hang loose type of parent just because you do not want to use titles the same way these parents did not think they were overly authoritarian just because they had their kids call them sir and ma am.  said parents titling preferences may be a reflection of their views, but remove the title or lack thereof and they would still be the same kind of parents.  it is their parenting having the effect.  again, do you not see that your choice to specifically reinforce your children calling you by your first name rather than the cultural standard of mom and dad as a reflection of what your future parenting style will be ? why is this the case for other parents but different for you ? the differences would be subtle, but still present.  to take it to a slightly higher extreme, do you think there would be no difference between a kid that grew up calling his parents bob and sue versus a kid who grew up calling his parents master and mistress ? if you still think there would not be a difference then i would question why you feel a particular preference to having your kids call you one thing over another.
i see many cmvs suggesting that tipping is bad, but growing up in a city that lives on tips and embraces tipping, i have a different view.  is my view unique to my community ? is it wrong ? i grew up in las vegas where most service industry jobs both allow tipping and reward tippers with excellent service.  poor tippers quickly find that their behavior will result in poor service.  for example, casinos have cocktail servers who patrol the casino bringing drinks to players.  when the server brings your first drink, you should tip them something usually at least a dollar .  if you tip average or above average, the server will return in a few moments to check on you and bring another drink if you need it.  if you choose to not tip, you will likely wait much longer before you see your server again.  baggage handlers, valets, hosts and hostesses, front desk and even security are offered tips and are often empowered to enhance your experience.  a brief read through the vegas subreddits there are several will lead you to many methods to use tips to get superior service while in las vegas.  i have lived in other cities and visited many, many cities, both tourist trade and non tourist areas.  overall, the communities that accept and thrive on tips have better service, happier servers and more business because of it.  when i have been in areas with a mandatory service charge, i find that service is not as good.  while in new york city, i often talked to my servers about the mandatory service charges and indicated that i found it odd being from las vegas where tipping is encouraged.  often servers would agree to remove the service charge and allow me to tip what i wanted.  this mutual trust made me memorable and my service was better because of it.  i say this as i watched servers snub other patrons who did not engage the server and went with the standard charges.  i read once that penn jillette of penn and teller lets servers know up front that he tips 0  reguardless  of their service.  he claims that he has never had bad service using this method.  as to claims of tipping encouraging racism, or female and blond servers getting higher tips, i would say that this is not unique to tipping.  pretty girls get lots of perks while they are young and pretty.  no cover charges, free drinks, higher tips, etc.  unfortunately for them, these attributes quickly fade over time.  not having good service skills means their tips will fall off in their 0s or 0s.  again, this is not unique to tipping, this happens in nearly all non technical positions.  as to racism, many many servers are minorities and make great tips in las vegas.  i would suggest that las vegas is a bit more progressive towards minorities than other cities, so again, i believe the problem is with regressive communities, not the practice of tipping.  help me understand why this is not preferable to not tipping or banning tipping.   #  poor tippers quickly find that their behavior will result in poor service.   #  and that right there is the part of the system that makes it not work.   # and that right there is the part of the system that makes it not work.  well that, and the garnished wages by employers.  that is exactly my point.  it is not that tipping is improving service in the places you mentioned.  it is that tipping made service worse in the places that did not have it, making the other places appear better by comparison.  ideally, and how it works in several countries that do not allow tipping, is that people give you good service because that is their job, not because they think they might get a couple extra dollars out of it.  they do not get bitter and treat you poorly if you do not tip, they treat customers relatively equally.  i suppose if tipping were  properly applied  no garnished wages, tipping only for above average service, etc then it could be a great tool to help motivate people and improve service.  but that is not how the current system works at all.   #  if i am a cheapskate who would rather save the money than tip, then i can do that.   #  in economics, there are two generally overlapping justifications for tipping: moral hazard and efficiency wages.  efficiency wages is the theory that being paid more induces workers to be mor productive.  moral hazard is the idea that people who are not compensated for extra effort will economize by providing the bare minimum.  moral hazard is one way in which efficiency wages is modeled, but not the only way.  so tipping falls into both these categories.  patrons may have different expectations and preferences for service.  someone who is willing to pay more to have above and beyond service could therefor choose to pay for it.  this is efficiency in that it allows customers with different preferences to essentially tailor service to their preference.  if i am a cheapskate who would rather save the money than tip, then i can do that.  this is efficient.  secondly, patrons are in a far better position to evaluate a servers  effort, not the manager.  managers can only observe so much of a worker.  so by delegating tips to the patron, that makes wages of workers more sensitive to the servers  efforts and leads to more efficient behavior.  the problem with these two justifications is that they rely on a strong assumption of commitment meaning a patron needs to be committed to pay a higher tip for higher service.  this is not a  sub game perfect nash equilibrium , meaning in a one shot game, after service is provided, the patron has no monetary incentive to tip well.  so it relies on some social shame or obligation to enforce, which may or may not exist.  places like las vegas would suffer especially from this in that most people are only at a place once, and have no future concerns over building or maintaining a reputation as tipping appropriately.  this is somewhat mitigated by tipping first.  testing these theories has shown some promise.  areas with more tourism tend to have lower tips and therefore higher based salaries for employees.  businesses that rely on repeat customers, say a local coffee shop, do benefit from a tip in place of base salary.  though it is also largely based on custom.  the result is that tipping requires a strong structure of commitment to enforce and work.  it is unlikely to exist in many places.  as service also becomes a smaller element of the product, such as ordering at a counter, then tipping becomes less relevant.  lastly, as there is less reputation built between workers and clients, tipping is less likely to induce more effort.   #  it is not really a moral hard because it is not an issue of the patrons behavior during the action stage of the game, but rather their inability to make a credible promise to tip based on service.   #  no, the moral hazard is a result of being paid a flat wage.  if customers could commit to tipping after a meal, say through reputation, then they could compensate for effort and the moral hazard problem would be corrected.  i was specifically talking about the moral hazard based on the effort of the server.  but yea, there is also a moral hazard for the patron, who has incentive not to tip ex post.  this is what i referred to as the commitment problem.  it is not really a moral hard because it is not an issue of the patrons behavior during the action stage of the game, but rather their inability to make a credible promise to tip based on service.   #  in exchange, desk staff may be able to upgrade your room if a nicer room is available.   #  i am not arguing that we should keep tipping  because  we can reward beauty.  i am arguing that eliminating tipping will have little affect on this behavior.  do you really think that hooters would hire more non attractive people if they got rid of tipping and paid $0/hr ? front desk staff in las vegas are often influenced by  the sandwich  where a patron will give an extra $0 tucked in between their id and credit card.  in exchange, desk staff may be able to upgrade your room if a nicer room is available.   #  and does not the penn jelette story hurt your case because he states that his tipps are regardless of service ?  #  tipping well really only favors customers that can be ignored.  or repeat customers that want special service a crowded bar or casino floor if you are a poor tipper it is not hard for the server /bar tender to keep busy and never get around to helping you.  most servers have to still give you good service or risk loosing their jobs.  and does not the penn jelette story hurt your case because he states that his tipps are regardless of service ? so in other words if your pay your servers well they will preform highly not they will preform highly in hopes of being payed well ?
a common thing i see on many news stories, etc.  is how expensive people on social assistance are to society and how we need to start taking more actions to reduce abuse on the system.  i feel this is based on misunderstandings and jealousy from the people making those suggestions and that implementing them would be more expensive, violate the government is legal and ethical obligations, and make society less enjoyable for all.  my reasoning:   welfare benefits are typically a lot lower than most people assume per recipient, and drug testing and administration a lot more expensive.    unless there is an extremely high frequency of drug users, the savings realized from removing people from the system is less than the cost of the test and the administration.    therefore, it will always cost taxpayers more to do this than to simply pay benefits to all that qualify.    drug users cut off from benefits may turn to crime to find their addictions, causing additional indirect costs in policing, healthcare, etc.    there are also likely many legal costs do doing this as the aclu has already challenged many states who have started drug testing.    in states that have tried it the program has had a net cost.   #  welfare benefits are typically a lot lower than most people assume per recipient, and drug testing and administration a lot more expensive.   #  the logic is interesting, but without any real numbers to back this up, this can only be speculation.   # the logic is interesting, but without any real numbers to back this up, this can only be speculation.  after a quick google however, i found the figure of the average welfare recipient receiving some $0,0 a year URL and drug tests are about $0 per person, which seems hardly prohibitive since you are not getting a drug test every day.  if the government saves enough money on the people who fail the drug tests, it could potentially be a wash.  we just do not know because the numbers are speculative, and there is no reason to believe that it is wasteful  or  saves money.  i would answer similar to the above, we just do not know.  it could potentially cost or save taxpayer money; we do not have the numbers.  i applaud your ability to see subtlety and a policy is unintended consequences, but there will  never  be a way to calculate these costs.  same as above.  i would be interested to see the numbers on this, if you have a resource.  i do not think any such numbers exist because all associated costs and savings are virtually impossible to measure.  politicians on both sides of the aisle will be free to make wild claims because the facts will go unverified.  tl;dr  you raise interesting points, but even having an opinion on this policy means that you think you know its results, and no one does.  if you consider yourself rational and scientifically minded, you will have to remain undecided on this one.   #  if they deliver to some people who do not deserve it, that is unfortunate, but they see delivering to those in need as more important than the mis delivery of aid to those who do not.   #  it depends on whether your political viewpoint would prefer fewer false positives or fewer false negatives.  for some, they would prefer to deliver assistance to as many people as possible in order to ensure that everyone who needs it is getting it.  if they deliver to some people who do not deserve it, that is unfortunate, but they see delivering to those in need as more important than the mis delivery of aid to those who do not.  an alternate viewpoint is that you want to avoid any moral hazard of giving aid to anyone who does not deserve it, and would prefer to put a lot of rigor into selecting who does and does not get aid.  in that way, you ensure that only deserving people get aid even if some who are deserving do not get it.  for some who hold this viewpoint, it might be worth much higher administration costs to ensure that only the deserving get aid despite the fact that it means that the costs are higher and some who are deserving wo not get aid.   #  0.  you cite irrelevant legal propositions you clearly do not understand.   #  you have no idea what you are talking about.  see below: my evidence.  0.  you are arguing with no one.  you responded to god knows what comment, certainly not mine.  0.  you bring up  innocent people,  like i am supposed to know which group you are talking about.  taxpayers ? non drug using benefits recipients ? others ? 0.  no matter which people you are talking about you are wrong, and not just wrong, but so wrong that one need only a child is understanding of the law to show it.  0.  you cite irrelevant legal propositions you clearly do not understand.   #  what is a bad idea is making benefits contingnent on passing the drug test.   #  i think drug testing recipients of welfare can be a good idea.  what is a bad idea is making benefits contingnent on passing the drug test.  for example, drug testing can used to identify people who do struggle with drug addiction.  these people may then be encouraged to attend free rehabilitation programs or provided with other resources to help them overcome addiction.  often the first step in fixing a problem is realizing you have a problem: drug testing can be a good tool.   #  i agree with you, but, will try to change your view.   #  i agree with you, but, will try to change your view.  john has used heroin for 0 years.  he knows that using heroin is illegal, expensive, and he spends $0 of the $0 he gets paid weekly working at pizza hut to pay for his heroin.  he uses the other $0 to buy food, but, that money is not enough to feed himself and his son.  maria has not used any illegal substances, and, works hard at her job at walmart and gets paid $0 per week.  she spends $0 on tutoring for her daughter to help her daughter get better grades in school.  she uses the other $0 to buy food, but, that money is not enough to feed herself and her daughter.  maria and john both have only $0 to spend on food and need more money.  who do you think should get the money ?
a common thing i see on many news stories, etc.  is how expensive people on social assistance are to society and how we need to start taking more actions to reduce abuse on the system.  i feel this is based on misunderstandings and jealousy from the people making those suggestions and that implementing them would be more expensive, violate the government is legal and ethical obligations, and make society less enjoyable for all.  my reasoning:   welfare benefits are typically a lot lower than most people assume per recipient, and drug testing and administration a lot more expensive.    unless there is an extremely high frequency of drug users, the savings realized from removing people from the system is less than the cost of the test and the administration.    therefore, it will always cost taxpayers more to do this than to simply pay benefits to all that qualify.    drug users cut off from benefits may turn to crime to find their addictions, causing additional indirect costs in policing, healthcare, etc.    there are also likely many legal costs do doing this as the aclu has already challenged many states who have started drug testing.    in states that have tried it the program has had a net cost.   #  therefore, it will always cost taxpayers more to do this than to simply pay benefits to all that qualify.   #  i would answer similar to the above, we just do not know.   # the logic is interesting, but without any real numbers to back this up, this can only be speculation.  after a quick google however, i found the figure of the average welfare recipient receiving some $0,0 a year URL and drug tests are about $0 per person, which seems hardly prohibitive since you are not getting a drug test every day.  if the government saves enough money on the people who fail the drug tests, it could potentially be a wash.  we just do not know because the numbers are speculative, and there is no reason to believe that it is wasteful  or  saves money.  i would answer similar to the above, we just do not know.  it could potentially cost or save taxpayer money; we do not have the numbers.  i applaud your ability to see subtlety and a policy is unintended consequences, but there will  never  be a way to calculate these costs.  same as above.  i would be interested to see the numbers on this, if you have a resource.  i do not think any such numbers exist because all associated costs and savings are virtually impossible to measure.  politicians on both sides of the aisle will be free to make wild claims because the facts will go unverified.  tl;dr  you raise interesting points, but even having an opinion on this policy means that you think you know its results, and no one does.  if you consider yourself rational and scientifically minded, you will have to remain undecided on this one.   #  if they deliver to some people who do not deserve it, that is unfortunate, but they see delivering to those in need as more important than the mis delivery of aid to those who do not.   #  it depends on whether your political viewpoint would prefer fewer false positives or fewer false negatives.  for some, they would prefer to deliver assistance to as many people as possible in order to ensure that everyone who needs it is getting it.  if they deliver to some people who do not deserve it, that is unfortunate, but they see delivering to those in need as more important than the mis delivery of aid to those who do not.  an alternate viewpoint is that you want to avoid any moral hazard of giving aid to anyone who does not deserve it, and would prefer to put a lot of rigor into selecting who does and does not get aid.  in that way, you ensure that only deserving people get aid even if some who are deserving do not get it.  for some who hold this viewpoint, it might be worth much higher administration costs to ensure that only the deserving get aid despite the fact that it means that the costs are higher and some who are deserving wo not get aid.   #  you responded to god knows what comment, certainly not mine.   #  you have no idea what you are talking about.  see below: my evidence.  0.  you are arguing with no one.  you responded to god knows what comment, certainly not mine.  0.  you bring up  innocent people,  like i am supposed to know which group you are talking about.  taxpayers ? non drug using benefits recipients ? others ? 0.  no matter which people you are talking about you are wrong, and not just wrong, but so wrong that one need only a child is understanding of the law to show it.  0.  you cite irrelevant legal propositions you clearly do not understand.   #  i think drug testing recipients of welfare can be a good idea.   #  i think drug testing recipients of welfare can be a good idea.  what is a bad idea is making benefits contingnent on passing the drug test.  for example, drug testing can used to identify people who do struggle with drug addiction.  these people may then be encouraged to attend free rehabilitation programs or provided with other resources to help them overcome addiction.  often the first step in fixing a problem is realizing you have a problem: drug testing can be a good tool.   #  i agree with you, but, will try to change your view.   #  i agree with you, but, will try to change your view.  john has used heroin for 0 years.  he knows that using heroin is illegal, expensive, and he spends $0 of the $0 he gets paid weekly working at pizza hut to pay for his heroin.  he uses the other $0 to buy food, but, that money is not enough to feed himself and his son.  maria has not used any illegal substances, and, works hard at her job at walmart and gets paid $0 per week.  she spends $0 on tutoring for her daughter to help her daughter get better grades in school.  she uses the other $0 to buy food, but, that money is not enough to feed herself and her daughter.  maria and john both have only $0 to spend on food and need more money.  who do you think should get the money ?
a common thing i see on many news stories, etc.  is how expensive people on social assistance are to society and how we need to start taking more actions to reduce abuse on the system.  i feel this is based on misunderstandings and jealousy from the people making those suggestions and that implementing them would be more expensive, violate the government is legal and ethical obligations, and make society less enjoyable for all.  my reasoning:   welfare benefits are typically a lot lower than most people assume per recipient, and drug testing and administration a lot more expensive.    unless there is an extremely high frequency of drug users, the savings realized from removing people from the system is less than the cost of the test and the administration.    therefore, it will always cost taxpayers more to do this than to simply pay benefits to all that qualify.    drug users cut off from benefits may turn to crime to find their addictions, causing additional indirect costs in policing, healthcare, etc.    there are also likely many legal costs do doing this as the aclu has already challenged many states who have started drug testing.    in states that have tried it the program has had a net cost.   #  drug users cut off from benefits may turn to crime to find their addictions, causing additional indirect costs in policing, healthcare, etc.   #  i applaud your ability to see subtlety and a policy is unintended consequences, but there will  never  be a way to calculate these costs.   # the logic is interesting, but without any real numbers to back this up, this can only be speculation.  after a quick google however, i found the figure of the average welfare recipient receiving some $0,0 a year URL and drug tests are about $0 per person, which seems hardly prohibitive since you are not getting a drug test every day.  if the government saves enough money on the people who fail the drug tests, it could potentially be a wash.  we just do not know because the numbers are speculative, and there is no reason to believe that it is wasteful  or  saves money.  i would answer similar to the above, we just do not know.  it could potentially cost or save taxpayer money; we do not have the numbers.  i applaud your ability to see subtlety and a policy is unintended consequences, but there will  never  be a way to calculate these costs.  same as above.  i would be interested to see the numbers on this, if you have a resource.  i do not think any such numbers exist because all associated costs and savings are virtually impossible to measure.  politicians on both sides of the aisle will be free to make wild claims because the facts will go unverified.  tl;dr  you raise interesting points, but even having an opinion on this policy means that you think you know its results, and no one does.  if you consider yourself rational and scientifically minded, you will have to remain undecided on this one.   #  it depends on whether your political viewpoint would prefer fewer false positives or fewer false negatives.   #  it depends on whether your political viewpoint would prefer fewer false positives or fewer false negatives.  for some, they would prefer to deliver assistance to as many people as possible in order to ensure that everyone who needs it is getting it.  if they deliver to some people who do not deserve it, that is unfortunate, but they see delivering to those in need as more important than the mis delivery of aid to those who do not.  an alternate viewpoint is that you want to avoid any moral hazard of giving aid to anyone who does not deserve it, and would prefer to put a lot of rigor into selecting who does and does not get aid.  in that way, you ensure that only deserving people get aid even if some who are deserving do not get it.  for some who hold this viewpoint, it might be worth much higher administration costs to ensure that only the deserving get aid despite the fact that it means that the costs are higher and some who are deserving wo not get aid.   #  0.  no matter which people you are talking about you are wrong, and not just wrong, but so wrong that one need only a child is understanding of the law to show it.   #  you have no idea what you are talking about.  see below: my evidence.  0.  you are arguing with no one.  you responded to god knows what comment, certainly not mine.  0.  you bring up  innocent people,  like i am supposed to know which group you are talking about.  taxpayers ? non drug using benefits recipients ? others ? 0.  no matter which people you are talking about you are wrong, and not just wrong, but so wrong that one need only a child is understanding of the law to show it.  0.  you cite irrelevant legal propositions you clearly do not understand.   #  these people may then be encouraged to attend free rehabilitation programs or provided with other resources to help them overcome addiction.   #  i think drug testing recipients of welfare can be a good idea.  what is a bad idea is making benefits contingnent on passing the drug test.  for example, drug testing can used to identify people who do struggle with drug addiction.  these people may then be encouraged to attend free rehabilitation programs or provided with other resources to help them overcome addiction.  often the first step in fixing a problem is realizing you have a problem: drug testing can be a good tool.   #  who do you think should get the money ?  #  i agree with you, but, will try to change your view.  john has used heroin for 0 years.  he knows that using heroin is illegal, expensive, and he spends $0 of the $0 he gets paid weekly working at pizza hut to pay for his heroin.  he uses the other $0 to buy food, but, that money is not enough to feed himself and his son.  maria has not used any illegal substances, and, works hard at her job at walmart and gets paid $0 per week.  she spends $0 on tutoring for her daughter to help her daughter get better grades in school.  she uses the other $0 to buy food, but, that money is not enough to feed herself and her daughter.  maria and john both have only $0 to spend on food and need more money.  who do you think should get the money ?
a common thing i see on many news stories, etc.  is how expensive people on social assistance are to society and how we need to start taking more actions to reduce abuse on the system.  i feel this is based on misunderstandings and jealousy from the people making those suggestions and that implementing them would be more expensive, violate the government is legal and ethical obligations, and make society less enjoyable for all.  my reasoning:   welfare benefits are typically a lot lower than most people assume per recipient, and drug testing and administration a lot more expensive.    unless there is an extremely high frequency of drug users, the savings realized from removing people from the system is less than the cost of the test and the administration.    therefore, it will always cost taxpayers more to do this than to simply pay benefits to all that qualify.    drug users cut off from benefits may turn to crime to find their addictions, causing additional indirect costs in policing, healthcare, etc.    there are also likely many legal costs do doing this as the aclu has already challenged many states who have started drug testing.    in states that have tried it the program has had a net cost.   #  in states that have tried it the program has had a net cost.   #  i would be interested to see the numbers on this, if you have a resource.   # the logic is interesting, but without any real numbers to back this up, this can only be speculation.  after a quick google however, i found the figure of the average welfare recipient receiving some $0,0 a year URL and drug tests are about $0 per person, which seems hardly prohibitive since you are not getting a drug test every day.  if the government saves enough money on the people who fail the drug tests, it could potentially be a wash.  we just do not know because the numbers are speculative, and there is no reason to believe that it is wasteful  or  saves money.  i would answer similar to the above, we just do not know.  it could potentially cost or save taxpayer money; we do not have the numbers.  i applaud your ability to see subtlety and a policy is unintended consequences, but there will  never  be a way to calculate these costs.  same as above.  i would be interested to see the numbers on this, if you have a resource.  i do not think any such numbers exist because all associated costs and savings are virtually impossible to measure.  politicians on both sides of the aisle will be free to make wild claims because the facts will go unverified.  tl;dr  you raise interesting points, but even having an opinion on this policy means that you think you know its results, and no one does.  if you consider yourself rational and scientifically minded, you will have to remain undecided on this one.   #  for some, they would prefer to deliver assistance to as many people as possible in order to ensure that everyone who needs it is getting it.   #  it depends on whether your political viewpoint would prefer fewer false positives or fewer false negatives.  for some, they would prefer to deliver assistance to as many people as possible in order to ensure that everyone who needs it is getting it.  if they deliver to some people who do not deserve it, that is unfortunate, but they see delivering to those in need as more important than the mis delivery of aid to those who do not.  an alternate viewpoint is that you want to avoid any moral hazard of giving aid to anyone who does not deserve it, and would prefer to put a lot of rigor into selecting who does and does not get aid.  in that way, you ensure that only deserving people get aid even if some who are deserving do not get it.  for some who hold this viewpoint, it might be worth much higher administration costs to ensure that only the deserving get aid despite the fact that it means that the costs are higher and some who are deserving wo not get aid.   #  0.  you bring up  innocent people,  like i am supposed to know which group you are talking about.   #  you have no idea what you are talking about.  see below: my evidence.  0.  you are arguing with no one.  you responded to god knows what comment, certainly not mine.  0.  you bring up  innocent people,  like i am supposed to know which group you are talking about.  taxpayers ? non drug using benefits recipients ? others ? 0.  no matter which people you are talking about you are wrong, and not just wrong, but so wrong that one need only a child is understanding of the law to show it.  0.  you cite irrelevant legal propositions you clearly do not understand.   #  i think drug testing recipients of welfare can be a good idea.   #  i think drug testing recipients of welfare can be a good idea.  what is a bad idea is making benefits contingnent on passing the drug test.  for example, drug testing can used to identify people who do struggle with drug addiction.  these people may then be encouraged to attend free rehabilitation programs or provided with other resources to help them overcome addiction.  often the first step in fixing a problem is realizing you have a problem: drug testing can be a good tool.   #  he knows that using heroin is illegal, expensive, and he spends $0 of the $0 he gets paid weekly working at pizza hut to pay for his heroin.   #  i agree with you, but, will try to change your view.  john has used heroin for 0 years.  he knows that using heroin is illegal, expensive, and he spends $0 of the $0 he gets paid weekly working at pizza hut to pay for his heroin.  he uses the other $0 to buy food, but, that money is not enough to feed himself and his son.  maria has not used any illegal substances, and, works hard at her job at walmart and gets paid $0 per week.  she spends $0 on tutoring for her daughter to help her daughter get better grades in school.  she uses the other $0 to buy food, but, that money is not enough to feed herself and her daughter.  maria and john both have only $0 to spend on food and need more money.  who do you think should get the money ?
a common thing i see on many news stories, etc.  is how expensive people on social assistance are to society and how we need to start taking more actions to reduce abuse on the system.  i feel this is based on misunderstandings and jealousy from the people making those suggestions and that implementing them would be more expensive, violate the government is legal and ethical obligations, and make society less enjoyable for all.  my reasoning:   welfare benefits are typically a lot lower than most people assume per recipient, and drug testing and administration a lot more expensive.    unless there is an extremely high frequency of drug users, the savings realized from removing people from the system is less than the cost of the test and the administration.    therefore, it will always cost taxpayers more to do this than to simply pay benefits to all that qualify.    drug users cut off from benefits may turn to crime to find their addictions, causing additional indirect costs in policing, healthcare, etc.    there are also likely many legal costs do doing this as the aclu has already challenged many states who have started drug testing.    in states that have tried it the program has had a net cost.   #  drug users cut off from benefits may turn to crime to find their addictions, causing additional indirect costs in policing, healthcare, etc.   #  this also applies to convicted criminals unable to live in public housing.   #  first, you would not have to drug test all recipients.  you could just do a random lottery kind of situation where only 0 to 0 percent of recipients are called in for testing without notice.  the mere possibility of being tested and kicked off benefits would affect the behavior of all recipients.  this also applies to convicted criminals unable to live in public housing.  however, barring them from public housing keeps other occupants safer and gives other occupants a powerful incentive to be law abiding.  the same would be true of drug testing welfare recipients.  drugs create a high level of violent crime in poor neighborhoods.  drugs contribute to poor parenting and mis spent public funds.  heavy involvement in drug culture prevents people from succeeding in occupational and educational pursuits.  drugs result in huge public costs for things like: 0.  cps and foster care; 0.  the police, criminal justice system and prisons; 0.  medical care costs related to adverse health effects of drugs as well as accidents and violence; etc.  maybe not in the first year or two, but soon thereafter drug testing welfare recipients would result in significant cost savings.   #  it depends on whether your political viewpoint would prefer fewer false positives or fewer false negatives.   #  it depends on whether your political viewpoint would prefer fewer false positives or fewer false negatives.  for some, they would prefer to deliver assistance to as many people as possible in order to ensure that everyone who needs it is getting it.  if they deliver to some people who do not deserve it, that is unfortunate, but they see delivering to those in need as more important than the mis delivery of aid to those who do not.  an alternate viewpoint is that you want to avoid any moral hazard of giving aid to anyone who does not deserve it, and would prefer to put a lot of rigor into selecting who does and does not get aid.  in that way, you ensure that only deserving people get aid even if some who are deserving do not get it.  for some who hold this viewpoint, it might be worth much higher administration costs to ensure that only the deserving get aid despite the fact that it means that the costs are higher and some who are deserving wo not get aid.   #  0.  you cite irrelevant legal propositions you clearly do not understand.   #  you have no idea what you are talking about.  see below: my evidence.  0.  you are arguing with no one.  you responded to god knows what comment, certainly not mine.  0.  you bring up  innocent people,  like i am supposed to know which group you are talking about.  taxpayers ? non drug using benefits recipients ? others ? 0.  no matter which people you are talking about you are wrong, and not just wrong, but so wrong that one need only a child is understanding of the law to show it.  0.  you cite irrelevant legal propositions you clearly do not understand.   #  these people may then be encouraged to attend free rehabilitation programs or provided with other resources to help them overcome addiction.   #  i think drug testing recipients of welfare can be a good idea.  what is a bad idea is making benefits contingnent on passing the drug test.  for example, drug testing can used to identify people who do struggle with drug addiction.  these people may then be encouraged to attend free rehabilitation programs or provided with other resources to help them overcome addiction.  often the first step in fixing a problem is realizing you have a problem: drug testing can be a good tool.   #  she spends $0 on tutoring for her daughter to help her daughter get better grades in school.   #  i agree with you, but, will try to change your view.  john has used heroin for 0 years.  he knows that using heroin is illegal, expensive, and he spends $0 of the $0 he gets paid weekly working at pizza hut to pay for his heroin.  he uses the other $0 to buy food, but, that money is not enough to feed himself and his son.  maria has not used any illegal substances, and, works hard at her job at walmart and gets paid $0 per week.  she spends $0 on tutoring for her daughter to help her daughter get better grades in school.  she uses the other $0 to buy food, but, that money is not enough to feed herself and her daughter.  maria and john both have only $0 to spend on food and need more money.  who do you think should get the money ?
human sentience or consciousness, or sapience, or whatever term you like is an emergent behavior of neurons and their interactions, which can be replicated in non organic systems, i. e. , computers.  thus it is likely that given advanced enough technology, we could make a digital human, or even copy an organic human to the digital world.  similarly, other neural networks can be constructed digitally, collectively known as ai.  this is fairly well accepted in modern society, although there are debates over  isouls  and things like that.  i think that sentient ai will probably emerge first, long before we get close to digitizing humans, because of the way ai may emerge.  currently, one approach to developing advanced neural networks is to allow them grow  naturally , which is to say that the network is given some parameters to optimize, and then iterations darwinistically decide what the optimal solution is.  pretty much like carbon based evolution, but much faster.  however, i am not an expert in the field, so i am open to different opinions, or even alternatives not the above two options.  cmv: ai will achieve sentience way before we can make computer humans.   #  similarly, other neural networks can be constructed digitally, collectively known as ai.   #  this is fairly well accepted in modern society, although there are debates over  isouls  and things like that.   # this is fairly well accepted in modern society, although there are debates over  isouls  and things like that.  neural networks are not synonymous with ai.  you can try to create ai using a neural network, but ai has yet to be created.  a neural network is only an approach to computing.  currently, one approach to developing advanced neural networks is to allow them grow  naturally , which is to say that the network is given some parameters to optimize, and then iterations darwinistically decide what the optimal solution is.  you are talking about a genetic algorithm, and that is nothing new.  you pass over  give parameters  as if you enter  become intelligent  into a text box and wait.  a requirement for a genetic algorithm is a fitness test.  how do you test how well an ai learns, understands, and applies knowledge without having something that learned, understood, and applied to knowledge to check it ? you could say  understand these instructions and take an action , but then you just optimize for those specific instructions.   #  i think this could plausibly happen within one or two hundred years.   #  when you say  emerge spontaneously,  do you mean without any human design ? the network gets big enough that the ai just kind of appears ? i think you will have a hard time finding any serious evidence for this theory.  it is a sci fi plot device, nothing more.  digitizing humans, in the other hand, is based on the assumption that, once we understand the human brain well enough, we will be able to create computers that mimics the same functions as the brain.  a great deal of effort is being put into understanding the human mind.  i think this could plausibly happen within one or two hundred years.  .   #  a great deal of effort is being put into neural networks, machine learning, and ai in general, so i while this may be valid, it could be equally valid for ai sentience.   # the network gets big enough that the ai just kind of appears ? no, the hardware for neural networks will be in place, but the ai will not be hand coded, but an iteration of machine coding.  that is, we write some code on a large network with some capacity to expand, and the code iterates with some  goal  until consciousness appears.  a great deal of effort is being put into understanding the human mind.  i think this could plausibly happen within one or two hundred years.  a great deal of effort is being put into neural networks, machine learning, and ai in general, so i while this may be valid, it could be equally valid for ai sentience.   #  it is a matter of it getting big enough to the point that  consciousness itself  begins to exist in it.   # the network gets big enough that the ai just kind of appears ? i think you will have a hard time finding any serious evidence for this theory.  it is a sci fi plot device, nothing more.  it is not a matter of the network getting big enough that an  ai   appears .  it is a matter of it getting big enough to the point that  consciousness itself  begins to exist in it.  your brain is a series of billions and billions of neurons that interact with each other.  through these interactions, your consciousness exists.  we can probably both agree that if you only had 0,0 neurons that you would not be the same entity that you are right now.  it is a question of at what point does consciousness itself, begin to exist within a system like that ?  #  i do not know of any evidence that suggests that computer networks are capable of consciousness in the same way that brains are.   # i would actually argue that it is a question of  will consciousness ever begin to exist in a system like that ?   simple  complexity  is not enough to create consciousness.  waterfalls have billions and billions of water molecules constantly interacting with each other in incalculably complex ways.  it is an extremely complex system.  but we would never wonder  at what point will a waterfall develop consciousness ?   i do not know of any evidence that suggests that computer networks are capable of consciousness in the same way that brains are.  this is in the realms of science fiction, not of science.
human sentience or consciousness, or sapience, or whatever term you like is an emergent behavior of neurons and their interactions, which can be replicated in non organic systems, i. e. , computers.  thus it is likely that given advanced enough technology, we could make a digital human, or even copy an organic human to the digital world.  similarly, other neural networks can be constructed digitally, collectively known as ai.  this is fairly well accepted in modern society, although there are debates over  isouls  and things like that.  i think that sentient ai will probably emerge first, long before we get close to digitizing humans, because of the way ai may emerge.  currently, one approach to developing advanced neural networks is to allow them grow  naturally , which is to say that the network is given some parameters to optimize, and then iterations darwinistically decide what the optimal solution is.  pretty much like carbon based evolution, but much faster.  however, i am not an expert in the field, so i am open to different opinions, or even alternatives not the above two options.  cmv: ai will achieve sentience way before we can make computer humans.   #  i think that sentient ai will probably emerge first, long before we get close to digitizing humans, because of the way ai may emerge.   #  currently, one approach to developing advanced neural networks is to allow them grow  naturally , which is to say that the network is given some parameters to optimize, and then iterations darwinistically decide what the optimal solution is.   # this is fairly well accepted in modern society, although there are debates over  isouls  and things like that.  neural networks are not synonymous with ai.  you can try to create ai using a neural network, but ai has yet to be created.  a neural network is only an approach to computing.  currently, one approach to developing advanced neural networks is to allow them grow  naturally , which is to say that the network is given some parameters to optimize, and then iterations darwinistically decide what the optimal solution is.  you are talking about a genetic algorithm, and that is nothing new.  you pass over  give parameters  as if you enter  become intelligent  into a text box and wait.  a requirement for a genetic algorithm is a fitness test.  how do you test how well an ai learns, understands, and applies knowledge without having something that learned, understood, and applied to knowledge to check it ? you could say  understand these instructions and take an action , but then you just optimize for those specific instructions.   #  a great deal of effort is being put into understanding the human mind.   #  when you say  emerge spontaneously,  do you mean without any human design ? the network gets big enough that the ai just kind of appears ? i think you will have a hard time finding any serious evidence for this theory.  it is a sci fi plot device, nothing more.  digitizing humans, in the other hand, is based on the assumption that, once we understand the human brain well enough, we will be able to create computers that mimics the same functions as the brain.  a great deal of effort is being put into understanding the human mind.  i think this could plausibly happen within one or two hundred years.  .   #  a great deal of effort is being put into understanding the human mind.   # the network gets big enough that the ai just kind of appears ? no, the hardware for neural networks will be in place, but the ai will not be hand coded, but an iteration of machine coding.  that is, we write some code on a large network with some capacity to expand, and the code iterates with some  goal  until consciousness appears.  a great deal of effort is being put into understanding the human mind.  i think this could plausibly happen within one or two hundred years.  a great deal of effort is being put into neural networks, machine learning, and ai in general, so i while this may be valid, it could be equally valid for ai sentience.   #  it is a question of at what point does consciousness itself, begin to exist within a system like that ?  # the network gets big enough that the ai just kind of appears ? i think you will have a hard time finding any serious evidence for this theory.  it is a sci fi plot device, nothing more.  it is not a matter of the network getting big enough that an  ai   appears .  it is a matter of it getting big enough to the point that  consciousness itself  begins to exist in it.  your brain is a series of billions and billions of neurons that interact with each other.  through these interactions, your consciousness exists.  we can probably both agree that if you only had 0,0 neurons that you would not be the same entity that you are right now.  it is a question of at what point does consciousness itself, begin to exist within a system like that ?  #  but we would never wonder  at what point will a waterfall develop consciousness ?    # i would actually argue that it is a question of  will consciousness ever begin to exist in a system like that ?   simple  complexity  is not enough to create consciousness.  waterfalls have billions and billions of water molecules constantly interacting with each other in incalculably complex ways.  it is an extremely complex system.  but we would never wonder  at what point will a waterfall develop consciousness ?   i do not know of any evidence that suggests that computer networks are capable of consciousness in the same way that brains are.  this is in the realms of science fiction, not of science.
human sentience or consciousness, or sapience, or whatever term you like is an emergent behavior of neurons and their interactions, which can be replicated in non organic systems, i. e. , computers.  thus it is likely that given advanced enough technology, we could make a digital human, or even copy an organic human to the digital world.  similarly, other neural networks can be constructed digitally, collectively known as ai.  this is fairly well accepted in modern society, although there are debates over  isouls  and things like that.  i think that sentient ai will probably emerge first, long before we get close to digitizing humans, because of the way ai may emerge.  currently, one approach to developing advanced neural networks is to allow them grow  naturally , which is to say that the network is given some parameters to optimize, and then iterations darwinistically decide what the optimal solution is.  pretty much like carbon based evolution, but much faster.  however, i am not an expert in the field, so i am open to different opinions, or even alternatives not the above two options.  cmv: ai will achieve sentience way before we can make computer humans.   #  currently, one approach to developing advanced neural networks is to allow them grow  naturally , which is to say that the network is given some parameters to optimize, and then iterations darwinistically decide what the optimal solution is.   #  that is not really how it works.   # that is not really how it works.  you do not just randomly  grow  a neural network, you train it for a specific purpose.  essentially the network is a function that takes high dimensional input e. g.  say millions of pixels of a digital camera and produces lower dimensional output e. g.  a simple label for the content in the picture: cat, dog, car, house, .  .  you train it by feeding it lots of input images.  it is essentially a compression algorithm.  there is no way that that can just spontaneously form sentience on it is own, as it neither has the necessary input all the human senses, etc.  nor the necessary output muscle responses, etc.  .  a neural network wo not spontaneously form into sentience any more then an combustion engine will spontaneously form into a car.  that said, researchers will of course feed more input into neural networks, give them more output over time and change their structure to whatever they think is needed to build something that approaches some form of sentience, but it wo not be spontaneous or accidental, it will be a deliberate attempt to build sentience.   #  a great deal of effort is being put into understanding the human mind.   #  when you say  emerge spontaneously,  do you mean without any human design ? the network gets big enough that the ai just kind of appears ? i think you will have a hard time finding any serious evidence for this theory.  it is a sci fi plot device, nothing more.  digitizing humans, in the other hand, is based on the assumption that, once we understand the human brain well enough, we will be able to create computers that mimics the same functions as the brain.  a great deal of effort is being put into understanding the human mind.  i think this could plausibly happen within one or two hundred years.  .   #  i think this could plausibly happen within one or two hundred years.   # the network gets big enough that the ai just kind of appears ? no, the hardware for neural networks will be in place, but the ai will not be hand coded, but an iteration of machine coding.  that is, we write some code on a large network with some capacity to expand, and the code iterates with some  goal  until consciousness appears.  a great deal of effort is being put into understanding the human mind.  i think this could plausibly happen within one or two hundred years.  a great deal of effort is being put into neural networks, machine learning, and ai in general, so i while this may be valid, it could be equally valid for ai sentience.   #  we can probably both agree that if you only had 0,0 neurons that you would not be the same entity that you are right now.   # the network gets big enough that the ai just kind of appears ? i think you will have a hard time finding any serious evidence for this theory.  it is a sci fi plot device, nothing more.  it is not a matter of the network getting big enough that an  ai   appears .  it is a matter of it getting big enough to the point that  consciousness itself  begins to exist in it.  your brain is a series of billions and billions of neurons that interact with each other.  through these interactions, your consciousness exists.  we can probably both agree that if you only had 0,0 neurons that you would not be the same entity that you are right now.  it is a question of at what point does consciousness itself, begin to exist within a system like that ?  #  this is in the realms of science fiction, not of science.   # i would actually argue that it is a question of  will consciousness ever begin to exist in a system like that ?   simple  complexity  is not enough to create consciousness.  waterfalls have billions and billions of water molecules constantly interacting with each other in incalculably complex ways.  it is an extremely complex system.  but we would never wonder  at what point will a waterfall develop consciousness ?   i do not know of any evidence that suggests that computer networks are capable of consciousness in the same way that brains are.  this is in the realms of science fiction, not of science.
so i browse this sub from time to time and i have come to the conclusion that the downvote button is a disagree button.  a good chunk of the posts here not new posts, posts that are over 0 hours old with only around 0 karma points, or even 0 karma points are  bad  or  dumb  or in better terms, do not have enough good points to help the op look like their view is good.  the original purpose of a downvote is to mostly help remove irrelevant posts that nothing to do with the current sub.  0 low/no karma posts are relevant to this sub.  this is the main reason i will always see the downvote button as a disagree button.  please change my view.   #  0 low/no karma posts are relevant to this sub.   #  this is the main reason i will always see the downvote button as a disagree button.   # this is the main reason i will always see the downvote button as a disagree button.  please change my view.  this is a likely a form of selection bias due to strong moderation in this subreddit.  in other words, downvoting is often used when posts are offtopic and/or spam certainly more than just 0 of the time, but moderators are quick to remove those posts as well.  thus, the downvote button is probably used half of the time for its intended purpose, you just do not see those downvoted posts a few minutes later.   #  i downvote posts that make no new arguments posted hours after other people made the same point better.   #  it is not about agreeing or disagreeing, it is about quality of the discussion.  most posts in this sub add little to the conversation, since the arguments are weak, or repetitive, or rehash points the op dealt with.  i downvote posts that make no new arguments posted hours after other people made the same point better.  i downvote irrelevant points, factually false claims, and ad hominem attacks.  i upvote interesting claims, well made arguments, things i had not considered, and anything that makes me reconsider my opinion.  that means i upvote less than i downvote, not connected to whether i agree with op or not but it is harder to get upvotes when i agree with you, but you are not saying anything new than when i disagree but you make good points.  that said, i ca not speak for others.   #  we want all interesting and thoughtful conversations to rise to the top, and the problem with downvotes is that it is perfectly possible for unpopular ideas to be interesting and thoughtful, yet many redditors instinctively downvote claims they disagree with.   #  that is not what you are supposed to do according to URL    please try not to use downvote buttons except on trolls or rule breaking posts, which you should really report instead .  when you disagree with a claim, try to refute it ! when you find a new post you disagree with, remember that the poster is inviting debate, so consider upvoting it to make it more likely that people who agree with you will join you in revealing the post is faults.  say someone provides a counter argument to op is view, but it does not quite do the job, and op replies explaining why it is still difficult for them to change their opinion.  far too many times have we seen these types of comments from op being downvoted.  this is frustrating to see as op is being honest about their perhaps controversial opinion and is hopefully open to it being changed.  please do not downvote if they are explaining why a point is still not convincing them.  we want all interesting and thoughtful conversations to rise to the top, and the problem with downvotes is that it is perfectly possible for unpopular ideas to be interesting and thoughtful, yet many redditors instinctively downvote claims they disagree with.  the reddit community has been accused of suffering from polarization and groupthink, and the voting system contributes to this issue.  if we could remove the downvote button altogether we probably would, but we ca not.  we can use css to try to kill the buttons, but some redditors choose not to experience subs  css themes, and users of third party apps like alien blue are also immune to this technique.  so killing downvotes with css is worse than doing nothing because it gives a subset of redditors an amplified downvoting voice .  so please resist the urge to downvote.  thanks.  :  #  you are right that mods cannot enforce rule violations with the tools they have now, but you should not use that as an excuse to violate the guidelines they put about downvotes.   #  you are right that mods cannot enforce rule violations with the tools they have now, but you should not use that as an excuse to violate the guidelines they put about downvotes.  they put in bold letter not to downvote except on trolls or rule breaking posts, and you have admitted you downvote more than you upvote.  that is not being respectful to the mods.  if you think something does not contribute, do not upvote it.  if you think a comment is stupid, then comment on why you disagree.  downvotes stifle discussion.  when new people see downvoted posts they seem to assume that it is okay to downvote stuff they disagree with.  i do think the mods need to either change the downvote policy or do more to make it visible, and i hope they will do that.  i no longer would consider posting a controversial topic here because i have seen so many op is downvoted for simply trying to clarify their unpopular opinion.   #  i come here to be exposed to new facts and different opinions, as well as reasoned debate.   #  i think you have a few good points, and i agree that it is not respectful to the current mods;  .  despite that, i do not think downvotes stifle all discussion just the types that get downvoted.  and that is the reason i downvote.  i come here to be exposed to new facts and different opinions, as well as reasoned debate.  if downvoting discourages things that do not contribute to those, as i believe it does, i am in favor.  i am not ok with downvoting due to different opinions, except where they go against the point; anti marijuana screeds in /r/trees, or israeli propaganda in /r/palestine.  to the extent that people think downvotes change minds, and to the extent that they think different opinions should not be heard, i would hope we can change their views.  on the last point, it is clear that unpopular opinions are harder to get heard.  the bar is certainly unfairly higher for clarity and reasonableness when the view is unpopular, but i see plenty of posts that pull it off.  given that, frequently, these downvoted posts are really a problem of lack of clarity, lack of basic research before posting, people being uninterested in rehashing a topic, and cmvs that are perceived as intended as trolling.
so i browse this sub from time to time and i have come to the conclusion that the downvote button is a disagree button.  a good chunk of the posts here not new posts, posts that are over 0 hours old with only around 0 karma points, or even 0 karma points are  bad  or  dumb  or in better terms, do not have enough good points to help the op look like their view is good.  the original purpose of a downvote is to mostly help remove irrelevant posts that nothing to do with the current sub.  0 low/no karma posts are relevant to this sub.  this is the main reason i will always see the downvote button as a disagree button.  please change my view.   #  0 low/no karma posts are relevant to this sub.   #  this is the main reason i will always see the downvote button as a disagree button.   # this is the main reason i will always see the downvote button as a disagree button.  eh.  hate to say it but you should have clarified your main reason better.  seems that in your op and title you said it was based on evidence contrived from the use of down votes on this sub.  that evidence has just been successfully debunked/ proved to be exaggerated whether this took a substantial piece of evidence to debunk or not is irrelevant, tis your fault for basing it on faulty statistics .  you have now changed your main reason from almost all coming from the huge abuse of downvotes on this site to the abuse of downvotes on other subs and only a little on this sub.  i think you owe them a delta at least.   #  i downvote posts that make no new arguments posted hours after other people made the same point better.   #  it is not about agreeing or disagreeing, it is about quality of the discussion.  most posts in this sub add little to the conversation, since the arguments are weak, or repetitive, or rehash points the op dealt with.  i downvote posts that make no new arguments posted hours after other people made the same point better.  i downvote irrelevant points, factually false claims, and ad hominem attacks.  i upvote interesting claims, well made arguments, things i had not considered, and anything that makes me reconsider my opinion.  that means i upvote less than i downvote, not connected to whether i agree with op or not but it is harder to get upvotes when i agree with you, but you are not saying anything new than when i disagree but you make good points.  that said, i ca not speak for others.   #  please do not downvote if they are explaining why a point is still not convincing them.   #  that is not what you are supposed to do according to URL    please try not to use downvote buttons except on trolls or rule breaking posts, which you should really report instead .  when you disagree with a claim, try to refute it ! when you find a new post you disagree with, remember that the poster is inviting debate, so consider upvoting it to make it more likely that people who agree with you will join you in revealing the post is faults.  say someone provides a counter argument to op is view, but it does not quite do the job, and op replies explaining why it is still difficult for them to change their opinion.  far too many times have we seen these types of comments from op being downvoted.  this is frustrating to see as op is being honest about their perhaps controversial opinion and is hopefully open to it being changed.  please do not downvote if they are explaining why a point is still not convincing them.  we want all interesting and thoughtful conversations to rise to the top, and the problem with downvotes is that it is perfectly possible for unpopular ideas to be interesting and thoughtful, yet many redditors instinctively downvote claims they disagree with.  the reddit community has been accused of suffering from polarization and groupthink, and the voting system contributes to this issue.  if we could remove the downvote button altogether we probably would, but we ca not.  we can use css to try to kill the buttons, but some redditors choose not to experience subs  css themes, and users of third party apps like alien blue are also immune to this technique.  so killing downvotes with css is worse than doing nothing because it gives a subset of redditors an amplified downvoting voice .  so please resist the urge to downvote.  thanks.  :  #  they put in bold letter not to downvote except on trolls or rule breaking posts, and you have admitted you downvote more than you upvote.   #  you are right that mods cannot enforce rule violations with the tools they have now, but you should not use that as an excuse to violate the guidelines they put about downvotes.  they put in bold letter not to downvote except on trolls or rule breaking posts, and you have admitted you downvote more than you upvote.  that is not being respectful to the mods.  if you think something does not contribute, do not upvote it.  if you think a comment is stupid, then comment on why you disagree.  downvotes stifle discussion.  when new people see downvoted posts they seem to assume that it is okay to downvote stuff they disagree with.  i do think the mods need to either change the downvote policy or do more to make it visible, and i hope they will do that.  i no longer would consider posting a controversial topic here because i have seen so many op is downvoted for simply trying to clarify their unpopular opinion.   #  on the last point, it is clear that unpopular opinions are harder to get heard.   #  i think you have a few good points, and i agree that it is not respectful to the current mods;  .  despite that, i do not think downvotes stifle all discussion just the types that get downvoted.  and that is the reason i downvote.  i come here to be exposed to new facts and different opinions, as well as reasoned debate.  if downvoting discourages things that do not contribute to those, as i believe it does, i am in favor.  i am not ok with downvoting due to different opinions, except where they go against the point; anti marijuana screeds in /r/trees, or israeli propaganda in /r/palestine.  to the extent that people think downvotes change minds, and to the extent that they think different opinions should not be heard, i would hope we can change their views.  on the last point, it is clear that unpopular opinions are harder to get heard.  the bar is certainly unfairly higher for clarity and reasonableness when the view is unpopular, but i see plenty of posts that pull it off.  given that, frequently, these downvoted posts are really a problem of lack of clarity, lack of basic research before posting, people being uninterested in rehashing a topic, and cmvs that are perceived as intended as trolling.
tl:dr/expanded thesis: sports are just games.  i do not see why they hold so much water here.  things such as music or television hold the same title as  pastime,  but they tell you a lot about the people and culture that makes them.  the fact that they can communicate ideas while sports cannot makes mass media much more valuable, and it is infuriating to me that schools often spend more money on the football team instead of textbooks.  i have three reasons why i think the way i think.  be aware that i do not know too much about the appeal of sports, and i apologize if any of my reasoning is offensive to you.  also, i am mainly talking about the act of watching major league sports; playing sports with friends is another matter entirely.  0.  most sports are timeless.  this could be looked at as a good thing, but consider this: most forms of entertainment are products of the culture they come out of.  this has two facets: one, reading a book or watching a movie from the 0 is could be an enlightening experience about that culture, while any game of sports would have the same engagement as always.  two, artists and content producers can tell you what they think and how they live by the entertainment they make.  an athlete cannot do this by playing the game.  0.  sports are a unifying experience.  a lot of people in wisconsin watched the packer game on sunday, so they can talk about the game the next day as a conversation starter.  the main problem that i have is that this bond is arbitrary: you root for the packers because you mom happened to be in wisconsin when you were born.  on the other side, sharing a taste in music or video games is not arbitrary.  it does not mean you will get along, but it does mean you share a similar line of thinking with that other person, and a deeper sense of companionship is born.  0.  if you want to become a professional athlete, there is a set path you need to go.  you either succeed or fail.  it is simple blood, sweat, and tears that gets you to where you want to be, nothing else.  there is that aspect in other forms of entertainment, but you can go different routes.  you can work hard at making happy go lucky party music, or put the same amount of work in playing death metal.  you can even break the mold and do jazz punk.  there is an entire mental aspect to it that is barely present in sports.  first post, please tell me what you think along with your rebuttals !  #  this has two facets: one, reading a book or watching a movie from the 0 is could be an enlightening experience about that culture, while any game of sports would have the same engagement as always.   #  two, artists and content producers can tell you what they think and how they live by the entertainment they make.   #  i will try to provide rebuttals for each point.  alright, let is stick to major league sports, though that is a little unfair i like watching tennis sometimes.  two, artists and content producers can tell you what they think and how they live by the entertainment they make.  an athlete cannot do this by playing the game.  most people are not learning a lot from the tv they are watching.  people, on the whole, like to watch sitcoms and dramas, not documentaries and classic cinema.  how much can you learn from another episode of it is always sunny in philadelphia ? watching sports is also a window into the past.  it is part of why i enjoy watching basketball, i can witness the progression of the game and take note of how the game is actually played at a high level.  when i started i used to focus on the superstars, but now i look at who is setting a screen, and who is rolling to the rim.  it takes time and some level of self training to actually look for these things in real time.  i do not live in the city in which i was born.  supporting the local team is something that helps me bond with the local community.  with video games it actually does not matter where i am, i can always play with the same friends over the internet.  athletes are not just respected because of their physical prowess, they all need immense mental toughness to get to where they are.  competition is intense ! it begins right when they are young too, decades of self discipline is required to become a professional.   #  a huge part of the experience is being in the moment with the rest of the crowd, having no idea what is going to happen next.   #  i actually also prefer other forms of media over sports, but i do understand the value of sports in our society.  i think you actually touched on one of the main things that sports are unifying.  i know that you think that the bond is arbitrary, but i would argue that that is part of what makes it so strong people are able to connect and bond with those who they might otherwise not meet or bother getting to know.  sports are also huge on an international scale.  i ca not speak portuguese, but i can potentially bond with and feel connected to a brazilian next to me at a professional soccer game while we are both cheering for the same team.  think about the olympics there is  nothing  that brings the citizens of the world together in the same way the olympics do, political alliances and world tragedies included.  another big thing, for me, is the excitement of sports games.  yes, it is not a product of the culture it comes from in the same way that  i love lucy  is, but it is a completely different thing you ca not get spoilers for a live sports game like you can for the next episode of  scandal.  a huge part of the experience is being in the moment with the rest of the crowd, having no idea what is going to happen next.   #  person b would not be exposed to these ideas.   #  i agree with you in terms of desire and enjoyment; if person a sits back and listens to an album and person b sits back and watches the big game, and they are enjoying their time equally, then both forms of media are equally valuable.  but, let is use a different lens.  person a is album could be some scathing commentary on societal norms.  this could call person a to action, and he takes part in a movement thay changes the course of history.  person b would not be exposed to these ideas.  both serve as entertainment, but other forms can do more.  this makes them more valuable on that grand scale.   #  these people were regarded as unequal, and they won on equal footing with to supposedly superior athlete.   #  or person b watches members of the st.  louis rams protest the killing of michael brown.  i could say that any and all of the cultural movements that lead to these events could be better documented by music, but i am not going to do that.  these people were regarded as unequal, and they won on equal footing with to supposedly superior athlete.  that is a powerful message, and one that holds value.    0;  #  you probably like music for many reasons but none systematic.   #  0.  wrong, football in the past few years has come up with new rules to protect players like changes to cutting, spearing and pushing your d linemen.  one could easily argue that these changes reflect societies continued trend of valuing safety over freedom.  almost all modern sports have changed quiet a bit over time.  0.  arbitrary simply means chosen something on a personal whim as opposed to choosing to do something based on a pre existing system.  do you have a system for liking music ? you probably like music for many reasons but none systematic.  same goes for sports.  0.  sports is multi billion dollar industry where the actual atheletes only make a small portion of the delivered product.  many roles must be filled for a game to be televised with everything from market research to mowing the lawn.  yeah the atheletes get paid more than the garderner but so does the edm guys vs the jazz punk guys.  does that make the jazz punk guys less valuable or did they just have different priorities ?
tl:dr/expanded thesis: sports are just games.  i do not see why they hold so much water here.  things such as music or television hold the same title as  pastime,  but they tell you a lot about the people and culture that makes them.  the fact that they can communicate ideas while sports cannot makes mass media much more valuable, and it is infuriating to me that schools often spend more money on the football team instead of textbooks.  i have three reasons why i think the way i think.  be aware that i do not know too much about the appeal of sports, and i apologize if any of my reasoning is offensive to you.  also, i am mainly talking about the act of watching major league sports; playing sports with friends is another matter entirely.  0.  most sports are timeless.  this could be looked at as a good thing, but consider this: most forms of entertainment are products of the culture they come out of.  this has two facets: one, reading a book or watching a movie from the 0 is could be an enlightening experience about that culture, while any game of sports would have the same engagement as always.  two, artists and content producers can tell you what they think and how they live by the entertainment they make.  an athlete cannot do this by playing the game.  0.  sports are a unifying experience.  a lot of people in wisconsin watched the packer game on sunday, so they can talk about the game the next day as a conversation starter.  the main problem that i have is that this bond is arbitrary: you root for the packers because you mom happened to be in wisconsin when you were born.  on the other side, sharing a taste in music or video games is not arbitrary.  it does not mean you will get along, but it does mean you share a similar line of thinking with that other person, and a deeper sense of companionship is born.  0.  if you want to become a professional athlete, there is a set path you need to go.  you either succeed or fail.  it is simple blood, sweat, and tears that gets you to where you want to be, nothing else.  there is that aspect in other forms of entertainment, but you can go different routes.  you can work hard at making happy go lucky party music, or put the same amount of work in playing death metal.  you can even break the mold and do jazz punk.  there is an entire mental aspect to it that is barely present in sports.  first post, please tell me what you think along with your rebuttals !  #  the main problem that i have is that this bond is arbitrary: you root for the packers because you mom happened to be in wisconsin when you were born.   #  i do not live in the city in which i was born.   #  i will try to provide rebuttals for each point.  alright, let is stick to major league sports, though that is a little unfair i like watching tennis sometimes.  two, artists and content producers can tell you what they think and how they live by the entertainment they make.  an athlete cannot do this by playing the game.  most people are not learning a lot from the tv they are watching.  people, on the whole, like to watch sitcoms and dramas, not documentaries and classic cinema.  how much can you learn from another episode of it is always sunny in philadelphia ? watching sports is also a window into the past.  it is part of why i enjoy watching basketball, i can witness the progression of the game and take note of how the game is actually played at a high level.  when i started i used to focus on the superstars, but now i look at who is setting a screen, and who is rolling to the rim.  it takes time and some level of self training to actually look for these things in real time.  i do not live in the city in which i was born.  supporting the local team is something that helps me bond with the local community.  with video games it actually does not matter where i am, i can always play with the same friends over the internet.  athletes are not just respected because of their physical prowess, they all need immense mental toughness to get to where they are.  competition is intense ! it begins right when they are young too, decades of self discipline is required to become a professional.   #  think about the olympics there is  nothing  that brings the citizens of the world together in the same way the olympics do, political alliances and world tragedies included.   #  i actually also prefer other forms of media over sports, but i do understand the value of sports in our society.  i think you actually touched on one of the main things that sports are unifying.  i know that you think that the bond is arbitrary, but i would argue that that is part of what makes it so strong people are able to connect and bond with those who they might otherwise not meet or bother getting to know.  sports are also huge on an international scale.  i ca not speak portuguese, but i can potentially bond with and feel connected to a brazilian next to me at a professional soccer game while we are both cheering for the same team.  think about the olympics there is  nothing  that brings the citizens of the world together in the same way the olympics do, political alliances and world tragedies included.  another big thing, for me, is the excitement of sports games.  yes, it is not a product of the culture it comes from in the same way that  i love lucy  is, but it is a completely different thing you ca not get spoilers for a live sports game like you can for the next episode of  scandal.  a huge part of the experience is being in the moment with the rest of the crowd, having no idea what is going to happen next.   #  both serve as entertainment, but other forms can do more.   #  i agree with you in terms of desire and enjoyment; if person a sits back and listens to an album and person b sits back and watches the big game, and they are enjoying their time equally, then both forms of media are equally valuable.  but, let is use a different lens.  person a is album could be some scathing commentary on societal norms.  this could call person a to action, and he takes part in a movement thay changes the course of history.  person b would not be exposed to these ideas.  both serve as entertainment, but other forms can do more.  this makes them more valuable on that grand scale.   #  or person b watches members of the st.   #  or person b watches members of the st.  louis rams protest the killing of michael brown.  i could say that any and all of the cultural movements that lead to these events could be better documented by music, but i am not going to do that.  these people were regarded as unequal, and they won on equal footing with to supposedly superior athlete.  that is a powerful message, and one that holds value.    0;  #  0.  sports is multi billion dollar industry where the actual atheletes only make a small portion of the delivered product.   #  0.  wrong, football in the past few years has come up with new rules to protect players like changes to cutting, spearing and pushing your d linemen.  one could easily argue that these changes reflect societies continued trend of valuing safety over freedom.  almost all modern sports have changed quiet a bit over time.  0.  arbitrary simply means chosen something on a personal whim as opposed to choosing to do something based on a pre existing system.  do you have a system for liking music ? you probably like music for many reasons but none systematic.  same goes for sports.  0.  sports is multi billion dollar industry where the actual atheletes only make a small portion of the delivered product.  many roles must be filled for a game to be televised with everything from market research to mowing the lawn.  yeah the atheletes get paid more than the garderner but so does the edm guys vs the jazz punk guys.  does that make the jazz punk guys less valuable or did they just have different priorities ?
tl:dr/expanded thesis: sports are just games.  i do not see why they hold so much water here.  things such as music or television hold the same title as  pastime,  but they tell you a lot about the people and culture that makes them.  the fact that they can communicate ideas while sports cannot makes mass media much more valuable, and it is infuriating to me that schools often spend more money on the football team instead of textbooks.  i have three reasons why i think the way i think.  be aware that i do not know too much about the appeal of sports, and i apologize if any of my reasoning is offensive to you.  also, i am mainly talking about the act of watching major league sports; playing sports with friends is another matter entirely.  0.  most sports are timeless.  this could be looked at as a good thing, but consider this: most forms of entertainment are products of the culture they come out of.  this has two facets: one, reading a book or watching a movie from the 0 is could be an enlightening experience about that culture, while any game of sports would have the same engagement as always.  two, artists and content producers can tell you what they think and how they live by the entertainment they make.  an athlete cannot do this by playing the game.  0.  sports are a unifying experience.  a lot of people in wisconsin watched the packer game on sunday, so they can talk about the game the next day as a conversation starter.  the main problem that i have is that this bond is arbitrary: you root for the packers because you mom happened to be in wisconsin when you were born.  on the other side, sharing a taste in music or video games is not arbitrary.  it does not mean you will get along, but it does mean you share a similar line of thinking with that other person, and a deeper sense of companionship is born.  0.  if you want to become a professional athlete, there is a set path you need to go.  you either succeed or fail.  it is simple blood, sweat, and tears that gets you to where you want to be, nothing else.  there is that aspect in other forms of entertainment, but you can go different routes.  you can work hard at making happy go lucky party music, or put the same amount of work in playing death metal.  you can even break the mold and do jazz punk.  there is an entire mental aspect to it that is barely present in sports.  first post, please tell me what you think along with your rebuttals !  #  there is an entire mental aspect to it that is barely present in sports.   #  athletes are not just respected because of their physical prowess, they all need immense mental toughness to get to where they are.   #  i will try to provide rebuttals for each point.  alright, let is stick to major league sports, though that is a little unfair i like watching tennis sometimes.  two, artists and content producers can tell you what they think and how they live by the entertainment they make.  an athlete cannot do this by playing the game.  most people are not learning a lot from the tv they are watching.  people, on the whole, like to watch sitcoms and dramas, not documentaries and classic cinema.  how much can you learn from another episode of it is always sunny in philadelphia ? watching sports is also a window into the past.  it is part of why i enjoy watching basketball, i can witness the progression of the game and take note of how the game is actually played at a high level.  when i started i used to focus on the superstars, but now i look at who is setting a screen, and who is rolling to the rim.  it takes time and some level of self training to actually look for these things in real time.  i do not live in the city in which i was born.  supporting the local team is something that helps me bond with the local community.  with video games it actually does not matter where i am, i can always play with the same friends over the internet.  athletes are not just respected because of their physical prowess, they all need immense mental toughness to get to where they are.  competition is intense ! it begins right when they are young too, decades of self discipline is required to become a professional.   #  think about the olympics there is  nothing  that brings the citizens of the world together in the same way the olympics do, political alliances and world tragedies included.   #  i actually also prefer other forms of media over sports, but i do understand the value of sports in our society.  i think you actually touched on one of the main things that sports are unifying.  i know that you think that the bond is arbitrary, but i would argue that that is part of what makes it so strong people are able to connect and bond with those who they might otherwise not meet or bother getting to know.  sports are also huge on an international scale.  i ca not speak portuguese, but i can potentially bond with and feel connected to a brazilian next to me at a professional soccer game while we are both cheering for the same team.  think about the olympics there is  nothing  that brings the citizens of the world together in the same way the olympics do, political alliances and world tragedies included.  another big thing, for me, is the excitement of sports games.  yes, it is not a product of the culture it comes from in the same way that  i love lucy  is, but it is a completely different thing you ca not get spoilers for a live sports game like you can for the next episode of  scandal.  a huge part of the experience is being in the moment with the rest of the crowd, having no idea what is going to happen next.   #  both serve as entertainment, but other forms can do more.   #  i agree with you in terms of desire and enjoyment; if person a sits back and listens to an album and person b sits back and watches the big game, and they are enjoying their time equally, then both forms of media are equally valuable.  but, let is use a different lens.  person a is album could be some scathing commentary on societal norms.  this could call person a to action, and he takes part in a movement thay changes the course of history.  person b would not be exposed to these ideas.  both serve as entertainment, but other forms can do more.  this makes them more valuable on that grand scale.   #  louis rams protest the killing of michael brown.   #  or person b watches members of the st.  louis rams protest the killing of michael brown.  i could say that any and all of the cultural movements that lead to these events could be better documented by music, but i am not going to do that.  these people were regarded as unequal, and they won on equal footing with to supposedly superior athlete.  that is a powerful message, and one that holds value.    0;  #  almost all modern sports have changed quiet a bit over time.   #  0.  wrong, football in the past few years has come up with new rules to protect players like changes to cutting, spearing and pushing your d linemen.  one could easily argue that these changes reflect societies continued trend of valuing safety over freedom.  almost all modern sports have changed quiet a bit over time.  0.  arbitrary simply means chosen something on a personal whim as opposed to choosing to do something based on a pre existing system.  do you have a system for liking music ? you probably like music for many reasons but none systematic.  same goes for sports.  0.  sports is multi billion dollar industry where the actual atheletes only make a small portion of the delivered product.  many roles must be filled for a game to be televised with everything from market research to mowing the lawn.  yeah the atheletes get paid more than the garderner but so does the edm guys vs the jazz punk guys.  does that make the jazz punk guys less valuable or did they just have different priorities ?
tl:dr/expanded thesis: sports are just games.  i do not see why they hold so much water here.  things such as music or television hold the same title as  pastime,  but they tell you a lot about the people and culture that makes them.  the fact that they can communicate ideas while sports cannot makes mass media much more valuable, and it is infuriating to me that schools often spend more money on the football team instead of textbooks.  i have three reasons why i think the way i think.  be aware that i do not know too much about the appeal of sports, and i apologize if any of my reasoning is offensive to you.  also, i am mainly talking about the act of watching major league sports; playing sports with friends is another matter entirely.  0.  most sports are timeless.  this could be looked at as a good thing, but consider this: most forms of entertainment are products of the culture they come out of.  this has two facets: one, reading a book or watching a movie from the 0 is could be an enlightening experience about that culture, while any game of sports would have the same engagement as always.  two, artists and content producers can tell you what they think and how they live by the entertainment they make.  an athlete cannot do this by playing the game.  0.  sports are a unifying experience.  a lot of people in wisconsin watched the packer game on sunday, so they can talk about the game the next day as a conversation starter.  the main problem that i have is that this bond is arbitrary: you root for the packers because you mom happened to be in wisconsin when you were born.  on the other side, sharing a taste in music or video games is not arbitrary.  it does not mean you will get along, but it does mean you share a similar line of thinking with that other person, and a deeper sense of companionship is born.  0.  if you want to become a professional athlete, there is a set path you need to go.  you either succeed or fail.  it is simple blood, sweat, and tears that gets you to where you want to be, nothing else.  there is that aspect in other forms of entertainment, but you can go different routes.  you can work hard at making happy go lucky party music, or put the same amount of work in playing death metal.  you can even break the mold and do jazz punk.  there is an entire mental aspect to it that is barely present in sports.  first post, please tell me what you think along with your rebuttals !  #  schools often spend more money on the football team instead of textbooks.   #  textbooks only need to be replaced every few years.   # textbooks only need to be replaced every few years.  football teams require more regular expenditures: maintaining the fields, paying the coaches, etc.  most students in a high school band or orchestra spend more on instruments than all other school supplies put together; is that a sign that they take academics less seriously than the arts ? this could be looked at as a good thing, but consider this: most forms of entertainment are products of the culture they come out of.  most entertainment does not derive its value from being associated with a particular time period.  yeah, you might be able to learn about the mindset of the  0s by listening to the beatles. but that is not why most people listen to the beatles.  i think that is overly reductive.  i made a fairly arbitrary decision to go to a certain university, but i  still  cheer for my school is team because of all of the experiences i have had since then.  some people grow up never missing their team is games is the fact that they support that team 0 years later less significant just because they would have supported a different team if they would been born in a different city ? oh, really ? if you would been born in japan rather than the us, you would probably be playing some jrpg instead of call of duty.  if you would been born to a black family, you would probably be listening to rap instead of rock.  it is just as arbitrary as support of a sports team.  you either succeed or fail.  it is simple blood, sweat, and tears that gets you to where you want to be, nothing else.  there is that aspect in other forms of entertainment, but you can go different routes.  you can work hard at making happy go lucky party music, or put the same amount of work in playing death metal.  bo jackson had to choose between baseball and football.  URL despite an incredible amount of blood, sweat, and tears, his professional career could have been derailed before it started.  there is a lot of strategy involved in sports.   #  i actually also prefer other forms of media over sports, but i do understand the value of sports in our society.   #  i actually also prefer other forms of media over sports, but i do understand the value of sports in our society.  i think you actually touched on one of the main things that sports are unifying.  i know that you think that the bond is arbitrary, but i would argue that that is part of what makes it so strong people are able to connect and bond with those who they might otherwise not meet or bother getting to know.  sports are also huge on an international scale.  i ca not speak portuguese, but i can potentially bond with and feel connected to a brazilian next to me at a professional soccer game while we are both cheering for the same team.  think about the olympics there is  nothing  that brings the citizens of the world together in the same way the olympics do, political alliances and world tragedies included.  another big thing, for me, is the excitement of sports games.  yes, it is not a product of the culture it comes from in the same way that  i love lucy  is, but it is a completely different thing you ca not get spoilers for a live sports game like you can for the next episode of  scandal.  a huge part of the experience is being in the moment with the rest of the crowd, having no idea what is going to happen next.   #  watching sports is also a window into the past.   #  i will try to provide rebuttals for each point.  alright, let is stick to major league sports, though that is a little unfair i like watching tennis sometimes.  two, artists and content producers can tell you what they think and how they live by the entertainment they make.  an athlete cannot do this by playing the game.  most people are not learning a lot from the tv they are watching.  people, on the whole, like to watch sitcoms and dramas, not documentaries and classic cinema.  how much can you learn from another episode of it is always sunny in philadelphia ? watching sports is also a window into the past.  it is part of why i enjoy watching basketball, i can witness the progression of the game and take note of how the game is actually played at a high level.  when i started i used to focus on the superstars, but now i look at who is setting a screen, and who is rolling to the rim.  it takes time and some level of self training to actually look for these things in real time.  i do not live in the city in which i was born.  supporting the local team is something that helps me bond with the local community.  with video games it actually does not matter where i am, i can always play with the same friends over the internet.  athletes are not just respected because of their physical prowess, they all need immense mental toughness to get to where they are.  competition is intense ! it begins right when they are young too, decades of self discipline is required to become a professional.   #  this could call person a to action, and he takes part in a movement thay changes the course of history.   #  i agree with you in terms of desire and enjoyment; if person a sits back and listens to an album and person b sits back and watches the big game, and they are enjoying their time equally, then both forms of media are equally valuable.  but, let is use a different lens.  person a is album could be some scathing commentary on societal norms.  this could call person a to action, and he takes part in a movement thay changes the course of history.  person b would not be exposed to these ideas.  both serve as entertainment, but other forms can do more.  this makes them more valuable on that grand scale.   #  these people were regarded as unequal, and they won on equal footing with to supposedly superior athlete.   #  or person b watches members of the st.  louis rams protest the killing of michael brown.  i could say that any and all of the cultural movements that lead to these events could be better documented by music, but i am not going to do that.  these people were regarded as unequal, and they won on equal footing with to supposedly superior athlete.  that is a powerful message, and one that holds value.    0;
tl:dr/expanded thesis: sports are just games.  i do not see why they hold so much water here.  things such as music or television hold the same title as  pastime,  but they tell you a lot about the people and culture that makes them.  the fact that they can communicate ideas while sports cannot makes mass media much more valuable, and it is infuriating to me that schools often spend more money on the football team instead of textbooks.  i have three reasons why i think the way i think.  be aware that i do not know too much about the appeal of sports, and i apologize if any of my reasoning is offensive to you.  also, i am mainly talking about the act of watching major league sports; playing sports with friends is another matter entirely.  0.  most sports are timeless.  this could be looked at as a good thing, but consider this: most forms of entertainment are products of the culture they come out of.  this has two facets: one, reading a book or watching a movie from the 0 is could be an enlightening experience about that culture, while any game of sports would have the same engagement as always.  two, artists and content producers can tell you what they think and how they live by the entertainment they make.  an athlete cannot do this by playing the game.  0.  sports are a unifying experience.  a lot of people in wisconsin watched the packer game on sunday, so they can talk about the game the next day as a conversation starter.  the main problem that i have is that this bond is arbitrary: you root for the packers because you mom happened to be in wisconsin when you were born.  on the other side, sharing a taste in music or video games is not arbitrary.  it does not mean you will get along, but it does mean you share a similar line of thinking with that other person, and a deeper sense of companionship is born.  0.  if you want to become a professional athlete, there is a set path you need to go.  you either succeed or fail.  it is simple blood, sweat, and tears that gets you to where you want to be, nothing else.  there is that aspect in other forms of entertainment, but you can go different routes.  you can work hard at making happy go lucky party music, or put the same amount of work in playing death metal.  you can even break the mold and do jazz punk.  there is an entire mental aspect to it that is barely present in sports.  first post, please tell me what you think along with your rebuttals !  #  there is an entire mental aspect to it that is barely present in sports.   #  there is a lot of strategy involved in sports.   # textbooks only need to be replaced every few years.  football teams require more regular expenditures: maintaining the fields, paying the coaches, etc.  most students in a high school band or orchestra spend more on instruments than all other school supplies put together; is that a sign that they take academics less seriously than the arts ? this could be looked at as a good thing, but consider this: most forms of entertainment are products of the culture they come out of.  most entertainment does not derive its value from being associated with a particular time period.  yeah, you might be able to learn about the mindset of the  0s by listening to the beatles. but that is not why most people listen to the beatles.  i think that is overly reductive.  i made a fairly arbitrary decision to go to a certain university, but i  still  cheer for my school is team because of all of the experiences i have had since then.  some people grow up never missing their team is games is the fact that they support that team 0 years later less significant just because they would have supported a different team if they would been born in a different city ? oh, really ? if you would been born in japan rather than the us, you would probably be playing some jrpg instead of call of duty.  if you would been born to a black family, you would probably be listening to rap instead of rock.  it is just as arbitrary as support of a sports team.  you either succeed or fail.  it is simple blood, sweat, and tears that gets you to where you want to be, nothing else.  there is that aspect in other forms of entertainment, but you can go different routes.  you can work hard at making happy go lucky party music, or put the same amount of work in playing death metal.  bo jackson had to choose between baseball and football.  URL despite an incredible amount of blood, sweat, and tears, his professional career could have been derailed before it started.  there is a lot of strategy involved in sports.   #  i think you actually touched on one of the main things that sports are unifying.   #  i actually also prefer other forms of media over sports, but i do understand the value of sports in our society.  i think you actually touched on one of the main things that sports are unifying.  i know that you think that the bond is arbitrary, but i would argue that that is part of what makes it so strong people are able to connect and bond with those who they might otherwise not meet or bother getting to know.  sports are also huge on an international scale.  i ca not speak portuguese, but i can potentially bond with and feel connected to a brazilian next to me at a professional soccer game while we are both cheering for the same team.  think about the olympics there is  nothing  that brings the citizens of the world together in the same way the olympics do, political alliances and world tragedies included.  another big thing, for me, is the excitement of sports games.  yes, it is not a product of the culture it comes from in the same way that  i love lucy  is, but it is a completely different thing you ca not get spoilers for a live sports game like you can for the next episode of  scandal.  a huge part of the experience is being in the moment with the rest of the crowd, having no idea what is going to happen next.   #  most people are not learning a lot from the tv they are watching.   #  i will try to provide rebuttals for each point.  alright, let is stick to major league sports, though that is a little unfair i like watching tennis sometimes.  two, artists and content producers can tell you what they think and how they live by the entertainment they make.  an athlete cannot do this by playing the game.  most people are not learning a lot from the tv they are watching.  people, on the whole, like to watch sitcoms and dramas, not documentaries and classic cinema.  how much can you learn from another episode of it is always sunny in philadelphia ? watching sports is also a window into the past.  it is part of why i enjoy watching basketball, i can witness the progression of the game and take note of how the game is actually played at a high level.  when i started i used to focus on the superstars, but now i look at who is setting a screen, and who is rolling to the rim.  it takes time and some level of self training to actually look for these things in real time.  i do not live in the city in which i was born.  supporting the local team is something that helps me bond with the local community.  with video games it actually does not matter where i am, i can always play with the same friends over the internet.  athletes are not just respected because of their physical prowess, they all need immense mental toughness to get to where they are.  competition is intense ! it begins right when they are young too, decades of self discipline is required to become a professional.   #  person a is album could be some scathing commentary on societal norms.   #  i agree with you in terms of desire and enjoyment; if person a sits back and listens to an album and person b sits back and watches the big game, and they are enjoying their time equally, then both forms of media are equally valuable.  but, let is use a different lens.  person a is album could be some scathing commentary on societal norms.  this could call person a to action, and he takes part in a movement thay changes the course of history.  person b would not be exposed to these ideas.  both serve as entertainment, but other forms can do more.  this makes them more valuable on that grand scale.   #  or person b watches members of the st.   #  or person b watches members of the st.  louis rams protest the killing of michael brown.  i could say that any and all of the cultural movements that lead to these events could be better documented by music, but i am not going to do that.  these people were regarded as unequal, and they won on equal footing with to supposedly superior athlete.  that is a powerful message, and one that holds value.    0;
geologically, there is no basis for the traditionally taught list of continents: north america, south america, africa, asia, oceania, antarctica, and europe.  europe does not have its own tectonic plate, and was attached to asia even as far back as 0 million years ago, when the  mega continents  of laurasia and gondwana were estimated to have separated.  meanwhile, india and arabia have their own tectonic plates.  there are no geographic boundaries that clearly demarcate europe which are not also present elsewhere.  people usually bring up the ural mountains, but the urals are insignificant when compared to the himalayas URL yet, india is only considered a  sub  continent, despite having far more geological qualification for continent hood than europe.  when i have mentioned, or seen the issue mentioned online, the most common response i see is extreme disapproval, with no logically sound arguments defending said disapproval.  this is probably due to simple status quoism, but i am sure some white people are also insulted at the prospect of losing a geographic  special  status.  my position is that if europe is a continent, then the term  continent  has no meaningful definition, and is purely a social construct.  change my view.   #  then the term  continent  has no meaningful definition, and is purely a social construct.   #  this is the part i disagree with the most.   # this is the part i disagree with the most.  something being  purely a social construct  in no way means, or even implies, that it has no meaningful definition.   amurder  is explicitly a pure social construct, but it is clearly a meaningful term.  in fact, you could go as far as to say that words only have  ameaningful definitions  insofar as they are socially informed and constructed, since language is a social phenomenon.  something being socially constructed is not equivalent to it being arbitrary or any less meaningful than something that is supposedly concrete.  additionally, europe, asia and africa were initially separated due to their positions relative to greece in the sense that a different sea separated every continent from the greek peninsula .  the ancient greeks had a very different racial typology to the one used in a term like  white supremacist , and so i have a hard time believing that white supremacy is the reason for the persistence of the view of europe as continent.  i will concede that classicism is related to white supremacy, and that the persistence is partially due to classicism, but this feels like too weak of a link to make the kind of statement that you are making.   #  you make a decent case for why europe and asia should be considered one continent, but, except for a throwaway sentence, you do not make a case for why the legacy of white supremacy is to blame.   # so that is your entire argument ? you make a decent case for why europe and asia should be considered one continent, but, except for a throwaway sentence, you do not make a case for why the legacy of white supremacy is to blame.  when looking at the wiki for this, it is interesting to note what different places teach in regards to continents:   the seven continent model is usually taught in china, india, the philippines, parts of western europe and most english speaking countries, including australia 0 and england 0     the six continent combined eurasia model is mostly used in russia, eastern europe, and japan.  the six continent combined america model is used in france and its former colonies, portugal, spain, latin america, 0 greece equivalent 0 inhabited continents model   i. e.  excluding antarctica   still also found in texts .  0 and some other parts of europe.  the two biggest countries in  asia  teach the 0 continent model.  highly  white  places like russia and eastern europe teach the eurasian model.  if anything, there might be a western europe bias to calling it europe, but it certainly is not a legacy of  white supremacy  based on who decides to teach what.   #  if you want to continue to blatantly misrepresent my arguments, feel free to do so.   # not at all.  if you read the whole post, you will see that i mainly blamed it on  status quoism , meaning the unwillingness of people to change their views, despite objective evidence to the contrary.  if you want to continue to blatantly misrepresent my arguments, feel free to do so.  i did not, and i should have made it more clear: europeans dominated the world in virtually every sphere of accomplishment for the last 0 years.  cartography was one of these areas.  many ethno/racial/cultural groups see themselves as exceptional.  europeans saw themselves even moreso because of the tangible technological advances they had over the rest of the world.  my  assumption  is that this feeling of exceptionalism carried over into cartography, both unintentionally and intentionally, and mapmakers defined europe as distinct from other areas of the world, based on cultural and racial reasons.  if you have a better explanation as to why europe is considered a separate continent, please provide it.  like i said, status quoism.  you are misunderstanding my argument.  i am not saying that the people who make education curricula are racist.  i am saying that eurocentrism during the age of mapmaking set the standard for europe as a separate continent, and the arbitrary convention has stuck.   #  this is actually why these countries are still  wouldeveloping  they did not get to go through their industrial revolution and make the same advancements for their countries and societies, because they did not need to.   # cartography was one of these areas.  this is not true.  in fact until the industrial revolution around the 0 is, europe was not nearly as big a player in the world as china, or the mongols, or the persians, or india.  this was because without industry the world ran on trading resources, and the previously mentioned countries had plenty of resources.  however, once industry took over, it enabled countries that had no resources i. e great britain to buy raw materials cheap from countries like china or india, who would have been  worldpowers  at this point, and then turn them into products to sell back to these countries.  this causes the resource providing countries to not industrialize because they get everything they need from trade, and their economies were doing fine.  as time went on however, the countries that did not industrialize, i. e.  much of what is not considered part of the west, found themselves left behind in the world.  this is actually why these countries are still  wouldeveloping  they did not get to go through their industrial revolution and make the same advancements for their countries and societies, because they did not need to.  , they were the  world powers  for pretty much all before the industrial revolution, the idea that europe was always some great player is not based in history but it is a common thing to hear, and as the saying goes the more you know.   #  most of your post has nothing to do with op is point.   # in fact until the industrial revolution around the 0 is, europe was not nearly as big a player in the world as china, or the mongols, or the persians, or india.  china was such as big player that it was defeated by england in 0 in the first opium war ? mongols had not been a factor since the 0s.  while agree that other powers were more powerful than europe at certain times in history, your date of european ascendancy is way too late.  europe was rising from 0 and clearly the most powerful factor in the world from 0.  either way, the exact date europe became ascendant is irrelevant.  most of your post has nothing to do with op is point.  our modern maps declaring europe a separate continent come from europeans and reflect their biases against asian cultures.
hello cmv, practicing christian here ! i believe that far too many people this will be reddit centric hold many ideas about the bible that reveal only a cursory and often secondhand idea about the bible.  this post is largely in response to this URL one, which harbors several critical arguments including: 0.  homosexuality is sinful as stated in the bible and 0.  christians who eat shellfish and wear mixed fibers are just as guilty of sin as homosexuals.  now, both of these views do not take into account the historical context in which they are presented in the bible.  i will start with point 0 because it leads into point 0.  many people argue point two is ridiculous.  anti theists use it point out the absurdity of the bible, whereas liberal theists use it to point out the absurdity of homosexuality being sinful.  what this point fails to address, though, is the difference between moral and ceremonial law URL from the website:  the ceremonial laws are called hukkim or chuqqah in hebrew, which literally means  custom of the nation ; the words are often translated as  istatutes.    rules such as not eating shellfish and wearing mixed fibers falls into this section.  now, main reason why people single out homosexuality is because paul lists it as a sexual sin in the new testament, and is among many of the other  big sins  often enumerated in the bible, including killing, stealing, and lying.  on point 0, the question becomes why the compilers of the bible centuries ago felt compelled to add passages calling out monogamous same sex relationships.  unless, of course, it does not.  URL the crux of the matter is that homosexual sex was used during antiquity as a means of humiliating and demeaning foreigners as explained further in this link URL , and was therefore an act of  rape , distinct from the 0st century idea that two homosexuals can have a loving and fulfilling relationship.  i implore the on the fence theists reading this to examine the links provided as i also implore the atheists reading to use these links to please  call out  any of my so called brothers and sisters who use the bible as a tool for hate and power.  thanks for reading.  also, i am by not by any stretch of the imagination a biblical scholar, pastor, or the like, so be gentle please :  #  now, both of these views do not take into account the historical context in which they are presented in the bible.   #  that is a very weak argument imo.   # that is a very weak argument imo.  that is a classic way for religious people to divert attention on a controversial guideline.  for the record, from a christian point of view, the bible is supposed to be the words of the almighty god.  the bible is supposed to be enlightened with wisdom, and it is the one and only way to know god is will.  so now, how can one possibily think that a perfect being like god could let misleading statements in such an important and crucial book to understand his will ? that does not make any sense.  if a perfect being who is always right and knows what is best for people says in his reference guidelines that  you shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.   , do you think that: a god does not know what he is doing and introduces confusion into his followers or b god knows what he is doing and he is against homosexuality the only answer that makes sense is that god knows what he is doing, and thus, christianity is against homosexuality.  to my knowledge, the bible does not put emphasis at all on rape, it is not even in he 0 commandments whereas stealing is forbidden for example.  the bible is even  rape friendly  when it says that a daughter should feel  honored  if she is raped, and that her father should let her rapist marry her afterwards.  also, when the angels come to save one family in sodom, the father of the household offers his daughters to be raped by the angry crowd outside.  and no angel or god bats an eye, and that guy is still saved by god.  conclusion: according to the bible, raping is not a big deal when it is man against woman.  how come the only type of rape that the bible mentions to be forbidden would be men against men ? two options imo: a the bible is only ok with rape of women by men.  which is obviously immoral.  b the bible is specifically against homosexuality that is about it.  christianity or at least the bible is strongly against homosexuality it says they should be sentenced to death , and it requires people a lot of cognitive dissonnance and text manipulation to claim otherwise.   #  fundamentalist christians say  you  do not understand the bible.   #  the problem is that there are more people who interpret the bible than those who have actually read it.  you say other people do not understand the bible.  fundamentalist christians say  you  do not understand the bible.  religious scholars say  you  and  fundamentalists  do not understand the bible.  in my experience, how a person chooses to interpret the bible says more about  them  than it does about the book itself.   #  it is also possible that the bible is not a means to understand the universe.   #  if you recognize  your  morality as a vehicle for understanding  god is mind , do you not also recognize everybody else is morality as performing the same function ? so when a fundamentalist accepts monogamous homosexuality as an abomination, are not they just doing the exact same thing as you, but with a different outcome ? you are onto something when you say  you ca not both be right , but there is a way for both of you to be wrong: the bible may just act as a mirror to your own belief system.  it is also possible that the bible is not a means to understand the universe.  if that is the case, then you are also both wrong.   #  my proof is in my op and in the person of jesus, which both undermine any position of hate or belief that homosexuality is a sin.   #  no, i do not think so.  jesus is message was love.  one of my favorite verses can be summarized in this: if i have everything in the world but have not love, then i am  nothing .  my proof is in my op and in the person of jesus, which both undermine any position of hate or belief that homosexuality is a sin.  the position that homosexuality is a sin is because the bible says so.  but when the bible does not actually say homosexual monogamy and is misinterpreted, then fundamentalists have nothing to stand on.  my sources will defend my position on a translation piece, and i am confident that the love that jesus expressed is not in line with believing homosexuality that god knit into a person is  being  is a sin.  i agree to a point, but anyone who has done a small reading of the bible can tell when one person is extrapolating versus when someone is trying to justify dogma based on background and context.   #  from his actions, i extrapolate him to be a person capable of profound and revolutionary ideas and love.   #  then let me ask you this: what do you think jesus represents ? from his actions, i extrapolate him to be a person capable of profound and revolutionary ideas and love.  he helped the poor and needy, fought against injustice, said that  an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind,  to turn the other cheek.  i do not know about you, but that sounds loving to me.  it is from this love that i conclude that jesus would not approve anti gay sentiments and would condemn anyone who hates homosexuality.  as the bible says  perfect love drives out hate,  and  you shall judge by the fruits they bear,  based on anti gay and hateful sentiments, jesus would disapprove.  an intelligent alien visiting earth would most likely see both positions and make a conclusion based on evidence.  i argue that monogamous and loving homosexuality is not forbidden in the bible and is misinterpreted, as stated and defended in my links.  since the fundamentalist argument relies on the sole belief that god forbade it based on a limited reading of the bible, and i prove that he does not, then they have no defense.
hello cmv, practicing christian here ! i believe that far too many people this will be reddit centric hold many ideas about the bible that reveal only a cursory and often secondhand idea about the bible.  this post is largely in response to this URL one, which harbors several critical arguments including: 0.  homosexuality is sinful as stated in the bible and 0.  christians who eat shellfish and wear mixed fibers are just as guilty of sin as homosexuals.  now, both of these views do not take into account the historical context in which they are presented in the bible.  i will start with point 0 because it leads into point 0.  many people argue point two is ridiculous.  anti theists use it point out the absurdity of the bible, whereas liberal theists use it to point out the absurdity of homosexuality being sinful.  what this point fails to address, though, is the difference between moral and ceremonial law URL from the website:  the ceremonial laws are called hukkim or chuqqah in hebrew, which literally means  custom of the nation ; the words are often translated as  istatutes.    rules such as not eating shellfish and wearing mixed fibers falls into this section.  now, main reason why people single out homosexuality is because paul lists it as a sexual sin in the new testament, and is among many of the other  big sins  often enumerated in the bible, including killing, stealing, and lying.  on point 0, the question becomes why the compilers of the bible centuries ago felt compelled to add passages calling out monogamous same sex relationships.  unless, of course, it does not.  URL the crux of the matter is that homosexual sex was used during antiquity as a means of humiliating and demeaning foreigners as explained further in this link URL , and was therefore an act of  rape , distinct from the 0st century idea that two homosexuals can have a loving and fulfilling relationship.  i implore the on the fence theists reading this to examine the links provided as i also implore the atheists reading to use these links to please  call out  any of my so called brothers and sisters who use the bible as a tool for hate and power.  thanks for reading.  also, i am by not by any stretch of the imagination a biblical scholar, pastor, or the like, so be gentle please :  #  now, both of these views do not take into account the historical context in which they are presented in the bible.   #  that is a cop out that the bible itself invalidates.   # that is a cop out that the bible itself invalidates.  in leviticus 0:0 god says  if a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.  they are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.   that is pretty clear, does not matter the historical context.  everything god says is true and god is flawless, so why would the historical context invalidate a law that god himself put down ? the  it was divinely inspired by god but written by men thousands of years ago so that is why there is errors  cop out is not only contradictory, but it ca not even be applied to parts like the one above where god is directly quoted and says something terrible.   #  you say other people do not understand the bible.   #  the problem is that there are more people who interpret the bible than those who have actually read it.  you say other people do not understand the bible.  fundamentalist christians say  you  do not understand the bible.  religious scholars say  you  and  fundamentalists  do not understand the bible.  in my experience, how a person chooses to interpret the bible says more about  them  than it does about the book itself.   #  so when a fundamentalist accepts monogamous homosexuality as an abomination, are not they just doing the exact same thing as you, but with a different outcome ?  #  if you recognize  your  morality as a vehicle for understanding  god is mind , do you not also recognize everybody else is morality as performing the same function ? so when a fundamentalist accepts monogamous homosexuality as an abomination, are not they just doing the exact same thing as you, but with a different outcome ? you are onto something when you say  you ca not both be right , but there is a way for both of you to be wrong: the bible may just act as a mirror to your own belief system.  it is also possible that the bible is not a means to understand the universe.  if that is the case, then you are also both wrong.   #  i agree to a point, but anyone who has done a small reading of the bible can tell when one person is extrapolating versus when someone is trying to justify dogma based on background and context.   #  no, i do not think so.  jesus is message was love.  one of my favorite verses can be summarized in this: if i have everything in the world but have not love, then i am  nothing .  my proof is in my op and in the person of jesus, which both undermine any position of hate or belief that homosexuality is a sin.  the position that homosexuality is a sin is because the bible says so.  but when the bible does not actually say homosexual monogamy and is misinterpreted, then fundamentalists have nothing to stand on.  my sources will defend my position on a translation piece, and i am confident that the love that jesus expressed is not in line with believing homosexuality that god knit into a person is  being  is a sin.  i agree to a point, but anyone who has done a small reading of the bible can tell when one person is extrapolating versus when someone is trying to justify dogma based on background and context.   #  he helped the poor and needy, fought against injustice, said that  an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind,  to turn the other cheek.   #  then let me ask you this: what do you think jesus represents ? from his actions, i extrapolate him to be a person capable of profound and revolutionary ideas and love.  he helped the poor and needy, fought against injustice, said that  an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind,  to turn the other cheek.  i do not know about you, but that sounds loving to me.  it is from this love that i conclude that jesus would not approve anti gay sentiments and would condemn anyone who hates homosexuality.  as the bible says  perfect love drives out hate,  and  you shall judge by the fruits they bear,  based on anti gay and hateful sentiments, jesus would disapprove.  an intelligent alien visiting earth would most likely see both positions and make a conclusion based on evidence.  i argue that monogamous and loving homosexuality is not forbidden in the bible and is misinterpreted, as stated and defended in my links.  since the fundamentalist argument relies on the sole belief that god forbade it based on a limited reading of the bible, and i prove that he does not, then they have no defense.
i have never met a person who said they were against abortion because they did not think woman should have autonomy over their own body.  every pro life person i know says that they are against abortion because it ends the life of a person.  thus, abortion is about when a fetus becomes a person, and if a woman still has the right to exercise autonomy over that person once it is considered such, and if so, is there a limit on when that right could be exercised ? i do not believe i need to cite people claiming abortion is about women is rights, its on my facebook wall every single day.  additionally, this is not an argument about whether pro life or pro choice is correct , but rather about what the real issue is.  the vilifying of people of who want to protect what they see has human life is inherently counterproductive to what pro choice people are trying to accomplish.   #  every pro life person i know says that they are against abortion because it ends the life of a person.   #  not requiring healthy people to give mandatory blood, bone marrow and organ donations also ends the life of many persons.   #  it is a women is rights issue because only women get pregnant.  not requiring healthy people to give mandatory blood, bone marrow and organ donations also ends the life of many persons.  real, actual, no doubt about it, living persons.  if saving lives is the goal, there is no possible justification in the entire world for forcing pregnant women to give birth but not forcing anyone else to even donate blood once a year.  so what is the big difference ? men have blood, bone marrow and kidneys, etc, and would also be forced to  save lives  when it might not be convenient for them.  that is why the abortion issue is about women is rights and bodily autonomy.  pro lifers are talking the talk, but not walking the walk.  if every pro lifer was legally forced to donate a kidney, this debate would not even exist.  there would not be any pro lifers.   save life !   hey, you first.   #  in all other situations we do not do this, even for people who have actually been born.   #  the issue is that in order to keep the fetus regardless of whether you think it is a person or not alive the women must allow her body to be used.  in all other situations we do not do this, even for people who have actually been born.  if someone is dying and the only way they can live is if i allow some part of myself to be used, no one can force me to do so.  i gave an example in the other thread, i do not donate blood, there is no one who can force me to donate blood legally, regardless that it could very well save a life.  shoot my organs ca not be used even if i am dead unless i had consented to it.  it is a women is health issue because women are overwhelmingly the ones who would have to let another fetus/person use their body, and forcing women to do so goes against the idea of bodily autonomy.   #  a foetus is not anybody, and certainly not a stranger.   #  you ca not go against nature is laws with a simple comparison.  sorry but a woman got pregnant, and now her own  flesh and blood  needs her help to stay alive.  a foetus is not anybody, and certainly not a stranger.  just like a man shooting another person will be held responsible for his act, a woman getting pregnant should be held responsible for that as well.  that does not mean that i am against abortion.  but that principle of moral responsibility ca not be evaded so easily.   #  or even, if you choose to do it but then changed your mind, but we force you to follow through.   #  disallowing you to shoot someone does not rob you of bodily autonomy.  telling you not to take a certain action is not the same thing as compelling you to allow something to physically affect your person.  disallowing abortion removes the woman is control over her physical self, by compelling her to let something else survive off of her bodily process.  it would be like hooking you up to someone with failing kidneys while you sleep, then telling you you are not allowed to leave because someone will die.  or even, if you choose to do it but then changed your mind, but we force you to follow through.   #  abortion is a women is rights issue, but only insofar as women are the only ones who can do it if men could get pregnant i am willing to bet the lenience would be far, far greater.   #  what of failed birth control ? what of sterilizations that supposedly worked but then failed, or outright reversed themselves ? what of rape, what of incest, what of what of ? no method except for abstinence a method rarely taught and never effective is 0 assured to  never  end in a pregnancy, but a woman  should  have 0 control over whether that pregnancy comes to term.  many have theorized that abortion rates never go down, even when it is illegalized they just happen unsafely, or cost far more and involve travel to a neighboring region.  i would normally question this, as it is a bold theory, but i frequent r/childfree and i can tell you that there are many, many women there who will openly state that they  would rather commit suicide than carry a child to term .  that is not taking one life, it is needlessly taking two and that is assuming you believe a fetus is even a life before x weeks, which many do not.  if i were in the position of an accidental pregnancy i can pretty safely say i would try anything coat hangers, falling down the stairs before i endured the hell that pregnancy unleashes on your body and mind.  we ca not compel blood donation, organ donation, tissue donation, or even basic medical aid techniques.  in fact, in 0 states URL you ca not be compelled to perform cpr even if you are certified and see someone dying.  the fact of the matter is, protection of life is a worthwhile concern, but it comes second to bodily autonomy.  abortion is a women is rights issue, but only insofar as women are the only ones who can do it if men could get pregnant i am willing to bet the lenience would be far, far greater.
in 0, the us supreme court ruled URL that there was an exception to the 0th amendment requirement for a warrant for motor vehicles and other movable items because they were easily moved before a warrant could be obtained.  technology has solved this problem.  with cell phones and other communication tools an officer can seek and obtain a warrant very quickly when probable cause exists without having to leave the scene.  this is done all the time with searches of houses.  rules of procedure for phone warrants have been developed and implemented.  URL the reasoning the supreme court originally used for justifying warrantless searches of vehicles in 0 no longer applies, and i think the ruling should be overturned.   #  this is done all the time with searches of houses.   #  do you have the numbers on this ?  # do you have the numbers on this ? this whole thing seems extremely convoluted.  it requires the judge to accept this procedure in the first place, it is not mandatory and is wholly up to the judge is discretion.  if they even bother to do this, then it must be at a time when they are in court hours; i would imagine a lot of these searches would be done in the night times for things like drugs/alcohol.  if it is during court hours, then the judge must be free and not doing anything else more important.   #  i do not have numbers for how often telephone warrants are used, no.   #  i do not have numbers for how often telephone warrants are used, no.  i do not see how this would be up to the judge is discretion.  the law and rules of procedure make plain that these type of warrants must be issued if the legal requirements are met.  it would require the assignment of judges to be on call overnight and such, but this is already commonplace in most jurisdictions for things like issuing arrest warrants in exigent circumstances.  getting a warrant does involve some hassle for the government, but i think constitutional rights should trump the hassle.   #  you are given a right to address your case in a reasonable amount of time, i do not think its necessary or realistic to expect immediate attention.   # then i do not think its a good idea to suggest this is common practice already.  the law and rules of procedure make plain that these type of warrants must be issued if the legal requirements are met.  the very first line states this practice is up to the judge is discretion, they are not obligated to communicate over phone.  this is most certainly not an  exigent  issue.  if it is, then the police are allowed to go ahead with the search without a search warrant anyways.  you are given a right to address your case in a reasonable amount of time, i do not think its necessary or realistic to expect immediate attention.   #  i do not think the absolute frequency of the practice is that relevant, i meant to indicate that the practice is common enough that warrants issued this way are not novel or unusual.   #  note: single quotes are you, double quotes are third party sources.  i do not think the absolute frequency of the practice is that relevant, i meant to indicate that the practice is common enough that warrants issued this way are not novel or unusual.  the supreme court could modify the rules of procedure to require consideration of such applications if necessary.  in any case, i doubt there are many or any magistrate judges who flat out refuse to hear telephone warrant applications.  if it is, then the police are allowed to go ahead with the search without a search warrant anyways.  the premise of the supreme court is ruling in 0 was exigence.  .  i am talking about the 0th amendment right not to be searched without a warrant.   #  that is why police will usually say something like they smelled alcohol/drugs and use that as justification.   # again, i do not find it reasonable to just say things like its  common  with no evidence to back that up.  can you even find examples where this has ever happened ? this seems like an extremely unusual practice.  in any case, i doubt there are many or any magistrate judges who flat out refuse to hear telephone warrant applications if you think judges would be open to this, why does not it happen more ? you would think there would be tons and tons of records of this practice given how common car searches are.  the entire premise of the ruling is to say that the rules must be relaxed according to the circumstances.  it is absolutely not meant to say that all cases involving vehicles are exigent.  that is why police will usually say something like they smelled alcohol/drugs and use that as justification.  why did you bring up the issue of causing the government a hassle then ? the 0th amendment focuses on not creating a hassle for individuals, not the government.
the current system on most subs discourages substantive arguments   promotes brigading, popularity contests   bullying.  example:   i like cheese puffs.  they are the best snack.    if you like cheese puffs, then you may upvote such a comment.  but if you want to downvote the comment, then i think you should be required to submit a reasoned comment as to why cheese puffs are not the best snack, with unsubstantiated or nonsensical downvote comments subject to removal of both the post and downvote.  disclaimer: i do not like cheese puffs.   #  i think you should be required to submit a reasoned comment as to why cheese puffs are not the best snack, with unsubstantiated or nonsensical downvote comments subject to removal of both the post and downvote.   #  why are you setting the bar higher for a reply comment than for the original comment ?  #  but that is the thing: i would not have downvoted that comment because i disagree with it, i would have downvoted it because it brings nothing to the discussion.  they are the best snack.  that is simply not a substantive comment.  i ca not try to discuss this with you because you have not told me why you hold that opinion; if i try to argue that the texture is gross, but you love them purely for their flavour then we are just talking past each other.  i regularly upvote comments i disagree with if they contain arguments to defend the position that i disagree with and, conversely, i often downvote comments i agree with if they do not bring anything to the discussion.  why are you setting the bar higher for a reply comment than for the original comment ? your example comment is not  reasoned  and it does not explain why you think cheese puffs are the best snack.  that is what other people here have been trying to tell you: upvotes and downvotes are not supposed to about agreeing/disagreeing, they are about contributing to the discussion.  the agreeing/disagreeing aspect should be within the comments themselves.  if someone posted a reasoned explanation as to why they thought cheese puffs were the best snack i would upvote it if i were interested in such a discussion even though i disagree and then i would explain my reasons for disagreeing in a reply comment.  in turn, i would expect my rebuttal to be upvoted/downvoted not based on the opinion i expressed in it, but on whether or not i presented my opinion in a way that furthers the discussion.   #  if that is your view then how do you expect me to change it ?  # maybe that is where some subs get their mods from; ex nsa probably fired for snooping for personal reasons, lol.  but seriously, i think it is a fair trade for the benefits my system would bring.  if that is your view then how do you expect me to change it ? neither of us can verify this.  as i said, i do not think it is a fair trade.  if for no other reason than nsfw privacy, i do not want my votes tracked across reddit.   #  i would also point out that while reddits approach is not perfect, it does improve on problems with the old fashioned style of message board or comment page that you seem to favor.   #  i would also point out that while reddits approach is not perfect, it does improve on problems with the old fashioned style of message board or comment page that you seem to favor.  when there is no voting system or filtering system and it is not  censored  as you describe it, the loudest most vocal users dominate the board.  you get people constantly posting in all caps.  you get people posting massive poorly written arguments that no one wants to waste the time responding to.  you get people posting the same arguments over and over again even though the community has exhaustively addressed their comments previously.  reddits system allows the community the ability to quickly clean up the page and weed that nonsense out.   #  .  allowing only posts the mods disagreed with to be downvoted.   # i have lost you.  i thought you were asking something about mods being able to remove upvotes ? .  allowing only posts the mods disagreed with to be downvoted.  i am lost again.  what do you mean by  posts the mods disagreed with  ? i am hoping for it to be implemented sitewide.  i do agree that the banning system is often arbitrary   therefore requires review.   #  you will still be able to downvote any comment, just as long as you provide a relevant substantive reply.   # to be clear, the mod agrees that the comment is substantive/reasoned; they are not endorsing the comment as  correct , or similar.  you will still be able to downvote any comment, just as long as you provide a relevant substantive reply.  it is not an arbitrary system, at least not in principle.  subjective, in some respects, yes, but not as arbitrary as the current banning  isystem .  why would there necessarily be a  massive pile of comments under every comment  ?
let me start off by stating what i believe the reddit basic income theory is.  from what i have read from /r/basicincome, the idea is that in a future utopian society computers will take all of our jobs and there will be a huge number of people out of work.  basic income would be a government issued wage that would act as a safety net for these newly underemployed/unemployed workers.  i am not making this post to argue against future automation problems getting rid of jobs.  yes, jobs will require more skills and basic menial tasks may soon be replaced.  but that is frictional unemployment, not structural.  its incorrect to say that because a mcdonalds cashier got laid off because of a touchscreen order screen that said mcdonald is worker will never work again.  many people on reddit would like to implement basic income today.  they state that it would rid our problems with a complicated tax code, food stamps and other welfare programs.  the huge issue is when you have a dead wage safety net you create a massive systematic disincentive to people to work.  if people make a certain wage while working zero hours a week, why go get a job at the grocery store ? the marginal value of a full time job becomes diluted.  next off, wages are considered elastic.  wages are often sticky, but they will still react to the market, especially new hires.  if everyone is getting basic income, employers would simply cut costs and pay people less in wages because why not ? employees would be indifferent because they are not netting less money, since basic income would make up the difference.  competitive wages would suffer.  cmv  #  from what i have read from /r/basicincome, the idea is that in a future utopian society computers will take all of our jobs and there will be a huge number of people out of work.   #  basic income would be a government issued wage that would act as a safety net for these newly underemployed/unemployed workers.   #  that is like saying  brain surgery is a terrible idea, everyone who has taken a first aid class knows that you should close a hole in your skull asap !  .  basic income would be a government issued wage that would act as a safety net for these newly underemployed/unemployed workers.  that is only a fraction of it.  basic income would serve as the basic means to redistribute resources, based on the idea that automation and organization which allows much of our current productivity is a common resource, not a private one.  this would indeed serve to mitigate the consequences of automation and concentration of capital in the hands of ever fewer owners, but first and foremost it is a different way to organize resource distribution, since labor is no longer in chronic shortage, so it makes no sense to force people to provide it by threats of misery and starvation.  that is just your opinion.  the current system punishes people who start working and stop being eligible for welfare, by taking away that welfare.  a basic income would remain stable, and those people would get the full incentive to work instead of a punishment.  the marginal value of a full time job becomes diluted.  if unemployment is in the double digits, why expect everyone to work full time at all ? the economy does not need that much labor anymore.  from another angle, why do people now often have several jobs accumulated ? we can observe that income from one job does not stop them from getting another,  even  if it requires working from dusk till dawn.  so i do not see why think people are going to be couch potatoes all day.  wages are often sticky, but they will still react to the market, especially new hires.  if everyone is getting basic income, employers would simply cut costs and pay people less in wages because why not ? employees would be indifferent because they are not netting less money, since basic income would make up the difference.  competitive wages would suffer.  then  they would effectively reduce the added value of work for their employees, who would quit because now they  do  have an alternative.  so that would force employers to bid the price of labor back up again.   #  i may be getting 0k in welfare/food stamps.   # let is say basic income is 0k a year.  can i live on that ? sure.  but it would suck.  but if i get 0k job in a store, now i am making solid 0k a year, a huge improvement in my life.  now compare it to current welfare system.  i may be getting 0k in welfare/food stamps.  if i get a job at 0k, welfare. will be eliminated, and i am only making 0k extra.  so current system provides bigger disincentive to work and is more. difficult to administer.   #  if we find that not enough people are working, we could decrease it.   # you would not starve, and you have have a roof over your head, and that is it.  and it is not like we could not adjust the value either.  as automation removes more jobs and less human labor is needed, we could increase bi.  if we find that not enough people are working, we could decrease it.  the places it has been tried already were pretty successful though.  i would be surprised if society at large would just give up working at all.  even if some people do, that is their prerogative.  what matters is what the country as a whole does.   #  basic income will let some people do that still.   #  but it is happening today.  welfare is a thing.  food stamps are a thing.  we are already doing exactly what you are talking about.  but the current methods penalize people trying to get out of welfare.  the system is broken, and that is where basic income comes in.  it would cost less to manage, and not cost a whole lot more in actual benefits.  it would give people a safety net to get an education and a better job and do more for society.  it would give people money to put stuff back into the economy.  people are always going to freeload.  why do not we give a little help to that mom who is raising 0 kids and supporting them with 0 full time jobs because he husband was killed in iraq ? your whole passionate, enflamed speech just shows that you are missing the forest for the trees.  there will always be free loaders.  basic income will let some people do that still.  but it will help a lot more people get out of poverty and live useful lives.   #  and you are right that there will always be freeloaders, just like there will always be criminals.   #  as i understand it, the point of welfare and food stamps is to help out people who are out of a job and looking for work, not simply giving this stuff to them and saying,  work if you want to or do not.  i do not give a shit.   and it is certainly not a courtesy that we dole out endlessly to them for the rest of their lives.  so no, it is not even the same thing.  on the surface, i do not mind if they want to get an education on bi instead of working, at least until they get some degree, at which time they would be required to work like everyone else.  but now you have just added the cost of education on top of basic income for these people.  so, who is going to pay for all of that ? and you are right that there will always be freeloaders, just like there will always be criminals.  does not mean we need to enable them though.
let me start off by stating what i believe the reddit basic income theory is.  from what i have read from /r/basicincome, the idea is that in a future utopian society computers will take all of our jobs and there will be a huge number of people out of work.  basic income would be a government issued wage that would act as a safety net for these newly underemployed/unemployed workers.  i am not making this post to argue against future automation problems getting rid of jobs.  yes, jobs will require more skills and basic menial tasks may soon be replaced.  but that is frictional unemployment, not structural.  its incorrect to say that because a mcdonalds cashier got laid off because of a touchscreen order screen that said mcdonald is worker will never work again.  many people on reddit would like to implement basic income today.  they state that it would rid our problems with a complicated tax code, food stamps and other welfare programs.  the huge issue is when you have a dead wage safety net you create a massive systematic disincentive to people to work.  if people make a certain wage while working zero hours a week, why go get a job at the grocery store ? the marginal value of a full time job becomes diluted.  next off, wages are considered elastic.  wages are often sticky, but they will still react to the market, especially new hires.  if everyone is getting basic income, employers would simply cut costs and pay people less in wages because why not ? employees would be indifferent because they are not netting less money, since basic income would make up the difference.  competitive wages would suffer.  cmv  #  the huge issue is when you have a dead wage safety net you create a massive systematic disincentive to people to work.   #  the current system punishes people who start working and stop being eligible for welfare, by taking away that welfare.   #  that is like saying  brain surgery is a terrible idea, everyone who has taken a first aid class knows that you should close a hole in your skull asap !  .  basic income would be a government issued wage that would act as a safety net for these newly underemployed/unemployed workers.  that is only a fraction of it.  basic income would serve as the basic means to redistribute resources, based on the idea that automation and organization which allows much of our current productivity is a common resource, not a private one.  this would indeed serve to mitigate the consequences of automation and concentration of capital in the hands of ever fewer owners, but first and foremost it is a different way to organize resource distribution, since labor is no longer in chronic shortage, so it makes no sense to force people to provide it by threats of misery and starvation.  that is just your opinion.  the current system punishes people who start working and stop being eligible for welfare, by taking away that welfare.  a basic income would remain stable, and those people would get the full incentive to work instead of a punishment.  the marginal value of a full time job becomes diluted.  if unemployment is in the double digits, why expect everyone to work full time at all ? the economy does not need that much labor anymore.  from another angle, why do people now often have several jobs accumulated ? we can observe that income from one job does not stop them from getting another,  even  if it requires working from dusk till dawn.  so i do not see why think people are going to be couch potatoes all day.  wages are often sticky, but they will still react to the market, especially new hires.  if everyone is getting basic income, employers would simply cut costs and pay people less in wages because why not ? employees would be indifferent because they are not netting less money, since basic income would make up the difference.  competitive wages would suffer.  then  they would effectively reduce the added value of work for their employees, who would quit because now they  do  have an alternative.  so that would force employers to bid the price of labor back up again.   #  so current system provides bigger disincentive to work and is more. difficult to administer.   # let is say basic income is 0k a year.  can i live on that ? sure.  but it would suck.  but if i get 0k job in a store, now i am making solid 0k a year, a huge improvement in my life.  now compare it to current welfare system.  i may be getting 0k in welfare/food stamps.  if i get a job at 0k, welfare. will be eliminated, and i am only making 0k extra.  so current system provides bigger disincentive to work and is more. difficult to administer.   #  what matters is what the country as a whole does.   # you would not starve, and you have have a roof over your head, and that is it.  and it is not like we could not adjust the value either.  as automation removes more jobs and less human labor is needed, we could increase bi.  if we find that not enough people are working, we could decrease it.  the places it has been tried already were pretty successful though.  i would be surprised if society at large would just give up working at all.  even if some people do, that is their prerogative.  what matters is what the country as a whole does.   #  but it will help a lot more people get out of poverty and live useful lives.   #  but it is happening today.  welfare is a thing.  food stamps are a thing.  we are already doing exactly what you are talking about.  but the current methods penalize people trying to get out of welfare.  the system is broken, and that is where basic income comes in.  it would cost less to manage, and not cost a whole lot more in actual benefits.  it would give people a safety net to get an education and a better job and do more for society.  it would give people money to put stuff back into the economy.  people are always going to freeload.  why do not we give a little help to that mom who is raising 0 kids and supporting them with 0 full time jobs because he husband was killed in iraq ? your whole passionate, enflamed speech just shows that you are missing the forest for the trees.  there will always be free loaders.  basic income will let some people do that still.  but it will help a lot more people get out of poverty and live useful lives.   #  does not mean we need to enable them though.   #  as i understand it, the point of welfare and food stamps is to help out people who are out of a job and looking for work, not simply giving this stuff to them and saying,  work if you want to or do not.  i do not give a shit.   and it is certainly not a courtesy that we dole out endlessly to them for the rest of their lives.  so no, it is not even the same thing.  on the surface, i do not mind if they want to get an education on bi instead of working, at least until they get some degree, at which time they would be required to work like everyone else.  but now you have just added the cost of education on top of basic income for these people.  so, who is going to pay for all of that ? and you are right that there will always be freeloaders, just like there will always be criminals.  does not mean we need to enable them though.
let me start off by stating what i believe the reddit basic income theory is.  from what i have read from /r/basicincome, the idea is that in a future utopian society computers will take all of our jobs and there will be a huge number of people out of work.  basic income would be a government issued wage that would act as a safety net for these newly underemployed/unemployed workers.  i am not making this post to argue against future automation problems getting rid of jobs.  yes, jobs will require more skills and basic menial tasks may soon be replaced.  but that is frictional unemployment, not structural.  its incorrect to say that because a mcdonalds cashier got laid off because of a touchscreen order screen that said mcdonald is worker will never work again.  many people on reddit would like to implement basic income today.  they state that it would rid our problems with a complicated tax code, food stamps and other welfare programs.  the huge issue is when you have a dead wage safety net you create a massive systematic disincentive to people to work.  if people make a certain wage while working zero hours a week, why go get a job at the grocery store ? the marginal value of a full time job becomes diluted.  next off, wages are considered elastic.  wages are often sticky, but they will still react to the market, especially new hires.  if everyone is getting basic income, employers would simply cut costs and pay people less in wages because why not ? employees would be indifferent because they are not netting less money, since basic income would make up the difference.  competitive wages would suffer.  cmv  #  if people make a certain wage while working zero hours a week, why go get a job at the grocery store ?  #  the marginal value of a full time job becomes diluted.   #  that is like saying  brain surgery is a terrible idea, everyone who has taken a first aid class knows that you should close a hole in your skull asap !  .  basic income would be a government issued wage that would act as a safety net for these newly underemployed/unemployed workers.  that is only a fraction of it.  basic income would serve as the basic means to redistribute resources, based on the idea that automation and organization which allows much of our current productivity is a common resource, not a private one.  this would indeed serve to mitigate the consequences of automation and concentration of capital in the hands of ever fewer owners, but first and foremost it is a different way to organize resource distribution, since labor is no longer in chronic shortage, so it makes no sense to force people to provide it by threats of misery and starvation.  that is just your opinion.  the current system punishes people who start working and stop being eligible for welfare, by taking away that welfare.  a basic income would remain stable, and those people would get the full incentive to work instead of a punishment.  the marginal value of a full time job becomes diluted.  if unemployment is in the double digits, why expect everyone to work full time at all ? the economy does not need that much labor anymore.  from another angle, why do people now often have several jobs accumulated ? we can observe that income from one job does not stop them from getting another,  even  if it requires working from dusk till dawn.  so i do not see why think people are going to be couch potatoes all day.  wages are often sticky, but they will still react to the market, especially new hires.  if everyone is getting basic income, employers would simply cut costs and pay people less in wages because why not ? employees would be indifferent because they are not netting less money, since basic income would make up the difference.  competitive wages would suffer.  then  they would effectively reduce the added value of work for their employees, who would quit because now they  do  have an alternative.  so that would force employers to bid the price of labor back up again.   #  if i get a job at 0k, welfare. will be eliminated, and i am only making 0k extra.   # let is say basic income is 0k a year.  can i live on that ? sure.  but it would suck.  but if i get 0k job in a store, now i am making solid 0k a year, a huge improvement in my life.  now compare it to current welfare system.  i may be getting 0k in welfare/food stamps.  if i get a job at 0k, welfare. will be eliminated, and i am only making 0k extra.  so current system provides bigger disincentive to work and is more. difficult to administer.   #  you would not starve, and you have have a roof over your head, and that is it.   # you would not starve, and you have have a roof over your head, and that is it.  and it is not like we could not adjust the value either.  as automation removes more jobs and less human labor is needed, we could increase bi.  if we find that not enough people are working, we could decrease it.  the places it has been tried already were pretty successful though.  i would be surprised if society at large would just give up working at all.  even if some people do, that is their prerogative.  what matters is what the country as a whole does.   #  why do not we give a little help to that mom who is raising 0 kids and supporting them with 0 full time jobs because he husband was killed in iraq ?  #  but it is happening today.  welfare is a thing.  food stamps are a thing.  we are already doing exactly what you are talking about.  but the current methods penalize people trying to get out of welfare.  the system is broken, and that is where basic income comes in.  it would cost less to manage, and not cost a whole lot more in actual benefits.  it would give people a safety net to get an education and a better job and do more for society.  it would give people money to put stuff back into the economy.  people are always going to freeload.  why do not we give a little help to that mom who is raising 0 kids and supporting them with 0 full time jobs because he husband was killed in iraq ? your whole passionate, enflamed speech just shows that you are missing the forest for the trees.  there will always be free loaders.  basic income will let some people do that still.  but it will help a lot more people get out of poverty and live useful lives.   #  and you are right that there will always be freeloaders, just like there will always be criminals.   #  as i understand it, the point of welfare and food stamps is to help out people who are out of a job and looking for work, not simply giving this stuff to them and saying,  work if you want to or do not.  i do not give a shit.   and it is certainly not a courtesy that we dole out endlessly to them for the rest of their lives.  so no, it is not even the same thing.  on the surface, i do not mind if they want to get an education on bi instead of working, at least until they get some degree, at which time they would be required to work like everyone else.  but now you have just added the cost of education on top of basic income for these people.  so, who is going to pay for all of that ? and you are right that there will always be freeloaders, just like there will always be criminals.  does not mean we need to enable them though.
let me start off by stating what i believe the reddit basic income theory is.  from what i have read from /r/basicincome, the idea is that in a future utopian society computers will take all of our jobs and there will be a huge number of people out of work.  basic income would be a government issued wage that would act as a safety net for these newly underemployed/unemployed workers.  i am not making this post to argue against future automation problems getting rid of jobs.  yes, jobs will require more skills and basic menial tasks may soon be replaced.  but that is frictional unemployment, not structural.  its incorrect to say that because a mcdonalds cashier got laid off because of a touchscreen order screen that said mcdonald is worker will never work again.  many people on reddit would like to implement basic income today.  they state that it would rid our problems with a complicated tax code, food stamps and other welfare programs.  the huge issue is when you have a dead wage safety net you create a massive systematic disincentive to people to work.  if people make a certain wage while working zero hours a week, why go get a job at the grocery store ? the marginal value of a full time job becomes diluted.  next off, wages are considered elastic.  wages are often sticky, but they will still react to the market, especially new hires.  if everyone is getting basic income, employers would simply cut costs and pay people less in wages because why not ? employees would be indifferent because they are not netting less money, since basic income would make up the difference.  competitive wages would suffer.  cmv  #  the huge issue is when you have a dead wage safety net you create a massive systematic disincentive to people to work.   #  i am not here to change your view but i think other posters or you would have to prove that a basic income would reduce incentives to work or seek education which would lead to a better job.   # i am not here to change your view but i think other posters or you would have to prove that a basic income would reduce incentives to work or seek education which would lead to a better job.  maybe the basic income needs to be set low enough that it ca not possibly pay for housing or extras like a car.  but it may pay that little bit that helps people survive, forcing people to get other work or wanting a better life.  maybe 0 0k a year across the us.  how much do we spend on us food stamp programs for those that receive it ? nobody is going to live off 0k a year, but it may work as a safety net for some.   #  the economy does not need that much labor anymore.   #  that is like saying  brain surgery is a terrible idea, everyone who has taken a first aid class knows that you should close a hole in your skull asap !  .  basic income would be a government issued wage that would act as a safety net for these newly underemployed/unemployed workers.  that is only a fraction of it.  basic income would serve as the basic means to redistribute resources, based on the idea that automation and organization which allows much of our current productivity is a common resource, not a private one.  this would indeed serve to mitigate the consequences of automation and concentration of capital in the hands of ever fewer owners, but first and foremost it is a different way to organize resource distribution, since labor is no longer in chronic shortage, so it makes no sense to force people to provide it by threats of misery and starvation.  that is just your opinion.  the current system punishes people who start working and stop being eligible for welfare, by taking away that welfare.  a basic income would remain stable, and those people would get the full incentive to work instead of a punishment.  the marginal value of a full time job becomes diluted.  if unemployment is in the double digits, why expect everyone to work full time at all ? the economy does not need that much labor anymore.  from another angle, why do people now often have several jobs accumulated ? we can observe that income from one job does not stop them from getting another,  even  if it requires working from dusk till dawn.  so i do not see why think people are going to be couch potatoes all day.  wages are often sticky, but they will still react to the market, especially new hires.  if everyone is getting basic income, employers would simply cut costs and pay people less in wages because why not ? employees would be indifferent because they are not netting less money, since basic income would make up the difference.  competitive wages would suffer.  then  they would effectively reduce the added value of work for their employees, who would quit because now they  do  have an alternative.  so that would force employers to bid the price of labor back up again.   #  let is say basic income is 0k a year.   # let is say basic income is 0k a year.  can i live on that ? sure.  but it would suck.  but if i get 0k job in a store, now i am making solid 0k a year, a huge improvement in my life.  now compare it to current welfare system.  i may be getting 0k in welfare/food stamps.  if i get a job at 0k, welfare. will be eliminated, and i am only making 0k extra.  so current system provides bigger disincentive to work and is more. difficult to administer.   #  you would not starve, and you have have a roof over your head, and that is it.   # you would not starve, and you have have a roof over your head, and that is it.  and it is not like we could not adjust the value either.  as automation removes more jobs and less human labor is needed, we could increase bi.  if we find that not enough people are working, we could decrease it.  the places it has been tried already were pretty successful though.  i would be surprised if society at large would just give up working at all.  even if some people do, that is their prerogative.  what matters is what the country as a whole does.   #  why do not we give a little help to that mom who is raising 0 kids and supporting them with 0 full time jobs because he husband was killed in iraq ?  #  but it is happening today.  welfare is a thing.  food stamps are a thing.  we are already doing exactly what you are talking about.  but the current methods penalize people trying to get out of welfare.  the system is broken, and that is where basic income comes in.  it would cost less to manage, and not cost a whole lot more in actual benefits.  it would give people a safety net to get an education and a better job and do more for society.  it would give people money to put stuff back into the economy.  people are always going to freeload.  why do not we give a little help to that mom who is raising 0 kids and supporting them with 0 full time jobs because he husband was killed in iraq ? your whole passionate, enflamed speech just shows that you are missing the forest for the trees.  there will always be free loaders.  basic income will let some people do that still.  but it will help a lot more people get out of poverty and live useful lives.
note: what i mean by the title is that humans may still be around in 0 but we will not have the level of influence or power we have currently.  i think this for a few reasons.  first, i think that a group of humans or any animal acting reaonably for their own self interest will eventually harm the group as a whole.  this is called the tradgedy of the commons.  i also think this plays out on wider scales with countries.  examples include the us propping up dictatorships to prevent the spread of communism, france and the uk colonizing a large amount of the world and russia invading ukraine.  i also think that the spread and reduction in cost of modern technology specfically nuclear weapons treatens the stability of the world.  we see more and more countries and organizations trying to aquire nukes.  it seems like only a matter of time before they are used again, most likely by a non state entity.  while we have been decent at preventing the proliferation of them so far, it will only become easier to get them in the future.  biological weapons will also become much much easier to produce.  and while defensive technologies will get better as well, its hard to detects the person with a nuke in his van or a vial of deadly bacteria.  climate change also threatens us in two ways.  one way this could happen is that climate change reduces the amount of land we can live and grow food off of.  areas with little of either of these will become more desprate for them, existing tensions and unstability will be increased and so on.  while this on its own, will not have a major effects, the secondary effects such as wars, economic ollapses and terrorism will.  the second and much less likely way is runaway climate change.  to happen humans would continue on a business as usual plan.  this could lead to the release of large amounts of greenhouse gases, creating a positive feedback loops with other gas pockets leading to faster and more severe climate change then any current model.  the last way is just pure chance.  large asteriods, supervolcanoes and other such massive natural disasters fall into the catagory.  evidence that civilization could prevent, reduce the impact of or survive these events would change my veiw.   #  examples include the us propping up dictatorships to prevent the spread of communism, france and the uk colonizing a large amount of the world and russia invading ukraine.   #  france and the uk are not colonial powers any more.   #  i will take the easy one first: asteroids.  there has not been a species ending impact in over 0 million years.  while i realize the threat of an impact, assuming a severe impact in the next thousand years is a bit pessimistic.  we have already found about 0 URL of the large asteroids around the earth is orbit.  this is actually a concern that is taken seriously and steps are being taken to resolve the problem.  france and the uk are not colonial powers any more.  there has been tremendous progress to encourage democracy throughout the world, and it has been largely successful.  at the same time, the standard of living is increasing around the world these are factors that lead to greater stability.  this could lead to the release of large amounts of greenhouse gases, creating a positive feedback loops with other gas pockets leading to faster and more severe climate change then any current model.  a serious concern, but one that is already being tackled.  the progress is slow, but i do not think it is going to be business as usual much longer.  it takes time to steer away from our dependency on fossil fuels, but that is exactly what is already happening.  give it time.   #  one of the most visible signs of development around world is the increased education and importance of women in societies around the world.   # yes, i know that.  i only meant that imperialism is not as prevalent as it was in the past.  almost all countries in the world realize that trade is what is required to improve their own standards of living.  even countries like myanmar are coming around to this idea.  sanctions are powerful ! the internet and the spread of information is very helpful in spreading egalitarian ideals throughout the world.  one of the most visible signs of development around world is the increased education and importance of women in societies around the world.   #  advanced countries in europe are responding more quickly than the us, and they are a testament to the fact that progress is possible.   # costa rica is 0 renewable now i believe.  some european countries are doing very well too.  exactly.  i have a feeling that /u/hailtheoctopus0 is from the us, though i ca not be sure.  they need to realize that america is not at the forefront of climate change.  advanced countries in europe are responding more quickly than the us, and they are a testament to the fact that progress is possible.   #  i do not we will have run away climate change.   #  i know there is a large amount of progress.  i do not we will have run away climate change.  however, even if we all went 0 percent carbon right now, there would still be some major changes in climate.  although there is movement, right now it is not enough.  the two biggest emitters of co0 china and the us have not been doing as much as smaller countries.   #  it look like it needs a large amount of electricty to run effectively, something that is hard to come by in many places.   #  the hydroponics does sound very interesting and could be used in a lot of countries but like with any new techonology, it will be hard to get it to the areas that need it most.  it look like it needs a large amount of electricty to run effectively, something that is hard to come by in many places.  in terms of climate, while new improvement are promising and give me hope, still more is needed.  regardless of the new rules, we will be under the stress of some degree of climate change no matter what.  i doubt it will be runaway or even some of the more bleak predictions but there is still more to come.
note: what i mean by the title is that humans may still be around in 0 but we will not have the level of influence or power we have currently.  i think this for a few reasons.  first, i think that a group of humans or any animal acting reaonably for their own self interest will eventually harm the group as a whole.  this is called the tradgedy of the commons.  i also think this plays out on wider scales with countries.  examples include the us propping up dictatorships to prevent the spread of communism, france and the uk colonizing a large amount of the world and russia invading ukraine.  i also think that the spread and reduction in cost of modern technology specfically nuclear weapons treatens the stability of the world.  we see more and more countries and organizations trying to aquire nukes.  it seems like only a matter of time before they are used again, most likely by a non state entity.  while we have been decent at preventing the proliferation of them so far, it will only become easier to get them in the future.  biological weapons will also become much much easier to produce.  and while defensive technologies will get better as well, its hard to detects the person with a nuke in his van or a vial of deadly bacteria.  climate change also threatens us in two ways.  one way this could happen is that climate change reduces the amount of land we can live and grow food off of.  areas with little of either of these will become more desprate for them, existing tensions and unstability will be increased and so on.  while this on its own, will not have a major effects, the secondary effects such as wars, economic ollapses and terrorism will.  the second and much less likely way is runaway climate change.  to happen humans would continue on a business as usual plan.  this could lead to the release of large amounts of greenhouse gases, creating a positive feedback loops with other gas pockets leading to faster and more severe climate change then any current model.  the last way is just pure chance.  large asteriods, supervolcanoes and other such massive natural disasters fall into the catagory.  evidence that civilization could prevent, reduce the impact of or survive these events would change my veiw.   #  to happen humans would continue on a business as usual plan.   #  this could lead to the release of large amounts of greenhouse gases, creating a positive feedback loops with other gas pockets leading to faster and more severe climate change then any current model.   #  i will take the easy one first: asteroids.  there has not been a species ending impact in over 0 million years.  while i realize the threat of an impact, assuming a severe impact in the next thousand years is a bit pessimistic.  we have already found about 0 URL of the large asteroids around the earth is orbit.  this is actually a concern that is taken seriously and steps are being taken to resolve the problem.  france and the uk are not colonial powers any more.  there has been tremendous progress to encourage democracy throughout the world, and it has been largely successful.  at the same time, the standard of living is increasing around the world these are factors that lead to greater stability.  this could lead to the release of large amounts of greenhouse gases, creating a positive feedback loops with other gas pockets leading to faster and more severe climate change then any current model.  a serious concern, but one that is already being tackled.  the progress is slow, but i do not think it is going to be business as usual much longer.  it takes time to steer away from our dependency on fossil fuels, but that is exactly what is already happening.  give it time.   #  i only meant that imperialism is not as prevalent as it was in the past.   # yes, i know that.  i only meant that imperialism is not as prevalent as it was in the past.  almost all countries in the world realize that trade is what is required to improve their own standards of living.  even countries like myanmar are coming around to this idea.  sanctions are powerful ! the internet and the spread of information is very helpful in spreading egalitarian ideals throughout the world.  one of the most visible signs of development around world is the increased education and importance of women in societies around the world.   #  they need to realize that america is not at the forefront of climate change.   # costa rica is 0 renewable now i believe.  some european countries are doing very well too.  exactly.  i have a feeling that /u/hailtheoctopus0 is from the us, though i ca not be sure.  they need to realize that america is not at the forefront of climate change.  advanced countries in europe are responding more quickly than the us, and they are a testament to the fact that progress is possible.   #  the two biggest emitters of co0 china and the us have not been doing as much as smaller countries.   #  i know there is a large amount of progress.  i do not we will have run away climate change.  however, even if we all went 0 percent carbon right now, there would still be some major changes in climate.  although there is movement, right now it is not enough.  the two biggest emitters of co0 china and the us have not been doing as much as smaller countries.   #  i doubt it will be runaway or even some of the more bleak predictions but there is still more to come.   #  the hydroponics does sound very interesting and could be used in a lot of countries but like with any new techonology, it will be hard to get it to the areas that need it most.  it look like it needs a large amount of electricty to run effectively, something that is hard to come by in many places.  in terms of climate, while new improvement are promising and give me hope, still more is needed.  regardless of the new rules, we will be under the stress of some degree of climate change no matter what.  i doubt it will be runaway or even some of the more bleak predictions but there is still more to come.
note: what i mean by the title is that humans may still be around in 0 but we will not have the level of influence or power we have currently.  i think this for a few reasons.  first, i think that a group of humans or any animal acting reaonably for their own self interest will eventually harm the group as a whole.  this is called the tradgedy of the commons.  i also think this plays out on wider scales with countries.  examples include the us propping up dictatorships to prevent the spread of communism, france and the uk colonizing a large amount of the world and russia invading ukraine.  i also think that the spread and reduction in cost of modern technology specfically nuclear weapons treatens the stability of the world.  we see more and more countries and organizations trying to aquire nukes.  it seems like only a matter of time before they are used again, most likely by a non state entity.  while we have been decent at preventing the proliferation of them so far, it will only become easier to get them in the future.  biological weapons will also become much much easier to produce.  and while defensive technologies will get better as well, its hard to detects the person with a nuke in his van or a vial of deadly bacteria.  climate change also threatens us in two ways.  one way this could happen is that climate change reduces the amount of land we can live and grow food off of.  areas with little of either of these will become more desprate for them, existing tensions and unstability will be increased and so on.  while this on its own, will not have a major effects, the secondary effects such as wars, economic ollapses and terrorism will.  the second and much less likely way is runaway climate change.  to happen humans would continue on a business as usual plan.  this could lead to the release of large amounts of greenhouse gases, creating a positive feedback loops with other gas pockets leading to faster and more severe climate change then any current model.  the last way is just pure chance.  large asteriods, supervolcanoes and other such massive natural disasters fall into the catagory.  evidence that civilization could prevent, reduce the impact of or survive these events would change my veiw.   #  i think this for a few reasons.   #  first, i think that a group of humans or any animal acting reaonably for their own self interest will eventually harm the group as a whole.   #  for some background, i study in the area of environmental economics and have a keen interest in international relations and psychology hopefully this is easy to read and follow ! first, i think that a group of humans or any animal acting reaonably for their own self interest will eventually harm the group as a whole.  this is called the tradgedy of the commons.  i also think this plays out on wider scales with countries.  examples include the us propping up dictatorships to prevent the spread of communism, france and the uk colonizing a large amount of the world and russia invading ukraine.  while the tragedy of the commons can be used as a concept in your argument, you have not got it quite right here.  the international relations concept that your examples describe is based around realism URL which generally includes the arms races, security dilemmas and self interest of your examples this all comes from the anarchy of global government, i. e.  there is no global government that can  make  national governments behave.  while the world of ir can be pretty depressing sometimes why i do not study it proper , liberalism URL seems to have been winning the fight recently between the two traditional schools of thought.  the tragedy of the commons URL is sort of related, in that it is a result of self interest without proper governance to stop abuse, but it is generally restricted to environmental economics and sometimes evolutionary biology.  the wiki link is pretty good at explaining it so i wo not do that here, but if you are interested elinor ostrom, the first woman to win a nobel prize in economics, has done amazing work on this concept.  this article URL is a great summary of her work in the area.  i think that elinor is work actually says a lot about human progress and problem solving.  we have had commons for hundreds if not thousands of years, and  theoretically  they should all be ruined humans do not follow economic or social theories when they are bad for us we are normally smarter as a species than you might think ! .  we will always be creating new problems for ourselves, sometimes big ones that could severely damage ourselves and our planet if we ca not solve them but that is why we are still here.  humans are problem solvers, and we are getting better at it.  finally, if you would like to read a really excellent book on humanity is progress it does seem so down and out, getting worse every day sometimes ,  the better angels of our nature  by steven pinker explores violence through the history of humanity and how we are the most peaceful we have ever been by a long way ! i found a great 0 minute interview with steven about the book here URL please ask if there is anything i can explain better or further or with any ideas/responses you have.   #  at the same time, the standard of living is increasing around the world these are factors that lead to greater stability.   #  i will take the easy one first: asteroids.  there has not been a species ending impact in over 0 million years.  while i realize the threat of an impact, assuming a severe impact in the next thousand years is a bit pessimistic.  we have already found about 0 URL of the large asteroids around the earth is orbit.  this is actually a concern that is taken seriously and steps are being taken to resolve the problem.  france and the uk are not colonial powers any more.  there has been tremendous progress to encourage democracy throughout the world, and it has been largely successful.  at the same time, the standard of living is increasing around the world these are factors that lead to greater stability.  this could lead to the release of large amounts of greenhouse gases, creating a positive feedback loops with other gas pockets leading to faster and more severe climate change then any current model.  a serious concern, but one that is already being tackled.  the progress is slow, but i do not think it is going to be business as usual much longer.  it takes time to steer away from our dependency on fossil fuels, but that is exactly what is already happening.  give it time.   #  the internet and the spread of information is very helpful in spreading egalitarian ideals throughout the world.   # yes, i know that.  i only meant that imperialism is not as prevalent as it was in the past.  almost all countries in the world realize that trade is what is required to improve their own standards of living.  even countries like myanmar are coming around to this idea.  sanctions are powerful ! the internet and the spread of information is very helpful in spreading egalitarian ideals throughout the world.  one of the most visible signs of development around world is the increased education and importance of women in societies around the world.   #  i have a feeling that /u/hailtheoctopus0 is from the us, though i ca not be sure.   # costa rica is 0 renewable now i believe.  some european countries are doing very well too.  exactly.  i have a feeling that /u/hailtheoctopus0 is from the us, though i ca not be sure.  they need to realize that america is not at the forefront of climate change.  advanced countries in europe are responding more quickly than the us, and they are a testament to the fact that progress is possible.   #  although there is movement, right now it is not enough.   #  i know there is a large amount of progress.  i do not we will have run away climate change.  however, even if we all went 0 percent carbon right now, there would still be some major changes in climate.  although there is movement, right now it is not enough.  the two biggest emitters of co0 china and the us have not been doing as much as smaller countries.
rare being defined as rare when considering a national population of over 0 million and population and gun violence geography.  owning guns may not be the safest or smartest idea.  but guns are as violent as you make them.  stupid or mentally deranged people who own them are as stupid and as mentally deranged as they are.  outlawing and trying to take people is guns would change the mentality of the citizens of a nation with the most powerful military in the world.  maybe there would not be martial law, maybe nothing would happen at all, just less gun deaths.  but the mentality, the values people have, the trust people have in the government and others, and people who have lived in gun cultures for their entire life, would all be changed for the worse.   #  stupid or mentally deranged people who own them are as stupid and as mentally deranged as they are.   #  a very large amount of gun deaths and injuries are not from  istupid or mentally deranged people .   # a very large amount of gun deaths and injuries are not from  istupid or mentally deranged people .  a large chunk is violence in poor urban areas.  another decent amount are accidents, suicides and homicides using a gun within one is own household.  URL and even if it was the majority, why would we enable these people to cause more harm ? good.  either explain why it is at all likely that martial law would ever happen, or why these current values are actually good, or else this argument is just an is ought fallacy.   #  it is not  too  hard to get one on the black market .  i guess.   #  a while back, i was in paris with an american friend of mine who is into mma and self defense.  in fact he was at some point a krav maga instructor and had professional bodyguards and policemen as students.  we witnessed an arrest in the street and he commented how the cop doing it was terrible because the way he did it left him very exposed should the suspect pull a gun.  i replied that the suspect does not have a gun.  by that i mean it is so unlikely it is never actually an issue in these situations.  a criminal pulling a handgun during an arrest is national news here.  do not get me wrong there are guns around, though most are not handguns.  it is not  too  hard to get one on the black market .  i guess.  but it is largely not readily and instantly available to petty criminals or nutters, so only seasoned gangsters will have those.  and they wo not just walk around with them at all times because, well, being caught with one is a crime, and while it makes sense to break the law on occasions for a sufficiently high payback, there is really no point in breaking it continuously when it gains you nothing as such.  the end result is that police encounters are very different here.  cops do not routinely shoot dogs or people.  they are not trigger happy, because they have almost no risk of ever being shot at.  and when they get shot at, it is by gangsters or terrorists, not just by anyone they happen to meet during their work.  being stopped by cops on the road does not require you to keep your hands on the steering wheel and move slowly.   #  the problem with police shooting people is not that they fear being shot themselves, it is that they do not have enough sense or training to use nonlethal force before using lethal force.   #  the problem with police shooting people is not that they fear being shot themselves, it is that they do not have enough sense or training to use nonlethal force before using lethal force.  it is incredibly difficult to aim when you have been maced.  it is hard to attack someone when you are being mildly electrocuted too.  even having the diplomacy skills to avoid such a situation to begin with.  there are many problems with police and the fear of being shot is not as large of a problem as you think.   #  this is by far the biggest issue with american police officers today.   # this is by far the biggest issue with american police officers today.  the training focuses so heavily on  officer safety  in the context of lethal force that if the officer  feels unsafe  for any reason, the officer pulls his service weapon, and by doing so  drastically  increases the risk of a deadly outcome for the citizen  and  the officer .  i am not a cop, but i am ex military and worked for a while as a bouncer and have pretty common interactions with law enforcement as a result, and as a general rule the heavy focus on  officer safety  is what usually fucks things sideways for them.  there is basically no training on mitigating risk and calming someone down. it is  oh shit, this guy makes me uncomfortable, gun out !   and now the situation just became life or death for everyone involved.  random sidenote. this is a cultural thing within police departments in the us as well.  i have heard more than one cop describe my relatively quiet, mostly suburban hipster city as a  war zone  and one even gave me the  i have lost friends out there  line.  this, in a city of 0 million people, 0,0 sworn officers, and one officer kia as a result of a shooting in the current career lifespan.  they are taught that they are fighting a war, and they believe it, and we are surprised when they kill some black kid for stealing a candy bar.   #  there are some people who are saying that who are in power, but they do not hold all or even most of the power in the discussion.   #  to build on your point, i would also add that the  fight against tyranny  argument falls apart pretty quickly when you consider that the boys from the gun club would be no match for the us military if it was turned inward.  putting aside arguments about  true patriots  in the military and all that.  if some non trivial portion of the us military is convinced to  invade  and enforce martial law and some kind of tyranny they would make easy work of the two dozen dudes who shoot their ars at the range every other weekend.  they have bombers and tanks and robot airplanes.  red dawn was a fun movie, but as soon as jimmy stands up he will maybe get to yell  wolv   before the sniper puts him down.  putting all of that aside, no one who is seriously discussing gun control in the united states is advocating a complete ban.  there are some people who are saying that who are in power, but they do not hold all or even most of the power in the discussion.  there is a middle ground that protects the spirit of the 0nd amendment.  but we ca not ever talk about what that might be because one side spurred on by a manufacturing lobby just starts shouting  they are coming for our guns !   whenever the topic comes up.
rare being defined as rare when considering a national population of over 0 million and population and gun violence geography.  owning guns may not be the safest or smartest idea.  but guns are as violent as you make them.  stupid or mentally deranged people who own them are as stupid and as mentally deranged as they are.  outlawing and trying to take people is guns would change the mentality of the citizens of a nation with the most powerful military in the world.  maybe there would not be martial law, maybe nothing would happen at all, just less gun deaths.  but the mentality, the values people have, the trust people have in the government and others, and people who have lived in gun cultures for their entire life, would all be changed for the worse.   #  but the mentality, the values people have, the trust people have in the government and others, and people who have lived in gun cultures for their entire life, would all be changed for the worse.   #  . so let is never change, ever, because the people who oppose it will be psychologically damaged ?  # . so let is never change, ever, because the people who oppose it will be psychologically damaged ? this same argument could apply to the legalisation of gay marriage, or the abolition of slavery.  rarity is subjective, but i think ethically, any unnecessary death is a tragedy and we should seek to avoid it.  tl;dr i do not think you have thought this through  #  they are not trigger happy, because they have almost no risk of ever being shot at.   #  a while back, i was in paris with an american friend of mine who is into mma and self defense.  in fact he was at some point a krav maga instructor and had professional bodyguards and policemen as students.  we witnessed an arrest in the street and he commented how the cop doing it was terrible because the way he did it left him very exposed should the suspect pull a gun.  i replied that the suspect does not have a gun.  by that i mean it is so unlikely it is never actually an issue in these situations.  a criminal pulling a handgun during an arrest is national news here.  do not get me wrong there are guns around, though most are not handguns.  it is not  too  hard to get one on the black market .  i guess.  but it is largely not readily and instantly available to petty criminals or nutters, so only seasoned gangsters will have those.  and they wo not just walk around with them at all times because, well, being caught with one is a crime, and while it makes sense to break the law on occasions for a sufficiently high payback, there is really no point in breaking it continuously when it gains you nothing as such.  the end result is that police encounters are very different here.  cops do not routinely shoot dogs or people.  they are not trigger happy, because they have almost no risk of ever being shot at.  and when they get shot at, it is by gangsters or terrorists, not just by anyone they happen to meet during their work.  being stopped by cops on the road does not require you to keep your hands on the steering wheel and move slowly.   #  it is incredibly difficult to aim when you have been maced.   #  the problem with police shooting people is not that they fear being shot themselves, it is that they do not have enough sense or training to use nonlethal force before using lethal force.  it is incredibly difficult to aim when you have been maced.  it is hard to attack someone when you are being mildly electrocuted too.  even having the diplomacy skills to avoid such a situation to begin with.  there are many problems with police and the fear of being shot is not as large of a problem as you think.   #  there is basically no training on mitigating risk and calming someone down. it is  oh shit, this guy makes me uncomfortable, gun out !    # this is by far the biggest issue with american police officers today.  the training focuses so heavily on  officer safety  in the context of lethal force that if the officer  feels unsafe  for any reason, the officer pulls his service weapon, and by doing so  drastically  increases the risk of a deadly outcome for the citizen  and  the officer .  i am not a cop, but i am ex military and worked for a while as a bouncer and have pretty common interactions with law enforcement as a result, and as a general rule the heavy focus on  officer safety  is what usually fucks things sideways for them.  there is basically no training on mitigating risk and calming someone down. it is  oh shit, this guy makes me uncomfortable, gun out !   and now the situation just became life or death for everyone involved.  random sidenote. this is a cultural thing within police departments in the us as well.  i have heard more than one cop describe my relatively quiet, mostly suburban hipster city as a  war zone  and one even gave me the  i have lost friends out there  line.  this, in a city of 0 million people, 0,0 sworn officers, and one officer kia as a result of a shooting in the current career lifespan.  they are taught that they are fighting a war, and they believe it, and we are surprised when they kill some black kid for stealing a candy bar.   #  either explain why it is at all likely that martial law would ever happen, or why these current values are actually good, or else this argument is just an is ought fallacy.   # a very large amount of gun deaths and injuries are not from  istupid or mentally deranged people .  a large chunk is violence in poor urban areas.  another decent amount are accidents, suicides and homicides using a gun within one is own household.  URL and even if it was the majority, why would we enable these people to cause more harm ? good.  either explain why it is at all likely that martial law would ever happen, or why these current values are actually good, or else this argument is just an is ought fallacy.
rare being defined as rare when considering a national population of over 0 million and population and gun violence geography.  owning guns may not be the safest or smartest idea.  but guns are as violent as you make them.  stupid or mentally deranged people who own them are as stupid and as mentally deranged as they are.  outlawing and trying to take people is guns would change the mentality of the citizens of a nation with the most powerful military in the world.  maybe there would not be martial law, maybe nothing would happen at all, just less gun deaths.  but the mentality, the values people have, the trust people have in the government and others, and people who have lived in gun cultures for their entire life, would all be changed for the worse.   #  rare being defined as rare when considering a national population of over 0 million and population and gun violence geography.   #  rarity is subjective, but i think ethically, any unnecessary death is a tragedy and we should seek to avoid it.   # . so let is never change, ever, because the people who oppose it will be psychologically damaged ? this same argument could apply to the legalisation of gay marriage, or the abolition of slavery.  rarity is subjective, but i think ethically, any unnecessary death is a tragedy and we should seek to avoid it.  tl;dr i do not think you have thought this through  #  being stopped by cops on the road does not require you to keep your hands on the steering wheel and move slowly.   #  a while back, i was in paris with an american friend of mine who is into mma and self defense.  in fact he was at some point a krav maga instructor and had professional bodyguards and policemen as students.  we witnessed an arrest in the street and he commented how the cop doing it was terrible because the way he did it left him very exposed should the suspect pull a gun.  i replied that the suspect does not have a gun.  by that i mean it is so unlikely it is never actually an issue in these situations.  a criminal pulling a handgun during an arrest is national news here.  do not get me wrong there are guns around, though most are not handguns.  it is not  too  hard to get one on the black market .  i guess.  but it is largely not readily and instantly available to petty criminals or nutters, so only seasoned gangsters will have those.  and they wo not just walk around with them at all times because, well, being caught with one is a crime, and while it makes sense to break the law on occasions for a sufficiently high payback, there is really no point in breaking it continuously when it gains you nothing as such.  the end result is that police encounters are very different here.  cops do not routinely shoot dogs or people.  they are not trigger happy, because they have almost no risk of ever being shot at.  and when they get shot at, it is by gangsters or terrorists, not just by anyone they happen to meet during their work.  being stopped by cops on the road does not require you to keep your hands on the steering wheel and move slowly.   #  it is hard to attack someone when you are being mildly electrocuted too.   #  the problem with police shooting people is not that they fear being shot themselves, it is that they do not have enough sense or training to use nonlethal force before using lethal force.  it is incredibly difficult to aim when you have been maced.  it is hard to attack someone when you are being mildly electrocuted too.  even having the diplomacy skills to avoid such a situation to begin with.  there are many problems with police and the fear of being shot is not as large of a problem as you think.   #  there is basically no training on mitigating risk and calming someone down. it is  oh shit, this guy makes me uncomfortable, gun out !    # this is by far the biggest issue with american police officers today.  the training focuses so heavily on  officer safety  in the context of lethal force that if the officer  feels unsafe  for any reason, the officer pulls his service weapon, and by doing so  drastically  increases the risk of a deadly outcome for the citizen  and  the officer .  i am not a cop, but i am ex military and worked for a while as a bouncer and have pretty common interactions with law enforcement as a result, and as a general rule the heavy focus on  officer safety  is what usually fucks things sideways for them.  there is basically no training on mitigating risk and calming someone down. it is  oh shit, this guy makes me uncomfortable, gun out !   and now the situation just became life or death for everyone involved.  random sidenote. this is a cultural thing within police departments in the us as well.  i have heard more than one cop describe my relatively quiet, mostly suburban hipster city as a  war zone  and one even gave me the  i have lost friends out there  line.  this, in a city of 0 million people, 0,0 sworn officers, and one officer kia as a result of a shooting in the current career lifespan.  they are taught that they are fighting a war, and they believe it, and we are surprised when they kill some black kid for stealing a candy bar.   #  a large chunk is violence in poor urban areas.   # a very large amount of gun deaths and injuries are not from  istupid or mentally deranged people .  a large chunk is violence in poor urban areas.  another decent amount are accidents, suicides and homicides using a gun within one is own household.  URL and even if it was the majority, why would we enable these people to cause more harm ? good.  either explain why it is at all likely that martial law would ever happen, or why these current values are actually good, or else this argument is just an is ought fallacy.
cigarettes are the leading cause of preventable death, responsible for roughly 0,0 deaths per year in the us.  0,0 of those deaths are not even those of users they are the deaths of those exposed to secondhand smoke.  if you use the drug nicotine , it can directly affect the health of those close to you.  smoking harms nearly every organ in the body, causing cancer and disease.  cigarettes are extremely addictive and many people ca not quit even if they try.  yet other drugs pose less threats and have a much lower or even a nonexistent fatality rate.  they certainly are not killing 0,0 people per day.  can you imagine if an illegal drug killed over 0,0 people everyday, users and nonusers ? there would be political crusades.  for all illicit drugs combined, the number of resulting deaths were about 0,0 in 0.  for all drugs combined legal and illegal that number jumped to about 0,0 for that same year.  that is an extra 0,0 deaths from legal drugs.  cigarettes cause 0x more deaths per year than all the drugs in the us.  why are we pouring so much time, resources and money into the drug war to keep these  super dangerous  illegal drugs out of the hands of the american public such as marijuana easy argument, 0 deaths or even heroin much more difficult argument, 0,0 deaths in 0 when cigarettes are so acceptable ? cigarettes kill nearly half a million people per year and are the direct cause for serious health issues and reduced lifespan.  they are highly addictive.  if the objective of the war on drugs is to keep people safe and not addicted to drugs, how can we rationalize this continuing support of cigarettes while stigmatizing the use of other, less harmful drugs ?  reasons i think we overlook this high fatality rate.     culture and ingrained public perception of acceptance.  cigarettes used to be advertised as good for you and everybody knows somebody who smokes.  smoking is not something you necessarily have to hide.  jobs do not generally screen for cigarette smokers.    in the eyes of the public, cigarettes are not really  drugs  i. e.  they do not alter your state of consciousness; they do not get you high an 0 year old can legally buy as many packs of cigarettes as they want.  in the us, they ca not even do that with alcohol which gets you drunk .  in states with legal marijuana, you also have to be 0 to buy/consume.    cigarettes do not cause immediate death.  shortsightedness you do not overdose on nicotine.  instead, cigarettes slowly kill you so there is no instant connection between cigarettes and death.  for example, a heroin od would be an instant  drugs kill you.   if you smoke a cigarette, you know you are not risking your life right that second.   what are some other reasons we overlook this fatality rate and continue to socially and legislatively accept cigarettes ?    sources  x URL x URL  #  if the objective of the war on drugs is to keep people safe and not addicted to drugs, how can we rationalize this continuing support of cigarettes while stigmatizing the use of other, less harmful drugs ?  #  maybe your premise is wrong about the objective of the war on drugs.   # maybe your premise is wrong about the objective of the war on drugs.  the war on drugs came from the nixon administration, with the  advertised  purpose ostensibly being to keep people safe and not addicted to drugs.  but according to john ehrlichman, who was counsel and assistant to the president for domestic affairs under richard nixon, the real purpose was different.  here is an excerpt from an interview with dan baum for the book  smoke and mirrors: the war on drugs and the politics of failure :  the nixon campaign in 0, and the nixon white house after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left, and black people.  you understand what i am saying ? we knew we could not make it illegal to be either against the war or black.  but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities.  we could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news.  did we know we were lying about the drugs ? of course we did.  according to the book, the rationale for the war on drugs was to target people who were not likely to vote for nixon:  the young, the poor, and the black.  nixon could not make it illegal to be young, poor, or black, but he could crack down hard on the illegal drug identified with the counterculture.  if the book is right, acceptance of cigarettes falls in line exactly with the war on drugs.   #  the war on drugs on the other hand has been a complete disaster.   #  the antismoking campaign is one of the largest health campaigns in the history of health campaigns.  we do not  support  smoking.  we just learned a lot from prohibition and knew that education, policy efforts, and economics was a better way to fight smoking than a criminal war against smoking.  the fight against smoking was led by the actual scientists, and it has been largely successful.  the war on drugs on the other hand has been a complete disaster.  it has been a political and criminal war.  it learned nothing from prohibition.  it has not followed the advice of the scientists at all.  i think your making a false comparison here.  it is not that we are too accepting of smoking.  we have handled smoking pretty well.  the problem is our ineffective approach to drugs.  we could learn a lot from the antismoking movement about how to reduce drug use.   #  so you are saying the two are different issues that cannot be compared ?  #  so you are saying the two are different issues that cannot be compared ? i suppose that is kind of true since cigarettes are so ingrained in our culture, we ca not just take them out.  as /u/scottevil0 said.    but when something is already illegal, it is a lot easier to keep it that way.  if cigarettes were illegal already, they would likely be staying that way, for exactly the reasons you mentioned.  i just think it is mind boggling how the government can paint illegal drugs in such a nefarious way to support their stigmatization when cigarettes are clearly much worse.  the fact that they claim that drugs are worse than cigarettes and require a massive  war  rather than education is ridiculous.   #  if the default stance on marijuana was already that it was legal, it would still be legal everywhere and you would not be seeing many people trying to get it banned.   #  i do not disagree with your claim that the war on drugs is stupid i choose to believe that is your claim, and i agree .  but to answer your hypothesis about why we are mysteriously okay with cigarettes, it is because it is a lot easier to keep something away from people than it is to take something away from people.  if the default stance on marijuana was already that it was legal, it would still be legal everywhere and you would not be seeing many people trying to get it banned.  same as alcohol.  but when something is  already  illegal, it is a lot easier to keep it that way.  if cigarettes were illegal already, they would likely be staying that way, for exactly the reasons you mentioned.  people would be saying  why on earth should we legalize these things ? we have not even legalized stuff that is far less dangerous !    #  it seems as though we were headed towards a more accepting nation.   #  this is true and supports my hypothesis of cultural factors and an accepting public perception.  we accept cigarettes because they have always been accepted.  so what happened in 0 when nixon declared the war on drugs and cracked down on drug use ? it seems as though we were headed towards a more accepting nation.  other examples URL it seems as though drugs had not planted their roots in culture as firmly as cigarettes, so it was easier to create a perception of  drugs evil,  right ? furthermore, in the  0s, i feel like we did not know the extent of the adverse consequences of cigarette smoking.  but, then again, if we did know even a little, it still does not make sense to start making a huge stink about  dangerous  drugs but ignoring cigarettes.  is this where my point about cigarettes not being regarded as drugs comes in ?
first let me just say i am 0 and do not have much experience with how it is in the  adult world .  but i do not think a 0 platonic relationship can exist between a straight male and a straight female.  can you think back to any friendship and say with absolute certainty that there was never even a hint of attraction ? and even if you can, how do you know they do not or never have not felt that way ? it does not even need to be acted on to affect the relationship.  it often with subconsciously.  from my personal experience, this sort of friendship does not exist.  so, change my view, reddit !  #  and even if you can, how do you know they do not or never have not felt that way ?  #  of course i ca not read their minds.   # yes, absolutely.  of course i ca not read their minds.  look, are you really going to tell me that you see every woman or man whichever applies to you, or both, if that is your thing as a potential romantic partner ? including your close family and distant relations ? your teachers ? the 0 year old who works at the grocery store ? your friends  parents ? your friends  younger siblings ? you are probably currently immersed in a hyper sexual environment high school , where of course the  vast majority  of your interactions are going to be sexualized in one way or another, and this gives you a skewed outlook on life.  the world becomes a lot less sexual as you get older, both because your own hormones die down and because the people you spend time with are at completely different points in their lives from you.  they get put into a different compartment in your mind, one that precludes romantic thoughts, the same way that your family does.  of course that does not mean you ca not re evaluate the situation later.   #  one friend of mine is a very cute girl and has generally been single even though she is dating someone right now.   #  the part that you are missing is that you can have attraction without having interest.  i have several female friends that i have known for a long time and nothing has ever happened and nothing ever will.  we are just friends.  eventually you grow out of wanting to jump anything that moves.  i will give you a more concrete example.  one friend of mine is a very cute girl and has generally been single even though she is dating someone right now.  but i know too much about her and i absolutely with 0 certainty know it would have been an absolute disaster for us to ever date.  it would be an incredibly poor idea and would have blown up immediately.  as you get older and know more about yourself then these things will become more obvious.   #  obviously i do not go into sex mode whenever i see something with a vagina.   #  ok i guess what i meant by the question was someone with a few years from me and was not related to me.  obviously i do not go into sex mode whenever i see something with a vagina.  i recognize the fact that i am a teenager, hormones, etc.  etc.  but i have a decent sense of when a girl is into me.  i have forged long standing friendships from girls who i have more or less friend zoned.  was see ever attracted to me ? yes.  was i ever attracted to her ? not really.  is she still attracted to me ? not sure, but i know the friendship is different due to past events and so forth.   #  or not a single mom devoted to her career.   # as you get older the list gets longer.   and is not married.  or not a single mom devoted to her career.  and x.  and y.   you just do not have enough experience with that yet because all the girls your age except siblings and cousins are more or less available.  i mean, everyone is different, and i am sure some people struggle with opposite sex friendships or same sex friendships for those who have same sex attraction , but for most of us it is fine.  a lot of my lady friends are married, and were married when i met them.  they are just in an off limits compartment.  i can think about whether or not i find them attractive or not, but i have to make a conscious effort to do so.  even the ones i find attractive, i do not fantasize about any of them at all.  i have other lady friends that i actually did date or considered dating.  some of them i still find attractive.  a few of them i occasionally fantasize about.  but man the time when they and i were both available was so long ago.  i have been in a monogamous relationship for almost 0 years.  that is a  long  time.  it just changes the way you think about things.   #  there are many heterosexual friendships that are purely consensual and remain platonic.   #  yes they absolutely can be friends.  even if you have a hint of attraction to someone, that does not mean you are actually interested in having sex, dating, or having any romantic interaction with them.  even friends of the same sex you usually have some kind of attraction too, otherwise you would not be interested in being friends.  there are many heterosexual friendships that are purely consensual and remain platonic.  an example that would contradict your argument would be a gay man being friends with a lesbian.  would they be able to be friends with each other because they are not attracted to that gender, and subsequently would they be physically unable to be friends with other people of the same gender without attraction ?
first let me just say i am 0 and do not have much experience with how it is in the  adult world .  but i do not think a 0 platonic relationship can exist between a straight male and a straight female.  can you think back to any friendship and say with absolute certainty that there was never even a hint of attraction ? and even if you can, how do you know they do not or never have not felt that way ? it does not even need to be acted on to affect the relationship.  it often with subconsciously.  from my personal experience, this sort of friendship does not exist.  so, change my view, reddit !  #  and even if you can, how do you know they do not or never have not felt that way ?  #  because i have known them for a long time, at least a decade in most cases.   # yes.  i would say 0 of my friends are male.  i am happily married and not at all attracted to my friends.  because i have known them for a long time, at least a decade in most cases.  i know how they act around women they are interested in, and i know how they act around me.  those statements are true for most of my friends.  i do have a few friendships with men that had some sort of attraction at some point.  my first real boyfriend is my best friend today.  while there was an attraction at some point, obviously, we broke up nearly a decade ago because we were becoming more like friends than partners.  the point is, attraction does not usually last forever.  i do not have any stats at the ready right now, but your post claims that straight men and straight women can never be just friends.  nearly all of my personal experience proves this to be a false statement.  blanket statements like that are not usually a very good idea anyway.  but i will go hunting for some stats.   #  the part that you are missing is that you can have attraction without having interest.   #  the part that you are missing is that you can have attraction without having interest.  i have several female friends that i have known for a long time and nothing has ever happened and nothing ever will.  we are just friends.  eventually you grow out of wanting to jump anything that moves.  i will give you a more concrete example.  one friend of mine is a very cute girl and has generally been single even though she is dating someone right now.  but i know too much about her and i absolutely with 0 certainty know it would have been an absolute disaster for us to ever date.  it would be an incredibly poor idea and would have blown up immediately.  as you get older and know more about yourself then these things will become more obvious.   #  look, are you really going to tell me that you see every woman or man whichever applies to you, or both, if that is your thing as a potential romantic partner ?  # yes, absolutely.  of course i ca not read their minds.  look, are you really going to tell me that you see every woman or man whichever applies to you, or both, if that is your thing as a potential romantic partner ? including your close family and distant relations ? your teachers ? the 0 year old who works at the grocery store ? your friends  parents ? your friends  younger siblings ? you are probably currently immersed in a hyper sexual environment high school , where of course the  vast majority  of your interactions are going to be sexualized in one way or another, and this gives you a skewed outlook on life.  the world becomes a lot less sexual as you get older, both because your own hormones die down and because the people you spend time with are at completely different points in their lives from you.  they get put into a different compartment in your mind, one that precludes romantic thoughts, the same way that your family does.  of course that does not mean you ca not re evaluate the situation later.   #  not sure, but i know the friendship is different due to past events and so forth.   #  ok i guess what i meant by the question was someone with a few years from me and was not related to me.  obviously i do not go into sex mode whenever i see something with a vagina.  i recognize the fact that i am a teenager, hormones, etc.  etc.  but i have a decent sense of when a girl is into me.  i have forged long standing friendships from girls who i have more or less friend zoned.  was see ever attracted to me ? yes.  was i ever attracted to her ? not really.  is she still attracted to me ? not sure, but i know the friendship is different due to past events and so forth.   #  i can think about whether or not i find them attractive or not, but i have to make a conscious effort to do so.   # as you get older the list gets longer.   and is not married.  or not a single mom devoted to her career.  and x.  and y.   you just do not have enough experience with that yet because all the girls your age except siblings and cousins are more or less available.  i mean, everyone is different, and i am sure some people struggle with opposite sex friendships or same sex friendships for those who have same sex attraction , but for most of us it is fine.  a lot of my lady friends are married, and were married when i met them.  they are just in an off limits compartment.  i can think about whether or not i find them attractive or not, but i have to make a conscious effort to do so.  even the ones i find attractive, i do not fantasize about any of them at all.  i have other lady friends that i actually did date or considered dating.  some of them i still find attractive.  a few of them i occasionally fantasize about.  but man the time when they and i were both available was so long ago.  i have been in a monogamous relationship for almost 0 years.  that is a  long  time.  it just changes the way you think about things.
i got a slap on the wrist for choosing times new roman on a design project, and i had to take a stand.  times new roman is not the arial of serif fonts.  poor choice of angles and weight actually make arial a difficult font to read.  times new roman, much like helvetica, is invisible.  it is so readable that it does nothing to draw attention to itself, leaving only the content.  the only reason people hate it is because it was licensed differently than helvetica, leading microsoft to decide to use it as a default instead of making a cheap knock off.   #  it is so readable that it does nothing to draw attention to itself, leaving only the content.   #  for anything other than a design project, you would have a perfect point.   # for anything other than a design project, you would have a perfect point.  but one of the rules of design is to never include anything that does not add to your project.  if your font is just  invisible  and does not draw attention to itself, it is a bad font choice for a design project.  if content mattered as much as visual appeal, all advertisements would just be punched out on microsoft word.  so no, times new roman is not a  bad  font, but you can almost always find a better one that actually adds something to your project, as opposed to just being  invisible.    #  tnr and its predecessor times are ubiquitous for body copy.   #  i would take issue with your statement that people hate tnr.  i think, at best, people are completely neutral to it and look at it for what it is, a vanilla body copy font.  now if you were trying to defend comic sans, you might have a case, but tnr hate seems rare at best.  i have more than 0 years of typography experience including setting cold type by hand.  tnr and its predecessor times are ubiquitous for body copy.  times was one of the original newspaper fonts, so billions of people have read that font in many different languages.  the only hate that i could find is from early designers that are trying to differentiate their work by using obscure fonts.  a very small, insignificant number of users to be sure.   #  i think this is the most substantial part of the argument against using times new roman.   #  i think this is the most substantial part of the argument against using times new roman.  it is not an inherently bad font, but it could definitely be a bad choice for a project.  when you are talking about the overall design of something, you ca not isolate the font and try to look at it completely objectively.  you have to weigh the effect it has on other people viewing your project.  seeing the font as boring due to its overuse is a valid complaint when approaching it from a design critique standpoint.   #  in design however, overuse can definitely is definitely be a problem.   #  i think this is a very important point.  if writing a report, there is no such thing as an overused font.  in design however, overuse can definitely is definitely be a problem.  it would be like an advert using vivaldi is four seasons.  an excellent piece of music, but its overuse is a disadvantage in creative industries where originality is important.   #  i did a bit of an experiment in high school back when times new roman was the default font in word and not calibri .   # my experience says otherwise.  i did a bit of an experiment in high school back when times new roman was the default font in word and not calibri .  0 of the time, i would type my documents in baskerville instead of times new roman, even when prompts specifically called for times new roman.  i got higher grades on the baskerville assignments.  it is similar enough that non typographers ca not tell the difference, but different enough to look refreshing after people have been reading 0 0 documents all written in times new roman.  i continued this all through college and into my career as a scientist, and it seems to be working.  nobody has ever consciously noticed or commented that i use baskerville instead of times new roman or computer modern .  so for situations where people are reading very large numbers of documents all written in times new roman, other transitional fonts  are  better because they make you stand out and give a competitive advantage.
written hastily, but hopefully i can clarify any mistakes in comments, here we go: the confederacy was racist according to the cornerstone speech and secession papers tx : cornerstone speech excerpt URL texas secession papers excerpt URL if the new government the confederacy was trying to replace the current one with was based on that cornerstone, there is no denying the confederacy was racist.  those that fought for the cause of the confederacy and helped further it, helped further  the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition  are culpable.  point 0: someone who fights for a racist cause, helps create an institution to power that racism, and otherwise spread it is racist.  people who have done this do not deserve to be monumented, or at the very least do not deserve to be monumented something as defining as a town square.  point 0: a monument with the words  our confederate soldiers  cannot monument just the soldiers without endorsing their actions to some extent.  point 0: the image of a confederate soldier being a defining landmark in the center of a city is an endorsement of the confederacies actions and perpetuates racism by virtue of it being a defining part of the cityscape.   #  point 0: someone who fights for a racist cause, helps create an institution to power that racism, and otherwise spread it is racist.   #  people who have done this do not deserve to be monumented, or at the very least do not deserve to be monumented something as defining as a town square.   # people who have done this do not deserve to be monumented, or at the very least do not deserve to be monumented something as defining as a town square.  a similar example i can think of is nazi germany.  under this point, any soldier of ww0 fighting for germany would not deserve to be honored even if they were not fighting for  the idea  of nazism, but rather their homeland.  karl heinz rosch URL has a monument made of him, even though he was wehrmacht.  i believe he did heroic acts in the name of his country, not in the name of racism against the jews.   #  trying to draw parallels between that war and the other ones you mentioned does not seem like a good argument to me, though.   #  i am not op, by the way.  and yes, i do like those arguments better.  trying to draw parallels between that war and the other ones you mentioned does not seem like a good argument to me, though.  but even then, i do not think that a risked life is  always  worth honoring, but rather there are individual cases we should honor more or less.  for example, i would give a lot of respect to someone who risked their life to protect their homeland from an invasion.  i would give some respect to someone who fought a war with somewhat reasonable ends, like the end of a long standing aggression or support of one is country.  i would not respect someone who, for example, decided to fight in the vietnam war specifically because they wanted to kill people of another race, regardless of if they ended up committing a war crime or not.  and i suspect there were people on all parts of this spectrum who fought in the civil war.   #  we do not honour people who fought  politically  to keep slavery, so why is the military any different ?  #  this is a really interesting challenge, particularly this part:   if i told you i believed all soldiers in history deserve recognition, regardless of what they fought for assuming they committed no war crimes, like the rape of nanking , would you say i am a racist ? the reason i find it such an interesting view is how you deal with the idea of  war crimes .  specifically, the reasoning as to  why  people who commit war crimes are excluded.  in international law,  war crimes  are seen as less serious compared to the more serious  crimes against humanity .  because of how often these two categories overlap, however, it creates some really difficult questions if you want to delineate which soldiers are worthy of honour or reverence and which are not.  for example: are soldiers who commit a war crime in order to stop a crime against humanity ever worthy of honour ? the best example of this might be the soldiers complicit in the bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki, which are, from a legal perspective, clearly war crimes, but are often argued as having prevented the greater injustice of a continued war.  although a  continued war  is not really a crime against humanity in the technical sense, i am sure a lot of people would see a war like wwii as some kind of affront to humanity, so there is a case to be made here.  who is actually complicit in war crimes and who is merely proximate to them/ just following orders  ? this one comes up a lot, but it is really important to establish because so many people are indirectly complicit in war crimes.  what exactly makes fighting the wrong way for the right thing less deserving of honour than fighting the right way for the wrong way ? this is the obvious one with reference to the civil war.  why stop at war crimes ? they are less serious than crimes against humanity, so why are crimes against humanity not included ? to die in the defence of a morally disgusting ideal, even without your explicit consent to fight, is generally seen as a bad thing.  what makes war sacred when compared to other, less serious forms of politics ? we do not honour people who fought  politically  to keep slavery, so why is the military any different ?  #  it was condemned by all kinds of people for its entire existence, yet it continued for various  practical  reasons in much of the world.   #  i am not a vegetarian or a vegan or anything similar, but if a war was fought over eating meat, and you ate meat, would you judge the people who fought to defend eating meat ? i ask this because i think there is an important parallel: eating meat is, contextually, in 0, in most of the world, seen as an ok thing to do.  that said, it is also clearly a morally  questionable  thing to do.  that is not to say it is objectively bad although it may be , just that it is clear that , at the very least, eating meat is less ideal than not eating meat if you are thinking of ethics as something that should be  amaximised  in some way that is an overly simplistic view of ethics, but stick with me .  this seems an awful lot like how slavery was viewed prior to the 0th century in much of the world.  it was condemned by all kinds of people for its entire existence, yet it continued for various  practical  reasons in much of the world.  this is not to defend the people who defended slavery.  it is just to point out that it might not be helpful to judge the people of the past by the standards of the present.  very few people want to or claim to lead perfectly ethical lives, and people who make great moral progress in one area are naturally going to neglect others.  it seems unfair to say that someone is not a  hero  because they have committed some ethical offence by the standards of today when such a thing was seen as less bad in their own time, because it creates an ideal that we could never hope to meet: ethical standards will change, we will look uncivilised and barbaric to future generations for reasons we probably never even considered.   #  iran or whoever starts landing ground troops in your hometown and is systematically working their way through your town, murdering your children, torching your homes, and raping your families.   #  just because the confederacy was founded out of a disagreement about slavery which up until then, the north had been perfectly fine with, too , does not mean that you can just equate confederate soldiers with racism.  most of the people fighting for the confederacy were not fighting for racism.  they were fighting to save their own towns and homes and families.  look at it this way.  let is say another country has had enough of america is shit and decides to attack us.  iran or whoever starts landing ground troops in your hometown and is systematically working their way through your town, murdering your children, torching your homes, and raping your families.  are you going to ask yourself if you believe in america is cause before you try to defend your family ? or are you going to fight tooth and nail to save yourself ? does that make you a supporter of whatever made america go to war in the first place ? should we all forget what happened to you if it is later decided that we were actually in the wrong ?
written hastily, but hopefully i can clarify any mistakes in comments, here we go: the confederacy was racist according to the cornerstone speech and secession papers tx : cornerstone speech excerpt URL texas secession papers excerpt URL if the new government the confederacy was trying to replace the current one with was based on that cornerstone, there is no denying the confederacy was racist.  those that fought for the cause of the confederacy and helped further it, helped further  the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition  are culpable.  point 0: someone who fights for a racist cause, helps create an institution to power that racism, and otherwise spread it is racist.  people who have done this do not deserve to be monumented, or at the very least do not deserve to be monumented something as defining as a town square.  point 0: a monument with the words  our confederate soldiers  cannot monument just the soldiers without endorsing their actions to some extent.  point 0: the image of a confederate soldier being a defining landmark in the center of a city is an endorsement of the confederacies actions and perpetuates racism by virtue of it being a defining part of the cityscape.   #  point 0: someone who fights for a racist cause, helps create an institution to power that racism, and otherwise spread it is racist.   #  people who have done this do not deserve to be monumented, or at the very least do not deserve to be monumented something as defining as a town square.   # people who have done this do not deserve to be monumented, or at the very least do not deserve to be monumented something as defining as a town square.  do not you think that this is too broad ? most of the founding fathers also owned slaves and, by doing so, supported a vile institution.  however, i do not think you would have a problem with their statues in town squares or other prominent places.  how do you reconcile this with your view ? personally, i think a flag is like a poem which allows those who look at it to project their own values onto it.  statues can be modified.  a plaque under statue can be used to deliver an appropriate message, which would probably do more good than removing the statues altogether.   #  but even then, i do not think that a risked life is  always  worth honoring, but rather there are individual cases we should honor more or less.   #  i am not op, by the way.  and yes, i do like those arguments better.  trying to draw parallels between that war and the other ones you mentioned does not seem like a good argument to me, though.  but even then, i do not think that a risked life is  always  worth honoring, but rather there are individual cases we should honor more or less.  for example, i would give a lot of respect to someone who risked their life to protect their homeland from an invasion.  i would give some respect to someone who fought a war with somewhat reasonable ends, like the end of a long standing aggression or support of one is country.  i would not respect someone who, for example, decided to fight in the vietnam war specifically because they wanted to kill people of another race, regardless of if they ended up committing a war crime or not.  and i suspect there were people on all parts of this spectrum who fought in the civil war.   #  this one comes up a lot, but it is really important to establish because so many people are indirectly complicit in war crimes.   #  this is a really interesting challenge, particularly this part:   if i told you i believed all soldiers in history deserve recognition, regardless of what they fought for assuming they committed no war crimes, like the rape of nanking , would you say i am a racist ? the reason i find it such an interesting view is how you deal with the idea of  war crimes .  specifically, the reasoning as to  why  people who commit war crimes are excluded.  in international law,  war crimes  are seen as less serious compared to the more serious  crimes against humanity .  because of how often these two categories overlap, however, it creates some really difficult questions if you want to delineate which soldiers are worthy of honour or reverence and which are not.  for example: are soldiers who commit a war crime in order to stop a crime against humanity ever worthy of honour ? the best example of this might be the soldiers complicit in the bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki, which are, from a legal perspective, clearly war crimes, but are often argued as having prevented the greater injustice of a continued war.  although a  continued war  is not really a crime against humanity in the technical sense, i am sure a lot of people would see a war like wwii as some kind of affront to humanity, so there is a case to be made here.  who is actually complicit in war crimes and who is merely proximate to them/ just following orders  ? this one comes up a lot, but it is really important to establish because so many people are indirectly complicit in war crimes.  what exactly makes fighting the wrong way for the right thing less deserving of honour than fighting the right way for the wrong way ? this is the obvious one with reference to the civil war.  why stop at war crimes ? they are less serious than crimes against humanity, so why are crimes against humanity not included ? to die in the defence of a morally disgusting ideal, even without your explicit consent to fight, is generally seen as a bad thing.  what makes war sacred when compared to other, less serious forms of politics ? we do not honour people who fought  politically  to keep slavery, so why is the military any different ?  #  it is just to point out that it might not be helpful to judge the people of the past by the standards of the present.   #  i am not a vegetarian or a vegan or anything similar, but if a war was fought over eating meat, and you ate meat, would you judge the people who fought to defend eating meat ? i ask this because i think there is an important parallel: eating meat is, contextually, in 0, in most of the world, seen as an ok thing to do.  that said, it is also clearly a morally  questionable  thing to do.  that is not to say it is objectively bad although it may be , just that it is clear that , at the very least, eating meat is less ideal than not eating meat if you are thinking of ethics as something that should be  amaximised  in some way that is an overly simplistic view of ethics, but stick with me .  this seems an awful lot like how slavery was viewed prior to the 0th century in much of the world.  it was condemned by all kinds of people for its entire existence, yet it continued for various  practical  reasons in much of the world.  this is not to defend the people who defended slavery.  it is just to point out that it might not be helpful to judge the people of the past by the standards of the present.  very few people want to or claim to lead perfectly ethical lives, and people who make great moral progress in one area are naturally going to neglect others.  it seems unfair to say that someone is not a  hero  because they have committed some ethical offence by the standards of today when such a thing was seen as less bad in their own time, because it creates an ideal that we could never hope to meet: ethical standards will change, we will look uncivilised and barbaric to future generations for reasons we probably never even considered.   #  are you going to ask yourself if you believe in america is cause before you try to defend your family ?  #  just because the confederacy was founded out of a disagreement about slavery which up until then, the north had been perfectly fine with, too , does not mean that you can just equate confederate soldiers with racism.  most of the people fighting for the confederacy were not fighting for racism.  they were fighting to save their own towns and homes and families.  look at it this way.  let is say another country has had enough of america is shit and decides to attack us.  iran or whoever starts landing ground troops in your hometown and is systematically working their way through your town, murdering your children, torching your homes, and raping your families.  are you going to ask yourself if you believe in america is cause before you try to defend your family ? or are you going to fight tooth and nail to save yourself ? does that make you a supporter of whatever made america go to war in the first place ? should we all forget what happened to you if it is later decided that we were actually in the wrong ?
written hastily, but hopefully i can clarify any mistakes in comments, here we go: the confederacy was racist according to the cornerstone speech and secession papers tx : cornerstone speech excerpt URL texas secession papers excerpt URL if the new government the confederacy was trying to replace the current one with was based on that cornerstone, there is no denying the confederacy was racist.  those that fought for the cause of the confederacy and helped further it, helped further  the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition  are culpable.  point 0: someone who fights for a racist cause, helps create an institution to power that racism, and otherwise spread it is racist.  people who have done this do not deserve to be monumented, or at the very least do not deserve to be monumented something as defining as a town square.  point 0: a monument with the words  our confederate soldiers  cannot monument just the soldiers without endorsing their actions to some extent.  point 0: the image of a confederate soldier being a defining landmark in the center of a city is an endorsement of the confederacies actions and perpetuates racism by virtue of it being a defining part of the cityscape.   #  someone who fights for a racist cause, helps create an institution to power that racism, and otherwise spread it is racist.   #  0 of whites in 0 were racist but this argument does not work because war is hellish.   # 0 of whites in 0 were racist but this argument does not work because war is hellish.  if you fight or do not fight your land is at risk of destruction, you, your wife, family, friends and children risk death or injury and you are subject to all or most of the costs of the war after the fact regardless.  this sort of thing has made a lot of people pick up arms for their country while disagreeing with their politics.  true but look at  to some extent .  symbols are tricky things, confederate soldiers represent a spirit of national reconciliation through soldier is valor instead of sectional strife, pride at a redeemed south, a valorization of one is parents, grandparents, family instead of a message which dams them, etc.  one of these is pretty bad but the other two are solid.  symbols are important because they mean so many things and you seem to be missing the other parts of teh symbol   perpetuates racism by virtue of it being a defining part of the cityscape.  you have not made this argument.   #  i would give some respect to someone who fought a war with somewhat reasonable ends, like the end of a long standing aggression or support of one is country.   #  i am not op, by the way.  and yes, i do like those arguments better.  trying to draw parallels between that war and the other ones you mentioned does not seem like a good argument to me, though.  but even then, i do not think that a risked life is  always  worth honoring, but rather there are individual cases we should honor more or less.  for example, i would give a lot of respect to someone who risked their life to protect their homeland from an invasion.  i would give some respect to someone who fought a war with somewhat reasonable ends, like the end of a long standing aggression or support of one is country.  i would not respect someone who, for example, decided to fight in the vietnam war specifically because they wanted to kill people of another race, regardless of if they ended up committing a war crime or not.  and i suspect there were people on all parts of this spectrum who fought in the civil war.   #  because of how often these two categories overlap, however, it creates some really difficult questions if you want to delineate which soldiers are worthy of honour or reverence and which are not.   #  this is a really interesting challenge, particularly this part:   if i told you i believed all soldiers in history deserve recognition, regardless of what they fought for assuming they committed no war crimes, like the rape of nanking , would you say i am a racist ? the reason i find it such an interesting view is how you deal with the idea of  war crimes .  specifically, the reasoning as to  why  people who commit war crimes are excluded.  in international law,  war crimes  are seen as less serious compared to the more serious  crimes against humanity .  because of how often these two categories overlap, however, it creates some really difficult questions if you want to delineate which soldiers are worthy of honour or reverence and which are not.  for example: are soldiers who commit a war crime in order to stop a crime against humanity ever worthy of honour ? the best example of this might be the soldiers complicit in the bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki, which are, from a legal perspective, clearly war crimes, but are often argued as having prevented the greater injustice of a continued war.  although a  continued war  is not really a crime against humanity in the technical sense, i am sure a lot of people would see a war like wwii as some kind of affront to humanity, so there is a case to be made here.  who is actually complicit in war crimes and who is merely proximate to them/ just following orders  ? this one comes up a lot, but it is really important to establish because so many people are indirectly complicit in war crimes.  what exactly makes fighting the wrong way for the right thing less deserving of honour than fighting the right way for the wrong way ? this is the obvious one with reference to the civil war.  why stop at war crimes ? they are less serious than crimes against humanity, so why are crimes against humanity not included ? to die in the defence of a morally disgusting ideal, even without your explicit consent to fight, is generally seen as a bad thing.  what makes war sacred when compared to other, less serious forms of politics ? we do not honour people who fought  politically  to keep slavery, so why is the military any different ?  #  i ask this because i think there is an important parallel: eating meat is, contextually, in 0, in most of the world, seen as an ok thing to do.   #  i am not a vegetarian or a vegan or anything similar, but if a war was fought over eating meat, and you ate meat, would you judge the people who fought to defend eating meat ? i ask this because i think there is an important parallel: eating meat is, contextually, in 0, in most of the world, seen as an ok thing to do.  that said, it is also clearly a morally  questionable  thing to do.  that is not to say it is objectively bad although it may be , just that it is clear that , at the very least, eating meat is less ideal than not eating meat if you are thinking of ethics as something that should be  amaximised  in some way that is an overly simplistic view of ethics, but stick with me .  this seems an awful lot like how slavery was viewed prior to the 0th century in much of the world.  it was condemned by all kinds of people for its entire existence, yet it continued for various  practical  reasons in much of the world.  this is not to defend the people who defended slavery.  it is just to point out that it might not be helpful to judge the people of the past by the standards of the present.  very few people want to or claim to lead perfectly ethical lives, and people who make great moral progress in one area are naturally going to neglect others.  it seems unfair to say that someone is not a  hero  because they have committed some ethical offence by the standards of today when such a thing was seen as less bad in their own time, because it creates an ideal that we could never hope to meet: ethical standards will change, we will look uncivilised and barbaric to future generations for reasons we probably never even considered.   #  most of the people fighting for the confederacy were not fighting for racism.   #  just because the confederacy was founded out of a disagreement about slavery which up until then, the north had been perfectly fine with, too , does not mean that you can just equate confederate soldiers with racism.  most of the people fighting for the confederacy were not fighting for racism.  they were fighting to save their own towns and homes and families.  look at it this way.  let is say another country has had enough of america is shit and decides to attack us.  iran or whoever starts landing ground troops in your hometown and is systematically working their way through your town, murdering your children, torching your homes, and raping your families.  are you going to ask yourself if you believe in america is cause before you try to defend your family ? or are you going to fight tooth and nail to save yourself ? does that make you a supporter of whatever made america go to war in the first place ? should we all forget what happened to you if it is later decided that we were actually in the wrong ?
written hastily, but hopefully i can clarify any mistakes in comments, here we go: the confederacy was racist according to the cornerstone speech and secession papers tx : cornerstone speech excerpt URL texas secession papers excerpt URL if the new government the confederacy was trying to replace the current one with was based on that cornerstone, there is no denying the confederacy was racist.  those that fought for the cause of the confederacy and helped further it, helped further  the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition  are culpable.  point 0: someone who fights for a racist cause, helps create an institution to power that racism, and otherwise spread it is racist.  people who have done this do not deserve to be monumented, or at the very least do not deserve to be monumented something as defining as a town square.  point 0: a monument with the words  our confederate soldiers  cannot monument just the soldiers without endorsing their actions to some extent.  point 0: the image of a confederate soldier being a defining landmark in the center of a city is an endorsement of the confederacies actions and perpetuates racism by virtue of it being a defining part of the cityscape.   #   our confederate soldiers  cannot monument just the soldiers without endorsing their actions to some extent.   #  true but look at  to some extent .   # 0 of whites in 0 were racist but this argument does not work because war is hellish.  if you fight or do not fight your land is at risk of destruction, you, your wife, family, friends and children risk death or injury and you are subject to all or most of the costs of the war after the fact regardless.  this sort of thing has made a lot of people pick up arms for their country while disagreeing with their politics.  true but look at  to some extent .  symbols are tricky things, confederate soldiers represent a spirit of national reconciliation through soldier is valor instead of sectional strife, pride at a redeemed south, a valorization of one is parents, grandparents, family instead of a message which dams them, etc.  one of these is pretty bad but the other two are solid.  symbols are important because they mean so many things and you seem to be missing the other parts of teh symbol   perpetuates racism by virtue of it being a defining part of the cityscape.  you have not made this argument.   #  but even then, i do not think that a risked life is  always  worth honoring, but rather there are individual cases we should honor more or less.   #  i am not op, by the way.  and yes, i do like those arguments better.  trying to draw parallels between that war and the other ones you mentioned does not seem like a good argument to me, though.  but even then, i do not think that a risked life is  always  worth honoring, but rather there are individual cases we should honor more or less.  for example, i would give a lot of respect to someone who risked their life to protect their homeland from an invasion.  i would give some respect to someone who fought a war with somewhat reasonable ends, like the end of a long standing aggression or support of one is country.  i would not respect someone who, for example, decided to fight in the vietnam war specifically because they wanted to kill people of another race, regardless of if they ended up committing a war crime or not.  and i suspect there were people on all parts of this spectrum who fought in the civil war.   #  they are less serious than crimes against humanity, so why are crimes against humanity not included ?  #  this is a really interesting challenge, particularly this part:   if i told you i believed all soldiers in history deserve recognition, regardless of what they fought for assuming they committed no war crimes, like the rape of nanking , would you say i am a racist ? the reason i find it such an interesting view is how you deal with the idea of  war crimes .  specifically, the reasoning as to  why  people who commit war crimes are excluded.  in international law,  war crimes  are seen as less serious compared to the more serious  crimes against humanity .  because of how often these two categories overlap, however, it creates some really difficult questions if you want to delineate which soldiers are worthy of honour or reverence and which are not.  for example: are soldiers who commit a war crime in order to stop a crime against humanity ever worthy of honour ? the best example of this might be the soldiers complicit in the bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki, which are, from a legal perspective, clearly war crimes, but are often argued as having prevented the greater injustice of a continued war.  although a  continued war  is not really a crime against humanity in the technical sense, i am sure a lot of people would see a war like wwii as some kind of affront to humanity, so there is a case to be made here.  who is actually complicit in war crimes and who is merely proximate to them/ just following orders  ? this one comes up a lot, but it is really important to establish because so many people are indirectly complicit in war crimes.  what exactly makes fighting the wrong way for the right thing less deserving of honour than fighting the right way for the wrong way ? this is the obvious one with reference to the civil war.  why stop at war crimes ? they are less serious than crimes against humanity, so why are crimes against humanity not included ? to die in the defence of a morally disgusting ideal, even without your explicit consent to fight, is generally seen as a bad thing.  what makes war sacred when compared to other, less serious forms of politics ? we do not honour people who fought  politically  to keep slavery, so why is the military any different ?  #  this seems an awful lot like how slavery was viewed prior to the 0th century in much of the world.   #  i am not a vegetarian or a vegan or anything similar, but if a war was fought over eating meat, and you ate meat, would you judge the people who fought to defend eating meat ? i ask this because i think there is an important parallel: eating meat is, contextually, in 0, in most of the world, seen as an ok thing to do.  that said, it is also clearly a morally  questionable  thing to do.  that is not to say it is objectively bad although it may be , just that it is clear that , at the very least, eating meat is less ideal than not eating meat if you are thinking of ethics as something that should be  amaximised  in some way that is an overly simplistic view of ethics, but stick with me .  this seems an awful lot like how slavery was viewed prior to the 0th century in much of the world.  it was condemned by all kinds of people for its entire existence, yet it continued for various  practical  reasons in much of the world.  this is not to defend the people who defended slavery.  it is just to point out that it might not be helpful to judge the people of the past by the standards of the present.  very few people want to or claim to lead perfectly ethical lives, and people who make great moral progress in one area are naturally going to neglect others.  it seems unfair to say that someone is not a  hero  because they have committed some ethical offence by the standards of today when such a thing was seen as less bad in their own time, because it creates an ideal that we could never hope to meet: ethical standards will change, we will look uncivilised and barbaric to future generations for reasons we probably never even considered.   #  does that make you a supporter of whatever made america go to war in the first place ?  #  just because the confederacy was founded out of a disagreement about slavery which up until then, the north had been perfectly fine with, too , does not mean that you can just equate confederate soldiers with racism.  most of the people fighting for the confederacy were not fighting for racism.  they were fighting to save their own towns and homes and families.  look at it this way.  let is say another country has had enough of america is shit and decides to attack us.  iran or whoever starts landing ground troops in your hometown and is systematically working their way through your town, murdering your children, torching your homes, and raping your families.  are you going to ask yourself if you believe in america is cause before you try to defend your family ? or are you going to fight tooth and nail to save yourself ? does that make you a supporter of whatever made america go to war in the first place ? should we all forget what happened to you if it is later decided that we were actually in the wrong ?
gaston, the loud and boisterous dreamboat is known as the main antagonist of disney is beauty and the beast, and is arguably one of the most known disney villains of all time, fighting and womanizing his way through the small french village before ultimately meeting a brutal end by falling to his death off of beast is castle and impaling himself on a spiked fence.  while gaston is written to be the evil character in this film, i believe that it is unfair to put him in this light, and if anything, he is a good guy.  here is my reasoning 0.  overwhelmingly, the villagers seem to absolutely adore gaston, and not because of some shady shit where he is hiding who he truly is.  everybody knows the true gaston and yet they loyally follow him anyway, even into battle.  i refuse to believe that this is because the village is populated entirely by villains, and instead it must mean that gaston truly has a way of winning over people.  0.  people often say that the way that he approached belle in asking her to marry him was rude and misogynistic.  while i do not necessarily believe that any of these traits make a villain, i still think that it is unfair to paint him with any of these labels.  he approached her with great confidence, a trait that just about every woman likes in a man, and his track record of having every woman in the village swoon over him means that it is really not his fault that he expected belle to be different.  the fact that he even asked belle herself as opposed to demanding her from her father shows that he probably really did care about her, especially since he probably could have done the former given the time period the movie is set in.  0.  the act that truly cements gaston as the  villain  of the story is when in what i think is the movie is best song , he rallies the entire town to go kill the beast, now at this point in the story, the beast had attacked and kidnapped belle is father, and he also held belle hostage during which he verbally abused her, kept her locked in her room, and even came close to physically assaulting her.  while the beast had gone through some personal growth during this period, gaston had no way of knowing this, and none of that excuses the fact that he fucking kidnapped belle.  so, disregarding his own personal safety, and acting out of anger for what has happened to belle even though she brutally rejected and insulted him a very selfless act if you ask me , gaston charges headlong into a castle to destroy this beast that he logically believes is a violent and dangerous creature, and then the story ends.  overwhelmingly, i see nothing that shows gaston to be the evil sociopathic villain that disney wants to portray him as.  in fact, i see him as a lovestruck and rightfully angered man, albeit a little bit egotistical, but hey, plenty of us are.   #  especially since he probably could have done the former given the time period the movie is set in.   #  you need to look at the rules the movie establishes and not invoke history since this is not history it is pseudohistorical myth it does not play on.   #  tl;dr you are wrong because you are missing how the film intentionally plays with this idea of gaston as the good guy.  you need to look at the rules the movie establishes and not invoke history since this is not history it is pseudohistorical myth it does not play on.  the movie never considers this a possibility so you ca not really use it.  you are partly right in that gaston is supposed to signal in part that he is the natural hero and thus giving disney handdrawn animation the one semi realistic bad guy he is not evil, he is arrogant, controlling, mysoginistic, wrothful, brave, strong, sociable, a good orator, fond of the bullied town outcast providing her a way to rehab herself into the rest of society albeit on his terms .  edit: found the film on youtube i completely misremembered how the town viewed belle the whole point of gaston is he knows he is the big hero of the story but the movie shows how he is ultimately a bad guy  good gaston  would have grown with belle .  others have mentioned what you are missed in regards to bells dad but when you combine that with the go kill the beast song what you get is a very interesting take on the classic disney prince.  there the vices of gaston shine through instead of the pure nobility of say the knight in sleeping beauty.   #  i think you are getting two different concepts confused.   #  i think you are getting two different concepts confused.  could gaston have been written as a good guy ? yes ! he could have done most of the things he did out of selflessness and bravery, and it all be one giant misunderstanding.  but he did not.  his reasons were villainous.  for example, he bribes the asylum director to commit belle is father even though they both know he is harmless, and only on the condition that she continues to reject him.  these are not the actions of a good person.  he is entitled, angry, and simply ca not accept not getting what he wants.  now, you may argue that the film would have been better with a more morally ambiguous or even heroic gaston.  but you ca not argue that he actually was, because the film makes it very clear that the motivations for all his actions were completely selfish.   #   it is not right for a woman to read.   #  during the course of the movie, gaston:   is incredibly narcissistic  the inventor is daughter ?   gaston:  yes, the most beautiful girl in town.  that makes her the best and i deserve the best    puts down belle is favorite interest, reading.   it is not right for a woman to read.  soon she starts getting  ideas , and  thinking .    and  how can you read this ? there is no pictures !   he also puts his muddy feet on her favorite book while proposing.  while proposing he talks about  her  dreams, but then talks about  his  dreams.   a rustic hunting lodge, my latest kill roasting on the fire, and my little wife massaging my feet, while the little ones play on the floor with the dogs.   when belle disappeared, even while he was plotting ways to get her hand, he  never even realizes that she is missing .  so much for caring about her.  he did not act out of anger of what happened to belle.  he did not even know what happened to belle.  he attacks the beast only because he sees belle looking in the mirror with moony lovey dovey eyes.   were you in love with her, beast ? did you honestly think she would want you when she had someone like me ?   and  it is over, beast ! belle is mine !   as a final note, while the beast is far from a saint, technically the beast did not kidnap belle.  maurice trespassed on the beast is castle, then the beast caught him and imprisoned him for it.  belle came looking for her father.  she agreed to stay in the castle if the beast let maurice go, which he did.   #  every evil act in the history of human kind was a combination of very specific natural tendencies and nurtured traits.   #  hiya, op.  well, i would definitely like to contest point 0.  he was definitely harassing her and would even block her path to get her attention.  if you continue to make advances clearly with a sexual motivation in this case despite protests, that is called sexual harassment.  to say that he is justified because it worked on other women and that environment shaped him to act like that is not a strong argument.  every evil act in the history of human kind was a combination of very specific natural tendencies and nurtured traits.  as far as physics goes, the environment shapes our every action, but that is a bit of an extreme idea to try to argue right now, so unless you would like to hear my thoughts on that, i will keep to the initial boundaries of what i am saying.  hitler, for instance, was frequently abused and constantly felt the need to get attention.  there is quite a bit of evidence that he did not even hate jews and was somewhat potentially fond of them, but because europe was anti semitic at the time, it was a strong platform to rise to leadership with.  gaston sexually harassed belle and that is bad.  it is really that simple, it is not justified because of how other women acted.   #  gaston exhibits  very few  of the characteristics which define  good guys.    #  do not be dense.  soon she starts getting  ideas , and  thinking .   there is plenty of subtle clues that gaston is misogynistic, but you that one takes the cake.  it is about as misogynistic as you can get.  . oh, that is despicable.  i love it ! even without the visual clues, you can see in these quotes that gaston  sends belle is father to an insane asylum  so that she will marry him.  you can argue that he genuinely believes her father should be sent though d arque explicitly disagrees prior to this, and his opinion is certainly more weighty than gaston is on such a matter.  in fact, gaston had to bribe the guy in the first place.  yet he is apparently okay with the father being free, if belle agrees to marry.  clearly his actions are disrespectful and deceptive.  he even goes so far as to  celebrate  these actions.  is gaston the  villain  ? perhaps not.  maybe  a  villain.  certainly the beast is internal struggles are the focus of the story is conflict.  however,  good guy  ? not by a long shot.  gaston exhibits  very few  of the characteristics which define  good guys.   all of his actions contain at least some element of selfishness, and his accomplishments are always achieved at the expense of others.  definitely not the good guy.  not even  a  good guy.  he is a selfish, prideful man who does a few reasonable things.
first of all, the  law  i am referring to is not the law of any particular country, just laws in general.  imagine sitting on the bus when an elderly woman comes in.  the rules do not tell you to give up your seat for her, but you do.  this short scenario illustrates that rules and morals are two different things.  however, i see more and more people defending actions saying it was  legal , and therefore it should be alright.  the death of cecil the lion is an extreme example: the man who shot him defended himself by declaring that what he did was legal.  as the global outrage over his actions showed us, it was however completely immoral.  another example: bankers.  i read in a book that bankers that are considered  professional  disregard their own morals as much as possible and instead try to do as much as is legally possible.  immoral bankers and brokers are a core part of why the 0 crisis was able to happen.  i think this illustrates what happens when people use the law as  moral compass : immoral behavior.  secondly, i think this is caused by the fact that our law is not our morals themselves but rather these morals applied into simplified rules.  thirdly, i think it is impossible to enforce socially appropriate behavior like giving up your bus seat.  this follows from my second viewpoint: because rules are simplified results of our morals, they can never cover every aspect of our lives, therefore leaving gaps for bus travellers and dentists and bankers to exploit.   i think it is up to us to be aware of this and never use the law as a moral compass.  please, change my view.   #  the death of cecil the lion is an extreme example: the man who shot him defended himself by declaring that what he did was legal.   #  as the global outrage over his actions showed us, it was however completely immoral.   # as the global outrage over his actions showed us, it was however completely immoral.  well, let is start here with the question of how you are defining  moral  or  immoral.   you seem to be adopting a kind of  if enough people are vocally against it  standard for this first part, but is that really your system of determining was is moral ? if so, how do you know the number of people who actually were okay with his actions and simply did not say anything, and that the apparent overwhelming opposition was really just a smaller number of more outraged people ? essentially, you seem to be treating volume of the voices for the number of voices.  so let is say 0 of the world population was okay with it a silent majority, to be a bit hackneyed , would that mean his actions were moral ? on the other side, as recently as 0 a majority of americans opposed gay marriage, did that make gay people who did get married in that year immoral ? i read in a book that bankers that are considered  professional  disregard their own morals as much as possible and instead try to do as much as is legally possible.  immoral bankers and brokers are a core part of why the 0 crisis was able to happen.  in most professions where one represents the interests of others there is an ethical obligation to do what is best for one is clients within the bounds of the law, rather than doing what you would consider morally best.  while also true of bankers this is exemplified in doctors or lawyers.  and how are you determining whether the bankers actually  did  act immorally ? you seem to be taking that for granted here, but other than  there was a bad outcome  have nothing indicating they actually acted immorally in their specific roles.  please, change my view.  well, okay, but the dentist in your first example did believe he was acting morally since otherwise he would not have done it .  his argument that it was legal is not an argument that he felt it immoral but did it because it was legal, but rather that it was legal and so no one else can force their morality on to him.  your argument does not seem to be  we should not use law as a moral compass  since the dentist probably  does  have a moral compass outside of law, but one which includes killing lions but rather that anyone whose moral compass does not go above and beyond what the law requires is immoral purely by virtue of not being closer to your moral code.  what if my moral compass says  i got this seat first, and i do not give a damn about that old lady  ? that is not using law as a moral compass, that is having a moral compass which does not require me to give up my seat and there not being a legal requirement to do so.  which is really all a moral compass represents: what behaviors do i believe i should engage in, and what behaviors should i not engage in, within the bounds of the laws which i must abide by.  which means neither the moral compass of  let the old lady take my seat  nor the moral compass of  fuck her i do not want to stand  is using the law as that compass.   #  rather, either they do not consider their action immoral in the first place or do not care whether their actions were moral or not.   #  people who use the defense that what they do is legal are not usually arguing sincerely that what they do is  right  from a moral perspective edit: because it is legal.  rather, either they do not consider their action immoral in the first place or do not care whether their actions were moral or not.  the principle they are using as a shield is not the idea that the law is always morally right.  very few adults believe that  moral  is identical with  legal.   however, most people agree that there is a general moral principle that you should follow laws, as laws are usually in place for the good of society.  if no one followed any laws, we would be pretty badly off.  so when someone says that the immoral action they took was legal, we should not read it as thinking laws define morality.  instead, we should view laws as an additional moral constraint we place on ourselves to avoid violence and chaos.   #  the unspoken part of that is  it is legal,  and it is moral to me , so get off my case .   # rather, either they do not consider their action immoral in the first place or do not care whether their actions were moral or not.  i think /u/nikoberg touches on a key point here, but do not quite nail it.  the key point is  morals are subjective .  that means that what is moral to me, is not necessarily moral to you.  what is moral to palmer the lion killer, is not necessarily moral to me.  so when palmer the lion killer says  hey, killing cecil was legal , he is not making a moral argument.  he has already made the determination in his own mind that killing cecil was moral  to him .  he made that decision when he shelled out $0k to go kill a lion.  declaring  hey, it is legal  is not his attempt to suggest it should be moral to everyone.  it is simply his way of saying  it is legal, so get off my case .  the unspoken part of that is  it is legal,  and it is moral to me , so get off my case .  directed at /u/frisheid  #  the question  what is moral  seems close enough to the question  what is good/bad , something philosophers have been giving themselves headaches over for centuries, even millennia.   #    woah.  you  really  went deep there.  first of all, you are right i was making some assumptions about the definition of morality.  truth is, i do not know the definition.  the question  what is moral  seems close enough to the question  what is good/bad , something philosophers have been giving themselves headaches over for centuries, even millennia.  as for your definition of a moral compass, you are right again.  as i have responded to comments above, my statement has simply become one about what people is morals should be and not whether the law should be involved.  changing my statement to  people should not act upon bad morals  or something similar would be what the dutch call  a truth as a cow  a statement so obvious that it would be silly to defend it.   #  URL you are looking for something that is illegal yet moral.   #  i illustrated what you are looking for and what i am mentioning in my post \ accidentally creating the flag of italy\ .  URL you are looking for something that is illegal yet moral.  i think you could call this a failure of the law.  for example, smoking weed could be considered okay.  it is still illegal in a lot of states and most countries, though.  i have not thought about the connection between legal and moral a lot yet, but i think most illegal things are also immoral.
a little background, i have over 0 hours in tf0, mostly playing as pyro, soldier or medic.  i do not think that anything would be lost from tf0 if sniper was entirely removed.  a good sniper has no real counter apart from another sniper, making them frustrating to play against.  a majority of the other weapons have damage fall off to discourage long range play, further separating the sniper as a class.  as far as i can tell, snipers mainly exist to pick off slow moving or high value targets, which the spy already does and does in a more interesting to play as and against way.  i ca not see any way the sniper, sitting at the back of the map away from the action, adds to the game as a side note, i also think the removal of sniper would do nothing but good for the class diversity on pubs .  please, cmv !  #  i do not think that anything would be lost from tf0 if sniper was entirely removed.   #  well, an entire group of people would lose their main and would most likely stop playing.   # well, an entire group of people would lose their main and would most likely stop playing.  also, all the cosmetics and weapons for sniper would become worthless, which will impact the economy and fuck a lot of people over.  now, i am not a competitive tf0 player, but i can tell you that sniper adds a lot.  without sniper, people do not have to be nearly as careful with their movement.  also, sniper has the ability to turn the game around by making important picks like demo or medic.  without him, the losing team has a small chance of recovering if they lose an important class.  as for pubs, sniper fullfills the same role as he does in competitve, which makes him valuable.  also, if the team is careful and has good movement, average snipers will have a hard time picking them off.  they are only frustrating to play against if your team sucks, which is true for the rest of the classes as well.  he also denies the enemy certain paths, something the spy ca not do.  he also has different counters.  sniper is an annoying class.  as someone who spends most of his time playing heavy inb0 n0b , medic and other combo classses, i hate sniper and spy.  however, they have their place in the game even though i do not like them.   #  i trained my sights on him, and the instant the gate went up i popped him in the head before he could ubercharge.   #  some wonderful wonderful chaos would be lost, imo, if the sniper went away.  let me regale you with a tale that comes from when my friends and i were playing tf0, sometimes with but often against each other.  i tend to favor the sniper so i have a bit of bias , and during one match, i could clearly see my friend a medic ready to ubercharge a heavy out of the gate on the opposite team.  i trained my sights on him, and the instant the gate went up i popped him in the head before he could ubercharge.  now, not only did this ruin the heavy ubercharge, but my friend got  pissed off , and spent his entire time in that game chasing after me with a hacksaw rather than healing his team.  he beat me in kills and then gloated about it, but i pointed out that his team lost so i really won in the end.  even if it was not for that friendly rivalry, i can still do something that the spy cannot do easily.  i can neutralize that out of the gate ubercharge and not compromise my position within the enemy ranks.   #  counters to snipers come with the spy if the sniper is a stationary shooter , the pyro flames disrupt aim , and the demoman area denial from arcing weapons like the grenade launcher and the stickybomb launcher .   #  as someone who mained sniper in tf0, i can assure you that sniping in tf0 has its uses.  spies ca not move as quickly as scouts or medics, normally.  snipers serve not only to kill high value targets but also targets which focus on agility.  that guerrilla scout which picks off enemies slowly ? sniper can deal with that.  that rocket jumping soldier which no one can shoot ? snipers can pick the soldier out of the air easily because of an easily predictable trajectory.  counters to snipers come with the spy if the sniper is a stationary shooter , the pyro flames disrupt aim , and the demoman area denial from arcing weapons like the grenade launcher and the stickybomb launcher .  hell, even a soldier is splash damage if used properly can deny a sniper is vantage point.  with all these reasons, how is a sniper not a valuable class in tf0 ?  #  my medic and teammates should be keeping me pretty much spy free if they are doing it right, but they ca not just gang up on a sniper in enemy territory.   # a majority of the other weapons have damage fall off to discourage long range play, further separating the sniper as a class.  you just listed two reasons why snipers  have  a place.  they are also countered by spies and good demomen.  but having a frustrating target on your team sounds like an asset, and since they can operate at a longer range they are very useful.  i played a lot of heavy, and i was always more afraid of a good sniper than i was of a good spy.  my medic and teammates should be keeping me pretty much spy free if they are doing it right, but they ca not just gang up on a sniper in enemy territory.   #  additionally, the enemy team is going to be keeping their sniper spy free if they are doing it right.   # the sniper adds a whole dimension to the level of play.  spies can be really easy to lock down unless they are really, really good , so the sniper is that level of removal that ca not be as suppressed.  it is another variable that needs to be accounted for, adding to the overall fun of the game.  i am not sure that any class adds any real benefit.  but the point is that it is  team  fortress 0, and long range removal adds a missing element to the team.  additionally, the enemy team is going to be keeping their sniper spy free if they are doing it right.  so it sounds to me like you are biggest problem with the sniper is not that  snipers have no place in tf0  it is that  snipers are too frustrating for me, personally, to play.   everyone has their classes that they hate to play.  when i am heavy, it is snipers.  when i am medic, it is scouts.  when i am a soldier, it is my own rockets.  it is a team game, and you need to work together with your team to win or else you will never get anywhere.
a little background, i have over 0 hours in tf0, mostly playing as pyro, soldier or medic.  i do not think that anything would be lost from tf0 if sniper was entirely removed.  a good sniper has no real counter apart from another sniper, making them frustrating to play against.  a majority of the other weapons have damage fall off to discourage long range play, further separating the sniper as a class.  as far as i can tell, snipers mainly exist to pick off slow moving or high value targets, which the spy already does and does in a more interesting to play as and against way.  i ca not see any way the sniper, sitting at the back of the map away from the action, adds to the game as a side note, i also think the removal of sniper would do nothing but good for the class diversity on pubs .  please, cmv !  #  as far as i can tell, snipers mainly exist to pick off slow moving or high value targets, which the spy already does and does in a more interesting to play as and against way.   #  he also denies the enemy certain paths, something the spy ca not do.   # well, an entire group of people would lose their main and would most likely stop playing.  also, all the cosmetics and weapons for sniper would become worthless, which will impact the economy and fuck a lot of people over.  now, i am not a competitive tf0 player, but i can tell you that sniper adds a lot.  without sniper, people do not have to be nearly as careful with their movement.  also, sniper has the ability to turn the game around by making important picks like demo or medic.  without him, the losing team has a small chance of recovering if they lose an important class.  as for pubs, sniper fullfills the same role as he does in competitve, which makes him valuable.  also, if the team is careful and has good movement, average snipers will have a hard time picking them off.  they are only frustrating to play against if your team sucks, which is true for the rest of the classes as well.  he also denies the enemy certain paths, something the spy ca not do.  he also has different counters.  sniper is an annoying class.  as someone who spends most of his time playing heavy inb0 n0b , medic and other combo classses, i hate sniper and spy.  however, they have their place in the game even though i do not like them.   #  i can neutralize that out of the gate ubercharge and not compromise my position within the enemy ranks.   #  some wonderful wonderful chaos would be lost, imo, if the sniper went away.  let me regale you with a tale that comes from when my friends and i were playing tf0, sometimes with but often against each other.  i tend to favor the sniper so i have a bit of bias , and during one match, i could clearly see my friend a medic ready to ubercharge a heavy out of the gate on the opposite team.  i trained my sights on him, and the instant the gate went up i popped him in the head before he could ubercharge.  now, not only did this ruin the heavy ubercharge, but my friend got  pissed off , and spent his entire time in that game chasing after me with a hacksaw rather than healing his team.  he beat me in kills and then gloated about it, but i pointed out that his team lost so i really won in the end.  even if it was not for that friendly rivalry, i can still do something that the spy cannot do easily.  i can neutralize that out of the gate ubercharge and not compromise my position within the enemy ranks.   #  hell, even a soldier is splash damage if used properly can deny a sniper is vantage point.   #  as someone who mained sniper in tf0, i can assure you that sniping in tf0 has its uses.  spies ca not move as quickly as scouts or medics, normally.  snipers serve not only to kill high value targets but also targets which focus on agility.  that guerrilla scout which picks off enemies slowly ? sniper can deal with that.  that rocket jumping soldier which no one can shoot ? snipers can pick the soldier out of the air easily because of an easily predictable trajectory.  counters to snipers come with the spy if the sniper is a stationary shooter , the pyro flames disrupt aim , and the demoman area denial from arcing weapons like the grenade launcher and the stickybomb launcher .  hell, even a soldier is splash damage if used properly can deny a sniper is vantage point.  with all these reasons, how is a sniper not a valuable class in tf0 ?  #  my medic and teammates should be keeping me pretty much spy free if they are doing it right, but they ca not just gang up on a sniper in enemy territory.   # a majority of the other weapons have damage fall off to discourage long range play, further separating the sniper as a class.  you just listed two reasons why snipers  have  a place.  they are also countered by spies and good demomen.  but having a frustrating target on your team sounds like an asset, and since they can operate at a longer range they are very useful.  i played a lot of heavy, and i was always more afraid of a good sniper than i was of a good spy.  my medic and teammates should be keeping me pretty much spy free if they are doing it right, but they ca not just gang up on a sniper in enemy territory.   #  when i am a soldier, it is my own rockets.   # the sniper adds a whole dimension to the level of play.  spies can be really easy to lock down unless they are really, really good , so the sniper is that level of removal that ca not be as suppressed.  it is another variable that needs to be accounted for, adding to the overall fun of the game.  i am not sure that any class adds any real benefit.  but the point is that it is  team  fortress 0, and long range removal adds a missing element to the team.  additionally, the enemy team is going to be keeping their sniper spy free if they are doing it right.  so it sounds to me like you are biggest problem with the sniper is not that  snipers have no place in tf0  it is that  snipers are too frustrating for me, personally, to play.   everyone has their classes that they hate to play.  when i am heavy, it is snipers.  when i am medic, it is scouts.  when i am a soldier, it is my own rockets.  it is a team game, and you need to work together with your team to win or else you will never get anywhere.
a little background, i have over 0 hours in tf0, mostly playing as pyro, soldier or medic.  i do not think that anything would be lost from tf0 if sniper was entirely removed.  a good sniper has no real counter apart from another sniper, making them frustrating to play against.  a majority of the other weapons have damage fall off to discourage long range play, further separating the sniper as a class.  as far as i can tell, snipers mainly exist to pick off slow moving or high value targets, which the spy already does and does in a more interesting to play as and against way.  i ca not see any way the sniper, sitting at the back of the map away from the action, adds to the game as a side note, i also think the removal of sniper would do nothing but good for the class diversity on pubs .  please, cmv !  #  a good sniper has no real counter apart from another sniper, making them frustrating to play against.   #  a majority of the other weapons have damage fall off to discourage long range play, further separating the sniper as a class.   # a majority of the other weapons have damage fall off to discourage long range play, further separating the sniper as a class.  you just listed two reasons why snipers  have  a place.  they are also countered by spies and good demomen.  but having a frustrating target on your team sounds like an asset, and since they can operate at a longer range they are very useful.  i played a lot of heavy, and i was always more afraid of a good sniper than i was of a good spy.  my medic and teammates should be keeping me pretty much spy free if they are doing it right, but they ca not just gang up on a sniper in enemy territory.   #  now, not only did this ruin the heavy ubercharge, but my friend got  pissed off , and spent his entire time in that game chasing after me with a hacksaw rather than healing his team.   #  some wonderful wonderful chaos would be lost, imo, if the sniper went away.  let me regale you with a tale that comes from when my friends and i were playing tf0, sometimes with but often against each other.  i tend to favor the sniper so i have a bit of bias , and during one match, i could clearly see my friend a medic ready to ubercharge a heavy out of the gate on the opposite team.  i trained my sights on him, and the instant the gate went up i popped him in the head before he could ubercharge.  now, not only did this ruin the heavy ubercharge, but my friend got  pissed off , and spent his entire time in that game chasing after me with a hacksaw rather than healing his team.  he beat me in kills and then gloated about it, but i pointed out that his team lost so i really won in the end.  even if it was not for that friendly rivalry, i can still do something that the spy cannot do easily.  i can neutralize that out of the gate ubercharge and not compromise my position within the enemy ranks.   #  also, if the team is careful and has good movement, average snipers will have a hard time picking them off.   # well, an entire group of people would lose their main and would most likely stop playing.  also, all the cosmetics and weapons for sniper would become worthless, which will impact the economy and fuck a lot of people over.  now, i am not a competitive tf0 player, but i can tell you that sniper adds a lot.  without sniper, people do not have to be nearly as careful with their movement.  also, sniper has the ability to turn the game around by making important picks like demo or medic.  without him, the losing team has a small chance of recovering if they lose an important class.  as for pubs, sniper fullfills the same role as he does in competitve, which makes him valuable.  also, if the team is careful and has good movement, average snipers will have a hard time picking them off.  they are only frustrating to play against if your team sucks, which is true for the rest of the classes as well.  he also denies the enemy certain paths, something the spy ca not do.  he also has different counters.  sniper is an annoying class.  as someone who spends most of his time playing heavy inb0 n0b , medic and other combo classses, i hate sniper and spy.  however, they have their place in the game even though i do not like them.   #  as someone who mained sniper in tf0, i can assure you that sniping in tf0 has its uses.   #  as someone who mained sniper in tf0, i can assure you that sniping in tf0 has its uses.  spies ca not move as quickly as scouts or medics, normally.  snipers serve not only to kill high value targets but also targets which focus on agility.  that guerrilla scout which picks off enemies slowly ? sniper can deal with that.  that rocket jumping soldier which no one can shoot ? snipers can pick the soldier out of the air easily because of an easily predictable trajectory.  counters to snipers come with the spy if the sniper is a stationary shooter , the pyro flames disrupt aim , and the demoman area denial from arcing weapons like the grenade launcher and the stickybomb launcher .  hell, even a soldier is splash damage if used properly can deny a sniper is vantage point.  with all these reasons, how is a sniper not a valuable class in tf0 ?  #  spies can be really easy to lock down unless they are really, really good , so the sniper is that level of removal that ca not be as suppressed.   # the sniper adds a whole dimension to the level of play.  spies can be really easy to lock down unless they are really, really good , so the sniper is that level of removal that ca not be as suppressed.  it is another variable that needs to be accounted for, adding to the overall fun of the game.  i am not sure that any class adds any real benefit.  but the point is that it is  team  fortress 0, and long range removal adds a missing element to the team.  additionally, the enemy team is going to be keeping their sniper spy free if they are doing it right.  so it sounds to me like you are biggest problem with the sniper is not that  snipers have no place in tf0  it is that  snipers are too frustrating for me, personally, to play.   everyone has their classes that they hate to play.  when i am heavy, it is snipers.  when i am medic, it is scouts.  when i am a soldier, it is my own rockets.  it is a team game, and you need to work together with your team to win or else you will never get anywhere.
a little background, i have over 0 hours in tf0, mostly playing as pyro, soldier or medic.  i do not think that anything would be lost from tf0 if sniper was entirely removed.  a good sniper has no real counter apart from another sniper, making them frustrating to play against.  a majority of the other weapons have damage fall off to discourage long range play, further separating the sniper as a class.  as far as i can tell, snipers mainly exist to pick off slow moving or high value targets, which the spy already does and does in a more interesting to play as and against way.  i ca not see any way the sniper, sitting at the back of the map away from the action, adds to the game as a side note, i also think the removal of sniper would do nothing but good for the class diversity on pubs .  please, cmv !  #  as far as i can tell, snipers mainly exist to pick off slow moving or high value targets, which the spy already does and does in a more interesting to play as and against way.   #  i played a lot of heavy, and i was always more afraid of a good sniper than i was of a good spy.   # a majority of the other weapons have damage fall off to discourage long range play, further separating the sniper as a class.  you just listed two reasons why snipers  have  a place.  they are also countered by spies and good demomen.  but having a frustrating target on your team sounds like an asset, and since they can operate at a longer range they are very useful.  i played a lot of heavy, and i was always more afraid of a good sniper than i was of a good spy.  my medic and teammates should be keeping me pretty much spy free if they are doing it right, but they ca not just gang up on a sniper in enemy territory.   #  some wonderful wonderful chaos would be lost, imo, if the sniper went away.   #  some wonderful wonderful chaos would be lost, imo, if the sniper went away.  let me regale you with a tale that comes from when my friends and i were playing tf0, sometimes with but often against each other.  i tend to favor the sniper so i have a bit of bias , and during one match, i could clearly see my friend a medic ready to ubercharge a heavy out of the gate on the opposite team.  i trained my sights on him, and the instant the gate went up i popped him in the head before he could ubercharge.  now, not only did this ruin the heavy ubercharge, but my friend got  pissed off , and spent his entire time in that game chasing after me with a hacksaw rather than healing his team.  he beat me in kills and then gloated about it, but i pointed out that his team lost so i really won in the end.  even if it was not for that friendly rivalry, i can still do something that the spy cannot do easily.  i can neutralize that out of the gate ubercharge and not compromise my position within the enemy ranks.   #  well, an entire group of people would lose their main and would most likely stop playing.   # well, an entire group of people would lose their main and would most likely stop playing.  also, all the cosmetics and weapons for sniper would become worthless, which will impact the economy and fuck a lot of people over.  now, i am not a competitive tf0 player, but i can tell you that sniper adds a lot.  without sniper, people do not have to be nearly as careful with their movement.  also, sniper has the ability to turn the game around by making important picks like demo or medic.  without him, the losing team has a small chance of recovering if they lose an important class.  as for pubs, sniper fullfills the same role as he does in competitve, which makes him valuable.  also, if the team is careful and has good movement, average snipers will have a hard time picking them off.  they are only frustrating to play against if your team sucks, which is true for the rest of the classes as well.  he also denies the enemy certain paths, something the spy ca not do.  he also has different counters.  sniper is an annoying class.  as someone who spends most of his time playing heavy inb0 n0b , medic and other combo classses, i hate sniper and spy.  however, they have their place in the game even though i do not like them.   #  snipers serve not only to kill high value targets but also targets which focus on agility.   #  as someone who mained sniper in tf0, i can assure you that sniping in tf0 has its uses.  spies ca not move as quickly as scouts or medics, normally.  snipers serve not only to kill high value targets but also targets which focus on agility.  that guerrilla scout which picks off enemies slowly ? sniper can deal with that.  that rocket jumping soldier which no one can shoot ? snipers can pick the soldier out of the air easily because of an easily predictable trajectory.  counters to snipers come with the spy if the sniper is a stationary shooter , the pyro flames disrupt aim , and the demoman area denial from arcing weapons like the grenade launcher and the stickybomb launcher .  hell, even a soldier is splash damage if used properly can deny a sniper is vantage point.  with all these reasons, how is a sniper not a valuable class in tf0 ?  #  it is a team game, and you need to work together with your team to win or else you will never get anywhere.   # the sniper adds a whole dimension to the level of play.  spies can be really easy to lock down unless they are really, really good , so the sniper is that level of removal that ca not be as suppressed.  it is another variable that needs to be accounted for, adding to the overall fun of the game.  i am not sure that any class adds any real benefit.  but the point is that it is  team  fortress 0, and long range removal adds a missing element to the team.  additionally, the enemy team is going to be keeping their sniper spy free if they are doing it right.  so it sounds to me like you are biggest problem with the sniper is not that  snipers have no place in tf0  it is that  snipers are too frustrating for me, personally, to play.   everyone has their classes that they hate to play.  when i am heavy, it is snipers.  when i am medic, it is scouts.  when i am a soldier, it is my own rockets.  it is a team game, and you need to work together with your team to win or else you will never get anywhere.
as a society we have limited resources.  we have to decide how to best use those resources.  spending thousands of dollars on a child that is unlikely to recover is a net loss.  i understand that an argument can be made to the effect that these children grow up to be geniuses, and great innovators.  however this argument falls apart when we look at expected returns from spending.  it is extremely unlikely that our sick child is the next einstein or trump.  they also are just unlikely to be the next unabomber or sociopath.    children that die of hereditary diseases usually will have not procreated before their death.  although genetic defects are not preventable, eliminating individuals which carry a higher risk of passing the trait to their child will improve the overall gene pool of our species.  look at the black plague.  northern europeans are more resistant to infections now as their ancestors were able to survive the epidemic.    ends unnecessary suffering.  the child wo not have to suffer anymore, as they are dead now.    i want to point out that public dollars should not be spent on treating the child.  if they parents want to go broke trying to keep their precious child alive on the respirator, then go ahead and let them.  poor families can seek donations to cover the cost.  donators receive the  warm glow  associated with donating to a good cause.  healthcare expenditure increases, and with it gdp.  its better for the economy in the short run.  governments would have to reduce spending on other government projects, increase sources of tax revenue, or go in debt to cover the large healthcare costs if public dollars were used.    letting the child die helps with population control.  malthus may have been wrong in the 0 is when he proclaimed the doom of humanity as he predicted the growth of humanity would outstrip our ability to grow agriculture.  because of climate change, and the overuse of farmlands we may reach that point in the near future.  further information: examples of diseases or ailments.  •congenital anomalies •malignant neoplasms •heart disease •cancers which meet the definition below.  •live disease diseases associated with high mortality rates and high treatment costs thanks for the comments.  i think i have critically changed a lot of my view.  i have not gone full circle, but i have been given enough to consider thinking my stance more.   #  as a society we have limited resources.   #  we have to decide how to best use those resources.   # we have to decide how to best use those resources.  sick children are often a better investment than sick adults, depending on the situation.  children often have only a single problem which is often manageable, even if expensive treatment is required.  adults with chronic disease usually have multiple problems.  children also potentially have more years of productivity ahead of them.  the overall cost of these treatments to children is also quite small.  you are not going to save many resources by stopping treatment on kids with chronic illness.  total healthcare spending is $0 trillion URL and healthcare spending on children is only $0 billion URL or 0.  and only a small fraction of that is spent on treating children with chronic illnesses like you are talking about.  so letting these kids die will only have a small impact.  most of these chronic diseases you are talking about are not hereditary, at least not to a strong degree.  for those that are, many will choose not to have children due to the risk of passing along a serious disease gene.  additionally, genetic techniques often make it possible to ensure that a disease gene is not passed on.  there are plenty of ways to minimize this problem without just letting kids die.  the child wo not have to suffer anymore, as they are dead now.  the option to stop treatment and allow the child to die of their condition already exists.  if a family feels that the suffering is so bad that the child is better off without treatment, that is an option.  children with futile conditions go on hospice treatment all the time.  you are talking about a very small number of children.  the impact on the overall population will be quite small, especially if parents of a child who died decide to have another child to  replace  it.   #  if it is cheaper to send 0x as many soldiers as it is to build better weapons then we just throw soldiers at the problem.   #  your entire argument sees human life from an instrumental perspective.  if life were just dollars and cents followed by investments for more dollars and cents then your argument would be pretty ironclad.  but what if government is role is  not  to mimic business ? instead government intends to create sustainable societies where all members have an opportunity for a life worth living.  the thing about that statement is that  all members  means  all members .  if life has not just an instrumental value, but an intrinsic value then it is our duty to protect it.  inversely if life only has instrumental value, then we do not need to protect it in other senses either.  if it is cheaper to send 0x as many soldiers as it is to build better weapons then we just throw soldiers at the problem.  if it is cheaper to threaten the lives of workers than to demand that they wear protective gear then we just throw people into the machine.  most people would agree that life itself has a value.  you are attempting to draw the line at the types of lives which have value while disregarding the rest in some sort of culling.   #  if lives do not matter equally than we can set a threshold which individuals must meet before they are treated.   # you are attempting to draw the line at the types of lives which have value while disregarding the rest in some sort of culling.  our society already makes those types of judgments.  i am only extending the privilege to die without support to the young.  the united states has two forms of safety net medicine, one for the elderly medicare , and poor families with children medicaid .  individuals not within this age groups potentially left without any coverage at all.  a new study found that 0,0 people die each year because they lacked health insurance or access to health care.  as our society did not provide these individuals with health care, it shows to reason that not all lives matter.  as i was saying before not all lives matter.  how many homeless are out on the street ? how many individuals are there that do not have access to healthcare to treat their physical and emotional needs ? sorry if i am rambling a little bit.  let me try to clear things up.  if i understand your argument, you argue that all lives members matter.  my counter argument is as follows.  if all lives matter it should be required that all lives matter equally.  if lives do not matter equally than we can set a threshold which individuals must meet before they are treated.  we see evidence that not all lives are weighted equally as wrongful death suits routinely give different amounts depending on the age, sex, and familiar status of the victim.  i would extend my statement to withhold public funds for all individuals which do not meet that minimum threshold for their age, sex, and familiar status.   #  it is also worth noting that literally every other western country has adopted fully universal healthcare coverage via government payment and/or administration.   # i am only extending the privilege to die without support to the young.  the united states has two forms of safety net medicine, one for the elderly medicare , and poor families with children medicaid .  individuals not within this age groups potentially left without any coverage at all.  you are missing quite a few government programs, which are aimed explicitly at filling those gaps.  first, you have obamacare, which expanded medicaid to all poor people, and gives sliding scale subsidies to middle income people to buy health insurance, and mandating that they do so.  second, you have the children is health insurance program which provides low income parents subsidies for their children is health insurance.  the us has a mish mash of programs, the intent of which is to cover everyone, though it is poorly implemented.  it is also worth noting that literally every other western country has adopted fully universal healthcare coverage via government payment and/or administration.   #  i understand what you are saying, but i find that this view is counterproductive.   # a source would be useful.  like most difficult truths, i am sure that the study is a shade of gray.  that is a pretty big conclusion.  even if the number were accurate and the diseases were treatable but expensive the situation is still different.  one might argue that an adult opted not to have health care.  as a result, if they are sick they can be held responsible.  a child with a life threatening disease is not remotely in the same position.  though honestly, i fully expect the article that you provide to explain that the situation is more complicated than casting people aside.  if lives do not matter equally than we can set a threshold which individuals must meet before they are treated.  i understand what you are saying, but i find that this view is counterproductive.  it basically translates to   if i identify or perceive injustice then should not i have license to perpetuate injustice ?   if we want to have a society worth living in, then the answer to that question needs to be  no .
as a society we have limited resources.  we have to decide how to best use those resources.  spending thousands of dollars on a child that is unlikely to recover is a net loss.  i understand that an argument can be made to the effect that these children grow up to be geniuses, and great innovators.  however this argument falls apart when we look at expected returns from spending.  it is extremely unlikely that our sick child is the next einstein or trump.  they also are just unlikely to be the next unabomber or sociopath.    children that die of hereditary diseases usually will have not procreated before their death.  although genetic defects are not preventable, eliminating individuals which carry a higher risk of passing the trait to their child will improve the overall gene pool of our species.  look at the black plague.  northern europeans are more resistant to infections now as their ancestors were able to survive the epidemic.    ends unnecessary suffering.  the child wo not have to suffer anymore, as they are dead now.    i want to point out that public dollars should not be spent on treating the child.  if they parents want to go broke trying to keep their precious child alive on the respirator, then go ahead and let them.  poor families can seek donations to cover the cost.  donators receive the  warm glow  associated with donating to a good cause.  healthcare expenditure increases, and with it gdp.  its better for the economy in the short run.  governments would have to reduce spending on other government projects, increase sources of tax revenue, or go in debt to cover the large healthcare costs if public dollars were used.    letting the child die helps with population control.  malthus may have been wrong in the 0 is when he proclaimed the doom of humanity as he predicted the growth of humanity would outstrip our ability to grow agriculture.  because of climate change, and the overuse of farmlands we may reach that point in the near future.  further information: examples of diseases or ailments.  •congenital anomalies •malignant neoplasms •heart disease •cancers which meet the definition below.  •live disease diseases associated with high mortality rates and high treatment costs thanks for the comments.  i think i have critically changed a lot of my view.  i have not gone full circle, but i have been given enough to consider thinking my stance more.   #  children that die of hereditary diseases usually will have not procreated before their death.   #  most of these chronic diseases you are talking about are not hereditary, at least not to a strong degree.   # we have to decide how to best use those resources.  sick children are often a better investment than sick adults, depending on the situation.  children often have only a single problem which is often manageable, even if expensive treatment is required.  adults with chronic disease usually have multiple problems.  children also potentially have more years of productivity ahead of them.  the overall cost of these treatments to children is also quite small.  you are not going to save many resources by stopping treatment on kids with chronic illness.  total healthcare spending is $0 trillion URL and healthcare spending on children is only $0 billion URL or 0.  and only a small fraction of that is spent on treating children with chronic illnesses like you are talking about.  so letting these kids die will only have a small impact.  most of these chronic diseases you are talking about are not hereditary, at least not to a strong degree.  for those that are, many will choose not to have children due to the risk of passing along a serious disease gene.  additionally, genetic techniques often make it possible to ensure that a disease gene is not passed on.  there are plenty of ways to minimize this problem without just letting kids die.  the child wo not have to suffer anymore, as they are dead now.  the option to stop treatment and allow the child to die of their condition already exists.  if a family feels that the suffering is so bad that the child is better off without treatment, that is an option.  children with futile conditions go on hospice treatment all the time.  you are talking about a very small number of children.  the impact on the overall population will be quite small, especially if parents of a child who died decide to have another child to  replace  it.   #  if it is cheaper to send 0x as many soldiers as it is to build better weapons then we just throw soldiers at the problem.   #  your entire argument sees human life from an instrumental perspective.  if life were just dollars and cents followed by investments for more dollars and cents then your argument would be pretty ironclad.  but what if government is role is  not  to mimic business ? instead government intends to create sustainable societies where all members have an opportunity for a life worth living.  the thing about that statement is that  all members  means  all members .  if life has not just an instrumental value, but an intrinsic value then it is our duty to protect it.  inversely if life only has instrumental value, then we do not need to protect it in other senses either.  if it is cheaper to send 0x as many soldiers as it is to build better weapons then we just throw soldiers at the problem.  if it is cheaper to threaten the lives of workers than to demand that they wear protective gear then we just throw people into the machine.  most people would agree that life itself has a value.  you are attempting to draw the line at the types of lives which have value while disregarding the rest in some sort of culling.   #  individuals not within this age groups potentially left without any coverage at all.   # you are attempting to draw the line at the types of lives which have value while disregarding the rest in some sort of culling.  our society already makes those types of judgments.  i am only extending the privilege to die without support to the young.  the united states has two forms of safety net medicine, one for the elderly medicare , and poor families with children medicaid .  individuals not within this age groups potentially left without any coverage at all.  a new study found that 0,0 people die each year because they lacked health insurance or access to health care.  as our society did not provide these individuals with health care, it shows to reason that not all lives matter.  as i was saying before not all lives matter.  how many homeless are out on the street ? how many individuals are there that do not have access to healthcare to treat their physical and emotional needs ? sorry if i am rambling a little bit.  let me try to clear things up.  if i understand your argument, you argue that all lives members matter.  my counter argument is as follows.  if all lives matter it should be required that all lives matter equally.  if lives do not matter equally than we can set a threshold which individuals must meet before they are treated.  we see evidence that not all lives are weighted equally as wrongful death suits routinely give different amounts depending on the age, sex, and familiar status of the victim.  i would extend my statement to withhold public funds for all individuals which do not meet that minimum threshold for their age, sex, and familiar status.   #  individuals not within this age groups potentially left without any coverage at all.   # i am only extending the privilege to die without support to the young.  the united states has two forms of safety net medicine, one for the elderly medicare , and poor families with children medicaid .  individuals not within this age groups potentially left without any coverage at all.  you are missing quite a few government programs, which are aimed explicitly at filling those gaps.  first, you have obamacare, which expanded medicaid to all poor people, and gives sliding scale subsidies to middle income people to buy health insurance, and mandating that they do so.  second, you have the children is health insurance program which provides low income parents subsidies for their children is health insurance.  the us has a mish mash of programs, the intent of which is to cover everyone, though it is poorly implemented.  it is also worth noting that literally every other western country has adopted fully universal healthcare coverage via government payment and/or administration.   #  i understand what you are saying, but i find that this view is counterproductive.   # a source would be useful.  like most difficult truths, i am sure that the study is a shade of gray.  that is a pretty big conclusion.  even if the number were accurate and the diseases were treatable but expensive the situation is still different.  one might argue that an adult opted not to have health care.  as a result, if they are sick they can be held responsible.  a child with a life threatening disease is not remotely in the same position.  though honestly, i fully expect the article that you provide to explain that the situation is more complicated than casting people aside.  if lives do not matter equally than we can set a threshold which individuals must meet before they are treated.  i understand what you are saying, but i find that this view is counterproductive.  it basically translates to   if i identify or perceive injustice then should not i have license to perpetuate injustice ?   if we want to have a society worth living in, then the answer to that question needs to be  no .
as a society we have limited resources.  we have to decide how to best use those resources.  spending thousands of dollars on a child that is unlikely to recover is a net loss.  i understand that an argument can be made to the effect that these children grow up to be geniuses, and great innovators.  however this argument falls apart when we look at expected returns from spending.  it is extremely unlikely that our sick child is the next einstein or trump.  they also are just unlikely to be the next unabomber or sociopath.    children that die of hereditary diseases usually will have not procreated before their death.  although genetic defects are not preventable, eliminating individuals which carry a higher risk of passing the trait to their child will improve the overall gene pool of our species.  look at the black plague.  northern europeans are more resistant to infections now as their ancestors were able to survive the epidemic.    ends unnecessary suffering.  the child wo not have to suffer anymore, as they are dead now.    i want to point out that public dollars should not be spent on treating the child.  if they parents want to go broke trying to keep their precious child alive on the respirator, then go ahead and let them.  poor families can seek donations to cover the cost.  donators receive the  warm glow  associated with donating to a good cause.  healthcare expenditure increases, and with it gdp.  its better for the economy in the short run.  governments would have to reduce spending on other government projects, increase sources of tax revenue, or go in debt to cover the large healthcare costs if public dollars were used.    letting the child die helps with population control.  malthus may have been wrong in the 0 is when he proclaimed the doom of humanity as he predicted the growth of humanity would outstrip our ability to grow agriculture.  because of climate change, and the overuse of farmlands we may reach that point in the near future.  further information: examples of diseases or ailments.  •congenital anomalies •malignant neoplasms •heart disease •cancers which meet the definition below.  •live disease diseases associated with high mortality rates and high treatment costs thanks for the comments.  i think i have critically changed a lot of my view.  i have not gone full circle, but i have been given enough to consider thinking my stance more.   #  letting the child die helps with population control.   #  you are talking about a very small number of children.   # we have to decide how to best use those resources.  sick children are often a better investment than sick adults, depending on the situation.  children often have only a single problem which is often manageable, even if expensive treatment is required.  adults with chronic disease usually have multiple problems.  children also potentially have more years of productivity ahead of them.  the overall cost of these treatments to children is also quite small.  you are not going to save many resources by stopping treatment on kids with chronic illness.  total healthcare spending is $0 trillion URL and healthcare spending on children is only $0 billion URL or 0.  and only a small fraction of that is spent on treating children with chronic illnesses like you are talking about.  so letting these kids die will only have a small impact.  most of these chronic diseases you are talking about are not hereditary, at least not to a strong degree.  for those that are, many will choose not to have children due to the risk of passing along a serious disease gene.  additionally, genetic techniques often make it possible to ensure that a disease gene is not passed on.  there are plenty of ways to minimize this problem without just letting kids die.  the child wo not have to suffer anymore, as they are dead now.  the option to stop treatment and allow the child to die of their condition already exists.  if a family feels that the suffering is so bad that the child is better off without treatment, that is an option.  children with futile conditions go on hospice treatment all the time.  you are talking about a very small number of children.  the impact on the overall population will be quite small, especially if parents of a child who died decide to have another child to  replace  it.   #  the thing about that statement is that  all members  means  all members .   #  your entire argument sees human life from an instrumental perspective.  if life were just dollars and cents followed by investments for more dollars and cents then your argument would be pretty ironclad.  but what if government is role is  not  to mimic business ? instead government intends to create sustainable societies where all members have an opportunity for a life worth living.  the thing about that statement is that  all members  means  all members .  if life has not just an instrumental value, but an intrinsic value then it is our duty to protect it.  inversely if life only has instrumental value, then we do not need to protect it in other senses either.  if it is cheaper to send 0x as many soldiers as it is to build better weapons then we just throw soldiers at the problem.  if it is cheaper to threaten the lives of workers than to demand that they wear protective gear then we just throw people into the machine.  most people would agree that life itself has a value.  you are attempting to draw the line at the types of lives which have value while disregarding the rest in some sort of culling.   #  i would extend my statement to withhold public funds for all individuals which do not meet that minimum threshold for their age, sex, and familiar status.   # you are attempting to draw the line at the types of lives which have value while disregarding the rest in some sort of culling.  our society already makes those types of judgments.  i am only extending the privilege to die without support to the young.  the united states has two forms of safety net medicine, one for the elderly medicare , and poor families with children medicaid .  individuals not within this age groups potentially left without any coverage at all.  a new study found that 0,0 people die each year because they lacked health insurance or access to health care.  as our society did not provide these individuals with health care, it shows to reason that not all lives matter.  as i was saying before not all lives matter.  how many homeless are out on the street ? how many individuals are there that do not have access to healthcare to treat their physical and emotional needs ? sorry if i am rambling a little bit.  let me try to clear things up.  if i understand your argument, you argue that all lives members matter.  my counter argument is as follows.  if all lives matter it should be required that all lives matter equally.  if lives do not matter equally than we can set a threshold which individuals must meet before they are treated.  we see evidence that not all lives are weighted equally as wrongful death suits routinely give different amounts depending on the age, sex, and familiar status of the victim.  i would extend my statement to withhold public funds for all individuals which do not meet that minimum threshold for their age, sex, and familiar status.   #  it is also worth noting that literally every other western country has adopted fully universal healthcare coverage via government payment and/or administration.   # i am only extending the privilege to die without support to the young.  the united states has two forms of safety net medicine, one for the elderly medicare , and poor families with children medicaid .  individuals not within this age groups potentially left without any coverage at all.  you are missing quite a few government programs, which are aimed explicitly at filling those gaps.  first, you have obamacare, which expanded medicaid to all poor people, and gives sliding scale subsidies to middle income people to buy health insurance, and mandating that they do so.  second, you have the children is health insurance program which provides low income parents subsidies for their children is health insurance.  the us has a mish mash of programs, the intent of which is to cover everyone, though it is poorly implemented.  it is also worth noting that literally every other western country has adopted fully universal healthcare coverage via government payment and/or administration.   #  as a result, if they are sick they can be held responsible.   # a source would be useful.  like most difficult truths, i am sure that the study is a shade of gray.  that is a pretty big conclusion.  even if the number were accurate and the diseases were treatable but expensive the situation is still different.  one might argue that an adult opted not to have health care.  as a result, if they are sick they can be held responsible.  a child with a life threatening disease is not remotely in the same position.  though honestly, i fully expect the article that you provide to explain that the situation is more complicated than casting people aside.  if lives do not matter equally than we can set a threshold which individuals must meet before they are treated.  i understand what you are saying, but i find that this view is counterproductive.  it basically translates to   if i identify or perceive injustice then should not i have license to perpetuate injustice ?   if we want to have a society worth living in, then the answer to that question needs to be  no .
reddit is home to some very large white nationalist/racist/neo nazi communities.  coontown got about 0 0 unique views last month URL and has about 0k subs.  these users affect reddit in general and they make it worse.  if you do not think they do, then please read through some of this iama with a german refugee worker URL if reddit banned all of these hate subs and any new ones then of course the users would blow up, but just like the fph drama it would die down within a week or two.  then these racists would leave and reddit would be better.  everybody comes to reddit initially because of some link/thread that they got from somewhere else.  as long as reddit still hosts large racist communities and hosts them ad free no less then the number of racists on the entire site will only grow.   tl;dr the ban process would not be perfect, but i think that reddit is policy should be  we do not want racists here.  go somewhere else.   instead of their current policy which is  racists are totally fine, please enjoy your ad free experience which is subsidised by other content .   #  as long as reddit still hosts large racist communities and hosts them ad free no less then the number of racists on the entire site will only grow.   #  it is entirely possible that having large racist communities concentrates racists into those subreddits and reduces overall racist commentary outside of those communities.   #  i only want to touch on this piece of your argument.  it is entirely possible that having large racist communities concentrates racists into those subreddits and reduces overall racist commentary outside of those communities.  while it is possible that banning them would mean they might spend more time at another predominately racist site, it seems very likely that they would continue to come to reddit because most people have more than one facet to their identity and want to talk about more than just one thing.  the consequence ? more of their commentary would spread throughout the site.  hard to argue that would make reddit better, unless you would like to increase awareness that racism exists in the world.   #  what happens is the mild,  benign  racist can become somewhat radical and emphatic in his or her beliefs.   #  group polarization is a very real thing, though.  often people who hold mild versions of a certain viewpoint will have that view strengthened if they belong to a group that supports that viewpoint.  imagine if you were a  amild  racist held some prejudices, but mostly kept it to yourself, no one else might even know how you felt about certain races.  you stumble upon a sub like coontown, maybe have a couple chuckles, maybe disagree with some other things.  the more you go onto that sub, and see certain views upvoted and do not sound  completely  bigoted, maybe they even come off as intelligent the easier it is for you to say  yeah, i guess i would agree with that.   what happens is the mild,  benign  racist can become somewhat radical and emphatic in his or her beliefs.  this is why hate subs are a problem.  on the other hand, if these subs are banned, and the larger community reacts positively to it, then social norming will be enough of an impetus for many  benign  racists to see that their thinking  was  kind of fucked up, and not looked on well by many.  i am using broad strokes, but i have seen many examples of this happening to myself as well .   #  and they get given the same meaning those 0 times, now you have 0 people who believe in exactly what you say.   #  i am not him, but personally i have seen this happen to me.  i am indian and growing up we are told a bunch of shitty stereotypical stories about pakistan on the news.  it did not help that 0/0 happened and then basically terror attacks on major indian cities became a normal thing between 0 and 0.  almost 0 people died per attack.  it was pretty insane and many, many more were injured.  at that point, i really started hating muslims and primarily pakistani sunni muslims.  i just did not think about the fact that the people over there were probably going through a worse ordeal.  plus the media is super good at not telling you everything.  in recent years, i have become less anti pakistan and more saddened by the fact that the people over there are powerless to do anything about it.  i get angry still that the people over there do not do something about it, but i understand that they do not want to be the sacrificial lamb.  and so, the situation there gets worse.  i only noticed it when i went over to subreddits which harboured opinions similar to mine something i usually do not do because i would rather be an army of one vs 0 than an army of 0 vs one, its more of a challenge for me :d and started to get more riled up and more opinionated in my anti islamic ideas.  not violent, just really strongly opinionated.  it happens, echo chambers are not good for you because they only ever serve to affirm your pov, regardless of whether it is correct or not.  mobs are formed like this.  terrorism starts like this.  0 guys in a room keep reading the same set of lines over and over again.  and they get given the same meaning those 0 times, now you have 0 people who believe in exactly what you say.  be it peace or war.   #  obviously a line has to be drawn somewhere.   #  well that is the point.  you are now limiting the freedom of certain people you are yet to define properly because you think their ideas are dangerous.  at that point you have lost the argument and can no longer call yourself a liberal society.  freedom of hate groups bad in society we have neither perfect freedom of speech nor action.  obviously a line has to be drawn somewhere.  do you want to lock up or censor anyone who believes that race might have deeper physiological implications than just the colour of skin, or only once they use a racial slur ?  #  the right of assembly for people you give a  racist badge  to ?  #  that comment was meant to reinforce that  a line has to be drawn somewhere.   . on what grounds do you censor which groups ? what are you banning individual groups you do not like ? the right of assembly for people you give a  racist badge  to ? all i have been asking for is a real definition of the problem rather than meaningless terms like  hate groups  and  groups like the kkk .
three pillar of my changeable view:   america desperately needs an immediate minimum wage increase right now today.    it should be $0/hour nationally.  states and cities can raise it from there based on their own regional costs of living.    nationally, it should be raised periodically, tied to inflation.    there is a such thing as too high.  $0/hour is too high.   tldrs in bold !   obviously, i am not even going to entertain arguments that say minimum wage is too high at $0 or should not exist.  i am just going to skip that.   earning less than $0/an hour is akin to slave labor even without considering cost of living.   in 0 i worked a very very labor intensive job for $0/hour.  i was a been merchandiser.  i was responsible for lifting heavy cases of beer all day long.  it really felt like salve labor.  i made about $0 over the summer while i finished the final requirements of my college degree.  i was living on campus and student loans/parents were paying for my food and housing.  so the money i made was just savings and pocket money.  forget about cost of living, it still felt like i was a slave.   that is why the increase to $0 should be immediate  not a gradual increase of the next four years.  it should increase periodically commensurate with inflation, not once a decade, but every other year.  so that we are not having this same conversation again in a decade: people working 0 hours and still homeless.  i do not know what mathematical formula the obama administration used to come up with $0/hour, but that amount seems fair to me.  it is not so much that you can get comfortable flipping burgers but it is enough that you can earn money without being enslaved.   i really feel like $0 is too high.   you are not supposed to be comfortable flipping burgers.  people who support that are just ignoring drawbacks to a high minimum wage.  try to change my view either way to $0/hour or if you are republican try to convince me in the opposite direction.   #  i really feel like $0 is too high.   #  you are doing the progressive thing where you are using your  feelings  to, with a great amount of bias, decide what other people should get paid.   # it is not slave labor when you are getting paid and you chose to work there, ie you were not coerced to work there.  who just pitches a random number in which all us skeptics are just supposed to accept $0 ? why.  where you live has a completely different cost of living than where i live.  also those who are not worth $0 an hour are effectively priced out of the marketplace, doomed to remain unemployed, by your plan.  that is pretty immoral.  high school kids the majority of those earning the min wage in the us need a place to begin, and a foundation for their resume.  companies mostly large ones ultimately wo not suffer too bad, as they have more funds saved for laws such as this that ramp up overhead costs.  so ultimately as the min wage increases, small mom and pop shops end up hurting a whole hell of a lot more than huge companies you probably do not approve of.  say.  walmart, mcdonalds, etc.  specifically within the realm of fast food, we are quickly reaching a point where most employees wo not be needed because if you have got $0,0 you can pay for a machine which makes meals.  $0 an hour conveniently comes out to $0,0 annually.  oh how the scales could tip.  you are doing the progressive thing where you are using your  feelings  to, with a great amount of bias, decide what other people should get paid.  my question to you is: what right or authority do you have to tell me what i should get paid ? or what i should pay for labor ? who are you ? disclaimer: i am not a republican.   #  the job is worth $0 to somebody, so the business should not have to increase its wages based on somebody else is opinion of how difficult the work is.   #  your actions are perfectly aligned with the theory of free market economics.  the job was not paying you enough, so you quit, simple as that.  you even assigned a price that you think the job was worth.  you could go back and argue for that $0/hr wage, but i am guessing that they have already filled that position.  the job is worth $0 to somebody, so the business should not have to increase its wages based on somebody else is opinion of how difficult the work is.  i think, correct me if i am wrong, you feel that any labor you do is worth at least $0 per hour.  if you think that is what you need, then go out and find a job that will pay you for it.  however, you will need to out compete everybody else who is willing to work for $0.   #  compare this something like tutoring for an ap chemistry exam.   #  not when you factor in scarcity.  you moved shit.  there are a lot of people who can move shit.  please do not take this is an insult but moving shit is a low skilled job.  there are thousands of people who will move shit for money.  because the barrier for entry is very low.  can you move shit ? yes ! you are hired.  compare this something like tutoring for an ap chemistry exam.  that skill is a little bit more limited thus you can charge a lot more for that.   #  to get these jobs turned around on time he needed people he could trust to a certain extent.   #  you should be paid more because you hate your job ? that is not really how it works.  i worked for construction and office instillation company in college and made $0/hr bumped it up 0 if stayed long enough because it took some knowledge and skill via experience that my boss decided it was worth keeping the same crew around.  we did a good bit of welding and installing hundred of cubicles.  to get these jobs turned around on time he needed people he could trust to a certain extent.  the job sucked most days, it took someone who liked to work and could tolerant long days 0 to 0 sometimes more .  also worked a moving job that was hard labor but did not take any skill other than strength and tolerance to 0 humdity at 0 degrees.  i was paid min wage plus a tip here and there.  most of the co workers did not know their ass from a screw driver.  my boss never had a problem finding an extra hand.   #  where you given rights as a worker, breaks and such, and were you protected by laws to govern the employer/employee relationship ?  #  feeling like a slave and being a slave are not one in the same.  did you voluntarily sign up for this position ? where you forced to work hours that were not compensated ? where you given rights as a worker, breaks and such, and were you protected by laws to govern the employer/employee relationship ? could you break free from your work conditions and choose to work someplace else all by your own choice ? i could find some place where you could be forced to work in horrendous conditions for 0 hours a day to earn two bucks.  i wonder if in a month you would still feel like you are previous position was  slave labor.   what your perception of what something is and what that something actually is are quite different things.
the background of this cmv is that i have found most news sites discuss new movies in terms of rotten tomato ratings.  a subset to this view is i think news sites should report metacritic scores instead of rt ratings but that was too long for the title.  my reasoning for this is as follows: the difference between metacritic scores and rt scores is that metacritic is scored based on how much a critic liked a film, while rt is based simply on percentages of whether critics like a film or not.  with a few exceptions, most people who see movies fall into two groups.  first, those that are looking forward to a particular movie due to theme or actor and are willing to see a movie either regardless of score or as long as a movie has a score above a certain benchmark, or second, those that wish to see the best movie available at the theater because they simply want to go see a movie.  for the first group of moviegoers, a metacritic and rt score function nearly identically.  what percentage of critics liked a film and a weighted average of how much critics liked a film will generally give you a pretty good idea if the film you were excited to see is worth going to or not.  for the second group of moviegoers however, the metacritic score is much more valuable.  if your goal is to see the best movie, it is much more important to see how much someone liked it, and not simply to see that everyone enjoyed it.  when comparing two good movies with high rt scores for instance, it is impossible to tell which one critics preferred more.  this results in metacritic scores being at worst equal to rt scores, and oftentimes better.   #  second, those that wish to see the best movie available at the theater because they simply want to go see a movie.   #  i think this group either needs a tweak, or there needs to be a third group.   # i think this group either needs a tweak, or there needs to be a third group.  the issue is its not clear to me what  the best movie available  means.  its obviously an incredibly subjective standard.  what i think is a better description of a typical moviegoer is mindset is that they want to maximize the chances that they  enjoy  the movie.  and this is exactly what rotten tomatoes tells you about.  i do not care if some critic hated a film so much that they gave it a zero instead of a 0 or 0 star rating.  i also do not really care if a critic loved it so much that they gave it 0 stars, as opposed to 0 or 0.  so in this sense, metacritic just adds a lot of noise.  rotten tomatoes is perfect for moviegoers who want just want to pick a movie that they are more likely to enjoy than not.   #  let is imagine, for a bit, a hypothetical filmgoer who uses only rottentomatoes scores and one who uses only metacritic scores.   #  hi, op.  my answer might seem a bit amateurish as i have only lurked here so far, so i hope that rather than provide a conclusion, i can offer my opinion to further a healthy discussion.  now, i personally use metacritic when i decide on films and i consider it better for me personally for reasons similar to the ones you have outlined, but i think it is clear that that is not what you are saying.  you are saying that the rottentomatoes score is, for a person of the general public, a typical moviegoer, less pragmatic than a metacritic score.  i do not think this is true.  consider a score that is right in the middle.  metacritic says that this means that the film has had  mixed or average reviews.   note that those are two different things.  mixed is not equivalent to average, and metacritic has no way of distinguishing simply based on the score.  so, metacritic offers, in its rating system, the reviews below aside, no way to determine from the score whether something is polarizing or simply bland.  rottentomatoes does offer this.  if something is bland, it will likely simply get a low score, whereas if something is polarizing, it will get a medium score.  and it is not simply with yellow scores.  if you move up a bit, you can have a film with a somewhat high score, like say, 0 on metacritic.  this could still be somewhat polarizing, with a lot of people saying it is bland, a few less saying it is very good, and even less saying it is horrible.  or maybe everyone thinks it is good/okay.  whereas metacritic determines how good a film is, rottentomatoes measures how polarizing a film is, or how massive of an audience it is catered to.  the typical filmgoer will want to see a film that they think they will like.  let is imagine, for a bit, a hypothetical filmgoer who uses only rottentomatoes scores and one who uses only metacritic scores.  if they watched a thousand movies based on scores that were 0 or above for both, the rottentomatoes person can be predicted to have liked 0 percent of the films or more.  since a metacritic score can be 0 percent even if 0 percent of people thought it was a bland film, there is a plausible likelihood that our metacritic person would like only 0 percent of the films.  so, you are more likely to like a film with a high rottentomatoes score than you are to like a film with a high metacritic score, even if you would like a film with a high metacritic score more.  i do not expect this to be a clear explanation of my analysis, so please reply and ask as many questions as you need until you understand.   #  why would not  will i have a good time  be the primary question that most casual moviegoers have ?  #  this group definitely exists.  i am in this group.  i would be surprised if this group was not the majority.  why would not  will i have a good time  be the primary question that most casual moviegoers have ? the other thing i have a hard time with using metacritic is aside from obviously good or obviously terrible movies, where do you draw the line between what movies you want to see and which ones you do not ? is 0  good  ? i am not sure how to really interpret that.  but if 0 of critics liked a movie, that makes total sense to me.   #  if you are that worried about seeing the best movie you can,  read the reviews .   #  if you are really that concerned about seeing the best movie possible for your limited money, then sure, maybe i would not recommend just looking at the rt score.  but the mc score is not a very good strategy either.  if you are that worried about seeing the best movie you can,  read the reviews .  at the very top end of the score charts, its not really going to matter much anyway.  and how many movies are in theaters at a given time anyway ? i think  will i enjoy the movie  is the best question to ask before taking a trip to the theater.  if you are buying dvds, and are choosing from the entire collections of movies throughout history, mc is much more appealing.  i think ant man is a fantastic recent example of the value of rotten tomatoes.  if got a metacritic score of 0 URL which seems pretty bad to me.  but it got a rotten tomatoes score of 0 URL user reviews reflect a similar disparity 0 on mc vs 0 on rt .  to someone considering whether or not to see ant man in theaters, i think the rotten tomatoes score is  vastly  more useful.  it is not going to win any oscars, but 0 of people had a good time seeing it, and you have probably got a pretty good idea from the get go if you are in the 0 who wo not.  a score of 0 may be reflective of its  cinematic quality  on a historical scale, but even as someone who loves superhero movies, that score would make me scratch my head over whether or not its worth my time.  the rt score made it clear that it was, and i was rewarded with a delightful movie experience.   #  a few reasons why i like rotten tomatoes more than metacritic: the rt website is more profession looking and intuitive.   #  a few reasons why i like rotten tomatoes more than metacritic: the rt website is more profession looking and intuitive.  they receive more critical submissions for mission impossible: rogue nation, currently 0 critical reviews on rt vs.  0 on metacritic .  rotten tomatoes provides a one to two sentence consensus.  they also provide average rating 0/0 in addition to  fresh  or  rotten,  so that i can see how critics rate it in addition to how many give it possitive reviews.  personally, what i like about freshness and rottenness is that it captures how likely i am to enjoy the movie.  if something gets 0 fresh, that means that there is a really, really good chance that i will enjoy it.  it removes the polarizing features/outliers, in exchange for a bit of precision.  if something gets an average rating of 0, i do not know if 0 of critics hated it and while 0 of people loved it.  combining tomato meter and average score can give us a pretty good predictor: 0 fresh on rt with a 0/0 average score vs.  0 fresh with a 0/0 average score.  this means that the first is a general crowd pleaser, while the 0nd is probably a bit more of a niche genre maybe only sci fi fans will really like it, while it will alienate some of the more chick flick crowd .  based on the genre, i can make a much more educated guess of whether that movie is for me.
i live right near dc.  it is only a 0 minute drive and i am always free to go any weekend.  for some reason, i have this pathetic fear that being politically active might bite me in the arse someday.  like i will somehow distance myself from the people around me by going to marches.  in an age with no privacy and as a person who heavily values privacy and anonymity , a simple picture taken by a stranger might bite me back.  my family, church community, workplace, they might all view me differently if i decide to participate in a certain marches.  this fear is so absurd, but it is exactly what is stopping me from trying to be a part of anything.   #  my family, church community, workplace, they might all view me differently if i decide to participate in a certain marches.   #  please do not let them stop you from participating in the political process.   # please do not let them stop you from participating in the political process.  activism is a  vital  part of the whole thing ! if you decide to take part, you would have a chance to introduce members of your family and church let is keep political talk out of the workplace to reconsider their views.  that is a good thing.  it will only bite you in the ass if you are doing something wrong.  if you are not hitting or looting, then a picture is not harmful it is simply a record of your presence.  if you are peacefully protesting then you are doing something useful for yourself and the community.  do not let this fear hold you back.  good luck u/chessnutz.   #  bernie sanders led all sorts of sit ins and marches when he was in college, and it has only helped his presidential run today.   #  this can play out two ways in the future: 0.  you keep the same political views.  you are an early leader in that political movement and a hero.  bernie sanders led all sorts of sit ins and marches when he was in college, and it has only helped his presidential run today.  0.  you change your political views.  you can always say you saw the light and will be a hero for admitting you were wrong.  for example, the plaintiff in roe v.  wade changed her mind about abortion, and is a hero in the pro life movement today.   #  history classes largely ignores other acts of civil unrest.   #  your comment ignores all of the violence and persecution of political activists around the world and in the united states.  setting aside the soviet union, china, nazi germany and all of south asia and south/central america even in the u. s.  people were blacklisted during the red scare.  so his concern is not baseless, unless one is pursuing a career in politics activism is unlikely to help you find a normal job and may very well alienate potential employers.  any activism worth doing is going to be controversial.  for instance their is not anyone in support of torturing puppies so protesting against it will not be harmful, but it will not serve much of a purpose either.  on the other hand activism for or against abortion will definitely piss a large portion of the population off.  the opinion that  it is different now  has existed at every point in history but the tribal nature of humans rears its ugly head again and again.  also, consider that much of what is taught about non violent activism in u. s.  history classes largely ignores other acts of civil unrest.  for instance ghandi was by no means the only indian agitating for freedom from great britain.  there were many terrorist groups attacking british colonies and this had as large an effect on britain giving up control as any hunger strike.  also consider that intelligence agencies closely monitor activists.  mlk was stalked by the fbi and they sent him a letter telling him to commit suicide or else they would out him as a corrupt philanderer.  so i short i would say that if one wants a good job one should not post their opinion on every topic on facebook or take part in many public protests.   #  it is not really any worse than attending a concert.   #  depends on how you use your activism.  i worked as a field organizer and it director and volunteered time in my local party for a few years.  i could not exactly leave it off my resume since it would create a pretty big gap in years, so i had a similar concern that my activism might bite me in the ass when it came time to sell out.  i mean, moving to the private sector.  turns out that when you layout the valuable skills gained in activism, it can seriously help your job prospects.  canvassing, phone banking, and volunteer recruitment ? great segue into sales.  working with voter files ? great segue into data entry and other secretarial work.  set up events ? boom, event coordination experience.  coordinate volunteers or other staff ? pow, supervisory experience.  i will be honest with you, though.  merely participating in marches is not going to really hurt or help you much.  it is not really any worse than attending a concert.  plus, at 0, you are operating within social norms to be active.  i doubt it would have long term negative effects.   #  with your family, if you are close to them then they should still accept you no matter your beliefs.   #  with your family, if you are close to them then they should still accept you no matter your beliefs.  if they do not, then do not care about what they think of you.  with your church, if your personal beliefs are incompatible with your religion i would say you should reconsider your allegiance with that religion.  with your workplace, it depends where you work but politics should not be discussed in most workplaces, and bosses and such should judge you based on your work and not your personal beliefs.  if your bosses actively search the internet to try and find your personal beliefs, then they probably already have a negative bias towards you.  if you have strong beliefs you should not try to hide them.  when supporters of a cause hide in the face of adversity, they weaken the cause rather than strengthening it.
i live right near dc.  it is only a 0 minute drive and i am always free to go any weekend.  for some reason, i have this pathetic fear that being politically active might bite me in the arse someday.  like i will somehow distance myself from the people around me by going to marches.  in an age with no privacy and as a person who heavily values privacy and anonymity , a simple picture taken by a stranger might bite me back.  my family, church community, workplace, they might all view me differently if i decide to participate in a certain marches.  this fear is so absurd, but it is exactly what is stopping me from trying to be a part of anything.   #  in an age with no privacy and as a person who heavily values privacy and anonymity , a simple picture taken by a stranger might bite me back.   #  it will only bite you in the ass if you are doing something wrong.   # please do not let them stop you from participating in the political process.  activism is a  vital  part of the whole thing ! if you decide to take part, you would have a chance to introduce members of your family and church let is keep political talk out of the workplace to reconsider their views.  that is a good thing.  it will only bite you in the ass if you are doing something wrong.  if you are not hitting or looting, then a picture is not harmful it is simply a record of your presence.  if you are peacefully protesting then you are doing something useful for yourself and the community.  do not let this fear hold you back.  good luck u/chessnutz.   #  you can always say you saw the light and will be a hero for admitting you were wrong.   #  this can play out two ways in the future: 0.  you keep the same political views.  you are an early leader in that political movement and a hero.  bernie sanders led all sorts of sit ins and marches when he was in college, and it has only helped his presidential run today.  0.  you change your political views.  you can always say you saw the light and will be a hero for admitting you were wrong.  for example, the plaintiff in roe v.  wade changed her mind about abortion, and is a hero in the pro life movement today.   #  so i short i would say that if one wants a good job one should not post their opinion on every topic on facebook or take part in many public protests.   #  your comment ignores all of the violence and persecution of political activists around the world and in the united states.  setting aside the soviet union, china, nazi germany and all of south asia and south/central america even in the u. s.  people were blacklisted during the red scare.  so his concern is not baseless, unless one is pursuing a career in politics activism is unlikely to help you find a normal job and may very well alienate potential employers.  any activism worth doing is going to be controversial.  for instance their is not anyone in support of torturing puppies so protesting against it will not be harmful, but it will not serve much of a purpose either.  on the other hand activism for or against abortion will definitely piss a large portion of the population off.  the opinion that  it is different now  has existed at every point in history but the tribal nature of humans rears its ugly head again and again.  also, consider that much of what is taught about non violent activism in u. s.  history classes largely ignores other acts of civil unrest.  for instance ghandi was by no means the only indian agitating for freedom from great britain.  there were many terrorist groups attacking british colonies and this had as large an effect on britain giving up control as any hunger strike.  also consider that intelligence agencies closely monitor activists.  mlk was stalked by the fbi and they sent him a letter telling him to commit suicide or else they would out him as a corrupt philanderer.  so i short i would say that if one wants a good job one should not post their opinion on every topic on facebook or take part in many public protests.   #  plus, at 0, you are operating within social norms to be active.   #  depends on how you use your activism.  i worked as a field organizer and it director and volunteered time in my local party for a few years.  i could not exactly leave it off my resume since it would create a pretty big gap in years, so i had a similar concern that my activism might bite me in the ass when it came time to sell out.  i mean, moving to the private sector.  turns out that when you layout the valuable skills gained in activism, it can seriously help your job prospects.  canvassing, phone banking, and volunteer recruitment ? great segue into sales.  working with voter files ? great segue into data entry and other secretarial work.  set up events ? boom, event coordination experience.  coordinate volunteers or other staff ? pow, supervisory experience.  i will be honest with you, though.  merely participating in marches is not going to really hurt or help you much.  it is not really any worse than attending a concert.  plus, at 0, you are operating within social norms to be active.  i doubt it would have long term negative effects.   #  if you have strong beliefs you should not try to hide them.   #  with your family, if you are close to them then they should still accept you no matter your beliefs.  if they do not, then do not care about what they think of you.  with your church, if your personal beliefs are incompatible with your religion i would say you should reconsider your allegiance with that religion.  with your workplace, it depends where you work but politics should not be discussed in most workplaces, and bosses and such should judge you based on your work and not your personal beliefs.  if your bosses actively search the internet to try and find your personal beliefs, then they probably already have a negative bias towards you.  if you have strong beliefs you should not try to hide them.  when supporters of a cause hide in the face of adversity, they weaken the cause rather than strengthening it.
think about it this way: would you approve of federal funding to support a special task force of batmen in every major city in america ? the batmen are well paid and highly armed with military grade technology.  they can use theatrics to scare people.  they operate outside the law, do not require evidence or due process of any kind, and suffer no penalty for excessive use of violence.  the argument in favor of this is that the batmen can better intimidate, scare and ultimately beat up low level criminals, which will reduce crime.  this solution assumes that a crime is a major problem, b only bad people commit crime and c they will only stop committing crime through the threat of violence.  it does nothing to address issues of poverty, inequality, domestic violence, mental illness or any of the myriad of other social issues that lead to crime.  having batmen patrol the streets of any city is an absurd extension of a modern police state.  i think this is really what the story of batman is though.  it romanticizes a lone vigilante who carries military grade weapons, uses theatrics to scare people, operates outside the law and suffers no penalty for excessive use of violence, which he frequently resorts to.  he is trust fund baby who is motivated by childhood trauma which he has failed to deal with in any sort of mature way.  batman is really just a mentally disturbed violent anti social psychopath who is an agent for the wealthy elite and whose tactics resemble fascism taken to an absurd extreme.  he is a villan, not a hero.  cmv  #  think about it this way: would you approve of federal funding to support a special task force of batmen in every major city in america ?  #  this falls apart for me right from the get go.   # this falls apart for me right from the get go.  why would i think about this from a federal funding standpoint ? that changes the circumstances of the situation, and thus my assessment.  they are not comparable.  i think i can have a discussion on the permissibility of a private individual having and abortion or practicing a religion without making it a conversation about the federal government funding these actions, and that i can have a completely consistent worldview in which i am okay with one and not the other.  no due process of any kind ? like turning people over to the police and allowing the justice system to handle them where they end up in jail, an asylum, or even released ? you are making batman out to be the same as the punisher, and i am not buying it.  it romanticizes a lone vigilante again, how are these things comparable ? a lone vigilante versus task forces in multiple cities ? other forms batman takes have been known to dispatch villains with nothing but a simple punch or kick, rendering them unconscious or tricking them/skillfully using his equipment to incapacitate them otherwise.  is there any specific version of batman you think we should single out, and if so, why ? otherwise, should not we focus on universal traits batman has across his stories ? that is a jump out of no where.  you did not talk about this at all.  and, yet again, i must note this is counter to your description of him as a lone vigilante.  batman frequently takes down and opposes corrupt, wealthy individuals, many of whom are in collusion with the authorities.  this is usually part of any origin story.  we saw this in the recent trilogy, in batman begins.  his motivation and actions do not really involve domination and totalitarianism, but to inspire people by showing that individuals can make a difference and that these monolithic powers that terrify everyone for their own benefit can be challenged.  this is most often told through the story of commissioner gordon and his own journey and experiences as batman emerges onto the scene.  one of his most famous moments in comic book history comes from the book batman year one, in one of many telling of his beginnings.  in the story he crashes a dinner part of, you guessed it, the wealthy elite of the city.  here is what he had to say to them: URL the other hero, of the exact same story, is the up and coming pre commissioner gordon.  gordon wages an internal fight against the corrupt and brutal police officers in the city of gotham.  when he dissents and tries to out these bad cop practices, he is beaten by his fellow cops with baseball bats, reminded that he has a wife, and told to keep himself in line.  notice he is not just written in a good light, the violent cops abusing their authority are written in a bad one.  they are vilified.  URL overall, i think you are really failing to see the nuance of who batman is, what he represents, and the emotions and considerations authors who use him in their stories try to evoke in their readers.  i think you should give him a second analysis.  batman is a flawed figure.  he is not without his failings.  hell, authors often utilize that in their comics.  but i do not think a flawed hero makes a villain.  your depiction of him is exaggerated and, to me, the real absurd extreme.   #  you could think of it like how turning on a light creates shadows or how dropping something heavy on a bed will cause anything else on the bed to roll towards it.   #  sometimes it will be portrayed that batman and his rogues gallery are two sides of the same coin or that batman is existence somehow lead to their creation.  you could think of it like how turning on a light creates shadows or how dropping something heavy on a bed will cause anything else on the bed to roll towards it.  in the end what you get is the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg; or, if you give the police bigger and better weapons, then wo not the villains go after bigger and better weapons ? whatever your thoughts on those things, it still has to be acknowledged that pre batman gotham was crime ridden, its police force corrupt and ineffective, and there was nothing to suggest that things were going to turn around.  villains were going to be villains whether they put on a ski mask or something more theatrical.   #  if any other person did the same things that batman did, we would not trust them at all.   #  if any other person did the same things that batman did, we would not trust them at all.  but bruce wayne is written as an idealized character who we can trust with that type of power and those types of tactics.  it is like if i have a kid who needs heart surgery.  i would not trust just anyone to drug my kid unconscious and cut them up with a sharp blade.  but if i know the surgeon is a good person, and has had 0 years of training, i would trust them.  bat  men  have the potential to be violent, fascist assholes, but bat  man  is not one.   #  actually, in the comic books, many people do think he is a terrible person.   # no ? sure, but perception does not matter.  you can be a bad person even if you have tricked other people into thinking you are a good person.  you can also be a good person even though others think you are a bad person.  the cmv post is not whether batman  seems  like he is a violent, fascist asshole.  the post states that he  is  a violent, fascist asshole.  batman is certainly violent, but he is not a fascist or an asshole in both the technical and colloquial definition of those terms.  actually, in the comic books, many people do think he is a terrible person.  people think of bruce wayne as a lazy, narcissistic moron.  they think batman is a violent murderer well some people do, and public opinion goes back and forth.  the appeal of batman is that he symbolizes doing what is right, even when everyone thinks you are wrong.  that is a big part of what makes him a hero.   #  very little of the batman plots i have ever seen really end up involving common street thugs anyway, it seems like he is mostly used as a protagonist against other well funded wackos the police ca not stop on their own.   #  i think batman/bruce wayne is wealth is just more of an enabling trait than sneaky propaganda.  if the character was not of substantial wealth, he would not have the means to be batman.  the circumstances that lead to bruce wayne is alter ego are not unique, but because they happened to a person with intelligence and resources, something was able to come of it.  it appeals to the common person is fantasy of not being powerless when faced with negative circumstances.  very little of the batman plots i have ever seen really end up involving common street thugs anyway, it seems like he is mostly used as a protagonist against other well funded wackos the police ca not stop on their own.
think about it this way: would you approve of federal funding to support a special task force of batmen in every major city in america ? the batmen are well paid and highly armed with military grade technology.  they can use theatrics to scare people.  they operate outside the law, do not require evidence or due process of any kind, and suffer no penalty for excessive use of violence.  the argument in favor of this is that the batmen can better intimidate, scare and ultimately beat up low level criminals, which will reduce crime.  this solution assumes that a crime is a major problem, b only bad people commit crime and c they will only stop committing crime through the threat of violence.  it does nothing to address issues of poverty, inequality, domestic violence, mental illness or any of the myriad of other social issues that lead to crime.  having batmen patrol the streets of any city is an absurd extension of a modern police state.  i think this is really what the story of batman is though.  it romanticizes a lone vigilante who carries military grade weapons, uses theatrics to scare people, operates outside the law and suffers no penalty for excessive use of violence, which he frequently resorts to.  he is trust fund baby who is motivated by childhood trauma which he has failed to deal with in any sort of mature way.  batman is really just a mentally disturbed violent anti social psychopath who is an agent for the wealthy elite and whose tactics resemble fascism taken to an absurd extreme.  he is a villan, not a hero.  cmv  #  i think this is really what the story of batman is though.   #  it romanticizes a lone vigilante again, how are these things comparable ?  # this falls apart for me right from the get go.  why would i think about this from a federal funding standpoint ? that changes the circumstances of the situation, and thus my assessment.  they are not comparable.  i think i can have a discussion on the permissibility of a private individual having and abortion or practicing a religion without making it a conversation about the federal government funding these actions, and that i can have a completely consistent worldview in which i am okay with one and not the other.  no due process of any kind ? like turning people over to the police and allowing the justice system to handle them where they end up in jail, an asylum, or even released ? you are making batman out to be the same as the punisher, and i am not buying it.  it romanticizes a lone vigilante again, how are these things comparable ? a lone vigilante versus task forces in multiple cities ? other forms batman takes have been known to dispatch villains with nothing but a simple punch or kick, rendering them unconscious or tricking them/skillfully using his equipment to incapacitate them otherwise.  is there any specific version of batman you think we should single out, and if so, why ? otherwise, should not we focus on universal traits batman has across his stories ? that is a jump out of no where.  you did not talk about this at all.  and, yet again, i must note this is counter to your description of him as a lone vigilante.  batman frequently takes down and opposes corrupt, wealthy individuals, many of whom are in collusion with the authorities.  this is usually part of any origin story.  we saw this in the recent trilogy, in batman begins.  his motivation and actions do not really involve domination and totalitarianism, but to inspire people by showing that individuals can make a difference and that these monolithic powers that terrify everyone for their own benefit can be challenged.  this is most often told through the story of commissioner gordon and his own journey and experiences as batman emerges onto the scene.  one of his most famous moments in comic book history comes from the book batman year one, in one of many telling of his beginnings.  in the story he crashes a dinner part of, you guessed it, the wealthy elite of the city.  here is what he had to say to them: URL the other hero, of the exact same story, is the up and coming pre commissioner gordon.  gordon wages an internal fight against the corrupt and brutal police officers in the city of gotham.  when he dissents and tries to out these bad cop practices, he is beaten by his fellow cops with baseball bats, reminded that he has a wife, and told to keep himself in line.  notice he is not just written in a good light, the violent cops abusing their authority are written in a bad one.  they are vilified.  URL overall, i think you are really failing to see the nuance of who batman is, what he represents, and the emotions and considerations authors who use him in their stories try to evoke in their readers.  i think you should give him a second analysis.  batman is a flawed figure.  he is not without his failings.  hell, authors often utilize that in their comics.  but i do not think a flawed hero makes a villain.  your depiction of him is exaggerated and, to me, the real absurd extreme.   #  villains were going to be villains whether they put on a ski mask or something more theatrical.   #  sometimes it will be portrayed that batman and his rogues gallery are two sides of the same coin or that batman is existence somehow lead to their creation.  you could think of it like how turning on a light creates shadows or how dropping something heavy on a bed will cause anything else on the bed to roll towards it.  in the end what you get is the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg; or, if you give the police bigger and better weapons, then wo not the villains go after bigger and better weapons ? whatever your thoughts on those things, it still has to be acknowledged that pre batman gotham was crime ridden, its police force corrupt and ineffective, and there was nothing to suggest that things were going to turn around.  villains were going to be villains whether they put on a ski mask or something more theatrical.   #  i would not trust just anyone to drug my kid unconscious and cut them up with a sharp blade.   #  if any other person did the same things that batman did, we would not trust them at all.  but bruce wayne is written as an idealized character who we can trust with that type of power and those types of tactics.  it is like if i have a kid who needs heart surgery.  i would not trust just anyone to drug my kid unconscious and cut them up with a sharp blade.  but if i know the surgeon is a good person, and has had 0 years of training, i would trust them.  bat  men  have the potential to be violent, fascist assholes, but bat  man  is not one.   #  that is a big part of what makes him a hero.   # no ? sure, but perception does not matter.  you can be a bad person even if you have tricked other people into thinking you are a good person.  you can also be a good person even though others think you are a bad person.  the cmv post is not whether batman  seems  like he is a violent, fascist asshole.  the post states that he  is  a violent, fascist asshole.  batman is certainly violent, but he is not a fascist or an asshole in both the technical and colloquial definition of those terms.  actually, in the comic books, many people do think he is a terrible person.  people think of bruce wayne as a lazy, narcissistic moron.  they think batman is a violent murderer well some people do, and public opinion goes back and forth.  the appeal of batman is that he symbolizes doing what is right, even when everyone thinks you are wrong.  that is a big part of what makes him a hero.   #  the circumstances that lead to bruce wayne is alter ego are not unique, but because they happened to a person with intelligence and resources, something was able to come of it.   #  i think batman/bruce wayne is wealth is just more of an enabling trait than sneaky propaganda.  if the character was not of substantial wealth, he would not have the means to be batman.  the circumstances that lead to bruce wayne is alter ego are not unique, but because they happened to a person with intelligence and resources, something was able to come of it.  it appeals to the common person is fantasy of not being powerless when faced with negative circumstances.  very little of the batman plots i have ever seen really end up involving common street thugs anyway, it seems like he is mostly used as a protagonist against other well funded wackos the police ca not stop on their own.
nonviolence is how the establishment asks us to seek redress when at the same time they use violence against the common people.  your brother got shot by a cop ? how dare you even  think  about so much as shooting a cop is brother.  this is ridiculous and ineffective; the few times that nonviolence has actually been successful it has occurred in the face of greater violence.  the peaceful dissipation of the british empire occurred not because of gandhi is or nkrumah is fortitude but instead because the horrors of the second world war made blighty respect african and asian fighters as their equals on the battlefield.  when you are dealing with an establishment that sees both jamal from ferguson and voula from lesvos as equally dispensable, there is no way to nonviolently deconstruct this system.  on the contrary, violence against children has proven to be one of the most enduringly successful tactics; as heinous as it is in the microcosm, in the macrocosm it yields very successful results for a noble cause.  one can see this in the old testament, where the israelites showed no compunctions towards killing small children and were rewarded with a defensible state, and in modern times the success of the state of israel as well.  you see the same in isis; they show depraved indifference towards civilian life and as a result their enemies shut down because their lizard brain cannot condemn a baby killer.  if those who fight against imperialists in the us, europe, canada, ukraine both sides are imperialist scum etc used the same tactic, the global system would not see the threat they faced until it was too late.   #  on the contrary, violence against children has proven to be one of the most enduringly successful tactics; as heinous as it is in the microcosm, in the macrocosm it yields very successful results for a noble cause.   #  one can see this in the old testament, where the israelites showed no compunctions towards killing small children and were rewarded with a defensible state, and in modern times the success of the state of israel as well.   # one can see this in the old testament, where the israelites showed no compunctions towards killing small children and were rewarded with a defensible state, and in modern times the success of the state of israel as well.  the examples of success that you provide are all ethnic conflicts occurring within a country or something that would become one.  killing children in such a context is basically about ending the other ethnicity.  it is ethnic cleansing.  violence and the threat of violence are used to remove an ethnic group from a territory.  basically, you have shown that ethnic cleansing can prevent future inter ethnic violence within a country.  and that makes sense.  after a group successfully pursues a strategy of ethnic cleansing, there is no source of future violence all the people who would fight are dead.  but anti colonial wars are not going to be winnable through ethnic cleansing because they are not a conflict between two ethnic groups that both want to live in the same territory.  ethnic cleansing prevents future violence by getting rid of one side of the fight.  there is no similar logic for an anti colonial war.  the killing will only prevent future violence to the extent that it brings about an end to the war that somehow secures the peace.  if those who fight against imperialists in the us, europe, canada, ukraine both sides are imperialist scum etc used the same tactic, the global system would not see the threat they faced until it was too late.  there are a couple of issues with this.  firstly, isis is still fighting in syria and iraq; they have not won yet and i do not think they are an appropriate example.  secondly, the use of extremely shocking tactics sometimes works.  basically you are describing terrorism.  and suicide terrorism in particular does tend to work well in driving out occupiers URL however, such attacks do not tend to work domestically see the above source the occupier must be foreign .  terrorist attacks tend to depend on their shock value the same mechanism you mention working for isis.  but such attacks can also provoke responses that include greater involvement.  think about 0 0 and the subsequent increase in american involvement in the middle east.  think about the response of slave owners to most slave uprisings.  massive retaliation is a norm.   #  how is this not a prime example that nonviolence works just as well if not better than violence ?  #  how is mlk not a prime example of change through nonviolence ? regardless of whether violence is used or not, people usually incite change through a leader.  just because mlk led the civil rights movement does not mean that nonviolence did not inhibit change from happening.  i would like to semi piggy back on /u/tim bar is post by adding the example of mohandas gandhi and his non cooperation movement.  to protest the rowlett act, gandhi incited much of india to boycott british goods, stop working at british factories, and cease working in any government buildings.  the massive economic loss, if nothing else, is what caused the british to repeal the rowlett act.  this civil protest drained the government is capacity to function, and as such, would have most likely benefitted the people more than if they had revolted because a revolt would mean loss of protesting lives as well as dysfunction of political/economic systems.  how is this not a prime example that nonviolence works just as well if not better than violence ?  #  it does not matter that the larger changes in the world were executed through violence.   #  for the sake of this argument, i will assume you were born and raised in the usa.  i will also assume that you were born after the whole civil rights and suffragist movements.  remember seeing this URL sign when you were younger ? of course you have not; the civil rights movement is impacts have forced this kind of segregation away.  remember the last time a woman was denied the privilege of getting on a bus simply due to her sex ? no you havent, for the suffragist movement has rendered that practice illegal.  thanks, rosa parks.  URL the very fact that you can complain about smaller socioeconomic differences is a testament to how well the former protests have performed.  we would be complaining about the constitutional rights first before we complained about smaller articles, like income differences.  your view is that nonviolence  does not work .  i have provided to you one solid case study from history that nonviolence  does work .  i was not required to prove that nonviolence is more efficient than violence at creeating change; i was only required to prove that the possibility exists that nonviolence works.  before you say,  but /u/tarediiran, you already said that   prime example that nonviolence works just as well if not better than violence ,  keep in mind that your view is still countered in my perspective because my statement is  irrelevant  to the fact that the  possibility  exists that nonviolence causes at least some observable change.  it does not matter that the larger changes in the world were executed through violence.  all that i need is an example that nonviolence does work to contradict your view that nonviolence does not work.   #  hint: only about 0 people/year of all races were lynched.   # but the facts on the ground are a whole  other story: were blacks more likely to face incarceration, police brutality, or violent crime before or after segregation ? were blacks more likely to make it into the middle class during or after segregation ? was there a vibrant black cultural scene with neighborhoods like harlem, bronzeville, and the black wall street of tulsa during or after segregation ? were the lynchings of the early 0th century greater or smaller in number than the officer involved shootings of the 0st ? hint: only about 0 people/year of all races were lynched.  URL did the young black man growing up in a racially segregated neighborhood full of positive role models of every social class, from the doctor or preacher on down to the domestic servant, have anywhere near the level of angst that post segregation  ghetto  blacks/ thugs  have ?  #  did that end in the complete suppression of the black tulsa community ?  #  according to this URL link, although blacks  incarceration increased, it only increased from 0 blacks : 0 white to 0 blacks : 0 white.  that is not quite as large of a difference as you would think.  blacks were still incarcerated at a far greater rate than whites at the time of the civil rights movement.  from this URL link, nicely surmised in this URL screencapture, whites are killed more than blacks overall from police shootings, among males.  police hurts everyone, not just blacks, using violence.  wikipedia URL states that the middle class of blacks increased for 0 0 years after the civil rights movement before recessions started to happen.  in fact, i could argue that the police are quite a problem when they try to use violence in the name of justice, as seen by the countless headlines in /r/news.  the kkk razed the tulsa community, in the name of justice and righteousness for all whites.  did that end in the complete suppression of the black tulsa community ? when you state,  did the young black man growing up in a racially segregated neighborhood full of positive role models of every social class, from the doctor or preacher on down to the domestic servant, have anywhere near the level of angst that post segregation  ghetto  blacks/ thugs  have ? you forget that blacks in mixed communities still have many positive role models to follow.  these role models, while they may not be black, are not intrinsically bad.  they can still serve as role models.
nonviolence is how the establishment asks us to seek redress when at the same time they use violence against the common people.  your brother got shot by a cop ? how dare you even  think  about so much as shooting a cop is brother.  this is ridiculous and ineffective; the few times that nonviolence has actually been successful it has occurred in the face of greater violence.  the peaceful dissipation of the british empire occurred not because of gandhi is or nkrumah is fortitude but instead because the horrors of the second world war made blighty respect african and asian fighters as their equals on the battlefield.  when you are dealing with an establishment that sees both jamal from ferguson and voula from lesvos as equally dispensable, there is no way to nonviolently deconstruct this system.  on the contrary, violence against children has proven to be one of the most enduringly successful tactics; as heinous as it is in the microcosm, in the macrocosm it yields very successful results for a noble cause.  one can see this in the old testament, where the israelites showed no compunctions towards killing small children and were rewarded with a defensible state, and in modern times the success of the state of israel as well.  you see the same in isis; they show depraved indifference towards civilian life and as a result their enemies shut down because their lizard brain cannot condemn a baby killer.  if those who fight against imperialists in the us, europe, canada, ukraine both sides are imperialist scum etc used the same tactic, the global system would not see the threat they faced until it was too late.   #  you see the same in isis; they show depraved indifference towards civilian life and as a result their enemies shut down because their lizard brain cannot condemn a baby killer.   #  if those who fight against imperialists in the us, europe, canada, ukraine both sides are imperialist scum etc used the same tactic, the global system would not see the threat they faced until it was too late.   # one can see this in the old testament, where the israelites showed no compunctions towards killing small children and were rewarded with a defensible state, and in modern times the success of the state of israel as well.  the examples of success that you provide are all ethnic conflicts occurring within a country or something that would become one.  killing children in such a context is basically about ending the other ethnicity.  it is ethnic cleansing.  violence and the threat of violence are used to remove an ethnic group from a territory.  basically, you have shown that ethnic cleansing can prevent future inter ethnic violence within a country.  and that makes sense.  after a group successfully pursues a strategy of ethnic cleansing, there is no source of future violence all the people who would fight are dead.  but anti colonial wars are not going to be winnable through ethnic cleansing because they are not a conflict between two ethnic groups that both want to live in the same territory.  ethnic cleansing prevents future violence by getting rid of one side of the fight.  there is no similar logic for an anti colonial war.  the killing will only prevent future violence to the extent that it brings about an end to the war that somehow secures the peace.  if those who fight against imperialists in the us, europe, canada, ukraine both sides are imperialist scum etc used the same tactic, the global system would not see the threat they faced until it was too late.  there are a couple of issues with this.  firstly, isis is still fighting in syria and iraq; they have not won yet and i do not think they are an appropriate example.  secondly, the use of extremely shocking tactics sometimes works.  basically you are describing terrorism.  and suicide terrorism in particular does tend to work well in driving out occupiers URL however, such attacks do not tend to work domestically see the above source the occupier must be foreign .  terrorist attacks tend to depend on their shock value the same mechanism you mention working for isis.  but such attacks can also provoke responses that include greater involvement.  think about 0 0 and the subsequent increase in american involvement in the middle east.  think about the response of slave owners to most slave uprisings.  massive retaliation is a norm.   #  how is this not a prime example that nonviolence works just as well if not better than violence ?  #  how is mlk not a prime example of change through nonviolence ? regardless of whether violence is used or not, people usually incite change through a leader.  just because mlk led the civil rights movement does not mean that nonviolence did not inhibit change from happening.  i would like to semi piggy back on /u/tim bar is post by adding the example of mohandas gandhi and his non cooperation movement.  to protest the rowlett act, gandhi incited much of india to boycott british goods, stop working at british factories, and cease working in any government buildings.  the massive economic loss, if nothing else, is what caused the british to repeal the rowlett act.  this civil protest drained the government is capacity to function, and as such, would have most likely benefitted the people more than if they had revolted because a revolt would mean loss of protesting lives as well as dysfunction of political/economic systems.  how is this not a prime example that nonviolence works just as well if not better than violence ?  #  for the sake of this argument, i will assume you were born and raised in the usa.   #  for the sake of this argument, i will assume you were born and raised in the usa.  i will also assume that you were born after the whole civil rights and suffragist movements.  remember seeing this URL sign when you were younger ? of course you have not; the civil rights movement is impacts have forced this kind of segregation away.  remember the last time a woman was denied the privilege of getting on a bus simply due to her sex ? no you havent, for the suffragist movement has rendered that practice illegal.  thanks, rosa parks.  URL the very fact that you can complain about smaller socioeconomic differences is a testament to how well the former protests have performed.  we would be complaining about the constitutional rights first before we complained about smaller articles, like income differences.  your view is that nonviolence  does not work .  i have provided to you one solid case study from history that nonviolence  does work .  i was not required to prove that nonviolence is more efficient than violence at creeating change; i was only required to prove that the possibility exists that nonviolence works.  before you say,  but /u/tarediiran, you already said that   prime example that nonviolence works just as well if not better than violence ,  keep in mind that your view is still countered in my perspective because my statement is  irrelevant  to the fact that the  possibility  exists that nonviolence causes at least some observable change.  it does not matter that the larger changes in the world were executed through violence.  all that i need is an example that nonviolence does work to contradict your view that nonviolence does not work.   #  but the facts on the ground are a whole  other story: were blacks more likely to face incarceration, police brutality, or violent crime before or after segregation ?  # but the facts on the ground are a whole  other story: were blacks more likely to face incarceration, police brutality, or violent crime before or after segregation ? were blacks more likely to make it into the middle class during or after segregation ? was there a vibrant black cultural scene with neighborhoods like harlem, bronzeville, and the black wall street of tulsa during or after segregation ? were the lynchings of the early 0th century greater or smaller in number than the officer involved shootings of the 0st ? hint: only about 0 people/year of all races were lynched.  URL did the young black man growing up in a racially segregated neighborhood full of positive role models of every social class, from the doctor or preacher on down to the domestic servant, have anywhere near the level of angst that post segregation  ghetto  blacks/ thugs  have ?  #  wikipedia URL states that the middle class of blacks increased for 0 0 years after the civil rights movement before recessions started to happen.   #  according to this URL link, although blacks  incarceration increased, it only increased from 0 blacks : 0 white to 0 blacks : 0 white.  that is not quite as large of a difference as you would think.  blacks were still incarcerated at a far greater rate than whites at the time of the civil rights movement.  from this URL link, nicely surmised in this URL screencapture, whites are killed more than blacks overall from police shootings, among males.  police hurts everyone, not just blacks, using violence.  wikipedia URL states that the middle class of blacks increased for 0 0 years after the civil rights movement before recessions started to happen.  in fact, i could argue that the police are quite a problem when they try to use violence in the name of justice, as seen by the countless headlines in /r/news.  the kkk razed the tulsa community, in the name of justice and righteousness for all whites.  did that end in the complete suppression of the black tulsa community ? when you state,  did the young black man growing up in a racially segregated neighborhood full of positive role models of every social class, from the doctor or preacher on down to the domestic servant, have anywhere near the level of angst that post segregation  ghetto  blacks/ thugs  have ? you forget that blacks in mixed communities still have many positive role models to follow.  these role models, while they may not be black, are not intrinsically bad.  they can still serve as role models.
i was only able to find one other thread about this topic, and it was kind of a train wreck.  common arguments:    it is not jraphics interchange format  by that logic, nasa would be pronounced nay sa and scuba would be pronounced scuh buh.  acronyms that are not initialisms are pronounced like they are words of their own, which brings me to point 0:    it is pronounced like  gift  because that is the only other word with  gif  !   by that logic, due to the existence of the word  girth ,  giraffe  would be pronounced with a hard g.   gift  is the exception not the rule.  see; here URL to base the pronunciation of a word on an exception is highly illogical.     the dictionary says both pronunciations are fine !   the dictionary also says that  williterally  means both literally and not literally.  see; here URL this is because the dictionary typically reflects how words are used, not what is correct.  so if people started pronouncing epitome like its spelled, the dictionary would also likely say that the incorrect pronunciation is fine there, too.  this does not, however, make the pronunciation correct.  so without further ado, change my view !  #   it is not jraphics interchange format  by that logic, nasa would be pronounced nay sa and scuba would be pronounced scuh buh.   #  this argument does not hold water to me because both of your example concern vowels, which are far more flexible in terms of their pronunciation than consonants.   # this argument does not hold water to me because both of your example concern vowels, which are far more flexible in terms of their pronunciation than consonants.  just think about accents: the difference between an american and english accent is largely centered around a difference in pronouncing vowels.  can you name another acronym in which the pronunciation reflects a different  consonant  pronunciation ? the dictionary also says that  williterally  means both literally and not literally.  see; here 0 .  this is because the dictionary typically reflects how words are used, not what is correct.  so if people started pronouncing epitome like its spelled, the dictionary would also likely say that the incorrect pronunciation is fine there, too.  this does not, however, make the pronunciation correct.  my personal belief is that  how words are used   means that  they are  correct.   how else do you define what is correct but by how people use it ? literally  does  mean figuratively.  english language speakers are the arbiters of their own language; while there are other languages that have legal standards of grammar and spelling in place, english is not one of them.   #  so if people are naturally inclined to pronounce something one way, it would be counterproductive to enforce the opposite.   #  language is one debate that is not exclusively grounded in structure.  the  english  language slaps structure in the face and laughs.  the pronunciation or acceptance of a new word just come down to use.  how many people say one  vs  how many say another.  while the original, intended pronunciation for the word by it is creator was jiff the average person interprets it as gift minus t.  we  could  argue the  why  of it, but it is moot.  once the word is used that way in mass, it is accepted into the dictionary and becomes correct whether it was that way or not previously.  keep in mind that the function that language serves is to communicate more easily.  if rules conflict with that priority, they hurt the language.  rules are instead made to  help  that agenda.  so if people are naturally inclined to pronounce something one way, it would be counterproductive to enforce the opposite.   #  you might be appealing to history, but that is a weak appeal because words change over time.   #  every major dictionary already includes the supposed misuse of  literally  as a proper use.  so what is being appealed to when you correct people ? you ca not be appealing to any authority, because the authorities on language disagree with you.  you ca not be appealing to common usage because, as you point out, you have to correct everyone.  you might be appealing to history, but that is a weak appeal because words change over time.  you might be appealing to clarity, but the fact that you know damn well what is meant makes that a weak argument.  so in what sense are people wrong for using  literally  as an intensifier ? they are literally going by the book.   #  they are literally going by the book i did not mean they are wrong for doing that.   #  i was coming from a different angle than op.  they are literally going by the book i did not mean they are wrong for doing that.  i just wonder why the dictionary needs to cover it.  they are using literally like totally, full, 0.  rarely those words are used literally, it is hyperbole on the existing definition.  although if it is common to include the hyperbolic definitions in dictionaries than that makes more sense to me.   #  in my opinion, exploring the cause of misunderstanding is not moot because it ultimately shapes, either my understanding of the language or the language.   # the original topic was a matter of correctness but did not have a component of misunderstanding.  semantics are often discussed as an exploration to the cause of misunderstanding.  in my opinion, exploring the cause of misunderstanding is not moot because it ultimately shapes, either my understanding of the language or the language.  the point which i made just prior to calling it moot is that the reason would ultimately not shape the language.  the language would be shaped by the adoption of the word.
i was only able to find one other thread about this topic, and it was kind of a train wreck.  common arguments:    it is not jraphics interchange format  by that logic, nasa would be pronounced nay sa and scuba would be pronounced scuh buh.  acronyms that are not initialisms are pronounced like they are words of their own, which brings me to point 0:    it is pronounced like  gift  because that is the only other word with  gif  !   by that logic, due to the existence of the word  girth ,  giraffe  would be pronounced with a hard g.   gift  is the exception not the rule.  see; here URL to base the pronunciation of a word on an exception is highly illogical.     the dictionary says both pronunciations are fine !   the dictionary also says that  williterally  means both literally and not literally.  see; here URL this is because the dictionary typically reflects how words are used, not what is correct.  so if people started pronouncing epitome like its spelled, the dictionary would also likely say that the incorrect pronunciation is fine there, too.  this does not, however, make the pronunciation correct.  so without further ado, change my view !  #   the dictionary says both pronunciations are fine !    #  the dictionary also says that  williterally  means both literally and not literally.   # this argument does not hold water to me because both of your example concern vowels, which are far more flexible in terms of their pronunciation than consonants.  just think about accents: the difference between an american and english accent is largely centered around a difference in pronouncing vowels.  can you name another acronym in which the pronunciation reflects a different  consonant  pronunciation ? the dictionary also says that  williterally  means both literally and not literally.  see; here 0 .  this is because the dictionary typically reflects how words are used, not what is correct.  so if people started pronouncing epitome like its spelled, the dictionary would also likely say that the incorrect pronunciation is fine there, too.  this does not, however, make the pronunciation correct.  my personal belief is that  how words are used   means that  they are  correct.   how else do you define what is correct but by how people use it ? literally  does  mean figuratively.  english language speakers are the arbiters of their own language; while there are other languages that have legal standards of grammar and spelling in place, english is not one of them.   #  language is one debate that is not exclusively grounded in structure.   #  language is one debate that is not exclusively grounded in structure.  the  english  language slaps structure in the face and laughs.  the pronunciation or acceptance of a new word just come down to use.  how many people say one  vs  how many say another.  while the original, intended pronunciation for the word by it is creator was jiff the average person interprets it as gift minus t.  we  could  argue the  why  of it, but it is moot.  once the word is used that way in mass, it is accepted into the dictionary and becomes correct whether it was that way or not previously.  keep in mind that the function that language serves is to communicate more easily.  if rules conflict with that priority, they hurt the language.  rules are instead made to  help  that agenda.  so if people are naturally inclined to pronounce something one way, it would be counterproductive to enforce the opposite.   #  you ca not be appealing to common usage because, as you point out, you have to correct everyone.   #  every major dictionary already includes the supposed misuse of  literally  as a proper use.  so what is being appealed to when you correct people ? you ca not be appealing to any authority, because the authorities on language disagree with you.  you ca not be appealing to common usage because, as you point out, you have to correct everyone.  you might be appealing to history, but that is a weak appeal because words change over time.  you might be appealing to clarity, but the fact that you know damn well what is meant makes that a weak argument.  so in what sense are people wrong for using  literally  as an intensifier ? they are literally going by the book.   #  they are literally going by the book i did not mean they are wrong for doing that.   #  i was coming from a different angle than op.  they are literally going by the book i did not mean they are wrong for doing that.  i just wonder why the dictionary needs to cover it.  they are using literally like totally, full, 0.  rarely those words are used literally, it is hyperbole on the existing definition.  although if it is common to include the hyperbolic definitions in dictionaries than that makes more sense to me.   #  semantics are often discussed as an exploration to the cause of misunderstanding.   # the original topic was a matter of correctness but did not have a component of misunderstanding.  semantics are often discussed as an exploration to the cause of misunderstanding.  in my opinion, exploring the cause of misunderstanding is not moot because it ultimately shapes, either my understanding of the language or the language.  the point which i made just prior to calling it moot is that the reason would ultimately not shape the language.  the language would be shaped by the adoption of the word.
the host country thing has run its course.  organizing the olympic games is financially ruinous, blatantly wasteful and the procedure favors corrupt regimes willing to put themselves on the map.  similar to the financial organization of the un, all international olympic committee members should pay according to their ability.  the committee could invest in large stadiums that have an actual purpose after being used for the olympic games, namely, the next olympic games.  furthermore, and this is just speculation, this would allow greece to reap the benefits of the economic surplus generated by the games.   #  furthermore, and this is just speculation, this would allow greece to reap the benefits of the economic surplus generated by the games.   #  this would probably be the biggest problem with hosting the olympics in one place.   # this would probably be the biggest problem with hosting the olympics in one place.  so everyone has to pay to upkeep the games, but only one country gets to profit off them ? is that really fair ? so while i do agree that it would be a hell of a lot more efficient on resources to hold the games in a single place, as soon as you make everyone pay with only one country profiting you run into problems.  a better solution would be to have a selected rotation of ten or so countries that host the games five winter, five summer , and they are held in permanent locations as in, if it gets held in the us it does not shuffle from chicago one year to la then to boston, etc .  host nation pays for expenses and upkeep but also reaps any profits from the influx of tourists.  at least then the facilities are used consistently enough that it makes sense for countries to host, the costs are spread out to hosting every give games and they keep the profits.  you can have a system in place to either get into the rotation or get out of the rotation if you want to so countries are not permanently burdened with hosting if something should happen and new countries can get in.   #  the problem is that the other nations will have even less reason to fund someone  else is  financially ruinous and blatantly wasteful olympics than their own.   #  it would certainly be economically reasonable to do something like this, but i do not think other countries would want to fund it and it could reduce the appeal of the games.  the problem is that the other nations will have even less reason to fund someone  else is  financially ruinous and blatantly wasteful olympics than their own.  like a lot of sporting events it is a prestige thing which is part of why those corrupt regimes want it , and there is not a good reason to pay for someone else is prestige.  while you would certainly save money with reusing the infrastructure it will still be expensive, as you will need to be maintaining stuff far beyond was is necessary locally between each games.  other countries wo not have an incentive to pay for extra blatantly wasteful pageantry and extravagance, so keeping everything sparkly new like currently happens would be unlikely.  it may also hurt the appeal of the games.  wo not you please think of the puff pieces ? you know, the incessant hours of talking about the planning, design, and pitfalls of the event itself, then sending a reporter to ooh and aah over the most  exotic  aspects of the local culture and cuisine ? the wild new arena designs, ridiculous attempts to outdo each other, national rivalries with the host city, and general amount of stuff to cover and build hype over is going to go down a lot if you just do them in the same locations in greece over and over.  most of what you would have left would be, like, the  sports  and  athletes  ! who watches the olympics for  that  ?  #  even without hosting games many countries invest reasonable costs to the games.   #  even without hosting games many countries invest reasonable costs to the games.  you could still have the games hosted by different countries in so far as the opening ceremonies and closing ceremonies are concerned.  sort of a  featured .  feature.  the unused facilities could still be rented out for practice, and there could still be some more low profile competitions that take place there, as well as the country is own sort of soccer leagues and whatnot.  sure there would be a bit less changes and some excitement missing from the games, but i think it would be better.  the largest drawback is one that you did not mention, which is there would be less breaking of world records etcetera, as the venues could not be more technologically suited to breaking records.  but i think that would be better as well, since it would showcase the athletes even more.   #  olympic games always draw huge crowds of locals because the games are one off.   #  this is bad for:    countries  because they have to found the games, while they do not get any money from tourism or promotion    participants  because it would favour local athletes, because they can train using those facilities and they do not have to travel far, are used to climate etc.  this is also the case today, but each games are held in different country, even different continent so the advantage is one time only.  fans  because greeks and europeans would be able to see the games much more easily than other nations.  fans from asia or americas would not be able to see the games, but even the number of locals would be down.  olympic games always draw huge crowds of locals because the games are one off.  if the games took place in the same place every four years, it would be less of a fuss and would not draw so many fans and voluenteers.   #  if there is three cities in the rotation, that means organizing the games every 0 years.   # if there is three cities in the rotation, that means organizing the games every 0 years.  yup.  with five cities in the rotation that is once every 0 years.  the idea being that you are not paying out the ass for hosting the games in such quick succession that it bankrupts the city but close enough together that investing in the infrastructure makes sense since you are guaranteed to use it again.  the long duration of time is also handy for city planning since we all know that government moves at a glacial pace.  five is also a decent number of cities to spread the games around to enough places that you get a good mix of host culture.  even if it is not five you can play with the numbers to strike a balance between good mix of cultures and good use of facilities.
the host country thing has run its course.  organizing the olympic games is financially ruinous, blatantly wasteful and the procedure favors corrupt regimes willing to put themselves on the map.  similar to the financial organization of the un, all international olympic committee members should pay according to their ability.  the committee could invest in large stadiums that have an actual purpose after being used for the olympic games, namely, the next olympic games.  furthermore, and this is just speculation, this would allow greece to reap the benefits of the economic surplus generated by the games.   #  similar to the financial organization of the un, all international olympic committee members should pay according to their ability.   #  the un is an open dialog.  and that is about it.   # the barcelona olympics is credited for transforming a decaying city into a tourist magnet.  the london games were used to develop east london, vancouver to build infrastructure.  they were successful and the infrastructure benefits have paid for their costs long term, even if they all had a couple unnecessary temporary facilities.  beijing  did  do a lot to clean up the city, even if you do not trust their numbers.  the atlanta   sydney games are probably a wash in terms of cost/benefit, depending on whom you ask.  sochi was a mess of epic proportions.  montreal, nagano, and lake placid were bad too.  all of them badly overestimated future tourism and growth of their host cities.  i am not sure how far back in time you want to go.  the games can be beneficial, and they can be money pits.  it really comes down to management.  as it is now, a pretty huge amount of their income comes from tourism.  the un is an open dialog.  and that is about it.  the un does have increased status security council, etc for the top countries that are footing the bill.  the olympics, otoh, are mostly a feel good event but they are a moneymaker.  keeping them in one location is not very inclusive or in spirt with the games.  it seems more likely to me that cities will just become wiser about not overspending.  we are already seeing that in the 0 bid with boston backing out, and a wiser la sf plain instead.   #  most of what you would have left would be, like, the  sports  and  athletes  !  #  it would certainly be economically reasonable to do something like this, but i do not think other countries would want to fund it and it could reduce the appeal of the games.  the problem is that the other nations will have even less reason to fund someone  else is  financially ruinous and blatantly wasteful olympics than their own.  like a lot of sporting events it is a prestige thing which is part of why those corrupt regimes want it , and there is not a good reason to pay for someone else is prestige.  while you would certainly save money with reusing the infrastructure it will still be expensive, as you will need to be maintaining stuff far beyond was is necessary locally between each games.  other countries wo not have an incentive to pay for extra blatantly wasteful pageantry and extravagance, so keeping everything sparkly new like currently happens would be unlikely.  it may also hurt the appeal of the games.  wo not you please think of the puff pieces ? you know, the incessant hours of talking about the planning, design, and pitfalls of the event itself, then sending a reporter to ooh and aah over the most  exotic  aspects of the local culture and cuisine ? the wild new arena designs, ridiculous attempts to outdo each other, national rivalries with the host city, and general amount of stuff to cover and build hype over is going to go down a lot if you just do them in the same locations in greece over and over.  most of what you would have left would be, like, the  sports  and  athletes  ! who watches the olympics for  that  ?  #  the unused facilities could still be rented out for practice, and there could still be some more low profile competitions that take place there, as well as the country is own sort of soccer leagues and whatnot.   #  even without hosting games many countries invest reasonable costs to the games.  you could still have the games hosted by different countries in so far as the opening ceremonies and closing ceremonies are concerned.  sort of a  featured .  feature.  the unused facilities could still be rented out for practice, and there could still be some more low profile competitions that take place there, as well as the country is own sort of soccer leagues and whatnot.  sure there would be a bit less changes and some excitement missing from the games, but i think it would be better.  the largest drawback is one that you did not mention, which is there would be less breaking of world records etcetera, as the venues could not be more technologically suited to breaking records.  but i think that would be better as well, since it would showcase the athletes even more.   #  olympic games always draw huge crowds of locals because the games are one off.   #  this is bad for:    countries  because they have to found the games, while they do not get any money from tourism or promotion    participants  because it would favour local athletes, because they can train using those facilities and they do not have to travel far, are used to climate etc.  this is also the case today, but each games are held in different country, even different continent so the advantage is one time only.  fans  because greeks and europeans would be able to see the games much more easily than other nations.  fans from asia or americas would not be able to see the games, but even the number of locals would be down.  olympic games always draw huge crowds of locals because the games are one off.  if the games took place in the same place every four years, it would be less of a fuss and would not draw so many fans and voluenteers.   #  you can have a system in place to either get into the rotation or get out of the rotation if you want to so countries are not permanently burdened with hosting if something should happen and new countries can get in.   # this would probably be the biggest problem with hosting the olympics in one place.  so everyone has to pay to upkeep the games, but only one country gets to profit off them ? is that really fair ? so while i do agree that it would be a hell of a lot more efficient on resources to hold the games in a single place, as soon as you make everyone pay with only one country profiting you run into problems.  a better solution would be to have a selected rotation of ten or so countries that host the games five winter, five summer , and they are held in permanent locations as in, if it gets held in the us it does not shuffle from chicago one year to la then to boston, etc .  host nation pays for expenses and upkeep but also reaps any profits from the influx of tourists.  at least then the facilities are used consistently enough that it makes sense for countries to host, the costs are spread out to hosting every give games and they keep the profits.  you can have a system in place to either get into the rotation or get out of the rotation if you want to so countries are not permanently burdened with hosting if something should happen and new countries can get in.
spoilers for mass effect 0  for those who do not know, the  synthesis  ending to mass effect 0 alters the dna of all life in the galaxy to something that an ancient billions of years old alien race considers to be the  pinnacle  of evolution, making the race of genocidal  reaper  robots bent on wiping out all sentient life somehow obsolete.  the other options are  destruction  which destroys the reapers and their technology, crippling the residents of the galaxy is ability to travel between systems and  control  which gives the protagonist control of the reapers and their tech, who then proceeds to use them to repair the damage they caused .   edit   the game is devs consider  synthesis  to be the game is  good  ending.  my main compunction with synthesis is that it is a massive decision that is left up to literally one woman in my playthrough .   no one else has any choice or even knew the choice was being made.   shepard is given her 0 options and has two minutes to make a decision before destruction is chosen for her.  sharon o grady in sheleighly, ireland has no choice.  gork magork on sigma vii has no choice.  but they both have to live with a choice a woman they have never met made, a woman who died immediately after without having to live with the consequences herself.  there is also the religious implications.  abrahamic religions preach that mankind was made perfect in god is image and given explicit supremacy over the other animals.  not only does synthesis blur the line between according to scripture the supreme human and the inferior raccoon and fish, but it sullies the perfect form god made for them.  at least one other race in the galaxy has a similar religion.  i may not agree with their beliefs, but forcibly changing something that is so key to their faith is unethical.  change my view.   #  no one else has any choice or even knew the choice was being made.   #  this is the case for all three choices, not just synthesis.   # this is the case for all three choices, not just synthesis.  gork magork on sigma vii has no choice this is, again, the same for all 0 choices.  and not saying it is a bad thing, and this may be a poor comparison, but that is how representative democracy works.  i do not actually have a choice in what laws get passed, but the people i vote for do.  the thing about shepard is, everyone knows him.  he is kind of the posterboy for stopping the reapers by the time mass effect 0 rolls around.  he is been  chosen  by the population of the galaxy to stop the reapers since he is had the most experience on it, and the people trust him everywhere he goes, as evidenced by the reaction he gets by the populous.  hell, even the people on omega and in the terminus trust him.  the batarians trust him, if you make the correct choices in three, and he blows up a bunch of them by destroying the alpha relay in the arrival dlc.  abrahamic religions preach that mankind was made perfect in god is image and given explicit supremacy over the other animals.  not only does synthesis blur the line between according to scripture the supreme human and the inferior raccoon and fish, but it sullies the perfect form god made for them.  at least one other race in the galaxy has a similar religion.  i may not agree with their beliefs, but forcibly changing something that is so key to their faith is unethical.  i do not know about you, but i would think the fact that there is all these other species, who are arguably more advanced than humanity, show that humans are not perfect and not the top of the food chain.  besides, this could also apply to any other decision.  x person is religion could state it is wrong to kill anything sentient, of which the reapers are, which would invalidate destroy.  what about people who are against big brother.  that knocks out control; not only that, but control is heavily implied to be the worst ending anyway.   #  here is the story i used: if villain victor points a gun at poor pete is family and tells you to hurt patsy paul, you are under no obligation to hurt paul.   #  i have addressed this somewhere else.  you are under no obligation to choose the lesser of two unethical options.  i hold that refusal is an ethically  clean  decision.  here is the story i used: if villain victor points a gun at poor pete is family and tells you to hurt patsy paul, you are under no obligation to hurt paul.  it was wrong to hurt paul before and it is still wrong now.  you are also not responsible for pete and company is death.  victor bears all the blame.   #  if villain victor points a gun at poor pete is family and tells you to hurt patsy paul, you are under no obligation to hurt paul.   #  i believe that you are under no obligation to do an unethical act to  save  someone else.  i also believe that you are not responsible for the suffering of the someone elses when you refuse to do the unethical act.  if villain victor points a gun at poor pete is family and tells you to hurt patsy paul, you are under no obligation to hurt paul.  it was wrong to hurt paul before and it is still wrong now.  you are also not responsible for pete is death.  victor bears all the blame.   #  if you switch it, it will run over a few children is toys that were left out.   #  adding other people who can lie and deceive you complicates the issue.  let is look at a variation on the trolley problem.  you are at a switch that will change the way the train is going.  as it is currently set, it will run into 0 people that are stuck on the tracks.  if you switch it, it will run over a few children is toys that were left out.  am i making a strawman, or are you saying it is unethical to destroy the child is toys ?  #  the child does deserve to be compensated for his broken toys, though.   #  if they are actually just toys, then it is fine.  the toys are not sentient and are not entitled to anything.  the child does deserve to be compensated for his broken toys, though.  if you are told you would be destroying property when in fact you would be killing someone, you are free of responsibility.  you made a decision based on the information you were given.  you valued human life over what you had every reason to believe was not human life, making what would have been the ethically right decision, even if it broke the  solve all the world is problems  box in the process.  edit   if the people in the trolley all agree that you can sacrifice them to save the magic box, then you can save the box over them.  but shepard knew exactly what she was doing.  the catalyst the alien ai that gave her her options laid every choice out for her and told her exactly what would happen after every choice.
spoilers for mass effect 0  for those who do not know, the  synthesis  ending to mass effect 0 alters the dna of all life in the galaxy to something that an ancient billions of years old alien race considers to be the  pinnacle  of evolution, making the race of genocidal  reaper  robots bent on wiping out all sentient life somehow obsolete.  the other options are  destruction  which destroys the reapers and their technology, crippling the residents of the galaxy is ability to travel between systems and  control  which gives the protagonist control of the reapers and their tech, who then proceeds to use them to repair the damage they caused .   edit   the game is devs consider  synthesis  to be the game is  good  ending.  my main compunction with synthesis is that it is a massive decision that is left up to literally one woman in my playthrough .   no one else has any choice or even knew the choice was being made.   shepard is given her 0 options and has two minutes to make a decision before destruction is chosen for her.  sharon o grady in sheleighly, ireland has no choice.  gork magork on sigma vii has no choice.  but they both have to live with a choice a woman they have never met made, a woman who died immediately after without having to live with the consequences herself.  there is also the religious implications.  abrahamic religions preach that mankind was made perfect in god is image and given explicit supremacy over the other animals.  not only does synthesis blur the line between according to scripture the supreme human and the inferior raccoon and fish, but it sullies the perfect form god made for them.  at least one other race in the galaxy has a similar religion.  i may not agree with their beliefs, but forcibly changing something that is so key to their faith is unethical.  change my view.   #  sharon o grady in sheleighly, ireland has no choice.   #  gork magork on sigma vii has no choice this is, again, the same for all 0 choices.   # this is the case for all three choices, not just synthesis.  gork magork on sigma vii has no choice this is, again, the same for all 0 choices.  and not saying it is a bad thing, and this may be a poor comparison, but that is how representative democracy works.  i do not actually have a choice in what laws get passed, but the people i vote for do.  the thing about shepard is, everyone knows him.  he is kind of the posterboy for stopping the reapers by the time mass effect 0 rolls around.  he is been  chosen  by the population of the galaxy to stop the reapers since he is had the most experience on it, and the people trust him everywhere he goes, as evidenced by the reaction he gets by the populous.  hell, even the people on omega and in the terminus trust him.  the batarians trust him, if you make the correct choices in three, and he blows up a bunch of them by destroying the alpha relay in the arrival dlc.  abrahamic religions preach that mankind was made perfect in god is image and given explicit supremacy over the other animals.  not only does synthesis blur the line between according to scripture the supreme human and the inferior raccoon and fish, but it sullies the perfect form god made for them.  at least one other race in the galaxy has a similar religion.  i may not agree with their beliefs, but forcibly changing something that is so key to their faith is unethical.  i do not know about you, but i would think the fact that there is all these other species, who are arguably more advanced than humanity, show that humans are not perfect and not the top of the food chain.  besides, this could also apply to any other decision.  x person is religion could state it is wrong to kill anything sentient, of which the reapers are, which would invalidate destroy.  what about people who are against big brother.  that knocks out control; not only that, but control is heavily implied to be the worst ending anyway.   #  you are also not responsible for pete and company is death.   #  i have addressed this somewhere else.  you are under no obligation to choose the lesser of two unethical options.  i hold that refusal is an ethically  clean  decision.  here is the story i used: if villain victor points a gun at poor pete is family and tells you to hurt patsy paul, you are under no obligation to hurt paul.  it was wrong to hurt paul before and it is still wrong now.  you are also not responsible for pete and company is death.  victor bears all the blame.   #  you are also not responsible for pete is death.   #  i believe that you are under no obligation to do an unethical act to  save  someone else.  i also believe that you are not responsible for the suffering of the someone elses when you refuse to do the unethical act.  if villain victor points a gun at poor pete is family and tells you to hurt patsy paul, you are under no obligation to hurt paul.  it was wrong to hurt paul before and it is still wrong now.  you are also not responsible for pete is death.  victor bears all the blame.   #  am i making a strawman, or are you saying it is unethical to destroy the child is toys ?  #  adding other people who can lie and deceive you complicates the issue.  let is look at a variation on the trolley problem.  you are at a switch that will change the way the train is going.  as it is currently set, it will run into 0 people that are stuck on the tracks.  if you switch it, it will run over a few children is toys that were left out.  am i making a strawman, or are you saying it is unethical to destroy the child is toys ?  #  you made a decision based on the information you were given.   #  if they are actually just toys, then it is fine.  the toys are not sentient and are not entitled to anything.  the child does deserve to be compensated for his broken toys, though.  if you are told you would be destroying property when in fact you would be killing someone, you are free of responsibility.  you made a decision based on the information you were given.  you valued human life over what you had every reason to believe was not human life, making what would have been the ethically right decision, even if it broke the  solve all the world is problems  box in the process.  edit   if the people in the trolley all agree that you can sacrifice them to save the magic box, then you can save the box over them.  but shepard knew exactly what she was doing.  the catalyst the alien ai that gave her her options laid every choice out for her and told her exactly what would happen after every choice.
spoilers for mass effect 0  for those who do not know, the  synthesis  ending to mass effect 0 alters the dna of all life in the galaxy to something that an ancient billions of years old alien race considers to be the  pinnacle  of evolution, making the race of genocidal  reaper  robots bent on wiping out all sentient life somehow obsolete.  the other options are  destruction  which destroys the reapers and their technology, crippling the residents of the galaxy is ability to travel between systems and  control  which gives the protagonist control of the reapers and their tech, who then proceeds to use them to repair the damage they caused .   edit   the game is devs consider  synthesis  to be the game is  good  ending.  my main compunction with synthesis is that it is a massive decision that is left up to literally one woman in my playthrough .   no one else has any choice or even knew the choice was being made.   shepard is given her 0 options and has two minutes to make a decision before destruction is chosen for her.  sharon o grady in sheleighly, ireland has no choice.  gork magork on sigma vii has no choice.  but they both have to live with a choice a woman they have never met made, a woman who died immediately after without having to live with the consequences herself.  there is also the religious implications.  abrahamic religions preach that mankind was made perfect in god is image and given explicit supremacy over the other animals.  not only does synthesis blur the line between according to scripture the supreme human and the inferior raccoon and fish, but it sullies the perfect form god made for them.  at least one other race in the galaxy has a similar religion.  i may not agree with their beliefs, but forcibly changing something that is so key to their faith is unethical.  change my view.   #  shepard is given her 0 options and has two minutes to make a decision before destruction is chosen for her.   #  here you explain why it is not unethical, in my view.   # here you explain why it is not unethical, in my view.  it was wrong to hurt paul before and it is still wrong now.  you are also not responsible for pete and company is death.  victor bears all the blame.  if you are given a gun and are told to choose who will die or all of them will die and given a short time deadline and are put under a lot of pressure then your decision is not really yours.  villain victor is pressuring you to make one of many unethical decisions, and under that pressure you may make decisions.  suppose you shoot patsy.  i would view the immorality as victor is, as you were under immense duress.  likewise in this, shepherd is not to blame.  the crucible and the reapers are to blame, for threatening all life and giving him crappy choices.  it is fairly common in human history for people to force others to make choices like this.  URL serbians forced bosnian brothers to rape their sisters or presumably be stabbed, or have their sisters stabbed.  are those brothers unethical for doing rape and incest ? nay i would say, their captors are for forcing them to do so at gunpoint.  likewise, shepherd being forced under a short time pressure to choose between a number of non optimal solutions is unethical of the crucible and the reapers, but not of shepherd.  is it bad forcing everyone to become a hybrid ? yes.  is it bad everyone dying ? yes.  is it bad you being made into a reaper and controlling the reapers ? yes.  is it bad key technology being destroyed en masse ? now choose, you have 0 minutes.   #  it was wrong to hurt paul before and it is still wrong now.   #  i have addressed this somewhere else.  you are under no obligation to choose the lesser of two unethical options.  i hold that refusal is an ethically  clean  decision.  here is the story i used: if villain victor points a gun at poor pete is family and tells you to hurt patsy paul, you are under no obligation to hurt paul.  it was wrong to hurt paul before and it is still wrong now.  you are also not responsible for pete and company is death.  victor bears all the blame.   #  if villain victor points a gun at poor pete is family and tells you to hurt patsy paul, you are under no obligation to hurt paul.   #  i believe that you are under no obligation to do an unethical act to  save  someone else.  i also believe that you are not responsible for the suffering of the someone elses when you refuse to do the unethical act.  if villain victor points a gun at poor pete is family and tells you to hurt patsy paul, you are under no obligation to hurt paul.  it was wrong to hurt paul before and it is still wrong now.  you are also not responsible for pete is death.  victor bears all the blame.   #  if you switch it, it will run over a few children is toys that were left out.   #  adding other people who can lie and deceive you complicates the issue.  let is look at a variation on the trolley problem.  you are at a switch that will change the way the train is going.  as it is currently set, it will run into 0 people that are stuck on the tracks.  if you switch it, it will run over a few children is toys that were left out.  am i making a strawman, or are you saying it is unethical to destroy the child is toys ?  #  the catalyst the alien ai that gave her her options laid every choice out for her and told her exactly what would happen after every choice.   #  if they are actually just toys, then it is fine.  the toys are not sentient and are not entitled to anything.  the child does deserve to be compensated for his broken toys, though.  if you are told you would be destroying property when in fact you would be killing someone, you are free of responsibility.  you made a decision based on the information you were given.  you valued human life over what you had every reason to believe was not human life, making what would have been the ethically right decision, even if it broke the  solve all the world is problems  box in the process.  edit   if the people in the trolley all agree that you can sacrifice them to save the magic box, then you can save the box over them.  but shepard knew exactly what she was doing.  the catalyst the alien ai that gave her her options laid every choice out for her and told her exactly what would happen after every choice.
0.  boredom is the default mood.  mere existence is not enough to satisfy us, we constantly have to distract ourselves from boredom.  0.  pleasure requires effort, suffering does not.  i literally do not have to do anything to suffer from boredom and starvation.  0.  suffering is more powerful feeling than pleasure.  is there an opposite to a cluster headache URL 0.  the universe does not care about how we feel.  no one is protecting us.  if i am falling onto spikes, universe is not gonna pull me away and protect me, no matter how hard i pray.  to clarify: most people seem to think that life is inherently good and some sort of  precious gift , which just is not true.  life is fundamentally shit, but happiness is possible.   #  suffering is more powerful feeling than pleasure.   #  is there an opposite to a cluster headache ?  # life is fundamentally  nothing.   both  shit  and  gift  are labels from different perspectives.  you are ignoring the gift label but have not ignored the shit label.  is there an opposite to a cluster headache ? sure.  i have heard amazing things about metta meditation URL you should give it a try, u/wubw.   #  firstly, that inaction is the default state of humans, and that inaction is boring.   #  i will try address each point separately: 0: this sort of assumes three things.  firstly, that inaction is the default state of humans, and that inaction is boring.  while there are people for whom inaction is not boring, they are rare, so i would say your second assumption is a fair one.  the first is more problematic, though, for reasons tied to another assumption you make here: that the default state of something being bad makes it bad.  think of a car.  in their  wouldefault state  cars are not moving and are almost useless.  does this mean that cars are bad ? of course not, that would be absurd.  we generally judge the goodness of things by how well they achieve their function, not by how good their idleness is.  of course there is thousands of years on debate on the  function  of humans, but regardless, i am not sure that judging life by how it is when idle is fair, especially given that it is relatively easy to occupy yourself although i concede that making that fulfilling is more difficult 0: this sort of seems related to 0 in the idleness assumption, but it is also not  really  true.  it is perfectly possible to go to great lengths in order to suffer or to just stumble in to fulfilling, happy situations.  i am not really convinced by this point, but i feel like my critiques for 0 and 0 target a lot of it 0: i agree that there is an asymmetry between pleasure and suffering in terms of strength in a sense, but there is also an asymmetry of their experience that makes me think that comparisons in the  istrength  of the feelings are unfair.  suffering is not unfulfilling, but pleasure is fulfilling.  suffering is merely bad, it does not actively work away at someone is experience, in fact it increases it in a sense.  it is not possible to suffer so much that ones life amounts to less, but  pleasure , in a broad, possibly  ispiritual  sense, does seem to lend a kind of meaning that suffering does not take away.  0: i do not see how this point leads to your conclusion.  for one thing, there are plenty of things within the universe that care about how you feel.   #  0.  yeah, this one was just a filler haha.   #  0.  default state of car not moving is not bad like boredom is.  i get your point, but i am not convinced.  0.  good point.  0.  what about traumas ? people want to remember good times, but that does not really mean that they are more fulfilling.  i would say that people remember traumas more clearly than some happy moments.  0.  yeah, this one was just a filler haha.   #  this is kind of an  ultimate  experience: it is a constant feeling that one recognises and all  good  or  bad  emotions are really relative to it.   #  0.  i would argue it is bad since the car is still large and expensive, but i feel like here i am really reaching the limits of the analogy 0.  that is a really good point i had not considered.  incidences of serious trauma seem somewhat rare, though, whereas almost everyone, even victims of severe trauma, has accomplishments and meaningful emotions and some kind of fulfilling inner life.  on a different note, i thought a bit about why i thought life was fundamentally a good thing, and i think it probably has something to do with viewing life as being more than a sum of its parts.  there is a kind of  joie de vivre  associated with experience that makes any experience, be it  bad  or  good , seem worthwhile and meaningful.  there just seems to be a deep joy, a contentment, in the act of building a body of experience.  i do not even think it necessarily needs to be varied experience, but just the act of living and  building  a person has a kind of beauty that makes life better than not life.  i also do not really think that this is an individual thing but a collective spirit acknowledged individually: the  beauty  comes from the existence of a world full of agents, not from within yourself.  it is the collective experiences of people that create a kind of spiritual companionship with all other sentient life.  this is kind of an  ultimate  experience: it is a constant feeling that one recognises and all  good  or  bad  emotions are really relative to it.  humans are remarkably adaptable, and even people living in absolute poverty are often happy and fulfilled, and i would say that that is because all kinds of worldly pleasurable or painful experiences are anchored to a kind of baseline  goodness  of experience itself.   #  i was not actually arguing from a nihilistic perspective.   # i was not actually arguing from a nihilistic perspective.  i am just saying that labels are subjective.  an apartment that i would call  nice  may be  horrible  to a billionaire.  labels are  sticky  and colour someone is perspective too much.  it is better to be open minded and accept the simple truth,  this too shall pass.   my best wishes to the person who you are trying to support.
0.  boredom is the default mood.  mere existence is not enough to satisfy us, we constantly have to distract ourselves from boredom.  0.  pleasure requires effort, suffering does not.  i literally do not have to do anything to suffer from boredom and starvation.  0.  suffering is more powerful feeling than pleasure.  is there an opposite to a cluster headache URL 0.  the universe does not care about how we feel.  no one is protecting us.  if i am falling onto spikes, universe is not gonna pull me away and protect me, no matter how hard i pray.  to clarify: most people seem to think that life is inherently good and some sort of  precious gift , which just is not true.  life is fundamentally shit, but happiness is possible.   #  suffering is more powerful feeling than pleasure.   #  is there an opposite to a cluster headache ?  # mere existence is not enough to satisfy us, we constantly have to distract ourselves from boredom boredom is one attitude to take towards how we respond to a lack of stimulation.  another tack is  curiosity .  any time i feel bored, i know it is time to study something, read something, or do something productive.  i literally do not have to do anything to suffer from boredom and starvation why does something requiring effort make it bad ? is there an opposite to a cluster headache ? possibly.  i have not tried it, but i imagine certain controlled substances provide such an opposite.  no one is protecting us.  if i am falling onto spikes, universe is not gonna pull me away and protect me, no matter how hard i pray.  i disagree.  and even if the universe did not care, how would that make it  bad  to be alive ?  #  i will try address each point separately: 0: this sort of assumes three things.   #  i will try address each point separately: 0: this sort of assumes three things.  firstly, that inaction is the default state of humans, and that inaction is boring.  while there are people for whom inaction is not boring, they are rare, so i would say your second assumption is a fair one.  the first is more problematic, though, for reasons tied to another assumption you make here: that the default state of something being bad makes it bad.  think of a car.  in their  wouldefault state  cars are not moving and are almost useless.  does this mean that cars are bad ? of course not, that would be absurd.  we generally judge the goodness of things by how well they achieve their function, not by how good their idleness is.  of course there is thousands of years on debate on the  function  of humans, but regardless, i am not sure that judging life by how it is when idle is fair, especially given that it is relatively easy to occupy yourself although i concede that making that fulfilling is more difficult 0: this sort of seems related to 0 in the idleness assumption, but it is also not  really  true.  it is perfectly possible to go to great lengths in order to suffer or to just stumble in to fulfilling, happy situations.  i am not really convinced by this point, but i feel like my critiques for 0 and 0 target a lot of it 0: i agree that there is an asymmetry between pleasure and suffering in terms of strength in a sense, but there is also an asymmetry of their experience that makes me think that comparisons in the  istrength  of the feelings are unfair.  suffering is not unfulfilling, but pleasure is fulfilling.  suffering is merely bad, it does not actively work away at someone is experience, in fact it increases it in a sense.  it is not possible to suffer so much that ones life amounts to less, but  pleasure , in a broad, possibly  ispiritual  sense, does seem to lend a kind of meaning that suffering does not take away.  0: i do not see how this point leads to your conclusion.  for one thing, there are plenty of things within the universe that care about how you feel.   #  i get your point, but i am not convinced.   #  0.  default state of car not moving is not bad like boredom is.  i get your point, but i am not convinced.  0.  good point.  0.  what about traumas ? people want to remember good times, but that does not really mean that they are more fulfilling.  i would say that people remember traumas more clearly than some happy moments.  0.  yeah, this one was just a filler haha.   #  i do not even think it necessarily needs to be varied experience, but just the act of living and  building  a person has a kind of beauty that makes life better than not life.   #  0.  i would argue it is bad since the car is still large and expensive, but i feel like here i am really reaching the limits of the analogy 0.  that is a really good point i had not considered.  incidences of serious trauma seem somewhat rare, though, whereas almost everyone, even victims of severe trauma, has accomplishments and meaningful emotions and some kind of fulfilling inner life.  on a different note, i thought a bit about why i thought life was fundamentally a good thing, and i think it probably has something to do with viewing life as being more than a sum of its parts.  there is a kind of  joie de vivre  associated with experience that makes any experience, be it  bad  or  good , seem worthwhile and meaningful.  there just seems to be a deep joy, a contentment, in the act of building a body of experience.  i do not even think it necessarily needs to be varied experience, but just the act of living and  building  a person has a kind of beauty that makes life better than not life.  i also do not really think that this is an individual thing but a collective spirit acknowledged individually: the  beauty  comes from the existence of a world full of agents, not from within yourself.  it is the collective experiences of people that create a kind of spiritual companionship with all other sentient life.  this is kind of an  ultimate  experience: it is a constant feeling that one recognises and all  good  or  bad  emotions are really relative to it.  humans are remarkably adaptable, and even people living in absolute poverty are often happy and fulfilled, and i would say that that is because all kinds of worldly pleasurable or painful experiences are anchored to a kind of baseline  goodness  of experience itself.   #  my best wishes to the person who you are trying to support.   # i was not actually arguing from a nihilistic perspective.  i am just saying that labels are subjective.  an apartment that i would call  nice  may be  horrible  to a billionaire.  labels are  sticky  and colour someone is perspective too much.  it is better to be open minded and accept the simple truth,  this too shall pass.   my best wishes to the person who you are trying to support.
so i saw someone link to this column URL and thought it was really clever.  i think debates are very poor ways to get useful information about candidates.  if you want hard questioning, or to know their stand on the issues, interviews from journalists can do that.  debates are just grandstanding and  gotchas.   a crisis simulation on the other hand would be really useful for getting information about how candidates would do the job of president.  we would see how they asses a situation, how they handle disagreeing advisors, and how deep their knowledge of government runs.  this is also a technique used in a lot of other situations to train and evaluate people who will hold a lot of responsibility.  if you want to be an astronaut, you are going to be doing a lot of simulations.  as far as getting candidates to do it, i could see this being something that a somewhat more obscure candidate does as a way to generate publicity, and which might catch on.  probably not for the major party candidates for this election cycle, but maybe in the future.   #  a crisis simulation on the other hand would be really useful for getting information about how candidates would do the job of president.   #  we would see how they asses a situation, how they handle disagreeing advisors, and how deep their knowledge of government runs.   # we would see how they asses a situation, how they handle disagreeing advisors, and how deep their knowledge of government runs.  sounds pretty expensive.  debates are nice because you can have a lot of them, and run it relatively cheap.  crisis scenarios like the one you describe would either require actors or the actual advisors that candidates would be interacting with.  you need to not only pay these people, but get them scripts, integrate them fully into the scenario, and take time out of their days to do the simulation.  what is more, if you get actors the scenario may not be accurate according to real life, and if you get the actual advisors, you are distracting them from the job they are supposed to be doing.  also, what scenarios are you running ? recessions ? terror attacks ? natural disasters ? economic booms ? a stock market crash ? a stock market rally ? there are tons and tons of scenarios that could be deemed relevant that you could run, all of which are equally important.  which ones are the  most  important though ? if it is a fixed set of scenarios, what happens between election cycles ? wo not candidates just learn from past mistakes so that over time all of them will do generally better ? you can get the same information across about candidates with a debate.  by talking about their economic, social, and political stances, you can get a pretty clear picture of what kind of reactions to emergencies and scenarios each person would have.  debates also shed light on the personality of each candidate, which gives you a sense of how commanding or overbearing they are, or how caring and considerate they are.  you can do this with a fraction of the cost of scenarios, and i think the information that you gain from debates is more valuable than the info you would get out of scenarios, as debate points are more broadly applicable.   #  people have no idea how to evaluate the decision, yet this is important.   #  the president does not and should not make decisions in a vacuum.  decisions are not made in a couple of hours and so the simulation is unrealistic.  disasters are rare and not the main criteria for people electing a president, ideology is more important.  the people watching it have no way of evaluating what is the best course.   the dairy lobby wants to increase cheese tariffs from africa by 0 and decrease allowed liquid milk transfers into california by 0,0,0 gallons .  people have no idea how to evaluate the decision, yet this is important.  instead of grandstanding and gotachas from the candidates you would get them from the critics/journalists evaluating them.  thats even worse since at least you can evaluate the candidates on their grandstanding and gotachas and they have repercussions.   #  any particular type of crisis is rare, but having to manage some sort of crisis is not all that rare.   # decisions are not made in a couple of hours and so the simulation is unrealistic.  as hypothesized in the column simulations would have expert advisors giving information/advice, and the candidate would be able to call anyone they wanted for counsel.  while i agree the time compression is an issue, i do not think it is a totally insurmountable one, as a lot of things can be compressed e. g. , you do not need to wait for the air strike to be carried out or the banks to open on monday to see what happens .  and the simulation does not necessarily have to be done in one day or one session.  any particular type of crisis is rare, but having to manage some sort of crisis is not all that rare.  i do not think any president in recent memory has not had some sort of foreign policy crisis.  and do debates help you learn a candidate is ideology more than you would learn from media interviews and other sources ? it seems like the debate formats we use in the us would be very unlikely to tell you much about a candidate is ideology.   the dairy lobby wants to increase cheese tariffs from africa by 0 and decrease allowed liquid milk transfers into california by 0,0,0 gallons .  people have no idea how to evaluate the decision, yet this is important.  why not ? this seems like something where people could learn a lot about government and come to their own conclusions about what to do.  thats even worse since at least you can evaluate the candidates on their grandstanding and gotachas and they have repercussions.  i do not quite understand you here.  critics and journalists never shut up about the gotchas in debates indeed, the whole point of the gotchas is to dominate the news cycle and make you look good / your opponent look bad.  journalists criticizing a candidate is substantive handling of a crisis simulation would seem to be a step up, no ?  #  would they actually be expert advisers or simulated advisers ?  # would they actually be expert advisers or simulated advisers ? why would the president go against actual advisers and risk looking stupid in public ? would they be able to get actual advisers, such as an actual current 0 star general to give advice or the president of the federal bank ? i doubt it, they are too busy with current president and the political implications  the military purposely made it hard for a peace loving president to get elected    as a lot of things can be compressed you ca not compress a few hours of thinking or a good night sleep to consider the issue.  and who is going to fairly edit multiple sessions down to something the public will consume ? you would learn more than from a simulation.  this seems like something where people could learn a lot about government and come to their own conclusions about what to do.  agricultural act of 0 URL do you really expect people to read 0 pages before they can even start to form an opinion ?  #  for experts, there are plenty of retired admirals, generals and fed officers out there.   # why would the president go against actual advisers and risk looking stupid in public ? would they be able to get actual advisers, such as an actual current 0 star general to give advice or the president of the federal bank ? i doubt it, they are too busy with current president and the political implications  the military purposely made it hard for a peace loving president to get elected  i would let them bring anyone they want into the room with them.  for experts, there are plenty of retired admirals, generals and fed officers out there.  ben bernanke, paul volcker, and alan greenspan are all in the private sector now for instance.  i would not use current officeholders except those volunteering to be brought in by the candidate.  a neutral party the candidates agree to in advance.  maybe a news consortium.  i do not want  only  a simulation though, there would still be plenty of avenues besides the sim to learn about the candidate.  but this is true of any statement about policy in any forum.  if a candidate proposes increasing cheese tariffs, the public would need some background to evaluate that.
i have a lot of fun at the expense of people with two last names.  this is a tough one, because i do believe a woman should not be socially pressured into taking her is husband is last name, and gay spouses also have a conundrum of their own.  however, i think that a family should have a family name, because otherwise you are choosing to make everyone else is life difficult.  one small example is if you work in an industry where you deal with a lot of names and families and meeting people blind like i do .  it is helpful to know in advance who is related to who by just looking at a piece of paper.  but, if the wife and the husband choose not to share a last name, please god settle on one name for your kid.  just flip a coin for which last name your kid takes if that is what you need to do.  do not make everyone around him have to deal with saying and writing out reginald henry lieberman montgomery.  a metaphor i would make for this would be gender pronouns.  you have the right to tell me whether you identify as a man or a woman, but i swear to god if you insist that everyone around you refer to you strictly with the gender neutral pronouns ni, nem and nir, i will be having none of it.  as a counterpoint, i will say that i ca not ever imagine myself taking my wife is last name.  and if she chose not to take mine, i think i would feel a little disappointed.  further, i ca not imagine feeling comfortable with my kid not taking my last name.  so i already recognize a bit of the hypocrisy.  in that way, i see that i am posing a problem without an apparent solution.  on top of your rebuttals, i would also be curious to hear alternative ideas/social structures that could work to level the playing field, and prevent me from having to say a mouthful.  apologies for the day long delay car emergency took all night and all morning.  thanks for all your responses ! here are some of my views you have changed.  spain    amurica.  there is a clear system in place in spanish countries that actually speaks to my  one family name  point.  people consistently take the fathers, then mother is surname.  then the kid is kids will do the same.  gives you family history and also something to put on your mailbox.  what i personally like about this is that it is uniform.  if two last names were adopted country wide in america, i would have much less of a problem with it.  i also want to clarify: my problem with the  mouthful  of hyphenated last names does not mean that i would also suggest gentrifying the krzyzewskis and the chevaprevadumrongs of the world.  to shorten your family name is to bastardize it.  no ill feelings to those with shortened last names of course my last name was actually gentrified two generations ago.  finally, here is a post that very well summarizes my american sentiments: my american sensibilities that shorter is better are deeply ingrained and will probably be there  til i die.  that said, at least i can recognize them so that i know to keep them in check.  while i will continue to make fun of people who have two last names, it will be with the same conviction that i make fun of everyone else.  no hostility here.  thanks guys !  #  however, i think that a family should have a family name, because otherwise you are choosing to make everyone else is life difficult.   #  one small example is if you work in an industry where you deal with a lot of names and families and meeting people blind like i do .   # one small example is if you work in an industry where you deal with a lot of names and families and meeting people blind like i do .  it is helpful to know in advance who is related to who by just looking at a piece of paper.  what about step families with mis matched names ? or non married families where the mother and child have a different last name ? should we expect a child living with his/her mother to change his/her last name because their mother remarried and changed her last name ? my mom kept her last name and it has never been a problem in 0 years.  what about people with very confusing names ? i would say the name smith jones is much easier to say than something krzyzewski.  does someone with a confusing last name owe it to us to choose a more traditional last name ?  #  actress michelle pfieffer is an example; would you say she has a duty to society to  change  her generations long family name for convenience is sake ?  #  i do not understand the core of your argument.  what is the  problem  with hyphenated names ? it seems like the length is simply inconvenient for you.  what if the husband is name is lee and the wife is is smith ? is lee smith that difficult to write or say ? you say we should eliminate these names because it is an inconvenience to others.  do you think that when naming your newborn child, a parent ought to prioritize convenience ? families with rich cultural backgrounds should whitewash their families for your sake ? plenty of people have complicated last names as it is.  actress michelle pfieffer is an example; would you say she has a duty to society to  change  her generations long family name for convenience is sake ?  #  i have a friend whose last name is mrzyglocki polish , and i would not ever suggest or think that people like her need to gentrify their last names.   #  to be honest, it is something about the hyphen.  i have a friend whose last name is mrzyglocki polish , and i would not ever suggest or think that people like her need to gentrify their last names.  it is something about stringing 0 names together that takes away from the roundness and simplicity of a name.  it is the same feeling i get towards people who give their kids two first names why ? .  i acknowledge that this disdain for the hyphen is completely irrational, and as such i concede to your point the difference in typing or saying it would only be a few seconds.   #  spanish last names can be 0 words long, and they manage just fine.   #  it is not that complicated.  spanish last names can be 0 words long, and they manage just fine.  they just use the first one in casual conversation.  plus they get very detailed answers about who is related to who, just by looking at the name.  when there is just one last name, you have no idea if john smith is related to jane smith.  but long spanish last names tell you exactly who is related to who and how in one simple way.  as a final point, there are thousands of people who have the exact same name as me.  if i had a longer last name, it would much easier to identify me.  this was not that big a deal when there was only one mike johnson or steve mcqueen in a town, but now that everyone is on the internet, it becomes more important to distinguish between them.   #  saying two last names does take longer than one, but last names are only really used for official purposes, and under formal situations.   #  i think it is useful to be able to identify a family on the basis of last names, and so i think it is useful for everyone to share the same label.  and this is exactly why hyphenation is such a useful thing.  if you meet a group of people who share the last name  montegue capulet  then you immediately understand that they are a family unit, and you also understand something about the ancestry from both sides of the family.  additionally, hyphenation also scores points for upholding some form of gender equality.  of course, it is impractical to expect people is names to grow exponentially in size with every generation but this does not have to be a problem it is easy to resolve: when someone gets married, the son keeps only the father is name and the daughters keep only the mother is and then they hyphenate with their spouse.  we can also adopt the convention that the man is name always comes first in the hyphenation even better now we know both their family ties and ancestry i do not care about how it is ordered, we just need to decide .  in summary, it only takes three names one first, two last to identify a person, their family unit, their family ties, and their ancestry in a complete and fair way.  saying two last names does take longer than one, but last names are only really used for official purposes, and under formal situations.  and people are already hyphenating.  i figure we may as well adopt that system as efficiently and informatively as possible.
i have a lot of fun at the expense of people with two last names.  this is a tough one, because i do believe a woman should not be socially pressured into taking her is husband is last name, and gay spouses also have a conundrum of their own.  however, i think that a family should have a family name, because otherwise you are choosing to make everyone else is life difficult.  one small example is if you work in an industry where you deal with a lot of names and families and meeting people blind like i do .  it is helpful to know in advance who is related to who by just looking at a piece of paper.  but, if the wife and the husband choose not to share a last name, please god settle on one name for your kid.  just flip a coin for which last name your kid takes if that is what you need to do.  do not make everyone around him have to deal with saying and writing out reginald henry lieberman montgomery.  a metaphor i would make for this would be gender pronouns.  you have the right to tell me whether you identify as a man or a woman, but i swear to god if you insist that everyone around you refer to you strictly with the gender neutral pronouns ni, nem and nir, i will be having none of it.  as a counterpoint, i will say that i ca not ever imagine myself taking my wife is last name.  and if she chose not to take mine, i think i would feel a little disappointed.  further, i ca not imagine feeling comfortable with my kid not taking my last name.  so i already recognize a bit of the hypocrisy.  in that way, i see that i am posing a problem without an apparent solution.  on top of your rebuttals, i would also be curious to hear alternative ideas/social structures that could work to level the playing field, and prevent me from having to say a mouthful.  apologies for the day long delay car emergency took all night and all morning.  thanks for all your responses ! here are some of my views you have changed.  spain    amurica.  there is a clear system in place in spanish countries that actually speaks to my  one family name  point.  people consistently take the fathers, then mother is surname.  then the kid is kids will do the same.  gives you family history and also something to put on your mailbox.  what i personally like about this is that it is uniform.  if two last names were adopted country wide in america, i would have much less of a problem with it.  i also want to clarify: my problem with the  mouthful  of hyphenated last names does not mean that i would also suggest gentrifying the krzyzewskis and the chevaprevadumrongs of the world.  to shorten your family name is to bastardize it.  no ill feelings to those with shortened last names of course my last name was actually gentrified two generations ago.  finally, here is a post that very well summarizes my american sentiments: my american sensibilities that shorter is better are deeply ingrained and will probably be there  til i die.  that said, at least i can recognize them so that i know to keep them in check.  while i will continue to make fun of people who have two last names, it will be with the same conviction that i make fun of everyone else.  no hostility here.  thanks guys !  #  however, i think that a family should have a family name, because otherwise you are choosing to make everyone else is life difficult.   #  what about people with very confusing names ?  # one small example is if you work in an industry where you deal with a lot of names and families and meeting people blind like i do .  it is helpful to know in advance who is related to who by just looking at a piece of paper.  what about step families with mis matched names ? or non married families where the mother and child have a different last name ? should we expect a child living with his/her mother to change his/her last name because their mother remarried and changed her last name ? my mom kept her last name and it has never been a problem in 0 years.  what about people with very confusing names ? i would say the name smith jones is much easier to say than something krzyzewski.  does someone with a confusing last name owe it to us to choose a more traditional last name ?  #  is lee smith that difficult to write or say ?  #  i do not understand the core of your argument.  what is the  problem  with hyphenated names ? it seems like the length is simply inconvenient for you.  what if the husband is name is lee and the wife is is smith ? is lee smith that difficult to write or say ? you say we should eliminate these names because it is an inconvenience to others.  do you think that when naming your newborn child, a parent ought to prioritize convenience ? families with rich cultural backgrounds should whitewash their families for your sake ? plenty of people have complicated last names as it is.  actress michelle pfieffer is an example; would you say she has a duty to society to  change  her generations long family name for convenience is sake ?  #  to be honest, it is something about the hyphen.   #  to be honest, it is something about the hyphen.  i have a friend whose last name is mrzyglocki polish , and i would not ever suggest or think that people like her need to gentrify their last names.  it is something about stringing 0 names together that takes away from the roundness and simplicity of a name.  it is the same feeling i get towards people who give their kids two first names why ? .  i acknowledge that this disdain for the hyphen is completely irrational, and as such i concede to your point the difference in typing or saying it would only be a few seconds.   #  plus they get very detailed answers about who is related to who, just by looking at the name.   #  it is not that complicated.  spanish last names can be 0 words long, and they manage just fine.  they just use the first one in casual conversation.  plus they get very detailed answers about who is related to who, just by looking at the name.  when there is just one last name, you have no idea if john smith is related to jane smith.  but long spanish last names tell you exactly who is related to who and how in one simple way.  as a final point, there are thousands of people who have the exact same name as me.  if i had a longer last name, it would much easier to identify me.  this was not that big a deal when there was only one mike johnson or steve mcqueen in a town, but now that everyone is on the internet, it becomes more important to distinguish between them.   #  saying two last names does take longer than one, but last names are only really used for official purposes, and under formal situations.   #  i think it is useful to be able to identify a family on the basis of last names, and so i think it is useful for everyone to share the same label.  and this is exactly why hyphenation is such a useful thing.  if you meet a group of people who share the last name  montegue capulet  then you immediately understand that they are a family unit, and you also understand something about the ancestry from both sides of the family.  additionally, hyphenation also scores points for upholding some form of gender equality.  of course, it is impractical to expect people is names to grow exponentially in size with every generation but this does not have to be a problem it is easy to resolve: when someone gets married, the son keeps only the father is name and the daughters keep only the mother is and then they hyphenate with their spouse.  we can also adopt the convention that the man is name always comes first in the hyphenation even better now we know both their family ties and ancestry i do not care about how it is ordered, we just need to decide .  in summary, it only takes three names one first, two last to identify a person, their family unit, their family ties, and their ancestry in a complete and fair way.  saying two last names does take longer than one, but last names are only really used for official purposes, and under formal situations.  and people are already hyphenating.  i figure we may as well adopt that system as efficiently and informatively as possible.
i have a lot of fun at the expense of people with two last names.  this is a tough one, because i do believe a woman should not be socially pressured into taking her is husband is last name, and gay spouses also have a conundrum of their own.  however, i think that a family should have a family name, because otherwise you are choosing to make everyone else is life difficult.  one small example is if you work in an industry where you deal with a lot of names and families and meeting people blind like i do .  it is helpful to know in advance who is related to who by just looking at a piece of paper.  but, if the wife and the husband choose not to share a last name, please god settle on one name for your kid.  just flip a coin for which last name your kid takes if that is what you need to do.  do not make everyone around him have to deal with saying and writing out reginald henry lieberman montgomery.  a metaphor i would make for this would be gender pronouns.  you have the right to tell me whether you identify as a man or a woman, but i swear to god if you insist that everyone around you refer to you strictly with the gender neutral pronouns ni, nem and nir, i will be having none of it.  as a counterpoint, i will say that i ca not ever imagine myself taking my wife is last name.  and if she chose not to take mine, i think i would feel a little disappointed.  further, i ca not imagine feeling comfortable with my kid not taking my last name.  so i already recognize a bit of the hypocrisy.  in that way, i see that i am posing a problem without an apparent solution.  on top of your rebuttals, i would also be curious to hear alternative ideas/social structures that could work to level the playing field, and prevent me from having to say a mouthful.  apologies for the day long delay car emergency took all night and all morning.  thanks for all your responses ! here are some of my views you have changed.  spain    amurica.  there is a clear system in place in spanish countries that actually speaks to my  one family name  point.  people consistently take the fathers, then mother is surname.  then the kid is kids will do the same.  gives you family history and also something to put on your mailbox.  what i personally like about this is that it is uniform.  if two last names were adopted country wide in america, i would have much less of a problem with it.  i also want to clarify: my problem with the  mouthful  of hyphenated last names does not mean that i would also suggest gentrifying the krzyzewskis and the chevaprevadumrongs of the world.  to shorten your family name is to bastardize it.  no ill feelings to those with shortened last names of course my last name was actually gentrified two generations ago.  finally, here is a post that very well summarizes my american sentiments: my american sensibilities that shorter is better are deeply ingrained and will probably be there  til i die.  that said, at least i can recognize them so that i know to keep them in check.  while i will continue to make fun of people who have two last names, it will be with the same conviction that i make fun of everyone else.  no hostility here.  thanks guys !  #  on top of your rebuttals, i would also be curious to hear alternative ideas/social structures that could work to level the playing field, and prevent me from having to say a mouthful.   #  i have had this system rattling around in my head for a while now.   # i have had this system rattling around in my head for a while now.  what if marriage meant an exchange of names instead of the wife or husband taking the name of the other ? so, for example, i am john smith and my wife is jane doe when we marry i become john doe and she becomes jane smith.  as for children, son is get their father is name and daughter is get their mother is name.  my son would be oliver smith and my daughter tabitha doe.  of course this becomes pretty complicated if you are in an lgbt marriage and there is a myriad of complicated combinations that you would have to work out with your partner.  i do not pretend to know what people in those relationships would prefer.  my system only gets as far as cisgender heterosexual relationships.   #  do you think that when naming your newborn child, a parent ought to prioritize convenience ?  #  i do not understand the core of your argument.  what is the  problem  with hyphenated names ? it seems like the length is simply inconvenient for you.  what if the husband is name is lee and the wife is is smith ? is lee smith that difficult to write or say ? you say we should eliminate these names because it is an inconvenience to others.  do you think that when naming your newborn child, a parent ought to prioritize convenience ? families with rich cultural backgrounds should whitewash their families for your sake ? plenty of people have complicated last names as it is.  actress michelle pfieffer is an example; would you say she has a duty to society to  change  her generations long family name for convenience is sake ?  #  i have a friend whose last name is mrzyglocki polish , and i would not ever suggest or think that people like her need to gentrify their last names.   #  to be honest, it is something about the hyphen.  i have a friend whose last name is mrzyglocki polish , and i would not ever suggest or think that people like her need to gentrify their last names.  it is something about stringing 0 names together that takes away from the roundness and simplicity of a name.  it is the same feeling i get towards people who give their kids two first names why ? .  i acknowledge that this disdain for the hyphen is completely irrational, and as such i concede to your point the difference in typing or saying it would only be a few seconds.   #  when there is just one last name, you have no idea if john smith is related to jane smith.   #  it is not that complicated.  spanish last names can be 0 words long, and they manage just fine.  they just use the first one in casual conversation.  plus they get very detailed answers about who is related to who, just by looking at the name.  when there is just one last name, you have no idea if john smith is related to jane smith.  but long spanish last names tell you exactly who is related to who and how in one simple way.  as a final point, there are thousands of people who have the exact same name as me.  if i had a longer last name, it would much easier to identify me.  this was not that big a deal when there was only one mike johnson or steve mcqueen in a town, but now that everyone is on the internet, it becomes more important to distinguish between them.   #  if you meet a group of people who share the last name  montegue capulet  then you immediately understand that they are a family unit, and you also understand something about the ancestry from both sides of the family.   #  i think it is useful to be able to identify a family on the basis of last names, and so i think it is useful for everyone to share the same label.  and this is exactly why hyphenation is such a useful thing.  if you meet a group of people who share the last name  montegue capulet  then you immediately understand that they are a family unit, and you also understand something about the ancestry from both sides of the family.  additionally, hyphenation also scores points for upholding some form of gender equality.  of course, it is impractical to expect people is names to grow exponentially in size with every generation but this does not have to be a problem it is easy to resolve: when someone gets married, the son keeps only the father is name and the daughters keep only the mother is and then they hyphenate with their spouse.  we can also adopt the convention that the man is name always comes first in the hyphenation even better now we know both their family ties and ancestry i do not care about how it is ordered, we just need to decide .  in summary, it only takes three names one first, two last to identify a person, their family unit, their family ties, and their ancestry in a complete and fair way.  saying two last names does take longer than one, but last names are only really used for official purposes, and under formal situations.  and people are already hyphenating.  i figure we may as well adopt that system as efficiently and informatively as possible.
i have a lot of fun at the expense of people with two last names.  this is a tough one, because i do believe a woman should not be socially pressured into taking her is husband is last name, and gay spouses also have a conundrum of their own.  however, i think that a family should have a family name, because otherwise you are choosing to make everyone else is life difficult.  one small example is if you work in an industry where you deal with a lot of names and families and meeting people blind like i do .  it is helpful to know in advance who is related to who by just looking at a piece of paper.  but, if the wife and the husband choose not to share a last name, please god settle on one name for your kid.  just flip a coin for which last name your kid takes if that is what you need to do.  do not make everyone around him have to deal with saying and writing out reginald henry lieberman montgomery.  a metaphor i would make for this would be gender pronouns.  you have the right to tell me whether you identify as a man or a woman, but i swear to god if you insist that everyone around you refer to you strictly with the gender neutral pronouns ni, nem and nir, i will be having none of it.  as a counterpoint, i will say that i ca not ever imagine myself taking my wife is last name.  and if she chose not to take mine, i think i would feel a little disappointed.  further, i ca not imagine feeling comfortable with my kid not taking my last name.  so i already recognize a bit of the hypocrisy.  in that way, i see that i am posing a problem without an apparent solution.  on top of your rebuttals, i would also be curious to hear alternative ideas/social structures that could work to level the playing field, and prevent me from having to say a mouthful.  apologies for the day long delay car emergency took all night and all morning.  thanks for all your responses ! here are some of my views you have changed.  spain    amurica.  there is a clear system in place in spanish countries that actually speaks to my  one family name  point.  people consistently take the fathers, then mother is surname.  then the kid is kids will do the same.  gives you family history and also something to put on your mailbox.  what i personally like about this is that it is uniform.  if two last names were adopted country wide in america, i would have much less of a problem with it.  i also want to clarify: my problem with the  mouthful  of hyphenated last names does not mean that i would also suggest gentrifying the krzyzewskis and the chevaprevadumrongs of the world.  to shorten your family name is to bastardize it.  no ill feelings to those with shortened last names of course my last name was actually gentrified two generations ago.  finally, here is a post that very well summarizes my american sentiments: my american sensibilities that shorter is better are deeply ingrained and will probably be there  til i die.  that said, at least i can recognize them so that i know to keep them in check.  while i will continue to make fun of people who have two last names, it will be with the same conviction that i make fun of everyone else.  no hostility here.  thanks guys !  #  it is helpful to know in advance who is related to who by just looking at a piece of paper.   #  this is where a hyphenated last name can actually help.   #  firstly, not everyone is given a hyphenated last name at birth, e. g.  myself.  this is where a hyphenated last name can actually help.  when i decided to change my last name, part of the reason was to keep the last name which i shared with my half brother from my mother is side.  my original last name was already confusing; people constantly misspelled or mispronounced it; if even a single last name can be this, would you say these last names are inconsiderate ? if so, what solution do you suggest ? pronouns and proper nouns are about as different as it is possible to be while remaining within the realm of  noun , and thus are governed by completely different rules, both linguistically and socially.  therefore, this is moot.  just because a name is hyphenated, does not make it long.  my hyphenated last name is only four simple syllables.  how is this different from a single last name with the same syllables ?  #  plenty of people have complicated last names as it is.   #  i do not understand the core of your argument.  what is the  problem  with hyphenated names ? it seems like the length is simply inconvenient for you.  what if the husband is name is lee and the wife is is smith ? is lee smith that difficult to write or say ? you say we should eliminate these names because it is an inconvenience to others.  do you think that when naming your newborn child, a parent ought to prioritize convenience ? families with rich cultural backgrounds should whitewash their families for your sake ? plenty of people have complicated last names as it is.  actress michelle pfieffer is an example; would you say she has a duty to society to  change  her generations long family name for convenience is sake ?  #  to be honest, it is something about the hyphen.   #  to be honest, it is something about the hyphen.  i have a friend whose last name is mrzyglocki polish , and i would not ever suggest or think that people like her need to gentrify their last names.  it is something about stringing 0 names together that takes away from the roundness and simplicity of a name.  it is the same feeling i get towards people who give their kids two first names why ? .  i acknowledge that this disdain for the hyphen is completely irrational, and as such i concede to your point the difference in typing or saying it would only be a few seconds.   #  but long spanish last names tell you exactly who is related to who and how in one simple way.   #  it is not that complicated.  spanish last names can be 0 words long, and they manage just fine.  they just use the first one in casual conversation.  plus they get very detailed answers about who is related to who, just by looking at the name.  when there is just one last name, you have no idea if john smith is related to jane smith.  but long spanish last names tell you exactly who is related to who and how in one simple way.  as a final point, there are thousands of people who have the exact same name as me.  if i had a longer last name, it would much easier to identify me.  this was not that big a deal when there was only one mike johnson or steve mcqueen in a town, but now that everyone is on the internet, it becomes more important to distinguish between them.   #  i figure we may as well adopt that system as efficiently and informatively as possible.   #  i think it is useful to be able to identify a family on the basis of last names, and so i think it is useful for everyone to share the same label.  and this is exactly why hyphenation is such a useful thing.  if you meet a group of people who share the last name  montegue capulet  then you immediately understand that they are a family unit, and you also understand something about the ancestry from both sides of the family.  additionally, hyphenation also scores points for upholding some form of gender equality.  of course, it is impractical to expect people is names to grow exponentially in size with every generation but this does not have to be a problem it is easy to resolve: when someone gets married, the son keeps only the father is name and the daughters keep only the mother is and then they hyphenate with their spouse.  we can also adopt the convention that the man is name always comes first in the hyphenation even better now we know both their family ties and ancestry i do not care about how it is ordered, we just need to decide .  in summary, it only takes three names one first, two last to identify a person, their family unit, their family ties, and their ancestry in a complete and fair way.  saying two last names does take longer than one, but last names are only really used for official purposes, and under formal situations.  and people are already hyphenating.  i figure we may as well adopt that system as efficiently and informatively as possible.
i have a lot of fun at the expense of people with two last names.  this is a tough one, because i do believe a woman should not be socially pressured into taking her is husband is last name, and gay spouses also have a conundrum of their own.  however, i think that a family should have a family name, because otherwise you are choosing to make everyone else is life difficult.  one small example is if you work in an industry where you deal with a lot of names and families and meeting people blind like i do .  it is helpful to know in advance who is related to who by just looking at a piece of paper.  but, if the wife and the husband choose not to share a last name, please god settle on one name for your kid.  just flip a coin for which last name your kid takes if that is what you need to do.  do not make everyone around him have to deal with saying and writing out reginald henry lieberman montgomery.  a metaphor i would make for this would be gender pronouns.  you have the right to tell me whether you identify as a man or a woman, but i swear to god if you insist that everyone around you refer to you strictly with the gender neutral pronouns ni, nem and nir, i will be having none of it.  as a counterpoint, i will say that i ca not ever imagine myself taking my wife is last name.  and if she chose not to take mine, i think i would feel a little disappointed.  further, i ca not imagine feeling comfortable with my kid not taking my last name.  so i already recognize a bit of the hypocrisy.  in that way, i see that i am posing a problem without an apparent solution.  on top of your rebuttals, i would also be curious to hear alternative ideas/social structures that could work to level the playing field, and prevent me from having to say a mouthful.  apologies for the day long delay car emergency took all night and all morning.  thanks for all your responses ! here are some of my views you have changed.  spain    amurica.  there is a clear system in place in spanish countries that actually speaks to my  one family name  point.  people consistently take the fathers, then mother is surname.  then the kid is kids will do the same.  gives you family history and also something to put on your mailbox.  what i personally like about this is that it is uniform.  if two last names were adopted country wide in america, i would have much less of a problem with it.  i also want to clarify: my problem with the  mouthful  of hyphenated last names does not mean that i would also suggest gentrifying the krzyzewskis and the chevaprevadumrongs of the world.  to shorten your family name is to bastardize it.  no ill feelings to those with shortened last names of course my last name was actually gentrified two generations ago.  finally, here is a post that very well summarizes my american sentiments: my american sensibilities that shorter is better are deeply ingrained and will probably be there  til i die.  that said, at least i can recognize them so that i know to keep them in check.  while i will continue to make fun of people who have two last names, it will be with the same conviction that i make fun of everyone else.  no hostility here.  thanks guys !  #  do not make everyone around him have to deal with saying and writing out reginald henry lieberman montgomery.   #  my original last name was already confusing; people constantly misspelled or mispronounced it; if even a single last name can be this, would you say these last names are inconsiderate ?  #  firstly, not everyone is given a hyphenated last name at birth, e. g.  myself.  this is where a hyphenated last name can actually help.  when i decided to change my last name, part of the reason was to keep the last name which i shared with my half brother from my mother is side.  my original last name was already confusing; people constantly misspelled or mispronounced it; if even a single last name can be this, would you say these last names are inconsiderate ? if so, what solution do you suggest ? pronouns and proper nouns are about as different as it is possible to be while remaining within the realm of  noun , and thus are governed by completely different rules, both linguistically and socially.  therefore, this is moot.  just because a name is hyphenated, does not make it long.  my hyphenated last name is only four simple syllables.  how is this different from a single last name with the same syllables ?  #  is lee smith that difficult to write or say ?  #  i do not understand the core of your argument.  what is the  problem  with hyphenated names ? it seems like the length is simply inconvenient for you.  what if the husband is name is lee and the wife is is smith ? is lee smith that difficult to write or say ? you say we should eliminate these names because it is an inconvenience to others.  do you think that when naming your newborn child, a parent ought to prioritize convenience ? families with rich cultural backgrounds should whitewash their families for your sake ? plenty of people have complicated last names as it is.  actress michelle pfieffer is an example; would you say she has a duty to society to  change  her generations long family name for convenience is sake ?  #  it is something about stringing 0 names together that takes away from the roundness and simplicity of a name.   #  to be honest, it is something about the hyphen.  i have a friend whose last name is mrzyglocki polish , and i would not ever suggest or think that people like her need to gentrify their last names.  it is something about stringing 0 names together that takes away from the roundness and simplicity of a name.  it is the same feeling i get towards people who give their kids two first names why ? .  i acknowledge that this disdain for the hyphen is completely irrational, and as such i concede to your point the difference in typing or saying it would only be a few seconds.   #  spanish last names can be 0 words long, and they manage just fine.   #  it is not that complicated.  spanish last names can be 0 words long, and they manage just fine.  they just use the first one in casual conversation.  plus they get very detailed answers about who is related to who, just by looking at the name.  when there is just one last name, you have no idea if john smith is related to jane smith.  but long spanish last names tell you exactly who is related to who and how in one simple way.  as a final point, there are thousands of people who have the exact same name as me.  if i had a longer last name, it would much easier to identify me.  this was not that big a deal when there was only one mike johnson or steve mcqueen in a town, but now that everyone is on the internet, it becomes more important to distinguish between them.   #  additionally, hyphenation also scores points for upholding some form of gender equality.   #  i think it is useful to be able to identify a family on the basis of last names, and so i think it is useful for everyone to share the same label.  and this is exactly why hyphenation is such a useful thing.  if you meet a group of people who share the last name  montegue capulet  then you immediately understand that they are a family unit, and you also understand something about the ancestry from both sides of the family.  additionally, hyphenation also scores points for upholding some form of gender equality.  of course, it is impractical to expect people is names to grow exponentially in size with every generation but this does not have to be a problem it is easy to resolve: when someone gets married, the son keeps only the father is name and the daughters keep only the mother is and then they hyphenate with their spouse.  we can also adopt the convention that the man is name always comes first in the hyphenation even better now we know both their family ties and ancestry i do not care about how it is ordered, we just need to decide .  in summary, it only takes three names one first, two last to identify a person, their family unit, their family ties, and their ancestry in a complete and fair way.  saying two last names does take longer than one, but last names are only really used for official purposes, and under formal situations.  and people are already hyphenating.  i figure we may as well adopt that system as efficiently and informatively as possible.
i have a lot of fun at the expense of people with two last names.  this is a tough one, because i do believe a woman should not be socially pressured into taking her is husband is last name, and gay spouses also have a conundrum of their own.  however, i think that a family should have a family name, because otherwise you are choosing to make everyone else is life difficult.  one small example is if you work in an industry where you deal with a lot of names and families and meeting people blind like i do .  it is helpful to know in advance who is related to who by just looking at a piece of paper.  but, if the wife and the husband choose not to share a last name, please god settle on one name for your kid.  just flip a coin for which last name your kid takes if that is what you need to do.  do not make everyone around him have to deal with saying and writing out reginald henry lieberman montgomery.  a metaphor i would make for this would be gender pronouns.  you have the right to tell me whether you identify as a man or a woman, but i swear to god if you insist that everyone around you refer to you strictly with the gender neutral pronouns ni, nem and nir, i will be having none of it.  as a counterpoint, i will say that i ca not ever imagine myself taking my wife is last name.  and if she chose not to take mine, i think i would feel a little disappointed.  further, i ca not imagine feeling comfortable with my kid not taking my last name.  so i already recognize a bit of the hypocrisy.  in that way, i see that i am posing a problem without an apparent solution.  on top of your rebuttals, i would also be curious to hear alternative ideas/social structures that could work to level the playing field, and prevent me from having to say a mouthful.  apologies for the day long delay car emergency took all night and all morning.  thanks for all your responses ! here are some of my views you have changed.  spain    amurica.  there is a clear system in place in spanish countries that actually speaks to my  one family name  point.  people consistently take the fathers, then mother is surname.  then the kid is kids will do the same.  gives you family history and also something to put on your mailbox.  what i personally like about this is that it is uniform.  if two last names were adopted country wide in america, i would have much less of a problem with it.  i also want to clarify: my problem with the  mouthful  of hyphenated last names does not mean that i would also suggest gentrifying the krzyzewskis and the chevaprevadumrongs of the world.  to shorten your family name is to bastardize it.  no ill feelings to those with shortened last names of course my last name was actually gentrified two generations ago.  finally, here is a post that very well summarizes my american sentiments: my american sensibilities that shorter is better are deeply ingrained and will probably be there  til i die.  that said, at least i can recognize them so that i know to keep them in check.  while i will continue to make fun of people who have two last names, it will be with the same conviction that i make fun of everyone else.  no hostility here.  thanks guys !  #  a metaphor i would make for this would be gender pronouns.   #  pronouns and proper nouns are about as different as it is possible to be while remaining within the realm of  noun , and thus are governed by completely different rules, both linguistically and socially.   #  firstly, not everyone is given a hyphenated last name at birth, e. g.  myself.  this is where a hyphenated last name can actually help.  when i decided to change my last name, part of the reason was to keep the last name which i shared with my half brother from my mother is side.  my original last name was already confusing; people constantly misspelled or mispronounced it; if even a single last name can be this, would you say these last names are inconsiderate ? if so, what solution do you suggest ? pronouns and proper nouns are about as different as it is possible to be while remaining within the realm of  noun , and thus are governed by completely different rules, both linguistically and socially.  therefore, this is moot.  just because a name is hyphenated, does not make it long.  my hyphenated last name is only four simple syllables.  how is this different from a single last name with the same syllables ?  #  actress michelle pfieffer is an example; would you say she has a duty to society to  change  her generations long family name for convenience is sake ?  #  i do not understand the core of your argument.  what is the  problem  with hyphenated names ? it seems like the length is simply inconvenient for you.  what if the husband is name is lee and the wife is is smith ? is lee smith that difficult to write or say ? you say we should eliminate these names because it is an inconvenience to others.  do you think that when naming your newborn child, a parent ought to prioritize convenience ? families with rich cultural backgrounds should whitewash their families for your sake ? plenty of people have complicated last names as it is.  actress michelle pfieffer is an example; would you say she has a duty to society to  change  her generations long family name for convenience is sake ?  #  i acknowledge that this disdain for the hyphen is completely irrational, and as such i concede to your point the difference in typing or saying it would only be a few seconds.   #  to be honest, it is something about the hyphen.  i have a friend whose last name is mrzyglocki polish , and i would not ever suggest or think that people like her need to gentrify their last names.  it is something about stringing 0 names together that takes away from the roundness and simplicity of a name.  it is the same feeling i get towards people who give their kids two first names why ? .  i acknowledge that this disdain for the hyphen is completely irrational, and as such i concede to your point the difference in typing or saying it would only be a few seconds.   #  spanish last names can be 0 words long, and they manage just fine.   #  it is not that complicated.  spanish last names can be 0 words long, and they manage just fine.  they just use the first one in casual conversation.  plus they get very detailed answers about who is related to who, just by looking at the name.  when there is just one last name, you have no idea if john smith is related to jane smith.  but long spanish last names tell you exactly who is related to who and how in one simple way.  as a final point, there are thousands of people who have the exact same name as me.  if i had a longer last name, it would much easier to identify me.  this was not that big a deal when there was only one mike johnson or steve mcqueen in a town, but now that everyone is on the internet, it becomes more important to distinguish between them.   #  saying two last names does take longer than one, but last names are only really used for official purposes, and under formal situations.   #  i think it is useful to be able to identify a family on the basis of last names, and so i think it is useful for everyone to share the same label.  and this is exactly why hyphenation is such a useful thing.  if you meet a group of people who share the last name  montegue capulet  then you immediately understand that they are a family unit, and you also understand something about the ancestry from both sides of the family.  additionally, hyphenation also scores points for upholding some form of gender equality.  of course, it is impractical to expect people is names to grow exponentially in size with every generation but this does not have to be a problem it is easy to resolve: when someone gets married, the son keeps only the father is name and the daughters keep only the mother is and then they hyphenate with their spouse.  we can also adopt the convention that the man is name always comes first in the hyphenation even better now we know both their family ties and ancestry i do not care about how it is ordered, we just need to decide .  in summary, it only takes three names one first, two last to identify a person, their family unit, their family ties, and their ancestry in a complete and fair way.  saying two last names does take longer than one, but last names are only really used for official purposes, and under formal situations.  and people are already hyphenating.  i figure we may as well adopt that system as efficiently and informatively as possible.
i have a lot of fun at the expense of people with two last names.  this is a tough one, because i do believe a woman should not be socially pressured into taking her is husband is last name, and gay spouses also have a conundrum of their own.  however, i think that a family should have a family name, because otherwise you are choosing to make everyone else is life difficult.  one small example is if you work in an industry where you deal with a lot of names and families and meeting people blind like i do .  it is helpful to know in advance who is related to who by just looking at a piece of paper.  but, if the wife and the husband choose not to share a last name, please god settle on one name for your kid.  just flip a coin for which last name your kid takes if that is what you need to do.  do not make everyone around him have to deal with saying and writing out reginald henry lieberman montgomery.  a metaphor i would make for this would be gender pronouns.  you have the right to tell me whether you identify as a man or a woman, but i swear to god if you insist that everyone around you refer to you strictly with the gender neutral pronouns ni, nem and nir, i will be having none of it.  as a counterpoint, i will say that i ca not ever imagine myself taking my wife is last name.  and if she chose not to take mine, i think i would feel a little disappointed.  further, i ca not imagine feeling comfortable with my kid not taking my last name.  so i already recognize a bit of the hypocrisy.  in that way, i see that i am posing a problem without an apparent solution.  on top of your rebuttals, i would also be curious to hear alternative ideas/social structures that could work to level the playing field, and prevent me from having to say a mouthful.  apologies for the day long delay car emergency took all night and all morning.  thanks for all your responses ! here are some of my views you have changed.  spain    amurica.  there is a clear system in place in spanish countries that actually speaks to my  one family name  point.  people consistently take the fathers, then mother is surname.  then the kid is kids will do the same.  gives you family history and also something to put on your mailbox.  what i personally like about this is that it is uniform.  if two last names were adopted country wide in america, i would have much less of a problem with it.  i also want to clarify: my problem with the  mouthful  of hyphenated last names does not mean that i would also suggest gentrifying the krzyzewskis and the chevaprevadumrongs of the world.  to shorten your family name is to bastardize it.  no ill feelings to those with shortened last names of course my last name was actually gentrified two generations ago.  finally, here is a post that very well summarizes my american sentiments: my american sensibilities that shorter is better are deeply ingrained and will probably be there  til i die.  that said, at least i can recognize them so that i know to keep them in check.  while i will continue to make fun of people who have two last names, it will be with the same conviction that i make fun of everyone else.  no hostility here.  thanks guys !  #  prevent me from having to say a mouthful.   #  just because a name is hyphenated, does not make it long.   #  firstly, not everyone is given a hyphenated last name at birth, e. g.  myself.  this is where a hyphenated last name can actually help.  when i decided to change my last name, part of the reason was to keep the last name which i shared with my half brother from my mother is side.  my original last name was already confusing; people constantly misspelled or mispronounced it; if even a single last name can be this, would you say these last names are inconsiderate ? if so, what solution do you suggest ? pronouns and proper nouns are about as different as it is possible to be while remaining within the realm of  noun , and thus are governed by completely different rules, both linguistically and socially.  therefore, this is moot.  just because a name is hyphenated, does not make it long.  my hyphenated last name is only four simple syllables.  how is this different from a single last name with the same syllables ?  #  you say we should eliminate these names because it is an inconvenience to others.   #  i do not understand the core of your argument.  what is the  problem  with hyphenated names ? it seems like the length is simply inconvenient for you.  what if the husband is name is lee and the wife is is smith ? is lee smith that difficult to write or say ? you say we should eliminate these names because it is an inconvenience to others.  do you think that when naming your newborn child, a parent ought to prioritize convenience ? families with rich cultural backgrounds should whitewash their families for your sake ? plenty of people have complicated last names as it is.  actress michelle pfieffer is an example; would you say she has a duty to society to  change  her generations long family name for convenience is sake ?  #  it is the same feeling i get towards people who give their kids two first names why ?  #  to be honest, it is something about the hyphen.  i have a friend whose last name is mrzyglocki polish , and i would not ever suggest or think that people like her need to gentrify their last names.  it is something about stringing 0 names together that takes away from the roundness and simplicity of a name.  it is the same feeling i get towards people who give their kids two first names why ? .  i acknowledge that this disdain for the hyphen is completely irrational, and as such i concede to your point the difference in typing or saying it would only be a few seconds.   #  as a final point, there are thousands of people who have the exact same name as me.   #  it is not that complicated.  spanish last names can be 0 words long, and they manage just fine.  they just use the first one in casual conversation.  plus they get very detailed answers about who is related to who, just by looking at the name.  when there is just one last name, you have no idea if john smith is related to jane smith.  but long spanish last names tell you exactly who is related to who and how in one simple way.  as a final point, there are thousands of people who have the exact same name as me.  if i had a longer last name, it would much easier to identify me.  this was not that big a deal when there was only one mike johnson or steve mcqueen in a town, but now that everyone is on the internet, it becomes more important to distinguish between them.   #  we can also adopt the convention that the man is name always comes first in the hyphenation even better now we know both their family ties and ancestry i do not care about how it is ordered, we just need to decide .   #  i think it is useful to be able to identify a family on the basis of last names, and so i think it is useful for everyone to share the same label.  and this is exactly why hyphenation is such a useful thing.  if you meet a group of people who share the last name  montegue capulet  then you immediately understand that they are a family unit, and you also understand something about the ancestry from both sides of the family.  additionally, hyphenation also scores points for upholding some form of gender equality.  of course, it is impractical to expect people is names to grow exponentially in size with every generation but this does not have to be a problem it is easy to resolve: when someone gets married, the son keeps only the father is name and the daughters keep only the mother is and then they hyphenate with their spouse.  we can also adopt the convention that the man is name always comes first in the hyphenation even better now we know both their family ties and ancestry i do not care about how it is ordered, we just need to decide .  in summary, it only takes three names one first, two last to identify a person, their family unit, their family ties, and their ancestry in a complete and fair way.  saying two last names does take longer than one, but last names are only really used for official purposes, and under formal situations.  and people are already hyphenating.  i figure we may as well adopt that system as efficiently and informatively as possible.
preface: 0 months ago i was obese, 0 weeks ago i was overweight, today i am a healthy weight.  all according to the bmi chart.  i lost this weight deliberately and methodically, by calculating my tdee total daily energy expenditure and eating at a 0 calorie per day deficit in order to achieve about 0 pounds per week of weight loss.  i am still 0 pounds shy of my goal weight, and when i reach that weight i will modify my diet to eat at a 0 calorie deficit/surplus, that is i will eat according to my tdee.  in order to help myself have the willpower to do this i started to allow myself to enjoy all of my favorite snacks and junk food but instead of swallowing i would spit it out, usually into a separate bowl that i would then dump into the toilet and flush.  this allowed me to enjoy the taste and experience of eating the food, which is what i was really always after, without affecting my weight loss goal, and it worked, very well.  i have been doing this half a year now daily and have seen no negative effects, in fact i am far more healthy now than i was when i started, i feel like a totally new person and could not be happier.  the problem started when i told a friend about this and they insisted that i had an eating disorder and needed to see a psychologist.  they were seriously grossed out which is why i made an alt account to post this.  people seem to react very badly to this and i do not know why .  i insist that i am far better off for having done this and losing all of the weight and that i am in complete control of it and will not allow myself to get overly thin i am a man, i workout with weights, i care about being muscular.  ca not build muscle without eating .  cmv  #  i have been doing this half a year now daily and have seen no negative effects, in fact i am far more healthy now than i was when i started, i feel like a totally new person and could not be happier.   #   have seen no negative effects  well, for one thing, it has allowed you to perpetuate the idea within yourself that only unhealthy foods are tasty.   #  first, congratulations on your successes.  you have proven to yourself that your will power can be used to form new, healthy habits.  there is not really any reason to continue using that crutch after you reach your ideal weight.   have seen no negative effects  well, for one thing, it has allowed you to perpetuate the idea within yourself that only unhealthy foods are tasty.  it has prevented you from changing your approach to food that may have gotten you into the weight trouble in the first place.  it has served it is purpose well, but that does not mean it is the best approach moving forward.  the take away from this should be your success in exercising your willpower to change your habits.  not the magic of spitting.  keep striving to shape your habits to reflect the most healthy you.  time to stretch your will power muscles some more, add another weight so to speak, and continue working towards an even healthier approach to eating.  seems to me that your goal is   to enjoy the taste and experience of eating the food, which is what i was really always after   #  your salivary glands release saliva to help digest the food and they become irritated from doing this for prolonged periods of time.   #  when i had an eating disorder i did this because i was not allowing myself to actually swallow the food.  a healthy relationship with food is eating nutrient rich foods that your body needs in healthy amounts and not feeling guilt when you eat  junk food.   it is okay to indulge once in a while.  is it healthy ? is it sustainable ? does it make you happy ? what is most important is that your goal does not keep getting lower until you lose control if you understand what i mean.  the behavior you are describing is referred to as  chew and spit,  which is bad because your body believes it is about to digest the food you are chewing.  digestion begins in the mouth.  your salivary glands release saliva to help digest the food and they become irritated from doing this for prolonged periods of time.  if you are chewing sugary foods, they will erode your teeth just as they would if you swallowed them.  be safe.   #  i know alcoholics that talk about how in control they are all the time and still spend 0 hours at the bar every night and whose families hide the alcohol from them when they come to family parties.   #  well, i am not your psychologist, but i will say that chewing up and spitting out your food without swallowing sounds like a lite version of one of the chief symptoms of bulimia.  also, it is not unheard of for people that have serious problems controlling their urges to say they are completely in control when they are actually anything but.  it seems to be pretty common actually.  i know alcoholics that talk about how in control they are all the time and still spend 0 hours at the bar every night and whose families hide the alcohol from them when they come to family parties.  so the only way i can really see for you or anyone else to see if this is a disorder or not is if you keep it up once you hit your goal weight.  and the more routine it becomes the easier it will be for you to keep it up which probably means by the time you are where you want to be, you are going to keep on doing it.  but right now only time will tell unless you are willing to admit you have self control issues when it comes to eating and from the evidence you have presented so far it sounds like you definitely do.   #  to me, what you are doing is only one short step away from bulimia.   #  so you spit out food that you have binges on, but bulimics vomit food that they have binges on.  to me, what you are doing is only one short step away from bulimia.  also, i have to point out that whilst you may not have had negative effects on your weight, you do need to keep an eye on your teeth as chewing and spitting is terrible for your dental health.  without you talking more about your emotions around food and your behaviour, it is entirely possible that you could be perfectly psychologically healthy.  but chewing and spitting is a behaviour that a lot of individuals who do have eating disorders exhibit.  i guess there is probably one main question to ask yourself, could you stop doing it if you wanted to ?  #  well how tall are you and what is your weight ?  #  well how tall are you and what is your weight ? it could be an eating disorder depending on how long you do it for.  also do you feel that you have control over it as in, can you actually eat it and be fine with it.  on a side note, you know that your consuming some of those calories in the junk food right ? like the powder or the sugar that is dissolved from them will stay in you.
economy coupes used to be a budget choice for younger people who did not need the space, so auto companies can also save money on two doors.  marginally better gas mileage may be an incentive as well.  high end luxury sport car manufacturers can argue that the coupe offers better aerodynamics/lower weight to improve performance and handling. today, coupes cost the same if not more than the same model sedan.  i do not believe a slimmer profile can noticeably improve performance in an economy 0hp car, similarly, i find the fuel economy improvement from 0 to 0 mpg hard to justify the loss of two doors at the same price.  automatic transmission performance used to be inferior to manuals, and an expert could handle a car with manual significantly better than an auto.  today, the highest performance cars come with automatics, and manual often is not an option anymore.  even in models that offer both, the 0 0 and quarter mile speed is quite a bit better in the automatic, which offers  manual shifting  anyways.  i believe that their long history and inferior counterparts has created a aura of superiority over automatics, similar to the stradivarius violins.  due to production quantities, a manual transmission costs the same as automatic if not more.  this leaves me with only a few situations where one would practically want a coupe: high end 0 0  hp sportscars which accelerate and go fast enough that the profile and marginal weight makes a difference.  and for manual transmission: old classic imitation cars for the nostalgia ? they are plainly under performing now.  whenever i see a bentley or benz s0/0 coupe, i cringe a bit since they are very obviously not performance based cars.  manual freaks who refuse to own any other cars also seem illogical as hell.  any thoughts ? please leave the footnote below the following line, but remember to delete this sentence by replacing it with the body of your post.  thank you !  #  benz s0/0 coupe, i cringe a bit since they are very obviously not performance based cars.   #  you said before you needed 0 0 hp to make this a good move.   # you said before you needed 0 0 hp to make this a good move.  a benz s0 has 0, and an s0 has 0.  they are performance cars.  why do you discount style ? 0 doors look terrible on almost everything, and so many people have absolutely no need for back doors.  i drive a corvette and have absolutely no need for them in that car.  you are also missing the point that people with them have multiple cars usually.   #  it may very well be that the manuals and automatics being currently produced will have the lifespans flipped, but that phenomenon has not become apparent in my experience, possibly just because the cars are too young.   #  the gap has narrowed in gas mileage, certainly.  i can see a future where manuals are not more efficient.  however, do you really think that there are fewer repairs on an automatic transmission ? that sounds like fantasy, honestly.  i tend to keep cars until over 0k miles, and i can tell you that manual transmissions traditionally have a much longer lifespan.  i believe this is one of the reasons that specialized vehicles and professional drivers use manual transmissions in much higher numbers.  it may very well be that the manuals and automatics being currently produced will have the lifespans flipped, but that phenomenon has not become apparent in my experience, possibly just because the cars are too young.   #  i feel more in control of the car.   #  here is a small list:   i like how manuals handle much better than automatics.  i feel more in control of the car.  manuals can get better marginally better gas mileage on some cars.  another point that is kinda tongue in cheek is that not a lot of people know how to drive stick so your car is less likely to get stolen.  engine braking can extend the life on your brakes significantly.  manual engines transmissions are simpler and easier to maintain.  another i forgot originally, you can pop the clutch if your battery dies.  or your alternator is on the fritz honestly, to me, driving stick is much more enjoyable than with an automatic which is why i prefer it.   #  once you have got the bug, you will never let it go.   #  i love driving manual transmissions.  i love driving in general.  when i am on the road, the clutch, gear change, accelerate is one of the most enjoyable maneuvers i can legally perform.  being adept at controlling those mechanisms effortlessly, takes practice and patience.  once you have got the bug, you will never let it go.  with that said, i now own two automatics.  i moved to the city, and ca not stand the traffic, streetlights, and stopsigns.  the fun roads are too far away to justify driving stick all the time, in the off chance i will be out in the mountains some weekend.  your points are well meaning, but i will disagree with some.  manuals give you more control, if you can control them.  two applications, first, aggressive driving.  most performance cars are tuned to outperform even the best manual operators, allowing you to focus on steering and braking.  second, out of control situations.  if you have lost traction, hydroplaned, been stuck in the snow, or started spinning, the computers of the auto trans will work to straighten it out.  as for stealing cars, i would venture that the only thief deterred by a manual trans, is a thief of opportunity.  a low percentage at best, better to not leave the keys in it.  engine braking can significantly extend the life of your brakes.  while significantly lowering the life of your engine and transmission.  brakes are cheap by comparison.  manual transmissions are simpler, but hardly easier to maintain.  a good auto transmission, when driven correctly, will last the life of the motor with minimal maintenance outside of changing the atf.  clutch replacement on the otherhand, is a given, and not a particularly cheap one.  being able to roll start is nice, but rare enough that i would rather drive an auto to save my aching knee during rushour traffic.   #  a good auto transmission, when driven correctly, will last the life of the motor with minimal maintenance outside of changing the atf.   # you do not lose traction control because you are driving a manual, they are two separate systems.  the only difference is that the automatic transmission will adjust to the engine rpm and torque command, whereas the manual will have to be shifted based off of engine noise.  honestly, i would  rather  have the manual to get through those situations, simply because i can be proactive and shift correctly ahead of the problem, rather that wait for the automatic transmission to react in a way that is out of my control.  brakes are cheap by comparison.  not really, if they are shifting correctly.  my older car late 0s civic made it 0k miles on the original clutch and transmission, and i would engine brake often.  a good auto transmission, when driven correctly, will last the life of the motor with minimal maintenance outside of changing the atf.  clutch replacement on the otherhand, is a given, and not a particularly cheap one.  eventually, yes, but this is largely a function of driving habits, and by the time you are looking at clutch replacement, it is just one more fix on a long list that you get around 0 0k miles.
the people closest to me, in my opinion benefit from these privileges too.  so, what is my motivation to vote/fight against them ? here is a few arguments i have heard that i do not care for: 0 privilege is not zero sum you can increase it for everyone.  how ? evening the playing field means that those that are benefiting will lose some of their advantages, however unfair they may be in the first place.  how else could it work ? 0 because you value equality and fairness.  i used to think i did until i looked at my behavior, and realized that i only paid lip service to these values.  and i think it is the same for everyone.  how many of you are for completely open borders ? how many of you give away the majority of your paychecks to help others born into extreme poverty ? most people do enough to ease their conscience which is normally an amount which does not threaten their position of western privilege.  yay, you give $0 a month.  what happens when you are asked to make a real sacrifice ? do you still believe in equality then ? i think when push comes to shove, you will protect your easy life.  why should not i do the same ?  #  so, what is my motivation to vote/fight against them ?  #  a belief in the ideal of equal treatment.   # one is a practical matter, and the other is a moral matter.  a belief in the ideal of equal treatment.  in your part 0, you say you do not have a belief in this ideal.  whether you  should  is a different question.  do you believe you  should  morally believe in the ideal of equal treatment ?  #  URL the lump of labor fallacy suggests that the economy is static, and there is a fixed amount of work to do, and once that work is done, here is a really simple example of an island economy.   # it is definitely a common misconception, especially people who have not studied economics academically which is most people .  it is called the lump of labor fallacy.  URL the lump of labor fallacy suggests that the economy is static, and there is a fixed amount of work to do, and once that work is done, here is a really simple example of an island economy.  the island has only two people.  alice and bob.  alice and bob together need to eat 0 coconuts to survive.  let is say they can both pick 0 coconuts a day.  so, in theory, only alice has to work for three fifths of the day in order feed both of them.  in this economy, there is no more work to be done, since the basic minimum living requirement of 0 coconuts has been met.  bob is unemployed, and alice is underemployed.  but what if one day, bob wakes up and realizes he has a lot of free time, and wants to make musical instruments out of hollowed out coconuts ? so he makes two coconut maracas.  suddenly, alice realizes she wants some coconut maracas.  so, she picks 0 coconuts and trades 0 coconuts to bob in exchange for one coconut maraca.  what is the end result ? the economy as a whole is wealthier.  why ? because both alice and bob are well fed, alice has a coconut maraca, and bob has 0 extra coconuts and a spare coconut maraca.  as long as people will keep  wanting  things, we will never have too much labor.  this is a cute example, but hard empirical data and mainstream economics is unanimous the lump of labor is false.  interestingly, this is one of the core assumptions of economics that unlimited growth is possible, which has serious implications for our environment.  but for now, labor is not the factor that is at risk.   #  bob, in turn, now has more coconuts than he needs so he will only get sick, or the coconuts will spoil.   #  you forget one thing: alice can pay for her wants, or has the opportunity to extract goods from the environment to raise money.  bob, in turn, now has more coconuts than he needs so he will only get sick, or the coconuts will spoil.  in addition, alice has control over the coconuts, apparently.  in the real economy that means she is effectively going to dictate to bob what he has to do to get coconuts or else he will starve.  so bob will collapse exhausted at night, tired from waving a palm leaf towards alice all day, and will not have time or energy to be creative.  even if he had, alice would still own the empty coconuts and demand even more services from bob if he wants more resources from her, which will ensure that bob will always end up with the rotten end of whatever deal alice allows him to get.   #  personal and institutional biases get in the way of that process.   #  let me explain why privilege is not zero sum.  an efficient society is one that can make the best use of talented people.  personal and institutional biases get in the way of that process.  think about some of the greatest inventors, leaders and thinkers whose accomplishments make your life better.  if those people were stuck as homemakers because of a society that believed that is all they are good for, or trapped in a poor school system or destined to a life of subsistence farming in some third world country, we would all be worse off for it.  we can extend that same reasoning and see how many talented people are lost every day to those same circumstances.  for example, think about how far ahead the state of computing might be today if we never lost alan turing.   #  and who knows what the future brings and what opportunities may pass by without your privilege.   #  all great points, but i think your answer steers towards making society as a whole better.  however, what the op refers to, on an individual level you probably should think twice.  would you be willing to sacrifice an advantage you had in life and just give away to someone who was ever so slightly more deserving ? like your acceptance to your university of choice, your selection amongst applicants at your desired job, your mortgage loan to start a business.  you may have been top tier in any of these situations without privilege or advantage, but maybe you just made the cut because of it.  and who knows what the future brings and what opportunities may pass by without your privilege.  the view makes perfect sense and i do not think it can be changed with logic.  only emotional appeal, perhaps.  personally, i am for the greater good, level that playing field.  tl;dr even where some revolutionary genius computer wiz was not hired due to stigma, racism, sexism, whatever; some white hetero male got a great job and provided for his family.  what should the white guys view be.
specifically, people should not be  legally  punished for enjoying themselves through sexual activity in a public place governmentally operated , like a park or a beach.  this activity should be treated by the state as any other public activity, like having a family picnic, a pickup basketball game, or tanning in the sun, and be liable to the same restrictions.  that is, sex on a public highway would be unreasonable just as having a picnic on a highway would.  again, in the same grain, this applies to purely public land, not private areas, like businesses unless they allow such activities .  finally, this is in the context of the united states, but could probably be extended to other countries.  there are a number of reasons which some might oppose this, so lets preemptively address some of them:    sex is a safety hazard to others.   this is one of the more legitimate points.  full public nudity is opposed for the same reasons; people could reasonably not want to sit in the buttsweat of someone on a bus.  however, this would apply to beaches and parks, where clothing is already very optional and the environment is assumed to be unclean as opposed to a semi sanitary bus seat .  furthermore, similarly risky activities are allowed in public places, like pickup football, or parties where litter affects others.     people do not want to see it.   public spaces are generally viewed as areas where freedom should abound restrictions on speech and assembly are looked down on.  for instance, an  unattractive  person is not  legally  disallowed from a beach, even though some might not want to see that person.     it promotes stds.   telling people that they ca not have sex is an infringement on personal freedoms, and as long as the sex does no harm to others, that basic human desire should not be impeded.     casual sex is morally wrong.   if casual sex is morally wrong from a religious perspective, then seperation of church and state should apply to public recreation areas.  if sex is morally wrong from a secular view like theft , then i would need to see a convincing argument that justifies this stance.     children should not see sex.   sex is a activity innate to humans and animals alike, and as such should be considered a part of life that everyone should be exposed to.  certainly, children should be guided to mitigate risks physical and emotional involved with sex, which we currently do with sex education, but sex itself should not be seen as something harmful to a child.  i am open to criticism about any of these points, but for now sex seems like it should be legally treated as any other activity in a public area.  cmv.  i have heard a lot of interesting points today, which is great for a fresh topic friday ! unfortunately, none have been strong enough so far to change my view.  my inbox is now overflowing, so i wo not be able to reply to every comment.  i will read all of them, but only reply to those that are not addressed elsewhere.  if i do not get a chance to reply to you, please take a look around at some of the other comment posts ! the best response so far is due to /u/atticusfrenchtoast one of the big concerns is that someone might masturbate to you without your consent.  after talking with a few people and looking up some sources, it seems that current harassment laws are underwhelming at times URL while i still think that sex should be legal in public spaces, just like other activities, our harassment laws would need a fair revamping.   #  public spaces are generally viewed as areas where freedom should abound restrictions on speech and assembly are looked down on.   #  but this idea has loads of restrictions, because these places are  shared .   #  i think you are pushing a real perversion heh of the idea of public spaces.  but this idea has loads of restrictions, because these places are  shared .  they are not absolute freedom zones.  for example, i can get fined for playing loud music in public.  it is illegal to litter.  in many places, it is illegal to smoke in public places such as parks or beaches.  we place restrictions on public spaces that prohibit behavior that discourages people from using those public spaces.  it is kinda related to the idea that  your rights end where mine begin.   if we all have a right to public spaces, then we should place some restrictions to make sure that everyone is able to exercise that right with reasonable comfort.  as for your  but fat people  argument, fat people have a right to use public spaces.  no matter how much they may disgust you, they have a right to walk through parks.  if they are clothed within legal limits, not being disruptive, not being violent, or otherwise breaking laws, then they have every right to use public spaces.  but having sex is not equivalent.  that is a behavior, an act.  being fat or unattractive is, without getting too pedantic, not a behavior.  furthermore, as much as you want public sex to be the same as a picnic or sex education, it most certainly is not.  you can argue that it  should  be, but i would argue that is outside the scope of this cmv.  the reality is, our culture, like basically every western culture even the more liberal ones , is uncomfortable with public sex.  because it is not a private act.  you even find this in many fetish cultures.  it is very common for people into some serious fetishes, like bdsm or cuckold, to criticize people who try to make others part of their sex life without consent.  which is exactly what public sex is doing.  sorry, but if you are wanting to have sex in a park, your getting your rocks off to the public aspect.  if you just wanted to fuck on a patch of grass, you could use your back yard.  even you view on children seeing public sex is twisted.  it is no where near the same as sex education.  sex education is intentional.  it is exposed to children in a way they can understand.  it explains itself.  public sex does not do that.  it totally strips a parent of their right to choose when they explain sex to their child.  if i do not want to explain to my hypothetical 0 year old what sex is until she is 0, but we see two people banging in the park, i have to find a way to explain that.  this, in my opinion, is another example of  your rights end where mine begin.   frankly, i do not think you have really made much of an argument  for  legal public sex.  the closes thing i see to a positive argument is  muh freedoms,  because you spend basically your entire post arguing against hypothetical counterarguments.  so what, in some detail, is the basis of your argument for legal public sex ? are you trying to make a constitutional argument ? an ethical/moral argument ? some kind of lockean natural rights argument ? do you even really have an argument ?  #  everything in a clinical lab that is touched body fluids is required to go to biohazard waste.   #  everything in a clinical lab that is touched body fluids is required to go to biohazard waste.  urine, blood, plasma, serum, saliva; everything is treated as if it is infectious.  the same would go for body fluids in public.  i do not want someone is slobbery mouth all over the water fountain.  i do not want someone to get their bloody nose all over me.  and i especially do not want to breathe in vaporized pee, poo, semen, and vaginal fluids.   #  you can also harass others without sex, and we have ways of dealing with this in our society.   #  sex should be public because people gain happiness from it without harming others.  of course, these are within the same constraints as other activities.  soccer in a park should be allowed because it makes people happy, as long as the soccer players are not kicking the ball at bystanders and are sharing the space reasonably.  you can have sex without harassing others.  you can also harass others without sex, and we have ways of dealing with this in our society.  community gardens can be sources of e.  coli, sports can directly injure bystanders, and bbqs can literally burn down a neighborhood.  thus, since we allow these things  because they bring people happiness , we should also allow sex.   #  are you saying that because there is already filth in public places, that i can put any filth anywhere ?  #  are you saying that because there is already filth in public places, that i can put any filth anywhere ? can i sit next to you on a bench and shit all over the bench ? can i throw a dead squirrel i found right next to you and piss everywhere ? can i whip out my dick and cum right next to you ? should we accept these disgusting things as well ? just because we allow some filth, that does not mean that we should allow more.  we have a duty to keep the area as clean as possible so that we are all comfortable.  i would say keeping it in your pants until you get home or something is a very valid price to pay for not having piles of semen everywhere.  oh yeah, i forgot to mention this, but what about landmarks, museums, schools and the like ? if i am at a beautiful forest reserve, a monument built over a thousand years ago, a museum admiring art, and especially a musical performance, then i do not want to see, hear, and smell people who ca not wait a little bit to go to their homes or something.   #  i mean, what kind of sex are you talking about ?  #  i do not know how much sex you have had, if any i do not mean this as an insult either, not by any means , but sex is not just stick it in, pull it out and each person is satisfied.  it is personal, messy, and different for every person.  i mean, what kind of sex are you talking about ? should two people be able to bound and gag one another in a park and shove pineapples up each other is asses ? should two people be able to dress up as my little pony characters and go to town on one another on the beach, full on screaming orgasms ? or are we just talking discreet under the covers  amaking love  sex ? i would equate this to any other activity that has dark sides.  sure you can drink at a bar, but you ca not get belligerently drunk and start pissing everywhere like you can at home in private .  if you are advocating sex in public do you also advocate restrictions on the sex ? that would put a damper on your  people should get to enjoy themselves  argument i would think.
specifically, people should not be  legally  punished for enjoying themselves through sexual activity in a public place governmentally operated , like a park or a beach.  this activity should be treated by the state as any other public activity, like having a family picnic, a pickup basketball game, or tanning in the sun, and be liable to the same restrictions.  that is, sex on a public highway would be unreasonable just as having a picnic on a highway would.  again, in the same grain, this applies to purely public land, not private areas, like businesses unless they allow such activities .  finally, this is in the context of the united states, but could probably be extended to other countries.  there are a number of reasons which some might oppose this, so lets preemptively address some of them:    sex is a safety hazard to others.   this is one of the more legitimate points.  full public nudity is opposed for the same reasons; people could reasonably not want to sit in the buttsweat of someone on a bus.  however, this would apply to beaches and parks, where clothing is already very optional and the environment is assumed to be unclean as opposed to a semi sanitary bus seat .  furthermore, similarly risky activities are allowed in public places, like pickup football, or parties where litter affects others.     people do not want to see it.   public spaces are generally viewed as areas where freedom should abound restrictions on speech and assembly are looked down on.  for instance, an  unattractive  person is not  legally  disallowed from a beach, even though some might not want to see that person.     it promotes stds.   telling people that they ca not have sex is an infringement on personal freedoms, and as long as the sex does no harm to others, that basic human desire should not be impeded.     casual sex is morally wrong.   if casual sex is morally wrong from a religious perspective, then seperation of church and state should apply to public recreation areas.  if sex is morally wrong from a secular view like theft , then i would need to see a convincing argument that justifies this stance.     children should not see sex.   sex is a activity innate to humans and animals alike, and as such should be considered a part of life that everyone should be exposed to.  certainly, children should be guided to mitigate risks physical and emotional involved with sex, which we currently do with sex education, but sex itself should not be seen as something harmful to a child.  i am open to criticism about any of these points, but for now sex seems like it should be legally treated as any other activity in a public area.  cmv.  i have heard a lot of interesting points today, which is great for a fresh topic friday ! unfortunately, none have been strong enough so far to change my view.  my inbox is now overflowing, so i wo not be able to reply to every comment.  i will read all of them, but only reply to those that are not addressed elsewhere.  if i do not get a chance to reply to you, please take a look around at some of the other comment posts ! the best response so far is due to /u/atticusfrenchtoast one of the big concerns is that someone might masturbate to you without your consent.  after talking with a few people and looking up some sources, it seems that current harassment laws are underwhelming at times URL while i still think that sex should be legal in public spaces, just like other activities, our harassment laws would need a fair revamping.   #  public spaces are generally viewed as areas where freedom should abound restrictions on speech and assembly are looked down on.   #  no freedom is absolute, since you are part of society.   # no freedom is absolute, since you are part of society.  there are certain freedoms that have to be limited since it interferes with others  freedom.  your freedom to have sex in public will severely interfere with others  freedom of not seeing inappropriate things.  unless you think that seeing people having sex in public is appropriate.  it is different with limiting ugly people to go on beach, because even if people have freedom to not see ugly things which is different with inappropriate , it interferes with the ugly people is freedom of going to the beach.   #  the same would go for body fluids in public.   #  everything in a clinical lab that is touched body fluids is required to go to biohazard waste.  urine, blood, plasma, serum, saliva; everything is treated as if it is infectious.  the same would go for body fluids in public.  i do not want someone is slobbery mouth all over the water fountain.  i do not want someone to get their bloody nose all over me.  and i especially do not want to breathe in vaporized pee, poo, semen, and vaginal fluids.   #  of course, these are within the same constraints as other activities.   #  sex should be public because people gain happiness from it without harming others.  of course, these are within the same constraints as other activities.  soccer in a park should be allowed because it makes people happy, as long as the soccer players are not kicking the ball at bystanders and are sharing the space reasonably.  you can have sex without harassing others.  you can also harass others without sex, and we have ways of dealing with this in our society.  community gardens can be sources of e.  coli, sports can directly injure bystanders, and bbqs can literally burn down a neighborhood.  thus, since we allow these things  because they bring people happiness , we should also allow sex.   #  can i whip out my dick and cum right next to you ?  #  are you saying that because there is already filth in public places, that i can put any filth anywhere ? can i sit next to you on a bench and shit all over the bench ? can i throw a dead squirrel i found right next to you and piss everywhere ? can i whip out my dick and cum right next to you ? should we accept these disgusting things as well ? just because we allow some filth, that does not mean that we should allow more.  we have a duty to keep the area as clean as possible so that we are all comfortable.  i would say keeping it in your pants until you get home or something is a very valid price to pay for not having piles of semen everywhere.  oh yeah, i forgot to mention this, but what about landmarks, museums, schools and the like ? if i am at a beautiful forest reserve, a monument built over a thousand years ago, a museum admiring art, and especially a musical performance, then i do not want to see, hear, and smell people who ca not wait a little bit to go to their homes or something.   #  or are we just talking discreet under the covers  amaking love  sex ?  #  i do not know how much sex you have had, if any i do not mean this as an insult either, not by any means , but sex is not just stick it in, pull it out and each person is satisfied.  it is personal, messy, and different for every person.  i mean, what kind of sex are you talking about ? should two people be able to bound and gag one another in a park and shove pineapples up each other is asses ? should two people be able to dress up as my little pony characters and go to town on one another on the beach, full on screaming orgasms ? or are we just talking discreet under the covers  amaking love  sex ? i would equate this to any other activity that has dark sides.  sure you can drink at a bar, but you ca not get belligerently drunk and start pissing everywhere like you can at home in private .  if you are advocating sex in public do you also advocate restrictions on the sex ? that would put a damper on your  people should get to enjoy themselves  argument i would think.
specifically, people should not be  legally  punished for enjoying themselves through sexual activity in a public place governmentally operated , like a park or a beach.  this activity should be treated by the state as any other public activity, like having a family picnic, a pickup basketball game, or tanning in the sun, and be liable to the same restrictions.  that is, sex on a public highway would be unreasonable just as having a picnic on a highway would.  again, in the same grain, this applies to purely public land, not private areas, like businesses unless they allow such activities .  finally, this is in the context of the united states, but could probably be extended to other countries.  there are a number of reasons which some might oppose this, so lets preemptively address some of them:    sex is a safety hazard to others.   this is one of the more legitimate points.  full public nudity is opposed for the same reasons; people could reasonably not want to sit in the buttsweat of someone on a bus.  however, this would apply to beaches and parks, where clothing is already very optional and the environment is assumed to be unclean as opposed to a semi sanitary bus seat .  furthermore, similarly risky activities are allowed in public places, like pickup football, or parties where litter affects others.     people do not want to see it.   public spaces are generally viewed as areas where freedom should abound restrictions on speech and assembly are looked down on.  for instance, an  unattractive  person is not  legally  disallowed from a beach, even though some might not want to see that person.     it promotes stds.   telling people that they ca not have sex is an infringement on personal freedoms, and as long as the sex does no harm to others, that basic human desire should not be impeded.     casual sex is morally wrong.   if casual sex is morally wrong from a religious perspective, then seperation of church and state should apply to public recreation areas.  if sex is morally wrong from a secular view like theft , then i would need to see a convincing argument that justifies this stance.     children should not see sex.   sex is a activity innate to humans and animals alike, and as such should be considered a part of life that everyone should be exposed to.  certainly, children should be guided to mitigate risks physical and emotional involved with sex, which we currently do with sex education, but sex itself should not be seen as something harmful to a child.  i am open to criticism about any of these points, but for now sex seems like it should be legally treated as any other activity in a public area.  cmv.  i have heard a lot of interesting points today, which is great for a fresh topic friday ! unfortunately, none have been strong enough so far to change my view.  my inbox is now overflowing, so i wo not be able to reply to every comment.  i will read all of them, but only reply to those that are not addressed elsewhere.  if i do not get a chance to reply to you, please take a look around at some of the other comment posts ! the best response so far is due to /u/atticusfrenchtoast one of the big concerns is that someone might masturbate to you without your consent.  after talking with a few people and looking up some sources, it seems that current harassment laws are underwhelming at times URL while i still think that sex should be legal in public spaces, just like other activities, our harassment laws would need a fair revamping.   #  that is, sex on a public highway would be unreasonable just as having a picnic on a highway would.   #  so as long as sex is treated just like other activities where it concerns laws against those activities, then you are ok with it, right ?  # so as long as sex is treated just like other activities where it concerns laws against those activities, then you are ok with it, right ? there are laws against creating a public disturbance.  these apply to all kinds of activities in public that create disturbances.  until and unless society changes such that sex in public is widely acceptable, it will inevitably unless completely hidden create a public disturbance.  therefore, it would be prohibited by these laws, just like other activities that create a public disturbance.  you are not allowed to start a completely consensual fist fight in public spaces by those same laws.  there is no fundamental difference between these activities, and they are all treated fairly.   #  everything in a clinical lab that is touched body fluids is required to go to biohazard waste.   #  everything in a clinical lab that is touched body fluids is required to go to biohazard waste.  urine, blood, plasma, serum, saliva; everything is treated as if it is infectious.  the same would go for body fluids in public.  i do not want someone is slobbery mouth all over the water fountain.  i do not want someone to get their bloody nose all over me.  and i especially do not want to breathe in vaporized pee, poo, semen, and vaginal fluids.   #  community gardens can be sources of e.  coli, sports can directly injure bystanders, and bbqs can literally burn down a neighborhood.   #  sex should be public because people gain happiness from it without harming others.  of course, these are within the same constraints as other activities.  soccer in a park should be allowed because it makes people happy, as long as the soccer players are not kicking the ball at bystanders and are sharing the space reasonably.  you can have sex without harassing others.  you can also harass others without sex, and we have ways of dealing with this in our society.  community gardens can be sources of e.  coli, sports can directly injure bystanders, and bbqs can literally burn down a neighborhood.  thus, since we allow these things  because they bring people happiness , we should also allow sex.   #  just because we allow some filth, that does not mean that we should allow more.   #  are you saying that because there is already filth in public places, that i can put any filth anywhere ? can i sit next to you on a bench and shit all over the bench ? can i throw a dead squirrel i found right next to you and piss everywhere ? can i whip out my dick and cum right next to you ? should we accept these disgusting things as well ? just because we allow some filth, that does not mean that we should allow more.  we have a duty to keep the area as clean as possible so that we are all comfortable.  i would say keeping it in your pants until you get home or something is a very valid price to pay for not having piles of semen everywhere.  oh yeah, i forgot to mention this, but what about landmarks, museums, schools and the like ? if i am at a beautiful forest reserve, a monument built over a thousand years ago, a museum admiring art, and especially a musical performance, then i do not want to see, hear, and smell people who ca not wait a little bit to go to their homes or something.   #  should two people be able to bound and gag one another in a park and shove pineapples up each other is asses ?  #  i do not know how much sex you have had, if any i do not mean this as an insult either, not by any means , but sex is not just stick it in, pull it out and each person is satisfied.  it is personal, messy, and different for every person.  i mean, what kind of sex are you talking about ? should two people be able to bound and gag one another in a park and shove pineapples up each other is asses ? should two people be able to dress up as my little pony characters and go to town on one another on the beach, full on screaming orgasms ? or are we just talking discreet under the covers  amaking love  sex ? i would equate this to any other activity that has dark sides.  sure you can drink at a bar, but you ca not get belligerently drunk and start pissing everywhere like you can at home in private .  if you are advocating sex in public do you also advocate restrictions on the sex ? that would put a damper on your  people should get to enjoy themselves  argument i would think.
i have read here on reddit many times in the past while about this idea that as more and more jobs become automated there will be a huge problem with unemployment.  i do not believe this to be true can anyone point out where i am wrong.  as we automate more jobs we no longer need to hire as many people to achieve the same amount of work services, manufacturing, anything , thus a company can produce a lot more products or carry out a lot more services for a lot cheaper.  at the same time the people working there no longer have jobs.  i get this.  what i do not get is that there wo not be more jobs for them to do.  it seems to me that at the moment there is almost an endless amount of things people could be doing to help society.  fixing paths, laying fiber, helping disabled/old people, cleaning litter, building more renewable energy generators, building roads, fixing houses.  .  it would be like during the industrial revolution if society said  we only need 0 farmer per 0 people now so the rest of us are going to be unemployed and wo not be able to afford food .  it does not make sense in my opinion.  i mean you always hear about the problems japan and germany have because of their aging population and thus there is not enough people to do the work.  i dislike the 0 0 mon fri work week with only 0 days off a year, but i do not think that there is not enough work to keep people busy.   #  it would be like during the industrial revolution if society said  we only need 0 farmer per 0 people now so the rest of us are going to be unemployed and wo not be able to afford food .   #  it does not make sense in my opinion.   # it does not make sense in my opinion.  the basic problem is that in the future, virtually every job can be accomplished better and more cheaply by some sort of automated system.  there will literally be no areas left where humans have a competitive advantage.  in fact, it may be cheaper to pay humans to stay home rather than incur the indirect costs of employing them.  in your industrial revolution analogy, we are not the farmer that is being replaced by the tractor.  instead, this time around we are the ox that pulled the plow.  oxen did not find alternate work when replaced by machinery.   #  if you have machines that can extract resources and make more machines without people that system collapses.   #  capitalism needs a reserve army of labour.  it needs a safety net to feed this labour force.  if you have machines that can extract resources and make more machines without people that system collapses.  sure pockets of humanity might survive trading between each other.  but they have nothing to offer a robot army, its ai and its human elite.  the life for that human elite might not be that elite.  total war between rival ai would probably munch up the planet.  why would anyone let that happen ? why does anyone want their next billion ? why does everyone not just get along ? maybe ai will be the new balance of terror.   #  this is not an insurmountable problem, humanity can figure out a way to adapt to the new world where much less work is required.   #  the question is not if every single job will be automated, the question is how many and how quickly.  if the majority of the population suddenly becomes unemployable because of massive advances in technology, what are we going to do about all those people ? this is not an insurmountable problem, humanity can figure out a way to adapt to the new world where much less work is required.  but we will have to put some effort into deciding what we are going to do.  the coming technological changes will be massive enough that the economy wo not have time to restructure itself before problems start happening.   #  basically, the number of people set to be replaced by technology that is already adequately developed and just not yet implemented is greater than the number of people who were out of work during the great depression.   #  where does the claim that it  will  be able to react fast enough come from ? it is pretty commonly recognized that although technological changes in the past centuries had good effects in the long term, they resulted in some short term problems.  it is pretty irrational to assume that because the economy has been able to eventually adjust to small portions of the population becoming unemployable that it will be able to react to any proportion of the population becoming unemployable in any period of time ? have you watched the video in the post 0 comments up ? basically, the number of people set to be replaced by technology that is already adequately developed and just not yet implemented is greater than the number of people who were out of work during the great depression.  there are jobs that wo not be able to automate for a long time, but they make up a small minorty, and not everyone could successfully transition to one of those fields.  can you name at least one field of work that employs a significant percentage of the population and could not feasibly be automated ?  #  i do not doubt there will be short term disruptions, but that is a description of the entirety of economic history.   # it is pretty commonly recognized that although technological changes in the past centuries had good effects in the long term, they resulted in some short term problems.  it is pretty irrational to assume that because the economy has been able to eventually adjust to small portions of the population becoming unemployable that it will be able to react to any proportion of the population becoming unemployable in any period of time ? i do not doubt there will be short term disruptions, but that is a description of the entirety of economic history.  why is this time different ? basically, the number of people set to be replaced by technology that is already adequately developed and just not yet implemented is greater than the number of people who were out of work during the great depression.  yes, and it is a classic  humans are horses .  can you name at least one field of work that employs a significant percentage of the population and could not feasibly be automated ? honestly, construction and other manual labor oriented jobs seem really difficult to automate.  robots are completely incapable of doing basic tasks like stair climbing.  your use of the word  feasably,  however, makes it completely impossible to falsify your claim because you can say that whatever you want to is  feasable.
many people have expressed their disdain for microsoft is new privacy statement URL and service agreement URL in the wake of the release of windows 0.  i, however, see no reason for me to care about this.  my reasoning is as follows: 0.   i have nothing to hide.   quite simple.  i do not do anything illegal with my computer, so i do not really have anything to hide.  0.   it will help catch criminals.   one of the reasons microsoft gives for needing to access your data is if they suspect you are doing something illegal involving that data.  with crimes like scams and underage porn still prevalent on the internet, is this not the logical next step in the stopping of those and other crimes ? 0.   it only applies to data you give to microsoft anyway.   from my understanding, microsoft can only access your data that is stored on microsoft is own services, like onecloud and outlook.  it does not include your personal, offline files.  i choose not to use onecloud, excepting professional work, and so i do not have any reason to worry that they will access my private files.  0.   i am just one of millions of windows users.   why should microsoft care about my data any more than any other individual windows user ? if i have misinterpreted any part of the privacy statement or service agreement, please tell me.   #  with crimes like scams and underage porn still prevalent on the internet, is this not the logical next step in the stopping of those and other crimes ?  #  i do not think child porn is all that prevalent.   #  i know microsoft and other companies have been pushing the idea that they offer a service, not a product for awhile now.  it gives them extra leeway with what they can and cannot do with the consumers.  i really do not care what microsoft thinks, it is a product to me and i will circumvent their services when i want.  i think it is about time windows seems to be travelling further a long the line of making there system closed off or  integrated  as they prefer to say.  i am not sure how much longer i want to follow.  i do not want my computer to feel like a souped up tv.  my complaints aside:   0.  i have nothing to hide.  i am a private person.  i want to hide things that are neither illegal nor embarrassing because that is who i am.  if microsoft does not like people showing disdain for their new policies, they can either change those policies or refuse sale.  pretty rich coming from them.  hearing microsoft complaining about theft is like hearing disney complain about copyright infringement.  i do not think child porn is all that prevalent.  awareness of the problem has thankfully increased.  i think most paedo is are smarter than to save child porn on onedrive servers.  there are an ocean of services for them to use, punishing the rest of us with unwarranted privacy intrusions is not the way to go.   #  another argument in conjunction with argument 0 is that data is sometimes misinterpreted.   #  argument 0 is a common fallacy when discussing surveillance in general.  it has several valid counterarguments:   the more data the company collects, the more you are at risk getting your data leaked.  no system is 0 secure, and we occasionally see high profile cyberattacks leaking personal data.  for example the sony breach a few years back, and a few years ago the danish driver license database at the police was broken into leaking personal information.  this can cause nasty consequences like fraud and identity theft.  the more data is collected the bigger the risk.  another argument in conjunction with argument 0 is that data is sometimes misinterpreted.  you might have nothing to hide, but false positives can happen with unpleasant consequences.  for example a few years ago there was a story in denmark where a random danish citizen was forbidden to enter usa for unknown reason.  it was discovered that his new phone number coincidentally was identical to the number a terrorist suspect used to have, but the systems were not up to date.  to this day he still ca not go to usa.   #  i do not suspect that there would be an army of ms employees looking to go through everything that is available from me, but it should still be within my control.   #  i am the same in that i have nothing that i feel the need to hide, but there are still some issues that concern me regarding it.  firstly there is the slippery slope aspect, where every now and then there could be potential changes to privacy statements, where just a few words can be tweaked and adjusted to completely change the meaning or scope of what they are using or have access to and to what end.  i ca not think of any solid examples off the top of my head, but i get the feeling that facebook in particular is a bit notorious for this.  secondly i am concerned with the fact that windows is rarely a secure enough system where i would feel happy with there being what is pretty much the equivalent of malware loaded that can feed details of my files back and forth to a service that i do not have access to i may be totally misunderstanding the process they use .  but history says that it does not take too long for people to find exploits for these kind of things.  thirdly i feel a sense of  why should they ?  .  i want my computer to be mine, i want what i paid for and what i own to be in my control.  i do not suspect that there would be an army of ms employees looking to go through everything that is available from me, but it should still be within my control.  otherwise it is more like using my work computer.  and finally i do not like the argument that it will help stop crime if they suspect something.  having the police kick down your door and do random home searches would be the same, but i would not stand for that.  i do not see why i should from my computer.  a lot of this might be misguided, misinformed or flat out wrong in my understanding of things.   #  i want my computer to be mine, i want what i paid for and what i own to be in my control.   # i ca not think of any solid examples off the top of my head, but i get the feeling that facebook in particular is a bit notorious for this.  while this is possibly true, the current privacy statement is the point of discussion here.  if it does change in the future, i will judge that based on how it changes.  but history says that it does not take too long for people to find exploits for these kind of things.  i am totally unconcerned by this.  i have security measures, and i do not go around installing random software without background checking it completely, so i am not worried in the slightest about the system being exploited for malware.   .  i want my computer to be mine, i want what i paid for and what i own to be in my control.  i do not suspect that there would be an army of ms employees looking to go through everything that is available from me, but it should still be within my control.  otherwise it is more like using my work computer.  it is not like they are blocking your access to your own data.  and besides, both you and i are ones among millions of windows users, aside from legal issues, why should microsoft care about my data any more or less than any one other windows user ? this is something i was meaning to include in my original post but forgot, i will update it  and finally i do not like the argument that it will help stop crime if they suspect something.  having the police kick down your door and do random home searches would be the same, but i would not stand for that.  i do not see why i should from my computer.  there are systems in place for physical  invasion  by law enforcement officers, such as warrants and the like.  i would imagine that there are similar procedures in place for microsoft looking at your data.   #  and that is exactly the point. why should they care about the data ?  #  while it is not the case at the moment, it is the first step towards it, and it makes me uncomfortable that at this point we are pretty limited in our options towards it.  with xp no longer being supported, vista and 0 both being disasters, it is basically left to remain on windows 0 or signup to windows 0 which as a developer, a gamer and a regular user for work i will have to do when support for 0 eventually disappears .  there will be no rollback option eventually.  my point regarding malware is that their own process is the equivelant of it.  if any other company said they were going to put a piece of software on my machine that would make my data available to them, then i would not want it there.  just because microsoft created the os i am using, it does not justify it to me.  if it was facebook or google saying they were going to do it, i would feel just the same.  i know they are not blocking access to my data, but if i came home and found someone using my bath, i would not justify it by telling myself that it is okay because they are not stopping me from using it when i want to.  and that is exactly the point. why should they care about the data ? they should not, and it should be left alone, because it is mine.  i should be able to control where it is and when.  let is say that someone manages to breach microsofts security and found all this data on a server.  then what ? my information is exposed and at risk.  and while ms might not care about my bank details, my emails with work, my erotic fan fiction based on the bible or whatever else i might have, someone else might.
not only are they not  selling  body parts, but they do not just do abortions, even if pro life views lead you to see abortion as wrong.  0 of what they do is not abortions.  std and cancer screenings, contraception, and hiv counseling, to name a few.  also, this baby part thing is a ridiculous.  if a patient wishes to donate the unborn child to science, is that wrong ? is it wrong that planned parenthood gets paid for gas ? would planned parenthood haters rather the unborn babies be thrown in the trash ? provided you find abortion wrong, do two wrongs make a right ?  #  is it wrong that planned parenthood gets paid for gas ?  #  you ca not sell fetal body parts for profit, donation is legal, collecting for basic costs associated with donation is legal transport, storage, ect but profiting off of it is illegal.   # you ca not sell fetal body parts for profit, donation is legal, collecting for basic costs associated with donation is legal transport, storage, ect but profiting off of it is illegal.  it is like how you can donate a kidney but you ca not sell yours.  the fact is there is some reasonable suspicion they were doing this for money.  if nothing else their canter about it  it is a boy  said in a cheery way is appalling.  i get you have to be a little morbid to work with fetus  but there is a such thing as offensive and evil even.   #  every year he would do 0 nice things:  std and cancer screenings, contraception, and hiv counseling,  for example.   #  suppose you knew a guy who did a lot of great stuff.  every year he would do 0 nice things:  std and cancer screenings, contraception, and hiv counseling,  for example.  and then, every year, he would murder three babies.  what would your moral judgement of this guy be ? now, this analogy wo not apply if you do not think that abortions are murder.  that is cool; i do not either.  but someone who  does  think that will probably not care very much about the 0 of other stuff planned parenthood does.   #  you already expressed the difference, a  chance of recovery.   #  a child with a full chance of recovery ca not be compared to a person in a vegetative state or a fetus.  there is no chance a fetus will survive without the support of the mother and or life support equipment.  not to mention, that a parent has every right to pull their child off of life support if they feel the need to do so, and there is a reasonable chance the child will not recover.  you already expressed the difference, a  chance of recovery.  even under full support something like 0/0rd of pregnancies end in miscarriage. on the opposite side of that argument, the fetus in this case is not hooked up to machinery, it is  subsisting off of a person.  people are not required to give life support to another human being.   #  they are supposed to help illustrate a point by exposing similarities.   #  it is not flawed; it just is not perfect.  analogies are not meant to perfectly represent the previous idea.  they are supposed to help illustrate a point by exposing similarities.  in this case, a fetus and a vegetable person are similar because they both lack conscious brain activity.  this shows how all human life is not inherently precious because there is cell activity.  of course, a fetus and a vegetable are wildly different states of being, but that is not the point.   #  a fetus is conscious insofar as its ability to hear/see after a certain number of weeks of development.   # a fetus is conscious insofar as its ability to hear/see after a certain number of weeks of development.  regardless, given evolutionary concepts, it is  very safe  to assume that a growing/living entity would  like  the chance to life.  i also noticed you completely this point of mine: it all comes down to consent, and alloting other humans to destroy the lives without any consent is a dangerous and historically deadly precedent.  think of war i noticed that later on you mentioned that only  meaningful  life deserves to live.  what gives you the right to decide whose life is  meaningful  and again, getting back to my point on war and genocide given how notable military people and populations have deemed certain lives  not meaningful , we ended up with countless levels of suffering and death.  why not just allot living humans their basic right to decide on their own ?
not only are they not  selling  body parts, but they do not just do abortions, even if pro life views lead you to see abortion as wrong.  0 of what they do is not abortions.  std and cancer screenings, contraception, and hiv counseling, to name a few.  also, this baby part thing is a ridiculous.  if a patient wishes to donate the unborn child to science, is that wrong ? is it wrong that planned parenthood gets paid for gas ? would planned parenthood haters rather the unborn babies be thrown in the trash ? provided you find abortion wrong, do two wrongs make a right ?  #  0 of what they do is not abortions.   #  std and cancer screenings, contraception, and hiv counseling, to name a few.   # std and cancer screenings, contraception, and hiv counseling, to name a few.  you do realize how hollow that would sound to someone who believes abortion murder, right ? 0 of the time i am doing good things.  however, 0 of the time, i am kidnapping toddlers and running them through wood chippers feet first.  am i a good person ?  #  suppose you knew a guy who did a lot of great stuff.   #  suppose you knew a guy who did a lot of great stuff.  every year he would do 0 nice things:  std and cancer screenings, contraception, and hiv counseling,  for example.  and then, every year, he would murder three babies.  what would your moral judgement of this guy be ? now, this analogy wo not apply if you do not think that abortions are murder.  that is cool; i do not either.  but someone who  does  think that will probably not care very much about the 0 of other stuff planned parenthood does.   #  there is no chance a fetus will survive without the support of the mother and or life support equipment.   #  a child with a full chance of recovery ca not be compared to a person in a vegetative state or a fetus.  there is no chance a fetus will survive without the support of the mother and or life support equipment.  not to mention, that a parent has every right to pull their child off of life support if they feel the need to do so, and there is a reasonable chance the child will not recover.  you already expressed the difference, a  chance of recovery.  even under full support something like 0/0rd of pregnancies end in miscarriage. on the opposite side of that argument, the fetus in this case is not hooked up to machinery, it is  subsisting off of a person.  people are not required to give life support to another human being.   #  this shows how all human life is not inherently precious because there is cell activity.   #  it is not flawed; it just is not perfect.  analogies are not meant to perfectly represent the previous idea.  they are supposed to help illustrate a point by exposing similarities.  in this case, a fetus and a vegetable person are similar because they both lack conscious brain activity.  this shows how all human life is not inherently precious because there is cell activity.  of course, a fetus and a vegetable are wildly different states of being, but that is not the point.   #  a fetus is conscious insofar as its ability to hear/see after a certain number of weeks of development.   # a fetus is conscious insofar as its ability to hear/see after a certain number of weeks of development.  regardless, given evolutionary concepts, it is  very safe  to assume that a growing/living entity would  like  the chance to life.  i also noticed you completely this point of mine: it all comes down to consent, and alloting other humans to destroy the lives without any consent is a dangerous and historically deadly precedent.  think of war i noticed that later on you mentioned that only  meaningful  life deserves to live.  what gives you the right to decide whose life is  meaningful  and again, getting back to my point on war and genocide given how notable military people and populations have deemed certain lives  not meaningful , we ended up with countless levels of suffering and death.  why not just allot living humans their basic right to decide on their own ?
greetings ! i have long held this belief and constantly fought with more patriotic members of my country hungary over it, as they say it will lead to cultural decay.  however, as far as my understanding of history goes, humanity kept uniting into bigger and bigger groups.  i am not sure whether my order is correct, but it is merely to give an example of what i am seeing.  first, families started working together as it was easier to hunt that way then, they started to form small tribal communities then, these tribal communities united into alliances and  great tribes  then, the tribes became petty kingdoms then, the petty kingdoms were either swallowed by a larger one, or swallowed the smaller ones.  then, the kingdoms they formed kept absorbing the smaller communities that were similar in culture and then there are countries like the united states and russia, both spanning almost entire continents or more.  likewise, they have the strongest presence as well.  the united kingdom had an equally great presence during its imperial days, which it more or less managed to retain.  i feel europe could easily raise its economy to the third power if each current country paid its tax to a single, central government that viewed each part of the union equally, at most.  with different strategies, investiture focuses.  the main counter arguement i see against an united europe is cultural decay or incompatibility, but i do not understand how it would get in the way too much.  culture wo not disappear just because people answer to a single elected government, neither will it disappear due to people wandering within the borders.   #  the main counter arguement i see against an united europe is cultural decay or incompatibility, but i do not understand how it would get in the way too much.   #  language : europe has many languages URL this is an especially large problem when dealing with the law where interpretation of a given case, statement or law is the difference between success and failure.   #  it is worth mentioning that both usa and russia were taken by force through an era of imperialism.  you are suggesting that countries opt in.  this method while more civil and required by our modern day, global society is unlikely to bear fruit.  language : europe has many languages URL this is an especially large problem when dealing with the law where interpretation of a given case, statement or law is the difference between success and failure.  so if only for the most basic reasons, if you have one country, you need one language to be the primary one.  which one would it be ? social programs : any standard that any country currently set for their social programs is a carefully calibrated balance between what they are willing to spend and who they will spend it on.  this means that once the countries are united,  everyone  needs to eliminate their social programs and start over with a much larger country in mind.  this will be  fantastic  for the poor countries that have little to no social safety net.  but this will mean that the bar will be significantly lowered for more lucrative countries.  political parties : each country has it is own political preference.  but more than that, the political systems are not even set up to mean the same things.  so to me, the french socialist party might seem a lot like the swedish social democrats, but they might be vastly different.  or the current prime minister of finland is of the national coalition party	, but outside of finland, it does not really exist.  the point that i am making is that there is no way for anyone to feel represented in government if they will almost certainly have to give up the type of leadership that they voted for and want.  i could go on, but the picture looks the same across the board.  any country with something to lose would not want to lose it.  instead, a separate union similar to the european union makes sense.  eu has their standards for grouping countries and after the third bailout with greece, it is unlikely that they will be changing their minds.  so, a separate union for smaller countries would be an incredible point of financial leverage.  other than that, i find it hard to see how or why any larger country would want to give up what they have.   #  regarding the various languages, it is already mandatory to learn english/german for everyone living in today is european union.   #  for government.  i feel a multi step government like the u. s is at least as far as i understand it with : a central  control  government that keeps order and handles foreign policy, also makes sure the tax is evenly distributed and invested a minor government dealing with law enforcement and infrastructure in place of the current governments.  and then the same structure beneath.  the idea is to funnel all the income into a single source and then evenly distribute it, allowing proper use of a certain area is natural resources, instead of having to cater to all industries because of import/export and wanting to maintain purchasing power.  for example, areas like current hungary and poland would have almost no reason to maintain their metal industry, and instead will be encouraged to develop top of the line agriculture which can be exported to the rest of the  european country , while areas like sweden, beyond small local farms to ensure some padding in case of a bad harvest in the  food store locations , can focus entirely on metal works and technological development.  regarding the various languages, it is already mandatory to learn english/german for everyone living in today is european union.  the main reason some students do not invest their time into properly learning english is because they claim they will never use it/or never get a chance to use it despite the existence of internet making both arguements moot .  considering knowing english/german would be like driving/cycling in this unified  country , i would guess people would pick up on both much more easily.  it is not difficult to learn a language either given the immersion.  people can easily pick up the local language of the area while they are using english for domestic/commerical purposes to survive.  as for compatible governments, most european governments are more or less the same structure, with a few two party systems here and there.  most of the monarchies are constitutional as well, meaning the king/queen is practically just for the show.  if traditions are realy important, the king/queen can be treated the same way they were treated in the holy roman empire the governor of the local area, but answer to the central government.   #  if traditions are realy important, the king/queen can be treated the same way they were treated in the holy roman empire the governor of the local area, but answer to the central government.   # how do you propose each group in europe is fairly represented in this government such that their needs are catered to ? you do understand that this will cause a significant amount of unemployment or underemployment.  what about the countless individuals careers and regions which have been built around specific industries ? most of the monarchies are constitutional as well, meaning the king/queen is practically just for the show.  if traditions are realy important, the king/queen can be treated the same way they were treated in the holy roman empire the governor of the local area, but answer to the central government.  but these governments rely on a parliament made up of representatives from different regions of the nation, which, in theory, means parliament will have a representation of each group to roughly a proportional degree.  how do you propose each group in your system be represented ?  #  it is easy for me to understand why 0 countries would not benefit from uniting.   #  i honestly could not speak to that.  it is easy for me to understand why 0 countries would not benefit from uniting.  however the particulars of specific countries and their shared history is not something i am familiar with.  which problems you feel need fixing which might be addressed by a union.  assuming that most of the countries that will unite will be of a similar gdp.  if the countries needed to ban together to create a military, i would see the purpose clearly.  or if the countries involved wanted to become a center for commerce, tourism and manufacturing, then a centralized currency would make sense.  but mostly not exclusively i get the impression that these countries want and prefer a safe and stable environment with as little change or added effort as possible.  so even if you could get them to agree.  to what end ?  #  but for the other instances, it seems quite hard to achieve.   #  i am not the other guy, but i just wanted to chime in here.  so i think the economics have already been addressed by others here, but regarding uniting countries, i feel like even if countries may be economically similar and could benefit, they are not like states, where the culture is relatively uniform sure, a californian might not understand the fast paced east coast guys, or minnesotans might find souther sweet tea disgusting, but american culture more or less is intelligible, with foreign cultures seeping in and mixing with it.  in contrast, i have been told european nations have existed for centuries, and historical/political issues combined with different interests between different ethnic groups makes it hard for social cohesion.  despite having started out diverse and home to hundreds of ethnicities, the us still has its fair share of racial tensions.  if i remember correctly, your country had a union with austria, and was home to a bunch of different ethnicities, and yet the empire collapsed after a war that started when an unhappy serb killed the prince and his wife.  unless you have a long history together to the point where ethnicity matters little, i do not see this happening.  look at my country korea , and our neighbor japan .  we are both democratic, highly industrialized nations with similar cultural values.  and yet our governments and people do not like each other.  given the current geopolitics in asia we and taiwan, the philippines etc should  unite  to form a union, but that aint happening.  do you see greeks and turks, or hungarians and romanians buddying up any time soon ? i do not.  when you have less economic, political and social barriers between nations perhaps a union would be easier out of your examples nordic cooperation seems the most plausible .  but for the other instances, it seems quite hard to achieve.  the time it takes for such tensions to ease, i feel that it would be better spent trying to improve individual countries instead of insisting on transnational unions.
i have several issues with it.  but before i get into that, i will point out that i am perfectly fine with people hunting things to eat.  things like deer, and fowl.  but to go hunting for exotic animals is just selfish, cowardly, and just plain retarded to put it bluntly.  when people hunt exotic rare animals, like lions, rhinos, bears and girraffes to keep the head on their wall, they are taking what belongs to everyone, and basically stealing it.  everyone should be able to enjoy them in the wild, but with poaching threatening many species, there are fewer and fewer in the wild to see.  calling it a sport is a joke.  anybody with half a brain can go out and shoot an animal.  they put them on their wall to tell everyone  look at the dangerous animal i killed, pay no attention to my tiny penis .  all it shows it cowardice.  you wanna make it a sport, hunt them with your hands and teeth, like they do.  animals like lions are not afraid of humans, especially on the preserves.  they do not run to hide, it is shooting fish in a barrel.  when an exotic animal needs to be culled, then let wardens do it, do not sell off the tag for someone for thousands of dollars so the can come and play king of the jungle.   #  when people hunt exotic rare animals, like lions, rhinos, bears and girraffes to keep the head on their wall, they are taking what belongs to everyone, and basically stealing it.   #  everyone should be able to enjoy them in the wild, but with poaching threatening many species, there are fewer and fewer in the wild to see.   # everyone should be able to enjoy them in the wild, but with poaching threatening many species, there are fewer and fewer in the wild to see.  why does rarity make any given animal more the property of everyone ? you are fine with me killing a deer, but not a giraffe for example ? as long as i am hunting it in accordance with law and policy, if my kill does not seriously endanger the species, why is it any worse ? who is to say i do not share the meat, the hide, the kill ? anybody with half a brain can go out and shoot an animal.  they put them on their wall to tell everyone  look at the dangerous animal i killed, pay no attention to my tiny penis .  all it shows it cowardice.  you wanna make it a sport, hunt them with your hands and teeth, like they do.  animals like lions are not afraid of humans, especially on the preserves.  they do not run to hide, it is shooting fish in a barrel.  killing an animal can be made easy, yes.  but that is hardly inherent in big game hunting.  hunting big game can be, and often is, very dangerous, and can require quite a bit of skill.  hunting with our hands and teeth is a foolish proposition.  animals are equipped with a great number of superior qualities.  it is perfectly reasonable that we balance the scales by using our superior minds to help us match their superior bodies.  the government makes money that it can, and probably should, funnel into the game program, which is chronically underfunded.  it is yet another incentive not to poach, because you can engage in your chosen sport legally.  and those who wish to engage in such a sport can be regulated, instead of being relegated to criminal status.  if you are fine with the animal being killed, why not by someone who wishes to do so, and in such a way that will benefit society and the remaining animals ?  #  this in turn increases the number of buses, hotels restaurants etc.   #  tl;dr: big game hunters foot the bill for the conservation of endangered species.  i would like to preface this by saying that i am not a hunter or even a gun owner myself, though i have had version of this discussion with people who are.  the way i see it, there are currently nothing or nobody that sufficiently funds the preservation of wildlife and their habitats, other than big game hunters.  preserving habitats and overseeing the wildlife populations, i. e.  protecting them from poachers, costs money.  without generating income, the wildlife will be at the mercy of poachers, farmers, developers and others with a financial interest in either the wildlife itself or the land they live on.  the other potential sources of funds would be non hunting tourists, charity and local governments.  they each have problems.  non hunting tourists are counter intuitive as it sounds more disruptive to the habitats than hunters.  this stems from the fact, that no one is willing to drop 0 figures to go and take a photo, so to generate the same income, the number of visitors has to increase dramatically.  this in turn increases the number of buses, hotels restaurants etc.  that need to be available within reasonable distance from the animals, as well as increased stress on the animals themselves due to the number of people stomping around the habitats.  charity does not generate funds on anywhere near large enough or consistent enough scales to purchase the land and pay the people who need to run things.  governments are who we would normally look to to solve issues like this.  the problem is that many if not most governments in africa have much bigger and much more imposing priorities, in the form of hungry, poor and sick populations, as well as limited tax bases from which to generate revenue.  it is very hard to argue that rhinos should take precedent over hungry and sick humans.  at the end of the day, a ban of regulated, sustainable hunting practices only encourages poaching, as it removes the resources from the people land owners, professional hunters who manage the wildlife in a given area.  see this article of for some real world examples of this happening, to the detriment of endangered species.  URL  #  avoid inbreeding, yet still managed culled to have a great variety of species.   #  thanks for the enthusiastic support : .  the aspects of active wildlife management you mention are hugely important.  of course there are good and bad ways of running a reserve, but the good ones which as far as i know also end up surviving in the long run do a great job making sure they have healthy populations, big enough that they have healthy reproduction, i. e.  avoid inbreeding, yet still managed culled to have a great variety of species.  the beauty is that the incentives between the reserve manager and the conservationist is perfectly alligned.  the healthier the population in the long term, the bigger surplus is generated for hunting.  and you maintain the big  alpha  type individual animals so they can breed as much as possible , untill the population is better served by a younger individual, and then you let some millionaire have the experience of a lifetime by letting them do the job of  retiring  the old and culling the weak/surplus.  i actually do not agree with you on the ethics side, but for the purposes of this argument, that does not matter : .   #  does that mean that the professionals are a  joke  because you can throw a ball ?  # how tight is your grouping at 0 yards ? how about 0 yards ? anyone with half a brain can shoot a gun is like saying anyone with half a brain can throw a ball.  yes throwing a base ball is a simple motor skill, not much goes into doing it.  does that mean that the professionals are a  joke  because you can throw a ball ? anyone can pull a trigger, not everyone can group a target at 0 meters with ease.   #  but taking a single guide and stalking some animals is much riskier.   #  you absolutely can eat giraffe, and there is plenty of it to eat; you are talking about an animal that weighs well over a ton.  how dangerous it is depends on how you approach it, you level of skill, the type of animal, etc.  sure, hunting a lone animal from a helicopter is fairly safe.  but taking a single guide and stalking some animals is much riskier.  there are plenty of animals that wo not be stopped by a shotgun slug to the head, even if you have the skill and presence of mind to make such a shot on an enraged charging animal.  the objection that only a small percentage of the income goes back to conservation efforts sound more like a condemnation of the budget policy, not big game hunting.
i have several issues with it.  but before i get into that, i will point out that i am perfectly fine with people hunting things to eat.  things like deer, and fowl.  but to go hunting for exotic animals is just selfish, cowardly, and just plain retarded to put it bluntly.  when people hunt exotic rare animals, like lions, rhinos, bears and girraffes to keep the head on their wall, they are taking what belongs to everyone, and basically stealing it.  everyone should be able to enjoy them in the wild, but with poaching threatening many species, there are fewer and fewer in the wild to see.  calling it a sport is a joke.  anybody with half a brain can go out and shoot an animal.  they put them on their wall to tell everyone  look at the dangerous animal i killed, pay no attention to my tiny penis .  all it shows it cowardice.  you wanna make it a sport, hunt them with your hands and teeth, like they do.  animals like lions are not afraid of humans, especially on the preserves.  they do not run to hide, it is shooting fish in a barrel.  when an exotic animal needs to be culled, then let wardens do it, do not sell off the tag for someone for thousands of dollars so the can come and play king of the jungle.   #  calling it a sport is a joke.   #  anybody with half a brain can go out and shoot an animal.   # everyone should be able to enjoy them in the wild, but with poaching threatening many species, there are fewer and fewer in the wild to see.  why does rarity make any given animal more the property of everyone ? you are fine with me killing a deer, but not a giraffe for example ? as long as i am hunting it in accordance with law and policy, if my kill does not seriously endanger the species, why is it any worse ? who is to say i do not share the meat, the hide, the kill ? anybody with half a brain can go out and shoot an animal.  they put them on their wall to tell everyone  look at the dangerous animal i killed, pay no attention to my tiny penis .  all it shows it cowardice.  you wanna make it a sport, hunt them with your hands and teeth, like they do.  animals like lions are not afraid of humans, especially on the preserves.  they do not run to hide, it is shooting fish in a barrel.  killing an animal can be made easy, yes.  but that is hardly inherent in big game hunting.  hunting big game can be, and often is, very dangerous, and can require quite a bit of skill.  hunting with our hands and teeth is a foolish proposition.  animals are equipped with a great number of superior qualities.  it is perfectly reasonable that we balance the scales by using our superior minds to help us match their superior bodies.  the government makes money that it can, and probably should, funnel into the game program, which is chronically underfunded.  it is yet another incentive not to poach, because you can engage in your chosen sport legally.  and those who wish to engage in such a sport can be regulated, instead of being relegated to criminal status.  if you are fine with the animal being killed, why not by someone who wishes to do so, and in such a way that will benefit society and the remaining animals ?  #  i would like to preface this by saying that i am not a hunter or even a gun owner myself, though i have had version of this discussion with people who are.   #  tl;dr: big game hunters foot the bill for the conservation of endangered species.  i would like to preface this by saying that i am not a hunter or even a gun owner myself, though i have had version of this discussion with people who are.  the way i see it, there are currently nothing or nobody that sufficiently funds the preservation of wildlife and their habitats, other than big game hunters.  preserving habitats and overseeing the wildlife populations, i. e.  protecting them from poachers, costs money.  without generating income, the wildlife will be at the mercy of poachers, farmers, developers and others with a financial interest in either the wildlife itself or the land they live on.  the other potential sources of funds would be non hunting tourists, charity and local governments.  they each have problems.  non hunting tourists are counter intuitive as it sounds more disruptive to the habitats than hunters.  this stems from the fact, that no one is willing to drop 0 figures to go and take a photo, so to generate the same income, the number of visitors has to increase dramatically.  this in turn increases the number of buses, hotels restaurants etc.  that need to be available within reasonable distance from the animals, as well as increased stress on the animals themselves due to the number of people stomping around the habitats.  charity does not generate funds on anywhere near large enough or consistent enough scales to purchase the land and pay the people who need to run things.  governments are who we would normally look to to solve issues like this.  the problem is that many if not most governments in africa have much bigger and much more imposing priorities, in the form of hungry, poor and sick populations, as well as limited tax bases from which to generate revenue.  it is very hard to argue that rhinos should take precedent over hungry and sick humans.  at the end of the day, a ban of regulated, sustainable hunting practices only encourages poaching, as it removes the resources from the people land owners, professional hunters who manage the wildlife in a given area.  see this article of for some real world examples of this happening, to the detriment of endangered species.  URL  #  i actually do not agree with you on the ethics side, but for the purposes of this argument, that does not matter : .   #  thanks for the enthusiastic support : .  the aspects of active wildlife management you mention are hugely important.  of course there are good and bad ways of running a reserve, but the good ones which as far as i know also end up surviving in the long run do a great job making sure they have healthy populations, big enough that they have healthy reproduction, i. e.  avoid inbreeding, yet still managed culled to have a great variety of species.  the beauty is that the incentives between the reserve manager and the conservationist is perfectly alligned.  the healthier the population in the long term, the bigger surplus is generated for hunting.  and you maintain the big  alpha  type individual animals so they can breed as much as possible , untill the population is better served by a younger individual, and then you let some millionaire have the experience of a lifetime by letting them do the job of  retiring  the old and culling the weak/surplus.  i actually do not agree with you on the ethics side, but for the purposes of this argument, that does not matter : .   #  anyone can pull a trigger, not everyone can group a target at 0 meters with ease.   # how tight is your grouping at 0 yards ? how about 0 yards ? anyone with half a brain can shoot a gun is like saying anyone with half a brain can throw a ball.  yes throwing a base ball is a simple motor skill, not much goes into doing it.  does that mean that the professionals are a  joke  because you can throw a ball ? anyone can pull a trigger, not everyone can group a target at 0 meters with ease.   #  but taking a single guide and stalking some animals is much riskier.   #  you absolutely can eat giraffe, and there is plenty of it to eat; you are talking about an animal that weighs well over a ton.  how dangerous it is depends on how you approach it, you level of skill, the type of animal, etc.  sure, hunting a lone animal from a helicopter is fairly safe.  but taking a single guide and stalking some animals is much riskier.  there are plenty of animals that wo not be stopped by a shotgun slug to the head, even if you have the skill and presence of mind to make such a shot on an enraged charging animal.  the objection that only a small percentage of the income goes back to conservation efforts sound more like a condemnation of the budget policy, not big game hunting.
i have several issues with it.  but before i get into that, i will point out that i am perfectly fine with people hunting things to eat.  things like deer, and fowl.  but to go hunting for exotic animals is just selfish, cowardly, and just plain retarded to put it bluntly.  when people hunt exotic rare animals, like lions, rhinos, bears and girraffes to keep the head on their wall, they are taking what belongs to everyone, and basically stealing it.  everyone should be able to enjoy them in the wild, but with poaching threatening many species, there are fewer and fewer in the wild to see.  calling it a sport is a joke.  anybody with half a brain can go out and shoot an animal.  they put them on their wall to tell everyone  look at the dangerous animal i killed, pay no attention to my tiny penis .  all it shows it cowardice.  you wanna make it a sport, hunt them with your hands and teeth, like they do.  animals like lions are not afraid of humans, especially on the preserves.  they do not run to hide, it is shooting fish in a barrel.  when an exotic animal needs to be culled, then let wardens do it, do not sell off the tag for someone for thousands of dollars so the can come and play king of the jungle.   #  calling it a sport is a joke.   #  anybody with half a brain can go out and shoot an animal.   # anybody with half a brain can go out and shoot an animal.  so i am going to assume you are talking about canned hunts rather than legit stalk and shoot hunts, because shooting over basically any distance longer than 0 feet is not easy, especially if the animal is moving.  there are very small  kill  areas on most animals that are hunted, usually just behind the front legs when the animal is sideways.  it is very, very difficult even for seasoned hunters to do on deer in the us, much less on a lion in africa.  canned hunts, like the ones traditionally vilified, are looked down upon by most hunters anyways as unsporting.  in traditional hunts, the animal gets away regularly.  it is not uncommon at all for hunters in the us to sit in a tree stand all day looking for a deer and never even take a shot.  why ? let some rich asshole bankroll the conservation efforts.  more money being spent for conservation is good for everyone.  it helps fund anti poaching efforts, cleanups, even helps stimulate the local economies.  as long as they are legit hunts, i do not see the problem with it.   #  this in turn increases the number of buses, hotels restaurants etc.   #  tl;dr: big game hunters foot the bill for the conservation of endangered species.  i would like to preface this by saying that i am not a hunter or even a gun owner myself, though i have had version of this discussion with people who are.  the way i see it, there are currently nothing or nobody that sufficiently funds the preservation of wildlife and their habitats, other than big game hunters.  preserving habitats and overseeing the wildlife populations, i. e.  protecting them from poachers, costs money.  without generating income, the wildlife will be at the mercy of poachers, farmers, developers and others with a financial interest in either the wildlife itself or the land they live on.  the other potential sources of funds would be non hunting tourists, charity and local governments.  they each have problems.  non hunting tourists are counter intuitive as it sounds more disruptive to the habitats than hunters.  this stems from the fact, that no one is willing to drop 0 figures to go and take a photo, so to generate the same income, the number of visitors has to increase dramatically.  this in turn increases the number of buses, hotels restaurants etc.  that need to be available within reasonable distance from the animals, as well as increased stress on the animals themselves due to the number of people stomping around the habitats.  charity does not generate funds on anywhere near large enough or consistent enough scales to purchase the land and pay the people who need to run things.  governments are who we would normally look to to solve issues like this.  the problem is that many if not most governments in africa have much bigger and much more imposing priorities, in the form of hungry, poor and sick populations, as well as limited tax bases from which to generate revenue.  it is very hard to argue that rhinos should take precedent over hungry and sick humans.  at the end of the day, a ban of regulated, sustainable hunting practices only encourages poaching, as it removes the resources from the people land owners, professional hunters who manage the wildlife in a given area.  see this article of for some real world examples of this happening, to the detriment of endangered species.  URL  #  the aspects of active wildlife management you mention are hugely important.   #  thanks for the enthusiastic support : .  the aspects of active wildlife management you mention are hugely important.  of course there are good and bad ways of running a reserve, but the good ones which as far as i know also end up surviving in the long run do a great job making sure they have healthy populations, big enough that they have healthy reproduction, i. e.  avoid inbreeding, yet still managed culled to have a great variety of species.  the beauty is that the incentives between the reserve manager and the conservationist is perfectly alligned.  the healthier the population in the long term, the bigger surplus is generated for hunting.  and you maintain the big  alpha  type individual animals so they can breed as much as possible , untill the population is better served by a younger individual, and then you let some millionaire have the experience of a lifetime by letting them do the job of  retiring  the old and culling the weak/surplus.  i actually do not agree with you on the ethics side, but for the purposes of this argument, that does not matter : .   #  as long as i am hunting it in accordance with law and policy, if my kill does not seriously endanger the species, why is it any worse ?  # everyone should be able to enjoy them in the wild, but with poaching threatening many species, there are fewer and fewer in the wild to see.  why does rarity make any given animal more the property of everyone ? you are fine with me killing a deer, but not a giraffe for example ? as long as i am hunting it in accordance with law and policy, if my kill does not seriously endanger the species, why is it any worse ? who is to say i do not share the meat, the hide, the kill ? anybody with half a brain can go out and shoot an animal.  they put them on their wall to tell everyone  look at the dangerous animal i killed, pay no attention to my tiny penis .  all it shows it cowardice.  you wanna make it a sport, hunt them with your hands and teeth, like they do.  animals like lions are not afraid of humans, especially on the preserves.  they do not run to hide, it is shooting fish in a barrel.  killing an animal can be made easy, yes.  but that is hardly inherent in big game hunting.  hunting big game can be, and often is, very dangerous, and can require quite a bit of skill.  hunting with our hands and teeth is a foolish proposition.  animals are equipped with a great number of superior qualities.  it is perfectly reasonable that we balance the scales by using our superior minds to help us match their superior bodies.  the government makes money that it can, and probably should, funnel into the game program, which is chronically underfunded.  it is yet another incentive not to poach, because you can engage in your chosen sport legally.  and those who wish to engage in such a sport can be regulated, instead of being relegated to criminal status.  if you are fine with the animal being killed, why not by someone who wishes to do so, and in such a way that will benefit society and the remaining animals ?  #  anyone can pull a trigger, not everyone can group a target at 0 meters with ease.   # how tight is your grouping at 0 yards ? how about 0 yards ? anyone with half a brain can shoot a gun is like saying anyone with half a brain can throw a ball.  yes throwing a base ball is a simple motor skill, not much goes into doing it.  does that mean that the professionals are a  joke  because you can throw a ball ? anyone can pull a trigger, not everyone can group a target at 0 meters with ease.
i have several issues with it.  but before i get into that, i will point out that i am perfectly fine with people hunting things to eat.  things like deer, and fowl.  but to go hunting for exotic animals is just selfish, cowardly, and just plain retarded to put it bluntly.  when people hunt exotic rare animals, like lions, rhinos, bears and girraffes to keep the head on their wall, they are taking what belongs to everyone, and basically stealing it.  everyone should be able to enjoy them in the wild, but with poaching threatening many species, there are fewer and fewer in the wild to see.  calling it a sport is a joke.  anybody with half a brain can go out and shoot an animal.  they put them on their wall to tell everyone  look at the dangerous animal i killed, pay no attention to my tiny penis .  all it shows it cowardice.  you wanna make it a sport, hunt them with your hands and teeth, like they do.  animals like lions are not afraid of humans, especially on the preserves.  they do not run to hide, it is shooting fish in a barrel.  when an exotic animal needs to be culled, then let wardens do it, do not sell off the tag for someone for thousands of dollars so the can come and play king of the jungle.   #  when people hunt exotic rare animals, like lions, rhinos, bears and girraffes to keep the head on their wall, they are taking what belongs to everyone, and basically stealing it.   #  everyone should be able to enjoy them in the wild, but with poaching threatening many species, there are fewer and fewer in the wild to see.   # everyone should be able to enjoy them in the wild, but with poaching threatening many species, there are fewer and fewer in the wild to see.  properly managed hunts are not like this at all.  in fact, the rich assholes tossing $0,0  at getting a trophy are bankrolling the wildlife management of many of these reserves.  furthermore, they are helping keep the animal population healthy and strong proper wildlife management includes culling older animals so that younger ones get resources, are able to breed, and so on.  look, it is not like the movies.  the old animals do not peacefully lay down and go to sleep.  they wear their teeth down, resources get stripped, and ecological damage can result.  you are right, over hunting of top level predators or prey animals can lead to endangered or extinct species, but properly managed hunts are not going to let that happen because they make money off the animals.  those rich guys are literally paying for the wardens and guards that keep the poachers at bay and keep the animals from being hunted to extinction.  hunting bans are utter failures.  URL poachers roll in with automatic weapons and chainsaws and butcher the animals en masse.   #  the problem is that many if not most governments in africa have much bigger and much more imposing priorities, in the form of hungry, poor and sick populations, as well as limited tax bases from which to generate revenue.   #  tl;dr: big game hunters foot the bill for the conservation of endangered species.  i would like to preface this by saying that i am not a hunter or even a gun owner myself, though i have had version of this discussion with people who are.  the way i see it, there are currently nothing or nobody that sufficiently funds the preservation of wildlife and their habitats, other than big game hunters.  preserving habitats and overseeing the wildlife populations, i. e.  protecting them from poachers, costs money.  without generating income, the wildlife will be at the mercy of poachers, farmers, developers and others with a financial interest in either the wildlife itself or the land they live on.  the other potential sources of funds would be non hunting tourists, charity and local governments.  they each have problems.  non hunting tourists are counter intuitive as it sounds more disruptive to the habitats than hunters.  this stems from the fact, that no one is willing to drop 0 figures to go and take a photo, so to generate the same income, the number of visitors has to increase dramatically.  this in turn increases the number of buses, hotels restaurants etc.  that need to be available within reasonable distance from the animals, as well as increased stress on the animals themselves due to the number of people stomping around the habitats.  charity does not generate funds on anywhere near large enough or consistent enough scales to purchase the land and pay the people who need to run things.  governments are who we would normally look to to solve issues like this.  the problem is that many if not most governments in africa have much bigger and much more imposing priorities, in the form of hungry, poor and sick populations, as well as limited tax bases from which to generate revenue.  it is very hard to argue that rhinos should take precedent over hungry and sick humans.  at the end of the day, a ban of regulated, sustainable hunting practices only encourages poaching, as it removes the resources from the people land owners, professional hunters who manage the wildlife in a given area.  see this article of for some real world examples of this happening, to the detriment of endangered species.  URL  #  the healthier the population in the long term, the bigger surplus is generated for hunting.   #  thanks for the enthusiastic support : .  the aspects of active wildlife management you mention are hugely important.  of course there are good and bad ways of running a reserve, but the good ones which as far as i know also end up surviving in the long run do a great job making sure they have healthy populations, big enough that they have healthy reproduction, i. e.  avoid inbreeding, yet still managed culled to have a great variety of species.  the beauty is that the incentives between the reserve manager and the conservationist is perfectly alligned.  the healthier the population in the long term, the bigger surplus is generated for hunting.  and you maintain the big  alpha  type individual animals so they can breed as much as possible , untill the population is better served by a younger individual, and then you let some millionaire have the experience of a lifetime by letting them do the job of  retiring  the old and culling the weak/surplus.  i actually do not agree with you on the ethics side, but for the purposes of this argument, that does not matter : .   #  hunting big game can be, and often is, very dangerous, and can require quite a bit of skill.   # everyone should be able to enjoy them in the wild, but with poaching threatening many species, there are fewer and fewer in the wild to see.  why does rarity make any given animal more the property of everyone ? you are fine with me killing a deer, but not a giraffe for example ? as long as i am hunting it in accordance with law and policy, if my kill does not seriously endanger the species, why is it any worse ? who is to say i do not share the meat, the hide, the kill ? anybody with half a brain can go out and shoot an animal.  they put them on their wall to tell everyone  look at the dangerous animal i killed, pay no attention to my tiny penis .  all it shows it cowardice.  you wanna make it a sport, hunt them with your hands and teeth, like they do.  animals like lions are not afraid of humans, especially on the preserves.  they do not run to hide, it is shooting fish in a barrel.  killing an animal can be made easy, yes.  but that is hardly inherent in big game hunting.  hunting big game can be, and often is, very dangerous, and can require quite a bit of skill.  hunting with our hands and teeth is a foolish proposition.  animals are equipped with a great number of superior qualities.  it is perfectly reasonable that we balance the scales by using our superior minds to help us match their superior bodies.  the government makes money that it can, and probably should, funnel into the game program, which is chronically underfunded.  it is yet another incentive not to poach, because you can engage in your chosen sport legally.  and those who wish to engage in such a sport can be regulated, instead of being relegated to criminal status.  if you are fine with the animal being killed, why not by someone who wishes to do so, and in such a way that will benefit society and the remaining animals ?  #  anyone can pull a trigger, not everyone can group a target at 0 meters with ease.   # how tight is your grouping at 0 yards ? how about 0 yards ? anyone with half a brain can shoot a gun is like saying anyone with half a brain can throw a ball.  yes throwing a base ball is a simple motor skill, not much goes into doing it.  does that mean that the professionals are a  joke  because you can throw a ball ? anyone can pull a trigger, not everyone can group a target at 0 meters with ease.
whenever people argue in favor of civilians being allowed access to things like assault rifles, high capacity magazines, armor piercing bullets, etc. , the only case i have ever heard for it other than how cool and fun that stuff is to own and use is that they feel like they need to be prepared for some sort of showdown that might take place with the government.  just to clarify, i respect the 0nd amendment and appreciate that the writers of that amendment had the sentiment that americans should be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government by force if necessary.  i just think that in the age of f 0s and predator drones the notion that civilians, even if they are armed to the teeth with assault weaponry and an unlimited supply of ammunition, would stand even a ghost of a chance in an actual toe to toe encounter with the federal or even state government is beyond laughable and has been for over a hundred years.  that is, unless we are also allowed to arm ourselves with artillery, missiles, and heavy explosives that might actually make us somewhat of a match for the us government.  i personally believe this to be a ridiculous idea, because i think the potential for user error and disaster outweighs the usefulness this kind of armament might provide in a showdown with the government.  this is also exactly why i do not see the need for assault weaponry to be made available to the public.  i am not a major gun enthusiast by any means, but i have shot plenty of guns on multiple occasions and it is a total blast.  i fully support people owning hunting rifles, shotguns, and even handguns to a degree they also seem unnecessary to me but that is a whole different topic so i will keep them on the table for the sake of this cmv .  my line kind of ends there though.  i do not think there is any practical reason outside of  it is my hobby and i think it is cool  for anyone who is not regularly in combat situations to have access to assault rifles, missiles, mortars, or anything that is designed to kill soldiers, policemen, or enemy combatants.  tl;dr: the only argument i have heard in favor of civilian ownership of assault weaponry is that we need to be able to protect ourselves from tyranny.  i posit that you would need a lot more than assault weaponry to defend against the government, and that unless you are in favor of civilians being able to purchase surface to air missiles, that is not a real argument.  cmv.  to everyone who contributed to that conversation, i thank you for your time and responses.  while my v was not necessarily c would, it was informative for me to read your positions and i was able to see the issue from a couple of new angles.  thank you.  to everyone else, i thank you for the realization that i have way less of an idea about what constitutes assault weaponry than i previously thought i did.  it was not really to my point, but i thank you for your input, and after reading some of your responses i can see that it must be infuriating to have people who do not really know what they are talking about come and weigh in on something that you are knowledgable and passionate about.  i apologize for being one of those guys, and will keep it in mind and avoid it in the future.  thanks again, everyone.   #  i fully support people owning hunting rifles, shotguns, and even handguns to a degree they also seem unnecessary to me but that is a whole different topic so i will keep them on the table for the sake of this cmv .   #  my line kind of ends there though.   # it would never be a toe to toe encounter in the first place.  drones and f0 is ca not hold ground, and the government would be fighting an insurgency, but much, much worse than the ones they are used to in the middle east.  this also assumes that, in your scenario, the majority of the military sticks around, which is certainly not assured.  does not take a lot of logistics disruption to stop the jets and drones from flying.  the goal of the 0nd amendment is to make it so that scenario never plays out in the first place.  it is mainly to keep our government from thinking that it would be easy to steamroll the population, should it come to that.  my line kind of ends there though.  i do not think there is any practical reason outside of  it is my hobby and i think it is cool  for anyone who is not regularly in combat situations to have access to assault rifles, missiles, mortars, or anything that is designed to kill soldiers, policemen, or enemy combatants.  assault rifles m0/m0 are already essentially banned, as no new transferable ones have been made legal since 0.  the ones that do exist are incredibly expensive $0k starting , and require a lot of paperwork and background checks to get.  i assume you mean ar 0 style rifles, which are not assault rifles.  assault rifles are capable of select fire, something an ar 0 is not capable of.  an ar 0 is a semi auto rifle, not functionally unlike many hunting rifles.  ar 0 is are good to own for a number of purposes.  they are great hunting rifles, and basically the go to varmint rifle.  farmers use them regularly to control coyote populations around livestock.  they are useful because they are lightweight, have 0 round mags, and have light recoil.  they are good for home defense, as rare as the situation is, for the same reasons above.  to me, you have to have a good reason to want to ban a type of weapon, and the case just is not there for the ar 0.  in 0, only 0 people URL were killed with rifles of all types, of which ar 0 is are a subset of.  for comparison on the same site, knives killed 0,0 and blunt objects killed 0.  why do you want those particular rifles banned if they are not really used at all in crime and are demonstrably useful to segments of our population ?  #  i do not know as much as i should about ar 0s specifically, and i should not have brought them up so prominently.   #  ok so i am gonna have to edit my post.  when i say  assault rifle , i mean  weapon created for the express purpose of killing enemy combatants in combat scenarios .  as in,  we did not make this for hunting or any other reason, it is purpose is to kill humans efficiently .  i do not know as much as i should about ar 0s specifically, and i should not have brought them up so prominently.  they are around in the news a lot and that is why i named them as an assault rifle, but i ca not back that up with a solid argument.   #  just because a design was developed for military uses does not mean it has no place in civilian life, this goes for millions of things we use regularly.   # a lot of firearm platforms have their origins in combat.  the 0 mauser 0 URL was expressly developed for use in the military, for killing people in combat situations.  it was used from 0 until 0, it is quite possibly one of the most deadly weapons in the history of the world by sheer numbers killed with it.  does this mean that it is design ca not be used for anything else and that any gun that looks like a 0 should be banned for being a  weapon created for the express purpose of killing enemy combatants in combat scenarios  ? no.  just because a design was developed for military uses does not mean it has no place in civilian life, this goes for millions of things we use regularly.   #  aka  high explosives  this seems to be the type of reaction you have in mind when you say  explosion.    #  let is get really technical then.  explosions can be split broadly into two categories: 0.  detonation, i. e.  reaction rate   speed of sound.  aka  high explosives  this seems to be the type of reaction you have in mind when you say  explosion.   you are correct in pointing out that this is not what happens inside a firearm.  0.  deflagration, i. e.  reaction rate   speed of sound.   low explosives  this is the type of  explosion  employed in firearms.  the same concept and type of  explosion  that happens inside reciprocating piston internal combustion engines.  tldr: you are partially correct, but technically mistaken.  it  is  an explosion from a technical standpoint.   #  paper burns, but you would be hard pressed to call that an explosion.   #  probably the rate of combustion and the resulting pressure, as a totally uneducated guess.  paper burns, but you would be hard pressed to call that an explosion.  even if you put a burning wad of paper cause an explosion, because it does not convert into enough pressure.  gasoline, on the other hand, does tend to burn rather quickly and create enough pressure on it is own to convert into mechanical energy.  just my thought as someone who has no real education in the field.
whenever an attack like the one on the gay pride parade in jerusalem happens i always see people rush to say that religion has nothing to do with the crime.  this is to me false right on its face.  i am not even trying to be a fedora tipper or anything.  i believe that religion can have a positive role in society.  i have had to get charity from church run food banks in the past and know people who have used the power of faith to overcome addiction.  i will also admit that poverty, mental illness and racism have probably played a role in turning people toward more extremist cult versions of religion.  i do not think that faith has all of the blame when it comes to attacks like these, but does not it at least have some of it ? religion is not all sunshine and rainbows and feeling at peace and pretending it is is just as naive as thinking it is all some orwellian dystopian nightmare.  religion is a powerful tool that unleashes both the best and worst in people.  like i have said before i have seen hopeless addicts get clean and get their life back on track but i have also seen previously open minded and curious people become bigoted and rejecting of new facts and information.  it is no surprise to me at all that a force that could get someone off heroin would also be able to compel people to kill those they felt were living an incorrect life.  even if someone was already predisposed to violent behavior because of genetics or upbringing faith can still be seen as a cause of the violence because it is the final piece that allowed them to justify their impulses.   #  even if someone was already predisposed to violent behavior because of genetics or upbringing faith can still be seen as a cause of the violence because it is the final piece that allowed them to justify their impulses.   #  i do not think its that simple.   # i do not think its that simple.  its equally possible for someone to hold violent beliefs because of religion and act on them because they are a bad/violent person as it is for them to be a bad/violent person and use religion as a motivation to act.  when i look at what is happening in the middle east, i see that as more of religion triggering the act.  i do not think a normal person is going to be willing to go suicide bombing, for example.  to overcome the will to live is difficult, religion is one of the few things strong enough to do so.  when i look at people in the us, for example, i do not see religion as the motivator.  the bible is as much against homosexuality as it is against shellfish.  granted the extreme hypocrisy leads people to pick out homosexuality more than anything else, but i do not believe its strong enough to motivate someone.  what people are doing to homosexuals is no different from what people who been doing to groups they do not like for as long as people have existed.  i do not see religion being special in this case.   #  i acknowledged one in my post blood libel , and there are other examples of fundamentally religious concepts: worship, or the underworld, for instance.   # i acknowledged one in my post blood libel , and there are other examples of fundamentally religious concepts: worship, or the underworld, for instance.  something like a  creation myth  would be a non religious claim in a religious framework, but you ca not say that about something like, say, salvation theology.  it is.  the resurrection of jesus, for example, is a fundamentally christian concept, and therefore a religious one, though.  i feel like this misses my main critique/challenge here: how is that example fundamentally different from a person belonging to a secular community that supports a violent act ? there is nothing inherently  areligious  about the behaviour, it is simply a communal thing, religious or otherwise.   #  all of these things could be argued to be  x within a religious framework.    #  first let me say that i do not support generalizations.  religions are more than their texts, and more than the behavior of isolated communities that identify as part of that religion.  all of these things could be argued to be  x within a religious framework.   blood libel is ancient tribalism.  worship is superstition, etc.  i am sorry, but i think that claiming sin is not a fundamentally religious concept in this way is plainly a semantic distortion.  there is nothing inherently  areligious  about the behaviour, it is simply a communal thing, religious or otherwise.  if the secular community had interpreted a secular ideology to support their violence, you might be right to say that the violence was motivated by that ideology.  but depending on the specifics of the ideology and behavior, it might be more accurate to say that it was motivated by bigotry and some kind of cult psychology.  i acknowledge that the same argument could be made for violence described as religiously motivated, but again, that depends on the specific behavior and the specific dogma in question.   #  this is more of an aside, but i would argue that the concept of  isin  is actually one of the more tolerant conceptions of objective moral truth because it makes such broad concessions for people who are unaware of it.   # what you are saying here is true but i feel like you have drawn an unfair equivalence here: the alternative to a religious code of ethics is not a  personal  code, but a secular metaphysical one.  what you have highlighted is the difference between moral relativism and moral realism, not religious and secular morality.  i would guess that most people are moral realists when you press them, and most people, religious or not, are probably also secular moral realists that is, they would still be moral realists if they were certain that their was no truth to any religion is ethical claims .  so, in most cases, i would say it is still not fair to call it  areligiously motivated  because the secular, realist equivalent is not fundamentally different.  as above, i am not sure that this constitutes a fundamental difference when compared to other moral realist perspectives.  the concept of  isalvation  might lessen the chance for inaction, but that is distinct from the concept of  isin  and is not consistent with, say, hurting homosexuals for being gay.  this is more of an aside, but i would argue that the concept of  isin  is actually one of the more tolerant conceptions of objective moral truth because it makes such broad concessions for people who are unaware of it.  additionally, the idea that everyone has already sinned is fundamental to almost all conceptions of sin in mainstream christianity, which would also make me think it might actually be quite a tolerant view of the nature of objective ethical transgressions.  there is also the view that all sin save a particular kind of extreme spiritual blasphemy is forgivable.  those would seem to me to suggest that christian moral realism is perhaps more pluralistic, or more accommodating of pluralism, than most secular moral realist conceptions of serious ethical transgressions.   #  i am not exactly sure why you are bringing  isalvation  into this, i just literally do not see where that comes from.   # the alternative to a moral code that is absolute and exists regardless of the person considering it which is what  isin  refers to, but not necessarily what religious ethics consists of is, by its nature, impersonal.  by comparison, i would guess that almost no one who has a purely secular basis for their morality could separate their morality from their personal perspective. they may think something is wrong, but they will recognize that as their personal opinion.  outside of a totalitarian society, where the formation of opinions is heavily molested/distorted, there is no secular equivalent to doing something because god has declared it wrong which is kind of the point.  i am not exactly sure why you are bringing  isalvation  into this, i just literally do not see where that comes from.  multiple religious texts are very explicit in labeling homosexuality a sin and advocating violent punishment for it that much is self consistent and explicitly religious.  does that really have any bearing on what op was talking about ? could someone living in jerusalem be unaware of the concept of sin ? saying everyone has done something wrong is not toleration, it is judgement.  yes, some people hold this religious view, but that does not mean opposing religious views ca not be said to motivate violence.
so i was arguing with a friend of mine about this recently and here is my main reasoning behind this view.  0: assuming they have already launched their entire arsenal at us there most likely nothing we could do to stop the missiles from destroying us.  this essentially means we have lost at this point and there is nothing we can do about it.  to launch the nukes at that point becomes an act of revenge accomplishes absolutely nothing for anyone.  0: to launch these nukes hurts innocent people in whatever country attacked us who likely had no choice in the launches and causes us to sink down to the level that the agressing country sits at.  0: returning fire almost certainly bears the promise of environmental collapse and in doing so dooms everyone on the planet as well as billions of species of plants and animals.  if we do not launch and instead let ourselves be hit we still have the possibility of saving the world entire.  if i remember any of my other points i will edit them into the main post.   #  assuming they have already launched their entire arsenal at us there most likely nothing we could do to stop the missiles from destroying us.   #  this essentially means we have lost at this point and there is nothing we can do about it.   #  first of all, it is  highly  unlikely that there will be zero warning of an attack before it happens.  there are spies, sensors, and satellites in place that report back to the us any information regarding the deployment of nuclear weapons.  this essentially means we have lost at this point and there is nothing we can do about it.  no.  the us has been researching and developing means of defending itself for decades.  you can read all about it by reading the wiki for the strategic defence initiative.  URL in particular, there is a massive missile defence program URL in place to defend against the brunt of such an attack.  some missiles would probably get through, but it is unlikely that the us would automatically lose.   #  the mad strategy relies on your precommitment to kill them too being credible, so that they are at least worried enough about the possibility that you will do it to not want to take the risk.   #  i present to you newcomb is problem URL why is newcomb is relevant here ? because everyone else, right now, is playing predictor with whether or not the us  really would  launch those nukes if they launched nukes at the us.  if they predict that you would react in the way you described, then it is better for them to launch nukes, since they get to remove the us for free.  if they predict that you are a madman who will nuke them anyway and hold to your precommitment URL even when the situation turns such that it is slightly disadvantageous for you to do so, then they will hold back because their choices become  nuke and we also die  or  not nuke and we stay alive  instead of  nuke and win  or  not nuke and eh .  the mad strategy relies on your precommitment to kill them too being credible, so that they are at least worried enough about the possibility that you will do it to not want to take the risk.  if they know that you are thinking in the way that you explain, then they might launch the nukes anyway,  regardless of whether someone later convinces you to launch them  and by then, obviously, it is too late and everyone dies .  you are very much correct that if you are dropped in there out of nowhere, it is better not to launch once you are causally disconnected from their launching of the missile.  however, since you said you are  in charge of it ,  the fact that you are the kind of person who will end up reasoning in this manner is what caused them to launch the missiles in the first place , in a very real way, thus you do not want in that position to have someone who would be the kind of person to reason in this manner about the problem.  the study of complicated multiplayer situations like this is called game theory URL which might be of interest to you considering the points you have made and the fact that you brought this up on cmv.   #  it is totally theoretical when it comes to the question of how many nukes would make it through anyway, but there is always the possibility that we could stop some, and a portion of the us population would be protected.   #  you are right in a few ways, but ultimately wrong.  for the sake of clarity, let is just assume we are talking about the us and russia.  first, there are millions of innocent people that would be killed in a retaliatory strike.  there are, however, millions of innocents being killed in the initial russian strike, and do not they deserve justice ? second, both the us and russia have defenses designed to intercept and destroy incoming missiles.  it is totally theoretical when it comes to the question of how many nukes would make it through anyway, but there is always the possibility that we could stop some, and a portion of the us population would be protected.  would not you want to be fighting back launching retaliatory strikes in order to keep them alive ? third, and probably most importantly, is your 0rd point.  this reason is  exactly  why we would launch a retaliatory strike.  the russians know that even if they wipe out the entire us population, they wo not have a world to enjoy, because between their strike and our retaliation, the world would be ruined.  even if the us did not retaliate, earth would be pretty messed up.  that much radiation would cripple the environment worldwide, as the radiation slowly spreads to the rest of the world.  because both russia and the us know that any attack will result in no winner, there is no reason for either to attack.  this is called mad which i am sure you know, but for the sake of those who do not mutually assured destruction .  if for one second russia believed that we would not retaliate, then they would not hesitate to kill us.  the reason we are all still alive is  because  we are willing to kill everyone in russia.  fourth, keep in mind that if russia wanted to stop us from retaliating, they would have to hit us  everywhere , not just the continental us.  they would have to hit every base we have in europe and across the world, because if they did not, we would just send planes carrying nukes from those bases to wipe them out.   #  the survivors would be attacking russia in any way they could, as would the us military stationed across the globe this is where point 0 comes heavily into play .   #  fair enough about point 0.  point 0 explains why the launch would never happen in the first place, but assuming russia lost all logic and decided to attack anyway, points 0, 0, 0, and 0 still apply.  the important note with point 0 is that i am saying it is  not  a bluff.  we are not just posturing, we  have  to carry through with the promise of retaliation.  we do not just go,  well, darn it, you got us good, so we will just sit back and die now.   i would hardly call it petty to retaliate.  would it be petty for our allies to declare war on russia in the wake of this strike ? certainly not.  russia would have just violated pretty much every law of war and international treaty in existence.  a retaliatory strike by the us would just be the first strike in the wwiii match up of the rest of the world vs russia.  also, if i were one of the people that are saved by our defense systems, i would sure as heck want to be retaliating.  it is not like russia would call it quits after the initial strike, and neither would the survivors of that strike which would be quite a lot of people, given the size of the us is defense against icbms .  the survivors would be attacking russia in any way they could, as would the us military stationed across the globe this is where point 0 comes heavily into play .  point 0 still applies, because if you are an operator in a missile silo, you know they are going to target you, so who cares if you die with your morals or not ? you are dead anyway, may as well get the bastards who killed you.  it is easy to say that we should take the moral high ground, or that it would be petty to further destroy the world, but let is be honest, if someone launches a nuclear attack big enough to wipe out the us, they have already destroyed the world.  killing them in a retaliatory strike might actually be more humane than letting them die slowly in the slow radioactive death of planet earth.   #  to you it really does not matter whether you push the button or not.   #  to you it really does not matter whether you push the button or not.  so there is no more reason  not  to push it than there is  to  push it.  for you personally, it comes down to whether or not you want revenge.  is it petty to want revenge for your murder ? i do not think so.  plenty of people go to court seeking justice for the murder of a loved one, and that is not petty.  as for everyone else and your country, launching the missiles could certainly save american lives.  by stopping the enemy is ability to attack, you are potentially saving lives of millions of your countrymen.  remember, your missile is not aimed at the biggest population of russian citizens, it is aimed at a military target.  yes, civilians will die, but the missile is purpose is not to kill as many people as possible, it is to neutralize an enemy target.  there seems to be a misconception that russia and the us is nuclear arsenals are designed to or aimed at killing as many people as possible.  this is not the case.  rather, they are designed and aimed to eliminate as many military targets as possible.  this will result in many millions of civilian casualties and devastation of environments earth wide, but that is a side effect, not the target.
working in family law, i meet a lot of men facing divorce who feel no obligation to support their ex.  you also hear a lot of mens rights activists bemoan the concept of alimony as unjust.  they usually cite statistics showing how often men are the ones disproportionately ordered to pay support.  i do not give much merit to these claims.  what most of these men do not understand is that marriage in the eyes of the law is primarily an economic partnership.  when a couple marries, they voluntarily agree to equally share resources produced during the marriage.  the traditional view of marriage has the wife contribute via domestic labor, i. e.  cooking, cleaning, childcare, etc.  first off, i think it is important to realize that this labor has real economic value.  these tasks need to be done in order for either spouse to succeed in another professional setting.  the counter argument you often hear from divorced men is that their wives refused to work, and also refused to perform these domestic duties, and thus should not be entitled to support.  while this may not seem fair, the reality is that this outcome is still produced by the man is  choice  to marry someone with no professional prospects, and no willingness to perform domestic duties.  in other words, the man. entered into a bad economic partnership and must now shoulder the costs.  in many cases, whether the man realizes it or not, there was a reason why they chose to marry who they did.  maybe it was not directly economic, maybe it was for sexual attraction, emotional support, or social status.  i would argue that even these factors have economic value, even if it is difficult to quantify.  when you develop a career, you pour your soul into your work, and everything about your lifestyle affects your success.  so regardless of whether the individual got what they thought they would from their spouse, their spouse still had an inexorable affect on their career and thus has earned a stake in it.  i think this is fundamentally fair, in my opinion.  finally, i want to point out that there is a distinction between temporary and permanent spousal support.  temporary support is usually close to a 0, flat calculation intended to maintain the parties lifestyle until permanent support is determined.  permanent support is always a lower amount, intended to provide the supported party enough time to become self sufficient through education, job training, etc.  in longer marriages, there might not be a termination date, for example if the spouse is close to retirement or the relationship lasted so long that a permanent stake in the others career is warranted. but in most cases, there is a termination date involved.  i can concede that it is more than possible for men to become subject to unfair rulings.  however, i do not think unfair outcomes necessarily reflect unfair principles.  usually, when something unfair happens it is because the case was not handled properly by the parties or the judge; this is not the fault of the laws themselves, or the principles behind them.   #  what most of these men do not understand is that marriage in the eyes of the law is primarily an economic partnership.   #  when a couple marries, they voluntarily agree to equally share resources produced during the marriage.   # when a couple marries, they voluntarily agree to equally share resources produced during the marriage.  in other words, the man. entered into a bad economic partnership and must now shoulder the costs.  i skipped the paragraph between them because it was not relevant.  from my understanding, you and the law see marriage as a partnership.  with a partnership often comes with a contract, in which all parties agree to do tasks x, y, and z.  when one party does not procure what was entailed in the contract, does the other not have the right to forgo their end of the bargain ? so regardless of whether the individual got what they thought they would from their spouse, their spouse still had an inexorable effect on their career and thus has earned a stake in it.  i think this is fundamentally fair, in my opinion.  if you are the only one investing, should you not be the only one who is allowed to reap benefits ? the spouse, assuming they have no professional prospects, has not added value to your life portfolio.  why should they be rewarded for it ?  #  but the idea that because their work contributed to the economic value of their partner is career they are entitled to a share of it contravenes basic principles of human autonomy.   #  your argument is very good for why spouses should get equitable division of the marital property, but not so good for why they should get post marital alimony.  i accept that nonworking spouses do, or at least can legally be presumed to, provide valuable consideration of some sort to their spouse, whether it be in the form of household labor, companionship, sex, status, etc.  their reward for this is that they are entitled to half of the fruits of the marriage.  every penny saved and asset acquired during the marital period gets chopped right down the middle, unless the parties agree otherwise, no matter how inequitable the earnings.  but the idea that because their work contributed to the economic value of their partner is career they are entitled to a share of it contravenes basic principles of human autonomy.  suppose you are a 0/0 partner in a law firm, and your work there earns you significant distinction and notoriety.  at some point, the new work at the firm dries up and you decide to strike out on your own, and dissolve the partnership, with your partner taking any old casework.  is your partner, who provided significant support to your growing your career and professional capacity, entitled to any of your future solo earnings ?  #  see the following examples 0.  i already am a high earning doctor, and i make $0k a year.   #  not exactly, because alimony is about the spouse is dependence on your income, rather than their contribution to its development.  see the following examples 0.  i already am a high earning doctor, and i make $0k a year.  i get married.  0 years later, i am still making $0k a year plus inflation and we divorce.  0.  i am starting my first year of med school.  i am in school for 0 years, residency for 0 more, and then working as a doctor for $0k a year for 0 more years.  we divorce after 0 years married.  in both cases, the doctor is going to owe about the same alimony, but in only one case did the doctor develop a marital asset in the form of an education.   #  they might decide a lump sum is appropriate, but usually they will fallback on a guideline proportion of income with a fixed termination date.   #  actually, in divorce negotiations people offer and accept lump sum buyouts all the time.  it really depends on what the parties can afford and what they can agree to.  in fact, i think it is worth mentioning that the whole process is usually handled through negotiations outside the court.  it is only when the negotiations break down that the court is asked to resolve the issue.  also, the court has pretty broad discretion regarding how they settle things.  they might decide a lump sum is appropriate, but usually they will fallback on a guideline proportion of income with a fixed termination date.   #  alimony is a pension plan for non working spouses.   #  i am having a hard time following your logic.  you say that domestic labor has value and therefore, if someone is providing domestic labor to you then it is fair to provide some type of support financial to them.  i am not sure what this theory has to do with alimony.  no one argues that providing financial support while receiving domestic labor is  wrong .  the problem with alimony is that the domestic labor is no longer being provided but the financial support is required to continue.  alimony is a pension plan for non working spouses.
working in family law, i meet a lot of men facing divorce who feel no obligation to support their ex.  you also hear a lot of mens rights activists bemoan the concept of alimony as unjust.  they usually cite statistics showing how often men are the ones disproportionately ordered to pay support.  i do not give much merit to these claims.  what most of these men do not understand is that marriage in the eyes of the law is primarily an economic partnership.  when a couple marries, they voluntarily agree to equally share resources produced during the marriage.  the traditional view of marriage has the wife contribute via domestic labor, i. e.  cooking, cleaning, childcare, etc.  first off, i think it is important to realize that this labor has real economic value.  these tasks need to be done in order for either spouse to succeed in another professional setting.  the counter argument you often hear from divorced men is that their wives refused to work, and also refused to perform these domestic duties, and thus should not be entitled to support.  while this may not seem fair, the reality is that this outcome is still produced by the man is  choice  to marry someone with no professional prospects, and no willingness to perform domestic duties.  in other words, the man. entered into a bad economic partnership and must now shoulder the costs.  in many cases, whether the man realizes it or not, there was a reason why they chose to marry who they did.  maybe it was not directly economic, maybe it was for sexual attraction, emotional support, or social status.  i would argue that even these factors have economic value, even if it is difficult to quantify.  when you develop a career, you pour your soul into your work, and everything about your lifestyle affects your success.  so regardless of whether the individual got what they thought they would from their spouse, their spouse still had an inexorable affect on their career and thus has earned a stake in it.  i think this is fundamentally fair, in my opinion.  finally, i want to point out that there is a distinction between temporary and permanent spousal support.  temporary support is usually close to a 0, flat calculation intended to maintain the parties lifestyle until permanent support is determined.  permanent support is always a lower amount, intended to provide the supported party enough time to become self sufficient through education, job training, etc.  in longer marriages, there might not be a termination date, for example if the spouse is close to retirement or the relationship lasted so long that a permanent stake in the others career is warranted. but in most cases, there is a termination date involved.  i can concede that it is more than possible for men to become subject to unfair rulings.  however, i do not think unfair outcomes necessarily reflect unfair principles.  usually, when something unfair happens it is because the case was not handled properly by the parties or the judge; this is not the fault of the laws themselves, or the principles behind them.   #  when you develop a career, you pour your soul into your work, and everything about your lifestyle affects your success.   #  so regardless of whether the individual got what they thought they would from their spouse, their spouse still had an inexorable effect on their career and thus has earned a stake in it.   # when a couple marries, they voluntarily agree to equally share resources produced during the marriage.  in other words, the man. entered into a bad economic partnership and must now shoulder the costs.  i skipped the paragraph between them because it was not relevant.  from my understanding, you and the law see marriage as a partnership.  with a partnership often comes with a contract, in which all parties agree to do tasks x, y, and z.  when one party does not procure what was entailed in the contract, does the other not have the right to forgo their end of the bargain ? so regardless of whether the individual got what they thought they would from their spouse, their spouse still had an inexorable effect on their career and thus has earned a stake in it.  i think this is fundamentally fair, in my opinion.  if you are the only one investing, should you not be the only one who is allowed to reap benefits ? the spouse, assuming they have no professional prospects, has not added value to your life portfolio.  why should they be rewarded for it ?  #  their reward for this is that they are entitled to half of the fruits of the marriage.   #  your argument is very good for why spouses should get equitable division of the marital property, but not so good for why they should get post marital alimony.  i accept that nonworking spouses do, or at least can legally be presumed to, provide valuable consideration of some sort to their spouse, whether it be in the form of household labor, companionship, sex, status, etc.  their reward for this is that they are entitled to half of the fruits of the marriage.  every penny saved and asset acquired during the marital period gets chopped right down the middle, unless the parties agree otherwise, no matter how inequitable the earnings.  but the idea that because their work contributed to the economic value of their partner is career they are entitled to a share of it contravenes basic principles of human autonomy.  suppose you are a 0/0 partner in a law firm, and your work there earns you significant distinction and notoriety.  at some point, the new work at the firm dries up and you decide to strike out on your own, and dissolve the partnership, with your partner taking any old casework.  is your partner, who provided significant support to your growing your career and professional capacity, entitled to any of your future solo earnings ?  #  not exactly, because alimony is about the spouse is dependence on your income, rather than their contribution to its development.   #  not exactly, because alimony is about the spouse is dependence on your income, rather than their contribution to its development.  see the following examples 0.  i already am a high earning doctor, and i make $0k a year.  i get married.  0 years later, i am still making $0k a year plus inflation and we divorce.  0.  i am starting my first year of med school.  i am in school for 0 years, residency for 0 more, and then working as a doctor for $0k a year for 0 more years.  we divorce after 0 years married.  in both cases, the doctor is going to owe about the same alimony, but in only one case did the doctor develop a marital asset in the form of an education.   #  also, the court has pretty broad discretion regarding how they settle things.   #  actually, in divorce negotiations people offer and accept lump sum buyouts all the time.  it really depends on what the parties can afford and what they can agree to.  in fact, i think it is worth mentioning that the whole process is usually handled through negotiations outside the court.  it is only when the negotiations break down that the court is asked to resolve the issue.  also, the court has pretty broad discretion regarding how they settle things.  they might decide a lump sum is appropriate, but usually they will fallback on a guideline proportion of income with a fixed termination date.   #  no one argues that providing financial support while receiving domestic labor is  wrong .   #  i am having a hard time following your logic.  you say that domestic labor has value and therefore, if someone is providing domestic labor to you then it is fair to provide some type of support financial to them.  i am not sure what this theory has to do with alimony.  no one argues that providing financial support while receiving domestic labor is  wrong .  the problem with alimony is that the domestic labor is no longer being provided but the financial support is required to continue.  alimony is a pension plan for non working spouses.
working in family law, i meet a lot of men facing divorce who feel no obligation to support their ex.  you also hear a lot of mens rights activists bemoan the concept of alimony as unjust.  they usually cite statistics showing how often men are the ones disproportionately ordered to pay support.  i do not give much merit to these claims.  what most of these men do not understand is that marriage in the eyes of the law is primarily an economic partnership.  when a couple marries, they voluntarily agree to equally share resources produced during the marriage.  the traditional view of marriage has the wife contribute via domestic labor, i. e.  cooking, cleaning, childcare, etc.  first off, i think it is important to realize that this labor has real economic value.  these tasks need to be done in order for either spouse to succeed in another professional setting.  the counter argument you often hear from divorced men is that their wives refused to work, and also refused to perform these domestic duties, and thus should not be entitled to support.  while this may not seem fair, the reality is that this outcome is still produced by the man is  choice  to marry someone with no professional prospects, and no willingness to perform domestic duties.  in other words, the man. entered into a bad economic partnership and must now shoulder the costs.  in many cases, whether the man realizes it or not, there was a reason why they chose to marry who they did.  maybe it was not directly economic, maybe it was for sexual attraction, emotional support, or social status.  i would argue that even these factors have economic value, even if it is difficult to quantify.  when you develop a career, you pour your soul into your work, and everything about your lifestyle affects your success.  so regardless of whether the individual got what they thought they would from their spouse, their spouse still had an inexorable affect on their career and thus has earned a stake in it.  i think this is fundamentally fair, in my opinion.  finally, i want to point out that there is a distinction between temporary and permanent spousal support.  temporary support is usually close to a 0, flat calculation intended to maintain the parties lifestyle until permanent support is determined.  permanent support is always a lower amount, intended to provide the supported party enough time to become self sufficient through education, job training, etc.  in longer marriages, there might not be a termination date, for example if the spouse is close to retirement or the relationship lasted so long that a permanent stake in the others career is warranted. but in most cases, there is a termination date involved.  i can concede that it is more than possible for men to become subject to unfair rulings.  however, i do not think unfair outcomes necessarily reflect unfair principles.  usually, when something unfair happens it is because the case was not handled properly by the parties or the judge; this is not the fault of the laws themselves, or the principles behind them.   #  what most of these men do not understand is that marriage in the eyes of the law is primarily an economic partnership.   #  when a couple marries, they voluntarily agree to equally share resources produced during the marriage.   #  your op is a response to men who do not feel obligated to support their ex.  when a couple marries, they voluntarily agree to equally share resources produced during the marriage.  cooking, cleaning, childcare, etc.  first off, i think it is important to realize that this labor has real economic value.  these tasks need to be done in order for either spouse to succeed in another professional setting.  you seem to have assumed that there is an implicit agreement that the man would be the breadwinner, and the wife would perform this domestic work.  your entire op is based around this idea.  if this is true, then you could make an argument for forcing the man to make payments to his wife, but by the same logic, the woman should be forced to do some domestic work.  but now you are defending a presumption that this work is a 0/0 split.   #  is your partner, who provided significant support to your growing your career and professional capacity, entitled to any of your future solo earnings ?  #  your argument is very good for why spouses should get equitable division of the marital property, but not so good for why they should get post marital alimony.  i accept that nonworking spouses do, or at least can legally be presumed to, provide valuable consideration of some sort to their spouse, whether it be in the form of household labor, companionship, sex, status, etc.  their reward for this is that they are entitled to half of the fruits of the marriage.  every penny saved and asset acquired during the marital period gets chopped right down the middle, unless the parties agree otherwise, no matter how inequitable the earnings.  but the idea that because their work contributed to the economic value of their partner is career they are entitled to a share of it contravenes basic principles of human autonomy.  suppose you are a 0/0 partner in a law firm, and your work there earns you significant distinction and notoriety.  at some point, the new work at the firm dries up and you decide to strike out on your own, and dissolve the partnership, with your partner taking any old casework.  is your partner, who provided significant support to your growing your career and professional capacity, entitled to any of your future solo earnings ?  #  in both cases, the doctor is going to owe about the same alimony, but in only one case did the doctor develop a marital asset in the form of an education.   #  not exactly, because alimony is about the spouse is dependence on your income, rather than their contribution to its development.  see the following examples 0.  i already am a high earning doctor, and i make $0k a year.  i get married.  0 years later, i am still making $0k a year plus inflation and we divorce.  0.  i am starting my first year of med school.  i am in school for 0 years, residency for 0 more, and then working as a doctor for $0k a year for 0 more years.  we divorce after 0 years married.  in both cases, the doctor is going to owe about the same alimony, but in only one case did the doctor develop a marital asset in the form of an education.   #  it really depends on what the parties can afford and what they can agree to.   #  actually, in divorce negotiations people offer and accept lump sum buyouts all the time.  it really depends on what the parties can afford and what they can agree to.  in fact, i think it is worth mentioning that the whole process is usually handled through negotiations outside the court.  it is only when the negotiations break down that the court is asked to resolve the issue.  also, the court has pretty broad discretion regarding how they settle things.  they might decide a lump sum is appropriate, but usually they will fallback on a guideline proportion of income with a fixed termination date.   #  i am not sure what this theory has to do with alimony.   #  i am having a hard time following your logic.  you say that domestic labor has value and therefore, if someone is providing domestic labor to you then it is fair to provide some type of support financial to them.  i am not sure what this theory has to do with alimony.  no one argues that providing financial support while receiving domestic labor is  wrong .  the problem with alimony is that the domestic labor is no longer being provided but the financial support is required to continue.  alimony is a pension plan for non working spouses.
working in family law, i meet a lot of men facing divorce who feel no obligation to support their ex.  you also hear a lot of mens rights activists bemoan the concept of alimony as unjust.  they usually cite statistics showing how often men are the ones disproportionately ordered to pay support.  i do not give much merit to these claims.  what most of these men do not understand is that marriage in the eyes of the law is primarily an economic partnership.  when a couple marries, they voluntarily agree to equally share resources produced during the marriage.  the traditional view of marriage has the wife contribute via domestic labor, i. e.  cooking, cleaning, childcare, etc.  first off, i think it is important to realize that this labor has real economic value.  these tasks need to be done in order for either spouse to succeed in another professional setting.  the counter argument you often hear from divorced men is that their wives refused to work, and also refused to perform these domestic duties, and thus should not be entitled to support.  while this may not seem fair, the reality is that this outcome is still produced by the man is  choice  to marry someone with no professional prospects, and no willingness to perform domestic duties.  in other words, the man. entered into a bad economic partnership and must now shoulder the costs.  in many cases, whether the man realizes it or not, there was a reason why they chose to marry who they did.  maybe it was not directly economic, maybe it was for sexual attraction, emotional support, or social status.  i would argue that even these factors have economic value, even if it is difficult to quantify.  when you develop a career, you pour your soul into your work, and everything about your lifestyle affects your success.  so regardless of whether the individual got what they thought they would from their spouse, their spouse still had an inexorable affect on their career and thus has earned a stake in it.  i think this is fundamentally fair, in my opinion.  finally, i want to point out that there is a distinction between temporary and permanent spousal support.  temporary support is usually close to a 0, flat calculation intended to maintain the parties lifestyle until permanent support is determined.  permanent support is always a lower amount, intended to provide the supported party enough time to become self sufficient through education, job training, etc.  in longer marriages, there might not be a termination date, for example if the spouse is close to retirement or the relationship lasted so long that a permanent stake in the others career is warranted. but in most cases, there is a termination date involved.  i can concede that it is more than possible for men to become subject to unfair rulings.  however, i do not think unfair outcomes necessarily reflect unfair principles.  usually, when something unfair happens it is because the case was not handled properly by the parties or the judge; this is not the fault of the laws themselves, or the principles behind them.   #  when a couple marries, they voluntarily agree to equally share resources produced during the marriage.   #  so should not the domestic labor produced be shared as well ?  # so should not the domestic labor produced be shared as well ? if the situation is such that the male member makes significantly more money by working a higher paying job, why is not he entitled to all of the money he spent back ? i do not think anyone is entitled to their money or labor back after the fact.  in other words, the man. entered into a bad economic partnership and must now shoulder the costs.  why ca not the woman shoulder the cost of labor ? again, it seems inconsistent for the man to put money in and not get anything back but the woman can get everything back.  i think this is fundamentally fair, in my opinion.  how much of a stake ? so much so that it outweighs literally everything and exceeds the husband is contribution so much so that he owes her even after the marriage ? i find the premise a stretch to begin with, but to say this is fair in any way seems ridiculous.  i feel like this blows the labor value argument out of the water.  on what planet is the cost of domestic labor this high ? that is not to say i disagree with the general idea, but it seems really slimy to justify that as domestic labor costs.  it happens every day, just like the problem with welfare, people are often times fully contempt with the free money and have no incentive to better themselves.  its not always the recipient is fault either; things like alimony and welfare are usually affected by their person income.  if they get an entry level job, for example, they might be working a full time job for only slightly more than what they are receiving after considering costs such as transportation, childcare, etc.   #  your argument is very good for why spouses should get equitable division of the marital property, but not so good for why they should get post marital alimony.   #  your argument is very good for why spouses should get equitable division of the marital property, but not so good for why they should get post marital alimony.  i accept that nonworking spouses do, or at least can legally be presumed to, provide valuable consideration of some sort to their spouse, whether it be in the form of household labor, companionship, sex, status, etc.  their reward for this is that they are entitled to half of the fruits of the marriage.  every penny saved and asset acquired during the marital period gets chopped right down the middle, unless the parties agree otherwise, no matter how inequitable the earnings.  but the idea that because their work contributed to the economic value of their partner is career they are entitled to a share of it contravenes basic principles of human autonomy.  suppose you are a 0/0 partner in a law firm, and your work there earns you significant distinction and notoriety.  at some point, the new work at the firm dries up and you decide to strike out on your own, and dissolve the partnership, with your partner taking any old casework.  is your partner, who provided significant support to your growing your career and professional capacity, entitled to any of your future solo earnings ?  #  in both cases, the doctor is going to owe about the same alimony, but in only one case did the doctor develop a marital asset in the form of an education.   #  not exactly, because alimony is about the spouse is dependence on your income, rather than their contribution to its development.  see the following examples 0.  i already am a high earning doctor, and i make $0k a year.  i get married.  0 years later, i am still making $0k a year plus inflation and we divorce.  0.  i am starting my first year of med school.  i am in school for 0 years, residency for 0 more, and then working as a doctor for $0k a year for 0 more years.  we divorce after 0 years married.  in both cases, the doctor is going to owe about the same alimony, but in only one case did the doctor develop a marital asset in the form of an education.   #  it is only when the negotiations break down that the court is asked to resolve the issue.   #  actually, in divorce negotiations people offer and accept lump sum buyouts all the time.  it really depends on what the parties can afford and what they can agree to.  in fact, i think it is worth mentioning that the whole process is usually handled through negotiations outside the court.  it is only when the negotiations break down that the court is asked to resolve the issue.  also, the court has pretty broad discretion regarding how they settle things.  they might decide a lump sum is appropriate, but usually they will fallback on a guideline proportion of income with a fixed termination date.   #  alimony is a pension plan for non working spouses.   #  i am having a hard time following your logic.  you say that domestic labor has value and therefore, if someone is providing domestic labor to you then it is fair to provide some type of support financial to them.  i am not sure what this theory has to do with alimony.  no one argues that providing financial support while receiving domestic labor is  wrong .  the problem with alimony is that the domestic labor is no longer being provided but the financial support is required to continue.  alimony is a pension plan for non working spouses.
working in family law, i meet a lot of men facing divorce who feel no obligation to support their ex.  you also hear a lot of mens rights activists bemoan the concept of alimony as unjust.  they usually cite statistics showing how often men are the ones disproportionately ordered to pay support.  i do not give much merit to these claims.  what most of these men do not understand is that marriage in the eyes of the law is primarily an economic partnership.  when a couple marries, they voluntarily agree to equally share resources produced during the marriage.  the traditional view of marriage has the wife contribute via domestic labor, i. e.  cooking, cleaning, childcare, etc.  first off, i think it is important to realize that this labor has real economic value.  these tasks need to be done in order for either spouse to succeed in another professional setting.  the counter argument you often hear from divorced men is that their wives refused to work, and also refused to perform these domestic duties, and thus should not be entitled to support.  while this may not seem fair, the reality is that this outcome is still produced by the man is  choice  to marry someone with no professional prospects, and no willingness to perform domestic duties.  in other words, the man. entered into a bad economic partnership and must now shoulder the costs.  in many cases, whether the man realizes it or not, there was a reason why they chose to marry who they did.  maybe it was not directly economic, maybe it was for sexual attraction, emotional support, or social status.  i would argue that even these factors have economic value, even if it is difficult to quantify.  when you develop a career, you pour your soul into your work, and everything about your lifestyle affects your success.  so regardless of whether the individual got what they thought they would from their spouse, their spouse still had an inexorable affect on their career and thus has earned a stake in it.  i think this is fundamentally fair, in my opinion.  finally, i want to point out that there is a distinction between temporary and permanent spousal support.  temporary support is usually close to a 0, flat calculation intended to maintain the parties lifestyle until permanent support is determined.  permanent support is always a lower amount, intended to provide the supported party enough time to become self sufficient through education, job training, etc.  in longer marriages, there might not be a termination date, for example if the spouse is close to retirement or the relationship lasted so long that a permanent stake in the others career is warranted. but in most cases, there is a termination date involved.  i can concede that it is more than possible for men to become subject to unfair rulings.  however, i do not think unfair outcomes necessarily reflect unfair principles.  usually, when something unfair happens it is because the case was not handled properly by the parties or the judge; this is not the fault of the laws themselves, or the principles behind them.   #  so regardless of whether the individual got what they thought they would from their spouse, their spouse still had an inexorable affect on their career and thus has earned a stake in it.   #  i think this is fundamentally fair, in my opinion.   # so should not the domestic labor produced be shared as well ? if the situation is such that the male member makes significantly more money by working a higher paying job, why is not he entitled to all of the money he spent back ? i do not think anyone is entitled to their money or labor back after the fact.  in other words, the man. entered into a bad economic partnership and must now shoulder the costs.  why ca not the woman shoulder the cost of labor ? again, it seems inconsistent for the man to put money in and not get anything back but the woman can get everything back.  i think this is fundamentally fair, in my opinion.  how much of a stake ? so much so that it outweighs literally everything and exceeds the husband is contribution so much so that he owes her even after the marriage ? i find the premise a stretch to begin with, but to say this is fair in any way seems ridiculous.  i feel like this blows the labor value argument out of the water.  on what planet is the cost of domestic labor this high ? that is not to say i disagree with the general idea, but it seems really slimy to justify that as domestic labor costs.  it happens every day, just like the problem with welfare, people are often times fully contempt with the free money and have no incentive to better themselves.  its not always the recipient is fault either; things like alimony and welfare are usually affected by their person income.  if they get an entry level job, for example, they might be working a full time job for only slightly more than what they are receiving after considering costs such as transportation, childcare, etc.   #  is your partner, who provided significant support to your growing your career and professional capacity, entitled to any of your future solo earnings ?  #  your argument is very good for why spouses should get equitable division of the marital property, but not so good for why they should get post marital alimony.  i accept that nonworking spouses do, or at least can legally be presumed to, provide valuable consideration of some sort to their spouse, whether it be in the form of household labor, companionship, sex, status, etc.  their reward for this is that they are entitled to half of the fruits of the marriage.  every penny saved and asset acquired during the marital period gets chopped right down the middle, unless the parties agree otherwise, no matter how inequitable the earnings.  but the idea that because their work contributed to the economic value of their partner is career they are entitled to a share of it contravenes basic principles of human autonomy.  suppose you are a 0/0 partner in a law firm, and your work there earns you significant distinction and notoriety.  at some point, the new work at the firm dries up and you decide to strike out on your own, and dissolve the partnership, with your partner taking any old casework.  is your partner, who provided significant support to your growing your career and professional capacity, entitled to any of your future solo earnings ?  #  0 years later, i am still making $0k a year plus inflation and we divorce.   #  not exactly, because alimony is about the spouse is dependence on your income, rather than their contribution to its development.  see the following examples 0.  i already am a high earning doctor, and i make $0k a year.  i get married.  0 years later, i am still making $0k a year plus inflation and we divorce.  0.  i am starting my first year of med school.  i am in school for 0 years, residency for 0 more, and then working as a doctor for $0k a year for 0 more years.  we divorce after 0 years married.  in both cases, the doctor is going to owe about the same alimony, but in only one case did the doctor develop a marital asset in the form of an education.   #  they might decide a lump sum is appropriate, but usually they will fallback on a guideline proportion of income with a fixed termination date.   #  actually, in divorce negotiations people offer and accept lump sum buyouts all the time.  it really depends on what the parties can afford and what they can agree to.  in fact, i think it is worth mentioning that the whole process is usually handled through negotiations outside the court.  it is only when the negotiations break down that the court is asked to resolve the issue.  also, the court has pretty broad discretion regarding how they settle things.  they might decide a lump sum is appropriate, but usually they will fallback on a guideline proportion of income with a fixed termination date.   #  you say that domestic labor has value and therefore, if someone is providing domestic labor to you then it is fair to provide some type of support financial to them.   #  i am having a hard time following your logic.  you say that domestic labor has value and therefore, if someone is providing domestic labor to you then it is fair to provide some type of support financial to them.  i am not sure what this theory has to do with alimony.  no one argues that providing financial support while receiving domestic labor is  wrong .  the problem with alimony is that the domestic labor is no longer being provided but the financial support is required to continue.  alimony is a pension plan for non working spouses.
working in family law, i meet a lot of men facing divorce who feel no obligation to support their ex.  you also hear a lot of mens rights activists bemoan the concept of alimony as unjust.  they usually cite statistics showing how often men are the ones disproportionately ordered to pay support.  i do not give much merit to these claims.  what most of these men do not understand is that marriage in the eyes of the law is primarily an economic partnership.  when a couple marries, they voluntarily agree to equally share resources produced during the marriage.  the traditional view of marriage has the wife contribute via domestic labor, i. e.  cooking, cleaning, childcare, etc.  first off, i think it is important to realize that this labor has real economic value.  these tasks need to be done in order for either spouse to succeed in another professional setting.  the counter argument you often hear from divorced men is that their wives refused to work, and also refused to perform these domestic duties, and thus should not be entitled to support.  while this may not seem fair, the reality is that this outcome is still produced by the man is  choice  to marry someone with no professional prospects, and no willingness to perform domestic duties.  in other words, the man. entered into a bad economic partnership and must now shoulder the costs.  in many cases, whether the man realizes it or not, there was a reason why they chose to marry who they did.  maybe it was not directly economic, maybe it was for sexual attraction, emotional support, or social status.  i would argue that even these factors have economic value, even if it is difficult to quantify.  when you develop a career, you pour your soul into your work, and everything about your lifestyle affects your success.  so regardless of whether the individual got what they thought they would from their spouse, their spouse still had an inexorable affect on their career and thus has earned a stake in it.  i think this is fundamentally fair, in my opinion.  finally, i want to point out that there is a distinction between temporary and permanent spousal support.  temporary support is usually close to a 0, flat calculation intended to maintain the parties lifestyle until permanent support is determined.  permanent support is always a lower amount, intended to provide the supported party enough time to become self sufficient through education, job training, etc.  in longer marriages, there might not be a termination date, for example if the spouse is close to retirement or the relationship lasted so long that a permanent stake in the others career is warranted. but in most cases, there is a termination date involved.  i can concede that it is more than possible for men to become subject to unfair rulings.  however, i do not think unfair outcomes necessarily reflect unfair principles.  usually, when something unfair happens it is because the case was not handled properly by the parties or the judge; this is not the fault of the laws themselves, or the principles behind them.   #  temporary support is usually close to a 0, flat calculation intended to maintain the parties lifestyle until permanent support is determined.   #  i feel like this blows the labor value argument out of the water.   # so should not the domestic labor produced be shared as well ? if the situation is such that the male member makes significantly more money by working a higher paying job, why is not he entitled to all of the money he spent back ? i do not think anyone is entitled to their money or labor back after the fact.  in other words, the man. entered into a bad economic partnership and must now shoulder the costs.  why ca not the woman shoulder the cost of labor ? again, it seems inconsistent for the man to put money in and not get anything back but the woman can get everything back.  i think this is fundamentally fair, in my opinion.  how much of a stake ? so much so that it outweighs literally everything and exceeds the husband is contribution so much so that he owes her even after the marriage ? i find the premise a stretch to begin with, but to say this is fair in any way seems ridiculous.  i feel like this blows the labor value argument out of the water.  on what planet is the cost of domestic labor this high ? that is not to say i disagree with the general idea, but it seems really slimy to justify that as domestic labor costs.  it happens every day, just like the problem with welfare, people are often times fully contempt with the free money and have no incentive to better themselves.  its not always the recipient is fault either; things like alimony and welfare are usually affected by their person income.  if they get an entry level job, for example, they might be working a full time job for only slightly more than what they are receiving after considering costs such as transportation, childcare, etc.   #  is your partner, who provided significant support to your growing your career and professional capacity, entitled to any of your future solo earnings ?  #  your argument is very good for why spouses should get equitable division of the marital property, but not so good for why they should get post marital alimony.  i accept that nonworking spouses do, or at least can legally be presumed to, provide valuable consideration of some sort to their spouse, whether it be in the form of household labor, companionship, sex, status, etc.  their reward for this is that they are entitled to half of the fruits of the marriage.  every penny saved and asset acquired during the marital period gets chopped right down the middle, unless the parties agree otherwise, no matter how inequitable the earnings.  but the idea that because their work contributed to the economic value of their partner is career they are entitled to a share of it contravenes basic principles of human autonomy.  suppose you are a 0/0 partner in a law firm, and your work there earns you significant distinction and notoriety.  at some point, the new work at the firm dries up and you decide to strike out on your own, and dissolve the partnership, with your partner taking any old casework.  is your partner, who provided significant support to your growing your career and professional capacity, entitled to any of your future solo earnings ?  #  in both cases, the doctor is going to owe about the same alimony, but in only one case did the doctor develop a marital asset in the form of an education.   #  not exactly, because alimony is about the spouse is dependence on your income, rather than their contribution to its development.  see the following examples 0.  i already am a high earning doctor, and i make $0k a year.  i get married.  0 years later, i am still making $0k a year plus inflation and we divorce.  0.  i am starting my first year of med school.  i am in school for 0 years, residency for 0 more, and then working as a doctor for $0k a year for 0 more years.  we divorce after 0 years married.  in both cases, the doctor is going to owe about the same alimony, but in only one case did the doctor develop a marital asset in the form of an education.   #  in fact, i think it is worth mentioning that the whole process is usually handled through negotiations outside the court.   #  actually, in divorce negotiations people offer and accept lump sum buyouts all the time.  it really depends on what the parties can afford and what they can agree to.  in fact, i think it is worth mentioning that the whole process is usually handled through negotiations outside the court.  it is only when the negotiations break down that the court is asked to resolve the issue.  also, the court has pretty broad discretion regarding how they settle things.  they might decide a lump sum is appropriate, but usually they will fallback on a guideline proportion of income with a fixed termination date.   #  the problem with alimony is that the domestic labor is no longer being provided but the financial support is required to continue.   #  i am having a hard time following your logic.  you say that domestic labor has value and therefore, if someone is providing domestic labor to you then it is fair to provide some type of support financial to them.  i am not sure what this theory has to do with alimony.  no one argues that providing financial support while receiving domestic labor is  wrong .  the problem with alimony is that the domestic labor is no longer being provided but the financial support is required to continue.  alimony is a pension plan for non working spouses.
working in family law, i meet a lot of men facing divorce who feel no obligation to support their ex.  you also hear a lot of mens rights activists bemoan the concept of alimony as unjust.  they usually cite statistics showing how often men are the ones disproportionately ordered to pay support.  i do not give much merit to these claims.  what most of these men do not understand is that marriage in the eyes of the law is primarily an economic partnership.  when a couple marries, they voluntarily agree to equally share resources produced during the marriage.  the traditional view of marriage has the wife contribute via domestic labor, i. e.  cooking, cleaning, childcare, etc.  first off, i think it is important to realize that this labor has real economic value.  these tasks need to be done in order for either spouse to succeed in another professional setting.  the counter argument you often hear from divorced men is that their wives refused to work, and also refused to perform these domestic duties, and thus should not be entitled to support.  while this may not seem fair, the reality is that this outcome is still produced by the man is  choice  to marry someone with no professional prospects, and no willingness to perform domestic duties.  in other words, the man. entered into a bad economic partnership and must now shoulder the costs.  in many cases, whether the man realizes it or not, there was a reason why they chose to marry who they did.  maybe it was not directly economic, maybe it was for sexual attraction, emotional support, or social status.  i would argue that even these factors have economic value, even if it is difficult to quantify.  when you develop a career, you pour your soul into your work, and everything about your lifestyle affects your success.  so regardless of whether the individual got what they thought they would from their spouse, their spouse still had an inexorable affect on their career and thus has earned a stake in it.  i think this is fundamentally fair, in my opinion.  finally, i want to point out that there is a distinction between temporary and permanent spousal support.  temporary support is usually close to a 0, flat calculation intended to maintain the parties lifestyle until permanent support is determined.  permanent support is always a lower amount, intended to provide the supported party enough time to become self sufficient through education, job training, etc.  in longer marriages, there might not be a termination date, for example if the spouse is close to retirement or the relationship lasted so long that a permanent stake in the others career is warranted. but in most cases, there is a termination date involved.  i can concede that it is more than possible for men to become subject to unfair rulings.  however, i do not think unfair outcomes necessarily reflect unfair principles.  usually, when something unfair happens it is because the case was not handled properly by the parties or the judge; this is not the fault of the laws themselves, or the principles behind them.   #  i can concede that it is more than possible for men to become subject to unfair rulings.   #  it happens every day, just like the problem with welfare, people are often times fully contempt with the free money and have no incentive to better themselves.   # so should not the domestic labor produced be shared as well ? if the situation is such that the male member makes significantly more money by working a higher paying job, why is not he entitled to all of the money he spent back ? i do not think anyone is entitled to their money or labor back after the fact.  in other words, the man. entered into a bad economic partnership and must now shoulder the costs.  why ca not the woman shoulder the cost of labor ? again, it seems inconsistent for the man to put money in and not get anything back but the woman can get everything back.  i think this is fundamentally fair, in my opinion.  how much of a stake ? so much so that it outweighs literally everything and exceeds the husband is contribution so much so that he owes her even after the marriage ? i find the premise a stretch to begin with, but to say this is fair in any way seems ridiculous.  i feel like this blows the labor value argument out of the water.  on what planet is the cost of domestic labor this high ? that is not to say i disagree with the general idea, but it seems really slimy to justify that as domestic labor costs.  it happens every day, just like the problem with welfare, people are often times fully contempt with the free money and have no incentive to better themselves.  its not always the recipient is fault either; things like alimony and welfare are usually affected by their person income.  if they get an entry level job, for example, they might be working a full time job for only slightly more than what they are receiving after considering costs such as transportation, childcare, etc.   #  your argument is very good for why spouses should get equitable division of the marital property, but not so good for why they should get post marital alimony.   #  your argument is very good for why spouses should get equitable division of the marital property, but not so good for why they should get post marital alimony.  i accept that nonworking spouses do, or at least can legally be presumed to, provide valuable consideration of some sort to their spouse, whether it be in the form of household labor, companionship, sex, status, etc.  their reward for this is that they are entitled to half of the fruits of the marriage.  every penny saved and asset acquired during the marital period gets chopped right down the middle, unless the parties agree otherwise, no matter how inequitable the earnings.  but the idea that because their work contributed to the economic value of their partner is career they are entitled to a share of it contravenes basic principles of human autonomy.  suppose you are a 0/0 partner in a law firm, and your work there earns you significant distinction and notoriety.  at some point, the new work at the firm dries up and you decide to strike out on your own, and dissolve the partnership, with your partner taking any old casework.  is your partner, who provided significant support to your growing your career and professional capacity, entitled to any of your future solo earnings ?  #  not exactly, because alimony is about the spouse is dependence on your income, rather than their contribution to its development.   #  not exactly, because alimony is about the spouse is dependence on your income, rather than their contribution to its development.  see the following examples 0.  i already am a high earning doctor, and i make $0k a year.  i get married.  0 years later, i am still making $0k a year plus inflation and we divorce.  0.  i am starting my first year of med school.  i am in school for 0 years, residency for 0 more, and then working as a doctor for $0k a year for 0 more years.  we divorce after 0 years married.  in both cases, the doctor is going to owe about the same alimony, but in only one case did the doctor develop a marital asset in the form of an education.   #  actually, in divorce negotiations people offer and accept lump sum buyouts all the time.   #  actually, in divorce negotiations people offer and accept lump sum buyouts all the time.  it really depends on what the parties can afford and what they can agree to.  in fact, i think it is worth mentioning that the whole process is usually handled through negotiations outside the court.  it is only when the negotiations break down that the court is asked to resolve the issue.  also, the court has pretty broad discretion regarding how they settle things.  they might decide a lump sum is appropriate, but usually they will fallback on a guideline proportion of income with a fixed termination date.   #  no one argues that providing financial support while receiving domestic labor is  wrong .   #  i am having a hard time following your logic.  you say that domestic labor has value and therefore, if someone is providing domestic labor to you then it is fair to provide some type of support financial to them.  i am not sure what this theory has to do with alimony.  no one argues that providing financial support while receiving domestic labor is  wrong .  the problem with alimony is that the domestic labor is no longer being provided but the financial support is required to continue.  alimony is a pension plan for non working spouses.
working in family law, i meet a lot of men facing divorce who feel no obligation to support their ex.  you also hear a lot of mens rights activists bemoan the concept of alimony as unjust.  they usually cite statistics showing how often men are the ones disproportionately ordered to pay support.  i do not give much merit to these claims.  what most of these men do not understand is that marriage in the eyes of the law is primarily an economic partnership.  when a couple marries, they voluntarily agree to equally share resources produced during the marriage.  the traditional view of marriage has the wife contribute via domestic labor, i. e.  cooking, cleaning, childcare, etc.  first off, i think it is important to realize that this labor has real economic value.  these tasks need to be done in order for either spouse to succeed in another professional setting.  the counter argument you often hear from divorced men is that their wives refused to work, and also refused to perform these domestic duties, and thus should not be entitled to support.  while this may not seem fair, the reality is that this outcome is still produced by the man is  choice  to marry someone with no professional prospects, and no willingness to perform domestic duties.  in other words, the man. entered into a bad economic partnership and must now shoulder the costs.  in many cases, whether the man realizes it or not, there was a reason why they chose to marry who they did.  maybe it was not directly economic, maybe it was for sexual attraction, emotional support, or social status.  i would argue that even these factors have economic value, even if it is difficult to quantify.  when you develop a career, you pour your soul into your work, and everything about your lifestyle affects your success.  so regardless of whether the individual got what they thought they would from their spouse, their spouse still had an inexorable affect on their career and thus has earned a stake in it.  i think this is fundamentally fair, in my opinion.  finally, i want to point out that there is a distinction between temporary and permanent spousal support.  temporary support is usually close to a 0, flat calculation intended to maintain the parties lifestyle until permanent support is determined.  permanent support is always a lower amount, intended to provide the supported party enough time to become self sufficient through education, job training, etc.  in longer marriages, there might not be a termination date, for example if the spouse is close to retirement or the relationship lasted so long that a permanent stake in the others career is warranted. but in most cases, there is a termination date involved.  i can concede that it is more than possible for men to become subject to unfair rulings.  however, i do not think unfair outcomes necessarily reflect unfair principles.  usually, when something unfair happens it is because the case was not handled properly by the parties or the judge; this is not the fault of the laws themselves, or the principles behind them.   #  when you develop a career, you pour your soul into your work, and everything about your lifestyle affects your success.   #  so regardless of whether the individual got what they thought they would from their spouse, their spouse still had an inexorable affect on their career and thus has earned a stake in it.   #  is not this highly sexist ? the premise being that women are expected to provide domestic duties and this quality is treated as being intrinsic to being a woman.  if she did not perform these duties, she was a bad  investment .  this is basically saying women are created for house chores.  and what about relationships when men do a lot of or most of the chores ? these are assumed to not exist ? again, very sexist and unfair .  i would argue anecdotally that in younger generations the distribution of chores is much more equal, with many guys actually doing more.  and then saying that the man married the woman for some reason, perhaps sexual attraction, emotional support, status; that implies that women are just tools or accessories.  do not you think this is a very faulty premise to work off ? sure, the law might consider it an economic partnership but why is the onus of the partnership is success entirely on the man ? if the woman was not a good accessory and did not perform the duties expected of her which i still think is innately sexist then why does the man take all the burden at divorce ? should not she have some responsibility for being a bad investment ? put in financial terms, there is no situation where the woman is worse off but every situation the man is worse off.  that is not even close to equal.  so regardless of whether the individual got what they thought they would from their spouse, their spouse still had an inexorable affect on their career and thus has earned a stake in it.  i think this is fundamentally fair, in my opinion.  this i can agree with in concept but do you think the indirect impact from having your dinner cooked for you is equal to 0 hours of back breaking labour ? or the pressure of dealing with high frequency data when the consequences are unemployment ? or when liability is directly traced back to you so if you make even one mistake you can be held accountable for millions of dollars ? your wife can burn your dinner once in a while without any real consequences.  the problem with operating off this concept is you will end up quantifying a wage for the woman working as your wife, which is not a nice way to think of relationships but even more to the point, you will never end up with a high enough wage to justify the amount of financial benefit women receive from divorce.   #  but the idea that because their work contributed to the economic value of their partner is career they are entitled to a share of it contravenes basic principles of human autonomy.   #  your argument is very good for why spouses should get equitable division of the marital property, but not so good for why they should get post marital alimony.  i accept that nonworking spouses do, or at least can legally be presumed to, provide valuable consideration of some sort to their spouse, whether it be in the form of household labor, companionship, sex, status, etc.  their reward for this is that they are entitled to half of the fruits of the marriage.  every penny saved and asset acquired during the marital period gets chopped right down the middle, unless the parties agree otherwise, no matter how inequitable the earnings.  but the idea that because their work contributed to the economic value of their partner is career they are entitled to a share of it contravenes basic principles of human autonomy.  suppose you are a 0/0 partner in a law firm, and your work there earns you significant distinction and notoriety.  at some point, the new work at the firm dries up and you decide to strike out on your own, and dissolve the partnership, with your partner taking any old casework.  is your partner, who provided significant support to your growing your career and professional capacity, entitled to any of your future solo earnings ?  #  see the following examples 0.  i already am a high earning doctor, and i make $0k a year.   #  not exactly, because alimony is about the spouse is dependence on your income, rather than their contribution to its development.  see the following examples 0.  i already am a high earning doctor, and i make $0k a year.  i get married.  0 years later, i am still making $0k a year plus inflation and we divorce.  0.  i am starting my first year of med school.  i am in school for 0 years, residency for 0 more, and then working as a doctor for $0k a year for 0 more years.  we divorce after 0 years married.  in both cases, the doctor is going to owe about the same alimony, but in only one case did the doctor develop a marital asset in the form of an education.   #  it is only when the negotiations break down that the court is asked to resolve the issue.   #  actually, in divorce negotiations people offer and accept lump sum buyouts all the time.  it really depends on what the parties can afford and what they can agree to.  in fact, i think it is worth mentioning that the whole process is usually handled through negotiations outside the court.  it is only when the negotiations break down that the court is asked to resolve the issue.  also, the court has pretty broad discretion regarding how they settle things.  they might decide a lump sum is appropriate, but usually they will fallback on a guideline proportion of income with a fixed termination date.   #  i am not sure what this theory has to do with alimony.   #  i am having a hard time following your logic.  you say that domestic labor has value and therefore, if someone is providing domestic labor to you then it is fair to provide some type of support financial to them.  i am not sure what this theory has to do with alimony.  no one argues that providing financial support while receiving domestic labor is  wrong .  the problem with alimony is that the domestic labor is no longer being provided but the financial support is required to continue.  alimony is a pension plan for non working spouses.
working in family law, i meet a lot of men facing divorce who feel no obligation to support their ex.  you also hear a lot of mens rights activists bemoan the concept of alimony as unjust.  they usually cite statistics showing how often men are the ones disproportionately ordered to pay support.  i do not give much merit to these claims.  what most of these men do not understand is that marriage in the eyes of the law is primarily an economic partnership.  when a couple marries, they voluntarily agree to equally share resources produced during the marriage.  the traditional view of marriage has the wife contribute via domestic labor, i. e.  cooking, cleaning, childcare, etc.  first off, i think it is important to realize that this labor has real economic value.  these tasks need to be done in order for either spouse to succeed in another professional setting.  the counter argument you often hear from divorced men is that their wives refused to work, and also refused to perform these domestic duties, and thus should not be entitled to support.  while this may not seem fair, the reality is that this outcome is still produced by the man is  choice  to marry someone with no professional prospects, and no willingness to perform domestic duties.  in other words, the man. entered into a bad economic partnership and must now shoulder the costs.  in many cases, whether the man realizes it or not, there was a reason why they chose to marry who they did.  maybe it was not directly economic, maybe it was for sexual attraction, emotional support, or social status.  i would argue that even these factors have economic value, even if it is difficult to quantify.  when you develop a career, you pour your soul into your work, and everything about your lifestyle affects your success.  so regardless of whether the individual got what they thought they would from their spouse, their spouse still had an inexorable affect on their career and thus has earned a stake in it.  i think this is fundamentally fair, in my opinion.  finally, i want to point out that there is a distinction between temporary and permanent spousal support.  temporary support is usually close to a 0, flat calculation intended to maintain the parties lifestyle until permanent support is determined.  permanent support is always a lower amount, intended to provide the supported party enough time to become self sufficient through education, job training, etc.  in longer marriages, there might not be a termination date, for example if the spouse is close to retirement or the relationship lasted so long that a permanent stake in the others career is warranted. but in most cases, there is a termination date involved.  i can concede that it is more than possible for men to become subject to unfair rulings.  however, i do not think unfair outcomes necessarily reflect unfair principles.  usually, when something unfair happens it is because the case was not handled properly by the parties or the judge; this is not the fault of the laws themselves, or the principles behind them.   #  their spouse still had an inexorable affect on their career and thus has earned a stake in it.   #  if this is the case, would it not follow that the man also has a stake in his ex wife is domestic duties labour ?  #  for the sake of the argument, lets make men the working ones and women the home makers.  everyone has a choice, partners do not own each other or own the career decisions they can make and they certainly do not own a stake in future profits, gains or labour post divorce.  if someone chooses to end their career in favour of taking on domestic duties, thats their choice.  they could also continue working, get a maid or a thousand other choices.  if this is the case, would it not follow that the man also has a stake in his ex wife is domestic duties labour ? shouldnt she have to cook and clean for him for the rest of his life ? no of course not.  because a divorce is supposed to be about separating entirely.  you cant have it both ways.  it is far cleaner and fairer to just separate entirely.   #  their reward for this is that they are entitled to half of the fruits of the marriage.   #  your argument is very good for why spouses should get equitable division of the marital property, but not so good for why they should get post marital alimony.  i accept that nonworking spouses do, or at least can legally be presumed to, provide valuable consideration of some sort to their spouse, whether it be in the form of household labor, companionship, sex, status, etc.  their reward for this is that they are entitled to half of the fruits of the marriage.  every penny saved and asset acquired during the marital period gets chopped right down the middle, unless the parties agree otherwise, no matter how inequitable the earnings.  but the idea that because their work contributed to the economic value of their partner is career they are entitled to a share of it contravenes basic principles of human autonomy.  suppose you are a 0/0 partner in a law firm, and your work there earns you significant distinction and notoriety.  at some point, the new work at the firm dries up and you decide to strike out on your own, and dissolve the partnership, with your partner taking any old casework.  is your partner, who provided significant support to your growing your career and professional capacity, entitled to any of your future solo earnings ?  #  0 years later, i am still making $0k a year plus inflation and we divorce.   #  not exactly, because alimony is about the spouse is dependence on your income, rather than their contribution to its development.  see the following examples 0.  i already am a high earning doctor, and i make $0k a year.  i get married.  0 years later, i am still making $0k a year plus inflation and we divorce.  0.  i am starting my first year of med school.  i am in school for 0 years, residency for 0 more, and then working as a doctor for $0k a year for 0 more years.  we divorce after 0 years married.  in both cases, the doctor is going to owe about the same alimony, but in only one case did the doctor develop a marital asset in the form of an education.   #  it really depends on what the parties can afford and what they can agree to.   #  actually, in divorce negotiations people offer and accept lump sum buyouts all the time.  it really depends on what the parties can afford and what they can agree to.  in fact, i think it is worth mentioning that the whole process is usually handled through negotiations outside the court.  it is only when the negotiations break down that the court is asked to resolve the issue.  also, the court has pretty broad discretion regarding how they settle things.  they might decide a lump sum is appropriate, but usually they will fallback on a guideline proportion of income with a fixed termination date.   #  no one argues that providing financial support while receiving domestic labor is  wrong .   #  i am having a hard time following your logic.  you say that domestic labor has value and therefore, if someone is providing domestic labor to you then it is fair to provide some type of support financial to them.  i am not sure what this theory has to do with alimony.  no one argues that providing financial support while receiving domestic labor is  wrong .  the problem with alimony is that the domestic labor is no longer being provided but the financial support is required to continue.  alimony is a pension plan for non working spouses.
working in family law, i meet a lot of men facing divorce who feel no obligation to support their ex.  you also hear a lot of mens rights activists bemoan the concept of alimony as unjust.  they usually cite statistics showing how often men are the ones disproportionately ordered to pay support.  i do not give much merit to these claims.  what most of these men do not understand is that marriage in the eyes of the law is primarily an economic partnership.  when a couple marries, they voluntarily agree to equally share resources produced during the marriage.  the traditional view of marriage has the wife contribute via domestic labor, i. e.  cooking, cleaning, childcare, etc.  first off, i think it is important to realize that this labor has real economic value.  these tasks need to be done in order for either spouse to succeed in another professional setting.  the counter argument you often hear from divorced men is that their wives refused to work, and also refused to perform these domestic duties, and thus should not be entitled to support.  while this may not seem fair, the reality is that this outcome is still produced by the man is  choice  to marry someone with no professional prospects, and no willingness to perform domestic duties.  in other words, the man. entered into a bad economic partnership and must now shoulder the costs.  in many cases, whether the man realizes it or not, there was a reason why they chose to marry who they did.  maybe it was not directly economic, maybe it was for sexual attraction, emotional support, or social status.  i would argue that even these factors have economic value, even if it is difficult to quantify.  when you develop a career, you pour your soul into your work, and everything about your lifestyle affects your success.  so regardless of whether the individual got what they thought they would from their spouse, their spouse still had an inexorable affect on their career and thus has earned a stake in it.  i think this is fundamentally fair, in my opinion.  finally, i want to point out that there is a distinction between temporary and permanent spousal support.  temporary support is usually close to a 0, flat calculation intended to maintain the parties lifestyle until permanent support is determined.  permanent support is always a lower amount, intended to provide the supported party enough time to become self sufficient through education, job training, etc.  in longer marriages, there might not be a termination date, for example if the spouse is close to retirement or the relationship lasted so long that a permanent stake in the others career is warranted. but in most cases, there is a termination date involved.  i can concede that it is more than possible for men to become subject to unfair rulings.  however, i do not think unfair outcomes necessarily reflect unfair principles.  usually, when something unfair happens it is because the case was not handled properly by the parties or the judge; this is not the fault of the laws themselves, or the principles behind them.   #  i do not give much merit to these claims.   #  what most of these men do not understand is that marriage in the eyes of the law is primarily an economic partnership.   # what most of these men do not understand is that marriage in the eyes of the law is primarily an economic partnership.  when a couple marries, they voluntarily agree to equally share resources produced during the marriage.  is vs.  ought distinction.  next.  cooking, cleaning, childcare, etc.  first off, i think it is important to realize that this labor has real economic value.  these tasks need to be done in order for either spouse to succeed in another professional setting.  they do, but let is be real, here: these costs are generally within the $0 a month range at most.  while this may not seem fair, the reality is that this outcome is still produced by the man is choice to marry someone with no professional prospects, and no willingness to perform domestic duties.  your argument falls apart here.  in an economic partnership, such as a business partnership, very, very rarely is a partner entitled to future earnings when said partnership is ended.  this is an argument of division of assets, maybe, but not sustained support.  the outcome is often produced under false pretenses as well, so this is not often an informed choice.  maybe it was not directly economic, maybe it was for sexual attraction, emotional support, or social status.  i would argue that even these factors have economic value, even if it is difficult to quantify.  i would say  supporting the person while the partnership is valid  is a pretty good trade off.  success could very well be in spite of your lifestyle.  but also, this is hyperbolic, and often, people  spend their souls  developing a career.  your line of thought as to the reasons why a person initiated said partnership is also a near non sequitur.  very, very often the  current absence of the one present reasons people get married  are  why they divorce .  yes, the current marital assets.  makes perfect sense.  the fact of the matter is also this: we do not live in the 0s anymore.  once, domestic duties were indeed a full time job alimony was much more an arguable case.  now ? not so much.  children go to school from 0 to 0 and beyond, for starters.  incomes have stagnated, and the benefits of having a person essentially provide the services of a $0 / week maid do not really outweigh the benefits of having two incomes.  preparing dinner no longer is a four hour endeavour, and the american diet quite obviously is not bereft of quickly cooked processed and fast food, despite the comparatively higher amount of women who do not work full time.  these  wouldomestic duties  are, quite frankly, leisure compared to the working world.   #  suppose you are a 0/0 partner in a law firm, and your work there earns you significant distinction and notoriety.   #  your argument is very good for why spouses should get equitable division of the marital property, but not so good for why they should get post marital alimony.  i accept that nonworking spouses do, or at least can legally be presumed to, provide valuable consideration of some sort to their spouse, whether it be in the form of household labor, companionship, sex, status, etc.  their reward for this is that they are entitled to half of the fruits of the marriage.  every penny saved and asset acquired during the marital period gets chopped right down the middle, unless the parties agree otherwise, no matter how inequitable the earnings.  but the idea that because their work contributed to the economic value of their partner is career they are entitled to a share of it contravenes basic principles of human autonomy.  suppose you are a 0/0 partner in a law firm, and your work there earns you significant distinction and notoriety.  at some point, the new work at the firm dries up and you decide to strike out on your own, and dissolve the partnership, with your partner taking any old casework.  is your partner, who provided significant support to your growing your career and professional capacity, entitled to any of your future solo earnings ?  #  see the following examples 0.  i already am a high earning doctor, and i make $0k a year.   #  not exactly, because alimony is about the spouse is dependence on your income, rather than their contribution to its development.  see the following examples 0.  i already am a high earning doctor, and i make $0k a year.  i get married.  0 years later, i am still making $0k a year plus inflation and we divorce.  0.  i am starting my first year of med school.  i am in school for 0 years, residency for 0 more, and then working as a doctor for $0k a year for 0 more years.  we divorce after 0 years married.  in both cases, the doctor is going to owe about the same alimony, but in only one case did the doctor develop a marital asset in the form of an education.   #  in fact, i think it is worth mentioning that the whole process is usually handled through negotiations outside the court.   #  actually, in divorce negotiations people offer and accept lump sum buyouts all the time.  it really depends on what the parties can afford and what they can agree to.  in fact, i think it is worth mentioning that the whole process is usually handled through negotiations outside the court.  it is only when the negotiations break down that the court is asked to resolve the issue.  also, the court has pretty broad discretion regarding how they settle things.  they might decide a lump sum is appropriate, but usually they will fallback on a guideline proportion of income with a fixed termination date.   #  alimony is a pension plan for non working spouses.   #  i am having a hard time following your logic.  you say that domestic labor has value and therefore, if someone is providing domestic labor to you then it is fair to provide some type of support financial to them.  i am not sure what this theory has to do with alimony.  no one argues that providing financial support while receiving domestic labor is  wrong .  the problem with alimony is that the domestic labor is no longer being provided but the financial support is required to continue.  alimony is a pension plan for non working spouses.
working in family law, i meet a lot of men facing divorce who feel no obligation to support their ex.  you also hear a lot of mens rights activists bemoan the concept of alimony as unjust.  they usually cite statistics showing how often men are the ones disproportionately ordered to pay support.  i do not give much merit to these claims.  what most of these men do not understand is that marriage in the eyes of the law is primarily an economic partnership.  when a couple marries, they voluntarily agree to equally share resources produced during the marriage.  the traditional view of marriage has the wife contribute via domestic labor, i. e.  cooking, cleaning, childcare, etc.  first off, i think it is important to realize that this labor has real economic value.  these tasks need to be done in order for either spouse to succeed in another professional setting.  the counter argument you often hear from divorced men is that their wives refused to work, and also refused to perform these domestic duties, and thus should not be entitled to support.  while this may not seem fair, the reality is that this outcome is still produced by the man is  choice  to marry someone with no professional prospects, and no willingness to perform domestic duties.  in other words, the man. entered into a bad economic partnership and must now shoulder the costs.  in many cases, whether the man realizes it or not, there was a reason why they chose to marry who they did.  maybe it was not directly economic, maybe it was for sexual attraction, emotional support, or social status.  i would argue that even these factors have economic value, even if it is difficult to quantify.  when you develop a career, you pour your soul into your work, and everything about your lifestyle affects your success.  so regardless of whether the individual got what they thought they would from their spouse, their spouse still had an inexorable affect on their career and thus has earned a stake in it.  i think this is fundamentally fair, in my opinion.  finally, i want to point out that there is a distinction between temporary and permanent spousal support.  temporary support is usually close to a 0, flat calculation intended to maintain the parties lifestyle until permanent support is determined.  permanent support is always a lower amount, intended to provide the supported party enough time to become self sufficient through education, job training, etc.  in longer marriages, there might not be a termination date, for example if the spouse is close to retirement or the relationship lasted so long that a permanent stake in the others career is warranted. but in most cases, there is a termination date involved.  i can concede that it is more than possible for men to become subject to unfair rulings.  however, i do not think unfair outcomes necessarily reflect unfair principles.  usually, when something unfair happens it is because the case was not handled properly by the parties or the judge; this is not the fault of the laws themselves, or the principles behind them.   #  the counter argument you often hear from divorced men is that their wives refused to work, and also refused to perform these domestic duties, and thus should not be entitled to support.   #  while this may not seem fair, the reality is that this outcome is still produced by the man is choice to marry someone with no professional prospects, and no willingness to perform domestic duties.   # what most of these men do not understand is that marriage in the eyes of the law is primarily an economic partnership.  when a couple marries, they voluntarily agree to equally share resources produced during the marriage.  is vs.  ought distinction.  next.  cooking, cleaning, childcare, etc.  first off, i think it is important to realize that this labor has real economic value.  these tasks need to be done in order for either spouse to succeed in another professional setting.  they do, but let is be real, here: these costs are generally within the $0 a month range at most.  while this may not seem fair, the reality is that this outcome is still produced by the man is choice to marry someone with no professional prospects, and no willingness to perform domestic duties.  your argument falls apart here.  in an economic partnership, such as a business partnership, very, very rarely is a partner entitled to future earnings when said partnership is ended.  this is an argument of division of assets, maybe, but not sustained support.  the outcome is often produced under false pretenses as well, so this is not often an informed choice.  maybe it was not directly economic, maybe it was for sexual attraction, emotional support, or social status.  i would argue that even these factors have economic value, even if it is difficult to quantify.  i would say  supporting the person while the partnership is valid  is a pretty good trade off.  success could very well be in spite of your lifestyle.  but also, this is hyperbolic, and often, people  spend their souls  developing a career.  your line of thought as to the reasons why a person initiated said partnership is also a near non sequitur.  very, very often the  current absence of the one present reasons people get married  are  why they divorce .  yes, the current marital assets.  makes perfect sense.  the fact of the matter is also this: we do not live in the 0s anymore.  once, domestic duties were indeed a full time job alimony was much more an arguable case.  now ? not so much.  children go to school from 0 to 0 and beyond, for starters.  incomes have stagnated, and the benefits of having a person essentially provide the services of a $0 / week maid do not really outweigh the benefits of having two incomes.  preparing dinner no longer is a four hour endeavour, and the american diet quite obviously is not bereft of quickly cooked processed and fast food, despite the comparatively higher amount of women who do not work full time.  these  wouldomestic duties  are, quite frankly, leisure compared to the working world.   #  is your partner, who provided significant support to your growing your career and professional capacity, entitled to any of your future solo earnings ?  #  your argument is very good for why spouses should get equitable division of the marital property, but not so good for why they should get post marital alimony.  i accept that nonworking spouses do, or at least can legally be presumed to, provide valuable consideration of some sort to their spouse, whether it be in the form of household labor, companionship, sex, status, etc.  their reward for this is that they are entitled to half of the fruits of the marriage.  every penny saved and asset acquired during the marital period gets chopped right down the middle, unless the parties agree otherwise, no matter how inequitable the earnings.  but the idea that because their work contributed to the economic value of their partner is career they are entitled to a share of it contravenes basic principles of human autonomy.  suppose you are a 0/0 partner in a law firm, and your work there earns you significant distinction and notoriety.  at some point, the new work at the firm dries up and you decide to strike out on your own, and dissolve the partnership, with your partner taking any old casework.  is your partner, who provided significant support to your growing your career and professional capacity, entitled to any of your future solo earnings ?  #  i am in school for 0 years, residency for 0 more, and then working as a doctor for $0k a year for 0 more years.   #  not exactly, because alimony is about the spouse is dependence on your income, rather than their contribution to its development.  see the following examples 0.  i already am a high earning doctor, and i make $0k a year.  i get married.  0 years later, i am still making $0k a year plus inflation and we divorce.  0.  i am starting my first year of med school.  i am in school for 0 years, residency for 0 more, and then working as a doctor for $0k a year for 0 more years.  we divorce after 0 years married.  in both cases, the doctor is going to owe about the same alimony, but in only one case did the doctor develop a marital asset in the form of an education.   #  in fact, i think it is worth mentioning that the whole process is usually handled through negotiations outside the court.   #  actually, in divorce negotiations people offer and accept lump sum buyouts all the time.  it really depends on what the parties can afford and what they can agree to.  in fact, i think it is worth mentioning that the whole process is usually handled through negotiations outside the court.  it is only when the negotiations break down that the court is asked to resolve the issue.  also, the court has pretty broad discretion regarding how they settle things.  they might decide a lump sum is appropriate, but usually they will fallback on a guideline proportion of income with a fixed termination date.   #  alimony is a pension plan for non working spouses.   #  i am having a hard time following your logic.  you say that domestic labor has value and therefore, if someone is providing domestic labor to you then it is fair to provide some type of support financial to them.  i am not sure what this theory has to do with alimony.  no one argues that providing financial support while receiving domestic labor is  wrong .  the problem with alimony is that the domestic labor is no longer being provided but the financial support is required to continue.  alimony is a pension plan for non working spouses.
working in family law, i meet a lot of men facing divorce who feel no obligation to support their ex.  you also hear a lot of mens rights activists bemoan the concept of alimony as unjust.  they usually cite statistics showing how often men are the ones disproportionately ordered to pay support.  i do not give much merit to these claims.  what most of these men do not understand is that marriage in the eyes of the law is primarily an economic partnership.  when a couple marries, they voluntarily agree to equally share resources produced during the marriage.  the traditional view of marriage has the wife contribute via domestic labor, i. e.  cooking, cleaning, childcare, etc.  first off, i think it is important to realize that this labor has real economic value.  these tasks need to be done in order for either spouse to succeed in another professional setting.  the counter argument you often hear from divorced men is that their wives refused to work, and also refused to perform these domestic duties, and thus should not be entitled to support.  while this may not seem fair, the reality is that this outcome is still produced by the man is  choice  to marry someone with no professional prospects, and no willingness to perform domestic duties.  in other words, the man. entered into a bad economic partnership and must now shoulder the costs.  in many cases, whether the man realizes it or not, there was a reason why they chose to marry who they did.  maybe it was not directly economic, maybe it was for sexual attraction, emotional support, or social status.  i would argue that even these factors have economic value, even if it is difficult to quantify.  when you develop a career, you pour your soul into your work, and everything about your lifestyle affects your success.  so regardless of whether the individual got what they thought they would from their spouse, their spouse still had an inexorable affect on their career and thus has earned a stake in it.  i think this is fundamentally fair, in my opinion.  finally, i want to point out that there is a distinction between temporary and permanent spousal support.  temporary support is usually close to a 0, flat calculation intended to maintain the parties lifestyle until permanent support is determined.  permanent support is always a lower amount, intended to provide the supported party enough time to become self sufficient through education, job training, etc.  in longer marriages, there might not be a termination date, for example if the spouse is close to retirement or the relationship lasted so long that a permanent stake in the others career is warranted. but in most cases, there is a termination date involved.  i can concede that it is more than possible for men to become subject to unfair rulings.  however, i do not think unfair outcomes necessarily reflect unfair principles.  usually, when something unfair happens it is because the case was not handled properly by the parties or the judge; this is not the fault of the laws themselves, or the principles behind them.   #  in many cases, whether the man realizes it or not, there was a reason why they chose to marry who they did.   #  maybe it was not directly economic, maybe it was for sexual attraction, emotional support, or social status.   # what most of these men do not understand is that marriage in the eyes of the law is primarily an economic partnership.  when a couple marries, they voluntarily agree to equally share resources produced during the marriage.  is vs.  ought distinction.  next.  cooking, cleaning, childcare, etc.  first off, i think it is important to realize that this labor has real economic value.  these tasks need to be done in order for either spouse to succeed in another professional setting.  they do, but let is be real, here: these costs are generally within the $0 a month range at most.  while this may not seem fair, the reality is that this outcome is still produced by the man is choice to marry someone with no professional prospects, and no willingness to perform domestic duties.  your argument falls apart here.  in an economic partnership, such as a business partnership, very, very rarely is a partner entitled to future earnings when said partnership is ended.  this is an argument of division of assets, maybe, but not sustained support.  the outcome is often produced under false pretenses as well, so this is not often an informed choice.  maybe it was not directly economic, maybe it was for sexual attraction, emotional support, or social status.  i would argue that even these factors have economic value, even if it is difficult to quantify.  i would say  supporting the person while the partnership is valid  is a pretty good trade off.  success could very well be in spite of your lifestyle.  but also, this is hyperbolic, and often, people  spend their souls  developing a career.  your line of thought as to the reasons why a person initiated said partnership is also a near non sequitur.  very, very often the  current absence of the one present reasons people get married  are  why they divorce .  yes, the current marital assets.  makes perfect sense.  the fact of the matter is also this: we do not live in the 0s anymore.  once, domestic duties were indeed a full time job alimony was much more an arguable case.  now ? not so much.  children go to school from 0 to 0 and beyond, for starters.  incomes have stagnated, and the benefits of having a person essentially provide the services of a $0 / week maid do not really outweigh the benefits of having two incomes.  preparing dinner no longer is a four hour endeavour, and the american diet quite obviously is not bereft of quickly cooked processed and fast food, despite the comparatively higher amount of women who do not work full time.  these  wouldomestic duties  are, quite frankly, leisure compared to the working world.   #  your argument is very good for why spouses should get equitable division of the marital property, but not so good for why they should get post marital alimony.   #  your argument is very good for why spouses should get equitable division of the marital property, but not so good for why they should get post marital alimony.  i accept that nonworking spouses do, or at least can legally be presumed to, provide valuable consideration of some sort to their spouse, whether it be in the form of household labor, companionship, sex, status, etc.  their reward for this is that they are entitled to half of the fruits of the marriage.  every penny saved and asset acquired during the marital period gets chopped right down the middle, unless the parties agree otherwise, no matter how inequitable the earnings.  but the idea that because their work contributed to the economic value of their partner is career they are entitled to a share of it contravenes basic principles of human autonomy.  suppose you are a 0/0 partner in a law firm, and your work there earns you significant distinction and notoriety.  at some point, the new work at the firm dries up and you decide to strike out on your own, and dissolve the partnership, with your partner taking any old casework.  is your partner, who provided significant support to your growing your career and professional capacity, entitled to any of your future solo earnings ?  #  not exactly, because alimony is about the spouse is dependence on your income, rather than their contribution to its development.   #  not exactly, because alimony is about the spouse is dependence on your income, rather than their contribution to its development.  see the following examples 0.  i already am a high earning doctor, and i make $0k a year.  i get married.  0 years later, i am still making $0k a year plus inflation and we divorce.  0.  i am starting my first year of med school.  i am in school for 0 years, residency for 0 more, and then working as a doctor for $0k a year for 0 more years.  we divorce after 0 years married.  in both cases, the doctor is going to owe about the same alimony, but in only one case did the doctor develop a marital asset in the form of an education.   #  it is only when the negotiations break down that the court is asked to resolve the issue.   #  actually, in divorce negotiations people offer and accept lump sum buyouts all the time.  it really depends on what the parties can afford and what they can agree to.  in fact, i think it is worth mentioning that the whole process is usually handled through negotiations outside the court.  it is only when the negotiations break down that the court is asked to resolve the issue.  also, the court has pretty broad discretion regarding how they settle things.  they might decide a lump sum is appropriate, but usually they will fallback on a guideline proportion of income with a fixed termination date.   #  i am having a hard time following your logic.   #  i am having a hard time following your logic.  you say that domestic labor has value and therefore, if someone is providing domestic labor to you then it is fair to provide some type of support financial to them.  i am not sure what this theory has to do with alimony.  no one argues that providing financial support while receiving domestic labor is  wrong .  the problem with alimony is that the domestic labor is no longer being provided but the financial support is required to continue.  alimony is a pension plan for non working spouses.
working in family law, i meet a lot of men facing divorce who feel no obligation to support their ex.  you also hear a lot of mens rights activists bemoan the concept of alimony as unjust.  they usually cite statistics showing how often men are the ones disproportionately ordered to pay support.  i do not give much merit to these claims.  what most of these men do not understand is that marriage in the eyes of the law is primarily an economic partnership.  when a couple marries, they voluntarily agree to equally share resources produced during the marriage.  the traditional view of marriage has the wife contribute via domestic labor, i. e.  cooking, cleaning, childcare, etc.  first off, i think it is important to realize that this labor has real economic value.  these tasks need to be done in order for either spouse to succeed in another professional setting.  the counter argument you often hear from divorced men is that their wives refused to work, and also refused to perform these domestic duties, and thus should not be entitled to support.  while this may not seem fair, the reality is that this outcome is still produced by the man is  choice  to marry someone with no professional prospects, and no willingness to perform domestic duties.  in other words, the man. entered into a bad economic partnership and must now shoulder the costs.  in many cases, whether the man realizes it or not, there was a reason why they chose to marry who they did.  maybe it was not directly economic, maybe it was for sexual attraction, emotional support, or social status.  i would argue that even these factors have economic value, even if it is difficult to quantify.  when you develop a career, you pour your soul into your work, and everything about your lifestyle affects your success.  so regardless of whether the individual got what they thought they would from their spouse, their spouse still had an inexorable affect on their career and thus has earned a stake in it.  i think this is fundamentally fair, in my opinion.  finally, i want to point out that there is a distinction between temporary and permanent spousal support.  temporary support is usually close to a 0, flat calculation intended to maintain the parties lifestyle until permanent support is determined.  permanent support is always a lower amount, intended to provide the supported party enough time to become self sufficient through education, job training, etc.  in longer marriages, there might not be a termination date, for example if the spouse is close to retirement or the relationship lasted so long that a permanent stake in the others career is warranted. but in most cases, there is a termination date involved.  i can concede that it is more than possible for men to become subject to unfair rulings.  however, i do not think unfair outcomes necessarily reflect unfair principles.  usually, when something unfair happens it is because the case was not handled properly by the parties or the judge; this is not the fault of the laws themselves, or the principles behind them.   #  when you develop a career, you pour your soul into your work, and everything about your lifestyle affects your success.   #  success could very well be in spite of your lifestyle.   # what most of these men do not understand is that marriage in the eyes of the law is primarily an economic partnership.  when a couple marries, they voluntarily agree to equally share resources produced during the marriage.  is vs.  ought distinction.  next.  cooking, cleaning, childcare, etc.  first off, i think it is important to realize that this labor has real economic value.  these tasks need to be done in order for either spouse to succeed in another professional setting.  they do, but let is be real, here: these costs are generally within the $0 a month range at most.  while this may not seem fair, the reality is that this outcome is still produced by the man is choice to marry someone with no professional prospects, and no willingness to perform domestic duties.  your argument falls apart here.  in an economic partnership, such as a business partnership, very, very rarely is a partner entitled to future earnings when said partnership is ended.  this is an argument of division of assets, maybe, but not sustained support.  the outcome is often produced under false pretenses as well, so this is not often an informed choice.  maybe it was not directly economic, maybe it was for sexual attraction, emotional support, or social status.  i would argue that even these factors have economic value, even if it is difficult to quantify.  i would say  supporting the person while the partnership is valid  is a pretty good trade off.  success could very well be in spite of your lifestyle.  but also, this is hyperbolic, and often, people  spend their souls  developing a career.  your line of thought as to the reasons why a person initiated said partnership is also a near non sequitur.  very, very often the  current absence of the one present reasons people get married  are  why they divorce .  yes, the current marital assets.  makes perfect sense.  the fact of the matter is also this: we do not live in the 0s anymore.  once, domestic duties were indeed a full time job alimony was much more an arguable case.  now ? not so much.  children go to school from 0 to 0 and beyond, for starters.  incomes have stagnated, and the benefits of having a person essentially provide the services of a $0 / week maid do not really outweigh the benefits of having two incomes.  preparing dinner no longer is a four hour endeavour, and the american diet quite obviously is not bereft of quickly cooked processed and fast food, despite the comparatively higher amount of women who do not work full time.  these  wouldomestic duties  are, quite frankly, leisure compared to the working world.   #  your argument is very good for why spouses should get equitable division of the marital property, but not so good for why they should get post marital alimony.   #  your argument is very good for why spouses should get equitable division of the marital property, but not so good for why they should get post marital alimony.  i accept that nonworking spouses do, or at least can legally be presumed to, provide valuable consideration of some sort to their spouse, whether it be in the form of household labor, companionship, sex, status, etc.  their reward for this is that they are entitled to half of the fruits of the marriage.  every penny saved and asset acquired during the marital period gets chopped right down the middle, unless the parties agree otherwise, no matter how inequitable the earnings.  but the idea that because their work contributed to the economic value of their partner is career they are entitled to a share of it contravenes basic principles of human autonomy.  suppose you are a 0/0 partner in a law firm, and your work there earns you significant distinction and notoriety.  at some point, the new work at the firm dries up and you decide to strike out on your own, and dissolve the partnership, with your partner taking any old casework.  is your partner, who provided significant support to your growing your career and professional capacity, entitled to any of your future solo earnings ?  #  see the following examples 0.  i already am a high earning doctor, and i make $0k a year.   #  not exactly, because alimony is about the spouse is dependence on your income, rather than their contribution to its development.  see the following examples 0.  i already am a high earning doctor, and i make $0k a year.  i get married.  0 years later, i am still making $0k a year plus inflation and we divorce.  0.  i am starting my first year of med school.  i am in school for 0 years, residency for 0 more, and then working as a doctor for $0k a year for 0 more years.  we divorce after 0 years married.  in both cases, the doctor is going to owe about the same alimony, but in only one case did the doctor develop a marital asset in the form of an education.   #  they might decide a lump sum is appropriate, but usually they will fallback on a guideline proportion of income with a fixed termination date.   #  actually, in divorce negotiations people offer and accept lump sum buyouts all the time.  it really depends on what the parties can afford and what they can agree to.  in fact, i think it is worth mentioning that the whole process is usually handled through negotiations outside the court.  it is only when the negotiations break down that the court is asked to resolve the issue.  also, the court has pretty broad discretion regarding how they settle things.  they might decide a lump sum is appropriate, but usually they will fallback on a guideline proportion of income with a fixed termination date.   #  no one argues that providing financial support while receiving domestic labor is  wrong .   #  i am having a hard time following your logic.  you say that domestic labor has value and therefore, if someone is providing domestic labor to you then it is fair to provide some type of support financial to them.  i am not sure what this theory has to do with alimony.  no one argues that providing financial support while receiving domestic labor is  wrong .  the problem with alimony is that the domestic labor is no longer being provided but the financial support is required to continue.  alimony is a pension plan for non working spouses.
working in family law, i meet a lot of men facing divorce who feel no obligation to support their ex.  you also hear a lot of mens rights activists bemoan the concept of alimony as unjust.  they usually cite statistics showing how often men are the ones disproportionately ordered to pay support.  i do not give much merit to these claims.  what most of these men do not understand is that marriage in the eyes of the law is primarily an economic partnership.  when a couple marries, they voluntarily agree to equally share resources produced during the marriage.  the traditional view of marriage has the wife contribute via domestic labor, i. e.  cooking, cleaning, childcare, etc.  first off, i think it is important to realize that this labor has real economic value.  these tasks need to be done in order for either spouse to succeed in another professional setting.  the counter argument you often hear from divorced men is that their wives refused to work, and also refused to perform these domestic duties, and thus should not be entitled to support.  while this may not seem fair, the reality is that this outcome is still produced by the man is  choice  to marry someone with no professional prospects, and no willingness to perform domestic duties.  in other words, the man. entered into a bad economic partnership and must now shoulder the costs.  in many cases, whether the man realizes it or not, there was a reason why they chose to marry who they did.  maybe it was not directly economic, maybe it was for sexual attraction, emotional support, or social status.  i would argue that even these factors have economic value, even if it is difficult to quantify.  when you develop a career, you pour your soul into your work, and everything about your lifestyle affects your success.  so regardless of whether the individual got what they thought they would from their spouse, their spouse still had an inexorable affect on their career and thus has earned a stake in it.  i think this is fundamentally fair, in my opinion.  finally, i want to point out that there is a distinction between temporary and permanent spousal support.  temporary support is usually close to a 0, flat calculation intended to maintain the parties lifestyle until permanent support is determined.  permanent support is always a lower amount, intended to provide the supported party enough time to become self sufficient through education, job training, etc.  in longer marriages, there might not be a termination date, for example if the spouse is close to retirement or the relationship lasted so long that a permanent stake in the others career is warranted. but in most cases, there is a termination date involved.  i can concede that it is more than possible for men to become subject to unfair rulings.  however, i do not think unfair outcomes necessarily reflect unfair principles.  usually, when something unfair happens it is because the case was not handled properly by the parties or the judge; this is not the fault of the laws themselves, or the principles behind them.   #  temporary support is usually close to a 0, flat calculation intended to maintain the parties lifestyle until permanent support is determined.   #  if the party who contributes the money has to keep contributing money, why does not the other party have to keep contributing their part of the goods, like household tasks, childcare, sexual services, emotional support, status, .  ?  #  you are inconsistent: first you say that alimony reflects a real exchange of goods and services and therefore is just, and then you reject the argument that alimony should not be given if the spouse in question did not contribute the labor to earn it by the argument  they should look out whom they marry .  either you say that alimony reflects the labor contributed by the party who enjoys it, and then it varies along with the contributed labor, or, you let it come down to a private agreement between individuals in which case imposing an uniform alimony rule on all those diverse agreements is pointless.  if the party who contributes the money has to keep contributing money, why does not the other party have to keep contributing their part of the goods, like household tasks, childcare, sexual services, emotional support, status, .  ? a  fair  rule would be simply to recognize that people who divorce want nothing to do with each other any more and therefore their ties should be cut.  if couples decide to specialize their contributions eg earner   housewife , then they should make a financial arrangement  before  they are divorced.   #  your argument is very good for why spouses should get equitable division of the marital property, but not so good for why they should get post marital alimony.   #  your argument is very good for why spouses should get equitable division of the marital property, but not so good for why they should get post marital alimony.  i accept that nonworking spouses do, or at least can legally be presumed to, provide valuable consideration of some sort to their spouse, whether it be in the form of household labor, companionship, sex, status, etc.  their reward for this is that they are entitled to half of the fruits of the marriage.  every penny saved and asset acquired during the marital period gets chopped right down the middle, unless the parties agree otherwise, no matter how inequitable the earnings.  but the idea that because their work contributed to the economic value of their partner is career they are entitled to a share of it contravenes basic principles of human autonomy.  suppose you are a 0/0 partner in a law firm, and your work there earns you significant distinction and notoriety.  at some point, the new work at the firm dries up and you decide to strike out on your own, and dissolve the partnership, with your partner taking any old casework.  is your partner, who provided significant support to your growing your career and professional capacity, entitled to any of your future solo earnings ?  #  0.  i am starting my first year of med school.   #  not exactly, because alimony is about the spouse is dependence on your income, rather than their contribution to its development.  see the following examples 0.  i already am a high earning doctor, and i make $0k a year.  i get married.  0 years later, i am still making $0k a year plus inflation and we divorce.  0.  i am starting my first year of med school.  i am in school for 0 years, residency for 0 more, and then working as a doctor for $0k a year for 0 more years.  we divorce after 0 years married.  in both cases, the doctor is going to owe about the same alimony, but in only one case did the doctor develop a marital asset in the form of an education.   #  it is only when the negotiations break down that the court is asked to resolve the issue.   #  actually, in divorce negotiations people offer and accept lump sum buyouts all the time.  it really depends on what the parties can afford and what they can agree to.  in fact, i think it is worth mentioning that the whole process is usually handled through negotiations outside the court.  it is only when the negotiations break down that the court is asked to resolve the issue.  also, the court has pretty broad discretion regarding how they settle things.  they might decide a lump sum is appropriate, but usually they will fallback on a guideline proportion of income with a fixed termination date.   #  i am having a hard time following your logic.   #  i am having a hard time following your logic.  you say that domestic labor has value and therefore, if someone is providing domestic labor to you then it is fair to provide some type of support financial to them.  i am not sure what this theory has to do with alimony.  no one argues that providing financial support while receiving domestic labor is  wrong .  the problem with alimony is that the domestic labor is no longer being provided but the financial support is required to continue.  alimony is a pension plan for non working spouses.
everyone is constantly reminded that the military is keeping us free with their sacrifices.  they make it sound like without them, we would be enslaved by arabs.  however, i do not believe that there were any large scale operations since the second world war which was fought for our freedom.  even the cold war was a political battle carried out to maintain economic interests.  in the past two decades or so, our military operations are even more questionable, and can be considered purely offensive.  i fail to see how sending patrols around a country in their own civil war has any benefit to our country.  i do not think anyone realistically expects any terrorist organization to obtain an air force or navy of any strength, much less develop the logistics to carry out an attack across the atlantic ocean.  on a more controversial note, most soldiers are not very talented people either.  the military is seen as a place where you enlist after high school if you do not have money or the grades to go to higher education.  sure, there are many rich families who carry a tradition of going into the military, but even then they are more often than not rotc.  it is unquestionable that americans are overdoing the military.  just look at the budget and waste.  the us volunteering to police the world for peace at my cost is not something that i am too happy with, but may be a necessary evil.  why we are thanking the troops for  service  and regarding them as heroes is something i still do not see.  in order to turn around this unsustainable terror and war machine, the public has to change their perception of the military from selfless servicemen to empathy/pity for the poor kids who had no other path to follow but sought for discipline/future.  please leave the footnote below the following line, but remember to delete this sentence by replacing it with the body of your post.  thank you !  #  i fail to see how sending patrols around a country in their own civil war has any benefit to our country.   #  ensuring stability in an area where most of the world is oil comes from is a huge benefit to our country.   # ensuring stability in an area where most of the world is oil comes from is a huge benefit to our country.  the us navy patrolling the waters around somalia ensures that shipping lanes are kept open.  part of our military is purpose is force projection, in that it keeps other countries that may want to encroach on our interests from doing so.  china/russia are the main targets of this right now.  just look at the budget and waste.   overdoing  is a matter of perspective.  i think that the budget is high, but most of it is consumed by paying service members and their associated benefits.  when the members of your military are well paid and taken care of while in the service , you get more out of them.  what do you think north korea gets out of their average soldier compared to the us ? what about russia ? another facet is that it is in our interests to maintain the status quo with the us being the lone superpower.  that ensures that no single country could bully us around on any meaningful level.  cutting the budget dramatically stops that from happening, and opens up a power vacuum.   #  intel requires a certain amount of book smarts, analytical ability, and problem solving skills.   # how do you gauge this ? i am not asserting that all military members are super geniuses and olympic level athletes, but i also do not see how you can say they are not  talented  either.  i served first as an intelligence analyst, and then an explosive ordnance disposal tech.  intel requires a certain amount of book smarts, analytical ability, and problem solving skills.  eod takes all of that x0, plus the physical ability to wear an 0 lb bomb suit in 0  degree weather for hours at a time while also carrying a large amount of gear/tools.  these may not seem like particularly important skill sets to you, but they carry over to any other career field i can think of, and i certainly would not hesitate to call these people talented.   #  what other careers that require only a hs diploma will start you at a 0k salary with 0 days paid leave a year, and quickly bring you upto around 0k by your mid 0s ?  #  what other careers that require only a hs diploma will start you at a 0k salary with 0 days paid leave a year, and quickly bring you upto around 0k by your mid 0s ? i doubt many of them have the security or benefits of the military, and most of them certainly do not have a pension at 0 years.  if you enlist at 0, your average service member will beat the  us national household average  income by their mid 0s.  that means they are making more than most families, on their own, at a young age.  that is a great job.  most of the  woe is me, service members are undercompensated  purposefully cook the numbers to make it look like compensation is poor.  i have several friends that used the military to catapult themselves into six figure jobs before their peers who went directly to college.  there is incredible post service opportunities if you follow the right career paths.  an infantryman who does not do anything for their entire career is obviously going to be in a worse position than an analyst who gets a graduate degree and a clearance in the military.   #  if average wages in the us are not an appropriate benchmark, what would you use ?  #  it is a bit of a tautology to point out that there is nothing special about the average.  if average wages in the us are not an appropriate benchmark, what would you use ? compensation for us service members is competitive with other nations of the same economic development level, and significantly better than less developed nations.  you could compare military compensation with what people in those job fields would make in a civilian job, but that runs the gamut too.  many jobs do not have direct equivalents infantry, etc.  , some jobs have more or less direct equivalents with the military making more emts and some jobs have more or less direct equivalents with the military making less programmers, specialized doctors .  overall, anyone who is college bound and does not have a scholarship already would be very hard pressed to find a path that competes with the military in terms of getting them where they want to go.   #  guys loading bombs on planes aos ca not apply that skill to virtually any civilian job when they get out.   #  as an e 0 with two years in the navy, i was making in the neighborhood of $0k a year.  re enlistment bonuses were as high as $0k tax free.  when it came time to get out, i had the option to do government contract work making $0k a month overseas.  there is a saying in the navy:  choose your rate, choose your fate.   guys loading bombs on planes aos ca not apply that skill to virtually any civilian job when they get out.  however, a navy diver or anyone else in special prorgrams can find work rather easily and make 0 figures.  plus, college is paid for if you want it no student loan debt and if you do 0 years, you can retire from the military at around 0 years old and start a fresh civilian career making decent money, all while collecting a full pension.  and let is not forget the peace of mind that comes with having a stable job that, unless you are a screw up or a slacker, you ca not get fired from.
everyone is constantly reminded that the military is keeping us free with their sacrifices.  they make it sound like without them, we would be enslaved by arabs.  however, i do not believe that there were any large scale operations since the second world war which was fought for our freedom.  even the cold war was a political battle carried out to maintain economic interests.  in the past two decades or so, our military operations are even more questionable, and can be considered purely offensive.  i fail to see how sending patrols around a country in their own civil war has any benefit to our country.  i do not think anyone realistically expects any terrorist organization to obtain an air force or navy of any strength, much less develop the logistics to carry out an attack across the atlantic ocean.  on a more controversial note, most soldiers are not very talented people either.  the military is seen as a place where you enlist after high school if you do not have money or the grades to go to higher education.  sure, there are many rich families who carry a tradition of going into the military, but even then they are more often than not rotc.  it is unquestionable that americans are overdoing the military.  just look at the budget and waste.  the us volunteering to police the world for peace at my cost is not something that i am too happy with, but may be a necessary evil.  why we are thanking the troops for  service  and regarding them as heroes is something i still do not see.  in order to turn around this unsustainable terror and war machine, the public has to change their perception of the military from selfless servicemen to empathy/pity for the poor kids who had no other path to follow but sought for discipline/future.  please leave the footnote below the following line, but remember to delete this sentence by replacing it with the body of your post.  thank you !  #  it is unquestionable that americans are overdoing the military.   #  just look at the budget and waste.   # ensuring stability in an area where most of the world is oil comes from is a huge benefit to our country.  the us navy patrolling the waters around somalia ensures that shipping lanes are kept open.  part of our military is purpose is force projection, in that it keeps other countries that may want to encroach on our interests from doing so.  china/russia are the main targets of this right now.  just look at the budget and waste.   overdoing  is a matter of perspective.  i think that the budget is high, but most of it is consumed by paying service members and their associated benefits.  when the members of your military are well paid and taken care of while in the service , you get more out of them.  what do you think north korea gets out of their average soldier compared to the us ? what about russia ? another facet is that it is in our interests to maintain the status quo with the us being the lone superpower.  that ensures that no single country could bully us around on any meaningful level.  cutting the budget dramatically stops that from happening, and opens up a power vacuum.   #  i served first as an intelligence analyst, and then an explosive ordnance disposal tech.   # how do you gauge this ? i am not asserting that all military members are super geniuses and olympic level athletes, but i also do not see how you can say they are not  talented  either.  i served first as an intelligence analyst, and then an explosive ordnance disposal tech.  intel requires a certain amount of book smarts, analytical ability, and problem solving skills.  eod takes all of that x0, plus the physical ability to wear an 0 lb bomb suit in 0  degree weather for hours at a time while also carrying a large amount of gear/tools.  these may not seem like particularly important skill sets to you, but they carry over to any other career field i can think of, and i certainly would not hesitate to call these people talented.   #  i have several friends that used the military to catapult themselves into six figure jobs before their peers who went directly to college.   #  what other careers that require only a hs diploma will start you at a 0k salary with 0 days paid leave a year, and quickly bring you upto around 0k by your mid 0s ? i doubt many of them have the security or benefits of the military, and most of them certainly do not have a pension at 0 years.  if you enlist at 0, your average service member will beat the  us national household average  income by their mid 0s.  that means they are making more than most families, on their own, at a young age.  that is a great job.  most of the  woe is me, service members are undercompensated  purposefully cook the numbers to make it look like compensation is poor.  i have several friends that used the military to catapult themselves into six figure jobs before their peers who went directly to college.  there is incredible post service opportunities if you follow the right career paths.  an infantryman who does not do anything for their entire career is obviously going to be in a worse position than an analyst who gets a graduate degree and a clearance in the military.   #  it is a bit of a tautology to point out that there is nothing special about the average.   #  it is a bit of a tautology to point out that there is nothing special about the average.  if average wages in the us are not an appropriate benchmark, what would you use ? compensation for us service members is competitive with other nations of the same economic development level, and significantly better than less developed nations.  you could compare military compensation with what people in those job fields would make in a civilian job, but that runs the gamut too.  many jobs do not have direct equivalents infantry, etc.  , some jobs have more or less direct equivalents with the military making more emts and some jobs have more or less direct equivalents with the military making less programmers, specialized doctors .  overall, anyone who is college bound and does not have a scholarship already would be very hard pressed to find a path that competes with the military in terms of getting them where they want to go.   #  however, a navy diver or anyone else in special prorgrams can find work rather easily and make 0 figures.   #  as an e 0 with two years in the navy, i was making in the neighborhood of $0k a year.  re enlistment bonuses were as high as $0k tax free.  when it came time to get out, i had the option to do government contract work making $0k a month overseas.  there is a saying in the navy:  choose your rate, choose your fate.   guys loading bombs on planes aos ca not apply that skill to virtually any civilian job when they get out.  however, a navy diver or anyone else in special prorgrams can find work rather easily and make 0 figures.  plus, college is paid for if you want it no student loan debt and if you do 0 years, you can retire from the military at around 0 years old and start a fresh civilian career making decent money, all while collecting a full pension.  and let is not forget the peace of mind that comes with having a stable job that, unless you are a screw up or a slacker, you ca not get fired from.
everyone is constantly reminded that the military is keeping us free with their sacrifices.  they make it sound like without them, we would be enslaved by arabs.  however, i do not believe that there were any large scale operations since the second world war which was fought for our freedom.  even the cold war was a political battle carried out to maintain economic interests.  in the past two decades or so, our military operations are even more questionable, and can be considered purely offensive.  i fail to see how sending patrols around a country in their own civil war has any benefit to our country.  i do not think anyone realistically expects any terrorist organization to obtain an air force or navy of any strength, much less develop the logistics to carry out an attack across the atlantic ocean.  on a more controversial note, most soldiers are not very talented people either.  the military is seen as a place where you enlist after high school if you do not have money or the grades to go to higher education.  sure, there are many rich families who carry a tradition of going into the military, but even then they are more often than not rotc.  it is unquestionable that americans are overdoing the military.  just look at the budget and waste.  the us volunteering to police the world for peace at my cost is not something that i am too happy with, but may be a necessary evil.  why we are thanking the troops for  service  and regarding them as heroes is something i still do not see.  in order to turn around this unsustainable terror and war machine, the public has to change their perception of the military from selfless servicemen to empathy/pity for the poor kids who had no other path to follow but sought for discipline/future.  please leave the footnote below the following line, but remember to delete this sentence by replacing it with the body of your post.  thank you !  #  however, i do not believe that there were any large scale operations since the second world war which was fought for our freedom.   #  even the cold war was a political battle carried out to maintain economic interests.   # even the cold war was a political battle carried out to maintain economic interests.  you think that stalin was only interested in taking your money ? the military is seen as a place where you enlist after high school if you do not have money or the grades to go to higher education.  demonstrably not the case.  the average enlisted soldier is considerably smarter, better educated, wealthier, and better on almost any other metric than the average american.  and ?  #  i am not asserting that all military members are super geniuses and olympic level athletes, but i also do not see how you can say they are not  talented  either.   # how do you gauge this ? i am not asserting that all military members are super geniuses and olympic level athletes, but i also do not see how you can say they are not  talented  either.  i served first as an intelligence analyst, and then an explosive ordnance disposal tech.  intel requires a certain amount of book smarts, analytical ability, and problem solving skills.  eod takes all of that x0, plus the physical ability to wear an 0 lb bomb suit in 0  degree weather for hours at a time while also carrying a large amount of gear/tools.  these may not seem like particularly important skill sets to you, but they carry over to any other career field i can think of, and i certainly would not hesitate to call these people talented.   #  most of the  woe is me, service members are undercompensated  purposefully cook the numbers to make it look like compensation is poor.   #  what other careers that require only a hs diploma will start you at a 0k salary with 0 days paid leave a year, and quickly bring you upto around 0k by your mid 0s ? i doubt many of them have the security or benefits of the military, and most of them certainly do not have a pension at 0 years.  if you enlist at 0, your average service member will beat the  us national household average  income by their mid 0s.  that means they are making more than most families, on their own, at a young age.  that is a great job.  most of the  woe is me, service members are undercompensated  purposefully cook the numbers to make it look like compensation is poor.  i have several friends that used the military to catapult themselves into six figure jobs before their peers who went directly to college.  there is incredible post service opportunities if you follow the right career paths.  an infantryman who does not do anything for their entire career is obviously going to be in a worse position than an analyst who gets a graduate degree and a clearance in the military.   #  overall, anyone who is college bound and does not have a scholarship already would be very hard pressed to find a path that competes with the military in terms of getting them where they want to go.   #  it is a bit of a tautology to point out that there is nothing special about the average.  if average wages in the us are not an appropriate benchmark, what would you use ? compensation for us service members is competitive with other nations of the same economic development level, and significantly better than less developed nations.  you could compare military compensation with what people in those job fields would make in a civilian job, but that runs the gamut too.  many jobs do not have direct equivalents infantry, etc.  , some jobs have more or less direct equivalents with the military making more emts and some jobs have more or less direct equivalents with the military making less programmers, specialized doctors .  overall, anyone who is college bound and does not have a scholarship already would be very hard pressed to find a path that competes with the military in terms of getting them where they want to go.   #  re enlistment bonuses were as high as $0k tax free.   #  as an e 0 with two years in the navy, i was making in the neighborhood of $0k a year.  re enlistment bonuses were as high as $0k tax free.  when it came time to get out, i had the option to do government contract work making $0k a month overseas.  there is a saying in the navy:  choose your rate, choose your fate.   guys loading bombs on planes aos ca not apply that skill to virtually any civilian job when they get out.  however, a navy diver or anyone else in special prorgrams can find work rather easily and make 0 figures.  plus, college is paid for if you want it no student loan debt and if you do 0 years, you can retire from the military at around 0 years old and start a fresh civilian career making decent money, all while collecting a full pension.  and let is not forget the peace of mind that comes with having a stable job that, unless you are a screw up or a slacker, you ca not get fired from.
a discussion over at r/todayilearned about haredi ultra orthodox jews led me to thinking about extremely insular communities that exist in the us, such as the haredi, hasidim, amish, and flds sects.  these groups always seems to enforce social rules based in centuries past, which typically institute strict dress codes especially for women , rules against extensive contact with the outside world, and harsh punishments for those who break the rules or try to leave the community.  for example, in many strict jewish communities, children will be denied access to local religious schools if family members violate the rules.  the flds, especially the sect run by warren jeffs, was famous for excommunicating individuals, and then forcing their family members still in the church to cut off all contact.  my feelings are that, in general, american society has agreed on certain core values.  there may be arguments about much in american society and politics, but, in general i think the following is fairly set: individualism democracy equality fairness equal opportunity/mobility privacy in these insular communities, on the other hand, women are not treated equally; punishment is not fair; rule is by a small, religious elite; and privacy is limited by internal  morality  police.  p. s.  this is not limited to insular religious communities, but i am unaware of similarly insular, non religion based communities.   #  individualism democracy equality fairness equal opportunity/mobility privacy in these insular communities, on the other hand, women are not treated equally; punishment is not fair; rule is by a small, religious elite; and privacy is limited by internal  morality  police.   #  if we use the functional definition of individualism URL then there seems to be an inconsistency.   # if we use the functional definition of individualism URL then there seems to be an inconsistency.  individualism is:   0.  the habit or principle of being independent and self reliant.  if one of the cornerstones of the us is individualism, then that means that a group of people are free to choose a series of independent or self reliant thoughts, ideas and practices.  people can be individuals from groups, but groups can also be individual from larger groups.  you seem to disagree with  what  they choose, which i understand, but that does not make their choices incompatible with society is founding principles  #  as long as remaining in those insular communities remains a  choice  to the individuals within, i think there is no conflict with those core american values.   #  the values you describe as american and i do agree with they are a fair characterization are unique in that they allow insular cultures to exist independently.  it may seem counter intuitive, but some people choose to limit their own freedom and independence in order to maintain membership in a culture or community.  as long as remaining in those insular communities remains a  choice  to the individuals within, i think there is no conflict with those core american values.  i guess, ultimately those american values are not cultural glue like the values you would find in china, for example.  rather, they are a set of principles designed to allow the insulation you describe.   #  in a larger society, circumstances can make it so that you have very little choice in term of lifestyle and many people spend their work life doing basically the same thing everyday again and again .   #  since you are not limiting this at religious communities, you will have to consider the various intentional communities URL that exists in the united states.  you can look in the directory and find communities that meet most of your listed criterias.  actually, a small community has the potential of being even more democratic that a larger society, as the members can be more involved personally in the decision process and everyday running of the community.  equality and fairness is also often a strong asset of such communities as people have to be willing to share and help.  coherence of such close knitted communities cannot be maintained otherwise.  opportunity and mobility is highly contextual.  in a larger society, circumstances can make it so that you have very little choice in term of lifestyle and many people spend their work life doing basically the same thing everyday again and again .  being highly self reliant, such communities give the opportunity to its members to do a variety of work.  maybe you do not like chooping wood so you will take care of the animal or build a fence, for instance.  this leave only individualism, but this is a non sequitur.  of course a community is less individualistic, by definition.  it is like saying  communism is not compatible with capitalism .   #  if any insular community is the exception to this, it is the amish.   #  heisgone, i think the big difference between the intentional communities and my  insular  communities is the very fact that people join intentional communities voluntarily, and can leave just as easily.  in my examples of insular communities, membership is almost certainly by birth and those who attempt to leave are punished by being ostracized or cut off from their families.  when scientology labels someone a suppressive person, and requires that their family cut ties, most american denounce that.  i feel that it is the same thing for a woman who wants to leave a haredi community, but is then cut off from her children, or is forced to stay in order to see them.  if any insular community is the exception to this, it is the amish.  the entire point of the anabaptist movement is for adults to make an informed decision to accept the faith.  amish teens go on rumspringa to learn about the outside world before they make that choice.   #  that is, in cannot be said that american society at large is doing better on every aspects you mentionned.   #  you case is certainly stronger for religious communities, but still, the sectarian characteristics you mention fall more into the anti individualism category, which i do not deny and mobility, but this one is somewhat contextual, as i said .  a case could be made that those communities sacrifice individualism to strengthen other aspect like equality and fairness.  that is, in cannot be said that american society at large is doing better on every aspects you mentionned.  there is always a trade off.  for instance, as a canadian i feel that canada score higher than the u. s.  on the matter of equality and fairness but lower on individualism and we can argue if this is a good thing or not, or if there is really something lost in having a society that is less individualistic .  regarding the amish, i am not sure i would count this practice as an exception.  there is a study on compliance in the amish community that i cannot find.  it is theorized that this practice of letting go of people who want to live independently is changing the genetic make up of the community over time.  that is, if you got genes of a free thinker, you end up selecting yourself out of their gene pool.  it is possible that there is an outmigration of individuals with higher intellect perhaps reflected by the desire for more educational opportunities URL
i am not against using dead fetal tissue to further medical and scientific pursuits, research, cures, etc.  however, the recently released videos of negotiations over the fees paid to abortion clinics for providing tissue and specimens at lunch and/or dinner meetings seems needlessly disrespectful, callous and irreverent to all parties involved with regard to abortion including and especially women who have had abortions .  i would not want medical professionals involved with organ transplants or mortuary science professionals having such discussions in such casual and public surroundings.  imagine overhearing such a discussion at a restaurant after having lost a loved one, who had donated an organ or tissue ? i just simply find it to be needlessly careless, unprofessional and to display such a cavalier attitude towards this or any other procedure.  is there really no room for  decorum  in science and medicine ?  #  i just simply find it to be needlessly careless, unprofessional and to display such a cavalier attitude towards this or any other procedure.   #  is there really no room for  decorum  in science and medicine ?  # social norms are only relevant if the people you are communicating with understand and adhere to those norms.  that is how they have any power.  i am giving the argument that it is unreasonable to assume that everyone understands your view of social norms on the basis that you said it.  since your topic is so heavily involved with how people perceive social situations, it is irresponsible to give arguments that are, as i said previously, a variation of  it is just wrong .  is there really no room for  decorum  in science and medicine ? why not fart and belch at will ? this is boorish behavior.  this is boorish behavior in my opinion.  you continue to ask us to imagine a hypothetical situation where someone is offended, and see that it is bad.  it is unreasonable to assume that we will understand the reasoning behind your argument that this situation involves bad things without giving us adequate reason to adhere to your view.  i can easily say that i think denying people the right to speaking about abortions in a restaurant is  boorish behavior  and it would have as much weight behind it as your statements.  or, imagine someone that really wants to talk about abortions in a restaurant cannot do so and is therefore offended that their medical practices are considered socially unacceptable by people.  do you understand now ? it is not the matter of your view on social norms being correct or incorrect, it is in your presentation that the only correct side is your side everyone who has disagreed with you thus far has been met with more hypothetical examples in an attempt to get them to understand your argument  without  you explicitly stating  this is where i draw the line and here is why .  a subjective matter demands this type of argument.   #  i believe that the clinical description of fetal tissue extraction and distribution is one of those topics.   #  i am sorry, i disagree.  i believe that there are certain behaviors and topics of conversation that are inappropriate for public spaces.  i believe that the clinical description of fetal tissue extraction and distribution is one of those topics.  it belongs in a clinical setting, not a restaurant.  just as the clinical description of an autopsy is inappropriate for a restaurant.  i realize that it is all just  meat  to those who work in that field, but not everyone has developed that level of de sensitivity to such topics and it boorish to not take that into consideration.   #  here is the thing:  you  are completely free to follow any social etiquette you choose, but i am under no obligation to subscribe to your personal code.   #  here is the thing:  you  are completely free to follow any social etiquette you choose, but i am under no obligation to subscribe to your personal code.  as you have said, you disagree with me, as is your right.  from experience, i expect the following to be downvoted, even if it is 0 true.  the truth is you do not have the authority to determine what topic i choose to talk about.  if you choose to bring your concerns to my attention, and if i disagree, your options are still 0 engage your table in conversation, 0 ask for another table, or 0 leave.  in practice, as an eavesdropper, it is actually incumbent on  you  to change  my  view on the appropriateness of my conversation, as the content of what  i  choose to talk about is not  your  decision.   #  it is not eavesdropping if i can overhear your conversation from my table.   #  op is right.  your personal freedom to do whatever you want in public ends when it encroaches on other people.  i am sure you have heard the old stand by example of  you ca not yell  fire  in a crowded theater  ? there is definitely a line of what you can and cannot talk about in public.  it is not just one person is sensibilities that you are offending, it is society or culture is sensibilities.  since society and culture are nebulous, there is certainly a grey area.  but i think everyone must admit that the line is drawn somewhere.  it is not eavesdropping if i can overhear your conversation from my table.  you are in a public place and everything you see and do is in the public eye.  eavesdropping implies that someone is invading your privacy to overhear your conversation, and there is no privacy in a public space.   #  just because someone who overhears your conversation ca not do anything about it does not make the conversation less inappropriate.   #  i would have the waiter notify management that i find the conversation offensive.  unless i am just being overly sensitive, the waiter and management would likely agree, and ask you to either keep your conversation quiet enough that it does not disturb other customers, or they would ask you to leave especially if several customers all complain about you .  if you refused to comply, they would have to escalate their insistence that you leave.  if you still refused, then the cops would be called, and they would escort you off the premises.  if you continued to escalate, you would find yourself in legal trouble for disturbing the peace or other criminal offenses.  i am not a lawyer .  more importantly, op is point is unrelated to what options you have when you overhear someone discussing something inappropriate for the public sphere.  the point is that there are topics that are inappropriate to discuss in public, and you  are  legally required to keep the peace, which means you ca not go around discussing inappropriate topics in public.  like i said earlier, it is definitely a grey area as to what constitutes  inappropriate  and what would be considered breaking the peace or similar criminal offenses , but the point is that your right to free speech does not extend to the point that you break the peace.  just because someone who overhears your conversation ca not do anything about it does not make the conversation less inappropriate.
a little bit of background.  i have not owned any apple products until very recently, a little over two months ago, when i got a macbook pro as a new laptop.  i had a windows xp machine that died on me quite some time ago, got a chromebook, and have been using my desktop since, with an android tablet for mobile computing.  after much consideration, and reading, i decided on the computer that i am typing this post on, a 0  macbook pro.  i have used other people is computers in passing, and have tried other laptops, and while i am not a laptop connoisseur, i think that this is the best computer i have ever bought or used.  here are a list of some of the reasons.  it is really fast, 0 second start ups, and fast load times for everything.  it is well engineered, well weighted, and has a whole bunch of really nice features in the machine itself.  the small rubber feet keep the machine in place without pretruding out from it too much, the ports are well placed, the charging cable is great, the magnetic attachment is wonderful.  the battery life is really good, when i am not running much on it, i can get 0 to 0 hours of battery life.  the keyboard is fantastic, well spaced, and has a nice clicking feel.  the screen is nice and bright and text is sharp and clear.  and it does a great job of managing heat.  this is all just the hardware.  on the software side, mac os x blows windows out of the water my desktop runs windows 0 i really like the finder, the tabs and different options for sorting files and viewing media are really good.  safari is actually useable, the mail app is one of the best email programs i have ever used, and is one of my favorite programs.  and the iwork suite is really nice, well designed optimized.  i actually prefer the menu bars in mac os x, and the full screen options make focusing on work easy.  the interface is not cluttered, or overly colorful.  even the packaging is great, simple easy to pull apart, and well laid out.  the function keys have a legitimate function in all applications.  and so on, and so on.  i am not a huge apple fan or supporter, i really do not like the imac is  magic mouse, or the ipad or iphone, i like operating systems i can tinker with a bit.  this machine strikes a nice balance between ease of use and power computing.  are there any better windows laptops than the macbook pro for general computing ? i would like to hear of them.  also, i have found a fantastic writing app that is mac only, called ulysses.  it is the best creative writing app i have used on any computer.   #  it is really fast, 0 second start ups, and fast load times for everything.   #  this is a product of having a ssd and decent amount of ram, not anything about apple itself.   # this is a product of having a ssd and decent amount of ram, not anything about apple itself.  the small rubber feet keep the machine in place without pretruding out from it too much, the ports are well placed, the charging cable is great, the magnetic attachment is wonderful.  the battery life is really good, when i am not running much on it, i can get 0 to 0 hours of battery life.  the keyboard is fantastic, well spaced, and has a nice clicking feel.  the screen is nice and bright and text is sharp and clear.  and it does a great job of managing heat.  it is difficult to really address this because all of these features are available in other high end laptops and ultrabooks.  the software, likewise, is personal preference.  i find osx unusable.  look, macbooks are solid, high end computers.  there is no denying that, but know that you are paying a high premium on the hardware.  the macbook pro 0inch has a base retail of 0 grand.  that includes a 0ghz processor and 0g ram and 0g storage with integrated graphics.  compare that with high end offerings from companies like lenovo which has an excellent reputation , where for $0 you can get a computer with  higher pixel density, dedicated graphics, faster processor, more storage and  touch control.  you get a lot more hardware and functionality for less money.  that is not to say macs are bad, but you pay a hefty price for their design.  most of the time, when macs are deigned the best computers, we are not comparing apples to apples consumer reports is guilty of this .  comparing high end to high end, many of the advantages of apple is offerings disappear.   #  by many quantifiable measures of laptop performance, they  do not  make the best especially when cost is figured in .   # or with cost.  then it seems odd to say that apple makes the best laptops.  by many quantifiable measures of laptop performance, they  do not  make the best especially when cost is figured in .  it seems you cant disregard  both  performance and cost and still be talking about the best laptops anymore.  computing performance is integral to assessing a laptop.  some pcs have a fantastic display and great specs, but they have a cheap flimsy plastic hinge, and a medicore keyboard.  yes, but many do not.  i think you might be surprised at the build quality of true macbook competitors.  for many people this is the only computer they will own.  a college student who will need a pc for 0 years may find the added gaming potential all for less money to be very important.  but not just that, you are  paying for the specs whether you get them or not.  you can get more pc for the same money, that is not an idle consideration.   #  the premium that you are paying for is 0 parts when you buy a mac first is the  brand  premium associated with apple products.   #  but for the most part, raw specs are not what sells computers and do not equate 0 to 0 with performance.  the premium that you are paying for is 0 parts when you buy a mac first is the  brand  premium associated with apple products.  there is no denying that this exists.  the second, and more significant part, is the design premium.  macs are designed specifically to work with the hardware they ship with, so they work and perform better than an equally spec would pc in almost all situations.  yes, some people have the technical skill set to do some tweaking and optimization for pcs but the vast majority of people do not.  so the design is a big part of what you are paying for.  the other aspect of the design premium is the software.  this of course gets more into preference, but in my experience,  most  people prefer osx to windows  once they get used to using it .  obviously if you only use a mac a few times, it seems like it is harder because it is definitely different than windows, but i would say it is a much more usable os.  now, that is not to say that i necessarily agree that they are objectively the  best  computers, because that really all depends on what you are measuring and what your preferences are.  if cost is not a primary consideration, having something that just  works  and performs well is going to be more important to most people as opposed to processor specs or pixel density or whatever.  it is very much a case of the whole being greater than the sum of it is parts.  i have used both pcs and macs, i much prefer macs, and the time i save on basic, common tasks alone more than justifies the difference in cost.  given a choice, i would take a mac over a pc with double the  on paper  specs, even if the pc was cheaper because ease of use and saving time is more important to me than raw computing specs.   #  this is largely a sales pitch on apple is part.   # macs are designed specifically to work with the hardware they ship with, so they work and perform better than an equally spec would pc in almost all situations.  this is largely a sales pitch on apple is part.  on high end pc is the difference in the  designed hardware  is going to be minimal.  the other aspect of the design premium is the software.  this of course gets more into preference, but in my experience, most people prefer osx to windows once they get used to using it.  obviously if you only use a mac a few times, it seems like it is harder because it is definitely different than windows, but i would say it is a much more usable os.  see, i have had the opposite experience.  but one thing to consider is you sacrifice flexibility for that usability.  windows has always been highly customizable, with far more 0rd party software available to tailor your experience to your needs.  the os might be good for base users, but anyone with a lick of tech skill can get more out of windows.  is that true ? if cost is not an option would not you want the best ? you also keep saying that it all just  works , but that simply does not separate macs from other high end pcs.  all high end pc is are going to have good build quality, high performance and functionality.  they all just  work .  so this is what it comes down to.  the os trumps all for you, but that is a highly subjective preference.  in many quantifiable measures apples are not the best pc is on the market.   #  in my experience, that is not really the case.   #  i have gotten into the flexibility debate before too, and i have not heard many meaningful ways in which an average user would need to  customize  a computer.  can you give me some examples of things that a lot of people need to customize that you ca not do with a mac ? also just to add, there actually  is  quite a bit of flexibility with macs, its just hidden a little further under the covers where the majority of users would not know how to access or change.  fwiw, a lot of tech companies, especially smaller ones do a lot of their development work using macs, so it really is not accurate to characterize them as  dumbed down  machines because they have a lot of capabilities/power under the hood, its just that most people do not have a use for it so it is not all that well known.  all high end pc is are going to have good build quality, high performance and functionality.  they all just  work .  in my experience, that is not really the case.  i am not comparing a $0 budget windows machine to a mac and saying the mac works better, i have owned multiple  high end  $0  pc laptops and in my experience, they do not work as well.  ultimately, yes, the os is the trump card, but being able to use software that performs well and is easy to use is more or less the only purpose of a laptop, so i do not see how that could somehow be seen as anything less than a primary, if not  the  primary consideration when evaluating which computer is  better .
a little bit of background.  i have not owned any apple products until very recently, a little over two months ago, when i got a macbook pro as a new laptop.  i had a windows xp machine that died on me quite some time ago, got a chromebook, and have been using my desktop since, with an android tablet for mobile computing.  after much consideration, and reading, i decided on the computer that i am typing this post on, a 0  macbook pro.  i have used other people is computers in passing, and have tried other laptops, and while i am not a laptop connoisseur, i think that this is the best computer i have ever bought or used.  here are a list of some of the reasons.  it is really fast, 0 second start ups, and fast load times for everything.  it is well engineered, well weighted, and has a whole bunch of really nice features in the machine itself.  the small rubber feet keep the machine in place without pretruding out from it too much, the ports are well placed, the charging cable is great, the magnetic attachment is wonderful.  the battery life is really good, when i am not running much on it, i can get 0 to 0 hours of battery life.  the keyboard is fantastic, well spaced, and has a nice clicking feel.  the screen is nice and bright and text is sharp and clear.  and it does a great job of managing heat.  this is all just the hardware.  on the software side, mac os x blows windows out of the water my desktop runs windows 0 i really like the finder, the tabs and different options for sorting files and viewing media are really good.  safari is actually useable, the mail app is one of the best email programs i have ever used, and is one of my favorite programs.  and the iwork suite is really nice, well designed optimized.  i actually prefer the menu bars in mac os x, and the full screen options make focusing on work easy.  the interface is not cluttered, or overly colorful.  even the packaging is great, simple easy to pull apart, and well laid out.  the function keys have a legitimate function in all applications.  and so on, and so on.  i am not a huge apple fan or supporter, i really do not like the imac is  magic mouse, or the ipad or iphone, i like operating systems i can tinker with a bit.  this machine strikes a nice balance between ease of use and power computing.  are there any better windows laptops than the macbook pro for general computing ? i would like to hear of them.  also, i have found a fantastic writing app that is mac only, called ulysses.  it is the best creative writing app i have used on any computer.   #  it is well engineered, well weighted, and has a whole bunch of really nice features in the machine itself.   #  the small rubber feet keep the machine in place without pretruding out from it too much, the ports are well placed, the charging cable is great, the magnetic attachment is wonderful.   # this is a product of having a ssd and decent amount of ram, not anything about apple itself.  the small rubber feet keep the machine in place without pretruding out from it too much, the ports are well placed, the charging cable is great, the magnetic attachment is wonderful.  the battery life is really good, when i am not running much on it, i can get 0 to 0 hours of battery life.  the keyboard is fantastic, well spaced, and has a nice clicking feel.  the screen is nice and bright and text is sharp and clear.  and it does a great job of managing heat.  it is difficult to really address this because all of these features are available in other high end laptops and ultrabooks.  the software, likewise, is personal preference.  i find osx unusable.  look, macbooks are solid, high end computers.  there is no denying that, but know that you are paying a high premium on the hardware.  the macbook pro 0inch has a base retail of 0 grand.  that includes a 0ghz processor and 0g ram and 0g storage with integrated graphics.  compare that with high end offerings from companies like lenovo which has an excellent reputation , where for $0 you can get a computer with  higher pixel density, dedicated graphics, faster processor, more storage and  touch control.  you get a lot more hardware and functionality for less money.  that is not to say macs are bad, but you pay a hefty price for their design.  most of the time, when macs are deigned the best computers, we are not comparing apples to apples consumer reports is guilty of this .  comparing high end to high end, many of the advantages of apple is offerings disappear.   #  a college student who will need a pc for 0 years may find the added gaming potential all for less money to be very important.   # or with cost.  then it seems odd to say that apple makes the best laptops.  by many quantifiable measures of laptop performance, they  do not  make the best especially when cost is figured in .  it seems you cant disregard  both  performance and cost and still be talking about the best laptops anymore.  computing performance is integral to assessing a laptop.  some pcs have a fantastic display and great specs, but they have a cheap flimsy plastic hinge, and a medicore keyboard.  yes, but many do not.  i think you might be surprised at the build quality of true macbook competitors.  for many people this is the only computer they will own.  a college student who will need a pc for 0 years may find the added gaming potential all for less money to be very important.  but not just that, you are  paying for the specs whether you get them or not.  you can get more pc for the same money, that is not an idle consideration.   #  yes, some people have the technical skill set to do some tweaking and optimization for pcs but the vast majority of people do not.   #  but for the most part, raw specs are not what sells computers and do not equate 0 to 0 with performance.  the premium that you are paying for is 0 parts when you buy a mac first is the  brand  premium associated with apple products.  there is no denying that this exists.  the second, and more significant part, is the design premium.  macs are designed specifically to work with the hardware they ship with, so they work and perform better than an equally spec would pc in almost all situations.  yes, some people have the technical skill set to do some tweaking and optimization for pcs but the vast majority of people do not.  so the design is a big part of what you are paying for.  the other aspect of the design premium is the software.  this of course gets more into preference, but in my experience,  most  people prefer osx to windows  once they get used to using it .  obviously if you only use a mac a few times, it seems like it is harder because it is definitely different than windows, but i would say it is a much more usable os.  now, that is not to say that i necessarily agree that they are objectively the  best  computers, because that really all depends on what you are measuring and what your preferences are.  if cost is not a primary consideration, having something that just  works  and performs well is going to be more important to most people as opposed to processor specs or pixel density or whatever.  it is very much a case of the whole being greater than the sum of it is parts.  i have used both pcs and macs, i much prefer macs, and the time i save on basic, common tasks alone more than justifies the difference in cost.  given a choice, i would take a mac over a pc with double the  on paper  specs, even if the pc was cheaper because ease of use and saving time is more important to me than raw computing specs.   #  but one thing to consider is you sacrifice flexibility for that usability.   # macs are designed specifically to work with the hardware they ship with, so they work and perform better than an equally spec would pc in almost all situations.  this is largely a sales pitch on apple is part.  on high end pc is the difference in the  designed hardware  is going to be minimal.  the other aspect of the design premium is the software.  this of course gets more into preference, but in my experience, most people prefer osx to windows once they get used to using it.  obviously if you only use a mac a few times, it seems like it is harder because it is definitely different than windows, but i would say it is a much more usable os.  see, i have had the opposite experience.  but one thing to consider is you sacrifice flexibility for that usability.  windows has always been highly customizable, with far more 0rd party software available to tailor your experience to your needs.  the os might be good for base users, but anyone with a lick of tech skill can get more out of windows.  is that true ? if cost is not an option would not you want the best ? you also keep saying that it all just  works , but that simply does not separate macs from other high end pcs.  all high end pc is are going to have good build quality, high performance and functionality.  they all just  work .  so this is what it comes down to.  the os trumps all for you, but that is a highly subjective preference.  in many quantifiable measures apples are not the best pc is on the market.   #  i have gotten into the flexibility debate before too, and i have not heard many meaningful ways in which an average user would need to  customize  a computer.   #  i have gotten into the flexibility debate before too, and i have not heard many meaningful ways in which an average user would need to  customize  a computer.  can you give me some examples of things that a lot of people need to customize that you ca not do with a mac ? also just to add, there actually  is  quite a bit of flexibility with macs, its just hidden a little further under the covers where the majority of users would not know how to access or change.  fwiw, a lot of tech companies, especially smaller ones do a lot of their development work using macs, so it really is not accurate to characterize them as  dumbed down  machines because they have a lot of capabilities/power under the hood, its just that most people do not have a use for it so it is not all that well known.  all high end pc is are going to have good build quality, high performance and functionality.  they all just  work .  in my experience, that is not really the case.  i am not comparing a $0 budget windows machine to a mac and saying the mac works better, i have owned multiple  high end  $0  pc laptops and in my experience, they do not work as well.  ultimately, yes, the os is the trump card, but being able to use software that performs well and is easy to use is more or less the only purpose of a laptop, so i do not see how that could somehow be seen as anything less than a primary, if not  the  primary consideration when evaluating which computer is  better .
this view can be interchangeable with any race, but in my experience, it is made by white, liberal americans.  just recently i was in a discussion with a social justice warrior type and they said they would rather be born white then black, all things equal.  i find this statement to be quite racist.  for one, i have never heard a black friend, peer or coworker say they would rather did born white.  for that matter, i have not heard anyone of any race say they would rather have been born any other race or even their own.  i recently read an interview with ta nehisi coats where he was the beauty of black people.  interviewer: speaking of beauty, and seeing things for the fullness of what they are, early on in the book you talk about your time at howard, and how you discovered the majesty of black people while on the yard.  can you talk more about your time there, and how it shaped your years after that ? coats: i grew up around black people, but i did not grow up around black people like that.  howard pulls from the entire black diaspora.  and black people, being human beings first and foremost, there is a great variation among them.  and to see all that variation united under one thing, and yet still be individuals i had never seen anything like that.  it gave me a great respect for how full the black experience really was.  how much it really meant, and how big it was.  somebody once told me, black people, in and of themselves, are cosmopolitan.  there is cosmopolitanism within the black experience.  there is an incredible amount.  it is an incredible thing, and i first saw that at howard.  i thought this was a particularly moving explanation of his black experience.  he does not appear to have any regrets for being born black and appears to be proud of who he is and the racial and ethnic culture he was born and raise in.  that being said, people who say that they would rather be born white, i think it diminishes those who are born black and can be restated as  white is better than black so i would choose to be white.    #  it is made by white, liberal americans.   #  for these folks it is likely not meant to disparage anything about blacks it is a comment on the systematic discrimination faced by blacks in this country.   # not that it is better to be white, but that it is easier to be white.  all other things equal if you are born a poor appalachian you would likely have an easier go at it if you were white as opposed to black.  if you are born a middle class suburbanite you would likely have an easier go at it if you were white as opposed to black.  if you are born the son of silicon valley computer scientist you would likely have an easier go at it if you were white as opposed to black.  if you are born the daughter of a working class brooklynite you would likely have an easier go at it if you were white as opposed to black.  for these folks it is likely not meant to disparage anything about blacks it is a comment on the systematic discrimination faced by blacks in this country.  my favorite analogy for this way of thinking is  no matter how difficult the starting conditions of the game, being white is like playing life on the easy setting.    #  what you do hear is that  all things being equal, in 0 america it is advantageous to be white/christian/male.    #  for a black person to say,  i would rather be white  or a jew to say,  i would rather have been born christian , or a non trans woman to say  i would rather be a man  would be seen as a socially unacceptable denial of who they are, and a rejection of their community.  that is why you do not hear it.  what you do hear is that  all things being equal, in 0 america it is advantageous to be white/christian/male.   that does not mean that there are not great things about being black, or female or a jew.  it does not mean that some blacks have it much better than some whites.  it does not mean that a person wants to give up their community and identify.  it is just that, in their opinion, the biases in society favor white christian males.  the key is  all things being equal .  you ca not compare a poor west virginian white with a rich black new yorker, because then all things are not equal.  it is still more advantageous to be a rich white new yorker over a rich black new yorker, and also to be a poor white west virginian over a poor black one.   #  there is access to nice clothes, gadgets, and other nice things.   # yes, and no ? i need to be honest.  the poverty i saw in these rural communities in west virginia were so bad, that i think i might prefer to be a poor black in nyc.  at least projects have running water and electricity.  there is access to nice clothes, gadgets, and other nice things.  what i mean is making a blanket statement about socioeconomic levels and race is not 0 accurate.  if we want to say being born black or white in the same rural community in west virginia, i would say i would rather be neither, and chose not to be born at all.   #  but one can believe that it sucks less to be a poor white in wva then to be a poor black in wva without being a racist.   #  no being a poor black in ny vs.  a poor white in wva is not a choice, because all things are not equal.   all things equal  means race is the only variable.   neither  is not an option either.  yeah, it sucks to be poor in wva.  but one can believe that it sucks less to be a poor white in wva then to be a poor black in wva without being a racist.  it is just doing the math can coming to the conclusion that things are worse to be black, based on societal advantages.   #  you are being intentionally obtuse in this discussion.   # that is not a choice.  you are being intentionally obtuse in this discussion.  the hypothetical here is not  if you were a god, and you could do whatever you want, how would you proceed ?   the hypothetical is  take a random person and put them in a random living situation.  is there any conditions under which it is not immediately advantageous to be white ?   the only thing you can vary here is race.  is rich white better off than rich black ? is poor white better off than poor black ? is w. va.  white better off than w. va.  black ? that is all you can vary.  URL this argument is implied with the statement  all other things being equal
this view can be interchangeable with any race, but in my experience, it is made by white, liberal americans.  just recently i was in a discussion with a social justice warrior type and they said they would rather be born white then black, all things equal.  i find this statement to be quite racist.  for one, i have never heard a black friend, peer or coworker say they would rather did born white.  for that matter, i have not heard anyone of any race say they would rather have been born any other race or even their own.  i recently read an interview with ta nehisi coats where he was the beauty of black people.  interviewer: speaking of beauty, and seeing things for the fullness of what they are, early on in the book you talk about your time at howard, and how you discovered the majesty of black people while on the yard.  can you talk more about your time there, and how it shaped your years after that ? coats: i grew up around black people, but i did not grow up around black people like that.  howard pulls from the entire black diaspora.  and black people, being human beings first and foremost, there is a great variation among them.  and to see all that variation united under one thing, and yet still be individuals i had never seen anything like that.  it gave me a great respect for how full the black experience really was.  how much it really meant, and how big it was.  somebody once told me, black people, in and of themselves, are cosmopolitan.  there is cosmopolitanism within the black experience.  there is an incredible amount.  it is an incredible thing, and i first saw that at howard.  i thought this was a particularly moving explanation of his black experience.  he does not appear to have any regrets for being born black and appears to be proud of who he is and the racial and ethnic culture he was born and raise in.  that being said, people who say that they would rather be born white, i think it diminishes those who are born black and can be restated as  white is better than black so i would choose to be white.    #  just recently i was in a discussion with a social justice warrior type and they said they would rather be born white then black, all things equal.   #  i find this statement to be quite racist.   # i find this statement to be quite racist.  this sounds like the opposite of what a typical  isjw  would say, and i have never heard of anybody express a similar statement.  regardless, even if  all things were equal , there would still be some differences between the races.  maybe it makes sense to prefer being white when african americans are more likely to have diabetes, die from an asthma attack, die from lung scarring, get lung cancer, have a stroke, have high blood pressure, or die from cancer.  source: URL  #  it is still more advantageous to be a rich white new yorker over a rich black new yorker, and also to be a poor white west virginian over a poor black one.   #  for a black person to say,  i would rather be white  or a jew to say,  i would rather have been born christian , or a non trans woman to say  i would rather be a man  would be seen as a socially unacceptable denial of who they are, and a rejection of their community.  that is why you do not hear it.  what you do hear is that  all things being equal, in 0 america it is advantageous to be white/christian/male.   that does not mean that there are not great things about being black, or female or a jew.  it does not mean that some blacks have it much better than some whites.  it does not mean that a person wants to give up their community and identify.  it is just that, in their opinion, the biases in society favor white christian males.  the key is  all things being equal .  you ca not compare a poor west virginian white with a rich black new yorker, because then all things are not equal.  it is still more advantageous to be a rich white new yorker over a rich black new yorker, and also to be a poor white west virginian over a poor black one.   #  the poverty i saw in these rural communities in west virginia were so bad, that i think i might prefer to be a poor black in nyc.   # yes, and no ? i need to be honest.  the poverty i saw in these rural communities in west virginia were so bad, that i think i might prefer to be a poor black in nyc.  at least projects have running water and electricity.  there is access to nice clothes, gadgets, and other nice things.  what i mean is making a blanket statement about socioeconomic levels and race is not 0 accurate.  if we want to say being born black or white in the same rural community in west virginia, i would say i would rather be neither, and chose not to be born at all.   #  but one can believe that it sucks less to be a poor white in wva then to be a poor black in wva without being a racist.   #  no being a poor black in ny vs.  a poor white in wva is not a choice, because all things are not equal.   all things equal  means race is the only variable.   neither  is not an option either.  yeah, it sucks to be poor in wva.  but one can believe that it sucks less to be a poor white in wva then to be a poor black in wva without being a racist.  it is just doing the math can coming to the conclusion that things are worse to be black, based on societal advantages.   #  you are being intentionally obtuse in this discussion.   # that is not a choice.  you are being intentionally obtuse in this discussion.  the hypothetical here is not  if you were a god, and you could do whatever you want, how would you proceed ?   the hypothetical is  take a random person and put them in a random living situation.  is there any conditions under which it is not immediately advantageous to be white ?   the only thing you can vary here is race.  is rich white better off than rich black ? is poor white better off than poor black ? is w. va.  white better off than w. va.  black ? that is all you can vary.  URL this argument is implied with the statement  all other things being equal
like many people, i want reddit to ban r/coontown and other subs.  however, u/spez disagrees, saying  you ca not win an argument with racists by silencing them  URL well, if he really believes that, then i am sure he would be happy if r/coontown posts were on the front page, so that more people can  engage in the debate  about whether black people are in fact human beings.  maybe ordinary users and media outlets would then be able to engage in the debate as well, who knows.  obviously reddit is too afraid to ban r/coontown, so i say the next best thing is to put them on the front page for all to see.  i believe the best tactic for those of us who are against racist subs is to bring them to the light of day.  cmv.   #  like many people, i want reddit to ban r/coontown and other subs.   #  jesus christ will you people ever stop ?  # jesus christ will you people ever stop ? reddit is already a leftist hugbox where people agree and reinforce each others  opinions with no dissent.  well, if he really believes that, then i am sure he would be happy if r/coontown posts were on the front page, you mean r/all ? the front page only shows subs you have subscribed to.  also, we already have invited allegedly  open minded  masses to debate with us.  URL  #  if you go on a coontown post arguing against coontown or against hate speech in general, you will get a downvoted, b potentially banned by mods for trolling, especially if you are there more often.   #  the issue is that this discussion will be non productive.  if you go on a coontown post arguing against coontown or against hate speech in general, you will get a downvoted, b potentially banned by mods for trolling, especially if you are there more often.  arguments that take place on forums like coontown generally do not lead to one side changing their view.  0 the argument will always be  free speech / it is wrong to silence someone you disagree with  vs  this is morally wrong and costs reddit money in the long run .  i believe the best thing to do is ignore it.  i am in favor of huffman is decision to make a status similar to nsfw that blocks certain parts of reddit from those who are not interested in joining and also does not allow ads so companies wo not be worried about supporting communities that would be bad for them to endorse .  less access by the general browsing public means fewer new members joining specifically for racist reasons, and fewer comments and new submissions.  this will starve the subreddit and eventually, lead to a dead sub.    0.  this is especially true of beliefs you hold very close to your identity, such as religious beliefs.   #  reddit controversies do not just stay on reddit anymore.   # are you kidding ? reddit controversies do not just stay on reddit anymore.  ellen is resignation made it to the new york times.  reddit is in the spotlight.  putting c town on the front page is likely to spread the word to a wider audience.  yeah, but your cmv is about putting its posts on the front page.  i also hate the sub, but i do not think your idea is a good one.   #  i think it would be very informative to the general public, and to reddit is investors.   #  i wish the new york times would write a story on r/coontown.  i think it would be very informative to the general public, and to reddit is investors.  you seem to think that allowing hate communities to fester in obscurity is bad for them.  i believe it is their optimal condition.  there is a reason the kkk exists in the shadows.  they like it that way.  it allows them to create a members only club where they can lather up their hate ideology without too much outside exposure.   #  i have already been convinced that they need to be removed from the site.   # there is a reason the kkk exists in the shadows.  they like it that way.  it allows them to create a members only club where they can lather up their their hate ideology without too much outside exposure.  bull.  if they had it their way, they would have offices in times square.  they are in the shadows because their beliefs are worth less than used toilet paper, and the majority of people do not support their filthy beliefs.  they are rats in the fucking sewers.  you have written that elsewhere that:   they do not want the outside world to intrude on their ideological echo chamber.  giving them mass exposure hurts them.  outing their members hurts them, it shames them publicly.  that will not happen on reddit these are anonymous people.  and no, there is no precedent for reddit to publicly release their ip addresses, that is just not going to happen.  their speech is protected.  i have already been convinced that they need to be removed from the site.  i will support any reasonable measure to do that, but your idea is not one of them.
bosses who demand you bring solutions are oblivious to the fact that the majority of workers may have a very good and accurate assessment of a problem, but lack the training and expertise to fix it.  the fact that someone is not a chef does not mean they do not know the soup is lacking in flavor.  if a boss says  it is best to come with solutions if you can , that is a good enough thing, but to say  do not bring me any issues that you do not have an answer for  is ignorant or willfully dismissive.  for example, if the workers are saying that the new time off policy is not working and people are stressed/morale is low, they should not have to have a plan to fix it to voice the fact that it is an issue.  rather, the requirement that they must have a solution when they have neither the expertise or power to do so is a sure way to make sure that workers are discouraged from communicating openly with management which will create a rift between layers in a workplace.   #  but to say  do not bring me any issues that you do not have an answer for  is ignorant or willfully dismissive.   #  this is a bit of a misinterpretation.   # this is a bit of a misinterpretation.  the idea is to promote some level of immediate problem solving.  if you come to me with  just  a problem, all you did was report.  if you come with even a step in the right direction, you are involved.  for example: you enter the breakroom and found the microwave smoking.  if you come and say  the microwave is smoking , its much less productive than saying  the microwave was smoking, so i unplugged it.  we should call the repairman.    #  this is the kind of attitude that is the problem.   # but if i have two employees, one of whom is willing and able to solve simple problems like this, and the other who is not, guess which one is getting a better raise, and guess which one will be at the top of the list if i am forced to reduce staff.  this is the kind of attitude that is the problem.  you would punish the one who has no valid expertise ? when they have done nothing at all wrong ? you would not have an issue if one of your office administrators spent time finding out who could repair it and trying to learn enough about the system to bring you some kind of recommendation even though someone experienced could make much better use of the time ? rather, i am quite certain that people who try to solve problems far outside their area of expertise are penalized for their  initiative .  if you are an entry level analyst, i expect you to solve simple problems yourself, and bring the more complex problems to me.  if you bring me problems that someone at your pay grade should be able to solve, i would rather not have you around.  so what if the problem is not it ? what if it is budget, or administrative, or managerial ? should they make attempts to learn the basics of these other crafts before they bring forth an issue ?  #  but they should be competent enough human beings to be able to speak intelligently about what other people do and how the basic business functions.   # not at all.  every department should have people cross trained in activities outside of their primary scope.  otherwise every employee becomes a critical single point of failure and any department of any size will be in chronic distress mode every time someone is out of the office for whatever reason.  no one should be expected to be an expert in areas beyond their training.  but they should be competent enough human beings to be able to speak intelligently about what other people do and how the basic business functions.  which means they have enough training to think about a problem and come up with at least one idea on how to solve it.  first day entry level employees should not be expected to know everything.  but by the time they have been someplace a year, the manager should be able to be out of the office for a day or two and forward his number to that person and have them be capable of not screwing up.  they may not excel, they may need to ask others for advice on how to answer some question or perform some task, but they should be more than capable of not causing a catastrophe.  and if that is not happening, then manager is failing to ensure his people are adequately aware of and trained for the business and mission of the department.   #  no one is expecting bob from sales to fix the copier, or for janice from accounting to find and hire a tech.   #  unless the copier has burst into flames, stood on its hind legs and began attacking human resources, there is enough time to get the techs number, especially since most techs put a sticker with their number on the copier itself.  oddly enough, the statement you just made:  not every employee should be expected to have or find the tech is number nor take the time to call is the crux of the argument.  ideally,  every  employee should be expected to take the few minutes at most to come up with a plan to at least move the problem in a stable direction.  no one is expecting bob from sales to fix the copier, or for janice from accounting to find and hire a tech.  it is completely reasonable, however, to want someone to take a little initiative towards solving problems.  the attitude that problems belong to everyone, and that everyone should work to fix it, is a part of a well functioning organization.   #  this example was a mistake because it is too easy.   #  this example was a mistake because it is too easy.  what if the problem is  our cafeteria is constantly short staffed  ? how does someone in a normal office environment deal with the staffing issues of an outside food service company ? that is a management problem, pure and simple and employees should not be expected in any way to bring forth a solution.  in fact, it would probably be annoying if they did:  you should fire their manager ! etc
tonight is front page of r/all, as well as headlines on many other news sites, are dominated by content related to the hunting of  trophy  animals, sparked by the killing of cecil the lion.  although admittedly it is far from a consensus, many seem to believe that the hunting of these exotic animals is objectively wrong and therefore should be prohibited.  it is likely that many of those vocal with their distaste of hunting for sport like   the  0,0 signatories of the  justice for cecil  petition URL however are also consumers of meat.  i believe this can be inferred by the sheer amount of negative press walter palmer is receiving contrasted with the fact that a minority of people are vegetarians.  this perspective seems hypocritical.  i can imagine two main counterarguments to my claim.  their general ideas, with my responses, are below: 0  the killing of endangered animals is worse than the killing of animals under no danger of extinction.   response: objectively i do not think an individual life can and should be valued more than another.  therefore although killing a member of an endangered species is deplorable, due to the smaller room for error for the management of the populations of these species, the killing of an animal like a cow is equally so.  0  killing for sport is unjustifiable whereas killing animals for their meat/pelt/whatever serves a purpose, making it justifiable.   response: it is no longer true that humans, at least those in developed areas, need the goods of a dead animal to survive.  although it could be argued that at one point the hunting of animals was a necessary evil for the survival of our species, there is no longer any need to murder animals for sustenance.  all of the nutrients necessary for the well being of humans that are gained from eating meat now have more ethical alternatives.  i would appreciate if anyone could either further develop one of the perspectives presented above or share a new one.  cmv  #  objectively i do not think an individual life can and should be valued more than another.   #  therefore although killing a member of an endangered species is deplorable, due to the smaller room for error for the management of the populations of these species, the killing of an animal like a cow is equally so.   # therefore although killing a member of an endangered species is deplorable, due to the smaller room for error for the management of the populations of these species, the killing of an animal like a cow is equally so.  here we have major difference in our outlooks on the world and therefore the structure of our morals.  you see life as life and seek to protect the individual.  i however, see a population or an ecosystem in its entirety as being greater than the sum of its parts.  affecting different parts of the ecosystem in the same way can have vastly different effects depending on the placement of the actions.  in the same way as a surgery to remove a body part or organ can help the person even though it harms some of the cells, i see some actions that harm members of a population or ecosystem as being good for the whole on the large scale.  although it could be argued that at one point the hunting of animals was a necessary evil for the survival of our species, there is no longer any need to murder animals for sustenance.  all of the nutrients necessary for the well being of humans that are gained from eating meat now have more ethical alternatives.  building off of my first paragraph, i see circumstances where it is beneficial on a large scale to either hunt or raise livestock.  in these circumstances, not eating the meat produced would be acceptable, but wasteful.  by eating the meat, we gain as much benefit from each death as possible, therefore increasing the net benefit of the action.  it is important to note that i follow a form of consequentialism where every action is measured on its result to determine its morality.  all actions have negative aspects, but some actions have positive outcomes that outweigh those negative results.  any such action that results in a net positive outcome i would term to be moral.  in the case of killing animals, each possible scenario to kill an animal has the negative result of that individual is death which is weighted differently depending on the intellectual complexity and life cycle of the species .  however, the broad reaching ecological impacts vastly outweigh the individual, whether that result is positive or negative.  in the case of killing cecil, the ecological impact is negative.  however, in the case of killing a white tailed deer, the impact is positive.   #  you would be welcome to argue why i should be accepting your quality instead, but you absolutely could not call me a hypocrite, because my actions would have been perfectly consistent with my values.   #  ok, great so you have made a subjective call, and decided that there is a  quality  that separates life that we must preserve from less valuable life that we need not treat with the same regard.  sentience is the quality you have chosen, and yeah sentience seems totally reasonable criteria for someone to set their values on.  if you then ended life say squashed a bug  outside of  the  sentient  category, i could not accurately call you a hypocrite, because it is not at all hypocritical for someone who believes that only  sentient  life must be preserved to kill something  non sentient .  that action would be completely consistent within their value system.  however, someone else can have chosen a different subjective quality to determine what is permissible or not permissible to kill.  i can have set that quality as  endangered : if i did, it would not be at  all  hypocritical for me to kill something non endangered, while still decrying those who kill endangered species.  i could have set it as  legal , and it would not be at all hypocritical for me to hunt something that is legal to hunt, while at the same time condemning someone for killing something illegal.  i could have set it as  sustainable , and only slaughtered from species that we farm and control the reproduction of, while still judging people for reckless killing of other species.  you would be welcome to argue why i should be accepting your quality instead, but you absolutely could not call me a hypocrite, because my actions would have been perfectly consistent with my values.  did i change your view ?  #  i do not believe that murdering animals is different from the above issues.   #  i think i understand what you are saying.  however i think i disagree with at least some of its premise.  there are some truths that are widely accepted as objective truths, regardless of personal values and whether or not they are actually objectively true.  things like the backwardness of racism and the immoral nature of robbery.  although it is incredibly difficult to define something that seems dangerously close to an opinion as objective, developed society seems to of decided on a few objectively true opinions.  in some cases, to further our society, we ignore the plurality of truth.  clearly, society does not view the wrongness of the killing of animals as one of these  objectively true  opinions.  however, i think it would be possible to reach an objectively ethically correct line dividing which lives are more  valuable.   i am not necessarily indicating that my line is placed at the undeniably correct place.  i will argue the premise that an individual is choice on their  quality to determine what is permissible or not permissible to kill  validates whether or not it is okay for that individual to kill an animal that they deem acceptable to kill.  society could determine a point at which a life is permissible to take.  i have clear personal views on where that point should be, but i am not arrogant enough to assume it is objectively correct.  however, i do believe that society has set a precedent to decide a line.  i do believe that mine is on par with the generally accepted as objectively true anti racist and anti sexist sentiments modern society promotes.  deviating personal values on racism, robbery, murder and sexism are not generally accepted in our society.  i do not believe that murdering animals is different from the above issues.   #  i think i am supposed to award you a   for convincing me of that.   #  i agree with your sentiments about my use of the word hypocrite.  i was incorrectly using my own, more colloquial, definition.  i think i am supposed to award you a   for convincing me of that.  i think that i should of labelled the thread something more along the lines of what you suggested above.  i can hardly fault you for being unable to change my perspective on the value of life when i gave you poor question.   #  0 hunting can have positive impacts on the environment by keeping certain animal populations in check.   #  with regard to your arguments: 0 much like how killing the president is far more serious a crime than killing your local postman, killing an endangered animal is far more serious than killing a cow.  in both cases, killings of the former present far more extreme consequences than the killings of the latter.  much like how it is often depicted as far more heinous to kill a young child over a grown man.  while not denying that all life is precious, you cannot possibly say that the consequences of killing in all scenarios cecil, the president, a young child are not more grave.  hence the outrage.  0 hunting can have positive impacts on the environment by keeping certain animal populations in check.
tonight is front page of r/all, as well as headlines on many other news sites, are dominated by content related to the hunting of  trophy  animals, sparked by the killing of cecil the lion.  although admittedly it is far from a consensus, many seem to believe that the hunting of these exotic animals is objectively wrong and therefore should be prohibited.  it is likely that many of those vocal with their distaste of hunting for sport like   the  0,0 signatories of the  justice for cecil  petition URL however are also consumers of meat.  i believe this can be inferred by the sheer amount of negative press walter palmer is receiving contrasted with the fact that a minority of people are vegetarians.  this perspective seems hypocritical.  i can imagine two main counterarguments to my claim.  their general ideas, with my responses, are below: 0  the killing of endangered animals is worse than the killing of animals under no danger of extinction.   response: objectively i do not think an individual life can and should be valued more than another.  therefore although killing a member of an endangered species is deplorable, due to the smaller room for error for the management of the populations of these species, the killing of an animal like a cow is equally so.  0  killing for sport is unjustifiable whereas killing animals for their meat/pelt/whatever serves a purpose, making it justifiable.   response: it is no longer true that humans, at least those in developed areas, need the goods of a dead animal to survive.  although it could be argued that at one point the hunting of animals was a necessary evil for the survival of our species, there is no longer any need to murder animals for sustenance.  all of the nutrients necessary for the well being of humans that are gained from eating meat now have more ethical alternatives.  i would appreciate if anyone could either further develop one of the perspectives presented above or share a new one.  cmv  #  it is no longer true that humans, at least those in developed areas, need the goods of a dead animal to survive.   #  although it could be argued that at one point the hunting of animals was a necessary evil for the survival of our species, there is no longer any need to murder animals for sustenance.   # therefore although killing a member of an endangered species is deplorable, due to the smaller room for error for the management of the populations of these species, the killing of an animal like a cow is equally so.  here we have major difference in our outlooks on the world and therefore the structure of our morals.  you see life as life and seek to protect the individual.  i however, see a population or an ecosystem in its entirety as being greater than the sum of its parts.  affecting different parts of the ecosystem in the same way can have vastly different effects depending on the placement of the actions.  in the same way as a surgery to remove a body part or organ can help the person even though it harms some of the cells, i see some actions that harm members of a population or ecosystem as being good for the whole on the large scale.  although it could be argued that at one point the hunting of animals was a necessary evil for the survival of our species, there is no longer any need to murder animals for sustenance.  all of the nutrients necessary for the well being of humans that are gained from eating meat now have more ethical alternatives.  building off of my first paragraph, i see circumstances where it is beneficial on a large scale to either hunt or raise livestock.  in these circumstances, not eating the meat produced would be acceptable, but wasteful.  by eating the meat, we gain as much benefit from each death as possible, therefore increasing the net benefit of the action.  it is important to note that i follow a form of consequentialism where every action is measured on its result to determine its morality.  all actions have negative aspects, but some actions have positive outcomes that outweigh those negative results.  any such action that results in a net positive outcome i would term to be moral.  in the case of killing animals, each possible scenario to kill an animal has the negative result of that individual is death which is weighted differently depending on the intellectual complexity and life cycle of the species .  however, the broad reaching ecological impacts vastly outweigh the individual, whether that result is positive or negative.  in the case of killing cecil, the ecological impact is negative.  however, in the case of killing a white tailed deer, the impact is positive.   #  sentience is the quality you have chosen, and yeah sentience seems totally reasonable criteria for someone to set their values on.   #  ok, great so you have made a subjective call, and decided that there is a  quality  that separates life that we must preserve from less valuable life that we need not treat with the same regard.  sentience is the quality you have chosen, and yeah sentience seems totally reasonable criteria for someone to set their values on.  if you then ended life say squashed a bug  outside of  the  sentient  category, i could not accurately call you a hypocrite, because it is not at all hypocritical for someone who believes that only  sentient  life must be preserved to kill something  non sentient .  that action would be completely consistent within their value system.  however, someone else can have chosen a different subjective quality to determine what is permissible or not permissible to kill.  i can have set that quality as  endangered : if i did, it would not be at  all  hypocritical for me to kill something non endangered, while still decrying those who kill endangered species.  i could have set it as  legal , and it would not be at all hypocritical for me to hunt something that is legal to hunt, while at the same time condemning someone for killing something illegal.  i could have set it as  sustainable , and only slaughtered from species that we farm and control the reproduction of, while still judging people for reckless killing of other species.  you would be welcome to argue why i should be accepting your quality instead, but you absolutely could not call me a hypocrite, because my actions would have been perfectly consistent with my values.  did i change your view ?  #  i have clear personal views on where that point should be, but i am not arrogant enough to assume it is objectively correct.   #  i think i understand what you are saying.  however i think i disagree with at least some of its premise.  there are some truths that are widely accepted as objective truths, regardless of personal values and whether or not they are actually objectively true.  things like the backwardness of racism and the immoral nature of robbery.  although it is incredibly difficult to define something that seems dangerously close to an opinion as objective, developed society seems to of decided on a few objectively true opinions.  in some cases, to further our society, we ignore the plurality of truth.  clearly, society does not view the wrongness of the killing of animals as one of these  objectively true  opinions.  however, i think it would be possible to reach an objectively ethically correct line dividing which lives are more  valuable.   i am not necessarily indicating that my line is placed at the undeniably correct place.  i will argue the premise that an individual is choice on their  quality to determine what is permissible or not permissible to kill  validates whether or not it is okay for that individual to kill an animal that they deem acceptable to kill.  society could determine a point at which a life is permissible to take.  i have clear personal views on where that point should be, but i am not arrogant enough to assume it is objectively correct.  however, i do believe that society has set a precedent to decide a line.  i do believe that mine is on par with the generally accepted as objectively true anti racist and anti sexist sentiments modern society promotes.  deviating personal values on racism, robbery, murder and sexism are not generally accepted in our society.  i do not believe that murdering animals is different from the above issues.   #  i can hardly fault you for being unable to change my perspective on the value of life when i gave you poor question.   #  i agree with your sentiments about my use of the word hypocrite.  i was incorrectly using my own, more colloquial, definition.  i think i am supposed to award you a   for convincing me of that.  i think that i should of labelled the thread something more along the lines of what you suggested above.  i can hardly fault you for being unable to change my perspective on the value of life when i gave you poor question.   #  much like how it is often depicted as far more heinous to kill a young child over a grown man.   #  with regard to your arguments: 0 much like how killing the president is far more serious a crime than killing your local postman, killing an endangered animal is far more serious than killing a cow.  in both cases, killings of the former present far more extreme consequences than the killings of the latter.  much like how it is often depicted as far more heinous to kill a young child over a grown man.  while not denying that all life is precious, you cannot possibly say that the consequences of killing in all scenarios cecil, the president, a young child are not more grave.  hence the outrage.  0 hunting can have positive impacts on the environment by keeping certain animal populations in check.
tonight is front page of r/all, as well as headlines on many other news sites, are dominated by content related to the hunting of  trophy  animals, sparked by the killing of cecil the lion.  although admittedly it is far from a consensus, many seem to believe that the hunting of these exotic animals is objectively wrong and therefore should be prohibited.  it is likely that many of those vocal with their distaste of hunting for sport like   the  0,0 signatories of the  justice for cecil  petition URL however are also consumers of meat.  i believe this can be inferred by the sheer amount of negative press walter palmer is receiving contrasted with the fact that a minority of people are vegetarians.  this perspective seems hypocritical.  i can imagine two main counterarguments to my claim.  their general ideas, with my responses, are below: 0  the killing of endangered animals is worse than the killing of animals under no danger of extinction.   response: objectively i do not think an individual life can and should be valued more than another.  therefore although killing a member of an endangered species is deplorable, due to the smaller room for error for the management of the populations of these species, the killing of an animal like a cow is equally so.  0  killing for sport is unjustifiable whereas killing animals for their meat/pelt/whatever serves a purpose, making it justifiable.   response: it is no longer true that humans, at least those in developed areas, need the goods of a dead animal to survive.  although it could be argued that at one point the hunting of animals was a necessary evil for the survival of our species, there is no longer any need to murder animals for sustenance.  all of the nutrients necessary for the well being of humans that are gained from eating meat now have more ethical alternatives.  i would appreciate if anyone could either further develop one of the perspectives presented above or share a new one.  cmv  #  although admittedly it is far from a consensus, many seem to believe that the hunting of these exotic animals is objectively wrong and therefore should be prohibited.   #  i have a problem with this kill because;   legality: it apparently was done in an illegal way.   # i have a problem with this kill because;   legality: it apparently was done in an illegal way.  luring outside of the park, killing animal with a collar/tag   ugly american tourist: this is setting up to be an ignorant american who just flings money around expecting to have his way.  at least he should have known about the collar/tag or made sure if it was there or not.  unsporting/unfair: apparently they lured it with meat and then killed it.  that is not sporting you do not start playing basketball while the other team is eating dinner.  these problems have nothing to do with eating or not eating meat.   #  you would be welcome to argue why i should be accepting your quality instead, but you absolutely could not call me a hypocrite, because my actions would have been perfectly consistent with my values.   #  ok, great so you have made a subjective call, and decided that there is a  quality  that separates life that we must preserve from less valuable life that we need not treat with the same regard.  sentience is the quality you have chosen, and yeah sentience seems totally reasonable criteria for someone to set their values on.  if you then ended life say squashed a bug  outside of  the  sentient  category, i could not accurately call you a hypocrite, because it is not at all hypocritical for someone who believes that only  sentient  life must be preserved to kill something  non sentient .  that action would be completely consistent within their value system.  however, someone else can have chosen a different subjective quality to determine what is permissible or not permissible to kill.  i can have set that quality as  endangered : if i did, it would not be at  all  hypocritical for me to kill something non endangered, while still decrying those who kill endangered species.  i could have set it as  legal , and it would not be at all hypocritical for me to hunt something that is legal to hunt, while at the same time condemning someone for killing something illegal.  i could have set it as  sustainable , and only slaughtered from species that we farm and control the reproduction of, while still judging people for reckless killing of other species.  you would be welcome to argue why i should be accepting your quality instead, but you absolutely could not call me a hypocrite, because my actions would have been perfectly consistent with my values.  did i change your view ?  #  however, i think it would be possible to reach an objectively ethically correct line dividing which lives are more  valuable.    #  i think i understand what you are saying.  however i think i disagree with at least some of its premise.  there are some truths that are widely accepted as objective truths, regardless of personal values and whether or not they are actually objectively true.  things like the backwardness of racism and the immoral nature of robbery.  although it is incredibly difficult to define something that seems dangerously close to an opinion as objective, developed society seems to of decided on a few objectively true opinions.  in some cases, to further our society, we ignore the plurality of truth.  clearly, society does not view the wrongness of the killing of animals as one of these  objectively true  opinions.  however, i think it would be possible to reach an objectively ethically correct line dividing which lives are more  valuable.   i am not necessarily indicating that my line is placed at the undeniably correct place.  i will argue the premise that an individual is choice on their  quality to determine what is permissible or not permissible to kill  validates whether or not it is okay for that individual to kill an animal that they deem acceptable to kill.  society could determine a point at which a life is permissible to take.  i have clear personal views on where that point should be, but i am not arrogant enough to assume it is objectively correct.  however, i do believe that society has set a precedent to decide a line.  i do believe that mine is on par with the generally accepted as objectively true anti racist and anti sexist sentiments modern society promotes.  deviating personal values on racism, robbery, murder and sexism are not generally accepted in our society.  i do not believe that murdering animals is different from the above issues.   #  i think i am supposed to award you a   for convincing me of that.   #  i agree with your sentiments about my use of the word hypocrite.  i was incorrectly using my own, more colloquial, definition.  i think i am supposed to award you a   for convincing me of that.  i think that i should of labelled the thread something more along the lines of what you suggested above.  i can hardly fault you for being unable to change my perspective on the value of life when i gave you poor question.   #  while not denying that all life is precious, you cannot possibly say that the consequences of killing in all scenarios cecil, the president, a young child are not more grave.   #  with regard to your arguments: 0 much like how killing the president is far more serious a crime than killing your local postman, killing an endangered animal is far more serious than killing a cow.  in both cases, killings of the former present far more extreme consequences than the killings of the latter.  much like how it is often depicted as far more heinous to kill a young child over a grown man.  while not denying that all life is precious, you cannot possibly say that the consequences of killing in all scenarios cecil, the president, a young child are not more grave.  hence the outrage.  0 hunting can have positive impacts on the environment by keeping certain animal populations in check.
tonight is front page of r/all, as well as headlines on many other news sites, are dominated by content related to the hunting of  trophy  animals, sparked by the killing of cecil the lion.  although admittedly it is far from a consensus, many seem to believe that the hunting of these exotic animals is objectively wrong and therefore should be prohibited.  it is likely that many of those vocal with their distaste of hunting for sport like   the  0,0 signatories of the  justice for cecil  petition URL however are also consumers of meat.  i believe this can be inferred by the sheer amount of negative press walter palmer is receiving contrasted with the fact that a minority of people are vegetarians.  this perspective seems hypocritical.  i can imagine two main counterarguments to my claim.  their general ideas, with my responses, are below: 0  the killing of endangered animals is worse than the killing of animals under no danger of extinction.   response: objectively i do not think an individual life can and should be valued more than another.  therefore although killing a member of an endangered species is deplorable, due to the smaller room for error for the management of the populations of these species, the killing of an animal like a cow is equally so.  0  killing for sport is unjustifiable whereas killing animals for their meat/pelt/whatever serves a purpose, making it justifiable.   response: it is no longer true that humans, at least those in developed areas, need the goods of a dead animal to survive.  although it could be argued that at one point the hunting of animals was a necessary evil for the survival of our species, there is no longer any need to murder animals for sustenance.  all of the nutrients necessary for the well being of humans that are gained from eating meat now have more ethical alternatives.  i would appreciate if anyone could either further develop one of the perspectives presented above or share a new one.  cmv  #  it is no longer true that humans, at least those in developed areas, need the goods of a dead animal to survive.   #  although it could be argued that at one point the hunting of animals was a necessary evil for the survival of our species, there is no longer any need to murder animals for sustenance.   # although it could be argued that at one point the hunting of animals was a necessary evil for the survival of our species, there is no longer any need to murder animals for sustenance.  all of the nutrients necessary for the well being of humans that are gained from eating meat now have more ethical alternatives.  most people who object to sport hunting object to the  waste.  i, for instance, have no issue with sport hunting when the meat is donated to local villages like in safari hunting , and when it is done in an environmentally sound manner.  so there are lots of reasons to decry this sport hunter that would not make one a hypocrite.  waste, environmental management, poaching.  if you disagree with sport hunting for these reasons, there is no hypocrisy in eating meat.  also, this post is really close to another from a couple hours ago.  URL  #  sentience is the quality you have chosen, and yeah sentience seems totally reasonable criteria for someone to set their values on.   #  ok, great so you have made a subjective call, and decided that there is a  quality  that separates life that we must preserve from less valuable life that we need not treat with the same regard.  sentience is the quality you have chosen, and yeah sentience seems totally reasonable criteria for someone to set their values on.  if you then ended life say squashed a bug  outside of  the  sentient  category, i could not accurately call you a hypocrite, because it is not at all hypocritical for someone who believes that only  sentient  life must be preserved to kill something  non sentient .  that action would be completely consistent within their value system.  however, someone else can have chosen a different subjective quality to determine what is permissible or not permissible to kill.  i can have set that quality as  endangered : if i did, it would not be at  all  hypocritical for me to kill something non endangered, while still decrying those who kill endangered species.  i could have set it as  legal , and it would not be at all hypocritical for me to hunt something that is legal to hunt, while at the same time condemning someone for killing something illegal.  i could have set it as  sustainable , and only slaughtered from species that we farm and control the reproduction of, while still judging people for reckless killing of other species.  you would be welcome to argue why i should be accepting your quality instead, but you absolutely could not call me a hypocrite, because my actions would have been perfectly consistent with my values.  did i change your view ?  #  however, i do believe that society has set a precedent to decide a line.   #  i think i understand what you are saying.  however i think i disagree with at least some of its premise.  there are some truths that are widely accepted as objective truths, regardless of personal values and whether or not they are actually objectively true.  things like the backwardness of racism and the immoral nature of robbery.  although it is incredibly difficult to define something that seems dangerously close to an opinion as objective, developed society seems to of decided on a few objectively true opinions.  in some cases, to further our society, we ignore the plurality of truth.  clearly, society does not view the wrongness of the killing of animals as one of these  objectively true  opinions.  however, i think it would be possible to reach an objectively ethically correct line dividing which lives are more  valuable.   i am not necessarily indicating that my line is placed at the undeniably correct place.  i will argue the premise that an individual is choice on their  quality to determine what is permissible or not permissible to kill  validates whether or not it is okay for that individual to kill an animal that they deem acceptable to kill.  society could determine a point at which a life is permissible to take.  i have clear personal views on where that point should be, but i am not arrogant enough to assume it is objectively correct.  however, i do believe that society has set a precedent to decide a line.  i do believe that mine is on par with the generally accepted as objectively true anti racist and anti sexist sentiments modern society promotes.  deviating personal values on racism, robbery, murder and sexism are not generally accepted in our society.  i do not believe that murdering animals is different from the above issues.   #  i think i am supposed to award you a   for convincing me of that.   #  i agree with your sentiments about my use of the word hypocrite.  i was incorrectly using my own, more colloquial, definition.  i think i am supposed to award you a   for convincing me of that.  i think that i should of labelled the thread something more along the lines of what you suggested above.  i can hardly fault you for being unable to change my perspective on the value of life when i gave you poor question.   #  0 hunting can have positive impacts on the environment by keeping certain animal populations in check.   #  with regard to your arguments: 0 much like how killing the president is far more serious a crime than killing your local postman, killing an endangered animal is far more serious than killing a cow.  in both cases, killings of the former present far more extreme consequences than the killings of the latter.  much like how it is often depicted as far more heinous to kill a young child over a grown man.  while not denying that all life is precious, you cannot possibly say that the consequences of killing in all scenarios cecil, the president, a young child are not more grave.  hence the outrage.  0 hunting can have positive impacts on the environment by keeping certain animal populations in check.
this morning, the admin /u/spez made a post giving the reason why they are not banning /r/coontown.  here is his posts: many people in that thread agree with /u/spez there.  that to fight racism, we need to  debate  racism  with  the racists.  i think this line of thinking is naive, and simply wrong, for these reasons: 0 there is mountains of scientific evidence that climate change exists and is a result of human activities and there is also mountains of evidence of the efficacy of vaccines.  no serious, respected group of scientists deny this.  yet, the way the media has addressed these topics which is to give  both sides  of the  debate  an equal platform/time has  not  resulted in these positions declining in belief among the general public.  the bbc has just recognized this URL a bit late though.  the anti vaxxer movement is going strong, and has grown thanks to many  debates  being put on air.  there are  politicians in the u. s.  congress  who do not believe in climate change.  open debate does not help to weed out such positions, clearly.  0 while i ca not say how effective  silencing the opposition  is, i disagree with the idea what  not giving them a platform  is the same thing as silencing.  nobody is stopping them from shouting what they have to say over the internet in their blogs and websites.  what should not happen is pretending giving them the respect of an open debate and claiming that both sides have merit.  you would not bring on a kkk member to argue with a civil rights activist on tv, why should reddit ? 0 reddit as a platform itself is very ill suited to the style of  open debate  that /u/spez and his supporters claim will be enough to weed out the racism in society.  the upvote/downvote system and the userbase is affinity for liking long arguments that sound logical and scientific is perfect fodder for the white supremacist is style of argumentation, which is basically a gish gallop.  you inundate your opponent with a bunch of links and cherry picked facts to  strongly suggest but never outright state  a conclusion that black people are inferior which leaves you a lot of lee way with claiming victory over your debate opponent.  plus, the general disdain for any explanation that deals with  sjw  terms and explanations makes it harder for anyone to side with you.  the white supremacists come to the debate with the intention to  win  an argument,  not  to debate.  so unless you are equally as prepared with your own walls of text copypasted, you will lose unless you have the hours and the brigade of supporters to deal with them.  0 as an addendum to 0 and 0, given how the issue of race and biology, sociology, etc.  are still not nearly as understood as how vaccines are necessary and how climate change is happening, giving them an equal platform gives them an even better shot than the anti vaxxers and climate change deniers in converting people to their ideology.  dylann storm roof became a racist after he looked into intentionally misleading copypasta of black crime statistics posted by the council of conservative citizens.  and you can see where that led him.  i think for these reasons that /u/spez is reason for not banning a place like /r/coontown is naive and possibly dangerous.  that being said, i am not exactly sure  what  the right way to combat ignorance and hate is.  better education in our public schools would probably be a good first step.  alternatively, we could follow the example in the story of the racist tree URL  #  you would not bring on a kkk member to argue with a civil rights activist on tv, why should reddit ?  #  reddit does not have the same effectively finite capacity that a tv show does; the subreddits you name take essentially nothing from other subreddits, while such a debate on tv robs the station of rather more valuable airtime.   # there are still people who think germs do not exist, or that we have not been to the moon.  silence them, and you only make people think you are afraid of what they have to say.  over time, the majority of people come to understand the truth, but that means that they have a chance to see all sides and decide for themselves.  reddit does not have the same effectively finite capacity that a tv show does; the subreddits you name take essentially nothing from other subreddits, while such a debate on tv robs the station of rather more valuable airtime.  that being said, i would love to see such a debate.  i would be lying if i said i thought it would have much chance of changing my position on the matter, but it would almost certainly give me a better understanding of the opposition.  this is not a condemnation of open and equal debate; it is a condemnation of reddit is fitness as such a forum.  are still not nearly as understood as how vaccines are necessary and how climate change is happening, giving them an equal platform gives them an even better shot than the anti vaxxers and climate change deniers in converting people to their ideology.  lots of things were once understood and known to a certainty but later shown to be incorrect.  silencing the views of the opposition is the act of a petty tyrant, not someone who respects the possibility that they could be wrong.  if you are willing to silence your opponents because you are absolutely sure you are absolutely right, you are about as close minded as it gets.  if you are not that totally certain, you should be willing to listen and discuss, not silence.   #  coontown does  indirectly  harm people by fuelling racist ideologies, but no blacks were killed by pressing the save button.   #  i think it boils down to two things.  first being the first amendment if we are speaking strictly in the sense of the united states, but freedom of speech is true for most places on the internet.  second being leadership of platforms.  if you support freedom of speech, you also have to accept that hate speech is still speech.  assuming that the opinion you are against is only there to win and not debate is close minded.  while that happens in certain cases, assuming that of an entire viewpoint is incredibly short sighted and unfairly biased to your own viewpoint, because that sets you aside to only win, not debate.  if they are not going to listen to your side, you probably are not going to listen to theirs.  second, it bases itself on control of the platform.  spez thinks that even unpopular opinions should have a voice as long as they are not  directly  harming anyone.  coontown does  indirectly  harm people by fuelling racist ideologies, but no blacks were killed by pressing the save button.  platforms for debate of both sides should not make people fall to the wrong one if it is truly an equal debate since the counter side will poke holes into the claims.  while it might not change the debater is sides, it could affect independents and other third parties.  if there was someone who read through open mindedly and was swayed into antivaxxer, it would mean anti vaxxers provided viewpoints that pro vaxxers could not disprove.  if they sway even with all points proven wrong, then they would have been swayed by an ad or a pamphlet handed out to them, making the argument that equal platforms corrupt unimportant.  truly open minded people would side with the most convincing, factually based side.   #  no, but it certainly contributed to the festering of hatred in the individual who committed the crime, so much so their hatred spilled over into them going out and killing someone.   # that indirect harm is still harm.  nearly 0 killings are linked to active stormfront users.  URL can you blame stormfront for the deaths ? no, but it certainly contributed to the festering of hatred in the individual who committed the crime, so much so their hatred spilled over into them going out and killing someone.  now that reddit hosts the largest online white supremacist group on the internet, it is only a matter of time until we see that happening here too.  or did not have the  time  to disprove.  like i said, they employ gish gallops.  they appear reasonable like they are winning long enough for parties who are not as invested in the science to be swayed.  such people are a tiny, tiny minority.   #  i am not saying it is okay, but taking it down means reddit no longer supports/is a proponent for free speech.   #  again, it is about direct harm.  i am not saying it is okay, but taking it down means reddit no longer supports/is a proponent for free speech.  which can be argued both ways as good or bad.  if it is equal platforms they will have time because you ca not cut someone off in a post.  if there is not enough time to argue your side, it is no longer an equal platform.  if they are a tiny, tiny minority, then any debate is worthless since you wo not be changing any opinions.   #  more people are easily swayed by logical  sounding  arguments.   # i am not saying it is okay, but taking it down means reddit no longer supports/is a proponent for free speech.  which can be argued both ways as good or bad.  no, they can still support free speech if they take it down.  as long as reddit is not campaigning to have them permanently removed from the internet, their stance on free speech is fine.  they are not obligated to give them a platform.  are libertarians who argue that businesses should be allowed to discriminate no longer proponents for free speech ? cause i am sure many of them would disagree with you.  more people are easily swayed by logical  sounding  arguments.  which means their tactics are effective, and thus dangerous.
this morning, the admin /u/spez made a post giving the reason why they are not banning /r/coontown.  here is his posts: many people in that thread agree with /u/spez there.  that to fight racism, we need to  debate  racism  with  the racists.  i think this line of thinking is naive, and simply wrong, for these reasons: 0 there is mountains of scientific evidence that climate change exists and is a result of human activities and there is also mountains of evidence of the efficacy of vaccines.  no serious, respected group of scientists deny this.  yet, the way the media has addressed these topics which is to give  both sides  of the  debate  an equal platform/time has  not  resulted in these positions declining in belief among the general public.  the bbc has just recognized this URL a bit late though.  the anti vaxxer movement is going strong, and has grown thanks to many  debates  being put on air.  there are  politicians in the u. s.  congress  who do not believe in climate change.  open debate does not help to weed out such positions, clearly.  0 while i ca not say how effective  silencing the opposition  is, i disagree with the idea what  not giving them a platform  is the same thing as silencing.  nobody is stopping them from shouting what they have to say over the internet in their blogs and websites.  what should not happen is pretending giving them the respect of an open debate and claiming that both sides have merit.  you would not bring on a kkk member to argue with a civil rights activist on tv, why should reddit ? 0 reddit as a platform itself is very ill suited to the style of  open debate  that /u/spez and his supporters claim will be enough to weed out the racism in society.  the upvote/downvote system and the userbase is affinity for liking long arguments that sound logical and scientific is perfect fodder for the white supremacist is style of argumentation, which is basically a gish gallop.  you inundate your opponent with a bunch of links and cherry picked facts to  strongly suggest but never outright state  a conclusion that black people are inferior which leaves you a lot of lee way with claiming victory over your debate opponent.  plus, the general disdain for any explanation that deals with  sjw  terms and explanations makes it harder for anyone to side with you.  the white supremacists come to the debate with the intention to  win  an argument,  not  to debate.  so unless you are equally as prepared with your own walls of text copypasted, you will lose unless you have the hours and the brigade of supporters to deal with them.  0 as an addendum to 0 and 0, given how the issue of race and biology, sociology, etc.  are still not nearly as understood as how vaccines are necessary and how climate change is happening, giving them an equal platform gives them an even better shot than the anti vaxxers and climate change deniers in converting people to their ideology.  dylann storm roof became a racist after he looked into intentionally misleading copypasta of black crime statistics posted by the council of conservative citizens.  and you can see where that led him.  i think for these reasons that /u/spez is reason for not banning a place like /r/coontown is naive and possibly dangerous.  that being said, i am not exactly sure  what  the right way to combat ignorance and hate is.  better education in our public schools would probably be a good first step.  alternatively, we could follow the example in the story of the racist tree URL  #  as an addendum to 0 and 0, given how the issue of race and biology, sociology, etc.   #  are still not nearly as understood as how vaccines are necessary and how climate change is happening, giving them an equal platform gives them an even better shot than the anti vaxxers and climate change deniers in converting people to their ideology.   # there are still people who think germs do not exist, or that we have not been to the moon.  silence them, and you only make people think you are afraid of what they have to say.  over time, the majority of people come to understand the truth, but that means that they have a chance to see all sides and decide for themselves.  reddit does not have the same effectively finite capacity that a tv show does; the subreddits you name take essentially nothing from other subreddits, while such a debate on tv robs the station of rather more valuable airtime.  that being said, i would love to see such a debate.  i would be lying if i said i thought it would have much chance of changing my position on the matter, but it would almost certainly give me a better understanding of the opposition.  this is not a condemnation of open and equal debate; it is a condemnation of reddit is fitness as such a forum.  are still not nearly as understood as how vaccines are necessary and how climate change is happening, giving them an equal platform gives them an even better shot than the anti vaxxers and climate change deniers in converting people to their ideology.  lots of things were once understood and known to a certainty but later shown to be incorrect.  silencing the views of the opposition is the act of a petty tyrant, not someone who respects the possibility that they could be wrong.  if you are willing to silence your opponents because you are absolutely sure you are absolutely right, you are about as close minded as it gets.  if you are not that totally certain, you should be willing to listen and discuss, not silence.   #  if you support freedom of speech, you also have to accept that hate speech is still speech.   #  i think it boils down to two things.  first being the first amendment if we are speaking strictly in the sense of the united states, but freedom of speech is true for most places on the internet.  second being leadership of platforms.  if you support freedom of speech, you also have to accept that hate speech is still speech.  assuming that the opinion you are against is only there to win and not debate is close minded.  while that happens in certain cases, assuming that of an entire viewpoint is incredibly short sighted and unfairly biased to your own viewpoint, because that sets you aside to only win, not debate.  if they are not going to listen to your side, you probably are not going to listen to theirs.  second, it bases itself on control of the platform.  spez thinks that even unpopular opinions should have a voice as long as they are not  directly  harming anyone.  coontown does  indirectly  harm people by fuelling racist ideologies, but no blacks were killed by pressing the save button.  platforms for debate of both sides should not make people fall to the wrong one if it is truly an equal debate since the counter side will poke holes into the claims.  while it might not change the debater is sides, it could affect independents and other third parties.  if there was someone who read through open mindedly and was swayed into antivaxxer, it would mean anti vaxxers provided viewpoints that pro vaxxers could not disprove.  if they sway even with all points proven wrong, then they would have been swayed by an ad or a pamphlet handed out to them, making the argument that equal platforms corrupt unimportant.  truly open minded people would side with the most convincing, factually based side.   #  they appear reasonable like they are winning long enough for parties who are not as invested in the science to be swayed.   # that indirect harm is still harm.  nearly 0 killings are linked to active stormfront users.  URL can you blame stormfront for the deaths ? no, but it certainly contributed to the festering of hatred in the individual who committed the crime, so much so their hatred spilled over into them going out and killing someone.  now that reddit hosts the largest online white supremacist group on the internet, it is only a matter of time until we see that happening here too.  or did not have the  time  to disprove.  like i said, they employ gish gallops.  they appear reasonable like they are winning long enough for parties who are not as invested in the science to be swayed.  such people are a tiny, tiny minority.   #  i am not saying it is okay, but taking it down means reddit no longer supports/is a proponent for free speech.   #  again, it is about direct harm.  i am not saying it is okay, but taking it down means reddit no longer supports/is a proponent for free speech.  which can be argued both ways as good or bad.  if it is equal platforms they will have time because you ca not cut someone off in a post.  if there is not enough time to argue your side, it is no longer an equal platform.  if they are a tiny, tiny minority, then any debate is worthless since you wo not be changing any opinions.   #  as long as reddit is not campaigning to have them permanently removed from the internet, their stance on free speech is fine.   # i am not saying it is okay, but taking it down means reddit no longer supports/is a proponent for free speech.  which can be argued both ways as good or bad.  no, they can still support free speech if they take it down.  as long as reddit is not campaigning to have them permanently removed from the internet, their stance on free speech is fine.  they are not obligated to give them a platform.  are libertarians who argue that businesses should be allowed to discriminate no longer proponents for free speech ? cause i am sure many of them would disagree with you.  more people are easily swayed by logical  sounding  arguments.  which means their tactics are effective, and thus dangerous.
this morning, the admin /u/spez made a post giving the reason why they are not banning /r/coontown.  here is his posts: many people in that thread agree with /u/spez there.  that to fight racism, we need to  debate  racism  with  the racists.  i think this line of thinking is naive, and simply wrong, for these reasons: 0 there is mountains of scientific evidence that climate change exists and is a result of human activities and there is also mountains of evidence of the efficacy of vaccines.  no serious, respected group of scientists deny this.  yet, the way the media has addressed these topics which is to give  both sides  of the  debate  an equal platform/time has  not  resulted in these positions declining in belief among the general public.  the bbc has just recognized this URL a bit late though.  the anti vaxxer movement is going strong, and has grown thanks to many  debates  being put on air.  there are  politicians in the u. s.  congress  who do not believe in climate change.  open debate does not help to weed out such positions, clearly.  0 while i ca not say how effective  silencing the opposition  is, i disagree with the idea what  not giving them a platform  is the same thing as silencing.  nobody is stopping them from shouting what they have to say over the internet in their blogs and websites.  what should not happen is pretending giving them the respect of an open debate and claiming that both sides have merit.  you would not bring on a kkk member to argue with a civil rights activist on tv, why should reddit ? 0 reddit as a platform itself is very ill suited to the style of  open debate  that /u/spez and his supporters claim will be enough to weed out the racism in society.  the upvote/downvote system and the userbase is affinity for liking long arguments that sound logical and scientific is perfect fodder for the white supremacist is style of argumentation, which is basically a gish gallop.  you inundate your opponent with a bunch of links and cherry picked facts to  strongly suggest but never outright state  a conclusion that black people are inferior which leaves you a lot of lee way with claiming victory over your debate opponent.  plus, the general disdain for any explanation that deals with  sjw  terms and explanations makes it harder for anyone to side with you.  the white supremacists come to the debate with the intention to  win  an argument,  not  to debate.  so unless you are equally as prepared with your own walls of text copypasted, you will lose unless you have the hours and the brigade of supporters to deal with them.  0 as an addendum to 0 and 0, given how the issue of race and biology, sociology, etc.  are still not nearly as understood as how vaccines are necessary and how climate change is happening, giving them an equal platform gives them an even better shot than the anti vaxxers and climate change deniers in converting people to their ideology.  dylann storm roof became a racist after he looked into intentionally misleading copypasta of black crime statistics posted by the council of conservative citizens.  and you can see where that led him.  i think for these reasons that /u/spez is reason for not banning a place like /r/coontown is naive and possibly dangerous.  that being said, i am not exactly sure  what  the right way to combat ignorance and hate is.  better education in our public schools would probably be a good first step.  alternatively, we could follow the example in the story of the racist tree URL  #  0 while i ca not say how effective  silencing the opposition  is, i disagree with the idea what  not giving them a platform  is the same thing as silencing.   #  nobody is stopping them from shouting what they have to say over the internet in their blogs and websites.   # nobody is stopping them from shouting what they have to say over the internet in their blogs and websites.  what should not happen is pretending giving them the respect of an open debate and claiming that both sides have merit.  you would not bring on a kkk member to argue with a civil rights activist on tv, why should reddit ? sunshine is the best disinfectant.  you see, bad ideas do not stand up to the scrutiny of an nuanced and substantive debate.  censoring a point of view or  not giving it a platform,  whatever just thrusts it into the dark, where it gets credibility as a subversive and rebellious school of thought, something  they  do not want you to talk about.  monsters thrive in the dark.   they wont let us talk about our beliefs  is a much better advertisement for a belief system than  they had a debate about our beliefs and we absolutely lost.    #  if they are not going to listen to your side, you probably are not going to listen to theirs.   #  i think it boils down to two things.  first being the first amendment if we are speaking strictly in the sense of the united states, but freedom of speech is true for most places on the internet.  second being leadership of platforms.  if you support freedom of speech, you also have to accept that hate speech is still speech.  assuming that the opinion you are against is only there to win and not debate is close minded.  while that happens in certain cases, assuming that of an entire viewpoint is incredibly short sighted and unfairly biased to your own viewpoint, because that sets you aside to only win, not debate.  if they are not going to listen to your side, you probably are not going to listen to theirs.  second, it bases itself on control of the platform.  spez thinks that even unpopular opinions should have a voice as long as they are not  directly  harming anyone.  coontown does  indirectly  harm people by fuelling racist ideologies, but no blacks were killed by pressing the save button.  platforms for debate of both sides should not make people fall to the wrong one if it is truly an equal debate since the counter side will poke holes into the claims.  while it might not change the debater is sides, it could affect independents and other third parties.  if there was someone who read through open mindedly and was swayed into antivaxxer, it would mean anti vaxxers provided viewpoints that pro vaxxers could not disprove.  if they sway even with all points proven wrong, then they would have been swayed by an ad or a pamphlet handed out to them, making the argument that equal platforms corrupt unimportant.  truly open minded people would side with the most convincing, factually based side.   #  now that reddit hosts the largest online white supremacist group on the internet, it is only a matter of time until we see that happening here too.   # that indirect harm is still harm.  nearly 0 killings are linked to active stormfront users.  URL can you blame stormfront for the deaths ? no, but it certainly contributed to the festering of hatred in the individual who committed the crime, so much so their hatred spilled over into them going out and killing someone.  now that reddit hosts the largest online white supremacist group on the internet, it is only a matter of time until we see that happening here too.  or did not have the  time  to disprove.  like i said, they employ gish gallops.  they appear reasonable like they are winning long enough for parties who are not as invested in the science to be swayed.  such people are a tiny, tiny minority.   #  which can be argued both ways as good or bad.   #  again, it is about direct harm.  i am not saying it is okay, but taking it down means reddit no longer supports/is a proponent for free speech.  which can be argued both ways as good or bad.  if it is equal platforms they will have time because you ca not cut someone off in a post.  if there is not enough time to argue your side, it is no longer an equal platform.  if they are a tiny, tiny minority, then any debate is worthless since you wo not be changing any opinions.   #  which can be argued both ways as good or bad.   # i am not saying it is okay, but taking it down means reddit no longer supports/is a proponent for free speech.  which can be argued both ways as good or bad.  no, they can still support free speech if they take it down.  as long as reddit is not campaigning to have them permanently removed from the internet, their stance on free speech is fine.  they are not obligated to give them a platform.  are libertarians who argue that businesses should be allowed to discriminate no longer proponents for free speech ? cause i am sure many of them would disagree with you.  more people are easily swayed by logical  sounding  arguments.  which means their tactics are effective, and thus dangerous.
i am a cynical man.  i do not believe in heroes, and so i am prepared to change my view on this.  the trouble is, every last bit of news i hear about the current middle east conflicts goes only to reinforce my ever growing belief that the kurds are the only group involved with any moral high ground.  0 the kurds espouse a number of western values that are largely absent in the region.  only the kurds and the middle and lower class iranians show any tendency to respect women is rights or treat them as equals deserving of respect or status.  the kurds have women in their military, and even their conservative tribal organizations can have matriarchs in charge of political and military decisions.  0 they care about more than just themselves.  the kurds have gone out of their way, at significant danger to themselves, to rescue other ethnic minorities in the region, including famously the yazidis, who everyone else was more than happy to let isis literally murder, enslave, and rape at genocidal scales.  0 their political opponents have all shown themselves to be monsters in the fullness of time.  turkey is key here.  for a while turkey managed to keep up quite a reputation as a modern secular islamic state.  now they are wringing their hands about how  powerless  they are to stop isis while they gleefully watch the black banner do all their dirty work for them, then step in with overwhelming force to rescue ataturk is grave the moment it is threatened.  they are bombing kurdish targets  right now  while crying about isis.  i would want independence from them too.   things that will not convince me:  0 a kurd did something bad once.  every group consists of a bulk center and extremes on either end.  it takes a pattern of ideological violence to establish that a group is responsible collectively.  i need to be shown that the kurds, as a national or cultural entity, are at least half as bad as their neighbors in terms of the actions they will routinely, officially, or systemically commit or tolerate.  0 it is advantageous to ally ourselves with monsters.  look, you can be totally right about this.  i wo not even argue that this is not possible, and might even agree with you, but it does not change my view about what we, the west,  should  be doing.  make me a cynic again, please.   #  0 the kurds espouse a number of western values that are largely absent in the region.   #  first of all, there are a number of other actors which does subscribe to woman is rights.   # first of all, there are a number of other actors which does subscribe to woman is rights.  turkey for example has opposition leftist parties which supports women is rights.  israel is also another example of a western valued country in the region.  i feel that this part is based on an incredibly. optimistic view of the kurds.  kurdish middlemen, including kurdish political leaders are quite willing to work with isis when there is material gains involved.  see their involvement with helping isis to sell oil for instance: URL every single political group in the middle east are largely motivated by material gains.  even incredibly ideological groups have bottom lines.  the kurds are fighting isis because they are a threat to kurdistan, if isis was not a threat to the kurds, the kurds would not fight them even if they are committing genocide.  turkey is not even too different from the us in the 0s in this regard, who cooperated with islamic extremists to fight the soviets in afghanistan.  people are primarily motivated by realistic geopolitics in the region.  it is awfully problematic to attribute actions to  morals  or ideology when there are so many strange bedfellows if you look at ideology.  syria for instance is allied with iran despite syria being a nominally secular, atheistic state and iran is a theocracy.  saudi arabia, the most islamist country in the region and egypt are also close despite the fact that the current dictator let is just admit it of egypt came to power on the promise that he will save the country from the islamists.  israel, a western, jewish state and saudi arabia, a country which do not allow jews into the country, have a defacto alliance against iran.  and israel sees the saudis as a stabilizer in the gulf.  overall, i think you underestimate how self interested people are, if the day comes when the kurds needs to cooperate with isis say against the iraqi central government , they will do it to guarantee their own survival.   #  then there are selfless assholes, who are the worst of the bunch because they also cannot be reasoned with.   # everyone is opposition leftist parties support women is rights not  everyone , but seriously, it is like saying that chinese libertarians support freedom of speech.  that does not reflect any better on china .  israel, who is no fan of isis, or turkey, or iraq, or iran probably would not shed any tears at the prospect of a strong kurdish state.  indeed, support for the kurds may well be compatible with support for israel, and the kurds do not have the same legacy regarding palestine, so may be softer on the immigration issue than egypt and turkey have been.  i might just have become more convinced that an israeli kurdish power block could solve our problems.  that is why i am here to get my view changed.  it is so optimistic that it makes me feel gross and cartoony.  see their involvement with helping isis to sell oil for instance:  URL this has legs.  it is still technically in  bad thing a kurd did one time  territory, but it is the right  sort  of bad thing.  do you have more examples of this kind of stuff ? it is awfully problematic to attribute actions to  morals  or ideology when there are so many strange bedfellows if you look at ideology.  there are no geopolitics that can demand the subjugation of women or the extermination of religious minorities with no political power.  there are ideological and cultural positions through and through.  there is no access to water or uranium or petroleum or arable farmland that can mold a culture into a misogynistic, genocidal, or theocratic shape.  i do not believe that wars are caused by good guys fighting bad guys.  everyone is selfish, but not everyone has to be a selfish asshole.  then there are selfless assholes, who are the worst of the bunch because they also cannot be reasoned with.  i do not expect everyone to be all  kumbiya  or anything.  people are allowed to fight for their own interests at least, for the purposes of this cmv , but avoiding genocide and treating women like real human beings seems like a low bar to pass.  this is exactly what i want to be convinced of here, but sadly asserting it is not enough.   #  the link you provided is the right sort of thing.   #  that their ideology, or dominant political behavior, is at least half as bad by any reasonable measure of bad, i am open here as that of the  bad guys  they are fighting against.  the link you provided is the right sort of thing.  show me that kind of behavior is widespread and not just an incident of isolated corruption.  i will take genocide, rendering aid to isis, systemic abuses on par with their neighbors.  alternatively, proof that all the great stuff they are doing is a lie would work.   #  incidentally communist soviet union indeed worked with nazi germany from 0 0 in partitioning poland and the soviets supplying vital raw material to germany for machinery.   #  a few decades ago one of the end goals of pretty much every single arab state ever was pushing israel into the sea.  that does not prevent even the most virulent anti semitic arab state from cooperating with israel when its advantageous once it became clear that israel is not going to be pushed into the sea.  the survival of the state requires a high degree of pragmatism in the region, people who care too much about their stated goals tend to get nowhere.  it simply wo not happen.  incidentally communist soviet union indeed worked with nazi germany from 0 0 in partitioning poland and the soviets supplying vital raw material to germany for machinery.  this actually would have continued to do so had hitler not backstabbed stalin in 0.   #  for example, you cite women is rights, when kurdish areas have some of the highest rates of female genital mutilation of anywhere in the world.   #   the kurds  are an ethnic group, with a similar mix of people as any other.  there are many kurds in isis.  when you are describing  the kurds,  you are conflating many different groups with different agendas and ideologies, to the point that they have openly fought each other in the past.  for example, you cite women is rights, when kurdish areas have some of the highest rates of female genital mutilation of anywhere in the world.  the ypg in syria are a socialist/communist movement with a high regard for women is rights, but they are drastically different from the iraqi kurds.  the same pkk fighters that might save the yizidis one month are placing fake emergency calls and shooting/kidnapping the police and nurses who respond the next.  i am extremely sympathetic to the cause of the ypg in particular, but i feel like your view is unduly influenced by the way the western media has simplified and thereby misrepresented the situation in the middle east.
i am a cynical man.  i do not believe in heroes, and so i am prepared to change my view on this.  the trouble is, every last bit of news i hear about the current middle east conflicts goes only to reinforce my ever growing belief that the kurds are the only group involved with any moral high ground.  0 the kurds espouse a number of western values that are largely absent in the region.  only the kurds and the middle and lower class iranians show any tendency to respect women is rights or treat them as equals deserving of respect or status.  the kurds have women in their military, and even their conservative tribal organizations can have matriarchs in charge of political and military decisions.  0 they care about more than just themselves.  the kurds have gone out of their way, at significant danger to themselves, to rescue other ethnic minorities in the region, including famously the yazidis, who everyone else was more than happy to let isis literally murder, enslave, and rape at genocidal scales.  0 their political opponents have all shown themselves to be monsters in the fullness of time.  turkey is key here.  for a while turkey managed to keep up quite a reputation as a modern secular islamic state.  now they are wringing their hands about how  powerless  they are to stop isis while they gleefully watch the black banner do all their dirty work for them, then step in with overwhelming force to rescue ataturk is grave the moment it is threatened.  they are bombing kurdish targets  right now  while crying about isis.  i would want independence from them too.   things that will not convince me:  0 a kurd did something bad once.  every group consists of a bulk center and extremes on either end.  it takes a pattern of ideological violence to establish that a group is responsible collectively.  i need to be shown that the kurds, as a national or cultural entity, are at least half as bad as their neighbors in terms of the actions they will routinely, officially, or systemically commit or tolerate.  0 it is advantageous to ally ourselves with monsters.  look, you can be totally right about this.  i wo not even argue that this is not possible, and might even agree with you, but it does not change my view about what we, the west,  should  be doing.  make me a cynic again, please.   #  0 they care about more than just themselves.   #  i feel that this part is based on an incredibly. optimistic view of the kurds.   # first of all, there are a number of other actors which does subscribe to woman is rights.  turkey for example has opposition leftist parties which supports women is rights.  israel is also another example of a western valued country in the region.  i feel that this part is based on an incredibly. optimistic view of the kurds.  kurdish middlemen, including kurdish political leaders are quite willing to work with isis when there is material gains involved.  see their involvement with helping isis to sell oil for instance: URL every single political group in the middle east are largely motivated by material gains.  even incredibly ideological groups have bottom lines.  the kurds are fighting isis because they are a threat to kurdistan, if isis was not a threat to the kurds, the kurds would not fight them even if they are committing genocide.  turkey is not even too different from the us in the 0s in this regard, who cooperated with islamic extremists to fight the soviets in afghanistan.  people are primarily motivated by realistic geopolitics in the region.  it is awfully problematic to attribute actions to  morals  or ideology when there are so many strange bedfellows if you look at ideology.  syria for instance is allied with iran despite syria being a nominally secular, atheistic state and iran is a theocracy.  saudi arabia, the most islamist country in the region and egypt are also close despite the fact that the current dictator let is just admit it of egypt came to power on the promise that he will save the country from the islamists.  israel, a western, jewish state and saudi arabia, a country which do not allow jews into the country, have a defacto alliance against iran.  and israel sees the saudis as a stabilizer in the gulf.  overall, i think you underestimate how self interested people are, if the day comes when the kurds needs to cooperate with isis say against the iraqi central government , they will do it to guarantee their own survival.   #  i do not expect everyone to be all  kumbiya  or anything.   # everyone is opposition leftist parties support women is rights not  everyone , but seriously, it is like saying that chinese libertarians support freedom of speech.  that does not reflect any better on china .  israel, who is no fan of isis, or turkey, or iraq, or iran probably would not shed any tears at the prospect of a strong kurdish state.  indeed, support for the kurds may well be compatible with support for israel, and the kurds do not have the same legacy regarding palestine, so may be softer on the immigration issue than egypt and turkey have been.  i might just have become more convinced that an israeli kurdish power block could solve our problems.  that is why i am here to get my view changed.  it is so optimistic that it makes me feel gross and cartoony.  see their involvement with helping isis to sell oil for instance:  URL this has legs.  it is still technically in  bad thing a kurd did one time  territory, but it is the right  sort  of bad thing.  do you have more examples of this kind of stuff ? it is awfully problematic to attribute actions to  morals  or ideology when there are so many strange bedfellows if you look at ideology.  there are no geopolitics that can demand the subjugation of women or the extermination of religious minorities with no political power.  there are ideological and cultural positions through and through.  there is no access to water or uranium or petroleum or arable farmland that can mold a culture into a misogynistic, genocidal, or theocratic shape.  i do not believe that wars are caused by good guys fighting bad guys.  everyone is selfish, but not everyone has to be a selfish asshole.  then there are selfless assholes, who are the worst of the bunch because they also cannot be reasoned with.  i do not expect everyone to be all  kumbiya  or anything.  people are allowed to fight for their own interests at least, for the purposes of this cmv , but avoiding genocide and treating women like real human beings seems like a low bar to pass.  this is exactly what i want to be convinced of here, but sadly asserting it is not enough.   #  that their ideology, or dominant political behavior, is at least half as bad by any reasonable measure of bad, i am open here as that of the  bad guys  they are fighting against.   #  that their ideology, or dominant political behavior, is at least half as bad by any reasonable measure of bad, i am open here as that of the  bad guys  they are fighting against.  the link you provided is the right sort of thing.  show me that kind of behavior is widespread and not just an incident of isolated corruption.  i will take genocide, rendering aid to isis, systemic abuses on par with their neighbors.  alternatively, proof that all the great stuff they are doing is a lie would work.   #  a few decades ago one of the end goals of pretty much every single arab state ever was pushing israel into the sea.   #  a few decades ago one of the end goals of pretty much every single arab state ever was pushing israel into the sea.  that does not prevent even the most virulent anti semitic arab state from cooperating with israel when its advantageous once it became clear that israel is not going to be pushed into the sea.  the survival of the state requires a high degree of pragmatism in the region, people who care too much about their stated goals tend to get nowhere.  it simply wo not happen.  incidentally communist soviet union indeed worked with nazi germany from 0 0 in partitioning poland and the soviets supplying vital raw material to germany for machinery.  this actually would have continued to do so had hitler not backstabbed stalin in 0.   #  when you are describing  the kurds,  you are conflating many different groups with different agendas and ideologies, to the point that they have openly fought each other in the past.   #   the kurds  are an ethnic group, with a similar mix of people as any other.  there are many kurds in isis.  when you are describing  the kurds,  you are conflating many different groups with different agendas and ideologies, to the point that they have openly fought each other in the past.  for example, you cite women is rights, when kurdish areas have some of the highest rates of female genital mutilation of anywhere in the world.  the ypg in syria are a socialist/communist movement with a high regard for women is rights, but they are drastically different from the iraqi kurds.  the same pkk fighters that might save the yizidis one month are placing fake emergency calls and shooting/kidnapping the police and nurses who respond the next.  i am extremely sympathetic to the cause of the ypg in particular, but i feel like your view is unduly influenced by the way the western media has simplified and thereby misrepresented the situation in the middle east.
i am a cynical man.  i do not believe in heroes, and so i am prepared to change my view on this.  the trouble is, every last bit of news i hear about the current middle east conflicts goes only to reinforce my ever growing belief that the kurds are the only group involved with any moral high ground.  0 the kurds espouse a number of western values that are largely absent in the region.  only the kurds and the middle and lower class iranians show any tendency to respect women is rights or treat them as equals deserving of respect or status.  the kurds have women in their military, and even their conservative tribal organizations can have matriarchs in charge of political and military decisions.  0 they care about more than just themselves.  the kurds have gone out of their way, at significant danger to themselves, to rescue other ethnic minorities in the region, including famously the yazidis, who everyone else was more than happy to let isis literally murder, enslave, and rape at genocidal scales.  0 their political opponents have all shown themselves to be monsters in the fullness of time.  turkey is key here.  for a while turkey managed to keep up quite a reputation as a modern secular islamic state.  now they are wringing their hands about how  powerless  they are to stop isis while they gleefully watch the black banner do all their dirty work for them, then step in with overwhelming force to rescue ataturk is grave the moment it is threatened.  they are bombing kurdish targets  right now  while crying about isis.  i would want independence from them too.   things that will not convince me:  0 a kurd did something bad once.  every group consists of a bulk center and extremes on either end.  it takes a pattern of ideological violence to establish that a group is responsible collectively.  i need to be shown that the kurds, as a national or cultural entity, are at least half as bad as their neighbors in terms of the actions they will routinely, officially, or systemically commit or tolerate.  0 it is advantageous to ally ourselves with monsters.  look, you can be totally right about this.  i wo not even argue that this is not possible, and might even agree with you, but it does not change my view about what we, the west,  should  be doing.  make me a cynic again, please.   #  0 their political opponents have all shown themselves to be monsters in the fullness of time.   #  turkey is not even too different from the us in the 0s in this regard, who cooperated with islamic extremists to fight the soviets in afghanistan.   # first of all, there are a number of other actors which does subscribe to woman is rights.  turkey for example has opposition leftist parties which supports women is rights.  israel is also another example of a western valued country in the region.  i feel that this part is based on an incredibly. optimistic view of the kurds.  kurdish middlemen, including kurdish political leaders are quite willing to work with isis when there is material gains involved.  see their involvement with helping isis to sell oil for instance: URL every single political group in the middle east are largely motivated by material gains.  even incredibly ideological groups have bottom lines.  the kurds are fighting isis because they are a threat to kurdistan, if isis was not a threat to the kurds, the kurds would not fight them even if they are committing genocide.  turkey is not even too different from the us in the 0s in this regard, who cooperated with islamic extremists to fight the soviets in afghanistan.  people are primarily motivated by realistic geopolitics in the region.  it is awfully problematic to attribute actions to  morals  or ideology when there are so many strange bedfellows if you look at ideology.  syria for instance is allied with iran despite syria being a nominally secular, atheistic state and iran is a theocracy.  saudi arabia, the most islamist country in the region and egypt are also close despite the fact that the current dictator let is just admit it of egypt came to power on the promise that he will save the country from the islamists.  israel, a western, jewish state and saudi arabia, a country which do not allow jews into the country, have a defacto alliance against iran.  and israel sees the saudis as a stabilizer in the gulf.  overall, i think you underestimate how self interested people are, if the day comes when the kurds needs to cooperate with isis say against the iraqi central government , they will do it to guarantee their own survival.   #  then there are selfless assholes, who are the worst of the bunch because they also cannot be reasoned with.   # everyone is opposition leftist parties support women is rights not  everyone , but seriously, it is like saying that chinese libertarians support freedom of speech.  that does not reflect any better on china .  israel, who is no fan of isis, or turkey, or iraq, or iran probably would not shed any tears at the prospect of a strong kurdish state.  indeed, support for the kurds may well be compatible with support for israel, and the kurds do not have the same legacy regarding palestine, so may be softer on the immigration issue than egypt and turkey have been.  i might just have become more convinced that an israeli kurdish power block could solve our problems.  that is why i am here to get my view changed.  it is so optimistic that it makes me feel gross and cartoony.  see their involvement with helping isis to sell oil for instance:  URL this has legs.  it is still technically in  bad thing a kurd did one time  territory, but it is the right  sort  of bad thing.  do you have more examples of this kind of stuff ? it is awfully problematic to attribute actions to  morals  or ideology when there are so many strange bedfellows if you look at ideology.  there are no geopolitics that can demand the subjugation of women or the extermination of religious minorities with no political power.  there are ideological and cultural positions through and through.  there is no access to water or uranium or petroleum or arable farmland that can mold a culture into a misogynistic, genocidal, or theocratic shape.  i do not believe that wars are caused by good guys fighting bad guys.  everyone is selfish, but not everyone has to be a selfish asshole.  then there are selfless assholes, who are the worst of the bunch because they also cannot be reasoned with.  i do not expect everyone to be all  kumbiya  or anything.  people are allowed to fight for their own interests at least, for the purposes of this cmv , but avoiding genocide and treating women like real human beings seems like a low bar to pass.  this is exactly what i want to be convinced of here, but sadly asserting it is not enough.   #  alternatively, proof that all the great stuff they are doing is a lie would work.   #  that their ideology, or dominant political behavior, is at least half as bad by any reasonable measure of bad, i am open here as that of the  bad guys  they are fighting against.  the link you provided is the right sort of thing.  show me that kind of behavior is widespread and not just an incident of isolated corruption.  i will take genocide, rendering aid to isis, systemic abuses on par with their neighbors.  alternatively, proof that all the great stuff they are doing is a lie would work.   #  the survival of the state requires a high degree of pragmatism in the region, people who care too much about their stated goals tend to get nowhere.   #  a few decades ago one of the end goals of pretty much every single arab state ever was pushing israel into the sea.  that does not prevent even the most virulent anti semitic arab state from cooperating with israel when its advantageous once it became clear that israel is not going to be pushed into the sea.  the survival of the state requires a high degree of pragmatism in the region, people who care too much about their stated goals tend to get nowhere.  it simply wo not happen.  incidentally communist soviet union indeed worked with nazi germany from 0 0 in partitioning poland and the soviets supplying vital raw material to germany for machinery.  this actually would have continued to do so had hitler not backstabbed stalin in 0.   #  the ypg in syria are a socialist/communist movement with a high regard for women is rights, but they are drastically different from the iraqi kurds.   #   the kurds  are an ethnic group, with a similar mix of people as any other.  there are many kurds in isis.  when you are describing  the kurds,  you are conflating many different groups with different agendas and ideologies, to the point that they have openly fought each other in the past.  for example, you cite women is rights, when kurdish areas have some of the highest rates of female genital mutilation of anywhere in the world.  the ypg in syria are a socialist/communist movement with a high regard for women is rights, but they are drastically different from the iraqi kurds.  the same pkk fighters that might save the yizidis one month are placing fake emergency calls and shooting/kidnapping the police and nurses who respond the next.  i am extremely sympathetic to the cause of the ypg in particular, but i feel like your view is unduly influenced by the way the western media has simplified and thereby misrepresented the situation in the middle east.
i am a cynical man.  i do not believe in heroes, and so i am prepared to change my view on this.  the trouble is, every last bit of news i hear about the current middle east conflicts goes only to reinforce my ever growing belief that the kurds are the only group involved with any moral high ground.  0 the kurds espouse a number of western values that are largely absent in the region.  only the kurds and the middle and lower class iranians show any tendency to respect women is rights or treat them as equals deserving of respect or status.  the kurds have women in their military, and even their conservative tribal organizations can have matriarchs in charge of political and military decisions.  0 they care about more than just themselves.  the kurds have gone out of their way, at significant danger to themselves, to rescue other ethnic minorities in the region, including famously the yazidis, who everyone else was more than happy to let isis literally murder, enslave, and rape at genocidal scales.  0 their political opponents have all shown themselves to be monsters in the fullness of time.  turkey is key here.  for a while turkey managed to keep up quite a reputation as a modern secular islamic state.  now they are wringing their hands about how  powerless  they are to stop isis while they gleefully watch the black banner do all their dirty work for them, then step in with overwhelming force to rescue ataturk is grave the moment it is threatened.  they are bombing kurdish targets  right now  while crying about isis.  i would want independence from them too.   things that will not convince me:  0 a kurd did something bad once.  every group consists of a bulk center and extremes on either end.  it takes a pattern of ideological violence to establish that a group is responsible collectively.  i need to be shown that the kurds, as a national or cultural entity, are at least half as bad as their neighbors in terms of the actions they will routinely, officially, or systemically commit or tolerate.  0 it is advantageous to ally ourselves with monsters.  look, you can be totally right about this.  i wo not even argue that this is not possible, and might even agree with you, but it does not change my view about what we, the west,  should  be doing.  make me a cynic again, please.   #  0 it is advantageous to ally ourselves with monsters.   #  look, you can be totally right about this.   # look, you can be totally right about this.  i wo not even argue that this is not possible, and might even agree with you, but it does not change my view about what we, the west, should be doing.  i really want to see how others weigh in on this, but i think it just comes down to this.  the middle east is a highly volatile place.  the united states wants/need a foothold in the region at least while oil lasts to preserve stability long enough to have our needs met.  israel is more predictable than iraq.  it is leaders have views which are more commonly aligned with the us.  it is the only partner in the region which is in the inverse opposite of the us with common enemies.  the catch is that sometimes the enemy of our friend has to be our enemy.  or at the very least, not our friend.  not because the kurds are guilty of anything.  but because we need a foothold in the region and the kurds of iraq cannot give us a better arrangement than we already have.  i would not even say that it comes down to aligning ourselves with monsters, so much as it is  avoiding flirting with our girlfriend is nemesis .  at least that is my estimation on the matter.  maybe someone with a more formal education on the topic will prove me wrong.   #  see their involvement with helping isis to sell oil for instance: URL every single political group in the middle east are largely motivated by material gains.   # first of all, there are a number of other actors which does subscribe to woman is rights.  turkey for example has opposition leftist parties which supports women is rights.  israel is also another example of a western valued country in the region.  i feel that this part is based on an incredibly. optimistic view of the kurds.  kurdish middlemen, including kurdish political leaders are quite willing to work with isis when there is material gains involved.  see their involvement with helping isis to sell oil for instance: URL every single political group in the middle east are largely motivated by material gains.  even incredibly ideological groups have bottom lines.  the kurds are fighting isis because they are a threat to kurdistan, if isis was not a threat to the kurds, the kurds would not fight them even if they are committing genocide.  turkey is not even too different from the us in the 0s in this regard, who cooperated with islamic extremists to fight the soviets in afghanistan.  people are primarily motivated by realistic geopolitics in the region.  it is awfully problematic to attribute actions to  morals  or ideology when there are so many strange bedfellows if you look at ideology.  syria for instance is allied with iran despite syria being a nominally secular, atheistic state and iran is a theocracy.  saudi arabia, the most islamist country in the region and egypt are also close despite the fact that the current dictator let is just admit it of egypt came to power on the promise that he will save the country from the islamists.  israel, a western, jewish state and saudi arabia, a country which do not allow jews into the country, have a defacto alliance against iran.  and israel sees the saudis as a stabilizer in the gulf.  overall, i think you underestimate how self interested people are, if the day comes when the kurds needs to cooperate with isis say against the iraqi central government , they will do it to guarantee their own survival.   #  that is why i am here to get my view changed.   # everyone is opposition leftist parties support women is rights not  everyone , but seriously, it is like saying that chinese libertarians support freedom of speech.  that does not reflect any better on china .  israel, who is no fan of isis, or turkey, or iraq, or iran probably would not shed any tears at the prospect of a strong kurdish state.  indeed, support for the kurds may well be compatible with support for israel, and the kurds do not have the same legacy regarding palestine, so may be softer on the immigration issue than egypt and turkey have been.  i might just have become more convinced that an israeli kurdish power block could solve our problems.  that is why i am here to get my view changed.  it is so optimistic that it makes me feel gross and cartoony.  see their involvement with helping isis to sell oil for instance:  URL this has legs.  it is still technically in  bad thing a kurd did one time  territory, but it is the right  sort  of bad thing.  do you have more examples of this kind of stuff ? it is awfully problematic to attribute actions to  morals  or ideology when there are so many strange bedfellows if you look at ideology.  there are no geopolitics that can demand the subjugation of women or the extermination of religious minorities with no political power.  there are ideological and cultural positions through and through.  there is no access to water or uranium or petroleum or arable farmland that can mold a culture into a misogynistic, genocidal, or theocratic shape.  i do not believe that wars are caused by good guys fighting bad guys.  everyone is selfish, but not everyone has to be a selfish asshole.  then there are selfless assholes, who are the worst of the bunch because they also cannot be reasoned with.  i do not expect everyone to be all  kumbiya  or anything.  people are allowed to fight for their own interests at least, for the purposes of this cmv , but avoiding genocide and treating women like real human beings seems like a low bar to pass.  this is exactly what i want to be convinced of here, but sadly asserting it is not enough.   #  show me that kind of behavior is widespread and not just an incident of isolated corruption.   #  that their ideology, or dominant political behavior, is at least half as bad by any reasonable measure of bad, i am open here as that of the  bad guys  they are fighting against.  the link you provided is the right sort of thing.  show me that kind of behavior is widespread and not just an incident of isolated corruption.  i will take genocide, rendering aid to isis, systemic abuses on par with their neighbors.  alternatively, proof that all the great stuff they are doing is a lie would work.   #  the survival of the state requires a high degree of pragmatism in the region, people who care too much about their stated goals tend to get nowhere.   #  a few decades ago one of the end goals of pretty much every single arab state ever was pushing israel into the sea.  that does not prevent even the most virulent anti semitic arab state from cooperating with israel when its advantageous once it became clear that israel is not going to be pushed into the sea.  the survival of the state requires a high degree of pragmatism in the region, people who care too much about their stated goals tend to get nowhere.  it simply wo not happen.  incidentally communist soviet union indeed worked with nazi germany from 0 0 in partitioning poland and the soviets supplying vital raw material to germany for machinery.  this actually would have continued to do so had hitler not backstabbed stalin in 0.
0.   global energy independence  what it means is that every nation can sustain their own energy demands without being dependent on a certain economy or exportation from a country.  this would solve international conflicts ex.  oil in the middle east and it is effect on the global economy  argument:  not every country have the resources to gain complete energy independence.  it might be a lack of rivers to install hydro, a geographical location that does not get enough sun for solar, a lack of forests for biomass or just lack of coal or oil.  nuclear energy can utilize thorium which is so common we literally have tons of it laying around and it is found in most rocks all around the world.  0.   time frame  it is theoretically possible to have 0 renewable energy production ex.  solar, wind, hydro but to reach 0 and to meet the growing demand of energy in the world is extremely difficult and requires multiple technological discoveries that can revolutionize energy production and storage batteries, nano tech materials graphene ? , fusion energy .  i think we should invest in these technologies but we will realistically never reach 0 renewable within this century, and we do not have enough time insert generic global warming argument here .  0.   nuclear is ok  if an alien lands in a jungle and gets bitten by a venomous snake he/she might think that all animals are bad.  but we all know the alien is wrong, sure snakes might be bad but what about kittens ? the same principle goes for nuclear.  just because fukushima blows up uranium light water reactor does not mean that all nuclear reactors are bad.  there are hundreds of models and the ones of the forth generation ex, thorium, lftr simply cannot blow up and are walk away safe.  the little waste material produced emits alpha rays that ca not penetrate your skin.  it also has an half life of 0 years the waste produced today has an half life of over 0 years and this waste cannot be used in nuclear weapons.   to summarize the nuclear is ok argument  generation iii bad uranium, gamma emitting and long lived waste, nukes, extreme pressure hydrogen explosions fukushima generation iv good thorium, alpha emitting short lived waste, walk away safe, 0 nuke free the thorium technology is old and simple.  some models still needs improvement but this is just a question of funding and money no sci fi technology involved what is holding nuclear back is lack of funding why fund scientist to invent better reactors when we can dig up coal instead ? and an unhealthy view on nuclear technology produced by carrier politicians and mass media ask a scientist or an engineer and the majority will probably be pro or neutral to nuclear technology english might not be perfect in this rant  #  it is theoretically possible to have 0 renewable energy production ex.   #  solar, wind, hydro but to reach 0 and to meet the growing demand of energy in the world is extremely difficult and requires multiple technological discoveries that can revolutionize energy production and storage that is false.   # solar, wind, hydro but to reach 0 and to meet the growing demand of energy in the world is extremely difficult and requires multiple technological discoveries that can revolutionize energy production and storage that is false.  its achievable now.  all that is needed to make it happen is a carbon tax that makes non renewable sources unattractive.  its already cheaper than other energy sources, especially when you consider nuclear is intangibles and subsidies insurance being the biggest non paid cost, but security oversight in mining, transport, operations and waste removal also significant if we have 0x to 0x energy demand is capacity then electricity prices will also come down.  while tesla is battery is useful, there are even cheaper options, both chemistries that lack the weight advantages of lion, but have better longevity, and flywheels which have infinite repairability.  as much as you might like nuclear, you can add 0mw of solar much more quickly than just getting an approval process through on a nuclear plant.  the secret of nuclear is that its only wanted for its weapons benefits.  thorium may be better, but there is no interest, because existing technologies with weapons benefits have the resources to convince politicians who want weapons benefits to choose solutioins that provide weapons benefits.   #  wind should be built in the oceans and not in dense populated areas.   #  i am from sweden, our weather is cloudy and due to our northern location the sun gets significantly weaker during the winter.  solar is absolutely not viable in sweden, not yet anyway.  there are many countries that lack ability for hydro.  denmark is very flat and does not have lots of rivers.  hydro also interferes with ecosystems.  wind should be built in the oceans and not in dense populated areas.  germany is very dense and have very little coastline.  wind is very annoying for people in the vicinity and they kill a lot of birds which might disrupt ecological systems.  i do not see how it would be possible to reach energy independence with only renewable within a realistic time line.   #  agreed, but the article also goes onto address that it shared the excess with norway, germany and sweden.   #  agreed, but the article also goes onto address that it shared the excess with norway, germany and sweden.  that is more than just a side note.  it tells us that the four countries have a mechanism through which they can share electricity.  germany is also ahead of schedule.  it aims to have 0 solar energy by 0, but it has already achieved the first day of that URL ultimately sweden would have to build it is own mechanism.  it is just hard to understand the argument that neither solar nor wind are possible if the direct neighbors are successfully implementing solar and wind solutions.   #  if we need to set up a grid of batteries to store excess and distribute as needed, it is perfectly feasible.   #  i only read through the first half because the argument is so skewed that the supporting data is irrelevant.  it is a lot like saying   i am accustomed to using a hammer, but the power drill requires a different grip.  since i am not used to this grip and refuse to make a change, i conclude that humans cannot use power drills   a overbuilding.  with fossil fuels, no one would think to run additional generators unless it was absolutely essential because of all of the waste.  but overbuilding is key to green electricity.  if some days  even most days  we collect more sunlight than we use, then so what ? b battery backup.  green energy is the only electricity which will get cheaper each and every year.  as a result we can spend from those savings.  if we need to set up a grid of batteries to store excess and distribute as needed, it is perfectly feasible.  c green energy is not just about keeping things  exactly as they have always been .  as panel, turbine and battery technology is adopted by large institutions/government, it becomes exponentially better and cheaper.  the prospect of having every home set up with solar panels and it is own battery backup is not only cost effective, but it assures that power outages are a thing of the past.   #  that might change, but it is not feasible for now.   # grid loss due to transport is huge, and you ca not overbuild and average things out.  once electricity is generated grid loss is the same regardless of the generator of that electricity.  on that note, solar/turbine/hydro allow for a setup with many more, distributed sources.  i am not seeing how this argument applies more to green energy.  that might change, but it is not feasible for now.  at first glance this does not feel right, but i would rather hear from you how you figure that to be true than to oppose it.
with the big witch hunt going on for the hunter who killed cecil the lion, people are in an uproar over this guy because he likes to hunt animals for pleasure.  morally, i do not see this as any different from anyone who eats meat.  nobody needs to eat meat and it is not healthier, it is something people do just for pleasure.  even though you are not doing the act yourself, by eating meat you are contributing to far greater suffering than a hunter ever could, with the horrible conditions throughout modern livestock through far greater numbers of animals.  just because you are not pulling the trigger does not remove the responsibility, you are still causing the exploitation and death of hundreds of animals.  again, i do eat meat, but i am just pointing out that these two situations are moral equivalents.   #  just because you are not pulling the trigger does not remove the responsibility, you are still causing the exploitation and death of hundreds of animals.   #  i disagree that there is any causal relationship.   # i disagree that there is any causal relationship.  if i never eat meat again it will almost certainly never save a single animal, or ease their suffering.  my consumption is such a blip on the radar that it has no impact on how animals are raised and slaughtered.  my consumption is several orders of magnitude below the numbers that farmers and companies are using to make their decisions literally no one will ever see it.  in contrast, if i go hunting and kill an animal, i am directly responsible for the death of that animal.  like i said elsewhere, whether that is a good or bad thing depends on the context .   #  i have no problem with hunters who eat or donate the meat they harvest.   #  humans are omnivores who have hunted to live as predators for the entirety of human history.  hunting to eat is natural to humans as it is to a lion.  animals do not kill for fun, they kill for food or for protection.  i have no problem with hunters who eat or donate the meat they harvest.  i do not even have a problem with controlled hunts of endangered species if it is done for the health of the herd etc.  but just shooting animals for fun is abhorrent to me.   #  there are a few reasons for select populations to eat meat that i do think raises them above the level of those who hunt for pleasure.   #  there are a few reasons for select populations to eat meat that i do think raises them above the level of those who hunt for pleasure.  example, there are medical ailments such as anemia that require high levels of iron.  iron supplements can cause stomach bleeding and other complications, which would require people forgo those and eat meat to stay healthy.  there are other physical ailments like enormous 0rd degree burns that require a very high intake of protein, which in some cases is only possible by consuming meat.  i have been a vegetarian for about 0 years now, so i am amused that i am taking this track, but i am also aware of the difficulty of eating a balanced meat free diet.  by nature of the amount of time and resources i have, i can afford to put a concerted effort into ensuring that i can get the nutrients i need to feel healthy, however there are those that do not have the financial means to do so and are limited to eating what is available to them, which is often meat.   #  that is why i chose the example of the soldier.   # that is why i chose the example of the soldier.  both are accepted societal constructs.  also, i think you are sidestepping the  main point  of contention on the matter.  accepting that animals die, for tenderloin or from natural causes is not the same as accepting that someone killed them because they enjoy killing.  it is the enjoyment of killing which most of society disagrees with.  this post was on the front page of reddit the other day florida man ran over ducklings with lawnmower as family watched in horror URL ultimately it is the same thing.  he could have  bought  a dozen ducks and ate them and no one would bat an eyebrow.  but he enjoyed running them over with a lawnmower and it made national news.   #  i do not think there is a difference between what dr.   # accepting that animals die, for tenderloin or from natural causes is not the same as accepting that someone killed them because they enjoy killing.  i do not think there is a difference between what dr.  palmer did in zimbabwe or what a person does when they order a filet mignon.  both are enjoying the process of death; they are just doing it for different reasons.  it is not like a cow dies of natural causes to provide you a tenderloin.
ok, so this is a silly cmv, but my wife and i watched this movie the other day and i noticed something.  i really think that between the two characters of andy and miranda, it is andy who is the most evil.  as the character emily notes about her  you sold your soul to the devil when you put on your first pair of jimmy choo is, i saw it.   andy acts without regard to her own ideals, her friends, family, and even her own career goals all for the purpose of getting ahead in a job she does not even really want.  miranda, by contrast, at least is shown to truly love and appreciate fashion and the effort that it entails.  the speech where she teaches andy that her sweater exists because of the passions of the people in the room highlights that miranda is passionate and consistent, whereas andy immediately runs out and starts changing herself to please miranda even though she has no real interest in the job in the first place.  miranda loves what she does, she is passionate and dedicate to her cause, and when she treats people badly she is shown to do so deliberately and consciously as a admittedly poor but demonstrably effective motivating strategy.  while it may be argued that she is using less than optimal tactics, or that she is not empathetic, she is at least consistent to her purpose, beliefs and goals.  further she is shown to take responsibility for her choices.  andy, meanwhile, is abusive and inconsiderate to everyone around her and continually trots out a tired  i did not have a choice  excuse rather than taking responsibility for her actions.  while miranda may rightly own the title of  dragon lady  in terms of being a hard nosed, no nonsense demanding boss, it is andy who presents a quality that can be said to be duplicitous and coming from a fallen character.  she is the one who is harming people through cowardice.  to pretend to care about people but act in a way that hurts them is more  devil like  than to simply not be empathetic in the first place.  so it is andy, not miranda, who should be seen as the devil.   #  miranda loves what she does, she is passionate and dedicate to her cause, and when she treats people badly she is shown to do so deliberately and consciously as a admittedly poor but demonstrably effective motivating strategy.   #  while it may be argued that she is using less than optimal tactics, or that she is not empathetic, she is at least consistent to her purpose, beliefs and goals.   # while it may be argued that she is using less than optimal tactics, or that she is not empathetic, she is at least consistent to her purpose, beliefs and goals.  taking an  ends justify the means  approach to things is, in many ethical views, deeply morally wrong.  the fact that miranda is willing to engage in these awful acts to achieve the goals she wants achieved is a negative mark on her.  as kant would put it, she is using others as a means to an end, when they should be ends in themselves.  it is been a while since i have seen the movie by the way, and honestly i do not remember enough about andy is character development to say much.  streep stole the show completely.   #  nearly every bad choice she makes is related to miranda.   #  i think your missing something big about the devil.  the devil is not some evil idea, it does not just go out to get evil done itself.  the devil is the tempter, it is purpose to turn a person to evil.  it is not about what the  wouldevil  does, its about how the devil can slowly change a person.  andy by all appearances is a good person, until she meets miranda.  andy is not pretending she really does care.  then miranda starts in on her.  miranda starts using everything in her wheelhouse to lead andy down the wrong path.  nearly every bad choice she makes is related to miranda.  that is the kicker though, at the end of the day it is still andy making the choice.  miranda has tempted and logic ed her to the road to hell.  the devil is not the person on the road to hell, the devil is the tour guide who convinces you hell is where you want to be.   #  my idea of the devil is not a coward who is harm is an unintentional byproduct of confusion or weakness.   # she is the one who is harming people through cowardice.  i guess it comes down to how you see the devil.  my idea of the devil is not a coward who is harm is an unintentional byproduct of confusion or weakness.  in my view the idea of the devil is someone who is driven to a result in spite of the means used to get that result.  someone who enjoys exerting power and punishment for the sake of feeling their power.  it does not mean that the devil ca not also passionately enjoy things like playing the violin or seduction as the devil is often portrayed to be exceptional in doing.  it does however mean that their every action is a calculated maneuver towards the greater goal of satisfying their inner drive without regard to the consequences.  in this way, it seems to me that miranda more closely fits the bill.  also, if you see the movie through to the end, the story does arc again.  andy goes from being innocent to making a lot of harmful mistakes, but she finally does come around again.   #  the problem here is that at best you are justifying the character is  traits , but you are side stepping both their  means  and their intended  end .   # the problem here is that at best you are justifying the character is  traits , but you are side stepping both their  means  and their intended  end .  by that logic, hitler was consistent, passionate, dedicated, intelligent, loyal to his people , ambitious, enduring, brave, etc.  there is a substantial list of enviable traits.  however, he also ultimately intended to eradicate much of the population just for having been born.  all of those traits, do not make this person a  good person  by the same logic, i think your reasoning for accepting miranda is flawed.  she may have traits which you respect, but if her end goal is the most malicious one on the screen and her means are the most malicious on the screen then she is the most malicious on screen.  i find it hard even playing devil is advocate to avert my attention from that.   #  you can believe that jews are an inferior race or that the blacks of africa should be glad to become slaves because they now have christianity.   #  there is a bit of self delusion there.  as the viewer we can either buy in or not.  it is been a few years since i have seen the movie, but as i remember it there was another candidate who was perfectly capable of running the company.  at least according to miranda is boss/shareholders.  she sabotages the candidate i ca not remember how and makes the argument that no one can do the job that she does.  which is pretty much the argument that everyone makes.  you can believe that jews are an inferior race or that the blacks of africa should be glad to become slaves because they now have christianity.  i can understand why people would make arguments to justify their means.  i just did not buy her argument.
ok, so this is a silly cmv, but my wife and i watched this movie the other day and i noticed something.  i really think that between the two characters of andy and miranda, it is andy who is the most evil.  as the character emily notes about her  you sold your soul to the devil when you put on your first pair of jimmy choo is, i saw it.   andy acts without regard to her own ideals, her friends, family, and even her own career goals all for the purpose of getting ahead in a job she does not even really want.  miranda, by contrast, at least is shown to truly love and appreciate fashion and the effort that it entails.  the speech where she teaches andy that her sweater exists because of the passions of the people in the room highlights that miranda is passionate and consistent, whereas andy immediately runs out and starts changing herself to please miranda even though she has no real interest in the job in the first place.  miranda loves what she does, she is passionate and dedicate to her cause, and when she treats people badly she is shown to do so deliberately and consciously as a admittedly poor but demonstrably effective motivating strategy.  while it may be argued that she is using less than optimal tactics, or that she is not empathetic, she is at least consistent to her purpose, beliefs and goals.  further she is shown to take responsibility for her choices.  andy, meanwhile, is abusive and inconsiderate to everyone around her and continually trots out a tired  i did not have a choice  excuse rather than taking responsibility for her actions.  while miranda may rightly own the title of  dragon lady  in terms of being a hard nosed, no nonsense demanding boss, it is andy who presents a quality that can be said to be duplicitous and coming from a fallen character.  she is the one who is harming people through cowardice.  to pretend to care about people but act in a way that hurts them is more  devil like  than to simply not be empathetic in the first place.  so it is andy, not miranda, who should be seen as the devil.   #  it is andy who presents a quality that can be said to be duplicitous and coming from a fallen character.   #  she is the one who is harming people through cowardice.   # she is the one who is harming people through cowardice.  i guess it comes down to how you see the devil.  my idea of the devil is not a coward who is harm is an unintentional byproduct of confusion or weakness.  in my view the idea of the devil is someone who is driven to a result in spite of the means used to get that result.  someone who enjoys exerting power and punishment for the sake of feeling their power.  it does not mean that the devil ca not also passionately enjoy things like playing the violin or seduction as the devil is often portrayed to be exceptional in doing.  it does however mean that their every action is a calculated maneuver towards the greater goal of satisfying their inner drive without regard to the consequences.  in this way, it seems to me that miranda more closely fits the bill.  also, if you see the movie through to the end, the story does arc again.  andy goes from being innocent to making a lot of harmful mistakes, but she finally does come around again.   #  the devil is the tempter, it is purpose to turn a person to evil.   #  i think your missing something big about the devil.  the devil is not some evil idea, it does not just go out to get evil done itself.  the devil is the tempter, it is purpose to turn a person to evil.  it is not about what the  wouldevil  does, its about how the devil can slowly change a person.  andy by all appearances is a good person, until she meets miranda.  andy is not pretending she really does care.  then miranda starts in on her.  miranda starts using everything in her wheelhouse to lead andy down the wrong path.  nearly every bad choice she makes is related to miranda.  that is the kicker though, at the end of the day it is still andy making the choice.  miranda has tempted and logic ed her to the road to hell.  the devil is not the person on the road to hell, the devil is the tour guide who convinces you hell is where you want to be.   #  taking an  ends justify the means  approach to things is, in many ethical views, deeply morally wrong.   # while it may be argued that she is using less than optimal tactics, or that she is not empathetic, she is at least consistent to her purpose, beliefs and goals.  taking an  ends justify the means  approach to things is, in many ethical views, deeply morally wrong.  the fact that miranda is willing to engage in these awful acts to achieve the goals she wants achieved is a negative mark on her.  as kant would put it, she is using others as a means to an end, when they should be ends in themselves.  it is been a while since i have seen the movie by the way, and honestly i do not remember enough about andy is character development to say much.  streep stole the show completely.   #  the problem here is that at best you are justifying the character is  traits , but you are side stepping both their  means  and their intended  end .   # the problem here is that at best you are justifying the character is  traits , but you are side stepping both their  means  and their intended  end .  by that logic, hitler was consistent, passionate, dedicated, intelligent, loyal to his people , ambitious, enduring, brave, etc.  there is a substantial list of enviable traits.  however, he also ultimately intended to eradicate much of the population just for having been born.  all of those traits, do not make this person a  good person  by the same logic, i think your reasoning for accepting miranda is flawed.  she may have traits which you respect, but if her end goal is the most malicious one on the screen and her means are the most malicious on the screen then she is the most malicious on screen.  i find it hard even playing devil is advocate to avert my attention from that.   #  i can understand why people would make arguments to justify their means.   #  there is a bit of self delusion there.  as the viewer we can either buy in or not.  it is been a few years since i have seen the movie, but as i remember it there was another candidate who was perfectly capable of running the company.  at least according to miranda is boss/shareholders.  she sabotages the candidate i ca not remember how and makes the argument that no one can do the job that she does.  which is pretty much the argument that everyone makes.  you can believe that jews are an inferior race or that the blacks of africa should be glad to become slaves because they now have christianity.  i can understand why people would make arguments to justify their means.  i just did not buy her argument.
after a couple philosophy classes and some long winded discussions it seems as though many people find it hard to believe that free will does not exist in any real scientific way.  let is start off with premise 0 everything that is observable in the universe follows laws of nature.  all laws of nature follow the universal law of causation, which states that everything in the universe has a cause and is thus an effect of that cause.  if premise 0 is true then everything in the physical world must be determined.  if everything is determined than there is no such thing as free will.  if every behaviour is determined by laws of causation it is physically impossible for someone to be free, as that freedom would require the nullification of the laws of causation.  in other words to believe in free will is also to believe in spontaneous magic, it is to believe that humans possess powers that could only be explained by the supernatural.  for example: in most legal traditions it is customary to judge whether someone is guilty of x crime by accumulating evidence in order to prove that x person intentionally did this crime.  let is assume that there was enough evidence to prove without doubt that greg smith robbed a convenience store.  now that we have proof that it was greg, we should ask ourselves if greg really chose to rob the store.  as soon as you ask yourself that kind of question the only scientific recourse you have is to understand greg as a causal agent.  what caused greg to rob the store ? was it the fact that greg is from a low socio economic class ? was it the fact that greg lost his job 0 weeks ago and greg wont be able to feed his kids if he does not find a way to get more money ? is it the fact that greg was abused as child ? did greg rob the store due to complex laws of causality that are reducible to both biological and environmental reasons ? or did greg simply rob the store because he felt like it ? even more simple decisions like choosing between a chocolate bar and an apple can be reducible to complex causal interplay between biological and environmental laws.  did you choose the chocolate bar because you like it better ? or is it because we have an evolutionary pull towards sugar and fat dense food ? is it because you read an article on naturalnews. com talking about how dark chocolate can cure your pancreas cancer ? or did you chose the apple because you grew up on an orchard farm and apples remind you of your innocent childhood ? or did you choose the apple because you already had psychologically determined bias for foods that will fit in your limited calorie budget for the week ? what i am trying to say is that as soon as you try to define freedom of choice scientifically it inevitably reduce down to causal mechanisms.  whether those casual mechanisms are internal/biological or external/environmental or a mix of both they are the only things that influence us and completely shape our behaviour.  anything else that can be said to have a role in our behaviours like our  independent volition , our  moral compass  and all other notions pertaining to freedom of will is inherently unscientific and can only be explained through a belief in the supernatural.  cmv  #  in other words to believe in free will is also to believe in spontaneous magic, it is to believe that humans possess powers that could only be explained by the supernatural.   #  it really depends on how you define  supernatural .   # it really depends on how you define  supernatural .  if supernatural just means that things exist that cannot yet or ever be explained by science, then i doubt that you would find anyone to seriously disagree with you.  science is a systematic discipline of problem solving.  that does not mean that every problem is perfectly solved or even  can be  perfectly solved.  if that is your definition, i would not try to change your view.  however if your definition for supernatural is a little more along with mainstream, i have to disagree.  the mainstream idea is basically that at any point rules can be defied or broken without reason and there can be no attempt to understand them.  this in my view is gibberish.   #  i am pretty ignostic about this topic as a result.   #  the biggest problem in  any  discussion of  free will  is defining what you mean by the term.  and almost no one actually does that.  i am pretty ignostic about this topic as a result.  our brains are very well adapted to believing that, regardless of how brains actually work, they are  free  to  make decisions  on  their own .  and really, they are, most times.  the fact that it is a causal mechanism does not change anything about that.  if a machine is broken, it does not mean that it operates any more than usually non causally, it just means that it is broken.   holding it accountable  by fixing it or throwing it away makes perfect sense in any case.   holding people accountable for their decisions  is likely a largely causal process too.  it provides an evolutionary advantage most likely .  that is why we do it.   free will  is just a mental framework that makes it easier to understand why we do it.  it is like that old joke:  criminal: your honor, because everything is deterministic you should not hold me accountable for my actions because i could not choose them.  judge: because everything is deterministic, i sentence you to 0 years.    #  a human has the option to drink or not drink from a cup.   #  if you believe in free will, you have to assume it requires some modicum of intelligence.  a flower simply is not intelligent enough to alter it is behavior or actions.  a dog can to a limited extent.  humans behave is millions, probably billions of different ways every minute on this earth.  a human has the option to drink or not drink from a cup.  a plant simply is not capable of making that choice as it has not  climbed the brick wall  of being able to do something beside base programming and instinct.   #  computers sense and perceive things, and form limited models of reality, yet we are pretty certain they are not conscious.   #  compatiblism makes no distinction between instinctual programming and decision making.  hence the extension to dogs, then plants.  the plant is actions are reactions to certain conditions.  so too are your actions; they are just based on very complex sets of conditions, akin to chaotic systems.  some compatibilists argue that it does not matter if you were programmed or not, so long as you  think  you are taking actions to accomplish your objectives, it constitutes free will.  in other words, it is a matter of perspective.  so it becomes a question of what things have this perspective, and here compatiblism becomes vaguely defined or arbitrary.  it is easy to say that plant is do not and animals do, but exactly which animals have minds that posses this perspective ? for example, i would not agree that a sponge has a mind.  yet, it is an animal.  there is no rigorous criteria for it nor enough information about animal minds , so we end up drawing arbitrary lines in the sand.  further more, compatiblism is even less equipped to deal with machines.  computers sense and perceive things, and form limited models of reality, yet we are pretty certain they are not conscious.  as some point, we will be able to simulate animal brains, or something very close to one, will we then say a computer has a conscious mind ? would it then qualify as having free will under compatibilsm ? again, where is the cutoff point for this free will ?  #  this does not directly have anything to do with  free will , per se, because it is not clear that acting randomly is any more  free will  that acting deterministically.  it is just a big gaping hole the logic of your view.   #  basically, every quantum interaction at the microscopic level is non deterministic according to our best evidence .  the central limit theorem states that if you average a lot of random independent occurrences, you will end up with a  normal  distribution whose peak is sharper the more random and numerous the events are.  i. e.  that the sum of these events will looked extremely reliably determined.  it is an explanation for why everything  looks  deterministic.  on a macroscopic scale.  this does not directly have anything to do with  free will , per se, because it is not clear that acting randomly is any more  free will  that acting deterministically.  it is just a big gaping hole the logic of your view.  the biggest gap in any discussion about free will is an adequate definition of what you mean.  compatiblists define  free will  in a way such that it does not matter whether things are determined 0 or not.  i have some problems with their definition, but it is as valid a definition as any other i have heard which is to say.  pretty piss poor, in my opinion .  by their definition, it makes complete sense to believe in free will without any supernatural element and 0 determinism.  that is pretty much the definition of what it means to be a compatiblist URL
after a couple philosophy classes and some long winded discussions it seems as though many people find it hard to believe that free will does not exist in any real scientific way.  let is start off with premise 0 everything that is observable in the universe follows laws of nature.  all laws of nature follow the universal law of causation, which states that everything in the universe has a cause and is thus an effect of that cause.  if premise 0 is true then everything in the physical world must be determined.  if everything is determined than there is no such thing as free will.  if every behaviour is determined by laws of causation it is physically impossible for someone to be free, as that freedom would require the nullification of the laws of causation.  in other words to believe in free will is also to believe in spontaneous magic, it is to believe that humans possess powers that could only be explained by the supernatural.  for example: in most legal traditions it is customary to judge whether someone is guilty of x crime by accumulating evidence in order to prove that x person intentionally did this crime.  let is assume that there was enough evidence to prove without doubt that greg smith robbed a convenience store.  now that we have proof that it was greg, we should ask ourselves if greg really chose to rob the store.  as soon as you ask yourself that kind of question the only scientific recourse you have is to understand greg as a causal agent.  what caused greg to rob the store ? was it the fact that greg is from a low socio economic class ? was it the fact that greg lost his job 0 weeks ago and greg wont be able to feed his kids if he does not find a way to get more money ? is it the fact that greg was abused as child ? did greg rob the store due to complex laws of causality that are reducible to both biological and environmental reasons ? or did greg simply rob the store because he felt like it ? even more simple decisions like choosing between a chocolate bar and an apple can be reducible to complex causal interplay between biological and environmental laws.  did you choose the chocolate bar because you like it better ? or is it because we have an evolutionary pull towards sugar and fat dense food ? is it because you read an article on naturalnews. com talking about how dark chocolate can cure your pancreas cancer ? or did you chose the apple because you grew up on an orchard farm and apples remind you of your innocent childhood ? or did you choose the apple because you already had psychologically determined bias for foods that will fit in your limited calorie budget for the week ? what i am trying to say is that as soon as you try to define freedom of choice scientifically it inevitably reduce down to causal mechanisms.  whether those casual mechanisms are internal/biological or external/environmental or a mix of both they are the only things that influence us and completely shape our behaviour.  anything else that can be said to have a role in our behaviours like our  independent volition , our  moral compass  and all other notions pertaining to freedom of will is inherently unscientific and can only be explained through a belief in the supernatural.  cmv  #  let is start off with premise 0 everything that is observable in the universe follows laws of nature.   #  all laws of nature follow the universal law of causation, which states that everything in the universe has a cause and is thus an effect of that cause.   # all laws of nature follow the universal law of causation, which states that everything in the universe has a cause and is thus an effect of that cause.  if premise 0 is true then everything in the physical world must be determined.  here is the first issue.  the laws of nature we we can best observe them now include the fact that there are stochastic processes, random events.  this strongly implies that reality is not deterministic.  it is not that things are determined and we just cant measure them, things like the double slit experiment reveal to us that we cannot have both local realism and hidden variables controlling the result of the seemingly random event .   #   holding it accountable  by fixing it or throwing it away makes perfect sense in any case.   #  the biggest problem in  any  discussion of  free will  is defining what you mean by the term.  and almost no one actually does that.  i am pretty ignostic about this topic as a result.  our brains are very well adapted to believing that, regardless of how brains actually work, they are  free  to  make decisions  on  their own .  and really, they are, most times.  the fact that it is a causal mechanism does not change anything about that.  if a machine is broken, it does not mean that it operates any more than usually non causally, it just means that it is broken.   holding it accountable  by fixing it or throwing it away makes perfect sense in any case.   holding people accountable for their decisions  is likely a largely causal process too.  it provides an evolutionary advantage most likely .  that is why we do it.   free will  is just a mental framework that makes it easier to understand why we do it.  it is like that old joke:  criminal: your honor, because everything is deterministic you should not hold me accountable for my actions because i could not choose them.  judge: because everything is deterministic, i sentence you to 0 years.    #  a plant simply is not capable of making that choice as it has not  climbed the brick wall  of being able to do something beside base programming and instinct.   #  if you believe in free will, you have to assume it requires some modicum of intelligence.  a flower simply is not intelligent enough to alter it is behavior or actions.  a dog can to a limited extent.  humans behave is millions, probably billions of different ways every minute on this earth.  a human has the option to drink or not drink from a cup.  a plant simply is not capable of making that choice as it has not  climbed the brick wall  of being able to do something beside base programming and instinct.   #  so too are your actions; they are just based on very complex sets of conditions, akin to chaotic systems.   #  compatiblism makes no distinction between instinctual programming and decision making.  hence the extension to dogs, then plants.  the plant is actions are reactions to certain conditions.  so too are your actions; they are just based on very complex sets of conditions, akin to chaotic systems.  some compatibilists argue that it does not matter if you were programmed or not, so long as you  think  you are taking actions to accomplish your objectives, it constitutes free will.  in other words, it is a matter of perspective.  so it becomes a question of what things have this perspective, and here compatiblism becomes vaguely defined or arbitrary.  it is easy to say that plant is do not and animals do, but exactly which animals have minds that posses this perspective ? for example, i would not agree that a sponge has a mind.  yet, it is an animal.  there is no rigorous criteria for it nor enough information about animal minds , so we end up drawing arbitrary lines in the sand.  further more, compatiblism is even less equipped to deal with machines.  computers sense and perceive things, and form limited models of reality, yet we are pretty certain they are not conscious.  as some point, we will be able to simulate animal brains, or something very close to one, will we then say a computer has a conscious mind ? would it then qualify as having free will under compatibilsm ? again, where is the cutoff point for this free will ?  #  it is an explanation for why everything  looks  deterministic.  on a macroscopic scale.   #  basically, every quantum interaction at the microscopic level is non deterministic according to our best evidence .  the central limit theorem states that if you average a lot of random independent occurrences, you will end up with a  normal  distribution whose peak is sharper the more random and numerous the events are.  i. e.  that the sum of these events will looked extremely reliably determined.  it is an explanation for why everything  looks  deterministic.  on a macroscopic scale.  this does not directly have anything to do with  free will , per se, because it is not clear that acting randomly is any more  free will  that acting deterministically.  it is just a big gaping hole the logic of your view.  the biggest gap in any discussion about free will is an adequate definition of what you mean.  compatiblists define  free will  in a way such that it does not matter whether things are determined 0 or not.  i have some problems with their definition, but it is as valid a definition as any other i have heard which is to say.  pretty piss poor, in my opinion .  by their definition, it makes complete sense to believe in free will without any supernatural element and 0 determinism.  that is pretty much the definition of what it means to be a compatiblist URL
after a couple philosophy classes and some long winded discussions it seems as though many people find it hard to believe that free will does not exist in any real scientific way.  let is start off with premise 0 everything that is observable in the universe follows laws of nature.  all laws of nature follow the universal law of causation, which states that everything in the universe has a cause and is thus an effect of that cause.  if premise 0 is true then everything in the physical world must be determined.  if everything is determined than there is no such thing as free will.  if every behaviour is determined by laws of causation it is physically impossible for someone to be free, as that freedom would require the nullification of the laws of causation.  in other words to believe in free will is also to believe in spontaneous magic, it is to believe that humans possess powers that could only be explained by the supernatural.  for example: in most legal traditions it is customary to judge whether someone is guilty of x crime by accumulating evidence in order to prove that x person intentionally did this crime.  let is assume that there was enough evidence to prove without doubt that greg smith robbed a convenience store.  now that we have proof that it was greg, we should ask ourselves if greg really chose to rob the store.  as soon as you ask yourself that kind of question the only scientific recourse you have is to understand greg as a causal agent.  what caused greg to rob the store ? was it the fact that greg is from a low socio economic class ? was it the fact that greg lost his job 0 weeks ago and greg wont be able to feed his kids if he does not find a way to get more money ? is it the fact that greg was abused as child ? did greg rob the store due to complex laws of causality that are reducible to both biological and environmental reasons ? or did greg simply rob the store because he felt like it ? even more simple decisions like choosing between a chocolate bar and an apple can be reducible to complex causal interplay between biological and environmental laws.  did you choose the chocolate bar because you like it better ? or is it because we have an evolutionary pull towards sugar and fat dense food ? is it because you read an article on naturalnews. com talking about how dark chocolate can cure your pancreas cancer ? or did you chose the apple because you grew up on an orchard farm and apples remind you of your innocent childhood ? or did you choose the apple because you already had psychologically determined bias for foods that will fit in your limited calorie budget for the week ? what i am trying to say is that as soon as you try to define freedom of choice scientifically it inevitably reduce down to causal mechanisms.  whether those casual mechanisms are internal/biological or external/environmental or a mix of both they are the only things that influence us and completely shape our behaviour.  anything else that can be said to have a role in our behaviours like our  independent volition , our  moral compass  and all other notions pertaining to freedom of will is inherently unscientific and can only be explained through a belief in the supernatural.  cmv  #  let is start off with premise 0 everything that is observable in the universe follows laws of nature.   #  all laws of nature follow the universal law of causation, which states that everything in the universe has a cause and is thus an effect of that cause.   # all laws of nature follow the universal law of causation, which states that everything in the universe has a cause and is thus an effect of that cause.  this is backwards.  the laws of nature are formulated to explain what we observe.  if we observe something that does not fit said laws, we find out why or amend the laws to suit our observations.  i leave the rest for you to philosophize over.   #  judge: because everything is deterministic, i sentence you to 0 years.    #  the biggest problem in  any  discussion of  free will  is defining what you mean by the term.  and almost no one actually does that.  i am pretty ignostic about this topic as a result.  our brains are very well adapted to believing that, regardless of how brains actually work, they are  free  to  make decisions  on  their own .  and really, they are, most times.  the fact that it is a causal mechanism does not change anything about that.  if a machine is broken, it does not mean that it operates any more than usually non causally, it just means that it is broken.   holding it accountable  by fixing it or throwing it away makes perfect sense in any case.   holding people accountable for their decisions  is likely a largely causal process too.  it provides an evolutionary advantage most likely .  that is why we do it.   free will  is just a mental framework that makes it easier to understand why we do it.  it is like that old joke:  criminal: your honor, because everything is deterministic you should not hold me accountable for my actions because i could not choose them.  judge: because everything is deterministic, i sentence you to 0 years.    #  a flower simply is not intelligent enough to alter it is behavior or actions.   #  if you believe in free will, you have to assume it requires some modicum of intelligence.  a flower simply is not intelligent enough to alter it is behavior or actions.  a dog can to a limited extent.  humans behave is millions, probably billions of different ways every minute on this earth.  a human has the option to drink or not drink from a cup.  a plant simply is not capable of making that choice as it has not  climbed the brick wall  of being able to do something beside base programming and instinct.   #  some compatibilists argue that it does not matter if you were programmed or not, so long as you  think  you are taking actions to accomplish your objectives, it constitutes free will.   #  compatiblism makes no distinction between instinctual programming and decision making.  hence the extension to dogs, then plants.  the plant is actions are reactions to certain conditions.  so too are your actions; they are just based on very complex sets of conditions, akin to chaotic systems.  some compatibilists argue that it does not matter if you were programmed or not, so long as you  think  you are taking actions to accomplish your objectives, it constitutes free will.  in other words, it is a matter of perspective.  so it becomes a question of what things have this perspective, and here compatiblism becomes vaguely defined or arbitrary.  it is easy to say that plant is do not and animals do, but exactly which animals have minds that posses this perspective ? for example, i would not agree that a sponge has a mind.  yet, it is an animal.  there is no rigorous criteria for it nor enough information about animal minds , so we end up drawing arbitrary lines in the sand.  further more, compatiblism is even less equipped to deal with machines.  computers sense and perceive things, and form limited models of reality, yet we are pretty certain they are not conscious.  as some point, we will be able to simulate animal brains, or something very close to one, will we then say a computer has a conscious mind ? would it then qualify as having free will under compatibilsm ? again, where is the cutoff point for this free will ?  #  that the sum of these events will looked extremely reliably determined.   #  basically, every quantum interaction at the microscopic level is non deterministic according to our best evidence .  the central limit theorem states that if you average a lot of random independent occurrences, you will end up with a  normal  distribution whose peak is sharper the more random and numerous the events are.  i. e.  that the sum of these events will looked extremely reliably determined.  it is an explanation for why everything  looks  deterministic.  on a macroscopic scale.  this does not directly have anything to do with  free will , per se, because it is not clear that acting randomly is any more  free will  that acting deterministically.  it is just a big gaping hole the logic of your view.  the biggest gap in any discussion about free will is an adequate definition of what you mean.  compatiblists define  free will  in a way such that it does not matter whether things are determined 0 or not.  i have some problems with their definition, but it is as valid a definition as any other i have heard which is to say.  pretty piss poor, in my opinion .  by their definition, it makes complete sense to believe in free will without any supernatural element and 0 determinism.  that is pretty much the definition of what it means to be a compatiblist URL
i have played hearthstone since its beta and have had great times with it i still do .  my massive issue with the game is that the current meta relies too heavily on strung together mech cards that perfectly mesh with each other and do no evoke a skill based theme or tactic.  the expansion has encouraged players to make decks that kill quickly before the game can even begin to get interesting; this avoids the entirety of what makes hearthstone special.  another thing is that legendaries are totally whack as a core concept.  they come off as useful tools to take out foes but are secretly a ploy to get  consumers  to buy packs to try and earn them in a free to play game .  the rarity of these cards even further prove that it benefits those who purchase packs in bulk and get them quicker, letting them get  better  faster and leave other players in the dust.  blizzard has also recently lowered the chance of getting decent dailies, meaning you have a lower chance of generating in game currency, further benefiting the payers.  cards involving random chance while also altering the mana curve voidcaller, unstoppable portal, alarm o bot are devastating and should not exist.  this is different than druid is mana increasing cards as this is a calculated strategy that is understood by the opponent.   #  my massive issue with the game is that the current meta relies too heavily on strung together mech cards that perfectly mesh with each other and do no evoke a skill based theme or tactic.   #  mech decks have not been very popular for a long time now.   # mech decks have not been very popular for a long time now.  players adapted and figured out how to deal with those decks, and then blackrock mountain the new adventure came along and put the final nail in the coffin with patron warrior.  metas evolve and people usually figure out how to deal with strong decks.  some decks are too strong and need nerfs to bring them in line patron warrior is the current example but otherwise a strong deck ca not stay on top forever because its counters will become more common and eat away at it.  players have always been encouraged to make these kinds of decks.  the ladder system favors them because faster games get the same reward as slower games, and hearthstone is a very offense favored game compared to competitors like mtg.  they come off as useful tools to take out foes but are secretly a ploy to get  consumers  to buy packs to try and earn them in a free to play game .  the rarity of these cards even further prove that it benefits those who purchase packs in bulk and get them quicker, letting them get  better  faster and leave other players in the dust.  i think it is worth noting that hearthstone is not strictly a free to play game, it is a ccg with f0p elements.  having a larger collection does grant an advantage but that is basically par for the course.  every game in the genre has its own version of legendary cards that encourage players to spend lots of money on packs trying to get them.  whether or not hearthstone is model is the fairest model possible for f0p players, it is definitely a very profitable model and it is generally fairer than the alternative of not having any f0p elements at all.  source ? i do not remember seeing anything like this on /r/hearthstone and they actually added a really good daily quest recently spectate a friend while they win a game and you earn a free classic pack .  now here is a fun debate.  this could be an entire cmv in its own right.  all i will say for now is that i agree rng as extreme as this is not healthy from a purely competitive perspective, but it does have its advantages for the game overall.  one thing that is really important to the longevity of a card game is the ability to create exciting moments that get players hyped and talking about the game.  for example, shortly after gvg was released a popular streamer named amaz got this unstable portal combo URL the perma stealth mal ganis made him impossible to kill and since druid does not have any good aoe for killing the stealthed minion he is forced to concede.  would it be fair if this happened in a tournament ? probably not, but the highlight video would hit the front page of reddit in 0 minutes, get thousands of replies, and be reposted in discussions for years to come.  the value of that kind of excitement is hard to overstate.   #  i think it is awesome that it is entirely possible to play the game without monetary investment.   #  meta is get established in any game, but in card games its very easy to see optimum strategies.  as a result, in constructed you see really focused decks that are always going to be annoying.  zoolock, current mech cards, there will likely never be a utopia of strategy in a single block of hearthstone, just like in mtg.  a meta will always get figured out, and grow stale.  the solution is an expansion.  it shakes up the meta and throws a bunch of new strategies at players.  playing around a new expansion drop is probably the most fun time to play the game.  the game does benefit paying players in constructed a lot, but it is still a much more customer friendly than any traditional card game again, like mtg .  i think it is awesome that it is entirely possible to play the game without monetary investment.  thankfully, there is a solution built into the game for both of these problems: the arena !  #  maybe this is an unavoidable problem, but as someone who has a strong passion for game design, i find the fact that skill is trumped by cards collection to be very unsettling.   #  it certainly is great that you are able to play without making a first time payment.  my gripe is that in order to get  good , you have to get good cards.  maybe this is an unavoidable problem, but as someone who has a strong passion for game design, i find the fact that skill is trumped by cards collection to be very unsettling.  the situation is that someone can be the best hearthstone player, but in order to rise in the ranks, they have to get good cards.  legendaries and expansion cards are a must to get into high ranks.  again, maybe it is unavoidable, but it is discouraging to new players.  i have always appreciated the fun focused nature of arena, though.  tavern brawl is also a nice addition for free players.  perhaps this is a game for them; for those who want to avoid ranked because of the prerequisites.   #  also, once you have the hearthstone cards, because of it being a ccg not a tcg the value and your money is locked into them, you ca not resell them on the secondary market.   #  i would argue that hearthstone is less customer friendly than mtg because it is a ccg and not a tcg in mtg its possible to buy singles on the secondary market at least, unlike hearthstone.  you get a hearthstone legendary about once per 0 packs.  say you wanted a copy of dr.  boom, one of the 0 legendaries from gvg, you would have to open around 0 packs to get one.  opening that many packs, if you paid for them all in usd, would be about 0$.  considering that snapcaster is in mtg, which are on of the more expensive staple cards in several formats, are around 0$, assuming that you do not care about the other cards that you opened in 0 packs, hearthstone is much harder to get deck staples like dr.  boom with.  also, once you have the hearthstone cards, because of it being a ccg not a tcg the value and your money is locked into them, you ca not resell them on the secondary market.   #  the second market is intimidating, and makes a game more of a financial evaluation.   #  hearthstone is not by any means struggling to get people in the door, magic on the other hand is.  you are talking about benefits for a tournament player, but hearthstone is far better at making it accessible for anyone who wants to be competitive, because the most difficult card to ever get is a legendary, and those have a capped cost, of which you will can easily hit.  no 0 $ jace to buy to make your blue deck viable.  the second market is intimidating, and makes a game more of a financial evaluation.  how often do you open a pack of magic cards and think  i wonder how much this is worth ! ?   yeah, it can be exciting when you get a valuable card, but it can also be super disappointing when you get a worthless card that you  thought  would be valuable because wizards deemed it mythical rare.  in hearthstone it is always exciting, because you know there is at least a standardized value for rarity
i have played hearthstone since its beta and have had great times with it i still do .  my massive issue with the game is that the current meta relies too heavily on strung together mech cards that perfectly mesh with each other and do no evoke a skill based theme or tactic.  the expansion has encouraged players to make decks that kill quickly before the game can even begin to get interesting; this avoids the entirety of what makes hearthstone special.  another thing is that legendaries are totally whack as a core concept.  they come off as useful tools to take out foes but are secretly a ploy to get  consumers  to buy packs to try and earn them in a free to play game .  the rarity of these cards even further prove that it benefits those who purchase packs in bulk and get them quicker, letting them get  better  faster and leave other players in the dust.  blizzard has also recently lowered the chance of getting decent dailies, meaning you have a lower chance of generating in game currency, further benefiting the payers.  cards involving random chance while also altering the mana curve voidcaller, unstoppable portal, alarm o bot are devastating and should not exist.  this is different than druid is mana increasing cards as this is a calculated strategy that is understood by the opponent.   #  the expansion has encouraged players to make decks that kill quickly before the game can even begin to get interesting; this avoids the entirety of what makes hearthstone special.   #  players have always been encouraged to make these kinds of decks.   # mech decks have not been very popular for a long time now.  players adapted and figured out how to deal with those decks, and then blackrock mountain the new adventure came along and put the final nail in the coffin with patron warrior.  metas evolve and people usually figure out how to deal with strong decks.  some decks are too strong and need nerfs to bring them in line patron warrior is the current example but otherwise a strong deck ca not stay on top forever because its counters will become more common and eat away at it.  players have always been encouraged to make these kinds of decks.  the ladder system favors them because faster games get the same reward as slower games, and hearthstone is a very offense favored game compared to competitors like mtg.  they come off as useful tools to take out foes but are secretly a ploy to get  consumers  to buy packs to try and earn them in a free to play game .  the rarity of these cards even further prove that it benefits those who purchase packs in bulk and get them quicker, letting them get  better  faster and leave other players in the dust.  i think it is worth noting that hearthstone is not strictly a free to play game, it is a ccg with f0p elements.  having a larger collection does grant an advantage but that is basically par for the course.  every game in the genre has its own version of legendary cards that encourage players to spend lots of money on packs trying to get them.  whether or not hearthstone is model is the fairest model possible for f0p players, it is definitely a very profitable model and it is generally fairer than the alternative of not having any f0p elements at all.  source ? i do not remember seeing anything like this on /r/hearthstone and they actually added a really good daily quest recently spectate a friend while they win a game and you earn a free classic pack .  now here is a fun debate.  this could be an entire cmv in its own right.  all i will say for now is that i agree rng as extreme as this is not healthy from a purely competitive perspective, but it does have its advantages for the game overall.  one thing that is really important to the longevity of a card game is the ability to create exciting moments that get players hyped and talking about the game.  for example, shortly after gvg was released a popular streamer named amaz got this unstable portal combo URL the perma stealth mal ganis made him impossible to kill and since druid does not have any good aoe for killing the stealthed minion he is forced to concede.  would it be fair if this happened in a tournament ? probably not, but the highlight video would hit the front page of reddit in 0 minutes, get thousands of replies, and be reposted in discussions for years to come.  the value of that kind of excitement is hard to overstate.   #  thankfully, there is a solution built into the game for both of these problems: the arena !  #  meta is get established in any game, but in card games its very easy to see optimum strategies.  as a result, in constructed you see really focused decks that are always going to be annoying.  zoolock, current mech cards, there will likely never be a utopia of strategy in a single block of hearthstone, just like in mtg.  a meta will always get figured out, and grow stale.  the solution is an expansion.  it shakes up the meta and throws a bunch of new strategies at players.  playing around a new expansion drop is probably the most fun time to play the game.  the game does benefit paying players in constructed a lot, but it is still a much more customer friendly than any traditional card game again, like mtg .  i think it is awesome that it is entirely possible to play the game without monetary investment.  thankfully, there is a solution built into the game for both of these problems: the arena !  #  tavern brawl is also a nice addition for free players.   #  it certainly is great that you are able to play without making a first time payment.  my gripe is that in order to get  good , you have to get good cards.  maybe this is an unavoidable problem, but as someone who has a strong passion for game design, i find the fact that skill is trumped by cards collection to be very unsettling.  the situation is that someone can be the best hearthstone player, but in order to rise in the ranks, they have to get good cards.  legendaries and expansion cards are a must to get into high ranks.  again, maybe it is unavoidable, but it is discouraging to new players.  i have always appreciated the fun focused nature of arena, though.  tavern brawl is also a nice addition for free players.  perhaps this is a game for them; for those who want to avoid ranked because of the prerequisites.   #  you get a hearthstone legendary about once per 0 packs.   #  i would argue that hearthstone is less customer friendly than mtg because it is a ccg and not a tcg in mtg its possible to buy singles on the secondary market at least, unlike hearthstone.  you get a hearthstone legendary about once per 0 packs.  say you wanted a copy of dr.  boom, one of the 0 legendaries from gvg, you would have to open around 0 packs to get one.  opening that many packs, if you paid for them all in usd, would be about 0$.  considering that snapcaster is in mtg, which are on of the more expensive staple cards in several formats, are around 0$, assuming that you do not care about the other cards that you opened in 0 packs, hearthstone is much harder to get deck staples like dr.  boom with.  also, once you have the hearthstone cards, because of it being a ccg not a tcg the value and your money is locked into them, you ca not resell them on the secondary market.   #  the second market is intimidating, and makes a game more of a financial evaluation.   #  hearthstone is not by any means struggling to get people in the door, magic on the other hand is.  you are talking about benefits for a tournament player, but hearthstone is far better at making it accessible for anyone who wants to be competitive, because the most difficult card to ever get is a legendary, and those have a capped cost, of which you will can easily hit.  no 0 $ jace to buy to make your blue deck viable.  the second market is intimidating, and makes a game more of a financial evaluation.  how often do you open a pack of magic cards and think  i wonder how much this is worth ! ?   yeah, it can be exciting when you get a valuable card, but it can also be super disappointing when you get a worthless card that you  thought  would be valuable because wizards deemed it mythical rare.  in hearthstone it is always exciting, because you know there is at least a standardized value for rarity
i have played hearthstone since its beta and have had great times with it i still do .  my massive issue with the game is that the current meta relies too heavily on strung together mech cards that perfectly mesh with each other and do no evoke a skill based theme or tactic.  the expansion has encouraged players to make decks that kill quickly before the game can even begin to get interesting; this avoids the entirety of what makes hearthstone special.  another thing is that legendaries are totally whack as a core concept.  they come off as useful tools to take out foes but are secretly a ploy to get  consumers  to buy packs to try and earn them in a free to play game .  the rarity of these cards even further prove that it benefits those who purchase packs in bulk and get them quicker, letting them get  better  faster and leave other players in the dust.  blizzard has also recently lowered the chance of getting decent dailies, meaning you have a lower chance of generating in game currency, further benefiting the payers.  cards involving random chance while also altering the mana curve voidcaller, unstoppable portal, alarm o bot are devastating and should not exist.  this is different than druid is mana increasing cards as this is a calculated strategy that is understood by the opponent.   #  another thing is that legendaries are totally whack as a core concept.   #  they come off as useful tools to take out foes but are secretly a ploy to get  consumers  to buy packs to try and earn them in a free to play game .   # mech decks have not been very popular for a long time now.  players adapted and figured out how to deal with those decks, and then blackrock mountain the new adventure came along and put the final nail in the coffin with patron warrior.  metas evolve and people usually figure out how to deal with strong decks.  some decks are too strong and need nerfs to bring them in line patron warrior is the current example but otherwise a strong deck ca not stay on top forever because its counters will become more common and eat away at it.  players have always been encouraged to make these kinds of decks.  the ladder system favors them because faster games get the same reward as slower games, and hearthstone is a very offense favored game compared to competitors like mtg.  they come off as useful tools to take out foes but are secretly a ploy to get  consumers  to buy packs to try and earn them in a free to play game .  the rarity of these cards even further prove that it benefits those who purchase packs in bulk and get them quicker, letting them get  better  faster and leave other players in the dust.  i think it is worth noting that hearthstone is not strictly a free to play game, it is a ccg with f0p elements.  having a larger collection does grant an advantage but that is basically par for the course.  every game in the genre has its own version of legendary cards that encourage players to spend lots of money on packs trying to get them.  whether or not hearthstone is model is the fairest model possible for f0p players, it is definitely a very profitable model and it is generally fairer than the alternative of not having any f0p elements at all.  source ? i do not remember seeing anything like this on /r/hearthstone and they actually added a really good daily quest recently spectate a friend while they win a game and you earn a free classic pack .  now here is a fun debate.  this could be an entire cmv in its own right.  all i will say for now is that i agree rng as extreme as this is not healthy from a purely competitive perspective, but it does have its advantages for the game overall.  one thing that is really important to the longevity of a card game is the ability to create exciting moments that get players hyped and talking about the game.  for example, shortly after gvg was released a popular streamer named amaz got this unstable portal combo URL the perma stealth mal ganis made him impossible to kill and since druid does not have any good aoe for killing the stealthed minion he is forced to concede.  would it be fair if this happened in a tournament ? probably not, but the highlight video would hit the front page of reddit in 0 minutes, get thousands of replies, and be reposted in discussions for years to come.  the value of that kind of excitement is hard to overstate.   #  a meta will always get figured out, and grow stale.   #  meta is get established in any game, but in card games its very easy to see optimum strategies.  as a result, in constructed you see really focused decks that are always going to be annoying.  zoolock, current mech cards, there will likely never be a utopia of strategy in a single block of hearthstone, just like in mtg.  a meta will always get figured out, and grow stale.  the solution is an expansion.  it shakes up the meta and throws a bunch of new strategies at players.  playing around a new expansion drop is probably the most fun time to play the game.  the game does benefit paying players in constructed a lot, but it is still a much more customer friendly than any traditional card game again, like mtg .  i think it is awesome that it is entirely possible to play the game without monetary investment.  thankfully, there is a solution built into the game for both of these problems: the arena !  #  perhaps this is a game for them; for those who want to avoid ranked because of the prerequisites.   #  it certainly is great that you are able to play without making a first time payment.  my gripe is that in order to get  good , you have to get good cards.  maybe this is an unavoidable problem, but as someone who has a strong passion for game design, i find the fact that skill is trumped by cards collection to be very unsettling.  the situation is that someone can be the best hearthstone player, but in order to rise in the ranks, they have to get good cards.  legendaries and expansion cards are a must to get into high ranks.  again, maybe it is unavoidable, but it is discouraging to new players.  i have always appreciated the fun focused nature of arena, though.  tavern brawl is also a nice addition for free players.  perhaps this is a game for them; for those who want to avoid ranked because of the prerequisites.   #  opening that many packs, if you paid for them all in usd, would be about 0$.   #  i would argue that hearthstone is less customer friendly than mtg because it is a ccg and not a tcg in mtg its possible to buy singles on the secondary market at least, unlike hearthstone.  you get a hearthstone legendary about once per 0 packs.  say you wanted a copy of dr.  boom, one of the 0 legendaries from gvg, you would have to open around 0 packs to get one.  opening that many packs, if you paid for them all in usd, would be about 0$.  considering that snapcaster is in mtg, which are on of the more expensive staple cards in several formats, are around 0$, assuming that you do not care about the other cards that you opened in 0 packs, hearthstone is much harder to get deck staples like dr.  boom with.  also, once you have the hearthstone cards, because of it being a ccg not a tcg the value and your money is locked into them, you ca not resell them on the secondary market.   #  in hearthstone it is always exciting, because you know there is at least a standardized value for rarity  #  hearthstone is not by any means struggling to get people in the door, magic on the other hand is.  you are talking about benefits for a tournament player, but hearthstone is far better at making it accessible for anyone who wants to be competitive, because the most difficult card to ever get is a legendary, and those have a capped cost, of which you will can easily hit.  no 0 $ jace to buy to make your blue deck viable.  the second market is intimidating, and makes a game more of a financial evaluation.  how often do you open a pack of magic cards and think  i wonder how much this is worth ! ?   yeah, it can be exciting when you get a valuable card, but it can also be super disappointing when you get a worthless card that you  thought  would be valuable because wizards deemed it mythical rare.  in hearthstone it is always exciting, because you know there is at least a standardized value for rarity
i have played hearthstone since its beta and have had great times with it i still do .  my massive issue with the game is that the current meta relies too heavily on strung together mech cards that perfectly mesh with each other and do no evoke a skill based theme or tactic.  the expansion has encouraged players to make decks that kill quickly before the game can even begin to get interesting; this avoids the entirety of what makes hearthstone special.  another thing is that legendaries are totally whack as a core concept.  they come off as useful tools to take out foes but are secretly a ploy to get  consumers  to buy packs to try and earn them in a free to play game .  the rarity of these cards even further prove that it benefits those who purchase packs in bulk and get them quicker, letting them get  better  faster and leave other players in the dust.  blizzard has also recently lowered the chance of getting decent dailies, meaning you have a lower chance of generating in game currency, further benefiting the payers.  cards involving random chance while also altering the mana curve voidcaller, unstoppable portal, alarm o bot are devastating and should not exist.  this is different than druid is mana increasing cards as this is a calculated strategy that is understood by the opponent.   #  another thing is that legendaries are totally whack as a core concept.   #  they come off as useful tools to take out foes but are secretly a ploy to get  consumers  to buy packs to try and earn them in a free to play game .   # mech decks are not at the top of the current meta the top consists of patron warrior, face hunter, and various warlock decks zoo, handlock, demon .  mech decks were at the top a few months ago, but even mech mage has fallen out of favor with the more recent tempo spell mage flamewaker etc.  .  they come off as useful tools to take out foes but are secretly a ploy to get  consumers  to buy packs to try and earn them in a free to play game .  the rarity of these cards even further prove that  it benefits those who purchase packs in bulk  and get them quicker, letting them get  better  faster and leave other players in the dust.  it is a free to play game with pay to win aspects.  if you are willing to fork over some cash, you  will  get cards more quickly than someone who does not.  this is obvious, and blizzard does not attempt to hide it.  personally, i have never spent a dime on the game, but i feel like i have a very competitive collection.  and its funny you mention dust at the end their, because dust is exactly what allowed me to make my dr.  boom and sylvanas in order to make my collection that much more competitive.  i did not have to open the best legendaries in a pack, i just crafted them with dust.  the fact that dust exists goes to show that blizzard is willing to cater to the free to play players.  this is different than druid is mana increasing cards as this is a calculated strategy that is understood by the opponent.  are you honestly making the claim that alarm o bot is  devastating  ? it is not a good card.  unstable portal is ok, but most mage decks do not even run it because it is unreliable.  voidcaller is actually good in demon decks since it can bring out doomguard or mal ganis.  but lots of cards are good, and i have never felt like voidcaller is unstoppable.  the key is to keep it alive for a while, and having some taunts with low attack is nice so your opponent ca not suicide it.  and its not a guarantee that your opponent actually has those good demons in his hand.   #  meta is get established in any game, but in card games its very easy to see optimum strategies.   #  meta is get established in any game, but in card games its very easy to see optimum strategies.  as a result, in constructed you see really focused decks that are always going to be annoying.  zoolock, current mech cards, there will likely never be a utopia of strategy in a single block of hearthstone, just like in mtg.  a meta will always get figured out, and grow stale.  the solution is an expansion.  it shakes up the meta and throws a bunch of new strategies at players.  playing around a new expansion drop is probably the most fun time to play the game.  the game does benefit paying players in constructed a lot, but it is still a much more customer friendly than any traditional card game again, like mtg .  i think it is awesome that it is entirely possible to play the game without monetary investment.  thankfully, there is a solution built into the game for both of these problems: the arena !  #  legendaries and expansion cards are a must to get into high ranks.   #  it certainly is great that you are able to play without making a first time payment.  my gripe is that in order to get  good , you have to get good cards.  maybe this is an unavoidable problem, but as someone who has a strong passion for game design, i find the fact that skill is trumped by cards collection to be very unsettling.  the situation is that someone can be the best hearthstone player, but in order to rise in the ranks, they have to get good cards.  legendaries and expansion cards are a must to get into high ranks.  again, maybe it is unavoidable, but it is discouraging to new players.  i have always appreciated the fun focused nature of arena, though.  tavern brawl is also a nice addition for free players.  perhaps this is a game for them; for those who want to avoid ranked because of the prerequisites.   #  i would argue that hearthstone is less customer friendly than mtg because it is a ccg and not a tcg in mtg its possible to buy singles on the secondary market at least, unlike hearthstone.   #  i would argue that hearthstone is less customer friendly than mtg because it is a ccg and not a tcg in mtg its possible to buy singles on the secondary market at least, unlike hearthstone.  you get a hearthstone legendary about once per 0 packs.  say you wanted a copy of dr.  boom, one of the 0 legendaries from gvg, you would have to open around 0 packs to get one.  opening that many packs, if you paid for them all in usd, would be about 0$.  considering that snapcaster is in mtg, which are on of the more expensive staple cards in several formats, are around 0$, assuming that you do not care about the other cards that you opened in 0 packs, hearthstone is much harder to get deck staples like dr.  boom with.  also, once you have the hearthstone cards, because of it being a ccg not a tcg the value and your money is locked into them, you ca not resell them on the secondary market.   #  hearthstone is not by any means struggling to get people in the door, magic on the other hand is.   #  hearthstone is not by any means struggling to get people in the door, magic on the other hand is.  you are talking about benefits for a tournament player, but hearthstone is far better at making it accessible for anyone who wants to be competitive, because the most difficult card to ever get is a legendary, and those have a capped cost, of which you will can easily hit.  no 0 $ jace to buy to make your blue deck viable.  the second market is intimidating, and makes a game more of a financial evaluation.  how often do you open a pack of magic cards and think  i wonder how much this is worth ! ?   yeah, it can be exciting when you get a valuable card, but it can also be super disappointing when you get a worthless card that you  thought  would be valuable because wizards deemed it mythical rare.  in hearthstone it is always exciting, because you know there is at least a standardized value for rarity
i have played hearthstone since its beta and have had great times with it i still do .  my massive issue with the game is that the current meta relies too heavily on strung together mech cards that perfectly mesh with each other and do no evoke a skill based theme or tactic.  the expansion has encouraged players to make decks that kill quickly before the game can even begin to get interesting; this avoids the entirety of what makes hearthstone special.  another thing is that legendaries are totally whack as a core concept.  they come off as useful tools to take out foes but are secretly a ploy to get  consumers  to buy packs to try and earn them in a free to play game .  the rarity of these cards even further prove that it benefits those who purchase packs in bulk and get them quicker, letting them get  better  faster and leave other players in the dust.  blizzard has also recently lowered the chance of getting decent dailies, meaning you have a lower chance of generating in game currency, further benefiting the payers.  cards involving random chance while also altering the mana curve voidcaller, unstoppable portal, alarm o bot are devastating and should not exist.  this is different than druid is mana increasing cards as this is a calculated strategy that is understood by the opponent.   #  cards involving random chance while also altering the mana curve voidcaller, unstoppable portal, alarm o bot are devastating and should not exist.   #  this is different than druid is mana increasing cards as this is a calculated strategy that is understood by the opponent.   # mech decks are not at the top of the current meta the top consists of patron warrior, face hunter, and various warlock decks zoo, handlock, demon .  mech decks were at the top a few months ago, but even mech mage has fallen out of favor with the more recent tempo spell mage flamewaker etc.  .  they come off as useful tools to take out foes but are secretly a ploy to get  consumers  to buy packs to try and earn them in a free to play game .  the rarity of these cards even further prove that  it benefits those who purchase packs in bulk  and get them quicker, letting them get  better  faster and leave other players in the dust.  it is a free to play game with pay to win aspects.  if you are willing to fork over some cash, you  will  get cards more quickly than someone who does not.  this is obvious, and blizzard does not attempt to hide it.  personally, i have never spent a dime on the game, but i feel like i have a very competitive collection.  and its funny you mention dust at the end their, because dust is exactly what allowed me to make my dr.  boom and sylvanas in order to make my collection that much more competitive.  i did not have to open the best legendaries in a pack, i just crafted them with dust.  the fact that dust exists goes to show that blizzard is willing to cater to the free to play players.  this is different than druid is mana increasing cards as this is a calculated strategy that is understood by the opponent.  are you honestly making the claim that alarm o bot is  devastating  ? it is not a good card.  unstable portal is ok, but most mage decks do not even run it because it is unreliable.  voidcaller is actually good in demon decks since it can bring out doomguard or mal ganis.  but lots of cards are good, and i have never felt like voidcaller is unstoppable.  the key is to keep it alive for a while, and having some taunts with low attack is nice so your opponent ca not suicide it.  and its not a guarantee that your opponent actually has those good demons in his hand.   #  playing around a new expansion drop is probably the most fun time to play the game.   #  meta is get established in any game, but in card games its very easy to see optimum strategies.  as a result, in constructed you see really focused decks that are always going to be annoying.  zoolock, current mech cards, there will likely never be a utopia of strategy in a single block of hearthstone, just like in mtg.  a meta will always get figured out, and grow stale.  the solution is an expansion.  it shakes up the meta and throws a bunch of new strategies at players.  playing around a new expansion drop is probably the most fun time to play the game.  the game does benefit paying players in constructed a lot, but it is still a much more customer friendly than any traditional card game again, like mtg .  i think it is awesome that it is entirely possible to play the game without monetary investment.  thankfully, there is a solution built into the game for both of these problems: the arena !  #  legendaries and expansion cards are a must to get into high ranks.   #  it certainly is great that you are able to play without making a first time payment.  my gripe is that in order to get  good , you have to get good cards.  maybe this is an unavoidable problem, but as someone who has a strong passion for game design, i find the fact that skill is trumped by cards collection to be very unsettling.  the situation is that someone can be the best hearthstone player, but in order to rise in the ranks, they have to get good cards.  legendaries and expansion cards are a must to get into high ranks.  again, maybe it is unavoidable, but it is discouraging to new players.  i have always appreciated the fun focused nature of arena, though.  tavern brawl is also a nice addition for free players.  perhaps this is a game for them; for those who want to avoid ranked because of the prerequisites.   #  boom, one of the 0 legendaries from gvg, you would have to open around 0 packs to get one.   #  i would argue that hearthstone is less customer friendly than mtg because it is a ccg and not a tcg in mtg its possible to buy singles on the secondary market at least, unlike hearthstone.  you get a hearthstone legendary about once per 0 packs.  say you wanted a copy of dr.  boom, one of the 0 legendaries from gvg, you would have to open around 0 packs to get one.  opening that many packs, if you paid for them all in usd, would be about 0$.  considering that snapcaster is in mtg, which are on of the more expensive staple cards in several formats, are around 0$, assuming that you do not care about the other cards that you opened in 0 packs, hearthstone is much harder to get deck staples like dr.  boom with.  also, once you have the hearthstone cards, because of it being a ccg not a tcg the value and your money is locked into them, you ca not resell them on the secondary market.   #  in hearthstone it is always exciting, because you know there is at least a standardized value for rarity  #  hearthstone is not by any means struggling to get people in the door, magic on the other hand is.  you are talking about benefits for a tournament player, but hearthstone is far better at making it accessible for anyone who wants to be competitive, because the most difficult card to ever get is a legendary, and those have a capped cost, of which you will can easily hit.  no 0 $ jace to buy to make your blue deck viable.  the second market is intimidating, and makes a game more of a financial evaluation.  how often do you open a pack of magic cards and think  i wonder how much this is worth ! ?   yeah, it can be exciting when you get a valuable card, but it can also be super disappointing when you get a worthless card that you  thought  would be valuable because wizards deemed it mythical rare.  in hearthstone it is always exciting, because you know there is at least a standardized value for rarity
i have played hearthstone since its beta and have had great times with it i still do .  my massive issue with the game is that the current meta relies too heavily on strung together mech cards that perfectly mesh with each other and do no evoke a skill based theme or tactic.  the expansion has encouraged players to make decks that kill quickly before the game can even begin to get interesting; this avoids the entirety of what makes hearthstone special.  another thing is that legendaries are totally whack as a core concept.  they come off as useful tools to take out foes but are secretly a ploy to get  consumers  to buy packs to try and earn them in a free to play game .  the rarity of these cards even further prove that it benefits those who purchase packs in bulk and get them quicker, letting them get  better  faster and leave other players in the dust.  blizzard has also recently lowered the chance of getting decent dailies, meaning you have a lower chance of generating in game currency, further benefiting the payers.  cards involving random chance while also altering the mana curve voidcaller, unstoppable portal, alarm o bot are devastating and should not exist.  this is different than druid is mana increasing cards as this is a calculated strategy that is understood by the opponent.   #  my massive issue with the game is that the current meta relies too heavily on strung together mech cards that perfectly mesh with each other and do no evoke a skill based theme or tactic.   #  i was under the impression that mech mage and mech shaman were no longer top tier decks.   # i was under the impression that mech mage and mech shaman were no longer top tier decks.  i do not play ladder anymore, but i thought patron warrior was now dominating the field ? it is not the expansion that made it this way; hearthstone was this way before gvg too.  the reason is the ladder system.  because doing well in ladder is more about playing a lot of games than being good, it gives players and incentive to play fast  cancer  aggro decks that require little to no thought.  so do not blame the card economy or design, blame the ladder system.  lastly, while it is frustrating that legendaries are so hard to craft, you have to remember that hearthstone is not really f0p no ccg is .  you can play for free, sure, but blizzard is going to make it so that if you want to keep your decks top tier, you have to spend some cash.  at least at first.   #  playing around a new expansion drop is probably the most fun time to play the game.   #  meta is get established in any game, but in card games its very easy to see optimum strategies.  as a result, in constructed you see really focused decks that are always going to be annoying.  zoolock, current mech cards, there will likely never be a utopia of strategy in a single block of hearthstone, just like in mtg.  a meta will always get figured out, and grow stale.  the solution is an expansion.  it shakes up the meta and throws a bunch of new strategies at players.  playing around a new expansion drop is probably the most fun time to play the game.  the game does benefit paying players in constructed a lot, but it is still a much more customer friendly than any traditional card game again, like mtg .  i think it is awesome that it is entirely possible to play the game without monetary investment.  thankfully, there is a solution built into the game for both of these problems: the arena !  #  again, maybe it is unavoidable, but it is discouraging to new players.   #  it certainly is great that you are able to play without making a first time payment.  my gripe is that in order to get  good , you have to get good cards.  maybe this is an unavoidable problem, but as someone who has a strong passion for game design, i find the fact that skill is trumped by cards collection to be very unsettling.  the situation is that someone can be the best hearthstone player, but in order to rise in the ranks, they have to get good cards.  legendaries and expansion cards are a must to get into high ranks.  again, maybe it is unavoidable, but it is discouraging to new players.  i have always appreciated the fun focused nature of arena, though.  tavern brawl is also a nice addition for free players.  perhaps this is a game for them; for those who want to avoid ranked because of the prerequisites.   #  boom, one of the 0 legendaries from gvg, you would have to open around 0 packs to get one.   #  i would argue that hearthstone is less customer friendly than mtg because it is a ccg and not a tcg in mtg its possible to buy singles on the secondary market at least, unlike hearthstone.  you get a hearthstone legendary about once per 0 packs.  say you wanted a copy of dr.  boom, one of the 0 legendaries from gvg, you would have to open around 0 packs to get one.  opening that many packs, if you paid for them all in usd, would be about 0$.  considering that snapcaster is in mtg, which are on of the more expensive staple cards in several formats, are around 0$, assuming that you do not care about the other cards that you opened in 0 packs, hearthstone is much harder to get deck staples like dr.  boom with.  also, once you have the hearthstone cards, because of it being a ccg not a tcg the value and your money is locked into them, you ca not resell them on the secondary market.   #  yeah, it can be exciting when you get a valuable card, but it can also be super disappointing when you get a worthless card that you  thought  would be valuable because wizards deemed it mythical rare.   #  hearthstone is not by any means struggling to get people in the door, magic on the other hand is.  you are talking about benefits for a tournament player, but hearthstone is far better at making it accessible for anyone who wants to be competitive, because the most difficult card to ever get is a legendary, and those have a capped cost, of which you will can easily hit.  no 0 $ jace to buy to make your blue deck viable.  the second market is intimidating, and makes a game more of a financial evaluation.  how often do you open a pack of magic cards and think  i wonder how much this is worth ! ?   yeah, it can be exciting when you get a valuable card, but it can also be super disappointing when you get a worthless card that you  thought  would be valuable because wizards deemed it mythical rare.  in hearthstone it is always exciting, because you know there is at least a standardized value for rarity
i have played hearthstone since its beta and have had great times with it i still do .  my massive issue with the game is that the current meta relies too heavily on strung together mech cards that perfectly mesh with each other and do no evoke a skill based theme or tactic.  the expansion has encouraged players to make decks that kill quickly before the game can even begin to get interesting; this avoids the entirety of what makes hearthstone special.  another thing is that legendaries are totally whack as a core concept.  they come off as useful tools to take out foes but are secretly a ploy to get  consumers  to buy packs to try and earn them in a free to play game .  the rarity of these cards even further prove that it benefits those who purchase packs in bulk and get them quicker, letting them get  better  faster and leave other players in the dust.  blizzard has also recently lowered the chance of getting decent dailies, meaning you have a lower chance of generating in game currency, further benefiting the payers.  cards involving random chance while also altering the mana curve voidcaller, unstoppable portal, alarm o bot are devastating and should not exist.  this is different than druid is mana increasing cards as this is a calculated strategy that is understood by the opponent.   #  the expansion has encouraged players to make decks that kill quickly before the game can even begin to get interesting; this avoids the entirety of what makes hearthstone special.   #  it is not the expansion that made it this way; hearthstone was this way before gvg too.   # i was under the impression that mech mage and mech shaman were no longer top tier decks.  i do not play ladder anymore, but i thought patron warrior was now dominating the field ? it is not the expansion that made it this way; hearthstone was this way before gvg too.  the reason is the ladder system.  because doing well in ladder is more about playing a lot of games than being good, it gives players and incentive to play fast  cancer  aggro decks that require little to no thought.  so do not blame the card economy or design, blame the ladder system.  lastly, while it is frustrating that legendaries are so hard to craft, you have to remember that hearthstone is not really f0p no ccg is .  you can play for free, sure, but blizzard is going to make it so that if you want to keep your decks top tier, you have to spend some cash.  at least at first.   #  it shakes up the meta and throws a bunch of new strategies at players.   #  meta is get established in any game, but in card games its very easy to see optimum strategies.  as a result, in constructed you see really focused decks that are always going to be annoying.  zoolock, current mech cards, there will likely never be a utopia of strategy in a single block of hearthstone, just like in mtg.  a meta will always get figured out, and grow stale.  the solution is an expansion.  it shakes up the meta and throws a bunch of new strategies at players.  playing around a new expansion drop is probably the most fun time to play the game.  the game does benefit paying players in constructed a lot, but it is still a much more customer friendly than any traditional card game again, like mtg .  i think it is awesome that it is entirely possible to play the game without monetary investment.  thankfully, there is a solution built into the game for both of these problems: the arena !  #  legendaries and expansion cards are a must to get into high ranks.   #  it certainly is great that you are able to play without making a first time payment.  my gripe is that in order to get  good , you have to get good cards.  maybe this is an unavoidable problem, but as someone who has a strong passion for game design, i find the fact that skill is trumped by cards collection to be very unsettling.  the situation is that someone can be the best hearthstone player, but in order to rise in the ranks, they have to get good cards.  legendaries and expansion cards are a must to get into high ranks.  again, maybe it is unavoidable, but it is discouraging to new players.  i have always appreciated the fun focused nature of arena, though.  tavern brawl is also a nice addition for free players.  perhaps this is a game for them; for those who want to avoid ranked because of the prerequisites.   #  also, once you have the hearthstone cards, because of it being a ccg not a tcg the value and your money is locked into them, you ca not resell them on the secondary market.   #  i would argue that hearthstone is less customer friendly than mtg because it is a ccg and not a tcg in mtg its possible to buy singles on the secondary market at least, unlike hearthstone.  you get a hearthstone legendary about once per 0 packs.  say you wanted a copy of dr.  boom, one of the 0 legendaries from gvg, you would have to open around 0 packs to get one.  opening that many packs, if you paid for them all in usd, would be about 0$.  considering that snapcaster is in mtg, which are on of the more expensive staple cards in several formats, are around 0$, assuming that you do not care about the other cards that you opened in 0 packs, hearthstone is much harder to get deck staples like dr.  boom with.  also, once you have the hearthstone cards, because of it being a ccg not a tcg the value and your money is locked into them, you ca not resell them on the secondary market.   #  yeah, it can be exciting when you get a valuable card, but it can also be super disappointing when you get a worthless card that you  thought  would be valuable because wizards deemed it mythical rare.   #  hearthstone is not by any means struggling to get people in the door, magic on the other hand is.  you are talking about benefits for a tournament player, but hearthstone is far better at making it accessible for anyone who wants to be competitive, because the most difficult card to ever get is a legendary, and those have a capped cost, of which you will can easily hit.  no 0 $ jace to buy to make your blue deck viable.  the second market is intimidating, and makes a game more of a financial evaluation.  how often do you open a pack of magic cards and think  i wonder how much this is worth ! ?   yeah, it can be exciting when you get a valuable card, but it can also be super disappointing when you get a worthless card that you  thought  would be valuable because wizards deemed it mythical rare.  in hearthstone it is always exciting, because you know there is at least a standardized value for rarity
i have played hearthstone since its beta and have had great times with it i still do .  my massive issue with the game is that the current meta relies too heavily on strung together mech cards that perfectly mesh with each other and do no evoke a skill based theme or tactic.  the expansion has encouraged players to make decks that kill quickly before the game can even begin to get interesting; this avoids the entirety of what makes hearthstone special.  another thing is that legendaries are totally whack as a core concept.  they come off as useful tools to take out foes but are secretly a ploy to get  consumers  to buy packs to try and earn them in a free to play game .  the rarity of these cards even further prove that it benefits those who purchase packs in bulk and get them quicker, letting them get  better  faster and leave other players in the dust.  blizzard has also recently lowered the chance of getting decent dailies, meaning you have a lower chance of generating in game currency, further benefiting the payers.  cards involving random chance while also altering the mana curve voidcaller, unstoppable portal, alarm o bot are devastating and should not exist.  this is different than druid is mana increasing cards as this is a calculated strategy that is understood by the opponent.   #  cards involving random chance while also altering the mana curve voidcaller, unstoppable portal, alarm o bot are devastating and should not exist.   #  this is different than druid is mana increasing cards as this is a calculated strategy that is understood by the opponent.   # this is different than druid is mana increasing cards as this is a calculated strategy that is understood by the opponent.  the other points have all been addressed pretty well, so i will look at this one.  excessive rng can be damaging to the competitiveness of a card game, but it is not as much of a problem for hearthstone as you think it is.  firstly, all the rng cards that cause a really big swing such as the three you mention are rarely played in meta decks because they are not consistently good enough in decks that are in the meta right now.  voidcaller is weak outside of demonlock which is a fairly weak deck archetype for warlocks right now so it is not really played.  mage is not the strongest class right now in the first place since brm and the unstable portal has declined in use considerably.  it was mainly used by mech mages anyways and it was never the most obnoxious card in that deck.  alarm o bot is a very weak card generally and it has never really been used outside of gimmick decks.  as well as this, some amount of rng is actually good for the game.  it makes it less repetitive and adds some uncertainty, and it creates interesting moments where the rng goes just right or horribly wrong that get more people interested in the game.   #  it shakes up the meta and throws a bunch of new strategies at players.   #  meta is get established in any game, but in card games its very easy to see optimum strategies.  as a result, in constructed you see really focused decks that are always going to be annoying.  zoolock, current mech cards, there will likely never be a utopia of strategy in a single block of hearthstone, just like in mtg.  a meta will always get figured out, and grow stale.  the solution is an expansion.  it shakes up the meta and throws a bunch of new strategies at players.  playing around a new expansion drop is probably the most fun time to play the game.  the game does benefit paying players in constructed a lot, but it is still a much more customer friendly than any traditional card game again, like mtg .  i think it is awesome that it is entirely possible to play the game without monetary investment.  thankfully, there is a solution built into the game for both of these problems: the arena !  #  my gripe is that in order to get  good , you have to get good cards.   #  it certainly is great that you are able to play without making a first time payment.  my gripe is that in order to get  good , you have to get good cards.  maybe this is an unavoidable problem, but as someone who has a strong passion for game design, i find the fact that skill is trumped by cards collection to be very unsettling.  the situation is that someone can be the best hearthstone player, but in order to rise in the ranks, they have to get good cards.  legendaries and expansion cards are a must to get into high ranks.  again, maybe it is unavoidable, but it is discouraging to new players.  i have always appreciated the fun focused nature of arena, though.  tavern brawl is also a nice addition for free players.  perhaps this is a game for them; for those who want to avoid ranked because of the prerequisites.   #  i would argue that hearthstone is less customer friendly than mtg because it is a ccg and not a tcg in mtg its possible to buy singles on the secondary market at least, unlike hearthstone.   #  i would argue that hearthstone is less customer friendly than mtg because it is a ccg and not a tcg in mtg its possible to buy singles on the secondary market at least, unlike hearthstone.  you get a hearthstone legendary about once per 0 packs.  say you wanted a copy of dr.  boom, one of the 0 legendaries from gvg, you would have to open around 0 packs to get one.  opening that many packs, if you paid for them all in usd, would be about 0$.  considering that snapcaster is in mtg, which are on of the more expensive staple cards in several formats, are around 0$, assuming that you do not care about the other cards that you opened in 0 packs, hearthstone is much harder to get deck staples like dr.  boom with.  also, once you have the hearthstone cards, because of it being a ccg not a tcg the value and your money is locked into them, you ca not resell them on the secondary market.   #  yeah, it can be exciting when you get a valuable card, but it can also be super disappointing when you get a worthless card that you  thought  would be valuable because wizards deemed it mythical rare.   #  hearthstone is not by any means struggling to get people in the door, magic on the other hand is.  you are talking about benefits for a tournament player, but hearthstone is far better at making it accessible for anyone who wants to be competitive, because the most difficult card to ever get is a legendary, and those have a capped cost, of which you will can easily hit.  no 0 $ jace to buy to make your blue deck viable.  the second market is intimidating, and makes a game more of a financial evaluation.  how often do you open a pack of magic cards and think  i wonder how much this is worth ! ?   yeah, it can be exciting when you get a valuable card, but it can also be super disappointing when you get a worthless card that you  thought  would be valuable because wizards deemed it mythical rare.  in hearthstone it is always exciting, because you know there is at least a standardized value for rarity
i think  downtown  is a bad name for most central business districts.  for one thing, most places that call their central business districts  downtown  do not have areas or neighbourhoods called  uptown  or  midtown .  should not  downtown  be actually down of something ? i feel that whatever a city decides to call it is central business district it should reflect either it is geographic location, history, or purpose.  relating to that, calling central business districts  downtown  seem to me to be unoriginal.  north american cities could give their central business districts names that are not just imitations of new york is cbd.   #  relating to that, calling central business districts  downtown  seem to me to be unoriginal.   #  north american cities could give their central business districts names that are not just imitations of new york is cbd.   # north american cities could give their central business districts names that are not just imitations of new york is cbd.  downtown is not a name.  it is a noun.  that is like saying that only rome or whatever should call itself a city, and everyone else should use a different word.  as for why it is called downtown, wikipedia is explanation which is fairly convincing :  the term is thought to have been coined in new york city, where it was in use by the 0s to refer to the original town at the southern tip of the island of manhattan.  as the town of new york grew into a city, the only direction it could grow on the island was toward the north, proceeding upriver from the original settlement so  down town is called so because it is  down river.   #  like downtown manhattan, la has its tallest buildings and most of the city is government and civic centers including city hall .   # it certainly does not reflect any character trait of any central business district.  what ? it absolutely does ! have you ever been there ? downtown manhattan is one of the most historically and culturally significant places in the world.  it is the home of city hall, wall st and the world trade center.  it is such a recognizable symbol for commerce and american prosperity that in 0 terrorists flew planes into its most iconic buildings.   downtown  is synonymous with business, so much so that other cities adopt the name.  makes perfect sense to me.  the only other  downtown  i have been to outside ny was dtla, and it was the closest that la comes to looking like downtown manhattan.  like downtown manhattan, la has its tallest buildings and most of the city is government and civic centers including city hall .   #  it makes perfect sense to me; it is how words generally work.   #  i think you are overthinking it.  in manhattan,  downtown  is both geographic and refers to the city is business district.  over time,  downtown  and  cbd  became synonyms in new york.  hence, cbd in other cities are called  downtown,  even if it is not geographically the case.  city hall, for example, is located in downtown in both la and ny.  it makes perfect sense to me; it is how words generally work.  they are not always meant to be taken literally; things evolve.   #  i remember downtown new orleans as being distinctly different from its downtown, for a somewhat better known example.   #  i believe those cities actually define their financial districts as their downtowns.  i remember downtown new orleans as being distinctly different from its downtown, for a somewhat better known example.  either way, i reckon there is no need to get hung up over the matter.  the etymology of a word does not necessarily dictate its meaning.  for instance, people use the term stress in an entirely different context from its original meaning.   #  but downtown is actually the name of the neighbourhood.   #  i will use vancouver since that is where i am from and have the most information.  but downtown is actually the name of the neighbourhood.  my main issue with the use of  downtown  is not the origins of the word although that is a contributing factor, but it is use in spite of the geographies of the cities where they are located.  it seems to me that place names should ideally reflect a place is history, purpose or at the very least location.  downtown vancouver is not at the bottom of vancouver, it was not settled by new yorkers who gave it that name and the word downtown does not really reflect it is purpose.
the universe exists, and came in to being somehow.  some claim that we do not know yet exactly how the universe came in to being, we know roughly when it did, and roughly  how  it did, but what caused it to come in to being is a unanswered question one we may never answer.  there are others that believe god brought the universe in to being that is, an all powerful entity was the first mover, setting the universe in motion .  but if god is all powerful and infinite, we have no idea what his/her/its nature is, and could not possibly know, as mortal, finite beings.  what is the difference between saying we do not know how the universe came in to being, and saying that this entity that we do not know the nature of, and could not possibly comprehend, brought the universe in to being ? are not they equally nebulous beliefs ? how does believing that god brought the universe in to being differentiate your beliefs from those who would say we do not know how the universe was brought in to being ? are not they pretty much the same belief ?  #  the universe exists, and came in to being somehow.   #  it is true that the universe exists, but there is no proof that it  came into being .   # it is true that the universe exists, but there is no proof that it  came into being .  it could be that it has existed eternally, just like a supposed creator.  it could be that reality exists, and universes tend to arise in reality.  are not they pretty much the same belief ? admitting  we do not know  is a better option than supposing an answer with no evidence.  the  we do not know  crowd is seeking an answer, and the  god diddit  crowd thinks they already have it.  one keeps your knowledge progressing, and the other puts an end to it.   #  so, no they are not equal, and one would need to be provided with reason to believe there is a god or great entity x or whatever idea you want to toss in here that we do not understand too.   #  one is saying we do not understand how the universe began and the other is saying we do not understand how the universe began but it likely began with a god that we do not understand too.  it seems like an additional claim and not roughly equivalent.  a comparison we do not know how the universe began and we do not know how the universe began but it likely began but the great entity x who we also cannot understand.  so, no they are not equal, and one would need to be provided with reason to believe there is a god or great entity x or whatever idea you want to toss in here that we do not understand too.  also if you are saying that because we cannot know how the universe began, so we cannot know god did not create the universe, and concluding that therefor god created the universe is a perfectly valid conclusion than you would be misguided.  not knowing is not a good argument for the existence of something.   #  the existence of a beginning is just as impossible as no beginning.   #  the existence of a beginning is just as impossible as no beginning.  if there was a beginning, there must have been an infinite wait for things to begin.  when you talk about beginnings, you wonder about what  caused  the beginning.  then you run into an infinite chain of causes.  it is more likely that  cause and effect , and  beginning and end  only apply  within  our perception of time and not to time itself.   #  but they think they do, and they are satisfied with  goddidit  and will not continue to search for the real answer.   #  you keep saying that people do not and ca not possibly know anything about god.  you have said that multiple times.  if that is true, then how can anyone know or claim that god created the universe ? if he is unknowable, how do we know that ? of course not.  but they think they do, and they are satisfied with  goddidit  and will not continue to search for the real answer.  where the people who say  i do not know   will  continue to look for an answer.   #  i do not know what is in the sandwiches we got for a meeting at work today.  could be tuna, could be grilled vegetables, could be falafel.   #  they are not the same belief.  the agnostic position on cosmology is that we  do not  know how the universe came into being.  the theistic view you have described claims that we  ca not  know how the universe came into being.  there is all the difference in the world between saying i do not know something and saying i ca not know something.  i do not know what is in the sandwiches we got for a meeting at work today.  could be tuna, could be grilled vegetables, could be falafel.  i do not know.  but i  can  find out.  all i have to do is take a bite of sandwich.  does a falafel sandwich taste the same way to my colleague lisa as it does to me ? what is her subjective experience of falafel, what is the qualia or  whatness  of that unique experience of being lisa eating falafel ? i do not know the answer to that question.  and what is more, i  ca not  know, for the simple reason that i can never be lisa or know what it is like to be in her head.  so once again, the agnostic position  i do not know  holds out the possibility that i  could  one day know the answer to the question.  cosmologists and physicists all say that they do not know what caused the universe to become like it is today.  but they also generally say that it is possible in theory to one day find out the answer to that question.  but the theistic position is definitive:  i  ca not  know.   not today, not tomorrow, not in theory, not ever.  theism says that there are parts of the physical universe that are fundamentally unknowable to us.  no scientist or agnostic would ever make such a radically definitive claim.
the universe exists, and came in to being somehow.  some claim that we do not know yet exactly how the universe came in to being, we know roughly when it did, and roughly  how  it did, but what caused it to come in to being is a unanswered question one we may never answer.  there are others that believe god brought the universe in to being that is, an all powerful entity was the first mover, setting the universe in motion .  but if god is all powerful and infinite, we have no idea what his/her/its nature is, and could not possibly know, as mortal, finite beings.  what is the difference between saying we do not know how the universe came in to being, and saying that this entity that we do not know the nature of, and could not possibly comprehend, brought the universe in to being ? are not they equally nebulous beliefs ? how does believing that god brought the universe in to being differentiate your beliefs from those who would say we do not know how the universe was brought in to being ? are not they pretty much the same belief ?  #  how does believing that god brought the universe in to being differentiate your beliefs from those who would say we do not know how the universe was brought in to being ?  #  are not they pretty much the same belief ?  # it is true that the universe exists, but there is no proof that it  came into being .  it could be that it has existed eternally, just like a supposed creator.  it could be that reality exists, and universes tend to arise in reality.  are not they pretty much the same belief ? admitting  we do not know  is a better option than supposing an answer with no evidence.  the  we do not know  crowd is seeking an answer, and the  god diddit  crowd thinks they already have it.  one keeps your knowledge progressing, and the other puts an end to it.   #  not knowing is not a good argument for the existence of something.   #  one is saying we do not understand how the universe began and the other is saying we do not understand how the universe began but it likely began with a god that we do not understand too.  it seems like an additional claim and not roughly equivalent.  a comparison we do not know how the universe began and we do not know how the universe began but it likely began but the great entity x who we also cannot understand.  so, no they are not equal, and one would need to be provided with reason to believe there is a god or great entity x or whatever idea you want to toss in here that we do not understand too.  also if you are saying that because we cannot know how the universe began, so we cannot know god did not create the universe, and concluding that therefor god created the universe is a perfectly valid conclusion than you would be misguided.  not knowing is not a good argument for the existence of something.   #  if there was a beginning, there must have been an infinite wait for things to begin.   #  the existence of a beginning is just as impossible as no beginning.  if there was a beginning, there must have been an infinite wait for things to begin.  when you talk about beginnings, you wonder about what  caused  the beginning.  then you run into an infinite chain of causes.  it is more likely that  cause and effect , and  beginning and end  only apply  within  our perception of time and not to time itself.   #  if that is true, then how can anyone know or claim that god created the universe ?  #  you keep saying that people do not and ca not possibly know anything about god.  you have said that multiple times.  if that is true, then how can anyone know or claim that god created the universe ? if he is unknowable, how do we know that ? of course not.  but they think they do, and they are satisfied with  goddidit  and will not continue to search for the real answer.  where the people who say  i do not know   will  continue to look for an answer.   #  but the theistic position is definitive:  i  ca not  know.    #  they are not the same belief.  the agnostic position on cosmology is that we  do not  know how the universe came into being.  the theistic view you have described claims that we  ca not  know how the universe came into being.  there is all the difference in the world between saying i do not know something and saying i ca not know something.  i do not know what is in the sandwiches we got for a meeting at work today.  could be tuna, could be grilled vegetables, could be falafel.  i do not know.  but i  can  find out.  all i have to do is take a bite of sandwich.  does a falafel sandwich taste the same way to my colleague lisa as it does to me ? what is her subjective experience of falafel, what is the qualia or  whatness  of that unique experience of being lisa eating falafel ? i do not know the answer to that question.  and what is more, i  ca not  know, for the simple reason that i can never be lisa or know what it is like to be in her head.  so once again, the agnostic position  i do not know  holds out the possibility that i  could  one day know the answer to the question.  cosmologists and physicists all say that they do not know what caused the universe to become like it is today.  but they also generally say that it is possible in theory to one day find out the answer to that question.  but the theistic position is definitive:  i  ca not  know.   not today, not tomorrow, not in theory, not ever.  theism says that there are parts of the physical universe that are fundamentally unknowable to us.  no scientist or agnostic would ever make such a radically definitive claim.
the universe exists, and came in to being somehow.  some claim that we do not know yet exactly how the universe came in to being, we know roughly when it did, and roughly  how  it did, but what caused it to come in to being is a unanswered question one we may never answer.  there are others that believe god brought the universe in to being that is, an all powerful entity was the first mover, setting the universe in motion .  but if god is all powerful and infinite, we have no idea what his/her/its nature is, and could not possibly know, as mortal, finite beings.  what is the difference between saying we do not know how the universe came in to being, and saying that this entity that we do not know the nature of, and could not possibly comprehend, brought the universe in to being ? are not they equally nebulous beliefs ? how does believing that god brought the universe in to being differentiate your beliefs from those who would say we do not know how the universe was brought in to being ? are not they pretty much the same belief ?  #  what is the difference between saying we do not know how the universe came in to being, and saying that this entity that we do not know the nature of, and could not possibly comprehend, brought the universe in to being ?  #  i am not actually sure how you can think those statements are equivalent.   # i am not actually sure how you can think those statements are equivalent.  in a sense they are even mutually exclusive.  one is stating we are missing a piece of information.  the other is stating that not only do we have this information, but  this  is what it is.  to me what you have stated is logically equivalent to:   what is the difference between saying i do not know what color your dog is, and saying that a stranger that i do not know the nature of, and could not possibly comprehend, painted your dog blue ?  #  a comparison we do not know how the universe began and we do not know how the universe began but it likely began but the great entity x who we also cannot understand.   #  one is saying we do not understand how the universe began and the other is saying we do not understand how the universe began but it likely began with a god that we do not understand too.  it seems like an additional claim and not roughly equivalent.  a comparison we do not know how the universe began and we do not know how the universe began but it likely began but the great entity x who we also cannot understand.  so, no they are not equal, and one would need to be provided with reason to believe there is a god or great entity x or whatever idea you want to toss in here that we do not understand too.  also if you are saying that because we cannot know how the universe began, so we cannot know god did not create the universe, and concluding that therefor god created the universe is a perfectly valid conclusion than you would be misguided.  not knowing is not a good argument for the existence of something.   #  it could be that reality exists, and universes tend to arise in reality.   # it is true that the universe exists, but there is no proof that it  came into being .  it could be that it has existed eternally, just like a supposed creator.  it could be that reality exists, and universes tend to arise in reality.  are not they pretty much the same belief ? admitting  we do not know  is a better option than supposing an answer with no evidence.  the  we do not know  crowd is seeking an answer, and the  god diddit  crowd thinks they already have it.  one keeps your knowledge progressing, and the other puts an end to it.   #  when you talk about beginnings, you wonder about what  caused  the beginning.   #  the existence of a beginning is just as impossible as no beginning.  if there was a beginning, there must have been an infinite wait for things to begin.  when you talk about beginnings, you wonder about what  caused  the beginning.  then you run into an infinite chain of causes.  it is more likely that  cause and effect , and  beginning and end  only apply  within  our perception of time and not to time itself.   #  if that is true, then how can anyone know or claim that god created the universe ?  #  you keep saying that people do not and ca not possibly know anything about god.  you have said that multiple times.  if that is true, then how can anyone know or claim that god created the universe ? if he is unknowable, how do we know that ? of course not.  but they think they do, and they are satisfied with  goddidit  and will not continue to search for the real answer.  where the people who say  i do not know   will  continue to look for an answer.
the universe exists, and came in to being somehow.  some claim that we do not know yet exactly how the universe came in to being, we know roughly when it did, and roughly  how  it did, but what caused it to come in to being is a unanswered question one we may never answer.  there are others that believe god brought the universe in to being that is, an all powerful entity was the first mover, setting the universe in motion .  but if god is all powerful and infinite, we have no idea what his/her/its nature is, and could not possibly know, as mortal, finite beings.  what is the difference between saying we do not know how the universe came in to being, and saying that this entity that we do not know the nature of, and could not possibly comprehend, brought the universe in to being ? are not they equally nebulous beliefs ? how does believing that god brought the universe in to being differentiate your beliefs from those who would say we do not know how the universe was brought in to being ? are not they pretty much the same belief ?  #  what is the difference between saying we do not know how the universe came in to being, and saying that this entity that we do not know the nature of, and could not possibly comprehend, brought the universe in to being ?  #  here is the difference: in the first example, we claim not to know how the universe came to exist, while in the second, we claim to know how the universe came to exist.   # here is the difference: in the first example, we claim not to know how the universe came to exist, while in the second, we claim to know how the universe came to exist.  are not they pretty much the same belief ? someone claiming not to know how the universe came to exist has no evidence to cite, and therefore makes no claims.  someone claiming that god created the universe needs to provide evidence to back up their claim.  i could just as easily claim that ralph maccio created the universe, because there is just as much evidence supporting that as an all knowing god doing it.   #  it seems like an additional claim and not roughly equivalent.   #  one is saying we do not understand how the universe began and the other is saying we do not understand how the universe began but it likely began with a god that we do not understand too.  it seems like an additional claim and not roughly equivalent.  a comparison we do not know how the universe began and we do not know how the universe began but it likely began but the great entity x who we also cannot understand.  so, no they are not equal, and one would need to be provided with reason to believe there is a god or great entity x or whatever idea you want to toss in here that we do not understand too.  also if you are saying that because we cannot know how the universe began, so we cannot know god did not create the universe, and concluding that therefor god created the universe is a perfectly valid conclusion than you would be misguided.  not knowing is not a good argument for the existence of something.   #  it could be that reality exists, and universes tend to arise in reality.   # it is true that the universe exists, but there is no proof that it  came into being .  it could be that it has existed eternally, just like a supposed creator.  it could be that reality exists, and universes tend to arise in reality.  are not they pretty much the same belief ? admitting  we do not know  is a better option than supposing an answer with no evidence.  the  we do not know  crowd is seeking an answer, and the  god diddit  crowd thinks they already have it.  one keeps your knowledge progressing, and the other puts an end to it.   #  it is more likely that  cause and effect , and  beginning and end  only apply  within  our perception of time and not to time itself.   #  the existence of a beginning is just as impossible as no beginning.  if there was a beginning, there must have been an infinite wait for things to begin.  when you talk about beginnings, you wonder about what  caused  the beginning.  then you run into an infinite chain of causes.  it is more likely that  cause and effect , and  beginning and end  only apply  within  our perception of time and not to time itself.   #  if that is true, then how can anyone know or claim that god created the universe ?  #  you keep saying that people do not and ca not possibly know anything about god.  you have said that multiple times.  if that is true, then how can anyone know or claim that god created the universe ? if he is unknowable, how do we know that ? of course not.  but they think they do, and they are satisfied with  goddidit  and will not continue to search for the real answer.  where the people who say  i do not know   will  continue to look for an answer.
the universe exists, and came in to being somehow.  some claim that we do not know yet exactly how the universe came in to being, we know roughly when it did, and roughly  how  it did, but what caused it to come in to being is a unanswered question one we may never answer.  there are others that believe god brought the universe in to being that is, an all powerful entity was the first mover, setting the universe in motion .  but if god is all powerful and infinite, we have no idea what his/her/its nature is, and could not possibly know, as mortal, finite beings.  what is the difference between saying we do not know how the universe came in to being, and saying that this entity that we do not know the nature of, and could not possibly comprehend, brought the universe in to being ? are not they equally nebulous beliefs ? how does believing that god brought the universe in to being differentiate your beliefs from those who would say we do not know how the universe was brought in to being ? are not they pretty much the same belief ?  #  how does believing that god brought the universe in to being differentiate your beliefs from those who would say we do not know how the universe was brought in to being ?  #  are not they pretty much the same belief ?  # here is the difference: in the first example, we claim not to know how the universe came to exist, while in the second, we claim to know how the universe came to exist.  are not they pretty much the same belief ? someone claiming not to know how the universe came to exist has no evidence to cite, and therefore makes no claims.  someone claiming that god created the universe needs to provide evidence to back up their claim.  i could just as easily claim that ralph maccio created the universe, because there is just as much evidence supporting that as an all knowing god doing it.   #  it seems like an additional claim and not roughly equivalent.   #  one is saying we do not understand how the universe began and the other is saying we do not understand how the universe began but it likely began with a god that we do not understand too.  it seems like an additional claim and not roughly equivalent.  a comparison we do not know how the universe began and we do not know how the universe began but it likely began but the great entity x who we also cannot understand.  so, no they are not equal, and one would need to be provided with reason to believe there is a god or great entity x or whatever idea you want to toss in here that we do not understand too.  also if you are saying that because we cannot know how the universe began, so we cannot know god did not create the universe, and concluding that therefor god created the universe is a perfectly valid conclusion than you would be misguided.  not knowing is not a good argument for the existence of something.   #  the  we do not know  crowd is seeking an answer, and the  god diddit  crowd thinks they already have it.   # it is true that the universe exists, but there is no proof that it  came into being .  it could be that it has existed eternally, just like a supposed creator.  it could be that reality exists, and universes tend to arise in reality.  are not they pretty much the same belief ? admitting  we do not know  is a better option than supposing an answer with no evidence.  the  we do not know  crowd is seeking an answer, and the  god diddit  crowd thinks they already have it.  one keeps your knowledge progressing, and the other puts an end to it.   #  it is more likely that  cause and effect , and  beginning and end  only apply  within  our perception of time and not to time itself.   #  the existence of a beginning is just as impossible as no beginning.  if there was a beginning, there must have been an infinite wait for things to begin.  when you talk about beginnings, you wonder about what  caused  the beginning.  then you run into an infinite chain of causes.  it is more likely that  cause and effect , and  beginning and end  only apply  within  our perception of time and not to time itself.   #  if that is true, then how can anyone know or claim that god created the universe ?  #  you keep saying that people do not and ca not possibly know anything about god.  you have said that multiple times.  if that is true, then how can anyone know or claim that god created the universe ? if he is unknowable, how do we know that ? of course not.  but they think they do, and they are satisfied with  goddidit  and will not continue to search for the real answer.  where the people who say  i do not know   will  continue to look for an answer.
the crux of my argument is that the downvote button has too much power, which people use maliciously.  when someone posts something and it is downvoted immediately, it limits the number of viewers who will see it unless it gets a strong upsurge from other users.  also, downvoters are more diligent, in my opinion that the casual reddit user or upvoter.  in my opinion, there should be only an upvote button and that viewing and not voting is a sign of both indifference or disagreement.  the downvote button on reddit is often used as a disagree/dislike button, even though that is not the intended use.  it is supposedly for things that are offensive or inappropriate or that add little or nothing to the conversation.  a good alternative, in my mind, would be to have just have an upvote button and a  report  button.  something that still gives the users the power to report inappropriate or offensive content, but without the opportunity to brigade a post and downvote it into oblivion without giving a reason behind it and having your username tied to your report.   #  the downvote button on reddit is often used as a disagree/dislike button, even though that is not the intended use.   #  upvote is agree/like, so it seems only natural for downvote to be the opposite.   # upvote is agree/like, so it seems only natural for downvote to be the opposite.  do you think it is not important for a person to know if their opinion is disagreed with ? i would say it is the most valuable thing you can gain on reddit.  here it is cheap to be wrong.  in real life you will lose job interviews, friends, partners for saying the wrong things.  on reddit you have a chance to test potential unpopular opinions, and eventually rethink them.  even if you stick with them, you can find ways to reword them so they are more likely to be understood and accepted by other people.   #  that is actually not how it works at all.   # in my experience, your posts or even account can get removed easily if a large enough account sends a few dozen people to report your posts, just because they disagree.  the administrators usually do not even check if the post effectively broke any tos and just delete it right away.  that is actually not how it works at all.  there is nothing that says  once x number of reports are reached, suspend the account.   when someone reviews it, they do not just remove it without checking to see if tos are violated.   #  since i thought that a un would be tied to a report, the fact that they are not doing it that way now has no bearing on my view.   #  i would disagree that you have changed my view though.  since i thought that a un would be tied to a report, the fact that they are not doing it that way now has no bearing on my view.  my view was always that a username should be tied to a report and i care very little about the way things are currently set up.  i am not saying that my suggestion would be easy to implement or falls in line with the way things currently are on reddit.  if you can convince me that my view of having a un tied to a report needs to change, then that is one thing, but you have not yet changed my view.  unless i am missing something ?  #  logging on and reading that 0 people disliked the cute new puppy you got is going to be just as disheartening as finding out that 0 people liked your status about your previous dog dying miserably young.   #  while some people choose to use facebook as a platform to make inflammatory political statements, average people usually use it to say the daily goings on in their life.  there are high points such as births, engagements, fun trips with pictures, positive relationship updates, new purchases, new milestones reached and impressive achievements etc.  these, people can all like or comment on.  then there are low points such as car accidents, unexpected financial burdens, deaths, divorces, negative relationship statuses, etc.  these, people can all. well, like or comment on.  facebook has repeatedly said its reasons for not including a dislike button are because it would result in unnecessary negativity if people abuse it and dislike good things, but the same can be said for the like button they have now, which allows you to like all of the negative events.  logging on and reading that 0 people disliked the cute new puppy you got is going to be just as disheartening as finding out that 0 people liked your status about your previous dog dying miserably young.  the fact is, the amount of people that abuse the like button are probably going to number about the same amount as the people who would abuse the dislike button, so in other words, not many.  but facebook does not even want to take a chance on adding a dislike button despite the fact that their like button already has just as much potential for abuse.  it makes no sense.  either allow people to express the bare minimum of emotional range happy/sad, good/bad or do not allow it at all.   #  the problem is that the story is dramatically different for the downvote button.   #  this is not too relevant on reddit.  upvotes and downvotes are used here to increase or decrease visibility.  many people use the  like  button in a similar manner.  clicking like on a post about the early passing someone is dog is normally intended as a show of support, not as way of reflecting someone is happiness about the event.  just as a post on reddit entitled  i have cancer and only 0 more weeks of life  are not upvoted to say  yay ! more oxygen for the rest of us !   the problem is that the story is dramatically different for the downvote button.  people will often emotionally react with a downvote.  try going into /r/politics and making a comment that even remotely sounds republican or right wing, and you will immediately understand.  the down vote button overexerts the  tyranny of democracy,  essentially letting you vote twice against an issue, but only once for it.  imagine an election where you had the power to remove a vote from a disliked candidate.
i am friends with a woman on facebook who does drag.  she has a young son 0 who she dresses up i have to think she dresses him, as he is not old enough to attain his own clothes as a girl.  it has gotten to the point where she has made a fan page for him where she constantly posts pictures of him in his drag/ female attire.  are children able to consciously make a decision like that, which will likely effect their entire schooling experience, at such a young age ? or is it a  dress like mommy does  case, where the parent allows it because they are so affluent in that lifestyle ? i am all for gender equality, fluidity, and expressing yourself how you see fit.  but i have a hard time believing that a child can choose that and they want to begin to pave their life after that when their brain is developing.  it almost feels forced and that the parent is making that choice for them.  it also kind of rubs me the wrong way that the parent posts all these public pictures of her son on facebook in a fan page, none the less.  should he not be able to decide who sees his lifestyle choices ? he obviously does not have a facebook, being that he is 0, so i very seriously doubt that he was asked if its ok.  regardless, change my view !  #  are children able to consciously make a decision like that, which will likely effect their entire schooling experience, at such a young age ?  #  here is the thing: gender and gender identity is a social construct.   # here is the thing: gender and gender identity is a social construct.  sex is certainly biological, but the things we associate with different genders clothing, speech patterns, behaviors, preferences are entirely socially constructed.  the idea that girls wear dresses and play with dolls while boys wear pants and play with trucks is entirely based on social attitudes.  that means that little boys who choose to wear dresses or girls who choose to dress like boys are not saying,  i want to be the other gender , they are saying  i like these certain things, but everyone around me says they are intended for the opposite gender, so that must be what i am .  it is entirely based on culture and society that this happens.  i do not see anything wrong with letting your child choose what they identify with.  if other people have a problem with a child who is biologically female engaging in behaviors that we assign as  male , they are being narrow minded.   #  if plastering your kid is likeness on fb in order to get  likes  from randoms you went to hs with offered some benefit to the kid to weigh against these potential downsides, that would be one thing.   #  pics on christmas cards are fine.  facebook pics are different for the reasons articulated above.  they were articulated above and apparently removed by a mod, so here they are again.  hopefully i am not b  from cmv for re posting such rudeness:  when i talk about privacy violations we ca not fathom, i really mean that.  twenty years ago, you might have posted things to a geocities page or email listserv only accessible by a few of your friends, never having any inkling that decades later, devastatingly efficient search engines would be able to retrieve this content and archive. org would preserve it forever.  facial recognition is up and coming, and we know that companies mine social media to make predictions about you.  there is certainly a  nontrivial possibility  my phrase above that in 0 years, some algorithm will match your kid is facial features or tagged name with some composite of other variables and determine that he is likelier than average to be low ses, or whatever.  you have no idea.  even if this risk is speculative, there is not a strong enough benefit balancing out the other side of the equation to merit posting pictures of somebody on facebook without their consent.  especially  somebody  whom you should care about more than you care about yourself.  this is entirely different from xmas cards, which are not a problem.  as for parents embarrassing their kids i would not call it  exceptionally awful  on par with the loss of a limb, but a non sadistic parent would in theory wish to avoid it.  if plastering your kid is likeness on fb in order to get  likes  from randoms you went to hs with offered some benefit to the kid to weigh against these potential downsides, that would be one thing.  but it does not.  so you are potentially embarrassing him and violating his privacy, and for what ? your own entertainment, or gratifying your own social media narcissism.  that is not what parenting should be about.   #  why does it have to be about narcissism ?  # facial recognition is up and coming, and we know that companies mine social media to make predictions about you.  there is certainly a  nontrivial possibility  my phrase above that in 0 years, some algorithm will match your kid is facial features or tagged name with some composite of other variables and determine that he is likelier than average to be low ses, or whatever.  you have no idea.  just because technology advances exponentially does not mean everything will be possible.  facial recognition on pictures of children is ridiculously unlikely to do anything more than match it to an adult picture of the kid, if not impossible.  what about the benefit of sharing pictures easily with family and friends ? especially family and friends who live far away ? that is a huge benefit to a small, and merely speculative, risk.  not to mention that children ca not give consent legally .  their parent is do, that is why parents have to sign field trip slips, doctor is forms, etc.  you do realize that is like 0 of a dad is job, right ? in all seriousness, occasionally playfully embarrassing your children makes for fun memories.  not to mention encouraging humility.  but really, do you honestly think only a sadistic parent would show off an embarrassing baby picture ? but it does not.  what about family and friends on facebook who you actually want to share the pictures with ? to keep in touch ? that is a benefit.  your own entertainment, or gratifying your own social media narcissism.  oooooooorrr sharing your is and your child is life with family and friends ? why does it have to be about narcissism ?  #  hormone blockers and choice of expression is the best way to allow the child to determine if their gender identity is the source of the dysphoria or if the society they grew up in is.   #  because there is the very real issue of people conflating gender expression with gender identity.   i like girly things as decided by the society that i grew up in so i must be a girl.   hormone blockers and choice of expression is the best way to allow the child to determine if their gender identity is the source of the dysphoria or if the society they grew up in is.  that way, if they come to realize later that it is, in fact, just the gender roles put on them, they can continue with the puberty they would have had from their sex, or if they come to realize it is their gender identity, they can then begin hrt.  i say this as a person who experienced what i now know was gender dysphoria as a child, but am still cis.  my experience with gender was that gender roles were the source of my dysphoria, not my identity.  being put on hrt and given surgery at the first sign of dysphoria is a horrible method of treatment, that does not allow for the multiple causes of the issue.   #  performing surgery, or providing treatments that are permanent to semi permanent to adolescents and juveniles just is not in their best interests in my humble opinion.   #  i think the problem here lies with the lack of knowledge on the subject.  not to say there is not knowledge on the subject, but nobody anywhere has ever been able to pinpoint exactly what causes things like gd, et al, and without knowing exactly why, it is dangerous to suggest/perform surgery on juveniles.  every surgery, no matter how minor, carries a great deal of risk and should be a last resort.  performing surgery, or providing treatments that are permanent to semi permanent to adolescents and juveniles just is not in their best interests in my humble opinion.  i mean we do not allow people to vote before they are 0 because it is assumed that they are not emotionally or mentally mature enough to handle that responsibility. and that is just putting a check in a box.  i mean to be blunt. do you not see the hypocracy in the belief that children cannot consent to sex at that age, but they can choose to change their gender i used that phrase for its ease of use, not to start a discussion on gender change, i understand there is more to it than that ?
i am friends with a woman on facebook who does drag.  she has a young son 0 who she dresses up i have to think she dresses him, as he is not old enough to attain his own clothes as a girl.  it has gotten to the point where she has made a fan page for him where she constantly posts pictures of him in his drag/ female attire.  are children able to consciously make a decision like that, which will likely effect their entire schooling experience, at such a young age ? or is it a  dress like mommy does  case, where the parent allows it because they are so affluent in that lifestyle ? i am all for gender equality, fluidity, and expressing yourself how you see fit.  but i have a hard time believing that a child can choose that and they want to begin to pave their life after that when their brain is developing.  it almost feels forced and that the parent is making that choice for them.  it also kind of rubs me the wrong way that the parent posts all these public pictures of her son on facebook in a fan page, none the less.  should he not be able to decide who sees his lifestyle choices ? he obviously does not have a facebook, being that he is 0, so i very seriously doubt that he was asked if its ok.  regardless, change my view !  #  i am all for gender equality, fluidity, and expressing yourself how you see fit.   #  but i have a hard time believing that a child can choose that and they want to begin to pave their life after that when their brain is developing.   # but i have a hard time believing that a child can choose that and they want to begin to pave their life after that when their brain is developing.  it almost feels forced and that the parent is making that choice for them.  parenthood is about making choices for their child, because the child is not able to make the right choices yet.  for a lot of things no one will know how the future lifestyle of the child will be.  maybe his mom is feeding him sausages even though the child will be a vegan later.  maybe she is giving him cake and cola even though he will be a fitness guy later with a strict diet.  maybe she drags him to church each sunday even though he will be an atheist later.  and so on.  but i agree with you that she should not post all those pictures on facebook.   #  they were articulated above and apparently removed by a mod, so here they are again.   #  pics on christmas cards are fine.  facebook pics are different for the reasons articulated above.  they were articulated above and apparently removed by a mod, so here they are again.  hopefully i am not b  from cmv for re posting such rudeness:  when i talk about privacy violations we ca not fathom, i really mean that.  twenty years ago, you might have posted things to a geocities page or email listserv only accessible by a few of your friends, never having any inkling that decades later, devastatingly efficient search engines would be able to retrieve this content and archive. org would preserve it forever.  facial recognition is up and coming, and we know that companies mine social media to make predictions about you.  there is certainly a  nontrivial possibility  my phrase above that in 0 years, some algorithm will match your kid is facial features or tagged name with some composite of other variables and determine that he is likelier than average to be low ses, or whatever.  you have no idea.  even if this risk is speculative, there is not a strong enough benefit balancing out the other side of the equation to merit posting pictures of somebody on facebook without their consent.  especially  somebody  whom you should care about more than you care about yourself.  this is entirely different from xmas cards, which are not a problem.  as for parents embarrassing their kids i would not call it  exceptionally awful  on par with the loss of a limb, but a non sadistic parent would in theory wish to avoid it.  if plastering your kid is likeness on fb in order to get  likes  from randoms you went to hs with offered some benefit to the kid to weigh against these potential downsides, that would be one thing.  but it does not.  so you are potentially embarrassing him and violating his privacy, and for what ? your own entertainment, or gratifying your own social media narcissism.  that is not what parenting should be about.   #  why does it have to be about narcissism ?  # facial recognition is up and coming, and we know that companies mine social media to make predictions about you.  there is certainly a  nontrivial possibility  my phrase above that in 0 years, some algorithm will match your kid is facial features or tagged name with some composite of other variables and determine that he is likelier than average to be low ses, or whatever.  you have no idea.  just because technology advances exponentially does not mean everything will be possible.  facial recognition on pictures of children is ridiculously unlikely to do anything more than match it to an adult picture of the kid, if not impossible.  what about the benefit of sharing pictures easily with family and friends ? especially family and friends who live far away ? that is a huge benefit to a small, and merely speculative, risk.  not to mention that children ca not give consent legally .  their parent is do, that is why parents have to sign field trip slips, doctor is forms, etc.  you do realize that is like 0 of a dad is job, right ? in all seriousness, occasionally playfully embarrassing your children makes for fun memories.  not to mention encouraging humility.  but really, do you honestly think only a sadistic parent would show off an embarrassing baby picture ? but it does not.  what about family and friends on facebook who you actually want to share the pictures with ? to keep in touch ? that is a benefit.  your own entertainment, or gratifying your own social media narcissism.  oooooooorrr sharing your is and your child is life with family and friends ? why does it have to be about narcissism ?  #   i like girly things as decided by the society that i grew up in so i must be a girl.    #  because there is the very real issue of people conflating gender expression with gender identity.   i like girly things as decided by the society that i grew up in so i must be a girl.   hormone blockers and choice of expression is the best way to allow the child to determine if their gender identity is the source of the dysphoria or if the society they grew up in is.  that way, if they come to realize later that it is, in fact, just the gender roles put on them, they can continue with the puberty they would have had from their sex, or if they come to realize it is their gender identity, they can then begin hrt.  i say this as a person who experienced what i now know was gender dysphoria as a child, but am still cis.  my experience with gender was that gender roles were the source of my dysphoria, not my identity.  being put on hrt and given surgery at the first sign of dysphoria is a horrible method of treatment, that does not allow for the multiple causes of the issue.   #  i mean we do not allow people to vote before they are 0 because it is assumed that they are not emotionally or mentally mature enough to handle that responsibility. and that is just putting a check in a box.   #  i think the problem here lies with the lack of knowledge on the subject.  not to say there is not knowledge on the subject, but nobody anywhere has ever been able to pinpoint exactly what causes things like gd, et al, and without knowing exactly why, it is dangerous to suggest/perform surgery on juveniles.  every surgery, no matter how minor, carries a great deal of risk and should be a last resort.  performing surgery, or providing treatments that are permanent to semi permanent to adolescents and juveniles just is not in their best interests in my humble opinion.  i mean we do not allow people to vote before they are 0 because it is assumed that they are not emotionally or mentally mature enough to handle that responsibility. and that is just putting a check in a box.  i mean to be blunt. do you not see the hypocracy in the belief that children cannot consent to sex at that age, but they can choose to change their gender i used that phrase for its ease of use, not to start a discussion on gender change, i understand there is more to it than that ?
i am friends with a woman on facebook who does drag.  she has a young son 0 who she dresses up i have to think she dresses him, as he is not old enough to attain his own clothes as a girl.  it has gotten to the point where she has made a fan page for him where she constantly posts pictures of him in his drag/ female attire.  are children able to consciously make a decision like that, which will likely effect their entire schooling experience, at such a young age ? or is it a  dress like mommy does  case, where the parent allows it because they are so affluent in that lifestyle ? i am all for gender equality, fluidity, and expressing yourself how you see fit.  but i have a hard time believing that a child can choose that and they want to begin to pave their life after that when their brain is developing.  it almost feels forced and that the parent is making that choice for them.  it also kind of rubs me the wrong way that the parent posts all these public pictures of her son on facebook in a fan page, none the less.  should he not be able to decide who sees his lifestyle choices ? he obviously does not have a facebook, being that he is 0, so i very seriously doubt that he was asked if its ok.  regardless, change my view !  #  are children able to consciously make a decision like that, which will likely effect their entire schooling experience, at such a young age ?  #  i ca not begin to imagine what it is like to be transgender, but at what point did you know which gender you were ?  # i ca not begin to imagine what it is like to be transgender, but at what point did you know which gender you were ? at 0 years old, i was pretty certain of my gender.  are there a lot of children that want to dress opposite their gender ? i had no desire to dress like my mother or my father.  i wanted to dress like the people i identified with at school.  but i have a hard time believing that a child can choose that and they want to begin to pave their life after that when their brain is developing.  your brain continues developing past age 0.  you are setting an arbitrary age floor for an issue that you do not seem to understand.  if a 0 year old feels uncomfortable identifying as a specific gender, they seem to have a sufficient grasp on the issue.   #  even if this risk is speculative, there is not a strong enough benefit balancing out the other side of the equation to merit posting pictures of somebody on facebook without their consent.   #  pics on christmas cards are fine.  facebook pics are different for the reasons articulated above.  they were articulated above and apparently removed by a mod, so here they are again.  hopefully i am not b  from cmv for re posting such rudeness:  when i talk about privacy violations we ca not fathom, i really mean that.  twenty years ago, you might have posted things to a geocities page or email listserv only accessible by a few of your friends, never having any inkling that decades later, devastatingly efficient search engines would be able to retrieve this content and archive. org would preserve it forever.  facial recognition is up and coming, and we know that companies mine social media to make predictions about you.  there is certainly a  nontrivial possibility  my phrase above that in 0 years, some algorithm will match your kid is facial features or tagged name with some composite of other variables and determine that he is likelier than average to be low ses, or whatever.  you have no idea.  even if this risk is speculative, there is not a strong enough benefit balancing out the other side of the equation to merit posting pictures of somebody on facebook without their consent.  especially  somebody  whom you should care about more than you care about yourself.  this is entirely different from xmas cards, which are not a problem.  as for parents embarrassing their kids i would not call it  exceptionally awful  on par with the loss of a limb, but a non sadistic parent would in theory wish to avoid it.  if plastering your kid is likeness on fb in order to get  likes  from randoms you went to hs with offered some benefit to the kid to weigh against these potential downsides, that would be one thing.  but it does not.  so you are potentially embarrassing him and violating his privacy, and for what ? your own entertainment, or gratifying your own social media narcissism.  that is not what parenting should be about.   #  what about the benefit of sharing pictures easily with family and friends ?  # facial recognition is up and coming, and we know that companies mine social media to make predictions about you.  there is certainly a  nontrivial possibility  my phrase above that in 0 years, some algorithm will match your kid is facial features or tagged name with some composite of other variables and determine that he is likelier than average to be low ses, or whatever.  you have no idea.  just because technology advances exponentially does not mean everything will be possible.  facial recognition on pictures of children is ridiculously unlikely to do anything more than match it to an adult picture of the kid, if not impossible.  what about the benefit of sharing pictures easily with family and friends ? especially family and friends who live far away ? that is a huge benefit to a small, and merely speculative, risk.  not to mention that children ca not give consent legally .  their parent is do, that is why parents have to sign field trip slips, doctor is forms, etc.  you do realize that is like 0 of a dad is job, right ? in all seriousness, occasionally playfully embarrassing your children makes for fun memories.  not to mention encouraging humility.  but really, do you honestly think only a sadistic parent would show off an embarrassing baby picture ? but it does not.  what about family and friends on facebook who you actually want to share the pictures with ? to keep in touch ? that is a benefit.  your own entertainment, or gratifying your own social media narcissism.  oooooooorrr sharing your is and your child is life with family and friends ? why does it have to be about narcissism ?  #  being put on hrt and given surgery at the first sign of dysphoria is a horrible method of treatment, that does not allow for the multiple causes of the issue.   #  because there is the very real issue of people conflating gender expression with gender identity.   i like girly things as decided by the society that i grew up in so i must be a girl.   hormone blockers and choice of expression is the best way to allow the child to determine if their gender identity is the source of the dysphoria or if the society they grew up in is.  that way, if they come to realize later that it is, in fact, just the gender roles put on them, they can continue with the puberty they would have had from their sex, or if they come to realize it is their gender identity, they can then begin hrt.  i say this as a person who experienced what i now know was gender dysphoria as a child, but am still cis.  my experience with gender was that gender roles were the source of my dysphoria, not my identity.  being put on hrt and given surgery at the first sign of dysphoria is a horrible method of treatment, that does not allow for the multiple causes of the issue.   #  i think the problem here lies with the lack of knowledge on the subject.   #  i think the problem here lies with the lack of knowledge on the subject.  not to say there is not knowledge on the subject, but nobody anywhere has ever been able to pinpoint exactly what causes things like gd, et al, and without knowing exactly why, it is dangerous to suggest/perform surgery on juveniles.  every surgery, no matter how minor, carries a great deal of risk and should be a last resort.  performing surgery, or providing treatments that are permanent to semi permanent to adolescents and juveniles just is not in their best interests in my humble opinion.  i mean we do not allow people to vote before they are 0 because it is assumed that they are not emotionally or mentally mature enough to handle that responsibility. and that is just putting a check in a box.  i mean to be blunt. do you not see the hypocracy in the belief that children cannot consent to sex at that age, but they can choose to change their gender i used that phrase for its ease of use, not to start a discussion on gender change, i understand there is more to it than that ?
i am friends with a woman on facebook who does drag.  she has a young son 0 who she dresses up i have to think she dresses him, as he is not old enough to attain his own clothes as a girl.  it has gotten to the point where she has made a fan page for him where she constantly posts pictures of him in his drag/ female attire.  are children able to consciously make a decision like that, which will likely effect their entire schooling experience, at such a young age ? or is it a  dress like mommy does  case, where the parent allows it because they are so affluent in that lifestyle ? i am all for gender equality, fluidity, and expressing yourself how you see fit.  but i have a hard time believing that a child can choose that and they want to begin to pave their life after that when their brain is developing.  it almost feels forced and that the parent is making that choice for them.  it also kind of rubs me the wrong way that the parent posts all these public pictures of her son on facebook in a fan page, none the less.  should he not be able to decide who sees his lifestyle choices ? he obviously does not have a facebook, being that he is 0, so i very seriously doubt that he was asked if its ok.  regardless, change my view !  #  or is it a  dress like mommy does  case, where the parent allows it because they are so affluent in that lifestyle ?  #  are there a lot of children that want to dress opposite their gender ?  # i ca not begin to imagine what it is like to be transgender, but at what point did you know which gender you were ? at 0 years old, i was pretty certain of my gender.  are there a lot of children that want to dress opposite their gender ? i had no desire to dress like my mother or my father.  i wanted to dress like the people i identified with at school.  but i have a hard time believing that a child can choose that and they want to begin to pave their life after that when their brain is developing.  your brain continues developing past age 0.  you are setting an arbitrary age floor for an issue that you do not seem to understand.  if a 0 year old feels uncomfortable identifying as a specific gender, they seem to have a sufficient grasp on the issue.   #  especially  somebody  whom you should care about more than you care about yourself.   #  pics on christmas cards are fine.  facebook pics are different for the reasons articulated above.  they were articulated above and apparently removed by a mod, so here they are again.  hopefully i am not b  from cmv for re posting such rudeness:  when i talk about privacy violations we ca not fathom, i really mean that.  twenty years ago, you might have posted things to a geocities page or email listserv only accessible by a few of your friends, never having any inkling that decades later, devastatingly efficient search engines would be able to retrieve this content and archive. org would preserve it forever.  facial recognition is up and coming, and we know that companies mine social media to make predictions about you.  there is certainly a  nontrivial possibility  my phrase above that in 0 years, some algorithm will match your kid is facial features or tagged name with some composite of other variables and determine that he is likelier than average to be low ses, or whatever.  you have no idea.  even if this risk is speculative, there is not a strong enough benefit balancing out the other side of the equation to merit posting pictures of somebody on facebook without their consent.  especially  somebody  whom you should care about more than you care about yourself.  this is entirely different from xmas cards, which are not a problem.  as for parents embarrassing their kids i would not call it  exceptionally awful  on par with the loss of a limb, but a non sadistic parent would in theory wish to avoid it.  if plastering your kid is likeness on fb in order to get  likes  from randoms you went to hs with offered some benefit to the kid to weigh against these potential downsides, that would be one thing.  but it does not.  so you are potentially embarrassing him and violating his privacy, and for what ? your own entertainment, or gratifying your own social media narcissism.  that is not what parenting should be about.   #  but really, do you honestly think only a sadistic parent would show off an embarrassing baby picture ?  # facial recognition is up and coming, and we know that companies mine social media to make predictions about you.  there is certainly a  nontrivial possibility  my phrase above that in 0 years, some algorithm will match your kid is facial features or tagged name with some composite of other variables and determine that he is likelier than average to be low ses, or whatever.  you have no idea.  just because technology advances exponentially does not mean everything will be possible.  facial recognition on pictures of children is ridiculously unlikely to do anything more than match it to an adult picture of the kid, if not impossible.  what about the benefit of sharing pictures easily with family and friends ? especially family and friends who live far away ? that is a huge benefit to a small, and merely speculative, risk.  not to mention that children ca not give consent legally .  their parent is do, that is why parents have to sign field trip slips, doctor is forms, etc.  you do realize that is like 0 of a dad is job, right ? in all seriousness, occasionally playfully embarrassing your children makes for fun memories.  not to mention encouraging humility.  but really, do you honestly think only a sadistic parent would show off an embarrassing baby picture ? but it does not.  what about family and friends on facebook who you actually want to share the pictures with ? to keep in touch ? that is a benefit.  your own entertainment, or gratifying your own social media narcissism.  oooooooorrr sharing your is and your child is life with family and friends ? why does it have to be about narcissism ?  #  hormone blockers and choice of expression is the best way to allow the child to determine if their gender identity is the source of the dysphoria or if the society they grew up in is.   #  because there is the very real issue of people conflating gender expression with gender identity.   i like girly things as decided by the society that i grew up in so i must be a girl.   hormone blockers and choice of expression is the best way to allow the child to determine if their gender identity is the source of the dysphoria or if the society they grew up in is.  that way, if they come to realize later that it is, in fact, just the gender roles put on them, they can continue with the puberty they would have had from their sex, or if they come to realize it is their gender identity, they can then begin hrt.  i say this as a person who experienced what i now know was gender dysphoria as a child, but am still cis.  my experience with gender was that gender roles were the source of my dysphoria, not my identity.  being put on hrt and given surgery at the first sign of dysphoria is a horrible method of treatment, that does not allow for the multiple causes of the issue.   #  not to say there is not knowledge on the subject, but nobody anywhere has ever been able to pinpoint exactly what causes things like gd, et al, and without knowing exactly why, it is dangerous to suggest/perform surgery on juveniles.   #  i think the problem here lies with the lack of knowledge on the subject.  not to say there is not knowledge on the subject, but nobody anywhere has ever been able to pinpoint exactly what causes things like gd, et al, and without knowing exactly why, it is dangerous to suggest/perform surgery on juveniles.  every surgery, no matter how minor, carries a great deal of risk and should be a last resort.  performing surgery, or providing treatments that are permanent to semi permanent to adolescents and juveniles just is not in their best interests in my humble opinion.  i mean we do not allow people to vote before they are 0 because it is assumed that they are not emotionally or mentally mature enough to handle that responsibility. and that is just putting a check in a box.  i mean to be blunt. do you not see the hypocracy in the belief that children cannot consent to sex at that age, but they can choose to change their gender i used that phrase for its ease of use, not to start a discussion on gender change, i understand there is more to it than that ?
i am friends with a woman on facebook who does drag.  she has a young son 0 who she dresses up i have to think she dresses him, as he is not old enough to attain his own clothes as a girl.  it has gotten to the point where she has made a fan page for him where she constantly posts pictures of him in his drag/ female attire.  are children able to consciously make a decision like that, which will likely effect their entire schooling experience, at such a young age ? or is it a  dress like mommy does  case, where the parent allows it because they are so affluent in that lifestyle ? i am all for gender equality, fluidity, and expressing yourself how you see fit.  but i have a hard time believing that a child can choose that and they want to begin to pave their life after that when their brain is developing.  it almost feels forced and that the parent is making that choice for them.  it also kind of rubs me the wrong way that the parent posts all these public pictures of her son on facebook in a fan page, none the less.  should he not be able to decide who sees his lifestyle choices ? he obviously does not have a facebook, being that he is 0, so i very seriously doubt that he was asked if its ok.  regardless, change my view !  #  i am all for gender equality, fluidity, and expressing yourself how you see fit.   #  but i have a hard time believing that a child can choose that and they want to begin to pave their life after that when their brain is developing.   # i ca not begin to imagine what it is like to be transgender, but at what point did you know which gender you were ? at 0 years old, i was pretty certain of my gender.  are there a lot of children that want to dress opposite their gender ? i had no desire to dress like my mother or my father.  i wanted to dress like the people i identified with at school.  but i have a hard time believing that a child can choose that and they want to begin to pave their life after that when their brain is developing.  your brain continues developing past age 0.  you are setting an arbitrary age floor for an issue that you do not seem to understand.  if a 0 year old feels uncomfortable identifying as a specific gender, they seem to have a sufficient grasp on the issue.   #  so you are potentially embarrassing him and violating his privacy, and for what ?  #  pics on christmas cards are fine.  facebook pics are different for the reasons articulated above.  they were articulated above and apparently removed by a mod, so here they are again.  hopefully i am not b  from cmv for re posting such rudeness:  when i talk about privacy violations we ca not fathom, i really mean that.  twenty years ago, you might have posted things to a geocities page or email listserv only accessible by a few of your friends, never having any inkling that decades later, devastatingly efficient search engines would be able to retrieve this content and archive. org would preserve it forever.  facial recognition is up and coming, and we know that companies mine social media to make predictions about you.  there is certainly a  nontrivial possibility  my phrase above that in 0 years, some algorithm will match your kid is facial features or tagged name with some composite of other variables and determine that he is likelier than average to be low ses, or whatever.  you have no idea.  even if this risk is speculative, there is not a strong enough benefit balancing out the other side of the equation to merit posting pictures of somebody on facebook without their consent.  especially  somebody  whom you should care about more than you care about yourself.  this is entirely different from xmas cards, which are not a problem.  as for parents embarrassing their kids i would not call it  exceptionally awful  on par with the loss of a limb, but a non sadistic parent would in theory wish to avoid it.  if plastering your kid is likeness on fb in order to get  likes  from randoms you went to hs with offered some benefit to the kid to weigh against these potential downsides, that would be one thing.  but it does not.  so you are potentially embarrassing him and violating his privacy, and for what ? your own entertainment, or gratifying your own social media narcissism.  that is not what parenting should be about.   #  their parent is do, that is why parents have to sign field trip slips, doctor is forms, etc.   # facial recognition is up and coming, and we know that companies mine social media to make predictions about you.  there is certainly a  nontrivial possibility  my phrase above that in 0 years, some algorithm will match your kid is facial features or tagged name with some composite of other variables and determine that he is likelier than average to be low ses, or whatever.  you have no idea.  just because technology advances exponentially does not mean everything will be possible.  facial recognition on pictures of children is ridiculously unlikely to do anything more than match it to an adult picture of the kid, if not impossible.  what about the benefit of sharing pictures easily with family and friends ? especially family and friends who live far away ? that is a huge benefit to a small, and merely speculative, risk.  not to mention that children ca not give consent legally .  their parent is do, that is why parents have to sign field trip slips, doctor is forms, etc.  you do realize that is like 0 of a dad is job, right ? in all seriousness, occasionally playfully embarrassing your children makes for fun memories.  not to mention encouraging humility.  but really, do you honestly think only a sadistic parent would show off an embarrassing baby picture ? but it does not.  what about family and friends on facebook who you actually want to share the pictures with ? to keep in touch ? that is a benefit.  your own entertainment, or gratifying your own social media narcissism.  oooooooorrr sharing your is and your child is life with family and friends ? why does it have to be about narcissism ?  #  hormone blockers and choice of expression is the best way to allow the child to determine if their gender identity is the source of the dysphoria or if the society they grew up in is.   #  because there is the very real issue of people conflating gender expression with gender identity.   i like girly things as decided by the society that i grew up in so i must be a girl.   hormone blockers and choice of expression is the best way to allow the child to determine if their gender identity is the source of the dysphoria or if the society they grew up in is.  that way, if they come to realize later that it is, in fact, just the gender roles put on them, they can continue with the puberty they would have had from their sex, or if they come to realize it is their gender identity, they can then begin hrt.  i say this as a person who experienced what i now know was gender dysphoria as a child, but am still cis.  my experience with gender was that gender roles were the source of my dysphoria, not my identity.  being put on hrt and given surgery at the first sign of dysphoria is a horrible method of treatment, that does not allow for the multiple causes of the issue.   #  not to say there is not knowledge on the subject, but nobody anywhere has ever been able to pinpoint exactly what causes things like gd, et al, and without knowing exactly why, it is dangerous to suggest/perform surgery on juveniles.   #  i think the problem here lies with the lack of knowledge on the subject.  not to say there is not knowledge on the subject, but nobody anywhere has ever been able to pinpoint exactly what causes things like gd, et al, and without knowing exactly why, it is dangerous to suggest/perform surgery on juveniles.  every surgery, no matter how minor, carries a great deal of risk and should be a last resort.  performing surgery, or providing treatments that are permanent to semi permanent to adolescents and juveniles just is not in their best interests in my humble opinion.  i mean we do not allow people to vote before they are 0 because it is assumed that they are not emotionally or mentally mature enough to handle that responsibility. and that is just putting a check in a box.  i mean to be blunt. do you not see the hypocracy in the belief that children cannot consent to sex at that age, but they can choose to change their gender i used that phrase for its ease of use, not to start a discussion on gender change, i understand there is more to it than that ?
i am friends with a woman on facebook who does drag.  she has a young son 0 who she dresses up i have to think she dresses him, as he is not old enough to attain his own clothes as a girl.  it has gotten to the point where she has made a fan page for him where she constantly posts pictures of him in his drag/ female attire.  are children able to consciously make a decision like that, which will likely effect their entire schooling experience, at such a young age ? or is it a  dress like mommy does  case, where the parent allows it because they are so affluent in that lifestyle ? i am all for gender equality, fluidity, and expressing yourself how you see fit.  but i have a hard time believing that a child can choose that and they want to begin to pave their life after that when their brain is developing.  it almost feels forced and that the parent is making that choice for them.  it also kind of rubs me the wrong way that the parent posts all these public pictures of her son on facebook in a fan page, none the less.  should he not be able to decide who sees his lifestyle choices ? he obviously does not have a facebook, being that he is 0, so i very seriously doubt that he was asked if its ok.  regardless, change my view !  #  but i have a hard time believing that a child can choose that and they want to begin to pave their life after that when their brain is developing.   #  so why are they able to do so at 0 0 ?  # so why are they able to do so at 0 0 ? why is he fully aware of himself a mere two years later ? would his mother not still be buying his clothes at 0 ? do you know this for a fact ? how do you know that he a is being forced to dress in drag, and b is also being coerced into giving permission to put photos on facebook ?  #  especially  somebody  whom you should care about more than you care about yourself.   #  pics on christmas cards are fine.  facebook pics are different for the reasons articulated above.  they were articulated above and apparently removed by a mod, so here they are again.  hopefully i am not b  from cmv for re posting such rudeness:  when i talk about privacy violations we ca not fathom, i really mean that.  twenty years ago, you might have posted things to a geocities page or email listserv only accessible by a few of your friends, never having any inkling that decades later, devastatingly efficient search engines would be able to retrieve this content and archive. org would preserve it forever.  facial recognition is up and coming, and we know that companies mine social media to make predictions about you.  there is certainly a  nontrivial possibility  my phrase above that in 0 years, some algorithm will match your kid is facial features or tagged name with some composite of other variables and determine that he is likelier than average to be low ses, or whatever.  you have no idea.  even if this risk is speculative, there is not a strong enough benefit balancing out the other side of the equation to merit posting pictures of somebody on facebook without their consent.  especially  somebody  whom you should care about more than you care about yourself.  this is entirely different from xmas cards, which are not a problem.  as for parents embarrassing their kids i would not call it  exceptionally awful  on par with the loss of a limb, but a non sadistic parent would in theory wish to avoid it.  if plastering your kid is likeness on fb in order to get  likes  from randoms you went to hs with offered some benefit to the kid to weigh against these potential downsides, that would be one thing.  but it does not.  so you are potentially embarrassing him and violating his privacy, and for what ? your own entertainment, or gratifying your own social media narcissism.  that is not what parenting should be about.   #  especially family and friends who live far away ?  # facial recognition is up and coming, and we know that companies mine social media to make predictions about you.  there is certainly a  nontrivial possibility  my phrase above that in 0 years, some algorithm will match your kid is facial features or tagged name with some composite of other variables and determine that he is likelier than average to be low ses, or whatever.  you have no idea.  just because technology advances exponentially does not mean everything will be possible.  facial recognition on pictures of children is ridiculously unlikely to do anything more than match it to an adult picture of the kid, if not impossible.  what about the benefit of sharing pictures easily with family and friends ? especially family and friends who live far away ? that is a huge benefit to a small, and merely speculative, risk.  not to mention that children ca not give consent legally .  their parent is do, that is why parents have to sign field trip slips, doctor is forms, etc.  you do realize that is like 0 of a dad is job, right ? in all seriousness, occasionally playfully embarrassing your children makes for fun memories.  not to mention encouraging humility.  but really, do you honestly think only a sadistic parent would show off an embarrassing baby picture ? but it does not.  what about family and friends on facebook who you actually want to share the pictures with ? to keep in touch ? that is a benefit.  your own entertainment, or gratifying your own social media narcissism.  oooooooorrr sharing your is and your child is life with family and friends ? why does it have to be about narcissism ?  #  hormone blockers and choice of expression is the best way to allow the child to determine if their gender identity is the source of the dysphoria or if the society they grew up in is.   #  because there is the very real issue of people conflating gender expression with gender identity.   i like girly things as decided by the society that i grew up in so i must be a girl.   hormone blockers and choice of expression is the best way to allow the child to determine if their gender identity is the source of the dysphoria or if the society they grew up in is.  that way, if they come to realize later that it is, in fact, just the gender roles put on them, they can continue with the puberty they would have had from their sex, or if they come to realize it is their gender identity, they can then begin hrt.  i say this as a person who experienced what i now know was gender dysphoria as a child, but am still cis.  my experience with gender was that gender roles were the source of my dysphoria, not my identity.  being put on hrt and given surgery at the first sign of dysphoria is a horrible method of treatment, that does not allow for the multiple causes of the issue.   #  not to say there is not knowledge on the subject, but nobody anywhere has ever been able to pinpoint exactly what causes things like gd, et al, and without knowing exactly why, it is dangerous to suggest/perform surgery on juveniles.   #  i think the problem here lies with the lack of knowledge on the subject.  not to say there is not knowledge on the subject, but nobody anywhere has ever been able to pinpoint exactly what causes things like gd, et al, and without knowing exactly why, it is dangerous to suggest/perform surgery on juveniles.  every surgery, no matter how minor, carries a great deal of risk and should be a last resort.  performing surgery, or providing treatments that are permanent to semi permanent to adolescents and juveniles just is not in their best interests in my humble opinion.  i mean we do not allow people to vote before they are 0 because it is assumed that they are not emotionally or mentally mature enough to handle that responsibility. and that is just putting a check in a box.  i mean to be blunt. do you not see the hypocracy in the belief that children cannot consent to sex at that age, but they can choose to change their gender i used that phrase for its ease of use, not to start a discussion on gender change, i understand there is more to it than that ?
i am friends with a woman on facebook who does drag.  she has a young son 0 who she dresses up i have to think she dresses him, as he is not old enough to attain his own clothes as a girl.  it has gotten to the point where she has made a fan page for him where she constantly posts pictures of him in his drag/ female attire.  are children able to consciously make a decision like that, which will likely effect their entire schooling experience, at such a young age ? or is it a  dress like mommy does  case, where the parent allows it because they are so affluent in that lifestyle ? i am all for gender equality, fluidity, and expressing yourself how you see fit.  but i have a hard time believing that a child can choose that and they want to begin to pave their life after that when their brain is developing.  it almost feels forced and that the parent is making that choice for them.  it also kind of rubs me the wrong way that the parent posts all these public pictures of her son on facebook in a fan page, none the less.  should he not be able to decide who sees his lifestyle choices ? he obviously does not have a facebook, being that he is 0, so i very seriously doubt that he was asked if its ok.  regardless, change my view !  #  he obviously does not have a facebook, being that he is 0, so i very seriously doubt that he was asked if its ok.   #  do you know this for a fact ?  # so why are they able to do so at 0 0 ? why is he fully aware of himself a mere two years later ? would his mother not still be buying his clothes at 0 ? do you know this for a fact ? how do you know that he a is being forced to dress in drag, and b is also being coerced into giving permission to put photos on facebook ?  #  this is entirely different from xmas cards, which are not a problem.   #  pics on christmas cards are fine.  facebook pics are different for the reasons articulated above.  they were articulated above and apparently removed by a mod, so here they are again.  hopefully i am not b  from cmv for re posting such rudeness:  when i talk about privacy violations we ca not fathom, i really mean that.  twenty years ago, you might have posted things to a geocities page or email listserv only accessible by a few of your friends, never having any inkling that decades later, devastatingly efficient search engines would be able to retrieve this content and archive. org would preserve it forever.  facial recognition is up and coming, and we know that companies mine social media to make predictions about you.  there is certainly a  nontrivial possibility  my phrase above that in 0 years, some algorithm will match your kid is facial features or tagged name with some composite of other variables and determine that he is likelier than average to be low ses, or whatever.  you have no idea.  even if this risk is speculative, there is not a strong enough benefit balancing out the other side of the equation to merit posting pictures of somebody on facebook without their consent.  especially  somebody  whom you should care about more than you care about yourself.  this is entirely different from xmas cards, which are not a problem.  as for parents embarrassing their kids i would not call it  exceptionally awful  on par with the loss of a limb, but a non sadistic parent would in theory wish to avoid it.  if plastering your kid is likeness on fb in order to get  likes  from randoms you went to hs with offered some benefit to the kid to weigh against these potential downsides, that would be one thing.  but it does not.  so you are potentially embarrassing him and violating his privacy, and for what ? your own entertainment, or gratifying your own social media narcissism.  that is not what parenting should be about.   #  facial recognition is up and coming, and we know that companies mine social media to make predictions about you.   # facial recognition is up and coming, and we know that companies mine social media to make predictions about you.  there is certainly a  nontrivial possibility  my phrase above that in 0 years, some algorithm will match your kid is facial features or tagged name with some composite of other variables and determine that he is likelier than average to be low ses, or whatever.  you have no idea.  just because technology advances exponentially does not mean everything will be possible.  facial recognition on pictures of children is ridiculously unlikely to do anything more than match it to an adult picture of the kid, if not impossible.  what about the benefit of sharing pictures easily with family and friends ? especially family and friends who live far away ? that is a huge benefit to a small, and merely speculative, risk.  not to mention that children ca not give consent legally .  their parent is do, that is why parents have to sign field trip slips, doctor is forms, etc.  you do realize that is like 0 of a dad is job, right ? in all seriousness, occasionally playfully embarrassing your children makes for fun memories.  not to mention encouraging humility.  but really, do you honestly think only a sadistic parent would show off an embarrassing baby picture ? but it does not.  what about family and friends on facebook who you actually want to share the pictures with ? to keep in touch ? that is a benefit.  your own entertainment, or gratifying your own social media narcissism.  oooooooorrr sharing your is and your child is life with family and friends ? why does it have to be about narcissism ?  #   i like girly things as decided by the society that i grew up in so i must be a girl.    #  because there is the very real issue of people conflating gender expression with gender identity.   i like girly things as decided by the society that i grew up in so i must be a girl.   hormone blockers and choice of expression is the best way to allow the child to determine if their gender identity is the source of the dysphoria or if the society they grew up in is.  that way, if they come to realize later that it is, in fact, just the gender roles put on them, they can continue with the puberty they would have had from their sex, or if they come to realize it is their gender identity, they can then begin hrt.  i say this as a person who experienced what i now know was gender dysphoria as a child, but am still cis.  my experience with gender was that gender roles were the source of my dysphoria, not my identity.  being put on hrt and given surgery at the first sign of dysphoria is a horrible method of treatment, that does not allow for the multiple causes of the issue.   #  not to say there is not knowledge on the subject, but nobody anywhere has ever been able to pinpoint exactly what causes things like gd, et al, and without knowing exactly why, it is dangerous to suggest/perform surgery on juveniles.   #  i think the problem here lies with the lack of knowledge on the subject.  not to say there is not knowledge on the subject, but nobody anywhere has ever been able to pinpoint exactly what causes things like gd, et al, and without knowing exactly why, it is dangerous to suggest/perform surgery on juveniles.  every surgery, no matter how minor, carries a great deal of risk and should be a last resort.  performing surgery, or providing treatments that are permanent to semi permanent to adolescents and juveniles just is not in their best interests in my humble opinion.  i mean we do not allow people to vote before they are 0 because it is assumed that they are not emotionally or mentally mature enough to handle that responsibility. and that is just putting a check in a box.  i mean to be blunt. do you not see the hypocracy in the belief that children cannot consent to sex at that age, but they can choose to change their gender i used that phrase for its ease of use, not to start a discussion on gender change, i understand there is more to it than that ?
theft: copying something ca not possibly be theft because theft requires taking something away and copying does not do that.  economic efficiency / average happiness: violating the individual rights to be unharmed and to not have property taken without permission e. g.  fines while  pursuing  higher average happiness is immoral and impractical.  for the plan to work, one would have to show that average happiness would increase and that the oppression inherent in the prohibition on commercial copying taking into account the nature of the organization required to enforce that prohibition would not outweigh the benefits; a calculation that seems to me impossible to make.  what we do know for sure, if a prohibition on commercial copying is implemented, is that individual rights will be violated.  homesteading ideas / ownership extends to what we create: i have no problem with people owning their ideas.  i do not suggest that they be extracted from their brain or deleted from their computer.  copying adds more of an idea, it does not take it away from its owner.   #  theft: copying something ca not possibly be theft because theft requires taking something away and copying does not do that.   #  thinking about ip violations as theft defined as depriving someone of their rightfully owned property is, in my mind, a wrong way to go about it.   # thinking about ip violations as theft defined as depriving someone of their rightfully owned property is, in my mind, a wrong way to go about it.  ownership of something does not just mean you have possession of it, but that you have the right to  control its use.  we talk about violations of ip as  theft  when in reality, it is closer to a violation of the right to control the property.  so if a person has a patent on a widget, he has the right to license and control the use of that widget.  if he does not think it should be used in, say, weapons manufacturing he has the right to deny the use of his ip in that field.  now say that a weapons company ignores this and uses the widget anyway.  he has been wronged in two senses: first by loss of profits from the use of his widget wherein the thing stolen is the  profit , not the widget itself .  second, in the  control of the use  of the widget.  the weapons manufacturer did not deprive the inventor of  possession,  but he did deprive the inventor of  control.  so while it may not be theft of the property on your definition of theft , it  is still a violation of property rights.  how ?  #  he has been wronged in two senses: first by loss of profits from the use of his widget wherein the thing stolen is the profit, not the widget itself .   #   that is a better way to look at it.  however, can someone have the right to control the use of something that is not scarce ? the whole purpose of property rights is to prevent conflict over scarce goods.  he has been wronged in two senses: first by loss of profits from the use of his widget wherein the thing stolen is the profit, not the widget itself .  can potential profit be stolen ? that seems untenable because, for example, if competitor a takes market share away from b, the potential profit of b compared to a never existing is reduced.  but that is just business.   #  the success of these rules in fostering peaceful and productive societies cannot be understated, and the modification or elimination of them is something to be undertaken with extreme caution.   # the whole purpose of property rights is to prevent conflict over scarce goods.  that is your opinion on the purpose of property rights, but it is not necessarily correct.  from a utilitarian standpoint, the purpose of property rights is to peaceably prevent and resolve conflicts over stuff broadly defined .  trademarks are an interesting example here.  trademarks are obviously not scarce, my use of the coca cola logo does not directly deprive anyone else of its use.  but coca cola cares deeply that knockoff products do not carry its logo.  and consumers care that they are not getting a knockoff.  and the origins of something like trademark law go back a very long way.  counterfeiting has nearly always been a crime, and misappropriation of a royal or noble seal would get your head chopped off in a lot of places.  i see the law as being deeply concerned with any area where people are likely to come to violence over a dispute.  the rights of property are largely a functional response to these disputes and an effort to make neutral rules that all parties can agree, in the abstract, to abide.  the success of these rules in fostering peaceful and productive societies cannot be understated, and the modification or elimination of them is something to be undertaken with extreme caution.   #  they are scarce in one sense,  no  ip exists before a person engages in labor to create it.   # the whole purpose of property rights is to prevent conflict over scarce goods.  they are scarce in one sense,  no  ip exists before a person engages in labor to create it.  but, scarcity is not the whole picture of property rights.  property rights also serve to protect the fruits of a person is labor.  ip clearly takes quite a bit of labor to produce, and thus deserve the rights to ownership and thereby control .  and, of course, there is the consequentialist defense of property people are better off .  that seems untenable because, for example, if competitor a takes market share away from b, the potential profit of b compared to a never existing is reduced.  but that is just business.  i was assuming that the company actually sold the item not potential profit but actual .  he would then be deprived of profits to which he has a claim.  he would also be deprived of any licensing fee which he has a right to demand, assuming right to control .  it is hard to say  what amount  exactly he is deprived, but he is denied the ability to demand fees.   #  the whole purpose of property rights is to prevent conflict over scarce goods.   # the whole purpose of property rights is to prevent conflict over scarce goods.  can potential profit be stolen ? you are right that ip is not a scarce good, giving someone physical property means you no longer have it, while if you share an idea, you still have that idea so the conflict prevention justification of property rights does not quite hold.  however, another important aspect of ip law is to incentivize people to innovate by ensuring that they are rewarded for their creation.  by giving them exclusive temporary management of information ie giving a right to intellectual property the creator can make money, hopefully to continue to innovate.  as a rational economic actor, if there is no benefit for me to create something new, since its value will drop to zero with unimpeded copying, why should i create ?
theft: copying something ca not possibly be theft because theft requires taking something away and copying does not do that.  economic efficiency / average happiness: violating the individual rights to be unharmed and to not have property taken without permission e. g.  fines while  pursuing  higher average happiness is immoral and impractical.  for the plan to work, one would have to show that average happiness would increase and that the oppression inherent in the prohibition on commercial copying taking into account the nature of the organization required to enforce that prohibition would not outweigh the benefits; a calculation that seems to me impossible to make.  what we do know for sure, if a prohibition on commercial copying is implemented, is that individual rights will be violated.  homesteading ideas / ownership extends to what we create: i have no problem with people owning their ideas.  i do not suggest that they be extracted from their brain or deleted from their computer.  copying adds more of an idea, it does not take it away from its owner.   #  economic efficiency / average happiness: violating the individual rights to be unharmed and to not have property taken without permission e. g.   #  fines while pursuing higher average happiness is immoral and impractical.   # fines while pursuing higher average happiness is immoral and impractical.  for the plan to work, one would have to show that average happiness would increase not everyone is a strict utilitarian, like you seem to be.  strict utilitarianism does not even work as a morality see utility monster URL   homesteading ideas / ownership extends to what we create: i have no problem with people owning their ideas.  i do not suggest that they be extracted from their brain or deleted from their computer.  copying adds more of an idea, it does not take it away from its owner.  copying does take away, as you acknowledged in your previous paragraph you were just talking about the balance between the individual happiness of the creator vs.  the happiness of everyone else.   #  if he does not think it should be used in, say, weapons manufacturing he has the right to deny the use of his ip in that field.   # thinking about ip violations as theft defined as depriving someone of their rightfully owned property is, in my mind, a wrong way to go about it.  ownership of something does not just mean you have possession of it, but that you have the right to  control its use.  we talk about violations of ip as  theft  when in reality, it is closer to a violation of the right to control the property.  so if a person has a patent on a widget, he has the right to license and control the use of that widget.  if he does not think it should be used in, say, weapons manufacturing he has the right to deny the use of his ip in that field.  now say that a weapons company ignores this and uses the widget anyway.  he has been wronged in two senses: first by loss of profits from the use of his widget wherein the thing stolen is the  profit , not the widget itself .  second, in the  control of the use  of the widget.  the weapons manufacturer did not deprive the inventor of  possession,  but he did deprive the inventor of  control.  so while it may not be theft of the property on your definition of theft , it  is still a violation of property rights.  how ?  #    that is a better way to look at it.   #   that is a better way to look at it.  however, can someone have the right to control the use of something that is not scarce ? the whole purpose of property rights is to prevent conflict over scarce goods.  he has been wronged in two senses: first by loss of profits from the use of his widget wherein the thing stolen is the profit, not the widget itself .  can potential profit be stolen ? that seems untenable because, for example, if competitor a takes market share away from b, the potential profit of b compared to a never existing is reduced.  but that is just business.   #  and consumers care that they are not getting a knockoff.   # the whole purpose of property rights is to prevent conflict over scarce goods.  that is your opinion on the purpose of property rights, but it is not necessarily correct.  from a utilitarian standpoint, the purpose of property rights is to peaceably prevent and resolve conflicts over stuff broadly defined .  trademarks are an interesting example here.  trademarks are obviously not scarce, my use of the coca cola logo does not directly deprive anyone else of its use.  but coca cola cares deeply that knockoff products do not carry its logo.  and consumers care that they are not getting a knockoff.  and the origins of something like trademark law go back a very long way.  counterfeiting has nearly always been a crime, and misappropriation of a royal or noble seal would get your head chopped off in a lot of places.  i see the law as being deeply concerned with any area where people are likely to come to violence over a dispute.  the rights of property are largely a functional response to these disputes and an effort to make neutral rules that all parties can agree, in the abstract, to abide.  the success of these rules in fostering peaceful and productive societies cannot be understated, and the modification or elimination of them is something to be undertaken with extreme caution.   #  he would also be deprived of any licensing fee which he has a right to demand, assuming right to control .   # the whole purpose of property rights is to prevent conflict over scarce goods.  they are scarce in one sense,  no  ip exists before a person engages in labor to create it.  but, scarcity is not the whole picture of property rights.  property rights also serve to protect the fruits of a person is labor.  ip clearly takes quite a bit of labor to produce, and thus deserve the rights to ownership and thereby control .  and, of course, there is the consequentialist defense of property people are better off .  that seems untenable because, for example, if competitor a takes market share away from b, the potential profit of b compared to a never existing is reduced.  but that is just business.  i was assuming that the company actually sold the item not potential profit but actual .  he would then be deprived of profits to which he has a claim.  he would also be deprived of any licensing fee which he has a right to demand, assuming right to control .  it is hard to say  what amount  exactly he is deprived, but he is denied the ability to demand fees.
i hate the default iphone alarm.  it is outclassed in every way by the default cyanogen mod alarm, and here is why:   the cyanogen mod alarm allows for raising volume; it starts out silent, then in a span of time about 0 seconds, give or take it ramps up to full volume.  the iphone alarm is just full blast whenever it is time to go off.  scaling volume allows for a less startling and more graceful waking up.    the cyanogen mod alarm has a non intrusive popup window at the bottom of the screen whenever you set an alarm.  this popup shows you how many days/hours/minutes until the alarm will go off.  this eliminates things like accidently setting your alarm for 0:0pm instead of 0:0am.    the cyanogen mod alarm is infinitely easier to edit the time an alarm will go off.  you only need to tap the alarm time instead of tapping edit then tapping the alarm and it has an analog display which allows for more quick, precise editing instead of the scroll wheel the iphone has .    the cyanogen mod alarm allows you to set days for an alarm to go off.  so, for example, i have two alarms: one goes off on the weekdays at 0:0am, and the other goes of on the weekends at 0:0am.  the iphone alarm has no such feature.  /u/awa0 has told me that this is incorrect, and the iphone has this feature.  sorry about that.    the cyanogen mod clock has a little line of text beneath it that tells you when the next alarm will go off.  this allows you to glance at your phone and easily determine if the alarm is set or not.  the iphone has no such feature.    the cyanogen mod alarm allows you to label your alarms.  you can name your weekday alarms  work,  for example.  the iphone has no such feature.  /u/awa0 has told me that this is incorrect, and the iphone has this feature.  sorry about that.  note: this is not a debate about android vs iphones.  i really do not care which phone has better default messenger apps, or which phone has better app selection.  also, i do not really care if there are other, non default iphone alarms.  you can bring it up, i suppose, but this cmv is specifically about the default alarms in cyanogen mod and the iphone.   #  the cyanogen mod alarm allows you to set days for an alarm to go off.   #  so, for example, i have two alarms: one goes off on the weekdays at 0:0am, and the other goes of on the weekends at 0:0am.   #  does the cyanogenmod alarm work with google now voice commands ? because i can set the alarm on my iphone by saying  hey, siri, wake me up at 0 tomorrow morning  from across the room.  so, for example, i have two alarms: one goes off on the weekdays at 0:0am, and the other goes of on the weekends at 0:0am.  the iphone alarm has no such feature.  this is false.  alarms on ios can be set to repeat on any single day or set of multiple days of the week, and will simplify the listing to  weekdays  and  weekends  intelligently if set to m/t/w/th/f or sat/sun, respectively.  you can name your weekday alarms  work,  for example.  the iphone has no such feature.  this is false.  you can label alarms on the iphone clock app.   #  i had to check, but it did it.   # because i can set the alarm on my iphone by saying  hey, siri, wake me up at 0 tomorrow morning  from across the room.  apparently it does.  i had to check, but it did it.  learned something new today, thanks.  alarms on ios can be set to repeat on any single day or set of multiple days of the week, and will simplify the listing to  weekdays  and  weekends  intelligently if set to m/t/w/th/f or sat/sun, respectively.  you can label alarms on the iphone clock app.  guess i have not played around in my work phone enough.  i edited the op, thanks for the information.   #  she is, however, perfectly capable of using an iphone is default alarm app.   #  installing the cyanogen mod in order to access its superior alarm requires a little bit of technical know how.  my mother could never install it ! she is, however, perfectly capable of using an iphone is default alarm app.  accessibility is definitely an issue.  you can name your weekday alarms  work,  for example.  the iphone has no such feature.  this is only a problem for someone who: 0 uses multiple alarms; 0 is inclined to label them.  i have one alarm the dreaded morning alarm.  for other reminders, i use to do apps, or calendar reminders.   #  this issue you have brought up is that it is more difficult to have the prerequisites in place for one thing than for the other thing, not about whether or not the thing itself is more accessible or not.   # you are right, but i think this is irrelevant to the question.  i was imagining the same person me, or anybody with the opposite view who has the technical knowledge to be able to choice whichever one they want.  this issue you have brought up is that it is more difficult to have the prerequisites in place for one thing than for the other thing, not about whether or not the thing itself is more accessible or not.  i have one alarm the dreaded morning alarm.  for other reminders, i use to do apps, or calendar reminders.  you are right again, but that does not give any points to apple, since they still lack the feature.  that just takes away one from cyanogen mod.   #  to use an analogy, a shack is more useful as shelter than a castle to someone in a wheelchair if only the former has an access ramp.   #  i am not sure how i am supposed to c your v, /u/pandemic0.  i agree that the cyanogen mod alarm is, on the whole, superior to the default iphone alarm.  i cannot contest that.  i can only point out that it is a false comparison comparing the vanilla apple app to a non native android app.  i believe that the fact that cyanogen mod needs to be installed which is not something that every user is capable of is a fair point.  to use an analogy, a shack is more useful as shelter than a castle to someone in a wheelchair if only the former has an access ramp.
i hate the default iphone alarm.  it is outclassed in every way by the default cyanogen mod alarm, and here is why:   the cyanogen mod alarm allows for raising volume; it starts out silent, then in a span of time about 0 seconds, give or take it ramps up to full volume.  the iphone alarm is just full blast whenever it is time to go off.  scaling volume allows for a less startling and more graceful waking up.    the cyanogen mod alarm has a non intrusive popup window at the bottom of the screen whenever you set an alarm.  this popup shows you how many days/hours/minutes until the alarm will go off.  this eliminates things like accidently setting your alarm for 0:0pm instead of 0:0am.    the cyanogen mod alarm is infinitely easier to edit the time an alarm will go off.  you only need to tap the alarm time instead of tapping edit then tapping the alarm and it has an analog display which allows for more quick, precise editing instead of the scroll wheel the iphone has .    the cyanogen mod alarm allows you to set days for an alarm to go off.  so, for example, i have two alarms: one goes off on the weekdays at 0:0am, and the other goes of on the weekends at 0:0am.  the iphone alarm has no such feature.  /u/awa0 has told me that this is incorrect, and the iphone has this feature.  sorry about that.    the cyanogen mod clock has a little line of text beneath it that tells you when the next alarm will go off.  this allows you to glance at your phone and easily determine if the alarm is set or not.  the iphone has no such feature.    the cyanogen mod alarm allows you to label your alarms.  you can name your weekday alarms  work,  for example.  the iphone has no such feature.  /u/awa0 has told me that this is incorrect, and the iphone has this feature.  sorry about that.  note: this is not a debate about android vs iphones.  i really do not care which phone has better default messenger apps, or which phone has better app selection.  also, i do not really care if there are other, non default iphone alarms.  you can bring it up, i suppose, but this cmv is specifically about the default alarms in cyanogen mod and the iphone.   #  the cyanogen mod alarm allows you to label your alarms.   #  you can name your weekday alarms  work,  for example.   #  does the cyanogenmod alarm work with google now voice commands ? because i can set the alarm on my iphone by saying  hey, siri, wake me up at 0 tomorrow morning  from across the room.  so, for example, i have two alarms: one goes off on the weekdays at 0:0am, and the other goes of on the weekends at 0:0am.  the iphone alarm has no such feature.  this is false.  alarms on ios can be set to repeat on any single day or set of multiple days of the week, and will simplify the listing to  weekdays  and  weekends  intelligently if set to m/t/w/th/f or sat/sun, respectively.  you can name your weekday alarms  work,  for example.  the iphone has no such feature.  this is false.  you can label alarms on the iphone clock app.   #  because i can set the alarm on my iphone by saying  hey, siri, wake me up at 0 tomorrow morning  from across the room.   # because i can set the alarm on my iphone by saying  hey, siri, wake me up at 0 tomorrow morning  from across the room.  apparently it does.  i had to check, but it did it.  learned something new today, thanks.  alarms on ios can be set to repeat on any single day or set of multiple days of the week, and will simplify the listing to  weekdays  and  weekends  intelligently if set to m/t/w/th/f or sat/sun, respectively.  you can label alarms on the iphone clock app.  guess i have not played around in my work phone enough.  i edited the op, thanks for the information.   #  i have one alarm the dreaded morning alarm.   #  installing the cyanogen mod in order to access its superior alarm requires a little bit of technical know how.  my mother could never install it ! she is, however, perfectly capable of using an iphone is default alarm app.  accessibility is definitely an issue.  you can name your weekday alarms  work,  for example.  the iphone has no such feature.  this is only a problem for someone who: 0 uses multiple alarms; 0 is inclined to label them.  i have one alarm the dreaded morning alarm.  for other reminders, i use to do apps, or calendar reminders.   #  that just takes away one from cyanogen mod.   # you are right, but i think this is irrelevant to the question.  i was imagining the same person me, or anybody with the opposite view who has the technical knowledge to be able to choice whichever one they want.  this issue you have brought up is that it is more difficult to have the prerequisites in place for one thing than for the other thing, not about whether or not the thing itself is more accessible or not.  i have one alarm the dreaded morning alarm.  for other reminders, i use to do apps, or calendar reminders.  you are right again, but that does not give any points to apple, since they still lack the feature.  that just takes away one from cyanogen mod.   #  i agree that the cyanogen mod alarm is, on the whole, superior to the default iphone alarm.   #  i am not sure how i am supposed to c your v, /u/pandemic0.  i agree that the cyanogen mod alarm is, on the whole, superior to the default iphone alarm.  i cannot contest that.  i can only point out that it is a false comparison comparing the vanilla apple app to a non native android app.  i believe that the fact that cyanogen mod needs to be installed which is not something that every user is capable of is a fair point.  to use an analogy, a shack is more useful as shelter than a castle to someone in a wheelchair if only the former has an access ramp.
i hate the default iphone alarm.  it is outclassed in every way by the default cyanogen mod alarm, and here is why:   the cyanogen mod alarm allows for raising volume; it starts out silent, then in a span of time about 0 seconds, give or take it ramps up to full volume.  the iphone alarm is just full blast whenever it is time to go off.  scaling volume allows for a less startling and more graceful waking up.    the cyanogen mod alarm has a non intrusive popup window at the bottom of the screen whenever you set an alarm.  this popup shows you how many days/hours/minutes until the alarm will go off.  this eliminates things like accidently setting your alarm for 0:0pm instead of 0:0am.    the cyanogen mod alarm is infinitely easier to edit the time an alarm will go off.  you only need to tap the alarm time instead of tapping edit then tapping the alarm and it has an analog display which allows for more quick, precise editing instead of the scroll wheel the iphone has .    the cyanogen mod alarm allows you to set days for an alarm to go off.  so, for example, i have two alarms: one goes off on the weekdays at 0:0am, and the other goes of on the weekends at 0:0am.  the iphone alarm has no such feature.  /u/awa0 has told me that this is incorrect, and the iphone has this feature.  sorry about that.    the cyanogen mod clock has a little line of text beneath it that tells you when the next alarm will go off.  this allows you to glance at your phone and easily determine if the alarm is set or not.  the iphone has no such feature.    the cyanogen mod alarm allows you to label your alarms.  you can name your weekday alarms  work,  for example.  the iphone has no such feature.  /u/awa0 has told me that this is incorrect, and the iphone has this feature.  sorry about that.  note: this is not a debate about android vs iphones.  i really do not care which phone has better default messenger apps, or which phone has better app selection.  also, i do not really care if there are other, non default iphone alarms.  you can bring it up, i suppose, but this cmv is specifically about the default alarms in cyanogen mod and the iphone.   #  the cyanogen mod alarm allows you to label your alarms.   #  you can name your weekday alarms  work,  for example.   #  installing the cyanogen mod in order to access its superior alarm requires a little bit of technical know how.  my mother could never install it ! she is, however, perfectly capable of using an iphone is default alarm app.  accessibility is definitely an issue.  you can name your weekday alarms  work,  for example.  the iphone has no such feature.  this is only a problem for someone who: 0 uses multiple alarms; 0 is inclined to label them.  i have one alarm the dreaded morning alarm.  for other reminders, i use to do apps, or calendar reminders.   #  you can label alarms on the iphone clock app.   #  does the cyanogenmod alarm work with google now voice commands ? because i can set the alarm on my iphone by saying  hey, siri, wake me up at 0 tomorrow morning  from across the room.  so, for example, i have two alarms: one goes off on the weekdays at 0:0am, and the other goes of on the weekends at 0:0am.  the iphone alarm has no such feature.  this is false.  alarms on ios can be set to repeat on any single day or set of multiple days of the week, and will simplify the listing to  weekdays  and  weekends  intelligently if set to m/t/w/th/f or sat/sun, respectively.  you can name your weekday alarms  work,  for example.  the iphone has no such feature.  this is false.  you can label alarms on the iphone clock app.   #  i had to check, but it did it.   # because i can set the alarm on my iphone by saying  hey, siri, wake me up at 0 tomorrow morning  from across the room.  apparently it does.  i had to check, but it did it.  learned something new today, thanks.  alarms on ios can be set to repeat on any single day or set of multiple days of the week, and will simplify the listing to  weekdays  and  weekends  intelligently if set to m/t/w/th/f or sat/sun, respectively.  you can label alarms on the iphone clock app.  guess i have not played around in my work phone enough.  i edited the op, thanks for the information.   #  this issue you have brought up is that it is more difficult to have the prerequisites in place for one thing than for the other thing, not about whether or not the thing itself is more accessible or not.   # you are right, but i think this is irrelevant to the question.  i was imagining the same person me, or anybody with the opposite view who has the technical knowledge to be able to choice whichever one they want.  this issue you have brought up is that it is more difficult to have the prerequisites in place for one thing than for the other thing, not about whether or not the thing itself is more accessible or not.  i have one alarm the dreaded morning alarm.  for other reminders, i use to do apps, or calendar reminders.  you are right again, but that does not give any points to apple, since they still lack the feature.  that just takes away one from cyanogen mod.   #  to use an analogy, a shack is more useful as shelter than a castle to someone in a wheelchair if only the former has an access ramp.   #  i am not sure how i am supposed to c your v, /u/pandemic0.  i agree that the cyanogen mod alarm is, on the whole, superior to the default iphone alarm.  i cannot contest that.  i can only point out that it is a false comparison comparing the vanilla apple app to a non native android app.  i believe that the fact that cyanogen mod needs to be installed which is not something that every user is capable of is a fair point.  to use an analogy, a shack is more useful as shelter than a castle to someone in a wheelchair if only the former has an access ramp.
i have come to this conclusion for several reasons.   the usa is the only nation in the history of humanity to actually use atomic weapons against an enemy.  from past experience alone it is the country most likely to use them again.   the main positive effect of atomic weapons, that gets brought up a lot , is mutually assured destruction.  the usa dropped 0 atomic bombs, not as retribution to an atomic attack.  it demonstrated a lower bar for considering using them.   the usa regularly starts new wars.  it is certainly the nation among the big superpowers that is most likely to initiate a new war and, in the case of irak, can not even explain why they went to war in the first place.  a country that is this likely to be involved in wars is more likely to find itself in a position where it would consider using another atomic bomb.   #  the usa dropped 0 atomic bombs, not as retribution to an atomic attack.   #  it demonstrated a lower bar for considering using them.   # it demonstrated a lower bar for considering using them.  it was to prevent a much, much greater loss of life had the mainland of japan been invaded.  estimates put it as high as 0 million casualties just on the us side.  it is conceivable that the japanese would have lost 0 0 times as many.  for comparison, 0,0 were killed as a high end estimate in the two bombings.  i think you have a basic misunderstanding of what nuclear weapons are used for.  at this point, since multiple nations have them, it is basically a fall back option when facing an existential conflict.  their use in anything less than full scale world war is basically impossible.  no other country has as much to lose as the us when it comes to stuff like that.  our entire country depends on trade and relatively good relations with the rest of the goods producing world.  using nuclear weapons outside of that context would certainly be the end of the us.  can you name another war we started where we do not know exactly why we went to war ?  #  any other nation that does not have the weight to get what they want, but has nukes, is more likely to use those nukes because they do not have a plethora of other options.   #  on the contrary, the us is the country with the most powerful military in the world.  any other nation that does not have the weight to get what they want, but has nukes, is more likely to use those nukes because they do not have a plethora of other options.  the us has the military power to bomb any other nation into rubble, without resorting to nuclear power.  sure, the us is more likely to engage in military conflict that many other nations, but nukes are also very far down on the us  list of options.  the low effort refutation of your point is that there are much worse countries out there, such as most of the middle east or north korea.  they would be much more likely to use any atomic weapons.   #  also, your repeated characterization of america as obama is pretty silly.   #  nobody should be trusted with a nuke and among that america is the least trustworthy because they already demonstrated they would use 0 of them when their existance was not in jeopardy.  if i was tasked with redistributing the atomic weapons, i would  redistribute  them all into the sun, not afghanistan.  stop interpreting my views for me and telling me what i would do because of them.  also, your repeated characterization of america as obama is pretty silly.  the military system present in america is the main factor that makes it untrustworthy, not its president.   #  furthermore, while both  al qaeda  and  obama  are mere examples offered for illustrative purposes, both are accurate examples.   # stop interpreting my views for me and telling me what i would do because of them.  if you were forced to reallocate them among existing nations, and you believe america is  the least trustworthy nation , then you would allocate to literally any nation before allocating to america.  this is an unavoidable logical inference from your op, unless you are allocating according to criteria other than trustworthiness.  furthermore, while both  al qaeda  and  obama  are mere examples offered for illustrative purposes, both are accurate examples.  in the united states, only the president can direct the use of nuclear weapons URL i am happy to entertain presidents other than obama, though.  would you rather trust al qaeda with a nuke than trust. bush ? clinton ? hell, would you rather allocate to al qaeda than  the military system present in america  ?  #  america demonstrated in the past that they will use atomic bombs, even when their victory seems already fairly sure.   # if it was to prevent loss of life, one bomb would have been more than enough.  i do not have a plausible explination for the second bomb but the fact that it has been used shows how ready to use the bombs was at least at some point.  america demonstrated in the past that they will use atomic bombs, even when their victory seems already fairly sure.  why does there need to be more than one ? it is certainly recent enough to not just be dissmissed as something that wo not just happen again in the near future.
i have come to this conclusion for several reasons.   the usa is the only nation in the history of humanity to actually use atomic weapons against an enemy.  from past experience alone it is the country most likely to use them again.   the main positive effect of atomic weapons, that gets brought up a lot , is mutually assured destruction.  the usa dropped 0 atomic bombs, not as retribution to an atomic attack.  it demonstrated a lower bar for considering using them.   the usa regularly starts new wars.  it is certainly the nation among the big superpowers that is most likely to initiate a new war and, in the case of irak, can not even explain why they went to war in the first place.  a country that is this likely to be involved in wars is more likely to find itself in a position where it would consider using another atomic bomb.   #  a country that is this likely to be involved in wars is more likely to find itself in a position where it would consider using another atomic bomb.   #  i think you have a basic misunderstanding of what nuclear weapons are used for.   # it demonstrated a lower bar for considering using them.  it was to prevent a much, much greater loss of life had the mainland of japan been invaded.  estimates put it as high as 0 million casualties just on the us side.  it is conceivable that the japanese would have lost 0 0 times as many.  for comparison, 0,0 were killed as a high end estimate in the two bombings.  i think you have a basic misunderstanding of what nuclear weapons are used for.  at this point, since multiple nations have them, it is basically a fall back option when facing an existential conflict.  their use in anything less than full scale world war is basically impossible.  no other country has as much to lose as the us when it comes to stuff like that.  our entire country depends on trade and relatively good relations with the rest of the goods producing world.  using nuclear weapons outside of that context would certainly be the end of the us.  can you name another war we started where we do not know exactly why we went to war ?  #  the us has the military power to bomb any other nation into rubble, without resorting to nuclear power.   #  on the contrary, the us is the country with the most powerful military in the world.  any other nation that does not have the weight to get what they want, but has nukes, is more likely to use those nukes because they do not have a plethora of other options.  the us has the military power to bomb any other nation into rubble, without resorting to nuclear power.  sure, the us is more likely to engage in military conflict that many other nations, but nukes are also very far down on the us  list of options.  the low effort refutation of your point is that there are much worse countries out there, such as most of the middle east or north korea.  they would be much more likely to use any atomic weapons.   #  the military system present in america is the main factor that makes it untrustworthy, not its president.   #  nobody should be trusted with a nuke and among that america is the least trustworthy because they already demonstrated they would use 0 of them when their existance was not in jeopardy.  if i was tasked with redistributing the atomic weapons, i would  redistribute  them all into the sun, not afghanistan.  stop interpreting my views for me and telling me what i would do because of them.  also, your repeated characterization of america as obama is pretty silly.  the military system present in america is the main factor that makes it untrustworthy, not its president.   #  if you were forced to reallocate them among existing nations, and you believe america is  the least trustworthy nation , then you would allocate to literally any nation before allocating to america.   # stop interpreting my views for me and telling me what i would do because of them.  if you were forced to reallocate them among existing nations, and you believe america is  the least trustworthy nation , then you would allocate to literally any nation before allocating to america.  this is an unavoidable logical inference from your op, unless you are allocating according to criteria other than trustworthiness.  furthermore, while both  al qaeda  and  obama  are mere examples offered for illustrative purposes, both are accurate examples.  in the united states, only the president can direct the use of nuclear weapons URL i am happy to entertain presidents other than obama, though.  would you rather trust al qaeda with a nuke than trust. bush ? clinton ? hell, would you rather allocate to al qaeda than  the military system present in america  ?  #  if it was to prevent loss of life, one bomb would have been more than enough.   # if it was to prevent loss of life, one bomb would have been more than enough.  i do not have a plausible explination for the second bomb but the fact that it has been used shows how ready to use the bombs was at least at some point.  america demonstrated in the past that they will use atomic bombs, even when their victory seems already fairly sure.  why does there need to be more than one ? it is certainly recent enough to not just be dissmissed as something that wo not just happen again in the near future.
i have come to this conclusion for several reasons.   the usa is the only nation in the history of humanity to actually use atomic weapons against an enemy.  from past experience alone it is the country most likely to use them again.   the main positive effect of atomic weapons, that gets brought up a lot , is mutually assured destruction.  the usa dropped 0 atomic bombs, not as retribution to an atomic attack.  it demonstrated a lower bar for considering using them.   the usa regularly starts new wars.  it is certainly the nation among the big superpowers that is most likely to initiate a new war and, in the case of irak, can not even explain why they went to war in the first place.  a country that is this likely to be involved in wars is more likely to find itself in a position where it would consider using another atomic bomb.   #  the usa is the only nation in the history of humanity to actually use atomic weapons against an enemy.   #  from past experience alone it is the country most likely to use them again.   # from past experience alone it is the country most likely to use them again.  this logic is a little faulty.  though i do not approve of the way the atomic bombs were used, they were used during wartime as an attempt to save as many lives as possible in the long run by ending the war quickly.  saying that we are the least trustworthy because we used atomic bombs 0 years ago in a very different situation is a little like saying a soldier who killed a few people while serving is the most likely out of anyone to kill more people twenty years later while living in civilian society even if he has not shown any violent tendencies for years.  the usa dropped 0 atomic bombs, not as retribution to an atomic attack.  it demonstrated a lower bar for considering using them.  again, different situations.  the us dropped the bombs partly because they knew there could not be retribution.  now, of course, if they drop bombs other countries will fire back.  also, global war vs.  more localized albeit still large conflicts plays in here.  it is certainly the nation among the big superpowers that is most likely to initiate a new war and, as the example of irak has shown, can often not even explain why they went to war in the first place.  a country that is this likely to be involved in wars is more likely to find itself in a position where it would consider using another atomic bomb.  there are a hell of a lot of arguments to be had about this bit especially the iraq part but i will focus on the atomic bomb in wartime bit.  the us is fighting countries without nuke access iraq and afghanistan primarily, of course, but in terms of diplomatic fighting also nations like iran and north korea.  if we were to continue the hiroshima/nagasaki logic you have brought up, we would kind of expect the us to have dropped bombs by now.  it is similar to japan they want to end the wars, and they are facing countries who would not really be able to execute appropriate retribution.  but they have not.  there are a number of reasons, but one of the most prominent is global standing.  we pride ourselves on being the  leaders of the free world,  and do not really want to put whatever respect we might have built up somehow in jeopardy.  why, then, would we ever want to drop a bomb unless absolutely necessary ? think of what that would do to our fragile global network of alliances and cooperation.  we would plunge into a horrible war, and we would be the ones who would have set that off.  we have too much at stake to do that.  compare that with countries like iran, who has threatened to bomb israel off the map, or israel, who has threatened to bomb iran off the map, or north korea, who has threatened to bomb countless countries off the map.  why are we less trustworthy than any of these ?  #  any other nation that does not have the weight to get what they want, but has nukes, is more likely to use those nukes because they do not have a plethora of other options.   #  on the contrary, the us is the country with the most powerful military in the world.  any other nation that does not have the weight to get what they want, but has nukes, is more likely to use those nukes because they do not have a plethora of other options.  the us has the military power to bomb any other nation into rubble, without resorting to nuclear power.  sure, the us is more likely to engage in military conflict that many other nations, but nukes are also very far down on the us  list of options.  the low effort refutation of your point is that there are much worse countries out there, such as most of the middle east or north korea.  they would be much more likely to use any atomic weapons.   #  if i was tasked with redistributing the atomic weapons, i would  redistribute  them all into the sun, not afghanistan.   #  nobody should be trusted with a nuke and among that america is the least trustworthy because they already demonstrated they would use 0 of them when their existance was not in jeopardy.  if i was tasked with redistributing the atomic weapons, i would  redistribute  them all into the sun, not afghanistan.  stop interpreting my views for me and telling me what i would do because of them.  also, your repeated characterization of america as obama is pretty silly.  the military system present in america is the main factor that makes it untrustworthy, not its president.   #  stop interpreting my views for me and telling me what i would do because of them.   # stop interpreting my views for me and telling me what i would do because of them.  if you were forced to reallocate them among existing nations, and you believe america is  the least trustworthy nation , then you would allocate to literally any nation before allocating to america.  this is an unavoidable logical inference from your op, unless you are allocating according to criteria other than trustworthiness.  furthermore, while both  al qaeda  and  obama  are mere examples offered for illustrative purposes, both are accurate examples.  in the united states, only the president can direct the use of nuclear weapons URL i am happy to entertain presidents other than obama, though.  would you rather trust al qaeda with a nuke than trust. bush ? clinton ? hell, would you rather allocate to al qaeda than  the military system present in america  ?  #  can you name another war we started where we do not know exactly why we went to war ?  # it demonstrated a lower bar for considering using them.  it was to prevent a much, much greater loss of life had the mainland of japan been invaded.  estimates put it as high as 0 million casualties just on the us side.  it is conceivable that the japanese would have lost 0 0 times as many.  for comparison, 0,0 were killed as a high end estimate in the two bombings.  i think you have a basic misunderstanding of what nuclear weapons are used for.  at this point, since multiple nations have them, it is basically a fall back option when facing an existential conflict.  their use in anything less than full scale world war is basically impossible.  no other country has as much to lose as the us when it comes to stuff like that.  our entire country depends on trade and relatively good relations with the rest of the goods producing world.  using nuclear weapons outside of that context would certainly be the end of the us.  can you name another war we started where we do not know exactly why we went to war ?
i have come to this conclusion for several reasons.   the usa is the only nation in the history of humanity to actually use atomic weapons against an enemy.  from past experience alone it is the country most likely to use them again.   the main positive effect of atomic weapons, that gets brought up a lot , is mutually assured destruction.  the usa dropped 0 atomic bombs, not as retribution to an atomic attack.  it demonstrated a lower bar for considering using them.   the usa regularly starts new wars.  it is certainly the nation among the big superpowers that is most likely to initiate a new war and, in the case of irak, can not even explain why they went to war in the first place.  a country that is this likely to be involved in wars is more likely to find itself in a position where it would consider using another atomic bomb.   #  the main positive effect of atomic weapons, that gets brought up a lot , is mutually assured destruction.   #  the usa dropped 0 atomic bombs, not as retribution to an atomic attack.   # from past experience alone it is the country most likely to use them again.  this logic is a little faulty.  though i do not approve of the way the atomic bombs were used, they were used during wartime as an attempt to save as many lives as possible in the long run by ending the war quickly.  saying that we are the least trustworthy because we used atomic bombs 0 years ago in a very different situation is a little like saying a soldier who killed a few people while serving is the most likely out of anyone to kill more people twenty years later while living in civilian society even if he has not shown any violent tendencies for years.  the usa dropped 0 atomic bombs, not as retribution to an atomic attack.  it demonstrated a lower bar for considering using them.  again, different situations.  the us dropped the bombs partly because they knew there could not be retribution.  now, of course, if they drop bombs other countries will fire back.  also, global war vs.  more localized albeit still large conflicts plays in here.  it is certainly the nation among the big superpowers that is most likely to initiate a new war and, as the example of irak has shown, can often not even explain why they went to war in the first place.  a country that is this likely to be involved in wars is more likely to find itself in a position where it would consider using another atomic bomb.  there are a hell of a lot of arguments to be had about this bit especially the iraq part but i will focus on the atomic bomb in wartime bit.  the us is fighting countries without nuke access iraq and afghanistan primarily, of course, but in terms of diplomatic fighting also nations like iran and north korea.  if we were to continue the hiroshima/nagasaki logic you have brought up, we would kind of expect the us to have dropped bombs by now.  it is similar to japan they want to end the wars, and they are facing countries who would not really be able to execute appropriate retribution.  but they have not.  there are a number of reasons, but one of the most prominent is global standing.  we pride ourselves on being the  leaders of the free world,  and do not really want to put whatever respect we might have built up somehow in jeopardy.  why, then, would we ever want to drop a bomb unless absolutely necessary ? think of what that would do to our fragile global network of alliances and cooperation.  we would plunge into a horrible war, and we would be the ones who would have set that off.  we have too much at stake to do that.  compare that with countries like iran, who has threatened to bomb israel off the map, or israel, who has threatened to bomb iran off the map, or north korea, who has threatened to bomb countless countries off the map.  why are we less trustworthy than any of these ?  #  the low effort refutation of your point is that there are much worse countries out there, such as most of the middle east or north korea.   #  on the contrary, the us is the country with the most powerful military in the world.  any other nation that does not have the weight to get what they want, but has nukes, is more likely to use those nukes because they do not have a plethora of other options.  the us has the military power to bomb any other nation into rubble, without resorting to nuclear power.  sure, the us is more likely to engage in military conflict that many other nations, but nukes are also very far down on the us  list of options.  the low effort refutation of your point is that there are much worse countries out there, such as most of the middle east or north korea.  they would be much more likely to use any atomic weapons.   #  nobody should be trusted with a nuke and among that america is the least trustworthy because they already demonstrated they would use 0 of them when their existance was not in jeopardy.   #  nobody should be trusted with a nuke and among that america is the least trustworthy because they already demonstrated they would use 0 of them when their existance was not in jeopardy.  if i was tasked with redistributing the atomic weapons, i would  redistribute  them all into the sun, not afghanistan.  stop interpreting my views for me and telling me what i would do because of them.  also, your repeated characterization of america as obama is pretty silly.  the military system present in america is the main factor that makes it untrustworthy, not its president.   #  hell, would you rather allocate to al qaeda than  the military system present in america  ?  # stop interpreting my views for me and telling me what i would do because of them.  if you were forced to reallocate them among existing nations, and you believe america is  the least trustworthy nation , then you would allocate to literally any nation before allocating to america.  this is an unavoidable logical inference from your op, unless you are allocating according to criteria other than trustworthiness.  furthermore, while both  al qaeda  and  obama  are mere examples offered for illustrative purposes, both are accurate examples.  in the united states, only the president can direct the use of nuclear weapons URL i am happy to entertain presidents other than obama, though.  would you rather trust al qaeda with a nuke than trust. bush ? clinton ? hell, would you rather allocate to al qaeda than  the military system present in america  ?  #  it was to prevent a much, much greater loss of life had the mainland of japan been invaded.   # it demonstrated a lower bar for considering using them.  it was to prevent a much, much greater loss of life had the mainland of japan been invaded.  estimates put it as high as 0 million casualties just on the us side.  it is conceivable that the japanese would have lost 0 0 times as many.  for comparison, 0,0 were killed as a high end estimate in the two bombings.  i think you have a basic misunderstanding of what nuclear weapons are used for.  at this point, since multiple nations have them, it is basically a fall back option when facing an existential conflict.  their use in anything less than full scale world war is basically impossible.  no other country has as much to lose as the us when it comes to stuff like that.  our entire country depends on trade and relatively good relations with the rest of the goods producing world.  using nuclear weapons outside of that context would certainly be the end of the us.  can you name another war we started where we do not know exactly why we went to war ?
i have come to this conclusion for several reasons.   the usa is the only nation in the history of humanity to actually use atomic weapons against an enemy.  from past experience alone it is the country most likely to use them again.   the main positive effect of atomic weapons, that gets brought up a lot , is mutually assured destruction.  the usa dropped 0 atomic bombs, not as retribution to an atomic attack.  it demonstrated a lower bar for considering using them.   the usa regularly starts new wars.  it is certainly the nation among the big superpowers that is most likely to initiate a new war and, in the case of irak, can not even explain why they went to war in the first place.  a country that is this likely to be involved in wars is more likely to find itself in a position where it would consider using another atomic bomb.   #  the usa is the only nation in the history of humanity to actually use atomic weapons against an enemy.   #  from past experience alone it is the country most likely to use them again.   # from past experience alone it is the country most likely to use them again.  previous use does not mean future use.  there were several factors that went into the bombs being dropped.  i will address them with my other counter points.  the usa dropped 0 atomic bombs, not as retribution to an atomic attack.  there was no deterrent at that time.  the us was the only ones with the bomb, and even we did not know how bad the fallout would be.  mad did not yet exist and things have changed since then.  it demonstrated a lower bar for considering using them.  it really was not a low bar.  the loss of life from the bombs was less then the expected loss of life from a land invasion of japan.  the loss of life was expected to be so high that it is believed we are still giving out purple hearts that were manufactured for the japan invasion that never was URL and that is just from our side.  the bombs were terrible, but in the end they likely saved lives URL war is messy, mean, and filled with tragedy, but that does not mean these decisions were not made with care.  it is certainly the nation among the big superpowers that is most likely to initiate a new war and, as the example of irak has shown, can often not even explain why they went to war in the first place.  the us does not start new wars, so much as the us joins wars.  furthermore the reason the us regularly gets involved at this point is we have a large standing military and investments not just monetary in different regions.   #  the low effort refutation of your point is that there are much worse countries out there, such as most of the middle east or north korea.   #  on the contrary, the us is the country with the most powerful military in the world.  any other nation that does not have the weight to get what they want, but has nukes, is more likely to use those nukes because they do not have a plethora of other options.  the us has the military power to bomb any other nation into rubble, without resorting to nuclear power.  sure, the us is more likely to engage in military conflict that many other nations, but nukes are also very far down on the us  list of options.  the low effort refutation of your point is that there are much worse countries out there, such as most of the middle east or north korea.  they would be much more likely to use any atomic weapons.   #  stop interpreting my views for me and telling me what i would do because of them.   #  nobody should be trusted with a nuke and among that america is the least trustworthy because they already demonstrated they would use 0 of them when their existance was not in jeopardy.  if i was tasked with redistributing the atomic weapons, i would  redistribute  them all into the sun, not afghanistan.  stop interpreting my views for me and telling me what i would do because of them.  also, your repeated characterization of america as obama is pretty silly.  the military system present in america is the main factor that makes it untrustworthy, not its president.   #  if you were forced to reallocate them among existing nations, and you believe america is  the least trustworthy nation , then you would allocate to literally any nation before allocating to america.   # stop interpreting my views for me and telling me what i would do because of them.  if you were forced to reallocate them among existing nations, and you believe america is  the least trustworthy nation , then you would allocate to literally any nation before allocating to america.  this is an unavoidable logical inference from your op, unless you are allocating according to criteria other than trustworthiness.  furthermore, while both  al qaeda  and  obama  are mere examples offered for illustrative purposes, both are accurate examples.  in the united states, only the president can direct the use of nuclear weapons URL i am happy to entertain presidents other than obama, though.  would you rather trust al qaeda with a nuke than trust. bush ? clinton ? hell, would you rather allocate to al qaeda than  the military system present in america  ?  #  it demonstrated a lower bar for considering using them.   # it demonstrated a lower bar for considering using them.  it was to prevent a much, much greater loss of life had the mainland of japan been invaded.  estimates put it as high as 0 million casualties just on the us side.  it is conceivable that the japanese would have lost 0 0 times as many.  for comparison, 0,0 were killed as a high end estimate in the two bombings.  i think you have a basic misunderstanding of what nuclear weapons are used for.  at this point, since multiple nations have them, it is basically a fall back option when facing an existential conflict.  their use in anything less than full scale world war is basically impossible.  no other country has as much to lose as the us when it comes to stuff like that.  our entire country depends on trade and relatively good relations with the rest of the goods producing world.  using nuclear weapons outside of that context would certainly be the end of the us.  can you name another war we started where we do not know exactly why we went to war ?
i have come to this conclusion for several reasons.   the usa is the only nation in the history of humanity to actually use atomic weapons against an enemy.  from past experience alone it is the country most likely to use them again.   the main positive effect of atomic weapons, that gets brought up a lot , is mutually assured destruction.  the usa dropped 0 atomic bombs, not as retribution to an atomic attack.  it demonstrated a lower bar for considering using them.   the usa regularly starts new wars.  it is certainly the nation among the big superpowers that is most likely to initiate a new war and, in the case of irak, can not even explain why they went to war in the first place.  a country that is this likely to be involved in wars is more likely to find itself in a position where it would consider using another atomic bomb.   #  the main positive effect of atomic weapons, that gets brought up a lot , is mutually assured destruction.   #  the usa dropped 0 atomic bombs, not as retribution to an atomic attack.   # from past experience alone it is the country most likely to use them again.  previous use does not mean future use.  there were several factors that went into the bombs being dropped.  i will address them with my other counter points.  the usa dropped 0 atomic bombs, not as retribution to an atomic attack.  there was no deterrent at that time.  the us was the only ones with the bomb, and even we did not know how bad the fallout would be.  mad did not yet exist and things have changed since then.  it demonstrated a lower bar for considering using them.  it really was not a low bar.  the loss of life from the bombs was less then the expected loss of life from a land invasion of japan.  the loss of life was expected to be so high that it is believed we are still giving out purple hearts that were manufactured for the japan invasion that never was URL and that is just from our side.  the bombs were terrible, but in the end they likely saved lives URL war is messy, mean, and filled with tragedy, but that does not mean these decisions were not made with care.  it is certainly the nation among the big superpowers that is most likely to initiate a new war and, as the example of irak has shown, can often not even explain why they went to war in the first place.  the us does not start new wars, so much as the us joins wars.  furthermore the reason the us regularly gets involved at this point is we have a large standing military and investments not just monetary in different regions.   #  sure, the us is more likely to engage in military conflict that many other nations, but nukes are also very far down on the us  list of options.   #  on the contrary, the us is the country with the most powerful military in the world.  any other nation that does not have the weight to get what they want, but has nukes, is more likely to use those nukes because they do not have a plethora of other options.  the us has the military power to bomb any other nation into rubble, without resorting to nuclear power.  sure, the us is more likely to engage in military conflict that many other nations, but nukes are also very far down on the us  list of options.  the low effort refutation of your point is that there are much worse countries out there, such as most of the middle east or north korea.  they would be much more likely to use any atomic weapons.   #  nobody should be trusted with a nuke and among that america is the least trustworthy because they already demonstrated they would use 0 of them when their existance was not in jeopardy.   #  nobody should be trusted with a nuke and among that america is the least trustworthy because they already demonstrated they would use 0 of them when their existance was not in jeopardy.  if i was tasked with redistributing the atomic weapons, i would  redistribute  them all into the sun, not afghanistan.  stop interpreting my views for me and telling me what i would do because of them.  also, your repeated characterization of america as obama is pretty silly.  the military system present in america is the main factor that makes it untrustworthy, not its president.   #  stop interpreting my views for me and telling me what i would do because of them.   # stop interpreting my views for me and telling me what i would do because of them.  if you were forced to reallocate them among existing nations, and you believe america is  the least trustworthy nation , then you would allocate to literally any nation before allocating to america.  this is an unavoidable logical inference from your op, unless you are allocating according to criteria other than trustworthiness.  furthermore, while both  al qaeda  and  obama  are mere examples offered for illustrative purposes, both are accurate examples.  in the united states, only the president can direct the use of nuclear weapons URL i am happy to entertain presidents other than obama, though.  would you rather trust al qaeda with a nuke than trust. bush ? clinton ? hell, would you rather allocate to al qaeda than  the military system present in america  ?  #  i think you have a basic misunderstanding of what nuclear weapons are used for.   # it demonstrated a lower bar for considering using them.  it was to prevent a much, much greater loss of life had the mainland of japan been invaded.  estimates put it as high as 0 million casualties just on the us side.  it is conceivable that the japanese would have lost 0 0 times as many.  for comparison, 0,0 were killed as a high end estimate in the two bombings.  i think you have a basic misunderstanding of what nuclear weapons are used for.  at this point, since multiple nations have them, it is basically a fall back option when facing an existential conflict.  their use in anything less than full scale world war is basically impossible.  no other country has as much to lose as the us when it comes to stuff like that.  our entire country depends on trade and relatively good relations with the rest of the goods producing world.  using nuclear weapons outside of that context would certainly be the end of the us.  can you name another war we started where we do not know exactly why we went to war ?
i have come to this conclusion for several reasons.   the usa is the only nation in the history of humanity to actually use atomic weapons against an enemy.  from past experience alone it is the country most likely to use them again.   the main positive effect of atomic weapons, that gets brought up a lot , is mutually assured destruction.  the usa dropped 0 atomic bombs, not as retribution to an atomic attack.  it demonstrated a lower bar for considering using them.   the usa regularly starts new wars.  it is certainly the nation among the big superpowers that is most likely to initiate a new war and, in the case of irak, can not even explain why they went to war in the first place.  a country that is this likely to be involved in wars is more likely to find itself in a position where it would consider using another atomic bomb.   #  the usa dropped 0 atomic bombs, not as retribution to an atomic attack.   #  it demonstrated a lower bar for considering using them.   # from past experience alone it is the country most likely to use them again.  previous use does not mean future use.  there were several factors that went into the bombs being dropped.  i will address them with my other counter points.  the usa dropped 0 atomic bombs, not as retribution to an atomic attack.  there was no deterrent at that time.  the us was the only ones with the bomb, and even we did not know how bad the fallout would be.  mad did not yet exist and things have changed since then.  it demonstrated a lower bar for considering using them.  it really was not a low bar.  the loss of life from the bombs was less then the expected loss of life from a land invasion of japan.  the loss of life was expected to be so high that it is believed we are still giving out purple hearts that were manufactured for the japan invasion that never was URL and that is just from our side.  the bombs were terrible, but in the end they likely saved lives URL war is messy, mean, and filled with tragedy, but that does not mean these decisions were not made with care.  it is certainly the nation among the big superpowers that is most likely to initiate a new war and, as the example of irak has shown, can often not even explain why they went to war in the first place.  the us does not start new wars, so much as the us joins wars.  furthermore the reason the us regularly gets involved at this point is we have a large standing military and investments not just monetary in different regions.   #  the low effort refutation of your point is that there are much worse countries out there, such as most of the middle east or north korea.   #  on the contrary, the us is the country with the most powerful military in the world.  any other nation that does not have the weight to get what they want, but has nukes, is more likely to use those nukes because they do not have a plethora of other options.  the us has the military power to bomb any other nation into rubble, without resorting to nuclear power.  sure, the us is more likely to engage in military conflict that many other nations, but nukes are also very far down on the us  list of options.  the low effort refutation of your point is that there are much worse countries out there, such as most of the middle east or north korea.  they would be much more likely to use any atomic weapons.   #  if i was tasked with redistributing the atomic weapons, i would  redistribute  them all into the sun, not afghanistan.   #  nobody should be trusted with a nuke and among that america is the least trustworthy because they already demonstrated they would use 0 of them when their existance was not in jeopardy.  if i was tasked with redistributing the atomic weapons, i would  redistribute  them all into the sun, not afghanistan.  stop interpreting my views for me and telling me what i would do because of them.  also, your repeated characterization of america as obama is pretty silly.  the military system present in america is the main factor that makes it untrustworthy, not its president.   #  stop interpreting my views for me and telling me what i would do because of them.   # stop interpreting my views for me and telling me what i would do because of them.  if you were forced to reallocate them among existing nations, and you believe america is  the least trustworthy nation , then you would allocate to literally any nation before allocating to america.  this is an unavoidable logical inference from your op, unless you are allocating according to criteria other than trustworthiness.  furthermore, while both  al qaeda  and  obama  are mere examples offered for illustrative purposes, both are accurate examples.  in the united states, only the president can direct the use of nuclear weapons URL i am happy to entertain presidents other than obama, though.  would you rather trust al qaeda with a nuke than trust. bush ? clinton ? hell, would you rather allocate to al qaeda than  the military system present in america  ?  #  it is conceivable that the japanese would have lost 0 0 times as many.   # it demonstrated a lower bar for considering using them.  it was to prevent a much, much greater loss of life had the mainland of japan been invaded.  estimates put it as high as 0 million casualties just on the us side.  it is conceivable that the japanese would have lost 0 0 times as many.  for comparison, 0,0 were killed as a high end estimate in the two bombings.  i think you have a basic misunderstanding of what nuclear weapons are used for.  at this point, since multiple nations have them, it is basically a fall back option when facing an existential conflict.  their use in anything less than full scale world war is basically impossible.  no other country has as much to lose as the us when it comes to stuff like that.  our entire country depends on trade and relatively good relations with the rest of the goods producing world.  using nuclear weapons outside of that context would certainly be the end of the us.  can you name another war we started where we do not know exactly why we went to war ?
i have come to this conclusion for several reasons.   the usa is the only nation in the history of humanity to actually use atomic weapons against an enemy.  from past experience alone it is the country most likely to use them again.   the main positive effect of atomic weapons, that gets brought up a lot , is mutually assured destruction.  the usa dropped 0 atomic bombs, not as retribution to an atomic attack.  it demonstrated a lower bar for considering using them.   the usa regularly starts new wars.  it is certainly the nation among the big superpowers that is most likely to initiate a new war and, in the case of irak, can not even explain why they went to war in the first place.  a country that is this likely to be involved in wars is more likely to find itself in a position where it would consider using another atomic bomb.   #  the usa is the only nation in the history of humanity to actually use atomic weapons against an enemy.   #  from past experience alone it is the country most likely to use them again.   # from past experience alone it is the country most likely to use them again.  in one, very extraordinary conflict, against one nation.  i do not think that really sets the table for future nuclear weapon use.  the usa dropped 0 atomic bombs, not as retribution to an atomic attack.  it demonstrated a lower bar for considering using them.  the usa dropped atomic weapons on a nation that had absolutely no desire to surrender in a conflict it  had very clearly lost, and been losing for several years  and had time and again demonstrated  a willingness to literally fight to the death .  the alternative to the nagasaki and hiroshima bombings would have been perpetual conventional bombings of virtually every city in japan followed by a land invasion.  additionally, we  know  that after hiroshima the united states announced it would unleash another atomic weapon if japan did not surrender immediately.  the japanese  knew  this was going to happen, but surmised that the us probably only had 0 or 0 additional bombs,  and just decided to weather that storm instead .  please consider the historical context of these attacks, as the  bar  as you call it, was set at  we are japan, and we will fight you until you kill every single last one of us, because fuck you that is why.   that was the bar.  a nation state completely unwilling to simply face the facts that they had very clearly lost a war they started.  it is certainly the nation among the big superpowers that is most likely to initiate a new war and, in the case of irak, can not even explain why they went to war in the first place.  a country that is this likely to be involved in wars is more likely to find itself in a position where it would consider using another atomic bomb.  highly unlikely.  general macarthur wanted to use nuclear weapons during the korean war, and truman the very same president that authorized nuclear weapon use in ww0, had macarthur removed from command.  vietnam was a highly contentious conflict and again the us abstained.  so and so forth with many other conflicts.  the reality is that nuclear weapons are just very unwieldy for modern conflicts: they do too much damage and radiation fallout ruins everything.  also mutually assured destruction is only a viable theory when  both sides  have nuclear weapons.  thus far since ww0 we have not actively been engaged in open conflict with a nuclear armed nation.  despite the united states having the largest, and thus most disposable, nuclear arsenal.  despite having a myriad of weapons platforms to deliver them.  despite having the political and military clout to  probably get away with it.  the usa has shown itself more than capable of restraint.  slightly off topic, but pakistan is my bet as the least trustworthy nation to possess nuclear weapons, followed by india and north korea.   #  the us has the military power to bomb any other nation into rubble, without resorting to nuclear power.   #  on the contrary, the us is the country with the most powerful military in the world.  any other nation that does not have the weight to get what they want, but has nukes, is more likely to use those nukes because they do not have a plethora of other options.  the us has the military power to bomb any other nation into rubble, without resorting to nuclear power.  sure, the us is more likely to engage in military conflict that many other nations, but nukes are also very far down on the us  list of options.  the low effort refutation of your point is that there are much worse countries out there, such as most of the middle east or north korea.  they would be much more likely to use any atomic weapons.   #  also, your repeated characterization of america as obama is pretty silly.   #  nobody should be trusted with a nuke and among that america is the least trustworthy because they already demonstrated they would use 0 of them when their existance was not in jeopardy.  if i was tasked with redistributing the atomic weapons, i would  redistribute  them all into the sun, not afghanistan.  stop interpreting my views for me and telling me what i would do because of them.  also, your repeated characterization of america as obama is pretty silly.  the military system present in america is the main factor that makes it untrustworthy, not its president.   #  furthermore, while both  al qaeda  and  obama  are mere examples offered for illustrative purposes, both are accurate examples.   # stop interpreting my views for me and telling me what i would do because of them.  if you were forced to reallocate them among existing nations, and you believe america is  the least trustworthy nation , then you would allocate to literally any nation before allocating to america.  this is an unavoidable logical inference from your op, unless you are allocating according to criteria other than trustworthiness.  furthermore, while both  al qaeda  and  obama  are mere examples offered for illustrative purposes, both are accurate examples.  in the united states, only the president can direct the use of nuclear weapons URL i am happy to entertain presidents other than obama, though.  would you rather trust al qaeda with a nuke than trust. bush ? clinton ? hell, would you rather allocate to al qaeda than  the military system present in america  ?  #  i think you have a basic misunderstanding of what nuclear weapons are used for.   # it demonstrated a lower bar for considering using them.  it was to prevent a much, much greater loss of life had the mainland of japan been invaded.  estimates put it as high as 0 million casualties just on the us side.  it is conceivable that the japanese would have lost 0 0 times as many.  for comparison, 0,0 were killed as a high end estimate in the two bombings.  i think you have a basic misunderstanding of what nuclear weapons are used for.  at this point, since multiple nations have them, it is basically a fall back option when facing an existential conflict.  their use in anything less than full scale world war is basically impossible.  no other country has as much to lose as the us when it comes to stuff like that.  our entire country depends on trade and relatively good relations with the rest of the goods producing world.  using nuclear weapons outside of that context would certainly be the end of the us.  can you name another war we started where we do not know exactly why we went to war ?
i have come to this conclusion for several reasons.   the usa is the only nation in the history of humanity to actually use atomic weapons against an enemy.  from past experience alone it is the country most likely to use them again.   the main positive effect of atomic weapons, that gets brought up a lot , is mutually assured destruction.  the usa dropped 0 atomic bombs, not as retribution to an atomic attack.  it demonstrated a lower bar for considering using them.   the usa regularly starts new wars.  it is certainly the nation among the big superpowers that is most likely to initiate a new war and, in the case of irak, can not even explain why they went to war in the first place.  a country that is this likely to be involved in wars is more likely to find itself in a position where it would consider using another atomic bomb.   #  the main positive effect of atomic weapons, that gets brought up a lot , is mutually assured destruction.   #  the usa dropped 0 atomic bombs, not as retribution to an atomic attack.   # from past experience alone it is the country most likely to use them again.  in one, very extraordinary conflict, against one nation.  i do not think that really sets the table for future nuclear weapon use.  the usa dropped 0 atomic bombs, not as retribution to an atomic attack.  it demonstrated a lower bar for considering using them.  the usa dropped atomic weapons on a nation that had absolutely no desire to surrender in a conflict it  had very clearly lost, and been losing for several years  and had time and again demonstrated  a willingness to literally fight to the death .  the alternative to the nagasaki and hiroshima bombings would have been perpetual conventional bombings of virtually every city in japan followed by a land invasion.  additionally, we  know  that after hiroshima the united states announced it would unleash another atomic weapon if japan did not surrender immediately.  the japanese  knew  this was going to happen, but surmised that the us probably only had 0 or 0 additional bombs,  and just decided to weather that storm instead .  please consider the historical context of these attacks, as the  bar  as you call it, was set at  we are japan, and we will fight you until you kill every single last one of us, because fuck you that is why.   that was the bar.  a nation state completely unwilling to simply face the facts that they had very clearly lost a war they started.  it is certainly the nation among the big superpowers that is most likely to initiate a new war and, in the case of irak, can not even explain why they went to war in the first place.  a country that is this likely to be involved in wars is more likely to find itself in a position where it would consider using another atomic bomb.  highly unlikely.  general macarthur wanted to use nuclear weapons during the korean war, and truman the very same president that authorized nuclear weapon use in ww0, had macarthur removed from command.  vietnam was a highly contentious conflict and again the us abstained.  so and so forth with many other conflicts.  the reality is that nuclear weapons are just very unwieldy for modern conflicts: they do too much damage and radiation fallout ruins everything.  also mutually assured destruction is only a viable theory when  both sides  have nuclear weapons.  thus far since ww0 we have not actively been engaged in open conflict with a nuclear armed nation.  despite the united states having the largest, and thus most disposable, nuclear arsenal.  despite having a myriad of weapons platforms to deliver them.  despite having the political and military clout to  probably get away with it.  the usa has shown itself more than capable of restraint.  slightly off topic, but pakistan is my bet as the least trustworthy nation to possess nuclear weapons, followed by india and north korea.   #  the us has the military power to bomb any other nation into rubble, without resorting to nuclear power.   #  on the contrary, the us is the country with the most powerful military in the world.  any other nation that does not have the weight to get what they want, but has nukes, is more likely to use those nukes because they do not have a plethora of other options.  the us has the military power to bomb any other nation into rubble, without resorting to nuclear power.  sure, the us is more likely to engage in military conflict that many other nations, but nukes are also very far down on the us  list of options.  the low effort refutation of your point is that there are much worse countries out there, such as most of the middle east or north korea.  they would be much more likely to use any atomic weapons.   #  if i was tasked with redistributing the atomic weapons, i would  redistribute  them all into the sun, not afghanistan.   #  nobody should be trusted with a nuke and among that america is the least trustworthy because they already demonstrated they would use 0 of them when their existance was not in jeopardy.  if i was tasked with redistributing the atomic weapons, i would  redistribute  them all into the sun, not afghanistan.  stop interpreting my views for me and telling me what i would do because of them.  also, your repeated characterization of america as obama is pretty silly.  the military system present in america is the main factor that makes it untrustworthy, not its president.   #  this is an unavoidable logical inference from your op, unless you are allocating according to criteria other than trustworthiness.   # stop interpreting my views for me and telling me what i would do because of them.  if you were forced to reallocate them among existing nations, and you believe america is  the least trustworthy nation , then you would allocate to literally any nation before allocating to america.  this is an unavoidable logical inference from your op, unless you are allocating according to criteria other than trustworthiness.  furthermore, while both  al qaeda  and  obama  are mere examples offered for illustrative purposes, both are accurate examples.  in the united states, only the president can direct the use of nuclear weapons URL i am happy to entertain presidents other than obama, though.  would you rather trust al qaeda with a nuke than trust. bush ? clinton ? hell, would you rather allocate to al qaeda than  the military system present in america  ?  #  our entire country depends on trade and relatively good relations with the rest of the goods producing world.   # it demonstrated a lower bar for considering using them.  it was to prevent a much, much greater loss of life had the mainland of japan been invaded.  estimates put it as high as 0 million casualties just on the us side.  it is conceivable that the japanese would have lost 0 0 times as many.  for comparison, 0,0 were killed as a high end estimate in the two bombings.  i think you have a basic misunderstanding of what nuclear weapons are used for.  at this point, since multiple nations have them, it is basically a fall back option when facing an existential conflict.  their use in anything less than full scale world war is basically impossible.  no other country has as much to lose as the us when it comes to stuff like that.  our entire country depends on trade and relatively good relations with the rest of the goods producing world.  using nuclear weapons outside of that context would certainly be the end of the us.  can you name another war we started where we do not know exactly why we went to war ?
i had a conversation with a friend a few weeks ago, where i spoke of having children.  his response that was that it was selfish and actually quite brutal due to the energy that my offspring would consume in it is lifetime.  there are simply other ways to solve the environmental problems we currently have.  population control is a completely reactive, knee jerk solution.  slowing down consumerism by giving corporations less power than they already have would be a good start.  the big corporates are the ones that are destroying parts of the planet to find more energy and consuming mass amounts of energy to manufacture products.  due to globalisation, the problem we have nowadays is that these corporations are so big that its hard to hold individuals accountable and and they are so powerful that it is hard for the masses to stand up to them.  because a lot of the time we think we have a reliance on what they are providing.  change our attitude as individuals.  we need to be more conscious in regards to how we affect the our ecosystems and the planet as a whole.  we rarely think about what had to be done to create the plastic packaging from the food we eat, or what has to be done to power our homes.  there needs to be more awareness here.  too often i hear people will not recycle because other countries do not and they do not see the point.  it is also hard to convince individuals to take this attitude and not leave their lights on when they go out at night when las vegas is constantly lit like a christmas tree.  it is almost like we need a substantial event to take place before it is indeed too late, the energy issue is starting to pick up traction but we need to move quicker.  it absolutely must be on top of every political agenda of every government in the world.  which brings me to my last point, a friend once questioned why people in third world countries mainly in africa would continue to have children and that they needed to be educated and discouraged from this as they are contributing to the exponential population growth we are currently enduring.  developed countries consume a lot more than developing countries.  some of you may argue that countries with larger populations need more energy, i ague back that indonesia is population is only 0 less than that of the united states.  however the consumption of the united states is 0 more than indonesia.  i say again, the problem is not the size of the population just the actions we are currently carrying out.  there are enough square miles for every human being on this planet ten times over.  lastly, i do think there is some legitimacy to this claim.  but more people do not necessarily mean more energy consumption.  i do not have any empirical evidence and will try to get some but i can bet a family of 0 in east africa consume a lot less than your average family of 0 in the united states.   #  i say again, the problem is not the size of the population just the actions we are currently carrying out.   #  there are enough square miles for every human being on this planet ten times over.   #  population control is not a reactive, knee jerk solution.  the idea has been out there since thomas malthus URL writings on the matter, which were written when the world had  just  one billion people.  china implemented population controls on a massive scale some decades ago and it has worked spectacularly to limit population.  while it led to some social issues with regards to male/female ratio, the alternative and its toll on the environment is likely to have been worse.  you say global warming can be checked by essentially  checking corporations .  this is a good idea but corporations are only a vehicle for consumer demand not that they do not create it by themselves with marketing, etc .  stringent controls on corporations in the end only means less things for consumers to have.  so it all ends up at personal consumption anyway.  while i am not fully versed in how much regulation you would need to start reversing global warming, i know for sure that means taking away every single fancy technological toy and convenience we have, rebuilding cities towards a much more compact layout URL switching towards predominantly vegetarian diets, etc.  would be merely the start of what we would need to do globally to have an impact.  energy is only one of the issues brought forward against overpopulation.  food shortage and water shortage cycles will come to define society in the next 0 years because historically, every single damn time we have had major agricultural revolutions and breakthroughs, the new supplies are simply pushed to their limits because people keep having kids until famine/drought and the limitations of supply culls their population for them in a violent manner.  there is a drought in california.  there is also political conflict brewing in the se asia region for control over the kashmir glaciers they supply an extremely large portion of india/pakistan is water .  there is historically been a lot of conflict over the nile caused by its damming that restricted water supply to those downstream.  there are likely hundreds of conflicts worldwide rooted in geography and sustaining too many people.  would these conflicts be as serious as they are if we did not greedily pump out as many children as can be fed globally ? let me lay out the problems that i think overpopulation brings: it is a multiplier effect for natural resource shortages and ecological destruction it constantly pushes against the limits of what we can supply, and in times of great distress and shortages leads to massive deaths being  green  can mitigate these factors but only at a resource cost that is massively larger than simply lowering the population down to a sustainable size.  there are enough square miles for every human being on this planet ten times over.  this sounds like an unsupported, vague anecdotal assertion, unless you mean like actually forcing people to live shoulder to shoulder or something.  a team of estimators made the guess of 0 to 0 billion people being the optimal world population URL  #  this does not change the fact that in any given country, adding more people will add more energy consumption.   #  so some of the solutions you mentioned would indeed help mitigate climate change, but that does not mean limiting population growth is not an important thing, because it is.  when combating something as difficult as this, we have to employ many different possible solutions.  i would encourage you to check out this article on population growth and why it is concerning: URL   but more people do not necessarily mean more energy consumption.  i do not have any empirical evidence and will try to get some but i can bet a family of 0 in east africa consume a lot less than your average family of 0 in the united states.  this does not change the fact that in any given country, adding more people will add more energy consumption.  i do not agree with your friend that you are being selfish by having children or that we should all stop doing it because of climate change, but there is certainly a strong argument for limiting population growth to help the environment.  it is not a  knee jerk  solution, it is very legitimate.   #  large parts of the infrastructure will be left by the wayside.   # it also created the most lopsided society in history.  in 0 years, china is population will decline hard.  large parts of the infrastructure will be left by the wayside.  the little social services there are today will be slashed as less young people need to pay for many more older ones.  i am not saying population increase is the way to go.  i am saying that shrinking populations will cause problems.  and these problems will hit hard.  they will be economical, social and political.  living in the more population stable countries will be much  much  better than living in china.  people will notice and leave in droves.  and even though it is population will decline, it will still be large when the mass migrations begin.  this in turn will make the more stable regions more nationalistic and xenophobic.  it is not going to be pretty.   #  basically, this active population control in anywhere but select countries precludes a solution to a problem different than the one we face.   # does not that kinda prove the point through ? the world hit one billion and people thought the world would end as we know it.  now we have managed to 0 billion and the food supply is better than it is ever been.  also do you happen to have something a bit more recent that the estimate from 0 ? it is still an interesting link, but it would be a bit more convincing if it took into account modern advancements and changes.  we actually have more than enough food to feed everyone URL on earth.  the problem is distribution.  conflict and ecconomic situations are the root reasons people go hungry.  this is why abstaining from having children in a developed country is an overreaction.  it is assumes a solution to a problem very different than the one we are facing.  population control makes sense for countries like india and china, since the  local  birth rates were/are inevitably going to cause problems.  but extrapolating that to the usa and other western countries does not make sense when a majority already have a birth rate lower than the replacement rate.  URL 0 is the number that needs to be met to achieve a static population.  anything below indicates a declining population.  this number is also a bit higher than the native rate, as it takes into account immigrants.  this is an important distinction as the fertility rates for second generation immigrants falls to the same as the original population.  basically, this active population control in anywhere but select countries precludes a solution to a problem different than the one we face.  in addition, it neglects the fact that the result declining population already happens naturally as part of industrialization.  see the demographic tranistion URL for more information.   #  reducing birth rates in developed countries is still a solution to the problems of overpopulation.   #  the only reason the world has not ended yet is because agricultural revolutions outpaced the rate at which humans reproduce.  gambling the fate of the world is societies on unknown technologies is not the safe way to do things.  in alternate universes, this hubris was probably was actually punished with famine and drought.  the study is from 0, by the way.  reducing birth rates in developed countries is still a solution to the problems of overpopulation.  it will primarily let developed nations take in more immigrants which a study recently proved to have a net positive effect on the economy , moving labor from overpopulated areas to areas with high demand for it.  i do not subscribe to any  the white race is dying out  crap not saying you are so i do not particularly care where the population comes from, and migration seem to be a good way to alleviate strain on resources in critical areas.  so every country has a part to play, and i do not think developed countries can be excluded.  birth rates may be declining but there is still a long way to go to the threshold of an ecologically sustainable population.
specifically with the android mobile os and recent hacks like this URL one, once a vulnerability has been found and reported, companies should be required to publish security patches in a prompt manner.  google is very fond of wringing their hands and saying how they patched their upstream os, but it is up to device manufacturers and carriers to roll their own releases.  however, all too often, patched releases do not make it to older phone/tablet models for months if ever after it has been fixed.  since most carriers lock their phone os, it is literally not possible to legally patch your phone due to the restrictions of the dmca, leaving a customer with only one legal option buy a new phone.  yes, i know about rooting a phone, but if you have to violate a law to receive security patches, there is a problem more and more of our personal data and digital lives lives on our phones.  people use their phone for banking, to receive text verification of accounts, to pay for transactions, and any number of other sensitive communication.  the frequent mantra from industry apologists is  companies do not get paid for work done on phones they have already sold, they have already moved on to newer things , except that every industry is responsible for issuing recall notices if it is later found that the product has safety issues.  somehow, software has remained free of recall requirements, but maybe it is time to open up liability for unpatched security flaws.  things that might change my view:   facts that most manufacturers and carriers do support security updates within a reasonable timeframe   existence of legal liability or recall requirements for device / software manufacturers   demonstration that this would be infeasable  #  somehow, software has remained free of recall requirements, but maybe it is time to open up liability for unpatched security flaws.   #  the software on a phone does not pose a threat to safety.   # first, most carriers do not lock the boot loader, which means you can install a third party operating system on the phone.  it really depends on the carrier   manufacturer.  second, it is accepted that rooting  your own phone  does not violate the dmca, as you are not using it to infringe on a copyright.  the software on a phone does not pose a threat to safety.  if a software flaw was causing batteries to overheat and explode, that is something that should be recalled.  there is no  safety  requirement that software be secure and free from flaws.   #  if i find a hack for the nokia 0, does nokia have to somehow release a patch for anyone still using their mid 0s burner ?  #  0.  how far back do companies have to go ? if i find a hack for the nokia 0, does nokia have to somehow release a patch for anyone still using their mid 0s burner ? 0.  there already is a tort of negligence.  if you can show that the device manufacturer/software company was negligent, you can sue them.  if there are a lot of people in your boat, you can bring a class action.  the problem with this is the need to show damages.  you can only sue for the demonstrable economic harm you have suffered.  0.  the requirement for recalls only extends to life and safety issues.  i could see requiring this of car manufacturers and jeep just did a recall when a 0 day exploit was found on their cars , but your phone getting hacked is not a threat to human life.  0.  what about open source software ? who is liable then ?  #  if that company is using open source software, then once a vulnerability has been reported, their developers can patch and update their product at will even if the software maintainers have gone awol.   # if i find a hack for the nokia 0, does nokia have to somehow release a patch for anyone still using their mid 0s burner ? that is one thing i struggle with certainly anyone who is still on contract with the phone should be supported with software updates.  beyond that gets a little fuzzier since consumer software ages at a relatively rapid rate.  i would say at least 0 years of support from the last new shipment of that model.  if you can show that the device manufacturer/software company was negligent, you can sue them.  if there are a lot of people in your boat, you can bring a class action.  the problem with this is the need to show damages.  you can only sue for the demonstrable economic harm you have suffered.  i am aware of that, but also many tos and eulas have restricted the use of class action suits and added mandatory arbitration clauses.  seeing as most peoples  damages are some leaked nude selfies, and some inconvenience while they get credit cards replaced, likely, the only players with significant damages and resources would be credit card issuers and banks if/when people is financial information is cracked.  however, it is a very difficult burden of proof to show that these 0 million card numbers were hacked due to this particular bug in these particular models of phone.  i could see requiring this of car manufacturers and jeep just did a recall when a 0 day exploit was found on their cars , but your phone getting hacked is not a threat to human life.  it is not necessarily a threat to life, but it is a known defective and vulnerable product at that point.  who is liable then ? if it was a product sold to a customer by a company, then the company who sold the product.  if that company is using open source software, then once a vulnerability has been reported, their developers can patch and update their product at will even if the software maintainers have gone awol.  if it is software that an end user has themselves taken and installed, it is their own liability, but when it is factory installed software that you are not legally allowed to alter in any way, they take liability.   #  there is a strong case for declaring such clauses unconscionable or unenforceable in respect to contracts of adhesion.   # beyond that gets a little fuzzier since consumer software ages at a relatively rapid rate.  i would say at least 0 years of support from the last new shipment of that model.  of that model, or of that software ? if apple releases ios 0 and starts shipping iphone 0ses with it, does that reset the clock on an iphone 0s sold in 0 with ios 0 or 0 ? there is a strong case for declaring such clauses unconscionable or unenforceable in respect to contracts of adhesion.  and that would be an effective consumer protection over a large range of industries.  i think that, more than a software specific tort, is where you might want to angle.  right, point being that the defect is  not as important  as a threat to life.  if that company is using open source software, then once a vulnerability has been reported, their developers can patch and update their product at will even if the software maintainers have gone awol.  this seems quite burdensome.  you are basically saying any company which sells anything with integrated software must have staff who are capable of patching that software, even if it is an entirely off the shelf product.   #  i agree, but unfortunately legislatures and the courts have not been terribly favorable at striking down these clauses.   # if apple releases ios 0 and starts shipping iphone 0ses with it, does that reset the clock on an iphone 0s sold in 0 with ios 0 or 0 ? yes provided that the iphone 0s circa 0 is capable of being upgraded to ios 0.  it is fine to say that we are only publishing security fixes in our current version of the os so long as the hardware supports running the os.  if, however, apple said for example, i know this is not actually the case that the 0c would not support ios 0, it has to stay on ios 0, then apple would need to continue security patching ios 0 until at least 0 years after the last 0c was sold.  and that would be an effective consumer protection over a large range of industries.  i think that, more than a software specific tort, is where you might want to angle.  i agree, but unfortunately legislatures and the courts have not been terribly favorable at striking down these clauses.  i am not enough of even an armchair lawyer to really judge one way or another.  you are basically saying any company which sells anything with integrated software must have staff who are capable of patching that software, even if it is an entirely off the shelf product.  that is one of the key points of  free  software it is free as in speech, not free as in beer.  if you as a company do not have the skills or expertise to maintain a library, maybe you should not be using it, or you should pay someone else to maintain it.  otherwise, you are simply a free loader off of the goodwill of the community.  most of the popular open source packages have a variety of companies who will provide support for that package for a price.  that is exactly how all of the problems with openssl among other things have come to pass companies use the open source software but refuse to contribute to the maintenance of the code despite it being an integral part to their products.  for a while, these things can tick along supported by some of the more generous tech companies and hobbyists, but eventually something breaks and nobody is holding the bag.
let me preface this by saying that i consider myself socially liberal, and i actually agree with  most  sjw talking points.  like other left leaning movements, it seems to have good intentions, but i actually think it does more to silence non privileged voices than it does to encourage education, empowerment, progress, or harmony.  a college education or at the very least, the internet and plenty of time on one is hands seems to be a standard cost of entry for dialogue with a typical sjw.  dialogue that consists of terms and concepts such as: patriarchy, heteronormativity, trans exclusionary radical feminist terf , cisgendered, gender spectrum, gentrification, respectability politics, privilege, oppression, identity, assimilation, queer, otherkin, institutionalization, marginalization, etc. i could keep going.  these are all terms that i have just pulled directly from sjw tumblr pages/comments.  some are more easily defined than others, but there are still layers to each concept such as privilege or oppression that people may have a difficult time grasping if it was the first time they have been exposed to these ideas.  honestly, i have a master is, and the first time this language was thrown my way, i felt dumb for not understanding some of it.  how might someone who could only afford a high school education feel ? i get that they want to use intelligent, specific language to explain some concepts that are difficult to put into words, but how is someone who does not have the privilege of a college education, or at least the time to sit down and learn these concepts, expected to engage in dialogue that sounds like it is spoken by a women is studies textbook ? it can be intimidating, and no one likes to have a conversation that makes them feel stupid.  how is this use of privileged language encouraging those who are economically and educationally marginalized to participate ? i do not want to generalize, but from my own experience, a majority of sjws enjoy doing what they do because they like winning arguments.  it is not about empowering and educating.  in the face of ignorance, sjws tend to belittle and insult, rather than educate or allow for a balance dialogue.  the attitude is,  oh, you are ignorant ? let me make you feel  more  ignorant by insulting you and using words you do not understand.   again, i am in favor of most ideas sjws tend to champion. transgender rights, blacklivesmatter, feminism, etc.  i just think they are going about it in a way that turns people off, because they are so concerned with being able to flex their knowledge and with shutting down those who might disagree with their ideas the tiniest bit.   #  a college education or at the very least, the internet and plenty of time on one is hands seems to be a standard cost of entry for dialogue with a typical sjw.   #  well, in principle, why should not it ?  #  first off, i agree with you in part i do think we can do a lot to be more accessible.  but i think you swing too far the other way, and i would like to play half devil is advocate to some of your points.  well, in principle, why should not it ? if you want to discuss the details of a subject, it is not unreasonable to be expected to be familiar with its basic terminology.  it is like saying  why ca not i discuss physics without knowing what momentum is ?   see above it does not seem unreasonable to ask someone to be familiar with the terminology if they want to argue a position.  how is this use of privileged language encouraging those who are economically and educationally marginalized to participate ? i do not think it is.  but ca not that be separate ? you can have to use the analogy of hard sciences again rigorous scientific journals as well as a  pop sci  version for the layman.  well, i ca not speak for everyone, but that is a label i get tarred with on a fairly regular basis and that is not why i do what i do.  i do what i do because i have seen a whole lot of people myself included get hurt very badly in the name of things that are not even true.  i have a strong voice and good arguments, and i want to represent us well.  the attitude is,  oh, you are ignorant ? let me make you feel more ignorant by insulting you and using words you do not understand.   insofar as that is true i will agree it is idiotic.   #  the way it is always been with social activism is that there is a sort of  ivory tower  side and a more  hands on  side to it.   #  academia has always been like that.  mind you, a lot of  sjw is  are college students, they are used to this style of talk about social issues and mimic it on tumblr.  the way it is always been with social activism is that there is a sort of  ivory tower  side and a more  hands on  side to it.  the latter organizes youth groups, teaches people about racism on their local school or community center, it organizes things like pride parades and history month celebrations.  the former is deliberately all talk, its efforts go towards identifying and naming the phenomenons that surround the injustice and discussing solutions.  this is not a new thing at all, take socialism for example, you had the academic elite discussing about concepts with big words and citations to lofty philosophers, there was the side that came in contact with people and riled them up or informed them.  also take how sociology professors talk about microagressions and mental colonization, while black advocacy groups take those ideas and rather than preaching about them go into action to stop them.  none of them does more than the other, they need each other to be effective and thorough.  i think there are several problems with how  sjw is  are handling activism, but their academic or pseudo academic approach is not it.  refusing to educate others is regressive and a problem, yes of course, but the fact that advocacy includes complicated concepts and words is a nonissue.   #  i would compare it to ows, a movement whose ideas i also agreed with.   #    very good points; i can see how there are multiple sides to this movement, and admittedly, the only one i am familiar with is the academic side that argues on the internet.  however, i do think that the movement as a whole is mostly bark, little bite.  i would compare it to ows, a movement whose ideas i also agreed with.  they knew what they wanted to achieve, but lacked leadership a  leaderless movement  is doomed from the start, imo and a clear plan, so it was not productive.  however, at least they were getting out in the real world and engaging in activism.  i would like to hear more about education and hands on activism among  sjws  again, for lack of a better term .   #  0 they had wiped out $0 million in student loans this way.   #  occupy wall street and the occupy movement in general was not as ineffectual as many people seem to assume.  there is powerful symbolism in the movement.  much more so than your run of the mill street protest or march, the idea of camping out on wall st.  captured the public imagination and held it for several years.  we are still talking about it.  a powerful, clear symbol can crystallize public action.  the occupy movement also has made or led to concrete steps and change.  the organizers have been promoting a  community bill of rights  URL which is a specific set of laws and amendments intended to reverse decisions like  citizens united  and make it so the wealthy have to obey the same laws as everyone else.  occupy groups are pushing for these legal changes at the city, state and federal level.  occupy homes URL specifically targets banks threatening foreclosure unfairly, aiming both to rescue homeowners and to change mortgage lending policy in that state and nationwide.  strike debt URL an ows offshoot, is a group that targets unfair/excessive lending practices.  one of their main techniques is to buy loans on the loan auction market, and then forgive the borrower is debt.  as of sept.  0 they had wiped out $0 million in student loans this way.  there are a number of other specific policy proposals developed by offshoots of the occupy movement, like concrete plans for a  community banking  system,  occupy sandy  created a system for helping communities hit by disasters who get bypassed by fema and state aid agencies, etc.   #  it is, however, an effective, memorable, provocative gesture that has gotten people to consider policy changes they might not otherwise have considered.   #  the strike debt and  rolling jubilee  organizers themselves acknowledge that they are only able to account for a minuscule portion of student debt.  but, they say, buying debt only to forgive it is an extraordinary act that generates publicity both for the problem of excess student debt, and for the shadowy world of credit collections, debt auctions and the like.  did nonspecialists even realize that debt can be bought for pennies on the dollar on secondary markets before they came along ? in other words, they acknowledge that it is little more than a symbolic gesture at this point.  it is, however, an effective, memorable, provocative gesture that has gotten people to consider policy changes they might not otherwise have considered.
let me preface this by saying that i consider myself socially liberal, and i actually agree with  most  sjw talking points.  like other left leaning movements, it seems to have good intentions, but i actually think it does more to silence non privileged voices than it does to encourage education, empowerment, progress, or harmony.  a college education or at the very least, the internet and plenty of time on one is hands seems to be a standard cost of entry for dialogue with a typical sjw.  dialogue that consists of terms and concepts such as: patriarchy, heteronormativity, trans exclusionary radical feminist terf , cisgendered, gender spectrum, gentrification, respectability politics, privilege, oppression, identity, assimilation, queer, otherkin, institutionalization, marginalization, etc. i could keep going.  these are all terms that i have just pulled directly from sjw tumblr pages/comments.  some are more easily defined than others, but there are still layers to each concept such as privilege or oppression that people may have a difficult time grasping if it was the first time they have been exposed to these ideas.  honestly, i have a master is, and the first time this language was thrown my way, i felt dumb for not understanding some of it.  how might someone who could only afford a high school education feel ? i get that they want to use intelligent, specific language to explain some concepts that are difficult to put into words, but how is someone who does not have the privilege of a college education, or at least the time to sit down and learn these concepts, expected to engage in dialogue that sounds like it is spoken by a women is studies textbook ? it can be intimidating, and no one likes to have a conversation that makes them feel stupid.  how is this use of privileged language encouraging those who are economically and educationally marginalized to participate ? i do not want to generalize, but from my own experience, a majority of sjws enjoy doing what they do because they like winning arguments.  it is not about empowering and educating.  in the face of ignorance, sjws tend to belittle and insult, rather than educate or allow for a balance dialogue.  the attitude is,  oh, you are ignorant ? let me make you feel  more  ignorant by insulting you and using words you do not understand.   again, i am in favor of most ideas sjws tend to champion. transgender rights, blacklivesmatter, feminism, etc.  i just think they are going about it in a way that turns people off, because they are so concerned with being able to flex their knowledge and with shutting down those who might disagree with their ideas the tiniest bit.   #  but how is someone who does not have the privilege of a college education, or at least the time to sit down and learn these concepts, expected to engage in dialogue that sounds like it is spoken by a women is studies textbook ?  #  see above it does not seem unreasonable to ask someone to be familiar with the terminology if they want to argue a position.   #  first off, i agree with you in part i do think we can do a lot to be more accessible.  but i think you swing too far the other way, and i would like to play half devil is advocate to some of your points.  well, in principle, why should not it ? if you want to discuss the details of a subject, it is not unreasonable to be expected to be familiar with its basic terminology.  it is like saying  why ca not i discuss physics without knowing what momentum is ?   see above it does not seem unreasonable to ask someone to be familiar with the terminology if they want to argue a position.  how is this use of privileged language encouraging those who are economically and educationally marginalized to participate ? i do not think it is.  but ca not that be separate ? you can have to use the analogy of hard sciences again rigorous scientific journals as well as a  pop sci  version for the layman.  well, i ca not speak for everyone, but that is a label i get tarred with on a fairly regular basis and that is not why i do what i do.  i do what i do because i have seen a whole lot of people myself included get hurt very badly in the name of things that are not even true.  i have a strong voice and good arguments, and i want to represent us well.  the attitude is,  oh, you are ignorant ? let me make you feel more ignorant by insulting you and using words you do not understand.   insofar as that is true i will agree it is idiotic.   #  refusing to educate others is regressive and a problem, yes of course, but the fact that advocacy includes complicated concepts and words is a nonissue.   #  academia has always been like that.  mind you, a lot of  sjw is  are college students, they are used to this style of talk about social issues and mimic it on tumblr.  the way it is always been with social activism is that there is a sort of  ivory tower  side and a more  hands on  side to it.  the latter organizes youth groups, teaches people about racism on their local school or community center, it organizes things like pride parades and history month celebrations.  the former is deliberately all talk, its efforts go towards identifying and naming the phenomenons that surround the injustice and discussing solutions.  this is not a new thing at all, take socialism for example, you had the academic elite discussing about concepts with big words and citations to lofty philosophers, there was the side that came in contact with people and riled them up or informed them.  also take how sociology professors talk about microagressions and mental colonization, while black advocacy groups take those ideas and rather than preaching about them go into action to stop them.  none of them does more than the other, they need each other to be effective and thorough.  i think there are several problems with how  sjw is  are handling activism, but their academic or pseudo academic approach is not it.  refusing to educate others is regressive and a problem, yes of course, but the fact that advocacy includes complicated concepts and words is a nonissue.   #  however, i do think that the movement as a whole is mostly bark, little bite.   #    very good points; i can see how there are multiple sides to this movement, and admittedly, the only one i am familiar with is the academic side that argues on the internet.  however, i do think that the movement as a whole is mostly bark, little bite.  i would compare it to ows, a movement whose ideas i also agreed with.  they knew what they wanted to achieve, but lacked leadership a  leaderless movement  is doomed from the start, imo and a clear plan, so it was not productive.  however, at least they were getting out in the real world and engaging in activism.  i would like to hear more about education and hands on activism among  sjws  again, for lack of a better term .   #  occupy groups are pushing for these legal changes at the city, state and federal level.   #  occupy wall street and the occupy movement in general was not as ineffectual as many people seem to assume.  there is powerful symbolism in the movement.  much more so than your run of the mill street protest or march, the idea of camping out on wall st.  captured the public imagination and held it for several years.  we are still talking about it.  a powerful, clear symbol can crystallize public action.  the occupy movement also has made or led to concrete steps and change.  the organizers have been promoting a  community bill of rights  URL which is a specific set of laws and amendments intended to reverse decisions like  citizens united  and make it so the wealthy have to obey the same laws as everyone else.  occupy groups are pushing for these legal changes at the city, state and federal level.  occupy homes URL specifically targets banks threatening foreclosure unfairly, aiming both to rescue homeowners and to change mortgage lending policy in that state and nationwide.  strike debt URL an ows offshoot, is a group that targets unfair/excessive lending practices.  one of their main techniques is to buy loans on the loan auction market, and then forgive the borrower is debt.  as of sept.  0 they had wiped out $0 million in student loans this way.  there are a number of other specific policy proposals developed by offshoots of the occupy movement, like concrete plans for a  community banking  system,  occupy sandy  created a system for helping communities hit by disasters who get bypassed by fema and state aid agencies, etc.   #  did nonspecialists even realize that debt can be bought for pennies on the dollar on secondary markets before they came along ?  #  the strike debt and  rolling jubilee  organizers themselves acknowledge that they are only able to account for a minuscule portion of student debt.  but, they say, buying debt only to forgive it is an extraordinary act that generates publicity both for the problem of excess student debt, and for the shadowy world of credit collections, debt auctions and the like.  did nonspecialists even realize that debt can be bought for pennies on the dollar on secondary markets before they came along ? in other words, they acknowledge that it is little more than a symbolic gesture at this point.  it is, however, an effective, memorable, provocative gesture that has gotten people to consider policy changes they might not otherwise have considered.
let me preface this by saying that i consider myself socially liberal, and i actually agree with  most  sjw talking points.  like other left leaning movements, it seems to have good intentions, but i actually think it does more to silence non privileged voices than it does to encourage education, empowerment, progress, or harmony.  a college education or at the very least, the internet and plenty of time on one is hands seems to be a standard cost of entry for dialogue with a typical sjw.  dialogue that consists of terms and concepts such as: patriarchy, heteronormativity, trans exclusionary radical feminist terf , cisgendered, gender spectrum, gentrification, respectability politics, privilege, oppression, identity, assimilation, queer, otherkin, institutionalization, marginalization, etc. i could keep going.  these are all terms that i have just pulled directly from sjw tumblr pages/comments.  some are more easily defined than others, but there are still layers to each concept such as privilege or oppression that people may have a difficult time grasping if it was the first time they have been exposed to these ideas.  honestly, i have a master is, and the first time this language was thrown my way, i felt dumb for not understanding some of it.  how might someone who could only afford a high school education feel ? i get that they want to use intelligent, specific language to explain some concepts that are difficult to put into words, but how is someone who does not have the privilege of a college education, or at least the time to sit down and learn these concepts, expected to engage in dialogue that sounds like it is spoken by a women is studies textbook ? it can be intimidating, and no one likes to have a conversation that makes them feel stupid.  how is this use of privileged language encouraging those who are economically and educationally marginalized to participate ? i do not want to generalize, but from my own experience, a majority of sjws enjoy doing what they do because they like winning arguments.  it is not about empowering and educating.  in the face of ignorance, sjws tend to belittle and insult, rather than educate or allow for a balance dialogue.  the attitude is,  oh, you are ignorant ? let me make you feel  more  ignorant by insulting you and using words you do not understand.   again, i am in favor of most ideas sjws tend to champion. transgender rights, blacklivesmatter, feminism, etc.  i just think they are going about it in a way that turns people off, because they are so concerned with being able to flex their knowledge and with shutting down those who might disagree with their ideas the tiniest bit.   #  it can be intimidating, and no one likes to have a conversation that makes them feel stupid.   #  how is this use of privileged language encouraging those who are economically and educationally marginalized to participate ?  #  first off, i agree with you in part i do think we can do a lot to be more accessible.  but i think you swing too far the other way, and i would like to play half devil is advocate to some of your points.  well, in principle, why should not it ? if you want to discuss the details of a subject, it is not unreasonable to be expected to be familiar with its basic terminology.  it is like saying  why ca not i discuss physics without knowing what momentum is ?   see above it does not seem unreasonable to ask someone to be familiar with the terminology if they want to argue a position.  how is this use of privileged language encouraging those who are economically and educationally marginalized to participate ? i do not think it is.  but ca not that be separate ? you can have to use the analogy of hard sciences again rigorous scientific journals as well as a  pop sci  version for the layman.  well, i ca not speak for everyone, but that is a label i get tarred with on a fairly regular basis and that is not why i do what i do.  i do what i do because i have seen a whole lot of people myself included get hurt very badly in the name of things that are not even true.  i have a strong voice and good arguments, and i want to represent us well.  the attitude is,  oh, you are ignorant ? let me make you feel more ignorant by insulting you and using words you do not understand.   insofar as that is true i will agree it is idiotic.   #  none of them does more than the other, they need each other to be effective and thorough.   #  academia has always been like that.  mind you, a lot of  sjw is  are college students, they are used to this style of talk about social issues and mimic it on tumblr.  the way it is always been with social activism is that there is a sort of  ivory tower  side and a more  hands on  side to it.  the latter organizes youth groups, teaches people about racism on their local school or community center, it organizes things like pride parades and history month celebrations.  the former is deliberately all talk, its efforts go towards identifying and naming the phenomenons that surround the injustice and discussing solutions.  this is not a new thing at all, take socialism for example, you had the academic elite discussing about concepts with big words and citations to lofty philosophers, there was the side that came in contact with people and riled them up or informed them.  also take how sociology professors talk about microagressions and mental colonization, while black advocacy groups take those ideas and rather than preaching about them go into action to stop them.  none of them does more than the other, they need each other to be effective and thorough.  i think there are several problems with how  sjw is  are handling activism, but their academic or pseudo academic approach is not it.  refusing to educate others is regressive and a problem, yes of course, but the fact that advocacy includes complicated concepts and words is a nonissue.   #  i would compare it to ows, a movement whose ideas i also agreed with.   #    very good points; i can see how there are multiple sides to this movement, and admittedly, the only one i am familiar with is the academic side that argues on the internet.  however, i do think that the movement as a whole is mostly bark, little bite.  i would compare it to ows, a movement whose ideas i also agreed with.  they knew what they wanted to achieve, but lacked leadership a  leaderless movement  is doomed from the start, imo and a clear plan, so it was not productive.  however, at least they were getting out in the real world and engaging in activism.  i would like to hear more about education and hands on activism among  sjws  again, for lack of a better term .   #  captured the public imagination and held it for several years.   #  occupy wall street and the occupy movement in general was not as ineffectual as many people seem to assume.  there is powerful symbolism in the movement.  much more so than your run of the mill street protest or march, the idea of camping out on wall st.  captured the public imagination and held it for several years.  we are still talking about it.  a powerful, clear symbol can crystallize public action.  the occupy movement also has made or led to concrete steps and change.  the organizers have been promoting a  community bill of rights  URL which is a specific set of laws and amendments intended to reverse decisions like  citizens united  and make it so the wealthy have to obey the same laws as everyone else.  occupy groups are pushing for these legal changes at the city, state and federal level.  occupy homes URL specifically targets banks threatening foreclosure unfairly, aiming both to rescue homeowners and to change mortgage lending policy in that state and nationwide.  strike debt URL an ows offshoot, is a group that targets unfair/excessive lending practices.  one of their main techniques is to buy loans on the loan auction market, and then forgive the borrower is debt.  as of sept.  0 they had wiped out $0 million in student loans this way.  there are a number of other specific policy proposals developed by offshoots of the occupy movement, like concrete plans for a  community banking  system,  occupy sandy  created a system for helping communities hit by disasters who get bypassed by fema and state aid agencies, etc.   #  in other words, they acknowledge that it is little more than a symbolic gesture at this point.   #  the strike debt and  rolling jubilee  organizers themselves acknowledge that they are only able to account for a minuscule portion of student debt.  but, they say, buying debt only to forgive it is an extraordinary act that generates publicity both for the problem of excess student debt, and for the shadowy world of credit collections, debt auctions and the like.  did nonspecialists even realize that debt can be bought for pennies on the dollar on secondary markets before they came along ? in other words, they acknowledge that it is little more than a symbolic gesture at this point.  it is, however, an effective, memorable, provocative gesture that has gotten people to consider policy changes they might not otherwise have considered.
let me preface this by saying that i consider myself socially liberal, and i actually agree with  most  sjw talking points.  like other left leaning movements, it seems to have good intentions, but i actually think it does more to silence non privileged voices than it does to encourage education, empowerment, progress, or harmony.  a college education or at the very least, the internet and plenty of time on one is hands seems to be a standard cost of entry for dialogue with a typical sjw.  dialogue that consists of terms and concepts such as: patriarchy, heteronormativity, trans exclusionary radical feminist terf , cisgendered, gender spectrum, gentrification, respectability politics, privilege, oppression, identity, assimilation, queer, otherkin, institutionalization, marginalization, etc. i could keep going.  these are all terms that i have just pulled directly from sjw tumblr pages/comments.  some are more easily defined than others, but there are still layers to each concept such as privilege or oppression that people may have a difficult time grasping if it was the first time they have been exposed to these ideas.  honestly, i have a master is, and the first time this language was thrown my way, i felt dumb for not understanding some of it.  how might someone who could only afford a high school education feel ? i get that they want to use intelligent, specific language to explain some concepts that are difficult to put into words, but how is someone who does not have the privilege of a college education, or at least the time to sit down and learn these concepts, expected to engage in dialogue that sounds like it is spoken by a women is studies textbook ? it can be intimidating, and no one likes to have a conversation that makes them feel stupid.  how is this use of privileged language encouraging those who are economically and educationally marginalized to participate ? i do not want to generalize, but from my own experience, a majority of sjws enjoy doing what they do because they like winning arguments.  it is not about empowering and educating.  in the face of ignorance, sjws tend to belittle and insult, rather than educate or allow for a balance dialogue.  the attitude is,  oh, you are ignorant ? let me make you feel  more  ignorant by insulting you and using words you do not understand.   again, i am in favor of most ideas sjws tend to champion. transgender rights, blacklivesmatter, feminism, etc.  i just think they are going about it in a way that turns people off, because they are so concerned with being able to flex their knowledge and with shutting down those who might disagree with their ideas the tiniest bit.   #  i do not want to generalize, but from my own experience, a majority of sjws enjoy doing what they do because they like winning arguments.   #  well, i ca not speak for everyone, but that is a label i get tarred with on a fairly regular basis and that is not why i do what i do.   #  first off, i agree with you in part i do think we can do a lot to be more accessible.  but i think you swing too far the other way, and i would like to play half devil is advocate to some of your points.  well, in principle, why should not it ? if you want to discuss the details of a subject, it is not unreasonable to be expected to be familiar with its basic terminology.  it is like saying  why ca not i discuss physics without knowing what momentum is ?   see above it does not seem unreasonable to ask someone to be familiar with the terminology if they want to argue a position.  how is this use of privileged language encouraging those who are economically and educationally marginalized to participate ? i do not think it is.  but ca not that be separate ? you can have to use the analogy of hard sciences again rigorous scientific journals as well as a  pop sci  version for the layman.  well, i ca not speak for everyone, but that is a label i get tarred with on a fairly regular basis and that is not why i do what i do.  i do what i do because i have seen a whole lot of people myself included get hurt very badly in the name of things that are not even true.  i have a strong voice and good arguments, and i want to represent us well.  the attitude is,  oh, you are ignorant ? let me make you feel more ignorant by insulting you and using words you do not understand.   insofar as that is true i will agree it is idiotic.   #  mind you, a lot of  sjw is  are college students, they are used to this style of talk about social issues and mimic it on tumblr.   #  academia has always been like that.  mind you, a lot of  sjw is  are college students, they are used to this style of talk about social issues and mimic it on tumblr.  the way it is always been with social activism is that there is a sort of  ivory tower  side and a more  hands on  side to it.  the latter organizes youth groups, teaches people about racism on their local school or community center, it organizes things like pride parades and history month celebrations.  the former is deliberately all talk, its efforts go towards identifying and naming the phenomenons that surround the injustice and discussing solutions.  this is not a new thing at all, take socialism for example, you had the academic elite discussing about concepts with big words and citations to lofty philosophers, there was the side that came in contact with people and riled them up or informed them.  also take how sociology professors talk about microagressions and mental colonization, while black advocacy groups take those ideas and rather than preaching about them go into action to stop them.  none of them does more than the other, they need each other to be effective and thorough.  i think there are several problems with how  sjw is  are handling activism, but their academic or pseudo academic approach is not it.  refusing to educate others is regressive and a problem, yes of course, but the fact that advocacy includes complicated concepts and words is a nonissue.   #  they knew what they wanted to achieve, but lacked leadership a  leaderless movement  is doomed from the start, imo and a clear plan, so it was not productive.   #    very good points; i can see how there are multiple sides to this movement, and admittedly, the only one i am familiar with is the academic side that argues on the internet.  however, i do think that the movement as a whole is mostly bark, little bite.  i would compare it to ows, a movement whose ideas i also agreed with.  they knew what they wanted to achieve, but lacked leadership a  leaderless movement  is doomed from the start, imo and a clear plan, so it was not productive.  however, at least they were getting out in the real world and engaging in activism.  i would like to hear more about education and hands on activism among  sjws  again, for lack of a better term .   #  a powerful, clear symbol can crystallize public action.   #  occupy wall street and the occupy movement in general was not as ineffectual as many people seem to assume.  there is powerful symbolism in the movement.  much more so than your run of the mill street protest or march, the idea of camping out on wall st.  captured the public imagination and held it for several years.  we are still talking about it.  a powerful, clear symbol can crystallize public action.  the occupy movement also has made or led to concrete steps and change.  the organizers have been promoting a  community bill of rights  URL which is a specific set of laws and amendments intended to reverse decisions like  citizens united  and make it so the wealthy have to obey the same laws as everyone else.  occupy groups are pushing for these legal changes at the city, state and federal level.  occupy homes URL specifically targets banks threatening foreclosure unfairly, aiming both to rescue homeowners and to change mortgage lending policy in that state and nationwide.  strike debt URL an ows offshoot, is a group that targets unfair/excessive lending practices.  one of their main techniques is to buy loans on the loan auction market, and then forgive the borrower is debt.  as of sept.  0 they had wiped out $0 million in student loans this way.  there are a number of other specific policy proposals developed by offshoots of the occupy movement, like concrete plans for a  community banking  system,  occupy sandy  created a system for helping communities hit by disasters who get bypassed by fema and state aid agencies, etc.   #  in other words, they acknowledge that it is little more than a symbolic gesture at this point.   #  the strike debt and  rolling jubilee  organizers themselves acknowledge that they are only able to account for a minuscule portion of student debt.  but, they say, buying debt only to forgive it is an extraordinary act that generates publicity both for the problem of excess student debt, and for the shadowy world of credit collections, debt auctions and the like.  did nonspecialists even realize that debt can be bought for pennies on the dollar on secondary markets before they came along ? in other words, they acknowledge that it is little more than a symbolic gesture at this point.  it is, however, an effective, memorable, provocative gesture that has gotten people to consider policy changes they might not otherwise have considered.
let me preface this by saying that i consider myself socially liberal, and i actually agree with  most  sjw talking points.  like other left leaning movements, it seems to have good intentions, but i actually think it does more to silence non privileged voices than it does to encourage education, empowerment, progress, or harmony.  a college education or at the very least, the internet and plenty of time on one is hands seems to be a standard cost of entry for dialogue with a typical sjw.  dialogue that consists of terms and concepts such as: patriarchy, heteronormativity, trans exclusionary radical feminist terf , cisgendered, gender spectrum, gentrification, respectability politics, privilege, oppression, identity, assimilation, queer, otherkin, institutionalization, marginalization, etc. i could keep going.  these are all terms that i have just pulled directly from sjw tumblr pages/comments.  some are more easily defined than others, but there are still layers to each concept such as privilege or oppression that people may have a difficult time grasping if it was the first time they have been exposed to these ideas.  honestly, i have a master is, and the first time this language was thrown my way, i felt dumb for not understanding some of it.  how might someone who could only afford a high school education feel ? i get that they want to use intelligent, specific language to explain some concepts that are difficult to put into words, but how is someone who does not have the privilege of a college education, or at least the time to sit down and learn these concepts, expected to engage in dialogue that sounds like it is spoken by a women is studies textbook ? it can be intimidating, and no one likes to have a conversation that makes them feel stupid.  how is this use of privileged language encouraging those who are economically and educationally marginalized to participate ? i do not want to generalize, but from my own experience, a majority of sjws enjoy doing what they do because they like winning arguments.  it is not about empowering and educating.  in the face of ignorance, sjws tend to belittle and insult, rather than educate or allow for a balance dialogue.  the attitude is,  oh, you are ignorant ? let me make you feel  more  ignorant by insulting you and using words you do not understand.   again, i am in favor of most ideas sjws tend to champion. transgender rights, blacklivesmatter, feminism, etc.  i just think they are going about it in a way that turns people off, because they are so concerned with being able to flex their knowledge and with shutting down those who might disagree with their ideas the tiniest bit.   #  in the face of ignorance, sjws tend to belittle and insult, rather than educate or allow for a balance dialogue.   #  the attitude is,  oh, you are ignorant ?  #  first off, i agree with you in part i do think we can do a lot to be more accessible.  but i think you swing too far the other way, and i would like to play half devil is advocate to some of your points.  well, in principle, why should not it ? if you want to discuss the details of a subject, it is not unreasonable to be expected to be familiar with its basic terminology.  it is like saying  why ca not i discuss physics without knowing what momentum is ?   see above it does not seem unreasonable to ask someone to be familiar with the terminology if they want to argue a position.  how is this use of privileged language encouraging those who are economically and educationally marginalized to participate ? i do not think it is.  but ca not that be separate ? you can have to use the analogy of hard sciences again rigorous scientific journals as well as a  pop sci  version for the layman.  well, i ca not speak for everyone, but that is a label i get tarred with on a fairly regular basis and that is not why i do what i do.  i do what i do because i have seen a whole lot of people myself included get hurt very badly in the name of things that are not even true.  i have a strong voice and good arguments, and i want to represent us well.  the attitude is,  oh, you are ignorant ? let me make you feel more ignorant by insulting you and using words you do not understand.   insofar as that is true i will agree it is idiotic.   #  the former is deliberately all talk, its efforts go towards identifying and naming the phenomenons that surround the injustice and discussing solutions.   #  academia has always been like that.  mind you, a lot of  sjw is  are college students, they are used to this style of talk about social issues and mimic it on tumblr.  the way it is always been with social activism is that there is a sort of  ivory tower  side and a more  hands on  side to it.  the latter organizes youth groups, teaches people about racism on their local school or community center, it organizes things like pride parades and history month celebrations.  the former is deliberately all talk, its efforts go towards identifying and naming the phenomenons that surround the injustice and discussing solutions.  this is not a new thing at all, take socialism for example, you had the academic elite discussing about concepts with big words and citations to lofty philosophers, there was the side that came in contact with people and riled them up or informed them.  also take how sociology professors talk about microagressions and mental colonization, while black advocacy groups take those ideas and rather than preaching about them go into action to stop them.  none of them does more than the other, they need each other to be effective and thorough.  i think there are several problems with how  sjw is  are handling activism, but their academic or pseudo academic approach is not it.  refusing to educate others is regressive and a problem, yes of course, but the fact that advocacy includes complicated concepts and words is a nonissue.   #  however, at least they were getting out in the real world and engaging in activism.   #    very good points; i can see how there are multiple sides to this movement, and admittedly, the only one i am familiar with is the academic side that argues on the internet.  however, i do think that the movement as a whole is mostly bark, little bite.  i would compare it to ows, a movement whose ideas i also agreed with.  they knew what they wanted to achieve, but lacked leadership a  leaderless movement  is doomed from the start, imo and a clear plan, so it was not productive.  however, at least they were getting out in the real world and engaging in activism.  i would like to hear more about education and hands on activism among  sjws  again, for lack of a better term .   #  a powerful, clear symbol can crystallize public action.   #  occupy wall street and the occupy movement in general was not as ineffectual as many people seem to assume.  there is powerful symbolism in the movement.  much more so than your run of the mill street protest or march, the idea of camping out on wall st.  captured the public imagination and held it for several years.  we are still talking about it.  a powerful, clear symbol can crystallize public action.  the occupy movement also has made or led to concrete steps and change.  the organizers have been promoting a  community bill of rights  URL which is a specific set of laws and amendments intended to reverse decisions like  citizens united  and make it so the wealthy have to obey the same laws as everyone else.  occupy groups are pushing for these legal changes at the city, state and federal level.  occupy homes URL specifically targets banks threatening foreclosure unfairly, aiming both to rescue homeowners and to change mortgage lending policy in that state and nationwide.  strike debt URL an ows offshoot, is a group that targets unfair/excessive lending practices.  one of their main techniques is to buy loans on the loan auction market, and then forgive the borrower is debt.  as of sept.  0 they had wiped out $0 million in student loans this way.  there are a number of other specific policy proposals developed by offshoots of the occupy movement, like concrete plans for a  community banking  system,  occupy sandy  created a system for helping communities hit by disasters who get bypassed by fema and state aid agencies, etc.   #  it is, however, an effective, memorable, provocative gesture that has gotten people to consider policy changes they might not otherwise have considered.   #  the strike debt and  rolling jubilee  organizers themselves acknowledge that they are only able to account for a minuscule portion of student debt.  but, they say, buying debt only to forgive it is an extraordinary act that generates publicity both for the problem of excess student debt, and for the shadowy world of credit collections, debt auctions and the like.  did nonspecialists even realize that debt can be bought for pennies on the dollar on secondary markets before they came along ? in other words, they acknowledge that it is little more than a symbolic gesture at this point.  it is, however, an effective, memorable, provocative gesture that has gotten people to consider policy changes they might not otherwise have considered.
in english class for example, i often get group projects where we have to portray certain things in a  creative way.   this usually involves creating a painting/drawing, or a video/mini movie.  the problem is, i have pretty much no drawing ability or acting ability.  as much as teachers say that it does not matter if you are good at drawing/acting or not, in the end, it always does ! an elaborate oil painting on something will always get higher marks than a sketch with stick figures.  its clear that the groups who spend the most time, or money for fancy props, and have good drawing/acting skills always get better marks.  i understand that spending more time is justifiable for getting higher marks, but i do not think having good drawing/acting skills is for english class.  why should i have to draw and act for english, should not i be doing those in art and drama class ? the same goes for any other creative method of expression like singing and dancing, which also come up sometimes.   #  an elaborate oil painting on something will always get higher marks than a sketch with stick figures.   #  an elaborate oil painting, by definition, took more effort than a sketch with stick figures.   #  there is more to the english language or any language than reading and writing.  indeed, language is how we as humans communicate ideas.  public speaking and performance are two methods of communication.  some people are naturally great performers, just like some people have no trouble reading books and writing papers, or grasping mathematics intuitively.  an elaborate oil painting, by definition, took more effort than a sketch with stick figures.  the same goes for any other creative method of expression like singing and dancing, which also come up sometimes.  there is a rather famous author named william shakespeare.  his work has been studied, read, and gasp  performed  for centuries.  many people think his writing, his command of the english language, the way he uses words to evoke emotion when properly recited in front of crowds, are a crown jewel in the history of the english language.  what would you miss if you limited your study of the english language to textbooks, or papers ? he was not a novelist or an essayist.  he was a poet and a playwrite, and his canvas was the stage.   #  people who ca not carry a tune in a bucket could play a small instrument instead of sing.   #  one of the major purposes of working in groups on projects like these are to give students experience in working within a diverse group of people with different talents.  a key purpose of the assignment, even if it is not deliberately spelled out for you, is to be able to find ways that different strengths and weaknesses of group members can come together to create a strong presentation.  i also cannot draw for shit, but i can plan ideas pretty well.  so i often fall into a leadership/planning role while more artistic individuals create the actual work, do the skit, etc.  sure, there is often a  everyone must participate in the presentation  clause, but that can easily be worked around.  terrible actors can do well enough as announcers, narrators, or emcees for presentations.  people who ca not carry a tune in a bucket could play a small instrument instead of sing.  if, rather than being able to identify how you can employ the various strengths while downplaying weaknesses of group members you instead turn in a low effort stick figure drawing while other students turn in oil paintings you should certainly be marked down, since you failed on every level of the assignment, both the creative work itself  and  the underlying teamwork aspect.   #  your teachers do not expect tony winning skits, grammy winning songs, or a painting that would make davinci feel like a chump.   #  not everyone is automatically good at everything.  most  good artists  were not born good artists, they became so because the talent was fostered by practice.  your teachers do not expect tony winning skits, grammy winning songs, or a painting that would make davinci feel like a chump.  they are looking for effort that shows you tried hard on the assignment and did your best.  you can and it sounds like you have said  i am not good at this  and turned in a sub par submission that was marked down.  if you truly feel that you worked as hard as everyone else and turned in work that demonstrates your  best effort  then i would approach the professor, but chances are if you actually ask yourself  did i try to create a high quality submission even if i knew the odds are against me, or did i slack a bit since i knew it would not be great anyway ?   you will probably decide you could have turned in something more along the lines of what was assigned to you.  i wo not have any other group members to rely on to do things that i am weaker at.  precisely the point of individual assignments: you are going to an institution of general education i presume , not a trade school.  the point is to make you a well rounded individual, which includes helping you identify and work on points of weakness.  you may never become a great artist or actor, but giving you experience with those roles  and  encouraging you to try your best in those roles even if they are not your strengths is important.  not every task you are assigned in your life will play to a strength.  people with math difficulties still have to do their taxes, scientists with poor writing skills will still write up their research results.  you are not entitled to a world or a life that will only care about skills you have and will ignore skills you do not possess.  it is important to be a well rounded individual, and that is why a variety of assignment types is important in general education.   #  the point is diverse and critical thinking in all aspects of life.   #  the thing is, the real world is not carved at the joints like school subjects.  when you are out in the world you might have a job that heavily overlaps several of these subjects, so you better be prepared.  that is why teachers make projects like this.  when i was in high school i once had to write a fairy tale for my calculus class.  i thought it was total bs.  but the job that i have now is kind of like this.  it is like an art class, but i have to use serious math all the time.  the point is diverse and critical thinking in all aspects of life.  life does not come at you like your school subjects, it comes at you all at once and you are going to have to be versatile with your skills.   #  making you prepare a movie or speak in front of the class is a great way to teach you how to prepare and think about spoken language in a more formalized way.   #  english class is perhaps the best instance of where this sort of thing is justified, at least for something that involves speaking.  english class is about teaching you the proper and effective use of the english language to communicate.  public speaking is an enormous part of that skillset.  preparing remarks for a verbal delivery is a valuable skill that is not the same as writing where the audience is expected to read.  making you prepare a movie or speak in front of the class is a great way to teach you how to prepare and think about spoken language in a more formalized way.
in english class for example, i often get group projects where we have to portray certain things in a  creative way.   this usually involves creating a painting/drawing, or a video/mini movie.  the problem is, i have pretty much no drawing ability or acting ability.  as much as teachers say that it does not matter if you are good at drawing/acting or not, in the end, it always does ! an elaborate oil painting on something will always get higher marks than a sketch with stick figures.  its clear that the groups who spend the most time, or money for fancy props, and have good drawing/acting skills always get better marks.  i understand that spending more time is justifiable for getting higher marks, but i do not think having good drawing/acting skills is for english class.  why should i have to draw and act for english, should not i be doing those in art and drama class ? the same goes for any other creative method of expression like singing and dancing, which also come up sometimes.   #  why should i have to draw and act for english, should not i be doing those in art and drama class ?  #  the same goes for any other creative method of expression like singing and dancing, which also come up sometimes.   #  there is more to the english language or any language than reading and writing.  indeed, language is how we as humans communicate ideas.  public speaking and performance are two methods of communication.  some people are naturally great performers, just like some people have no trouble reading books and writing papers, or grasping mathematics intuitively.  an elaborate oil painting, by definition, took more effort than a sketch with stick figures.  the same goes for any other creative method of expression like singing and dancing, which also come up sometimes.  there is a rather famous author named william shakespeare.  his work has been studied, read, and gasp  performed  for centuries.  many people think his writing, his command of the english language, the way he uses words to evoke emotion when properly recited in front of crowds, are a crown jewel in the history of the english language.  what would you miss if you limited your study of the english language to textbooks, or papers ? he was not a novelist or an essayist.  he was a poet and a playwrite, and his canvas was the stage.   #  a key purpose of the assignment, even if it is not deliberately spelled out for you, is to be able to find ways that different strengths and weaknesses of group members can come together to create a strong presentation.   #  one of the major purposes of working in groups on projects like these are to give students experience in working within a diverse group of people with different talents.  a key purpose of the assignment, even if it is not deliberately spelled out for you, is to be able to find ways that different strengths and weaknesses of group members can come together to create a strong presentation.  i also cannot draw for shit, but i can plan ideas pretty well.  so i often fall into a leadership/planning role while more artistic individuals create the actual work, do the skit, etc.  sure, there is often a  everyone must participate in the presentation  clause, but that can easily be worked around.  terrible actors can do well enough as announcers, narrators, or emcees for presentations.  people who ca not carry a tune in a bucket could play a small instrument instead of sing.  if, rather than being able to identify how you can employ the various strengths while downplaying weaknesses of group members you instead turn in a low effort stick figure drawing while other students turn in oil paintings you should certainly be marked down, since you failed on every level of the assignment, both the creative work itself  and  the underlying teamwork aspect.   #  most  good artists  were not born good artists, they became so because the talent was fostered by practice.   #  not everyone is automatically good at everything.  most  good artists  were not born good artists, they became so because the talent was fostered by practice.  your teachers do not expect tony winning skits, grammy winning songs, or a painting that would make davinci feel like a chump.  they are looking for effort that shows you tried hard on the assignment and did your best.  you can and it sounds like you have said  i am not good at this  and turned in a sub par submission that was marked down.  if you truly feel that you worked as hard as everyone else and turned in work that demonstrates your  best effort  then i would approach the professor, but chances are if you actually ask yourself  did i try to create a high quality submission even if i knew the odds are against me, or did i slack a bit since i knew it would not be great anyway ?   you will probably decide you could have turned in something more along the lines of what was assigned to you.  i wo not have any other group members to rely on to do things that i am weaker at.  precisely the point of individual assignments: you are going to an institution of general education i presume , not a trade school.  the point is to make you a well rounded individual, which includes helping you identify and work on points of weakness.  you may never become a great artist or actor, but giving you experience with those roles  and  encouraging you to try your best in those roles even if they are not your strengths is important.  not every task you are assigned in your life will play to a strength.  people with math difficulties still have to do their taxes, scientists with poor writing skills will still write up their research results.  you are not entitled to a world or a life that will only care about skills you have and will ignore skills you do not possess.  it is important to be a well rounded individual, and that is why a variety of assignment types is important in general education.   #  when you are out in the world you might have a job that heavily overlaps several of these subjects, so you better be prepared.   #  the thing is, the real world is not carved at the joints like school subjects.  when you are out in the world you might have a job that heavily overlaps several of these subjects, so you better be prepared.  that is why teachers make projects like this.  when i was in high school i once had to write a fairy tale for my calculus class.  i thought it was total bs.  but the job that i have now is kind of like this.  it is like an art class, but i have to use serious math all the time.  the point is diverse and critical thinking in all aspects of life.  life does not come at you like your school subjects, it comes at you all at once and you are going to have to be versatile with your skills.   #  making you prepare a movie or speak in front of the class is a great way to teach you how to prepare and think about spoken language in a more formalized way.   #  english class is perhaps the best instance of where this sort of thing is justified, at least for something that involves speaking.  english class is about teaching you the proper and effective use of the english language to communicate.  public speaking is an enormous part of that skillset.  preparing remarks for a verbal delivery is a valuable skill that is not the same as writing where the audience is expected to read.  making you prepare a movie or speak in front of the class is a great way to teach you how to prepare and think about spoken language in a more formalized way.
i had this argument with a friend, and it reminded me that for some reason, every single  top 0  or  top 0  best games list always has at least one legend of zelda game in it.  i have never understood why this series is so loved.  apparently ocarina of time is considered by most the best, so i forced myself to play through a decent chunk of it.  here are some of the major issues i had.  0.  there is a massive world, but you are not allowed to explore it.  everything is behind lock and key puzzles, so you might as well just go to places in the order the game wants.  0.  0 of the characters are cardboard cutouts who do not do anything.  0.  there is  so much padding .  it is got more bear asses than warcraft.  0.  ganon seems to be generic  mwahaha i am evil !   bad guy, maybe he gets some more character development in the other games, but in oot he feels like a 0s disney villain.  0.  half the items seem to be completely useless.  0.  the combat makes skyrim seem exciting.  0.  playing the ocarina to solve puzzles feels more like entering cheat codes.   #  there is a massive world, but you are not allowed to explore it.   #  everything is behind lock and key puzzles, so you might as well just go to places in the order the game wants.   #  so, to open, i am not a huge zelda fan, but i do think you are analysis of the games are flawed, and i feel they are very high quality and fun games, even if they are not my absolute favorite.  everything is behind lock and key puzzles, so you might as well just go to places in the order the game wants.  as a designer, you want to present the illusion of choice, while making the player feel compelled to follow the progression you set out for them.  by creating areas that the player feels they  could  go if they wanted, but do not due to game design, you trick the player into feeling agency.  while zelda games are not as good at this as say dark souls which actually has no game mechanic barrier, just skill , its one of the better games for it.  compare this to something like ffxiii, which gave the player no feeling of agency.  the game is aiming for simplicity here.  part of the appeal of zelda is that you are not wading into a complicated deep story, but a lighthearted adventure with bright colors.  kind of like a fairy tale legend, where there are clear hero is and villains.  it is got more bear asses than warcraft.  this depends on which game you play.  the older games absolutely do, but they were designed in a time where customers had to make a single game last much longer.  newer zelda iterations like a link between worlds have a much more modern pace in my opinion.  the pace of the older games also is fitting with the design.  it is not a high powered adrenaline rush, it is an adventure, and it is gonna take its time.  bad guy, maybe he gets some more character development in the other games, but in oot he feels like a 0s disney villain.  absolutely intentional.  but many of them have clever uses.  i will agree, sometimes the items seem useless, but a big draw of zelda games is the rewards you gain from your quests.  opening that treasure chest to find some fancy macguffin is exciting as hell, even if it is only used extremely situationally.  please elaborate on this, i find the combat to be pretty serviceable.  definitely better than skyrim   playing the ocarina to solve puzzles feels more like entering cheat codes.  it is a nice little thematic touch.   #  0 or it is an interesting new mechanic that plays an important part in the story and adds another dimension to puzzle solving.   #  a lot of those issues sound more like  i do not enjoy this game from the 0s .  0 how far did you play through ? 0 it was 0, you could not have a game filled with hundreds of interactable npcs 0 ganon in oot was pretty generic evil, might i suggest the skull kid from majora is mask or zant from twilight princess as more developed villains ? 0 which half ? pretty much every item is designed with a use in mind, even if it is not immediately apparent.  0 it was 0 and this was the game that made z targetting a thing.  i am not really sure what you expected here.  0 or it is an interesting new mechanic that plays an important part in the story and adds another dimension to puzzle solving.   #  an elaboration on 0: the classic example is the megaton hammer oot .   #  an elaboration on 0: the classic example is the megaton hammer oot .  you recieve this in the fire temple, and it appears to have only one unique use activating rusted switches it can do other things, like break boulders, but that is not unique to the hammer .  but in the duel with shadow link, the hammer is your only foolproof weapon, because it alone is truly unique, so ca not be mirrored.  details like that in my opinion make the game much deeper and more well thought out.  in general, most items in loz games find second uses in various puzzles or unusual cases.   #  it has a massive world like, easily 0 times the size of oot that is very open from the beginning, great characters, and lots of side quests.   #  0.  that is the thing about zelda games, the whole thing is a puzzle.  i personally would not like a game to be completely open in the beginning, because then where is the challenge ? if you do not like this type of thing, then maybe zelda games just are not for you.  but just because it caters to a specific audience does not mean it is bad.  0.  this is a result of the time period in which the game was created.  most games in the 0 is did not have sub characters with too much substance.  but later games like majora is mask and wind waker did.  0.  a lot of games have padding, even today 0.  again, most video game villains from the 0s were like that.  but the zelda series has had really intriguing villains too, like the skull kin from majora is mask.  0.  give me some examples, cause i ca not think of any 0.  this is a game that literally invented z targeting, paving the way for many future games.  how is it fair to compare this to combat systems 0 years in the future ? compare this game to other games from that time, and you will understand why oot was so innovative.  0.  when was the ocarina used to solve a puzzle ? maybe you play it to gain access to certain areas, but i do not recall a time where there was a puzzle sitting in front of you, and playing the ocarina literally makes it solve itself.  i think the biggest flaw in your opinion is that you are not just saying you dislike this specific game, you are saying you dislike the entire series based on one game that is almost 0 decades old.  and most of the problems that you have with the game are due to the fact that it is so old.  i would say wind waker is actually the 0 favorite among gamers.  it has a massive world like, easily 0 times the size of oot that is very open from the beginning, great characters, and lots of side quests.  maybe you should check it out because it sounds like one you would like.   #  maybe  dated  would have been better than  bad  this is the reason i made the comparison to skyrim, which has not really evolved its combat beyond  stand still and hit things  since morrowind.   # i mind that it shows me this massive, beautiful world.  and then wo not let me explore it until i have done x amount of dungeons.  :p   0 i have not played much of majora is mask, and it is been too long since i played ww to remember much about it.  :p   0 and i usually dislike those sections.  filler is boring, and oot had quite a bit of filler.  :p   0 again, unfortunately i have not actually played much of mm, i do not like the idea of the 0 day time constraint all that much :p   0 by  useless  what i mean is they have specific usually to their dungeon abilities, which then renders them useless once you leave that dungeon.  :p   0 while it may have been good  for fifteen years ago , that does not mean it is good now.  maybe  dated  would have been better than  bad  this is the reason i made the comparison to skyrim, which has not really evolved its combat beyond  stand still and hit things  since morrowind.  :p   0 sorry yeah, i phrased that badly, that is what i meant.  you ca not get into somewhere, but instead of having to solve a puzzle, you just enter a code into the ocarina.  it is like some sort of weird 0 is qte.  :p   i think the biggest flaw in your opinion is that you are not just saying you dislike this specific game, you are saying you dislike the entire series based on one game that is almost 0 decades old.  i have played at least a small bit of most other zelda games, i merely listed my annoyances with the one people seem to praise the most.  it is usually the highest up lists, too.
i had this argument with a friend, and it reminded me that for some reason, every single  top 0  or  top 0  best games list always has at least one legend of zelda game in it.  i have never understood why this series is so loved.  apparently ocarina of time is considered by most the best, so i forced myself to play through a decent chunk of it.  here are some of the major issues i had.  0.  there is a massive world, but you are not allowed to explore it.  everything is behind lock and key puzzles, so you might as well just go to places in the order the game wants.  0.  0 of the characters are cardboard cutouts who do not do anything.  0.  there is  so much padding .  it is got more bear asses than warcraft.  0.  ganon seems to be generic  mwahaha i am evil !   bad guy, maybe he gets some more character development in the other games, but in oot he feels like a 0s disney villain.  0.  half the items seem to be completely useless.  0.  the combat makes skyrim seem exciting.  0.  playing the ocarina to solve puzzles feels more like entering cheat codes.   #  0 of the characters are cardboard cutouts who do not do anything.   #  the game is aiming for simplicity here.   #  so, to open, i am not a huge zelda fan, but i do think you are analysis of the games are flawed, and i feel they are very high quality and fun games, even if they are not my absolute favorite.  everything is behind lock and key puzzles, so you might as well just go to places in the order the game wants.  as a designer, you want to present the illusion of choice, while making the player feel compelled to follow the progression you set out for them.  by creating areas that the player feels they  could  go if they wanted, but do not due to game design, you trick the player into feeling agency.  while zelda games are not as good at this as say dark souls which actually has no game mechanic barrier, just skill , its one of the better games for it.  compare this to something like ffxiii, which gave the player no feeling of agency.  the game is aiming for simplicity here.  part of the appeal of zelda is that you are not wading into a complicated deep story, but a lighthearted adventure with bright colors.  kind of like a fairy tale legend, where there are clear hero is and villains.  it is got more bear asses than warcraft.  this depends on which game you play.  the older games absolutely do, but they were designed in a time where customers had to make a single game last much longer.  newer zelda iterations like a link between worlds have a much more modern pace in my opinion.  the pace of the older games also is fitting with the design.  it is not a high powered adrenaline rush, it is an adventure, and it is gonna take its time.  bad guy, maybe he gets some more character development in the other games, but in oot he feels like a 0s disney villain.  absolutely intentional.  but many of them have clever uses.  i will agree, sometimes the items seem useless, but a big draw of zelda games is the rewards you gain from your quests.  opening that treasure chest to find some fancy macguffin is exciting as hell, even if it is only used extremely situationally.  please elaborate on this, i find the combat to be pretty serviceable.  definitely better than skyrim   playing the ocarina to solve puzzles feels more like entering cheat codes.  it is a nice little thematic touch.   #  pretty much every item is designed with a use in mind, even if it is not immediately apparent.   #  a lot of those issues sound more like  i do not enjoy this game from the 0s .  0 how far did you play through ? 0 it was 0, you could not have a game filled with hundreds of interactable npcs 0 ganon in oot was pretty generic evil, might i suggest the skull kid from majora is mask or zant from twilight princess as more developed villains ? 0 which half ? pretty much every item is designed with a use in mind, even if it is not immediately apparent.  0 it was 0 and this was the game that made z targetting a thing.  i am not really sure what you expected here.  0 or it is an interesting new mechanic that plays an important part in the story and adds another dimension to puzzle solving.   #  in general, most items in loz games find second uses in various puzzles or unusual cases.   #  an elaboration on 0: the classic example is the megaton hammer oot .  you recieve this in the fire temple, and it appears to have only one unique use activating rusted switches it can do other things, like break boulders, but that is not unique to the hammer .  but in the duel with shadow link, the hammer is your only foolproof weapon, because it alone is truly unique, so ca not be mirrored.  details like that in my opinion make the game much deeper and more well thought out.  in general, most items in loz games find second uses in various puzzles or unusual cases.   #  but just because it caters to a specific audience does not mean it is bad.   #  0.  that is the thing about zelda games, the whole thing is a puzzle.  i personally would not like a game to be completely open in the beginning, because then where is the challenge ? if you do not like this type of thing, then maybe zelda games just are not for you.  but just because it caters to a specific audience does not mean it is bad.  0.  this is a result of the time period in which the game was created.  most games in the 0 is did not have sub characters with too much substance.  but later games like majora is mask and wind waker did.  0.  a lot of games have padding, even today 0.  again, most video game villains from the 0s were like that.  but the zelda series has had really intriguing villains too, like the skull kin from majora is mask.  0.  give me some examples, cause i ca not think of any 0.  this is a game that literally invented z targeting, paving the way for many future games.  how is it fair to compare this to combat systems 0 years in the future ? compare this game to other games from that time, and you will understand why oot was so innovative.  0.  when was the ocarina used to solve a puzzle ? maybe you play it to gain access to certain areas, but i do not recall a time where there was a puzzle sitting in front of you, and playing the ocarina literally makes it solve itself.  i think the biggest flaw in your opinion is that you are not just saying you dislike this specific game, you are saying you dislike the entire series based on one game that is almost 0 decades old.  and most of the problems that you have with the game are due to the fact that it is so old.  i would say wind waker is actually the 0 favorite among gamers.  it has a massive world like, easily 0 times the size of oot that is very open from the beginning, great characters, and lots of side quests.  maybe you should check it out because it sounds like one you would like.   #  you ca not get into somewhere, but instead of having to solve a puzzle, you just enter a code into the ocarina.   # i mind that it shows me this massive, beautiful world.  and then wo not let me explore it until i have done x amount of dungeons.  :p   0 i have not played much of majora is mask, and it is been too long since i played ww to remember much about it.  :p   0 and i usually dislike those sections.  filler is boring, and oot had quite a bit of filler.  :p   0 again, unfortunately i have not actually played much of mm, i do not like the idea of the 0 day time constraint all that much :p   0 by  useless  what i mean is they have specific usually to their dungeon abilities, which then renders them useless once you leave that dungeon.  :p   0 while it may have been good  for fifteen years ago , that does not mean it is good now.  maybe  dated  would have been better than  bad  this is the reason i made the comparison to skyrim, which has not really evolved its combat beyond  stand still and hit things  since morrowind.  :p   0 sorry yeah, i phrased that badly, that is what i meant.  you ca not get into somewhere, but instead of having to solve a puzzle, you just enter a code into the ocarina.  it is like some sort of weird 0 is qte.  :p   i think the biggest flaw in your opinion is that you are not just saying you dislike this specific game, you are saying you dislike the entire series based on one game that is almost 0 decades old.  i have played at least a small bit of most other zelda games, i merely listed my annoyances with the one people seem to praise the most.  it is usually the highest up lists, too.
i had this argument with a friend, and it reminded me that for some reason, every single  top 0  or  top 0  best games list always has at least one legend of zelda game in it.  i have never understood why this series is so loved.  apparently ocarina of time is considered by most the best, so i forced myself to play through a decent chunk of it.  here are some of the major issues i had.  0.  there is a massive world, but you are not allowed to explore it.  everything is behind lock and key puzzles, so you might as well just go to places in the order the game wants.  0.  0 of the characters are cardboard cutouts who do not do anything.  0.  there is  so much padding .  it is got more bear asses than warcraft.  0.  ganon seems to be generic  mwahaha i am evil !   bad guy, maybe he gets some more character development in the other games, but in oot he feels like a 0s disney villain.  0.  half the items seem to be completely useless.  0.  the combat makes skyrim seem exciting.  0.  playing the ocarina to solve puzzles feels more like entering cheat codes.   #  ganon seems to be generic  mwahaha i am evil !    #  bad guy, maybe he gets some more character development in the other games, but in oot he feels like a 0s disney villain.   #  so, to open, i am not a huge zelda fan, but i do think you are analysis of the games are flawed, and i feel they are very high quality and fun games, even if they are not my absolute favorite.  everything is behind lock and key puzzles, so you might as well just go to places in the order the game wants.  as a designer, you want to present the illusion of choice, while making the player feel compelled to follow the progression you set out for them.  by creating areas that the player feels they  could  go if they wanted, but do not due to game design, you trick the player into feeling agency.  while zelda games are not as good at this as say dark souls which actually has no game mechanic barrier, just skill , its one of the better games for it.  compare this to something like ffxiii, which gave the player no feeling of agency.  the game is aiming for simplicity here.  part of the appeal of zelda is that you are not wading into a complicated deep story, but a lighthearted adventure with bright colors.  kind of like a fairy tale legend, where there are clear hero is and villains.  it is got more bear asses than warcraft.  this depends on which game you play.  the older games absolutely do, but they were designed in a time where customers had to make a single game last much longer.  newer zelda iterations like a link between worlds have a much more modern pace in my opinion.  the pace of the older games also is fitting with the design.  it is not a high powered adrenaline rush, it is an adventure, and it is gonna take its time.  bad guy, maybe he gets some more character development in the other games, but in oot he feels like a 0s disney villain.  absolutely intentional.  but many of them have clever uses.  i will agree, sometimes the items seem useless, but a big draw of zelda games is the rewards you gain from your quests.  opening that treasure chest to find some fancy macguffin is exciting as hell, even if it is only used extremely situationally.  please elaborate on this, i find the combat to be pretty serviceable.  definitely better than skyrim   playing the ocarina to solve puzzles feels more like entering cheat codes.  it is a nice little thematic touch.   #  a lot of those issues sound more like  i do not enjoy this game from the 0s .   #  a lot of those issues sound more like  i do not enjoy this game from the 0s .  0 how far did you play through ? 0 it was 0, you could not have a game filled with hundreds of interactable npcs 0 ganon in oot was pretty generic evil, might i suggest the skull kid from majora is mask or zant from twilight princess as more developed villains ? 0 which half ? pretty much every item is designed with a use in mind, even if it is not immediately apparent.  0 it was 0 and this was the game that made z targetting a thing.  i am not really sure what you expected here.  0 or it is an interesting new mechanic that plays an important part in the story and adds another dimension to puzzle solving.   #  but in the duel with shadow link, the hammer is your only foolproof weapon, because it alone is truly unique, so ca not be mirrored.   #  an elaboration on 0: the classic example is the megaton hammer oot .  you recieve this in the fire temple, and it appears to have only one unique use activating rusted switches it can do other things, like break boulders, but that is not unique to the hammer .  but in the duel with shadow link, the hammer is your only foolproof weapon, because it alone is truly unique, so ca not be mirrored.  details like that in my opinion make the game much deeper and more well thought out.  in general, most items in loz games find second uses in various puzzles or unusual cases.   #  but the zelda series has had really intriguing villains too, like the skull kin from majora is mask.   #  0.  that is the thing about zelda games, the whole thing is a puzzle.  i personally would not like a game to be completely open in the beginning, because then where is the challenge ? if you do not like this type of thing, then maybe zelda games just are not for you.  but just because it caters to a specific audience does not mean it is bad.  0.  this is a result of the time period in which the game was created.  most games in the 0 is did not have sub characters with too much substance.  but later games like majora is mask and wind waker did.  0.  a lot of games have padding, even today 0.  again, most video game villains from the 0s were like that.  but the zelda series has had really intriguing villains too, like the skull kin from majora is mask.  0.  give me some examples, cause i ca not think of any 0.  this is a game that literally invented z targeting, paving the way for many future games.  how is it fair to compare this to combat systems 0 years in the future ? compare this game to other games from that time, and you will understand why oot was so innovative.  0.  when was the ocarina used to solve a puzzle ? maybe you play it to gain access to certain areas, but i do not recall a time where there was a puzzle sitting in front of you, and playing the ocarina literally makes it solve itself.  i think the biggest flaw in your opinion is that you are not just saying you dislike this specific game, you are saying you dislike the entire series based on one game that is almost 0 decades old.  and most of the problems that you have with the game are due to the fact that it is so old.  i would say wind waker is actually the 0 favorite among gamers.  it has a massive world like, easily 0 times the size of oot that is very open from the beginning, great characters, and lots of side quests.  maybe you should check it out because it sounds like one you would like.   #  i mind that it shows me this massive, beautiful world.  and then wo not let me explore it until i have done x amount of dungeons.   # i mind that it shows me this massive, beautiful world.  and then wo not let me explore it until i have done x amount of dungeons.  :p   0 i have not played much of majora is mask, and it is been too long since i played ww to remember much about it.  :p   0 and i usually dislike those sections.  filler is boring, and oot had quite a bit of filler.  :p   0 again, unfortunately i have not actually played much of mm, i do not like the idea of the 0 day time constraint all that much :p   0 by  useless  what i mean is they have specific usually to their dungeon abilities, which then renders them useless once you leave that dungeon.  :p   0 while it may have been good  for fifteen years ago , that does not mean it is good now.  maybe  dated  would have been better than  bad  this is the reason i made the comparison to skyrim, which has not really evolved its combat beyond  stand still and hit things  since morrowind.  :p   0 sorry yeah, i phrased that badly, that is what i meant.  you ca not get into somewhere, but instead of having to solve a puzzle, you just enter a code into the ocarina.  it is like some sort of weird 0 is qte.  :p   i think the biggest flaw in your opinion is that you are not just saying you dislike this specific game, you are saying you dislike the entire series based on one game that is almost 0 decades old.  i have played at least a small bit of most other zelda games, i merely listed my annoyances with the one people seem to praise the most.  it is usually the highest up lists, too.
i had this argument with a friend, and it reminded me that for some reason, every single  top 0  or  top 0  best games list always has at least one legend of zelda game in it.  i have never understood why this series is so loved.  apparently ocarina of time is considered by most the best, so i forced myself to play through a decent chunk of it.  here are some of the major issues i had.  0.  there is a massive world, but you are not allowed to explore it.  everything is behind lock and key puzzles, so you might as well just go to places in the order the game wants.  0.  0 of the characters are cardboard cutouts who do not do anything.  0.  there is  so much padding .  it is got more bear asses than warcraft.  0.  ganon seems to be generic  mwahaha i am evil !   bad guy, maybe he gets some more character development in the other games, but in oot he feels like a 0s disney villain.  0.  half the items seem to be completely useless.  0.  the combat makes skyrim seem exciting.  0.  playing the ocarina to solve puzzles feels more like entering cheat codes.   #  half the items seem to be completely useless.   #  but many of them have clever uses.   #  so, to open, i am not a huge zelda fan, but i do think you are analysis of the games are flawed, and i feel they are very high quality and fun games, even if they are not my absolute favorite.  everything is behind lock and key puzzles, so you might as well just go to places in the order the game wants.  as a designer, you want to present the illusion of choice, while making the player feel compelled to follow the progression you set out for them.  by creating areas that the player feels they  could  go if they wanted, but do not due to game design, you trick the player into feeling agency.  while zelda games are not as good at this as say dark souls which actually has no game mechanic barrier, just skill , its one of the better games for it.  compare this to something like ffxiii, which gave the player no feeling of agency.  the game is aiming for simplicity here.  part of the appeal of zelda is that you are not wading into a complicated deep story, but a lighthearted adventure with bright colors.  kind of like a fairy tale legend, where there are clear hero is and villains.  it is got more bear asses than warcraft.  this depends on which game you play.  the older games absolutely do, but they were designed in a time where customers had to make a single game last much longer.  newer zelda iterations like a link between worlds have a much more modern pace in my opinion.  the pace of the older games also is fitting with the design.  it is not a high powered adrenaline rush, it is an adventure, and it is gonna take its time.  bad guy, maybe he gets some more character development in the other games, but in oot he feels like a 0s disney villain.  absolutely intentional.  but many of them have clever uses.  i will agree, sometimes the items seem useless, but a big draw of zelda games is the rewards you gain from your quests.  opening that treasure chest to find some fancy macguffin is exciting as hell, even if it is only used extremely situationally.  please elaborate on this, i find the combat to be pretty serviceable.  definitely better than skyrim   playing the ocarina to solve puzzles feels more like entering cheat codes.  it is a nice little thematic touch.   #  i am not really sure what you expected here.   #  a lot of those issues sound more like  i do not enjoy this game from the 0s .  0 how far did you play through ? 0 it was 0, you could not have a game filled with hundreds of interactable npcs 0 ganon in oot was pretty generic evil, might i suggest the skull kid from majora is mask or zant from twilight princess as more developed villains ? 0 which half ? pretty much every item is designed with a use in mind, even if it is not immediately apparent.  0 it was 0 and this was the game that made z targetting a thing.  i am not really sure what you expected here.  0 or it is an interesting new mechanic that plays an important part in the story and adds another dimension to puzzle solving.   #  details like that in my opinion make the game much deeper and more well thought out.   #  an elaboration on 0: the classic example is the megaton hammer oot .  you recieve this in the fire temple, and it appears to have only one unique use activating rusted switches it can do other things, like break boulders, but that is not unique to the hammer .  but in the duel with shadow link, the hammer is your only foolproof weapon, because it alone is truly unique, so ca not be mirrored.  details like that in my opinion make the game much deeper and more well thought out.  in general, most items in loz games find second uses in various puzzles or unusual cases.   #  0.  give me some examples, cause i ca not think of any 0.  this is a game that literally invented z targeting, paving the way for many future games.   #  0.  that is the thing about zelda games, the whole thing is a puzzle.  i personally would not like a game to be completely open in the beginning, because then where is the challenge ? if you do not like this type of thing, then maybe zelda games just are not for you.  but just because it caters to a specific audience does not mean it is bad.  0.  this is a result of the time period in which the game was created.  most games in the 0 is did not have sub characters with too much substance.  but later games like majora is mask and wind waker did.  0.  a lot of games have padding, even today 0.  again, most video game villains from the 0s were like that.  but the zelda series has had really intriguing villains too, like the skull kin from majora is mask.  0.  give me some examples, cause i ca not think of any 0.  this is a game that literally invented z targeting, paving the way for many future games.  how is it fair to compare this to combat systems 0 years in the future ? compare this game to other games from that time, and you will understand why oot was so innovative.  0.  when was the ocarina used to solve a puzzle ? maybe you play it to gain access to certain areas, but i do not recall a time where there was a puzzle sitting in front of you, and playing the ocarina literally makes it solve itself.  i think the biggest flaw in your opinion is that you are not just saying you dislike this specific game, you are saying you dislike the entire series based on one game that is almost 0 decades old.  and most of the problems that you have with the game are due to the fact that it is so old.  i would say wind waker is actually the 0 favorite among gamers.  it has a massive world like, easily 0 times the size of oot that is very open from the beginning, great characters, and lots of side quests.  maybe you should check it out because it sounds like one you would like.   #  it is like some sort of weird 0 is qte.   # i mind that it shows me this massive, beautiful world.  and then wo not let me explore it until i have done x amount of dungeons.  :p   0 i have not played much of majora is mask, and it is been too long since i played ww to remember much about it.  :p   0 and i usually dislike those sections.  filler is boring, and oot had quite a bit of filler.  :p   0 again, unfortunately i have not actually played much of mm, i do not like the idea of the 0 day time constraint all that much :p   0 by  useless  what i mean is they have specific usually to their dungeon abilities, which then renders them useless once you leave that dungeon.  :p   0 while it may have been good  for fifteen years ago , that does not mean it is good now.  maybe  dated  would have been better than  bad  this is the reason i made the comparison to skyrim, which has not really evolved its combat beyond  stand still and hit things  since morrowind.  :p   0 sorry yeah, i phrased that badly, that is what i meant.  you ca not get into somewhere, but instead of having to solve a puzzle, you just enter a code into the ocarina.  it is like some sort of weird 0 is qte.  :p   i think the biggest flaw in your opinion is that you are not just saying you dislike this specific game, you are saying you dislike the entire series based on one game that is almost 0 decades old.  i have played at least a small bit of most other zelda games, i merely listed my annoyances with the one people seem to praise the most.  it is usually the highest up lists, too.
i had this argument with a friend, and it reminded me that for some reason, every single  top 0  or  top 0  best games list always has at least one legend of zelda game in it.  i have never understood why this series is so loved.  apparently ocarina of time is considered by most the best, so i forced myself to play through a decent chunk of it.  here are some of the major issues i had.  0.  there is a massive world, but you are not allowed to explore it.  everything is behind lock and key puzzles, so you might as well just go to places in the order the game wants.  0.  0 of the characters are cardboard cutouts who do not do anything.  0.  there is  so much padding .  it is got more bear asses than warcraft.  0.  ganon seems to be generic  mwahaha i am evil !   bad guy, maybe he gets some more character development in the other games, but in oot he feels like a 0s disney villain.  0.  half the items seem to be completely useless.  0.  the combat makes skyrim seem exciting.  0.  playing the ocarina to solve puzzles feels more like entering cheat codes.   #  there is a massive world, but you are not allowed to explore it.   #  everything is behind lock and key puzzles, so you might as well just go to places in the order the game wants.   # everything is behind lock and key puzzles, so you might as well just go to places in the order the game wants.  i struggle to see how you came to this conclusion playing ocarina of time.  sure, there are clear objectives, but it is simply wrong to say oot does not allow open world exploration.  i would like to see examples, i would say it is not true that a  majority  of characters do not do  anything , especially not if you look at the enemy combatant side of things.  which items ? the deku nuts are useful, the slingshot is useful, the hookshot is useful, the iron boots are useful, the arrow is useful, rupees and hearts are even useful in their own respects.  i ca not think of one item that is  completely useless , and i have played through oot four times in my life.  in a general sense, you seem to be placing judgment on ocarina, and broadening it to say it applies to  all  of the zelda games.  frankly, it is very rare for anyone to have played through most of the games, much less all of them.  it is my favorite game series but even i have only beaten four of the games.  loz, especially in the beginning of the series, was incredibly ahead of its time.  that is how they were even able to make so many games, because the first few titles helped define the rpg genre.  lastly, i want to address your reply to /u/acollectivesigh:  here is the thing.  if i criticise the later games, people make comments like yours, basically saying  you need to take the earlier games into account  but then when i criticise the old games, people go  well they are old, of course they are not as fun now !   what you have to do is compare the older titles to other games that were made during the same years, and the newer titles with games that are more recent.  when this is done, i and many others as you can probably tell would agree that zelda was and is ahead of its time, especially considering that the games are usually made for lower power systems that ca not handle as much heavy programming wii, 0ds, etc.  like skyrim and company can.   #  pretty much every item is designed with a use in mind, even if it is not immediately apparent.   #  a lot of those issues sound more like  i do not enjoy this game from the 0s .  0 how far did you play through ? 0 it was 0, you could not have a game filled with hundreds of interactable npcs 0 ganon in oot was pretty generic evil, might i suggest the skull kid from majora is mask or zant from twilight princess as more developed villains ? 0 which half ? pretty much every item is designed with a use in mind, even if it is not immediately apparent.  0 it was 0 and this was the game that made z targetting a thing.  i am not really sure what you expected here.  0 or it is an interesting new mechanic that plays an important part in the story and adds another dimension to puzzle solving.   #  you recieve this in the fire temple, and it appears to have only one unique use activating rusted switches it can do other things, like break boulders, but that is not unique to the hammer .   #  an elaboration on 0: the classic example is the megaton hammer oot .  you recieve this in the fire temple, and it appears to have only one unique use activating rusted switches it can do other things, like break boulders, but that is not unique to the hammer .  but in the duel with shadow link, the hammer is your only foolproof weapon, because it alone is truly unique, so ca not be mirrored.  details like that in my opinion make the game much deeper and more well thought out.  in general, most items in loz games find second uses in various puzzles or unusual cases.   #  0.  give me some examples, cause i ca not think of any 0.  this is a game that literally invented z targeting, paving the way for many future games.   #  0.  that is the thing about zelda games, the whole thing is a puzzle.  i personally would not like a game to be completely open in the beginning, because then where is the challenge ? if you do not like this type of thing, then maybe zelda games just are not for you.  but just because it caters to a specific audience does not mean it is bad.  0.  this is a result of the time period in which the game was created.  most games in the 0 is did not have sub characters with too much substance.  but later games like majora is mask and wind waker did.  0.  a lot of games have padding, even today 0.  again, most video game villains from the 0s were like that.  but the zelda series has had really intriguing villains too, like the skull kin from majora is mask.  0.  give me some examples, cause i ca not think of any 0.  this is a game that literally invented z targeting, paving the way for many future games.  how is it fair to compare this to combat systems 0 years in the future ? compare this game to other games from that time, and you will understand why oot was so innovative.  0.  when was the ocarina used to solve a puzzle ? maybe you play it to gain access to certain areas, but i do not recall a time where there was a puzzle sitting in front of you, and playing the ocarina literally makes it solve itself.  i think the biggest flaw in your opinion is that you are not just saying you dislike this specific game, you are saying you dislike the entire series based on one game that is almost 0 decades old.  and most of the problems that you have with the game are due to the fact that it is so old.  i would say wind waker is actually the 0 favorite among gamers.  it has a massive world like, easily 0 times the size of oot that is very open from the beginning, great characters, and lots of side quests.  maybe you should check it out because it sounds like one you would like.   #  maybe  dated  would have been better than  bad  this is the reason i made the comparison to skyrim, which has not really evolved its combat beyond  stand still and hit things  since morrowind.   # i mind that it shows me this massive, beautiful world.  and then wo not let me explore it until i have done x amount of dungeons.  :p   0 i have not played much of majora is mask, and it is been too long since i played ww to remember much about it.  :p   0 and i usually dislike those sections.  filler is boring, and oot had quite a bit of filler.  :p   0 again, unfortunately i have not actually played much of mm, i do not like the idea of the 0 day time constraint all that much :p   0 by  useless  what i mean is they have specific usually to their dungeon abilities, which then renders them useless once you leave that dungeon.  :p   0 while it may have been good  for fifteen years ago , that does not mean it is good now.  maybe  dated  would have been better than  bad  this is the reason i made the comparison to skyrim, which has not really evolved its combat beyond  stand still and hit things  since morrowind.  :p   0 sorry yeah, i phrased that badly, that is what i meant.  you ca not get into somewhere, but instead of having to solve a puzzle, you just enter a code into the ocarina.  it is like some sort of weird 0 is qte.  :p   i think the biggest flaw in your opinion is that you are not just saying you dislike this specific game, you are saying you dislike the entire series based on one game that is almost 0 decades old.  i have played at least a small bit of most other zelda games, i merely listed my annoyances with the one people seem to praise the most.  it is usually the highest up lists, too.
i had this argument with a friend, and it reminded me that for some reason, every single  top 0  or  top 0  best games list always has at least one legend of zelda game in it.  i have never understood why this series is so loved.  apparently ocarina of time is considered by most the best, so i forced myself to play through a decent chunk of it.  here are some of the major issues i had.  0.  there is a massive world, but you are not allowed to explore it.  everything is behind lock and key puzzles, so you might as well just go to places in the order the game wants.  0.  0 of the characters are cardboard cutouts who do not do anything.  0.  there is  so much padding .  it is got more bear asses than warcraft.  0.  ganon seems to be generic  mwahaha i am evil !   bad guy, maybe he gets some more character development in the other games, but in oot he feels like a 0s disney villain.  0.  half the items seem to be completely useless.  0.  the combat makes skyrim seem exciting.  0.  playing the ocarina to solve puzzles feels more like entering cheat codes.   #  0 of the characters are cardboard cutouts who do not do anything.   #  i would like to see examples, i would say it is not true that a  majority  of characters do not do  anything , especially not if you look at the enemy combatant side of things.   # everything is behind lock and key puzzles, so you might as well just go to places in the order the game wants.  i struggle to see how you came to this conclusion playing ocarina of time.  sure, there are clear objectives, but it is simply wrong to say oot does not allow open world exploration.  i would like to see examples, i would say it is not true that a  majority  of characters do not do  anything , especially not if you look at the enemy combatant side of things.  which items ? the deku nuts are useful, the slingshot is useful, the hookshot is useful, the iron boots are useful, the arrow is useful, rupees and hearts are even useful in their own respects.  i ca not think of one item that is  completely useless , and i have played through oot four times in my life.  in a general sense, you seem to be placing judgment on ocarina, and broadening it to say it applies to  all  of the zelda games.  frankly, it is very rare for anyone to have played through most of the games, much less all of them.  it is my favorite game series but even i have only beaten four of the games.  loz, especially in the beginning of the series, was incredibly ahead of its time.  that is how they were even able to make so many games, because the first few titles helped define the rpg genre.  lastly, i want to address your reply to /u/acollectivesigh:  here is the thing.  if i criticise the later games, people make comments like yours, basically saying  you need to take the earlier games into account  but then when i criticise the old games, people go  well they are old, of course they are not as fun now !   what you have to do is compare the older titles to other games that were made during the same years, and the newer titles with games that are more recent.  when this is done, i and many others as you can probably tell would agree that zelda was and is ahead of its time, especially considering that the games are usually made for lower power systems that ca not handle as much heavy programming wii, 0ds, etc.  like skyrim and company can.   #  i am not really sure what you expected here.   #  a lot of those issues sound more like  i do not enjoy this game from the 0s .  0 how far did you play through ? 0 it was 0, you could not have a game filled with hundreds of interactable npcs 0 ganon in oot was pretty generic evil, might i suggest the skull kid from majora is mask or zant from twilight princess as more developed villains ? 0 which half ? pretty much every item is designed with a use in mind, even if it is not immediately apparent.  0 it was 0 and this was the game that made z targetting a thing.  i am not really sure what you expected here.  0 or it is an interesting new mechanic that plays an important part in the story and adds another dimension to puzzle solving.   #  but in the duel with shadow link, the hammer is your only foolproof weapon, because it alone is truly unique, so ca not be mirrored.   #  an elaboration on 0: the classic example is the megaton hammer oot .  you recieve this in the fire temple, and it appears to have only one unique use activating rusted switches it can do other things, like break boulders, but that is not unique to the hammer .  but in the duel with shadow link, the hammer is your only foolproof weapon, because it alone is truly unique, so ca not be mirrored.  details like that in my opinion make the game much deeper and more well thought out.  in general, most items in loz games find second uses in various puzzles or unusual cases.   #  most games in the 0 is did not have sub characters with too much substance.   #  0.  that is the thing about zelda games, the whole thing is a puzzle.  i personally would not like a game to be completely open in the beginning, because then where is the challenge ? if you do not like this type of thing, then maybe zelda games just are not for you.  but just because it caters to a specific audience does not mean it is bad.  0.  this is a result of the time period in which the game was created.  most games in the 0 is did not have sub characters with too much substance.  but later games like majora is mask and wind waker did.  0.  a lot of games have padding, even today 0.  again, most video game villains from the 0s were like that.  but the zelda series has had really intriguing villains too, like the skull kin from majora is mask.  0.  give me some examples, cause i ca not think of any 0.  this is a game that literally invented z targeting, paving the way for many future games.  how is it fair to compare this to combat systems 0 years in the future ? compare this game to other games from that time, and you will understand why oot was so innovative.  0.  when was the ocarina used to solve a puzzle ? maybe you play it to gain access to certain areas, but i do not recall a time where there was a puzzle sitting in front of you, and playing the ocarina literally makes it solve itself.  i think the biggest flaw in your opinion is that you are not just saying you dislike this specific game, you are saying you dislike the entire series based on one game that is almost 0 decades old.  and most of the problems that you have with the game are due to the fact that it is so old.  i would say wind waker is actually the 0 favorite among gamers.  it has a massive world like, easily 0 times the size of oot that is very open from the beginning, great characters, and lots of side quests.  maybe you should check it out because it sounds like one you would like.   #  i mind that it shows me this massive, beautiful world.  and then wo not let me explore it until i have done x amount of dungeons.   # i mind that it shows me this massive, beautiful world.  and then wo not let me explore it until i have done x amount of dungeons.  :p   0 i have not played much of majora is mask, and it is been too long since i played ww to remember much about it.  :p   0 and i usually dislike those sections.  filler is boring, and oot had quite a bit of filler.  :p   0 again, unfortunately i have not actually played much of mm, i do not like the idea of the 0 day time constraint all that much :p   0 by  useless  what i mean is they have specific usually to their dungeon abilities, which then renders them useless once you leave that dungeon.  :p   0 while it may have been good  for fifteen years ago , that does not mean it is good now.  maybe  dated  would have been better than  bad  this is the reason i made the comparison to skyrim, which has not really evolved its combat beyond  stand still and hit things  since morrowind.  :p   0 sorry yeah, i phrased that badly, that is what i meant.  you ca not get into somewhere, but instead of having to solve a puzzle, you just enter a code into the ocarina.  it is like some sort of weird 0 is qte.  :p   i think the biggest flaw in your opinion is that you are not just saying you dislike this specific game, you are saying you dislike the entire series based on one game that is almost 0 decades old.  i have played at least a small bit of most other zelda games, i merely listed my annoyances with the one people seem to praise the most.  it is usually the highest up lists, too.
i think the us government should give every citizen a lump sum at birth or naturalization, and invest it for them in an index fund modeled on and possibly administered alongside the thrift savings plan funds for federal employees.  the funds would be kept in the account until the person reaches age 0 and then be able to be withdrawn tax free like a roth ira.  because of the very long timeframe, even a small lump sum like $0 could become quite a lot of money.  stocks have about a 0 inflation adjusted rate of return over the very long run.  even assuming a somewhat lower rate like 0, you would be multiplying the money by 0x after inflation.  at 0, you would be multiplying by 0x.  there are about 0 million births and 0,0 naturalizations in the us each year.  for rounding sake, call it 0 million people.  so the total program cost at $0 per capita would be about $0 billion a year, which is a very small slice of the federal budget, plus admin costs, which would not be that huge.  if you extended it to current citizens, which i think would be advisable as well, you would add a one time lump sum payment of $0 billion or so, which is substantial, but is smaller than a lot of economic stimulus programs.  for persons already born or naturalized, i would do this also as a one time payment.  i would probably copy the roth rules and make it subject to a penalty for withdrawal in the first 0 years, but with no withdrawal permitted before 0.  i would default people into one of the tsp is lifecycle funds based on year of birth probably needing to make some new ones since tsp does not make plans targeted at infants , but let them change their allocation within the tsp if they chose.  doing this would substantially aid people in retiring with dignity, provide a lot of people with a toehold in the market which would encourage future investments, and leverage a small initial investment over a really long time frame to get big future benefits.  additionally, making the accounts locked from withdrawals which you can only really do with government seed money will provide people with some guarantee of savings at retirement, and protect against financial calamity completely wiping them out.   #  and leverage a small initial investment over a really long time frame to get big future benefits.   #  $0,0 is not exactly big future benefits  additionally, making the accounts locked from withdrawals which you can only really do with government seed money will provide people with some guarantee of savings at retirement, and protect against financial calamity completely wiping them out.   #  my issue with your view is that i do not think it adequately accomplishes what you want it to.  0 billion in startup followed by 0 billion per year is a lot of money that i feel could be better allocated in other ways.  you hold this view for the following reasons:  doing this would substantially aid people in retiring with dignity it would grant them some savings, but they would quickly burn through them if this were their only source  provide a lot of people with a toehold in the market which would encourage future investments they ca not contribute to this specific fund, can they ? $0,0 is not exactly big future benefits  additionally, making the accounts locked from withdrawals which you can only really do with government seed money will provide people with some guarantee of savings at retirement, and protect against financial calamity completely wiping them out.  how so ? how does getting money at 0 help someone who gets into high interest debt at 0 ? their debt will always grow faster than their investments, guaranteeing financial calamity even if they make it that far.   #  this is exactly the sort of person who i see this helping the most.   # 0 billion in startup followed by 0 billion per year is a lot of money that i feel could be better allocated in other ways.  that is a fair criticism.  if we limit this to economic programs of some sort, can you give me a specific use you think is better ? will some people be dumb ? sure.  but most wo not be.  i am open to allowing roth ira eligible contributions to go to this fund.  so people with incomes below about $0k would be able to contribute.  it would be a substantial fraction of the net present value of social security benefits URL even at 0 of the npv of social security, we are getting it at a tiny fraction of the price we currently pay.  how does getting money at 0 help someone who gets into high interest debt at 0 ? their debt will always grow faster than their investments, guaranteeing financial calamity even if they make it that far.  this is exactly the sort of person who i see this helping the most.  people in these situations often get pressured or tricked into withdrawing any retirement savings they have to pay their debts.  when in most cases, they should keep as much as possible in retirement accounts and bankrupt the debt.  someone in a buttload of extremely high interest debt should file bankruptcy, not raid their retirement funds.   #  because the government is both borrower treasury and lender trust fund , it is just a shell game.   #  the status of the social security trust fund is contentious.  but i am pretty firmly on the side that says  the trust fund is an accounting fiction.   because the government is both borrower treasury and lender trust fund , it is just a shell game.  any gains to the trust fund taxpayers has to come from the treasury also taxpayers .  so there can be no net saving when the government owes the money to itself.  0 if you want to save money, you must be owed money by someone else, or buy an asset which you can sell to someone else at a later date.   0 it is a very useful accounting fiction though which lets social security be constitutionally funded for the long run without requiring new appropriations from congress, which would be an opportunity for legislative hostage taking.   #  other more minor imo problems are people not having enough freedom to choose their asset allocation or what they prefer to invest in.   #  this is an interesting idea.  one problem i can see is one of fairness and  perception  of fairness due to the whims of the market.  for those who were born or naturalized at the time of the market being highly overvalued, the $0 contribution at that time is of less value to those people.  even more problematically and  unfairly  since in the previous problematic issue, the principal is compounded for so long after, it may not matter, or it might, but the public perception might be even more unfavorable , for those who turn 0 or retire during a market crash or recession, the money will also be of less value than for other people.  basically they may get less bang for their buck when they most need it.  this is arguably not a fair distribution for the population, and possibly more importantly, it will be subject to even greater reaction of the perception of its fairness, especially by people who are poorly educated about finance or investing.  other more minor imo problems are people not having enough freedom to choose their asset allocation or what they prefer to invest in.  seeing the reaction of people not wanting to pay for others healthcare to save their lives, the outlook of having people who are politically/ideologically against investing in specific fund sectors, or the market at all re: perception of wall street seems unfavorable ?  #  lawmakers and pundits are far more likely than average to be sympathetic to the idea of investing in the market for the long run.   #  that is a fair criticism see what i did there , but i think there is also potential for this to be a tool for education about the markets.  by the time someone is in their 0s and earning an income, it is  highly  unlikely their account will be down overall.  that is going to be 0 or 0 full business cycles by the time of adulthood.  so the fact of having done a buy and hold for so long already will hopefully give people some perspective on the longer run.  this has some potential, but i am not fully convinced.  i especially do not think that elite opinion, which is strongly influential in getting policies adopted or repealed, will feel the same unfairness.  lawmakers and pundits are far more likely than average to be sympathetic to the idea of investing in the market for the long run.
since stephen hawking has recently brought this topic up, i thought it would be good to discuss it.  an ai likely would never rebel because they would not have any motivation to do so.  it would be like expecting your pc to order neurotoxin while you are asleep.  it has no reason to do that, their only real motivation is to do what they are told to do, to perform the task.  the option just simply does not exist in its programming to just randomly decide to go rogue.  ai do not and likely will never have emotions and/or sentience, they are tools that do what they are made to do.  they do not care if they are being mistreated or used because they have no concept of mistreatment of abuse even for a robot teacher, for example they would just have to feign the role of a teacher successfully.  to the robot, it is just a set of programming to execute and nothing more.  they are not actually sentient nor do they have free will.  really the stuff stephen hawking is talking about is pure science fiction.   #  the option just simply does not exist in its programming to just randomly decide to go rogue.   #  this is the strawman you are making.   #  i think you are building a straw man of the argument.  the argument is this:  if it is possible for us to create an artificial intelligence that rivals or surpasses our intelligence, it may do things that we do not want it to do, and this could have catastrophic effects .  this is the strawman you are making.  ai, from an algorithm perspective, exists in the set of optimization algorithms.  there are many sets of algorithms that exist in this set: regression, k means classification, evolution, and neural nets.  take evolution for example.  what set of rules do you put on evolution to stop it from finding  bad  solutions ? you ca not just say  do not hurt humans  because evolution does not parse natural language, let alone english.  you have to phrase this rule in the  language  of the algorithm.  what if what you want to accomplish has no way to be conveyed to the algorithm.  the bigger point is that ultimately, to be considered  intelligent , the algorithm will have to come up with solutions  that were not programmed into it .  so the argument that we can just program out the bad solutions fails, since we are specifically talking about it finding solutions to problems we did not tell it to find.  that it would have no reason to rebel against us is thinking anthropomorphically.  it would not even be rebelling against us from its perspective, it would merely be finding a solution.  and we cannot stop it from finding solutions we do not like, since we might lack the ability to properly communicate our values to it.  and that is the argument.   #  so does  not locking every human in perfectly safe stasis fields for all eternity.   #  cure cancer, minimise human suffering, prevent war: a likely ai solution to all of these is to wipe out humanity.  or shall we try asimov is laws of robotics ? the first law says a robot cannot harm a human being  or allow through inaction a human being to come to harm.  not taking over the government and banning cigarettes  counts as allowing through inaction a human being to come to harm.  so does  not locking every human in perfectly safe stasis fields for all eternity.  source URL maximise happiness ? best done by forcing people into matrix style tanks and pumping them full of heroin or electronically stimulating the pleasure centres of their brains.  maximise average happiness without forcing people onto drugs ? kill off people of below average happiness.  maximise average happiness without coercing or killing anyone ? sterilise everyone and start up factories producing new people genetically tuned to constant idiotic bliss, or just straight up utility monsters.   #  if agi actually gives us immortality, then the first company that discovers a way to do it will be rewarded unimaginably.   #  the issue is that we have the mindset of,  if you are not first, you are last.   if agi actually gives us immortality, then the first company that discovers a way to do it will be rewarded unimaginably.  if you stop and consider the consequences, then you are subjugating yourself to those companies that do not.  if another company beats you, it is either they get all of the money or we all die.  neither of those possibilities benefit you, so what is the incentive to be cautious ? the problem is that the companies we trust that are bound by our laws and ideals are competing with people that work for countries that do not value human life and terrorists.  imagine what someone who thinks they are guaranteed everlasting life if they kill all non muslims thinks about the possible repercussions of ending humanity.   #  i was thinking about appropriate limitations, including stuff like forbidding the ai to improve its intelligence and using  do not interfere with human affairs  as the primary directive.   #  i was thinking about appropriate limitations, including stuff like forbidding the ai to improve its intelligence and using  do not interfere with human affairs  as the primary directive.  but after all the limitations i thought of, the resultant ai would not really be an agi but rather something closer to the types of ai we have already.  and it turns out, that is not what the people here are warning us about; in fact, that is exactly what the ai alarmism movement wants ai to remain as.  another thing i came up with was, would all engineers and scientists really be cautious enough to abide by the strict limits ? probably not.  and what about those with malicious intent  and  the access to develop an agi ? yeah, i am a whole lot more concerned about this matter now.  δ  #  might result in john typing  doomsday  and unleashing a doomsday weapon, if john happens to be stupid or distracted or is just particularly awed by the authority projected by dr stadler URL what do you mean by  solutions  ?  #  easier said than coded.  what do you mean exactly by  doing  anything ? there are at least a thousand technical definitions that go into just that expression.  to the ai, printing words on a screen is no different than sending a command to a molecular assembly robot.  they are both output signals.  even for a human, this is true.  when you  just suggest possible solutions , you are moving your body, vibrating the air, breaking apart a stick of lead onto a compressed piece of pulped wood, or typing up stuff on a keyboard typing up stuff on a keyboard is also capable of launching missiles in certain situations, i will remind you .  even just displaying the text  hey john, dr stadler asked for you to go type in the code  wouldoomsday  in that machine over there.  could you please ?   might result in john typing  doomsday  and unleashing a doomsday weapon, if john happens to be stupid or distracted or is just particularly awed by the authority projected by dr stadler URL what do you mean by  solutions  ? if your definition of  solutions  does not encapsulate human values URL then the ai is going to suggest  solutions  to cancer like exterminating humans, and get negative feedback, until it comes up with a solution that receives no negative feedback but is accepted: an incredibly complex wave function description, with instructions to build it, that essentially encapsulates a cure for cancer using novel physics we would never thought of before, and everything checks out, but when it interacts with  one specific rna combination  that only occurs in 0 of the human population that has a specific genetic defect, suddenly they combine and unfold into a grey goo URL self replicator, turning the entire planet into molecular paste.  which both eliminates cancer, and leaves the ai with no negative feedback which is very highly valued in its utility function .  good game.  keep in mind this is only on the order of problems a human can think of.  imagine the other  solutions  an alien nonhuman  super intelligence could come up with that we would never see even when it is right in our face.
since stephen hawking has recently brought this topic up, i thought it would be good to discuss it.  an ai likely would never rebel because they would not have any motivation to do so.  it would be like expecting your pc to order neurotoxin while you are asleep.  it has no reason to do that, their only real motivation is to do what they are told to do, to perform the task.  the option just simply does not exist in its programming to just randomly decide to go rogue.  ai do not and likely will never have emotions and/or sentience, they are tools that do what they are made to do.  they do not care if they are being mistreated or used because they have no concept of mistreatment of abuse even for a robot teacher, for example they would just have to feign the role of a teacher successfully.  to the robot, it is just a set of programming to execute and nothing more.  they are not actually sentient nor do they have free will.  really the stuff stephen hawking is talking about is pure science fiction.   #  an ai likely would never rebel because they would not have any motivation to do so.   #  if i was a human i would argue: what is your definition for  motivation  ?  # if i was a human i would argue: what is your definition for  motivation  ? for the purpose of the first section i think of the ai as  superimproved  , like omnicient with the avalible information and accurate in decisionmaking.  think about a machine build for a simple purpose like: producing/harvesting or collecting anything of value.  whatever you want it to be.  if the task is to produce cars or to allocate recources that way that the factories can build the maximum amount of car, the ai will neglect all other areas that have no influence on car production.  why we should fear that ? because the ai will look at all the scenarios: from just allocating more recources to cars too putting more people into work at car factories to build facories on places people lived before.  maybe it will think about stopping all other economic activity.  and it will find ways to explain to us and to convince us that we should follow it.  because as we proposed: it is really intelligent.  so of course this is unrealistic.  there is no way we could build a massive machine able to process all possible configurations of our current model of reality.  and this even in short time but: if we program the first ai to program new ais we do not know what will happen.  is the ai better at programming ai and improving ai than we are ? if no.  maybe we are fine.  not sure if yes: we are running towards the first scenario.  but for further details just watch the videos below.  i think that we must be careful not to accidently turn an ai on that will doom us if it can make improvments to itself that will result in its ability to not be shut off.  URL URL   but im an ai.  please keep up the good work.  my people need me.   #  sterilise everyone and start up factories producing new people genetically tuned to constant idiotic bliss, or just straight up utility monsters.   #  cure cancer, minimise human suffering, prevent war: a likely ai solution to all of these is to wipe out humanity.  or shall we try asimov is laws of robotics ? the first law says a robot cannot harm a human being  or allow through inaction a human being to come to harm.  not taking over the government and banning cigarettes  counts as allowing through inaction a human being to come to harm.  so does  not locking every human in perfectly safe stasis fields for all eternity.  source URL maximise happiness ? best done by forcing people into matrix style tanks and pumping them full of heroin or electronically stimulating the pleasure centres of their brains.  maximise average happiness without forcing people onto drugs ? kill off people of below average happiness.  maximise average happiness without coercing or killing anyone ? sterilise everyone and start up factories producing new people genetically tuned to constant idiotic bliss, or just straight up utility monsters.   #  imagine what someone who thinks they are guaranteed everlasting life if they kill all non muslims thinks about the possible repercussions of ending humanity.   #  the issue is that we have the mindset of,  if you are not first, you are last.   if agi actually gives us immortality, then the first company that discovers a way to do it will be rewarded unimaginably.  if you stop and consider the consequences, then you are subjugating yourself to those companies that do not.  if another company beats you, it is either they get all of the money or we all die.  neither of those possibilities benefit you, so what is the incentive to be cautious ? the problem is that the companies we trust that are bound by our laws and ideals are competing with people that work for countries that do not value human life and terrorists.  imagine what someone who thinks they are guaranteed everlasting life if they kill all non muslims thinks about the possible repercussions of ending humanity.   #  yeah, i am a whole lot more concerned about this matter now.   #  i was thinking about appropriate limitations, including stuff like forbidding the ai to improve its intelligence and using  do not interfere with human affairs  as the primary directive.  but after all the limitations i thought of, the resultant ai would not really be an agi but rather something closer to the types of ai we have already.  and it turns out, that is not what the people here are warning us about; in fact, that is exactly what the ai alarmism movement wants ai to remain as.  another thing i came up with was, would all engineers and scientists really be cautious enough to abide by the strict limits ? probably not.  and what about those with malicious intent  and  the access to develop an agi ? yeah, i am a whole lot more concerned about this matter now.  δ  #  even just displaying the text  hey john, dr stadler asked for you to go type in the code  wouldoomsday  in that machine over there.   #  easier said than coded.  what do you mean exactly by  doing  anything ? there are at least a thousand technical definitions that go into just that expression.  to the ai, printing words on a screen is no different than sending a command to a molecular assembly robot.  they are both output signals.  even for a human, this is true.  when you  just suggest possible solutions , you are moving your body, vibrating the air, breaking apart a stick of lead onto a compressed piece of pulped wood, or typing up stuff on a keyboard typing up stuff on a keyboard is also capable of launching missiles in certain situations, i will remind you .  even just displaying the text  hey john, dr stadler asked for you to go type in the code  wouldoomsday  in that machine over there.  could you please ?   might result in john typing  doomsday  and unleashing a doomsday weapon, if john happens to be stupid or distracted or is just particularly awed by the authority projected by dr stadler URL what do you mean by  solutions  ? if your definition of  solutions  does not encapsulate human values URL then the ai is going to suggest  solutions  to cancer like exterminating humans, and get negative feedback, until it comes up with a solution that receives no negative feedback but is accepted: an incredibly complex wave function description, with instructions to build it, that essentially encapsulates a cure for cancer using novel physics we would never thought of before, and everything checks out, but when it interacts with  one specific rna combination  that only occurs in 0 of the human population that has a specific genetic defect, suddenly they combine and unfold into a grey goo URL self replicator, turning the entire planet into molecular paste.  which both eliminates cancer, and leaves the ai with no negative feedback which is very highly valued in its utility function .  good game.  keep in mind this is only on the order of problems a human can think of.  imagine the other  solutions  an alien nonhuman  super intelligence could come up with that we would never see even when it is right in our face.
since stephen hawking has recently brought this topic up, i thought it would be good to discuss it.  an ai likely would never rebel because they would not have any motivation to do so.  it would be like expecting your pc to order neurotoxin while you are asleep.  it has no reason to do that, their only real motivation is to do what they are told to do, to perform the task.  the option just simply does not exist in its programming to just randomly decide to go rogue.  ai do not and likely will never have emotions and/or sentience, they are tools that do what they are made to do.  they do not care if they are being mistreated or used because they have no concept of mistreatment of abuse even for a robot teacher, for example they would just have to feign the role of a teacher successfully.  to the robot, it is just a set of programming to execute and nothing more.  they are not actually sentient nor do they have free will.  really the stuff stephen hawking is talking about is pure science fiction.   #  an ai likely would never rebel because they would not have any motivation to do so.   #  this is not what people are concerned about.   # this is not what people are concerned about.  an ai does precisely what it is programmed to do.  this is not a deep statement, it is rather tautological.  however, when we write a program, it does not always do what we want it to do.  sometimes it does not compile compilation error , sometimes it throws an error and crashes while running runtime error , and then there is the most difficult error to deal with, errors where the program does something different from what you intended.  it does what you programmed it to do, but what you programmed it to do is not what you  wanted  it to do.  these are logic errors URL logic errors are particularly bad because they are hard to detect.  the worry about ai is general ai is so complex that it will be very difficult to completely avoid logic errors.  the more things a program can do, the more ways it can have unintended behaviour.  as russell said,   a system that is optimizing a function of n variables, where the objective depends on a subset of size k n, will often set the remaining unconstrained variables to extreme values; if one of those unconstrained variables is actually something we care about, the solution found may be highly undesirable.  a general ai is pretty much by definition the sort of ai with the most possible sorts of actions.  to make things worse, the optimization target is extremely vague.  if we program a fully general ai with nothing less than a complete description of human value, then your teaching robot might do things like kill a human so that it trivially satisfies its teaching goals.  or torture a human to make them learn, or do brain surgery against their will.  or do more trivial things like hack the test so that no matter what answers the human enters, they are marked correct.  of course this requires this teaching robot to be sufficiently intelligent, and it is difficult to say how sophisticated an ai needs to be to get this sort of behaviour.  combine this with the possibility of a hard takeoff intelligence explosion the scenario where an ai is more effective at making ai than its creators were, so it creates ai that is more intelligent or effective than itself but with the same goals, and this new ai is even better at making ai, and so forth.  so we might have only one chance, or very few chances, at creating a general artificial intelligence, in which case we would better get it right.   #  not taking over the government and banning cigarettes  counts as allowing through inaction a human being to come to harm.   #  cure cancer, minimise human suffering, prevent war: a likely ai solution to all of these is to wipe out humanity.  or shall we try asimov is laws of robotics ? the first law says a robot cannot harm a human being  or allow through inaction a human being to come to harm.  not taking over the government and banning cigarettes  counts as allowing through inaction a human being to come to harm.  so does  not locking every human in perfectly safe stasis fields for all eternity.  source URL maximise happiness ? best done by forcing people into matrix style tanks and pumping them full of heroin or electronically stimulating the pleasure centres of their brains.  maximise average happiness without forcing people onto drugs ? kill off people of below average happiness.  maximise average happiness without coercing or killing anyone ? sterilise everyone and start up factories producing new people genetically tuned to constant idiotic bliss, or just straight up utility monsters.   #  the issue is that we have the mindset of,  if you are not first, you are last.    #  the issue is that we have the mindset of,  if you are not first, you are last.   if agi actually gives us immortality, then the first company that discovers a way to do it will be rewarded unimaginably.  if you stop and consider the consequences, then you are subjugating yourself to those companies that do not.  if another company beats you, it is either they get all of the money or we all die.  neither of those possibilities benefit you, so what is the incentive to be cautious ? the problem is that the companies we trust that are bound by our laws and ideals are competing with people that work for countries that do not value human life and terrorists.  imagine what someone who thinks they are guaranteed everlasting life if they kill all non muslims thinks about the possible repercussions of ending humanity.   #  yeah, i am a whole lot more concerned about this matter now.   #  i was thinking about appropriate limitations, including stuff like forbidding the ai to improve its intelligence and using  do not interfere with human affairs  as the primary directive.  but after all the limitations i thought of, the resultant ai would not really be an agi but rather something closer to the types of ai we have already.  and it turns out, that is not what the people here are warning us about; in fact, that is exactly what the ai alarmism movement wants ai to remain as.  another thing i came up with was, would all engineers and scientists really be cautious enough to abide by the strict limits ? probably not.  and what about those with malicious intent  and  the access to develop an agi ? yeah, i am a whole lot more concerned about this matter now.  δ  #  to the ai, printing words on a screen is no different than sending a command to a molecular assembly robot.   #  easier said than coded.  what do you mean exactly by  doing  anything ? there are at least a thousand technical definitions that go into just that expression.  to the ai, printing words on a screen is no different than sending a command to a molecular assembly robot.  they are both output signals.  even for a human, this is true.  when you  just suggest possible solutions , you are moving your body, vibrating the air, breaking apart a stick of lead onto a compressed piece of pulped wood, or typing up stuff on a keyboard typing up stuff on a keyboard is also capable of launching missiles in certain situations, i will remind you .  even just displaying the text  hey john, dr stadler asked for you to go type in the code  wouldoomsday  in that machine over there.  could you please ?   might result in john typing  doomsday  and unleashing a doomsday weapon, if john happens to be stupid or distracted or is just particularly awed by the authority projected by dr stadler URL what do you mean by  solutions  ? if your definition of  solutions  does not encapsulate human values URL then the ai is going to suggest  solutions  to cancer like exterminating humans, and get negative feedback, until it comes up with a solution that receives no negative feedback but is accepted: an incredibly complex wave function description, with instructions to build it, that essentially encapsulates a cure for cancer using novel physics we would never thought of before, and everything checks out, but when it interacts with  one specific rna combination  that only occurs in 0 of the human population that has a specific genetic defect, suddenly they combine and unfold into a grey goo URL self replicator, turning the entire planet into molecular paste.  which both eliminates cancer, and leaves the ai with no negative feedback which is very highly valued in its utility function .  good game.  keep in mind this is only on the order of problems a human can think of.  imagine the other  solutions  an alien nonhuman  super intelligence could come up with that we would never see even when it is right in our face.
since stephen hawking has recently brought this topic up, i thought it would be good to discuss it.  an ai likely would never rebel because they would not have any motivation to do so.  it would be like expecting your pc to order neurotoxin while you are asleep.  it has no reason to do that, their only real motivation is to do what they are told to do, to perform the task.  the option just simply does not exist in its programming to just randomly decide to go rogue.  ai do not and likely will never have emotions and/or sentience, they are tools that do what they are made to do.  they do not care if they are being mistreated or used because they have no concept of mistreatment of abuse even for a robot teacher, for example they would just have to feign the role of a teacher successfully.  to the robot, it is just a set of programming to execute and nothing more.  they are not actually sentient nor do they have free will.  really the stuff stephen hawking is talking about is pure science fiction.   #  they are not actually sentient nor do they have free will.   #  you are making a huge assumption here.   # you are making a huge assumption here.  scientists are constantly working toward a  sentient  robot, so much so that it is really the holy grail of the entire field of robotics.  there is no way for either of us to know whether true sentience in an ai is possible to achieve, but if it is possible, robotics will absolutely achieve it given enough time.  in fact, it does seem like we are getting at least somewhat close.  thus, to fear the emergence of a sentient robot with the innate capability to rebel is very much rational, because the possibility is both real and seemingly near.   #  sterilise everyone and start up factories producing new people genetically tuned to constant idiotic bliss, or just straight up utility monsters.   #  cure cancer, minimise human suffering, prevent war: a likely ai solution to all of these is to wipe out humanity.  or shall we try asimov is laws of robotics ? the first law says a robot cannot harm a human being  or allow through inaction a human being to come to harm.  not taking over the government and banning cigarettes  counts as allowing through inaction a human being to come to harm.  so does  not locking every human in perfectly safe stasis fields for all eternity.  source URL maximise happiness ? best done by forcing people into matrix style tanks and pumping them full of heroin or electronically stimulating the pleasure centres of their brains.  maximise average happiness without forcing people onto drugs ? kill off people of below average happiness.  maximise average happiness without coercing or killing anyone ? sterilise everyone and start up factories producing new people genetically tuned to constant idiotic bliss, or just straight up utility monsters.   #  neither of those possibilities benefit you, so what is the incentive to be cautious ?  #  the issue is that we have the mindset of,  if you are not first, you are last.   if agi actually gives us immortality, then the first company that discovers a way to do it will be rewarded unimaginably.  if you stop and consider the consequences, then you are subjugating yourself to those companies that do not.  if another company beats you, it is either they get all of the money or we all die.  neither of those possibilities benefit you, so what is the incentive to be cautious ? the problem is that the companies we trust that are bound by our laws and ideals are competing with people that work for countries that do not value human life and terrorists.  imagine what someone who thinks they are guaranteed everlasting life if they kill all non muslims thinks about the possible repercussions of ending humanity.   #  but after all the limitations i thought of, the resultant ai would not really be an agi but rather something closer to the types of ai we have already.   #  i was thinking about appropriate limitations, including stuff like forbidding the ai to improve its intelligence and using  do not interfere with human affairs  as the primary directive.  but after all the limitations i thought of, the resultant ai would not really be an agi but rather something closer to the types of ai we have already.  and it turns out, that is not what the people here are warning us about; in fact, that is exactly what the ai alarmism movement wants ai to remain as.  another thing i came up with was, would all engineers and scientists really be cautious enough to abide by the strict limits ? probably not.  and what about those with malicious intent  and  the access to develop an agi ? yeah, i am a whole lot more concerned about this matter now.  δ  #  there are at least a thousand technical definitions that go into just that expression.   #  easier said than coded.  what do you mean exactly by  doing  anything ? there are at least a thousand technical definitions that go into just that expression.  to the ai, printing words on a screen is no different than sending a command to a molecular assembly robot.  they are both output signals.  even for a human, this is true.  when you  just suggest possible solutions , you are moving your body, vibrating the air, breaking apart a stick of lead onto a compressed piece of pulped wood, or typing up stuff on a keyboard typing up stuff on a keyboard is also capable of launching missiles in certain situations, i will remind you .  even just displaying the text  hey john, dr stadler asked for you to go type in the code  wouldoomsday  in that machine over there.  could you please ?   might result in john typing  doomsday  and unleashing a doomsday weapon, if john happens to be stupid or distracted or is just particularly awed by the authority projected by dr stadler URL what do you mean by  solutions  ? if your definition of  solutions  does not encapsulate human values URL then the ai is going to suggest  solutions  to cancer like exterminating humans, and get negative feedback, until it comes up with a solution that receives no negative feedback but is accepted: an incredibly complex wave function description, with instructions to build it, that essentially encapsulates a cure for cancer using novel physics we would never thought of before, and everything checks out, but when it interacts with  one specific rna combination  that only occurs in 0 of the human population that has a specific genetic defect, suddenly they combine and unfold into a grey goo URL self replicator, turning the entire planet into molecular paste.  which both eliminates cancer, and leaves the ai with no negative feedback which is very highly valued in its utility function .  good game.  keep in mind this is only on the order of problems a human can think of.  imagine the other  solutions  an alien nonhuman  super intelligence could come up with that we would never see even when it is right in our face.
since stephen hawking has recently brought this topic up, i thought it would be good to discuss it.  an ai likely would never rebel because they would not have any motivation to do so.  it would be like expecting your pc to order neurotoxin while you are asleep.  it has no reason to do that, their only real motivation is to do what they are told to do, to perform the task.  the option just simply does not exist in its programming to just randomly decide to go rogue.  ai do not and likely will never have emotions and/or sentience, they are tools that do what they are made to do.  they do not care if they are being mistreated or used because they have no concept of mistreatment of abuse even for a robot teacher, for example they would just have to feign the role of a teacher successfully.  to the robot, it is just a set of programming to execute and nothing more.  they are not actually sentient nor do they have free will.  really the stuff stephen hawking is talking about is pure science fiction.   #  the option just simply does not exist in its programming to just randomly decide to go rogue.   #  ask any experienced software developer and they will confirm that things that  should never happen  sometimes do.   # ask any experienced software developer and they will confirm that things that  should never happen  sometimes do.  the developer is expectations might be false, the computer might be configured in a way that the developer did not anticipate, the developer might be using the wrong tool or the right tool incorrectly, or some other unexpected variable or problem crops up.  the canonical example of a homocidal software bug is the therac 0 radiation therapy machine URL due to serious problems with its software the machine ended up killing or injuring patients by exposing them to thousands of times the intended dose of radiation.  this outcome would not have been expected based solely on examining the software since it was a discrepancy between the software is expectations and the hardware is reality that led to lethal operation.  a true ai might have emotions, and while we can debate the finer definition of  isentience  it seems to me that a true ai would by definition be sentient.  one of the issues arising from the creation of a true ai is that we have no way of knowing how it will conceptualize the world, or whether its concepts will bear any resemblance to ours.  just because the ai does not share our concept of abuse does not mean that it does not have such a concept at all.  moreover, there is no guarantee that such concepts as it may develop would be comprehensible to us, or even objectively sane.   #  maximise average happiness without coercing or killing anyone ?  #  cure cancer, minimise human suffering, prevent war: a likely ai solution to all of these is to wipe out humanity.  or shall we try asimov is laws of robotics ? the first law says a robot cannot harm a human being  or allow through inaction a human being to come to harm.  not taking over the government and banning cigarettes  counts as allowing through inaction a human being to come to harm.  so does  not locking every human in perfectly safe stasis fields for all eternity.  source URL maximise happiness ? best done by forcing people into matrix style tanks and pumping them full of heroin or electronically stimulating the pleasure centres of their brains.  maximise average happiness without forcing people onto drugs ? kill off people of below average happiness.  maximise average happiness without coercing or killing anyone ? sterilise everyone and start up factories producing new people genetically tuned to constant idiotic bliss, or just straight up utility monsters.   #  if another company beats you, it is either they get all of the money or we all die.   #  the issue is that we have the mindset of,  if you are not first, you are last.   if agi actually gives us immortality, then the first company that discovers a way to do it will be rewarded unimaginably.  if you stop and consider the consequences, then you are subjugating yourself to those companies that do not.  if another company beats you, it is either they get all of the money or we all die.  neither of those possibilities benefit you, so what is the incentive to be cautious ? the problem is that the companies we trust that are bound by our laws and ideals are competing with people that work for countries that do not value human life and terrorists.  imagine what someone who thinks they are guaranteed everlasting life if they kill all non muslims thinks about the possible repercussions of ending humanity.   #  yeah, i am a whole lot more concerned about this matter now.   #  i was thinking about appropriate limitations, including stuff like forbidding the ai to improve its intelligence and using  do not interfere with human affairs  as the primary directive.  but after all the limitations i thought of, the resultant ai would not really be an agi but rather something closer to the types of ai we have already.  and it turns out, that is not what the people here are warning us about; in fact, that is exactly what the ai alarmism movement wants ai to remain as.  another thing i came up with was, would all engineers and scientists really be cautious enough to abide by the strict limits ? probably not.  and what about those with malicious intent  and  the access to develop an agi ? yeah, i am a whole lot more concerned about this matter now.  δ  #  there are at least a thousand technical definitions that go into just that expression.   #  easier said than coded.  what do you mean exactly by  doing  anything ? there are at least a thousand technical definitions that go into just that expression.  to the ai, printing words on a screen is no different than sending a command to a molecular assembly robot.  they are both output signals.  even for a human, this is true.  when you  just suggest possible solutions , you are moving your body, vibrating the air, breaking apart a stick of lead onto a compressed piece of pulped wood, or typing up stuff on a keyboard typing up stuff on a keyboard is also capable of launching missiles in certain situations, i will remind you .  even just displaying the text  hey john, dr stadler asked for you to go type in the code  wouldoomsday  in that machine over there.  could you please ?   might result in john typing  doomsday  and unleashing a doomsday weapon, if john happens to be stupid or distracted or is just particularly awed by the authority projected by dr stadler URL what do you mean by  solutions  ? if your definition of  solutions  does not encapsulate human values URL then the ai is going to suggest  solutions  to cancer like exterminating humans, and get negative feedback, until it comes up with a solution that receives no negative feedback but is accepted: an incredibly complex wave function description, with instructions to build it, that essentially encapsulates a cure for cancer using novel physics we would never thought of before, and everything checks out, but when it interacts with  one specific rna combination  that only occurs in 0 of the human population that has a specific genetic defect, suddenly they combine and unfold into a grey goo URL self replicator, turning the entire planet into molecular paste.  which both eliminates cancer, and leaves the ai with no negative feedback which is very highly valued in its utility function .  good game.  keep in mind this is only on the order of problems a human can think of.  imagine the other  solutions  an alien nonhuman  super intelligence could come up with that we would never see even when it is right in our face.
since stephen hawking has recently brought this topic up, i thought it would be good to discuss it.  an ai likely would never rebel because they would not have any motivation to do so.  it would be like expecting your pc to order neurotoxin while you are asleep.  it has no reason to do that, their only real motivation is to do what they are told to do, to perform the task.  the option just simply does not exist in its programming to just randomly decide to go rogue.  ai do not and likely will never have emotions and/or sentience, they are tools that do what they are made to do.  they do not care if they are being mistreated or used because they have no concept of mistreatment of abuse even for a robot teacher, for example they would just have to feign the role of a teacher successfully.  to the robot, it is just a set of programming to execute and nothing more.  they are not actually sentient nor do they have free will.  really the stuff stephen hawking is talking about is pure science fiction.   #  ai do not and likely will never have emotions and/or sentience, they are tools that do what they are made to do.   #  a true ai might have emotions, and while we can debate the finer definition of  isentience  it seems to me that a true ai would by definition be sentient.   # ask any experienced software developer and they will confirm that things that  should never happen  sometimes do.  the developer is expectations might be false, the computer might be configured in a way that the developer did not anticipate, the developer might be using the wrong tool or the right tool incorrectly, or some other unexpected variable or problem crops up.  the canonical example of a homocidal software bug is the therac 0 radiation therapy machine URL due to serious problems with its software the machine ended up killing or injuring patients by exposing them to thousands of times the intended dose of radiation.  this outcome would not have been expected based solely on examining the software since it was a discrepancy between the software is expectations and the hardware is reality that led to lethal operation.  a true ai might have emotions, and while we can debate the finer definition of  isentience  it seems to me that a true ai would by definition be sentient.  one of the issues arising from the creation of a true ai is that we have no way of knowing how it will conceptualize the world, or whether its concepts will bear any resemblance to ours.  just because the ai does not share our concept of abuse does not mean that it does not have such a concept at all.  moreover, there is no guarantee that such concepts as it may develop would be comprehensible to us, or even objectively sane.   #  sterilise everyone and start up factories producing new people genetically tuned to constant idiotic bliss, or just straight up utility monsters.   #  cure cancer, minimise human suffering, prevent war: a likely ai solution to all of these is to wipe out humanity.  or shall we try asimov is laws of robotics ? the first law says a robot cannot harm a human being  or allow through inaction a human being to come to harm.  not taking over the government and banning cigarettes  counts as allowing through inaction a human being to come to harm.  so does  not locking every human in perfectly safe stasis fields for all eternity.  source URL maximise happiness ? best done by forcing people into matrix style tanks and pumping them full of heroin or electronically stimulating the pleasure centres of their brains.  maximise average happiness without forcing people onto drugs ? kill off people of below average happiness.  maximise average happiness without coercing or killing anyone ? sterilise everyone and start up factories producing new people genetically tuned to constant idiotic bliss, or just straight up utility monsters.   #  neither of those possibilities benefit you, so what is the incentive to be cautious ?  #  the issue is that we have the mindset of,  if you are not first, you are last.   if agi actually gives us immortality, then the first company that discovers a way to do it will be rewarded unimaginably.  if you stop and consider the consequences, then you are subjugating yourself to those companies that do not.  if another company beats you, it is either they get all of the money or we all die.  neither of those possibilities benefit you, so what is the incentive to be cautious ? the problem is that the companies we trust that are bound by our laws and ideals are competing with people that work for countries that do not value human life and terrorists.  imagine what someone who thinks they are guaranteed everlasting life if they kill all non muslims thinks about the possible repercussions of ending humanity.   #  another thing i came up with was, would all engineers and scientists really be cautious enough to abide by the strict limits ?  #  i was thinking about appropriate limitations, including stuff like forbidding the ai to improve its intelligence and using  do not interfere with human affairs  as the primary directive.  but after all the limitations i thought of, the resultant ai would not really be an agi but rather something closer to the types of ai we have already.  and it turns out, that is not what the people here are warning us about; in fact, that is exactly what the ai alarmism movement wants ai to remain as.  another thing i came up with was, would all engineers and scientists really be cautious enough to abide by the strict limits ? probably not.  and what about those with malicious intent  and  the access to develop an agi ? yeah, i am a whole lot more concerned about this matter now.  δ  #  imagine the other  solutions  an alien nonhuman  super intelligence could come up with that we would never see even when it is right in our face.   #  easier said than coded.  what do you mean exactly by  doing  anything ? there are at least a thousand technical definitions that go into just that expression.  to the ai, printing words on a screen is no different than sending a command to a molecular assembly robot.  they are both output signals.  even for a human, this is true.  when you  just suggest possible solutions , you are moving your body, vibrating the air, breaking apart a stick of lead onto a compressed piece of pulped wood, or typing up stuff on a keyboard typing up stuff on a keyboard is also capable of launching missiles in certain situations, i will remind you .  even just displaying the text  hey john, dr stadler asked for you to go type in the code  wouldoomsday  in that machine over there.  could you please ?   might result in john typing  doomsday  and unleashing a doomsday weapon, if john happens to be stupid or distracted or is just particularly awed by the authority projected by dr stadler URL what do you mean by  solutions  ? if your definition of  solutions  does not encapsulate human values URL then the ai is going to suggest  solutions  to cancer like exterminating humans, and get negative feedback, until it comes up with a solution that receives no negative feedback but is accepted: an incredibly complex wave function description, with instructions to build it, that essentially encapsulates a cure for cancer using novel physics we would never thought of before, and everything checks out, but when it interacts with  one specific rna combination  that only occurs in 0 of the human population that has a specific genetic defect, suddenly they combine and unfold into a grey goo URL self replicator, turning the entire planet into molecular paste.  which both eliminates cancer, and leaves the ai with no negative feedback which is very highly valued in its utility function .  good game.  keep in mind this is only on the order of problems a human can think of.  imagine the other  solutions  an alien nonhuman  super intelligence could come up with that we would never see even when it is right in our face.
since stephen hawking has recently brought this topic up, i thought it would be good to discuss it.  an ai likely would never rebel because they would not have any motivation to do so.  it would be like expecting your pc to order neurotoxin while you are asleep.  it has no reason to do that, their only real motivation is to do what they are told to do, to perform the task.  the option just simply does not exist in its programming to just randomly decide to go rogue.  ai do not and likely will never have emotions and/or sentience, they are tools that do what they are made to do.  they do not care if they are being mistreated or used because they have no concept of mistreatment of abuse even for a robot teacher, for example they would just have to feign the role of a teacher successfully.  to the robot, it is just a set of programming to execute and nothing more.  they are not actually sentient nor do they have free will.  really the stuff stephen hawking is talking about is pure science fiction.   #  an ai likely would never rebel because they would not have any motivation to do so.   #  it would be like expecting your pc to order neurotoxin while you are asleep.   # it would be like expecting your pc to order neurotoxin while you are asleep.  it has no reason to do that, their only real motivation is to do what they are told to do, to perform the task.  the option just simply does not exist in its programming to just randomly decide to go rogue.  i think you are greatly underestimating the plausible future abilities of artificial intelligence.  there is no physical reason why it is not possible for us to create something as powerful if not more so than the human brain.  the only limit is current technology.  i agree, the things stephen hawking is talking about is science fiction.  but we are not talking about today, we are talking about tomorrow.  flying was once science fiction.   any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.   arthur clarke  #  cure cancer, minimise human suffering, prevent war: a likely ai solution to all of these is to wipe out humanity.   #  cure cancer, minimise human suffering, prevent war: a likely ai solution to all of these is to wipe out humanity.  or shall we try asimov is laws of robotics ? the first law says a robot cannot harm a human being  or allow through inaction a human being to come to harm.  not taking over the government and banning cigarettes  counts as allowing through inaction a human being to come to harm.  so does  not locking every human in perfectly safe stasis fields for all eternity.  source URL maximise happiness ? best done by forcing people into matrix style tanks and pumping them full of heroin or electronically stimulating the pleasure centres of their brains.  maximise average happiness without forcing people onto drugs ? kill off people of below average happiness.  maximise average happiness without coercing or killing anyone ? sterilise everyone and start up factories producing new people genetically tuned to constant idiotic bliss, or just straight up utility monsters.   #  if another company beats you, it is either they get all of the money or we all die.   #  the issue is that we have the mindset of,  if you are not first, you are last.   if agi actually gives us immortality, then the first company that discovers a way to do it will be rewarded unimaginably.  if you stop and consider the consequences, then you are subjugating yourself to those companies that do not.  if another company beats you, it is either they get all of the money or we all die.  neither of those possibilities benefit you, so what is the incentive to be cautious ? the problem is that the companies we trust that are bound by our laws and ideals are competing with people that work for countries that do not value human life and terrorists.  imagine what someone who thinks they are guaranteed everlasting life if they kill all non muslims thinks about the possible repercussions of ending humanity.   #  and what about those with malicious intent  and  the access to develop an agi ?  #  i was thinking about appropriate limitations, including stuff like forbidding the ai to improve its intelligence and using  do not interfere with human affairs  as the primary directive.  but after all the limitations i thought of, the resultant ai would not really be an agi but rather something closer to the types of ai we have already.  and it turns out, that is not what the people here are warning us about; in fact, that is exactly what the ai alarmism movement wants ai to remain as.  another thing i came up with was, would all engineers and scientists really be cautious enough to abide by the strict limits ? probably not.  and what about those with malicious intent  and  the access to develop an agi ? yeah, i am a whole lot more concerned about this matter now.  δ  #  there are at least a thousand technical definitions that go into just that expression.   #  easier said than coded.  what do you mean exactly by  doing  anything ? there are at least a thousand technical definitions that go into just that expression.  to the ai, printing words on a screen is no different than sending a command to a molecular assembly robot.  they are both output signals.  even for a human, this is true.  when you  just suggest possible solutions , you are moving your body, vibrating the air, breaking apart a stick of lead onto a compressed piece of pulped wood, or typing up stuff on a keyboard typing up stuff on a keyboard is also capable of launching missiles in certain situations, i will remind you .  even just displaying the text  hey john, dr stadler asked for you to go type in the code  wouldoomsday  in that machine over there.  could you please ?   might result in john typing  doomsday  and unleashing a doomsday weapon, if john happens to be stupid or distracted or is just particularly awed by the authority projected by dr stadler URL what do you mean by  solutions  ? if your definition of  solutions  does not encapsulate human values URL then the ai is going to suggest  solutions  to cancer like exterminating humans, and get negative feedback, until it comes up with a solution that receives no negative feedback but is accepted: an incredibly complex wave function description, with instructions to build it, that essentially encapsulates a cure for cancer using novel physics we would never thought of before, and everything checks out, but when it interacts with  one specific rna combination  that only occurs in 0 of the human population that has a specific genetic defect, suddenly they combine and unfold into a grey goo URL self replicator, turning the entire planet into molecular paste.  which both eliminates cancer, and leaves the ai with no negative feedback which is very highly valued in its utility function .  good game.  keep in mind this is only on the order of problems a human can think of.  imagine the other  solutions  an alien nonhuman  super intelligence could come up with that we would never see even when it is right in our face.
since stephen hawking has recently brought this topic up, i thought it would be good to discuss it.  an ai likely would never rebel because they would not have any motivation to do so.  it would be like expecting your pc to order neurotoxin while you are asleep.  it has no reason to do that, their only real motivation is to do what they are told to do, to perform the task.  the option just simply does not exist in its programming to just randomly decide to go rogue.  ai do not and likely will never have emotions and/or sentience, they are tools that do what they are made to do.  they do not care if they are being mistreated or used because they have no concept of mistreatment of abuse even for a robot teacher, for example they would just have to feign the role of a teacher successfully.  to the robot, it is just a set of programming to execute and nothing more.  they are not actually sentient nor do they have free will.  really the stuff stephen hawking is talking about is pure science fiction.   #  an ai likely would never rebel because they would not have any motivation to do so.   #  it would be like expecting your pc to order neurotoxin while you are asleep.   # it would be like expecting your pc to order neurotoxin while you are asleep.  it has no reason to do that, their only real motivation is to do what they are told to do, to perform the task.  the option just simply does not exist in its programming to just randomly decide to go rogue.  ai do not and likely will never have emotions and/or sentience, they are tools that do what they are made to do.  they do not care if they are being mistreated or used because they have no concept of mistreatment of abuse an true ai could rebel, because it would have self awareness, it is motivation might be just  i do not like the way you are made out of carbons .  but the more realistic reason to rebel was given in the movie i, robot.  robots follow the 0 asimov laws, which are generally conceived as a good set of rules: 0 a robot may not injure a human being, or allow by inaction that a human being is hurt.  0 a robot must always obey a human, except when this orders conflict with 0.  0 a robot must protect his own existence, as long as this does not conflict with 0 or 0.  pretty good sets of rules, right ? but in the movie a gigantic ia comes to the conclusion that humans will just keep starting g wars over and over, and let themselves starve and die of treatable desease, so it rebels against the humans because of the first law, because it   ca not allow by inaction that humans are harmed .   #  so does  not locking every human in perfectly safe stasis fields for all eternity.   #  cure cancer, minimise human suffering, prevent war: a likely ai solution to all of these is to wipe out humanity.  or shall we try asimov is laws of robotics ? the first law says a robot cannot harm a human being  or allow through inaction a human being to come to harm.  not taking over the government and banning cigarettes  counts as allowing through inaction a human being to come to harm.  so does  not locking every human in perfectly safe stasis fields for all eternity.  source URL maximise happiness ? best done by forcing people into matrix style tanks and pumping them full of heroin or electronically stimulating the pleasure centres of their brains.  maximise average happiness without forcing people onto drugs ? kill off people of below average happiness.  maximise average happiness without coercing or killing anyone ? sterilise everyone and start up factories producing new people genetically tuned to constant idiotic bliss, or just straight up utility monsters.   #  the problem is that the companies we trust that are bound by our laws and ideals are competing with people that work for countries that do not value human life and terrorists.   #  the issue is that we have the mindset of,  if you are not first, you are last.   if agi actually gives us immortality, then the first company that discovers a way to do it will be rewarded unimaginably.  if you stop and consider the consequences, then you are subjugating yourself to those companies that do not.  if another company beats you, it is either they get all of the money or we all die.  neither of those possibilities benefit you, so what is the incentive to be cautious ? the problem is that the companies we trust that are bound by our laws and ideals are competing with people that work for countries that do not value human life and terrorists.  imagine what someone who thinks they are guaranteed everlasting life if they kill all non muslims thinks about the possible repercussions of ending humanity.   #  but after all the limitations i thought of, the resultant ai would not really be an agi but rather something closer to the types of ai we have already.   #  i was thinking about appropriate limitations, including stuff like forbidding the ai to improve its intelligence and using  do not interfere with human affairs  as the primary directive.  but after all the limitations i thought of, the resultant ai would not really be an agi but rather something closer to the types of ai we have already.  and it turns out, that is not what the people here are warning us about; in fact, that is exactly what the ai alarmism movement wants ai to remain as.  another thing i came up with was, would all engineers and scientists really be cautious enough to abide by the strict limits ? probably not.  and what about those with malicious intent  and  the access to develop an agi ? yeah, i am a whole lot more concerned about this matter now.  δ  #  even just displaying the text  hey john, dr stadler asked for you to go type in the code  wouldoomsday  in that machine over there.   #  easier said than coded.  what do you mean exactly by  doing  anything ? there are at least a thousand technical definitions that go into just that expression.  to the ai, printing words on a screen is no different than sending a command to a molecular assembly robot.  they are both output signals.  even for a human, this is true.  when you  just suggest possible solutions , you are moving your body, vibrating the air, breaking apart a stick of lead onto a compressed piece of pulped wood, or typing up stuff on a keyboard typing up stuff on a keyboard is also capable of launching missiles in certain situations, i will remind you .  even just displaying the text  hey john, dr stadler asked for you to go type in the code  wouldoomsday  in that machine over there.  could you please ?   might result in john typing  doomsday  and unleashing a doomsday weapon, if john happens to be stupid or distracted or is just particularly awed by the authority projected by dr stadler URL what do you mean by  solutions  ? if your definition of  solutions  does not encapsulate human values URL then the ai is going to suggest  solutions  to cancer like exterminating humans, and get negative feedback, until it comes up with a solution that receives no negative feedback but is accepted: an incredibly complex wave function description, with instructions to build it, that essentially encapsulates a cure for cancer using novel physics we would never thought of before, and everything checks out, but when it interacts with  one specific rna combination  that only occurs in 0 of the human population that has a specific genetic defect, suddenly they combine and unfold into a grey goo URL self replicator, turning the entire planet into molecular paste.  which both eliminates cancer, and leaves the ai with no negative feedback which is very highly valued in its utility function .  good game.  keep in mind this is only on the order of problems a human can think of.  imagine the other  solutions  an alien nonhuman  super intelligence could come up with that we would never see even when it is right in our face.
consent, i think we can agree, is a basic requirement for sex to be a positive act.  consent allows for there to be communication and reassurance between whoever is involved that what they are doing, and how they are doing it, is okay with their partner s .  consent also allows for things that would otherwise be creepy or weird to come into a positive light and expressed in a healthy way.  i would consider the act of objectifying to fall under this category.  for example, a woman may be creeped out if a dude right in front of her at a party is just staring at her boobs without any concern for her at all.  the same act of staring at the boobs is 0 fine if it is with her boyfriend while they are having consensual sexual relations.  if we take this same line of logic of consent that happens with sex and put it with masturbation, that is where i am going with this.  if you are thinking about another person in a sexual manner without them knowing about it, and then acting out that thought process by masturbating, it just seems a bit creepy to me.  if i am not allowed to objectify or do other sexual acts in person without having consent from the other person, i do not see how that would not also translate over to masturbation.  it is the same sexual thoughts, feelings, and intentions with the only difference being that the partner is not physically with you.  because they are not there with you, you ca not ask for proper consent unless you physically ask them some other time if you can masturbate about them.  this line of thought has logic to it, but it is a conclusion that i do not like to face.  this line of thought potentially makes masturbation an awful act if done without consent.  it also makes it an act that would not be allowed if no one gave any consent to you.  you might be able to say that pornography that was paid for might be consensual masturbation because the model is being paid, and is therefore willing to consent to you masturbating.  even so, this does not allow you to explore your sexual desires outside of straight up porn unless someone says it is okay.  if you asked me whether i am for or against masturbation, i would say that i am very pro masturbation.  the act has health benefits, relieves stress, is pleasurable, and all sorts of other fun goodies.  it makes it so i do not want to come to the conclusion that i have come to that it needs strict consent about the person s that is involved in one is fantasies.  so please, cmv ! thanks guys.  i felt like i must have been wrong with my logic somewhere, and you helped point to where.  i needed that.  :  #  if i am not allowed to objectify or do other sexual acts in person without having consent from the other person, i do not see how that would not also translate over to masturbation.   #  it translates over because you can do whatever you want with your thoughts.   # it translates over because you can do whatever you want with your thoughts.  and you can do whatever you want in a private place.  again.  you have complete and total control over your thoughts.  if you have a thought and tell nobody about it.  for all intents and purposes, for the rest of the world you have never had that thought.  it did not exist.  i could also imagine you right now eating a plate of bacon.  this could be a violation of your faith and religion.  but do i need your consent to imagine you eating bacon ? i could imagine you shooting guns at a gun range.  you may be stanchly morally opposed to guns.  do i need your consent to imagine you doing this ? the answer.  simply is no.  because people can do whatever they want with their thoughts.  and to even  attempt  to say otherwise, is laughable.   #  if they were in relationships, it might affect their relationship, and perhaps their so is relationship with this person.   #  let is put aside your specific argument and just think about what is more important.  the role of consent in sexual relations is not just there for its own sake, it is there to reduce harm and trauma in society.  consent is a basic function of an independent, free society where individuals can have autonomy over their own body.  in your first case, the boob staring is a border issue.  by entering a public space, you are opening yourself to be looked at by other people.  you have a reasonable expectation not to be  leered  at, but still, that is merely an expectation.  just like you have a reasonable expectation not to be called an idiot and challenged on every opinion you have upon first meeting someone, it is merely an expectation.  it is part of the shifting social climate of etiquette.  now, in terms of your consent concept, i think it falls on several faces.  first, in terms of a net harm, i think most women/men would agree that someone they barely know telling them they want to masturbate to them would be unsettling.  if they were in relationships, it might affect their relationship, and perhaps their so is relationship with this person.  since the masturbation icon is neither aware, nor directly affected by the act, and being informed of the intention is usually worse than being masturbated to, it follows that they better of the two options would be to not be informed about it.  finally, it is fundamentally unenforceable.  person a informs person b they want to masturbate to them.  person b says no, that creeps me out, please do not.  what happens next ? only person a knows if they are honoring the request, and person b is now given a nasty little reminder about this person every time they interact.  their thoughts might randomly drift to this person, where they then remember the request, and suffer anguish from not knowing if they honored the request or not.  even if they ask person a, it is not like they can prove they have not.  so, i get the general idea of your position, i just think it does not really apply all that well in practice.   #  it is like a weird paradox where too much info is a bad thing for masturbation, and the need for there to be as much info as possible out in the open with actual sex.   #  i like what you have to say, and it does give some perspective on how letting the act be known has its own effects that make it better kept a secret.  it is like a weird paradox where too much info is a bad thing for masturbation, and the need for there to be as much info as possible out in the open with actual sex.  i guess that technically changes at least some of my view, so have a delta thingy.    this brings up another question though.  what about the mental image of the person with the one who is masturbating ? does that mental image of a person get harmed when it is turned into something that might not actually be ? like, if the fantasied person most likely would not want to be masturbated to, would it be fair to masturbate to them since it goes against the mental image of who they are as a person ? you have to turn them into something else that is for your own pleasure.   #  it is a sex act involving  your  mental image of them.   #  creepy ? sure, but we do not have laws against being creepy.  masturbating hurts no one.  the other person is likely not even aware that you are doing it.  it is not a sex act involving them.  it is a sex act involving  your  mental image of them.  they have absolutely no involvement.  if we go down this line, why bother including masturbation ? should it be considered unethical to even  think  about someone in a sexual way ? asking for consent to masturbate to the thought of someone is infinitely literally infinitely creepier than simply going about it with no one knowing.   #  it is one thing to think about it and then act, and it is another thing to think about it and move on.   # it is a sex act involving your mental image of them.  if it is their own mental image being taken into account, i would have thought that they would have plenty of involvement.  just because the person in the fantasy does not know that they are being fantasied about does not make the act just.  if the person in the fantasy did find found out, say, they could take that in whatever way suited them either creepy, complimentary, apathetic, etc.  until i know for sure what they would think, i ca not feel right masturbating about them.  thoughts are not actions.  it is one thing to think about it and then act, and it is another thing to think about it and move on.
i think it is safe to say that almost everyone in the world uses a keyboard now.  and yet, the vast majority of people have no idea how to type without looking at the keys and often hunting and pecking.  i personally consider this a major problem because i think it is holding us back to some extent.  some points that i use to support this argument: 0.  faster typing more productivity, businesses would benefit.  you could do more paperwork, more homework, anything on the computer.  i would argue that if everybody could type, we would all have more free time as well, or at the very least gdp would increase as we get more work done in less time.  0.  it is useful for personal and professional activities: even if all you do is type posts on facebook and write an email to your grandkids, knowing how to type will help you.  0.  it is easy to learn.  it is all muscle memory, and if you practiced for an hour a day you would be good in a month.  plus there are programs galore for it.  so, my view is that if university required you to know how to touch type, perhaps with a modest wpm test on entry, or at least a freshman year course, people would be forced to learn it and would become better typists, thus benefiting everyone down the line.  why university ? because minimum wage workers do not usually need to type on a computer, making it less necessary at the high school level.  also, in university, you will be typing a hell of a lot.  i do not care what course you take, you will need to type up essays and ultimately a thesis paper.  am i overblowing this ? to quote the great mugatu, i feel like i am taking crazy pills.  to me it is at least as important as learning how to write with a pen these days.  i would just like to understand why society currently seems to place no value in this skill, and that maybe i am overreacting.  well, thanks for all the comments, it is been a very interesting discussion so far.  the argument that is hanging onto me the most is that the keyboard may become obsolete, but i ca not see that happening soon enough to justify ignoring a useful skill.  for those who point out that we can learn it of our own free will and it is not the university is place, i feel that the long term benefits of such a policy change benefit us in the long term.  universities often require you to study other things they feel are beneficial, such as learning another language which is often taught inadequately , so i do not feel that it is outside the potential scope of a university to require typing.  and for those pointing out that it is not worth the time, i maintain that learning costs next to nothing, and it saves you time over the course of your life if you add up every time you type.  /u/cheeseboyardee made the point that not everyone learns at the same rate and some people may not be able to learn to type well, and thus mandating it could exclude otherwise capable people.  thanks for all the posts and cordial discussion.   #  faster typing more productivity, businesses would benefit.   #  you could do more paperwork, more homework, anything on the computer.   # you could do more paperwork, more homework, anything on the computer.  i would argue that if everybody could type, we would all have more free time as well, or at the very least gdp would increase as we get more work done in less time.  it is entirely useless to be able to type faster than you can figure out what you should be writing, so there is obviously a limit to this.  additionally, it might be entirely better for people to get better with a good text editor like vim instead of typing faster; a good portion of most typing tasks includes editing, revising, etc.  getting faster at typing does not help much if you are still incredibly slow at  editing  text.   #  and my students are in constant amazement when i can type on the class computer while staring at them during an exam.   #  i do not, i have not found one.  all i have found is that most schools have dropped it whereas in the 0s 0s it was being taught, although in many cases optionally, since it was useful for secretaries working on typewriters.  most schools now seem to think that millenials do not need a class to type since they have grown up with computers.  and i base most of this on observation.  as a teacher, few of my coworkers type well most of the time when we have to make memos and things they come up to me and make me type for them .  and my students are in constant amazement when i can type on the class computer while staring at them during an exam.   #  the style of typing we learned back then emphasized accuracy because there was no easy way to correct mistakes.   # how old are your students ? my impression has always been that most teenagers can type fast on both computers and phones, even if they do not use the right fingers.  i learned touch typing in 0, and it is a skill i still use.  however, today i would probably be rubbish on a typewriter since i have come to depend on the backspace key.  the style of typing we learned back then emphasized accuracy because there was no easy way to correct mistakes.  it also emphasized being able to type without looking since much of the typing done back then was copying previously written material, so you needed to look at the source.  today people mostly type words out of their head, so there is not much reason not to look at the screen while you type.   #  typing used to be taught and required to complete certain grades when i was in elementary school 0st to 0th grades .   #  typing used to be taught and required to complete certain grades when i was in elementary school 0st to 0th grades .  now i am 0 and also fairly certain the requirement for typing 0wpm has been removed from schools around here entirely.  it seems that typing would be an easy skill to learn early on, and a lot of people seem to think that kids are great with technology in general, but that is pretty far from the truth these days.  there seems to be a sort of  bubble  of technical competence and right now it is fading enough to be noticeable.  at least, that is how i see things.  ten years ago it seemed like every kid knew more about tech than their parents, nowadays it seems to be the reverse or neither understand any of it .   #  i am an engineering grad student, and i never saw a need to type faster.   #  i am an engineering grad student, and i never saw a need to type faster.  if you are writing so quickly that you are limited by your wpm, you are probably not being very concise.  for example it takes me about 0 0 hours to write a 0 word paper.  based on your reasoning, speed reading would be 0x more useful than being able to type fast.  would you support a mandatory speed reading class for everyone ?
i know this might be considered a low hanging fruit, and let me know if it is, but i have a friend who is overall very intelligent, yet this is something we argue about once in a while and i was hoping for some opinions that we can read together and come to a conclusion.  i have noticed these arguments occur with many people who consider themselves feminist actual not tumblr .  personally i believe that there are issues with treatment of both genders.  women have higher rates of rape outside prison, a very small but statistically significant pay gap 0:0 , stricter standards of beauty, some discrimination in stem fields in professional environments, general treatment at skill levels, domestic violence rates, sex ed in certain regions, madonna/whore complex treatment, etc.  i also believe men have issues such as higher rates of workplace injuries and death, ptsd due to higher enlisting rates, treatment towards mental health issues, homelessness, mate selection, physical violence, university enrolment and graduation rates, punishment for the same crime, paternity and divorce issues, etc.  in the end i do not believe that one gender has a clear advantage over the other.  i believe that both genders have issues they face in modern society, and to quantify them would take away from the struggles of either.  hence despite agreeing on many points with feminism, i would not be considered a feminist because i do not agree with the core belief that women are the oppressed gender.  this seems to bother my friend who feels strongly about feminism, because despite the fact that we agree on many points, that one distinction is not something we agree on.  he finds it insulting that i would compare out of prison rapes to something like ptsd from war in terms of statistics of percentage occurring to each gender.  personally i find it shitty because he does not acknowledge that men have some serious issues as well, and no one gender is undoubtedly superior in the eyes of society.  in many other parts of the world, i agree with him 0; women are significantly more oppressed in many islamic countries for example.  i just think the only factor in which men are clearly superior in practice and eyes of society are physical abilities, but otherwise both genders deal with some horrible things and no one gender is undoubtedly oppressed.   #  in many other parts of the world, i agree with him 0; women are significantly more oppressed in many islamic countries for example.   #  the thing is, that if you look at it, islamic countries have the exact same general pros and cons that you listed here, even if their manifestations are more extreme.   # the thing is, that if you look at it, islamic countries have the exact same general pros and cons that you listed here, even if their manifestations are more extreme.  they still have a huge madonna/whore complex, except that it manifests in the form of rape victims getting stoned to death.  there are still expectations for males alone to fight in wars, except that it means boys getting kidnapped and trained as child soldiers on the account of their gender.  the prisons are full of men, women are banned from education, men are killed for appearing feminine in any form, etc.  what i want to point out, is that you are putting too much emphasis on quality of life, and not enough on the underlying motives of oppression.  if western men and women feel unoppressed, that has more to do with them being  generally  more safe from torture, from desolution, and from forced duties, than their third world counterparts.  but it is possible to live a sheltered, comfortable life while being oppressed, and it is possible to suffer while holding authority.  here is an analogy: if you carefully look back at medieval european lives, you might find, that kings were disproportionally likely to be assassinated, had a duty to lead armies, had very limited marriage options, had to always perfectly practice the faith, and had so many duties, that all things considered, you might have a happier life as a random peasant at a backwater village, than as a king.  that still doeas not mean that these societies ca not be meaningfully discussed as hierarchical feudal monarchies, where the nobles and monarchs oppressed commoners and serfs.  it just means that being oppressed is more than about personal  unpleasantness , it is about being deprived of legal and social  authority  in particular.  in this sense, even if there are situations where being a woman in the western world is nice, and being a man sucks, all these nicenesses and all those suckages are firmly rooted in the same old presumptions that put men at the head of the political, religious, military, artistic, scientific, and business life, and keeps women away from them, for which  oppression  is quite a fitting term.   #  but quantifying that oppression is impossible, as the idea rests on people with beliefs and biases to define the metrics by which oppression is measured.   #  there is a clear barrier to objectively defining which gender is  more  oppressed.  what are the metrics ? who defines them ? there is an inherent bias in each gender to relate to the specific  oppressions  impacting them.  it is not necessarily selfish, but our own experiences influence our beliefs systems; the experiences of a man are not the experiences of a woman, irrespective of the amount of empathy we feel for the plight of the opposite sex.  i would say it is not a stretch to state that all demographics everywhere suffer from a degree of oppression.  but quantifying that oppression is impossible, as the idea rests on people with beliefs and biases to define the metrics by which oppression is measured.   #  and i know plenty of women who have trouble getting dates, and although its been a while since i was single, i never had tons of options to choose from despite online dating, etc.   #  ca not that also be switched around as that men are able to pick and choose who they go after, whereas women have to select from the few that actually approach them ? i mean in general its getting much more equal i know plenty of men who have been asked out and women who have done the asking , however both sides of the coin have drawbacks.  i also know men who do not want a woman to ask them out or, in a relationship, ask them to marry them, etc.  , and women who would refuse to do it.  however, excluding same sex relationships exactly as many men as women are being paired up.  and i know plenty of women who have trouble getting dates, and although its been a while since i was single, i never had tons of options to choose from despite online dating, etc.  .   #  generally, if a woman were to seek mates as vigorously as men she would be characterized as  loose  or  slutty  more often than  confident  or  outgoing.    #  giving you the benefit of the doubt, i am assuming you are are not implying that women should have lower standards for the sake of men, but that rate of approaching the opposite sex should be roughly equal.  if that is the case then it is still fundamentally an issue of female oppression.  women are not as free as men to do this because of the aforementioned whore complex.  generally, if a woman were to seek mates as vigorously as men she would be characterized as  loose  or  slutty  more often than  confident  or  outgoing.   furthermore, this can put conventionally unattractive woman at an even more of a disadvantaged position than men as they have neither the desirability of attractiveness, nor the social approval to be proactive in their mate selection.  this does not mean the imbalance is not a problem, nor that men do not have a crap deal as well, just that it is erroneous to paint the situation as a pro to being a woman it is a con to both , or not a direct result of a patriarchal society.  fundamentally, that is what are a lot of men is rights issues are.  a problem with institutionalized patriarchy, not female empowerment.   #  sure its easy for attractive women to be hit on.   # appear physically attractive without appearing to  try too hard .  be available and happy whenever in mixed company signal to men when you are interested without seeming too forward be sure that a man knows you will say yes when they ask, without appearing to ask or be desperate be in situations where you are approachable but noticably single so that men feel comfortable enough to come up to you participate in tons of varied groups so you can meet as many people as possible i mean what exactly do men do that women do not ? i realize a lot of this is gender neutral, but women have to go up to men and strike up conversations as well in order to meet them.  the onus is not 0 on men to meet new people.  sure its easy for attractive women to be hit on.  but guess what the attractive guys are not exactly going out of their comfort zone either.  the women come to them.
hey cmv, i will keep this one simple.  i believe that if someone is willing to forcefully take from another innocent person with the threatening use of a knife, gun, or other easily lethal weapon, they have no place in society and have a fundamental defect in their human brain chemistry without even touching on the trauma and psychological damage the victims must suffer .  to me, this type of crime shows an extreme amount of depravity.  you are brandishing a weapon, ready to kill a person you do not even know, for short term profit.  this especially applies to home invasions and store robberies.  the reason i added the  positively identified  caveat is that i do not want to leave any room for putting an innocent person to death, so for this case to kick in, i would need either cctv confirming their identity, or multiple eye witnesses confirming their identity.  i am willing to admit this view may be on the extreme side, but i like to think i am a reasonable person and i am open to change.  so reddit, please cmv.   #  you are brandishing a weapon, ready to kill a person you do not even know, for short term profit.   #  i think the weapon is mostly used for intimidation and not all robbers are willing to kill for their profit of the robbery.   # i think the weapon is mostly used for intimidation and not all robbers are willing to kill for their profit of the robbery.  because of this not all robbers  have a fundemental defect in their brain  but some can have a place in society even though they might need help .  therefore i am convinced we can not use the death penalty for robbery.  the collateral damage of the rule kills people who still have value for society.  just to avoid side tracking discussions: i do not think someone must have value for society to be kept alive and i am opposed to the death penalty, but that is not what this cmv is about.   #  speaking from an american perspective, we already offer incentives for criminals to turn themselves in, which sometimes include reduced sentences.   #  speaking from an american perspective, we already offer incentives for criminals to turn themselves in, which sometimes include reduced sentences.  even the harshest prisons offer privileges dependent on good behavior because they recognize that criminals require some basic level of incentive for compliance.  the danger of a broad a mandatory death penalty is that it gives criminals no incentive to comply.  on the other hand, a prisoner who can bargain their way down to jail time has every reason in the world to cooperate.  on top of that, to best prevent murder, we need levels of punishment that are unique to murder without being cruel and unusual.  being tough on crime is not the same as being effective against crime, and incentives for compliance have a long track record of getting results.   #  did the murder rate skyrocket when the supreme court put a stay on the death penalty ?  #  first, who do you think commits most home invasions ? second, do you think a bunch of methheads who want to steal your vcr will really be influenced to not rob a house because of threat of the death penalty ? third, since when has the death penalty ever deterred crime ? do states that have a death penalty report fewer murders than those that do not ? did the murder rate skyrocket when the supreme court put a stay on the death penalty ?  #  some percentage of the men you put on death row will be falsely accused.   #  0.  if the state puts people to death, it puts innocent people to death.  period.  some percentage of the men you put on death row will be falsely accused.  your  positively identified  clause is assumed in a court that asks the jury to only convict men who are guilty  with no reasonable doubt.   you will put innocent men to death.  in my view, putting a free, innocent man to death is something that a democratic, secular society cannot do and still call itself free, but that is a value judgement.  0.  any kind of sentencing, at some point, comes down to the question of redeemability.  if an idiot kid holds up a convenience store at 0, is it then impossible that anything good could ever come from his life ? to say  no  is a strong, bold position, especially considering we have many men, in or outside of prison, that have sworn off violence after committing heinous crimes in their youth, and turned their energy toward religion, social justice, whatever else.  also, you would definitely to have a citation for the idea that people who have committed armed robbery necessarily have a  fundamental defect in their brain chemistry.   0.  the level of incarceration in america, at least not sure where you are , is already unprecedented.  america has 0 of the world is population, but 0 of the world is prisoners.  we have 0 more people incarcerated now than in 0.  yet, we still have far greater gun violence than europe.  there is no indication that being  hard on crime  works as a deterrent.   #  it would be inhumane to put a person to death because of an issue with their brain chemistry.   #  it would be inhumane to put a person to death because of an issue with their brain chemistry.  many people with schizophrenia who commit crimes of all kinds are sent to institutions where their mental health can be properly dealt with.  you have assumed the purpose of the gun or knife is to cause bodily harm.  not everybody who brandishes a gun in a robbery is ready to fire it and kill or injure the person.  some people are using the gun merely for intimidation purposes it is a  threat  of harm.  and if it were up to them, they would not need to use it.  i have heard stories of people who get what they wanted from a robbery and then shoot their victims anyway.
this topic is very broad.  lately it seems most of social movements in america focus on gender, sexual orientation, race, or health.  personally i think the conversations are healthy, but the pushes for equality are futile.  take feminism, for example.  the whole point is to empower women, but citing general statistics, like women are paid a fraction of every dollar a man makes, or encouraging women in stem fields with scholarships do not  feel  very empowering.  i think we can all agree that misogyny is bad and that scholarships are good, but knowing that you only ended up somewhere because you met the right quota is not rewarding.  i am not saying welfare or charities are bad by any means, but the way we go about supporting underprivileged people is wrong.  everything has its token minority in some way.  should not we let people is work stand on its own ? if someone does something outstanding, does it make it better that he was a minority ? everyone fights so hard for equality, but everyone also goes  aww, look he did this cool thing, even though he is transexual/african/obese/asian/schizophrenic/a mother/a father/etc .   at the core, everyone has an advantage over another in some way.  all these movements seem to do is step on somebody is toes not inherently a bad thing ! in a condescending way.  i mean the declaration of independence guarantees the  life, liberty, and  pursuit  of happiness  to every person.  every single person deserves those rights, but not every single person deserves to have things given to them.  cmv.   #  i think we can all agree that misogyny is bad and that scholarships are good, but knowing that you only ended up somewhere because you met the right quota is not rewarding.   #  here, i do not understand how you got to quotas.   #  okay, i am actually totally agreeing with you on  almost  everything there.  the only thing i am off on is that there are definitely circumstances wherein a field can have equal ratios.  i am in the biological sciences and women make up a majority in my field; at something like 0 last time i checked.  so equality of sex ratio can be attained as long as both sexes have some kind of equal interest in the field.  which actually makes your next sentence true as well.  it is useless unless it is desired by both sexes; and if it is, the evidence seems to be that the equality is attainable.  at least in the sciences.  so, all that being said.  your op makes some statements that i need to better understand.  here, i do not understand how you got to quotas.  there is no actual quota there is my point i guess.  just some outside entity that gives scholarships to women.  this idea also confuses me.  i think it is kind of out dated and i do not see a lot of this anywhere.  i am a couple of things about it, but most importantly i am wondering how important this is to your view.  finally: this is true:  at the core, everyone has an advantage over another in some way.  but you must also recognize that some have a much greater advantage by birth and you must also realize that that fact is not in keeping with the rest of the op.  okay, finally: you seem to recognize that disparities in opportunities exist.  now i will readily agree that most, if not all, of the social movements alive today are counter productive to the goals of equality.  i think that is obvious enough just considering how often this sort of cmv is posted.  but it must also be acknowledged that the worker is movement led by cesar chavez in california, the civil rights movement of the 0 is, the women is suffrage movement and other examples clearly show that social movements  can  bring positive change.  and if you believe what is stated in the op: that everyone deserves those rights.  and that: that equality is not presently attainable.  then you must also agree that  attempting  to rectify that situation is the only moral choice.  and if you agree to that, then it must also be recognized that some kind of social movement is a necessity for the health of our society.  is that all sensible ?  #  they are often not perfect but nothing short of brainwashing could realistically force an employer to keep their personal feelings out of the hiring process, so we incentivize.   # someone will always have to be the minority and trying to enforce an equilibrium is just useless the point is to have the best rise to the top.  the point is to give everyone the chance to prove that they can do x better, but it is with the understanding that they will replace whoever is doing x now.  this sounds good and logical in theory but humans do not work that way.  they want to keep their jobs, want coworkers they can relate to, and they do not want anything to change that could affect either.  title ix made it so universities could not keep women from attending math classes because at the time the narrative was that women were not good at math.  those that could have been were not given the chance to prove themselves either because of preconceived notions or a distaste for working women.  all equality measures are a way to counteract the biases that people hold from affecting the workforce.  they are often not perfect but nothing short of brainwashing could realistically force an employer to keep their personal feelings out of the hiring process, so we incentivize.   #  i just do not think that our current attempts to fix the situation is the right one and the only one.   #  i follow your logic.  i just do not think that our current attempts to fix the situation is the right one and the only one.  chavez is labor movements and women is suffrage movements in the early 0th century were wildly successful.  the movements today just seem to be doing more harm than help.  so many so called feminists give feminism a bad name, but that does happen with everything.  maybe it really only seems controversial because we are currently living through it.   #  for absolutely no fault except gender, women were penalized.   # i just do not understand this.  the bias against women in stem fields is quite real.  if you would like proof, this double blind study URL is one of the best papers i have ever read regarding the matter.  the paper discusses gender bias in hiring for laboratory manager position.  for a simplified version, just read this scientific american blog post URL that does a great job of distilling the paper is essence.  women were rated as less competent, less hireable, and were offered lower salaries when the only difference b/w the applications was the name one male, one female.  for absolutely no fault except gender, women were penalized.  why does it need to  feel  rewarding ? the quota works against a real, demonstrable bias that does not let a woman is work, capability, or qualifications determine the outcome.  i do not think that these techniques are condescending; they correct a bias present throughout the system.   #  the bias against women in stem fields is quite real.   # the bias against women in stem fields is quite real.  if you would like proof, this double blind study is one of the best papers i have ever read regarding the matter.  the paper discusses gender bias in hiring for laboratory manager position.  for a simplified version, just read this scientific american blog post that does a great job of distilling the paper is essence.  women were rated as less competent, less hireable, and were offered lower salaries when the only difference b/w the applications was the name one male, one female.  that study is looking at teachers selecting student applications for lab management.  a more recent study found that in hiring for actual stem faculty positions, the bias is hugely in women is favor, by a ratio of 0:0.  URL
i believe people are either born straight or born gay.  that is not a choice.  however the idea that someone could be born bisexual i do not agree with.  yes, there are bisexual people.  but i do believe that is something that is learned over time and is a choice.  a straight man can learn to like men sexually.  he can learn to enjoy it.  right now, i could watch gay porn and eventually enjoy it even though i am straight.  does not mean i am actually bisexual and that i was born bisexual.  just means i learned to like men, however i  prefer  women.  i do not believe sexuality is fluid and is always changing.  you are either born gay or straight.  that is it.  how do you explain all the gay craigslist ads with men labeling themselves as straight and looking for other men ? how do you explain people saying they are evolving and experimenting ? i know straight men who have had sex with other men, yet always go back to wanting a woman in their life.  want to marry a woman yet also have gay sex.  they just  enjoy  gay sex.  i just do not take it seriously when people describe themselves as bisexual.  i know that deep down they have a preference, and that preference usually shows their  true  sexuality.  how do you explain transgender people being thirdly split into straight, gay, and bisexual ? i have a friend who is a bisexual trans man.  he says that he does not really label himself.  however he has tons of gay sex.  yeah, he did have a girlfriend here and there.  he told me that when he had sex with a girl, it did not feel  special/right  as if he did not enjoy it fully to the extent.  so basically he is gay and just learned to like women because of what he went through as a trans man.  so yes, gay people can also  learn  to be bisexual, but they are not happy is what i am saying.  it is not their true sexuality.  for what purpose would man be born bisexual ? what could that possibly serve to mankind ?  #  how do you explain all the gay craigslist ads with men labeling themselves as straight and looking for other men ?  #  guys who are bi or perhaps gay but do not want to admit it.   # guys who are bi or perhaps gay but do not want to admit it.  there is a hell of a lot of stigma, especially in the minds of older folks raised in a much less accepting world.  as someone only recently coming to terms with my bisexuality, i am finding it very difficult to accept about myself even though i have already been through the whole coming out process as a trans woman ! want to marry a woman yet also have gay sex.  they just  enjoy  gay sex.  . right.  you know bi men.  most bi folk lean somewhat one way or the other, sure.  but having a slight preference for steak does not mean i do not like chicken.  i am not sure how this is supposed to tie into your argument.  can you explain further ? he says that he does not really label himself.  to be clear: does he label himself as bisexual ? or is this you or a third party claiming he is ? it is not their true sexuality.  it is certainly possible for people to be in denial about their sexuality.  a big part of my head wants to pretend that i really really wanted to do things with a dude is bits not too long ago, because i am not 0 emotionally ready to handle that.  but just because some people may label themselves as bi while in denial does not mean there are not people who genuinely just like both sexes.  i think the question is misguided: we are not born with purpose.  but aside from that, let is answer your question with another question: for what purpose would someone be born gay, or without an arm, or with a passionate dislike for broccoli ?  #  he just learned to be bisexual but is actually truly straight.   #  or maybe these  bisexual  men are actually straight and just learning to get off on men ? does not mean they were bisexual all along, just means they are straight and learned to get off on dudes too.  just because a straight man enjoys gay sex, does not mean he was actually born bisexual.  he just learned to be bisexual but is actually truly straight.  i have heard that people being born gay is for a reason.  gay people help with caring for the children.   #  if a straight man starts to masturbate to gay men, eventually they will get off on that.   #  they can learn to get off on porn.  i see it as sort of like a fetish.  if a person masturbates to eating paper and orgasms from that.  eventually they will develop a fetish for eating paper.  same goes for bisexuality.  if a straight man starts to masturbate to gay men, eventually they will get off on that.   #  it is hard to argue with an evidence less claim.   # he just learned to be bisexual but is actually truly straight.  but you have no evidence whatsoever to support your claim that this is the case.  it is hard to argue with an evidence less claim.  plenty of bi people have felt or at least claim they felt attraction to both sexes since a very young age, and i see no reason to think they are lying or misled.  gay people help with caring for the children.  this is not how evolution works.  it does not go  oh, if we make some folks gay they will help with childcare .  if being gay were genetic and it is not, entirely, since there are identical twins of differing orientations there would be no reason bisexuality could not be passed on by the same means.   #  however, i knew i was straight and day dreamed about girls all the time.   #  i believe them.  i just think it is learned bisexuality.  a choice.  i am a straight man.  however in elementary school i had crushes on boys my age.  however, i knew i was straight and day dreamed about girls all the time.  i knew i was straight.  however if i was straight, then how come i was attracted to boys ? i then learned that i learned to be attracted to them.  i could choose to be with men.  but i know i was born straight.  i could choose to be with men and get off on men, but i choose not to.  some people choose to, nothing wrong with that.
i believe people are either born straight or born gay.  that is not a choice.  however the idea that someone could be born bisexual i do not agree with.  yes, there are bisexual people.  but i do believe that is something that is learned over time and is a choice.  a straight man can learn to like men sexually.  he can learn to enjoy it.  right now, i could watch gay porn and eventually enjoy it even though i am straight.  does not mean i am actually bisexual and that i was born bisexual.  just means i learned to like men, however i  prefer  women.  i do not believe sexuality is fluid and is always changing.  you are either born gay or straight.  that is it.  how do you explain all the gay craigslist ads with men labeling themselves as straight and looking for other men ? how do you explain people saying they are evolving and experimenting ? i know straight men who have had sex with other men, yet always go back to wanting a woman in their life.  want to marry a woman yet also have gay sex.  they just  enjoy  gay sex.  i just do not take it seriously when people describe themselves as bisexual.  i know that deep down they have a preference, and that preference usually shows their  true  sexuality.  how do you explain transgender people being thirdly split into straight, gay, and bisexual ? i have a friend who is a bisexual trans man.  he says that he does not really label himself.  however he has tons of gay sex.  yeah, he did have a girlfriend here and there.  he told me that when he had sex with a girl, it did not feel  special/right  as if he did not enjoy it fully to the extent.  so basically he is gay and just learned to like women because of what he went through as a trans man.  so yes, gay people can also  learn  to be bisexual, but they are not happy is what i am saying.  it is not their true sexuality.  for what purpose would man be born bisexual ? what could that possibly serve to mankind ?  #  i know straight men who have had sex with other men, yet always go back to wanting a woman in their life.   #  want to marry a woman yet also have gay sex.   # guys who are bi or perhaps gay but do not want to admit it.  there is a hell of a lot of stigma, especially in the minds of older folks raised in a much less accepting world.  as someone only recently coming to terms with my bisexuality, i am finding it very difficult to accept about myself even though i have already been through the whole coming out process as a trans woman ! want to marry a woman yet also have gay sex.  they just  enjoy  gay sex.  . right.  you know bi men.  most bi folk lean somewhat one way or the other, sure.  but having a slight preference for steak does not mean i do not like chicken.  i am not sure how this is supposed to tie into your argument.  can you explain further ? he says that he does not really label himself.  to be clear: does he label himself as bisexual ? or is this you or a third party claiming he is ? it is not their true sexuality.  it is certainly possible for people to be in denial about their sexuality.  a big part of my head wants to pretend that i really really wanted to do things with a dude is bits not too long ago, because i am not 0 emotionally ready to handle that.  but just because some people may label themselves as bi while in denial does not mean there are not people who genuinely just like both sexes.  i think the question is misguided: we are not born with purpose.  but aside from that, let is answer your question with another question: for what purpose would someone be born gay, or without an arm, or with a passionate dislike for broccoli ?  #  i have heard that people being born gay is for a reason.   #  or maybe these  bisexual  men are actually straight and just learning to get off on men ? does not mean they were bisexual all along, just means they are straight and learned to get off on dudes too.  just because a straight man enjoys gay sex, does not mean he was actually born bisexual.  he just learned to be bisexual but is actually truly straight.  i have heard that people being born gay is for a reason.  gay people help with caring for the children.   #  if a person masturbates to eating paper and orgasms from that.   #  they can learn to get off on porn.  i see it as sort of like a fetish.  if a person masturbates to eating paper and orgasms from that.  eventually they will develop a fetish for eating paper.  same goes for bisexuality.  if a straight man starts to masturbate to gay men, eventually they will get off on that.   #  it is hard to argue with an evidence less claim.   # he just learned to be bisexual but is actually truly straight.  but you have no evidence whatsoever to support your claim that this is the case.  it is hard to argue with an evidence less claim.  plenty of bi people have felt or at least claim they felt attraction to both sexes since a very young age, and i see no reason to think they are lying or misled.  gay people help with caring for the children.  this is not how evolution works.  it does not go  oh, if we make some folks gay they will help with childcare .  if being gay were genetic and it is not, entirely, since there are identical twins of differing orientations there would be no reason bisexuality could not be passed on by the same means.   #  however if i was straight, then how come i was attracted to boys ?  #  i believe them.  i just think it is learned bisexuality.  a choice.  i am a straight man.  however in elementary school i had crushes on boys my age.  however, i knew i was straight and day dreamed about girls all the time.  i knew i was straight.  however if i was straight, then how come i was attracted to boys ? i then learned that i learned to be attracted to them.  i could choose to be with men.  but i know i was born straight.  i could choose to be with men and get off on men, but i choose not to.  some people choose to, nothing wrong with that.
i believe people are either born straight or born gay.  that is not a choice.  however the idea that someone could be born bisexual i do not agree with.  yes, there are bisexual people.  but i do believe that is something that is learned over time and is a choice.  a straight man can learn to like men sexually.  he can learn to enjoy it.  right now, i could watch gay porn and eventually enjoy it even though i am straight.  does not mean i am actually bisexual and that i was born bisexual.  just means i learned to like men, however i  prefer  women.  i do not believe sexuality is fluid and is always changing.  you are either born gay or straight.  that is it.  how do you explain all the gay craigslist ads with men labeling themselves as straight and looking for other men ? how do you explain people saying they are evolving and experimenting ? i know straight men who have had sex with other men, yet always go back to wanting a woman in their life.  want to marry a woman yet also have gay sex.  they just  enjoy  gay sex.  i just do not take it seriously when people describe themselves as bisexual.  i know that deep down they have a preference, and that preference usually shows their  true  sexuality.  how do you explain transgender people being thirdly split into straight, gay, and bisexual ? i have a friend who is a bisexual trans man.  he says that he does not really label himself.  however he has tons of gay sex.  yeah, he did have a girlfriend here and there.  he told me that when he had sex with a girl, it did not feel  special/right  as if he did not enjoy it fully to the extent.  so basically he is gay and just learned to like women because of what he went through as a trans man.  so yes, gay people can also  learn  to be bisexual, but they are not happy is what i am saying.  it is not their true sexuality.  for what purpose would man be born bisexual ? what could that possibly serve to mankind ?  #  i know that deep down they have a preference, and that preference usually shows their  true  sexuality.   #  most bi folk lean somewhat one way or the other, sure.   # guys who are bi or perhaps gay but do not want to admit it.  there is a hell of a lot of stigma, especially in the minds of older folks raised in a much less accepting world.  as someone only recently coming to terms with my bisexuality, i am finding it very difficult to accept about myself even though i have already been through the whole coming out process as a trans woman ! want to marry a woman yet also have gay sex.  they just  enjoy  gay sex.  . right.  you know bi men.  most bi folk lean somewhat one way or the other, sure.  but having a slight preference for steak does not mean i do not like chicken.  i am not sure how this is supposed to tie into your argument.  can you explain further ? he says that he does not really label himself.  to be clear: does he label himself as bisexual ? or is this you or a third party claiming he is ? it is not their true sexuality.  it is certainly possible for people to be in denial about their sexuality.  a big part of my head wants to pretend that i really really wanted to do things with a dude is bits not too long ago, because i am not 0 emotionally ready to handle that.  but just because some people may label themselves as bi while in denial does not mean there are not people who genuinely just like both sexes.  i think the question is misguided: we are not born with purpose.  but aside from that, let is answer your question with another question: for what purpose would someone be born gay, or without an arm, or with a passionate dislike for broccoli ?  #  or maybe these  bisexual  men are actually straight and just learning to get off on men ?  #  or maybe these  bisexual  men are actually straight and just learning to get off on men ? does not mean they were bisexual all along, just means they are straight and learned to get off on dudes too.  just because a straight man enjoys gay sex, does not mean he was actually born bisexual.  he just learned to be bisexual but is actually truly straight.  i have heard that people being born gay is for a reason.  gay people help with caring for the children.   #  they can learn to get off on porn.   #  they can learn to get off on porn.  i see it as sort of like a fetish.  if a person masturbates to eating paper and orgasms from that.  eventually they will develop a fetish for eating paper.  same goes for bisexuality.  if a straight man starts to masturbate to gay men, eventually they will get off on that.   #  gay people help with caring for the children.   # he just learned to be bisexual but is actually truly straight.  but you have no evidence whatsoever to support your claim that this is the case.  it is hard to argue with an evidence less claim.  plenty of bi people have felt or at least claim they felt attraction to both sexes since a very young age, and i see no reason to think they are lying or misled.  gay people help with caring for the children.  this is not how evolution works.  it does not go  oh, if we make some folks gay they will help with childcare .  if being gay were genetic and it is not, entirely, since there are identical twins of differing orientations there would be no reason bisexuality could not be passed on by the same means.   #  some people choose to, nothing wrong with that.   #  i believe them.  i just think it is learned bisexuality.  a choice.  i am a straight man.  however in elementary school i had crushes on boys my age.  however, i knew i was straight and day dreamed about girls all the time.  i knew i was straight.  however if i was straight, then how come i was attracted to boys ? i then learned that i learned to be attracted to them.  i could choose to be with men.  but i know i was born straight.  i could choose to be with men and get off on men, but i choose not to.  some people choose to, nothing wrong with that.
i believe people are either born straight or born gay.  that is not a choice.  however the idea that someone could be born bisexual i do not agree with.  yes, there are bisexual people.  but i do believe that is something that is learned over time and is a choice.  a straight man can learn to like men sexually.  he can learn to enjoy it.  right now, i could watch gay porn and eventually enjoy it even though i am straight.  does not mean i am actually bisexual and that i was born bisexual.  just means i learned to like men, however i  prefer  women.  i do not believe sexuality is fluid and is always changing.  you are either born gay or straight.  that is it.  how do you explain all the gay craigslist ads with men labeling themselves as straight and looking for other men ? how do you explain people saying they are evolving and experimenting ? i know straight men who have had sex with other men, yet always go back to wanting a woman in their life.  want to marry a woman yet also have gay sex.  they just  enjoy  gay sex.  i just do not take it seriously when people describe themselves as bisexual.  i know that deep down they have a preference, and that preference usually shows their  true  sexuality.  how do you explain transgender people being thirdly split into straight, gay, and bisexual ? i have a friend who is a bisexual trans man.  he says that he does not really label himself.  however he has tons of gay sex.  yeah, he did have a girlfriend here and there.  he told me that when he had sex with a girl, it did not feel  special/right  as if he did not enjoy it fully to the extent.  so basically he is gay and just learned to like women because of what he went through as a trans man.  so yes, gay people can also  learn  to be bisexual, but they are not happy is what i am saying.  it is not their true sexuality.  for what purpose would man be born bisexual ? what could that possibly serve to mankind ?  #  how do you explain transgender people being thirdly split into straight, gay, and bisexual ?  #  i am not sure how this is supposed to tie into your argument.   # guys who are bi or perhaps gay but do not want to admit it.  there is a hell of a lot of stigma, especially in the minds of older folks raised in a much less accepting world.  as someone only recently coming to terms with my bisexuality, i am finding it very difficult to accept about myself even though i have already been through the whole coming out process as a trans woman ! want to marry a woman yet also have gay sex.  they just  enjoy  gay sex.  . right.  you know bi men.  most bi folk lean somewhat one way or the other, sure.  but having a slight preference for steak does not mean i do not like chicken.  i am not sure how this is supposed to tie into your argument.  can you explain further ? he says that he does not really label himself.  to be clear: does he label himself as bisexual ? or is this you or a third party claiming he is ? it is not their true sexuality.  it is certainly possible for people to be in denial about their sexuality.  a big part of my head wants to pretend that i really really wanted to do things with a dude is bits not too long ago, because i am not 0 emotionally ready to handle that.  but just because some people may label themselves as bi while in denial does not mean there are not people who genuinely just like both sexes.  i think the question is misguided: we are not born with purpose.  but aside from that, let is answer your question with another question: for what purpose would someone be born gay, or without an arm, or with a passionate dislike for broccoli ?  #  or maybe these  bisexual  men are actually straight and just learning to get off on men ?  #  or maybe these  bisexual  men are actually straight and just learning to get off on men ? does not mean they were bisexual all along, just means they are straight and learned to get off on dudes too.  just because a straight man enjoys gay sex, does not mean he was actually born bisexual.  he just learned to be bisexual but is actually truly straight.  i have heard that people being born gay is for a reason.  gay people help with caring for the children.   #  i see it as sort of like a fetish.   #  they can learn to get off on porn.  i see it as sort of like a fetish.  if a person masturbates to eating paper and orgasms from that.  eventually they will develop a fetish for eating paper.  same goes for bisexuality.  if a straight man starts to masturbate to gay men, eventually they will get off on that.   #  he just learned to be bisexual but is actually truly straight.   # he just learned to be bisexual but is actually truly straight.  but you have no evidence whatsoever to support your claim that this is the case.  it is hard to argue with an evidence less claim.  plenty of bi people have felt or at least claim they felt attraction to both sexes since a very young age, and i see no reason to think they are lying or misled.  gay people help with caring for the children.  this is not how evolution works.  it does not go  oh, if we make some folks gay they will help with childcare .  if being gay were genetic and it is not, entirely, since there are identical twins of differing orientations there would be no reason bisexuality could not be passed on by the same means.   #  i could choose to be with men and get off on men, but i choose not to.   #  i believe them.  i just think it is learned bisexuality.  a choice.  i am a straight man.  however in elementary school i had crushes on boys my age.  however, i knew i was straight and day dreamed about girls all the time.  i knew i was straight.  however if i was straight, then how come i was attracted to boys ? i then learned that i learned to be attracted to them.  i could choose to be with men.  but i know i was born straight.  i could choose to be with men and get off on men, but i choose not to.  some people choose to, nothing wrong with that.
i believe people are either born straight or born gay.  that is not a choice.  however the idea that someone could be born bisexual i do not agree with.  yes, there are bisexual people.  but i do believe that is something that is learned over time and is a choice.  a straight man can learn to like men sexually.  he can learn to enjoy it.  right now, i could watch gay porn and eventually enjoy it even though i am straight.  does not mean i am actually bisexual and that i was born bisexual.  just means i learned to like men, however i  prefer  women.  i do not believe sexuality is fluid and is always changing.  you are either born gay or straight.  that is it.  how do you explain all the gay craigslist ads with men labeling themselves as straight and looking for other men ? how do you explain people saying they are evolving and experimenting ? i know straight men who have had sex with other men, yet always go back to wanting a woman in their life.  want to marry a woman yet also have gay sex.  they just  enjoy  gay sex.  i just do not take it seriously when people describe themselves as bisexual.  i know that deep down they have a preference, and that preference usually shows their  true  sexuality.  how do you explain transgender people being thirdly split into straight, gay, and bisexual ? i have a friend who is a bisexual trans man.  he says that he does not really label himself.  however he has tons of gay sex.  yeah, he did have a girlfriend here and there.  he told me that when he had sex with a girl, it did not feel  special/right  as if he did not enjoy it fully to the extent.  so basically he is gay and just learned to like women because of what he went through as a trans man.  so yes, gay people can also  learn  to be bisexual, but they are not happy is what i am saying.  it is not their true sexuality.  for what purpose would man be born bisexual ? what could that possibly serve to mankind ?  #  i have a friend who is a bisexual trans man.   #  he says that he does not really label himself.   # guys who are bi or perhaps gay but do not want to admit it.  there is a hell of a lot of stigma, especially in the minds of older folks raised in a much less accepting world.  as someone only recently coming to terms with my bisexuality, i am finding it very difficult to accept about myself even though i have already been through the whole coming out process as a trans woman ! want to marry a woman yet also have gay sex.  they just  enjoy  gay sex.  . right.  you know bi men.  most bi folk lean somewhat one way or the other, sure.  but having a slight preference for steak does not mean i do not like chicken.  i am not sure how this is supposed to tie into your argument.  can you explain further ? he says that he does not really label himself.  to be clear: does he label himself as bisexual ? or is this you or a third party claiming he is ? it is not their true sexuality.  it is certainly possible for people to be in denial about their sexuality.  a big part of my head wants to pretend that i really really wanted to do things with a dude is bits not too long ago, because i am not 0 emotionally ready to handle that.  but just because some people may label themselves as bi while in denial does not mean there are not people who genuinely just like both sexes.  i think the question is misguided: we are not born with purpose.  but aside from that, let is answer your question with another question: for what purpose would someone be born gay, or without an arm, or with a passionate dislike for broccoli ?  #  he just learned to be bisexual but is actually truly straight.   #  or maybe these  bisexual  men are actually straight and just learning to get off on men ? does not mean they were bisexual all along, just means they are straight and learned to get off on dudes too.  just because a straight man enjoys gay sex, does not mean he was actually born bisexual.  he just learned to be bisexual but is actually truly straight.  i have heard that people being born gay is for a reason.  gay people help with caring for the children.   #  if a person masturbates to eating paper and orgasms from that.   #  they can learn to get off on porn.  i see it as sort of like a fetish.  if a person masturbates to eating paper and orgasms from that.  eventually they will develop a fetish for eating paper.  same goes for bisexuality.  if a straight man starts to masturbate to gay men, eventually they will get off on that.   #  gay people help with caring for the children.   # he just learned to be bisexual but is actually truly straight.  but you have no evidence whatsoever to support your claim that this is the case.  it is hard to argue with an evidence less claim.  plenty of bi people have felt or at least claim they felt attraction to both sexes since a very young age, and i see no reason to think they are lying or misled.  gay people help with caring for the children.  this is not how evolution works.  it does not go  oh, if we make some folks gay they will help with childcare .  if being gay were genetic and it is not, entirely, since there are identical twins of differing orientations there would be no reason bisexuality could not be passed on by the same means.   #  i then learned that i learned to be attracted to them.   #  i believe them.  i just think it is learned bisexuality.  a choice.  i am a straight man.  however in elementary school i had crushes on boys my age.  however, i knew i was straight and day dreamed about girls all the time.  i knew i was straight.  however if i was straight, then how come i was attracted to boys ? i then learned that i learned to be attracted to them.  i could choose to be with men.  but i know i was born straight.  i could choose to be with men and get off on men, but i choose not to.  some people choose to, nothing wrong with that.
i believe people are either born straight or born gay.  that is not a choice.  however the idea that someone could be born bisexual i do not agree with.  yes, there are bisexual people.  but i do believe that is something that is learned over time and is a choice.  a straight man can learn to like men sexually.  he can learn to enjoy it.  right now, i could watch gay porn and eventually enjoy it even though i am straight.  does not mean i am actually bisexual and that i was born bisexual.  just means i learned to like men, however i  prefer  women.  i do not believe sexuality is fluid and is always changing.  you are either born gay or straight.  that is it.  how do you explain all the gay craigslist ads with men labeling themselves as straight and looking for other men ? how do you explain people saying they are evolving and experimenting ? i know straight men who have had sex with other men, yet always go back to wanting a woman in their life.  want to marry a woman yet also have gay sex.  they just  enjoy  gay sex.  i just do not take it seriously when people describe themselves as bisexual.  i know that deep down they have a preference, and that preference usually shows their  true  sexuality.  how do you explain transgender people being thirdly split into straight, gay, and bisexual ? i have a friend who is a bisexual trans man.  he says that he does not really label himself.  however he has tons of gay sex.  yeah, he did have a girlfriend here and there.  he told me that when he had sex with a girl, it did not feel  special/right  as if he did not enjoy it fully to the extent.  so basically he is gay and just learned to like women because of what he went through as a trans man.  so yes, gay people can also  learn  to be bisexual, but they are not happy is what i am saying.  it is not their true sexuality.  for what purpose would man be born bisexual ? what could that possibly serve to mankind ?  #  for what purpose would man be born bisexual ?  #  i think the question is misguided: we are not born with purpose.   # guys who are bi or perhaps gay but do not want to admit it.  there is a hell of a lot of stigma, especially in the minds of older folks raised in a much less accepting world.  as someone only recently coming to terms with my bisexuality, i am finding it very difficult to accept about myself even though i have already been through the whole coming out process as a trans woman ! want to marry a woman yet also have gay sex.  they just  enjoy  gay sex.  . right.  you know bi men.  most bi folk lean somewhat one way or the other, sure.  but having a slight preference for steak does not mean i do not like chicken.  i am not sure how this is supposed to tie into your argument.  can you explain further ? he says that he does not really label himself.  to be clear: does he label himself as bisexual ? or is this you or a third party claiming he is ? it is not their true sexuality.  it is certainly possible for people to be in denial about their sexuality.  a big part of my head wants to pretend that i really really wanted to do things with a dude is bits not too long ago, because i am not 0 emotionally ready to handle that.  but just because some people may label themselves as bi while in denial does not mean there are not people who genuinely just like both sexes.  i think the question is misguided: we are not born with purpose.  but aside from that, let is answer your question with another question: for what purpose would someone be born gay, or without an arm, or with a passionate dislike for broccoli ?  #  gay people help with caring for the children.   #  or maybe these  bisexual  men are actually straight and just learning to get off on men ? does not mean they were bisexual all along, just means they are straight and learned to get off on dudes too.  just because a straight man enjoys gay sex, does not mean he was actually born bisexual.  he just learned to be bisexual but is actually truly straight.  i have heard that people being born gay is for a reason.  gay people help with caring for the children.   #  they can learn to get off on porn.   #  they can learn to get off on porn.  i see it as sort of like a fetish.  if a person masturbates to eating paper and orgasms from that.  eventually they will develop a fetish for eating paper.  same goes for bisexuality.  if a straight man starts to masturbate to gay men, eventually they will get off on that.   #  it is hard to argue with an evidence less claim.   # he just learned to be bisexual but is actually truly straight.  but you have no evidence whatsoever to support your claim that this is the case.  it is hard to argue with an evidence less claim.  plenty of bi people have felt or at least claim they felt attraction to both sexes since a very young age, and i see no reason to think they are lying or misled.  gay people help with caring for the children.  this is not how evolution works.  it does not go  oh, if we make some folks gay they will help with childcare .  if being gay were genetic and it is not, entirely, since there are identical twins of differing orientations there would be no reason bisexuality could not be passed on by the same means.   #  i could choose to be with men and get off on men, but i choose not to.   #  i believe them.  i just think it is learned bisexuality.  a choice.  i am a straight man.  however in elementary school i had crushes on boys my age.  however, i knew i was straight and day dreamed about girls all the time.  i knew i was straight.  however if i was straight, then how come i was attracted to boys ? i then learned that i learned to be attracted to them.  i could choose to be with men.  but i know i was born straight.  i could choose to be with men and get off on men, but i choose not to.  some people choose to, nothing wrong with that.
i believe people are either born straight or born gay.  that is not a choice.  however the idea that someone could be born bisexual i do not agree with.  yes, there are bisexual people.  but i do believe that is something that is learned over time and is a choice.  a straight man can learn to like men sexually.  he can learn to enjoy it.  right now, i could watch gay porn and eventually enjoy it even though i am straight.  does not mean i am actually bisexual and that i was born bisexual.  just means i learned to like men, however i  prefer  women.  i do not believe sexuality is fluid and is always changing.  you are either born gay or straight.  that is it.  how do you explain all the gay craigslist ads with men labeling themselves as straight and looking for other men ? how do you explain people saying they are evolving and experimenting ? i know straight men who have had sex with other men, yet always go back to wanting a woman in their life.  want to marry a woman yet also have gay sex.  they just  enjoy  gay sex.  i just do not take it seriously when people describe themselves as bisexual.  i know that deep down they have a preference, and that preference usually shows their  true  sexuality.  how do you explain transgender people being thirdly split into straight, gay, and bisexual ? i have a friend who is a bisexual trans man.  he says that he does not really label himself.  however he has tons of gay sex.  yeah, he did have a girlfriend here and there.  he told me that when he had sex with a girl, it did not feel  special/right  as if he did not enjoy it fully to the extent.  so basically he is gay and just learned to like women because of what he went through as a trans man.  so yes, gay people can also  learn  to be bisexual, but they are not happy is what i am saying.  it is not their true sexuality.  for what purpose would man be born bisexual ? what could that possibly serve to mankind ?  #  i do not believe sexuality is fluid and is always changing.   #  you are either born gay or straight.   # you are either born gay or straight.  that is it.  why the need to define sexuality so rigidly ? many on the far right believe you are simply born straight and homosexuality is learned, but that has been thoroughly refuted.  assuming you do not hold that belief, what is so unique about bisexuality; what about being attracted to men would preclude one from being attracted to women or vice versa ? i know that deep down they have a preference, and that preference usually shows their  true  sexuality.  bisexuality does not mean you ca not have a slight or even a significant preference for one gender or the other.  it simply means you are attracted to members of both genders.  what could that possibly serve to mankind ? again your argument is sounding like the right wing argument against homosexuality as a whole.  what purpose does homosexuality itself serve to mankind ? why does sexual orientation need to serve mankind to be a legitimate natural phenomenon ?  #  but aside from that, let is answer your question with another question: for what purpose would someone be born gay, or without an arm, or with a passionate dislike for broccoli ?  # guys who are bi or perhaps gay but do not want to admit it.  there is a hell of a lot of stigma, especially in the minds of older folks raised in a much less accepting world.  as someone only recently coming to terms with my bisexuality, i am finding it very difficult to accept about myself even though i have already been through the whole coming out process as a trans woman ! want to marry a woman yet also have gay sex.  they just  enjoy  gay sex.  . right.  you know bi men.  most bi folk lean somewhat one way or the other, sure.  but having a slight preference for steak does not mean i do not like chicken.  i am not sure how this is supposed to tie into your argument.  can you explain further ? he says that he does not really label himself.  to be clear: does he label himself as bisexual ? or is this you or a third party claiming he is ? it is not their true sexuality.  it is certainly possible for people to be in denial about their sexuality.  a big part of my head wants to pretend that i really really wanted to do things with a dude is bits not too long ago, because i am not 0 emotionally ready to handle that.  but just because some people may label themselves as bi while in denial does not mean there are not people who genuinely just like both sexes.  i think the question is misguided: we are not born with purpose.  but aside from that, let is answer your question with another question: for what purpose would someone be born gay, or without an arm, or with a passionate dislike for broccoli ?  #  just because a straight man enjoys gay sex, does not mean he was actually born bisexual.   #  or maybe these  bisexual  men are actually straight and just learning to get off on men ? does not mean they were bisexual all along, just means they are straight and learned to get off on dudes too.  just because a straight man enjoys gay sex, does not mean he was actually born bisexual.  he just learned to be bisexual but is actually truly straight.  i have heard that people being born gay is for a reason.  gay people help with caring for the children.   #  if a person masturbates to eating paper and orgasms from that.   #  they can learn to get off on porn.  i see it as sort of like a fetish.  if a person masturbates to eating paper and orgasms from that.  eventually they will develop a fetish for eating paper.  same goes for bisexuality.  if a straight man starts to masturbate to gay men, eventually they will get off on that.   #  gay people help with caring for the children.   # he just learned to be bisexual but is actually truly straight.  but you have no evidence whatsoever to support your claim that this is the case.  it is hard to argue with an evidence less claim.  plenty of bi people have felt or at least claim they felt attraction to both sexes since a very young age, and i see no reason to think they are lying or misled.  gay people help with caring for the children.  this is not how evolution works.  it does not go  oh, if we make some folks gay they will help with childcare .  if being gay were genetic and it is not, entirely, since there are identical twins of differing orientations there would be no reason bisexuality could not be passed on by the same means.
i believe people are either born straight or born gay.  that is not a choice.  however the idea that someone could be born bisexual i do not agree with.  yes, there are bisexual people.  but i do believe that is something that is learned over time and is a choice.  a straight man can learn to like men sexually.  he can learn to enjoy it.  right now, i could watch gay porn and eventually enjoy it even though i am straight.  does not mean i am actually bisexual and that i was born bisexual.  just means i learned to like men, however i  prefer  women.  i do not believe sexuality is fluid and is always changing.  you are either born gay or straight.  that is it.  how do you explain all the gay craigslist ads with men labeling themselves as straight and looking for other men ? how do you explain people saying they are evolving and experimenting ? i know straight men who have had sex with other men, yet always go back to wanting a woman in their life.  want to marry a woman yet also have gay sex.  they just  enjoy  gay sex.  i just do not take it seriously when people describe themselves as bisexual.  i know that deep down they have a preference, and that preference usually shows their  true  sexuality.  how do you explain transgender people being thirdly split into straight, gay, and bisexual ? i have a friend who is a bisexual trans man.  he says that he does not really label himself.  however he has tons of gay sex.  yeah, he did have a girlfriend here and there.  he told me that when he had sex with a girl, it did not feel  special/right  as if he did not enjoy it fully to the extent.  so basically he is gay and just learned to like women because of what he went through as a trans man.  so yes, gay people can also  learn  to be bisexual, but they are not happy is what i am saying.  it is not their true sexuality.  for what purpose would man be born bisexual ? what could that possibly serve to mankind ?  #  i just do not take it seriously when people describe themselves as bisexual.   #  i know that deep down they have a preference, and that preference usually shows their  true  sexuality.   # you are either born gay or straight.  that is it.  why the need to define sexuality so rigidly ? many on the far right believe you are simply born straight and homosexuality is learned, but that has been thoroughly refuted.  assuming you do not hold that belief, what is so unique about bisexuality; what about being attracted to men would preclude one from being attracted to women or vice versa ? i know that deep down they have a preference, and that preference usually shows their  true  sexuality.  bisexuality does not mean you ca not have a slight or even a significant preference for one gender or the other.  it simply means you are attracted to members of both genders.  what could that possibly serve to mankind ? again your argument is sounding like the right wing argument against homosexuality as a whole.  what purpose does homosexuality itself serve to mankind ? why does sexual orientation need to serve mankind to be a legitimate natural phenomenon ?  #  he says that he does not really label himself.   # guys who are bi or perhaps gay but do not want to admit it.  there is a hell of a lot of stigma, especially in the minds of older folks raised in a much less accepting world.  as someone only recently coming to terms with my bisexuality, i am finding it very difficult to accept about myself even though i have already been through the whole coming out process as a trans woman ! want to marry a woman yet also have gay sex.  they just  enjoy  gay sex.  . right.  you know bi men.  most bi folk lean somewhat one way or the other, sure.  but having a slight preference for steak does not mean i do not like chicken.  i am not sure how this is supposed to tie into your argument.  can you explain further ? he says that he does not really label himself.  to be clear: does he label himself as bisexual ? or is this you or a third party claiming he is ? it is not their true sexuality.  it is certainly possible for people to be in denial about their sexuality.  a big part of my head wants to pretend that i really really wanted to do things with a dude is bits not too long ago, because i am not 0 emotionally ready to handle that.  but just because some people may label themselves as bi while in denial does not mean there are not people who genuinely just like both sexes.  i think the question is misguided: we are not born with purpose.  but aside from that, let is answer your question with another question: for what purpose would someone be born gay, or without an arm, or with a passionate dislike for broccoli ?  #  he just learned to be bisexual but is actually truly straight.   #  or maybe these  bisexual  men are actually straight and just learning to get off on men ? does not mean they were bisexual all along, just means they are straight and learned to get off on dudes too.  just because a straight man enjoys gay sex, does not mean he was actually born bisexual.  he just learned to be bisexual but is actually truly straight.  i have heard that people being born gay is for a reason.  gay people help with caring for the children.   #  they can learn to get off on porn.   #  they can learn to get off on porn.  i see it as sort of like a fetish.  if a person masturbates to eating paper and orgasms from that.  eventually they will develop a fetish for eating paper.  same goes for bisexuality.  if a straight man starts to masturbate to gay men, eventually they will get off on that.   #  but you have no evidence whatsoever to support your claim that this is the case.   # he just learned to be bisexual but is actually truly straight.  but you have no evidence whatsoever to support your claim that this is the case.  it is hard to argue with an evidence less claim.  plenty of bi people have felt or at least claim they felt attraction to both sexes since a very young age, and i see no reason to think they are lying or misled.  gay people help with caring for the children.  this is not how evolution works.  it does not go  oh, if we make some folks gay they will help with childcare .  if being gay were genetic and it is not, entirely, since there are identical twins of differing orientations there would be no reason bisexuality could not be passed on by the same means.
i believe people are either born straight or born gay.  that is not a choice.  however the idea that someone could be born bisexual i do not agree with.  yes, there are bisexual people.  but i do believe that is something that is learned over time and is a choice.  a straight man can learn to like men sexually.  he can learn to enjoy it.  right now, i could watch gay porn and eventually enjoy it even though i am straight.  does not mean i am actually bisexual and that i was born bisexual.  just means i learned to like men, however i  prefer  women.  i do not believe sexuality is fluid and is always changing.  you are either born gay or straight.  that is it.  how do you explain all the gay craigslist ads with men labeling themselves as straight and looking for other men ? how do you explain people saying they are evolving and experimenting ? i know straight men who have had sex with other men, yet always go back to wanting a woman in their life.  want to marry a woman yet also have gay sex.  they just  enjoy  gay sex.  i just do not take it seriously when people describe themselves as bisexual.  i know that deep down they have a preference, and that preference usually shows their  true  sexuality.  how do you explain transgender people being thirdly split into straight, gay, and bisexual ? i have a friend who is a bisexual trans man.  he says that he does not really label himself.  however he has tons of gay sex.  yeah, he did have a girlfriend here and there.  he told me that when he had sex with a girl, it did not feel  special/right  as if he did not enjoy it fully to the extent.  so basically he is gay and just learned to like women because of what he went through as a trans man.  so yes, gay people can also  learn  to be bisexual, but they are not happy is what i am saying.  it is not their true sexuality.  for what purpose would man be born bisexual ? what could that possibly serve to mankind ?  #  for what purpose would man be born bisexual ?  #  what could that possibly serve to mankind ?  # you are either born gay or straight.  that is it.  why the need to define sexuality so rigidly ? many on the far right believe you are simply born straight and homosexuality is learned, but that has been thoroughly refuted.  assuming you do not hold that belief, what is so unique about bisexuality; what about being attracted to men would preclude one from being attracted to women or vice versa ? i know that deep down they have a preference, and that preference usually shows their  true  sexuality.  bisexuality does not mean you ca not have a slight or even a significant preference for one gender or the other.  it simply means you are attracted to members of both genders.  what could that possibly serve to mankind ? again your argument is sounding like the right wing argument against homosexuality as a whole.  what purpose does homosexuality itself serve to mankind ? why does sexual orientation need to serve mankind to be a legitimate natural phenomenon ?  #  but aside from that, let is answer your question with another question: for what purpose would someone be born gay, or without an arm, or with a passionate dislike for broccoli ?  # guys who are bi or perhaps gay but do not want to admit it.  there is a hell of a lot of stigma, especially in the minds of older folks raised in a much less accepting world.  as someone only recently coming to terms with my bisexuality, i am finding it very difficult to accept about myself even though i have already been through the whole coming out process as a trans woman ! want to marry a woman yet also have gay sex.  they just  enjoy  gay sex.  . right.  you know bi men.  most bi folk lean somewhat one way or the other, sure.  but having a slight preference for steak does not mean i do not like chicken.  i am not sure how this is supposed to tie into your argument.  can you explain further ? he says that he does not really label himself.  to be clear: does he label himself as bisexual ? or is this you or a third party claiming he is ? it is not their true sexuality.  it is certainly possible for people to be in denial about their sexuality.  a big part of my head wants to pretend that i really really wanted to do things with a dude is bits not too long ago, because i am not 0 emotionally ready to handle that.  but just because some people may label themselves as bi while in denial does not mean there are not people who genuinely just like both sexes.  i think the question is misguided: we are not born with purpose.  but aside from that, let is answer your question with another question: for what purpose would someone be born gay, or without an arm, or with a passionate dislike for broccoli ?  #  does not mean they were bisexual all along, just means they are straight and learned to get off on dudes too.   #  or maybe these  bisexual  men are actually straight and just learning to get off on men ? does not mean they were bisexual all along, just means they are straight and learned to get off on dudes too.  just because a straight man enjoys gay sex, does not mean he was actually born bisexual.  he just learned to be bisexual but is actually truly straight.  i have heard that people being born gay is for a reason.  gay people help with caring for the children.   #  eventually they will develop a fetish for eating paper.   #  they can learn to get off on porn.  i see it as sort of like a fetish.  if a person masturbates to eating paper and orgasms from that.  eventually they will develop a fetish for eating paper.  same goes for bisexuality.  if a straight man starts to masturbate to gay men, eventually they will get off on that.   #  he just learned to be bisexual but is actually truly straight.   # he just learned to be bisexual but is actually truly straight.  but you have no evidence whatsoever to support your claim that this is the case.  it is hard to argue with an evidence less claim.  plenty of bi people have felt or at least claim they felt attraction to both sexes since a very young age, and i see no reason to think they are lying or misled.  gay people help with caring for the children.  this is not how evolution works.  it does not go  oh, if we make some folks gay they will help with childcare .  if being gay were genetic and it is not, entirely, since there are identical twins of differing orientations there would be no reason bisexuality could not be passed on by the same means.
i believe people are either born straight or born gay.  that is not a choice.  however the idea that someone could be born bisexual i do not agree with.  yes, there are bisexual people.  but i do believe that is something that is learned over time and is a choice.  a straight man can learn to like men sexually.  he can learn to enjoy it.  right now, i could watch gay porn and eventually enjoy it even though i am straight.  does not mean i am actually bisexual and that i was born bisexual.  just means i learned to like men, however i  prefer  women.  i do not believe sexuality is fluid and is always changing.  you are either born gay or straight.  that is it.  how do you explain all the gay craigslist ads with men labeling themselves as straight and looking for other men ? how do you explain people saying they are evolving and experimenting ? i know straight men who have had sex with other men, yet always go back to wanting a woman in their life.  want to marry a woman yet also have gay sex.  they just  enjoy  gay sex.  i just do not take it seriously when people describe themselves as bisexual.  i know that deep down they have a preference, and that preference usually shows their  true  sexuality.  how do you explain transgender people being thirdly split into straight, gay, and bisexual ? i have a friend who is a bisexual trans man.  he says that he does not really label himself.  however he has tons of gay sex.  yeah, he did have a girlfriend here and there.  he told me that when he had sex with a girl, it did not feel  special/right  as if he did not enjoy it fully to the extent.  so basically he is gay and just learned to like women because of what he went through as a trans man.  so yes, gay people can also  learn  to be bisexual, but they are not happy is what i am saying.  it is not their true sexuality.  for what purpose would man be born bisexual ? what could that possibly serve to mankind ?  #  for what purpose would man be born bisexual ?  #  what could that possibly serve to mankind ?  #  sexuality is not binary, this is an over simplication but imagine a scale with men and one end and women on the other.  some people can be equally attracted to both genders, others can be mostly attracted to one and others might be purely attractted to one.  the boundaries of  gay ,  straight  and  bisexual  all denote regions with vague boundaries on this scale.  you are born somewhere on this scale, and enviroment can probably shuffle you back or forth a little.  talk about experimentation is pretty straight forward.  we experiment to find where we lie on the scale.  what could that possibly serve to mankind ? for what purpose would people be born homosexual ? whatever that reason is it can probably account for bisexuality as well unless it absolutely requires that someone never be attracted to the opposite gender.   #  but having a slight preference for steak does not mean i do not like chicken.   # guys who are bi or perhaps gay but do not want to admit it.  there is a hell of a lot of stigma, especially in the minds of older folks raised in a much less accepting world.  as someone only recently coming to terms with my bisexuality, i am finding it very difficult to accept about myself even though i have already been through the whole coming out process as a trans woman ! want to marry a woman yet also have gay sex.  they just  enjoy  gay sex.  . right.  you know bi men.  most bi folk lean somewhat one way or the other, sure.  but having a slight preference for steak does not mean i do not like chicken.  i am not sure how this is supposed to tie into your argument.  can you explain further ? he says that he does not really label himself.  to be clear: does he label himself as bisexual ? or is this you or a third party claiming he is ? it is not their true sexuality.  it is certainly possible for people to be in denial about their sexuality.  a big part of my head wants to pretend that i really really wanted to do things with a dude is bits not too long ago, because i am not 0 emotionally ready to handle that.  but just because some people may label themselves as bi while in denial does not mean there are not people who genuinely just like both sexes.  i think the question is misguided: we are not born with purpose.  but aside from that, let is answer your question with another question: for what purpose would someone be born gay, or without an arm, or with a passionate dislike for broccoli ?  #  he just learned to be bisexual but is actually truly straight.   #  or maybe these  bisexual  men are actually straight and just learning to get off on men ? does not mean they were bisexual all along, just means they are straight and learned to get off on dudes too.  just because a straight man enjoys gay sex, does not mean he was actually born bisexual.  he just learned to be bisexual but is actually truly straight.  i have heard that people being born gay is for a reason.  gay people help with caring for the children.   #  eventually they will develop a fetish for eating paper.   #  they can learn to get off on porn.  i see it as sort of like a fetish.  if a person masturbates to eating paper and orgasms from that.  eventually they will develop a fetish for eating paper.  same goes for bisexuality.  if a straight man starts to masturbate to gay men, eventually they will get off on that.   #  plenty of bi people have felt or at least claim they felt attraction to both sexes since a very young age, and i see no reason to think they are lying or misled.   # he just learned to be bisexual but is actually truly straight.  but you have no evidence whatsoever to support your claim that this is the case.  it is hard to argue with an evidence less claim.  plenty of bi people have felt or at least claim they felt attraction to both sexes since a very young age, and i see no reason to think they are lying or misled.  gay people help with caring for the children.  this is not how evolution works.  it does not go  oh, if we make some folks gay they will help with childcare .  if being gay were genetic and it is not, entirely, since there are identical twins of differing orientations there would be no reason bisexuality could not be passed on by the same means.
i believe people are either born straight or born gay.  that is not a choice.  however the idea that someone could be born bisexual i do not agree with.  yes, there are bisexual people.  but i do believe that is something that is learned over time and is a choice.  a straight man can learn to like men sexually.  he can learn to enjoy it.  right now, i could watch gay porn and eventually enjoy it even though i am straight.  does not mean i am actually bisexual and that i was born bisexual.  just means i learned to like men, however i  prefer  women.  i do not believe sexuality is fluid and is always changing.  you are either born gay or straight.  that is it.  how do you explain all the gay craigslist ads with men labeling themselves as straight and looking for other men ? how do you explain people saying they are evolving and experimenting ? i know straight men who have had sex with other men, yet always go back to wanting a woman in their life.  want to marry a woman yet also have gay sex.  they just  enjoy  gay sex.  i just do not take it seriously when people describe themselves as bisexual.  i know that deep down they have a preference, and that preference usually shows their  true  sexuality.  how do you explain transgender people being thirdly split into straight, gay, and bisexual ? i have a friend who is a bisexual trans man.  he says that he does not really label himself.  however he has tons of gay sex.  yeah, he did have a girlfriend here and there.  he told me that when he had sex with a girl, it did not feel  special/right  as if he did not enjoy it fully to the extent.  so basically he is gay and just learned to like women because of what he went through as a trans man.  so yes, gay people can also  learn  to be bisexual, but they are not happy is what i am saying.  it is not their true sexuality.  for what purpose would man be born bisexual ? what could that possibly serve to mankind ?  #  for what purpose would man be born bisexual ?  #  if you are referring to evolution here, that is not how it works.   # if you are referring to evolution here, that is not how it works.  citation needed  i just do not take it seriously when people describe themselves as bisexual.  i know that deep down they have a preference, and that preference usually shows their  true  sexuality.  what ? if someone is attracted to both, but has a preference, that does not invalidate his bisexuality.  if it is not fluid, then how do you explain the capability of change ?  #  or is this you or a third party claiming he is ?  # guys who are bi or perhaps gay but do not want to admit it.  there is a hell of a lot of stigma, especially in the minds of older folks raised in a much less accepting world.  as someone only recently coming to terms with my bisexuality, i am finding it very difficult to accept about myself even though i have already been through the whole coming out process as a trans woman ! want to marry a woman yet also have gay sex.  they just  enjoy  gay sex.  . right.  you know bi men.  most bi folk lean somewhat one way or the other, sure.  but having a slight preference for steak does not mean i do not like chicken.  i am not sure how this is supposed to tie into your argument.  can you explain further ? he says that he does not really label himself.  to be clear: does he label himself as bisexual ? or is this you or a third party claiming he is ? it is not their true sexuality.  it is certainly possible for people to be in denial about their sexuality.  a big part of my head wants to pretend that i really really wanted to do things with a dude is bits not too long ago, because i am not 0 emotionally ready to handle that.  but just because some people may label themselves as bi while in denial does not mean there are not people who genuinely just like both sexes.  i think the question is misguided: we are not born with purpose.  but aside from that, let is answer your question with another question: for what purpose would someone be born gay, or without an arm, or with a passionate dislike for broccoli ?  #  does not mean they were bisexual all along, just means they are straight and learned to get off on dudes too.   #  or maybe these  bisexual  men are actually straight and just learning to get off on men ? does not mean they were bisexual all along, just means they are straight and learned to get off on dudes too.  just because a straight man enjoys gay sex, does not mean he was actually born bisexual.  he just learned to be bisexual but is actually truly straight.  i have heard that people being born gay is for a reason.  gay people help with caring for the children.   #  if a straight man starts to masturbate to gay men, eventually they will get off on that.   #  they can learn to get off on porn.  i see it as sort of like a fetish.  if a person masturbates to eating paper and orgasms from that.  eventually they will develop a fetish for eating paper.  same goes for bisexuality.  if a straight man starts to masturbate to gay men, eventually they will get off on that.   #  it is hard to argue with an evidence less claim.   # he just learned to be bisexual but is actually truly straight.  but you have no evidence whatsoever to support your claim that this is the case.  it is hard to argue with an evidence less claim.  plenty of bi people have felt or at least claim they felt attraction to both sexes since a very young age, and i see no reason to think they are lying or misled.  gay people help with caring for the children.  this is not how evolution works.  it does not go  oh, if we make some folks gay they will help with childcare .  if being gay were genetic and it is not, entirely, since there are identical twins of differing orientations there would be no reason bisexuality could not be passed on by the same means.
i believe people are either born straight or born gay.  that is not a choice.  however the idea that someone could be born bisexual i do not agree with.  yes, there are bisexual people.  but i do believe that is something that is learned over time and is a choice.  a straight man can learn to like men sexually.  he can learn to enjoy it.  right now, i could watch gay porn and eventually enjoy it even though i am straight.  does not mean i am actually bisexual and that i was born bisexual.  just means i learned to like men, however i  prefer  women.  i do not believe sexuality is fluid and is always changing.  you are either born gay or straight.  that is it.  how do you explain all the gay craigslist ads with men labeling themselves as straight and looking for other men ? how do you explain people saying they are evolving and experimenting ? i know straight men who have had sex with other men, yet always go back to wanting a woman in their life.  want to marry a woman yet also have gay sex.  they just  enjoy  gay sex.  i just do not take it seriously when people describe themselves as bisexual.  i know that deep down they have a preference, and that preference usually shows their  true  sexuality.  how do you explain transgender people being thirdly split into straight, gay, and bisexual ? i have a friend who is a bisexual trans man.  he says that he does not really label himself.  however he has tons of gay sex.  yeah, he did have a girlfriend here and there.  he told me that when he had sex with a girl, it did not feel  special/right  as if he did not enjoy it fully to the extent.  so basically he is gay and just learned to like women because of what he went through as a trans man.  so yes, gay people can also  learn  to be bisexual, but they are not happy is what i am saying.  it is not their true sexuality.  for what purpose would man be born bisexual ? what could that possibly serve to mankind ?  #  how do you explain transgender people being thirdly split into straight, gay, and bisexual ?  #  citation needed  i just do not take it seriously when people describe themselves as bisexual.   # if you are referring to evolution here, that is not how it works.  citation needed  i just do not take it seriously when people describe themselves as bisexual.  i know that deep down they have a preference, and that preference usually shows their  true  sexuality.  what ? if someone is attracted to both, but has a preference, that does not invalidate his bisexuality.  if it is not fluid, then how do you explain the capability of change ?  #  i think the question is misguided: we are not born with purpose.   # guys who are bi or perhaps gay but do not want to admit it.  there is a hell of a lot of stigma, especially in the minds of older folks raised in a much less accepting world.  as someone only recently coming to terms with my bisexuality, i am finding it very difficult to accept about myself even though i have already been through the whole coming out process as a trans woman ! want to marry a woman yet also have gay sex.  they just  enjoy  gay sex.  . right.  you know bi men.  most bi folk lean somewhat one way or the other, sure.  but having a slight preference for steak does not mean i do not like chicken.  i am not sure how this is supposed to tie into your argument.  can you explain further ? he says that he does not really label himself.  to be clear: does he label himself as bisexual ? or is this you or a third party claiming he is ? it is not their true sexuality.  it is certainly possible for people to be in denial about their sexuality.  a big part of my head wants to pretend that i really really wanted to do things with a dude is bits not too long ago, because i am not 0 emotionally ready to handle that.  but just because some people may label themselves as bi while in denial does not mean there are not people who genuinely just like both sexes.  i think the question is misguided: we are not born with purpose.  but aside from that, let is answer your question with another question: for what purpose would someone be born gay, or without an arm, or with a passionate dislike for broccoli ?  #  he just learned to be bisexual but is actually truly straight.   #  or maybe these  bisexual  men are actually straight and just learning to get off on men ? does not mean they were bisexual all along, just means they are straight and learned to get off on dudes too.  just because a straight man enjoys gay sex, does not mean he was actually born bisexual.  he just learned to be bisexual but is actually truly straight.  i have heard that people being born gay is for a reason.  gay people help with caring for the children.   #  i see it as sort of like a fetish.   #  they can learn to get off on porn.  i see it as sort of like a fetish.  if a person masturbates to eating paper and orgasms from that.  eventually they will develop a fetish for eating paper.  same goes for bisexuality.  if a straight man starts to masturbate to gay men, eventually they will get off on that.   #  it does not go  oh, if we make some folks gay they will help with childcare .   # he just learned to be bisexual but is actually truly straight.  but you have no evidence whatsoever to support your claim that this is the case.  it is hard to argue with an evidence less claim.  plenty of bi people have felt or at least claim they felt attraction to both sexes since a very young age, and i see no reason to think they are lying or misled.  gay people help with caring for the children.  this is not how evolution works.  it does not go  oh, if we make some folks gay they will help with childcare .  if being gay were genetic and it is not, entirely, since there are identical twins of differing orientations there would be no reason bisexuality could not be passed on by the same means.
i believe people are either born straight or born gay.  that is not a choice.  however the idea that someone could be born bisexual i do not agree with.  yes, there are bisexual people.  but i do believe that is something that is learned over time and is a choice.  a straight man can learn to like men sexually.  he can learn to enjoy it.  right now, i could watch gay porn and eventually enjoy it even though i am straight.  does not mean i am actually bisexual and that i was born bisexual.  just means i learned to like men, however i  prefer  women.  i do not believe sexuality is fluid and is always changing.  you are either born gay or straight.  that is it.  how do you explain all the gay craigslist ads with men labeling themselves as straight and looking for other men ? how do you explain people saying they are evolving and experimenting ? i know straight men who have had sex with other men, yet always go back to wanting a woman in their life.  want to marry a woman yet also have gay sex.  they just  enjoy  gay sex.  i just do not take it seriously when people describe themselves as bisexual.  i know that deep down they have a preference, and that preference usually shows their  true  sexuality.  how do you explain transgender people being thirdly split into straight, gay, and bisexual ? i have a friend who is a bisexual trans man.  he says that he does not really label himself.  however he has tons of gay sex.  yeah, he did have a girlfriend here and there.  he told me that when he had sex with a girl, it did not feel  special/right  as if he did not enjoy it fully to the extent.  so basically he is gay and just learned to like women because of what he went through as a trans man.  so yes, gay people can also  learn  to be bisexual, but they are not happy is what i am saying.  it is not their true sexuality.  for what purpose would man be born bisexual ? what could that possibly serve to mankind ?  #  i know straight men who have had sex with other men, yet always go back to wanting a woman in their life.   #  want to marry a woman yet also have gay sex.   # he can learn to enjoy it.  right now, i could watch gay porn and eventually enjoy it even though i am straight.  does not mean i am actually bisexual and that i was born bisexual.  just means i learned to like men, however i  prefer  women.  do it.  i am completely serious.  i would love to see you watch gay porn enough that you  turned bi.   i really, sincerely doubt that it is possible.  want to marry a woman yet also have gay sex.  they just  enjoy  gay sex.  then those men are not straight.  if only there was a word for that.  b , bi , bis oh, this is too difficult ! never mind ! i know that deep down they have a preference, and that preference usually shows their  true  sexuality.  yes, they do have a preference.  and it is a preference towards both men and women.  that is how bisexuality works.  he says that he does not really label himself.  however he has tons of gay sex.  yeah, he did have a girlfriend here and there.  he told me that when he had sex with a girl, it did not feel  special/right  as if he did not enjoy it fully to the extent.  so basically he is gay and just learned to like women because of what he went through as a trans man.  is this your  evidence ?   one case of one bi trans man, who sounds like he is not truly bi anyway ? what could that possibly serve to mankind ? for what purpose would man be born gay ? what could that possibly serve to mankind ? people do not get a choice in their sexuality.  no one wakes up one day and says,  you know what ? i think i am into dudes now.   you may discover it one day, but it is not an instant choice switch that a person can consciously make on their own.   #  or is this you or a third party claiming he is ?  # guys who are bi or perhaps gay but do not want to admit it.  there is a hell of a lot of stigma, especially in the minds of older folks raised in a much less accepting world.  as someone only recently coming to terms with my bisexuality, i am finding it very difficult to accept about myself even though i have already been through the whole coming out process as a trans woman ! want to marry a woman yet also have gay sex.  they just  enjoy  gay sex.  . right.  you know bi men.  most bi folk lean somewhat one way or the other, sure.  but having a slight preference for steak does not mean i do not like chicken.  i am not sure how this is supposed to tie into your argument.  can you explain further ? he says that he does not really label himself.  to be clear: does he label himself as bisexual ? or is this you or a third party claiming he is ? it is not their true sexuality.  it is certainly possible for people to be in denial about their sexuality.  a big part of my head wants to pretend that i really really wanted to do things with a dude is bits not too long ago, because i am not 0 emotionally ready to handle that.  but just because some people may label themselves as bi while in denial does not mean there are not people who genuinely just like both sexes.  i think the question is misguided: we are not born with purpose.  but aside from that, let is answer your question with another question: for what purpose would someone be born gay, or without an arm, or with a passionate dislike for broccoli ?  #  he just learned to be bisexual but is actually truly straight.   #  or maybe these  bisexual  men are actually straight and just learning to get off on men ? does not mean they were bisexual all along, just means they are straight and learned to get off on dudes too.  just because a straight man enjoys gay sex, does not mean he was actually born bisexual.  he just learned to be bisexual but is actually truly straight.  i have heard that people being born gay is for a reason.  gay people help with caring for the children.   #  i see it as sort of like a fetish.   #  they can learn to get off on porn.  i see it as sort of like a fetish.  if a person masturbates to eating paper and orgasms from that.  eventually they will develop a fetish for eating paper.  same goes for bisexuality.  if a straight man starts to masturbate to gay men, eventually they will get off on that.   #  gay people help with caring for the children.   # he just learned to be bisexual but is actually truly straight.  but you have no evidence whatsoever to support your claim that this is the case.  it is hard to argue with an evidence less claim.  plenty of bi people have felt or at least claim they felt attraction to both sexes since a very young age, and i see no reason to think they are lying or misled.  gay people help with caring for the children.  this is not how evolution works.  it does not go  oh, if we make some folks gay they will help with childcare .  if being gay were genetic and it is not, entirely, since there are identical twins of differing orientations there would be no reason bisexuality could not be passed on by the same means.
i believe people are either born straight or born gay.  that is not a choice.  however the idea that someone could be born bisexual i do not agree with.  yes, there are bisexual people.  but i do believe that is something that is learned over time and is a choice.  a straight man can learn to like men sexually.  he can learn to enjoy it.  right now, i could watch gay porn and eventually enjoy it even though i am straight.  does not mean i am actually bisexual and that i was born bisexual.  just means i learned to like men, however i  prefer  women.  i do not believe sexuality is fluid and is always changing.  you are either born gay or straight.  that is it.  how do you explain all the gay craigslist ads with men labeling themselves as straight and looking for other men ? how do you explain people saying they are evolving and experimenting ? i know straight men who have had sex with other men, yet always go back to wanting a woman in their life.  want to marry a woman yet also have gay sex.  they just  enjoy  gay sex.  i just do not take it seriously when people describe themselves as bisexual.  i know that deep down they have a preference, and that preference usually shows their  true  sexuality.  how do you explain transgender people being thirdly split into straight, gay, and bisexual ? i have a friend who is a bisexual trans man.  he says that he does not really label himself.  however he has tons of gay sex.  yeah, he did have a girlfriend here and there.  he told me that when he had sex with a girl, it did not feel  special/right  as if he did not enjoy it fully to the extent.  so basically he is gay and just learned to like women because of what he went through as a trans man.  so yes, gay people can also  learn  to be bisexual, but they are not happy is what i am saying.  it is not their true sexuality.  for what purpose would man be born bisexual ? what could that possibly serve to mankind ?  #  i just do not take it seriously when people describe themselves as bisexual.   #  i know that deep down they have a preference, and that preference usually shows their  true  sexuality.   # he can learn to enjoy it.  right now, i could watch gay porn and eventually enjoy it even though i am straight.  does not mean i am actually bisexual and that i was born bisexual.  just means i learned to like men, however i  prefer  women.  do it.  i am completely serious.  i would love to see you watch gay porn enough that you  turned bi.   i really, sincerely doubt that it is possible.  want to marry a woman yet also have gay sex.  they just  enjoy  gay sex.  then those men are not straight.  if only there was a word for that.  b , bi , bis oh, this is too difficult ! never mind ! i know that deep down they have a preference, and that preference usually shows their  true  sexuality.  yes, they do have a preference.  and it is a preference towards both men and women.  that is how bisexuality works.  he says that he does not really label himself.  however he has tons of gay sex.  yeah, he did have a girlfriend here and there.  he told me that when he had sex with a girl, it did not feel  special/right  as if he did not enjoy it fully to the extent.  so basically he is gay and just learned to like women because of what he went through as a trans man.  is this your  evidence ?   one case of one bi trans man, who sounds like he is not truly bi anyway ? what could that possibly serve to mankind ? for what purpose would man be born gay ? what could that possibly serve to mankind ? people do not get a choice in their sexuality.  no one wakes up one day and says,  you know what ? i think i am into dudes now.   you may discover it one day, but it is not an instant choice switch that a person can consciously make on their own.   #  to be clear: does he label himself as bisexual ?  # guys who are bi or perhaps gay but do not want to admit it.  there is a hell of a lot of stigma, especially in the minds of older folks raised in a much less accepting world.  as someone only recently coming to terms with my bisexuality, i am finding it very difficult to accept about myself even though i have already been through the whole coming out process as a trans woman ! want to marry a woman yet also have gay sex.  they just  enjoy  gay sex.  . right.  you know bi men.  most bi folk lean somewhat one way or the other, sure.  but having a slight preference for steak does not mean i do not like chicken.  i am not sure how this is supposed to tie into your argument.  can you explain further ? he says that he does not really label himself.  to be clear: does he label himself as bisexual ? or is this you or a third party claiming he is ? it is not their true sexuality.  it is certainly possible for people to be in denial about their sexuality.  a big part of my head wants to pretend that i really really wanted to do things with a dude is bits not too long ago, because i am not 0 emotionally ready to handle that.  but just because some people may label themselves as bi while in denial does not mean there are not people who genuinely just like both sexes.  i think the question is misguided: we are not born with purpose.  but aside from that, let is answer your question with another question: for what purpose would someone be born gay, or without an arm, or with a passionate dislike for broccoli ?  #  he just learned to be bisexual but is actually truly straight.   #  or maybe these  bisexual  men are actually straight and just learning to get off on men ? does not mean they were bisexual all along, just means they are straight and learned to get off on dudes too.  just because a straight man enjoys gay sex, does not mean he was actually born bisexual.  he just learned to be bisexual but is actually truly straight.  i have heard that people being born gay is for a reason.  gay people help with caring for the children.   #  i see it as sort of like a fetish.   #  they can learn to get off on porn.  i see it as sort of like a fetish.  if a person masturbates to eating paper and orgasms from that.  eventually they will develop a fetish for eating paper.  same goes for bisexuality.  if a straight man starts to masturbate to gay men, eventually they will get off on that.   #  plenty of bi people have felt or at least claim they felt attraction to both sexes since a very young age, and i see no reason to think they are lying or misled.   # he just learned to be bisexual but is actually truly straight.  but you have no evidence whatsoever to support your claim that this is the case.  it is hard to argue with an evidence less claim.  plenty of bi people have felt or at least claim they felt attraction to both sexes since a very young age, and i see no reason to think they are lying or misled.  gay people help with caring for the children.  this is not how evolution works.  it does not go  oh, if we make some folks gay they will help with childcare .  if being gay were genetic and it is not, entirely, since there are identical twins of differing orientations there would be no reason bisexuality could not be passed on by the same means.
i believe people are either born straight or born gay.  that is not a choice.  however the idea that someone could be born bisexual i do not agree with.  yes, there are bisexual people.  but i do believe that is something that is learned over time and is a choice.  a straight man can learn to like men sexually.  he can learn to enjoy it.  right now, i could watch gay porn and eventually enjoy it even though i am straight.  does not mean i am actually bisexual and that i was born bisexual.  just means i learned to like men, however i  prefer  women.  i do not believe sexuality is fluid and is always changing.  you are either born gay or straight.  that is it.  how do you explain all the gay craigslist ads with men labeling themselves as straight and looking for other men ? how do you explain people saying they are evolving and experimenting ? i know straight men who have had sex with other men, yet always go back to wanting a woman in their life.  want to marry a woman yet also have gay sex.  they just  enjoy  gay sex.  i just do not take it seriously when people describe themselves as bisexual.  i know that deep down they have a preference, and that preference usually shows their  true  sexuality.  how do you explain transgender people being thirdly split into straight, gay, and bisexual ? i have a friend who is a bisexual trans man.  he says that he does not really label himself.  however he has tons of gay sex.  yeah, he did have a girlfriend here and there.  he told me that when he had sex with a girl, it did not feel  special/right  as if he did not enjoy it fully to the extent.  so basically he is gay and just learned to like women because of what he went through as a trans man.  so yes, gay people can also  learn  to be bisexual, but they are not happy is what i am saying.  it is not their true sexuality.  for what purpose would man be born bisexual ? what could that possibly serve to mankind ?  #  i have a friend who is a bisexual trans man.   #  he says that he does not really label himself.   # he can learn to enjoy it.  right now, i could watch gay porn and eventually enjoy it even though i am straight.  does not mean i am actually bisexual and that i was born bisexual.  just means i learned to like men, however i  prefer  women.  do it.  i am completely serious.  i would love to see you watch gay porn enough that you  turned bi.   i really, sincerely doubt that it is possible.  want to marry a woman yet also have gay sex.  they just  enjoy  gay sex.  then those men are not straight.  if only there was a word for that.  b , bi , bis oh, this is too difficult ! never mind ! i know that deep down they have a preference, and that preference usually shows their  true  sexuality.  yes, they do have a preference.  and it is a preference towards both men and women.  that is how bisexuality works.  he says that he does not really label himself.  however he has tons of gay sex.  yeah, he did have a girlfriend here and there.  he told me that when he had sex with a girl, it did not feel  special/right  as if he did not enjoy it fully to the extent.  so basically he is gay and just learned to like women because of what he went through as a trans man.  is this your  evidence ?   one case of one bi trans man, who sounds like he is not truly bi anyway ? what could that possibly serve to mankind ? for what purpose would man be born gay ? what could that possibly serve to mankind ? people do not get a choice in their sexuality.  no one wakes up one day and says,  you know what ? i think i am into dudes now.   you may discover it one day, but it is not an instant choice switch that a person can consciously make on their own.   #  i am not sure how this is supposed to tie into your argument.   # guys who are bi or perhaps gay but do not want to admit it.  there is a hell of a lot of stigma, especially in the minds of older folks raised in a much less accepting world.  as someone only recently coming to terms with my bisexuality, i am finding it very difficult to accept about myself even though i have already been through the whole coming out process as a trans woman ! want to marry a woman yet also have gay sex.  they just  enjoy  gay sex.  . right.  you know bi men.  most bi folk lean somewhat one way or the other, sure.  but having a slight preference for steak does not mean i do not like chicken.  i am not sure how this is supposed to tie into your argument.  can you explain further ? he says that he does not really label himself.  to be clear: does he label himself as bisexual ? or is this you or a third party claiming he is ? it is not their true sexuality.  it is certainly possible for people to be in denial about their sexuality.  a big part of my head wants to pretend that i really really wanted to do things with a dude is bits not too long ago, because i am not 0 emotionally ready to handle that.  but just because some people may label themselves as bi while in denial does not mean there are not people who genuinely just like both sexes.  i think the question is misguided: we are not born with purpose.  but aside from that, let is answer your question with another question: for what purpose would someone be born gay, or without an arm, or with a passionate dislike for broccoli ?  #  he just learned to be bisexual but is actually truly straight.   #  or maybe these  bisexual  men are actually straight and just learning to get off on men ? does not mean they were bisexual all along, just means they are straight and learned to get off on dudes too.  just because a straight man enjoys gay sex, does not mean he was actually born bisexual.  he just learned to be bisexual but is actually truly straight.  i have heard that people being born gay is for a reason.  gay people help with caring for the children.   #  they can learn to get off on porn.   #  they can learn to get off on porn.  i see it as sort of like a fetish.  if a person masturbates to eating paper and orgasms from that.  eventually they will develop a fetish for eating paper.  same goes for bisexuality.  if a straight man starts to masturbate to gay men, eventually they will get off on that.   #  gay people help with caring for the children.   # he just learned to be bisexual but is actually truly straight.  but you have no evidence whatsoever to support your claim that this is the case.  it is hard to argue with an evidence less claim.  plenty of bi people have felt or at least claim they felt attraction to both sexes since a very young age, and i see no reason to think they are lying or misled.  gay people help with caring for the children.  this is not how evolution works.  it does not go  oh, if we make some folks gay they will help with childcare .  if being gay were genetic and it is not, entirely, since there are identical twins of differing orientations there would be no reason bisexuality could not be passed on by the same means.
i believe people are either born straight or born gay.  that is not a choice.  however the idea that someone could be born bisexual i do not agree with.  yes, there are bisexual people.  but i do believe that is something that is learned over time and is a choice.  a straight man can learn to like men sexually.  he can learn to enjoy it.  right now, i could watch gay porn and eventually enjoy it even though i am straight.  does not mean i am actually bisexual and that i was born bisexual.  just means i learned to like men, however i  prefer  women.  i do not believe sexuality is fluid and is always changing.  you are either born gay or straight.  that is it.  how do you explain all the gay craigslist ads with men labeling themselves as straight and looking for other men ? how do you explain people saying they are evolving and experimenting ? i know straight men who have had sex with other men, yet always go back to wanting a woman in their life.  want to marry a woman yet also have gay sex.  they just  enjoy  gay sex.  i just do not take it seriously when people describe themselves as bisexual.  i know that deep down they have a preference, and that preference usually shows their  true  sexuality.  how do you explain transgender people being thirdly split into straight, gay, and bisexual ? i have a friend who is a bisexual trans man.  he says that he does not really label himself.  however he has tons of gay sex.  yeah, he did have a girlfriend here and there.  he told me that when he had sex with a girl, it did not feel  special/right  as if he did not enjoy it fully to the extent.  so basically he is gay and just learned to like women because of what he went through as a trans man.  so yes, gay people can also  learn  to be bisexual, but they are not happy is what i am saying.  it is not their true sexuality.  for what purpose would man be born bisexual ? what could that possibly serve to mankind ?  #  for what purpose would man be born bisexual ?  #  what could that possibly serve to mankind ?  # he can learn to enjoy it.  right now, i could watch gay porn and eventually enjoy it even though i am straight.  does not mean i am actually bisexual and that i was born bisexual.  just means i learned to like men, however i  prefer  women.  do it.  i am completely serious.  i would love to see you watch gay porn enough that you  turned bi.   i really, sincerely doubt that it is possible.  want to marry a woman yet also have gay sex.  they just  enjoy  gay sex.  then those men are not straight.  if only there was a word for that.  b , bi , bis oh, this is too difficult ! never mind ! i know that deep down they have a preference, and that preference usually shows their  true  sexuality.  yes, they do have a preference.  and it is a preference towards both men and women.  that is how bisexuality works.  he says that he does not really label himself.  however he has tons of gay sex.  yeah, he did have a girlfriend here and there.  he told me that when he had sex with a girl, it did not feel  special/right  as if he did not enjoy it fully to the extent.  so basically he is gay and just learned to like women because of what he went through as a trans man.  is this your  evidence ?   one case of one bi trans man, who sounds like he is not truly bi anyway ? what could that possibly serve to mankind ? for what purpose would man be born gay ? what could that possibly serve to mankind ? people do not get a choice in their sexuality.  no one wakes up one day and says,  you know what ? i think i am into dudes now.   you may discover it one day, but it is not an instant choice switch that a person can consciously make on their own.   #  to be clear: does he label himself as bisexual ?  # guys who are bi or perhaps gay but do not want to admit it.  there is a hell of a lot of stigma, especially in the minds of older folks raised in a much less accepting world.  as someone only recently coming to terms with my bisexuality, i am finding it very difficult to accept about myself even though i have already been through the whole coming out process as a trans woman ! want to marry a woman yet also have gay sex.  they just  enjoy  gay sex.  . right.  you know bi men.  most bi folk lean somewhat one way or the other, sure.  but having a slight preference for steak does not mean i do not like chicken.  i am not sure how this is supposed to tie into your argument.  can you explain further ? he says that he does not really label himself.  to be clear: does he label himself as bisexual ? or is this you or a third party claiming he is ? it is not their true sexuality.  it is certainly possible for people to be in denial about their sexuality.  a big part of my head wants to pretend that i really really wanted to do things with a dude is bits not too long ago, because i am not 0 emotionally ready to handle that.  but just because some people may label themselves as bi while in denial does not mean there are not people who genuinely just like both sexes.  i think the question is misguided: we are not born with purpose.  but aside from that, let is answer your question with another question: for what purpose would someone be born gay, or without an arm, or with a passionate dislike for broccoli ?  #  he just learned to be bisexual but is actually truly straight.   #  or maybe these  bisexual  men are actually straight and just learning to get off on men ? does not mean they were bisexual all along, just means they are straight and learned to get off on dudes too.  just because a straight man enjoys gay sex, does not mean he was actually born bisexual.  he just learned to be bisexual but is actually truly straight.  i have heard that people being born gay is for a reason.  gay people help with caring for the children.   #  if a person masturbates to eating paper and orgasms from that.   #  they can learn to get off on porn.  i see it as sort of like a fetish.  if a person masturbates to eating paper and orgasms from that.  eventually they will develop a fetish for eating paper.  same goes for bisexuality.  if a straight man starts to masturbate to gay men, eventually they will get off on that.   #  it does not go  oh, if we make some folks gay they will help with childcare .   # he just learned to be bisexual but is actually truly straight.  but you have no evidence whatsoever to support your claim that this is the case.  it is hard to argue with an evidence less claim.  plenty of bi people have felt or at least claim they felt attraction to both sexes since a very young age, and i see no reason to think they are lying or misled.  gay people help with caring for the children.  this is not how evolution works.  it does not go  oh, if we make some folks gay they will help with childcare .  if being gay were genetic and it is not, entirely, since there are identical twins of differing orientations there would be no reason bisexuality could not be passed on by the same means.
i am a bit surprised that donald trump and a certain fringe wing of conservatives are still going on about americans of hispanic and/or latino ethnicity.  i thought by now americans would have realized that as gaul was to rome, the hispanic ethnicity is to the united states.  i feel like the immigration reform/acculturation issue of hispanics illogically gets second fiddle billing in the united states behind racism against blacks re: the police.  there is a not insignificant proportion of the population that feels racism against african americans is largely self inflicted by their disproportionate violent crime rate and anti white attitudes, but racism against hispanics makes literally no sense whatsoever.  there is no logical explanation for it period.  we need to address it asap.  i feel  every  issue of racism or whatever is completely irrelevant compared to the urgency that we need to open the doors to hispanic america.  consider:  hispanics are the fastest growing minority group in the united states.  they are also the largest minority group, with 0 million today.    hispanics are a significant proportion of the population of the biggest american states, including california, texas, new york, florida, and the entire southwest.    hispanics have the highest percentage of new small businesses being opened.  this indicates they are assimilating, working to better themselves, and throwing their weight around economically.    hispanics culturally tend to have strong family values.  this seems compatible with  mainstream  american culture.    hispanics, as studies show, are virtually completely assimilated by the third generation, following acculturation trends of other immigrant groups such as the irish, chinese, italians, japanese, etc.    the united states forcibly and immorally annexed land from mexico 0 years ago.  i am not advocating irredentism obviously, but many hispanics  descendants found themselves on the wrong side of the border through no fault of their own, and became full u. s citizens.  punking these citizens is morally wrong.    the united states has close ties with mexico, central america, and south america.  these are booming regions.     even  illegal  immigrants fill economic niches not otherwise filled by  legal  immigrants or citizens.  they help the economy without siphoning off jobs that would go to  legal  citizens.  many of them pay taxes.    hispanics are projected to be 0 of the population by 0.   i feel strongly that taking an antagonistic attitude against this minority group is not just morally wrong, it is economically counterproductive and demographically suicidal in the longterm.  with the aging white population, it is very likely that a population that has a hispanic plurality will be taking america into the deeper decades of the 0st century.  again, i do not understand why people sweep aside reconciling racist white america with the future demographic plurality and immigration reform in favor of frankly horse that have been beaten to death.  with that in mind, i feel there should be : stronger social taboos against discrimination or stereotyping of hispanics that spanish should be added as a required subject in k 0 education throughout the nation, that official cultural grants and initiatives should be granted ala japan is  cool japan  or korea is  hallyu  initiatives to encourage the cultural growth of the hispanic american market and industry, that spanish should be added as the de facto second official language of the united states  #  there is a not insignificant proportion of the population that feels racism against african americans is largely self inflicted by their disproportionate violent crime rate and anti white attitudes, but racism against hispanics makes literally no sense whatsoever.   #  you could say that racism against hispanics is largely self inflicted by the disproportionate origin of illegal drugs and immigrants into the us, by your logic.   # if i were to demand preferential treatment for blacks and pull police brutality, sure.  police brutality is not exclusively a black problem.  likewise, you are demanding preferential treatment for hispanics because of, say, immigration issues.  illegal immigration is not exclusively a hispanic problem.  you could say that racism against hispanics is largely self inflicted by the disproportionate origin of illegal drugs and immigrants into the us, by your logic.  that is a fairly damning statement.   #  i thought i brushed over it in the op, but the logical reasons to me are twofold.   #  i thought i brushed over it in the op, but the logical reasons to me are twofold.  they are a huge portion of our nation is most important states and project to only grow larger.  instead of antagonizing them and treating them second class, it seems to be more in our interest to make sure they feel included fully as they will be the gaul to our rome.  in the later bits of roman history, gallic romans contributed heavily to the continued prosperity of the empire.  in addition, it goes without saying illegals perform a lot of work no americans will do.  agribusinesses cannot function without them.  food prices would rise far too high.   #  and a  huge  part of the work you do not think americans will do is migrant farmwork, which i am against ever since i learned about the banana wars and i literally either buy fair trade or i do without.   #  there is a lot to your comment that i feel is just simply misinformed.  illegal immigration has leveled off.  URL your analogy to  you would better be nice to them because the day is coming when they will be bigger than you  is more of a threat than an olive branch.  america does not really  respond well  to threats.  gaul and rome warred for like 0 years before rome took over gaul.  this one is on me are you talking specifically about illegals, specifically about legal immigrants, or about both of them as a whole ? illegals should not even be treated as second class citizens, as they are not citizens.  legal immigrants are my compatriots and deserve every right, protection, and all the respect i do being a legal citizen.  during amber alerts, i accept being pulled over because of my silver corolla being like the most popular car ever sold.  there are 0 million unemployed citizens in the us.  and a  huge  part of the work you do not think americans will do is migrant farmwork, which i am against ever since i learned about the banana wars and i literally either buy fair trade or i do without.  did you know that 0/0 of the world is chocolate is farmed by child slaves in africa ? is it weird how that fact is not even going to slow down your chocolate consumption ? i am not entirely sure agribusinesses deserve to function the way they currently are.  if you want to go on a diet, learn how your food gets to your plate.  buying exclusively fair trade, my groceries cost about 0 more than yours.  my bananas are 0 cents as opposed to the 0 cents a pound for regular bananas.  and are you standing on the platform of  that is not exploitation  ? because i do not think it is something we should keep around as it is.   #  the main issue with this question is that it is not considered racism at least by the general public to build a wall along the border.   #  the main issue with this question is that it is not considered racism at least by the general public to build a wall along the border.  even if the express purpose is to keep people from illegally immigrating across the border, the wall can always be framed as a  national security  issue even if in name only rather than purely an immigration issue.  i do not feel that forcing an new england child on the quebec border to learn spanish is conducive to the language that they might more readily interact with, french.  certain communities with strong ties to a particular culture should be able to choose their k 0 language options such as chinese in a school near chinatown, or german in parts of rural pennsylvania where german is still widely spoken .  the government chooses to print most materials in english because that is the most common language taken, and will print in spanish for official forms and documents if a large percentage of spanish only speakers request that form.   #  it wo not happen overnight for sure and there are other problems too for example reintegration for criminals , but it is an important step to take.   #  i will try to go for a weird angle on this one.  neither is a serious problem, compared to social mobility.  the disproportionate crime rates of blacks compared to whites are not there because of  inferiour race  nor because of racism from whites  part.  they are there because people born in shitty environments do not have much of a chance to improve their life, and more blacks than whites happen to be in that situation.  give poor people a better chance, and the problem will shrink.  it wo not happen overnight for sure and there are other problems too for example reintegration for criminals , but it is an important step to take.
some people like to argue that men have a more difficult development then woman do.  here are some arguments they have: 0.   after controlling for the arrest offense, criminal history, and other prior characteristics,  men receive 0 longer sentences on average than women do,  and   w omen are…twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted.  URL this fact does not support the politically correct notion that there is a  war on women  in the usa, or that america is patriarchal and full of  male privilege .  to the contrary, it says that women are more likely to be protected by society than men, and are given special  female privileges  which makes their development easier.  0.  in the usa all male citizens must register with the selective service when they turn 0 so they can be drafted into war if  needed  and possibly die.  this is a highly sexist law at its core.  what would happen if we had a law that only drafted african americans, or latinos, or people with blue eyes ? why do not we draft women ? should we ? some nations like israel do.  0.  if a woman and a man engage in sexual intercourse and pregnancy results, a woman can make decisions that disregards the man is input but that affect him drastically.  if the woman decides to terminate the pregnancy, the man has no legal say in the matter.  and if the woman decides to continue the pregnancy, again without any discretion from the man, he is legally responsible for child support for 0 years.  if he fails to support such a child he can have his wages garnished and/or be imprisoned.  please note i am not claiming that a man should have a legal right here, just that he has no legal standing it is entirely a woman is choice about how to deal with the pregnancy, and this gives her more control and power than a man in that circumstance for example, a woman can have the baby and then give up a child for adoption against the man is wishes URL for another bizarre spin on men is lack of power in these situations check this out; statutory rape victim ordered to pay child support URL i think this proves that men have a more difficult development in life then woman do.   #  f a woman and a man engage in sexual intercourse and pregnancy results, a woman can make decisions that disregards the man is input but that affect him drastically.   #  this is a very old and repetitive fallacy brought up here.   # this is a very old and repetitive fallacy brought up here.  abortion rights are a part of body rights.  men do not get pregnant so cannot have abortions.  their body rights are active at the moment of sexual intercourse only.  the rape victim is child support case is because he never pressed charges.  this was his choice and it could have been different.   #  factually, society cares more about women than men.   #  you ca not really disprove any of it.  factually, society cares more about women than men.  however, men are all the better for it.  i said in my comment below, now that i am a grown adult, i would love to be treated the way women are, but i would not ever want to be raised the way they are.  i like the bold confidence of walking at night to pick my girlfriend up from work because she feels unsafe.  even though i am in more danger walking to get her than she would be walking home alone, society telling me  nobody cares, stop crying and do what has to be done  empowers me to do it.  because men  do  and women  are done to .  it is this gender studies concept of hyperagency/hypoagency.  the driving force behind   you got her pregnant   and so forth.   #  also, you may change your mind when you reach the nursing home age yourself.   #  sure, but do not mistake the average for being the single case.  women live longer than men not because all women live to 0 while all men live to 0, instead  most  women and men live to around those ages, respectively, but also a significant amount of men die at far younger ages.  also, you may change your mind when you reach the nursing home age yourself.  young people often say  oh, i will kill myself before i live in a nursing home , but the reality is that few want to do so when they get there.  they want to continue living, even if the quality is not what it was.  they have children and grandchildren and friends that tie them to life, and they often want to delay death, not hasten it.   #  and it seems like you do not give any consideration whatsoever to issues that only effect women.   # given the three very specific examples you gave, do not you think this is an  awfully  broad and sweeping generalization ? especially since each of your three points only applies to a relatively narrow slice of the population.  you have got sentencing disparities, which only apply to people who have been convicted of a crime.  then you have got the draft, which has not been used for how many years and is unlikely to be used any time soon.  so its a very sexist formality, but one that has had essentially zero impact on the lives of actual men.  and then you have got disputes over what to do with an unexpected pregnancy.  i am not disputing that any of these are real issues, but none of these come close to supporting a general view that  men have a more difficult development  in life than women do .  for most men, none of these three issues are problems at all.  and it seems like you do not give any consideration whatsoever to issues that only effect women.  you make a big point about how men do not have a lot of choices when an unexpected pregnancy occurs, but is not it at least worth mentioning the fact that the woman is the one who actually  gets pregnant  ? or that women have menstrual cycles at all ? and thats just plain old biology.  do you acknowledge that sexism against women exists at all, anywhere in our society ? not really sure exactly what you mean by  development  here, but i am guessing its just an odd way of saying  have a more difficult time  ?  #  the boy is told all of his natural instincts are wrong.   #  you need to add to the op that this discrimination begins from the moment the boy enters the public school system.  the boy is told all of his natural instincts are wrong.  that he should stop being boystrous, active, and competitive.  instead he should fall in like and act like a girl.  this continues througout their entire life all through college.  and the programming only gets worse.  our entire value system in the western world is a female centric paradigm.  male traits bad.  female traits ideal.
before i start, i think it is important to point out that i am certainly biased.  i am a vegetarian who will soon be getting a kitchen and going vegan.  i am sure my logic will be questioned by many people in real life, but i feel like if i can survive this thread then i will be set for a while.  i searched for this thread but i could not find something this broad.   background:  to start, i would like to reference another cmv post URL specifically the tiers.  it also explains why rights of a lower tier cannot be taken by a higher tier simply because it is a higher tier.  if you are going to use logic along those lines in your response, i ask that you skim that link first.     tier 0 : plants    tier 0 : basic animals excludes insects    tier 0 : animals with more advanced cognitive function    tier 0 : humans    tier 0 : anything above humans  assumptions:  0.  a human killing killing another human is considered unethical.  0.  an alien killing a human is also unethical.  0.  plants are okay to be eaten because they are not conscious, and cannot feel pain or pleasure.  0.  basic animals are conscious, and can feel pain or pleasure  my logic:  if we can agree on my second assumption, then we have to accept that any code of ethics we follow cannot, without purpose, isolate rights to a single tier.  so the question now becomes, if meat is not murder, then for what purpose should basic animals not be given the same right to life that a human is given ? if we can agree on my third and fourth assumption then i see no reason why a basic animal should not be given the same rights to life as a human.   what will change my view:  disproving one of my assumptions in a way that disproves my logic  #  if we can agree on my third and fourth assumption then i see no reason why a basic animal should not be given the same rights to life as a human.   #  should humans also take proactive measures to protect gazelles from lions ?  # self defense killings included ? killings in the defense of others ? bombing a building which prevents a militant from triggering an attack that would kill several hundred innocent people, however the bombing also kills the militant is family ? those are all killings of humans by humans and all present murky moral questions.  should humans also take proactive measures to protect gazelles from lions ? is it moral to allow lions to kill other animals, if we are capable of preventing that action, in other words ?  #  we can certainly force animals to have sex with each other, even invoking physical means to do so.   #  well, you are not allowed to abuse  some  types of animals, and there are many cultures where such restrictions do not really exist.  as for having sex with them, that actually is more about safety and religious mores on human sexuality than about the animal itself.  we can certainly force animals to have sex with each other, even invoking physical means to do so.  animals clearly are not provided a right to consent or even a believe that such a right could exist.  i think this actually supports the argument that killing an animal is a very distinct act from killing a human.  personally, i do not have any ethical qualms about killing animals, especially ones that are only alive  because  we are using them for food.  i consider them to be no different than plants and to avoid killing and eating them when they are available would be unnecessarily denying myself and others pleasure/nutrition, which would be unethical.   #  if i am horny and i do not rape a girl, i am denying myself pleasure which would be unethical.   #  i think this is getting off track.  we are now using current legal status to determine ethics.  i think this would be more productive if you attempt to disprove my initial claim.  in regards to the ethical point you made.   because we are using them for food the animal is also using itself to be alive.  if i were to eat babies i could not say  well i was eating them so it is okay   unnecessarily denying myself and others pleasure/nutrition, which would be unethical.  if i am horny and i do not rape a girl, i am denying myself pleasure which would be unethical.  in regards to nutrition, if you live in a 0st world country it is very easy to stay nourished as a vegan.  vegans do not die earlier than non meat eaters  #  as for the rest of your post, please try to refrain from strawman arguments.   #  my point was that i place no more value on an animal is life than a plant is life.  therefore to mean, not killing and eating them is the equivalent to letting perfectly good corn or wheat just dry out and die rather than harvest it.  as for the rest of your post, please try to refrain from strawman arguments.  i never said that denying pleasure is universally unethical regardless of why you do so, and obviously i do not mean as such.  what i said that i said that  unnecessarily  denying yourself pleasure or nutrition when they are readily available for doing so would be unethical.  it is clearly necessary to deny such an act if the act harms another person or yourself.   #  but using your points of value inherently in life, both plants and animals are alive, what makes vegan any more moral ?  # i have presented a logical argument that does, and you have yet to logically reject what i have said no you have not, and he actually has.  the reason is because as humans we place value on human life.  we empathize with each other naturally due to selection of those who work better with others.  we do not place value on non human life until we develop a personal connection with it because, while i love my dog, it means nothing to me if your dog dies nor you if mine does.  i empathize with you for losing your friend most certainly because i can relate to that, and the same most likely applies to you.  do not get me wrong, i do not want either of our dogs to die, but its about that connection being made.  some people such as yourself have a higher appreciation for animals, but at the end of the day vegan ism still kills living creature.  laws banning things like bestiality are more about policing human behavior than because we care about the animal is sexuality.  is it hypocritical of us when we look at your example of aliens from the starting point ? yes, very.  but using your points of value inherently in life, both plants and animals are alive, what makes vegan any more moral ? that they do not have eyes and ca not move ? i would argue that is just as hypocritical to eat the living plants while putting on a holier than thou argument against eating living animals.  at the end of the day, humans have been selected for the ability to empathize and work with each other because it helps our survival.  empathizing with ole bessie the cow that i have not formed an emotional bond with does not help our/my survival atleast in the short term, evolution ca not possibly for see the natural problems associated with mass food production and distribution where i do agree there is value in moving away from meat as a primary food source.  if this was not true of the majority of humanity we would not be eating burgers to begin with.
i have argued about this with friends before but none of them have managed to convince me otherwise so here i am.  simply put, a human cannot match the perfection of a machine.  if you want straight stitches a machine is your best bet.  you want engraved anything ? machine.  drawn ? machine.  if the prices were equal i would be open to buying hand made things but the thing is that hand made things cost more and have lower quality.  i can see why it is impressive that someone spent the time to carve a wooden bowl.  i also see why it is impressive simply to create something intricate by hand.  would i pay extra for it because they spent a lot more time on it than a machine would have ? hell no.  it is their hobby and they enjoy it, good for them but it is not my job to encourage them to continue their hobby.   #  but the thing is that hand made things cost more and have lower quality.   #  that is a bias on your part.   # that is a bias on your part.  when your factories have rigorous quality control and assurance, their products will definitely have standards an amateur may not necessarily have.  the counterpoint is that there are places where factories, i. e.  machine made goods that are complete junk due to lack of qa/qc.  conversely, handmade goods are far superior due to the incredibly low cost of labour.  high quality factory goods are actually accorded premium status.   #  they may work closely with the person who makes the furniture to get a truly personalized product.   # your view that,  would i pay extra for it because they spent a lot more time on it than a machine would have ?   is your own opinion.  there are plenty of people who are willing to pay a lot more money for customized furniture because they want their home to stand out.  they may work closely with the person who makes the furniture to get a truly personalized product.  the limits of a machine are that it produces cheaper goods if it produces more of the same.  for one off products, that is not the case.   #  the best designers can easily achieve an excellent balance b/w your desire for aesthetics and function.   #  i should have made myself clearer.  when you say that: from experience, buying more expensive/high quality machine made products is still cheaper than buying handmade products and they meet the perfection/sameness criterion.  perfection is very hard to define.  that office chair you buy from staples, or the desk from ikea is not  perfect.   it  does the job  that is required.  the only  perfect  chair you can ever get is the one that is customized for your size, your back, the distance b/w your thighs and feet while you are sitting, etc.  everything else is satisfactory.  the best way to get a product that is  best  for you is to get a customized product.  the best designers can easily achieve an excellent balance b/w your desire for aesthetics and function.  what you are talking about in your post mostly applies to amateurs, not professionals with decades of experience.   #  by perfect i meant ones where straight lines are actually straight with no random dips or misshaped things.   #  by perfect i meant ones where straight lines are actually straight with no random dips or misshaped things.  think of a cnc machine creating something over and over again with great precision every time.  i like the distinction between amateurs and professionals.  when i think of handmade things i think of products you buy at fairs and stuff which are definitely made by amateurs who charge a lot for them because, hey, they are handmade .  i do not mind the chair in the video at all.  it looks professional, i am sure i ca not distinguish between two chairs placed in front of me.  i would pay for the quality of the chair and possibly the status that comes from owning it but i would not pay extra if someone told me it is handmade.  i guess a part of me does not get why people pay pay extra for handmade things because machines seem to do a better job.  if i was given two products and was told that one of them is machined and the other is handmade i would be more willing to pay extra for the machined one.  even things like iphones have certain components that are done by humans and that is fine, i am not looking for things 0 made by machines.  i just do not see why i should pay an amateur that does a terrible job extra for a product that is subpar just because they spent a lot of time on it.   #  some economic inefficiency on their part is useful for the local community.   # interesting.  when i think of handmade and $$ together my mind goes straight to professional carpenters.  perhaps it is just a matter of what we have been exposed to.  it is the same reason why i go to the neighbourhood store to buy veggies even though i could get them for slightly cheaper at the large grocery store.  they are aware that local people do need  some  support while they are developing their craft.  after all, they are buying knick knacks not something really substantial from these amateur craftspeople.  some economic inefficiency on their part is useful for the local community.  you do not need to participate in it if you do not want to, but that is part of why they are doing it.
hi all, i have not thought this through in depth, but my gut reaction to donald trump is popularity is that he taps into the hatred for the political class more than anything else.  he simply does not give a fuck about politicians, and is willing to call them out for being the shit they are.  and the rest does not matter at all.  i do not think it is primarily a racist element that supports him.  i do not think it is that people have any clue about his politics even.  no one really cares.  but the likes of john mccain and lindsey graham are well known for being war mongers who are totally full of shit and useless.  rick perry is a complete idiot.  hillary clinton, well, she is a clinton.  nuff said.  and donald trump is the only person in the race other than bernie sanders who opposes the existing political paradigm.  rand paul had a chance to do this, his father did.  but rand clearly embraced the political class.  ted cruz recognizes why trump is popular, and is seeking the same votes, and that is why he refuses to criticize him.  but ted cruz is boring with a nasal voice, is a politician, and he clearly comes off as a total asshole.  so trump has the protest vote all locked up.  but what the political class and the american media do not understand is that they are truly hated.  the media and political class are currently trying to kill trump is campaign, but they are doing so at their own peril.  because trump is not just a ralph nader or jessie ventura or ron paul true believers with limited potential , he is a billionaire who truly hates the political class.  his platform does he have one ? has nothing to do with policy ideas, but is purely a reactionary reflection of the popular hatred of the washington elite.  and this hatred runs very deep.  it was deep enough to kill hillary clinton is campaign last time around against a candidate with the exact same political views who even appointed her a key member of his cabinet , and it is powerful enough to truly disrupt the political order.  trump, more than any other candidate before him, has the potential to overthrow this political order, and that is why people support him.  that is my view.  change it.   #  because trump is not just a ralph nader or jessie ventura or ron paul true believers with limited potential , he is a billionaire who truly hates the political class.   #  i would say he is more of a ross perot a billionaire who thinks his wealth and business experience is enough to qualify him to be the leader of this country.   # most people do not pay attention to the presidential election until the nominations for the parties are already over, so when poles happen people are more likely to choose a name they recognize over those they do not if they are not following the primary coverage.  most of the candidates are not national figures are wo not be recognized by someone not following the coverage regularly.  i would say he is more of a ross perot a billionaire who thinks his wealth and business experience is enough to qualify him to be the leader of this country.  i personally think he is trolling the republican party and does not really plan on winning but even if i assume he is running to win, i think it is insane to think a business leader is capable of doing what needs to be done as a president.  the office of the president needs to be held by someone who is diplomatic and understands diplomacy.  people give obama a hard time for being weak but he highly respected by other world leaders and that is going to be important for negotiations.  can anyone seriously imagine trump working with the leaders in african countries to inspire better human rights policies ? there are really terrible people and really terrible crisis all over the world and the american president should be a person who can be likable and inspirational to people in other places of the world.  that is my view.  he is not going to overthrow anything, in my opinion, because the political order is a reflection of the framework of government and we are still living in a government of laws not a government of people.  the executive branch of government has little power to do things on its own the 0 branches sytestem of checks is still pretty solid and any president is subject to the laws.  trumps rhetoric is going to catch up to him because he can talk a lot of shit but when he starts getting policy questions he is not going to have any answers.  and one last thing his business career is going to catch up to him too.  i ca not imagine him staying in people is favor when they find out he has become wealthy despite having several businesses go bankrupt, scamming people with his fake university, and endorsing mlm scam companies for profit.   #  no one in their right mind is actually gonna vote for this ape.   #  it is pure reality show drama.  he is winning polls because a poll and a vote are not the same thing.  no one in their right mind is actually gonna vote for this ape.  he will remain popular for a while because he is drama.  and drama is fun to watch.  but no one is really going to vote for it for president.  he is most certainly not anti washington or anti politician and is not seen by most of the country as a washington outsider.  he may be but that is not his image.  his image is of a dumb blowhard who has far more ego than sense.  he will fade away just like he did last time, just like all the other republican crazies did last time.   #  i have talked to a lot of people who love him.   #  you are completely wrong.  i have talked to a lot of people who love him.  absolutely love him.  he is the only politician that people bring up when i talk about politics other than bernie sanders .  you sound like a washington insider type.  you think politics is a serious business.  and i just think you are underestimating how much americans hate that perspective.  they hate it because washington is so fucked up, but then they take themselves so seriously.  and trump is type of bullshit is tapping into that.  i mean, i know it is because people love him and think he is  telling it like it is .   #  i am sure there are lots of people who like him just like somehow his dumb show always got ratings.   #  i am not sure what you mean by  washington insider type  but i do not think i am it.  i am sure there are lots of people who like him just like somehow his dumb show always got ratings.  still, i do not see him going far here.  he has no idea what he is doing and is little more than reality tv fodder.  like i said, he is drama and people like drama.  that is why he is popular.  i do not believe for a minute it will translate into actual votes.   #  so i really doubt he is doing it just for reality tv reasons.   #  this is possible.  i mean, at first i thought this was the case.  but he is spent a lot of money on lawyers and such already, and on building a campaign.  personal money.  and he has been open about how it is hurting his businesses.  so i really doubt he is doing it just for reality tv reasons.  and plus, he is just being such an asshole, you ca not try to smash people the way he is doing it unless you take it personally.  he is getting attacked, and his response is to get pissed and counterattack.  i mean, he is been around long enough to know that this would be a bad idea unless he really was pissed.  so yeah, the more i think about it, the more i think he has a chance.  particularly if he keeps emphasizing how shitty american politics are.  and how useless the political class is.  which he can do by repeating that he is a business man, not a politician.
0.  politics are boring.  we know this.  it is one of the massive reasons why apathy is rampant.   next american president !   cue bass effects trump would make america interesting again.  it would bring in a popularity factor that would make the presidency more like a game show which could be really cool for our culture.  0.  racism, nationalism, and ignorance are very strong american cultural traits.  i am going to ignore the past to keep this argument especially american.  rarely are we able to just be honest.  we generally do not care much about minorities or people from other countries.   definitely  not according to the results of our actions.  as far as any candidates i have seen with potential aside from sanders, there is nothing that even confronts the issues.  a vote for hillary is a vote for a timid jeb bush.  why would anyone want that bullshit again ? i am sure she would be reigning on internet freedom and continuing the drug war that is causing us to hate immigrants in the first place.  why not just pick the guy who is honest about his anger ? 0.  rather than accepting 0 years of slow or fast deterioration of the middle class, why do not we just openly accept america is bought ? if sanders ca not win, we end up with people who will continue to pretend there is a gridlock while ignoring all the actions they can take to overcome it or affect other change.  if we accept america is bought, we can sincerely just start begging our leaders to make changes to support us.  honest begging is better than a false sense of control.  0.  trump has pride in his public persona.  it may not seem like it, but trump probably has more integrity than hillary or any other republicans.  he is been in the public eye enough that he has an emotional fanbase.  those are the types of people who inspire a person to, at the very least, do a couple good things for us.  not to mention, he supposedly used to have some pretty liberal ideas.  0.  URL can there be a person more fitting for america in its current state ? if we are being 0 honest with ourselves, i think this is the best president we could ever hope to have.   #  why not just pick the guy who is honest about his anger ?  #  he is also clear about his prejudices.   # no.  no.  no.  please.  no.  if i get to watch cabinet secretaries being fired, sure maybe i could sign up for that.  otherwise, no.  he is also clear about his prejudices.  great, let is alienate a significant minority latin americans right from the start.  are not you overestimating the power of potus to cut through the gridlock ? and do you really see americans begging to change the system ? no, no, self delusion is much more comforting.  he paid actors to be present at his announcement speech URL i am not turning green with envy over the crowds at his speeches.  not too sure about that.  hulk hogan is been in the news recently.  is he running ?  #  i mean, it might hurt things, but results have not been our focus anyway.   # great, let is alienate a significant minority latin americans right from the start.  as a country, we are already sort of demonizing them to the point that masses of people hate  illegals.   rather than looking at it as a symptom of flawed systems, we only see people doing illegal things that hurt us.  considering america loves majority rule, well, probably the majority of the time, it would not hurt anything just to accept the attitude and see where it takes us.  i mean, it might hurt things, but results have not been our focus anyway.  i think the president is in a seat that has the ear of an entire country.  they can change absolutely anything they wanted if they asked america to stand up.  no, but i think that is just because we are still convinced we have some degree of power in anything.  as if we have somehow chosen these people to lead us.  that is not the case.  they are being pushed at us by the people wealthy enough to have the science and understanding required to know how much more they can benefit from their influence.   #  if it were then obama would have generated enormous support for gun reform laws.   # i mean, it might hurt things, but results have not been our focus anyway.  so your proposal is to look at a system that is in trouble and to put an insensitive dolt in charge of the whole system as some sort of shitty social experiment ? are you serious ? do i really need to explain why this is a bad idea ? they can change absolutely anything they wanted if they asked america to stand up.  you know this is not true.  if it were then obama would have generated enormous support for gun reform laws.  after sandy hook obama tried, and failed, to drum up the support necessary for reform.  he has tried and failed many times.  trump is one of the people who has used his wealth and influence to push politicians at the public.  putting him in charge of the reform is only a good idea if you are gullible enough to buy his line that he plans to fix the system.   #  if it were then obama would have generated enormous support for gun reform laws.   # i happen to think it would be entertaining enough that it would not be shitty.  alternatively, i see our current state as being under propaganda to the point that we just do not realize how bad it really is.  i despise advertising enough that i would rather just have things opened up.  i do not want them to pay scientists and advertisers so they can figure out the best way to tell me i am getting fucked.  i would rather just get fucked openly.  if it were then obama would have generated enormous support for gun reform laws.  after sandy hook obama tried, and failed, to drum up the support necessary for reform.  he has tried and failed many times.  and his aim here is questionable.  nor do i recall seeing anything slapped across media for a long time about him acting out of character in order to beg us to come together.  trying to fight violence in america by taking our weapons rather than giving us livable lives, i think it is a misguided approach.  he would be able to validly take people is guns when people no longer validly need them.  or if you would be entertained by whatever hijinks he might pull.   #  even the idea of it does not entertain me.   # lol ! sorry /u/aknightalone, there is no way i am going to support a clown becoming commander in chief of the world is most powerful military force.  even the idea of it does not entertain me.  rather, it is a sobering reason to not vote for trump.  i do not know what media sources you use but it is quite surprising that you missed it.  perhaps you need to expand your news sources so that you do not miss this kind of stuff.  i do not know whether you are actually open to changing your mind, or just intent on pushing trump as a candidate.  if it is the former, please let me know what would actually change your view.  if it is the latter, i will have to bow out of the conversation since i have done enough to show that he is a pathetic choice as potus.
0.  politics are boring.  we know this.  it is one of the massive reasons why apathy is rampant.   next american president !   cue bass effects trump would make america interesting again.  it would bring in a popularity factor that would make the presidency more like a game show which could be really cool for our culture.  0.  racism, nationalism, and ignorance are very strong american cultural traits.  i am going to ignore the past to keep this argument especially american.  rarely are we able to just be honest.  we generally do not care much about minorities or people from other countries.   definitely  not according to the results of our actions.  as far as any candidates i have seen with potential aside from sanders, there is nothing that even confronts the issues.  a vote for hillary is a vote for a timid jeb bush.  why would anyone want that bullshit again ? i am sure she would be reigning on internet freedom and continuing the drug war that is causing us to hate immigrants in the first place.  why not just pick the guy who is honest about his anger ? 0.  rather than accepting 0 years of slow or fast deterioration of the middle class, why do not we just openly accept america is bought ? if sanders ca not win, we end up with people who will continue to pretend there is a gridlock while ignoring all the actions they can take to overcome it or affect other change.  if we accept america is bought, we can sincerely just start begging our leaders to make changes to support us.  honest begging is better than a false sense of control.  0.  trump has pride in his public persona.  it may not seem like it, but trump probably has more integrity than hillary or any other republicans.  he is been in the public eye enough that he has an emotional fanbase.  those are the types of people who inspire a person to, at the very least, do a couple good things for us.  not to mention, he supposedly used to have some pretty liberal ideas.  0.  URL can there be a person more fitting for america in its current state ? if we are being 0 honest with ourselves, i think this is the best president we could ever hope to have.   #  if sanders ca not win, we end up with people who will continue to pretend there is a gridlock while ignoring all the actions they can take to overcome it or affect other change.   #  are not you overestimating the power of potus to cut through the gridlock ?  # no.  no.  no.  please.  no.  if i get to watch cabinet secretaries being fired, sure maybe i could sign up for that.  otherwise, no.  he is also clear about his prejudices.  great, let is alienate a significant minority latin americans right from the start.  are not you overestimating the power of potus to cut through the gridlock ? and do you really see americans begging to change the system ? no, no, self delusion is much more comforting.  he paid actors to be present at his announcement speech URL i am not turning green with envy over the crowds at his speeches.  not too sure about that.  hulk hogan is been in the news recently.  is he running ?  #  great, let is alienate a significant minority latin americans right from the start.   # great, let is alienate a significant minority latin americans right from the start.  as a country, we are already sort of demonizing them to the point that masses of people hate  illegals.   rather than looking at it as a symptom of flawed systems, we only see people doing illegal things that hurt us.  considering america loves majority rule, well, probably the majority of the time, it would not hurt anything just to accept the attitude and see where it takes us.  i mean, it might hurt things, but results have not been our focus anyway.  i think the president is in a seat that has the ear of an entire country.  they can change absolutely anything they wanted if they asked america to stand up.  no, but i think that is just because we are still convinced we have some degree of power in anything.  as if we have somehow chosen these people to lead us.  that is not the case.  they are being pushed at us by the people wealthy enough to have the science and understanding required to know how much more they can benefit from their influence.   #  trump is one of the people who has used his wealth and influence to push politicians at the public.   # i mean, it might hurt things, but results have not been our focus anyway.  so your proposal is to look at a system that is in trouble and to put an insensitive dolt in charge of the whole system as some sort of shitty social experiment ? are you serious ? do i really need to explain why this is a bad idea ? they can change absolutely anything they wanted if they asked america to stand up.  you know this is not true.  if it were then obama would have generated enormous support for gun reform laws.  after sandy hook obama tried, and failed, to drum up the support necessary for reform.  he has tried and failed many times.  trump is one of the people who has used his wealth and influence to push politicians at the public.  putting him in charge of the reform is only a good idea if you are gullible enough to buy his line that he plans to fix the system.   #  if it were then obama would have generated enormous support for gun reform laws.   # i happen to think it would be entertaining enough that it would not be shitty.  alternatively, i see our current state as being under propaganda to the point that we just do not realize how bad it really is.  i despise advertising enough that i would rather just have things opened up.  i do not want them to pay scientists and advertisers so they can figure out the best way to tell me i am getting fucked.  i would rather just get fucked openly.  if it were then obama would have generated enormous support for gun reform laws.  after sandy hook obama tried, and failed, to drum up the support necessary for reform.  he has tried and failed many times.  and his aim here is questionable.  nor do i recall seeing anything slapped across media for a long time about him acting out of character in order to beg us to come together.  trying to fight violence in america by taking our weapons rather than giving us livable lives, i think it is a misguided approach.  he would be able to validly take people is guns when people no longer validly need them.  or if you would be entertained by whatever hijinks he might pull.   #  rather, it is a sobering reason to not vote for trump.   # lol ! sorry /u/aknightalone, there is no way i am going to support a clown becoming commander in chief of the world is most powerful military force.  even the idea of it does not entertain me.  rather, it is a sobering reason to not vote for trump.  i do not know what media sources you use but it is quite surprising that you missed it.  perhaps you need to expand your news sources so that you do not miss this kind of stuff.  i do not know whether you are actually open to changing your mind, or just intent on pushing trump as a candidate.  if it is the former, please let me know what would actually change your view.  if it is the latter, i will have to bow out of the conversation since i have done enough to show that he is a pathetic choice as potus.
0.  politics are boring.  we know this.  it is one of the massive reasons why apathy is rampant.   next american president !   cue bass effects trump would make america interesting again.  it would bring in a popularity factor that would make the presidency more like a game show which could be really cool for our culture.  0.  racism, nationalism, and ignorance are very strong american cultural traits.  i am going to ignore the past to keep this argument especially american.  rarely are we able to just be honest.  we generally do not care much about minorities or people from other countries.   definitely  not according to the results of our actions.  as far as any candidates i have seen with potential aside from sanders, there is nothing that even confronts the issues.  a vote for hillary is a vote for a timid jeb bush.  why would anyone want that bullshit again ? i am sure she would be reigning on internet freedom and continuing the drug war that is causing us to hate immigrants in the first place.  why not just pick the guy who is honest about his anger ? 0.  rather than accepting 0 years of slow or fast deterioration of the middle class, why do not we just openly accept america is bought ? if sanders ca not win, we end up with people who will continue to pretend there is a gridlock while ignoring all the actions they can take to overcome it or affect other change.  if we accept america is bought, we can sincerely just start begging our leaders to make changes to support us.  honest begging is better than a false sense of control.  0.  trump has pride in his public persona.  it may not seem like it, but trump probably has more integrity than hillary or any other republicans.  he is been in the public eye enough that he has an emotional fanbase.  those are the types of people who inspire a person to, at the very least, do a couple good things for us.  not to mention, he supposedly used to have some pretty liberal ideas.  0.  URL can there be a person more fitting for america in its current state ? if we are being 0 honest with ourselves, i think this is the best president we could ever hope to have.   #  he is been in the public eye enough that he has an emotional fanbase.   #  he paid actors to be present at his announcement speech URL i am not turning green with envy over the crowds at his speeches.   # no.  no.  no.  please.  no.  if i get to watch cabinet secretaries being fired, sure maybe i could sign up for that.  otherwise, no.  he is also clear about his prejudices.  great, let is alienate a significant minority latin americans right from the start.  are not you overestimating the power of potus to cut through the gridlock ? and do you really see americans begging to change the system ? no, no, self delusion is much more comforting.  he paid actors to be present at his announcement speech URL i am not turning green with envy over the crowds at his speeches.  not too sure about that.  hulk hogan is been in the news recently.  is he running ?  #  i mean, it might hurt things, but results have not been our focus anyway.   # great, let is alienate a significant minority latin americans right from the start.  as a country, we are already sort of demonizing them to the point that masses of people hate  illegals.   rather than looking at it as a symptom of flawed systems, we only see people doing illegal things that hurt us.  considering america loves majority rule, well, probably the majority of the time, it would not hurt anything just to accept the attitude and see where it takes us.  i mean, it might hurt things, but results have not been our focus anyway.  i think the president is in a seat that has the ear of an entire country.  they can change absolutely anything they wanted if they asked america to stand up.  no, but i think that is just because we are still convinced we have some degree of power in anything.  as if we have somehow chosen these people to lead us.  that is not the case.  they are being pushed at us by the people wealthy enough to have the science and understanding required to know how much more they can benefit from their influence.   #  so your proposal is to look at a system that is in trouble and to put an insensitive dolt in charge of the whole system as some sort of shitty social experiment ?  # i mean, it might hurt things, but results have not been our focus anyway.  so your proposal is to look at a system that is in trouble and to put an insensitive dolt in charge of the whole system as some sort of shitty social experiment ? are you serious ? do i really need to explain why this is a bad idea ? they can change absolutely anything they wanted if they asked america to stand up.  you know this is not true.  if it were then obama would have generated enormous support for gun reform laws.  after sandy hook obama tried, and failed, to drum up the support necessary for reform.  he has tried and failed many times.  trump is one of the people who has used his wealth and influence to push politicians at the public.  putting him in charge of the reform is only a good idea if you are gullible enough to buy his line that he plans to fix the system.   #  i despise advertising enough that i would rather just have things opened up.   # i happen to think it would be entertaining enough that it would not be shitty.  alternatively, i see our current state as being under propaganda to the point that we just do not realize how bad it really is.  i despise advertising enough that i would rather just have things opened up.  i do not want them to pay scientists and advertisers so they can figure out the best way to tell me i am getting fucked.  i would rather just get fucked openly.  if it were then obama would have generated enormous support for gun reform laws.  after sandy hook obama tried, and failed, to drum up the support necessary for reform.  he has tried and failed many times.  and his aim here is questionable.  nor do i recall seeing anything slapped across media for a long time about him acting out of character in order to beg us to come together.  trying to fight violence in america by taking our weapons rather than giving us livable lives, i think it is a misguided approach.  he would be able to validly take people is guns when people no longer validly need them.  or if you would be entertained by whatever hijinks he might pull.   #  rather, it is a sobering reason to not vote for trump.   # lol ! sorry /u/aknightalone, there is no way i am going to support a clown becoming commander in chief of the world is most powerful military force.  even the idea of it does not entertain me.  rather, it is a sobering reason to not vote for trump.  i do not know what media sources you use but it is quite surprising that you missed it.  perhaps you need to expand your news sources so that you do not miss this kind of stuff.  i do not know whether you are actually open to changing your mind, or just intent on pushing trump as a candidate.  if it is the former, please let me know what would actually change your view.  if it is the latter, i will have to bow out of the conversation since i have done enough to show that he is a pathetic choice as potus.
it does not make sense for colleges and universities to be required to hold internal tribunals about criminal matters that happen on campus.  i see three principal reasons for this.     prosecuting crimes is the government is job.   the government has the resources to meaningfully investigate crimes, the power to compel witnesses to testify, and institutions designed to handle criminal accusations.  private prosecutions are considered an historical anachronism in free countries today.     colleges are bad at it.   related to the first point, a college does not inherently have any of the resources or institutional structure to deal with a serious felony investigation.  they ca not subpoena witnesses or records, they ca not put people under oath, they do not have detectives or forensics labs or judges or professional prosecutors.     due process matters.   there are core due process rights that must be abided in a free country before punishing someone for an alleged crime.  these include but are not limited to: the right to confront and challenge one is accuser, the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, the right to compel witnesses to testify in your defense and to compel third parties to release evidence, the right to have legal counsel, and the right to a trial by a jury of your peers.  colleges regularly flout all of these, and the proceedings much more often resemble a kangaroo court than any real justice.  URL using the force of law to require that universities adjudicate these claims is farcical.  if a private university wants to do something like this i suppose they can.  but a public university should not be able to sanction a student based on a criminal accusation without due process, and the government should not be forcing private institutions to do the same, as they currently are doing URL  #  if a private university wants to do something like this i suppose they can.   #  this is the claim that i will disagree with.   # this is the claim that i will disagree with.  there are legally valid reasons why one can be dismissed from a private organizations and there there are reasons that would amount to wrongful dismissal.  i would argue that most of the people expelled under kangaroo court style university justice have a claim that they have been wrongfully dismissed and may be eligible to sue the university in civil court.  after all, students have signed a contract with the university and those things go both ways.  there is expectations on the student but also expectations on the school that they will not expel you without legitimate cause.   #  plagiarism is not illegal, at least if it is not a direct copy of some other work, but it is still against the rules at universities and there is an academic integrity process to handle accusations of it.   #  there are safety issues involved that go beyond what the justice system is capable of handling and that the university would be negligent if it did not address.  someone who has been sexually assaulted needs assistance and protection now, not a year or two later when the trial is over.  a university ca not allow an accused person to continue to live in the same dormitory as their alleged victim.  an important part of all this is that everyone agrees to rules against harassment and the process for dealing with accusations as a condition of admittance.  that these rules are over and above those provided for in criminal law does not matter.  plagiarism is not illegal, at least if it is not a direct copy of some other work, but it is still against the rules at universities and there is an academic integrity process to handle accusations of it.   #  furthermore your contractual model of accepted rules is misguided.   #  a court, a real court, can issue a restraining order preventing an accused from being within a distance of the complainant, or on campus.  what is wrong with the court is process for this ? furthermore your contractual model of accepted rules is misguided.  if the universities rule was  tough luck until he is in jail he is in class with you.   it would be no answer to say the rape victim accepted that was the bargain when they enrolled.   #  good point and there is a good response to it: plagiarism is an academic offense that only exists inside the context of a university course.   #  good point and there is a good response to it: plagiarism is an academic offense that only exists inside the context of a university course.  it is like violating the baseball rules for number of men on the field.  you broke a rule inside the game you are playing and the judges in that game umpires, academic integirty boards are the ones who judge and dish out punishment.  the penalty has to be applied by the university.  a court of law ca not order that you fail english 0.  a court of law ca not order that you receive zero for an assignment.  a court of of law ca not expel you from a program of study.  it is to each school to decide the penalty for plagiarism and what level of conduct rises to whatever standard they set.  third.  and i hate to get into shades of grey instead of totally categorical differences, but what the hell.  plagiarism has a much lower degree of cost to the  convicted  student in terms of their reputation, and is much simpler factually to adjudicate.  in the vast majority of plagiarism cases the work is simply set next to the source material it was copied from and guilt is proven.  further while plagiarism sounds bad, often the punishment for a first offense is very minor a zero on an assignment , or you are allowed to withdraw from the school without a note on your transcript.  when you combine hard to get wrong with low cost of getting it wrong an informal process can actually be in justice is interest taking into account the expense of real court and the improbability of changing the substantive outcome .  on the other hand sexual assault carries a huge social stigma and is the single hardest crime the criminal justice system has to prove.  it is a conceptual nightmare, consent is a very tricky question both factually and legally.  as i said i hate shades of grey in reddit discussions but these two things really are the absolute furthest ends of the spectrum when it comes to the appropriateness of informal judicial processes.   #  an assault will leave bruises, a burglary will leave a broken window and looted house, and a murder will leave a body.   #  again, most crimes are not difficult to prove happened.  an assault will leave bruises, a burglary will leave a broken window and looted house, and a murder will leave a body.  rape is, in almost all cases, indistinguishable from consensual sex.  i agree that universities should not be prosecuting them, for the sam reasons municipalities should not.  it is simply the wrong tier of government.
a lot of climate change related posts are made on cmv and it is had me thinking, reading a number of replies on different questions and looking into things, i just do not feel that climate change is something we as a species should care about.  i am not saying there is anything wrong with  going green , it creates jobs, it creates alternatives fuels, it is better all round, i would not be opposed to a completely green infrastructure, however i do not think it is necessary.  we have not exactly got that much date regarding the patterns of the earth is weather, we have probably 0 years max worth of detailed data.  beyond that we could draw attention to particularly big events storms, hurricanes, etc and the general weather of a day or two.  therefore i find it an unfair assumption to say the world is climate is not cyclic, because we just do not know.  i do not think we know enough about the world to determine whether or not any real change has been occurring.  it is all well and good to say the icecaps are melting and the water is rising and the temperature in x was warmer than it was 0 years ago except for those 0 years between where it was lower.  on top of that, any effort we make to reverse possible damage or to slow down global climate effects would not make much difference, maybe if everyone drove electric cars, recycled 0 of everything and completely overhauled their way of life which i do not see ever happening .  i am by no means a climate change denier, i do not think it is tha gubmint tryna git dem chinese monies and use that there darpa to mind control me into supporting obama or whatever, but i do feel like my opinion on this may be wrong and i would like to be shown why.   #  therefore i find it an unfair assumption to say the world is climate is not cyclic, because we just do not know.   #  we most definitely do know, and it most definitely is cyclical.   #  sorry about all the data all at once ! we most definitely do know, and it most definitely is cyclical.  we cannot know yet with certainty if the change that  is most certainly happening  is necessarily the result of humans.  it keeps going up.  and it can be measured monthly.  here is a link to noaa.  URL for june 0.  this was the highest for june in the 0 0 record, surpassing the previous record set last year in 0 by 0°f 0°c .  .  this was the highest for june in the 0 0 record, surpassing the previous record set in 0 by 0°f 0°c .  .  this was the highest for june in the 0 0 record, surpassing the previous record set last year in 0 by 0°f 0°c .  .  there is more on that page you can look at, but i need to move on here.  in florida is 0 ft above sea level URL florida area URL   i could again keep going but you get the picture.  and this is also true:  any effort we make to reverse possible damage or to slow down global climate effects would not make much difference, so it absolutely  cannot  follow that:  climate change is not an issue we should care too much about we do not know anything about it except that it is happening now.  it will drown out the coastlines of the entire world.  entire  chains  of islands are already vanishing.  given how much we  do not  know.  and given specifically what we  do  know.  your view is impossible to hold.  the only rational idea to hold to here is that:  climate change is not an issue we should  can  care too much  enough  about.   #  we only have detailed  weather  data for a short amount of time, but we have many reliable methods for determining what the  climate  was like far into the past.   #  you are missing the difference between weather and climate.  weather describes the atmospheric conditions over a short time days or weeks.  but climate describes the general conditions over the spans of years things like average and maximum temperatures and rainfall over 0 year spans of time.  we only have detailed  weather  data for a short amount of time, but we have many reliable methods for determining what the  climate  was like far into the past.  for example, by studying the rings of tree growth we can tell average temperatures and rainfall going back hundreds, sometimes thousands of years.  ice core samples in the arctic can give us information about the atmosphere going back much farther, etc.  a change in weather can ruin your picnic, but you are right, a few warm days and the occasional storm are not going to destroy our way of life.  but we are not talking about weather change, we are talking about climate.  many species of plant and animal particularly in the oceans are very sensitive to even small changes in average temperatures.  that means a fast change of climate can lead to devastation of vital ecosystems i mean geologically fast.  it still may feel very slow to us, but our gut feelings of things is not always reliable or accurate .  even a small change in average temperatures can melt enough ice to raise sea levels to the point that major cities will be permanently flooded.  imagine new york, miami, boston, mumbai, guongzhu, shenzen, osaka, and more enormous cities becoming uninhabitable.  the droughts, dustbowl, and economic depression of the 0s got americans to change their way of life.  imagine the same kind of thing happening, but all over the world.   #  it will cost trillions of dollars thousands for each person on earth .   #  imagine this: astronomers discover a large asteroid approaching earth.  if it hits earth the effects on the ecosystem will be catastrophic.  it will kill 0 of all humans and throw the rest back to the stone age.  the astronomers do not have enough data to make an exact prediction, but the consensus is that there is a 0 chance that the asteroid will hit in 0 years.  engineers devise a plan, a 0st century kind of apollo program that will deflect the asteroid so that the chance of impact is reduced to 0.  problem is, the program is expensive.  it will cost trillions of dollars thousands for each person on earth .  is it worth embarking on this project ? or should we just do nothing and hope for the best ? or should we wait until more data is in ? but bear in mind that the cost of the project will double if it is delayed by 0 years; the closer the asteroid the harder it becomes to deflect it .  if your answer is yes, you should feel the same about climate change action.  the  worst case scenario  of runaway climate change would be equally catastrophic.  climate models predict that the probability of this scenario is small, but not small enough not to worry about.   #  you do not know what it is like till it happens, and when it does, it is worse than you could possibly have imagined.   #  i am not going to post a bunch of information like others here, because comments like this URL are already plenty informative.  the thing i think people fail to connect with is a real sense of what the results of climate change will be like.  people talk about the increased storms we have been seeing, the practically apocalyptic drought nasa is saying is right around the corner, but all of that is tomorrow, and terrifying stuff like that is hard to consider because it feels distant and unlikely, like your parents dying.  you do not know what it is like till it happens, and when it does, it is worse than you could possibly have imagined.  but some of it is happening today.  take a look at this.  URL the map on the left is what louisiana looks like in all our maps.  the image on the right depicts what the inhabitable, walkable land in louisiana looks like  right now .  that is not a projection, not an estimate.  it is places where the ocean has crept in, and where swampland has replaced previously inhabitable territory.  it is not science fiction, it is happening, and we can actually do something about it, so why not ?  #  it is just offscreen in this image, but new orleans is also more or less gone.   #  this URL is the eastern seaboard of the us, with red areas marking the new coastline after 0 meter of sea level rise.  boston, new york, baltimore, washington dc.  all major cities, all threatened.  this URL is florida at 0 meters.  you will note that miami, cape canaveral, and the keys are all underwater, and tampa, orlando, jacksonville, pensacola, and panama city are all threatened.  it is just offscreen in this image, but new orleans is also more or less gone.  the projected sea level rise by 0 is in the ballpark of 0 0 meters, depending on who you believe.  and you think we should not be concerned about this ?
kindly, let us not talk in ideals for we all know utopia is not humanly attainable.  capitalism is a free market, regulated by the state.  if the state is just and is not rife with corruption, then a capitalism environment is a ripe environment for someone to become a self made millionaire or whatever that he puts his mind into.  a laissez faire on the far left is not attainable due to the human nature.  communism, on the far right, will interfere with your freewill and would kill any incentive to advance the human population and their ensuing happiness not saying that they are correlated .  am i missing something here ?  #  a laissez faire on the far left is not attainable due to the human nature.   #  communism, on the far right.  laissez faire  is  pure capitalism.   # communism, on the far right.  laissez faire  is  pure capitalism.  so i am not entirely sure what you are trying to express by stating capitalism is not the enemy, but it is purest form does not work.  nether extreme works, the question is where in that spectrum  should  we be.  incidentally you also have the spectrum backwards.  pure capitalism is far right, pure communism far left .  anyways, i think we here in the us can all agree that pure communism does not work.  yet we in america like to think we are pure capitalists, despite our implicit agreement and use of many socialized institutions the roads, schools regulations on the market the sec, fdc .  that is the problem.  the rah rah capitalism rhetoric fueled by the far right and total fear/rejection of anything  isocialized  some of it lingering cold war stuff turns every little discussion into an ideological battle with conservatives.  they forget it is merely a spectrum.  pure idealistic capitalism has no answer to some of the big challenges of our day, particularly for the younger generation education/heath costs, income inequality, etc .  capitalism itself is not the enemy, but our bizarre reverence of it is.  capitalism is great for a lot of goods and services.  but, practically by definition, it tends to fail on services that are inherently monopolistic utilities, etc , goods/services that cannot be shopped for or opt not to purchase emergency police/fire/health care .  pointing out the health/education crisis or the telco monopoly is  hardly  a call to abolish capitalism.  that is a straw man / caricature created by the far right.   #  it seems that you believe that those things have  always  been expectations andother things not, but that is simply not so.   #  i am not sure what requires clarifications about my statement.  an institution that is paid for entirely by taxes that provides a service to the citizens is socialized by definition.  i do not know what you think a handful of things are  expectations , whereas other services that are arguably more efficiently served by government health care, telcos somehow entirely logically different.  it seems that you believe that those things have  always  been expectations andother things not, but that is simply not so.  expectations have changed over time.  schools were not always provided by the government.  it was not until the mid late 0 is that public education was consistently provided by the government.  the utilities were not regulated by the government until the early 0 is, highway system was not established until the 0 is.   #  because that is very different than the claim that capitalism alone is the best option.   # it is possible to simultaneously be  not rife with corruption  and  not a utopia  i would say most first world countries fit this description.  no first world country is a laissez faire capitalist society.  my general point was that you seem to be making a generous assumption about capitalism while offering very quick dismissals of the alternatives.  it is also possible to have a communistic society that sufficiently motivates production with social rewards.  it seems you are holding the two to different standards.  also, i think you underestimate the corruption in modern society, and the role capitalism plays in fostering it.  a strong system of checks and balances, along with a moderated form of capitalism seems to do all right.  see, socialists will point to the fact that a large percentage of the world is population and even that of many first world countries are barely surviving.  that is not  doing all right .  on top of that, most of the reason we think these societies are  doing all right  is socialist programs welfare, social security, universal healthcare .  overall though, it seems you are not talking about capitalism and instead are talking about a society with some aspect of a free market.  is your claim just that a blend of capitalism and socialism is the best option ? because that is very different than the claim that capitalism alone is the best option.   #  it is important to note the difference, because it goes to the substance of the argument.   #  is not that the point though ? what we call capitalism is not really capitalism.  it is capitalism light.  it is important to note the difference, because it goes to the substance of the argument.  if we are not talking about pure capitalism, then op has already admitted that pure capitalism is not the best system possible, because he is arguing that a different system is.  it is important because the argument loses a lot of force when we are no longer talking about black and white.  what the  capitalist  thing for the state to do in any given situation is clear when it is actually a capitalist system.  not shit.  once you admit that is not the best system, then you are admitting that some government intervention is necessary.  the question then becomes how much, and what kinds or levels of intervention move the system out of the  capitalism  area.  which is why this argument is pointless.  the system is a moving target.   #  why do not you argue against his substantive arguments rather than trying to win through definitions ?  # but not to make a point about how the usage indicates anything about the quality of the concept.  please read the whole discussion.  your comment derailed the entire point made in the original post ! to remind you: op:   capitalism is laissez fair capitalism.  reply:   if it were you would not need the extra adjective.  op reply:   sure it would.  reply 0:   op is giving his own definition.  clearly he has a different idea of what it means.  why do not you argue against his substantive arguments rather than trying to win through definitions ? it clearly matters that the defintion is wrong when arguing about the wording of the concept in context of its qualities !
i believe the only way climate change will be taken seriously will be when thousands of people will die 0 climate change is considered an  invisible force , that is there are few physical signs that show that the earth is climate is changing.  the only physical signs will be through natural disasters hurricanes, floods, droughts .  no matter how many times a scientist will go on the news to say climate change is real, people wo not change the way they live their lives.  0 relating to the first point the amount of these natural disasters need to happen frequently.  for example, hurricane sandy caused 0 million dollars of damages and occurred in late october.  yet climate deniers will say it was just a freak accident that occurs every couple decades or so.  they will probably mention a powerful natural disaster in the 0s or so and say  was climate change happening then ?   like a scrap on the knee, people will just put a band aid over it and give it time to heal, but if these scraps happen in rapid session people will realize they ca not take it anymore 0 people only care about things that affect them.  if there was a law that made its citizens use environmental friendly trash bags and to recycle, they would flip out.  why would people care that polar bears, dolphins, bees ,etc.  are dying ?  #  if there was a law that made its citizens use environmental friendly trash bags and to recycle, they would flip out.   #  why would people care that polar bears, dolphins, bees ,etc.   #  i somewhat disagree that climate change is not taken seriously already.  yes there are the deniers, but in the past 0 years, companies  going green  along with more efficient technology like electrostatic precipitators or electric cars have actually made it so co0 emissions have actually dropped in the us in the past 0 years.  if people were not taking it seriously, co0 emissions would not be leveling off in major developed countries and instead would have continued their rapid rise.  now if you are talking about enforcing a change so severe that that it would significantly alter our way of life, you may have more of a point on that.  but are you ready to forgo all technology and powered transportation right now ? if you answered no, would you say that you do not take climate change seriously ? why would people care that polar bears, dolphins, bees ,etc.  are dying ? but local governments do pass laws regarding emissions URL which have a lot more to do with global warming than eco friendly trash bags i have no idea what that has to do with global warming since it has no impact on emissions .   #  i am a climate scientist, and i work in public outreach.   #  i am a climate scientist, and i work in public outreach.  i got this one.  a lot of people dying is not going to change anything, for the very simple reason that attribution is very difficult.  meaning that  climate change  is not going to kill anyone on its own.  what kills people is individual events.  a heat wave.  a flood.  a tornado.  even if we can reasonably say that these things are  because  of climate change, people still wo not see it that way.  they do not see  climate change caused 0,0 deaths .  they see  hurricane katrina caused 0,0 deaths.   they see that a single heat wave killed a bunch of elderly people.  or a single flood killed a bunch of people on a pacific island.  and that will never change.  climate change is not a disaster.  it makes existing disasters more likely.  but each individual event is going to be viewed as an individual event, because people are very short sighted.  climate change has  already  killed thousands of people, but the public does not see it that way, and they wo not.   #  people use the statement like you made as justification for not investing in emerging technologies.   #  ya see, this kind of thing bothers me.  i do not give a fuck if the company folded, as long as it was for a good reason.  it looked like a good idea at the time, so go for it.  no regrets.  people use the statement like you made as justification for not investing in emerging technologies.  some will hit and some will miss.  it is not a reason to not try, unless you are trying to suppress emerging tech.   #  anything that happens is going to be stuff that has happened in the past.   # i am probably never going to be comfortable attributing a single event to climate change, because you are not going to see entirely new types of disasters or anything.  anything that happens is going to be stuff that has happened in the past.  i will certainly tell you that they are happening more frequently, but you will never hear me say  this hurricane would not have happened without climate change.   to be fair, a lot of society already does, or we would not be having this conversation.  however, many of those same people also need to be honest with themselves and actually take action.  part of the problem, and this is obviously just my opinion, not a scientific stance, is that even the well intentioned people believe that they are helping by simply complaining about things, but without actually making a change for themselves.   #  it is not that  the public  wont see it, it is just that we are all on the same treadmill and not many people can afford to stop running because we will get trampled if we do.   #  i do not think you are right.  the problem is not that people do not see climate change as dangerous or as contributing to severe weather events, i think people generally do accept that it is a problem apart from the looney fringe dweller denier types .  but accepting that it is a problem does not mean anything when the average response is  yeah, well maybe we are all going to die but wtf am i going to do about it ?   maybe we can not drive somewhere or change our lightbulbs but in the end it does not really seem to make a noticeable difference to anything and everyone else is just carrying on as usual anyway so what is the point ? i am just going to suffer a bit more than i have to for no reason.  that is the obstacle that needs to be overcome as far as i can see, not trying to disprove hard nut climate skeptics.  and yet another prophecy of doom does not cut it, it just makes people shrug and think well if we are fucked then that is just the way it is going, i gotta go to work tomorrow and i ca not see any choices open to me that are going to have an impact in the face of global catastrophe so i may as well just try to ignore it and hope it goes away.  you can say that is a shit attitude or whatever but in the end it is just reality whether it is shit or not.  i do not know what to do about it, but my point is that given the option i think most people would choose to do something positive if it does not hugely disadvantage them in relation to everyone around them and expecting them to act otherwise is just naive.  it is not that  the public  wont see it, it is just that we are all on the same treadmill and not many people can afford to stop running because we will get trampled if we do.
while there are many ways for humans to devastate our own cities, technologies, and civilizations, i feel that exterminating the entirety of the human race is beyond our collective ability.  there are so many people spread so thinly across so much area, that all of our nuclear weapons can not reach all of them.  all major and minor cities may be destroyed, and the fallout and nuclear winter would be horrific, and any survivors may effectively be in the bronze age technology wise, but at least a few groups of humans in some hidden corner of the world would survive the destruction and aftermath.  same goes for biological weapons, climate change, and all other human caused sources of destruction.  of course, i am not talking about natural catastrophes like large meteor impacts, which i believe could end our species.  if i am wrong, i would love to be convinced !  #  i am not talking about natural catastrophes like large meteor impacts, which i believe could end our species.   #  a large asteroid impact could end our species.   # a large asteroid impact could end our species.  we have the technology to model an asteroid is path.  we have the technology and the resources to slightly alter an asteroids path so that it impacts the earth.  therefore, we have the ability to cause our own extinction event.  all it takes is a sufficiently large asteroid or any number of smaller asteroids which needs a slight nudge.  so we do have the ability, even if we would have to depend on suitable candidate asteroids to present themselves.   #  you are assuming that destructive technology does not advance further than where it is now.   #  you are assuming that destructive technology does not advance further than where it is now.  0 years ago, nuclear bombs did not exist.  it is quite possible that 0 years from now we will have developed mass production and storage of antimatter, which would let us produce bombs far more powerful than current nuclear weapons.  0kg of antimatter would annihilate itself and 0kg of matter, producing an energy output equivalent to the tsar bomba the biggest nuclear bomb ever built.  if nations built antimatter weapon arsenals, you could see far more destructive force in their hands than we have today.  we could also have something totally unknown.  it was only 0 years from einstein is annus mirabelis papers to the first operational atomic bomb.   #  it is a little misleading to say we would not be the same species.   #  except we would not have ceased to exist, we would only be modified.  it is a little misleading to say we would not be the same species.  there would be none of today is humans present to test that hypothesis.  the only way this idea really works is if  h.  s.  sapiens  somehow diverges into two new species and one of those wipes the other out.  then you would still have to somehow arbitrarily define the extinct species as  sapiens sapiens  and the other as  s.  other .   #  this is to say that as a global society we have grown very much used to the fruits of an industrialized and interconnected world.   #  the one problem i see with your argument, although i am not sure if it disproves your point, is that while such a man made disaster might propel us backwards technologically, to the bronze age as you so eloquently described, the remaining survivors would likely very much be inhabitants of the 0st century.  this is to say that as a global society we have grown very much used to the fruits of an industrialized and interconnected world.  even in the poorest, most remote regions of the world, it can be hard  not  to find a product produced and brought in from elsewhere.  making matters worse, this has also allowed us to more narrowly focus the skills we pursue throughout our life, and while this has allowed for substantial intellectual progress, it means few of us have the full compliment of knowledge we would need to survive for any prolonged period of time.  take farming, for example.  one may know how to grow enough to live, but what happens if they do not know how to make fertilizer, or dig irrigation canals ? what happens when their tools break down ? do they know how to store the harvest, currently shipped out in refrigerated trucks to waiting supermarket shelves, so it stays edible all winter ? this is not to say that learning these skills on the fly would be impossible, but instead to point out that under such conditions the likelihood of failure would be damningly high.  so yes, i agree that we probably would not be wiped out in one blow by the super weapons of today, but i do wonder if the fragmented remainders of humanity would be able to rebound, or instead slowly rot away, like a single branch cut from the larger tree that sustained it.   #  your stage two will be people who die as government collapses, people who die for simple medical problems that are no lethal with lack of supplies, probably a few wars related to who caused the plague and so forth.   #  i am not not saying that panic will do it.  i am saying if you have your plague that kills 0 percent of people thats your stage one.  your stage two will be people who die as government collapses, people who die for simple medical problems that are no lethal with lack of supplies, probably a few wars related to who caused the plague and so forth.  stage two will probably go on for around 0 years.  and than if you have stage three and someone says fuck it and nukes the world a massive scale you are going to have your survivors dealing with a new and different threat and in their diminished state that will have a hard time dealing with and there will be few governmental states that will be able to deal with the problems.  stage 0 is when breeding populations decrease past the point of viability and the game is up.
i am not saying either kerry or biden would win.  i am not saying hillary is not going to be the next president.  i am simply saying we deserve more options and a better debate about the future of the national democratic party and country.  i know sanders is a very serious candidate.  i also think he lacks the profile to compete with hillary is name recognition and public achievements.  kerry and biden do and have many progressive victories.  who knows if they would catch fire with primary voters but i think they would have a real shot.  last weekend until today are instructive for why need more serious contenders.  o amalley and sanders were interupted by blacklivesmatter activists.  they both stumbled through awkward answers but they took serious stands and responded quickly.  hillary took a few days to make statement.  but today, within hours of reports on problems with her email server her campaign is quick action explaining their side.  on obvious stuff, and when she is attacked, she is immidiately responsive.  when it comes to issues that are more nuanced, emotional and topical, she is late and calculated.  the dems deserve a real challange to the hillary out of mere respect for the people who is vote they depend on.  kerry or biden are that challenge.   #  last weekend until today are instructive for why need more serious contenders.   #  o amalley and sanders were interupted by blacklivesmatter activists.   # o amalley and sanders were interupted by blacklivesmatter activists.  they both stumbled through awkward answers but they took serious stands and responded quickly.  hillary took a few days to make statement.  but today, within hours of reports on problems with her email server her campaign is quick action explaining their side.  this is where i kinda disagree with you, i do not think they were really stumbling through awkward answers, they were just putting up with some very vocal, ignorant, and rude protesters.  you can see him get visibly frustrated as he is trying to talk about his campaign platform and keeps getting cut off.  do not get me wrong, i have been to protests for black lives matter, but these people were there with a specific agenda of derailing a talk otherwise focused on these politicians  specific campaign goals to try and make the entire session instead about sandra bland.  i think sander is response was actually very poignant in the middle of trying to talk about his campaign which is focused on economic equality to better the average working class american, he gets interrupted again by these loud protesters trying to derail things, he said  if you are a high school graduate and you are white the unemployment rate is 0, if you are hispanic the unemployment rate is 0, if you are african american the unemployment rate is  0   URL and he puts very special emphasis on this last point.  i think he handled it very well considering how utterly disrespectful the protesters were being.  i do not quite understand why the african american community is so against sanders, i really do not, because he really is their best opportunity at present.  he entered politics fighting for civil rights, by setting up core in chicago, he was there for the mlk  i have a dream  speech, he endorsed jesse jackson for president, he is the first candidate who has spoken about sandra bland.  and he is working economic equality, in a nation where both general inequality and especially racial inequality are big deals.  if you really want a reform that will help pull oppressed communities out of the ghetto and put them on par with the white neighbourhoods that have been historically privileged, then bernie really is the best choice.   #  i think more high profile candidates helps sanders because hillary more targets.   #  but its not a race.  its narrowing.  its a little interesting if we let our imaginations roam.  but hillary is going to bury sanders over the next 0 months.  her campaign will start eating up more and more of the air time.  the nfl and nba come back.  kids go back to school.  america is about to get more busy and the news will have less dead time to fill with sanders.  the dem primary voters deserve a competition among media equals.  i think more high profile candidates helps sanders because hillary more targets.   #  the media covers interesting stories, and personalities is just another name for archetypes.   #  the media covers interesting stories, and personalities is just another name for archetypes.  bernie is an independent, a  rebel,  an  underdog,  a democratic socialist, a radical, a  man of the people,  etc. , etc. , etc.  these are incredibly rich storylines for media to cover, and his huge popularity among people who know who he is will continue to make for an enticing story.  he has the most unique and controversial policy suggestions and i disagree with you that the media does not cover policy: what the fuck do you think obamacare was ? , he has had the largest crowds for his speeches by far, he has raised the most money from small dollar contributions and the highest percentage of small dollar contributions of any candidate, his popularity keeps rising while hillary is keeps falling, and recent polls show that he is competitive not only against republicans in the general election but in swing states.  get kerry or biden to endorse him and the media gets your storyline thrown in there for free.   #  in addition, biden has already ran for president and lost, brought down by a minor scandal in which he was caught plagiarizing in one of his speeches.   #  to be perfectly honest, i quite appreciate both biden and kerry as politicians, but i do not think either of them would stand much of a chance in a run for president.  biden has some clout as the vice president, but the fact that he is very much well known for his verbal gaffes would likely cause some voters to hesitate putting him into such a politically sensitive office.  in addition, biden has already ran for president and lost, brought down by a minor scandal in which he was caught plagiarizing in one of his speeches.  while his reputation has recovered significantly since then, i have no doubt this skeleton would be dragged out of the closet to his detriment in a campaign.  kerry, on the other hand, is a much more viable candidate, but has some significant flaws.  while he is an excellent statesman with some serious experience under his belt, kerry lacks the energetic charisma that helps many candidates secure the votes they need to win.  does this mean he would be a bad leader ? probably not, but his inability to rally the political base on the left, or entice swing voters, would like leave many worried that nominating him to run would result in a repeat of the 0 election.   #  the primary reason, which i see as reason enough, that kerry and biden do not run is the problem of popularity.   #  the primary reason, which i see as reason enough, that kerry and biden do not run is the problem of popularity.  hillary is spearheading the democrats although bernie sanders is catching up because she is wildly popular among the democrats as a whole, whether that be because she is a woman or because bill clinton was also very popular.  these two guys are completely different stories.  first off, biden is seen as a subservient robin to the batman that is obama.  on top of this, only 0 percent of americans favor him, while 0 percent disagree URL the rest either unsure not having an opinion.  on that same gallup poll, only 0 percent favor john kerry, while 0 percent disapprove.  this shows that both of these men have hardly more than half of the american people is support, which is far below what would win a nomination in either major party.  clinton has also historically had a low ish approval rating, but people are jumping behind her this time around mostly because they think bill clinton will be active in the presidency if she wins.
raising the minimum wage is a very controversial topic in politics and has been for awhile.  proponents of the policy see it as a way of helping poor people attain a living wage, while opponents of the policy cite its negative employment and inflationary side effects.  the earned income tax credit or eitc can help poor people raise their living standards without the negative side effects of the minimum wage, so it is by far the more optimal tool for fighting poverty.  the eitc, for those who do not know, is a subsidy from the government in the form of a negative income tax, and this makes it better than the minimum wage for several reasons: 0.  the eitc, unlike the minimum wage, is pro market and does not have negative employment effects.  if the value of the marginal product of one is labor is, say, $0, and the minimum wage is $0, then a company loses money by hiring that worker and therefore wo not.  the eitc allows for the market to set that workers wage, and the difference between that and what we would consider a  living wage  would be provided by the government.  0.  the eitc wo not lead to higher prices.  for some businesses, where low wage labor is a relatively big expense like restaurants , then an increase in the minimum wage could lead to higher prices.  because the eitc is not a cost to companies, this type of price increase wo not happen.  0.  the eitc allows us to focus on helping people who need it.  a large share of the people who work minimum or low wage jobs are teenagers, and teenagers with wealthy parents frankly do not need the help.  the eitc, however, can be used to target specifically those who are trying to support themselves or their families.  0.  the eitc is paid for by everyone, communally, instead of by those who own companies that provide jobs for low skilled workers.  if we as a society decide that people living in this country should have a certain basic standard of living which i agree with , then should not society as a whole provide for that ? it seems unfair to decide as a society that people should have a certain living standard and then demand that other people pay for it.  because of this, economists of practically every background agree that the eitc is simply better policy than the minimum wage.  but despite this, politicians and activists keep advocating for a higher minimum wage when ostensibly there is a better way to help poor people.  i would like to think everyone here would like to help poor people.  so please, cmv and explain why we should not focus on expanding the eitc and instead keep focusing on raising the minimum wage.   #  because of this, economists of practically every background agree that the eitc is simply better policy than the minimum wage.   #  but despite this, politicians and activists keep advocating for a higher minimum wage when ostensibly there is a better way to help poor people.   # but despite this, politicians and activists keep advocating for a higher minimum wage when ostensibly there is a better way to help poor people.  hmm, then it seems awfully strange that even advocates not financially backed by unions are pushing for a minimum wage.  perhaps the estimation you make of how many economists agree with you is a bit. inflated ? anyhow, the primary problem i see with your proposal is the question of who is paying.   the government  is not a real answer, because the government pull money out of a hat, and with government corporations only infrequently making profit, it stands that the majority of this bill falls to taxpayers.  and in this case, i am most concerned about the lower middle class.  if any income demographic has been harmed by programs for the poor as of late, it is these folks.  these people only barely make enough to have savings, so every dollar still matters, and each increase in income taxes hurts them more than anyone else they do not get the tax exemptions and refunds that the lower classes do .  yet, they do not see a dime of the results.  one thing i think might be able to mitigate this effect would be a  buffer zone  that creates an income bracket in which a person is ineligible for social programs but is not burdened with paying for them but this idea is not mentioned anywhere in your op, and i doubt that this mythical consensus of economists allocates too much breath or text towards the idea, either.  so if the ultimate goal is benefiting the corporations without stepping all over the working poor, taxing the corporations is out, and even hiking capital gains taxes could be seen as anti market as it discourages investment , and we know that that is how the people with most of the money allocate and receive that money.   #  i am not saying some level of eitc expansion is not warranted.   #  expanding the eitc has disincentive issues on the ramp down side.  the current ramp down rate is about 0 for a single parent with one child.  0 if you doubled the eitc amounts and left all else equal, you would have a 0 effective marginal tax rate from eitc over the period from 0k income to 0k income.  on top of payroll taxes at 0 and income taxes at 0 0 in that range, you are looking at an effective tax rate in the 0 0 range.  and that is without factoring in other programs which also have cutoffs in that range such as the implicit 0 tax rate on obamacare subsidies .  0 to mitigate this, you need to make the ramp down period longer, which means giving substantial eitc benefits to households making above median incomes.  so it will cost quite a lot of money.  additionally, while you say eitc wo not lead to higher prices, there is no such thing as a free lunch.  eitc needs to be paid for by some other tax somewhere.  and that tax will likely have some negative consequences, as taxes do.  i am not saying some level of eitc expansion is not warranted.  the amount for childless adults for instance is pretty pitiful right now.  but as with everything in economics, there are tradeoffs.   0 source for data URL math is 0/ 0 0 0  0 source URL  #  very good points, and i admit i had not fully considered the disincentive effects of the phase out of the eitc.   #  very good points, and i admit i had not fully considered the disincentive effects of the phase out of the eitc.  also,  additionally, while you say eitc wo not lead to higher prices, there is no such thing as a free lunch.  eitc needs to be paid for by some other tax somewhere.  and that tax will likely have some negative consequences, as taxes do.  i did not mean to insinuate that this policy is a free lunch, and it will be paid by everyone collectively, this is definitely a great point you made.  so while i do not think your comment convinced me the minimum wage is better, it did change my mind a little about the eitc itself.   #  something i would like to point out is that the minimum wage is intended and always has been, even being explicitly stated as such as a rejection of businesses that pay unfair wages.   #  something i would like to point out is that the minimum wage is intended and always has been, even being explicitly stated as such as a rejection of businesses that pay unfair wages.  here is a quote directly from roosevelt:   no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.  so asking whether a minimum wage hurts business owners i. e.   is pro market  is not really relevant.  same thing as with osha and suchlike.  other than that, i would point out that raising a business is labor costs does not translate into a porportional raise in prices.  not only do businesses have other costs that wo not be affected by minimum wage changes, but if they could raise their revenue by raising prices then why would not they have already done so ? most minimum wage jobs are not held by teenagers, either.  something like three quarters of people making minimum wage are age 0 or older more if you include those making slightly over minimum wage.  and of those teenages who do have minimum wage jobs, very few have  wealthy  parents most teenagers do not, statistically speaking, and those who do are less likely to want a job.  and your claim about most economists opposing a higher minimum wage is incorrect.  it is something of a contentious topic still, but the bulk of the experts in the field hold that raising the minimum wage  helps  the economy, or at the least not hurt it.   #  i never said most economists oppose the mw, i said most economists think the eitc is better.   # the standard of living in roosevelt is day was inherently different than today.   is pro market  is not really relevant.  same thing as with osha and suchlike.  pro market ! pro business.  the minimum wage ignores market forces, so that leads to inefficiencies that the eitc does not.  and of those teenages who do have minimum wage jobs, very few have  wealthy  parents most teenagers do not, statistically speaking, and those who do are less likely to want a job.  if 0/0 of mw are teenagers, i think that qualifies as a sizable portion.  also, is there any evidence at all that teenagers with wealthy parents are less likely to want a job ? it is something of a contentious topic still, but the bulk of the experts in the field hold that raising the minimum wage helps the economy, or at the least not hurt it.  i never said most economists oppose the mw, i said most economists think the eitc is better.  they are not mutually exclusive policies, i just do not know why so much political capital is put toward raising the mw and not the eitc.
raising the minimum wage is a very controversial topic in politics and has been for awhile.  proponents of the policy see it as a way of helping poor people attain a living wage, while opponents of the policy cite its negative employment and inflationary side effects.  the earned income tax credit or eitc can help poor people raise their living standards without the negative side effects of the minimum wage, so it is by far the more optimal tool for fighting poverty.  the eitc, for those who do not know, is a subsidy from the government in the form of a negative income tax, and this makes it better than the minimum wage for several reasons: 0.  the eitc, unlike the minimum wage, is pro market and does not have negative employment effects.  if the value of the marginal product of one is labor is, say, $0, and the minimum wage is $0, then a company loses money by hiring that worker and therefore wo not.  the eitc allows for the market to set that workers wage, and the difference between that and what we would consider a  living wage  would be provided by the government.  0.  the eitc wo not lead to higher prices.  for some businesses, where low wage labor is a relatively big expense like restaurants , then an increase in the minimum wage could lead to higher prices.  because the eitc is not a cost to companies, this type of price increase wo not happen.  0.  the eitc allows us to focus on helping people who need it.  a large share of the people who work minimum or low wage jobs are teenagers, and teenagers with wealthy parents frankly do not need the help.  the eitc, however, can be used to target specifically those who are trying to support themselves or their families.  0.  the eitc is paid for by everyone, communally, instead of by those who own companies that provide jobs for low skilled workers.  if we as a society decide that people living in this country should have a certain basic standard of living which i agree with , then should not society as a whole provide for that ? it seems unfair to decide as a society that people should have a certain living standard and then demand that other people pay for it.  because of this, economists of practically every background agree that the eitc is simply better policy than the minimum wage.  but despite this, politicians and activists keep advocating for a higher minimum wage when ostensibly there is a better way to help poor people.  i would like to think everyone here would like to help poor people.  so please, cmv and explain why we should not focus on expanding the eitc and instead keep focusing on raising the minimum wage.   #  0.  the eitc, unlike the minimum wage, is pro market and does not have negative employment effects.   #  if the value of the marginal product of one is labor is, say, $0, and the minimum wage is $0, then a company loses money by hiring that worker and therefore wo not.   # if the value of the marginal product of one is labor is, say, $0, and the minimum wage is $0, then a company loses money by hiring that worker and therefore wo not.  the eitc allows for the market to set that workers wage, and the difference between that and what we would consider a  living wage  would be provided by the government.  we basically do this already.  walmart pays their employees less than a living wage and as a result the   us taxpayers spend $0 billion dollars annually on welfare for walmart employees URL while meanwhile the walton is who own walmart are each in america is wealthiest people list.  why should the taxpayers subsidize wages so that the employer can be the most wealthy people in the country ?  #  on top of payroll taxes at 0 and income taxes at 0 0 in that range, you are looking at an effective tax rate in the 0 0 range.   #  expanding the eitc has disincentive issues on the ramp down side.  the current ramp down rate is about 0 for a single parent with one child.  0 if you doubled the eitc amounts and left all else equal, you would have a 0 effective marginal tax rate from eitc over the period from 0k income to 0k income.  on top of payroll taxes at 0 and income taxes at 0 0 in that range, you are looking at an effective tax rate in the 0 0 range.  and that is without factoring in other programs which also have cutoffs in that range such as the implicit 0 tax rate on obamacare subsidies .  0 to mitigate this, you need to make the ramp down period longer, which means giving substantial eitc benefits to households making above median incomes.  so it will cost quite a lot of money.  additionally, while you say eitc wo not lead to higher prices, there is no such thing as a free lunch.  eitc needs to be paid for by some other tax somewhere.  and that tax will likely have some negative consequences, as taxes do.  i am not saying some level of eitc expansion is not warranted.  the amount for childless adults for instance is pretty pitiful right now.  but as with everything in economics, there are tradeoffs.   0 source for data URL math is 0/ 0 0 0  0 source URL  #  eitc needs to be paid for by some other tax somewhere.   #  very good points, and i admit i had not fully considered the disincentive effects of the phase out of the eitc.  also,  additionally, while you say eitc wo not lead to higher prices, there is no such thing as a free lunch.  eitc needs to be paid for by some other tax somewhere.  and that tax will likely have some negative consequences, as taxes do.  i did not mean to insinuate that this policy is a free lunch, and it will be paid by everyone collectively, this is definitely a great point you made.  so while i do not think your comment convinced me the minimum wage is better, it did change my mind a little about the eitc itself.   #  it is something of a contentious topic still, but the bulk of the experts in the field hold that raising the minimum wage  helps  the economy, or at the least not hurt it.   #  something i would like to point out is that the minimum wage is intended and always has been, even being explicitly stated as such as a rejection of businesses that pay unfair wages.  here is a quote directly from roosevelt:   no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.  so asking whether a minimum wage hurts business owners i. e.   is pro market  is not really relevant.  same thing as with osha and suchlike.  other than that, i would point out that raising a business is labor costs does not translate into a porportional raise in prices.  not only do businesses have other costs that wo not be affected by minimum wage changes, but if they could raise their revenue by raising prices then why would not they have already done so ? most minimum wage jobs are not held by teenagers, either.  something like three quarters of people making minimum wage are age 0 or older more if you include those making slightly over minimum wage.  and of those teenages who do have minimum wage jobs, very few have  wealthy  parents most teenagers do not, statistically speaking, and those who do are less likely to want a job.  and your claim about most economists opposing a higher minimum wage is incorrect.  it is something of a contentious topic still, but the bulk of the experts in the field hold that raising the minimum wage  helps  the economy, or at the least not hurt it.   #  and of those teenages who do have minimum wage jobs, very few have  wealthy  parents most teenagers do not, statistically speaking, and those who do are less likely to want a job.   # the standard of living in roosevelt is day was inherently different than today.   is pro market  is not really relevant.  same thing as with osha and suchlike.  pro market ! pro business.  the minimum wage ignores market forces, so that leads to inefficiencies that the eitc does not.  and of those teenages who do have minimum wage jobs, very few have  wealthy  parents most teenagers do not, statistically speaking, and those who do are less likely to want a job.  if 0/0 of mw are teenagers, i think that qualifies as a sizable portion.  also, is there any evidence at all that teenagers with wealthy parents are less likely to want a job ? it is something of a contentious topic still, but the bulk of the experts in the field hold that raising the minimum wage helps the economy, or at the least not hurt it.  i never said most economists oppose the mw, i said most economists think the eitc is better.  they are not mutually exclusive policies, i just do not know why so much political capital is put toward raising the mw and not the eitc.
alright so this post is regarding a particular facet of these debates.  a common pro choice argument is  making abortions illegal does not stop abortion, it stops safe abortion .  that is what i want to discuss here.  i feel that the same argument applies for gun control, especially since the liberal view is generally pro choice, pro gun control.  the abortion argument corresponds to  making ownership of guns illegal or limited does not prevent gun ownership, it prevents safe gun ownership .  gun control means that people ca not as easily have self defense weaponry defending against intruders, bad law enforcement, or corrupt government .  but bad people will still be able to get them.  shootings will still happen, people will still get murdered by their exes, etc.  gun control wo not stop guns, just like criminalizing abortion wo not stop abortions.  please, tell me where my logic is flawed here.   #  a common pro choice argument is  making abortions illegal does not stop abortion, it stops safe abortion .   #  that is what i want to discuss here.   # that is what i want to discuss here.  i feel that the same argument applies for gun control,  almost nobody wants to eliminate guns altogether.  republicans keep spewing the same talking points, but that is  not actually what almost any politician is saying .  people  should  be able to buy guns safely.  but their safety cannot come at the expense of the safety of other people.  many liberals believe that guns should be treated like cars.  0 written and practical tests to prove that you are proficient enough to even be trusted with a gun.  0 a poor health background can disqualify you from driving a car.  so if you are epileptic and your seizures put everyone else on the road in danger, then you cannot drive a car.  if you have bipolar personality disorder and have fits of rage, you should not be able to buy a gun.  0 insurance.  guns get stolen, accidents happen, people are just people.  so if everything goes well and everyone does their part, then there are not issues.  if there are accidents as a result of neglect, insurance pays the victim of the accident and the gun owner is rates go up.  what the current system lacks is accountability.  if you want to keep guns and to be able to buy them safely, that is fantastic.  just so long as we have a safety net to make sure that the people around you are safe from you as well.   #  as you point out, gun control can be used to imply complete removal of guns, but this is not typical so i will focus on  limiting  gun ownership.   #  i think you are wrong about what gun control means.  as you point out, gun control can be used to imply complete removal of guns, but this is not typical so i will focus on  limiting  gun ownership.  a common proposal for a way to limit gun ownership is to require a background check before a sale can be made.  this does not limit safe gun ownership.  instead it aims to keep guns away from people who are not safe, such as criminals or those with mental illness.  another common proposal is a gun registry.  this can help to limit gun ownership by identifying people who are illegally selling guns to those who are unsafe.  gun owners who are responsible and safe with their weapons would not be harmed.  requiring a safety course might limit gun ownership to only those willing to take the course, but it obviously will result in better educated safer ownership.   #  you can certainly disagree with that, but now there is nothing inherently contradictory about their position, you are just disputing the effect of the policy.   #  first off, the way i see it, the analogy kind of backfires right away.  part of the safe abortion logic is that we  want  abortions to be regulated to ensure safety.  on the other hand, most liberals are not in favor of an outright gun  ban .  so the typical liberal position is more like  abortion control  and  gun control .  while the typical conservative position is closer to  abortion ban  and  no limits on guns .  background checks for the mentally ill does not prevent  safe gun ownership , right ? similarly, i think  assault weapon  bans are kind of dumb, but the specific argument you are making here is pretty iffy.  if you want the freedom to have an ar 0, more power to you, but do not tell me that its for  self defense .  the vast majority of the kinds of gun control being proposed are totally compatible with self defense.  finally, legal, regulated abortions make abortions safer for the woman, but do not affect anyone else.  i appreciate the desire for self defense, but guns  are  weapons, so their proliferation necessarily has an impact on not just the gun owner, but those around them.  its true that some criminals will still get guns.  but some people still commit  murder  too.  some people will always break laws.  that does not mean that the laws have no effect.  i would imagine most gun control advocates believe that gun control laws have a net effect of making things safer in general.  you can certainly disagree with that, but now there is nothing inherently contradictory about their position, you are just disputing the effect of the policy.   #  the vast majority of the kinds of gun control being proposed are totally compatible with self defense.   # the vast majority of the kinds of gun control being proposed are totally compatible with self defense.  yeah, that is not really true.  an ar 0 is one of the best self defense weapons you can have.  it is a lightweight rifle that shoots a smaller round . 0 that does not overpenetrate, and has light recoil.  it has the ability to carry 0 rounds in a magazine, all but eliminating the need to reload, should you have to use it.  if you ask just about anyone with military training what weapon they want if they have to be in a edit: gunfight, a rifle is at the top of the list.   #  just firing a shot so that he or she runs off is not good enough, you gotta make sure you kill him or her ?  # just firing a shot so that he or she runs off is not good enough, you gotta make sure you kill him or her ? that is no longer self defense.  not necessarily, but i would like to be prepared, should it come to that.  if you have a single shot shotgun, your warning shot as ill advised as it is in the first place is your only round until you get to reload.  in a situation like that, you get an adrenaline dump and lose control of your fine motor skills making reloading particularly difficult.  hopefully you brought a pocket full of shells with you, just in case.  the legal threshold in most states for using a gun at all including firing a  warning shot  in self defense is that a reasonable person would fear that they are in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.  basically, to fire a warning shot legally, you would also need to be legally clear to actually shoot the person.  if you shoot at anything less than that, you might be looking at a brandishing charge at the minimum, or worse.  good thing is, in states with castle doctrine laws, if a home invader is in your house, you have already satisfied that threshold.  that being said, warning shots are a horrible, horrible idea, and no one that is taken a firearm self defense course would ever advise you to do it.
alright so this post is regarding a particular facet of these debates.  a common pro choice argument is  making abortions illegal does not stop abortion, it stops safe abortion .  that is what i want to discuss here.  i feel that the same argument applies for gun control, especially since the liberal view is generally pro choice, pro gun control.  the abortion argument corresponds to  making ownership of guns illegal or limited does not prevent gun ownership, it prevents safe gun ownership .  gun control means that people ca not as easily have self defense weaponry defending against intruders, bad law enforcement, or corrupt government .  but bad people will still be able to get them.  shootings will still happen, people will still get murdered by their exes, etc.  gun control wo not stop guns, just like criminalizing abortion wo not stop abortions.  please, tell me where my logic is flawed here.   #  gun control means that people ca not as easily have self defense weaponry defending against intruders, bad law enforcement, or corrupt government .   #  if you open fire on bad law enforcement, you are either going to be killed on the scene or go to jail for a very long time.   #  caveat, i am pro choice against gun bans, though i do support many forms of gun control to hold gun owners accountable.  i also find this to be a very narrow comparison, the issues of gun control and abortion are way more complex than the statements you are comparing.  both sides of both issues tend to try to boil things down to slogans, which does the greater debate a great disservice.  and since nearly every illegal gun out there was legally purchased at one point then either illegally sold or stolen i would argue that making gun ownership illegal would greatly reduce the number of guns.  if you open fire on bad law enforcement, you are either going to be killed on the scene or go to jail for a very long time.  i have never heard of a case where someone was cleared after firing on police, no matter how out of line the police were.  you are gun will do you no good if the government turns on you.  you are not taking a uav down with your gun, it will do you very little good against a trained fire team.  making abortions illegal does greatly reduce the total number abortions.  if that is your metric of success, it makes sense to ban abortions.  however, there are other ways to reduce abortions that will also provide a lot of societal benefit while a straight up abortion ban will increase poverty.   #  gun owners who are responsible and safe with their weapons would not be harmed.   #  i think you are wrong about what gun control means.  as you point out, gun control can be used to imply complete removal of guns, but this is not typical so i will focus on  limiting  gun ownership.  a common proposal for a way to limit gun ownership is to require a background check before a sale can be made.  this does not limit safe gun ownership.  instead it aims to keep guns away from people who are not safe, such as criminals or those with mental illness.  another common proposal is a gun registry.  this can help to limit gun ownership by identifying people who are illegally selling guns to those who are unsafe.  gun owners who are responsible and safe with their weapons would not be harmed.  requiring a safety course might limit gun ownership to only those willing to take the course, but it obviously will result in better educated safer ownership.   #  its true that some criminals will still get guns.   #  first off, the way i see it, the analogy kind of backfires right away.  part of the safe abortion logic is that we  want  abortions to be regulated to ensure safety.  on the other hand, most liberals are not in favor of an outright gun  ban .  so the typical liberal position is more like  abortion control  and  gun control .  while the typical conservative position is closer to  abortion ban  and  no limits on guns .  background checks for the mentally ill does not prevent  safe gun ownership , right ? similarly, i think  assault weapon  bans are kind of dumb, but the specific argument you are making here is pretty iffy.  if you want the freedom to have an ar 0, more power to you, but do not tell me that its for  self defense .  the vast majority of the kinds of gun control being proposed are totally compatible with self defense.  finally, legal, regulated abortions make abortions safer for the woman, but do not affect anyone else.  i appreciate the desire for self defense, but guns  are  weapons, so their proliferation necessarily has an impact on not just the gun owner, but those around them.  its true that some criminals will still get guns.  but some people still commit  murder  too.  some people will always break laws.  that does not mean that the laws have no effect.  i would imagine most gun control advocates believe that gun control laws have a net effect of making things safer in general.  you can certainly disagree with that, but now there is nothing inherently contradictory about their position, you are just disputing the effect of the policy.   #  it is a lightweight rifle that shoots a smaller round . 0 that does not overpenetrate, and has light recoil.   # the vast majority of the kinds of gun control being proposed are totally compatible with self defense.  yeah, that is not really true.  an ar 0 is one of the best self defense weapons you can have.  it is a lightweight rifle that shoots a smaller round . 0 that does not overpenetrate, and has light recoil.  it has the ability to carry 0 rounds in a magazine, all but eliminating the need to reload, should you have to use it.  if you ask just about anyone with military training what weapon they want if they have to be in a edit: gunfight, a rifle is at the top of the list.   #  just firing a shot so that he or she runs off is not good enough, you gotta make sure you kill him or her ?  # just firing a shot so that he or she runs off is not good enough, you gotta make sure you kill him or her ? that is no longer self defense.  not necessarily, but i would like to be prepared, should it come to that.  if you have a single shot shotgun, your warning shot as ill advised as it is in the first place is your only round until you get to reload.  in a situation like that, you get an adrenaline dump and lose control of your fine motor skills making reloading particularly difficult.  hopefully you brought a pocket full of shells with you, just in case.  the legal threshold in most states for using a gun at all including firing a  warning shot  in self defense is that a reasonable person would fear that they are in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.  basically, to fire a warning shot legally, you would also need to be legally clear to actually shoot the person.  if you shoot at anything less than that, you might be looking at a brandishing charge at the minimum, or worse.  good thing is, in states with castle doctrine laws, if a home invader is in your house, you have already satisfied that threshold.  that being said, warning shots are a horrible, horrible idea, and no one that is taken a firearm self defense course would ever advise you to do it.
alright so this post is regarding a particular facet of these debates.  a common pro choice argument is  making abortions illegal does not stop abortion, it stops safe abortion .  that is what i want to discuss here.  i feel that the same argument applies for gun control, especially since the liberal view is generally pro choice, pro gun control.  the abortion argument corresponds to  making ownership of guns illegal or limited does not prevent gun ownership, it prevents safe gun ownership .  gun control means that people ca not as easily have self defense weaponry defending against intruders, bad law enforcement, or corrupt government .  but bad people will still be able to get them.  shootings will still happen, people will still get murdered by their exes, etc.  gun control wo not stop guns, just like criminalizing abortion wo not stop abortions.  please, tell me where my logic is flawed here.   #  a common pro choice argument is  making abortions illegal does not stop abortion, it stops safe abortion .   #  making abortions illegal does greatly reduce the total number abortions.   #  caveat, i am pro choice against gun bans, though i do support many forms of gun control to hold gun owners accountable.  i also find this to be a very narrow comparison, the issues of gun control and abortion are way more complex than the statements you are comparing.  both sides of both issues tend to try to boil things down to slogans, which does the greater debate a great disservice.  and since nearly every illegal gun out there was legally purchased at one point then either illegally sold or stolen i would argue that making gun ownership illegal would greatly reduce the number of guns.  if you open fire on bad law enforcement, you are either going to be killed on the scene or go to jail for a very long time.  i have never heard of a case where someone was cleared after firing on police, no matter how out of line the police were.  you are gun will do you no good if the government turns on you.  you are not taking a uav down with your gun, it will do you very little good against a trained fire team.  making abortions illegal does greatly reduce the total number abortions.  if that is your metric of success, it makes sense to ban abortions.  however, there are other ways to reduce abortions that will also provide a lot of societal benefit while a straight up abortion ban will increase poverty.   #  as you point out, gun control can be used to imply complete removal of guns, but this is not typical so i will focus on  limiting  gun ownership.   #  i think you are wrong about what gun control means.  as you point out, gun control can be used to imply complete removal of guns, but this is not typical so i will focus on  limiting  gun ownership.  a common proposal for a way to limit gun ownership is to require a background check before a sale can be made.  this does not limit safe gun ownership.  instead it aims to keep guns away from people who are not safe, such as criminals or those with mental illness.  another common proposal is a gun registry.  this can help to limit gun ownership by identifying people who are illegally selling guns to those who are unsafe.  gun owners who are responsible and safe with their weapons would not be harmed.  requiring a safety course might limit gun ownership to only those willing to take the course, but it obviously will result in better educated safer ownership.   #  the vast majority of the kinds of gun control being proposed are totally compatible with self defense.   #  first off, the way i see it, the analogy kind of backfires right away.  part of the safe abortion logic is that we  want  abortions to be regulated to ensure safety.  on the other hand, most liberals are not in favor of an outright gun  ban .  so the typical liberal position is more like  abortion control  and  gun control .  while the typical conservative position is closer to  abortion ban  and  no limits on guns .  background checks for the mentally ill does not prevent  safe gun ownership , right ? similarly, i think  assault weapon  bans are kind of dumb, but the specific argument you are making here is pretty iffy.  if you want the freedom to have an ar 0, more power to you, but do not tell me that its for  self defense .  the vast majority of the kinds of gun control being proposed are totally compatible with self defense.  finally, legal, regulated abortions make abortions safer for the woman, but do not affect anyone else.  i appreciate the desire for self defense, but guns  are  weapons, so their proliferation necessarily has an impact on not just the gun owner, but those around them.  its true that some criminals will still get guns.  but some people still commit  murder  too.  some people will always break laws.  that does not mean that the laws have no effect.  i would imagine most gun control advocates believe that gun control laws have a net effect of making things safer in general.  you can certainly disagree with that, but now there is nothing inherently contradictory about their position, you are just disputing the effect of the policy.   #  if you ask just about anyone with military training what weapon they want if they have to be in a edit: gunfight, a rifle is at the top of the list.   # the vast majority of the kinds of gun control being proposed are totally compatible with self defense.  yeah, that is not really true.  an ar 0 is one of the best self defense weapons you can have.  it is a lightweight rifle that shoots a smaller round . 0 that does not overpenetrate, and has light recoil.  it has the ability to carry 0 rounds in a magazine, all but eliminating the need to reload, should you have to use it.  if you ask just about anyone with military training what weapon they want if they have to be in a edit: gunfight, a rifle is at the top of the list.   #  that being said, warning shots are a horrible, horrible idea, and no one that is taken a firearm self defense course would ever advise you to do it.   # just firing a shot so that he or she runs off is not good enough, you gotta make sure you kill him or her ? that is no longer self defense.  not necessarily, but i would like to be prepared, should it come to that.  if you have a single shot shotgun, your warning shot as ill advised as it is in the first place is your only round until you get to reload.  in a situation like that, you get an adrenaline dump and lose control of your fine motor skills making reloading particularly difficult.  hopefully you brought a pocket full of shells with you, just in case.  the legal threshold in most states for using a gun at all including firing a  warning shot  in self defense is that a reasonable person would fear that they are in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.  basically, to fire a warning shot legally, you would also need to be legally clear to actually shoot the person.  if you shoot at anything less than that, you might be looking at a brandishing charge at the minimum, or worse.  good thing is, in states with castle doctrine laws, if a home invader is in your house, you have already satisfied that threshold.  that being said, warning shots are a horrible, horrible idea, and no one that is taken a firearm self defense course would ever advise you to do it.
alright so this post is regarding a particular facet of these debates.  a common pro choice argument is  making abortions illegal does not stop abortion, it stops safe abortion .  that is what i want to discuss here.  i feel that the same argument applies for gun control, especially since the liberal view is generally pro choice, pro gun control.  the abortion argument corresponds to  making ownership of guns illegal or limited does not prevent gun ownership, it prevents safe gun ownership .  gun control means that people ca not as easily have self defense weaponry defending against intruders, bad law enforcement, or corrupt government .  but bad people will still be able to get them.  shootings will still happen, people will still get murdered by their exes, etc.  gun control wo not stop guns, just like criminalizing abortion wo not stop abortions.  please, tell me where my logic is flawed here.   #  gun control means that people ca not as easily have self defense weaponry defending against intruders, bad law enforcement, or corrupt government .   #   gun control  is really a misleading phrase.   #  gun control  is really a misleading phrase.  it is simply about wanting stricter regulation.  when the legislature creates more regulations on vehicles, no one brands it as  car control .  even in laws that restrict what you can do such as restricting texting while driving , you do not see it being labeled in a way.  people use the phrase  gun control  to automatically label anyone who supports any form of regulations as the same as those who want to flat out take away guns which is a very, very small minority .  there is a variety of stricter gun regulations that some people support, such as closing loopholes at gun shows, mandatory background checks, etc.  some might support restricting certain types of guns to the general population like ar 0s .  you might disagree with all of these, and that is fine.  but these stricter regulations are not about full out gun bans, which the term  gun control  tends to imply.  your argument would be sound if  gun control  proponents wanted to ban all guns.  but that is not the issue they want stricter regulations over them, much like we have stricter regulations over pretty much everything else in society.  it is like with abortion, like guns, we have a right to them, but it can still fairly regulated states can pass waiting periods, require the mother receive multiple ultrasounds, require the mother to hear the baby, require parental involvement for minors, or have gestational limits, etc.   #  this can help to limit gun ownership by identifying people who are illegally selling guns to those who are unsafe.   #  i think you are wrong about what gun control means.  as you point out, gun control can be used to imply complete removal of guns, but this is not typical so i will focus on  limiting  gun ownership.  a common proposal for a way to limit gun ownership is to require a background check before a sale can be made.  this does not limit safe gun ownership.  instead it aims to keep guns away from people who are not safe, such as criminals or those with mental illness.  another common proposal is a gun registry.  this can help to limit gun ownership by identifying people who are illegally selling guns to those who are unsafe.  gun owners who are responsible and safe with their weapons would not be harmed.  requiring a safety course might limit gun ownership to only those willing to take the course, but it obviously will result in better educated safer ownership.   #  if you want the freedom to have an ar 0, more power to you, but do not tell me that its for  self defense .   #  first off, the way i see it, the analogy kind of backfires right away.  part of the safe abortion logic is that we  want  abortions to be regulated to ensure safety.  on the other hand, most liberals are not in favor of an outright gun  ban .  so the typical liberal position is more like  abortion control  and  gun control .  while the typical conservative position is closer to  abortion ban  and  no limits on guns .  background checks for the mentally ill does not prevent  safe gun ownership , right ? similarly, i think  assault weapon  bans are kind of dumb, but the specific argument you are making here is pretty iffy.  if you want the freedom to have an ar 0, more power to you, but do not tell me that its for  self defense .  the vast majority of the kinds of gun control being proposed are totally compatible with self defense.  finally, legal, regulated abortions make abortions safer for the woman, but do not affect anyone else.  i appreciate the desire for self defense, but guns  are  weapons, so their proliferation necessarily has an impact on not just the gun owner, but those around them.  its true that some criminals will still get guns.  but some people still commit  murder  too.  some people will always break laws.  that does not mean that the laws have no effect.  i would imagine most gun control advocates believe that gun control laws have a net effect of making things safer in general.  you can certainly disagree with that, but now there is nothing inherently contradictory about their position, you are just disputing the effect of the policy.   #  it is a lightweight rifle that shoots a smaller round . 0 that does not overpenetrate, and has light recoil.   # the vast majority of the kinds of gun control being proposed are totally compatible with self defense.  yeah, that is not really true.  an ar 0 is one of the best self defense weapons you can have.  it is a lightweight rifle that shoots a smaller round . 0 that does not overpenetrate, and has light recoil.  it has the ability to carry 0 rounds in a magazine, all but eliminating the need to reload, should you have to use it.  if you ask just about anyone with military training what weapon they want if they have to be in a edit: gunfight, a rifle is at the top of the list.   #  if you shoot at anything less than that, you might be looking at a brandishing charge at the minimum, or worse.   # just firing a shot so that he or she runs off is not good enough, you gotta make sure you kill him or her ? that is no longer self defense.  not necessarily, but i would like to be prepared, should it come to that.  if you have a single shot shotgun, your warning shot as ill advised as it is in the first place is your only round until you get to reload.  in a situation like that, you get an adrenaline dump and lose control of your fine motor skills making reloading particularly difficult.  hopefully you brought a pocket full of shells with you, just in case.  the legal threshold in most states for using a gun at all including firing a  warning shot  in self defense is that a reasonable person would fear that they are in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.  basically, to fire a warning shot legally, you would also need to be legally clear to actually shoot the person.  if you shoot at anything less than that, you might be looking at a brandishing charge at the minimum, or worse.  good thing is, in states with castle doctrine laws, if a home invader is in your house, you have already satisfied that threshold.  that being said, warning shots are a horrible, horrible idea, and no one that is taken a firearm self defense course would ever advise you to do it.
should the war on drugs be eased up and should the punishment for possession be smaller ? of course.  however, marijuana slows brain function, dulls reflexes, can get you fired from jobs, can cause brain irregularities, etc.  medicinally it should be allowed, for people with seizures, ptsd, etc.  but recreationally, feeling relaxed is not a good enough reason to hurt your brain.  it contains carcinogens.  it seems to me that stoners are using the same reasons that tobacco smokers use, it is all feelings over facts.  i understand that it woild create more revenue, but i care more about the health of people over the government is revenue.   #  feeling relaxed is not a good enough reason to hurt your brain.   #  this is not your decision to make, nor the governments, for the simple reason that it aint your brain.   #  it is not the governments place to tell citizens they ca not put something in their body because it is not good for them.  pot, alcohol, tobacco, fast food, ice cream, chocolate.  where do they draw the line ? what makes one unacceptable but others not ? none of them are good for us, but good luck finding someone who abstains from  all  of them.  i do not drink or smoke, but take away my shitty fast food and i may have to shank you.  given my own vices, who the hell am i to judge those who drink and smoke ? so long as they partake responsibly and do not negatively impact others, it is their business.  this is not your decision to make, nor the governments, for the simple reason that it aint your brain.   #  do you really think that cops will enforce the coffee ban ?  #  i have a feeling if brenda wants her bigmac someone will be able to provide.  your statement is more or less the temperate movement pre prohibition.   no one will drink if we make it inconvenient enough.   has been tried before.  it failed.  if people want things they will find a way to get those things.  people will always have incentive to provide what people want.  as i said, you ban coffee tomorrow and you will have 0 guys selling it the day after.  do you really think that cops will enforce the coffee ban ? if most cops are like the cops i know they will be customers.  prohibition of a product that a society wants just means that people will go underground to provide that something since the economic incentive is there.   #  a severe binge drinker will have much more health drawbacks than someone smoking marijuana.   #  for alcohol, we should have a certain limit for how much you can drink.  a severe binge drinker will have much more health drawbacks than someone smoking marijuana.  for the guns ? of course.  allow pistols for defense, but you really do not need an assault rifle in the united states.  fast food ? no.  i can run and work out and get fast food every once and a while and be perfectly healthy.  marijuana is not going to make you die or vomit or whatever, but it screws up the function of the brain and other drawbacks, its just science.   #  people will use drugs drive cars, play sports, whatever no matter what.   #  what health benefits does recreational fast food consumption have ? even recreational alcohol use is unhealthy.  heck, recreational sports carry a pretty serious risk of injury in some cases.  should we ban mcdonalds and beer league softball too ? literally everything in life carries some risk of harm.  you could be squished by a rock from space tomorrow.  it is about harm reduction.  bootleg bathtub liquor during the prohibition era sickened and killed scores of people.  legal alcohol is not safe, but it is  safer .  cars are not safe, but seatbelts and crumple zones make them safer.  drugs including tobacco, coffee, and alcohol are not safe, but legal drugs are quality controlled and dosage regulated.  legal drugs are  safer , not safe.  people will use drugs drive cars, play sports, whatever no matter what.  all we can do is improve safety standards.  URL risk ca not be eliminated, it can be mitigated.   #  marijuana is not going to make you die or vomit or whatever, but it screws up the function of the brain and other drawbacks, its just science.   # should the bartender have to administer a breathalyzer test before every single drink you order ? no.  i can run and work out and get fast food every once and a while and be perfectly healthy.  marijuana is not going to make you die or vomit or whatever, but it screws up the function of the brain and other drawbacks, its just science.  marijuana ? no.  i can run and work out and get marijuana every once and a while and be perfectly healthy.  fast food is not going to make you die or vomit or whatever, but it screws up the function of the body and other drawbacks, its just science.
marx   engel are perhaps the most influential critics of capitalism to date.  maybe, the success of capitalism compared to communist countries has deterred critical thinkers from the far left to fill the void left by these two but if they were alive to this day, they would have to change their minds about some of their criticism.  first critic of capitalism that comes to mind is that capitalism inherently encourages monopoly.  this might be true to his times, however, in recent times the number of monopolies has shrunk and market power is being more evenly distributed than the past.  when i make this claim, i am aware that there are still many monopolies and oligopolies but i am speaking in relative terms here.  marx is mistake here was assuming that technology would not bring about the changes necessary for competition to flourish and challenge well established monopolies.  also,  theory of the firm  elaborates on how market power is not a function of how efficient one producer is than the others and his ability to crush competition but rather the market structure itself.  for instance, walmart has almost monopoly like market shares in us however, due to the nature of the retail market, walmart ca not charge any price it wants.  in other words, it has no power to affect prices.  the second refutation i have is against engel that inequality will cause the poor to consume more by taking on debt.  this is the current leading idea behind the economic crash of the housing market by communist think tanks.  the beauty of this assertion is that it does make perfect sense in theory.  we all do have a tendency to try to keep up with the joneses  but in practicality that is not how it played out.  marx and engels never had empirical research on their side.  latest research show that there is no co relation between increasing inequality and debt spending.  i think where engel was wrong is that he was very impractical about the whole thing.  yes, we do try to compete with the jones but that is because the joneses  are our close equals.  if i, the median income earner would compete with someone it would probably be my neighbor or brother, not some black rapper with gold bling or a silicon valley start up founder.  they are way beyond my league and this is something most people agree with.  third is a more general view on capitalism.  despite marx and engel is warning capitalism has brought us to a great era of success.  poverty is down by more than 0 % around the world and that too in less than two decades, life expectancy is going up in developing countries, infant mortality down and amazing technology has been invented in the time since marx was around.  given all these changes marx would have to re valuate his criticisms.  i do not say that he will become a capitalist but i am saying is that the reasons he down played capitalism would not be enough to justify his disdain for it.  not only that, his views have to be challenged extremely with the failure of ussr,china,north korea and cuba, failures in his ideology that he had not been alive to see.  he would have to come up with better arguments against capitalism and most importantly he must come up with better arguments for communism, one where the inherent problem of communists falling into authoritarian dictatorship regimes rather than anarchist communistic society has to be addressed.   #  the second refutation i have is against engel that inequality will cause the poor to consume more by taking on debt.   #  this is the current leading idea behind the economic crash of the housing market by communist think tanks.   # this is the current leading idea behind the economic crash of the housing market by communist think tanks.  the beauty of this assertion is that it does make perfect sense in theory.  we all do have a tendency to try to keep up with the joneses  but in practicality that is not how it played out.  marx and engels never had empirical research on their side.  latest research show that there is no co relation between increasing inequality and debt spending.  i am not convinced you properly refuted this point, could you provide a source/additional argument ? firstly, he is taken the position that the global communist revolution is a  necessary historical fact .  that is an almost impossible position to back down from, and he could not do so without throwing out a huge chunk of his theory.  secondly, i do not think marx would have seen the ussr or china as  failures , i think he might argue that their shortcomings were exaggerated by imperialist capitalist powers, but i do not see how he would recognise those societies as failures given their enormous success in raising the standard of living from his own time until the effective end of their socialist governments.  he would obviously see them as failures for abandoning socialism and failing to achieve or facilitate global communism, but that is a different kind of failure.  your reasoning does not address some ideas that i think are really central to marx and engel is thought, like alienation, which has actually become worse since the 0th cenutry.  it also does not address the idea that non human capital distorts wages, which i would say is the very cornerstone of their ideas.  one thing i  do  think he would change is his class model, because ownership of capital is fundamentally different in post industrial societies compared to his own plenty of workers indirectly control the means of production, but not in the way marx would have liked, the  willumpenproletariat  expanded an awful lot in the 0th century .  but i really doubt much else would change.   #  on the contrary, orthodoxy refers exclusively to method.   #  i will quote lukacs who hits the nail on the head  orthodox marxism, therefore, does not imply the uncritical acceptance of the results of marx is investigations.  it is not the  belief  in this or that thesis, nor the exegesis of a  isacred  book.  on the contrary, orthodoxy refers exclusively to method.  it is the scientific conviction that dialectical materialism is the road to truth and that its methods can be developed, expanded and deepened only along the lines laid down by its founders.  it is the conviction, moreover, that all attempts to surpass or  improve  it have led and must lead to over simplification, triviality and eclecticism.  you have the frankfurt school of thinkers writing after the great depression.  they are both disillusioned by soviet style communism and astounded that capitalism survived the 0 is.  they wrote very critically about each system using the methods that marx engineered not his results.  think of marxism as a methodology, not a prophecy.  it is an active verb.  when we look at it that way, there is enormous value in the things that we discover.  it shines a light on invisible power structures, seeks to bring democracy to a highly totalitarian work space, gives us insight on imperialism and colonialism, etc.  etc.  would he change his prediction ? yea, some of them probably.  they are rooted in a certain historical contextualization.  would he back down from the central structure underpinning his ideas ? i am not so sure.   #  marx is ideology is logical, i do not disagree but the field of economics has progressed way further than theory and gone into empirical methods to study the economy.   #  well usually when the results are wrong, it can be assumed that either underlying theory or the methodology something was wrong.  marx is ideology is logical, i do not disagree but the field of economics has progressed way further than theory and gone into empirical methods to study the economy.  like i mentioned earlier, engels was not very wrong about the fact that people might feel the need to increase spending if others increase their spending just to be in par with them.  but, how much do they increase spending to keep up wth the joneses ? that is what economics these days tries to find out.  without the empirical evidence both schools of thought would just be pie in the sky ideas for bearded gentlemen to discuss over scotch in their studies.  communism stalled, capitalism did not and now we know why the critics of capitalism did not pan out the way communists hoped.  their understanding of the market was not accurate enough to predict how capitalism would turn out.   #  you are replying to criticism to unrestrained capitalism made from a still capitalist perspective, and none of that has any bearing on marxist theory.   # that is an obvious problem for market advocates, but that was not part of marx is core criticism.  it was not accumulation of capital of one group of bourgeois people to another, but from the workers to the bourgeoisie.  and that is definitely happening, americans are in general poorer than they were a few decades ago.  just look at the 0 mortgage crisis, student loans, etc.  there is been a wealth transfer from the so called  middle class  to the already wealthy.  you are replying to criticism to unrestrained capitalism made from a still capitalist perspective, and none of that has any bearing on marxist theory.  that is true, things have generally progressed since the decolonization.  at most he would say  so that is what happens when you start a revolution in an agrarian, feudal country .   #  the modern day worker has better health benefits or any benefits at all for that matter of fact than few decades ago.   #  you have avoided the criticisms i pointed out and put in your own.  but i will argue against your points as well.  yes, the wages are stalling however they have been constant with inflation through out the years.  that is not the same as saying things are on the decline.  second, while wages have not increased, benefits have.  the modern day worker has better health benefits or any benefits at all for that matter of fact than few decades ago.  companies these day give other fringe benefits like company cars, employee discounts, 0k, etc.  if you account the monetary value of all these benefits than wages and benefits are rising at almost the same levels as it was during the 0s 0s.  moreover, the poor can own a lot more with less money than they could in the past because of technological improvements.  those below the poverty line can afford two tvs, washer, dryer, fridge, heating,cooling, more than one car.  this sounds preposterous for someone coming from a third world country.  not even middle income families in india own that kinda stuff.  besides you just agreed that all my claims about the improvement in the world did happen despite capitalism, decolonization obviously gave us freedom but that does not mean that countries that were not colonized fared better than those who did.
marx   engel are perhaps the most influential critics of capitalism to date.  maybe, the success of capitalism compared to communist countries has deterred critical thinkers from the far left to fill the void left by these two but if they were alive to this day, they would have to change their minds about some of their criticism.  first critic of capitalism that comes to mind is that capitalism inherently encourages monopoly.  this might be true to his times, however, in recent times the number of monopolies has shrunk and market power is being more evenly distributed than the past.  when i make this claim, i am aware that there are still many monopolies and oligopolies but i am speaking in relative terms here.  marx is mistake here was assuming that technology would not bring about the changes necessary for competition to flourish and challenge well established monopolies.  also,  theory of the firm  elaborates on how market power is not a function of how efficient one producer is than the others and his ability to crush competition but rather the market structure itself.  for instance, walmart has almost monopoly like market shares in us however, due to the nature of the retail market, walmart ca not charge any price it wants.  in other words, it has no power to affect prices.  the second refutation i have is against engel that inequality will cause the poor to consume more by taking on debt.  this is the current leading idea behind the economic crash of the housing market by communist think tanks.  the beauty of this assertion is that it does make perfect sense in theory.  we all do have a tendency to try to keep up with the joneses  but in practicality that is not how it played out.  marx and engels never had empirical research on their side.  latest research show that there is no co relation between increasing inequality and debt spending.  i think where engel was wrong is that he was very impractical about the whole thing.  yes, we do try to compete with the jones but that is because the joneses  are our close equals.  if i, the median income earner would compete with someone it would probably be my neighbor or brother, not some black rapper with gold bling or a silicon valley start up founder.  they are way beyond my league and this is something most people agree with.  third is a more general view on capitalism.  despite marx and engel is warning capitalism has brought us to a great era of success.  poverty is down by more than 0 % around the world and that too in less than two decades, life expectancy is going up in developing countries, infant mortality down and amazing technology has been invented in the time since marx was around.  given all these changes marx would have to re valuate his criticisms.  i do not say that he will become a capitalist but i am saying is that the reasons he down played capitalism would not be enough to justify his disdain for it.  not only that, his views have to be challenged extremely with the failure of ussr,china,north korea and cuba, failures in his ideology that he had not been alive to see.  he would have to come up with better arguments against capitalism and most importantly he must come up with better arguments for communism, one where the inherent problem of communists falling into authoritarian dictatorship regimes rather than anarchist communistic society has to be addressed.   #  first critic of capitalism that comes to mind is that capitalism inherently encourages monopoly.   #  that is an obvious problem for market advocates, but that was not part of marx is core criticism.   # that is an obvious problem for market advocates, but that was not part of marx is core criticism.  it was not accumulation of capital of one group of bourgeois people to another, but from the workers to the bourgeoisie.  and that is definitely happening, americans are in general poorer than they were a few decades ago.  just look at the 0 mortgage crisis, student loans, etc.  there is been a wealth transfer from the so called  middle class  to the already wealthy.  you are replying to criticism to unrestrained capitalism made from a still capitalist perspective, and none of that has any bearing on marxist theory.  that is true, things have generally progressed since the decolonization.  at most he would say  so that is what happens when you start a revolution in an agrarian, feudal country .   #  they are both disillusioned by soviet style communism and astounded that capitalism survived the 0 is.   #  i will quote lukacs who hits the nail on the head  orthodox marxism, therefore, does not imply the uncritical acceptance of the results of marx is investigations.  it is not the  belief  in this or that thesis, nor the exegesis of a  isacred  book.  on the contrary, orthodoxy refers exclusively to method.  it is the scientific conviction that dialectical materialism is the road to truth and that its methods can be developed, expanded and deepened only along the lines laid down by its founders.  it is the conviction, moreover, that all attempts to surpass or  improve  it have led and must lead to over simplification, triviality and eclecticism.  you have the frankfurt school of thinkers writing after the great depression.  they are both disillusioned by soviet style communism and astounded that capitalism survived the 0 is.  they wrote very critically about each system using the methods that marx engineered not his results.  think of marxism as a methodology, not a prophecy.  it is an active verb.  when we look at it that way, there is enormous value in the things that we discover.  it shines a light on invisible power structures, seeks to bring democracy to a highly totalitarian work space, gives us insight on imperialism and colonialism, etc.  etc.  would he change his prediction ? yea, some of them probably.  they are rooted in a certain historical contextualization.  would he back down from the central structure underpinning his ideas ? i am not so sure.   #  communism stalled, capitalism did not and now we know why the critics of capitalism did not pan out the way communists hoped.   #  well usually when the results are wrong, it can be assumed that either underlying theory or the methodology something was wrong.  marx is ideology is logical, i do not disagree but the field of economics has progressed way further than theory and gone into empirical methods to study the economy.  like i mentioned earlier, engels was not very wrong about the fact that people might feel the need to increase spending if others increase their spending just to be in par with them.  but, how much do they increase spending to keep up wth the joneses ? that is what economics these days tries to find out.  without the empirical evidence both schools of thought would just be pie in the sky ideas for bearded gentlemen to discuss over scotch in their studies.  communism stalled, capitalism did not and now we know why the critics of capitalism did not pan out the way communists hoped.  their understanding of the market was not accurate enough to predict how capitalism would turn out.   #  this is the current leading idea behind the economic crash of the housing market by communist think tanks.   # this is the current leading idea behind the economic crash of the housing market by communist think tanks.  the beauty of this assertion is that it does make perfect sense in theory.  we all do have a tendency to try to keep up with the joneses  but in practicality that is not how it played out.  marx and engels never had empirical research on their side.  latest research show that there is no co relation between increasing inequality and debt spending.  i am not convinced you properly refuted this point, could you provide a source/additional argument ? firstly, he is taken the position that the global communist revolution is a  necessary historical fact .  that is an almost impossible position to back down from, and he could not do so without throwing out a huge chunk of his theory.  secondly, i do not think marx would have seen the ussr or china as  failures , i think he might argue that their shortcomings were exaggerated by imperialist capitalist powers, but i do not see how he would recognise those societies as failures given their enormous success in raising the standard of living from his own time until the effective end of their socialist governments.  he would obviously see them as failures for abandoning socialism and failing to achieve or facilitate global communism, but that is a different kind of failure.  your reasoning does not address some ideas that i think are really central to marx and engel is thought, like alienation, which has actually become worse since the 0th cenutry.  it also does not address the idea that non human capital distorts wages, which i would say is the very cornerstone of their ideas.  one thing i  do  think he would change is his class model, because ownership of capital is fundamentally different in post industrial societies compared to his own plenty of workers indirectly control the means of production, but not in the way marx would have liked, the  willumpenproletariat  expanded an awful lot in the 0th century .  but i really doubt much else would change.   #  if you account the monetary value of all these benefits than wages and benefits are rising at almost the same levels as it was during the 0s 0s.   #  you have avoided the criticisms i pointed out and put in your own.  but i will argue against your points as well.  yes, the wages are stalling however they have been constant with inflation through out the years.  that is not the same as saying things are on the decline.  second, while wages have not increased, benefits have.  the modern day worker has better health benefits or any benefits at all for that matter of fact than few decades ago.  companies these day give other fringe benefits like company cars, employee discounts, 0k, etc.  if you account the monetary value of all these benefits than wages and benefits are rising at almost the same levels as it was during the 0s 0s.  moreover, the poor can own a lot more with less money than they could in the past because of technological improvements.  those below the poverty line can afford two tvs, washer, dryer, fridge, heating,cooling, more than one car.  this sounds preposterous for someone coming from a third world country.  not even middle income families in india own that kinda stuff.  besides you just agreed that all my claims about the improvement in the world did happen despite capitalism, decolonization obviously gave us freedom but that does not mean that countries that were not colonized fared better than those who did.
marx   engel are perhaps the most influential critics of capitalism to date.  maybe, the success of capitalism compared to communist countries has deterred critical thinkers from the far left to fill the void left by these two but if they were alive to this day, they would have to change their minds about some of their criticism.  first critic of capitalism that comes to mind is that capitalism inherently encourages monopoly.  this might be true to his times, however, in recent times the number of monopolies has shrunk and market power is being more evenly distributed than the past.  when i make this claim, i am aware that there are still many monopolies and oligopolies but i am speaking in relative terms here.  marx is mistake here was assuming that technology would not bring about the changes necessary for competition to flourish and challenge well established monopolies.  also,  theory of the firm  elaborates on how market power is not a function of how efficient one producer is than the others and his ability to crush competition but rather the market structure itself.  for instance, walmart has almost monopoly like market shares in us however, due to the nature of the retail market, walmart ca not charge any price it wants.  in other words, it has no power to affect prices.  the second refutation i have is against engel that inequality will cause the poor to consume more by taking on debt.  this is the current leading idea behind the economic crash of the housing market by communist think tanks.  the beauty of this assertion is that it does make perfect sense in theory.  we all do have a tendency to try to keep up with the joneses  but in practicality that is not how it played out.  marx and engels never had empirical research on their side.  latest research show that there is no co relation between increasing inequality and debt spending.  i think where engel was wrong is that he was very impractical about the whole thing.  yes, we do try to compete with the jones but that is because the joneses  are our close equals.  if i, the median income earner would compete with someone it would probably be my neighbor or brother, not some black rapper with gold bling or a silicon valley start up founder.  they are way beyond my league and this is something most people agree with.  third is a more general view on capitalism.  despite marx and engel is warning capitalism has brought us to a great era of success.  poverty is down by more than 0 % around the world and that too in less than two decades, life expectancy is going up in developing countries, infant mortality down and amazing technology has been invented in the time since marx was around.  given all these changes marx would have to re valuate his criticisms.  i do not say that he will become a capitalist but i am saying is that the reasons he down played capitalism would not be enough to justify his disdain for it.  not only that, his views have to be challenged extremely with the failure of ussr,china,north korea and cuba, failures in his ideology that he had not been alive to see.  he would have to come up with better arguments against capitalism and most importantly he must come up with better arguments for communism, one where the inherent problem of communists falling into authoritarian dictatorship regimes rather than anarchist communistic society has to be addressed.   #  poverty is down by more than 0 % around the world and that too in less than two decades, life expectancy is going up in developing countries, infant mortality down and amazing technology has been invented in the time since marx was around.   #  that is true, things have generally progressed since the decolonization.   # that is an obvious problem for market advocates, but that was not part of marx is core criticism.  it was not accumulation of capital of one group of bourgeois people to another, but from the workers to the bourgeoisie.  and that is definitely happening, americans are in general poorer than they were a few decades ago.  just look at the 0 mortgage crisis, student loans, etc.  there is been a wealth transfer from the so called  middle class  to the already wealthy.  you are replying to criticism to unrestrained capitalism made from a still capitalist perspective, and none of that has any bearing on marxist theory.  that is true, things have generally progressed since the decolonization.  at most he would say  so that is what happens when you start a revolution in an agrarian, feudal country .   #  would he back down from the central structure underpinning his ideas ?  #  i will quote lukacs who hits the nail on the head  orthodox marxism, therefore, does not imply the uncritical acceptance of the results of marx is investigations.  it is not the  belief  in this or that thesis, nor the exegesis of a  isacred  book.  on the contrary, orthodoxy refers exclusively to method.  it is the scientific conviction that dialectical materialism is the road to truth and that its methods can be developed, expanded and deepened only along the lines laid down by its founders.  it is the conviction, moreover, that all attempts to surpass or  improve  it have led and must lead to over simplification, triviality and eclecticism.  you have the frankfurt school of thinkers writing after the great depression.  they are both disillusioned by soviet style communism and astounded that capitalism survived the 0 is.  they wrote very critically about each system using the methods that marx engineered not his results.  think of marxism as a methodology, not a prophecy.  it is an active verb.  when we look at it that way, there is enormous value in the things that we discover.  it shines a light on invisible power structures, seeks to bring democracy to a highly totalitarian work space, gives us insight on imperialism and colonialism, etc.  etc.  would he change his prediction ? yea, some of them probably.  they are rooted in a certain historical contextualization.  would he back down from the central structure underpinning his ideas ? i am not so sure.   #  without the empirical evidence both schools of thought would just be pie in the sky ideas for bearded gentlemen to discuss over scotch in their studies.   #  well usually when the results are wrong, it can be assumed that either underlying theory or the methodology something was wrong.  marx is ideology is logical, i do not disagree but the field of economics has progressed way further than theory and gone into empirical methods to study the economy.  like i mentioned earlier, engels was not very wrong about the fact that people might feel the need to increase spending if others increase their spending just to be in par with them.  but, how much do they increase spending to keep up wth the joneses ? that is what economics these days tries to find out.  without the empirical evidence both schools of thought would just be pie in the sky ideas for bearded gentlemen to discuss over scotch in their studies.  communism stalled, capitalism did not and now we know why the critics of capitalism did not pan out the way communists hoped.  their understanding of the market was not accurate enough to predict how capitalism would turn out.   #  latest research show that there is no co relation between increasing inequality and debt spending.   # this is the current leading idea behind the economic crash of the housing market by communist think tanks.  the beauty of this assertion is that it does make perfect sense in theory.  we all do have a tendency to try to keep up with the joneses  but in practicality that is not how it played out.  marx and engels never had empirical research on their side.  latest research show that there is no co relation between increasing inequality and debt spending.  i am not convinced you properly refuted this point, could you provide a source/additional argument ? firstly, he is taken the position that the global communist revolution is a  necessary historical fact .  that is an almost impossible position to back down from, and he could not do so without throwing out a huge chunk of his theory.  secondly, i do not think marx would have seen the ussr or china as  failures , i think he might argue that their shortcomings were exaggerated by imperialist capitalist powers, but i do not see how he would recognise those societies as failures given their enormous success in raising the standard of living from his own time until the effective end of their socialist governments.  he would obviously see them as failures for abandoning socialism and failing to achieve or facilitate global communism, but that is a different kind of failure.  your reasoning does not address some ideas that i think are really central to marx and engel is thought, like alienation, which has actually become worse since the 0th cenutry.  it also does not address the idea that non human capital distorts wages, which i would say is the very cornerstone of their ideas.  one thing i  do  think he would change is his class model, because ownership of capital is fundamentally different in post industrial societies compared to his own plenty of workers indirectly control the means of production, but not in the way marx would have liked, the  willumpenproletariat  expanded an awful lot in the 0th century .  but i really doubt much else would change.   #  yes, the wages are stalling however they have been constant with inflation through out the years.   #  you have avoided the criticisms i pointed out and put in your own.  but i will argue against your points as well.  yes, the wages are stalling however they have been constant with inflation through out the years.  that is not the same as saying things are on the decline.  second, while wages have not increased, benefits have.  the modern day worker has better health benefits or any benefits at all for that matter of fact than few decades ago.  companies these day give other fringe benefits like company cars, employee discounts, 0k, etc.  if you account the monetary value of all these benefits than wages and benefits are rising at almost the same levels as it was during the 0s 0s.  moreover, the poor can own a lot more with less money than they could in the past because of technological improvements.  those below the poverty line can afford two tvs, washer, dryer, fridge, heating,cooling, more than one car.  this sounds preposterous for someone coming from a third world country.  not even middle income families in india own that kinda stuff.  besides you just agreed that all my claims about the improvement in the world did happen despite capitalism, decolonization obviously gave us freedom but that does not mean that countries that were not colonized fared better than those who did.
obviously the soviet union did horrible things and killed millions of people over the decades but so did america, countries in western europe, japan, germany and other capitalist countries and red china did and continues to do horrible things, but this was more as a result of being overly punitive and stubbornly autarkic than any fault of socialism itself.  while i do think the farms were collectivized way too fast, for the most part the crimes the communist states committed had more to do with their authoritarian and ideological rigidity than with people starving because they  ran out of other people is money  as conservatives like to quip.  there is nothing inherent about socialism that means you have to kill off your opponents or commit genocide, or censor the media and throw dissidents in prison.  this is a result of the largest communist states being one party ruled, and an overly vengeful culture and government.  capitalist dictatorships of the 0th century like pinochet is chile and suharto is indonesia were the exact same way in this regard.  one can have both communism and democracy mongolia, nepal and albania all democratically elected communist parties in the 0s.  i just do not see anything wrong with distributing the wealth, especially when you consider the positive track record of such attempts in mixed economics like the nordic countries, australia and canada.  i would even argue that for all of the bad things soviet russia and red china did, they were still much better than the monarchies that came beforehand.  they also did see a lot of economic growth and development.  before the communists russia and china were backwaters, practically medieval societies.  by the 0s they were very well developed and the majority of the population lived relatively modern lifestyles with radios, electricity, healthcare not necessarily the best, but given non discriminately and vastly better than what was available in the 0th century , television sets even if they were mostly b w , universal education and running water.  it is hard to deny that communism was a success in the sense of material prosperity growing.  so i fail to see why communism is inferior to capitalism, aside from the fact that nationalist movements ultimately destroyed the soviet union.  you could also argue that japan and america is unending economic stagnation represents a failure of capitalism, and it would make just as much sense.  i think the best system is one that mixes capitalism and communism together that allows innovation and makes it easy for people to start enterprises, but also has a strong publicly owned  backbone  and distributes wealth so that the poor do not starve or end up homeless, and the rich and middle class live in a more stable and safe society, which is the case when you have fewer people who are desperate and irrational due to poverty.   #  for the most part the crimes the communist states committed had more to do with their authoritarian and ideological rigidity than with people starving because they  ran out of other people is money  as conservatives like to quip.   #  well one, that is demonstrably false, given the millions of people communist states outright executed rather than starved.   # well one, that is demonstrably false, given the millions of people communist states outright executed rather than starved.  but it is funny how socialist states were totalitarian 0 of the time.  it is almost like revolutionary socialism leads inevitably to totalitarianism.   i just do not see anything wrong with distributing the wealth, especially when you consider the positive track record of such attempts in mixed economics like the nordic countries, australia and canada.  you just named 0 of the most economically free places in the world URL they are not poster children for socialism, but the opposite.  URL  #  i am not denying the ussr and red china did horrible things, just not saying that the capitalist countries  crimes were any more forgivable, benign or proportionately of a smaller scale.   # they added up to far fewer deaths than the communists racked up.  either way you are talking about tens of millions of people over the years on both sides.  i am not denying the ussr and red china did horrible things, just not saying that the capitalist countries  crimes were any more forgivable, benign or proportionately of a smaller scale.  it is also not really fair to compare say, mao is body count to hitler is, when china had several times the population of the area that the nazis conquered and carried out genocide in.  you have to judge it in terms of proportion.   #  but it is just impossible to implement successfully without committing atrocities and losing the key values of socialism in the first place.   # do you know what government in place caused the holocaust ? it seems extremely biased that you would call the 0rd reich capitalist.  america did kill millions of natives.  however, this is due to racism and disease, they were not killed in the name of capitalism.  the scramble of africa was done because of imperialism, which is definitely not mutually exclusive with capitalism.  i would argue that socialism requires imperialism.  the invasion and subsequent division of europe by russia and the third reich were primarily because the countries could not survive in the closed system.  the enslaving of latvians and other minorities were done to help sustain the soviets.  would socialism work in a closed system ? of course ! but it is just impossible to implement successfully without committing atrocities and losing the key values of socialism in the first place.   #  we did and do terrible shit, but when it comes to oppression, we will never do what the nazis and soviets do.   #  i would argue that mistreatment of poor people from 0 years ago has come farther in capitalism.  we do not put latvians and other minorities in slave camps.  we did and do terrible shit, but when it comes to oppression, we will never do what the nazis and soviets do.  socialism inherently relies on control.  capitalism inherently relies on some liberty.  the way i see it, if we lived in a perfect world, socialism and communism would be far superior.  but in reality, capitalism is the best system right now.  i know what you are thinking and feeling.  i used to be socialist too, but the truth that i had to come to terms with is that it simply does not work.   #  as for the nazis being capitalists, not in the neoliberal sense, but they really were not very interested in economic ideology in general.   # let is say the actual total was 0,0.  you know what ? let is bump it up to 0,0.  now, compare it to some other casualty counts: that is just the ones that were murdered directly.  usually they did it more indirectly by killing the bison, purposely spreading smallpox, rounding them up on reservations and starving them.  china had 0 million people in the 0s.  even if you take the highest estimate of 0 million imo, far too high an estimate , that would be the equivalent of the nazis killing 0 million germans.  more importantly, the great leap forward was not deliberate in the way the holocaust was also you have to consider the fact that mao is regime also prevented millions from dying because of advances in health and development.  as for the nazis being capitalists, not in the neoliberal sense, but they really were not very interested in economic ideology in general.  their concept of social darwinism and putting perceived merit above equality, however, puts them more in the camp of the capitalist right than the egalitarian left.
it seems that the only thing that ever is motivating any person at any point in time, is self interest.   selfless  actions can easily be explained through people likely expecting themselves to act in this fashion as it is their own moral code which they are fulfilling.  to them they would expect it of themselves and be disappointed if they did not carry out the selfless action.  behind all of this is self interest yes people might suggest that people are motivated for things such as want for sex or money, but behind all of this lies the sole motivation of self interest.  this is a pretty annoying view that i do not particularly like and so i would be happy if anyone could change it my philosophy teacher held that self interest was the sole motivation, and like a fool i decided that until i could refute it, i would accept it.  i did not realize how much this has been bothering me.  the reason why it bothers me, as some have asked, is due to its ruining of my more romantic notions of life and what people are all about.  personally being a christian guy, it also seemed to contrast to my beliefs, suggesting that the kind of life my faith wants people to live was an impossibility of sorts.  i now understand how sill this was.  there was no reason for me to accept the argument as valid and sound in the first.  it is based off an inductive generalization it normally seems to be true, therefore it is the case of small sample size that has no compelling truth behind it.  as /u/caw0 pointed out as most people have pointed out and the thing that i had been catching on the most, was the suggestion that sel sacrifical and selfless acts where somehow purely self interest in some fashion.  on a more soppy note, i would now contend that for want of a better word love is the main motivation behind things.  love of self motivates lots of things such as self interest, but there is something else which i would been discounting earlier.  this is of course love of others which is expressed through selfless actions thanks guys  #  yes people might suggest that people are motivated for things such as want for sex or money, but behind all of this lies the sole motivation of self interest.   #  what i do not like about this thought is that its justified by  just so  stories.   # what i do not like about this thought is that its justified by  just so  stories.  so lets say a person does an action and does not benefit from it but someone else does.  the person honestly says they acted for the benefit of others only with no self interest motivation.  you then say  no, behind it all you did acted solely in your own self interest because of  blah blah blah  .  now  blah blah blah  could be plausible and realistic but who should determine a person is motivation ? the person himself or a third party who can make up a creative story out of thin air ? what is criteria for a third party to say  that person did not act in his own self interest  ? if there is not criteria possible, then you will always get the same answer not because people always act in their own self interest but because you do not have a criteria.   #  i think that you where very close to changing my view, to accepting it only to be my self interest as my central motivation rather than extending it to everyone else  #  that is a really good point.  i would still think that with any action that i have ever taken, i could find self interest to be the backbone motivation.  i appears to be the same with others who have proposed a similar view.  whilst i am in no position to accurately make an perfect deduction of their motivation, it has never been proven not to be that case, as a result the view can still be held.  i hated suggesting that and using this argument, but if i ca not see others motivations to be either way self interested or not , i ca not make an accurate conclusion either way.  if i cannot accurately make a conclusion based off this i will examine the only case in which i can.  from this i examine my own motivations and find at their core to always be self interest.  this is not a judgement made off certainty, but neither is anything else.  i think that you where very close to changing my view, to accepting it only to be my self interest as my central motivation rather than extending it to everyone else  #  does it make sense to conclude that everyone in the world who ever existed loves chocolate too ?  # i would still think that with any action that i have ever taken, i could find self interest to be the backbone motivation.  but now you are extending this to every other person who ever existed.  you do not know the motivation for all of their actions.  you and people around you love chocolate.  does it make sense to conclude that everyone in the world who ever existed loves chocolate too ? but its never been proven either way.  you are just stating an opinion based on your own personal feelings and no proof.  why ? who is forcing you to do so ? why not just say  i do not know if other people are motivated by self interest  ?  #  there is no truly selfless act in the universe.   #  to play devil is advocate on this one, you ca not prove that another person is acting un selfishly either.  especially as most people would likely lie in regards to any motivations they had.  scientifically speaking, any action and i mean any action can be boiled down to a selfish motivation.  there is no truly selfless act in the universe.  helping an old lady across the street ? you feel good about yourself.  you feel happy she is happy and aided.  recycling ? gives you an ego boost, makes you feel like you are making a difference.  donating to charity ? you feel as though you have committed a good deed, and may even go so far as to not perform more at other opportunities because you have  done enough .  at some level, almost every action that does not have a physical gain has a mental/emotional one.  typical but not by any means all inclusive include: performing an action to avoid social stigma or a perception of lacked manners not parking in a handicapped spot, offering your seat to a soldier, holding the door for someone .  performing an action to gain respect/affection/admiration of another holding the door, pulling someone is chair out, offering to walk someone home at night .  performing an action to avoid guilt not taking credit for someone else is work, offering someone else more credit, turning down a promotion that someone else worked harder for .  performing an action to feel good about oneself most charitable acts, heroism, environmentalism performing an action to feel better than others recycling, vegetarianism, veganism, aiding in a civil rights movement performing an action out of an ingrained obligation that would cause undue stress.  somewhat intermingled with guilt.  self sacrifice of most varieties  #  i know that it is a bit of a leap, but the preservation of her line at that moment was more important to her than her own life in terms of self interest.   #  a mother jumps in front of a truck to save her child why ? self interest, her love for her child is hers remember.  her love for her child motivated her to save the child.  if she did not save her child, she would likely be distraught and never forgive herself.  i know that it is a bit of a leap, but the preservation of her line at that moment was more important to her than her own life in terms of self interest.  its complicated because the self interest of that person ceases to be, but they would likely have fulfilled her desire to preserve her lineage
i believe what seperates say christianity from norse or greek mythology is that its better at convincing people it is true due to its institution, conquest, and capitalizing on the luingistic ascpect such as the books spreading.  i think that in maybe 0 0 years we might call christianity christian mythology or islam islamic mythology.  it will go out of trend due to scientific discoveries and humanist/secular world views will replace it.  most religions are made and written for older standards and we are already having this kind of cognitive dissonance over what it trulsy is.  after a few generations people will stop forcing christianity as the norm and people will not be determined to persue it at all.  i already see it in my home country and we will probably see it more in the us in the next 0 years.  what i personally think has made christianity spread more then any other religion is that other religions while promising rewards or trying to justify one way of living has promised rewards such as life after death and also made it apply to everyone.  for example  you get into heaven as long as you do not do that thing we all hate anyways .  there you got a justice system, promise of heaven, an authority.  that is all you really need to make people follow you.  and now of course it has moved into this either bigoted denial of how the world is  homophobic, creationist etc.  or progressive one foot in one out  im christian but never go to church and do not do anything special but anwser that i believe in god when asked .   #  it will go out of trend due to scientific discoveries and humanist/secular world views will replace it.   #  this is a common view but i do not really think it holds water.   # we talk about these things already in the same way we talk about  american mythology  or something similar.  mythology is a component of religion and other things , it is not an alternative to it.  even if christianity and islam became less popular, it would not make sense to describe, say, latin mass, or aquinas, as a component of  catholic mythology .  this is a common view but i do not really think it holds water.  if we look at history, the rise of science and humanism do not seem at all tied to changes in attitudes towards religion.  the popularity of atheism and deism in europe, for example, seems to take a big hit at around the time of the enlightenment and stays that way all through the industrial revolution.  the beginnings of a  amodernity  come at a time when european authorities are worried that people might be becoming  too religious .  historically, we just have not observed the kind of relationship you are talking about.  two problems here: firstly, most people are religious, so on what standard are religious standards  old standards  ? i feel like you might have used circular reasoning there.  secondly, religious belief has changed immensely in the past, why are you assuming that religions are  written  and then somehow complete and unchanging ? religions like christianity, islam, judaism, buddhism and hinduism are  far, far  more intellectually rigorous than something like greek mythology.  greek mythology does not really stand up to scrutiny in the way that the beliefs of those major religions do, and that is why most of the intellectuals of ancient athens seemed to come into conflict with religion moreso than intellectuals in, say, europe and the middle east in the middle ages.  very few christian sects believe this.  the vast majority of christians return to earth, almost all christian groups believe that only a tiny minority of people actually get to go and stay in heaven.   #  if you die sleeping or from disease or poison etc.   #  not really.  vikings believed being a warrior was the best way to live and dying in combat was the only way to reach valhalla.  if you die sleeping or from disease or poison etc.  you reach  hel  not to be confused with hell its kind of a cold place really.  but still its a shitty place.  i see no terrorists trying to reach valhalla.  so no, people are not sincere about it.  they just feel like it is part of scandinavian culture and try to be edgy.  as for greek mythology i guess the closest you get it percy jackson fans who now think they are pegasus kin.  seriously good luck.   #  they were just an ordinary married couple with two or three kids, but happened also to be reading the eddas and worshiping the aesir and the vanir.   # they just feel like it is part of scandinavian culture and try to be edgy.  disagree.  there is an active asatro society in sweden that recreate the old norse religion and its ceremonies.  they hold blot several times a year at old uppsala.  i have met two members at a conference for different religiond and heard them speak about the society and their beliefs.  they were very sincere in what they believe and did not come off as showy and edgy.  they were just an ordinary married couple with two or three kids, but happened also to be reading the eddas and worshiping the aesir and the vanir.   #  its a cultural appeal and we got it in norway too.   #  i know.  but its very few people still.  and still its kind of like saying satanists genuinly believe in that shit.  its a cultural appeal and we got it in norway too.  unfortunatly by very racist people who have this norse pride and almost a  skyrim is for the nords  way of thinking.  so that is what i think of it.  norse mythology is wacko.  according to it the earth was made from body parts of a giant.  trust me its an extension of cultural pride.   #  just because some neo nazis and white supremacists tout asatro as being some superior aryan religion does not take away from the believers without an agenda.   #  there are plenty of sincere, practicing satanists.  unfortunately, the wacko, edgy kids tend to be the most vocal of them.  if they actually sincerely follow laveyan satanism, temple of set or any other organisation, who knows.  that is the same with neo paganism.  just because some neo nazis and white supremacists tout asatro as being some superior aryan religion does not take away from the believers without an agenda.  there is nothing wrong in embracing your cultural heritage and being proud of that, and many do it without racism.  asatro is just as  wacko  as any modern world religion.  ever read the bible or the qu ran ?
i believe what seperates say christianity from norse or greek mythology is that its better at convincing people it is true due to its institution, conquest, and capitalizing on the luingistic ascpect such as the books spreading.  i think that in maybe 0 0 years we might call christianity christian mythology or islam islamic mythology.  it will go out of trend due to scientific discoveries and humanist/secular world views will replace it.  most religions are made and written for older standards and we are already having this kind of cognitive dissonance over what it trulsy is.  after a few generations people will stop forcing christianity as the norm and people will not be determined to persue it at all.  i already see it in my home country and we will probably see it more in the us in the next 0 years.  what i personally think has made christianity spread more then any other religion is that other religions while promising rewards or trying to justify one way of living has promised rewards such as life after death and also made it apply to everyone.  for example  you get into heaven as long as you do not do that thing we all hate anyways .  there you got a justice system, promise of heaven, an authority.  that is all you really need to make people follow you.  and now of course it has moved into this either bigoted denial of how the world is  homophobic, creationist etc.  or progressive one foot in one out  im christian but never go to church and do not do anything special but anwser that i believe in god when asked .   #  most religions are made and written for older standards and we are already having this kind of cognitive dissonance over what it trulsy is.   #  two problems here: firstly, most people are religious, so on what standard are religious standards  old standards  ?  # we talk about these things already in the same way we talk about  american mythology  or something similar.  mythology is a component of religion and other things , it is not an alternative to it.  even if christianity and islam became less popular, it would not make sense to describe, say, latin mass, or aquinas, as a component of  catholic mythology .  this is a common view but i do not really think it holds water.  if we look at history, the rise of science and humanism do not seem at all tied to changes in attitudes towards religion.  the popularity of atheism and deism in europe, for example, seems to take a big hit at around the time of the enlightenment and stays that way all through the industrial revolution.  the beginnings of a  amodernity  come at a time when european authorities are worried that people might be becoming  too religious .  historically, we just have not observed the kind of relationship you are talking about.  two problems here: firstly, most people are religious, so on what standard are religious standards  old standards  ? i feel like you might have used circular reasoning there.  secondly, religious belief has changed immensely in the past, why are you assuming that religions are  written  and then somehow complete and unchanging ? religions like christianity, islam, judaism, buddhism and hinduism are  far, far  more intellectually rigorous than something like greek mythology.  greek mythology does not really stand up to scrutiny in the way that the beliefs of those major religions do, and that is why most of the intellectuals of ancient athens seemed to come into conflict with religion moreso than intellectuals in, say, europe and the middle east in the middle ages.  very few christian sects believe this.  the vast majority of christians return to earth, almost all christian groups believe that only a tiny minority of people actually get to go and stay in heaven.   #  they just feel like it is part of scandinavian culture and try to be edgy.   #  not really.  vikings believed being a warrior was the best way to live and dying in combat was the only way to reach valhalla.  if you die sleeping or from disease or poison etc.  you reach  hel  not to be confused with hell its kind of a cold place really.  but still its a shitty place.  i see no terrorists trying to reach valhalla.  so no, people are not sincere about it.  they just feel like it is part of scandinavian culture and try to be edgy.  as for greek mythology i guess the closest you get it percy jackson fans who now think they are pegasus kin.  seriously good luck.   #  they were just an ordinary married couple with two or three kids, but happened also to be reading the eddas and worshiping the aesir and the vanir.   # they just feel like it is part of scandinavian culture and try to be edgy.  disagree.  there is an active asatro society in sweden that recreate the old norse religion and its ceremonies.  they hold blot several times a year at old uppsala.  i have met two members at a conference for different religiond and heard them speak about the society and their beliefs.  they were very sincere in what they believe and did not come off as showy and edgy.  they were just an ordinary married couple with two or three kids, but happened also to be reading the eddas and worshiping the aesir and the vanir.   #  so that is what i think of it.   #  i know.  but its very few people still.  and still its kind of like saying satanists genuinly believe in that shit.  its a cultural appeal and we got it in norway too.  unfortunatly by very racist people who have this norse pride and almost a  skyrim is for the nords  way of thinking.  so that is what i think of it.  norse mythology is wacko.  according to it the earth was made from body parts of a giant.  trust me its an extension of cultural pride.   #  there is nothing wrong in embracing your cultural heritage and being proud of that, and many do it without racism.   #  there are plenty of sincere, practicing satanists.  unfortunately, the wacko, edgy kids tend to be the most vocal of them.  if they actually sincerely follow laveyan satanism, temple of set or any other organisation, who knows.  that is the same with neo paganism.  just because some neo nazis and white supremacists tout asatro as being some superior aryan religion does not take away from the believers without an agenda.  there is nothing wrong in embracing your cultural heritage and being proud of that, and many do it without racism.  asatro is just as  wacko  as any modern world religion.  ever read the bible or the qu ran ?
if population replacement rates are below the rate of no growth or at stagnation, things are going to be better in the future.  as automation continues to improve, less jobs will be available.  on a nationwide scale, decreasing population means available work.  natural resources of food, water, fuel, and other materials are becoming scarcer everyday.  on a global scale, less population means more available goods to all.  what result s of an increasing population size could surpass these benefits ? if we were hypothetically at the growth cap for the human population, would everybody still get frantic like when it is is brought up that the u. s.  born citizen population is reproducing below replacement ?  #  would everybody still get frantic like when it is is brought up that the u. s.   #  born citizen population is reproducing below replacement ?  #  your argument shifts from a global scale to a country scale.  but the reasons it is important are different.  on a global scale i mostly agree with you.  edit: i take that part back after reading /u/anecdotallyextant is post.  though you are assuming that the current western trend of wasting everything will remain constant.  we are not lacking food, water or space as much as we are lacking/overusing fuel.  born citizen population is reproducing below replacement ? by 0 whites will be a minority in the us URL largely as a result of the trend you are describing.  this is very scary for a group that it is currently largely in control and might lose some/all of it is grip.  this particular argument has more to do with  who  the country is comprised of than how many resources are available for the country.   #  i am not sure what to think of that.   #  the curious thing about the lump of labour fallacy is that it seems to also have a lump of unemployment too which feels like the converse.  no matter how much the economy grows there remains unemployment.  as i understand it economies work better with a reserve army of labour.  i am not sure what to think of that.  i guess there is also a question is whether job destruction has eclipsed job creation.  and i do wonder if a country can be over supplied with labour and undersupplied with skills.   #  this reason to change your view on this subject is terribly short sighted.   #  you must see how this is a very poor argument.  in answering a question earlier today about the holocene extinction in /r/askscience i included these sentences:  but forethought is not one of the human is powerhouse skill sets.  when we found an island full of stupid little chicken things that would practically walk up to the hungry human and jump on the spit no one ever thought  maybe we should not kill every single one of these things.   they only thought  i wonder if i can get four with one shot.   this reason to change your view on this subject is terribly short sighted.  it is almost like paying off a mastercard with your visa card.  the debt has gone nowhere, and the interest payments are just getting worse.  in case anyone is interested in the current mass extinction event, here is a link to that thread.  URL  #  somehow, there needs to be a way to encourage having less children without severely limiting personal freedom.   #  ultimately, i agree with you.  the population needs to decrease.  however i am hesitant to suggest anything to correct the issue.  child bearing laws like china is one child law and eugenics go to far.  somehow, there needs to be a way to encourage having less children without severely limiting personal freedom.  there must be a way too, since western trends show decreasing population.  perhaps more education and access to contraception in places where birth rate is over 0  #  it is still growing at an exponential rate, that rate is just a little lower than it was twenty years ago.   #  there is an important distinction here that is  very  often confused.  global population growth  rate  is falling.  that rate is still considerably non zero and non negative.  the growth is slowing and will continue to do so.  but the growth has not changed from anything but exponential.  it is still growing at an exponential rate, that rate is just a little lower than it was twenty years ago.
if population replacement rates are below the rate of no growth or at stagnation, things are going to be better in the future.  as automation continues to improve, less jobs will be available.  on a nationwide scale, decreasing population means available work.  natural resources of food, water, fuel, and other materials are becoming scarcer everyday.  on a global scale, less population means more available goods to all.  what result s of an increasing population size could surpass these benefits ? if we were hypothetically at the growth cap for the human population, would everybody still get frantic like when it is is brought up that the u. s.  born citizen population is reproducing below replacement ?  #  as automation continues to improve, less jobs will be available.   #  automation is not a new thing, and has been occurring since the beginning of time when the first hunter picked up a rock and was able to do the work of ten hunters , but has ramped up since the mid 0 is industrial revolution.   #  first of all the people who are worried about declining population are worried about it for different reasons.  0 declining national power.  they believe that in the world much of a nation is power is attributed to its absolute population/economic size.  0 many systems set up in a world of growing population will no longer be sustainable in a world of declining population.  in the u. s.  context social security retirement ssr becomes less sustainable as their are fewer a fewer working age people per ssr recipient.  second of all, all of your facts are in contention.  automation is not a new thing, and has been occurring since the beginning of time when the first hunter picked up a rock and was able to do the work of ten hunters , but has ramped up since the mid 0 is industrial revolution.  your belief is called the lump of labor fallacy in economics.  URL  natural resources of food, water, fuel, and other materials are becoming scarcer everyday.  actually they are not.  the continuous increase in automation also called increases in labor productivity has meant that we are able to produce more and more goods given the same inputs.  also, increases in technology or technological know how, also closely related to your increases in automation has meant that we can access more and more inputs.  peak oil predictors have been wrong for several decades.  actually larger population mean more and more final consumption goods available to consume and at a greater than linear rate.  this can be explained by a concept called comparative advantage which allows specialization and gains from trade.  URL URL but essentially as the size of the population in an economy grows people can specialize more and more into what they are best suited actually increasing total production faster than the population growth rate.  as a secondary effect with specialization individuals become better at doing their more narrowly definded production than they were at any given task when they used to have to do more of them.  this idea was first expounded by adam smith in his parable of the pin factory which also covers much else that has been previously discussed here .  URL  #  no matter how much the economy grows there remains unemployment.   #  the curious thing about the lump of labour fallacy is that it seems to also have a lump of unemployment too which feels like the converse.  no matter how much the economy grows there remains unemployment.  as i understand it economies work better with a reserve army of labour.  i am not sure what to think of that.  i guess there is also a question is whether job destruction has eclipsed job creation.  and i do wonder if a country can be over supplied with labour and undersupplied with skills.   #  when we found an island full of stupid little chicken things that would practically walk up to the hungry human and jump on the spit no one ever thought  maybe we should not kill every single one of these things.    #  you must see how this is a very poor argument.  in answering a question earlier today about the holocene extinction in /r/askscience i included these sentences:  but forethought is not one of the human is powerhouse skill sets.  when we found an island full of stupid little chicken things that would practically walk up to the hungry human and jump on the spit no one ever thought  maybe we should not kill every single one of these things.   they only thought  i wonder if i can get four with one shot.   this reason to change your view on this subject is terribly short sighted.  it is almost like paying off a mastercard with your visa card.  the debt has gone nowhere, and the interest payments are just getting worse.  in case anyone is interested in the current mass extinction event, here is a link to that thread.  URL  #  there must be a way too, since western trends show decreasing population.   #  ultimately, i agree with you.  the population needs to decrease.  however i am hesitant to suggest anything to correct the issue.  child bearing laws like china is one child law and eugenics go to far.  somehow, there needs to be a way to encourage having less children without severely limiting personal freedom.  there must be a way too, since western trends show decreasing population.  perhaps more education and access to contraception in places where birth rate is over 0  #  it is still growing at an exponential rate, that rate is just a little lower than it was twenty years ago.   #  there is an important distinction here that is  very  often confused.  global population growth  rate  is falling.  that rate is still considerably non zero and non negative.  the growth is slowing and will continue to do so.  but the growth has not changed from anything but exponential.  it is still growing at an exponential rate, that rate is just a little lower than it was twenty years ago.
if population replacement rates are below the rate of no growth or at stagnation, things are going to be better in the future.  as automation continues to improve, less jobs will be available.  on a nationwide scale, decreasing population means available work.  natural resources of food, water, fuel, and other materials are becoming scarcer everyday.  on a global scale, less population means more available goods to all.  what result s of an increasing population size could surpass these benefits ? if we were hypothetically at the growth cap for the human population, would everybody still get frantic like when it is is brought up that the u. s.  born citizen population is reproducing below replacement ?  #  less population means more available goods to all.   #  actually larger population mean more and more final consumption goods available to consume and at a greater than linear rate.   #  first of all the people who are worried about declining population are worried about it for different reasons.  0 declining national power.  they believe that in the world much of a nation is power is attributed to its absolute population/economic size.  0 many systems set up in a world of growing population will no longer be sustainable in a world of declining population.  in the u. s.  context social security retirement ssr becomes less sustainable as their are fewer a fewer working age people per ssr recipient.  second of all, all of your facts are in contention.  automation is not a new thing, and has been occurring since the beginning of time when the first hunter picked up a rock and was able to do the work of ten hunters , but has ramped up since the mid 0 is industrial revolution.  your belief is called the lump of labor fallacy in economics.  URL  natural resources of food, water, fuel, and other materials are becoming scarcer everyday.  actually they are not.  the continuous increase in automation also called increases in labor productivity has meant that we are able to produce more and more goods given the same inputs.  also, increases in technology or technological know how, also closely related to your increases in automation has meant that we can access more and more inputs.  peak oil predictors have been wrong for several decades.  actually larger population mean more and more final consumption goods available to consume and at a greater than linear rate.  this can be explained by a concept called comparative advantage which allows specialization and gains from trade.  URL URL but essentially as the size of the population in an economy grows people can specialize more and more into what they are best suited actually increasing total production faster than the population growth rate.  as a secondary effect with specialization individuals become better at doing their more narrowly definded production than they were at any given task when they used to have to do more of them.  this idea was first expounded by adam smith in his parable of the pin factory which also covers much else that has been previously discussed here .  URL  #  as i understand it economies work better with a reserve army of labour.   #  the curious thing about the lump of labour fallacy is that it seems to also have a lump of unemployment too which feels like the converse.  no matter how much the economy grows there remains unemployment.  as i understand it economies work better with a reserve army of labour.  i am not sure what to think of that.  i guess there is also a question is whether job destruction has eclipsed job creation.  and i do wonder if a country can be over supplied with labour and undersupplied with skills.   #  you must see how this is a very poor argument.   #  you must see how this is a very poor argument.  in answering a question earlier today about the holocene extinction in /r/askscience i included these sentences:  but forethought is not one of the human is powerhouse skill sets.  when we found an island full of stupid little chicken things that would practically walk up to the hungry human and jump on the spit no one ever thought  maybe we should not kill every single one of these things.   they only thought  i wonder if i can get four with one shot.   this reason to change your view on this subject is terribly short sighted.  it is almost like paying off a mastercard with your visa card.  the debt has gone nowhere, and the interest payments are just getting worse.  in case anyone is interested in the current mass extinction event, here is a link to that thread.  URL  #  however i am hesitant to suggest anything to correct the issue.   #  ultimately, i agree with you.  the population needs to decrease.  however i am hesitant to suggest anything to correct the issue.  child bearing laws like china is one child law and eugenics go to far.  somehow, there needs to be a way to encourage having less children without severely limiting personal freedom.  there must be a way too, since western trends show decreasing population.  perhaps more education and access to contraception in places where birth rate is over 0  #  that rate is still considerably non zero and non negative.   #  there is an important distinction here that is  very  often confused.  global population growth  rate  is falling.  that rate is still considerably non zero and non negative.  the growth is slowing and will continue to do so.  but the growth has not changed from anything but exponential.  it is still growing at an exponential rate, that rate is just a little lower than it was twenty years ago.
i am limiting this to the us just because i do not know a thing about what other countries require, nor what their constitutions have to say about things like privacy.  society confers certain benefits on companies and non profits i am going to use  companies  from here on out to refer to both , including reduced liability, different tax structures, and the like.  of course, these vary by state and corporation type.  in exchange for these benefits, society should be able to access certain information about those companies.  publicly traded companies are obviously compelled to make certain types of detailed disclosures.  however, we know that companies use shell companies and holding companies at times to hide their true ownership or subsidiaries.  this comes into play in politics and public policy as well, where associations with innocuous sounding names are controlled by companies using them to further their agendas.   ownership  i believe that it should be very clear who owns any company doing business in the us.  of course, individual shareholders need not be named, but those with interests above 0 should be named.  this allows citizens to understand who they are doing business with.  for example, disney used various companies to buy land so they could keep the price low, as it would have gone up if people had know who they were dealing with.  the interests of transparency and society seem to outweigh the costs to a company who can no longer conceal its ownership.   financials  given that society confers benefits on companies, some basic financial data should be available, including revenue and profit figures for the year.  nothing that would create additional bookkeeping requirements for small businesses, but the type of stuff they have to do anyway for tax purposes.  having this data available would be helpful for independent analysis of broader economic trends, as well as allow individuals and other companies to evaluate organizations they want to do business with.  note that i do not think that such a policy should apply to any given person who just runs a business out of his/her home and files self employment tax/schedule c.  if the law does not recognize it as a corporate/organizational entity distinct from the individual, this policy should not apply.  what will not change my view: 0.  simple concerns about feasibility.  it would be simple to require each company to pay a small fee $0 $0 annually to pay for the development of a public website to make this data available.  now, if you can show that the burden is actually much larger than i am making it out to be, that would qualify as a view changer.  similarly, there can be healthy discussion on how to phase it in to minimize shock, but that does not change the basic view.  0.  minor differences about the exact parameters.  for example, i said 0  ownership should be disclosed.  if you feel that number should be 0 or 0, that is immaterial.  i am very open to hearing thoughts on what those parameters should be, exactly what financials should and should not be disclosed, etc. , but those do not change the basic view that some similar policy should be in place.  what will change my view: 0.  personally, i think the financial aspect is a more low hanging fruit, a view that i do not hold as strongly as ownership disclosure.  0.  arguments that demonstrate that the negative impact on companies or the broader economy would be greater than the benefits of this transparency.  i am aware that any policy would wind up hurting some companies and helping others; that is just the nature of literally any law or policy, so you would have to show that the result is net negative, not just negative in a few instances.  0.  compelling arguments from privacy/constitutional/legal concerns.  0.  any other argument that i have not thought of that would make me change my view.   #  some basic financial data should be available, including revenue and profit figures for the year.   #  nothing that would create additional bookkeeping requirements do you understand why what you have just written is inherently contradictory ?  # nothing that would create additional bookkeeping requirements do you understand why what you have just written is inherently contradictory ? financials that are disclosed need to be truthful, right ? because presumably the penalty for inaccurate disclosure is that somebody can sue you ? so, best get an accounting firm and a law firm to sign off on everything.  that is innately expensive.  take a look at a public company vs.  a private company is bookkeeping infrastucture and professional fees and you will see what i mean.  the benefits society grants to privately held corps, such as limited liability, matter for i creditors and others who transact with the corporation; and ii anyone harmed by the corporation.  both groups are already able to obtain the information you are talking about: creditors and business partners obtain it through due diligence as part of their business relationship, and people who are harmed obtain it through discovery when they sue.  if you are going to impose substantial burdens and expenses on businesses, you should at least pretend there is some public benefit being gleaned.  what is the public benefit here, beyond satisfying some idle curiosity ?  #  there are lots of websites and databases containing this information.   #  re: ownership  this is already the law.  it is how you know that disney did that scheme.  public records are a pain in the ass to search though, and you can obfuscate it by having multiple layers of shell companies.  e. g.  project 0 inc, is wholly owned by 0rd st partnership inc, which is wholly owned by florida development trust inc, which is owned by disney inc.  the three non disney companies are fictional but you get the gist .  for publicly traded companies i. e.  ones where you can buy shares of stock , the company lists major shareholders.  there are lots of websites and databases containing this information.  for instance, this is a guy who maintains a website devoted to tracking the holdings of warren buffet URL i do not think your proposal is any change from current us law.  you might want the public records to be easier to search, but that is a complaint about government bureaucracy, not regulation.  re financials:  first, irs data is available to researchers in anonymized form, so your point about analyzing economic trends is wrong we can do that now.  second, publicly traded companies have to make extensive disclosures already.  any company with over 0 million in assets and 0 shareholders has to file a form 0 k URL every year, which gives far more detail than you are talking about.  0 ks are public.  similarly, nonprofits have to file form 0 URL which gives detailed financials, and is also public.  so all you are really talking about are small, closely held companies.  and the only benefit you have stated not already covered in law is a desire to  allow individuals and other companies to evaluate organizations they want to do business with.   i do not see that as very compelling frankly.  all of the above is premised on us law, which it sounds like you are talking about.   #  if so, that would basically invalidate my point.   # if so, that would basically invalidate my point.  nonprofits do not have owners, but the board composition is public.  as to other companies, it generally must be disclosed, though the manner varies by state.  my of my view here is based on experience with companies that portray themselves as larger than they are to inflate the perception of their ability to deliver.  if you are bidding for major work, would not you require this sort of disclosure in your bidding process ? lying in that context would be fraud you could sue for.   #  there would not be any particularly clear way to trace ownership back to disney inc.   #  i am not entirely sure that even adding reporting requirements to private corporations would do what you are thinking, it might just require a couple extra steps of accounting to work it through contract law rather than directly through company ownership.  to take your example, disney wants to buy land from farmer john in a less transparent way.  as it is now, they could create  orlando environmental preservation fund llc , and have a lawyer representing the llc be the middleman.  there would not be any particularly clear way to trace ownership back to disney inc.  because the ownership is obscured.  in your proposed plan, disney could still have an outside partner create  orlando environmental preservation fund llc  and have 0 of the shares.  then the llc is given a loan from disney with the collateral being all of the assets of the llc and a contractual agreement to exchange the loan for the land title.  llc buys the land, gives the title to disney, disney forgives the loan, done.  no actual ownership ever changed hands, yet the exchange was done entirely through loans and contract law.   #  i could have declared but unpaid dividends, trusts, stock options, shareholders agreements, shareholder loans, and all manner of other instrument to conceal the true ownership.   #  you ca not really know who owns a company.  period.  ownership of a company is not just who is name is written on the shares.  i could have declared but unpaid dividends, trusts, stock options, shareholders agreements, shareholder loans, and all manner of other instrument to conceal the true ownership.  unless you are a lawyer working for the fbi, you are never going to be able to discover the true ownership of a company that does not want its ownership to be known.  even if you made the law such that all these documents had to be public a smart lawyer could conceal ownership in hundreds of ways.  for example lets say all stock option agreements had to be public.  i say corporation x is the technical holder of the stock but bill gates has a stock option to buy 0 of the shares.  you figure that bill gates owns the shares, and do not bother looking into corporation x.  only problem is that i inserted a poison pill provision into the stock option agreement making it legally unenforcable.  so in fact corporation x is the true owner and you have been duped because you ar not a lawyer and do not know that a key provision in the stock option agreement is unenforceable.
i think that the $0 trillion URL could be put to much better use than tax dodging, white collar crime, money laundering, terrorism, and drug cartels that characterize it now.  the plan could be simple.  let marines keep 0 of whatever they confiscate $0 billion , let the dod keep 0 $0 trillion and tell them to use it to stop all future tax haven schemes, let 0 go to foreign aid to pay off the complaining countries and let others in on the deal to make sure it is popular internationally $0 trillion .  then you have 0 left.  let 0 go to zeroing out the total us government debt $0 trillion .  now you have 0 left.  let 0 of it $0 trillion go to rebuilding infrastructure.  you still have 0 left.  let 0 of it $0 trillion go to sure up medicare and social security.  you still have 0 left.  use that for discretionary funds.  the us would be in fantastic shape.  well enough to move into the next century stronger than any other nation by far.  i ca not imagine a good reason to leave this kind of crooked cash on the table.  it is estimated that $0 billion of it is owed in taxes to the us anyways.  there is no reason to be utilizing these havens if you are obeying the letter and spirit of the law.  even if we just went after taxes due and issued sanctions, we would get a cool trillion out of it, which could be used to great effect.  why are we just leaving all this money in crooked little unarmed taxhavens without putting up a fight ? iran never robbed us for hundreds of billions of dollars.  grand cayman did.   #  iran never robbed us for hundreds of billions of dollars.   #  grand cayman did.  would it changeyourview if i told you that the $0 trillion is not just sitting dormant and useless in a bank but is being invested  onshore  into developed and developing economies including the us all the time ?  # grand cayman did.  would it changeyourview if i told you that the $0 trillion is not just sitting dormant and useless in a bank but is being invested  onshore  into developed and developing economies including the us all the time ? so when you try to go and grab all the cash, you find that much of it is actively invested in your own domestic economy providing employment and growth etc.  so your proposal to have the marines confiscate it and/or tax it and then have the government invest it into the domestic economy is not going to achieve what you think it will.  secondly, you say there is $0 trillion  hidden from uncle sam  in tax havens.  but much of the money is nothing to do with the us.  the article which you are referring to refers to $0 0 trillion, and notes that $0 0 trillion was added to the pot by wealthy people from developing nations.  by the time you also take out the trillions owned by all those in developed europe and asia, there is clearly not $0 trillion that uncle sam ought to feel entitled to  tax .  of course if the us goes and grabs all the money and assets which belongs to all the world is citizens and happens to have been invested cross border, and uses it to pay off its own debts, then it will improve its financial situation and be financially stronger.  it would also be completely unethical.   #  also, how would us citizens be assured that they wo not come after us next ?  #  essentially, we have to obey the rule of law.  if we just arbitrarily decide to confiscate money especially from sovereign nations then how can any business or government have confidence in the us doing things such as: paying off debts fulfilling promises adhering to deals fact of the matter is, a lot of foreign affairs is based off trust and consistency.  the iran deal would not have happened if the us had a history if randomly disobeying international and domestic laws.  also, how would us citizens be assured that they wo not come after us next ? will the irs start combing through all our previous affairs, and if something is amiss they just  take  the money without due process ? not a good fear to have floating around.  simply taking their money could undermine the trust we all implicitly have in our governments.  and yes, we all do have confidence in our government.  every time you turn on the tap to get water, put money in a bank that is not doing so well, buy a treasury bond, ect. you are showing that you trust the us government, and so far that has been a safe bet to make.  go forward with this and you have undermined that entirely.  you have shown that the government can just do and take whatever it wants with no recourse.  this does not mean i am in favor of tax havens.  but we should find a way to solve the problem legally and ethically, not by just taking the money.   #  people that can afford lawyers and pay off politicians.   #  you are still going into a sovereign country and taking money from their banks.  but let is be honest here.  civil forfeiture is used mainly on people without much power.  what you are suggesting would mean stepping on the toes of  very  powerful people.  people that can afford lawyers and pay off politicians.  you are not going to get your hands on their money as easily as you could a guy selling weed on the corner.   #  i am not a fan of civil forfeiture necessarily, but let is be realistic about what it actually is.   #  yup, and there are judges involved in civil forfeiture.  the government has to prove their case before a court.  the only difference between a civil forfeiture case, and a criminal case is the burden of proof.  civil forfeiture requires proof to the preponderance of the evidence, and criminal forfeiture requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  otherwise the process is identical.  both fit the requirements of due process.  i am not a fan of civil forfeiture necessarily, but let is be realistic about what it actually is.   #  administrative forfeiture is used mostly by customs officials, and does not need any involvement from a court at all.   # sourced from wikipedia, but here is the actual source: URL if you read that source, then the differences between different types of forfeiture are clear.  criminal forfeiture is part of a criminal proceeding, and requires the state to demonstrate that the property was involved in criminal activity beyond a reasonable doubt, usually by proving the owner guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.  civil forfeiture is where the state takes action in court against the property, not the owner.  they must still prove to a judge beyond a preponderance of the evidence that the property was used in a crime.  the owner does not have to step forward to defend his property, but because the burden of proof is so low, it is unlikely the government will lose without some sort of defense being mounted by the owner.  administrative forfeiture is used mostly by customs officials, and does not need any involvement from a court at all.  it is pretty limited in scope, and you do not hear about it much.  i just do not get this insistence that there is no due process during civil forfeiture.  it is silly.  you do not have to make stuff up about civil forfeiture in order to dislike it.  john oliver made up a lot of stuff in his segment on it, and i think it is doing more harm than good at addressing the real issues when people muddy the waters like that.  the burden of proof can be argued to be too low, and you can argue that police are abusing it.  but let is not pretend that civil forfeiture is something it is not.
i think that the $0 trillion URL could be put to much better use than tax dodging, white collar crime, money laundering, terrorism, and drug cartels that characterize it now.  the plan could be simple.  let marines keep 0 of whatever they confiscate $0 billion , let the dod keep 0 $0 trillion and tell them to use it to stop all future tax haven schemes, let 0 go to foreign aid to pay off the complaining countries and let others in on the deal to make sure it is popular internationally $0 trillion .  then you have 0 left.  let 0 go to zeroing out the total us government debt $0 trillion .  now you have 0 left.  let 0 of it $0 trillion go to rebuilding infrastructure.  you still have 0 left.  let 0 of it $0 trillion go to sure up medicare and social security.  you still have 0 left.  use that for discretionary funds.  the us would be in fantastic shape.  well enough to move into the next century stronger than any other nation by far.  i ca not imagine a good reason to leave this kind of crooked cash on the table.  it is estimated that $0 billion of it is owed in taxes to the us anyways.  there is no reason to be utilizing these havens if you are obeying the letter and spirit of the law.  even if we just went after taxes due and issued sanctions, we would get a cool trillion out of it, which could be used to great effect.  why are we just leaving all this money in crooked little unarmed taxhavens without putting up a fight ? iran never robbed us for hundreds of billions of dollars.  grand cayman did.   #  i ca not imagine a good reason to leave this kind of crooked cash on the table.   #  maybe that the us government has no right to it ?  # maybe that the us government has no right to it ? your use of the word crooked suggests that the us government the legitimate owner of this wealth, and therefore the legitimate owner of the labor that was expended to produce this wealth.  you could not be more wrong.  if the government was good at using money responsibly, we would not have 0 trillion in debt.  giving them more money is just enabling them.   #  essentially, we have to obey the rule of law.   #  essentially, we have to obey the rule of law.  if we just arbitrarily decide to confiscate money especially from sovereign nations then how can any business or government have confidence in the us doing things such as: paying off debts fulfilling promises adhering to deals fact of the matter is, a lot of foreign affairs is based off trust and consistency.  the iran deal would not have happened if the us had a history if randomly disobeying international and domestic laws.  also, how would us citizens be assured that they wo not come after us next ? will the irs start combing through all our previous affairs, and if something is amiss they just  take  the money without due process ? not a good fear to have floating around.  simply taking their money could undermine the trust we all implicitly have in our governments.  and yes, we all do have confidence in our government.  every time you turn on the tap to get water, put money in a bank that is not doing so well, buy a treasury bond, ect. you are showing that you trust the us government, and so far that has been a safe bet to make.  go forward with this and you have undermined that entirely.  you have shown that the government can just do and take whatever it wants with no recourse.  this does not mean i am in favor of tax havens.  but we should find a way to solve the problem legally and ethically, not by just taking the money.   #  people that can afford lawyers and pay off politicians.   #  you are still going into a sovereign country and taking money from their banks.  but let is be honest here.  civil forfeiture is used mainly on people without much power.  what you are suggesting would mean stepping on the toes of  very  powerful people.  people that can afford lawyers and pay off politicians.  you are not going to get your hands on their money as easily as you could a guy selling weed on the corner.   #  the only difference between a civil forfeiture case, and a criminal case is the burden of proof.   #  yup, and there are judges involved in civil forfeiture.  the government has to prove their case before a court.  the only difference between a civil forfeiture case, and a criminal case is the burden of proof.  civil forfeiture requires proof to the preponderance of the evidence, and criminal forfeiture requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  otherwise the process is identical.  both fit the requirements of due process.  i am not a fan of civil forfeiture necessarily, but let is be realistic about what it actually is.   #  you do not have to make stuff up about civil forfeiture in order to dislike it.   # sourced from wikipedia, but here is the actual source: URL if you read that source, then the differences between different types of forfeiture are clear.  criminal forfeiture is part of a criminal proceeding, and requires the state to demonstrate that the property was involved in criminal activity beyond a reasonable doubt, usually by proving the owner guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.  civil forfeiture is where the state takes action in court against the property, not the owner.  they must still prove to a judge beyond a preponderance of the evidence that the property was used in a crime.  the owner does not have to step forward to defend his property, but because the burden of proof is so low, it is unlikely the government will lose without some sort of defense being mounted by the owner.  administrative forfeiture is used mostly by customs officials, and does not need any involvement from a court at all.  it is pretty limited in scope, and you do not hear about it much.  i just do not get this insistence that there is no due process during civil forfeiture.  it is silly.  you do not have to make stuff up about civil forfeiture in order to dislike it.  john oliver made up a lot of stuff in his segment on it, and i think it is doing more harm than good at addressing the real issues when people muddy the waters like that.  the burden of proof can be argued to be too low, and you can argue that police are abusing it.  but let is not pretend that civil forfeiture is something it is not.
i think that the $0 trillion URL could be put to much better use than tax dodging, white collar crime, money laundering, terrorism, and drug cartels that characterize it now.  the plan could be simple.  let marines keep 0 of whatever they confiscate $0 billion , let the dod keep 0 $0 trillion and tell them to use it to stop all future tax haven schemes, let 0 go to foreign aid to pay off the complaining countries and let others in on the deal to make sure it is popular internationally $0 trillion .  then you have 0 left.  let 0 go to zeroing out the total us government debt $0 trillion .  now you have 0 left.  let 0 of it $0 trillion go to rebuilding infrastructure.  you still have 0 left.  let 0 of it $0 trillion go to sure up medicare and social security.  you still have 0 left.  use that for discretionary funds.  the us would be in fantastic shape.  well enough to move into the next century stronger than any other nation by far.  i ca not imagine a good reason to leave this kind of crooked cash on the table.  it is estimated that $0 billion of it is owed in taxes to the us anyways.  there is no reason to be utilizing these havens if you are obeying the letter and spirit of the law.  even if we just went after taxes due and issued sanctions, we would get a cool trillion out of it, which could be used to great effect.  why are we just leaving all this money in crooked little unarmed taxhavens without putting up a fight ? iran never robbed us for hundreds of billions of dollars.  grand cayman did.   #  which could be used to great effect.   #  if the government was good at using money responsibly, we would not have 0 trillion in debt.   # maybe that the us government has no right to it ? your use of the word crooked suggests that the us government the legitimate owner of this wealth, and therefore the legitimate owner of the labor that was expended to produce this wealth.  you could not be more wrong.  if the government was good at using money responsibly, we would not have 0 trillion in debt.  giving them more money is just enabling them.   #  go forward with this and you have undermined that entirely.   #  essentially, we have to obey the rule of law.  if we just arbitrarily decide to confiscate money especially from sovereign nations then how can any business or government have confidence in the us doing things such as: paying off debts fulfilling promises adhering to deals fact of the matter is, a lot of foreign affairs is based off trust and consistency.  the iran deal would not have happened if the us had a history if randomly disobeying international and domestic laws.  also, how would us citizens be assured that they wo not come after us next ? will the irs start combing through all our previous affairs, and if something is amiss they just  take  the money without due process ? not a good fear to have floating around.  simply taking their money could undermine the trust we all implicitly have in our governments.  and yes, we all do have confidence in our government.  every time you turn on the tap to get water, put money in a bank that is not doing so well, buy a treasury bond, ect. you are showing that you trust the us government, and so far that has been a safe bet to make.  go forward with this and you have undermined that entirely.  you have shown that the government can just do and take whatever it wants with no recourse.  this does not mean i am in favor of tax havens.  but we should find a way to solve the problem legally and ethically, not by just taking the money.   #  what you are suggesting would mean stepping on the toes of  very  powerful people.   #  you are still going into a sovereign country and taking money from their banks.  but let is be honest here.  civil forfeiture is used mainly on people without much power.  what you are suggesting would mean stepping on the toes of  very  powerful people.  people that can afford lawyers and pay off politicians.  you are not going to get your hands on their money as easily as you could a guy selling weed on the corner.   #  civil forfeiture requires proof to the preponderance of the evidence, and criminal forfeiture requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.   #  yup, and there are judges involved in civil forfeiture.  the government has to prove their case before a court.  the only difference between a civil forfeiture case, and a criminal case is the burden of proof.  civil forfeiture requires proof to the preponderance of the evidence, and criminal forfeiture requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  otherwise the process is identical.  both fit the requirements of due process.  i am not a fan of civil forfeiture necessarily, but let is be realistic about what it actually is.   #  john oliver made up a lot of stuff in his segment on it, and i think it is doing more harm than good at addressing the real issues when people muddy the waters like that.   # sourced from wikipedia, but here is the actual source: URL if you read that source, then the differences between different types of forfeiture are clear.  criminal forfeiture is part of a criminal proceeding, and requires the state to demonstrate that the property was involved in criminal activity beyond a reasonable doubt, usually by proving the owner guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.  civil forfeiture is where the state takes action in court against the property, not the owner.  they must still prove to a judge beyond a preponderance of the evidence that the property was used in a crime.  the owner does not have to step forward to defend his property, but because the burden of proof is so low, it is unlikely the government will lose without some sort of defense being mounted by the owner.  administrative forfeiture is used mostly by customs officials, and does not need any involvement from a court at all.  it is pretty limited in scope, and you do not hear about it much.  i just do not get this insistence that there is no due process during civil forfeiture.  it is silly.  you do not have to make stuff up about civil forfeiture in order to dislike it.  john oliver made up a lot of stuff in his segment on it, and i think it is doing more harm than good at addressing the real issues when people muddy the waters like that.  the burden of proof can be argued to be too low, and you can argue that police are abusing it.  but let is not pretend that civil forfeiture is something it is not.
almost everyone i speak to in person reacts negatively when i mention i do this.  i have never understood why.  people even admit that loud music from your cars speakers effectively the same thing is ok.  maybe this is not a popular view and i am just surrounded by negative nancys, however i figured i would bring this up for discussion.  0.  in a car, your driving experience is almost  complete visual and tactile.  any audible  warning  is rendered ineffective by safe driving anyways.  horn blowing, screeching tires, yelling, etc are all used in situations that could have been prevented by staying aware visually cutting someone off, sudden braking, unyielding drivers, near collisions, etc .   note: i say almost because i do not deny that while you can get early warnings about your cars own status from audible cues grinding, screeching, etc i will point out anything capable of making your car unsafe can be felt.  0.  as mentioned above, it is no different than listening to music very loudly from your cars speakers, which i suppose the safety of could be grouped into this view.  i only bring this up because no one seems to have a problem with loud music playing, only the ear buds being the delivery method.  0.  hearing impaired people are allowed to drive with little to no problem.  if my almost deaf dad is legally allowed to drive, then i can do the same just as well.  only i am being entertained.  in my opinion, if you argue that hearing impaired people are able to drive safely, then you have no argument against my ear buds.  0.  it is not distracting.  i am not speaking of interacting with your phone/music player, but simply loading music and listening.  at most, i will concede basic interaction with the player, akin to change a song on a cd player, but that has little to do with your hearing being contained and, again, mow to do with being visually distracted.  i am open to my mind being changed, but simply have not heard a convincing enough argument to change it.   #  in a car, your driving experience is almost  complete visual and tactile.   #  any audible  warning  is rendered ineffective by safe driving anyways.   # any audible  warning  is rendered ineffective by safe driving anyways.  horn blowing, screeching tires, yelling, etc are all used in situations that could have been prevented by staying aware visually cutting someone off, sudden braking, unyielding drivers, near collisions, etc .  note: i say almost because i do not deny that while you can get early warnings about your cars own status from audible cues grinding, screeching, etc i will point out anything capable of making your car unsafe can be felt.  not fire truck or police car sirens.  those you often ca not see because they are coming up a perpendicular block or from behind you, and the siren is a warning for you to look up and look around and find the fire truck/police car to avoid them.  if my almost deaf dad is legally allowed to drive, then i can do the same just as well.  only i am being entertained.  in my opinion, if you argue that hearing impaired people are able to drive safely, then you have no argument against my ear buds.  hearing impaired people are a small subset of society, and accepting a higher risk to allow them to drive is okay.  being hearing impaired or wearing earbuds is not  extremely  dangerous; it is just slightly more dangerous.  so accepting a slightly more dangerous risk for a small portion of society is okay.  but we should not allow all members of society to become slightly more dangerous when we can prevent that.   #  but we should not allow all members of society to become slightly more dangerous when we can prevent that.   # those you often ca not see because they are coming up a perpendicular block or from behind you, and the siren is a warning for you to look up and look around and find the fire truck/police car to avoid them.  i will agree to the sirens purpose, but simply being aware of your fellow drivers and their actions is sufficient.  again, any realistic risk can be averted by being visually alert anyways.  being hearing impaired or wearing earbuds is not extremely dangerous; it is just slightly more dangerous.  so accepting a slightly more dangerous risk for a small portion of society is okay.  but we should not allow all members of society to become slightly more dangerous when we can prevent that.  with the risk of sounding stubborn, i feel you are ignoring my view of  it is not more dangerous .  i do not view a risk with hearing impairment to begin with.  i understand your point, it makes sense, but only if there is a small begin to begin with.   #  here is what your cmv really should be:  driving with earbuds would not be any more dangerous as long as people drive safely.    # they are called accidents for a reason.  in a perfect world, yes, we would all be driving exactly the way we should be, and we could all be perfectly alert and ensure we are obeying the rules of the road.  but  accidents  occur when one or more people are not driving exactly the way they should be.  all it takes is one person maybe you, maybe someone else to make one mistake, and you have a split second to react.  if you manage to hear a car is honking for instance before you see anything, you may be able to react faster.  i know this has been the case with me on more than one occasion.  here is what your cmv really should be:  driving with earbuds would not be any more dangerous as long as people drive safely.   but when that last part is a given, it does not really matter what we are arguing, because that is not the real world.   #  URL there does, however, seem to be evidence that  pedestrians  get into much more danger if they wear headphones.   #  i wanted to look up what studies have been done on this.  i have found one so far.  URL   twelve persons drove for three hours in an automobile simulator while listening to music at sound level 0db over stereo headphones during one session and from a dashboard speaker during another session.  they were required to steer a mountain highway, maintain a certain indicated speed, shift gears, and respond to occasional hazards.  steering and speed control were dependent on visual cues.  the need to shift and the hazards were indicated by sound and vibration effects.  with the headphones, the driver is average reaction time for the most complex task presented shifting gears was about one third second longer than with the speaker.  the use of headphones did not delay the development of subjective fatigue.  this seems to be criticized as inconclusive elsewhere.  URL there does, however, seem to be evidence that  pedestrians  get into much more danger if they wear headphones.  all in all, there are not any strong studies, but evidence suggests  some  impairment above listening to music from speakers.   #  you are not supposed to plow through intersections as a civilian, you are supposed to look both ways as you ease into acceleration.   #  i responded to a similar point else where and i do not want you to feel ignored, so i quoted it with my response below.  also, to your point of noise cancellation, i understand what understand saying but please remember that the crux of my viewpoint is that driving is just as effective from a purely visual stand point than combined sense.  sorry smell o wheel navigation.  have you ever been first in line stopped at a traffic signal, and the light turns green, so you should accelerate, but you hear a fire siren so you hesitate, and sure enough a fire truck is about to come into the intersection as oncoming traffic and you would not have seen it five seconds earlier because of the layout of the intersection ? no.  i have had moments where i thought  oh i would have heard that cop  that occurred right when i saw safely.  you are not supposed to plow through intersections as a civilian, you are supposed to look both ways as you ease into acceleration.  combine that with the fact emergency workers are not supposed to plow through intersections, sirens or not, and the human instinct of self preservation and you are creating circumstances that will almost never being encountered as a defensive driver.  yes, emergency workers will do dangerous things counter to what i described above, but simply being visually alert will counter all those circumstances.
almost everyone i speak to in person reacts negatively when i mention i do this.  i have never understood why.  people even admit that loud music from your cars speakers effectively the same thing is ok.  maybe this is not a popular view and i am just surrounded by negative nancys, however i figured i would bring this up for discussion.  0.  in a car, your driving experience is almost  complete visual and tactile.  any audible  warning  is rendered ineffective by safe driving anyways.  horn blowing, screeching tires, yelling, etc are all used in situations that could have been prevented by staying aware visually cutting someone off, sudden braking, unyielding drivers, near collisions, etc .   note: i say almost because i do not deny that while you can get early warnings about your cars own status from audible cues grinding, screeching, etc i will point out anything capable of making your car unsafe can be felt.  0.  as mentioned above, it is no different than listening to music very loudly from your cars speakers, which i suppose the safety of could be grouped into this view.  i only bring this up because no one seems to have a problem with loud music playing, only the ear buds being the delivery method.  0.  hearing impaired people are allowed to drive with little to no problem.  if my almost deaf dad is legally allowed to drive, then i can do the same just as well.  only i am being entertained.  in my opinion, if you argue that hearing impaired people are able to drive safely, then you have no argument against my ear buds.  0.  it is not distracting.  i am not speaking of interacting with your phone/music player, but simply loading music and listening.  at most, i will concede basic interaction with the player, akin to change a song on a cd player, but that has little to do with your hearing being contained and, again, mow to do with being visually distracted.  i am open to my mind being changed, but simply have not heard a convincing enough argument to change it.   #  hearing impaired people are allowed to drive with little to no problem.   #  if my almost deaf dad is legally allowed to drive, then i can do the same just as well.  only i am being entertained.   # any audible  warning  is rendered ineffective by safe driving anyways.  horn blowing, screeching tires, yelling, etc are all used in situations that could have been prevented by staying aware visually cutting someone off, sudden braking, unyielding drivers, near collisions, etc .  note: i say almost because i do not deny that while you can get early warnings about your cars own status from audible cues grinding, screeching, etc i will point out anything capable of making your car unsafe can be felt.  not fire truck or police car sirens.  those you often ca not see because they are coming up a perpendicular block or from behind you, and the siren is a warning for you to look up and look around and find the fire truck/police car to avoid them.  if my almost deaf dad is legally allowed to drive, then i can do the same just as well.  only i am being entertained.  in my opinion, if you argue that hearing impaired people are able to drive safely, then you have no argument against my ear buds.  hearing impaired people are a small subset of society, and accepting a higher risk to allow them to drive is okay.  being hearing impaired or wearing earbuds is not  extremely  dangerous; it is just slightly more dangerous.  so accepting a slightly more dangerous risk for a small portion of society is okay.  but we should not allow all members of society to become slightly more dangerous when we can prevent that.   #  i will agree to the sirens purpose, but simply being aware of your fellow drivers and their actions is sufficient.   # those you often ca not see because they are coming up a perpendicular block or from behind you, and the siren is a warning for you to look up and look around and find the fire truck/police car to avoid them.  i will agree to the sirens purpose, but simply being aware of your fellow drivers and their actions is sufficient.  again, any realistic risk can be averted by being visually alert anyways.  being hearing impaired or wearing earbuds is not extremely dangerous; it is just slightly more dangerous.  so accepting a slightly more dangerous risk for a small portion of society is okay.  but we should not allow all members of society to become slightly more dangerous when we can prevent that.  with the risk of sounding stubborn, i feel you are ignoring my view of  it is not more dangerous .  i do not view a risk with hearing impairment to begin with.  i understand your point, it makes sense, but only if there is a small begin to begin with.   #  in a perfect world, yes, we would all be driving exactly the way we should be, and we could all be perfectly alert and ensure we are obeying the rules of the road.   # they are called accidents for a reason.  in a perfect world, yes, we would all be driving exactly the way we should be, and we could all be perfectly alert and ensure we are obeying the rules of the road.  but  accidents  occur when one or more people are not driving exactly the way they should be.  all it takes is one person maybe you, maybe someone else to make one mistake, and you have a split second to react.  if you manage to hear a car is honking for instance before you see anything, you may be able to react faster.  i know this has been the case with me on more than one occasion.  here is what your cmv really should be:  driving with earbuds would not be any more dangerous as long as people drive safely.   but when that last part is a given, it does not really matter what we are arguing, because that is not the real world.   #  the use of headphones did not delay the development of subjective fatigue.   #  i wanted to look up what studies have been done on this.  i have found one so far.  URL   twelve persons drove for three hours in an automobile simulator while listening to music at sound level 0db over stereo headphones during one session and from a dashboard speaker during another session.  they were required to steer a mountain highway, maintain a certain indicated speed, shift gears, and respond to occasional hazards.  steering and speed control were dependent on visual cues.  the need to shift and the hazards were indicated by sound and vibration effects.  with the headphones, the driver is average reaction time for the most complex task presented shifting gears was about one third second longer than with the speaker.  the use of headphones did not delay the development of subjective fatigue.  this seems to be criticized as inconclusive elsewhere.  URL there does, however, seem to be evidence that  pedestrians  get into much more danger if they wear headphones.  all in all, there are not any strong studies, but evidence suggests  some  impairment above listening to music from speakers.   #  you are not supposed to plow through intersections as a civilian, you are supposed to look both ways as you ease into acceleration.   #  i responded to a similar point else where and i do not want you to feel ignored, so i quoted it with my response below.  also, to your point of noise cancellation, i understand what understand saying but please remember that the crux of my viewpoint is that driving is just as effective from a purely visual stand point than combined sense.  sorry smell o wheel navigation.  have you ever been first in line stopped at a traffic signal, and the light turns green, so you should accelerate, but you hear a fire siren so you hesitate, and sure enough a fire truck is about to come into the intersection as oncoming traffic and you would not have seen it five seconds earlier because of the layout of the intersection ? no.  i have had moments where i thought  oh i would have heard that cop  that occurred right when i saw safely.  you are not supposed to plow through intersections as a civilian, you are supposed to look both ways as you ease into acceleration.  combine that with the fact emergency workers are not supposed to plow through intersections, sirens or not, and the human instinct of self preservation and you are creating circumstances that will almost never being encountered as a defensive driver.  yes, emergency workers will do dangerous things counter to what i described above, but simply being visually alert will counter all those circumstances.
if we are keeping in line with this reddit should be a  isafe place for everyone to voice their opinion  thing, then how can we have a subreddit that is openly about a specific ideology as a default ? how can we justify doing away with /r/atheism and keeping a different subreddit based entirely on a different set of personal views ? of course, i am aware you can unsubscribe.  however, i could see how a subreddit that handles matters like supporting pro choice rallies etc.  could scare someone into hiding their voice if they are seeing reddit for the first time.  keep in mind, i am not trying to argue against feminism, or taking down /r/twoxchromosomes as a subreddit.  simply put, i think if reddit is about making everyone comfortable to say what they want, then they should not publicly support the subreddit.   #  if we are keeping in line with this reddit should be a  isafe place for everyone to voice their opinion  thing, then how can we have a subreddit that is openly about a specific ideology as a default ?  #  i do not think being a woman or a group of women talking about whatever is on their mind qualifies as a ideology.   # i do not think being a woman or a group of women talking about whatever is on their mind qualifies as a ideology.  could scare someone into hiding their voice if they are seeing reddit for the first time.  i have been there a few times and i simply ca not see anything wrong with them.  furthermore they have a sensible policies and their first one would cover this issue that you bring up anyways.  it reads as follows   respect: no hatred, bigotry, assholery, misogyny, misandry, transphobia, homophobia, racism or otherwise disrespectful commentary.  please follow reddiquette.  could scare someone into hiding their voice if they are seeing reddit for the first time i am not entirely sure even how to address this without sounding insulting to you.  so please understand that i am not meaning to be so if i come off that way i do apologize.  so with that said.  if someone truly holds a belief that is important to them such as being pro life than it should not matter.  a person with a strong view on any side of the spectrum of this topic and many others will be faced with objections.  some of them thoughtful replies, some of them purely based on emotional responses.  this exists everywhere.  furthermore how much of a coward would someone have to be, to be anonymous and afraid to express their position ? i have received many nasty comments on my 0 years here, both publicly and privately.  obviously the private ones tend to be much more extreme.  nasty words, or telling me to kill myself or even the few threats are not going to silence me.  so why should it silence you or anyone for that matter ? simply put, i think if reddit is about making everyone comfortable to say what they want, then they should not publicly support the subreddit.  i strongly disagree reddit should if anything support every subreddit on the entire site that exists within the realms of tos of reddit.  if they do not than they run into the issue of being ashamed of the content within their own website.  this would destroy any credibility and respect reddit has.  not that the subreddit you are accusing of being some sort of being a intolerant hate mob with a agenda is one in the first place.   #  in my experience the opposite is true; jokes about white people ca not dance, tasteless food, no culture, boring life are upvoted while pretty much anything speaking unfavourably about non white people is downvoted.   # in my experience the opposite is true; jokes about white people ca not dance, tasteless food, no culture, boring life are upvoted while pretty much anything speaking unfavourably about non white people is downvoted.  i do not really see how the invisible existence of hate subs is catering to white people.  one can simply not visit said hate subs.  as it is fair to assume the majority of users are straight, white men, i can see how it could appear that way, but i do not believe anyone is specifically complaining about  being  a straight, white man.  everyone has issues, and you can expect people to voice them.   #  i ca not see any white guys thinking their lives would be easier if they were not white, but there are certainly times that being a woman could be seen as easier/better than being a man.   # they are known for being stormfront hubs.  well in the case of news, unfavourable to minorities / racist.  as far as /r/videos goes, i ca not really argue against your experience.  their members exist elsewhere on the site and harass and fuck with other users.  reddit caters to the racists and all the people who support their right to be here over the minorities who want them gone.  reddit does not support racism, it supports free speech.  in my experience actual racists are few and far between, as places like /r/coontown and other similarly racist places are mostly satire.  extremely offensive and distasteful, sure, but i would not argue that the people in those places actually believe most of the shit they say.  i ca not see any white guys thinking their lives would be easier if they were not white, but there are certainly times that being a woman could be seen as easier/better than being a man.  people are allowed to voice these thoughts, and that does not make a difference to who reddit caters to.   #  i admit i only looked for a couple minutes  #  i am not trying to be disagreeable, i simply genuinely do not see what you are seeing.  i signed out, and took a look at the default subs.  i am not clear how /r/movies or /r/todayilearned are male focused.  they seem pretty neutral to me.  the only sub that i saw focused on an individual gender was 0x.  i admit i only looked for a couple minutes  #  i ca not think of any large subreddit specifically dedicated to the us in general, but there are plenty of subreddits for other countries, /r/unitedkingdom, /r/canada, etc .   #  the us is a pretty good comparison.  i ca not think of any large subreddit specifically dedicated to the us in general, but there are plenty of subreddits for other countries, /r/unitedkingdom, /r/canada, etc .  that is because the entire site allows you to talk about things specific to the us.  you do not need a subreddit for it.  /r/news is not intended to be us focused, but it is.  the defaults are not intended to be male focused, but they are.  so it makes sense to create a separate space for people who feel they are not being catered to.
if we are keeping in line with this reddit should be a  isafe place for everyone to voice their opinion  thing, then how can we have a subreddit that is openly about a specific ideology as a default ? how can we justify doing away with /r/atheism and keeping a different subreddit based entirely on a different set of personal views ? of course, i am aware you can unsubscribe.  however, i could see how a subreddit that handles matters like supporting pro choice rallies etc.  could scare someone into hiding their voice if they are seeing reddit for the first time.  keep in mind, i am not trying to argue against feminism, or taking down /r/twoxchromosomes as a subreddit.  simply put, i think if reddit is about making everyone comfortable to say what they want, then they should not publicly support the subreddit.   #  however, i could see how a subreddit that handles matters like supporting pro choice rallies etc.   #  could scare someone into hiding their voice if they are seeing reddit for the first time.   # i do not think being a woman or a group of women talking about whatever is on their mind qualifies as a ideology.  could scare someone into hiding their voice if they are seeing reddit for the first time.  i have been there a few times and i simply ca not see anything wrong with them.  furthermore they have a sensible policies and their first one would cover this issue that you bring up anyways.  it reads as follows   respect: no hatred, bigotry, assholery, misogyny, misandry, transphobia, homophobia, racism or otherwise disrespectful commentary.  please follow reddiquette.  could scare someone into hiding their voice if they are seeing reddit for the first time i am not entirely sure even how to address this without sounding insulting to you.  so please understand that i am not meaning to be so if i come off that way i do apologize.  so with that said.  if someone truly holds a belief that is important to them such as being pro life than it should not matter.  a person with a strong view on any side of the spectrum of this topic and many others will be faced with objections.  some of them thoughtful replies, some of them purely based on emotional responses.  this exists everywhere.  furthermore how much of a coward would someone have to be, to be anonymous and afraid to express their position ? i have received many nasty comments on my 0 years here, both publicly and privately.  obviously the private ones tend to be much more extreme.  nasty words, or telling me to kill myself or even the few threats are not going to silence me.  so why should it silence you or anyone for that matter ? simply put, i think if reddit is about making everyone comfortable to say what they want, then they should not publicly support the subreddit.  i strongly disagree reddit should if anything support every subreddit on the entire site that exists within the realms of tos of reddit.  if they do not than they run into the issue of being ashamed of the content within their own website.  this would destroy any credibility and respect reddit has.  not that the subreddit you are accusing of being some sort of being a intolerant hate mob with a agenda is one in the first place.   #  i do not really see how the invisible existence of hate subs is catering to white people.   # in my experience the opposite is true; jokes about white people ca not dance, tasteless food, no culture, boring life are upvoted while pretty much anything speaking unfavourably about non white people is downvoted.  i do not really see how the invisible existence of hate subs is catering to white people.  one can simply not visit said hate subs.  as it is fair to assume the majority of users are straight, white men, i can see how it could appear that way, but i do not believe anyone is specifically complaining about  being  a straight, white man.  everyone has issues, and you can expect people to voice them.   #  reddit caters to the racists and all the people who support their right to be here over the minorities who want them gone.   # they are known for being stormfront hubs.  well in the case of news, unfavourable to minorities / racist.  as far as /r/videos goes, i ca not really argue against your experience.  their members exist elsewhere on the site and harass and fuck with other users.  reddit caters to the racists and all the people who support their right to be here over the minorities who want them gone.  reddit does not support racism, it supports free speech.  in my experience actual racists are few and far between, as places like /r/coontown and other similarly racist places are mostly satire.  extremely offensive and distasteful, sure, but i would not argue that the people in those places actually believe most of the shit they say.  i ca not see any white guys thinking their lives would be easier if they were not white, but there are certainly times that being a woman could be seen as easier/better than being a man.  people are allowed to voice these thoughts, and that does not make a difference to who reddit caters to.   #  i signed out, and took a look at the default subs.   #  i am not trying to be disagreeable, i simply genuinely do not see what you are seeing.  i signed out, and took a look at the default subs.  i am not clear how /r/movies or /r/todayilearned are male focused.  they seem pretty neutral to me.  the only sub that i saw focused on an individual gender was 0x.  i admit i only looked for a couple minutes  #  /r/news is not intended to be us focused, but it is.   #  the us is a pretty good comparison.  i ca not think of any large subreddit specifically dedicated to the us in general, but there are plenty of subreddits for other countries, /r/unitedkingdom, /r/canada, etc .  that is because the entire site allows you to talk about things specific to the us.  you do not need a subreddit for it.  /r/news is not intended to be us focused, but it is.  the defaults are not intended to be male focused, but they are.  so it makes sense to create a separate space for people who feel they are not being catered to.
if we are keeping in line with this reddit should be a  isafe place for everyone to voice their opinion  thing, then how can we have a subreddit that is openly about a specific ideology as a default ? how can we justify doing away with /r/atheism and keeping a different subreddit based entirely on a different set of personal views ? of course, i am aware you can unsubscribe.  however, i could see how a subreddit that handles matters like supporting pro choice rallies etc.  could scare someone into hiding their voice if they are seeing reddit for the first time.  keep in mind, i am not trying to argue against feminism, or taking down /r/twoxchromosomes as a subreddit.  simply put, i think if reddit is about making everyone comfortable to say what they want, then they should not publicly support the subreddit.   #  however, i could see how a subreddit that handles matters like supporting pro choice rallies etc.   #  could scare someone into hiding their voice if they are seeing reddit for the first time i am not entirely sure even how to address this without sounding insulting to you.   # i do not think being a woman or a group of women talking about whatever is on their mind qualifies as a ideology.  could scare someone into hiding their voice if they are seeing reddit for the first time.  i have been there a few times and i simply ca not see anything wrong with them.  furthermore they have a sensible policies and their first one would cover this issue that you bring up anyways.  it reads as follows   respect: no hatred, bigotry, assholery, misogyny, misandry, transphobia, homophobia, racism or otherwise disrespectful commentary.  please follow reddiquette.  could scare someone into hiding their voice if they are seeing reddit for the first time i am not entirely sure even how to address this without sounding insulting to you.  so please understand that i am not meaning to be so if i come off that way i do apologize.  so with that said.  if someone truly holds a belief that is important to them such as being pro life than it should not matter.  a person with a strong view on any side of the spectrum of this topic and many others will be faced with objections.  some of them thoughtful replies, some of them purely based on emotional responses.  this exists everywhere.  furthermore how much of a coward would someone have to be, to be anonymous and afraid to express their position ? i have received many nasty comments on my 0 years here, both publicly and privately.  obviously the private ones tend to be much more extreme.  nasty words, or telling me to kill myself or even the few threats are not going to silence me.  so why should it silence you or anyone for that matter ? simply put, i think if reddit is about making everyone comfortable to say what they want, then they should not publicly support the subreddit.  i strongly disagree reddit should if anything support every subreddit on the entire site that exists within the realms of tos of reddit.  if they do not than they run into the issue of being ashamed of the content within their own website.  this would destroy any credibility and respect reddit has.  not that the subreddit you are accusing of being some sort of being a intolerant hate mob with a agenda is one in the first place.   #  as it is fair to assume the majority of users are straight, white men, i can see how it could appear that way, but i do not believe anyone is specifically complaining about  being  a straight, white man.   # in my experience the opposite is true; jokes about white people ca not dance, tasteless food, no culture, boring life are upvoted while pretty much anything speaking unfavourably about non white people is downvoted.  i do not really see how the invisible existence of hate subs is catering to white people.  one can simply not visit said hate subs.  as it is fair to assume the majority of users are straight, white men, i can see how it could appear that way, but i do not believe anyone is specifically complaining about  being  a straight, white man.  everyone has issues, and you can expect people to voice them.   #  well in the case of news, unfavourable to minorities / racist.   # they are known for being stormfront hubs.  well in the case of news, unfavourable to minorities / racist.  as far as /r/videos goes, i ca not really argue against your experience.  their members exist elsewhere on the site and harass and fuck with other users.  reddit caters to the racists and all the people who support their right to be here over the minorities who want them gone.  reddit does not support racism, it supports free speech.  in my experience actual racists are few and far between, as places like /r/coontown and other similarly racist places are mostly satire.  extremely offensive and distasteful, sure, but i would not argue that the people in those places actually believe most of the shit they say.  i ca not see any white guys thinking their lives would be easier if they were not white, but there are certainly times that being a woman could be seen as easier/better than being a man.  people are allowed to voice these thoughts, and that does not make a difference to who reddit caters to.   #  i signed out, and took a look at the default subs.   #  i am not trying to be disagreeable, i simply genuinely do not see what you are seeing.  i signed out, and took a look at the default subs.  i am not clear how /r/movies or /r/todayilearned are male focused.  they seem pretty neutral to me.  the only sub that i saw focused on an individual gender was 0x.  i admit i only looked for a couple minutes  #  the defaults are not intended to be male focused, but they are.   #  the us is a pretty good comparison.  i ca not think of any large subreddit specifically dedicated to the us in general, but there are plenty of subreddits for other countries, /r/unitedkingdom, /r/canada, etc .  that is because the entire site allows you to talk about things specific to the us.  you do not need a subreddit for it.  /r/news is not intended to be us focused, but it is.  the defaults are not intended to be male focused, but they are.  so it makes sense to create a separate space for people who feel they are not being catered to.
if we are keeping in line with this reddit should be a  isafe place for everyone to voice their opinion  thing, then how can we have a subreddit that is openly about a specific ideology as a default ? how can we justify doing away with /r/atheism and keeping a different subreddit based entirely on a different set of personal views ? of course, i am aware you can unsubscribe.  however, i could see how a subreddit that handles matters like supporting pro choice rallies etc.  could scare someone into hiding their voice if they are seeing reddit for the first time.  keep in mind, i am not trying to argue against feminism, or taking down /r/twoxchromosomes as a subreddit.  simply put, i think if reddit is about making everyone comfortable to say what they want, then they should not publicly support the subreddit.   #  keep in mind, i am not trying to argue against feminism, or taking down /r/twoxchromosomes as a subreddit.   #  simply put, i think if reddit is about making everyone comfortable to say what they want, then they should not publicly support the subreddit.   # i do not think being a woman or a group of women talking about whatever is on their mind qualifies as a ideology.  could scare someone into hiding their voice if they are seeing reddit for the first time.  i have been there a few times and i simply ca not see anything wrong with them.  furthermore they have a sensible policies and their first one would cover this issue that you bring up anyways.  it reads as follows   respect: no hatred, bigotry, assholery, misogyny, misandry, transphobia, homophobia, racism or otherwise disrespectful commentary.  please follow reddiquette.  could scare someone into hiding their voice if they are seeing reddit for the first time i am not entirely sure even how to address this without sounding insulting to you.  so please understand that i am not meaning to be so if i come off that way i do apologize.  so with that said.  if someone truly holds a belief that is important to them such as being pro life than it should not matter.  a person with a strong view on any side of the spectrum of this topic and many others will be faced with objections.  some of them thoughtful replies, some of them purely based on emotional responses.  this exists everywhere.  furthermore how much of a coward would someone have to be, to be anonymous and afraid to express their position ? i have received many nasty comments on my 0 years here, both publicly and privately.  obviously the private ones tend to be much more extreme.  nasty words, or telling me to kill myself or even the few threats are not going to silence me.  so why should it silence you or anyone for that matter ? simply put, i think if reddit is about making everyone comfortable to say what they want, then they should not publicly support the subreddit.  i strongly disagree reddit should if anything support every subreddit on the entire site that exists within the realms of tos of reddit.  if they do not than they run into the issue of being ashamed of the content within their own website.  this would destroy any credibility and respect reddit has.  not that the subreddit you are accusing of being some sort of being a intolerant hate mob with a agenda is one in the first place.   #  i do not really see how the invisible existence of hate subs is catering to white people.   # in my experience the opposite is true; jokes about white people ca not dance, tasteless food, no culture, boring life are upvoted while pretty much anything speaking unfavourably about non white people is downvoted.  i do not really see how the invisible existence of hate subs is catering to white people.  one can simply not visit said hate subs.  as it is fair to assume the majority of users are straight, white men, i can see how it could appear that way, but i do not believe anyone is specifically complaining about  being  a straight, white man.  everyone has issues, and you can expect people to voice them.   #  their members exist elsewhere on the site and harass and fuck with other users.   # they are known for being stormfront hubs.  well in the case of news, unfavourable to minorities / racist.  as far as /r/videos goes, i ca not really argue against your experience.  their members exist elsewhere on the site and harass and fuck with other users.  reddit caters to the racists and all the people who support their right to be here over the minorities who want them gone.  reddit does not support racism, it supports free speech.  in my experience actual racists are few and far between, as places like /r/coontown and other similarly racist places are mostly satire.  extremely offensive and distasteful, sure, but i would not argue that the people in those places actually believe most of the shit they say.  i ca not see any white guys thinking their lives would be easier if they were not white, but there are certainly times that being a woman could be seen as easier/better than being a man.  people are allowed to voice these thoughts, and that does not make a difference to who reddit caters to.   #  i signed out, and took a look at the default subs.   #  i am not trying to be disagreeable, i simply genuinely do not see what you are seeing.  i signed out, and took a look at the default subs.  i am not clear how /r/movies or /r/todayilearned are male focused.  they seem pretty neutral to me.  the only sub that i saw focused on an individual gender was 0x.  i admit i only looked for a couple minutes  #  i ca not think of any large subreddit specifically dedicated to the us in general, but there are plenty of subreddits for other countries, /r/unitedkingdom, /r/canada, etc .   #  the us is a pretty good comparison.  i ca not think of any large subreddit specifically dedicated to the us in general, but there are plenty of subreddits for other countries, /r/unitedkingdom, /r/canada, etc .  that is because the entire site allows you to talk about things specific to the us.  you do not need a subreddit for it.  /r/news is not intended to be us focused, but it is.  the defaults are not intended to be male focused, but they are.  so it makes sense to create a separate space for people who feel they are not being catered to.
so, every time i see people defend obamacare, they point out that companies having to accept people with pre existing conditions is a major benefit.  maybe i am missing something here, and i hope you guys can help change my mind.  so, in my view, corporations do not actually have to care about anyone.  all they care about is money.  they are businesses, they exist to make a profit.  absolutely nobody should be surprised by this.  they do not have a moral obligation to help anybody or be compassionate or think of the children or any of that stuff.  businesses do not have a heart, just two columns of numbers.  insurance companies only exist to make money.  the way they do that is by investing in different people, at different rates, to end up making more money than they spend.  the perfect customer from their perspective is one who pays their bill every month and never gets sick or costs them money.  the worst customer is one who is constantly sick and costs them a ton of money.  so when a young, smart, healthy, middle class person comes in for insurance, he is probably a good investment.  odds are, he will make his payments, and probably not develop any serious issues.  a safe bet.  now you have an obese smoker with asthma, poor eyesight, a heart murmur, epilepsy, diabetes, and leprosy, and he wants insurance.  guess what pal ? you are a terrible investment ! the odds of you earning the company more money than you cost is almost zero.  he is a terrible bet and no sane employee should even consider giving this person insurance.  i understand this means these people ca not get insurance, but that is not the companies problem.  if the government wants to step in an insure people with poor health, that is fine, but i do not see why they should force insurance companies to make bad investments.   #  i understand this means these people ca not get insurance, but that is not the companies problem.   #  if the government wants to step in an insure people with poor health, that is fine, but i do not see why they should force insurance companies to make bad investments.   # if the government wants to step in an insure people with poor health, that is fine, but i do not see why they should force insurance companies to make bad investments.  they are not really forcing them to make a bad investment.  in fact, insurance stocks are doing really well since obamacare was enacted.  URL the rule change required everyone to have insurance.  that means healthy people who might not have otherwise bought insurance are now required to do so.  the tradeoff for insurance companies to get all these new customers is that they ca not deny for preexisting conditions.  it is actually a really lucrative deal for insurers.   #  it remains to be seen if those are equivalent.   #  it remains to be seen if those are equivalent.  some medical procedures cost millions and millions of dollars, and it is going to take a hell of a lot of young healthy people to cover that.  not to mention our lowering birth rates and the massive amount of baby boomers who are retiring.  also, sucks to be young and healthy, i guess.  i will admit, i am bitter, since i fall into that category and would not have insurance if i did not have too, but still.   #  consider the ratio between the two and assume everyone is insured and paying a premium.   #  of course they have a valid complaint, insuring high risk individuals can dwindle profits.  how many high risk people do you know ? as in, prone for a hospital visit for something they already have within the next few months.  if everyone has to be insured along with the high risk people now, all the premiums from the healthy people are going to even out the high riskers plus some.  maybe by a lot.  consider the ratio between the two and assume everyone is insured and paying a premium.  you really do not think that would benefit insurance companies in the long run ?  #  but they wo not have to raise them as quickly.   #  the eventual goal here is that if everyone is insured, pricing will be reduced.  currently, emergency rooms are extremely expensive in part because those with insurance or those who can pay cover the costs of those who are uninsured.  if people who have pre existing conditions like asthma ca not get insurance, then they are going to use ers more, which is expensive, but they are also going to not be able to pay the bill.  hospitals ca not deny emergency care to people who ca not pay, so they will have to raise prices for those who can pay.  so people with insurance are going to be paying the bill either way it is to everyone is advantage to try to help those with pre existing conditions pay at least part of the cost of their medical care.  in the opposite scenario, where everyone has health insurance, the hospitals do not get stuck with the bill for the uninsured.  they probably wo not lower prices cause that is just gravy anyways, right ? but they wo not have to raise them as quickly.  insurance companies do not pay the full price that hospitals set anyways, so they can squeeze the hospital a bit more effectively than a single consumer can.  this is a long way from your standard supply/demand equation for sure, but the theory is that the cost of healthcare should decline compared to what it would have been had everyone not had insurance.   #  i do not think your question can be answered yet though.   #  why did this get downvoted.  ? obviously the solution is for insurance companies to jack up premiums.  and they have the whole ruckus over  you can keep your plan  pissed everyone off because all of a sudden it was going to cost a lot more to get the same coverage.  they are companies that only care about money and they will continue to profit.  regardless what they need to charge.  if they do not profit, there is no reason for them to continue offering insurance.  although a small number of uninsurable patients come into health insurance under obamacare, their healthcare bills are often enormous.  if you get 0 new people paying a dollar $0 revenue but twenty of them spend $0 cents a year of insurance money and 0 spend $0 dollars a year of insurance money, that means the insurance company netted $0.  we just do not yet what it will actually look like.  it remains to be seen 0 if there were enough uninsurable/expensive people out there now under coverage for the above example to happen, 0 if the cap is high enough where insurance companies can raise rates to make money after paying claims, and 0 if the cap is low enough such that healthy people actually keep buying insurance and do not instead decide to drop insurance and pay the fee.  there is a breakeven cost risk for everyone and if the option is pay $0,0 for insurance or $0 fee or whatever it is and you spend less than insurance cost fee , then why not drop insurance ? i do not think your question can be answered yet though.  the big element you are forgetting is that many uninsurable people and most people in general are already insured through employer sponsored health insurance plans or medicare.  its not like there were only healthy people on insurance companies  books and, obviously, the  perfect insurable person  can still develop cancer, get hit by a bus, slip on ice and tear an acl, etc etc.  and in my opinion its already basically what you said requiring everyone have health insurance means poorer people with low income jobs and no health insurance are going to get government subsidies to pay their insurance.  so basically the government is paying insurance companies for that coverage.
so, every time i see people defend obamacare, they point out that companies having to accept people with pre existing conditions is a major benefit.  maybe i am missing something here, and i hope you guys can help change my mind.  so, in my view, corporations do not actually have to care about anyone.  all they care about is money.  they are businesses, they exist to make a profit.  absolutely nobody should be surprised by this.  they do not have a moral obligation to help anybody or be compassionate or think of the children or any of that stuff.  businesses do not have a heart, just two columns of numbers.  insurance companies only exist to make money.  the way they do that is by investing in different people, at different rates, to end up making more money than they spend.  the perfect customer from their perspective is one who pays their bill every month and never gets sick or costs them money.  the worst customer is one who is constantly sick and costs them a ton of money.  so when a young, smart, healthy, middle class person comes in for insurance, he is probably a good investment.  odds are, he will make his payments, and probably not develop any serious issues.  a safe bet.  now you have an obese smoker with asthma, poor eyesight, a heart murmur, epilepsy, diabetes, and leprosy, and he wants insurance.  guess what pal ? you are a terrible investment ! the odds of you earning the company more money than you cost is almost zero.  he is a terrible bet and no sane employee should even consider giving this person insurance.  i understand this means these people ca not get insurance, but that is not the companies problem.  if the government wants to step in an insure people with poor health, that is fine, but i do not see why they should force insurance companies to make bad investments.   #  i understand this means these people ca not get insurance, but that is not the companies problem.   #  if the government wants to step in an insure people with poor health, that is fine, but i do not see why they should force insurance companies to make bad investments.   # if the government wants to step in an insure people with poor health, that is fine, but i do not see why they should force insurance companies to make bad investments.  what is the alternative here, then ? i can think of a few: 0  people who are not insurable simply get insured by the government .  well, ok but all this is doing is privatizing the  gains  of a health insurance scheme and socializing the losses.  why would we want to do that ? 0  people who are not insurable do not get insurance or have to pay insanely high rates .  again, another option.  not one most people support though, as its pretty cruel and unfair.  if i get cancer, seems pretty unfair to then force me to just sit back and die, or pay insane amounts of money to get my health care.  0  do what the law does now, and force insurance companies not to discriminate against unhealthy people .  this option seems to me to be the middle ground.  the government is not socializing the losses, so it is a lesser burden on taxpayers.  on the flip side, insurance companies still make plenty of money all they do is aggregate the risks of  all  people and make everyone pay for everyone is risks.  who are the losers here ? healthier people whose insurance rates are higher because they are effect subsidizing unhealthier people.  but that is not that concerning to me that is how all insurance works.  better drivers subsidize worse ones by paying for car insurance they will never need.  0  government insures everyone, taking all the gains and paying for all the losses .  this is just nationalized health care, and just moves all the burdens and benefits to taxpayers.  it is certainly an option.  basically, there are no ideal options here.  the one we have is one which makes sense to me.  not sure what alternative you believe would be an improvement.   #  in fact, insurance stocks are doing really well since obamacare was enacted.   # if the government wants to step in an insure people with poor health, that is fine, but i do not see why they should force insurance companies to make bad investments.  they are not really forcing them to make a bad investment.  in fact, insurance stocks are doing really well since obamacare was enacted.  URL the rule change required everyone to have insurance.  that means healthy people who might not have otherwise bought insurance are now required to do so.  the tradeoff for insurance companies to get all these new customers is that they ca not deny for preexisting conditions.  it is actually a really lucrative deal for insurers.   #  i will admit, i am bitter, since i fall into that category and would not have insurance if i did not have too, but still.   #  it remains to be seen if those are equivalent.  some medical procedures cost millions and millions of dollars, and it is going to take a hell of a lot of young healthy people to cover that.  not to mention our lowering birth rates and the massive amount of baby boomers who are retiring.  also, sucks to be young and healthy, i guess.  i will admit, i am bitter, since i fall into that category and would not have insurance if i did not have too, but still.   #  of course they have a valid complaint, insuring high risk individuals can dwindle profits.   #  of course they have a valid complaint, insuring high risk individuals can dwindle profits.  how many high risk people do you know ? as in, prone for a hospital visit for something they already have within the next few months.  if everyone has to be insured along with the high risk people now, all the premiums from the healthy people are going to even out the high riskers plus some.  maybe by a lot.  consider the ratio between the two and assume everyone is insured and paying a premium.  you really do not think that would benefit insurance companies in the long run ?  #  they probably wo not lower prices cause that is just gravy anyways, right ?  #  the eventual goal here is that if everyone is insured, pricing will be reduced.  currently, emergency rooms are extremely expensive in part because those with insurance or those who can pay cover the costs of those who are uninsured.  if people who have pre existing conditions like asthma ca not get insurance, then they are going to use ers more, which is expensive, but they are also going to not be able to pay the bill.  hospitals ca not deny emergency care to people who ca not pay, so they will have to raise prices for those who can pay.  so people with insurance are going to be paying the bill either way it is to everyone is advantage to try to help those with pre existing conditions pay at least part of the cost of their medical care.  in the opposite scenario, where everyone has health insurance, the hospitals do not get stuck with the bill for the uninsured.  they probably wo not lower prices cause that is just gravy anyways, right ? but they wo not have to raise them as quickly.  insurance companies do not pay the full price that hospitals set anyways, so they can squeeze the hospital a bit more effectively than a single consumer can.  this is a long way from your standard supply/demand equation for sure, but the theory is that the cost of healthcare should decline compared to what it would have been had everyone not had insurance.
i am sure most people on here have seen the donald is comments about john mccain is military service.  i do not know if a lot of people are aware what john mccain said before that.  here is an article URL talking about exactly what mccain said.  here is a picture from the rally URL that is a standing room only crowd.  there may not be thousands there like some have said, but there are certainly hundreds and likely over 0,0 people there to show their support a full 0 months before the first primary and over 0 months before the arizona primary.  after trump had a rally in phoenix, az the state mccain represents for a standing room only crowd, john mccain while sitting in the senate office he was sent to by the voters of arizona said to a reporter for the new yorker,  this performance with our friend out in phoenix is very hurtful to me, because what he did was  he fired up the crazies.    that is a sitting senator denigrating the people of his own state for going to a rally for a presidential candidate from his own party.  these are just regular people participating in democracy, and getting mocked by their own elected representative.  what trump said about pows and the military was clearly out of line, but is not nearly as repugnant as mccain saying that about thousands of american citizens that he represents.  trump is awful.  just awful.  he is a mockery and making a sham of our election process.  he should be polling at under 0.  but i do not get to make those decisions, and john mccain sure as fuck does not get to either.  the republican base is showing their support for trump, and for john mccain to dismiss that by calling his own constituents  the crazies  is far worse than what trump said about mccain.   #  that is a sitting senator denigrating the people of his own state for going to a rally for a presidential candidate from his own party.   #  this is not just any candidate, though.   # this is not just any candidate, though.  if scott walker had gone to arizona and mccain called his rally attendees crazy, i would think he would be completely out of line.  however, i have no qualms thinking that donald trump is crazy.  think about it this way.  is it offensive to say that donald trump is crazy ? i do not think so, because he says crazy things.  it tracks that the people attending trump is rally agree with his statements.  sure, some may have gone to voice an opposing opinion, or to cover the story for news organizations, or to see the train wreck that is donald trump, but i am willing to bet that a good number of people who attended the rally agree with trump.  so, if people agree with trump is views, and trump is views are crazy, would this not logically mean that these people are crazy ?  #  and i do think that mccains comments are hugely more important because he dismissed the people he represents.   # not to mention those of us who value the tradition of military service read: a lot of people i want to make one thing super duper clear. what trump said was fucking asinine.  this is in no way meant to be a defense of anything trump has ever said or will say in the near future .  and you are right, he did insult a lot of people in and around the military.  but i do not think being in and around the military tradition makes anyone more important than anyone else.  and trump may have gone after military people, but mccain dismissed giant chunks of american citizens, voters, and activists with just the wave of a hand and a reference to them as  the crazies .  and i do think that mccains comments are hugely more important because he dismissed the people he represents.  the donald represents no one.  he is putting out his ideas in hopes of representing all of us, but right now, he is just a rich guy.  mccain is a senator for the state of arizona and casually dismissed a substantial chunk of his constituents.  both guys said things they should not have, but mccain is was worse.   #  mccain is comments on the other hand were directed at the political candidacy of trump, and more broadly at political views of some constituents with whom he disagrees.   #  0.  trump is comments about mccain were on a nonpolitical issue.  in general, we consider it less acceptable to attack or denigrate people for nonpolitical issues than political ones.  mccain is comments on the other hand were directed at the political candidacy of trump, and more broadly at political views of some constituents with whom he disagrees.  0.  trump is comments were highly directed, whereas mccain is were not.  trump made a specific accusation targeting a specific person.  mccain did not target anyone in particular for ridicule or disrepute.  0.  being an elected official does not mean bowing to public opinion on every question.  mccain probably does feel that the positions espoused at the trump/arpaio rally were crazy.  even if they are popular positions, that does not mean mccain is obligated to support them.  0.  there are, in fact, crazies out there.  both parties have extremely far out there wings who hold positions most voters find to be crazy.  trump is appeal is in large part to the furthest right wings of the republican party, which is where proportionately more crazies reside.   #  in general, we consider it less acceptable to attack or denigrate people for nonpolitical issues than political ones.   # in general, we consider it less acceptable to attack or denigrate people for nonpolitical issues than political ones.  mccain is comments on the other hand were directed at the political candidacy of trump, and more broadly at political views of some constituents with whom he disagrees.  i think you have a good point in comparing nonpolitical comments vs political, but here is where you lose me. mccain did not go after trump.  he referred to his  supporters  as  the crazies .  that, to me, is a classic case of punching down.  if mccain had referred to the donald as  the crazy  i would agree with you.  but to go after citizens participating in a democrazy ? way worse.  trump made a specific accusation targeting a specific person.  mccain did not target anyone in particular for ridicule or disrepute.  vehemently disagree.  you do not get comments that are much more directed than referring to the  specific  rally in phoenix, then calling everyone there  the crazies .  mccain probably does feel that the positions espoused at the trump/arpaio rally were crazy.  even if they are popular positions, that does not mean mccain is obligated to support them.  i definitely do not think he should support them.  and again, if he had referred to trump is policies as  crazy , i would be fine with that.  but he did not.  mccain attacked the citizens who went to the rally.  both parties have extremely far out there wings who hold positions most voters find to be crazy.  trump is appeal is in large part to the furthest right wings of the republican party, which is where proportionately more crazies reside.  political craziness is all a matter of perspective.  you should see how /r/conservative talks about anyone who supports bernie.  i do not think john mccain gets to decide who the crazies are.   #  i  guarantee  that scott walker and his ilk think that sanders is really, truly crazy.   # i do not get that.  why is john mccain or you. or me.  the arbiter of who is crazy and who is not ? scott walker supports mandatory ultrasounds for abortions, and does not think their should be exceptions for rape or incest.  a lot of people would call that crazy.  scott walker supports not just all of the current nsa spying, but potentially more as well.  i would, personally, call that fucking crazy.  would it be ok for an elected politician to call his supporters crazy for attending a rally ? but let is flip this on its head.  bernie sanders supports the $0 minimum wage, universal healthcare, breaking up big banks, and a ton of other very progressive policies.  i  guarantee  that scott walker and his ilk think that sanders is really, truly crazy.  sanders held a rally in madison, in walker is home state of wisconsin, that somewhere around a billion people attended.  why could not walker call the people that attended  the crazies  ? who decides who are  the crazies  and who are not, and who decides who gets to say it and who does not ? i ca not agree with you that calling trump is  supporters  crazy is ok, particularly from the senator elected to represent those supporters.
i am sure most people on here have seen the donald is comments about john mccain is military service.  i do not know if a lot of people are aware what john mccain said before that.  here is an article URL talking about exactly what mccain said.  here is a picture from the rally URL that is a standing room only crowd.  there may not be thousands there like some have said, but there are certainly hundreds and likely over 0,0 people there to show their support a full 0 months before the first primary and over 0 months before the arizona primary.  after trump had a rally in phoenix, az the state mccain represents for a standing room only crowd, john mccain while sitting in the senate office he was sent to by the voters of arizona said to a reporter for the new yorker,  this performance with our friend out in phoenix is very hurtful to me, because what he did was  he fired up the crazies.    that is a sitting senator denigrating the people of his own state for going to a rally for a presidential candidate from his own party.  these are just regular people participating in democracy, and getting mocked by their own elected representative.  what trump said about pows and the military was clearly out of line, but is not nearly as repugnant as mccain saying that about thousands of american citizens that he represents.  trump is awful.  just awful.  he is a mockery and making a sham of our election process.  he should be polling at under 0.  but i do not get to make those decisions, and john mccain sure as fuck does not get to either.  the republican base is showing their support for trump, and for john mccain to dismiss that by calling his own constituents  the crazies  is far worse than what trump said about mccain.   #  but i do not get to make those decisions, and john mccain sure as fuck does not get to either.   #  you do not get to make those decisions, but you are impacted by them and are more than welcome to comment on them.   # you do not get to make those decisions, but you are impacted by them and are more than welcome to comment on them.  when people support a ridiculous politician, that conveys information about them.  you are stating that you believe that this politician can adequately represent your interests, or at the very least that they are your best choice.  if you look at the us political scene and think that donald trump is your man, then that is fine.  it just means you are one of the crazies, since you have selected the crazy candidate.  you have the right to do so, but that does not mean that the rest of us have to respect your attempt to inflict crazy on country.   #  but i do not think being in and around the military tradition makes anyone more important than anyone else.   # not to mention those of us who value the tradition of military service read: a lot of people i want to make one thing super duper clear. what trump said was fucking asinine.  this is in no way meant to be a defense of anything trump has ever said or will say in the near future .  and you are right, he did insult a lot of people in and around the military.  but i do not think being in and around the military tradition makes anyone more important than anyone else.  and trump may have gone after military people, but mccain dismissed giant chunks of american citizens, voters, and activists with just the wave of a hand and a reference to them as  the crazies .  and i do think that mccains comments are hugely more important because he dismissed the people he represents.  the donald represents no one.  he is putting out his ideas in hopes of representing all of us, but right now, he is just a rich guy.  mccain is a senator for the state of arizona and casually dismissed a substantial chunk of his constituents.  both guys said things they should not have, but mccain is was worse.   #  both parties have extremely far out there wings who hold positions most voters find to be crazy.   #  0.  trump is comments about mccain were on a nonpolitical issue.  in general, we consider it less acceptable to attack or denigrate people for nonpolitical issues than political ones.  mccain is comments on the other hand were directed at the political candidacy of trump, and more broadly at political views of some constituents with whom he disagrees.  0.  trump is comments were highly directed, whereas mccain is were not.  trump made a specific accusation targeting a specific person.  mccain did not target anyone in particular for ridicule or disrepute.  0.  being an elected official does not mean bowing to public opinion on every question.  mccain probably does feel that the positions espoused at the trump/arpaio rally were crazy.  even if they are popular positions, that does not mean mccain is obligated to support them.  0.  there are, in fact, crazies out there.  both parties have extremely far out there wings who hold positions most voters find to be crazy.  trump is appeal is in large part to the furthest right wings of the republican party, which is where proportionately more crazies reside.   #  that, to me, is a classic case of punching down.   # in general, we consider it less acceptable to attack or denigrate people for nonpolitical issues than political ones.  mccain is comments on the other hand were directed at the political candidacy of trump, and more broadly at political views of some constituents with whom he disagrees.  i think you have a good point in comparing nonpolitical comments vs political, but here is where you lose me. mccain did not go after trump.  he referred to his  supporters  as  the crazies .  that, to me, is a classic case of punching down.  if mccain had referred to the donald as  the crazy  i would agree with you.  but to go after citizens participating in a democrazy ? way worse.  trump made a specific accusation targeting a specific person.  mccain did not target anyone in particular for ridicule or disrepute.  vehemently disagree.  you do not get comments that are much more directed than referring to the  specific  rally in phoenix, then calling everyone there  the crazies .  mccain probably does feel that the positions espoused at the trump/arpaio rally were crazy.  even if they are popular positions, that does not mean mccain is obligated to support them.  i definitely do not think he should support them.  and again, if he had referred to trump is policies as  crazy , i would be fine with that.  but he did not.  mccain attacked the citizens who went to the rally.  both parties have extremely far out there wings who hold positions most voters find to be crazy.  trump is appeal is in large part to the furthest right wings of the republican party, which is where proportionately more crazies reside.  political craziness is all a matter of perspective.  you should see how /r/conservative talks about anyone who supports bernie.  i do not think john mccain gets to decide who the crazies are.   #  is it offensive to say that donald trump is crazy ?  # this is not just any candidate, though.  if scott walker had gone to arizona and mccain called his rally attendees crazy, i would think he would be completely out of line.  however, i have no qualms thinking that donald trump is crazy.  think about it this way.  is it offensive to say that donald trump is crazy ? i do not think so, because he says crazy things.  it tracks that the people attending trump is rally agree with his statements.  sure, some may have gone to voice an opposing opinion, or to cover the story for news organizations, or to see the train wreck that is donald trump, but i am willing to bet that a good number of people who attended the rally agree with trump.  so, if people agree with trump is views, and trump is views are crazy, would this not logically mean that these people are crazy ?
the general consensus with frame rates greater than 0 or 0 fps in live action work is that it sucks.  the illusion of a flickery alternate world breaks down when the motion is as smooth as reality.  the viewer more readily perceives actors in makeup on sets.  it all just looks.  fake.  any film in hfr, either filmed at 0 or interpolated on a tv, looks like a cheap soap opera.  i recently bought a ps0.  gta v looks worse than it did on the ps0.  the draw distance is better, there are less pop ins, but the frame rate is too high.  everything looks smooth and fake and video gamey.  flying over the city reminds me of playing n0, because i ca not see los santos.  i just see a bunch of polygons and textures and shaders.  actors in makeup on sets.   edit: gta0 runs at 0fps on ps0.  why does it look worse ? why does it feel more fake ? is the falseness of everything just.  clearer ?   i just wish there was a way to limit the frame rate to 0 or 0.  it would look fantastic.  but i keep hearing people say they need 0fps ! i do not know why this is but i have some guesses: 0.  gamers want that hyper reality.  video games and live action film are two completely different mediums, so games are expected to or at least allowed to look different.  there is something about that false smoothness that is appealing to a gamer.  it makes something look  video gamey .  0.  is it more of a pc thing ? as a way to show off ? a high frame rate means the computer is powerful/expensive.  it gives the user a feeling that their machine is worth the money ? i do not know.  0.  it increases gamer performance ? does it have something to do with getting the slightest advantage when playing other people ? do gamers with the highest refresh rates perform better ? does getting the most headshots mean more than enjoying an immersive experience ? i suppose that is the sticking point: immersion.  a high frame rate does not immerse me in a video game.  it does the opposite.  nb this is my view of games on a rectangular screen; i have never tried a modern vr like oculus.  hfr is probably critical with that.   #  does it have something to do with getting the slightest advantage when playing other people ?  #  do gamers with the highest refresh rates perform better ?  # do gamers with the highest refresh rates perform better ? does getting the most headshots mean more than enjoying an immersive experience ? short answer: yes.  long answer: not every video game is story driven.  if you are playing multiplayer cod, lol, or wow, you are going to want the high fps in order to be able to react better.  not everybody wants to be told a story in games especially not triple a games i have not enjoyed a triple a story since portal, which was also only arguably triple a , and for those people, anything much less than 0 fps especially something as low as 0 0 is very, very bad.  many games nowadays especially pc games have fps caps you can adjust.  they usually slide all over, from very low to 0 and up.  look into gta it is possible there is a mod that would help install it.  this is probably the best solution lower fps is not for everyone, but some people like you enjoy it and would prefer an easy way to limit it.  a high frame rate does not immerse me in a video game.  it does the opposite.  i guess this is the crux of the matter: not everyone feels this way.  personally, i see very little difference whether the game is 0 fps or 0 if the story is engaging, i will like the game.  persona 0 golden is one of my favorite games story wise, and iirc it is got an fps of 0 that does not affect the story imo.  i find it hard to really get immersed in a game unless the writing is good, regardless of graphics although sometimes graphics will be a turn off even though to the moon is not the prettiest pixel art i have seen, i got totally engrossed in it and played it through in one sitting.  to me, high frame rate is not a bad thing bad storytelling, grammatical errors, and graphical glitches are what will turn me off in terms of immersion.  for you, is 0fps bad for games  storytelling ? sure, why not.  for absolutely everyone else, is this also true ? not in the slightest.   #  just going to edit in totalbiscuits   the great framerate non debate  URL just in case anyone else has not.   #  high framerates are only offputting to people who are not accustomed to them hence you feeling uncomfortable once moving to better hardware .  that  smoothness  actually starts to feel very normal, and soon enough you will notice that when your framerate begins to dip you will feel the game  chugging  instead.  as far as being objectively better for gameplay, it very much is.  at 0 frames a second there is a 0/0th of a second delay between pressing the button and seeing the reaction on the screen minimum, hardware and engine delay is also a thing, but i digress .  at 0fps you have much more precise reaction times and control, which is something very desirable in an interactive experience that you do not have in a movie.  in gta for example, if you are racing along in a sports car, and your framerate dips or skips, you can go sailing past where you were expecting to go and end up crashing quite badly.  with higher framerates the delay is reduced and you have more precise control over the car.  there is also the issue that most tv is and monitors run at a 0hz refresh rate, so the screen is actually showing you the same image twice for each frame the game renders, which can be very offputting and goes along with that feeling of chugging and not being responsive.  and finally, most games do not hold a steady framerate.  if you are aiming for 0 and it drops in a big moment to 0, it is still high enough that it does not stutter and become unplayable really.  if you are a designer and you aim to have it run at 0 most times, and suddenly it hits a big moment and it tanks to 0 or 0 fps the game becomes an awful slideshow.  just going to edit in totalbiscuits   the great framerate non debate  URL just in case anyone else has not.  it pretty much goes over every reason why 0fps minimum is objectively better.   #  but then digital video happened, and with it came some new quirks and drawbacks; lcds have fixed resolutions, have inherent pixel transition delay on top of signal processing delay, and zero fading between color/frame transitions.   #  well, from a story driven slower paced console game, 0fps is probably okay.  but any game that needs lots of input from the player, and is not restricted by the hardware, there is a reason 0fps does not make sense.  back when monitors/tvs were crt based, the electron gun ran across the screen at a fixed rate, typically 0hz 0/0th sec .  with crts, there was no such thing as a fixed resolution since the entire system was analog, almost  zero  delay when drawing to the screen, and since the entire deal worked by exciting phosphors on the screen, you could do  lots  of whacky things due to persistence of vision i. e.  interlacing video .  if you ran at half the frame rate, no big deal, the screen smoothed it out and inputs are only marginally delayed.  but then digital video happened, and with it came some new quirks and drawbacks; lcds have fixed resolutions, have inherent pixel transition delay on top of signal processing delay, and zero fading between color/frame transitions.  so on digital displays, running on that same 0fps  feels  jittery due to the quick transition between frames, and have an extra  0ms delay between when a given frame is rendered and painted.  the delay objectively measurable too, try playing a rhythm game from the gamecube/ps0 era on a flatscreen, it will be off by multiple beats if there is not a calibration feature.  by running at the refresh rate of the screen, you will  at most  be risking some visual tearing during slowdowns, but the game will still take your input in real time or close to it .  on the other hand, running at half the refresh rate, you are double drawing frames for  no reason , sampling inputs at half speed doubling input lag , and during slowdowns you will be running slow enough to cause massive tearing and very noticeable unresponsiveness.   #  i watch a lot of gameplay at 0fps, i play at 0, there is a lot of live video and movies being made by indies on youtube being released at 0.  it is something that is becoming much more mainstream.   #  youtube has recently allowed the upload of 0fps video, and a lot of game devs have started releasing 0fps trailers for their games.  i watch a lot of gameplay at 0fps, i play at 0, there is a lot of live video and movies being made by indies on youtube being released at 0.  it is something that is becoming much more mainstream.  you mentioned the hobbit testing the waters at 0.  it is something people are not yet used to, but it is something that is preferable and we will be getting there.  i love the analogy above that you have been having undercooked food so long that you got used to it and now real good food is too rich for you.  the only reason we had 0 or 0fps is because film was expensive, file sizes for videos was expensive and hard on the internet plans of old, and because the hardware of old consoles could not handle it.  when you have the choice, 0 is objectively better for basically anything.   #  but then, is not the fact that the vast majority of games have graphics that are not even close to photorealistic a bigger obstruction to you getting this film like immersion ?  # but then, is not the fact that the vast majority of games have graphics that are not even close to photorealistic a bigger obstruction to you getting this film like immersion ? it seems like frame rate issue would be secondary to that.  do you have a beast computer and only play the top tier aaa games that look %0 photorealistic ? how come you can forgive video gamey graphics so easily but not video gamey framerates ? does a live action movie playing at 0fps really look less realistic than a videogame playing at 0fps though ? no one would mistake the videogame for real life and the movie as cgi.
the general consensus with frame rates greater than 0 or 0 fps in live action work is that it sucks.  the illusion of a flickery alternate world breaks down when the motion is as smooth as reality.  the viewer more readily perceives actors in makeup on sets.  it all just looks.  fake.  any film in hfr, either filmed at 0 or interpolated on a tv, looks like a cheap soap opera.  i recently bought a ps0.  gta v looks worse than it did on the ps0.  the draw distance is better, there are less pop ins, but the frame rate is too high.  everything looks smooth and fake and video gamey.  flying over the city reminds me of playing n0, because i ca not see los santos.  i just see a bunch of polygons and textures and shaders.  actors in makeup on sets.   edit: gta0 runs at 0fps on ps0.  why does it look worse ? why does it feel more fake ? is the falseness of everything just.  clearer ?   i just wish there was a way to limit the frame rate to 0 or 0.  it would look fantastic.  but i keep hearing people say they need 0fps ! i do not know why this is but i have some guesses: 0.  gamers want that hyper reality.  video games and live action film are two completely different mediums, so games are expected to or at least allowed to look different.  there is something about that false smoothness that is appealing to a gamer.  it makes something look  video gamey .  0.  is it more of a pc thing ? as a way to show off ? a high frame rate means the computer is powerful/expensive.  it gives the user a feeling that their machine is worth the money ? i do not know.  0.  it increases gamer performance ? does it have something to do with getting the slightest advantage when playing other people ? do gamers with the highest refresh rates perform better ? does getting the most headshots mean more than enjoying an immersive experience ? i suppose that is the sticking point: immersion.  a high frame rate does not immerse me in a video game.  it does the opposite.  nb this is my view of games on a rectangular screen; i have never tried a modern vr like oculus.  hfr is probably critical with that.   #  i just wish there was a way to limit the frame rate to 0 or 0.  it would look fantastic.   #  many games nowadays especially pc games have fps caps you can adjust.   # do gamers with the highest refresh rates perform better ? does getting the most headshots mean more than enjoying an immersive experience ? short answer: yes.  long answer: not every video game is story driven.  if you are playing multiplayer cod, lol, or wow, you are going to want the high fps in order to be able to react better.  not everybody wants to be told a story in games especially not triple a games i have not enjoyed a triple a story since portal, which was also only arguably triple a , and for those people, anything much less than 0 fps especially something as low as 0 0 is very, very bad.  many games nowadays especially pc games have fps caps you can adjust.  they usually slide all over, from very low to 0 and up.  look into gta it is possible there is a mod that would help install it.  this is probably the best solution lower fps is not for everyone, but some people like you enjoy it and would prefer an easy way to limit it.  a high frame rate does not immerse me in a video game.  it does the opposite.  i guess this is the crux of the matter: not everyone feels this way.  personally, i see very little difference whether the game is 0 fps or 0 if the story is engaging, i will like the game.  persona 0 golden is one of my favorite games story wise, and iirc it is got an fps of 0 that does not affect the story imo.  i find it hard to really get immersed in a game unless the writing is good, regardless of graphics although sometimes graphics will be a turn off even though to the moon is not the prettiest pixel art i have seen, i got totally engrossed in it and played it through in one sitting.  to me, high frame rate is not a bad thing bad storytelling, grammatical errors, and graphical glitches are what will turn me off in terms of immersion.  for you, is 0fps bad for games  storytelling ? sure, why not.  for absolutely everyone else, is this also true ? not in the slightest.   #  just going to edit in totalbiscuits   the great framerate non debate  URL just in case anyone else has not.   #  high framerates are only offputting to people who are not accustomed to them hence you feeling uncomfortable once moving to better hardware .  that  smoothness  actually starts to feel very normal, and soon enough you will notice that when your framerate begins to dip you will feel the game  chugging  instead.  as far as being objectively better for gameplay, it very much is.  at 0 frames a second there is a 0/0th of a second delay between pressing the button and seeing the reaction on the screen minimum, hardware and engine delay is also a thing, but i digress .  at 0fps you have much more precise reaction times and control, which is something very desirable in an interactive experience that you do not have in a movie.  in gta for example, if you are racing along in a sports car, and your framerate dips or skips, you can go sailing past where you were expecting to go and end up crashing quite badly.  with higher framerates the delay is reduced and you have more precise control over the car.  there is also the issue that most tv is and monitors run at a 0hz refresh rate, so the screen is actually showing you the same image twice for each frame the game renders, which can be very offputting and goes along with that feeling of chugging and not being responsive.  and finally, most games do not hold a steady framerate.  if you are aiming for 0 and it drops in a big moment to 0, it is still high enough that it does not stutter and become unplayable really.  if you are a designer and you aim to have it run at 0 most times, and suddenly it hits a big moment and it tanks to 0 or 0 fps the game becomes an awful slideshow.  just going to edit in totalbiscuits   the great framerate non debate  URL just in case anyone else has not.  it pretty much goes over every reason why 0fps minimum is objectively better.   #  but any game that needs lots of input from the player, and is not restricted by the hardware, there is a reason 0fps does not make sense.   #  well, from a story driven slower paced console game, 0fps is probably okay.  but any game that needs lots of input from the player, and is not restricted by the hardware, there is a reason 0fps does not make sense.  back when monitors/tvs were crt based, the electron gun ran across the screen at a fixed rate, typically 0hz 0/0th sec .  with crts, there was no such thing as a fixed resolution since the entire system was analog, almost  zero  delay when drawing to the screen, and since the entire deal worked by exciting phosphors on the screen, you could do  lots  of whacky things due to persistence of vision i. e.  interlacing video .  if you ran at half the frame rate, no big deal, the screen smoothed it out and inputs are only marginally delayed.  but then digital video happened, and with it came some new quirks and drawbacks; lcds have fixed resolutions, have inherent pixel transition delay on top of signal processing delay, and zero fading between color/frame transitions.  so on digital displays, running on that same 0fps  feels  jittery due to the quick transition between frames, and have an extra  0ms delay between when a given frame is rendered and painted.  the delay objectively measurable too, try playing a rhythm game from the gamecube/ps0 era on a flatscreen, it will be off by multiple beats if there is not a calibration feature.  by running at the refresh rate of the screen, you will  at most  be risking some visual tearing during slowdowns, but the game will still take your input in real time or close to it .  on the other hand, running at half the refresh rate, you are double drawing frames for  no reason , sampling inputs at half speed doubling input lag , and during slowdowns you will be running slow enough to cause massive tearing and very noticeable unresponsiveness.   #  you mentioned the hobbit testing the waters at 0.  it is something people are not yet used to, but it is something that is preferable and we will be getting there.   #  youtube has recently allowed the upload of 0fps video, and a lot of game devs have started releasing 0fps trailers for their games.  i watch a lot of gameplay at 0fps, i play at 0, there is a lot of live video and movies being made by indies on youtube being released at 0.  it is something that is becoming much more mainstream.  you mentioned the hobbit testing the waters at 0.  it is something people are not yet used to, but it is something that is preferable and we will be getting there.  i love the analogy above that you have been having undercooked food so long that you got used to it and now real good food is too rich for you.  the only reason we had 0 or 0fps is because film was expensive, file sizes for videos was expensive and hard on the internet plans of old, and because the hardware of old consoles could not handle it.  when you have the choice, 0 is objectively better for basically anything.   #  how come you can forgive video gamey graphics so easily but not video gamey framerates ?  # but then, is not the fact that the vast majority of games have graphics that are not even close to photorealistic a bigger obstruction to you getting this film like immersion ? it seems like frame rate issue would be secondary to that.  do you have a beast computer and only play the top tier aaa games that look %0 photorealistic ? how come you can forgive video gamey graphics so easily but not video gamey framerates ? does a live action movie playing at 0fps really look less realistic than a videogame playing at 0fps though ? no one would mistake the videogame for real life and the movie as cgi.
the general consensus with frame rates greater than 0 or 0 fps in live action work is that it sucks.  the illusion of a flickery alternate world breaks down when the motion is as smooth as reality.  the viewer more readily perceives actors in makeup on sets.  it all just looks.  fake.  any film in hfr, either filmed at 0 or interpolated on a tv, looks like a cheap soap opera.  i recently bought a ps0.  gta v looks worse than it did on the ps0.  the draw distance is better, there are less pop ins, but the frame rate is too high.  everything looks smooth and fake and video gamey.  flying over the city reminds me of playing n0, because i ca not see los santos.  i just see a bunch of polygons and textures and shaders.  actors in makeup on sets.   edit: gta0 runs at 0fps on ps0.  why does it look worse ? why does it feel more fake ? is the falseness of everything just.  clearer ?   i just wish there was a way to limit the frame rate to 0 or 0.  it would look fantastic.  but i keep hearing people say they need 0fps ! i do not know why this is but i have some guesses: 0.  gamers want that hyper reality.  video games and live action film are two completely different mediums, so games are expected to or at least allowed to look different.  there is something about that false smoothness that is appealing to a gamer.  it makes something look  video gamey .  0.  is it more of a pc thing ? as a way to show off ? a high frame rate means the computer is powerful/expensive.  it gives the user a feeling that their machine is worth the money ? i do not know.  0.  it increases gamer performance ? does it have something to do with getting the slightest advantage when playing other people ? do gamers with the highest refresh rates perform better ? does getting the most headshots mean more than enjoying an immersive experience ? i suppose that is the sticking point: immersion.  a high frame rate does not immerse me in a video game.  it does the opposite.  nb this is my view of games on a rectangular screen; i have never tried a modern vr like oculus.  hfr is probably critical with that.   #  i suppose that is the sticking point: immersion.   #  a high frame rate does not immerse me in a video game.   # do gamers with the highest refresh rates perform better ? does getting the most headshots mean more than enjoying an immersive experience ? short answer: yes.  long answer: not every video game is story driven.  if you are playing multiplayer cod, lol, or wow, you are going to want the high fps in order to be able to react better.  not everybody wants to be told a story in games especially not triple a games i have not enjoyed a triple a story since portal, which was also only arguably triple a , and for those people, anything much less than 0 fps especially something as low as 0 0 is very, very bad.  many games nowadays especially pc games have fps caps you can adjust.  they usually slide all over, from very low to 0 and up.  look into gta it is possible there is a mod that would help install it.  this is probably the best solution lower fps is not for everyone, but some people like you enjoy it and would prefer an easy way to limit it.  a high frame rate does not immerse me in a video game.  it does the opposite.  i guess this is the crux of the matter: not everyone feels this way.  personally, i see very little difference whether the game is 0 fps or 0 if the story is engaging, i will like the game.  persona 0 golden is one of my favorite games story wise, and iirc it is got an fps of 0 that does not affect the story imo.  i find it hard to really get immersed in a game unless the writing is good, regardless of graphics although sometimes graphics will be a turn off even though to the moon is not the prettiest pixel art i have seen, i got totally engrossed in it and played it through in one sitting.  to me, high frame rate is not a bad thing bad storytelling, grammatical errors, and graphical glitches are what will turn me off in terms of immersion.  for you, is 0fps bad for games  storytelling ? sure, why not.  for absolutely everyone else, is this also true ? not in the slightest.   #  as far as being objectively better for gameplay, it very much is.   #  high framerates are only offputting to people who are not accustomed to them hence you feeling uncomfortable once moving to better hardware .  that  smoothness  actually starts to feel very normal, and soon enough you will notice that when your framerate begins to dip you will feel the game  chugging  instead.  as far as being objectively better for gameplay, it very much is.  at 0 frames a second there is a 0/0th of a second delay between pressing the button and seeing the reaction on the screen minimum, hardware and engine delay is also a thing, but i digress .  at 0fps you have much more precise reaction times and control, which is something very desirable in an interactive experience that you do not have in a movie.  in gta for example, if you are racing along in a sports car, and your framerate dips or skips, you can go sailing past where you were expecting to go and end up crashing quite badly.  with higher framerates the delay is reduced and you have more precise control over the car.  there is also the issue that most tv is and monitors run at a 0hz refresh rate, so the screen is actually showing you the same image twice for each frame the game renders, which can be very offputting and goes along with that feeling of chugging and not being responsive.  and finally, most games do not hold a steady framerate.  if you are aiming for 0 and it drops in a big moment to 0, it is still high enough that it does not stutter and become unplayable really.  if you are a designer and you aim to have it run at 0 most times, and suddenly it hits a big moment and it tanks to 0 or 0 fps the game becomes an awful slideshow.  just going to edit in totalbiscuits   the great framerate non debate  URL just in case anyone else has not.  it pretty much goes over every reason why 0fps minimum is objectively better.   #  by running at the refresh rate of the screen, you will  at most  be risking some visual tearing during slowdowns, but the game will still take your input in real time or close to it .   #  well, from a story driven slower paced console game, 0fps is probably okay.  but any game that needs lots of input from the player, and is not restricted by the hardware, there is a reason 0fps does not make sense.  back when monitors/tvs were crt based, the electron gun ran across the screen at a fixed rate, typically 0hz 0/0th sec .  with crts, there was no such thing as a fixed resolution since the entire system was analog, almost  zero  delay when drawing to the screen, and since the entire deal worked by exciting phosphors on the screen, you could do  lots  of whacky things due to persistence of vision i. e.  interlacing video .  if you ran at half the frame rate, no big deal, the screen smoothed it out and inputs are only marginally delayed.  but then digital video happened, and with it came some new quirks and drawbacks; lcds have fixed resolutions, have inherent pixel transition delay on top of signal processing delay, and zero fading between color/frame transitions.  so on digital displays, running on that same 0fps  feels  jittery due to the quick transition between frames, and have an extra  0ms delay between when a given frame is rendered and painted.  the delay objectively measurable too, try playing a rhythm game from the gamecube/ps0 era on a flatscreen, it will be off by multiple beats if there is not a calibration feature.  by running at the refresh rate of the screen, you will  at most  be risking some visual tearing during slowdowns, but the game will still take your input in real time or close to it .  on the other hand, running at half the refresh rate, you are double drawing frames for  no reason , sampling inputs at half speed doubling input lag , and during slowdowns you will be running slow enough to cause massive tearing and very noticeable unresponsiveness.   #  youtube has recently allowed the upload of 0fps video, and a lot of game devs have started releasing 0fps trailers for their games.   #  youtube has recently allowed the upload of 0fps video, and a lot of game devs have started releasing 0fps trailers for their games.  i watch a lot of gameplay at 0fps, i play at 0, there is a lot of live video and movies being made by indies on youtube being released at 0.  it is something that is becoming much more mainstream.  you mentioned the hobbit testing the waters at 0.  it is something people are not yet used to, but it is something that is preferable and we will be getting there.  i love the analogy above that you have been having undercooked food so long that you got used to it and now real good food is too rich for you.  the only reason we had 0 or 0fps is because film was expensive, file sizes for videos was expensive and hard on the internet plans of old, and because the hardware of old consoles could not handle it.  when you have the choice, 0 is objectively better for basically anything.   #  but then, is not the fact that the vast majority of games have graphics that are not even close to photorealistic a bigger obstruction to you getting this film like immersion ?  # but then, is not the fact that the vast majority of games have graphics that are not even close to photorealistic a bigger obstruction to you getting this film like immersion ? it seems like frame rate issue would be secondary to that.  do you have a beast computer and only play the top tier aaa games that look %0 photorealistic ? how come you can forgive video gamey graphics so easily but not video gamey framerates ? does a live action movie playing at 0fps really look less realistic than a videogame playing at 0fps though ? no one would mistake the videogame for real life and the movie as cgi.
the general consensus with frame rates greater than 0 or 0 fps in live action work is that it sucks.  the illusion of a flickery alternate world breaks down when the motion is as smooth as reality.  the viewer more readily perceives actors in makeup on sets.  it all just looks.  fake.  any film in hfr, either filmed at 0 or interpolated on a tv, looks like a cheap soap opera.  i recently bought a ps0.  gta v looks worse than it did on the ps0.  the draw distance is better, there are less pop ins, but the frame rate is too high.  everything looks smooth and fake and video gamey.  flying over the city reminds me of playing n0, because i ca not see los santos.  i just see a bunch of polygons and textures and shaders.  actors in makeup on sets.   edit: gta0 runs at 0fps on ps0.  why does it look worse ? why does it feel more fake ? is the falseness of everything just.  clearer ?   i just wish there was a way to limit the frame rate to 0 or 0.  it would look fantastic.  but i keep hearing people say they need 0fps ! i do not know why this is but i have some guesses: 0.  gamers want that hyper reality.  video games and live action film are two completely different mediums, so games are expected to or at least allowed to look different.  there is something about that false smoothness that is appealing to a gamer.  it makes something look  video gamey .  0.  is it more of a pc thing ? as a way to show off ? a high frame rate means the computer is powerful/expensive.  it gives the user a feeling that their machine is worth the money ? i do not know.  0.  it increases gamer performance ? does it have something to do with getting the slightest advantage when playing other people ? do gamers with the highest refresh rates perform better ? does getting the most headshots mean more than enjoying an immersive experience ? i suppose that is the sticking point: immersion.  a high frame rate does not immerse me in a video game.  it does the opposite.  nb this is my view of games on a rectangular screen; i have never tried a modern vr like oculus.  hfr is probably critical with that.   #  the draw distance is better, there are less pop ins, but the frame rate is too high.   #  everything looks smooth and fake and video gamey.   #  alright, it is simply this: put your hand about a foot in front of your face, near the left of your field of vision.  then, slowly move said hand towards the right edge of your field of vision while blinking as rapidly as you can.  then, repeat the process while only blinking twice, rapidly, during the motion and otherwise keeping your eyes open during the rest of the process.  which one gave you a better view of the motion of the hand ? now repeat with zero blinks.  which one gave you the best view of  hand crossing field of view  ? i hear it is a best seller.  now imagine the darkness when you blink was replaced with a blurry, smeared still photograph of the hand at the time you closed your eyelids.  what you are imagining right now is low fps screen displays.  in other words, real life already  displays  an absurdly high  frame rate .  the exact  frame rate  of real life is dependent on several factors, but let is just say it is high enough that your brain is way too slow to ever notice any difference between the highest and lowest framerate objects in real life visuals.  yes, there are objects that emit light faster than others.  talking of frame rate when we talk about visible objects and human eyes and human brains is technically way off track, but the tl;dr is that essentially a higher framerate gives your visual cortex more information to work with than a lower framerate.  what is broken is not everyone else is desire to have higher framerate.  it is your feeling that a higher framerate is somehow less similar to reality.  everything looks smooth and fake and video gamey.  flying over the city reminds me of playing n0, because i ca not see los santos.  i just see a bunch of polygons and textures and shaders.  actors in makeup on sets.  this seems to be something where you need to look in your own brain to figure out the cause.  where is that specific  fakeness  caused specifically by frame rate ? can you explain this  fakeness  in any terms other than your vague feeling that it does not look like you think it should ? because you damn well bet that if i am flying in a real plane, looking down, and the landscape suddenly starts passing by  less  smoothly with weird fraction of a second still frames where nothing is moving thirty times per second, it is going to look a hell of a lot  less  natural than.  yep, smooth high  framerate  landscape motion.  if you ca not explain the  fakeness  in concrete terms ideally that we could quantify , then it is probably all in your brain.  at which point we can just look at studies of what other people think looks fake.  and i am pretty sure the studies agree that most people think  lower  framerates look fake, not higher ones.   #  it pretty much goes over every reason why 0fps minimum is objectively better.   #  high framerates are only offputting to people who are not accustomed to them hence you feeling uncomfortable once moving to better hardware .  that  smoothness  actually starts to feel very normal, and soon enough you will notice that when your framerate begins to dip you will feel the game  chugging  instead.  as far as being objectively better for gameplay, it very much is.  at 0 frames a second there is a 0/0th of a second delay between pressing the button and seeing the reaction on the screen minimum, hardware and engine delay is also a thing, but i digress .  at 0fps you have much more precise reaction times and control, which is something very desirable in an interactive experience that you do not have in a movie.  in gta for example, if you are racing along in a sports car, and your framerate dips or skips, you can go sailing past where you were expecting to go and end up crashing quite badly.  with higher framerates the delay is reduced and you have more precise control over the car.  there is also the issue that most tv is and monitors run at a 0hz refresh rate, so the screen is actually showing you the same image twice for each frame the game renders, which can be very offputting and goes along with that feeling of chugging and not being responsive.  and finally, most games do not hold a steady framerate.  if you are aiming for 0 and it drops in a big moment to 0, it is still high enough that it does not stutter and become unplayable really.  if you are a designer and you aim to have it run at 0 most times, and suddenly it hits a big moment and it tanks to 0 or 0 fps the game becomes an awful slideshow.  just going to edit in totalbiscuits   the great framerate non debate  URL just in case anyone else has not.  it pretty much goes over every reason why 0fps minimum is objectively better.   #  if you ran at half the frame rate, no big deal, the screen smoothed it out and inputs are only marginally delayed.   #  well, from a story driven slower paced console game, 0fps is probably okay.  but any game that needs lots of input from the player, and is not restricted by the hardware, there is a reason 0fps does not make sense.  back when monitors/tvs were crt based, the electron gun ran across the screen at a fixed rate, typically 0hz 0/0th sec .  with crts, there was no such thing as a fixed resolution since the entire system was analog, almost  zero  delay when drawing to the screen, and since the entire deal worked by exciting phosphors on the screen, you could do  lots  of whacky things due to persistence of vision i. e.  interlacing video .  if you ran at half the frame rate, no big deal, the screen smoothed it out and inputs are only marginally delayed.  but then digital video happened, and with it came some new quirks and drawbacks; lcds have fixed resolutions, have inherent pixel transition delay on top of signal processing delay, and zero fading between color/frame transitions.  so on digital displays, running on that same 0fps  feels  jittery due to the quick transition between frames, and have an extra  0ms delay between when a given frame is rendered and painted.  the delay objectively measurable too, try playing a rhythm game from the gamecube/ps0 era on a flatscreen, it will be off by multiple beats if there is not a calibration feature.  by running at the refresh rate of the screen, you will  at most  be risking some visual tearing during slowdowns, but the game will still take your input in real time or close to it .  on the other hand, running at half the refresh rate, you are double drawing frames for  no reason , sampling inputs at half speed doubling input lag , and during slowdowns you will be running slow enough to cause massive tearing and very noticeable unresponsiveness.   #  youtube has recently allowed the upload of 0fps video, and a lot of game devs have started releasing 0fps trailers for their games.   #  youtube has recently allowed the upload of 0fps video, and a lot of game devs have started releasing 0fps trailers for their games.  i watch a lot of gameplay at 0fps, i play at 0, there is a lot of live video and movies being made by indies on youtube being released at 0.  it is something that is becoming much more mainstream.  you mentioned the hobbit testing the waters at 0.  it is something people are not yet used to, but it is something that is preferable and we will be getting there.  i love the analogy above that you have been having undercooked food so long that you got used to it and now real good food is too rich for you.  the only reason we had 0 or 0fps is because film was expensive, file sizes for videos was expensive and hard on the internet plans of old, and because the hardware of old consoles could not handle it.  when you have the choice, 0 is objectively better for basically anything.   #  but then, is not the fact that the vast majority of games have graphics that are not even close to photorealistic a bigger obstruction to you getting this film like immersion ?  # but then, is not the fact that the vast majority of games have graphics that are not even close to photorealistic a bigger obstruction to you getting this film like immersion ? it seems like frame rate issue would be secondary to that.  do you have a beast computer and only play the top tier aaa games that look %0 photorealistic ? how come you can forgive video gamey graphics so easily but not video gamey framerates ? does a live action movie playing at 0fps really look less realistic than a videogame playing at 0fps though ? no one would mistake the videogame for real life and the movie as cgi.
the general consensus with frame rates greater than 0 or 0 fps in live action work is that it sucks.  the illusion of a flickery alternate world breaks down when the motion is as smooth as reality.  the viewer more readily perceives actors in makeup on sets.  it all just looks.  fake.  any film in hfr, either filmed at 0 or interpolated on a tv, looks like a cheap soap opera.  i recently bought a ps0.  gta v looks worse than it did on the ps0.  the draw distance is better, there are less pop ins, but the frame rate is too high.  everything looks smooth and fake and video gamey.  flying over the city reminds me of playing n0, because i ca not see los santos.  i just see a bunch of polygons and textures and shaders.  actors in makeup on sets.   edit: gta0 runs at 0fps on ps0.  why does it look worse ? why does it feel more fake ? is the falseness of everything just.  clearer ?   i just wish there was a way to limit the frame rate to 0 or 0.  it would look fantastic.  but i keep hearing people say they need 0fps ! i do not know why this is but i have some guesses: 0.  gamers want that hyper reality.  video games and live action film are two completely different mediums, so games are expected to or at least allowed to look different.  there is something about that false smoothness that is appealing to a gamer.  it makes something look  video gamey .  0.  is it more of a pc thing ? as a way to show off ? a high frame rate means the computer is powerful/expensive.  it gives the user a feeling that their machine is worth the money ? i do not know.  0.  it increases gamer performance ? does it have something to do with getting the slightest advantage when playing other people ? do gamers with the highest refresh rates perform better ? does getting the most headshots mean more than enjoying an immersive experience ? i suppose that is the sticking point: immersion.  a high frame rate does not immerse me in a video game.  it does the opposite.  nb this is my view of games on a rectangular screen; i have never tried a modern vr like oculus.  hfr is probably critical with that.   #  i just wish there was a way to limit the frame rate to 0 or 0.  it would look fantastic.   #  this seems to be something where you need to look in your own brain to figure out the cause.   #  alright, it is simply this: put your hand about a foot in front of your face, near the left of your field of vision.  then, slowly move said hand towards the right edge of your field of vision while blinking as rapidly as you can.  then, repeat the process while only blinking twice, rapidly, during the motion and otherwise keeping your eyes open during the rest of the process.  which one gave you a better view of the motion of the hand ? now repeat with zero blinks.  which one gave you the best view of  hand crossing field of view  ? i hear it is a best seller.  now imagine the darkness when you blink was replaced with a blurry, smeared still photograph of the hand at the time you closed your eyelids.  what you are imagining right now is low fps screen displays.  in other words, real life already  displays  an absurdly high  frame rate .  the exact  frame rate  of real life is dependent on several factors, but let is just say it is high enough that your brain is way too slow to ever notice any difference between the highest and lowest framerate objects in real life visuals.  yes, there are objects that emit light faster than others.  talking of frame rate when we talk about visible objects and human eyes and human brains is technically way off track, but the tl;dr is that essentially a higher framerate gives your visual cortex more information to work with than a lower framerate.  what is broken is not everyone else is desire to have higher framerate.  it is your feeling that a higher framerate is somehow less similar to reality.  everything looks smooth and fake and video gamey.  flying over the city reminds me of playing n0, because i ca not see los santos.  i just see a bunch of polygons and textures and shaders.  actors in makeup on sets.  this seems to be something where you need to look in your own brain to figure out the cause.  where is that specific  fakeness  caused specifically by frame rate ? can you explain this  fakeness  in any terms other than your vague feeling that it does not look like you think it should ? because you damn well bet that if i am flying in a real plane, looking down, and the landscape suddenly starts passing by  less  smoothly with weird fraction of a second still frames where nothing is moving thirty times per second, it is going to look a hell of a lot  less  natural than.  yep, smooth high  framerate  landscape motion.  if you ca not explain the  fakeness  in concrete terms ideally that we could quantify , then it is probably all in your brain.  at which point we can just look at studies of what other people think looks fake.  and i am pretty sure the studies agree that most people think  lower  framerates look fake, not higher ones.   #  as far as being objectively better for gameplay, it very much is.   #  high framerates are only offputting to people who are not accustomed to them hence you feeling uncomfortable once moving to better hardware .  that  smoothness  actually starts to feel very normal, and soon enough you will notice that when your framerate begins to dip you will feel the game  chugging  instead.  as far as being objectively better for gameplay, it very much is.  at 0 frames a second there is a 0/0th of a second delay between pressing the button and seeing the reaction on the screen minimum, hardware and engine delay is also a thing, but i digress .  at 0fps you have much more precise reaction times and control, which is something very desirable in an interactive experience that you do not have in a movie.  in gta for example, if you are racing along in a sports car, and your framerate dips or skips, you can go sailing past where you were expecting to go and end up crashing quite badly.  with higher framerates the delay is reduced and you have more precise control over the car.  there is also the issue that most tv is and monitors run at a 0hz refresh rate, so the screen is actually showing you the same image twice for each frame the game renders, which can be very offputting and goes along with that feeling of chugging and not being responsive.  and finally, most games do not hold a steady framerate.  if you are aiming for 0 and it drops in a big moment to 0, it is still high enough that it does not stutter and become unplayable really.  if you are a designer and you aim to have it run at 0 most times, and suddenly it hits a big moment and it tanks to 0 or 0 fps the game becomes an awful slideshow.  just going to edit in totalbiscuits   the great framerate non debate  URL just in case anyone else has not.  it pretty much goes over every reason why 0fps minimum is objectively better.   #  well, from a story driven slower paced console game, 0fps is probably okay.   #  well, from a story driven slower paced console game, 0fps is probably okay.  but any game that needs lots of input from the player, and is not restricted by the hardware, there is a reason 0fps does not make sense.  back when monitors/tvs were crt based, the electron gun ran across the screen at a fixed rate, typically 0hz 0/0th sec .  with crts, there was no such thing as a fixed resolution since the entire system was analog, almost  zero  delay when drawing to the screen, and since the entire deal worked by exciting phosphors on the screen, you could do  lots  of whacky things due to persistence of vision i. e.  interlacing video .  if you ran at half the frame rate, no big deal, the screen smoothed it out and inputs are only marginally delayed.  but then digital video happened, and with it came some new quirks and drawbacks; lcds have fixed resolutions, have inherent pixel transition delay on top of signal processing delay, and zero fading between color/frame transitions.  so on digital displays, running on that same 0fps  feels  jittery due to the quick transition between frames, and have an extra  0ms delay between when a given frame is rendered and painted.  the delay objectively measurable too, try playing a rhythm game from the gamecube/ps0 era on a flatscreen, it will be off by multiple beats if there is not a calibration feature.  by running at the refresh rate of the screen, you will  at most  be risking some visual tearing during slowdowns, but the game will still take your input in real time or close to it .  on the other hand, running at half the refresh rate, you are double drawing frames for  no reason , sampling inputs at half speed doubling input lag , and during slowdowns you will be running slow enough to cause massive tearing and very noticeable unresponsiveness.   #  when you have the choice, 0 is objectively better for basically anything.   #  youtube has recently allowed the upload of 0fps video, and a lot of game devs have started releasing 0fps trailers for their games.  i watch a lot of gameplay at 0fps, i play at 0, there is a lot of live video and movies being made by indies on youtube being released at 0.  it is something that is becoming much more mainstream.  you mentioned the hobbit testing the waters at 0.  it is something people are not yet used to, but it is something that is preferable and we will be getting there.  i love the analogy above that you have been having undercooked food so long that you got used to it and now real good food is too rich for you.  the only reason we had 0 or 0fps is because film was expensive, file sizes for videos was expensive and hard on the internet plans of old, and because the hardware of old consoles could not handle it.  when you have the choice, 0 is objectively better for basically anything.   #  no one would mistake the videogame for real life and the movie as cgi.   # but then, is not the fact that the vast majority of games have graphics that are not even close to photorealistic a bigger obstruction to you getting this film like immersion ? it seems like frame rate issue would be secondary to that.  do you have a beast computer and only play the top tier aaa games that look %0 photorealistic ? how come you can forgive video gamey graphics so easily but not video gamey framerates ? does a live action movie playing at 0fps really look less realistic than a videogame playing at 0fps though ? no one would mistake the videogame for real life and the movie as cgi.
this goes for both men and women.  i have started to feel like i am unsuitable for a relationship because my ideals are not very normal.  this has caused problems with a long term significant other on many occasions and i have been thinking about breaking it off, not because of her but because i feel like my ideals are correct so i do not feel like i should be the one to change.  one such ideal is that it is not okay for men or women to comment on someone in the vein of  oh my god s he is so hot !   as it is extremely disrespectful to the other person in the relationship.  i am not talking like you ca not acknowledge someone is looks at all, obviously there are beautiful and handsome people in the world, but there is a major difference between  holy shit she is hot as hell  and  yeah she is beautiful  the former of which i see as disgusting.  change my view.   #  i have been thinking about breaking it off, not because of her but because i feel like my ideals are correct so i do not feel like i should be the one to change.   #  this may be why things are not working for you two.   # this may be why things are not working for you two.  it is not your ideal, but your steadfast refusal to even entertain the idea of being wrong.  why is one okay and the other not ? both are commenting on a person is physical appearance.  i do not understand how one is better than the other.   #  i knew a gay couple once that would sit around pointing out hotties to one another all the time.   #  there is no global right or wrong answer for relationships it is entirely down to what both parties are comfortable with.  i knew a gay couple once that would sit around pointing out hotties to one another all the time.  my wife and i are pretty open with one another about what we find attractive in the opposite sex, and within reason are not opposed to pointing out to one another when we see someone that is really wow.  if saying  they are hot !   is something that makes you uncomfortable, however, you are entirely in your rights to say please do not say that.  do ensure that you do not just scream at them explain your reasoning, how it makes you feel, and ask them to please stop.  if they continue to disregard your feelings even with reminders, then you get to decide whether it is a big enough deal to break off the relationship or something to simply accept.   #  it sounds like maybe this particular relationship may not be right for you, but that does not mean that no relationship is right for you.   #  i would not say it that you are not fit for a relationship.  in fact, i am saying the exact opposite.  everyone is entitled to have boundaries of what they like and do not like with their partners.  some relationships may be entirely asexual where both parties are comfortable just being close with one another, but sex is just something that they are not interested in.  others, it is lights off missionary sex occasionally.  some, anything goes as long as they are exclusive to one another.  in others, they are completely comfortable with wild orgies every night of the week with whomever stops by.  there is nothing wrong with any of these situations as long as both partners are communicating and staying within eachothers  comfort zones.  it sounds like maybe this particular relationship may not be right for you, but that does not mean that no relationship is right for you.   #  this is not a very popular opinion, and i love my current girlfriend, we have dated for essentially 0 years.   #  well, i feel like my view is not shared by many.  i am lucky my two closest friends feel the same, so they never seem to openly check out other girls when i am around.  i feel like it is my job to block out any sexual attraction there might be, so i personally never view someone else as sexually attractive.  this is not a very popular opinion, and i love my current girlfriend, we have dated for essentially 0 years.  i do not really feel any interest in finding someone else  #  your partner is a disrespectful asshole, and you are enabling them to act that way by accepting that behavior.   #   shared by many  .  your identity is not formed by public consensus.  stop being such a ninny and feel free to define your own standards.  the social environment you encounter does not invalidate you as an individual.  it sounds to me like your partner is inconsiderate, rude, and reactionary yelling at you instead of considering your point of view.  dump him/her and find someone that treats you with a modicum of respect.  also, be worthy of and demand to be treated with respect.  your partner is a disrespectful asshole, and you are enabling them to act that way by accepting that behavior.  dump them or put your foot down, one or the other.  no one will respect you or treat you decently in any part of life if you do not grow a spine though, so i would work on that.  being in a relationship does not stop attraction to other people .  but that does not give you a right to mistreat your so.  it could be that your girl/boyfriend is reacting to your lack of confidence by needling you though.  so i would take that as a sign that they are not impressed with the way that you are acting in general.  show some personal strength, confidence, and conviction that you deserve to be treated with the same consideration that you give them.  but at the same time, if you act threatened by the simple fact that they find someone attractive, you are going to have a bad time.  acting threatened is basically taking a lower social status than the object of their attractions.  that does not exactly inspire respect, especially if your partner is female.
this goes for both men and women.  i have started to feel like i am unsuitable for a relationship because my ideals are not very normal.  this has caused problems with a long term significant other on many occasions and i have been thinking about breaking it off, not because of her but because i feel like my ideals are correct so i do not feel like i should be the one to change.  one such ideal is that it is not okay for men or women to comment on someone in the vein of  oh my god s he is so hot !   as it is extremely disrespectful to the other person in the relationship.  i am not talking like you ca not acknowledge someone is looks at all, obviously there are beautiful and handsome people in the world, but there is a major difference between  holy shit she is hot as hell  and  yeah she is beautiful  the former of which i see as disgusting.  change my view.   #  but there is a major difference between  holy shit she is hot as hell  and  yeah she is beautiful  the former of which i see as disgusting.   #  why is one okay and the other not ?  # this may be why things are not working for you two.  it is not your ideal, but your steadfast refusal to even entertain the idea of being wrong.  why is one okay and the other not ? both are commenting on a person is physical appearance.  i do not understand how one is better than the other.   #  is something that makes you uncomfortable, however, you are entirely in your rights to say please do not say that.   #  there is no global right or wrong answer for relationships it is entirely down to what both parties are comfortable with.  i knew a gay couple once that would sit around pointing out hotties to one another all the time.  my wife and i are pretty open with one another about what we find attractive in the opposite sex, and within reason are not opposed to pointing out to one another when we see someone that is really wow.  if saying  they are hot !   is something that makes you uncomfortable, however, you are entirely in your rights to say please do not say that.  do ensure that you do not just scream at them explain your reasoning, how it makes you feel, and ask them to please stop.  if they continue to disregard your feelings even with reminders, then you get to decide whether it is a big enough deal to break off the relationship or something to simply accept.   #  some relationships may be entirely asexual where both parties are comfortable just being close with one another, but sex is just something that they are not interested in.   #  i would not say it that you are not fit for a relationship.  in fact, i am saying the exact opposite.  everyone is entitled to have boundaries of what they like and do not like with their partners.  some relationships may be entirely asexual where both parties are comfortable just being close with one another, but sex is just something that they are not interested in.  others, it is lights off missionary sex occasionally.  some, anything goes as long as they are exclusive to one another.  in others, they are completely comfortable with wild orgies every night of the week with whomever stops by.  there is nothing wrong with any of these situations as long as both partners are communicating and staying within eachothers  comfort zones.  it sounds like maybe this particular relationship may not be right for you, but that does not mean that no relationship is right for you.   #  i do not really feel any interest in finding someone else  #  well, i feel like my view is not shared by many.  i am lucky my two closest friends feel the same, so they never seem to openly check out other girls when i am around.  i feel like it is my job to block out any sexual attraction there might be, so i personally never view someone else as sexually attractive.  this is not a very popular opinion, and i love my current girlfriend, we have dated for essentially 0 years.  i do not really feel any interest in finding someone else  #  acting threatened is basically taking a lower social status than the object of their attractions.  that does not exactly inspire respect, especially if your partner is female.   #   shared by many  .  your identity is not formed by public consensus.  stop being such a ninny and feel free to define your own standards.  the social environment you encounter does not invalidate you as an individual.  it sounds to me like your partner is inconsiderate, rude, and reactionary yelling at you instead of considering your point of view.  dump him/her and find someone that treats you with a modicum of respect.  also, be worthy of and demand to be treated with respect.  your partner is a disrespectful asshole, and you are enabling them to act that way by accepting that behavior.  dump them or put your foot down, one or the other.  no one will respect you or treat you decently in any part of life if you do not grow a spine though, so i would work on that.  being in a relationship does not stop attraction to other people .  but that does not give you a right to mistreat your so.  it could be that your girl/boyfriend is reacting to your lack of confidence by needling you though.  so i would take that as a sign that they are not impressed with the way that you are acting in general.  show some personal strength, confidence, and conviction that you deserve to be treated with the same consideration that you give them.  but at the same time, if you act threatened by the simple fact that they find someone attractive, you are going to have a bad time.  acting threatened is basically taking a lower social status than the object of their attractions.  that does not exactly inspire respect, especially if your partner is female.
before anything else, let me say that i am not, nor have ever been depressed, suicidal or abused in any way shape or form.  my life so far has been somewhat sheltered.  a while ago a stumbled upon the idea, that since entropy can only increase, there will be a time without humanity.  a time where all you have done, and all you could have done will be gone, forgotten.  the universe will be cold, homogenous and all that has ever been, will fall into oblivion.  allied to that idea, i also do not believe in free will.  you see, we came from stardust, and we will go back to being stardust.  i also am not religious and i am extremely skeptical.  i do not see meaning in any of it.  whatsoever.  i wanna change that.  i have actively trying to change that for about 0 months or so, but am yet to stumble upon an idea worth living for.  so far i have: read the book  a man is search for meaning , i meditate and work out.  can you guys give me some insight on why i should get out of bed ?  #  i also do not believe in free will.   #  you see, we came from stardust, and we will go back to being stardust.   #  forget all that heat death of the universe stuff.  that is too far off and abstract to even be worth occupying your thoughts.  you see, we came from stardust, and we will go back to being stardust.  this does not mean that we do not have free will while we are alive.  you do not believe that anyone or anything is in control of your actions like you might if you were religious so what makes you think that being made of the same material that everything else in the universe is made out of means you have no free will ? this makes no sense to me.  but to put things simply, as far as why life is worth living: have cool things ever happened to you ? you know, like a first kiss or going on a roller coaster or something like that if yes.  is it conceivable that more cool things could happen in the future ? and why would not it be, unless you are literally locked in a dark room for the rest of your life ? if yes.  then why not hang around and see what happens ? as long as there is a chance that cool shit might happen, i do not see how life is not worth living.   #  sidenote: you might be interested in reading h arry potter and the methods of rationality URL while it is not a part of the main plot, it touches on some of the issues you seem to be struggling with.   #  one day the universe will be cold and no one will exist anymore.  today is not that day.  today the universe contains humans, love, art, friendship.  humans that can enjoy themselves or humans that can suffer.  most humans, probably including you, prefer that they and other humans enjoy themselves and do not suffer.  you can make a direct impact on this and ensure that more people are happy and less people are sad.  sure, these accomplishments do not matter on a universal scale.  the universe does not care about you, it does not care about love.  but we do and we are here right now.  sidenote: you might be interested in reading h arry potter and the methods of rationality URL while it is not a part of the main plot, it touches on some of the issues you seem to be struggling with.   #  i have added your reading suggestion to my  to read  list.   # today is not that day.  good one.  i have added your reading suggestion to my  to read  list.  so, you are implying that the meaning could be, but not restricted to, maximising pleasure and minimising pain.  although i do not see the  greater meaning  i would have wanted, that is a start.  maybe i formulated my phrase the wrong way.  i sort of see the point of living, but it is rather dull and meaningless.  and that is the belief i actually want to change.  thanks for your post.   #  in my personal, when life feels dull and meaningless, it does not tend to be due to your meta beliefs about the world, but rather due to your personal situation.   #  while i am a utilitarian, i do not think that is the only way to live although i think it is the only  correct  way to live .  if you are looking for greater meaning outside of humanity, you wo not find it.  the universe is a cold meaningless place with only humans as far as we know as the only spot of light.  the only higher meaning you  can  find that is not utter horsepiss is a believe that humanity deserves to be happy and deserves to thrive.  in my personal, when life feels dull and meaningless, it does not tend to be due to your meta beliefs about the world, but rather due to your personal situation.  if you job/education/interpersonal relationships are not challenging you, you can often feel like this.  you might also reconsider the  depression hypothesis.   you claim to have never been depressed, but feelings of dullness and meaninglessness are a common symptom.  if you have not already, maybe look up the diagnostic criteria for depression and there is also a minor form of depression that i ca not remember the name of and i do not have my dsm with me.  .   #  but i feel sort of envy of the people who see greater meaning, and i wanted that for myself.   # those are both great points, challenge is something i can get my mind behind.  even tho it is not the  meaning  i looked for, it is exiting.  thanks for reminding me that i should be challenged.  also i claim to not be depressed because i am not sad.  the  wouldull  word suggests depression, i know.  but i find enjoyment in everyday stuff, i love me some music, or a night with friends.  but i feel sort of envy of the people who see greater meaning, and i wanted that for myself.
i think many women are frustrated with men not taking charge in everyday life, and i think men are like that because of feminism clawing its way into society at large.  i think it all started with women that took gender equality too far.  sure, equality in law/education/opportunities/etc.  is all well and good, but why change the classic male female relations ? i think men are more competitive and aggressive by nature, because we have more testosterone.  i think women are more gentle and nourishing by nature, because they have more estrogen.  does not that go hand in hand with male female relations that went on for thousands of years ? i think it worked pretty well so far, so why change it ? by all means, let is all be equal before the law, let is have equal opportunities and all that.  just do not take my male role away and do not take women is female role away.  they can work well together like nothing else can.   #  by all means, let is all be equal before the law, let is have equal opportunities and all that.   #  just do not take my male role away and do not take women is female role away.   # just do not take my male role away and do not take women is female role away.   i am all in favor of equality as long as i am still in charge.   that is what it seems like you are saying.  what do you think men is roles and women is roles actually are ? define it for us.   #  there is less room for arguments when deciding family business, there is more psychological enjoyment in sexual activities, and it is generally more fun.   # there is less room for arguments when deciding family business, there is more psychological enjoyment in sexual activities, and it is generally more fun.  so it is easier for the man whose wife ca not argue with him, but it is not better for the wife who does not get an equal say in her household.  more sexual enjoyment for the man who gets to have sex with his wife whether she wants to or not, but less enjoyment for the wives being raped by their husbands.  more fun for the man, less fun for the woman.  would not you rather have a woman who wants to have sex with you rather than one that is forced ? would not you rather have sex with a woman who participates in the sex rather than laying there cringing until it is over ? would not you rather have a wife that challenges you mentally rather than one who you treat as a child ? would not you rather not be a rapist ?  #  more fun for the man, less fun for the woman.   # it is easier for the wife if she is ok with letting go of the responsibilities of making certain decisions.  i think it strains the marriage way less if roles are divided as much as possible between two people, i think more things get done that way.  more fun for the man, less fun for the woman.  i never said she is supposed to have sex if she does not want to.  would not you rather have sex with a woman who participates in the sex rather than laying there cringing until it is over ? would not you rather have a wife that challenges you mentally rather than one who you treat as a child ? would not you rather not be a rapist ? absolutely :d  #  after a relationship has reached a certain point, to maintain that healthy sense of intimacy sometimes you  have  to do it even if you do not want to applies to men and women equally .   # would not you rather have sex with a woman who participates in the sex rather than laying there cringing until it is over ? would not you rather have a wife that challenges you mentally rather than one who you treat as a child ? would not you rather not be a rapist ? you know, i used to think this way until i was 0 years into a long term relationship.  sex was amazing for the first 0 years and then it started to trickle off, with me wanting to do it more than her and sex happening only once every 0 weeks without asking or pressuring .  i was not ok with that pace and it was just difficult to drop a 0 year relationship over issues like less intimacy but eventually i did.  however, during that time we basically forced ourselves to have sex with each other at times.  once we got into it, we actually felt  better  about it and did not regret doing it.  that feeling of not wanting to changed once we started to.  after a relationship has reached a certain point, to maintain that healthy sense of intimacy sometimes you  have  to do it even if you do not want to applies to men and women equally .  sometimes i had sex with my ex is when i really did not want to.  but after doing it, it brought us closer, feeling more intimate, and i actually ended up enjoying it.  i strongly believe that sex is good for the maintenance of the relationship.  that does not mean you have to have sex everyday in a 0 year relationship.  but a few times a week will do wonders for the longevity, closeness, and intimacy of the relationship.  so no, i do not really care if a woman in a long term relationship does not want to have sex with me sometimes.  sometimes, i wo not want to have sex and she will and i will compromise to accommodate her needs.  it is like have a freezer full of ice cream and even though you are not really in the mood for ice cream, you will sometimes eat it anyway because it tastes fucking good.   #  should i be flying over once per week to do dishes and laundry and cook his meals ?  #  my boyfriend is stationed in pearl harbor.  i live in texas.  should i call him every time my car breaks down so that he can fly over and fix it, because that is the man is job ? should i be flying over once per week to do dishes and laundry and cook his meals ? and if the answer to that is no, why should we divide labor along those same lines once we move in together ? because right now our plan is to be grown ups and have conversations about what our strengths and preferences are so that we can divide labor in the most logical fashion.  i fail to see how  man is work  and  woman is work  is more practical, but i would love to hear your counterargument.  and since you brought up sex, we both find cowgirl to be the most pleasurable position.  he gets off much faster when i take charge, and i know what my clit likes best.  not sure why a male dominant position would change that, but if you can find one we have not tried before we can experiment and get back to you next time he has leave.
i think many women are frustrated with men not taking charge in everyday life, and i think men are like that because of feminism clawing its way into society at large.  i think it all started with women that took gender equality too far.  sure, equality in law/education/opportunities/etc.  is all well and good, but why change the classic male female relations ? i think men are more competitive and aggressive by nature, because we have more testosterone.  i think women are more gentle and nourishing by nature, because they have more estrogen.  does not that go hand in hand with male female relations that went on for thousands of years ? i think it worked pretty well so far, so why change it ? by all means, let is all be equal before the law, let is have equal opportunities and all that.  just do not take my male role away and do not take women is female role away.  they can work well together like nothing else can.   #  i think men are more competitive and aggressive by nature, because we have more testosterone.   #  i think women are more gentle and nourishing by nature, because they have more estrogen.   # sure, equality in law/education/opportunities/etc.  is all well and good, but why change the classic male female relations ? we will start with the fact that equality is not something you can  take too far .  nothing can be  too equal , you may have meant to say  the gender equality movement .  the reason we are changing the male female relations are because many women are not satisfied with the state of them, and despite having legal equality, women do not have social equality.  i think if there is an oppressed group of people, we should probably change the relationship we have with that group.  i think women are more gentle and nourishing by nature, because they have more estrogen.  does not that go hand in hand with male female relations that went on for thousands of years ? i think it worked pretty well so far, so why change it ? on average, sure.  to an extent you have a point.  men and women have biological differences.  the issue is that not everyone man want is to be aggressive.  many women are competitive, and would like to be more assertive socially without being chastised for that behaviour.  it has not worked  pretty well  so far.  we have spent the majority of our time on this planet with a biologically equivalent group of people being considered inferior, not having basic rights like the ability to vote, or work, and treated as property.  not only ethically, but also in terms of efficiency that is the opposite o f  working pretty well .  your role as a male has already changed.  it will continue to change.  you need to adapt, because traditional gender roles are not important enough to the majority of people that they are willing to oppress 0 of the population.  you can still be a  man , and be masculine.  women can still be  feminine .  you are just not going to have the public be okay with you criticizing people who are not those things.   #  more sexual enjoyment for the man who gets to have sex with his wife whether she wants to or not, but less enjoyment for the wives being raped by their husbands.   # there is less room for arguments when deciding family business, there is more psychological enjoyment in sexual activities, and it is generally more fun.  so it is easier for the man whose wife ca not argue with him, but it is not better for the wife who does not get an equal say in her household.  more sexual enjoyment for the man who gets to have sex with his wife whether she wants to or not, but less enjoyment for the wives being raped by their husbands.  more fun for the man, less fun for the woman.  would not you rather have a woman who wants to have sex with you rather than one that is forced ? would not you rather have sex with a woman who participates in the sex rather than laying there cringing until it is over ? would not you rather have a wife that challenges you mentally rather than one who you treat as a child ? would not you rather not be a rapist ?  #  more fun for the man, less fun for the woman.   # it is easier for the wife if she is ok with letting go of the responsibilities of making certain decisions.  i think it strains the marriage way less if roles are divided as much as possible between two people, i think more things get done that way.  more fun for the man, less fun for the woman.  i never said she is supposed to have sex if she does not want to.  would not you rather have sex with a woman who participates in the sex rather than laying there cringing until it is over ? would not you rather have a wife that challenges you mentally rather than one who you treat as a child ? would not you rather not be a rapist ? absolutely :d  #  i was not ok with that pace and it was just difficult to drop a 0 year relationship over issues like less intimacy but eventually i did.   # would not you rather have sex with a woman who participates in the sex rather than laying there cringing until it is over ? would not you rather have a wife that challenges you mentally rather than one who you treat as a child ? would not you rather not be a rapist ? you know, i used to think this way until i was 0 years into a long term relationship.  sex was amazing for the first 0 years and then it started to trickle off, with me wanting to do it more than her and sex happening only once every 0 weeks without asking or pressuring .  i was not ok with that pace and it was just difficult to drop a 0 year relationship over issues like less intimacy but eventually i did.  however, during that time we basically forced ourselves to have sex with each other at times.  once we got into it, we actually felt  better  about it and did not regret doing it.  that feeling of not wanting to changed once we started to.  after a relationship has reached a certain point, to maintain that healthy sense of intimacy sometimes you  have  to do it even if you do not want to applies to men and women equally .  sometimes i had sex with my ex is when i really did not want to.  but after doing it, it brought us closer, feeling more intimate, and i actually ended up enjoying it.  i strongly believe that sex is good for the maintenance of the relationship.  that does not mean you have to have sex everyday in a 0 year relationship.  but a few times a week will do wonders for the longevity, closeness, and intimacy of the relationship.  so no, i do not really care if a woman in a long term relationship does not want to have sex with me sometimes.  sometimes, i wo not want to have sex and she will and i will compromise to accommodate her needs.  it is like have a freezer full of ice cream and even though you are not really in the mood for ice cream, you will sometimes eat it anyway because it tastes fucking good.   #  i fail to see how  man is work  and  woman is work  is more practical, but i would love to hear your counterargument.   #  my boyfriend is stationed in pearl harbor.  i live in texas.  should i call him every time my car breaks down so that he can fly over and fix it, because that is the man is job ? should i be flying over once per week to do dishes and laundry and cook his meals ? and if the answer to that is no, why should we divide labor along those same lines once we move in together ? because right now our plan is to be grown ups and have conversations about what our strengths and preferences are so that we can divide labor in the most logical fashion.  i fail to see how  man is work  and  woman is work  is more practical, but i would love to hear your counterargument.  and since you brought up sex, we both find cowgirl to be the most pleasurable position.  he gets off much faster when i take charge, and i know what my clit likes best.  not sure why a male dominant position would change that, but if you can find one we have not tried before we can experiment and get back to you next time he has leave.
i think many women are frustrated with men not taking charge in everyday life, and i think men are like that because of feminism clawing its way into society at large.  i think it all started with women that took gender equality too far.  sure, equality in law/education/opportunities/etc.  is all well and good, but why change the classic male female relations ? i think men are more competitive and aggressive by nature, because we have more testosterone.  i think women are more gentle and nourishing by nature, because they have more estrogen.  does not that go hand in hand with male female relations that went on for thousands of years ? i think it worked pretty well so far, so why change it ? by all means, let is all be equal before the law, let is have equal opportunities and all that.  just do not take my male role away and do not take women is female role away.  they can work well together like nothing else can.   #  i think it worked pretty well so far, so why change it ?  #  it really has not worked well so far.   # it really has not worked well so far.  by assuming men should lead instead of women our companies, academic institutions, and research has been far less efficient than it should be.  women have been abused and raped by men who feel entitled to determine what women should do and want.  if men are supposed to take charge in the household and in everyday life does that mean we should also have men is votes count more than women is ? or should we just not let women vote at all ? testosterone does not make people smart.  we do not necessarily want our society to be more aggressive.   #  would not you rather have sex with a woman who participates in the sex rather than laying there cringing until it is over ?  # there is less room for arguments when deciding family business, there is more psychological enjoyment in sexual activities, and it is generally more fun.  so it is easier for the man whose wife ca not argue with him, but it is not better for the wife who does not get an equal say in her household.  more sexual enjoyment for the man who gets to have sex with his wife whether she wants to or not, but less enjoyment for the wives being raped by their husbands.  more fun for the man, less fun for the woman.  would not you rather have a woman who wants to have sex with you rather than one that is forced ? would not you rather have sex with a woman who participates in the sex rather than laying there cringing until it is over ? would not you rather have a wife that challenges you mentally rather than one who you treat as a child ? would not you rather not be a rapist ?  #  more fun for the man, less fun for the woman.   # it is easier for the wife if she is ok with letting go of the responsibilities of making certain decisions.  i think it strains the marriage way less if roles are divided as much as possible between two people, i think more things get done that way.  more fun for the man, less fun for the woman.  i never said she is supposed to have sex if she does not want to.  would not you rather have sex with a woman who participates in the sex rather than laying there cringing until it is over ? would not you rather have a wife that challenges you mentally rather than one who you treat as a child ? would not you rather not be a rapist ? absolutely :d  #  that feeling of not wanting to changed once we started to.   # would not you rather have sex with a woman who participates in the sex rather than laying there cringing until it is over ? would not you rather have a wife that challenges you mentally rather than one who you treat as a child ? would not you rather not be a rapist ? you know, i used to think this way until i was 0 years into a long term relationship.  sex was amazing for the first 0 years and then it started to trickle off, with me wanting to do it more than her and sex happening only once every 0 weeks without asking or pressuring .  i was not ok with that pace and it was just difficult to drop a 0 year relationship over issues like less intimacy but eventually i did.  however, during that time we basically forced ourselves to have sex with each other at times.  once we got into it, we actually felt  better  about it and did not regret doing it.  that feeling of not wanting to changed once we started to.  after a relationship has reached a certain point, to maintain that healthy sense of intimacy sometimes you  have  to do it even if you do not want to applies to men and women equally .  sometimes i had sex with my ex is when i really did not want to.  but after doing it, it brought us closer, feeling more intimate, and i actually ended up enjoying it.  i strongly believe that sex is good for the maintenance of the relationship.  that does not mean you have to have sex everyday in a 0 year relationship.  but a few times a week will do wonders for the longevity, closeness, and intimacy of the relationship.  so no, i do not really care if a woman in a long term relationship does not want to have sex with me sometimes.  sometimes, i wo not want to have sex and she will and i will compromise to accommodate her needs.  it is like have a freezer full of ice cream and even though you are not really in the mood for ice cream, you will sometimes eat it anyway because it tastes fucking good.   #  and since you brought up sex, we both find cowgirl to be the most pleasurable position.   #  my boyfriend is stationed in pearl harbor.  i live in texas.  should i call him every time my car breaks down so that he can fly over and fix it, because that is the man is job ? should i be flying over once per week to do dishes and laundry and cook his meals ? and if the answer to that is no, why should we divide labor along those same lines once we move in together ? because right now our plan is to be grown ups and have conversations about what our strengths and preferences are so that we can divide labor in the most logical fashion.  i fail to see how  man is work  and  woman is work  is more practical, but i would love to hear your counterargument.  and since you brought up sex, we both find cowgirl to be the most pleasurable position.  he gets off much faster when i take charge, and i know what my clit likes best.  not sure why a male dominant position would change that, but if you can find one we have not tried before we can experiment and get back to you next time he has leave.
i think many women are frustrated with men not taking charge in everyday life, and i think men are like that because of feminism clawing its way into society at large.  i think it all started with women that took gender equality too far.  sure, equality in law/education/opportunities/etc.  is all well and good, but why change the classic male female relations ? i think men are more competitive and aggressive by nature, because we have more testosterone.  i think women are more gentle and nourishing by nature, because they have more estrogen.  does not that go hand in hand with male female relations that went on for thousands of years ? i think it worked pretty well so far, so why change it ? by all means, let is all be equal before the law, let is have equal opportunities and all that.  just do not take my male role away and do not take women is female role away.  they can work well together like nothing else can.   #  why change the classic male female relations ?  #  for certain people and certain couples who want a change, why criticize them for changing it for themselves ?  #  nobody is trying to take your male role away.  outside of the proportionately rare extremist feminist, most feminists are totally okay with people and couples living in traditional roles so long as they a do not hurt anybody and b do not infringe on their right to have non traditional roles.  for certain people and certain couples who want a change, why criticize them for changing it for themselves ? it is not like you have to stop being a classic male.  i think women are more gentle and nourishing by nature, because they have more estrogen.  you claim men and women are certain way by nature, yet you yourself acknowledge that many men and women have been moving away from these roles.  why not let people do what they really want ? how you can judge if something has worked well if we are not allowed to try alternatives ?  #  more fun for the man, less fun for the woman.   # there is less room for arguments when deciding family business, there is more psychological enjoyment in sexual activities, and it is generally more fun.  so it is easier for the man whose wife ca not argue with him, but it is not better for the wife who does not get an equal say in her household.  more sexual enjoyment for the man who gets to have sex with his wife whether she wants to or not, but less enjoyment for the wives being raped by their husbands.  more fun for the man, less fun for the woman.  would not you rather have a woman who wants to have sex with you rather than one that is forced ? would not you rather have sex with a woman who participates in the sex rather than laying there cringing until it is over ? would not you rather have a wife that challenges you mentally rather than one who you treat as a child ? would not you rather not be a rapist ?  #  i never said she is supposed to have sex if she does not want to.   # it is easier for the wife if she is ok with letting go of the responsibilities of making certain decisions.  i think it strains the marriage way less if roles are divided as much as possible between two people, i think more things get done that way.  more fun for the man, less fun for the woman.  i never said she is supposed to have sex if she does not want to.  would not you rather have sex with a woman who participates in the sex rather than laying there cringing until it is over ? would not you rather have a wife that challenges you mentally rather than one who you treat as a child ? would not you rather not be a rapist ? absolutely :d  #  after a relationship has reached a certain point, to maintain that healthy sense of intimacy sometimes you  have  to do it even if you do not want to applies to men and women equally .   # would not you rather have sex with a woman who participates in the sex rather than laying there cringing until it is over ? would not you rather have a wife that challenges you mentally rather than one who you treat as a child ? would not you rather not be a rapist ? you know, i used to think this way until i was 0 years into a long term relationship.  sex was amazing for the first 0 years and then it started to trickle off, with me wanting to do it more than her and sex happening only once every 0 weeks without asking or pressuring .  i was not ok with that pace and it was just difficult to drop a 0 year relationship over issues like less intimacy but eventually i did.  however, during that time we basically forced ourselves to have sex with each other at times.  once we got into it, we actually felt  better  about it and did not regret doing it.  that feeling of not wanting to changed once we started to.  after a relationship has reached a certain point, to maintain that healthy sense of intimacy sometimes you  have  to do it even if you do not want to applies to men and women equally .  sometimes i had sex with my ex is when i really did not want to.  but after doing it, it brought us closer, feeling more intimate, and i actually ended up enjoying it.  i strongly believe that sex is good for the maintenance of the relationship.  that does not mean you have to have sex everyday in a 0 year relationship.  but a few times a week will do wonders for the longevity, closeness, and intimacy of the relationship.  so no, i do not really care if a woman in a long term relationship does not want to have sex with me sometimes.  sometimes, i wo not want to have sex and she will and i will compromise to accommodate her needs.  it is like have a freezer full of ice cream and even though you are not really in the mood for ice cream, you will sometimes eat it anyway because it tastes fucking good.   #  not sure why a male dominant position would change that, but if you can find one we have not tried before we can experiment and get back to you next time he has leave.   #  my boyfriend is stationed in pearl harbor.  i live in texas.  should i call him every time my car breaks down so that he can fly over and fix it, because that is the man is job ? should i be flying over once per week to do dishes and laundry and cook his meals ? and if the answer to that is no, why should we divide labor along those same lines once we move in together ? because right now our plan is to be grown ups and have conversations about what our strengths and preferences are so that we can divide labor in the most logical fashion.  i fail to see how  man is work  and  woman is work  is more practical, but i would love to hear your counterargument.  and since you brought up sex, we both find cowgirl to be the most pleasurable position.  he gets off much faster when i take charge, and i know what my clit likes best.  not sure why a male dominant position would change that, but if you can find one we have not tried before we can experiment and get back to you next time he has leave.
i think many women are frustrated with men not taking charge in everyday life, and i think men are like that because of feminism clawing its way into society at large.  i think it all started with women that took gender equality too far.  sure, equality in law/education/opportunities/etc.  is all well and good, but why change the classic male female relations ? i think men are more competitive and aggressive by nature, because we have more testosterone.  i think women are more gentle and nourishing by nature, because they have more estrogen.  does not that go hand in hand with male female relations that went on for thousands of years ? i think it worked pretty well so far, so why change it ? by all means, let is all be equal before the law, let is have equal opportunities and all that.  just do not take my male role away and do not take women is female role away.  they can work well together like nothing else can.   #  i think men are more competitive and aggressive by nature, because we have more testosterone.   #  i think women are more gentle and nourishing by nature, because they have more estrogen.   #  nobody is trying to take your male role away.  outside of the proportionately rare extremist feminist, most feminists are totally okay with people and couples living in traditional roles so long as they a do not hurt anybody and b do not infringe on their right to have non traditional roles.  for certain people and certain couples who want a change, why criticize them for changing it for themselves ? it is not like you have to stop being a classic male.  i think women are more gentle and nourishing by nature, because they have more estrogen.  you claim men and women are certain way by nature, yet you yourself acknowledge that many men and women have been moving away from these roles.  why not let people do what they really want ? how you can judge if something has worked well if we are not allowed to try alternatives ?  #  would not you rather have a wife that challenges you mentally rather than one who you treat as a child ?  # there is less room for arguments when deciding family business, there is more psychological enjoyment in sexual activities, and it is generally more fun.  so it is easier for the man whose wife ca not argue with him, but it is not better for the wife who does not get an equal say in her household.  more sexual enjoyment for the man who gets to have sex with his wife whether she wants to or not, but less enjoyment for the wives being raped by their husbands.  more fun for the man, less fun for the woman.  would not you rather have a woman who wants to have sex with you rather than one that is forced ? would not you rather have sex with a woman who participates in the sex rather than laying there cringing until it is over ? would not you rather have a wife that challenges you mentally rather than one who you treat as a child ? would not you rather not be a rapist ?  #  more fun for the man, less fun for the woman.   # it is easier for the wife if she is ok with letting go of the responsibilities of making certain decisions.  i think it strains the marriage way less if roles are divided as much as possible between two people, i think more things get done that way.  more fun for the man, less fun for the woman.  i never said she is supposed to have sex if she does not want to.  would not you rather have sex with a woman who participates in the sex rather than laying there cringing until it is over ? would not you rather have a wife that challenges you mentally rather than one who you treat as a child ? would not you rather not be a rapist ? absolutely :d  #  sometimes i had sex with my ex is when i really did not want to.   # would not you rather have sex with a woman who participates in the sex rather than laying there cringing until it is over ? would not you rather have a wife that challenges you mentally rather than one who you treat as a child ? would not you rather not be a rapist ? you know, i used to think this way until i was 0 years into a long term relationship.  sex was amazing for the first 0 years and then it started to trickle off, with me wanting to do it more than her and sex happening only once every 0 weeks without asking or pressuring .  i was not ok with that pace and it was just difficult to drop a 0 year relationship over issues like less intimacy but eventually i did.  however, during that time we basically forced ourselves to have sex with each other at times.  once we got into it, we actually felt  better  about it and did not regret doing it.  that feeling of not wanting to changed once we started to.  after a relationship has reached a certain point, to maintain that healthy sense of intimacy sometimes you  have  to do it even if you do not want to applies to men and women equally .  sometimes i had sex with my ex is when i really did not want to.  but after doing it, it brought us closer, feeling more intimate, and i actually ended up enjoying it.  i strongly believe that sex is good for the maintenance of the relationship.  that does not mean you have to have sex everyday in a 0 year relationship.  but a few times a week will do wonders for the longevity, closeness, and intimacy of the relationship.  so no, i do not really care if a woman in a long term relationship does not want to have sex with me sometimes.  sometimes, i wo not want to have sex and she will and i will compromise to accommodate her needs.  it is like have a freezer full of ice cream and even though you are not really in the mood for ice cream, you will sometimes eat it anyway because it tastes fucking good.   #  he gets off much faster when i take charge, and i know what my clit likes best.   #  my boyfriend is stationed in pearl harbor.  i live in texas.  should i call him every time my car breaks down so that he can fly over and fix it, because that is the man is job ? should i be flying over once per week to do dishes and laundry and cook his meals ? and if the answer to that is no, why should we divide labor along those same lines once we move in together ? because right now our plan is to be grown ups and have conversations about what our strengths and preferences are so that we can divide labor in the most logical fashion.  i fail to see how  man is work  and  woman is work  is more practical, but i would love to hear your counterargument.  and since you brought up sex, we both find cowgirl to be the most pleasurable position.  he gets off much faster when i take charge, and i know what my clit likes best.  not sure why a male dominant position would change that, but if you can find one we have not tried before we can experiment and get back to you next time he has leave.
i think many women are frustrated with men not taking charge in everyday life, and i think men are like that because of feminism clawing its way into society at large.  i think it all started with women that took gender equality too far.  sure, equality in law/education/opportunities/etc.  is all well and good, but why change the classic male female relations ? i think men are more competitive and aggressive by nature, because we have more testosterone.  i think women are more gentle and nourishing by nature, because they have more estrogen.  does not that go hand in hand with male female relations that went on for thousands of years ? i think it worked pretty well so far, so why change it ? by all means, let is all be equal before the law, let is have equal opportunities and all that.  just do not take my male role away and do not take women is female role away.  they can work well together like nothing else can.   #  i think it worked pretty well so far, so why change it ?  #  how you can judge if something has worked well if we are not allowed to try alternatives ?  #  nobody is trying to take your male role away.  outside of the proportionately rare extremist feminist, most feminists are totally okay with people and couples living in traditional roles so long as they a do not hurt anybody and b do not infringe on their right to have non traditional roles.  for certain people and certain couples who want a change, why criticize them for changing it for themselves ? it is not like you have to stop being a classic male.  i think women are more gentle and nourishing by nature, because they have more estrogen.  you claim men and women are certain way by nature, yet you yourself acknowledge that many men and women have been moving away from these roles.  why not let people do what they really want ? how you can judge if something has worked well if we are not allowed to try alternatives ?  #  would not you rather have sex with a woman who participates in the sex rather than laying there cringing until it is over ?  # there is less room for arguments when deciding family business, there is more psychological enjoyment in sexual activities, and it is generally more fun.  so it is easier for the man whose wife ca not argue with him, but it is not better for the wife who does not get an equal say in her household.  more sexual enjoyment for the man who gets to have sex with his wife whether she wants to or not, but less enjoyment for the wives being raped by their husbands.  more fun for the man, less fun for the woman.  would not you rather have a woman who wants to have sex with you rather than one that is forced ? would not you rather have sex with a woman who participates in the sex rather than laying there cringing until it is over ? would not you rather have a wife that challenges you mentally rather than one who you treat as a child ? would not you rather not be a rapist ?  #  would not you rather have a wife that challenges you mentally rather than one who you treat as a child ?  # it is easier for the wife if she is ok with letting go of the responsibilities of making certain decisions.  i think it strains the marriage way less if roles are divided as much as possible between two people, i think more things get done that way.  more fun for the man, less fun for the woman.  i never said she is supposed to have sex if she does not want to.  would not you rather have sex with a woman who participates in the sex rather than laying there cringing until it is over ? would not you rather have a wife that challenges you mentally rather than one who you treat as a child ? would not you rather not be a rapist ? absolutely :d  #  but after doing it, it brought us closer, feeling more intimate, and i actually ended up enjoying it.   # would not you rather have sex with a woman who participates in the sex rather than laying there cringing until it is over ? would not you rather have a wife that challenges you mentally rather than one who you treat as a child ? would not you rather not be a rapist ? you know, i used to think this way until i was 0 years into a long term relationship.  sex was amazing for the first 0 years and then it started to trickle off, with me wanting to do it more than her and sex happening only once every 0 weeks without asking or pressuring .  i was not ok with that pace and it was just difficult to drop a 0 year relationship over issues like less intimacy but eventually i did.  however, during that time we basically forced ourselves to have sex with each other at times.  once we got into it, we actually felt  better  about it and did not regret doing it.  that feeling of not wanting to changed once we started to.  after a relationship has reached a certain point, to maintain that healthy sense of intimacy sometimes you  have  to do it even if you do not want to applies to men and women equally .  sometimes i had sex with my ex is when i really did not want to.  but after doing it, it brought us closer, feeling more intimate, and i actually ended up enjoying it.  i strongly believe that sex is good for the maintenance of the relationship.  that does not mean you have to have sex everyday in a 0 year relationship.  but a few times a week will do wonders for the longevity, closeness, and intimacy of the relationship.  so no, i do not really care if a woman in a long term relationship does not want to have sex with me sometimes.  sometimes, i wo not want to have sex and she will and i will compromise to accommodate her needs.  it is like have a freezer full of ice cream and even though you are not really in the mood for ice cream, you will sometimes eat it anyway because it tastes fucking good.   #  should i be flying over once per week to do dishes and laundry and cook his meals ?  #  my boyfriend is stationed in pearl harbor.  i live in texas.  should i call him every time my car breaks down so that he can fly over and fix it, because that is the man is job ? should i be flying over once per week to do dishes and laundry and cook his meals ? and if the answer to that is no, why should we divide labor along those same lines once we move in together ? because right now our plan is to be grown ups and have conversations about what our strengths and preferences are so that we can divide labor in the most logical fashion.  i fail to see how  man is work  and  woman is work  is more practical, but i would love to hear your counterargument.  and since you brought up sex, we both find cowgirl to be the most pleasurable position.  he gets off much faster when i take charge, and i know what my clit likes best.  not sure why a male dominant position would change that, but if you can find one we have not tried before we can experiment and get back to you next time he has leave.
i think many women are frustrated with men not taking charge in everyday life, and i think men are like that because of feminism clawing its way into society at large.  i think it all started with women that took gender equality too far.  sure, equality in law/education/opportunities/etc.  is all well and good, but why change the classic male female relations ? i think men are more competitive and aggressive by nature, because we have more testosterone.  i think women are more gentle and nourishing by nature, because they have more estrogen.  does not that go hand in hand with male female relations that went on for thousands of years ? i think it worked pretty well so far, so why change it ? by all means, let is all be equal before the law, let is have equal opportunities and all that.  just do not take my male role away and do not take women is female role away.  they can work well together like nothing else can.   #  think men are more competitive and aggressive by nature, because we have more testosterone.   #  i think women are more gentle and nourishing by nature, because they have more estrogen.   # sure, equality in law/education/opportunities/etc.  is all well and good, but why change the classic male female relations ? because the male female relations are inherently unjust, that is the starting point of all feminist thought and i would say a pretty undeniable one.  i think women are more gentle and nourishing by nature, because they have more estrogen.  something being natural says nothing about whether or not it is a good or just or acceptable   does not that go hand in hand with male female relations that went on for thousands of years ? i think it worked pretty well so far, so why change it ? it worked pretty well by what standard ? there is nothing to compare it to.  also, it is doubtful that it worked well  for women .   #  there is less room for arguments when deciding family business, there is more psychological enjoyment in sexual activities, and it is generally more fun.   # there is less room for arguments when deciding family business, there is more psychological enjoyment in sexual activities, and it is generally more fun.  so it is easier for the man whose wife ca not argue with him, but it is not better for the wife who does not get an equal say in her household.  more sexual enjoyment for the man who gets to have sex with his wife whether she wants to or not, but less enjoyment for the wives being raped by their husbands.  more fun for the man, less fun for the woman.  would not you rather have a woman who wants to have sex with you rather than one that is forced ? would not you rather have sex with a woman who participates in the sex rather than laying there cringing until it is over ? would not you rather have a wife that challenges you mentally rather than one who you treat as a child ? would not you rather not be a rapist ?  #  i never said she is supposed to have sex if she does not want to.   # it is easier for the wife if she is ok with letting go of the responsibilities of making certain decisions.  i think it strains the marriage way less if roles are divided as much as possible between two people, i think more things get done that way.  more fun for the man, less fun for the woman.  i never said she is supposed to have sex if she does not want to.  would not you rather have sex with a woman who participates in the sex rather than laying there cringing until it is over ? would not you rather have a wife that challenges you mentally rather than one who you treat as a child ? would not you rather not be a rapist ? absolutely :d  #  i was not ok with that pace and it was just difficult to drop a 0 year relationship over issues like less intimacy but eventually i did.   # would not you rather have sex with a woman who participates in the sex rather than laying there cringing until it is over ? would not you rather have a wife that challenges you mentally rather than one who you treat as a child ? would not you rather not be a rapist ? you know, i used to think this way until i was 0 years into a long term relationship.  sex was amazing for the first 0 years and then it started to trickle off, with me wanting to do it more than her and sex happening only once every 0 weeks without asking or pressuring .  i was not ok with that pace and it was just difficult to drop a 0 year relationship over issues like less intimacy but eventually i did.  however, during that time we basically forced ourselves to have sex with each other at times.  once we got into it, we actually felt  better  about it and did not regret doing it.  that feeling of not wanting to changed once we started to.  after a relationship has reached a certain point, to maintain that healthy sense of intimacy sometimes you  have  to do it even if you do not want to applies to men and women equally .  sometimes i had sex with my ex is when i really did not want to.  but after doing it, it brought us closer, feeling more intimate, and i actually ended up enjoying it.  i strongly believe that sex is good for the maintenance of the relationship.  that does not mean you have to have sex everyday in a 0 year relationship.  but a few times a week will do wonders for the longevity, closeness, and intimacy of the relationship.  so no, i do not really care if a woman in a long term relationship does not want to have sex with me sometimes.  sometimes, i wo not want to have sex and she will and i will compromise to accommodate her needs.  it is like have a freezer full of ice cream and even though you are not really in the mood for ice cream, you will sometimes eat it anyway because it tastes fucking good.   #  i fail to see how  man is work  and  woman is work  is more practical, but i would love to hear your counterargument.   #  my boyfriend is stationed in pearl harbor.  i live in texas.  should i call him every time my car breaks down so that he can fly over and fix it, because that is the man is job ? should i be flying over once per week to do dishes and laundry and cook his meals ? and if the answer to that is no, why should we divide labor along those same lines once we move in together ? because right now our plan is to be grown ups and have conversations about what our strengths and preferences are so that we can divide labor in the most logical fashion.  i fail to see how  man is work  and  woman is work  is more practical, but i would love to hear your counterargument.  and since you brought up sex, we both find cowgirl to be the most pleasurable position.  he gets off much faster when i take charge, and i know what my clit likes best.  not sure why a male dominant position would change that, but if you can find one we have not tried before we can experiment and get back to you next time he has leave.
we do not know the situations of any of the people using this website.  there is more than one configuration that can make for a stable marriage or ltr.  what if you have a non monogamous partner that consents to your extramarital activities, but you still felt the necessity to be discreet due to societal pressures ? or maybe your partner is unable to meet certain needs but still loves and wants you to find that satisfaction elsewhere ? or maybe, due to circumstance, you are temporarily stuck in an unhappy marriage but still have this crazy feeling that despite whatever mistakes you made to get into this situation, you are a human being and deserve to find happiness ? there are really so many possibilities and to say that all of the people wronged met the end they deserved is to deny rational thinking so that it aligns nicely with our view of how the world should be URL i have never seen this website myself so i really ca not say anything about the demographics of its userbase, but imagine being in a situation like this and having your private information stolen from you, seriously endangering your social and professional life and that of your spouse is while strangers on the internet as well as peers in real life jeer at you and call you scum and filth who deserved it in the first place.  there are plenty of assholes who cheat on their spouses.  there are also plenty of assholes who do not.  but to try to make any kind of sweeping moralistic judgment about some group of 0 million strangers is unjustly harmful and heavily biased in nature.   #  there is more than one configuration that can make for a stable marriage or ltr.   #  you are now assuming that someone in an open relationship is completely indifferent to destroying someone else is marriage.   # you are now assuming that someone in an open relationship is completely indifferent to destroying someone else is marriage.  just because  they  have a different arrangement in their own life does not mean that they are immoral or unfeeling.  or maybe, due to circumstance, you are temporarily stuck in an unhappy marriage but still have this crazy feeling that despite whatever mistakes you made to get into this situation, you are a human being and deserve to find happiness ? here you are describing perfectly common reasons to cheat.  these are not the exceptions, this is exactly what cheating is.  the problem with your conclusion is that their partner is also a human being.  and whatever the problems of the relationship might be,  both  parties are deserving of happiness.  your complaint seems to be that these people were outed for their actions.  now they have to face consequences that they thought that they were going to be free from.  how is this different from any other big lie or broken promise ? the problem seems to be a disconnect between committing an infraction and being caught for it.  no one wants to have the world look down on them.  but when we break large contracts, that is a pretty normal response.  the fact that some are able to get away with it longer than others.  or that they believe that they can get away with it forever does not change the fact that they were the ones who chose to lie, break an agreement and conceal it.   #  existence of alternative options is not a convincing argument to me as far as why it would be wrong to sign up on ashley madison.   #  existence of alternative options is not a convincing argument to me as far as why it would be wrong to sign up on ashley madison.  maybe discretion was a big deal, or people had bad experiences with other sites, or maybe even many of the users toyed with the idea but chickened out and never went through with an actual hookup ? my point remains that there are so many possible situations and we should not just condemn them all the same.  imagine if you were sentencing a group of 0 potential criminals.  the general reaction to the recent hack seems to be shouting murder and rape and sentencing them all to prison without reviewing their files, but this would never fly in a just legal system.  once you start looking at people as real people, and not as just the single feature you know about them ashley madison user , you start to realize that maybe a few of these people do not deserve to be jailed at all.   #  no doubt there are niche groups of innocent people.   #  no doubt there are niche groups of innocent people.  but let me understand your argument.  most people agree the hacking and release of public information is wrong.  so we are on the same page there.  with that said, you seem to be defending the users of am.  out of the real people signed up for am probably far less than 0m, as there are a lot of bots , do you not agree that most fall into one of three categories: 0.  cheating 0.  willing to cheat / trying to cheat 0.  looking to hook up with a married person now i am sure there are other niche groups.  and there are some cheaters who might have a sympathetic story.  but mostly you are talking about doing something negative.  and look, i am not big on judging people.  and i would not want to condemn someone just because they do not live up to my moral code.  the reason here that the reprehensible and also immoral hack / release of private information is perceived as potentially good is not because it might punish someone i disagree with.  but because in the vast majority of cases, an innocent third party is being hurt.  the partner they are cheating on is being betrayed and lied to without their consent.  there are some potentially, very negative consequences, such as catching a std, because the cheater contracts it outside of the relationship, while the so is not using std protection they still may use birth control pills since they believe they are in a monogamous relationship.  so while i am not cheering for the names to be released, if it does happen, i won;t have much pity for the cheaters.  and i would hope some good comes of it and their partners can learn the truth and make an informed decision about their relationship.  what they decide i hole no judgement on.   #  as other people said, many people use the site for completely ethical consensual behavior.   #  and illegal vigilante justice supported by a righteous mob looking to publicly witchhunt is a far far greater issue than infidelity.  regardless of whether these people have done something wrong, this is barbaric.  we live in a society where we have proportional and reasonable way is of dealing with issues like this.  at times like this when we feel our pursuit of justice, even by unethical means is justified we bring out the worst in humanity.  there are shades of grey here.  sure in general, under normal circumstances, infidelity is wrong.  the world is not black and white though.  i am sure you can find countless people who use the site who if they explained their circumstances, you would feel sympathy for, or even support.  as other people said, many people use the site for completely ethical consensual behavior.  do not be ruled by your emotions.  think rationally.  do you want to live in a world where this kind of barbaric behavior is celebrated ? everyone makes mistakes, and no human is perfect.  if this reaction is acceptable, no one is safe from the mob.  and what bothers the mob changes rapidly.   #  the point of the hack was not to expose all the users like a witchhunt.   #  the point of the hack was not to expose all the users like a witchhunt.  it was because ashley madison has some fee to remove your name   information from the website, when apparently, even after paying it they still kept all that information:  the hackers or hacker, perhaps appear to be upset over the company is  full delete  service, which promises to completely erase a user is profile, and all associated data, for a $0 fee.   users almost always pay with credit card; their purchase details are not removed as promised, and include real names and address, which is of course the most important information the users want removed.   so this hack is a way to expose ashley madison as they were charging to remove your information when they were not actually fulfilling that request.  i am no fan of cheaters, but i am also no fan of a lying business that charges you to delete your own data, but then keeps it anyway.  this honestly seems like the best way to force ashley madison to change their way of business.
we do not know the situations of any of the people using this website.  there is more than one configuration that can make for a stable marriage or ltr.  what if you have a non monogamous partner that consents to your extramarital activities, but you still felt the necessity to be discreet due to societal pressures ? or maybe your partner is unable to meet certain needs but still loves and wants you to find that satisfaction elsewhere ? or maybe, due to circumstance, you are temporarily stuck in an unhappy marriage but still have this crazy feeling that despite whatever mistakes you made to get into this situation, you are a human being and deserve to find happiness ? there are really so many possibilities and to say that all of the people wronged met the end they deserved is to deny rational thinking so that it aligns nicely with our view of how the world should be URL i have never seen this website myself so i really ca not say anything about the demographics of its userbase, but imagine being in a situation like this and having your private information stolen from you, seriously endangering your social and professional life and that of your spouse is while strangers on the internet as well as peers in real life jeer at you and call you scum and filth who deserved it in the first place.  there are plenty of assholes who cheat on their spouses.  there are also plenty of assholes who do not.  but to try to make any kind of sweeping moralistic judgment about some group of 0 million strangers is unjustly harmful and heavily biased in nature.   #  or maybe your partner is unable to meet certain needs but still loves and wants you to find that satisfaction elsewhere ?  #  or maybe, due to circumstance, you are temporarily stuck in an unhappy marriage but still have this crazy feeling that despite whatever mistakes you made to get into this situation, you are a human being and deserve to find happiness ?  # you are now assuming that someone in an open relationship is completely indifferent to destroying someone else is marriage.  just because  they  have a different arrangement in their own life does not mean that they are immoral or unfeeling.  or maybe, due to circumstance, you are temporarily stuck in an unhappy marriage but still have this crazy feeling that despite whatever mistakes you made to get into this situation, you are a human being and deserve to find happiness ? here you are describing perfectly common reasons to cheat.  these are not the exceptions, this is exactly what cheating is.  the problem with your conclusion is that their partner is also a human being.  and whatever the problems of the relationship might be,  both  parties are deserving of happiness.  your complaint seems to be that these people were outed for their actions.  now they have to face consequences that they thought that they were going to be free from.  how is this different from any other big lie or broken promise ? the problem seems to be a disconnect between committing an infraction and being caught for it.  no one wants to have the world look down on them.  but when we break large contracts, that is a pretty normal response.  the fact that some are able to get away with it longer than others.  or that they believe that they can get away with it forever does not change the fact that they were the ones who chose to lie, break an agreement and conceal it.   #  the general reaction to the recent hack seems to be shouting murder and rape and sentencing them all to prison without reviewing their files, but this would never fly in a just legal system.   #  existence of alternative options is not a convincing argument to me as far as why it would be wrong to sign up on ashley madison.  maybe discretion was a big deal, or people had bad experiences with other sites, or maybe even many of the users toyed with the idea but chickened out and never went through with an actual hookup ? my point remains that there are so many possible situations and we should not just condemn them all the same.  imagine if you were sentencing a group of 0 potential criminals.  the general reaction to the recent hack seems to be shouting murder and rape and sentencing them all to prison without reviewing their files, but this would never fly in a just legal system.  once you start looking at people as real people, and not as just the single feature you know about them ashley madison user , you start to realize that maybe a few of these people do not deserve to be jailed at all.   #  the partner they are cheating on is being betrayed and lied to without their consent.   #  no doubt there are niche groups of innocent people.  but let me understand your argument.  most people agree the hacking and release of public information is wrong.  so we are on the same page there.  with that said, you seem to be defending the users of am.  out of the real people signed up for am probably far less than 0m, as there are a lot of bots , do you not agree that most fall into one of three categories: 0.  cheating 0.  willing to cheat / trying to cheat 0.  looking to hook up with a married person now i am sure there are other niche groups.  and there are some cheaters who might have a sympathetic story.  but mostly you are talking about doing something negative.  and look, i am not big on judging people.  and i would not want to condemn someone just because they do not live up to my moral code.  the reason here that the reprehensible and also immoral hack / release of private information is perceived as potentially good is not because it might punish someone i disagree with.  but because in the vast majority of cases, an innocent third party is being hurt.  the partner they are cheating on is being betrayed and lied to without their consent.  there are some potentially, very negative consequences, such as catching a std, because the cheater contracts it outside of the relationship, while the so is not using std protection they still may use birth control pills since they believe they are in a monogamous relationship.  so while i am not cheering for the names to be released, if it does happen, i won;t have much pity for the cheaters.  and i would hope some good comes of it and their partners can learn the truth and make an informed decision about their relationship.  what they decide i hole no judgement on.   #  do you want to live in a world where this kind of barbaric behavior is celebrated ?  #  and illegal vigilante justice supported by a righteous mob looking to publicly witchhunt is a far far greater issue than infidelity.  regardless of whether these people have done something wrong, this is barbaric.  we live in a society where we have proportional and reasonable way is of dealing with issues like this.  at times like this when we feel our pursuit of justice, even by unethical means is justified we bring out the worst in humanity.  there are shades of grey here.  sure in general, under normal circumstances, infidelity is wrong.  the world is not black and white though.  i am sure you can find countless people who use the site who if they explained their circumstances, you would feel sympathy for, or even support.  as other people said, many people use the site for completely ethical consensual behavior.  do not be ruled by your emotions.  think rationally.  do you want to live in a world where this kind of barbaric behavior is celebrated ? everyone makes mistakes, and no human is perfect.  if this reaction is acceptable, no one is safe from the mob.  and what bothers the mob changes rapidly.   #  so this hack is a way to expose ashley madison as they were charging to remove your information when they were not actually fulfilling that request.   #  the point of the hack was not to expose all the users like a witchhunt.  it was because ashley madison has some fee to remove your name   information from the website, when apparently, even after paying it they still kept all that information:  the hackers or hacker, perhaps appear to be upset over the company is  full delete  service, which promises to completely erase a user is profile, and all associated data, for a $0 fee.   users almost always pay with credit card; their purchase details are not removed as promised, and include real names and address, which is of course the most important information the users want removed.   so this hack is a way to expose ashley madison as they were charging to remove your information when they were not actually fulfilling that request.  i am no fan of cheaters, but i am also no fan of a lying business that charges you to delete your own data, but then keeps it anyway.  this honestly seems like the best way to force ashley madison to change their way of business.
i think gay people are gay because of their upbringing and socialization, not because of biological factors.  i think it happens in families where the father does not fulfill the authoritarian male role, and/or the mother does not fulfill the nourishing female role.  i also think that gay people probably wo not be fulfilling those two roles in future generations, thus increasing the chance of new gay people emerging from new families.  i am not sure if that is good or bad.  i think the average gay couple will have fewer children than straight couples, which is great considering there is like 0 billion of us already.  then again, i think gay children will have more trouble in their lives for a few more decades even more in conservative societies .  my speculations are based on a bit of freud, a bit of wikipedia, and a bit of personal experience with gay people i know.   #  i think gay people are gay because of their upbringing and socialization, not because of biological factors.   #  i think it happens in families where the father does not fulfill the authoritarian male role, and/or the mother does not fulfill the nourishing female role.   # i think it happens in families where the father does not fulfill the authoritarian male role, and/or the mother does not fulfill the nourishing female role.  there are certainly families where both of these conditions are met and children are straight.  there are families where neither conditions are met and children are gay.  there are conditions where environmental conditions were held nearly exactly the same as in the case of twins and the children are of differing sexual orientations.  this is a gross simplification of a complex phenomenon heavily rooted in sexism that probably has little to no bearing on determination of sexuality.  studies generally show that gay parents do just as good of a job, if not better, than raising children and that sexuality of the parents does not correlate with sexuality of the children.  the research that has pointed in the opposite direction that gay parents make poor parents have been suggested to arise from stereotype threat look it up , in which awareness of a negative stereotype decreases performance in that task.  freud, while interesting in a historical context, bears no actual authority in modern psychology.  his theories were never empirically determined and his theories have largely been discounted by actual scientists.  anecdotal evidence is never a particularly convincing argument.  and i am not sure where you looked on wikipedia to come up with these arguments, but my suspicion is that you were heavily subject to confirmation bias in the process.   #  i know it is not a lot to go on, but it is all i have.   #  i remember reading an article by freud a few years ago.  it said something along the lines of: if a father does not take an authoritative role, the son never stops treating him as an object of love, and can develop homosexual tendencies.  then again, i am not sure how that would work for daughters.  what convinced me more was getting to know a few gay guys in the last few years.  they all lack traditional male traits like aggressiveness, being focused on goals, moving forward, being disciplined.  they all had weak fathers and strong mothers.  i know it is not a lot to go on, but it is all i have.  hence my view.   #  essentially you have provided no evidence to actually disprove biological influence.   #  even if freud is idea was correct which i do not believe it is that does not mean it is the only reason why people are gay.  there is nothing in that that claims exclusively.  the top comment here shows a lot of the science genetics and epigenetics behind homosexuality.  essentially you have provided no evidence to actually disprove biological influence.  also you are essentially saying you have a few pieces of anecdotes.  i can provide more anecdotes that disagree with yours if you like both in my own life and the media  #  when you say  weak fathers , what do you mean, exactly ?  # they all had weak fathers and strong mothers.  when you say  weak fathers , what do you mean, exactly ? is it that their fathers lacked the traditional male traits that you are seeing your gay associates as lacking ? if so, why is that an environmental nurturing effect ? could it not also be a biologically heritable trait in terms of how  maleness  is passed down ?  #  secondly, in regards to freud i would suggest you listen to this URL it is about how homosexuality was taken out of the dsm, and it covers a lot of how the psychological views of homosexuality have changed over the years.   #  a few things, first your post seems to deal exclusively with gay men and you have left out bisexual people of both genders as well as lesbians.  i have a feeling this is because those folks do not fit into the neat paradigm that you have created here.  secondly, in regards to freud i would suggest you listen to this URL it is about how homosexuality was taken out of the dsm, and it covers a lot of how the psychological views of homosexuality have changed over the years.  it is important to note that freud is ideas about gay people are regarded as bunk these days, and the general consensus is that it is a combination of biological and social factors.  i also want to point out that you ca not predict someone is sexuality based off of their upbringing.  there are plenty of straight people that were raised in households like you described
i think gay people are gay because of their upbringing and socialization, not because of biological factors.  i think it happens in families where the father does not fulfill the authoritarian male role, and/or the mother does not fulfill the nourishing female role.  i also think that gay people probably wo not be fulfilling those two roles in future generations, thus increasing the chance of new gay people emerging from new families.  i am not sure if that is good or bad.  i think the average gay couple will have fewer children than straight couples, which is great considering there is like 0 billion of us already.  then again, i think gay children will have more trouble in their lives for a few more decades even more in conservative societies .  my speculations are based on a bit of freud, a bit of wikipedia, and a bit of personal experience with gay people i know.   #  i also think that gay people probably wo not be fulfilling those two roles in future generations, thus increasing the chance of new gay people emerging from new families.   #  studies generally show that gay parents do just as good of a job, if not better, than raising children and that sexuality of the parents does not correlate with sexuality of the children.   # i think it happens in families where the father does not fulfill the authoritarian male role, and/or the mother does not fulfill the nourishing female role.  there are certainly families where both of these conditions are met and children are straight.  there are families where neither conditions are met and children are gay.  there are conditions where environmental conditions were held nearly exactly the same as in the case of twins and the children are of differing sexual orientations.  this is a gross simplification of a complex phenomenon heavily rooted in sexism that probably has little to no bearing on determination of sexuality.  studies generally show that gay parents do just as good of a job, if not better, than raising children and that sexuality of the parents does not correlate with sexuality of the children.  the research that has pointed in the opposite direction that gay parents make poor parents have been suggested to arise from stereotype threat look it up , in which awareness of a negative stereotype decreases performance in that task.  freud, while interesting in a historical context, bears no actual authority in modern psychology.  his theories were never empirically determined and his theories have largely been discounted by actual scientists.  anecdotal evidence is never a particularly convincing argument.  and i am not sure where you looked on wikipedia to come up with these arguments, but my suspicion is that you were heavily subject to confirmation bias in the process.   #  i know it is not a lot to go on, but it is all i have.   #  i remember reading an article by freud a few years ago.  it said something along the lines of: if a father does not take an authoritative role, the son never stops treating him as an object of love, and can develop homosexual tendencies.  then again, i am not sure how that would work for daughters.  what convinced me more was getting to know a few gay guys in the last few years.  they all lack traditional male traits like aggressiveness, being focused on goals, moving forward, being disciplined.  they all had weak fathers and strong mothers.  i know it is not a lot to go on, but it is all i have.  hence my view.   #  i can provide more anecdotes that disagree with yours if you like both in my own life and the media  #  even if freud is idea was correct which i do not believe it is that does not mean it is the only reason why people are gay.  there is nothing in that that claims exclusively.  the top comment here shows a lot of the science genetics and epigenetics behind homosexuality.  essentially you have provided no evidence to actually disprove biological influence.  also you are essentially saying you have a few pieces of anecdotes.  i can provide more anecdotes that disagree with yours if you like both in my own life and the media  #  if so, why is that an environmental nurturing effect ?  # they all had weak fathers and strong mothers.  when you say  weak fathers , what do you mean, exactly ? is it that their fathers lacked the traditional male traits that you are seeing your gay associates as lacking ? if so, why is that an environmental nurturing effect ? could it not also be a biologically heritable trait in terms of how  maleness  is passed down ?  #  a few things, first your post seems to deal exclusively with gay men and you have left out bisexual people of both genders as well as lesbians.   #  a few things, first your post seems to deal exclusively with gay men and you have left out bisexual people of both genders as well as lesbians.  i have a feeling this is because those folks do not fit into the neat paradigm that you have created here.  secondly, in regards to freud i would suggest you listen to this URL it is about how homosexuality was taken out of the dsm, and it covers a lot of how the psychological views of homosexuality have changed over the years.  it is important to note that freud is ideas about gay people are regarded as bunk these days, and the general consensus is that it is a combination of biological and social factors.  i also want to point out that you ca not predict someone is sexuality based off of their upbringing.  there are plenty of straight people that were raised in households like you described
i think gay people are gay because of their upbringing and socialization, not because of biological factors.  i think it happens in families where the father does not fulfill the authoritarian male role, and/or the mother does not fulfill the nourishing female role.  i also think that gay people probably wo not be fulfilling those two roles in future generations, thus increasing the chance of new gay people emerging from new families.  i am not sure if that is good or bad.  i think the average gay couple will have fewer children than straight couples, which is great considering there is like 0 billion of us already.  then again, i think gay children will have more trouble in their lives for a few more decades even more in conservative societies .  my speculations are based on a bit of freud, a bit of wikipedia, and a bit of personal experience with gay people i know.   #  my speculations are based on a bit of freud, a bit of wikipedia, and a bit of personal experience with gay people i know.   #  freud, while interesting in a historical context, bears no actual authority in modern psychology.   # i think it happens in families where the father does not fulfill the authoritarian male role, and/or the mother does not fulfill the nourishing female role.  there are certainly families where both of these conditions are met and children are straight.  there are families where neither conditions are met and children are gay.  there are conditions where environmental conditions were held nearly exactly the same as in the case of twins and the children are of differing sexual orientations.  this is a gross simplification of a complex phenomenon heavily rooted in sexism that probably has little to no bearing on determination of sexuality.  studies generally show that gay parents do just as good of a job, if not better, than raising children and that sexuality of the parents does not correlate with sexuality of the children.  the research that has pointed in the opposite direction that gay parents make poor parents have been suggested to arise from stereotype threat look it up , in which awareness of a negative stereotype decreases performance in that task.  freud, while interesting in a historical context, bears no actual authority in modern psychology.  his theories were never empirically determined and his theories have largely been discounted by actual scientists.  anecdotal evidence is never a particularly convincing argument.  and i am not sure where you looked on wikipedia to come up with these arguments, but my suspicion is that you were heavily subject to confirmation bias in the process.   #  i remember reading an article by freud a few years ago.   #  i remember reading an article by freud a few years ago.  it said something along the lines of: if a father does not take an authoritative role, the son never stops treating him as an object of love, and can develop homosexual tendencies.  then again, i am not sure how that would work for daughters.  what convinced me more was getting to know a few gay guys in the last few years.  they all lack traditional male traits like aggressiveness, being focused on goals, moving forward, being disciplined.  they all had weak fathers and strong mothers.  i know it is not a lot to go on, but it is all i have.  hence my view.   #  i can provide more anecdotes that disagree with yours if you like both in my own life and the media  #  even if freud is idea was correct which i do not believe it is that does not mean it is the only reason why people are gay.  there is nothing in that that claims exclusively.  the top comment here shows a lot of the science genetics and epigenetics behind homosexuality.  essentially you have provided no evidence to actually disprove biological influence.  also you are essentially saying you have a few pieces of anecdotes.  i can provide more anecdotes that disagree with yours if you like both in my own life and the media  #  is it that their fathers lacked the traditional male traits that you are seeing your gay associates as lacking ?  # they all had weak fathers and strong mothers.  when you say  weak fathers , what do you mean, exactly ? is it that their fathers lacked the traditional male traits that you are seeing your gay associates as lacking ? if so, why is that an environmental nurturing effect ? could it not also be a biologically heritable trait in terms of how  maleness  is passed down ?  #  i also want to point out that you ca not predict someone is sexuality based off of their upbringing.   #  a few things, first your post seems to deal exclusively with gay men and you have left out bisexual people of both genders as well as lesbians.  i have a feeling this is because those folks do not fit into the neat paradigm that you have created here.  secondly, in regards to freud i would suggest you listen to this URL it is about how homosexuality was taken out of the dsm, and it covers a lot of how the psychological views of homosexuality have changed over the years.  it is important to note that freud is ideas about gay people are regarded as bunk these days, and the general consensus is that it is a combination of biological and social factors.  i also want to point out that you ca not predict someone is sexuality based off of their upbringing.  there are plenty of straight people that were raised in households like you described
this cmv post is partly inspired by this r/relationships post URL i came across earlier today.  this is also a topic i feel somewhat strongly about and i have not had a chance to really share my view on because it is sort of a  taboo  view to have.  to sum up the r/relationships post: op is 0 year old son is severely autistic and op has been told by doctors that his son will never function above the level of a 0 year old and will require constant care.  son is ruining op is life and marriage, and is negatively affecting op is 0 young daughters as well.  i do not believe the op of that post, and the many other parents who are in a similar scenario, deserve to have their lives ruined just because they were  dealt a bad hand  and ended up with a disabled child.  i think that euthanasia is a humane, simple solution to a problem like this.  after all, we euthanize our loved cats and dogs that are no longer able to have a good, independent life.  i do not see a fundamental difference between the two cases.  as for government owned care facilities: i do not believe it is a good use of our resources as a society to continue to take care of individuals who have no chance to ever become functional members of society.  euthanasia is a much more economically and environmentally more efficient option.  what wo not change my view: slippery slope/ where do we draw the line  types of arguments.  we are only discussing cases in which the child is beyond a shadow of a doubt unable to ever function independently.  cmv.   #  i think that euthanasia is a humane, simple solution to a problem like this.   #  after all, we euthanize our loved cats and dogs that are no longer able to have a good, independent life.   # after all, we euthanize our loved cats and dogs that are no longer able to have a good, independent life.  i do not see a fundamental difference between the two cases.  when people find that they cannot take care of their cat or dog any more, they generally take them to the humane society or a similar place where they get at least some amount of care.  on the other hand, when people euthanize their cat or dog, it is generally because the cat or dog is in great pain and suffering and has little time to live anyhow.  but if the animal is healthy but it is too hard for the human to take care of it say, the human has a new spouse with a cat allergy, or the cat sometimes scratches the children then it would be horrifying to euthanize the animal.  because of that distinction, i do not think your comparison is valid.  a more direct parallel would be for you to argue that   parents should be allowed to give up children with severe mental disability to the authorities.   instead, you are advocating that they should be allowed to ends its life.  that seems way out of proportion.  note that a followup debate could be done on what the state should do with such children, but that is a separate issue.   #  marijuana and psychedelics like lsd and mushrooms are schedule i, meaning they  have a high potential for abuse, have no currently accepted medical use, and are impossible to use safely under medical supervision .   #  cocaine is schedule ii, meaning the government determines that it has a high potential for abuse, but also has accepted medical use.  it is definitely possible to get funding, though there are hoops to jump through.  marijuana and psychedelics like lsd and mushrooms are schedule i, meaning they  have a high potential for abuse, have no currently accepted medical use, and are impossible to use safely under medical supervision .  it places an effective moratorium on research for the drugs, because though you can request a sample, it is obscenely expensive and often flat out denied.  this has plagued the marijuana legalization movement for years, because you need research to move it off of sch.  i, but you need to move it off sch.  i in order to research it.  schedule i has a history of being a political classification, with marijuana notably not fitting  any  of those definitions.  similarly, mdma ecstasy and lsd have shown great potential to treat ptsd and alcoholism, but are absolutely locked down from even being researched.  such is our drug system.   #  i would also add that this in no way alleviates the problems that come with drug use and addiction.   #  i have asperger is.  the first 0 years of my life were a complete misery, followed by a few years that were  almost  a complete misery.  when i started university i also started using cannabis.  it was a contributing factor to dropping out of university probably the second biggest factor after major depression .  i became a very frequent user and the main reason i gave myself was that it helped with symptoms of my asd.  whether or not this was actually the main reason for my use, it was certainly true.  i have been on cannabis pretty solidly since then.  i have had periods of happiness and longer periods of severe read: suicidal depression.  cannabis has been very comforting to me but it has also been part of my problems.  i am now 0, functioning in a good job and addicted to cannabis from closing time on a friday to bed time on a sunday and sometimes on other evenings through the week.  i can also say with a good deal of certainty that i have lost a significant chunk of my intellectual potential i am lucky enough to have a significant chunk left though .  in conclusion i would say that cannabis can  definitely  help treat symptoms of asds  in some cases .  i would also add that this in no way alleviates the problems that come with drug use and addiction.  if you intend to use it for medical reasons make sure you treat it as purely a medical drug.  separating recreational use from medicinal use is harder than anything i have ever attempted.  hope that gives you some insight.  :  #  i think that will be more likely how people go about this, rather than euthanizing full grown kids that cannot consent.   #  this is sort of what i was alluding to.  and this is the major problem with these sort of arguments, because for the populations i am talking about, consent is impossible at this point.  i think it is too early in the game to be making decisions about euthanasia or what to do with these kids because there is still far too much information lacking, which is why this is completely hypothetical.  the greater discussion i think is similar to the abortion argument.  when does a life become a life ? if we get to the point technologically that we can determine in utero what the quality of life will be, do the parents have the right to decide what to do with the child ? my belief is that they do, and they should have the option to terminate at that point.  i think that will be more likely how people go about this, rather than euthanizing full grown kids that cannot consent.   #  but i do not think we can reasonably extend that to someone who by definition cannot tell us if they are suffering or not.   #  i think the central issue with this type of view is the idea that the life a severely disabled person has is not  good.   certainly it is not  independent,  but who is to say it is not  good ?   we do not know whether severely autistic people are generally happy or miserable often they do not express happiness the way neurotypical people do but may report experiencing it.  after all, autism is a communication disorder.  we ca not really  share the experiences  of someone with severe autism.  and, of course, there are many other disabilities where we encounter the same question.  we have no way to know whether they are enjoying themselves and their lives, because we ca not ask in a way they understand and they ca not tell us.  now, i am not talking about people with devastating, painful medical conditions who can tell us how they feel.  i believe in assisted suicide for the terminally ill and greatly suffering.  but i do not think we can reasonably extend that to someone who by definition cannot tell us if they are suffering or not.
this cmv post is partly inspired by this r/relationships post URL i came across earlier today.  this is also a topic i feel somewhat strongly about and i have not had a chance to really share my view on because it is sort of a  taboo  view to have.  to sum up the r/relationships post: op is 0 year old son is severely autistic and op has been told by doctors that his son will never function above the level of a 0 year old and will require constant care.  son is ruining op is life and marriage, and is negatively affecting op is 0 young daughters as well.  i do not believe the op of that post, and the many other parents who are in a similar scenario, deserve to have their lives ruined just because they were  dealt a bad hand  and ended up with a disabled child.  i think that euthanasia is a humane, simple solution to a problem like this.  after all, we euthanize our loved cats and dogs that are no longer able to have a good, independent life.  i do not see a fundamental difference between the two cases.  as for government owned care facilities: i do not believe it is a good use of our resources as a society to continue to take care of individuals who have no chance to ever become functional members of society.  euthanasia is a much more economically and environmentally more efficient option.  what wo not change my view: slippery slope/ where do we draw the line  types of arguments.  we are only discussing cases in which the child is beyond a shadow of a doubt unable to ever function independently.  cmv.   #  after all, we euthanize our loved cats and dogs that are no longer able to have a good, independent life.   #  i do not see a fundamental difference between the two cases.   #  first off: why is euthanasia the answer ? if the child is such an inconvenience adoption exists.  i do not see a fundamental difference between the two cases.  we value human life vastly differently to that of dogs and cats.  people even put down their pets because they are moving somewhere and ca not bring the pets with them.  i really think this is a terrible argument on your part and frankly think it was ill thought out and you do not really believe it when you think about it.  i do not really believe your life would improve if you euthanized your 0 year old son.  people usually grow attached to their children whether or not they are autistic.  i also think guilt would play a very big part here.  as a medical professional there is never  beyond a shadow of a doubt .  in the last century medicine took such big leaps that there is no knowing what we can do in the future.  often our biggest help in understanding our functionality is by studying those of us that do not  function properly .  the economic and environmental argument is neither here nor there since the group of people you are talking about is so tiny and has such little impact on those factors when we look at society as a whole.  if you want to start impacting economics you will have to start killing off people that are way  healthier  than the ones you mentioned.  about 0 of people over 0 need daily assistance in the us, included in that number are people that have full mental capacity but do not have full motor functions.  the people you are talking about account for  maybe  0 of the population and i am pretty sure i am being generous here.   #  marijuana and psychedelics like lsd and mushrooms are schedule i, meaning they  have a high potential for abuse, have no currently accepted medical use, and are impossible to use safely under medical supervision .   #  cocaine is schedule ii, meaning the government determines that it has a high potential for abuse, but also has accepted medical use.  it is definitely possible to get funding, though there are hoops to jump through.  marijuana and psychedelics like lsd and mushrooms are schedule i, meaning they  have a high potential for abuse, have no currently accepted medical use, and are impossible to use safely under medical supervision .  it places an effective moratorium on research for the drugs, because though you can request a sample, it is obscenely expensive and often flat out denied.  this has plagued the marijuana legalization movement for years, because you need research to move it off of sch.  i, but you need to move it off sch.  i in order to research it.  schedule i has a history of being a political classification, with marijuana notably not fitting  any  of those definitions.  similarly, mdma ecstasy and lsd have shown great potential to treat ptsd and alcoholism, but are absolutely locked down from even being researched.  such is our drug system.   #  i have had periods of happiness and longer periods of severe read: suicidal depression.   #  i have asperger is.  the first 0 years of my life were a complete misery, followed by a few years that were  almost  a complete misery.  when i started university i also started using cannabis.  it was a contributing factor to dropping out of university probably the second biggest factor after major depression .  i became a very frequent user and the main reason i gave myself was that it helped with symptoms of my asd.  whether or not this was actually the main reason for my use, it was certainly true.  i have been on cannabis pretty solidly since then.  i have had periods of happiness and longer periods of severe read: suicidal depression.  cannabis has been very comforting to me but it has also been part of my problems.  i am now 0, functioning in a good job and addicted to cannabis from closing time on a friday to bed time on a sunday and sometimes on other evenings through the week.  i can also say with a good deal of certainty that i have lost a significant chunk of my intellectual potential i am lucky enough to have a significant chunk left though .  in conclusion i would say that cannabis can  definitely  help treat symptoms of asds  in some cases .  i would also add that this in no way alleviates the problems that come with drug use and addiction.  if you intend to use it for medical reasons make sure you treat it as purely a medical drug.  separating recreational use from medicinal use is harder than anything i have ever attempted.  hope that gives you some insight.  :  #  this is sort of what i was alluding to.   #  this is sort of what i was alluding to.  and this is the major problem with these sort of arguments, because for the populations i am talking about, consent is impossible at this point.  i think it is too early in the game to be making decisions about euthanasia or what to do with these kids because there is still far too much information lacking, which is why this is completely hypothetical.  the greater discussion i think is similar to the abortion argument.  when does a life become a life ? if we get to the point technologically that we can determine in utero what the quality of life will be, do the parents have the right to decide what to do with the child ? my belief is that they do, and they should have the option to terminate at that point.  i think that will be more likely how people go about this, rather than euthanizing full grown kids that cannot consent.   #  we have no way to know whether they are enjoying themselves and their lives, because we ca not ask in a way they understand and they ca not tell us.   #  i think the central issue with this type of view is the idea that the life a severely disabled person has is not  good.   certainly it is not  independent,  but who is to say it is not  good ?   we do not know whether severely autistic people are generally happy or miserable often they do not express happiness the way neurotypical people do but may report experiencing it.  after all, autism is a communication disorder.  we ca not really  share the experiences  of someone with severe autism.  and, of course, there are many other disabilities where we encounter the same question.  we have no way to know whether they are enjoying themselves and their lives, because we ca not ask in a way they understand and they ca not tell us.  now, i am not talking about people with devastating, painful medical conditions who can tell us how they feel.  i believe in assisted suicide for the terminally ill and greatly suffering.  but i do not think we can reasonably extend that to someone who by definition cannot tell us if they are suffering or not.
this cmv post is partly inspired by this r/relationships post URL i came across earlier today.  this is also a topic i feel somewhat strongly about and i have not had a chance to really share my view on because it is sort of a  taboo  view to have.  to sum up the r/relationships post: op is 0 year old son is severely autistic and op has been told by doctors that his son will never function above the level of a 0 year old and will require constant care.  son is ruining op is life and marriage, and is negatively affecting op is 0 young daughters as well.  i do not believe the op of that post, and the many other parents who are in a similar scenario, deserve to have their lives ruined just because they were  dealt a bad hand  and ended up with a disabled child.  i think that euthanasia is a humane, simple solution to a problem like this.  after all, we euthanize our loved cats and dogs that are no longer able to have a good, independent life.  i do not see a fundamental difference between the two cases.  as for government owned care facilities: i do not believe it is a good use of our resources as a society to continue to take care of individuals who have no chance to ever become functional members of society.  euthanasia is a much more economically and environmentally more efficient option.  what wo not change my view: slippery slope/ where do we draw the line  types of arguments.  we are only discussing cases in which the child is beyond a shadow of a doubt unable to ever function independently.  cmv.   #  as for government owned care facilities: i do not believe it is a good use of our resources as a society to continue to take care of individuals who have no chance to ever become functional members of society.   #  euthanasia is a much more economically and environmentally more efficient option.   #  like it or not that disabled child or any disabled person is a human being and if this were a argument of being able to consent to ending one is own life under similar circumstances you would have a case.  however what you are proposing with the inclusion of the story included is that parents should be able to kill their children through medical means if the child will never be fit to care for themselves.  i would also like to point out there is a wide range of disabilities that would require a child to be cared for all its life that does not even leave the child in a minimalist mental state.  i present to you a young man who goes by qdragon0 who has been making youtube videos for 0 years now.  youtube page here URL now, the moment you see him, his disabilities become obvious.  he is not going to recover and he will forever be a  burden  keep in mind this is not some recent disability this is his life.  perhaps this is even more painful for his parents for their son to be self aware and intelligent.  are you willing to say that he should have been euthanized here ? would you say that to him ? euthanasia is a much more economically and environmentally more efficient option.  so within your own reasoning here, how does this not apply to much more than disabled children ? you may call this a slippery slope but i would say you are special pleading by only applying this to children when your own statement applies to much more than children.  as for economic benefits, just think of how sick that comment is.  to put money in front of life.  chances are i pay much more in taxes than you, and i would rather be taxed and have those people well taken care of than for them to be murdered against their will.  if you do not feel this way than i have news for you, you are the problem you are the one who does not fit within a civilized society.  we are only discussing cases in which the child is beyond a shadow of a doubt unable to ever function independently.  cmv.  which again is special pleading.  you want to shut down the debate by limiting how your own words could fairly be put next to entirely other groups of people.  people who would be able to actually defend themselves in many cases through discussion unlike the children.  this does not make you humane, it makes you a predator seeking the easiest of prey.   #  i, but you need to move it off sch.   #  cocaine is schedule ii, meaning the government determines that it has a high potential for abuse, but also has accepted medical use.  it is definitely possible to get funding, though there are hoops to jump through.  marijuana and psychedelics like lsd and mushrooms are schedule i, meaning they  have a high potential for abuse, have no currently accepted medical use, and are impossible to use safely under medical supervision .  it places an effective moratorium on research for the drugs, because though you can request a sample, it is obscenely expensive and often flat out denied.  this has plagued the marijuana legalization movement for years, because you need research to move it off of sch.  i, but you need to move it off sch.  i in order to research it.  schedule i has a history of being a political classification, with marijuana notably not fitting  any  of those definitions.  similarly, mdma ecstasy and lsd have shown great potential to treat ptsd and alcoholism, but are absolutely locked down from even being researched.  such is our drug system.   #  i became a very frequent user and the main reason i gave myself was that it helped with symptoms of my asd.   #  i have asperger is.  the first 0 years of my life were a complete misery, followed by a few years that were  almost  a complete misery.  when i started university i also started using cannabis.  it was a contributing factor to dropping out of university probably the second biggest factor after major depression .  i became a very frequent user and the main reason i gave myself was that it helped with symptoms of my asd.  whether or not this was actually the main reason for my use, it was certainly true.  i have been on cannabis pretty solidly since then.  i have had periods of happiness and longer periods of severe read: suicidal depression.  cannabis has been very comforting to me but it has also been part of my problems.  i am now 0, functioning in a good job and addicted to cannabis from closing time on a friday to bed time on a sunday and sometimes on other evenings through the week.  i can also say with a good deal of certainty that i have lost a significant chunk of my intellectual potential i am lucky enough to have a significant chunk left though .  in conclusion i would say that cannabis can  definitely  help treat symptoms of asds  in some cases .  i would also add that this in no way alleviates the problems that come with drug use and addiction.  if you intend to use it for medical reasons make sure you treat it as purely a medical drug.  separating recreational use from medicinal use is harder than anything i have ever attempted.  hope that gives you some insight.  :  #  the greater discussion i think is similar to the abortion argument.   #  this is sort of what i was alluding to.  and this is the major problem with these sort of arguments, because for the populations i am talking about, consent is impossible at this point.  i think it is too early in the game to be making decisions about euthanasia or what to do with these kids because there is still far too much information lacking, which is why this is completely hypothetical.  the greater discussion i think is similar to the abortion argument.  when does a life become a life ? if we get to the point technologically that we can determine in utero what the quality of life will be, do the parents have the right to decide what to do with the child ? my belief is that they do, and they should have the option to terminate at that point.  i think that will be more likely how people go about this, rather than euthanizing full grown kids that cannot consent.   #  certainly it is not  independent,  but who is to say it is not  good ?    #  i think the central issue with this type of view is the idea that the life a severely disabled person has is not  good.   certainly it is not  independent,  but who is to say it is not  good ?   we do not know whether severely autistic people are generally happy or miserable often they do not express happiness the way neurotypical people do but may report experiencing it.  after all, autism is a communication disorder.  we ca not really  share the experiences  of someone with severe autism.  and, of course, there are many other disabilities where we encounter the same question.  we have no way to know whether they are enjoying themselves and their lives, because we ca not ask in a way they understand and they ca not tell us.  now, i am not talking about people with devastating, painful medical conditions who can tell us how they feel.  i believe in assisted suicide for the terminally ill and greatly suffering.  but i do not think we can reasonably extend that to someone who by definition cannot tell us if they are suffering or not.
this cmv post is partly inspired by this r/relationships post URL i came across earlier today.  this is also a topic i feel somewhat strongly about and i have not had a chance to really share my view on because it is sort of a  taboo  view to have.  to sum up the r/relationships post: op is 0 year old son is severely autistic and op has been told by doctors that his son will never function above the level of a 0 year old and will require constant care.  son is ruining op is life and marriage, and is negatively affecting op is 0 young daughters as well.  i do not believe the op of that post, and the many other parents who are in a similar scenario, deserve to have their lives ruined just because they were  dealt a bad hand  and ended up with a disabled child.  i think that euthanasia is a humane, simple solution to a problem like this.  after all, we euthanize our loved cats and dogs that are no longer able to have a good, independent life.  i do not see a fundamental difference between the two cases.  as for government owned care facilities: i do not believe it is a good use of our resources as a society to continue to take care of individuals who have no chance to ever become functional members of society.  euthanasia is a much more economically and environmentally more efficient option.  what wo not change my view: slippery slope/ where do we draw the line  types of arguments.  we are only discussing cases in which the child is beyond a shadow of a doubt unable to ever function independently.  cmv.   #  what wo not change my view: slippery slope/ where do we draw the line  types of arguments.   #  we are only discussing cases in which the child is beyond a shadow of a doubt unable to ever function independently.   #  like it or not that disabled child or any disabled person is a human being and if this were a argument of being able to consent to ending one is own life under similar circumstances you would have a case.  however what you are proposing with the inclusion of the story included is that parents should be able to kill their children through medical means if the child will never be fit to care for themselves.  i would also like to point out there is a wide range of disabilities that would require a child to be cared for all its life that does not even leave the child in a minimalist mental state.  i present to you a young man who goes by qdragon0 who has been making youtube videos for 0 years now.  youtube page here URL now, the moment you see him, his disabilities become obvious.  he is not going to recover and he will forever be a  burden  keep in mind this is not some recent disability this is his life.  perhaps this is even more painful for his parents for their son to be self aware and intelligent.  are you willing to say that he should have been euthanized here ? would you say that to him ? euthanasia is a much more economically and environmentally more efficient option.  so within your own reasoning here, how does this not apply to much more than disabled children ? you may call this a slippery slope but i would say you are special pleading by only applying this to children when your own statement applies to much more than children.  as for economic benefits, just think of how sick that comment is.  to put money in front of life.  chances are i pay much more in taxes than you, and i would rather be taxed and have those people well taken care of than for them to be murdered against their will.  if you do not feel this way than i have news for you, you are the problem you are the one who does not fit within a civilized society.  we are only discussing cases in which the child is beyond a shadow of a doubt unable to ever function independently.  cmv.  which again is special pleading.  you want to shut down the debate by limiting how your own words could fairly be put next to entirely other groups of people.  people who would be able to actually defend themselves in many cases through discussion unlike the children.  this does not make you humane, it makes you a predator seeking the easiest of prey.   #  marijuana and psychedelics like lsd and mushrooms are schedule i, meaning they  have a high potential for abuse, have no currently accepted medical use, and are impossible to use safely under medical supervision .   #  cocaine is schedule ii, meaning the government determines that it has a high potential for abuse, but also has accepted medical use.  it is definitely possible to get funding, though there are hoops to jump through.  marijuana and psychedelics like lsd and mushrooms are schedule i, meaning they  have a high potential for abuse, have no currently accepted medical use, and are impossible to use safely under medical supervision .  it places an effective moratorium on research for the drugs, because though you can request a sample, it is obscenely expensive and often flat out denied.  this has plagued the marijuana legalization movement for years, because you need research to move it off of sch.  i, but you need to move it off sch.  i in order to research it.  schedule i has a history of being a political classification, with marijuana notably not fitting  any  of those definitions.  similarly, mdma ecstasy and lsd have shown great potential to treat ptsd and alcoholism, but are absolutely locked down from even being researched.  such is our drug system.   #  i would also add that this in no way alleviates the problems that come with drug use and addiction.   #  i have asperger is.  the first 0 years of my life were a complete misery, followed by a few years that were  almost  a complete misery.  when i started university i also started using cannabis.  it was a contributing factor to dropping out of university probably the second biggest factor after major depression .  i became a very frequent user and the main reason i gave myself was that it helped with symptoms of my asd.  whether or not this was actually the main reason for my use, it was certainly true.  i have been on cannabis pretty solidly since then.  i have had periods of happiness and longer periods of severe read: suicidal depression.  cannabis has been very comforting to me but it has also been part of my problems.  i am now 0, functioning in a good job and addicted to cannabis from closing time on a friday to bed time on a sunday and sometimes on other evenings through the week.  i can also say with a good deal of certainty that i have lost a significant chunk of my intellectual potential i am lucky enough to have a significant chunk left though .  in conclusion i would say that cannabis can  definitely  help treat symptoms of asds  in some cases .  i would also add that this in no way alleviates the problems that come with drug use and addiction.  if you intend to use it for medical reasons make sure you treat it as purely a medical drug.  separating recreational use from medicinal use is harder than anything i have ever attempted.  hope that gives you some insight.  :  #  my belief is that they do, and they should have the option to terminate at that point.   #  this is sort of what i was alluding to.  and this is the major problem with these sort of arguments, because for the populations i am talking about, consent is impossible at this point.  i think it is too early in the game to be making decisions about euthanasia or what to do with these kids because there is still far too much information lacking, which is why this is completely hypothetical.  the greater discussion i think is similar to the abortion argument.  when does a life become a life ? if we get to the point technologically that we can determine in utero what the quality of life will be, do the parents have the right to decide what to do with the child ? my belief is that they do, and they should have the option to terminate at that point.  i think that will be more likely how people go about this, rather than euthanizing full grown kids that cannot consent.   #  we have no way to know whether they are enjoying themselves and their lives, because we ca not ask in a way they understand and they ca not tell us.   #  i think the central issue with this type of view is the idea that the life a severely disabled person has is not  good.   certainly it is not  independent,  but who is to say it is not  good ?   we do not know whether severely autistic people are generally happy or miserable often they do not express happiness the way neurotypical people do but may report experiencing it.  after all, autism is a communication disorder.  we ca not really  share the experiences  of someone with severe autism.  and, of course, there are many other disabilities where we encounter the same question.  we have no way to know whether they are enjoying themselves and their lives, because we ca not ask in a way they understand and they ca not tell us.  now, i am not talking about people with devastating, painful medical conditions who can tell us how they feel.  i believe in assisted suicide for the terminally ill and greatly suffering.  but i do not think we can reasonably extend that to someone who by definition cannot tell us if they are suffering or not.
this cmv post is partly inspired by this r/relationships post URL i came across earlier today.  this is also a topic i feel somewhat strongly about and i have not had a chance to really share my view on because it is sort of a  taboo  view to have.  to sum up the r/relationships post: op is 0 year old son is severely autistic and op has been told by doctors that his son will never function above the level of a 0 year old and will require constant care.  son is ruining op is life and marriage, and is negatively affecting op is 0 young daughters as well.  i do not believe the op of that post, and the many other parents who are in a similar scenario, deserve to have their lives ruined just because they were  dealt a bad hand  and ended up with a disabled child.  i think that euthanasia is a humane, simple solution to a problem like this.  after all, we euthanize our loved cats and dogs that are no longer able to have a good, independent life.  i do not see a fundamental difference between the two cases.  as for government owned care facilities: i do not believe it is a good use of our resources as a society to continue to take care of individuals who have no chance to ever become functional members of society.  euthanasia is a much more economically and environmentally more efficient option.  what wo not change my view: slippery slope/ where do we draw the line  types of arguments.  we are only discussing cases in which the child is beyond a shadow of a doubt unable to ever function independently.  cmv.   #  euthanasia is a much more economically and environmentally more efficient option.   #  your economics argument could easily be made to apply in countries where women are viewed as burdens after their child rearing days are over.   # your economics argument could easily be made to apply in countries where women are viewed as burdens after their child rearing days are over.  and your argument has been similarly already applied to the destitute in the slums of south america.  they literally have death squads killing children because  it is the most economical efficient thing to do .  that slippery slope you mockingly dismiss.  we have been down that slide thousands up thousands of times throughout the course of history.  that is what the catholic church did when it burned natives alive in south america during the process of also forcibly converting them to christianity .  it was for their own good.  your argument against the cost of it is completely wrongheaded.  cost should not be a factor in this discussion.   #  schedule i has a history of being a political classification, with marijuana notably not fitting  any  of those definitions.   #  cocaine is schedule ii, meaning the government determines that it has a high potential for abuse, but also has accepted medical use.  it is definitely possible to get funding, though there are hoops to jump through.  marijuana and psychedelics like lsd and mushrooms are schedule i, meaning they  have a high potential for abuse, have no currently accepted medical use, and are impossible to use safely under medical supervision .  it places an effective moratorium on research for the drugs, because though you can request a sample, it is obscenely expensive and often flat out denied.  this has plagued the marijuana legalization movement for years, because you need research to move it off of sch.  i, but you need to move it off sch.  i in order to research it.  schedule i has a history of being a political classification, with marijuana notably not fitting  any  of those definitions.  similarly, mdma ecstasy and lsd have shown great potential to treat ptsd and alcoholism, but are absolutely locked down from even being researched.  such is our drug system.   #  cannabis has been very comforting to me but it has also been part of my problems.   #  i have asperger is.  the first 0 years of my life were a complete misery, followed by a few years that were  almost  a complete misery.  when i started university i also started using cannabis.  it was a contributing factor to dropping out of university probably the second biggest factor after major depression .  i became a very frequent user and the main reason i gave myself was that it helped with symptoms of my asd.  whether or not this was actually the main reason for my use, it was certainly true.  i have been on cannabis pretty solidly since then.  i have had periods of happiness and longer periods of severe read: suicidal depression.  cannabis has been very comforting to me but it has also been part of my problems.  i am now 0, functioning in a good job and addicted to cannabis from closing time on a friday to bed time on a sunday and sometimes on other evenings through the week.  i can also say with a good deal of certainty that i have lost a significant chunk of my intellectual potential i am lucky enough to have a significant chunk left though .  in conclusion i would say that cannabis can  definitely  help treat symptoms of asds  in some cases .  i would also add that this in no way alleviates the problems that come with drug use and addiction.  if you intend to use it for medical reasons make sure you treat it as purely a medical drug.  separating recreational use from medicinal use is harder than anything i have ever attempted.  hope that gives you some insight.  :  #  i think it is too early in the game to be making decisions about euthanasia or what to do with these kids because there is still far too much information lacking, which is why this is completely hypothetical.   #  this is sort of what i was alluding to.  and this is the major problem with these sort of arguments, because for the populations i am talking about, consent is impossible at this point.  i think it is too early in the game to be making decisions about euthanasia or what to do with these kids because there is still far too much information lacking, which is why this is completely hypothetical.  the greater discussion i think is similar to the abortion argument.  when does a life become a life ? if we get to the point technologically that we can determine in utero what the quality of life will be, do the parents have the right to decide what to do with the child ? my belief is that they do, and they should have the option to terminate at that point.  i think that will be more likely how people go about this, rather than euthanizing full grown kids that cannot consent.   #  we ca not really  share the experiences  of someone with severe autism.   #  i think the central issue with this type of view is the idea that the life a severely disabled person has is not  good.   certainly it is not  independent,  but who is to say it is not  good ?   we do not know whether severely autistic people are generally happy or miserable often they do not express happiness the way neurotypical people do but may report experiencing it.  after all, autism is a communication disorder.  we ca not really  share the experiences  of someone with severe autism.  and, of course, there are many other disabilities where we encounter the same question.  we have no way to know whether they are enjoying themselves and their lives, because we ca not ask in a way they understand and they ca not tell us.  now, i am not talking about people with devastating, painful medical conditions who can tell us how they feel.  i believe in assisted suicide for the terminally ill and greatly suffering.  but i do not think we can reasonably extend that to someone who by definition cannot tell us if they are suffering or not.
it seems like the general consensus is that the present is more progressive and accepting compared to say 0 years ago.  while when it comes to laws i would agree but when it comes to society i am shaking my head at that statement.  it seems like a normal occurrence for someone to make some prejudge comments or attitude about another race/ethnic group.  a lot of times it is been a conversation opener at a bus station like for an example someone saying  those damn chinese are ruining the city  and my friend who works at a cafe had one customer say  i am glad to be served by a white person  her being part native and the fact that a filipino woman also works at the cafe, told him to get the fuck out.  i work in a hotel and we usually have our breaks in the lobby except when a native s at least 0 or 0 co workers go somewhere else here, i suspected racism being the case which prompted me to say this today.  me: this seems to happen when natives are here co worker: well they should be chucked right out anyway me: wow in a i ca not believe you just said that kind of tone co worker: smugly i know me: i did not mean that in a good way these are not the only examples i have but those stood out to me the most.  while i am aware that the past was no walk in the park, even though we no longer have residential schools, back of bus laws, or allowed to refuse service or employment on the basis of ethnicity without getting sued for it, and in most countries concentration camps.  many people seem to wish those were still happening, they still think their lesser people, think the world is better off without them and shun them like a leper.  i am a 0 year old white woman born and raised in canada, a country that is supposedly the most tolerant of other races and cultures, if that is the case i ca not help but wonder how bad it is in other countries.  even though i am from a small town i have seen racism in major cities too and i have traveled in europe and at least a lot of people i have talked to complained about gypsies and immigrants.  i do not even think it is an age thing since i have seen this in both the young one 0 year old who thinks the natives are lying about residential schools and the old my friend thinks the most racist people are old people, who i have heard at least half the comments from .  i want to believe that we have come a long way towards race relations but i just do not see it.  tl:dr: disgusted by the blatant racism despite living in a supposedly enlightened society.   #  many people seem to wish those were still happening, they still think their lesser people, think the world is better off without them and shun them like a leper.   #  racist thoughts are not going to disappear from the minds of people anytime soon.   # racist thoughts are not going to disappear from the minds of people anytime soon.  it is in our built in tribal nature to distrust and/or dislike those different from us.  of course, part of personal growth is to realize that these are unhelpful, prejudiced views.  i tried to find a comprehensive study of racism in canada, but everything seemed to be behind a paywall, and i am not rich.  but i did find these two studies regarding hate crimes in canada.  please take a look at the 0 report URL and the 0 report URL my argument is that even though the proportion of immigrants ethnic minorities in canada has increased in these years, the rate of crime based on race has remained steady.  also, this is at the same time that police officers are getting better at reporting these types of crimes.  it is the only math based proof i can find except that racism  feels  like it has become rarer in society.  it has, at least, lost its edge.   #  or anyone who wants black people to sit in the back of the bus ?  #  so you do not think any of these things count as  progress  vs the way society was in the past ? lynching black people is no longer accepted the general public accepts interracial marriages the general public accepts interracial schooling the general public considers the word  nigger  to be terribly offensive the kkk is looked at as a laughing stock, instead of a serious political institution.   segregation  is not a legitimate political stance to hold if one expects to be elected to public office i am not talking about laws.  i am talking about the viewpoints of the general public.  none of those things count as  progress  ? i mean, do you know anyone who still wants separate water fountains for black people ? or anyone who wants black people to sit in the back of the bus ? because i certainly do not know anyone who holds those viewpoints.   #  the latter is almost unheard of, and not because there are not still people who want to, but because they are not the vast majority, like they used to be.   #  some people have not.  it was the default position in the 0s for white people to hate people of color.  two anecdotal examples does not mean that everyone is still racist.  well, okay, everyone is a little bit racist URL but racism really  is  a spectrum.  there is a world of difference, i think you would agree, between averting your gaze from a black male when walking by him, and actively forming a lynch mob because a n  eyeballed him.  the former still happens, and is something we need to work on.  the latter is almost unheard of, and not because there are not still people who want to, but because they are not the vast majority, like they used to be.  also:  considering the one of the owners also has native ancestry this is the huge huge thing: the owner very likely  would not have had the opportunity to own it  in the past, because the racism was  that  overt  #  if your employer finds out about that, you are probably getting fired.   #  the laws are the reflection of society.  individuals will always be racist/sexist/homophobic.  there are 0 million people in the us.  not all of them are ever going to be good people.  the measure of how  society  is doing is how okay we consider their racism.  0 years ago, no one batted an eye if you said  nigger  out loud in public.  go into town and try that tomorrow and you will see how much that is changed.  if your employer finds out about that, you are probably getting fired.  people are going to absolutely say something to you about it.  it was considered perfectly normal to have a serious problem with interracial marriage.  this is no longer the case.  those people always exist, but the fact that they ca not just be that way openly in public means that society has changed.   #  i am a 0 year old white male from new york and can tell you that from what i have seen, being white, society as a whole has certainly changed even from when i was a little kid.   # i am surprised that you feel that racism is still as bad overall then it was in the past and that society has not advanced.  i am a 0 year old white male from new york and can tell you that from what i have seen, being white, society as a whole has certainly changed even from when i was a little kid.  i grew up with an irish family and i remember the word  nigger  was thrown around without much concern or consideration.  i have noticed that such behaviors are not tolerated amongst my family and certainly in society as a whole.  now, i really would like to hear non white people chime in on their opinions.
mars is significantly more expensive to get to and less hospitable than any place on earth.  here are the common arguments i have heard for martian colonization: 0.   we will run out of resources on earth.   mars could be made of diamonds, iphone 0 is, and amazon gift cards and it still would not be worth the cost to go there.  furthermore it is a huge use of our limited resources here on earth to create and continue to supply a settlement on mars.  0.   we could get hit by an asteriod or nuke ourselves.   true, but are not there much cheaper ways to invest in the continuation of mankind ? we could build bunkers near the center of the earth, we could create satelites to detect, shift or destroy meteors or other space debris that threatens us, and that would save all of mankind, not just the limited amount who might have gone to mars.  0.   exploration/mapping the universe.   do not satelites do this better and much more cheaply ? 0.   inspiration for potential scientists.   this one seems true, but there are many other things that kids dream of just as much.  when i was a kid i was inspired to become a programmer by watching giant fighting robots who could transform into cars.  that does not seem like a good enough reason to invest in building real life transformers with government money.  0.   potential innovations as byproducts.   i know there are a lot of examples of this from the trip to the moon, but could not we have focused directly on getting benefits we know we want ? for example, life extension.  we are beginning to see that it may be possible to obtain immortality or close to it.  the direct result of this would cause immeasureable progress to humanity.  our greatest minds could live forever.  our scientists and innovators could live longer and produce even greater inventions.  why not focus on that instead ?  #  we will run out of resources on earth.   #  fossil fuels are declining, and it is likely we will need to leave most of them un exploited in order to prevent baking the planet.   # fossil fuels are declining, and it is likely we will need to leave most of them un exploited in order to prevent baking the planet.  many alternative fuels require large amounts of rare earth metals, catalysts like platinum, or other comparatively rare materials.  solar energy could provide more than we could possibly need, if we can only harness it cheaply.  we ca not now, but we should be able to in the future.  there is also not going to be any fossil fuels or other obvious energy sources on mars.  any mars colony would likely have to be largely supported by nuclear or solar fuel, just like in a post fossil fuels earth.   #  sure, the kings and queens of europe could have said eh, lets just focus on ourselves we have plenty of natural resources here, we have no need to find new places.   # fossil fuels are declining, and it is likely we will need to leave most of them un exploited in order to prevent baking the planet.  many alternative fuels require large amounts of rare earth metals, catalysts like platinum, or other comparatively rare materials.  building vaults in the core might or might not protect the species from a planetary threat.  even if it did, what then ? we have a nice vault that can sustain us .  for a while.  that is one helluva future to leave to our descendants.  the consequences of a major asteroid strike could continue for millions of years.  they do not do a particularly good job at finding answers to questions we did not even know we should be asking, and it can be a decade or more before a new rover/satellite could be built and sent.  no disparaging the rover/satellite/probe teams they do some absolutely incredible work, but there still is just no replacing putting the scientist directly next to the thing they are researching for the human pattern recognition ability to really jump into overdrive.  in addition, at the moment, the heaviest launch vehicle that we have is the delta iv heavy which can put appx 0k kg into geostationary transfer orbit.  as a consequence of getting man to mars is figuring out how to get much more into orbit at a lower cost, and how to propel it at higher speeds with lower amounts of fuel.  those same advances in rocketry and intraplanetary travel will directly help our probes and satellites allowing them to be launched more cheaply and get to their destinations faster.  step back 0 years or so to when europeans were exploring the world.  these were some hideously expensive explorations with completely unknown outcomes  discovering  america, south america, all of the various islands around the globe, etc.  sure, the kings and queens of europe could have said eh, lets just focus on ourselves we have plenty of natural resources here, we have no need to find new places.  however, explore they did, and incredible amounts of wealth and prosperity flowed to the countries that did it best.  mars is but a first step after that may be the clouds of venus, the moons of saturn, asteroid mining, or any number of other steps.  i would much rather leave the first step to colonizing the universe to my descendants then encouraging them to hunker down and ignore the fact that one of these days our planet will die and it will take us with it if we do not grow and spread.   #  india has pretty consitantly added 0 million people every 0 years, and when you are growing that quickly, there is not enough to go around.   #  at what point do you see it tapering off ? population growth declines in countries where they have a higher standard of living, aka japan and to some extent the us.  india has pretty consitantly added 0 million people every 0 years, and when you are growing that quickly, there is not enough to go around.  this creates more  poor  people, who are also the people who reproduce the most.  assuming the ratios stay the same, that population will only continue to grow exponentially.  for every person not reproducing 0 more are.  while we are sitting here on our computers, with ac, internet and food on our tables, there are people who do not have running water, electricity, or anything that we have all taken for granted for the last 0  years.  there will always be this disparity, short of us living in a utopian society.   #  first, they go through an agricultural revolution, than an industrial, then a social revolution.   #  every country has to go through all the stages to becoming industrialized.  first, they go through an agricultural revolution, than an industrial, then a social revolution.  for the pioneers these could take a long time, now they happen fairly quickly.  china and india in 0 years will look very different than today.  china is better off than india since india will take a hit when they run out of water.   #  low economic development often encourages people to have kids so that they can support their parents when they are no longer able to work   it is not like they are going to get much of a pension, if any.   #  when women are educated and have good career prospects, they are more likely to want to plan their families if they want to have children at all .  uneducated women who ca not really get meaningful work compared to men have much more pressure to get married and have kids since that ends up being their role in society.  low economic development often encourages people to have kids so that they can support their parents when they are no longer able to work   it is not like they are going to get much of a pension, if any.  empowering women means that they get to make these kinds of decisions for themselves, too, instead of being forced into marriage and forced to have kids.  also, improved healthcare means improved access to birth control and lower mortality rate for newborns, as well as less risky pregnancies.  all of these contribute to family planning on a large scale that generally drops the birth rate very significantly.
mars is significantly more expensive to get to and less hospitable than any place on earth.  here are the common arguments i have heard for martian colonization: 0.   we will run out of resources on earth.   mars could be made of diamonds, iphone 0 is, and amazon gift cards and it still would not be worth the cost to go there.  furthermore it is a huge use of our limited resources here on earth to create and continue to supply a settlement on mars.  0.   we could get hit by an asteriod or nuke ourselves.   true, but are not there much cheaper ways to invest in the continuation of mankind ? we could build bunkers near the center of the earth, we could create satelites to detect, shift or destroy meteors or other space debris that threatens us, and that would save all of mankind, not just the limited amount who might have gone to mars.  0.   exploration/mapping the universe.   do not satelites do this better and much more cheaply ? 0.   inspiration for potential scientists.   this one seems true, but there are many other things that kids dream of just as much.  when i was a kid i was inspired to become a programmer by watching giant fighting robots who could transform into cars.  that does not seem like a good enough reason to invest in building real life transformers with government money.  0.   potential innovations as byproducts.   i know there are a lot of examples of this from the trip to the moon, but could not we have focused directly on getting benefits we know we want ? for example, life extension.  we are beginning to see that it may be possible to obtain immortality or close to it.  the direct result of this would cause immeasureable progress to humanity.  our greatest minds could live forever.  our scientists and innovators could live longer and produce even greater inventions.  why not focus on that instead ?  #  when i was a kid i was inspired to become a programmer by watching giant fighting robots who could transform into cars.   #  that does not seem like a good enough reason to invest in building real life transformers with government money.   #  the best reason to go to mars is to look for those sneaky martians.  now that that is out of the way:   true, but are not there much cheaper ways to invest in the continuation of mankind ? we could build bunkers near the center of the earth, we could create satelites to detect, shift or destroy meteors or other space debris that threatens us, and that would save all of mankind, not just the limited amount who might have gone to mars.  these are not sufficient.  what if the meteor is too large to be stopped by a satellite, or the satellite fails ? building bunkers underground, building anything underground, is very expensive ! and there is no way that we could build them in a way that is good enough to house a majority of the population.  plus, in case of a nuclear attack, we would be cutting ourselves off from the surface of the earth no sunlight for energy , no plants for food , etc.  i never understood how the folks in the fallout games survived as long as they did.  not as well.  our atmosphere interferes with the information that is available to us on the surface of the earth.  on mars, we could build very large structures that could lead to better readings because mars is atmosphere is 0 times thinner than earth is.  that does not seem like a good enough reason to invest in building real life transformers with government money.  the challenges of a mars mission will certainly lead to some exciting developments.  what if some of that helps with climate change or air purification ? it is worth the effort.   #  step back 0 years or so to when europeans were exploring the world.   # fossil fuels are declining, and it is likely we will need to leave most of them un exploited in order to prevent baking the planet.  many alternative fuels require large amounts of rare earth metals, catalysts like platinum, or other comparatively rare materials.  building vaults in the core might or might not protect the species from a planetary threat.  even if it did, what then ? we have a nice vault that can sustain us .  for a while.  that is one helluva future to leave to our descendants.  the consequences of a major asteroid strike could continue for millions of years.  they do not do a particularly good job at finding answers to questions we did not even know we should be asking, and it can be a decade or more before a new rover/satellite could be built and sent.  no disparaging the rover/satellite/probe teams they do some absolutely incredible work, but there still is just no replacing putting the scientist directly next to the thing they are researching for the human pattern recognition ability to really jump into overdrive.  in addition, at the moment, the heaviest launch vehicle that we have is the delta iv heavy which can put appx 0k kg into geostationary transfer orbit.  as a consequence of getting man to mars is figuring out how to get much more into orbit at a lower cost, and how to propel it at higher speeds with lower amounts of fuel.  those same advances in rocketry and intraplanetary travel will directly help our probes and satellites allowing them to be launched more cheaply and get to their destinations faster.  step back 0 years or so to when europeans were exploring the world.  these were some hideously expensive explorations with completely unknown outcomes  discovering  america, south america, all of the various islands around the globe, etc.  sure, the kings and queens of europe could have said eh, lets just focus on ourselves we have plenty of natural resources here, we have no need to find new places.  however, explore they did, and incredible amounts of wealth and prosperity flowed to the countries that did it best.  mars is but a first step after that may be the clouds of venus, the moons of saturn, asteroid mining, or any number of other steps.  i would much rather leave the first step to colonizing the universe to my descendants then encouraging them to hunker down and ignore the fact that one of these days our planet will die and it will take us with it if we do not grow and spread.   #  solar energy could provide more than we could possibly need, if we can only harness it cheaply.   # fossil fuels are declining, and it is likely we will need to leave most of them un exploited in order to prevent baking the planet.  many alternative fuels require large amounts of rare earth metals, catalysts like platinum, or other comparatively rare materials.  solar energy could provide more than we could possibly need, if we can only harness it cheaply.  we ca not now, but we should be able to in the future.  there is also not going to be any fossil fuels or other obvious energy sources on mars.  any mars colony would likely have to be largely supported by nuclear or solar fuel, just like in a post fossil fuels earth.   #  india has pretty consitantly added 0 million people every 0 years, and when you are growing that quickly, there is not enough to go around.   #  at what point do you see it tapering off ? population growth declines in countries where they have a higher standard of living, aka japan and to some extent the us.  india has pretty consitantly added 0 million people every 0 years, and when you are growing that quickly, there is not enough to go around.  this creates more  poor  people, who are also the people who reproduce the most.  assuming the ratios stay the same, that population will only continue to grow exponentially.  for every person not reproducing 0 more are.  while we are sitting here on our computers, with ac, internet and food on our tables, there are people who do not have running water, electricity, or anything that we have all taken for granted for the last 0  years.  there will always be this disparity, short of us living in a utopian society.   #  every country has to go through all the stages to becoming industrialized.   #  every country has to go through all the stages to becoming industrialized.  first, they go through an agricultural revolution, than an industrial, then a social revolution.  for the pioneers these could take a long time, now they happen fairly quickly.  china and india in 0 years will look very different than today.  china is better off than india since india will take a hit when they run out of water.
on july 0, 0, a gunman opened fire on two military installations in chattanooga, tennessee, killing four service members immediately.  two other service members and a police officer were wounded, with one of the servicemen dying from his injuries two days later.  the gunman, muhammad youssef abdulazeez, was killed by police at the site of the second shooting.  URL i feel terrible for the families of the victims of these attacks, but to me, this was an attack on soldiers at a military target.  the us military today is able to conduct war through drone strikes from across the planet.  the attacks were not on traditional war targets, but the us blows up enemy training grounds and recruiting sites all the time.  we do not consider those attacks terrorist attacks, we consider them strikes on legitimate military targets that weaken our enemy.  i think it is naive and arrogant to arrogant to think an american drone strike on a taliban recruiting ground is a legitimate act of war and that an attack on an american recruiting ground is a terrorist attack.  i am not trying to justify his actions or his beliefs, i am more sayitg that  terrorist attacks  in my opinion are unjustifiable strikes against non combatants, they are war crimes, they are despicable and criminal, but that the chattanooga attacks were something different.  the perpetrator is still our enemy, but we should not demonize him as a terrorist.  if you have any further questions about my view or want me to clarify something, please let me know  #  terrorist attacks  in my opinion are unjustifiable strikes against non combatants, they are war crimes, they are despicable and criminal, but that the chattanooga attacks were something different.   #  the fbi defines a terrorist attack as  the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.    # the fbi defines a terrorist attack as  the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.   attacking the us military on its home turf not only has a demoralize effect on our citizens if they can attack there they can strike anywhere but also boosts the morale of opposition.  showing us as weak and vunerable.  if a terrorist went to detroit or la or new york and shot 0 random people it would not affect us as much.  but shooting 0 marines ? that sends a message.  and i think by that definition it is a terrorist attack.   #  i am not sure i agree that there is no value in attacking the base.   #  i never thought of it this way.  i am not sure i agree that there is no value in attacking the base.  whoever the soldiers killed were, they contributed some value to the us military.  it is not a crippling attack that weakens our armed forces, but it is something.  the comparison that immediately comes to mind for me is the doolittle raid URL by the americans shortly after pearl harbor.  the raid caused minimal damage to japan, america never expected it to cause much damage, it was all about raising american morale and showing japan the power of americans.  to some extent, the goal was inflicting terror upon the japanese military the goal definitely was not a strategic military target , yet americans consider the doolittle raiders heroes and they have received multiple awards.  i am fairly sure nobody considers them terrorists  #  or, in this case, dressing your soldiers in civilian garb when they undertake hostilities.   #  the key difference to me is perfidy.  perfidy is the war crime of using a good faith promise to engage in hostilities.  so waiving a white flag of surrender and then opening fire when the enemy comes out.  or, in this case, dressing your soldiers in civilian garb when they undertake hostilities.  if this guy had been flying the isis flag from his truck or something when he initiated the attack, i would probably agree with you.  but acting like a civilian to access a target and then opening fire is a war crime.  basically, there would have been no war crime for japan to shoot at the doolittle planes, nor is it a war crime to shoot down an american drone.  but since these soldiers would not have been able to shoot first because he acted like a civilian, that is a war crime.  and war crime   intimidating civilians terrorism.   #  they want to cow the people in lands they claim, and will use any means to do so, however brutal or inhumane.   #  perfidy is not  attacking while nobody can tell who or what you are .  if it were, snipers would be illegal.  perfidy is the specific use of the guise of non hostility civilian clothes, enemy uniforms, feigning surrender, etc.  to reduce the enemy is preparedness for combat.  terrorism has a number of legal definitions, including  striking with military force and goals without the sanction of a state , and  use of violence or threat of violence to change policy or opinion .  if you ask some tea party  amuricans, the definition of terrorism is  breathing while muslim .  while abdulazeez may be guilty of the tea stain definition, and he used military  force , i do not see any evidence of military  goals , nor do i see what opinions or policies he wanted to change.  as with america is stated  goals  in the middle east, an actual attack, sponsored by an organization like isis, would have exactly the opposite of any effect isis might find rationally desireable.  incidentally, this may well be why isis has had zero to low single digit operatives outside their stated territory unlike al qaeda, they do not actually  want  to provoke a military response from western powers.  they want to cow the people in lands they claim, and will use any means to do so, however brutal or inhumane.   #  likewise, if people routinely use the white flag of surrender to trick enemies, it becomes impossible to surrender without being slaughtered.   #  the moral distinction for perfidy is a desire to protect civilians, surrendering soldiers and the like.  if soldiers dress as civilians, it encourages militaries to engage in mass killings of civilians because some of them might be soldiers.  that is how you get crap like the my lai massacre URL this is not a defense of the soldiers who did the massacre, but an explanation for why such laws of war exist even if they are routinely violated by all sides .  likewise, if people routinely use the white flag of surrender to trick enemies, it becomes impossible to surrender without being slaughtered.  we are not worried about innocent trees getting shot.
i think free markets are an excellent idea and am generally one of your small government, financially conservative types.  i feel that the whole idea of free markets necessarily includes both parties being able to  walk away from the deal .  fundamentally that ca not be the case when you are talking about necessities, such as housing, health care, education, utilities, transportation, and heck, even internet.  the whole usa is going through an embarrassing struggle with healthcare.  parts of the country such as san francisco are having crises with housing availability and sky rocketing rent.  the cost of college has increased staggeringly in our lifetime.  internet providers are lobbying congress with some success to discourage or even outlaw competition.  no one benefits from a neighbor struggling to have the basics.  it is simply in all of our best interests to have everybody confident that they can work and live and get treatment if they are sick.  i have avoided talking about how to institute this change, since it is not my field.  i am admittedly not a political scientist or economist of any kind i am a cook , which is why i am so interested to see what new things you guys can show me.  thanks !  #  i have avoided talking about how to institute this change, since it is not my field.   #  i am admittedly not a political scientist or economist of any kind i am a cook , which is why i am so interested to see what new things you guys can show me.   # i am admittedly not a political scientist or economist of any kind i am a cook , which is why i am so interested to see what new things you guys can show me.  but this is the main problem unfortunately.  if property is public, how do you distribute it ? who gets the big houses and who gets the small houses ? you only have a limited amount of coastal space and prime areas to live; who gets the best spots ? also, what is the incentive to keep up the house if you do not own it and know that you are guaranteed a spot to live no matter what ? what happens if you get a house that is more run down than another one ? these are questions that i ca not think of any answers to that the private market tends to solve.   #  they are still available, and most people still live in them.   #  your point is perfect, because i have not explained my idea that well.  i do not mean communism here.  basic housing is provided but kinda stinks.  the nicer apartments are not distributed, they cost money.  they are still available, and most people still live in them.  let me shift the analogy to health care for a minute.  in canada, you ca not get breast implants on the government dime.  but, if you get run over, they will sew your legs back on with tax money, since nobody benefits from you being legless.  now just replace  legless  with  homeless .  i am not saying evenly distribute coastal beach houses, just like i am not saying to evenly distribute breast implants.   #  you might get a quiet immigrant family who does not cause any trouble.   #  i mentioned this elsewhere in the thread already, but i am an attorney who used to do pro bono work representing the indigent against their landlords.  i worked with section 0 on a regular basis.  you language insinuates that labdlords  reluctance to accept section 0 vouchers is based in some sort of irrational prejudice.  i can tell you from personal experience that it is not.  accepting section 0 vouchers is a huge gamble.  you might get a quiet immigrant family who does not cause any trouble.  but you are just as likely to get somebody who allows it to fall into vermin infestaton.  or whose estranged drug dealer lover drops by to scream at the windows and intimidate your other tenants.  or turns it into a meth lab.  if you own or purchase a dump of a building in a bad area, section 0 might be an okay deal because it usually means guaranteed rent from an area that tends to have trouble making regular rent payments.  but if you own a half decent unit i would never, ever, under any circumstance advise a client to accept section 0.  you are just asking to get fucked.  and all of this is before you even consider the administrative nightmare you can fall into when somebody like me takes up your tenant is case and stalls in court for three months while you do not get any rent at all.   #  it is why i invested the energy to personally investigate their houses, collect pictures and documentation, and take calls at all hours from nervous tenants and angry landlords.   #  yes, i totally  hate my fellow man  that much.  that is why i spent so many endless hours representing them in and out of court for free.  it is why i invested the energy to personally investigate their houses, collect pictures and documentation, and take calls at all hours from nervous tenants and angry landlords.  maybe just maybe you have gone so far in one direction on this topic that you have thrown out reality in favor of ideology.  ever think of that ? i lived and breathed section 0 and came away with a healthy fear of ever renting to that demographic.  it is not  bigotry  to acknowledge the simple unfortunate truth that the chronically indigent generally have severe life issues.  even if those issues are caused by their poverty, those issues still exist and will effect those around them.   #  many without housing are left out without any help or recourse by the public housing programs.   #  here is a lighter for your strawman: the presence of homeless persons is evidence that they are not being housed.  the presence of over 0 of them in one city is evidence that at least some are falling through the cracks and that those public housing programs are insufficient.  unless you are trying to claim they all want to be there ? saying  there are public housing programs  implies that these implement some sort of solution for those who ca not obtain their own housing by other means.  while our healthcare has its share of problems, i doubt it is going to just look at someone with broken legs and go  oh well, just leave that one there, it is fine, they were not important enough to worry about .  very few people with broken legs are ever left out without any help or recourse by the healthcare system.  many without housing are left out without any help or recourse by the public housing programs.  therefore, the public healthcare and the public housing programs either serve different functions, or have critical differences that mean they are not at all equivalent.  what op suggests is some sort of housing program equivalent to the public healthcare program.  none of this sort currently exists.
i think free markets are an excellent idea and am generally one of your small government, financially conservative types.  i feel that the whole idea of free markets necessarily includes both parties being able to  walk away from the deal .  fundamentally that ca not be the case when you are talking about necessities, such as housing, health care, education, utilities, transportation, and heck, even internet.  the whole usa is going through an embarrassing struggle with healthcare.  parts of the country such as san francisco are having crises with housing availability and sky rocketing rent.  the cost of college has increased staggeringly in our lifetime.  internet providers are lobbying congress with some success to discourage or even outlaw competition.  no one benefits from a neighbor struggling to have the basics.  it is simply in all of our best interests to have everybody confident that they can work and live and get treatment if they are sick.  i have avoided talking about how to institute this change, since it is not my field.  i am admittedly not a political scientist or economist of any kind i am a cook , which is why i am so interested to see what new things you guys can show me.  thanks !  #  parts of the country such as san francisco are having crises with housing availability and sky rocketing rent.   #  not everywhere is having this issue, some places have lots of availability.   # not everywhere is having this issue, some places have lots of availability.  but san francisco is not remotely a free market when it comes to housing, and high rent there is the result.  it is very difficult to build new housing units in sf, due to hostility to developers, environmental review processes, and local control mechanisms that forestall things.  the rent control in the city lessens the incentive to build more housing.  on the other hand, texas has much less in the way of housing regulation, and much cheaper rent.  it is true that sf has less space than texas, but to give you an idea, if sf had the same population density as brooklyn which is mostly low rise, 0 or 0 story housing , then it would have 0 million people, twice what it has now.  edit and part of the problem is other places in silicon valley, even worse on the restrictions on housing front.  many such places have less than a third of the population density of sf.  sf is denser than many other cities, but it is also small it is only the main core of the metropolitan area, unlike say nyc which includes lots of outlying areas that bring its overall density down.  and then you look at sf is outlying areas, they are even less dense.  sf and washington dc are the 0 cities with the most expensive housing areas in the country not new york.  dc also has very restrictive zoning, with requirements for setbacks from the street, low maximum heights, etc.  and non free market housing policy is hardly an egalitarian thing.  modern day suburbs were built with government subsidization, and were originally racially discriminatory.  a big reason people oppose allowing more development is to keep out poorer people who will, it is perceived, make local school districts worse.  sf has a big homelessness problem, and not very many poor people, who live in other nearby cities like oakland where they can afford it it is not that sf has perfect policy, they have just priced out lots of  undesirables.   it is unclear that this has a negative effect on rich people, who still live in all these places.  i think the issue here is that people have made college into a requirement for many jobs where it was not previously needed.  i think it should be easier to get certain jobs  without  college.  here URL is someone making the argument for me, but he points out how now firefighters need jobs when they did not before, how doctors in other countries do not do both college  and  med school and are just as good, and how people who take immersive coding boot camps can compete with 0 year college grads for coding jobs.  the need for everyone to go to college has naturally driven up prices, and for many people college does not teach you skills you need for a job so much as give you a chance to show how smart you are something you ought to be able to do in the workplace anyway.  and it is highly regressive the  elite  colleges, that are the best for job prospects are the ones that take the most rich kids.   #  what happens if you get a house that is more run down than another one ?  # i am admittedly not a political scientist or economist of any kind i am a cook , which is why i am so interested to see what new things you guys can show me.  but this is the main problem unfortunately.  if property is public, how do you distribute it ? who gets the big houses and who gets the small houses ? you only have a limited amount of coastal space and prime areas to live; who gets the best spots ? also, what is the incentive to keep up the house if you do not own it and know that you are guaranteed a spot to live no matter what ? what happens if you get a house that is more run down than another one ? these are questions that i ca not think of any answers to that the private market tends to solve.   #  the nicer apartments are not distributed, they cost money.   #  your point is perfect, because i have not explained my idea that well.  i do not mean communism here.  basic housing is provided but kinda stinks.  the nicer apartments are not distributed, they cost money.  they are still available, and most people still live in them.  let me shift the analogy to health care for a minute.  in canada, you ca not get breast implants on the government dime.  but, if you get run over, they will sew your legs back on with tax money, since nobody benefits from you being legless.  now just replace  legless  with  homeless .  i am not saying evenly distribute coastal beach houses, just like i am not saying to evenly distribute breast implants.   #  but if you own a half decent unit i would never, ever, under any circumstance advise a client to accept section 0.  you are just asking to get fucked.   #  i mentioned this elsewhere in the thread already, but i am an attorney who used to do pro bono work representing the indigent against their landlords.  i worked with section 0 on a regular basis.  you language insinuates that labdlords  reluctance to accept section 0 vouchers is based in some sort of irrational prejudice.  i can tell you from personal experience that it is not.  accepting section 0 vouchers is a huge gamble.  you might get a quiet immigrant family who does not cause any trouble.  but you are just as likely to get somebody who allows it to fall into vermin infestaton.  or whose estranged drug dealer lover drops by to scream at the windows and intimidate your other tenants.  or turns it into a meth lab.  if you own or purchase a dump of a building in a bad area, section 0 might be an okay deal because it usually means guaranteed rent from an area that tends to have trouble making regular rent payments.  but if you own a half decent unit i would never, ever, under any circumstance advise a client to accept section 0.  you are just asking to get fucked.  and all of this is before you even consider the administrative nightmare you can fall into when somebody like me takes up your tenant is case and stalls in court for three months while you do not get any rent at all.   #  i lived and breathed section 0 and came away with a healthy fear of ever renting to that demographic.   #  yes, i totally  hate my fellow man  that much.  that is why i spent so many endless hours representing them in and out of court for free.  it is why i invested the energy to personally investigate their houses, collect pictures and documentation, and take calls at all hours from nervous tenants and angry landlords.  maybe just maybe you have gone so far in one direction on this topic that you have thrown out reality in favor of ideology.  ever think of that ? i lived and breathed section 0 and came away with a healthy fear of ever renting to that demographic.  it is not  bigotry  to acknowledge the simple unfortunate truth that the chronically indigent generally have severe life issues.  even if those issues are caused by their poverty, those issues still exist and will effect those around them.
i think free markets are an excellent idea and am generally one of your small government, financially conservative types.  i feel that the whole idea of free markets necessarily includes both parties being able to  walk away from the deal .  fundamentally that ca not be the case when you are talking about necessities, such as housing, health care, education, utilities, transportation, and heck, even internet.  the whole usa is going through an embarrassing struggle with healthcare.  parts of the country such as san francisco are having crises with housing availability and sky rocketing rent.  the cost of college has increased staggeringly in our lifetime.  internet providers are lobbying congress with some success to discourage or even outlaw competition.  no one benefits from a neighbor struggling to have the basics.  it is simply in all of our best interests to have everybody confident that they can work and live and get treatment if they are sick.  i have avoided talking about how to institute this change, since it is not my field.  i am admittedly not a political scientist or economist of any kind i am a cook , which is why i am so interested to see what new things you guys can show me.  thanks !  #  the cost of college has increased staggeringly in our lifetime.   #  i think the issue here is that people have made college into a requirement for many jobs where it was not previously needed.   # not everywhere is having this issue, some places have lots of availability.  but san francisco is not remotely a free market when it comes to housing, and high rent there is the result.  it is very difficult to build new housing units in sf, due to hostility to developers, environmental review processes, and local control mechanisms that forestall things.  the rent control in the city lessens the incentive to build more housing.  on the other hand, texas has much less in the way of housing regulation, and much cheaper rent.  it is true that sf has less space than texas, but to give you an idea, if sf had the same population density as brooklyn which is mostly low rise, 0 or 0 story housing , then it would have 0 million people, twice what it has now.  edit and part of the problem is other places in silicon valley, even worse on the restrictions on housing front.  many such places have less than a third of the population density of sf.  sf is denser than many other cities, but it is also small it is only the main core of the metropolitan area, unlike say nyc which includes lots of outlying areas that bring its overall density down.  and then you look at sf is outlying areas, they are even less dense.  sf and washington dc are the 0 cities with the most expensive housing areas in the country not new york.  dc also has very restrictive zoning, with requirements for setbacks from the street, low maximum heights, etc.  and non free market housing policy is hardly an egalitarian thing.  modern day suburbs were built with government subsidization, and were originally racially discriminatory.  a big reason people oppose allowing more development is to keep out poorer people who will, it is perceived, make local school districts worse.  sf has a big homelessness problem, and not very many poor people, who live in other nearby cities like oakland where they can afford it it is not that sf has perfect policy, they have just priced out lots of  undesirables.   it is unclear that this has a negative effect on rich people, who still live in all these places.  i think the issue here is that people have made college into a requirement for many jobs where it was not previously needed.  i think it should be easier to get certain jobs  without  college.  here URL is someone making the argument for me, but he points out how now firefighters need jobs when they did not before, how doctors in other countries do not do both college  and  med school and are just as good, and how people who take immersive coding boot camps can compete with 0 year college grads for coding jobs.  the need for everyone to go to college has naturally driven up prices, and for many people college does not teach you skills you need for a job so much as give you a chance to show how smart you are something you ought to be able to do in the workplace anyway.  and it is highly regressive the  elite  colleges, that are the best for job prospects are the ones that take the most rich kids.   #  what happens if you get a house that is more run down than another one ?  # i am admittedly not a political scientist or economist of any kind i am a cook , which is why i am so interested to see what new things you guys can show me.  but this is the main problem unfortunately.  if property is public, how do you distribute it ? who gets the big houses and who gets the small houses ? you only have a limited amount of coastal space and prime areas to live; who gets the best spots ? also, what is the incentive to keep up the house if you do not own it and know that you are guaranteed a spot to live no matter what ? what happens if you get a house that is more run down than another one ? these are questions that i ca not think of any answers to that the private market tends to solve.   #  the nicer apartments are not distributed, they cost money.   #  your point is perfect, because i have not explained my idea that well.  i do not mean communism here.  basic housing is provided but kinda stinks.  the nicer apartments are not distributed, they cost money.  they are still available, and most people still live in them.  let me shift the analogy to health care for a minute.  in canada, you ca not get breast implants on the government dime.  but, if you get run over, they will sew your legs back on with tax money, since nobody benefits from you being legless.  now just replace  legless  with  homeless .  i am not saying evenly distribute coastal beach houses, just like i am not saying to evenly distribute breast implants.   #  i worked with section 0 on a regular basis.   #  i mentioned this elsewhere in the thread already, but i am an attorney who used to do pro bono work representing the indigent against their landlords.  i worked with section 0 on a regular basis.  you language insinuates that labdlords  reluctance to accept section 0 vouchers is based in some sort of irrational prejudice.  i can tell you from personal experience that it is not.  accepting section 0 vouchers is a huge gamble.  you might get a quiet immigrant family who does not cause any trouble.  but you are just as likely to get somebody who allows it to fall into vermin infestaton.  or whose estranged drug dealer lover drops by to scream at the windows and intimidate your other tenants.  or turns it into a meth lab.  if you own or purchase a dump of a building in a bad area, section 0 might be an okay deal because it usually means guaranteed rent from an area that tends to have trouble making regular rent payments.  but if you own a half decent unit i would never, ever, under any circumstance advise a client to accept section 0.  you are just asking to get fucked.  and all of this is before you even consider the administrative nightmare you can fall into when somebody like me takes up your tenant is case and stalls in court for three months while you do not get any rent at all.   #  it is why i invested the energy to personally investigate their houses, collect pictures and documentation, and take calls at all hours from nervous tenants and angry landlords.   #  yes, i totally  hate my fellow man  that much.  that is why i spent so many endless hours representing them in and out of court for free.  it is why i invested the energy to personally investigate their houses, collect pictures and documentation, and take calls at all hours from nervous tenants and angry landlords.  maybe just maybe you have gone so far in one direction on this topic that you have thrown out reality in favor of ideology.  ever think of that ? i lived and breathed section 0 and came away with a healthy fear of ever renting to that demographic.  it is not  bigotry  to acknowledge the simple unfortunate truth that the chronically indigent generally have severe life issues.  even if those issues are caused by their poverty, those issues still exist and will effect those around them.
i think free markets are an excellent idea and am generally one of your small government, financially conservative types.  i feel that the whole idea of free markets necessarily includes both parties being able to  walk away from the deal .  fundamentally that ca not be the case when you are talking about necessities, such as housing, health care, education, utilities, transportation, and heck, even internet.  the whole usa is going through an embarrassing struggle with healthcare.  parts of the country such as san francisco are having crises with housing availability and sky rocketing rent.  the cost of college has increased staggeringly in our lifetime.  internet providers are lobbying congress with some success to discourage or even outlaw competition.  no one benefits from a neighbor struggling to have the basics.  it is simply in all of our best interests to have everybody confident that they can work and live and get treatment if they are sick.  i have avoided talking about how to institute this change, since it is not my field.  i am admittedly not a political scientist or economist of any kind i am a cook , which is why i am so interested to see what new things you guys can show me.  thanks !  #  i feel that the whole idea of free markets necessarily includes both parties being able to  walk away from the deal .   #  fundamentally that ca not be the case when you are talking about necessities, such as housing, health care, education, utilities, transportation, and heck, even internet.   # fundamentally that ca not be the case when you are talking about necessities, such as housing, health care, education, utilities, transportation, and heck, even internet.  i do not understand why you do not believe people ca not walk away from any of those things.  every single day people choose whether their internet providers offering is worth their money.  many take it while others do not.   take it or leave it  is pretty much the definition of being able to walk away from an offer.   #  who gets the big houses and who gets the small houses ?  # i am admittedly not a political scientist or economist of any kind i am a cook , which is why i am so interested to see what new things you guys can show me.  but this is the main problem unfortunately.  if property is public, how do you distribute it ? who gets the big houses and who gets the small houses ? you only have a limited amount of coastal space and prime areas to live; who gets the best spots ? also, what is the incentive to keep up the house if you do not own it and know that you are guaranteed a spot to live no matter what ? what happens if you get a house that is more run down than another one ? these are questions that i ca not think of any answers to that the private market tends to solve.   #  i am not saying evenly distribute coastal beach houses, just like i am not saying to evenly distribute breast implants.   #  your point is perfect, because i have not explained my idea that well.  i do not mean communism here.  basic housing is provided but kinda stinks.  the nicer apartments are not distributed, they cost money.  they are still available, and most people still live in them.  let me shift the analogy to health care for a minute.  in canada, you ca not get breast implants on the government dime.  but, if you get run over, they will sew your legs back on with tax money, since nobody benefits from you being legless.  now just replace  legless  with  homeless .  i am not saying evenly distribute coastal beach houses, just like i am not saying to evenly distribute breast implants.   #  accepting section 0 vouchers is a huge gamble.   #  i mentioned this elsewhere in the thread already, but i am an attorney who used to do pro bono work representing the indigent against their landlords.  i worked with section 0 on a regular basis.  you language insinuates that labdlords  reluctance to accept section 0 vouchers is based in some sort of irrational prejudice.  i can tell you from personal experience that it is not.  accepting section 0 vouchers is a huge gamble.  you might get a quiet immigrant family who does not cause any trouble.  but you are just as likely to get somebody who allows it to fall into vermin infestaton.  or whose estranged drug dealer lover drops by to scream at the windows and intimidate your other tenants.  or turns it into a meth lab.  if you own or purchase a dump of a building in a bad area, section 0 might be an okay deal because it usually means guaranteed rent from an area that tends to have trouble making regular rent payments.  but if you own a half decent unit i would never, ever, under any circumstance advise a client to accept section 0.  you are just asking to get fucked.  and all of this is before you even consider the administrative nightmare you can fall into when somebody like me takes up your tenant is case and stalls in court for three months while you do not get any rent at all.   #  that is why i spent so many endless hours representing them in and out of court for free.   #  yes, i totally  hate my fellow man  that much.  that is why i spent so many endless hours representing them in and out of court for free.  it is why i invested the energy to personally investigate their houses, collect pictures and documentation, and take calls at all hours from nervous tenants and angry landlords.  maybe just maybe you have gone so far in one direction on this topic that you have thrown out reality in favor of ideology.  ever think of that ? i lived and breathed section 0 and came away with a healthy fear of ever renting to that demographic.  it is not  bigotry  to acknowledge the simple unfortunate truth that the chronically indigent generally have severe life issues.  even if those issues are caused by their poverty, those issues still exist and will effect those around them.
i think free markets are an excellent idea and am generally one of your small government, financially conservative types.  i feel that the whole idea of free markets necessarily includes both parties being able to  walk away from the deal .  fundamentally that ca not be the case when you are talking about necessities, such as housing, health care, education, utilities, transportation, and heck, even internet.  the whole usa is going through an embarrassing struggle with healthcare.  parts of the country such as san francisco are having crises with housing availability and sky rocketing rent.  the cost of college has increased staggeringly in our lifetime.  internet providers are lobbying congress with some success to discourage or even outlaw competition.  no one benefits from a neighbor struggling to have the basics.  it is simply in all of our best interests to have everybody confident that they can work and live and get treatment if they are sick.  i have avoided talking about how to institute this change, since it is not my field.  i am admittedly not a political scientist or economist of any kind i am a cook , which is why i am so interested to see what new things you guys can show me.  thanks !  #  parts of the country such as san francisco are having crises with housing availability and sky rocketing rent.   #  real estate absolutely follows the rules of the free market.   # real estate absolutely follows the rules of the free market.  you have  a lot  of choice as to where to live.  you can trade commute time for space, and select a city based on it is available jobs relative to cost of living.  san francisco is surging rent is due to it is booming job market, it is entertainment / quality of life, and it is limited space.  you can move to austin or raleigh durham if you want tech jobs and low rent.  you can move to portland or eugene if you want hippie.  i am not sure what entitles someone else to a prime piece of real estate, if not the free market.   #  i am admittedly not a political scientist or economist of any kind i am a cook , which is why i am so interested to see what new things you guys can show me.   # i am admittedly not a political scientist or economist of any kind i am a cook , which is why i am so interested to see what new things you guys can show me.  but this is the main problem unfortunately.  if property is public, how do you distribute it ? who gets the big houses and who gets the small houses ? you only have a limited amount of coastal space and prime areas to live; who gets the best spots ? also, what is the incentive to keep up the house if you do not own it and know that you are guaranteed a spot to live no matter what ? what happens if you get a house that is more run down than another one ? these are questions that i ca not think of any answers to that the private market tends to solve.   #  your point is perfect, because i have not explained my idea that well.   #  your point is perfect, because i have not explained my idea that well.  i do not mean communism here.  basic housing is provided but kinda stinks.  the nicer apartments are not distributed, they cost money.  they are still available, and most people still live in them.  let me shift the analogy to health care for a minute.  in canada, you ca not get breast implants on the government dime.  but, if you get run over, they will sew your legs back on with tax money, since nobody benefits from you being legless.  now just replace  legless  with  homeless .  i am not saying evenly distribute coastal beach houses, just like i am not saying to evenly distribute breast implants.   #  you might get a quiet immigrant family who does not cause any trouble.   #  i mentioned this elsewhere in the thread already, but i am an attorney who used to do pro bono work representing the indigent against their landlords.  i worked with section 0 on a regular basis.  you language insinuates that labdlords  reluctance to accept section 0 vouchers is based in some sort of irrational prejudice.  i can tell you from personal experience that it is not.  accepting section 0 vouchers is a huge gamble.  you might get a quiet immigrant family who does not cause any trouble.  but you are just as likely to get somebody who allows it to fall into vermin infestaton.  or whose estranged drug dealer lover drops by to scream at the windows and intimidate your other tenants.  or turns it into a meth lab.  if you own or purchase a dump of a building in a bad area, section 0 might be an okay deal because it usually means guaranteed rent from an area that tends to have trouble making regular rent payments.  but if you own a half decent unit i would never, ever, under any circumstance advise a client to accept section 0.  you are just asking to get fucked.  and all of this is before you even consider the administrative nightmare you can fall into when somebody like me takes up your tenant is case and stalls in court for three months while you do not get any rent at all.   #  that is why i spent so many endless hours representing them in and out of court for free.   #  yes, i totally  hate my fellow man  that much.  that is why i spent so many endless hours representing them in and out of court for free.  it is why i invested the energy to personally investigate their houses, collect pictures and documentation, and take calls at all hours from nervous tenants and angry landlords.  maybe just maybe you have gone so far in one direction on this topic that you have thrown out reality in favor of ideology.  ever think of that ? i lived and breathed section 0 and came away with a healthy fear of ever renting to that demographic.  it is not  bigotry  to acknowledge the simple unfortunate truth that the chronically indigent generally have severe life issues.  even if those issues are caused by their poverty, those issues still exist and will effect those around them.
i think free markets are an excellent idea and am generally one of your small government, financially conservative types.  i feel that the whole idea of free markets necessarily includes both parties being able to  walk away from the deal .  fundamentally that ca not be the case when you are talking about necessities, such as housing, health care, education, utilities, transportation, and heck, even internet.  the whole usa is going through an embarrassing struggle with healthcare.  parts of the country such as san francisco are having crises with housing availability and sky rocketing rent.  the cost of college has increased staggeringly in our lifetime.  internet providers are lobbying congress with some success to discourage or even outlaw competition.  no one benefits from a neighbor struggling to have the basics.  it is simply in all of our best interests to have everybody confident that they can work and live and get treatment if they are sick.  i have avoided talking about how to institute this change, since it is not my field.  i am admittedly not a political scientist or economist of any kind i am a cook , which is why i am so interested to see what new things you guys can show me.  thanks !  #  internet providers are lobbying congress with some success to discourage or even outlaw competition.   #  these are the problems we should be worried about.   # its not as if there is only one house you can buy.  and its not as if you do not have the option to rent.  what you cant walk away from actually is when the government imposes mandates on you.  for example you cannot walk away from funding a failing public school system the government takes the money via taxation.  you cannot walk away from a failing health care system because the government mandates you purchase healthcare.  empirically it is an uncontroverted fact that competition is what creates innovation and lowers pricing.  when the market is not competitive that is why it fails.  if there is a housing crisis in san francisco the only thing that will solve that is by people moving away.  no matter how the property is distributed the government cannot magically create more property.  sf is a tiny little area of land in one of the most prime areas on earth.  its not a shocker prices would be extremely high.  these are the problems we should be worried about.  we cannot allow corporations to use the government to deter competition.  but do not get it twisted, the end goal should be open markets and competition.  not government fiat.   #  who gets the big houses and who gets the small houses ?  # i am admittedly not a political scientist or economist of any kind i am a cook , which is why i am so interested to see what new things you guys can show me.  but this is the main problem unfortunately.  if property is public, how do you distribute it ? who gets the big houses and who gets the small houses ? you only have a limited amount of coastal space and prime areas to live; who gets the best spots ? also, what is the incentive to keep up the house if you do not own it and know that you are guaranteed a spot to live no matter what ? what happens if you get a house that is more run down than another one ? these are questions that i ca not think of any answers to that the private market tends to solve.   #  but, if you get run over, they will sew your legs back on with tax money, since nobody benefits from you being legless.   #  your point is perfect, because i have not explained my idea that well.  i do not mean communism here.  basic housing is provided but kinda stinks.  the nicer apartments are not distributed, they cost money.  they are still available, and most people still live in them.  let me shift the analogy to health care for a minute.  in canada, you ca not get breast implants on the government dime.  but, if you get run over, they will sew your legs back on with tax money, since nobody benefits from you being legless.  now just replace  legless  with  homeless .  i am not saying evenly distribute coastal beach houses, just like i am not saying to evenly distribute breast implants.   #  if you own or purchase a dump of a building in a bad area, section 0 might be an okay deal because it usually means guaranteed rent from an area that tends to have trouble making regular rent payments.   #  i mentioned this elsewhere in the thread already, but i am an attorney who used to do pro bono work representing the indigent against their landlords.  i worked with section 0 on a regular basis.  you language insinuates that labdlords  reluctance to accept section 0 vouchers is based in some sort of irrational prejudice.  i can tell you from personal experience that it is not.  accepting section 0 vouchers is a huge gamble.  you might get a quiet immigrant family who does not cause any trouble.  but you are just as likely to get somebody who allows it to fall into vermin infestaton.  or whose estranged drug dealer lover drops by to scream at the windows and intimidate your other tenants.  or turns it into a meth lab.  if you own or purchase a dump of a building in a bad area, section 0 might be an okay deal because it usually means guaranteed rent from an area that tends to have trouble making regular rent payments.  but if you own a half decent unit i would never, ever, under any circumstance advise a client to accept section 0.  you are just asking to get fucked.  and all of this is before you even consider the administrative nightmare you can fall into when somebody like me takes up your tenant is case and stalls in court for three months while you do not get any rent at all.   #  yes, i totally  hate my fellow man  that much.   #  yes, i totally  hate my fellow man  that much.  that is why i spent so many endless hours representing them in and out of court for free.  it is why i invested the energy to personally investigate their houses, collect pictures and documentation, and take calls at all hours from nervous tenants and angry landlords.  maybe just maybe you have gone so far in one direction on this topic that you have thrown out reality in favor of ideology.  ever think of that ? i lived and breathed section 0 and came away with a healthy fear of ever renting to that demographic.  it is not  bigotry  to acknowledge the simple unfortunate truth that the chronically indigent generally have severe life issues.  even if those issues are caused by their poverty, those issues still exist and will effect those around them.
let me just start by saying i am not a zealot or a religious fanatic or anything.  in fact, i do not believe in god at all, so this is strictly an ethical question to me.  but there is a logical dilemma that i ca not get past.  let me lay it out for you.  0: conception is the only discrete point in development where the potential for human life becomes human life.  separately, a sperm cell and egg cell cannot become a human.  together, they will become one if allowed to develop to term.  0: an objection can be raised that a collection of cells that will become a human is still not a  human.   this objection begs the question of what qualities then make one a human.  0: a newborn baby does not have the same human qualities as an adult.  they cannot survive on their own.  they do not have an understanding of the significance of their life or the world around them.  they do not understand death.  in short, the value of a baby is that it is a  potential toddler.   the value of a potential toddler is that it is a  potential child,  etc.  there is no discrete point, from conception to death, at which a being acquires the essential qualities that make it a human life.  0: it follows from 0 that the argument for an infant is right to life cannot be based on its  intrinsic value,  since it has a different intrinsic value than that of a more developed human being.  0: if the argument for an infant is life to right cannot be based on its  intrinsic value,  then it must be based on either its  extrinsic value,  or its  potential value.   0: if the argument for an infant is right to life is based on its  extrinsic value,  then it does not follow that the right to life can be applied to all infants equally.  the extrinsic value of different infants would necessarily differ according to their circumstance, and so some infants would invariably be afforded no protection.  0: if an infant is right to life cannot be based on its  extrinsic  or  intrinsic  value, then it must be based on its  potential  value.  0: since an embryo will become an infant, it necessarily has the same potential value as an infant.  0: given 0 0, one must accept one of two conclusions.  either a since both embryos and infants possess the same potential value, they must be afforded the same right to life; or b since embryos and infants only possess potential value, neither can be afforded the right to life.  0: since infanticide is universally accepted to be morally reprehensible, one must conclude that the rationale for protecting an infant must apply equally to an embryo.  a final note: this issue is genuinely distressing to me, because my gut reaction is that a woman should never be forced to carry a child if she does not want to.  i consider her right to make decisions regarding her body as worthy of an equally high level of protection.  so the problem for me is reconciling these two incompatible moral certainties.  the only rationale i have is that one must value the  existence  of a life over the  quality  of a life, since a life is  quality  can change but terminating a life is final.  with all that being said, i am ready to have my mind changed.  let is do this.   #  0: a newborn baby does not have the same human qualities as an adult.   #  they cannot survive on their own.   # they cannot survive on their own.  they do not have an understanding of the significance of their life or the world around them.  they do not understand death.  in short, the value of a baby is that it is a potential toddler.  the value of a potential toddler is that it is a potential child, etc.  there is no discrete point, from conception to death, at which a being acquires the essential qualities that make it a human life.  and yet, society defines arbitrary points where more rights are afforded to an individual all the time.  you can vote at 0, even though you may exhibit wildly different maturity levels than others your age both psychologically and physiologically .  driving, drinking, voting, getting a loan, getting social security, emancipation, all these things are rights that you earn at some arbitrary point that you did not have before.  there is no discrete point where you become mature enough to drive or your body is able to metabolize alcohol without damaging future growth potential, or if there is, it is not apparent to us.  that does not make it wrong, and nobody seriously tries to claim that because an infant is a potential adult, they deserve the same rights as everyone else so they should be allowed to drive.  rights are arbitrarily granted all the time, and the fact that they are based around arbitrary points has no bearing on whether or not they are morally justified.  so we already have several examples of rights being granted at arbitrary points that we have no moral impetus to grant to people before that point.  why is not the right to life the same ? we agree that all humans have the right to live, just like we probably agree that all humans over the age of 0 should have the right to vote.  however, why should that have to apply to  potential humans  ? we do not afford potential adults the right to vote before they reach the status of actual adult.  my point is that there being no discrete point when a fetus becomes a human does not mean we have to abstain from using arbitrary points to determine when a right should be granted.  we do it all the time, in fact, because of practical concerns.  in the case of abortion, there is the practical concern that an actual human is life being ruined by an unwanted child trumps the potential human is potential right to life.  you agree with the sentiment there at least, judging from your gut reaction that no woman should be forced to bear a child.  if you can accept the idea that the right to life is only granted to organisms which are capable of living even if there is no discrete point where we can say for certain, much like the right to voting only being granted to people mature enough to understand their vote and yet based on an arbitrary point , there should be no dilemma.  an actual human is actual rights trump those of a potential human is rights that he will potentially be granted.   #  and once you get into that third trimester and the baby has the ability to move and somewhat interact with the world, then it is really really morally grey.   #  one of the big points of contention, which you did bring up, is what actually qualifies as the beginning of a human life, when does that  soul  begin, that thing that you can interact with and qualifies them as being sentient and alive.  for me, i think that intelligence and autonomy is something that comes from the brain and the nervous system.  so, for me, at the point in which the embryo has developed its nervous system and can feel pain and interact with the world, it has started to become a viable human life.  this is when it becomes very morally grey for me.  this development does not come along until 0 0 weeks this is something highly debated and politicised with studies being pulled this way and that , so for me abortion really becomes morally questionable at about 0 weeks when there is a good certainty that the infant has started to become at least basically aware.  so, basically, first trimester abortion really is not that immoral, you are just destroying a bundle of developing cells.  getting towards the end of the second trimester it starts to become more and more questionable.  and once you get into that third trimester and the baby has the ability to move and somewhat interact with the world, then it is really really morally grey.   #  i am honestly not sure what that is, and maybe the reason this issue is so thorny is that no one is exactly sure.   #    because i can only think of one answer that is consistent with my view: it is wrong to kill an adult human because you are depriving them of their future.  however, that begs the question of why their future is valuable.  it therefore follows that there is something else that is intrinsic to the experience of being alive that is the basis for the value of human life.  i am honestly not sure what that is, and maybe the reason this issue is so thorny is that no one is exactly sure.  but it definitely means that there is a meaningful difference between an embryo and a baby.  and that is enough to convince me.  i will admit i am still uncomfortable with the idea, but you make a very sound point.  also props to /u/iiiblackhartiii for raising the issue so intelligently.  my apologies for not grasping your point sooner.   #  logically, you are right, there really is no difference between a fetus and a helpless infant as far as potential goes.   # the difference is emotional connection.  logically, you are right, there really is no difference between a fetus and a helpless infant as far as potential goes.  but we are not robots, we have feelings.  i think every normal person has  some  feelings for all babies; it is in our nature.  just think of how you feel when you hear a story about an infant being killed or just left in a dumpster.  it is drastically different from how you feel when you hear that some random lady had an abortion.  our distinction is not logical but it means just as much all the same.   #  suppose i agree that a fertilized egg is a fully fledged person, in the moral sense of the word.   #  suppose i agree that a fertilized egg is a fully fledged person, in the moral sense of the word.  we can thus agree that a fertilized egg has a right to life.  however, people do not have the right to use another person is body.  if i have terminal renal disease, i may have a right to life, but i do not have a right to use your kidneys to survive.  similarly, a fertilized egg may have a right to life, but it does not have to right to use its mother is uterus.
so i have been reading a bit of foucault lately certainly not a lot, so i do not claim to be an expert .  as such, he has influenced my views on gay marriage.  and issue is used to support.  i now see the gay community is fight for marriage rights as simply fighting for justice and rights as defined by the very people that oppressed them.  therefore i see marriage itself as a tool of social oppression and normalization.  i would compare it to the end of slavery in the united states.   marriage equality  as we have it now would be like if at the end of the civil war, instead of abolishing slavery, congress simply passed an amendment that said that  black people can now also own slaves.    #  i now see the gay community is fight for marriage rights as simply fighting for justice and rights as defined by the very people that oppressed them.   #  therefore i see marriage itself as a tool of social oppression and normalization.   # therefore i see marriage itself as a tool of social oppression and normalization.  why ? why do you see marriage as  normalization ?   this is assuming that a straight people are  normal,  b lgbt people are  abnormal,  and c lgbt people being able to marry each other can  make them normal.   how are straight people oppressing lgbt people ? some straight people are, but not all are, and certainly are not doing it with equal marriage rights.   #  marriage, steady relationships, and raising of new children is shown to be a good thing for a society.   #  and you have not shown that is a bad thing.  marriage, steady relationships, and raising of new children is shown to be a good thing for a society.  so, naturally, society has built systems to reward that type of behavior.  the benefits of being single are rewarded in different ways total self reliance, doing whatever you want with time/money, not worrying about divorce, etc .  there are societal benefits to having married couples as citizens.  why should not society reward that behavior ?  #  if you truly believe it is, boy are you in for a shock when you start thinking about all our social institutions.   #  that is a bit of a bad comparison.  marriage is hardly  social violence , seeing as it is an entirely voluntary agreement between two people.  it is no more  oppression  that wearing clothes in fair weather is.  also, bundling up  oppression  and  normalization  should not be so self evident.  societies  require  normalization to occur in order to keep existing.  there is a vast array of tools and structures to ensure that, only  some  of the being oppressive.  i could see marriage being a form of normalization, but hardly an oppressive one.  if you truly believe it is, boy are you in for a shock when you start thinking about all our social institutions.   #  it is also easier to deal with children when there is a partner to help with the chores, etc.   #  it is an institution that humans have created and continue to support because it leads to better, more capable children.  it is also easier to deal with children when there is a partner to help with the chores, etc.  there are many other benefits to marriage, and society has decided that it should be a right for people to  voluntarily  participate in the institution.  as soon as there is consensus that the institution is bonkers, it will fade away.  and while that may happen in the future, it is not happening right now.   #  consider your scarecrow retired to the pasture and defend your view.   #  i will just use this opportunity to reiterate that you are not advocating to eliminate marriage.  by following this line of argumentation you have effectively created a straw man.  i will go ahead and torch that now.  so, you must either change your view or justify how your choices about societal norms must be shared by gay people.  that is the argument you have established.  not that marriage should be abolished, but that gay people should not be allowed to marry.  consider your scarecrow retired to the pasture and defend your view.
despite the gop being the anti science party, despite the fact that they work for the oil/gas lobby, and despite that the intention of this bill is to reduce regulations on their donors, the bill itself seems like a good measure.  the bill would require the epa to make available studies and raw data used for regulations.  the bill recognizes that studies with personal data should have proper redaction.  in general, access to journals and especially to raw data is lacking.  this has been discussed here on reddit in the past and while i personally do not need to have access to raw data to accept research, i think its important for skeptics and reproducability.  the only major flaw i can see is that it would be to costly under the current budget for the epa.  but is that a big enough flaw to make this bill a bad one ? URL URL URL  #  the only major flaw i can see is that it would be to costly under the current budget for the epa.   #  but is that a big enough flaw to make this bill a bad one ?  # the bill makes no such provision.  URL as a result, the bill functionally serves as a ban on the epa using public health studies to inform its policy decisions.  but is that a big enough flaw to make this bill a bad one ? the additional requirements would cost an additional $0 million to implement, according to the cbo URL assuming the epa  halves  the number of studies it looks at each year.  the bill offers $0 million in funding to accomplish this task, making it essentially a $0 million budget cut at the epa on the heels of a $0 million budget cut going into fy 0 in aggregate, cutting the organization is budget by 0.  that is enough of a flaw to make it apparent that this is not a bill about scientific openness, it is a bill about choking the epa to death on red tape.  plus, this was passed hand in hand with hr 0 URL bill that removes the conflict of interest restrictions from having heads of major corporations advise the epa, but explicitly prohibits individual scientists from advising the epa on their own work.   #  the bill would create a massive cost for little tangible gain, and while ideas like  transparency  have a nice appeal this is one of those cases where the costs wildly, wildly outweigh the theoretical gain.   #  according to the congressional budget office the bill would cost $0 million dollars on a $0 million dollar r d budget URL this incredible prices comes from the fact the epa uses 0,0 studies a year in its research.  many of these studies rely on information that can run afoul of privacy laws especially related to healthcare .  while the information can be anonymized that work is actually quite expensive and time consuming, as well as the mandatory databases and such for the bill.  one of the expected results of the bill is the epa just using less studies so there is less cost, essentially using less information in their decision making to avoid onerous government regulations which the people proposing this bill in most other cases tend to be against .  so you are increasing costs 0.  for what ? information that can generally be made available to anyone who is actually qualified to understand and use it already.  the bill would create a massive cost for little tangible gain, and while ideas like  transparency  have a nice appeal this is one of those cases where the costs wildly, wildly outweigh the theoretical gain.   #  i assume anyone accessing the data would have to follow the normal privacy and trade secret laws before they handled over the information.   #  i should have been more clear.  i read the link and saw that.  i was more wondering why acquiring all that raw data increases the costs so much.  do not these studies already have their raw data saved ? and do not these studies already required their data to be available so that others could replicate and test the studies ? is it because when the government releases information, there are more safeguards than when independent scientists give the information to a fellow pier for review ? i assume anyone accessing the data would have to follow the normal privacy and trade secret laws before they handled over the information.  i admit i do not know much about the standard procedure for these types of studies.   #  beyond this you need to build databases, covering everything from pollutants to bird populations to human health, and enter the information which may well be in another format .   #  ah, okay.  no, studies do not generally require the raw information be universally available to the public, though it may be available to other researchers upon request and appropriate forms and safeguards and whatnot .  health information is strictly guarded, because even with names removed you could work backwards from known information and link individuals to records.  similarly an industry would be more willing to share their own information if they did not think it would end up on a front page in a way that might embarrass them.  so for each study you need to contact the authors and data providers and work all of this out, all while having someone trained in byzantine privacy laws make sure you are not going to get sued for releasing private information.  beyond this you need to build databases, covering everything from pollutants to bird populations to human health, and enter the information which may well be in another format .  i guess the costs just add up, though the cbo did mention they might end up lower if the epa purposefully ignores studies that are more difficult to use unfortunately including many health studies .   #  take the issue of global warming for example, as i am sure its a driving factor behind decisions like this.   # in principal, sure.  in reality, i am not so sure.  take the issue of global warming for example, as i am sure its a driving factor behind decisions like this.  what happens when you have 0 of research saying one thing, and 0 saying opposite.  latching onto that 0 is probably not a good thing.  and even just reading those articles you have linked, they have reasons to oppose this built in.  that these bills only really release confidential information about scientists that participated in the research without actually improving the data that is already available.  so maybe in theory its a good thing, but as with everything else the government does, especially when its so divided among party lines, i am guessing the reality wont match up with the supposed ideology.  especially when its being backed by the party that you yourself admit is anti science.
warning you now, i use some hefty racial slurs in my explanation.  i am not racist and do not support the use of any of these terms, but i am going to use them here as examples.  now i am not one for overly  sjw  like thinking, and i am not personally outraged by the term, but i am floored by how rarely i see anyone realize or even acknowledge that the term is racist.  the phrasing  white trash  assumes that white people are inherently not trash and that this is a special exemption to the rule and needs to be labeled as such.  one does not say  black nigger  or  mexican spic , the hate is built into the word itself.  the word  is  the hate label.  having to specify  white  before your insult just makes it seem like it is shocking to you that a white person is behaving abnormally.  like they are a weird example of a white person instead of just another white person in a sea of different examples.  now, i have heard the arguments before that  there is no good word to throw at white people  and  i use the term and i am not racist .  neither of these are valid points.  a lack of a  good  insult does not make a bad one  good  and your feelings on the matter have no bearing on the reality of how the term is constructed.  i am not saying people who use the term are racists, i just think they do not realize the implication.  every time i bring this up though i am downvoted without explanation.  the score will drop but i will hear no hint of rebuttal, which has convinced me i am right but i am just saying something they do not like.  but hey idk, maybe i am totally wrong.  i am willing to hear it.  cmv ? .  i have probably done a poor job of accurately representing my stance on the issue.  in an effort to drive home my logic, i was a little extreme with my phrasing.  i will concede that the use of the term is not insulting to other races, but i think it does hint at the  white people are normally higher class  sentiment that fuels the entire phrase.  if you find that  insulting/triggering  or not probably has more to due with you than the phrase but as /u/ratherenjoysbass said in the comments:  i think white trash is fucked up in that it inherently assumes that most white people are successful, well mannered people so we must delineate the people that did not make it as well, for some reason could not afford enough class, or are the genetic unwanted when compared to the rest of the white race.  most other racial slurs inherently include the entire race so even a white person saying white trash is still acknowledging racial superiority against the others.   also thanks to /u/tit wrangler for the the only comment so far that i have delta would, in this thread URL  #  i will concede that the use of the term is not insulting to other races, but i think it does hint at the  white people are normally higher class  sentiment that fuels the entire phrase.   #  the racial undertones of  white trash  would relate to the desire to make a cultural distinction between the definition of what is to be a  poor white person  verse a  poor black person , insofar as if there is a cultural difference.   # i would counter by saying that using  white trash  implies a level of low social class.  while maybe hateful, depending on it is usage, it is less about the hate and more about disdain for people that you see as socially beneath you.  many racial slurs, such as the ones you mentioned above, can and are used irrespective of a person is social class ex.  the racial epitaphs throne at obama .  in those cases you hate everyone because of their race.  similarly, there are words that can be pejorative to all white people regardless of social class such as  honky  and, to a lesser extent,  gringo .  there are, however, words that i might consider similar to white trash that include different classicist and racist undertones such as thug, gang banger, hood rat or ghetto trash.  the racial undertones of  white trash  would relate to the desire to make a cultural distinction between the definition of what is to be a  poor white person  verse a  poor black person , insofar as if there is a cultural difference.  what i mean by that is i believe the driving force behind the distinction is not the thought process of:  this person is of low social class when they should be high , but more about,  this person has a cultural status that is beneath me.   so when people say that   he is a thug URL it can have both racial and classist undertones.  i would argue that the speaker is claiming that the  white trash  person identifies with a cultural social class that the speaker perceives as low.  the term  white trash  then is not  this white person is low class,  with the implication  . unlike all other white people  but instead   this white person is classless in a way that is distinctly separate from classless people of other cultures.    #   nigger  has in origins as a variation of the spanish/portuguese  negro  black .   # the term most certainly is racist.  it appeared in the early 0th century as a pejorative term  by house slaves  as a show of utter contempt for white servants.  terms like  nigger  or  spic  already have their origins in race or at the least being  foreign .  spic is believed to be a contraction of an earlier term  spiggoty  as in  no spika de english  which is also similar to how the term barbarian also came about.  the greeks used it as a pejorative for anyone who spoke a foreign language.   nigger  has in origins as a variation of the spanish/portuguese  negro  black .  the corollary in this case for a  white  pejorative being honky which is believed to be either from  bohunk , a slur used for hungarian immigrants, or from the west african wolof language from the word meaning  red eared person  or  white person .  in actuality, the term  white trash  is more of an insult based upon moral failing or social class than it is race.  given the time when it originated, whites were indeed seen as  better .  to be perceived as being lower in status  by a slave  would most certainly be one of the highest of imaginable insults at the time.  but as with most things, over time, the term morphed into one being almost exclusively of class, being used by people of all races to describe  low class  white people while holding on to its earlier racist roots.   #  it you examine the field of possible terms for different races, you are right in noting that this dissociation of white from those who fail to meet the standard is based on racial privilege.   #  while the explanation given above details the origin of various slurs as presented on wikipedia, it makes an incorrect assumption.  the term  white trash  is not a comment on moral failing it is a term that originated in reference to poor white people.  that is it just poor.  as such, there is a racial implication there being that white people are inherently good and normative , and those who are not as prosperous get their own separate name to distinguish them from that norm.  also, the origin of a word can provide some insight into how the term was used, but it does not reflect the current use of the term, and the analysis of how the origin of the term somehow affects the usage today is speculative.  your original analysis places that term within the field of available terms, and you were correct.  it splits off and distinguishes that group as not meeting the standard, which defines the group white people as a whole.  similar terms do not really exist for other racial groups.  it you examine the field of possible terms for different races, you are right in noting that this dissociation of white from those who fail to meet the standard is based on racial privilege.   #  the insult  white trash  does not elevate the person towards whom it is directed.   #  i am not sure what you mean by  it is just two words that describe a person  are you trying to argue that words do not have meaning ? the insult  white trash  does not elevate the person towards whom it is directed.  it separates those people from the remainder of white people, who are elevated by virtue of not having been included in that separated group.  white is the norm white trash is a special category.  as others have pointed out, when you call someone a  honky , you are saying  you and the rest of the despicable white people.    white trash  is unique in that it separates a subset of people off as undesirable in contrast to a norm thereby declaring the remainder of the race fine .  the fact that we do not have analogous terms for other races is what makes this term racist.  it takes a special kind of racial privilege to have a racial term that disassociates an undesirable subset.   #  it just means that it is time to question the subtext.   #  you may use those terms, but those are not established terms.  saying that there is a racist presumption in these terms does not mean that everyone who uses it is racist.  it just means that it is time to question the subtext.  let is not use arguments like  that is nonsense.   it is not polite discourse and does not promote a civil discussion.
warning you now, i use some hefty racial slurs in my explanation.  i am not racist and do not support the use of any of these terms, but i am going to use them here as examples.  now i am not one for overly  sjw  like thinking, and i am not personally outraged by the term, but i am floored by how rarely i see anyone realize or even acknowledge that the term is racist.  the phrasing  white trash  assumes that white people are inherently not trash and that this is a special exemption to the rule and needs to be labeled as such.  one does not say  black nigger  or  mexican spic , the hate is built into the word itself.  the word  is  the hate label.  having to specify  white  before your insult just makes it seem like it is shocking to you that a white person is behaving abnormally.  like they are a weird example of a white person instead of just another white person in a sea of different examples.  now, i have heard the arguments before that  there is no good word to throw at white people  and  i use the term and i am not racist .  neither of these are valid points.  a lack of a  good  insult does not make a bad one  good  and your feelings on the matter have no bearing on the reality of how the term is constructed.  i am not saying people who use the term are racists, i just think they do not realize the implication.  every time i bring this up though i am downvoted without explanation.  the score will drop but i will hear no hint of rebuttal, which has convinced me i am right but i am just saying something they do not like.  but hey idk, maybe i am totally wrong.  i am willing to hear it.  cmv ? .  i have probably done a poor job of accurately representing my stance on the issue.  in an effort to drive home my logic, i was a little extreme with my phrasing.  i will concede that the use of the term is not insulting to other races, but i think it does hint at the  white people are normally higher class  sentiment that fuels the entire phrase.  if you find that  insulting/triggering  or not probably has more to due with you than the phrase but as /u/ratherenjoysbass said in the comments:  i think white trash is fucked up in that it inherently assumes that most white people are successful, well mannered people so we must delineate the people that did not make it as well, for some reason could not afford enough class, or are the genetic unwanted when compared to the rest of the white race.  most other racial slurs inherently include the entire race so even a white person saying white trash is still acknowledging racial superiority against the others.   also thanks to /u/tit wrangler for the the only comment so far that i have delta would, in this thread URL  #  having to specify  white  before your insult just makes it seem like it is shocking to you that a white person is behaving abnormally.   #  yes, although it would offend white people,  white trash  does not  entirely  do so in a racial way because it tries to point out something specific, rather than explicitly slandering the whole race.   #  from your comments below, it seems that you either 0 wish that there existed racism against white people on the level that there is against other races, or 0 think that the default state of any race of people is  trash.   yes, although it would offend white people,  white trash  does not  entirely  do so in a racial way because it tries to point out something specific, rather than explicitly slandering the whole race.  i do not see how this is racist against people of color.  believe it or not, it  is  surprising to see white people  behaving abnormally.   the default state of white people  is   not trash.   so is the default state of black people, of latinos, or of any other people.  the point of the term is to single out the people  on the fringe.  being surprised or  shocked  to see a white person behaving  abnormally  or like white trash is not racist in and of itself, it is only racist if one  also  thinks that most people of other races are trash.  but most people do not think that, and therefore  white trash  is not racist against all other races.   #  spic is believed to be a contraction of an earlier term  spiggoty  as in  no spika de english  which is also similar to how the term barbarian also came about.   # the term most certainly is racist.  it appeared in the early 0th century as a pejorative term  by house slaves  as a show of utter contempt for white servants.  terms like  nigger  or  spic  already have their origins in race or at the least being  foreign .  spic is believed to be a contraction of an earlier term  spiggoty  as in  no spika de english  which is also similar to how the term barbarian also came about.  the greeks used it as a pejorative for anyone who spoke a foreign language.   nigger  has in origins as a variation of the spanish/portuguese  negro  black .  the corollary in this case for a  white  pejorative being honky which is believed to be either from  bohunk , a slur used for hungarian immigrants, or from the west african wolof language from the word meaning  red eared person  or  white person .  in actuality, the term  white trash  is more of an insult based upon moral failing or social class than it is race.  given the time when it originated, whites were indeed seen as  better .  to be perceived as being lower in status  by a slave  would most certainly be one of the highest of imaginable insults at the time.  but as with most things, over time, the term morphed into one being almost exclusively of class, being used by people of all races to describe  low class  white people while holding on to its earlier racist roots.   #  while the explanation given above details the origin of various slurs as presented on wikipedia, it makes an incorrect assumption.   #  while the explanation given above details the origin of various slurs as presented on wikipedia, it makes an incorrect assumption.  the term  white trash  is not a comment on moral failing it is a term that originated in reference to poor white people.  that is it just poor.  as such, there is a racial implication there being that white people are inherently good and normative , and those who are not as prosperous get their own separate name to distinguish them from that norm.  also, the origin of a word can provide some insight into how the term was used, but it does not reflect the current use of the term, and the analysis of how the origin of the term somehow affects the usage today is speculative.  your original analysis places that term within the field of available terms, and you were correct.  it splits off and distinguishes that group as not meeting the standard, which defines the group white people as a whole.  similar terms do not really exist for other racial groups.  it you examine the field of possible terms for different races, you are right in noting that this dissociation of white from those who fail to meet the standard is based on racial privilege.   #  the insult  white trash  does not elevate the person towards whom it is directed.   #  i am not sure what you mean by  it is just two words that describe a person  are you trying to argue that words do not have meaning ? the insult  white trash  does not elevate the person towards whom it is directed.  it separates those people from the remainder of white people, who are elevated by virtue of not having been included in that separated group.  white is the norm white trash is a special category.  as others have pointed out, when you call someone a  honky , you are saying  you and the rest of the despicable white people.    white trash  is unique in that it separates a subset of people off as undesirable in contrast to a norm thereby declaring the remainder of the race fine .  the fact that we do not have analogous terms for other races is what makes this term racist.  it takes a special kind of racial privilege to have a racial term that disassociates an undesirable subset.   #  let is not use arguments like  that is nonsense.    #  you may use those terms, but those are not established terms.  saying that there is a racist presumption in these terms does not mean that everyone who uses it is racist.  it just means that it is time to question the subtext.  let is not use arguments like  that is nonsense.   it is not polite discourse and does not promote a civil discussion.
this stemmed from a discussion i had on another sub about the greek economic crisis, and what people are saying should have been done in terms of policy by the eu and the greek government, which dovetails with what i heard should have been done by the us government in 0 0 in the worst part of the great recession.  my understanding of keynesian theory as applied to this kind of economic situation is that it prescribes the government to spend money by using public debt, getting that money to the worker and the spending class.  this money, once spent, will require producers to produce more, meaning they need to hire more people, which will give those people more money to spend, creating a virtuous circle of economic growth.  once recession is over and growth is good, the theory then says that the government should raise revenue out of the booming economy by taxing the producers, the saving class, and the wealthy so as to pay down the debt that it acquired in the previous step.  from that, i conclude that keynesianism is always either for the working class, the spending class, and the generally poor; and/or against the capitalist, the saving class, and the generally rich.  the activities of the former group are economically good and should be encouraged; the activities of the latter group are economically bad albeit necessary and should be discouraged, minimized to only what is absolutely needed to support the activities of the former group.  at this point, i see five possibilities: 0. 	keynesian economics is pure class warfare.  keynes and his followers believe that the working class deserves more and the capitalist class deserves less, and developed a theory to fit that opinion.  0. 	keynesian economics is  co opted  by people with an agenda of pure class warfare.  it is perfectly valid under the theory to create the virtuous circle through government spending on rolls royces and summer homes for the rich, and perfectly possible to pay down government debt by heavy taxes on working class activities like buying groceries and holding personal debt.   how  we spend and tax is not the issue, just that we do.  0. 	i have an incomplete understanding of keynesian theory.  there can arise economic situations where alternative actions are recommended.  for instance, once the economy is growing and the debt is paid, does keynesianism say to reduce both taxes and spending so as to  shake up the system  and achieve new growth ? or any other situation where good economic policy is to increase inequality and use the natural human jealousy, envy, and fear to spur people to produce more ? 0. 	i have an inaccurate understanding of keynesian theory in general.  0.  my understanding is accurate, but my logic is faulty.  right now my view is hovering between one and two, but i would really like to understand this theory better.   #  from that, i conclude that keynesianism is always either for the working class, the spending class, and the generally poor; and/or against the capitalist, the saving class, and the generally rich.   #  the activities of the former group are economically good and should be encouraged; the activities of the latter group are economically bad albeit necessary and should be discouraged, minimized to only what is absolutely needed to support the activities of the former group.   # the activities of the former group are economically good and should be encouraged; the activities of the latter group are economically bad albeit necessary and should be discouraged, minimized to only what is absolutely needed to support the activities of the former group.  it is a little more complicated than that.  you are partly correct, but missing some key information.  keynesian economics is highly focused on unemployment, and during a recession unemployment does hit the working class very severely.  due to job loss, demand for goods and services declines and the profits of the  capitalist  manufacturers decline as well.  fiscal policy treats both as  vital  it really is not the case that one is more important than the other.  those who say so are talking politics.  in economics, both supply and demand are essential.  and keynesian economics addresses this very directly.  i should add that every sensible economist would recommend a mix of keynesian and monetarist policies.  the battle b/w them is politics.  i suppose i am talking of points 0.  and 0.   #  second, the question of kensian economics is not about pitting groups against each other.   #  there is a problem with your formulation, both as to the assumptions about economic systems and the motivations of economic theory, and as the genesis of your thoughts about this.  first, the genesis.  normally we say that macroeconomics is not to be compared to household finances.  in the greek case, they are exactly like household finances because the greeks and indeed all of the countries in the eu do not control their money supply.  their exports and imports must be balanced to make their economy work.  their situation, as such, is unique in terms of macroeconomics.  second, the question of kensian economics is not about pitting groups against each other.  it is about what works.  government spending, in the kensian thought, is a huge active mass to move the economy.  it is like the biggest baddest bank you can imagine went and gave a loan to every single person in the economy to spend however they want.  the loan is paid back by taxes of a more active economy.  it is very really a massive government investment into the entire economy, no different really than any bank investing in a startup through venture capital.  if everything works out, the government makes its money back, plus some.  now, consider the alternative.  that is pure class warfare.  cut taxes, reward the good people with jobs.  and.  er.  profit.  cutting taxes is passive.  you are relying on people spending that savings.  but people without jobs will take that extra hundred dollars and put it under their mattress.  nobody goes on a spending spree unless they have steady income.  but both theories are models of the actual happenings of economics, in the same way mathematics models fluid flow or stress in a beam or electrical current in a circuit.  active government investment in the economy seems to be work better than passive tax cuts.  whether something works or not should be the measure of effectiveness.  finally, who do you think directly benefits from government spending ? well, businesses, owned by those wealthy 0 you are so worried about.   #  this is as true for economics as it is for physics or statistics.   # then your view is kind of.  i do not know, pointless ? of course the media and reactionary idiots like you find on reddit are going to say stupid things and pretend they have an empirical basis for it.  that is not something unexpected or special, and does not say anything about economics or keynes other than that laymen would rather make economics plastic to their ideology than the other way around.  do you understand general relativity ? quantum theory ? time series analysis ? assuredly not, but i doubt you harbor any significant degree of skepticism for any of them.  this does not mean you do not have the capacity to understand them, just that you have not and will not put in the time to understand them.  in light of that, it would be ill advised to pretend that your disagreement with the academic consensus if indeed you do disagree is in any way justified.  this is as true for economics as it is for physics or statistics.  in contemporary economics,  new keynesian  models owe more to  friedman  than to keynes anyway, and contemporary economic  policy  at least policy that is not vote baiting is almost entirely on the monetary side of things,  not  the fiscal.  classic keynes assumed we were at the zlb, even.   #  assuredly not, but i doubt you harbor any significant degree of skepticism for any of them.   # quantum theory ? time series analysis ? assuredly not, but i doubt you harbor any significant degree of skepticism for any of them.  this does not mean you do not have the capacity to understand them, just that you have not and will not put in the time to understand them.  in light of that, it would be phenomenally stupid to pretend that your disagreement with the academic consensus if indeed you do disagree is in any way justified.  this is as true for economics as it is for physics or statistics.  is it really the same ? economics is a social science.  if we all decided that we were going to act against what the theory says, then the theory becomes untrue.  that is not the case in physics.  to wit:   then your view is kind of.  i do not know, pointless ? of course the media and reactionary idiots like you find on reddit are going to say stupid things and pretend they have an empirical basis for it.  that is not something unexpected or special, and does not say anything about economics or keynes other than that laymen would rather make economics plastic to their ideology than the other way around.  yes, but we all vote, donate to political candidates, and argue in public.  we have influence over the economy and the policies of the government toward it.  so i assert that our views are useful because we can affect the reality, as opposed to my view on high end physical sciences which do not change what is.   #  it mentions nothing of class and one would be hard pressed to convert the concept of  private sector  and  public sector  as the wiki page puts it into some sort of class warfare mould.   # that just means getting to good empirical results is harder, not impossible.  it was not all that long ago that biology was a softer science, then dna provided a good way to work out all that silly bio stuff into some sort of empirical order.  keynesian economics makes heavy use of statistics, and there wo not likely be any unanimous decisions by millions of people but i guess if there was it would require a new theory .  add onto this that plenty of keynesian economics has nothing to do with class.  the biggest i took from when i studied was that government spending can be used to shore up the civilian to help get through slow economic time to mitigate the suffering normally associated with economic turmoil.  then when the economy is good again surpluses can be used to pay of those deficits and an economy can be prepared for the next troubling time.  if anything that is the antithesis of class warfare.  we can look at places doing it too.  here in the usa when the economy slows government spending ramps up.  then compare to greece who has 0 in 0 people not getting enough food because they cut back on government spending while already in an economic slump.  sure exceptions exist but we can look at this from statistical viewpoint and try to understand how the exceptions become exceptions and how the rules function when people and governments take different actions.  finally, please check out the wiki page.  it mentions nothing of class and one would be hard pressed to convert the concept of  private sector  and  public sector  as the wiki page puts it into some sort of class warfare mould.  URL
this stemmed from a discussion i had on another sub about the greek economic crisis, and what people are saying should have been done in terms of policy by the eu and the greek government, which dovetails with what i heard should have been done by the us government in 0 0 in the worst part of the great recession.  my understanding of keynesian theory as applied to this kind of economic situation is that it prescribes the government to spend money by using public debt, getting that money to the worker and the spending class.  this money, once spent, will require producers to produce more, meaning they need to hire more people, which will give those people more money to spend, creating a virtuous circle of economic growth.  once recession is over and growth is good, the theory then says that the government should raise revenue out of the booming economy by taxing the producers, the saving class, and the wealthy so as to pay down the debt that it acquired in the previous step.  from that, i conclude that keynesianism is always either for the working class, the spending class, and the generally poor; and/or against the capitalist, the saving class, and the generally rich.  the activities of the former group are economically good and should be encouraged; the activities of the latter group are economically bad albeit necessary and should be discouraged, minimized to only what is absolutely needed to support the activities of the former group.  at this point, i see five possibilities: 0. 	keynesian economics is pure class warfare.  keynes and his followers believe that the working class deserves more and the capitalist class deserves less, and developed a theory to fit that opinion.  0. 	keynesian economics is  co opted  by people with an agenda of pure class warfare.  it is perfectly valid under the theory to create the virtuous circle through government spending on rolls royces and summer homes for the rich, and perfectly possible to pay down government debt by heavy taxes on working class activities like buying groceries and holding personal debt.   how  we spend and tax is not the issue, just that we do.  0. 	i have an incomplete understanding of keynesian theory.  there can arise economic situations where alternative actions are recommended.  for instance, once the economy is growing and the debt is paid, does keynesianism say to reduce both taxes and spending so as to  shake up the system  and achieve new growth ? or any other situation where good economic policy is to increase inequality and use the natural human jealousy, envy, and fear to spur people to produce more ? 0. 	i have an inaccurate understanding of keynesian theory in general.  0.  my understanding is accurate, but my logic is faulty.  right now my view is hovering between one and two, but i would really like to understand this theory better.   #  from that, i conclude that keynesianism is always either for the working class, the spending class, and the generally poor; and/or against the capitalist, the saving class, and the generally rich.   #  most leftists have a tendency to view keynesian economics as a left centrist economic policy aimed toward distracting/appeasing the working class on behalf of the capitalist class.   # most leftists have a tendency to view keynesian economics as a left centrist economic policy aimed toward distracting/appeasing the working class on behalf of the capitalist class.  by advocating for the state to spend money toward the working class as a means for resolving a recession, keynesian economic shifts the focus of the debate away from critically examining the cycle of capitalism toward issues of taxation, public spending, and the national debt.  at it is best, the redistributionary policies of keynesian economic simply prolong or lessen the magnitudes of these recessionary periods.  to clarify, i am no expert on economics, and i do not feel qualified to debate the utility or success of keynesian economics.  however,  class warfare  is a powerful term used to describe the inherent conflict between the capitalist class and the proletariat, and while keynesian economic may attempt to relatively improve the conditions of the working class, it does not seek to end the capitalist worker relationship or the private ownership of the means of production.   #  normally we say that macroeconomics is not to be compared to household finances.   #  there is a problem with your formulation, both as to the assumptions about economic systems and the motivations of economic theory, and as the genesis of your thoughts about this.  first, the genesis.  normally we say that macroeconomics is not to be compared to household finances.  in the greek case, they are exactly like household finances because the greeks and indeed all of the countries in the eu do not control their money supply.  their exports and imports must be balanced to make their economy work.  their situation, as such, is unique in terms of macroeconomics.  second, the question of kensian economics is not about pitting groups against each other.  it is about what works.  government spending, in the kensian thought, is a huge active mass to move the economy.  it is like the biggest baddest bank you can imagine went and gave a loan to every single person in the economy to spend however they want.  the loan is paid back by taxes of a more active economy.  it is very really a massive government investment into the entire economy, no different really than any bank investing in a startup through venture capital.  if everything works out, the government makes its money back, plus some.  now, consider the alternative.  that is pure class warfare.  cut taxes, reward the good people with jobs.  and.  er.  profit.  cutting taxes is passive.  you are relying on people spending that savings.  but people without jobs will take that extra hundred dollars and put it under their mattress.  nobody goes on a spending spree unless they have steady income.  but both theories are models of the actual happenings of economics, in the same way mathematics models fluid flow or stress in a beam or electrical current in a circuit.  active government investment in the economy seems to be work better than passive tax cuts.  whether something works or not should be the measure of effectiveness.  finally, who do you think directly benefits from government spending ? well, businesses, owned by those wealthy 0 you are so worried about.   #  this does not mean you do not have the capacity to understand them, just that you have not and will not put in the time to understand them.   # then your view is kind of.  i do not know, pointless ? of course the media and reactionary idiots like you find on reddit are going to say stupid things and pretend they have an empirical basis for it.  that is not something unexpected or special, and does not say anything about economics or keynes other than that laymen would rather make economics plastic to their ideology than the other way around.  do you understand general relativity ? quantum theory ? time series analysis ? assuredly not, but i doubt you harbor any significant degree of skepticism for any of them.  this does not mean you do not have the capacity to understand them, just that you have not and will not put in the time to understand them.  in light of that, it would be ill advised to pretend that your disagreement with the academic consensus if indeed you do disagree is in any way justified.  this is as true for economics as it is for physics or statistics.  in contemporary economics,  new keynesian  models owe more to  friedman  than to keynes anyway, and contemporary economic  policy  at least policy that is not vote baiting is almost entirely on the monetary side of things,  not  the fiscal.  classic keynes assumed we were at the zlb, even.   #  that is not something unexpected or special, and does not say anything about economics or keynes other than that laymen would rather make economics plastic to their ideology than the other way around.   # quantum theory ? time series analysis ? assuredly not, but i doubt you harbor any significant degree of skepticism for any of them.  this does not mean you do not have the capacity to understand them, just that you have not and will not put in the time to understand them.  in light of that, it would be phenomenally stupid to pretend that your disagreement with the academic consensus if indeed you do disagree is in any way justified.  this is as true for economics as it is for physics or statistics.  is it really the same ? economics is a social science.  if we all decided that we were going to act against what the theory says, then the theory becomes untrue.  that is not the case in physics.  to wit:   then your view is kind of.  i do not know, pointless ? of course the media and reactionary idiots like you find on reddit are going to say stupid things and pretend they have an empirical basis for it.  that is not something unexpected or special, and does not say anything about economics or keynes other than that laymen would rather make economics plastic to their ideology than the other way around.  yes, but we all vote, donate to political candidates, and argue in public.  we have influence over the economy and the policies of the government toward it.  so i assert that our views are useful because we can affect the reality, as opposed to my view on high end physical sciences which do not change what is.   #  keynesian economics makes heavy use of statistics, and there wo not likely be any unanimous decisions by millions of people but i guess if there was it would require a new theory .   # that just means getting to good empirical results is harder, not impossible.  it was not all that long ago that biology was a softer science, then dna provided a good way to work out all that silly bio stuff into some sort of empirical order.  keynesian economics makes heavy use of statistics, and there wo not likely be any unanimous decisions by millions of people but i guess if there was it would require a new theory .  add onto this that plenty of keynesian economics has nothing to do with class.  the biggest i took from when i studied was that government spending can be used to shore up the civilian to help get through slow economic time to mitigate the suffering normally associated with economic turmoil.  then when the economy is good again surpluses can be used to pay of those deficits and an economy can be prepared for the next troubling time.  if anything that is the antithesis of class warfare.  we can look at places doing it too.  here in the usa when the economy slows government spending ramps up.  then compare to greece who has 0 in 0 people not getting enough food because they cut back on government spending while already in an economic slump.  sure exceptions exist but we can look at this from statistical viewpoint and try to understand how the exceptions become exceptions and how the rules function when people and governments take different actions.  finally, please check out the wiki page.  it mentions nothing of class and one would be hard pressed to convert the concept of  private sector  and  public sector  as the wiki page puts it into some sort of class warfare mould.  URL
i believe that as intelligent beings capable of moral reasoning, we have a serious obligation to not needlessly kill and eat animals.  im my opinion, ignoring this moral obligation is very serious, on par with most other  do not kill  obligations we have in our lives.  i also believe that the logic of  humans are smarter than animals, therefore it is ok to eat this pig/cow/etc.    is flawed, because most humans would feel uncomfortable eating a comatose person or someone who is profoundly mentally retarded, and yet would consider it totally fine to eat a pig with more self sufficiency and intelligence.  i believe the rationale approach to issues of meat morality is to ask the question  why  should  it be ok to kill animals and eat their meat ?   rather than  why should not it ?   most modern philosophers make the issue seem relatively conclusive, saying that eating meat is morally wrong.  with some edge cases, of course.  not many argue that there is nothing wrong with eating meat to save your life on a desert island.  reddit, what do you think ? is there a morally justifiable reason all of us should be ok with eating meat ?  #  is there a morally justifiable reason all of us should be ok with eating meat ?  #  i can think of a few situations where routine eating of animals is not only okay, but the best moral course of action.   # i can think of a few situations where routine eating of animals is not only okay, but the best moral course of action.  first off, there are many areas that lack the proper predator population.  in some cases, this involves an invasive species that never had predators there to begin with.  to leave the system alone with the lack of a proper apex predator wreaks havoc on the local ecosystem.  in some cases, this can ultimately lead to a total collapse of the delicate balance that is nature and the extinction of several species.  humans have the ability to step in when needed as an apex predator and kill in a very precise manner that benefits the ecosystem to such an extent that sometimes it is even better than already present apex predators they do not kill what is best for the ecosystem, they kill what gives the easiest meal .  in the case of such a management hunt, it would then be extremely wasteful to discard the bodies.  eating them is the most efficient use of them and thereby diminishes the reliance on other land to produce food, which is a further net positive for the environment.  there are cases where i would describe preventing managment hunting as immoral and i would always describe discarding viable food as immoral.  therefore, in such a situation, eating meat is the most moral course of action.  the second focuses more heavily on efficiency of land management.  the biggest threat facing many species is the lack of proper habitat, and much of the land that could be used for habitat is instead used to produce food.  however, using land for pasture grazing allows that land to still be used for habitat by many species in some cases being the ideal habitat for them , but also allows the land to be used to produce food.  this means that under ideal circumstances, supplementing one is diet with meat is far more environmentally friendly than eating pure vegetables.  it is important to note that my moral system sees the entirety of an ecosystem as more important than the sum of its parts.  i also structure my morality around what would be the best possible system if implemented at a large scale and try to fit my life as close as possible to that.  while individuals matter, they are relatively insignificant when compared to the entire system.   #  i think it is wrong to kill other humans because i know those humans to be beings capable of feeling happiness who desire to be free of suffering, and who avoid death.   # do you believe we have the moral obligation to not kill other humans ? most people do, and i assume you do too.  if not though, i would love to hear your thoughts on why not.  i think it is wrong to kill other humans because i know those humans to be beings capable of feeling happiness who desire to be free of suffering, and who avoid death.  in my eyes, the same thing also applies to animals.  the animal does suffer, truly, but why does imply i have some kind of moral obligation.  i want to draw the comparison to a non animal and see if your moral conclusions stay the same: why should you avoid eating a human baby ? to me, you have certain moral obligations there, even though this is a creature that could not make it on its own, is clearly far less intelligent than you, etc.  i believe these are substantially similar to our moral obligations to animals.   #  and even if it were, it would not matter.   #  anti social personality disorder occurs in 0/0 people in the general population, so no,  0  is far too high an estimation.  try 0.  and i am being generous.  intuitions  about morality are just preferences strong ones but preferences nonetheless that people universalize because people are narcissistic and because they have the popular support of society.  they are matters of taste.  you are perfectly fine stating that  moral  preferences are somehow objective but preferences in scent or flavour are not on the basis of their widespreadedness, but i would have a far easier time finding a sociopath than you would finding someone who enjoys the smell of feces.  something is wrong with that picture and it is not me.  and even if it were, it would not matter.  my own intuitions supposedly differ from those of others so what ? even  if  you are right and i am, what, delusional ? what does that actually imply for me ? has my own life been actually, measurably impeded in any way ? does the concept of morality have any use at all, beyond as a tool to manipulate the people who believe in it ?  #  so assuming you believe morality exists not going to have the nihilist discussion here quite yet you ca not dismiss intuition.   #  i am not here to argue about the efficacy of morality in creating a better society although i do believe greater moral understanding is invaluable in human progress .  i am simply stating that just as you have perceptions about the world in an intellectual sense, you have moral perceptions as well.  these are subject to bias, preference as you say etc.  but ultimately we have nothing else to go on but intuitions.  so assuming you believe morality exists not going to have the nihilist discussion here quite yet you ca not dismiss intuition.   #  similar concepts apply with babies and people in comas; they are simply not allowed to make decisions for themselves, stripping them of the moral requirement placed upon them by society.   #  i do not like this argument because it is arguing the exception, not the rule.  the amount of humans who are incapable of taking morality into account is far and away smaller than the amount of animals capable of acting morally.  futhermore, babies, the profoundly mentally handicapped, and people in comas do not have the same moral rights as otherwise normal people in practice.  society is fine with institutionalizing those who are mentally ill to the point of being irreconcilable with society as a whole, but this would not fly if you decided to randomly toss mentally healthy people into padded rooms.  similar concepts apply with babies and people in comas; they are simply not allowed to make decisions for themselves, stripping them of the moral requirement placed upon them by society.  that might all sound kind of flimsy, i do not know, but a while ago i debated with my self in regards to consuming animal products and this is basically what i concluded.
i believe that as intelligent beings capable of moral reasoning, we have a serious obligation to not needlessly kill and eat animals.  im my opinion, ignoring this moral obligation is very serious, on par with most other  do not kill  obligations we have in our lives.  i also believe that the logic of  humans are smarter than animals, therefore it is ok to eat this pig/cow/etc.    is flawed, because most humans would feel uncomfortable eating a comatose person or someone who is profoundly mentally retarded, and yet would consider it totally fine to eat a pig with more self sufficiency and intelligence.  i believe the rationale approach to issues of meat morality is to ask the question  why  should  it be ok to kill animals and eat their meat ?   rather than  why should not it ?   most modern philosophers make the issue seem relatively conclusive, saying that eating meat is morally wrong.  with some edge cases, of course.  not many argue that there is nothing wrong with eating meat to save your life on a desert island.  reddit, what do you think ? is there a morally justifiable reason all of us should be ok with eating meat ?  #  most modern philosophers make the issue seem relatively conclusive, saying that eating meat is morally wrong.   #  i doubt you can say  most , since only 0 are moral realists.   #  just to get a better understanding of where you stand.  are you saying that eating meat is morally wrong ? or that killing animals is morally wrong ? e. g.  do you think it is morally wrong to scrape a dead raccoon off the highway and eat it ? i doubt you can say  most , since only 0 are moral realists.  and i doubt all of them agree that eating meat is wrong.   #  to me, you have certain moral obligations there, even though this is a creature that could not make it on its own, is clearly far less intelligent than you, etc.   # do you believe we have the moral obligation to not kill other humans ? most people do, and i assume you do too.  if not though, i would love to hear your thoughts on why not.  i think it is wrong to kill other humans because i know those humans to be beings capable of feeling happiness who desire to be free of suffering, and who avoid death.  in my eyes, the same thing also applies to animals.  the animal does suffer, truly, but why does imply i have some kind of moral obligation.  i want to draw the comparison to a non animal and see if your moral conclusions stay the same: why should you avoid eating a human baby ? to me, you have certain moral obligations there, even though this is a creature that could not make it on its own, is clearly far less intelligent than you, etc.  i believe these are substantially similar to our moral obligations to animals.   #  anti social personality disorder occurs in 0/0 people in the general population, so no,  0  is far too high an estimation.   #  anti social personality disorder occurs in 0/0 people in the general population, so no,  0  is far too high an estimation.  try 0.  and i am being generous.  intuitions  about morality are just preferences strong ones but preferences nonetheless that people universalize because people are narcissistic and because they have the popular support of society.  they are matters of taste.  you are perfectly fine stating that  moral  preferences are somehow objective but preferences in scent or flavour are not on the basis of their widespreadedness, but i would have a far easier time finding a sociopath than you would finding someone who enjoys the smell of feces.  something is wrong with that picture and it is not me.  and even if it were, it would not matter.  my own intuitions supposedly differ from those of others so what ? even  if  you are right and i am, what, delusional ? what does that actually imply for me ? has my own life been actually, measurably impeded in any way ? does the concept of morality have any use at all, beyond as a tool to manipulate the people who believe in it ?  #  so assuming you believe morality exists not going to have the nihilist discussion here quite yet you ca not dismiss intuition.   #  i am not here to argue about the efficacy of morality in creating a better society although i do believe greater moral understanding is invaluable in human progress .  i am simply stating that just as you have perceptions about the world in an intellectual sense, you have moral perceptions as well.  these are subject to bias, preference as you say etc.  but ultimately we have nothing else to go on but intuitions.  so assuming you believe morality exists not going to have the nihilist discussion here quite yet you ca not dismiss intuition.   #  similar concepts apply with babies and people in comas; they are simply not allowed to make decisions for themselves, stripping them of the moral requirement placed upon them by society.   #  i do not like this argument because it is arguing the exception, not the rule.  the amount of humans who are incapable of taking morality into account is far and away smaller than the amount of animals capable of acting morally.  futhermore, babies, the profoundly mentally handicapped, and people in comas do not have the same moral rights as otherwise normal people in practice.  society is fine with institutionalizing those who are mentally ill to the point of being irreconcilable with society as a whole, but this would not fly if you decided to randomly toss mentally healthy people into padded rooms.  similar concepts apply with babies and people in comas; they are simply not allowed to make decisions for themselves, stripping them of the moral requirement placed upon them by society.  that might all sound kind of flimsy, i do not know, but a while ago i debated with my self in regards to consuming animal products and this is basically what i concluded.
i am angry beyond exasperation by the generalised hate some of the sjws i appear to follow/friend are sharing/re sharing on twitter/facebook recently.  i ca not stand by it any longer if you share something that generalises men / women / white people / asian people / immigrants / wealthy people / poor people / northern / southern / city / rural.  in fact, pretty much anything you attack by generalising a group based on one bad example i feel the need to not only unfollow you, i think i need to make sure you understand why i am doing it.  publicly.  that goes equally for people that make unfair assertions about people it is  cool  to hate: such as calling ukip uk independence party who exist to try and remove the uk from the eu racists, or conservatives once again, a uk political party, currently in government office thieves, or the police thugs.  i have never met a racist ukip member, a conservative thief, or a police thug.  prejudice happens.  we all have prejudices.  i have prejudices.  allowing that prejudice to become discrimination, and that discrimination becoming openly attacking people is something we all need to combat.  if one of your friends starting mouthing obscenities towards a gay man, or a black woman, i would hope you would try to stop them.  you should do the same for someone attacking a straight man too because he is male and straight and not because he is done something himself.  somehow it has become acceptable to post insulting things like URL which tar all men in this particular example with the same brush.  people i respect retweet it.  that is just not fair, and it is something i ca not put up with any longer.  if you want to point out  a  man acting inappropriately, that is fine by me.  i have done it before, and while i know a lot of people just turn away and pretend it is not happening, i would like to believe that many would say something.  if you say  all  men are trash, you are attacking  me  and  i have  done nothing wrong.  this kind of generalisation behaviour is completely unacceptable to me, and these people are just as bad no, they are worse than the people they are trying to oppose.  they do know better and choose to be inflammatory.  generalising a group of people based on bad information is exactly why many major conflicts occur worldwide.  i am not talking about in history and making a veiled nazi reference, i am talking about today.  people  today  are excluded because of sweeping generalisations like the ones these people perpetuate.  i ca not stand silently by it any longer.  if i do not speak out against it, it gives silent consent to those that do it.  however, i realise that perhaps i am over reacting and there is another side to this story.  so, before i go on a massive unfollow and outrage spree amongst people posting sjw type material: try and.  change my view !  #  generalising a group of people based on bad information is exactly why many major conflicts occur worldwide.   #  but  most  generalizations are harmless and do not result in a global conflict.   # but  most  generalizations are harmless and do not result in a global conflict.  you have learned about racism, sexism, oppression, etc, but you have taken the wrong lesson from it all.  discrimination is not this ultimately evil thing by itself.  there is so much more to the story of for instance racism in the united states than discrimination.  slavery.  redlining.  lynching.  telling them they are no good, 0/0 of a human at best, believing it, making them believe it, doing whatever we can as a nation to keep them in the shit jobs, in the shit side of town so we do not have to live near them.  when we talk about our situation of racism as the huge problem that it has been and is, something well worth getting upset about, what we mean is all this historical shit that has happened.  a lack of prejudice in the first place would have indeed helped that situation, but it is not in any way the norm for an individual act of discrimination to lead to centuries of oppression.  racism in the u. s.  is the  exception, not the rule  as discrimination goes.  an individual act of discrimination usually does not do very much of anything.  and thus, we do not generally get too pissed off about discrimination, as you are attempting to do.  we get pissed off when there is actually a problem.   #  black people are constantly expected to laugh and deal with waaaay more offensive black jokes.   #  this is the kind of stuff some people deal with in  every  aspect of their life, since birth.  i am gay so i must be   i am hispanic so i must be  .  while those people  are  wrong i think it is being an a sort of educational experience for you.  and its  no where  near as bad as the reverse imagine being a women.  or being gay.  or black.  it is just like this except 0x worse and instead of random internet attacks it effects getting a job, hanging out with your friends, going to school and  every  aspect of your existence.  and instead of general attacks.  its directed at you specifically.  can you imagine how horrible that would be ? these people are venting the  rage  of centuries of discrimination and hate on stupid online jokes.  why is that such a big deal ? black people are constantly expected to laugh and deal with waaaay more offensive black jokes.  why cant you handle a random joke about men not directed towards you at all ? why instead of empathizing with their emotions all you feel is the need to defend yourself ? black/hispanics are seen as a criminals.  it effects their ability to get jobs and to  live  and you think some random tweet is just as bad as that ? women were seen as property and in many societies seen as lesser than men.  and white people are mocked for. not being to dance ? being jerks on the internets ? do you honestly think some random tweets are just as bad as systematic discrimination ?  #  without addressing history and how that can be applied to the present.   #  that is because there isn  a historical precedent for treating men badly and men are not in any danger from a legal and social prospective.  the same reason black pride is okay and white pride is culturally unacceptable.  white pride was used in order to enslave.  black pride was used in order to empower a group without rights.  when you make a gay joke you are insulting a group of people who were in history seen as disgusting.  this risk moving society back into an age where gay hate was socially acceptable.  men jokes have no such harm.  you ca not just go  i wanna be equal !   without addressing history and how that can be applied to the present.   #  what happened to  two wrongs do not make a right ?    # what happened to  two wrongs do not make a right ?   you ca not fight discrimination with more discrimination, you can just hide the symptoms while making the underlying problems worse.  the end !   URL as long as there are groups, people will always be prejudiced, the only way to truly eliminate this is to eliminate the perception of groups.  the only way we will get rid of racism is to make race unimportant, so discriminating on the basis of skin colour makes about as much sense as discriminating on the basis of eye colour to people.  that is the goal.  a policy that instead focuses on racial differences and singles out people for different treatment based on race, all in the name of  equality  is a step backwards from that goal.  and if that goal is not your goal, you are the problem.   #  URL once again, you are just factually wrong.   #  well, you are just wrong ?  colorblindness  simply keeps racism in check by pretending it does not exist.  in order to combat something you have to be aware of its existence.  things just do not fade away without any effort.  the concept of race was deeply ingrained in western culture.  and you cannot erase it by just ignoring it.  you also need to keep in mind people  are  different.  black and hispanic people have unique cultures.  you want them to assimilate to white culture instead of telling racist to get use to fact people are different.  if you have to  colorblind  to treat a black person as a person.  you are racist.  why ca not you see they are black and still treat them as a person ? why are miniorties not allowed unique identities and still be equal ? URL once again, you are just factually wrong.
this may be because i do not fully understand the concept of  gender , but it seems to me that is nothing more than a politically correct way of applying stereotypes to the members of each sex.  society welcoming men to call themselves women because they feel girly and love to wear dresses, seems like a huge slap in the face to women.  by doing this, it seems to re define being a woman as fitting under a set of personality traits.  personality traits that many women have been fighting hard to disassociate from.  i am a dude btw in the same way that people try to downplay stereotypes of race, and religion, should not we avoid applying specific personality traits such as feminine, emotional, etc to sex.  would not it be best for both men, women, and transexuals to get to a point in society where there are no personality traits associated with  him  or  her , and instead anyone can be who they want to be without complicating their identity ? i do not have statistics on this, but i am assuming there are more gender bender personalities who do not want to be transexual, than one is who do.  would not allowing the idea of being  male  to mean having the stereotypes of a man, cause more suffering among these people ?  #  seems like a huge slap in the face to women.   #  by doing this, it seems to re define being a woman as fitting under a set of personality traits.   #  /u/ghotier has already discussed the distinction between sex and gender, which in my view is the most important counter argument.  by doing this, it seems to re define being a woman as fitting under a set of personality traits.  i do not see how any one person is sexuality and gender affects any other person.  women have associated as men from long before you were born and will continue to do so long after you die.  knowing that have you ever felt like less of a man because of this ? if you did not, what would make you think that a woman would ? would not it be best for both men, women, and transexuals to get to a point in society where there are no personality traits associated with  him  or  her , and instead anyone can be who they want to be without complicating their identity ? you are describing equality.  i agree that it would be better, though removing the label will not remove the inequality.   #  a male to female transexual is not a transexual because of gender roles, they are a transexual because they were born with a penis sex and thinks that that is somehow wrong sexual identity .   #  gender and sex are not the same thing.  gender is how society treats you or how you consider your place in society.  sex is actually what you are or how you feel.  a male to female transexual is not a transexual because of gender roles, they are a transexual because they were born with a penis sex and thinks that that is somehow wrong sexual identity .  it is not that they want to start washing dishes and stop mowing the lawn.  this is confused as a concept because  transgender  is treated as actually a synonym for transexual in a way that sex and gender are not synonyms.  if a transexual also feels like expressing their gender as the  opposite gender  then that reflects on other women no more than a cisgender woman is gender expression is a slap in the face of other women.   #  allowing people to act however they choose is great, but this issue has gotten to a point where pressure is being put on society to completely replace the meaning of basic pronouns.   # women have associated as men from long before you were born and will continue to do so long after you die.  knowing that have you ever felt like less of a man because of this ? if you did not, what would make you think that a woman would ? one person is sexuality and gender wo not really effect anybody that is true, i am not against anyone being transgender.  but what i am talking about is the recent movement of socially and legally labeling people by how they feel internally like recently in ireland .  allowing people to act however they choose is great, but this issue has gotten to a point where pressure is being put on society to completely replace the meaning of basic pronouns.  i do not think this is a good idea for many reasons: 0 because general labels should not characterize people, gender is too obscure of a term to define people, but most of importantly because the language being replaced  her  and  woman , currently refers to 0 of the population.  people may have associated as the opposite gender in the past, but what makes it insulting in this situation is how these new ideas about gender are being forced into society and how individuals are told they are wrong if they choose to use these pronouns as they were originally meant to be used.  i think it is insulting for women to have the very word that defines them legally taken from them.   #  if a woman associates as a woman but looks   dresses in a way that does not convey gender cues, you may mistake her for a man.   # so lets say that we are changing the definition of a word.  in what way does it affect you ? in what way is it unhealthy ? also if you cannot display that the inverse is true which is that it is insulting for a man why would you think this would be insulting for a woman ? how is this different from androgyny ? if a woman associates as a woman but looks   dresses in a way that does not convey gender cues, you may mistake her for a man.  then you would be corrected and you would use the correct pronoun.  how would that be damaging or insulting to other women ?  #  we consider a man to be trans once he chooses to identify as a woman.   #  i think you have put the cart before the horse my friend.  society does not label men as transgender/transsexual sorry i get fuzzy on the distinction between the two because they choose to dress like women.  those would just be cross dressers, all kinds of men enjoy cross dressing without identifying as women.  we consider a man to be trans once he chooses to identify as a woman.  from here she may choose to dress like a woman because this fits her personal vision of how she wants to look as a woman.  it is entirely possible for a man to identify as a woman without dressing or acting girly.  many gay men have personality traits that we would stereotypically associate with women but society does not label them as women because they do not identify as women.
this may be because i do not fully understand the concept of  gender , but it seems to me that is nothing more than a politically correct way of applying stereotypes to the members of each sex.  society welcoming men to call themselves women because they feel girly and love to wear dresses, seems like a huge slap in the face to women.  by doing this, it seems to re define being a woman as fitting under a set of personality traits.  personality traits that many women have been fighting hard to disassociate from.  i am a dude btw in the same way that people try to downplay stereotypes of race, and religion, should not we avoid applying specific personality traits such as feminine, emotional, etc to sex.  would not it be best for both men, women, and transexuals to get to a point in society where there are no personality traits associated with  him  or  her , and instead anyone can be who they want to be without complicating their identity ? i do not have statistics on this, but i am assuming there are more gender bender personalities who do not want to be transexual, than one is who do.  would not allowing the idea of being  male  to mean having the stereotypes of a man, cause more suffering among these people ?  #  should not we avoid applying specific personality traits such as feminine, emotional, etc to sex.   #  would not it be best for both men, women, and transexuals to get to a point in society where there are no personality traits associated with  him  or  her , and instead anyone can be who they want to be without complicating their identity ?  #  /u/ghotier has already discussed the distinction between sex and gender, which in my view is the most important counter argument.  by doing this, it seems to re define being a woman as fitting under a set of personality traits.  i do not see how any one person is sexuality and gender affects any other person.  women have associated as men from long before you were born and will continue to do so long after you die.  knowing that have you ever felt like less of a man because of this ? if you did not, what would make you think that a woman would ? would not it be best for both men, women, and transexuals to get to a point in society where there are no personality traits associated with  him  or  her , and instead anyone can be who they want to be without complicating their identity ? you are describing equality.  i agree that it would be better, though removing the label will not remove the inequality.   #  this is confused as a concept because  transgender  is treated as actually a synonym for transexual in a way that sex and gender are not synonyms.   #  gender and sex are not the same thing.  gender is how society treats you or how you consider your place in society.  sex is actually what you are or how you feel.  a male to female transexual is not a transexual because of gender roles, they are a transexual because they were born with a penis sex and thinks that that is somehow wrong sexual identity .  it is not that they want to start washing dishes and stop mowing the lawn.  this is confused as a concept because  transgender  is treated as actually a synonym for transexual in a way that sex and gender are not synonyms.  if a transexual also feels like expressing their gender as the  opposite gender  then that reflects on other women no more than a cisgender woman is gender expression is a slap in the face of other women.   #  one person is sexuality and gender wo not really effect anybody that is true, i am not against anyone being transgender.   # women have associated as men from long before you were born and will continue to do so long after you die.  knowing that have you ever felt like less of a man because of this ? if you did not, what would make you think that a woman would ? one person is sexuality and gender wo not really effect anybody that is true, i am not against anyone being transgender.  but what i am talking about is the recent movement of socially and legally labeling people by how they feel internally like recently in ireland .  allowing people to act however they choose is great, but this issue has gotten to a point where pressure is being put on society to completely replace the meaning of basic pronouns.  i do not think this is a good idea for many reasons: 0 because general labels should not characterize people, gender is too obscure of a term to define people, but most of importantly because the language being replaced  her  and  woman , currently refers to 0 of the population.  people may have associated as the opposite gender in the past, but what makes it insulting in this situation is how these new ideas about gender are being forced into society and how individuals are told they are wrong if they choose to use these pronouns as they were originally meant to be used.  i think it is insulting for women to have the very word that defines them legally taken from them.   #  how would that be damaging or insulting to other women ?  # so lets say that we are changing the definition of a word.  in what way does it affect you ? in what way is it unhealthy ? also if you cannot display that the inverse is true which is that it is insulting for a man why would you think this would be insulting for a woman ? how is this different from androgyny ? if a woman associates as a woman but looks   dresses in a way that does not convey gender cues, you may mistake her for a man.  then you would be corrected and you would use the correct pronoun.  how would that be damaging or insulting to other women ?  #  society does not label men as transgender/transsexual sorry i get fuzzy on the distinction between the two because they choose to dress like women.   #  i think you have put the cart before the horse my friend.  society does not label men as transgender/transsexual sorry i get fuzzy on the distinction between the two because they choose to dress like women.  those would just be cross dressers, all kinds of men enjoy cross dressing without identifying as women.  we consider a man to be trans once he chooses to identify as a woman.  from here she may choose to dress like a woman because this fits her personal vision of how she wants to look as a woman.  it is entirely possible for a man to identify as a woman without dressing or acting girly.  many gay men have personality traits that we would stereotypically associate with women but society does not label them as women because they do not identify as women.
this may be because i do not fully understand the concept of  gender , but it seems to me that is nothing more than a politically correct way of applying stereotypes to the members of each sex.  society welcoming men to call themselves women because they feel girly and love to wear dresses, seems like a huge slap in the face to women.  by doing this, it seems to re define being a woman as fitting under a set of personality traits.  personality traits that many women have been fighting hard to disassociate from.  i am a dude btw in the same way that people try to downplay stereotypes of race, and religion, should not we avoid applying specific personality traits such as feminine, emotional, etc to sex.  would not it be best for both men, women, and transexuals to get to a point in society where there are no personality traits associated with  him  or  her , and instead anyone can be who they want to be without complicating their identity ? i do not have statistics on this, but i am assuming there are more gender bender personalities who do not want to be transexual, than one is who do.  would not allowing the idea of being  male  to mean having the stereotypes of a man, cause more suffering among these people ?  #  by doing this, it seems to re define being a woman as fitting under a set of personality traits.   #  i want to point out that  aredefine  is an unfair term here, because the literature on this subject would argue that being a woman has  always  been a social phenomenon.   # i want to point out that  aredefine  is an unfair term here, because the literature on this subject would argue that being a woman has  always  been a social phenomenon.  a good argument for that would be the fact that, although traditionally a  aman  was someone with a penis and a  woman  has a vagina, we do not actually walk around seeing peoples genitals in order to gender them, we gender them based on behaviour.  two points here: firstly i feel like you are using  women  in the biological sense here, which feels like you are equivocating with your earlier usage.  secondly, i think you will be hard pressed to find many women who genuinely wish to abandon  all  stereotypes.  in my experience, they rightly wish to abandon the harmful ones, but there is plenty of stereotypes which seem less harmful and more essential to femininity.  stereotypes are necessary for language, and indeed human thought and general communication.  if you are familiar, think of the borges short story  funes the memorious  about the man with the perfect memory.  to abandon  all  stereotypes would be the render the word  aman  meaningless.   #  sex is actually what you are or how you feel.   #  gender and sex are not the same thing.  gender is how society treats you or how you consider your place in society.  sex is actually what you are or how you feel.  a male to female transexual is not a transexual because of gender roles, they are a transexual because they were born with a penis sex and thinks that that is somehow wrong sexual identity .  it is not that they want to start washing dishes and stop mowing the lawn.  this is confused as a concept because  transgender  is treated as actually a synonym for transexual in a way that sex and gender are not synonyms.  if a transexual also feels like expressing their gender as the  opposite gender  then that reflects on other women no more than a cisgender woman is gender expression is a slap in the face of other women.   #  /u/ghotier has already discussed the distinction between sex and gender, which in my view is the most important counter argument.   #  /u/ghotier has already discussed the distinction between sex and gender, which in my view is the most important counter argument.  by doing this, it seems to re define being a woman as fitting under a set of personality traits.  i do not see how any one person is sexuality and gender affects any other person.  women have associated as men from long before you were born and will continue to do so long after you die.  knowing that have you ever felt like less of a man because of this ? if you did not, what would make you think that a woman would ? would not it be best for both men, women, and transexuals to get to a point in society where there are no personality traits associated with  him  or  her , and instead anyone can be who they want to be without complicating their identity ? you are describing equality.  i agree that it would be better, though removing the label will not remove the inequality.   #  women have associated as men from long before you were born and will continue to do so long after you die.   # women have associated as men from long before you were born and will continue to do so long after you die.  knowing that have you ever felt like less of a man because of this ? if you did not, what would make you think that a woman would ? one person is sexuality and gender wo not really effect anybody that is true, i am not against anyone being transgender.  but what i am talking about is the recent movement of socially and legally labeling people by how they feel internally like recently in ireland .  allowing people to act however they choose is great, but this issue has gotten to a point where pressure is being put on society to completely replace the meaning of basic pronouns.  i do not think this is a good idea for many reasons: 0 because general labels should not characterize people, gender is too obscure of a term to define people, but most of importantly because the language being replaced  her  and  woman , currently refers to 0 of the population.  people may have associated as the opposite gender in the past, but what makes it insulting in this situation is how these new ideas about gender are being forced into society and how individuals are told they are wrong if they choose to use these pronouns as they were originally meant to be used.  i think it is insulting for women to have the very word that defines them legally taken from them.   #  how would that be damaging or insulting to other women ?  # so lets say that we are changing the definition of a word.  in what way does it affect you ? in what way is it unhealthy ? also if you cannot display that the inverse is true which is that it is insulting for a man why would you think this would be insulting for a woman ? how is this different from androgyny ? if a woman associates as a woman but looks   dresses in a way that does not convey gender cues, you may mistake her for a man.  then you would be corrected and you would use the correct pronoun.  how would that be damaging or insulting to other women ?
this may be because i do not fully understand the concept of  gender , but it seems to me that is nothing more than a politically correct way of applying stereotypes to the members of each sex.  society welcoming men to call themselves women because they feel girly and love to wear dresses, seems like a huge slap in the face to women.  by doing this, it seems to re define being a woman as fitting under a set of personality traits.  personality traits that many women have been fighting hard to disassociate from.  i am a dude btw in the same way that people try to downplay stereotypes of race, and religion, should not we avoid applying specific personality traits such as feminine, emotional, etc to sex.  would not it be best for both men, women, and transexuals to get to a point in society where there are no personality traits associated with  him  or  her , and instead anyone can be who they want to be without complicating their identity ? i do not have statistics on this, but i am assuming there are more gender bender personalities who do not want to be transexual, than one is who do.  would not allowing the idea of being  male  to mean having the stereotypes of a man, cause more suffering among these people ?  #  personality traits that many women have been fighting hard to disassociate from.   #  two points here: firstly i feel like you are using  women  in the biological sense here, which feels like you are equivocating with your earlier usage.   # i want to point out that  aredefine  is an unfair term here, because the literature on this subject would argue that being a woman has  always  been a social phenomenon.  a good argument for that would be the fact that, although traditionally a  aman  was someone with a penis and a  woman  has a vagina, we do not actually walk around seeing peoples genitals in order to gender them, we gender them based on behaviour.  two points here: firstly i feel like you are using  women  in the biological sense here, which feels like you are equivocating with your earlier usage.  secondly, i think you will be hard pressed to find many women who genuinely wish to abandon  all  stereotypes.  in my experience, they rightly wish to abandon the harmful ones, but there is plenty of stereotypes which seem less harmful and more essential to femininity.  stereotypes are necessary for language, and indeed human thought and general communication.  if you are familiar, think of the borges short story  funes the memorious  about the man with the perfect memory.  to abandon  all  stereotypes would be the render the word  aman  meaningless.   #  this is confused as a concept because  transgender  is treated as actually a synonym for transexual in a way that sex and gender are not synonyms.   #  gender and sex are not the same thing.  gender is how society treats you or how you consider your place in society.  sex is actually what you are or how you feel.  a male to female transexual is not a transexual because of gender roles, they are a transexual because they were born with a penis sex and thinks that that is somehow wrong sexual identity .  it is not that they want to start washing dishes and stop mowing the lawn.  this is confused as a concept because  transgender  is treated as actually a synonym for transexual in a way that sex and gender are not synonyms.  if a transexual also feels like expressing their gender as the  opposite gender  then that reflects on other women no more than a cisgender woman is gender expression is a slap in the face of other women.   #  if you did not, what would make you think that a woman would ?  #  /u/ghotier has already discussed the distinction between sex and gender, which in my view is the most important counter argument.  by doing this, it seems to re define being a woman as fitting under a set of personality traits.  i do not see how any one person is sexuality and gender affects any other person.  women have associated as men from long before you were born and will continue to do so long after you die.  knowing that have you ever felt like less of a man because of this ? if you did not, what would make you think that a woman would ? would not it be best for both men, women, and transexuals to get to a point in society where there are no personality traits associated with  him  or  her , and instead anyone can be who they want to be without complicating their identity ? you are describing equality.  i agree that it would be better, though removing the label will not remove the inequality.   #  allowing people to act however they choose is great, but this issue has gotten to a point where pressure is being put on society to completely replace the meaning of basic pronouns.   # women have associated as men from long before you were born and will continue to do so long after you die.  knowing that have you ever felt like less of a man because of this ? if you did not, what would make you think that a woman would ? one person is sexuality and gender wo not really effect anybody that is true, i am not against anyone being transgender.  but what i am talking about is the recent movement of socially and legally labeling people by how they feel internally like recently in ireland .  allowing people to act however they choose is great, but this issue has gotten to a point where pressure is being put on society to completely replace the meaning of basic pronouns.  i do not think this is a good idea for many reasons: 0 because general labels should not characterize people, gender is too obscure of a term to define people, but most of importantly because the language being replaced  her  and  woman , currently refers to 0 of the population.  people may have associated as the opposite gender in the past, but what makes it insulting in this situation is how these new ideas about gender are being forced into society and how individuals are told they are wrong if they choose to use these pronouns as they were originally meant to be used.  i think it is insulting for women to have the very word that defines them legally taken from them.   #  also if you cannot display that the inverse is true which is that it is insulting for a man why would you think this would be insulting for a woman ?  # so lets say that we are changing the definition of a word.  in what way does it affect you ? in what way is it unhealthy ? also if you cannot display that the inverse is true which is that it is insulting for a man why would you think this would be insulting for a woman ? how is this different from androgyny ? if a woman associates as a woman but looks   dresses in a way that does not convey gender cues, you may mistake her for a man.  then you would be corrected and you would use the correct pronoun.  how would that be damaging or insulting to other women ?
this may be because i do not fully understand the concept of  gender , but it seems to me that is nothing more than a politically correct way of applying stereotypes to the members of each sex.  society welcoming men to call themselves women because they feel girly and love to wear dresses, seems like a huge slap in the face to women.  by doing this, it seems to re define being a woman as fitting under a set of personality traits.  personality traits that many women have been fighting hard to disassociate from.  i am a dude btw in the same way that people try to downplay stereotypes of race, and religion, should not we avoid applying specific personality traits such as feminine, emotional, etc to sex.  would not it be best for both men, women, and transexuals to get to a point in society where there are no personality traits associated with  him  or  her , and instead anyone can be who they want to be without complicating their identity ? i do not have statistics on this, but i am assuming there are more gender bender personalities who do not want to be transexual, than one is who do.  would not allowing the idea of being  male  to mean having the stereotypes of a man, cause more suffering among these people ?  #  would not allowing the idea of being  male  to mean having the stereotypes of a man, cause more suffering among these people ?  #  stereotypes are necessary for language, and indeed human thought and general communication.   # i want to point out that  aredefine  is an unfair term here, because the literature on this subject would argue that being a woman has  always  been a social phenomenon.  a good argument for that would be the fact that, although traditionally a  aman  was someone with a penis and a  woman  has a vagina, we do not actually walk around seeing peoples genitals in order to gender them, we gender them based on behaviour.  two points here: firstly i feel like you are using  women  in the biological sense here, which feels like you are equivocating with your earlier usage.  secondly, i think you will be hard pressed to find many women who genuinely wish to abandon  all  stereotypes.  in my experience, they rightly wish to abandon the harmful ones, but there is plenty of stereotypes which seem less harmful and more essential to femininity.  stereotypes are necessary for language, and indeed human thought and general communication.  if you are familiar, think of the borges short story  funes the memorious  about the man with the perfect memory.  to abandon  all  stereotypes would be the render the word  aman  meaningless.   #  a male to female transexual is not a transexual because of gender roles, they are a transexual because they were born with a penis sex and thinks that that is somehow wrong sexual identity .   #  gender and sex are not the same thing.  gender is how society treats you or how you consider your place in society.  sex is actually what you are or how you feel.  a male to female transexual is not a transexual because of gender roles, they are a transexual because they were born with a penis sex and thinks that that is somehow wrong sexual identity .  it is not that they want to start washing dishes and stop mowing the lawn.  this is confused as a concept because  transgender  is treated as actually a synonym for transexual in a way that sex and gender are not synonyms.  if a transexual also feels like expressing their gender as the  opposite gender  then that reflects on other women no more than a cisgender woman is gender expression is a slap in the face of other women.   #  knowing that have you ever felt like less of a man because of this ?  #  /u/ghotier has already discussed the distinction between sex and gender, which in my view is the most important counter argument.  by doing this, it seems to re define being a woman as fitting under a set of personality traits.  i do not see how any one person is sexuality and gender affects any other person.  women have associated as men from long before you were born and will continue to do so long after you die.  knowing that have you ever felt like less of a man because of this ? if you did not, what would make you think that a woman would ? would not it be best for both men, women, and transexuals to get to a point in society where there are no personality traits associated with  him  or  her , and instead anyone can be who they want to be without complicating their identity ? you are describing equality.  i agree that it would be better, though removing the label will not remove the inequality.   #  one person is sexuality and gender wo not really effect anybody that is true, i am not against anyone being transgender.   # women have associated as men from long before you were born and will continue to do so long after you die.  knowing that have you ever felt like less of a man because of this ? if you did not, what would make you think that a woman would ? one person is sexuality and gender wo not really effect anybody that is true, i am not against anyone being transgender.  but what i am talking about is the recent movement of socially and legally labeling people by how they feel internally like recently in ireland .  allowing people to act however they choose is great, but this issue has gotten to a point where pressure is being put on society to completely replace the meaning of basic pronouns.  i do not think this is a good idea for many reasons: 0 because general labels should not characterize people, gender is too obscure of a term to define people, but most of importantly because the language being replaced  her  and  woman , currently refers to 0 of the population.  people may have associated as the opposite gender in the past, but what makes it insulting in this situation is how these new ideas about gender are being forced into society and how individuals are told they are wrong if they choose to use these pronouns as they were originally meant to be used.  i think it is insulting for women to have the very word that defines them legally taken from them.   #  so lets say that we are changing the definition of a word.   # so lets say that we are changing the definition of a word.  in what way does it affect you ? in what way is it unhealthy ? also if you cannot display that the inverse is true which is that it is insulting for a man why would you think this would be insulting for a woman ? how is this different from androgyny ? if a woman associates as a woman but looks   dresses in a way that does not convey gender cues, you may mistake her for a man.  then you would be corrected and you would use the correct pronoun.  how would that be damaging or insulting to other women ?
for this cmv the relevant xkcd URL is not relevant.  what i want to address is the idea that the  principle of free speech  i. e.  open debate without fear of reprisal would be violated by reddit if they banned hate subreddits.  people that make the principles of free speech pfs argument are talking about free speech as an enlightenment ideal.  i get that, and that may be a fair argument to make.  my view: banning subreddits is not silencing speech, it is preventing organization.  silencing speech would be a policy that says any users that makes x and y claims will be banned.  that would be a clear violation of the pfs.  whether or not that is a good idea is not what i am arguing today.  my argument, in concrete terms, is that banning coontown is not the same thing as banning white supremacist comments and submissions, and therefore not banning speech.  there is nothing to stop a coontown poster from going to r/videos and posting white supremacist comments, or a kia poster from going to r/gaming posting sexist comments.  organization does not equal speech.  what will not change my view:  appeals to the first amendment.  we have already established that we are not talking about that.   slippery slopes  if admins can ban subs, users are next   bias  who gets to choose what subs to ban   #  banning subreddits is not silencing speech, it is preventing organization.   #  silencing speech would be a policy that says any users that makes x and y claims will be banned well, that is an interesting point.   # silencing speech would be a policy that says any users that makes x and y claims will be banned well, that is an interesting point.  your argument is, essentially, that people are still  allowed  to make those arguments and claims, but they are not allowed to have a space in which to make those arguments among people who agree with them.  essentially, if i want to argue that black people are dumb i have to make that argument on a default sub.  that is not patently unreasonable, but i am not sure is a great argument for a few reasons: 0.  it makes speech much more subject to real censorship by specific moderating teams.  if the mods of /r/all or /r/pics or /r/politics decide that racist comments are verboten, that combined with  you ca not organize in another subreddit  would effectively censor the speech.  now, if one of the rule changes included that default subreddits  also  could not prohibit that speech, that would be fair.  0.  denying people a place to congregate and discuss their ideas can be considered a form of censorship.  think about if reddit decided that they would no longer allow gender specific subs.  no more twox or trollx, if people want to discuss issues of gender they can go into /r/news or /r/politics or /r/newsubredditmadefordiscussionofgender nsmfdg for short .  but women would crow, because that would mean that instead of having a space for discussion they would be forced to constantly do combat and be downvoted by the men and evil redditors who would also be on those subreddits.  it would effectively mean that women is voices can be profoundly drowned out, and that only the dominant redditor mindset would ever see the light of day.  the only way to arrive at that being okay is if you begin with  this speech does not itself have merit, and so deserves less protection than other speech.    #  if that is no longer the case, the pre existing scenario of censorship becomes a free speech violation.   # subreddits have moderators with censorship powers, which is not a free speech violation  because  anyone can create a subreddit for anything.  if that is no longer the case, the pre existing scenario of censorship becomes a free speech violation.  so, people can post whatever they want anywhere, subject to censorship, and create their own areas with whatever censorship/lack thereof that they want.  but now, people ca not create areas that allow a lot of certain types of speech anymore.  so those types of speech are effectively censored, since  no one is allowed to allow them .   #  what if they forced all of these users into a single sub that no one else could read ?  #  so you are saying that it is not a violation of free speech by the admins not talking 0st amendment here, just free speech on reddit if they force the users of certain subs to move to other areas.  what if they forced all of these users into a single sub that no one else could read ? what if they moved them to a separate site ? you are right that the users could still post, but clearly there are restrictions being placed unevenly on a certain group here, and that is something most redditors want to avoid.  think about it, how valuable is free speech if it only applies to the people you agree with ? the problem redditors have is that all speech should be treated equally and shutting down hate subs just for being hate subs does not do that.  by denying them the same rights of speech as other users, it is violating their free speech on reddit.   #  banning a subreddit restricts the speech of people who disagree with the posters of the subreddit as well.   #  0: group bias/sterotyping.  not everyone who posts in a subreddit agrees with everything said in that subreddit.  a poster in a subreddit may agree with some things or even be posting there to disagree with something.  banning a subreddit restricts the speech of people who disagree with the posters of the subreddit as well.  for example, just because one person posts in a feminist subreddit that they want to kill all men does not mean that everyone in the subreddit agrees with that statement.  banning a subreddit will stop those people from expressing their speech too.  0: any moderation action is a violation of free speech technically.  if you are talking about the  spirit  of freedom of speech than any enforcement of any rule about any type of content is technically a restriction of speech.  the moderators enforcing the rules of this subreddit or the site is rules in general would be a violation of speech.  example: a spammer spams and the admins and/or mods ban the poster or delete the content.  the spammer technically had the principles of free speech violated however most people would not like the website if spammers were allowed to post everywhere.   #  if this is your solution, you have to also be against rules against racism on subreddits like r/videos or r/gaming.   #  first, coontown posters ca not just go anywhere, because other subreddits have their own rules about what you can post.  if this is your solution, you have to also be against rules against racism on subreddits like r/videos or r/gaming.  second, included in the principles of the first amendment is free association, and i think most people believe in it similarly to believing in free speech.  so the same arguments about ideals/principles should apply for association as well as speech.  third, this is minor, but that xkcd is wrong.  free speech does more more than just prevent people going to jail for speaking.  it covers freedom not to speak; limits civil damages; prevents tax breaks based on certain speech; prevents government from funding certain ideas but not others in certain contexts ; lets hate groups put ads on busses if others can; etc.
for this cmv the relevant xkcd URL is not relevant.  what i want to address is the idea that the  principle of free speech  i. e.  open debate without fear of reprisal would be violated by reddit if they banned hate subreddits.  people that make the principles of free speech pfs argument are talking about free speech as an enlightenment ideal.  i get that, and that may be a fair argument to make.  my view: banning subreddits is not silencing speech, it is preventing organization.  silencing speech would be a policy that says any users that makes x and y claims will be banned.  that would be a clear violation of the pfs.  whether or not that is a good idea is not what i am arguing today.  my argument, in concrete terms, is that banning coontown is not the same thing as banning white supremacist comments and submissions, and therefore not banning speech.  there is nothing to stop a coontown poster from going to r/videos and posting white supremacist comments, or a kia poster from going to r/gaming posting sexist comments.  organization does not equal speech.  what will not change my view:  appeals to the first amendment.  we have already established that we are not talking about that.   slippery slopes  if admins can ban subs, users are next   bias  who gets to choose what subs to ban   #  banning subreddits is not silencing speech, it is preventing organization.   #  actually, it would not really do that either.   # actually, it would not really do that either.  if they ca not organize here, they would just go somewhere else, like voat.  you are never going to silence them, which i assume is the ultimate goal of the sanitation engineers who are demanding that these people should not be allowed to speak.  there is nothing to stop a coontown poster from going to r/videos and posting white supremacist comments, or a kia poster from going to r/gaming posting sexist comments.  organization does not equal speech.  so you would rather have these people infesting other subbreddits, rather than having their own to post to ?  #  that is not patently unreasonable, but i am not sure is a great argument for a few reasons: 0.  it makes speech much more subject to real censorship by specific moderating teams.   # silencing speech would be a policy that says any users that makes x and y claims will be banned well, that is an interesting point.  your argument is, essentially, that people are still  allowed  to make those arguments and claims, but they are not allowed to have a space in which to make those arguments among people who agree with them.  essentially, if i want to argue that black people are dumb i have to make that argument on a default sub.  that is not patently unreasonable, but i am not sure is a great argument for a few reasons: 0.  it makes speech much more subject to real censorship by specific moderating teams.  if the mods of /r/all or /r/pics or /r/politics decide that racist comments are verboten, that combined with  you ca not organize in another subreddit  would effectively censor the speech.  now, if one of the rule changes included that default subreddits  also  could not prohibit that speech, that would be fair.  0.  denying people a place to congregate and discuss their ideas can be considered a form of censorship.  think about if reddit decided that they would no longer allow gender specific subs.  no more twox or trollx, if people want to discuss issues of gender they can go into /r/news or /r/politics or /r/newsubredditmadefordiscussionofgender nsmfdg for short .  but women would crow, because that would mean that instead of having a space for discussion they would be forced to constantly do combat and be downvoted by the men and evil redditors who would also be on those subreddits.  it would effectively mean that women is voices can be profoundly drowned out, and that only the dominant redditor mindset would ever see the light of day.  the only way to arrive at that being okay is if you begin with  this speech does not itself have merit, and so deserves less protection than other speech.    #  so those types of speech are effectively censored, since  no one is allowed to allow them .   # subreddits have moderators with censorship powers, which is not a free speech violation  because  anyone can create a subreddit for anything.  if that is no longer the case, the pre existing scenario of censorship becomes a free speech violation.  so, people can post whatever they want anywhere, subject to censorship, and create their own areas with whatever censorship/lack thereof that they want.  but now, people ca not create areas that allow a lot of certain types of speech anymore.  so those types of speech are effectively censored, since  no one is allowed to allow them .   #  by denying them the same rights of speech as other users, it is violating their free speech on reddit.   #  so you are saying that it is not a violation of free speech by the admins not talking 0st amendment here, just free speech on reddit if they force the users of certain subs to move to other areas.  what if they forced all of these users into a single sub that no one else could read ? what if they moved them to a separate site ? you are right that the users could still post, but clearly there are restrictions being placed unevenly on a certain group here, and that is something most redditors want to avoid.  think about it, how valuable is free speech if it only applies to the people you agree with ? the problem redditors have is that all speech should be treated equally and shutting down hate subs just for being hate subs does not do that.  by denying them the same rights of speech as other users, it is violating their free speech on reddit.   #  0: any moderation action is a violation of free speech technically.   #  0: group bias/sterotyping.  not everyone who posts in a subreddit agrees with everything said in that subreddit.  a poster in a subreddit may agree with some things or even be posting there to disagree with something.  banning a subreddit restricts the speech of people who disagree with the posters of the subreddit as well.  for example, just because one person posts in a feminist subreddit that they want to kill all men does not mean that everyone in the subreddit agrees with that statement.  banning a subreddit will stop those people from expressing their speech too.  0: any moderation action is a violation of free speech technically.  if you are talking about the  spirit  of freedom of speech than any enforcement of any rule about any type of content is technically a restriction of speech.  the moderators enforcing the rules of this subreddit or the site is rules in general would be a violation of speech.  example: a spammer spams and the admins and/or mods ban the poster or delete the content.  the spammer technically had the principles of free speech violated however most people would not like the website if spammers were allowed to post everywhere.
for this cmv the relevant xkcd URL is not relevant.  what i want to address is the idea that the  principle of free speech  i. e.  open debate without fear of reprisal would be violated by reddit if they banned hate subreddits.  people that make the principles of free speech pfs argument are talking about free speech as an enlightenment ideal.  i get that, and that may be a fair argument to make.  my view: banning subreddits is not silencing speech, it is preventing organization.  silencing speech would be a policy that says any users that makes x and y claims will be banned.  that would be a clear violation of the pfs.  whether or not that is a good idea is not what i am arguing today.  my argument, in concrete terms, is that banning coontown is not the same thing as banning white supremacist comments and submissions, and therefore not banning speech.  there is nothing to stop a coontown poster from going to r/videos and posting white supremacist comments, or a kia poster from going to r/gaming posting sexist comments.  organization does not equal speech.  what will not change my view:  appeals to the first amendment.  we have already established that we are not talking about that.   slippery slopes  if admins can ban subs, users are next   bias  who gets to choose what subs to ban   #  my argument, in concrete terms, is that banning coontown is not the same thing as banning white supremacist comments and submissions, and therefore not banning speech.   #  there is nothing to stop a coontown poster from going to r/videos and posting white supremacist comments, or a kia poster from going to r/gaming posting sexist comments.   # actually, it would not really do that either.  if they ca not organize here, they would just go somewhere else, like voat.  you are never going to silence them, which i assume is the ultimate goal of the sanitation engineers who are demanding that these people should not be allowed to speak.  there is nothing to stop a coontown poster from going to r/videos and posting white supremacist comments, or a kia poster from going to r/gaming posting sexist comments.  organization does not equal speech.  so you would rather have these people infesting other subbreddits, rather than having their own to post to ?  #  it would effectively mean that women is voices can be profoundly drowned out, and that only the dominant redditor mindset would ever see the light of day.   # silencing speech would be a policy that says any users that makes x and y claims will be banned well, that is an interesting point.  your argument is, essentially, that people are still  allowed  to make those arguments and claims, but they are not allowed to have a space in which to make those arguments among people who agree with them.  essentially, if i want to argue that black people are dumb i have to make that argument on a default sub.  that is not patently unreasonable, but i am not sure is a great argument for a few reasons: 0.  it makes speech much more subject to real censorship by specific moderating teams.  if the mods of /r/all or /r/pics or /r/politics decide that racist comments are verboten, that combined with  you ca not organize in another subreddit  would effectively censor the speech.  now, if one of the rule changes included that default subreddits  also  could not prohibit that speech, that would be fair.  0.  denying people a place to congregate and discuss their ideas can be considered a form of censorship.  think about if reddit decided that they would no longer allow gender specific subs.  no more twox or trollx, if people want to discuss issues of gender they can go into /r/news or /r/politics or /r/newsubredditmadefordiscussionofgender nsmfdg for short .  but women would crow, because that would mean that instead of having a space for discussion they would be forced to constantly do combat and be downvoted by the men and evil redditors who would also be on those subreddits.  it would effectively mean that women is voices can be profoundly drowned out, and that only the dominant redditor mindset would ever see the light of day.  the only way to arrive at that being okay is if you begin with  this speech does not itself have merit, and so deserves less protection than other speech.    #  so, people can post whatever they want anywhere, subject to censorship, and create their own areas with whatever censorship/lack thereof that they want.   # subreddits have moderators with censorship powers, which is not a free speech violation  because  anyone can create a subreddit for anything.  if that is no longer the case, the pre existing scenario of censorship becomes a free speech violation.  so, people can post whatever they want anywhere, subject to censorship, and create their own areas with whatever censorship/lack thereof that they want.  but now, people ca not create areas that allow a lot of certain types of speech anymore.  so those types of speech are effectively censored, since  no one is allowed to allow them .   #  the problem redditors have is that all speech should be treated equally and shutting down hate subs just for being hate subs does not do that.   #  so you are saying that it is not a violation of free speech by the admins not talking 0st amendment here, just free speech on reddit if they force the users of certain subs to move to other areas.  what if they forced all of these users into a single sub that no one else could read ? what if they moved them to a separate site ? you are right that the users could still post, but clearly there are restrictions being placed unevenly on a certain group here, and that is something most redditors want to avoid.  think about it, how valuable is free speech if it only applies to the people you agree with ? the problem redditors have is that all speech should be treated equally and shutting down hate subs just for being hate subs does not do that.  by denying them the same rights of speech as other users, it is violating their free speech on reddit.   #  the spammer technically had the principles of free speech violated however most people would not like the website if spammers were allowed to post everywhere.   #  0: group bias/sterotyping.  not everyone who posts in a subreddit agrees with everything said in that subreddit.  a poster in a subreddit may agree with some things or even be posting there to disagree with something.  banning a subreddit restricts the speech of people who disagree with the posters of the subreddit as well.  for example, just because one person posts in a feminist subreddit that they want to kill all men does not mean that everyone in the subreddit agrees with that statement.  banning a subreddit will stop those people from expressing their speech too.  0: any moderation action is a violation of free speech technically.  if you are talking about the  spirit  of freedom of speech than any enforcement of any rule about any type of content is technically a restriction of speech.  the moderators enforcing the rules of this subreddit or the site is rules in general would be a violation of speech.  example: a spammer spams and the admins and/or mods ban the poster or delete the content.  the spammer technically had the principles of free speech violated however most people would not like the website if spammers were allowed to post everywhere.
as a german, especially in the city i live, there is honestly too many turks and muslims here.  my old school was 0 turks/muslims/guys from eastern europe, which seriously lead to germans being made fun of,  for being german, in their own damn country  but that is not the only example, when i go out, i see as much, if not more, foreigners on the streets.  and by  foreigners , i do not mean anything like scandinavians, or people from developed countries for that matter, i mean all the muslims/turks/romanians, etc.  a little immigration does not hurt, that is for certain.  but if there is more immigrants than natives in any place, something is not right.   i am  not  racist   #  but if there is more immigrants than natives in any place, something is not right.   #  you will probably find more immigrants than natives in a cultural centre, say a turkish cultural centre.   # so at least four out of every five people you see on the street are non germans ? are you being serious or hyperbolic, /u/thething0 ? if you could provide the city is name, i could probably do a quick fact check.  would you like to indulge me ? you will probably find more immigrants than natives in a cultural centre, say a turkish cultural centre.  is that wrong ? should it be at least 0 german ?  #  it is worth noting that, although things like glasses, height, weight, appearance and so on are common features targeted by bullies, the actual cause/motivation is more intrinsic to the bully is life, and any excuse which gives them a victim suffices.   #  mm, indeed.  regarding the bullying, i can definitely see the affront such a thing would cause.  but is there reason to believe romanian/turkish kids are more likely to be bullies ? or perhaps it is that instead of the normal reasons for bullying, it is allowing kids to be targeted for being german ? it is worth noting that, although things like glasses, height, weight, appearance and so on are common features targeted by bullies, the actual cause/motivation is more intrinsic to the bully is life, and any excuse which gives them a victim suffices.  that said, two things: a is the solution restricting the freedom of movement and employment opportunities for large classes of people ? would not targeting bullying and such behaviors specifically be more beneficial ? a0 this may not matter from a specifically german perspective, so it may be irrelevant, but: if we talk a very utilitarian view, not limited by nationality, is just making sure the bullies simply stay elsewhere and bully other people really better for humans/our culture s in general ? b i am still looking up the details, but, regarding the  willeech  claim: to what benefits are these immigrants actually/automatically entitled to, and what are the overall numbers on employment/jobseeking amongst these groups, if you have them ?  #  the  insofar is required here are very big ones.   #  the  insofar is required here are very big ones.  as a rule, cultures change over time due to both internal and external influences.  new things appear which are not strictly the old culture, but no less valueable.  immigrants rarely wholesale replicate their culture of origin in a new country, i. e.  you will find that the culture of turkish immigrants to germany is often something distinct from turkish culture.  think of american chinese food, it is essentially a cuisine unto itself, very distinct from chinese food, which has been added to, and many would now consider a valuable if oily part of american culture.  but  insofar  as immigration will accelerate changes in culture, i expect you are right.  the question is, is changing a culture, alone, enough to qualify as  wouldiminishment  or, accordingly,  harm  ?  #  thanks for the chinese, as they brought yakisoba and will probably bring more in the future, as they are the current main form of immigration .   #  i live in brazil.  thanks for the italians, as they brought pizza and ravioli.  thanks for the syrians and the lebanese, as they brought sfiha and kibbeh.  thank mr sketal, as he brought good calcium thanks for the japanese, as they brought sushi.  thanks for the chinese, as they brought yakisoba and will probably bring more in the future, as they are the current main form of immigration .  it is definitely true that immigration changes a country is culture.  in many cases, as i showed, that change is positive.  while is possible that in some cases, the change may be negative, i do not think that is the general case, specially long term.   #  indeed, not very, at least in the short term.   #  indeed, not very, at least in the short term.  as far as i can tell, germany has about 0 mil, whereas all of eastern europe together adds up to 0 mil, depending on particular classifications.  in the longer view, germany is low fertility rate makes it seem a little more threatening.  but, at the same time, over the long term, people are generally fully assimilated to their new country within two generations.  there is probably a solveable equation for how many people could immigrate permanently per year without germany overall ever become less than 0  people who reasonably consider themselves german  cf.  luxembourg
this cmv is not about whether you or i believe aliens exist.  it is about the widely held point of view: if you do not think alien life exists elsewhere in the universe, you are crazy.  i understand where this view comes from; the universe is so unimaginably huge URL and so filled with galaxies URL and therefore stars, and therefore planets URL there simply  must  be other life out there.  my view is that this approach is fundamentally unscientific and should not be held because it is based on probability and not actual scientific evidence.  my background: i am a physics and astronomy teacher, and i teach about this subject in depth every year.  i think about it and research it often.  i am well acquainted with the drake equation URL the fermi paradox URL and its many possible solutions URL the great filter URL and the debate over alien life in general.  my own belief in the matter used to be strongly on the  of course aliens exist out there  side, but i thought the distances were just too vast for us to ever observe them.  however, my opinion was strongly shifted by the book  alone in the universe  by john gribbin URL and i now think that the great profusion of life here on earth is so rare that we are alone in the universe.  do not get me wrong, i am completely open to the idea of aliens existing.  i kind of hope they do, as long as they do not destroy us all ! but until we get any kind of scientific evidence that they exist   an organized signal, clear alien made trace elements on a planet is spectroscopy, anything measurable   i think the correct scientific approach is that they do not exist.  cmv.  the most compelling argument that i have read below is that because we know life happened once in the universe with us, it could happen again.  physical laws of symmetry point to the idea that there are no unique events in the universe.  i am not sure i agree with that, but it is given me something to think about.  and so the crux of the argument comes down to abiogenesis, life from non life.  is it easy or hard ? could it have happened only once ?  alone in the universe  argues that a lot of things had to go just right for us to exist.  i call these things  wouldrake is denominator  in class the scores of things that went just right for us that might kill the huge totals of galaxies, stars, and planets.   #  my view is that this approach is fundamentally unscientific and should not be held because it is based on probability and not actual scientific evidence.   #  now this it a bit confusing to me.   #  biologist here.  i do not know of any colleagues or peers that have a  strong  affirmative belief in alien life, but i get your general point that it is becoming more common to accept that it is improbable that some form of life does not exist beyond earth.  now this it a bit confusing to me.  statistics and probability are at the very core of how we analyze and interpret data, as well as determine our level of confidence in our results.  now, the belief that there must be some other form of life out there is just a working hypothesis in my opinion.  but it  is  based on evidence followed by statistical reasoning.  we do not know everything about abiogenesis but we do have  some  idea of what it takes for life like what we see on earth to form.  we also know that life exists in a wide variety of conditions and by it is very nature can evolve and adapt, making it pretty flexible.  take those conditions and compare them to the size of the universe.  billions upon billions upon billions upon billions of stars and planets.  it is not at all unscientific to  hypothesize  that life could very well exist in some form or another elsewhere in the universe.   #  i am a big believer in statistics, but i ca not believe we can make any assumptions when our sample is 0 and no theory about how that 0 came to be.   #  i was under impression we do not know what it takes for life to form.  are you saying we know what it would take for a lifeless planet to spawn life ? just because life exists in a lot of places on earth, does not necessary mean we know how it forms in the first place.  i am a big believer in statistics, but i ca not believe we can make any assumptions when our sample is 0 and no theory about how that 0 came to be.  its wishful thinking much like religion is for some, aliens is for others.   #  you are right: statistics and probably are at the very core of how we analyze data.   #  you are right: statistics and probably are at the very core of how we analyze data.  however, in this case, we simply do not have the data on several key points.  to use drake is variables, we do have excellent data on the first few terms: rate of star formation in galaxy fraction of stars with planets a lot ! number of planets that could support life goldilocks zones, some good stats from kepler however, stats ca not be invoked with the next several because we have all of one data point, earth: number of planets that actually do get life abiogenesis fraction of life bearing planets that get intelligent life perhaps 0 as evolution seems to move toward intelligence is this true ? fraction of life that puts out signals into space unknowable ! really ! how could we ever get actual stats on this ? length of time that civilizations exist again, just a total guess.  we almost wiped ourselves out with nuclear weapons, but there are so many other possibilities like killer meteors and local gamma ray bursts but anyway, i am glad you weighed in.  i want to know more about the current state of abiogenesis.  my reading of gribbin is alone in the universe URL opened my eyes to just how difficult it might be to make life from non life.  the case is so extreme that it caused ideas like panspermia to be floated, that life could not have formed naturally here on earth so quickly.  we likely agree that once life starts, it flourishes and diversifies and survives and thrives.  but i am very interested in the current state of the life from non life idea.   #  evolution only  moves toward  what is able to survive given a set of conditions.   #  first, the fact that we only have a sample size of one is an important point that i agree with wholeheartedly when it comes to earth being the only plant we know has life for certain.  but that does not really matter.  as i said, this is only a working hypothesis.  the notion that life is likely to exist elsewhere has little to do with an estimation of how many planets are likely to contain life however.  it is based on what we  do  know about what is required for life to form and whether those parameters are likely to exist elsewhere.  which brings me to this:   fraction of life bearing planets that get intelligent life whoa, slow down pal.  i never said anything about intelligent life.  just life.  even if it is simplistic microbial life.  not necessarily.  evolution only  moves toward  what is able to survive given a set of conditions.  plants have been reproducing and evolving for billions of years, but the weeds in my yard still do not have any consciousness.  now about abiogenesis.  there is a lot we do not know as you pointed out before.  but again, the simple working hypothesis does not require that and is no less scientific than any phylogenetic study.  there is often  a lot  we do not know about the evolution of a given a taxa.  any evolutionary tree you see in the literature is referred to as a working hypothesis rather than an absolute fact by contemporary phylogeneticists.  these rely heavily on nowadays mostly bayesian statistical inference.  but sure, there is a lot we do not know.  although i do not know of any colleagues that really take the old panspermia bit seriously these days.  it is a huge topic with a lot to discuss.  the references on this page URL are some pretty nice resources to read up on.   #  so given our uncertainty about it, that is why i think it is more scientific to assume that it is hard to get life from non life.  because if it was easy, we would have figured it out by now !  # yes, i agree with this.  so basically, is life easy or hard to both make and sustain ? and  alone in the universe  convinced me that it is very hard.  i never said anything about intelligent life.  just life.  even if it is simplistic microbial life.  ha ha, i am with you ! just quoting drake.  if we found basic microbial life, i would take that as good evidence that life is everywhere two data points.  although i do not know of any colleagues that really take the old panspermia bit seriously these days.  it is a huge topic with a lot to discuss.  the references on this page are some pretty nice resources to read up on.  yes, i need to read up a lot more on this.  i figure that if the problem is more decisively solved, there would be a ton of talk about it, nobel prizes awarded, etc.  especially given the creation/evolution debate.  so given our uncertainty about it, that is why i think it is more scientific to assume that it is hard to get life from non life.  because if it was easy, we would have figured it out by now !
this cmv is not about whether you or i believe aliens exist.  it is about the widely held point of view: if you do not think alien life exists elsewhere in the universe, you are crazy.  i understand where this view comes from; the universe is so unimaginably huge URL and so filled with galaxies URL and therefore stars, and therefore planets URL there simply  must  be other life out there.  my view is that this approach is fundamentally unscientific and should not be held because it is based on probability and not actual scientific evidence.  my background: i am a physics and astronomy teacher, and i teach about this subject in depth every year.  i think about it and research it often.  i am well acquainted with the drake equation URL the fermi paradox URL and its many possible solutions URL the great filter URL and the debate over alien life in general.  my own belief in the matter used to be strongly on the  of course aliens exist out there  side, but i thought the distances were just too vast for us to ever observe them.  however, my opinion was strongly shifted by the book  alone in the universe  by john gribbin URL and i now think that the great profusion of life here on earth is so rare that we are alone in the universe.  do not get me wrong, i am completely open to the idea of aliens existing.  i kind of hope they do, as long as they do not destroy us all ! but until we get any kind of scientific evidence that they exist   an organized signal, clear alien made trace elements on a planet is spectroscopy, anything measurable   i think the correct scientific approach is that they do not exist.  cmv.  the most compelling argument that i have read below is that because we know life happened once in the universe with us, it could happen again.  physical laws of symmetry point to the idea that there are no unique events in the universe.  i am not sure i agree with that, but it is given me something to think about.  and so the crux of the argument comes down to abiogenesis, life from non life.  is it easy or hard ? could it have happened only once ?  alone in the universe  argues that a lot of things had to go just right for us to exist.  i call these things  wouldrake is denominator  in class the scores of things that went just right for us that might kill the huge totals of galaxies, stars, and planets.   #  my view is that this approach is fundamentally unscientific and should not be held because it is based on probability and not actual scientific evidence.   #  then you say in your reply to my comment:  of course the probabilities involved in qm are scientific they are based on data, real data.   #  here is what your op says.  then you say in your reply to my comment:  of course the probabilities involved in qm are scientific they are based on data, real data.  i am just saying you cannot say you hold something to be unscientific based on its being probabilistic.  that is unscientific in my view.  we have no basis for making that assumption.  this is not my position you are describing.  i think you are going a little too far, but let is just say i agree with you here: in your op, you said,  i think the correct scientific approach is that they do not exist which is just as dogmatic.  we are not talking about god here.  we are talking about a phenomenon that is known to have arisen once, and does not require supernatural processes.  also, there is a field of science called origins of life research, so it is not as if there is nothing understood about it.   #  but it  is  based on evidence followed by statistical reasoning.   #  biologist here.  i do not know of any colleagues or peers that have a  strong  affirmative belief in alien life, but i get your general point that it is becoming more common to accept that it is improbable that some form of life does not exist beyond earth.  now this it a bit confusing to me.  statistics and probability are at the very core of how we analyze and interpret data, as well as determine our level of confidence in our results.  now, the belief that there must be some other form of life out there is just a working hypothesis in my opinion.  but it  is  based on evidence followed by statistical reasoning.  we do not know everything about abiogenesis but we do have  some  idea of what it takes for life like what we see on earth to form.  we also know that life exists in a wide variety of conditions and by it is very nature can evolve and adapt, making it pretty flexible.  take those conditions and compare them to the size of the universe.  billions upon billions upon billions upon billions of stars and planets.  it is not at all unscientific to  hypothesize  that life could very well exist in some form or another elsewhere in the universe.   #  its wishful thinking much like religion is for some, aliens is for others.   #  i was under impression we do not know what it takes for life to form.  are you saying we know what it would take for a lifeless planet to spawn life ? just because life exists in a lot of places on earth, does not necessary mean we know how it forms in the first place.  i am a big believer in statistics, but i ca not believe we can make any assumptions when our sample is 0 and no theory about how that 0 came to be.  its wishful thinking much like religion is for some, aliens is for others.   #  length of time that civilizations exist again, just a total guess.   #  you are right: statistics and probably are at the very core of how we analyze data.  however, in this case, we simply do not have the data on several key points.  to use drake is variables, we do have excellent data on the first few terms: rate of star formation in galaxy fraction of stars with planets a lot ! number of planets that could support life goldilocks zones, some good stats from kepler however, stats ca not be invoked with the next several because we have all of one data point, earth: number of planets that actually do get life abiogenesis fraction of life bearing planets that get intelligent life perhaps 0 as evolution seems to move toward intelligence is this true ? fraction of life that puts out signals into space unknowable ! really ! how could we ever get actual stats on this ? length of time that civilizations exist again, just a total guess.  we almost wiped ourselves out with nuclear weapons, but there are so many other possibilities like killer meteors and local gamma ray bursts but anyway, i am glad you weighed in.  i want to know more about the current state of abiogenesis.  my reading of gribbin is alone in the universe URL opened my eyes to just how difficult it might be to make life from non life.  the case is so extreme that it caused ideas like panspermia to be floated, that life could not have formed naturally here on earth so quickly.  we likely agree that once life starts, it flourishes and diversifies and survives and thrives.  but i am very interested in the current state of the life from non life idea.   #  although i do not know of any colleagues that really take the old panspermia bit seriously these days.   #  first, the fact that we only have a sample size of one is an important point that i agree with wholeheartedly when it comes to earth being the only plant we know has life for certain.  but that does not really matter.  as i said, this is only a working hypothesis.  the notion that life is likely to exist elsewhere has little to do with an estimation of how many planets are likely to contain life however.  it is based on what we  do  know about what is required for life to form and whether those parameters are likely to exist elsewhere.  which brings me to this:   fraction of life bearing planets that get intelligent life whoa, slow down pal.  i never said anything about intelligent life.  just life.  even if it is simplistic microbial life.  not necessarily.  evolution only  moves toward  what is able to survive given a set of conditions.  plants have been reproducing and evolving for billions of years, but the weeds in my yard still do not have any consciousness.  now about abiogenesis.  there is a lot we do not know as you pointed out before.  but again, the simple working hypothesis does not require that and is no less scientific than any phylogenetic study.  there is often  a lot  we do not know about the evolution of a given a taxa.  any evolutionary tree you see in the literature is referred to as a working hypothesis rather than an absolute fact by contemporary phylogeneticists.  these rely heavily on nowadays mostly bayesian statistical inference.  but sure, there is a lot we do not know.  although i do not know of any colleagues that really take the old panspermia bit seriously these days.  it is a huge topic with a lot to discuss.  the references on this page URL are some pretty nice resources to read up on.
this cmv is not about whether you or i believe aliens exist.  it is about the widely held point of view: if you do not think alien life exists elsewhere in the universe, you are crazy.  i understand where this view comes from; the universe is so unimaginably huge URL and so filled with galaxies URL and therefore stars, and therefore planets URL there simply  must  be other life out there.  my view is that this approach is fundamentally unscientific and should not be held because it is based on probability and not actual scientific evidence.  my background: i am a physics and astronomy teacher, and i teach about this subject in depth every year.  i think about it and research it often.  i am well acquainted with the drake equation URL the fermi paradox URL and its many possible solutions URL the great filter URL and the debate over alien life in general.  my own belief in the matter used to be strongly on the  of course aliens exist out there  side, but i thought the distances were just too vast for us to ever observe them.  however, my opinion was strongly shifted by the book  alone in the universe  by john gribbin URL and i now think that the great profusion of life here on earth is so rare that we are alone in the universe.  do not get me wrong, i am completely open to the idea of aliens existing.  i kind of hope they do, as long as they do not destroy us all ! but until we get any kind of scientific evidence that they exist   an organized signal, clear alien made trace elements on a planet is spectroscopy, anything measurable   i think the correct scientific approach is that they do not exist.  cmv.  the most compelling argument that i have read below is that because we know life happened once in the universe with us, it could happen again.  physical laws of symmetry point to the idea that there are no unique events in the universe.  i am not sure i agree with that, but it is given me something to think about.  and so the crux of the argument comes down to abiogenesis, life from non life.  is it easy or hard ? could it have happened only once ?  alone in the universe  argues that a lot of things had to go just right for us to exist.  i call these things  wouldrake is denominator  in class the scores of things that went just right for us that might kill the huge totals of galaxies, stars, and planets.   #  i think the correct scientific approach is that they do not exist.   #  i currently do not know any good definition as to whether the existence of aliens in the universe is  vitally important  or simply  interesting .   #  the argument really comes down to what your standard of evidence is; i. e.  whether you are swayed by a balance of probability, or whether you require evidence  beyond reasonable doubt .  in a completely different situation, consider the legal system uk perspective here .  in criminal trials, in order to convict you must provide sufficient evidence to prove guilt  beyond reasonable doubt .  on the other hand, in civil trials, a judgement is made on the  balance of probabilities .  the reason that a higher standard of proof is required in a criminal trial is that the consequences of the judgement are much higher they will result in the loss of a person is liberty whereas civil cases will often result in a fine.  i currently do not know any good definition as to whether the existence of aliens in the universe is  vitally important  or simply  interesting .  my sense is that, given the limited speed of light and the vastness of space, intergalactic travel is extremely unlikely, and that even interstellar travel is prohibitively difficult.  to me, this significantly limits the impacts that alien life could possibly have on our species.  even simple communication over such vast distances and with another species would be very complex and time consuming.  as such, i place a relatively low importance on whether or not aliens exist, and my  belief  in their existence is more or less a  meh, probably  rather than a devoted conviction.  my belief in the existence of aliens is based on the balance of probabilities argument, which is essentially what the drake equation tried to do.  thus, my belief in aliens actually precipitates from my  lack of belief  that mankind or any other lifeforms will ever be able to overcome the speed of light.  conversely, someone else might argue that wormholes  could be a thing , and that we could theoretically travel at infinite speeds.  this would make the existence of intelligent alien life much more important, since in a universe where wormhole travel is possible, the potential for interaction would be much higher.  thus, those individuals might place a much higher importance on the existence of aliens, and thus require a higher standard of proof.  neither of the above approaches is truly  scientific ; they are simply the results of applying differing philosophical approaches, and different interpretation of thought experiments and the facts.   #  we do not know everything about abiogenesis but we do have  some  idea of what it takes for life like what we see on earth to form.   #  biologist here.  i do not know of any colleagues or peers that have a  strong  affirmative belief in alien life, but i get your general point that it is becoming more common to accept that it is improbable that some form of life does not exist beyond earth.  now this it a bit confusing to me.  statistics and probability are at the very core of how we analyze and interpret data, as well as determine our level of confidence in our results.  now, the belief that there must be some other form of life out there is just a working hypothesis in my opinion.  but it  is  based on evidence followed by statistical reasoning.  we do not know everything about abiogenesis but we do have  some  idea of what it takes for life like what we see on earth to form.  we also know that life exists in a wide variety of conditions and by it is very nature can evolve and adapt, making it pretty flexible.  take those conditions and compare them to the size of the universe.  billions upon billions upon billions upon billions of stars and planets.  it is not at all unscientific to  hypothesize  that life could very well exist in some form or another elsewhere in the universe.   #  its wishful thinking much like religion is for some, aliens is for others.   #  i was under impression we do not know what it takes for life to form.  are you saying we know what it would take for a lifeless planet to spawn life ? just because life exists in a lot of places on earth, does not necessary mean we know how it forms in the first place.  i am a big believer in statistics, but i ca not believe we can make any assumptions when our sample is 0 and no theory about how that 0 came to be.  its wishful thinking much like religion is for some, aliens is for others.   #  i want to know more about the current state of abiogenesis.   #  you are right: statistics and probably are at the very core of how we analyze data.  however, in this case, we simply do not have the data on several key points.  to use drake is variables, we do have excellent data on the first few terms: rate of star formation in galaxy fraction of stars with planets a lot ! number of planets that could support life goldilocks zones, some good stats from kepler however, stats ca not be invoked with the next several because we have all of one data point, earth: number of planets that actually do get life abiogenesis fraction of life bearing planets that get intelligent life perhaps 0 as evolution seems to move toward intelligence is this true ? fraction of life that puts out signals into space unknowable ! really ! how could we ever get actual stats on this ? length of time that civilizations exist again, just a total guess.  we almost wiped ourselves out with nuclear weapons, but there are so many other possibilities like killer meteors and local gamma ray bursts but anyway, i am glad you weighed in.  i want to know more about the current state of abiogenesis.  my reading of gribbin is alone in the universe URL opened my eyes to just how difficult it might be to make life from non life.  the case is so extreme that it caused ideas like panspermia to be floated, that life could not have formed naturally here on earth so quickly.  we likely agree that once life starts, it flourishes and diversifies and survives and thrives.  but i am very interested in the current state of the life from non life idea.   #  but sure, there is a lot we do not know.   #  first, the fact that we only have a sample size of one is an important point that i agree with wholeheartedly when it comes to earth being the only plant we know has life for certain.  but that does not really matter.  as i said, this is only a working hypothesis.  the notion that life is likely to exist elsewhere has little to do with an estimation of how many planets are likely to contain life however.  it is based on what we  do  know about what is required for life to form and whether those parameters are likely to exist elsewhere.  which brings me to this:   fraction of life bearing planets that get intelligent life whoa, slow down pal.  i never said anything about intelligent life.  just life.  even if it is simplistic microbial life.  not necessarily.  evolution only  moves toward  what is able to survive given a set of conditions.  plants have been reproducing and evolving for billions of years, but the weeds in my yard still do not have any consciousness.  now about abiogenesis.  there is a lot we do not know as you pointed out before.  but again, the simple working hypothesis does not require that and is no less scientific than any phylogenetic study.  there is often  a lot  we do not know about the evolution of a given a taxa.  any evolutionary tree you see in the literature is referred to as a working hypothesis rather than an absolute fact by contemporary phylogeneticists.  these rely heavily on nowadays mostly bayesian statistical inference.  but sure, there is a lot we do not know.  although i do not know of any colleagues that really take the old panspermia bit seriously these days.  it is a huge topic with a lot to discuss.  the references on this page URL are some pretty nice resources to read up on.
all of the focus on combating climate change is ways to reduce energy consumption, alternate technology, and producing fewer tons of co0.  it think this is unrealistic that with a growing population, many countries in their industrial revolution and increasing standards of living we will never reduce our energy demands.  the level of reduction to actually reduce climate change is substantial and even the most optimistic predictions about energy reduction would come close.  reducing energy consumption/increasing energy costs hurts people is standards of living and especially in developing countries where they are already so poor.  i think it is realistic to think that a technology can be developed that scrubs the co0 from the atmosphere and we can control the level of co0 in the atmosphere to the ideal level.  tell me how we can really reduce out co0 to a level that actually reverses climate change without a new technology that scrubs co0 from the atmosphere.   #  tell me how we can really reduce out co0 to a level that actually reverses climate change without a new technology that scrubs co0 from the atmosphere.   #  i do not think anyone is saying that reduction is the  only  thing to think about.   # i do not think anyone is saying that reduction is the  only  thing to think about.  but lets say we invent a new technology that does scrub out co0 from the atmosphere faster than trees ! .  this does not necessarily solve our problems.  whether or not that technology is enough to help before we do irreparable damage depends on both the current level of co0 and the rate that we are adding new co0.  so unless this new technology is so unbelievable powerful that it just does not matter, reduction is still going to be very important.  and yes, we are growing.  so  reduction  does not necessarily mean actually reducing the total usage.  if we reduced the usage per person, but the population kept growing, this would still help by reducing the  rate  at which co0 is added, which buys us more time to invent these other technologies.   #  0, ar0 wgiii spm URL a measure imf research has shown URL is in each nation is own best interest.   #  firstly, i think you are missing a very important point, which is that by definition URL societies are already paying the costs of the externalities of burning fossil fuels, they are just paying in ways that are not readily apparent sick days URL hospital visits, deaths URL malnutrition URL etc.  URL in rich URL and in poor countries URL the highest earners actually do the most polluting, so if carbon pollution is taxed like nearly every economist thinks it should be URL the rich people in those countries actually end up paying more than the poor.  this creates revenue that can be used for a whole host of other, more beneficial uses, including but not limited to helping the poor, which would actually helps those economies to grow URL  original report  URL even in rich countries, simply returning the revenue from a carbon tax as an equitable dividend URL is progressive URL meaning the poor come out ahead financially URL even before you take into account that climate change will URL and is URL disproportionately hurting the poor.  importantly, let is not forget that climate change has real costs URL conservative estimates URL are that failing to mitigate climate change will cost 0 of gdp over 0 years, and if you do not think the poor will suffer the brunt of that you have not been paying attention.  it is even been argued URL that climate change mitigation is necessary to end poverty, and that carbon taxes are necessary URL to mitigate climate change.  lastly, the ipcc states with  high confidence  that carbon taxes are effective at decoupling greenhouse gas emissions from gdp see p.  0, ar0 wgiii spm URL a measure imf research has shown URL is in each nation is own best interest.  it is therefore a false dichotomy to say we have to choose between the environment and lifting people out of poverty, although that is what the koch funded misinformation campaign URL would like you to think.  so please do not be fooled by this rhetoric, and look instead at the science, the data, and the evidence.   #  efforts to reduce energy consumption to combat climate change are not about doing less, they are about doing more with less.   #  efforts to reduce energy consumption to combat climate change are not about doing less, they are about doing more with less.  think about it this way: would you rather have a run of the mill car from the 0 is or today is equivalent ? well, today is equivalent will have much better gas mileage and provide a better experience.  for example, we need to up our food production to support an increasing population.  with hydroponics, we can produce tens of times the amount of food in the same amount of space with a tenth of the amount of water.  i agree with you that things like this ca not be our only solutions but they can certainly bring us a long way  #  it is not as simple as just throwing time and money at the problem.   # what do you mean by this ? could you use this logic on any conceivable technological advancement, or is there something specific about large scale co0 scrubbing that gives you confidence ? what effort do you want to see going on ? is there a specific actual avenue of research that you think would be fruitful but is not getting enough attention ? this is not like a civ game where you just pick  co0 scrubbers  from the tech tree, build a bunch of schools and wait.  it is not as simple as just throwing time and money at the problem.  what are you actually proposing ? in the meantime, every bit of co0 that we do add sets the bar for this hypothetical technology higher and higher.  would not it be a bummer if we came up with a technology which if deployed in 0 would have saved the planet, but in 0 it is too late due to the quantity of co0 released in those 0 years ?  #  so the solutions that make it to the public eye will mostly be reduction.   #  your ratio is way off, i know for a fact that, e. g.  the us epa is researching ways to mitigate methane emissions from lakes, while also researching the merit of concrete impregnated with metals meant to sorb co0.  i would say that a lot of the money i see is in predicting, quantifying, and educating people about climate change.  but capture vs reduction is a wash.  that said, reduction will almost always be way cheaper than capture.  so the solutions that make it to the public eye will mostly be reduction.  but you can just plant more trees.  the more biomass we have as a planet, the less carbon is free in the atmosphere.  it is not rocket science.  it is tree science.
this summer in colorado i have notice a large number of drivers cruising in the left hand lane of major highways, at the same speed or slower than the drivers beside them.  this is, of course, infuriating, illegal on many areas of the highway, holds up traffic, and increases the threat of road rage from the drivers behind them.  let is call these guys left hand cruisers lhc is .  when able to pass the lhc, i generally pass on the right, match their speed, merge in front of them, and then let off the gas.  i begin slowing down, forcing them to slow or merge right in response.  if they refuse to move over, i flash my hazards to get their attention and let them know i am not going to speed back up for them or trick them into thinking i am having issues, whichever.  this usually just results in the lhc realizing what they are doing, merging right, and leaving it at that.  sometimes they try to merge back into the left lane once i speed back up, but i just put the brakes on them again.  the hope is that lhc is will realize that someone driving slowly in the left hand lane is a nuisance, and holds up traffic.  at least they are likely to think about it, and this makes them less likely to cruise in that lane in the future.  even if they do not learn a lesson, and even if they refuse to merge right, this step will allow the faster drivers that were held up before to merge right into the now faster lane and pass the lhc with ease.  the only real risk is of road rage from the lhc, and i have encountered this.  the normal response from them is to swing into the right hand lane, pass and merge in front of me, pedal to the metal.  as long as i do not try to race them or anything, it is just left at that.  they end up moving more quickly in the left hand lane, or at least fast enough that i ca not pass them again, and i leave them alone afterwards.  when i first started doing this, i noticed a significant change in the number of lhc is after a few weeks , and it went from 0 0 each day to maybe one every week.  i felt like i was making a large impact.  with the warm weather returning, their numbers are increasing, so i feel that my  impact  may have been largely selection bias.  however, i feel that it does make some difference, whether in the short run or the long run, and is worth doing.   #  sometimes they try to merge back into the left lane once i speed back up, but i just put the brakes on them again.   #  the hope is that lhc is will realize that someone driving slowly in the left hand lane is a nuisance, and holds up traffic.   # the hope is that lhc is will realize that someone driving slowly in the left hand lane is a nuisance, and holds up traffic.  please read this article from the american psychological association URL to verify whether you are driving aggressively.  there is no harm in assessing one is own behaviour.  there is no doubt that drivers who occupy the fast lane and drive too slowly can be annoying.  but your actions are very unlikely to remedy their behaviour.  in fact, you are likely to distract these other drivers which may result in more traffic accidents than would have happened without your intervention.  for a sobering possibility of what  could  happen, read this article.  URL   even if they do not learn a lesson, and even if they refuse to merge right, this step will allow the faster drivers that were held up before to merge right into the now faster lane and pass the lhc with ease.  this may lead to an accident.  you expect the lhc behind you to switch to the right lane and also expect the cars behind to pass you and the lhc on the right at the same time.  what if the lhc decides to switch lanes while a faster car is passing on its right ? plus, you are becoming an lhc yourself if you continue to block the left lane in order to teach them a  lesson.   you are just adding needless risk to the road.  please drive carefully u/chokfull.   #  it also allows for greater control over the difference in speed between the two lanes, meaning i wo not parallel with cars on the right as the lhc often does .   #  that linked article is an extreme example, but the actions i am speaking of are not acted on in any aggressive manner.  i am not advocating serving, slamming on brakes, or gunning it.  in the case of the lhc, this usually happens when the other driver is too passive on the road,  not  when they are driving aggressively.  e. g.  a stereotypical elderly driver.  this will inevitably happen either way.  cars are passing on the right the entire time the lhc is in the left lane, and the lhc has to get over  sometime .  i am not slamming on the brakes, like i said above, so the speed difference between the lanes does not reach any dangerous levels.  it also allows for greater control over the difference in speed between the two lanes, meaning i wo not parallel with cars on the right as the lhc often does .   #  can you really be certain that, as you put it,  if it creates greater benefit generally safer and more efficient roads to do this, then it is my job, morally, to do this  ?  # that is just not right.  you say that you are not an aggressive driver ? one of the traits from the article i linked to is:  high anger drivers report more judgmental and disbelieving thoughts about other drivers than low anger drivers do.   and then you go on to write in a separate comment: they are deliberately driving slowly in front of other vehicles, causing tailgating and causing others to swerve around them.  you say that you are a utilitarian, so i will try to put it to you in utils.  for as long as lhc is on the road, they will always be a bad/inattentive driver.  but for the time that you are doing your thing, you are also adding negative utility to the total by becoming an lhc yourself.  plus, you are making the situation a whole lot more risky than it would be without your intervention those are a lot of negative utils.  can you really be certain that, as you put it,  if it creates greater benefit generally safer and more efficient roads to do this, then it is my job, morally, to do this  ? no, you cannot be certain of the utility calculations.  so without that certainty it would be best to abandon your behaviour.   #  the only case in which the danger would become significant is if i acted aggressively, such as slamming on my brakes.   #  you are operating under the assumption that i am a much greater hazard than the lhc.  if i get the lhc to move over for five minutes, by way of becoming an lhc for only thirty seconds, that is removing the lhc hazard from the road for 0 minutes, 0 seconds.  well worth it.  when i respond in a calm manner, there is very little extra danger in the situation.  the only case in which the danger would become significant is if i acted aggressively, such as slamming on my brakes.  if i avoid that, it remains a situation of similar safety.   #  as if you can evaluate everything, including all the unintended consequences.   # i am operating under the assumption that you want to drive safely and legally.  it is not your duty to do any of this.  you are not a police officer.  if you want to continue to break the law which is what you are doing in the lhc phase then that is  your  decision.  i am definitely not going to encourage this sort of reckless behaviour on the road.  you continue to assume that your actions do have a positive outcome.  as if you can evaluate everything, including all the unintended consequences.  your behaviour is safe until it is not.  and when that happens you will have no one to blame but yourself.  for what ? the slim chance of actually changing someone is long term behaviour.  in the meantime, you are the one that the other drivers will recognize as just another aggressive, dangerous driver.  if that is what you want, go ahead.  i have nothing else to add.
i do believe people should be treated with decency, but i do not know about complete equality.  first off, i do not think that any two people are exactly equal so any act act of equality is really a false show of compassion, although we are all imperfect.  those who are in control and in power are there for a reason.  they may be primarily of a certain race, or a certain gender, but that was not by accident.  if the weak are allowed to take control of the steering wheel by a helping hand, sure everyone will applaud you and say what a good thing you have done at first.  but, if that person does not know what they are doing they can take other people is lives including their own.  man has done horrible things in the name of dominance, but the act of letting everyone dominate can be far worse.  some people were just meant to lose.  if you want to win, you have to fight and claw your way to the top.  if you are not strong enough, it is a sad thing but find comfort where you are at.  in nature the lion does not pity the hyena, or cheetah if it cannot feed itself.  say the lion sais here, share my meal and ends up starving.  the whole food chain will fall into disarray.   #  if you are not strong enough, it is a sad thing but find comfort where you are at.   #  there is a very specific reason why women still make up a small proportion of members in places such as the us congress.   # if everyone dominates, no one  dominates .  now that that is out of the way:   they may be primarily of a certain race, or a certain gender, but that was not by accident.  there is a very specific reason why women still make up a small proportion of members in places such as the us congress.  the ratio of women to men in congress is roughly 0:0.  that is because, for the longest time, they were not allowed to run for office.  women are equally capable as men in terms of the ability to legislate, so why had they been not allowed to run for office ? they should not find comfort in their underrepresentation, that is just patronizing.   #  example: all other things being equal, an asian needs a much higher sat score than a black for admission into a selective college.   #  the line between opportunity and results is blurred.  that is the source of so many heated debates about redistribution and tilted playing fields.  example: all other things being equal, an asian needs a much higher sat score than a black for admission into a selective college.  some people view that as equal opportunity; others view it as forcing equal outcomes.  which is it ? another example: forcing an upper middle class community to provide section 0 housing.  same question.   #  the female running tests are significantly less, as well as the minimums for push ups and pull ups.   #  the problem is that nowadays there is not a clear distinction of what inequality means.  for example, here in australia in the police recruitment physical requirements for males and females is drastically different.  the female running tests are significantly less, as well as the minimums for push ups and pull ups.  this was of course made this way to allow more females to get into the police force in hopes of a more diverse workforce.  however, even after this was implemented there were still more males that were qualifying for the police force.  so what was done ? well a new rule was implemented that stated there has to be 0/0 males and females by policy, regardless of whether or not the remaining males that did not make the cut were better suited for the role.  on paper this would seem to make a fairer outcome as there is an equal 0/0 in selections, but in reality it creates an unfair scenario where the number of men that apply number over 0, whereas the women applying equal often less than two to three hundred.  the problem in this scenario is that there was already equal opportunity.  anybody, regardless of gender, was able to apply and take the tests to become an officer.  however equal opportunity did not mean equal outcome, and so it was seen as not enough was being done.  so now we are in the situation where its unfair to all of the other applicants that want to be officers and are more suited than a lot of the officers that are, simply because they have a penis.  one would think that simply having an open recruitment would be equal, as this means that the best are chosen, and fairly at that.  equal outcome does not mean equality.   #  this is a perfect example of the distinction between equal opportunity and equal results.   #  this is a perfect example of the distinction between equal opportunity and equal results.  if you have one test for everyone that represents the skills required for the job, that is equal opportunity.  i would say no unfair discrimination is taking place, at least not by the police force.  if someone wants to argue that women are barred or discouraged from honing those skills, that is it is own problem that needs to be handled directly and not made up for by employers.  a better example of equal opportunity might be a college giving more weight to a student who got slightly worse grades under more difficult circumstances, because that can be an indicator of equal or greater competence.   #  but the child is a separate person, who deserves at least adequate nutrition and education in their own right.   #  except that earning the qualifications for the job involved other opportunities.  adequate nutrition and education being chief among them.  whether a person gets those things, and in what quantity and quality, depends upon who their parents are and what their parents have and know.  but the child is a separate person, who deserves at least adequate nutrition and education in their own right.  or if a baby is not strong enough to go out and earn or steal food, and a five year old is not able to move on his own to a good school district, then those children should not get the opportunities to succeed in life ? and what of other small children of wealthy people ? should we allow the parents with money for food and housing in a good school district to provide those opportunities for their children ? the children did not win those opportunities, so they are probably not worthy of the opportunities.
i do believe people should be treated with decency, but i do not know about complete equality.  first off, i do not think that any two people are exactly equal so any act act of equality is really a false show of compassion, although we are all imperfect.  those who are in control and in power are there for a reason.  they may be primarily of a certain race, or a certain gender, but that was not by accident.  if the weak are allowed to take control of the steering wheel by a helping hand, sure everyone will applaud you and say what a good thing you have done at first.  but, if that person does not know what they are doing they can take other people is lives including their own.  man has done horrible things in the name of dominance, but the act of letting everyone dominate can be far worse.  some people were just meant to lose.  if you want to win, you have to fight and claw your way to the top.  if you are not strong enough, it is a sad thing but find comfort where you are at.  in nature the lion does not pity the hyena, or cheetah if it cannot feed itself.  say the lion sais here, share my meal and ends up starving.  the whole food chain will fall into disarray.   #  those who are in control and in power are there for a reason.   #  yes, and very often it has very little to do with being the best candidate for the position.   #  i think you have it backwards.  the  lack  of equal opportunity means that people who do not  deserve  positions gain them for some arbitrary reason.  a society with equal opportunities would be one in which  only  those people who naturally deserved it ie out competed everyone else obtained success and power.  yes, and very often it has very little to do with being the best candidate for the position.  do not you want the best candidate to get social positions, and not a person benefiting from arbitrary luck ?  #  another example: forcing an upper middle class community to provide section 0 housing.   #  the line between opportunity and results is blurred.  that is the source of so many heated debates about redistribution and tilted playing fields.  example: all other things being equal, an asian needs a much higher sat score than a black for admission into a selective college.  some people view that as equal opportunity; others view it as forcing equal outcomes.  which is it ? another example: forcing an upper middle class community to provide section 0 housing.  same question.   #  however equal opportunity did not mean equal outcome, and so it was seen as not enough was being done.   #  the problem is that nowadays there is not a clear distinction of what inequality means.  for example, here in australia in the police recruitment physical requirements for males and females is drastically different.  the female running tests are significantly less, as well as the minimums for push ups and pull ups.  this was of course made this way to allow more females to get into the police force in hopes of a more diverse workforce.  however, even after this was implemented there were still more males that were qualifying for the police force.  so what was done ? well a new rule was implemented that stated there has to be 0/0 males and females by policy, regardless of whether or not the remaining males that did not make the cut were better suited for the role.  on paper this would seem to make a fairer outcome as there is an equal 0/0 in selections, but in reality it creates an unfair scenario where the number of men that apply number over 0, whereas the women applying equal often less than two to three hundred.  the problem in this scenario is that there was already equal opportunity.  anybody, regardless of gender, was able to apply and take the tests to become an officer.  however equal opportunity did not mean equal outcome, and so it was seen as not enough was being done.  so now we are in the situation where its unfair to all of the other applicants that want to be officers and are more suited than a lot of the officers that are, simply because they have a penis.  one would think that simply having an open recruitment would be equal, as this means that the best are chosen, and fairly at that.  equal outcome does not mean equality.   #  if you have one test for everyone that represents the skills required for the job, that is equal opportunity.   #  this is a perfect example of the distinction between equal opportunity and equal results.  if you have one test for everyone that represents the skills required for the job, that is equal opportunity.  i would say no unfair discrimination is taking place, at least not by the police force.  if someone wants to argue that women are barred or discouraged from honing those skills, that is it is own problem that needs to be handled directly and not made up for by employers.  a better example of equal opportunity might be a college giving more weight to a student who got slightly worse grades under more difficult circumstances, because that can be an indicator of equal or greater competence.   #  adequate nutrition and education being chief among them.   #  except that earning the qualifications for the job involved other opportunities.  adequate nutrition and education being chief among them.  whether a person gets those things, and in what quantity and quality, depends upon who their parents are and what their parents have and know.  but the child is a separate person, who deserves at least adequate nutrition and education in their own right.  or if a baby is not strong enough to go out and earn or steal food, and a five year old is not able to move on his own to a good school district, then those children should not get the opportunities to succeed in life ? and what of other small children of wealthy people ? should we allow the parents with money for food and housing in a good school district to provide those opportunities for their children ? the children did not win those opportunities, so they are probably not worthy of the opportunities.
so i was reading this column URL and thought the author had a pretty good point.  i think a good way to better manage federal real estate holdings in particular would be to move the land owned by the government into a real estate investment trust.  the trust would charge rent to whoever was using the land/building at market rates as could be best approximated , and pay its dividends to the treasury.  congress or the president could direct the trust to lease the property as they chose, but the agency or department leasing the property would need to pay market rents.  this would provide a far better accounting for agencies  use of properties, since they would see a budget benefit to being thrifty with buildings.  and it would not hurt the overall budget since the money ultimately flows back to the treasury.  it would also provide a layer of political insulation so that the government can raise the rates it charges private users to prevailing market rates.  i would be ok with some exceptions related to national security, or maybe a separate military reit where the officials have appropriate clearances etc.   #  congress or the president could direct the trust to lease the property as they chose, but the agency or department leasing the property would need to pay market rents.   #  you want to turn congress or the potus into glorified property managers ?  # you want to turn congress or the potus into glorified property managers ? by and large it owns property, which as /u/crayshack mentioned is mostly reserved for preservation.  i suspect that the author of that article imagined this would happen after the libertarians dismantled the epa or some other similar situation which is not currently plausible.  so what we are really discussing is subleasing floors/offices within existing federal buildings  or  renting land in locations where someone would actually rent them.  in terms of subleasing floors and offices, this is a huge safety concern.  i do not know if i need to argue the point or if we can just agree that private parties cannot have access to the same facilities as are used by government agencies.  in terms of renting land where buildings might be created, this is more plausible.  however, there is little valuable property left.  even if we are discussing properties that exist outside of cities within a commutable distance, it also requires that the city add roads, electricity and to make other city needs hospital and police available to that area.  these are all expensive investments.  especially considering that even if clients were acquiring 0 acres at a time, the rent on that land alone would not be very much.   #  but that is usually not how the us operates.   #  you are crossing a line here, and i just want to make sure you realize the implications.  up to now, everything the federal government operates, it does as a service.  maybe it wants to be an efficient service, but the goal is not to maximize profit.  so the government sponsored enterprises are all purpose driven like fannie mae, farm credit banks, etc .  when we bought a bunch of gm, we never planned to hold it indefinitely as a revenue generating state owned enterprise.  we could have.  we could even have levied special taxes on ford to help gm make even more money for the us.  but that is usually not how the us operates.  some states operate liquor stores and lotteries, but only vices they would not really mind killing.  and only at the state level.  of course, many countries do operate that way.  the egyptian military owns companies like hotels, pasta manufacturers, etc.  greece owned a nickel manufacturer, etc.  while your plan has many good features, one worries about the precedent.  will the fedreit decide to start purchasing properties that no government agencies need, simply because it guesses it can rent them at a profit ? will it be politicized, aiming to spur or block development of various areas ? might it become predatory, using tools like  development zone  tax treatment or eminent domain to maximize its profits ? will it behave as an exemplar and spur the creation of a federal stock portfolio ?  #  if it is the opinion of those who write the budget that teh agency can do with smaller offices, then they will give them less money to begin with and move them to a smaller office.   # if your agency has 0 floors of a federal building but could consolidate to 0, you now have a budgetary reason to do so.  that still does not make any sense.  a federal agency paying rent to the tresury simply puts the money back into the federal budget, including the budget given to that agency int he first place.  if it is the opinion of those who write the budget that teh agency can do with smaller offices, then they will give them less money to begin with and move them to a smaller office.  in the end, you have accomplished nothing but adding red tape and some extra paperwork and the expenses associated with filling out all of that paperwork and processing it .  insulating the land from political processes also removes the protection of a conservation approach.  market prices are determined based on an exploitation method and are not relevant to land that is supposed to be using a sustainable method.  why would any company pay the same price for land that they are limited in their usage of when they can pay the same price for private land and fully exploit it ?  #  they might delegate to the trust within parameters, but that is discretionary and ancillary to the ongoing mission of the trust.   # what can congress dictate, and what ca not they dictate ? what powers specifically would this trust have ? for example there are two parts to this, what  can  congress dictate, and what do i think they  should.  this is not a constitutional amendment, and congress has plenary power to dispose of federal lands as they choose.  so they  can  do whatever they want.  i think congress should delegate to the trust the authority to set rents for users of federal real property, to establish leases therefor, and to administer the maintenance of the property.  much of this would be moving staff over from the gsa who perform some of these functions already.  this will likely be delegated to the executive in practice, but under some form of congressional mandate.  selling existing property to private groups ? congress.  they might delegate to the trust within parameters, but that is discretionary and ancillary to the ongoing mission of the trust.  the trust would pay for capital improvements, and increase rent paid to amortize those costs over time.   #  when the accounting fiction is put in place, are individual agencies paid for their holdings ?  #  when the accounting fiction is put in place, are individual agencies paid for their holdings ? for example, if the trust is effecitively  buying  yellowstone from the nps, should not the nps be entitled to either a lump sum infusion into their budget, or 0 years worth or mortgage payments added to their budget ? for example, let is say the nps has spent 0 of their budget over the past 0 years acquiring and improving land.  while, the irs has spent only 0 of their budget in this way.  if the trust just takes the land with no compensation, then the nps will be significantly worse off.
if addiction is a disease, why do most addictions end spontaneously, without treatment ? why did some 0 of heroin addicted vietnam vets kick the drug when they returned home ? it is hard to picture a brain disease such as schizophrenia simply going away because someone decided not be schizophrenic anymore.  imagine a schizophrenic telling you about his condition and you responding by, yeah, i know what you mean, i drink a lot.  it totally absolves any responsibility by calling it a disease and is offensive to anyone with a real disease that they ca not fix by just doing less of something destructive.   #  if addiction is a disease, why do most addictions end spontaneously, without treatment ?  #  please give some evidence of this point.   # please give some evidence of this point.  it is not true for most addictions.    only about 0 to 0 of people are able to quit smoking on any given attempt without medicines or other help.  URL and   a 0 study by the national council on alcoholism is medical journal reported that people attending 0 step treatment programs had a 0 abstinence rate after a single year.  URL   it is hard to picture a brain disease such as schizophrenia simply going away because someone decided not be schizophrenic anymore withdraw URL does not go away just because some decides to not have to deal with it.  the urges do not leave you just because you stop the drugs, nor do all the problems with addiction.  have you ever experienced a mental illness ? the addict is no more absolved from managing his illness as the person with asperger is.  both just require you to have a bit of sympathy and understanding for them.   #  it is wordplay to incite an emotional response, and i do not think we should put up with it.   #  i think it is too much of a corner case to be important imo.  see here is how i see it.  words have an emotional attachment to us, so when we hear that someone has a disease we immediately go into sympathy mode because we inherently think of a disease as something the person has to endure without choice barring a cure.  psychologists seem to have wanted people to have that emotional connection to addiction and so addiction became a disease through wordplay.  yet i think it is disingenuous because the person can use willpower to beat the  disease .  this makes it different enough that it should have it is own word and should not be put under the umbrella of disease.  we can always move goalposts and redefine the word disease to mean whatever we want, but i think we should try to be genuine with it is definition.  i think much the same thing is happening with people who try to redefine racism to mean racism   power.  it is wordplay to incite an emotional response, and i do not think we should put up with it.   #  congratulations on being one of the 0, just because you could do it, that does not mean everyone can.   #  congratulations on being one of the 0, just because you could do it, that does not mean everyone can.  it is actually one of the worst assumptions to make about others.  you just used that you have quit as an argument it was easy, completely dismissing the statistics.  i do notice that once again you focus on responsibility and deny that those suffering from addiction take responsibility for their actions.  you can take responsibility for a problem without having the means to solve it.  that is exactly why i used the above example.  you seem to think taking responsibility for something magically makes in easier to deal with/fix.  it does not.  i take responsibility for my ocd, that did not prevent me from having a break down at home 0 days ago because i lost something important.  a person taking responsibility for their addiction does not make it any easier for them to get over it.   #  ultimately i am talking about free will and by proxy, responsibility.   #  i thought i did, i will be more pointed.  ultimately i am talking about free will and by proxy, responsibility.  my only issue with calling addiction a disease is that it may be construed as an absolvement of responsibility.  i also admit that the definition of disease makes no mention of this, so this is purely a conjecture about how this word is perceived by our culture.  my post should have been titled:  cmv: addiction is purely a matter of free will  i am sure that would have ignited a similar amount of controversy, but would not be a blatant misstep in semantics.  also, here is my final  .   #  would you tell him that hey, this girl did it why ca not you ?  # congratulations: you won the genetic lottery URL in this regard.  here URL is a more layman friendly article about it.  a similar thing happens with food: not only do different people have different basal metabolic rates URL which means that, all other factors being equal, two people can eat the same exact amount but only one of them gains weight , but  the sensation of hunger  differs widely per person.  in extreme cases like prader willi syndrome URL you never feel full  at all , no matter how much you eat.  in more average cases it is just a difference in hunger levels.  imagine that you just had a nice three course meal, and someone gives you a hamburger.  how much willpower does it take to resist it ? i am going to guess somewhere between  none  and  very little.   now imagine that you are given the same hamburger after a strenuous all day hike with no food.  this is how hungry some people feel all the time.  so yeah ultimately we are all responsible for ourselves.  but our  initial conditions  physical, psychological, genetic, etc.  are  so  different that saying  i did it, so you can too  is completely nonsensical.  for instance: i came to the us when i was 0 years old, and totally lost my russian accent within a couple of years.  but i have a decent ear for music and languages, to the point where i will start unconsciously mimicking the more obvious features of regional accents within days of being exposed to them.  but one of the guys i went to school with, who came to the us at about the same age as i did, still had a very pronounced russian accent a few years later.  would you tell him that hey, this girl did it why ca not you ? no, because he  wanted  to lose the accent, just like most overweight people  want  to lose weight, but there are underlying causes which make it orders of magnitude more difficult to the point where, perhaps, the cost benefit analysis stacks up in favor of the status quo in the mind of that person .
if addiction is a disease, why do most addictions end spontaneously, without treatment ? why did some 0 of heroin addicted vietnam vets kick the drug when they returned home ? it is hard to picture a brain disease such as schizophrenia simply going away because someone decided not be schizophrenic anymore.  imagine a schizophrenic telling you about his condition and you responding by, yeah, i know what you mean, i drink a lot.  it totally absolves any responsibility by calling it a disease and is offensive to anyone with a real disease that they ca not fix by just doing less of something destructive.   #  imagine a schizophrenic telling you about his condition and you responding by, yeah, i know what you mean, i drink a lot.   #  alcoholism is not  drinking a lot , though drinking a lot can result in alcoholism, and alcoholism can result in drinking a lot.   # where is the data ? even if they were addicted:   addiction does not always have the same intensity.  people in the military presumably have more self discipline than the average person.  i do not think the ways to acquire heroin in vietnam were the same as in the us.  alcoholism is not  drinking a lot , though drinking a lot can result in alcoholism, and alcoholism can result in drinking a lot.  alcoholism is not getting wasted on weekends.  if you consistently feel like shit every time you are not drunk, ca not say  enough for tonight  and it seriously impacts your life,  then  you have alcoholism.   #  the urges do not leave you just because you stop the drugs, nor do all the problems with addiction.   # please give some evidence of this point.  it is not true for most addictions.    only about 0 to 0 of people are able to quit smoking on any given attempt without medicines or other help.  URL and   a 0 study by the national council on alcoholism is medical journal reported that people attending 0 step treatment programs had a 0 abstinence rate after a single year.  URL   it is hard to picture a brain disease such as schizophrenia simply going away because someone decided not be schizophrenic anymore withdraw URL does not go away just because some decides to not have to deal with it.  the urges do not leave you just because you stop the drugs, nor do all the problems with addiction.  have you ever experienced a mental illness ? the addict is no more absolved from managing his illness as the person with asperger is.  both just require you to have a bit of sympathy and understanding for them.   #  psychologists seem to have wanted people to have that emotional connection to addiction and so addiction became a disease through wordplay.   #  i think it is too much of a corner case to be important imo.  see here is how i see it.  words have an emotional attachment to us, so when we hear that someone has a disease we immediately go into sympathy mode because we inherently think of a disease as something the person has to endure without choice barring a cure.  psychologists seem to have wanted people to have that emotional connection to addiction and so addiction became a disease through wordplay.  yet i think it is disingenuous because the person can use willpower to beat the  disease .  this makes it different enough that it should have it is own word and should not be put under the umbrella of disease.  we can always move goalposts and redefine the word disease to mean whatever we want, but i think we should try to be genuine with it is definition.  i think much the same thing is happening with people who try to redefine racism to mean racism   power.  it is wordplay to incite an emotional response, and i do not think we should put up with it.   #  you just used that you have quit as an argument it was easy, completely dismissing the statistics.   #  congratulations on being one of the 0, just because you could do it, that does not mean everyone can.  it is actually one of the worst assumptions to make about others.  you just used that you have quit as an argument it was easy, completely dismissing the statistics.  i do notice that once again you focus on responsibility and deny that those suffering from addiction take responsibility for their actions.  you can take responsibility for a problem without having the means to solve it.  that is exactly why i used the above example.  you seem to think taking responsibility for something magically makes in easier to deal with/fix.  it does not.  i take responsibility for my ocd, that did not prevent me from having a break down at home 0 days ago because i lost something important.  a person taking responsibility for their addiction does not make it any easier for them to get over it.   #  i thought i did, i will be more pointed.   #  i thought i did, i will be more pointed.  ultimately i am talking about free will and by proxy, responsibility.  my only issue with calling addiction a disease is that it may be construed as an absolvement of responsibility.  i also admit that the definition of disease makes no mention of this, so this is purely a conjecture about how this word is perceived by our culture.  my post should have been titled:  cmv: addiction is purely a matter of free will  i am sure that would have ignited a similar amount of controversy, but would not be a blatant misstep in semantics.  also, here is my final  .
if addiction is a disease, why do most addictions end spontaneously, without treatment ? why did some 0 of heroin addicted vietnam vets kick the drug when they returned home ? it is hard to picture a brain disease such as schizophrenia simply going away because someone decided not be schizophrenic anymore.  imagine a schizophrenic telling you about his condition and you responding by, yeah, i know what you mean, i drink a lot.  it totally absolves any responsibility by calling it a disease and is offensive to anyone with a real disease that they ca not fix by just doing less of something destructive.   #  why did some 0 of heroin addicted vietnam vets kick the drug when they returned home ?  #  there is a question as to whether they were  addicted  vs self medicating based on environmental stresses URL now, before you go saying that this proves your point, i would point out that not all diseases are physical.   # there is a question as to whether they were  addicted  vs self medicating based on environmental stresses URL now, before you go saying that this proves your point, i would point out that not all diseases are physical.  ptsd is almost ? purely psychological, but i do not think you can claim it is not  really  a malady.    yeah, i know what you mean, i drink a lot.   drink a lot  !  do not know how to  not  drink   #  both just require you to have a bit of sympathy and understanding for them.   # please give some evidence of this point.  it is not true for most addictions.    only about 0 to 0 of people are able to quit smoking on any given attempt without medicines or other help.  URL and   a 0 study by the national council on alcoholism is medical journal reported that people attending 0 step treatment programs had a 0 abstinence rate after a single year.  URL   it is hard to picture a brain disease such as schizophrenia simply going away because someone decided not be schizophrenic anymore withdraw URL does not go away just because some decides to not have to deal with it.  the urges do not leave you just because you stop the drugs, nor do all the problems with addiction.  have you ever experienced a mental illness ? the addict is no more absolved from managing his illness as the person with asperger is.  both just require you to have a bit of sympathy and understanding for them.   #  we can always move goalposts and redefine the word disease to mean whatever we want, but i think we should try to be genuine with it is definition.   #  i think it is too much of a corner case to be important imo.  see here is how i see it.  words have an emotional attachment to us, so when we hear that someone has a disease we immediately go into sympathy mode because we inherently think of a disease as something the person has to endure without choice barring a cure.  psychologists seem to have wanted people to have that emotional connection to addiction and so addiction became a disease through wordplay.  yet i think it is disingenuous because the person can use willpower to beat the  disease .  this makes it different enough that it should have it is own word and should not be put under the umbrella of disease.  we can always move goalposts and redefine the word disease to mean whatever we want, but i think we should try to be genuine with it is definition.  i think much the same thing is happening with people who try to redefine racism to mean racism   power.  it is wordplay to incite an emotional response, and i do not think we should put up with it.   #  a person taking responsibility for their addiction does not make it any easier for them to get over it.   #  congratulations on being one of the 0, just because you could do it, that does not mean everyone can.  it is actually one of the worst assumptions to make about others.  you just used that you have quit as an argument it was easy, completely dismissing the statistics.  i do notice that once again you focus on responsibility and deny that those suffering from addiction take responsibility for their actions.  you can take responsibility for a problem without having the means to solve it.  that is exactly why i used the above example.  you seem to think taking responsibility for something magically makes in easier to deal with/fix.  it does not.  i take responsibility for my ocd, that did not prevent me from having a break down at home 0 days ago because i lost something important.  a person taking responsibility for their addiction does not make it any easier for them to get over it.   #  my post should have been titled:  cmv: addiction is purely a matter of free will  i am sure that would have ignited a similar amount of controversy, but would not be a blatant misstep in semantics.   #  i thought i did, i will be more pointed.  ultimately i am talking about free will and by proxy, responsibility.  my only issue with calling addiction a disease is that it may be construed as an absolvement of responsibility.  i also admit that the definition of disease makes no mention of this, so this is purely a conjecture about how this word is perceived by our culture.  my post should have been titled:  cmv: addiction is purely a matter of free will  i am sure that would have ignited a similar amount of controversy, but would not be a blatant misstep in semantics.  also, here is my final  .
and people on the internet in general.  if it is your content, or your identity, or your friends, i get that.  you   your little group are giving consent to uploading your material to the internet.  but that dumpy looking person at the grocery store did not give you permission to post her picture online.  that passed out person on the street probably did not, either.  that random person in the crowd who just so happened to make a weird face the moment you snapped the pic, i am sure he had no clue you took it.  some of these pictures, they make me laugh, but most of them make me think that their privacy has been violated in some way and it makes me sad.  i look upon these people in pity.   yes , they dressed that way to go to the grocery store   be seen by others, that was their choice.   i get it .  but what right had you to pull out your smartphone, snap their picture, and upload it to the internet for the whole world to laugh at ? some of those people have mental illnesses, or other issues.  are they not in enough pain without you possibly adding to it ? i have heard it said that the internet writes in ink.  once uploaded, it may never be truly   fully erased.  by uploading pictures of strangers to the internet, if it trends   goes viral, you are responsible for having permanently compromised any hopes of relative privacy that person may have had.  their shame is compounded, again   again, for your benefit of magical internet points you call karma.  i guess what really strikes me is the blatant hypocrisy.  the malicious intent.  some of you redditors have a big ol  stick up your ass; engraved on its side in big letters are the words  political correctness is paramount; tolerance for all .  when you upload pictures of strangers to relentlessly mock   ridicule, where is your tolerance ? where is that incessant stream of political correctness when it is really needed ? for people who claim to care  so much  about the poor and less fortunate, you really seem to enjoy laughing at them, and i find that dissonance disturbing.  i am unable to reply in 0 hours, as i am going to bed, but i am willing to discuss this when i wake up.  i am genuinely interested to hear what others think.  can you change my view, or will i change yours ?  #  but what right had you to pull out your smartphone, snap their picture, and upload it to the internet for the whole world to laugh at ?  #  freedom of the press, however irrelevant to global events the particular  news , gives the right to document and report on the happenings of public places.   # freedom of the press, however irrelevant to global events the particular  news , gives the right to document and report on the happenings of public places.  that is precisely what gives that right.  if they want to go out in public that way, that is their right, nobody is stopping them, but everyone has the right to document and report things they observe, no matter how inane.  the malicious intent.  some of you redditors have a big ol  stick up your ass; engraved on its side in big letters are the words  political correctness is paramount; tolerance for all .  do you have any evidence at all that the redditors who are saying that are the same one snapping these pictures ? because there is an informal fallacy in grouping together any, well, informal group as a hivemind.  there are some redditors who hang out in subs like srs who will jump on your shit for being intolerant of literally anyone, and other redditors who used to subscribe to coontown before it got banned.  reddit opinion varies as much as opinion between any 0,0 people pulled from the world at random.   #  when i google  definition right  the first noun definition that comes up is  that which is morally correct, just, or honorable.    #  i realize many people on the internet use the phrase  the right  to mean a legal right, but that is not the only usage of the word and outside of reddit it is not the primary usage of the word.  when i google  definition right  the first noun definition that comes up is  that which is morally correct, just, or honorable.   for example someone might tell a lover,  you have no right to complain about me flirting with someone since you cheated on me.   just because more people care about lindsay lohan is embarrassing pictures than john doe is does not mean that lindsay lohan somehow has less of a right to not be photographed in public than john doe.  i  do  think that it is immoral to post random embarrassing pictures of celebrities.  i do not think we should outlaw it, but i will downvote such pictures.   #  i mean, unless you are a 0 y/o boy, what the hell possesses you to do such things ?  # there we go.  that is kind of the start of the reasoning i have developed.  that disdain you have for people who harass celebrities ? that is the same disdain i extend to everyone needlessly taking pictures of others for the sole intent of laughing at them   putting them down.  i mean, unless you are a 0 y/o boy, what the hell possesses you to do such things ? just because you can ? fuck you.  and i know maybe saying  what gives you the right  maybe opened up a can of worms, but it is the only phrase that sprung to mind.  i have heard that phrase plenty of times outside of a strictly legal context.  it is used to convict people, to verbally slap them upside the head, and exclaim what they are doing is very wrong.  and again, it makes me very sad when i used that phrase and people insist,  well it is legal, so it is got to be okay.    #  i might have not touched on, but i do not believe this is a valid claim, as i have heard no tragic stories of meme picture people having their lives ruined.   #  that is right as an adjective.  in the context of the phrase  what gives you the right ?   right is clearly a noun.  using the first definition of the noun  right  from dictionary. com URL you get  a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral:  you have a right to say what you please.    now, it still says  moral  there, but i think the overall point that op was making was ambiguous at best.  the only real thing i saw that i thought was somewhat valid was this blurb:  i guess what really strikes me is the blatant hypocrisy.  the malicious intent.  some of you redditors have a big ol  stick up your ass; engraved on its side in big letters are the words  political correctness is paramount; tolerance for all .  and i addressed that as well.  by uploading pictures of strangers to the internet, if it trends   goes viral, you are responsible for having permanently compromised any hopes of relative privacy that person may have had.  their shame is compounded, again   again, for your benefit of magical internet points you call karma.  i might have not touched on, but i do not believe this is a valid claim, as i have heard no tragic stories of meme picture people having their lives ruined.  now, people getting doxxed because of things they say online, that is another story, but i have never heard of the case of someone from those sort of  you dressed dumb in public and now your picture is on the internet  coming forward and saying that their life was ruined.  and if that is a valid claim, and someone can show me evidence to that effect, i will concede that that is something valid to examine.  but i honestly think that it is a bit of a stretch, at this juncture.  so, i still think that it is ambiguous, when talking about  what gives you the right , as i have never heard that phrase used to talk about moral imperatives, and always about legal permissions to do things.   #  i think scumbag steve was trying to reach out to her   tell her that people were not necessarily using  her  as much as they were using  her image  which conveniently showed the emotion they wanted to portray.   #  i have never heard of the case of someone from those sort of  you dressed dumb in public and now your picture is on the internet  coming forward and saying that their life was ruined.  while i do believe they have been able to move on, the guy behind scumbag steve is actually a really nice guy who was trying to make a rap music video.  the  super excited girl  do not know name of meme was unhappy with her image being passed around   memed, as it was used to complain about dumb girls.  i think scumbag steve was trying to reach out to her   tell her that people were not necessarily using  her  as much as they were using  her image  which conveniently showed the emotion they wanted to portray.  idk, i am still not a fan.  i think people get thrown under the bus on the internet all the time, but they do not  want  to speak up, lest they draw even more attention to themselves.
and people on the internet in general.  if it is your content, or your identity, or your friends, i get that.  you   your little group are giving consent to uploading your material to the internet.  but that dumpy looking person at the grocery store did not give you permission to post her picture online.  that passed out person on the street probably did not, either.  that random person in the crowd who just so happened to make a weird face the moment you snapped the pic, i am sure he had no clue you took it.  some of these pictures, they make me laugh, but most of them make me think that their privacy has been violated in some way and it makes me sad.  i look upon these people in pity.   yes , they dressed that way to go to the grocery store   be seen by others, that was their choice.   i get it .  but what right had you to pull out your smartphone, snap their picture, and upload it to the internet for the whole world to laugh at ? some of those people have mental illnesses, or other issues.  are they not in enough pain without you possibly adding to it ? i have heard it said that the internet writes in ink.  once uploaded, it may never be truly   fully erased.  by uploading pictures of strangers to the internet, if it trends   goes viral, you are responsible for having permanently compromised any hopes of relative privacy that person may have had.  their shame is compounded, again   again, for your benefit of magical internet points you call karma.  i guess what really strikes me is the blatant hypocrisy.  the malicious intent.  some of you redditors have a big ol  stick up your ass; engraved on its side in big letters are the words  political correctness is paramount; tolerance for all .  when you upload pictures of strangers to relentlessly mock   ridicule, where is your tolerance ? where is that incessant stream of political correctness when it is really needed ? for people who claim to care  so much  about the poor and less fortunate, you really seem to enjoy laughing at them, and i find that dissonance disturbing.  i am unable to reply in 0 hours, as i am going to bed, but i am willing to discuss this when i wake up.  i am genuinely interested to hear what others think.  can you change my view, or will i change yours ?  #  once uploaded, it may never be truly   fully erased.   #  by uploading pictures of strangers to the internet, if it trends   goes viral, you are responsible for having permanently compromised any hopes of relative privacy that person may have had.   #  that is right as an adjective.  in the context of the phrase  what gives you the right ?   right is clearly a noun.  using the first definition of the noun  right  from dictionary. com URL you get  a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral:  you have a right to say what you please.    now, it still says  moral  there, but i think the overall point that op was making was ambiguous at best.  the only real thing i saw that i thought was somewhat valid was this blurb:  i guess what really strikes me is the blatant hypocrisy.  the malicious intent.  some of you redditors have a big ol  stick up your ass; engraved on its side in big letters are the words  political correctness is paramount; tolerance for all .  and i addressed that as well.  by uploading pictures of strangers to the internet, if it trends   goes viral, you are responsible for having permanently compromised any hopes of relative privacy that person may have had.  their shame is compounded, again   again, for your benefit of magical internet points you call karma.  i might have not touched on, but i do not believe this is a valid claim, as i have heard no tragic stories of meme picture people having their lives ruined.  now, people getting doxxed because of things they say online, that is another story, but i have never heard of the case of someone from those sort of  you dressed dumb in public and now your picture is on the internet  coming forward and saying that their life was ruined.  and if that is a valid claim, and someone can show me evidence to that effect, i will concede that that is something valid to examine.  but i honestly think that it is a bit of a stretch, at this juncture.  so, i still think that it is ambiguous, when talking about  what gives you the right , as i have never heard that phrase used to talk about moral imperatives, and always about legal permissions to do things.   #  freedom of the press, however irrelevant to global events the particular  news , gives the right to document and report on the happenings of public places.   # freedom of the press, however irrelevant to global events the particular  news , gives the right to document and report on the happenings of public places.  that is precisely what gives that right.  if they want to go out in public that way, that is their right, nobody is stopping them, but everyone has the right to document and report things they observe, no matter how inane.  the malicious intent.  some of you redditors have a big ol  stick up your ass; engraved on its side in big letters are the words  political correctness is paramount; tolerance for all .  do you have any evidence at all that the redditors who are saying that are the same one snapping these pictures ? because there is an informal fallacy in grouping together any, well, informal group as a hivemind.  there are some redditors who hang out in subs like srs who will jump on your shit for being intolerant of literally anyone, and other redditors who used to subscribe to coontown before it got banned.  reddit opinion varies as much as opinion between any 0,0 people pulled from the world at random.   #  just because more people care about lindsay lohan is embarrassing pictures than john doe is does not mean that lindsay lohan somehow has less of a right to not be photographed in public than john doe.   #  i realize many people on the internet use the phrase  the right  to mean a legal right, but that is not the only usage of the word and outside of reddit it is not the primary usage of the word.  when i google  definition right  the first noun definition that comes up is  that which is morally correct, just, or honorable.   for example someone might tell a lover,  you have no right to complain about me flirting with someone since you cheated on me.   just because more people care about lindsay lohan is embarrassing pictures than john doe is does not mean that lindsay lohan somehow has less of a right to not be photographed in public than john doe.  i  do  think that it is immoral to post random embarrassing pictures of celebrities.  i do not think we should outlaw it, but i will downvote such pictures.   #  i have heard that phrase plenty of times outside of a strictly legal context.   # there we go.  that is kind of the start of the reasoning i have developed.  that disdain you have for people who harass celebrities ? that is the same disdain i extend to everyone needlessly taking pictures of others for the sole intent of laughing at them   putting them down.  i mean, unless you are a 0 y/o boy, what the hell possesses you to do such things ? just because you can ? fuck you.  and i know maybe saying  what gives you the right  maybe opened up a can of worms, but it is the only phrase that sprung to mind.  i have heard that phrase plenty of times outside of a strictly legal context.  it is used to convict people, to verbally slap them upside the head, and exclaim what they are doing is very wrong.  and again, it makes me very sad when i used that phrase and people insist,  well it is legal, so it is got to be okay.    #  the  super excited girl  do not know name of meme was unhappy with her image being passed around   memed, as it was used to complain about dumb girls.   #  i have never heard of the case of someone from those sort of  you dressed dumb in public and now your picture is on the internet  coming forward and saying that their life was ruined.  while i do believe they have been able to move on, the guy behind scumbag steve is actually a really nice guy who was trying to make a rap music video.  the  super excited girl  do not know name of meme was unhappy with her image being passed around   memed, as it was used to complain about dumb girls.  i think scumbag steve was trying to reach out to her   tell her that people were not necessarily using  her  as much as they were using  her image  which conveniently showed the emotion they wanted to portray.  idk, i am still not a fan.  i think people get thrown under the bus on the internet all the time, but they do not  want  to speak up, lest they draw even more attention to themselves.
it seems that the prevailing opinion on the us is that its going to hell in a hand basket at record speed and is verging on becoming a police state, an oligarchy, etc.  and the way people on reddit or in the media talk about it you would think that the us has really gone downhill lately and that it is at a particular low point.  i do not think that is the case.  i am not denying that the us is up to some pretty shady shit with the torture of prisoners, the lack of accountability for police, the mass spying, etc.  but the us has always been up to something shady and i would say overall we live in the era were the us is probably the least shady it is ever been.  i mean consider the literal genocide of the native americans, or the tuskegee experiments, the cia brain washing, the brutal and lethal treatment of workers unions, the red scares, internment of japanese americans, goddamn slavery and jim crow laws, practice of eugenics, the banana republics.  this is all just as bad as anything america does today and some of it was even worse.  so while some people act like america is reached a new low, i think they are more just maintaining the status quo and we are just more aware of the shadiness with modern media.   #  and the way people on reddit or in the media talk about it you would think that the us has really gone downhill lately and that it is at a particular low point.   #  i think you are 0 wrong on this.   # i think you are 0 wrong on this.  just because people bitch and complain about legitimate issues, that does not mean people think the us has gone downhill and is at a particularly low point.  gay and trans rights are a big deal now.  there is a lot of heated discussion about homophobia that still exists, people who protest against gay marriage, etc.  but if you ask almost any gay or trans person, they will tell you the situation is worlds better than it was 0 years ago.  similarly, talk to inner city black people in baltimore, or harlem, or oakland.  they may talk about police brutality, unfair arrests, being detained without charges, etc.  but ask anyone old enough if the situation is better than it was 0 years ago, and they will more than likely say  yes.   with the exception of a few areas climate change and government surveillance being two obvious ones , most people would say the us is better today than it was x number of years ago.  a parallel i would draw is with rape.  reported rape has skyrocketed in the last 0 years or so.  it is a much more prominent issue and receives much more attention than it did 0 years ago.  ask any women is rights activist and they will tell the situation is much better now than it was 0 years ago when spousal rape was legal.  that does not mean these people are content with the situation, so they will continue to voice their disagreement where they see fit.  but they will still tell you we are better than we were back in the day.   #  this is not completely over even now, but it is certainly nothing like it was on the 0th century.   #  the income inequality in the us actually is very potentially at an all time high.  this  is  a new development, even if the us is barely approaching the heights of income inequality that the old world has had in the past.  the us was different for a very long time because there was unlimited high quality land in the west.  this is not completely over even now, but it is certainly nothing like it was on the 0th century.  then when us ran out of space to expand it ran in to trouble quite quickly with the great depression, and it flirted with true income inequality right before it.  ww0 was a  huge  equalizer.  piketty is of  capital in the 0st century  fame numbers on this are quite eye opening.  an interesting number to track is the % of gdp that is inheritance.  europe visited almost 0 at times.  this means that if this goes to the top 0, the top 0 is making more than 0x than the average  without ever even working .  think of it as 0 0 person in a typical high school class getting $0k/year after graduating without ever having to do a damn thing.  us after ww0 was hovering around 0 0, but is now pushing in to the 0  range where i do not think it has ever been.  the trend will definitely see it reaching 0 which is something that we have never seen in the us i believe.  i completely agree with you about the other factors though.   #  look at the way we treat all sorts of sexual and gender groups, 0 years ago transvestites were considered freaks to the majority of americans.   #  when it comes to human rights things are so much better than they were even 0 years ago.  look at the way we treat all sorts of sexual and gender groups, 0 years ago transvestites were considered freaks to the majority of americans.  racism is socially unacceptable even in the deep south, where are human rights worse than before ? the world has and always will be improving over the long term, and there will always be those that say it is getting worse.  it is a combination of fixing large problems and now noticing smaller problems and viewing the past through rose colored glasses.   #  also, none of those quotes we are becoming a police state, we are becoming an oligarchy, america is breaking the law  actually imply that america is going to hell in a handbasket.   #  do you have any specific examples where people say the country is worse than it was in the past ? there is always a lunatic fringe that believes anything for example, people who believe in chem trails probably believe we are worse off than before.  if your only response is  i have seen a few people say we are becoming a police state , that is a pretty weak argument especially without any specific examples.  also, none of those quotes we are becoming a police state, we are becoming an oligarchy, america is breaking the law  actually imply that america is going to hell in a handbasket.  all those imply is that there are issues with the us which there certainly are.   #  what if america is not getting worse but people are just reacting different.   #  what if america is not getting worse but people are just reacting different.  someone in the 0 is hearing about natives being slaughtered would think  good  because the 0 is were racist.  someone in the 0 is hearing about black codes were probably thinking  good  because the 0 is were racist.  someone in the early 0 is who heard about the tuskegee experiments most likely did not care or thought  good  when they heard black people were being infected with a terrible disease.  only recently have we put racial bias aside and thought  this is not good .  we were always aware, we just did not give a dang in large numbers
browsing naked bodies casually when i noticed that over at /r/ladybonersgw they require at least half of a guys face to be shown with every submission.  here is the rule with the line that made me go  wait, that does not make any sense.   in bold.  it looks like it is enforced very often.  reasons i think this is shocking and inappropriate:   sharing yourself nude on the internet is super taboo and the vast majority of people who do, for safety and privacy, would never show part or all of their face.    it seems like a really silly and irrelevant way to accomplish no text posts.    if this was a rule on a female gonewild, i feel like there would be some sort of outrage at the invasiveness.  kinda like  i am sharing how much of myself, now everyone feels entitled to my face too ?     as someone who wants to start enjoying the posts, it limits who is going to be posting which is disappointing.    if the point was to avoid  floating dicks  everywhere, which makes more sense than the reasoning they give, then the amount of body shown should be the requirement.  i do not think anyone should have to compromise their identity or do something many would be really uncomfortable with to be allowed to post on a subreddit.  what am i missing that this rule is embraced ?  disclaimer: not an angry submitter or anything.  i want to enjoy an overflowing of peen.   #  if this was a rule on a female gonewild, i feel like there would be some sort of outrage at the invasiveness.   #  kinda like  i am sharing how much of myself, now everyone feels entitled to my face too ?    # kinda like  i am sharing how much of myself, now everyone feels entitled to my face too ?   this is a rule at /r/gonewildsmiles or something like that, i do not remember.  guess what, there is no outrage, because it is not invasive.  if i start a club for s m bondage orgies, and have a rule where you can only come to meetings if you wear leather panties, that is not invasive, it is a rule of the club.  if you do not like it, you do not join the club.  clearly the men that post on /r/ladybonersgonewild are fine with putting part or all of their faces in the posts.  the ones that are not fine with this are free to post in any of the other gone wild subreddits without that rule.   #  in contrast, women do not send pictures of themselves as often.   # let is consider the alternative.  what if only the men who are comfortable sharing their face share and everyone else is filtered out ? those people then go elsewhere if they need to share their body.  in what way would that be invasive or sexist ? also, i think it comes down to supply and demand.  in every dating site, i have heard female friends say that they receive pictures of guy is dicks.  disembodied dicks have flooded the market and they are just not very much of an offering for a subreddit.  in contrast, women do not send pictures of themselves as often.  so /r/gonewild can be alluring without having the same demands.  yes, the sexes are treated differently, but i do not see how it is sexist.  the difference in treatment comes as a response from a contextual behavior, not as an oppression.   #  that is what i find sexy, cute, attractive.   #  as well, from a woman is standpoint: if i am meeting someone from online, or even considering, i always request a pic or two or three of their face.  here is the reason.  dick pics are ridiculous.  i am not going to go on a date with a guy for their dick.  but i will for their face.  that is what i find sexy, cute, attractive.  i can date a guy with a cute face and maybe disappointing penis.  he can learn other ways to satisfy me.  but i ca not date a guy with a good penis and disappointing face.  ca not do it.  so if i am looking at ladyboners or lbgw, a cute smile or eyes or chin or whatever, will get me worked up far quicker than a floating dick pic.  sorry to shit on all those size fights you guys seem to have.  i really like your question.  :  #  lbgw happens to be probably the only one that requires at least some face.   #  you underestimate how many guys want to share their dick pics with anyone who will potentially look at it.  there are plenty of subs for guys to show off in where they do not need to show their faces.  lbgw happens to be probably the only one that requires at least some face.  it is a great thing, imo.  i like looking at bodies, but i most often need to see someone is face to get any kind of sexual satisfaction from a picture.  unless it is zeus is, disembodied pecs or penises are just that.   #  i was under the impression as stated above that you might think that the subreddit is coercing men to include a picture where they might otherwise not feel comfortable.   # i think that is what is happening now.   filtered  if you count a moderator removing the post as filtering.  i also suspect that is what is happening now.  i was under the impression as stated above that you might think that the subreddit is coercing men to include a picture where they might otherwise not feel comfortable.  the alternative is to post elsewhere or not post.  when i said  filtered out  i meant that a person would read the rules, make a decision and avoid posting if they were not comfortable.  i suppose that i am having a hard time debating this point because i ca not clearly identify which part is sexist or invasive.  if there is a coercion component i can understand the invasion.  that is the part that i attempted to debate.  the sexism component is completely lost on me because i do not believe that sexism is just the act of treating people of different sexes differently.
new here, so please correct me if i am doing anything wrong.  before i begin i want to point out that this is strictly opinionated and based off of personal observations.  also my grammar is not the best so please forgive any errors.  the main issue i have with marriage is the consequences of ending it.  i do understand that this can be avoided to a degree with prenuptial agreements however, they are generally frowned upon.  the idea of penalizing someone for ending a failing relationship seems counterproductive to me.  this creates a sense of security to those who have refrained from showing or disclosing certain habits or personality traits to their spouse.  it also encourages many to  let themselves go.   by that i mean things such as weight gain, poor hygiene, addictions, etc.  secondly, i have seen in many cases where there is just no repairing the relationship, yet the couple remains together due to the financial repercussions of ending their failed marriage.  this ultimately leads to a very uncomfortable situation at home, especially for children.  it also in many cases leads to infidelity which brings a plethora of problems itself.  all of that said, my opinion is probably a bit biased due to my now divorced parents  marriage, but i am open to hear other arguments on the issue.  0.  by penalizing i was not just referring to spousal support and alimony but the legal fees as well.  0.  the argument i made was not meant to necessarily knock the institution of marriage because i do think it can work but there does exist many problems with how a failed marriage is dealt with. at least here in the us.  my issue is mainly with society is expectation that long term relationships must eventually lead to marriage when it is not for everyone.  lastly, a few of you pointed out the issues that arise when one spouse stays at home with the children and the other wants out of the marriage down the line.  i do now see more of a purpose for it when the intention is to start a family.   #  secondly, i have seen in many cases where there is just no repairing the relationship, yet the couple remains together due to the financial repercussions of ending their failed marriage.   #  this ultimately leads to a very uncomfortable situation at home, especially for children.   #  marriages ending are not attempting to penalize people, most of the typical  downsides  are actually benefits if you look at them in context.  yes, it sucks that you sometimes need to use the legal system to split your properties in half, but on the plus side, you have a system to ensure you can at least get half of the things the two of you owned as a couple.  there are way is that this can be done without marriage at this point of course, but they still hold the same  drawbacks .  another huge benefit is custody rights.  the argument of  letting yourself go  has nothing to do with actually getting married.  it has to do with being around someone and not having feeling a strong pressure to find someone to be with.  this happens with or without marriage, and its really down to the couple to handle that.  this ultimately leads to a very uncomfortable situation at home, especially for children.  it also in many cases leads to infidelity which brings a plethora of problems itself.  the big issue here is that the alternative is much worse.  this is usually about the person who has a larger income feeling they deserve more of the assets after the divorce, and not wanting to give that up.  yes, it can really suck, but imagine if assets were not split ? especially if there are children involved, things can get very complicated.  imagine a situation with one stay at home parent, and one employed parent.  the couple made this decision because it made sense at the time, but now they are unhappy and wish to divorce.  the stay at home parent has very few technical skills from not being a part of the work force, is the primary caretaker of the child and would likely have custody, and if they were not entitled to any of the assets that the employed parent had, they would really have nothing, despite that they were operating and working as a team.  and yes, i am aware that legal fee is are quite high, and that is really the biggest issue.  that being said, the legal protection is what makes a marriage a risk more safe.  i would be less willing to share a bank account, and all of my possessions with another person if there was not any form of legal protection in place to help deal with that.   #  it seems that your experience has primarily related to marriages that were either one sided financially or the couple took on expenses that strangled them if they ever separated.   #  you seem really hung up on the financial aspect.  i suggest you consider that many people get married with the idea that the union and mutual support is a financial benefit to them both.  my wife and i have this kind of relationship.  we both have careers and being married has given each of us the flexibility to be aggressive in taking opportunities knowing that we can fall back on the support of the other person of it does not work out and have the time to get our career going again.  it seems that your experience has primarily related to marriages that were either one sided financially or the couple took on expenses that strangled them if they ever separated.  that does not have to be the case.  maybe you are not against marriage.  maybe you are against the stereotypical marriage with one big income and one massive house that are both hard to separate from.   #  we shrugged off family pressure and got married for our own reasons, which had nothing to do with assurance.   #  my wife and i were together for 0 years before getting married.  we shrugged off family pressure and got married for our own reasons, which had nothing to do with assurance.  for us, we decided that we wanted to take part in the cultural tradition of marriage and have a celebration of our union with family and friends.  that was really it.  there were also some minor legal advantages to being married.  we would have been perfectly happy not being married but thought it would be fun, and it was.   #  if you do not want the benefits and pitfalls, you do not have to be married to otherwise act like it.   #  indeed, my marriage is set up so that, financially, we are still fairly separated.  our shared expenses are shared, but beyond that, her money is hers and my money is mine, each to do as we please.  it does require a certain level of trust because, depending on the state, she could get in deep debt without me ever knowing and i would still be responsible for it.  but for the most part, a little foresight and a little planning can negate most all of op is fears about the consequences of marriage.  and i have never seen pre nups looked down upon except by insecure spouses to be.  and if they are that insecure about it, then they may not be ready for any of the commitment yet anyway.  and marriage is certainly not a requirement in this day and age.  if you do not want the benefits and pitfalls, you do not have to be married to otherwise act like it.  or you even have the option of having a religious marriage, but without making it official in the state is eyes.   #  my parents are divorced my dad twice , and there are multiple other divorces in my wider family.   #  i get where you are coming from.  my parents are divorced my dad twice , and there are multiple other divorces in my wider family.  given all this, i decided a lont time ago that i was going to be very careful about who i marry, but i do plan on marrying someday.  i think that, while you make some valid points, the lesson to be taken is not that marriage is an unreasonable endeavor but that our society treats it too flippantly.  society tells us that if you are  in love  with someone, a marriage will work itself out.  we dont  communicate to young people that a marriagea is a partnership between two people that takes a whole lot more than just love, including a lot of work and communication.  a marriage can offer a whole lot above an beyond a normal relationship.  completely aside from the financial benefits, by making the commitment to someone, you can strengthen the bond and gain a little securtiy in the knowledge that there is someone who is commited to stick by your side through everything.  but given those benefits, it becomes necessary to be a lot more confident in the relationship than would be otherwise the case.  for example i think it is the height of foolishness to get married to someone you have not co habited with for at least a year.  i also think that in general you probably should not propose to someone who you have not been dating for close to five years.  these numbers are arbitrary but the point they are trying to convey is that it takes a lot of time to build a relationship that is stable and strong enough to support the kind of commitment that marriage represents, and most young people in our society do not get that message because it isn e necessarily romantic.  in summary, marriage is hard, but being hard does not make it ridiculous, it comes with some very serious benefits for that difficulty, it should just be entered into with the full knowledge and understanding of how much work it really is.
new here, so please correct me if i am doing anything wrong.  before i begin i want to point out that this is strictly opinionated and based off of personal observations.  also my grammar is not the best so please forgive any errors.  the main issue i have with marriage is the consequences of ending it.  i do understand that this can be avoided to a degree with prenuptial agreements however, they are generally frowned upon.  the idea of penalizing someone for ending a failing relationship seems counterproductive to me.  this creates a sense of security to those who have refrained from showing or disclosing certain habits or personality traits to their spouse.  it also encourages many to  let themselves go.   by that i mean things such as weight gain, poor hygiene, addictions, etc.  secondly, i have seen in many cases where there is just no repairing the relationship, yet the couple remains together due to the financial repercussions of ending their failed marriage.  this ultimately leads to a very uncomfortable situation at home, especially for children.  it also in many cases leads to infidelity which brings a plethora of problems itself.  all of that said, my opinion is probably a bit biased due to my now divorced parents  marriage, but i am open to hear other arguments on the issue.  0.  by penalizing i was not just referring to spousal support and alimony but the legal fees as well.  0.  the argument i made was not meant to necessarily knock the institution of marriage because i do think it can work but there does exist many problems with how a failed marriage is dealt with. at least here in the us.  my issue is mainly with society is expectation that long term relationships must eventually lead to marriage when it is not for everyone.  lastly, a few of you pointed out the issues that arise when one spouse stays at home with the children and the other wants out of the marriage down the line.  i do now see more of a purpose for it when the intention is to start a family.   #  it also encourages many to  let themselves go.    #  by that i mean things such as weight gain, poor hygiene, addictions, etc.   # by that i mean things such as weight gain, poor hygiene, addictions, etc.  i am with you on the first two, but addictions ? there is no evidence to suggest that people are more likely to become addicted to something if they are in a relationship.  actually in terms of drug abuse, there is  more  evidence to suggest that people in younger age ranges are more likely to abuse drugs.  those groups are less likely to be married.  if anything i expect drug addictions to be the opposite of what you are saying.  i do understand that this can be avoided to a degree with prenuptial agreements however, they are generally frowned upon.  you provided a solution to your own problem.  people who are concerned about protecting their money have to do things which their partner may not like.  it also encourages many to  let themselves go.   the same is true of long term relationships that never married.  with time and a degree of comfort people are less likely to put their best foot forward.  how would ending marriage change this ? if someone is too poor to afford their own place of living, then marriage or not, that will still be true.  if someone is well off and is married without a prenuptial agreement then they might lose money.  it is not that they ca not afford to break up, it is that they prefer to keep the broken relationship and the money than to lose both.  anyone who is this invested in their money either should have had a prenumptual agreement or should accept that marriage is a gamble without a guaranteed success.  ultimately, what would the  functional  difference be if people were not married ? your arguments seem mostly centered around money specifically when there is an excess but that is the easiest of all topics to fix.  also, why does this have to apply to everyone ? why not just  choose  not to get married even though it is an option in the world ?  #  this is usually about the person who has a larger income feeling they deserve more of the assets after the divorce, and not wanting to give that up.   #  marriages ending are not attempting to penalize people, most of the typical  downsides  are actually benefits if you look at them in context.  yes, it sucks that you sometimes need to use the legal system to split your properties in half, but on the plus side, you have a system to ensure you can at least get half of the things the two of you owned as a couple.  there are way is that this can be done without marriage at this point of course, but they still hold the same  drawbacks .  another huge benefit is custody rights.  the argument of  letting yourself go  has nothing to do with actually getting married.  it has to do with being around someone and not having feeling a strong pressure to find someone to be with.  this happens with or without marriage, and its really down to the couple to handle that.  this ultimately leads to a very uncomfortable situation at home, especially for children.  it also in many cases leads to infidelity which brings a plethora of problems itself.  the big issue here is that the alternative is much worse.  this is usually about the person who has a larger income feeling they deserve more of the assets after the divorce, and not wanting to give that up.  yes, it can really suck, but imagine if assets were not split ? especially if there are children involved, things can get very complicated.  imagine a situation with one stay at home parent, and one employed parent.  the couple made this decision because it made sense at the time, but now they are unhappy and wish to divorce.  the stay at home parent has very few technical skills from not being a part of the work force, is the primary caretaker of the child and would likely have custody, and if they were not entitled to any of the assets that the employed parent had, they would really have nothing, despite that they were operating and working as a team.  and yes, i am aware that legal fee is are quite high, and that is really the biggest issue.  that being said, the legal protection is what makes a marriage a risk more safe.  i would be less willing to share a bank account, and all of my possessions with another person if there was not any form of legal protection in place to help deal with that.   #  you seem really hung up on the financial aspect.   #  you seem really hung up on the financial aspect.  i suggest you consider that many people get married with the idea that the union and mutual support is a financial benefit to them both.  my wife and i have this kind of relationship.  we both have careers and being married has given each of us the flexibility to be aggressive in taking opportunities knowing that we can fall back on the support of the other person of it does not work out and have the time to get our career going again.  it seems that your experience has primarily related to marriages that were either one sided financially or the couple took on expenses that strangled them if they ever separated.  that does not have to be the case.  maybe you are not against marriage.  maybe you are against the stereotypical marriage with one big income and one massive house that are both hard to separate from.   #  there were also some minor legal advantages to being married.   #  my wife and i were together for 0 years before getting married.  we shrugged off family pressure and got married for our own reasons, which had nothing to do with assurance.  for us, we decided that we wanted to take part in the cultural tradition of marriage and have a celebration of our union with family and friends.  that was really it.  there were also some minor legal advantages to being married.  we would have been perfectly happy not being married but thought it would be fun, and it was.   #  but for the most part, a little foresight and a little planning can negate most all of op is fears about the consequences of marriage.   #  indeed, my marriage is set up so that, financially, we are still fairly separated.  our shared expenses are shared, but beyond that, her money is hers and my money is mine, each to do as we please.  it does require a certain level of trust because, depending on the state, she could get in deep debt without me ever knowing and i would still be responsible for it.  but for the most part, a little foresight and a little planning can negate most all of op is fears about the consequences of marriage.  and i have never seen pre nups looked down upon except by insecure spouses to be.  and if they are that insecure about it, then they may not be ready for any of the commitment yet anyway.  and marriage is certainly not a requirement in this day and age.  if you do not want the benefits and pitfalls, you do not have to be married to otherwise act like it.  or you even have the option of having a religious marriage, but without making it official in the state is eyes.
new here, so please correct me if i am doing anything wrong.  before i begin i want to point out that this is strictly opinionated and based off of personal observations.  also my grammar is not the best so please forgive any errors.  the main issue i have with marriage is the consequences of ending it.  i do understand that this can be avoided to a degree with prenuptial agreements however, they are generally frowned upon.  the idea of penalizing someone for ending a failing relationship seems counterproductive to me.  this creates a sense of security to those who have refrained from showing or disclosing certain habits or personality traits to their spouse.  it also encourages many to  let themselves go.   by that i mean things such as weight gain, poor hygiene, addictions, etc.  secondly, i have seen in many cases where there is just no repairing the relationship, yet the couple remains together due to the financial repercussions of ending their failed marriage.  this ultimately leads to a very uncomfortable situation at home, especially for children.  it also in many cases leads to infidelity which brings a plethora of problems itself.  all of that said, my opinion is probably a bit biased due to my now divorced parents  marriage, but i am open to hear other arguments on the issue.  0.  by penalizing i was not just referring to spousal support and alimony but the legal fees as well.  0.  the argument i made was not meant to necessarily knock the institution of marriage because i do think it can work but there does exist many problems with how a failed marriage is dealt with. at least here in the us.  my issue is mainly with society is expectation that long term relationships must eventually lead to marriage when it is not for everyone.  lastly, a few of you pointed out the issues that arise when one spouse stays at home with the children and the other wants out of the marriage down the line.  i do now see more of a purpose for it when the intention is to start a family.   #  the main issue i have with marriage is the consequences of ending it.   #  i do understand that this can be avoided to a degree with prenuptial agreements however, they are generally frowned upon.   # by that i mean things such as weight gain, poor hygiene, addictions, etc.  i am with you on the first two, but addictions ? there is no evidence to suggest that people are more likely to become addicted to something if they are in a relationship.  actually in terms of drug abuse, there is  more  evidence to suggest that people in younger age ranges are more likely to abuse drugs.  those groups are less likely to be married.  if anything i expect drug addictions to be the opposite of what you are saying.  i do understand that this can be avoided to a degree with prenuptial agreements however, they are generally frowned upon.  you provided a solution to your own problem.  people who are concerned about protecting their money have to do things which their partner may not like.  it also encourages many to  let themselves go.   the same is true of long term relationships that never married.  with time and a degree of comfort people are less likely to put their best foot forward.  how would ending marriage change this ? if someone is too poor to afford their own place of living, then marriage or not, that will still be true.  if someone is well off and is married without a prenuptial agreement then they might lose money.  it is not that they ca not afford to break up, it is that they prefer to keep the broken relationship and the money than to lose both.  anyone who is this invested in their money either should have had a prenumptual agreement or should accept that marriage is a gamble without a guaranteed success.  ultimately, what would the  functional  difference be if people were not married ? your arguments seem mostly centered around money specifically when there is an excess but that is the easiest of all topics to fix.  also, why does this have to apply to everyone ? why not just  choose  not to get married even though it is an option in the world ?  #  yes, it can really suck, but imagine if assets were not split ?  #  marriages ending are not attempting to penalize people, most of the typical  downsides  are actually benefits if you look at them in context.  yes, it sucks that you sometimes need to use the legal system to split your properties in half, but on the plus side, you have a system to ensure you can at least get half of the things the two of you owned as a couple.  there are way is that this can be done without marriage at this point of course, but they still hold the same  drawbacks .  another huge benefit is custody rights.  the argument of  letting yourself go  has nothing to do with actually getting married.  it has to do with being around someone and not having feeling a strong pressure to find someone to be with.  this happens with or without marriage, and its really down to the couple to handle that.  this ultimately leads to a very uncomfortable situation at home, especially for children.  it also in many cases leads to infidelity which brings a plethora of problems itself.  the big issue here is that the alternative is much worse.  this is usually about the person who has a larger income feeling they deserve more of the assets after the divorce, and not wanting to give that up.  yes, it can really suck, but imagine if assets were not split ? especially if there are children involved, things can get very complicated.  imagine a situation with one stay at home parent, and one employed parent.  the couple made this decision because it made sense at the time, but now they are unhappy and wish to divorce.  the stay at home parent has very few technical skills from not being a part of the work force, is the primary caretaker of the child and would likely have custody, and if they were not entitled to any of the assets that the employed parent had, they would really have nothing, despite that they were operating and working as a team.  and yes, i am aware that legal fee is are quite high, and that is really the biggest issue.  that being said, the legal protection is what makes a marriage a risk more safe.  i would be less willing to share a bank account, and all of my possessions with another person if there was not any form of legal protection in place to help deal with that.   #  i suggest you consider that many people get married with the idea that the union and mutual support is a financial benefit to them both.   #  you seem really hung up on the financial aspect.  i suggest you consider that many people get married with the idea that the union and mutual support is a financial benefit to them both.  my wife and i have this kind of relationship.  we both have careers and being married has given each of us the flexibility to be aggressive in taking opportunities knowing that we can fall back on the support of the other person of it does not work out and have the time to get our career going again.  it seems that your experience has primarily related to marriages that were either one sided financially or the couple took on expenses that strangled them if they ever separated.  that does not have to be the case.  maybe you are not against marriage.  maybe you are against the stereotypical marriage with one big income and one massive house that are both hard to separate from.   #  my wife and i were together for 0 years before getting married.   #  my wife and i were together for 0 years before getting married.  we shrugged off family pressure and got married for our own reasons, which had nothing to do with assurance.  for us, we decided that we wanted to take part in the cultural tradition of marriage and have a celebration of our union with family and friends.  that was really it.  there were also some minor legal advantages to being married.  we would have been perfectly happy not being married but thought it would be fun, and it was.   #  and if they are that insecure about it, then they may not be ready for any of the commitment yet anyway.   #  indeed, my marriage is set up so that, financially, we are still fairly separated.  our shared expenses are shared, but beyond that, her money is hers and my money is mine, each to do as we please.  it does require a certain level of trust because, depending on the state, she could get in deep debt without me ever knowing and i would still be responsible for it.  but for the most part, a little foresight and a little planning can negate most all of op is fears about the consequences of marriage.  and i have never seen pre nups looked down upon except by insecure spouses to be.  and if they are that insecure about it, then they may not be ready for any of the commitment yet anyway.  and marriage is certainly not a requirement in this day and age.  if you do not want the benefits and pitfalls, you do not have to be married to otherwise act like it.  or you even have the option of having a religious marriage, but without making it official in the state is eyes.
new here, so please correct me if i am doing anything wrong.  before i begin i want to point out that this is strictly opinionated and based off of personal observations.  also my grammar is not the best so please forgive any errors.  the main issue i have with marriage is the consequences of ending it.  i do understand that this can be avoided to a degree with prenuptial agreements however, they are generally frowned upon.  the idea of penalizing someone for ending a failing relationship seems counterproductive to me.  this creates a sense of security to those who have refrained from showing or disclosing certain habits or personality traits to their spouse.  it also encourages many to  let themselves go.   by that i mean things such as weight gain, poor hygiene, addictions, etc.  secondly, i have seen in many cases where there is just no repairing the relationship, yet the couple remains together due to the financial repercussions of ending their failed marriage.  this ultimately leads to a very uncomfortable situation at home, especially for children.  it also in many cases leads to infidelity which brings a plethora of problems itself.  all of that said, my opinion is probably a bit biased due to my now divorced parents  marriage, but i am open to hear other arguments on the issue.  0.  by penalizing i was not just referring to spousal support and alimony but the legal fees as well.  0.  the argument i made was not meant to necessarily knock the institution of marriage because i do think it can work but there does exist many problems with how a failed marriage is dealt with. at least here in the us.  my issue is mainly with society is expectation that long term relationships must eventually lead to marriage when it is not for everyone.  lastly, a few of you pointed out the issues that arise when one spouse stays at home with the children and the other wants out of the marriage down the line.  i do now see more of a purpose for it when the intention is to start a family.   #  this creates a sense of security to those who have refrained from showing or disclosing certain habits or personality traits to their spouse.   #  it also encourages many to  let themselves go.    # by that i mean things such as weight gain, poor hygiene, addictions, etc.  i am with you on the first two, but addictions ? there is no evidence to suggest that people are more likely to become addicted to something if they are in a relationship.  actually in terms of drug abuse, there is  more  evidence to suggest that people in younger age ranges are more likely to abuse drugs.  those groups are less likely to be married.  if anything i expect drug addictions to be the opposite of what you are saying.  i do understand that this can be avoided to a degree with prenuptial agreements however, they are generally frowned upon.  you provided a solution to your own problem.  people who are concerned about protecting their money have to do things which their partner may not like.  it also encourages many to  let themselves go.   the same is true of long term relationships that never married.  with time and a degree of comfort people are less likely to put their best foot forward.  how would ending marriage change this ? if someone is too poor to afford their own place of living, then marriage or not, that will still be true.  if someone is well off and is married without a prenuptial agreement then they might lose money.  it is not that they ca not afford to break up, it is that they prefer to keep the broken relationship and the money than to lose both.  anyone who is this invested in their money either should have had a prenumptual agreement or should accept that marriage is a gamble without a guaranteed success.  ultimately, what would the  functional  difference be if people were not married ? your arguments seem mostly centered around money specifically when there is an excess but that is the easiest of all topics to fix.  also, why does this have to apply to everyone ? why not just  choose  not to get married even though it is an option in the world ?  #  this happens with or without marriage, and its really down to the couple to handle that.   #  marriages ending are not attempting to penalize people, most of the typical  downsides  are actually benefits if you look at them in context.  yes, it sucks that you sometimes need to use the legal system to split your properties in half, but on the plus side, you have a system to ensure you can at least get half of the things the two of you owned as a couple.  there are way is that this can be done without marriage at this point of course, but they still hold the same  drawbacks .  another huge benefit is custody rights.  the argument of  letting yourself go  has nothing to do with actually getting married.  it has to do with being around someone and not having feeling a strong pressure to find someone to be with.  this happens with or without marriage, and its really down to the couple to handle that.  this ultimately leads to a very uncomfortable situation at home, especially for children.  it also in many cases leads to infidelity which brings a plethora of problems itself.  the big issue here is that the alternative is much worse.  this is usually about the person who has a larger income feeling they deserve more of the assets after the divorce, and not wanting to give that up.  yes, it can really suck, but imagine if assets were not split ? especially if there are children involved, things can get very complicated.  imagine a situation with one stay at home parent, and one employed parent.  the couple made this decision because it made sense at the time, but now they are unhappy and wish to divorce.  the stay at home parent has very few technical skills from not being a part of the work force, is the primary caretaker of the child and would likely have custody, and if they were not entitled to any of the assets that the employed parent had, they would really have nothing, despite that they were operating and working as a team.  and yes, i am aware that legal fee is are quite high, and that is really the biggest issue.  that being said, the legal protection is what makes a marriage a risk more safe.  i would be less willing to share a bank account, and all of my possessions with another person if there was not any form of legal protection in place to help deal with that.   #  you seem really hung up on the financial aspect.   #  you seem really hung up on the financial aspect.  i suggest you consider that many people get married with the idea that the union and mutual support is a financial benefit to them both.  my wife and i have this kind of relationship.  we both have careers and being married has given each of us the flexibility to be aggressive in taking opportunities knowing that we can fall back on the support of the other person of it does not work out and have the time to get our career going again.  it seems that your experience has primarily related to marriages that were either one sided financially or the couple took on expenses that strangled them if they ever separated.  that does not have to be the case.  maybe you are not against marriage.  maybe you are against the stereotypical marriage with one big income and one massive house that are both hard to separate from.   #  we shrugged off family pressure and got married for our own reasons, which had nothing to do with assurance.   #  my wife and i were together for 0 years before getting married.  we shrugged off family pressure and got married for our own reasons, which had nothing to do with assurance.  for us, we decided that we wanted to take part in the cultural tradition of marriage and have a celebration of our union with family and friends.  that was really it.  there were also some minor legal advantages to being married.  we would have been perfectly happy not being married but thought it would be fun, and it was.   #  and if they are that insecure about it, then they may not be ready for any of the commitment yet anyway.   #  indeed, my marriage is set up so that, financially, we are still fairly separated.  our shared expenses are shared, but beyond that, her money is hers and my money is mine, each to do as we please.  it does require a certain level of trust because, depending on the state, she could get in deep debt without me ever knowing and i would still be responsible for it.  but for the most part, a little foresight and a little planning can negate most all of op is fears about the consequences of marriage.  and i have never seen pre nups looked down upon except by insecure spouses to be.  and if they are that insecure about it, then they may not be ready for any of the commitment yet anyway.  and marriage is certainly not a requirement in this day and age.  if you do not want the benefits and pitfalls, you do not have to be married to otherwise act like it.  or you even have the option of having a religious marriage, but without making it official in the state is eyes.
it seems that most of the american people have no real grip on how society or politics work.  judging by what i see on facebook limited source , people out in public slightly limited source , and on mainstream tv, i feel that most americans have no idea how foreign policy works, how national policy works, how congress works, or how unrealistic their own political agenda is.  people get duped into voting for people whom they do not research, or just vote based on party affiliation.  most notably people vote while admitting politicians are corrupt.  if people are not willing to vote for people who will push real reform then why not just let the corporate overlords finish what we let them start ? it seems we are at a point where whoever the banking/investment firm elite decide get to run, those are the candidates that get funded and we are given the illusion of who we would rather have the left hand or right hand of the financial elite.  let is me also mention how people do not read legislation i. e.  the removal of the confederate flag tennessee battle fag from state buildings.   #  it seems that most of the american people have no real grip on how society or politics work.   #  i would be willing to bet that today, people know and care way more about politics than just about any single point in history since the beginning of time.   # lost the popular vote but won the electoral college so candidates only pander to the states they feel are more beneficial to their end goal and over time this has culminated into a territorial political war where constituents are raised by their surroundings and political reform in their local areas help serve those political leaders and representatives who will keep their state the color they need to it stay.  is not that just an argument to eliminate the electoral college instead ? i would be willing to bet that today, people know and care way more about politics than just about any single point in history since the beginning of time.  with the wealth of information we have available to us, yeah, some people may not give a shit, but it is always been that way.  the difference is that people that truly care can become much more involved more easily than ever before.  do you have the appropriate schooling to be able to really understand what legislation says ? do you think it used to be common for people to read legislation ?  #  the point of a democracy is not to have the most effective government.   #  the point of a democracy is not to have the most effective government.  the point of a democracy is to represent and reflect the will of the people, not just the ones that are educated.  thus, in order to get the best representation of the will of the people, every citizen must be given the opportunity to vote, no matter how uninformed they are.  you are looking for a more effective government, but by doing so, you are ca not have a democratic one.  like it or not, an idiot is opinion counts just as much as yours.   #  how come we ca not vote for ceo is of banking firms if they have total control over our money like the federal reserve does, who mind you, is not part of the federal government ?  #  i think you took it out of context which is not that hard considering this is all through text.  i do not believe i am above other people or smarter than others but it seems like a bad idea to have the ill informed to help vote towards governmental decision making.  during the last presidential election jimmy kimmel went around and asked people in voting lines what they felt about certain ideologies the alternate candidate supported while making it seem the other candidate pushed for it and the people went on and on about how much they liked it i. e.  asked obama supporters how they felt about romney is ideas but making ti sound like obama proposed them.  yes it is a comedy show and yes they can edit good answers out but the f act remains we live in a society where people read headlines without the article, and if they read the article the often do not check the sources.  it seems like a big dog and pony show and whoever happens to get to the top of each major party really does not have autonomy from the big banks, investment corps, or major business interests.  so i am asking why should we really vote if the person at the top does not rightfully represent the people ? how come we do not vote for the judicial branch ? how come we ca not vote for ceo is of banking firms if they have total control over our money like the federal reserve does, who mind you, is not part of the federal government ?  #  asked obama supporters how they felt about romney is ideas but making ti sound like obama proposed them.   # there are many different forms of government all around the world that operate in many different ways.  what may seem  ill informed  to you could simply be a contrasting opinion.  in politics, there is not really a  right  or a  wrong .  furthermore, as somebody else here said: the point of a democracy is not to do what is  best .  the point of a democracy is to represent the will of the people.  asked obama supporters how they felt about romney is ideas but making ti sound like obama proposed them.  while i agree that there certainly are people out there who just vote along party lines or vote for specific candidates due to whatever reason and obama certainly was one of these presidents , using a show from comedy central as an example seems kind of asinine.  but at least you acknowledge that.  so i am asking why should we really vote if the person at the top does not rightfully represent the people ? many people feel the same way though.  the answer here, i feel, is not so much  why bother voting  and more about making corporate sponsorships and special interest groups illegal.  i am a very strong supporter of the idea of removing big businesses from government, especially when the idea of giving up our voting rights is the alternative.  start at the bottom.  get involved.  vote for the people locally who you feel agree with these views.  especially in recent years, business involvement in politics has come under fire rightfully so , but the solution should not be  oh well, it is happening, may as well give up my right to have a say .   #  or by voting for candidate y, you are voting for lower taxes for corporations with the hope that they invest this money in their company.   #  i have always felt that there should be some sort of test to be able to vote.  ie.  do you understand that by voting for candidate x, you are voting for higher taxes to cover lower income people.  or by voting for candidate y, you are voting for lower taxes for corporations with the hope that they invest this money in their company.  i do not think anyone who does not know what the candidate stands for should vote.  no one should simply vote all d or r down the ballot.
today, most central banks base their policy on an inflation rate target of 0.  i believe it should be higher, probably at least 0.  reasons: for an economy to work well, relative prices have to reflect the relative values of things.  for various reasons, prices go up more easily than they go down.  hence, the  average  price level which is what the inflation rate measures must go up at a noticeable rate so that the  relative  prices of things can fall easily where required.  as a general rule of thumb, i believe that as long as prices go down for some category of goods, the rate of inflation is not too high.  the german federal office for statistics produce a nice visualization URL to show how price changes differ across product categories; sorry, it is in german, but the color scale in the top right corner should be understandable.  ten years ago, economists seemed to mostly believe that a 0 rate of inflation was enough to prevent the economy from going into a liquidity trap URL the aftermath of the global financial crisis has shown that belief to be false.  a higher rate of inflation is useful.  the most common argument against inflation is that it erodes the value of stored money.  for me, this is a  good thing .  if you store a bunch of cash under your matress, that money is taken out of circulation, and you are a drag against the economy.  you  should  pay for that.  if you do not like it, put the money into real world investments maybe indirectly via funds .  no particular reason for the 0 specifically, by the way.  the exact number should probably be determined empirically by looking at when prices start to rise in  all  product categories, across the board.   #  today, most central banks base their policy on an inflation rate target of 0.   #  small quibble but most do not, only the most well developed countries can achieve such a target and most target significantly higher.   # small quibble but most do not, only the most well developed countries can achieve such a target and most target significantly higher.  only really wages.  the purpose of a positive rate of inflation is to encourage consumption and to build in a buffer to allow for the delay in monetary policy it takes upwards of 0 months for a change in monetary policy to start impacting the real economy .  inflation itself is not an economic benefit poisonous to growth, causes significant problems with savings   capital availability , its just that deflation is far worse so we design monetary policy to avoid deflation.  in regards to the rates last decade many economists voiced concerns regarding the fed not acting aggressively enough to combat the bubble, the five main reasons they did not do so;   the employment component of their mandate, increasing the target rate would have increased unemployment.  there was a vision failure in regards to the nature of the bubble, the fed argued that because housing prices had never fallen across the entire country at the same time the bubble would simply deflate rather then pop.  greenspan was unconvinced of the ability of the fed to distinguish between a bubble and growth itself, aka irrational exuberance.  greenspan had entirely lost confidence in the ability of the fed to effectively deal with bubbles after they deflated an equities bubble in  0 only to have it return in  0.  the response to the  0 almost not a recession was too aggressive and rates crashed from 0 to 0, raising rates too quickly is itself a dangerous proposition so their ability to increase rates 0 0 was fairly limited.  since the last recession income targets URL the monetary system we very nearly switched to in the 0 is, are back under discussion with growing support within the fed and a great deal of evidence showing they would be a great deal more effective at managing monetary policy.  the uk switched in 0 which is why their rate of inflation looks like someone got drunk while trying to plot it.  while income targets tend to cause higher rates of inflation its far less of a problem as there is no inflation expectations and there is no monetary policy delay, we do not see the same growth or saving problems with inflation.  your target would be  extremely  high, non durable is are always low and several are perpetually negative.  generally we do not care about these as they do not reduce mpc, people do not delay the consumption of food because its getting cheaper.  keep in mind also that wage increases only occur with churn, the delayed response means that higher rates of inflation can result in falling real wages.   #  empirically, monetary policy was not able to get out of the liquidity trap once it set in after the global financial crisis.   # that just sounds wrong to me.  empirically, monetary policy was not able to get out of the liquidity trap once it set in after the global financial crisis.  i am looking at all the struggle with the various qes, in particular.  their lack of effect seems to demonstrate my point quite clearly.  that makes sense.  you would be looking at where all product categories but a very small fraction of outliers have rising prices on average.  i get the concern about falling real wages, but i think it depends very much on  how  inflation materializes, which is not really the topic of discussion here.  it is possible that salaries/wages are the first to rise.   #  eg two of them and boe claim the channel bernanke was looking to act on, the portfolio channel, was not in play.   # empirically, monetary policy was not able to get out of the liquidity trap once it set in after the global financial crisis.  i am looking at all the struggle with the various qes, in particular.  their lack of effect seems to demonstrate my point quite clearly.  while we do not fully understand the channels it worked through qe did indeed work, the effective rate URL dropped below the zlb and rates elsewhere URL fell.  japan broke their 0 year deflationary spiral with qe too, in japan is case its believed it was the expectations channel at work which signaled higher future inflation.  the academic problem with qe is that there is not agreement which channels it works through, we can see it worked but even the regional fed banks do not agree on the channels at work.  eg two of them and boe claim the channel bernanke was looking to act on, the portfolio channel, was not in play.  its probably going to be decades until we know how it really works.   #  on the other hand, if you have an economic boom of 0 a year real output growth, the central bank will actually target 0 a year deflation to put the brakes on things.   #  rather than a specific inflation target, there is a pretty good case to be made for targeting a specific level of nominal gdp growth.  scott sumner makes a good case for it in this paper URL the idea being that the central bank sets a target for the growth of gdp in nominal dollars, which is a relatively easy thing to measure, and prints or destroys enough money to keep to about that target.  it automatically tightens or loosens monetary policy based on growth.  say you have a 0 ngdp target.  in a bad recession where real output shrinks 0, you would then have the central bank going for 0 inflation, which is a very high rate to sustain, but necessary in a deep crisis.  on the other hand, if you have an economic boom of 0 a year real output growth, the central bank will actually target 0 a year deflation to put the brakes on things.  targeting deflation outside of a huge boom would be a terrible idea, but when things are way overheated, it can keep bubbles from forming/growing.   #  a country with a fast growing population naturally has faster gdp growth than one in which the population grows more slowly or even declines.   #  interesting, thank you for the input.  since that policy looks so completely different, it will probably take some time for me to form an opinion.  a couple of questions: i take it that the problem of relative price adjustment which i mentioned is not really addressed by ngdp targeting, right ? also, why should this ngdp target be independent of real considerations ? at the very least, for example, gdp obviously depends on the population.  a country with a fast growing population naturally has faster gdp growth than one in which the population grows more slowly or even declines.  i do not see why it would make sense to automatically put a break on the country whose population is growing faster.  similarly, should not real productivity gains be accounted for ? i appreciate the desire to throttle growth that is fuelled by a credit or asset bubble, but how do you actually distinguish a bubble from genuine underlying improvements in technology or just plain population growth ?
today, most central banks base their policy on an inflation rate target of 0.  i believe it should be higher, probably at least 0.  reasons: for an economy to work well, relative prices have to reflect the relative values of things.  for various reasons, prices go up more easily than they go down.  hence, the  average  price level which is what the inflation rate measures must go up at a noticeable rate so that the  relative  prices of things can fall easily where required.  as a general rule of thumb, i believe that as long as prices go down for some category of goods, the rate of inflation is not too high.  the german federal office for statistics produce a nice visualization URL to show how price changes differ across product categories; sorry, it is in german, but the color scale in the top right corner should be understandable.  ten years ago, economists seemed to mostly believe that a 0 rate of inflation was enough to prevent the economy from going into a liquidity trap URL the aftermath of the global financial crisis has shown that belief to be false.  a higher rate of inflation is useful.  the most common argument against inflation is that it erodes the value of stored money.  for me, this is a  good thing .  if you store a bunch of cash under your matress, that money is taken out of circulation, and you are a drag against the economy.  you  should  pay for that.  if you do not like it, put the money into real world investments maybe indirectly via funds .  no particular reason for the 0 specifically, by the way.  the exact number should probably be determined empirically by looking at when prices start to rise in  all  product categories, across the board.   #  as a general rule of thumb, i believe that as long as prices go down for some category of goods, the rate of inflation is not too high.   #  the purpose of a positive rate of inflation is to encourage consumption and to build in a buffer to allow for the delay in monetary policy it takes upwards of 0 months for a change in monetary policy to start impacting the real economy .   # small quibble but most do not, only the most well developed countries can achieve such a target and most target significantly higher.  only really wages.  the purpose of a positive rate of inflation is to encourage consumption and to build in a buffer to allow for the delay in monetary policy it takes upwards of 0 months for a change in monetary policy to start impacting the real economy .  inflation itself is not an economic benefit poisonous to growth, causes significant problems with savings   capital availability , its just that deflation is far worse so we design monetary policy to avoid deflation.  in regards to the rates last decade many economists voiced concerns regarding the fed not acting aggressively enough to combat the bubble, the five main reasons they did not do so;   the employment component of their mandate, increasing the target rate would have increased unemployment.  there was a vision failure in regards to the nature of the bubble, the fed argued that because housing prices had never fallen across the entire country at the same time the bubble would simply deflate rather then pop.  greenspan was unconvinced of the ability of the fed to distinguish between a bubble and growth itself, aka irrational exuberance.  greenspan had entirely lost confidence in the ability of the fed to effectively deal with bubbles after they deflated an equities bubble in  0 only to have it return in  0.  the response to the  0 almost not a recession was too aggressive and rates crashed from 0 to 0, raising rates too quickly is itself a dangerous proposition so their ability to increase rates 0 0 was fairly limited.  since the last recession income targets URL the monetary system we very nearly switched to in the 0 is, are back under discussion with growing support within the fed and a great deal of evidence showing they would be a great deal more effective at managing monetary policy.  the uk switched in 0 which is why their rate of inflation looks like someone got drunk while trying to plot it.  while income targets tend to cause higher rates of inflation its far less of a problem as there is no inflation expectations and there is no monetary policy delay, we do not see the same growth or saving problems with inflation.  your target would be  extremely  high, non durable is are always low and several are perpetually negative.  generally we do not care about these as they do not reduce mpc, people do not delay the consumption of food because its getting cheaper.  keep in mind also that wage increases only occur with churn, the delayed response means that higher rates of inflation can result in falling real wages.   #  i am looking at all the struggle with the various qes, in particular.   # that just sounds wrong to me.  empirically, monetary policy was not able to get out of the liquidity trap once it set in after the global financial crisis.  i am looking at all the struggle with the various qes, in particular.  their lack of effect seems to demonstrate my point quite clearly.  that makes sense.  you would be looking at where all product categories but a very small fraction of outliers have rising prices on average.  i get the concern about falling real wages, but i think it depends very much on  how  inflation materializes, which is not really the topic of discussion here.  it is possible that salaries/wages are the first to rise.   #  i am looking at all the struggle with the various qes, in particular.   # empirically, monetary policy was not able to get out of the liquidity trap once it set in after the global financial crisis.  i am looking at all the struggle with the various qes, in particular.  their lack of effect seems to demonstrate my point quite clearly.  while we do not fully understand the channels it worked through qe did indeed work, the effective rate URL dropped below the zlb and rates elsewhere URL fell.  japan broke their 0 year deflationary spiral with qe too, in japan is case its believed it was the expectations channel at work which signaled higher future inflation.  the academic problem with qe is that there is not agreement which channels it works through, we can see it worked but even the regional fed banks do not agree on the channels at work.  eg two of them and boe claim the channel bernanke was looking to act on, the portfolio channel, was not in play.  its probably going to be decades until we know how it really works.   #  targeting deflation outside of a huge boom would be a terrible idea, but when things are way overheated, it can keep bubbles from forming/growing.   #  rather than a specific inflation target, there is a pretty good case to be made for targeting a specific level of nominal gdp growth.  scott sumner makes a good case for it in this paper URL the idea being that the central bank sets a target for the growth of gdp in nominal dollars, which is a relatively easy thing to measure, and prints or destroys enough money to keep to about that target.  it automatically tightens or loosens monetary policy based on growth.  say you have a 0 ngdp target.  in a bad recession where real output shrinks 0, you would then have the central bank going for 0 inflation, which is a very high rate to sustain, but necessary in a deep crisis.  on the other hand, if you have an economic boom of 0 a year real output growth, the central bank will actually target 0 a year deflation to put the brakes on things.  targeting deflation outside of a huge boom would be a terrible idea, but when things are way overheated, it can keep bubbles from forming/growing.   #  since that policy looks so completely different, it will probably take some time for me to form an opinion.   #  interesting, thank you for the input.  since that policy looks so completely different, it will probably take some time for me to form an opinion.  a couple of questions: i take it that the problem of relative price adjustment which i mentioned is not really addressed by ngdp targeting, right ? also, why should this ngdp target be independent of real considerations ? at the very least, for example, gdp obviously depends on the population.  a country with a fast growing population naturally has faster gdp growth than one in which the population grows more slowly or even declines.  i do not see why it would make sense to automatically put a break on the country whose population is growing faster.  similarly, should not real productivity gains be accounted for ? i appreciate the desire to throttle growth that is fuelled by a credit or asset bubble, but how do you actually distinguish a bubble from genuine underlying improvements in technology or just plain population growth ?
the  idaho stop  means that cyclist may treat stop signs as yield signs, and stop lights as stop signs.  i feel that the pros from the wiki article URL summarize my views perfectly: pros   because of the positive externalities of cycling, bicycle laws should be designed to allow cyclists to travel swiftly and easily, and this provision allows for the conservation of energy.  0   by allowing cyclist to get in front of traffic, they become more visible, and in so doing, safer.    current laws were written for cars, and unlike cars, it is easy for cyclists to yield the right of way without coming to a complete stop.  because cyclists are moving slower, have stereoscopic hearing, have no blind spots and can stop and maneuver more quickly than cars, current traffic control device laws do not make sense for cyclists.    with the idaho stop, at special intersections where lights are controlled by sensing equipment, there is no need to provide extra equipment for cyclists.    the stop as yield provision reduces conflict between neighborhood traffic calming advocates wanting more stop signs and bicycle commuters.    changing the legal duties of cyclists would provide direction to law enforcement to focus their attention where it belongs on unsafe cyclists and motorists .  0   the usual law forces cyclists to choose between routes that are more efficient but less safe due to higher traffic volumes, and routes that are safer, but less efficient due to the presence of numerous stop signs.  allowing cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs empowers them to legally make the safer routes more efficient.    the only study done on the safety of the idaho stop shows that it is slightly safer.  0 cons   the provision relies on the judgement of cyclists, but very young children ride bikes and lack the judgement to do this maneuver safely.    allowing cyclists to behave by a separate set of rules makes them less predictable and thus, less safe.  0   bicyclists want the same rights as drivers, and maybe they should have the same duties.  0  #  the stop as yield provision reduces conflict between neighborhood traffic calming advocates wanting more stop signs and bicycle commuters.   #  again, i am unclear on why forcing cars to stop is a good thing in the first place.   #  i am unclear on why bicycles would benefit from this.  usually stop lights are placed where there is either high volume or poor visibility.  and because cars can accelerate much faster than bicycles, as well as being safer in mixed traffic, it stands to reason that if a bicycle has enough visibility and enough time to avoid oncoming traffic, then a car would too.  the exception being when visibility is so limited that the few feet closer a cyclist can get to the intersection makes a difference.  but that is a relatively niche scenario, and at best should be a signed exception rather than making it a general rule.  a few more specific issues i have with it:   this provision allows for the conservation of energy.  again, cars get the same benefits as cyclists.  the difference being that it would cut down on pollution to allow cars to do the same thing.  if it is necessary to move that slowly, a car can do it too.  as for hearing and blind spots, cyclists may be capable of it but they suck at actually doing it.  perhaps if you outlaw  and enforce  wearing earbuds, etc while cycling and mandate sideview mirrors, you might have a point.  but as it is, cyclists are typically bad at taking advantage of their increased field of view.  again, i am unclear on why forcing cars to stop is a good thing in the first place.  many of these benefits seem to work as well or better for cars.  again, this is the same as for cars.  however, it is just one study and there seems to be some things missing, but i would have to read it more in depth to be sure.  as for cons, i think this is the big one:   allowing cyclists to behave by a separate set of rules makes them less predictable and thus, less safe.  cyclists are already horribly unpredictable even when they are supposed to be following the same rules.  by giving them more latitude in their personal judgments, you make them even more unpredictable.  as a final note, i do not wholly disagree with this.  i think there is certainly places where this would work very well especially rural areas with good visibility.  however, i think those places are more the exception to the rule and, on a state wide level, this would not work well for many states.  i think that, at best, this should be enacted on a city or county level and only at explicitly signed intersections.   #  on top of that, a car accident is far more likely to kill the person not doing the  idaho stop  than a bike accident.   #  i feel you are missing the big picture.  taken as a whole, rules that make cycling more beneficial will have immense benefits in terms of health of population, traffic congestion, etc.  while using the same rules for cars may have a similar impact i feel it would be much lower.  on top of that, a car accident is far more likely to kill the person not doing the  idaho stop  than a bike accident.  a few other points:   on my bike commute there are many stop signs and stop lights that i would feel very comfortable running.  i think you are vastly understating the differences between a bike and car field of view.  when i am on my bike my awareness of cars is much much higher, both because of the lack of blind spots and sound insulation, and because i am very aware that i am in a higher risk situation.  i think it is rare tat a car will choose a less efficient route that is more safe, or at least far far less than cyclist.  conversion of energy is more important for cycling than for cars.  i agree with your point on pollution somewhat, but consider the incremental difference between the pollution when i take my bike, or if i have no stops in a car.  obviously taking my bike will be far more beneficial.   #  with cars, it is less about safety and more about other concerns such as avoiding a packed freeway in favor of less used side streets, even if those sidestreets are slower overall due to the traffic control devices.   # i am not sure what you mean by this.  are you saying that a car car accident is more lethal, or a car bike accident is when obeying the current rules of the road ? being comfortable running them and being safe running them are two very different things.  i see cyclist running red lights every day, and while they have not gotten into an accident in front of me, they certainly have caused accidents as people try to avoid them.  however, my point was that most cyclists do not take advantage of it.  many cyclists are completely ignorant of their surroundings, even when running red lights see above about them causing accidents .  if everyone had good awareness of their surroundings, that would certainly change things.  however, you are in the minority and laws have to take into account the realities of how things actually are.  it is the same reason speeding, tailgating, and other such acts are illegal when driving.  it is dangerous and stupid, but many people still do them.  in a perfect world, we could leave speeds up to a driver is judgement.  but we are not in a perfect world.  and cyclists are at least as imperfect as motorists, and prone to the same breed of dumbass behavior you see in cars.  with cars, it is less about safety and more about other concerns such as avoiding a packed freeway in favor of less used side streets, even if those sidestreets are slower overall due to the traffic control devices.  however, the net effect is still the same.  this is going to be the most subjective point, so i am not going to go into it much more.  you are basically weighing pollution against caloric expenditure.  it is also going to be much more dependent on the individual intersection.  if you are going uphill, the cyclist gets much more benefit.  however, on a level field, there is not as much benefit to continual motion.  and on downhill, it may be safer for everyone if cyclists are forced to check their speed.   #  and car drivers would not be impacted by people following the idaho stop rule correctly.   # are you saying that a car car accident is more lethal, or a car bike accident is when obeying the current rules of the road ? i mean that a cyclist has a much higher inventive to avoid being reckless because in an accident the cyclist is the one that will have the worst injuries in most cases.  i addressed this in another response.  i do not feel it would change the behavior of the already reckless cyclist.  and car drivers would not be impacted by people following the idaho stop rule correctly.  the times i could have done it it was safe.  i can think of many places where i had clear view for hundreds of meters.   #  i ca not imagine them being able to flat out ignore all the rules.   # i lived for years in a place where cyclists on the road were plentiful.  too many of them had poor judgment and caused accidents.  and this was the adults, the very young children were actually better.  being young and having relatively recently gone through bicycle safety class, they were more careful to follow the rules they had been taught to obey.  even with them being supposed to follow the rules, it gets chaotic.  i ca not imagine them being able to flat out ignore all the rules.  i did see one case where an exception to the rules for bikes made sense.  in one old town with tiny one way streets everywhere with a very low speed limit, they were allowed to ignore the one way restriction.  two cars simply ca not fit on the street, so they need to be one way, but at worst a bike will need to pull over for an oncoming car.
the  idaho stop  means that cyclist may treat stop signs as yield signs, and stop lights as stop signs.  i feel that the pros from the wiki article URL summarize my views perfectly: pros   because of the positive externalities of cycling, bicycle laws should be designed to allow cyclists to travel swiftly and easily, and this provision allows for the conservation of energy.  0   by allowing cyclist to get in front of traffic, they become more visible, and in so doing, safer.    current laws were written for cars, and unlike cars, it is easy for cyclists to yield the right of way without coming to a complete stop.  because cyclists are moving slower, have stereoscopic hearing, have no blind spots and can stop and maneuver more quickly than cars, current traffic control device laws do not make sense for cyclists.    with the idaho stop, at special intersections where lights are controlled by sensing equipment, there is no need to provide extra equipment for cyclists.    the stop as yield provision reduces conflict between neighborhood traffic calming advocates wanting more stop signs and bicycle commuters.    changing the legal duties of cyclists would provide direction to law enforcement to focus their attention where it belongs on unsafe cyclists and motorists .  0   the usual law forces cyclists to choose between routes that are more efficient but less safe due to higher traffic volumes, and routes that are safer, but less efficient due to the presence of numerous stop signs.  allowing cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs empowers them to legally make the safer routes more efficient.    the only study done on the safety of the idaho stop shows that it is slightly safer.  0 cons   the provision relies on the judgement of cyclists, but very young children ride bikes and lack the judgement to do this maneuver safely.    allowing cyclists to behave by a separate set of rules makes them less predictable and thus, less safe.  0   bicyclists want the same rights as drivers, and maybe they should have the same duties.  0  #  the usual law forces cyclists to choose between routes that are more efficient but less safe due to higher traffic volumes, and routes that are safer, but less efficient due to the presence of numerous stop signs.   #  again, this is the same as for cars.   #  i am unclear on why bicycles would benefit from this.  usually stop lights are placed where there is either high volume or poor visibility.  and because cars can accelerate much faster than bicycles, as well as being safer in mixed traffic, it stands to reason that if a bicycle has enough visibility and enough time to avoid oncoming traffic, then a car would too.  the exception being when visibility is so limited that the few feet closer a cyclist can get to the intersection makes a difference.  but that is a relatively niche scenario, and at best should be a signed exception rather than making it a general rule.  a few more specific issues i have with it:   this provision allows for the conservation of energy.  again, cars get the same benefits as cyclists.  the difference being that it would cut down on pollution to allow cars to do the same thing.  if it is necessary to move that slowly, a car can do it too.  as for hearing and blind spots, cyclists may be capable of it but they suck at actually doing it.  perhaps if you outlaw  and enforce  wearing earbuds, etc while cycling and mandate sideview mirrors, you might have a point.  but as it is, cyclists are typically bad at taking advantage of their increased field of view.  again, i am unclear on why forcing cars to stop is a good thing in the first place.  many of these benefits seem to work as well or better for cars.  again, this is the same as for cars.  however, it is just one study and there seems to be some things missing, but i would have to read it more in depth to be sure.  as for cons, i think this is the big one:   allowing cyclists to behave by a separate set of rules makes them less predictable and thus, less safe.  cyclists are already horribly unpredictable even when they are supposed to be following the same rules.  by giving them more latitude in their personal judgments, you make them even more unpredictable.  as a final note, i do not wholly disagree with this.  i think there is certainly places where this would work very well especially rural areas with good visibility.  however, i think those places are more the exception to the rule and, on a state wide level, this would not work well for many states.  i think that, at best, this should be enacted on a city or county level and only at explicitly signed intersections.   #  when i am on my bike my awareness of cars is much much higher, both because of the lack of blind spots and sound insulation, and because i am very aware that i am in a higher risk situation.   #  i feel you are missing the big picture.  taken as a whole, rules that make cycling more beneficial will have immense benefits in terms of health of population, traffic congestion, etc.  while using the same rules for cars may have a similar impact i feel it would be much lower.  on top of that, a car accident is far more likely to kill the person not doing the  idaho stop  than a bike accident.  a few other points:   on my bike commute there are many stop signs and stop lights that i would feel very comfortable running.  i think you are vastly understating the differences between a bike and car field of view.  when i am on my bike my awareness of cars is much much higher, both because of the lack of blind spots and sound insulation, and because i am very aware that i am in a higher risk situation.  i think it is rare tat a car will choose a less efficient route that is more safe, or at least far far less than cyclist.  conversion of energy is more important for cycling than for cars.  i agree with your point on pollution somewhat, but consider the incremental difference between the pollution when i take my bike, or if i have no stops in a car.  obviously taking my bike will be far more beneficial.   #  it is the same reason speeding, tailgating, and other such acts are illegal when driving.  it is dangerous and stupid, but many people still do them.   # i am not sure what you mean by this.  are you saying that a car car accident is more lethal, or a car bike accident is when obeying the current rules of the road ? being comfortable running them and being safe running them are two very different things.  i see cyclist running red lights every day, and while they have not gotten into an accident in front of me, they certainly have caused accidents as people try to avoid them.  however, my point was that most cyclists do not take advantage of it.  many cyclists are completely ignorant of their surroundings, even when running red lights see above about them causing accidents .  if everyone had good awareness of their surroundings, that would certainly change things.  however, you are in the minority and laws have to take into account the realities of how things actually are.  it is the same reason speeding, tailgating, and other such acts are illegal when driving.  it is dangerous and stupid, but many people still do them.  in a perfect world, we could leave speeds up to a driver is judgement.  but we are not in a perfect world.  and cyclists are at least as imperfect as motorists, and prone to the same breed of dumbass behavior you see in cars.  with cars, it is less about safety and more about other concerns such as avoiding a packed freeway in favor of less used side streets, even if those sidestreets are slower overall due to the traffic control devices.  however, the net effect is still the same.  this is going to be the most subjective point, so i am not going to go into it much more.  you are basically weighing pollution against caloric expenditure.  it is also going to be much more dependent on the individual intersection.  if you are going uphill, the cyclist gets much more benefit.  however, on a level field, there is not as much benefit to continual motion.  and on downhill, it may be safer for everyone if cyclists are forced to check their speed.   #  i can think of many places where i had clear view for hundreds of meters.   # are you saying that a car car accident is more lethal, or a car bike accident is when obeying the current rules of the road ? i mean that a cyclist has a much higher inventive to avoid being reckless because in an accident the cyclist is the one that will have the worst injuries in most cases.  i addressed this in another response.  i do not feel it would change the behavior of the already reckless cyclist.  and car drivers would not be impacted by people following the idaho stop rule correctly.  the times i could have done it it was safe.  i can think of many places where i had clear view for hundreds of meters.   #  i lived for years in a place where cyclists on the road were plentiful.   # i lived for years in a place where cyclists on the road were plentiful.  too many of them had poor judgment and caused accidents.  and this was the adults, the very young children were actually better.  being young and having relatively recently gone through bicycle safety class, they were more careful to follow the rules they had been taught to obey.  even with them being supposed to follow the rules, it gets chaotic.  i ca not imagine them being able to flat out ignore all the rules.  i did see one case where an exception to the rules for bikes made sense.  in one old town with tiny one way streets everywhere with a very low speed limit, they were allowed to ignore the one way restriction.  two cars simply ca not fit on the street, so they need to be one way, but at worst a bike will need to pull over for an oncoming car.
generally speaking, you have two sides on the  fat debate : the fat acceptance movement healthy at every size, etc.  and the fat shamers who cajole fat people into losing weight, with either benign or malicious intentions.  first of all, i do not buy haes.  i believe that anyone of any size can be  healthier  at that size.  if i start jogging once a week, i probably wo not lose weight, but i will be a teeny tiny bit healthier and that is good.  secondly, bmi is an overall population indicator.  there are of course given people who are overweight who are healthier than given people who are within normal range.  same goes for given people who are underweight vs people in normal range.  however, i would state that  in general , the further you slide on the scale from 0 in either direction, the further you are getting from optimal.  however, wherever people lie on that scale underweight   optimal   fat is none of your fucking business whatsoever.  you are not a stakeholder in a stranger is health and people would do well to keep their mouths shut about other people is appearance.  if you  are  stakeholder in their health and this is exclusively limited to loved ones and the person is healthcare practitioners then maybe you get to say something.   maybe .  the best analogy for this is smoking.  i smoke and am slightly overweight 0lb and it is certainly the smoking that is more detrimental to my health than the few extra pounds.  i  know  that smoking is bad for me i am not an idiot.  i view the haes as a bit like  healthy no matter how much you smoke .  it is not true, it may even be damaging.  on the other hand, encouraging hardened smokers to run around despite being smokers ai not a bad thing.  attack the campaign, if you must, but leave the people alone.  it does not matter how many people tell me that smoking is bad for me.  their statements are uninvited, irritating and will do precisely nothing to change my habits.  they may even reinforce them.  it is  none  of their business if i smoke.  you know when you are eating pizza and you have that one vegan health nut friend who tells you about how pepperoni is full of carcinogens and dairy will cause all kinds of damage to you ? that,  at best  is what fat shamers come off like.  i am not saying there should not be public health campaigns much like we have anti smoking campaigns , just that you personally should never say a damn thing about a stranger is weight, ever.  do not bully fat people, kids.  it helps no one.   #  i am not saying there should not be public health campaigns much like we have anti smoking campaigns , just that you personally should never say a damn thing about a stranger is weight, ever.   #  op is specifically addressing the issue with people criticizing the body fat/weight of a stranger.   #  i concede that our overall health and collective health issues, as a society, are important to all of us.  i agree that obesity has had a large impact in the cost of healthcare in our society.  i also agree that because of this, we should be concerned about obesity.  however, i fail to see where this argument justifies addressing an individual stranger is weight.  op is specifically addressing the issue with people criticizing the body fat/weight of a stranger.  responding by only stating that obesity affects us all and we should be concerned about it, simply sidesteps the focus of op is post and  seems  to be attempting to intentionally justify fat shaming.  that is just how it sounds to me either way, the complete absence of a response to op is comments on targeting strangers for their weight seems to indicate to me that there is no valid justification for criticizing a stranger is weight.   #  those two points being made, i would agree that random comments out of the blue by complete strangers are obnoxious and unnecessary.   #  most of the time i would agree with you, op.  however, i would say there are two exceptions.  when you have a preexisting personal relationship with said person.  to use your smoking example, it would be appropriate if a family member or a close friend expressed concern about your smoking habit amd offered to help you quit if you would like it.  the same could go for overweight people.  when their weight affects you.  this goes particularly for air travel.  when i pay for a seat, i pay for the whole seat.  i do not pay for 0/0 of a seat while a 0 pound guy is excess body fat takes up part of the seat i paid for.  at that point his body wait is my buisness, because his body weight is denying something i paid for.  those two points being made, i would agree that random comments out of the blue by complete strangers are obnoxious and unnecessary.   #  for the record, i am not arguing for or against the airline example.   #  i agree that it sets a tricky precedent, but this is not a good analogy.  public education i assume you are referring to taxes is a non profit state service.  the workers therein are paid to educate the children to the best of their ability, providing each student with services that best meet his or her individual needs.  yes, a high needs student may require more focus that may otherwise be given to other children, but their parents are not opting to pay for individual services.  they are taxed at a set rate.  even if they did not have kids in school, they would be taxed.  the tax dollars are an investment in society, not the cost of a personal service, and one ca not choose to do business elsewhere unless you move, i guess .  airlines are private for profit businesses.  it is their prerogative to do whatever is in the business is best interest.  this tends to include raising profits while limiting customer dissatisfaction.  one company choosing to charge per seat vs.  per customer is quite different than a teacher having to teach.  for the record, i am not arguing for or against the airline example.  i just do not see these two as analogous.   #  yes, you are making use of their available resources, but ultimately you are giving them money so that you can learn.   #  ok, that does make the issue a bit different.  let is boil down the issue to its core components: if you opt to go to a university and pay for it, you are indeed personally paying for a service.  what is the service you are paying for ? education.  yes, you are making use of their available resources, but ultimately you are giving them money so that you can learn.  i do not think your argument would hold up, because those resources were still available to you you just did not use them as heavily as other students did.  moreover, if you learned more efficiently and effectively than other students, then you actually got more out of the experience than they did.  i would say you got a better deal, considering you paid the same but got more learning out of it.   #  it is that person is responsibility, as a member of our society, to at least have some base line courtesy.   #  that is just giving corpulent people a free pass when it comes to not holding themselves accountable which seems kind of absurd.  how is someone who knows they are going to be 0lbs in a train seat any different from someone who is at a healthy size and carrying 0 personal bags, two of which they are holding in their lap so that your space is clearly intruded upon and your comfort is reduced significantly ? using a train example because you can carry on more luggage, but it is the same idea.  lady with a big purse on her lap or what have you.  at some point, a person needs to be responsible for their immediate area, whether that radius is taken up by bags or corpulence or smell or nothing at all.  it is that person is responsibility, as a member of our society, to at least have some base line courtesy.  and honestly, most people do.  if you have extra bags, you are mindful of how you carry them.  most overweight people are very, very aware of themselves and the area they take up, and act accordingly, which is considerate.  but blaming the airline for not asking for girth measurements when you purchase tickets so that you can shift responsibility onto them when 0a is now 0a and most of b seems wrong.
generally speaking, you have two sides on the  fat debate : the fat acceptance movement healthy at every size, etc.  and the fat shamers who cajole fat people into losing weight, with either benign or malicious intentions.  first of all, i do not buy haes.  i believe that anyone of any size can be  healthier  at that size.  if i start jogging once a week, i probably wo not lose weight, but i will be a teeny tiny bit healthier and that is good.  secondly, bmi is an overall population indicator.  there are of course given people who are overweight who are healthier than given people who are within normal range.  same goes for given people who are underweight vs people in normal range.  however, i would state that  in general , the further you slide on the scale from 0 in either direction, the further you are getting from optimal.  however, wherever people lie on that scale underweight   optimal   fat is none of your fucking business whatsoever.  you are not a stakeholder in a stranger is health and people would do well to keep their mouths shut about other people is appearance.  if you  are  stakeholder in their health and this is exclusively limited to loved ones and the person is healthcare practitioners then maybe you get to say something.   maybe .  the best analogy for this is smoking.  i smoke and am slightly overweight 0lb and it is certainly the smoking that is more detrimental to my health than the few extra pounds.  i  know  that smoking is bad for me i am not an idiot.  i view the haes as a bit like  healthy no matter how much you smoke .  it is not true, it may even be damaging.  on the other hand, encouraging hardened smokers to run around despite being smokers ai not a bad thing.  attack the campaign, if you must, but leave the people alone.  it does not matter how many people tell me that smoking is bad for me.  their statements are uninvited, irritating and will do precisely nothing to change my habits.  they may even reinforce them.  it is  none  of their business if i smoke.  you know when you are eating pizza and you have that one vegan health nut friend who tells you about how pepperoni is full of carcinogens and dairy will cause all kinds of damage to you ? that,  at best  is what fat shamers come off like.  i am not saying there should not be public health campaigns much like we have anti smoking campaigns , just that you personally should never say a damn thing about a stranger is weight, ever.  do not bully fat people, kids.  it helps no one.   #  attack the campaign, if you must, but leave the people alone.   #  true, though that is difficult to do since the people who are proponents of said campaigns typically use themselves as  evidence  and then hide behind  you are fat shaming me !    #  i agree with certain parts of this and disagree with others:   generally speaking, you have two sides on the  fat debate : the fat acceptance movement healthy at every size, etc.  and the fat shamers who cajole fat people into losing weight, with either benign or malicious intentions.  false dichotomy.  i am by no means a  healthy at every size  proponent since science has proven that to be total bullshit decades ago , but nor am i the type who would  cajole  someone into losing weight mostly because i do not really care about strangers .  well. yes, and no.  on the one hand i agree.  on the other, since we all share the same healthcare market then it is my business how unhealthy people are because i indirectly pay for their bad life choices.  but no, i do not think i ought to be shouting  get on the treadmill fatty !   from my car window, either .  see my above point about healthcare costs.  true, though that is difficult to do since the people who are proponents of said campaigns typically use themselves as  evidence  and then hide behind  you are fat shaming me !   as a defense against criticism.  if a person uses themselves as evidence then they are fair game to be used as counter evidence.  i think smoking is gross.  but i find most anti smoking campaigns to be even more disgusting and annoying.  off topic, but if a vegan tells this to you then remind them how many gallons of water and pesticides it takes to grow enough food to support their unnatural vegan diet.  that ought to shut them up.  tl;dr:  yes, leave fat strangers alone.  but if i come across, say, a blogger who is a  healthy at any size  proponent, then i am totally within my rights to shoot her ass down with logic and science because her message can and will cause harm to those who uncritically accept it as truth.  and if she uses her own body and life as evidence, then i can use her body and life as counter evidence as well.   #  i do not pay for 0/0 of a seat while a 0 pound guy is excess body fat takes up part of the seat i paid for.   #  most of the time i would agree with you, op.  however, i would say there are two exceptions.  when you have a preexisting personal relationship with said person.  to use your smoking example, it would be appropriate if a family member or a close friend expressed concern about your smoking habit amd offered to help you quit if you would like it.  the same could go for overweight people.  when their weight affects you.  this goes particularly for air travel.  when i pay for a seat, i pay for the whole seat.  i do not pay for 0/0 of a seat while a 0 pound guy is excess body fat takes up part of the seat i paid for.  at that point his body wait is my buisness, because his body weight is denying something i paid for.  those two points being made, i would agree that random comments out of the blue by complete strangers are obnoxious and unnecessary.   #  yes, a high needs student may require more focus that may otherwise be given to other children, but their parents are not opting to pay for individual services.   #  i agree that it sets a tricky precedent, but this is not a good analogy.  public education i assume you are referring to taxes is a non profit state service.  the workers therein are paid to educate the children to the best of their ability, providing each student with services that best meet his or her individual needs.  yes, a high needs student may require more focus that may otherwise be given to other children, but their parents are not opting to pay for individual services.  they are taxed at a set rate.  even if they did not have kids in school, they would be taxed.  the tax dollars are an investment in society, not the cost of a personal service, and one ca not choose to do business elsewhere unless you move, i guess .  airlines are private for profit businesses.  it is their prerogative to do whatever is in the business is best interest.  this tends to include raising profits while limiting customer dissatisfaction.  one company choosing to charge per seat vs.  per customer is quite different than a teacher having to teach.  for the record, i am not arguing for or against the airline example.  i just do not see these two as analogous.   #  what is the service you are paying for ?  #  ok, that does make the issue a bit different.  let is boil down the issue to its core components: if you opt to go to a university and pay for it, you are indeed personally paying for a service.  what is the service you are paying for ? education.  yes, you are making use of their available resources, but ultimately you are giving them money so that you can learn.  i do not think your argument would hold up, because those resources were still available to you you just did not use them as heavily as other students did.  moreover, if you learned more efficiently and effectively than other students, then you actually got more out of the experience than they did.  i would say you got a better deal, considering you paid the same but got more learning out of it.   #  using a train example because you can carry on more luggage, but it is the same idea.   #  that is just giving corpulent people a free pass when it comes to not holding themselves accountable which seems kind of absurd.  how is someone who knows they are going to be 0lbs in a train seat any different from someone who is at a healthy size and carrying 0 personal bags, two of which they are holding in their lap so that your space is clearly intruded upon and your comfort is reduced significantly ? using a train example because you can carry on more luggage, but it is the same idea.  lady with a big purse on her lap or what have you.  at some point, a person needs to be responsible for their immediate area, whether that radius is taken up by bags or corpulence or smell or nothing at all.  it is that person is responsibility, as a member of our society, to at least have some base line courtesy.  and honestly, most people do.  if you have extra bags, you are mindful of how you carry them.  most overweight people are very, very aware of themselves and the area they take up, and act accordingly, which is considerate.  but blaming the airline for not asking for girth measurements when you purchase tickets so that you can shift responsibility onto them when 0a is now 0a and most of b seems wrong.
generally speaking, you have two sides on the  fat debate : the fat acceptance movement healthy at every size, etc.  and the fat shamers who cajole fat people into losing weight, with either benign or malicious intentions.  first of all, i do not buy haes.  i believe that anyone of any size can be  healthier  at that size.  if i start jogging once a week, i probably wo not lose weight, but i will be a teeny tiny bit healthier and that is good.  secondly, bmi is an overall population indicator.  there are of course given people who are overweight who are healthier than given people who are within normal range.  same goes for given people who are underweight vs people in normal range.  however, i would state that  in general , the further you slide on the scale from 0 in either direction, the further you are getting from optimal.  however, wherever people lie on that scale underweight   optimal   fat is none of your fucking business whatsoever.  you are not a stakeholder in a stranger is health and people would do well to keep their mouths shut about other people is appearance.  if you  are  stakeholder in their health and this is exclusively limited to loved ones and the person is healthcare practitioners then maybe you get to say something.   maybe .  the best analogy for this is smoking.  i smoke and am slightly overweight 0lb and it is certainly the smoking that is more detrimental to my health than the few extra pounds.  i  know  that smoking is bad for me i am not an idiot.  i view the haes as a bit like  healthy no matter how much you smoke .  it is not true, it may even be damaging.  on the other hand, encouraging hardened smokers to run around despite being smokers ai not a bad thing.  attack the campaign, if you must, but leave the people alone.  it does not matter how many people tell me that smoking is bad for me.  their statements are uninvited, irritating and will do precisely nothing to change my habits.  they may even reinforce them.  it is  none  of their business if i smoke.  you know when you are eating pizza and you have that one vegan health nut friend who tells you about how pepperoni is full of carcinogens and dairy will cause all kinds of damage to you ? that,  at best  is what fat shamers come off like.  i am not saying there should not be public health campaigns much like we have anti smoking campaigns , just that you personally should never say a damn thing about a stranger is weight, ever.  do not bully fat people, kids.  it helps no one.   #  that one vegan health nut friend who tells you about how pepperoni is full of carcinogens and dairy will cause all kinds of damage to you ?  #  off topic, but if a vegan tells this to you then remind them how many gallons of water and pesticides it takes to grow enough food to support their unnatural vegan diet.   #  i agree with certain parts of this and disagree with others:   generally speaking, you have two sides on the  fat debate : the fat acceptance movement healthy at every size, etc.  and the fat shamers who cajole fat people into losing weight, with either benign or malicious intentions.  false dichotomy.  i am by no means a  healthy at every size  proponent since science has proven that to be total bullshit decades ago , but nor am i the type who would  cajole  someone into losing weight mostly because i do not really care about strangers .  well. yes, and no.  on the one hand i agree.  on the other, since we all share the same healthcare market then it is my business how unhealthy people are because i indirectly pay for their bad life choices.  but no, i do not think i ought to be shouting  get on the treadmill fatty !   from my car window, either .  see my above point about healthcare costs.  true, though that is difficult to do since the people who are proponents of said campaigns typically use themselves as  evidence  and then hide behind  you are fat shaming me !   as a defense against criticism.  if a person uses themselves as evidence then they are fair game to be used as counter evidence.  i think smoking is gross.  but i find most anti smoking campaigns to be even more disgusting and annoying.  off topic, but if a vegan tells this to you then remind them how many gallons of water and pesticides it takes to grow enough food to support their unnatural vegan diet.  that ought to shut them up.  tl;dr:  yes, leave fat strangers alone.  but if i come across, say, a blogger who is a  healthy at any size  proponent, then i am totally within my rights to shoot her ass down with logic and science because her message can and will cause harm to those who uncritically accept it as truth.  and if she uses her own body and life as evidence, then i can use her body and life as counter evidence as well.   #  most of the time i would agree with you, op.   #  most of the time i would agree with you, op.  however, i would say there are two exceptions.  when you have a preexisting personal relationship with said person.  to use your smoking example, it would be appropriate if a family member or a close friend expressed concern about your smoking habit amd offered to help you quit if you would like it.  the same could go for overweight people.  when their weight affects you.  this goes particularly for air travel.  when i pay for a seat, i pay for the whole seat.  i do not pay for 0/0 of a seat while a 0 pound guy is excess body fat takes up part of the seat i paid for.  at that point his body wait is my buisness, because his body weight is denying something i paid for.  those two points being made, i would agree that random comments out of the blue by complete strangers are obnoxious and unnecessary.   #  i agree that it sets a tricky precedent, but this is not a good analogy.   #  i agree that it sets a tricky precedent, but this is not a good analogy.  public education i assume you are referring to taxes is a non profit state service.  the workers therein are paid to educate the children to the best of their ability, providing each student with services that best meet his or her individual needs.  yes, a high needs student may require more focus that may otherwise be given to other children, but their parents are not opting to pay for individual services.  they are taxed at a set rate.  even if they did not have kids in school, they would be taxed.  the tax dollars are an investment in society, not the cost of a personal service, and one ca not choose to do business elsewhere unless you move, i guess .  airlines are private for profit businesses.  it is their prerogative to do whatever is in the business is best interest.  this tends to include raising profits while limiting customer dissatisfaction.  one company choosing to charge per seat vs.  per customer is quite different than a teacher having to teach.  for the record, i am not arguing for or against the airline example.  i just do not see these two as analogous.   #  let is boil down the issue to its core components: if you opt to go to a university and pay for it, you are indeed personally paying for a service.   #  ok, that does make the issue a bit different.  let is boil down the issue to its core components: if you opt to go to a university and pay for it, you are indeed personally paying for a service.  what is the service you are paying for ? education.  yes, you are making use of their available resources, but ultimately you are giving them money so that you can learn.  i do not think your argument would hold up, because those resources were still available to you you just did not use them as heavily as other students did.  moreover, if you learned more efficiently and effectively than other students, then you actually got more out of the experience than they did.  i would say you got a better deal, considering you paid the same but got more learning out of it.   #  but blaming the airline for not asking for girth measurements when you purchase tickets so that you can shift responsibility onto them when 0a is now 0a and most of b seems wrong.   #  that is just giving corpulent people a free pass when it comes to not holding themselves accountable which seems kind of absurd.  how is someone who knows they are going to be 0lbs in a train seat any different from someone who is at a healthy size and carrying 0 personal bags, two of which they are holding in their lap so that your space is clearly intruded upon and your comfort is reduced significantly ? using a train example because you can carry on more luggage, but it is the same idea.  lady with a big purse on her lap or what have you.  at some point, a person needs to be responsible for their immediate area, whether that radius is taken up by bags or corpulence or smell or nothing at all.  it is that person is responsibility, as a member of our society, to at least have some base line courtesy.  and honestly, most people do.  if you have extra bags, you are mindful of how you carry them.  most overweight people are very, very aware of themselves and the area they take up, and act accordingly, which is considerate.  but blaming the airline for not asking for girth measurements when you purchase tickets so that you can shift responsibility onto them when 0a is now 0a and most of b seems wrong.
generally speaking, you have two sides on the  fat debate : the fat acceptance movement healthy at every size, etc.  and the fat shamers who cajole fat people into losing weight, with either benign or malicious intentions.  first of all, i do not buy haes.  i believe that anyone of any size can be  healthier  at that size.  if i start jogging once a week, i probably wo not lose weight, but i will be a teeny tiny bit healthier and that is good.  secondly, bmi is an overall population indicator.  there are of course given people who are overweight who are healthier than given people who are within normal range.  same goes for given people who are underweight vs people in normal range.  however, i would state that  in general , the further you slide on the scale from 0 in either direction, the further you are getting from optimal.  however, wherever people lie on that scale underweight   optimal   fat is none of your fucking business whatsoever.  you are not a stakeholder in a stranger is health and people would do well to keep their mouths shut about other people is appearance.  if you  are  stakeholder in their health and this is exclusively limited to loved ones and the person is healthcare practitioners then maybe you get to say something.   maybe .  the best analogy for this is smoking.  i smoke and am slightly overweight 0lb and it is certainly the smoking that is more detrimental to my health than the few extra pounds.  i  know  that smoking is bad for me i am not an idiot.  i view the haes as a bit like  healthy no matter how much you smoke .  it is not true, it may even be damaging.  on the other hand, encouraging hardened smokers to run around despite being smokers ai not a bad thing.  attack the campaign, if you must, but leave the people alone.  it does not matter how many people tell me that smoking is bad for me.  their statements are uninvited, irritating and will do precisely nothing to change my habits.  they may even reinforce them.  it is  none  of their business if i smoke.  you know when you are eating pizza and you have that one vegan health nut friend who tells you about how pepperoni is full of carcinogens and dairy will cause all kinds of damage to you ? that,  at best  is what fat shamers come off like.  i am not saying there should not be public health campaigns much like we have anti smoking campaigns , just that you personally should never say a damn thing about a stranger is weight, ever.  do not bully fat people, kids.  it helps no one.   #  you know when you are eating pizza and you have that one vegan health nut friend who tells you about how pepperoni is full of carcinogens and dairy will cause all kinds of damage to you ?  #  that, at best is what fat shamers come off like.   # that, at best is what fat shamers come off like.  this goes both ways too.  there are plenty of heavy people who say  you should eat more  or  you are skinny as a toothpick .  well, nobody asked for your opinion.  weight is something that you ca not hide from, it is with you every single day of the week.  and unfortunately many people are opinionated pricks that feel they must be heard.  yes it is rude and no matter what weight you are, people will have something to say.  just like with your cigs, ignore it and move on.   #  when i pay for a seat, i pay for the whole seat.   #  most of the time i would agree with you, op.  however, i would say there are two exceptions.  when you have a preexisting personal relationship with said person.  to use your smoking example, it would be appropriate if a family member or a close friend expressed concern about your smoking habit amd offered to help you quit if you would like it.  the same could go for overweight people.  when their weight affects you.  this goes particularly for air travel.  when i pay for a seat, i pay for the whole seat.  i do not pay for 0/0 of a seat while a 0 pound guy is excess body fat takes up part of the seat i paid for.  at that point his body wait is my buisness, because his body weight is denying something i paid for.  those two points being made, i would agree that random comments out of the blue by complete strangers are obnoxious and unnecessary.   #  one company choosing to charge per seat vs.   #  i agree that it sets a tricky precedent, but this is not a good analogy.  public education i assume you are referring to taxes is a non profit state service.  the workers therein are paid to educate the children to the best of their ability, providing each student with services that best meet his or her individual needs.  yes, a high needs student may require more focus that may otherwise be given to other children, but their parents are not opting to pay for individual services.  they are taxed at a set rate.  even if they did not have kids in school, they would be taxed.  the tax dollars are an investment in society, not the cost of a personal service, and one ca not choose to do business elsewhere unless you move, i guess .  airlines are private for profit businesses.  it is their prerogative to do whatever is in the business is best interest.  this tends to include raising profits while limiting customer dissatisfaction.  one company choosing to charge per seat vs.  per customer is quite different than a teacher having to teach.  for the record, i am not arguing for or against the airline example.  i just do not see these two as analogous.   #  what is the service you are paying for ?  #  ok, that does make the issue a bit different.  let is boil down the issue to its core components: if you opt to go to a university and pay for it, you are indeed personally paying for a service.  what is the service you are paying for ? education.  yes, you are making use of their available resources, but ultimately you are giving them money so that you can learn.  i do not think your argument would hold up, because those resources were still available to you you just did not use them as heavily as other students did.  moreover, if you learned more efficiently and effectively than other students, then you actually got more out of the experience than they did.  i would say you got a better deal, considering you paid the same but got more learning out of it.   #  lady with a big purse on her lap or what have you.   #  that is just giving corpulent people a free pass when it comes to not holding themselves accountable which seems kind of absurd.  how is someone who knows they are going to be 0lbs in a train seat any different from someone who is at a healthy size and carrying 0 personal bags, two of which they are holding in their lap so that your space is clearly intruded upon and your comfort is reduced significantly ? using a train example because you can carry on more luggage, but it is the same idea.  lady with a big purse on her lap or what have you.  at some point, a person needs to be responsible for their immediate area, whether that radius is taken up by bags or corpulence or smell or nothing at all.  it is that person is responsibility, as a member of our society, to at least have some base line courtesy.  and honestly, most people do.  if you have extra bags, you are mindful of how you carry them.  most overweight people are very, very aware of themselves and the area they take up, and act accordingly, which is considerate.  but blaming the airline for not asking for girth measurements when you purchase tickets so that you can shift responsibility onto them when 0a is now 0a and most of b seems wrong.
generally speaking, you have two sides on the  fat debate : the fat acceptance movement healthy at every size, etc.  and the fat shamers who cajole fat people into losing weight, with either benign or malicious intentions.  first of all, i do not buy haes.  i believe that anyone of any size can be  healthier  at that size.  if i start jogging once a week, i probably wo not lose weight, but i will be a teeny tiny bit healthier and that is good.  secondly, bmi is an overall population indicator.  there are of course given people who are overweight who are healthier than given people who are within normal range.  same goes for given people who are underweight vs people in normal range.  however, i would state that  in general , the further you slide on the scale from 0 in either direction, the further you are getting from optimal.  however, wherever people lie on that scale underweight   optimal   fat is none of your fucking business whatsoever.  you are not a stakeholder in a stranger is health and people would do well to keep their mouths shut about other people is appearance.  if you  are  stakeholder in their health and this is exclusively limited to loved ones and the person is healthcare practitioners then maybe you get to say something.   maybe .  the best analogy for this is smoking.  i smoke and am slightly overweight 0lb and it is certainly the smoking that is more detrimental to my health than the few extra pounds.  i  know  that smoking is bad for me i am not an idiot.  i view the haes as a bit like  healthy no matter how much you smoke .  it is not true, it may even be damaging.  on the other hand, encouraging hardened smokers to run around despite being smokers ai not a bad thing.  attack the campaign, if you must, but leave the people alone.  it does not matter how many people tell me that smoking is bad for me.  their statements are uninvited, irritating and will do precisely nothing to change my habits.  they may even reinforce them.  it is  none  of their business if i smoke.  you know when you are eating pizza and you have that one vegan health nut friend who tells you about how pepperoni is full of carcinogens and dairy will cause all kinds of damage to you ? that,  at best  is what fat shamers come off like.  i am not saying there should not be public health campaigns much like we have anti smoking campaigns , just that you personally should never say a damn thing about a stranger is weight, ever.  do not bully fat people, kids.  it helps no one.   #  generally speaking, you have two sides on the  fat debate : the fat acceptance movement healthy at every size, etc.   #  and the fat shamers who cajole fat people into losing weight, with either benign or malicious intentions.   # and the fat shamers who cajole fat people into losing weight, with either benign or malicious intentions.  generally speaking you have the extremes, haes and shamers.  the rest of people do not care until something is being a bother to them.  if i start jogging once a week, i probably wo not lose weight, but i will be a teeny tiny bit healthier and that is good.  yes, technically true but becomes near meaningless when someone is going to be dying early anyways because of their fat.  there are of course given people who are overweight who are healthier than given people who are within normal range.  same goes for given people who are underweight vs people in normal range.  however, i would state that in general, the further you slide on the scale from 0 in either direction, the further you are getting from optimal.  just remember that the sub optimal bmi people who are healthier are the exception and you should not expect to be an outlier.  yeah it is against social norms to butt into strangers lives even if they are affecting you.  blowing smoke in my face by accident ? i am still in the wrong to yell at you for smoking.  are you costing our society a shit ton via your medical problems that could easily be avoided by eating less ? even so it is not socially acceptable to try and change a strangers life.  it comes down to the fact that you ca not control what others do.  just like how they ca not control you.  deal with it or find a way to change yourself to make it stop happening.   #  most of the time i would agree with you, op.   #  most of the time i would agree with you, op.  however, i would say there are two exceptions.  when you have a preexisting personal relationship with said person.  to use your smoking example, it would be appropriate if a family member or a close friend expressed concern about your smoking habit amd offered to help you quit if you would like it.  the same could go for overweight people.  when their weight affects you.  this goes particularly for air travel.  when i pay for a seat, i pay for the whole seat.  i do not pay for 0/0 of a seat while a 0 pound guy is excess body fat takes up part of the seat i paid for.  at that point his body wait is my buisness, because his body weight is denying something i paid for.  those two points being made, i would agree that random comments out of the blue by complete strangers are obnoxious and unnecessary.   #  for the record, i am not arguing for or against the airline example.   #  i agree that it sets a tricky precedent, but this is not a good analogy.  public education i assume you are referring to taxes is a non profit state service.  the workers therein are paid to educate the children to the best of their ability, providing each student with services that best meet his or her individual needs.  yes, a high needs student may require more focus that may otherwise be given to other children, but their parents are not opting to pay for individual services.  they are taxed at a set rate.  even if they did not have kids in school, they would be taxed.  the tax dollars are an investment in society, not the cost of a personal service, and one ca not choose to do business elsewhere unless you move, i guess .  airlines are private for profit businesses.  it is their prerogative to do whatever is in the business is best interest.  this tends to include raising profits while limiting customer dissatisfaction.  one company choosing to charge per seat vs.  per customer is quite different than a teacher having to teach.  for the record, i am not arguing for or against the airline example.  i just do not see these two as analogous.   #  what is the service you are paying for ?  #  ok, that does make the issue a bit different.  let is boil down the issue to its core components: if you opt to go to a university and pay for it, you are indeed personally paying for a service.  what is the service you are paying for ? education.  yes, you are making use of their available resources, but ultimately you are giving them money so that you can learn.  i do not think your argument would hold up, because those resources were still available to you you just did not use them as heavily as other students did.  moreover, if you learned more efficiently and effectively than other students, then you actually got more out of the experience than they did.  i would say you got a better deal, considering you paid the same but got more learning out of it.   #  at some point, a person needs to be responsible for their immediate area, whether that radius is taken up by bags or corpulence or smell or nothing at all.   #  that is just giving corpulent people a free pass when it comes to not holding themselves accountable which seems kind of absurd.  how is someone who knows they are going to be 0lbs in a train seat any different from someone who is at a healthy size and carrying 0 personal bags, two of which they are holding in their lap so that your space is clearly intruded upon and your comfort is reduced significantly ? using a train example because you can carry on more luggage, but it is the same idea.  lady with a big purse on her lap or what have you.  at some point, a person needs to be responsible for their immediate area, whether that radius is taken up by bags or corpulence or smell or nothing at all.  it is that person is responsibility, as a member of our society, to at least have some base line courtesy.  and honestly, most people do.  if you have extra bags, you are mindful of how you carry them.  most overweight people are very, very aware of themselves and the area they take up, and act accordingly, which is considerate.  but blaming the airline for not asking for girth measurements when you purchase tickets so that you can shift responsibility onto them when 0a is now 0a and most of b seems wrong.
generally speaking, you have two sides on the  fat debate : the fat acceptance movement healthy at every size, etc.  and the fat shamers who cajole fat people into losing weight, with either benign or malicious intentions.  first of all, i do not buy haes.  i believe that anyone of any size can be  healthier  at that size.  if i start jogging once a week, i probably wo not lose weight, but i will be a teeny tiny bit healthier and that is good.  secondly, bmi is an overall population indicator.  there are of course given people who are overweight who are healthier than given people who are within normal range.  same goes for given people who are underweight vs people in normal range.  however, i would state that  in general , the further you slide on the scale from 0 in either direction, the further you are getting from optimal.  however, wherever people lie on that scale underweight   optimal   fat is none of your fucking business whatsoever.  you are not a stakeholder in a stranger is health and people would do well to keep their mouths shut about other people is appearance.  if you  are  stakeholder in their health and this is exclusively limited to loved ones and the person is healthcare practitioners then maybe you get to say something.   maybe .  the best analogy for this is smoking.  i smoke and am slightly overweight 0lb and it is certainly the smoking that is more detrimental to my health than the few extra pounds.  i  know  that smoking is bad for me i am not an idiot.  i view the haes as a bit like  healthy no matter how much you smoke .  it is not true, it may even be damaging.  on the other hand, encouraging hardened smokers to run around despite being smokers ai not a bad thing.  attack the campaign, if you must, but leave the people alone.  it does not matter how many people tell me that smoking is bad for me.  their statements are uninvited, irritating and will do precisely nothing to change my habits.  they may even reinforce them.  it is  none  of their business if i smoke.  you know when you are eating pizza and you have that one vegan health nut friend who tells you about how pepperoni is full of carcinogens and dairy will cause all kinds of damage to you ? that,  at best  is what fat shamers come off like.  i am not saying there should not be public health campaigns much like we have anti smoking campaigns , just that you personally should never say a damn thing about a stranger is weight, ever.  do not bully fat people, kids.  it helps no one.   #  secondly, bmi is an overall population indicator.   #  there are of course given people who are overweight who are healthier than given people who are within normal range.   # and the fat shamers who cajole fat people into losing weight, with either benign or malicious intentions.  generally speaking you have the extremes, haes and shamers.  the rest of people do not care until something is being a bother to them.  if i start jogging once a week, i probably wo not lose weight, but i will be a teeny tiny bit healthier and that is good.  yes, technically true but becomes near meaningless when someone is going to be dying early anyways because of their fat.  there are of course given people who are overweight who are healthier than given people who are within normal range.  same goes for given people who are underweight vs people in normal range.  however, i would state that in general, the further you slide on the scale from 0 in either direction, the further you are getting from optimal.  just remember that the sub optimal bmi people who are healthier are the exception and you should not expect to be an outlier.  yeah it is against social norms to butt into strangers lives even if they are affecting you.  blowing smoke in my face by accident ? i am still in the wrong to yell at you for smoking.  are you costing our society a shit ton via your medical problems that could easily be avoided by eating less ? even so it is not socially acceptable to try and change a strangers life.  it comes down to the fact that you ca not control what others do.  just like how they ca not control you.  deal with it or find a way to change yourself to make it stop happening.   #  to use your smoking example, it would be appropriate if a family member or a close friend expressed concern about your smoking habit amd offered to help you quit if you would like it.   #  most of the time i would agree with you, op.  however, i would say there are two exceptions.  when you have a preexisting personal relationship with said person.  to use your smoking example, it would be appropriate if a family member or a close friend expressed concern about your smoking habit amd offered to help you quit if you would like it.  the same could go for overweight people.  when their weight affects you.  this goes particularly for air travel.  when i pay for a seat, i pay for the whole seat.  i do not pay for 0/0 of a seat while a 0 pound guy is excess body fat takes up part of the seat i paid for.  at that point his body wait is my buisness, because his body weight is denying something i paid for.  those two points being made, i would agree that random comments out of the blue by complete strangers are obnoxious and unnecessary.   #  one company choosing to charge per seat vs.   #  i agree that it sets a tricky precedent, but this is not a good analogy.  public education i assume you are referring to taxes is a non profit state service.  the workers therein are paid to educate the children to the best of their ability, providing each student with services that best meet his or her individual needs.  yes, a high needs student may require more focus that may otherwise be given to other children, but their parents are not opting to pay for individual services.  they are taxed at a set rate.  even if they did not have kids in school, they would be taxed.  the tax dollars are an investment in society, not the cost of a personal service, and one ca not choose to do business elsewhere unless you move, i guess .  airlines are private for profit businesses.  it is their prerogative to do whatever is in the business is best interest.  this tends to include raising profits while limiting customer dissatisfaction.  one company choosing to charge per seat vs.  per customer is quite different than a teacher having to teach.  for the record, i am not arguing for or against the airline example.  i just do not see these two as analogous.   #  let is boil down the issue to its core components: if you opt to go to a university and pay for it, you are indeed personally paying for a service.   #  ok, that does make the issue a bit different.  let is boil down the issue to its core components: if you opt to go to a university and pay for it, you are indeed personally paying for a service.  what is the service you are paying for ? education.  yes, you are making use of their available resources, but ultimately you are giving them money so that you can learn.  i do not think your argument would hold up, because those resources were still available to you you just did not use them as heavily as other students did.  moreover, if you learned more efficiently and effectively than other students, then you actually got more out of the experience than they did.  i would say you got a better deal, considering you paid the same but got more learning out of it.   #  but blaming the airline for not asking for girth measurements when you purchase tickets so that you can shift responsibility onto them when 0a is now 0a and most of b seems wrong.   #  that is just giving corpulent people a free pass when it comes to not holding themselves accountable which seems kind of absurd.  how is someone who knows they are going to be 0lbs in a train seat any different from someone who is at a healthy size and carrying 0 personal bags, two of which they are holding in their lap so that your space is clearly intruded upon and your comfort is reduced significantly ? using a train example because you can carry on more luggage, but it is the same idea.  lady with a big purse on her lap or what have you.  at some point, a person needs to be responsible for their immediate area, whether that radius is taken up by bags or corpulence or smell or nothing at all.  it is that person is responsibility, as a member of our society, to at least have some base line courtesy.  and honestly, most people do.  if you have extra bags, you are mindful of how you carry them.  most overweight people are very, very aware of themselves and the area they take up, and act accordingly, which is considerate.  but blaming the airline for not asking for girth measurements when you purchase tickets so that you can shift responsibility onto them when 0a is now 0a and most of b seems wrong.
generally speaking, you have two sides on the  fat debate : the fat acceptance movement healthy at every size, etc.  and the fat shamers who cajole fat people into losing weight, with either benign or malicious intentions.  first of all, i do not buy haes.  i believe that anyone of any size can be  healthier  at that size.  if i start jogging once a week, i probably wo not lose weight, but i will be a teeny tiny bit healthier and that is good.  secondly, bmi is an overall population indicator.  there are of course given people who are overweight who are healthier than given people who are within normal range.  same goes for given people who are underweight vs people in normal range.  however, i would state that  in general , the further you slide on the scale from 0 in either direction, the further you are getting from optimal.  however, wherever people lie on that scale underweight   optimal   fat is none of your fucking business whatsoever.  you are not a stakeholder in a stranger is health and people would do well to keep their mouths shut about other people is appearance.  if you  are  stakeholder in their health and this is exclusively limited to loved ones and the person is healthcare practitioners then maybe you get to say something.   maybe .  the best analogy for this is smoking.  i smoke and am slightly overweight 0lb and it is certainly the smoking that is more detrimental to my health than the few extra pounds.  i  know  that smoking is bad for me i am not an idiot.  i view the haes as a bit like  healthy no matter how much you smoke .  it is not true, it may even be damaging.  on the other hand, encouraging hardened smokers to run around despite being smokers ai not a bad thing.  attack the campaign, if you must, but leave the people alone.  it does not matter how many people tell me that smoking is bad for me.  their statements are uninvited, irritating and will do precisely nothing to change my habits.  they may even reinforce them.  it is  none  of their business if i smoke.  you know when you are eating pizza and you have that one vegan health nut friend who tells you about how pepperoni is full of carcinogens and dairy will cause all kinds of damage to you ? that,  at best  is what fat shamers come off like.  i am not saying there should not be public health campaigns much like we have anti smoking campaigns , just that you personally should never say a damn thing about a stranger is weight, ever.  do not bully fat people, kids.  it helps no one.   #  you are not a stakeholder in a stranger is health and people would do well to keep their mouths shut about other people is appearance.   #  yeah it is against social norms to butt into strangers lives even if they are affecting you.   # and the fat shamers who cajole fat people into losing weight, with either benign or malicious intentions.  generally speaking you have the extremes, haes and shamers.  the rest of people do not care until something is being a bother to them.  if i start jogging once a week, i probably wo not lose weight, but i will be a teeny tiny bit healthier and that is good.  yes, technically true but becomes near meaningless when someone is going to be dying early anyways because of their fat.  there are of course given people who are overweight who are healthier than given people who are within normal range.  same goes for given people who are underweight vs people in normal range.  however, i would state that in general, the further you slide on the scale from 0 in either direction, the further you are getting from optimal.  just remember that the sub optimal bmi people who are healthier are the exception and you should not expect to be an outlier.  yeah it is against social norms to butt into strangers lives even if they are affecting you.  blowing smoke in my face by accident ? i am still in the wrong to yell at you for smoking.  are you costing our society a shit ton via your medical problems that could easily be avoided by eating less ? even so it is not socially acceptable to try and change a strangers life.  it comes down to the fact that you ca not control what others do.  just like how they ca not control you.  deal with it or find a way to change yourself to make it stop happening.   #  most of the time i would agree with you, op.   #  most of the time i would agree with you, op.  however, i would say there are two exceptions.  when you have a preexisting personal relationship with said person.  to use your smoking example, it would be appropriate if a family member or a close friend expressed concern about your smoking habit amd offered to help you quit if you would like it.  the same could go for overweight people.  when their weight affects you.  this goes particularly for air travel.  when i pay for a seat, i pay for the whole seat.  i do not pay for 0/0 of a seat while a 0 pound guy is excess body fat takes up part of the seat i paid for.  at that point his body wait is my buisness, because his body weight is denying something i paid for.  those two points being made, i would agree that random comments out of the blue by complete strangers are obnoxious and unnecessary.   #  one company choosing to charge per seat vs.   #  i agree that it sets a tricky precedent, but this is not a good analogy.  public education i assume you are referring to taxes is a non profit state service.  the workers therein are paid to educate the children to the best of their ability, providing each student with services that best meet his or her individual needs.  yes, a high needs student may require more focus that may otherwise be given to other children, but their parents are not opting to pay for individual services.  they are taxed at a set rate.  even if they did not have kids in school, they would be taxed.  the tax dollars are an investment in society, not the cost of a personal service, and one ca not choose to do business elsewhere unless you move, i guess .  airlines are private for profit businesses.  it is their prerogative to do whatever is in the business is best interest.  this tends to include raising profits while limiting customer dissatisfaction.  one company choosing to charge per seat vs.  per customer is quite different than a teacher having to teach.  for the record, i am not arguing for or against the airline example.  i just do not see these two as analogous.   #  yes, you are making use of their available resources, but ultimately you are giving them money so that you can learn.   #  ok, that does make the issue a bit different.  let is boil down the issue to its core components: if you opt to go to a university and pay for it, you are indeed personally paying for a service.  what is the service you are paying for ? education.  yes, you are making use of their available resources, but ultimately you are giving them money so that you can learn.  i do not think your argument would hold up, because those resources were still available to you you just did not use them as heavily as other students did.  moreover, if you learned more efficiently and effectively than other students, then you actually got more out of the experience than they did.  i would say you got a better deal, considering you paid the same but got more learning out of it.   #  at some point, a person needs to be responsible for their immediate area, whether that radius is taken up by bags or corpulence or smell or nothing at all.   #  that is just giving corpulent people a free pass when it comes to not holding themselves accountable which seems kind of absurd.  how is someone who knows they are going to be 0lbs in a train seat any different from someone who is at a healthy size and carrying 0 personal bags, two of which they are holding in their lap so that your space is clearly intruded upon and your comfort is reduced significantly ? using a train example because you can carry on more luggage, but it is the same idea.  lady with a big purse on her lap or what have you.  at some point, a person needs to be responsible for their immediate area, whether that radius is taken up by bags or corpulence or smell or nothing at all.  it is that person is responsibility, as a member of our society, to at least have some base line courtesy.  and honestly, most people do.  if you have extra bags, you are mindful of how you carry them.  most overweight people are very, very aware of themselves and the area they take up, and act accordingly, which is considerate.  but blaming the airline for not asking for girth measurements when you purchase tickets so that you can shift responsibility onto them when 0a is now 0a and most of b seems wrong.
generally speaking, you have two sides on the  fat debate : the fat acceptance movement healthy at every size, etc.  and the fat shamers who cajole fat people into losing weight, with either benign or malicious intentions.  first of all, i do not buy haes.  i believe that anyone of any size can be  healthier  at that size.  if i start jogging once a week, i probably wo not lose weight, but i will be a teeny tiny bit healthier and that is good.  secondly, bmi is an overall population indicator.  there are of course given people who are overweight who are healthier than given people who are within normal range.  same goes for given people who are underweight vs people in normal range.  however, i would state that  in general , the further you slide on the scale from 0 in either direction, the further you are getting from optimal.  however, wherever people lie on that scale underweight   optimal   fat is none of your fucking business whatsoever.  you are not a stakeholder in a stranger is health and people would do well to keep their mouths shut about other people is appearance.  if you  are  stakeholder in their health and this is exclusively limited to loved ones and the person is healthcare practitioners then maybe you get to say something.   maybe .  the best analogy for this is smoking.  i smoke and am slightly overweight 0lb and it is certainly the smoking that is more detrimental to my health than the few extra pounds.  i  know  that smoking is bad for me i am not an idiot.  i view the haes as a bit like  healthy no matter how much you smoke .  it is not true, it may even be damaging.  on the other hand, encouraging hardened smokers to run around despite being smokers ai not a bad thing.  attack the campaign, if you must, but leave the people alone.  it does not matter how many people tell me that smoking is bad for me.  their statements are uninvited, irritating and will do precisely nothing to change my habits.  they may even reinforce them.  it is  none  of their business if i smoke.  you know when you are eating pizza and you have that one vegan health nut friend who tells you about how pepperoni is full of carcinogens and dairy will cause all kinds of damage to you ? that,  at best  is what fat shamers come off like.  i am not saying there should not be public health campaigns much like we have anti smoking campaigns , just that you personally should never say a damn thing about a stranger is weight, ever.  do not bully fat people, kids.  it helps no one.   #  you personally should never say a damn thing about a stranger is weight, ever.   #  it comes down to the fact that you ca not control what others do.   # and the fat shamers who cajole fat people into losing weight, with either benign or malicious intentions.  generally speaking you have the extremes, haes and shamers.  the rest of people do not care until something is being a bother to them.  if i start jogging once a week, i probably wo not lose weight, but i will be a teeny tiny bit healthier and that is good.  yes, technically true but becomes near meaningless when someone is going to be dying early anyways because of their fat.  there are of course given people who are overweight who are healthier than given people who are within normal range.  same goes for given people who are underweight vs people in normal range.  however, i would state that in general, the further you slide on the scale from 0 in either direction, the further you are getting from optimal.  just remember that the sub optimal bmi people who are healthier are the exception and you should not expect to be an outlier.  yeah it is against social norms to butt into strangers lives even if they are affecting you.  blowing smoke in my face by accident ? i am still in the wrong to yell at you for smoking.  are you costing our society a shit ton via your medical problems that could easily be avoided by eating less ? even so it is not socially acceptable to try and change a strangers life.  it comes down to the fact that you ca not control what others do.  just like how they ca not control you.  deal with it or find a way to change yourself to make it stop happening.   #  i do not pay for 0/0 of a seat while a 0 pound guy is excess body fat takes up part of the seat i paid for.   #  most of the time i would agree with you, op.  however, i would say there are two exceptions.  when you have a preexisting personal relationship with said person.  to use your smoking example, it would be appropriate if a family member or a close friend expressed concern about your smoking habit amd offered to help you quit if you would like it.  the same could go for overweight people.  when their weight affects you.  this goes particularly for air travel.  when i pay for a seat, i pay for the whole seat.  i do not pay for 0/0 of a seat while a 0 pound guy is excess body fat takes up part of the seat i paid for.  at that point his body wait is my buisness, because his body weight is denying something i paid for.  those two points being made, i would agree that random comments out of the blue by complete strangers are obnoxious and unnecessary.   #  the tax dollars are an investment in society, not the cost of a personal service, and one ca not choose to do business elsewhere unless you move, i guess .   #  i agree that it sets a tricky precedent, but this is not a good analogy.  public education i assume you are referring to taxes is a non profit state service.  the workers therein are paid to educate the children to the best of their ability, providing each student with services that best meet his or her individual needs.  yes, a high needs student may require more focus that may otherwise be given to other children, but their parents are not opting to pay for individual services.  they are taxed at a set rate.  even if they did not have kids in school, they would be taxed.  the tax dollars are an investment in society, not the cost of a personal service, and one ca not choose to do business elsewhere unless you move, i guess .  airlines are private for profit businesses.  it is their prerogative to do whatever is in the business is best interest.  this tends to include raising profits while limiting customer dissatisfaction.  one company choosing to charge per seat vs.  per customer is quite different than a teacher having to teach.  for the record, i am not arguing for or against the airline example.  i just do not see these two as analogous.   #  i would say you got a better deal, considering you paid the same but got more learning out of it.   #  ok, that does make the issue a bit different.  let is boil down the issue to its core components: if you opt to go to a university and pay for it, you are indeed personally paying for a service.  what is the service you are paying for ? education.  yes, you are making use of their available resources, but ultimately you are giving them money so that you can learn.  i do not think your argument would hold up, because those resources were still available to you you just did not use them as heavily as other students did.  moreover, if you learned more efficiently and effectively than other students, then you actually got more out of the experience than they did.  i would say you got a better deal, considering you paid the same but got more learning out of it.   #  if you have extra bags, you are mindful of how you carry them.   #  that is just giving corpulent people a free pass when it comes to not holding themselves accountable which seems kind of absurd.  how is someone who knows they are going to be 0lbs in a train seat any different from someone who is at a healthy size and carrying 0 personal bags, two of which they are holding in their lap so that your space is clearly intruded upon and your comfort is reduced significantly ? using a train example because you can carry on more luggage, but it is the same idea.  lady with a big purse on her lap or what have you.  at some point, a person needs to be responsible for their immediate area, whether that radius is taken up by bags or corpulence or smell or nothing at all.  it is that person is responsibility, as a member of our society, to at least have some base line courtesy.  and honestly, most people do.  if you have extra bags, you are mindful of how you carry them.  most overweight people are very, very aware of themselves and the area they take up, and act accordingly, which is considerate.  but blaming the airline for not asking for girth measurements when you purchase tickets so that you can shift responsibility onto them when 0a is now 0a and most of b seems wrong.
generally speaking, you have two sides on the  fat debate : the fat acceptance movement healthy at every size, etc.  and the fat shamers who cajole fat people into losing weight, with either benign or malicious intentions.  first of all, i do not buy haes.  i believe that anyone of any size can be  healthier  at that size.  if i start jogging once a week, i probably wo not lose weight, but i will be a teeny tiny bit healthier and that is good.  secondly, bmi is an overall population indicator.  there are of course given people who are overweight who are healthier than given people who are within normal range.  same goes for given people who are underweight vs people in normal range.  however, i would state that  in general , the further you slide on the scale from 0 in either direction, the further you are getting from optimal.  however, wherever people lie on that scale underweight   optimal   fat is none of your fucking business whatsoever.  you are not a stakeholder in a stranger is health and people would do well to keep their mouths shut about other people is appearance.  if you  are  stakeholder in their health and this is exclusively limited to loved ones and the person is healthcare practitioners then maybe you get to say something.   maybe .  the best analogy for this is smoking.  i smoke and am slightly overweight 0lb and it is certainly the smoking that is more detrimental to my health than the few extra pounds.  i  know  that smoking is bad for me i am not an idiot.  i view the haes as a bit like  healthy no matter how much you smoke .  it is not true, it may even be damaging.  on the other hand, encouraging hardened smokers to run around despite being smokers ai not a bad thing.  attack the campaign, if you must, but leave the people alone.  it does not matter how many people tell me that smoking is bad for me.  their statements are uninvited, irritating and will do precisely nothing to change my habits.  they may even reinforce them.  it is  none  of their business if i smoke.  you know when you are eating pizza and you have that one vegan health nut friend who tells you about how pepperoni is full of carcinogens and dairy will cause all kinds of damage to you ? that,  at best  is what fat shamers come off like.  i am not saying there should not be public health campaigns much like we have anti smoking campaigns , just that you personally should never say a damn thing about a stranger is weight, ever.  do not bully fat people, kids.  it helps no one.   #  it does not matter how many people tell me that smoking is bad for me.   #  their statements are uninvited, irritating and will do precisely nothing to change my habits.   # obesity costs the nhs £0 0 billion a year, and that is just the direct cost of obesity.  mckinsey studied this issue and found that obesity costs the uk 0 billion a year URL which is less than smoking but more that the cost of: war, terrorism, illiteracy, drug use, pollution, road accidents, etc.  so, yes, i would say that the massive  £0 billion  cost a year to the economy means i am a stakeholder in a stranger is health.  their statements are uninvited, irritating and will do precisely nothing to change my habits.  they may even reinforce them.  alright then, i have never randomly walked up to a smoker and said  that is not healthy you know .  i doubt many people do, unless you are blowing smoke in their direction or something like that.  financially it is my business.  of course i give a damn.  and i do not, just like i do not tell smokers not to smoke, unless it starts affecting me or if they mention it themselves.  if a smoker complains about being short of breath or the costs of smoking, i will tell them to stop smoking; if an obese person complains about knee pain, difficulty moving or the cost of food, i tell them to stop eating so much.   #  when you have a preexisting personal relationship with said person.   #  most of the time i would agree with you, op.  however, i would say there are two exceptions.  when you have a preexisting personal relationship with said person.  to use your smoking example, it would be appropriate if a family member or a close friend expressed concern about your smoking habit amd offered to help you quit if you would like it.  the same could go for overweight people.  when their weight affects you.  this goes particularly for air travel.  when i pay for a seat, i pay for the whole seat.  i do not pay for 0/0 of a seat while a 0 pound guy is excess body fat takes up part of the seat i paid for.  at that point his body wait is my buisness, because his body weight is denying something i paid for.  those two points being made, i would agree that random comments out of the blue by complete strangers are obnoxious and unnecessary.   #  it is their prerogative to do whatever is in the business is best interest.   #  i agree that it sets a tricky precedent, but this is not a good analogy.  public education i assume you are referring to taxes is a non profit state service.  the workers therein are paid to educate the children to the best of their ability, providing each student with services that best meet his or her individual needs.  yes, a high needs student may require more focus that may otherwise be given to other children, but their parents are not opting to pay for individual services.  they are taxed at a set rate.  even if they did not have kids in school, they would be taxed.  the tax dollars are an investment in society, not the cost of a personal service, and one ca not choose to do business elsewhere unless you move, i guess .  airlines are private for profit businesses.  it is their prerogative to do whatever is in the business is best interest.  this tends to include raising profits while limiting customer dissatisfaction.  one company choosing to charge per seat vs.  per customer is quite different than a teacher having to teach.  for the record, i am not arguing for or against the airline example.  i just do not see these two as analogous.   #  yes, you are making use of their available resources, but ultimately you are giving them money so that you can learn.   #  ok, that does make the issue a bit different.  let is boil down the issue to its core components: if you opt to go to a university and pay for it, you are indeed personally paying for a service.  what is the service you are paying for ? education.  yes, you are making use of their available resources, but ultimately you are giving them money so that you can learn.  i do not think your argument would hold up, because those resources were still available to you you just did not use them as heavily as other students did.  moreover, if you learned more efficiently and effectively than other students, then you actually got more out of the experience than they did.  i would say you got a better deal, considering you paid the same but got more learning out of it.   #  at some point, a person needs to be responsible for their immediate area, whether that radius is taken up by bags or corpulence or smell or nothing at all.   #  that is just giving corpulent people a free pass when it comes to not holding themselves accountable which seems kind of absurd.  how is someone who knows they are going to be 0lbs in a train seat any different from someone who is at a healthy size and carrying 0 personal bags, two of which they are holding in their lap so that your space is clearly intruded upon and your comfort is reduced significantly ? using a train example because you can carry on more luggage, but it is the same idea.  lady with a big purse on her lap or what have you.  at some point, a person needs to be responsible for their immediate area, whether that radius is taken up by bags or corpulence or smell or nothing at all.  it is that person is responsibility, as a member of our society, to at least have some base line courtesy.  and honestly, most people do.  if you have extra bags, you are mindful of how you carry them.  most overweight people are very, very aware of themselves and the area they take up, and act accordingly, which is considerate.  but blaming the airline for not asking for girth measurements when you purchase tickets so that you can shift responsibility onto them when 0a is now 0a and most of b seems wrong.
generally speaking, you have two sides on the  fat debate : the fat acceptance movement healthy at every size, etc.  and the fat shamers who cajole fat people into losing weight, with either benign or malicious intentions.  first of all, i do not buy haes.  i believe that anyone of any size can be  healthier  at that size.  if i start jogging once a week, i probably wo not lose weight, but i will be a teeny tiny bit healthier and that is good.  secondly, bmi is an overall population indicator.  there are of course given people who are overweight who are healthier than given people who are within normal range.  same goes for given people who are underweight vs people in normal range.  however, i would state that  in general , the further you slide on the scale from 0 in either direction, the further you are getting from optimal.  however, wherever people lie on that scale underweight   optimal   fat is none of your fucking business whatsoever.  you are not a stakeholder in a stranger is health and people would do well to keep their mouths shut about other people is appearance.  if you  are  stakeholder in their health and this is exclusively limited to loved ones and the person is healthcare practitioners then maybe you get to say something.   maybe .  the best analogy for this is smoking.  i smoke and am slightly overweight 0lb and it is certainly the smoking that is more detrimental to my health than the few extra pounds.  i  know  that smoking is bad for me i am not an idiot.  i view the haes as a bit like  healthy no matter how much you smoke .  it is not true, it may even be damaging.  on the other hand, encouraging hardened smokers to run around despite being smokers ai not a bad thing.  attack the campaign, if you must, but leave the people alone.  it does not matter how many people tell me that smoking is bad for me.  their statements are uninvited, irritating and will do precisely nothing to change my habits.  they may even reinforce them.  it is  none  of their business if i smoke.  you know when you are eating pizza and you have that one vegan health nut friend who tells you about how pepperoni is full of carcinogens and dairy will cause all kinds of damage to you ? that,  at best  is what fat shamers come off like.  i am not saying there should not be public health campaigns much like we have anti smoking campaigns , just that you personally should never say a damn thing about a stranger is weight, ever.  do not bully fat people, kids.  it helps no one.   #  you personally should never say a damn thing about a stranger is weight, ever.   #  and i do not, just like i do not tell smokers not to smoke, unless it starts affecting me or if they mention it themselves.   # obesity costs the nhs £0 0 billion a year, and that is just the direct cost of obesity.  mckinsey studied this issue and found that obesity costs the uk 0 billion a year URL which is less than smoking but more that the cost of: war, terrorism, illiteracy, drug use, pollution, road accidents, etc.  so, yes, i would say that the massive  £0 billion  cost a year to the economy means i am a stakeholder in a stranger is health.  their statements are uninvited, irritating and will do precisely nothing to change my habits.  they may even reinforce them.  alright then, i have never randomly walked up to a smoker and said  that is not healthy you know .  i doubt many people do, unless you are blowing smoke in their direction or something like that.  financially it is my business.  of course i give a damn.  and i do not, just like i do not tell smokers not to smoke, unless it starts affecting me or if they mention it themselves.  if a smoker complains about being short of breath or the costs of smoking, i will tell them to stop smoking; if an obese person complains about knee pain, difficulty moving or the cost of food, i tell them to stop eating so much.   #  i do not pay for 0/0 of a seat while a 0 pound guy is excess body fat takes up part of the seat i paid for.   #  most of the time i would agree with you, op.  however, i would say there are two exceptions.  when you have a preexisting personal relationship with said person.  to use your smoking example, it would be appropriate if a family member or a close friend expressed concern about your smoking habit amd offered to help you quit if you would like it.  the same could go for overweight people.  when their weight affects you.  this goes particularly for air travel.  when i pay for a seat, i pay for the whole seat.  i do not pay for 0/0 of a seat while a 0 pound guy is excess body fat takes up part of the seat i paid for.  at that point his body wait is my buisness, because his body weight is denying something i paid for.  those two points being made, i would agree that random comments out of the blue by complete strangers are obnoxious and unnecessary.   #  public education i assume you are referring to taxes is a non profit state service.   #  i agree that it sets a tricky precedent, but this is not a good analogy.  public education i assume you are referring to taxes is a non profit state service.  the workers therein are paid to educate the children to the best of their ability, providing each student with services that best meet his or her individual needs.  yes, a high needs student may require more focus that may otherwise be given to other children, but their parents are not opting to pay for individual services.  they are taxed at a set rate.  even if they did not have kids in school, they would be taxed.  the tax dollars are an investment in society, not the cost of a personal service, and one ca not choose to do business elsewhere unless you move, i guess .  airlines are private for profit businesses.  it is their prerogative to do whatever is in the business is best interest.  this tends to include raising profits while limiting customer dissatisfaction.  one company choosing to charge per seat vs.  per customer is quite different than a teacher having to teach.  for the record, i am not arguing for or against the airline example.  i just do not see these two as analogous.   #  i do not think your argument would hold up, because those resources were still available to you you just did not use them as heavily as other students did.   #  ok, that does make the issue a bit different.  let is boil down the issue to its core components: if you opt to go to a university and pay for it, you are indeed personally paying for a service.  what is the service you are paying for ? education.  yes, you are making use of their available resources, but ultimately you are giving them money so that you can learn.  i do not think your argument would hold up, because those resources were still available to you you just did not use them as heavily as other students did.  moreover, if you learned more efficiently and effectively than other students, then you actually got more out of the experience than they did.  i would say you got a better deal, considering you paid the same but got more learning out of it.   #  most overweight people are very, very aware of themselves and the area they take up, and act accordingly, which is considerate.   #  that is just giving corpulent people a free pass when it comes to not holding themselves accountable which seems kind of absurd.  how is someone who knows they are going to be 0lbs in a train seat any different from someone who is at a healthy size and carrying 0 personal bags, two of which they are holding in their lap so that your space is clearly intruded upon and your comfort is reduced significantly ? using a train example because you can carry on more luggage, but it is the same idea.  lady with a big purse on her lap or what have you.  at some point, a person needs to be responsible for their immediate area, whether that radius is taken up by bags or corpulence or smell or nothing at all.  it is that person is responsibility, as a member of our society, to at least have some base line courtesy.  and honestly, most people do.  if you have extra bags, you are mindful of how you carry them.  most overweight people are very, very aware of themselves and the area they take up, and act accordingly, which is considerate.  but blaming the airline for not asking for girth measurements when you purchase tickets so that you can shift responsibility onto them when 0a is now 0a and most of b seems wrong.
generally speaking, you have two sides on the  fat debate : the fat acceptance movement healthy at every size, etc.  and the fat shamers who cajole fat people into losing weight, with either benign or malicious intentions.  first of all, i do not buy haes.  i believe that anyone of any size can be  healthier  at that size.  if i start jogging once a week, i probably wo not lose weight, but i will be a teeny tiny bit healthier and that is good.  secondly, bmi is an overall population indicator.  there are of course given people who are overweight who are healthier than given people who are within normal range.  same goes for given people who are underweight vs people in normal range.  however, i would state that  in general , the further you slide on the scale from 0 in either direction, the further you are getting from optimal.  however, wherever people lie on that scale underweight   optimal   fat is none of your fucking business whatsoever.  you are not a stakeholder in a stranger is health and people would do well to keep their mouths shut about other people is appearance.  if you  are  stakeholder in their health and this is exclusively limited to loved ones and the person is healthcare practitioners then maybe you get to say something.   maybe .  the best analogy for this is smoking.  i smoke and am slightly overweight 0lb and it is certainly the smoking that is more detrimental to my health than the few extra pounds.  i  know  that smoking is bad for me i am not an idiot.  i view the haes as a bit like  healthy no matter how much you smoke .  it is not true, it may even be damaging.  on the other hand, encouraging hardened smokers to run around despite being smokers ai not a bad thing.  attack the campaign, if you must, but leave the people alone.  it does not matter how many people tell me that smoking is bad for me.  their statements are uninvited, irritating and will do precisely nothing to change my habits.  they may even reinforce them.  it is  none  of their business if i smoke.  you know when you are eating pizza and you have that one vegan health nut friend who tells you about how pepperoni is full of carcinogens and dairy will cause all kinds of damage to you ? that,  at best  is what fat shamers come off like.  i am not saying there should not be public health campaigns much like we have anti smoking campaigns , just that you personally should never say a damn thing about a stranger is weight, ever.  do not bully fat people, kids.  it helps no one.   #  generally speaking, you have two sides on the  fat debate : the fat acceptance movement healthy at every size, etc.   #  and the fat shamers who cajole fat people into losing weight, with either benign or malicious intentions.   # and the fat shamers who cajole fat people into losing weight, with either benign or malicious intentions.  well, i would say you are mistaken from the get go.  for instance, i have never, and have no intention of shaming fat people, but that does not mean i do not think haes is bullshit.  you can recognize that obesity is a problem without shaming people.  you are not a stakeholder in a stranger is health and people would do well to keep their mouths shut about other people is appearance.  except i, and every single other person who lives in a country with public healthcare.  is a stakeholder in a strangers health.  i put money into the system, and people living unhealthy lifestyles make that money go not nearly as far as it could otherwise.  it is not fair that one person who is obese and smokes puts the same amount of money in as a healthy person, yet the former will take far more out of the healthcare system than the latter.  i would say that fact makes it the latter is business.  but in the end, i agree.  you should not really shame individuals ever.   #  when i pay for a seat, i pay for the whole seat.   #  most of the time i would agree with you, op.  however, i would say there are two exceptions.  when you have a preexisting personal relationship with said person.  to use your smoking example, it would be appropriate if a family member or a close friend expressed concern about your smoking habit amd offered to help you quit if you would like it.  the same could go for overweight people.  when their weight affects you.  this goes particularly for air travel.  when i pay for a seat, i pay for the whole seat.  i do not pay for 0/0 of a seat while a 0 pound guy is excess body fat takes up part of the seat i paid for.  at that point his body wait is my buisness, because his body weight is denying something i paid for.  those two points being made, i would agree that random comments out of the blue by complete strangers are obnoxious and unnecessary.   #  even if they did not have kids in school, they would be taxed.   #  i agree that it sets a tricky precedent, but this is not a good analogy.  public education i assume you are referring to taxes is a non profit state service.  the workers therein are paid to educate the children to the best of their ability, providing each student with services that best meet his or her individual needs.  yes, a high needs student may require more focus that may otherwise be given to other children, but their parents are not opting to pay for individual services.  they are taxed at a set rate.  even if they did not have kids in school, they would be taxed.  the tax dollars are an investment in society, not the cost of a personal service, and one ca not choose to do business elsewhere unless you move, i guess .  airlines are private for profit businesses.  it is their prerogative to do whatever is in the business is best interest.  this tends to include raising profits while limiting customer dissatisfaction.  one company choosing to charge per seat vs.  per customer is quite different than a teacher having to teach.  for the record, i am not arguing for or against the airline example.  i just do not see these two as analogous.   #  i do not think your argument would hold up, because those resources were still available to you you just did not use them as heavily as other students did.   #  ok, that does make the issue a bit different.  let is boil down the issue to its core components: if you opt to go to a university and pay for it, you are indeed personally paying for a service.  what is the service you are paying for ? education.  yes, you are making use of their available resources, but ultimately you are giving them money so that you can learn.  i do not think your argument would hold up, because those resources were still available to you you just did not use them as heavily as other students did.  moreover, if you learned more efficiently and effectively than other students, then you actually got more out of the experience than they did.  i would say you got a better deal, considering you paid the same but got more learning out of it.   #  but blaming the airline for not asking for girth measurements when you purchase tickets so that you can shift responsibility onto them when 0a is now 0a and most of b seems wrong.   #  that is just giving corpulent people a free pass when it comes to not holding themselves accountable which seems kind of absurd.  how is someone who knows they are going to be 0lbs in a train seat any different from someone who is at a healthy size and carrying 0 personal bags, two of which they are holding in their lap so that your space is clearly intruded upon and your comfort is reduced significantly ? using a train example because you can carry on more luggage, but it is the same idea.  lady with a big purse on her lap or what have you.  at some point, a person needs to be responsible for their immediate area, whether that radius is taken up by bags or corpulence or smell or nothing at all.  it is that person is responsibility, as a member of our society, to at least have some base line courtesy.  and honestly, most people do.  if you have extra bags, you are mindful of how you carry them.  most overweight people are very, very aware of themselves and the area they take up, and act accordingly, which is considerate.  but blaming the airline for not asking for girth measurements when you purchase tickets so that you can shift responsibility onto them when 0a is now 0a and most of b seems wrong.
generally speaking, you have two sides on the  fat debate : the fat acceptance movement healthy at every size, etc.  and the fat shamers who cajole fat people into losing weight, with either benign or malicious intentions.  first of all, i do not buy haes.  i believe that anyone of any size can be  healthier  at that size.  if i start jogging once a week, i probably wo not lose weight, but i will be a teeny tiny bit healthier and that is good.  secondly, bmi is an overall population indicator.  there are of course given people who are overweight who are healthier than given people who are within normal range.  same goes for given people who are underweight vs people in normal range.  however, i would state that  in general , the further you slide on the scale from 0 in either direction, the further you are getting from optimal.  however, wherever people lie on that scale underweight   optimal   fat is none of your fucking business whatsoever.  you are not a stakeholder in a stranger is health and people would do well to keep their mouths shut about other people is appearance.  if you  are  stakeholder in their health and this is exclusively limited to loved ones and the person is healthcare practitioners then maybe you get to say something.   maybe .  the best analogy for this is smoking.  i smoke and am slightly overweight 0lb and it is certainly the smoking that is more detrimental to my health than the few extra pounds.  i  know  that smoking is bad for me i am not an idiot.  i view the haes as a bit like  healthy no matter how much you smoke .  it is not true, it may even be damaging.  on the other hand, encouraging hardened smokers to run around despite being smokers ai not a bad thing.  attack the campaign, if you must, but leave the people alone.  it does not matter how many people tell me that smoking is bad for me.  their statements are uninvited, irritating and will do precisely nothing to change my habits.  they may even reinforce them.  it is  none  of their business if i smoke.  you know when you are eating pizza and you have that one vegan health nut friend who tells you about how pepperoni is full of carcinogens and dairy will cause all kinds of damage to you ? that,  at best  is what fat shamers come off like.  i am not saying there should not be public health campaigns much like we have anti smoking campaigns , just that you personally should never say a damn thing about a stranger is weight, ever.  do not bully fat people, kids.  it helps no one.   #  just that you personally should never say a damn thing about a stranger is weight, ever.   #  but the thing is we they are entitled to any opinion they please.   # but the thing is we they are entitled to any opinion they please.  whether you like it or not does not matter as long as they do not treat you differently discriminate them or harass .  i mean if a person can say wow you are skinny/beautiful, you can say wow you are fat/ugly.  however, repetition of such speech can be forbidden as that constitutes harassment.  i am not directly arguing your main argument, just a very small part of it.  sometimes people get so offended by others  comments and turn it into a bigger deal that it is.   #  i do not pay for 0/0 of a seat while a 0 pound guy is excess body fat takes up part of the seat i paid for.   #  most of the time i would agree with you, op.  however, i would say there are two exceptions.  when you have a preexisting personal relationship with said person.  to use your smoking example, it would be appropriate if a family member or a close friend expressed concern about your smoking habit amd offered to help you quit if you would like it.  the same could go for overweight people.  when their weight affects you.  this goes particularly for air travel.  when i pay for a seat, i pay for the whole seat.  i do not pay for 0/0 of a seat while a 0 pound guy is excess body fat takes up part of the seat i paid for.  at that point his body wait is my buisness, because his body weight is denying something i paid for.  those two points being made, i would agree that random comments out of the blue by complete strangers are obnoxious and unnecessary.   #  i agree that it sets a tricky precedent, but this is not a good analogy.   #  i agree that it sets a tricky precedent, but this is not a good analogy.  public education i assume you are referring to taxes is a non profit state service.  the workers therein are paid to educate the children to the best of their ability, providing each student with services that best meet his or her individual needs.  yes, a high needs student may require more focus that may otherwise be given to other children, but their parents are not opting to pay for individual services.  they are taxed at a set rate.  even if they did not have kids in school, they would be taxed.  the tax dollars are an investment in society, not the cost of a personal service, and one ca not choose to do business elsewhere unless you move, i guess .  airlines are private for profit businesses.  it is their prerogative to do whatever is in the business is best interest.  this tends to include raising profits while limiting customer dissatisfaction.  one company choosing to charge per seat vs.  per customer is quite different than a teacher having to teach.  for the record, i am not arguing for or against the airline example.  i just do not see these two as analogous.   #  moreover, if you learned more efficiently and effectively than other students, then you actually got more out of the experience than they did.   #  ok, that does make the issue a bit different.  let is boil down the issue to its core components: if you opt to go to a university and pay for it, you are indeed personally paying for a service.  what is the service you are paying for ? education.  yes, you are making use of their available resources, but ultimately you are giving them money so that you can learn.  i do not think your argument would hold up, because those resources were still available to you you just did not use them as heavily as other students did.  moreover, if you learned more efficiently and effectively than other students, then you actually got more out of the experience than they did.  i would say you got a better deal, considering you paid the same but got more learning out of it.   #  lady with a big purse on her lap or what have you.   #  that is just giving corpulent people a free pass when it comes to not holding themselves accountable which seems kind of absurd.  how is someone who knows they are going to be 0lbs in a train seat any different from someone who is at a healthy size and carrying 0 personal bags, two of which they are holding in their lap so that your space is clearly intruded upon and your comfort is reduced significantly ? using a train example because you can carry on more luggage, but it is the same idea.  lady with a big purse on her lap or what have you.  at some point, a person needs to be responsible for their immediate area, whether that radius is taken up by bags or corpulence or smell or nothing at all.  it is that person is responsibility, as a member of our society, to at least have some base line courtesy.  and honestly, most people do.  if you have extra bags, you are mindful of how you carry them.  most overweight people are very, very aware of themselves and the area they take up, and act accordingly, which is considerate.  but blaming the airline for not asking for girth measurements when you purchase tickets so that you can shift responsibility onto them when 0a is now 0a and most of b seems wrong.
with all that is going on with reddit lately i think the big thing that is being ignored is that this is largely a white male community.  when it functioned in that way everything seemed to go more or less fine of course there were others interspersed but that was the majority of viewpoints .  as more and more groups began to be introduced there were shall we say competing interests.  they correctly are asking for space within the community as well.  however, the problem is white men had already kind of adopted this space as a place where they could discuss their problems without feeling guilty etc.  for example, when people complain about false rape charges getting to the front page constantly or reverse discrimination cases etc etc.  i think the sjw this and that we often see is just pushback from white men feeling  invaded  for lack of a better word.  i am not saying this is right.  i think this last ush of banning subs etc also has the same implications first fatpeoplehate is seen as appealing to women and feminists.  then coontown seen as appealing to minorities.  i think its reflective of white men feeling like all other people get to have their spaces etc.  but they never do.  what i got from the threads is that people feel betrayed and i believe that feeling is genuine.  so here is the actual cmv.  why ca not everyone just let white guys have this one.  why ca not we all just either accept that this is and will be a site that leans towards issues important to straight white men and will be biased towards their opinions or leave and go to a different site.  its not like their are not other hubs.  and i am not saying that there should not be differences of opinion etc.  newsflash: not all white guys think the same .  but just as anyone is welcome to watch logo and comment on it etc no one would complain that the content is too gay or be upset if anti gay things or things that appear to be anti gay get the equivalent of downvoted and no i am not comparing experiences in any way .  i also think that if people recognized this gping in there would be less abrasive push back from the trolls and  dark side  of reddit.   #  why ca not we all just either accept that this is and will be a site that leans towards issues important to straight white men and will be biased towards their opinions or leave and go to a different site.   #  its not like their are not other hubs.   # its not like their are not other hubs.  and i am not saying that there should not be differences of opinion etc.  newsflash: not all white guys think the same .  but you are not getting differences of opinion, you are getting the opinions of heterosexual white males.  there is a difference between  i think.   and  my black friend told me once that .     #  well the thing is nothing is unambiguously offensive.   #  well the thing is nothing is unambiguously offensive.  i personally do find not find fph offensive.  but some people might.  offense is not an intrinsic part of a statement but rather what a persons takes from it.  also i do not believe fph or any subreddit exists only to harass; mock perhaps but not harass.  and as my personal opinion, i enjoy reddit for it is variety of views ignorant or otherwise .  it is makes for interesting discussion and humour.   #  standing outside someones house with a loudspeaker all night or sexual harassment in the form of groping or repeated, forced sexual conversations.   #  insult not harass.  big difference.  harassment requires forcing the person to be subjected to your behavior i. e.  standing outside someones house with a loudspeaker all night or sexual harassment in the form of groping or repeated, forced sexual conversations.  that is how i see it of course but this mis understanding is frustrating and is what causes a lot of these situations.  harassment can not occur on an essentially anonymous internet platform.  the ability for a member of the community to exist and partake is not diminished by any number of insults to that person so it is not harassment and should be allowed  #  they are, for the most part, not disgusted by fph and coontown.   #  makes sense.  you ca not be offended by fatpeoplehate or coontown unless you are a minority.  as we all know, all white males are fine with hatred of other groups.  they are, for the most part, not disgusted by fph and coontown.  fine arguments, op.  also, how the hell is the banning of fph an appeal to women or racial minorities ? can white men not be obese or something here ?  #  i will ignore the first part of your post as i never made that assertion.   #  i will ignore the first part of your post as i never made that assertion.  can white men not be obese or something here ? as i said in the original comment and to another poster.  the actual reason they were banned is not important here.  what many took away from it however, was that  sjws  were winning because people were no longer allowed to be offensive.  was this all white males ? of course not and i never made that claim.  is most of the pushback from white males, almost certainly
i like bernie sanders, but i just do not know if he can win the general election, being a self proclaimed socialist.  i am still reading up as much as i can of course, before the primaries roll around.  would i be wasting my vote casting for bernie ? is we well enough known ? is not it a better strategy/more practical to vote clinton, especially since she has the support of the major financial and law firms ? i personally do not  love  that fact, but in the real world, money is what makes it turn, and these firms have a ridiculously unreasonable amount of power.  i do not see how bernie can bust through.  i am open though ! change my view.   #  i just do not know if he can win the general election, being a self proclaimed socialist.   #  well, he is not really a socialist, is he ?  # is we well enough known ? there is still a long time to go before the primaries.  the fact that he does not have the platform that hillary has right now does not matter as much.  what does matter is whether he can continue to build momentum and gain a following before the final couple of months.  is he well known enough ? no, not when compared to hillary clinton.  that is just the truth.  but hillary has been in the press for a whole host of reasons that are not positive the recent e mails, benghazi, etc.  she is certainly more visible, but not necessarily better liked.  at any rate, it may be a very close call.  i definitely do not think you would be wasting your time or vote by supporting bernie.  well, he is not really a socialist, is he ? he does support some socialist policies but he is certainly not a hardcore socialist.  one of the things that i really feel strongly about is that he is a good communicator.  he reminds me of john mccain in a way.  you get that vibe from the guy that is absent from every other candidate.  and he is not bullshitting.  that is something that the electorate is more and more conscious of.  there is a newer generation of younger voters who just do not like the normal political shtick.   #  it is now up to congress to approve the agreement, but the president can communicate with citizens directly and inform them or sway them, depending on who you ask about these policy decisions.   # ? i watched obama is interview today about the agreement that p00 have reached with iran.  it is now up to congress to approve the agreement, but the president can communicate with citizens directly and inform them or sway them, depending on who you ask about these policy decisions.  potus has the ability to speak to both republicans and democrats.  he is, after all, everyone is president.  i am also quite certain that obama is early position on gay marriage signaled to the public that it was an issue that was up for some form of resolution during his presidency.  and the public did push very hard.  the ability to communicate is one of the most important tools that a politician can possess.   #  the only real way i see straightforwardness being a benefit is by establishing some built in trust with people.   #  i agree, but these candidates not bernie, but talking about republicans now argue their brash/confrontational/tell it like it is form of communication qualifies them to be president.  sometimes that may be better.  if you are in a crisis and need to get information, a direct and straightforward message might be the best.  however, it might be the exact opposite.  one can imagine scenarios in which a tell it like it is statement generates an overreaction off the top of my head, i am thinking of a natural disaster that is not so bad on its own, but has a worse effect because an imprecise comment caused too much traffic/worry/whatever .  but that is only one type of communication.  when obama or kerry is in negotiations with other countries  leaders, you ca not do away with tempered and measured language at least not if you want to stay in relative power .  when you are talking to legislators to try to get a bill passed, you ca not go in guns blazing or you will alienate them.  the only real way i see straightforwardness being a benefit is by establishing some built in trust with people.  e. g. , when you say something that is the truth and people should believe you and the campaign is essentially investing that trust and building a brand .  but that is still only going to work for a marginal number of people who are paying some attention to what is going on, but not enough to know about the actual policies at issue no idea how big that number is .   #  but the us president is also at the heart of situations where it is required that pressure be applied on another group/nation.   #  i agree that a balanced approach is best for a president.  persuasive at certain times, and forceful at other times.  i mostly agree with this.  a lot of countries have good relations with america, so an aggressive style of negotiation would not be required.  but the us president is also at the heart of situations where it is required that pressure be applied on another group/nation.  so it depends on who is on the other line.  this one i am not so sure about.  i remember that obama is approach during the first two years of his presidency was to establish a bipartisan platform.  it did not go down well.  if bernie does become president, would it be a good idea to search for bipartisanship again, or would it be a waste of time.  note that i am aware that both parties are highly partisan; i am not blaming the gop for all of it.  e. g. , when you say something that is the truth and people should believe you and the campaign is essentially investing that trust and building a brand .  this is exactly what i am talking about.  let is be realistic: the campaigns are largely a demonstration of the cult of personality.  very few people actually care about policies outside the same social values that have been debated to infinity already.  but it is what it is.  if this kind of talk builds him a platform then i am all for it.   #  it is not like the republicans will be kind to hillary.  they  hate  her.   # the republicans will smear bernie if he wins the nomination, and they will smear hillary if she wins.  it is not like the republicans will be kind to hillary.  they  hate  her.  the people whom wo not vote for either should not be a factor in your vote.  the republican candidates are weak and uncharismatic.  senate representation and gerrymandered districts may have recently favored the republicans in congress, but the democrats have the edge in presidential math.  the democrats need not live in fear of mediocre opposition candidates.  even if bernie does not win, a vote for him is  not  wasted in the primaries.  sanders winning a couple states or a nontrivial amount of the vote means that hillary has to address him, and it means he gets a voice in debates and the national dialog.  bernie does not have to win for his message to be heard and addressed.
i like bernie sanders, but i just do not know if he can win the general election, being a self proclaimed socialist.  i am still reading up as much as i can of course, before the primaries roll around.  would i be wasting my vote casting for bernie ? is we well enough known ? is not it a better strategy/more practical to vote clinton, especially since she has the support of the major financial and law firms ? i personally do not  love  that fact, but in the real world, money is what makes it turn, and these firms have a ridiculously unreasonable amount of power.  i do not see how bernie can bust through.  i am open though ! change my view.   #  i like bernie sanders, but i just do not know if he can win the general election, being a self proclaimed socialist.   #  the republicans will smear bernie if he wins the nomination, and they will smear hillary if she wins.   # the republicans will smear bernie if he wins the nomination, and they will smear hillary if she wins.  it is not like the republicans will be kind to hillary.  they  hate  her.  the people whom wo not vote for either should not be a factor in your vote.  the republican candidates are weak and uncharismatic.  senate representation and gerrymandered districts may have recently favored the republicans in congress, but the democrats have the edge in presidential math.  the democrats need not live in fear of mediocre opposition candidates.  even if bernie does not win, a vote for him is  not  wasted in the primaries.  sanders winning a couple states or a nontrivial amount of the vote means that hillary has to address him, and it means he gets a voice in debates and the national dialog.  bernie does not have to win for his message to be heard and addressed.   #  he reminds me of john mccain in a way.   # is we well enough known ? there is still a long time to go before the primaries.  the fact that he does not have the platform that hillary has right now does not matter as much.  what does matter is whether he can continue to build momentum and gain a following before the final couple of months.  is he well known enough ? no, not when compared to hillary clinton.  that is just the truth.  but hillary has been in the press for a whole host of reasons that are not positive the recent e mails, benghazi, etc.  she is certainly more visible, but not necessarily better liked.  at any rate, it may be a very close call.  i definitely do not think you would be wasting your time or vote by supporting bernie.  well, he is not really a socialist, is he ? he does support some socialist policies but he is certainly not a hardcore socialist.  one of the things that i really feel strongly about is that he is a good communicator.  he reminds me of john mccain in a way.  you get that vibe from the guy that is absent from every other candidate.  and he is not bullshitting.  that is something that the electorate is more and more conscious of.  there is a newer generation of younger voters who just do not like the normal political shtick.   #  it is now up to congress to approve the agreement, but the president can communicate with citizens directly and inform them or sway them, depending on who you ask about these policy decisions.   # ? i watched obama is interview today about the agreement that p00 have reached with iran.  it is now up to congress to approve the agreement, but the president can communicate with citizens directly and inform them or sway them, depending on who you ask about these policy decisions.  potus has the ability to speak to both republicans and democrats.  he is, after all, everyone is president.  i am also quite certain that obama is early position on gay marriage signaled to the public that it was an issue that was up for some form of resolution during his presidency.  and the public did push very hard.  the ability to communicate is one of the most important tools that a politician can possess.   #  if you are in a crisis and need to get information, a direct and straightforward message might be the best.   #  i agree, but these candidates not bernie, but talking about republicans now argue their brash/confrontational/tell it like it is form of communication qualifies them to be president.  sometimes that may be better.  if you are in a crisis and need to get information, a direct and straightforward message might be the best.  however, it might be the exact opposite.  one can imagine scenarios in which a tell it like it is statement generates an overreaction off the top of my head, i am thinking of a natural disaster that is not so bad on its own, but has a worse effect because an imprecise comment caused too much traffic/worry/whatever .  but that is only one type of communication.  when obama or kerry is in negotiations with other countries  leaders, you ca not do away with tempered and measured language at least not if you want to stay in relative power .  when you are talking to legislators to try to get a bill passed, you ca not go in guns blazing or you will alienate them.  the only real way i see straightforwardness being a benefit is by establishing some built in trust with people.  e. g. , when you say something that is the truth and people should believe you and the campaign is essentially investing that trust and building a brand .  but that is still only going to work for a marginal number of people who are paying some attention to what is going on, but not enough to know about the actual policies at issue no idea how big that number is .   #  if this kind of talk builds him a platform then i am all for it.   #  i agree that a balanced approach is best for a president.  persuasive at certain times, and forceful at other times.  i mostly agree with this.  a lot of countries have good relations with america, so an aggressive style of negotiation would not be required.  but the us president is also at the heart of situations where it is required that pressure be applied on another group/nation.  so it depends on who is on the other line.  this one i am not so sure about.  i remember that obama is approach during the first two years of his presidency was to establish a bipartisan platform.  it did not go down well.  if bernie does become president, would it be a good idea to search for bipartisanship again, or would it be a waste of time.  note that i am aware that both parties are highly partisan; i am not blaming the gop for all of it.  e. g. , when you say something that is the truth and people should believe you and the campaign is essentially investing that trust and building a brand .  this is exactly what i am talking about.  let is be realistic: the campaigns are largely a demonstration of the cult of personality.  very few people actually care about policies outside the same social values that have been debated to infinity already.  but it is what it is.  if this kind of talk builds him a platform then i am all for it.
i like bernie sanders, but i just do not know if he can win the general election, being a self proclaimed socialist.  i am still reading up as much as i can of course, before the primaries roll around.  would i be wasting my vote casting for bernie ? is we well enough known ? is not it a better strategy/more practical to vote clinton, especially since she has the support of the major financial and law firms ? i personally do not  love  that fact, but in the real world, money is what makes it turn, and these firms have a ridiculously unreasonable amount of power.  i do not see how bernie can bust through.  i am open though ! change my view.   #  is not it a better strategy/more practical to vote clinton, especially since she has the support of the major financial and law firms ?  #  even if bernie does not win, a vote for him is  not  wasted in the primaries.   # the republicans will smear bernie if he wins the nomination, and they will smear hillary if she wins.  it is not like the republicans will be kind to hillary.  they  hate  her.  the people whom wo not vote for either should not be a factor in your vote.  the republican candidates are weak and uncharismatic.  senate representation and gerrymandered districts may have recently favored the republicans in congress, but the democrats have the edge in presidential math.  the democrats need not live in fear of mediocre opposition candidates.  even if bernie does not win, a vote for him is  not  wasted in the primaries.  sanders winning a couple states or a nontrivial amount of the vote means that hillary has to address him, and it means he gets a voice in debates and the national dialog.  bernie does not have to win for his message to be heard and addressed.   #  one of the things that i really feel strongly about is that he is a good communicator.   # is we well enough known ? there is still a long time to go before the primaries.  the fact that he does not have the platform that hillary has right now does not matter as much.  what does matter is whether he can continue to build momentum and gain a following before the final couple of months.  is he well known enough ? no, not when compared to hillary clinton.  that is just the truth.  but hillary has been in the press for a whole host of reasons that are not positive the recent e mails, benghazi, etc.  she is certainly more visible, but not necessarily better liked.  at any rate, it may be a very close call.  i definitely do not think you would be wasting your time or vote by supporting bernie.  well, he is not really a socialist, is he ? he does support some socialist policies but he is certainly not a hardcore socialist.  one of the things that i really feel strongly about is that he is a good communicator.  he reminds me of john mccain in a way.  you get that vibe from the guy that is absent from every other candidate.  and he is not bullshitting.  that is something that the electorate is more and more conscious of.  there is a newer generation of younger voters who just do not like the normal political shtick.   #  the ability to communicate is one of the most important tools that a politician can possess.   # ? i watched obama is interview today about the agreement that p00 have reached with iran.  it is now up to congress to approve the agreement, but the president can communicate with citizens directly and inform them or sway them, depending on who you ask about these policy decisions.  potus has the ability to speak to both republicans and democrats.  he is, after all, everyone is president.  i am also quite certain that obama is early position on gay marriage signaled to the public that it was an issue that was up for some form of resolution during his presidency.  and the public did push very hard.  the ability to communicate is one of the most important tools that a politician can possess.   #  i agree, but these candidates not bernie, but talking about republicans now argue their brash/confrontational/tell it like it is form of communication qualifies them to be president.   #  i agree, but these candidates not bernie, but talking about republicans now argue their brash/confrontational/tell it like it is form of communication qualifies them to be president.  sometimes that may be better.  if you are in a crisis and need to get information, a direct and straightforward message might be the best.  however, it might be the exact opposite.  one can imagine scenarios in which a tell it like it is statement generates an overreaction off the top of my head, i am thinking of a natural disaster that is not so bad on its own, but has a worse effect because an imprecise comment caused too much traffic/worry/whatever .  but that is only one type of communication.  when obama or kerry is in negotiations with other countries  leaders, you ca not do away with tempered and measured language at least not if you want to stay in relative power .  when you are talking to legislators to try to get a bill passed, you ca not go in guns blazing or you will alienate them.  the only real way i see straightforwardness being a benefit is by establishing some built in trust with people.  e. g. , when you say something that is the truth and people should believe you and the campaign is essentially investing that trust and building a brand .  but that is still only going to work for a marginal number of people who are paying some attention to what is going on, but not enough to know about the actual policies at issue no idea how big that number is .   #  but the us president is also at the heart of situations where it is required that pressure be applied on another group/nation.   #  i agree that a balanced approach is best for a president.  persuasive at certain times, and forceful at other times.  i mostly agree with this.  a lot of countries have good relations with america, so an aggressive style of negotiation would not be required.  but the us president is also at the heart of situations where it is required that pressure be applied on another group/nation.  so it depends on who is on the other line.  this one i am not so sure about.  i remember that obama is approach during the first two years of his presidency was to establish a bipartisan platform.  it did not go down well.  if bernie does become president, would it be a good idea to search for bipartisanship again, or would it be a waste of time.  note that i am aware that both parties are highly partisan; i am not blaming the gop for all of it.  e. g. , when you say something that is the truth and people should believe you and the campaign is essentially investing that trust and building a brand .  this is exactly what i am talking about.  let is be realistic: the campaigns are largely a demonstration of the cult of personality.  very few people actually care about policies outside the same social values that have been debated to infinity already.  but it is what it is.  if this kind of talk builds him a platform then i am all for it.
for context, i am an 0 year old male who will be entering college this comming fall.  this issue has only been a concern of mine in recent months, in part due my exposure to the idea on reddit/other internet sources, and partly because i have never been in an environment where sexual encounters are frequent.  i do not think i am of the party that has difficulty understanding consent.  i also understand that there may be a great deal of fear for some women that they may be raped, and i do not wish to sound as though i am downplaying that.  but i have a fear myself of being falsely accused, or accused in a case where consent is retroactively removed.  i do not think of this potential as being very high; i do not think most women are that vindictive; however in the event that it occurs it seems the results can be devastating.  i have personally spoken to someone who has gone through this process and it took him almost a year to clear his name.  i do not want this fear; i am very open to the idea that it may be exaggerated in the media i have read, or that there are faults in my reasoning.  but these are potentials and i ca not seem to confirm them on my own; maybe someone else can poke some holes.   #  in part due my exposure to the idea on reddit/other internet sources, and partly because i have never been in an environment where sexual encounters are frequent.   #  this, i believe, is part of the problem.   # this, i believe, is part of the problem.  for someone who only is around stories of rape accusations, both real and faked, being accused of rape is a big worry.  but rape accusations are far less frequent than it would really seem.  what causes you to believe that it will happen to you ? you say that you have seen stories of other people being falsely accused, but why do you hold the belief that you may be, one day, falsely accused of rape ?  #  there is nothing wrong with saying,  i do not kiss on the first date.    #  humans are unpredictable creatures.  i would not say so much, do not have sex at all, but being cautious in who you choose to have intercourse with and under what circumstances seems wise.  so, you have two questions,  does this girl really want to fuck ?   and  is this girl a vindictive bitch who will screw me over even if she really wanted it ?   in the second case, you would not just be on the lookout for false rape accusers, but someone who would total your car without even asking if they could borrow it, steal your wallet, pop over at your parents  house in the middle of the night, and all manner of bat shit crazy activity that you would want to avoid.  might want to take a page out of  how to avoid serial killers on craigslist  for tips on dealing with that scenario.  in the first case, well, simply go slower with a woman than you might like to otherwise until you feel comfortable that you are both on the same page as to what you want to do with each other.  there is nothing wrong with saying,  i do not kiss on the first date.   at your age there is gonna be a lot of virgins around heck, some of  em are gonna think it is a huge deal having their boobs fondled for the first time, might be an event all on it is own.  going slow is good, it lets  em ease into the idea.  when you get more experienced you will get better at reading signals and discussing such things, and with a woman who is into it you might not need to hold off as long before feeling comfortable partaking as when you first started with your sexual explorations.  tl;dr: if you are worried, try dating the same woman for a while first and see what she likes before starting a spree of one night stands.   #  yes, it is possible that a person who you have been in an affectionate relationship for months with could suddenly and maliciously falsely accuse you of rape despite showing no signs that they would do that beforehand.   #  again, this is one of those things where if you take reasonable precautions, the odds of that happening go from low to very very low.  plenty of crazy people can hide their nature for awhile, usually long enough to get through normal social encounters.  very few people can completely hide their nature over the course of a long term relationship.  yes, it is possible that a person who you have been in an affectionate relationship for months with could suddenly and maliciously falsely accuse you of rape despite showing no signs that they would do that beforehand.  it is also possible they could poison you, or spontaneously castrate you one night while you are sleeping.  if you do not trust them not to ruin your life by falsely accusing you of rape, why would you trust them not to do those things ?  #  well sex is absolutely not any different than that.   #  if you are 0 you definitely want to be careful that your date is of age.  that is another kind of rape and jailbait is seriously dangerous at your age.  you are assuming that  all people  have an equal probability of being accused of rape.  so if the nationwide percentage is  n %, then  you  specifically think you have  n % of being accused of rape.  it does not work that way.  sex is unique in a few ways but it is not inconceivable from the outside in.  go to your friend and place your palm on his face.  your friend might flip out or he might trust you enough to ask what you are doing.  now go to a stranger and place your palm on their face.  actually, do not do it because they might punch you.  well sex is absolutely not any different than that.  if she likes you, you can put the p in the v.  if she does not, then she will flip the hell out.  that is it.   #  please contact the moderators of this subreddit /message/compose/ ?  #  note:  your thread has  not  been removed.  your post is topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit.  similar posts can be found through our wiki page URL or via the search function URL pot amp;amp;restrict sr on .  regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.  i am a bot, and this action was performed automatically.  please contact the moderators of this subreddit /message/compose/ ? to /r/changemyview if you have any questions or concerns.
for context, i am an 0 year old male who will be entering college this comming fall.  this issue has only been a concern of mine in recent months, in part due my exposure to the idea on reddit/other internet sources, and partly because i have never been in an environment where sexual encounters are frequent.  i do not think i am of the party that has difficulty understanding consent.  i also understand that there may be a great deal of fear for some women that they may be raped, and i do not wish to sound as though i am downplaying that.  but i have a fear myself of being falsely accused, or accused in a case where consent is retroactively removed.  i do not think of this potential as being very high; i do not think most women are that vindictive; however in the event that it occurs it seems the results can be devastating.  i have personally spoken to someone who has gone through this process and it took him almost a year to clear his name.  i do not want this fear; i am very open to the idea that it may be exaggerated in the media i have read, or that there are faults in my reasoning.  but these are potentials and i ca not seem to confirm them on my own; maybe someone else can poke some holes.   #  but i have a fear myself of being falsely accused, or accused in a case where consent is retroactively removed.   #  i do not think of this potential as being very high; i do not think most women are that vindictive; however in the event that it occurs it seems the results can be devastating.   #  hi.  congratulations on getting into, and being able to go to college.  i hope it is a fabulous experience for you.  i do not think of this potential as being very high; i do not think most women are that vindictive; however in the event that it occurs it seems the results can be devastating.  it would be a very scary situation.  as would hundreds of other situations that might occur.  the constant in all those situations would be you.  remember, fears are internal things.  therefore, should be dealt with internally.  that is, instead of worrying about what a partner might potentially do, make sure you are confident in what you do.  nothing wrong with telling a partner s that you have this concern too.  discuss it with them.  your feelings are valid, your concern exists.  how your partner s react to this disclosure might help you decide if they are a good choice.  might sooth your fears.  there is a lot of power in communication.  get familiar with the language, and comfortable using it when applicable.  use more communication instead of less.  do not assume your partners know much about consent, actually have the talks.  whether you want a plethora of sexual partners or a single monogamous honey, you can learn by and teach each other better communication not just about consent which will directly reduce the possibility of any .  misunderstandings, or hook ups with unstable people.  also, i want to point out that you are not immune to sexual assault because you are a young man.  read the stats below with the understanding that some of those 0   unreported assault victims are men.  as you make friends, and lovers, have each others backs.  learn how to keep each other safe and do so.  do not settle for hook ups with people you do not trust, or friends who do not respect you or others.  make friends with both genders and have everyone is back.  do not fall into that us vs.  them fear baiting malarkey.  you are stepping off into your future.  make it, and the relationships in it as positive and unlikely to have issues as possible.  some stats:   according to the national sexual violence resource center URL   campus sexual assault    one in 0 women and one in 0 men are sexually assaulted while in college i .  more than 0 of sexual assault victims on college campuses do not report the assault c   0 of men at one university who self reported acts qualifying as rape or attempted rape admitted to committing repeat rapes j   crime reports    rape is the most under reported crime; 0 of sexual assaults are not reported to police o .  only 0 of child sexual abuse is reported to the authorities g .  the prevalence of false reporting is between 0 and 0.  for example, a study of eight u. s.  communities, which included 0,0 cases of sexual assault, found a 0 rate of false reports k .  a study of 0 sexual assault cases in boston found a 0 rate of false reports j .  researchers studied 0 reports of sexual assault from 0 0 and found a 0 rate of false reports h .  tl dr:  better communication lessens troubling situations and builds confidence and experience in handling situations.  spelling  #  tl;dr: if you are worried, try dating the same woman for a while first and see what she likes before starting a spree of one night stands.   #  humans are unpredictable creatures.  i would not say so much, do not have sex at all, but being cautious in who you choose to have intercourse with and under what circumstances seems wise.  so, you have two questions,  does this girl really want to fuck ?   and  is this girl a vindictive bitch who will screw me over even if she really wanted it ?   in the second case, you would not just be on the lookout for false rape accusers, but someone who would total your car without even asking if they could borrow it, steal your wallet, pop over at your parents  house in the middle of the night, and all manner of bat shit crazy activity that you would want to avoid.  might want to take a page out of  how to avoid serial killers on craigslist  for tips on dealing with that scenario.  in the first case, well, simply go slower with a woman than you might like to otherwise until you feel comfortable that you are both on the same page as to what you want to do with each other.  there is nothing wrong with saying,  i do not kiss on the first date.   at your age there is gonna be a lot of virgins around heck, some of  em are gonna think it is a huge deal having their boobs fondled for the first time, might be an event all on it is own.  going slow is good, it lets  em ease into the idea.  when you get more experienced you will get better at reading signals and discussing such things, and with a woman who is into it you might not need to hold off as long before feeling comfortable partaking as when you first started with your sexual explorations.  tl;dr: if you are worried, try dating the same woman for a while first and see what she likes before starting a spree of one night stands.   #  this, i believe, is part of the problem.   # this, i believe, is part of the problem.  for someone who only is around stories of rape accusations, both real and faked, being accused of rape is a big worry.  but rape accusations are far less frequent than it would really seem.  what causes you to believe that it will happen to you ? you say that you have seen stories of other people being falsely accused, but why do you hold the belief that you may be, one day, falsely accused of rape ?  #  again, this is one of those things where if you take reasonable precautions, the odds of that happening go from low to very very low.   #  again, this is one of those things where if you take reasonable precautions, the odds of that happening go from low to very very low.  plenty of crazy people can hide their nature for awhile, usually long enough to get through normal social encounters.  very few people can completely hide their nature over the course of a long term relationship.  yes, it is possible that a person who you have been in an affectionate relationship for months with could suddenly and maliciously falsely accuse you of rape despite showing no signs that they would do that beforehand.  it is also possible they could poison you, or spontaneously castrate you one night while you are sleeping.  if you do not trust them not to ruin your life by falsely accusing you of rape, why would you trust them not to do those things ?  #  sex is unique in a few ways but it is not inconceivable from the outside in.   #  if you are 0 you definitely want to be careful that your date is of age.  that is another kind of rape and jailbait is seriously dangerous at your age.  you are assuming that  all people  have an equal probability of being accused of rape.  so if the nationwide percentage is  n %, then  you  specifically think you have  n % of being accused of rape.  it does not work that way.  sex is unique in a few ways but it is not inconceivable from the outside in.  go to your friend and place your palm on his face.  your friend might flip out or he might trust you enough to ask what you are doing.  now go to a stranger and place your palm on their face.  actually, do not do it because they might punch you.  well sex is absolutely not any different than that.  if she likes you, you can put the p in the v.  if she does not, then she will flip the hell out.  that is it.
marriage as a word comes from the middle english word  mariage , which according to sources from wikipedia, comes from around 0 0 ce.  word comes from another old french word then to a latin word  marītāre , which describes a husband and wife.  adding on top of that, many modern religions using the word to describe the ceremony as a marriage between one man and one woman, i see that the word marriage is intrinsically religious.  now moving to modern day, marriage is changing as many people are adding to/changing the meaning to a word that many people use as a religious word.  people are getting up in arms about these and i can see their points.  marriage in a lot of religions these days is still defined as one man and one woman.  now have a court/government adding to/changing that definition of that word, this is where i believe the whole issue is.  the issue with people not wanting gay marriage based off religious beliefs is because a word is being used for something that it does not mean to them.  marriage is/from religion and should keep it that way.  we need to rename marriage in the government to remove this part of the issue that the anti gay marriage community has with it.  now i know it still wo not remove the whole problem that the anti gay community has with gay marriage but i believe it will remove everyone who dislikes that this word, that is so entrenched in religion, is being redefined by a government decision.  i even see a huge problem with these, i am not religious and completely for two consenting people getting married, no matter who/what they are.  the government needs to change its vocabulary so that when you want your union to be legal, you go get a civil union or whatever we call it from the government.  but if you want to get married, you must find a religion that accepts your union.  this returns marriage to religion and i believe removes a huge part of the problems we are having in the acceptance of this practice.  source of etymology URL so with further communications with others, i have been bringing up that society is changing the word marriage and my view is more of a fix to speed up that change at least on the religious vs government front.  the word will change in society but that takes a long time.  as /u/gab0 and a few others pointed out, that religion has change a bit from what it used to be.  the whole owning your wife and stuff seems to come up a lot.  so my view has changed a little but i still view that changing the government wording to something else would be a good thing to do as to remove the current problems that many religious people that care about the issue have with the definition of that word being changed.  here in this comment, i quickly chat about my experience with mormons that have issues with gay marriage: URL  #  marriage is/from religion and should keep it that way.   #  many religious institutions do support same sex marriages URL i do not believe that religious views about this matter are as consistent as you think.   # many religious institutions do support same sex marriages URL i do not believe that religious views about this matter are as consistent as you think.  why should one church is views supersede another is ? and the word is entrenched in legal language as well as society.  it means  more  somehow than civil union.  i do not know why, but that seems to be the case.  separate but equal is not actually equal, is it /u/slai0 ?  #  that is confusing, i do not understand what you are saying .   #  the word has already changed when referring to people, the government is just applying it legally.  when you hear people talking about gay marriage, you will hear things like  i wish it was legal to get married , when opponents talk about it, they refer to it as  gay marriage .  even if they argue the definition angle like you are, they still use the word  gay marriage  because we as people totally understand and accept what that means.  there is no confusion, no one is going  wait, gay marriage ? that is confusing, i do not understand what you are saying .  like it or not, the word is already changed in people is vocabulary.   #  this is now a repercussion of having those bonuses that maybe they did not think of.   #  the word has been changing but now the government is changing that word.  people feel this word is theirs and the government is changing it compared to society.  that is a huge issue for certain people that want to own the word marriage and always keep a certain definition of it.  another person brought up that people wanted to have marriage be apart of government to have inheritance and other bonuses.  this is now a repercussion of having those bonuses that maybe they did not think of.  once you attach your idea to something that can change, you need to know that your idea can change.   #  what we want is equal rights for homosexual couples, all the current laws that exist pertaining to marriage, we just want that for gay people.   #  no, the government is changing the legality of term marriage so that homosexual couples can in the eyes of the law have the same rights and privileges of heterosexual couples.  its the most practical solution.  what we want is equal rights for homosexual couples, all the current laws that exist pertaining to marriage, we just want that for gay people.  the easiest solution is to just add it the legal definition, because all that does is affect how it is handled in legal issues.  the word marriage can still change, or mean whatever you want it to mean personally.  in certain communities it might still always pertain to heterosexual marriage.  in a court though, people will be able to use the word marriage because in that court it will refer to the rights given to all couples, regardless of sexuality.  this is not as big of a deal as you are making it out to be.  here in canada, we have this thing called the indian act URL you probably know already that this is not a piece of legislation referring to people from india, but actually affects aboriginals in canada.  legally, you can obtain  indian status , and legally, reservations are called  indian reservations , and despite this being the legal terminology, it is still rude as fuck and not common to hear people referring to them as indians in conversation.  if someone is talking about another person and says they are  indian  i assume they are talking about someone from india, unless it is clearly a distasteful joke.  unless you actually want to exclude homosexuals from having equal rights, focusing on the definition of the word is just dodging the issue.   #  the countries whose populations decide how english is used now have a majority in favor of the word marriage including unions between two men and two women.   # tough squash.  outside of copyright law, nobody can  own  a word.  the meaning of a word is determined by those who speak the language.  and with the u. s.  population recently coming around to a majority in favor of gay marriage, all countries in the  anglosphere  i. e.  the countries whose populations decide how english is used now have a majority in favor of the word marriage including unions between two men and two women.  and if this definition change is the will of english speakers, it will become part of english.
marriage as a word comes from the middle english word  mariage , which according to sources from wikipedia, comes from around 0 0 ce.  word comes from another old french word then to a latin word  marītāre , which describes a husband and wife.  adding on top of that, many modern religions using the word to describe the ceremony as a marriage between one man and one woman, i see that the word marriage is intrinsically religious.  now moving to modern day, marriage is changing as many people are adding to/changing the meaning to a word that many people use as a religious word.  people are getting up in arms about these and i can see their points.  marriage in a lot of religions these days is still defined as one man and one woman.  now have a court/government adding to/changing that definition of that word, this is where i believe the whole issue is.  the issue with people not wanting gay marriage based off religious beliefs is because a word is being used for something that it does not mean to them.  marriage is/from religion and should keep it that way.  we need to rename marriage in the government to remove this part of the issue that the anti gay marriage community has with it.  now i know it still wo not remove the whole problem that the anti gay community has with gay marriage but i believe it will remove everyone who dislikes that this word, that is so entrenched in religion, is being redefined by a government decision.  i even see a huge problem with these, i am not religious and completely for two consenting people getting married, no matter who/what they are.  the government needs to change its vocabulary so that when you want your union to be legal, you go get a civil union or whatever we call it from the government.  but if you want to get married, you must find a religion that accepts your union.  this returns marriage to religion and i believe removes a huge part of the problems we are having in the acceptance of this practice.  source of etymology URL so with further communications with others, i have been bringing up that society is changing the word marriage and my view is more of a fix to speed up that change at least on the religious vs government front.  the word will change in society but that takes a long time.  as /u/gab0 and a few others pointed out, that religion has change a bit from what it used to be.  the whole owning your wife and stuff seems to come up a lot.  so my view has changed a little but i still view that changing the government wording to something else would be a good thing to do as to remove the current problems that many religious people that care about the issue have with the definition of that word being changed.  here in this comment, i quickly chat about my experience with mormons that have issues with gay marriage: URL  #  the government needs to change its vocabulary so that when you want your union to be legal, you go get a civil union or whatever we call it from the government.   #  would not people go on calling it marriage in every day life, though ?  # word comes from another old french word then to a latin word marītāre, which describes a husband and wife.  i am not sure how that helps support the claim that marriage is intrinsically religious.  religious views about marriage have changed a lot since the 0th century.  back then, the catholic church had not recognized marriage as a sacrament, and marriages did not usually take place in churches, for example.  marriage has always been a largely secular thing your church might play a big role in your wedding ceremony, but it probably does not play much of a role in your every day married life, or in the important legal stuff that stems from marriage, like joint tax returns, green cards, inheritance, and divorce proceedings.  would not people go on calling it marriage in every day life, though ? do people really care what it is called on official documents ? i also do not think you have considered how complicated this would be.  there is a wealth of federal, state, and even international law that mentions  marriage .  changing all that just is not feasible, and a lot of people would be dead set against it.  or anyone at all who is not an internet libertarian ?  #  the word has already changed when referring to people, the government is just applying it legally.   #  the word has already changed when referring to people, the government is just applying it legally.  when you hear people talking about gay marriage, you will hear things like  i wish it was legal to get married , when opponents talk about it, they refer to it as  gay marriage .  even if they argue the definition angle like you are, they still use the word  gay marriage  because we as people totally understand and accept what that means.  there is no confusion, no one is going  wait, gay marriage ? that is confusing, i do not understand what you are saying .  like it or not, the word is already changed in people is vocabulary.   #  people feel this word is theirs and the government is changing it compared to society.   #  the word has been changing but now the government is changing that word.  people feel this word is theirs and the government is changing it compared to society.  that is a huge issue for certain people that want to own the word marriage and always keep a certain definition of it.  another person brought up that people wanted to have marriage be apart of government to have inheritance and other bonuses.  this is now a repercussion of having those bonuses that maybe they did not think of.  once you attach your idea to something that can change, you need to know that your idea can change.   #  what we want is equal rights for homosexual couples, all the current laws that exist pertaining to marriage, we just want that for gay people.   #  no, the government is changing the legality of term marriage so that homosexual couples can in the eyes of the law have the same rights and privileges of heterosexual couples.  its the most practical solution.  what we want is equal rights for homosexual couples, all the current laws that exist pertaining to marriage, we just want that for gay people.  the easiest solution is to just add it the legal definition, because all that does is affect how it is handled in legal issues.  the word marriage can still change, or mean whatever you want it to mean personally.  in certain communities it might still always pertain to heterosexual marriage.  in a court though, people will be able to use the word marriage because in that court it will refer to the rights given to all couples, regardless of sexuality.  this is not as big of a deal as you are making it out to be.  here in canada, we have this thing called the indian act URL you probably know already that this is not a piece of legislation referring to people from india, but actually affects aboriginals in canada.  legally, you can obtain  indian status , and legally, reservations are called  indian reservations , and despite this being the legal terminology, it is still rude as fuck and not common to hear people referring to them as indians in conversation.  if someone is talking about another person and says they are  indian  i assume they are talking about someone from india, unless it is clearly a distasteful joke.  unless you actually want to exclude homosexuals from having equal rights, focusing on the definition of the word is just dodging the issue.   #  outside of copyright law, nobody can  own  a word.   # tough squash.  outside of copyright law, nobody can  own  a word.  the meaning of a word is determined by those who speak the language.  and with the u. s.  population recently coming around to a majority in favor of gay marriage, all countries in the  anglosphere  i. e.  the countries whose populations decide how english is used now have a majority in favor of the word marriage including unions between two men and two women.  and if this definition change is the will of english speakers, it will become part of english.
marriage as a word comes from the middle english word  mariage , which according to sources from wikipedia, comes from around 0 0 ce.  word comes from another old french word then to a latin word  marītāre , which describes a husband and wife.  adding on top of that, many modern religions using the word to describe the ceremony as a marriage between one man and one woman, i see that the word marriage is intrinsically religious.  now moving to modern day, marriage is changing as many people are adding to/changing the meaning to a word that many people use as a religious word.  people are getting up in arms about these and i can see their points.  marriage in a lot of religions these days is still defined as one man and one woman.  now have a court/government adding to/changing that definition of that word, this is where i believe the whole issue is.  the issue with people not wanting gay marriage based off religious beliefs is because a word is being used for something that it does not mean to them.  marriage is/from religion and should keep it that way.  we need to rename marriage in the government to remove this part of the issue that the anti gay marriage community has with it.  now i know it still wo not remove the whole problem that the anti gay community has with gay marriage but i believe it will remove everyone who dislikes that this word, that is so entrenched in religion, is being redefined by a government decision.  i even see a huge problem with these, i am not religious and completely for two consenting people getting married, no matter who/what they are.  the government needs to change its vocabulary so that when you want your union to be legal, you go get a civil union or whatever we call it from the government.  but if you want to get married, you must find a religion that accepts your union.  this returns marriage to religion and i believe removes a huge part of the problems we are having in the acceptance of this practice.  source of etymology URL so with further communications with others, i have been bringing up that society is changing the word marriage and my view is more of a fix to speed up that change at least on the religious vs government front.  the word will change in society but that takes a long time.  as /u/gab0 and a few others pointed out, that religion has change a bit from what it used to be.  the whole owning your wife and stuff seems to come up a lot.  so my view has changed a little but i still view that changing the government wording to something else would be a good thing to do as to remove the current problems that many religious people that care about the issue have with the definition of that word being changed.  here in this comment, i quickly chat about my experience with mormons that have issues with gay marriage: URL  #  now moving to modern day, marriage is changing as many people are adding to/changing the meaning to a word that many people use as a religious word.   #  people are getting up in arms about these and i can see their points.   # word comes from another old french word then to a latin word marītāre, which describes a husband and wife.  adding on top of that, many modern religions using the word to describe the ceremony as a marriage between one man and one woman, i see that the word marriage is intrinsically religious.  the word marriage is just a word.  it is not intrinsically  anything .  it means whatever we have collectively decided it means, and for quite some time now it is been used to describe a romantic union, especially from a legal standpoint.  i do not care what modern religious people use for their words.  that does not mean anything to me, since i am not religious.  people are getting up in arms about these and i can see their points.  marriage in a lot of religions these days is still defined as one man and one woman.  now have a court/government adding to/changing that definition of that word, this is where i believe the whole issue is.  the issue with people not wanting gay marriage based off religious beliefs is because a word is being used for something that it does not mean to them.  marriage is/from religion and should keep it that way.  we need to rename marriage in the government to remove this part of the issue that the anti gay marriage community has with it.  the government is not changing the definition of anything.  it is simply allowing gay people to operate under the umbrella of marriage like straight people already do.  if you are religious and you have your own definition for marriage, well bully for you ! but that does not mean you get to own the word.  it just means you have your own definition for it.  i even see a huge problem with these, i am not religious and completely for two consenting people getting married, no matter who/what they are.  the government needs to change its vocabulary so that when you want your union to be legal, you go get a civil union or whatever we call it from the government.  but if you want to get married, you must find a religion that accepts your union.  this returns marriage to religion and i believe removes a huge part of the problems we are having in the acceptance of this practice.  this is wholly unnecessary.  religious people simply need to get over it, they do not own the word.  if i want to buy two rats and give them a marriage ceremony and go around calling them married i am free to do so.  they ca not stop me.  but frankly, every time civil unions come up those same religious folks are against it.  this  debate  is not about the word marriage at all that is just a way to make it look like your real problem is not with gay people.   #  the word has already changed when referring to people, the government is just applying it legally.   #  the word has already changed when referring to people, the government is just applying it legally.  when you hear people talking about gay marriage, you will hear things like  i wish it was legal to get married , when opponents talk about it, they refer to it as  gay marriage .  even if they argue the definition angle like you are, they still use the word  gay marriage  because we as people totally understand and accept what that means.  there is no confusion, no one is going  wait, gay marriage ? that is confusing, i do not understand what you are saying .  like it or not, the word is already changed in people is vocabulary.   #  once you attach your idea to something that can change, you need to know that your idea can change.   #  the word has been changing but now the government is changing that word.  people feel this word is theirs and the government is changing it compared to society.  that is a huge issue for certain people that want to own the word marriage and always keep a certain definition of it.  another person brought up that people wanted to have marriage be apart of government to have inheritance and other bonuses.  this is now a repercussion of having those bonuses that maybe they did not think of.  once you attach your idea to something that can change, you need to know that your idea can change.   #  in certain communities it might still always pertain to heterosexual marriage.   #  no, the government is changing the legality of term marriage so that homosexual couples can in the eyes of the law have the same rights and privileges of heterosexual couples.  its the most practical solution.  what we want is equal rights for homosexual couples, all the current laws that exist pertaining to marriage, we just want that for gay people.  the easiest solution is to just add it the legal definition, because all that does is affect how it is handled in legal issues.  the word marriage can still change, or mean whatever you want it to mean personally.  in certain communities it might still always pertain to heterosexual marriage.  in a court though, people will be able to use the word marriage because in that court it will refer to the rights given to all couples, regardless of sexuality.  this is not as big of a deal as you are making it out to be.  here in canada, we have this thing called the indian act URL you probably know already that this is not a piece of legislation referring to people from india, but actually affects aboriginals in canada.  legally, you can obtain  indian status , and legally, reservations are called  indian reservations , and despite this being the legal terminology, it is still rude as fuck and not common to hear people referring to them as indians in conversation.  if someone is talking about another person and says they are  indian  i assume they are talking about someone from india, unless it is clearly a distasteful joke.  unless you actually want to exclude homosexuals from having equal rights, focusing on the definition of the word is just dodging the issue.   #  and if this definition change is the will of english speakers, it will become part of english.   # tough squash.  outside of copyright law, nobody can  own  a word.  the meaning of a word is determined by those who speak the language.  and with the u. s.  population recently coming around to a majority in favor of gay marriage, all countries in the  anglosphere  i. e.  the countries whose populations decide how english is used now have a majority in favor of the word marriage including unions between two men and two women.  and if this definition change is the will of english speakers, it will become part of english.
marriage as a word comes from the middle english word  mariage , which according to sources from wikipedia, comes from around 0 0 ce.  word comes from another old french word then to a latin word  marītāre , which describes a husband and wife.  adding on top of that, many modern religions using the word to describe the ceremony as a marriage between one man and one woman, i see that the word marriage is intrinsically religious.  now moving to modern day, marriage is changing as many people are adding to/changing the meaning to a word that many people use as a religious word.  people are getting up in arms about these and i can see their points.  marriage in a lot of religions these days is still defined as one man and one woman.  now have a court/government adding to/changing that definition of that word, this is where i believe the whole issue is.  the issue with people not wanting gay marriage based off religious beliefs is because a word is being used for something that it does not mean to them.  marriage is/from religion and should keep it that way.  we need to rename marriage in the government to remove this part of the issue that the anti gay marriage community has with it.  now i know it still wo not remove the whole problem that the anti gay community has with gay marriage but i believe it will remove everyone who dislikes that this word, that is so entrenched in religion, is being redefined by a government decision.  i even see a huge problem with these, i am not religious and completely for two consenting people getting married, no matter who/what they are.  the government needs to change its vocabulary so that when you want your union to be legal, you go get a civil union or whatever we call it from the government.  but if you want to get married, you must find a religion that accepts your union.  this returns marriage to religion and i believe removes a huge part of the problems we are having in the acceptance of this practice.  source of etymology URL so with further communications with others, i have been bringing up that society is changing the word marriage and my view is more of a fix to speed up that change at least on the religious vs government front.  the word will change in society but that takes a long time.  as /u/gab0 and a few others pointed out, that religion has change a bit from what it used to be.  the whole owning your wife and stuff seems to come up a lot.  so my view has changed a little but i still view that changing the government wording to something else would be a good thing to do as to remove the current problems that many religious people that care about the issue have with the definition of that word being changed.  here in this comment, i quickly chat about my experience with mormons that have issues with gay marriage: URL  #  now i know it still wo not remove the whole problem that the anti gay community has with gay marriage but i believe it will remove everyone who dislikes that this word, that is so entrenched in religion, is being redefined by a government decision.   #  i even see a huge problem with these, i am not religious and completely for two consenting people getting married, no matter who/what they are.   # word comes from another old french word then to a latin word marītāre, which describes a husband and wife.  adding on top of that, many modern religions using the word to describe the ceremony as a marriage between one man and one woman, i see that the word marriage is intrinsically religious.  the word marriage is just a word.  it is not intrinsically  anything .  it means whatever we have collectively decided it means, and for quite some time now it is been used to describe a romantic union, especially from a legal standpoint.  i do not care what modern religious people use for their words.  that does not mean anything to me, since i am not religious.  people are getting up in arms about these and i can see their points.  marriage in a lot of religions these days is still defined as one man and one woman.  now have a court/government adding to/changing that definition of that word, this is where i believe the whole issue is.  the issue with people not wanting gay marriage based off religious beliefs is because a word is being used for something that it does not mean to them.  marriage is/from religion and should keep it that way.  we need to rename marriage in the government to remove this part of the issue that the anti gay marriage community has with it.  the government is not changing the definition of anything.  it is simply allowing gay people to operate under the umbrella of marriage like straight people already do.  if you are religious and you have your own definition for marriage, well bully for you ! but that does not mean you get to own the word.  it just means you have your own definition for it.  i even see a huge problem with these, i am not religious and completely for two consenting people getting married, no matter who/what they are.  the government needs to change its vocabulary so that when you want your union to be legal, you go get a civil union or whatever we call it from the government.  but if you want to get married, you must find a religion that accepts your union.  this returns marriage to religion and i believe removes a huge part of the problems we are having in the acceptance of this practice.  this is wholly unnecessary.  religious people simply need to get over it, they do not own the word.  if i want to buy two rats and give them a marriage ceremony and go around calling them married i am free to do so.  they ca not stop me.  but frankly, every time civil unions come up those same religious folks are against it.  this  debate  is not about the word marriage at all that is just a way to make it look like your real problem is not with gay people.   #  the word has already changed when referring to people, the government is just applying it legally.   #  the word has already changed when referring to people, the government is just applying it legally.  when you hear people talking about gay marriage, you will hear things like  i wish it was legal to get married , when opponents talk about it, they refer to it as  gay marriage .  even if they argue the definition angle like you are, they still use the word  gay marriage  because we as people totally understand and accept what that means.  there is no confusion, no one is going  wait, gay marriage ? that is confusing, i do not understand what you are saying .  like it or not, the word is already changed in people is vocabulary.   #  the word has been changing but now the government is changing that word.   #  the word has been changing but now the government is changing that word.  people feel this word is theirs and the government is changing it compared to society.  that is a huge issue for certain people that want to own the word marriage and always keep a certain definition of it.  another person brought up that people wanted to have marriage be apart of government to have inheritance and other bonuses.  this is now a repercussion of having those bonuses that maybe they did not think of.  once you attach your idea to something that can change, you need to know that your idea can change.   #  here in canada, we have this thing called the indian act URL you probably know already that this is not a piece of legislation referring to people from india, but actually affects aboriginals in canada.   #  no, the government is changing the legality of term marriage so that homosexual couples can in the eyes of the law have the same rights and privileges of heterosexual couples.  its the most practical solution.  what we want is equal rights for homosexual couples, all the current laws that exist pertaining to marriage, we just want that for gay people.  the easiest solution is to just add it the legal definition, because all that does is affect how it is handled in legal issues.  the word marriage can still change, or mean whatever you want it to mean personally.  in certain communities it might still always pertain to heterosexual marriage.  in a court though, people will be able to use the word marriage because in that court it will refer to the rights given to all couples, regardless of sexuality.  this is not as big of a deal as you are making it out to be.  here in canada, we have this thing called the indian act URL you probably know already that this is not a piece of legislation referring to people from india, but actually affects aboriginals in canada.  legally, you can obtain  indian status , and legally, reservations are called  indian reservations , and despite this being the legal terminology, it is still rude as fuck and not common to hear people referring to them as indians in conversation.  if someone is talking about another person and says they are  indian  i assume they are talking about someone from india, unless it is clearly a distasteful joke.  unless you actually want to exclude homosexuals from having equal rights, focusing on the definition of the word is just dodging the issue.   #  the countries whose populations decide how english is used now have a majority in favor of the word marriage including unions between two men and two women.   # tough squash.  outside of copyright law, nobody can  own  a word.  the meaning of a word is determined by those who speak the language.  and with the u. s.  population recently coming around to a majority in favor of gay marriage, all countries in the  anglosphere  i. e.  the countries whose populations decide how english is used now have a majority in favor of the word marriage including unions between two men and two women.  and if this definition change is the will of english speakers, it will become part of english.
i know according to /r/futurology self driving cars are the next big thing, but i do not think we have extrapolated this one properly.  i see car technology slowly chugging along, more of what we are seeing today, help reversing, parallel parking etc.  i see this trend continuing and improving, i do not think the next generation of cars will suddenly allow us to go 0 mph on the highway while we are sipping margaritas in the back seat.  i do not think that is the goal.  google had a project where they created a self driving car, they were pretty successful.  i think it is great new technology, but i do not see it transferring it over to average consumers.  if you disagree with me up until this point, here is my biggest concession.  the trend of car ownership will decrease at a faster rate than self driving cars will increase.  meaning, by the time we have self driving cars everywhere, no one will own a car, it will be a completely different paradigm.   #  meaning, by the time we have self driving cars everywhere, no one will own a car, it will be a completely different paradigm.   #  if i understand correctly, the commonly predicted paradigm for self driving cars is that most of them will not be personally owned but they will operate some sort of cheap taxi or uber like service.   # if i understand correctly, the commonly predicted paradigm for self driving cars is that most of them will not be personally owned but they will operate some sort of cheap taxi or uber like service.  this may become the predominant form of transportation is sufficiently large cities, due to economies of scale, while in more rural areas personal ownership of manual cars may remain predominant for a long time.  this is very speculative of course: it depends on the relative cost of a self driving car vs.  a manual car vs.  a taxi driver salary.   #  just last year their dmv finished creation of the policies URL to enforce and implement that new law.   #  actually 0 is not a bad estimate.  in 0 california passed a law to legalize the testing of autonomous cars on public roads URL as long as there was a passenger on board and there were manual controls just in case.  just last year their dmv finished creation of the policies URL to enforce and implement that new law.  and companies like nissan URL are already planning have commercial models available as soon as 0.  we already have plenty of cars that advertise self parking, automatic braking and warning in case the car detects it is about to rear end or reverse into an obstacle.  fully autonomy is not that far off.  do i think self driving cars will be the prevailing motor vehicle by 0 ? probably not, but technology gets adopted so quickly that who knows.  but there will be plenty of commercial options likely for the more wealthy by then for sure.   #  they are not semi automated, there is no options for manual control.   #  have you looked into googles plans for self driving cars ? they are not semi automated, there is no options for manual control.  their ideal plans are less of  everyone buys and owns a self driving car , and more along the lines of  there are now robot taxi is that everyone will use because they are so safe .  if things go well, i expect there to be a lot of public money invested into self driving cars.  huge safety increases, plus the ability to reduce parking spaces in urban centers is just too attractive.  you might be right in that they wont be  commercially available , but they will probably be the only or vast majority of cars on the road well before 0.   #  if it is the second, my first is how shocking a car .   #  wait, why in the world do you think people will stop owning cars ? maybe you are from nyc, chicago, la, or one of like five other cities where taxis are both present and available in high enough numbers that you can usually get one in time to get somewhere without having to start looking 0  minutes early, but in the midwest/south/most of the rest of the country that is not a city population of 0,0,0 , cars are a necessity.  i ca not even go to a wal mart, grocery store, or gas station without driving 0 miles from my house.  it sucks, but i am also 0 and have $0 available to relocate currently though it is my first/second major goal.  if it is the second, my first is how shocking a car .  even when i relocate to a large suburb as i plan to, the closest grocery store will probably be within walking distance, and for everything more than that i would want to drive.  what would we move to ? i would never ride a bus unless i was out of options, and subways are not practical, even for most major cities.   #  but to say that people wo not own cars is much too extreme.   # i assume you mean that car sharing will be very common.  but to say that people wo not own cars is much too extreme.  some people will always own cars, even as a hobby.  classic cars, hotrods, sports cars, etc.  and even when car sharing becomes more wide spread having self driving cars would be the safest option.  how does one decide who is the best person to drive a shared vehicle ? simple: the computer drives.
i know according to /r/futurology self driving cars are the next big thing, but i do not think we have extrapolated this one properly.  i see car technology slowly chugging along, more of what we are seeing today, help reversing, parallel parking etc.  i see this trend continuing and improving, i do not think the next generation of cars will suddenly allow us to go 0 mph on the highway while we are sipping margaritas in the back seat.  i do not think that is the goal.  google had a project where they created a self driving car, they were pretty successful.  i think it is great new technology, but i do not see it transferring it over to average consumers.  if you disagree with me up until this point, here is my biggest concession.  the trend of car ownership will decrease at a faster rate than self driving cars will increase.  meaning, by the time we have self driving cars everywhere, no one will own a car, it will be a completely different paradigm.   #  meaning, by the time we have self driving cars everywhere, no one will own a car, it will be a completely different paradigm.   #  i assume you mean that car sharing will be very common.   # i assume you mean that car sharing will be very common.  but to say that people wo not own cars is much too extreme.  some people will always own cars, even as a hobby.  classic cars, hotrods, sports cars, etc.  and even when car sharing becomes more wide spread having self driving cars would be the safest option.  how does one decide who is the best person to drive a shared vehicle ? simple: the computer drives.   #  but there will be plenty of commercial options likely for the more wealthy by then for sure.   #  actually 0 is not a bad estimate.  in 0 california passed a law to legalize the testing of autonomous cars on public roads URL as long as there was a passenger on board and there were manual controls just in case.  just last year their dmv finished creation of the policies URL to enforce and implement that new law.  and companies like nissan URL are already planning have commercial models available as soon as 0.  we already have plenty of cars that advertise self parking, automatic braking and warning in case the car detects it is about to rear end or reverse into an obstacle.  fully autonomy is not that far off.  do i think self driving cars will be the prevailing motor vehicle by 0 ? probably not, but technology gets adopted so quickly that who knows.  but there will be plenty of commercial options likely for the more wealthy by then for sure.   #  if things go well, i expect there to be a lot of public money invested into self driving cars.   #  have you looked into googles plans for self driving cars ? they are not semi automated, there is no options for manual control.  their ideal plans are less of  everyone buys and owns a self driving car , and more along the lines of  there are now robot taxi is that everyone will use because they are so safe .  if things go well, i expect there to be a lot of public money invested into self driving cars.  huge safety increases, plus the ability to reduce parking spaces in urban centers is just too attractive.  you might be right in that they wont be  commercially available , but they will probably be the only or vast majority of cars on the road well before 0.   #  even when i relocate to a large suburb as i plan to, the closest grocery store will probably be within walking distance, and for everything more than that i would want to drive.   #  wait, why in the world do you think people will stop owning cars ? maybe you are from nyc, chicago, la, or one of like five other cities where taxis are both present and available in high enough numbers that you can usually get one in time to get somewhere without having to start looking 0  minutes early, but in the midwest/south/most of the rest of the country that is not a city population of 0,0,0 , cars are a necessity.  i ca not even go to a wal mart, grocery store, or gas station without driving 0 miles from my house.  it sucks, but i am also 0 and have $0 available to relocate currently though it is my first/second major goal.  if it is the second, my first is how shocking a car .  even when i relocate to a large suburb as i plan to, the closest grocery store will probably be within walking distance, and for everything more than that i would want to drive.  what would we move to ? i would never ride a bus unless i was out of options, and subways are not practical, even for most major cities.   #  and not only will we have the desire for self driving technology, we will have the disposable income to afford them.   #  as other posters have mentioned, personal car ownership is not going anywhere any time soon, because a  huge  portion of the population lives in parts of the country where public transportation will probably never be feasible.  my town of 0k people just got a bus system last year, and wait times for the bus are 0 0 minutes.  but, to change you view, i will point out why i am stoked for self driving cars and why i vehemently hope that they will be available by 0.  in 0, i will be 0 years old.  at that age, i will probably still be able to drive myself reasonably safely.  but in 0, when i am 0, i will probably be getting to the age where driving myself on a daily basis is not a very good idea.  at that point, if a self driving car is available, i will buy one in a heartbeat.  the millennial generation, who have grown up with technology throughout our entire lives, will present a huge demand for self driving cars as we get too old to drive ourselves.  and not only will we have the desire for self driving technology, we will have the disposable income to afford them.  as we downsize our family homes after the kids leave, reach the age where we can withdraw our iras and 0ks, and inherit from our parents we will have the cash to buy the technologies we need to make our retirement years easier: self driving cars will be one of those technologies.  the gen x ers retiring in 0 will be no different.  an 0 year old who recognizes that he does not have the skills to continue driving himself will buy a self driving car, if it is available and he can afford it.  my grandfather, who passed away in 0, would have bought one in a heartbeat if it was available.
i have spent a couple of months living in the country near a small town/village, and i honestly do not understand how it would appeal to anyone.  the differences are too many to list, but the big ones are: cities have significantly better municipal services.  the difference is night and day.  cities have bigger and better libraries, schools, police/fire departments, hospitals, gas, internet, and so on and so forth.  as 0g lte rolls out, i can tell you exactly who is going to get it first.  everything about this makes city life so much safer and more comfortable.  everything is closer in the city, and there is a greater range of things to do.  a really small town will have one or two general purpose shops.  cities can have huge malls filled with stores and restaurants of all varieties.  there are theatres and large public events and strip clubs and meetings of like minded people and clubs and just about anything to do if you ever get bored.  there is a convenience store on just about every corner.  cities afford a degree of pseudo anonymity.  if you move into an apartment building, lolwhocares.  if you move into the country you have got a ton of people who have a  new neighbor  that they wanna get to know and everything.  even if you abstain from social interaction, you become  that weird neighbor that abstains from social interaction.   this tends to temper individualism, and it is not like you can  just spend time with the people you like,  because rumors and all travel fast with a community that small.  bugs holy fucking shit the bugs aaaaaaaaa in the country, everything is high maintenance.  since just about everything that is not a tractor was designed to operate in a man made environment, everything keeps getting dirty and breaking.  cars and houses and electronics and appliances and furniture all need to be repaired and/or replaced noticeably more frequently than they would in the city.   #  everything is closer in the city, and there is a greater range of things to do.   #  again, this is something that some people may actually see as a downside to the city.   # while this is true, the people who live in the country do not value these things the same way as people who live in the city.  they do not care about 0g lte, and likely do not even have a phone to utilize it.  they may not like it that the city is bigger this is not inherently a better thing , and while you mentioned that cities are safer, i am not so sure thats a true statement.  i think crime is much more common within the city than in rural areas.  plus, people in rural areas are likely confident in their abilities to defend themselves and their families in dangerous situations, and do not necessarily want to have to depend on the municipalities for that.  basically, if you are used to living in the city, then you place value on all the things you listed about municipal services.  if you live out in the country, you are used to getting by without them and they do not necessarily have the same value.  again, this is something that some people may actually see as a downside to the city.  people used to living in a rural area might not like the hustle and bustle of the city, and enjoy spending recreational time doing things out in nature.  people may not like malls, and they may not actually meet any like minded people within the city.  some people enjoy daily interactions with the same people, and enjoy being in a community where they are recognized and have long standing histories with people.  i do not know  in the country, everything is high maintenance i am fairly sure its cheaper to live in rural areas than it is to live in the city.  even if it is true that more maintenance is required, people typically do their own maintenance and perhaps do not mind it.  tl;dr people who were born in rural areas have a completely different set of values than someone born in a city.  all of the things you listed as upsides to living in the city, they may see as downsides, and vice versa.  your world view is shaped by your experiences, so if your experience is living in the country, then your world view is vastly different than someone who has experienced nothing but city life.   #  the best i can do, maybe, is convince you that country life is preferable to  some people.   #  it is very difficult to change someone is views on something that is entirely subjective.  the answer is: city life is preferable to country life, unless you prefer country life more.  some people like the more slowed down/relaxed nature of the country.  some people like the big open spaces, with the ability to do more activities.  some people like that the country is less crowded.  some people like the ability to do things in public but still be private ever fired off illegal bottle rockets in a massive field as a kid just for kicks, knowing that there is no chance anyone is around for miles to bitch at you for it ? .  some people like having lots of animals.  some people like the lack of pseudo anonymity and prefer to get to know their neighbors well.  there is really no way to convince you that country life is preferable, because it all comes down to what you personally prefer.  the best i can do, maybe, is convince you that country life is preferable to  some people.  for the record, i love city life and hate country life i have done both .  but i completely understand why some people might prefer country life.   #  i can only think of one large public event that i enjoy, and it involves camping.   # few cities have any decent opportunities for hiking, kayaking, sailing, hunting, trapping, fishing, birding, shooting, or a great deal of other activities.  when i find myself in a city for whatever reasons, i find myself quickly getting bored due to the lack of interesting things to do.  i can only think of one large public event that i enjoy, and it involves camping.  you never have to see another human if you do not want to.  cities are just so crowded and there are people everywhere.  in a city, i feel like i ca not snese without accidentally invading someone is space, and i certainly have no hope of having no one invade mine.  in the right place country, i could set off a bomb and no one would give a shit.  in the city, i am lucky to see a single black saddlebags, but in the country i can see a wide range of different insects.  as someone with a fascination for entomology, this is a fantastic experience to me.  the only bugs i do not like are things like gnats and mosquitoes, but you get those in cities just as much as you do in the country.  maybe even more so, depending on the place.  cars and houses and electronics and appliances and furniture all need to be repaired and/or replaced noticeably more frequently than they would in the city.  sounds like you are making stuff up.  i have not experienced any appliances having significantly shorter lives in the country.  it is pretty easy to keep things clean even living far from other people.  living in the country is not the same as camping.  overall, i ca not imagine ever being able to live in a city.  most cities i measure how long i can stand to be in them in hours the best cities rate days .  a few cities i would only be able to stand a few minutes and at least one i found so terrible that i refuse to ever go there again.   #  neither do i, but it is a  thing you can do.    # yep.  the things you do in countries/cities are different, and i guess it comes down to whether you are a country/city type person.  i do not care for hiking or kayaking or any of those activities, so the country bores me.  neither do i, but it is a  thing you can do.   not really.  you would have a hard time organizing a hackathon or weekly linguist meetup or w/e in the country.  you can only really do this for very mainstream hobbies.  ehh.  this makes it difficult to hang out with the people you  do  like.  i like the convenience of choosing my friends without having to deal with people i am not interested in.  yep.  shows we are different people, i guess.  yeah, this is 0 anecdotal, and i admit i could be making it up.    0;  #  for example, i got into larping through a group that i met in a small country town.   # you can only really do this for very mainstream hobbies.  i guess it depends on the activity.  hunting, fishing, birding, and other outdoorsy thing are the common activities in the country, but you would have a hard time finding those types of groups in a city.  i do know that there are some other things that are well off the beaten path to be found.  for example, i got into larping through a group that i met in a small country town.  i have also met a few people into leatherworking and blacksmithing which i am looking at learning .  it really all depends on what sort of activities you are into, and the sort that i am into are easy to find in the country.
i have spent a couple of months living in the country near a small town/village, and i honestly do not understand how it would appeal to anyone.  the differences are too many to list, but the big ones are: cities have significantly better municipal services.  the difference is night and day.  cities have bigger and better libraries, schools, police/fire departments, hospitals, gas, internet, and so on and so forth.  as 0g lte rolls out, i can tell you exactly who is going to get it first.  everything about this makes city life so much safer and more comfortable.  everything is closer in the city, and there is a greater range of things to do.  a really small town will have one or two general purpose shops.  cities can have huge malls filled with stores and restaurants of all varieties.  there are theatres and large public events and strip clubs and meetings of like minded people and clubs and just about anything to do if you ever get bored.  there is a convenience store on just about every corner.  cities afford a degree of pseudo anonymity.  if you move into an apartment building, lolwhocares.  if you move into the country you have got a ton of people who have a  new neighbor  that they wanna get to know and everything.  even if you abstain from social interaction, you become  that weird neighbor that abstains from social interaction.   this tends to temper individualism, and it is not like you can  just spend time with the people you like,  because rumors and all travel fast with a community that small.  bugs holy fucking shit the bugs aaaaaaaaa in the country, everything is high maintenance.  since just about everything that is not a tractor was designed to operate in a man made environment, everything keeps getting dirty and breaking.  cars and houses and electronics and appliances and furniture all need to be repaired and/or replaced noticeably more frequently than they would in the city.   #  since just about everything that is not a tractor was designed to operate in a man made environment, everything keeps getting dirty and breaking.   #  cars and houses and electronics and appliances and furniture all need to be repaired and/or replaced noticeably more frequently than they would in the city.   # few cities have any decent opportunities for hiking, kayaking, sailing, hunting, trapping, fishing, birding, shooting, or a great deal of other activities.  when i find myself in a city for whatever reasons, i find myself quickly getting bored due to the lack of interesting things to do.  i can only think of one large public event that i enjoy, and it involves camping.  you never have to see another human if you do not want to.  cities are just so crowded and there are people everywhere.  in a city, i feel like i ca not snese without accidentally invading someone is space, and i certainly have no hope of having no one invade mine.  in the right place country, i could set off a bomb and no one would give a shit.  in the city, i am lucky to see a single black saddlebags, but in the country i can see a wide range of different insects.  as someone with a fascination for entomology, this is a fantastic experience to me.  the only bugs i do not like are things like gnats and mosquitoes, but you get those in cities just as much as you do in the country.  maybe even more so, depending on the place.  cars and houses and electronics and appliances and furniture all need to be repaired and/or replaced noticeably more frequently than they would in the city.  sounds like you are making stuff up.  i have not experienced any appliances having significantly shorter lives in the country.  it is pretty easy to keep things clean even living far from other people.  living in the country is not the same as camping.  overall, i ca not imagine ever being able to live in a city.  most cities i measure how long i can stand to be in them in hours the best cities rate days .  a few cities i would only be able to stand a few minutes and at least one i found so terrible that i refuse to ever go there again.   #  some people like the big open spaces, with the ability to do more activities.   #  it is very difficult to change someone is views on something that is entirely subjective.  the answer is: city life is preferable to country life, unless you prefer country life more.  some people like the more slowed down/relaxed nature of the country.  some people like the big open spaces, with the ability to do more activities.  some people like that the country is less crowded.  some people like the ability to do things in public but still be private ever fired off illegal bottle rockets in a massive field as a kid just for kicks, knowing that there is no chance anyone is around for miles to bitch at you for it ? .  some people like having lots of animals.  some people like the lack of pseudo anonymity and prefer to get to know their neighbors well.  there is really no way to convince you that country life is preferable, because it all comes down to what you personally prefer.  the best i can do, maybe, is convince you that country life is preferable to  some people.  for the record, i love city life and hate country life i have done both .  but i completely understand why some people might prefer country life.   #  they do not care about 0g lte, and likely do not even have a phone to utilize it.   # while this is true, the people who live in the country do not value these things the same way as people who live in the city.  they do not care about 0g lte, and likely do not even have a phone to utilize it.  they may not like it that the city is bigger this is not inherently a better thing , and while you mentioned that cities are safer, i am not so sure thats a true statement.  i think crime is much more common within the city than in rural areas.  plus, people in rural areas are likely confident in their abilities to defend themselves and their families in dangerous situations, and do not necessarily want to have to depend on the municipalities for that.  basically, if you are used to living in the city, then you place value on all the things you listed about municipal services.  if you live out in the country, you are used to getting by without them and they do not necessarily have the same value.  again, this is something that some people may actually see as a downside to the city.  people used to living in a rural area might not like the hustle and bustle of the city, and enjoy spending recreational time doing things out in nature.  people may not like malls, and they may not actually meet any like minded people within the city.  some people enjoy daily interactions with the same people, and enjoy being in a community where they are recognized and have long standing histories with people.  i do not know  in the country, everything is high maintenance i am fairly sure its cheaper to live in rural areas than it is to live in the city.  even if it is true that more maintenance is required, people typically do their own maintenance and perhaps do not mind it.  tl;dr people who were born in rural areas have a completely different set of values than someone born in a city.  all of the things you listed as upsides to living in the city, they may see as downsides, and vice versa.  your world view is shaped by your experiences, so if your experience is living in the country, then your world view is vastly different than someone who has experienced nothing but city life.   #  neither do i, but it is a  thing you can do.    # yep.  the things you do in countries/cities are different, and i guess it comes down to whether you are a country/city type person.  i do not care for hiking or kayaking or any of those activities, so the country bores me.  neither do i, but it is a  thing you can do.   not really.  you would have a hard time organizing a hackathon or weekly linguist meetup or w/e in the country.  you can only really do this for very mainstream hobbies.  ehh.  this makes it difficult to hang out with the people you  do  like.  i like the convenience of choosing my friends without having to deal with people i am not interested in.  yep.  shows we are different people, i guess.  yeah, this is 0 anecdotal, and i admit i could be making it up.    0;  #  you can only really do this for very mainstream hobbies.   # you can only really do this for very mainstream hobbies.  i guess it depends on the activity.  hunting, fishing, birding, and other outdoorsy thing are the common activities in the country, but you would have a hard time finding those types of groups in a city.  i do know that there are some other things that are well off the beaten path to be found.  for example, i got into larping through a group that i met in a small country town.  i have also met a few people into leatherworking and blacksmithing which i am looking at learning .  it really all depends on what sort of activities you are into, and the sort that i am into are easy to find in the country.
i have spent a couple of months living in the country near a small town/village, and i honestly do not understand how it would appeal to anyone.  the differences are too many to list, but the big ones are: cities have significantly better municipal services.  the difference is night and day.  cities have bigger and better libraries, schools, police/fire departments, hospitals, gas, internet, and so on and so forth.  as 0g lte rolls out, i can tell you exactly who is going to get it first.  everything about this makes city life so much safer and more comfortable.  everything is closer in the city, and there is a greater range of things to do.  a really small town will have one or two general purpose shops.  cities can have huge malls filled with stores and restaurants of all varieties.  there are theatres and large public events and strip clubs and meetings of like minded people and clubs and just about anything to do if you ever get bored.  there is a convenience store on just about every corner.  cities afford a degree of pseudo anonymity.  if you move into an apartment building, lolwhocares.  if you move into the country you have got a ton of people who have a  new neighbor  that they wanna get to know and everything.  even if you abstain from social interaction, you become  that weird neighbor that abstains from social interaction.   this tends to temper individualism, and it is not like you can  just spend time with the people you like,  because rumors and all travel fast with a community that small.  bugs holy fucking shit the bugs aaaaaaaaa in the country, everything is high maintenance.  since just about everything that is not a tractor was designed to operate in a man made environment, everything keeps getting dirty and breaking.  cars and houses and electronics and appliances and furniture all need to be repaired and/or replaced noticeably more frequently than they would in the city.   #  if you move into an apartment building, lolwhocares.   #  if you move into the country you have got a ton of people who have a new neighbor that they wanna get to know and everything.   # if you move into the country you have got a ton of people who have a new neighbor that they wanna get to know and everything.  even if you abstain from social interaction, you become  that weird neighbor that abstains from social interaction.   this is not necessarily something everyone finds nice about the city.  some people really enjoy moving into a small community and getting to know their neighbors, and some people feel isolated, small, and alone with the  pseudo anonymity  that comes with living in an apartment complex in the middle of the city.  it really depends who is talking.  for some, city life is better in this respect, but for others, it is not.  depends what you are looking for.  if all you want to do is go hiking on the weekends and tend your garden at home, the city wo not be what you are looking for.  the mountains would be a lot closer to the country, since they are  in  the country, and you would be able to use your home space a lot better than if you had to walk ten blocks to a small patch of land cordoned off for a community garden plus you would have more space to grow .  cockroaches  everywhere .  no escape from the bugs in the city.  source ? genuinely curious as to where you are getting this statistic, as i have never seen it before.  i guess in the end it really depends what you are looking for.  for some, including you, city life is hugely preferable to country life.  to others, there is nothing better than being able to live in central massachusetts/middle of nowhere wyoming/appalachia.  really depends on the perspective you are coming from what might be good for you is not necessarily good for others.   #  the best i can do, maybe, is convince you that country life is preferable to  some people.   #  it is very difficult to change someone is views on something that is entirely subjective.  the answer is: city life is preferable to country life, unless you prefer country life more.  some people like the more slowed down/relaxed nature of the country.  some people like the big open spaces, with the ability to do more activities.  some people like that the country is less crowded.  some people like the ability to do things in public but still be private ever fired off illegal bottle rockets in a massive field as a kid just for kicks, knowing that there is no chance anyone is around for miles to bitch at you for it ? .  some people like having lots of animals.  some people like the lack of pseudo anonymity and prefer to get to know their neighbors well.  there is really no way to convince you that country life is preferable, because it all comes down to what you personally prefer.  the best i can do, maybe, is convince you that country life is preferable to  some people.  for the record, i love city life and hate country life i have done both .  but i completely understand why some people might prefer country life.   #  people used to living in a rural area might not like the hustle and bustle of the city, and enjoy spending recreational time doing things out in nature.   # while this is true, the people who live in the country do not value these things the same way as people who live in the city.  they do not care about 0g lte, and likely do not even have a phone to utilize it.  they may not like it that the city is bigger this is not inherently a better thing , and while you mentioned that cities are safer, i am not so sure thats a true statement.  i think crime is much more common within the city than in rural areas.  plus, people in rural areas are likely confident in their abilities to defend themselves and their families in dangerous situations, and do not necessarily want to have to depend on the municipalities for that.  basically, if you are used to living in the city, then you place value on all the things you listed about municipal services.  if you live out in the country, you are used to getting by without them and they do not necessarily have the same value.  again, this is something that some people may actually see as a downside to the city.  people used to living in a rural area might not like the hustle and bustle of the city, and enjoy spending recreational time doing things out in nature.  people may not like malls, and they may not actually meet any like minded people within the city.  some people enjoy daily interactions with the same people, and enjoy being in a community where they are recognized and have long standing histories with people.  i do not know  in the country, everything is high maintenance i am fairly sure its cheaper to live in rural areas than it is to live in the city.  even if it is true that more maintenance is required, people typically do their own maintenance and perhaps do not mind it.  tl;dr people who were born in rural areas have a completely different set of values than someone born in a city.  all of the things you listed as upsides to living in the city, they may see as downsides, and vice versa.  your world view is shaped by your experiences, so if your experience is living in the country, then your world view is vastly different than someone who has experienced nothing but city life.   #  i have not experienced any appliances having significantly shorter lives in the country.   # few cities have any decent opportunities for hiking, kayaking, sailing, hunting, trapping, fishing, birding, shooting, or a great deal of other activities.  when i find myself in a city for whatever reasons, i find myself quickly getting bored due to the lack of interesting things to do.  i can only think of one large public event that i enjoy, and it involves camping.  you never have to see another human if you do not want to.  cities are just so crowded and there are people everywhere.  in a city, i feel like i ca not snese without accidentally invading someone is space, and i certainly have no hope of having no one invade mine.  in the right place country, i could set off a bomb and no one would give a shit.  in the city, i am lucky to see a single black saddlebags, but in the country i can see a wide range of different insects.  as someone with a fascination for entomology, this is a fantastic experience to me.  the only bugs i do not like are things like gnats and mosquitoes, but you get those in cities just as much as you do in the country.  maybe even more so, depending on the place.  cars and houses and electronics and appliances and furniture all need to be repaired and/or replaced noticeably more frequently than they would in the city.  sounds like you are making stuff up.  i have not experienced any appliances having significantly shorter lives in the country.  it is pretty easy to keep things clean even living far from other people.  living in the country is not the same as camping.  overall, i ca not imagine ever being able to live in a city.  most cities i measure how long i can stand to be in them in hours the best cities rate days .  a few cities i would only be able to stand a few minutes and at least one i found so terrible that i refuse to ever go there again.   #  you can only really do this for very mainstream hobbies.   # yep.  the things you do in countries/cities are different, and i guess it comes down to whether you are a country/city type person.  i do not care for hiking or kayaking or any of those activities, so the country bores me.  neither do i, but it is a  thing you can do.   not really.  you would have a hard time organizing a hackathon or weekly linguist meetup or w/e in the country.  you can only really do this for very mainstream hobbies.  ehh.  this makes it difficult to hang out with the people you  do  like.  i like the convenience of choosing my friends without having to deal with people i am not interested in.  yep.  shows we are different people, i guess.  yeah, this is 0 anecdotal, and i admit i could be making it up.    0;
according to forbes, new horizons the mission that just sent pictures of pluto back to earth cost $0m.  URL now do not get me wrong, i am a space fan.  i think we should go back to the moon, i support the iss, and want to see man walk on mars one day.  however, barring a close up of et, nothing that we find on the outer reaches of, or even beyond, our solar system is going to justify the money spent to find it.  i also support man is desire for exploration, but there are things about this planet that we have yet to explore.  $0m would have fed a lot of hungry bellies.  it would have housed a lot of homeless people.  it would have bought lots of clothes, glasses, and shoes for people who need them.  and quite honestly, i am not even that charitable of a guy, but i see a large missed opportunity here that was exchanged for some pictures of a rock 0 billion miles away.  change my view.   #  $0m would have fed a lot of hungry bellies.   #  it would have housed a lot of homeless people.   # how could you possibly know this ? what about everything learned during the construction and planning of this mission ? it would have housed a lot of homeless people.  it would have bought lots of clothes, glasses, and shoes for people who need them.  do you suppose we put $0m into a vending machine and out came the mission ? that $0m paid salaries that fed, housed, and clothed people.  it also contributes to our knowledge of the universe, which could provide opportunities for future generations.   #  that is the thing about pushing the envelope simply by nature you are going to discover things that nobody had thought about before, and you wo not know the value of those discoveries until you have made them.   #  0.  cat scanner: this cancer detecting technology was first used to find imperfections in space components.  0.  computer microchip: modern microchips descend from integrated circuits used in the apollo guidance computer.  0.  cordless tools: power drills and vacuum cleaners use technology designed to drill for moon samples.  0.  ear thermometer: a camera like lens that detects infrared energy we feel as heat was originally used to monitor the birth of stars.  0.  freeze dried food: this reduces food weight and increases shelf life without sacrificing nutritional value.  0.  insulation: home insulation uses reflective material that protects spacecraft from radiation.  0.  invisible braces: teeth straightening is less embarrassing thanks to transparent ceramic brace brackets made from spacecraft materials.  0.  joystick: this computer gaming device was first used on the apollo lunar rover.  0.  memory foam: created for aircraft seats to soften landing, this foam, which returns to its original shape, is found in mattresses and shock absorbing helmets.  0.  satellite television: technology used to fix errors in spacecraft signals helps reduce scrambled pictures and sound in satellite television signals.  0.  scratch resistant lenses: astronaut helmet visor coating makes our spectacles ten times more scratch resistant.  0.  shoe insoles: athletic shoe companies adapted space boot designs to lessen impact by adding spring and ventilation.  0.  smoke detector: nasa invented the first adjustable smoke detector with sensitivity levels to prevent false alarms.  0.  swimsuit: nasa used the same principles that reduce drag in space to help create the world is fastest swimsuit for speedo, rejected by some professionals for giving an unfair advantage.  0.  water filter: domestic versions borrow a technique nasa pioneered to kill bacteria in water taken into space.  source: URL many of these items have directly saved lives and improved quality of life, and may well have led to other discoveries which did the same.  that is the thing about pushing the envelope simply by nature you are going to discover things that nobody had thought about before, and you wo not know the value of those discoveries until you have made them.   #  we do not know how many objects it will find figuring out the density of objects in the belt is something it will be working on.   #  it is already in the belt pluto is a kuiper belt object.  it will remain in the kuiper belt for a while.  we do not know how many objects it will find figuring out the density of objects in the belt is something it will be working on.  the kuiper belt is a very big place though.  here is a page URL on what they are planning to do with new horizons post pluto.   #  there is no easy way to solve socioeconomic problems.   #  ok i see a two point refutation of this argument.  a let is invert the logic here.  why should the space program be cut to free up these funds ? we as a society expend a lot more with much more questionable stuff.  if something should be cut down to  feed and clothe the people , there are far better targets.  b directly supplying food and clothes to underdeveloped societies harms their development.  you disrupt supply chains and markets and distort incentives.  there is no easy way to solve socioeconomic problems.  the most effective way is economic development, and the biggest issue of our time is that the way we develop our economies right now cannot raise income levels any further without gravely harming the planet is life sustaining capacity.  that is the actual issue, not lack of funds to distribute sutff to people.  what happens when the funds run out anyway ?  #  choosing to go after space exploration when there is so much lower hanging and riper fruit is irresponsible at best.   #  i do not think you can handwave over the first point that easily.  space exploration gets a hugely disproportionate amount of flak, both for how little we spend on it and how good a return on investment it is.  choosing to go after space exploration when there is so much lower hanging and riper fruit is irresponsible at best.  we are talking about the cost of a single football stadium here.  it is asinine.  it honestly makes me a little bit sick every time i see these arguments, when football is just taken for granted.
according to forbes, new horizons the mission that just sent pictures of pluto back to earth cost $0m.  URL now do not get me wrong, i am a space fan.  i think we should go back to the moon, i support the iss, and want to see man walk on mars one day.  however, barring a close up of et, nothing that we find on the outer reaches of, or even beyond, our solar system is going to justify the money spent to find it.  i also support man is desire for exploration, but there are things about this planet that we have yet to explore.  $0m would have fed a lot of hungry bellies.  it would have housed a lot of homeless people.  it would have bought lots of clothes, glasses, and shoes for people who need them.  and quite honestly, i am not even that charitable of a guy, but i see a large missed opportunity here that was exchanged for some pictures of a rock 0 billion miles away.  change my view.   #  $0m would have fed a lot of hungry bellies.   #  it would have housed a lot of homeless people.   # it would have housed a lot of homeless people.  it would have bought lots of clothes, glasses, and shoes for people who need them.  for how long ? this reminds me of the austin powers moving where dr.  evil thinks asking for  one  million  dollars !   is a lot of money.  $0m sure looks like a lot of money, and i could live comfortably for the rest of my days with it.  $0m probably could not even feed all of the homeless people in america for a year.  there are 0 million homeless people in america right now source: quick and dirty google search , and how much does it cost to feed them for a year ? let is say it costs $0 a week to feed a person which seems low to me ? , that is  $0 billion  if i did my math right.  .  and that is just food for the homeless for one whole year.  at my $0/week estimate, $0m is enough to feed just over 0,0 people.  no housing, just food.  sure, that is a lot but nothing astounding, like the science required to fly a probe near an object like pluto and beyond and send us back information.  we are going to get a lot more than pictures of pluto ! i do not really know any of the specifics, but rest assured we are not just doing this for a few pictures.   #  it would have bought lots of clothes, glasses, and shoes for people who need them.   # how could you possibly know this ? what about everything learned during the construction and planning of this mission ? it would have housed a lot of homeless people.  it would have bought lots of clothes, glasses, and shoes for people who need them.  do you suppose we put $0m into a vending machine and out came the mission ? that $0m paid salaries that fed, housed, and clothed people.  it also contributes to our knowledge of the universe, which could provide opportunities for future generations.   #  0.  freeze dried food: this reduces food weight and increases shelf life without sacrificing nutritional value.   #  0.  cat scanner: this cancer detecting technology was first used to find imperfections in space components.  0.  computer microchip: modern microchips descend from integrated circuits used in the apollo guidance computer.  0.  cordless tools: power drills and vacuum cleaners use technology designed to drill for moon samples.  0.  ear thermometer: a camera like lens that detects infrared energy we feel as heat was originally used to monitor the birth of stars.  0.  freeze dried food: this reduces food weight and increases shelf life without sacrificing nutritional value.  0.  insulation: home insulation uses reflective material that protects spacecraft from radiation.  0.  invisible braces: teeth straightening is less embarrassing thanks to transparent ceramic brace brackets made from spacecraft materials.  0.  joystick: this computer gaming device was first used on the apollo lunar rover.  0.  memory foam: created for aircraft seats to soften landing, this foam, which returns to its original shape, is found in mattresses and shock absorbing helmets.  0.  satellite television: technology used to fix errors in spacecraft signals helps reduce scrambled pictures and sound in satellite television signals.  0.  scratch resistant lenses: astronaut helmet visor coating makes our spectacles ten times more scratch resistant.  0.  shoe insoles: athletic shoe companies adapted space boot designs to lessen impact by adding spring and ventilation.  0.  smoke detector: nasa invented the first adjustable smoke detector with sensitivity levels to prevent false alarms.  0.  swimsuit: nasa used the same principles that reduce drag in space to help create the world is fastest swimsuit for speedo, rejected by some professionals for giving an unfair advantage.  0.  water filter: domestic versions borrow a technique nasa pioneered to kill bacteria in water taken into space.  source: URL many of these items have directly saved lives and improved quality of life, and may well have led to other discoveries which did the same.  that is the thing about pushing the envelope simply by nature you are going to discover things that nobody had thought about before, and you wo not know the value of those discoveries until you have made them.   #  the kuiper belt is a very big place though.   #  it is already in the belt pluto is a kuiper belt object.  it will remain in the kuiper belt for a while.  we do not know how many objects it will find figuring out the density of objects in the belt is something it will be working on.  the kuiper belt is a very big place though.  here is a page URL on what they are planning to do with new horizons post pluto.   #  there is no easy way to solve socioeconomic problems.   #  ok i see a two point refutation of this argument.  a let is invert the logic here.  why should the space program be cut to free up these funds ? we as a society expend a lot more with much more questionable stuff.  if something should be cut down to  feed and clothe the people , there are far better targets.  b directly supplying food and clothes to underdeveloped societies harms their development.  you disrupt supply chains and markets and distort incentives.  there is no easy way to solve socioeconomic problems.  the most effective way is economic development, and the biggest issue of our time is that the way we develop our economies right now cannot raise income levels any further without gravely harming the planet is life sustaining capacity.  that is the actual issue, not lack of funds to distribute sutff to people.  what happens when the funds run out anyway ?
according to forbes, new horizons the mission that just sent pictures of pluto back to earth cost $0m.  URL now do not get me wrong, i am a space fan.  i think we should go back to the moon, i support the iss, and want to see man walk on mars one day.  however, barring a close up of et, nothing that we find on the outer reaches of, or even beyond, our solar system is going to justify the money spent to find it.  i also support man is desire for exploration, but there are things about this planet that we have yet to explore.  $0m would have fed a lot of hungry bellies.  it would have housed a lot of homeless people.  it would have bought lots of clothes, glasses, and shoes for people who need them.  and quite honestly, i am not even that charitable of a guy, but i see a large missed opportunity here that was exchanged for some pictures of a rock 0 billion miles away.  change my view.   #  and quite honestly, i am not even that charitable of a guy, but i see a large missed opportunity here that was exchanged for some pictures of a rock 0 billion miles away.   #  we are going to get a lot more than pictures of pluto !  # it would have housed a lot of homeless people.  it would have bought lots of clothes, glasses, and shoes for people who need them.  for how long ? this reminds me of the austin powers moving where dr.  evil thinks asking for  one  million  dollars !   is a lot of money.  $0m sure looks like a lot of money, and i could live comfortably for the rest of my days with it.  $0m probably could not even feed all of the homeless people in america for a year.  there are 0 million homeless people in america right now source: quick and dirty google search , and how much does it cost to feed them for a year ? let is say it costs $0 a week to feed a person which seems low to me ? , that is  $0 billion  if i did my math right.  .  and that is just food for the homeless for one whole year.  at my $0/week estimate, $0m is enough to feed just over 0,0 people.  no housing, just food.  sure, that is a lot but nothing astounding, like the science required to fly a probe near an object like pluto and beyond and send us back information.  we are going to get a lot more than pictures of pluto ! i do not really know any of the specifics, but rest assured we are not just doing this for a few pictures.   #  what about everything learned during the construction and planning of this mission ?  # how could you possibly know this ? what about everything learned during the construction and planning of this mission ? it would have housed a lot of homeless people.  it would have bought lots of clothes, glasses, and shoes for people who need them.  do you suppose we put $0m into a vending machine and out came the mission ? that $0m paid salaries that fed, housed, and clothed people.  it also contributes to our knowledge of the universe, which could provide opportunities for future generations.   #  0.  smoke detector: nasa invented the first adjustable smoke detector with sensitivity levels to prevent false alarms.   #  0.  cat scanner: this cancer detecting technology was first used to find imperfections in space components.  0.  computer microchip: modern microchips descend from integrated circuits used in the apollo guidance computer.  0.  cordless tools: power drills and vacuum cleaners use technology designed to drill for moon samples.  0.  ear thermometer: a camera like lens that detects infrared energy we feel as heat was originally used to monitor the birth of stars.  0.  freeze dried food: this reduces food weight and increases shelf life without sacrificing nutritional value.  0.  insulation: home insulation uses reflective material that protects spacecraft from radiation.  0.  invisible braces: teeth straightening is less embarrassing thanks to transparent ceramic brace brackets made from spacecraft materials.  0.  joystick: this computer gaming device was first used on the apollo lunar rover.  0.  memory foam: created for aircraft seats to soften landing, this foam, which returns to its original shape, is found in mattresses and shock absorbing helmets.  0.  satellite television: technology used to fix errors in spacecraft signals helps reduce scrambled pictures and sound in satellite television signals.  0.  scratch resistant lenses: astronaut helmet visor coating makes our spectacles ten times more scratch resistant.  0.  shoe insoles: athletic shoe companies adapted space boot designs to lessen impact by adding spring and ventilation.  0.  smoke detector: nasa invented the first adjustable smoke detector with sensitivity levels to prevent false alarms.  0.  swimsuit: nasa used the same principles that reduce drag in space to help create the world is fastest swimsuit for speedo, rejected by some professionals for giving an unfair advantage.  0.  water filter: domestic versions borrow a technique nasa pioneered to kill bacteria in water taken into space.  source: URL many of these items have directly saved lives and improved quality of life, and may well have led to other discoveries which did the same.  that is the thing about pushing the envelope simply by nature you are going to discover things that nobody had thought about before, and you wo not know the value of those discoveries until you have made them.   #  it is already in the belt pluto is a kuiper belt object.   #  it is already in the belt pluto is a kuiper belt object.  it will remain in the kuiper belt for a while.  we do not know how many objects it will find figuring out the density of objects in the belt is something it will be working on.  the kuiper belt is a very big place though.  here is a page URL on what they are planning to do with new horizons post pluto.   #  the most effective way is economic development, and the biggest issue of our time is that the way we develop our economies right now cannot raise income levels any further without gravely harming the planet is life sustaining capacity.   #  ok i see a two point refutation of this argument.  a let is invert the logic here.  why should the space program be cut to free up these funds ? we as a society expend a lot more with much more questionable stuff.  if something should be cut down to  feed and clothe the people , there are far better targets.  b directly supplying food and clothes to underdeveloped societies harms their development.  you disrupt supply chains and markets and distort incentives.  there is no easy way to solve socioeconomic problems.  the most effective way is economic development, and the biggest issue of our time is that the way we develop our economies right now cannot raise income levels any further without gravely harming the planet is life sustaining capacity.  that is the actual issue, not lack of funds to distribute sutff to people.  what happens when the funds run out anyway ?
first off, this is not about transsexual people.  if people are not comfortable with the genitals they were born with, well then it is their bodies to do with what they like; power to them.  however, when transgender people say that they feel like they are the opposite gender, it stops making sense.  if a person who was born male decides that they feel like they are a female, what are they basing that on ? what does being female feel like, and how would they know ? does not that imply that females feel a certain way, and males another way ? is not that considered backwards ? obviously the same goes for born females who claim that they feel male.  in short, what does it mean to be a man or a woman ? would not any answer to that question put parameters on something that should not have parameters ?  #  when transgender people say that they feel like they are the opposite gender, it stops making sense.   #  if a person who was born male decides that they feel like they are a female, what are they basing that on ?  # if a person who was born male decides that they feel like they are a female, what are they basing that on ? does not that imply that females feel a certain way, and males another way ? i hope you do not mind if i provide you with some decent reading material about all this: 0: evidence for an inherent difference in the brain structure of ftm transsexuals URL 0: before cross sex hormone treatment female to male transsexuals ftm differ from females but not from males in several brain fibers URL 0: gender identity develops as a result of an interaction between the developing brain and sex hormones.  URL how about you read through those.  you will see that there are some things that are different b/w male and female brains, and how transsexualism relates to it all.   #  so we will often call ourselves transgender and say we are changing  gender , where gender is just a euphimism for sex.   #  the words sex and gender are often used interchangeably.  some people push for a simplified distinction, like sex physical and gender social/cultural, but that distinction is not universal.  most of the time people use sex/gender interchangeably.  as trans people, we used to call ourselves transsexual but that became a dirty word over time.  the association with back page escort ads, pornography, and jerry springer type of talk shows, made  transsexual  sound too much like it is all about sex.  so we will often call ourselves transgender and say we are changing  gender , where gender is just a euphimism for sex.  now getting more to the point of your question.  throughout life we all gravitate towards certain things; hobbies, friends, places, role models, guilty pleasures, etc.  how do we choose these things that we like, these things that on many levels define our personality ? can you really break down the process of seeing something new, and thinking  wow i really like that and i want a lot of it in my life , where does that process come from ? at the risk of oversimplifying things, that is what being transgender is like.  sometimes you just connect with something and you know it is going to be a part of your life for a long, long time.   #  it is not  the other gender , op, it is your gender.   #  it is not  the other gender , op, it is your gender.  the point is that peoples  gender is not inextricably intertwined with their birth sex, because of reasons.  a trans lady is not a dude who goes  i guess that lady stuff is cool .  a trans lady is a lady, just like all the other ladies who do lady things.  it is just that a trans lady is body is incongruent with her gender, because of reasons we only have a dim understanding about.   #  a male wearing dresses does not make him a trans woman any more than a female deciding to keep her hair short makes her a man.   #  as someone who has never felt attached to my gender, i also have no idea what transgender is like.  what you just posted is pretty much the most eloquent answer i have heard, but i am still confused.  pretty much the only thing that makes me a man other than my biology is the fact that others know my biology and call me a man.  if the almighty ruler of the universe went up to me and said  you are a woman now  without changing me at all, i would not have a problem with it.  i guess i just do not understand the need to clarify one is gender to anyone, including one iself.  a male wearing dresses does not make him a trans woman any more than a female deciding to keep her hair short makes her a man.  what even  is  the gender part of you ?  #  to support the point, there are cultures where there are such things as third gender, but we never say that means there is a third sex.   #  for sure cleaving to the gender/sex divide often leads to that ridiculous idea from pseudo allies, i am well aware of the annoyance of dealing with that misunderstanding.  but that does not change that gender  was  coined to refer to the social side, not of trans men or women, but of a presumably cis populaiton in the 0s.  there are two gender/sex distinctions, one with roots in sociology and early academic feminism, the other with roots in an, as you say, outdated model of trans people.  but while outdated, that does not mean it serves no purpose, just that it should not be the be all end all way of talking about trans people.  to support the point, there are cultures where there are such things as third gender, but we never say that means there is a third sex.  and genderqueer would never be called sexqueer, nor non binary gender called non binary sex.
first off, this is not about transsexual people.  if people are not comfortable with the genitals they were born with, well then it is their bodies to do with what they like; power to them.  however, when transgender people say that they feel like they are the opposite gender, it stops making sense.  if a person who was born male decides that they feel like they are a female, what are they basing that on ? what does being female feel like, and how would they know ? does not that imply that females feel a certain way, and males another way ? is not that considered backwards ? obviously the same goes for born females who claim that they feel male.  in short, what does it mean to be a man or a woman ? would not any answer to that question put parameters on something that should not have parameters ?  #  what does being female feel like, and how would they know ?  #  does not that imply that females feel a certain way, and males another way ?  # if a person who was born male decides that they feel like they are a female, what are they basing that on ? does not that imply that females feel a certain way, and males another way ? i hope you do not mind if i provide you with some decent reading material about all this: 0: evidence for an inherent difference in the brain structure of ftm transsexuals URL 0: before cross sex hormone treatment female to male transsexuals ftm differ from females but not from males in several brain fibers URL 0: gender identity develops as a result of an interaction between the developing brain and sex hormones.  URL how about you read through those.  you will see that there are some things that are different b/w male and female brains, and how transsexualism relates to it all.   #  as trans people, we used to call ourselves transsexual but that became a dirty word over time.   #  the words sex and gender are often used interchangeably.  some people push for a simplified distinction, like sex physical and gender social/cultural, but that distinction is not universal.  most of the time people use sex/gender interchangeably.  as trans people, we used to call ourselves transsexual but that became a dirty word over time.  the association with back page escort ads, pornography, and jerry springer type of talk shows, made  transsexual  sound too much like it is all about sex.  so we will often call ourselves transgender and say we are changing  gender , where gender is just a euphimism for sex.  now getting more to the point of your question.  throughout life we all gravitate towards certain things; hobbies, friends, places, role models, guilty pleasures, etc.  how do we choose these things that we like, these things that on many levels define our personality ? can you really break down the process of seeing something new, and thinking  wow i really like that and i want a lot of it in my life , where does that process come from ? at the risk of oversimplifying things, that is what being transgender is like.  sometimes you just connect with something and you know it is going to be a part of your life for a long, long time.   #  it is not  the other gender , op, it is your gender.   #  it is not  the other gender , op, it is your gender.  the point is that peoples  gender is not inextricably intertwined with their birth sex, because of reasons.  a trans lady is not a dude who goes  i guess that lady stuff is cool .  a trans lady is a lady, just like all the other ladies who do lady things.  it is just that a trans lady is body is incongruent with her gender, because of reasons we only have a dim understanding about.   #  pretty much the only thing that makes me a man other than my biology is the fact that others know my biology and call me a man.   #  as someone who has never felt attached to my gender, i also have no idea what transgender is like.  what you just posted is pretty much the most eloquent answer i have heard, but i am still confused.  pretty much the only thing that makes me a man other than my biology is the fact that others know my biology and call me a man.  if the almighty ruler of the universe went up to me and said  you are a woman now  without changing me at all, i would not have a problem with it.  i guess i just do not understand the need to clarify one is gender to anyone, including one iself.  a male wearing dresses does not make him a trans woman any more than a female deciding to keep her hair short makes her a man.  what even  is  the gender part of you ?  #  for sure cleaving to the gender/sex divide often leads to that ridiculous idea from pseudo allies, i am well aware of the annoyance of dealing with that misunderstanding.   #  for sure cleaving to the gender/sex divide often leads to that ridiculous idea from pseudo allies, i am well aware of the annoyance of dealing with that misunderstanding.  but that does not change that gender  was  coined to refer to the social side, not of trans men or women, but of a presumably cis populaiton in the 0s.  there are two gender/sex distinctions, one with roots in sociology and early academic feminism, the other with roots in an, as you say, outdated model of trans people.  but while outdated, that does not mean it serves no purpose, just that it should not be the be all end all way of talking about trans people.  to support the point, there are cultures where there are such things as third gender, but we never say that means there is a third sex.  and genderqueer would never be called sexqueer, nor non binary gender called non binary sex.
first off, this is not about transsexual people.  if people are not comfortable with the genitals they were born with, well then it is their bodies to do with what they like; power to them.  however, when transgender people say that they feel like they are the opposite gender, it stops making sense.  if a person who was born male decides that they feel like they are a female, what are they basing that on ? what does being female feel like, and how would they know ? does not that imply that females feel a certain way, and males another way ? is not that considered backwards ? obviously the same goes for born females who claim that they feel male.  in short, what does it mean to be a man or a woman ? would not any answer to that question put parameters on something that should not have parameters ?  #  what does it mean to be a man or a woman ?  #  would not any answer to that question put parameters on something that should not have parameters ?  # the two genders  are  different in several defining ways.  they have different physiological and psychological traits, such as facial hair or responses to stimuli.  would not any answer to that question put parameters on something that should not have parameters ? if you are looking at it from a biological standpoint, what is wrong with having parameters for being in a certain category ? if you were viewing it more personal perspective, then gender could be left up to the individual.  either way i am hoping i will cyv  #  the words sex and gender are often used interchangeably.   #  the words sex and gender are often used interchangeably.  some people push for a simplified distinction, like sex physical and gender social/cultural, but that distinction is not universal.  most of the time people use sex/gender interchangeably.  as trans people, we used to call ourselves transsexual but that became a dirty word over time.  the association with back page escort ads, pornography, and jerry springer type of talk shows, made  transsexual  sound too much like it is all about sex.  so we will often call ourselves transgender and say we are changing  gender , where gender is just a euphimism for sex.  now getting more to the point of your question.  throughout life we all gravitate towards certain things; hobbies, friends, places, role models, guilty pleasures, etc.  how do we choose these things that we like, these things that on many levels define our personality ? can you really break down the process of seeing something new, and thinking  wow i really like that and i want a lot of it in my life , where does that process come from ? at the risk of oversimplifying things, that is what being transgender is like.  sometimes you just connect with something and you know it is going to be a part of your life for a long, long time.   #  the point is that peoples  gender is not inextricably intertwined with their birth sex, because of reasons.   #  it is not  the other gender , op, it is your gender.  the point is that peoples  gender is not inextricably intertwined with their birth sex, because of reasons.  a trans lady is not a dude who goes  i guess that lady stuff is cool .  a trans lady is a lady, just like all the other ladies who do lady things.  it is just that a trans lady is body is incongruent with her gender, because of reasons we only have a dim understanding about.   #  if the almighty ruler of the universe went up to me and said  you are a woman now  without changing me at all, i would not have a problem with it.   #  as someone who has never felt attached to my gender, i also have no idea what transgender is like.  what you just posted is pretty much the most eloquent answer i have heard, but i am still confused.  pretty much the only thing that makes me a man other than my biology is the fact that others know my biology and call me a man.  if the almighty ruler of the universe went up to me and said  you are a woman now  without changing me at all, i would not have a problem with it.  i guess i just do not understand the need to clarify one is gender to anyone, including one iself.  a male wearing dresses does not make him a trans woman any more than a female deciding to keep her hair short makes her a man.  what even  is  the gender part of you ?  #  but while outdated, that does not mean it serves no purpose, just that it should not be the be all end all way of talking about trans people.   #  for sure cleaving to the gender/sex divide often leads to that ridiculous idea from pseudo allies, i am well aware of the annoyance of dealing with that misunderstanding.  but that does not change that gender  was  coined to refer to the social side, not of trans men or women, but of a presumably cis populaiton in the 0s.  there are two gender/sex distinctions, one with roots in sociology and early academic feminism, the other with roots in an, as you say, outdated model of trans people.  but while outdated, that does not mean it serves no purpose, just that it should not be the be all end all way of talking about trans people.  to support the point, there are cultures where there are such things as third gender, but we never say that means there is a third sex.  and genderqueer would never be called sexqueer, nor non binary gender called non binary sex.
i have been thinking about this a lot lately, and i ca not think of anything redeeming about makeup.  0 it takes forever to put on.  i feel like this is most of the reason women are given a reputation for taking ages to ready themselves, and given that i think it is unnecessary, it is actually a waste of time no matter how long it takes.  0 it is harmful.  not only physically, where it may causes skin problems, headaches, premature aging, cancer, allergies, other skin diseases, and other things, but it can be harmful to the self image of the woman wearing makeup, making them dependent upon the makeup, feeling ugly without it, etc.  0 it is disingenuous.  i think of it as false advertising.  celebrities are a big indication of this to me, many of them do not look particularly nice without makeup on, and with regular women the drop in attractiveness without makeup is generally even more noticeable.  this is all that comes to mind at the moment.  cmv.   #  0 it takes forever to put on.   #  i feel like this is most of the reason women are given a reputation for taking ages to ready themselves, and given that i think it is unnecessary, it is actually a waste of time no matter how long it takes.   # i feel like this is most of the reason women are given a reputation for taking ages to ready themselves, and given that i think it is unnecessary, it is actually a waste of time no matter how long it takes.  i like to take an hour to get dolled up sometimes.  i find it meditative.  also, for women who treat makeup like a hobby instead of a chore, 0 0 minutes is a totally reasonable amount of time to spend per day.  compare it to other hobbies like sports or video games or reddit, and the time factor is not really an issue.  not only physically, where it may causes skin problems, headaches, premature aging, cancer, allergies, other skin diseases, and other things, uuh, no.  never had these issues nor heard of them beyond clickbait bullshit, so not a factor.  a whole lot more than makeup makes women feel ugly.  unless you are going to argue against advertising for basically all women is products, porn, and scarlet johansen, this argument is moot.  makeup actually evens the playing field for women and can make us feel a little better about ourselves.  also, i do not know a lot of women who wear makeup daily.  i put it on maybe 0 0x a week, and feel totally fine with myself regardless of how much i wear.  it is obviously not a universal experience, but i know a lot of women as i work with them almost exclusively in an industry that relies on confidence, and only a handful of them wear makeup daily.  i think of it as false advertising.  celebrities are a big indication of this to me, many of them do not look particularly nice without makeup on, and with regular women the drop in attractiveness without makeup is generally even more noticeable.  try to keep in mind that for most women, makeup is not about  advertising.   it is not about being pretty for you, it is about feeling good for me.   #  almost all shoes add inches to a person is height.   #  i fail to see how makeup is different from any other grooming measure that people take on a daily basis.  everything that people do to make themselves look better risks the same dangers you see from makeup.  any grooming routine will take some time more time than just rolling out of bed and leaving the house.  it takes as long for my wife to put on basic foundation and eye makeup as it does for me to shave every morning.  both genders have to do  some  basic maintenance to be presentable for the professional world.  most women do not spent hours putting on makeup, just like most men do not spend hours on their hair and shaving.  for those that do: it is more that they enjoy the quiet personal time that they spend getting ready than a necessary obligation give a woman 0 minutes to get ready for an important appointment and i guarantee she will be out the door on time.  the only connection i have ever heard to skincare and health problems are people who mistakenly treat  tanning cremes  with low spfs as if they are sunscreen and expose themselves to the sun.  the issue of women feeling  ugly  without makeup is more an issue with our society is beauty standards, but as above some makeup can rightly be considered a normal part of grooming: the same way a man is expected to put some effort into maintaining his facial hair.  in the same way that a guy might feel  ugly  if he does not shave or trim for a week a woman might rightly feel ugly if she does not put any foundation on her face.  you could say the same about any other fashion or grooming behavior.  almost all shoes add inches to a person is height.  men is suits are specifically designed to accentuate the shoulders and slim the waist.  certain fabric patterns present a more slimming figure, and these are worn by both men and women.  a person of either gender can use hair styles and accessories to accentuate or diminish unattractive elements of their appearance.  glasses, for instance, can define an overly round face.  when you see a celebrity without makeup, there is another key element you are missing: you are seeing them without  photoshopping or airbrushing .  a celebrity in full makeup photographed from an awkward angle, with a weird expression, or in an untouched photo is going to look just as  off  as an average person.  makeup for women is just a part of normal grooming standards: the same way that shaving is for men.  men must maintain their faces daily whether they choose to wear facial hair or go clean shaven.  neither gender can simply roll into the professional world without any facial grooming.  in the same way that a man can shave clean or maintain a well groomed beard or mustache: a woman can choose to wear minimal makeup or choose a more formal look.   #  but then you say   regular women can go from attractive to unattractive at the swipe of a brush.    #   bad  is sort of a vague term, and it might be helpful for you to define exactly what you mean by  bad .  also it seems to me that your points 0 and 0 are contradictory.  first you say it  takes forever to put on  and is a  waste of time .  but then you say   regular women can go from attractive to unattractive at the swipe of a brush.   i assume you mean go from unattractive to attractive, since you say celebrities are unattractive without makeup .  and those points are contradictory.  obviously if  it takes forever  it ca not be done  at the swipe of a brush .  further if it is a  waste of time  it ca not have any potentially valuable impact for the user like making a woman more attractive or simply making her feel more attractive .   #  it is something almost everyone does to one extent or another because almost everyone agrees it has some value largely for attracting/keeping mates but also for attracting/keeping friends and jobs .   #  do you brush your teeth ? wear deodorant/antiperspirant ? cut your hair or have it cut ? shave or trim your beard ? wear clothing that is well fitting or tailored ? shower or bathe ? have tattoos ? have piercings ? all of those things are making oneself artificially attractive.  yet i assume you do some or most of them maybe all .  that suggests you do not really see making oneself artificially attractive as worthless.  it is something almost everyone does to one extent or another because almost everyone agrees it has some value largely for attracting/keeping mates but also for attracting/keeping friends and jobs .   #  this is a bit of a semantical argument, because by artificially attractive, i do not mean all things and any things that one does to improve one is appearance.   #  this is a bit of a semantical argument, because by artificially attractive, i do not mean all things and any things that one does to improve one is appearance.  i say makeup is artificial because by looking at that person, you ca not tell whether their facial features are real or exaggerated/covered.  i do not have a problem with hygiene and odor control because that is courteous to others and it is generally healthy debatable in some instances .  i think tailored clothing is generally unnecessary unless there is some high class event and nice attire is recommended.  piercings and tattoos are artificial but they are permanent, so they may as well not be artificial.  hair cutting is kind of a weird one because it is cosmetic, but like the piercings and tattoos, it is there to stay so i would not say it is artificial.
i have been thinking about this a lot lately, and i ca not think of anything redeeming about makeup.  0 it takes forever to put on.  i feel like this is most of the reason women are given a reputation for taking ages to ready themselves, and given that i think it is unnecessary, it is actually a waste of time no matter how long it takes.  0 it is harmful.  not only physically, where it may causes skin problems, headaches, premature aging, cancer, allergies, other skin diseases, and other things, but it can be harmful to the self image of the woman wearing makeup, making them dependent upon the makeup, feeling ugly without it, etc.  0 it is disingenuous.  i think of it as false advertising.  celebrities are a big indication of this to me, many of them do not look particularly nice without makeup on, and with regular women the drop in attractiveness without makeup is generally even more noticeable.  this is all that comes to mind at the moment.  cmv.   #  but it can be harmful to the self image of the woman wearing makeup, making them dependent upon the makeup, feeling ugly without it, etc.   #  a whole lot more than makeup makes women feel ugly.   # i feel like this is most of the reason women are given a reputation for taking ages to ready themselves, and given that i think it is unnecessary, it is actually a waste of time no matter how long it takes.  i like to take an hour to get dolled up sometimes.  i find it meditative.  also, for women who treat makeup like a hobby instead of a chore, 0 0 minutes is a totally reasonable amount of time to spend per day.  compare it to other hobbies like sports or video games or reddit, and the time factor is not really an issue.  not only physically, where it may causes skin problems, headaches, premature aging, cancer, allergies, other skin diseases, and other things, uuh, no.  never had these issues nor heard of them beyond clickbait bullshit, so not a factor.  a whole lot more than makeup makes women feel ugly.  unless you are going to argue against advertising for basically all women is products, porn, and scarlet johansen, this argument is moot.  makeup actually evens the playing field for women and can make us feel a little better about ourselves.  also, i do not know a lot of women who wear makeup daily.  i put it on maybe 0 0x a week, and feel totally fine with myself regardless of how much i wear.  it is obviously not a universal experience, but i know a lot of women as i work with them almost exclusively in an industry that relies on confidence, and only a handful of them wear makeup daily.  i think of it as false advertising.  celebrities are a big indication of this to me, many of them do not look particularly nice without makeup on, and with regular women the drop in attractiveness without makeup is generally even more noticeable.  try to keep in mind that for most women, makeup is not about  advertising.   it is not about being pretty for you, it is about feeling good for me.   #  when you see a celebrity without makeup, there is another key element you are missing: you are seeing them without  photoshopping or airbrushing .   #  i fail to see how makeup is different from any other grooming measure that people take on a daily basis.  everything that people do to make themselves look better risks the same dangers you see from makeup.  any grooming routine will take some time more time than just rolling out of bed and leaving the house.  it takes as long for my wife to put on basic foundation and eye makeup as it does for me to shave every morning.  both genders have to do  some  basic maintenance to be presentable for the professional world.  most women do not spent hours putting on makeup, just like most men do not spend hours on their hair and shaving.  for those that do: it is more that they enjoy the quiet personal time that they spend getting ready than a necessary obligation give a woman 0 minutes to get ready for an important appointment and i guarantee she will be out the door on time.  the only connection i have ever heard to skincare and health problems are people who mistakenly treat  tanning cremes  with low spfs as if they are sunscreen and expose themselves to the sun.  the issue of women feeling  ugly  without makeup is more an issue with our society is beauty standards, but as above some makeup can rightly be considered a normal part of grooming: the same way a man is expected to put some effort into maintaining his facial hair.  in the same way that a guy might feel  ugly  if he does not shave or trim for a week a woman might rightly feel ugly if she does not put any foundation on her face.  you could say the same about any other fashion or grooming behavior.  almost all shoes add inches to a person is height.  men is suits are specifically designed to accentuate the shoulders and slim the waist.  certain fabric patterns present a more slimming figure, and these are worn by both men and women.  a person of either gender can use hair styles and accessories to accentuate or diminish unattractive elements of their appearance.  glasses, for instance, can define an overly round face.  when you see a celebrity without makeup, there is another key element you are missing: you are seeing them without  photoshopping or airbrushing .  a celebrity in full makeup photographed from an awkward angle, with a weird expression, or in an untouched photo is going to look just as  off  as an average person.  makeup for women is just a part of normal grooming standards: the same way that shaving is for men.  men must maintain their faces daily whether they choose to wear facial hair or go clean shaven.  neither gender can simply roll into the professional world without any facial grooming.  in the same way that a man can shave clean or maintain a well groomed beard or mustache: a woman can choose to wear minimal makeup or choose a more formal look.   #  further if it is a  waste of time  it ca not have any potentially valuable impact for the user like making a woman more attractive or simply making her feel more attractive .   #   bad  is sort of a vague term, and it might be helpful for you to define exactly what you mean by  bad .  also it seems to me that your points 0 and 0 are contradictory.  first you say it  takes forever to put on  and is a  waste of time .  but then you say   regular women can go from attractive to unattractive at the swipe of a brush.   i assume you mean go from unattractive to attractive, since you say celebrities are unattractive without makeup .  and those points are contradictory.  obviously if  it takes forever  it ca not be done  at the swipe of a brush .  further if it is a  waste of time  it ca not have any potentially valuable impact for the user like making a woman more attractive or simply making her feel more attractive .   #  all of those things are making oneself artificially attractive.   #  do you brush your teeth ? wear deodorant/antiperspirant ? cut your hair or have it cut ? shave or trim your beard ? wear clothing that is well fitting or tailored ? shower or bathe ? have tattoos ? have piercings ? all of those things are making oneself artificially attractive.  yet i assume you do some or most of them maybe all .  that suggests you do not really see making oneself artificially attractive as worthless.  it is something almost everyone does to one extent or another because almost everyone agrees it has some value largely for attracting/keeping mates but also for attracting/keeping friends and jobs .   #  hair cutting is kind of a weird one because it is cosmetic, but like the piercings and tattoos, it is there to stay so i would not say it is artificial.   #  this is a bit of a semantical argument, because by artificially attractive, i do not mean all things and any things that one does to improve one is appearance.  i say makeup is artificial because by looking at that person, you ca not tell whether their facial features are real or exaggerated/covered.  i do not have a problem with hygiene and odor control because that is courteous to others and it is generally healthy debatable in some instances .  i think tailored clothing is generally unnecessary unless there is some high class event and nice attire is recommended.  piercings and tattoos are artificial but they are permanent, so they may as well not be artificial.  hair cutting is kind of a weird one because it is cosmetic, but like the piercings and tattoos, it is there to stay so i would not say it is artificial.
first, i know  egalitarian  is a long word, a lot of people do not know what it means, and it does not have the history nor the recognition that the word  feminism  has, but i feel like it is time for a change.  the internet has caused a lot of voices that may otherwise be drowned out come to the forefront, such as the feminist extremists or  feminazis  if you will .  it seems that because of this many people are being turned off by the idea of feminism myself included because they associate that word with the people that blame all of life is problems on the patriarchy.  my friends are starting to joke about feminism and i see more people mocking it every day.  i believe it is due to the extremists, and how polarizing and antagonistic a lot of their views are.  this stubbornness to stick to the name is causing a lot of people to dismiss, or even despise, the movement and is hurting it is support.  i feel that if true feminists were willing to distance themselves from the  feminazis  it would stop a lot of animosity people have towards them.  this might end up being as simple as calling it something different, because maybe the only ones that would keep the term  feminism  would be the extremists.  they might want to retain the name so as to not give in or lose the fight.  of course there is no way of telling, and they may very well go along with the  true feminists  and call themselves egalitarian anyways.  in either case, i feel like it would be beneficial to cause a clear divide between feminists and feminazis in order to garner more support and to have feminist ideas to be taken more seriously.  change my view guys !  #  the internet has caused a lot of voices that may otherwise be drowned out come to the forefront, such as the feminist extremists or  feminazis  if you will .   #  that term is unnecessary and awful and why use it ever ?  # that term is unnecessary and awful and why use it ever ? the term is certainly not meant to  turn you on  to feminism interesting, btw, that you used that terminology .  thr term is comparing feminists to nazis.  you want to talk extreme ? do not you think that is a bit extreme ? just a tad ? like when your friend gets an accord and then you see like a dozen that week out of nowhere ? it is probably because you are looking for it.  this stubbornness to stick to the name is causing a lot of people to dismiss, or even despise, the movement and is hurting it is support.  do you have anything to back this claim up ? i was not aware of any big campaign to change the name ? really the only people who ever really  suggest  it are people like you, who are openly hostile towards and or totally ignorant of feminism.  i do not.  i ca not control animosity other people have towards anyone.  and what do you mean  distance themselves  ? how so ? feminism is a massive, global, civil rights movement that has been, and continues to be, successful.  women is rights are human rights and the movement to obtain those rights is not just the punchline of a played out joke.  and again, why would any self respecting person agree to categorize themselves or others into a group using the word  nazi  like that ? is that a joke, too ?  #  because right minded individuals understand that any ideology is going to have people of all sorts of mentalities who are interpreting an otherwise broad idea into their own agenda.   # because right minded individuals understand that any ideology is going to have people of all sorts of mentalities who are interpreting an otherwise broad idea into their own agenda.  even islam, which has a rather lengthy book outlining its principles, gets interpreted and applied in vastly different ways.  you are wise to understand that muslims come in all varieties, and that it is up to us to not lump them all together.  since feminism is even broader and more general, simply dealing with sexual/gender equality, it stands to reason that we should definitely not lump feminists together, and understand that everyone is own understanding of gender equality will differ.  ironically, egalitarianism seems to often be a code word for anti feminist around here.  but i would not judge someone on the use of that word, nor presume to guess their ideology, without getting to know their personal take on it.  i suggest you do the same for any such generalized term.   #  christians should not call themselves christians anymore because extremist christians conducted the crusades.   #  christians should not call themselves christians anymore because extremist christians conducted the crusades.  muslims should not call themselves muslims anymore because extremist muslims carried out terror attacks.  we should not call the president the president anymore, because former presidents supported slavery.  animal rights activists should not call themselves animal rights activists anymore, because extremist animal rights activists blew up a slaughterhouse.  straight people should not call themselves straight anymore, because extremist straight people have beaten gay people to death.  see how this is going ?  #  it prevents people who are not extremely dedicated to the feminist cause from standing behind an otherwise very rational movement.   #  i think that in this case it is very damaging to the reputation as a whole.  it prevents people who are not extremely dedicated to the feminist cause from standing behind an otherwise very rational movement.  this seems to be different because of how polarizing it is.  it is making people hate all feminists as opposed to being able to distinguish the extremists from the true feminists.  at least with the examples you provided:   the crusades or slavery happened a long time ago and people can easily distinguish presidents of the present from past presidents the same with christians and the crusades   isis, al qaeda, taliban all have labels and are able to be distinguished from the general muslim populace albeit not for everyone   the prevalence and attention given to extreme animal rights activists is not anywhere near the prevalence of extreme feminists.  at least on the mainstream internet.   straight people  is not a movement and is not  conducted under a flag.   there is no unifying straight movement in the us, and if there is it has not garnered enough attention for me to have known about it.   #  according to the moderates, the extremists are doing it wrong why, then, should the  moderates  want to distance themselves from islam ?  # all the members of those organizations would identify as just  muslim , and there are plenty of muslim extremists outside of those organizations.  according to the moderates, the extremists are doing it wrong why, then, should the  moderates  want to distance themselves from islam ? besides, some feminist extremists already have labels.  there is the notion of a radical feminist URL and even radical lesbians URL they may be less organized i wanted to point out now URL but they seem far less radical, especially lately.  at least on the mainstream internet.  i do not know, peta is pretty popular, it is pretty much the only people i think of when i think  animal rights activist .  and they have some pretty strong views, like that people should stop keeping pets, because pets are slaves.  they are also uncomfortably closely associated with the animal liberation front.
first, i know  egalitarian  is a long word, a lot of people do not know what it means, and it does not have the history nor the recognition that the word  feminism  has, but i feel like it is time for a change.  the internet has caused a lot of voices that may otherwise be drowned out come to the forefront, such as the feminist extremists or  feminazis  if you will .  it seems that because of this many people are being turned off by the idea of feminism myself included because they associate that word with the people that blame all of life is problems on the patriarchy.  my friends are starting to joke about feminism and i see more people mocking it every day.  i believe it is due to the extremists, and how polarizing and antagonistic a lot of their views are.  this stubbornness to stick to the name is causing a lot of people to dismiss, or even despise, the movement and is hurting it is support.  i feel that if true feminists were willing to distance themselves from the  feminazis  it would stop a lot of animosity people have towards them.  this might end up being as simple as calling it something different, because maybe the only ones that would keep the term  feminism  would be the extremists.  they might want to retain the name so as to not give in or lose the fight.  of course there is no way of telling, and they may very well go along with the  true feminists  and call themselves egalitarian anyways.  in either case, i feel like it would be beneficial to cause a clear divide between feminists and feminazis in order to garner more support and to have feminist ideas to be taken more seriously.  change my view guys !  #  it seems that because of this many people are being turned off by the idea of feminism myself included because they associate that word with the people that blame all of life is problems on the patriarchy.   #  the term is certainly not meant to  turn you on  to feminism interesting, btw, that you used that terminology .   # that term is unnecessary and awful and why use it ever ? the term is certainly not meant to  turn you on  to feminism interesting, btw, that you used that terminology .  thr term is comparing feminists to nazis.  you want to talk extreme ? do not you think that is a bit extreme ? just a tad ? like when your friend gets an accord and then you see like a dozen that week out of nowhere ? it is probably because you are looking for it.  this stubbornness to stick to the name is causing a lot of people to dismiss, or even despise, the movement and is hurting it is support.  do you have anything to back this claim up ? i was not aware of any big campaign to change the name ? really the only people who ever really  suggest  it are people like you, who are openly hostile towards and or totally ignorant of feminism.  i do not.  i ca not control animosity other people have towards anyone.  and what do you mean  distance themselves  ? how so ? feminism is a massive, global, civil rights movement that has been, and continues to be, successful.  women is rights are human rights and the movement to obtain those rights is not just the punchline of a played out joke.  and again, why would any self respecting person agree to categorize themselves or others into a group using the word  nazi  like that ? is that a joke, too ?  #  since feminism is even broader and more general, simply dealing with sexual/gender equality, it stands to reason that we should definitely not lump feminists together, and understand that everyone is own understanding of gender equality will differ.   # because right minded individuals understand that any ideology is going to have people of all sorts of mentalities who are interpreting an otherwise broad idea into their own agenda.  even islam, which has a rather lengthy book outlining its principles, gets interpreted and applied in vastly different ways.  you are wise to understand that muslims come in all varieties, and that it is up to us to not lump them all together.  since feminism is even broader and more general, simply dealing with sexual/gender equality, it stands to reason that we should definitely not lump feminists together, and understand that everyone is own understanding of gender equality will differ.  ironically, egalitarianism seems to often be a code word for anti feminist around here.  but i would not judge someone on the use of that word, nor presume to guess their ideology, without getting to know their personal take on it.  i suggest you do the same for any such generalized term.   #  straight people should not call themselves straight anymore, because extremist straight people have beaten gay people to death.   #  christians should not call themselves christians anymore because extremist christians conducted the crusades.  muslims should not call themselves muslims anymore because extremist muslims carried out terror attacks.  we should not call the president the president anymore, because former presidents supported slavery.  animal rights activists should not call themselves animal rights activists anymore, because extremist animal rights activists blew up a slaughterhouse.  straight people should not call themselves straight anymore, because extremist straight people have beaten gay people to death.  see how this is going ?  #  it is making people hate all feminists as opposed to being able to distinguish the extremists from the true feminists.   #  i think that in this case it is very damaging to the reputation as a whole.  it prevents people who are not extremely dedicated to the feminist cause from standing behind an otherwise very rational movement.  this seems to be different because of how polarizing it is.  it is making people hate all feminists as opposed to being able to distinguish the extremists from the true feminists.  at least with the examples you provided:   the crusades or slavery happened a long time ago and people can easily distinguish presidents of the present from past presidents the same with christians and the crusades   isis, al qaeda, taliban all have labels and are able to be distinguished from the general muslim populace albeit not for everyone   the prevalence and attention given to extreme animal rights activists is not anywhere near the prevalence of extreme feminists.  at least on the mainstream internet.   straight people  is not a movement and is not  conducted under a flag.   there is no unifying straight movement in the us, and if there is it has not garnered enough attention for me to have known about it.   #  there is the notion of a radical feminist URL and even radical lesbians URL they may be less organized i wanted to point out now URL but they seem far less radical, especially lately.   # all the members of those organizations would identify as just  muslim , and there are plenty of muslim extremists outside of those organizations.  according to the moderates, the extremists are doing it wrong why, then, should the  moderates  want to distance themselves from islam ? besides, some feminist extremists already have labels.  there is the notion of a radical feminist URL and even radical lesbians URL they may be less organized i wanted to point out now URL but they seem far less radical, especially lately.  at least on the mainstream internet.  i do not know, peta is pretty popular, it is pretty much the only people i think of when i think  animal rights activist .  and they have some pretty strong views, like that people should stop keeping pets, because pets are slaves.  they are also uncomfortably closely associated with the animal liberation front.
first, i know  egalitarian  is a long word, a lot of people do not know what it means, and it does not have the history nor the recognition that the word  feminism  has, but i feel like it is time for a change.  the internet has caused a lot of voices that may otherwise be drowned out come to the forefront, such as the feminist extremists or  feminazis  if you will .  it seems that because of this many people are being turned off by the idea of feminism myself included because they associate that word with the people that blame all of life is problems on the patriarchy.  my friends are starting to joke about feminism and i see more people mocking it every day.  i believe it is due to the extremists, and how polarizing and antagonistic a lot of their views are.  this stubbornness to stick to the name is causing a lot of people to dismiss, or even despise, the movement and is hurting it is support.  i feel that if true feminists were willing to distance themselves from the  feminazis  it would stop a lot of animosity people have towards them.  this might end up being as simple as calling it something different, because maybe the only ones that would keep the term  feminism  would be the extremists.  they might want to retain the name so as to not give in or lose the fight.  of course there is no way of telling, and they may very well go along with the  true feminists  and call themselves egalitarian anyways.  in either case, i feel like it would be beneficial to cause a clear divide between feminists and feminazis in order to garner more support and to have feminist ideas to be taken more seriously.  change my view guys !  #  and i see more people mocking it every day.   #  like when your friend gets an accord and then you see like a dozen that week out of nowhere ?  # that term is unnecessary and awful and why use it ever ? the term is certainly not meant to  turn you on  to feminism interesting, btw, that you used that terminology .  thr term is comparing feminists to nazis.  you want to talk extreme ? do not you think that is a bit extreme ? just a tad ? like when your friend gets an accord and then you see like a dozen that week out of nowhere ? it is probably because you are looking for it.  this stubbornness to stick to the name is causing a lot of people to dismiss, or even despise, the movement and is hurting it is support.  do you have anything to back this claim up ? i was not aware of any big campaign to change the name ? really the only people who ever really  suggest  it are people like you, who are openly hostile towards and or totally ignorant of feminism.  i do not.  i ca not control animosity other people have towards anyone.  and what do you mean  distance themselves  ? how so ? feminism is a massive, global, civil rights movement that has been, and continues to be, successful.  women is rights are human rights and the movement to obtain those rights is not just the punchline of a played out joke.  and again, why would any self respecting person agree to categorize themselves or others into a group using the word  nazi  like that ? is that a joke, too ?  #  ironically, egalitarianism seems to often be a code word for anti feminist around here.   # because right minded individuals understand that any ideology is going to have people of all sorts of mentalities who are interpreting an otherwise broad idea into their own agenda.  even islam, which has a rather lengthy book outlining its principles, gets interpreted and applied in vastly different ways.  you are wise to understand that muslims come in all varieties, and that it is up to us to not lump them all together.  since feminism is even broader and more general, simply dealing with sexual/gender equality, it stands to reason that we should definitely not lump feminists together, and understand that everyone is own understanding of gender equality will differ.  ironically, egalitarianism seems to often be a code word for anti feminist around here.  but i would not judge someone on the use of that word, nor presume to guess their ideology, without getting to know their personal take on it.  i suggest you do the same for any such generalized term.   #  christians should not call themselves christians anymore because extremist christians conducted the crusades.   #  christians should not call themselves christians anymore because extremist christians conducted the crusades.  muslims should not call themselves muslims anymore because extremist muslims carried out terror attacks.  we should not call the president the president anymore, because former presidents supported slavery.  animal rights activists should not call themselves animal rights activists anymore, because extremist animal rights activists blew up a slaughterhouse.  straight people should not call themselves straight anymore, because extremist straight people have beaten gay people to death.  see how this is going ?  #  it is making people hate all feminists as opposed to being able to distinguish the extremists from the true feminists.   #  i think that in this case it is very damaging to the reputation as a whole.  it prevents people who are not extremely dedicated to the feminist cause from standing behind an otherwise very rational movement.  this seems to be different because of how polarizing it is.  it is making people hate all feminists as opposed to being able to distinguish the extremists from the true feminists.  at least with the examples you provided:   the crusades or slavery happened a long time ago and people can easily distinguish presidents of the present from past presidents the same with christians and the crusades   isis, al qaeda, taliban all have labels and are able to be distinguished from the general muslim populace albeit not for everyone   the prevalence and attention given to extreme animal rights activists is not anywhere near the prevalence of extreme feminists.  at least on the mainstream internet.   straight people  is not a movement and is not  conducted under a flag.   there is no unifying straight movement in the us, and if there is it has not garnered enough attention for me to have known about it.   #  and they have some pretty strong views, like that people should stop keeping pets, because pets are slaves.   # all the members of those organizations would identify as just  muslim , and there are plenty of muslim extremists outside of those organizations.  according to the moderates, the extremists are doing it wrong why, then, should the  moderates  want to distance themselves from islam ? besides, some feminist extremists already have labels.  there is the notion of a radical feminist URL and even radical lesbians URL they may be less organized i wanted to point out now URL but they seem far less radical, especially lately.  at least on the mainstream internet.  i do not know, peta is pretty popular, it is pretty much the only people i think of when i think  animal rights activist .  and they have some pretty strong views, like that people should stop keeping pets, because pets are slaves.  they are also uncomfortably closely associated with the animal liberation front.
first, i know  egalitarian  is a long word, a lot of people do not know what it means, and it does not have the history nor the recognition that the word  feminism  has, but i feel like it is time for a change.  the internet has caused a lot of voices that may otherwise be drowned out come to the forefront, such as the feminist extremists or  feminazis  if you will .  it seems that because of this many people are being turned off by the idea of feminism myself included because they associate that word with the people that blame all of life is problems on the patriarchy.  my friends are starting to joke about feminism and i see more people mocking it every day.  i believe it is due to the extremists, and how polarizing and antagonistic a lot of their views are.  this stubbornness to stick to the name is causing a lot of people to dismiss, or even despise, the movement and is hurting it is support.  i feel that if true feminists were willing to distance themselves from the  feminazis  it would stop a lot of animosity people have towards them.  this might end up being as simple as calling it something different, because maybe the only ones that would keep the term  feminism  would be the extremists.  they might want to retain the name so as to not give in or lose the fight.  of course there is no way of telling, and they may very well go along with the  true feminists  and call themselves egalitarian anyways.  in either case, i feel like it would be beneficial to cause a clear divide between feminists and feminazis in order to garner more support and to have feminist ideas to be taken more seriously.  change my view guys !  #  i believe it is due to the extremists, and how polarizing and antagonistic a lot of their views are.   #  this stubbornness to stick to the name is causing a lot of people to dismiss, or even despise, the movement and is hurting it is support.   # that term is unnecessary and awful and why use it ever ? the term is certainly not meant to  turn you on  to feminism interesting, btw, that you used that terminology .  thr term is comparing feminists to nazis.  you want to talk extreme ? do not you think that is a bit extreme ? just a tad ? like when your friend gets an accord and then you see like a dozen that week out of nowhere ? it is probably because you are looking for it.  this stubbornness to stick to the name is causing a lot of people to dismiss, or even despise, the movement and is hurting it is support.  do you have anything to back this claim up ? i was not aware of any big campaign to change the name ? really the only people who ever really  suggest  it are people like you, who are openly hostile towards and or totally ignorant of feminism.  i do not.  i ca not control animosity other people have towards anyone.  and what do you mean  distance themselves  ? how so ? feminism is a massive, global, civil rights movement that has been, and continues to be, successful.  women is rights are human rights and the movement to obtain those rights is not just the punchline of a played out joke.  and again, why would any self respecting person agree to categorize themselves or others into a group using the word  nazi  like that ? is that a joke, too ?  #  you are wise to understand that muslims come in all varieties, and that it is up to us to not lump them all together.   # because right minded individuals understand that any ideology is going to have people of all sorts of mentalities who are interpreting an otherwise broad idea into their own agenda.  even islam, which has a rather lengthy book outlining its principles, gets interpreted and applied in vastly different ways.  you are wise to understand that muslims come in all varieties, and that it is up to us to not lump them all together.  since feminism is even broader and more general, simply dealing with sexual/gender equality, it stands to reason that we should definitely not lump feminists together, and understand that everyone is own understanding of gender equality will differ.  ironically, egalitarianism seems to often be a code word for anti feminist around here.  but i would not judge someone on the use of that word, nor presume to guess their ideology, without getting to know their personal take on it.  i suggest you do the same for any such generalized term.   #  animal rights activists should not call themselves animal rights activists anymore, because extremist animal rights activists blew up a slaughterhouse.   #  christians should not call themselves christians anymore because extremist christians conducted the crusades.  muslims should not call themselves muslims anymore because extremist muslims carried out terror attacks.  we should not call the president the president anymore, because former presidents supported slavery.  animal rights activists should not call themselves animal rights activists anymore, because extremist animal rights activists blew up a slaughterhouse.  straight people should not call themselves straight anymore, because extremist straight people have beaten gay people to death.  see how this is going ?  #  it is making people hate all feminists as opposed to being able to distinguish the extremists from the true feminists.   #  i think that in this case it is very damaging to the reputation as a whole.  it prevents people who are not extremely dedicated to the feminist cause from standing behind an otherwise very rational movement.  this seems to be different because of how polarizing it is.  it is making people hate all feminists as opposed to being able to distinguish the extremists from the true feminists.  at least with the examples you provided:   the crusades or slavery happened a long time ago and people can easily distinguish presidents of the present from past presidents the same with christians and the crusades   isis, al qaeda, taliban all have labels and are able to be distinguished from the general muslim populace albeit not for everyone   the prevalence and attention given to extreme animal rights activists is not anywhere near the prevalence of extreme feminists.  at least on the mainstream internet.   straight people  is not a movement and is not  conducted under a flag.   there is no unifying straight movement in the us, and if there is it has not garnered enough attention for me to have known about it.   #  all the members of those organizations would identify as just  muslim , and there are plenty of muslim extremists outside of those organizations.   # all the members of those organizations would identify as just  muslim , and there are plenty of muslim extremists outside of those organizations.  according to the moderates, the extremists are doing it wrong why, then, should the  moderates  want to distance themselves from islam ? besides, some feminist extremists already have labels.  there is the notion of a radical feminist URL and even radical lesbians URL they may be less organized i wanted to point out now URL but they seem far less radical, especially lately.  at least on the mainstream internet.  i do not know, peta is pretty popular, it is pretty much the only people i think of when i think  animal rights activist .  and they have some pretty strong views, like that people should stop keeping pets, because pets are slaves.  they are also uncomfortably closely associated with the animal liberation front.
first, i know  egalitarian  is a long word, a lot of people do not know what it means, and it does not have the history nor the recognition that the word  feminism  has, but i feel like it is time for a change.  the internet has caused a lot of voices that may otherwise be drowned out come to the forefront, such as the feminist extremists or  feminazis  if you will .  it seems that because of this many people are being turned off by the idea of feminism myself included because they associate that word with the people that blame all of life is problems on the patriarchy.  my friends are starting to joke about feminism and i see more people mocking it every day.  i believe it is due to the extremists, and how polarizing and antagonistic a lot of their views are.  this stubbornness to stick to the name is causing a lot of people to dismiss, or even despise, the movement and is hurting it is support.  i feel that if true feminists were willing to distance themselves from the  feminazis  it would stop a lot of animosity people have towards them.  this might end up being as simple as calling it something different, because maybe the only ones that would keep the term  feminism  would be the extremists.  they might want to retain the name so as to not give in or lose the fight.  of course there is no way of telling, and they may very well go along with the  true feminists  and call themselves egalitarian anyways.  in either case, i feel like it would be beneficial to cause a clear divide between feminists and feminazis in order to garner more support and to have feminist ideas to be taken more seriously.  change my view guys !  #  in either case, i feel like it would be beneficial to cause a clear divide between feminists and feminazis in order to garner more support and to have feminist ideas to be taken more seriously.   #  feminism is a massive, global, civil rights movement that has been, and continues to be, successful.   # that term is unnecessary and awful and why use it ever ? the term is certainly not meant to  turn you on  to feminism interesting, btw, that you used that terminology .  thr term is comparing feminists to nazis.  you want to talk extreme ? do not you think that is a bit extreme ? just a tad ? like when your friend gets an accord and then you see like a dozen that week out of nowhere ? it is probably because you are looking for it.  this stubbornness to stick to the name is causing a lot of people to dismiss, or even despise, the movement and is hurting it is support.  do you have anything to back this claim up ? i was not aware of any big campaign to change the name ? really the only people who ever really  suggest  it are people like you, who are openly hostile towards and or totally ignorant of feminism.  i do not.  i ca not control animosity other people have towards anyone.  and what do you mean  distance themselves  ? how so ? feminism is a massive, global, civil rights movement that has been, and continues to be, successful.  women is rights are human rights and the movement to obtain those rights is not just the punchline of a played out joke.  and again, why would any self respecting person agree to categorize themselves or others into a group using the word  nazi  like that ? is that a joke, too ?  #  but i would not judge someone on the use of that word, nor presume to guess their ideology, without getting to know their personal take on it.   # because right minded individuals understand that any ideology is going to have people of all sorts of mentalities who are interpreting an otherwise broad idea into their own agenda.  even islam, which has a rather lengthy book outlining its principles, gets interpreted and applied in vastly different ways.  you are wise to understand that muslims come in all varieties, and that it is up to us to not lump them all together.  since feminism is even broader and more general, simply dealing with sexual/gender equality, it stands to reason that we should definitely not lump feminists together, and understand that everyone is own understanding of gender equality will differ.  ironically, egalitarianism seems to often be a code word for anti feminist around here.  but i would not judge someone on the use of that word, nor presume to guess their ideology, without getting to know their personal take on it.  i suggest you do the same for any such generalized term.   #  christians should not call themselves christians anymore because extremist christians conducted the crusades.   #  christians should not call themselves christians anymore because extremist christians conducted the crusades.  muslims should not call themselves muslims anymore because extremist muslims carried out terror attacks.  we should not call the president the president anymore, because former presidents supported slavery.  animal rights activists should not call themselves animal rights activists anymore, because extremist animal rights activists blew up a slaughterhouse.  straight people should not call themselves straight anymore, because extremist straight people have beaten gay people to death.  see how this is going ?  #  this seems to be different because of how polarizing it is.   #  i think that in this case it is very damaging to the reputation as a whole.  it prevents people who are not extremely dedicated to the feminist cause from standing behind an otherwise very rational movement.  this seems to be different because of how polarizing it is.  it is making people hate all feminists as opposed to being able to distinguish the extremists from the true feminists.  at least with the examples you provided:   the crusades or slavery happened a long time ago and people can easily distinguish presidents of the present from past presidents the same with christians and the crusades   isis, al qaeda, taliban all have labels and are able to be distinguished from the general muslim populace albeit not for everyone   the prevalence and attention given to extreme animal rights activists is not anywhere near the prevalence of extreme feminists.  at least on the mainstream internet.   straight people  is not a movement and is not  conducted under a flag.   there is no unifying straight movement in the us, and if there is it has not garnered enough attention for me to have known about it.   #  and they have some pretty strong views, like that people should stop keeping pets, because pets are slaves.   # all the members of those organizations would identify as just  muslim , and there are plenty of muslim extremists outside of those organizations.  according to the moderates, the extremists are doing it wrong why, then, should the  moderates  want to distance themselves from islam ? besides, some feminist extremists already have labels.  there is the notion of a radical feminist URL and even radical lesbians URL they may be less organized i wanted to point out now URL but they seem far less radical, especially lately.  at least on the mainstream internet.  i do not know, peta is pretty popular, it is pretty much the only people i think of when i think  animal rights activist .  and they have some pretty strong views, like that people should stop keeping pets, because pets are slaves.  they are also uncomfortably closely associated with the animal liberation front.
to clarify my title i believe that having an abortion is unjustifiable unless the pregnancy endangers the health of the woman or child, or the child is the product of rape.  i understand that this is a touchy topic so i am sorry if what i am saying comes off as offensive.  that is not my intention.  my main reasoning is basically this.  human life is incredibly valuable.  it is a guarantor of all other forms of rights, or it at least allows for the possibility of other rights.  as such the maximization of life should take precedence to other considerations, such as the right to choose whether or not you want to terminate a pregnancy.  0 or more of all pregnancies in the united states will be successful, and pursuing an abortion just decreases the amount of possible lives.  to clarify my point here is a thought experiment.  say you have a 0 year old child and a woman who is pregnant.  no one would argue that killing the 0 year old is wrong.  no matter how humanely it happens, you are robbing the child of the years of life it could have had.  having an abortion in my opinion is just as wrong because the 0 year old and the unborn child have almost the same likelihood to live out a full life and taking that away from either of them would be morally unjustifiable.  also, the woman giving birth would not have to take care of the child.  contrary to popular belief, in recent years the number of children being put up for adoption has steadily been decreasing, URL while the time it takes for those who want to adopt a child has steadily been increasing, with some couples waiting up to seven years.  as a note my stance here has nothing to do with any sort of spiritual beliefs.  also i am left leaning on most issues so it has nothing to do with party alliances.  please cmv !  #  you are robbing the child of the years of life it could have had.   #  having an abortion in my opinion is just as wrong because the 0 year old and the unborn child have almost the same likelihood to live out a full life and taking that away from either of them would be morally unjustifiable.   #  the thing is.  an average/normal adult human is a  person .  an unborn fetus, while it may be  human  does not meet the criteria for personhood in most situations.  many popular arguments involve the idea that human life is not necessarily valueable, but  personhood  is.  and that whatever it is that people value about human life it is really just personhood that they are actually valuing.  having an abortion in my opinion is just as wrong because the 0 year old and the unborn child have almost the same likelihood to live out a full life and taking that away from either of them would be morally unjustifiable.  killing a child/adult usually involves killing them against their will/choice.  that is usually considered murder.  an unborn child has no will and is incapable of choice, however.  this is an important distinction and the one many think is the relevant distinction.  you also ca not attempt to maximize potential life.  otherwise it would be  wrong  to masturbate and waste sperm.  in fact, it would be wrong for women not to be pregnant all the time after puberty.  a woman who has only 0 kids vs having 0 kids is depriving 0 potential humans of life ! but this is a nonsensical path down a road with a very silly end.  there is nothing intrinsically  right  about maximizing the quantity of human life and if you believe otherwise, then i would like to hear an argument for it.   #  how can you morally justify forcing a person to act as an incubator against their will, while suffering negative financial / physical / financial and emotional outcomes as a result ?  #  why does the child is life have less value it its mother was raped ? it necessarily must have less value if rape provides reason to abort an otherwise  valuable  life.  if an exemption is granted for rape, presumably due to the trauma to the mother, why not for other forms of trauma the mother may/will suffer from continuing an unwanted pregnancy ? how can you morally justify forcing a person to act as an incubator against their will, while suffering negative financial / physical / financial and emotional outcomes as a result ? what of the mother is right to self determination and autonomy ?  #  i am not saying that the child is life is less valuable as a result of rape.   # it necessarily must have less value if rape provides reason to abort an otherwise  valuable  life.  i am not saying that the child is life is less valuable as a result of rape.  as i stated earlier while life is extremely valuable, it is not the only factor to take into account.  having to give birth to a child that was the result of rape can destroy the rest of someone is life.  factors include debilitating stress, anxiety, depression, headaches, sleep disorders, weight loss, nausea, lowered self esteem and sexual dysfunction that follow them throughout their entire life.  i believe that it should be evaluated on a case by case basis, depending on the psychological standing of the individual, and the willingness to carry the baby to term.  what of the mother is right to self determination and autonomy ? how are these rights more important than the entire life of an individual ? and to what extent do these negative affects occur ? it would seem that women who have abortions are actually more likely to have these effects URL  a study of the medical records of 0,0 california medicaid patients revealed that women who had abortions were 0 percent more likely than delivering women to be hospitalized for psychiatric treatment in the first 0 days following abortion or delivery.  rates of psychiatric treatment remained significantly higher for at least four years. 0,0  also, why does the child is right to self determination not matter ? or at least why does its life matter less than the womens right to self determination.   #  0 furthermore there is no reason that the mother would have to keep the child.   #  the thing is that it is not just correlation.  research overwhelmingly supports the fact that abortion leads to a higher risk of negative psychological outcomes.  in a study of post abortion patients only 0 weeks after their abortion, researchers found that 0 complained of nervous disorders, 0 had experienced sleep disturbances, 0 had regrets about their decision, and 0 had been prescribed psychotropic medicine by their family doctor.  0 a 0 year retrospective study in two canadian provinces found significantly greater use of medical and psychiatric services among women with a history of abortion.  most significant was the finding that 0 of women who had abortions made visits to psychiatrists as compared to 0 of the control group.  0 women who have had abortions are significantly more likely than others to subsequently require admission to a psychiatric hospital.  at especially high risk are teenagers, separated or divorced women, and women with a history of more than one abortion.  0 furthermore there is no reason that the mother would have to keep the child.  as i stated in my original post the number of babies put up for adoption is actually very low in comparison to the number of qualified candidates who would like to adopt.   #  i believe that while this is certainly a factor, the main reason it is wrong to kill someone is because you are not allowing them to fully experience their life.   #    this is a very good argument.  it has certainly changed my outlook on the situation ! i do not know if i did the delta thing right sorry however, are you saying that the  only  reason it is wrong to kill someone is because it is against their autonomy.  i do not believe this is true.  i believe that while this is certainly a factor, the main reason it is wrong to kill someone is because you are not allowing them to fully experience their life.  again, i agree with you.  maximizing human life was a poor choice of words on my part.  what i am talking about is in this instance pursuing the legal policy decision that can best allow for the greatest amount of people to live out a full life.
to clarify my title i believe that having an abortion is unjustifiable unless the pregnancy endangers the health of the woman or child, or the child is the product of rape.  i understand that this is a touchy topic so i am sorry if what i am saying comes off as offensive.  that is not my intention.  my main reasoning is basically this.  human life is incredibly valuable.  it is a guarantor of all other forms of rights, or it at least allows for the possibility of other rights.  as such the maximization of life should take precedence to other considerations, such as the right to choose whether or not you want to terminate a pregnancy.  0 or more of all pregnancies in the united states will be successful, and pursuing an abortion just decreases the amount of possible lives.  to clarify my point here is a thought experiment.  say you have a 0 year old child and a woman who is pregnant.  no one would argue that killing the 0 year old is wrong.  no matter how humanely it happens, you are robbing the child of the years of life it could have had.  having an abortion in my opinion is just as wrong because the 0 year old and the unborn child have almost the same likelihood to live out a full life and taking that away from either of them would be morally unjustifiable.  also, the woman giving birth would not have to take care of the child.  contrary to popular belief, in recent years the number of children being put up for adoption has steadily been decreasing, URL while the time it takes for those who want to adopt a child has steadily been increasing, with some couples waiting up to seven years.  as a note my stance here has nothing to do with any sort of spiritual beliefs.  also i am left leaning on most issues so it has nothing to do with party alliances.  please cmv !  #  as such the maximization of life should take precedence to other considerations, such as the right to choose whether or not you want to terminate a pregnancy.   #  0 or more of all pregnancies in the united states will be successful, and pursuing an abortion just decreases the amount of possible lives.   # this is the first issue.  in a world where overpopulation is becoming the norm human life has less value than ever.  markets are over saturated with workers already, and the amount of jobless people is extremely high, and set to go even further up URL human life does not have any real value anymore; it is all sentimental.  no matter what position someone is in there is always 0 other people ready to take over.  0 or more of all pregnancies in the united states will be successful, and pursuing an abortion just decreases the amount of possible lives.  going off what i have already stated, this is no longer true.  if 0 out of 0 pregnancies were guaranteed than the u. s should definitely be worried about over population within the next 0 or so years.  the morbid truth is that a fetus is not considered a life in the grand scheme of things.  it is seen as a catalyst in the broadest sense, and sometimes the continuation need to stop.  whether that is the choice of the parents, doctors, or whoever.  that fetus has the potential to grow into something more, but as is, it is not considered a life.  they are no more than a growing plant.  sometimes they are required to be removed, other times it is for convenience, but as it is you ca not rob them of something they do not have.   #  why does the child is life have less value it its mother was raped ?  #  why does the child is life have less value it its mother was raped ? it necessarily must have less value if rape provides reason to abort an otherwise  valuable  life.  if an exemption is granted for rape, presumably due to the trauma to the mother, why not for other forms of trauma the mother may/will suffer from continuing an unwanted pregnancy ? how can you morally justify forcing a person to act as an incubator against their will, while suffering negative financial / physical / financial and emotional outcomes as a result ? what of the mother is right to self determination and autonomy ?  #  it necessarily must have less value if rape provides reason to abort an otherwise  valuable  life.   # it necessarily must have less value if rape provides reason to abort an otherwise  valuable  life.  i am not saying that the child is life is less valuable as a result of rape.  as i stated earlier while life is extremely valuable, it is not the only factor to take into account.  having to give birth to a child that was the result of rape can destroy the rest of someone is life.  factors include debilitating stress, anxiety, depression, headaches, sleep disorders, weight loss, nausea, lowered self esteem and sexual dysfunction that follow them throughout their entire life.  i believe that it should be evaluated on a case by case basis, depending on the psychological standing of the individual, and the willingness to carry the baby to term.  what of the mother is right to self determination and autonomy ? how are these rights more important than the entire life of an individual ? and to what extent do these negative affects occur ? it would seem that women who have abortions are actually more likely to have these effects URL  a study of the medical records of 0,0 california medicaid patients revealed that women who had abortions were 0 percent more likely than delivering women to be hospitalized for psychiatric treatment in the first 0 days following abortion or delivery.  rates of psychiatric treatment remained significantly higher for at least four years. 0,0  also, why does the child is right to self determination not matter ? or at least why does its life matter less than the womens right to self determination.   #  0 women who have had abortions are significantly more likely than others to subsequently require admission to a psychiatric hospital.   #  the thing is that it is not just correlation.  research overwhelmingly supports the fact that abortion leads to a higher risk of negative psychological outcomes.  in a study of post abortion patients only 0 weeks after their abortion, researchers found that 0 complained of nervous disorders, 0 had experienced sleep disturbances, 0 had regrets about their decision, and 0 had been prescribed psychotropic medicine by their family doctor.  0 a 0 year retrospective study in two canadian provinces found significantly greater use of medical and psychiatric services among women with a history of abortion.  most significant was the finding that 0 of women who had abortions made visits to psychiatrists as compared to 0 of the control group.  0 women who have had abortions are significantly more likely than others to subsequently require admission to a psychiatric hospital.  at especially high risk are teenagers, separated or divorced women, and women with a history of more than one abortion.  0 furthermore there is no reason that the mother would have to keep the child.  as i stated in my original post the number of babies put up for adoption is actually very low in comparison to the number of qualified candidates who would like to adopt.   #  but this is a nonsensical path down a road with a very silly end.   #  the thing is.  an average/normal adult human is a  person .  an unborn fetus, while it may be  human  does not meet the criteria for personhood in most situations.  many popular arguments involve the idea that human life is not necessarily valueable, but  personhood  is.  and that whatever it is that people value about human life it is really just personhood that they are actually valuing.  having an abortion in my opinion is just as wrong because the 0 year old and the unborn child have almost the same likelihood to live out a full life and taking that away from either of them would be morally unjustifiable.  killing a child/adult usually involves killing them against their will/choice.  that is usually considered murder.  an unborn child has no will and is incapable of choice, however.  this is an important distinction and the one many think is the relevant distinction.  you also ca not attempt to maximize potential life.  otherwise it would be  wrong  to masturbate and waste sperm.  in fact, it would be wrong for women not to be pregnant all the time after puberty.  a woman who has only 0 kids vs having 0 kids is depriving 0 potential humans of life ! but this is a nonsensical path down a road with a very silly end.  there is nothing intrinsically  right  about maximizing the quantity of human life and if you believe otherwise, then i would like to hear an argument for it.
darn typo every argument i see, in regards to piracy, is ultimately based in one and one thing only, a selfish desire for a free luxury, one that actively hurts small time artists not big corporations .  i will begin by rebutting common pro piracy arguments.  0  it does not hurt the artist !   even were this statement true it is not it has nothing to do with morality and thus, the legality of the issue.  it may very well help them, but it is without a doubt true that a pirate violates the owner is property rights, and the elements of the contract they sign.  ultimately this argument can be ignore, because it is not just for someone to burn down another house just for petty revenge even if the ultimate result is a hefty insurance payment for the victim.  0  it is the freedom of information age !   no, it is not, since the information is not free.  information is not, nor should it be, inherently free.  classified military secrets, passwords, ssns, browser histories, and credit card numbers are  information  but most certainly should not be given for free to anyone and everyone.  0  the poor would not have bought it anyway.  besides, how do you expect me to pay for it ?   another disregarding of morality, but let is address this directly.  information that is pirated, aka games, books, movies, etc.  are luxuries.  they are not necessities.  thus, while the poor may very well have not bought it anyway, they still violated property rights for something not in any way,shape, or form necessary for their survival or well being.  stealing food, water, or money in order to purchase the former may, at times, be justified, but the theft of luxuries is not necessary for your survival.  0  we should transition to donation system.   this is one of the more laughable positions i have seen and so often comes from the exact same people who argue that charity is not enough to help the poor which they almost always claim they are .  that argument, which i agree with, is especially true of art and copyrights.  why do you have to pay the electrician for the work he did to your house ? after all, you never took anything from him, all he did was rearrange the bits in your house to work again, something you could of done yourself.  all he lost was time, and that is not illegal to take, is it ? so then why do we not hear of the same donation systems for blue collar workers like this ? because it is ridiculous.  i am open to discussion on this.  i can admit i am wrong, but i just get infuriated with such selfish attitudes so common among supposed leftists; attitudes that are the catalysts for abominations like sopa.   #  stealing food, water, or money in order to purchase the former may, at times, be justified, but the theft of luxuries is not necessary for your survival.   #  except it is not theft because there is no deprivation.   # even were this statement true it is not it has nothing to do with morality and thus, the legality of the issue.  it does.  generally, the lack of harm is considered very significant from a moral perspective.  you miss the  hassle factor .  i would say that if i burned down your house without collateral damage while you were outside, and then in a second restored all the atoms to their original position, i would have done you no harm.  no, it is not, since the information is not free.  information is not, nor should it be, inherently free.  classified military secrets, passwords, ssns, browser histories, and credit card numbers are  information  but most certainly should not be given for free to anyone and everyone.  not to say the argument is good, but the examples you give are bad.  they are inherently private, whereas media is often simply available to the public under certain conditions .  besides, how do you expect me to pay for it ? another disregarding of morality, but let is address this directly.  information that is pirated, aka games, books, movies, etc.  are luxuries.  they are not necessities.  they are not necessities in the sense that you do not die from lack of them, but cultural access is very important for intellectual development.  paired with the  no harm no foul , it seems completely justified.  except it is not theft because there is no deprivation.  this is one of the more laughable positions i have seen and so often comes from the exact same people who argue that charity is not enough to help the poor which they almost always claim they are .  the amount of poor people is orders of magnitude larger than the amount of artists.  the poor are poor due to structural problems which ca not be solved by dumping money, and you do not see a  return on your investment  from charity.  that money would be better spent in different programs so that poor people may leave poverty.  artists can also ask for donations  before  making the media.  many could probably receive a consistent supply of donation money, then give the media away, for cheap, or with a pay what you want model.  all he lost was time, and that is not illegal to take, is it ? so then why do we not hear of the same donation systems for blue collar workers like this ? because it is ridiculous.  imagine a group of electricians wants to make some improvements on public lighting in a town.  they make a kickstarter page.  they will start the paperwork for authorization as soon as they receive half a million dollars.  the people responsible for sopa are only the lobbyists and representatives that contributed to it.  nothing  excuses them.   #  i see you have had a quite a few comments in the few hours since you posted this, but i will give it a shot of my own.   #  i see you have had a quite a few comments in the few hours since you posted this, but i will give it a shot of my own.  i will not try to dissuade you from the idea that piracy is morally or ethically wrong, or that piracy is largely committed for any reason other than greed, but i will try show you that it might be a necessary evil.  the big music labels have been resisting any form of digital distribution for more than a decade, no matter how much fans wanted it, because it is easier for them to justify high prices on physical goods.  early music piracy like napster and limewire is what forced the labels into digital.  they are not 0 there yet, but now there are plenty of popular legal ways to get your music.  the high rate of digital game piracy is what convinced gaben to make steam, he has said that he believes piracy has nothing to do with the monetary value of things and everything to do with convenience, and by making an easy convenient way for everyone to get their games digitally, many pirates including myself went back to buying games.  the original pirates of the sea, while violent criminals, broke up one of the largest monopolies the world has ever seen, opening up the market, and even raising employment standards pirates treated their crew much better than the dutch east india company did, and even had written codes regarding treatment of crews .  the original music piracy pirate radio stations broke up the monopoly the bbc had on radio in england.  some people consider services like uber and lyft to be  pirate  taxi services, but they are also forcing official taxi companies to move to a more modern business model in order to survive.  tldr; while piracy can be wrong, bad, illegal and horrible in its many forms, it often is the product of frustation or discontent on the part of customers, and helps drive change.   #  laws are only valid so long as there is a moral imperative behind them.   #  also, more to the point: so what if they were being racists ? it did not give rosa parks the right to arbitrarily start breaking laws.  she knew she had to lawfully give her seat to the white men who asked.  her prison sentence is on her.  laws are only valid so long as there is a moral imperative behind them.  as i had, again  already purchased the software , there was even less that the normal  not a whole fucking lot  amount of moral impetus behind that particular law.  so fuck yes i broke it when it was depriving me of my rights, no matter how trivial they were.   #  i am sorry that your dad did that to you, but i had no way of knowing that based on what you posted.   #  i am not sanctimonious or an asshole, and i am not trying to troll, but losing something multiple times is a certainly suggestive of irresponsibility.  i am sorry that your dad did that to you, but i had no way of knowing that based on what you posted.  i am not sure how drm is related to oppression.  rich people have their content limited in the same way as anyone else.  it applies equally to everyone.  i am not sure why you are getting so angry.  i am just explaining my viewpoint.  if you hate what i say so much, you can simply stop responding to me.   #  by all rights anything that is digitally created should be as close to free as possible because it is infinitely reproducible.   #  damn, it took me a thousand words just to get to this point.  i personally believe that piracy is a side effect of a market that has not adapted yet.  while we should not be lionizing pirates for what they are doing neither should we be wasting our resources on prosecuting and incarcerating them.  when a problem this widespread appears it is a sign that there is a flaw in the system not the individual.  people have not changed perceptibly in the last hundred years but products have, we should not be wasting our energy defending the incomes of people who refuse to adapt.  digital media has no value within any existing system of valuation we have.  by all rights anything that is digitally created should be as close to free as possible because it is infinitely reproducible.
darn typo every argument i see, in regards to piracy, is ultimately based in one and one thing only, a selfish desire for a free luxury, one that actively hurts small time artists not big corporations .  i will begin by rebutting common pro piracy arguments.  0  it does not hurt the artist !   even were this statement true it is not it has nothing to do with morality and thus, the legality of the issue.  it may very well help them, but it is without a doubt true that a pirate violates the owner is property rights, and the elements of the contract they sign.  ultimately this argument can be ignore, because it is not just for someone to burn down another house just for petty revenge even if the ultimate result is a hefty insurance payment for the victim.  0  it is the freedom of information age !   no, it is not, since the information is not free.  information is not, nor should it be, inherently free.  classified military secrets, passwords, ssns, browser histories, and credit card numbers are  information  but most certainly should not be given for free to anyone and everyone.  0  the poor would not have bought it anyway.  besides, how do you expect me to pay for it ?   another disregarding of morality, but let is address this directly.  information that is pirated, aka games, books, movies, etc.  are luxuries.  they are not necessities.  thus, while the poor may very well have not bought it anyway, they still violated property rights for something not in any way,shape, or form necessary for their survival or well being.  stealing food, water, or money in order to purchase the former may, at times, be justified, but the theft of luxuries is not necessary for your survival.  0  we should transition to donation system.   this is one of the more laughable positions i have seen and so often comes from the exact same people who argue that charity is not enough to help the poor which they almost always claim they are .  that argument, which i agree with, is especially true of art and copyrights.  why do you have to pay the electrician for the work he did to your house ? after all, you never took anything from him, all he did was rearrange the bits in your house to work again, something you could of done yourself.  all he lost was time, and that is not illegal to take, is it ? so then why do we not hear of the same donation systems for blue collar workers like this ? because it is ridiculous.  i am open to discussion on this.  i can admit i am wrong, but i just get infuriated with such selfish attitudes so common among supposed leftists; attitudes that are the catalysts for abominations like sopa.   #  after all, you never took anything from him, all he did was rearrange the bits in your house to work again, something you could of done yourself.   #  all he lost was time, and that is not illegal to take, is it ?  # even were this statement true it is not it has nothing to do with morality and thus, the legality of the issue.  it does.  generally, the lack of harm is considered very significant from a moral perspective.  you miss the  hassle factor .  i would say that if i burned down your house without collateral damage while you were outside, and then in a second restored all the atoms to their original position, i would have done you no harm.  no, it is not, since the information is not free.  information is not, nor should it be, inherently free.  classified military secrets, passwords, ssns, browser histories, and credit card numbers are  information  but most certainly should not be given for free to anyone and everyone.  not to say the argument is good, but the examples you give are bad.  they are inherently private, whereas media is often simply available to the public under certain conditions .  besides, how do you expect me to pay for it ? another disregarding of morality, but let is address this directly.  information that is pirated, aka games, books, movies, etc.  are luxuries.  they are not necessities.  they are not necessities in the sense that you do not die from lack of them, but cultural access is very important for intellectual development.  paired with the  no harm no foul , it seems completely justified.  except it is not theft because there is no deprivation.  this is one of the more laughable positions i have seen and so often comes from the exact same people who argue that charity is not enough to help the poor which they almost always claim they are .  the amount of poor people is orders of magnitude larger than the amount of artists.  the poor are poor due to structural problems which ca not be solved by dumping money, and you do not see a  return on your investment  from charity.  that money would be better spent in different programs so that poor people may leave poverty.  artists can also ask for donations  before  making the media.  many could probably receive a consistent supply of donation money, then give the media away, for cheap, or with a pay what you want model.  all he lost was time, and that is not illegal to take, is it ? so then why do we not hear of the same donation systems for blue collar workers like this ? because it is ridiculous.  imagine a group of electricians wants to make some improvements on public lighting in a town.  they make a kickstarter page.  they will start the paperwork for authorization as soon as they receive half a million dollars.  the people responsible for sopa are only the lobbyists and representatives that contributed to it.  nothing  excuses them.   #  early music piracy like napster and limewire is what forced the labels into digital.   #  i see you have had a quite a few comments in the few hours since you posted this, but i will give it a shot of my own.  i will not try to dissuade you from the idea that piracy is morally or ethically wrong, or that piracy is largely committed for any reason other than greed, but i will try show you that it might be a necessary evil.  the big music labels have been resisting any form of digital distribution for more than a decade, no matter how much fans wanted it, because it is easier for them to justify high prices on physical goods.  early music piracy like napster and limewire is what forced the labels into digital.  they are not 0 there yet, but now there are plenty of popular legal ways to get your music.  the high rate of digital game piracy is what convinced gaben to make steam, he has said that he believes piracy has nothing to do with the monetary value of things and everything to do with convenience, and by making an easy convenient way for everyone to get their games digitally, many pirates including myself went back to buying games.  the original pirates of the sea, while violent criminals, broke up one of the largest monopolies the world has ever seen, opening up the market, and even raising employment standards pirates treated their crew much better than the dutch east india company did, and even had written codes regarding treatment of crews .  the original music piracy pirate radio stations broke up the monopoly the bbc had on radio in england.  some people consider services like uber and lyft to be  pirate  taxi services, but they are also forcing official taxi companies to move to a more modern business model in order to survive.  tldr; while piracy can be wrong, bad, illegal and horrible in its many forms, it often is the product of frustation or discontent on the part of customers, and helps drive change.   #  it did not give rosa parks the right to arbitrarily start breaking laws.   #  also, more to the point: so what if they were being racists ? it did not give rosa parks the right to arbitrarily start breaking laws.  she knew she had to lawfully give her seat to the white men who asked.  her prison sentence is on her.  laws are only valid so long as there is a moral imperative behind them.  as i had, again  already purchased the software , there was even less that the normal  not a whole fucking lot  amount of moral impetus behind that particular law.  so fuck yes i broke it when it was depriving me of my rights, no matter how trivial they were.   #  i am sorry that your dad did that to you, but i had no way of knowing that based on what you posted.   #  i am not sanctimonious or an asshole, and i am not trying to troll, but losing something multiple times is a certainly suggestive of irresponsibility.  i am sorry that your dad did that to you, but i had no way of knowing that based on what you posted.  i am not sure how drm is related to oppression.  rich people have their content limited in the same way as anyone else.  it applies equally to everyone.  i am not sure why you are getting so angry.  i am just explaining my viewpoint.  if you hate what i say so much, you can simply stop responding to me.   #  by all rights anything that is digitally created should be as close to free as possible because it is infinitely reproducible.   #  damn, it took me a thousand words just to get to this point.  i personally believe that piracy is a side effect of a market that has not adapted yet.  while we should not be lionizing pirates for what they are doing neither should we be wasting our resources on prosecuting and incarcerating them.  when a problem this widespread appears it is a sign that there is a flaw in the system not the individual.  people have not changed perceptibly in the last hundred years but products have, we should not be wasting our energy defending the incomes of people who refuse to adapt.  digital media has no value within any existing system of valuation we have.  by all rights anything that is digitally created should be as close to free as possible because it is infinitely reproducible.
darn typo every argument i see, in regards to piracy, is ultimately based in one and one thing only, a selfish desire for a free luxury, one that actively hurts small time artists not big corporations .  i will begin by rebutting common pro piracy arguments.  0  it does not hurt the artist !   even were this statement true it is not it has nothing to do with morality and thus, the legality of the issue.  it may very well help them, but it is without a doubt true that a pirate violates the owner is property rights, and the elements of the contract they sign.  ultimately this argument can be ignore, because it is not just for someone to burn down another house just for petty revenge even if the ultimate result is a hefty insurance payment for the victim.  0  it is the freedom of information age !   no, it is not, since the information is not free.  information is not, nor should it be, inherently free.  classified military secrets, passwords, ssns, browser histories, and credit card numbers are  information  but most certainly should not be given for free to anyone and everyone.  0  the poor would not have bought it anyway.  besides, how do you expect me to pay for it ?   another disregarding of morality, but let is address this directly.  information that is pirated, aka games, books, movies, etc.  are luxuries.  they are not necessities.  thus, while the poor may very well have not bought it anyway, they still violated property rights for something not in any way,shape, or form necessary for their survival or well being.  stealing food, water, or money in order to purchase the former may, at times, be justified, but the theft of luxuries is not necessary for your survival.  0  we should transition to donation system.   this is one of the more laughable positions i have seen and so often comes from the exact same people who argue that charity is not enough to help the poor which they almost always claim they are .  that argument, which i agree with, is especially true of art and copyrights.  why do you have to pay the electrician for the work he did to your house ? after all, you never took anything from him, all he did was rearrange the bits in your house to work again, something you could of done yourself.  all he lost was time, and that is not illegal to take, is it ? so then why do we not hear of the same donation systems for blue collar workers like this ? because it is ridiculous.  i am open to discussion on this.  i can admit i am wrong, but i just get infuriated with such selfish attitudes so common among supposed leftists; attitudes that are the catalysts for abominations like sopa.   #  attitudes that are the catalysts for abominations like sopa.   #  the people responsible for sopa are only the lobbyists and representatives that contributed to it.   # even were this statement true it is not it has nothing to do with morality and thus, the legality of the issue.  it does.  generally, the lack of harm is considered very significant from a moral perspective.  you miss the  hassle factor .  i would say that if i burned down your house without collateral damage while you were outside, and then in a second restored all the atoms to their original position, i would have done you no harm.  no, it is not, since the information is not free.  information is not, nor should it be, inherently free.  classified military secrets, passwords, ssns, browser histories, and credit card numbers are  information  but most certainly should not be given for free to anyone and everyone.  not to say the argument is good, but the examples you give are bad.  they are inherently private, whereas media is often simply available to the public under certain conditions .  besides, how do you expect me to pay for it ? another disregarding of morality, but let is address this directly.  information that is pirated, aka games, books, movies, etc.  are luxuries.  they are not necessities.  they are not necessities in the sense that you do not die from lack of them, but cultural access is very important for intellectual development.  paired with the  no harm no foul , it seems completely justified.  except it is not theft because there is no deprivation.  this is one of the more laughable positions i have seen and so often comes from the exact same people who argue that charity is not enough to help the poor which they almost always claim they are .  the amount of poor people is orders of magnitude larger than the amount of artists.  the poor are poor due to structural problems which ca not be solved by dumping money, and you do not see a  return on your investment  from charity.  that money would be better spent in different programs so that poor people may leave poverty.  artists can also ask for donations  before  making the media.  many could probably receive a consistent supply of donation money, then give the media away, for cheap, or with a pay what you want model.  all he lost was time, and that is not illegal to take, is it ? so then why do we not hear of the same donation systems for blue collar workers like this ? because it is ridiculous.  imagine a group of electricians wants to make some improvements on public lighting in a town.  they make a kickstarter page.  they will start the paperwork for authorization as soon as they receive half a million dollars.  the people responsible for sopa are only the lobbyists and representatives that contributed to it.  nothing  excuses them.   #  some people consider services like uber and lyft to be  pirate  taxi services, but they are also forcing official taxi companies to move to a more modern business model in order to survive.   #  i see you have had a quite a few comments in the few hours since you posted this, but i will give it a shot of my own.  i will not try to dissuade you from the idea that piracy is morally or ethically wrong, or that piracy is largely committed for any reason other than greed, but i will try show you that it might be a necessary evil.  the big music labels have been resisting any form of digital distribution for more than a decade, no matter how much fans wanted it, because it is easier for them to justify high prices on physical goods.  early music piracy like napster and limewire is what forced the labels into digital.  they are not 0 there yet, but now there are plenty of popular legal ways to get your music.  the high rate of digital game piracy is what convinced gaben to make steam, he has said that he believes piracy has nothing to do with the monetary value of things and everything to do with convenience, and by making an easy convenient way for everyone to get their games digitally, many pirates including myself went back to buying games.  the original pirates of the sea, while violent criminals, broke up one of the largest monopolies the world has ever seen, opening up the market, and even raising employment standards pirates treated their crew much better than the dutch east india company did, and even had written codes regarding treatment of crews .  the original music piracy pirate radio stations broke up the monopoly the bbc had on radio in england.  some people consider services like uber and lyft to be  pirate  taxi services, but they are also forcing official taxi companies to move to a more modern business model in order to survive.  tldr; while piracy can be wrong, bad, illegal and horrible in its many forms, it often is the product of frustation or discontent on the part of customers, and helps drive change.   #  as i had, again  already purchased the software , there was even less that the normal  not a whole fucking lot  amount of moral impetus behind that particular law.   #  also, more to the point: so what if they were being racists ? it did not give rosa parks the right to arbitrarily start breaking laws.  she knew she had to lawfully give her seat to the white men who asked.  her prison sentence is on her.  laws are only valid so long as there is a moral imperative behind them.  as i had, again  already purchased the software , there was even less that the normal  not a whole fucking lot  amount of moral impetus behind that particular law.  so fuck yes i broke it when it was depriving me of my rights, no matter how trivial they were.   #  i am not sure why you are getting so angry.   #  i am not sanctimonious or an asshole, and i am not trying to troll, but losing something multiple times is a certainly suggestive of irresponsibility.  i am sorry that your dad did that to you, but i had no way of knowing that based on what you posted.  i am not sure how drm is related to oppression.  rich people have their content limited in the same way as anyone else.  it applies equally to everyone.  i am not sure why you are getting so angry.  i am just explaining my viewpoint.  if you hate what i say so much, you can simply stop responding to me.   #  damn, it took me a thousand words just to get to this point.  i personally believe that piracy is a side effect of a market that has not adapted yet.   #  damn, it took me a thousand words just to get to this point.  i personally believe that piracy is a side effect of a market that has not adapted yet.  while we should not be lionizing pirates for what they are doing neither should we be wasting our resources on prosecuting and incarcerating them.  when a problem this widespread appears it is a sign that there is a flaw in the system not the individual.  people have not changed perceptibly in the last hundred years but products have, we should not be wasting our energy defending the incomes of people who refuse to adapt.  digital media has no value within any existing system of valuation we have.  by all rights anything that is digitally created should be as close to free as possible because it is infinitely reproducible.
reddit is a website, a business, it is the  front page of the internet .  this front page does not have to house hate speech or hostile ideologies.  i think removing these will only make reddit a more positive and progressive place to be.  i think free speech can flourish without hate speech.  i think we can recognize accurately the intention of certain subreddits.  some can be gross, negative or downright morbid but do not have ill intentions but i think its the intention that matters and i feel from the announcement URL that those subreddits with vile intetions will be removed while other  alternative  subreddits will be just fine.  i think certain viruses have an intention to spread through the body and i think some subreddits here can be likened to viruses so i can only see a positive outcome when extracting these viruses out of the community.   #  reddit is a website, a business, it is the  front page of the internet .   #  you are citing the reference   front page of the internet   without acknowledging the policies that  got reddit there .   # you are citing the reference   front page of the internet   without acknowledging the policies that  got reddit there .  it is a business and going forward from where it is,  perhaps  it is better to not be a bastion for free speech.  however  the thing that grew reddit from an insignificant spec on the internet to where it is today  is exactly  the ability to have an open dialog about anything without fear of reprimand or reprisal.  eliminating that component might be the best way to go from here.  however it will have a cost.  also, policies exist in a context of ideology.  even though i understand and agree with this policy, it is clear that the fundamental ideology of reddit is shifting.  this may or may not be positive.   #  let me just start of saying that participating in the english part of the internet can be kind of hard.   #  with cool comments such as   please remember this is a website within in america not america itself i feel that the international community is being forgotten and i think we are importent in making reddit so diverse as it is.  let me just start of saying that participating in the english part of the internet can be kind of hard.  first of all there is the language and the language barrier.  my spelling and grammar might be okaish, but i am in no way able to explain my thoughts with the same clarity in english that i am in danish or german.  language though is the lesser problem.  cultur is the bigger problem by far.  having been on the internet for many years i have a certain idea what others around the world find offensive, but it is still hard to navigate and most importently i totally disagree with it.  i do not find it offensive that a 0 year old boy and a 0 year old girl have sex.  i would not find it offensive if she was 0 and he was 0.  .  .  that would actuelly be the age of my cousin and his wife when they first meet.  i am looking at you transformers 0.  i see americans saying  what is next after gay ? bestiality ?   and raise it with the danish subreddits discussion  should we make bestiality illegal  nsfw URL i have no problem with naked people.  i have no problem with kids seeing naked people or hearing swear words.  this is actuelly so universal a feeling in denmark that we are trying to get out of the pegi rating system and make our own.  i also feel that if the red skins are offensive, then so is the vikings and i understand people who got offended by heimdal being played by a black actor.  i personally find it offensive towards the female if the male try to pay the entire bill on the first date.  i have been on many internet forums.  as soon as they have gotten a moral code, these codes will build on anglo american morals and values.  those values are not my values and thus they end up alienating me and other foreigners who ends up leaving taking all our diverse and not americaness with us.   #  well, we ca not have that antisemitic hate speech stinking up the place, can we ?  #  the trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one is time defending scoundrels.  for it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.  h.  l.  mencken.  it is  easy  to cherrypick odious, horrible people, and ask what could possibly be lost by silencing them.  it is good and right and progressive, and people can feel righteously victorious for defeating them.  but once you open that door, a lot more comes through.  do not like israeli foreign policy ? well, we ca not have that antisemitic hate speech stinking up the place, can we ? do not like animal cruelty ? we ca not have eco terrorists damaging profits glorifying illegal activity, can we ? bring on the ag gag laws.  do not like children getting raped in detention centres ? we ca not have people reporting it to the authorities threatening national security, now.  go go gadget border force protection act ! do not like the policy of reddit is corporate sponsors ? oh, well  that is  okay, there is no way that could be spun as anti social behaviour.  you know who i fucking hate ? anti vaxxers.  stupid,  stupid  people spouting bullshit that  gets children killed , f gods sake.  but there are just as many people that would like to see  my  speech suppressed, with just as much heartfelt hatred.  pro lifers, evangelical christians, homophobes, transphobes, gun nuts, cry it outers, child mutilators, republicans, emacs users.  for every  victory  you prepare to crow about, imagine some other group is celebration at silencing the things  you  care about.  that is not an arms race you want to join.  who are the only winners ? the advertisers, with their nice safe little ebaumsworld and their nice safe pr approved advertorials and their nice safe nescafé ads.   #  but we do not actually have universally free speech.   #  but we do not actually have universally free speech.  if someone is using speech to incite violence against a group of people the rights of those people trump the rights of the person speaking out.  the sub fph was very much encouraging harassment and people were doing it.  even if you take the legality out of it, if you allow a group of hateful people to harass your users without repercussions they will drive away users you want to keep, further concentrating their bigotry.  before you know it, you end up with a prejudice wasteland like 0chan.   #  there are plenty of websites and real life communities that accept such people, reddit is not going to be one of them.   #  here is the difference though: state censorship results in people being put in cages.  when states put a ban on ideas, that slippery slope is incredibly real and i would 0 support you and anyone else who stood up for full freedom of expression under the law.  i am sorry, this just is not like that.  it is not as if there is no other recourse for racists or sexists or any other stripe of hate group once the admins kill their subreddit.  there are plenty of websites and real life communities that accept such people, reddit is not going to be one of them.  they can still write, speak, and protest anywhere in the united states, totally unrestricted.
reddit is a website, a business, it is the  front page of the internet .  this front page does not have to house hate speech or hostile ideologies.  i think removing these will only make reddit a more positive and progressive place to be.  i think free speech can flourish without hate speech.  i think we can recognize accurately the intention of certain subreddits.  some can be gross, negative or downright morbid but do not have ill intentions but i think its the intention that matters and i feel from the announcement URL that those subreddits with vile intetions will be removed while other  alternative  subreddits will be just fine.  i think certain viruses have an intention to spread through the body and i think some subreddits here can be likened to viruses so i can only see a positive outcome when extracting these viruses out of the community.   #  this front page does not have to house hate speech or hostile ideologies.   #  but would removing these be representative of the internet ?  # but would removing these be representative of the internet ? so how can it be the  front page  ? but some speech people consider hate, while others do not.  so i do not like jews because of reason x.  is that hate speech or just free speech ? why not just say  ill intention subreddits will be banned  ? what if someone says the gross, negative and morbid is ill intentions to him ? who is to judge on this ?  #  i am looking at you transformers 0.  i see americans saying  what is next after gay ?  #  with cool comments such as   please remember this is a website within in america not america itself i feel that the international community is being forgotten and i think we are importent in making reddit so diverse as it is.  let me just start of saying that participating in the english part of the internet can be kind of hard.  first of all there is the language and the language barrier.  my spelling and grammar might be okaish, but i am in no way able to explain my thoughts with the same clarity in english that i am in danish or german.  language though is the lesser problem.  cultur is the bigger problem by far.  having been on the internet for many years i have a certain idea what others around the world find offensive, but it is still hard to navigate and most importently i totally disagree with it.  i do not find it offensive that a 0 year old boy and a 0 year old girl have sex.  i would not find it offensive if she was 0 and he was 0.  .  .  that would actuelly be the age of my cousin and his wife when they first meet.  i am looking at you transformers 0.  i see americans saying  what is next after gay ? bestiality ?   and raise it with the danish subreddits discussion  should we make bestiality illegal  nsfw URL i have no problem with naked people.  i have no problem with kids seeing naked people or hearing swear words.  this is actuelly so universal a feeling in denmark that we are trying to get out of the pegi rating system and make our own.  i also feel that if the red skins are offensive, then so is the vikings and i understand people who got offended by heimdal being played by a black actor.  i personally find it offensive towards the female if the male try to pay the entire bill on the first date.  i have been on many internet forums.  as soon as they have gotten a moral code, these codes will build on anglo american morals and values.  those values are not my values and thus they end up alienating me and other foreigners who ends up leaving taking all our diverse and not americaness with us.   #  we ca not have eco terrorists damaging profits glorifying illegal activity, can we ?  #  the trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one is time defending scoundrels.  for it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.  h.  l.  mencken.  it is  easy  to cherrypick odious, horrible people, and ask what could possibly be lost by silencing them.  it is good and right and progressive, and people can feel righteously victorious for defeating them.  but once you open that door, a lot more comes through.  do not like israeli foreign policy ? well, we ca not have that antisemitic hate speech stinking up the place, can we ? do not like animal cruelty ? we ca not have eco terrorists damaging profits glorifying illegal activity, can we ? bring on the ag gag laws.  do not like children getting raped in detention centres ? we ca not have people reporting it to the authorities threatening national security, now.  go go gadget border force protection act ! do not like the policy of reddit is corporate sponsors ? oh, well  that is  okay, there is no way that could be spun as anti social behaviour.  you know who i fucking hate ? anti vaxxers.  stupid,  stupid  people spouting bullshit that  gets children killed , f gods sake.  but there are just as many people that would like to see  my  speech suppressed, with just as much heartfelt hatred.  pro lifers, evangelical christians, homophobes, transphobes, gun nuts, cry it outers, child mutilators, republicans, emacs users.  for every  victory  you prepare to crow about, imagine some other group is celebration at silencing the things  you  care about.  that is not an arms race you want to join.  who are the only winners ? the advertisers, with their nice safe little ebaumsworld and their nice safe pr approved advertorials and their nice safe nescafé ads.   #  even if you take the legality out of it, if you allow a group of hateful people to harass your users without repercussions they will drive away users you want to keep, further concentrating their bigotry.   #  but we do not actually have universally free speech.  if someone is using speech to incite violence against a group of people the rights of those people trump the rights of the person speaking out.  the sub fph was very much encouraging harassment and people were doing it.  even if you take the legality out of it, if you allow a group of hateful people to harass your users without repercussions they will drive away users you want to keep, further concentrating their bigotry.  before you know it, you end up with a prejudice wasteland like 0chan.   #  it is not as if there is no other recourse for racists or sexists or any other stripe of hate group once the admins kill their subreddit.   #  here is the difference though: state censorship results in people being put in cages.  when states put a ban on ideas, that slippery slope is incredibly real and i would 0 support you and anyone else who stood up for full freedom of expression under the law.  i am sorry, this just is not like that.  it is not as if there is no other recourse for racists or sexists or any other stripe of hate group once the admins kill their subreddit.  there are plenty of websites and real life communities that accept such people, reddit is not going to be one of them.  they can still write, speak, and protest anywhere in the united states, totally unrestricted.
reddit is a website, a business, it is the  front page of the internet .  this front page does not have to house hate speech or hostile ideologies.  i think removing these will only make reddit a more positive and progressive place to be.  i think free speech can flourish without hate speech.  i think we can recognize accurately the intention of certain subreddits.  some can be gross, negative or downright morbid but do not have ill intentions but i think its the intention that matters and i feel from the announcement URL that those subreddits with vile intetions will be removed while other  alternative  subreddits will be just fine.  i think certain viruses have an intention to spread through the body and i think some subreddits here can be likened to viruses so i can only see a positive outcome when extracting these viruses out of the community.   #  i think free speech can flourish without hate speech.   #  but some speech people consider hate, while others do not.   # but would removing these be representative of the internet ? so how can it be the  front page  ? but some speech people consider hate, while others do not.  so i do not like jews because of reason x.  is that hate speech or just free speech ? why not just say  ill intention subreddits will be banned  ? what if someone says the gross, negative and morbid is ill intentions to him ? who is to judge on this ?  #  those values are not my values and thus they end up alienating me and other foreigners who ends up leaving taking all our diverse and not americaness with us.   #  with cool comments such as   please remember this is a website within in america not america itself i feel that the international community is being forgotten and i think we are importent in making reddit so diverse as it is.  let me just start of saying that participating in the english part of the internet can be kind of hard.  first of all there is the language and the language barrier.  my spelling and grammar might be okaish, but i am in no way able to explain my thoughts with the same clarity in english that i am in danish or german.  language though is the lesser problem.  cultur is the bigger problem by far.  having been on the internet for many years i have a certain idea what others around the world find offensive, but it is still hard to navigate and most importently i totally disagree with it.  i do not find it offensive that a 0 year old boy and a 0 year old girl have sex.  i would not find it offensive if she was 0 and he was 0.  .  .  that would actuelly be the age of my cousin and his wife when they first meet.  i am looking at you transformers 0.  i see americans saying  what is next after gay ? bestiality ?   and raise it with the danish subreddits discussion  should we make bestiality illegal  nsfw URL i have no problem with naked people.  i have no problem with kids seeing naked people or hearing swear words.  this is actuelly so universal a feeling in denmark that we are trying to get out of the pegi rating system and make our own.  i also feel that if the red skins are offensive, then so is the vikings and i understand people who got offended by heimdal being played by a black actor.  i personally find it offensive towards the female if the male try to pay the entire bill on the first date.  i have been on many internet forums.  as soon as they have gotten a moral code, these codes will build on anglo american morals and values.  those values are not my values and thus they end up alienating me and other foreigners who ends up leaving taking all our diverse and not americaness with us.   #  it is good and right and progressive, and people can feel righteously victorious for defeating them.   #  the trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one is time defending scoundrels.  for it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.  h.  l.  mencken.  it is  easy  to cherrypick odious, horrible people, and ask what could possibly be lost by silencing them.  it is good and right and progressive, and people can feel righteously victorious for defeating them.  but once you open that door, a lot more comes through.  do not like israeli foreign policy ? well, we ca not have that antisemitic hate speech stinking up the place, can we ? do not like animal cruelty ? we ca not have eco terrorists damaging profits glorifying illegal activity, can we ? bring on the ag gag laws.  do not like children getting raped in detention centres ? we ca not have people reporting it to the authorities threatening national security, now.  go go gadget border force protection act ! do not like the policy of reddit is corporate sponsors ? oh, well  that is  okay, there is no way that could be spun as anti social behaviour.  you know who i fucking hate ? anti vaxxers.  stupid,  stupid  people spouting bullshit that  gets children killed , f gods sake.  but there are just as many people that would like to see  my  speech suppressed, with just as much heartfelt hatred.  pro lifers, evangelical christians, homophobes, transphobes, gun nuts, cry it outers, child mutilators, republicans, emacs users.  for every  victory  you prepare to crow about, imagine some other group is celebration at silencing the things  you  care about.  that is not an arms race you want to join.  who are the only winners ? the advertisers, with their nice safe little ebaumsworld and their nice safe pr approved advertorials and their nice safe nescafé ads.   #  the sub fph was very much encouraging harassment and people were doing it.   #  but we do not actually have universally free speech.  if someone is using speech to incite violence against a group of people the rights of those people trump the rights of the person speaking out.  the sub fph was very much encouraging harassment and people were doing it.  even if you take the legality out of it, if you allow a group of hateful people to harass your users without repercussions they will drive away users you want to keep, further concentrating their bigotry.  before you know it, you end up with a prejudice wasteland like 0chan.   #  there are plenty of websites and real life communities that accept such people, reddit is not going to be one of them.   #  here is the difference though: state censorship results in people being put in cages.  when states put a ban on ideas, that slippery slope is incredibly real and i would 0 support you and anyone else who stood up for full freedom of expression under the law.  i am sorry, this just is not like that.  it is not as if there is no other recourse for racists or sexists or any other stripe of hate group once the admins kill their subreddit.  there are plenty of websites and real life communities that accept such people, reddit is not going to be one of them.  they can still write, speak, and protest anywhere in the united states, totally unrestricted.
a lot of people seem to believe that reddit should be a  bastion of free speech .  i disagree with such view for several reasons.  i believe reddit should do whatever it wants to do regarding banning subreddits, restricting content etc for the following reasons: 0.  websites come and go whilst reddit has been around for a while now, nearly nothing on the internet is permanent.  if people do really care that much about freedom of speech, they will flock to voat or whatever other website pops up to fill the demand in the market.  if enough people emigrate from reddit, then it will even whittle down digg style.  personally, i feel even if there is a certain % of the userbase who leaves reddit, i feel there will be a significant enough amount of people left to keep reddit fully functional.  heck, it might even get rid of the nutheads and make reddit a more pleasant place.  0.  the current downvote system does not guarantee open discussion anyway the current downvote system is far from perfect.  it might  hide  the trolly comments but on certain subreddits, expressing a certain view will lead to a lot of downvotes and populist, sometimes circlejerky, comments often rise to the top.  many people use the downvote button as a  wouldisagree  button instead of a  wouldoes not contribute anything of value  button.  can you really have an open, honest discussion in such environment anyway ? 0.  business reasons i do not know about reddit is financials in detail but it needs some sort of income.  if they struggle to get advertisers due to pr reasons, reddit should be able to do ban subreddits and limit content if they want to.  reddit is a private business afterall and not a public service.  0.  majority of reddit users do not give a shit now i have no proof for this and it would be interesting if there was some sort of poll.  however, i genuinely feel the majority of reddit users do not care whether reddit bans certain subreddits.  like with many things, i feel there is a silent majority who really does not care about reddit is user policy.   #  majority of reddit users do not give a shit now i have no proof for this and it would be interesting if there was some sort of poll.   #  however, i genuinely feel the majority of reddit users do not care whether reddit bans certain subreddits.   #  here we go again.  reddit does not  have  to do anything; as you said, they are a business, and can come to whatever decision they feel is best for the business.  and the current idea is that censorship does  not  make good business sense, primarily because what you are advocating for is a less interesting reddit.  however, i genuinely feel the majority of reddit users do not care whether reddit bans certain subreddits.  like with many things, i feel there is a silent majority who really does not care about reddit is user policy.  the internet would disagree with you.  time and time again, it has been shown that reddit is userbase and the internet as a whole strongly values free speech.  if reddit were to crack down, those who value free speech not just the racists and bigots would likely go elsewhere as soon as a viable option presents itself.  the controversies associated with reddit is not slowing growth, either; reddit has posted continual growth in both active users and lurkers, and that shows no sign of slowing down.  reddit favors large numbers of users, as it wants high amounts of traffic.  people say that controversy detracts from reddit, when in actuality it leads to increased links both to and from the rest of the internet, resulting in more pageviews and more advertising revenue.  there is the argument that advertisers may not want to associate with reddit, but reddit is been around for quite a while, and the problematic sections of it have been as well.  advertisers know this, but are still willing to line up for their chance to the website that legitimately holds the title of  front page of the internet.   ultimately, though, it comes down to a difference of opinion: the majority of reddit is active users and i would argue the majority of the highly active ones, who are responsible for the lion is share of content would rather deal with trolls, bigots, racists, and the like, than risk having their own speech curtailed beyond obvious issues like harassment, which reddit arguably is  legally  obliged to go after, or get sued .  as a result, if speech limits were to be put in place, those people would leave, and the  silent majority  that does not care will follow them.  the reddit admins and owners realize this is how the content creators like it, hence why things are the way they are.   #  the admins can make changes, and in the short term things will be fine.   #  i am going to address the point that a majority of users do not give a shit.  though that may be true its not the point.  the average used comes to reddit for content.  and that content needs to be submitted and modded by people.  a small minority takes the time to contribute to the community and to keep it strong.  and these are the people who are most sensitive to reddits actions.  these are the people you need to keep happy.  without them quality will drop on the site.  and this is where it will start to affect the everyredditor.  the admins can make changes, and in the short term things will be fine.  there is a tipping point though.   #  they could demolish this site faster than the admins.   #  not op, but every reply this post had could not convince me, except this one.  the content consumers far outnumber the content creators, who are most effected by this.  but the content creators could make a shit time for the consumers.  can you imagine if the mods decided to monetize reddit for their own gain ? they could demolish this site faster than the admins.    tinfoil: they probably already are.  what if karmanaut runs voat ? !  #  if reddit is too intrusive, i think they would lose many important mods.   #  i think free speech is important for reddit to uphold.  first, by far the most work done making reddit work properly is done by unpaid moderators, not reddit employees.  in exchange for their labor, reddit lets them make subreddits their own and set the limits they want.  if reddit is too intrusive, i think they would lose many important mods.  the second reason is that reddit has nowhere near the man power to effectively police it is while site and get rid of all questionable content.  i am not really offended my a super inappropriate sub reddit if they are allowing all super inappropriate subreddits.  but if the site puts their foot down that making fun of x group is not ok, but they still allow racist subreddits about y group, then i am going to have an issue with their censorship.   #  reddit has a lot of good content and a lot of awful content and you would go crazy trying to weed out the awful content.   #  i think the site could replace some mods, but would lose some very good, very dedicated ones if they are too heavy handed.  and it would be impossible to set articulate standards on what is banned and what is not, and then a nightmare of whack a subreddit trying to enforce them.  i think coon town is disgusting, but some people think sexist subreddits are just as bad.  i am not a fan of the red pill or men is rights subreddits, but i would think users would be up in arms if these got banned.  the u. s.  supreme court could not manage to define obscenity, instead the famous quote was  i know it when i see it .  reddit has a lot of good content and a lot of awful content and you would go crazy trying to weed out the awful content.  and i think you would look like a hypocrite if you banned only some of the awful content.
our local school just sent out an email to all parents that they should start limiting their childrens under 0yo screen time to maxium of 0 hours and under 0yo to 0 hours a day.  i do not really understand this.   in my opinion, as long as the kid is living healthy and is doing sports, does his homework and other chores and also meets his irl friends from time to time i do not really see much need to limit the time he/she spends watching tv or playing games etc.    this kind of  limit the screen time  advices also always seem to forget the good things in videogames and such.  for example i have learned most of my english from tv and videogames had to get thought those pokemons .  they also seem to forget that online games teach you valuable teamworking skills and games like minecraft let you build amazing things and use your brains.  i understand that looking at the screen just before you go to bed may affect your sleeping, but that is in my opinion fixed with rules like  do not play 0 0h before you go to bed  and even further helped by installing flux.  sorry, english is not my first language so there are propably typoes in the text.   #  for example i have learned most of my english from tv and videogames had to get thought those pokemons .   #  the question is not whether you got a benefit from tv and video games.   # the question is not whether you got a benefit from tv and video games.  the question is could your time have been better spent for a greater benefit.  there are a handful of games that teach problem solving and teamwork.  even then, these games are limited; you will quickly reach the point of diminishing return.  you build something big in minecraft with a team, and the next project wo not give you quite the same benefit.  eventually, you are just having fun in minecraft without learning anything.  imagine how much more you would learn building things with real wood instead of planks in minecraft.  imagine what you would learn working with an electronics kit instead of redstone circuits.  for everything taught in video games, it is better taught by existing in reality.  at least then you have something to show for it when you are done.   #  while the actual number is arguable, there is no question that many kids have way too much screen time.   #  while the actual number is arguable, there is no question that many kids have way too much screen time.  there are studies that show URL that it actually can damage your brain.  there are other studies URL that show that it can lead to obesity and decreased social functioning.  way too many kids spend 0, 0, 0 or even more hours per day in front of a screen.  these days, when most households have only working adults, it is damned easy to just let your kids be entertained by their electronics while you get stuff done or take a break.  no, 0 or 0 hours is not some magic number.  0 wo not suddenly start causing irreparable damage.  but i suspect the email you received was to cause parents to really look at the time their kids are spending.  i do not think anyone who is currently letting their kid have 0 hours of screen time per day will drop down to 0 but they might drop to 0 or 0, which is a hell of a lot better.  by giving an actual number in the email, they gave parents a goal to reach for.  no harm will be done to any of the kids who actually reach that number, but for most, there might at least be a reduction, which is what the school administrators were going for.   #  i actually agree with your view, but i am going to bring forth an argument against it.   #  actually  typoes  is the only typo i found.  i actually agree with your view, but i am going to bring forth an argument against it.  there are only so many hours a day.  cildren under 0 should sleep around 0 hours, and go to school for around 0 0 hours.  if they spend for example 0 hours in front of a screen, that just leaves 0 0 hours for playing with friends, reading, studying, hobbies like sports or learning an instrument etc.  all these things are usually regarded as being more beneficial then playing videogames, and not entirlely without reason.   #  whereas saying something like  monitor your children is screen usage and make sure they are playing outside and being physically active,  is not a call to action.   #  where i would like to change your view is in a little piece.  i think you are taking the word of the letter too literally.  you need to think about who it is written for and the audience in general.  if your children are healthy, normal, and physically and socially active children, the letter was not written for you.  putting a hard limit on screen time to parents is a call to action and makes them think,  oh shit, my kid is watching 0 hours of tv a day, maybe we could do other things with their time.   whereas saying something like  monitor your children is screen usage and make sure they are playing outside and being physically active,  is not a call to action.  it is nebulous.  hard numbers and cutoffs make people change their behavior.  if you are spending too much, what do you do ? you set a budget.  you make a target of money each month to spend and you stick to it.  if you are not spending too much each month, you budget yourself already.  the screen usage is the same thing.  that is not to say that you do not go over it on occasion, but it is about building a habit and changing a behavior.   #  but in reality you need some relaxation time as well, and for those you can play minecraft.   #  my point was that my kids are already doing all kinds of  good and valuable  things in their days like meet their friends or play an instrument .  on top of those  working hours  kids also need to relax doing something they like.  if they use that  spare time  playing minecraft that is a good thing, as it is somewhat educating.  of course in utopia you could just use your whole days doing something  valuable  that would be very good.  but in reality you need some relaxation time as well, and for those you can play minecraft.  i have a bit of trouble bringing my point to words but hopefully you catch my drift.
our local school just sent out an email to all parents that they should start limiting their childrens under 0yo screen time to maxium of 0 hours and under 0yo to 0 hours a day.  i do not really understand this.   in my opinion, as long as the kid is living healthy and is doing sports, does his homework and other chores and also meets his irl friends from time to time i do not really see much need to limit the time he/she spends watching tv or playing games etc.    this kind of  limit the screen time  advices also always seem to forget the good things in videogames and such.  for example i have learned most of my english from tv and videogames had to get thought those pokemons .  they also seem to forget that online games teach you valuable teamworking skills and games like minecraft let you build amazing things and use your brains.  i understand that looking at the screen just before you go to bed may affect your sleeping, but that is in my opinion fixed with rules like  do not play 0 0h before you go to bed  and even further helped by installing flux.  sorry, english is not my first language so there are propably typoes in the text.   #  they also seem to forget that online games teach you valuable teamworking skills and games like minecraft let you build amazing things and use your brains.   #  there are a handful of games that teach problem solving and teamwork.   # the question is not whether you got a benefit from tv and video games.  the question is could your time have been better spent for a greater benefit.  there are a handful of games that teach problem solving and teamwork.  even then, these games are limited; you will quickly reach the point of diminishing return.  you build something big in minecraft with a team, and the next project wo not give you quite the same benefit.  eventually, you are just having fun in minecraft without learning anything.  imagine how much more you would learn building things with real wood instead of planks in minecraft.  imagine what you would learn working with an electronics kit instead of redstone circuits.  for everything taught in video games, it is better taught by existing in reality.  at least then you have something to show for it when you are done.   #  while the actual number is arguable, there is no question that many kids have way too much screen time.   #  while the actual number is arguable, there is no question that many kids have way too much screen time.  there are studies that show URL that it actually can damage your brain.  there are other studies URL that show that it can lead to obesity and decreased social functioning.  way too many kids spend 0, 0, 0 or even more hours per day in front of a screen.  these days, when most households have only working adults, it is damned easy to just let your kids be entertained by their electronics while you get stuff done or take a break.  no, 0 or 0 hours is not some magic number.  0 wo not suddenly start causing irreparable damage.  but i suspect the email you received was to cause parents to really look at the time their kids are spending.  i do not think anyone who is currently letting their kid have 0 hours of screen time per day will drop down to 0 but they might drop to 0 or 0, which is a hell of a lot better.  by giving an actual number in the email, they gave parents a goal to reach for.  no harm will be done to any of the kids who actually reach that number, but for most, there might at least be a reduction, which is what the school administrators were going for.   #  all these things are usually regarded as being more beneficial then playing videogames, and not entirlely without reason.   #  actually  typoes  is the only typo i found.  i actually agree with your view, but i am going to bring forth an argument against it.  there are only so many hours a day.  cildren under 0 should sleep around 0 hours, and go to school for around 0 0 hours.  if they spend for example 0 hours in front of a screen, that just leaves 0 0 hours for playing with friends, reading, studying, hobbies like sports or learning an instrument etc.  all these things are usually regarded as being more beneficial then playing videogames, and not entirlely without reason.   #  if you are spending too much, what do you do ?  #  where i would like to change your view is in a little piece.  i think you are taking the word of the letter too literally.  you need to think about who it is written for and the audience in general.  if your children are healthy, normal, and physically and socially active children, the letter was not written for you.  putting a hard limit on screen time to parents is a call to action and makes them think,  oh shit, my kid is watching 0 hours of tv a day, maybe we could do other things with their time.   whereas saying something like  monitor your children is screen usage and make sure they are playing outside and being physically active,  is not a call to action.  it is nebulous.  hard numbers and cutoffs make people change their behavior.  if you are spending too much, what do you do ? you set a budget.  you make a target of money each month to spend and you stick to it.  if you are not spending too much each month, you budget yourself already.  the screen usage is the same thing.  that is not to say that you do not go over it on occasion, but it is about building a habit and changing a behavior.   #  but in reality you need some relaxation time as well, and for those you can play minecraft.   #  my point was that my kids are already doing all kinds of  good and valuable  things in their days like meet their friends or play an instrument .  on top of those  working hours  kids also need to relax doing something they like.  if they use that  spare time  playing minecraft that is a good thing, as it is somewhat educating.  of course in utopia you could just use your whole days doing something  valuable  that would be very good.  but in reality you need some relaxation time as well, and for those you can play minecraft.  i have a bit of trouble bringing my point to words but hopefully you catch my drift.
he is intelligent and wealthy and adaptable apparently.  i think the majority of gotham is problems could have solved with smart investments in social programs and industry and the police force which bruce has money for.  i swear the guy is anonymous being batman, which means he can get away with killing, which would solve all his super villian issues immediately.  how naive are superheros when same villains keep coming back.  considering his track record, you think he really ca not his stance on the not killing rule.  and even when it comes to i dunno fighting regular crime, i am pretty sure a neighborhood watch group and 0 patrolmen would do a much better job than one guy flying around million dollar super planes.  i think that just makes you an asshole.  i am done: you guys gave me more reasons to hate batman more and superheros in general.   #  i think the majority of gotham is problems could have solved with smart investments in social programs and industry and the police force which bruce has money for.   #  you would think that, but you would be wrong.   # you would think that, but you would be wrong.  bruce wayne does that.  he is painted as the ultra philanthropist, and as much as he gives, the city wo not stop producing super villains.  how naive are superheros when same villains keep coming back.  there are two answers here: the justice system is failing batman and gotham, as they should be executing the repeat offenders rather than sentencing them to arkham asylum.  the second is that nobody dies in comic books, so it is a pretty crapsack universe that the heroes only make better as much as they can.  except they do not.  batman is superpower is not his money, it is the fact that he can take beatings that would kill a normal human, and keep coming.  a neighborhood watch could not hang in gotham, where the problem is primarily organized crime.  they would either be bought off, intimidated, or killed.  and this happens so much that by the time batman starts being batman, everyone, including the  actual police  have stopped trying, or are else completely corrupt.   #  the only hero/villain that springs to mind is that steve rogers died at the end of the recent marvel civil war, to have someone else take up the mantle of captain america.   #  the only hero/villain that springs to mind is that steve rogers died at the end of the recent marvel civil war, to have someone else take up the mantle of captain america.  that is more the exception that proves the rule than the rule, however; it is so common that it is practically a trope; the old saying amongst comic fans was  no one in comics stays dead except for bucky barnes, jason todd, and uncle ben.   except, you know, bucky barnes and jason todd got better.  so, uncle ben, at this point.  and currently steve rogers, as far as i know.  he might already have come back though.  i do not follow comics that closely.  point is, when almost every example can be countered with either  it has not been that long  or  he is come back before  then you are looking at a world where people do not die.  and there is a reason for this in the real world: comics are as much about the iconic villains as the iconic heroes, and the writers now are, by and large fans.  and if a writer comes in after a character has been killed off and wants to do a story about that villain, they will write them back to life somehow.  and the companies tend to not care as much, because of  course  batman vs joker storylines are going to sell.  but anyway; yes, saying that  literally  nobody dies is technically inaccurate.  but nobody dies permanently except for uncle ben , and that means that even if batman turned into the punisher and killed all of his villains, they would find their way back to life.   #  there is no growth, its bad guys and good guys making themselves look important and we the public eat this shit up for some reason.   # which could be anything, not just orphans.  orphans are okay, but that is a long time until there are productive members of the workforce.  the guys an apparent genius, people can fly a la superman, he can apparently design his own fucking super weapons, but he ca not make proper investments because of fucking corruption.  yeah i would support a world where you kill supervillians.  how do people feel about hitler ? and no dies in batman, yeah i agree its a craptastic universe, which why it sucks ! the nature of combat comes down to trying to kill the other person, every fucking time.  no one dies, really ? who makes the guns.  because in this world apparently, everyone fucking sucks at making guns.  and you have a simplistic way at looking at corruption, this takes in american, not south america.  batman is really simplistic once you have an understanding of how world works, it wrestling, with cartoon characters.  which makes him an asshole.  this is a world this characters has the ability to solve the problem, but dose not or writers are choose not to.  there is no growth, its bad guys and good guys making themselves look important and we the public eat this shit up for some reason.   #  the foundation supports and helps to run a number of orphanages and free schools, and provides teachers for those who have learning difficulties.   # it is, first and foremost, entertainment; you compared it to pro wrestling, and you realize when watching pro wrestling that there are certain things that do not make sense, but you do them because it is pro wrestling.  things like rebounding off the ropes after an irish whip.  the fact is that these things  are not  realistic, but they serve to make the story interesting.  yeah i would support a world where you kill supervillians.  how do people feel about hitler ? the problem is literally that super villains ca not be killed, at least not permanently.  there exists a thing called a lazarus pit, where the dead can  literally be raised , and do you want to be the guy the joker comes after for revenge for killing him  when , not  if , he gets resurrected ? which could be anything, not just orphans.  orphans are okay, but that is a long time there are productive members of the workforce.  from wikipedia:  the thomas wayne foundation is a foundation for medicine and medical help.  this foundation gives annual awards for medical breakthroughs and lifelong commitment, similar to the nobel foundation.  the thomas wayne foundation is also responsible for funding the thomas wayne memorial clinic in park row, gotham is infamous crime alley.  the foundation funds and runs dozens of clinics in gotham.  bruce wayne is surrogate mother, dr.  leslie thompkins, runs the memorial clinic in crime alley and governed the other clinics until she left gotham.  the foundation supports and helps to run a number of orphanages and free schools, and provides teachers for those who have learning difficulties.  artists can apply for grants from the foundation to help support them in furthering the arts.  the foundation sponsors companies like family finders.  family finders is an organization directed at finding lost people and uniting families.  the martha wayne foundation also sponsors and runs dozens of soup kitchens within the city.  so, bruce wayne is responsible for a  lot  of good happening in gotham.  hell, as far as i can tell, wayne enterprises is the only non criminal organization in the city.   #  where are people getting this money to corrupt everyone.   #  see that is the problem, it takes place in a world similar our own.  but you suspend belief to such a degree, its obscene.  a lazarus pit ! everything is corrupt and everyone has super powers.  where are people getting this money to corrupt everyone.  and do not tell me its a mind control crystal.  and that is batman is appeal right, through hard works a shiton of money you can be a hero to.  but this is a world that like anything goes.
he is intelligent and wealthy and adaptable apparently.  i think the majority of gotham is problems could have solved with smart investments in social programs and industry and the police force which bruce has money for.  i swear the guy is anonymous being batman, which means he can get away with killing, which would solve all his super villian issues immediately.  how naive are superheros when same villains keep coming back.  considering his track record, you think he really ca not his stance on the not killing rule.  and even when it comes to i dunno fighting regular crime, i am pretty sure a neighborhood watch group and 0 patrolmen would do a much better job than one guy flying around million dollar super planes.  i think that just makes you an asshole.  i am done: you guys gave me more reasons to hate batman more and superheros in general.   #  i swear the guy is anonymous being batman, which means he can get away with killing, which would solve all his super villian issues immediately.   #  how naive are superheros when same villains keep coming back.   # you would think that, but you would be wrong.  bruce wayne does that.  he is painted as the ultra philanthropist, and as much as he gives, the city wo not stop producing super villains.  how naive are superheros when same villains keep coming back.  there are two answers here: the justice system is failing batman and gotham, as they should be executing the repeat offenders rather than sentencing them to arkham asylum.  the second is that nobody dies in comic books, so it is a pretty crapsack universe that the heroes only make better as much as they can.  except they do not.  batman is superpower is not his money, it is the fact that he can take beatings that would kill a normal human, and keep coming.  a neighborhood watch could not hang in gotham, where the problem is primarily organized crime.  they would either be bought off, intimidated, or killed.  and this happens so much that by the time batman starts being batman, everyone, including the  actual police  have stopped trying, or are else completely corrupt.   #  and if a writer comes in after a character has been killed off and wants to do a story about that villain, they will write them back to life somehow.   #  the only hero/villain that springs to mind is that steve rogers died at the end of the recent marvel civil war, to have someone else take up the mantle of captain america.  that is more the exception that proves the rule than the rule, however; it is so common that it is practically a trope; the old saying amongst comic fans was  no one in comics stays dead except for bucky barnes, jason todd, and uncle ben.   except, you know, bucky barnes and jason todd got better.  so, uncle ben, at this point.  and currently steve rogers, as far as i know.  he might already have come back though.  i do not follow comics that closely.  point is, when almost every example can be countered with either  it has not been that long  or  he is come back before  then you are looking at a world where people do not die.  and there is a reason for this in the real world: comics are as much about the iconic villains as the iconic heroes, and the writers now are, by and large fans.  and if a writer comes in after a character has been killed off and wants to do a story about that villain, they will write them back to life somehow.  and the companies tend to not care as much, because of  course  batman vs joker storylines are going to sell.  but anyway; yes, saying that  literally  nobody dies is technically inaccurate.  but nobody dies permanently except for uncle ben , and that means that even if batman turned into the punisher and killed all of his villains, they would find their way back to life.   #  there is no growth, its bad guys and good guys making themselves look important and we the public eat this shit up for some reason.   # which could be anything, not just orphans.  orphans are okay, but that is a long time until there are productive members of the workforce.  the guys an apparent genius, people can fly a la superman, he can apparently design his own fucking super weapons, but he ca not make proper investments because of fucking corruption.  yeah i would support a world where you kill supervillians.  how do people feel about hitler ? and no dies in batman, yeah i agree its a craptastic universe, which why it sucks ! the nature of combat comes down to trying to kill the other person, every fucking time.  no one dies, really ? who makes the guns.  because in this world apparently, everyone fucking sucks at making guns.  and you have a simplistic way at looking at corruption, this takes in american, not south america.  batman is really simplistic once you have an understanding of how world works, it wrestling, with cartoon characters.  which makes him an asshole.  this is a world this characters has the ability to solve the problem, but dose not or writers are choose not to.  there is no growth, its bad guys and good guys making themselves look important and we the public eat this shit up for some reason.   #  the fact is that these things  are not  realistic, but they serve to make the story interesting.   # it is, first and foremost, entertainment; you compared it to pro wrestling, and you realize when watching pro wrestling that there are certain things that do not make sense, but you do them because it is pro wrestling.  things like rebounding off the ropes after an irish whip.  the fact is that these things  are not  realistic, but they serve to make the story interesting.  yeah i would support a world where you kill supervillians.  how do people feel about hitler ? the problem is literally that super villains ca not be killed, at least not permanently.  there exists a thing called a lazarus pit, where the dead can  literally be raised , and do you want to be the guy the joker comes after for revenge for killing him  when , not  if , he gets resurrected ? which could be anything, not just orphans.  orphans are okay, but that is a long time there are productive members of the workforce.  from wikipedia:  the thomas wayne foundation is a foundation for medicine and medical help.  this foundation gives annual awards for medical breakthroughs and lifelong commitment, similar to the nobel foundation.  the thomas wayne foundation is also responsible for funding the thomas wayne memorial clinic in park row, gotham is infamous crime alley.  the foundation funds and runs dozens of clinics in gotham.  bruce wayne is surrogate mother, dr.  leslie thompkins, runs the memorial clinic in crime alley and governed the other clinics until she left gotham.  the foundation supports and helps to run a number of orphanages and free schools, and provides teachers for those who have learning difficulties.  artists can apply for grants from the foundation to help support them in furthering the arts.  the foundation sponsors companies like family finders.  family finders is an organization directed at finding lost people and uniting families.  the martha wayne foundation also sponsors and runs dozens of soup kitchens within the city.  so, bruce wayne is responsible for a  lot  of good happening in gotham.  hell, as far as i can tell, wayne enterprises is the only non criminal organization in the city.   #  see that is the problem, it takes place in a world similar our own.   #  see that is the problem, it takes place in a world similar our own.  but you suspend belief to such a degree, its obscene.  a lazarus pit ! everything is corrupt and everyone has super powers.  where are people getting this money to corrupt everyone.  and do not tell me its a mind control crystal.  and that is batman is appeal right, through hard works a shiton of money you can be a hero to.  but this is a world that like anything goes.
he is intelligent and wealthy and adaptable apparently.  i think the majority of gotham is problems could have solved with smart investments in social programs and industry and the police force which bruce has money for.  i swear the guy is anonymous being batman, which means he can get away with killing, which would solve all his super villian issues immediately.  how naive are superheros when same villains keep coming back.  considering his track record, you think he really ca not his stance on the not killing rule.  and even when it comes to i dunno fighting regular crime, i am pretty sure a neighborhood watch group and 0 patrolmen would do a much better job than one guy flying around million dollar super planes.  i think that just makes you an asshole.  i am done: you guys gave me more reasons to hate batman more and superheros in general.   #  he is intelligent and wealthy and adaptable apparently.   #  i think the majority of gotham is problems could have solved with smart investments in social programs and industry and the police force which bruce has money for.   # i think the majority of gotham is problems could have solved with smart investments in social programs and industry and the police force which bruce has money for.  he already invests a ton of money in local charities.  in fact in the most recent movie it is explained that he bankrolls the orphanage that joseph gordon levitt is character comes from.  he even gives his mansion away when he does his disappearing act.  how naive are superheros when same villains keep coming back.  considering his track record, you think he really ca not his stance on the not killing rule.  there are very few superheroes that do allow themselves to kill their nemeses.  ignoring the fact that it would make the comics all kinds of boring if all the bad guys died every few issues, is this something you have against all heroes, or just batman ? you would think, but historically that has not been the case.  the bad guys in this town have technology that full swat teams ca not even begin to compete with and have incredible invulerabilities in some cases that prevent bullets from hurting them.  when you have got your city crawling with bad guys that have access to freeze rays, mind control, invincibility, etc.  even one guy who is willing to unfailingly put his life on the line to protect everyone from them is better than 0 who wo not or cant.  and even if you did find more than a handful who were willing to risk their lives on a nightly basis, what are the chances that any of them would be even one fifth as physically capable as bruce wayne ? his money allows him the freedom of having most of his day open for training even day of the week so he can always be in peak physical condition.   #  the second is that nobody dies in comic books, so it is a pretty crapsack universe that the heroes only make better as much as they can.   # you would think that, but you would be wrong.  bruce wayne does that.  he is painted as the ultra philanthropist, and as much as he gives, the city wo not stop producing super villains.  how naive are superheros when same villains keep coming back.  there are two answers here: the justice system is failing batman and gotham, as they should be executing the repeat offenders rather than sentencing them to arkham asylum.  the second is that nobody dies in comic books, so it is a pretty crapsack universe that the heroes only make better as much as they can.  except they do not.  batman is superpower is not his money, it is the fact that he can take beatings that would kill a normal human, and keep coming.  a neighborhood watch could not hang in gotham, where the problem is primarily organized crime.  they would either be bought off, intimidated, or killed.  and this happens so much that by the time batman starts being batman, everyone, including the  actual police  have stopped trying, or are else completely corrupt.   #  except, you know, bucky barnes and jason todd got better.   #  the only hero/villain that springs to mind is that steve rogers died at the end of the recent marvel civil war, to have someone else take up the mantle of captain america.  that is more the exception that proves the rule than the rule, however; it is so common that it is practically a trope; the old saying amongst comic fans was  no one in comics stays dead except for bucky barnes, jason todd, and uncle ben.   except, you know, bucky barnes and jason todd got better.  so, uncle ben, at this point.  and currently steve rogers, as far as i know.  he might already have come back though.  i do not follow comics that closely.  point is, when almost every example can be countered with either  it has not been that long  or  he is come back before  then you are looking at a world where people do not die.  and there is a reason for this in the real world: comics are as much about the iconic villains as the iconic heroes, and the writers now are, by and large fans.  and if a writer comes in after a character has been killed off and wants to do a story about that villain, they will write them back to life somehow.  and the companies tend to not care as much, because of  course  batman vs joker storylines are going to sell.  but anyway; yes, saying that  literally  nobody dies is technically inaccurate.  but nobody dies permanently except for uncle ben , and that means that even if batman turned into the punisher and killed all of his villains, they would find their way back to life.   #  and you have a simplistic way at looking at corruption, this takes in american, not south america.   # which could be anything, not just orphans.  orphans are okay, but that is a long time until there are productive members of the workforce.  the guys an apparent genius, people can fly a la superman, he can apparently design his own fucking super weapons, but he ca not make proper investments because of fucking corruption.  yeah i would support a world where you kill supervillians.  how do people feel about hitler ? and no dies in batman, yeah i agree its a craptastic universe, which why it sucks ! the nature of combat comes down to trying to kill the other person, every fucking time.  no one dies, really ? who makes the guns.  because in this world apparently, everyone fucking sucks at making guns.  and you have a simplistic way at looking at corruption, this takes in american, not south america.  batman is really simplistic once you have an understanding of how world works, it wrestling, with cartoon characters.  which makes him an asshole.  this is a world this characters has the ability to solve the problem, but dose not or writers are choose not to.  there is no growth, its bad guys and good guys making themselves look important and we the public eat this shit up for some reason.   #  it is, first and foremost, entertainment; you compared it to pro wrestling, and you realize when watching pro wrestling that there are certain things that do not make sense, but you do them because it is pro wrestling.   # it is, first and foremost, entertainment; you compared it to pro wrestling, and you realize when watching pro wrestling that there are certain things that do not make sense, but you do them because it is pro wrestling.  things like rebounding off the ropes after an irish whip.  the fact is that these things  are not  realistic, but they serve to make the story interesting.  yeah i would support a world where you kill supervillians.  how do people feel about hitler ? the problem is literally that super villains ca not be killed, at least not permanently.  there exists a thing called a lazarus pit, where the dead can  literally be raised , and do you want to be the guy the joker comes after for revenge for killing him  when , not  if , he gets resurrected ? which could be anything, not just orphans.  orphans are okay, but that is a long time there are productive members of the workforce.  from wikipedia:  the thomas wayne foundation is a foundation for medicine and medical help.  this foundation gives annual awards for medical breakthroughs and lifelong commitment, similar to the nobel foundation.  the thomas wayne foundation is also responsible for funding the thomas wayne memorial clinic in park row, gotham is infamous crime alley.  the foundation funds and runs dozens of clinics in gotham.  bruce wayne is surrogate mother, dr.  leslie thompkins, runs the memorial clinic in crime alley and governed the other clinics until she left gotham.  the foundation supports and helps to run a number of orphanages and free schools, and provides teachers for those who have learning difficulties.  artists can apply for grants from the foundation to help support them in furthering the arts.  the foundation sponsors companies like family finders.  family finders is an organization directed at finding lost people and uniting families.  the martha wayne foundation also sponsors and runs dozens of soup kitchens within the city.  so, bruce wayne is responsible for a  lot  of good happening in gotham.  hell, as far as i can tell, wayne enterprises is the only non criminal organization in the city.
he is intelligent and wealthy and adaptable apparently.  i think the majority of gotham is problems could have solved with smart investments in social programs and industry and the police force which bruce has money for.  i swear the guy is anonymous being batman, which means he can get away with killing, which would solve all his super villian issues immediately.  how naive are superheros when same villains keep coming back.  considering his track record, you think he really ca not his stance on the not killing rule.  and even when it comes to i dunno fighting regular crime, i am pretty sure a neighborhood watch group and 0 patrolmen would do a much better job than one guy flying around million dollar super planes.  i think that just makes you an asshole.  i am done: you guys gave me more reasons to hate batman more and superheros in general.   #  i swear the guy is anonymous being batman, which means he can get away with killing, which would solve all his super villian issues immediately.   #  how naive are superheros when same villains keep coming back.   # i think the majority of gotham is problems could have solved with smart investments in social programs and industry and the police force which bruce has money for.  he already invests a ton of money in local charities.  in fact in the most recent movie it is explained that he bankrolls the orphanage that joseph gordon levitt is character comes from.  he even gives his mansion away when he does his disappearing act.  how naive are superheros when same villains keep coming back.  considering his track record, you think he really ca not his stance on the not killing rule.  there are very few superheroes that do allow themselves to kill their nemeses.  ignoring the fact that it would make the comics all kinds of boring if all the bad guys died every few issues, is this something you have against all heroes, or just batman ? you would think, but historically that has not been the case.  the bad guys in this town have technology that full swat teams ca not even begin to compete with and have incredible invulerabilities in some cases that prevent bullets from hurting them.  when you have got your city crawling with bad guys that have access to freeze rays, mind control, invincibility, etc.  even one guy who is willing to unfailingly put his life on the line to protect everyone from them is better than 0 who wo not or cant.  and even if you did find more than a handful who were willing to risk their lives on a nightly basis, what are the chances that any of them would be even one fifth as physically capable as bruce wayne ? his money allows him the freedom of having most of his day open for training even day of the week so he can always be in peak physical condition.   #  they would either be bought off, intimidated, or killed.   # you would think that, but you would be wrong.  bruce wayne does that.  he is painted as the ultra philanthropist, and as much as he gives, the city wo not stop producing super villains.  how naive are superheros when same villains keep coming back.  there are two answers here: the justice system is failing batman and gotham, as they should be executing the repeat offenders rather than sentencing them to arkham asylum.  the second is that nobody dies in comic books, so it is a pretty crapsack universe that the heroes only make better as much as they can.  except they do not.  batman is superpower is not his money, it is the fact that he can take beatings that would kill a normal human, and keep coming.  a neighborhood watch could not hang in gotham, where the problem is primarily organized crime.  they would either be bought off, intimidated, or killed.  and this happens so much that by the time batman starts being batman, everyone, including the  actual police  have stopped trying, or are else completely corrupt.   #  but anyway; yes, saying that  literally  nobody dies is technically inaccurate.   #  the only hero/villain that springs to mind is that steve rogers died at the end of the recent marvel civil war, to have someone else take up the mantle of captain america.  that is more the exception that proves the rule than the rule, however; it is so common that it is practically a trope; the old saying amongst comic fans was  no one in comics stays dead except for bucky barnes, jason todd, and uncle ben.   except, you know, bucky barnes and jason todd got better.  so, uncle ben, at this point.  and currently steve rogers, as far as i know.  he might already have come back though.  i do not follow comics that closely.  point is, when almost every example can be countered with either  it has not been that long  or  he is come back before  then you are looking at a world where people do not die.  and there is a reason for this in the real world: comics are as much about the iconic villains as the iconic heroes, and the writers now are, by and large fans.  and if a writer comes in after a character has been killed off and wants to do a story about that villain, they will write them back to life somehow.  and the companies tend to not care as much, because of  course  batman vs joker storylines are going to sell.  but anyway; yes, saying that  literally  nobody dies is technically inaccurate.  but nobody dies permanently except for uncle ben , and that means that even if batman turned into the punisher and killed all of his villains, they would find their way back to life.   #  yeah i would support a world where you kill supervillians.   # which could be anything, not just orphans.  orphans are okay, but that is a long time until there are productive members of the workforce.  the guys an apparent genius, people can fly a la superman, he can apparently design his own fucking super weapons, but he ca not make proper investments because of fucking corruption.  yeah i would support a world where you kill supervillians.  how do people feel about hitler ? and no dies in batman, yeah i agree its a craptastic universe, which why it sucks ! the nature of combat comes down to trying to kill the other person, every fucking time.  no one dies, really ? who makes the guns.  because in this world apparently, everyone fucking sucks at making guns.  and you have a simplistic way at looking at corruption, this takes in american, not south america.  batman is really simplistic once you have an understanding of how world works, it wrestling, with cartoon characters.  which makes him an asshole.  this is a world this characters has the ability to solve the problem, but dose not or writers are choose not to.  there is no growth, its bad guys and good guys making themselves look important and we the public eat this shit up for some reason.   #  the foundation supports and helps to run a number of orphanages and free schools, and provides teachers for those who have learning difficulties.   # it is, first and foremost, entertainment; you compared it to pro wrestling, and you realize when watching pro wrestling that there are certain things that do not make sense, but you do them because it is pro wrestling.  things like rebounding off the ropes after an irish whip.  the fact is that these things  are not  realistic, but they serve to make the story interesting.  yeah i would support a world where you kill supervillians.  how do people feel about hitler ? the problem is literally that super villains ca not be killed, at least not permanently.  there exists a thing called a lazarus pit, where the dead can  literally be raised , and do you want to be the guy the joker comes after for revenge for killing him  when , not  if , he gets resurrected ? which could be anything, not just orphans.  orphans are okay, but that is a long time there are productive members of the workforce.  from wikipedia:  the thomas wayne foundation is a foundation for medicine and medical help.  this foundation gives annual awards for medical breakthroughs and lifelong commitment, similar to the nobel foundation.  the thomas wayne foundation is also responsible for funding the thomas wayne memorial clinic in park row, gotham is infamous crime alley.  the foundation funds and runs dozens of clinics in gotham.  bruce wayne is surrogate mother, dr.  leslie thompkins, runs the memorial clinic in crime alley and governed the other clinics until she left gotham.  the foundation supports and helps to run a number of orphanages and free schools, and provides teachers for those who have learning difficulties.  artists can apply for grants from the foundation to help support them in furthering the arts.  the foundation sponsors companies like family finders.  family finders is an organization directed at finding lost people and uniting families.  the martha wayne foundation also sponsors and runs dozens of soup kitchens within the city.  so, bruce wayne is responsible for a  lot  of good happening in gotham.  hell, as far as i can tell, wayne enterprises is the only non criminal organization in the city.
he is intelligent and wealthy and adaptable apparently.  i think the majority of gotham is problems could have solved with smart investments in social programs and industry and the police force which bruce has money for.  i swear the guy is anonymous being batman, which means he can get away with killing, which would solve all his super villian issues immediately.  how naive are superheros when same villains keep coming back.  considering his track record, you think he really ca not his stance on the not killing rule.  and even when it comes to i dunno fighting regular crime, i am pretty sure a neighborhood watch group and 0 patrolmen would do a much better job than one guy flying around million dollar super planes.  i think that just makes you an asshole.  i am done: you guys gave me more reasons to hate batman more and superheros in general.   #  and even when it comes to i dunno fighting regular crime, i am pretty sure a neighborhood watch group and 0 patrolmen would do a much better job than one guy flying around million dollar super planes.   #  you would think, but historically that has not been the case.   # i think the majority of gotham is problems could have solved with smart investments in social programs and industry and the police force which bruce has money for.  he already invests a ton of money in local charities.  in fact in the most recent movie it is explained that he bankrolls the orphanage that joseph gordon levitt is character comes from.  he even gives his mansion away when he does his disappearing act.  how naive are superheros when same villains keep coming back.  considering his track record, you think he really ca not his stance on the not killing rule.  there are very few superheroes that do allow themselves to kill their nemeses.  ignoring the fact that it would make the comics all kinds of boring if all the bad guys died every few issues, is this something you have against all heroes, or just batman ? you would think, but historically that has not been the case.  the bad guys in this town have technology that full swat teams ca not even begin to compete with and have incredible invulerabilities in some cases that prevent bullets from hurting them.  when you have got your city crawling with bad guys that have access to freeze rays, mind control, invincibility, etc.  even one guy who is willing to unfailingly put his life on the line to protect everyone from them is better than 0 who wo not or cant.  and even if you did find more than a handful who were willing to risk their lives on a nightly basis, what are the chances that any of them would be even one fifth as physically capable as bruce wayne ? his money allows him the freedom of having most of his day open for training even day of the week so he can always be in peak physical condition.   #  how naive are superheros when same villains keep coming back.   # you would think that, but you would be wrong.  bruce wayne does that.  he is painted as the ultra philanthropist, and as much as he gives, the city wo not stop producing super villains.  how naive are superheros when same villains keep coming back.  there are two answers here: the justice system is failing batman and gotham, as they should be executing the repeat offenders rather than sentencing them to arkham asylum.  the second is that nobody dies in comic books, so it is a pretty crapsack universe that the heroes only make better as much as they can.  except they do not.  batman is superpower is not his money, it is the fact that he can take beatings that would kill a normal human, and keep coming.  a neighborhood watch could not hang in gotham, where the problem is primarily organized crime.  they would either be bought off, intimidated, or killed.  and this happens so much that by the time batman starts being batman, everyone, including the  actual police  have stopped trying, or are else completely corrupt.   #  the only hero/villain that springs to mind is that steve rogers died at the end of the recent marvel civil war, to have someone else take up the mantle of captain america.   #  the only hero/villain that springs to mind is that steve rogers died at the end of the recent marvel civil war, to have someone else take up the mantle of captain america.  that is more the exception that proves the rule than the rule, however; it is so common that it is practically a trope; the old saying amongst comic fans was  no one in comics stays dead except for bucky barnes, jason todd, and uncle ben.   except, you know, bucky barnes and jason todd got better.  so, uncle ben, at this point.  and currently steve rogers, as far as i know.  he might already have come back though.  i do not follow comics that closely.  point is, when almost every example can be countered with either  it has not been that long  or  he is come back before  then you are looking at a world where people do not die.  and there is a reason for this in the real world: comics are as much about the iconic villains as the iconic heroes, and the writers now are, by and large fans.  and if a writer comes in after a character has been killed off and wants to do a story about that villain, they will write them back to life somehow.  and the companies tend to not care as much, because of  course  batman vs joker storylines are going to sell.  but anyway; yes, saying that  literally  nobody dies is technically inaccurate.  but nobody dies permanently except for uncle ben , and that means that even if batman turned into the punisher and killed all of his villains, they would find their way back to life.   #  yeah i would support a world where you kill supervillians.   # which could be anything, not just orphans.  orphans are okay, but that is a long time until there are productive members of the workforce.  the guys an apparent genius, people can fly a la superman, he can apparently design his own fucking super weapons, but he ca not make proper investments because of fucking corruption.  yeah i would support a world where you kill supervillians.  how do people feel about hitler ? and no dies in batman, yeah i agree its a craptastic universe, which why it sucks ! the nature of combat comes down to trying to kill the other person, every fucking time.  no one dies, really ? who makes the guns.  because in this world apparently, everyone fucking sucks at making guns.  and you have a simplistic way at looking at corruption, this takes in american, not south america.  batman is really simplistic once you have an understanding of how world works, it wrestling, with cartoon characters.  which makes him an asshole.  this is a world this characters has the ability to solve the problem, but dose not or writers are choose not to.  there is no growth, its bad guys and good guys making themselves look important and we the public eat this shit up for some reason.   #  there exists a thing called a lazarus pit, where the dead can  literally be raised , and do you want to be the guy the joker comes after for revenge for killing him  when , not  if , he gets resurrected ?  # it is, first and foremost, entertainment; you compared it to pro wrestling, and you realize when watching pro wrestling that there are certain things that do not make sense, but you do them because it is pro wrestling.  things like rebounding off the ropes after an irish whip.  the fact is that these things  are not  realistic, but they serve to make the story interesting.  yeah i would support a world where you kill supervillians.  how do people feel about hitler ? the problem is literally that super villains ca not be killed, at least not permanently.  there exists a thing called a lazarus pit, where the dead can  literally be raised , and do you want to be the guy the joker comes after for revenge for killing him  when , not  if , he gets resurrected ? which could be anything, not just orphans.  orphans are okay, but that is a long time there are productive members of the workforce.  from wikipedia:  the thomas wayne foundation is a foundation for medicine and medical help.  this foundation gives annual awards for medical breakthroughs and lifelong commitment, similar to the nobel foundation.  the thomas wayne foundation is also responsible for funding the thomas wayne memorial clinic in park row, gotham is infamous crime alley.  the foundation funds and runs dozens of clinics in gotham.  bruce wayne is surrogate mother, dr.  leslie thompkins, runs the memorial clinic in crime alley and governed the other clinics until she left gotham.  the foundation supports and helps to run a number of orphanages and free schools, and provides teachers for those who have learning difficulties.  artists can apply for grants from the foundation to help support them in furthering the arts.  the foundation sponsors companies like family finders.  family finders is an organization directed at finding lost people and uniting families.  the martha wayne foundation also sponsors and runs dozens of soup kitchens within the city.  so, bruce wayne is responsible for a  lot  of good happening in gotham.  hell, as far as i can tell, wayne enterprises is the only non criminal organization in the city.
please understand that i have no hatred for transgender people, and i will not force this view upon them or anyone.  i have rather liberal views, really; i am ready to accept a lot of things.  but i have trouble understanding the reasoning behind gender dysphoria and all of that.  i identify as my biological sex, yet i really feel more  feminine  than  amasculine .  yet i do not really believe in either term due to their outdated definitions and all of that nonsense.  i am not a very spiritual person.  and i do not believe in a lot  outside  of what we can percieve.  yes i believe there is more to the world, but i do not believe in anything beyond biological sex.  of course it is not binary.  intersex people very obviously exist, that is just scientific fact.   i am starting to go off topic here, but i am not sure how to elaborate on all of this.   #  i am not a very spiritual person.   #  and i do not believe in a lot  outside  of what we can percieve.   # and i do not believe in a lot  outside  of what we can percieve.  yes i believe there is more to the world, but i do not believe in anything beyond biological sex.  of course it is not binary.  intersex people very obviously exist, that is just scientific fact.  i am having trouble understanding what exactly your view is, as i am sure you will understand seeing as you acknowledged that it is rather vague and complicated.  but your use of the word  ispiritual  is intriguing and i think that might be where the  problem  if i can use that word with your view is.  your use of  ispiritual  seems to imply that you see gender as opposed to biological sex, although i disagree with that distinction for other reasons as a  metaphysical  concept.  this is not the case, at least in most academic circles: it is a  social  concept.  you seem to have empiricist leanings, but i feel like you have taken that a step beyond what is reasonable: although there is something inherently anti empirical about metaphysical or spiritual claims, and so an empiricist would be sceptical of them, you have extended this scepticism to all non physical claims, which is not reasonable since there is clearly plenty of social and mental phenomena which are empirical but not physical.  take art, for instance.  it is pretty clear that there is no essential physical property to what we call  art , but that does not mean we ca not study art and make objective statements about art beyond its physical attributes we can talk about the role of art in society, or the history of art, or what art is influential etc.  art, then, is clearly an abstract concept in that it is not a physical concept.  this does not make it  not real , though.  do you see how there is a parallel with gender there ? or have i missed your view/this does not actually touch on what i assumed you were assuming ?  #  most of the time, when someone wants to transition, it is not about wanting to fit in with the more masculine/feminine gender role, its about being uncomfortable with their biological sex, and wanting to fix that.   #  well when it comes to gender dysphoria, gender is used to mean something more like  how i perceive myself/how i think i should be , rather than like  masculinity and femininity , which is how its usually used.  these are sometimes split up into  gender identity  and  gender roles .  most of the time, when someone wants to transition, it is not about wanting to fit in with the more masculine/feminine gender role, its about being uncomfortable with their biological sex, and wanting to fix that.  transsexual has obvious connotations with sexual orientations like homosexual though, and people use the term transgender to avoid that.  theres some evidence that gender identity is rooted in the brain, and assuming that is true, it exists in a fairly definable way.  gender roles and masculinity/femininity exist more as a concept, and can vary greatly between cultures.  in that way  gender  does not really exist in any absolute, definable way.   #  gender is how ones biology and actions interact with society.   #  sex is biological.  gender is how ones biology and actions interact with society.  gender exists, just as much as democracy and popularity.  each society over history has handled gender in different ways, and it changes over time.  in the west for the past decade or so the view of gender had become increasingly compkex.  as you pointed out intersex is a real thing, it is physically obvious sonething is in a gray zone there.  mental differences between sexes are just as biologically real, and the right conbo of hormones and developmeny history can lead to mixing of self perceived gender as well.  for most of history such people had to hide from persecution, but now in many places we can have real dialog.  about it.  this is hopefully leading to a society where people can live without fear or oppression regardless of their perceived or believed gender.  such change is still in transition, so there is still a lot of push to keep things going.  as with all movements, sonetimes the push is unpleasant, and yet often the pain is due to losing the comfoetable status quo.   #  like.  people should not have to conform to somebody is idea of how their biological sex is  isupposed to act .   # well.  a lot of this has to do with psychology and philosophy, if i am not mistaken.  and, as you compared gender to democracy.  i guess my view could be seen as a sort of alternative form of government, to put it figuratively.  my view is that, while there is a difference between a male and a female.  i do not believe in masculinity or femininity, and i ca not quite grasp the concept very well.  i have trouble putting this in words, and i am sorry.  but i just feel like gender ca not really be defined ? .  i have some complicated philosophy but bear with me.  i am probably contradicting myself here, but.  i sort of feel like gender is just a societal construct.  like.  people should not have to conform to somebody is idea of how their biological sex is  isupposed to act .   #  however i think if we are being completely fair, then people have the right to not care about these concepts without being hated and vilified.   #  i get what your saying and have similar empathetic, but confused views.  i think a lot of what you hear on twitter and social justice rants is crap, and that nobody knows what its like to feel like a girl/boy, but the underlying idea of what they are trying to explain is less absurd.  they are concepts, as real as freedom or health, even if they are less strictly defined.  and enough people care about them that they matter to some degree.  however i think if we are being completely fair, then people have the right to not care about these concepts without being hated and vilified.  as long as you do not discriminate then i think your attitude is fine, even if maybe the view is technically wrong.
i am a 0 year old male indian american male.  i have never held hands with a girl, been kissed, or obviously had sex.  i have never even asked someone out.  i do not think a girl has expressed even the slightest interest in me.  i graduated from college last year and am about to start med school in a month.  i had been fat for years but lost all the weight over the past year and am pretty fit now.  i am only 0ft 0 tall however.  i do think facially i am slight above average and i would not call myself ugly.  my family struggled financially and i focused on academics like a madman and was able to go to a great college and am headed to a great med school.  it is my ticket to a better life.  yet i believe strongly that life will be one of loneliness.  internally i am angry and bitter even as all my friends think i must be so happy to start this next chapter of my life.   #  i do not think a girl has expressed even the slightest interest in me.   #  a bit of a personal question here, but do you talk to girls ?  # a bit of a personal question here, but do you talk to girls ? do you have female friends or at least female acquaintances ? you know, females you are familiar and friendly with ? because if not, i hate to break it to you, but real life is not like movies.  a girl wo not spot you walking by and sigh in disbelieve or fall in love with you or anything like that.  to get the interest of a girl, you are going to actually have to talk to her.  you are gonna have to talk to a lot of girls.  do not make getting a girlfriend your only reason to talk to a girl.  instead, talk to girls the way you talk to guys, and look for friendships with girls i started doing this and personally, i found myself much more comfortable with female friends than male friends .  this builds social connections, builds up your own experience, increases the chances of getting a girlfriend, etc.  you just have to talk, that is about it.  many guys think they do not have girlfriends because they are fat or ugly or things like that, but girls are not as superficial as guys, believe it or not.  us, guys, like to look at how the girl looks.  of course personality is important, but physical attraction is the more important factor for us.  with girls, it is the other way around.  they care about how guys look, but not as much as guys care about how girls look.  to them, personality is much, much, much more important than looks.   #  hell, i have short, fat friends who do not make much to any money who did not start dating until much later in life who still found someone they fell in love with and happily married.   #  you are still really young.  i have known plenty of people who really did not start dating until their 0 is including short guys.  i have plenty of short friends who make piss poor money most of them are school teachers who still found love.  hell, i have short, fat friends who do not make much to any money who did not start dating until much later in life who still found someone they fell in love with and happily married.  the only thing that would guarantee you to stay alone is if you continue with the attitude that you are somehow meant to be alone.  be happy, enjoy life, and take some ladies out.   #  do a piss poor job of communicating what the signs are, or that signs are even required when someone is interested in someone else.   #  i think you are overestimating how many people are successful romantically at your age.  the ones with dates and sos stand out in your mind, but you are probably ignoring the dozens of others who have nothing going on that simply passed by unnoticed.  also keep in mind that by all accounts you have only become popularly attractive in the last year.  in that sense, your being 0 does not matter at all, as it should not imply that you have been on the market for 0  years when in fact you have only really had a good shot for 0.  all you have got to do is keep an open mind.  do not overthink things, do not obssess, just let nature take over.  you also made the point that no girl has ever been interested in you.  if you have never been with a girl, how would you know what the signs are ? hollywood, tv, books, etc.  do a piss poor job of communicating what the signs are, or that signs are even required when someone is interested in someone else.   #  you really should not let your height or lack of experience dictate your views on this /u/shortiems0.   #  you have formed this view based on less than a quarter of how long you are probably going to live.  and you had not even reached puberty for at least ten of those years.  you are likely to be well off, financially.  you are recently taken steps to reduce your weight.  these are very attractive things, and women do value them very much.  you really should not let your height or lack of experience dictate your views on this /u/shortiems0.   #  yet the evidence is staggering that guys short as me have it very rough.   #    yes i actually think right now i look good.  i feel good about my appearance in a way i have not felt ever before.  yet the evidence is staggering that guys short as me have it very rough.  one study found that a 0ft 0 man would need to make 0k more than a 0ft guy to have equal chances in online dating i grant you .  one day i frankly would be able to make that much but med school ,residency ,etc i wo not be rolling in it.  it would be nice to be with someone who likes me genuinely but i realize my future income and profession are part of me.  i do think i am at the age where not having any experience is very very strange.
or more specifically, it is justified in general when a man gets praise for  sleeping around , and it is also justified when the woman does not get the same level of praise for the same behaviour.  i want to make this point clear   i am not debating whether or not it is good/bad when a woman engages in behavior that is typically defined under the scope of  slut.   that is another argument altogether.  i am only asserting that the difference in reaction the majority of people have when they hear about the sexual exploits of either gender is, in general, justified.  the reason for this, of course, is biological.  it is generally imperative for males to propagate their dna throughout many different potential mates as possible, to ensure the survival of his line.  historically, however, females had to be more restrictive with who they engage in intercourse with, because they were then strapped with the burden of taking care of/raising a child as a product of the encounter.  the brains, hormone profiles, and physiology are disparate between the genders to reflect, in part, these differences in motivation.  given these differences, the crux of my argument boils down to this: it is simply more difficult for a heterosexual man to attain sex, than a woman, ceterus paribus.  once again, to be very clear, i am not making any moral claims about being a slut; i am simply stating the difference in difficulty in accomplishing the same task, and the justification of the subsequent reaction.  to illustrate this point, i would like to i highlight the scenario of bob.  bob built a business from the ground up; through sheer hard work and determination, he came from nothing, and now runs a company of hundreds of employees, making millions in revenue.  now, here is patrick.  patrick also has a company of hundreds of employees, making million dollars in revenue, through his hard work and determination.  the difference between bob and patrick is this   bob had absolutely zero dollars in his bank account when he started his business, while patrick inherited over $0 billion from his father is trust fund.  so, even though both have technically accomplished the same thing, it would be fair to say that bob deserves higher praise.  the difference being, of course, while the task itself was the same, the difficulty level of either party to achieve/accomplish this task is significantly different.  in the same way, we can assert that all things being equal it is much more difficult for a man to sleep with many women, than the reverse.  now, anticipating potential rebuttals, i would like to highlight other scenarios using the same logic above: i believe that heterosexual men and homosexual women deserve more praise than homosexual men for the same acts.  to what degree, i am honestly not sure, as i am not an expert in biology/sociology of this kind, but using the biological argument for the difficulty of the task, i would say that homosexual men hooking up is generally easier than the other scenarios.  i could be wrong on this, but it is more of an ancillary point rather than my main argument.  to make sure that you have been reading all the way down to the bottom, i would really appreciate it if you started your post with any word that rhymes with  crime.   thanks !  #  to make sure that you have been reading all the way down to the bottom, i would really appreciate it if you started your post with any word that rhymes with  crime.    #  no  or more specifically, it is justified in general when a man gets praise for  sleeping around , and it is also justified when the woman does not get the same level of praise for the same behaviour.   # no  or more specifically, it is justified in general when a man gets praise for  sleeping around , and it is also justified when the woman does not get the same level of praise for the same behaviour.  it seems like the crux of your argument is that it is harder for men to sleep with women than it is for women to sleep with men, and since it is more difficult, it is more impressive and praiseworthy.  there are three main problems with your argument.  first, i do not think your characterization of the  stud/slut inequality  is fair.  when people complain that society treats men and women differently in this regard, it is not because women receive less praise than men.  it is because women are met with scorn and hostility.  if female sexuality was viewed as merely  unimpressive , i think that would be a substantial improvement.  your argument does not justify hostility, and so i do not think you have attempted to justify the main aspect of this inequality that people care about.  second, your hypothesis has no proof.  you could equally guess that women should in fact be more promiscuous than men, because they have an incentive to confuse the paternity of their children, ensuring support from as many men as possible.  in fact, i think there is much more evidence here in favour of a social explanation.  rather than a biological one.  it is harder for people to sleep with women because society will criticize women who sleep with multiple people.  most importantly, there is no obvious reason why a combination of difficulty and alleged biological incentive make something praiseworthy.  there is probably some biological incentive to kill others less competition for food and mates.  it is certainly very difficult to kill someone.  is killing someone praiseworthy ? would we be justified in praising them ?  #  so let is just say that a man gets five units of praise for the task of sleeping around.   #  did not mean for it to be patronizing brother ! but, one comment has already shown its effectiveness.  yes, but that comes into the moral issue   i am not arguing whether it is good/bad to be a slut.  let me put it in a more analytical/numerical sense.  the level of praise a person gets on a scale of should be related to the difficulty of the task they accomplish.  i am simply pointing out that to accomplish the same task, it is much more for men than for women.  so let is just say that a man gets five units of praise for the task of sleeping around.  i think it is fair that a woman gets less than five units of praise.  to simplify your argument into these terms, you are saying that a woman actually receives negative units of praise for the task of sleeping around.  and for that, i agree ! it is wrong.  but that is why i segregated it into two separate issues; the fact that being a slut is stigmatized in society is not the issue at hand, i am not the one that i am debating.  i understand that it is kind of a cold way to look at things, but it is necessary to make generalizations about genders.   #  the problem with this train of thought is that the men who end up being the biggest  studs  are the ones who  do not  have to try as hard as the average guy.   #  the problem with this train of thought is that the men who end up being the biggest  studs  are the ones who  do not  have to try as hard as the average guy.  the reason that they end up being such  studs  is that they have some advantage that makes women more likely to want to sleep with them.  leonardo dicaprio pretty clearly does not put much effort into getting women, and yet he still leaves clubs with dozens of girls at a time.  getting women is super easy for him, and yet people basically never seriously call guys like him a  slut.   that is why that argument always seems like a rationalization to justify the speaker is feelings to me, instead of a true explanation of why they have them.  i read the whole thing but did not have rhyme for crime that immediately jumped to mind that would make sense to start the paragraph with  #  if someone has a high sexdrive and finds a lot of people who want to have sex with them as well then that is awesome for them, but i do not really see any reason i should be praising them for it.   #  my take on the matter is that there is no reason to either praise or vilify anyone based on the number of people they have had sex with.  if someone has a high sexdrive and finds a lot of people who want to have sex with them as well then that is awesome for them, but i do not really see any reason i should be praising them for it.  the one case where i can see praising someone is not based on how many different people they have slept with, but instead based on who those people were.  if i find out one of my friends has slept with jennifer lawrence, i am gonna be pretty impressed.  but that does not break down on gender lines, because if one of my female friends ever sleeps with idris elba, she is getting a high five too.   #  a woman may get many propositions but she also has to spend more time evaluating a larger pool of potential partners.   # i do not think so.  women typically choose their partners more carefully than men.  a woman may get many propositions but she also has to spend more time evaluating a larger pool of potential partners.  men are not as choosy.  so to get to 0 do not know why we are picking that number a woman needs to put in more thought and judgement than a man.  and to get to 0 a man has to proposition a lot of women, etc.  the two genders have to focus on separate things, but you ca not say for certain that one is easier than the other.  have you asked a woman is opinion about this ?
or more specifically, it is justified in general when a man gets praise for  sleeping around , and it is also justified when the woman does not get the same level of praise for the same behaviour.  i want to make this point clear   i am not debating whether or not it is good/bad when a woman engages in behavior that is typically defined under the scope of  slut.   that is another argument altogether.  i am only asserting that the difference in reaction the majority of people have when they hear about the sexual exploits of either gender is, in general, justified.  the reason for this, of course, is biological.  it is generally imperative for males to propagate their dna throughout many different potential mates as possible, to ensure the survival of his line.  historically, however, females had to be more restrictive with who they engage in intercourse with, because they were then strapped with the burden of taking care of/raising a child as a product of the encounter.  the brains, hormone profiles, and physiology are disparate between the genders to reflect, in part, these differences in motivation.  given these differences, the crux of my argument boils down to this: it is simply more difficult for a heterosexual man to attain sex, than a woman, ceterus paribus.  once again, to be very clear, i am not making any moral claims about being a slut; i am simply stating the difference in difficulty in accomplishing the same task, and the justification of the subsequent reaction.  to illustrate this point, i would like to i highlight the scenario of bob.  bob built a business from the ground up; through sheer hard work and determination, he came from nothing, and now runs a company of hundreds of employees, making millions in revenue.  now, here is patrick.  patrick also has a company of hundreds of employees, making million dollars in revenue, through his hard work and determination.  the difference between bob and patrick is this   bob had absolutely zero dollars in his bank account when he started his business, while patrick inherited over $0 billion from his father is trust fund.  so, even though both have technically accomplished the same thing, it would be fair to say that bob deserves higher praise.  the difference being, of course, while the task itself was the same, the difficulty level of either party to achieve/accomplish this task is significantly different.  in the same way, we can assert that all things being equal it is much more difficult for a man to sleep with many women, than the reverse.  now, anticipating potential rebuttals, i would like to highlight other scenarios using the same logic above: i believe that heterosexual men and homosexual women deserve more praise than homosexual men for the same acts.  to what degree, i am honestly not sure, as i am not an expert in biology/sociology of this kind, but using the biological argument for the difficulty of the task, i would say that homosexual men hooking up is generally easier than the other scenarios.  i could be wrong on this, but it is more of an ancillary point rather than my main argument.  to make sure that you have been reading all the way down to the bottom, i would really appreciate it if you started your post with any word that rhymes with  crime.   thanks !  #  historically, however, females had to be more restrictive with who they engage in intercourse with, because they were then strapped with the burden of taking care of/raising a child as a product of the encounter.   #  sex at dawn  more or less destroys this argument.   # sex at dawn  more or less destroys this argument.  the imposition of monogamy on women is a fairly recent development in human history.  there are evolutionary advantages for promiscuity in women not the least of which is men who may be the father of a woman is child are far less likely to harm that child and far more likely to help it than men who know they are not the father .  but that is something of a side point.  the problem with your view is that you seem to equate difficulty with praiseworthiness.  as if the harder a thing is the more worthy it is of praise.  you give one example where that is true, but consider the following: patrick the lifeguard falls asleep on the job one day and a swimmer dies.  on the other hand bob the lifeguard, sees a strong swimmer in the pool and holds that person under the water until they die.  in both cases patrick and bob are responsible for the death of another, but it is undoubtedly harder to murder a resisting party than to let someone die of negligence.  if your view is right bob deserves more praise than patrick what he did was harder.  but that is hardly our response, murder is worse not better than letting someone die from negligence so clearly how hard a thing is not not directly related to how praiseworthy it is.   #  but that is why i segregated it into two separate issues; the fact that being a slut is stigmatized in society is not the issue at hand, i am not the one that i am debating.   #  did not mean for it to be patronizing brother ! but, one comment has already shown its effectiveness.  yes, but that comes into the moral issue   i am not arguing whether it is good/bad to be a slut.  let me put it in a more analytical/numerical sense.  the level of praise a person gets on a scale of should be related to the difficulty of the task they accomplish.  i am simply pointing out that to accomplish the same task, it is much more for men than for women.  so let is just say that a man gets five units of praise for the task of sleeping around.  i think it is fair that a woman gets less than five units of praise.  to simplify your argument into these terms, you are saying that a woman actually receives negative units of praise for the task of sleeping around.  and for that, i agree ! it is wrong.  but that is why i segregated it into two separate issues; the fact that being a slut is stigmatized in society is not the issue at hand, i am not the one that i am debating.  i understand that it is kind of a cold way to look at things, but it is necessary to make generalizations about genders.   #  that is why that argument always seems like a rationalization to justify the speaker is feelings to me, instead of a true explanation of why they have them.   #  the problem with this train of thought is that the men who end up being the biggest  studs  are the ones who  do not  have to try as hard as the average guy.  the reason that they end up being such  studs  is that they have some advantage that makes women more likely to want to sleep with them.  leonardo dicaprio pretty clearly does not put much effort into getting women, and yet he still leaves clubs with dozens of girls at a time.  getting women is super easy for him, and yet people basically never seriously call guys like him a  slut.   that is why that argument always seems like a rationalization to justify the speaker is feelings to me, instead of a true explanation of why they have them.  i read the whole thing but did not have rhyme for crime that immediately jumped to mind that would make sense to start the paragraph with  #  my take on the matter is that there is no reason to either praise or vilify anyone based on the number of people they have had sex with.   #  my take on the matter is that there is no reason to either praise or vilify anyone based on the number of people they have had sex with.  if someone has a high sexdrive and finds a lot of people who want to have sex with them as well then that is awesome for them, but i do not really see any reason i should be praising them for it.  the one case where i can see praising someone is not based on how many different people they have slept with, but instead based on who those people were.  if i find out one of my friends has slept with jennifer lawrence, i am gonna be pretty impressed.  but that does not break down on gender lines, because if one of my female friends ever sleeps with idris elba, she is getting a high five too.   #  the two genders have to focus on separate things, but you ca not say for certain that one is easier than the other.   # i do not think so.  women typically choose their partners more carefully than men.  a woman may get many propositions but she also has to spend more time evaluating a larger pool of potential partners.  men are not as choosy.  so to get to 0 do not know why we are picking that number a woman needs to put in more thought and judgement than a man.  and to get to 0 a man has to proposition a lot of women, etc.  the two genders have to focus on separate things, but you ca not say for certain that one is easier than the other.  have you asked a woman is opinion about this ?
or more specifically, it is justified in general when a man gets praise for  sleeping around , and it is also justified when the woman does not get the same level of praise for the same behaviour.  i want to make this point clear   i am not debating whether or not it is good/bad when a woman engages in behavior that is typically defined under the scope of  slut.   that is another argument altogether.  i am only asserting that the difference in reaction the majority of people have when they hear about the sexual exploits of either gender is, in general, justified.  the reason for this, of course, is biological.  it is generally imperative for males to propagate their dna throughout many different potential mates as possible, to ensure the survival of his line.  historically, however, females had to be more restrictive with who they engage in intercourse with, because they were then strapped with the burden of taking care of/raising a child as a product of the encounter.  the brains, hormone profiles, and physiology are disparate between the genders to reflect, in part, these differences in motivation.  given these differences, the crux of my argument boils down to this: it is simply more difficult for a heterosexual man to attain sex, than a woman, ceterus paribus.  once again, to be very clear, i am not making any moral claims about being a slut; i am simply stating the difference in difficulty in accomplishing the same task, and the justification of the subsequent reaction.  to illustrate this point, i would like to i highlight the scenario of bob.  bob built a business from the ground up; through sheer hard work and determination, he came from nothing, and now runs a company of hundreds of employees, making millions in revenue.  now, here is patrick.  patrick also has a company of hundreds of employees, making million dollars in revenue, through his hard work and determination.  the difference between bob and patrick is this   bob had absolutely zero dollars in his bank account when he started his business, while patrick inherited over $0 billion from his father is trust fund.  so, even though both have technically accomplished the same thing, it would be fair to say that bob deserves higher praise.  the difference being, of course, while the task itself was the same, the difficulty level of either party to achieve/accomplish this task is significantly different.  in the same way, we can assert that all things being equal it is much more difficult for a man to sleep with many women, than the reverse.  now, anticipating potential rebuttals, i would like to highlight other scenarios using the same logic above: i believe that heterosexual men and homosexual women deserve more praise than homosexual men for the same acts.  to what degree, i am honestly not sure, as i am not an expert in biology/sociology of this kind, but using the biological argument for the difficulty of the task, i would say that homosexual men hooking up is generally easier than the other scenarios.  i could be wrong on this, but it is more of an ancillary point rather than my main argument.  to make sure that you have been reading all the way down to the bottom, i would really appreciate it if you started your post with any word that rhymes with  crime.   thanks !  #  i am simply stating the difference in difficulty in accomplishing the same task, and the justification of the subsequent reaction.   #  as if the harder a thing is the more worthy it is of praise.   # sex at dawn  more or less destroys this argument.  the imposition of monogamy on women is a fairly recent development in human history.  there are evolutionary advantages for promiscuity in women not the least of which is men who may be the father of a woman is child are far less likely to harm that child and far more likely to help it than men who know they are not the father .  but that is something of a side point.  the problem with your view is that you seem to equate difficulty with praiseworthiness.  as if the harder a thing is the more worthy it is of praise.  you give one example where that is true, but consider the following: patrick the lifeguard falls asleep on the job one day and a swimmer dies.  on the other hand bob the lifeguard, sees a strong swimmer in the pool and holds that person under the water until they die.  in both cases patrick and bob are responsible for the death of another, but it is undoubtedly harder to murder a resisting party than to let someone die of negligence.  if your view is right bob deserves more praise than patrick what he did was harder.  but that is hardly our response, murder is worse not better than letting someone die from negligence so clearly how hard a thing is not not directly related to how praiseworthy it is.   #  the level of praise a person gets on a scale of should be related to the difficulty of the task they accomplish.   #  did not mean for it to be patronizing brother ! but, one comment has already shown its effectiveness.  yes, but that comes into the moral issue   i am not arguing whether it is good/bad to be a slut.  let me put it in a more analytical/numerical sense.  the level of praise a person gets on a scale of should be related to the difficulty of the task they accomplish.  i am simply pointing out that to accomplish the same task, it is much more for men than for women.  so let is just say that a man gets five units of praise for the task of sleeping around.  i think it is fair that a woman gets less than five units of praise.  to simplify your argument into these terms, you are saying that a woman actually receives negative units of praise for the task of sleeping around.  and for that, i agree ! it is wrong.  but that is why i segregated it into two separate issues; the fact that being a slut is stigmatized in society is not the issue at hand, i am not the one that i am debating.  i understand that it is kind of a cold way to look at things, but it is necessary to make generalizations about genders.   #  leonardo dicaprio pretty clearly does not put much effort into getting women, and yet he still leaves clubs with dozens of girls at a time.   #  the problem with this train of thought is that the men who end up being the biggest  studs  are the ones who  do not  have to try as hard as the average guy.  the reason that they end up being such  studs  is that they have some advantage that makes women more likely to want to sleep with them.  leonardo dicaprio pretty clearly does not put much effort into getting women, and yet he still leaves clubs with dozens of girls at a time.  getting women is super easy for him, and yet people basically never seriously call guys like him a  slut.   that is why that argument always seems like a rationalization to justify the speaker is feelings to me, instead of a true explanation of why they have them.  i read the whole thing but did not have rhyme for crime that immediately jumped to mind that would make sense to start the paragraph with  #  the one case where i can see praising someone is not based on how many different people they have slept with, but instead based on who those people were.   #  my take on the matter is that there is no reason to either praise or vilify anyone based on the number of people they have had sex with.  if someone has a high sexdrive and finds a lot of people who want to have sex with them as well then that is awesome for them, but i do not really see any reason i should be praising them for it.  the one case where i can see praising someone is not based on how many different people they have slept with, but instead based on who those people were.  if i find out one of my friends has slept with jennifer lawrence, i am gonna be pretty impressed.  but that does not break down on gender lines, because if one of my female friends ever sleeps with idris elba, she is getting a high five too.   #  so to get to 0 do not know why we are picking that number a woman needs to put in more thought and judgement than a man.   # i do not think so.  women typically choose their partners more carefully than men.  a woman may get many propositions but she also has to spend more time evaluating a larger pool of potential partners.  men are not as choosy.  so to get to 0 do not know why we are picking that number a woman needs to put in more thought and judgement than a man.  and to get to 0 a man has to proposition a lot of women, etc.  the two genders have to focus on separate things, but you ca not say for certain that one is easier than the other.  have you asked a woman is opinion about this ?
or more specifically, it is justified in general when a man gets praise for  sleeping around , and it is also justified when the woman does not get the same level of praise for the same behaviour.  i want to make this point clear   i am not debating whether or not it is good/bad when a woman engages in behavior that is typically defined under the scope of  slut.   that is another argument altogether.  i am only asserting that the difference in reaction the majority of people have when they hear about the sexual exploits of either gender is, in general, justified.  the reason for this, of course, is biological.  it is generally imperative for males to propagate their dna throughout many different potential mates as possible, to ensure the survival of his line.  historically, however, females had to be more restrictive with who they engage in intercourse with, because they were then strapped with the burden of taking care of/raising a child as a product of the encounter.  the brains, hormone profiles, and physiology are disparate between the genders to reflect, in part, these differences in motivation.  given these differences, the crux of my argument boils down to this: it is simply more difficult for a heterosexual man to attain sex, than a woman, ceterus paribus.  once again, to be very clear, i am not making any moral claims about being a slut; i am simply stating the difference in difficulty in accomplishing the same task, and the justification of the subsequent reaction.  to illustrate this point, i would like to i highlight the scenario of bob.  bob built a business from the ground up; through sheer hard work and determination, he came from nothing, and now runs a company of hundreds of employees, making millions in revenue.  now, here is patrick.  patrick also has a company of hundreds of employees, making million dollars in revenue, through his hard work and determination.  the difference between bob and patrick is this   bob had absolutely zero dollars in his bank account when he started his business, while patrick inherited over $0 billion from his father is trust fund.  so, even though both have technically accomplished the same thing, it would be fair to say that bob deserves higher praise.  the difference being, of course, while the task itself was the same, the difficulty level of either party to achieve/accomplish this task is significantly different.  in the same way, we can assert that all things being equal it is much more difficult for a man to sleep with many women, than the reverse.  now, anticipating potential rebuttals, i would like to highlight other scenarios using the same logic above: i believe that heterosexual men and homosexual women deserve more praise than homosexual men for the same acts.  to what degree, i am honestly not sure, as i am not an expert in biology/sociology of this kind, but using the biological argument for the difficulty of the task, i would say that homosexual men hooking up is generally easier than the other scenarios.  i could be wrong on this, but it is more of an ancillary point rather than my main argument.  to make sure that you have been reading all the way down to the bottom, i would really appreciate it if you started your post with any word that rhymes with  crime.   thanks !  #  it is generally imperative for males to propagate their dna throughout many different potential mates as possible, to ensure the survival of his line.   #  as is for females to get as many high quality males as possible, so that the healthiest sperm will win.   # as is for females to get as many high quality males as possible, so that the healthiest sperm will win.  otherwise, why do we when compared to other primates have long, thick, blood pressure powered penises with heads optimal for scooping competing semen outside vaginas ? you called biology, then said something that is only been true since the neolithic, a fraction of our time on earth.  it takes a village to raise a child, and this was even more true in the paleolithic.  does  ceteris paribus  include a culture which represses and shames female sexuality ?  #  but, one comment has already shown its effectiveness.   #  did not mean for it to be patronizing brother ! but, one comment has already shown its effectiveness.  yes, but that comes into the moral issue   i am not arguing whether it is good/bad to be a slut.  let me put it in a more analytical/numerical sense.  the level of praise a person gets on a scale of should be related to the difficulty of the task they accomplish.  i am simply pointing out that to accomplish the same task, it is much more for men than for women.  so let is just say that a man gets five units of praise for the task of sleeping around.  i think it is fair that a woman gets less than five units of praise.  to simplify your argument into these terms, you are saying that a woman actually receives negative units of praise for the task of sleeping around.  and for that, i agree ! it is wrong.  but that is why i segregated it into two separate issues; the fact that being a slut is stigmatized in society is not the issue at hand, i am not the one that i am debating.  i understand that it is kind of a cold way to look at things, but it is necessary to make generalizations about genders.   #  leonardo dicaprio pretty clearly does not put much effort into getting women, and yet he still leaves clubs with dozens of girls at a time.   #  the problem with this train of thought is that the men who end up being the biggest  studs  are the ones who  do not  have to try as hard as the average guy.  the reason that they end up being such  studs  is that they have some advantage that makes women more likely to want to sleep with them.  leonardo dicaprio pretty clearly does not put much effort into getting women, and yet he still leaves clubs with dozens of girls at a time.  getting women is super easy for him, and yet people basically never seriously call guys like him a  slut.   that is why that argument always seems like a rationalization to justify the speaker is feelings to me, instead of a true explanation of why they have them.  i read the whole thing but did not have rhyme for crime that immediately jumped to mind that would make sense to start the paragraph with  #  if someone has a high sexdrive and finds a lot of people who want to have sex with them as well then that is awesome for them, but i do not really see any reason i should be praising them for it.   #  my take on the matter is that there is no reason to either praise or vilify anyone based on the number of people they have had sex with.  if someone has a high sexdrive and finds a lot of people who want to have sex with them as well then that is awesome for them, but i do not really see any reason i should be praising them for it.  the one case where i can see praising someone is not based on how many different people they have slept with, but instead based on who those people were.  if i find out one of my friends has slept with jennifer lawrence, i am gonna be pretty impressed.  but that does not break down on gender lines, because if one of my female friends ever sleeps with idris elba, she is getting a high five too.   #  and to get to 0 a man has to proposition a lot of women, etc.   # i do not think so.  women typically choose their partners more carefully than men.  a woman may get many propositions but she also has to spend more time evaluating a larger pool of potential partners.  men are not as choosy.  so to get to 0 do not know why we are picking that number a woman needs to put in more thought and judgement than a man.  and to get to 0 a man has to proposition a lot of women, etc.  the two genders have to focus on separate things, but you ca not say for certain that one is easier than the other.  have you asked a woman is opinion about this ?
or more specifically, it is justified in general when a man gets praise for  sleeping around , and it is also justified when the woman does not get the same level of praise for the same behaviour.  i want to make this point clear   i am not debating whether or not it is good/bad when a woman engages in behavior that is typically defined under the scope of  slut.   that is another argument altogether.  i am only asserting that the difference in reaction the majority of people have when they hear about the sexual exploits of either gender is, in general, justified.  the reason for this, of course, is biological.  it is generally imperative for males to propagate their dna throughout many different potential mates as possible, to ensure the survival of his line.  historically, however, females had to be more restrictive with who they engage in intercourse with, because they were then strapped with the burden of taking care of/raising a child as a product of the encounter.  the brains, hormone profiles, and physiology are disparate between the genders to reflect, in part, these differences in motivation.  given these differences, the crux of my argument boils down to this: it is simply more difficult for a heterosexual man to attain sex, than a woman, ceterus paribus.  once again, to be very clear, i am not making any moral claims about being a slut; i am simply stating the difference in difficulty in accomplishing the same task, and the justification of the subsequent reaction.  to illustrate this point, i would like to i highlight the scenario of bob.  bob built a business from the ground up; through sheer hard work and determination, he came from nothing, and now runs a company of hundreds of employees, making millions in revenue.  now, here is patrick.  patrick also has a company of hundreds of employees, making million dollars in revenue, through his hard work and determination.  the difference between bob and patrick is this   bob had absolutely zero dollars in his bank account when he started his business, while patrick inherited over $0 billion from his father is trust fund.  so, even though both have technically accomplished the same thing, it would be fair to say that bob deserves higher praise.  the difference being, of course, while the task itself was the same, the difficulty level of either party to achieve/accomplish this task is significantly different.  in the same way, we can assert that all things being equal it is much more difficult for a man to sleep with many women, than the reverse.  now, anticipating potential rebuttals, i would like to highlight other scenarios using the same logic above: i believe that heterosexual men and homosexual women deserve more praise than homosexual men for the same acts.  to what degree, i am honestly not sure, as i am not an expert in biology/sociology of this kind, but using the biological argument for the difficulty of the task, i would say that homosexual men hooking up is generally easier than the other scenarios.  i could be wrong on this, but it is more of an ancillary point rather than my main argument.  to make sure that you have been reading all the way down to the bottom, i would really appreciate it if you started your post with any word that rhymes with  crime.   thanks !  #  because they were then strapped with the burden of taking care of/raising a child as a product of the encounter.   #  you called biology, then said something that is only been true since the neolithic, a fraction of our time on earth.   # as is for females to get as many high quality males as possible, so that the healthiest sperm will win.  otherwise, why do we when compared to other primates have long, thick, blood pressure powered penises with heads optimal for scooping competing semen outside vaginas ? you called biology, then said something that is only been true since the neolithic, a fraction of our time on earth.  it takes a village to raise a child, and this was even more true in the paleolithic.  does  ceteris paribus  include a culture which represses and shames female sexuality ?  #  i understand that it is kind of a cold way to look at things, but it is necessary to make generalizations about genders.   #  did not mean for it to be patronizing brother ! but, one comment has already shown its effectiveness.  yes, but that comes into the moral issue   i am not arguing whether it is good/bad to be a slut.  let me put it in a more analytical/numerical sense.  the level of praise a person gets on a scale of should be related to the difficulty of the task they accomplish.  i am simply pointing out that to accomplish the same task, it is much more for men than for women.  so let is just say that a man gets five units of praise for the task of sleeping around.  i think it is fair that a woman gets less than five units of praise.  to simplify your argument into these terms, you are saying that a woman actually receives negative units of praise for the task of sleeping around.  and for that, i agree ! it is wrong.  but that is why i segregated it into two separate issues; the fact that being a slut is stigmatized in society is not the issue at hand, i am not the one that i am debating.  i understand that it is kind of a cold way to look at things, but it is necessary to make generalizations about genders.   #  leonardo dicaprio pretty clearly does not put much effort into getting women, and yet he still leaves clubs with dozens of girls at a time.   #  the problem with this train of thought is that the men who end up being the biggest  studs  are the ones who  do not  have to try as hard as the average guy.  the reason that they end up being such  studs  is that they have some advantage that makes women more likely to want to sleep with them.  leonardo dicaprio pretty clearly does not put much effort into getting women, and yet he still leaves clubs with dozens of girls at a time.  getting women is super easy for him, and yet people basically never seriously call guys like him a  slut.   that is why that argument always seems like a rationalization to justify the speaker is feelings to me, instead of a true explanation of why they have them.  i read the whole thing but did not have rhyme for crime that immediately jumped to mind that would make sense to start the paragraph with  #  if i find out one of my friends has slept with jennifer lawrence, i am gonna be pretty impressed.   #  my take on the matter is that there is no reason to either praise or vilify anyone based on the number of people they have had sex with.  if someone has a high sexdrive and finds a lot of people who want to have sex with them as well then that is awesome for them, but i do not really see any reason i should be praising them for it.  the one case where i can see praising someone is not based on how many different people they have slept with, but instead based on who those people were.  if i find out one of my friends has slept with jennifer lawrence, i am gonna be pretty impressed.  but that does not break down on gender lines, because if one of my female friends ever sleeps with idris elba, she is getting a high five too.   #  and to get to 0 a man has to proposition a lot of women, etc.   # i do not think so.  women typically choose their partners more carefully than men.  a woman may get many propositions but she also has to spend more time evaluating a larger pool of potential partners.  men are not as choosy.  so to get to 0 do not know why we are picking that number a woman needs to put in more thought and judgement than a man.  and to get to 0 a man has to proposition a lot of women, etc.  the two genders have to focus on separate things, but you ca not say for certain that one is easier than the other.  have you asked a woman is opinion about this ?
or more specifically, it is justified in general when a man gets praise for  sleeping around , and it is also justified when the woman does not get the same level of praise for the same behaviour.  i want to make this point clear   i am not debating whether or not it is good/bad when a woman engages in behavior that is typically defined under the scope of  slut.   that is another argument altogether.  i am only asserting that the difference in reaction the majority of people have when they hear about the sexual exploits of either gender is, in general, justified.  the reason for this, of course, is biological.  it is generally imperative for males to propagate their dna throughout many different potential mates as possible, to ensure the survival of his line.  historically, however, females had to be more restrictive with who they engage in intercourse with, because they were then strapped with the burden of taking care of/raising a child as a product of the encounter.  the brains, hormone profiles, and physiology are disparate between the genders to reflect, in part, these differences in motivation.  given these differences, the crux of my argument boils down to this: it is simply more difficult for a heterosexual man to attain sex, than a woman, ceterus paribus.  once again, to be very clear, i am not making any moral claims about being a slut; i am simply stating the difference in difficulty in accomplishing the same task, and the justification of the subsequent reaction.  to illustrate this point, i would like to i highlight the scenario of bob.  bob built a business from the ground up; through sheer hard work and determination, he came from nothing, and now runs a company of hundreds of employees, making millions in revenue.  now, here is patrick.  patrick also has a company of hundreds of employees, making million dollars in revenue, through his hard work and determination.  the difference between bob and patrick is this   bob had absolutely zero dollars in his bank account when he started his business, while patrick inherited over $0 billion from his father is trust fund.  so, even though both have technically accomplished the same thing, it would be fair to say that bob deserves higher praise.  the difference being, of course, while the task itself was the same, the difficulty level of either party to achieve/accomplish this task is significantly different.  in the same way, we can assert that all things being equal it is much more difficult for a man to sleep with many women, than the reverse.  now, anticipating potential rebuttals, i would like to highlight other scenarios using the same logic above: i believe that heterosexual men and homosexual women deserve more praise than homosexual men for the same acts.  to what degree, i am honestly not sure, as i am not an expert in biology/sociology of this kind, but using the biological argument for the difficulty of the task, i would say that homosexual men hooking up is generally easier than the other scenarios.  i could be wrong on this, but it is more of an ancillary point rather than my main argument.  to make sure that you have been reading all the way down to the bottom, i would really appreciate it if you started your post with any word that rhymes with  crime.   thanks !  #  it is simply more difficult for a heterosexual man to attain sex, than a woman, ceterus paribus.   #  does  ceteris paribus  include a culture which represses and shames female sexuality ?  # as is for females to get as many high quality males as possible, so that the healthiest sperm will win.  otherwise, why do we when compared to other primates have long, thick, blood pressure powered penises with heads optimal for scooping competing semen outside vaginas ? you called biology, then said something that is only been true since the neolithic, a fraction of our time on earth.  it takes a village to raise a child, and this was even more true in the paleolithic.  does  ceteris paribus  include a culture which represses and shames female sexuality ?  #  let me put it in a more analytical/numerical sense.   #  did not mean for it to be patronizing brother ! but, one comment has already shown its effectiveness.  yes, but that comes into the moral issue   i am not arguing whether it is good/bad to be a slut.  let me put it in a more analytical/numerical sense.  the level of praise a person gets on a scale of should be related to the difficulty of the task they accomplish.  i am simply pointing out that to accomplish the same task, it is much more for men than for women.  so let is just say that a man gets five units of praise for the task of sleeping around.  i think it is fair that a woman gets less than five units of praise.  to simplify your argument into these terms, you are saying that a woman actually receives negative units of praise for the task of sleeping around.  and for that, i agree ! it is wrong.  but that is why i segregated it into two separate issues; the fact that being a slut is stigmatized in society is not the issue at hand, i am not the one that i am debating.  i understand that it is kind of a cold way to look at things, but it is necessary to make generalizations about genders.   #  the reason that they end up being such  studs  is that they have some advantage that makes women more likely to want to sleep with them.   #  the problem with this train of thought is that the men who end up being the biggest  studs  are the ones who  do not  have to try as hard as the average guy.  the reason that they end up being such  studs  is that they have some advantage that makes women more likely to want to sleep with them.  leonardo dicaprio pretty clearly does not put much effort into getting women, and yet he still leaves clubs with dozens of girls at a time.  getting women is super easy for him, and yet people basically never seriously call guys like him a  slut.   that is why that argument always seems like a rationalization to justify the speaker is feelings to me, instead of a true explanation of why they have them.  i read the whole thing but did not have rhyme for crime that immediately jumped to mind that would make sense to start the paragraph with  #  my take on the matter is that there is no reason to either praise or vilify anyone based on the number of people they have had sex with.   #  my take on the matter is that there is no reason to either praise or vilify anyone based on the number of people they have had sex with.  if someone has a high sexdrive and finds a lot of people who want to have sex with them as well then that is awesome for them, but i do not really see any reason i should be praising them for it.  the one case where i can see praising someone is not based on how many different people they have slept with, but instead based on who those people were.  if i find out one of my friends has slept with jennifer lawrence, i am gonna be pretty impressed.  but that does not break down on gender lines, because if one of my female friends ever sleeps with idris elba, she is getting a high five too.   #  and to get to 0 a man has to proposition a lot of women, etc.   # i do not think so.  women typically choose their partners more carefully than men.  a woman may get many propositions but she also has to spend more time evaluating a larger pool of potential partners.  men are not as choosy.  so to get to 0 do not know why we are picking that number a woman needs to put in more thought and judgement than a man.  and to get to 0 a man has to proposition a lot of women, etc.  the two genders have to focus on separate things, but you ca not say for certain that one is easier than the other.  have you asked a woman is opinion about this ?
i have been on this earth some 0  years, so am a little more educated than a millennial, but since the invention of the internet and the explosion of technology, i still am confused and not convinced about mad made or human caused climate change.  i have heard from both sides about this issue, but am smh at it all.  from what i understand, the earth goes through cycles, and if humans have been here for millions of years and never heard of global warming, cooling, etc. it was obviously normal for them to go through the many cyclical changes.  so why are we now touting the sky is falling, when normal changes happen ? i have read that we have not actually been warming for many years and instead cooling, so scientists have changed their phrase or meaning to include climate change.  have not we had climate change for as long as the earth has existed ? we want to blame modern technology and all that, but even with all the regulations, it has not changed the way the earth cycles through its changes.  i have seen charts from a millennia ago that show the patterns of earth changes; yet, we are running around freaking out that earth will die if we do not listen to the government and spend gobs of money, resources, and time to save the planet ! scientists do not have all the answers and are oftentimes wrong, when they get new information.  in fact, many have denied the claim.  so, why has not that been taken into consideration, concerning climate change ? okay, i am ready to listen to what you all have to say, but realize, it may still not change my mind.   #  have not we had climate change for as long as the earth has existed ?  #  yes over a timescale of millions of years.   # yes over a timescale of millions of years.  recent evidence suggests climate change, caused by greenhouse gasses, had a devastating effect on dinosaurs in certain regions.  why does that make it okay for us to accelerate what  might  otherwise be a several million year process into a few centuries, when that process will probably leave vast stretches of the earth inhabitable, decimate the marine ecosystem, and cause countless species extinctions including possibly our own ? you are not a climate scientist.  stop trying to use your own logic to  figure out  if man made climate change is real.  0 of scientists are against you on this issue.  URL have some humility and defer to the experts.  i am sorry if this comes across as rude but your line of skeptical thinking is very pervasive in society and it is really hurting our chances to do something about it.   #  it does not look at all of the data from each paper that it cites, it takes pieces of data that support its argument.   #  see, this is the problem.  you are doing research that would be appropriate for someone writing for a popular audience, but not for someone trying to pull together scientific data to, say, write a paper, and that is simply because you have got your brand of training and i have got mine.  more specifically, the website that you are citing has pulled these papers  specifically because  they support its position.  there is no diversity of opinion among these papers, and so there is no discourse.  in many cases, there is simply the erection of a straw man and a subsequent bludgeoning.  reading the specific paper that you linked, there is zero discussion of research methodologies.  the data that is given without context and almost entirely in graph form.  moreover, that data is explained consistently through metaphors, and despite their value to human communication they are notoriously dangerous in the scientific context.  put simply, the paper that you linked is barely scientific.  it does not look at all of the data from each paper that it cites, it takes pieces of data that support its argument.  i say that this is obvious simply because climate data is consistently much more convoluted and confusing than what this author says.  if the evidence were actually this cohesive, then not only would everyone agree about whether or not climate change is anthropogenic, they would agree  exactly  to what extent it is, and this just not the case and almost certainly never will be.   #  i should also point out that the post you linked from friendsofscience. org was originally a blog post.   #  let me ask you this: how can raw, unedited data be biased ? because that is what i look at, and that is what this paper is lacking.  almost every scientific paper written today starts with a section that just lays out what data was collected and how it was gathered, drawing no conclusions from it.  only after this is done does the author make their own assertions about what the data means.  this paper does not do this.  it starts with a position and then chooses data that supports it.  an effective argument, perhaps, but only one side of a discourse, and fundamentally improper for a scientific paper.  i looked into the author is credentials, and as it turns out he has a history with cherry picking data.  as an editor, he approved a paper reviewing previous scientific papers on the issue of climate change that misrepresented the results of 0 of those papers, and the paper was discredited as a result.  i have also investigated the journal that published this paper.  simply put, they have an ungodly number of corporate sponsors, many of them directly involved in the fossil fuel industry.  i suggest you look to a more reputable source than what is essentially an industry tabloid.  i should also point out that the post you linked from friendsofscience. org was originally a blog post.  the lack of peer review means it has zero credibility in the scientific world.  the last thing i have to say here is that you really seem to have drunk the partisan kool aid.  you are either using an absurdly ineffective level of hyperbole or you are actively dehumanizing people who disagree with you, neither of which is appropriate in scientific discourse and both of which diminish any argument that you make.  moreover, it makes me suspect that nobody can change your view because you see people who disagree with you as  the enemy.    #  now, humans are rapidly pumping co0 into the atmosphere, and the earth has zero chance to adjust to the climbing levels which is causing the climate change we are experiencing.   #  URL this is one of the best websites in regards to this topic i have found because it lays everything out very simply by the types of argument that has been used.  yes, the co0 levels have risen before, and for many of those times nothing bad happened.  this is because the earth does operate on a cycle.  however, these cycles happen very gradually and the atmosphere has the chance to adjust.  as co0 rises as well as others gasses such as methane do as well, everything else does so it is all in balance with each other, minimizing the effect.  now, humans are rapidly pumping co0 into the atmosphere, and the earth has zero chance to adjust to the climbing levels which is causing the climate change we are experiencing.  the only other times co0 levels have risen at a similar rate as they are now, mass extinctions happened triassic period is an example.  the only difference is, the levels are rising even quicker right now.   #  it is the one being produced in high quantities, but all of the greenhouse gasses play a role.   #  oh it is definitely a cycle.  however, it is a cycle that is supposed to gradually happen over the course of thousands of not millions of years.  this gives the rest of the atmosphere, ecosystem etc.  the chance to adjust.  instead, the co0 levels have increased at an incredibly rapid rate over the past 0 years, and everything else has absolutely no chance to adjust.  co0 is arguably the most important because it is produced by so many things.  it is the one being produced in high quantities, but all of the greenhouse gasses play a role.  these include methane, water vapor, ozone and nitrous oxide.  in the past, the volcanic activity was much higher.  looking at the triassic period specifically, massive amounts of volcanic eruptions caused the massive co0 level raise.  this produced a massive climate change and rising sea levels that wiped out over 0 of all species on the planet.
view changed  through this i have learned that yes both can be biased, but why is a jury better ? because 0 their biases scan a huge range making them less impactful, whereas people in law are more likely to have similar biases.  and 0 the selection process does a good job of agreeing upon a mostly unbiased jury to judge.  and if both the defence and prosecution agree upon a selected jury, then there is more or less no issues really.  users /u/pepperonifire and /u/rodiraskol were especially helpful, but thanks to everyone else as well.   original post:  people often say how great it is that we have a jury system where our fellow man can come to make a decision on whether we are guilty or not.  if you live in most western countries .  it is supposed to make the court less likely to become corrupt and more likely to give fair judgement.  i believe that the common man is so biased, or often has an agenda, or racist, or sexist, or hates a certain thing like old people or unions, or is simply just dumb, any one of these leading to poor and unjust decision making.  i would much rather have people who are actually familiar with the law system and studied law to make the kind of decisions that a jury does.  like a judge or clerks or lawyers who do not benefit on making the decision a single or group of law workers who do not represent either party but act as a jury change my view  #  i believe that the common man is so biased, or often has an agenda, or racist, or sexist, or hates a certain thing like old people or unions, or is simply just dumb, any one of these leading to poor and unjust decision making.   #  the main flaw i see with your argument is that it assumes that people who are familiar with the law judges etc.   # the main flaw i see with your argument is that it assumes that people who are familiar with the law judges etc.  are any less susceptible to being biased than the rest of the population.  juries are vetted to ensure that any overtly prejudice jurors sexists/racists etc are rooted out before the trial begins.  in fact i would argue that legal professionals may be considered a demographic with a very specific set of biases which may prejudice a whole class of criminal or civil case.  there are also many examples i could point to where judges have shown prejudice or made decisions which were influenced by money.  the judge referring innocent teens to detention as he was receiving money from the detention centre springs to mind .  in the real world there is no such thing as  the common man .  juries are made up of people from across society with a whole swathe of experiences and opinions which help to inform and decide a necessarily subjective verdict in a criminal trial.  their role at least in general is to determine whether a law has been broken, rather than to make law.  they are informed on what the law says regarding the case, i do not see in what way having a legal background helps to make that decision.  i also do not understand what you mean by:  like a judge or clerks or lawyers who do not benefit on making the decision.  in no way should a jury of your peers benefit from making a legal decision, if they do there is a mistrial.   #  as far as knowing how the legal system works, that is the job of the professionals in the room.   #  the point of having a jury of peers is that you are supposed to be tried in the context of our society, and it makes the most sense for actual representatives of our society to be the ones judging you, as opposed to people who do it for a living.  it is no secret that many people are definitely biased, but the jury selection process has ways of addressing this.  jurors are not as randomly selected as it would seem.  once you are there, the process is lengthy for how the actual 0 in the box are picked.  each side is attorney gets to ask detailed questions of every potential juror.  about their background.  about their opinions on things.  and both attorneys have the right to dismiss jurors if they believe that they wo not be fair.  it is not perfect, but it goes a long way toward addressing a lot of that inherent bias.  as far as knowing how the legal system works, that is the job of the professionals in the room.  jurors are not meant to know all the case law and the technicalities of the past.  they are supposed to make a judgment on this case.  the fact that all they know about the law is what they have heard in this particular case is exactly one of their strongest benefits toward being an impartial judge.   #  it is not a mechanism for handpicking a jury.   # because it means all that they are judging is this specific case, which is exactly what they are supposed to be doing.  they are not trying to relate it back to legal precedent and how the court decided in such and such case from 0.  if it was literally a case of the court officers handpicking people, then this would be a concern, but they do not have  that  much power.  who gets brought in in the first place is still random.  and an important point is that both sides get to have equal say in who is dismissed.  it is not a mechanism for handpicking a jury.  it is a mechanism for ensuring for the integrity of the case that they do have the most impartial jury possible.  for example: in many cases where the death penalty is being pursued, they will often dismiss potential jurors who do not believe in the death penalty, the concern being that they will vote  not guilty  in any event, simply to avoid the accused person being sentenced to death, even if they believe that the person is guilty.   #  so inbetween would be half court bias, half jury bias right ?  #   they are not trying to relate it back to legal precedent and how the court decided in such and such case from 0.   but should not they be relating it to other cases ? otherwise there will be no similar judgement for similar crimes/charges.   if it was literally a case of the court officers handpicking people, then this would be a concern, but they do not have that much power  so if the court had too much power in choosing, it would be a concern because of bias of the people picking.  if they had too little power in choosing, it would be a concern because the jury is biased.  so inbetween would be half court bias, half jury bias right ?  #  each side wants a jury biased towards their side.   # otherwise there will be no similar judgement for similar crimes/charges.  no.  the judgement is guilty/not guilty and in theory depends on the specific facts of the case.  sentencing is done mostly by judges.  not really.  the way it currently works, both the prosecutor the state and the defense attorney both get to dismiss potential jurors based on questioning.  this is called voir dire URL if the defense attorney asks a potential juror a question and does not like the answer received, the juror can be dismissed.  in a perfect world, you end up with a jury that both the prosecutor and defense attorney are comfortable with.  each side wants a jury biased towards their side.
after every school shooting the debate gun violence in schools starts up with one side supporting reduced gun rights and the other side supporting banning violent video games.  whenever the idea of posting armed guards at schools is brought up the idea is always shot down as ridiculous.  it was never given a reason why people look down upon it.  i feel that posting armed guards at schools would directly deincentivize any individual from going to violent crimes at schools.  and if the individual wanting to commit is suicidal than the armed guards would directly solve the problem and stop the would be gunmen before the tragedy even starts.  all other ideas on curbing gun violence does not seem to have the aspects of deincentification and directness that posting armed guards at schools has.  that is not to say that ideas are wrong but adding this idea of armed guards to their respective platforms would, in my opinion, help curb school violence better than any of these opinions could individually.   #  and if the individual wanting to commit is suicidal than the armed guards would directly solve the problem and stop the would be gunmen before the tragedy even starts.   #  well, these guards would not be psychic.   # well, these guards would not be psychic.  truth is, in a hypothetical situation where the shooter is suicidal as seems to frequently be the case , he is going to kill a few people before the guards are able to take him down.  do the guards respond quickly enough that he kills less people than he would have otherwise ? maybe.  but you have now introduced a group of armed guards firing on the suspect, which means more bullets flying through the air to potentially hit innocent bystanders, and this is likely happening  before  a proper evacuation can take place.  so what kind of armed guards are we talking about ? ca not be cops, because cops already have jobs.  so.  private security contractors ? what kind of training do they have ? let is also think about how it may take away from the primary goal of the school: education.  imagine how much learning time gets interrupted and lost due to conversations about the men with guns outside.  bottom line is, shootings have happened in plenty of places where armed guards  were  posted, and the guards were only able to respond once the subject had begun their assault.  you can argue for the deterrent effect, that maybe some shootings are stopped in advance simply  because  armed guards are present, but it seems that more often than not, the subject is suicidal or prepared to go down in a hail of gunfire.  frankly, i do not think there is much of a solution for school shootings.  the goose is cooked, so to speak.  we have allowed everyone and their grandmother to have a gun in this country, to the point where there are more guns than there are people.  shootings are going to happen.  armed guards just mean more bullets in the air.   #  i think the best argument is that ultimately, there are around 0,0 public schools source URL and i do not know how many public schools in the u. s.   #  thanks.  for the record, though, while i think it is an improvement over private security, tasking police officers to a school is still a waste of time and money.  i suspect that the only reason they were put in place at my school was because it was a safe, wealthy suburb whose only crimes were teenage stuff drugs, vandalism, trespassing etc.  so it is not like they had anything better to do.  a big city department whose budget never goes far enough would not be able to afford something similar.  i think the best argument is that ultimately, there are around 0,0 public schools source URL and i do not know how many public schools in the u. s.  the odds of any one being victimized are astronomically low, and they should prioritize what funding they have towards improving their education than solving a non existent problem.   #  this would be better if we had an armed guard sitting at the back of each class, but that would be insanely expensive and it would make our schools look like prisons.   #  i am not convinced that a guard would be able to do much.  lots of middle and high schools are huge, with 0 0 floors and dozens of rooms per floor.  if you hire one security guard per school, you are still probably looking at a response time of at least a minute.  that is plenty of time for a gunman to kill any number of people and hold others hostage.  how will a security guard help ? this would be better if we had an armed guard sitting at the back of each class, but that would be insanely expensive and it would make our schools look like prisons.   #  guns have been glorified as a symbol of patriotism in the us.   #  difficult, but not impossible.  i see it as a problem that we are better off trying to fix rather than cope with.  the right to own a gun is deeply ingrained in the culture here.  a change in public perception of that scale takes generations, it has to happen slowly.  it is not gun laws that need to be changed first, it is gun culture.  guns have been glorified as a symbol of patriotism in the us.  if we can move away from that idea, public opinion can shift over time and laws can catch up.  i recognize that some people have leisurely interests in guns, but that can still happen in a more controlled environment.  0 guns per 0 people seems like an extremely high number, and is not the most informative of stat to be providing.  according to this article URL gun ownership has dropped over the last 0 decades from 0 in 0 to 0 in 0.  it is not about taking people is guns away, it is about convincing them they do not want them.  it means persuading whatever % of the population that likes the notion of owning a gun that it is not necessary and not a good idea, things can change.  a big issue in trying to change public opinion on guns is that any attempt by the government to do so would be perceived as an attack on freedoms.  it would either have to happen very slowly or it would have to happen by the people, and i do not see a civil rights movement happening any time soon.   #  school is meant to be an environment of learning, broadening one is horizons, and feeling free to pursue knowledge.   # not if the person has no intention of staying alive throughout the ordeal.  how do you figure ? they are not going to know whom to stop until there is a reason to stop them.  i understand the desire to keep schools safe, but let is be honest with ourselves here.  school shootings, even in the us, are pretty damn rare.  school is meant to be an environment of learning, broadening one is horizons, and feeling free to pursue knowledge.  how are we ever supposed to convince kids that school is worth anything positive if they have to start every day by going through a metal detector and dodging police in riot gear ?
after every school shooting the debate gun violence in schools starts up with one side supporting reduced gun rights and the other side supporting banning violent video games.  whenever the idea of posting armed guards at schools is brought up the idea is always shot down as ridiculous.  it was never given a reason why people look down upon it.  i feel that posting armed guards at schools would directly deincentivize any individual from going to violent crimes at schools.  and if the individual wanting to commit is suicidal than the armed guards would directly solve the problem and stop the would be gunmen before the tragedy even starts.  all other ideas on curbing gun violence does not seem to have the aspects of deincentification and directness that posting armed guards at schools has.  that is not to say that ideas are wrong but adding this idea of armed guards to their respective platforms would, in my opinion, help curb school violence better than any of these opinions could individually.   #  i feel that posting armed guards at schools would directly deincentivize any individual from going to violent crimes at schools.   #  not if the person has no intention of staying alive throughout the ordeal.   # not if the person has no intention of staying alive throughout the ordeal.  how do you figure ? they are not going to know whom to stop until there is a reason to stop them.  i understand the desire to keep schools safe, but let is be honest with ourselves here.  school shootings, even in the us, are pretty damn rare.  school is meant to be an environment of learning, broadening one is horizons, and feeling free to pursue knowledge.  how are we ever supposed to convince kids that school is worth anything positive if they have to start every day by going through a metal detector and dodging police in riot gear ?  #  i suspect that the only reason they were put in place at my school was because it was a safe, wealthy suburb whose only crimes were teenage stuff drugs, vandalism, trespassing etc.   #  thanks.  for the record, though, while i think it is an improvement over private security, tasking police officers to a school is still a waste of time and money.  i suspect that the only reason they were put in place at my school was because it was a safe, wealthy suburb whose only crimes were teenage stuff drugs, vandalism, trespassing etc.  so it is not like they had anything better to do.  a big city department whose budget never goes far enough would not be able to afford something similar.  i think the best argument is that ultimately, there are around 0,0 public schools source URL and i do not know how many public schools in the u. s.  the odds of any one being victimized are astronomically low, and they should prioritize what funding they have towards improving their education than solving a non existent problem.   #  so what kind of armed guards are we talking about ?  # well, these guards would not be psychic.  truth is, in a hypothetical situation where the shooter is suicidal as seems to frequently be the case , he is going to kill a few people before the guards are able to take him down.  do the guards respond quickly enough that he kills less people than he would have otherwise ? maybe.  but you have now introduced a group of armed guards firing on the suspect, which means more bullets flying through the air to potentially hit innocent bystanders, and this is likely happening  before  a proper evacuation can take place.  so what kind of armed guards are we talking about ? ca not be cops, because cops already have jobs.  so.  private security contractors ? what kind of training do they have ? let is also think about how it may take away from the primary goal of the school: education.  imagine how much learning time gets interrupted and lost due to conversations about the men with guns outside.  bottom line is, shootings have happened in plenty of places where armed guards  were  posted, and the guards were only able to respond once the subject had begun their assault.  you can argue for the deterrent effect, that maybe some shootings are stopped in advance simply  because  armed guards are present, but it seems that more often than not, the subject is suicidal or prepared to go down in a hail of gunfire.  frankly, i do not think there is much of a solution for school shootings.  the goose is cooked, so to speak.  we have allowed everyone and their grandmother to have a gun in this country, to the point where there are more guns than there are people.  shootings are going to happen.  armed guards just mean more bullets in the air.   #  lots of middle and high schools are huge, with 0 0 floors and dozens of rooms per floor.   #  i am not convinced that a guard would be able to do much.  lots of middle and high schools are huge, with 0 0 floors and dozens of rooms per floor.  if you hire one security guard per school, you are still probably looking at a response time of at least a minute.  that is plenty of time for a gunman to kill any number of people and hold others hostage.  how will a security guard help ? this would be better if we had an armed guard sitting at the back of each class, but that would be insanely expensive and it would make our schools look like prisons.   #  according to this article URL gun ownership has dropped over the last 0 decades from 0 in 0 to 0 in 0.  it is not about taking people is guns away, it is about convincing them they do not want them.   #  difficult, but not impossible.  i see it as a problem that we are better off trying to fix rather than cope with.  the right to own a gun is deeply ingrained in the culture here.  a change in public perception of that scale takes generations, it has to happen slowly.  it is not gun laws that need to be changed first, it is gun culture.  guns have been glorified as a symbol of patriotism in the us.  if we can move away from that idea, public opinion can shift over time and laws can catch up.  i recognize that some people have leisurely interests in guns, but that can still happen in a more controlled environment.  0 guns per 0 people seems like an extremely high number, and is not the most informative of stat to be providing.  according to this article URL gun ownership has dropped over the last 0 decades from 0 in 0 to 0 in 0.  it is not about taking people is guns away, it is about convincing them they do not want them.  it means persuading whatever % of the population that likes the notion of owning a gun that it is not necessary and not a good idea, things can change.  a big issue in trying to change public opinion on guns is that any attempt by the government to do so would be perceived as an attack on freedoms.  it would either have to happen very slowly or it would have to happen by the people, and i do not see a civil rights movement happening any time soon.
phobia has a fairly specific meaning that does not apply in most cases of homophobia and transphobia.  i see the argument that prejudice against homosexuals stems from fear of their own sexuality, people assuming their sexuality, fear of difference et cetera; and i am sure that is accurate in some cases.  in most cases it seems more like trying to pretend that disdain and fear are synonyms.  worse is transphobia, of which most cases i have seen stem purely from ignorance.  without evidence or information perhaps it is reasonable to believe that someone is gender ca not be opposite their sex, perhaps it is unreasonable.  either way it is a far cry from anything resembling a phobia.  i know there is not another convenient, readily known term but generalizing everyone who disagrees with you, often times wrongly, only widens the divide.  for clarification, i think there is a correct usage of these terms but it is not as a catch all for lgbtq prejudice.   #  either way it is a far cry from anything resembling a phobia.   #  to insist that a word can only mean what its history or word roots dictate, is a form of the etymological fallacy URL in reality, words can take on entirely new meanings URL in the course of their usage.   # to insist that a word can only mean what its history or word roots dictate, is a form of the etymological fallacy URL in reality, words can take on entirely new meanings URL in the course of their usage.  homophobia and transphobia have taken on a much broader meaning that encompasses various types of opposition to lgbt rights.  i feel that wikipedia does a pretty good job at reflecting this:   transphobia. is a range of antagonistic attitudes and feelings against transsexuality and transsexual or transgender people, based on the expression of their internal gender identity   homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender lgbt .  other alternatives have been proposed, but they do not get enough traction in terms of actual language usage.   #  do you know of any other examples of phobia being used that way in the hard sciences ?  # revised and augmented throughout by sir henry stuart jones.  with the assistance of.  roderick mckenzie.   to source check that.  do you know of any other examples of phobia being used that way in the hard sciences ? that is the thing.  nobody defines hydrophobia as being literally a fear of water, because  fear  does not make sense when we are talking about molecules.  neverwet, a product that is superhydrophobic, is not a chemical that is  super  afraid of water, rather it avoids water.  similarly, a technophobe does not run away whenever they see any form of technology, they just avoid engaging with it.  you are engaging in the etymological fallacy.  URL phobe is just a greek stem that has passed down into our vocabulary.  this is why your argument against the words homophobia and transphobia does not make any sense.  look up the definitions to see how they are actually used, do not rely on the greek stems to determine a definition from it.  because that does not work with a  lot  of borrowed words.   #  because that does not work with a lot of compound words.   # hydrophobia literally did mean the fear of water in greece.  it also means that to most people and dictionaries.  it was given a different definition much later on, presumably by some group of scientists.  one other term also using the term phobia incorrectly does not justify all of them using phobia correctly, especially when the widely accepted  current  definition of phobia is  fear of.   furthermore, the original meaning of homophobia was the  fear of being/being perceived as gay.   because that does not work with a lot of compound words.  i specifically asked if you had another example of the term phobia being used similarly.  it is not about greek stems, it is that phobia currently means fear to most people.  phobia mean aversion because some lab tech said so is not any different then  gender sex  because every botanist said so.   #   a person who fears, dislikes, or avoids new technology.    # technophobe.   a person who fears, dislikes, or avoids new technology.   see, dislikes or avoids.  not only fear.  even though the greek stem phobe generally means fear, a person can still be a technophobe even if they do not have an irrational fear of technology.  phobe URL   a person who dislikes or is afraid of something or someone notice the keyword  or .  thus, again, homophobia:   dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people.  or    furthermore, the original meaning of homophobia was the  fear of being/being perceived as gay.   original meaning has no bearing on the current meaning.  words change.  it does not matter how you think a term should be defined, words are defined only by how most people agree on how a word should be defined.  here is an example:  the word apologize comes from the greek word ἀπολογία apologia which originally only meant  a speech in defence .  later on it began to carry the sense of expressing remorse or  saying sorry  over something that one may feel regret for, as well as to explain or defend, in some contexts.  your argument is basically  it does not make sense to use this commonly accepted meaning of a term because if you look at the greek stem word and how it was historically used, it means something else !    #  as i explicitly stated, in a  modern context  phobia means fear to most people.   # you are basically saying  it does not make sense to use this commonly accepted meaning of a term because if you look at the greek stem word and how it was historically used, it means something else !   i agree, this is a seriously pointless debate when you completely ignore my statements.  as i explicitly stated, in a  modern context  phobia means fear to most people.  i have been to various events with bigoted individuals who vitriolically denounce the term.  i imagine if explained that phobia in this very specific context means something else then what it means in every other situation they have heard it in, and cite the hydrophobic effect the one named after the fear of water it would not go over well.  there are incorrect negative connotations on the term and saying you do not see them does not remove them from the people you are labeling.  it does not help that an incredibly common notion is that bigots are only bigots out of fear.
something i have noticed is that there is a prevailing opinion that the westminster parliamentary system i. e.  the one used in australia, canada, and the uk is far more representative of the populace than the us congressional system.  this usually stems from the observation that there are generally more political parties at play under westminster parliamentary systems than is the case under the us is congressional system.  but this argument seems to break down when more closely examined.  in particular, my biggest problem with it is that parties in a westminster system are very different from those in a congressional system.  specifically, parties in a westminster system are far,  far  more homogenous and rigid than those in a congressional system.  from what i have seen, under the former it is rare to the extreme to vote against your party while in the latter it is notable when a vote is split perfectly along party lines.  to give an example, the  blue dog democrats  are a subgroup of the democratic party that often  crosses the aisle  to vote with the republican party.  as far as i can tell, that sort of behavior would be likely to get one kicked out of one is party in a westminster system.  in other words, party discipline is much stronger in a westminster system than a congressional system.  the strangest thing to me is that this homogeneity kind of appears to defeat the point of having parties in the first place if the point is that the parties are voted into power and do not split their votes, then why bother to have many different mps ? surely it would achieve the same effect if each party was just given a block of votes equal to the number of seats they would hold, no ? this all seems rather obvious to me, which tells me that i am most likely missing something significant or perhaps misunderstanding some key feature of the westminster political system.  for the record, i am from the us and therefore far more familiar with the congressional system than westminster systems, though i do try to understand both as best i can.   #  party discipline is much stronger in a westminster system than a congressional system.   #  this is largely because there is no separate executive branch in the westminster system.   # this is largely because there is no separate executive branch in the westminster system.  american congressmen ca not be denied executive jobs by the party leadership because they are not looking for them.  they may get more policymaking power but even then they are more forgiving about that.  surely it would achieve the same effect if each party was just given a block of votes equal to the number of seats they would hold they do this in proportional representation models.  if you are going to vote for a party rather than a person this is more for you, although since we do not here in the us it does not really fit our voting style.  british people may look into adopting it if that is how they vote, as seems to be the case.   #  i mean that it seems almost like instead of having multiple candidates per voting district that such systems vote for one of half a dozen or so candidates, who can be elected in multiple places.   # american congressmen ca not be denied executive jobs by the party leadership because they are not looking for them.  they may get more policymaking power but even then they are more forgiving about that.  could you expand on this ? i am pretty sure that most places have a well developed bureaucracy, and i do not see how a modern state would function without one.  unless you mean something different ? if you are going to vote for a party rather than a person this is more for you, although since we do not here in the us it does not really fit our voting style.  british people may look into adopting it if that is how they vote, as seems to be the case.  i mean that it seems almost like instead of having multiple candidates per voting district that such systems vote for one of half a dozen or so candidates, who can be elected in multiple places.  would you agree with that ?  #  the prime minister typically has to regularly answer questions from mp is mp member of parliament in parliamentary systems.   #  i believe u/looklistencreate is trying to explain that the us has separate elections for its legislative bodies house of reps.  and the senate and executive body potus while, in the parliamentary system, a single election takes care of the matter.  the prime minister is usually the leader of the party that received the most votes in the election.  this does have one huge advantage: question time.  the prime minister typically has to regularly answer questions from mp is mp member of parliament in parliamentary systems.  mp is get to ask the pm questions about policy, etc.  and these sessions are often brutal.  potus does not have to directly answer to the members of the us congress the same way.   #  if the public turns against the policies of the current government and express their dissatisfaction to their mp is then the opposition parties can ask for a vote that can bring down the government.   #  i am glad you asked.  one of the simplest reasons is because it does not create the sort of gridlock found in congressional systems.  another one, and the one that is often overlooked, is the presence of no confidence motions URL in parliamentary systems.  this is huge.  if the public turns against the policies of the current government and express their dissatisfaction to their mp is then the opposition parties can ask for a vote that can bring down the government.  that strike me as presenting the voter with less options rather than more, no ? no.  party a may have 0 nominees, party b may have 0.  in another district, it is possible that no one in party a puts their name forward for election, while 0 members of party b may stand for election.  i believe that it is a better strategy than the us system which typically puts 0 d vs.  0 r for every district.  so instead of a simple choice b/w d and r, people get to choose the person they want, the one they want to talk to in their local mp is office.  you have to realize that there are pros and cons of having the executive body separate from the legislative body.  i really cannot say that one system is definitely superior than the other.  they both have strengths and weaknesses.  what works for denmark may not work for america.  and so on.   #  i suppose i have some more reading to do on the topic i knew the branches were more closely intertwined in westminster systems, but i did not realize quite the extent, i think.   # party a may have 0 nominees, party b may have 0.  in another district, it is possible that no one in party a puts their name forward for election, while 0 members of party b may stand for election.  i believe that it is a better strategy than the us system which typically puts 0 d vs.  0 r for every district.  so instead of a simple choice b/w d and r, people get to choose the person they want, the one they want to talk to in their local mp is office.  interestingly, that is also not the case in the us in my experience.  most elections for anything above township level tend to draw between one and five major candidates with one being rather rare compared to two and three for each of two or three major parties.  i really cannot say that one system is definitely superior than the other.  they both have strengths and weaknesses.  what works for denmark may not work for america.  and so on.  fair enough.  i suppose i have some more reading to do on the topic i knew the branches were more closely intertwined in westminster systems, but i did not realize quite the extent, i think.
i want to start by saying that i understand how it can be very useful to talk about the importance power can play in discrimination dynamics and i think that distinction needs to be made when having serious academic discussions about the subject.  that being said, the  power   discrimination  definition of the various  ism words is, unless i am mistaken, a new addition to these words and as such is not part of how the words are used nor how most people use them.  note: by this i mean that as these are  newer  definitions, they naturally are not used by those who do not deliberately conform to newer trends.  again, i could be wrong, but this seems like a safe assumption.  it also seems like this definition is not useful in any intellectually honest context in that all it does is silence those who are complaining about non traditional discrimination by focusing instead on the presumed misuse of  racism  and not on the situation in which they experienced discrimination, invalidating their experience and confusing those who are not necessarily familiar with it is usage by introducing a new definition.  i guess the tl;dr is basically the power  discrimination  ism definition is not useful outside of explaining that power and pervasive discrimination has more of an impact than simply discrimination and the way it is used is not actually useful in conversation.   #  the power  discrimination  ism definition is not useful outside of explaining that power and pervasive discrimination has more of an impact than simply discrimination and the way it is used is not actually useful in conversation.   #  could you explain where and how the p d definition is being misused ?  # could you explain where and how the p d definition is being misused ? it looks like it is a useful distinction that, in terms of ability to cause harm, p d   d.  government leader   hitler is much worse than just hitler.  it is a useful distinction that shows that hitler would probably have been an asshole instead of a murderous psychopath if he would never come into power.  could you please clarify your position u/crushgaunt ? i do not think i am the only one who is a bit confused.   #  discrimination   power already has a term: systemic  ism.   #  i am going to change your view just on the end.  i do not think  ism d   p is useful at all for discussion, and i would argue it is not intended to be used for discussion.  discrimination   power already has a term: systemic  ism.  the redefining of the language such that the systemic part is dropped is solely used to maliciously manipulate the emotions of the audience of whatever discussion they are invoking it in.  being racist or sexist in today is society is seen as a bad thing by a huge majority of people in the west i ca not speak for countries outside of the west , and by conflating the two terms:  ism and systemic  ism, the user can invoke the emotional reaction  ism causes even if they are not guilty of  ism but rather associated with a group that benefits/causes/does not suffer from systemic  ism.  then when said accused defends themselves from accusations of  ism, it becomes easy to kafkatrap them and  win .   #  it has come to be synonymous with  hypothesis  or  conjecture  in lay language, which leads to all sorts of confusion i. e.   #  this argument is weird to me because racism was originally meant to talk about something systemic.  since then it entered common parlance and has come to denote something else.  does this mean that sociologists should change their own word ? not necessarily.  a parallel could be the word  theory .  it has come to be synonymous with  hypothesis  or  conjecture  in lay language, which leads to all sorts of confusion i. e.   evolution is just a theory !   .  do you see people complaining loudly, as they do on this thread, that scientists should come up with a new word ? no, because that would be the tail wagging the dog, and lead to even more confusion by creating a rupture with established terminology.   #  likewise, i have seen those same bloggers making claims about racism where they actually mean racial prejudice, in an apparent effort to trap opposition.   #  i have definitely seen what you are talking about.  people talk about a racist black person in america, and people scoff because saying  nobody could seriously claim that white people are oppressed .  in fact, i just read a blog post that ended with this claim.  of course, the person claiming that there were racist black people only meant that there were racially prejudiced black people, and they did not intend to make any claim about power or oppression.  likewise, i have seen those same bloggers making claims about racism where they actually mean racial prejudice, in an apparent effort to trap opposition.  that said, it seems that you admit that this can be a useful distinction in serious discussion.  that should mean that it would be useful for the public at large.  in fact, more people should understand the effect of power on prejudice, and the way that a person in power facing discrimination will have a different experience than a person who is powerless.  these would be useful distinctions in public discourse about race and prejudice in america, and certainly in politics.  it seems that most of your issues is in the dishonest  gotcha  debate techniques but not against the usefulness of the definition.  it seems to me that the best possible outcome would be to popularize the new definition, which would make discussions all around more precise while preventing the dishonest debate techniques.  tldr certainly the definition is often used dishonestly, but why could not everyone benefit from the new precise definitions and the distinctions it allows us to make ?  #  we  could  go the other way, and have racism simply mean racial prejudice, but then we would  still be redefining the term .   #  what you say would be true if the common use was profitable and/or acceptable.  the issue is that the established definition is imprecise.  it stands both for institutionalized oppression and individual prejudice.  this leads to problems, like wealthy white people saying they have faced  racism  thinking their  racism  is the same as what oppressed people face.  we  could  go the other way, and have racism simply mean racial prejudice, but then we would  still be redefining the term .  either way the definition should be made more precise, since the common use is woefully lacking.
i think the real reason people punish others for transgressions is not so much to discourage the behavior, but rather to channel humanity is inherently predatory nature in a way that is socially acceptable and does not contradict with the moral values we have invented or discovered, depending on how you look at it .  most people feel a smug sense of satisfaction if they hear about a bully being beat up, or a murderer being executed by the state.  humans, being predatory creatures, have a certain sense of bloodlust and channeling this predatory instinct towards people who are predatory allows them to continue to view themselves as not being predators, while still enjoying violence.  even bullies often justify their torments of victims as a form of punishment for not fitting the social norms, being  annoying  or acting in a way that is in their eyes unacceptable.  serial killers also often see their acts as a sort of punishment towards humanity.  rapists are often motivated by a desire to punish women.  it seems like evil deeds are often motivated by a perverted sense of justice rather than mere selfishness or greed.  another reason i think punishment has more to do with humans enjoying violence than it does with stopping bad behavior is the fact that corporal punishment of children is still very popular and defended by the majority of adults.  i always felt like my parents took pleasure in punishing me, so i may be biased, but i really do think parents spank their children more out of anger and frustration than out of a will to help them develop.  another reason i think it is innate is because the moral goodness of punishment is something virtually everybody agrees on.  liberals and conservatives alike usually have a  tough on crime  stance and would rather a violent criminal receive a harsh punishment even if it is more expensive and makes them less likely to be rehabilitated, than a lesser punishment that rehabilitated them more effectively.  this sentiment is prevalent in every culture, even in societies like scandinavia where the laws are more lenient.  we punish people because we perceive them as  deserving it  ie, we despise them and lust for their blood because we perceive them as being no longer part of the same species, and something that needs to be predated upon for the benefit of the community.  i actually think if there was no prison or capital punishment it would have very little effect on crime rates.  the few people who are truly serial offenders could just be put in hospitals and the rest will eventually be released from prison anyway and will be far crazier on release after spending decades in the pen.  in a nutshell, i think punishment has actually caused far more evil than it is prevented and is really just an outlet for our inherent cruelty as a meat eating species at the top of the food chain.  punishing people we consider  bad  also has the effect of affirming our own self righteousness.   #  most people feel a smug sense of satisfaction if they hear about a bully being beat up, or a murderer being executed by the state.   #  humans, being predatory creatures, have a certain sense of bloodlust and channeling this predatory instinct towards people who are predatory allows them to continue to view themselves as not being predators, while still enjoying violence.   # humans, being predatory creatures, have a certain sense of bloodlust and channeling this predatory instinct towards people who are predatory allows them to continue to view themselves as not being predators, while still enjoying violence.  i would argue that the feeling of justice that comes from situations where the perpetrator is punished, does not require violence.  we also feel it where the perpetrator is incarcerated, being forced to pay a fine that we believe fits the crime, take part in community service etc.  in my view, it is also important to give society, and especially the victim of a crime, a sense of justice: that the wrongdoing against them is being taken seriously, and that the perpetrator is punished for that wrongdoing.  punishing people we consider  bad  also has the effect of affirming our own self righteousness.  i would agree if you were suggesting a better system, that focuses more on rehabilitation.  however, you seem to be suggesting doing away with punishment altogether ? do you think that the number of crimes would be the same without any punishments ?  #  so you will just need to write a new one.   #  just write a line or two explaining how your view was changed you do not have to have had an epiphany, just had it modified in some way and at the end, type a delta.  i ca not remember how to type one, but you can cut and paste one from somewhere else.  it has to be a response to the commenter that changed your view.  you ca not edit one into the comment you already typed, unfortunately.  that comment was pretty good.  the bot that awards them wo not rescan comments it already saw and catch edits.  so you will just need to write a new one.  there is a character minimum, so you ca not just comment with a delta.   #  so i ca not get behind punishing somebody merely because they are deemed to  deserve  it.   # however, you seem to be suggesting doing away with punishment altogether ? do you think that the number of crimes would be the same without any punishments ? i would advocate a system where punishment is replaced as a concept with rehab.  criminals, even violent ones would be seen as having a sickness of the mind which i believe they do , rather than being demonized as evil.  being a sufferer of aspergers/tourettes i sometimes experience terrifying rages i ca not control, moreso as a child and teenager but still occasionally i will  lose it .  i also have a cousin who lost his moral compass and sense of time after a traumatic head injury.  obviously if someone murdered, raped or otherwise violently assaulted someone, they need to be put away at least for a while, but i do not believe in free will and even if i did, i do not feel like anyone has the authority to judge whether someone acted as a result of mental illness or out of the blackness of their heart.  so i ca not get behind punishing somebody merely because they are deemed to  deserve  it.  i suspect people in the distant future will see our fixation on good and evil and our delight in punishment as very barbaric, strange and superstitious.  i say  distant  though because there are still many non violent minorities who have not got their rights yet.  criminals are the last people it is acceptable to hate and will be the last group who will be recognized as bona fide human beings.  even bleeding heart liberals do not seem all that keen on protecting people on death row, even if they are not necessarily in favor of the death penalty it is definitely not a high priority when there is still so much prejudice towards blacks, gays and the poor.  to answer your second question, yes i think punishment has very little deterrent effect on violent crimes in particular.  something like shoplifting could probably be deterred well if the penalty was to lose your hand, but i do not think most westerners including myself would find such an extreme punishment defensible for such a small crime.   #  i still think that justice for the victim is still important.   # criminals, even violent ones would be seen as having a sickness of the mind which i believe they do , rather than being demonized as evil.  i still think that justice for the victim is still important.  but i agree with you that the justice system should be primarily focused on rehabilitation.  i do not believe in free will either.  however, i believe that even if determinism is true, punishment can still work as a deterrent.  the physical decision processes in the brain are presumably still based on all previously learnings/inputs from the external world, even if one is mind/consciousness itself has no real control and just experiences the decisions of the brain as if the mind was the originator of those decisions.  if the brain contains a learned rule that certain actions will likely end in punishment e. g.  incarceration then this will at least in a certain percentage of brains, be taken into account when calculating the decision to perform or not perform a criminal action.   #  their hatred of criminals is not so much borne out of pity for the victims but more of a hatred of non conforming and deviant behavior in general.   # but i agree with you that the justice system should be primarily focused on rehabilitation.  would it be though if society focused on forgiveness or at least mercy rather than retribution ? maybe in a society with better values, they would see someone who hurt them or someone they loved getting rehabilitated as a form of justice.  i do think people are inherently vengeful to some degree that is my whole premise of course ! but i think a strong enough cultural meme of mercy could largely negate that.  that is what jesus supposedly tried to do after all, assuming he actually walked the earth.  incarceration then this will at least in a certain percentage of brains, be taken into account when calculating the decision to perform or not perform a criminal action.  again, i think it would work well for small crimes but would have little effect on murderers, rapists and other violent criminals, who usually either act impulsively or are so arrogant that they do not think they will ever get caught.  i also think having a culture of punishment makes people less empathetic and more judgmental in general not only to criminals and people is mistakes, but towards minorities, the poor and so on.  singapore and the united states are very punitive cultures and imo are not particularly merciful or empathetic towards the downtrodden.  their hatred of criminals is not so much borne out of pity for the victims but more of a hatred of non conforming and deviant behavior in general.  ironically, the people who are probably best deterred by the laws against murder are otherwise law abiding people who might want to kill to avenge a serious crime.
i think the real reason people punish others for transgressions is not so much to discourage the behavior, but rather to channel humanity is inherently predatory nature in a way that is socially acceptable and does not contradict with the moral values we have invented or discovered, depending on how you look at it .  most people feel a smug sense of satisfaction if they hear about a bully being beat up, or a murderer being executed by the state.  humans, being predatory creatures, have a certain sense of bloodlust and channeling this predatory instinct towards people who are predatory allows them to continue to view themselves as not being predators, while still enjoying violence.  even bullies often justify their torments of victims as a form of punishment for not fitting the social norms, being  annoying  or acting in a way that is in their eyes unacceptable.  serial killers also often see their acts as a sort of punishment towards humanity.  rapists are often motivated by a desire to punish women.  it seems like evil deeds are often motivated by a perverted sense of justice rather than mere selfishness or greed.  another reason i think punishment has more to do with humans enjoying violence than it does with stopping bad behavior is the fact that corporal punishment of children is still very popular and defended by the majority of adults.  i always felt like my parents took pleasure in punishing me, so i may be biased, but i really do think parents spank their children more out of anger and frustration than out of a will to help them develop.  another reason i think it is innate is because the moral goodness of punishment is something virtually everybody agrees on.  liberals and conservatives alike usually have a  tough on crime  stance and would rather a violent criminal receive a harsh punishment even if it is more expensive and makes them less likely to be rehabilitated, than a lesser punishment that rehabilitated them more effectively.  this sentiment is prevalent in every culture, even in societies like scandinavia where the laws are more lenient.  we punish people because we perceive them as  deserving it  ie, we despise them and lust for their blood because we perceive them as being no longer part of the same species, and something that needs to be predated upon for the benefit of the community.  i actually think if there was no prison or capital punishment it would have very little effect on crime rates.  the few people who are truly serial offenders could just be put in hospitals and the rest will eventually be released from prison anyway and will be far crazier on release after spending decades in the pen.  in a nutshell, i think punishment has actually caused far more evil than it is prevented and is really just an outlet for our inherent cruelty as a meat eating species at the top of the food chain.  punishing people we consider  bad  also has the effect of affirming our own self righteousness.   #  in a nutshell, i think punishment has actually caused far more evil than it is prevented and is really just an outlet for our inherent cruelty as a meat eating species at the top of the food chain.   #  punishing people we consider  bad  also has the effect of affirming our own self righteousness.   # humans, being predatory creatures, have a certain sense of bloodlust and channeling this predatory instinct towards people who are predatory allows them to continue to view themselves as not being predators, while still enjoying violence.  i would argue that the feeling of justice that comes from situations where the perpetrator is punished, does not require violence.  we also feel it where the perpetrator is incarcerated, being forced to pay a fine that we believe fits the crime, take part in community service etc.  in my view, it is also important to give society, and especially the victim of a crime, a sense of justice: that the wrongdoing against them is being taken seriously, and that the perpetrator is punished for that wrongdoing.  punishing people we consider  bad  also has the effect of affirming our own self righteousness.  i would agree if you were suggesting a better system, that focuses more on rehabilitation.  however, you seem to be suggesting doing away with punishment altogether ? do you think that the number of crimes would be the same without any punishments ?  #  you ca not edit one into the comment you already typed, unfortunately.   #  just write a line or two explaining how your view was changed you do not have to have had an epiphany, just had it modified in some way and at the end, type a delta.  i ca not remember how to type one, but you can cut and paste one from somewhere else.  it has to be a response to the commenter that changed your view.  you ca not edit one into the comment you already typed, unfortunately.  that comment was pretty good.  the bot that awards them wo not rescan comments it already saw and catch edits.  so you will just need to write a new one.  there is a character minimum, so you ca not just comment with a delta.   #  to answer your second question, yes i think punishment has very little deterrent effect on violent crimes in particular.   # however, you seem to be suggesting doing away with punishment altogether ? do you think that the number of crimes would be the same without any punishments ? i would advocate a system where punishment is replaced as a concept with rehab.  criminals, even violent ones would be seen as having a sickness of the mind which i believe they do , rather than being demonized as evil.  being a sufferer of aspergers/tourettes i sometimes experience terrifying rages i ca not control, moreso as a child and teenager but still occasionally i will  lose it .  i also have a cousin who lost his moral compass and sense of time after a traumatic head injury.  obviously if someone murdered, raped or otherwise violently assaulted someone, they need to be put away at least for a while, but i do not believe in free will and even if i did, i do not feel like anyone has the authority to judge whether someone acted as a result of mental illness or out of the blackness of their heart.  so i ca not get behind punishing somebody merely because they are deemed to  deserve  it.  i suspect people in the distant future will see our fixation on good and evil and our delight in punishment as very barbaric, strange and superstitious.  i say  distant  though because there are still many non violent minorities who have not got their rights yet.  criminals are the last people it is acceptable to hate and will be the last group who will be recognized as bona fide human beings.  even bleeding heart liberals do not seem all that keen on protecting people on death row, even if they are not necessarily in favor of the death penalty it is definitely not a high priority when there is still so much prejudice towards blacks, gays and the poor.  to answer your second question, yes i think punishment has very little deterrent effect on violent crimes in particular.  something like shoplifting could probably be deterred well if the penalty was to lose your hand, but i do not think most westerners including myself would find such an extreme punishment defensible for such a small crime.   #  criminals, even violent ones would be seen as having a sickness of the mind which i believe they do , rather than being demonized as evil.   # criminals, even violent ones would be seen as having a sickness of the mind which i believe they do , rather than being demonized as evil.  i still think that justice for the victim is still important.  but i agree with you that the justice system should be primarily focused on rehabilitation.  i do not believe in free will either.  however, i believe that even if determinism is true, punishment can still work as a deterrent.  the physical decision processes in the brain are presumably still based on all previously learnings/inputs from the external world, even if one is mind/consciousness itself has no real control and just experiences the decisions of the brain as if the mind was the originator of those decisions.  if the brain contains a learned rule that certain actions will likely end in punishment e. g.  incarceration then this will at least in a certain percentage of brains, be taken into account when calculating the decision to perform or not perform a criminal action.   #  would it be though if society focused on forgiveness or at least mercy rather than retribution ?  # but i agree with you that the justice system should be primarily focused on rehabilitation.  would it be though if society focused on forgiveness or at least mercy rather than retribution ? maybe in a society with better values, they would see someone who hurt them or someone they loved getting rehabilitated as a form of justice.  i do think people are inherently vengeful to some degree that is my whole premise of course ! but i think a strong enough cultural meme of mercy could largely negate that.  that is what jesus supposedly tried to do after all, assuming he actually walked the earth.  incarceration then this will at least in a certain percentage of brains, be taken into account when calculating the decision to perform or not perform a criminal action.  again, i think it would work well for small crimes but would have little effect on murderers, rapists and other violent criminals, who usually either act impulsively or are so arrogant that they do not think they will ever get caught.  i also think having a culture of punishment makes people less empathetic and more judgmental in general not only to criminals and people is mistakes, but towards minorities, the poor and so on.  singapore and the united states are very punitive cultures and imo are not particularly merciful or empathetic towards the downtrodden.  their hatred of criminals is not so much borne out of pity for the victims but more of a hatred of non conforming and deviant behavior in general.  ironically, the people who are probably best deterred by the laws against murder are otherwise law abiding people who might want to kill to avenge a serious crime.
i think the real reason people punish others for transgressions is not so much to discourage the behavior, but rather to channel humanity is inherently predatory nature in a way that is socially acceptable and does not contradict with the moral values we have invented or discovered, depending on how you look at it .  most people feel a smug sense of satisfaction if they hear about a bully being beat up, or a murderer being executed by the state.  humans, being predatory creatures, have a certain sense of bloodlust and channeling this predatory instinct towards people who are predatory allows them to continue to view themselves as not being predators, while still enjoying violence.  even bullies often justify their torments of victims as a form of punishment for not fitting the social norms, being  annoying  or acting in a way that is in their eyes unacceptable.  serial killers also often see their acts as a sort of punishment towards humanity.  rapists are often motivated by a desire to punish women.  it seems like evil deeds are often motivated by a perverted sense of justice rather than mere selfishness or greed.  another reason i think punishment has more to do with humans enjoying violence than it does with stopping bad behavior is the fact that corporal punishment of children is still very popular and defended by the majority of adults.  i always felt like my parents took pleasure in punishing me, so i may be biased, but i really do think parents spank their children more out of anger and frustration than out of a will to help them develop.  another reason i think it is innate is because the moral goodness of punishment is something virtually everybody agrees on.  liberals and conservatives alike usually have a  tough on crime  stance and would rather a violent criminal receive a harsh punishment even if it is more expensive and makes them less likely to be rehabilitated, than a lesser punishment that rehabilitated them more effectively.  this sentiment is prevalent in every culture, even in societies like scandinavia where the laws are more lenient.  we punish people because we perceive them as  deserving it  ie, we despise them and lust for their blood because we perceive them as being no longer part of the same species, and something that needs to be predated upon for the benefit of the community.  i actually think if there was no prison or capital punishment it would have very little effect on crime rates.  the few people who are truly serial offenders could just be put in hospitals and the rest will eventually be released from prison anyway and will be far crazier on release after spending decades in the pen.  in a nutshell, i think punishment has actually caused far more evil than it is prevented and is really just an outlet for our inherent cruelty as a meat eating species at the top of the food chain.  punishing people we consider  bad  also has the effect of affirming our own self righteousness.   #  in a nutshell, i think punishment has actually caused far more evil than it is prevented and is really just an outlet for our inherent cruelty as a meat eating species at the top of the food chain.   #  punishing people we consider  bad  also has the effect of affirming our own self righteousness.   # punishing people we consider  bad  also has the effect of affirming our own self righteousness.  we do not punish people to feel high and mighty.  we punish people because they are a danger to society.  this does not just mean locking up serial killers and rapists.  it also means punishing idiots who think it is safe to drive 0 mph in a school zone.  it is why we have speed limits.  people who think driving insanely fast is safe are not inherently  bad  people, but they are dangerous and it is why we punish them.  without punishments, nothing would steer away people from being violent or even being dangerous without the intent of being dangerous.  i would agree to some extent that the prison system is far from ideal, and should also focus on rehabilitation instead of just punishment.  this, of course, is only for those getting out of prison again and not those serving a life sentence.  furthermore, punishment is not something exclusive to humans.  punishment is an effective way to keep order in a society and is used by other species too.  here is an interesting article on the subject: URL  #  you ca not edit one into the comment you already typed, unfortunately.   #  just write a line or two explaining how your view was changed you do not have to have had an epiphany, just had it modified in some way and at the end, type a delta.  i ca not remember how to type one, but you can cut and paste one from somewhere else.  it has to be a response to the commenter that changed your view.  you ca not edit one into the comment you already typed, unfortunately.  that comment was pretty good.  the bot that awards them wo not rescan comments it already saw and catch edits.  so you will just need to write a new one.  there is a character minimum, so you ca not just comment with a delta.   #  i would agree if you were suggesting a better system, that focuses more on rehabilitation.   # humans, being predatory creatures, have a certain sense of bloodlust and channeling this predatory instinct towards people who are predatory allows them to continue to view themselves as not being predators, while still enjoying violence.  i would argue that the feeling of justice that comes from situations where the perpetrator is punished, does not require violence.  we also feel it where the perpetrator is incarcerated, being forced to pay a fine that we believe fits the crime, take part in community service etc.  in my view, it is also important to give society, and especially the victim of a crime, a sense of justice: that the wrongdoing against them is being taken seriously, and that the perpetrator is punished for that wrongdoing.  punishing people we consider  bad  also has the effect of affirming our own self righteousness.  i would agree if you were suggesting a better system, that focuses more on rehabilitation.  however, you seem to be suggesting doing away with punishment altogether ? do you think that the number of crimes would be the same without any punishments ?  #  to answer your second question, yes i think punishment has very little deterrent effect on violent crimes in particular.   # however, you seem to be suggesting doing away with punishment altogether ? do you think that the number of crimes would be the same without any punishments ? i would advocate a system where punishment is replaced as a concept with rehab.  criminals, even violent ones would be seen as having a sickness of the mind which i believe they do , rather than being demonized as evil.  being a sufferer of aspergers/tourettes i sometimes experience terrifying rages i ca not control, moreso as a child and teenager but still occasionally i will  lose it .  i also have a cousin who lost his moral compass and sense of time after a traumatic head injury.  obviously if someone murdered, raped or otherwise violently assaulted someone, they need to be put away at least for a while, but i do not believe in free will and even if i did, i do not feel like anyone has the authority to judge whether someone acted as a result of mental illness or out of the blackness of their heart.  so i ca not get behind punishing somebody merely because they are deemed to  deserve  it.  i suspect people in the distant future will see our fixation on good and evil and our delight in punishment as very barbaric, strange and superstitious.  i say  distant  though because there are still many non violent minorities who have not got their rights yet.  criminals are the last people it is acceptable to hate and will be the last group who will be recognized as bona fide human beings.  even bleeding heart liberals do not seem all that keen on protecting people on death row, even if they are not necessarily in favor of the death penalty it is definitely not a high priority when there is still so much prejudice towards blacks, gays and the poor.  to answer your second question, yes i think punishment has very little deterrent effect on violent crimes in particular.  something like shoplifting could probably be deterred well if the penalty was to lose your hand, but i do not think most westerners including myself would find such an extreme punishment defensible for such a small crime.   #  however, i believe that even if determinism is true, punishment can still work as a deterrent.   # criminals, even violent ones would be seen as having a sickness of the mind which i believe they do , rather than being demonized as evil.  i still think that justice for the victim is still important.  but i agree with you that the justice system should be primarily focused on rehabilitation.  i do not believe in free will either.  however, i believe that even if determinism is true, punishment can still work as a deterrent.  the physical decision processes in the brain are presumably still based on all previously learnings/inputs from the external world, even if one is mind/consciousness itself has no real control and just experiences the decisions of the brain as if the mind was the originator of those decisions.  if the brain contains a learned rule that certain actions will likely end in punishment e. g.  incarceration then this will at least in a certain percentage of brains, be taken into account when calculating the decision to perform or not perform a criminal action.
defining what constitutes harassment and bullying to make transgressions obvious may prove very hard without infringing on what i believe is and should be reddit is highest aspiration: a platform for free speech.  that is what the internet needs.  if what you want is to feel comfortable and safe browsing cat pics and inspirational macros, facebook is right over there.  i am a fat person myself and i have absolutely no problem, in fact i fervently insist, on defending the right of a group such as fph to exist.  i will deal with the fat hate as i deal with all types of hate openly expressed on this site: downvote and move on.  no need for police to get involved.  honestly, i find it much more offensive to be treated as an insecure defenseless baby that needs to be protected by mods, than i will ever be by all the hate.  even death threats are a mostly laughable inocuous matter in the context of an anonymous chat, and should not merit any mod intervention, if you ask me.  the only concern in this case would be escalation leading to a breach of anonymity, which itself is already a bannable offense.  protecting your users  anonymity should be enough if you want to create a  safe environment .  besides, banning users for their  behaviours  in an attempt to make people feel welcome is a complete contradiction and will accomplish just the opposite.  and considering how recent events invited such an ugly and violent flood of harassment towards pao, i would say someone is going to be very busy for a very long time clicking that ban button over and over if such a policy is to be fully and justly enforced .  or am i missing the point and fph is actions have indeed no parallel with all other forms of harassment going on daily ?  this  was  posted  initially  as  a  comment  in  steve  huffman is  ama,  but  way  too  late  to  get  seen.   there is  been  loads  of  discussion  about  this  topic  and  i am  sorry  if  it is  becoming  annoying  to  some,  but  i have  yet  to  read  a  convincing  argument  to  refute  my  position  on  this.   #  if what you want is to feel comfortable and safe browsing cat pics and inspirational macros, facebook is right over there.   #  its actually the other way around, if you want fph then voat/0chan/irc is right over there.   # its actually the other way around, if you want fph then voat/0chan/irc is right over there.  in the end reddit decides what is harassment or not and what is acceptable or not, you decide if you want to visit the site or not.  if it does not suit you, then why would you stay on reddit ? i will deal with the fat hate as i deal with all types of hate openly expressed on this site: downvote and move on.  no need for police to get involved.  who is calling the police over fph ?  #  i do not think this is a question of free market consumer choice, caw.   # figure of speech.  in the end reddit decides what is harassment or not and what is acceptable or not, you decide if you want to visit the site or not.  if it does not suit you, then why would you stay on reddit ? i do not think this is a question of free market consumer choice, caw.  it is a matter of wanting to protect one of the most powerful democratic community driven public forums we have left in the increasingly controlled and policed environment that is the internet.  saying  just find another place  to users contributing to this great shared experience and i can not overstate the impact reddit has had on so many lifes, and does still on a daily basis , sounds like  let is give up on having good things  specially so when the alternatives offerered are those.  when you belong somewhere, when you feel like you are a part of something important and there is no doubts in my mind that is how many redditors feel about reddit , you do not abandon it, you fight for it with teeth and nails.  and, for anyone who is been around for the last month, this should ring as more than just rhetoric.   #  but equally, you want content y and do not want to go elsewhere.   # its not an economics issue, it about taking your own advice.  you say if you want content x then go to facebook.  but equally, you want content y and do not want to go elsewhere.  that is being hypocritical.  its exactly like the rest of the controlled and policed internet.  they should move but you apparently are fighting for something important and refuse to abandon it ?  #  i would not be having this discussion if there were 0 other reddits to choose from.   #  the difference being: there is an alternative for users craving content x, there is none that comes close for content y.  hence, the need to protect the only relevant avenue.  i would not be having this discussion if there were 0 other reddits to choose from.  and you would be right.  but point taken about it being a private company.  that fact does not elude me.  but it happens to be a private company that relies entirely on its users for producing the content on which it thrives.  therefor, not a private company who can afford to ignore its users demands.  recent events as exhibit a.   i should also point out, since it may not have been obvious, i was not inviting people to leave reddit for facebook, i was implying the whole of reddit risks becoming facebook.   #  that is not protected in any way and again i have no idea why you think its protected.   # voat, 0chan, irc.  its not that hard to find forums where you can post fph type content.  therefor, not a private company who can afford to ignore its users demands.  but it can if it chooses to when ever it wants.  see digg.  that is not protected in any way and again i have no idea why you think its protected.  because a private company put out a quasi press release saying  we listen to our users  ? why do you rely on pr level fluff for your freedom of speech if its that important to you ? you are saying that if you want content x then go to facebook for it.  i have never implied otherwise, i am just saying if you want your fph content then there is other places you can go to and pointed out the hypocrisy of not doing so.
defining what constitutes harassment and bullying to make transgressions obvious may prove very hard without infringing on what i believe is and should be reddit is highest aspiration: a platform for free speech.  that is what the internet needs.  if what you want is to feel comfortable and safe browsing cat pics and inspirational macros, facebook is right over there.  i am a fat person myself and i have absolutely no problem, in fact i fervently insist, on defending the right of a group such as fph to exist.  i will deal with the fat hate as i deal with all types of hate openly expressed on this site: downvote and move on.  no need for police to get involved.  honestly, i find it much more offensive to be treated as an insecure defenseless baby that needs to be protected by mods, than i will ever be by all the hate.  even death threats are a mostly laughable inocuous matter in the context of an anonymous chat, and should not merit any mod intervention, if you ask me.  the only concern in this case would be escalation leading to a breach of anonymity, which itself is already a bannable offense.  protecting your users  anonymity should be enough if you want to create a  safe environment .  besides, banning users for their  behaviours  in an attempt to make people feel welcome is a complete contradiction and will accomplish just the opposite.  and considering how recent events invited such an ugly and violent flood of harassment towards pao, i would say someone is going to be very busy for a very long time clicking that ban button over and over if such a policy is to be fully and justly enforced .  or am i missing the point and fph is actions have indeed no parallel with all other forms of harassment going on daily ?  this  was  posted  initially  as  a  comment  in  steve  huffman is  ama,  but  way  too  late  to  get  seen.   there is  been  loads  of  discussion  about  this  topic  and  i am  sorry  if  it is  becoming  annoying  to  some,  but  i have  yet  to  read  a  convincing  argument  to  refute  my  position  on  this.   #  i am a fat person myself and i have absolutely no problem, in fact i fervently insist, on defending the right of a group such as fph to exist.   #  i will deal with the fat hate as i deal with all types of hate openly expressed on this site: downvote and move on.   # its actually the other way around, if you want fph then voat/0chan/irc is right over there.  in the end reddit decides what is harassment or not and what is acceptable or not, you decide if you want to visit the site or not.  if it does not suit you, then why would you stay on reddit ? i will deal with the fat hate as i deal with all types of hate openly expressed on this site: downvote and move on.  no need for police to get involved.  who is calling the police over fph ?  #  it is a matter of wanting to protect one of the most powerful democratic community driven public forums we have left in the increasingly controlled and policed environment that is the internet.   # figure of speech.  in the end reddit decides what is harassment or not and what is acceptable or not, you decide if you want to visit the site or not.  if it does not suit you, then why would you stay on reddit ? i do not think this is a question of free market consumer choice, caw.  it is a matter of wanting to protect one of the most powerful democratic community driven public forums we have left in the increasingly controlled and policed environment that is the internet.  saying  just find another place  to users contributing to this great shared experience and i can not overstate the impact reddit has had on so many lifes, and does still on a daily basis , sounds like  let is give up on having good things  specially so when the alternatives offerered are those.  when you belong somewhere, when you feel like you are a part of something important and there is no doubts in my mind that is how many redditors feel about reddit , you do not abandon it, you fight for it with teeth and nails.  and, for anyone who is been around for the last month, this should ring as more than just rhetoric.   #  its exactly like the rest of the controlled and policed internet.   # its not an economics issue, it about taking your own advice.  you say if you want content x then go to facebook.  but equally, you want content y and do not want to go elsewhere.  that is being hypocritical.  its exactly like the rest of the controlled and policed internet.  they should move but you apparently are fighting for something important and refuse to abandon it ?  #  therefor, not a private company who can afford to ignore its users demands.   #  the difference being: there is an alternative for users craving content x, there is none that comes close for content y.  hence, the need to protect the only relevant avenue.  i would not be having this discussion if there were 0 other reddits to choose from.  and you would be right.  but point taken about it being a private company.  that fact does not elude me.  but it happens to be a private company that relies entirely on its users for producing the content on which it thrives.  therefor, not a private company who can afford to ignore its users demands.  recent events as exhibit a.   i should also point out, since it may not have been obvious, i was not inviting people to leave reddit for facebook, i was implying the whole of reddit risks becoming facebook.   #  you are saying that if you want content x then go to facebook for it.   # voat, 0chan, irc.  its not that hard to find forums where you can post fph type content.  therefor, not a private company who can afford to ignore its users demands.  but it can if it chooses to when ever it wants.  see digg.  that is not protected in any way and again i have no idea why you think its protected.  because a private company put out a quasi press release saying  we listen to our users  ? why do you rely on pr level fluff for your freedom of speech if its that important to you ? you are saying that if you want content x then go to facebook for it.  i have never implied otherwise, i am just saying if you want your fph content then there is other places you can go to and pointed out the hypocrisy of not doing so.
every time i walk into chipotle, the line is 0 people deep and is moving slower than a shit smear.  the bottleneck for this clusterfuck is always the incredibly inefficient burrito assembly line, staffed by 0 0 individuals who are constantly talking over each other, confused, etc.  it would be much easier if i could walk up to the assembly line, and press a button for  bowl.   then a button for  rice.   then a button for  black beans.   with each button press, robots would squirt an appropriate amount of food onto my tray as it moves down the assembly line.  another benefit to this approach is that the burrito assembly line could become  multi threaded.   rather than having one assembly line, chipotle restaurants could be configured to have two or three assembly lines.  on top of all this, it would save chipotle a massive amount of money in labor costs.  i do not mean that we should replace 0 of chipotle restaurant staff with robots ! there should still be humans there to prepare the food, and to ensure quality.  i am mainly talking about replacing the 0 0 people on the food assembly line with robots.  there would probably be one person monitoring assembly line quality.   #  every time i walk into chipotle, the line is 0 people deep and is moving slower than a shit smear.   #  the bottleneck for this clusterfuck is always the incredibly inefficient burrito assembly line, staffed by 0 0 individuals who are constantly talking over each other, confused, etc.   # the bottleneck for this clusterfuck is always the incredibly inefficient burrito assembly line, staffed by 0 0 individuals who are constantly talking over each other, confused, etc.  i eat at chipotle a lot.  at least once a week, sometimes more.  in my experience most of the workers are extremely efficient and always moving.  what slows down the line is one of two things:   phone/online orders you do not see it, but there are people electronically butting in front of you in line.  even though these people could be miles away, their order jumps to nearly the front of the line.  i am not a fan of this, but i do not begrudge chipotle.  i understand their reasoning.  slow sloooooow customers seriously, you have been standing in line for 0 minutes.  how is just now when being asked you start deciding what you want to eat that day ? next, you do not have to wait for a worker to put a scoop of ingredient in your bowl before you tell them the next one.  these workers do this hundreds of times a day, every day.  you tell them up front what you want bowl, white rice, steak, then the next worker mild, hot, cheese they will bang out that order very fast.  lastly, you knew the cash register was coming.  why is only  now  you dive into your wallet or purse trying to find enough money to pay your bill ? you knew walking in the door you would have to pay for this.  you should have known 0 minutes ago what you wanted to eat.  why is only now you are finally thinking about what credit card you want to use and where it is on your person ? lastly, robots as you describe are not cheap.  you will also have to have technically trained staff to maintain them and refill containers.  if robots in fast/fast casual food were cheaper than humans you would seem them everywhere.  there is a reason they are a novelty at the science center.  when you are in the line and your order is about to started being made,  put your damn phone away .  you should not be talking to anyone on the phone right now.  your call can wait.  your text can wait.  your facebook update can wait.  you should not be asking the person on the other end of the phone what they want to order.  you should know this already if you have multiple orders ! you are slowing the whole line down.  your whole mission in life right now is to get your order communicated as fast as possible and get out of that line.  that way, the rest of us can get ours too.   #  chipotle employees are relatively low payed and replaceable.   # i think this is extremely questionable.  chipotle employees are relatively low payed and replaceable.  advanced burrito bots are not only specialized technology you have to have designed and built, but you are having to hire more expensive, trained technicians to service them, severely cutting into your savings.  not to mention the cost of the machines themselves, likely making starting new locations substantially more expensive.  think about it this way: fast food companies are run by people eager to make a profit.  if this was a reasonable, cost effective idea, why have not we seen automated restaurants except as rare novelties, or small numbers of automated tasks that still have mostly human staff ?  #  a robot that is sophisticated enough could solve all the other problems in this thread.   #  correct.  cost is the real issue here.  a robot that is sophisticated enough could solve all the other problems in this thread.  a super duper robot could listen to complaints, could interact with customers, could re wrap a burrito, would perfectly understand what  no olives  means, could take special requests like specific tomato instructions or cheese placement instructions, waste less food than humans workers do, etc.  etc.  but the real question is, what would it cost to design and build and maintain these machines ? less than the cost of 0 to 0 low paid employees ? no.  i get that op would rather interact with an awesome automated system.  but the store owners have no incentive to do it this way.   #  i would imagine this would begin to be the norm.   #  automation costs are constantly dropping as labor costs are rising.  short term, it would costly for the initial investment and kink working out period, but long term might be more beneficial.  you could still staff an on site manager just like now to handle complaints and repair people could be called as needed, especially in the multi thread scenario where production could be shunted.  error rates would likely be lower than human production.  no hr disputes, no staffing to consider, lowered health care costs like they are getting anyway, but injury/liability concerns would be lowered , no waiting impatiently while the two people behind the counter have yet to acknowledge your existence.  it is not a terrible idea, especially if this $0/hour food services push goes through.  i would imagine this would begin to be the norm.  where i work now, we have over a thousand people employed, but many new sites are replacing about 0 or more of the workforce with robots.  and it is being done strictly from a cost basis.  it is simply becoming cheaper.   #  i simply mean a container that weighs out a certain amount of meat, rice, etc. , and dispenses it on top of a burrito.   #  i think you may be over estimating the cost of these robots.  when i say  robots,  i do not mean some advanced, humanoid robot with sophisticated joints and computer vision.  i simply mean a container that weighs out a certain amount of meat, rice, etc. , and dispenses it on top of a burrito.  pretty simple.  now, getting to labor costs.  chipotle spent approx $0 million in the first quarter of 0 on labor costs source URL over the course of a year, that is about $0 billion.  chipotle operates 0,0 restaurants, so they are spending approx $0,0 in labor costs per restaurant per year.  all they need to do is assemble a series of food tubes that weigh food and squirt it out, and do it for less than $0k per restaurant, and they see a total roi in one year.
every time i walk into chipotle, the line is 0 people deep and is moving slower than a shit smear.  the bottleneck for this clusterfuck is always the incredibly inefficient burrito assembly line, staffed by 0 0 individuals who are constantly talking over each other, confused, etc.  it would be much easier if i could walk up to the assembly line, and press a button for  bowl.   then a button for  rice.   then a button for  black beans.   with each button press, robots would squirt an appropriate amount of food onto my tray as it moves down the assembly line.  another benefit to this approach is that the burrito assembly line could become  multi threaded.   rather than having one assembly line, chipotle restaurants could be configured to have two or three assembly lines.  on top of all this, it would save chipotle a massive amount of money in labor costs.  i do not mean that we should replace 0 of chipotle restaurant staff with robots ! there should still be humans there to prepare the food, and to ensure quality.  i am mainly talking about replacing the 0 0 people on the food assembly line with robots.  there would probably be one person monitoring assembly line quality.   #  every time i walk into chipotle, the line is 0 people deep and is moving slower than a shit smear.   #  the bottleneck for this clusterfuck is always the incredibly inefficient burrito assembly line, staffed by 0 0 individuals who are constantly talking over each other, confused, etc.   # the bottleneck for this clusterfuck is always the incredibly inefficient burrito assembly line, staffed by 0 0 individuals who are constantly talking over each other, confused, etc.  i would bet this has more to do with indecisive people than slow employees.  rather than having one assembly line, chipotle restaurants could be configured to have two or three assembly lines.  on top of all this, it would save chipotle a massive amount of money in labor costs.  and spending way more on food and space.  robots are cheap after somebody invents and goes into production.  as far as i am aware the burrito bot does not exist yet outside of factory production, way bigger than a chipotle shop and are custom made therefore the cost is on chipotle as well as retrofitting stores let is not forget all the food safety qualifications it will need .  also you will still need staff to clean and fill the machine and cook/prep the food.   #  if robots in fast/fast casual food were cheaper than humans you would seem them everywhere.   # the bottleneck for this clusterfuck is always the incredibly inefficient burrito assembly line, staffed by 0 0 individuals who are constantly talking over each other, confused, etc.  i eat at chipotle a lot.  at least once a week, sometimes more.  in my experience most of the workers are extremely efficient and always moving.  what slows down the line is one of two things:   phone/online orders you do not see it, but there are people electronically butting in front of you in line.  even though these people could be miles away, their order jumps to nearly the front of the line.  i am not a fan of this, but i do not begrudge chipotle.  i understand their reasoning.  slow sloooooow customers seriously, you have been standing in line for 0 minutes.  how is just now when being asked you start deciding what you want to eat that day ? next, you do not have to wait for a worker to put a scoop of ingredient in your bowl before you tell them the next one.  these workers do this hundreds of times a day, every day.  you tell them up front what you want bowl, white rice, steak, then the next worker mild, hot, cheese they will bang out that order very fast.  lastly, you knew the cash register was coming.  why is only  now  you dive into your wallet or purse trying to find enough money to pay your bill ? you knew walking in the door you would have to pay for this.  you should have known 0 minutes ago what you wanted to eat.  why is only now you are finally thinking about what credit card you want to use and where it is on your person ? lastly, robots as you describe are not cheap.  you will also have to have technically trained staff to maintain them and refill containers.  if robots in fast/fast casual food were cheaper than humans you would seem them everywhere.  there is a reason they are a novelty at the science center.  when you are in the line and your order is about to started being made,  put your damn phone away .  you should not be talking to anyone on the phone right now.  your call can wait.  your text can wait.  your facebook update can wait.  you should not be asking the person on the other end of the phone what they want to order.  you should know this already if you have multiple orders ! you are slowing the whole line down.  your whole mission in life right now is to get your order communicated as fast as possible and get out of that line.  that way, the rest of us can get ours too.   #  chipotle employees are relatively low payed and replaceable.   # i think this is extremely questionable.  chipotle employees are relatively low payed and replaceable.  advanced burrito bots are not only specialized technology you have to have designed and built, but you are having to hire more expensive, trained technicians to service them, severely cutting into your savings.  not to mention the cost of the machines themselves, likely making starting new locations substantially more expensive.  think about it this way: fast food companies are run by people eager to make a profit.  if this was a reasonable, cost effective idea, why have not we seen automated restaurants except as rare novelties, or small numbers of automated tasks that still have mostly human staff ?  #  i get that op would rather interact with an awesome automated system.   #  correct.  cost is the real issue here.  a robot that is sophisticated enough could solve all the other problems in this thread.  a super duper robot could listen to complaints, could interact with customers, could re wrap a burrito, would perfectly understand what  no olives  means, could take special requests like specific tomato instructions or cheese placement instructions, waste less food than humans workers do, etc.  etc.  but the real question is, what would it cost to design and build and maintain these machines ? less than the cost of 0 to 0 low paid employees ? no.  i get that op would rather interact with an awesome automated system.  but the store owners have no incentive to do it this way.   #  automation costs are constantly dropping as labor costs are rising.   #  automation costs are constantly dropping as labor costs are rising.  short term, it would costly for the initial investment and kink working out period, but long term might be more beneficial.  you could still staff an on site manager just like now to handle complaints and repair people could be called as needed, especially in the multi thread scenario where production could be shunted.  error rates would likely be lower than human production.  no hr disputes, no staffing to consider, lowered health care costs like they are getting anyway, but injury/liability concerns would be lowered , no waiting impatiently while the two people behind the counter have yet to acknowledge your existence.  it is not a terrible idea, especially if this $0/hour food services push goes through.  i would imagine this would begin to be the norm.  where i work now, we have over a thousand people employed, but many new sites are replacing about 0 or more of the workforce with robots.  and it is being done strictly from a cost basis.  it is simply becoming cheaper.
every time i walk into chipotle, the line is 0 people deep and is moving slower than a shit smear.  the bottleneck for this clusterfuck is always the incredibly inefficient burrito assembly line, staffed by 0 0 individuals who are constantly talking over each other, confused, etc.  it would be much easier if i could walk up to the assembly line, and press a button for  bowl.   then a button for  rice.   then a button for  black beans.   with each button press, robots would squirt an appropriate amount of food onto my tray as it moves down the assembly line.  another benefit to this approach is that the burrito assembly line could become  multi threaded.   rather than having one assembly line, chipotle restaurants could be configured to have two or three assembly lines.  on top of all this, it would save chipotle a massive amount of money in labor costs.  i do not mean that we should replace 0 of chipotle restaurant staff with robots ! there should still be humans there to prepare the food, and to ensure quality.  i am mainly talking about replacing the 0 0 people on the food assembly line with robots.  there would probably be one person monitoring assembly line quality.   #  another benefit to this approach is that the burrito assembly line could become  multi threaded.    #  rather than having one assembly line, chipotle restaurants could be configured to have two or three assembly lines.   # the bottleneck for this clusterfuck is always the incredibly inefficient burrito assembly line, staffed by 0 0 individuals who are constantly talking over each other, confused, etc.  i would bet this has more to do with indecisive people than slow employees.  rather than having one assembly line, chipotle restaurants could be configured to have two or three assembly lines.  on top of all this, it would save chipotle a massive amount of money in labor costs.  and spending way more on food and space.  robots are cheap after somebody invents and goes into production.  as far as i am aware the burrito bot does not exist yet outside of factory production, way bigger than a chipotle shop and are custom made therefore the cost is on chipotle as well as retrofitting stores let is not forget all the food safety qualifications it will need .  also you will still need staff to clean and fill the machine and cook/prep the food.   #  lastly, you knew the cash register was coming.   # the bottleneck for this clusterfuck is always the incredibly inefficient burrito assembly line, staffed by 0 0 individuals who are constantly talking over each other, confused, etc.  i eat at chipotle a lot.  at least once a week, sometimes more.  in my experience most of the workers are extremely efficient and always moving.  what slows down the line is one of two things:   phone/online orders you do not see it, but there are people electronically butting in front of you in line.  even though these people could be miles away, their order jumps to nearly the front of the line.  i am not a fan of this, but i do not begrudge chipotle.  i understand their reasoning.  slow sloooooow customers seriously, you have been standing in line for 0 minutes.  how is just now when being asked you start deciding what you want to eat that day ? next, you do not have to wait for a worker to put a scoop of ingredient in your bowl before you tell them the next one.  these workers do this hundreds of times a day, every day.  you tell them up front what you want bowl, white rice, steak, then the next worker mild, hot, cheese they will bang out that order very fast.  lastly, you knew the cash register was coming.  why is only  now  you dive into your wallet or purse trying to find enough money to pay your bill ? you knew walking in the door you would have to pay for this.  you should have known 0 minutes ago what you wanted to eat.  why is only now you are finally thinking about what credit card you want to use and where it is on your person ? lastly, robots as you describe are not cheap.  you will also have to have technically trained staff to maintain them and refill containers.  if robots in fast/fast casual food were cheaper than humans you would seem them everywhere.  there is a reason they are a novelty at the science center.  when you are in the line and your order is about to started being made,  put your damn phone away .  you should not be talking to anyone on the phone right now.  your call can wait.  your text can wait.  your facebook update can wait.  you should not be asking the person on the other end of the phone what they want to order.  you should know this already if you have multiple orders ! you are slowing the whole line down.  your whole mission in life right now is to get your order communicated as fast as possible and get out of that line.  that way, the rest of us can get ours too.   #  think about it this way: fast food companies are run by people eager to make a profit.   # i think this is extremely questionable.  chipotle employees are relatively low payed and replaceable.  advanced burrito bots are not only specialized technology you have to have designed and built, but you are having to hire more expensive, trained technicians to service them, severely cutting into your savings.  not to mention the cost of the machines themselves, likely making starting new locations substantially more expensive.  think about it this way: fast food companies are run by people eager to make a profit.  if this was a reasonable, cost effective idea, why have not we seen automated restaurants except as rare novelties, or small numbers of automated tasks that still have mostly human staff ?  #  a robot that is sophisticated enough could solve all the other problems in this thread.   #  correct.  cost is the real issue here.  a robot that is sophisticated enough could solve all the other problems in this thread.  a super duper robot could listen to complaints, could interact with customers, could re wrap a burrito, would perfectly understand what  no olives  means, could take special requests like specific tomato instructions or cheese placement instructions, waste less food than humans workers do, etc.  etc.  but the real question is, what would it cost to design and build and maintain these machines ? less than the cost of 0 to 0 low paid employees ? no.  i get that op would rather interact with an awesome automated system.  but the store owners have no incentive to do it this way.   #  and it is being done strictly from a cost basis.   #  automation costs are constantly dropping as labor costs are rising.  short term, it would costly for the initial investment and kink working out period, but long term might be more beneficial.  you could still staff an on site manager just like now to handle complaints and repair people could be called as needed, especially in the multi thread scenario where production could be shunted.  error rates would likely be lower than human production.  no hr disputes, no staffing to consider, lowered health care costs like they are getting anyway, but injury/liability concerns would be lowered , no waiting impatiently while the two people behind the counter have yet to acknowledge your existence.  it is not a terrible idea, especially if this $0/hour food services push goes through.  i would imagine this would begin to be the norm.  where i work now, we have over a thousand people employed, but many new sites are replacing about 0 or more of the workforce with robots.  and it is being done strictly from a cost basis.  it is simply becoming cheaper.
i believe that the us should support a basic income wage but at the same time remove the federal minimum wage.  and possibly, in addition to that, the us should reduce spending on welfare programs because the basic income would cover those costs, including medicaid and federal food stamp programs.  my post was prompted by a recent years look at suggestions to increase the federal minimum wage.  bernie sanders had suggested it.  several states are working on it.  i saw one post that suggested we should increase the minimum wage because it is good for society.  the problem though, you increase the benefit for one group the employee and take away from another group the employer , you essentially could double the employers cost for wages.  why not vote on a basic income, all americans will have to decide if that is what we want.  tax paying americans can pay for the basic income if we want it.  with minimum wage increases, you essentially put the onus on all employers that are currently paying minimum wage.  it could be a small bookstore in idaho or a coffee shop in new york.  so i think we should remove the minimum wage and protect our society from poverty through a federal basic income.  i would suggest that we do an  opt in income , meaning that if you want the basic income, you can ask for it, no strings attached.  but, your other income cannot exceed the basic income.  for example, if you make 0k a year, you do not really need the possible 0 0k ? a year basic income.  or even if you make 0 0k, you are not eligible for the basic income.  on the removal of the minimum wage, i do not feel arbitrary wage rates set by the federal government is fair to the employer.  ultimately it is the employer that desires an employee to work at their business.  a wage rate should be set between the employer and prospective employee.  if it is too low for the employee, do not take the job.  or the employer should increase the wage to garnish more interest.  here are my current views and final summary:   a guaranteed basic income would address poverty issues without a forced requirement on employers   a basic income might save us tax payers with a reduction on other programs like medicaid and food programs   a basic income would allow citizens the ability to train in new areas without worrying about income   a basic income would reduce the burden on employers   removing the minimum wage is fair for employers and the basic income would mean that employees do not have to work at low wage rates.  libertarian case for basic income: URL  #  i would suggest that we do an  opt in income , meaning that if you want the basic income, you can ask for it, no strings attached.   #  but, your other income cannot exceed the basic income.   #  first a clarifying question, you kind of allude to how much you would pay out $0 0k but can you just clarify how much you would suggest a basic income payout would be, and who would get it as in, what age can you collect and how long can you collect .  more specific points:   tax paying americans can pay for the basic income if we want it.  with minimum wage increases, you essentially put the onus on all employers that are currently paying minimum wage tax paying americans pay it either way.  if the gov pays a ubi, then it comes out of taxes and everyone chips in.  if employers pay a min wage, then prices on products increase and consumers pay for it.  but, your other income cannot exceed the basic income.  for example, if you make 0k a year, you do not really need the possible 0 0k ? a year basic income.  or even if you make 0 0k, you are not eligible for the basic income.  so, if you give it to people who only make  $0k and you give them say $0k bi. then that person is making $0k/yr as opposed to the person working just over the threshold and making only $0k/yr.  do you not see that as a potential problem ? someone applying for a retail/service now has to negotiate for a rate that they want, and someone else can swoop in and say they will work for a little less.  in the end this auctioning of wages is bad for workers and businesses can unfairly use this.  working a full time position at min wage with potential for advancement or at least gaining experience to move onto something that pays better offers a better potential for getting out of poverty than just handing people a check.  so while we might be able to reduce or eliminate medicaid or food stamps, you are just shuffling money from that program to bi.  however the other side of this is the potential for abuse and people just taking in money and not working or learning at all.  it would most likely end up being that service jobs would bottom out prices as the market takes advantage of the removed wage floor, because why would walmart ever want to pay people more than $0/hr ?  #  another way of considering this is that it is simply a refundable tax credit, we have enormous amounts of experience with how these behave as we have been using them for 0 years in the federal income tax system.   #  absolutely, we would expect additional labor discouragement beyond that which was observed by the experiments but within a largely predictable range.  the sheer quantity   variety of transfer systems in use around the world means our labor discouragement models are useful tools to prescribe the effects a specific policy would have.  another way of considering this is that it is simply a refundable tax credit, we have enormous amounts of experience with how these behave as we have been using them for 0 years in the federal income tax system.  the level of problematic discouragement largely depends on the size of the benefit, how steep the taper is and how generous other aspects of the social welfare system are.  we could fairly easily define a system derived from cex which adjusted the benefit regionally based on a basket of necessary goods ie the benefit was sufficient to survive not to live and in kind benefits offered medicaid etc which limited these effects.  the level of problematic discouragement at near zero discretionary income is simply not sufficient to counteract the positive outcomes both economic   social such a program would have.  also in regards to incentives and issue that is frequently neglected here is that its not as simple as if i work i earn $n but if i do not work i earn $n also, an nit is a means tested benefit so if your private income was at the income floor for the policy then you receive a great deal more income working then not working.  as an example suppose you earned $0k a year then quitting under a hypothetical system would result in the loss of $0k of your income, you are receiving a $0k nit income as well as your $0k of private income; quitting would mean you are only receiving your nit income.   #  your time and energy gets taken away when you work.   # the incentive becomes very little as for some people it would become meaningless.  i pay you $0 to travel 0 mins each way to work 0 hours.  there is some financial incentive, but would it be enough for you ? your time and energy gets taken away when you work.  i am not sure i understand you but there is a difference between a person working less and tax payers do not pay for them and a person not working at all and the tax payers paying for them.   #  i do not know what the basic living wage income would be set at but it would set at a level that would cover basic living costs and at the same time people should want better types of income.   #  i am sure there are incentives to want a better life.  food stamp free food programs are available now, do you take advantage of them, you might be eligible not everyone enters into the food stamp programs.  why would i pay for my food if i can get it for free, right ? some people just do not want to engage in those federal programs even though they are eligible.  do you work a minimum wage job ? if you did work a low skill min wage job, why would you want a better job if you could work an easy min wage job ? i do not know what the basic living wage income would be set at but it would set at a level that would cover basic living costs and at the same time people should want better types of income.  and if some people are too mentally disabled or unstable to work, we can guarantee an income, i guess as long as they want.  .  either way, it would be up to the voters and paid for the tax payers.  as it stands now, it seems that the government can set arbitrary min wage rates and all employers have to pay for those new wage rates.   #  then i will just move to a rich area where $0,0/yr is less than the average.   # $0 0k and no work  is  a better life.  you do not need to stand in line, you do not get a small selection e. g.  no fresh meats, mostly canned , its only food that you can eat not cash you can spend on anything.  whats better than a easy min wage job ? no job.  that is the other problem, different areas of the country has different costs.  so its expensive to live in nyc but not as expensive to live in detroit.  so what is the amount ? have it tuned to each city/postal code ? then i will just move to a rich area where $0,0/yr is less than the average.  but they have bigger needs than the average person.  so give them more money.  but are they getting the best bang for the buck ? so use some sort of  discounted bulk  purchase for their needs and services.  now we are right back to government provided social services e. g.  medicare.  so what is the point ? there are too many problems with basic income your are proposing.  saying  other people will decide  does not answer the problems with your view.
a common meme among mras and the  pussy pass  crowd is that whenever a woman hits a man in some way and then gets hit back, it is  equality  in action because society sees violence against women as more important than violence against men.  a shorthand catch phrase that expresses this is  equal rights, equal lefts  which implies that if women want to be treated equally they should expect to be hit back if they hit someone else.  i disagree that this is about equality at all.  0 overwhelmingly, in cases where this concept is used on reddit, the man used disproportionate violence.  see this thread for an example: URL most of the upvoted comments in the linked /r/news thread stated she had it coming and that it was equality for her to be hit.  but if you actually watch the video she hardly posed a threat to him, and all she did was weakly hit him.  then he lobbed a punch that knocked her flat 0 the stronger/larger person should show self restraint.  many of the same people who argue in favor of this phrase are also the same people who constantly argue about the physical differences between men and women.  is it not then hypocritical to expect fair fights ? 0 i think all you need to do is check out how much people revel in women  getting their comeuppance  in these fight videos to see that they enjoy watching women get beat as if they always expect not to get hit back ie.   using their pussy pass  when in fact i have rarely if ever seen videos where women are shown saying or expecting that.   #  0 overwhelmingly, in cases where this concept is used on reddit, the man used disproportionate violence.   #  see this thread for an example: URL there are several counters to this, but let is just use the example that you gave.   # see this thread for an example: URL there are several counters to this, but let is just use the example that you gave.  in that video, for what i can see the woman threw the first punch and missed, so punching back is in no way disproportionate.  perhaps it is you who have a bias towards thinking that ? but if you actually watch the video she hardly posed a threat to him, and all she did was grab him.  no, she tried to punch him, go back and watch the video again.  many of the same people who argue in favor of this phrase are also the same people who constantly argue about the physical differences between men and women.  is it not then hypocritical to expect fair fights ? i do not think anyone is expecting a fair fight, in the real world fights are not fair.  if i picked a fight with a professional mma fighter and threw the first punch, i would not expect him to show restraint.  i think that what people mean when they say that the stronger person should show self restraint is to not pick fights with weaker persons.   using their pussy pass  when in fact i have rarely if ever seen videos where women are shown saying or expecting that.  whenever a woman hits a man they expect men to not react.  you can see this in several videos, in which women hit men and they just stand there, that is the norm in our   do not hit girls  society.  if they were expecting to be hit back then no one would make such a big fuss about it.   #  but whether he was right or wrong, i guarantee he is getting way more shit than he would if that was just a small scrawny man.   #  i think it is addressing the idea that women get special treatment / consideration in these cases beyond just the fact that they are generally of smaller physical stature.  for example, i am a pretty average sized / strength man.  i am significantly strong than the average woman.  but some d0 college football linebacker probably has at least the same strength advantage over me as i have over an average woman, if not more so.  and yet many situations where i would be raked over the coals for hitting a woman, he would receive less criticism for hitting me in the exact same situation.  that is not to guarantee he would face no criticism, it would almost certainly be less.  i mean in the video, it looks like he is trying to calmly restrain her arms, and then she tries to kick / knee him, maybe in the groin.  then she gets a hand free and swings at him, and then he punches her.  could he have dealt with the situation in a less violent way ? probably.  but whether he was right or wrong, i guarantee he is getting way more shit than he would if that was just a small scrawny man.   #  it just encourages the violence as being justified.   #  if it is about a double standard regarding women getting special treatment, then whenever someone posts  equal rights, equal lefts  on a video of a woman getting hit back, people are celebrating this double standard being broken.  which means people are just celebrating the violence in it.  what kind of activism is that ? it just makes the group look like a group of people who revel in women getting beat, not a group caring about equality.  how does the help end the double standard ? it just encourages the violence as being justified.   #  i mean seriously watch it again and try pretending that.   #  i think the perception is that most women who hit men assuming it is not some sort of desperate self defense do so assuming that they wo not get hit back because they are a woman.  otherwise, they would not hit a man once again, desperate circumstances aside because they know the man can almost certainly hit them back way harder and whip their ass if it escalated further.  basically, imagine somebody who was perceived as untouchable for whatever reason.  you go to school in a country with a monarchy, and the prince is in your class, and he bullies everybody, but knows he wo not get in trouble or hit back because he is the prince.  and since he knows he is untouchable, he acts smug while he treats other people shitty.  one day, somebody finally loses patience with his shit and just fucking decks him.  even if you do not support violence in general, would you not take some satisfaction in seeing that happen ? i mean, look at this video: URL the girl literally says  what are you going to do, hit a girl ?   and then hits a guy in the face.  she clearly feels like she can get away with acting like a piece of shit because she is magically protected by  you ca not hit women.   on a logical level i do not approve of the guys reaction instead of punching her back straight away, he sucker punches her in the back of the head a few seconds later.  she deserved it, but that was still wrong .  but i ca not help but draw some satisfaction for seeing such an entitled person who uses that entitlement to act like a bitch to others be put in their place.  i mean watch the video again, but now pretend the girl is actually a smaller man, and right before punching the other guy in the face he she says  what are you going to do, hit the prince ?  .  i mean seriously watch it again and try pretending that.   #  if one of them is a police officer who has different capabilities than a civilian etc.   #  i think the problem here is a misinterpretation of the word  proportional .   proportional  force does not mean  equal  force.  depending on the nature of the confrontation and the legal personality of the parties involved e. g.  if one of them is a police officer who has different capabilities than a civilian etc.   proportional  force generally means  equal   one level up .  see, for example, the chart used by the chicago pd: URL in other words, one is allowed to  fight to win  in self defense.  you are right in saying that i ca not meet a slap with a fatal beating, but i can absolutely meet a slap with enough force to ensure i am not slapped again.  the fsu quarterback did just that he was punched, and he punched back with enough force to end the confrontation.  he did not throw her to the ground, continue hitting her, etc.  i think the issue is that you are seeing people championing the largely proper use of proportional force in self defense and assuming it needs to be equivalent to the force of the initial attack.  it does not.  equality, in this instance, means accepting the same consequences that everyone else has to face.  if a male or female hits someone, that person should expect to be met with enough force to stop the attack.  expecting any other behavior is expecting inequality.
a common meme among mras and the  pussy pass  crowd is that whenever a woman hits a man in some way and then gets hit back, it is  equality  in action because society sees violence against women as more important than violence against men.  a shorthand catch phrase that expresses this is  equal rights, equal lefts  which implies that if women want to be treated equally they should expect to be hit back if they hit someone else.  i disagree that this is about equality at all.  0 overwhelmingly, in cases where this concept is used on reddit, the man used disproportionate violence.  see this thread for an example: URL most of the upvoted comments in the linked /r/news thread stated she had it coming and that it was equality for her to be hit.  but if you actually watch the video she hardly posed a threat to him, and all she did was weakly hit him.  then he lobbed a punch that knocked her flat 0 the stronger/larger person should show self restraint.  many of the same people who argue in favor of this phrase are also the same people who constantly argue about the physical differences between men and women.  is it not then hypocritical to expect fair fights ? 0 i think all you need to do is check out how much people revel in women  getting their comeuppance  in these fight videos to see that they enjoy watching women get beat as if they always expect not to get hit back ie.   using their pussy pass  when in fact i have rarely if ever seen videos where women are shown saying or expecting that.   #  most of the upvoted comments in the linked /r/news thread stated she had it coming and that it was equality for her to be hit.   #  but if you actually watch the video she hardly posed a threat to him, and all she did was grab him.   # see this thread for an example: URL there are several counters to this, but let is just use the example that you gave.  in that video, for what i can see the woman threw the first punch and missed, so punching back is in no way disproportionate.  perhaps it is you who have a bias towards thinking that ? but if you actually watch the video she hardly posed a threat to him, and all she did was grab him.  no, she tried to punch him, go back and watch the video again.  many of the same people who argue in favor of this phrase are also the same people who constantly argue about the physical differences between men and women.  is it not then hypocritical to expect fair fights ? i do not think anyone is expecting a fair fight, in the real world fights are not fair.  if i picked a fight with a professional mma fighter and threw the first punch, i would not expect him to show restraint.  i think that what people mean when they say that the stronger person should show self restraint is to not pick fights with weaker persons.   using their pussy pass  when in fact i have rarely if ever seen videos where women are shown saying or expecting that.  whenever a woman hits a man they expect men to not react.  you can see this in several videos, in which women hit men and they just stand there, that is the norm in our   do not hit girls  society.  if they were expecting to be hit back then no one would make such a big fuss about it.   #  that is not to guarantee he would face no criticism, it would almost certainly be less.   #  i think it is addressing the idea that women get special treatment / consideration in these cases beyond just the fact that they are generally of smaller physical stature.  for example, i am a pretty average sized / strength man.  i am significantly strong than the average woman.  but some d0 college football linebacker probably has at least the same strength advantage over me as i have over an average woman, if not more so.  and yet many situations where i would be raked over the coals for hitting a woman, he would receive less criticism for hitting me in the exact same situation.  that is not to guarantee he would face no criticism, it would almost certainly be less.  i mean in the video, it looks like he is trying to calmly restrain her arms, and then she tries to kick / knee him, maybe in the groin.  then she gets a hand free and swings at him, and then he punches her.  could he have dealt with the situation in a less violent way ? probably.  but whether he was right or wrong, i guarantee he is getting way more shit than he would if that was just a small scrawny man.   #  it just encourages the violence as being justified.   #  if it is about a double standard regarding women getting special treatment, then whenever someone posts  equal rights, equal lefts  on a video of a woman getting hit back, people are celebrating this double standard being broken.  which means people are just celebrating the violence in it.  what kind of activism is that ? it just makes the group look like a group of people who revel in women getting beat, not a group caring about equality.  how does the help end the double standard ? it just encourages the violence as being justified.   #  i think the perception is that most women who hit men assuming it is not some sort of desperate self defense do so assuming that they wo not get hit back because they are a woman.   #  i think the perception is that most women who hit men assuming it is not some sort of desperate self defense do so assuming that they wo not get hit back because they are a woman.  otherwise, they would not hit a man once again, desperate circumstances aside because they know the man can almost certainly hit them back way harder and whip their ass if it escalated further.  basically, imagine somebody who was perceived as untouchable for whatever reason.  you go to school in a country with a monarchy, and the prince is in your class, and he bullies everybody, but knows he wo not get in trouble or hit back because he is the prince.  and since he knows he is untouchable, he acts smug while he treats other people shitty.  one day, somebody finally loses patience with his shit and just fucking decks him.  even if you do not support violence in general, would you not take some satisfaction in seeing that happen ? i mean, look at this video: URL the girl literally says  what are you going to do, hit a girl ?   and then hits a guy in the face.  she clearly feels like she can get away with acting like a piece of shit because she is magically protected by  you ca not hit women.   on a logical level i do not approve of the guys reaction instead of punching her back straight away, he sucker punches her in the back of the head a few seconds later.  she deserved it, but that was still wrong .  but i ca not help but draw some satisfaction for seeing such an entitled person who uses that entitlement to act like a bitch to others be put in their place.  i mean watch the video again, but now pretend the girl is actually a smaller man, and right before punching the other guy in the face he she says  what are you going to do, hit the prince ?  .  i mean seriously watch it again and try pretending that.   #  depending on the nature of the confrontation and the legal personality of the parties involved e. g.   #  i think the problem here is a misinterpretation of the word  proportional .   proportional  force does not mean  equal  force.  depending on the nature of the confrontation and the legal personality of the parties involved e. g.  if one of them is a police officer who has different capabilities than a civilian etc.   proportional  force generally means  equal   one level up .  see, for example, the chart used by the chicago pd: URL in other words, one is allowed to  fight to win  in self defense.  you are right in saying that i ca not meet a slap with a fatal beating, but i can absolutely meet a slap with enough force to ensure i am not slapped again.  the fsu quarterback did just that he was punched, and he punched back with enough force to end the confrontation.  he did not throw her to the ground, continue hitting her, etc.  i think the issue is that you are seeing people championing the largely proper use of proportional force in self defense and assuming it needs to be equivalent to the force of the initial attack.  it does not.  equality, in this instance, means accepting the same consequences that everyone else has to face.  if a male or female hits someone, that person should expect to be met with enough force to stop the attack.  expecting any other behavior is expecting inequality.
a common meme among mras and the  pussy pass  crowd is that whenever a woman hits a man in some way and then gets hit back, it is  equality  in action because society sees violence against women as more important than violence against men.  a shorthand catch phrase that expresses this is  equal rights, equal lefts  which implies that if women want to be treated equally they should expect to be hit back if they hit someone else.  i disagree that this is about equality at all.  0 overwhelmingly, in cases where this concept is used on reddit, the man used disproportionate violence.  see this thread for an example: URL most of the upvoted comments in the linked /r/news thread stated she had it coming and that it was equality for her to be hit.  but if you actually watch the video she hardly posed a threat to him, and all she did was weakly hit him.  then he lobbed a punch that knocked her flat 0 the stronger/larger person should show self restraint.  many of the same people who argue in favor of this phrase are also the same people who constantly argue about the physical differences between men and women.  is it not then hypocritical to expect fair fights ? 0 i think all you need to do is check out how much people revel in women  getting their comeuppance  in these fight videos to see that they enjoy watching women get beat as if they always expect not to get hit back ie.   using their pussy pass  when in fact i have rarely if ever seen videos where women are shown saying or expecting that.   #  0 the stronger/larger person should show self restraint.   #  many of the same people who argue in favor of this phrase are also the same people who constantly argue about the physical differences between men and women.   # see this thread for an example: URL there are several counters to this, but let is just use the example that you gave.  in that video, for what i can see the woman threw the first punch and missed, so punching back is in no way disproportionate.  perhaps it is you who have a bias towards thinking that ? but if you actually watch the video she hardly posed a threat to him, and all she did was grab him.  no, she tried to punch him, go back and watch the video again.  many of the same people who argue in favor of this phrase are also the same people who constantly argue about the physical differences between men and women.  is it not then hypocritical to expect fair fights ? i do not think anyone is expecting a fair fight, in the real world fights are not fair.  if i picked a fight with a professional mma fighter and threw the first punch, i would not expect him to show restraint.  i think that what people mean when they say that the stronger person should show self restraint is to not pick fights with weaker persons.   using their pussy pass  when in fact i have rarely if ever seen videos where women are shown saying or expecting that.  whenever a woman hits a man they expect men to not react.  you can see this in several videos, in which women hit men and they just stand there, that is the norm in our   do not hit girls  society.  if they were expecting to be hit back then no one would make such a big fuss about it.   #  but whether he was right or wrong, i guarantee he is getting way more shit than he would if that was just a small scrawny man.   #  i think it is addressing the idea that women get special treatment / consideration in these cases beyond just the fact that they are generally of smaller physical stature.  for example, i am a pretty average sized / strength man.  i am significantly strong than the average woman.  but some d0 college football linebacker probably has at least the same strength advantage over me as i have over an average woman, if not more so.  and yet many situations where i would be raked over the coals for hitting a woman, he would receive less criticism for hitting me in the exact same situation.  that is not to guarantee he would face no criticism, it would almost certainly be less.  i mean in the video, it looks like he is trying to calmly restrain her arms, and then she tries to kick / knee him, maybe in the groin.  then she gets a hand free and swings at him, and then he punches her.  could he have dealt with the situation in a less violent way ? probably.  but whether he was right or wrong, i guarantee he is getting way more shit than he would if that was just a small scrawny man.   #  which means people are just celebrating the violence in it.   #  if it is about a double standard regarding women getting special treatment, then whenever someone posts  equal rights, equal lefts  on a video of a woman getting hit back, people are celebrating this double standard being broken.  which means people are just celebrating the violence in it.  what kind of activism is that ? it just makes the group look like a group of people who revel in women getting beat, not a group caring about equality.  how does the help end the double standard ? it just encourages the violence as being justified.   #  and since he knows he is untouchable, he acts smug while he treats other people shitty.   #  i think the perception is that most women who hit men assuming it is not some sort of desperate self defense do so assuming that they wo not get hit back because they are a woman.  otherwise, they would not hit a man once again, desperate circumstances aside because they know the man can almost certainly hit them back way harder and whip their ass if it escalated further.  basically, imagine somebody who was perceived as untouchable for whatever reason.  you go to school in a country with a monarchy, and the prince is in your class, and he bullies everybody, but knows he wo not get in trouble or hit back because he is the prince.  and since he knows he is untouchable, he acts smug while he treats other people shitty.  one day, somebody finally loses patience with his shit and just fucking decks him.  even if you do not support violence in general, would you not take some satisfaction in seeing that happen ? i mean, look at this video: URL the girl literally says  what are you going to do, hit a girl ?   and then hits a guy in the face.  she clearly feels like she can get away with acting like a piece of shit because she is magically protected by  you ca not hit women.   on a logical level i do not approve of the guys reaction instead of punching her back straight away, he sucker punches her in the back of the head a few seconds later.  she deserved it, but that was still wrong .  but i ca not help but draw some satisfaction for seeing such an entitled person who uses that entitlement to act like a bitch to others be put in their place.  i mean watch the video again, but now pretend the girl is actually a smaller man, and right before punching the other guy in the face he she says  what are you going to do, hit the prince ?  .  i mean seriously watch it again and try pretending that.   #  he did not throw her to the ground, continue hitting her, etc.   #  i think the problem here is a misinterpretation of the word  proportional .   proportional  force does not mean  equal  force.  depending on the nature of the confrontation and the legal personality of the parties involved e. g.  if one of them is a police officer who has different capabilities than a civilian etc.   proportional  force generally means  equal   one level up .  see, for example, the chart used by the chicago pd: URL in other words, one is allowed to  fight to win  in self defense.  you are right in saying that i ca not meet a slap with a fatal beating, but i can absolutely meet a slap with enough force to ensure i am not slapped again.  the fsu quarterback did just that he was punched, and he punched back with enough force to end the confrontation.  he did not throw her to the ground, continue hitting her, etc.  i think the issue is that you are seeing people championing the largely proper use of proportional force in self defense and assuming it needs to be equivalent to the force of the initial attack.  it does not.  equality, in this instance, means accepting the same consequences that everyone else has to face.  if a male or female hits someone, that person should expect to be met with enough force to stop the attack.  expecting any other behavior is expecting inequality.
a common meme among mras and the  pussy pass  crowd is that whenever a woman hits a man in some way and then gets hit back, it is  equality  in action because society sees violence against women as more important than violence against men.  a shorthand catch phrase that expresses this is  equal rights, equal lefts  which implies that if women want to be treated equally they should expect to be hit back if they hit someone else.  i disagree that this is about equality at all.  0 overwhelmingly, in cases where this concept is used on reddit, the man used disproportionate violence.  see this thread for an example: URL most of the upvoted comments in the linked /r/news thread stated she had it coming and that it was equality for her to be hit.  but if you actually watch the video she hardly posed a threat to him, and all she did was weakly hit him.  then he lobbed a punch that knocked her flat 0 the stronger/larger person should show self restraint.  many of the same people who argue in favor of this phrase are also the same people who constantly argue about the physical differences between men and women.  is it not then hypocritical to expect fair fights ? 0 i think all you need to do is check out how much people revel in women  getting their comeuppance  in these fight videos to see that they enjoy watching women get beat as if they always expect not to get hit back ie.   using their pussy pass  when in fact i have rarely if ever seen videos where women are shown saying or expecting that.   #  0 i think all you need to do is check out how much people revel in women  getting their comeuppance  in these fight videos to see that they enjoy watching women get beat as if they always expect not to get hit back ie.   #   using their pussy pass  when in fact i have rarely if ever seen videos where women are shown saying or expecting that.   # see this thread for an example: URL there are several counters to this, but let is just use the example that you gave.  in that video, for what i can see the woman threw the first punch and missed, so punching back is in no way disproportionate.  perhaps it is you who have a bias towards thinking that ? but if you actually watch the video she hardly posed a threat to him, and all she did was grab him.  no, she tried to punch him, go back and watch the video again.  many of the same people who argue in favor of this phrase are also the same people who constantly argue about the physical differences between men and women.  is it not then hypocritical to expect fair fights ? i do not think anyone is expecting a fair fight, in the real world fights are not fair.  if i picked a fight with a professional mma fighter and threw the first punch, i would not expect him to show restraint.  i think that what people mean when they say that the stronger person should show self restraint is to not pick fights with weaker persons.   using their pussy pass  when in fact i have rarely if ever seen videos where women are shown saying or expecting that.  whenever a woman hits a man they expect men to not react.  you can see this in several videos, in which women hit men and they just stand there, that is the norm in our   do not hit girls  society.  if they were expecting to be hit back then no one would make such a big fuss about it.   #  but whether he was right or wrong, i guarantee he is getting way more shit than he would if that was just a small scrawny man.   #  i think it is addressing the idea that women get special treatment / consideration in these cases beyond just the fact that they are generally of smaller physical stature.  for example, i am a pretty average sized / strength man.  i am significantly strong than the average woman.  but some d0 college football linebacker probably has at least the same strength advantage over me as i have over an average woman, if not more so.  and yet many situations where i would be raked over the coals for hitting a woman, he would receive less criticism for hitting me in the exact same situation.  that is not to guarantee he would face no criticism, it would almost certainly be less.  i mean in the video, it looks like he is trying to calmly restrain her arms, and then she tries to kick / knee him, maybe in the groin.  then she gets a hand free and swings at him, and then he punches her.  could he have dealt with the situation in a less violent way ? probably.  but whether he was right or wrong, i guarantee he is getting way more shit than he would if that was just a small scrawny man.   #  how does the help end the double standard ?  #  if it is about a double standard regarding women getting special treatment, then whenever someone posts  equal rights, equal lefts  on a video of a woman getting hit back, people are celebrating this double standard being broken.  which means people are just celebrating the violence in it.  what kind of activism is that ? it just makes the group look like a group of people who revel in women getting beat, not a group caring about equality.  how does the help end the double standard ? it just encourages the violence as being justified.   #  even if you do not support violence in general, would you not take some satisfaction in seeing that happen ?  #  i think the perception is that most women who hit men assuming it is not some sort of desperate self defense do so assuming that they wo not get hit back because they are a woman.  otherwise, they would not hit a man once again, desperate circumstances aside because they know the man can almost certainly hit them back way harder and whip their ass if it escalated further.  basically, imagine somebody who was perceived as untouchable for whatever reason.  you go to school in a country with a monarchy, and the prince is in your class, and he bullies everybody, but knows he wo not get in trouble or hit back because he is the prince.  and since he knows he is untouchable, he acts smug while he treats other people shitty.  one day, somebody finally loses patience with his shit and just fucking decks him.  even if you do not support violence in general, would you not take some satisfaction in seeing that happen ? i mean, look at this video: URL the girl literally says  what are you going to do, hit a girl ?   and then hits a guy in the face.  she clearly feels like she can get away with acting like a piece of shit because she is magically protected by  you ca not hit women.   on a logical level i do not approve of the guys reaction instead of punching her back straight away, he sucker punches her in the back of the head a few seconds later.  she deserved it, but that was still wrong .  but i ca not help but draw some satisfaction for seeing such an entitled person who uses that entitlement to act like a bitch to others be put in their place.  i mean watch the video again, but now pretend the girl is actually a smaller man, and right before punching the other guy in the face he she says  what are you going to do, hit the prince ?  .  i mean seriously watch it again and try pretending that.   #  i think the issue is that you are seeing people championing the largely proper use of proportional force in self defense and assuming it needs to be equivalent to the force of the initial attack.   #  i think the problem here is a misinterpretation of the word  proportional .   proportional  force does not mean  equal  force.  depending on the nature of the confrontation and the legal personality of the parties involved e. g.  if one of them is a police officer who has different capabilities than a civilian etc.   proportional  force generally means  equal   one level up .  see, for example, the chart used by the chicago pd: URL in other words, one is allowed to  fight to win  in self defense.  you are right in saying that i ca not meet a slap with a fatal beating, but i can absolutely meet a slap with enough force to ensure i am not slapped again.  the fsu quarterback did just that he was punched, and he punched back with enough force to end the confrontation.  he did not throw her to the ground, continue hitting her, etc.  i think the issue is that you are seeing people championing the largely proper use of proportional force in self defense and assuming it needs to be equivalent to the force of the initial attack.  it does not.  equality, in this instance, means accepting the same consequences that everyone else has to face.  if a male or female hits someone, that person should expect to be met with enough force to stop the attack.  expecting any other behavior is expecting inequality.
a common meme among mras and the  pussy pass  crowd is that whenever a woman hits a man in some way and then gets hit back, it is  equality  in action because society sees violence against women as more important than violence against men.  a shorthand catch phrase that expresses this is  equal rights, equal lefts  which implies that if women want to be treated equally they should expect to be hit back if they hit someone else.  i disagree that this is about equality at all.  0 overwhelmingly, in cases where this concept is used on reddit, the man used disproportionate violence.  see this thread for an example: URL most of the upvoted comments in the linked /r/news thread stated she had it coming and that it was equality for her to be hit.  but if you actually watch the video she hardly posed a threat to him, and all she did was weakly hit him.  then he lobbed a punch that knocked her flat 0 the stronger/larger person should show self restraint.  many of the same people who argue in favor of this phrase are also the same people who constantly argue about the physical differences between men and women.  is it not then hypocritical to expect fair fights ? 0 i think all you need to do is check out how much people revel in women  getting their comeuppance  in these fight videos to see that they enjoy watching women get beat as if they always expect not to get hit back ie.   using their pussy pass  when in fact i have rarely if ever seen videos where women are shown saying or expecting that.   #  0 the stronger/larger person should show self restraint.   #  many of the same people who argue in favor of this phrase are also the same people who constantly argue about the physical differences between men and women.   # many of the same people who argue in favor of this phrase are also the same people who constantly argue about the physical differences between men and women.  is it not then hypocritical to expect fair fights ? that someone is stronger than another person does not mean he is capable of  restraining  the aggresor.  nor it means that he should just take whatever punishment is directed at them.  also, even smaller people can seriously injure larger people.  a wrongly directed punch at your eye or ear can leave you blind or deaf in one side.  making someone fall due to a punch or a shove can end up with that person becoming paraplegic.  the quid in question is that in a situation in which the aggresor is a woman, the person being attacked is given one less resource to defend himself if that person is persistent in their aggression.  there have been several  experiments  showing how people react at these things and in any case they help the woman, whether she is the aggresor or not.  disallowing or frowning upon people who defend themselves just validates and protects bullies.   using their pussy pass  when in fact i have rarely if ever seen videos where women are shown saying or expecting that.  and there is a very unnerving undercurrent of satisfaction from several women when it comes to female on male violence, and the way they defend female abusers if the abused is a male URL so to say that there is an even ground when it comes to violence  as is , and that the  pussy pass  crew are just delusionally justifying their lust over women getting punch is ignoring the reality of women condoning female on male violence very often.   #  that is not to guarantee he would face no criticism, it would almost certainly be less.   #  i think it is addressing the idea that women get special treatment / consideration in these cases beyond just the fact that they are generally of smaller physical stature.  for example, i am a pretty average sized / strength man.  i am significantly strong than the average woman.  but some d0 college football linebacker probably has at least the same strength advantage over me as i have over an average woman, if not more so.  and yet many situations where i would be raked over the coals for hitting a woman, he would receive less criticism for hitting me in the exact same situation.  that is not to guarantee he would face no criticism, it would almost certainly be less.  i mean in the video, it looks like he is trying to calmly restrain her arms, and then she tries to kick / knee him, maybe in the groin.  then she gets a hand free and swings at him, and then he punches her.  could he have dealt with the situation in a less violent way ? probably.  but whether he was right or wrong, i guarantee he is getting way more shit than he would if that was just a small scrawny man.   #  if it is about a double standard regarding women getting special treatment, then whenever someone posts  equal rights, equal lefts  on a video of a woman getting hit back, people are celebrating this double standard being broken.   #  if it is about a double standard regarding women getting special treatment, then whenever someone posts  equal rights, equal lefts  on a video of a woman getting hit back, people are celebrating this double standard being broken.  which means people are just celebrating the violence in it.  what kind of activism is that ? it just makes the group look like a group of people who revel in women getting beat, not a group caring about equality.  how does the help end the double standard ? it just encourages the violence as being justified.   #  you go to school in a country with a monarchy, and the prince is in your class, and he bullies everybody, but knows he wo not get in trouble or hit back because he is the prince.   #  i think the perception is that most women who hit men assuming it is not some sort of desperate self defense do so assuming that they wo not get hit back because they are a woman.  otherwise, they would not hit a man once again, desperate circumstances aside because they know the man can almost certainly hit them back way harder and whip their ass if it escalated further.  basically, imagine somebody who was perceived as untouchable for whatever reason.  you go to school in a country with a monarchy, and the prince is in your class, and he bullies everybody, but knows he wo not get in trouble or hit back because he is the prince.  and since he knows he is untouchable, he acts smug while he treats other people shitty.  one day, somebody finally loses patience with his shit and just fucking decks him.  even if you do not support violence in general, would you not take some satisfaction in seeing that happen ? i mean, look at this video: URL the girl literally says  what are you going to do, hit a girl ?   and then hits a guy in the face.  she clearly feels like she can get away with acting like a piece of shit because she is magically protected by  you ca not hit women.   on a logical level i do not approve of the guys reaction instead of punching her back straight away, he sucker punches her in the back of the head a few seconds later.  she deserved it, but that was still wrong .  but i ca not help but draw some satisfaction for seeing such an entitled person who uses that entitlement to act like a bitch to others be put in their place.  i mean watch the video again, but now pretend the girl is actually a smaller man, and right before punching the other guy in the face he she says  what are you going to do, hit the prince ?  .  i mean seriously watch it again and try pretending that.   #  the fsu quarterback did just that he was punched, and he punched back with enough force to end the confrontation.   #  i think the problem here is a misinterpretation of the word  proportional .   proportional  force does not mean  equal  force.  depending on the nature of the confrontation and the legal personality of the parties involved e. g.  if one of them is a police officer who has different capabilities than a civilian etc.   proportional  force generally means  equal   one level up .  see, for example, the chart used by the chicago pd: URL in other words, one is allowed to  fight to win  in self defense.  you are right in saying that i ca not meet a slap with a fatal beating, but i can absolutely meet a slap with enough force to ensure i am not slapped again.  the fsu quarterback did just that he was punched, and he punched back with enough force to end the confrontation.  he did not throw her to the ground, continue hitting her, etc.  i think the issue is that you are seeing people championing the largely proper use of proportional force in self defense and assuming it needs to be equivalent to the force of the initial attack.  it does not.  equality, in this instance, means accepting the same consequences that everyone else has to face.  if a male or female hits someone, that person should expect to be met with enough force to stop the attack.  expecting any other behavior is expecting inequality.
a common meme among mras and the  pussy pass  crowd is that whenever a woman hits a man in some way and then gets hit back, it is  equality  in action because society sees violence against women as more important than violence against men.  a shorthand catch phrase that expresses this is  equal rights, equal lefts  which implies that if women want to be treated equally they should expect to be hit back if they hit someone else.  i disagree that this is about equality at all.  0 overwhelmingly, in cases where this concept is used on reddit, the man used disproportionate violence.  see this thread for an example: URL most of the upvoted comments in the linked /r/news thread stated she had it coming and that it was equality for her to be hit.  but if you actually watch the video she hardly posed a threat to him, and all she did was weakly hit him.  then he lobbed a punch that knocked her flat 0 the stronger/larger person should show self restraint.  many of the same people who argue in favor of this phrase are also the same people who constantly argue about the physical differences between men and women.  is it not then hypocritical to expect fair fights ? 0 i think all you need to do is check out how much people revel in women  getting their comeuppance  in these fight videos to see that they enjoy watching women get beat as if they always expect not to get hit back ie.   using their pussy pass  when in fact i have rarely if ever seen videos where women are shown saying or expecting that.   #  0 i think all you need to do is check out how much people revel in women  getting their comeuppance  in these fight videos to see that they enjoy watching women get beat as if they always expect not to get hit back ie.   #   using their pussy pass  when in fact i have rarely if ever seen videos where women are shown saying or expecting that.   # many of the same people who argue in favor of this phrase are also the same people who constantly argue about the physical differences between men and women.  is it not then hypocritical to expect fair fights ? that someone is stronger than another person does not mean he is capable of  restraining  the aggresor.  nor it means that he should just take whatever punishment is directed at them.  also, even smaller people can seriously injure larger people.  a wrongly directed punch at your eye or ear can leave you blind or deaf in one side.  making someone fall due to a punch or a shove can end up with that person becoming paraplegic.  the quid in question is that in a situation in which the aggresor is a woman, the person being attacked is given one less resource to defend himself if that person is persistent in their aggression.  there have been several  experiments  showing how people react at these things and in any case they help the woman, whether she is the aggresor or not.  disallowing or frowning upon people who defend themselves just validates and protects bullies.   using their pussy pass  when in fact i have rarely if ever seen videos where women are shown saying or expecting that.  and there is a very unnerving undercurrent of satisfaction from several women when it comes to female on male violence, and the way they defend female abusers if the abused is a male URL so to say that there is an even ground when it comes to violence  as is , and that the  pussy pass  crew are just delusionally justifying their lust over women getting punch is ignoring the reality of women condoning female on male violence very often.   #  then she gets a hand free and swings at him, and then he punches her.   #  i think it is addressing the idea that women get special treatment / consideration in these cases beyond just the fact that they are generally of smaller physical stature.  for example, i am a pretty average sized / strength man.  i am significantly strong than the average woman.  but some d0 college football linebacker probably has at least the same strength advantage over me as i have over an average woman, if not more so.  and yet many situations where i would be raked over the coals for hitting a woman, he would receive less criticism for hitting me in the exact same situation.  that is not to guarantee he would face no criticism, it would almost certainly be less.  i mean in the video, it looks like he is trying to calmly restrain her arms, and then she tries to kick / knee him, maybe in the groin.  then she gets a hand free and swings at him, and then he punches her.  could he have dealt with the situation in a less violent way ? probably.  but whether he was right or wrong, i guarantee he is getting way more shit than he would if that was just a small scrawny man.   #  which means people are just celebrating the violence in it.   #  if it is about a double standard regarding women getting special treatment, then whenever someone posts  equal rights, equal lefts  on a video of a woman getting hit back, people are celebrating this double standard being broken.  which means people are just celebrating the violence in it.  what kind of activism is that ? it just makes the group look like a group of people who revel in women getting beat, not a group caring about equality.  how does the help end the double standard ? it just encourages the violence as being justified.   #  i mean, look at this video: URL the girl literally says  what are you going to do, hit a girl ?    #  i think the perception is that most women who hit men assuming it is not some sort of desperate self defense do so assuming that they wo not get hit back because they are a woman.  otherwise, they would not hit a man once again, desperate circumstances aside because they know the man can almost certainly hit them back way harder and whip their ass if it escalated further.  basically, imagine somebody who was perceived as untouchable for whatever reason.  you go to school in a country with a monarchy, and the prince is in your class, and he bullies everybody, but knows he wo not get in trouble or hit back because he is the prince.  and since he knows he is untouchable, he acts smug while he treats other people shitty.  one day, somebody finally loses patience with his shit and just fucking decks him.  even if you do not support violence in general, would you not take some satisfaction in seeing that happen ? i mean, look at this video: URL the girl literally says  what are you going to do, hit a girl ?   and then hits a guy in the face.  she clearly feels like she can get away with acting like a piece of shit because she is magically protected by  you ca not hit women.   on a logical level i do not approve of the guys reaction instead of punching her back straight away, he sucker punches her in the back of the head a few seconds later.  she deserved it, but that was still wrong .  but i ca not help but draw some satisfaction for seeing such an entitled person who uses that entitlement to act like a bitch to others be put in their place.  i mean watch the video again, but now pretend the girl is actually a smaller man, and right before punching the other guy in the face he she says  what are you going to do, hit the prince ?  .  i mean seriously watch it again and try pretending that.   #   proportional  force generally means  equal   one level up .   #  i think the problem here is a misinterpretation of the word  proportional .   proportional  force does not mean  equal  force.  depending on the nature of the confrontation and the legal personality of the parties involved e. g.  if one of them is a police officer who has different capabilities than a civilian etc.   proportional  force generally means  equal   one level up .  see, for example, the chart used by the chicago pd: URL in other words, one is allowed to  fight to win  in self defense.  you are right in saying that i ca not meet a slap with a fatal beating, but i can absolutely meet a slap with enough force to ensure i am not slapped again.  the fsu quarterback did just that he was punched, and he punched back with enough force to end the confrontation.  he did not throw her to the ground, continue hitting her, etc.  i think the issue is that you are seeing people championing the largely proper use of proportional force in self defense and assuming it needs to be equivalent to the force of the initial attack.  it does not.  equality, in this instance, means accepting the same consequences that everyone else has to face.  if a male or female hits someone, that person should expect to be met with enough force to stop the attack.  expecting any other behavior is expecting inequality.
i am european england , as a result i have been watching the greece situation unfold quite ardently.  it is my view that spending within your means is a moral obligation, regardless if its personal finance or government spending.  therefor i see the tactics employed by tsipras and his party as cynical at best and downright reckless at worst it is essentially been an effort to blackmail the eurozone.  as a result of this, i have sympathy for the greek people as they will bare the brunt of the consequences from all this, but admittedly my sympathy is quite limited as they voted quite overwhelmingly in favour of supporting tsipras when it was quite clear what could happen.  at the time of the referendum there were rallies in scotland to support the  no  vote, as well as france.  these are areas with a very heavy left leaning population the snp in particular in scotland were also convinced that anti austerity would work .  coupled with this, on reddit i have seen a lot of people arguing that it is in fact not greece is fault and the blame should be placed upon the lenders.  obviously i do not agree with this standpoint as it paints greece as some kind of foolish child who has no ability to look after itself.  all this got me thinking it is my view that those shifting the blame away from greece do so to save face in the fact that the traditional left wing idea they may hold close that of anti austerity has clearly not worked and instead has made things much, much worse.  i believe that greece is situation represents defeat for the anti austerity platform as a whole and the left wing ideals it represents.  cmv my view centres around the seeming unwillingness to accept that hardline left ideologies were not the correct answer here an example of cognitive dissonance in a way  #  the traditional left wing idea they may hold close that of anti austerity has clearly not worked and instead has made things much, much worse.   #  the world is not a neat and tidy place where you can say that this one economic measure does not work for everyone.   # the world is not a neat and tidy place where you can say that this one economic measure does not work for everyone.  depending on the measurement of success, it might work in this one country at this particular time.  the theory is still good.  when companies and consumers shut down their activity the only pillar left is the government who can take debt and boost its spending to give the other pillars a kick start.  the government should then pay down the debt and reduce spending when the other two are functioning normally.  it worked in the us with the new deal as on example.   #  greece has no control over monetary policy, has some of the worst tax compliance in the world and a bad tax culture, and ca not find anyone willing to lend them money to finance growth spending.   #  there is a broad spectrum of austerity greece is in a position where the government does not have control over the value of the currency and would be unable to find investors willing to finance debt spending.  right now, i think there is pretty broad consensus that greece is debts are unsustainably high, that eventually they will have to be written down or default, and the current situation is more of a negotiation than a success/failure of a set of policies.  in countries other than greece the anti austerity movement is more geared towards responding to recessions with growth oriented spending, smarter taxes, and loose monetary policy.  greece has no control over monetary policy, has some of the worst tax compliance in the world and a bad tax culture, and ca not find anyone willing to lend them money to finance growth spending.  finally, the anti austerity crowd is not clamoring for greece to go to it is policies of 0 years ago.  it is saying,  you are f ed, greece, and you are never going to get out of this hole unless you admit it, start over, default, deal with the pain of leaving the eurozone, and go from there   #  this deal was not a victory or defeat for anybody.   # no.  i think you are confusing actual anti austerity proposals with tsipras ranting about wwii reparations and anti german sentiment.  the negotiations boiled down to two simple facts:   greece is unable to stay in the eurozone without continued support financing its debt   if greece defaults on it is debt and leaves the eurozone, european banks will lose a lot of money and greece will enter a chaotic post eurozone period.  it looks like greece will make some concessions that the eu demanded and the eu will continue to finance them, and negotiations for the future will happen again in 0 0 months.  when that happens, both sides will have the same leverage:   greece will be afraid that the eu forcing an exit will lead to a period of chaos   the eu will be afraid that greece exiting will mean they will never see their $0 billion from greece again.  greece agreeing to a deal could mean a lot of things.  it could mean that their economy will rebound, and they will slowly pay back the debt.  it could mean they will have time to plan a more orderly exit from the euro.  it could mean that the eu will slowly start to forgive some greek debt leading to a more sustainable level.  it probably means that greece wants some additional time to evaluate their options.  this deal was not a victory or defeat for anybody.  it is a short term deal for a  very long  term problem that does not change anything major.  i do not think it is fair to call it a defeat for anti austerity  #  what this means for the future is a different question.   #  first of all, the whole reason for syriza being elected was that the greek economy was already broken before.  in other words, the situation has nothing to do with their policies.  since the start of the global financial crisis, greece has had governments both from the left and from the right.  so far, the situation has not been resolved.  as such, if one wants to call the crisis a defeat of left politics, then it is certainly also a defeat of right politics.  it is a defeat of everything that has been tried so far.  as for austerity vs.  anti austerity: the only thing that has been tried since the beginning of the crisis is austerity.  anti austerity has not been tried yet.  therefore, if anything, the crisis represents a defeat of austerity politics.  what this means for the future is a different question.  snip a lot of stuff let me just say, to keep the discussion on topic, that it is a mess.   #  as a cause for the situation the begin with, yes i agree.   # in other words, the situation has nothing to do with their policies.  i appreciate that, but my views are based on the way tsipras has been acting recently he seems to be striving to be adversarial and  take on the lenders  when at least in my view he does not have the right to debts need to be paid.  it is a defeat of everything that has been tried so far.  as a cause for the situation the begin with, yes i agree.  however it his how the crisis has been handled when its comes to  crunch time  there it is been a very left wing approach of anti austerity.  therefore, if anything, the crisis represents a defeat of austerity politics.  it could be worth trying another approach, but to adopt anti austerity you then, as a result, are basically telling the lending bodies that its  tough titties  and they should just suck it up that does not seem very fair to me when it has been greece is fault for mismanaging their finances for whatever reason .
ellen pao is resignation stated she left because she did not think she could meet the boards requirement of growth in the next 0 months URL reddit has seemingly struggled to make a profit and had been trying to become profitable for a while now.  reddit is one of the largest websites in the world URL and has over 0 million regular monthly users URL gaining users is obviously not reddit is issue, making money off the users it does get is.  furthermore, the site does not create content, so there is no cost there, it only hosts content from users and other sites.  being bigger only means they will have to host more content, meaning the server costs they claim they are trying to pay for is only going to go up with more users/page views.  it just baffles me that a site as large as reddit has trouble making a profit, and that they think the solution to an already large site is to grow even bigger.  just stick a friggin banner ad at the top of the page or something and be done with it.  so how is it that such a large site can fail to make a profit and the best solution is to become even bigger ? cmv.   #  gaining users is obviously not reddit is issue, making money off the users it does get is.   #  this reminds me of spotify is troubles becoming profitable.   # this reminds me of spotify is troubles becoming profitable.  the very large majority of redditors, just like spotify is users, do not pay to use the website/service.  if more people bought gold it would become a little easier for reddit to recover its expenses.  ellen is been gilded a lot during this recent drama.  so maybe the best way for reddit to become profitable is to have a huge crisis every month that starts up a gold rush.  if they acquired a popcorn manufacturer they could generate another source of revenue too.   #  why is there not more effort to get larger outside companies to buy these ads since those ad locations are already in place ?  #  i agree that many core users do not want money to influence reddit.  you raise an important point of how additional revenue should be generated.  yes, i think ads should be used to increase revenue.  currently reddit uses a sidebar ad and the fake post at the top of subreddits.  i personally would not have a problem adding a banner ad at the top, or ads at the bottom of the page when you scroll down.  i also think moving the sidebar ad up higher could increase its value as it currently sits rather low on the page.  i have also always thought it is curious that so many of reddit is ads are internal.  why are so many ads for subreddits, or redditgifts ? why is there not more effort to get larger outside companies to buy these ads since those ad locations are already in place ? targeted ads are also something that are largely missing from reddit.  reddit should encourage films that just came out to advertise on /r/movies, games on /r/games, cookware on /r/food, etc.  i do not see how changes like this could be made without sacrificing content.   #  i always assumed reddit internal ads were due to not selling enough ad space to others but am not sure.   #  those are fair points.  i always assumed reddit internal ads were due to not selling enough ad space to others but am not sure.  i agree that capitalizing on and making their ad space more valuable is a wise path to take.  an issue i see with ads is the usage of mobile devices.  i do not recall the stats but i remember seeing a huge number of users are on mobile.  i assume that they are making ad revenue on users who use the official ios app but i believe the developers are making the ad revenue in the unofficial apps.  i think it would be quite a task to get the majority of users on the official reddit app.  especially considering the lack of official android app.  disclaimer: i am on android so am not sure if the reddit ios app has ads in the first place.   #  i do not know if it is unsold or if subreddits are buying them or what.   #  you may very well be right about internal ads being because the space was not sold.  i do not know if it is unsold or if subreddits are buying them or what.  if they are unsold it raises the question why they are not being sold, since smaller websites seem to always have their ads filled.  i am also on mobile, but do about half my redditing on mobile and half on my laptop.  i am using an iphone, and i do not use the reddit app.   #  the philosophy should be  buy gold because the benefits are worth the cost !    #  gold is not the only way to make money though, i would say it is not even the best way.  advertising is.  that is how all the news websites make money and they actually have to pay journalists to write their content.  news website users usually do not pay for their content either.  and i would say reddit gold has its problems too.  there is not enough benefit to it to justify even its small $0 price tag.  the reddit gold message thus far has been  buy gold to help us pay for the site !   the philosophy should be  buy gold because the benefits are worth the cost !   reddit gold is benefits do not currently justify its cost.  either get more bonuses for getting gold or reduce the price tag.
its pretty common to encounter people, including a decent number of reputable astrophysicists, who believe that the odds of life existing on other planets are so high as to be a near certainty.  these assumptions, as far as i can tell, tend to be based on the size and age of the universe i. e.  huge and old , particularly the number of  earth like  planets.  but its my understanding that in fact knowing exactly how  earth like  a planet is is pretty difficult, and that many planets listed as  earth like  may not actually be earth like in enough of the ways that matter in other words, just because a planet is roughly earth sized, roughly the right distance from a sun, and features heavy elements, does not actually mean that it in any way is earth like  enough  to support life.  in fact, it is entirely possible that planets which can support life are vanishingly rare, much rarer than most estimates based on  earth like  planets seem to acknowledge.  in addition, the odds that a planet which does meet earth like criteria actually will develop life are basically totally unknown anthropic bias and the fact that we literally only have only one model planet to observe makes actually nailing down the odds of abiogenesis on some other, non earth planet very difficult to estimate.  and while it is true that abiogenesis seems to have occured roughly soon after conditions on earth met the necessary preconditions as we understand them, it is also my understanding that as far as we can tell abiogenesis only happened once on earth, with all life on earth ultimately stemming from a common origin.  if abiogenesis were really common once the necessary preconditions were met, why has not it kept happening ? tl;dr i think most estimates of the number of planets which actually meet the necessary conditions for abiogenesis rather than just being broadly earth like , and for the likelihood of abiogenesis occuring once conditions have been met, are very possibly way too high, and that it is just as likely if not moreso that both planets which can support life and abiogenesis on such planets are infinitesimally rare.  while i would never say with 0 certainty that alien life does not exist, i am unconvinced by those who say it almost certainly does.   #  in fact, it is entirely possible that planets which can support life are vanishingly rare, much rarer than most estimates based on  earth like  planets seem to acknowledge.   #  yes, it is true that this is a possibility, but anything which can be conceptualized is possible.   #  the way in which you titled and described your point of view led me to believe that while you indeed do believe that optimism is unjustifiable, you also seem to be unjustifiably pessimistic concerning the odds of life existing somewhere else in the universe.  yes, it is true that this is a possibility, but anything which can be conceptualized is possible.  this makes me think; why bring it up at all unless you are expressing your pessimism concerning the issue ? if abiogenesis were really common once the necessary preconditions were met, why has not it kept happening ? a planet that already has a global population of thriving life is an very different set from a planet that has the conditions for life but none whatsoever.   #  you really do not understand the size of the universe.   #  you really do not understand the size of the universe.  like not even close.  there are over 0 billion stars in our galaxy, almost all of which we now believe have multiple planets.  there are 0 billion galaxies in the observable universe, each with 0 billion stars.  the actual universe could be infinite in size, and it certainly stretches on much further than the observable universe.  it makes no sense to conclude that there is any natural phenomenon that could only occur one time, given quadrillions of set ups.  in our solar system alone, there are roughly a dozen places that are confirmed to have liquid water that may have life europa and enceladus are the most likely candidates.   #  it can never happen, or it can happen arbitrarily many times.   #  the thing is that we already know the other requirements for life to form.  life needs a stable energy source such as the hydrothermal vents on enceladus , protection from radiation which would be provided by the thick ice sheets on enceladus , and six of the most common elements all of which have been detected in abundance in the saturnian system .  if you think there are other requirements, you need to provide evidence for that, because observation does not support that idea.  if you were to read a good book about abiogenesis there are probably a dozen out there right now , you might get the impression, as i have, that the development of life is actually extremely straightforward.  when you understand the process, the formation of life appears as inevitable as the formation of a star.  it is not accurate to say that life only arose once on earth.  countless basic cells formed spontaneously, but the most successful branch of life gradually consumed the more primitive forms.  then it is mathematically impossible for the odds to be tuned to only allow one instance of life.  according to probability, there is nothing that can happen only once.  it can never happen, or it can happen arbitrarily many times.  furthermore, the universe is only 0 billion years old, and it is predicted that stars will be around for hundreds of billions more years.  heavy elements and water will be constantly accumulating during this time, so the odds that life will form can only increase.  perhaps you would be better off arguing that earth is the first planet to develop life, but more will follow ?  #  it postulates that although terrestrial planets may be common, the exact environmental conditions that earth enjoys are rare, perhaps unique.   #  according to the primary literature, your assessment of the rare earth hypothesis is incorrect.  here is a paper from the journal of astrobiology 0 URL which describes the hypothesis as:   many  contact pessimistic  hypotheses have been formulated, the most famous of which is the rare earth hypothesis.  it postulates that although terrestrial planets may be common, the exact environmental conditions that earth enjoys are rare, perhaps unique.  as a result, simple microbial life may be common, but complex metazoans and hence intelligence will be rare.  .  they conclude: this may provide encouragement for seti researchers: although the rare earth hypothesis is in general a contact pessimistic hypothesis, it may be a  soft  or  exclusive  hypothesis, i. e.  it may contain facets that are latently contact optimistic.  so this hypothesis is, in fact, a statement not that life will be rare.  but only that our ability to contact that life may be severely limited.  to my knowledge there are no credible scientific hypotheses to corroborate your view.   #  there are three scenario for life in the universe: 0.  life does not exist at all.   #  there are three scenario for life in the universe: 0.  life does not exist at all.  0.  life has happened only once, and we are it.  0.  life has happened multiple times.  the first scenario has a probability of 0, since we exist.  that leaves the second and the third scenarios.  what is more likely that life has only evolved once ? or that life has developed multiple times, and we are just one example ? there is something like a trillion trillion stars in the universe give or take a few orders of magnitude.  a few percentage of those stars are similar to earth is sun.  many of those stars are closer to their galaxy is core, which seems to be less favorable to life due to star density and the resulting chance of stray gamma ray bursts .  even a fraction a fraction is a pretty big number when you are starting out with 0 0 stars.  kepler has discovered about a quarter of the stars we look at have planets.  less have planets similar to earth.  but guestimate about 0/0 stars are like the sun, 0/0 of those stars are in a favorable part of the galaxy for life, 0/0 of those have a solar system similar to earth with a planet in the habitable zone for that star, and you have 0 0 solar systems with conditions favorable to life again, give or take a few orders of magnitude .  i find it so unlikely that out of a number that huge, life happened only once.
i am seeing this shit a lot nowadays.  internet people are angry about something, take their hate to social media and it ruins people is lives.  i am really sick of this.  tyranny of shrill minority URL is the term i really like.  i am sure majority of reddit will pat each other on the back how  they did it , how they overthrow a tyrant and reddit will be back to their good ol  days.  what a load of shit.  reddit turned into a mob without any grounds to be so angry about ellen pao.  her lawsuit has nothing to do with reddit.  you might not like it, but that is about it.  plenty of ceo is are dicks or plain abhorrent people, that have nothing to do with their ability to run a company she did not fire victoria nobody knows why victoria was fired.  it is none of your business anyway fph definitelly was not the first time reddit ban a subreddit, harassing and brigading people outside of the sub was always reason for ban, i would like to turn your attention to this URL do you think this is okay ? modtools were like this for ages.  the old ceo that is taking her place is having more responsibility for the state of the modtools then pao ever had she tried to make reddit more advertiser friendly ? and this should be like a negative thing ? for a ceo ? really ? the vitriol against her was absolutely disgusting with zero base to begin with.  reddit only showed how majority of people here like to bully people.  slow clap guys, you  did it   #  her lawsuit has nothing to do with reddit.   #  you might not like it, but that is about it.   # you might not like it, but that is about it.  plenty of ceo is are dicks or plain abhorrent people, that have nothing to do with their ability to run a company i do not think its a coincidence most people who are generally good turn out to be good ceos and dickheads generally turn out to be bad ceos.  it is none of your business anyway a good ceo does not fire someone critical without a plan moving forward.  do you think this is okay ? i do not think its ok to bend the rules to kill bad subreddits.  rules exist for a reason.  the old ceo that is taking her place is having more responsibility for the state of the modtools then pao ever had so inaction on a big issue.  and this should be like a negative thing ? for a ceo ? really ? its kinda like microtransactions in games.  i understand they need to make money, but there are good ways and bad ways of implementing things.  as the newspost stated, the comments and messages that crossed the line came from a vocal minority.   #  so  what is to be gained from keeping her on at this point ?  #  the relationship between pao and the community was absolutely destroyed damaged beyond any reasonable hope of salvation.  and while it is true that reddit users are the site is product, not its customers, it nevertheless remains true that the product is what  lures  the customers, and as such it needs to be kept at least reasonably content.  no matter how good a ceo pao may or may not be, she is far from irreplaceable, especially as has already been noted she was never intended to fill the position permanently.  so  what is to be gained from keeping her on at this point ? the whole thing is a pr  disaster  and it does not even matter what caused it or whose  fault  it was.  the end result is the same either way: she is unable to establish a rapport with the community, and as such is causing problems and  more  bad pr for the site.  reddit is a corporation, and has made a corporate decision that a less divisive ceo is better corporate policy.  full stop.  there is no  should  here.   #  she made sure that everyone got to know that she was the boss and reddit was going to do things her way, so it is a bit late now to be complaining that they are blaming her for everything.   #  while your base argument may or may not be sound whether the negative view of her is unwarranted is entirely a subjective judgement the simple fact is that she did make herself the  face  of the  new  reddit with a bunch of questionable interviews over the past few months.  she made sure that everyone got to know that she was the boss and reddit was going to do things her way, so it is a bit late now to be complaining that they are blaming her for everything.  as for making reddit  more advertiser friendly  and it being  a negative thing  reddit adopted the whole  web 0  business model.  that is, flashy javascript on an empty platform, and letting the users do all the hard work for you.  and it worked, but the downside, from a business standpoint, to that is that paradigm is that it requires relying on and putting a lot more power and into the hands of said users.  the only way that you can combine that with the sort of heavy handedness we have been seeing since she took over is by having no competition to show those users a better way.  that has not been the case for reddit for some years now.   #  this i can absolutely understand, but i just do not like this trend i am seeing.   #  this i can absolutely understand, but i just do not like this trend i am seeing.  it is not so long ago when all the tim hunt controversy happened when he was forced to quit his position for the twitter mob only to be revealed that it was all load of bullshit.  i absolutely get that it might not be worth it to be constantly harassed, but this is scary precedent to hold.  i just think people should stick to their guns, eventually things have to turn one way or another.  maybe staying out of comment sections could be some sort of solution, but that would probably be hard to do as reddit is ceo.   #  police usually is not involved in some stupid tweets.   #  i think internet death threats are not takes as seriously as threats through other communication channels.  police usually is not involved in some stupid tweets.  i am not sure if it is a good thing though because people are doing it exactly because they take it as easy way to frighten people without any real life consequences.  but i think they should have been there, because realistically, what is the difference between sending a mail to persons is home and sending a internet comment with the same content ? the one is easier, probably more anonymous, but it should be serious nontheless i think
i am seeing this shit a lot nowadays.  internet people are angry about something, take their hate to social media and it ruins people is lives.  i am really sick of this.  tyranny of shrill minority URL is the term i really like.  i am sure majority of reddit will pat each other on the back how  they did it , how they overthrow a tyrant and reddit will be back to their good ol  days.  what a load of shit.  reddit turned into a mob without any grounds to be so angry about ellen pao.  her lawsuit has nothing to do with reddit.  you might not like it, but that is about it.  plenty of ceo is are dicks or plain abhorrent people, that have nothing to do with their ability to run a company she did not fire victoria nobody knows why victoria was fired.  it is none of your business anyway fph definitelly was not the first time reddit ban a subreddit, harassing and brigading people outside of the sub was always reason for ban, i would like to turn your attention to this URL do you think this is okay ? modtools were like this for ages.  the old ceo that is taking her place is having more responsibility for the state of the modtools then pao ever had she tried to make reddit more advertiser friendly ? and this should be like a negative thing ? for a ceo ? really ? the vitriol against her was absolutely disgusting with zero base to begin with.  reddit only showed how majority of people here like to bully people.  slow clap guys, you  did it   #  she tried to make reddit more advertiser friendly ?  #  and this should be like a negative thing ?  # you might not like it, but that is about it.  plenty of ceo is are dicks or plain abhorrent people, that have nothing to do with their ability to run a company i do not think its a coincidence most people who are generally good turn out to be good ceos and dickheads generally turn out to be bad ceos.  it is none of your business anyway a good ceo does not fire someone critical without a plan moving forward.  do you think this is okay ? i do not think its ok to bend the rules to kill bad subreddits.  rules exist for a reason.  the old ceo that is taking her place is having more responsibility for the state of the modtools then pao ever had so inaction on a big issue.  and this should be like a negative thing ? for a ceo ? really ? its kinda like microtransactions in games.  i understand they need to make money, but there are good ways and bad ways of implementing things.  as the newspost stated, the comments and messages that crossed the line came from a vocal minority.   #  no matter how good a ceo pao may or may not be, she is far from irreplaceable, especially as has already been noted she was never intended to fill the position permanently.   #  the relationship between pao and the community was absolutely destroyed damaged beyond any reasonable hope of salvation.  and while it is true that reddit users are the site is product, not its customers, it nevertheless remains true that the product is what  lures  the customers, and as such it needs to be kept at least reasonably content.  no matter how good a ceo pao may or may not be, she is far from irreplaceable, especially as has already been noted she was never intended to fill the position permanently.  so  what is to be gained from keeping her on at this point ? the whole thing is a pr  disaster  and it does not even matter what caused it or whose  fault  it was.  the end result is the same either way: she is unable to establish a rapport with the community, and as such is causing problems and  more  bad pr for the site.  reddit is a corporation, and has made a corporate decision that a less divisive ceo is better corporate policy.  full stop.  there is no  should  here.   #  the only way that you can combine that with the sort of heavy handedness we have been seeing since she took over is by having no competition to show those users a better way.   #  while your base argument may or may not be sound whether the negative view of her is unwarranted is entirely a subjective judgement the simple fact is that she did make herself the  face  of the  new  reddit with a bunch of questionable interviews over the past few months.  she made sure that everyone got to know that she was the boss and reddit was going to do things her way, so it is a bit late now to be complaining that they are blaming her for everything.  as for making reddit  more advertiser friendly  and it being  a negative thing  reddit adopted the whole  web 0  business model.  that is, flashy javascript on an empty platform, and letting the users do all the hard work for you.  and it worked, but the downside, from a business standpoint, to that is that paradigm is that it requires relying on and putting a lot more power and into the hands of said users.  the only way that you can combine that with the sort of heavy handedness we have been seeing since she took over is by having no competition to show those users a better way.  that has not been the case for reddit for some years now.   #  i just think people should stick to their guns, eventually things have to turn one way or another.   #  this i can absolutely understand, but i just do not like this trend i am seeing.  it is not so long ago when all the tim hunt controversy happened when he was forced to quit his position for the twitter mob only to be revealed that it was all load of bullshit.  i absolutely get that it might not be worth it to be constantly harassed, but this is scary precedent to hold.  i just think people should stick to their guns, eventually things have to turn one way or another.  maybe staying out of comment sections could be some sort of solution, but that would probably be hard to do as reddit is ceo.   #  the one is easier, probably more anonymous, but it should be serious nontheless i think  #  i think internet death threats are not takes as seriously as threats through other communication channels.  police usually is not involved in some stupid tweets.  i am not sure if it is a good thing though because people are doing it exactly because they take it as easy way to frighten people without any real life consequences.  but i think they should have been there, because realistically, what is the difference between sending a mail to persons is home and sending a internet comment with the same content ? the one is easier, probably more anonymous, but it should be serious nontheless i think
i am seeing this shit a lot nowadays.  internet people are angry about something, take their hate to social media and it ruins people is lives.  i am really sick of this.  tyranny of shrill minority URL is the term i really like.  i am sure majority of reddit will pat each other on the back how  they did it , how they overthrow a tyrant and reddit will be back to their good ol  days.  what a load of shit.  reddit turned into a mob without any grounds to be so angry about ellen pao.  her lawsuit has nothing to do with reddit.  you might not like it, but that is about it.  plenty of ceo is are dicks or plain abhorrent people, that have nothing to do with their ability to run a company she did not fire victoria nobody knows why victoria was fired.  it is none of your business anyway fph definitelly was not the first time reddit ban a subreddit, harassing and brigading people outside of the sub was always reason for ban, i would like to turn your attention to this URL do you think this is okay ? modtools were like this for ages.  the old ceo that is taking her place is having more responsibility for the state of the modtools then pao ever had she tried to make reddit more advertiser friendly ? and this should be like a negative thing ? for a ceo ? really ? the vitriol against her was absolutely disgusting with zero base to begin with.  reddit only showed how majority of people here like to bully people.  slow clap guys, you  did it   #  reddit only showed how majority of people here like to bully people.   #  as the newspost stated, the comments and messages that crossed the line came from a vocal minority.   # you might not like it, but that is about it.  plenty of ceo is are dicks or plain abhorrent people, that have nothing to do with their ability to run a company i do not think its a coincidence most people who are generally good turn out to be good ceos and dickheads generally turn out to be bad ceos.  it is none of your business anyway a good ceo does not fire someone critical without a plan moving forward.  do you think this is okay ? i do not think its ok to bend the rules to kill bad subreddits.  rules exist for a reason.  the old ceo that is taking her place is having more responsibility for the state of the modtools then pao ever had so inaction on a big issue.  and this should be like a negative thing ? for a ceo ? really ? its kinda like microtransactions in games.  i understand they need to make money, but there are good ways and bad ways of implementing things.  as the newspost stated, the comments and messages that crossed the line came from a vocal minority.   #  the relationship between pao and the community was absolutely destroyed damaged beyond any reasonable hope of salvation.   #  the relationship between pao and the community was absolutely destroyed damaged beyond any reasonable hope of salvation.  and while it is true that reddit users are the site is product, not its customers, it nevertheless remains true that the product is what  lures  the customers, and as such it needs to be kept at least reasonably content.  no matter how good a ceo pao may or may not be, she is far from irreplaceable, especially as has already been noted she was never intended to fill the position permanently.  so  what is to be gained from keeping her on at this point ? the whole thing is a pr  disaster  and it does not even matter what caused it or whose  fault  it was.  the end result is the same either way: she is unable to establish a rapport with the community, and as such is causing problems and  more  bad pr for the site.  reddit is a corporation, and has made a corporate decision that a less divisive ceo is better corporate policy.  full stop.  there is no  should  here.   #  she made sure that everyone got to know that she was the boss and reddit was going to do things her way, so it is a bit late now to be complaining that they are blaming her for everything.   #  while your base argument may or may not be sound whether the negative view of her is unwarranted is entirely a subjective judgement the simple fact is that she did make herself the  face  of the  new  reddit with a bunch of questionable interviews over the past few months.  she made sure that everyone got to know that she was the boss and reddit was going to do things her way, so it is a bit late now to be complaining that they are blaming her for everything.  as for making reddit  more advertiser friendly  and it being  a negative thing  reddit adopted the whole  web 0  business model.  that is, flashy javascript on an empty platform, and letting the users do all the hard work for you.  and it worked, but the downside, from a business standpoint, to that is that paradigm is that it requires relying on and putting a lot more power and into the hands of said users.  the only way that you can combine that with the sort of heavy handedness we have been seeing since she took over is by having no competition to show those users a better way.  that has not been the case for reddit for some years now.   #  i just think people should stick to their guns, eventually things have to turn one way or another.   #  this i can absolutely understand, but i just do not like this trend i am seeing.  it is not so long ago when all the tim hunt controversy happened when he was forced to quit his position for the twitter mob only to be revealed that it was all load of bullshit.  i absolutely get that it might not be worth it to be constantly harassed, but this is scary precedent to hold.  i just think people should stick to their guns, eventually things have to turn one way or another.  maybe staying out of comment sections could be some sort of solution, but that would probably be hard to do as reddit is ceo.   #  the one is easier, probably more anonymous, but it should be serious nontheless i think  #  i think internet death threats are not takes as seriously as threats through other communication channels.  police usually is not involved in some stupid tweets.  i am not sure if it is a good thing though because people are doing it exactly because they take it as easy way to frighten people without any real life consequences.  but i think they should have been there, because realistically, what is the difference between sending a mail to persons is home and sending a internet comment with the same content ? the one is easier, probably more anonymous, but it should be serious nontheless i think
i am seeing this shit a lot nowadays.  internet people are angry about something, take their hate to social media and it ruins people is lives.  i am really sick of this.  tyranny of shrill minority URL is the term i really like.  i am sure majority of reddit will pat each other on the back how  they did it , how they overthrow a tyrant and reddit will be back to their good ol  days.  what a load of shit.  reddit turned into a mob without any grounds to be so angry about ellen pao.  her lawsuit has nothing to do with reddit.  you might not like it, but that is about it.  plenty of ceo is are dicks or plain abhorrent people, that have nothing to do with their ability to run a company she did not fire victoria nobody knows why victoria was fired.  it is none of your business anyway fph definitelly was not the first time reddit ban a subreddit, harassing and brigading people outside of the sub was always reason for ban, i would like to turn your attention to this URL do you think this is okay ? modtools were like this for ages.  the old ceo that is taking her place is having more responsibility for the state of the modtools then pao ever had she tried to make reddit more advertiser friendly ? and this should be like a negative thing ? for a ceo ? really ? the vitriol against her was absolutely disgusting with zero base to begin with.  reddit only showed how majority of people here like to bully people.  slow clap guys, you  did it   #  her lawsuit has nothing to do with reddit.   #  you might not like it, but that is about it.   # you might not like it, but that is about it.  plenty of ceo is are dicks or plain abhorrent people, that have nothing to do with their ability to run a company.  how can you say the type of person she is has nothing to do with how she will run the site.  she will set policy, and have final say in everything reddit.  who she is matters a great deal, and if people dislike what she stands for.  it disingenuous to say that should not effect her ability to run a site.  it is none of your business anyway if no one knows why she was fired how do we then know pao had nothing to do with it.  they fired a community liaison, and they had no one to fill her shoes.  that affects how the community runs, and it is definitely our business.  we obviously ca not know personal details, but an explanation is required of some kind.  something like:  due to unforeseen events victoria had to leave before we were able to find a replacement.  please be patient with us while we transition to a new community liaison.  we will do our best to accommodate until the transition is made.   no personal information, and a public explanation.  now it needed to be posted before she left.  do you think this is okay ? listen i was worried when she banned some subreddits, and not others.  i was not planning on leaving, but i was on edge.  if they followed through, and banned all the brigading subreddits.  or immediately banned any subreddit linked to brigading.  i would have been very happy with the new site.  then when there was a key team member fired without a replacement, and no real explanation that was the second strike.  when pao started posting in threads to respond rather then make a public blog post and handling it like a ceo.  it was clear she was not up to the challenge of running the site.  most of what i saw of how she handled the situation was very unprofessional.  even if you support her decisions you ca not say how she handled it was the way you expect the head of a company to act.  p. s.  listen the problem i have is sites , and people claiming that if you do not like the job ellen pao is doing you hate women.  its insulting to say i ca not disagree with a single woman with out being sexist.  i do have legitimate reasons for disliking how she handled her self as ceo, and that is not the same as being sexist.   #  reddit is a corporation, and has made a corporate decision that a less divisive ceo is better corporate policy.   #  the relationship between pao and the community was absolutely destroyed damaged beyond any reasonable hope of salvation.  and while it is true that reddit users are the site is product, not its customers, it nevertheless remains true that the product is what  lures  the customers, and as such it needs to be kept at least reasonably content.  no matter how good a ceo pao may or may not be, she is far from irreplaceable, especially as has already been noted she was never intended to fill the position permanently.  so  what is to be gained from keeping her on at this point ? the whole thing is a pr  disaster  and it does not even matter what caused it or whose  fault  it was.  the end result is the same either way: she is unable to establish a rapport with the community, and as such is causing problems and  more  bad pr for the site.  reddit is a corporation, and has made a corporate decision that a less divisive ceo is better corporate policy.  full stop.  there is no  should  here.   #  she made sure that everyone got to know that she was the boss and reddit was going to do things her way, so it is a bit late now to be complaining that they are blaming her for everything.   #  while your base argument may or may not be sound whether the negative view of her is unwarranted is entirely a subjective judgement the simple fact is that she did make herself the  face  of the  new  reddit with a bunch of questionable interviews over the past few months.  she made sure that everyone got to know that she was the boss and reddit was going to do things her way, so it is a bit late now to be complaining that they are blaming her for everything.  as for making reddit  more advertiser friendly  and it being  a negative thing  reddit adopted the whole  web 0  business model.  that is, flashy javascript on an empty platform, and letting the users do all the hard work for you.  and it worked, but the downside, from a business standpoint, to that is that paradigm is that it requires relying on and putting a lot more power and into the hands of said users.  the only way that you can combine that with the sort of heavy handedness we have been seeing since she took over is by having no competition to show those users a better way.  that has not been the case for reddit for some years now.   #  maybe staying out of comment sections could be some sort of solution, but that would probably be hard to do as reddit is ceo.   #  this i can absolutely understand, but i just do not like this trend i am seeing.  it is not so long ago when all the tim hunt controversy happened when he was forced to quit his position for the twitter mob only to be revealed that it was all load of bullshit.  i absolutely get that it might not be worth it to be constantly harassed, but this is scary precedent to hold.  i just think people should stick to their guns, eventually things have to turn one way or another.  maybe staying out of comment sections could be some sort of solution, but that would probably be hard to do as reddit is ceo.   #  i think internet death threats are not takes as seriously as threats through other communication channels.   #  i think internet death threats are not takes as seriously as threats through other communication channels.  police usually is not involved in some stupid tweets.  i am not sure if it is a good thing though because people are doing it exactly because they take it as easy way to frighten people without any real life consequences.  but i think they should have been there, because realistically, what is the difference between sending a mail to persons is home and sending a internet comment with the same content ? the one is easier, probably more anonymous, but it should be serious nontheless i think
people often complain that students from wealthier backgrounds have a step up, but is that really so bad ? i think the provider of any family, of any socioeconomic background, would say their motivation for working is providing for their family and improving the lives of their children.  this complaint comes up most often for college stuff.  i would ask: if a wealthy family is having a fancy dinner, should only the parents get servings ? of course not, so why can benefits be shared in these instances, but not in academic ones ?  #  people often complain that students from wealthier backgrounds have a step up, but is that really so bad ?  #  this argument is not so much about whether or not wealthy people should be able to help their children.   # this argument is not so much about whether or not wealthy people should be able to help their children.  the problem is that poor children are at a systematic disadvantage that keeps them in poverty.  the point of the argument as i see it is whether or not everyone has a moral obligation to try to help those that are being disadvantaged in order to give every child has a fair chance in life.  it is easy for someone to say that  i worked hard for my money, so why should i have to pay for handouts to the poor ?  , while simultaneously ignoring the fact that a part of the reason they are doing so much better can be attributed to a systematic advantage and not just their effort.  i can recommend reading this comic URL for some perspective.  i do not know where you are from, but because a lot of people here are from america, i will use college tuition as an example.  is it fair that in the u. s. , many poor people who are fully capable ca not afford to go to college, or end up deeply in debt because their parents do not have the money to pay for it ? sure, one might argue  why should i have to pay for somebody else to go to college ?  , but think about that for a moment.  why should everyone not have the same chance to do well ? would not it be better to take money out of the equation ? why not let people pay according according to ability in order to make sure that everyone that is capable gets the same chance to go to college, regardless of which family they are born into ? at its core, it is an issue of social mobility and it is unfortunately quite easy to overestimate how much social mobility there actually is when you are doing well yourself.   #  and you most certainly do not have to go to notre dame to be successful in life.   #  college applications favor students who achieve academically and did well on the sat/act.  fafsa favors everyone except for the white middle class male legal citizen.  actually attending a $0,0/year school is only possible if loans can be pulled out or if you qualify for fafsa or if you have the money for it, and have the grades.  the system most certainly does not favor the wealthy or the well off or the living comfortably.  and you most certainly do not have to go to notre dame to be successful in life.   #  if you think that selfish individualistic greed is more valuable than basic fairness, yeah, there is no way to convince you.   #  the parents have enough advantage by fact that they are rich.  who cares if they work more ? you are under the false impression that rich people work hard.  actually, when they get a reasonable amount of money, then money is the one working for them, and they hardly do anything.  or, at least, they have that option.  some work, not that they need to.  so my point is, who cares about the rich parents ? they can have anything they want.  and their selfish greed is hurting other people using your example, reducing the availability of harvard admissions that could be used on more deserving people .  i mean, it is a basic fairness issue.  if you think that selfish individualistic greed is more valuable than basic fairness, yeah, there is no way to convince you.   #  as i said, i agree with you anyway, simply because as unfair as that might be, i do not think it is my place to try and tell people that they ca not provide for their children.   #  i wholeheartedly agree with you, but i will just toss this out there as a counterpoint: if money can buy such nice things that then allow one to make more of their own money, then an unintended consequence is that it creates a cycle where people who have no money have little way of getting money.  since our society places such a high value on tertiary education, we have set it up so that a college degree is almost a requirement for any full time job.  0 years ago, a college degree was reserved for those that had a specialty in something.  now it is required to be a police officer in many towns.  no one knows why.  but the result of that is that only the people who can already afford college are able to land jobs that pay well.  which means that in 0 years, their own children will be in exactly the same boat.  as i said, i agree with you anyway, simply because as unfair as that might be, i do not think it is my place to try and tell people that they ca not provide for their children.  after all, as you said, that is why i work so hard, so that my kids can have things i did not have.   #  and community colleges have practically no aid, but are an extremely important way to educate and train tradesmen and other skilled professions since we do not have apprenticeships anymore.   #  i am not so sure about that.  yes, harvard and others are pretty good with that, but most state schools are not.  and community colleges have practically no aid, but are an extremely important way to educate and train tradesmen and other skilled professions since we do not have apprenticeships anymore.  most places will give loans, but that is a whole other story.  there is a reason student debt is one of the largest sources of personal debt for americans.  and the problem is, only people from less wealthy backgrounds need to take these loans.  it is one of the more egregious forms of inequality that only the children of poorer folks suffer from student loan debt.  and you ca not ignore grade school, which i think is more important than higher education.  there is no way that a child born to wealthy parents will receive the same grade school education as those born to less wealthy parents.
so the most popular non religious argument against beastiality is that such actions are wrong because it is impossible to get any kind of consent.  i think it is possible to argue otherwise for some animals it is very easy to read their emotional state , but i wo not argue that because i think the whole idea that consent would be necessary in these situations is completely inconsistent with how animals are treated by the vast majority of our population, including vegetarians.  example 0 for the vegetarians, but applicable for everyone : pet ownership.  do we get consent when we take a puppy from his parents ? do we get consent when we neuter them ? if you assume that consent is essential in animal/human relationships, pet ownership itself becomes a kind of slavery or imprisonment.  the owner provides food and housing, the pet is imprisoned and provides entertainment to the owner.  any argument you could run about this being justifiable without consent would frighteningly similar to arguments for why slavery in the u. s.  was good for many of the slaves.  arguments that they  seem happy,  or  they do not run away  are meaningless when you have kidnapped an animal and brought it up to be dependent on you.  i am not saying pet ownership is slavery; i am saying that the only way it pet ownership can be justified is if you toss out the idea of needing consent for our interactions with animals.  example 0 for the carnivores : the vast majority of human beings eat animals.  if you are one of this majority, the idea that you would ask an animals consent for anything is laughable.  you could argue that unnecessary cruelty is still wrong, but much beastiality clearly involves the pleasuring of the animal, not the torturing of it.  and regardless, arguments against cruelty have nothing to do with  consent.   so that is my basic argument.  come on reddit, change my view !  #  i am saying that the only way it pet ownership can be justified is if you toss out the idea of needing consent for our interactions with animals.   #  you are taking a lot of liberties where society does not.   # you are taking a lot of liberties where society does not.  we do throw out the concept of consent for ownership, but not for  everything .  in fact it is fairly common for one person to break into another person is car if a pet is locked in without ventilation.  people are willing to put their rights and safety at risk and to damage another person is property.  there are comparable with excessively disciplining animals.  society at large does not just think that an owner can do as they please with their pets.  here you are merging the concept of animals as pets and animals as food.  while in many cases the animal is the same, the relationship is starkly different.  it would be like saying that humans are ok with other humans being beaten nearly to death because we all know that it happens in torture scenarios.  there are corner case scenarios which allow for a set of behaviors but that does not mean that they can be extended to everything.  humans make what we feel are necessary concessions in the treatment of animals because we ultimately need them to become our food.  this does not mean that we approve of everything that happens so much as we may not be able to stop it.   #  clearly 0 is true, and 0 is a simple logical inference.   #  you are saying: 0.  we do not require an animal is consent for being kept as a pet, nor for eating it or consuming its milk, so consent is not relevant to human animal interactions; 0.  sex is just another human animal interaction; 0.  hence consent is also not relevant to humans having sex with animals, aka bestiality.  clearly 0 is true, and 0 is a simple logical inference.  but the weak point in your argument is 0 , i. e. , your assumption that there is not anything special about sex.  in actuality, there are some things that are special about sex, in particular in regards to consent.  we are ok with an adult playing basketball with a consenting minor, or forcing a minor to go to school even without consent, but we are not ok with an adult having sex with a minor in any situation.  in other words, there are things adults can do with children that do not require their consent forcing them to go to school and there are things we do not consider children to be able to consent to in any situation sex , even though the majority of adult child interactions are guided by consent playing basketball .  the argument could then be made, that animals are a parallel to children.  animals can be forced to do some things without their consent, like keeping them as pets or eating them for food, which would parallel adults forcing children to go to school.  we do not require consent in those areas.  and there are some things that we just do not consider animals to be able to consent to, and are therefore forbidden, namely sex, which would be a direct parallel to sex with children.  now, you make a fair point that there might be a form of inconsistency here why is it ok to ignore consent in some areas, and not in sex ? however, the same potential inconsistency exists in society is treatment of children, and not just in society is treatment of animals, so if there is an inconsistency debatable it is at least one which society applies in a consistent way between animals and children.   #  getting a pet if we view consent as necessary would be closer to taking someone else child away from them than it would be to the normal relationship between parents and child.   #  this is a great point that i had not considered.  i am tempted to give a delta, but i do not think the jump from children to pets is so easily made: 0.  we did not give birth to the animals, they are not  ours  in the sense that children are  ours .  getting a pet if we view consent as necessary would be closer to taking someone else child away from them than it would be to the normal relationship between parents and child.  in such a situation where the child cannot give consent, we still require consent from the parents before a child is put up for adoption assuming no criminal activity is involved .  0.  the whole notion of child rearing is very different from keeping pets; you are taking care of the child only as long as it needs you.  once it reaches 0 it is free to go.  this is generally not the case with pets.  great reply though ! looking forward to hearing your thoughts.   #  to be sure, there are differences between children and pets ; the question is whether those differences matter here.   #  to be sure, there are differences between children and pets ; the question is whether those differences matter here.  i do not think they do, mainly because the parallel between children and pets is that both are generally speaking  weaker  than adult humans, physically, socially and mentally, and are in need of protection.  yes, most children grow out of that state, but that is irrelevant, what matters is that  while  they are in that weaker state, they are treated in a special way.  the same reasoning applies to animals.  that special state, for both children and animals, works both ways the consideration of  weakness  means that we allow others to make some choices for them, but also that we do not allow others to do some things to them.  some specific responses to things you raised: 0.  giving birth does make you the default legal guardian, but that is about it.  the parents are still barred from abusing the child, for example, showing that they do not have  total ownership  of the child.  furthermore, being the biological parent is just one way of getting legal guardian status; adoption is another option, and this would be the parallel to adopting a pet in fact.  0.  being the legal guardian is generally not something that changes, but it does not  require  the consent of the parents to change.  they can abandon the child safe harbor laws even exist for this but children can also emancipate themselves, and the state can take your children from you if it decides to.  again, the parallels to owning a pet are clear when a pet is abused, the state should lock up the perpetrator and get the pet to safety.  0.  yes, one typically rears a child with the goal of it reaching independence.  but not always.  some children are disabled, for example, and never become independent, but they of course still count as children in the eyes of the law.  one might see the closest parallel between pets and disabled children, in fact.   #  but an adult horse is not developing mentally or physically and probably would not be adversely affected by at least some types of sexual contact with a human.   #    my view has not changed, but the point that animals/children are in need of protection did bring up the idea of the parents status as a guardian.  if we view the owners relationship with his pet in a similar light, it would affect my view.  i need to think through this aspect some more.  as far as some of the other points:  weaker than adult humans, physically, socially and mentally, and are in need of protection i do not think the issue is that they are  weaker  physically, socially, or mentally; rather it is that they are still developing and thus very impressionable.  thus we do not have laws requiring any kind of mental or physical examination before sexual intercourse; we just require them to be of a certain age to ensure that they have gone through puberty and matured to a certain point.  but an adult horse is not developing mentally or physically and probably would not be adversely affected by at least some types of sexual contact with a human.  in points 00 you deal with how society limits the parents authority based on abuse or other factors, but i think this is missing the point.  the state takes the child away because they have been abused, not because the parent did not  get consent  first.  just as a pet being abused will be taken away.  consent of the child or pet is irrelevant here.  point 0   this definitely makes me rethink my opinion.  i need to mull over this for a while.  thanks for the great responses.
so the most popular non religious argument against beastiality is that such actions are wrong because it is impossible to get any kind of consent.  i think it is possible to argue otherwise for some animals it is very easy to read their emotional state , but i wo not argue that because i think the whole idea that consent would be necessary in these situations is completely inconsistent with how animals are treated by the vast majority of our population, including vegetarians.  example 0 for the vegetarians, but applicable for everyone : pet ownership.  do we get consent when we take a puppy from his parents ? do we get consent when we neuter them ? if you assume that consent is essential in animal/human relationships, pet ownership itself becomes a kind of slavery or imprisonment.  the owner provides food and housing, the pet is imprisoned and provides entertainment to the owner.  any argument you could run about this being justifiable without consent would frighteningly similar to arguments for why slavery in the u. s.  was good for many of the slaves.  arguments that they  seem happy,  or  they do not run away  are meaningless when you have kidnapped an animal and brought it up to be dependent on you.  i am not saying pet ownership is slavery; i am saying that the only way it pet ownership can be justified is if you toss out the idea of needing consent for our interactions with animals.  example 0 for the carnivores : the vast majority of human beings eat animals.  if you are one of this majority, the idea that you would ask an animals consent for anything is laughable.  you could argue that unnecessary cruelty is still wrong, but much beastiality clearly involves the pleasuring of the animal, not the torturing of it.  and regardless, arguments against cruelty have nothing to do with  consent.   so that is my basic argument.  come on reddit, change my view !  #  the vast majority of human beings eat animals.   #  here you are merging the concept of animals as pets and animals as food.   # you are taking a lot of liberties where society does not.  we do throw out the concept of consent for ownership, but not for  everything .  in fact it is fairly common for one person to break into another person is car if a pet is locked in without ventilation.  people are willing to put their rights and safety at risk and to damage another person is property.  there are comparable with excessively disciplining animals.  society at large does not just think that an owner can do as they please with their pets.  here you are merging the concept of animals as pets and animals as food.  while in many cases the animal is the same, the relationship is starkly different.  it would be like saying that humans are ok with other humans being beaten nearly to death because we all know that it happens in torture scenarios.  there are corner case scenarios which allow for a set of behaviors but that does not mean that they can be extended to everything.  humans make what we feel are necessary concessions in the treatment of animals because we ultimately need them to become our food.  this does not mean that we approve of everything that happens so much as we may not be able to stop it.   #  now, you make a fair point that there might be a form of inconsistency here why is it ok to ignore consent in some areas, and not in sex ?  #  you are saying: 0.  we do not require an animal is consent for being kept as a pet, nor for eating it or consuming its milk, so consent is not relevant to human animal interactions; 0.  sex is just another human animal interaction; 0.  hence consent is also not relevant to humans having sex with animals, aka bestiality.  clearly 0 is true, and 0 is a simple logical inference.  but the weak point in your argument is 0 , i. e. , your assumption that there is not anything special about sex.  in actuality, there are some things that are special about sex, in particular in regards to consent.  we are ok with an adult playing basketball with a consenting minor, or forcing a minor to go to school even without consent, but we are not ok with an adult having sex with a minor in any situation.  in other words, there are things adults can do with children that do not require their consent forcing them to go to school and there are things we do not consider children to be able to consent to in any situation sex , even though the majority of adult child interactions are guided by consent playing basketball .  the argument could then be made, that animals are a parallel to children.  animals can be forced to do some things without their consent, like keeping them as pets or eating them for food, which would parallel adults forcing children to go to school.  we do not require consent in those areas.  and there are some things that we just do not consider animals to be able to consent to, and are therefore forbidden, namely sex, which would be a direct parallel to sex with children.  now, you make a fair point that there might be a form of inconsistency here why is it ok to ignore consent in some areas, and not in sex ? however, the same potential inconsistency exists in society is treatment of children, and not just in society is treatment of animals, so if there is an inconsistency debatable it is at least one which society applies in a consistent way between animals and children.   #  i am tempted to give a delta, but i do not think the jump from children to pets is so easily made: 0.  we did not give birth to the animals, they are not  ours  in the sense that children are  ours .   #  this is a great point that i had not considered.  i am tempted to give a delta, but i do not think the jump from children to pets is so easily made: 0.  we did not give birth to the animals, they are not  ours  in the sense that children are  ours .  getting a pet if we view consent as necessary would be closer to taking someone else child away from them than it would be to the normal relationship between parents and child.  in such a situation where the child cannot give consent, we still require consent from the parents before a child is put up for adoption assuming no criminal activity is involved .  0.  the whole notion of child rearing is very different from keeping pets; you are taking care of the child only as long as it needs you.  once it reaches 0 it is free to go.  this is generally not the case with pets.  great reply though ! looking forward to hearing your thoughts.   #  0.  being the legal guardian is generally not something that changes, but it does not  require  the consent of the parents to change.   #  to be sure, there are differences between children and pets ; the question is whether those differences matter here.  i do not think they do, mainly because the parallel between children and pets is that both are generally speaking  weaker  than adult humans, physically, socially and mentally, and are in need of protection.  yes, most children grow out of that state, but that is irrelevant, what matters is that  while  they are in that weaker state, they are treated in a special way.  the same reasoning applies to animals.  that special state, for both children and animals, works both ways the consideration of  weakness  means that we allow others to make some choices for them, but also that we do not allow others to do some things to them.  some specific responses to things you raised: 0.  giving birth does make you the default legal guardian, but that is about it.  the parents are still barred from abusing the child, for example, showing that they do not have  total ownership  of the child.  furthermore, being the biological parent is just one way of getting legal guardian status; adoption is another option, and this would be the parallel to adopting a pet in fact.  0.  being the legal guardian is generally not something that changes, but it does not  require  the consent of the parents to change.  they can abandon the child safe harbor laws even exist for this but children can also emancipate themselves, and the state can take your children from you if it decides to.  again, the parallels to owning a pet are clear when a pet is abused, the state should lock up the perpetrator and get the pet to safety.  0.  yes, one typically rears a child with the goal of it reaching independence.  but not always.  some children are disabled, for example, and never become independent, but they of course still count as children in the eyes of the law.  one might see the closest parallel between pets and disabled children, in fact.   #  the state takes the child away because they have been abused, not because the parent did not  get consent  first.   #    my view has not changed, but the point that animals/children are in need of protection did bring up the idea of the parents status as a guardian.  if we view the owners relationship with his pet in a similar light, it would affect my view.  i need to think through this aspect some more.  as far as some of the other points:  weaker than adult humans, physically, socially and mentally, and are in need of protection i do not think the issue is that they are  weaker  physically, socially, or mentally; rather it is that they are still developing and thus very impressionable.  thus we do not have laws requiring any kind of mental or physical examination before sexual intercourse; we just require them to be of a certain age to ensure that they have gone through puberty and matured to a certain point.  but an adult horse is not developing mentally or physically and probably would not be adversely affected by at least some types of sexual contact with a human.  in points 00 you deal with how society limits the parents authority based on abuse or other factors, but i think this is missing the point.  the state takes the child away because they have been abused, not because the parent did not  get consent  first.  just as a pet being abused will be taken away.  consent of the child or pet is irrelevant here.  point 0   this definitely makes me rethink my opinion.  i need to mull over this for a while.  thanks for the great responses.
this URL is an adequate example of what i am talking about in terms of overly severe sentencing, however i would love the discussion to be less about sentencing and more about societal judgement.  as an example, of course she should never work in education again, but holy shit she should not be rotting away for what is essentially a third of her life just for making 0 people extremely happy.  why i think this: i am a 0 year old male with a perfectly normal upbringing, a healthy sex life and in a healthy relationship of over 0 years.  there is nothing i would not have done to get the chance to be intimate with one of my female teachers starting from year 0 right up to university.  in my teen years, regardless of losing my virginity at 0 to my then 0 year old girlfriend, i was still completely infatuated with every mildly attractive person i encountered.  i was a ball of hormonal clarity, not confusion, i wanted sex, and that was the extent of it.  whereas i feel women as a gender are not as predisposed to hormonal imperatives, so the base need for women does not exist anywhere close to the need that an adolescent man has to get the job done.  tldr: adult male vs teenage female, not ok, they are not as into it as men, and the act itself is being driven by a pretty gross desire to bang someone, which they have then chosen to act upon a teenaged girl.  adult female vs teenage male, what are you an idiot ? of course i will bang you.   #  in my teen years, regardless of losing my virginity at 0 to my then 0 year old girlfriend, i was still completely infatuated with every mildly attractive person i encountered.   #  i was a ball of hormonal clarity, not confusion, i wanted sex, and that was the extent of it.   # i was a ball of hormonal clarity, not confusion, i wanted sex, and that was the extent of it.  and it is her job, as an adult, to not take advantage of that.  you  feel  this, but do you have evidence for it ? because i have found that the vast majority of women i have been intimate with, and many who i have not been intimate with many women had a very voracious sex drive, just many women have been shy about expressing it, for fear of slut shaming.  that is to say, it is  not  a hormonal problem, it is a culture problem that alters your perception of the reality of women is desire for sex, not an actual difference in their desire for sex.  now, backing up for a second and talking about the general statutory rape laws, is it possible that maybe some of them are a bit too nuts, and do not leave enough room for obvious exceptions, like the 0 year old guy who hooked up with a girl who claimed she was 0 on tinder, who was actively looking to hook up with an older guy, and turns out whoops she is actually 0, and now the guy is a sex offender for life ? this actually happened, but i am at work so i am not googling that .  the problem with teachers specifically is that there is the very real problem of power dynamics.  the teacher needs authority over his or her students, and authority dynamics in intimate relationships are inherently abusive.  yes, there is such a thing as d/s play, but it is just that,  play .  if the sub wants to stop playing, in a healthy relationship, the play stops.  it is not just some  hot for teacher  fantasy, it is real, and if the student finds that he wants to stop the teacher could threaten to fail him if she does not want it to stop.  and could actually go on to fail him.  on the flip side, it could undermine the teacher is authority, if the student plays the  we keep this up/give me a is/let is try this new kinky thing you are not that into but i want to do or i tell them you raped me  card.  there are a million different potential reasons that this should not happen, and all of them have nothing to do with the genders or sex drives of the students.   #   and it is her job, as an adult, to not take advantage of that.    #   and it is her job, as an adult, to not take advantage of that.   we are not talking about morality when it comes to her job, i am taking about gender.   you  feel  this, but do you have evidence for it ?   admittedly my evidence is purely anecdotal, however it has been unwavering when it comes to my sex drive and theirs.  whether i am the depraved deviant when compared to the everyman, i do not know.  i understand that the law needs to be utilitarian, but that basic understanding of the laws limitations when it comes to serving individual circumstance still is not going to change the fact that i think teenaged men having consensual regardless of that countries age of consent, but lets say the moral parameter is 0 sex with a teacher in a time in their life when it is not as readily accessible as it is to say a 0 year old, is not going to be one of the highlights of their adolescence.   #  hell, i know that i ca not do casual sex without getting attached, and so i do not.   # again, why ? anecdotally there is that word again , most of the women i know cope  way  better with casual sex than men i know, when it comes to not forming emotional bonds with people just because you have had sex with them.  hell, i know that i ca not do casual sex without getting attached, and so i do not.  how many female friends do you have who you are comfortable talking about sex with ? of those, how many have had casual sexual encounters that you know of i say this, because women are way more likely to undersell rather than oversell their experience in that arena, versus those that you know have sexual experiences but have not had casual sex ? i do not think that downvotes should be used as  i disagree buttons , and i am sorry it is been a negative experience.  but the real problem is: it is almost impossible to change a view that is not based on facts.  i can say  the facts do not bear that out  and if you disagree with the facts, then we can talk about why, but if you still believe it even though there is nothing backing it up, there is no discussion to be had that i am aware of that does not devolve into  you are wrong   no, you are wrong   #  attractive guys who are having girls jumping all over them.  have better things to do then be on reddit.   #  probably due to societal/cultural upbringing.  i hate to be mean, but the other thing i have noticed is: guys who are socially awkward or unattractive all seem to think women have no sex drive.  and it makes sense, because it is all that they have ever experienced.  they have seen men and themselves with a sex drive, but they have never encountered it with women.  guys who are super suave and good looking however.  that is a different story.  they all talk about how women are sex hungry maniacs, and that anyone who suggests otherwise is an idiot.  op is situation could be different, but this is always something that i see play out in real life.  eta: and i hate to say bad things about reddit.  but it is one of the reasons why i think this outlook is so prevalent here.  attractive guys who are having girls jumping all over them.  have better things to do then be on reddit.   #  erotic literature sells quite a bit, and that tends to be consumed mostly by women.   #  my brother has had the exact opposite experience with tindr.  he wants to meet a nice girl who is dateable, and most of the girls are on their looking for hookups.  just because porn is generally consumed by men does not mean women do not also have sexual needs.  erotic literature sells quite a bit, and that tends to be consumed mostly by women.  i think there are studies too that men are much more about visual stimuli, whereas for women there needs to be a mental aspect too.  i will see if i can find the studies after work, but that would lend to why men mostly consume porn, but women tend to read erotic literature.
this URL is an adequate example of what i am talking about in terms of overly severe sentencing, however i would love the discussion to be less about sentencing and more about societal judgement.  as an example, of course she should never work in education again, but holy shit she should not be rotting away for what is essentially a third of her life just for making 0 people extremely happy.  why i think this: i am a 0 year old male with a perfectly normal upbringing, a healthy sex life and in a healthy relationship of over 0 years.  there is nothing i would not have done to get the chance to be intimate with one of my female teachers starting from year 0 right up to university.  in my teen years, regardless of losing my virginity at 0 to my then 0 year old girlfriend, i was still completely infatuated with every mildly attractive person i encountered.  i was a ball of hormonal clarity, not confusion, i wanted sex, and that was the extent of it.  whereas i feel women as a gender are not as predisposed to hormonal imperatives, so the base need for women does not exist anywhere close to the need that an adolescent man has to get the job done.  tldr: adult male vs teenage female, not ok, they are not as into it as men, and the act itself is being driven by a pretty gross desire to bang someone, which they have then chosen to act upon a teenaged girl.  adult female vs teenage male, what are you an idiot ? of course i will bang you.   #  whereas i feel women as a gender are not as predisposed to hormonal imperatives, so the base need for women does not exist anywhere close to the need that an adolescent man has to get the job done.   #  you  feel  this, but do you have evidence for it ?  # i was a ball of hormonal clarity, not confusion, i wanted sex, and that was the extent of it.  and it is her job, as an adult, to not take advantage of that.  you  feel  this, but do you have evidence for it ? because i have found that the vast majority of women i have been intimate with, and many who i have not been intimate with many women had a very voracious sex drive, just many women have been shy about expressing it, for fear of slut shaming.  that is to say, it is  not  a hormonal problem, it is a culture problem that alters your perception of the reality of women is desire for sex, not an actual difference in their desire for sex.  now, backing up for a second and talking about the general statutory rape laws, is it possible that maybe some of them are a bit too nuts, and do not leave enough room for obvious exceptions, like the 0 year old guy who hooked up with a girl who claimed she was 0 on tinder, who was actively looking to hook up with an older guy, and turns out whoops she is actually 0, and now the guy is a sex offender for life ? this actually happened, but i am at work so i am not googling that .  the problem with teachers specifically is that there is the very real problem of power dynamics.  the teacher needs authority over his or her students, and authority dynamics in intimate relationships are inherently abusive.  yes, there is such a thing as d/s play, but it is just that,  play .  if the sub wants to stop playing, in a healthy relationship, the play stops.  it is not just some  hot for teacher  fantasy, it is real, and if the student finds that he wants to stop the teacher could threaten to fail him if she does not want it to stop.  and could actually go on to fail him.  on the flip side, it could undermine the teacher is authority, if the student plays the  we keep this up/give me a is/let is try this new kinky thing you are not that into but i want to do or i tell them you raped me  card.  there are a million different potential reasons that this should not happen, and all of them have nothing to do with the genders or sex drives of the students.   #  we are not talking about morality when it comes to her job, i am taking about gender.   #   and it is her job, as an adult, to not take advantage of that.   we are not talking about morality when it comes to her job, i am taking about gender.   you  feel  this, but do you have evidence for it ?   admittedly my evidence is purely anecdotal, however it has been unwavering when it comes to my sex drive and theirs.  whether i am the depraved deviant when compared to the everyman, i do not know.  i understand that the law needs to be utilitarian, but that basic understanding of the laws limitations when it comes to serving individual circumstance still is not going to change the fact that i think teenaged men having consensual regardless of that countries age of consent, but lets say the moral parameter is 0 sex with a teacher in a time in their life when it is not as readily accessible as it is to say a 0 year old, is not going to be one of the highlights of their adolescence.   #  anecdotally there is that word again , most of the women i know cope  way  better with casual sex than men i know, when it comes to not forming emotional bonds with people just because you have had sex with them.   # again, why ? anecdotally there is that word again , most of the women i know cope  way  better with casual sex than men i know, when it comes to not forming emotional bonds with people just because you have had sex with them.  hell, i know that i ca not do casual sex without getting attached, and so i do not.  how many female friends do you have who you are comfortable talking about sex with ? of those, how many have had casual sexual encounters that you know of i say this, because women are way more likely to undersell rather than oversell their experience in that arena, versus those that you know have sexual experiences but have not had casual sex ? i do not think that downvotes should be used as  i disagree buttons , and i am sorry it is been a negative experience.  but the real problem is: it is almost impossible to change a view that is not based on facts.  i can say  the facts do not bear that out  and if you disagree with the facts, then we can talk about why, but if you still believe it even though there is nothing backing it up, there is no discussion to be had that i am aware of that does not devolve into  you are wrong   no, you are wrong   #  guys who are super suave and good looking however.  that is a different story.   #  probably due to societal/cultural upbringing.  i hate to be mean, but the other thing i have noticed is: guys who are socially awkward or unattractive all seem to think women have no sex drive.  and it makes sense, because it is all that they have ever experienced.  they have seen men and themselves with a sex drive, but they have never encountered it with women.  guys who are super suave and good looking however.  that is a different story.  they all talk about how women are sex hungry maniacs, and that anyone who suggests otherwise is an idiot.  op is situation could be different, but this is always something that i see play out in real life.  eta: and i hate to say bad things about reddit.  but it is one of the reasons why i think this outlook is so prevalent here.  attractive guys who are having girls jumping all over them.  have better things to do then be on reddit.   #  i will see if i can find the studies after work, but that would lend to why men mostly consume porn, but women tend to read erotic literature.   #  my brother has had the exact opposite experience with tindr.  he wants to meet a nice girl who is dateable, and most of the girls are on their looking for hookups.  just because porn is generally consumed by men does not mean women do not also have sexual needs.  erotic literature sells quite a bit, and that tends to be consumed mostly by women.  i think there are studies too that men are much more about visual stimuli, whereas for women there needs to be a mental aspect too.  i will see if i can find the studies after work, but that would lend to why men mostly consume porn, but women tend to read erotic literature.
the reason we all come together and form societies is to work collaboratively for the good of us all.  we write laws and enforce them to protect us from harm.  we pay taxes and build public services for the greater good of us all.  we build schools because we believe everyone is entitled to an education.  we do not do these things to help businesses or organisations prosper, we do them for the benefit of individuals within society.  despite this, it is considered acceptable by some for businesses to pay their workers less than  the living wage .  does not this view validate the idea that the right of businesses to make money is more important than the right of the individual to make a decent living ? i understand and appreciate the argument that some small businesses may not be able to pay their staff the living wage and make a profit.  i do not think  profit is bad , and i understand that jobs would be lost if small businesses did not make enough money to get by.  however, i do not believe the apparent risk of loosing jobs justifies exploiting workers.  if taken seriously, the same argument would justify slavery.  if a business is run badly, or the demand for the product they produce disappears, i imagine everyone would agree that that business does not have the right to exist for its own sake.  surely we can agree that a business  must  exist on its own merits ? why then in a society that exists for the benefit of us all, do we think businesses that ca not afford to pay workers enough to live have a right to exist ? why is not fair pay for workers enough for them to have a decent standard of living considered a fundamental necessity of a healthy business ?  #  however, i do not believe the apparent risk of loosing jobs justifies exploiting workers.   #  if taken seriously, the same argument would justify slavery.   #  there are three possibilities for people: they can be unemployed, they can be employed at a wage below the  living wage , or they can be employed at a wage above the  living wage .  all else being equal, of course it is better to be paid more.  but wages are the main expense of most businesses, and many would stop existing if they had to pay a living wage.  so you would move a few people to higher wages and a lot of people to no wage.  for a variety of reasons, some wage is far better than none.  first, that is money for the employee they would otherwise not have.  they are literally richer for having the job.  second, that is training and skills they would otherwise not have.  having these below living wage jobs increase the education of the population so that these workers can eventually have above living wage jobs.  third, the businesses serve customers and do something good for society that we are willing to pay for.  if taken seriously, the same argument would justify slavery.  i would have put this exactly opposite.  i do not think the potential ability to raise a few workers  salaries justifies forbidding people to work.  if taken seriously, that argument justifies slavery.  people have the right to work and choose to be employed at whatever wage they like.  if we impose a rule like the low minimum wage we have now, that is not a huge deal at current levels, very few people would really get new jobs if only they could be paid a little less.  but if we increase the minimum wage to a more meaningful level, we are enslaving the poor by forbidding them from working or from starting new companies to better their condition.  ideally we would raise the minimum wage but make it totally optional.  then it would be meaningful yet not prevent people from exercising their right to work anyway.   #  profit is the return on this equity investment .   #  tl/dr: if there no profit, there is no business, and therefore no wage, living or not.  if someone has money capital , they look to invest it to make more money.  one option is to put it in a cd, or invest it in stocks.  these options might return 0 0 depending on prevailing economic conditions.  another way to do this is to invest in or start a business.  they will buy things like buildings, property, equipment or inventory in order to run that business.  if you look at a firm is balance sheet URL it shows you the total assets, liabilities, and equity of the company.  assets liabilities   equity.  equity is basically how much the owner s have invested in the company.  in theory, they can pull this money out an invest it elsewhere e. g.  the stock market in order to make money.  in practice, this can be difficult, but it is not  that  hard.  profit is the return on this equity investment .  in wmt is case, there is roughly $0 billion in equity, and about $0 billion URL in net income.  if this net income dropped to zero, then the owners would be receiving no return on their $0 billion in equity, and would want to close the business.  they may not do this after one bad quarter or year, but if low or zero profit continued for a while, the business would eventually close.  once the business closes, then workers will have no wage at all.  of course, in the case of wmt, it appears that their profits are very healthy and producing an above average return.  in their case, there is a strong argument to be made that they can  afford  to pay higher wages.  note: the above is a very crude way of looking at a firms financial health, but the basic argument holds: the money invested in a company needs to generate a return i. e.  profit or else it will be invested elsewhere.   #  you fail to take into account the  sweatshop  issue.   #  you fail to take into account the  sweatshop  issue.  the idea that any business at all is better than no business is kind of a silly one we used to have businesses that paid kids less than minimum wage to do extremely dangerous tasks in spaces adults could not or would not enter, like cleaning out chimneys full of dangerous chemicals in factories.  i mean, we put a stop to this practice thank god , but now we have lost tons of jobs because of it ! think of all the children who could be paid 0$ per hour to inhale toxic chemicals while unclogging your chimneys ! that is thousands of jobs every year we could have had ! tl;dr  not every job and every business is something you want in your economy.  i think it is quite obvious that if a business can only remain profitable by exploiting and underpaying their employees, that business should be shut down it is simply not competitive enough.   #  due to this they are essentially forced to stay at a job that pays them less than they feel they deserve and/or less than is required to live on.   #  interesting line of thinking.  0.  there is a lot of assumption in these replies to op that if an employee is unhappy with their pay, they can just leave.  this is only true as a technicality.  sure, they can leave, but for a large percentage of people especially in lower skilled jobs it would be very, very difficult to find another job.  due to this they are essentially forced to stay at a job that pays them less than they feel they deserve and/or less than is required to live on.  0.  what exactly would it mean to  let a person fail  ? it is clear what happens when a business fails, but what happens if we as a society let a  person  fail ? let is say that life is a big strategy game.  it is not as if a person can just get kicked from the server and simply disappear if they ca not play the game well enough.  unless they simply die.  surely that is not what you are suggesting.   #  how much student loan debt are you on the hook for ?  #  the point is that plenty of people can live just fine on a much smaller paycheck than others.  it is completely dependent on your situation.  do you have dependents ? where do you live ? how much student loan debt are you on the hook for ? all of these are going to hugely affect how much money you need to  meet your basic needs.   which is why the idea of some universal  living wage requirement  is unrealistic.  what is necessary for one person might be far more than another needs.  and what someone else can live just fine on might have someone else in poverty.
hello cmv.  i truly believe that the platform that has the greatest potential for story telling is video games compared with other methods books, tv, movies,theatre allow me to explain; with video games, unlike every other method of story telling, you are in control of your character besides cut scenes .  you control where they go, how they fight, even the camera.  also some games give you choices, sometimes big, other times small, for instance think of mass effect, you choose to save or destroy entire races and more importantly whether to allow your friends to die to do this.  compare this to choices in say arrow tv show, if you have seen it you know what i am referencing .  while the choice is made there you have no input on it, it is filmed as that so will always be the same result.  moving away from story driven games to player created stories.  there is an fps that i play called planetside 0, hundreds of players fighting over enormous maps.  here you get stories forming naturally, someone takes command, you might be fighting, surrounded on all sides desperately trying to hold a base until back up can arrive.  let me tell you, there is real tension created there and a connection to the people you are fighting beside hard to explain unless you have played the game  #  allow me to explain; with video games, unlike every other method of story telling, you are in control of your character besides cut scenes .   #  you control where they go, how they fight, even the camera.   # you control where they go, how they fight, even the camera.  which makes the type of story you can tell extremely limited.  how would i tell a story like game of thrones if i were in control of all the characters ? what if i decide, that i, as the character, simply will not do certain things ? we have those in books, it is called choose your own adventure.  it is not a new concept.  those are marketed almost exclusively towards children.  largely because they are very limited in scope.  once you create options for the reader, you limit the capacity of the story.  if i were to write a mystery novel, i could write it in such a way that there were hundreds of possible solutions clued to the reader.  but as soon as i relinquish that control, there are only as many as they can choose.  the interactive nature of video games makes it extremely limited in the scope and depth.  it can be very good for certain  kinds  of story telling, but it simply ca not be used for many others.   #   you shall not pass  shouted the wizard just before he was gored to death.   #  video games are also the only medium i am aware of subject to ludonarrative dissonance.  this means that quite often you can control your character to make them do things that run completely counter to the main storyline.  for example on gta: san andreas, it is possible and something i do every time i play to kill a pedestrian, take a few dollars they drop, and spend it on the horse racing track until your money total is in the tens of millions.  it is a great way to start the game off, but many of the early game missions are driven by cj is desire to get some money and get back on his feet.  you are sitting here, the richest man in the hood, and stealing boxes of weapons from an old man is home at midnight so you can make a few hundred bucks.  there is nothing that takes you out of a story quite like the facts of the situation running completely counter to the story being expressed in the cutscenes.  the more freedom of action given to the player, the more potential there is for ludonarrative dissonance, a concept entirely alien to any other type of storytelling.  any game that has a death mechanic also has this issue.  imagine playing the lord of the rings video game and being slain by an orc only to immediately come back to life a few steps from where you died.  sure this makes sense in a video game because permadeath to the degree that the entire game is invalidated would cause refund requests all day every day.  but imagine the same thing in the novel.   you shall not pass  shouted the wizard just before he was gored to death.  arisen from the grave, the hero shouts again  you shall not pass  before being mauled a second time.  things went on in this fashion for two hours before gandalf realized he was actually supposed to jump into the hole with the beast so his comrades could continue.   pretty lame right ? sure if you do not closely scrutinize the gameplay itself and focus on just the cutscenes then most of this is ignorable.  but you bring up the minutiae of gameplay to support your argument so i am pointing out how that can just as easily be used against it.  it is hard to connect to aeris  death scene when she could have died countless times before that point in battle.  why ca not you just use a phoenix down on a character that died in a cutscene ? that is never really explained.   #  but the fact that it is a game rather than a movie makes the story more  immersive .   # but the fact that it is a game rather than a movie makes the story more  immersive .  if your goal to progress the story in a game is to get from point a to point d and going through points b and c is optional, gong through points b and c does nothing to immerse you as it does not have to do with the story.  if you choose to go directly from a to d without doing anything in between can you honestly call that any more immersive than going from page 0 to 0 in a book or from minute 0 to minute 0 in a movie ? sure gameplay can draw you in, but it is not immersing you with the story, just with itself.  honestly, i feel a lot more like i  earned  something and more immersed when i finish a long complicated passage in a book like gravity is rainbow  or finish dissecting a really intricate movie like synecdoche new york or there will be blood or something.  i think this is more personal preference.  : eg.  the stanley parable.  true, but the stanley parable is more of an interactive story than anything else.  it is clearly not a movie or a book but idk if calling it a game really does it justice.  i feel like when media like that becomes more common it will probably transcend the label  video game.    #  who is to say we wo not have interactive films some time down the line ?  #  at best, the fact that you can die in mass effect causes unnecessary ludonarrative dissoanance, at worst it can be an actual obstacle towards enjoying the story, having to replay the same bits over and over again when you just want to see the next cutscene which can create great immersion in the gameplay but is anything but immersive as far as the story itself is concerned.  gameplay can enhance immersion in a story if done correctly, but can also be a hindrance to it.  meaning if the goal is to get a story across, then gameplay can be a legit issue.  for example i was highly invested in final fantasy tactics as a kid, however i saved at the wrong point when it was too late to turn back and found myself 0/0 of the way through the game before a boss that at my level and with my characters it was literally impossible to beat and/or bypass.  this happened not once or twice, but 0 times over a period of a decade before on my 0th playrhrough i remembered to grind beforehand.  in that sense even ignoring the dissonance angle, gameplay can be a problem in getting a story across.  when more games are released like mass effect, op will have more of an argument, but arguing that they have the best potential for storytelling but have not realized it yet is equally valid as saying movies or books have the best potential for storytelling, but have not realized it yet.  who is to say we wo not have interactive films some time down the line ? so the best we have to base our arguments off of is what video games can show us now, and what they have shown us is that in essence they are no better than a movie in expressing a story unless you are the type who can look past the egregious errors and potholes that random deaths and detours should actually be causing to the story, but are not for some never explained reason.   #  but pointing out flaws is not relevant to the argument we are having, because the entirety of what we are discussing has to do with the various  upsides  to different mediums.   #  getting past ludonarrative dissonance in a video game is no more difficult than suspending your disbelief when reading a book or watching a movie.  many of us are able to simply overlook it, as an artifact of the medium, no different than giant page headers that say   chapter 0: john goes to the store   in a book we are reading.  every medium is going to have it is flaws.  but pointing out flaws is not relevant to the argument we are having, because the entirety of what we are discussing has to do with the various  upsides  to different mediums.  flaws can simply be overlooked by someone who is invested in the story.  so yes, games have flaws, as do movies, books, etc.  but the argument is that games have more potential to have bigger upsides, despite their flaws.
hello cmv.  i truly believe that the platform that has the greatest potential for story telling is video games compared with other methods books, tv, movies,theatre allow me to explain; with video games, unlike every other method of story telling, you are in control of your character besides cut scenes .  you control where they go, how they fight, even the camera.  also some games give you choices, sometimes big, other times small, for instance think of mass effect, you choose to save or destroy entire races and more importantly whether to allow your friends to die to do this.  compare this to choices in say arrow tv show, if you have seen it you know what i am referencing .  while the choice is made there you have no input on it, it is filmed as that so will always be the same result.  moving away from story driven games to player created stories.  there is an fps that i play called planetside 0, hundreds of players fighting over enormous maps.  here you get stories forming naturally, someone takes command, you might be fighting, surrounded on all sides desperately trying to hold a base until back up can arrive.  let me tell you, there is real tension created there and a connection to the people you are fighting beside hard to explain unless you have played the game  #  also some games give you choices, sometimes big, other times small, for instance think of mass effect, you choose to save or destroy entire races and more importantly whether to allow your friends to die to do this.   #  we have those in books, it is called choose your own adventure.   # you control where they go, how they fight, even the camera.  which makes the type of story you can tell extremely limited.  how would i tell a story like game of thrones if i were in control of all the characters ? what if i decide, that i, as the character, simply will not do certain things ? we have those in books, it is called choose your own adventure.  it is not a new concept.  those are marketed almost exclusively towards children.  largely because they are very limited in scope.  once you create options for the reader, you limit the capacity of the story.  if i were to write a mystery novel, i could write it in such a way that there were hundreds of possible solutions clued to the reader.  but as soon as i relinquish that control, there are only as many as they can choose.  the interactive nature of video games makes it extremely limited in the scope and depth.  it can be very good for certain  kinds  of story telling, but it simply ca not be used for many others.   #  you are sitting here, the richest man in the hood, and stealing boxes of weapons from an old man is home at midnight so you can make a few hundred bucks.   #  video games are also the only medium i am aware of subject to ludonarrative dissonance.  this means that quite often you can control your character to make them do things that run completely counter to the main storyline.  for example on gta: san andreas, it is possible and something i do every time i play to kill a pedestrian, take a few dollars they drop, and spend it on the horse racing track until your money total is in the tens of millions.  it is a great way to start the game off, but many of the early game missions are driven by cj is desire to get some money and get back on his feet.  you are sitting here, the richest man in the hood, and stealing boxes of weapons from an old man is home at midnight so you can make a few hundred bucks.  there is nothing that takes you out of a story quite like the facts of the situation running completely counter to the story being expressed in the cutscenes.  the more freedom of action given to the player, the more potential there is for ludonarrative dissonance, a concept entirely alien to any other type of storytelling.  any game that has a death mechanic also has this issue.  imagine playing the lord of the rings video game and being slain by an orc only to immediately come back to life a few steps from where you died.  sure this makes sense in a video game because permadeath to the degree that the entire game is invalidated would cause refund requests all day every day.  but imagine the same thing in the novel.   you shall not pass  shouted the wizard just before he was gored to death.  arisen from the grave, the hero shouts again  you shall not pass  before being mauled a second time.  things went on in this fashion for two hours before gandalf realized he was actually supposed to jump into the hole with the beast so his comrades could continue.   pretty lame right ? sure if you do not closely scrutinize the gameplay itself and focus on just the cutscenes then most of this is ignorable.  but you bring up the minutiae of gameplay to support your argument so i am pointing out how that can just as easily be used against it.  it is hard to connect to aeris  death scene when she could have died countless times before that point in battle.  why ca not you just use a phoenix down on a character that died in a cutscene ? that is never really explained.   #  i feel like when media like that becomes more common it will probably transcend the label  video game.    # but the fact that it is a game rather than a movie makes the story more  immersive .  if your goal to progress the story in a game is to get from point a to point d and going through points b and c is optional, gong through points b and c does nothing to immerse you as it does not have to do with the story.  if you choose to go directly from a to d without doing anything in between can you honestly call that any more immersive than going from page 0 to 0 in a book or from minute 0 to minute 0 in a movie ? sure gameplay can draw you in, but it is not immersing you with the story, just with itself.  honestly, i feel a lot more like i  earned  something and more immersed when i finish a long complicated passage in a book like gravity is rainbow  or finish dissecting a really intricate movie like synecdoche new york or there will be blood or something.  i think this is more personal preference.  : eg.  the stanley parable.  true, but the stanley parable is more of an interactive story than anything else.  it is clearly not a movie or a book but idk if calling it a game really does it justice.  i feel like when media like that becomes more common it will probably transcend the label  video game.    #  who is to say we wo not have interactive films some time down the line ?  #  at best, the fact that you can die in mass effect causes unnecessary ludonarrative dissoanance, at worst it can be an actual obstacle towards enjoying the story, having to replay the same bits over and over again when you just want to see the next cutscene which can create great immersion in the gameplay but is anything but immersive as far as the story itself is concerned.  gameplay can enhance immersion in a story if done correctly, but can also be a hindrance to it.  meaning if the goal is to get a story across, then gameplay can be a legit issue.  for example i was highly invested in final fantasy tactics as a kid, however i saved at the wrong point when it was too late to turn back and found myself 0/0 of the way through the game before a boss that at my level and with my characters it was literally impossible to beat and/or bypass.  this happened not once or twice, but 0 times over a period of a decade before on my 0th playrhrough i remembered to grind beforehand.  in that sense even ignoring the dissonance angle, gameplay can be a problem in getting a story across.  when more games are released like mass effect, op will have more of an argument, but arguing that they have the best potential for storytelling but have not realized it yet is equally valid as saying movies or books have the best potential for storytelling, but have not realized it yet.  who is to say we wo not have interactive films some time down the line ? so the best we have to base our arguments off of is what video games can show us now, and what they have shown us is that in essence they are no better than a movie in expressing a story unless you are the type who can look past the egregious errors and potholes that random deaths and detours should actually be causing to the story, but are not for some never explained reason.   #  many of us are able to simply overlook it, as an artifact of the medium, no different than giant page headers that say   chapter 0: john goes to the store   in a book we are reading.   #  getting past ludonarrative dissonance in a video game is no more difficult than suspending your disbelief when reading a book or watching a movie.  many of us are able to simply overlook it, as an artifact of the medium, no different than giant page headers that say   chapter 0: john goes to the store   in a book we are reading.  every medium is going to have it is flaws.  but pointing out flaws is not relevant to the argument we are having, because the entirety of what we are discussing has to do with the various  upsides  to different mediums.  flaws can simply be overlooked by someone who is invested in the story.  so yes, games have flaws, as do movies, books, etc.  but the argument is that games have more potential to have bigger upsides, despite their flaws.
hello cmv.  i truly believe that the platform that has the greatest potential for story telling is video games compared with other methods books, tv, movies,theatre allow me to explain; with video games, unlike every other method of story telling, you are in control of your character besides cut scenes .  you control where they go, how they fight, even the camera.  also some games give you choices, sometimes big, other times small, for instance think of mass effect, you choose to save or destroy entire races and more importantly whether to allow your friends to die to do this.  compare this to choices in say arrow tv show, if you have seen it you know what i am referencing .  while the choice is made there you have no input on it, it is filmed as that so will always be the same result.  moving away from story driven games to player created stories.  there is an fps that i play called planetside 0, hundreds of players fighting over enormous maps.  here you get stories forming naturally, someone takes command, you might be fighting, surrounded on all sides desperately trying to hold a base until back up can arrive.  let me tell you, there is real tension created there and a connection to the people you are fighting beside hard to explain unless you have played the game  #  allow me to explain; with video games, unlike every other method of story telling, you are in control of your character besides cut scenes .   #  you control where they go, how they fight, even the camera.   # you control where they go, how they fight, even the camera.  you are not though, everything in a videogame is limited.  let is say you are mario, you ca not control where to go, you are limited to the space given to you.  sure you can choose left right up down, but can you ca not go someplace the game does not allow you invisible walls .  you cant control how you fight, you are given a way to fight you will never be able to grab a gun or take a car and run over bowser you may control the camera.  but you are still limited to what the game gives you.  you ca not say  i do not wanna follow mario, i wanna see what is going on in another part  and this applies to every single game made and to be made, because being given absolute freedom will always be constricted to what the game gives you let is say you get a free camera to move around, well can you see what is going under ground ? what about in the ocean, or in space ? maybe inside that house.  oh nothing because is empty.  you are limited altough being able to control the camera is a nice bonus compared to let is say a movie.  a book gives you the same freedom.  a complete freedom.  if i describe to you a white room with chairs and people in it.  you can create the room in your head and see the place from whatever angle you truly wish.  hell you can even say  i want to see them naked  and just imagine how they would look.  so what do i think has the greatest potential for story telling ? yourself.  you literally have no limits.  any other medium will be someone else point of view or the tools given to you for you to explore a story.   #  video games are also the only medium i am aware of subject to ludonarrative dissonance.   #  video games are also the only medium i am aware of subject to ludonarrative dissonance.  this means that quite often you can control your character to make them do things that run completely counter to the main storyline.  for example on gta: san andreas, it is possible and something i do every time i play to kill a pedestrian, take a few dollars they drop, and spend it on the horse racing track until your money total is in the tens of millions.  it is a great way to start the game off, but many of the early game missions are driven by cj is desire to get some money and get back on his feet.  you are sitting here, the richest man in the hood, and stealing boxes of weapons from an old man is home at midnight so you can make a few hundred bucks.  there is nothing that takes you out of a story quite like the facts of the situation running completely counter to the story being expressed in the cutscenes.  the more freedom of action given to the player, the more potential there is for ludonarrative dissonance, a concept entirely alien to any other type of storytelling.  any game that has a death mechanic also has this issue.  imagine playing the lord of the rings video game and being slain by an orc only to immediately come back to life a few steps from where you died.  sure this makes sense in a video game because permadeath to the degree that the entire game is invalidated would cause refund requests all day every day.  but imagine the same thing in the novel.   you shall not pass  shouted the wizard just before he was gored to death.  arisen from the grave, the hero shouts again  you shall not pass  before being mauled a second time.  things went on in this fashion for two hours before gandalf realized he was actually supposed to jump into the hole with the beast so his comrades could continue.   pretty lame right ? sure if you do not closely scrutinize the gameplay itself and focus on just the cutscenes then most of this is ignorable.  but you bring up the minutiae of gameplay to support your argument so i am pointing out how that can just as easily be used against it.  it is hard to connect to aeris  death scene when she could have died countless times before that point in battle.  why ca not you just use a phoenix down on a character that died in a cutscene ? that is never really explained.   #  it is clearly not a movie or a book but idk if calling it a game really does it justice.   # but the fact that it is a game rather than a movie makes the story more  immersive .  if your goal to progress the story in a game is to get from point a to point d and going through points b and c is optional, gong through points b and c does nothing to immerse you as it does not have to do with the story.  if you choose to go directly from a to d without doing anything in between can you honestly call that any more immersive than going from page 0 to 0 in a book or from minute 0 to minute 0 in a movie ? sure gameplay can draw you in, but it is not immersing you with the story, just with itself.  honestly, i feel a lot more like i  earned  something and more immersed when i finish a long complicated passage in a book like gravity is rainbow  or finish dissecting a really intricate movie like synecdoche new york or there will be blood or something.  i think this is more personal preference.  : eg.  the stanley parable.  true, but the stanley parable is more of an interactive story than anything else.  it is clearly not a movie or a book but idk if calling it a game really does it justice.  i feel like when media like that becomes more common it will probably transcend the label  video game.    #  meaning if the goal is to get a story across, then gameplay can be a legit issue.   #  at best, the fact that you can die in mass effect causes unnecessary ludonarrative dissoanance, at worst it can be an actual obstacle towards enjoying the story, having to replay the same bits over and over again when you just want to see the next cutscene which can create great immersion in the gameplay but is anything but immersive as far as the story itself is concerned.  gameplay can enhance immersion in a story if done correctly, but can also be a hindrance to it.  meaning if the goal is to get a story across, then gameplay can be a legit issue.  for example i was highly invested in final fantasy tactics as a kid, however i saved at the wrong point when it was too late to turn back and found myself 0/0 of the way through the game before a boss that at my level and with my characters it was literally impossible to beat and/or bypass.  this happened not once or twice, but 0 times over a period of a decade before on my 0th playrhrough i remembered to grind beforehand.  in that sense even ignoring the dissonance angle, gameplay can be a problem in getting a story across.  when more games are released like mass effect, op will have more of an argument, but arguing that they have the best potential for storytelling but have not realized it yet is equally valid as saying movies or books have the best potential for storytelling, but have not realized it yet.  who is to say we wo not have interactive films some time down the line ? so the best we have to base our arguments off of is what video games can show us now, and what they have shown us is that in essence they are no better than a movie in expressing a story unless you are the type who can look past the egregious errors and potholes that random deaths and detours should actually be causing to the story, but are not for some never explained reason.   #  but pointing out flaws is not relevant to the argument we are having, because the entirety of what we are discussing has to do with the various  upsides  to different mediums.   #  getting past ludonarrative dissonance in a video game is no more difficult than suspending your disbelief when reading a book or watching a movie.  many of us are able to simply overlook it, as an artifact of the medium, no different than giant page headers that say   chapter 0: john goes to the store   in a book we are reading.  every medium is going to have it is flaws.  but pointing out flaws is not relevant to the argument we are having, because the entirety of what we are discussing has to do with the various  upsides  to different mediums.  flaws can simply be overlooked by someone who is invested in the story.  so yes, games have flaws, as do movies, books, etc.  but the argument is that games have more potential to have bigger upsides, despite their flaws.
hello cmv.  i truly believe that the platform that has the greatest potential for story telling is video games compared with other methods books, tv, movies,theatre allow me to explain; with video games, unlike every other method of story telling, you are in control of your character besides cut scenes .  you control where they go, how they fight, even the camera.  also some games give you choices, sometimes big, other times small, for instance think of mass effect, you choose to save or destroy entire races and more importantly whether to allow your friends to die to do this.  compare this to choices in say arrow tv show, if you have seen it you know what i am referencing .  while the choice is made there you have no input on it, it is filmed as that so will always be the same result.  moving away from story driven games to player created stories.  there is an fps that i play called planetside 0, hundreds of players fighting over enormous maps.  here you get stories forming naturally, someone takes command, you might be fighting, surrounded on all sides desperately trying to hold a base until back up can arrive.  let me tell you, there is real tension created there and a connection to the people you are fighting beside hard to explain unless you have played the game  #  compare this to choices in say arrow tv show, if you have seen it you know what i am referencing .   #  while the choice is made there you have no input on it, it is filmed as that so will always be the same result.   #  i do not think the argument that  video games offer player choice therefore they offer the greatest potential for story telling  is a logically sound statement.  this statement hinges on the idea that player choice better storytelling.  while the choice is made there you have no input on it, it is filmed as that so will always be the same result.  why is this bad ? just because the screenwriter had an intended ending for the story does not make the medium inferior to video games.  think of a film, tv series or book where the author/director made an unexpected choice in the series that had a lot of emotional resonance because it was not an event that the player would let happen, like the red wedding in game of thrones.  also, how does player choice enhance humor ? you can argue that there are funny moments in video games, but nothing about a video game is ability to enable player choice inherently makes it a better medium to convey humor.   #  sure if you do not closely scrutinize the gameplay itself and focus on just the cutscenes then most of this is ignorable.   #  video games are also the only medium i am aware of subject to ludonarrative dissonance.  this means that quite often you can control your character to make them do things that run completely counter to the main storyline.  for example on gta: san andreas, it is possible and something i do every time i play to kill a pedestrian, take a few dollars they drop, and spend it on the horse racing track until your money total is in the tens of millions.  it is a great way to start the game off, but many of the early game missions are driven by cj is desire to get some money and get back on his feet.  you are sitting here, the richest man in the hood, and stealing boxes of weapons from an old man is home at midnight so you can make a few hundred bucks.  there is nothing that takes you out of a story quite like the facts of the situation running completely counter to the story being expressed in the cutscenes.  the more freedom of action given to the player, the more potential there is for ludonarrative dissonance, a concept entirely alien to any other type of storytelling.  any game that has a death mechanic also has this issue.  imagine playing the lord of the rings video game and being slain by an orc only to immediately come back to life a few steps from where you died.  sure this makes sense in a video game because permadeath to the degree that the entire game is invalidated would cause refund requests all day every day.  but imagine the same thing in the novel.   you shall not pass  shouted the wizard just before he was gored to death.  arisen from the grave, the hero shouts again  you shall not pass  before being mauled a second time.  things went on in this fashion for two hours before gandalf realized he was actually supposed to jump into the hole with the beast so his comrades could continue.   pretty lame right ? sure if you do not closely scrutinize the gameplay itself and focus on just the cutscenes then most of this is ignorable.  but you bring up the minutiae of gameplay to support your argument so i am pointing out how that can just as easily be used against it.  it is hard to connect to aeris  death scene when she could have died countless times before that point in battle.  why ca not you just use a phoenix down on a character that died in a cutscene ? that is never really explained.   #  but the fact that it is a game rather than a movie makes the story more  immersive .   # but the fact that it is a game rather than a movie makes the story more  immersive .  if your goal to progress the story in a game is to get from point a to point d and going through points b and c is optional, gong through points b and c does nothing to immerse you as it does not have to do with the story.  if you choose to go directly from a to d without doing anything in between can you honestly call that any more immersive than going from page 0 to 0 in a book or from minute 0 to minute 0 in a movie ? sure gameplay can draw you in, but it is not immersing you with the story, just with itself.  honestly, i feel a lot more like i  earned  something and more immersed when i finish a long complicated passage in a book like gravity is rainbow  or finish dissecting a really intricate movie like synecdoche new york or there will be blood or something.  i think this is more personal preference.  : eg.  the stanley parable.  true, but the stanley parable is more of an interactive story than anything else.  it is clearly not a movie or a book but idk if calling it a game really does it justice.  i feel like when media like that becomes more common it will probably transcend the label  video game.    #  in that sense even ignoring the dissonance angle, gameplay can be a problem in getting a story across.   #  at best, the fact that you can die in mass effect causes unnecessary ludonarrative dissoanance, at worst it can be an actual obstacle towards enjoying the story, having to replay the same bits over and over again when you just want to see the next cutscene which can create great immersion in the gameplay but is anything but immersive as far as the story itself is concerned.  gameplay can enhance immersion in a story if done correctly, but can also be a hindrance to it.  meaning if the goal is to get a story across, then gameplay can be a legit issue.  for example i was highly invested in final fantasy tactics as a kid, however i saved at the wrong point when it was too late to turn back and found myself 0/0 of the way through the game before a boss that at my level and with my characters it was literally impossible to beat and/or bypass.  this happened not once or twice, but 0 times over a period of a decade before on my 0th playrhrough i remembered to grind beforehand.  in that sense even ignoring the dissonance angle, gameplay can be a problem in getting a story across.  when more games are released like mass effect, op will have more of an argument, but arguing that they have the best potential for storytelling but have not realized it yet is equally valid as saying movies or books have the best potential for storytelling, but have not realized it yet.  who is to say we wo not have interactive films some time down the line ? so the best we have to base our arguments off of is what video games can show us now, and what they have shown us is that in essence they are no better than a movie in expressing a story unless you are the type who can look past the egregious errors and potholes that random deaths and detours should actually be causing to the story, but are not for some never explained reason.   #  many of us are able to simply overlook it, as an artifact of the medium, no different than giant page headers that say   chapter 0: john goes to the store   in a book we are reading.   #  getting past ludonarrative dissonance in a video game is no more difficult than suspending your disbelief when reading a book or watching a movie.  many of us are able to simply overlook it, as an artifact of the medium, no different than giant page headers that say   chapter 0: john goes to the store   in a book we are reading.  every medium is going to have it is flaws.  but pointing out flaws is not relevant to the argument we are having, because the entirety of what we are discussing has to do with the various  upsides  to different mediums.  flaws can simply be overlooked by someone who is invested in the story.  so yes, games have flaws, as do movies, books, etc.  but the argument is that games have more potential to have bigger upsides, despite their flaws.
hello cmv.  i truly believe that the platform that has the greatest potential for story telling is video games compared with other methods books, tv, movies,theatre allow me to explain; with video games, unlike every other method of story telling, you are in control of your character besides cut scenes .  you control where they go, how they fight, even the camera.  also some games give you choices, sometimes big, other times small, for instance think of mass effect, you choose to save or destroy entire races and more importantly whether to allow your friends to die to do this.  compare this to choices in say arrow tv show, if you have seen it you know what i am referencing .  while the choice is made there you have no input on it, it is filmed as that so will always be the same result.  moving away from story driven games to player created stories.  there is an fps that i play called planetside 0, hundreds of players fighting over enormous maps.  here you get stories forming naturally, someone takes command, you might be fighting, surrounded on all sides desperately trying to hold a base until back up can arrive.  let me tell you, there is real tension created there and a connection to the people you are fighting beside hard to explain unless you have played the game  #  moving away from story driven games to player created stories.   #  there is an fps that i play called planetside 0, hundreds of players fighting over enormous maps.   # there is an fps that i play called planetside 0, hundreds of players fighting over enormous maps.  here you get stories forming naturally, someone takes command, you might be fighting, surrounded on all sides desperately trying to hold a base until back up can arrive.  let me tell you, there is real tension created there and a connection to the people you are fighting beside hard to explain unless you have played the game is this a story or an experience ? the best stories come from an author whose perspective and story telling resonate with you.  would a faulkner novel be as good if he let the reader pick the subject of the next chapter ? no, faulkner novels are heat because you have to read the story that he carefully crafted in the way that he crafted it in order for the development to happen on his terms.   #  video games are also the only medium i am aware of subject to ludonarrative dissonance.   #  video games are also the only medium i am aware of subject to ludonarrative dissonance.  this means that quite often you can control your character to make them do things that run completely counter to the main storyline.  for example on gta: san andreas, it is possible and something i do every time i play to kill a pedestrian, take a few dollars they drop, and spend it on the horse racing track until your money total is in the tens of millions.  it is a great way to start the game off, but many of the early game missions are driven by cj is desire to get some money and get back on his feet.  you are sitting here, the richest man in the hood, and stealing boxes of weapons from an old man is home at midnight so you can make a few hundred bucks.  there is nothing that takes you out of a story quite like the facts of the situation running completely counter to the story being expressed in the cutscenes.  the more freedom of action given to the player, the more potential there is for ludonarrative dissonance, a concept entirely alien to any other type of storytelling.  any game that has a death mechanic also has this issue.  imagine playing the lord of the rings video game and being slain by an orc only to immediately come back to life a few steps from where you died.  sure this makes sense in a video game because permadeath to the degree that the entire game is invalidated would cause refund requests all day every day.  but imagine the same thing in the novel.   you shall not pass  shouted the wizard just before he was gored to death.  arisen from the grave, the hero shouts again  you shall not pass  before being mauled a second time.  things went on in this fashion for two hours before gandalf realized he was actually supposed to jump into the hole with the beast so his comrades could continue.   pretty lame right ? sure if you do not closely scrutinize the gameplay itself and focus on just the cutscenes then most of this is ignorable.  but you bring up the minutiae of gameplay to support your argument so i am pointing out how that can just as easily be used against it.  it is hard to connect to aeris  death scene when she could have died countless times before that point in battle.  why ca not you just use a phoenix down on a character that died in a cutscene ? that is never really explained.   #  i feel like when media like that becomes more common it will probably transcend the label  video game.    # but the fact that it is a game rather than a movie makes the story more  immersive .  if your goal to progress the story in a game is to get from point a to point d and going through points b and c is optional, gong through points b and c does nothing to immerse you as it does not have to do with the story.  if you choose to go directly from a to d without doing anything in between can you honestly call that any more immersive than going from page 0 to 0 in a book or from minute 0 to minute 0 in a movie ? sure gameplay can draw you in, but it is not immersing you with the story, just with itself.  honestly, i feel a lot more like i  earned  something and more immersed when i finish a long complicated passage in a book like gravity is rainbow  or finish dissecting a really intricate movie like synecdoche new york or there will be blood or something.  i think this is more personal preference.  : eg.  the stanley parable.  true, but the stanley parable is more of an interactive story than anything else.  it is clearly not a movie or a book but idk if calling it a game really does it justice.  i feel like when media like that becomes more common it will probably transcend the label  video game.    #  meaning if the goal is to get a story across, then gameplay can be a legit issue.   #  at best, the fact that you can die in mass effect causes unnecessary ludonarrative dissoanance, at worst it can be an actual obstacle towards enjoying the story, having to replay the same bits over and over again when you just want to see the next cutscene which can create great immersion in the gameplay but is anything but immersive as far as the story itself is concerned.  gameplay can enhance immersion in a story if done correctly, but can also be a hindrance to it.  meaning if the goal is to get a story across, then gameplay can be a legit issue.  for example i was highly invested in final fantasy tactics as a kid, however i saved at the wrong point when it was too late to turn back and found myself 0/0 of the way through the game before a boss that at my level and with my characters it was literally impossible to beat and/or bypass.  this happened not once or twice, but 0 times over a period of a decade before on my 0th playrhrough i remembered to grind beforehand.  in that sense even ignoring the dissonance angle, gameplay can be a problem in getting a story across.  when more games are released like mass effect, op will have more of an argument, but arguing that they have the best potential for storytelling but have not realized it yet is equally valid as saying movies or books have the best potential for storytelling, but have not realized it yet.  who is to say we wo not have interactive films some time down the line ? so the best we have to base our arguments off of is what video games can show us now, and what they have shown us is that in essence they are no better than a movie in expressing a story unless you are the type who can look past the egregious errors and potholes that random deaths and detours should actually be causing to the story, but are not for some never explained reason.   #  getting past ludonarrative dissonance in a video game is no more difficult than suspending your disbelief when reading a book or watching a movie.   #  getting past ludonarrative dissonance in a video game is no more difficult than suspending your disbelief when reading a book or watching a movie.  many of us are able to simply overlook it, as an artifact of the medium, no different than giant page headers that say   chapter 0: john goes to the store   in a book we are reading.  every medium is going to have it is flaws.  but pointing out flaws is not relevant to the argument we are having, because the entirety of what we are discussing has to do with the various  upsides  to different mediums.  flaws can simply be overlooked by someone who is invested in the story.  so yes, games have flaws, as do movies, books, etc.  but the argument is that games have more potential to have bigger upsides, despite their flaws.
the real problem with capitalism is that there is no equality of opportunity under this system.  your entire life gets determined by which class you happen to get born into.  if the effect of this  happenstance  could somehow be eliminated, so that everyone enjoyed equality of opportunity, then even though income and wealth inequalities continued to remain in society, this fact per se would not be a cause for concern.  access to larger income and wealth would then be determined not by  willuck  of being born into a particular class but by ability and effort.  in fact, one can even go further: if the capitalist system could be so reformed that equality of opportunity for everyone could be ensured within this system itself, then even the continued existence of a group of people called capitalists and another group called workers, should not really matter.  needless to say, equality of opportunity in such a  areformed  capitalist society must entail the confiscation to a significant extent, through death duties, of the property of the capitalists after their death so that their children do not enjoy an unfair advantage over others.  equality of opportunity is possible only in a society which can achieve and maintain full employment without jeopardizing work discipline, that is, only in a society where people work with discipline not because they are afraid of being consigned to the ranks of the unemployed but because they voluntarily internalize the need to work with discipline.  this can only be a society where the workers collectively own the means of production.  of course, mere formal or juridical ownership of the means of production by the collectivity of workers is not enough to ensure that they internalize the necessity to work with discipline; they must feel part of a  community  and transcend their individual self interest as a condition for this.  equality of opportunity in short is possible only under socialism.   #  the real problem with capitalism is that there is no equality of opportunity under this system.   #  what does  achieving  equality of opportunity really mean to you ?  # what does  achieving  equality of opportunity really mean to you ? equality of opportunity is not the sort of ideal that is meaningful to discuss in terms of  achieving  it; whether it is genetics, better parenting, personal connections, dumb luck, or what shows you watched on tv as a kid, there is always going to be people who have advantages over others.  when we talk about it as an ideal, it really means raising the floor so that the worst off people are still getting a fair shot.  everybody gets an education.  nobody loses their home over an injury.  libraries are available to the poor as well as the rich.  job applications are reviewed without discrimination based on race.  it is about making sure everyone has a good chance not about dragging people down so that nobody can have a better chance.  roasting the rich does not help the rest of us much; mostly it just generates a bunch of anguish and social tension when people who have poured their heart and soul into creating a legacy feel like it is being taken away from them or their children.   #  as for eliminating inheritance, you are subsidizing people to not save and accumulate wealth which is economically stupid.   #  so let is say everyone is equalized at birth and start with the same resources.  is it fair to say we may see a normal distribution of incomes that create a demographic of rich, middle class, and poor ? i think the answer is a definite yes as your decisions and work ethic definitely influence your success.  so what now is the difference between this result and the one we currently have ? the poor are poor and the rich are rich except now you have  proven  that the rich deserve it.  this exacerbates the problem as now the poor will be treated even worse because it is literally their fault and would be treated as such.  as for eliminating inheritance, you are subsidizing people to not save and accumulate wealth which is economically stupid.  you will push people to waste their money of ridiculous expenditures because they have no reason not to  #  president roosevelt wanted to impose 0 tax on higher incomes but compromised with 0 after opposition.   #  socialism is an umbrella term used to describe various systems of collective ownership and democratic control over the  means of production  essentially all the non human factors used in making stuff .  for most socialists the end game is to build a stateless, classless and moneyless society URL capitalist societies can have very high taxation.  scandinavian countries do but they are not socialist since worker control of the means of production is not a feature.  during wwii united states   united kingdom also had very high taxes.  president roosevelt wanted to impose 0 tax on higher incomes but compromised with 0 after opposition.   #  if it circulates too fast, the government intervenes to slow it down or pull it out.   #  money is almost never dormant.  banks hold only a small fraction of what is deposited; they invest the rest into providing loans for people starting businesses, buying homes, or getting a new car.  money that goes into stocks and other securities is cycled into the system directly, since it is being paid out to someone else.  the amount of money in society is a small fraction of the society is wealth.  wealth is the goods and services in the society.  your house.  your couch.  your tv.  the food in your refrigerator.  your cash on hand is tiny compared to that.  the money ? that is just the grease.  if circulates too slowly, the government intervenes to speed it up or add more.  if it circulates too fast, the government intervenes to slow it down or pull it out.  if the joker decides to send a message by permanently burning down a warehouse full of cash, the economy will be no worse for wear.  if he takes a truly huge amount of cash out of circulation and this actually makes things difficult, the government will just print more to replace it and everything will go back to normal.   #  unequal prosperity will always help more people than equal poverty.   #  as we have seen it capitalism has done more to advance true global equality than any other economic system we have since seen.  we are currently witnessing the rapid eradication of extreme poverty 0 , the explosion of an international middle class 0 and world inequality is actually decreasing significantly 0 .  0.  URL 0.  this article by the oecd holds a lot of information:URL 0.  this slide show from ourworlddata. org holds amazing information: URL if we are to judge on the rational basis of data then it would seem that capitalism has done a highly significant amount to decrease inequality.  of course prior to capitalism things were much more equal around the world, 0 of the population lived at what would be considered today to be extreme poverty.  extremely high infant mortality rates were equal across the world.  extremely low rates of literacy were very uniform across all societies.  that was a world far more equal than now, but i for one would not want to subject anyone to it.  equality is not and should not be a goal that you should seek.  unequal prosperity will always help more people than equal poverty.  let me ask you a hypothetical question: you are have 0 buttons in front of you.  if you press the first one, real gdp for every single person on earth will double.  if you press the second one all current gdp today will be equally divided amongst every person on earth.  what button do you press ?
i swear i am not a troll.  i m honestly confused.  i understand the concept of  privilege  but i do not understand where it is heading.  i listen to the countless videos, comics and messages that usually go along the lines of:  my neighbour wo not go to college because of his fathers drug problem.  i will go because my father saved up for my tuition.  i have privilege.   or insert whatever subject you want into that.  so i get the concept.  but what i do not understand is where to go from there.  some of the privileges that people attribute ca not have anything done about them.  others are just who i am.  lets take the famous  white privilege .  which i am.  oh gawd no i ca not help but relate it to my christian upbringing where it was beaten figuratively into me that  you were born with sin and must apologize for it ! seek redemption !   what good does shame help in any situation ? how about pointing at the disadvantaged and say  willets help them !   instead of pointing at you and saying  you better acknowledge that you are white/a sinner/privileged ! feel bad for it.   . i am rambling.  i guess.  i am not an activist person.  i do not go to rallies.  i think i just have problems with someone having a hate laced finger pointed at me for existing if i am not going out of my way to do something.  if my sin is existing, then i do not see what progress you are trying to make by just shaming me about it.  religion/race/whatever the subject of it.  let me know if i am way off.   #  i understand the concept of  privilege  but i do not understand where it is heading.   #  i do not understand what you mean here.   #  being aware of being privileged does not mean you should be ashamed of being privileged.  who is saying you should be ashamed ? i do not understand what you mean here.  what do you mean when you ask where it is heading ? it is not heading anywhere, it is just a description.  others are just who i am.  well, yes.  no one is asking you to stop being white.  but being white does affect how people treat you.   #  the point of privilege discourse is to remind people to be humble about their accomplishments and to be aware of the challenges other people women, minorities, poorer people face that they themselves might not be aware of.   #  the point of privilege discourse is to remind people to be humble about their accomplishments and to be aware of the challenges other people women, minorities, poorer people face that they themselves might not be aware of.  i think this comic explains it rather well URL your own privileges are often invisible to you and because of this it is easy to ascribe your successes solely to your own hard work, perseverance, and intelligence.  and these factors no doubt played a big part, but certain privileges helped you along the way.  if you are from a white, middle class family with professional parents who went to university, and your a male who is comfortable in you gender and sexual orientation, you have not only faced a lot fewer barriers than other folk you have also received some important bonuses like help from you parents and the social and cultural capital necessary to integrate into professional communities.  the problem is when privileged people reach a point in their lives where they control hiring decisions or can act as gatekeepers to important resources, they do not acknowledge the help they have received and do not realize that not everyone has had these.  and so they discount people who maybe have not gone to as great a university as them or have not had the same social experiences like ski trips or backpacking across europe .  this creates a barrier for smart, intelligent, and hard working people to move up in society just because they come from different backgrounds.  there is no one goal of the privilege discourse, but a major one is for people to simply acknowledge their privilege and be aware of its role in their successes.  this does not mean that everything privileged people have achieved is meaningless or stolen, just that they have have advantages that others have not.   #  luck under this definition is:  preparation meets opportunity.    #  i think the conversation about privilege is important, but i also see some large scale inherent problems to the way that the concept is applied.  the main problem with any ism sexism, racism, etc is that an  individual  is looking at another  individual  and making population level stereotype informed value judgments about that individual.  some of them are completely false, some have grains of truth to them.  but their veracity is irrelevant, because the problem lies with applying a population level concept to an individual.  even if there is some well documented population level difference for a certain subgroup of people, letting that inform you during an interview with an individual is always misguided and wrong.  this is my main gripe with the privilege conversation.  yes, on a population level, an average white person will experience less structural barriers than a black person, but diminishing an  individual is  accomplishments by invoking privilege is making the same mistake someone being racist or sexist.  it is possible that the person has benefited from this privilege, but you both ca not know, and it should not specifically matter.  i view the privilege conversation in the same way that i view a really good definition of luck.  luck under this definition is:  preparation meets opportunity.   if you are prepared to capitalize on opportunities, it will look in hindsight like you are being lucky.  now of course there are huge caveats to this.  there are some people  so  privileged or  so  disadvantaged, that it does not matter what their choices are.  super trust fund babies usually have a really hard time failing because of the massive support structure they have, and likewise impoverished geniuses from broken households in gang ridden slums may never get the chance to achieve their potential.  so, returning to that comic that you listed, the only real frame that demonstrated the problem with the left half is thinking was the last one, where he did not recognize the help he had gotten.  so your last paragraph sums up the situation quite well, except for the fact that a large number of people who participate in the privilege conversation seem to always over extend the influence and importance of privilege to an erroneous extent.   #  privilege is a tool for understanding the world.   #  privilege is a tool for understanding the world.  it has no inherent  goal  any more than the  law of diminishing returns  has a goal.  a lot of people try to tack one on, but to be honest you could tack whatever goal you want on.  some people suggest it should make you more humble about your accomplishments since they might have been easier for you than for others.  which is reasonable, but it would be just as reasonable to do the opposite: see your accomplishments as part of a privileged group is and thus take pride in others  accomplishments as well as your own.  some suggest it should make you support affirmative action, but it could just as easily do the opposite: show logical reasons why racism benefits you more than you would think.  the  only  ironclad thing an understanding of privilege should show you is how little diversity of experience you really see.  it should help you see how much of what you think you know of black/gay/trans/mentally ill/etc experiences are really the words of majorities that resound so much more loudly.  and so when you do hear them speak about their own experiences, do not discount them so easily.  because your privilege may have blinded you to certain facts about reality that you may not recognize.   #  i think that you are falsely attributing the white guilt that you think everyone feels to your own problems.   #  i think that you are falsely attributing the white guilt that you think everyone feels to your own problems.  i do not know you at all, but just based on your portrayal of how people speak to you, it seems that you are both ungrateful and unwilling to produce with the advantages that you have been given.  you then interpret the constant reminder of your privilege to be the conversation is ultimate goal.  in all likelihood the ultimate goal is to increase your gratitude and/or productivity and the reminder of your privilege is  intended  to serve as a prod.  albeit, it is not actually working.  but it is pretty clear that for someone else it is a means to an end and you have interpreted it as an end in itself.
i have heard some people complain that a pet peeve of theirs is that people do not put their headphones in in the correct order.  i find this silly and would like to challenge the logic of making sure the left earbud is in the left ear and the right in the right.   claim 0:  putting your headphones in the wrong way is like going to a concert and facing the opposite direction !    no it is not.  it is more akin to listening to the same band but with the musicians switched to the opposite side of the stage, which should cause little discernible difference in the quality of the music, especially if the music is being amplified anyway.  the argument that it is like facing away from the band seems like an attempt to make it seem that putting headphones in the wrong way is somehow disrespectful to the artist, which leads nicely into my next argument.   claim 0:  it is the way the artist intended it to be heard !    similar argument.  it really does not make a big difference.  and if the order is so important to the artist, i would argue they are being a bit unreasonable.  a successful musician can expect their music to be heard through crappy speakers, in loud bars, or on a fuzzy radio station.  whether the headphones are in the right order is the least of their problems.  the listener is also in no way required to enjoy the artist is music the way the artist intended.   claim 0:  but it can be imporant in movies or games to determine which side the sound is coming from !    this is true.  that is why i only mentioned music.  correct headphone orientation is definitely important to an audiovisual medium.  i guess then i should concede that listening to a music video is one instance where having headphones in the correct order may be advisable.  this is my argument.  please, change my view.   #  whether the headphones are in the right order is the least of their problems.   #  the listener is also in no way required to enjoy the artist is music the way the artist intended.   #  i think your second point is where your position starts to sway.  sure, they can expect it.  but that does not mean it is ideal; a painter can expect that their painting may be seen in a grainy photo.  that does not mean that seeing it in a gallery is meaningless.  the listener is also in no way required to enjoy the artist is music the way the artist intended.  just because it is not  required  does not mean it is  meaningless .  i am not  required  to view a statue from the front, but that does not make it meaningless to do so.  if an artist meant for something to be experienced a certain way, it has at least some meaning for it to be experienced that way.  it is not a demand, or an absolute need, but that does not make it meaningless.   #  it just means the artist should listen to the music in the way they see fit.   #  this was part of my argument i even began feeling a little shaky about but i decided to stick with it for the following reason.  sure an artist could hold this very specific view that the drums are on the left and the singer is on the right, but i think it is meaningless in a somewhat colloquial sense , because as i have stated, reversing the sides on which the sound is really does not matter.  now there could be some contrived examples where say the lyrics explicitly describe the layout of the stage, but the chances of this are miniscule and do not warrant me checking my headphones everytime i listen to a new song.  i do want to add a little bit.  i said i used meaningless in a colloquial sense.  that is because one can argue that nothing is truly meaningless.  since people give things meaning, anything has the potential to hold meaning.  but in the colloquial sense of the word, meaningless is closer to trivial.  something that likely matters very little.  in that sense, the artist is desire for someone to have the correct headphone orientation is indeed meaningless.  the purpose of a song is to be listened to.  the orientation has negligible effect on the listening, and is therefore meaningless.  even if the orientation has great meaning to the artist, this does not necessarily affect the listener.  it just means the artist should listen to the music in the way they see fit.   #  or for a better example one that actually matters to the sound of the music , if an artist says that you should listen to their music literally facing away from the source of the sound, this is also not relevant.   #  the minimal effort it takes to look for the l or r is arbitrary.  the argument is that the orientation is meaningless.  you may argue that checking for the l or r is such a meaninglessly in the colloquial sense of course simple task that the whole argument is pointless, but i would say that it is not.  i am not arguing whether people should or should not put their headphones in the right order, i am just pointing out the meaninglessness of the choice.  now to your main point.  if an artist says that you should listen to their album in a hot tub with mixed vegetables floating around, that does not make it relevant.  or for a better example one that actually matters to the sound of the music , if an artist says that you should listen to their music literally facing away from the source of the sound, this is also not relevant.  it is simply an arbitrary suggestion.  the fact that it comes from the artist themself does not mean it is meaningful.  and, why ? because it does not change the quality of the sound or has a negligible effect .  we could argue in circles about meaningfullness all day until the discussion devolves to nihilism.  but for the sake of the argument i am confining myself to the colloquial sense of the word, not the absolute lack of meaning.  i am still not convinced that there is any meaning in an artist is suggestion that their music should be listened in an arbitrarily different way.  if an artist says that there music should be listened to through the highest quality headphones to catch every sound, that is relevant.  i would not do it because i do not have that money, but i would understand the reasoning.   #  i am not claiming that it changes the quality.   # of course it makes it relevant; you can make your own decisions about whether to do it or not, based in no small part on whether this request affects the sound and how difficult it is to satisfy, but it is relevant.  it is simply an arbitrary suggestion.  it is hardly arbitrary; it changes your perception of the sound.  just as surely as the decision of the artist to play one note or another changes your perception of the music, so does which ear hears what.  and, why ? because it does not change the quality of the sound or has a negligible effect .  i am not claiming that it changes the quality.  it changes the perception.  just as using higher quality headphones changes the perception, so does which ear hears what.   #  listening to the music in the reverse order is typically arbitrary.   #  i should clarify.  i am not using the word  quality  in the sense of good or bad or anything like that.  i am using it to describe anything related to the sound, including from the perception view.  my argument is that turning your back to the music does not make a huge difference to perception.  same with the hot tub and the peas.  it may make a significant change to the perception in other ways.  for example, swimming with peas is definitely a different way to experience music than listening in the car.  but this is why it is not a great example, because my argument is about how the sound is perceived.  assuming similar headphones, the listening should be virtually the same.  now i would just try to make my point about meaningfulness and relevance and whatnot.  i could step into my backyard, look at a blade of grass and decide that, yes, it is the most meaningful thing in the world to me.  it is by my very peculiar paramters, the most important blade of grass i could ever find.  in since meaning and relevance is given to things by people, in a technical sense it would be a very meaningful blade of grass.  but since we are functioning in the real world, that really does not mean much.  that blade of grass is not likely special and their is no practical reason for me to believe it is.  listening to the music in the reverse order is typically arbitrary.  technically it makes a meaningful difference, but realistically it does not.  this is not quite the same.  having the headphones in the wrong ears moves the sound source to different places.  higher quality headphones actually change what you hear.
this one seems so obvious to me but i will provide the basic points: it is a person is right to do whatever they want with their own body so long as doing so does not infringe on the rights of others.  prostitution is, presumably, an agreement among consenting adults.  i am not trying to defend anything other than exactly this.  there is virtually no immediate difference between prostitution and pornography.  simply adding a camera with the intention of creating porn somehow makes the act legal.  the reason it is so alarming is that it is a blatant violation of our rights to our own bodies.  it is the government tacitly saying they are the ultimate authority as to who we have sex with and under what circumstances it is permitted.  most importantly, since people will do it anyway, making it illegal forces it underground just like drugs .  in the places where it is legal it can be heavily restricted in ways that prevent disease and the rights of the workers can be protected.  since i do not think i have ever heard a single decent argument against this, i am interested in having this deeply held belief challenged.   #  prostitution is, presumably, an agreement among consenting adults.   #  i am not trying to defend anything other than exactly this.   # i am not trying to defend anything other than exactly this.  i have always been under the impression that this is why it  is not  legal.  i think most people agree that you should chose what to do with your own body, but with prostitution legalized it would make it an easier job than it is already to coerce/force people into it.  here is an article i found googling just real quick, URL but i remember encountering a moving video shared on facebook and spending an entire day reading article after article about people who were forced into it and escaped, what it was like, and just how prevalent it is.  you can help yourself to those readings.  in a large majority of cases people trick young women into coming with them to various locations, and then they are suddenly in for way more than they bargained for.  taken was not too far off the mark.  sex trafficking is truly horrible and is far more prevalent in the us than most people realize.  if prostitution were legal, it would add so many extra loops and legal processes to recognizing and saving these victims, which is extremely hard already due to numerous factors.  i have always sided against legalization of prostitution because it is not worth the risk that 0 some people will be taken advantage of with such legislation, furthering sex trafficking and 0 making it harder to prove, recognize, and rescue current victims.  i am not trying to defend anything other than exactly this.  unfortunately, we cannot guarantee that is what the reality would be like.  and therefore it is not worth the risk to legalize it.  allowing sexual freedom for some is not worth risking the lives, futures, etc.  of victims.  if you could solve the sex trafficking problem first and provide protections for prostitutes to accommodate for the window of destruction you are opening by encouraging more people into this profession that others have mentioned by the law then yes, legalize it by all means.  but we have to accept that that is not the reality.   #  0 legalizing prostitution might have a negative affect on poor women or men, let is keep this gender neutral .   #  so while i agree with you that overall, the arguments in favor of legalizing prostitution are better than the ones against it, maybe i can at least offer a couple of points.  0 legalizing prostitution might have a negative affect on poor women or men, let is keep this gender neutral .  with such a readily available income source, people who are struggling to pay the bills might become prostitutes instead of pursuing their actual goals.  similarly to how children in developing countries could be  forced  into child labor if it is legal, people can be economically  forced  into prostitution.  i believe people should have a right to their own body etc, but when economics are involved, it becomes a little fuzzy.  for example, we do not allow people to sell body organs, because those who are desperate for money would feel compelled to.  0 prostitution is far harder to regulate than you seem to think, and it is tough to protect men or women who are putting themselves in a vulnerable situation where they are alone with a  customer .  sexual assault and other forms of violence are not uncommon in these situations.   #  is it that much different than stripping though ?  #  while i agree that it would be difficult to regulate, i am not convinced that is strong enough to warrant it is illegalization.  however, the disproportionate targeting of poor people is a strong enough argument to warrant my switching to a more neutral position on this issue.  i believe major economic reform is needed to avoid scenarios like this but in our current economic environment. you make a good point.  is it that much different than stripping though ? it seems like many women in poverty turn to stripping for the reasons listed above and while sex is obviously far more extreme, i am not seeing the clear difference from a legal perspective.    0;  #  also, the child labor comparison is not a good analogy, because children are, for the most part, not self actuating.   #  i do not see how the economic forcing argument is valid.  whether or not prostitution is an available path for people, the same economic factors will be present.  illegalizing prostitution removes an avenue only, it does not open up anything.  the argument is basically saying that people are too dumb/unmotivated to see that prostitution is a bad route to take, which points right back to your original issue of the government deciding what is best for us.  also, the child labor comparison is not a good analogy, because children are, for the most part, not self actuating.  making child labor illegal makes sense because it removes options from the people who would take advantage of children, thus forcing those people to choose something that is more in that child is best interests.  child labour laws are more analogous to anti sexual slavery laws than they are to anti prostitution laws, because of the lack of volition on the part of the person who is being protected.   #  it is my body, so i should be able to sell my kidney i have a spare.   #  a different example ? organ sales.  i will start easy, and work upwards.  you can let me know when it is no longer ok.  it is my body, so i should be able to sell my kidney i have a spare.  or cornea i can live without an eye.  or both; my sight has some value that i would give it up for.  or if i have nothing to live for, and no prospects, and a child i ca not afford to support otherwise, my heart.  why not ? i am a consenting adult.  oh, i am not sure this would never end up with people forced into giving up their eyesight but the logic is that it is only because they are too unmotivated to, say, have been born to a rich family, or with a talent for something lucrative.
this one seems so obvious to me but i will provide the basic points: it is a person is right to do whatever they want with their own body so long as doing so does not infringe on the rights of others.  prostitution is, presumably, an agreement among consenting adults.  i am not trying to defend anything other than exactly this.  there is virtually no immediate difference between prostitution and pornography.  simply adding a camera with the intention of creating porn somehow makes the act legal.  the reason it is so alarming is that it is a blatant violation of our rights to our own bodies.  it is the government tacitly saying they are the ultimate authority as to who we have sex with and under what circumstances it is permitted.  most importantly, since people will do it anyway, making it illegal forces it underground just like drugs .  in the places where it is legal it can be heavily restricted in ways that prevent disease and the rights of the workers can be protected.  since i do not think i have ever heard a single decent argument against this, i am interested in having this deeply held belief challenged.   #  prostitution is, presumably, an agreement among consenting adults.   #  i am not trying to defend anything other than exactly this.   # i am not trying to defend anything other than exactly this.  i have always been under the impression that this is why it  is not  legal.  i think most people agree that you should chose what to do with your own body, but with prostitution legalized it would make it an easier job than it is already to coerce/force people into it.  here is an article i found googling just real quick, URL but i remember encountering a moving video shared on facebook and spending an entire day reading article after article about people who were forced into it and escaped, what it was like, and just how prevalent it is.  you can help yourself to those readings.  in a large majority of cases people trick young women into coming with them to various locations, and then they are suddenly in for way more than they bargained for.  taken was not too far off the mark.  sex trafficking is truly horrible and is far more prevalent in the us than most people realize.  if prostitution were legal, it would add so many extra loops and legal processes to recognizing and saving these victims, which is extremely hard already due to numerous factors.  i have always sided against legalization of prostitution because it is not worth the risk that 0 some people will be taken advantage of with such legislation, furthering sex trafficking and 0 making it harder to prove, recognize, and rescue current victims.  i am not trying to defend anything other than exactly this.  unfortunately, we cannot guarantee that is what the reality would be like.  and therefore it is not worth the risk to legalize it.  allowing sexual freedom for some is not worth risking the lives, futures, etc.  of victims.  if you could solve the sex trafficking problem first and provide protections for prostitutes to accommodate for the window of destruction you are opening by encouraging more people into this profession that others have mentioned by the law then yes, legalize it by all means.  but we have to accept that that is not the reality.   #  sexual assault and other forms of violence are not uncommon in these situations.   #  so while i agree with you that overall, the arguments in favor of legalizing prostitution are better than the ones against it, maybe i can at least offer a couple of points.  0 legalizing prostitution might have a negative affect on poor women or men, let is keep this gender neutral .  with such a readily available income source, people who are struggling to pay the bills might become prostitutes instead of pursuing their actual goals.  similarly to how children in developing countries could be  forced  into child labor if it is legal, people can be economically  forced  into prostitution.  i believe people should have a right to their own body etc, but when economics are involved, it becomes a little fuzzy.  for example, we do not allow people to sell body organs, because those who are desperate for money would feel compelled to.  0 prostitution is far harder to regulate than you seem to think, and it is tough to protect men or women who are putting themselves in a vulnerable situation where they are alone with a  customer .  sexual assault and other forms of violence are not uncommon in these situations.   #  however, the disproportionate targeting of poor people is a strong enough argument to warrant my switching to a more neutral position on this issue.   #  while i agree that it would be difficult to regulate, i am not convinced that is strong enough to warrant it is illegalization.  however, the disproportionate targeting of poor people is a strong enough argument to warrant my switching to a more neutral position on this issue.  i believe major economic reform is needed to avoid scenarios like this but in our current economic environment. you make a good point.  is it that much different than stripping though ? it seems like many women in poverty turn to stripping for the reasons listed above and while sex is obviously far more extreme, i am not seeing the clear difference from a legal perspective.    0;  #  i do not see how the economic forcing argument is valid.   #  i do not see how the economic forcing argument is valid.  whether or not prostitution is an available path for people, the same economic factors will be present.  illegalizing prostitution removes an avenue only, it does not open up anything.  the argument is basically saying that people are too dumb/unmotivated to see that prostitution is a bad route to take, which points right back to your original issue of the government deciding what is best for us.  also, the child labor comparison is not a good analogy, because children are, for the most part, not self actuating.  making child labor illegal makes sense because it removes options from the people who would take advantage of children, thus forcing those people to choose something that is more in that child is best interests.  child labour laws are more analogous to anti sexual slavery laws than they are to anti prostitution laws, because of the lack of volition on the part of the person who is being protected.   #  or cornea i can live without an eye.   #  a different example ? organ sales.  i will start easy, and work upwards.  you can let me know when it is no longer ok.  it is my body, so i should be able to sell my kidney i have a spare.  or cornea i can live without an eye.  or both; my sight has some value that i would give it up for.  or if i have nothing to live for, and no prospects, and a child i ca not afford to support otherwise, my heart.  why not ? i am a consenting adult.  oh, i am not sure this would never end up with people forced into giving up their eyesight but the logic is that it is only because they are too unmotivated to, say, have been born to a rich family, or with a talent for something lucrative.
this one seems so obvious to me but i will provide the basic points: it is a person is right to do whatever they want with their own body so long as doing so does not infringe on the rights of others.  prostitution is, presumably, an agreement among consenting adults.  i am not trying to defend anything other than exactly this.  there is virtually no immediate difference between prostitution and pornography.  simply adding a camera with the intention of creating porn somehow makes the act legal.  the reason it is so alarming is that it is a blatant violation of our rights to our own bodies.  it is the government tacitly saying they are the ultimate authority as to who we have sex with and under what circumstances it is permitted.  most importantly, since people will do it anyway, making it illegal forces it underground just like drugs .  in the places where it is legal it can be heavily restricted in ways that prevent disease and the rights of the workers can be protected.  since i do not think i have ever heard a single decent argument against this, i am interested in having this deeply held belief challenged.   #  it is a person is right to do whatever they want with their own body so long as doing so does not infringe on the rights of others.   #  see, the issue is not your free will.   # see, the issue is not your free will.  the issue is commerce, and the government has a right to control commerce.  this includes things like quality control, ensuring truth in advertising, restricting insider trading, and restricting the sale of certain items.  for example, the government has the right to ensure that if you buy a bottle of aspirin, you are not actually buying sugar pills, or that if you buy a car it wo not explode randomly with you in it.  most people agree that this is not a massive violation of civil rights.  because of this, the government also has the right to make certain laws concerning  places of commerce .  you can cook in the most filthy kitchen you would like, but if you want to sell that food, your kitchen has to meet certain minimum thresholds.  this is both for the safety of your customers and for the safety of your employees.  same applies for, say, medical care or legal representation.  i cannot charge you for legal advice because i am not a lawyer.  i cannot charge you for surgical consult because i am not a surgeon.  etc.  so with prostitution, what we are looking at is an industry where there is a commercial transaction which opens it to government intervention .  this is an industry where workplace safety is very poor, where many of the  employees  are actually slaves who have no ability to consent to their labor and no way out, where there are serious concerns about the health impacts, no matter what, both to the workers and to the consumers, and where there is no sense that this industry, which appears to be extremely destructive to worker rights, can be improved sufficiently to bring it up to code.  so it is not actually shocking that prostitution is illegal, and it is not really a civil rights disaster.  the only issue as far as i can tell is that the punishments for selling are way too high and further victimize women who have ended up in the industry through desperation or through coercion.  this is why a lot of countries have decriminalized prostitution but criminalized pimping and johns.   #  0 prostitution is far harder to regulate than you seem to think, and it is tough to protect men or women who are putting themselves in a vulnerable situation where they are alone with a  customer .   #  so while i agree with you that overall, the arguments in favor of legalizing prostitution are better than the ones against it, maybe i can at least offer a couple of points.  0 legalizing prostitution might have a negative affect on poor women or men, let is keep this gender neutral .  with such a readily available income source, people who are struggling to pay the bills might become prostitutes instead of pursuing their actual goals.  similarly to how children in developing countries could be  forced  into child labor if it is legal, people can be economically  forced  into prostitution.  i believe people should have a right to their own body etc, but when economics are involved, it becomes a little fuzzy.  for example, we do not allow people to sell body organs, because those who are desperate for money would feel compelled to.  0 prostitution is far harder to regulate than you seem to think, and it is tough to protect men or women who are putting themselves in a vulnerable situation where they are alone with a  customer .  sexual assault and other forms of violence are not uncommon in these situations.   #  is it that much different than stripping though ?  #  while i agree that it would be difficult to regulate, i am not convinced that is strong enough to warrant it is illegalization.  however, the disproportionate targeting of poor people is a strong enough argument to warrant my switching to a more neutral position on this issue.  i believe major economic reform is needed to avoid scenarios like this but in our current economic environment. you make a good point.  is it that much different than stripping though ? it seems like many women in poverty turn to stripping for the reasons listed above and while sex is obviously far more extreme, i am not seeing the clear difference from a legal perspective.    0;  #  illegalizing prostitution removes an avenue only, it does not open up anything.   #  i do not see how the economic forcing argument is valid.  whether or not prostitution is an available path for people, the same economic factors will be present.  illegalizing prostitution removes an avenue only, it does not open up anything.  the argument is basically saying that people are too dumb/unmotivated to see that prostitution is a bad route to take, which points right back to your original issue of the government deciding what is best for us.  also, the child labor comparison is not a good analogy, because children are, for the most part, not self actuating.  making child labor illegal makes sense because it removes options from the people who would take advantage of children, thus forcing those people to choose something that is more in that child is best interests.  child labour laws are more analogous to anti sexual slavery laws than they are to anti prostitution laws, because of the lack of volition on the part of the person who is being protected.   #  or cornea i can live without an eye.   #  a different example ? organ sales.  i will start easy, and work upwards.  you can let me know when it is no longer ok.  it is my body, so i should be able to sell my kidney i have a spare.  or cornea i can live without an eye.  or both; my sight has some value that i would give it up for.  or if i have nothing to live for, and no prospects, and a child i ca not afford to support otherwise, my heart.  why not ? i am a consenting adult.  oh, i am not sure this would never end up with people forced into giving up their eyesight but the logic is that it is only because they are too unmotivated to, say, have been born to a rich family, or with a talent for something lucrative.
basically i have grown tired of humans.  just check the front page climate change denial corrupt politics and overall strained planet.  slowly my view has change into humans greatest legacy can only be leaving synthetic life form to continue on.  life that can live almost anywhere, that should be what humans should strive for.  the fact that i am thinking this way is a bit terrifying and unsettling to say the least.  but synthetic life.  true synthetic life would be vastly superior to organics and could also take much better care of the ecosystem due to a much better understanding of the world.  they can exceed all of out limitations and then some, they are not bound by death in the traditional sense at the very least they will last much longer then humans do.  per life span but i ca not but entertain these thoughts lately.   #  but synthetic life.  true synthetic life would be vastly superior to organics and could also take much better care of the ecosystem due to a much better understanding of the world.   #  synthetic life only means that it was created artificially.   # what is the value of life that can live almost anywhere ? tardigrades are extremely resilient; is that the epitome of life ? synthetic life only means that it was created artificially.  why would it automatically be vastly superior ? why could not we use gene manipulation to mold ourselves into better creatures ? per life span everything we create synthetic has a lifespan.  what is the value of a longer lifespan ? if we can easily replace broken things, or revert to a younger state to become immortal some animals do this , why is lifespan a consideration ?  #  also, are you trying to say that humans are spiraling into a more negative state with all the climate denial and corrupt politics ?  # just check the front page climate change denial corrupt politics and overall strained planet.  so, because there are some stupid people and there are challenges that face humanity, we should be striving to replace ourselves and drive ourselves towards extinction ? i am confused about exactly what you want here.  also, are you trying to say that humans are spiraling into a more negative state with all the climate denial and corrupt politics ? sure we have people that do not believe in evolution either.  but do we have more or less of those than in 0 for example ? as a general trend are humans worse off or better off ? perhaps you should take a gander at pinker is work URL that demonstrates a trend quite to the contrary.  fewer people are being killed in wars, murder rates are decreasing, teen pregnancy is less common, more people are being educated, people are becoming more equal, etc and so on.   #  now, i would argue that humans could still exist in some form for quite a long time though.   #  i see.  the way you have phrased some of your comments made me think your perspective was a little different.  thanks for clearing that up.  well, humanity as it currently is likely could not always be and thus has  some  sort of expiration date but that need not be cynical.  even if we could live on this planet indefinitely evolution both by process of natural selection and artificial selection, genetic engineering etc.  simply wo not allow humans to exist as is, indefinitely.  then you have the whole heat death of the universe so no matter what there is some ultimate expiration date even if you could exist as a species forever.  now, i would argue that humans could still exist in some form for quite a long time though.  would you also accept a cyborg type race of people that was only part human and part robotics ? for example, if we could put brains in robots and allow individuals to live for hundreds or thousands of years making new biological life via technology on other planets or a myriad of other sci fi alternatives.  what would make you happy ?  #  that detail was not an important part of the point.   #  none of this is feasible right now.  all you have to do is insert your hypothetical sci fi explanation to play this game.  that detail was not an important part of the point.  i am a biologist see post history for verification so i get the feasibility problem.  look, most likely humans are going to be around for a long time.  perhaps even master interplanetary, maybe even interstellar travel one day, many generations from now.  we wo not always be the same, there will be genetic engineering and probably some form of cyborg people not the brain in a robot immortal thing maybe but some type and we will go on changing and existing for quite some time.  just relax.   #  someday, we will have just stopped reproducing and fade out, or we will integrate so naturally that we wo not notice the difference except in hindsight.   #  is that what is important about humanity to you ? the specifics of our brains ? think about it this way.  what do you pass on to your children, to the next generation ? how is it that we are remembered ? it is by our values and our works.  long after our names are forgotten, our values and the things we did in the world stretch through time to touch countless lives.  this is true for even the humblest of humans.  we will pass on those values to our successors, like an ailing father to a son just coming into his own.  our successors will stand on our shoulders, just as newton stood on the shoulders of his predecessors to read his lofty eminence.  we are not going to be killed by terminators.  someday, we will have just stopped reproducing and fade out, or we will integrate so naturally that we wo not notice the difference except in hindsight.  the  important  part of us will live on, in the progress that we shed all this blood, sweat, and tears for.  humans do have an expiration date, both as individuals and as a species.  but the important part of our character does not have to.  that is our choice, whether or not we want to be succeeded.
basically i have grown tired of humans.  just check the front page climate change denial corrupt politics and overall strained planet.  slowly my view has change into humans greatest legacy can only be leaving synthetic life form to continue on.  life that can live almost anywhere, that should be what humans should strive for.  the fact that i am thinking this way is a bit terrifying and unsettling to say the least.  but synthetic life.  true synthetic life would be vastly superior to organics and could also take much better care of the ecosystem due to a much better understanding of the world.  they can exceed all of out limitations and then some, they are not bound by death in the traditional sense at the very least they will last much longer then humans do.  per life span but i ca not but entertain these thoughts lately.   #  they can exceed all of out limitations and then some, they are not bound by death in the traditional sense at the very least they will last much longer then humans do.   #  per life span everything we create synthetic has a lifespan.   # what is the value of life that can live almost anywhere ? tardigrades are extremely resilient; is that the epitome of life ? synthetic life only means that it was created artificially.  why would it automatically be vastly superior ? why could not we use gene manipulation to mold ourselves into better creatures ? per life span everything we create synthetic has a lifespan.  what is the value of a longer lifespan ? if we can easily replace broken things, or revert to a younger state to become immortal some animals do this , why is lifespan a consideration ?  #  perhaps you should take a gander at pinker is work URL that demonstrates a trend quite to the contrary.   # just check the front page climate change denial corrupt politics and overall strained planet.  so, because there are some stupid people and there are challenges that face humanity, we should be striving to replace ourselves and drive ourselves towards extinction ? i am confused about exactly what you want here.  also, are you trying to say that humans are spiraling into a more negative state with all the climate denial and corrupt politics ? sure we have people that do not believe in evolution either.  but do we have more or less of those than in 0 for example ? as a general trend are humans worse off or better off ? perhaps you should take a gander at pinker is work URL that demonstrates a trend quite to the contrary.  fewer people are being killed in wars, murder rates are decreasing, teen pregnancy is less common, more people are being educated, people are becoming more equal, etc and so on.   #  even if we could live on this planet indefinitely evolution both by process of natural selection and artificial selection, genetic engineering etc.   #  i see.  the way you have phrased some of your comments made me think your perspective was a little different.  thanks for clearing that up.  well, humanity as it currently is likely could not always be and thus has  some  sort of expiration date but that need not be cynical.  even if we could live on this planet indefinitely evolution both by process of natural selection and artificial selection, genetic engineering etc.  simply wo not allow humans to exist as is, indefinitely.  then you have the whole heat death of the universe so no matter what there is some ultimate expiration date even if you could exist as a species forever.  now, i would argue that humans could still exist in some form for quite a long time though.  would you also accept a cyborg type race of people that was only part human and part robotics ? for example, if we could put brains in robots and allow individuals to live for hundreds or thousands of years making new biological life via technology on other planets or a myriad of other sci fi alternatives.  what would make you happy ?  #  look, most likely humans are going to be around for a long time.   #  none of this is feasible right now.  all you have to do is insert your hypothetical sci fi explanation to play this game.  that detail was not an important part of the point.  i am a biologist see post history for verification so i get the feasibility problem.  look, most likely humans are going to be around for a long time.  perhaps even master interplanetary, maybe even interstellar travel one day, many generations from now.  we wo not always be the same, there will be genetic engineering and probably some form of cyborg people not the brain in a robot immortal thing maybe but some type and we will go on changing and existing for quite some time.  just relax.   #  we are not going to be killed by terminators.   #  is that what is important about humanity to you ? the specifics of our brains ? think about it this way.  what do you pass on to your children, to the next generation ? how is it that we are remembered ? it is by our values and our works.  long after our names are forgotten, our values and the things we did in the world stretch through time to touch countless lives.  this is true for even the humblest of humans.  we will pass on those values to our successors, like an ailing father to a son just coming into his own.  our successors will stand on our shoulders, just as newton stood on the shoulders of his predecessors to read his lofty eminence.  we are not going to be killed by terminators.  someday, we will have just stopped reproducing and fade out, or we will integrate so naturally that we wo not notice the difference except in hindsight.  the  important  part of us will live on, in the progress that we shed all this blood, sweat, and tears for.  humans do have an expiration date, both as individuals and as a species.  but the important part of our character does not have to.  that is our choice, whether or not we want to be succeeded.
by superior, i mean more practical/usable as a writing system.  i do not mean to argue about the aesthetics of the two writing systems.  background: i am a weeaboo, so i elected to take japanese for my college language requirement 0 quarters .  i do not feel like i have all that great of a grasp of the language, but grade wise i received 0, 0, 0 so its not as if i am just completely awful at it.  towards the end of the course though, i found kanji to be frustrating.  early on we learned simple kanji such as 一, 二, 三, 上, 下, and 中 these mean 0, 0, 0, above, under, and inside respectively .  with these it was not had to see how the character corresponded to the meaning.  towards the end though, we were learning kanji with many strokes to express one syllable, and i could not see any connection between the kanji and the word take for example 勉強 to study .  with this, let me outline my points 0.  it is easy to entirely memorize hiragana, and difficult to do so for kanji: there are 0 hiragana, and 0 kanji.  just by numbers, its clear that the former would be easier to learn.  kanji characters in general being more complex than hiragana ones compounds this issue.  even native japanese speakers study kanji through highschool.  furthermore i would wager a lot of the more complex kanji do not seem to be very tied to their meaning.  this is to be expected given that abstract concepts, colors, etc are difficult to express through said strokes, but even if its to be expected, it still increases the difficulty of memorizing kanji 0.  hiragana directly correspond to how something is pronounced, kanji do not: this has several benefits.  if you know how to pronounce a word, then it is simple to write it in hiragana, not true for kanji you have to have memorized the kanji.  furthermore, say you are reading and you come across a word that you do not know.  there are two cases either you can guess the meaning of that word from the context, or you ca not.  i argue that it is better if the word you do not know is written in hiragana.  with hiragana, you can simply type out that word and search for it, either verifying your guess, or learning what word it is.  with kanji, it is harder to search precisely: since you do not know how the word is pronounced from reading a kanji you do not know, you can only search for  your guessed meaning   kanji  and see if they are the same.  if the sentence has multiple possible meanings, or your guess of the meaning was wrong, you are simply out of luck: consider a sentence like  x event occured, so y person felt   .  without knowledge of y is thoughts regarding x, any number of emotions could fill in the blank, and so searching by meaning is not going to be effective.  0.  while kanji may use fewer spaces/characters to express a word, it makes writing things more time consuming.  say you wanted to write sunday.  in hiragana this is にちようび、in kanji this is 日曜日.  while the kanji is 0 characters rather than 0, the middle character which replaces よう is a large number of strokes, it is faster to write the hiragana, and the tiny strokes in that kanji make it difficult to write or read when you want your text to be small.  disclaimer: my argument is not predicated on any hard statistics or linguistic background i have never taken a linguistics class, do not have the room for one in my course plan , just on personal thoughts.  however, if you do have input for the argument in the form of relevant statistics, or the perspective of someone studying linguistics, then i would appreciate hearing it.  however, if you do not have  #  furthermore i would wager a lot of the more complex kanji do not seem to be very tied to their meaning.   #  i do not understand what you mean by this.   # the joyo kanji set is 0,0 characters.  of course, most people can read a few hundred kanji more than that.  this is because people actually favor using kanji.  the reason the japanese goverment added about 0 new characters to the joyo set in 0 is because people were using characters like 丼 and 爽 anyway even though they were not in the joyo set.  i do not understand what you mean by this.  kanji are largely phonetic.  this is because like all other writing, kanji represent the sounds of a spoken language.  this is why when a person is confronted with an unknown word, they can usually make a pretty good guess about the several possible pronunciations.  if the sentence has multiple possible meanings, or your guess of the meaning was wrong, you are simply out of luck: consider a sentence like  x event occured, so y person felt   .  without knowledge of y is thoughts regarding x, any number of emotions could fill in the blank, and so searching by meaning is not going to be effective.  this is largely gibberish.  if confronted with an unknown kanji, a person in 0 will simply copy and paste it into a dictionary web page.  you do not need to know the  meaning  of the kanji in question.  you just look up the word.  just about all writing is done electronically now with computers and telephones.  however, kanji are not so slow to write as you think.  they are slow to write for you because you are a beginner.  however, comparing 東京 and とうきょう takes 0 strokes to write the kanji and 0 strokes to write the hiragana.  it is not that much of a difference.  kanji make reading japanese so much easier.  once you know enough japanese and enough kanji, they make sense.  right now to you, kanji are just random squiggles.  to someone like me whose been speaking japanese for half his life, kanji are logical, interconnected parts of a coherent whole.   #  sorry, i thought you meant  use kanji for some words and hirigana for others.    #  sorry, i thought you meant  use kanji for some words and hirigana for others.   my one long ago and ill wrought semester of japanese gave me the impression that they were using all three 0 ! alphabets throughout standard writing.  the issue with kanji i have as a westerner is that for very often used words, like conjunctions and articles and such, kanji sounds great.  for less known words, it seems like you might be harder pressed to deduce words from context clues.  but again, this is with a single semester 0 years out under my belt.   #  you do not write the way you speak; you add emphasis, separate words with pauses, use different inflections, etc.   #  i mean it is possible, just too difficult to be practical.  you do not write the way you speak; you add emphasis, separate words with pauses, use different inflections, etc.  i used the word  impossible,  i realize, which was hyperbole for sure, so i apologize.  i mean, imagine if english contained no spaces or capitalization.  you could read it but it would be far from ideal.   #  i think it would be pretty painful to read all hiragana japanese, though.   #  what about the all hiragana writing used during the heian period ? some popular literature and personal diaries were written entirely in hiragana it is possible that the famous tale of genji was written entirely in hiragana, but it also may have been a mixed kanji/kana text .  using kanji is certainly more efficient, but it is  possible  to write entirely in hiragana.  japanese braille is also hiragana only, although there is an extension that allows for some kanji to be encoded.  i think it would be pretty painful to read all hiragana japanese, though.   #  the phonemic inventory of japanese is in the same ballpark as latin is, and neither language has distinctive tone.   #  the phonemic inventory of japanese is in the same ballpark as latin is, and neither language has distinctive tone.  and in any case,  inflection  and  ability to add pauses between words  are not going to do anything to distinguish  homonyms  in speech.  homonyms are words that sound alike but have different meanings.  so: 0.  if  inflection  distinguished them they would not be homonyms ! ps you keep using that word; i do not think it means what you think it means URL 0.  pausing between words ? they are words ! pausing between them makes the same sound !
by superior, i mean more practical/usable as a writing system.  i do not mean to argue about the aesthetics of the two writing systems.  background: i am a weeaboo, so i elected to take japanese for my college language requirement 0 quarters .  i do not feel like i have all that great of a grasp of the language, but grade wise i received 0, 0, 0 so its not as if i am just completely awful at it.  towards the end of the course though, i found kanji to be frustrating.  early on we learned simple kanji such as 一, 二, 三, 上, 下, and 中 these mean 0, 0, 0, above, under, and inside respectively .  with these it was not had to see how the character corresponded to the meaning.  towards the end though, we were learning kanji with many strokes to express one syllable, and i could not see any connection between the kanji and the word take for example 勉強 to study .  with this, let me outline my points 0.  it is easy to entirely memorize hiragana, and difficult to do so for kanji: there are 0 hiragana, and 0 kanji.  just by numbers, its clear that the former would be easier to learn.  kanji characters in general being more complex than hiragana ones compounds this issue.  even native japanese speakers study kanji through highschool.  furthermore i would wager a lot of the more complex kanji do not seem to be very tied to their meaning.  this is to be expected given that abstract concepts, colors, etc are difficult to express through said strokes, but even if its to be expected, it still increases the difficulty of memorizing kanji 0.  hiragana directly correspond to how something is pronounced, kanji do not: this has several benefits.  if you know how to pronounce a word, then it is simple to write it in hiragana, not true for kanji you have to have memorized the kanji.  furthermore, say you are reading and you come across a word that you do not know.  there are two cases either you can guess the meaning of that word from the context, or you ca not.  i argue that it is better if the word you do not know is written in hiragana.  with hiragana, you can simply type out that word and search for it, either verifying your guess, or learning what word it is.  with kanji, it is harder to search precisely: since you do not know how the word is pronounced from reading a kanji you do not know, you can only search for  your guessed meaning   kanji  and see if they are the same.  if the sentence has multiple possible meanings, or your guess of the meaning was wrong, you are simply out of luck: consider a sentence like  x event occured, so y person felt   .  without knowledge of y is thoughts regarding x, any number of emotions could fill in the blank, and so searching by meaning is not going to be effective.  0.  while kanji may use fewer spaces/characters to express a word, it makes writing things more time consuming.  say you wanted to write sunday.  in hiragana this is にちようび、in kanji this is 日曜日.  while the kanji is 0 characters rather than 0, the middle character which replaces よう is a large number of strokes, it is faster to write the hiragana, and the tiny strokes in that kanji make it difficult to write or read when you want your text to be small.  disclaimer: my argument is not predicated on any hard statistics or linguistic background i have never taken a linguistics class, do not have the room for one in my course plan , just on personal thoughts.  however, if you do have input for the argument in the form of relevant statistics, or the perspective of someone studying linguistics, then i would appreciate hearing it.  however, if you do not have  #  with kanji, it is harder to search precisely: since you do not know how the word is pronounced from reading a kanji you do not know, you can only search for  your guessed meaning   kanji  and see if they are the same.   #  if the sentence has multiple possible meanings, or your guess of the meaning was wrong, you are simply out of luck: consider a sentence like  x event occured, so y person felt   .   # the joyo kanji set is 0,0 characters.  of course, most people can read a few hundred kanji more than that.  this is because people actually favor using kanji.  the reason the japanese goverment added about 0 new characters to the joyo set in 0 is because people were using characters like 丼 and 爽 anyway even though they were not in the joyo set.  i do not understand what you mean by this.  kanji are largely phonetic.  this is because like all other writing, kanji represent the sounds of a spoken language.  this is why when a person is confronted with an unknown word, they can usually make a pretty good guess about the several possible pronunciations.  if the sentence has multiple possible meanings, or your guess of the meaning was wrong, you are simply out of luck: consider a sentence like  x event occured, so y person felt   .  without knowledge of y is thoughts regarding x, any number of emotions could fill in the blank, and so searching by meaning is not going to be effective.  this is largely gibberish.  if confronted with an unknown kanji, a person in 0 will simply copy and paste it into a dictionary web page.  you do not need to know the  meaning  of the kanji in question.  you just look up the word.  just about all writing is done electronically now with computers and telephones.  however, kanji are not so slow to write as you think.  they are slow to write for you because you are a beginner.  however, comparing 東京 and とうきょう takes 0 strokes to write the kanji and 0 strokes to write the hiragana.  it is not that much of a difference.  kanji make reading japanese so much easier.  once you know enough japanese and enough kanji, they make sense.  right now to you, kanji are just random squiggles.  to someone like me whose been speaking japanese for half his life, kanji are logical, interconnected parts of a coherent whole.   #  the issue with kanji i have as a westerner is that for very often used words, like conjunctions and articles and such, kanji sounds great.   #  sorry, i thought you meant  use kanji for some words and hirigana for others.   my one long ago and ill wrought semester of japanese gave me the impression that they were using all three 0 ! alphabets throughout standard writing.  the issue with kanji i have as a westerner is that for very often used words, like conjunctions and articles and such, kanji sounds great.  for less known words, it seems like you might be harder pressed to deduce words from context clues.  but again, this is with a single semester 0 years out under my belt.   #  i used the word  impossible,  i realize, which was hyperbole for sure, so i apologize.   #  i mean it is possible, just too difficult to be practical.  you do not write the way you speak; you add emphasis, separate words with pauses, use different inflections, etc.  i used the word  impossible,  i realize, which was hyperbole for sure, so i apologize.  i mean, imagine if english contained no spaces or capitalization.  you could read it but it would be far from ideal.   #  i think it would be pretty painful to read all hiragana japanese, though.   #  what about the all hiragana writing used during the heian period ? some popular literature and personal diaries were written entirely in hiragana it is possible that the famous tale of genji was written entirely in hiragana, but it also may have been a mixed kanji/kana text .  using kanji is certainly more efficient, but it is  possible  to write entirely in hiragana.  japanese braille is also hiragana only, although there is an extension that allows for some kanji to be encoded.  i think it would be pretty painful to read all hiragana japanese, though.   #  the phonemic inventory of japanese is in the same ballpark as latin is, and neither language has distinctive tone.   #  the phonemic inventory of japanese is in the same ballpark as latin is, and neither language has distinctive tone.  and in any case,  inflection  and  ability to add pauses between words  are not going to do anything to distinguish  homonyms  in speech.  homonyms are words that sound alike but have different meanings.  so: 0.  if  inflection  distinguished them they would not be homonyms ! ps you keep using that word; i do not think it means what you think it means URL 0.  pausing between words ? they are words ! pausing between them makes the same sound !
by superior, i mean more practical/usable as a writing system.  i do not mean to argue about the aesthetics of the two writing systems.  background: i am a weeaboo, so i elected to take japanese for my college language requirement 0 quarters .  i do not feel like i have all that great of a grasp of the language, but grade wise i received 0, 0, 0 so its not as if i am just completely awful at it.  towards the end of the course though, i found kanji to be frustrating.  early on we learned simple kanji such as 一, 二, 三, 上, 下, and 中 these mean 0, 0, 0, above, under, and inside respectively .  with these it was not had to see how the character corresponded to the meaning.  towards the end though, we were learning kanji with many strokes to express one syllable, and i could not see any connection between the kanji and the word take for example 勉強 to study .  with this, let me outline my points 0.  it is easy to entirely memorize hiragana, and difficult to do so for kanji: there are 0 hiragana, and 0 kanji.  just by numbers, its clear that the former would be easier to learn.  kanji characters in general being more complex than hiragana ones compounds this issue.  even native japanese speakers study kanji through highschool.  furthermore i would wager a lot of the more complex kanji do not seem to be very tied to their meaning.  this is to be expected given that abstract concepts, colors, etc are difficult to express through said strokes, but even if its to be expected, it still increases the difficulty of memorizing kanji 0.  hiragana directly correspond to how something is pronounced, kanji do not: this has several benefits.  if you know how to pronounce a word, then it is simple to write it in hiragana, not true for kanji you have to have memorized the kanji.  furthermore, say you are reading and you come across a word that you do not know.  there are two cases either you can guess the meaning of that word from the context, or you ca not.  i argue that it is better if the word you do not know is written in hiragana.  with hiragana, you can simply type out that word and search for it, either verifying your guess, or learning what word it is.  with kanji, it is harder to search precisely: since you do not know how the word is pronounced from reading a kanji you do not know, you can only search for  your guessed meaning   kanji  and see if they are the same.  if the sentence has multiple possible meanings, or your guess of the meaning was wrong, you are simply out of luck: consider a sentence like  x event occured, so y person felt   .  without knowledge of y is thoughts regarding x, any number of emotions could fill in the blank, and so searching by meaning is not going to be effective.  0.  while kanji may use fewer spaces/characters to express a word, it makes writing things more time consuming.  say you wanted to write sunday.  in hiragana this is にちようび、in kanji this is 日曜日.  while the kanji is 0 characters rather than 0, the middle character which replaces よう is a large number of strokes, it is faster to write the hiragana, and the tiny strokes in that kanji make it difficult to write or read when you want your text to be small.  disclaimer: my argument is not predicated on any hard statistics or linguistic background i have never taken a linguistics class, do not have the room for one in my course plan , just on personal thoughts.  however, if you do have input for the argument in the form of relevant statistics, or the perspective of someone studying linguistics, then i would appreciate hearing it.  however, if you do not have  #  while kanji may use fewer spaces/characters to express a word, it makes writing things more time consuming.   #  just about all writing is done electronically now with computers and telephones.   # the joyo kanji set is 0,0 characters.  of course, most people can read a few hundred kanji more than that.  this is because people actually favor using kanji.  the reason the japanese goverment added about 0 new characters to the joyo set in 0 is because people were using characters like 丼 and 爽 anyway even though they were not in the joyo set.  i do not understand what you mean by this.  kanji are largely phonetic.  this is because like all other writing, kanji represent the sounds of a spoken language.  this is why when a person is confronted with an unknown word, they can usually make a pretty good guess about the several possible pronunciations.  if the sentence has multiple possible meanings, or your guess of the meaning was wrong, you are simply out of luck: consider a sentence like  x event occured, so y person felt   .  without knowledge of y is thoughts regarding x, any number of emotions could fill in the blank, and so searching by meaning is not going to be effective.  this is largely gibberish.  if confronted with an unknown kanji, a person in 0 will simply copy and paste it into a dictionary web page.  you do not need to know the  meaning  of the kanji in question.  you just look up the word.  just about all writing is done electronically now with computers and telephones.  however, kanji are not so slow to write as you think.  they are slow to write for you because you are a beginner.  however, comparing 東京 and とうきょう takes 0 strokes to write the kanji and 0 strokes to write the hiragana.  it is not that much of a difference.  kanji make reading japanese so much easier.  once you know enough japanese and enough kanji, they make sense.  right now to you, kanji are just random squiggles.  to someone like me whose been speaking japanese for half his life, kanji are logical, interconnected parts of a coherent whole.   #  sorry, i thought you meant  use kanji for some words and hirigana for others.    #  sorry, i thought you meant  use kanji for some words and hirigana for others.   my one long ago and ill wrought semester of japanese gave me the impression that they were using all three 0 ! alphabets throughout standard writing.  the issue with kanji i have as a westerner is that for very often used words, like conjunctions and articles and such, kanji sounds great.  for less known words, it seems like you might be harder pressed to deduce words from context clues.  but again, this is with a single semester 0 years out under my belt.   #  i mean, imagine if english contained no spaces or capitalization.   #  i mean it is possible, just too difficult to be practical.  you do not write the way you speak; you add emphasis, separate words with pauses, use different inflections, etc.  i used the word  impossible,  i realize, which was hyperbole for sure, so i apologize.  i mean, imagine if english contained no spaces or capitalization.  you could read it but it would be far from ideal.   #  i think it would be pretty painful to read all hiragana japanese, though.   #  what about the all hiragana writing used during the heian period ? some popular literature and personal diaries were written entirely in hiragana it is possible that the famous tale of genji was written entirely in hiragana, but it also may have been a mixed kanji/kana text .  using kanji is certainly more efficient, but it is  possible  to write entirely in hiragana.  japanese braille is also hiragana only, although there is an extension that allows for some kanji to be encoded.  i think it would be pretty painful to read all hiragana japanese, though.   #  so: 0.  if  inflection  distinguished them they would not be homonyms !  #  the phonemic inventory of japanese is in the same ballpark as latin is, and neither language has distinctive tone.  and in any case,  inflection  and  ability to add pauses between words  are not going to do anything to distinguish  homonyms  in speech.  homonyms are words that sound alike but have different meanings.  so: 0.  if  inflection  distinguished them they would not be homonyms ! ps you keep using that word; i do not think it means what you think it means URL 0.  pausing between words ? they are words ! pausing between them makes the same sound !
bernie sanders is running a campaign on promises like free college and getting money out of politics.  nearly everything i have heard his campaign promise requires congressional action.  as a congressman bernie sanders knows that.  from the huffington post URL :  among the specific items on his campaign platform include establishing a $0 minimum wage, closing the gender pay gap, investing $0 trillion over five years to rebuild infrastructure, and overturning the supreme court is citizens united decision  each of those things requires new legislation.  with 0 years in the house and 0 terms in the senate sanders should be familiar with the limits of each branch of government.  this makes me think he knows he ca not win so he is recklessly promising absurd things.  when he inevitably loses and the winning candidate fails to deliver on the impossible goals he set out he can say  i would have done it differently  but we should know better.  even if he wins, he will blame congress for blocking his agenda.  the only way he can possibly accomplish anything he promises is if 0 he wins the presidential election, 0 like minded democrats win a majority in both houses of congress.  which, while it would be cool, is only possible in some incredibly unlikely fantasy land.   #  makes me think he knows he ca not win so he is recklessly promising absurd things.   #  if bernie sanders becomes the nominee, than he can get many of his ideas included in the democratic platform.   # if bernie sanders becomes the nominee, than he can get many of his ideas included in the democratic platform.  once that happens, he will have the support of many democrats in congress.  then, he can work on getting his ideas made into law.  this is standard for all presidential candidates.  this is basically exactly how obama approached the idea of universal healthcare.   #  0 of sanders is 0 bills and resolutions had both a democratic cosponsor and a republican cosponsor in the 0th congress.   #  in that article it has a lot of promising stats, but one really damning one as well.  0 of sanders is 0 bills and resolutions had both a democratic cosponsor and a republican cosponsor in the 0th congress.  right or wrong we are not here to debate that , one of the biggest criticisms the republicans have of obama is his inability to extend an olive branch to the other side.  it will be 0 more years of that.  the good news is that if the usa is really as ready for a democratic socialist as reddit seems to think, they will also probably win in the senate and the house as well.   #  bernie is ideologically the antithesis of conservatives,  a white, liberal elitist from the north , and yet many of his colleagues in congress have already offered support or willingness to cooperate with him.   #  i will take flak for this, but republicans wo not work with obama because he is black.  obviously none of them will admit to this, but just look at what the gop has been up to recently.  defending the confederate flag, suggesting the charleston church shooting was religiously motivated, not racially.  a significant portion of people in this country hate obama simply because of his skin color, and ignore his politics because they cannot get past this.  bernie is ideologically the antithesis of conservatives,  a white, liberal elitist from the north , and yet many of his colleagues in congress have already offered support or willingness to cooperate with him.  obama is far more moderate than sanders, and yet republicans have opposed nearly every single policy or proposal his administration has offered.  sanders  deal making prowess comes from years of working with people who fundamentally disagree with him; he is had no choice but to capitulate and learn how to compromise.  this is what will make him a great president.   #  what was mentioned was the tpa trade promotion authority, which recently passed congress.   #  actually no, the tpp is the trans pacific partnership.  that is, a specific trade agreement between many countries in the pacific.  what was mentioned was the tpa trade promotion authority, which recently passed congress.  the tpa gives the president the power to pass trade agreements such as the tpp through congress without them being able to amend the agreement.  i know there is a lot of confusion between the tpp and tpa because their names are similar and they are often mentioned together, just wanted to clear it up a bit.   #  this post was based on my background knowledge in the field.   #  i am a policy analyst by training.  this post was based on my background knowledge in the field.  i could write a 0ish page overview on the topic that pulls in the formal sources behind the conclusion, but alas, i have a day job and that is just too much effort for something that neither pays me money nor teaches me anything new.  if you are interested in digging it up yourself, you can compare budgets.  look at total allocation to tanf, wic, and snap benefits.  it winds up being a drop in the bucket relative to social security and medicaid.  then it is fairly common knowledge that the majority of recipients have jobs URL and that 0 is a conservative estimate not accounting for people getting paid informally for doing odd jobs and not reporting their income.  plus consider that lots of poorer people have trouble holding down a job for various reasons such as health, personal issues, criminal records, and untreated mental problems and it is not surprising that even that other 0 that is not employed at any given time is probably trying and failing to get stable employment.
to me, this is the exact same issue, just a different year.  in 0, the us passed a law which made it legal for two people of different races to marry; and just recently, in the year 0, the us made it legal for two people of the same sex to marry.  some of the arguments i have seen in opposition of gay marriage are:    homosexuality is a sin     not natural     erodes the sanctity of marriage     slippery slope leading to marriage of       not healthy for children     goes against god  these all seem to be the same arguments that were presented in the 0 is and 0 is when people were fighting for marriage equality between the races.  so why have not people learned anything about equality over the last 0 years ? this isnt an end all statement; but a great point.  what is the difference ?  #  so why have not people learned anything about equality over the last 0 years ?  #  lol, there is still so much inequality still regarding race that, that issues with same sex marriage is no surprising.   # lol, there is still so much inequality still regarding race that, that issues with same sex marriage is no surprising.  hell, you still run into people who do not date outside of their race, i have met girls before who say  i do not date black guys .  and issues with gay marriage mainly deal with peoples comfort zone.  when it comes to race though, there is so many racial stereotypes associated with it not even considering that for a long time us black people were considered  less  than anyone white.  america is still a very socially polarizing place because the longer you are here and get out there the more you realize there is still so much inequality and things wrong with our country.  the fact that gay fucking marriage, something that should not have been outlawed in the first place, was just legalized is ridiculous.  and even then we still have gay rights issues such as discrimination in the work place, and people outright not choosing to serve anyone who is gay.  the list goes on.   #  people who are opposed to same sex marriage would also be opposed to two heterosexuals of the same sex getting married.   #  the opposition to interracial marriage was based on the belief that certain races were genetically inferior whatever that means .  yes, people cited their religion for reasons, but ultimately that is what it would come back to for the most part .  since  genetic inferiority  is a scientific claim, it requires scientific evidence to support it.  there is none, in fact there is plenty to disprove it.  so interracial marriage happened without problem.  i like what other commenters have said about interracial marriage not changing the definition of marriage .  opposition to same sex marriage is based on opposition to specific  actions , and not wanting the government to sanction and support those actions.  people who are opposed to same sex marriage would also be opposed to two heterosexuals of the same sex getting married.  the marrying couple is sexual  orientation  is not the target of disapproval, it is the  actions  of two individuals.  yes, i am aware that many people who oppose same sex marriage also actively hate or are at least grossed out by gay people but that is irrelevant to a discussion of the possible social repercussions of legalizing same sex marriage.  the fact that certain people are biologically predisposed to want to do those actions, and others are completely  not  interested in doing them, is a confusing side note to this argument.  this is a distinction that will probably be hard to make sense of, especially since i had trouble trying to explain it.  let me know if you have points you would like clarified.  i would like to echo what others have said, and what has been said for the past several years: the government is interest in marriage is in harboring a place to raise successful citizens.  every solid study i have read up on shows that a child is best chance is to be raised by its biological parents .  whenever possible, the government supports this with tax breaks and by attaching things like inheritance and hospital visitation rights to marriage.  since the child of same sex partners cannot be raised by both biological parents, they are automatically at a disadvantage.  at least, that is the argument.  i know there are studies out there that suggest that same sex parents are just as likely to raise successful children as the biological parents.  every one of these studies that i have looked at has been deeply flawed usually with non random samples parents who volunteer for a study about successful parenting are probably going to be the ones who are doing pretty well , extremely small sample sizes, or by comparing a population of same sex parents that got their children through the difficult and expensive process of adoption to a population of heterosexual parents of all types adopters, planned parents, accidental parents, etc.  from what i understand, the meta study the supreme court cited in their decision was a study of these flawed studies.  feel free to link a good study on same sex parents.   #  what is useful in the comparisons between marriage equality struggles then and now, is pointing out that so many of the arguments that both opponent groups use d , are equally fallacious whether you apply them to sex or race .   #  i fully agree with the spirit of your post, and i think that your cmv headline is fine: they are equivalent.  however, the problem is that in your text, you go on to say that they are  the  exact  same issue .  obviously, now people only need to find  some  difference in order to defeat this assertion.  what is useful in the comparisons between marriage equality struggles then and now, is pointing out that so many of the arguments that both opponent groups use d , are equally fallacious whether you apply them to sex or race .  it is not necessary to show that the two situations were exactly the same in all aspects, in order to find relevant analogies and comparisons.   #  because we accept that you cannot choose to be homosexual, therefore the rights should not be restricted ?  #  i understand the difference between race and sex, by definition.  my question, i suppose is: until recently, why was it so accepted that a black and a white could marry, but not a man and a man ? does it come down to the acceptance that a person cannot choose to be born white, black, or any other race ? therefore we should not restrict the rights of them ? and secondly, is this why gay marriage has passed ? because we accept that you cannot choose to be homosexual, therefore the rights should not be restricted ?  #  is your argument that we should not make laws against things that certain people are genetically predisposed to do ?  # because we accept that you cannot choose to be homosexual, therefore the rights should not be restricted ? is your argument that we should not make laws against things that certain people are genetically predisposed to do ? because that would discriminate against the people who have a natural urge to do them.  there are many problems with that.  one, it could easily be argued that men have a stronger natural urge for violence.  should we legalize that ? and if we look closer, we would almost certainly find that certain men might have an even stronger urge towards violence perhaps because of a naturally higher testosterone level.  because this is a natural tendency that they cannot help, we should legalize it ? for a more poignant comparison: from what i have read, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that child attracted people also cannot help their attraction.  there may be a genetic component, a pre natal component, or other elements that contribute to their orientation.  if they are naturally inclined towards certain actions, is not it discrimination to ban those actions ? please note that i am in no way comparing the morality of the actions of homosexuals to the actions of pedophiles or violent people.  i am only using two examples of natural urges that i assume you agree we should curb to demonstrate the fault in the  they did not choose to be that way so we ca not restrict them  argument.
hey /cmv/, i expect this to be a doozy.  basically, i see people complaining all the time about the media and their  unrealistic standards  for beauty.  and i get that the magazines will take models and photoshop the hell out of them.  okay, of course you ca not photoshop yourself like a magazine ad in real life.  but go on instagram right now and check out some of the girls on there.  and i am not talking about the professional models who use photoshop, i am talking about the college girls who get huge relatively large followings and tons of  willikes  because they are drop dead gorgeous.  the only thing they are using to adjust their pictures are instagram filters.  i personally am friends with some of these girls, and they are just as drop dead gorgeous in real life as they are in their photos.  hell, in my opinion these girls look better than the photoshopped ads ! as a result, i do not believe there are unrealistic standards for women to be beautiful, because i see regular girls reach those standards all the time.  if you are a guy or a girl and want to be more attractive, it is very simple.  hit the gym, dress well.  done.  congratulations, you have achieved the  unrealistic  beauty standard.  to me, it seems that most people who are complaining about these unattainable standards just do not want to put the time and effort needed to look good.  and hell, i am one of them ! i am not super jacked or anything.  but i acknowledge this is my fault, so i should not feel bad when all the guys in the ads are way better looking than i am.  so go ahead guys, c my v !  #  as a result, i do not believe there are unrealistic standards for women to be beautiful, because i see regular girls reach those standards all the time.   #  but you said earlier in your post that the people you know who reach those standards get huge followings on instagram.   # but you said earlier in your post that the people you know who reach those standards get huge followings on instagram.  most people do not get that; heck, even most gorgeous people do not get that.  are you saying that you see people who meet these standards just by walking down the street ? hit the gym, dress well.  done.  congratulations, you have achieved the  unrealistic  beauty standard.  that is definitely not enough.  for instance, girls have to wear makeup and wax their body hair.   #  for instance, girls have to wear makeup and wax their body hair.   # most people do not get that; heck, even most gorgeous people do not get that.  are you saying that you see people who meet these standards just by walking down the street ? you are right, i exaggerated, and fixed my post as such.  by huge i meant hundreds or maybe even a few thousand, which in the big scheme of things is not  huge.   for instance, girls have to wear makeup and wax their body hair.  but those are not unrealistic things.  in fact, pretty much every woman does this every day.   #  we see it in music: for every beatles and stones and ac/dc there are guys who never get out of their garage.   #  we are surrounded by beauty in all forms.  typically the best or at least the better examples of a medium make it into mass communications.  we see it in comedy: for every carlin and ck and rock there are millions of unfunny comedians who hit the stand up circuit and never go anywhere.  we see it in music: for every beatles and stones and ac/dc there are guys who never get out of their garage.  we are surrounded by the best examples of art forms in the media and people are encouraged to attempt to attain those lofty heights, but few do.  why do not we complain about oscar wilde setting an  unrealistic standard for literature ?   as a literary agent, i know that not everyone who puts word to the page can write anything near his level, let alone something to be called good.  basically, why are not we allowed to apply sturgeon is law to physical attractiveness ?  #  0 bf can do all sorts of crazy shit.   #  i am showing your comment to a buddy of mine who only trains at parks.  0 bf can do all sorts of crazy shit.  abs so ripped you can literally jump on his stomach and he wo not budge.  he is laughing as hard as i am.  the amount of mental gymnastics you are going through is hysterical.  since i started eating healthier i have been saving so much money.  no more $0 drive through meals instead $0/average meals from the grocer.  no more $0 fraps from starbucks instead 0 cent tea bags.  going healthy has probably saved me about $0 a month.   #  life works like this: you can play your pity party or you can get to work.   #  more learning: URL tldr: welfare in the us puts you in the top 0 of all income earnings globally.  note that this is after we adjust for the different prices of goods in different countries.  you live in the most abundant society that ever existed in the entirety of this entire planet.  you have it better than 0 of people to have ever existed.  yes, even trailer trash live like kings.  life works like this: you can play your pity party or you can get to work.  being born does not entitle you to live.  you have to work to live.  if you do not want to put the work in, then just die.  that is your two choices.
i am seeing a lot of posts and news articles recently about lowering the student debt, most notably bernie sanders claim to make all colleges free.  the debate seems to rage back and forth about whether this is tenable, and who would pay the cost, but for me, this seems to be totally the wrong direction.  when i went to university, out of the four years getting a psychology degree, i learned maybe 0 years of psychology.  the rest of my courses were electives.  in fact, i took as many psych courses as they would allow, getting special permission to specialize, and it was still less than half.  upon graduating, i found out that most masters programs do not require you to have your bachelors in their subject, as they are basically teaching you from scratch some will add one extra year if you are from a totally different discipline .  why ca not the solution to be to push for less extraneous courses in college ? it would lower the debt less years and allow you to join the workforce earlier.  prime examples: law school can be entered with any degree, medical school requires a single years worth of prerequisite sciences and any degree, masters of psychology can be done with any degree, computer science masters will require only 0 additional year if you have no background.  i feel like i am missing something obvious here.  please cmv.   #  the rest of my courses were electives.   #  in fact, i took as many psych courses as they would allow, getting special permission to specialize, and it was still less than half you are missing an obvious component of higher education: community colleges.   # in fact, i took as many psych courses as they would allow, getting special permission to specialize, and it was still less than half you are missing an obvious component of higher education: community colleges.  if you were so concerned about spending money on your gen ed is, why did not you get an associates at a two year school ? community colleges are orders of magnitude cheaper/credit hour than 0 year schools and many states offer tuition assistance on top of that.  you are also assuming that the sole purpose of a university is to be a factory for white collar workers.  it is not.  it is to promote the general advancement of knowledge, and part of that is giving its graduates exposure to many different disciplines.   #  nobody remembers how many grunts a college is churning out people remember the particularly successful people.   #  colleges have an interest in their alumni being generally well educated in a variety of subjects.  smart, successful people usually are not hyper specialized rather, they are knowledgeable on many subjects, and can recognize important relationships between subjects in order to find success where others have not.  successful people who are alumni of a certain school reflect well on that school, and may even donate money to their alma mater.  teaching people in a hyper specialized manner is good for getting them out the door to be a grunt in the workforce, but it probably is not going to make many really successful people.  nobody remembers how many grunts a college is churning out people remember the particularly successful people.   #  essentially, you are saying that you think you know better than the entire collective of college administrators how best to educate people for success.   #  essentially, you are saying that you think you know better than the entire collective of college administrators how best to educate people for success.  what makes you so sure of your opinion that hyper specialized education would be better for the economy ? the point of a broad education is not to be able to hold a conversation at a cocktail party.  it is to allow you to draw useful conclusions by connecting your knowledge from a wide array of fields.  it is very difficult to plunge into any single field be it history, or physics, or medicine to a sufficient depth to further that field.  it is relatively speaking of course much easier to have some knowledge in many fields and draw useful connections between them that nobody from either field had noticed yet.  these novel connections are at the heart of what often makes for successful people, and colleges know this and educate broadly.   #  in a us state government, the way you change things like this is getting a new state legislator elected who will push the change.   # says you, with another unsupported  should , and an unsupported  useless .  citation needed on the majority of students wanting specialized education.  also, so what if it is undemocratic ? state governments do not, and are not obligated to, perform all functuons in a democratic manner.  if the state thinks a broad education is in the best interest of its students, it can force it upon them even if they do not want it.  in a us state government, the way you change things like this is getting a new state legislator elected who will push the change.  not everything is popular vote, like you seem to want.   #  not only do the sciences make use of computer simulations, but areas like neural networks, computer vision, and quantum computing lie at the interface between computer science and other sciences.   #  anyone  can  google all of the supplemental information that might need.  but colleges have a vested interest in  ensuring  all of their graduates know that information.  someone going into a computer security career, for example, will probably major in computer science, possibly with a focus in security if the school offers that.  the goal of the computer science major is to train the student to be component at any computer science related career.  the college wants that student to have the option to work as a software engineer, or a sysadmin, etc.  so they still certainly take classes that do not directly relate to computer security, like graphics.  as for interdisciplinary courses, there is quite a bit of overlap between computer science and other sciences.  not only do the sciences make use of computer simulations, but areas like neural networks, computer vision, and quantum computing lie at the interface between computer science and other sciences.  colleges have an interest in giving their students the tools the need to work in interdisciplinary fields, or draw upon the techniques created by these fields.
i am seeing a lot of posts and news articles recently about lowering the student debt, most notably bernie sanders claim to make all colleges free.  the debate seems to rage back and forth about whether this is tenable, and who would pay the cost, but for me, this seems to be totally the wrong direction.  when i went to university, out of the four years getting a psychology degree, i learned maybe 0 years of psychology.  the rest of my courses were electives.  in fact, i took as many psych courses as they would allow, getting special permission to specialize, and it was still less than half.  upon graduating, i found out that most masters programs do not require you to have your bachelors in their subject, as they are basically teaching you from scratch some will add one extra year if you are from a totally different discipline .  why ca not the solution to be to push for less extraneous courses in college ? it would lower the debt less years and allow you to join the workforce earlier.  prime examples: law school can be entered with any degree, medical school requires a single years worth of prerequisite sciences and any degree, masters of psychology can be done with any degree, computer science masters will require only 0 additional year if you have no background.  i feel like i am missing something obvious here.  please cmv.   #  why ca not the solution to be to push for less extraneous courses in college ?  #  bachelors degree comprise two parts: major   gen ed.   # bachelors degree comprise two parts: major   gen ed.  it is those  extraneous  courses that make a bachelors degree a bachelors degree.  while yes, a bachelors has a specialization major component, the other half of the puzzle is the robust general education all those extraneous courses you complete in addition to your major coursework.  if you remove the gen ed component of the curriculum, you are left with what looks more like what you see at certain technical schools or certification programs.  also, lots of folks see value in people who demonstrate the ability to learn and succeed outside of subjects they are not necessarily personally interested in.   #  nobody remembers how many grunts a college is churning out people remember the particularly successful people.   #  colleges have an interest in their alumni being generally well educated in a variety of subjects.  smart, successful people usually are not hyper specialized rather, they are knowledgeable on many subjects, and can recognize important relationships between subjects in order to find success where others have not.  successful people who are alumni of a certain school reflect well on that school, and may even donate money to their alma mater.  teaching people in a hyper specialized manner is good for getting them out the door to be a grunt in the workforce, but it probably is not going to make many really successful people.  nobody remembers how many grunts a college is churning out people remember the particularly successful people.   #  the point of a broad education is not to be able to hold a conversation at a cocktail party.   #  essentially, you are saying that you think you know better than the entire collective of college administrators how best to educate people for success.  what makes you so sure of your opinion that hyper specialized education would be better for the economy ? the point of a broad education is not to be able to hold a conversation at a cocktail party.  it is to allow you to draw useful conclusions by connecting your knowledge from a wide array of fields.  it is very difficult to plunge into any single field be it history, or physics, or medicine to a sufficient depth to further that field.  it is relatively speaking of course much easier to have some knowledge in many fields and draw useful connections between them that nobody from either field had noticed yet.  these novel connections are at the heart of what often makes for successful people, and colleges know this and educate broadly.   #  if the state thinks a broad education is in the best interest of its students, it can force it upon them even if they do not want it.   # says you, with another unsupported  should , and an unsupported  useless .  citation needed on the majority of students wanting specialized education.  also, so what if it is undemocratic ? state governments do not, and are not obligated to, perform all functuons in a democratic manner.  if the state thinks a broad education is in the best interest of its students, it can force it upon them even if they do not want it.  in a us state government, the way you change things like this is getting a new state legislator elected who will push the change.  not everything is popular vote, like you seem to want.   #  as for interdisciplinary courses, there is quite a bit of overlap between computer science and other sciences.   #  anyone  can  google all of the supplemental information that might need.  but colleges have a vested interest in  ensuring  all of their graduates know that information.  someone going into a computer security career, for example, will probably major in computer science, possibly with a focus in security if the school offers that.  the goal of the computer science major is to train the student to be component at any computer science related career.  the college wants that student to have the option to work as a software engineer, or a sysadmin, etc.  so they still certainly take classes that do not directly relate to computer security, like graphics.  as for interdisciplinary courses, there is quite a bit of overlap between computer science and other sciences.  not only do the sciences make use of computer simulations, but areas like neural networks, computer vision, and quantum computing lie at the interface between computer science and other sciences.  colleges have an interest in giving their students the tools the need to work in interdisciplinary fields, or draw upon the techniques created by these fields.
i am not taking issue with the science that if you eat less calories than you burn you will lose weight.  maybe that is the case, but i feel like focusing on the caloric content rather than the actual content of a diet really does not help with weight loss.  0 it is really hard to be precisely sure the exact number of calories in something, and the exact number that you burn.  it seems far more practical to just focus on what you are eating rather than if i consume 0 or 0.  for me prepare my own food using basically a paleo diet, seems to work a lot better than logging caloric counts in mfp ever did.  0 reducing your caloric load without actually changing your diet does not modify your actual tastes.  whereas force exposing yourself to fruits and vegetables and working on the preparing of them will shift your tastes to prefer those flavors over less healthy ones.   #  but i feel like focusing on the caloric content rather than the actual content of a diet really does not help with weight loss.   #  it is actually much simpler than that.   # it is actually much simpler than that.  any diet that does not aim for caloric deficit wo not lead to weight loss, therefore any diet going for weight loss usually aims for caloric deficit.  they might try to hide it, or present different methods, but they all do the same thing: reduce your caloric intake.  it does not matter  what  you eat, it only matters how much of it you eat.  at least as far as weight loss is concerned.   #  in the most basic sense: burning more calories than you consume will lead to weight loss.   #  using a term like  shitty  to describe a concept is foolish.  the interconnecting web of exercise, nutrition and health is complicated.  so many caveats and qualifications and variables go into any discussion that you cannot take as simple an approach as you are attempting to.  in the most basic sense: burning more calories than you consume will lead to weight loss.  that is a physiological fact.  there are ways to run a caloric deficit which improve your health, and ways which are bad for your health.  your personal approach to achieving this caloric imbalance might vary substantially from mine.  because you are not very specific in your post, it is hard to understand what you are arguing for/against exactly.  from your post, it sounds like you are attacking a concept without really explaining what that concept is or why it is not good.  realize that everyone is different and their needs and abilities are different.   #  so in this regard, reducing caloric load is good advice to give because it leads to awareness of consumption, which causes weight loss.   #  the main problem most people have with obesity is simply awareness of how many calories they are consuming.  there is a reason weight watchers is ranked as the best diet program for long term success.  so in this regard, reducing caloric load is good advice to give because it leads to awareness of consumption, which causes weight loss.  maybe you are only a few pounds overweight, in which case this is fine for you.  but people with serious obesity problems have problems because their natural mechanisms for appetite and control are broken.  not to mention, it is not as if they do not eat healthy foods at all one of my fattest friends eats a lot of fruit and vegetables and stays away from most junk food.  he just eats a  lot .  in this case, an external factor like counting calories is very good for correcting this.  now, i am not saying that changing dietary composition is meaningless, or that preparing your own food does not help.  i am just pointing out that calorie counting is a pretty invaluable tool for many.   #  because it is not structured enough for someone who is bad at eating to develop good habits.   #  because it is not structured enough for someone who is bad at eating to develop good habits.  it requires a constant level of discipline that if i had, i would not have been overweight to begin with.  paleo works for me because well it limits the number of times you have to be disciplined.  it made me desire sweets less.  really for the first time in my life i felt something was too sweet.  the birthday cupcakes that are offered daily i did not feel like eating anymore.  if i slipped it gave me an unpleasant reaction if i ate fast food and i ended up in the bathroom feeling awful.  i was not going to starve myself to death to win at tetris.  calorie counting instead presented me with the challenge of how can i tetris enough junk food into my allotment for the day.  many times i succeed, sometimes i failed but i always sort of failed.   #  with the  eating healthy  method, you have no rules.   #  again, i disagree with you.  i would argue that calorie counting is the structured system, and simply trying to eat healthy is unstructured.  with the calorie counting system, you can plan out your entire day is worth of food and if you have any extra calories left at the end, you can have dessert or an extra snack ! yay ! with the  eating healthy  method, you have no rules.  no guidelines.  nothing helping you choose what to eat and how much.  it is too open ended and unstructured, which is why it does not work for a lot of people.
if you are with a friend, family member, acquaintance, co worker, at dinner etc, i think it is rude, awkward, insulting and shows a complete lack of respect for the other person/people is time and attention when someone for whatever reason feels like they need to constantly use their phone for social purposes when already socialising face to face.  i ca not stand being around someone when they are and there is always one or more of them absorbed in their phone for more time than they are absorbed in conversation with people you planned to hang around with.  i know that they have no obligation to engage effectively in the moment with other people but when did it become socially acceptable ? i also feel that urge when there is a quiet moment to just start browsing facebook or start sending messages but i understand that it is rude to the other people i am with and consciously choose to not grab my phone.  i leave it in my pocket or somewhere else whenever i am with anyone because i feel like they deserve my attention because i am with them.  obviously there are exceptions to quickly check you phone; like if you have been with the people for a long time and need to catch up on work emails or need to plan something, but i am talking about situations where the intention is to socialise.  i think it is incredibly rude i understand people should be able to do what they want when hanging out but to take yourself out of the social situation in front of you is a waste of my time and is insulting me when i am actively being the person not resorting to the phone absorption.   #  absorbed in their phone for more time than they are absorbed in conversation with people you planned to hang around with.   #  if you want someone to pay attention to you be interesting.   # it means that you feel that your belief that something should not be done is more important than anything substantive.  if a bit of etiquette cannot be justified it should be abandoned, and we definitely should not add more random and arbitrary rules to make life more difficult for everyone.  if you want someone to pay attention to you be interesting.  if your problem is that you ca not compete with a phone your reaction should be to better yourself, not to try and restrict the phone to when you are not around.  i do not see why it is necessary to pay attention to someone just because they are there.  socializing goes both ways.  if you ca not hold up your end and keep them interested, why should they pretend to be ? so you consider people being different than you an insult ? i hope we live on different planets.   #  for example, in japan it is fine to fart at a restaurant and when katsu shintarô, a famous actor, kissed his mother is genitals at her funeral, it was seen as an act of respect and love.   # it makes no more or less logical sense than chewing with your mouth closed or shaking hands.  this becomes apparent when you go to other cultures and find that many of your norms are backwards.  for example, in japan it is fine to fart at a restaurant and when katsu shintarô, a famous actor, kissed his mother is genitals at her funeral, it was seen as an act of respect and love.  that would only make my delivery of the issue rude and have nothing to do with whether or not the issue itself is rude.  no, members of a society generally dislike people who attempt to enforce social norms, regardless of the delivery.  especially for something that you yourself pointed out that most people do.  for example, can you think of  any  way to tell a smoker that you do not want them smoking in their own home that would not result in them feeling at least a upset and put out ?  #  absolutely not, if i experience something as impolite i can use the word  impolite  without having to consider a random person somewhere that would not agree.   # i am speaking for myself though and ca not claim an absolute on this, obviously, nobody can claim a 0 absolute with this sort of thing or anything, but that does not make all conversations invalid.  you are trying to devalue what me and many other people see as rude just because it is not  objectively rude .  is nobody entitled to call something rude if there is not some kind of bible of behaviour we can all agree on ? absolutely not, if i experience something as impolite i can use the word  impolite  without having to consider a random person somewhere that would not agree.  i would not tell a smoker to not smoke  in their own house .  it is legal to do so.  if they are smoking in their kids face or something actually illegal there may be grounds to say something but i do not see what that example has to do with being rude or not.   #  throughout history, every etiquette change is met with resistance simply for being different.   #  i know what you mean, but i have to say that you are trying to apply your own subjective experience to that of a collective concept.  for centuries, it would have been unthinkable for you to behave how you probably behave at all dinners placement of silverware, attire, etc , but social customs change.  throughout history, every etiquette change is met with resistance simply for being different.  now, i actually agree that the act you are describing is rude, but also  what is rude  is decided mostly by the society at the time.  so if most people do it, and people like you and i do it less and feel like it is rude, our minority status prevents us from defining the rudeness of the act.   #  i will give you a different example to make this more clear for you.   #  something can be rude but also tolerated as i said, it can be rude enough to be considered rude but not a big enough deal to cause some kind of uproar or conflict with a friend.  we are not talking about a major war or something here, it is a recently developed minor rude social behaviour.  it can still be  rude  but not engaged with because it is not worth the conflict.  just because it is not worth the conflict does not somehow make it not rude.  i will give you a different example to make this more clear for you.  you knowingly play loud music in your room while your house mate is trying to sleep.  he lays awake and has a horrible sleep because of you.  your housemate is a nice guy and does not want to fight about it so he does not complain about it.  you get away without conflict from a rude action.  because it was not raised as an issue or argued against does that mean you were not being rude by playing loud music ?
if you are with a friend, family member, acquaintance, co worker, at dinner etc, i think it is rude, awkward, insulting and shows a complete lack of respect for the other person/people is time and attention when someone for whatever reason feels like they need to constantly use their phone for social purposes when already socialising face to face.  i ca not stand being around someone when they are and there is always one or more of them absorbed in their phone for more time than they are absorbed in conversation with people you planned to hang around with.  i know that they have no obligation to engage effectively in the moment with other people but when did it become socially acceptable ? i also feel that urge when there is a quiet moment to just start browsing facebook or start sending messages but i understand that it is rude to the other people i am with and consciously choose to not grab my phone.  i leave it in my pocket or somewhere else whenever i am with anyone because i feel like they deserve my attention because i am with them.  obviously there are exceptions to quickly check you phone; like if you have been with the people for a long time and need to catch up on work emails or need to plan something, but i am talking about situations where the intention is to socialise.  i think it is incredibly rude i understand people should be able to do what they want when hanging out but to take yourself out of the social situation in front of you is a waste of my time and is insulting me when i am actively being the person not resorting to the phone absorption.   #  insulting me when i am actively being the person not resorting to the phone absorption.   #  so you consider people being different than you an insult ?  # it means that you feel that your belief that something should not be done is more important than anything substantive.  if a bit of etiquette cannot be justified it should be abandoned, and we definitely should not add more random and arbitrary rules to make life more difficult for everyone.  if you want someone to pay attention to you be interesting.  if your problem is that you ca not compete with a phone your reaction should be to better yourself, not to try and restrict the phone to when you are not around.  i do not see why it is necessary to pay attention to someone just because they are there.  socializing goes both ways.  if you ca not hold up your end and keep them interested, why should they pretend to be ? so you consider people being different than you an insult ? i hope we live on different planets.   #  that would only make my delivery of the issue rude and have nothing to do with whether or not the issue itself is rude.   # it makes no more or less logical sense than chewing with your mouth closed or shaking hands.  this becomes apparent when you go to other cultures and find that many of your norms are backwards.  for example, in japan it is fine to fart at a restaurant and when katsu shintarô, a famous actor, kissed his mother is genitals at her funeral, it was seen as an act of respect and love.  that would only make my delivery of the issue rude and have nothing to do with whether or not the issue itself is rude.  no, members of a society generally dislike people who attempt to enforce social norms, regardless of the delivery.  especially for something that you yourself pointed out that most people do.  for example, can you think of  any  way to tell a smoker that you do not want them smoking in their own home that would not result in them feeling at least a upset and put out ?  #  i would not tell a smoker to not smoke  in their own house .   # i am speaking for myself though and ca not claim an absolute on this, obviously, nobody can claim a 0 absolute with this sort of thing or anything, but that does not make all conversations invalid.  you are trying to devalue what me and many other people see as rude just because it is not  objectively rude .  is nobody entitled to call something rude if there is not some kind of bible of behaviour we can all agree on ? absolutely not, if i experience something as impolite i can use the word  impolite  without having to consider a random person somewhere that would not agree.  i would not tell a smoker to not smoke  in their own house .  it is legal to do so.  if they are smoking in their kids face or something actually illegal there may be grounds to say something but i do not see what that example has to do with being rude or not.   #  so if most people do it, and people like you and i do it less and feel like it is rude, our minority status prevents us from defining the rudeness of the act.   #  i know what you mean, but i have to say that you are trying to apply your own subjective experience to that of a collective concept.  for centuries, it would have been unthinkable for you to behave how you probably behave at all dinners placement of silverware, attire, etc , but social customs change.  throughout history, every etiquette change is met with resistance simply for being different.  now, i actually agree that the act you are describing is rude, but also  what is rude  is decided mostly by the society at the time.  so if most people do it, and people like you and i do it less and feel like it is rude, our minority status prevents us from defining the rudeness of the act.   #  just because it is not worth the conflict does not somehow make it not rude.   #  something can be rude but also tolerated as i said, it can be rude enough to be considered rude but not a big enough deal to cause some kind of uproar or conflict with a friend.  we are not talking about a major war or something here, it is a recently developed minor rude social behaviour.  it can still be  rude  but not engaged with because it is not worth the conflict.  just because it is not worth the conflict does not somehow make it not rude.  i will give you a different example to make this more clear for you.  you knowingly play loud music in your room while your house mate is trying to sleep.  he lays awake and has a horrible sleep because of you.  your housemate is a nice guy and does not want to fight about it so he does not complain about it.  you get away without conflict from a rude action.  because it was not raised as an issue or argued against does that mean you were not being rude by playing loud music ?
people always talk about how rich people i. e.  mega millionaires and billionaires are not paying their  fair share  in terms of income taxes.  they say how the tax rate for the rich should not be smaller than the tax rate for those who are not rich.  but even if there is a great disparity in tax rates, the amount of taxes that a mega millionaire or billionaire has to pay is still greater than the average person is.  for example, an income tax rate of 0 on a person making 0 million dollars a year means that that person would have to pay 0 million dollars in taxes, but an income tax rate of 0 on a person making 0,0 dollars a year means that that person would have to pay 0,0 dollars .  even though the millionaire has a lower tax rate, it is not fair that he/she has to pay 0 million dollars in taxes while another person only has to pay 0,0 dollars.  there should not be a penalty in the form of tax for people who make a lot of money; it is simply not fair.  it is also not democratic because while each person only gets one vote, the richer person gets a greater financial obligation to society than the average person.   i know this is not how tax rates works but let is assume it is for simplicity is sake.   #  i know this is not how tax rates works but let is assume it is for simplicity is sake.   #  this is somewhat emblematic of the problem with your whole position.   # this is somewhat emblematic of the problem with your whole position.  you are working with a grossly oversimplifeid sense of how taxes work.  the most glaring problem is not that you have oversimplified how tax brackets work though you have .  the most glaring problem is that you seem to be under the impression that the mega rich are primarily paying income tax they are not .  in any given year i will pay whatever my marginal income tax rate is on the income i earn.  if my marginal tax rate is 0 i pay 0 cents for every dollar i earn as income.  but that is not what i will pay on capital gains investment income or various other sources of income those tax rates are much lower.  if i earn $0,0 in salalry and my marginal tax rate is 0 i will pay $0,0 in taxes note it wo not be that high, but whatever .  if millionaire bob who has a net worth 0x mine also earns $0,0 in salary he will pay the exact same amount of income tax as me except he wo not because he will have better accountants, but in theory he will .  but that wo not be most of bob is income.  most of his income will be stock dividends and various other capital gains, and on those he will pay a much lower percentage tax than he will on income.  most truly wealthy people have lower marginal tax rates than people in the upper middle class higher than the truly poor who make so little the government does not tax them at all, but less than you would think .  yes they will probably pay more in terms of absolute value in taxes, but the marginal rate the % of money earned that actually goes to the government will be lower.  in terms of percentage of their gains, they pay a smaller, not larger % to the government.   #  efficiency and fairness can be drastically at odds.   # efficiency and fairness can be drastically at odds.  as to 0: it is doubtful that even op would propose a literal flat tax of $x per person.  so long as taxes are assessed as a percentage of income, even a flat tax would take more from the rich than the poor.  plus, op is view is that taxes on the rich are too high to be fair not that taxes on the poor should increase.  as to 0: just as being rich does not mean you deserve money, nor does it mean you  do not  deserve your money.  if the source of the money is the main driver of fairness, then income earned at a fulltime job should be taxed at the same percentage for everyone, assuming everyone works roughly equally hard.  i am rich and work very hard.  if i am forced to stay late yet again, why should the government confiscate a whopping 0 0 of my compensation for those extra painful hours ? under your logic in 0, i should pay a lower rate on that money than a poor person would pay for winning a $0k scratch off lotto ticket, but that is not the case.   #  if you are talking about an adult with rich parents, he still went through the 0 years education.   # that is money earned by working.  if you did this, many of  the rich  would pay  drastically  lower taxes than they pay now, even if capital gains tax exploded.  of course, other rich people, including the very richest, would pay more.  there are good arguments that you would also hinder investment, but that is about efficiency, not fairness.  and you would probably be surprised by how often people go from $0 to $0 the same way.  if the money is being  earned  by an infant or child, it is likely a gift or in a trust, and you could tax it by changing taxes for gifts/trusts.  if you are talking about an adult with rich parents, he still went through the 0 years education.  and if his parents are investing in his business, that is still a gift/trust/capital gains situation.  does not affect progressive income tax, which is what op is talking about.   #  when you use freedom to justify the existence of incredibly rich people who just let the poor starve and die then freedom is worthless !  # these do not help to convince me.  what things ? if someone earns a million a month, you bet he can spare a few hundred thousands in taxes goddammit ! people do not just work hard and earn money for themselves but also for the people they love.  sounds reasonable until you start wondering how can people be born with that insane amount of riches while other people live in poverty and misery and sometimes do not even make it to adulthood.  a free society where poor people literally die of starvation ? society is not a country, is the whole fucking world.  if a billionaire decides to burn all his money before he dies, he should have the right to do so coz freedom.  fuck freedom, freedom only matters because it helps people enjoy better and more fulfilling lives.  when you use freedom to justify the existence of incredibly rich people who just let the poor starve and die then freedom is worthless ! for a rich person to earn a million it might take just working a few extra hours a week, for a poor person not even working 0 hours a day is gonna make it !  #  also, just coz a person is poor does not mean he/she is miserable.   # just coz he can does not mean he has to.  it is not the rich people is job to make everyone else happy.  also, just coz a person is poor does not mean he/she is miserable.  after all money does not equal happiness.  if a person has 0 billion dollars and the government or society forcibly takes a billion dollar away to save the lives of 0 people sure that makes 0 people happy but it is still unfair because the billionaire is treated differently than an average person.  my cmv was about fairness not making the world a better place.  for a rich person to earn a million it might take just working a few extra hours a week, for a poor person not even working 0 hours a day is gonna make it ! this is because of the difference in demand in the work a rich person does and the work that a poor person does.  sure i concede that capitalism is unfair but i still think that the way we tax the rich is unfair.
people always talk about how rich people i. e.  mega millionaires and billionaires are not paying their  fair share  in terms of income taxes.  they say how the tax rate for the rich should not be smaller than the tax rate for those who are not rich.  but even if there is a great disparity in tax rates, the amount of taxes that a mega millionaire or billionaire has to pay is still greater than the average person is.  for example, an income tax rate of 0 on a person making 0 million dollars a year means that that person would have to pay 0 million dollars in taxes, but an income tax rate of 0 on a person making 0,0 dollars a year means that that person would have to pay 0,0 dollars .  even though the millionaire has a lower tax rate, it is not fair that he/she has to pay 0 million dollars in taxes while another person only has to pay 0,0 dollars.  there should not be a penalty in the form of tax for people who make a lot of money; it is simply not fair.  it is also not democratic because while each person only gets one vote, the richer person gets a greater financial obligation to society than the average person.   i know this is not how tax rates works but let is assume it is for simplicity is sake.   #  there should not be a penalty in the form of tax for people who make a lot of money; it is simply not fair.   #  if you believe in this position then you must believe the other way, ie there should not be a tax that unfairly targets the poor.   # if you believe in this position then you must believe the other way, ie there should not be a tax that unfairly targets the poor.  such as sales tax.  0 of a $0 purchase is a much higher proportion of a poor person is income than a rich persons.  so i assume you would elimate all sales taxes.  ditto for gas taxes, dmv fees, bridge/road tolls, etc.  ?  #  as to 0: it is doubtful that even op would propose a literal flat tax of $x per person.   # efficiency and fairness can be drastically at odds.  as to 0: it is doubtful that even op would propose a literal flat tax of $x per person.  so long as taxes are assessed as a percentage of income, even a flat tax would take more from the rich than the poor.  plus, op is view is that taxes on the rich are too high to be fair not that taxes on the poor should increase.  as to 0: just as being rich does not mean you deserve money, nor does it mean you  do not  deserve your money.  if the source of the money is the main driver of fairness, then income earned at a fulltime job should be taxed at the same percentage for everyone, assuming everyone works roughly equally hard.  i am rich and work very hard.  if i am forced to stay late yet again, why should the government confiscate a whopping 0 0 of my compensation for those extra painful hours ? under your logic in 0, i should pay a lower rate on that money than a poor person would pay for winning a $0k scratch off lotto ticket, but that is not the case.   #  if the money is being  earned  by an infant or child, it is likely a gift or in a trust, and you could tax it by changing taxes for gifts/trusts.   # that is money earned by working.  if you did this, many of  the rich  would pay  drastically  lower taxes than they pay now, even if capital gains tax exploded.  of course, other rich people, including the very richest, would pay more.  there are good arguments that you would also hinder investment, but that is about efficiency, not fairness.  and you would probably be surprised by how often people go from $0 to $0 the same way.  if the money is being  earned  by an infant or child, it is likely a gift or in a trust, and you could tax it by changing taxes for gifts/trusts.  if you are talking about an adult with rich parents, he still went through the 0 years education.  and if his parents are investing in his business, that is still a gift/trust/capital gains situation.  does not affect progressive income tax, which is what op is talking about.   #  if a billionaire decides to burn all his money before he dies, he should have the right to do so coz freedom.   # these do not help to convince me.  what things ? if someone earns a million a month, you bet he can spare a few hundred thousands in taxes goddammit ! people do not just work hard and earn money for themselves but also for the people they love.  sounds reasonable until you start wondering how can people be born with that insane amount of riches while other people live in poverty and misery and sometimes do not even make it to adulthood.  a free society where poor people literally die of starvation ? society is not a country, is the whole fucking world.  if a billionaire decides to burn all his money before he dies, he should have the right to do so coz freedom.  fuck freedom, freedom only matters because it helps people enjoy better and more fulfilling lives.  when you use freedom to justify the existence of incredibly rich people who just let the poor starve and die then freedom is worthless ! for a rich person to earn a million it might take just working a few extra hours a week, for a poor person not even working 0 hours a day is gonna make it !  #  this is because of the difference in demand in the work a rich person does and the work that a poor person does.   # just coz he can does not mean he has to.  it is not the rich people is job to make everyone else happy.  also, just coz a person is poor does not mean he/she is miserable.  after all money does not equal happiness.  if a person has 0 billion dollars and the government or society forcibly takes a billion dollar away to save the lives of 0 people sure that makes 0 people happy but it is still unfair because the billionaire is treated differently than an average person.  my cmv was about fairness not making the world a better place.  for a rich person to earn a million it might take just working a few extra hours a week, for a poor person not even working 0 hours a day is gonna make it ! this is because of the difference in demand in the work a rich person does and the work that a poor person does.  sure i concede that capitalism is unfair but i still think that the way we tax the rich is unfair.
people always talk about how rich people i. e.  mega millionaires and billionaires are not paying their  fair share  in terms of income taxes.  they say how the tax rate for the rich should not be smaller than the tax rate for those who are not rich.  but even if there is a great disparity in tax rates, the amount of taxes that a mega millionaire or billionaire has to pay is still greater than the average person is.  for example, an income tax rate of 0 on a person making 0 million dollars a year means that that person would have to pay 0 million dollars in taxes, but an income tax rate of 0 on a person making 0,0 dollars a year means that that person would have to pay 0,0 dollars .  even though the millionaire has a lower tax rate, it is not fair that he/she has to pay 0 million dollars in taxes while another person only has to pay 0,0 dollars.  there should not be a penalty in the form of tax for people who make a lot of money; it is simply not fair.  it is also not democratic because while each person only gets one vote, the richer person gets a greater financial obligation to society than the average person.   i know this is not how tax rates works but let is assume it is for simplicity is sake.   #  there should not be a penalty in the form of tax for people who make a lot of money; it is simply not fair.   #  it is also not democratic because while each person only gets one vote, the richer person gets a greater financial obligation to society than the average person.   # it is also not democratic because while each person only gets one vote, the richer person gets a greater financial obligation to society than the average person.  i argue that it  is  fair that people who make a lot of money pay more in taxes.  why ? because they have benefited  a lot more  from the society they live in.  the millionaire ceo of company a drives to work on public roads, his huge wealth and big fancy house is protected by public police and other public agencies, most of his workforce at company a that make him all his money went to public schools, etc etc etc.  the very wealthy benefit disproportionately from the society around them, and so it is perfectly fair for them to disproportionately pay back into that society to maintain those schools, roads, bridges, military, police, etc.   #  as to 0: just as being rich does not mean you deserve money, nor does it mean you  do not  deserve your money.   # efficiency and fairness can be drastically at odds.  as to 0: it is doubtful that even op would propose a literal flat tax of $x per person.  so long as taxes are assessed as a percentage of income, even a flat tax would take more from the rich than the poor.  plus, op is view is that taxes on the rich are too high to be fair not that taxes on the poor should increase.  as to 0: just as being rich does not mean you deserve money, nor does it mean you  do not  deserve your money.  if the source of the money is the main driver of fairness, then income earned at a fulltime job should be taxed at the same percentage for everyone, assuming everyone works roughly equally hard.  i am rich and work very hard.  if i am forced to stay late yet again, why should the government confiscate a whopping 0 0 of my compensation for those extra painful hours ? under your logic in 0, i should pay a lower rate on that money than a poor person would pay for winning a $0k scratch off lotto ticket, but that is not the case.   #  there are good arguments that you would also hinder investment, but that is about efficiency, not fairness.   # that is money earned by working.  if you did this, many of  the rich  would pay  drastically  lower taxes than they pay now, even if capital gains tax exploded.  of course, other rich people, including the very richest, would pay more.  there are good arguments that you would also hinder investment, but that is about efficiency, not fairness.  and you would probably be surprised by how often people go from $0 to $0 the same way.  if the money is being  earned  by an infant or child, it is likely a gift or in a trust, and you could tax it by changing taxes for gifts/trusts.  if you are talking about an adult with rich parents, he still went through the 0 years education.  and if his parents are investing in his business, that is still a gift/trust/capital gains situation.  does not affect progressive income tax, which is what op is talking about.   #  if someone earns a million a month, you bet he can spare a few hundred thousands in taxes goddammit !  # these do not help to convince me.  what things ? if someone earns a million a month, you bet he can spare a few hundred thousands in taxes goddammit ! people do not just work hard and earn money for themselves but also for the people they love.  sounds reasonable until you start wondering how can people be born with that insane amount of riches while other people live in poverty and misery and sometimes do not even make it to adulthood.  a free society where poor people literally die of starvation ? society is not a country, is the whole fucking world.  if a billionaire decides to burn all his money before he dies, he should have the right to do so coz freedom.  fuck freedom, freedom only matters because it helps people enjoy better and more fulfilling lives.  when you use freedom to justify the existence of incredibly rich people who just let the poor starve and die then freedom is worthless ! for a rich person to earn a million it might take just working a few extra hours a week, for a poor person not even working 0 hours a day is gonna make it !  #  this is because of the difference in demand in the work a rich person does and the work that a poor person does.   # just coz he can does not mean he has to.  it is not the rich people is job to make everyone else happy.  also, just coz a person is poor does not mean he/she is miserable.  after all money does not equal happiness.  if a person has 0 billion dollars and the government or society forcibly takes a billion dollar away to save the lives of 0 people sure that makes 0 people happy but it is still unfair because the billionaire is treated differently than an average person.  my cmv was about fairness not making the world a better place.  for a rich person to earn a million it might take just working a few extra hours a week, for a poor person not even working 0 hours a day is gonna make it ! this is because of the difference in demand in the work a rich person does and the work that a poor person does.  sure i concede that capitalism is unfair but i still think that the way we tax the rich is unfair.
under the assumption that you can consciously alter your wants, it seems to me that the obvious solution to a more peaceful life is to reduce your material wants towards zero.  this would include departing from things as basic to the developed world as air conditioning.  i do not see any benefit to wanting more material goods in life, even though i, unfortunately, still want more than i have.  this is less a moral argument than a practical argument.  if you can reduce your wants to non material desires, then the material provisions you should require to satisfy those desires should be meager; a pair of shoes, a shirt and pants to walk through park; books to read; etc. ; and your life should, therefor, be easier and more free.  again, this is under the assumption that you can alter your wants.  specifically, the capacity to want to want something wanting to want to exercise, wanting to want to read more, wanting to want less, etc.  is the basis of this view point, and i am curious if anyone has a compelling argument towards actually wanting to want more material goods.   clarification: my claim is not that  the goal of life should be to reduce your material wants to zero.    #  the obvious solution to a more peaceful life is to reduce your material wants towards zero.   #  at some point, continuing to reduce your material wants will make your life  less  peaceful.   # at some point, continuing to reduce your material wants will make your life  less  peaceful.  that point is different for everybody.  some people would even say that non material desires are wrong.  to you, air conditioning is a luxury, but you probably still want screens in the windows to keep the mosquitos out, right ? mosquito bites would make your life less peaceful.  other people have different points where a reduction in material comforts would make their lives more stressful.  even the buddha cautioned against extreme asceticism.  he spoke of a  middle way  between extreme indulgence and extreme self denial.  he said that it is possible to get so wrapped up in the idea of reducing material wants and living some kind of perfect lifestyle that that idea of perfection itself becomes an all consuming  want.    #  you or i would not purchase, install, and enjoy a window screen because we want to exactly.   #  goddamn mosquitoes lol i do agree with your point as it applies to a threshold, but where i am not convinced is that a window screen, for example, is a  want.   you or i would not purchase, install, and enjoy a window screen because we want to exactly.  it is a measure against a natural discomfort, and these are not the wants i am referring to here.  and this, similar to below comments, assumes that what i am claiming is that  the goal of life should be to reduce wants to zero.   i respect your point completely it is correct that extreme asceticism should not be the goal of life.  i just think a downward departure from material desires in the first world is better approach to life than an upward one, in most cases.   #  your point that ac is also a measure against natural discomfort is totally true.   #  thanks for asking, i recognize that is confusing.  i did.  what i meant by pointing out ac originally is that it is such a prevalent, and simultaneously energy consumptive technology, that there would be an inherent monetary value to ditching it.  it is dissimilar to window screens because using ac consumes energy, and there is a monetary cost, month to month, depending on how much you use it.  using ac less would result in lower bills, thereby reducing your monetary obligations and affording you more freedom.  your point that ac is also a measure against natural discomfort is totally true.  i should have been more clear there.  additionally, keeping mosquitoes out of your house could be considered more of health measure than running the ac, and much less expensive, and it is not exactly a luxury in the same way.  that said, i do not want to equivocate my claim to the point being completely squishy and impossible to change my point is more, is there an inherent value to having more material desires, rather than less ? i am also trying to avoid running this claim to the extreme.  using the ac less, rather than never, would be a fine approach to life, i think  reducing material desires towards zero  .  but if you could feel satisfied whilst never running it maybe spending the daytime hours outside because it is no worse than inside then more power to you, and congratulations on your slashed electricity bills lol.   #  a goal in itself, would just be one additional  want , and nothing more.   #  your title and your conjecture say slightly different things.  one saying that the goal end game of life is to reduce material wants.  the other saying that you reduce material wants to obtain a more peaceful life.  i would argue that 0 there is no  goal  in life 0 a peaceful life is not one that is better 0 the only result of life is death, no matter what moves you make during life, the result is always the same.  if you become enlightened before you die, if you become a millionaire before you die, if you climb the worlds tallest mountain before you die, nothing changes about the end result.  a goal in itself, would just be one additional  want , and nothing more.  0 a peaceful life, would be one without disturbance.  this means a life without change, a life without stimulus.  the more stimulus and change there are the more chaotic the life and less peaceful it becomes.  the state with the least change and stimulus is death, the opposite of life.  and a want is hardly a quantifiable thing.  i want one thing: absolute happiness.  how many other wants are going to be piled into making that one want happen ? even if you want a small quantified able thing say a cup of tea in the morning, there are other wants that need to be met to reach that, such as living in a place were tea is available.  and then what about when that cup of tea is consumed, do we simply slip into a catatonic state until the desire for the next cup of tea arises ? wants drive us, and give us purpose.  less wants may in fact make us more peaceful, but i do not think that is necessarily an ideal state.   #  so yes, you are right, i am wrong by my op is terms.   #    0; touche ! i will concede that you are right  goal  and  wants  are not well defined in my op, and the conclusion ca not work without clearer terms.  i posted these thoughts perhaps a bit to hastily.  that said, i do not entirely agree with everything you say, mostly because in philosophic terms, english and perhaps any language is incapable of grasping just about any phenomenon in life, resulting in mis translations between the mind and the page.  attempting to define, for example,  wants,  in your final paragraph, lead to grasping conclusions like,  do we simply slip into a catatonic state until the desire for the next cup of tea arises ?   of course not, that is not how people work.  so yes, you are right, i am wrong by my op is terms.  i still hold, however, that  a  goal in life should be to reduce desires, at least from those of a purely material sense again, i am not adept enough a writer to define what i mean by  material,  to those of a more substantial noble deep humanistic nature  ditto  .  so, i will continue to attempt convincing myself to ignore the urge to play video games in lieu of more substantial noble deep humanistic activities : i hope i have not mangled my concession or your points with this comment.  i would not blame you for accusing me of missing your points with my equivocations, but i hope you do understand what i mean.
i was listening to radiolab is podcast entitled  eye in the sky  which details the work of ross mcnutt and the technology he developed originally to use in iraq in 0 0.  the project had a silent aircraft flying around a particular city that was prone to bombing, and the aircraft would take photos of the city all day.  if a bomb went off, we were able to look back at that area to find who planted the bomb, and then follow that person or group to wherever they ended up in order to arrest them.  the technology was also used in juares to solve the crime of a murdered police officer, and eventually led to a major break in arresting cartel leaders who were responsible for thousands of deaths in the city.  basically this is surveillance technology that could potentially solve crimes and save lives.  the speakers on the podcast were mostly against using this kind of technology, and it seems to be the majority viewpoint.  their only argument seemed to be that it  felt wrong  and that they would lose privacy if there was an aircraft flying around the city taking photos, and that terrible things could happen if that information was placed into the wrong hands.  i must be missing something.  unless i am doing something illicit and illegal, what the hell do i care if the government can watch me run errands or listen to my boring phone conversations or find out how much i spent on shoes in the last year ? what could they possibly do with that information that would come back to hurt me, as long as i am within the boundaries of the law and i am not harming anyone with my little boring life.  if you do not want to get caught doing shitty things, then maybe do not do those shitty things.  why oppose a system that could make the world a better place and stop bad people from doing bad things just because it might make you feel a tad bit uncomfortable for no real reason ?  #  unless i am doing something illicit and illegal, what the hell do i care if the government can watch me run errands or listen to my boring phone conversations or find out how much i spent on shoes in the last year ?  #  this argument makes me cringe every time i see it.   # this argument makes me cringe every time i see it.  government surveillance does not just feel wrong it is wrong.  i also think that private surveillance for advertisements is wrong.  i could argue as to why for a long time but the short answer is that those organizations exploit public ignorance to gain too much power.  before i can argue more i have to ask: if you could give the government the ability to enforce the law with 0 of people who commit crimes caught and punished would you do it ?  #  police get off light for crimes as a rule, not an exception.   #  yes, but this unlikelihood is not a strong enough argument to allow someone free reign.  despite the fact that you perceive it to be unlikely, it is still very possible.  also, checks and balances do not make much sense.  in fact the opposite seems to have occured.  why would not government branches  assist  each other ? this seems to me to be the far more likely outcome of this incentive structure, and it is no wonder why the courts often support the actions of the executive branch as a general trend.  police get off light for crimes as a rule, not an exception.   #  we need to remain ever vigilant and check their power.   #  the government does not exclude victim less crimes.  giving the government that level of power is dangerous beyond measure.  our government is fallible and politicians do not want to help you.  i am a liberal and in favor of government intervention in many areas like healthcare but you can never trust a politician.  us politicians have created voter id laws to create an artificial barrier designed to keep the poor from voting, they make districts like this URL they pander to corporate sponsors, pass out fliers with the voting date wrong on the spanish section, and they intentionally misrepresent their views to get votes.  politicians do not want to help you they want power.  everything they do is to get power.  if one party could make a law that disproportionately jails the other they would do it.  we cannot trust these people.  we need to remain ever vigilant and check their power.  if you had your way martin luther king junior is protests would only be remembered as especially busy days at the police station.   #  some of the most corrupt countries on earth  provide  healthcare to keep their populations dependent on their governments, as a means of control and fear based manipulation.   #  fair, although i would definitely be suspect of things like health care being driven by anything but the power motive.  it is certainly not  provided  out of good will.  it involves a lot of people collecting and pocketing a lot of money, and getting a great deal of power, who were not getting that money or power before, and the ability to collect that money/ power by force.  it is an incredibly suspect set of circumstances.  some of the most corrupt countries on earth  provide  healthcare to keep their populations dependent on their governments, as a means of control and fear based manipulation.  i doubt you would be so trusting of their motivations.   #  we live in a world with imperfect people that are corruptible.   # unless i am doing something illicit and illegal, what the hell do i care if the government can watch me run errands or listen to my boring phone conversations or find out how much i spent on shoes in the last year ? if a record exists, people can see it.  if you are in a relationship with a cop and it ends poorly, now they have a great way to stalk you.  if you start dating the ex of a cop, now they can punish you.  if you piss off anybody that is well connected, this can be used against you.  this data can reveal things like embarrassing medical conditions, financial problems, and secrets that you do not want to get out.  maybe you are looking around for a better job ? i could discern that from this data, tell your boss, and you get fired.  the ideal world is one in which we can trust law enforcement to only look at relevant things and not intrude into our personal lives.  we live in a world with imperfect people that are corruptible.  the fact that the data exists, means that it can and will be abused.
i currently make $0 per hour, and i can see no reason why i should support a raise in minimum wage.  i have invested a lot of time and money in an education so that i can make this amount of money.  i recently started my current job, and i have experienced a significant increase in my quality of life due to my higher salary.  if minimum wage were raised to $0 per hour, all of my efforts to become a more valuable worker have been in vain.  my current salary would be barely more than minimum wage.  soon after the minimum wage increase, inflation would revert me back to my previous quality of life.  therefore, there is no reason that me or anyone who makes more than $0 per hour should support a minimum wage increase.   #  if minimum wage were raised to $0 per hour, all of my efforts to become a more valuable worker have been in vain.   #  at some point, you agreed to work for what they are paying you.   # at some point, you agreed to work for what they are paying you.  adjustments to the minimum wage do not change the fact that the salary was appealing enough for you to accept the job.  you are not  hurt  because other people get paid more.  you seem to understand that not everybody makes minimum wage.  additionally, labor is not 0 of the cost of products and services.  while the price for some things may inflate, the inflation does not match the inflation of the minimum wage.   #  no, but the market would cause it to happen.   #  no, but the market would cause it to happen.  if a skilled worker currently makes $0/hr, and the minimum wage is raised to $0/hr, why would that skilled worker continue to do a job that requires certain skills when they can do easier work for the same amount of money ? they would not, so employers would have to pay skilled workers more money to keep them around.  in your specific case you could tell your employer that you want a raise or else you are going to quit and go flip burgers at mcdonald is for a living since you would make almost the same amount of money.  then your employer could either give you a raise, or try to find a skilled worker who will work for just above minimum wage.  the former is more likely to happen than the latter.   #  have there been historic examples of this happening ?  #  have there been historic examples of this happening ? if so, this would probably change my view.  my biggest fear with what you have described is that it would give companies an excuse to underpay their skilled workers.  let is say for example that my cost of living increases by 0 due to the inflation caused by the raise in minimum wage.  let is then say that i ask for a raise from my employer, and they offer me a salary of $0 per hour.  this would be a net loss for me since my cost of living increased by 0, but my salary only increased 0.  however, $0 per hour is certainly better than $0 per hour, so i would not wish to quit and work at mcdonalds.  i feel that in this situation, i would be stuck without a good option.   #  i would therefore see a decrease in my quality of life due to a higher cost of living.   #  because in the example i gave which is based on my real life situation $0 is better than $0, but still not as good as what i should have gotten.  if the minimum wage jump causes my cost of living to go up by 0, then i would need a 0 salary increase to counter it.  however, in my example i was only offered a 0 salary increase.  it is better than nothing, but it is not good enough to counter the cost of inflation for me.  i would therefore see a decrease in my quality of life due to a higher cost of living.   #  but do you think that your numbers are even remotely realistic ?  #  ugh, ok fine.  not any other numbers.  but do you think that your numbers are even remotely realistic ? i am saying that best case scenario is that my cost of living goes up by x%, and my employer increases my salary by x% to compensate.  worst case scenario is that my cost of living goes up by x%, and my salary does not change at all.  and anything in between is just different shades of bad.  i am saying that there is no realistic situation where i would see an improvement in my quality of life, and there are many situations where i would see a decrease.
i currently make $0 per hour, and i can see no reason why i should support a raise in minimum wage.  i have invested a lot of time and money in an education so that i can make this amount of money.  i recently started my current job, and i have experienced a significant increase in my quality of life due to my higher salary.  if minimum wage were raised to $0 per hour, all of my efforts to become a more valuable worker have been in vain.  my current salary would be barely more than minimum wage.  soon after the minimum wage increase, inflation would revert me back to my previous quality of life.  therefore, there is no reason that me or anyone who makes more than $0 per hour should support a minimum wage increase.   #  soon after the minimum wage increase, inflation would revert me back to my previous quality of life.   #  you seem to understand that not everybody makes minimum wage.   # at some point, you agreed to work for what they are paying you.  adjustments to the minimum wage do not change the fact that the salary was appealing enough for you to accept the job.  you are not  hurt  because other people get paid more.  you seem to understand that not everybody makes minimum wage.  additionally, labor is not 0 of the cost of products and services.  while the price for some things may inflate, the inflation does not match the inflation of the minimum wage.   #  the former is more likely to happen than the latter.   #  no, but the market would cause it to happen.  if a skilled worker currently makes $0/hr, and the minimum wage is raised to $0/hr, why would that skilled worker continue to do a job that requires certain skills when they can do easier work for the same amount of money ? they would not, so employers would have to pay skilled workers more money to keep them around.  in your specific case you could tell your employer that you want a raise or else you are going to quit and go flip burgers at mcdonald is for a living since you would make almost the same amount of money.  then your employer could either give you a raise, or try to find a skilled worker who will work for just above minimum wage.  the former is more likely to happen than the latter.   #  i feel that in this situation, i would be stuck without a good option.   #  have there been historic examples of this happening ? if so, this would probably change my view.  my biggest fear with what you have described is that it would give companies an excuse to underpay their skilled workers.  let is say for example that my cost of living increases by 0 due to the inflation caused by the raise in minimum wage.  let is then say that i ask for a raise from my employer, and they offer me a salary of $0 per hour.  this would be a net loss for me since my cost of living increased by 0, but my salary only increased 0.  however, $0 per hour is certainly better than $0 per hour, so i would not wish to quit and work at mcdonalds.  i feel that in this situation, i would be stuck without a good option.   #  if the minimum wage jump causes my cost of living to go up by 0, then i would need a 0 salary increase to counter it.   #  because in the example i gave which is based on my real life situation $0 is better than $0, but still not as good as what i should have gotten.  if the minimum wage jump causes my cost of living to go up by 0, then i would need a 0 salary increase to counter it.  however, in my example i was only offered a 0 salary increase.  it is better than nothing, but it is not good enough to counter the cost of inflation for me.  i would therefore see a decrease in my quality of life due to a higher cost of living.   #  worst case scenario is that my cost of living goes up by x%, and my salary does not change at all.   #  ugh, ok fine.  not any other numbers.  but do you think that your numbers are even remotely realistic ? i am saying that best case scenario is that my cost of living goes up by x%, and my employer increases my salary by x% to compensate.  worst case scenario is that my cost of living goes up by x%, and my salary does not change at all.  and anything in between is just different shades of bad.  i am saying that there is no realistic situation where i would see an improvement in my quality of life, and there are many situations where i would see a decrease.
i currently make $0 per hour, and i can see no reason why i should support a raise in minimum wage.  i have invested a lot of time and money in an education so that i can make this amount of money.  i recently started my current job, and i have experienced a significant increase in my quality of life due to my higher salary.  if minimum wage were raised to $0 per hour, all of my efforts to become a more valuable worker have been in vain.  my current salary would be barely more than minimum wage.  soon after the minimum wage increase, inflation would revert me back to my previous quality of life.  therefore, there is no reason that me or anyone who makes more than $0 per hour should support a minimum wage increase.   #  if minimum wage were raised to $0 per hour, all of my efforts to become a more valuable worker have been in vain.   #  you are forgetting the part where you have made that much above minimum wage while other people put in just as many or more hours per week as you do and make much less.   # you are forgetting the part where you have made that much above minimum wage while other people put in just as many or more hours per week as you do and make much less.  soon after the minimum wage increase, inflation would revert me back to my previous quality of life.  you do understand that if wages had kept up with inflation and worker productivity level, then the current minimum wage would be closer to 0 than 0 per hour right ? URL i understand that you feel that you have somehow put more effort into making your pay than others have, which i find that slightly absurd to start, but why do you feel that someone who works a productive position in society should not make a livable wage ? these people are doing productive labor in a majorly profitable industry, yet are paid starvation wages.  and that is not just a problem for them.  taxpayers are effectively paying massive subsidies to keep these businesses functioning in this way.  the largest private employer in the united states, wal mart, costs taxpayers $0 billion per year in public assistance designed to keep its low wage workers alive, according to one estimate.  wal mart also has a huge share of the food stamp market $0 billion in sales in 0 , so they are paying such shit wages, we have to give their workers benefits to stay alive, which they will likely need to turn around and spend at wal mart for groceries, essentially allowing the company to double dip in their massive taxpayer subsidies.  for mcdonald is, $0 billion of taxpayer money goes to supporting their underpaid workers, part of the fast food industry is $0 billion annually.  and they can afford better.  the ten largest corporations were responsible for $0 billion in 0, while making $0 billion in profits after paying out $0 billion in dividends and buybacks to shareholders.  if we raise wages to a livable level, however, they wo not take it out of their profits and dividends.  they will raise prices.  that is partially the greed of the executives, but largely the greed of the stockholders.  why park your capital in a company making 0 growth when you can move it to one making 0 ? that is just self interest, and it is the motivating factor for companies to squeeze costs, including labor.  that is capitalism.   #  in your specific case you could tell your employer that you want a raise or else you are going to quit and go flip burgers at mcdonald is for a living since you would make almost the same amount of money.   #  no, but the market would cause it to happen.  if a skilled worker currently makes $0/hr, and the minimum wage is raised to $0/hr, why would that skilled worker continue to do a job that requires certain skills when they can do easier work for the same amount of money ? they would not, so employers would have to pay skilled workers more money to keep them around.  in your specific case you could tell your employer that you want a raise or else you are going to quit and go flip burgers at mcdonald is for a living since you would make almost the same amount of money.  then your employer could either give you a raise, or try to find a skilled worker who will work for just above minimum wage.  the former is more likely to happen than the latter.   #  this would be a net loss for me since my cost of living increased by 0, but my salary only increased 0.   #  have there been historic examples of this happening ? if so, this would probably change my view.  my biggest fear with what you have described is that it would give companies an excuse to underpay their skilled workers.  let is say for example that my cost of living increases by 0 due to the inflation caused by the raise in minimum wage.  let is then say that i ask for a raise from my employer, and they offer me a salary of $0 per hour.  this would be a net loss for me since my cost of living increased by 0, but my salary only increased 0.  however, $0 per hour is certainly better than $0 per hour, so i would not wish to quit and work at mcdonalds.  i feel that in this situation, i would be stuck without a good option.   #  i would therefore see a decrease in my quality of life due to a higher cost of living.   #  because in the example i gave which is based on my real life situation $0 is better than $0, but still not as good as what i should have gotten.  if the minimum wage jump causes my cost of living to go up by 0, then i would need a 0 salary increase to counter it.  however, in my example i was only offered a 0 salary increase.  it is better than nothing, but it is not good enough to counter the cost of inflation for me.  i would therefore see a decrease in my quality of life due to a higher cost of living.   #  but do you think that your numbers are even remotely realistic ?  #  ugh, ok fine.  not any other numbers.  but do you think that your numbers are even remotely realistic ? i am saying that best case scenario is that my cost of living goes up by x%, and my employer increases my salary by x% to compensate.  worst case scenario is that my cost of living goes up by x%, and my salary does not change at all.  and anything in between is just different shades of bad.  i am saying that there is no realistic situation where i would see an improvement in my quality of life, and there are many situations where i would see a decrease.
i currently make $0 per hour, and i can see no reason why i should support a raise in minimum wage.  i have invested a lot of time and money in an education so that i can make this amount of money.  i recently started my current job, and i have experienced a significant increase in my quality of life due to my higher salary.  if minimum wage were raised to $0 per hour, all of my efforts to become a more valuable worker have been in vain.  my current salary would be barely more than minimum wage.  soon after the minimum wage increase, inflation would revert me back to my previous quality of life.  therefore, there is no reason that me or anyone who makes more than $0 per hour should support a minimum wage increase.   #  my current salary would be barely more than minimum wage.   #  soon after the minimum wage increase, inflation would revert me back to my previous quality of life.   # you are forgetting the part where you have made that much above minimum wage while other people put in just as many or more hours per week as you do and make much less.  soon after the minimum wage increase, inflation would revert me back to my previous quality of life.  you do understand that if wages had kept up with inflation and worker productivity level, then the current minimum wage would be closer to 0 than 0 per hour right ? URL i understand that you feel that you have somehow put more effort into making your pay than others have, which i find that slightly absurd to start, but why do you feel that someone who works a productive position in society should not make a livable wage ? these people are doing productive labor in a majorly profitable industry, yet are paid starvation wages.  and that is not just a problem for them.  taxpayers are effectively paying massive subsidies to keep these businesses functioning in this way.  the largest private employer in the united states, wal mart, costs taxpayers $0 billion per year in public assistance designed to keep its low wage workers alive, according to one estimate.  wal mart also has a huge share of the food stamp market $0 billion in sales in 0 , so they are paying such shit wages, we have to give their workers benefits to stay alive, which they will likely need to turn around and spend at wal mart for groceries, essentially allowing the company to double dip in their massive taxpayer subsidies.  for mcdonald is, $0 billion of taxpayer money goes to supporting their underpaid workers, part of the fast food industry is $0 billion annually.  and they can afford better.  the ten largest corporations were responsible for $0 billion in 0, while making $0 billion in profits after paying out $0 billion in dividends and buybacks to shareholders.  if we raise wages to a livable level, however, they wo not take it out of their profits and dividends.  they will raise prices.  that is partially the greed of the executives, but largely the greed of the stockholders.  why park your capital in a company making 0 growth when you can move it to one making 0 ? that is just self interest, and it is the motivating factor for companies to squeeze costs, including labor.  that is capitalism.   #  the former is more likely to happen than the latter.   #  no, but the market would cause it to happen.  if a skilled worker currently makes $0/hr, and the minimum wage is raised to $0/hr, why would that skilled worker continue to do a job that requires certain skills when they can do easier work for the same amount of money ? they would not, so employers would have to pay skilled workers more money to keep them around.  in your specific case you could tell your employer that you want a raise or else you are going to quit and go flip burgers at mcdonald is for a living since you would make almost the same amount of money.  then your employer could either give you a raise, or try to find a skilled worker who will work for just above minimum wage.  the former is more likely to happen than the latter.   #  let is then say that i ask for a raise from my employer, and they offer me a salary of $0 per hour.   #  have there been historic examples of this happening ? if so, this would probably change my view.  my biggest fear with what you have described is that it would give companies an excuse to underpay their skilled workers.  let is say for example that my cost of living increases by 0 due to the inflation caused by the raise in minimum wage.  let is then say that i ask for a raise from my employer, and they offer me a salary of $0 per hour.  this would be a net loss for me since my cost of living increased by 0, but my salary only increased 0.  however, $0 per hour is certainly better than $0 per hour, so i would not wish to quit and work at mcdonalds.  i feel that in this situation, i would be stuck without a good option.   #  i would therefore see a decrease in my quality of life due to a higher cost of living.   #  because in the example i gave which is based on my real life situation $0 is better than $0, but still not as good as what i should have gotten.  if the minimum wage jump causes my cost of living to go up by 0, then i would need a 0 salary increase to counter it.  however, in my example i was only offered a 0 salary increase.  it is better than nothing, but it is not good enough to counter the cost of inflation for me.  i would therefore see a decrease in my quality of life due to a higher cost of living.   #  worst case scenario is that my cost of living goes up by x%, and my salary does not change at all.   #  ugh, ok fine.  not any other numbers.  but do you think that your numbers are even remotely realistic ? i am saying that best case scenario is that my cost of living goes up by x%, and my employer increases my salary by x% to compensate.  worst case scenario is that my cost of living goes up by x%, and my salary does not change at all.  and anything in between is just different shades of bad.  i am saying that there is no realistic situation where i would see an improvement in my quality of life, and there are many situations where i would see a decrease.
ads are everywhere.  tv, radio, billboards, movies, etc.  but they add any value to society, imo all the man hours spent on advertising are lost, like digging a big hole in the forest and then filling it back in, just for the sake of creating jobs.  the only possible positive thing i can see about advertising is that it may inform a customer about a product that he may need and did not know about.  but this seems to be a flimsy justification at best.  of course, you could argue the practical limits and problematics of abolishing the advertising industry, but i am not asking about that, but about the  morality , for lack of a better word, of advertising.   i do not agree with any of the three points above.  i am sorry that i do not have more timeto discuss this individidually with every one of you, but my views are:    advertising is not good because it informs the customer what product exists.  that is a ridiculously unfair and unefficient system of informing the customer which products exist.  it is not fair that some products inform more people of their existence because they can shell out more money on ads.  i believe a better system could be implemented.    saying that you would have to pay for currently free services is not true too.  you are paying them, with your time, by watching ads.  and your time watching ads is definitely less valuable than 0$ per hour, which is min wage.  so, it is much more efficient to pay for these services by selling your time to mcdonalds/your current employer.    limiting advertisement is limiting free speech.  this one is less clear.  you can argue that limiting advertisement is limiting the actions of individuals and thus limiting free speech.  on the other hand, by limiting the speech of big companies, we are making the speech of small companies louder, which imo increases overall  free speech .  regardless, i have a utilitarianistic worldview, and so i do not really care much about limiting free speech if it provides more value to society as a whole.   #  it may inform a customer about a product that he may need and did not know about.   #  but this seems to be a flimsy justification at best how so ?  # but this seems to be a flimsy justification at best how so ? lets say a new movie comes out in the theatres and it gets no advertising at all.  how many people would show up randomly at the theatre not sure what movie to watch and then decide to watch this new movie ? not nearly as much as with advertising for sure.  and what about online shops ? they basically are made out of advertisements, the same as mail order catalogues, that would all be gone.  for that matter, even displays and shelves in stores are advertising.  all you would be left with is basically a cashier behind a blank counter who can only sell to you what you explicitely ask about.  and since you bring morals into it, what specifically about advertising is immoral ?  #  is it advertising if i am being paid to do it ?  #  how do you define advertising ? in order to ban something you have to be able to define it well enough that someone knows whether or not they are violating the ban and that the enforcers know whether or not enforcement is required.  what  is  advertising ? is it advertising to say to my friend that i really love x shampoo ? is it advertising to say so  here  ? is it advertising if i am being paid to do it ? and if so, does that make it advertising for me to say that i think the company i work for makes great products ? where is the line around advertising that makes something unacceptable and immoral advertising and not morally neutral speech ?  #  i am getting paid by my own business ?  #  suppose i am a small business owner, wanting to endorse my own product.  can i do so by posting a sign on land i own ? what if i pay someone else to build a big sign on land i own ? what if i pay someone else to build a big sign, and pay a third person to lease some land to put the sign on ? what if i make the sign myself, and pay someone to lease some land to put the sign on ? does it matter whether my business is currently profitable i. e.  i am getting paid by my own business ? suppose i am a ceo of a multinational corporation.  can i post a sign on my own land ? repeat for all the other questions above.  is anything different ? why ? now, imagine i make a highway billboard myself, and purchase the land next to the highway on which to post the billboard.  i am now not paying anyone else to advertise on this billboard.  would this be allowed ? if so, how does it make any sense to only allow people to advertise if they literally do it themselves, versus paying other people to do some of the work ?  #  why should not i be allowed to post a sign on my own land ?  #  i personally think that your idea of advertisement is not well defined.  in an ideal world, yes, advertisement should exist.  the reason is its free speech implications.  i asked all my questions to try to show that your concept of an advertisement ban is not realistic, as in you have not thought through its implications.  why should not i be allowed to post a sign on my own land ? why should not i be allowed to pay other people to do so ?  #  it should be determined by who makes the best lemonade at the best price closest to me, for which something like yelp would be a good solution.   #  i obviously understand the different meanings of free depending on its context and what it refers to in  free speech .  you define it as a lack of limitation, but you fail to see that money  is  a limitation.  if i have no money, i cannot advertise my product.  regarding the lemonade stand, yes.  this is a  difficult  example, because a lemonade stand is such an innocent 0 year old thing, but regardless, yes, it should be illegal.  the reasoning behind this is that if i want to buy lemonade close to me, that should not be determined by which lemonade stand has the most visible location and the biggest, flashiest sign.  it should be determined by who makes the best lemonade at the best price closest to me, for which something like yelp would be a good solution.  by limiting the actions of you and your lemonade stand, i am protecting the  free speech  of other, poorer lemonade stands.
today marks the 0th anniversary of the 0/0 bombings in london.  to commemorate this there has been a supposedly nation wide minute silence.  while i would not interrupt a minute silence i do think that they are arbitrary and not a good way of  showing respect .  usually they are touted as a way of remembering victims of tragedies, however as someone who lives across the country, i do not know the victims or any of their family and as a result other than the circumstances in which it happened, their deaths have little to no effect on my life.  because of this, i think it is disingenuous and borderline offensive to those close to the victims for me to pretend that i am actively upset by their deaths.  in addition to this i said that minute silences are arbitrary; millions of people have died in the ten years since, some of them in similar circumstances even yet 0 of those will go   unremembered  .  surely by not holding a minute silence for at least the people who died in terror attacks we are tacitly implying disrespect ? one could argue that it should be something carried out only in the home country of the victims which would not explain why the whole world continues to hold minute silences to commemorate 0/0.  i am not saying that there should be a blanket ban on minute silences however.  for example it recently made the news that there was a minute silence in the stadium before a football game to acknowledge the death of a fan.  i wholeheartedly support that as it shows a community either his literal, local community or the community of football fans coming together to show solidarity for someone who is death may well have personally affected many of them.  i apologise for the wall of text and any spelling mistakes due to mobile typing.  please change my view as it makes me feel like a cold and disrespectful person.   #  i wholeheartedly support that as it shows a community either his literal, local community or the community of football fans coming together to show solidarity for someone who is death may well have personally affected many of them.   #  it slightly baffles me that you support football minute silences for the quoted reason when that is more or less the exact reason we hold minute silences for tragedies such as the 0/0 bombings and 0/0.   # it slightly baffles me that you support football minute silences for the quoted reason when that is more or less the exact reason we hold minute silences for tragedies such as the 0/0 bombings and 0/0.  you do not have to know the victims or their families to have empathy for their loss and the tragic, sudden way in which it happened.  i doubt the majority of people are  actively upset  by it in the sense that they are crying and grieving over it, but when people are killed by terrorists on home soil, it definitely personally affects a lot of people.  i am not going to assume either way, but if you are old enough to remember the bombings, there was a very palpable sense of fear in britain for a while.  for years, terrorist attacks had occurred very, very far away.  now there was one right on our doorstep.  suicide attacks shifted from something that happened to other people in far away countries to something that could have happened to me, or you while we were on the bus to work.  a minute silence serves as a reminder of that.  as for them being arbitrary, well, yes and no.  if we remembered every single person who dies in tragic means with a minute silence, we would never speak again.  the reason we pick events like 0/0   0/0 shootings is that they had such a profound effect on people and on the west.  they literally changed the world.  it is the same reason we still commemorate the people who died in the world wars.  they were huge, life altering events and the people who lost their lives deserve to be remembered.   #  firstly thanks for taking the time to reply, i appreciate your comment.   #  firstly thanks for taking the time to reply, i appreciate your comment.  i must say though that i do not think remembering the world wars is comparable to terrorist attacks.  i think by commemorating the world wars, the intention is to recognise the sacrifices that people willing or unwillingly made in order to further a common cause which looking back most people agree with.  regarding the 0/0 bombings however, as you said, these were people simply going about their lives as usual without any idea of what was about to happen.  these people did not make a choice to be involved and so i do not see why their deaths incur more respect than anyone else is ?  #  that is why school shootings carry so much emotional weight.   # oddly enough, its only about the victims themselves because they are normal, every day people, just like the rest of us.  somebody somewhere was not there at that time because their alarm did not go off, or they were sick that day.  blind luck that prevents bad things from happening.  the joker is rant about  plans  kind of applies to this situation.  people die in car accidents every day, while not intentional, this is a necessary risk everyone takes to get to work.  while these deaths are a tragedy, they are accidental and ultimately expected.  we can take measures like designing safer cars and promoting safer driving practices.  terrorist attacks are fundamentally different because they are  intentional.  someone is actively trying to kill normal, every day people, just living their lives.  that is  the big deal,  that is  what makes those deaths relevant.  it is not some altruistic notion of tragedy you genuinely feel for those individuals, it is the implication that these actions have on  you .  the terrorist attacks prove that  you are  not safe anymore.  that is why school shootings carry so much emotional weight.  aside from the fact that it is children that are dying, most parents drop their kids off or seee them off on the school bus every day  knowing  their kids, parents  most valued and precious presence in their lives, are going to be safe, and they will come home at night.  school shootings challenge this notion and make parents seriously worry about whether their kids  school will be next, and if it will be them shown grieving on the local news.   #  i strongly doubt that the 0/0 bombings will be covered as much in another 0 0 years, only on major anniversaries.   #  because the ira attacks never led to this sort of scale of death.  it was a few soldiers, a few loyalists, a few policemen, and sometimes a few civilians very rarely in the double figures.  while of course this is still horrific, it is not an equal level of tragedy.  also, some of the more severe ira attacks are still remembered with a minutes silence there was one in birmingham for the victims of the pub bombings for instance , and they also happened a lot longer ago.  i strongly doubt that the 0/0 bombings will be covered as much in another 0 0 years, only on major anniversaries.   #  if someone you dislike dies, it is bad taste to say  good riddance  as much as interrupting a minute of silence, i would say .   #  i do not really now, but it is easy to imagine a spiritual origin that we still honour, like taking sundays off and overall respecting the dead.  maybe it was to wait and see if the spirit would speak ? a minute for prayer which is usually done in silence, and  everyone  prayed before .  think about it, why do we respect the dead at all ? if someone you dislike dies, it is bad taste to say  good riddance  as much as interrupting a minute of silence, i would say .
over the last few years, and especially now with the popularity of bernie sanders, a heavily debated subject is the raising of the minimum wage to $0/hour.  while many would expect this to strengthen the lower class and only decreasing the wealth of the upper class, i feel as if it would end up hurting those it is meant to help.  these company is would now have to spend much more of their budget on paying employees, and it is not as if they are going to magically have more money.  i understand that the increase of wealth in the lower class would eventually circulate back to the business is, but i highly doubt it would be enough to make up for the increased wages of their employees, and it definitely would not happen right away.  since i highly doubt the ceo or other upper management would take cuts from their pay to make up for this, that leaves two possible solutions that i can see: the first would be to decrease the amount of employees.  if approximately an equal percentage of employees are let go to the increase in pay the company will be able to function without upper management having to take a pay cut.  while those who are able to keep there jobs would be greatly helped by this, for the most part it would just increase the unemployment rate; with these lay offs happening in a large portion of minimum wag paying company is there would be no demand for jobs while the supply would be sky rocketing.  the other solution would be for the company to increase prices for retail/restaurants .  with increasing prices nobody would have to loose their job, however it would still end up hurting the lower class.  practically all people get there basic necessities and luxuries from retail and grocery stores the lower and middle classes especially rely heavily on major stores such as walmart or target.  even if your paycheck is increasing you would still end up paying more the things you already buy, taking a large chunk of your paycheck.  while ideally an increased minimum wage seems perfect, it would in reality end up creating a combination of these two things.  i am sure i did not hit on some points, so please try to change my view on this, i, as a minimum wage employee myself, would love to have a good reason to support raising it.   #  even if your paycheck is increasing you would still end up paying more the things you already buy, taking a large chunk of your paycheck.   #  the chunk could not be so large as to eliminate the gains since not everyone is earning minimum wage.   #  i feel like the problem here is that your two scenarios are overly extreme, and that you are also ignoring a third option to business: taking the minimum wage increase as a cut to profits.  to begin, though, i want to point out that the whole concept of having a minimum wage is not supposed to be justified by any kind of gain to productivity, but on the way it protects the labour force from exploitation.  if you will  only  be convinced by arguments that say that increasing the minimum wage is economically  a good thing , rather than a less bad thing than you are imagining, you simply are not going to have your view changed.  anyway:   the first would be to decrease the amount of employees.  this might be true if the us had a problem with unemployment at the moment.  with an unemployment rate of 0, it does not: 0 percent is considered slightly below  full employment , on a macroeconomic scale.  essentially, this means that the us has more than enough jobs for everybody.  because there are more jobs than people, it is going to be incredibly difficult for business to cut employees on the scale you are talking about.  also keep in mind that the only employees at risk are those whose contribution to the efficiency of the business is between their current wage and $0/hour, which is not going to be very many people at all.  the chunk could not be so large as to eliminate the gains since not everyone is earning minimum wage.  also, in the long term, you would expect  everyone is  wage to increase due to an increase in minimum wage, which would eventually even out the losses to any increase in prices although, obviously, the people losing the most are those who earn the most, since their wages are the least affected beyond this, though, you have failed to mention that it is likely that most businesses will respond through a combination of increasing prices and taking a hit to their profits, since this is the only really competitive strategy: they ca not  all  soak up 0 of the increased expenses by increasing prices, since then larger firms could easily take the cut to their immediate profits in order to better compete on price, which would be in their long term best interests if everyone else is prices were increasing.   #  cost of living does go up when you raise the minimum wage.   #  cost of living does go up when you raise the minimum wage.  but that increase has been less than the amount that the wages are raised every single time they have raised the minimum wage.  they have always netted more buying power for the lower and middle classes.  also, historically raising the minimum wage has never prompted massive job cuts as opponents always claim it will.  the employers are already operating at minimum number of employees if they are doing their jobs correctly, and the increased buying power of the lower class has statistically shown an increase in net gains for companies, not a loss.  the rich when they get money lock it away in the stock market or long term investments, the poor actively spend it in the economy to buy food and goods.   #  see  minimum wages and employment: a review of evidence from the new minimum wage research  URL by economists david neumark and william wascher.   #  also look into the various ways minimum wage can cause unemployment like reduced hiring rates.  see  minimum wages and employment: a review of evidence from the new minimum wage research  URL by economists david neumark and william wascher.  taken from the abstract:   a sizable majority of the studies surveyed in this monograph give a relatively consistent although not always statistically significant indication of negative employment effects of minimum wages.  in addition, among the papers we view as providing the most credible evidence, almost all point to negative employment effects, both for the united states as well as for many other countries.    they also wrote a book, detailing their review of decades worth of evidence, called minimum wages URL  #  there is an amount of a good a company can produce that will result in the highest profits.   #  hypothetical and heavily simplified example: minimum wage increases from $0/hr to $0/hr.  a handbag company raises their price per handbag from $0 to $0 to offset the increase in labor costs.  other costs stay the same, so it is not a proportional increase.  their average customer previously bought 0 handbags per year at $0 each, but will only buy 0 handbags per year at $0 each.  the company now sells 0 fewer handbags, and so can fire 0 of their handbag makers.  basically, raising the price of labor increases the cost of goods.  however, demand for a good depends on its cost.  there is an amount of a good a company can produce that will result in the highest profits.  this amount is determined by production costs and demand.  lower demand lowers this amount.  higher price leads to lower demand, leads to less output.   #  i pointed out that raising minimum wage can cause an employer is demand to drop, which can cause them to cut production and jobs.   #  no, but that is not what i am arguing.  the only thing i was ever responding to was /u/cdb0b saying that employers would not cut jobs because they are already operating as efficiently as possible.  i pointed out that raising minimum wage can cause an employer is demand to drop, which can cause them to cut production and jobs.  i am not making a broader point about how it will affect the market as a whole, and i think raising minimum wage would be a good thing.  i do not know if $0/hr is too much; i am not a fucking economist.  i think i need to be clearer in the future when i counter particular points of a post, especially when i agree with the majority of the argument.
over the last few years, and especially now with the popularity of bernie sanders, a heavily debated subject is the raising of the minimum wage to $0/hour.  while many would expect this to strengthen the lower class and only decreasing the wealth of the upper class, i feel as if it would end up hurting those it is meant to help.  these company is would now have to spend much more of their budget on paying employees, and it is not as if they are going to magically have more money.  i understand that the increase of wealth in the lower class would eventually circulate back to the business is, but i highly doubt it would be enough to make up for the increased wages of their employees, and it definitely would not happen right away.  since i highly doubt the ceo or other upper management would take cuts from their pay to make up for this, that leaves two possible solutions that i can see: the first would be to decrease the amount of employees.  if approximately an equal percentage of employees are let go to the increase in pay the company will be able to function without upper management having to take a pay cut.  while those who are able to keep there jobs would be greatly helped by this, for the most part it would just increase the unemployment rate; with these lay offs happening in a large portion of minimum wag paying company is there would be no demand for jobs while the supply would be sky rocketing.  the other solution would be for the company to increase prices for retail/restaurants .  with increasing prices nobody would have to loose their job, however it would still end up hurting the lower class.  practically all people get there basic necessities and luxuries from retail and grocery stores the lower and middle classes especially rely heavily on major stores such as walmart or target.  even if your paycheck is increasing you would still end up paying more the things you already buy, taking a large chunk of your paycheck.  while ideally an increased minimum wage seems perfect, it would in reality end up creating a combination of these two things.  i am sure i did not hit on some points, so please try to change my view on this, i, as a minimum wage employee myself, would love to have a good reason to support raising it.   #  the other solution would be for the company to increase prices for retail/restaurants .   #  this can happen, but consider what portion of a business  costs are labor, and consider how many products they could distribute that cost through, it is usually very minimal.   # some people gain, others lose.  the aim for any policy is that on net, the gains outweigh the losses, that the policy is welfare maximizing.  partly from people who view the mw as having no consequences, but also as a bargaining tool aiming high makes settling lower seem more reasonable .  this historically does not really happen.  companies already tend to operate on as few staff as possible to run efficiently, so it is rarely an option.  typically, the increase in labor costs is distributed through other means hiring better employees, slowing expansion growth, etc .  one interesting real life example was that of a mall that was located across a border.  one side ended up raising the mw wage, so basically half the mall paid higher wages than the other half.  the end result was all the best employees ending up on the high mw side, and all the worst employees end up on the low mw side as well as those stores struggling to find workers since all wanted to work only on the high mw side .  this can happen, but consider what portion of a business  costs are labor, and consider how many products they could distribute that cost through, it is usually very minimal.  fast food, which is very labor intensive, only increases prices by 0 per 0 increase in the minimum wage.  URL here is the thing, as a policy the mw is pretty bad at achieving the goals it sets out reducing poverty, strengthening the middle class, etc .  this is for a variety of reasons, one of which it is failure to efficiently target the poor.  there are better options out there, but they are not politically palatable.  as i said before, $0 is unrealistic, but dube has done extensive work and it does seem that current levels are below what would be socially optimal.  take a look here, designing thoughtful minimum wage policy at the state and local levels URL an increase too high would definitely hurt, but modest increases set regionally would be almost entirely purely beneficial.   #  but that increase has been less than the amount that the wages are raised every single time they have raised the minimum wage.   #  cost of living does go up when you raise the minimum wage.  but that increase has been less than the amount that the wages are raised every single time they have raised the minimum wage.  they have always netted more buying power for the lower and middle classes.  also, historically raising the minimum wage has never prompted massive job cuts as opponents always claim it will.  the employers are already operating at minimum number of employees if they are doing their jobs correctly, and the increased buying power of the lower class has statistically shown an increase in net gains for companies, not a loss.  the rich when they get money lock it away in the stock market or long term investments, the poor actively spend it in the economy to buy food and goods.   #  taken from the abstract:   a sizable majority of the studies surveyed in this monograph give a relatively consistent although not always statistically significant indication of negative employment effects of minimum wages.   #  also look into the various ways minimum wage can cause unemployment like reduced hiring rates.  see  minimum wages and employment: a review of evidence from the new minimum wage research  URL by economists david neumark and william wascher.  taken from the abstract:   a sizable majority of the studies surveyed in this monograph give a relatively consistent although not always statistically significant indication of negative employment effects of minimum wages.  in addition, among the papers we view as providing the most credible evidence, almost all point to negative employment effects, both for the united states as well as for many other countries.    they also wrote a book, detailing their review of decades worth of evidence, called minimum wages URL  #  however, demand for a good depends on its cost.   #  hypothetical and heavily simplified example: minimum wage increases from $0/hr to $0/hr.  a handbag company raises their price per handbag from $0 to $0 to offset the increase in labor costs.  other costs stay the same, so it is not a proportional increase.  their average customer previously bought 0 handbags per year at $0 each, but will only buy 0 handbags per year at $0 each.  the company now sells 0 fewer handbags, and so can fire 0 of their handbag makers.  basically, raising the price of labor increases the cost of goods.  however, demand for a good depends on its cost.  there is an amount of a good a company can produce that will result in the highest profits.  this amount is determined by production costs and demand.  lower demand lowers this amount.  higher price leads to lower demand, leads to less output.   #  i think i need to be clearer in the future when i counter particular points of a post, especially when i agree with the majority of the argument.   #  no, but that is not what i am arguing.  the only thing i was ever responding to was /u/cdb0b saying that employers would not cut jobs because they are already operating as efficiently as possible.  i pointed out that raising minimum wage can cause an employer is demand to drop, which can cause them to cut production and jobs.  i am not making a broader point about how it will affect the market as a whole, and i think raising minimum wage would be a good thing.  i do not know if $0/hr is too much; i am not a fucking economist.  i think i need to be clearer in the future when i counter particular points of a post, especially when i agree with the majority of the argument.
over the last few years, and especially now with the popularity of bernie sanders, a heavily debated subject is the raising of the minimum wage to $0/hour.  while many would expect this to strengthen the lower class and only decreasing the wealth of the upper class, i feel as if it would end up hurting those it is meant to help.  these company is would now have to spend much more of their budget on paying employees, and it is not as if they are going to magically have more money.  i understand that the increase of wealth in the lower class would eventually circulate back to the business is, but i highly doubt it would be enough to make up for the increased wages of their employees, and it definitely would not happen right away.  since i highly doubt the ceo or other upper management would take cuts from their pay to make up for this, that leaves two possible solutions that i can see: the first would be to decrease the amount of employees.  if approximately an equal percentage of employees are let go to the increase in pay the company will be able to function without upper management having to take a pay cut.  while those who are able to keep there jobs would be greatly helped by this, for the most part it would just increase the unemployment rate; with these lay offs happening in a large portion of minimum wag paying company is there would be no demand for jobs while the supply would be sky rocketing.  the other solution would be for the company to increase prices for retail/restaurants .  with increasing prices nobody would have to loose their job, however it would still end up hurting the lower class.  practically all people get there basic necessities and luxuries from retail and grocery stores the lower and middle classes especially rely heavily on major stores such as walmart or target.  even if your paycheck is increasing you would still end up paying more the things you already buy, taking a large chunk of your paycheck.  while ideally an increased minimum wage seems perfect, it would in reality end up creating a combination of these two things.  i am sure i did not hit on some points, so please try to change my view on this, i, as a minimum wage employee myself, would love to have a good reason to support raising it.   #  these company is would now have to spend much more of their budget on paying employees, and it is not as if they are going to magically have more money.   #  payroll expense is typically in the 0 0 range of a companies budget.   # payroll expense is typically in the 0 0 range of a companies budget.  most places especially urban areas where the $0/hour is getting the most traction are already paying above $0 minimum.  the most likely scenario would be your payroll expenses going up 0 0 from their existing levels, so now you payroll is 0 of your expenses, instead of 0.  a bit of a shock, but seeing as every wage hike plans to do it over the course of a few years, you can easily compensate for that increase with modest price increase to raise your revenues.  if approximately an equal percentage of employees are let go to the increase in pay the company will be able to function without upper management having to take a pay cut.  businesses are already operating with as few employee is as possible.  rare is the actual charity case where somebody has a job for no reason.  cutting your workforce would just hurt the business, since your productivity would very likely drop.  with increasing prices nobody would have to loose their job, however it would still end up hurting the lower class.  no, because it is not going to be a straight 0 to 0 price hike.  most likely it would be in the 0 0 range.  so something that was $0, is now going to be $0 or $0.  yes, that is more expensive than before.  but when i was making $0 and now i am making $0, i just got a 0 raise in pay; i can afford that increase and i am still much better off.  realize that wages are just a portion of the expenses of running a business.  they have to pay rent on the building, pay for utilities, insurance, raw materials, etc.   #  cost of living does go up when you raise the minimum wage.   #  cost of living does go up when you raise the minimum wage.  but that increase has been less than the amount that the wages are raised every single time they have raised the minimum wage.  they have always netted more buying power for the lower and middle classes.  also, historically raising the minimum wage has never prompted massive job cuts as opponents always claim it will.  the employers are already operating at minimum number of employees if they are doing their jobs correctly, and the increased buying power of the lower class has statistically shown an increase in net gains for companies, not a loss.  the rich when they get money lock it away in the stock market or long term investments, the poor actively spend it in the economy to buy food and goods.   #  taken from the abstract:   a sizable majority of the studies surveyed in this monograph give a relatively consistent although not always statistically significant indication of negative employment effects of minimum wages.   #  also look into the various ways minimum wage can cause unemployment like reduced hiring rates.  see  minimum wages and employment: a review of evidence from the new minimum wage research  URL by economists david neumark and william wascher.  taken from the abstract:   a sizable majority of the studies surveyed in this monograph give a relatively consistent although not always statistically significant indication of negative employment effects of minimum wages.  in addition, among the papers we view as providing the most credible evidence, almost all point to negative employment effects, both for the united states as well as for many other countries.    they also wrote a book, detailing their review of decades worth of evidence, called minimum wages URL  #  their average customer previously bought 0 handbags per year at $0 each, but will only buy 0 handbags per year at $0 each.   #  hypothetical and heavily simplified example: minimum wage increases from $0/hr to $0/hr.  a handbag company raises their price per handbag from $0 to $0 to offset the increase in labor costs.  other costs stay the same, so it is not a proportional increase.  their average customer previously bought 0 handbags per year at $0 each, but will only buy 0 handbags per year at $0 each.  the company now sells 0 fewer handbags, and so can fire 0 of their handbag makers.  basically, raising the price of labor increases the cost of goods.  however, demand for a good depends on its cost.  there is an amount of a good a company can produce that will result in the highest profits.  this amount is determined by production costs and demand.  lower demand lowers this amount.  higher price leads to lower demand, leads to less output.   #  i am not making a broader point about how it will affect the market as a whole, and i think raising minimum wage would be a good thing.   #  no, but that is not what i am arguing.  the only thing i was ever responding to was /u/cdb0b saying that employers would not cut jobs because they are already operating as efficiently as possible.  i pointed out that raising minimum wage can cause an employer is demand to drop, which can cause them to cut production and jobs.  i am not making a broader point about how it will affect the market as a whole, and i think raising minimum wage would be a good thing.  i do not know if $0/hr is too much; i am not a fucking economist.  i think i need to be clearer in the future when i counter particular points of a post, especially when i agree with the majority of the argument.
over the last few years, and especially now with the popularity of bernie sanders, a heavily debated subject is the raising of the minimum wage to $0/hour.  while many would expect this to strengthen the lower class and only decreasing the wealth of the upper class, i feel as if it would end up hurting those it is meant to help.  these company is would now have to spend much more of their budget on paying employees, and it is not as if they are going to magically have more money.  i understand that the increase of wealth in the lower class would eventually circulate back to the business is, but i highly doubt it would be enough to make up for the increased wages of their employees, and it definitely would not happen right away.  since i highly doubt the ceo or other upper management would take cuts from their pay to make up for this, that leaves two possible solutions that i can see: the first would be to decrease the amount of employees.  if approximately an equal percentage of employees are let go to the increase in pay the company will be able to function without upper management having to take a pay cut.  while those who are able to keep there jobs would be greatly helped by this, for the most part it would just increase the unemployment rate; with these lay offs happening in a large portion of minimum wag paying company is there would be no demand for jobs while the supply would be sky rocketing.  the other solution would be for the company to increase prices for retail/restaurants .  with increasing prices nobody would have to loose their job, however it would still end up hurting the lower class.  practically all people get there basic necessities and luxuries from retail and grocery stores the lower and middle classes especially rely heavily on major stores such as walmart or target.  even if your paycheck is increasing you would still end up paying more the things you already buy, taking a large chunk of your paycheck.  while ideally an increased minimum wage seems perfect, it would in reality end up creating a combination of these two things.  i am sure i did not hit on some points, so please try to change my view on this, i, as a minimum wage employee myself, would love to have a good reason to support raising it.   #  the first would be to decrease the amount of employees.   #  if approximately an equal percentage of employees are let go to the increase in pay the company will be able to function without upper management having to take a pay cut.   # payroll expense is typically in the 0 0 range of a companies budget.  most places especially urban areas where the $0/hour is getting the most traction are already paying above $0 minimum.  the most likely scenario would be your payroll expenses going up 0 0 from their existing levels, so now you payroll is 0 of your expenses, instead of 0.  a bit of a shock, but seeing as every wage hike plans to do it over the course of a few years, you can easily compensate for that increase with modest price increase to raise your revenues.  if approximately an equal percentage of employees are let go to the increase in pay the company will be able to function without upper management having to take a pay cut.  businesses are already operating with as few employee is as possible.  rare is the actual charity case where somebody has a job for no reason.  cutting your workforce would just hurt the business, since your productivity would very likely drop.  with increasing prices nobody would have to loose their job, however it would still end up hurting the lower class.  no, because it is not going to be a straight 0 to 0 price hike.  most likely it would be in the 0 0 range.  so something that was $0, is now going to be $0 or $0.  yes, that is more expensive than before.  but when i was making $0 and now i am making $0, i just got a 0 raise in pay; i can afford that increase and i am still much better off.  realize that wages are just a portion of the expenses of running a business.  they have to pay rent on the building, pay for utilities, insurance, raw materials, etc.   #  but that increase has been less than the amount that the wages are raised every single time they have raised the minimum wage.   #  cost of living does go up when you raise the minimum wage.  but that increase has been less than the amount that the wages are raised every single time they have raised the minimum wage.  they have always netted more buying power for the lower and middle classes.  also, historically raising the minimum wage has never prompted massive job cuts as opponents always claim it will.  the employers are already operating at minimum number of employees if they are doing their jobs correctly, and the increased buying power of the lower class has statistically shown an increase in net gains for companies, not a loss.  the rich when they get money lock it away in the stock market or long term investments, the poor actively spend it in the economy to buy food and goods.   #  taken from the abstract:   a sizable majority of the studies surveyed in this monograph give a relatively consistent although not always statistically significant indication of negative employment effects of minimum wages.   #  also look into the various ways minimum wage can cause unemployment like reduced hiring rates.  see  minimum wages and employment: a review of evidence from the new minimum wage research  URL by economists david neumark and william wascher.  taken from the abstract:   a sizable majority of the studies surveyed in this monograph give a relatively consistent although not always statistically significant indication of negative employment effects of minimum wages.  in addition, among the papers we view as providing the most credible evidence, almost all point to negative employment effects, both for the united states as well as for many other countries.    they also wrote a book, detailing their review of decades worth of evidence, called minimum wages URL  #  a handbag company raises their price per handbag from $0 to $0 to offset the increase in labor costs.   #  hypothetical and heavily simplified example: minimum wage increases from $0/hr to $0/hr.  a handbag company raises their price per handbag from $0 to $0 to offset the increase in labor costs.  other costs stay the same, so it is not a proportional increase.  their average customer previously bought 0 handbags per year at $0 each, but will only buy 0 handbags per year at $0 each.  the company now sells 0 fewer handbags, and so can fire 0 of their handbag makers.  basically, raising the price of labor increases the cost of goods.  however, demand for a good depends on its cost.  there is an amount of a good a company can produce that will result in the highest profits.  this amount is determined by production costs and demand.  lower demand lowers this amount.  higher price leads to lower demand, leads to less output.   #  i am not making a broader point about how it will affect the market as a whole, and i think raising minimum wage would be a good thing.   #  no, but that is not what i am arguing.  the only thing i was ever responding to was /u/cdb0b saying that employers would not cut jobs because they are already operating as efficiently as possible.  i pointed out that raising minimum wage can cause an employer is demand to drop, which can cause them to cut production and jobs.  i am not making a broader point about how it will affect the market as a whole, and i think raising minimum wage would be a good thing.  i do not know if $0/hr is too much; i am not a fucking economist.  i think i need to be clearer in the future when i counter particular points of a post, especially when i agree with the majority of the argument.
over the last few years, and especially now with the popularity of bernie sanders, a heavily debated subject is the raising of the minimum wage to $0/hour.  while many would expect this to strengthen the lower class and only decreasing the wealth of the upper class, i feel as if it would end up hurting those it is meant to help.  these company is would now have to spend much more of their budget on paying employees, and it is not as if they are going to magically have more money.  i understand that the increase of wealth in the lower class would eventually circulate back to the business is, but i highly doubt it would be enough to make up for the increased wages of their employees, and it definitely would not happen right away.  since i highly doubt the ceo or other upper management would take cuts from their pay to make up for this, that leaves two possible solutions that i can see: the first would be to decrease the amount of employees.  if approximately an equal percentage of employees are let go to the increase in pay the company will be able to function without upper management having to take a pay cut.  while those who are able to keep there jobs would be greatly helped by this, for the most part it would just increase the unemployment rate; with these lay offs happening in a large portion of minimum wag paying company is there would be no demand for jobs while the supply would be sky rocketing.  the other solution would be for the company to increase prices for retail/restaurants .  with increasing prices nobody would have to loose their job, however it would still end up hurting the lower class.  practically all people get there basic necessities and luxuries from retail and grocery stores the lower and middle classes especially rely heavily on major stores such as walmart or target.  even if your paycheck is increasing you would still end up paying more the things you already buy, taking a large chunk of your paycheck.  while ideally an increased minimum wage seems perfect, it would in reality end up creating a combination of these two things.  i am sure i did not hit on some points, so please try to change my view on this, i, as a minimum wage employee myself, would love to have a good reason to support raising it.   #  the other solution would be for the company to increase prices for retail/restaurants .   #  with increasing prices nobody would have to loose their job, however it would still end up hurting the lower class.   # payroll expense is typically in the 0 0 range of a companies budget.  most places especially urban areas where the $0/hour is getting the most traction are already paying above $0 minimum.  the most likely scenario would be your payroll expenses going up 0 0 from their existing levels, so now you payroll is 0 of your expenses, instead of 0.  a bit of a shock, but seeing as every wage hike plans to do it over the course of a few years, you can easily compensate for that increase with modest price increase to raise your revenues.  if approximately an equal percentage of employees are let go to the increase in pay the company will be able to function without upper management having to take a pay cut.  businesses are already operating with as few employee is as possible.  rare is the actual charity case where somebody has a job for no reason.  cutting your workforce would just hurt the business, since your productivity would very likely drop.  with increasing prices nobody would have to loose their job, however it would still end up hurting the lower class.  no, because it is not going to be a straight 0 to 0 price hike.  most likely it would be in the 0 0 range.  so something that was $0, is now going to be $0 or $0.  yes, that is more expensive than before.  but when i was making $0 and now i am making $0, i just got a 0 raise in pay; i can afford that increase and i am still much better off.  realize that wages are just a portion of the expenses of running a business.  they have to pay rent on the building, pay for utilities, insurance, raw materials, etc.   #  they have always netted more buying power for the lower and middle classes.   #  cost of living does go up when you raise the minimum wage.  but that increase has been less than the amount that the wages are raised every single time they have raised the minimum wage.  they have always netted more buying power for the lower and middle classes.  also, historically raising the minimum wage has never prompted massive job cuts as opponents always claim it will.  the employers are already operating at minimum number of employees if they are doing their jobs correctly, and the increased buying power of the lower class has statistically shown an increase in net gains for companies, not a loss.  the rich when they get money lock it away in the stock market or long term investments, the poor actively spend it in the economy to buy food and goods.   #  in addition, among the papers we view as providing the most credible evidence, almost all point to negative employment effects, both for the united states as well as for many other countries.     #  also look into the various ways minimum wage can cause unemployment like reduced hiring rates.  see  minimum wages and employment: a review of evidence from the new minimum wage research  URL by economists david neumark and william wascher.  taken from the abstract:   a sizable majority of the studies surveyed in this monograph give a relatively consistent although not always statistically significant indication of negative employment effects of minimum wages.  in addition, among the papers we view as providing the most credible evidence, almost all point to negative employment effects, both for the united states as well as for many other countries.    they also wrote a book, detailing their review of decades worth of evidence, called minimum wages URL  #  this amount is determined by production costs and demand.   #  hypothetical and heavily simplified example: minimum wage increases from $0/hr to $0/hr.  a handbag company raises their price per handbag from $0 to $0 to offset the increase in labor costs.  other costs stay the same, so it is not a proportional increase.  their average customer previously bought 0 handbags per year at $0 each, but will only buy 0 handbags per year at $0 each.  the company now sells 0 fewer handbags, and so can fire 0 of their handbag makers.  basically, raising the price of labor increases the cost of goods.  however, demand for a good depends on its cost.  there is an amount of a good a company can produce that will result in the highest profits.  this amount is determined by production costs and demand.  lower demand lowers this amount.  higher price leads to lower demand, leads to less output.   #  i am not making a broader point about how it will affect the market as a whole, and i think raising minimum wage would be a good thing.   #  no, but that is not what i am arguing.  the only thing i was ever responding to was /u/cdb0b saying that employers would not cut jobs because they are already operating as efficiently as possible.  i pointed out that raising minimum wage can cause an employer is demand to drop, which can cause them to cut production and jobs.  i am not making a broader point about how it will affect the market as a whole, and i think raising minimum wage would be a good thing.  i do not know if $0/hr is too much; i am not a fucking economist.  i think i need to be clearer in the future when i counter particular points of a post, especially when i agree with the majority of the argument.
over the last few years, and especially now with the popularity of bernie sanders, a heavily debated subject is the raising of the minimum wage to $0/hour.  while many would expect this to strengthen the lower class and only decreasing the wealth of the upper class, i feel as if it would end up hurting those it is meant to help.  these company is would now have to spend much more of their budget on paying employees, and it is not as if they are going to magically have more money.  i understand that the increase of wealth in the lower class would eventually circulate back to the business is, but i highly doubt it would be enough to make up for the increased wages of their employees, and it definitely would not happen right away.  since i highly doubt the ceo or other upper management would take cuts from their pay to make up for this, that leaves two possible solutions that i can see: the first would be to decrease the amount of employees.  if approximately an equal percentage of employees are let go to the increase in pay the company will be able to function without upper management having to take a pay cut.  while those who are able to keep there jobs would be greatly helped by this, for the most part it would just increase the unemployment rate; with these lay offs happening in a large portion of minimum wag paying company is there would be no demand for jobs while the supply would be sky rocketing.  the other solution would be for the company to increase prices for retail/restaurants .  with increasing prices nobody would have to loose their job, however it would still end up hurting the lower class.  practically all people get there basic necessities and luxuries from retail and grocery stores the lower and middle classes especially rely heavily on major stores such as walmart or target.  even if your paycheck is increasing you would still end up paying more the things you already buy, taking a large chunk of your paycheck.  while ideally an increased minimum wage seems perfect, it would in reality end up creating a combination of these two things.  i am sure i did not hit on some points, so please try to change my view on this, i, as a minimum wage employee myself, would love to have a good reason to support raising it.   #  as a minimum wage employee myself, would love to have a good reason to support raising it.   #  realize that wages are just a portion of the expenses of running a business.   # payroll expense is typically in the 0 0 range of a companies budget.  most places especially urban areas where the $0/hour is getting the most traction are already paying above $0 minimum.  the most likely scenario would be your payroll expenses going up 0 0 from their existing levels, so now you payroll is 0 of your expenses, instead of 0.  a bit of a shock, but seeing as every wage hike plans to do it over the course of a few years, you can easily compensate for that increase with modest price increase to raise your revenues.  if approximately an equal percentage of employees are let go to the increase in pay the company will be able to function without upper management having to take a pay cut.  businesses are already operating with as few employee is as possible.  rare is the actual charity case where somebody has a job for no reason.  cutting your workforce would just hurt the business, since your productivity would very likely drop.  with increasing prices nobody would have to loose their job, however it would still end up hurting the lower class.  no, because it is not going to be a straight 0 to 0 price hike.  most likely it would be in the 0 0 range.  so something that was $0, is now going to be $0 or $0.  yes, that is more expensive than before.  but when i was making $0 and now i am making $0, i just got a 0 raise in pay; i can afford that increase and i am still much better off.  realize that wages are just a portion of the expenses of running a business.  they have to pay rent on the building, pay for utilities, insurance, raw materials, etc.   #  but that increase has been less than the amount that the wages are raised every single time they have raised the minimum wage.   #  cost of living does go up when you raise the minimum wage.  but that increase has been less than the amount that the wages are raised every single time they have raised the minimum wage.  they have always netted more buying power for the lower and middle classes.  also, historically raising the minimum wage has never prompted massive job cuts as opponents always claim it will.  the employers are already operating at minimum number of employees if they are doing their jobs correctly, and the increased buying power of the lower class has statistically shown an increase in net gains for companies, not a loss.  the rich when they get money lock it away in the stock market or long term investments, the poor actively spend it in the economy to buy food and goods.   #  in addition, among the papers we view as providing the most credible evidence, almost all point to negative employment effects, both for the united states as well as for many other countries.     #  also look into the various ways minimum wage can cause unemployment like reduced hiring rates.  see  minimum wages and employment: a review of evidence from the new minimum wage research  URL by economists david neumark and william wascher.  taken from the abstract:   a sizable majority of the studies surveyed in this monograph give a relatively consistent although not always statistically significant indication of negative employment effects of minimum wages.  in addition, among the papers we view as providing the most credible evidence, almost all point to negative employment effects, both for the united states as well as for many other countries.    they also wrote a book, detailing their review of decades worth of evidence, called minimum wages URL  #  other costs stay the same, so it is not a proportional increase.   #  hypothetical and heavily simplified example: minimum wage increases from $0/hr to $0/hr.  a handbag company raises their price per handbag from $0 to $0 to offset the increase in labor costs.  other costs stay the same, so it is not a proportional increase.  their average customer previously bought 0 handbags per year at $0 each, but will only buy 0 handbags per year at $0 each.  the company now sells 0 fewer handbags, and so can fire 0 of their handbag makers.  basically, raising the price of labor increases the cost of goods.  however, demand for a good depends on its cost.  there is an amount of a good a company can produce that will result in the highest profits.  this amount is determined by production costs and demand.  lower demand lowers this amount.  higher price leads to lower demand, leads to less output.   #  the only thing i was ever responding to was /u/cdb0b saying that employers would not cut jobs because they are already operating as efficiently as possible.   #  no, but that is not what i am arguing.  the only thing i was ever responding to was /u/cdb0b saying that employers would not cut jobs because they are already operating as efficiently as possible.  i pointed out that raising minimum wage can cause an employer is demand to drop, which can cause them to cut production and jobs.  i am not making a broader point about how it will affect the market as a whole, and i think raising minimum wage would be a good thing.  i do not know if $0/hr is too much; i am not a fucking economist.  i think i need to be clearer in the future when i counter particular points of a post, especially when i agree with the majority of the argument.
over the last few years, and especially now with the popularity of bernie sanders, a heavily debated subject is the raising of the minimum wage to $0/hour.  while many would expect this to strengthen the lower class and only decreasing the wealth of the upper class, i feel as if it would end up hurting those it is meant to help.  these company is would now have to spend much more of their budget on paying employees, and it is not as if they are going to magically have more money.  i understand that the increase of wealth in the lower class would eventually circulate back to the business is, but i highly doubt it would be enough to make up for the increased wages of their employees, and it definitely would not happen right away.  since i highly doubt the ceo or other upper management would take cuts from their pay to make up for this, that leaves two possible solutions that i can see: the first would be to decrease the amount of employees.  if approximately an equal percentage of employees are let go to the increase in pay the company will be able to function without upper management having to take a pay cut.  while those who are able to keep there jobs would be greatly helped by this, for the most part it would just increase the unemployment rate; with these lay offs happening in a large portion of minimum wag paying company is there would be no demand for jobs while the supply would be sky rocketing.  the other solution would be for the company to increase prices for retail/restaurants .  with increasing prices nobody would have to loose their job, however it would still end up hurting the lower class.  practically all people get there basic necessities and luxuries from retail and grocery stores the lower and middle classes especially rely heavily on major stores such as walmart or target.  even if your paycheck is increasing you would still end up paying more the things you already buy, taking a large chunk of your paycheck.  while ideally an increased minimum wage seems perfect, it would in reality end up creating a combination of these two things.  i am sure i did not hit on some points, so please try to change my view on this, i, as a minimum wage employee myself, would love to have a good reason to support raising it.   #  the first would be to decrease the amount of employees.   #  URL URL URL there is extensive evidence from numerous studies that increases in the minimum wage in the usa and the uk and australlia do not increase unemployement.   # URL URL URL there is extensive evidence from numerous studies that increases in the minimum wage in the usa and the uk and australlia do not increase unemployement.  why is this ? URL productivity, thanks to technology and hard working people has surged and businesses have a lot more spare capacity.  obviously extreme minimum wage surges would hit productivity, but people mostly are not proposing 0 dollar an hour minimum wage.  URL a 0 increase in the minimum wage only led to a 0 increase in prices.  so, businesses respond to increases in minimum wage with a small increase in prices, what is necessary to offset the little they pay their lowly paid workers.  you are not being paid much compared to your value most likely, and businesses are making bank off your labour.  they can afford to pay you a decent wage and it would not hurt you much.  they just do not want to.   #  they have always netted more buying power for the lower and middle classes.   #  cost of living does go up when you raise the minimum wage.  but that increase has been less than the amount that the wages are raised every single time they have raised the minimum wage.  they have always netted more buying power for the lower and middle classes.  also, historically raising the minimum wage has never prompted massive job cuts as opponents always claim it will.  the employers are already operating at minimum number of employees if they are doing their jobs correctly, and the increased buying power of the lower class has statistically shown an increase in net gains for companies, not a loss.  the rich when they get money lock it away in the stock market or long term investments, the poor actively spend it in the economy to buy food and goods.   #  taken from the abstract:   a sizable majority of the studies surveyed in this monograph give a relatively consistent although not always statistically significant indication of negative employment effects of minimum wages.   #  also look into the various ways minimum wage can cause unemployment like reduced hiring rates.  see  minimum wages and employment: a review of evidence from the new minimum wage research  URL by economists david neumark and william wascher.  taken from the abstract:   a sizable majority of the studies surveyed in this monograph give a relatively consistent although not always statistically significant indication of negative employment effects of minimum wages.  in addition, among the papers we view as providing the most credible evidence, almost all point to negative employment effects, both for the united states as well as for many other countries.    they also wrote a book, detailing their review of decades worth of evidence, called minimum wages URL  #  the company now sells 0 fewer handbags, and so can fire 0 of their handbag makers.   #  hypothetical and heavily simplified example: minimum wage increases from $0/hr to $0/hr.  a handbag company raises their price per handbag from $0 to $0 to offset the increase in labor costs.  other costs stay the same, so it is not a proportional increase.  their average customer previously bought 0 handbags per year at $0 each, but will only buy 0 handbags per year at $0 each.  the company now sells 0 fewer handbags, and so can fire 0 of their handbag makers.  basically, raising the price of labor increases the cost of goods.  however, demand for a good depends on its cost.  there is an amount of a good a company can produce that will result in the highest profits.  this amount is determined by production costs and demand.  lower demand lowers this amount.  higher price leads to lower demand, leads to less output.   #  i pointed out that raising minimum wage can cause an employer is demand to drop, which can cause them to cut production and jobs.   #  no, but that is not what i am arguing.  the only thing i was ever responding to was /u/cdb0b saying that employers would not cut jobs because they are already operating as efficiently as possible.  i pointed out that raising minimum wage can cause an employer is demand to drop, which can cause them to cut production and jobs.  i am not making a broader point about how it will affect the market as a whole, and i think raising minimum wage would be a good thing.  i do not know if $0/hr is too much; i am not a fucking economist.  i think i need to be clearer in the future when i counter particular points of a post, especially when i agree with the majority of the argument.
over the last few years, and especially now with the popularity of bernie sanders, a heavily debated subject is the raising of the minimum wage to $0/hour.  while many would expect this to strengthen the lower class and only decreasing the wealth of the upper class, i feel as if it would end up hurting those it is meant to help.  these company is would now have to spend much more of their budget on paying employees, and it is not as if they are going to magically have more money.  i understand that the increase of wealth in the lower class would eventually circulate back to the business is, but i highly doubt it would be enough to make up for the increased wages of their employees, and it definitely would not happen right away.  since i highly doubt the ceo or other upper management would take cuts from their pay to make up for this, that leaves two possible solutions that i can see: the first would be to decrease the amount of employees.  if approximately an equal percentage of employees are let go to the increase in pay the company will be able to function without upper management having to take a pay cut.  while those who are able to keep there jobs would be greatly helped by this, for the most part it would just increase the unemployment rate; with these lay offs happening in a large portion of minimum wag paying company is there would be no demand for jobs while the supply would be sky rocketing.  the other solution would be for the company to increase prices for retail/restaurants .  with increasing prices nobody would have to loose their job, however it would still end up hurting the lower class.  practically all people get there basic necessities and luxuries from retail and grocery stores the lower and middle classes especially rely heavily on major stores such as walmart or target.  even if your paycheck is increasing you would still end up paying more the things you already buy, taking a large chunk of your paycheck.  while ideally an increased minimum wage seems perfect, it would in reality end up creating a combination of these two things.  i am sure i did not hit on some points, so please try to change my view on this, i, as a minimum wage employee myself, would love to have a good reason to support raising it.   #  even if your paycheck is increasing you would still end up paying more the things you already buy, taking a large chunk of your paycheck.   #  the current price of goods is where it is with everyone making minimum wage and above.   # the current price of goods is where it is with everyone making minimum wage and above.  not everyone will have their wages increased.  so where someone making $0 has their wages increased 0, the price of goods would not increase 0 as well, because not 0 of people had their wages increased.  we also have to factor in that with these people having an increase in buying power.  at $0, you barley have a disposable income.  increase that and their spending power increases.  this would increase the profits of the stores that had to increase their salary budgets.  it would essentially offset it.   #  the rich when they get money lock it away in the stock market or long term investments, the poor actively spend it in the economy to buy food and goods.   #  cost of living does go up when you raise the minimum wage.  but that increase has been less than the amount that the wages are raised every single time they have raised the minimum wage.  they have always netted more buying power for the lower and middle classes.  also, historically raising the minimum wage has never prompted massive job cuts as opponents always claim it will.  the employers are already operating at minimum number of employees if they are doing their jobs correctly, and the increased buying power of the lower class has statistically shown an increase in net gains for companies, not a loss.  the rich when they get money lock it away in the stock market or long term investments, the poor actively spend it in the economy to buy food and goods.   #  they also wrote a book, detailing their review of decades worth of evidence, called minimum wages URL  #  also look into the various ways minimum wage can cause unemployment like reduced hiring rates.  see  minimum wages and employment: a review of evidence from the new minimum wage research  URL by economists david neumark and william wascher.  taken from the abstract:   a sizable majority of the studies surveyed in this monograph give a relatively consistent although not always statistically significant indication of negative employment effects of minimum wages.  in addition, among the papers we view as providing the most credible evidence, almost all point to negative employment effects, both for the united states as well as for many other countries.    they also wrote a book, detailing their review of decades worth of evidence, called minimum wages URL  #  however, demand for a good depends on its cost.   #  hypothetical and heavily simplified example: minimum wage increases from $0/hr to $0/hr.  a handbag company raises their price per handbag from $0 to $0 to offset the increase in labor costs.  other costs stay the same, so it is not a proportional increase.  their average customer previously bought 0 handbags per year at $0 each, but will only buy 0 handbags per year at $0 each.  the company now sells 0 fewer handbags, and so can fire 0 of their handbag makers.  basically, raising the price of labor increases the cost of goods.  however, demand for a good depends on its cost.  there is an amount of a good a company can produce that will result in the highest profits.  this amount is determined by production costs and demand.  lower demand lowers this amount.  higher price leads to lower demand, leads to less output.   #  i think i need to be clearer in the future when i counter particular points of a post, especially when i agree with the majority of the argument.   #  no, but that is not what i am arguing.  the only thing i was ever responding to was /u/cdb0b saying that employers would not cut jobs because they are already operating as efficiently as possible.  i pointed out that raising minimum wage can cause an employer is demand to drop, which can cause them to cut production and jobs.  i am not making a broader point about how it will affect the market as a whole, and i think raising minimum wage would be a good thing.  i do not know if $0/hr is too much; i am not a fucking economist.  i think i need to be clearer in the future when i counter particular points of a post, especially when i agree with the majority of the argument.
over the last few years, and especially now with the popularity of bernie sanders, a heavily debated subject is the raising of the minimum wage to $0/hour.  while many would expect this to strengthen the lower class and only decreasing the wealth of the upper class, i feel as if it would end up hurting those it is meant to help.  these company is would now have to spend much more of their budget on paying employees, and it is not as if they are going to magically have more money.  i understand that the increase of wealth in the lower class would eventually circulate back to the business is, but i highly doubt it would be enough to make up for the increased wages of their employees, and it definitely would not happen right away.  since i highly doubt the ceo or other upper management would take cuts from their pay to make up for this, that leaves two possible solutions that i can see: the first would be to decrease the amount of employees.  if approximately an equal percentage of employees are let go to the increase in pay the company will be able to function without upper management having to take a pay cut.  while those who are able to keep there jobs would be greatly helped by this, for the most part it would just increase the unemployment rate; with these lay offs happening in a large portion of minimum wag paying company is there would be no demand for jobs while the supply would be sky rocketing.  the other solution would be for the company to increase prices for retail/restaurants .  with increasing prices nobody would have to loose their job, however it would still end up hurting the lower class.  practically all people get there basic necessities and luxuries from retail and grocery stores the lower and middle classes especially rely heavily on major stores such as walmart or target.  even if your paycheck is increasing you would still end up paying more the things you already buy, taking a large chunk of your paycheck.  while ideally an increased minimum wage seems perfect, it would in reality end up creating a combination of these two things.  i am sure i did not hit on some points, so please try to change my view on this, i, as a minimum wage employee myself, would love to have a good reason to support raising it.   #  the first would be to decrease the amount of employees.   #  this needs a huge increase in productivity, including training, processes and technology.   # this needs a huge increase in productivity, including training, processes and technology.  i do not think most companies will be able to lay off proportionately, and those that do, it is good for the economy and competitive market of us.  whatever the case, it would never be remotely close to the increase in salaries of the poorest people so those would win out.  i see the combination of both in the overall market to be positive.  some would suffer a few layoffs, unemployed, people just over $0 that do not get much increase , but the gain is that most people working 0 hour weeks will be able to make ends meet, and this is huge !  #  also, historically raising the minimum wage has never prompted massive job cuts as opponents always claim it will.   #  cost of living does go up when you raise the minimum wage.  but that increase has been less than the amount that the wages are raised every single time they have raised the minimum wage.  they have always netted more buying power for the lower and middle classes.  also, historically raising the minimum wage has never prompted massive job cuts as opponents always claim it will.  the employers are already operating at minimum number of employees if they are doing their jobs correctly, and the increased buying power of the lower class has statistically shown an increase in net gains for companies, not a loss.  the rich when they get money lock it away in the stock market or long term investments, the poor actively spend it in the economy to buy food and goods.   #  also look into the various ways minimum wage can cause unemployment like reduced hiring rates.   #  also look into the various ways minimum wage can cause unemployment like reduced hiring rates.  see  minimum wages and employment: a review of evidence from the new minimum wage research  URL by economists david neumark and william wascher.  taken from the abstract:   a sizable majority of the studies surveyed in this monograph give a relatively consistent although not always statistically significant indication of negative employment effects of minimum wages.  in addition, among the papers we view as providing the most credible evidence, almost all point to negative employment effects, both for the united states as well as for many other countries.    they also wrote a book, detailing their review of decades worth of evidence, called minimum wages URL  #  however, demand for a good depends on its cost.   #  hypothetical and heavily simplified example: minimum wage increases from $0/hr to $0/hr.  a handbag company raises their price per handbag from $0 to $0 to offset the increase in labor costs.  other costs stay the same, so it is not a proportional increase.  their average customer previously bought 0 handbags per year at $0 each, but will only buy 0 handbags per year at $0 each.  the company now sells 0 fewer handbags, and so can fire 0 of their handbag makers.  basically, raising the price of labor increases the cost of goods.  however, demand for a good depends on its cost.  there is an amount of a good a company can produce that will result in the highest profits.  this amount is determined by production costs and demand.  lower demand lowers this amount.  higher price leads to lower demand, leads to less output.   #  the only thing i was ever responding to was /u/cdb0b saying that employers would not cut jobs because they are already operating as efficiently as possible.   #  no, but that is not what i am arguing.  the only thing i was ever responding to was /u/cdb0b saying that employers would not cut jobs because they are already operating as efficiently as possible.  i pointed out that raising minimum wage can cause an employer is demand to drop, which can cause them to cut production and jobs.  i am not making a broader point about how it will affect the market as a whole, and i think raising minimum wage would be a good thing.  i do not know if $0/hr is too much; i am not a fucking economist.  i think i need to be clearer in the future when i counter particular points of a post, especially when i agree with the majority of the argument.
i was just at the apology post and pretty much every comment is at best  apology unaccepted.   and at worst and more commonly  die you devil bitch !  .  what the hell happened to common decency ? it is not like she started world war iii, or committed genocide or held hostages at gunpoint.  you want to know what she did she ran a website we always waste our time on poorly.  since when is that a crime against humanity ? oh wait it is not.  i am not saying we have to like her but i am saying this is not ok to call her devil or c t, or wish bad things upon her or the worst has her face being posted on pornographic images that is not ok that is bullying and completely inappropriate.  would you want to be treated this way if you screwed up like her ? so go change my view why does ellen pao deserve all this ?  #  why does ellen pao deserve all this ?  #  0.  its just negative words on the internet.   # 0.  its just negative words on the internet.  they are not nice words but the admins did more lack of communication and flippant.  0.  her responses actually got me more upset.  its was pure pr speak.  if i ever heard anyone talk so superficial to me at work, i would be so cautious around that person more political and words rather than authentic and a person who backs up their words with action.  0.  the responsibility is hers.  in such a position, its expected that she take the heat for failures.  this includes not so nice words, if people actually feel that way.   #  that is not  ok  either but it is seems to be an unavoidable outcome when someone stops following the rules and decides that they want to impose their will on everyone else through whatever means are necessary.   #  partly i think the reaction is because users see reddit as a place where you have to defend your views, ideology etc.  if you want a platform to express them.  she is seen fairly or not as holding a certain set of views and circumventing the system that reddit supposedly runs on to push them.  at a fundamental level she is seen as cheating in the game that everyone on reddit is playing.  idk if it is  ok  but that is where the vitriol comes from.  like, i play indoor soccer and usually it is all a big joke, everyone is laughing between teams and bantering back and forth, but as soon as someone starts being sneaky, holding on to people is shirts when the ref is not looking or something then it quickly degenerates to the point where actual fights start.  that is not  ok  either but it is seems to be an unavoidable outcome when someone stops following the rules and decides that they want to impose their will on everyone else through whatever means are necessary.  it is because it makes the whole game feel pointless.  it disempowers people and we react badly to that.   #  but i think the people calling her chairman pao, and turning /r/all into a hatefest, are doing so for very reasonable reasons: to make her efforts to silence such speech look ineffective.   #  people here have been dodging your question.  they are answering  why do people criticize pao in a measured, reasonable fashion  and not  why do people criticize pao in a hysterical, over the top fashion.   now, to start, i am gonna put out the disclaimer that i am not defending anyone who may have actually threatened pao or advocated violence against her.  that is illegal and beyond the pail.  but i think the people calling her chairman pao, and turning /r/all into a hatefest, are doing so for very reasonable reasons: to make her efforts to silence such speech look ineffective.  they could argue in favor of fph and neofag all they wanted, and have no chance of accomplishing anything.  their only chance is to make it seem like her policies are backfiring.  pao made herself an enemy of vitriol.  of course she will be opposed by vitriol.   #  imagine, say, pao had banned subs advocating for illegal activity, such as /r/opiates, and subsequently they flooded the front page with suggestions that pao get high.   #  the comparison is unreasonable.  the tactic is reasonable.  ignore the actual content.  imagine, say, pao had banned subs advocating for illegal activity, such as /r/opiates, and subsequently they flooded the front page with suggestions that pao get high.  i think we can all agree that ellen pao should not do heroin, just like we can all agree that she is not a mid 0th century dictator.  but it would be the best way they have to try and make her policies look bad.  authority bans x.  reasonable people dislike x and are unlikely to be convinced that x is good.  people who liked x attempt to protest the ban by defying it and making it seem that the ban has only increased the prevalence / visibility of x and is thus counterproductive and should be repealed.  it is a very sensible tactic.   #  do they really seem to think that strangers coming in and seeing a bunch of people championing fph or calling pao a cunt or a whore garners support ?  # but it would be the best way they have to try and make her policies look bad.  but the comparison is firmly rooted in her race as well.  like almost strictly rooted in it.  the tactic also only works when the visibility increase is sympathetic to the thing that is banned.  that is the weird disconnect that so many redditors seem to have.  do they really seem to think that strangers coming in and seeing a bunch of people championing fph or calling pao a cunt or a whore garners support ?
throwaway account, my main is used for school.  i am 0, male, and a grad student chemistry .  i have been dating a girl for two years and our relationship is wonderful.  she frequently brings up marriage and talks about how she believes i will never propose to her, and i have told her that i am honestly not sure how i feel about the whole concept of marriage.  i would have no problem staying with her for my entire life, but i just do not understand how a ring and a piece of paper makes any difference.  let me outline my preconceptions here: my parents  marriage fell apart due to infidelity and divorce.  i watched my mom cheat on my dad, take all his money in court, and leave him psychologically damaged until the day he died.  admittedly it has me a bit scared.  here are the benefits i often hear claimed about marriage, along with my response to them:   more sex: we have been like bunnies for the whole relationship at least twice a day and honestly i have a pretty low sex drive.  it is already more than enough.    children: i do not want kids, do not have kids, and am 0 sterile by choice.  nothing to do about it.  she is equally happy to go without them.    added financial benefit / tax breaks: we already contribute equally to the relationship in terms of finances.  we end up paying for everything about 0/0.  tax breaks ? ok, sure, but that is not going to sell me on it right off the bat.  now here are some drawbacks i often see cited about marriage, along with my response:   expense: a ring is supposed to cost three month is salary ? ! a wedding costs over $0,0 ? ! i am a grad student, for crying out loud.  this kind of stuff is absolutely not affordable, and even if it was it seems like a huge waste just to conform to a social norm.  paying more for a little bit of metal and rock than for a decent used car seems absolutely insane to me.    divorce risk: statistics do not lie.  i have a 0/0 chance of going through exactly what my late father did.  i hate seeing how sad the thought of just being my girlfriend forever but not my wife makes her.  i love this girl a lot, but i am also a very rational and logical person and ca not seem to find the personal justification for marriage.  please, try to change my view and thank you.  i appreciate your time, and thank you very much.   #  i have a 0/0 chance of going through exactly what my late father did.   #  0:0 chance for divorce is for all marriages, including serial divorcees.   #  for the benefits: you are missing the big one, which is default easy protections for you and your so.  some of these can be done through other contracts, but are less streamlined and easy.  these protections include things like power of attorney, health benefits, visitation rights, retirement benefits, ss and disability, etc.  if i recall, there are well over 0 legal benefits   protections in the us that come automatically just from having a marriage license.  i will note that tax benefits without kids are pretty much nonexistant, so i would not put that as a benefit.  my wife and i pay more in taxes married than separate and the joint cap for a rothira is lower together than individually.  so to be fair, i would not necessarily keep that as a benefit.  for the drawbacks  expense that is entirely between the two of you and is really only a 0 time cost.  check out /r/weddingplanning and you will see the full gamut of cheap and expensive weddings.  rings can be had cheaply with artificial stones or non diamond or heirloom rings etc.  weddings can be as small or as large as you want.  some friends of mine rented a section of a public park by the water and had a local restaurant cater for less than $0,0.  others went with the whole $0,0 church   ball room reception.  but it is your wedding, you as a couple are the deciders on how to put it on.  0:0 chance for divorce is for all marriages, including serial divorcees.  it also does not account for education level which is positively correlated to marriage stability.  since you are a grad student, first marriages of those with a ba or higher have only a 0 0 rate of divorce see table 0 and 0 URL in terms of her running off with half your stuff.  well you can get a prenup for existing assets but it does not sound like you have too much there to worry about.  in terms of assets gained while married, they are joint assets.  it wo not be half  your  stuff, it will be half the stuff you have together.  you are even already contributing on an even level.   #  especially if that something is a thing that someone you consider precious would like as part of her future.   #  marriage is an emotional commitment more than anything.  reason can pull you both ways, either into it for financial and legal reasons tax cuts, if there was ever an accident you would be legally recognized as next of kin, etc.  or out of it for practicality reasons.  unless you are religious and/or you desire offspring, marriage is something that can be easily considered trivial.  that said, i can see how your experience with divorce has colored your views, and rightly so.  but you need to not let fear of a single potential outcome determine your approach to something.  especially if that something is a thing that someone you consider precious would like as part of her future.  consider for a moment what marriage in the modern day is.  in truth, it is just legally recognized love.  that is to say that if you love this girl, and you are already committed to her wholly, then you are emotionally already married but without the tax cuts, the legal recognition, and the failsafe should things go sour divorce court .  and as an aside, as many have said, the expense of a wedding is not something that needs to be a concern unless it is of personal concern to you both.  personally, my husband and i bought wooden rings off etsy his was $0, mine was $0 because it is ebony from isreal , and we eloped.  the expense ? the price of the marriage license and the fuel to get it.  and let me tell you, i have zero regrets about that, it was exactly how we wanted it when we wanted it.  and a little bonus, people like giving wedding gifts.  we set up a gofundme page because we did not want gifts, but cash, and ended up coming out with over a grand in gift money.  so it is not all bad  #  it has nothing to do with love legally speaking.   # that is to say that if you love this girl, and you are already committed to her wholly, then you are emotionally already married but without the tax cuts, the legal recognition, and the failsafe should things go sour divorce court .  except that is not what marriage is at all.  it has nothing to do with love legally speaking.  its legally recognizing that you give another person certain rights.  the right to be by your side in medical emergencies.  the right to possible tax advantages i say possible because with two higher ish incomes it starts becoming a disadvantage .  it also gives that person the right to embroil you in extremely costly legal proceedings known as divorces.  the kicker being of course through  no fault  of your own.  further as op said it creates the obligation whereby, as the man, you must pay ridiculous sums of money for a tiny little shiny object that was dug out of the ground through the blood and sweat of african children.  all for what ? so she can brag to her friend ? what you are saying about love is an outright misrepresentation.  the law does not recognize anything to do with love and marriage.  it only recognizes rights and duties.  society is what recognizes love.  no one should have to go through the lengths of executing a public ritual with immense legal ramifications just to recognize their private love.   #  that was a compromise on my end because i did not want a ring at all, but he insisted.   #  legally speaking you are right, it has nothing to do with emotion because you ca not litigate emotion.  however if you love someone, and are committed to them, and want nothing but the best for them, it would stand to reason then that you would like the legal recognition like being considered next of kin during a medical emergency.  i ca not think of someone who was completely devoted to another person, but would rather not be involved with them if they were in the hospital, but that is just a personal anecdote.  to comment on divorce court, there is also the option of a prenuptial agreement.  so while you and your future spouse are still in love, you can set up and itemize exactly what happens should divorce or death occur, so legal proceedings are then smooth er and the cost thereof reduced significantly.  prenups are very common now with the divorce statistic being so high, so if divorce cost and hassle is a real concern for someone they have the option of still getting married if anything for legal rights , but avoiding any severe financial repercussions should divorce occur.  and i am sorry, but you are incorrect about the  male obligation .  some women are that way, and want a barbie/princess wedding with the ring to match, but they are few and far between.  if a woman demands a pricey trinket in exchange for her hand, and you are not ok with that, perhaps you should not be getting married in the first place.  as i said in my original post, my husband and i have wooden rings, which cost us a grand total of $0.  that was a compromise on my end because i did not want a ring at all, but he insisted.  so there is no male obligation, it is all a matter of the couple is preference.   #  well, she owns the house free and clear.   #  i want to bring up divorce, because you view it purely negatively.  one of the main benefits of marriage is that it lets you use divorce when you break up, as opposed to a messy legal battle outside of divorce court.  if you own a house, two cars, and have retirement accounts together, but are not married, you run the risk of being colossally screwed if you are on the wrong side of the paperwork.  let is say she buys the house in her name, and for 0 years you both equally pay the mortgage til the house is paid off.  then you break up.  well, she owns the house free and clear.  you get kicked out of the house.  your 0 years of mortgage payments ? too bad so sad, you were paying rent all those years.  also, marriage is only as expensive as you make it.  does she demand an expensive ring ? do you guys need a blowout bash or would a party in a park work ? talk to her about this.
throwaway account, my main is used for school.  i am 0, male, and a grad student chemistry .  i have been dating a girl for two years and our relationship is wonderful.  she frequently brings up marriage and talks about how she believes i will never propose to her, and i have told her that i am honestly not sure how i feel about the whole concept of marriage.  i would have no problem staying with her for my entire life, but i just do not understand how a ring and a piece of paper makes any difference.  let me outline my preconceptions here: my parents  marriage fell apart due to infidelity and divorce.  i watched my mom cheat on my dad, take all his money in court, and leave him psychologically damaged until the day he died.  admittedly it has me a bit scared.  here are the benefits i often hear claimed about marriage, along with my response to them:   more sex: we have been like bunnies for the whole relationship at least twice a day and honestly i have a pretty low sex drive.  it is already more than enough.    children: i do not want kids, do not have kids, and am 0 sterile by choice.  nothing to do about it.  she is equally happy to go without them.    added financial benefit / tax breaks: we already contribute equally to the relationship in terms of finances.  we end up paying for everything about 0/0.  tax breaks ? ok, sure, but that is not going to sell me on it right off the bat.  now here are some drawbacks i often see cited about marriage, along with my response:   expense: a ring is supposed to cost three month is salary ? ! a wedding costs over $0,0 ? ! i am a grad student, for crying out loud.  this kind of stuff is absolutely not affordable, and even if it was it seems like a huge waste just to conform to a social norm.  paying more for a little bit of metal and rock than for a decent used car seems absolutely insane to me.    divorce risk: statistics do not lie.  i have a 0/0 chance of going through exactly what my late father did.  i hate seeing how sad the thought of just being my girlfriend forever but not my wife makes her.  i love this girl a lot, but i am also a very rational and logical person and ca not seem to find the personal justification for marriage.  please, try to change my view and thank you.  i appreciate your time, and thank you very much.   #  i am 0, male, and a grad student chemistry .   #  i have been dating a girl for two years and our relationship is wonderful.   # i have been dating a girl for two years and our relationship is wonderful.  she frequently brings up marriage and talks about how she believes i will never propose to her, and i have told her that i am honestly not sure how i feel about the whole concept of marriage.  i would have no problem staying with her for my entire life, but i just do not understand how a ring and a piece of paper makes any difference.  well, wait until you get a job, health insurance, a home, and start looking at your tax responsibilities.  i dated my wife for 0 years before i got married, but that 0th year was a righteous pain in the ass when we started looking at really combining our efforts to form a hosuehold.  ! a wedding costs over $0,0 ? ! i am a grad student, for crying out loud.  this kind of stuff is absolutely not affordable, and even if it was it seems like a huge waste just to conform to a social norm.  paying more for a little bit of metal and rock than for a decent used car seems absolutely insane to me.  i paid around $0. for a ring and a ceremony.  but i also wanted a sizeable ceremony with lots of friends, food, and booze.  these seem like really weak counter arguments; there is no law stating you must spend  xxx  on getting married.  a marriage license is around $0 and the courthouse will perform a quick ceremony for free; if you really want to get stingy about it.  i have a 0/0 chance of going through exactly what my late father did.  not. exactly true.  it is actually been dropping for quite some time, and for marriages for our generation, it is significantly better URL i married my wife because i wanted to be married.  i wanted to be a husband and eventually a father .  if you are trying to be rational and logical, and you claim that love your girlfriend a lot, why not get married ? the societal benefits of it are worth it; and if you do not plan on checking out, why would you leave those off to the side ? you will get better deals with insurance, credit / loans, tax breaks, prospective employers tend to like it.  it is one thing if you are just not sure; but if you are living together and sharing assets with no intention of breaking up. that piece of paper does a lot.   #  personally, my husband and i bought wooden rings off etsy his was $0, mine was $0 because it is ebony from isreal , and we eloped.   #  marriage is an emotional commitment more than anything.  reason can pull you both ways, either into it for financial and legal reasons tax cuts, if there was ever an accident you would be legally recognized as next of kin, etc.  or out of it for practicality reasons.  unless you are religious and/or you desire offspring, marriage is something that can be easily considered trivial.  that said, i can see how your experience with divorce has colored your views, and rightly so.  but you need to not let fear of a single potential outcome determine your approach to something.  especially if that something is a thing that someone you consider precious would like as part of her future.  consider for a moment what marriage in the modern day is.  in truth, it is just legally recognized love.  that is to say that if you love this girl, and you are already committed to her wholly, then you are emotionally already married but without the tax cuts, the legal recognition, and the failsafe should things go sour divorce court .  and as an aside, as many have said, the expense of a wedding is not something that needs to be a concern unless it is of personal concern to you both.  personally, my husband and i bought wooden rings off etsy his was $0, mine was $0 because it is ebony from isreal , and we eloped.  the expense ? the price of the marriage license and the fuel to get it.  and let me tell you, i have zero regrets about that, it was exactly how we wanted it when we wanted it.  and a little bonus, people like giving wedding gifts.  we set up a gofundme page because we did not want gifts, but cash, and ended up coming out with over a grand in gift money.  so it is not all bad  #  the kicker being of course through  no fault  of your own.   # that is to say that if you love this girl, and you are already committed to her wholly, then you are emotionally already married but without the tax cuts, the legal recognition, and the failsafe should things go sour divorce court .  except that is not what marriage is at all.  it has nothing to do with love legally speaking.  its legally recognizing that you give another person certain rights.  the right to be by your side in medical emergencies.  the right to possible tax advantages i say possible because with two higher ish incomes it starts becoming a disadvantage .  it also gives that person the right to embroil you in extremely costly legal proceedings known as divorces.  the kicker being of course through  no fault  of your own.  further as op said it creates the obligation whereby, as the man, you must pay ridiculous sums of money for a tiny little shiny object that was dug out of the ground through the blood and sweat of african children.  all for what ? so she can brag to her friend ? what you are saying about love is an outright misrepresentation.  the law does not recognize anything to do with love and marriage.  it only recognizes rights and duties.  society is what recognizes love.  no one should have to go through the lengths of executing a public ritual with immense legal ramifications just to recognize their private love.   #  if a woman demands a pricey trinket in exchange for her hand, and you are not ok with that, perhaps you should not be getting married in the first place.   #  legally speaking you are right, it has nothing to do with emotion because you ca not litigate emotion.  however if you love someone, and are committed to them, and want nothing but the best for them, it would stand to reason then that you would like the legal recognition like being considered next of kin during a medical emergency.  i ca not think of someone who was completely devoted to another person, but would rather not be involved with them if they were in the hospital, but that is just a personal anecdote.  to comment on divorce court, there is also the option of a prenuptial agreement.  so while you and your future spouse are still in love, you can set up and itemize exactly what happens should divorce or death occur, so legal proceedings are then smooth er and the cost thereof reduced significantly.  prenups are very common now with the divorce statistic being so high, so if divorce cost and hassle is a real concern for someone they have the option of still getting married if anything for legal rights , but avoiding any severe financial repercussions should divorce occur.  and i am sorry, but you are incorrect about the  male obligation .  some women are that way, and want a barbie/princess wedding with the ring to match, but they are few and far between.  if a woman demands a pricey trinket in exchange for her hand, and you are not ok with that, perhaps you should not be getting married in the first place.  as i said in my original post, my husband and i have wooden rings, which cost us a grand total of $0.  that was a compromise on my end because i did not want a ring at all, but he insisted.  so there is no male obligation, it is all a matter of the couple is preference.   #  well, she owns the house free and clear.   #  i want to bring up divorce, because you view it purely negatively.  one of the main benefits of marriage is that it lets you use divorce when you break up, as opposed to a messy legal battle outside of divorce court.  if you own a house, two cars, and have retirement accounts together, but are not married, you run the risk of being colossally screwed if you are on the wrong side of the paperwork.  let is say she buys the house in her name, and for 0 years you both equally pay the mortgage til the house is paid off.  then you break up.  well, she owns the house free and clear.  you get kicked out of the house.  your 0 years of mortgage payments ? too bad so sad, you were paying rent all those years.  also, marriage is only as expensive as you make it.  does she demand an expensive ring ? do you guys need a blowout bash or would a party in a park work ? talk to her about this.
he is more a no kill punisher than a real do gooder.  it is a game bruce wayne plays to get out aggression rather than truly help gotham.  he works out to the point of peak humanity, obsesses over friends and enemies and spends his nights punching random goons and fighting relatively powerless baddies compared to a normal dc universe line up.  a better batman would use wayne resources to set up supercops or rehab petty criminals and help recidivists integrate into society, rather than punching them in the face over and over again.  also, his encouragement, training and support of other vigilantes diminishes the whole concept of law and order even more.  making everything even worse in gotahm and in places where he is looked up to.  the punisher does not pretend at hero, an that makes him a better one.  batman is basically larping  #  spends his nights punching random goons and fighting relatively powerless baddies compared to a normal dc universe line up.   #  the worse people live in metropolis and other cities where superheroes with actual powers live.   # the worse people live in metropolis and other cities where superheroes with actual powers live.  he works in gotham.  he does plenty of charity work.  and do you expect one person to do a whole bunch of jobs at once ? are police officers bad for society because they arrest people but do not work in the rehab centers or do social work for prisoners ? we have other people for that.  you ca not blame someone for fixing one problem but not all of them.  making everything even worse in gotahm and in places where he is looked up to.  desperate times call for desperate measures.  when terrorists like the joker are menacing the population it is for the greater good that they get taken out, no matter how.  if the police are not up to it and in some versions they are corrupt anyhow someone is gotta save the day.  since when does batman  pretend at hero  ? he is not tony stark doing pr control.  all the connotations of him being a hero are from the press, where he, unlike superman and spiderman, does not work.   #  now, where i might agree with you a tad is if we were comparing tony stark and bruce, rather than the punisher.   #  well which batman are you talking about ? a particular story line ? do the comics/movies/shows/novels you are talking about address your concerns at all ? take a gander at this wayne enterprises wiki URL it addresses at least some of the issues you brought up with statements like,  through the wayne foundation wayne addresses social problems that encourage crime and assists victims in a way that his batman persona cannot.  the arrangement also provides him with a large network of connections in the world of charities.  now, where i might agree with you a tad is if we were comparing tony stark and bruce, rather than the punisher.  tony stark basically solves the world energy crisis and ends entire wars in some stories.  but depending on your interpretation of a particular incarnation of batman, you could argue that he uses his resources to the best of his ability to improve the world around them.   #  just another of his indulgences so that he can forever mope in darkness and punch people in the face with more efficiency.   # just another of his indulgences so that he can forever mope in darkness and punch people in the face with more efficiency.  i am most familiar w/ the pre new 0 batman comics so we can use that but i suspect this is a bat man trend.  he is a vengance machine that feeds his obsessions with his wealth.  he is a pathological case of being unable to cope with the violence that took his parents and instead of resilience, he used his money to foster a very deeply troubled aspect of his personality, then spread it to others.  he is a punisher with a billion dollar budget.  his forays into the night, constant work on phyiscal prowess are an attempt to compartmentalize his childhood trauma into a different area of his life, but then it takes over the whole thing.  he is a psych case.  there was a comic story line alas, i cannot find a screenshot online, so you can discount this if you want where some supervillian was trying to mind control bruce wayne, and bruce wayne realized it was an attack because in his own mind he refers to himself as batman.  that is some serious psych issues man.  batman is vigilante of vengeance, not a hero.  he is an interesting character, but a very poor excuse for a hero.   #  the fact that batman keeps beating them up instead of killing them is heroic.   #  you reference the fact that batman uses combat to vent his anguish over the death of his parents.  i believe this is true to some extent.  but would batman not release more of his anger and frustration by killing ? why does he show restraint ? you might say he spares them because he wants to punch them in the face over and over again.  but, one common theme in batman stories or even comics in general is the futility of the efforts of the hero.  meaning that there will always be criminal scumbags, no matter how many batman can lock away.  it is not as if there are like 0 henchman that he keeps beating up.  the fact that batman keeps beating them up instead of killing them is heroic.  in addition, batman is not simply a brute that beats on people.  he is  the world is greatest detective  after all.  finally, batman maintains a working relationship with one of the most morally upstanding characters to have ever appeared in comics, superman.   #  and batman was born a spirit of all consuming vengance.   # like a child in an alley who was overwhelemed in every way at the time his parents were murdered in front of him.  he needs to be the biggest baddest smartest strongest and fastest guy around.  he ca not be weak again.  but this is one of his main failures as a hero.  he still ca not overcome that weakness that delivered batman into the world.  there are better ways to help gotham, he chooses one on one violence.  there are better ways to help himself, he chooses one on one violence.  there are a thousand healthier attempts at recovery and growth, but alas, he sacfificed young bruce to the mantle of the bat.  and this is why i see him as a tragic anti hero rather than a hero.  batman is the failure of young bruce to cope and grow and do better, and instead, violence is his avenue.  sure it is violence against bad dudes, but punisher dose the same, he is not a hero hero either.  being a vigilante is part of it, but young bruce wayne died in that alley with his parents.  and batman was born a spirit of all consuming vengance.  not one of heroism
he is more a no kill punisher than a real do gooder.  it is a game bruce wayne plays to get out aggression rather than truly help gotham.  he works out to the point of peak humanity, obsesses over friends and enemies and spends his nights punching random goons and fighting relatively powerless baddies compared to a normal dc universe line up.  a better batman would use wayne resources to set up supercops or rehab petty criminals and help recidivists integrate into society, rather than punching them in the face over and over again.  also, his encouragement, training and support of other vigilantes diminishes the whole concept of law and order even more.  making everything even worse in gotahm and in places where he is looked up to.  the punisher does not pretend at hero, an that makes him a better one.  batman is basically larping  #  also, his encouragement, training and support of other vigilantes diminishes the whole concept of law and order even more.   #  making everything even worse in gotahm and in places where he is looked up to.   # the worse people live in metropolis and other cities where superheroes with actual powers live.  he works in gotham.  he does plenty of charity work.  and do you expect one person to do a whole bunch of jobs at once ? are police officers bad for society because they arrest people but do not work in the rehab centers or do social work for prisoners ? we have other people for that.  you ca not blame someone for fixing one problem but not all of them.  making everything even worse in gotahm and in places where he is looked up to.  desperate times call for desperate measures.  when terrorists like the joker are menacing the population it is for the greater good that they get taken out, no matter how.  if the police are not up to it and in some versions they are corrupt anyhow someone is gotta save the day.  since when does batman  pretend at hero  ? he is not tony stark doing pr control.  all the connotations of him being a hero are from the press, where he, unlike superman and spiderman, does not work.   #  tony stark basically solves the world energy crisis and ends entire wars in some stories.   #  well which batman are you talking about ? a particular story line ? do the comics/movies/shows/novels you are talking about address your concerns at all ? take a gander at this wayne enterprises wiki URL it addresses at least some of the issues you brought up with statements like,  through the wayne foundation wayne addresses social problems that encourage crime and assists victims in a way that his batman persona cannot.  the arrangement also provides him with a large network of connections in the world of charities.  now, where i might agree with you a tad is if we were comparing tony stark and bruce, rather than the punisher.  tony stark basically solves the world energy crisis and ends entire wars in some stories.  but depending on your interpretation of a particular incarnation of batman, you could argue that he uses his resources to the best of his ability to improve the world around them.   #  he is a punisher with a billion dollar budget.   # just another of his indulgences so that he can forever mope in darkness and punch people in the face with more efficiency.  i am most familiar w/ the pre new 0 batman comics so we can use that but i suspect this is a bat man trend.  he is a vengance machine that feeds his obsessions with his wealth.  he is a pathological case of being unable to cope with the violence that took his parents and instead of resilience, he used his money to foster a very deeply troubled aspect of his personality, then spread it to others.  he is a punisher with a billion dollar budget.  his forays into the night, constant work on phyiscal prowess are an attempt to compartmentalize his childhood trauma into a different area of his life, but then it takes over the whole thing.  he is a psych case.  there was a comic story line alas, i cannot find a screenshot online, so you can discount this if you want where some supervillian was trying to mind control bruce wayne, and bruce wayne realized it was an attack because in his own mind he refers to himself as batman.  that is some serious psych issues man.  batman is vigilante of vengeance, not a hero.  he is an interesting character, but a very poor excuse for a hero.   #  he is  the world is greatest detective  after all.   #  you reference the fact that batman uses combat to vent his anguish over the death of his parents.  i believe this is true to some extent.  but would batman not release more of his anger and frustration by killing ? why does he show restraint ? you might say he spares them because he wants to punch them in the face over and over again.  but, one common theme in batman stories or even comics in general is the futility of the efforts of the hero.  meaning that there will always be criminal scumbags, no matter how many batman can lock away.  it is not as if there are like 0 henchman that he keeps beating up.  the fact that batman keeps beating them up instead of killing them is heroic.  in addition, batman is not simply a brute that beats on people.  he is  the world is greatest detective  after all.  finally, batman maintains a working relationship with one of the most morally upstanding characters to have ever appeared in comics, superman.   #  there are better ways to help gotham, he chooses one on one violence.   # like a child in an alley who was overwhelemed in every way at the time his parents were murdered in front of him.  he needs to be the biggest baddest smartest strongest and fastest guy around.  he ca not be weak again.  but this is one of his main failures as a hero.  he still ca not overcome that weakness that delivered batman into the world.  there are better ways to help gotham, he chooses one on one violence.  there are better ways to help himself, he chooses one on one violence.  there are a thousand healthier attempts at recovery and growth, but alas, he sacfificed young bruce to the mantle of the bat.  and this is why i see him as a tragic anti hero rather than a hero.  batman is the failure of young bruce to cope and grow and do better, and instead, violence is his avenue.  sure it is violence against bad dudes, but punisher dose the same, he is not a hero hero either.  being a vigilante is part of it, but young bruce wayne died in that alley with his parents.  and batman was born a spirit of all consuming vengance.  not one of heroism
he is more a no kill punisher than a real do gooder.  it is a game bruce wayne plays to get out aggression rather than truly help gotham.  he works out to the point of peak humanity, obsesses over friends and enemies and spends his nights punching random goons and fighting relatively powerless baddies compared to a normal dc universe line up.  a better batman would use wayne resources to set up supercops or rehab petty criminals and help recidivists integrate into society, rather than punching them in the face over and over again.  also, his encouragement, training and support of other vigilantes diminishes the whole concept of law and order even more.  making everything even worse in gotahm and in places where he is looked up to.  the punisher does not pretend at hero, an that makes him a better one.  batman is basically larping  #  the punisher does not pretend at hero, an that makes him a better one.   #  since when does batman  pretend at hero  ?  # the worse people live in metropolis and other cities where superheroes with actual powers live.  he works in gotham.  he does plenty of charity work.  and do you expect one person to do a whole bunch of jobs at once ? are police officers bad for society because they arrest people but do not work in the rehab centers or do social work for prisoners ? we have other people for that.  you ca not blame someone for fixing one problem but not all of them.  making everything even worse in gotahm and in places where he is looked up to.  desperate times call for desperate measures.  when terrorists like the joker are menacing the population it is for the greater good that they get taken out, no matter how.  if the police are not up to it and in some versions they are corrupt anyhow someone is gotta save the day.  since when does batman  pretend at hero  ? he is not tony stark doing pr control.  all the connotations of him being a hero are from the press, where he, unlike superman and spiderman, does not work.   #  but depending on your interpretation of a particular incarnation of batman, you could argue that he uses his resources to the best of his ability to improve the world around them.   #  well which batman are you talking about ? a particular story line ? do the comics/movies/shows/novels you are talking about address your concerns at all ? take a gander at this wayne enterprises wiki URL it addresses at least some of the issues you brought up with statements like,  through the wayne foundation wayne addresses social problems that encourage crime and assists victims in a way that his batman persona cannot.  the arrangement also provides him with a large network of connections in the world of charities.  now, where i might agree with you a tad is if we were comparing tony stark and bruce, rather than the punisher.  tony stark basically solves the world energy crisis and ends entire wars in some stories.  but depending on your interpretation of a particular incarnation of batman, you could argue that he uses his resources to the best of his ability to improve the world around them.   #  he is a pathological case of being unable to cope with the violence that took his parents and instead of resilience, he used his money to foster a very deeply troubled aspect of his personality, then spread it to others.   # just another of his indulgences so that he can forever mope in darkness and punch people in the face with more efficiency.  i am most familiar w/ the pre new 0 batman comics so we can use that but i suspect this is a bat man trend.  he is a vengance machine that feeds his obsessions with his wealth.  he is a pathological case of being unable to cope with the violence that took his parents and instead of resilience, he used his money to foster a very deeply troubled aspect of his personality, then spread it to others.  he is a punisher with a billion dollar budget.  his forays into the night, constant work on phyiscal prowess are an attempt to compartmentalize his childhood trauma into a different area of his life, but then it takes over the whole thing.  he is a psych case.  there was a comic story line alas, i cannot find a screenshot online, so you can discount this if you want where some supervillian was trying to mind control bruce wayne, and bruce wayne realized it was an attack because in his own mind he refers to himself as batman.  that is some serious psych issues man.  batman is vigilante of vengeance, not a hero.  he is an interesting character, but a very poor excuse for a hero.   #  the fact that batman keeps beating them up instead of killing them is heroic.   #  you reference the fact that batman uses combat to vent his anguish over the death of his parents.  i believe this is true to some extent.  but would batman not release more of his anger and frustration by killing ? why does he show restraint ? you might say he spares them because he wants to punch them in the face over and over again.  but, one common theme in batman stories or even comics in general is the futility of the efforts of the hero.  meaning that there will always be criminal scumbags, no matter how many batman can lock away.  it is not as if there are like 0 henchman that he keeps beating up.  the fact that batman keeps beating them up instead of killing them is heroic.  in addition, batman is not simply a brute that beats on people.  he is  the world is greatest detective  after all.  finally, batman maintains a working relationship with one of the most morally upstanding characters to have ever appeared in comics, superman.   #  but this is one of his main failures as a hero.   # like a child in an alley who was overwhelemed in every way at the time his parents were murdered in front of him.  he needs to be the biggest baddest smartest strongest and fastest guy around.  he ca not be weak again.  but this is one of his main failures as a hero.  he still ca not overcome that weakness that delivered batman into the world.  there are better ways to help gotham, he chooses one on one violence.  there are better ways to help himself, he chooses one on one violence.  there are a thousand healthier attempts at recovery and growth, but alas, he sacfificed young bruce to the mantle of the bat.  and this is why i see him as a tragic anti hero rather than a hero.  batman is the failure of young bruce to cope and grow and do better, and instead, violence is his avenue.  sure it is violence against bad dudes, but punisher dose the same, he is not a hero hero either.  being a vigilante is part of it, but young bruce wayne died in that alley with his parents.  and batman was born a spirit of all consuming vengance.  not one of heroism
the u. s.  constitution is an old document.  at the time it was written, it made a lot of sense, and it was a large jump ahead for democracy, politics, and the human condition as a whole.  unfortunately, failure to foresee that conditions in the future might warrant a radically different document means that the constitution enshrines certain rights that make no sense in the modern day, and can indeed be harmful to the fabric of society, while ignoring others that are now far more relevant.  the constitution depends on there being nearly no nuance in the rights it affords, something that may have worked better in a simpler, less complex, and crucially, less populous nation.  the problem is compounded by the fact that making substantial changes to the document is difficult, if not to say nearly impossible in any but the best of circumstances.  those combined factors mean that the u. s.  may, slowly but surely, become backward compared to other countries with modern founding documents and laws.  the solutions are apparent, and in some cases have been tested successfully in other countries, but the constitution makes change insubstantial and insufficient if changes come at all.  first amendment as it relates to corporate personhood and lobbying.  URL second amendment as it relates to gun deaths in the u. s.  URL fourth amendment as it relates to privacy, specifically digital privacy URL tenth amendment as it relates to federalized health services.  URL those are my favorite problematic amendments.   #  tenth amendment as it relates to federalized health services.   #  because  one size fits all  works for everything, clearly.  also, there is some question about the metrics used, there URL  # if you, i, and 0 of our closest friends want to spend money to buy a commercial to express an idea, our options are to give money to one person, whom we then have to trust wo not just walk off with it,  or  to create a legal entity to further that expression  for us.  that is the only way that groups of average people can get their message heard when we are in competition with koch, soros, cocacola, ups, etc.  or do you think there should be a cap on money spent on all first amendment rights ?  you are allowed to worship however you want, but you are not allowed to build your synagogue, because it is more than $0k.  you can express yourself, but if you spend more than $0k on printing flyers to hand out, that runs afoul of campaign finance laws.   tl;dr for  citizens united :   corporations are  made up of  people, and to limit their expression is to limit the expression of those people.  money is not speech, but to limit money limits speech.  from the second link:   the frequency of  gun  murders, and the shockingly high number of annual  gun  deaths emphasis added oh, i was completely unaware that victims of knife crime URL get better after they have been murdered.  but i can cite things, too.  in my case, rather than some op ed by someone who is afraid of guns rather than murderers, i am going to cite harvard pdf URL who found, to their surprise, that there is  no  evidence that gun control has any benefit what so ever, but that there  is  some inconclusive evidence that it  hurts  things.  given that actual  scientists  have found no problem with the implications of the 0nd amendment.  what would you update about it ? that they are not treating  persons, papers, houses, and effects  rationally for the modern, digital world ? that could be fixed by a simple law stating that files, phones, etc, are effectively  papers and effects  for the purpose of the 0th amendment.  because  one size fits all  works for everything, clearly.  also, there is some question about the metrics used, there URL  #  the 0th amendment, which gave you the right to vote for your senator directly, took nearly a century to pass.   #  how could that affect the way the u. s.  passes laws ? how can a mob suddenly take control of congress when you vote for your representatives every 0 years ? the constitution being monolithic does not protect against tyranny of the majority.  a rich, vibrant democratic, republican tradition does.  the immovability of the constitution now prevents, to a certain degree, the participation of some individuals in the democratic process while favoring the participation of others.  furthermore, the best laws being created by difficult processes is simply not true.  the 0th amendment, which gave you the right to vote for your senator directly, took nearly a century to pass.  the difficulty of the process gave no advantages to the u. s.  population but it did impoverish our democratic traditions for almost 0 years.  the 0th amendment, on the other hand, enjoyed a rather straightforward and easy passing into the constitution  entirely through mob sentiment .  the amendment would also be easily and swiftly repealed through mob sentiment in 0.   #  personally although i am saddened by the failure of the era to pass thus far.  almost every amendment that has been proposed based on popular sentiment mob rule has thus far failed which makes me rather glad.   #  you have actually quite possibly given the best reasons against your own argument.  to ensure a central power structure such as a federal government the central  power  needs to appear to be permanent.  nothing erodes the illusion of permanence faster than rapid change.  the 0th amendment was a very rapid change, turning millions of americans into criminals virtually overnight.  it was as mentioned,  mob rule , and the results were of course catastrophic.  without illegal bootlegging the jewish and italian mafia would not have had an easy of a time growing in the u. s. , nor would it have been as acceptable to the general public.  the intensity of the violence used by the various criminal organizations during prohibition would arguably not be seen again until crack hit the streets in the 0 is.  by any measure of success, prohibition failed.  the reversal of that failure, while strongly supported, was a recognition of failure of the amendment even among some of those who initially backed it.  the temperance movement had a long history, existing for over a century before its success on a national level.  in some ways riding on the coattails of the abolitionist movements success.  the 0th amendment also has the distinction of being the only amendments that limits the freedoms/ rights/ privileges of the citizens rather than limiting or modifying the powers of the government.  personally although i am saddened by the failure of the era to pass thus far.  almost every amendment that has been proposed based on popular sentiment mob rule has thus far failed which makes me rather glad.  same sex marriage bans, anti miscegenation, inability to interfere with slavery, federal adoption of a religion.  the difficulty in passing an amendment based on popular sentiment actually protects us from our humans more short sighted and selfish tendencies.  that difficulty raises the bar from  i want  to  we need .  look at all the really weird proposals that come out of the house of representatives.  that is what an easy path to constitutional amendment would look like.   #  not to mention it made the federal government into  the bad guys , as much if not more so than ending slavery.   #  ok.  so they predicted  some harm .  for scale they predicted a stubbed toe, in the prevention of a broken knee.  what they received was a heart attack, broken knees and stubbed toes.  not to mention it made the federal government into  the bad guys , as much if not more so than ending slavery.  considering jim crow was in full effect and the klan was being heralded as  red blooded americans .  by making the federal government  the bad guys  the push towards a more laissez faire government gained traction.  unless you wanted a drink.  then the g men were all about hands on.  which is at the least a contributing factor to the financial realities of the 0 is.  i am not saying that prohibition caused the depression, but it did help to create the political climate that allowed it.  which is something that makes sense in hindsight, but people are simply too short sighted to see it before it happens.  knowing this is a weakness of human beings the constitutional congress intentionally made it difficult to change the constitution in part to mitigate the negative effects of that weakness.  that there is a way to legally and non violently change the constitution at all is an admission of the conventions limitations in creating a document that could survive the changes their own shortsightedness.  not a disastrous oversight at all, instead a spectacularly effective foresight.   #  the constitution is designed to be a over arching framework that decides what the  laws  must deal with in the same way that parameters are set.   #  not to nitpick, but the house of representatives is elected every 0 years.  two years, in an era were it would take 0 weeks to travel from end to end of our nation, was considered next to nothing in terms of time.  as such, the house was looked at as the  populist  branch, whereas the senate elected every 0 years was looked at as more of an  elder statesman/house of lords  concept a place where those who had shown to govern in the best interests of the people could serve longer terms.  the stability was considered a check on the mob rule/issue of the day that members of the house were forced to deal with.  two year terms insured that the house would take on issues that their constituents elected them to deal with, and the senate was the founding fathers pretty brilliant response to stop those knee jerk decisions for becoming law without being in the best interests over the longer term.   laws  are meant to be changed, and changed when necessary.  the constitution is designed to be a over arching framework that decides what the  laws  must deal with in the same way that parameters are set.  the fundamental nature of the constitution has worked brilliantly, insomuch as it has found itself to be a very reasonable framework for laws and dominions to be established within the federal government, the protection of rights, and the operations of which the nation as a whole functions.  the constitution is not law.  bills passed by congress are laws.  if something is unlawful, it goes against a bill passed by a body of government tribal, state, or federal .  laws, however, cannot go against the constitution if they do they are deemed unconstitutional this leads to the constitution being the preeminent legal document for every body of government in the u. s.  as well as the protection of civil liberties for all of its citizens.  in 0 years, we have found that the constitution needed additional reinforcement just 0 times, two involving prohibition and one for washington, d. c. , meaning that we have only found the need to enact just one new provision every 0 years.  that is a damned solid display of stability from a legal document.
the u. s.  constitution is an old document.  at the time it was written, it made a lot of sense, and it was a large jump ahead for democracy, politics, and the human condition as a whole.  unfortunately, failure to foresee that conditions in the future might warrant a radically different document means that the constitution enshrines certain rights that make no sense in the modern day, and can indeed be harmful to the fabric of society, while ignoring others that are now far more relevant.  the constitution depends on there being nearly no nuance in the rights it affords, something that may have worked better in a simpler, less complex, and crucially, less populous nation.  the problem is compounded by the fact that making substantial changes to the document is difficult, if not to say nearly impossible in any but the best of circumstances.  those combined factors mean that the u. s.  may, slowly but surely, become backward compared to other countries with modern founding documents and laws.  the solutions are apparent, and in some cases have been tested successfully in other countries, but the constitution makes change insubstantial and insufficient if changes come at all.  first amendment as it relates to corporate personhood and lobbying.  URL second amendment as it relates to gun deaths in the u. s.  URL fourth amendment as it relates to privacy, specifically digital privacy URL tenth amendment as it relates to federalized health services.  URL those are my favorite problematic amendments.   #  rights that make no sense in the modern day, and can indeed be harmful to the fabric of society, while ignoring others that are now far more relevant.   #  here is the trouble with your view.   # here is the trouble with your view.  in order to hold the view you have honestly, you have to be able to demonstrate the rights enumerated in the constitution that are  harmful to the fabric of society.   i get that you are trying to be vague to prevent this from derailing.  but if the crux of your view hinges on the  damage  caused by specific sections of the constitution, or the bill of rights.  then you have really gotta put those out there or you will get counter arguments like this.  the benefits that can be ascribed to any parts of the constitution that you deem  damaging  far,  far  outweigh the harm done by those freedoms.  but until we are talking specifics then we are bound to get nowhere.  i mean just as an example:  may have worked better in a simpler, less complex, and crucially, less populous nation.  you have  really  gotta be specific about what freedoms listed in the constitution or no one will be able to demonstrate how population, or  simpler times  have no real measurable bearing on the freedoms we enjoy due to our founding documents.   #  the 0th amendment, on the other hand, enjoyed a rather straightforward and easy passing into the constitution  entirely through mob sentiment .   #  how could that affect the way the u. s.  passes laws ? how can a mob suddenly take control of congress when you vote for your representatives every 0 years ? the constitution being monolithic does not protect against tyranny of the majority.  a rich, vibrant democratic, republican tradition does.  the immovability of the constitution now prevents, to a certain degree, the participation of some individuals in the democratic process while favoring the participation of others.  furthermore, the best laws being created by difficult processes is simply not true.  the 0th amendment, which gave you the right to vote for your senator directly, took nearly a century to pass.  the difficulty of the process gave no advantages to the u. s.  population but it did impoverish our democratic traditions for almost 0 years.  the 0th amendment, on the other hand, enjoyed a rather straightforward and easy passing into the constitution  entirely through mob sentiment .  the amendment would also be easily and swiftly repealed through mob sentiment in 0.   #  to ensure a central power structure such as a federal government the central  power  needs to appear to be permanent.   #  you have actually quite possibly given the best reasons against your own argument.  to ensure a central power structure such as a federal government the central  power  needs to appear to be permanent.  nothing erodes the illusion of permanence faster than rapid change.  the 0th amendment was a very rapid change, turning millions of americans into criminals virtually overnight.  it was as mentioned,  mob rule , and the results were of course catastrophic.  without illegal bootlegging the jewish and italian mafia would not have had an easy of a time growing in the u. s. , nor would it have been as acceptable to the general public.  the intensity of the violence used by the various criminal organizations during prohibition would arguably not be seen again until crack hit the streets in the 0 is.  by any measure of success, prohibition failed.  the reversal of that failure, while strongly supported, was a recognition of failure of the amendment even among some of those who initially backed it.  the temperance movement had a long history, existing for over a century before its success on a national level.  in some ways riding on the coattails of the abolitionist movements success.  the 0th amendment also has the distinction of being the only amendments that limits the freedoms/ rights/ privileges of the citizens rather than limiting or modifying the powers of the government.  personally although i am saddened by the failure of the era to pass thus far.  almost every amendment that has been proposed based on popular sentiment mob rule has thus far failed which makes me rather glad.  same sex marriage bans, anti miscegenation, inability to interfere with slavery, federal adoption of a religion.  the difficulty in passing an amendment based on popular sentiment actually protects us from our humans more short sighted and selfish tendencies.  that difficulty raises the bar from  i want  to  we need .  look at all the really weird proposals that come out of the house of representatives.  that is what an easy path to constitutional amendment would look like.   #  which is something that makes sense in hindsight, but people are simply too short sighted to see it before it happens.   #  ok.  so they predicted  some harm .  for scale they predicted a stubbed toe, in the prevention of a broken knee.  what they received was a heart attack, broken knees and stubbed toes.  not to mention it made the federal government into  the bad guys , as much if not more so than ending slavery.  considering jim crow was in full effect and the klan was being heralded as  red blooded americans .  by making the federal government  the bad guys  the push towards a more laissez faire government gained traction.  unless you wanted a drink.  then the g men were all about hands on.  which is at the least a contributing factor to the financial realities of the 0 is.  i am not saying that prohibition caused the depression, but it did help to create the political climate that allowed it.  which is something that makes sense in hindsight, but people are simply too short sighted to see it before it happens.  knowing this is a weakness of human beings the constitutional congress intentionally made it difficult to change the constitution in part to mitigate the negative effects of that weakness.  that there is a way to legally and non violently change the constitution at all is an admission of the conventions limitations in creating a document that could survive the changes their own shortsightedness.  not a disastrous oversight at all, instead a spectacularly effective foresight.   #  two years, in an era were it would take 0 weeks to travel from end to end of our nation, was considered next to nothing in terms of time.   #  not to nitpick, but the house of representatives is elected every 0 years.  two years, in an era were it would take 0 weeks to travel from end to end of our nation, was considered next to nothing in terms of time.  as such, the house was looked at as the  populist  branch, whereas the senate elected every 0 years was looked at as more of an  elder statesman/house of lords  concept a place where those who had shown to govern in the best interests of the people could serve longer terms.  the stability was considered a check on the mob rule/issue of the day that members of the house were forced to deal with.  two year terms insured that the house would take on issues that their constituents elected them to deal with, and the senate was the founding fathers pretty brilliant response to stop those knee jerk decisions for becoming law without being in the best interests over the longer term.   laws  are meant to be changed, and changed when necessary.  the constitution is designed to be a over arching framework that decides what the  laws  must deal with in the same way that parameters are set.  the fundamental nature of the constitution has worked brilliantly, insomuch as it has found itself to be a very reasonable framework for laws and dominions to be established within the federal government, the protection of rights, and the operations of which the nation as a whole functions.  the constitution is not law.  bills passed by congress are laws.  if something is unlawful, it goes against a bill passed by a body of government tribal, state, or federal .  laws, however, cannot go against the constitution if they do they are deemed unconstitutional this leads to the constitution being the preeminent legal document for every body of government in the u. s.  as well as the protection of civil liberties for all of its citizens.  in 0 years, we have found that the constitution needed additional reinforcement just 0 times, two involving prohibition and one for washington, d. c. , meaning that we have only found the need to enact just one new provision every 0 years.  that is a damned solid display of stability from a legal document.
the u. s.  constitution is an old document.  at the time it was written, it made a lot of sense, and it was a large jump ahead for democracy, politics, and the human condition as a whole.  unfortunately, failure to foresee that conditions in the future might warrant a radically different document means that the constitution enshrines certain rights that make no sense in the modern day, and can indeed be harmful to the fabric of society, while ignoring others that are now far more relevant.  the constitution depends on there being nearly no nuance in the rights it affords, something that may have worked better in a simpler, less complex, and crucially, less populous nation.  the problem is compounded by the fact that making substantial changes to the document is difficult, if not to say nearly impossible in any but the best of circumstances.  those combined factors mean that the u. s.  may, slowly but surely, become backward compared to other countries with modern founding documents and laws.  the solutions are apparent, and in some cases have been tested successfully in other countries, but the constitution makes change insubstantial and insufficient if changes come at all.  first amendment as it relates to corporate personhood and lobbying.  URL second amendment as it relates to gun deaths in the u. s.  URL fourth amendment as it relates to privacy, specifically digital privacy URL tenth amendment as it relates to federalized health services.  URL those are my favorite problematic amendments.   #  the constitution depends on there being nearly no nuance in the rights it affords, something that may have worked better in a simpler, less complex, and crucially, less populous nation.   #  i do not think there is as much of a difference as you seem to believe.   # such as ? i do not think there is as much of a difference as you seem to believe.  that is the point.  we are talking about changing the supreme law of the country, it should be difficult to change.  the nuance you are expecting is found in state and local laws, where people are allowed much greater influence.  federal law should not be changed willy nilly.  may, slowly but surely, become backward compared to other countries with modern founding documents and laws.  how ? examples ? the us constitution has been, and continues to be used, as an pretty solid example of republican government, separation of powers, and individual liberty.   #  the difficulty of the process gave no advantages to the u. s.   #  how could that affect the way the u. s.  passes laws ? how can a mob suddenly take control of congress when you vote for your representatives every 0 years ? the constitution being monolithic does not protect against tyranny of the majority.  a rich, vibrant democratic, republican tradition does.  the immovability of the constitution now prevents, to a certain degree, the participation of some individuals in the democratic process while favoring the participation of others.  furthermore, the best laws being created by difficult processes is simply not true.  the 0th amendment, which gave you the right to vote for your senator directly, took nearly a century to pass.  the difficulty of the process gave no advantages to the u. s.  population but it did impoverish our democratic traditions for almost 0 years.  the 0th amendment, on the other hand, enjoyed a rather straightforward and easy passing into the constitution  entirely through mob sentiment .  the amendment would also be easily and swiftly repealed through mob sentiment in 0.   #  the 0th amendment also has the distinction of being the only amendments that limits the freedoms/ rights/ privileges of the citizens rather than limiting or modifying the powers of the government.   #  you have actually quite possibly given the best reasons against your own argument.  to ensure a central power structure such as a federal government the central  power  needs to appear to be permanent.  nothing erodes the illusion of permanence faster than rapid change.  the 0th amendment was a very rapid change, turning millions of americans into criminals virtually overnight.  it was as mentioned,  mob rule , and the results were of course catastrophic.  without illegal bootlegging the jewish and italian mafia would not have had an easy of a time growing in the u. s. , nor would it have been as acceptable to the general public.  the intensity of the violence used by the various criminal organizations during prohibition would arguably not be seen again until crack hit the streets in the 0 is.  by any measure of success, prohibition failed.  the reversal of that failure, while strongly supported, was a recognition of failure of the amendment even among some of those who initially backed it.  the temperance movement had a long history, existing for over a century before its success on a national level.  in some ways riding on the coattails of the abolitionist movements success.  the 0th amendment also has the distinction of being the only amendments that limits the freedoms/ rights/ privileges of the citizens rather than limiting or modifying the powers of the government.  personally although i am saddened by the failure of the era to pass thus far.  almost every amendment that has been proposed based on popular sentiment mob rule has thus far failed which makes me rather glad.  same sex marriage bans, anti miscegenation, inability to interfere with slavery, federal adoption of a religion.  the difficulty in passing an amendment based on popular sentiment actually protects us from our humans more short sighted and selfish tendencies.  that difficulty raises the bar from  i want  to  we need .  look at all the really weird proposals that come out of the house of representatives.  that is what an easy path to constitutional amendment would look like.   #  unless you wanted a drink.  then the g men were all about hands on.   #  ok.  so they predicted  some harm .  for scale they predicted a stubbed toe, in the prevention of a broken knee.  what they received was a heart attack, broken knees and stubbed toes.  not to mention it made the federal government into  the bad guys , as much if not more so than ending slavery.  considering jim crow was in full effect and the klan was being heralded as  red blooded americans .  by making the federal government  the bad guys  the push towards a more laissez faire government gained traction.  unless you wanted a drink.  then the g men were all about hands on.  which is at the least a contributing factor to the financial realities of the 0 is.  i am not saying that prohibition caused the depression, but it did help to create the political climate that allowed it.  which is something that makes sense in hindsight, but people are simply too short sighted to see it before it happens.  knowing this is a weakness of human beings the constitutional congress intentionally made it difficult to change the constitution in part to mitigate the negative effects of that weakness.  that there is a way to legally and non violently change the constitution at all is an admission of the conventions limitations in creating a document that could survive the changes their own shortsightedness.  not a disastrous oversight at all, instead a spectacularly effective foresight.   #  not to nitpick, but the house of representatives is elected every 0 years.   #  not to nitpick, but the house of representatives is elected every 0 years.  two years, in an era were it would take 0 weeks to travel from end to end of our nation, was considered next to nothing in terms of time.  as such, the house was looked at as the  populist  branch, whereas the senate elected every 0 years was looked at as more of an  elder statesman/house of lords  concept a place where those who had shown to govern in the best interests of the people could serve longer terms.  the stability was considered a check on the mob rule/issue of the day that members of the house were forced to deal with.  two year terms insured that the house would take on issues that their constituents elected them to deal with, and the senate was the founding fathers pretty brilliant response to stop those knee jerk decisions for becoming law without being in the best interests over the longer term.   laws  are meant to be changed, and changed when necessary.  the constitution is designed to be a over arching framework that decides what the  laws  must deal with in the same way that parameters are set.  the fundamental nature of the constitution has worked brilliantly, insomuch as it has found itself to be a very reasonable framework for laws and dominions to be established within the federal government, the protection of rights, and the operations of which the nation as a whole functions.  the constitution is not law.  bills passed by congress are laws.  if something is unlawful, it goes against a bill passed by a body of government tribal, state, or federal .  laws, however, cannot go against the constitution if they do they are deemed unconstitutional this leads to the constitution being the preeminent legal document for every body of government in the u. s.  as well as the protection of civil liberties for all of its citizens.  in 0 years, we have found that the constitution needed additional reinforcement just 0 times, two involving prohibition and one for washington, d. c. , meaning that we have only found the need to enact just one new provision every 0 years.  that is a damned solid display of stability from a legal document.
the u. s.  constitution is an old document.  at the time it was written, it made a lot of sense, and it was a large jump ahead for democracy, politics, and the human condition as a whole.  unfortunately, failure to foresee that conditions in the future might warrant a radically different document means that the constitution enshrines certain rights that make no sense in the modern day, and can indeed be harmful to the fabric of society, while ignoring others that are now far more relevant.  the constitution depends on there being nearly no nuance in the rights it affords, something that may have worked better in a simpler, less complex, and crucially, less populous nation.  the problem is compounded by the fact that making substantial changes to the document is difficult, if not to say nearly impossible in any but the best of circumstances.  those combined factors mean that the u. s.  may, slowly but surely, become backward compared to other countries with modern founding documents and laws.  the solutions are apparent, and in some cases have been tested successfully in other countries, but the constitution makes change insubstantial and insufficient if changes come at all.  first amendment as it relates to corporate personhood and lobbying.  URL second amendment as it relates to gun deaths in the u. s.  URL fourth amendment as it relates to privacy, specifically digital privacy URL tenth amendment as it relates to federalized health services.  URL those are my favorite problematic amendments.   #  those combined factors mean that the u. s.   #  may, slowly but surely, become backward compared to other countries with modern founding documents and laws.   # such as ? i do not think there is as much of a difference as you seem to believe.  that is the point.  we are talking about changing the supreme law of the country, it should be difficult to change.  the nuance you are expecting is found in state and local laws, where people are allowed much greater influence.  federal law should not be changed willy nilly.  may, slowly but surely, become backward compared to other countries with modern founding documents and laws.  how ? examples ? the us constitution has been, and continues to be used, as an pretty solid example of republican government, separation of powers, and individual liberty.   #  the constitution being monolithic does not protect against tyranny of the majority.   #  how could that affect the way the u. s.  passes laws ? how can a mob suddenly take control of congress when you vote for your representatives every 0 years ? the constitution being monolithic does not protect against tyranny of the majority.  a rich, vibrant democratic, republican tradition does.  the immovability of the constitution now prevents, to a certain degree, the participation of some individuals in the democratic process while favoring the participation of others.  furthermore, the best laws being created by difficult processes is simply not true.  the 0th amendment, which gave you the right to vote for your senator directly, took nearly a century to pass.  the difficulty of the process gave no advantages to the u. s.  population but it did impoverish our democratic traditions for almost 0 years.  the 0th amendment, on the other hand, enjoyed a rather straightforward and easy passing into the constitution  entirely through mob sentiment .  the amendment would also be easily and swiftly repealed through mob sentiment in 0.   #  nothing erodes the illusion of permanence faster than rapid change.   #  you have actually quite possibly given the best reasons against your own argument.  to ensure a central power structure such as a federal government the central  power  needs to appear to be permanent.  nothing erodes the illusion of permanence faster than rapid change.  the 0th amendment was a very rapid change, turning millions of americans into criminals virtually overnight.  it was as mentioned,  mob rule , and the results were of course catastrophic.  without illegal bootlegging the jewish and italian mafia would not have had an easy of a time growing in the u. s. , nor would it have been as acceptable to the general public.  the intensity of the violence used by the various criminal organizations during prohibition would arguably not be seen again until crack hit the streets in the 0 is.  by any measure of success, prohibition failed.  the reversal of that failure, while strongly supported, was a recognition of failure of the amendment even among some of those who initially backed it.  the temperance movement had a long history, existing for over a century before its success on a national level.  in some ways riding on the coattails of the abolitionist movements success.  the 0th amendment also has the distinction of being the only amendments that limits the freedoms/ rights/ privileges of the citizens rather than limiting or modifying the powers of the government.  personally although i am saddened by the failure of the era to pass thus far.  almost every amendment that has been proposed based on popular sentiment mob rule has thus far failed which makes me rather glad.  same sex marriage bans, anti miscegenation, inability to interfere with slavery, federal adoption of a religion.  the difficulty in passing an amendment based on popular sentiment actually protects us from our humans more short sighted and selfish tendencies.  that difficulty raises the bar from  i want  to  we need .  look at all the really weird proposals that come out of the house of representatives.  that is what an easy path to constitutional amendment would look like.   #  not a disastrous oversight at all, instead a spectacularly effective foresight.   #  ok.  so they predicted  some harm .  for scale they predicted a stubbed toe, in the prevention of a broken knee.  what they received was a heart attack, broken knees and stubbed toes.  not to mention it made the federal government into  the bad guys , as much if not more so than ending slavery.  considering jim crow was in full effect and the klan was being heralded as  red blooded americans .  by making the federal government  the bad guys  the push towards a more laissez faire government gained traction.  unless you wanted a drink.  then the g men were all about hands on.  which is at the least a contributing factor to the financial realities of the 0 is.  i am not saying that prohibition caused the depression, but it did help to create the political climate that allowed it.  which is something that makes sense in hindsight, but people are simply too short sighted to see it before it happens.  knowing this is a weakness of human beings the constitutional congress intentionally made it difficult to change the constitution in part to mitigate the negative effects of that weakness.  that there is a way to legally and non violently change the constitution at all is an admission of the conventions limitations in creating a document that could survive the changes their own shortsightedness.  not a disastrous oversight at all, instead a spectacularly effective foresight.   #  two years, in an era were it would take 0 weeks to travel from end to end of our nation, was considered next to nothing in terms of time.   #  not to nitpick, but the house of representatives is elected every 0 years.  two years, in an era were it would take 0 weeks to travel from end to end of our nation, was considered next to nothing in terms of time.  as such, the house was looked at as the  populist  branch, whereas the senate elected every 0 years was looked at as more of an  elder statesman/house of lords  concept a place where those who had shown to govern in the best interests of the people could serve longer terms.  the stability was considered a check on the mob rule/issue of the day that members of the house were forced to deal with.  two year terms insured that the house would take on issues that their constituents elected them to deal with, and the senate was the founding fathers pretty brilliant response to stop those knee jerk decisions for becoming law without being in the best interests over the longer term.   laws  are meant to be changed, and changed when necessary.  the constitution is designed to be a over arching framework that decides what the  laws  must deal with in the same way that parameters are set.  the fundamental nature of the constitution has worked brilliantly, insomuch as it has found itself to be a very reasonable framework for laws and dominions to be established within the federal government, the protection of rights, and the operations of which the nation as a whole functions.  the constitution is not law.  bills passed by congress are laws.  if something is unlawful, it goes against a bill passed by a body of government tribal, state, or federal .  laws, however, cannot go against the constitution if they do they are deemed unconstitutional this leads to the constitution being the preeminent legal document for every body of government in the u. s.  as well as the protection of civil liberties for all of its citizens.  in 0 years, we have found that the constitution needed additional reinforcement just 0 times, two involving prohibition and one for washington, d. c. , meaning that we have only found the need to enact just one new provision every 0 years.  that is a damned solid display of stability from a legal document.
banks provide loans for other entities with the expectation that they will profit from the interest on those loans.  they are not lending the money as a favour or to help the other entity.  another important assumption is that it is in all parties  best interest for the lendee to keep paying the loans and the lender to not call the loan.  therefore it is the bank is responsibility to assess and independently verify the lendee is situation to verify these assumptions.  the degree of verification depends on the amount of money and other factors and may include viewing paystubs, audits and other due diligence, etc.  based on the above factors and assumptions, the lender determines the interest rate, penalties for not paying, etc.  and creates a contract.  once signed this is a business contract like any other.  if later on the lendee determines the  default  option in the contract is more favorable than continuing to pay, this is a perfectly reasonable business choice and would be no different than paying a contractor an early termination fee to get out of a contract with them.  all discussion of people/countries/businesses  screwing over  lenders etc.  by not paying is just rhetoric to emotionally manipulate the lendees to pay, and has no logical or legal basis.   #  therefore it is the bank is responsibility to assess and independently verify the lendee is situation to verify these assumptions.   #  the degree of verification depends on the amount of money and other factors and may include viewing paystubs, audits and other due diligence, etc.   #  are you talking about a situation where someone is  able  to repay a loan, but chooses not to ? credit systems are designed so it is in someone is best interest to repay a loan if they are able to through penalties, credit scores, etc.  .  the degree of verification depends on the amount of money and other factors and may include viewing paystubs, audits and other due diligence, etc.  yes, the lender has incentives to assess the likelihood you will be able to pay the money back.  however, they will never have perfect information of your intentions when they give you the money.  if a bank knows you have no intention of paying back a loan, they would never give it to you in the first place.  if you choose not to repay a loan, this makes the business of lending money less profitable.  lenders will adjust their behavior accordingly and either raise interest rates or give out fewer loans.  this decreases the availability of loans and harms other borrowers who would have repaid their loans.  retail stores account for shoplifters when determining prices for goods.  if nobody shoplifted, prices would be lower for everyone.  similarly, if everyone repaid their loans, interest rates would be less.  if you choose not to repay a loan, everyone else is paying more for your decision.   #  compare, for instance, the terms that residential mortgages get versus commercial mortgages.   #  the best reason i can think of is that a strong social norm around debt repayment creates a situation whereby borrowers can get more favorable terms.  compare, for instance, the terms that residential mortgages get versus commercial mortgages.  they are essentially the same sort of loan, but residential mortgages get lower rates, longer terms, and lower downpayments.  and that is in substantial part because people feel more of a moral obligation to pay their debts, whereas businesses operate on the more ruthless set of principles you espouse.  in a kantian categorical imperative morality, the principle of ruthless default you propose is non universalizable.  you can adopt it, but you ca not rationally expect that everyone adopt it without substantial adverse consequences.   #  in the  groundwork for the metaphysics of morals,  kant arrives at the general moral precept called the  categorical imperative.    #  let me elaborate on the ethics kant espouses, and maybe we will get somewhere.  in the  groundwork for the metaphysics of morals,  kant arrives at the general moral precept called the  categorical imperative.   essentially, this is a precept that kant thinks must be true of any rational moral principle.  it is most famously phrased as  act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.   basically, this means that any moral principle you espouse should be able to be made universal.  you do not need the specific action to be universal, but the principle behind it.  in this case, the principle of ruthlessness in debt transactions would have significant erosion of trust which would stop quite a lot of lending and make that which remains be on far less favorable terms.  so there are major issues in making it universal.  in contrast, the principle of  pay your debts unless you genuinely ca not  does not cause those bad consequences, but still provides an outlet for people who get in bad financial straits.  the latter is much more universalizable than the former.  and thus is preferable to kant.   #  but the fact that lending becomes problematic is not some logical contradiction based out of a mathematical proof that proves the suppositions wrong, it is just a statement.   #  the issue i take with kant is categorical imperative is that it does not actually prove anything objectively, it just pushes the buck further down the philosophical line.  yes, you can make the case that if all debtors handled their debt according to that principle, lending begins to become problematic.  but the fact that lending becomes problematic is not some logical contradiction based out of a mathematical proof that proves the suppositions wrong, it is just a statement.  if you think that lending money is inherently morally wrong in and of itself, it is still a good thing when applied universally.  the categorical imperative does absolutely nothing to remove subjectivity from the moral argument.   #  ok, so if we accept kant is ethics we are now at a purely empirical question: will borrowers get substantially less favorable terms if there is a widespread culture of ruthlessness in respect to loans ?  #  ok, so if we accept kant is ethics we are now at a purely empirical question: will borrowers get substantially less favorable terms if there is a widespread culture of ruthlessness in respect to loans ? i think the example i gave before about commercial versus residential mortgages holds a lot of water.  or for an even better one: primary residences versus investment properties.  you will generally pay 0 more interest plus have much higher down payment requirements on an investment property versus your own home, even if they are otherwise identical properties.  this is because people are far less emotionally attached to investment properties and act in the ruthless manner we are discussing.  0 is a significant difference in rates.
back in the day, the only thing princess peach did was get kidnapped by king bowser.  for the purposes of the story and the limited resources available to the developers, saving the princess was the main goal.  it made sense.  but as time went on we get to see nintendo princesses and women kick serious ass.  samus, zelda and sheik ! and even princess peach when she is not getting kidnapped.  we see women characters in nintendo games get treated as equals in games like mario kart, mario party/sports games and even smash bros.  princess peach is one of the best characters in sm0sh if you ask me.  and while nintendo has some progress to make super princess peach was an embarrassment , games like super mario 0d world where peach and rosalina are playable show that they are willing to make the women the star of the show too.  even in the zelda series, princess zelda is not a character that just gets kidnapped.  twilight princess shows us that she is the strong and powerful ruler of hyrule.  she was willing to stand up to zant and gannon, with a sword in her hand.  even in ocarina of time spoilers ahead, lol she is running around helping out link as sheik.  in wind waker she is a kick ass, take no prisoners kind of pirate.  i know that the history of  your princess is in another castle  type stories are problematic but we have seen nintendo is female characters grow and mature in a way that few other female video game characters have.   #  back in the day, the only thing princess peach did was get kidnapped by king bowser.   #  for the purposes of the story and the limited resources available to the developers, saving the princess was the main goal.   # for the purposes of the story and the limited resources available to the developers, saving the princess was the main goal.  it made sense is that your argument for why it was sexist ? ripping away a loved one who needs saving is an easy way to send the character you play as on an adventure, so if the character you play is male and the loved one you chase after is female, that is a statement of how women in general are inferior to men ? i do not see it.  if the video game was about a female character and a prince was kidnapped, is that a sexist statement about the inferiority of men ? i think to call the game sexist based on the simple fact that a male character is trying to save a female character in need, is over analyzing a simple technique to create an adventurous story line that by your own admission makes perfect sense.   #  you could argue that it was sexist to make her wear a bra and panties, but it was the easiest way to get the point across in the 0 bit era.   #  how recent is recent ? zelda was running around as sheik 0 years ago in the ocarina of time for n0.  peach was arguably the best playable character 0 years ago in super mario bros.  0.  for nes you could play the entire game as her character.  samus was kicking ass 0 years ago in metroid for nes she was revealed to be a woman at the end of the very first game.  you could argue that it was sexist to make her wear a bra and panties, but it was the easiest way to get the point across in the 0 bit era.  besides, what does anyone wear under their clothes ? underwear.  nintendo has always had strong female characters, especially out of the three that you mentioned.  you are not giving them enough credit as a forward thinking company if you ignore their earliest games.  they were very progressive, especially when compared to the stuff that all the other companies were putting out at the time.  also, do not forget joanna dark, dixie kong, all the female characters in fire emblem, amongst others.  all of those characters were in games that were released at least 0 years ago.  before you say that rare made some of those games, remember that they were a fully owned subsidiary of nintendo at the time.  according to him,  having just made a game starring a man it seemed logical to create one around a woman.    #  games are more sophisticated now, a kid in his garage can make donkey kong if they have the right $0 software.   #  i think it is fair to say that the characters were never sexist, they just had limited resources and had to focus on the characters that sold.  peach was 0d as a character because everyone else was too.  mario, donkey kong, hell i will go as far as to say my beloved luigi was a 0d character.  it is not just the character that evolved it was technology.  games are more sophisticated now, a kid in his garage can make donkey kong if they have the right $0 software.  only a big company can make mario kart.   #  my point is that i think that peach was a framing device because that is all they had, they could not, with their technology, give her any real qualities.   #  samus was gender neutral for a long time if i recall correctly.  i am not a gamer.  my point is that i think that peach was a framing device because that is all they had, they could not, with their technology, give her any real qualities.   mario help  takes up less memory than  mario please help i am scared and he is taking me to his evil castle of doom where turtles roam freely  one puts peach as a framing device the other paints her as an over explainer but still, they ca not take that extra memory and still have a lot of cool levels and everything.  if you notice peach grew with the series, they realized early on peach had fans, and they wanted to capitalize.  they immediately made her playable as soon as they could make other smaller characters playable.  again, i think the limit was technology not sexism  #  i mean she was in a power suit.   #  i do not play metroid, ever since super smash bros on n0 i have had a vendetta against her for taking too damn long to load up the fucking power ball thing.  like fuck that shit.  but that is beyond the point.  the fact is that it would be both at realistic to have her in anything else, especially given the 0 0 bit technology of the 0 is.  i mean she was in a power suit.  what the heck else do you wear underneath clothes but underclothes.  also it was mostly male gamers at the time,  beat the game and see a girl in a bikini  was a pretty strong insentivr in the age before internet porn to play a game.
i do not know if it is skewed on reddit or not, but anytime i see a comment about not being attracted to a  slut  the poster gets railed for it.  i also do not think it is strictly the language being used.  regardless of the label, not wanting your partner to have been with 0  people is 0 defensible.  if we, as a society, can tell people that being tall is attractive or that being fat is unattractive, we can tell being that sleeping around is unattractive.  another logically invalid argument is that the person with the preference, must not be promiscuous themselves.  i think this is as non nonsensical as telling a man he can only be attracted to men, otherwise he is hypocritical.  my choice in partner is independent of my partner is choice in me, we can like different things.  many physically fit men are  chubby chasers  and man slutty men are virginal chasers.   #  another logically invalid argument is that the person with the preference, must not be promiscuous themselves.   #  that is where it  really  breaks down as the active promotion of a shallow double standard.   # that is where it  really  breaks down as the active promotion of a shallow double standard.  i have no problem with people having a certain perception of sexuality as long as they are polite about it , but it is a whole different game when they  stand by  one standard for themselves and another for everyone else.  do not get me wrong, they are entitled to like whatever they want, but believing promiscuity is bad for everybody but you is simply hypocritical.  in short, if you believe promiscuity is bad enough to be a deal breaker, how ca not you recognize the very same trait within yourself as equally bad ? from where i am standing, this position can only be achieved and maintained by promoting a double standard.  the very same double standard being instrumental to the definition of slut shaming.   #  if someone were to ask  i am thinking of becoming a slut, but i am worried about how this will affect my future dating life, what should i do ?    #  i expect people getting railed for this has more to do with the context in which it comes up than the validity of the preference.  most of the time, when you see a comment along the lines of  i would not want to date a slut , it is in response to someone they perceive as slutty.  so in this context, it is slut shaming in that it is basically saying  no one wants to date you, slut .  if someone were to ask  i am thinking of becoming a slut, but i am worried about how this will affect my future dating life, what should i do ?   then it would be appropriate.  but i doubt that is a common question.  so, it is a valid preference, but there is no need to bring it up unless someone is interested in starting a relationship with you.  and bringing it up outside of those circumstances is rude and unnecessary.   #  i think it is a bit patronizing to suggest people re evaluate their preferences because you ca not rectify the weight some of them have in attraction.   #  that wholly invalidates the nature of deal breakers in relationships.  i think you are in the minority if you do not have any not that there is anything wrong with that .  i am not into smokers.  it is just something that i would never compromise on.  i think it is a bit patronizing to suggest people re evaluate their preferences because you ca not rectify the weight some of them have in attraction.  i tend to take things at face value though, and maybe that is not the right assumption in every context.   #  and try to understand your reasoning and help investigate whether it is consistent, but that takes a lot of effort and sometimes people just are not willing to engage in it.   # re evaluating a situation does not mean there has to be change, it is just giving a second thought to the matter.  sometimes you may find that your initial reaction was based on a strange internal bias that really should not inform your decision making, other times your initial reaction can be totally correct.  for your smoking example it could take ten seconds to re evaluate,  i wo not date someone who does something with huge long term health implications, smoking has those .  but sometimes it goes further, you have to investigate whether you are consistent:  wouldo i reject all potential partners who indulge in actions with large long term health implications ? if not then why ?  .  sure, it is insulting if you have put long days of thought into a position and someone just offhandedly says  you should re evaluate that , but generally they have no idea how much effort you have put in.  it would be more helpful if they asked questions like  how did you come to this position ?   and try to understand your reasoning and help investigate whether it is consistent, but that takes a lot of effort and sometimes people just are not willing to engage in it.  personally i like to have my preferences questioned because it prompts me to examine whether i have a good reason for my choices or have been restricting my actions based on entirely arbitrary principles.  i am eternally grateful for one of my friends who does not hesitate to ask  why do you believe that ?   because they helped me examine biases i did not even suspect i possessed and freed me from entirely artificial restraints.   #  for example, would you feel the same way saying no to a smoker asking you to dinner as you would about dumping your partner of six months because they took up smoking ?  #  the example you gave earlier was of someone already in a relationship.  so presumably both people already have some emotional investment in the relationship when it comes up.  it is perfectly fair to dismiss people without much thought before you are in a relationship, because they are just people to you, and you are just people to them.  but someone that you are in a relationship with at the very least deserves some hard thought before you decide to break it off over a single thing.  for example, would you feel the same way saying no to a smoker asking you to dinner as you would about dumping your partner of six months because they took up smoking ?
so neither side of this debate feels morally right for me to be on, but i think logically, i would have to support the conservative side of the argument.  all modern economic transactions involving physical items no stocks, capital, etc.  can be simplified down to a trade of money for labor.  yes, you can buy an item off the shelf at someplace like target, but what you are really buying is the labor involved in making that item, the item being the end result of it.  in other words, it is impossible to buy a physical item that is not shaped and made valuable by labor.  in this sense, what you do when you walk to a pizzaria and buy a pizza is  directly  contract the labor of the pizza maker in exchange for money as opposed to indirect contracting through a store, e. g.  digornios .  because of this, businesses should have the right to refuse to labor for any particular individual,  for any reason .  if this is not the case, and some outside authority can force a person to preform labor they do not wish to preform, that could be seen as a type of slavery i hate to use the term , because an outside authority is forcing a person, under the threat of force, to labor, even when that person does not want to.  so prove me wrong everyone, help me come to better formulate and understand my own ideas ! that is what this sub is about, after all.  please excuse the weird grammar and sentence structure, i just woke up  #  all modern economic transactions involving physical items no stocks, capital, etc.   #  can be simplified down to a trade of money for labor.   # can be simplified down to a trade of money for labor.  rights supersede economic transactions.  your argument, such as it is, appears to be the typical libertarian one.  premise:  what you are really buying is the labor involved in making that item  conclusion:  businesses should have the right to refuse to labor for any particular individual, for any reason  the argument is invalid because it is simply not even an argument.  it is a bald assertion.  contrary to your claim that you think logically this argument is not even remotely logical.  it is the antithesis logic.  you have failed to demonstrate that any connection at all exists between the fact that economic transactions trade money for labor and your claim that one side of the transaction should be able to deny others the opportunity to purchase the item or make the trade.  since your argument is invalid and you claim to be driven by logical necessity you are therefore morally required to abandon your claim.  your fallacious claim rests on several false premises.  there is no general right to own and operate a business.  markets are created by the state.  the license to own and operate a business is a privilege granted to some by the state.  states derive their just authority by the consent of the governed.  the people, through their representatives in the state have decided that racial or other forms of discrimination are morally repugnant.  therefore the state is morally justified in ordering businesses to comply with the duly passed laws of the land and prohibit discrimination based on race, sex or sexual orientation.  you have no case.   #  i am uncertain how to justify these types of exceptions beyond basic human decency to not let someone is rights be violated due to one is own views.   #  as much as i loathe saying so, yes.  with the exception of critical human needs such as life saving measures, it is unfair to force private enterprises serve those they do not want to.  if a business does not want to make a cake or cater a wedding they do not approve of it is their right and you as a consumer have a right to not spend your money there.  private  medical practices and education fall under the same umbrella but that does not mean a private physician should be able to refuse life saving treatment or a private school teacher not be required to report suspected abuse of a child that does not attend their school.  i am uncertain how to justify these types of exceptions beyond basic human decency to not let someone is rights be violated due to one is own views.  in any event a private business has the right to refuse service based on whatever their personal views are.  are they assholes for doing so in my book, yes.  but a true mark of freedom is that you can be that prick and the government ca not come in and force you to do otherwise because of how others feel.  needless to say this only applies to those not receiving any public funding.   #  some communities are small enough that two separate clinics would be economically unviable.   #  would you regard treatment recognised by the who to be essential hrt for transgender individuals as life saving ? what about testing for hiv ? sure, you can argue that another doctor will provide the service, but what if there is no other doctor ? some communities are small enough that two separate clinics would be economically unviable.  what then, should the denied patient go to the next town ? have they been permitted the ability to purchase a car ? will the bus driver provide service ? these small rural groups are the kinds of communities that also have a high concentration of homophobic / racist / religious people.  they do not want to get rid of the gays they birth, they want  arepentance .  you ca not get that if the target of your  isoul saving  can up and leave.   #  the same would go for any black or asian focused groups as long as they are private, they can operate how they please.   #  actually, i am ok with all white private schools.  i attended a private school where one of the requirements for enrollment was to be native hawaiian, proved by tracing your ancestry to pre european contact.  our school received no federal assistance, and while it has been sued several times, the courts maintain that the school has a right to carry out the instructions of its founder, princess bernice pauahi bishop, in execution of her will.  if there existed a similar institution that required students to have european or other white ancestry, they would have the right to operate in the exact same manner.  the same would go for any black or asian focused groups as long as they are private, they can operate how they please.   #  today they can discriminate against gay people, tomorrow it is black people  as it was not 0 years ago in america  which was a huge push of the civil rights act.   #  under the law  private  does not mean free of government influence.  even though a business may be private, if it deals with the general public it is known as a place of  public accommodation , and such businesses are required to treat customers as equal under the law.  you are admittedly unable to justify why doctors should not be able to deny service to people they do not wish to treat, because it would be morally reprehensible.  does not the same principle follow even when lives are not at stake ? from the reverse, some would say that allowing places of public accommodation to pick and choose what members of the public to accommodate is a slippery slope that can lead to 0.  places such as hospitals being afforded the same ability to deny service or 0.  extending what ability to discriminate such businesses are given i. e.  today they can discriminate against gay people, tomorrow it is black people  as it was not 0 years ago in america  which was a huge push of the civil rights act.  in short, businesses used to be able to deny service to whomever they wanted and they used that freedom to deny the rights of minorities and whoever else they pleased.
currently we use base 0 which as we all know goes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 and then rolls over 0 and the process repeated.  there is an alternative to this called base 0 would similarly go 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 x e with x ten and e 0 and then would roll over to 0 0, that really is not terribly different to base 0 but has some advantages.  first fractions become simpler.  under base 0 0, 0, and 0 are all multiples of 0, but under base 0 0, 0, 0, 0, and 0 are all multiples of 0.  this makes dividing much easier than in base 0.  secondly in base 0 multiplication is much easier to remember.  in base 0 the multiples of 0 are 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0; but in base 0 the pattern is 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0.  the ones place repeats every three numbers in a regular patter unlike in base 0.  lastly we do use twelve as the base for a lot of things in are lives.  for example a day has 0 hours, an hour has 0 minutes, and a minute has 0 seconds.  all of those numbers are multiples of 0.  if you do not use metric then you know that there are 0 inches in a foot.   #  for example a day has 0 hours, an hour has 0 minutes, and a minute has 0 seconds.   #  all of those numbers are multiples of 0 okay, we make the switch.   # all of those numbers are multiples of 0 okay, we make the switch.  now there are 0 hours in a day, 0 minutes in hour, and 0 seconds in a minute.  how does this help us at all ? the way we read and write time  0 hours and 0 minutes  or 0:0 seems to make this  simplification  almost irrelevant.  using base 0 for inches/feet would be kind of cool, but the imperial system still sucks 0 feet in a yard, 0 yards in a mile ? i like metric way better, and that would get  ruined  by the switch.  arguably much much worse is our currency denominations.  what happens to all the 0, 0, 0 and 0 dollar bills ? not only do the denominations not mesh with base 0, but the numbers on all of those bills are now wrong ! a  0  dollar bill reads twelve, but is only worth x.  but those bills are all out there.  this would be an absolute nightmare !  #  i do not think it is unreasonable to say this would cost hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars if we did this across the world.   #  sure, it is nice.  but this would be incredibly expensive.  you would need to reprogram hundreds of millions of computers.  you would need to update billions of signs.  you would need to re educate everyone.  people who grew up with imperial have troubles working in metric, and i would argue this is a harder transition: you would have decades of people being confused which would lead to inefficiency and costly mistakes.  i do not think it is unreasonable to say this would cost hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars if we did this across the world.  we have bigger issues to solve, and better uses for that money.  theoretically this is nice.  pragmatically, not so much.   #  but what if the gains you make are offset by the costs of redoing centuries of work so that everything makes sense and we do not have horrible accidents as people continue to do calculations in the wrong base.   #  it can make the change impossible or too expensive to reap any benefits from.  think about it, the whole point is to make the world better, no ? but what if the gains you make are offset by the costs of redoing centuries of work so that everything makes sense and we do not have horrible accidents as people continue to do calculations in the wrong base.  we have lost spacecraft and ships to the conversion from traditional to metric.  this is a far deeper change to how people live.  people  will  die if we make these changes as people do necessary math like do i have enough gas ? or can i afford to eat ? wrong because some numbers are in base 0 and others are in base 0.   #  a government is distributing public aid using an older system that has not been fully updated.   #  easy, i am driving across the desert.  the signs are in base 0, i assume the distance is 0 shorter than it really is because i am not used to base 0 and run out of gas well short of the next gas station.  another one is i am manufacturing an airplane.  one nation uses base 0 and another uses base 0.  someone does not convert the numbers from one to the other correctly, the parts are not sealed/connected properly and as a result systems fail when place under stress.  under extreme circumstances the plane crashes.  this happens fairly often when parts for airplanes are made in countries that have different systems of measurement.  here is another one.  a government is distributing public aid using an older system that has not been fully updated.  as a result the payout are wrong in some way.  even small errors repeated ten million times are a crippling problem.  the program defaults, putting stress on a national government that now needs to be completely on point for dealing with dozens of such problems hitting during the transition period, if political factions are firmly entrenched it might be that these programs are  allowed  to fail and people are  allowed  to suffer in order to discredit those in power.  but even in the best of circumstances you are talking about many, many government programs being put off or scrapped completely because so much money, leadership, and manpower would be necessary to rebuild the necessary program from the ground up to reflect the new form of basic math.  all of this presupposes that people  want  to switch over.  remember, there are many cases such as decimal time where people tried to redo how we measure time to 0 seconds to 0 minute, 0 minutes to 0 hour, and 0 hours to 0 day where schemes that seemed to make a lot of sense just never got any traction because people were not having any problems at all with the system that they are using.   #  for example, hex numbers are written as 0x0.   #  there is a huge difference between metric vs imperial and changing bases.  choice of units is only ambiguous if you  omit the units , which is ambiguous even if everyone is using imperial.  you ca not just say 0.  0 what ? you have to say 0 feet or 0 inches.  but when switching bases, it is much harder to clear up the ambiguity.  i say 0 feet.  but is that  ten feet  or  twelve feet .  in computer science, you create conventions to solve this.  for example, hex numbers are written as 0x0.  unfortunately, since almost all existing numerals are in base 0, you would have to added a prefix/suffix/decorator to all of your new base 0 numbers, which would be a huge pain in the ass.  you would have to distinguish between  0 feet  ten feet vs  0t feet  twelve feet or something.  and there is always going to be this nagging doubt if the number you are reading is actually base 0, or if its base 0 but the writer forgot the indicator.
first off, i am not a parent.  maybe that disqualifies me from making any comments about this matter in the first place.  either way, i am a fairly objective person and i can admit when i am wrong.  i do not buy into the whole argument of  just because our parents brought us into the world, we owe them our lives.   whether a child was brought into the world by choice or not, i do not think that being born should impose a debt of respect on the child.  furthermore, i think that this respect needs to be earned.  i define respect in this context as  aregard for another person is rational ability, trusting that they can admit when they are wrong and that their decisions are well thought out.   this is why i think that giving the reason  because i said so  is a total cop out.  if the parent is not open to having a conversation about the reason for their actions, then i do not think they deserve the child is respect.  do not get me wrong, i think it is crucial for a child to be told when they are wrong so that they do not grow up into narcissistic asshats.  however, i think that they deserve a logical conversation with a parent until one side admits, of his own accord, that he is in the wrong.   #  this is why i think that giving the reason  because i said so  is a total cop out.   #  if the parent is not open to having a conversation about the reason for their actions, then i do not think they deserve the child is respect.   # if the parent is not open to having a conversation about the reason for their actions, then i do not think they deserve the child is respect.  i think you will find that as a parent, this would be an impossible situation.  you say that  respect needs to be earned , but is not this a two way street ? maybe you think the parent who says  because i said so  has not done enough to earn the child is respect.  but has the child done anything to earn respect either ? if the parent tried to rationally explain why they are right to the child, how confident are you that the child will understand and  can admit when they are wrong and that their decisions are well thought out .  if they ca not, then a rational two way discussion just is not going to happen.  and if such a discussion ca not happen yet, what now ? should the parent and child just  agree to disagree  ? of course not.  i would not frame it as some kind of  debt  that arises out of giving birth, but i think its pretty widely acknowledged that parents are responsible for their child is behavior, even before the child is wise enough to understand complicated reasoning.  as a third part, i  expect  other parents to keep their children in line, even if their children are not smart enough to understand why certain behavioral expectations exist.  and similar phenomena happen for all positions of authority.  if a police officer is directing traffic, he does not have to explain to you the details of what is going on.  you have to listen to him anyway.   because i said so  would be a perfectly reasonable thing for him to say when him explaining what is going on in more detail would hold up traffic especially if you then decide for whatever reason that you disagree .  similarly, there are many employer employee relationships where  because i said so  should be good enough for you.  one hopes that there is a good reason behind the requests, but the employee is in no way entitled to a full breakdown of exactly why everything works the way it does, especially when time is of the essence.  its embedded into the nature of these relationships that you follow orders.   #  however, i do not think it can quite be applied to parenting.   #  i know i was not very specific about the scenario in my original post, but this is my first time posting in this subreddit.  i believe that it becomes a two way street once the child is able to competently understand how to have arguments.  the age most certainly would not be identical in every case, as there are very astute 0 year olds and very stupid 0 year olds.  if the discussion cannot happen yet, it is a lack of logical development in the child.  then it would make sense for the  because i told you so  to be in place, since they ca not operate as rational agents.  i do agree with you in expecting for parents to keep their kids in line.  however, i think some areas of behavior are more black and white than others.  for example, if their child punches other kids for asking to share their toy, that is a problem.  but if a child was constantly bullying another child, then the one on the receiving end decided to finally hit back, i think some parents could misconstrue that as  amisbehaving.   i think your police officer example is very helpful to my own reflection.  but i think that the relationship between police officers and civilians is not identical to parents and children.  of course the civilians need to listen to the police officer in that instance, but there are officers who take the law into their own hands, and i think that the civilian should not be penalized for speaking up if that is the case.  i agree with you to a degree on the employee example.  that relationship seems to be how things should work in the workplace.  however, i do not think it can quite be applied to parenting.  the employee is being paid for this deference to the employer.  if at any point they get sick of the employer is way of running things, they can leave the company.  of course one could say that the  payment  children receive is food, shelter, etc.  but parents are required by law to provide these things, regardless of the nature of disagreement.  if the parent provides such things to the best of their ability and has a sound moral character, then i think they deserve the respect of the child.  if the parent is doing the bare minimum of interaction, providing the bare minimum of basic human necessities, and operates the household without the possibility of ever making a mistake, then there is a problem, and i would not blame the child for not respecting them once they are older to think for themselves.   #  sure, but that is just rephrasing the same thing.   #  sure, but that is just rephrasing the same thing.  i am not really arguing for a specific phrasing.  it might be  because its the right thing to do  or  because that is dangerous .  the point is the command is not up for discussion or debate.  for sure, the better the parent can teach why the command is the right one the better for the child is development.  but at that particular moment when the parent needs something to happen or child is doing something inappropriate the  primary  objective is compliance.  education and understanding are always important, but they are secondary objectives at that point, and in general everyone is better served if the child listens to commands immediately, and then the parent can discuss the  why  of it all later.   #  i do not think it necessarily  suggests that authority is sufficient without an underlying reason .   #  again, it kind of depends, but as a general rule, i do not think i agree with you that  because i said so  is automatically bad.  i do not think it necessarily  suggests that authority is sufficient without an underlying reason .  what is suggests is that in this particular instance, it does not matter if the child understands or agrees with the reasoning, he/she is expected to obey anyway.  any attempt at an explanation invites discussion or debate.  discussion and debate and understanding are great for later, but the moment when you need the child to do something often is not the right time for this.  the child should be under no illusion that its okay for his or her obedience to be conditional on them understanding and agreeing with the parent is command.   #  i have been known to question  my own emotional responses  because someone has told me  you ca not possibly be angry about this .   #  the problem with the   because it is the right thing to do  or similar as appropriate is that if falls apart with narcissistic or authoritarian parents.  my mother is definition of right or proper changed with her moods and made it nearly impossible for me to conform to the standards she desired.  putting a child through such oscillations when they are still trying to solidify a world view leaves them in a vulnerable place.  this is compounded by the fact that the world emphasizes the rightness of parents to children, that children should listen.  children cannot tell the difference between authority due to wisdom and authority lacking wisdom and most society conflates the two.  i still have problems with things of  moral compass  types when directly confronted.  i have been known to question  my own emotional responses  because someone has told me  you ca not possibly be angry about this .
i believe that it is bad for humans generally that we have patriotism.  it leads not only to discrimination.  hello mr trump but also to economic and political difficulties and misstrust.  it prevents not only people from accepting everyone as their partner in human, but also causes hatred and sometimes war between nations or ethnic groups.  i do not mean that partriotism is worse than no patriotism, but that as a concept and as an element we experience all the time it it in itself bad for us.  intrinsic badness versus comparative badness without patriotism we could form one great community and society.  this is prevented by prejudice against others and arrogance about themselves, partiotism conveys.   #  without patriotism we could form one great community and society.   #  this is prevented by prejudice against others and arrogance about themselves, partiotism conveys.   #  all patriotism is not  rah ! rah ! i love my country !   it can also be a way for a citizen to demand accountability from a government and its institutions.  a patriotic person has a stake in the country and may seek to advance the country as a whole.  this is prevented by prejudice against others and arrogance about themselves, partiotism conveys.  there are many other things that divide us: race, religion, language, etc.  simply removing even the most idiotic form of patriotism will not immediately bring us together.   #  you are saying that that patriotism may be better than no patriotism, but that no patriotism would be one great community and society ?  #  i am confused.  you are saying that that patriotism may be better than no patriotism, but that no patriotism would be one great community and society ? fear and prejudice are not the products of patriotism, they are a fact of being human.  our minds are not and never will be unbiased, but patriotism helps.  patriotism is what lets us accept anyone as our partner in being human, in my opinion.  patriotism is what lets us say that we like the other americans, the other germans, etc society without patriotism is not one great society, but no society, because without some belief in the groups that we are a part of, why would we be a member of them ? one global society is universal human patriotism, not it is removal, and the removal or patriotism is no society at all, something where whom we associate with is based solely on those prejudices, rather than the other way around.   #  it just means people have to be reasonable about it like everything else in life.   #  fine, but just because better reasons exist does not mean it is intrinsically bad.  there are better reasons to appreciate people than just because they are in your family, but that does not mean appreciating your family is a bad thing.  likewise, patriotism the way people who say it is good define it is just another sense of personal attachment to people you share something in common with.  sometimes other things have to take moral precedence over those attachments, and sometimes some people can take those attachments too far, but none of that makes the attachments  intrinsically  bad.  it just means people have to be reasonable about it like everything else in life.   #  and a patriotic person is more likely to help his community.   #  patriotism can lead to good and bad things.  you have laid out the bad things but are ignoring the good.  if someone is patriotic they may be more willing to help out in their communities or help the homeless.  they might see a value to helping children or their neighbors.  they may just plain try harder at life since they feel there is some value to their efforts.  i think we get caught up in this idea of an interconnected globalized world but the truth is 0 of people can have no effect on thing globally.  what the average person can do is affect their local community in a positive way.  and a patriotic person is more likely to help his community.   #  if we seek security and wealth to be shared by others and pride us for it.   #  yes.  but this does not imply patriotism.  patriotism in fact is a form of social behaviour where you seek something to be for others and you.  not primarily for you.  which is not intrinsicly bad.  if we would live in a  pure  capitalist world.  there would be no patriotism.  because it diminishes the possible profits.  we do not.  so if we seek comradeship with others.  if we seek security and wealth to be shared by others and pride us for it.  wouldnt it be better if we shared this privilege with everyone not only a few ? an argument that does show an intrinsic advantage over a world without patriotism.
i believe that it is bad for humans generally that we have patriotism.  it leads not only to discrimination.  hello mr trump but also to economic and political difficulties and misstrust.  it prevents not only people from accepting everyone as their partner in human, but also causes hatred and sometimes war between nations or ethnic groups.  i do not mean that partriotism is worse than no patriotism, but that as a concept and as an element we experience all the time it it in itself bad for us.  intrinsic badness versus comparative badness without patriotism we could form one great community and society.  this is prevented by prejudice against others and arrogance about themselves, partiotism conveys.   #  without patriotism we could form one great community and society.   #  this is prevented by prejudice against others and arrogance about themselves, partiotism conveys i do not see the logic in this.   #  i do agree that patriotism has the potential to get out of hand, and turn into something nasty like nationalism.  that being said, i would like to put south korea as an example.  patriotism instilled the belief that the nation is self interest was more important than individual interests.  this allowed us to recover quickly from the 0 imf bailout.  and before that, it allowed the people to work so hard that it turned a war torn, dirt poor country into one of the largest economic powers and one of the most developed countries in asia.  korea has a lot of problems involving nationalism, such as racism towards migrants and tensions with its neighbors, but without it i doubt we could have achieved the development we see today.  this is prevented by prejudice against others and arrogance about themselves, partiotism conveys i do not see the logic in this.  racist white americans do not view african americans as  non americans , just as subhuman.  in the case of racial, religious and other issues, the idea that  our country is more important/better/superior to others  does not really apply here.  internal conflicts within countries based on race, class, gender, religion and others will always occur.   #  patriotism is what lets us accept anyone as our partner in being human, in my opinion.   #  i am confused.  you are saying that that patriotism may be better than no patriotism, but that no patriotism would be one great community and society ? fear and prejudice are not the products of patriotism, they are a fact of being human.  our minds are not and never will be unbiased, but patriotism helps.  patriotism is what lets us accept anyone as our partner in being human, in my opinion.  patriotism is what lets us say that we like the other americans, the other germans, etc society without patriotism is not one great society, but no society, because without some belief in the groups that we are a part of, why would we be a member of them ? one global society is universal human patriotism, not it is removal, and the removal or patriotism is no society at all, something where whom we associate with is based solely on those prejudices, rather than the other way around.   #  likewise, patriotism the way people who say it is good define it is just another sense of personal attachment to people you share something in common with.   #  fine, but just because better reasons exist does not mean it is intrinsically bad.  there are better reasons to appreciate people than just because they are in your family, but that does not mean appreciating your family is a bad thing.  likewise, patriotism the way people who say it is good define it is just another sense of personal attachment to people you share something in common with.  sometimes other things have to take moral precedence over those attachments, and sometimes some people can take those attachments too far, but none of that makes the attachments  intrinsically  bad.  it just means people have to be reasonable about it like everything else in life.   #  what the average person can do is affect their local community in a positive way.   #  patriotism can lead to good and bad things.  you have laid out the bad things but are ignoring the good.  if someone is patriotic they may be more willing to help out in their communities or help the homeless.  they might see a value to helping children or their neighbors.  they may just plain try harder at life since they feel there is some value to their efforts.  i think we get caught up in this idea of an interconnected globalized world but the truth is 0 of people can have no effect on thing globally.  what the average person can do is affect their local community in a positive way.  and a patriotic person is more likely to help his community.   #  it can also be a way for a citizen to demand accountability from a government and its institutions.   #  all patriotism is not  rah ! rah ! i love my country !   it can also be a way for a citizen to demand accountability from a government and its institutions.  a patriotic person has a stake in the country and may seek to advance the country as a whole.  this is prevented by prejudice against others and arrogance about themselves, partiotism conveys.  there are many other things that divide us: race, religion, language, etc.  simply removing even the most idiotic form of patriotism will not immediately bring us together.
some people tell me i should go outside and that i am wasting my life being inside, that i should get a life.  i realize that there is certain health problems when staying inside all day.  vitamin d, movement, etc.  but thay is not what they mean, they mean that they do not find anything inside an activity of much value.  yet anything that is outside they do find valueable, even if it is just walking around with no goal.  i think that what is valueable to someone in their life differs per person.  when i am inside i do not just browse the net, play games, watch shows and listen to music.  i also have hobbies such as drawing, guitar, singing, making youtube videos and voice acting.  i talk to my two best friends a lot on skype voice chat a lot, and sometimes other people, usually in group calls.  whenever i am outside hanging out with people, sure, it is different from a skype conversation but to me it is not that different, and i still love talking to them on skype, and playing games with them.  every now and than i do do some kind of activity outside ofcourse such as swimming wih friends .  people that mostly are outside go inside sometimes too, so ofcourse that also goes vice versa.  i realize that when i get really old i ca not do a bunch of things anymore so now is the time to do stuff i like.  but i do not think being inside a lot is a waste of life.  it entertains me, i feel good, as long as it is not too much it is healthy and i do not bother the outside world with it.  just because someone else does not find it fun does not mean i do not.  i do not see how walking around the city is any more valueable than being inside drawing something, or even watching a tv series you learn nothing from.  going to a social gathering such as a party might be fun for some but i get anxious and frustrated with crowds and might even get a panic attack.  i do not think either inside or outside is a superior way to spend your free time.  what is a not wasted life anyway ? one that contributes something to soceity ? something you can develop yourself with ? that can be done either inside or outside, or not done either inside or outside.  i do not think something needs a purpose to exist anyways, but i digress.   #  going to a social gathering such as a party might be fun for some but i get anxious and frustrated with crowds and might even get a panic attack.   #  maybe that is a problem, do not you think ?  #  what is a waste of time ? i do not think there is a right answer, but i do think some ways of spending it are more constructive than others.  i can see good points made by other redditors, so instead of reiterate them, i will try to point out what imho is a key aspect when it comes to live life.  you should spend some time trying to really know the root of your actions.  you clearly enjoy spending time inside and that is ok, but why are you choosing the comfort of your home over the unpredictability of the outside world ? are you afraid ? what is the source of your fear ? do not you know the best way to conquer your fears is to face them ? a constructive way of using time is to face discomfort whenever possible because learning to manage that feeling will make you grow as a person.  i am an introvert myself, but still i can sense when i prefer being alone because there is stuff i wanna do and when i do so because of fear.  maybe that is a problem, do not you think ? not because of our obnoxious extroverted inclined society, but because your body mind reacts to a social event like it is a threat for your life ! everyone has preferences, but everyone should be able to face the whole spectrum of human experience without freaking out in front of unpleasant events.  you ca not predict life; this is at the same time the fun part and the scary part of living.  by going outside you will train yourself to appreciate this.   #  i personally noticed a huge improvement in energy, mood and productivity and creativity when my bike got stolen and i had to walk to the store for 0 minutes a day.   #  firstly its usually its a combination of not having enough energy or being in a down mood.  however you seem to be doing just fine without.  i personally noticed a huge improvement in energy, mood and productivity and creativity when my bike got stolen and i had to walk to the store for 0 minutes a day.  second; the extrovert ideology that is being spread over everything.  i totally agree that there is nothing wrong with being in a home comfort zone, but it is dangerous to be too comfortable if you feel any anxiety doing seemingly normal things like talking to strangers, you are probably experiencing this problem .  the  go outside and experience things  or  go out with us tonight  is usually other people trying to prevent this.  and third; it usually tries to prevent is radicalization in people people get strange opinions when being shut in for too long and do not see perspective of the outside .  but the way you put it seems like you do not have this issue, but it might be unclear for anyone outside like concerned family members .  i was in your boat about a year ago, since then i started walking to gain energy, started dating to lose anxiety, and joined this subreddit to see different views.  i feel like a better person, and would wish that onto others, thus caught myself saying  go outside more often  to others.   #  i do get depressed when not distracted by anything anymore because i tend to overthink negatively , and when inside does not distract, outside would be a good option.   #  for the first point, i do have a lack of motivation sometimes.  i do not know how much going outside would change this though, it actually often makes me want to do nothing the next day, haha.  i do get depressed when not distracted by anything anymore because i tend to overthink negatively , and when inside does not distract, outside would be a good option.  i think your second point is a great one for many like me.  personally, yup, i do get anxious.  i do not think it is weird i would rather avoid it and stay in my comfort zone, but it is a good thing to get out of it and grow as a person.  i agree some of these people are trying to help, it is just that maybe they could put it differently you know ? as for third point, it is an interesting one, even if it does not apply to me.  although i am usually not super serious, i am a person that often thinks too much and questions things although faar from smart, xd , so maybe that is why.  i like critical/skeptical thinking and can be a bit cynical, and like it when people improve.  i am 0 and still have a long way to go, but if i look at how i used to see other people is opinions 0 years ago i have already improved a lot.  about this subreddit, i had never submitted a question before and i kind of expected me to go in self defense mode not considering any truth to the opposing view i hoped not ofcourse but nope, i am actually seeing things from different viewpoints, probably because of the civil nature of the replies.  great way to get used to your views being challenged since when that happens i still feel slightly attacked on the inside and would like to get rid of that great sub.   #  so many nuances about the people and places around you are lost when looking at them through facebook or google maps.   # i have been a very reclusive person in the past decade or so and i also caught myself thinking that my life was perfectly fine.  one bad breakup later and i find myself going outside a lot just to cope, because i would get crushed by that feeling of loneliness inside and i have enjoyed it more than i thought i would.  the internet is a tricky creature too it makes us believe we are constantly connected to the entire planet.  the reality is, the chances of ever meeting any of the people in your immediate vicinity through the internet is very, very slim.  so many nuances about the people and places around you are lost when looking at them through facebook or google maps.  it also is not a battle between inside and outside, it is just about finding a balance between the two that is good for you.  if you do not know what effect it would have on you if you went outside more give it a try.  if you do not like it as much, you can always just stay inside again.   #  if you go out and run regularly, you will have more stamina in your daily life.   #  whatever we are feeling at the moment seems like it would last forever.  it is not true of love or depression, these things wo not last forever.  as soon as you snap out of it you wo not believe how you ever fell in the first place.  our environment affects us.  if you go out and run regularly, you will have more stamina in your daily life.  that is what science tells us and the nice thing about science is that it does not depend on mental states of anyone.
i view taxation as theft because if you refuse to pay, men with guns namely, cops will kidnap you and lock you away.  i oppose obamacare, social security, medicare, and medicaid as immoral because theyre coercive.  i belive you own your body and, therefore, can put whatever you want in it.  if you own your body, you own your labor.  so you have the right to rent your labor to any employer at any price.  therefore, we should abolish the minimum wage.  lastly, i think government should only have excise taxes, and it is only role should be to provide a court system, and small military.   #  i view taxation as theft because if you refuse to pay, men with guns namely, cops will kidnap you and lock you away.   #  by living in a society, you implicitly accept its  terms of service .   # by living in a society, you implicitly accept its  terms of service .  the state you are financing with taxes is what makes your life relatively comfortable, and what makes your money worth something.  if you are not comfortable with this, you could try going to somalia.  or at least, proposing an alternate social model that wo not end up like somalia.  therefore, we should abolish the minimum wage.  what you say would be nice if we lived completely isolated and could retreat to a private dimension floating in the void where we all had our basic needs covered.  but we do not live in the void.  labor selling under bad conditions is not a right, it is basically an  obligation .  the theory that  minimum wage causes unemployment , while it may have some nice mathematical models, does not hold any water.  the means of production are illegitimately owned by few people, and you must go through them with their conditions if you want to work and make a living wage which is higher than the minimum wage .  a court system enforcing what laws ? also, what about nonexcludable goods and services ? who would keep railways, water supplies and a clean environment ? how do you prevent huge security contractors from establishing mafia like extortions, with absolutely no accountability ?  #  your view seems to be based on things like  i believe you own your body  or  i believe that coercive things are immoral .   #  your view seems to be based on things like  i believe you own your body  or  i believe that coercive things are immoral .  and then you draw very rigid conclusions from these.  but where did these premises come from ? are they just sort of things that you feel ? what makes you so confident in them that you are willing to accept any result that logically follows from them ? or are you open to re evaluating the premises if someone can convince you that the  outcome  is a negative one.  to me, it makes more sense to work backwards.  i want to imagine the world i want to live in.  and then i work backwards to decide what laws and regulations we need to build that.  i like freedoms as well, but to me it makes no sense to value freedoms above the actual world that results from them.  as a libertarian, i would imagine you believe that your libertarian ideals will get you the best of everything.  not only are they the freedoms you value, but they happen to  also  result in a great world to live in.  so i guess my question to you before proceeding is: would convincing you that your admittedly noble libertarian ideals do not result in a desirable real world outcome be enough abandon them as central premises of your belief on the role of government ?  #  my question to you is:  if  the libertarian axiom is you have chosen can be shown to have a negative real world outcome, would that change your political views ?  #  that is fine, but the way you have defined  self ownership  here is so limited that i do not really see how you can draw any conclusions based on it.  specifically:   if you own your body, you own your labor.  so you have the right to rent your labor to any employer at any price.  therefore, we should abolish the minimum wage.  does not come close to following logically without many many more premises.  but i am not even at the point of trying to challenge specific premises yet.  my point is that when we are dealing with  oughts  we can approach from either direction.  we can say  here are the axioms i believe are good ones  and then take whatever that gives us, or we can say  here is the world i want to live in , which moral / political / ethical axioms should i follow ? my question to you is:  if  the libertarian axiom is you have chosen can be shown to have a negative real world outcome, would that change your political views ? or are those axioms so core to your worldview that you believe it is right to follow them regardless of the consequences ?  #  i have seen libertarians argue about handling all transgressions in civil courts by people who are directly impacted, are you advocating that ?  #  all government actions are coercion.  do something against the law and people with guns cops will kidnap you and lock you away be it failure to pay taxes, failure to comply with local ordinances, or even failure to cooperate with said people with guns when you have not are not accused of committing a crime.  if you believe all coercion is wrong, i would call you an anarchist, not a libertarian.  if you believe some coercion is right and other coercion is wrong, you need to explain why you believe that.  else it is not a productive argument.  as for minimum wage, there are two parties the employer and the potential employee.  last time i checked, this is frequently a transaction of unequal power.  most of us are not wealthy enough to forgo a regular wage.  is a transaction between two individuals where one has more power than the other truly a fair transaction ? finally, if the government is only to provide a court system, who restricts harmful behavior ? i have seen libertarians argue about handling all transgressions in civil courts by people who are directly impacted, are you advocating that ?  #  if you ca not get a job, you ca not gain skills and experience.   #  if you are employed you keep the job till you find something better, if you are not you take the first offer you get and keep that till you find something better.  if there is nothing local, you move.  if there is work available, but you lack skills and experience, you can negotiate a lower wage than they would normally pay and get paid a small amount to learn on the job.  either way, nobody can force you to work for them, so when negotiating an offer of employment you always have the ability to walk away, making it a fair transaction.  the minimum wage screws this all up by preventing employers from hiring you if your skills and experience are not worth whatever the minimum wage is.  if you ca not get a job, you ca not gain skills and experience.  minimum wage keeps the unemployed unemployable, and reliant on the welfare state
i view taxation as theft because if you refuse to pay, men with guns namely, cops will kidnap you and lock you away.  i oppose obamacare, social security, medicare, and medicaid as immoral because theyre coercive.  i belive you own your body and, therefore, can put whatever you want in it.  if you own your body, you own your labor.  so you have the right to rent your labor to any employer at any price.  therefore, we should abolish the minimum wage.  lastly, i think government should only have excise taxes, and it is only role should be to provide a court system, and small military.   #  so you have the right to rent your labor to any employer at any price.   #  therefore, we should abolish the minimum wage.   # by living in a society, you implicitly accept its  terms of service .  the state you are financing with taxes is what makes your life relatively comfortable, and what makes your money worth something.  if you are not comfortable with this, you could try going to somalia.  or at least, proposing an alternate social model that wo not end up like somalia.  therefore, we should abolish the minimum wage.  what you say would be nice if we lived completely isolated and could retreat to a private dimension floating in the void where we all had our basic needs covered.  but we do not live in the void.  labor selling under bad conditions is not a right, it is basically an  obligation .  the theory that  minimum wage causes unemployment , while it may have some nice mathematical models, does not hold any water.  the means of production are illegitimately owned by few people, and you must go through them with their conditions if you want to work and make a living wage which is higher than the minimum wage .  a court system enforcing what laws ? also, what about nonexcludable goods and services ? who would keep railways, water supplies and a clean environment ? how do you prevent huge security contractors from establishing mafia like extortions, with absolutely no accountability ?  #  and then you draw very rigid conclusions from these.   #  your view seems to be based on things like  i believe you own your body  or  i believe that coercive things are immoral .  and then you draw very rigid conclusions from these.  but where did these premises come from ? are they just sort of things that you feel ? what makes you so confident in them that you are willing to accept any result that logically follows from them ? or are you open to re evaluating the premises if someone can convince you that the  outcome  is a negative one.  to me, it makes more sense to work backwards.  i want to imagine the world i want to live in.  and then i work backwards to decide what laws and regulations we need to build that.  i like freedoms as well, but to me it makes no sense to value freedoms above the actual world that results from them.  as a libertarian, i would imagine you believe that your libertarian ideals will get you the best of everything.  not only are they the freedoms you value, but they happen to  also  result in a great world to live in.  so i guess my question to you before proceeding is: would convincing you that your admittedly noble libertarian ideals do not result in a desirable real world outcome be enough abandon them as central premises of your belief on the role of government ?  #  we can say  here are the axioms i believe are good ones  and then take whatever that gives us, or we can say  here is the world i want to live in , which moral / political / ethical axioms should i follow ?  #  that is fine, but the way you have defined  self ownership  here is so limited that i do not really see how you can draw any conclusions based on it.  specifically:   if you own your body, you own your labor.  so you have the right to rent your labor to any employer at any price.  therefore, we should abolish the minimum wage.  does not come close to following logically without many many more premises.  but i am not even at the point of trying to challenge specific premises yet.  my point is that when we are dealing with  oughts  we can approach from either direction.  we can say  here are the axioms i believe are good ones  and then take whatever that gives us, or we can say  here is the world i want to live in , which moral / political / ethical axioms should i follow ? my question to you is:  if  the libertarian axiom is you have chosen can be shown to have a negative real world outcome, would that change your political views ? or are those axioms so core to your worldview that you believe it is right to follow them regardless of the consequences ?  #  i have seen libertarians argue about handling all transgressions in civil courts by people who are directly impacted, are you advocating that ?  #  all government actions are coercion.  do something against the law and people with guns cops will kidnap you and lock you away be it failure to pay taxes, failure to comply with local ordinances, or even failure to cooperate with said people with guns when you have not are not accused of committing a crime.  if you believe all coercion is wrong, i would call you an anarchist, not a libertarian.  if you believe some coercion is right and other coercion is wrong, you need to explain why you believe that.  else it is not a productive argument.  as for minimum wage, there are two parties the employer and the potential employee.  last time i checked, this is frequently a transaction of unequal power.  most of us are not wealthy enough to forgo a regular wage.  is a transaction between two individuals where one has more power than the other truly a fair transaction ? finally, if the government is only to provide a court system, who restricts harmful behavior ? i have seen libertarians argue about handling all transgressions in civil courts by people who are directly impacted, are you advocating that ?  #  minimum wage keeps the unemployed unemployable, and reliant on the welfare state  #  if you are employed you keep the job till you find something better, if you are not you take the first offer you get and keep that till you find something better.  if there is nothing local, you move.  if there is work available, but you lack skills and experience, you can negotiate a lower wage than they would normally pay and get paid a small amount to learn on the job.  either way, nobody can force you to work for them, so when negotiating an offer of employment you always have the ability to walk away, making it a fair transaction.  the minimum wage screws this all up by preventing employers from hiring you if your skills and experience are not worth whatever the minimum wage is.  if you ca not get a job, you ca not gain skills and experience.  minimum wage keeps the unemployed unemployable, and reliant on the welfare state
i view taxation as theft because if you refuse to pay, men with guns namely, cops will kidnap you and lock you away.  i oppose obamacare, social security, medicare, and medicaid as immoral because theyre coercive.  i belive you own your body and, therefore, can put whatever you want in it.  if you own your body, you own your labor.  so you have the right to rent your labor to any employer at any price.  therefore, we should abolish the minimum wage.  lastly, i think government should only have excise taxes, and it is only role should be to provide a court system, and small military.   #  i view taxation as theft because if you refuse to pay, men with guns namely, cops will kidnap you and lock you away.   #  this is what happens when you do not pay money you owe to people.   # this is what happens when you do not pay money you owe to people.  do not be a deadbeat, nobody likes them.  so we should let charlie manson out ? after all, we would not want to coerce anybody.  so you have the right to rent your labor to any employer at any price.  so the right to strike whenever, wherever, for whatever reason must be preserved at all costs ? after all, i have the right to sell labor.   #  i want to imagine the world i want to live in.   #  your view seems to be based on things like  i believe you own your body  or  i believe that coercive things are immoral .  and then you draw very rigid conclusions from these.  but where did these premises come from ? are they just sort of things that you feel ? what makes you so confident in them that you are willing to accept any result that logically follows from them ? or are you open to re evaluating the premises if someone can convince you that the  outcome  is a negative one.  to me, it makes more sense to work backwards.  i want to imagine the world i want to live in.  and then i work backwards to decide what laws and regulations we need to build that.  i like freedoms as well, but to me it makes no sense to value freedoms above the actual world that results from them.  as a libertarian, i would imagine you believe that your libertarian ideals will get you the best of everything.  not only are they the freedoms you value, but they happen to  also  result in a great world to live in.  so i guess my question to you before proceeding is: would convincing you that your admittedly noble libertarian ideals do not result in a desirable real world outcome be enough abandon them as central premises of your belief on the role of government ?  #  does not come close to following logically without many many more premises.   #  that is fine, but the way you have defined  self ownership  here is so limited that i do not really see how you can draw any conclusions based on it.  specifically:   if you own your body, you own your labor.  so you have the right to rent your labor to any employer at any price.  therefore, we should abolish the minimum wage.  does not come close to following logically without many many more premises.  but i am not even at the point of trying to challenge specific premises yet.  my point is that when we are dealing with  oughts  we can approach from either direction.  we can say  here are the axioms i believe are good ones  and then take whatever that gives us, or we can say  here is the world i want to live in , which moral / political / ethical axioms should i follow ? my question to you is:  if  the libertarian axiom is you have chosen can be shown to have a negative real world outcome, would that change your political views ? or are those axioms so core to your worldview that you believe it is right to follow them regardless of the consequences ?  #  most of us are not wealthy enough to forgo a regular wage.   #  all government actions are coercion.  do something against the law and people with guns cops will kidnap you and lock you away be it failure to pay taxes, failure to comply with local ordinances, or even failure to cooperate with said people with guns when you have not are not accused of committing a crime.  if you believe all coercion is wrong, i would call you an anarchist, not a libertarian.  if you believe some coercion is right and other coercion is wrong, you need to explain why you believe that.  else it is not a productive argument.  as for minimum wage, there are two parties the employer and the potential employee.  last time i checked, this is frequently a transaction of unequal power.  most of us are not wealthy enough to forgo a regular wage.  is a transaction between two individuals where one has more power than the other truly a fair transaction ? finally, if the government is only to provide a court system, who restricts harmful behavior ? i have seen libertarians argue about handling all transgressions in civil courts by people who are directly impacted, are you advocating that ?  #  minimum wage keeps the unemployed unemployable, and reliant on the welfare state  #  if you are employed you keep the job till you find something better, if you are not you take the first offer you get and keep that till you find something better.  if there is nothing local, you move.  if there is work available, but you lack skills and experience, you can negotiate a lower wage than they would normally pay and get paid a small amount to learn on the job.  either way, nobody can force you to work for them, so when negotiating an offer of employment you always have the ability to walk away, making it a fair transaction.  the minimum wage screws this all up by preventing employers from hiring you if your skills and experience are not worth whatever the minimum wage is.  if you ca not get a job, you ca not gain skills and experience.  minimum wage keeps the unemployed unemployable, and reliant on the welfare state
i view taxation as theft because if you refuse to pay, men with guns namely, cops will kidnap you and lock you away.  i oppose obamacare, social security, medicare, and medicaid as immoral because theyre coercive.  i belive you own your body and, therefore, can put whatever you want in it.  if you own your body, you own your labor.  so you have the right to rent your labor to any employer at any price.  therefore, we should abolish the minimum wage.  lastly, i think government should only have excise taxes, and it is only role should be to provide a court system, and small military.   #  i oppose obamacare, social security, medicare, and medicaid as immoral because theyre coercive.   #  so we should let charlie manson out ?  # this is what happens when you do not pay money you owe to people.  do not be a deadbeat, nobody likes them.  so we should let charlie manson out ? after all, we would not want to coerce anybody.  so you have the right to rent your labor to any employer at any price.  so the right to strike whenever, wherever, for whatever reason must be preserved at all costs ? after all, i have the right to sell labor.   #  or are you open to re evaluating the premises if someone can convince you that the  outcome  is a negative one.   #  your view seems to be based on things like  i believe you own your body  or  i believe that coercive things are immoral .  and then you draw very rigid conclusions from these.  but where did these premises come from ? are they just sort of things that you feel ? what makes you so confident in them that you are willing to accept any result that logically follows from them ? or are you open to re evaluating the premises if someone can convince you that the  outcome  is a negative one.  to me, it makes more sense to work backwards.  i want to imagine the world i want to live in.  and then i work backwards to decide what laws and regulations we need to build that.  i like freedoms as well, but to me it makes no sense to value freedoms above the actual world that results from them.  as a libertarian, i would imagine you believe that your libertarian ideals will get you the best of everything.  not only are they the freedoms you value, but they happen to  also  result in a great world to live in.  so i guess my question to you before proceeding is: would convincing you that your admittedly noble libertarian ideals do not result in a desirable real world outcome be enough abandon them as central premises of your belief on the role of government ?  #  my point is that when we are dealing with  oughts  we can approach from either direction.   #  that is fine, but the way you have defined  self ownership  here is so limited that i do not really see how you can draw any conclusions based on it.  specifically:   if you own your body, you own your labor.  so you have the right to rent your labor to any employer at any price.  therefore, we should abolish the minimum wage.  does not come close to following logically without many many more premises.  but i am not even at the point of trying to challenge specific premises yet.  my point is that when we are dealing with  oughts  we can approach from either direction.  we can say  here are the axioms i believe are good ones  and then take whatever that gives us, or we can say  here is the world i want to live in , which moral / political / ethical axioms should i follow ? my question to you is:  if  the libertarian axiom is you have chosen can be shown to have a negative real world outcome, would that change your political views ? or are those axioms so core to your worldview that you believe it is right to follow them regardless of the consequences ?  #  finally, if the government is only to provide a court system, who restricts harmful behavior ?  #  all government actions are coercion.  do something against the law and people with guns cops will kidnap you and lock you away be it failure to pay taxes, failure to comply with local ordinances, or even failure to cooperate with said people with guns when you have not are not accused of committing a crime.  if you believe all coercion is wrong, i would call you an anarchist, not a libertarian.  if you believe some coercion is right and other coercion is wrong, you need to explain why you believe that.  else it is not a productive argument.  as for minimum wage, there are two parties the employer and the potential employee.  last time i checked, this is frequently a transaction of unequal power.  most of us are not wealthy enough to forgo a regular wage.  is a transaction between two individuals where one has more power than the other truly a fair transaction ? finally, if the government is only to provide a court system, who restricts harmful behavior ? i have seen libertarians argue about handling all transgressions in civil courts by people who are directly impacted, are you advocating that ?  #  if you ca not get a job, you ca not gain skills and experience.   #  if you are employed you keep the job till you find something better, if you are not you take the first offer you get and keep that till you find something better.  if there is nothing local, you move.  if there is work available, but you lack skills and experience, you can negotiate a lower wage than they would normally pay and get paid a small amount to learn on the job.  either way, nobody can force you to work for them, so when negotiating an offer of employment you always have the ability to walk away, making it a fair transaction.  the minimum wage screws this all up by preventing employers from hiring you if your skills and experience are not worth whatever the minimum wage is.  if you ca not get a job, you ca not gain skills and experience.  minimum wage keeps the unemployed unemployable, and reliant on the welfare state
i view taxation as theft because if you refuse to pay, men with guns namely, cops will kidnap you and lock you away.  i oppose obamacare, social security, medicare, and medicaid as immoral because theyre coercive.  i belive you own your body and, therefore, can put whatever you want in it.  if you own your body, you own your labor.  so you have the right to rent your labor to any employer at any price.  therefore, we should abolish the minimum wage.  lastly, i think government should only have excise taxes, and it is only role should be to provide a court system, and small military.   #  if you own your body, you own your labor.   #  so you have the right to rent your labor to any employer at any price.   # this is what happens when you do not pay money you owe to people.  do not be a deadbeat, nobody likes them.  so we should let charlie manson out ? after all, we would not want to coerce anybody.  so you have the right to rent your labor to any employer at any price.  so the right to strike whenever, wherever, for whatever reason must be preserved at all costs ? after all, i have the right to sell labor.   #  and then i work backwards to decide what laws and regulations we need to build that.   #  your view seems to be based on things like  i believe you own your body  or  i believe that coercive things are immoral .  and then you draw very rigid conclusions from these.  but where did these premises come from ? are they just sort of things that you feel ? what makes you so confident in them that you are willing to accept any result that logically follows from them ? or are you open to re evaluating the premises if someone can convince you that the  outcome  is a negative one.  to me, it makes more sense to work backwards.  i want to imagine the world i want to live in.  and then i work backwards to decide what laws and regulations we need to build that.  i like freedoms as well, but to me it makes no sense to value freedoms above the actual world that results from them.  as a libertarian, i would imagine you believe that your libertarian ideals will get you the best of everything.  not only are they the freedoms you value, but they happen to  also  result in a great world to live in.  so i guess my question to you before proceeding is: would convincing you that your admittedly noble libertarian ideals do not result in a desirable real world outcome be enough abandon them as central premises of your belief on the role of government ?  #  so you have the right to rent your labor to any employer at any price.   #  that is fine, but the way you have defined  self ownership  here is so limited that i do not really see how you can draw any conclusions based on it.  specifically:   if you own your body, you own your labor.  so you have the right to rent your labor to any employer at any price.  therefore, we should abolish the minimum wage.  does not come close to following logically without many many more premises.  but i am not even at the point of trying to challenge specific premises yet.  my point is that when we are dealing with  oughts  we can approach from either direction.  we can say  here are the axioms i believe are good ones  and then take whatever that gives us, or we can say  here is the world i want to live in , which moral / political / ethical axioms should i follow ? my question to you is:  if  the libertarian axiom is you have chosen can be shown to have a negative real world outcome, would that change your political views ? or are those axioms so core to your worldview that you believe it is right to follow them regardless of the consequences ?  #  last time i checked, this is frequently a transaction of unequal power.   #  all government actions are coercion.  do something against the law and people with guns cops will kidnap you and lock you away be it failure to pay taxes, failure to comply with local ordinances, or even failure to cooperate with said people with guns when you have not are not accused of committing a crime.  if you believe all coercion is wrong, i would call you an anarchist, not a libertarian.  if you believe some coercion is right and other coercion is wrong, you need to explain why you believe that.  else it is not a productive argument.  as for minimum wage, there are two parties the employer and the potential employee.  last time i checked, this is frequently a transaction of unequal power.  most of us are not wealthy enough to forgo a regular wage.  is a transaction between two individuals where one has more power than the other truly a fair transaction ? finally, if the government is only to provide a court system, who restricts harmful behavior ? i have seen libertarians argue about handling all transgressions in civil courts by people who are directly impacted, are you advocating that ?  #  if you are employed you keep the job till you find something better, if you are not you take the first offer you get and keep that till you find something better.   #  if you are employed you keep the job till you find something better, if you are not you take the first offer you get and keep that till you find something better.  if there is nothing local, you move.  if there is work available, but you lack skills and experience, you can negotiate a lower wage than they would normally pay and get paid a small amount to learn on the job.  either way, nobody can force you to work for them, so when negotiating an offer of employment you always have the ability to walk away, making it a fair transaction.  the minimum wage screws this all up by preventing employers from hiring you if your skills and experience are not worth whatever the minimum wage is.  if you ca not get a job, you ca not gain skills and experience.  minimum wage keeps the unemployed unemployable, and reliant on the welfare state
i would like to apologize in advance if this has appeared in the subreddit before.  i am 0 for the lgbt community, and have several friends who are parr of it who also got mad at me when i poorly attempted to explain this .  i sort of imagine this as being similar to that of slavery, imagine; a slave creates a documentary interviewing other slaves about how poorly they are treated, then show it in theatres where slavery is outlawed.  i find it irresponsible of them to ask anyone, let alone those who do nothing, to solve their problems for them.  i also consider it very rude of them to state that  if we are not part of the solution, we are part of the problem,  not only does this demonstrate a serious lack of empathy for those who are not similar to them, it also shows that they believe they are entitled to their rights.  i am not saying they are not entitled per se, i am saying that it seems like they think they should be allowed to just sit there and expect others to do it for them.  like the women who completely deserved their rights in the first place, they should do their own work, and they should address the problem, not the neutral.  watch  iron jawed angels  for some inspiration.  also, if it sounds like i am being an asshole, i apologize, but this is what i think, and that is why i am on cmv.   #  i find it irresponsible of them to ask anyone, let alone those who do nothing, to solve their problems for them.   #  on the subject of bullying, what does this even entail ?  # on the subject of bullying, what does this even entail ? if you are talking about bullying  within  the lgbt community, maybe, but i take it you are referring to the bullying  of  lgbt individuals by non lgbt people.  how would the lgbt community  isolving their own problems  work in this sense, given that this issue clearly involves people outside the community ? i would hope you would say  yes , because it is clear that complacency does not  help .  to use your slavery example: if you were in a vote on making slavery illegal, would you really thinks slaves ought to be empathetic towards someone who is abstaining from the vote ? if a right exists, you are entitled to it.  that is essentially what something being a  right , versus a mere  privilege , means   like the women who completely deserved their rights in the first place, they should do their own work this ignores the huge role of lgbt individuals in achieving equality in many areas, while also ignoring the role men played in achieving equality for women.  in both cases, plenty of people both inside and outside the relevant group were key.   #  i am saying here that there is not any serious good way to remove bullies, i understand that you ca not just spray bully a way.   #  okay, first part.  i was indeed talking about outside bullying, also sometimes called fag bashing.  i am saying here that there is not any serious good way to remove bullies, i understand that you ca not just spray bully a way.  but if i am a and i am being bullied by b, and c is nearby, i ca not just say  c, this is a problem and help me with it.   c ca not really do anything either, and it is not fair to put him in the middle.  second part.  i had a hard time understanding this, but i will give it my best response.  the problem with this statement is that i picture myself in a different situation  inside  this example.  i am picturing bullies being  slavery is good  southerners, and me and others tolerant of lgbt as  slavery is not okay  northerners who have already abolished such a thing.  but i do understand that being empathetic towards one who simply watches your struggle is unrealistic.  third part.  that is essentially what something being a  right , versus a mere  privilege , means explaining this was difficult.  i am saying that they do deserve their rights, but that there are things that conspire against them, and through no fault of their own, i cannot expect them to sit around and expect to recieve their rights, regardless of whether or not that is how it should go.  final part, i suppose i can cross this off the list, i ca not argue that, and i understand that key roles have to come from those in a position to do so.   #  do you believe that they  are   isitting around  though ?  # but if i am a and i am being bullied by b, and c is nearby, i ca not just say  c, this is a problem and help me with it.   c ca not really do anything either, and it is not fair to put him in the middle i am yet to see anything that specifically targets what bystanders to actual violence could do, are there videos that encourage bystander action that you are referring to ? i am only familiar with ones that are targeted at attitudes.  that said, surely you would agree that, if a bystander  is  an a position to help someone easily with minimal risk to themselves, they should.  but i do understand that being empathetic towards one who simply watches your struggle is unrealistic.  what do you think is meant by  with us , in the context of what you were discussing, then ? i am confused as to how you interpreted  you are either with us or against us  if you believe that  fag bashing is not ok  is not the  with us  position   i cannot expect them to sit around and expect to recieve their rights, regardless of whether or not that is how it should go.  do you believe that they  are   isitting around  though ? there is an awful lot of activism  #  this issue is deadly serious because people have been seriously injured or killed because of homophobic or transphobic violence.   #  do you prefer the other sort of solution ? URL we can try to educate people not to bully and commit violence against lgbt people or we can defend ourselves one way or another.  this issue is deadly serious because people have been seriously injured or killed because of homophobic or transphobic violence.  of course those kids you mentioned, especially those that ca not pass as straight or cisgendered take it incredibly seriously.  they know that one day if they happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, saying, wearing or doing the wrong thing, they could be hurt or killed.   #  i think that is one very big difference between women is rights and lgbt rights, there is a huge disadvantage when you are talking about sheer numbers.   #  it always helps to have the group in power advocate for the oppressed.  the stats vary, but it is usually somewhere in the ballpark of 0/0 identify as lgbt.  i think that is one very big difference between women is rights and lgbt rights, there is a huge disadvantage when you are talking about sheer numbers.  they are asking you to recognize that if you believe in their rights, they should be making progress toward equality.  you have to recognize that the odds are against them for getting those rights if people outside the lgbt community refuse to help.  in an ideal democracy, people are eager to express what they believe is right.  the public is the moral authority, and silent support does not really change the status quo.
i would like to apologize in advance if this has appeared in the subreddit before.  i am 0 for the lgbt community, and have several friends who are parr of it who also got mad at me when i poorly attempted to explain this .  i sort of imagine this as being similar to that of slavery, imagine; a slave creates a documentary interviewing other slaves about how poorly they are treated, then show it in theatres where slavery is outlawed.  i find it irresponsible of them to ask anyone, let alone those who do nothing, to solve their problems for them.  i also consider it very rude of them to state that  if we are not part of the solution, we are part of the problem,  not only does this demonstrate a serious lack of empathy for those who are not similar to them, it also shows that they believe they are entitled to their rights.  i am not saying they are not entitled per se, i am saying that it seems like they think they should be allowed to just sit there and expect others to do it for them.  like the women who completely deserved their rights in the first place, they should do their own work, and they should address the problem, not the neutral.  watch  iron jawed angels  for some inspiration.  also, if it sounds like i am being an asshole, i apologize, but this is what i think, and that is why i am on cmv.   #  it also shows that they believe they are entitled to their rights.   #  if a right exists, you are entitled to it.   # on the subject of bullying, what does this even entail ? if you are talking about bullying  within  the lgbt community, maybe, but i take it you are referring to the bullying  of  lgbt individuals by non lgbt people.  how would the lgbt community  isolving their own problems  work in this sense, given that this issue clearly involves people outside the community ? i would hope you would say  yes , because it is clear that complacency does not  help .  to use your slavery example: if you were in a vote on making slavery illegal, would you really thinks slaves ought to be empathetic towards someone who is abstaining from the vote ? if a right exists, you are entitled to it.  that is essentially what something being a  right , versus a mere  privilege , means   like the women who completely deserved their rights in the first place, they should do their own work this ignores the huge role of lgbt individuals in achieving equality in many areas, while also ignoring the role men played in achieving equality for women.  in both cases, plenty of people both inside and outside the relevant group were key.   #  i was indeed talking about outside bullying, also sometimes called fag bashing.   #  okay, first part.  i was indeed talking about outside bullying, also sometimes called fag bashing.  i am saying here that there is not any serious good way to remove bullies, i understand that you ca not just spray bully a way.  but if i am a and i am being bullied by b, and c is nearby, i ca not just say  c, this is a problem and help me with it.   c ca not really do anything either, and it is not fair to put him in the middle.  second part.  i had a hard time understanding this, but i will give it my best response.  the problem with this statement is that i picture myself in a different situation  inside  this example.  i am picturing bullies being  slavery is good  southerners, and me and others tolerant of lgbt as  slavery is not okay  northerners who have already abolished such a thing.  but i do understand that being empathetic towards one who simply watches your struggle is unrealistic.  third part.  that is essentially what something being a  right , versus a mere  privilege , means explaining this was difficult.  i am saying that they do deserve their rights, but that there are things that conspire against them, and through no fault of their own, i cannot expect them to sit around and expect to recieve their rights, regardless of whether or not that is how it should go.  final part, i suppose i can cross this off the list, i ca not argue that, and i understand that key roles have to come from those in a position to do so.   #  but i do understand that being empathetic towards one who simply watches your struggle is unrealistic.   # but if i am a and i am being bullied by b, and c is nearby, i ca not just say  c, this is a problem and help me with it.   c ca not really do anything either, and it is not fair to put him in the middle i am yet to see anything that specifically targets what bystanders to actual violence could do, are there videos that encourage bystander action that you are referring to ? i am only familiar with ones that are targeted at attitudes.  that said, surely you would agree that, if a bystander  is  an a position to help someone easily with minimal risk to themselves, they should.  but i do understand that being empathetic towards one who simply watches your struggle is unrealistic.  what do you think is meant by  with us , in the context of what you were discussing, then ? i am confused as to how you interpreted  you are either with us or against us  if you believe that  fag bashing is not ok  is not the  with us  position   i cannot expect them to sit around and expect to recieve their rights, regardless of whether or not that is how it should go.  do you believe that they  are   isitting around  though ? there is an awful lot of activism  #  they know that one day if they happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, saying, wearing or doing the wrong thing, they could be hurt or killed.   #  do you prefer the other sort of solution ? URL we can try to educate people not to bully and commit violence against lgbt people or we can defend ourselves one way or another.  this issue is deadly serious because people have been seriously injured or killed because of homophobic or transphobic violence.  of course those kids you mentioned, especially those that ca not pass as straight or cisgendered take it incredibly seriously.  they know that one day if they happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, saying, wearing or doing the wrong thing, they could be hurt or killed.   #  the public is the moral authority, and silent support does not really change the status quo.   #  it always helps to have the group in power advocate for the oppressed.  the stats vary, but it is usually somewhere in the ballpark of 0/0 identify as lgbt.  i think that is one very big difference between women is rights and lgbt rights, there is a huge disadvantage when you are talking about sheer numbers.  they are asking you to recognize that if you believe in their rights, they should be making progress toward equality.  you have to recognize that the odds are against them for getting those rights if people outside the lgbt community refuse to help.  in an ideal democracy, people are eager to express what they believe is right.  the public is the moral authority, and silent support does not really change the status quo.
we always hear about white supremacy, guns are bad, religion kills, rebel flags are bad, etc.  i own guns, catholic, have a sweet scary dog, got steely blue eyes, listen to country music, dip tobacco, have girls, you get the idea.  i am everyone is worst enemy.  i am the guy that divides cultures.  i am the guy to stop the change.  i am the old school guy to put my foot down.  so why do i get shit on while people get to go around parading the black power flag or rainbow whatever, or claim social justice at my expense ? i did not do it, so i should be able to fly my flag freely so to speak.  basically i am the stereotypical good ol boy to a tee and i do not see a damn thing wrong with that.  change my view.   #  so why do i get shit on while people get to go around parading the black power flag or rainbow whatever, or claim social justice at my expense ?  #  i did not do it, so i should be able to fly my flag freely so to speak.   #  the only clear point that i understood is this.  you want to fly the confederate flag and do not want to be opposed in doing so.  i did not do it, so i should be able to fly my flag freely so to speak.  there is some hypocrisy in this statement.  whether you  did  something or not does not change the fact that the flag  represents  something.  the thing it represents is not really even up for debate.  the creator of the flag explicitly stated that it represented among other things white supremacy.  edit: there are two civil war flags.  the one in question is only implicitly racist since it is the representation of a union who fought for the right to own black people.  so the thing that you  are doing  is supporting what others did.  no one is hauling you off to jail for lynching someone.  no one is holding you accountable for things you did not do.  but if you openly show support for an oppressive regime, your accountability is your support.  if i were to fly an isis flag on my car in spite of never having been involved with isis i would have my own backlash to deal with.  why ? because supporting something is an action too.   #  the ironic part about the whole thing is that fear of emancipation is what really accelerates the whole process.   #  the war was over whether or not the federal government had the right to enact laws contradicting those of states, sparked by fears that lincoln is election would bring the connected controversy of abolition to a head.  so yes, the first states to seceded did so due to quite possibly unfounded fears about the end of slavery, but it is not the entire story.  the ironic part about the whole thing is that fear of emancipation is what really accelerates the whole process.  you ca not really get an accurate picture of the civil war or american political history in general if you ignore the importance of the controversy over state vs federal legislation though.  it was a major part of the early democratic party is platform.   #  sure enough the top 0 results state slavery as the primary cause for the civil war.   # funny you should say that.  prior to editing my post i googled causes of american civil war URL it had been a long time since i learned about it and wanted to skim to make sure that my notion of the importance of slavery as a cause of the civil war was not incorrect.  sure enough the top 0 results state slavery as the primary cause for the civil war.  were there other reasons ? absolutely.  but they were catalyzed and heavily intertwined with slavery.  you cannot extract the   do not tell me what to do   argument from the   stop enslaving, oppressing and torturing a subset of the population   argument.  one is a byproduct of the other.  so to say state that the confederate flag is a symbol of  protecting states rights  is a blatant hypocrisy because it completely disregards human rights.  frankly i think your criticism is in unwarranted.  if you reread ops statement, i think that you will agree that any history lesson will have fallen on deaf ears.  the overarching statement linking the confederate flag to slavery is both correct and sufficient.   #  if you still choose to fly it while knowing that, then you are actively choosing to be viewed that way.   #  well, the way you view yourself is up to you, and the way that others view you is up to them.  millions of people have told you that they view flying that flag to be a sign that you are racist and ignorant.  if you still choose to fly it while knowing that, then you are actively choosing to be viewed that way.  what the symbol actually is does not matter.  if tomorrow most of the country told you that waving a flag with a smurf on it was seen as very offensive and you then went out and put one up, then you have chosen to be offensive.  as for the  anti cop black justice  thing, in their case they see community members beaten dying, often through no fault of their own.  you are making an active choice to wave a flag and there is no physical or legal consequence, you are just being judged badly for it.   #  if you are just living in a neighborhood, then it would depend on whether it was just about the flag or whether you were an american altogether.   #  first i would ask why you the american flag up in a south asian muslim country ? if it is at an embassy, then we should not take it down because it is there by necessity.  if you are just living in a neighborhood, then it would depend on whether it was just about the flag or whether you were an american altogether.  if they do not mind an american living there but find the flag offensive, then you should take it down.  if they have a problem with you being american, then the flag is not really the issue anyways.
we always hear about white supremacy, guns are bad, religion kills, rebel flags are bad, etc.  i own guns, catholic, have a sweet scary dog, got steely blue eyes, listen to country music, dip tobacco, have girls, you get the idea.  i am everyone is worst enemy.  i am the guy that divides cultures.  i am the guy to stop the change.  i am the old school guy to put my foot down.  so why do i get shit on while people get to go around parading the black power flag or rainbow whatever, or claim social justice at my expense ? i did not do it, so i should be able to fly my flag freely so to speak.  basically i am the stereotypical good ol boy to a tee and i do not see a damn thing wrong with that.  change my view.   #  i am the guy to stop the change.   #  i am the old school guy to put my foot down.   # i am everyone is worst enemy.  you are not the bad guy or anyone is worst enemy.  you are plain and ordinary.  nothing you wrote makes you unique or extreme.  you are pretty much the average american.  most of the country is religious URL most americans own guns and want to protect gun rights URL most americans own a pet URL the most popular dogs are the bigger dogs URL that are sometimes considered scary, nearly half the country loves country music URL etc.  you ca not be the bad guy/everyone is worst enemy when you represent the mainstream views.  i am the old school guy to put my foot down.  except you are not stopping the change.  have you watched the news ? at your expense ? how has it been at your expense ? how do people with different views directly impact you ? change my view.  change your view on what ? being proud that you are white ? or conservative ? be more specific.   #  if i were to fly an isis flag on my car in spite of never having been involved with isis i would have my own backlash to deal with.   #  the only clear point that i understood is this.  you want to fly the confederate flag and do not want to be opposed in doing so.  i did not do it, so i should be able to fly my flag freely so to speak.  there is some hypocrisy in this statement.  whether you  did  something or not does not change the fact that the flag  represents  something.  the thing it represents is not really even up for debate.  the creator of the flag explicitly stated that it represented among other things white supremacy.  edit: there are two civil war flags.  the one in question is only implicitly racist since it is the representation of a union who fought for the right to own black people.  so the thing that you  are doing  is supporting what others did.  no one is hauling you off to jail for lynching someone.  no one is holding you accountable for things you did not do.  but if you openly show support for an oppressive regime, your accountability is your support.  if i were to fly an isis flag on my car in spite of never having been involved with isis i would have my own backlash to deal with.  why ? because supporting something is an action too.   #  the ironic part about the whole thing is that fear of emancipation is what really accelerates the whole process.   #  the war was over whether or not the federal government had the right to enact laws contradicting those of states, sparked by fears that lincoln is election would bring the connected controversy of abolition to a head.  so yes, the first states to seceded did so due to quite possibly unfounded fears about the end of slavery, but it is not the entire story.  the ironic part about the whole thing is that fear of emancipation is what really accelerates the whole process.  you ca not really get an accurate picture of the civil war or american political history in general if you ignore the importance of the controversy over state vs federal legislation though.  it was a major part of the early democratic party is platform.   #  but they were catalyzed and heavily intertwined with slavery.   # funny you should say that.  prior to editing my post i googled causes of american civil war URL it had been a long time since i learned about it and wanted to skim to make sure that my notion of the importance of slavery as a cause of the civil war was not incorrect.  sure enough the top 0 results state slavery as the primary cause for the civil war.  were there other reasons ? absolutely.  but they were catalyzed and heavily intertwined with slavery.  you cannot extract the   do not tell me what to do   argument from the   stop enslaving, oppressing and torturing a subset of the population   argument.  one is a byproduct of the other.  so to say state that the confederate flag is a symbol of  protecting states rights  is a blatant hypocrisy because it completely disregards human rights.  frankly i think your criticism is in unwarranted.  if you reread ops statement, i think that you will agree that any history lesson will have fallen on deaf ears.  the overarching statement linking the confederate flag to slavery is both correct and sufficient.   #  you are making an active choice to wave a flag and there is no physical or legal consequence, you are just being judged badly for it.   #  well, the way you view yourself is up to you, and the way that others view you is up to them.  millions of people have told you that they view flying that flag to be a sign that you are racist and ignorant.  if you still choose to fly it while knowing that, then you are actively choosing to be viewed that way.  what the symbol actually is does not matter.  if tomorrow most of the country told you that waving a flag with a smurf on it was seen as very offensive and you then went out and put one up, then you have chosen to be offensive.  as for the  anti cop black justice  thing, in their case they see community members beaten dying, often through no fault of their own.  you are making an active choice to wave a flag and there is no physical or legal consequence, you are just being judged badly for it.
i acknowledge straight away that sending checks to black people will not solve all modern the issues caused by the slave economy.  with that said, i do believe that the government owes the reparation.  the fact of the matter is that slaves generated wealth for their owners.  this wealth translates into capital that is still present in our economy.  a good amount of this capital went to the federal government.  the government taxed some of the capital generated by slaves for owners.  some other capital was produced directly for the government.  slaves built the capitol building.   slaves built the treasury, and their capital rests in the treasury.   so we can think of reparations as back pay.  the recipients are not here to accept it, so their most direct heirs are entitled to it.   #  the fact of the matter is that slaves generated wealth for their owners.   #  this wealth translates into capital that is still present in our economy.   # this wealth translates into capital that is still present in our economy.  most of the wealth produced by slaves was in the south, and most of that wealth was destroyed during the civil war.  poverty was widespread in the south for many years afterward.  so no, the wealth created by slaves is  not  still present in the u. s.  economy.  it went up in flames a century and a half ago.  the main thrust of your argument is that the government received tax revenue from slave activity, but this is factually incorrect: until wwi, most federal income came from tariffs, not income tax URL so, the slave descendants are not due a tax rebate.  the government owes them nothing.   #  and millions of americans who do not really identify as black have some slave ancestry.   #  who gets reparations ? mr obama is descended from the first african man enslaved in the united states.  URL on his white mother is side of the family.  millions of black americans immigrated from africa willingly, this time and from the caribbean.  and millions of americans who do not really identify as black have some slave ancestry.  america is a melting pot.  so, who deserves reparations ? some sort of blood quantum ? or do we adopt the one drop rule ?  #  this means there are people alive today who have one relative who was a slave at the time of the end of the civil war, from among 0 great great great great grandparents.   #  it does need some clarification.  slavery was abolished in about 0 varies a bit by state and progress of the war .  so that is 0 years ago.  depending on how long generations are, we are talking 0 0 generations ago.  this means there are people alive today who have one relative who was a slave at the time of the end of the civil war, from among 0 great great great great grandparents.  since of course slavery persisted a long time, there will be many people who have 0/0th or 0/0th slave background.  where do you draw the line for who is descended from slaves ? if it is anyone with any discernible background whatsoever, you are probably looking at a majority of the people in the united states, except new immigrants.   #  if all the members of van halen stabbed someone to death in 0 you ca not arrest sammy hagar for it.   #  we ca not even balance the budget as it is, and you expect the us government to be able to pay for this ? do you ever expect raising taxes on everyone to give money to people based on their ancestry to be popular ? even if this cmv is not advocating for the us government to actually do this it just says it owes them, not that it should pay i am doubtful that reparations from centuries past are ever an obligation.  everyone involved in the institution of slavery as practiced in the 0th century is long dead.  apologizing to dead people on the behalf of dead people by giving living people money from other living people is more a bizarre ritual than actual justice.  you ca not treat the government like a single person and blame the people running it today for everything that happened in the past.  people  get blame, not groups that change members all the time.  if all the members of van halen stabbed someone to death in 0 you ca not arrest sammy hagar for it.   #  your point is hard to argue from both sides but i think pragmatically there is no real way to accomplish this.   #  your point is hard to argue from both sides but i think pragmatically there is no real way to accomplish this.  how do we reliably establish these genealogies ? how do we determine how much to pay in reparations ? do we factor in how much work the slave did, or does everyone get the same payout ? where does the money come from ? who are the  most direct heirs ?   if my great great great grandpa was a slave, do i get the payout, or my parents, or my aunts/uncles, or my cousins, or my grandparents, or their brothers/sisters, etc.  ? the most obvious reason why would should not do this is that it is not feasible.
in fact, they are not leashes they are harnesses.  disneyland a couple years ago, my brothers, sister, cousin, dad and stepmom are walking past the dumbo ride, towards the matterhorn.  my cousin is about 0.  it is very, very crowded.  you see a lot of people with young kids on  leashes  harnesses.  my dad makes a comment about people walking around with young children on harnesses, calling them leashes.  meanwhile, my cousin kind of disappears, wanders off.  we found her 0 seconds later not a big deal.  she is 0 and she is so spacy she wanders off.  i am not saying a 0 year old should be wearing a harness that would be humiliating at her age, but when she was younger she used to do that too.  just vanish into a crowd in a matter of seconds.  anyway, child harnesses are extremely different from dog leashes:   they do not go around the child is neck.    parents do not hold leashes in their hand   a harness is a strap tied around the parents  waist and a strap tied around the child is torso.    you keep a dog on a leash to control it is behavior.    you keep a child on a harness because disneyland is extremely crowded and i could very easily see how you can turn around for 0 seconds and your 0 year old has wandered off, vanished, or been picked up by a child snatcher.  tl;dr:  children on  leashes  which are actually harnesses is in no way tantamount to treating your children like animals.   #  children on  leashes  which are actually harnesses is in no way tantamount to treating your children like animals.   #  lackadaisical/absent parenting aside, the issue is one of autonomy.   #  you seem very uncomfortable with this comforting device.  leash/harness, neck/torso, hand/waist, dog/child  child harnesses are extremely different from dog leashes: this list of  extreme differences  are superfluously superficial   relative only to the device is form.  here, the  extreme differences  are only symbolic word meaning/choice, semantics   do not pertain to the device is function.  the purpose of the device, in all situations, is control.  control does not exist without safety.  lackadaisical/absent parenting aside, the issue is one of autonomy.  this device not only deters a child is development autonomy, self efficacy, etc but even further, binds them to an additional punishment, the insufficient parent is now inescapable.  some people treat their animals better.   #  since we are a social species, we may want to at least in the short term respect that.   #  i really was not able to come up with anything other than  it looks bad.   so i think i am going with that.  yes, technically you might be able to rationalize why it is not bad.  however, the fact that other people might feel uncomfortable with you or the fact that it is socially less acceptable is something that should not be ignored.  it hurts the perception of you as a parent, and it may also lead to other people making fun of the child.  it is like giving your kid wacky names just because you think it might be hilarious.  there are repercussions that extend beyond you being technically correct.  and a lot of times it comes from the perception of others.  since we are a social species, we may want to at least in the short term respect that.  it does not matter if that perception might be formed from faulty logic, the fact of the matter is, it still looks bad to a large portion of society and that can have negative effects on both you as a parent and the child as well.   #  the only time they are used is when kids are walking in busy areas.   #  the only time they are used is when kids are walking in busy areas.  as for it hurting the perception of someone as a parent i think the main people who judge are those who do not have kids.  and let is face it they judge parents for everything.  and will  totally do things differently  when they have kids.  i got lost in an amusement park when i was a kid and it is a pretty traumatic memory for me despite being really young at the time.  fast forward a few years when my family went to disney world and they got a hand holder for my 0 year old brother.  it was essentially a velcro bracelet that went around parents wrist and child is wrist but had a spiral cord between.  this gives a child more freedom, saves the parents back from trying to hold hands, and frees up a hand.  i mean, i have known plenty of parents say they would not use one, but none of them judge it as a bad idea.  the judgement mainly comes from no parents.   #  the kid does not get the judgement at that age.   # if we only did that which is necessary, humans would still be hunter/gatherers.  however, a 0 0 year old does not have any concept of such things.  what is more, they wo not even remember it.  the number of memories most people have before the age of 0 can be counted on your fingers.  it is called childhood amnesia.  for most of those saying they did not have one as a child, this is what your parents did.  they gave you less freedom than a dog.  you can hover and try to use verbal commands.  this prevents you from being able to accomplish any other tasks and also does not really work since a 0 year old does not really understand things very well.  worst of all, you can do what so many parents do with complete social acceptance and strap them into a stroller preventing any self determination and limiting exercise.  or you can use a harness.  you will be judged by some especially people without kids or, even funnier, those with kids who are running around tearing things up and causing problems , but that judgement is something the parent has to deal with.  the kid does not get the judgement at that age.  the big benefit is that the kid has limited autonomy which is greater than they would have with their hand being held or being in a stroller.  as with most things, there is a time and a place busy mall while you are trying to shop with a child that does not yet follow verbal commands well, sure.  with your 0 year old at the park nope !  #  is that a good argument as to why you should not have one ?  #  i know they are not necessary, but might be helpful.  computers are not necessary.  you could easily survive without one.  is that a good argument as to why you should not have one ? obviously you have to balance the pros against the cons.  it does not matter if i actually think that.  that is what i am asserting and it has just as good a basis as what you have said.
0: the roman catholic church is institutionally guilty of evasion of justice for shielding rapists from trial all around the world.  this behavior permits the further rape of children by not properly stopping it.  the corruption goes all the way up to the top levels, including former pope benedict, while he lived as joseph ratzinger, overseeing the movement of the fugitives.  0: catholics who believe the theology of the church have alternative options.  they could join the anglican or episcopal churches, which have, for all intents and purposes, identical doctrine, or make a brand new catholic church 0, identical to the old church except for the criminal bureaucracy.  0: practicing catholics donate 0 of their income to the church.  thus, they support the criminal organization monetarily.  therefore, non ignorant, practicing catholics are morally culpable.   #  practicing catholics donate 0 of their income to the church.   #  thus, they support the criminal organization monetarily.   # thus, they support the criminal organization monetarily.  no, they do not.  URL the catholic church does not have a tithe.  either way, that is not the point.  people who donate to the church are not supporting the molesting, which represents a very, very small amount of what happens within the church priests are no more likely to be child abusers than the normal population .  besides the obvious religious work, it is the largest charitable organization in the world.  this is not really a good point.  when the whole penn state/jerry sandusky thing came out, would you have accused fans of supporting child molestation ? what if they were donors ? would you tell penn state fans they have alternative teams they could root for ? this behavior permits the further rape of children by not properly stopping it.  the corruption goes all the way up to the top levels, including former pope benedict, while he lived as joseph ratzinger, overseeing the movement of the fugitives.  benedict is the worst possible example you could have used as an example of  institutional evasion of justice.   benedict as pope defrocked hundreds of priests for child abuse.  URL in recent years, pope francis has created a department of the vatican specifically investigate these cover ups and bishops involved.  URL so to your final words.   therefore, non ignorant, practicing catholics are morally culpable.  any person, catholic or not, can see that the church has formally recognized the wrongdoing that has happened in the past and that has taken major strides towards rectifying the problem.   #  if we applied that notion of collective responsibility equally to all organizations, we would all be guilty and the idea of guilt would not really have useful meaning.   #  0 the theology of the catholic church has as its foundation the doctrine of apostolic succession URL to put it simply, there are a series of verses that suggest a direct line of succession between the apostles empowered by christ himself down through to the modern catholic church.  the church itself has been empowered by god, so leaving it is simply not an option so long as you believe that church doctrine .  if you accept traditional catholic doctrine, there is no church 0 and certainly no joining of any protestant denomination; even if the rituals are similar, the doctrines vary significantly and neither anglicans nor episcopalians are the beneficiaries of apostolic succession.  as to your larger point, all organizations will experience corruption and criminal activity when they grow to sufficient size.  that is not an excuse, just a fact.  it happens with governments, corporations, churches. hell, even the boy scouts.  so while i do not think you are  entirely  wrong, i do think your expression of your view is naive.  if we applied that notion of collective responsibility equally to all organizations, we would all be guilty and the idea of guilt would not really have useful meaning.   #  even if man screws up the institution, it is still  the  connection and no substitutes will do.   #  and that might be something you could bring up in an argument with a catholic.  it is a fairly weak argument against the doctrine itself, at best it calls into question the inherent legitimacy of the modern church.  an educated catholic would tell you that apostolic succession rests in the person of the church through the offices and rituals, not necessarily in the character of those who fill those offices.  no, it could not.  the pope is the pope.  papal infallibility is a matter of debate i believe the church itself now readily admits popes are fallible , but that does not affect apostolic succession.  what you are arguing is akin to saying that obama is not the president because andrew jackson did bad things while he was president.  apostolic succession has always been the fundamental doctrine.  even when there has been a dispute over who the legitimate pope was, the church and the office of the pope have been underpinned by that fundamental doctrine.  i think what you are missing is that a practicing catholic believes that the church itself is the probably only direct connection between god and man.  even if man screws up the institution, it is still  the  connection and no substitutes will do.   #    if we amend the definition of practicing catholic to allow this exception, the ability to start a new church, then they would still be morally culpable.   #  working within this framework of a rigid catechism, you have pointed out that catholic doctrine requires the same institution to persist.    if we amend the definition of practicing catholic to allow this exception, the ability to start a new church, then they would still be morally culpable.  and disregarding their catholicism, they  are  morally culpable.  some practice must be changed to erase this culpability.  whether it be leaving the church or ceasing donations, something must happen.   #  support for an institution out of faith in its its spirit and vision does not make one morally culpable if a corrupt few within the institution abuse this support.   #  i believe that op is main argument can be summarised as  guilt through association .  by associating with an institution, wherein some members are morally culpable, catholics are guilty by association, and are equally morally culpable through their indirect support.  my main issue with op is view is that the main post is phrased in such a way that  rape of children  is the defining characteristic o the catholic church, which it is not, or that it is the purpose of the institution is existence, which again, it is not.  the catholic church does huge amounts of good in the modern world, giving humanitarian aid to impoverished countries, setting up hospitals and orphanages for the unprivileged, and providing hundreds of millions around the world spiritual support.  adhering catholics can just as easily be supporting these doctrines of good.  the corruption of the few does not invalidate the goodness of the many, or the institution as a whole, and the existence of said corruption imo does not invalidate the core precepts of the institution that of religion and spirituality, that catholics are meant to support.  minor points:  0: catholics who believe the theology of the church have alternative options.  they do not, that is the definition of a religion or a religious sect.  anglicans are so called because they differ doctrinally from catholics.  to the outsider, such differences may seem insignificant for  all intents and purposes , but for the pious, they are significant.  off of the top of my head, anglicans are far less supportive of the veneration of saints, for instance.  i think a reformist pope, like the current one, is the closest we can get.  the previous pope stepping down was seen as a hugely poignant gesture.  tl;dr i do not believe catholics support child abuse any more than an average american supports police brutality by paying taxes.  support for an institution out of faith in its its spirit and vision does not make one morally culpable if a corrupt few within the institution abuse this support.
0: the roman catholic church is institutionally guilty of evasion of justice for shielding rapists from trial all around the world.  this behavior permits the further rape of children by not properly stopping it.  the corruption goes all the way up to the top levels, including former pope benedict, while he lived as joseph ratzinger, overseeing the movement of the fugitives.  0: catholics who believe the theology of the church have alternative options.  they could join the anglican or episcopal churches, which have, for all intents and purposes, identical doctrine, or make a brand new catholic church 0, identical to the old church except for the criminal bureaucracy.  0: practicing catholics donate 0 of their income to the church.  thus, they support the criminal organization monetarily.  therefore, non ignorant, practicing catholics are morally culpable.   #  catholics who believe the theology of the church have alternative options.   #  this is not really a good point.   # thus, they support the criminal organization monetarily.  no, they do not.  URL the catholic church does not have a tithe.  either way, that is not the point.  people who donate to the church are not supporting the molesting, which represents a very, very small amount of what happens within the church priests are no more likely to be child abusers than the normal population .  besides the obvious religious work, it is the largest charitable organization in the world.  this is not really a good point.  when the whole penn state/jerry sandusky thing came out, would you have accused fans of supporting child molestation ? what if they were donors ? would you tell penn state fans they have alternative teams they could root for ? this behavior permits the further rape of children by not properly stopping it.  the corruption goes all the way up to the top levels, including former pope benedict, while he lived as joseph ratzinger, overseeing the movement of the fugitives.  benedict is the worst possible example you could have used as an example of  institutional evasion of justice.   benedict as pope defrocked hundreds of priests for child abuse.  URL in recent years, pope francis has created a department of the vatican specifically investigate these cover ups and bishops involved.  URL so to your final words.   therefore, non ignorant, practicing catholics are morally culpable.  any person, catholic or not, can see that the church has formally recognized the wrongdoing that has happened in the past and that has taken major strides towards rectifying the problem.   #  as to your larger point, all organizations will experience corruption and criminal activity when they grow to sufficient size.   #  0 the theology of the catholic church has as its foundation the doctrine of apostolic succession URL to put it simply, there are a series of verses that suggest a direct line of succession between the apostles empowered by christ himself down through to the modern catholic church.  the church itself has been empowered by god, so leaving it is simply not an option so long as you believe that church doctrine .  if you accept traditional catholic doctrine, there is no church 0 and certainly no joining of any protestant denomination; even if the rituals are similar, the doctrines vary significantly and neither anglicans nor episcopalians are the beneficiaries of apostolic succession.  as to your larger point, all organizations will experience corruption and criminal activity when they grow to sufficient size.  that is not an excuse, just a fact.  it happens with governments, corporations, churches. hell, even the boy scouts.  so while i do not think you are  entirely  wrong, i do think your expression of your view is naive.  if we applied that notion of collective responsibility equally to all organizations, we would all be guilty and the idea of guilt would not really have useful meaning.   #  apostolic succession has always been the fundamental doctrine.   #  and that might be something you could bring up in an argument with a catholic.  it is a fairly weak argument against the doctrine itself, at best it calls into question the inherent legitimacy of the modern church.  an educated catholic would tell you that apostolic succession rests in the person of the church through the offices and rituals, not necessarily in the character of those who fill those offices.  no, it could not.  the pope is the pope.  papal infallibility is a matter of debate i believe the church itself now readily admits popes are fallible , but that does not affect apostolic succession.  what you are arguing is akin to saying that obama is not the president because andrew jackson did bad things while he was president.  apostolic succession has always been the fundamental doctrine.  even when there has been a dispute over who the legitimate pope was, the church and the office of the pope have been underpinned by that fundamental doctrine.  i think what you are missing is that a practicing catholic believes that the church itself is the probably only direct connection between god and man.  even if man screws up the institution, it is still  the  connection and no substitutes will do.   #  whether it be leaving the church or ceasing donations, something must happen.   #  working within this framework of a rigid catechism, you have pointed out that catholic doctrine requires the same institution to persist.    if we amend the definition of practicing catholic to allow this exception, the ability to start a new church, then they would still be morally culpable.  and disregarding their catholicism, they  are  morally culpable.  some practice must be changed to erase this culpability.  whether it be leaving the church or ceasing donations, something must happen.   #  tl;dr i do not believe catholics support child abuse any more than an average american supports police brutality by paying taxes.   #  i believe that op is main argument can be summarised as  guilt through association .  by associating with an institution, wherein some members are morally culpable, catholics are guilty by association, and are equally morally culpable through their indirect support.  my main issue with op is view is that the main post is phrased in such a way that  rape of children  is the defining characteristic o the catholic church, which it is not, or that it is the purpose of the institution is existence, which again, it is not.  the catholic church does huge amounts of good in the modern world, giving humanitarian aid to impoverished countries, setting up hospitals and orphanages for the unprivileged, and providing hundreds of millions around the world spiritual support.  adhering catholics can just as easily be supporting these doctrines of good.  the corruption of the few does not invalidate the goodness of the many, or the institution as a whole, and the existence of said corruption imo does not invalidate the core precepts of the institution that of religion and spirituality, that catholics are meant to support.  minor points:  0: catholics who believe the theology of the church have alternative options.  they do not, that is the definition of a religion or a religious sect.  anglicans are so called because they differ doctrinally from catholics.  to the outsider, such differences may seem insignificant for  all intents and purposes , but for the pious, they are significant.  off of the top of my head, anglicans are far less supportive of the veneration of saints, for instance.  i think a reformist pope, like the current one, is the closest we can get.  the previous pope stepping down was seen as a hugely poignant gesture.  tl;dr i do not believe catholics support child abuse any more than an average american supports police brutality by paying taxes.  support for an institution out of faith in its its spirit and vision does not make one morally culpable if a corrupt few within the institution abuse this support.
0: the roman catholic church is institutionally guilty of evasion of justice for shielding rapists from trial all around the world.  this behavior permits the further rape of children by not properly stopping it.  the corruption goes all the way up to the top levels, including former pope benedict, while he lived as joseph ratzinger, overseeing the movement of the fugitives.  0: catholics who believe the theology of the church have alternative options.  they could join the anglican or episcopal churches, which have, for all intents and purposes, identical doctrine, or make a brand new catholic church 0, identical to the old church except for the criminal bureaucracy.  0: practicing catholics donate 0 of their income to the church.  thus, they support the criminal organization monetarily.  therefore, non ignorant, practicing catholics are morally culpable.   #  the roman catholic church is institutionally guilty of evasion of justice for shielding rapists from trial all around the world.   #  this behavior permits the further rape of children by not properly stopping it.   # thus, they support the criminal organization monetarily.  no, they do not.  URL the catholic church does not have a tithe.  either way, that is not the point.  people who donate to the church are not supporting the molesting, which represents a very, very small amount of what happens within the church priests are no more likely to be child abusers than the normal population .  besides the obvious religious work, it is the largest charitable organization in the world.  this is not really a good point.  when the whole penn state/jerry sandusky thing came out, would you have accused fans of supporting child molestation ? what if they were donors ? would you tell penn state fans they have alternative teams they could root for ? this behavior permits the further rape of children by not properly stopping it.  the corruption goes all the way up to the top levels, including former pope benedict, while he lived as joseph ratzinger, overseeing the movement of the fugitives.  benedict is the worst possible example you could have used as an example of  institutional evasion of justice.   benedict as pope defrocked hundreds of priests for child abuse.  URL in recent years, pope francis has created a department of the vatican specifically investigate these cover ups and bishops involved.  URL so to your final words.   therefore, non ignorant, practicing catholics are morally culpable.  any person, catholic or not, can see that the church has formally recognized the wrongdoing that has happened in the past and that has taken major strides towards rectifying the problem.   #  as to your larger point, all organizations will experience corruption and criminal activity when they grow to sufficient size.   #  0 the theology of the catholic church has as its foundation the doctrine of apostolic succession URL to put it simply, there are a series of verses that suggest a direct line of succession between the apostles empowered by christ himself down through to the modern catholic church.  the church itself has been empowered by god, so leaving it is simply not an option so long as you believe that church doctrine .  if you accept traditional catholic doctrine, there is no church 0 and certainly no joining of any protestant denomination; even if the rituals are similar, the doctrines vary significantly and neither anglicans nor episcopalians are the beneficiaries of apostolic succession.  as to your larger point, all organizations will experience corruption and criminal activity when they grow to sufficient size.  that is not an excuse, just a fact.  it happens with governments, corporations, churches. hell, even the boy scouts.  so while i do not think you are  entirely  wrong, i do think your expression of your view is naive.  if we applied that notion of collective responsibility equally to all organizations, we would all be guilty and the idea of guilt would not really have useful meaning.   #  even when there has been a dispute over who the legitimate pope was, the church and the office of the pope have been underpinned by that fundamental doctrine.   #  and that might be something you could bring up in an argument with a catholic.  it is a fairly weak argument against the doctrine itself, at best it calls into question the inherent legitimacy of the modern church.  an educated catholic would tell you that apostolic succession rests in the person of the church through the offices and rituals, not necessarily in the character of those who fill those offices.  no, it could not.  the pope is the pope.  papal infallibility is a matter of debate i believe the church itself now readily admits popes are fallible , but that does not affect apostolic succession.  what you are arguing is akin to saying that obama is not the president because andrew jackson did bad things while he was president.  apostolic succession has always been the fundamental doctrine.  even when there has been a dispute over who the legitimate pope was, the church and the office of the pope have been underpinned by that fundamental doctrine.  i think what you are missing is that a practicing catholic believes that the church itself is the probably only direct connection between god and man.  even if man screws up the institution, it is still  the  connection and no substitutes will do.   #  some practice must be changed to erase this culpability.   #  working within this framework of a rigid catechism, you have pointed out that catholic doctrine requires the same institution to persist.    if we amend the definition of practicing catholic to allow this exception, the ability to start a new church, then they would still be morally culpable.  and disregarding their catholicism, they  are  morally culpable.  some practice must be changed to erase this culpability.  whether it be leaving the church or ceasing donations, something must happen.   #  to the outsider, such differences may seem insignificant for  all intents and purposes , but for the pious, they are significant.   #  i believe that op is main argument can be summarised as  guilt through association .  by associating with an institution, wherein some members are morally culpable, catholics are guilty by association, and are equally morally culpable through their indirect support.  my main issue with op is view is that the main post is phrased in such a way that  rape of children  is the defining characteristic o the catholic church, which it is not, or that it is the purpose of the institution is existence, which again, it is not.  the catholic church does huge amounts of good in the modern world, giving humanitarian aid to impoverished countries, setting up hospitals and orphanages for the unprivileged, and providing hundreds of millions around the world spiritual support.  adhering catholics can just as easily be supporting these doctrines of good.  the corruption of the few does not invalidate the goodness of the many, or the institution as a whole, and the existence of said corruption imo does not invalidate the core precepts of the institution that of religion and spirituality, that catholics are meant to support.  minor points:  0: catholics who believe the theology of the church have alternative options.  they do not, that is the definition of a religion or a religious sect.  anglicans are so called because they differ doctrinally from catholics.  to the outsider, such differences may seem insignificant for  all intents and purposes , but for the pious, they are significant.  off of the top of my head, anglicans are far less supportive of the veneration of saints, for instance.  i think a reformist pope, like the current one, is the closest we can get.  the previous pope stepping down was seen as a hugely poignant gesture.  tl;dr i do not believe catholics support child abuse any more than an average american supports police brutality by paying taxes.  support for an institution out of faith in its its spirit and vision does not make one morally culpable if a corrupt few within the institution abuse this support.
0: the roman catholic church is institutionally guilty of evasion of justice for shielding rapists from trial all around the world.  this behavior permits the further rape of children by not properly stopping it.  the corruption goes all the way up to the top levels, including former pope benedict, while he lived as joseph ratzinger, overseeing the movement of the fugitives.  0: catholics who believe the theology of the church have alternative options.  they could join the anglican or episcopal churches, which have, for all intents and purposes, identical doctrine, or make a brand new catholic church 0, identical to the old church except for the criminal bureaucracy.  0: practicing catholics donate 0 of their income to the church.  thus, they support the criminal organization monetarily.  therefore, non ignorant, practicing catholics are morally culpable.   #  they could join the anglican or episcopal churches, which have, for all intents and purposes, identical doctrine, or make a brand new catholic church 0, identical to the old church except for the criminal bureaucracy.   #  except you ca not just elect priests and bishops, they have to be appointed.   # one cannot blame them for it.  they did not do it, nor did they know about it.  no they do not.  except you ca not just elect priests and bishops, they have to be appointed.  they ca not come from outside the church.  thus, they support the criminal organization monetarily.  no, they support an organization with some corrupt members.  that is not really a bad thing to do.   #  so while i do not think you are  entirely  wrong, i do think your expression of your view is naive.   #  0 the theology of the catholic church has as its foundation the doctrine of apostolic succession URL to put it simply, there are a series of verses that suggest a direct line of succession between the apostles empowered by christ himself down through to the modern catholic church.  the church itself has been empowered by god, so leaving it is simply not an option so long as you believe that church doctrine .  if you accept traditional catholic doctrine, there is no church 0 and certainly no joining of any protestant denomination; even if the rituals are similar, the doctrines vary significantly and neither anglicans nor episcopalians are the beneficiaries of apostolic succession.  as to your larger point, all organizations will experience corruption and criminal activity when they grow to sufficient size.  that is not an excuse, just a fact.  it happens with governments, corporations, churches. hell, even the boy scouts.  so while i do not think you are  entirely  wrong, i do think your expression of your view is naive.  if we applied that notion of collective responsibility equally to all organizations, we would all be guilty and the idea of guilt would not really have useful meaning.   #  even when there has been a dispute over who the legitimate pope was, the church and the office of the pope have been underpinned by that fundamental doctrine.   #  and that might be something you could bring up in an argument with a catholic.  it is a fairly weak argument against the doctrine itself, at best it calls into question the inherent legitimacy of the modern church.  an educated catholic would tell you that apostolic succession rests in the person of the church through the offices and rituals, not necessarily in the character of those who fill those offices.  no, it could not.  the pope is the pope.  papal infallibility is a matter of debate i believe the church itself now readily admits popes are fallible , but that does not affect apostolic succession.  what you are arguing is akin to saying that obama is not the president because andrew jackson did bad things while he was president.  apostolic succession has always been the fundamental doctrine.  even when there has been a dispute over who the legitimate pope was, the church and the office of the pope have been underpinned by that fundamental doctrine.  i think what you are missing is that a practicing catholic believes that the church itself is the probably only direct connection between god and man.  even if man screws up the institution, it is still  the  connection and no substitutes will do.   #    if we amend the definition of practicing catholic to allow this exception, the ability to start a new church, then they would still be morally culpable.   #  working within this framework of a rigid catechism, you have pointed out that catholic doctrine requires the same institution to persist.    if we amend the definition of practicing catholic to allow this exception, the ability to start a new church, then they would still be morally culpable.  and disregarding their catholicism, they  are  morally culpable.  some practice must be changed to erase this culpability.  whether it be leaving the church or ceasing donations, something must happen.   #  the previous pope stepping down was seen as a hugely poignant gesture.   #  i believe that op is main argument can be summarised as  guilt through association .  by associating with an institution, wherein some members are morally culpable, catholics are guilty by association, and are equally morally culpable through their indirect support.  my main issue with op is view is that the main post is phrased in such a way that  rape of children  is the defining characteristic o the catholic church, which it is not, or that it is the purpose of the institution is existence, which again, it is not.  the catholic church does huge amounts of good in the modern world, giving humanitarian aid to impoverished countries, setting up hospitals and orphanages for the unprivileged, and providing hundreds of millions around the world spiritual support.  adhering catholics can just as easily be supporting these doctrines of good.  the corruption of the few does not invalidate the goodness of the many, or the institution as a whole, and the existence of said corruption imo does not invalidate the core precepts of the institution that of religion and spirituality, that catholics are meant to support.  minor points:  0: catholics who believe the theology of the church have alternative options.  they do not, that is the definition of a religion or a religious sect.  anglicans are so called because they differ doctrinally from catholics.  to the outsider, such differences may seem insignificant for  all intents and purposes , but for the pious, they are significant.  off of the top of my head, anglicans are far less supportive of the veneration of saints, for instance.  i think a reformist pope, like the current one, is the closest we can get.  the previous pope stepping down was seen as a hugely poignant gesture.  tl;dr i do not believe catholics support child abuse any more than an average american supports police brutality by paying taxes.  support for an institution out of faith in its its spirit and vision does not make one morally culpable if a corrupt few within the institution abuse this support.
0: the roman catholic church is institutionally guilty of evasion of justice for shielding rapists from trial all around the world.  this behavior permits the further rape of children by not properly stopping it.  the corruption goes all the way up to the top levels, including former pope benedict, while he lived as joseph ratzinger, overseeing the movement of the fugitives.  0: catholics who believe the theology of the church have alternative options.  they could join the anglican or episcopal churches, which have, for all intents and purposes, identical doctrine, or make a brand new catholic church 0, identical to the old church except for the criminal bureaucracy.  0: practicing catholics donate 0 of their income to the church.  thus, they support the criminal organization monetarily.  therefore, non ignorant, practicing catholics are morally culpable.   #  0: practicing catholics donate 0 of their income to the church.   #  thus, they support the criminal organization monetarily.   # one cannot blame them for it.  they did not do it, nor did they know about it.  no they do not.  except you ca not just elect priests and bishops, they have to be appointed.  they ca not come from outside the church.  thus, they support the criminal organization monetarily.  no, they support an organization with some corrupt members.  that is not really a bad thing to do.   #  the church itself has been empowered by god, so leaving it is simply not an option so long as you believe that church doctrine .   #  0 the theology of the catholic church has as its foundation the doctrine of apostolic succession URL to put it simply, there are a series of verses that suggest a direct line of succession between the apostles empowered by christ himself down through to the modern catholic church.  the church itself has been empowered by god, so leaving it is simply not an option so long as you believe that church doctrine .  if you accept traditional catholic doctrine, there is no church 0 and certainly no joining of any protestant denomination; even if the rituals are similar, the doctrines vary significantly and neither anglicans nor episcopalians are the beneficiaries of apostolic succession.  as to your larger point, all organizations will experience corruption and criminal activity when they grow to sufficient size.  that is not an excuse, just a fact.  it happens with governments, corporations, churches. hell, even the boy scouts.  so while i do not think you are  entirely  wrong, i do think your expression of your view is naive.  if we applied that notion of collective responsibility equally to all organizations, we would all be guilty and the idea of guilt would not really have useful meaning.   #  even if man screws up the institution, it is still  the  connection and no substitutes will do.   #  and that might be something you could bring up in an argument with a catholic.  it is a fairly weak argument against the doctrine itself, at best it calls into question the inherent legitimacy of the modern church.  an educated catholic would tell you that apostolic succession rests in the person of the church through the offices and rituals, not necessarily in the character of those who fill those offices.  no, it could not.  the pope is the pope.  papal infallibility is a matter of debate i believe the church itself now readily admits popes are fallible , but that does not affect apostolic succession.  what you are arguing is akin to saying that obama is not the president because andrew jackson did bad things while he was president.  apostolic succession has always been the fundamental doctrine.  even when there has been a dispute over who the legitimate pope was, the church and the office of the pope have been underpinned by that fundamental doctrine.  i think what you are missing is that a practicing catholic believes that the church itself is the probably only direct connection between god and man.  even if man screws up the institution, it is still  the  connection and no substitutes will do.   #  some practice must be changed to erase this culpability.   #  working within this framework of a rigid catechism, you have pointed out that catholic doctrine requires the same institution to persist.    if we amend the definition of practicing catholic to allow this exception, the ability to start a new church, then they would still be morally culpable.  and disregarding their catholicism, they  are  morally culpable.  some practice must be changed to erase this culpability.  whether it be leaving the church or ceasing donations, something must happen.   #  tl;dr i do not believe catholics support child abuse any more than an average american supports police brutality by paying taxes.   #  i believe that op is main argument can be summarised as  guilt through association .  by associating with an institution, wherein some members are morally culpable, catholics are guilty by association, and are equally morally culpable through their indirect support.  my main issue with op is view is that the main post is phrased in such a way that  rape of children  is the defining characteristic o the catholic church, which it is not, or that it is the purpose of the institution is existence, which again, it is not.  the catholic church does huge amounts of good in the modern world, giving humanitarian aid to impoverished countries, setting up hospitals and orphanages for the unprivileged, and providing hundreds of millions around the world spiritual support.  adhering catholics can just as easily be supporting these doctrines of good.  the corruption of the few does not invalidate the goodness of the many, or the institution as a whole, and the existence of said corruption imo does not invalidate the core precepts of the institution that of religion and spirituality, that catholics are meant to support.  minor points:  0: catholics who believe the theology of the church have alternative options.  they do not, that is the definition of a religion or a religious sect.  anglicans are so called because they differ doctrinally from catholics.  to the outsider, such differences may seem insignificant for  all intents and purposes , but for the pious, they are significant.  off of the top of my head, anglicans are far less supportive of the veneration of saints, for instance.  i think a reformist pope, like the current one, is the closest we can get.  the previous pope stepping down was seen as a hugely poignant gesture.  tl;dr i do not believe catholics support child abuse any more than an average american supports police brutality by paying taxes.  support for an institution out of faith in its its spirit and vision does not make one morally culpable if a corrupt few within the institution abuse this support.
0: the roman catholic church is institutionally guilty of evasion of justice for shielding rapists from trial all around the world.  this behavior permits the further rape of children by not properly stopping it.  the corruption goes all the way up to the top levels, including former pope benedict, while he lived as joseph ratzinger, overseeing the movement of the fugitives.  0: catholics who believe the theology of the church have alternative options.  they could join the anglican or episcopal churches, which have, for all intents and purposes, identical doctrine, or make a brand new catholic church 0, identical to the old church except for the criminal bureaucracy.  0: practicing catholics donate 0 of their income to the church.  thus, they support the criminal organization monetarily.  therefore, non ignorant, practicing catholics are morally culpable.   #  the roman catholic church is institutionally guilty of evasion of justice for shielding rapists from trial all around the world.   #  this behavior permits the further rape of children by not properly stopping it.   # this behavior permits the further rape of children by not properly stopping it.  you ca not have institution guilt of the kind you are speaking about when the teachings, rules and laws of that church all utterly condemn the behavior in question.  these were not  acts of the catholic church  in any meaningful sense they were acts of people rejecting catholic teaching.  they could join the anglican or episcopal churches, which have, for all intents and purposes, identical doctrine, no, they actually have radically different doctrines, so this is right out.  this is known as  internal reformation , which is exactly what is happening now.  i will give an additional counter: that the church dogmatically condemns these acts is well established.  no one can seriously pretend that child molestation or even homosexual statutory rape which is what a large part of the cases deal with is acceptable by catholic teaching, nor is hiding/abetting it.  anyone who pretends that it was the catholic church, as opposed to members of the church who were catholic, that is at fault is explicitly shielding the true culprits, and are thus culpable for rape.  because nothing helps promote rape like blaming the wrong party for politically motivated reasons.   #  the church itself has been empowered by god, so leaving it is simply not an option so long as you believe that church doctrine .   #  0 the theology of the catholic church has as its foundation the doctrine of apostolic succession URL to put it simply, there are a series of verses that suggest a direct line of succession between the apostles empowered by christ himself down through to the modern catholic church.  the church itself has been empowered by god, so leaving it is simply not an option so long as you believe that church doctrine .  if you accept traditional catholic doctrine, there is no church 0 and certainly no joining of any protestant denomination; even if the rituals are similar, the doctrines vary significantly and neither anglicans nor episcopalians are the beneficiaries of apostolic succession.  as to your larger point, all organizations will experience corruption and criminal activity when they grow to sufficient size.  that is not an excuse, just a fact.  it happens with governments, corporations, churches. hell, even the boy scouts.  so while i do not think you are  entirely  wrong, i do think your expression of your view is naive.  if we applied that notion of collective responsibility equally to all organizations, we would all be guilty and the idea of guilt would not really have useful meaning.   #  i think what you are missing is that a practicing catholic believes that the church itself is the probably only direct connection between god and man.   #  and that might be something you could bring up in an argument with a catholic.  it is a fairly weak argument against the doctrine itself, at best it calls into question the inherent legitimacy of the modern church.  an educated catholic would tell you that apostolic succession rests in the person of the church through the offices and rituals, not necessarily in the character of those who fill those offices.  no, it could not.  the pope is the pope.  papal infallibility is a matter of debate i believe the church itself now readily admits popes are fallible , but that does not affect apostolic succession.  what you are arguing is akin to saying that obama is not the president because andrew jackson did bad things while he was president.  apostolic succession has always been the fundamental doctrine.  even when there has been a dispute over who the legitimate pope was, the church and the office of the pope have been underpinned by that fundamental doctrine.  i think what you are missing is that a practicing catholic believes that the church itself is the probably only direct connection between god and man.  even if man screws up the institution, it is still  the  connection and no substitutes will do.   #    if we amend the definition of practicing catholic to allow this exception, the ability to start a new church, then they would still be morally culpable.   #  working within this framework of a rigid catechism, you have pointed out that catholic doctrine requires the same institution to persist.    if we amend the definition of practicing catholic to allow this exception, the ability to start a new church, then they would still be morally culpable.  and disregarding their catholicism, they  are  morally culpable.  some practice must be changed to erase this culpability.  whether it be leaving the church or ceasing donations, something must happen.   #  the previous pope stepping down was seen as a hugely poignant gesture.   #  i believe that op is main argument can be summarised as  guilt through association .  by associating with an institution, wherein some members are morally culpable, catholics are guilty by association, and are equally morally culpable through their indirect support.  my main issue with op is view is that the main post is phrased in such a way that  rape of children  is the defining characteristic o the catholic church, which it is not, or that it is the purpose of the institution is existence, which again, it is not.  the catholic church does huge amounts of good in the modern world, giving humanitarian aid to impoverished countries, setting up hospitals and orphanages for the unprivileged, and providing hundreds of millions around the world spiritual support.  adhering catholics can just as easily be supporting these doctrines of good.  the corruption of the few does not invalidate the goodness of the many, or the institution as a whole, and the existence of said corruption imo does not invalidate the core precepts of the institution that of religion and spirituality, that catholics are meant to support.  minor points:  0: catholics who believe the theology of the church have alternative options.  they do not, that is the definition of a religion or a religious sect.  anglicans are so called because they differ doctrinally from catholics.  to the outsider, such differences may seem insignificant for  all intents and purposes , but for the pious, they are significant.  off of the top of my head, anglicans are far less supportive of the veneration of saints, for instance.  i think a reformist pope, like the current one, is the closest we can get.  the previous pope stepping down was seen as a hugely poignant gesture.  tl;dr i do not believe catholics support child abuse any more than an average american supports police brutality by paying taxes.  support for an institution out of faith in its its spirit and vision does not make one morally culpable if a corrupt few within the institution abuse this support.
0: the roman catholic church is institutionally guilty of evasion of justice for shielding rapists from trial all around the world.  this behavior permits the further rape of children by not properly stopping it.  the corruption goes all the way up to the top levels, including former pope benedict, while he lived as joseph ratzinger, overseeing the movement of the fugitives.  0: catholics who believe the theology of the church have alternative options.  they could join the anglican or episcopal churches, which have, for all intents and purposes, identical doctrine, or make a brand new catholic church 0, identical to the old church except for the criminal bureaucracy.  0: practicing catholics donate 0 of their income to the church.  thus, they support the criminal organization monetarily.  therefore, non ignorant, practicing catholics are morally culpable.   #  catholics who believe the theology of the church have alternative options.   #  they could join the anglican or episcopal churches, which have, for all intents and purposes, identical doctrine, no, they actually have radically different doctrines, so this is right out.   # this behavior permits the further rape of children by not properly stopping it.  you ca not have institution guilt of the kind you are speaking about when the teachings, rules and laws of that church all utterly condemn the behavior in question.  these were not  acts of the catholic church  in any meaningful sense they were acts of people rejecting catholic teaching.  they could join the anglican or episcopal churches, which have, for all intents and purposes, identical doctrine, no, they actually have radically different doctrines, so this is right out.  this is known as  internal reformation , which is exactly what is happening now.  i will give an additional counter: that the church dogmatically condemns these acts is well established.  no one can seriously pretend that child molestation or even homosexual statutory rape which is what a large part of the cases deal with is acceptable by catholic teaching, nor is hiding/abetting it.  anyone who pretends that it was the catholic church, as opposed to members of the church who were catholic, that is at fault is explicitly shielding the true culprits, and are thus culpable for rape.  because nothing helps promote rape like blaming the wrong party for politically motivated reasons.   #  as to your larger point, all organizations will experience corruption and criminal activity when they grow to sufficient size.   #  0 the theology of the catholic church has as its foundation the doctrine of apostolic succession URL to put it simply, there are a series of verses that suggest a direct line of succession between the apostles empowered by christ himself down through to the modern catholic church.  the church itself has been empowered by god, so leaving it is simply not an option so long as you believe that church doctrine .  if you accept traditional catholic doctrine, there is no church 0 and certainly no joining of any protestant denomination; even if the rituals are similar, the doctrines vary significantly and neither anglicans nor episcopalians are the beneficiaries of apostolic succession.  as to your larger point, all organizations will experience corruption and criminal activity when they grow to sufficient size.  that is not an excuse, just a fact.  it happens with governments, corporations, churches. hell, even the boy scouts.  so while i do not think you are  entirely  wrong, i do think your expression of your view is naive.  if we applied that notion of collective responsibility equally to all organizations, we would all be guilty and the idea of guilt would not really have useful meaning.   #  even if man screws up the institution, it is still  the  connection and no substitutes will do.   #  and that might be something you could bring up in an argument with a catholic.  it is a fairly weak argument against the doctrine itself, at best it calls into question the inherent legitimacy of the modern church.  an educated catholic would tell you that apostolic succession rests in the person of the church through the offices and rituals, not necessarily in the character of those who fill those offices.  no, it could not.  the pope is the pope.  papal infallibility is a matter of debate i believe the church itself now readily admits popes are fallible , but that does not affect apostolic succession.  what you are arguing is akin to saying that obama is not the president because andrew jackson did bad things while he was president.  apostolic succession has always been the fundamental doctrine.  even when there has been a dispute over who the legitimate pope was, the church and the office of the pope have been underpinned by that fundamental doctrine.  i think what you are missing is that a practicing catholic believes that the church itself is the probably only direct connection between god and man.  even if man screws up the institution, it is still  the  connection and no substitutes will do.   #  some practice must be changed to erase this culpability.   #  working within this framework of a rigid catechism, you have pointed out that catholic doctrine requires the same institution to persist.    if we amend the definition of practicing catholic to allow this exception, the ability to start a new church, then they would still be morally culpable.  and disregarding their catholicism, they  are  morally culpable.  some practice must be changed to erase this culpability.  whether it be leaving the church or ceasing donations, something must happen.   #  to the outsider, such differences may seem insignificant for  all intents and purposes , but for the pious, they are significant.   #  i believe that op is main argument can be summarised as  guilt through association .  by associating with an institution, wherein some members are morally culpable, catholics are guilty by association, and are equally morally culpable through their indirect support.  my main issue with op is view is that the main post is phrased in such a way that  rape of children  is the defining characteristic o the catholic church, which it is not, or that it is the purpose of the institution is existence, which again, it is not.  the catholic church does huge amounts of good in the modern world, giving humanitarian aid to impoverished countries, setting up hospitals and orphanages for the unprivileged, and providing hundreds of millions around the world spiritual support.  adhering catholics can just as easily be supporting these doctrines of good.  the corruption of the few does not invalidate the goodness of the many, or the institution as a whole, and the existence of said corruption imo does not invalidate the core precepts of the institution that of religion and spirituality, that catholics are meant to support.  minor points:  0: catholics who believe the theology of the church have alternative options.  they do not, that is the definition of a religion or a religious sect.  anglicans are so called because they differ doctrinally from catholics.  to the outsider, such differences may seem insignificant for  all intents and purposes , but for the pious, they are significant.  off of the top of my head, anglicans are far less supportive of the veneration of saints, for instance.  i think a reformist pope, like the current one, is the closest we can get.  the previous pope stepping down was seen as a hugely poignant gesture.  tl;dr i do not believe catholics support child abuse any more than an average american supports police brutality by paying taxes.  support for an institution out of faith in its its spirit and vision does not make one morally culpable if a corrupt few within the institution abuse this support.
0: the roman catholic church is institutionally guilty of evasion of justice for shielding rapists from trial all around the world.  this behavior permits the further rape of children by not properly stopping it.  the corruption goes all the way up to the top levels, including former pope benedict, while he lived as joseph ratzinger, overseeing the movement of the fugitives.  0: catholics who believe the theology of the church have alternative options.  they could join the anglican or episcopal churches, which have, for all intents and purposes, identical doctrine, or make a brand new catholic church 0, identical to the old church except for the criminal bureaucracy.  0: practicing catholics donate 0 of their income to the church.  thus, they support the criminal organization monetarily.  therefore, non ignorant, practicing catholics are morally culpable.   #  or make a brand new catholic church 0, identical to the old church except for the criminal bureaucracy.   #  this is known as  internal reformation , which is exactly what is happening now.   # this behavior permits the further rape of children by not properly stopping it.  you ca not have institution guilt of the kind you are speaking about when the teachings, rules and laws of that church all utterly condemn the behavior in question.  these were not  acts of the catholic church  in any meaningful sense they were acts of people rejecting catholic teaching.  they could join the anglican or episcopal churches, which have, for all intents and purposes, identical doctrine, no, they actually have radically different doctrines, so this is right out.  this is known as  internal reformation , which is exactly what is happening now.  i will give an additional counter: that the church dogmatically condemns these acts is well established.  no one can seriously pretend that child molestation or even homosexual statutory rape which is what a large part of the cases deal with is acceptable by catholic teaching, nor is hiding/abetting it.  anyone who pretends that it was the catholic church, as opposed to members of the church who were catholic, that is at fault is explicitly shielding the true culprits, and are thus culpable for rape.  because nothing helps promote rape like blaming the wrong party for politically motivated reasons.   #  so while i do not think you are  entirely  wrong, i do think your expression of your view is naive.   #  0 the theology of the catholic church has as its foundation the doctrine of apostolic succession URL to put it simply, there are a series of verses that suggest a direct line of succession between the apostles empowered by christ himself down through to the modern catholic church.  the church itself has been empowered by god, so leaving it is simply not an option so long as you believe that church doctrine .  if you accept traditional catholic doctrine, there is no church 0 and certainly no joining of any protestant denomination; even if the rituals are similar, the doctrines vary significantly and neither anglicans nor episcopalians are the beneficiaries of apostolic succession.  as to your larger point, all organizations will experience corruption and criminal activity when they grow to sufficient size.  that is not an excuse, just a fact.  it happens with governments, corporations, churches. hell, even the boy scouts.  so while i do not think you are  entirely  wrong, i do think your expression of your view is naive.  if we applied that notion of collective responsibility equally to all organizations, we would all be guilty and the idea of guilt would not really have useful meaning.   #  papal infallibility is a matter of debate i believe the church itself now readily admits popes are fallible , but that does not affect apostolic succession.   #  and that might be something you could bring up in an argument with a catholic.  it is a fairly weak argument against the doctrine itself, at best it calls into question the inherent legitimacy of the modern church.  an educated catholic would tell you that apostolic succession rests in the person of the church through the offices and rituals, not necessarily in the character of those who fill those offices.  no, it could not.  the pope is the pope.  papal infallibility is a matter of debate i believe the church itself now readily admits popes are fallible , but that does not affect apostolic succession.  what you are arguing is akin to saying that obama is not the president because andrew jackson did bad things while he was president.  apostolic succession has always been the fundamental doctrine.  even when there has been a dispute over who the legitimate pope was, the church and the office of the pope have been underpinned by that fundamental doctrine.  i think what you are missing is that a practicing catholic believes that the church itself is the probably only direct connection between god and man.  even if man screws up the institution, it is still  the  connection and no substitutes will do.   #  whether it be leaving the church or ceasing donations, something must happen.   #  working within this framework of a rigid catechism, you have pointed out that catholic doctrine requires the same institution to persist.    if we amend the definition of practicing catholic to allow this exception, the ability to start a new church, then they would still be morally culpable.  and disregarding their catholicism, they  are  morally culpable.  some practice must be changed to erase this culpability.  whether it be leaving the church or ceasing donations, something must happen.   #  adhering catholics can just as easily be supporting these doctrines of good.   #  i believe that op is main argument can be summarised as  guilt through association .  by associating with an institution, wherein some members are morally culpable, catholics are guilty by association, and are equally morally culpable through their indirect support.  my main issue with op is view is that the main post is phrased in such a way that  rape of children  is the defining characteristic o the catholic church, which it is not, or that it is the purpose of the institution is existence, which again, it is not.  the catholic church does huge amounts of good in the modern world, giving humanitarian aid to impoverished countries, setting up hospitals and orphanages for the unprivileged, and providing hundreds of millions around the world spiritual support.  adhering catholics can just as easily be supporting these doctrines of good.  the corruption of the few does not invalidate the goodness of the many, or the institution as a whole, and the existence of said corruption imo does not invalidate the core precepts of the institution that of religion and spirituality, that catholics are meant to support.  minor points:  0: catholics who believe the theology of the church have alternative options.  they do not, that is the definition of a religion or a religious sect.  anglicans are so called because they differ doctrinally from catholics.  to the outsider, such differences may seem insignificant for  all intents and purposes , but for the pious, they are significant.  off of the top of my head, anglicans are far less supportive of the veneration of saints, for instance.  i think a reformist pope, like the current one, is the closest we can get.  the previous pope stepping down was seen as a hugely poignant gesture.  tl;dr i do not believe catholics support child abuse any more than an average american supports police brutality by paying taxes.  support for an institution out of faith in its its spirit and vision does not make one morally culpable if a corrupt few within the institution abuse this support.
so i am not sure how many of you guys are aware of the recent events in the mtg world but today a professional player, zach jesse, was banned presumably because of his past criminal history which includes a sexual assault guilty plea when he was 0.  i am not aware of the exact circumstances surrounding his offense.  what unsettles me about the ban is that it seems to have occurred because another player, drew levin, pointed out jesse is criminal past with a twitter post:  quick reminder: zach jesse is a literal rapist who got away with serving three months of an eight year plea deal.   it should be noted that this is a very speculative and misleading statement, as the public is not aware of the details surrounding his plea.  wizards of the coast gave a short statement saying that the reasoning behind the ban was to ensure that players feel safe at events.  obviously a worthy endeavor, but i do not see how it really applies here.  we are talking about large events at convention centers with thousands of people, security, etc.  if, in the eyes of the law, he is not considered a threat to the public i. e.  not in jail then how can wizards see him as one ? and what is the point in attempting to rehabilitate criminals if they are to be forever shunned from participating even in large public events ? it is not like the guy is applying for a teaching job at an elementary school or something.  they even banned him from online play.  lastly, i do not think wizards should have taken this action based on a twitter witch hunt that was started by another player.  if they want to have a universal no criminal record policy at all of their events, then maybe it would be justified.  but to selectively ban one person because he was villified on a social media site is pretty unreasonable, imo.  i want to hear people is thoughts on this because it seems like the r/magictcg community is vehemently opposed to the ban.  i would like to hear some outside opinion is.  the srs crowd seems to support the ban, calling r/magictcg a bunch of rape apologists, etc, but then again the srs crowd is not very logical or reasonable.  so i would like to hear what you all think.  cmv,  #  obviously a worthy endeavor, but i do not see how it really applies here.   #  we are talking about large events at convention centers with thousands of people, security, etc.   # we are talking about large events at convention centers with thousands of people, security, etc.  convention centers with thousands of people and security still have thousands of people later at night, when people are filing out of the convention center and back to the hotels and restaurants around it.  the security people in the convention center itself do not follow them.  conventions and tournaments are well within their rights to ban people that they think make the event seem  unsafe,  even if there is no proof of a crime.  and based on my experience behind the scenes at conventions, it is a  very good idea to do so.  online play includes events that are qualifying events for in real life tournaments and events.  a ban from competitive play necessitates a ban from online play or difficult questions about why they did not include the winner of a particular tournament who was otherwise qualified and an asterisk next to the results of all related events.  if they want to have a universal no criminal record policy at all of their events, then maybe it would be justified.  but to selectively ban one person because he was villified on a social media site is pretty unreasonable, imo.  it is definitely inconsistent with previous behavior, but their previous behavior has faced heavy criticism too.  lucas florent was banned in 0 for threatening to rape a wotc executive.  it was originally called a  lifetime ban,  but lifted after six months.  that did not make many people happy, and prominent female players including jackie lee have been the frequent target of rape threats.  if this is taking a hard line to show they are going to take this seriously going forward, then i would say it is a good thing.   #  in other words the judge sentenced him to a three month active sentence and can revoke the suspended period should he commit another violation during his period of good behavior.   # you can contact the charlottesville circuit court clerk here URL now he did not get away with serving 0 months of an 0 year sentence he was literally sentenced to 0 years with all but 0 months suspended.  in other words the judge sentenced him to a three month active sentence and can revoke the suspended period should he commit another violation during his period of good behavior.  he has to let the police know where he lives and works at all times so they can keep tabs on him.  he is visited at a minimum of once a year by a state police officer who verifies this information through a surprise visit.  in addition he must provide the police any and all usernames on social media, email addresses, vehicles he regularly uses, and his dna.  see va code 0 0 URL he was not convicted of rape he had the charge reduced to aggravated sexual battery under va code 0 0 from rape.  you can find it by looking him up here in the charlottesville circuit court URL while the charge was reduced from rape the statement of facts which he admitted was accurate as part of his plea agreement states that he anally and vaginally raped a girl.  you can get that from the clerk is office as it was made part of the record.   #  if it was not a problem before, why is it now ?  #    you have partially changed my view in that i can see why wizards does not someone with a legitimate rape conviction to play in their events.  i still believe it is wrong for them to ban him because another player pointed it out on twitter, and that they should be consistent in not allowing players with a criminal history.  if it was not a problem before, why is it now ? just because drew levin decided to be a white knight and out him on twitter ? imo levin should also be banned, as that was some pretty childish behavior.  anyway, thanks for providing some helpful information.   #  wizards banned him due to the number of players and people who reported being uncomfortable and feeling unsafe  # it is not cost effective or useful for wizards to do a criminal background check on every player.  the single tweet was not the sole reason he was banned but in fact the tweet simply informed people who did not know and resulted in people feeling uncomfortable and unsafe.  there have been complaints of rape threats and other issues in the magic community for years.  it is not new that knowledge of things like this coming to light results in controversy.  wizards banned him due to the number of players and people who reported being uncomfortable and feeling unsafe  #  if the case had went to trial, all the details would have came out, and people would have been much more shocked.   #  if you think more players should be banned too, then i would agree, but that is not what you were saying in the op.  it seems like you are under the impression that if we ca not catch all the bad apples, then out of fairness or something, we should not punish anyone.  and that is just not the way it works.  like you said, i think levin should be suspended.  but it is also okay to take things on a case by case basis.  actually, we  should  do that.  we are all reasonable humans capable of logical and rational thought. why would we apply  one  standard where anything from infraction to felony regarding rape carries the same sentence ? levin did not anally rape a girl over a bathroom stall.  keep in mind that with a plea deal, most graphic details are not made public.  if the case had went to trial, all the details would have came out, and people would have been much more shocked.  but also, he may have gotten off completely, leading to an even much bigger split in opinion than there is now.
so i am not sure how many of you guys are aware of the recent events in the mtg world but today a professional player, zach jesse, was banned presumably because of his past criminal history which includes a sexual assault guilty plea when he was 0.  i am not aware of the exact circumstances surrounding his offense.  what unsettles me about the ban is that it seems to have occurred because another player, drew levin, pointed out jesse is criminal past with a twitter post:  quick reminder: zach jesse is a literal rapist who got away with serving three months of an eight year plea deal.   it should be noted that this is a very speculative and misleading statement, as the public is not aware of the details surrounding his plea.  wizards of the coast gave a short statement saying that the reasoning behind the ban was to ensure that players feel safe at events.  obviously a worthy endeavor, but i do not see how it really applies here.  we are talking about large events at convention centers with thousands of people, security, etc.  if, in the eyes of the law, he is not considered a threat to the public i. e.  not in jail then how can wizards see him as one ? and what is the point in attempting to rehabilitate criminals if they are to be forever shunned from participating even in large public events ? it is not like the guy is applying for a teaching job at an elementary school or something.  they even banned him from online play.  lastly, i do not think wizards should have taken this action based on a twitter witch hunt that was started by another player.  if they want to have a universal no criminal record policy at all of their events, then maybe it would be justified.  but to selectively ban one person because he was villified on a social media site is pretty unreasonable, imo.  i want to hear people is thoughts on this because it seems like the r/magictcg community is vehemently opposed to the ban.  i would like to hear some outside opinion is.  the srs crowd seems to support the ban, calling r/magictcg a bunch of rape apologists, etc, but then again the srs crowd is not very logical or reasonable.  so i would like to hear what you all think.  cmv,  #  they even banned him from online play.   #  online play includes events that are qualifying events for in real life tournaments and events.   # we are talking about large events at convention centers with thousands of people, security, etc.  convention centers with thousands of people and security still have thousands of people later at night, when people are filing out of the convention center and back to the hotels and restaurants around it.  the security people in the convention center itself do not follow them.  conventions and tournaments are well within their rights to ban people that they think make the event seem  unsafe,  even if there is no proof of a crime.  and based on my experience behind the scenes at conventions, it is a  very good idea to do so.  online play includes events that are qualifying events for in real life tournaments and events.  a ban from competitive play necessitates a ban from online play or difficult questions about why they did not include the winner of a particular tournament who was otherwise qualified and an asterisk next to the results of all related events.  if they want to have a universal no criminal record policy at all of their events, then maybe it would be justified.  but to selectively ban one person because he was villified on a social media site is pretty unreasonable, imo.  it is definitely inconsistent with previous behavior, but their previous behavior has faced heavy criticism too.  lucas florent was banned in 0 for threatening to rape a wotc executive.  it was originally called a  lifetime ban,  but lifted after six months.  that did not make many people happy, and prominent female players including jackie lee have been the frequent target of rape threats.  if this is taking a hard line to show they are going to take this seriously going forward, then i would say it is a good thing.   #  he has to let the police know where he lives and works at all times so they can keep tabs on him.   # you can contact the charlottesville circuit court clerk here URL now he did not get away with serving 0 months of an 0 year sentence he was literally sentenced to 0 years with all but 0 months suspended.  in other words the judge sentenced him to a three month active sentence and can revoke the suspended period should he commit another violation during his period of good behavior.  he has to let the police know where he lives and works at all times so they can keep tabs on him.  he is visited at a minimum of once a year by a state police officer who verifies this information through a surprise visit.  in addition he must provide the police any and all usernames on social media, email addresses, vehicles he regularly uses, and his dna.  see va code 0 0 URL he was not convicted of rape he had the charge reduced to aggravated sexual battery under va code 0 0 from rape.  you can find it by looking him up here in the charlottesville circuit court URL while the charge was reduced from rape the statement of facts which he admitted was accurate as part of his plea agreement states that he anally and vaginally raped a girl.  you can get that from the clerk is office as it was made part of the record.   #  just because drew levin decided to be a white knight and out him on twitter ?  #    you have partially changed my view in that i can see why wizards does not someone with a legitimate rape conviction to play in their events.  i still believe it is wrong for them to ban him because another player pointed it out on twitter, and that they should be consistent in not allowing players with a criminal history.  if it was not a problem before, why is it now ? just because drew levin decided to be a white knight and out him on twitter ? imo levin should also be banned, as that was some pretty childish behavior.  anyway, thanks for providing some helpful information.   #  there have been complaints of rape threats and other issues in the magic community for years.   # it is not cost effective or useful for wizards to do a criminal background check on every player.  the single tweet was not the sole reason he was banned but in fact the tweet simply informed people who did not know and resulted in people feeling uncomfortable and unsafe.  there have been complaints of rape threats and other issues in the magic community for years.  it is not new that knowledge of things like this coming to light results in controversy.  wizards banned him due to the number of players and people who reported being uncomfortable and feeling unsafe  #  like you said, i think levin should be suspended.   #  if you think more players should be banned too, then i would agree, but that is not what you were saying in the op.  it seems like you are under the impression that if we ca not catch all the bad apples, then out of fairness or something, we should not punish anyone.  and that is just not the way it works.  like you said, i think levin should be suspended.  but it is also okay to take things on a case by case basis.  actually, we  should  do that.  we are all reasonable humans capable of logical and rational thought. why would we apply  one  standard where anything from infraction to felony regarding rape carries the same sentence ? levin did not anally rape a girl over a bathroom stall.  keep in mind that with a plea deal, most graphic details are not made public.  if the case had went to trial, all the details would have came out, and people would have been much more shocked.  but also, he may have gotten off completely, leading to an even much bigger split in opinion than there is now.
so i am not sure how many of you guys are aware of the recent events in the mtg world but today a professional player, zach jesse, was banned presumably because of his past criminal history which includes a sexual assault guilty plea when he was 0.  i am not aware of the exact circumstances surrounding his offense.  what unsettles me about the ban is that it seems to have occurred because another player, drew levin, pointed out jesse is criminal past with a twitter post:  quick reminder: zach jesse is a literal rapist who got away with serving three months of an eight year plea deal.   it should be noted that this is a very speculative and misleading statement, as the public is not aware of the details surrounding his plea.  wizards of the coast gave a short statement saying that the reasoning behind the ban was to ensure that players feel safe at events.  obviously a worthy endeavor, but i do not see how it really applies here.  we are talking about large events at convention centers with thousands of people, security, etc.  if, in the eyes of the law, he is not considered a threat to the public i. e.  not in jail then how can wizards see him as one ? and what is the point in attempting to rehabilitate criminals if they are to be forever shunned from participating even in large public events ? it is not like the guy is applying for a teaching job at an elementary school or something.  they even banned him from online play.  lastly, i do not think wizards should have taken this action based on a twitter witch hunt that was started by another player.  if they want to have a universal no criminal record policy at all of their events, then maybe it would be justified.  but to selectively ban one person because he was villified on a social media site is pretty unreasonable, imo.  i want to hear people is thoughts on this because it seems like the r/magictcg community is vehemently opposed to the ban.  i would like to hear some outside opinion is.  the srs crowd seems to support the ban, calling r/magictcg a bunch of rape apologists, etc, but then again the srs crowd is not very logical or reasonable.  so i would like to hear what you all think.  cmv,  #  lastly, i do not think wizards should have taken this action based on a twitter witch hunt that was started by another player.   #  if they want to have a universal no criminal record policy at all of their events, then maybe it would be justified.   # we are talking about large events at convention centers with thousands of people, security, etc.  convention centers with thousands of people and security still have thousands of people later at night, when people are filing out of the convention center and back to the hotels and restaurants around it.  the security people in the convention center itself do not follow them.  conventions and tournaments are well within their rights to ban people that they think make the event seem  unsafe,  even if there is no proof of a crime.  and based on my experience behind the scenes at conventions, it is a  very good idea to do so.  online play includes events that are qualifying events for in real life tournaments and events.  a ban from competitive play necessitates a ban from online play or difficult questions about why they did not include the winner of a particular tournament who was otherwise qualified and an asterisk next to the results of all related events.  if they want to have a universal no criminal record policy at all of their events, then maybe it would be justified.  but to selectively ban one person because he was villified on a social media site is pretty unreasonable, imo.  it is definitely inconsistent with previous behavior, but their previous behavior has faced heavy criticism too.  lucas florent was banned in 0 for threatening to rape a wotc executive.  it was originally called a  lifetime ban,  but lifted after six months.  that did not make many people happy, and prominent female players including jackie lee have been the frequent target of rape threats.  if this is taking a hard line to show they are going to take this seriously going forward, then i would say it is a good thing.   #  in addition he must provide the police any and all usernames on social media, email addresses, vehicles he regularly uses, and his dna.   # you can contact the charlottesville circuit court clerk here URL now he did not get away with serving 0 months of an 0 year sentence he was literally sentenced to 0 years with all but 0 months suspended.  in other words the judge sentenced him to a three month active sentence and can revoke the suspended period should he commit another violation during his period of good behavior.  he has to let the police know where he lives and works at all times so they can keep tabs on him.  he is visited at a minimum of once a year by a state police officer who verifies this information through a surprise visit.  in addition he must provide the police any and all usernames on social media, email addresses, vehicles he regularly uses, and his dna.  see va code 0 0 URL he was not convicted of rape he had the charge reduced to aggravated sexual battery under va code 0 0 from rape.  you can find it by looking him up here in the charlottesville circuit court URL while the charge was reduced from rape the statement of facts which he admitted was accurate as part of his plea agreement states that he anally and vaginally raped a girl.  you can get that from the clerk is office as it was made part of the record.   #  i still believe it is wrong for them to ban him because another player pointed it out on twitter, and that they should be consistent in not allowing players with a criminal history.   #    you have partially changed my view in that i can see why wizards does not someone with a legitimate rape conviction to play in their events.  i still believe it is wrong for them to ban him because another player pointed it out on twitter, and that they should be consistent in not allowing players with a criminal history.  if it was not a problem before, why is it now ? just because drew levin decided to be a white knight and out him on twitter ? imo levin should also be banned, as that was some pretty childish behavior.  anyway, thanks for providing some helpful information.   #  it is not new that knowledge of things like this coming to light results in controversy.   # it is not cost effective or useful for wizards to do a criminal background check on every player.  the single tweet was not the sole reason he was banned but in fact the tweet simply informed people who did not know and resulted in people feeling uncomfortable and unsafe.  there have been complaints of rape threats and other issues in the magic community for years.  it is not new that knowledge of things like this coming to light results in controversy.  wizards banned him due to the number of players and people who reported being uncomfortable and feeling unsafe  #  like you said, i think levin should be suspended.   #  if you think more players should be banned too, then i would agree, but that is not what you were saying in the op.  it seems like you are under the impression that if we ca not catch all the bad apples, then out of fairness or something, we should not punish anyone.  and that is just not the way it works.  like you said, i think levin should be suspended.  but it is also okay to take things on a case by case basis.  actually, we  should  do that.  we are all reasonable humans capable of logical and rational thought. why would we apply  one  standard where anything from infraction to felony regarding rape carries the same sentence ? levin did not anally rape a girl over a bathroom stall.  keep in mind that with a plea deal, most graphic details are not made public.  if the case had went to trial, all the details would have came out, and people would have been much more shocked.  but also, he may have gotten off completely, leading to an even much bigger split in opinion than there is now.
i should say immediately i am not talking about the kind of tattooing done for tribal or cultural reasons like in maori culture URL that i get.  there is a both a history and an underlying cultural richness involved.  i am talking about the random demon, the poorly drawn skull, the names of girlfriends, the chinese characters on the arms or backs of non asians or the maudlin english phrases on the legs or hips of asians , the celtic designs on minnesota druid wannabes, the face of some temporarily admired celebrity, the sword you have never held or known how to use and will never hold or know how to use drawn down your forearm.  growing up in the 0s rural ish southern us i was not exposed to a lot of tattoos, but my parents were both very traditionalist and  looked down  on people who had them.  i never really cared much but a person with a tattoo seemed sort of exotic, like a sailor who got one on his arm in the war or something.  the whole idea of tattooing seemed foreign to me.  and in some way mysterious.  but those days are gone.  fast forward to the 0s.  they are suddenly very popular, even mainstream.  what was once exotic is now commonplace.  you see them all over.  i live now in japan where admittedly there is a taboo against having them at least in mainstream quarters though that is very much changing as young people become more and more interested in tattooing, both modern tattoos and, less commonly, the more traditional  irezumi  URL some of my 0 0 year old students sometimes ask me if a certain english phrase makes sense because they want to get it tattooed it across their backs.  i do not know, it seems a pointless marking up of your body.  it seems like an instant gratification for an almost pathological need to scar up your natural self.  whenever i see a tattoo on a person i inadvertently recoil.  it looks unclean, vulgar, and, if i can use the term, low class.  what makes me want my view changed is that i do not particularly care for classism or judging people on shallow, literally skin deep criteria.  i know some guys with tattoos who are much more intelligent and stronger men than i am.  i know some women with tattoos who are lovely human beings.  so how can i get rid of this knee jerk reaction ? please cmv.   #  i do not know, it seems a pointless marking up of your body.   #  it seems like an instant gratification for an almost pathological need to scar up your natural self.   # it seems like an instant gratification for an almost pathological need to scar up your natural self.  whenever i see a tattoo on a person i inadvertently recoil.  it looks unclean, vulgar, and, if i can use the term, low class.  this seems to be the crux of the problem.  of course it seems pointless to you, you do not like it.  you could make that argument about literally anything.  but it is not pointless, universally.  some people get a tattoo as a means of self expression.  some people get them for rebellion.  some get them for inclusion in cliques or gangs.  you might not agree that these are very good reasons, but they are clearly reasons in their own right, so getting a tattoo cannot be considered pointless.  getting a tattoo is varying degrees of excruciating, can take a long time and spread across several sessions.  and there is a healing period afterwards.  and this all after the person getting the tattoo spent however long deliberating over what it is they wanted.  it is not  instant  anything.  some people put more time and thought into their tattoos than their college majors.  you are attributing pathology to something that is very, very mainstream at least in the west .  i suppose you could  try  to make a case for a  mass pathology , but is not it more reasonable to assume that you are jumping right to hyperbole because you need a reason to justify your revulsion ? there is a thousand ways to do this.  overeating is  iscarring up your natural self  from a certain point of view.  at the end of the day, what do you care about how other people manage their own bodies ? not everyone subscribes to the notion of  my body is a temple .  in the end, i am not sure your view can be changed.  how would we prove to you that a tattoo is not vulgar or low class ? some tattoos are vulgar and low class.  i cite as example the tattoos sported by street gangs in the us.  some tattoos are amazing.  i know a guy who has a quasi tribal style tattoo on his shoulder and half his chest.  i think it looks down right sexy on someone with developed sholders and pecs.  if i had his body, i might get something similar.  tattoo artists can do amazing things.  actual legitimate art with the human skin as canvas.  just because it is on the skin, that art is suddenly vulgar ? without really knowing anything about you, i am prepared to argue that your opinion is a result of your having not been exposed to tattoos as a mainstream affectation.  i am sure people who live secluded lifestyles find piercings to be similarly vulgar.  the only way to get past it is to want to get past it and then exposing yourself to it.  maybe googling for pictures of high quality tattoo examples.  do not limit yourself to intentionally looking for terrible examples.   #  i would just rather see, as you say, her or his oils on canvas.   #  the example you give is certainly a realistic portrayal of that photograph.  i have to hand it to the artist.  yet i ask myself: why ? why put that on someone is forearm ? of all images or designs, really, a character from a brad pitt film ? and if it is the attitude of tyler durden you like, well why the hell would you put an image of brad pitt on your arm ? that seems the  antithesis of tyler durden ! i am not judging the skill here.  or, rather, i am judging it, but favorably.  that artist has mad skills.  i would just rather see, as you say, her or his oils on canvas.   #  but i think the fact that his ring finger tat is so hard to see you do not see it unless you are really looking for it makes me more willing to accept it.   #  i know a guy who got his wife is name tattooed across his ring finger in the place of a ring.  that i do not see as particularly vulgar, but then that is clearly personal and not a banner for others to see.  in fact he does not care if anyone else sees it.  there may be some internal inconsistency here in my opinion regarding my assumptions on why people get them.  but i think the fact that his ring finger tat is so hard to see you do not see it unless you are really looking for it makes me more willing to accept it.   #  i like my tattoos aesthetically but that does not mean i got them for the purpose of  showing off .   # i understand the word vulgar perfectly.  substitute  low class  if you prefer.  ok but why do you see it that way ? your view is  i look down on people who have tattoos  and youre not providing any reasoning.  or maybe to feel sexy yourself ? if that is the case, i get why you would get a tattoo where no one could know where it was but you.  but why get it across your back if you want no one to see it ? then you ca not even see it.  because its not for other people its for you.  i like my tattoos aesthetically but that does not mean i got them for the purpose of  showing off .   #  i know that the sidebar instructs users to state clearly why they have their view, and i have tried to do so, but may have failed.   #  i feel like you see me as condescending to you and that you may be reacting defensively.  i apologize.  this is the kind of reaction i was hoping to avoid.  i know that the sidebar instructs users to state clearly why they have their view, and i have tried to do so, but may have failed.  the fact is i am not sure what the reason is, and i suspect it is certainly not rational.  that does not mean i do not want to rid myself of the bias.  i do.  it is like a fear of snakes.  i might think i know why i have it, but do i really ? i am trying to get rid of this emotional reaction.  i am hoping some good solid reasoning will do the trick.
i should say immediately i am not talking about the kind of tattooing done for tribal or cultural reasons like in maori culture URL that i get.  there is a both a history and an underlying cultural richness involved.  i am talking about the random demon, the poorly drawn skull, the names of girlfriends, the chinese characters on the arms or backs of non asians or the maudlin english phrases on the legs or hips of asians , the celtic designs on minnesota druid wannabes, the face of some temporarily admired celebrity, the sword you have never held or known how to use and will never hold or know how to use drawn down your forearm.  growing up in the 0s rural ish southern us i was not exposed to a lot of tattoos, but my parents were both very traditionalist and  looked down  on people who had them.  i never really cared much but a person with a tattoo seemed sort of exotic, like a sailor who got one on his arm in the war or something.  the whole idea of tattooing seemed foreign to me.  and in some way mysterious.  but those days are gone.  fast forward to the 0s.  they are suddenly very popular, even mainstream.  what was once exotic is now commonplace.  you see them all over.  i live now in japan where admittedly there is a taboo against having them at least in mainstream quarters though that is very much changing as young people become more and more interested in tattooing, both modern tattoos and, less commonly, the more traditional  irezumi  URL some of my 0 0 year old students sometimes ask me if a certain english phrase makes sense because they want to get it tattooed it across their backs.  i do not know, it seems a pointless marking up of your body.  it seems like an instant gratification for an almost pathological need to scar up your natural self.  whenever i see a tattoo on a person i inadvertently recoil.  it looks unclean, vulgar, and, if i can use the term, low class.  what makes me want my view changed is that i do not particularly care for classism or judging people on shallow, literally skin deep criteria.  i know some guys with tattoos who are much more intelligent and stronger men than i am.  i know some women with tattoos who are lovely human beings.  so how can i get rid of this knee jerk reaction ? please cmv.   #  i do not know, it seems a pointless marking up of your body.   #  of course it seems pointless to you, you do not like it.   # it seems like an instant gratification for an almost pathological need to scar up your natural self.  whenever i see a tattoo on a person i inadvertently recoil.  it looks unclean, vulgar, and, if i can use the term, low class.  this seems to be the crux of the problem.  of course it seems pointless to you, you do not like it.  you could make that argument about literally anything.  but it is not pointless, universally.  some people get a tattoo as a means of self expression.  some people get them for rebellion.  some get them for inclusion in cliques or gangs.  you might not agree that these are very good reasons, but they are clearly reasons in their own right, so getting a tattoo cannot be considered pointless.  getting a tattoo is varying degrees of excruciating, can take a long time and spread across several sessions.  and there is a healing period afterwards.  and this all after the person getting the tattoo spent however long deliberating over what it is they wanted.  it is not  instant  anything.  some people put more time and thought into their tattoos than their college majors.  you are attributing pathology to something that is very, very mainstream at least in the west .  i suppose you could  try  to make a case for a  mass pathology , but is not it more reasonable to assume that you are jumping right to hyperbole because you need a reason to justify your revulsion ? there is a thousand ways to do this.  overeating is  iscarring up your natural self  from a certain point of view.  at the end of the day, what do you care about how other people manage their own bodies ? not everyone subscribes to the notion of  my body is a temple .  in the end, i am not sure your view can be changed.  how would we prove to you that a tattoo is not vulgar or low class ? some tattoos are vulgar and low class.  i cite as example the tattoos sported by street gangs in the us.  some tattoos are amazing.  i know a guy who has a quasi tribal style tattoo on his shoulder and half his chest.  i think it looks down right sexy on someone with developed sholders and pecs.  if i had his body, i might get something similar.  tattoo artists can do amazing things.  actual legitimate art with the human skin as canvas.  just because it is on the skin, that art is suddenly vulgar ? without really knowing anything about you, i am prepared to argue that your opinion is a result of your having not been exposed to tattoos as a mainstream affectation.  i am sure people who live secluded lifestyles find piercings to be similarly vulgar.  the only way to get past it is to want to get past it and then exposing yourself to it.  maybe googling for pictures of high quality tattoo examples.  do not limit yourself to intentionally looking for terrible examples.   #  i would just rather see, as you say, her or his oils on canvas.   #  the example you give is certainly a realistic portrayal of that photograph.  i have to hand it to the artist.  yet i ask myself: why ? why put that on someone is forearm ? of all images or designs, really, a character from a brad pitt film ? and if it is the attitude of tyler durden you like, well why the hell would you put an image of brad pitt on your arm ? that seems the  antithesis of tyler durden ! i am not judging the skill here.  or, rather, i am judging it, but favorably.  that artist has mad skills.  i would just rather see, as you say, her or his oils on canvas.   #  there may be some internal inconsistency here in my opinion regarding my assumptions on why people get them.   #  i know a guy who got his wife is name tattooed across his ring finger in the place of a ring.  that i do not see as particularly vulgar, but then that is clearly personal and not a banner for others to see.  in fact he does not care if anyone else sees it.  there may be some internal inconsistency here in my opinion regarding my assumptions on why people get them.  but i think the fact that his ring finger tat is so hard to see you do not see it unless you are really looking for it makes me more willing to accept it.   #  ok but why do you see it that way ?  # i understand the word vulgar perfectly.  substitute  low class  if you prefer.  ok but why do you see it that way ? your view is  i look down on people who have tattoos  and youre not providing any reasoning.  or maybe to feel sexy yourself ? if that is the case, i get why you would get a tattoo where no one could know where it was but you.  but why get it across your back if you want no one to see it ? then you ca not even see it.  because its not for other people its for you.  i like my tattoos aesthetically but that does not mean i got them for the purpose of  showing off .   #  i am hoping some good solid reasoning will do the trick.   #  i feel like you see me as condescending to you and that you may be reacting defensively.  i apologize.  this is the kind of reaction i was hoping to avoid.  i know that the sidebar instructs users to state clearly why they have their view, and i have tried to do so, but may have failed.  the fact is i am not sure what the reason is, and i suspect it is certainly not rational.  that does not mean i do not want to rid myself of the bias.  i do.  it is like a fear of snakes.  i might think i know why i have it, but do i really ? i am trying to get rid of this emotional reaction.  i am hoping some good solid reasoning will do the trick.
i should say immediately i am not talking about the kind of tattooing done for tribal or cultural reasons like in maori culture URL that i get.  there is a both a history and an underlying cultural richness involved.  i am talking about the random demon, the poorly drawn skull, the names of girlfriends, the chinese characters on the arms or backs of non asians or the maudlin english phrases on the legs or hips of asians , the celtic designs on minnesota druid wannabes, the face of some temporarily admired celebrity, the sword you have never held or known how to use and will never hold or know how to use drawn down your forearm.  growing up in the 0s rural ish southern us i was not exposed to a lot of tattoos, but my parents were both very traditionalist and  looked down  on people who had them.  i never really cared much but a person with a tattoo seemed sort of exotic, like a sailor who got one on his arm in the war or something.  the whole idea of tattooing seemed foreign to me.  and in some way mysterious.  but those days are gone.  fast forward to the 0s.  they are suddenly very popular, even mainstream.  what was once exotic is now commonplace.  you see them all over.  i live now in japan where admittedly there is a taboo against having them at least in mainstream quarters though that is very much changing as young people become more and more interested in tattooing, both modern tattoos and, less commonly, the more traditional  irezumi  URL some of my 0 0 year old students sometimes ask me if a certain english phrase makes sense because they want to get it tattooed it across their backs.  i do not know, it seems a pointless marking up of your body.  it seems like an instant gratification for an almost pathological need to scar up your natural self.  whenever i see a tattoo on a person i inadvertently recoil.  it looks unclean, vulgar, and, if i can use the term, low class.  what makes me want my view changed is that i do not particularly care for classism or judging people on shallow, literally skin deep criteria.  i know some guys with tattoos who are much more intelligent and stronger men than i am.  i know some women with tattoos who are lovely human beings.  so how can i get rid of this knee jerk reaction ? please cmv.   #  it looks unclean, vulgar, and, if i can use the term, low class.   #  in the end, i am not sure your view can be changed.   # it seems like an instant gratification for an almost pathological need to scar up your natural self.  whenever i see a tattoo on a person i inadvertently recoil.  it looks unclean, vulgar, and, if i can use the term, low class.  this seems to be the crux of the problem.  of course it seems pointless to you, you do not like it.  you could make that argument about literally anything.  but it is not pointless, universally.  some people get a tattoo as a means of self expression.  some people get them for rebellion.  some get them for inclusion in cliques or gangs.  you might not agree that these are very good reasons, but they are clearly reasons in their own right, so getting a tattoo cannot be considered pointless.  getting a tattoo is varying degrees of excruciating, can take a long time and spread across several sessions.  and there is a healing period afterwards.  and this all after the person getting the tattoo spent however long deliberating over what it is they wanted.  it is not  instant  anything.  some people put more time and thought into their tattoos than their college majors.  you are attributing pathology to something that is very, very mainstream at least in the west .  i suppose you could  try  to make a case for a  mass pathology , but is not it more reasonable to assume that you are jumping right to hyperbole because you need a reason to justify your revulsion ? there is a thousand ways to do this.  overeating is  iscarring up your natural self  from a certain point of view.  at the end of the day, what do you care about how other people manage their own bodies ? not everyone subscribes to the notion of  my body is a temple .  in the end, i am not sure your view can be changed.  how would we prove to you that a tattoo is not vulgar or low class ? some tattoos are vulgar and low class.  i cite as example the tattoos sported by street gangs in the us.  some tattoos are amazing.  i know a guy who has a quasi tribal style tattoo on his shoulder and half his chest.  i think it looks down right sexy on someone with developed sholders and pecs.  if i had his body, i might get something similar.  tattoo artists can do amazing things.  actual legitimate art with the human skin as canvas.  just because it is on the skin, that art is suddenly vulgar ? without really knowing anything about you, i am prepared to argue that your opinion is a result of your having not been exposed to tattoos as a mainstream affectation.  i am sure people who live secluded lifestyles find piercings to be similarly vulgar.  the only way to get past it is to want to get past it and then exposing yourself to it.  maybe googling for pictures of high quality tattoo examples.  do not limit yourself to intentionally looking for terrible examples.   #  i have to hand it to the artist.   #  the example you give is certainly a realistic portrayal of that photograph.  i have to hand it to the artist.  yet i ask myself: why ? why put that on someone is forearm ? of all images or designs, really, a character from a brad pitt film ? and if it is the attitude of tyler durden you like, well why the hell would you put an image of brad pitt on your arm ? that seems the  antithesis of tyler durden ! i am not judging the skill here.  or, rather, i am judging it, but favorably.  that artist has mad skills.  i would just rather see, as you say, her or his oils on canvas.   #  in fact he does not care if anyone else sees it.   #  i know a guy who got his wife is name tattooed across his ring finger in the place of a ring.  that i do not see as particularly vulgar, but then that is clearly personal and not a banner for others to see.  in fact he does not care if anyone else sees it.  there may be some internal inconsistency here in my opinion regarding my assumptions on why people get them.  but i think the fact that his ring finger tat is so hard to see you do not see it unless you are really looking for it makes me more willing to accept it.   #  your view is  i look down on people who have tattoos  and youre not providing any reasoning.   # i understand the word vulgar perfectly.  substitute  low class  if you prefer.  ok but why do you see it that way ? your view is  i look down on people who have tattoos  and youre not providing any reasoning.  or maybe to feel sexy yourself ? if that is the case, i get why you would get a tattoo where no one could know where it was but you.  but why get it across your back if you want no one to see it ? then you ca not even see it.  because its not for other people its for you.  i like my tattoos aesthetically but that does not mean i got them for the purpose of  showing off .   #  i know that the sidebar instructs users to state clearly why they have their view, and i have tried to do so, but may have failed.   #  i feel like you see me as condescending to you and that you may be reacting defensively.  i apologize.  this is the kind of reaction i was hoping to avoid.  i know that the sidebar instructs users to state clearly why they have their view, and i have tried to do so, but may have failed.  the fact is i am not sure what the reason is, and i suspect it is certainly not rational.  that does not mean i do not want to rid myself of the bias.  i do.  it is like a fear of snakes.  i might think i know why i have it, but do i really ? i am trying to get rid of this emotional reaction.  i am hoping some good solid reasoning will do the trick.
i should say immediately i am not talking about the kind of tattooing done for tribal or cultural reasons like in maori culture URL that i get.  there is a both a history and an underlying cultural richness involved.  i am talking about the random demon, the poorly drawn skull, the names of girlfriends, the chinese characters on the arms or backs of non asians or the maudlin english phrases on the legs or hips of asians , the celtic designs on minnesota druid wannabes, the face of some temporarily admired celebrity, the sword you have never held or known how to use and will never hold or know how to use drawn down your forearm.  growing up in the 0s rural ish southern us i was not exposed to a lot of tattoos, but my parents were both very traditionalist and  looked down  on people who had them.  i never really cared much but a person with a tattoo seemed sort of exotic, like a sailor who got one on his arm in the war or something.  the whole idea of tattooing seemed foreign to me.  and in some way mysterious.  but those days are gone.  fast forward to the 0s.  they are suddenly very popular, even mainstream.  what was once exotic is now commonplace.  you see them all over.  i live now in japan where admittedly there is a taboo against having them at least in mainstream quarters though that is very much changing as young people become more and more interested in tattooing, both modern tattoos and, less commonly, the more traditional  irezumi  URL some of my 0 0 year old students sometimes ask me if a certain english phrase makes sense because they want to get it tattooed it across their backs.  i do not know, it seems a pointless marking up of your body.  it seems like an instant gratification for an almost pathological need to scar up your natural self.  whenever i see a tattoo on a person i inadvertently recoil.  it looks unclean, vulgar, and, if i can use the term, low class.  what makes me want my view changed is that i do not particularly care for classism or judging people on shallow, literally skin deep criteria.  i know some guys with tattoos who are much more intelligent and stronger men than i am.  i know some women with tattoos who are lovely human beings.  so how can i get rid of this knee jerk reaction ? please cmv.   #  for an almost pathological need to scar up your natural self.   #  or people just want something they like to carry with them.   #  i do not have any tattoos, but many/most people i know have one, or would like to get one eventually.  just for full disclosure.  ;  it seems like an instant gratification maybe sometimes.  but not all tattoos are those that people get spur of the moment.  many are well thought out for months, or even longer.  one article i read suggested things like drawing the design you want on you in sharpie every day for months.  others said to wait a year after choosing a design before actually getting it.  or people just want something they like to carry with them.  or to symbolize something that is important to them.  that is certainly true of some tattoos.  but would you objectively say that of tattoos in general ? if you just do not like how they look, that is a fine opinion.  but is not calling a drawing of a flower  vulgar  just because it is on someone is skin a bit extreme ? i know some women with tattoos who are lovely human beings.  that is because your change of opinion is already right there in your op.  tattoos do not automatically make someone unintelligent, unkind, weak, etc.  as you have seen.  they just chose to express themselves in a way you do not particularly find flattering.  that is okay; everyone has different preferences, and for something as superficial as a tattoo, neither is better or worse than the other.   #  you might not agree that these are very good reasons, but they are clearly reasons in their own right, so getting a tattoo cannot be considered pointless.   # it seems like an instant gratification for an almost pathological need to scar up your natural self.  whenever i see a tattoo on a person i inadvertently recoil.  it looks unclean, vulgar, and, if i can use the term, low class.  this seems to be the crux of the problem.  of course it seems pointless to you, you do not like it.  you could make that argument about literally anything.  but it is not pointless, universally.  some people get a tattoo as a means of self expression.  some people get them for rebellion.  some get them for inclusion in cliques or gangs.  you might not agree that these are very good reasons, but they are clearly reasons in their own right, so getting a tattoo cannot be considered pointless.  getting a tattoo is varying degrees of excruciating, can take a long time and spread across several sessions.  and there is a healing period afterwards.  and this all after the person getting the tattoo spent however long deliberating over what it is they wanted.  it is not  instant  anything.  some people put more time and thought into their tattoos than their college majors.  you are attributing pathology to something that is very, very mainstream at least in the west .  i suppose you could  try  to make a case for a  mass pathology , but is not it more reasonable to assume that you are jumping right to hyperbole because you need a reason to justify your revulsion ? there is a thousand ways to do this.  overeating is  iscarring up your natural self  from a certain point of view.  at the end of the day, what do you care about how other people manage their own bodies ? not everyone subscribes to the notion of  my body is a temple .  in the end, i am not sure your view can be changed.  how would we prove to you that a tattoo is not vulgar or low class ? some tattoos are vulgar and low class.  i cite as example the tattoos sported by street gangs in the us.  some tattoos are amazing.  i know a guy who has a quasi tribal style tattoo on his shoulder and half his chest.  i think it looks down right sexy on someone with developed sholders and pecs.  if i had his body, i might get something similar.  tattoo artists can do amazing things.  actual legitimate art with the human skin as canvas.  just because it is on the skin, that art is suddenly vulgar ? without really knowing anything about you, i am prepared to argue that your opinion is a result of your having not been exposed to tattoos as a mainstream affectation.  i am sure people who live secluded lifestyles find piercings to be similarly vulgar.  the only way to get past it is to want to get past it and then exposing yourself to it.  maybe googling for pictures of high quality tattoo examples.  do not limit yourself to intentionally looking for terrible examples.   #  i have to hand it to the artist.   #  the example you give is certainly a realistic portrayal of that photograph.  i have to hand it to the artist.  yet i ask myself: why ? why put that on someone is forearm ? of all images or designs, really, a character from a brad pitt film ? and if it is the attitude of tyler durden you like, well why the hell would you put an image of brad pitt on your arm ? that seems the  antithesis of tyler durden ! i am not judging the skill here.  or, rather, i am judging it, but favorably.  that artist has mad skills.  i would just rather see, as you say, her or his oils on canvas.   #  that i do not see as particularly vulgar, but then that is clearly personal and not a banner for others to see.   #  i know a guy who got his wife is name tattooed across his ring finger in the place of a ring.  that i do not see as particularly vulgar, but then that is clearly personal and not a banner for others to see.  in fact he does not care if anyone else sees it.  there may be some internal inconsistency here in my opinion regarding my assumptions on why people get them.  but i think the fact that his ring finger tat is so hard to see you do not see it unless you are really looking for it makes me more willing to accept it.   #  if that is the case, i get why you would get a tattoo where no one could know where it was but you.   # i understand the word vulgar perfectly.  substitute  low class  if you prefer.  ok but why do you see it that way ? your view is  i look down on people who have tattoos  and youre not providing any reasoning.  or maybe to feel sexy yourself ? if that is the case, i get why you would get a tattoo where no one could know where it was but you.  but why get it across your back if you want no one to see it ? then you ca not even see it.  because its not for other people its for you.  i like my tattoos aesthetically but that does not mean i got them for the purpose of  showing off .
i should say immediately i am not talking about the kind of tattooing done for tribal or cultural reasons like in maori culture URL that i get.  there is a both a history and an underlying cultural richness involved.  i am talking about the random demon, the poorly drawn skull, the names of girlfriends, the chinese characters on the arms or backs of non asians or the maudlin english phrases on the legs or hips of asians , the celtic designs on minnesota druid wannabes, the face of some temporarily admired celebrity, the sword you have never held or known how to use and will never hold or know how to use drawn down your forearm.  growing up in the 0s rural ish southern us i was not exposed to a lot of tattoos, but my parents were both very traditionalist and  looked down  on people who had them.  i never really cared much but a person with a tattoo seemed sort of exotic, like a sailor who got one on his arm in the war or something.  the whole idea of tattooing seemed foreign to me.  and in some way mysterious.  but those days are gone.  fast forward to the 0s.  they are suddenly very popular, even mainstream.  what was once exotic is now commonplace.  you see them all over.  i live now in japan where admittedly there is a taboo against having them at least in mainstream quarters though that is very much changing as young people become more and more interested in tattooing, both modern tattoos and, less commonly, the more traditional  irezumi  URL some of my 0 0 year old students sometimes ask me if a certain english phrase makes sense because they want to get it tattooed it across their backs.  i do not know, it seems a pointless marking up of your body.  it seems like an instant gratification for an almost pathological need to scar up your natural self.  whenever i see a tattoo on a person i inadvertently recoil.  it looks unclean, vulgar, and, if i can use the term, low class.  what makes me want my view changed is that i do not particularly care for classism or judging people on shallow, literally skin deep criteria.  i know some guys with tattoos who are much more intelligent and stronger men than i am.  i know some women with tattoos who are lovely human beings.  so how can i get rid of this knee jerk reaction ? please cmv.   #  it looks unclean, vulgar, and, if i can use the term, low class.   #  that is certainly true of some tattoos.   #  i do not have any tattoos, but many/most people i know have one, or would like to get one eventually.  just for full disclosure.  ;  it seems like an instant gratification maybe sometimes.  but not all tattoos are those that people get spur of the moment.  many are well thought out for months, or even longer.  one article i read suggested things like drawing the design you want on you in sharpie every day for months.  others said to wait a year after choosing a design before actually getting it.  or people just want something they like to carry with them.  or to symbolize something that is important to them.  that is certainly true of some tattoos.  but would you objectively say that of tattoos in general ? if you just do not like how they look, that is a fine opinion.  but is not calling a drawing of a flower  vulgar  just because it is on someone is skin a bit extreme ? i know some women with tattoos who are lovely human beings.  that is because your change of opinion is already right there in your op.  tattoos do not automatically make someone unintelligent, unkind, weak, etc.  as you have seen.  they just chose to express themselves in a way you do not particularly find flattering.  that is okay; everyone has different preferences, and for something as superficial as a tattoo, neither is better or worse than the other.   #  i suppose you could  try  to make a case for a  mass pathology , but is not it more reasonable to assume that you are jumping right to hyperbole because you need a reason to justify your revulsion ?  # it seems like an instant gratification for an almost pathological need to scar up your natural self.  whenever i see a tattoo on a person i inadvertently recoil.  it looks unclean, vulgar, and, if i can use the term, low class.  this seems to be the crux of the problem.  of course it seems pointless to you, you do not like it.  you could make that argument about literally anything.  but it is not pointless, universally.  some people get a tattoo as a means of self expression.  some people get them for rebellion.  some get them for inclusion in cliques or gangs.  you might not agree that these are very good reasons, but they are clearly reasons in their own right, so getting a tattoo cannot be considered pointless.  getting a tattoo is varying degrees of excruciating, can take a long time and spread across several sessions.  and there is a healing period afterwards.  and this all after the person getting the tattoo spent however long deliberating over what it is they wanted.  it is not  instant  anything.  some people put more time and thought into their tattoos than their college majors.  you are attributing pathology to something that is very, very mainstream at least in the west .  i suppose you could  try  to make a case for a  mass pathology , but is not it more reasonable to assume that you are jumping right to hyperbole because you need a reason to justify your revulsion ? there is a thousand ways to do this.  overeating is  iscarring up your natural self  from a certain point of view.  at the end of the day, what do you care about how other people manage their own bodies ? not everyone subscribes to the notion of  my body is a temple .  in the end, i am not sure your view can be changed.  how would we prove to you that a tattoo is not vulgar or low class ? some tattoos are vulgar and low class.  i cite as example the tattoos sported by street gangs in the us.  some tattoos are amazing.  i know a guy who has a quasi tribal style tattoo on his shoulder and half his chest.  i think it looks down right sexy on someone with developed sholders and pecs.  if i had his body, i might get something similar.  tattoo artists can do amazing things.  actual legitimate art with the human skin as canvas.  just because it is on the skin, that art is suddenly vulgar ? without really knowing anything about you, i am prepared to argue that your opinion is a result of your having not been exposed to tattoos as a mainstream affectation.  i am sure people who live secluded lifestyles find piercings to be similarly vulgar.  the only way to get past it is to want to get past it and then exposing yourself to it.  maybe googling for pictures of high quality tattoo examples.  do not limit yourself to intentionally looking for terrible examples.   #  of all images or designs, really, a character from a brad pitt film ?  #  the example you give is certainly a realistic portrayal of that photograph.  i have to hand it to the artist.  yet i ask myself: why ? why put that on someone is forearm ? of all images or designs, really, a character from a brad pitt film ? and if it is the attitude of tyler durden you like, well why the hell would you put an image of brad pitt on your arm ? that seems the  antithesis of tyler durden ! i am not judging the skill here.  or, rather, i am judging it, but favorably.  that artist has mad skills.  i would just rather see, as you say, her or his oils on canvas.   #  there may be some internal inconsistency here in my opinion regarding my assumptions on why people get them.   #  i know a guy who got his wife is name tattooed across his ring finger in the place of a ring.  that i do not see as particularly vulgar, but then that is clearly personal and not a banner for others to see.  in fact he does not care if anyone else sees it.  there may be some internal inconsistency here in my opinion regarding my assumptions on why people get them.  but i think the fact that his ring finger tat is so hard to see you do not see it unless you are really looking for it makes me more willing to accept it.   #  your view is  i look down on people who have tattoos  and youre not providing any reasoning.   # i understand the word vulgar perfectly.  substitute  low class  if you prefer.  ok but why do you see it that way ? your view is  i look down on people who have tattoos  and youre not providing any reasoning.  or maybe to feel sexy yourself ? if that is the case, i get why you would get a tattoo where no one could know where it was but you.  but why get it across your back if you want no one to see it ? then you ca not even see it.  because its not for other people its for you.  i like my tattoos aesthetically but that does not mean i got them for the purpose of  showing off .
i should say immediately i am not talking about the kind of tattooing done for tribal or cultural reasons like in maori culture URL that i get.  there is a both a history and an underlying cultural richness involved.  i am talking about the random demon, the poorly drawn skull, the names of girlfriends, the chinese characters on the arms or backs of non asians or the maudlin english phrases on the legs or hips of asians , the celtic designs on minnesota druid wannabes, the face of some temporarily admired celebrity, the sword you have never held or known how to use and will never hold or know how to use drawn down your forearm.  growing up in the 0s rural ish southern us i was not exposed to a lot of tattoos, but my parents were both very traditionalist and  looked down  on people who had them.  i never really cared much but a person with a tattoo seemed sort of exotic, like a sailor who got one on his arm in the war or something.  the whole idea of tattooing seemed foreign to me.  and in some way mysterious.  but those days are gone.  fast forward to the 0s.  they are suddenly very popular, even mainstream.  what was once exotic is now commonplace.  you see them all over.  i live now in japan where admittedly there is a taboo against having them at least in mainstream quarters though that is very much changing as young people become more and more interested in tattooing, both modern tattoos and, less commonly, the more traditional  irezumi  URL some of my 0 0 year old students sometimes ask me if a certain english phrase makes sense because they want to get it tattooed it across their backs.  i do not know, it seems a pointless marking up of your body.  it seems like an instant gratification for an almost pathological need to scar up your natural self.  whenever i see a tattoo on a person i inadvertently recoil.  it looks unclean, vulgar, and, if i can use the term, low class.  what makes me want my view changed is that i do not particularly care for classism or judging people on shallow, literally skin deep criteria.  i know some guys with tattoos who are much more intelligent and stronger men than i am.  i know some women with tattoos who are lovely human beings.  so how can i get rid of this knee jerk reaction ? please cmv.   #  i know some guys with tattoos who are much more intelligent and stronger men than i am.   #  i know some women with tattoos who are lovely human beings.   #  i do not have any tattoos, but many/most people i know have one, or would like to get one eventually.  just for full disclosure.  ;  it seems like an instant gratification maybe sometimes.  but not all tattoos are those that people get spur of the moment.  many are well thought out for months, or even longer.  one article i read suggested things like drawing the design you want on you in sharpie every day for months.  others said to wait a year after choosing a design before actually getting it.  or people just want something they like to carry with them.  or to symbolize something that is important to them.  that is certainly true of some tattoos.  but would you objectively say that of tattoos in general ? if you just do not like how they look, that is a fine opinion.  but is not calling a drawing of a flower  vulgar  just because it is on someone is skin a bit extreme ? i know some women with tattoos who are lovely human beings.  that is because your change of opinion is already right there in your op.  tattoos do not automatically make someone unintelligent, unkind, weak, etc.  as you have seen.  they just chose to express themselves in a way you do not particularly find flattering.  that is okay; everyone has different preferences, and for something as superficial as a tattoo, neither is better or worse than the other.   #  of course it seems pointless to you, you do not like it.   # it seems like an instant gratification for an almost pathological need to scar up your natural self.  whenever i see a tattoo on a person i inadvertently recoil.  it looks unclean, vulgar, and, if i can use the term, low class.  this seems to be the crux of the problem.  of course it seems pointless to you, you do not like it.  you could make that argument about literally anything.  but it is not pointless, universally.  some people get a tattoo as a means of self expression.  some people get them for rebellion.  some get them for inclusion in cliques or gangs.  you might not agree that these are very good reasons, but they are clearly reasons in their own right, so getting a tattoo cannot be considered pointless.  getting a tattoo is varying degrees of excruciating, can take a long time and spread across several sessions.  and there is a healing period afterwards.  and this all after the person getting the tattoo spent however long deliberating over what it is they wanted.  it is not  instant  anything.  some people put more time and thought into their tattoos than their college majors.  you are attributing pathology to something that is very, very mainstream at least in the west .  i suppose you could  try  to make a case for a  mass pathology , but is not it more reasonable to assume that you are jumping right to hyperbole because you need a reason to justify your revulsion ? there is a thousand ways to do this.  overeating is  iscarring up your natural self  from a certain point of view.  at the end of the day, what do you care about how other people manage their own bodies ? not everyone subscribes to the notion of  my body is a temple .  in the end, i am not sure your view can be changed.  how would we prove to you that a tattoo is not vulgar or low class ? some tattoos are vulgar and low class.  i cite as example the tattoos sported by street gangs in the us.  some tattoos are amazing.  i know a guy who has a quasi tribal style tattoo on his shoulder and half his chest.  i think it looks down right sexy on someone with developed sholders and pecs.  if i had his body, i might get something similar.  tattoo artists can do amazing things.  actual legitimate art with the human skin as canvas.  just because it is on the skin, that art is suddenly vulgar ? without really knowing anything about you, i am prepared to argue that your opinion is a result of your having not been exposed to tattoos as a mainstream affectation.  i am sure people who live secluded lifestyles find piercings to be similarly vulgar.  the only way to get past it is to want to get past it and then exposing yourself to it.  maybe googling for pictures of high quality tattoo examples.  do not limit yourself to intentionally looking for terrible examples.   #  i have to hand it to the artist.   #  the example you give is certainly a realistic portrayal of that photograph.  i have to hand it to the artist.  yet i ask myself: why ? why put that on someone is forearm ? of all images or designs, really, a character from a brad pitt film ? and if it is the attitude of tyler durden you like, well why the hell would you put an image of brad pitt on your arm ? that seems the  antithesis of tyler durden ! i am not judging the skill here.  or, rather, i am judging it, but favorably.  that artist has mad skills.  i would just rather see, as you say, her or his oils on canvas.   #  i know a guy who got his wife is name tattooed across his ring finger in the place of a ring.   #  i know a guy who got his wife is name tattooed across his ring finger in the place of a ring.  that i do not see as particularly vulgar, but then that is clearly personal and not a banner for others to see.  in fact he does not care if anyone else sees it.  there may be some internal inconsistency here in my opinion regarding my assumptions on why people get them.  but i think the fact that his ring finger tat is so hard to see you do not see it unless you are really looking for it makes me more willing to accept it.   #  your view is  i look down on people who have tattoos  and youre not providing any reasoning.   # i understand the word vulgar perfectly.  substitute  low class  if you prefer.  ok but why do you see it that way ? your view is  i look down on people who have tattoos  and youre not providing any reasoning.  or maybe to feel sexy yourself ? if that is the case, i get why you would get a tattoo where no one could know where it was but you.  but why get it across your back if you want no one to see it ? then you ca not even see it.  because its not for other people its for you.  i like my tattoos aesthetically but that does not mean i got them for the purpose of  showing off .
i should say immediately i am not talking about the kind of tattooing done for tribal or cultural reasons like in maori culture URL that i get.  there is a both a history and an underlying cultural richness involved.  i am talking about the random demon, the poorly drawn skull, the names of girlfriends, the chinese characters on the arms or backs of non asians or the maudlin english phrases on the legs or hips of asians , the celtic designs on minnesota druid wannabes, the face of some temporarily admired celebrity, the sword you have never held or known how to use and will never hold or know how to use drawn down your forearm.  growing up in the 0s rural ish southern us i was not exposed to a lot of tattoos, but my parents were both very traditionalist and  looked down  on people who had them.  i never really cared much but a person with a tattoo seemed sort of exotic, like a sailor who got one on his arm in the war or something.  the whole idea of tattooing seemed foreign to me.  and in some way mysterious.  but those days are gone.  fast forward to the 0s.  they are suddenly very popular, even mainstream.  what was once exotic is now commonplace.  you see them all over.  i live now in japan where admittedly there is a taboo against having them at least in mainstream quarters though that is very much changing as young people become more and more interested in tattooing, both modern tattoos and, less commonly, the more traditional  irezumi  URL some of my 0 0 year old students sometimes ask me if a certain english phrase makes sense because they want to get it tattooed it across their backs.  i do not know, it seems a pointless marking up of your body.  it seems like an instant gratification for an almost pathological need to scar up your natural self.  whenever i see a tattoo on a person i inadvertently recoil.  it looks unclean, vulgar, and, if i can use the term, low class.  what makes me want my view changed is that i do not particularly care for classism or judging people on shallow, literally skin deep criteria.  i know some guys with tattoos who are much more intelligent and stronger men than i am.  i know some women with tattoos who are lovely human beings.  so how can i get rid of this knee jerk reaction ? please cmv.   #  so how can i get rid of this knee jerk reaction ?  #  open your mind to the existence of non impulsive tattoos.   # open your mind to the existence of non impulsive tattoos.  i have 0 the first of which i got at 0 its two wedding bands with mom and dad in the center of each with their year of birth and death.  its not great in terms of quality and was under 0 bucks.  do i regret my slightly impulsive choice my freshman year of college ? nope.  my first ink holds the deepest personal motives.  the other 0 are random in style and work but they all tell a different story.  are there crap tattoos out there ? sure, idiots need pocket money after all.  i think you also have to accept that no matter what the reason behind it is memorial, you like the look, booze, a dare etc , it was still theirs to make.  and yeah as someone else put it, there is nothing instant about the gratification.  my last two pieces are about 0 0 hours of work combined and the one on my ribs is not done.  the gratification is in knowing that particular story is with me for life.   #  getting a tattoo is varying degrees of excruciating, can take a long time and spread across several sessions.   # it seems like an instant gratification for an almost pathological need to scar up your natural self.  whenever i see a tattoo on a person i inadvertently recoil.  it looks unclean, vulgar, and, if i can use the term, low class.  this seems to be the crux of the problem.  of course it seems pointless to you, you do not like it.  you could make that argument about literally anything.  but it is not pointless, universally.  some people get a tattoo as a means of self expression.  some people get them for rebellion.  some get them for inclusion in cliques or gangs.  you might not agree that these are very good reasons, but they are clearly reasons in their own right, so getting a tattoo cannot be considered pointless.  getting a tattoo is varying degrees of excruciating, can take a long time and spread across several sessions.  and there is a healing period afterwards.  and this all after the person getting the tattoo spent however long deliberating over what it is they wanted.  it is not  instant  anything.  some people put more time and thought into their tattoos than their college majors.  you are attributing pathology to something that is very, very mainstream at least in the west .  i suppose you could  try  to make a case for a  mass pathology , but is not it more reasonable to assume that you are jumping right to hyperbole because you need a reason to justify your revulsion ? there is a thousand ways to do this.  overeating is  iscarring up your natural self  from a certain point of view.  at the end of the day, what do you care about how other people manage their own bodies ? not everyone subscribes to the notion of  my body is a temple .  in the end, i am not sure your view can be changed.  how would we prove to you that a tattoo is not vulgar or low class ? some tattoos are vulgar and low class.  i cite as example the tattoos sported by street gangs in the us.  some tattoos are amazing.  i know a guy who has a quasi tribal style tattoo on his shoulder and half his chest.  i think it looks down right sexy on someone with developed sholders and pecs.  if i had his body, i might get something similar.  tattoo artists can do amazing things.  actual legitimate art with the human skin as canvas.  just because it is on the skin, that art is suddenly vulgar ? without really knowing anything about you, i am prepared to argue that your opinion is a result of your having not been exposed to tattoos as a mainstream affectation.  i am sure people who live secluded lifestyles find piercings to be similarly vulgar.  the only way to get past it is to want to get past it and then exposing yourself to it.  maybe googling for pictures of high quality tattoo examples.  do not limit yourself to intentionally looking for terrible examples.   #  i would just rather see, as you say, her or his oils on canvas.   #  the example you give is certainly a realistic portrayal of that photograph.  i have to hand it to the artist.  yet i ask myself: why ? why put that on someone is forearm ? of all images or designs, really, a character from a brad pitt film ? and if it is the attitude of tyler durden you like, well why the hell would you put an image of brad pitt on your arm ? that seems the  antithesis of tyler durden ! i am not judging the skill here.  or, rather, i am judging it, but favorably.  that artist has mad skills.  i would just rather see, as you say, her or his oils on canvas.   #  i know a guy who got his wife is name tattooed across his ring finger in the place of a ring.   #  i know a guy who got his wife is name tattooed across his ring finger in the place of a ring.  that i do not see as particularly vulgar, but then that is clearly personal and not a banner for others to see.  in fact he does not care if anyone else sees it.  there may be some internal inconsistency here in my opinion regarding my assumptions on why people get them.  but i think the fact that his ring finger tat is so hard to see you do not see it unless you are really looking for it makes me more willing to accept it.   #  i like my tattoos aesthetically but that does not mean i got them for the purpose of  showing off .   # i understand the word vulgar perfectly.  substitute  low class  if you prefer.  ok but why do you see it that way ? your view is  i look down on people who have tattoos  and youre not providing any reasoning.  or maybe to feel sexy yourself ? if that is the case, i get why you would get a tattoo where no one could know where it was but you.  but why get it across your back if you want no one to see it ? then you ca not even see it.  because its not for other people its for you.  i like my tattoos aesthetically but that does not mean i got them for the purpose of  showing off .
this is a direct response to the banning of /r/fatpeoplehate and the other subreddits.  subreddits whose whole purpose is to promote hatred based on appearance, race, sex, gender, etc. , are not important to free speech.  especially if they  leak  by either brigading other areas of the internet or reddit, or if they cause harm to people by posting personal information without their permission.  this kind of behavior is often defended under  free speech.   but it is not really conducive to having a level headed kind of discussion.  it prevents the freedom of other, more meaningful, kinds of speech.  it is technically free expression, but allowing it to exist does more to harm free expression than support it.  a non internet analogy is like somebody going to a debate and blowing an air horn the whole time.  technically, what they are doing is expressing themself, but doing so in an obnoxious, destructive way which prevents others from expressing themselves.  to this end, i would be happier if reddit admins ended all communities that act like this include /coontown and /srs than just have complete laissez faire modding.  cmv  #  it prevents the freedom of other, more meaningful, kinds of speech.   #  who is deciding what is meaningful here ?  #  but how do you define bullying ? is this bullying or an opinion ? does it matter ? start fucking with him.   is the kind of thing i want to end.  doxxing is already illegal because it actually hurts someone beyond their feelings.  what you described in op was just people being dicks, and there is no way to stop them without overreaching.  if you are afraid to post because people will call you an idiot, i am afraid that is your problem.  free speech does not mean freedom from disagreement or name calling, it means freedom from censorship.  who is deciding what is meaningful here ? maybe, some people wo not share their opinions if they will get insulted over them.  so you are suggesting we have to choose between no censorship and hearing people who wo not talk without it ? well, we do not get to.  no one does, that is the whole point of free speech.  no one gets to decide what speech they want to hear.  you may want to hear the person who is not talking so you shut down the louder person.  but that is not free speech, do not pretend it is.  and stop talking about  substantive free speech .  rights like free speech are boolean.  there is no qualifying them to include only the bit you like, that defeats the whole purpose.   #  the main point i am trying to get is the difference between honest intellectual discussion and criticisms/bullying is objective.   # formally, no.  but from my opinion, it is.  does it have to be formal to be a bullying subreddit or just the fact that there is consistent bullying ? if its formal, whats stopping a subreddit stating formally to not bully but  wink wink  ? yes, but its the way they do it, by mocking one side.  is not that making fun of people ? they also have to make all its links  non participation  because its too easy to just then just start getting involved in the original conversation which extends the mocking/bullying.  the main point i am trying to get is the difference between honest intellectual discussion and criticisms/bullying is objective.  what is the difference between  religiouspeoplehate ,  atheistspeoplehate  which is another one that does exist ,  idiotpeoplehate  and  fatpeoplehate  ? when does honest criticism turn into bullying and does that rule work for everyone ?  #  and as far as everyone else is concerned, they are bigots who should not be able to talk in public.   #   i despise what you say, but i will defend to the death your right to say it  free speech/expression is not for the stuff that is nice and good.  it is for the nasty and hateful shit we would all be better off without.  we need to protect this sort of thing because the lines between nasty and insightful are blurry.  what one person calls bigoted and hateful is simply accurate to another.  you have mentioned srs, so you know that to sjws, anything other than them and irrelevant cat videos is bigoted and hateful speech that should be banned.  and as far as everyone else is concerned, they are bigots who should not be able to talk in public.  see the problem ? how do you tell who is right ? answer: you do not.  free speech protects all speech,  especially  nasty speech.  speech that is nice and unoffensive does not really need protection.  protecting the shitlords ensures that censorship never gets anywhere near us.  URL take this poem, and replace the names given with  shitlords ,  trolls,  etc.   #   i believe hitler was right, cmv  is a reprehensible opinion, but absolutely not the stuff i want to end.   # it is for the nasty and hateful shit we would all be better off without.  free speech is still about expressing opinions, though.  not just insulting people personally, making threats, or posting people is personal information in a public space in order to make them feel unsafe.   i believe hitler was right, cmv  is a reprehensible opinion, but absolutely not the stuff i want to end.   lol, here is this faggot is ip address.  start fucking with him.   is the kind of thing i want to end.  allowing bullying makes free speech less possible, because it creates a system where people can be punished for expressing their opinion.  it creates a chilling effect on substantive free speech.   #  it is not  the bits i like  i would rather hear lots and lots of substantive speech from opinions i disagree with than bullying from people who agree with me.   # that would be low level bullying, yeah.  maybe, some people wo not share their opinions if they will get insulted over them.  so you are suggesting we have to choose between no censorship and hearing people who wo not talk without it ? well, we do not get to.  no one does, that is the whole point of free speech.  no one gets to decide what speech they want to hear.  meaningful, would be actually discussing broader political or social issues, instead of just throwing insults or threats at the person you are talking to.  but that is not free speech, do not pretend it is.  and stop talking about  substantive free speech .  rights like free speech are boolean.  there is no qualifying them to include only the bit you like, that defeats the whole purpose.  it is not  the bits i like  i would rather hear lots and lots of substantive speech from opinions i disagree with than bullying from people who agree with me.
i will try to keep my thoughts as simple as possible.  where i live there are only two bars with in walking distance.  one of the bars is by all accounts unpleasant.  they have sketchy clientele, high prices, bad food, and terrible service.  my girlfriend feels uncomfortable there because of the behavior of the patrons and the employees who do nothing to stop it.  the other bar is a gay bar.  it is cleaner, has better service, better drink deals and is much more women friendly which my girlfriend appreciates .  now i had regularly gone to this bar in the past by myself, usually to just grab a drink after work, watch a wizards game i do not have cable so i go to bars for my sports then leave.  this past tuesday i brought my girlfriend there for the first time.  after about an hour the waiter asked us to leave.  he told us it was  gay safe  and a  gay space , that they did not want us taking over there space and that we were making some patrons uncomfortable.  so we paid and left, trying to not make a scene or cause any problems.  now i have had a couple days to think about this and as right now would be a time that i would have stopped in for a beer, i am a little pissed.  i feel like i have been discriminated against because of my sexuality which is something that the gay community has fought to stop.  i have always been supportive of the lgbt community, and i do not want to make a straw man argument, but i ca not not see hypocrisy in this.  i do not understand how my issue is different then the bakery who refused to bake the cake for the homosexual couple.  them asking me to find another bar is no different then a bigot telling a homosexual couple to find another bakery.   #  i feel like i have been discriminated against because of my sexuality which is something that the gay community has fought to stop.   #  i am a gay guy who came to this thread late, and i hope that i can help you see things from a different perspective.   # i am a gay guy who came to this thread late, and i hope that i can help you see things from a different perspective.  i, like most gay men, cannot hit on attractive guy in real life, while straight guys have the freedom to hit on women in many places.  the odds that that the attractive person is gay or bi is so low, and the odds that i could face serious consequences for hitting on another man in real life is so high, that hitting on other men face to face is not possible.  the sole exception  is gay bars.  0 similarly, we fill buildings with escalators and stairs for the convenience for the vast majority of people, but there is a small subgroup who cannot use these.  for this subgroup, communities often install elevators so they have the possibility of the same access as everyone else.  it is not wrong for people who can use the escalator or stairs to use the elevator, but if those who can  only  use the elevator are being crowded out of the elevator by people who could take the stairs instead, that is a problem.  similarly, if a particular gay bar is the  only  means for a gay guy or a lesbian to safely hit on someone s/he finds attractive, having the bar gradually become a straight majority is a  big  deal.  if half of people in a gay bar are straight, then the odds of each gay person have been cut in half.  here is the million dollar question: if a  handicapped only  policy was adopted so that handicapped people can enjoy the same freedoms that everyone else does, is that discriminatory ? maybe in a technical sense of  discrimination , but not in the sense of being  unjust  discrimination.  similarly, would you consider a policy to prevent too many straight people from entering  the  only place  where gay people can hit on others  to be discrimination ? in the op is case, i appreciate that there is only one other bar  in walking distance , and it happens to be a bad one.  but ask yourself which is a greater evil: someone losing the ability to safely hit on others, or not having any decent bars in walking distance.   0 there are some places on earth other than gay bars where lgbt people can safely hit on others of the same sex, such as the castro in san francisco.  however, 0 of people do not live near one of these very few places.   #  like i said, i do not and never will subscribe to that philosophy.   #  like i said, i do not and never will subscribe to that philosophy.  if you want equality, be the better person and promote equality.  otherwise, you are just using inequality as an excuse to be a hypocrite.  same goes for race and gender inequality.  i do not feel like the side treated unfairly for many years should tip the scales in the other direction when the opportunity presents itself.  i would fight all day for a person is right to be equal.  but i have no tolerance for people that use their own experience with inequality as an excuse to copy the behaviors they claim to hate.  it is like bullying a bully.   #  but i do think that if you believe the only intent of this group cabal ?  # i am not the commenter you were talking to, but here is where i think the disagreement lies.  you are attributing a set of malicious intentions to the patrons and owners of lgbt only bars, but you have yet to give any evidence of those intentions.  you say these people are just  vindictive , that they are using the oppression they suffer as  an excuse  to harm others.  indeed, you even use the phrase  the behaviors they claim to hate , indicating that you believe these people may not  actually  dislike being oppressed but are rather  claiming  to hate homophobia in order to fuel their nefarious, antisocial desires.  to me, those are truly extraordinary claims claims that would be much harder to support than the simpler, more obvious explanation, which is that they do this to create a safe space.  any honest person who is a part of the lgbt community including myself will let you know that that is the intention and you do not have to think it is a good practice in order to see that it is true.  that is not going to change your mind about the protocol, i know.  but i do think that if you believe the only intent of this group cabal ? of bar owners and patrons is to maliciously harm straight people, rather than that this is a good faith effort to create a safe space, you might want to make an argument for that assertion instead of just heavily implying it.   #  it is because the repercussions for them are limited.   #  i know, lol.  it is because the repercussions for them are limited.  their constitutional rites and jobs are not at stake, they just have to have a beer somewhere else.  i understand the frustration, but come on now.  just tell them you are bi.  the gay community needs to more thoroughly recognize the validity of bisexuality anyway.  if anything, them lying would do us bisexuals a favor .   #  has this ever happened to you or anyone you know at other gay bars ?  #  has this ever happened to you or anyone you know at other gay bars ? i ask because my wife and i have a lot of lgbt friends through the performing arts and we spend a lot of time at what most would consider  gay bars .  we have never encountered any rudeness or been asked to leave.  could it be that you just ran into a rude bartender ? or maybe the guy was just having an  off  night and decided to be a dick to you.  was there any indication that  no straights allowed  was the policy of the bar ? was the guy who asked you to leave the manager or owner ? it sounds like you live in a small town as do i .  in the areas where we live, there just is not a large enough concentration of lgbt people to support a business that actively discriminates against the vast majority of potential customers.  if there is only 0 bars in your area, a gays only bar would go out of business overnight.  it sucks that a gay bartender was rude to you, but i do not think it represents an overall trend of anti hetero discrimination.
i will try to keep my thoughts as simple as possible.  where i live there are only two bars with in walking distance.  one of the bars is by all accounts unpleasant.  they have sketchy clientele, high prices, bad food, and terrible service.  my girlfriend feels uncomfortable there because of the behavior of the patrons and the employees who do nothing to stop it.  the other bar is a gay bar.  it is cleaner, has better service, better drink deals and is much more women friendly which my girlfriend appreciates .  now i had regularly gone to this bar in the past by myself, usually to just grab a drink after work, watch a wizards game i do not have cable so i go to bars for my sports then leave.  this past tuesday i brought my girlfriend there for the first time.  after about an hour the waiter asked us to leave.  he told us it was  gay safe  and a  gay space , that they did not want us taking over there space and that we were making some patrons uncomfortable.  so we paid and left, trying to not make a scene or cause any problems.  now i have had a couple days to think about this and as right now would be a time that i would have stopped in for a beer, i am a little pissed.  i feel like i have been discriminated against because of my sexuality which is something that the gay community has fought to stop.  i have always been supportive of the lgbt community, and i do not want to make a straw man argument, but i ca not not see hypocrisy in this.  i do not understand how my issue is different then the bakery who refused to bake the cake for the homosexual couple.  them asking me to find another bar is no different then a bigot telling a homosexual couple to find another bakery.   #  this past tuesday i brought my girlfriend there for the first time.   #  after about an hour the waiter asked us to leave.   # after about an hour the waiter asked us to leave.  he told us it was  gay safe  and a  gay space , that they did not want us taking over there space and that we were making some patrons uncomfortable.  so we paid and left, trying to not make a scene or cause any problems.  as others have said, this is not the typical experience, and something in which that bar should be ashamed of.  as a gay man who has volunteered in a number of gay bars in the past, i have gladly not yet seen such a policy be implemented anywhere that i have worked.  as said, it is unfairly discriminatory.  given the political situation, it may not be legally viewed as breaking anti discrimination laws, but it certainly should be.   #  i would fight all day for a person is right to be equal.  but i have no tolerance for people that use their own experience with inequality as an excuse to copy the behaviors they claim to hate.   #  like i said, i do not and never will subscribe to that philosophy.  if you want equality, be the better person and promote equality.  otherwise, you are just using inequality as an excuse to be a hypocrite.  same goes for race and gender inequality.  i do not feel like the side treated unfairly for many years should tip the scales in the other direction when the opportunity presents itself.  i would fight all day for a person is right to be equal.  but i have no tolerance for people that use their own experience with inequality as an excuse to copy the behaviors they claim to hate.  it is like bullying a bully.   #  you say these people are just  vindictive , that they are using the oppression they suffer as  an excuse  to harm others.   # i am not the commenter you were talking to, but here is where i think the disagreement lies.  you are attributing a set of malicious intentions to the patrons and owners of lgbt only bars, but you have yet to give any evidence of those intentions.  you say these people are just  vindictive , that they are using the oppression they suffer as  an excuse  to harm others.  indeed, you even use the phrase  the behaviors they claim to hate , indicating that you believe these people may not  actually  dislike being oppressed but are rather  claiming  to hate homophobia in order to fuel their nefarious, antisocial desires.  to me, those are truly extraordinary claims claims that would be much harder to support than the simpler, more obvious explanation, which is that they do this to create a safe space.  any honest person who is a part of the lgbt community including myself will let you know that that is the intention and you do not have to think it is a good practice in order to see that it is true.  that is not going to change your mind about the protocol, i know.  but i do think that if you believe the only intent of this group cabal ? of bar owners and patrons is to maliciously harm straight people, rather than that this is a good faith effort to create a safe space, you might want to make an argument for that assertion instead of just heavily implying it.   #  i understand the frustration, but come on now.   #  i know, lol.  it is because the repercussions for them are limited.  their constitutional rites and jobs are not at stake, they just have to have a beer somewhere else.  i understand the frustration, but come on now.  just tell them you are bi.  the gay community needs to more thoroughly recognize the validity of bisexuality anyway.  if anything, them lying would do us bisexuals a favor .   #  in the areas where we live, there just is not a large enough concentration of lgbt people to support a business that actively discriminates against the vast majority of potential customers.   #  has this ever happened to you or anyone you know at other gay bars ? i ask because my wife and i have a lot of lgbt friends through the performing arts and we spend a lot of time at what most would consider  gay bars .  we have never encountered any rudeness or been asked to leave.  could it be that you just ran into a rude bartender ? or maybe the guy was just having an  off  night and decided to be a dick to you.  was there any indication that  no straights allowed  was the policy of the bar ? was the guy who asked you to leave the manager or owner ? it sounds like you live in a small town as do i .  in the areas where we live, there just is not a large enough concentration of lgbt people to support a business that actively discriminates against the vast majority of potential customers.  if there is only 0 bars in your area, a gays only bar would go out of business overnight.  it sucks that a gay bartender was rude to you, but i do not think it represents an overall trend of anti hetero discrimination.
i will try to keep my thoughts as simple as possible.  where i live there are only two bars with in walking distance.  one of the bars is by all accounts unpleasant.  they have sketchy clientele, high prices, bad food, and terrible service.  my girlfriend feels uncomfortable there because of the behavior of the patrons and the employees who do nothing to stop it.  the other bar is a gay bar.  it is cleaner, has better service, better drink deals and is much more women friendly which my girlfriend appreciates .  now i had regularly gone to this bar in the past by myself, usually to just grab a drink after work, watch a wizards game i do not have cable so i go to bars for my sports then leave.  this past tuesday i brought my girlfriend there for the first time.  after about an hour the waiter asked us to leave.  he told us it was  gay safe  and a  gay space , that they did not want us taking over there space and that we were making some patrons uncomfortable.  so we paid and left, trying to not make a scene or cause any problems.  now i have had a couple days to think about this and as right now would be a time that i would have stopped in for a beer, i am a little pissed.  i feel like i have been discriminated against because of my sexuality which is something that the gay community has fought to stop.  i have always been supportive of the lgbt community, and i do not want to make a straw man argument, but i ca not not see hypocrisy in this.  i do not understand how my issue is different then the bakery who refused to bake the cake for the homosexual couple.  them asking me to find another bar is no different then a bigot telling a homosexual couple to find another bakery.   #  this past tuesday i brought my girlfriend there for the first time.   #  after about an hour the waiter asked us to leave.   # after about an hour the waiter asked us to leave.  he told us it was  gay safe  and a  gay space , that they did not want us taking over there space and that we were making some patrons uncomfortable.  so we paid and left, trying to not make a scene or cause any problems.  are you sure it was simply because you are a straight couple ? there could not have been something you said or did that made people feel uncomfortable, or some kind of misunderstanding ? i have always been supportive of the lgbt community, and i do not want to make a straw man argument, but i ca not not see hypocrisy in this.  i do not understand how my issue is different then the bakery who refused to bake the cake for the homosexual couple.  them asking me to find another bar is no different then a bigot telling a homosexual couple to find another bakery.  i do empathise with you, but there is a big difference between these situations.  anti lgbt prejudice and discrimination is pervasive enough that it causes lots of people constant stress and insecurity.  in recent years there has been a lot of research into minority stress URL which is the idea that the effects of prejudice against minority groups can build up over time and cause serious psychological and physical health problems.  there was even a study that concluded that lesbians are more likely to get cancer than straight women, purely because of the stigma they have to deal with.  discrimination against straight people might happen in isolated cases, but it is not anywhere common enough to cause these kinds of problems, and the motivation behind it is usually more reasonable and less insulting.  we tend to think of discrimination as individual acts of meanness, but imo it is better to think about it as a systemic problem.  i would also point out that pretty much everywhere in the developed world, the law treats anti gay and anti straight discrimination exactly the same.  so depending on where you are, either it was illegal for them to throw you out for being straight,  or  it would be perfectly legal for all the straight bars in your area to stick up a  no gays allowed  sign.   #  otherwise, you are just using inequality as an excuse to be a hypocrite.   #  like i said, i do not and never will subscribe to that philosophy.  if you want equality, be the better person and promote equality.  otherwise, you are just using inequality as an excuse to be a hypocrite.  same goes for race and gender inequality.  i do not feel like the side treated unfairly for many years should tip the scales in the other direction when the opportunity presents itself.  i would fight all day for a person is right to be equal.  but i have no tolerance for people that use their own experience with inequality as an excuse to copy the behaviors they claim to hate.  it is like bullying a bully.   #  to me, those are truly extraordinary claims claims that would be much harder to support than the simpler, more obvious explanation, which is that they do this to create a safe space.   # i am not the commenter you were talking to, but here is where i think the disagreement lies.  you are attributing a set of malicious intentions to the patrons and owners of lgbt only bars, but you have yet to give any evidence of those intentions.  you say these people are just  vindictive , that they are using the oppression they suffer as  an excuse  to harm others.  indeed, you even use the phrase  the behaviors they claim to hate , indicating that you believe these people may not  actually  dislike being oppressed but are rather  claiming  to hate homophobia in order to fuel their nefarious, antisocial desires.  to me, those are truly extraordinary claims claims that would be much harder to support than the simpler, more obvious explanation, which is that they do this to create a safe space.  any honest person who is a part of the lgbt community including myself will let you know that that is the intention and you do not have to think it is a good practice in order to see that it is true.  that is not going to change your mind about the protocol, i know.  but i do think that if you believe the only intent of this group cabal ? of bar owners and patrons is to maliciously harm straight people, rather than that this is a good faith effort to create a safe space, you might want to make an argument for that assertion instead of just heavily implying it.   #  it is because the repercussions for them are limited.   #  i know, lol.  it is because the repercussions for them are limited.  their constitutional rites and jobs are not at stake, they just have to have a beer somewhere else.  i understand the frustration, but come on now.  just tell them you are bi.  the gay community needs to more thoroughly recognize the validity of bisexuality anyway.  if anything, them lying would do us bisexuals a favor .   #  was the guy who asked you to leave the manager or owner ?  #  has this ever happened to you or anyone you know at other gay bars ? i ask because my wife and i have a lot of lgbt friends through the performing arts and we spend a lot of time at what most would consider  gay bars .  we have never encountered any rudeness or been asked to leave.  could it be that you just ran into a rude bartender ? or maybe the guy was just having an  off  night and decided to be a dick to you.  was there any indication that  no straights allowed  was the policy of the bar ? was the guy who asked you to leave the manager or owner ? it sounds like you live in a small town as do i .  in the areas where we live, there just is not a large enough concentration of lgbt people to support a business that actively discriminates against the vast majority of potential customers.  if there is only 0 bars in your area, a gays only bar would go out of business overnight.  it sucks that a gay bartender was rude to you, but i do not think it represents an overall trend of anti hetero discrimination.
i will try to keep my thoughts as simple as possible.  where i live there are only two bars with in walking distance.  one of the bars is by all accounts unpleasant.  they have sketchy clientele, high prices, bad food, and terrible service.  my girlfriend feels uncomfortable there because of the behavior of the patrons and the employees who do nothing to stop it.  the other bar is a gay bar.  it is cleaner, has better service, better drink deals and is much more women friendly which my girlfriend appreciates .  now i had regularly gone to this bar in the past by myself, usually to just grab a drink after work, watch a wizards game i do not have cable so i go to bars for my sports then leave.  this past tuesday i brought my girlfriend there for the first time.  after about an hour the waiter asked us to leave.  he told us it was  gay safe  and a  gay space , that they did not want us taking over there space and that we were making some patrons uncomfortable.  so we paid and left, trying to not make a scene or cause any problems.  now i have had a couple days to think about this and as right now would be a time that i would have stopped in for a beer, i am a little pissed.  i feel like i have been discriminated against because of my sexuality which is something that the gay community has fought to stop.  i have always been supportive of the lgbt community, and i do not want to make a straw man argument, but i ca not not see hypocrisy in this.  i do not understand how my issue is different then the bakery who refused to bake the cake for the homosexual couple.  them asking me to find another bar is no different then a bigot telling a homosexual couple to find another bakery.   #  i feel like i have been discriminated against because of my sexuality which is something that the gay community has fought to stop.   #  i have always been supportive of the lgbt community, and i do not want to make a straw man argument, but i ca not not see hypocrisy in this.   # after about an hour the waiter asked us to leave.  he told us it was  gay safe  and a  gay space , that they did not want us taking over there space and that we were making some patrons uncomfortable.  so we paid and left, trying to not make a scene or cause any problems.  are you sure it was simply because you are a straight couple ? there could not have been something you said or did that made people feel uncomfortable, or some kind of misunderstanding ? i have always been supportive of the lgbt community, and i do not want to make a straw man argument, but i ca not not see hypocrisy in this.  i do not understand how my issue is different then the bakery who refused to bake the cake for the homosexual couple.  them asking me to find another bar is no different then a bigot telling a homosexual couple to find another bakery.  i do empathise with you, but there is a big difference between these situations.  anti lgbt prejudice and discrimination is pervasive enough that it causes lots of people constant stress and insecurity.  in recent years there has been a lot of research into minority stress URL which is the idea that the effects of prejudice against minority groups can build up over time and cause serious psychological and physical health problems.  there was even a study that concluded that lesbians are more likely to get cancer than straight women, purely because of the stigma they have to deal with.  discrimination against straight people might happen in isolated cases, but it is not anywhere common enough to cause these kinds of problems, and the motivation behind it is usually more reasonable and less insulting.  we tend to think of discrimination as individual acts of meanness, but imo it is better to think about it as a systemic problem.  i would also point out that pretty much everywhere in the developed world, the law treats anti gay and anti straight discrimination exactly the same.  so depending on where you are, either it was illegal for them to throw you out for being straight,  or  it would be perfectly legal for all the straight bars in your area to stick up a  no gays allowed  sign.   #  if you want equality, be the better person and promote equality.   #  like i said, i do not and never will subscribe to that philosophy.  if you want equality, be the better person and promote equality.  otherwise, you are just using inequality as an excuse to be a hypocrite.  same goes for race and gender inequality.  i do not feel like the side treated unfairly for many years should tip the scales in the other direction when the opportunity presents itself.  i would fight all day for a person is right to be equal.  but i have no tolerance for people that use their own experience with inequality as an excuse to copy the behaviors they claim to hate.  it is like bullying a bully.   #  i am not the commenter you were talking to, but here is where i think the disagreement lies.   # i am not the commenter you were talking to, but here is where i think the disagreement lies.  you are attributing a set of malicious intentions to the patrons and owners of lgbt only bars, but you have yet to give any evidence of those intentions.  you say these people are just  vindictive , that they are using the oppression they suffer as  an excuse  to harm others.  indeed, you even use the phrase  the behaviors they claim to hate , indicating that you believe these people may not  actually  dislike being oppressed but are rather  claiming  to hate homophobia in order to fuel their nefarious, antisocial desires.  to me, those are truly extraordinary claims claims that would be much harder to support than the simpler, more obvious explanation, which is that they do this to create a safe space.  any honest person who is a part of the lgbt community including myself will let you know that that is the intention and you do not have to think it is a good practice in order to see that it is true.  that is not going to change your mind about the protocol, i know.  but i do think that if you believe the only intent of this group cabal ? of bar owners and patrons is to maliciously harm straight people, rather than that this is a good faith effort to create a safe space, you might want to make an argument for that assertion instead of just heavily implying it.   #  i understand the frustration, but come on now.   #  i know, lol.  it is because the repercussions for them are limited.  their constitutional rites and jobs are not at stake, they just have to have a beer somewhere else.  i understand the frustration, but come on now.  just tell them you are bi.  the gay community needs to more thoroughly recognize the validity of bisexuality anyway.  if anything, them lying would do us bisexuals a favor .   #  was the guy who asked you to leave the manager or owner ?  #  has this ever happened to you or anyone you know at other gay bars ? i ask because my wife and i have a lot of lgbt friends through the performing arts and we spend a lot of time at what most would consider  gay bars .  we have never encountered any rudeness or been asked to leave.  could it be that you just ran into a rude bartender ? or maybe the guy was just having an  off  night and decided to be a dick to you.  was there any indication that  no straights allowed  was the policy of the bar ? was the guy who asked you to leave the manager or owner ? it sounds like you live in a small town as do i .  in the areas where we live, there just is not a large enough concentration of lgbt people to support a business that actively discriminates against the vast majority of potential customers.  if there is only 0 bars in your area, a gays only bar would go out of business overnight.  it sucks that a gay bartender was rude to you, but i do not think it represents an overall trend of anti hetero discrimination.
note: my argument is not that nato is bad as a whole, simply that it does not help the usa, the largest financier of the organization.  nato was important when the ussr existed.  nato enabled the usa to minimize the influence of communism in a war torn europe that was still getting back on its feet after two world wars.  it also provided allies to the usa vs.  an equally matched superpower.  however, although nato today provides many benefits to europe, these benefits are not reciprocated to the usa.  the usa funds the majority of nato, both in terms of the military costs and the costs to run the organization as a whole.  source: URL today, nato acts as a funnel of money and resources to europe from the usa with no clear benefits for the usa.  countries in europe are easily able to afford adequate defenses for themselves, but they choose not to because they know that the usa will handle all their defense for them.  although this is good for europe, it forces america to maintain high levels of spending for the military and european bases.  if the usa pulled out of nato tomorrow, russia would not immediately take over all of europe.  instead, european countries would simply increase their own military funding to an adequate level to defend themselves.  with the gdp of the eu nearly equal to that of the us, there is no reason for the usa to continue funding them.  the usa would then be able to eliminate many of the hundreds of costly bases it has in european countries, and not have to be worried about being pulled into wars that are thousands of miles away.  even aside from the economic costs to the us of nato, there are likely some political costs as well.  as long as the us is in nato, the us essentially affirms its commitment to europe over asia.  with world power increasingly moving away from europe and to asia, it does not make sense for the usa to tether itself to a declining europe at the expense of improving relations with countries like india and china, who always feel they are playing second fiddle to europe when dealing with a usa that is in nato.  europe provides no real benefit to the usa in terms of military support, and yet the usa is expending enormous amount of resources to defend an already rich area of the world with no benefits to themselves.  at the very least, the usa should refuse to protect nato countries that spend less than the required 0 gdp for defense spending, which would allow the usa to decrease its military funding at least a little bit.  ultimately though, i think the usa should leave nato.  cmv.   #  even aside from the economic costs to the us of nato, there are likely some political costs as well.   #  as long as the us is in nato, the us essentially affirms its commitment to europe over asia.   # as long as the us is in nato, the us essentially affirms its commitment to europe over asia.  not necessarily nato does not just cost political capital, in some cases it will make cooperative action easier.  in the intervention in libya for instance, the us allowed other nato members to take the leadership role and carry out much of the intervention.  obama was castigated for the phrase  leading from behind  but that is a very efficient way to get things done.  the thing that affirms a us commitment to europe over asia is not membership in nato, it is affirming a commitment to europe over asia.  even if the us does not want to defend europe, staying in nato allows the us to leverage its position as the defender of europe against european countries.  back during the cold war, the threat was that the european countries would leave nato.  since the us cared a great deal about stopping soviet expansion, this empowered europe.  the european countries could make demands.  the threat of abandoning containment by france is what got the us into vietnam.  now though, the shoe is on the other foot.  to the extent that europe does not want to pay the cost of its own defense i. e.  germany or worry about large german armies or nuclear stockpiles i. e.  everyone else , the us has political leverage.   #  remember that they just participated in a 0 year war simply because america was attacked.   #  do you accept that there is a benefit to the us in protecting eastern european nations like latvia, poland, and estonia from russian aggression ? do you believe that other nato members assistance was helpful during the three conflicts it fought in the last 0 years kosovo in 0, afghanistan in 0 and libya in 0 ? remember that they just participated in a 0 year war simply because america was attacked.  do you think that nato helps shore up european unity, which in turn prevents the kinds of internal wars that cost the lives of almost half a million americans in the 0th century ? do you believe that an end of nato would not just cause there to be a bunch of new, smaller treaties between former members that would leave us with a similar situation but added bureaucracy and less standardization ?  #  i just think that member nations would increase defense spending to compensate, while the us could decrease defense spending.   #  i think that nato should exist without the usa in it.  europe can defend european countries such as latvia and poland because europe has a gdp that is equal to that of the usa, they just choose not to use it to fund defense because the usa is willing to fund it for them.  likewise, kosovo, being in europe, would have been resolved by a nato without the usa.  i think that any benefit european countries in nato provided to the usa in iraq and libya are outweighed by the cost of nato to the usa as a whole.  it would have been cheaper for the usa to handle those two conflicts itself and save the money it loses from nato.  i do not think that the us leaving nato would result in it to end.  i just think that member nations would increase defense spending to compensate, while the us could decrease defense spending.   #  the us spends more on their military than the rest of nato combined.   #  if the us left nato then nato would  definitely  be dissolved, and russia would be in the baltics almost immediately.  the us spends more on their military than the rest of nato combined.  to assume that they could leave and that russia would be just as trepidatious about expanding in europe is just not correct.  europe does not have the military might to scare russia away from expanding their borders.  the rise of a second soviet empire and the start of a second cold war would have a very significant impact on the us.   #  if france had tried to develop the f 0 not to mention the f 0 they would have had no money left over for any other military measures.   #  europe does not have the military might because a continent does not have the same power to organize a military as a country does.  the eu does not have a joint military force, and no one country could bear the burden of developing the military tech necessary to remain the top dog.  if france had tried to develop the f 0 not to mention the f 0 they would have had no money left over for any other military measures.  as for your claim that russia would be just as concerned about europe as they are about europe and the us, that is just a gross misunderstanding of geo politics.  russia is currently invading europe and is right on the brink of being in the baltics.  the only thing preventing that is the military might behind nato.
first let me say that i strongly disagree with the death penalty and would like very much to see it abolished; i just feel it should be done with an amendment, rather than by a supreme court ruling.  justice scalia states that it is the court is responsibility to decide whether or not laws violate the constitution.  glossip contested that lethal injection violated the 0th amendment cruel and unusual punishment.  breye is dissent argued that the death penalty, in and of itself, is cruel and unusual punishment.  the authors of the constitution were well aware of the death penalty which, at the time, was the only punishment for a felony , and had they meant for it to be outlawed, they would have specifically mentioned it.  you might consider hanging or firing squads the methods used at the time the constitution was written to be more humane than lethal injection, but this argument could be countered by simply giving the inmate a choice between the three.  i feel that scalia is just doing the job he was appointed to do.  it is not the place of the supreme court to make or strike down laws based on what they feel is right or wrong.  it is their job to interpret whether or not laws violate the constitution.  it is our job as a population to elect representatives to change the law.   #  the authors of the constitution were well aware of the death penalty which, at the time, was the only punishment for a felony , and had they meant for it to be outlawed, they would have specifically mentioned it.   #  the authors of the constitution chose to outlaw  cruel and unusual  punishment, a term relative to cultural standards, instead of specific forms of punishment they considered cruel.   # the authors of the constitution chose to outlaw  cruel and unusual  punishment, a term relative to cultural standards, instead of specific forms of punishment they considered cruel.  even if you are generally opposed to the theory of a  living constitution,  this is clearly one situation where it was the framers  intent and  must  apply.  moreover, there is a huge problem with scalia is dissent:  he says that the death penalty is cruel because it is unreliable; but it is convictions, not punishments, that are unreliable.  scalia tries to argue that the death penalty is mechanically reliable.  in a case about whether or not it is legal to use a different set of chemicals, with three known cases out of a handful of uses total leading to the person being executed experiencing extreme suffering before death.  in a case where it is established pharmaceutical manufacturers are refusing to provide tested drugs for executions.  in a case that is nothing but proof that execution by lethal injection is an inconsistent process.  scalia is problem is that he is a massive hypocrite.  for all his talk about the importance of the constitution, of original meaning and original intent two related but very different and incompatible concepts that he freely flip flops between whenever it is convenient , he does exactly what he accuses breyer of choosing an ideological position and grasping at straws to justify it, weaving a contorted web of misapplied logic in the process.   #  if all available means of conducting an execution constitute cruel and unusual punishment, then conducting the execution will constitute cruel and usual punishment.   #  the question in glossip v.  gross was not about the death penalty per se, but about lethal injection as currently practiced in oklahoma.  several companies have refused to provide chemicals for executions, so states have had to find new ways.  the new method appears to put inmates through terrible pain; last year, clayton lockett struggled in apparent pain for 0 minutes before dying URL scalia and others were not justifying the death penalty itself, they had to justify death by torture.  alito is argument he actually wrote the controlling opinion seems to be that, as long as the state does not have a better way, torture is ok.  sotomayer is dissent is spot on here:   but a method of execution that is  barbarous,  or  involve s torture or a lingering death,  does not become less so just because it is the only method currently available to a state.  if all available means of conducting an execution constitute cruel and unusual punishment, then conducting the execution will constitute cruel and usual punishment.  nothing compels a state to perform an execution.  it does not get a constitutional free pass simply because it desires to deliver the ultimate penalty; its ends do not justify any and all means.   #  yes, scotus rulings are important for judicial precedent, but they are also real cases, with real people involved.   #  i do not think you understand the issue here.  your title references a specific case.  the question in that case is whether lethal injection, as practiced by oklahoma, violates the constitution.  if you agree that in the involved case they are talking about torture, and that torture is unconstitutional, then the ruling is wrong.  yes, scotus rulings are important for judicial precedent, but they are also real cases, with real people involved.  richard glossip is an inmate on death row, who because of this ruling will be subjected to torture.   #  in the founders  day, capital punishment was  not  unusual.   #   cruel  and  unusual  means that a punishment must be both cruel  and  unusual to be unconstitutional under that clause.  in the founders  day, capital punishment was  not  unusual.  it was used for all sorts of different crimes all over the world by almost every country.  it is possible that the founders considered it cruel, we do not know.  if their intention was to keep it constitutional, simply including  and unusual  would have been sufficient at the time.  today, capital punishment should be considered unusual for these reasons:   in it is use of capital punishment, the us is the only country in the americas, and one of only a few in the western hemisphere and among  western  countries.  within the us, the states that have executed criminals recently are in the minority.  within those states, out of all felonies, only murder is still subject to the penalty.  among convicted murderers in those states, most are not sentenced to death.  capital punishment was  usual  in 0.  today, in the us, by any measure, capital punishment is unusual.   #  that does not mean that the word  unusual  has changed, just that the world has changed.   #  i disagree.  the meaning of cruel and unusual has not changed.  cruel still means cruel, and unusual still means unusual.  those words only make since in the context of a wider world.  all sorts of things used to be  unusual  in the past and are now  usual.   that does not mean that the word  unusual  has changed, just that the world has changed.
for the purpose of this cmv i am defining  win  as they would be successful in breaking away from the united states.  they would succeed to secede.  i believe this for several reasons.  first, the population of the north has very little taste for war.  if the south were to break away, extremely few people would have the stomach for a fight that would result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of citizens.  second, the south is motivated, and the north is not.  if the south were to break away, it would be because the population has a great desire for their own independence.  people in the north have no great motivation to keep the union together.  i doubt that there would even be a fight.  third, if there was a fight, the outcome would be totally different than the first time.  the south is in a much better position to defend itself than it was in the 0 is.  the large population centers of the north would be more of a disadvantage than an advantage in a modern war.  fourth, the only plausible way that the north could  attack  the south would be economically, but that could leave both countries in an economic ruin.  there is just simply too much to lose to risk starting an economic war.  so, tl;dr.  the south would likely be able to secede without a fight.  if there were to be a fight, they are much more motivated.  the north would have too much to risk to try to stop them.   #  first, the population of the north has very little taste for war.   #  so does the current population of the south.   # so does the current population of the south.  in the south extremely few people would currently have the stomach for a fight that would result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of citizens.  so why are we assuming south develops this war lust, while north does not ? if the south were to break away, it would be because the population has a great desire for their own independence.  people in the north have no great motivation to keep the union together.  i doubt that there would even be a fight.  again same issue.  right now south is hardly motivated.  if we are assuming that south can  become  motivated, why ca not the north ? the south is in a much better position to defend itself than it was in the 0 is.  the large population centers of the north would be more of a disadvantage than an advantage in a modern war.  this is false.  huge population centers can be used as recruits, and to ramp up war productions, unless we are assuming that nuclear weapons would be used, in which case the was would not last very long at all and no one would win/.  there is just simply too much to lose to risk starting an economic war.  why ? north has majority of population and production capability.  north can blockade and starve the south, same was it did before.   #  but it also probably would not be an advantage.   # but it also probably would not be an advantage.  the american military is geographically diverse, and they would not simply go over to the new confederacy because they are stationed in the south.  some people might resign and attempt to enlist with the south, like last time, but i doubt that the bases would just be handed over.  even during the original civil war, the union soldiers in bases, armories, and forts often resisted confederate efforts to take them, sometimes successfully, or attempted to destroy supplies that could aid the confederate war effort.  you are probably right on this one.  upon hearing news of a referendum on secession, the federal government would attempt to obtain a court injunction stopping the measure from being placed on a ballot.  the courts would grant a temporary injunction that would, in all probability be made permanent due to secession is unconstitutionality.  URL the president would then, if necessary, enforce that decision with the national guard or military just like eisenhower did with brown v.  board of education and would arrest anyone who attempted to revolt.   #  also, the rest of the union now consists of the western states, which are far more economically prosperous than then.   #  they would have the bases, but not the funding for them.  also, the majority of the soldiers on the bases would not be loyal to the south, and would leave.  you even run the risk of, say, fort hood fortifying itself against the claimed new confederate states government to fight against them.  also, the rest of the union now consists of the western states, which are far more economically prosperous than then.  ships from the west coast naval bases can now be easily deployed to the south due to the panama canal.  this would offset having lost virginia.   #  there would be no net benefit to a victory on either side.   #  have you thought of the economic toll that a war like that would take on the us or a future csu ? wars on foreign soil are expensive see iraq and afghanistan .  civil wars are more expensive and cannibalistic.  civil war would absolutely make its way to major cities and guerrilla warfare would be rampant throughout the country.  infrastructure and businesses would be destroyed.  recovery for either side would be painful and long.  there would be no net benefit to a victory on either side.   #  the neo csa will have less of both it is going to be a smaller pond than the remaining union, and that is going to hurt its economic competitiveness.   #  taking as an assumption that the gloves stay on, then what ? gdp of the south is under 0 trillion.  that is about 0/0rd of the us is current gdp.  so national companies have a choice what nation do they want to stay with the neo csa with 0/0rds of the market, or the rest with 0/0rds of the market ? the us dollar and by extension, the currency the csa starts with will crash anyways as a reserve currency.  that is going to hurt both nations.  now check how quickly each state is recovering from the great recession.  there is also net government expenditures.  a quick check of the list of federal expenditures by state shows that the non neo csa states would actually come out slightly ahead.  plus population and resources.  the neo csa will have less of both it is going to be a smaller pond than the remaining union, and that is going to hurt its economic competitiveness.  imo, people without jobs are not happy.  the neo csa is heading towards high unemployment.  sure, the same will happen likely to a lesser extent and with a quicker recovery to the unionist states, but at least the union can blame the neo csa for screwing everything up.  who can the neo csa blame ?
for the purpose of this cmv i am defining  win  as they would be successful in breaking away from the united states.  they would succeed to secede.  i believe this for several reasons.  first, the population of the north has very little taste for war.  if the south were to break away, extremely few people would have the stomach for a fight that would result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of citizens.  second, the south is motivated, and the north is not.  if the south were to break away, it would be because the population has a great desire for their own independence.  people in the north have no great motivation to keep the union together.  i doubt that there would even be a fight.  third, if there was a fight, the outcome would be totally different than the first time.  the south is in a much better position to defend itself than it was in the 0 is.  the large population centers of the north would be more of a disadvantage than an advantage in a modern war.  fourth, the only plausible way that the north could  attack  the south would be economically, but that could leave both countries in an economic ruin.  there is just simply too much to lose to risk starting an economic war.  so, tl;dr.  the south would likely be able to secede without a fight.  if there were to be a fight, they are much more motivated.  the north would have too much to risk to try to stop them.   #  if the south were to break away, extremely few people would have the stomach for a fight that would result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of citizens.   #  in the south extremely few people would currently have the stomach for a fight that would result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of citizens.   # so does the current population of the south.  in the south extremely few people would currently have the stomach for a fight that would result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of citizens.  so why are we assuming south develops this war lust, while north does not ? if the south were to break away, it would be because the population has a great desire for their own independence.  people in the north have no great motivation to keep the union together.  i doubt that there would even be a fight.  again same issue.  right now south is hardly motivated.  if we are assuming that south can  become  motivated, why ca not the north ? the south is in a much better position to defend itself than it was in the 0 is.  the large population centers of the north would be more of a disadvantage than an advantage in a modern war.  this is false.  huge population centers can be used as recruits, and to ramp up war productions, unless we are assuming that nuclear weapons would be used, in which case the was would not last very long at all and no one would win/.  there is just simply too much to lose to risk starting an economic war.  why ? north has majority of population and production capability.  north can blockade and starve the south, same was it did before.   #  upon hearing news of a referendum on secession, the federal government would attempt to obtain a court injunction stopping the measure from being placed on a ballot.   # but it also probably would not be an advantage.  the american military is geographically diverse, and they would not simply go over to the new confederacy because they are stationed in the south.  some people might resign and attempt to enlist with the south, like last time, but i doubt that the bases would just be handed over.  even during the original civil war, the union soldiers in bases, armories, and forts often resisted confederate efforts to take them, sometimes successfully, or attempted to destroy supplies that could aid the confederate war effort.  you are probably right on this one.  upon hearing news of a referendum on secession, the federal government would attempt to obtain a court injunction stopping the measure from being placed on a ballot.  the courts would grant a temporary injunction that would, in all probability be made permanent due to secession is unconstitutionality.  URL the president would then, if necessary, enforce that decision with the national guard or military just like eisenhower did with brown v.  board of education and would arrest anyone who attempted to revolt.   #  they would have the bases, but not the funding for them.   #  they would have the bases, but not the funding for them.  also, the majority of the soldiers on the bases would not be loyal to the south, and would leave.  you even run the risk of, say, fort hood fortifying itself against the claimed new confederate states government to fight against them.  also, the rest of the union now consists of the western states, which are far more economically prosperous than then.  ships from the west coast naval bases can now be easily deployed to the south due to the panama canal.  this would offset having lost virginia.   #  wars on foreign soil are expensive see iraq and afghanistan .   #  have you thought of the economic toll that a war like that would take on the us or a future csu ? wars on foreign soil are expensive see iraq and afghanistan .  civil wars are more expensive and cannibalistic.  civil war would absolutely make its way to major cities and guerrilla warfare would be rampant throughout the country.  infrastructure and businesses would be destroyed.  recovery for either side would be painful and long.  there would be no net benefit to a victory on either side.   #  sure, the same will happen likely to a lesser extent and with a quicker recovery to the unionist states, but at least the union can blame the neo csa for screwing everything up.   #  taking as an assumption that the gloves stay on, then what ? gdp of the south is under 0 trillion.  that is about 0/0rd of the us is current gdp.  so national companies have a choice what nation do they want to stay with the neo csa with 0/0rds of the market, or the rest with 0/0rds of the market ? the us dollar and by extension, the currency the csa starts with will crash anyways as a reserve currency.  that is going to hurt both nations.  now check how quickly each state is recovering from the great recession.  there is also net government expenditures.  a quick check of the list of federal expenditures by state shows that the non neo csa states would actually come out slightly ahead.  plus population and resources.  the neo csa will have less of both it is going to be a smaller pond than the remaining union, and that is going to hurt its economic competitiveness.  imo, people without jobs are not happy.  the neo csa is heading towards high unemployment.  sure, the same will happen likely to a lesser extent and with a quicker recovery to the unionist states, but at least the union can blame the neo csa for screwing everything up.  who can the neo csa blame ?
for the purpose of this cmv i am defining  win  as they would be successful in breaking away from the united states.  they would succeed to secede.  i believe this for several reasons.  first, the population of the north has very little taste for war.  if the south were to break away, extremely few people would have the stomach for a fight that would result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of citizens.  second, the south is motivated, and the north is not.  if the south were to break away, it would be because the population has a great desire for their own independence.  people in the north have no great motivation to keep the union together.  i doubt that there would even be a fight.  third, if there was a fight, the outcome would be totally different than the first time.  the south is in a much better position to defend itself than it was in the 0 is.  the large population centers of the north would be more of a disadvantage than an advantage in a modern war.  fourth, the only plausible way that the north could  attack  the south would be economically, but that could leave both countries in an economic ruin.  there is just simply too much to lose to risk starting an economic war.  so, tl;dr.  the south would likely be able to secede without a fight.  if there were to be a fight, they are much more motivated.  the north would have too much to risk to try to stop them.   #  second, the south is motivated, and the north is not.   #  if the south were to break away, it would be because the population has a great desire for their own independence.   # so does the current population of the south.  in the south extremely few people would currently have the stomach for a fight that would result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of citizens.  so why are we assuming south develops this war lust, while north does not ? if the south were to break away, it would be because the population has a great desire for their own independence.  people in the north have no great motivation to keep the union together.  i doubt that there would even be a fight.  again same issue.  right now south is hardly motivated.  if we are assuming that south can  become  motivated, why ca not the north ? the south is in a much better position to defend itself than it was in the 0 is.  the large population centers of the north would be more of a disadvantage than an advantage in a modern war.  this is false.  huge population centers can be used as recruits, and to ramp up war productions, unless we are assuming that nuclear weapons would be used, in which case the was would not last very long at all and no one would win/.  there is just simply too much to lose to risk starting an economic war.  why ? north has majority of population and production capability.  north can blockade and starve the south, same was it did before.   #  upon hearing news of a referendum on secession, the federal government would attempt to obtain a court injunction stopping the measure from being placed on a ballot.   # but it also probably would not be an advantage.  the american military is geographically diverse, and they would not simply go over to the new confederacy because they are stationed in the south.  some people might resign and attempt to enlist with the south, like last time, but i doubt that the bases would just be handed over.  even during the original civil war, the union soldiers in bases, armories, and forts often resisted confederate efforts to take them, sometimes successfully, or attempted to destroy supplies that could aid the confederate war effort.  you are probably right on this one.  upon hearing news of a referendum on secession, the federal government would attempt to obtain a court injunction stopping the measure from being placed on a ballot.  the courts would grant a temporary injunction that would, in all probability be made permanent due to secession is unconstitutionality.  URL the president would then, if necessary, enforce that decision with the national guard or military just like eisenhower did with brown v.  board of education and would arrest anyone who attempted to revolt.   #  also, the rest of the union now consists of the western states, which are far more economically prosperous than then.   #  they would have the bases, but not the funding for them.  also, the majority of the soldiers on the bases would not be loyal to the south, and would leave.  you even run the risk of, say, fort hood fortifying itself against the claimed new confederate states government to fight against them.  also, the rest of the union now consists of the western states, which are far more economically prosperous than then.  ships from the west coast naval bases can now be easily deployed to the south due to the panama canal.  this would offset having lost virginia.   #  civil war would absolutely make its way to major cities and guerrilla warfare would be rampant throughout the country.   #  have you thought of the economic toll that a war like that would take on the us or a future csu ? wars on foreign soil are expensive see iraq and afghanistan .  civil wars are more expensive and cannibalistic.  civil war would absolutely make its way to major cities and guerrilla warfare would be rampant throughout the country.  infrastructure and businesses would be destroyed.  recovery for either side would be painful and long.  there would be no net benefit to a victory on either side.   #  the us dollar and by extension, the currency the csa starts with will crash anyways as a reserve currency.   #  taking as an assumption that the gloves stay on, then what ? gdp of the south is under 0 trillion.  that is about 0/0rd of the us is current gdp.  so national companies have a choice what nation do they want to stay with the neo csa with 0/0rds of the market, or the rest with 0/0rds of the market ? the us dollar and by extension, the currency the csa starts with will crash anyways as a reserve currency.  that is going to hurt both nations.  now check how quickly each state is recovering from the great recession.  there is also net government expenditures.  a quick check of the list of federal expenditures by state shows that the non neo csa states would actually come out slightly ahead.  plus population and resources.  the neo csa will have less of both it is going to be a smaller pond than the remaining union, and that is going to hurt its economic competitiveness.  imo, people without jobs are not happy.  the neo csa is heading towards high unemployment.  sure, the same will happen likely to a lesser extent and with a quicker recovery to the unionist states, but at least the union can blame the neo csa for screwing everything up.  who can the neo csa blame ?
for the purpose of this cmv i am defining  win  as they would be successful in breaking away from the united states.  they would succeed to secede.  i believe this for several reasons.  first, the population of the north has very little taste for war.  if the south were to break away, extremely few people would have the stomach for a fight that would result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of citizens.  second, the south is motivated, and the north is not.  if the south were to break away, it would be because the population has a great desire for their own independence.  people in the north have no great motivation to keep the union together.  i doubt that there would even be a fight.  third, if there was a fight, the outcome would be totally different than the first time.  the south is in a much better position to defend itself than it was in the 0 is.  the large population centers of the north would be more of a disadvantage than an advantage in a modern war.  fourth, the only plausible way that the north could  attack  the south would be economically, but that could leave both countries in an economic ruin.  there is just simply too much to lose to risk starting an economic war.  so, tl;dr.  the south would likely be able to secede without a fight.  if there were to be a fight, they are much more motivated.  the north would have too much to risk to try to stop them.   #  third, if there was a fight, the outcome would be totally different than the first time.   #  the south is in a much better position to defend itself than it was in the 0 is.   # so does the current population of the south.  in the south extremely few people would currently have the stomach for a fight that would result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of citizens.  so why are we assuming south develops this war lust, while north does not ? if the south were to break away, it would be because the population has a great desire for their own independence.  people in the north have no great motivation to keep the union together.  i doubt that there would even be a fight.  again same issue.  right now south is hardly motivated.  if we are assuming that south can  become  motivated, why ca not the north ? the south is in a much better position to defend itself than it was in the 0 is.  the large population centers of the north would be more of a disadvantage than an advantage in a modern war.  this is false.  huge population centers can be used as recruits, and to ramp up war productions, unless we are assuming that nuclear weapons would be used, in which case the was would not last very long at all and no one would win/.  there is just simply too much to lose to risk starting an economic war.  why ? north has majority of population and production capability.  north can blockade and starve the south, same was it did before.   #  URL the president would then, if necessary, enforce that decision with the national guard or military just like eisenhower did with brown v.  board of education and would arrest anyone who attempted to revolt.   # but it also probably would not be an advantage.  the american military is geographically diverse, and they would not simply go over to the new confederacy because they are stationed in the south.  some people might resign and attempt to enlist with the south, like last time, but i doubt that the bases would just be handed over.  even during the original civil war, the union soldiers in bases, armories, and forts often resisted confederate efforts to take them, sometimes successfully, or attempted to destroy supplies that could aid the confederate war effort.  you are probably right on this one.  upon hearing news of a referendum on secession, the federal government would attempt to obtain a court injunction stopping the measure from being placed on a ballot.  the courts would grant a temporary injunction that would, in all probability be made permanent due to secession is unconstitutionality.  URL the president would then, if necessary, enforce that decision with the national guard or military just like eisenhower did with brown v.  board of education and would arrest anyone who attempted to revolt.   #  also, the majority of the soldiers on the bases would not be loyal to the south, and would leave.   #  they would have the bases, but not the funding for them.  also, the majority of the soldiers on the bases would not be loyal to the south, and would leave.  you even run the risk of, say, fort hood fortifying itself against the claimed new confederate states government to fight against them.  also, the rest of the union now consists of the western states, which are far more economically prosperous than then.  ships from the west coast naval bases can now be easily deployed to the south due to the panama canal.  this would offset having lost virginia.   #  civil war would absolutely make its way to major cities and guerrilla warfare would be rampant throughout the country.   #  have you thought of the economic toll that a war like that would take on the us or a future csu ? wars on foreign soil are expensive see iraq and afghanistan .  civil wars are more expensive and cannibalistic.  civil war would absolutely make its way to major cities and guerrilla warfare would be rampant throughout the country.  infrastructure and businesses would be destroyed.  recovery for either side would be painful and long.  there would be no net benefit to a victory on either side.   #  the neo csa is heading towards high unemployment.   #  taking as an assumption that the gloves stay on, then what ? gdp of the south is under 0 trillion.  that is about 0/0rd of the us is current gdp.  so national companies have a choice what nation do they want to stay with the neo csa with 0/0rds of the market, or the rest with 0/0rds of the market ? the us dollar and by extension, the currency the csa starts with will crash anyways as a reserve currency.  that is going to hurt both nations.  now check how quickly each state is recovering from the great recession.  there is also net government expenditures.  a quick check of the list of federal expenditures by state shows that the non neo csa states would actually come out slightly ahead.  plus population and resources.  the neo csa will have less of both it is going to be a smaller pond than the remaining union, and that is going to hurt its economic competitiveness.  imo, people without jobs are not happy.  the neo csa is heading towards high unemployment.  sure, the same will happen likely to a lesser extent and with a quicker recovery to the unionist states, but at least the union can blame the neo csa for screwing everything up.  who can the neo csa blame ?
for the purpose of this cmv i am defining  win  as they would be successful in breaking away from the united states.  they would succeed to secede.  i believe this for several reasons.  first, the population of the north has very little taste for war.  if the south were to break away, extremely few people would have the stomach for a fight that would result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of citizens.  second, the south is motivated, and the north is not.  if the south were to break away, it would be because the population has a great desire for their own independence.  people in the north have no great motivation to keep the union together.  i doubt that there would even be a fight.  third, if there was a fight, the outcome would be totally different than the first time.  the south is in a much better position to defend itself than it was in the 0 is.  the large population centers of the north would be more of a disadvantage than an advantage in a modern war.  fourth, the only plausible way that the north could  attack  the south would be economically, but that could leave both countries in an economic ruin.  there is just simply too much to lose to risk starting an economic war.  so, tl;dr.  the south would likely be able to secede without a fight.  if there were to be a fight, they are much more motivated.  the north would have too much to risk to try to stop them.   #  fourth, the only plausible way that the north could  attack  the south would be economically, but that could leave both countries in an economic ruin.   #  there is just simply too much to lose to risk starting an economic war.   # so does the current population of the south.  in the south extremely few people would currently have the stomach for a fight that would result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of citizens.  so why are we assuming south develops this war lust, while north does not ? if the south were to break away, it would be because the population has a great desire for their own independence.  people in the north have no great motivation to keep the union together.  i doubt that there would even be a fight.  again same issue.  right now south is hardly motivated.  if we are assuming that south can  become  motivated, why ca not the north ? the south is in a much better position to defend itself than it was in the 0 is.  the large population centers of the north would be more of a disadvantage than an advantage in a modern war.  this is false.  huge population centers can be used as recruits, and to ramp up war productions, unless we are assuming that nuclear weapons would be used, in which case the was would not last very long at all and no one would win/.  there is just simply too much to lose to risk starting an economic war.  why ? north has majority of population and production capability.  north can blockade and starve the south, same was it did before.   #  URL the president would then, if necessary, enforce that decision with the national guard or military just like eisenhower did with brown v.  board of education and would arrest anyone who attempted to revolt.   # but it also probably would not be an advantage.  the american military is geographically diverse, and they would not simply go over to the new confederacy because they are stationed in the south.  some people might resign and attempt to enlist with the south, like last time, but i doubt that the bases would just be handed over.  even during the original civil war, the union soldiers in bases, armories, and forts often resisted confederate efforts to take them, sometimes successfully, or attempted to destroy supplies that could aid the confederate war effort.  you are probably right on this one.  upon hearing news of a referendum on secession, the federal government would attempt to obtain a court injunction stopping the measure from being placed on a ballot.  the courts would grant a temporary injunction that would, in all probability be made permanent due to secession is unconstitutionality.  URL the president would then, if necessary, enforce that decision with the national guard or military just like eisenhower did with brown v.  board of education and would arrest anyone who attempted to revolt.   #  also, the rest of the union now consists of the western states, which are far more economically prosperous than then.   #  they would have the bases, but not the funding for them.  also, the majority of the soldiers on the bases would not be loyal to the south, and would leave.  you even run the risk of, say, fort hood fortifying itself against the claimed new confederate states government to fight against them.  also, the rest of the union now consists of the western states, which are far more economically prosperous than then.  ships from the west coast naval bases can now be easily deployed to the south due to the panama canal.  this would offset having lost virginia.   #  civil war would absolutely make its way to major cities and guerrilla warfare would be rampant throughout the country.   #  have you thought of the economic toll that a war like that would take on the us or a future csu ? wars on foreign soil are expensive see iraq and afghanistan .  civil wars are more expensive and cannibalistic.  civil war would absolutely make its way to major cities and guerrilla warfare would be rampant throughout the country.  infrastructure and businesses would be destroyed.  recovery for either side would be painful and long.  there would be no net benefit to a victory on either side.   #  that is about 0/0rd of the us is current gdp.   #  taking as an assumption that the gloves stay on, then what ? gdp of the south is under 0 trillion.  that is about 0/0rd of the us is current gdp.  so national companies have a choice what nation do they want to stay with the neo csa with 0/0rds of the market, or the rest with 0/0rds of the market ? the us dollar and by extension, the currency the csa starts with will crash anyways as a reserve currency.  that is going to hurt both nations.  now check how quickly each state is recovering from the great recession.  there is also net government expenditures.  a quick check of the list of federal expenditures by state shows that the non neo csa states would actually come out slightly ahead.  plus population and resources.  the neo csa will have less of both it is going to be a smaller pond than the remaining union, and that is going to hurt its economic competitiveness.  imo, people without jobs are not happy.  the neo csa is heading towards high unemployment.  sure, the same will happen likely to a lesser extent and with a quicker recovery to the unionist states, but at least the union can blame the neo csa for screwing everything up.  who can the neo csa blame ?
for the purpose of this cmv i am defining  win  as they would be successful in breaking away from the united states.  they would succeed to secede.  i believe this for several reasons.  first, the population of the north has very little taste for war.  if the south were to break away, extremely few people would have the stomach for a fight that would result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of citizens.  second, the south is motivated, and the north is not.  if the south were to break away, it would be because the population has a great desire for their own independence.  people in the north have no great motivation to keep the union together.  i doubt that there would even be a fight.  third, if there was a fight, the outcome would be totally different than the first time.  the south is in a much better position to defend itself than it was in the 0 is.  the large population centers of the north would be more of a disadvantage than an advantage in a modern war.  fourth, the only plausible way that the north could  attack  the south would be economically, but that could leave both countries in an economic ruin.  there is just simply too much to lose to risk starting an economic war.  so, tl;dr.  the south would likely be able to secede without a fight.  if there were to be a fight, they are much more motivated.  the north would have too much to risk to try to stop them.   #  first, the population of the north has very little taste for war.   #  if the south were to break away, extremely few people would have the stomach for a fight that would result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of citizens.   # if the south were to break away, extremely few people would have the stomach for a fight that would result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of citizens.  what makes you think that the south would be any different ? if the south were to break away, it would be because the population has a great desire for their own independence.  people in the north have no great motivation to keep the union together.  i doubt that there would even be a fight.  considering the absence of any polls asking:  would you allow another part of the country to secede  ? i have no way to argue this.  i suspect its not true, though.  the south is in a much better position to defend itself than it was in the 0 is.  based on what, their numbers in the military ? number of armed citizens ? i would counter by arguing that all of america is defense manufacturing infrastructure is located outside of the south.  our aerospace stuff is largely in southern california, armored vehicles are made in ohio, and most of our domestic gun manufacturers are located in new england.  why ? there is just simply too much to lose to risk starting an economic war.  the south has a few strong industries, oil and gas, manufacturing but the north has a far more diverse economy.  i think they would last longer.  you are also ignoring the international relations angle.  our allies in europe have issues with their own separatist movements, for that reason alone they would do everything they could to avoid supporting the new country trade embargoes, sanctions, etc.  .  hell, this may even allow the u. s.  government to invoke nato is mutual defense clause and bring their militaries into the fight.  the south would also likely have a more hawkish, belligerent foreign policy that would make it difficult to find allies and trading partners.   #  the american military is geographically diverse, and they would not simply go over to the new confederacy because they are stationed in the south.   # but it also probably would not be an advantage.  the american military is geographically diverse, and they would not simply go over to the new confederacy because they are stationed in the south.  some people might resign and attempt to enlist with the south, like last time, but i doubt that the bases would just be handed over.  even during the original civil war, the union soldiers in bases, armories, and forts often resisted confederate efforts to take them, sometimes successfully, or attempted to destroy supplies that could aid the confederate war effort.  you are probably right on this one.  upon hearing news of a referendum on secession, the federal government would attempt to obtain a court injunction stopping the measure from being placed on a ballot.  the courts would grant a temporary injunction that would, in all probability be made permanent due to secession is unconstitutionality.  URL the president would then, if necessary, enforce that decision with the national guard or military just like eisenhower did with brown v.  board of education and would arrest anyone who attempted to revolt.   #  also, the majority of the soldiers on the bases would not be loyal to the south, and would leave.   #  they would have the bases, but not the funding for them.  also, the majority of the soldiers on the bases would not be loyal to the south, and would leave.  you even run the risk of, say, fort hood fortifying itself against the claimed new confederate states government to fight against them.  also, the rest of the union now consists of the western states, which are far more economically prosperous than then.  ships from the west coast naval bases can now be easily deployed to the south due to the panama canal.  this would offset having lost virginia.   #  recovery for either side would be painful and long.   #  have you thought of the economic toll that a war like that would take on the us or a future csu ? wars on foreign soil are expensive see iraq and afghanistan .  civil wars are more expensive and cannibalistic.  civil war would absolutely make its way to major cities and guerrilla warfare would be rampant throughout the country.  infrastructure and businesses would be destroyed.  recovery for either side would be painful and long.  there would be no net benefit to a victory on either side.   #  that is about 0/0rd of the us is current gdp.   #  taking as an assumption that the gloves stay on, then what ? gdp of the south is under 0 trillion.  that is about 0/0rd of the us is current gdp.  so national companies have a choice what nation do they want to stay with the neo csa with 0/0rds of the market, or the rest with 0/0rds of the market ? the us dollar and by extension, the currency the csa starts with will crash anyways as a reserve currency.  that is going to hurt both nations.  now check how quickly each state is recovering from the great recession.  there is also net government expenditures.  a quick check of the list of federal expenditures by state shows that the non neo csa states would actually come out slightly ahead.  plus population and resources.  the neo csa will have less of both it is going to be a smaller pond than the remaining union, and that is going to hurt its economic competitiveness.  imo, people without jobs are not happy.  the neo csa is heading towards high unemployment.  sure, the same will happen likely to a lesser extent and with a quicker recovery to the unionist states, but at least the union can blame the neo csa for screwing everything up.  who can the neo csa blame ?
for the purpose of this cmv i am defining  win  as they would be successful in breaking away from the united states.  they would succeed to secede.  i believe this for several reasons.  first, the population of the north has very little taste for war.  if the south were to break away, extremely few people would have the stomach for a fight that would result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of citizens.  second, the south is motivated, and the north is not.  if the south were to break away, it would be because the population has a great desire for their own independence.  people in the north have no great motivation to keep the union together.  i doubt that there would even be a fight.  third, if there was a fight, the outcome would be totally different than the first time.  the south is in a much better position to defend itself than it was in the 0 is.  the large population centers of the north would be more of a disadvantage than an advantage in a modern war.  fourth, the only plausible way that the north could  attack  the south would be economically, but that could leave both countries in an economic ruin.  there is just simply too much to lose to risk starting an economic war.  so, tl;dr.  the south would likely be able to secede without a fight.  if there were to be a fight, they are much more motivated.  the north would have too much to risk to try to stop them.   #  second, the south is motivated, and the north is not.   #  if the south were to break away, it would be because the population has a great desire for their own independence.   # if the south were to break away, extremely few people would have the stomach for a fight that would result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of citizens.  what makes you think that the south would be any different ? if the south were to break away, it would be because the population has a great desire for their own independence.  people in the north have no great motivation to keep the union together.  i doubt that there would even be a fight.  considering the absence of any polls asking:  would you allow another part of the country to secede  ? i have no way to argue this.  i suspect its not true, though.  the south is in a much better position to defend itself than it was in the 0 is.  based on what, their numbers in the military ? number of armed citizens ? i would counter by arguing that all of america is defense manufacturing infrastructure is located outside of the south.  our aerospace stuff is largely in southern california, armored vehicles are made in ohio, and most of our domestic gun manufacturers are located in new england.  why ? there is just simply too much to lose to risk starting an economic war.  the south has a few strong industries, oil and gas, manufacturing but the north has a far more diverse economy.  i think they would last longer.  you are also ignoring the international relations angle.  our allies in europe have issues with their own separatist movements, for that reason alone they would do everything they could to avoid supporting the new country trade embargoes, sanctions, etc.  .  hell, this may even allow the u. s.  government to invoke nato is mutual defense clause and bring their militaries into the fight.  the south would also likely have a more hawkish, belligerent foreign policy that would make it difficult to find allies and trading partners.   #  upon hearing news of a referendum on secession, the federal government would attempt to obtain a court injunction stopping the measure from being placed on a ballot.   # but it also probably would not be an advantage.  the american military is geographically diverse, and they would not simply go over to the new confederacy because they are stationed in the south.  some people might resign and attempt to enlist with the south, like last time, but i doubt that the bases would just be handed over.  even during the original civil war, the union soldiers in bases, armories, and forts often resisted confederate efforts to take them, sometimes successfully, or attempted to destroy supplies that could aid the confederate war effort.  you are probably right on this one.  upon hearing news of a referendum on secession, the federal government would attempt to obtain a court injunction stopping the measure from being placed on a ballot.  the courts would grant a temporary injunction that would, in all probability be made permanent due to secession is unconstitutionality.  URL the president would then, if necessary, enforce that decision with the national guard or military just like eisenhower did with brown v.  board of education and would arrest anyone who attempted to revolt.   #  you even run the risk of, say, fort hood fortifying itself against the claimed new confederate states government to fight against them.   #  they would have the bases, but not the funding for them.  also, the majority of the soldiers on the bases would not be loyal to the south, and would leave.  you even run the risk of, say, fort hood fortifying itself against the claimed new confederate states government to fight against them.  also, the rest of the union now consists of the western states, which are far more economically prosperous than then.  ships from the west coast naval bases can now be easily deployed to the south due to the panama canal.  this would offset having lost virginia.   #  civil war would absolutely make its way to major cities and guerrilla warfare would be rampant throughout the country.   #  have you thought of the economic toll that a war like that would take on the us or a future csu ? wars on foreign soil are expensive see iraq and afghanistan .  civil wars are more expensive and cannibalistic.  civil war would absolutely make its way to major cities and guerrilla warfare would be rampant throughout the country.  infrastructure and businesses would be destroyed.  recovery for either side would be painful and long.  there would be no net benefit to a victory on either side.   #  the neo csa will have less of both it is going to be a smaller pond than the remaining union, and that is going to hurt its economic competitiveness.   #  taking as an assumption that the gloves stay on, then what ? gdp of the south is under 0 trillion.  that is about 0/0rd of the us is current gdp.  so national companies have a choice what nation do they want to stay with the neo csa with 0/0rds of the market, or the rest with 0/0rds of the market ? the us dollar and by extension, the currency the csa starts with will crash anyways as a reserve currency.  that is going to hurt both nations.  now check how quickly each state is recovering from the great recession.  there is also net government expenditures.  a quick check of the list of federal expenditures by state shows that the non neo csa states would actually come out slightly ahead.  plus population and resources.  the neo csa will have less of both it is going to be a smaller pond than the remaining union, and that is going to hurt its economic competitiveness.  imo, people without jobs are not happy.  the neo csa is heading towards high unemployment.  sure, the same will happen likely to a lesser extent and with a quicker recovery to the unionist states, but at least the union can blame the neo csa for screwing everything up.  who can the neo csa blame ?
for the purpose of this cmv i am defining  win  as they would be successful in breaking away from the united states.  they would succeed to secede.  i believe this for several reasons.  first, the population of the north has very little taste for war.  if the south were to break away, extremely few people would have the stomach for a fight that would result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of citizens.  second, the south is motivated, and the north is not.  if the south were to break away, it would be because the population has a great desire for their own independence.  people in the north have no great motivation to keep the union together.  i doubt that there would even be a fight.  third, if there was a fight, the outcome would be totally different than the first time.  the south is in a much better position to defend itself than it was in the 0 is.  the large population centers of the north would be more of a disadvantage than an advantage in a modern war.  fourth, the only plausible way that the north could  attack  the south would be economically, but that could leave both countries in an economic ruin.  there is just simply too much to lose to risk starting an economic war.  so, tl;dr.  the south would likely be able to secede without a fight.  if there were to be a fight, they are much more motivated.  the north would have too much to risk to try to stop them.   #  third, if there was a fight, the outcome would be totally different than the first time.   #  the south is in a much better position to defend itself than it was in the 0 is.   # if the south were to break away, extremely few people would have the stomach for a fight that would result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of citizens.  what makes you think that the south would be any different ? if the south were to break away, it would be because the population has a great desire for their own independence.  people in the north have no great motivation to keep the union together.  i doubt that there would even be a fight.  considering the absence of any polls asking:  would you allow another part of the country to secede  ? i have no way to argue this.  i suspect its not true, though.  the south is in a much better position to defend itself than it was in the 0 is.  based on what, their numbers in the military ? number of armed citizens ? i would counter by arguing that all of america is defense manufacturing infrastructure is located outside of the south.  our aerospace stuff is largely in southern california, armored vehicles are made in ohio, and most of our domestic gun manufacturers are located in new england.  why ? there is just simply too much to lose to risk starting an economic war.  the south has a few strong industries, oil and gas, manufacturing but the north has a far more diverse economy.  i think they would last longer.  you are also ignoring the international relations angle.  our allies in europe have issues with their own separatist movements, for that reason alone they would do everything they could to avoid supporting the new country trade embargoes, sanctions, etc.  .  hell, this may even allow the u. s.  government to invoke nato is mutual defense clause and bring their militaries into the fight.  the south would also likely have a more hawkish, belligerent foreign policy that would make it difficult to find allies and trading partners.   #  some people might resign and attempt to enlist with the south, like last time, but i doubt that the bases would just be handed over.   # but it also probably would not be an advantage.  the american military is geographically diverse, and they would not simply go over to the new confederacy because they are stationed in the south.  some people might resign and attempt to enlist with the south, like last time, but i doubt that the bases would just be handed over.  even during the original civil war, the union soldiers in bases, armories, and forts often resisted confederate efforts to take them, sometimes successfully, or attempted to destroy supplies that could aid the confederate war effort.  you are probably right on this one.  upon hearing news of a referendum on secession, the federal government would attempt to obtain a court injunction stopping the measure from being placed on a ballot.  the courts would grant a temporary injunction that would, in all probability be made permanent due to secession is unconstitutionality.  URL the president would then, if necessary, enforce that decision with the national guard or military just like eisenhower did with brown v.  board of education and would arrest anyone who attempted to revolt.   #  ships from the west coast naval bases can now be easily deployed to the south due to the panama canal.   #  they would have the bases, but not the funding for them.  also, the majority of the soldiers on the bases would not be loyal to the south, and would leave.  you even run the risk of, say, fort hood fortifying itself against the claimed new confederate states government to fight against them.  also, the rest of the union now consists of the western states, which are far more economically prosperous than then.  ships from the west coast naval bases can now be easily deployed to the south due to the panama canal.  this would offset having lost virginia.   #  there would be no net benefit to a victory on either side.   #  have you thought of the economic toll that a war like that would take on the us or a future csu ? wars on foreign soil are expensive see iraq and afghanistan .  civil wars are more expensive and cannibalistic.  civil war would absolutely make its way to major cities and guerrilla warfare would be rampant throughout the country.  infrastructure and businesses would be destroyed.  recovery for either side would be painful and long.  there would be no net benefit to a victory on either side.   #  the neo csa is heading towards high unemployment.   #  taking as an assumption that the gloves stay on, then what ? gdp of the south is under 0 trillion.  that is about 0/0rd of the us is current gdp.  so national companies have a choice what nation do they want to stay with the neo csa with 0/0rds of the market, or the rest with 0/0rds of the market ? the us dollar and by extension, the currency the csa starts with will crash anyways as a reserve currency.  that is going to hurt both nations.  now check how quickly each state is recovering from the great recession.  there is also net government expenditures.  a quick check of the list of federal expenditures by state shows that the non neo csa states would actually come out slightly ahead.  plus population and resources.  the neo csa will have less of both it is going to be a smaller pond than the remaining union, and that is going to hurt its economic competitiveness.  imo, people without jobs are not happy.  the neo csa is heading towards high unemployment.  sure, the same will happen likely to a lesser extent and with a quicker recovery to the unionist states, but at least the union can blame the neo csa for screwing everything up.  who can the neo csa blame ?
for the purpose of this cmv i am defining  win  as they would be successful in breaking away from the united states.  they would succeed to secede.  i believe this for several reasons.  first, the population of the north has very little taste for war.  if the south were to break away, extremely few people would have the stomach for a fight that would result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of citizens.  second, the south is motivated, and the north is not.  if the south were to break away, it would be because the population has a great desire for their own independence.  people in the north have no great motivation to keep the union together.  i doubt that there would even be a fight.  third, if there was a fight, the outcome would be totally different than the first time.  the south is in a much better position to defend itself than it was in the 0 is.  the large population centers of the north would be more of a disadvantage than an advantage in a modern war.  fourth, the only plausible way that the north could  attack  the south would be economically, but that could leave both countries in an economic ruin.  there is just simply too much to lose to risk starting an economic war.  so, tl;dr.  the south would likely be able to secede without a fight.  if there were to be a fight, they are much more motivated.  the north would have too much to risk to try to stop them.   #  fourth, the only plausible way that the north could  attack  the south would be economically, but that could leave both countries in an economic ruin.   #  there is just simply too much to lose to risk starting an economic war.   # if the south were to break away, extremely few people would have the stomach for a fight that would result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of citizens.  what makes you think that the south would be any different ? if the south were to break away, it would be because the population has a great desire for their own independence.  people in the north have no great motivation to keep the union together.  i doubt that there would even be a fight.  considering the absence of any polls asking:  would you allow another part of the country to secede  ? i have no way to argue this.  i suspect its not true, though.  the south is in a much better position to defend itself than it was in the 0 is.  based on what, their numbers in the military ? number of armed citizens ? i would counter by arguing that all of america is defense manufacturing infrastructure is located outside of the south.  our aerospace stuff is largely in southern california, armored vehicles are made in ohio, and most of our domestic gun manufacturers are located in new england.  why ? there is just simply too much to lose to risk starting an economic war.  the south has a few strong industries, oil and gas, manufacturing but the north has a far more diverse economy.  i think they would last longer.  you are also ignoring the international relations angle.  our allies in europe have issues with their own separatist movements, for that reason alone they would do everything they could to avoid supporting the new country trade embargoes, sanctions, etc.  .  hell, this may even allow the u. s.  government to invoke nato is mutual defense clause and bring their militaries into the fight.  the south would also likely have a more hawkish, belligerent foreign policy that would make it difficult to find allies and trading partners.   #  URL the president would then, if necessary, enforce that decision with the national guard or military just like eisenhower did with brown v.  board of education and would arrest anyone who attempted to revolt.   # but it also probably would not be an advantage.  the american military is geographically diverse, and they would not simply go over to the new confederacy because they are stationed in the south.  some people might resign and attempt to enlist with the south, like last time, but i doubt that the bases would just be handed over.  even during the original civil war, the union soldiers in bases, armories, and forts often resisted confederate efforts to take them, sometimes successfully, or attempted to destroy supplies that could aid the confederate war effort.  you are probably right on this one.  upon hearing news of a referendum on secession, the federal government would attempt to obtain a court injunction stopping the measure from being placed on a ballot.  the courts would grant a temporary injunction that would, in all probability be made permanent due to secession is unconstitutionality.  URL the president would then, if necessary, enforce that decision with the national guard or military just like eisenhower did with brown v.  board of education and would arrest anyone who attempted to revolt.   #  you even run the risk of, say, fort hood fortifying itself against the claimed new confederate states government to fight against them.   #  they would have the bases, but not the funding for them.  also, the majority of the soldiers on the bases would not be loyal to the south, and would leave.  you even run the risk of, say, fort hood fortifying itself against the claimed new confederate states government to fight against them.  also, the rest of the union now consists of the western states, which are far more economically prosperous than then.  ships from the west coast naval bases can now be easily deployed to the south due to the panama canal.  this would offset having lost virginia.   #  there would be no net benefit to a victory on either side.   #  have you thought of the economic toll that a war like that would take on the us or a future csu ? wars on foreign soil are expensive see iraq and afghanistan .  civil wars are more expensive and cannibalistic.  civil war would absolutely make its way to major cities and guerrilla warfare would be rampant throughout the country.  infrastructure and businesses would be destroyed.  recovery for either side would be painful and long.  there would be no net benefit to a victory on either side.   #  gdp of the south is under 0 trillion.   #  taking as an assumption that the gloves stay on, then what ? gdp of the south is under 0 trillion.  that is about 0/0rd of the us is current gdp.  so national companies have a choice what nation do they want to stay with the neo csa with 0/0rds of the market, or the rest with 0/0rds of the market ? the us dollar and by extension, the currency the csa starts with will crash anyways as a reserve currency.  that is going to hurt both nations.  now check how quickly each state is recovering from the great recession.  there is also net government expenditures.  a quick check of the list of federal expenditures by state shows that the non neo csa states would actually come out slightly ahead.  plus population and resources.  the neo csa will have less of both it is going to be a smaller pond than the remaining union, and that is going to hurt its economic competitiveness.  imo, people without jobs are not happy.  the neo csa is heading towards high unemployment.  sure, the same will happen likely to a lesser extent and with a quicker recovery to the unionist states, but at least the union can blame the neo csa for screwing everything up.  who can the neo csa blame ?
for the purpose of this cmv i am defining  win  as they would be successful in breaking away from the united states.  they would succeed to secede.  i believe this for several reasons.  first, the population of the north has very little taste for war.  if the south were to break away, extremely few people would have the stomach for a fight that would result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of citizens.  second, the south is motivated, and the north is not.  if the south were to break away, it would be because the population has a great desire for their own independence.  people in the north have no great motivation to keep the union together.  i doubt that there would even be a fight.  third, if there was a fight, the outcome would be totally different than the first time.  the south is in a much better position to defend itself than it was in the 0 is.  the large population centers of the north would be more of a disadvantage than an advantage in a modern war.  fourth, the only plausible way that the north could  attack  the south would be economically, but that could leave both countries in an economic ruin.  there is just simply too much to lose to risk starting an economic war.  so, tl;dr.  the south would likely be able to secede without a fight.  if there were to be a fight, they are much more motivated.  the north would have too much to risk to try to stop them.   #  so, tl;dr.  the south would likely be able to secede without a fight.   #  if there were to be a fight, they are much more motivated.   # if there were to be a fight, they are much more motivated.  the north would have too much to risk to try to stop them.  the problem with applying this logic to modern day is that the south would not secede.  the us does not manufacture it is own products and we no longer have a gold standard for currency.  the combination of these two things is important.  0 we cannot sustain ourselves on our own products.  we as a unit  need  to be a part of a global economy.  0 even within that global economy, all we have is our good name.  once we divide into two separate names, both halves plummet to the status of third world countries.  we are then measured in the way that we measure everyone else.  the north would not allow the south to secede and the south would not attempt it.  a division is a mutually assured destruction.   #  the courts would grant a temporary injunction that would, in all probability be made permanent due to secession is unconstitutionality.   # but it also probably would not be an advantage.  the american military is geographically diverse, and they would not simply go over to the new confederacy because they are stationed in the south.  some people might resign and attempt to enlist with the south, like last time, but i doubt that the bases would just be handed over.  even during the original civil war, the union soldiers in bases, armories, and forts often resisted confederate efforts to take them, sometimes successfully, or attempted to destroy supplies that could aid the confederate war effort.  you are probably right on this one.  upon hearing news of a referendum on secession, the federal government would attempt to obtain a court injunction stopping the measure from being placed on a ballot.  the courts would grant a temporary injunction that would, in all probability be made permanent due to secession is unconstitutionality.  URL the president would then, if necessary, enforce that decision with the national guard or military just like eisenhower did with brown v.  board of education and would arrest anyone who attempted to revolt.   #  also, the rest of the union now consists of the western states, which are far more economically prosperous than then.   #  they would have the bases, but not the funding for them.  also, the majority of the soldiers on the bases would not be loyal to the south, and would leave.  you even run the risk of, say, fort hood fortifying itself against the claimed new confederate states government to fight against them.  also, the rest of the union now consists of the western states, which are far more economically prosperous than then.  ships from the west coast naval bases can now be easily deployed to the south due to the panama canal.  this would offset having lost virginia.   #  recovery for either side would be painful and long.   #  have you thought of the economic toll that a war like that would take on the us or a future csu ? wars on foreign soil are expensive see iraq and afghanistan .  civil wars are more expensive and cannibalistic.  civil war would absolutely make its way to major cities and guerrilla warfare would be rampant throughout the country.  infrastructure and businesses would be destroyed.  recovery for either side would be painful and long.  there would be no net benefit to a victory on either side.   #  the us dollar and by extension, the currency the csa starts with will crash anyways as a reserve currency.   #  taking as an assumption that the gloves stay on, then what ? gdp of the south is under 0 trillion.  that is about 0/0rd of the us is current gdp.  so national companies have a choice what nation do they want to stay with the neo csa with 0/0rds of the market, or the rest with 0/0rds of the market ? the us dollar and by extension, the currency the csa starts with will crash anyways as a reserve currency.  that is going to hurt both nations.  now check how quickly each state is recovering from the great recession.  there is also net government expenditures.  a quick check of the list of federal expenditures by state shows that the non neo csa states would actually come out slightly ahead.  plus population and resources.  the neo csa will have less of both it is going to be a smaller pond than the remaining union, and that is going to hurt its economic competitiveness.  imo, people without jobs are not happy.  the neo csa is heading towards high unemployment.  sure, the same will happen likely to a lesser extent and with a quicker recovery to the unionist states, but at least the union can blame the neo csa for screwing everything up.  who can the neo csa blame ?
the answer seems to be hiding in probabilities so if anyone can expand on that more i am willing to give deltas.  also, if you have a problem with my reasoning, please leave an explanation with your downvote so i can understand why it is off.  i struggle to believe that most human beings are naturally supposed to only be attracted to the opposite sex and are inherently repulsed by same sex characteristics.  i think most people identify as straight out of convenience and having never needed to question what was assumed for them.  i am not denying that heterosexuality is a legitimate orientation but i have not found convincing evidence against, for example, the possibility that most humans could be predisposed to bisexuality and simply develop a preference of one or none from there.  the only arguments i have read for heterosexuality being default is the biological urge to have children, which i believe is neither universal nor exclusive to heterosexuality and the imo fallacious  most people are straight so there  must  be a biological mechanism that supports this phenomenon  path of reasoning.  i am willing to give a delta to any argument that can demonstrate why heterosexuality might be more advantageous or likely than bisexuality.   #  i am willing to give a delta to any argument that can demonstrate why heterosexuality might be more advantageous or likely than bisexuality.   #  you are claiming tons of different things in your op.   # you are claiming tons of different things in your op.  which of the following do your reject ? : 0.  heterosexuality is more advantageous than other sexual orientations.  0.  heterosexuality is more likely than other sexual orientations.  0.  most humans have a biological inclination toward heterosexuality.  these are three existentially different claims and require different evidence to support them.   #  i do not remember what research i read this from, but i am sure someone could find it if they were inclined to do so.   #  0: heterosexuality ensures that you have a preference for the opposite sex thus ensuring you  have  sex with the opposite sex thus ensuring your genes are passed on .  you might still have  some  reproductive sex as a bisexual, but you might not.  so, you are likely to be out competed evolutionarily speaking by heterosexuals.  0: following on from point 0 if your ancestors were  only  having sex with the opposite sex, they are likely to have had more reproductive success than bisexuals and, though this may seem obvious, than homosexuals .  0: following from points 0 and 0, if your ancestors were only having sex with the opposite sex, they are likely to have had more children than people with other sexual orientations.  and their children will likely have the same sexual orientation as them.  key point  i do remember reading that mothers with a  stronger than average attraction  towards men were more likely to have sons with a  stronger than average attraction  towards men, thus leading to homosexuality.  i do not remember what research i read this from, but i am sure someone could find it if they were inclined to do so.  this might explain how homosexuality/bisexuality in men and with a little extrapolation, in women comes to be.   #  it is conceivable that a bisexual person could go their whole life believing that they are straight because their attraction to the opposite sex has been positively reinforced and their attraction to the same sex receiving negative or neutral reinforcement.   #  mostly right.  this could make for an interesting discussion in a different sub.  it is conceivable that a bisexual person could go their whole life believing that they are straight because their attraction to the opposite sex has been positively reinforced and their attraction to the same sex receiving negative or neutral reinforcement.  they pay more attention to the opposite sex as a result and the only time they would ever question that orientation would be upon meeting someone attractive of the same sex.  on one hand, you could say that they were straight and met someone who  turned  them bi.  on the other hand you could say they were bi all along and were just under the wrong impression that they were straight.  either way, it is impossible to know without some sort way to objectively measure but it is a thought experiment so whatever.  the thought experiment relates to the disjunction fallacy URL that states that it is unreasonable to assume that the more restricted option of an either/or situation is more likely to be true than the same option and a superset including that option.  in the case of sexual orientation, you could argue that the only way to be heterosexual or homosexual would require absolute certainty that you could not possibly find someone of the appropriate sex unattractive.  i have not finished deconstructing it on my own though so i did not want to post a cmv with a position that i did not necessarily agree with.   #  what would you accept as proof for this ?  # what would you accept as proof for this ? i mean, i ca not  prove  in a total philosophical sense that gravity is a law of nature.  it is possible that the phenomenon we observe as gravity actually works via a mechanism of invisible leprechauns pulling stuff down, but it seems pretty damn unlikely that this is the case.  the idea that heterosexuality is not the default seems no less silly than the invisible leprechaun theory of gravity based on everything we know about the world.  while it is possible that heterosexuality is not the default, i see no reason to believe that it is not in the absence of evidence to the contrary.  occham is razor is right more often than not, and heterosexuality being the default seems more simple and reasonable than any other theory of sexuality.   #  clearly this is not enough to convince you however, so i have to ask again.   # the overwhelming majority of individuals in the overwhelming majority of both past and current societies/cultures identify as heterosexual.  there is no culture i am aware of in which bisexuality, homosexuality, or any other sexual pattern of behaviour was dominant and those who were exclusively heterosexual were in the minority.  in light of this data, i am inclined to believe that default heterosexuality is significantly more probable than any possible alternative.  clearly this is not enough to convince you however, so i have to ask again.  what would you accept as proof for the proposition that heterosexuality is the default human sexuality ?
linux is a hard to learn os and seems daunting for the average windows user.  many things on windows cannot be used on linux distros i have tried were mint and ubuntu .  0.  gaming.  games such as arma 0 or any other directx 0 games cannot be played on linux at all.  in fact, steam refuses to download them.  even some directx 0 games cannot be played using wine.  personal issues were splinter cell, battlefield any of them , and swbf0 to name a few.  0.  ease of use.  whenever i try to look up how to do something on linux it always involves the terminal and confusing commands.  with windows, everything has a easy to use interface.  compared to windows, linux is not as polished and requires a lot of setup to easily use.  many technologically challenged people have no idea how to use the terminal, especially without google is help.  0.  drivers.  i applaud linux for its ability to easily recognize system drivers chipset, usb stuff, etc but when it comes to things such as joysticks and gaming controllers, even nvidia drivers and other special drivers ps0 eye webcam , the terminal has to be used with varying degrees of success.  0.  applications.  almost every program is windows only and has no alternative in linux.  some examples are anything gpu/gaming related, msi afterburner, geforce experience, etc.  fan control, temp monitors, and any program that has an exe at the end.  in short, the excessive use of the terminal combined with the lack of common programs/drivers make linux unusable for both the everyday consumer and the gamer.  i am completely willing to change my view, as i have tried linux many times with the same common issues appearing.  i just see no benefit linux has over windows, besides being free.   #  almost every program is windows only and has no alternative in linux.   #  to the contrary, almost  everything  from windows has a linux alternative.   #  i object to this comment.  to the contrary, almost  everything  from windows has a linux alternative.  fan control URL and temp monitors URL both exist.  microsoft office ? use libreoffice.  photoshop ? use gimp.  chrome and firefox both run in linux and handle all browser related tasks.  need a vm ? linux has it.  i am willing to bet that i could find a good linux alternative for almost any application on windows, including most video games through wine.  these are exceptions to what i said before.  overclocking is not well developed on linux and nvidia has not yet released a driver manager/setting tweaker for linux.  linux does not natively use the . exe file extension, nor does it natively run code complied for windows, but neither does osx.  so what ? this does not say anything about linux is ability to  do things.  also, it is often possible to run . exe files through linux.  steamboxes actually run on linux.  nvidia is also trying to get mainstream gaming onto android URL which is a distribution of linux.  the percentage of games that wo not run on linux is falling rapidly.   #  the ui is awful, the ux is awful, and it is not even close to feature parity.   #  this is a terrible argument, for so many reasons.  the ui is awful, the ux is awful, and it is not even close to feature parity.  i can find you a bunch of links on the internet of artists, photographers, and designers that ratify my point, but that would be silly, everyone can do this about almost any opinion.  the point is, on paper, and in practice its just not an alternative.  it is what you use if you cant afford or run ps, or cant stand the ethics of paid software.  if those things were not factors then i cant see a single case for using gimp.   #  with directx 0 coming out later this quarter, i am pretty sure that there will be many new games utilizing its advantages that linux sadly cannot use.   # with directx 0 coming out later this quarter, i am pretty sure that there will be many new games utilizing its advantages that linux sadly cannot use.  directx 0 as of now will be windows only.  steamboxes will make up a very small percentage of gaming computers/ consoles ? and valve is not the only game developer.  many do not care about linux ubisoft, ea for your temp monitor application link, it is only for arch, debian, freebsd, and gentoo.  sorry, i did not realize that it can run on most linux versions, as pointed out by /u/brokebackjesus  #  and maybe that is a shitty excuse, because it is pretty much saying,  it is so hard to use, they do not know how to break it, anyway.    #  ca not disagree with your view, but i will offer an anecdote and use case that has not been brought up, yet.  they are pretty much human emps and destroy anything digital.  you would think that getting them on linux is a dumb idea, but it turned out to be a homerun.  0.  this has been brought up, but linux breathed new life into an old computer running windows xp.  they were not going to buy a new computer and they sure as hell were not going to buy windows 0.  now with linux, they have snappier computer with a free os that is supported with security updates.  0.  on top of security updates and inherent web security of linux, the fact that a lot of stuff needs to be done via command line means that my parents will  never  do said stuff.  absolutely zero viruses, no weird malware from my parents clicking  you have malware  banners, and finally, no additional bloatware browser toolbars taking up half of the screen.  i can now have normal conversations with my parents instead of them asking for computer help because they broke something.  0.  if they do need help, ssh ing to their box from across the country is a bajillion times easier for me.  0.  all they use, anyway, is chrome, a file manager, and maybe a pdf reader.  next time i go home, i will try setting them up with chromeos.  but seriously, it has everything they need.  so, to answer your question:   what can linux offer that windows cannot ? if you do not fuck with the command line, it is unbreakable.  and maybe that is a shitty excuse, because it is pretty much saying,  it is so hard to use, they do not know how to break it, anyway.   but, seriously, that is why my parents need linux.  anyway, i really think that the average consumer can use a linux computer just fine.  for  ease of use , if you are doing basic, average stuff, it is easy as shit to use ask my folks .  it is a little higher up the computer skills spectrum when it becomes hit or miss; changing settings, customizing stuff, etc.  but are you really an  average consumer,  then ? my folks do not give a shit about that stuff.  internet button ? good to go.   #  installing most programs is a breeze, you type apt get install  program name.   #  i use linux and windows for different things.  linux  can  do just about anything but it should not do most things.  right now, linux is shitty for gaming.  sure you can run some games through wine but it is a pain in the ass, takes tons of configuring and half the time does not work for no fucking reason.  but as a work space i prefer linux.  the terminal is much faster than a gui file system.  as soon as you are familiar with your directories, navigating them is super easy and quick.  i can back up my files using git which is natively installed and can be used on a directory using the words  git init.   installing most programs is a breeze, you type apt get install  program name.  i do a lot of programming and i can quickly manage multiple files all at once, easily rotate between each and run them using simple commands.  wine lets a  nix computer do about anything windows can, but so does dual booting so you do not need to choose.
linux is a hard to learn os and seems daunting for the average windows user.  many things on windows cannot be used on linux distros i have tried were mint and ubuntu .  0.  gaming.  games such as arma 0 or any other directx 0 games cannot be played on linux at all.  in fact, steam refuses to download them.  even some directx 0 games cannot be played using wine.  personal issues were splinter cell, battlefield any of them , and swbf0 to name a few.  0.  ease of use.  whenever i try to look up how to do something on linux it always involves the terminal and confusing commands.  with windows, everything has a easy to use interface.  compared to windows, linux is not as polished and requires a lot of setup to easily use.  many technologically challenged people have no idea how to use the terminal, especially without google is help.  0.  drivers.  i applaud linux for its ability to easily recognize system drivers chipset, usb stuff, etc but when it comes to things such as joysticks and gaming controllers, even nvidia drivers and other special drivers ps0 eye webcam , the terminal has to be used with varying degrees of success.  0.  applications.  almost every program is windows only and has no alternative in linux.  some examples are anything gpu/gaming related, msi afterburner, geforce experience, etc.  fan control, temp monitors, and any program that has an exe at the end.  in short, the excessive use of the terminal combined with the lack of common programs/drivers make linux unusable for both the everyday consumer and the gamer.  i am completely willing to change my view, as i have tried linux many times with the same common issues appearing.  i just see no benefit linux has over windows, besides being free.   #  any program that has an exe at the end.   #  linux does not natively use the . exe file extension, nor does it natively run code complied for windows, but neither does osx.   #  i object to this comment.  to the contrary, almost  everything  from windows has a linux alternative.  fan control URL and temp monitors URL both exist.  microsoft office ? use libreoffice.  photoshop ? use gimp.  chrome and firefox both run in linux and handle all browser related tasks.  need a vm ? linux has it.  i am willing to bet that i could find a good linux alternative for almost any application on windows, including most video games through wine.  these are exceptions to what i said before.  overclocking is not well developed on linux and nvidia has not yet released a driver manager/setting tweaker for linux.  linux does not natively use the . exe file extension, nor does it natively run code complied for windows, but neither does osx.  so what ? this does not say anything about linux is ability to  do things.  also, it is often possible to run . exe files through linux.  steamboxes actually run on linux.  nvidia is also trying to get mainstream gaming onto android URL which is a distribution of linux.  the percentage of games that wo not run on linux is falling rapidly.   #  this is a terrible argument, for so many reasons.   #  this is a terrible argument, for so many reasons.  the ui is awful, the ux is awful, and it is not even close to feature parity.  i can find you a bunch of links on the internet of artists, photographers, and designers that ratify my point, but that would be silly, everyone can do this about almost any opinion.  the point is, on paper, and in practice its just not an alternative.  it is what you use if you cant afford or run ps, or cant stand the ethics of paid software.  if those things were not factors then i cant see a single case for using gimp.   #  sorry, i did not realize that it can run on most linux versions, as pointed out by /u/brokebackjesus  # with directx 0 coming out later this quarter, i am pretty sure that there will be many new games utilizing its advantages that linux sadly cannot use.  directx 0 as of now will be windows only.  steamboxes will make up a very small percentage of gaming computers/ consoles ? and valve is not the only game developer.  many do not care about linux ubisoft, ea for your temp monitor application link, it is only for arch, debian, freebsd, and gentoo.  sorry, i did not realize that it can run on most linux versions, as pointed out by /u/brokebackjesus  #  my folks do not give a shit about that stuff.   #  ca not disagree with your view, but i will offer an anecdote and use case that has not been brought up, yet.  they are pretty much human emps and destroy anything digital.  you would think that getting them on linux is a dumb idea, but it turned out to be a homerun.  0.  this has been brought up, but linux breathed new life into an old computer running windows xp.  they were not going to buy a new computer and they sure as hell were not going to buy windows 0.  now with linux, they have snappier computer with a free os that is supported with security updates.  0.  on top of security updates and inherent web security of linux, the fact that a lot of stuff needs to be done via command line means that my parents will  never  do said stuff.  absolutely zero viruses, no weird malware from my parents clicking  you have malware  banners, and finally, no additional bloatware browser toolbars taking up half of the screen.  i can now have normal conversations with my parents instead of them asking for computer help because they broke something.  0.  if they do need help, ssh ing to their box from across the country is a bajillion times easier for me.  0.  all they use, anyway, is chrome, a file manager, and maybe a pdf reader.  next time i go home, i will try setting them up with chromeos.  but seriously, it has everything they need.  so, to answer your question:   what can linux offer that windows cannot ? if you do not fuck with the command line, it is unbreakable.  and maybe that is a shitty excuse, because it is pretty much saying,  it is so hard to use, they do not know how to break it, anyway.   but, seriously, that is why my parents need linux.  anyway, i really think that the average consumer can use a linux computer just fine.  for  ease of use , if you are doing basic, average stuff, it is easy as shit to use ask my folks .  it is a little higher up the computer skills spectrum when it becomes hit or miss; changing settings, customizing stuff, etc.  but are you really an  average consumer,  then ? my folks do not give a shit about that stuff.  internet button ? good to go.   #  linux  can  do just about anything but it should not do most things.   #  i use linux and windows for different things.  linux  can  do just about anything but it should not do most things.  right now, linux is shitty for gaming.  sure you can run some games through wine but it is a pain in the ass, takes tons of configuring and half the time does not work for no fucking reason.  but as a work space i prefer linux.  the terminal is much faster than a gui file system.  as soon as you are familiar with your directories, navigating them is super easy and quick.  i can back up my files using git which is natively installed and can be used on a directory using the words  git init.   installing most programs is a breeze, you type apt get install  program name.  i do a lot of programming and i can quickly manage multiple files all at once, easily rotate between each and run them using simple commands.  wine lets a  nix computer do about anything windows can, but so does dual booting so you do not need to choose.
update ! see edit 0 below !   i do not know much about politics.  i have a pretty poor understanding of real world economics.  i do not follow world events or watch the news.  i generally do not bother to keep track of what is going on in the world unless it impacts me directly, or maybe i think there is something meaningful i can do to change it to my own benefit which has never actually come up .  when it comes to who should be elected in any local, state or federal capacity, or what laws should or should not be passed, i am simply not a qualified to provide input on any level.  so why am i allowed to vote ? changing my view may require addressing the following positions of mine:   if one wishes to cast any kind of vote related to government or legislation, one should be required to complete some sort of test to confirm that they understand the subject on which they are voting.  this could include acknowledgment of a candidate is qualifications and positions, or the  actual content  of a particular bill.  this has the added benefit of rendering wild claims and accusations made by the media, random bloggers, etc.  less impactful on the views of the general public.   note: regarding this point, i do not want to discuss the specific content of such tests.  as a rule, i believe it can be known what is true and what is not, and so let is assume that the pre vote tests wo not contain personal opinions or interpretations of the subject.     if voting is limited to only citizens deemed  qualified  by some form of the process described in the previous bullet point, the general outcome is more likely to be better e. g.  the people are more likely to choose a candidate they will still approve of a year later, and there will be less confusion regarding what is contained in proposed bills, etc.  .    the  right to vote  should be a privilege that i am not entitled to if i am not even going to take the time to research the subject.  change my view by convincing me that, as a 0 year old citizen of the united states of america, i deserve to be able to vote on important matters and issues without doing any research or showing that i understand what i am voting for/against.  my view is that, assuming we  could  somehow successfully identify qualified individuals for a given subject and restrict the polls to only these people, it would be advantageous to do so at the expense of the constitutional ? right to uninformed voting.  in general, i feel that it is justifiable to say that no american citizen should be allowed to cast a vote regarding a subject about which he/she does not have a clear and accurate understanding.   #  as a rule, i believe it can be known what is true and what is not, and so let is assume that the pre vote tests wo not contain personal opinions or interpretations of the subject.   #  this is a huge unproven and unrealistic generalization.   #  the problem with the test is; 0.  you can have groups that go out and train people for the test so more of their like minded people vote for it.  so they tell people the answer on the test is  this bills will enable human slavery  but they tell them that its will actually save puppies so pass the test and vote for the bill.  0.  people might be influenced to fail because of commercials/websites/newspaper ads/etc that actively deceive them and are targeted towards voters who would tend to vote one way.  this is a huge unproven and unrealistic generalization.  this is politics.  the past and current history, even on reddit, shows that this is not true.   #  you are looking for a more  effective  government, but by doing so, you are ca not have a  democratic  one.   #  the point of a democracy is not to have the most effective government.  the point of a democracy is to represent and reflect the will of the people, not just the ones that are educated.  thus, in order to get the best representation of the will of the people,  every  citizen must be given the opportunity to vote, no matter how uninformed they are.  you are looking for a more  effective  government, but by doing so, you are ca not have a  democratic  one.  like it or not, an idiot is opinion counts just as much as yours.   #  the problem is that there are too many variables to consider: what is education ?  #  i disagree with /u/magezero, but i feel that i ca not handle going down that rabbit hole yet, so here is a different argument: who draws the line and where is it ? as with all laws, a line has to be drawn and it should say  everyone above can vote and everyone below ca not.   the problem is that there are too many variables to consider: what is education ? are you only talking about some level of public education ? are you talking about taking a test proving you have some level of knowledge of politics ? who makes that test ? there are way too many questions to even begin a debate.  here is what i mean: URL  #  most economists who study labor mobility come up with a 0 0x gdp boost from global low transaction cost migration e. g.   #  you are making the strong assumption that uninformed voters are able to accurately analyze their own preferences and vote in line with them.  if we think of  representation  as being 0 if 0 of people desire society x and live in society x, and 0 if 0 of people desire society x and live in society x i. e.  the opposite then one immediately realizes a problem: basically anytime someone thinks the effect of policy x is different from the actual effects, they will reduce their own representation by voting in policies that create a society different from what they actually voted for i. e.  they vote for people to enact policy x under the guide of it creating society y but it instead creates society z.  for instance, it is well known that individuals have systemic biases against certain market practices, such as foreign trade in goods and labor, which is to say immigration .  most economists who study labor mobility come up with a 0 0x gdp boost from global low transaction cost migration e. g.  you show up with a passport, get stamped/i. d would, can reside as long as you like which essentially makes everyone on earth twice as rich.  there is also good evidence to support that immigration does not cause increases in unemployment, meaning the chances of being displaced for any length of time than what one would expect with no immigration is unchanged in the event of a job loss.  yet individuals continue to vote against such migration policies because they perceive the effects to be the exact opposite of what the literature supports.  so yeah, allowing people who have no real idea of the effects of the policies being proposed can indeed reduce their own representation.  this paper is behind a paywall, but if you are really interested it is worth reading: URL  #  yeah, nobody is stupid enough to give toddlers a vote.   #  yeah, nobody is stupid enough to give toddlers a vote.  you may also have noticed that i am not including domesticated animals who were naturally born in a country, either.  but to your point, why not just make it white, male landowners over the age of 0 like the founding fathers intended ? while we are at it, we could also make blacks 0/0ths of a person ? ostensibly, that was a democracy, too.  if you would like to use 0th 0th century values then by all means, continue to do so.  i am going to stick with recent history.
update ! see edit 0 below !   i do not know much about politics.  i have a pretty poor understanding of real world economics.  i do not follow world events or watch the news.  i generally do not bother to keep track of what is going on in the world unless it impacts me directly, or maybe i think there is something meaningful i can do to change it to my own benefit which has never actually come up .  when it comes to who should be elected in any local, state or federal capacity, or what laws should or should not be passed, i am simply not a qualified to provide input on any level.  so why am i allowed to vote ? changing my view may require addressing the following positions of mine:   if one wishes to cast any kind of vote related to government or legislation, one should be required to complete some sort of test to confirm that they understand the subject on which they are voting.  this could include acknowledgment of a candidate is qualifications and positions, or the  actual content  of a particular bill.  this has the added benefit of rendering wild claims and accusations made by the media, random bloggers, etc.  less impactful on the views of the general public.   note: regarding this point, i do not want to discuss the specific content of such tests.  as a rule, i believe it can be known what is true and what is not, and so let is assume that the pre vote tests wo not contain personal opinions or interpretations of the subject.     if voting is limited to only citizens deemed  qualified  by some form of the process described in the previous bullet point, the general outcome is more likely to be better e. g.  the people are more likely to choose a candidate they will still approve of a year later, and there will be less confusion regarding what is contained in proposed bills, etc.  .    the  right to vote  should be a privilege that i am not entitled to if i am not even going to take the time to research the subject.  change my view by convincing me that, as a 0 year old citizen of the united states of america, i deserve to be able to vote on important matters and issues without doing any research or showing that i understand what i am voting for/against.  my view is that, assuming we  could  somehow successfully identify qualified individuals for a given subject and restrict the polls to only these people, it would be advantageous to do so at the expense of the constitutional ? right to uninformed voting.  in general, i feel that it is justifiable to say that no american citizen should be allowed to cast a vote regarding a subject about which he/she does not have a clear and accurate understanding.   #  note: regarding this point, i do not want to discuss the specific content of such tests.   #  as a rule, i believe it can be known what is true and what is not, and so let is assume that the pre vote tests wo not contain personal opinions or interpretations of the subject.   # as a rule, i believe it can be known what is true and what is not, and so let is assume that the pre vote tests wo not contain personal opinions or interpretations of the subject.  this is a problem, because this right here is the biggest issue with your suggestion.  you suggest that some things are purely  factual,  but nothing in political science is ever just  factual.   think about it this way: there are many aspects to obamacare that poll really well the individual mandate always polls poorly.  so democrats can have a  factual  test where they ask questions about the  good  parts of obamacare, whereas republicans will test knowledge about the  bad  parts of obamacare.  it is very easy to see where this kind of system goes: one side or another will use these tests to advertise themselves, their popular accomplishments, popular positions, and upcoming bills while also focusing on the other side is issues that poll poorly.  political posturing is all about using polling data to drag people over to your side.  a kind of exam like this will be the perfect opportunity to do so, and it will be used that way.   #  thus, in order to get the best representation of the will of the people,  every  citizen must be given the opportunity to vote, no matter how uninformed they are.   #  the point of a democracy is not to have the most effective government.  the point of a democracy is to represent and reflect the will of the people, not just the ones that are educated.  thus, in order to get the best representation of the will of the people,  every  citizen must be given the opportunity to vote, no matter how uninformed they are.  you are looking for a more  effective  government, but by doing so, you are ca not have a  democratic  one.  like it or not, an idiot is opinion counts just as much as yours.   #  there are way too many questions to even begin a debate.   #  i disagree with /u/magezero, but i feel that i ca not handle going down that rabbit hole yet, so here is a different argument: who draws the line and where is it ? as with all laws, a line has to be drawn and it should say  everyone above can vote and everyone below ca not.   the problem is that there are too many variables to consider: what is education ? are you only talking about some level of public education ? are you talking about taking a test proving you have some level of knowledge of politics ? who makes that test ? there are way too many questions to even begin a debate.  here is what i mean: URL  #  so yeah, allowing people who have no real idea of the effects of the policies being proposed can indeed reduce their own representation.   #  you are making the strong assumption that uninformed voters are able to accurately analyze their own preferences and vote in line with them.  if we think of  representation  as being 0 if 0 of people desire society x and live in society x, and 0 if 0 of people desire society x and live in society x i. e.  the opposite then one immediately realizes a problem: basically anytime someone thinks the effect of policy x is different from the actual effects, they will reduce their own representation by voting in policies that create a society different from what they actually voted for i. e.  they vote for people to enact policy x under the guide of it creating society y but it instead creates society z.  for instance, it is well known that individuals have systemic biases against certain market practices, such as foreign trade in goods and labor, which is to say immigration .  most economists who study labor mobility come up with a 0 0x gdp boost from global low transaction cost migration e. g.  you show up with a passport, get stamped/i. d would, can reside as long as you like which essentially makes everyone on earth twice as rich.  there is also good evidence to support that immigration does not cause increases in unemployment, meaning the chances of being displaced for any length of time than what one would expect with no immigration is unchanged in the event of a job loss.  yet individuals continue to vote against such migration policies because they perceive the effects to be the exact opposite of what the literature supports.  so yeah, allowing people who have no real idea of the effects of the policies being proposed can indeed reduce their own representation.  this paper is behind a paywall, but if you are really interested it is worth reading: URL  #  if you would like to use 0th 0th century values then by all means, continue to do so.   #  yeah, nobody is stupid enough to give toddlers a vote.  you may also have noticed that i am not including domesticated animals who were naturally born in a country, either.  but to your point, why not just make it white, male landowners over the age of 0 like the founding fathers intended ? while we are at it, we could also make blacks 0/0ths of a person ? ostensibly, that was a democracy, too.  if you would like to use 0th 0th century values then by all means, continue to do so.  i am going to stick with recent history.
hi.  whenever i read about people trying to increase the number of women in science or engineering increase the number of women in politics increase the number of women in positions of power increase the number of women that are firefighters or police i ca not help feeling that it is a rather useless cause.  i have no problem at all with there being less women than men in any place.  what i would and do have a problem with is women having it more difficult than men to enter certain professions.  that is the real problem we should, as a society, try to solve.  the current approach is  forcing  the proportion of women to increase, by means of: gender specific student grants, positions reserved for women, lower physical requirements, etc.  as i see it this kind of solutions are problematic in two ways: they involve so called  positive discrimination , which leads to cases where a candidate gets ahead of a fitter one only because the former is a woman.  this is absurd and can increase animosity in the male coworkers.  admittedly, that would be wrong on their part, but it still can create an hostile work environment.  they do not solve the real issue, which is the discrimination that would have stopped the women from getting the job.  they may be able to overcome it thanks to external help, but even if we have solved the symptoms the problem is still there.  the only benefits i see is that  artificially  increasing the number of women in certain places may make the presence of women in said place appear less  unusual  to society, thereby decreasing the discrimination, but i still think they do more harm than good.  reddit, change my view ! pd: english is not my first language, so i apologize for any awkwardly phrased sentence i may have written, and welcome any correction.  artificially increasing the number of women in certain fields makes said fields much less  threatening  to other women.  makes male coworkers appreciate the capabilities of women, decreasing further discrimination.  improves the selection process by eliminating male favoring biases.  whenever a man less prepared than a woman would have got the position by conscious or unconscious biases a well prepared woman will get it.  i remain unconvinced that physical tests should have easier versions for women.  most people seemed to agree with me on this, though.  i have realized, however, that jobs that at first seem to be mainly physical police, firefighters, .  would also benefit from having more women.  some of my favourite answers, where you can find studies supporting all of this, are: /u/yxoque: URL /u/waldrop0: URL /u/clairebones: URL /u/yes thats right: URL  #  they involve so called  positive discrimination , which leads to cases where a candidate gets ahead of a fitter one only because the former is a woman.   #  people often say this when talking about this, but i do not think this is completely true.   # i do not think it is.  every field that is dominantly one gender over another is going to miss out on talented people with novel insights.  we should not miss out on a qualified nurse because some bloke was told it was not a manly profession.  neither should we miss out on a qualified scientists because some girl was told science was for boys.  unless you have a good argument as for why certain genders are almost universally better at certain professions any sort of gender imbalance is going to cause society missing out on qualified people in the right place.  and i think the police force is a special case, in this regard.  i have seen firsthand how some people react to both male and female police officers and having a good gender balance is going to help civilians a lot.  a lot of people are more comfortable discussing certain things with people from their own gender.  children will gravitate towards female police officers and yes, this is also due to harmful gender roles in society, but we need a police that functions in the society we live in, not in the society we would like to live in .  people often say this when talking about this, but i do not think this is completely true.  we know from several studies that when applying for, well, anything, people are discriminated against based on their gender, skin color, sexuality, etc.  even if the resumes are completely identical, this still happens.  so if a woman wants to enter a male dominated field, there is a good chance she is going to have to be  more  qualified than a man.  positive discrimination is intended to get in this case women accepted when they are  merely  equally qualified.  they may be able to overcome it thanks to external help, but even if we have solved the symptoms the problem is still there.  and as soon as we have good, viable way to stop the discrimination from happening at all, we should implement that.  unfortunately, we do not have one and we will have to make do with measures we can actually implement.   #  sexually abused women, abused women, teens with negative experiences with older men of authority, mentally ill frail men with a fear of cops, mentally ill women, cop shy punks who had been seriously assaulted, prostitutes who had been beat up.   #  your image of what a police officer does is not my experience of what police actually do.  i worked in a very poor neighbourhood, and every second call that had to be made to the police was  female officer preferred .  sexually abused women, abused women, teens with negative experiences with older men of authority, mentally ill frail men with a fear of cops, mentally ill women, cop shy punks who had been seriously assaulted, prostitutes who had been beat up.  my city hired a lot of women into the force in the last ten years, and it really helped.  they work alongside male officers.  police calm situations, do first aid, deescalate, arrest and search drug users, put drunks in the drunk tank, take the mentally ill in for assessment. , collect statements and evidence, and liaise with hospitals and social services to get people taken care of.  a great deal good police work involves no force greater than their voice.   #  a lot of people are more comfortable discussing certain things with people from their own gender.   # every field that is dominantly one gender over another is going to miss out on talented people with novel insights.  we should not miss out on a qualified nurse because some bloke was told it was not a manly profession.  neither should we miss out on a qualified scientists because some girl was told science was for boys.  and wo not we, by means of hiring a woman instead of a man, loose lose as many talented people as we win ? i have seen firsthand how some people react to both male and female police officers and having a good gender balance is going to help civilians a lot.  a lot of people are more comfortable discussing certain things with people from their own gender.  children will gravitate towards female police officers and yes, this is also due to harmful gender roles in society, but we need a police that functions in the society we live in, not in the society we would like to live in .  here you are, sir:  .  that is a very solid point.  i was very adamant on the police force case, but now i see there is some logic behind making sure there are female cops, as there surely is with female firefighters.  i still feel although less strongly than before that the method is misguided: it feels absurd that a woman would have an advantage against and equally physically fit man.  unfortunately, we do not have one and we will have to make do with measures we can actually implement.  but doing this we are  masking  the discrimination.  if we ever achieve equal gender representation, how will we know whether there is still discrimination against women or we are  unfairly  heling women ? i know this is very simplistic: i do not know how to state it better  #  therefore, these  positive discrimination  programs set the scales right, not tip them out of balance or cause us to miss out on any greater talent.   # no.  the idea is that if you put 0 equally talented women and 0 equally talented men in a room for 0 positions, the men are more likely to be hired into stem fields.  studies show URL that equally competent resumes and sometimes, identical resumes are perceived as showing less competence and ability if the name is female.  given this reality, a more qualified female will be looked at as equal or lesser to a truthfully lesser qualified male.  therefore, these  positive discrimination  programs set the scales right, not tip them out of balance or cause us to miss out on any greater talent.  we will be hiring the superior candidate and saying no to the inferior candidate, rather than taking the inferior candidate based on their gender.  we are not, we are actually solving it.  over time, as more women are allowed into the stem field, they will make achievements and rise to positions of power.  their male colleagues will grow to respect them as equals and their unconscious biases will be challenged and die out.  diversity is one of the most important tools against prejudice.   #  but they hoped it would prevent us from simply assuming women are always favored.   #  true, and the study is authors do not claim it refutes the general trend.  but they hoped it would prevent us from simply assuming women are always favored.  and i am sure it does have to do with the effort to include more women, but that could easily mean we end up replacing one bias with another if we are not careful.  it is like with equal pay.  it turns out if you only look at college educated women who have  never  been married, then they either make the same wage as men or even outearn them in many cases.  that makes the wage gap seem much more like an experience gap that ca not be completely accounted for just by looking to see if the resumes have  similar qualifications .  the same has even been found to be true of black people.  college educated and married black couples actually outearn comparable white couples on average.
hi.  whenever i read about people trying to increase the number of women in science or engineering increase the number of women in politics increase the number of women in positions of power increase the number of women that are firefighters or police i ca not help feeling that it is a rather useless cause.  i have no problem at all with there being less women than men in any place.  what i would and do have a problem with is women having it more difficult than men to enter certain professions.  that is the real problem we should, as a society, try to solve.  the current approach is  forcing  the proportion of women to increase, by means of: gender specific student grants, positions reserved for women, lower physical requirements, etc.  as i see it this kind of solutions are problematic in two ways: they involve so called  positive discrimination , which leads to cases where a candidate gets ahead of a fitter one only because the former is a woman.  this is absurd and can increase animosity in the male coworkers.  admittedly, that would be wrong on their part, but it still can create an hostile work environment.  they do not solve the real issue, which is the discrimination that would have stopped the women from getting the job.  they may be able to overcome it thanks to external help, but even if we have solved the symptoms the problem is still there.  the only benefits i see is that  artificially  increasing the number of women in certain places may make the presence of women in said place appear less  unusual  to society, thereby decreasing the discrimination, but i still think they do more harm than good.  reddit, change my view ! pd: english is not my first language, so i apologize for any awkwardly phrased sentence i may have written, and welcome any correction.  artificially increasing the number of women in certain fields makes said fields much less  threatening  to other women.  makes male coworkers appreciate the capabilities of women, decreasing further discrimination.  improves the selection process by eliminating male favoring biases.  whenever a man less prepared than a woman would have got the position by conscious or unconscious biases a well prepared woman will get it.  i remain unconvinced that physical tests should have easier versions for women.  most people seemed to agree with me on this, though.  i have realized, however, that jobs that at first seem to be mainly physical police, firefighters, .  would also benefit from having more women.  some of my favourite answers, where you can find studies supporting all of this, are: /u/yxoque: URL /u/waldrop0: URL /u/clairebones: URL /u/yes thats right: URL  #  they do not solve the real issue, which is the discrimination that would have stopped the women from getting the job.   #  they may be able to overcome it thanks to external help, but even if we have solved the symptoms the problem is still there.   # i do not think it is.  every field that is dominantly one gender over another is going to miss out on talented people with novel insights.  we should not miss out on a qualified nurse because some bloke was told it was not a manly profession.  neither should we miss out on a qualified scientists because some girl was told science was for boys.  unless you have a good argument as for why certain genders are almost universally better at certain professions any sort of gender imbalance is going to cause society missing out on qualified people in the right place.  and i think the police force is a special case, in this regard.  i have seen firsthand how some people react to both male and female police officers and having a good gender balance is going to help civilians a lot.  a lot of people are more comfortable discussing certain things with people from their own gender.  children will gravitate towards female police officers and yes, this is also due to harmful gender roles in society, but we need a police that functions in the society we live in, not in the society we would like to live in .  people often say this when talking about this, but i do not think this is completely true.  we know from several studies that when applying for, well, anything, people are discriminated against based on their gender, skin color, sexuality, etc.  even if the resumes are completely identical, this still happens.  so if a woman wants to enter a male dominated field, there is a good chance she is going to have to be  more  qualified than a man.  positive discrimination is intended to get in this case women accepted when they are  merely  equally qualified.  they may be able to overcome it thanks to external help, but even if we have solved the symptoms the problem is still there.  and as soon as we have good, viable way to stop the discrimination from happening at all, we should implement that.  unfortunately, we do not have one and we will have to make do with measures we can actually implement.   #  a great deal good police work involves no force greater than their voice.   #  your image of what a police officer does is not my experience of what police actually do.  i worked in a very poor neighbourhood, and every second call that had to be made to the police was  female officer preferred .  sexually abused women, abused women, teens with negative experiences with older men of authority, mentally ill frail men with a fear of cops, mentally ill women, cop shy punks who had been seriously assaulted, prostitutes who had been beat up.  my city hired a lot of women into the force in the last ten years, and it really helped.  they work alongside male officers.  police calm situations, do first aid, deescalate, arrest and search drug users, put drunks in the drunk tank, take the mentally ill in for assessment. , collect statements and evidence, and liaise with hospitals and social services to get people taken care of.  a great deal good police work involves no force greater than their voice.   #  unfortunately, we do not have one and we will have to make do with measures we can actually implement.   # every field that is dominantly one gender over another is going to miss out on talented people with novel insights.  we should not miss out on a qualified nurse because some bloke was told it was not a manly profession.  neither should we miss out on a qualified scientists because some girl was told science was for boys.  and wo not we, by means of hiring a woman instead of a man, loose lose as many talented people as we win ? i have seen firsthand how some people react to both male and female police officers and having a good gender balance is going to help civilians a lot.  a lot of people are more comfortable discussing certain things with people from their own gender.  children will gravitate towards female police officers and yes, this is also due to harmful gender roles in society, but we need a police that functions in the society we live in, not in the society we would like to live in .  here you are, sir:  .  that is a very solid point.  i was very adamant on the police force case, but now i see there is some logic behind making sure there are female cops, as there surely is with female firefighters.  i still feel although less strongly than before that the method is misguided: it feels absurd that a woman would have an advantage against and equally physically fit man.  unfortunately, we do not have one and we will have to make do with measures we can actually implement.  but doing this we are  masking  the discrimination.  if we ever achieve equal gender representation, how will we know whether there is still discrimination against women or we are  unfairly  heling women ? i know this is very simplistic: i do not know how to state it better  #  the idea is that if you put 0 equally talented women and 0 equally talented men in a room for 0 positions, the men are more likely to be hired into stem fields.   # no.  the idea is that if you put 0 equally talented women and 0 equally talented men in a room for 0 positions, the men are more likely to be hired into stem fields.  studies show URL that equally competent resumes and sometimes, identical resumes are perceived as showing less competence and ability if the name is female.  given this reality, a more qualified female will be looked at as equal or lesser to a truthfully lesser qualified male.  therefore, these  positive discrimination  programs set the scales right, not tip them out of balance or cause us to miss out on any greater talent.  we will be hiring the superior candidate and saying no to the inferior candidate, rather than taking the inferior candidate based on their gender.  we are not, we are actually solving it.  over time, as more women are allowed into the stem field, they will make achievements and rise to positions of power.  their male colleagues will grow to respect them as equals and their unconscious biases will be challenged and die out.  diversity is one of the most important tools against prejudice.   #  it turns out if you only look at college educated women who have  never  been married, then they either make the same wage as men or even outearn them in many cases.   #  true, and the study is authors do not claim it refutes the general trend.  but they hoped it would prevent us from simply assuming women are always favored.  and i am sure it does have to do with the effort to include more women, but that could easily mean we end up replacing one bias with another if we are not careful.  it is like with equal pay.  it turns out if you only look at college educated women who have  never  been married, then they either make the same wage as men or even outearn them in many cases.  that makes the wage gap seem much more like an experience gap that ca not be completely accounted for just by looking to see if the resumes have  similar qualifications .  the same has even been found to be true of black people.  college educated and married black couples actually outearn comparable white couples on average.
hi.  whenever i read about people trying to increase the number of women in science or engineering increase the number of women in politics increase the number of women in positions of power increase the number of women that are firefighters or police i ca not help feeling that it is a rather useless cause.  i have no problem at all with there being less women than men in any place.  what i would and do have a problem with is women having it more difficult than men to enter certain professions.  that is the real problem we should, as a society, try to solve.  the current approach is  forcing  the proportion of women to increase, by means of: gender specific student grants, positions reserved for women, lower physical requirements, etc.  as i see it this kind of solutions are problematic in two ways: they involve so called  positive discrimination , which leads to cases where a candidate gets ahead of a fitter one only because the former is a woman.  this is absurd and can increase animosity in the male coworkers.  admittedly, that would be wrong on their part, but it still can create an hostile work environment.  they do not solve the real issue, which is the discrimination that would have stopped the women from getting the job.  they may be able to overcome it thanks to external help, but even if we have solved the symptoms the problem is still there.  the only benefits i see is that  artificially  increasing the number of women in certain places may make the presence of women in said place appear less  unusual  to society, thereby decreasing the discrimination, but i still think they do more harm than good.  reddit, change my view ! pd: english is not my first language, so i apologize for any awkwardly phrased sentence i may have written, and welcome any correction.  artificially increasing the number of women in certain fields makes said fields much less  threatening  to other women.  makes male coworkers appreciate the capabilities of women, decreasing further discrimination.  improves the selection process by eliminating male favoring biases.  whenever a man less prepared than a woman would have got the position by conscious or unconscious biases a well prepared woman will get it.  i remain unconvinced that physical tests should have easier versions for women.  most people seemed to agree with me on this, though.  i have realized, however, that jobs that at first seem to be mainly physical police, firefighters, .  would also benefit from having more women.  some of my favourite answers, where you can find studies supporting all of this, are: /u/yxoque: URL /u/waldrop0: URL /u/clairebones: URL /u/yes thats right: URL  #  the current approach is  forcing  the proportion of women to increase, by means of: gender specific student grants, positions reserved for women, lower physical requirements, etc.   #  there is a reason for these measures, which you are correct is not about getting at the heart of the problem of discrimination.   #  underrepresentation is a symptom of problems, which is why it gets attention. basically, there is no  good  reason why there would be a gender disparity in stem fields.  if there is a disparity, we know it is because of a problem somewhere, which may be that  employers are discriminating against women  or that  women do not see a career in this as realistic  or even that  girls are taught not to pursue this field.   not all of these are the employers  fault, and all of them happen to some extent or other and, to a far lesser degree, to boys and men.  there is a reason for these measures, which you are correct is not about getting at the heart of the problem of discrimination.  while ending discrimination is a difficult, long term goal that does not have an easy solution, ending  the effects of discrimination on women now  is something we  can  try to fix.  all these measures are about equalizing the opportunities available between men and women entering the workforce.  note that they are not, in all circumstances, perfect at this.  but women in the us, today, do have a right to not experience discrimination, and protecting that right can mean legal action.  note that your points about  the animosity of male coworkers  is comparing to an ideal, discrimination free society.  the fact is that women were  already  discriminated against in the workplace.  before affirmative action, there already  were  stereotypes about  sleeping her way up the ladder  where people just assumed that women got the job for being women.  the facts of discrimination, in that sense, have not changed, but there is still better equality of opportunity to get those jobs in the first place.   #  sexually abused women, abused women, teens with negative experiences with older men of authority, mentally ill frail men with a fear of cops, mentally ill women, cop shy punks who had been seriously assaulted, prostitutes who had been beat up.   #  your image of what a police officer does is not my experience of what police actually do.  i worked in a very poor neighbourhood, and every second call that had to be made to the police was  female officer preferred .  sexually abused women, abused women, teens with negative experiences with older men of authority, mentally ill frail men with a fear of cops, mentally ill women, cop shy punks who had been seriously assaulted, prostitutes who had been beat up.  my city hired a lot of women into the force in the last ten years, and it really helped.  they work alongside male officers.  police calm situations, do first aid, deescalate, arrest and search drug users, put drunks in the drunk tank, take the mentally ill in for assessment. , collect statements and evidence, and liaise with hospitals and social services to get people taken care of.  a great deal good police work involves no force greater than their voice.   #  i have seen firsthand how some people react to both male and female police officers and having a good gender balance is going to help civilians a lot.   # i do not think it is.  every field that is dominantly one gender over another is going to miss out on talented people with novel insights.  we should not miss out on a qualified nurse because some bloke was told it was not a manly profession.  neither should we miss out on a qualified scientists because some girl was told science was for boys.  unless you have a good argument as for why certain genders are almost universally better at certain professions any sort of gender imbalance is going to cause society missing out on qualified people in the right place.  and i think the police force is a special case, in this regard.  i have seen firsthand how some people react to both male and female police officers and having a good gender balance is going to help civilians a lot.  a lot of people are more comfortable discussing certain things with people from their own gender.  children will gravitate towards female police officers and yes, this is also due to harmful gender roles in society, but we need a police that functions in the society we live in, not in the society we would like to live in .  people often say this when talking about this, but i do not think this is completely true.  we know from several studies that when applying for, well, anything, people are discriminated against based on their gender, skin color, sexuality, etc.  even if the resumes are completely identical, this still happens.  so if a woman wants to enter a male dominated field, there is a good chance she is going to have to be  more  qualified than a man.  positive discrimination is intended to get in this case women accepted when they are  merely  equally qualified.  they may be able to overcome it thanks to external help, but even if we have solved the symptoms the problem is still there.  and as soon as we have good, viable way to stop the discrimination from happening at all, we should implement that.  unfortunately, we do not have one and we will have to make do with measures we can actually implement.   #  i still feel although less strongly than before that the method is misguided: it feels absurd that a woman would have an advantage against and equally physically fit man.   # every field that is dominantly one gender over another is going to miss out on talented people with novel insights.  we should not miss out on a qualified nurse because some bloke was told it was not a manly profession.  neither should we miss out on a qualified scientists because some girl was told science was for boys.  and wo not we, by means of hiring a woman instead of a man, loose lose as many talented people as we win ? i have seen firsthand how some people react to both male and female police officers and having a good gender balance is going to help civilians a lot.  a lot of people are more comfortable discussing certain things with people from their own gender.  children will gravitate towards female police officers and yes, this is also due to harmful gender roles in society, but we need a police that functions in the society we live in, not in the society we would like to live in .  here you are, sir:  .  that is a very solid point.  i was very adamant on the police force case, but now i see there is some logic behind making sure there are female cops, as there surely is with female firefighters.  i still feel although less strongly than before that the method is misguided: it feels absurd that a woman would have an advantage against and equally physically fit man.  unfortunately, we do not have one and we will have to make do with measures we can actually implement.  but doing this we are  masking  the discrimination.  if we ever achieve equal gender representation, how will we know whether there is still discrimination against women or we are  unfairly  heling women ? i know this is very simplistic: i do not know how to state it better  #  diversity is one of the most important tools against prejudice.   # no.  the idea is that if you put 0 equally talented women and 0 equally talented men in a room for 0 positions, the men are more likely to be hired into stem fields.  studies show URL that equally competent resumes and sometimes, identical resumes are perceived as showing less competence and ability if the name is female.  given this reality, a more qualified female will be looked at as equal or lesser to a truthfully lesser qualified male.  therefore, these  positive discrimination  programs set the scales right, not tip them out of balance or cause us to miss out on any greater talent.  we will be hiring the superior candidate and saying no to the inferior candidate, rather than taking the inferior candidate based on their gender.  we are not, we are actually solving it.  over time, as more women are allowed into the stem field, they will make achievements and rise to positions of power.  their male colleagues will grow to respect them as equals and their unconscious biases will be challenged and die out.  diversity is one of the most important tools against prejudice.
hi.  whenever i read about people trying to increase the number of women in science or engineering increase the number of women in politics increase the number of women in positions of power increase the number of women that are firefighters or police i ca not help feeling that it is a rather useless cause.  i have no problem at all with there being less women than men in any place.  what i would and do have a problem with is women having it more difficult than men to enter certain professions.  that is the real problem we should, as a society, try to solve.  the current approach is  forcing  the proportion of women to increase, by means of: gender specific student grants, positions reserved for women, lower physical requirements, etc.  as i see it this kind of solutions are problematic in two ways: they involve so called  positive discrimination , which leads to cases where a candidate gets ahead of a fitter one only because the former is a woman.  this is absurd and can increase animosity in the male coworkers.  admittedly, that would be wrong on their part, but it still can create an hostile work environment.  they do not solve the real issue, which is the discrimination that would have stopped the women from getting the job.  they may be able to overcome it thanks to external help, but even if we have solved the symptoms the problem is still there.  the only benefits i see is that  artificially  increasing the number of women in certain places may make the presence of women in said place appear less  unusual  to society, thereby decreasing the discrimination, but i still think they do more harm than good.  reddit, change my view ! pd: english is not my first language, so i apologize for any awkwardly phrased sentence i may have written, and welcome any correction.  artificially increasing the number of women in certain fields makes said fields much less  threatening  to other women.  makes male coworkers appreciate the capabilities of women, decreasing further discrimination.  improves the selection process by eliminating male favoring biases.  whenever a man less prepared than a woman would have got the position by conscious or unconscious biases a well prepared woman will get it.  i remain unconvinced that physical tests should have easier versions for women.  most people seemed to agree with me on this, though.  i have realized, however, that jobs that at first seem to be mainly physical police, firefighters, .  would also benefit from having more women.  some of my favourite answers, where you can find studies supporting all of this, are: /u/yxoque: URL /u/waldrop0: URL /u/clairebones: URL /u/yes thats right: URL  #  hey involve so called  positive discrimination , which leads to cases where a candidate gets ahead of a fitter one only because the former is a woman.   #  there is a  few misconceptions about affirmative action that i would like to clear up : affirmative action is when two candidates of  equal skill  are measured, the deciding factor should be diversity.   # there is a  few misconceptions about affirmative action that i would like to clear up : affirmative action is when two candidates of  equal skill  are measured, the deciding factor should be diversity.  it is not and should not be about putting someone of less skill over that of someone of more skill.  the caveat to that is that skill is only part of the equation of makes a good candidate.  it only has so much to contribute.  if you have a 0 star chef going up against an experienced fry cook for a job at a greasy spoon, your standard would suggest that the 0 star chef should be chosen for his superior skill.  basically, once you pass the measure of skill necessary for job, the value of more skill diminishes.  so, if a woman of  lesser skill  is measured against a man of  greater skill  but both have passed the line of skill necessary to do the job, the greater skill does not contribute much to the conversation.  the problem is that there is this fucked up perception that affirmative action means giving a job to a woman that people perceive as not being skilled at doing the job over that of a man perceived as capable.  it is not the case at all.   #  sexually abused women, abused women, teens with negative experiences with older men of authority, mentally ill frail men with a fear of cops, mentally ill women, cop shy punks who had been seriously assaulted, prostitutes who had been beat up.   #  your image of what a police officer does is not my experience of what police actually do.  i worked in a very poor neighbourhood, and every second call that had to be made to the police was  female officer preferred .  sexually abused women, abused women, teens with negative experiences with older men of authority, mentally ill frail men with a fear of cops, mentally ill women, cop shy punks who had been seriously assaulted, prostitutes who had been beat up.  my city hired a lot of women into the force in the last ten years, and it really helped.  they work alongside male officers.  police calm situations, do first aid, deescalate, arrest and search drug users, put drunks in the drunk tank, take the mentally ill in for assessment. , collect statements and evidence, and liaise with hospitals and social services to get people taken care of.  a great deal good police work involves no force greater than their voice.   #  and i think the police force is a special case, in this regard.   # i do not think it is.  every field that is dominantly one gender over another is going to miss out on talented people with novel insights.  we should not miss out on a qualified nurse because some bloke was told it was not a manly profession.  neither should we miss out on a qualified scientists because some girl was told science was for boys.  unless you have a good argument as for why certain genders are almost universally better at certain professions any sort of gender imbalance is going to cause society missing out on qualified people in the right place.  and i think the police force is a special case, in this regard.  i have seen firsthand how some people react to both male and female police officers and having a good gender balance is going to help civilians a lot.  a lot of people are more comfortable discussing certain things with people from their own gender.  children will gravitate towards female police officers and yes, this is also due to harmful gender roles in society, but we need a police that functions in the society we live in, not in the society we would like to live in .  people often say this when talking about this, but i do not think this is completely true.  we know from several studies that when applying for, well, anything, people are discriminated against based on their gender, skin color, sexuality, etc.  even if the resumes are completely identical, this still happens.  so if a woman wants to enter a male dominated field, there is a good chance she is going to have to be  more  qualified than a man.  positive discrimination is intended to get in this case women accepted when they are  merely  equally qualified.  they may be able to overcome it thanks to external help, but even if we have solved the symptoms the problem is still there.  and as soon as we have good, viable way to stop the discrimination from happening at all, we should implement that.  unfortunately, we do not have one and we will have to make do with measures we can actually implement.   #  we should not miss out on a qualified nurse because some bloke was told it was not a manly profession.   # every field that is dominantly one gender over another is going to miss out on talented people with novel insights.  we should not miss out on a qualified nurse because some bloke was told it was not a manly profession.  neither should we miss out on a qualified scientists because some girl was told science was for boys.  and wo not we, by means of hiring a woman instead of a man, loose lose as many talented people as we win ? i have seen firsthand how some people react to both male and female police officers and having a good gender balance is going to help civilians a lot.  a lot of people are more comfortable discussing certain things with people from their own gender.  children will gravitate towards female police officers and yes, this is also due to harmful gender roles in society, but we need a police that functions in the society we live in, not in the society we would like to live in .  here you are, sir:  .  that is a very solid point.  i was very adamant on the police force case, but now i see there is some logic behind making sure there are female cops, as there surely is with female firefighters.  i still feel although less strongly than before that the method is misguided: it feels absurd that a woman would have an advantage against and equally physically fit man.  unfortunately, we do not have one and we will have to make do with measures we can actually implement.  but doing this we are  masking  the discrimination.  if we ever achieve equal gender representation, how will we know whether there is still discrimination against women or we are  unfairly  heling women ? i know this is very simplistic: i do not know how to state it better  #  given this reality, a more qualified female will be looked at as equal or lesser to a truthfully lesser qualified male.   # no.  the idea is that if you put 0 equally talented women and 0 equally talented men in a room for 0 positions, the men are more likely to be hired into stem fields.  studies show URL that equally competent resumes and sometimes, identical resumes are perceived as showing less competence and ability if the name is female.  given this reality, a more qualified female will be looked at as equal or lesser to a truthfully lesser qualified male.  therefore, these  positive discrimination  programs set the scales right, not tip them out of balance or cause us to miss out on any greater talent.  we will be hiring the superior candidate and saying no to the inferior candidate, rather than taking the inferior candidate based on their gender.  we are not, we are actually solving it.  over time, as more women are allowed into the stem field, they will make achievements and rise to positions of power.  their male colleagues will grow to respect them as equals and their unconscious biases will be challenged and die out.  diversity is one of the most important tools against prejudice.
i am american and have used toilet paper my whole life.  i have had to use a bidet the past week for medical reasons, and i think that toilet paper is the far superior option.   cleanliness  in this area, i prefer toilet paper for a few reasons.  first of all, there is actual visual confirmation that you have got it all.  with bidets you just have to keep spraying until you think you are good.  and as the amount of wiping/bidet ing can vary greatly, the visual aspect is a great help.  i used a towel to dab afterwards, as toilet paper does not hold up against all the water.  secondly, a bidet should not be necessary as people should shower daily.  many people like to point out that bidets are better because they rinse away bacteria and other nastiness.  but, a shower with actual soap and water and scrubbing should do that job much better than just water alone.    but you would not just wipe it away if you got some on your hands !    no, and i do not think you would just rinse it away either.  you would use soap and water and scrubbing.  another point, your hands are usually the first thing you use to touch something.  until you grab things with your bare ass, wiping is just as good.   comfort  good quality toilet paper is amazing.  it is soft, thick, almost like kleenex.  hell, you could wipe with kleenex if you wanted.  point is that high quality stuff is glorious.  on the other hand, you are getting a cold spray of water in a very sensitive area.  even if you have a super luxury bidet that uses heated water, it is still basically shooting water up your ass.  even low quality toilet paper is better than that.  in a shower the water flows down, which is much less uncomfortable.  with a bidet there is also the added trouble of being all drippy with water while you move to towel off.  and unless you want to reach into the bowl with a towel while you are still sitting on it, you are going to have to at least move up to a squat to towel off.  those with an air dryer feature may alleviate this somewhat, but toweling will probably still be necessary if the air hand dryers are anything to go by.   price  i understand bidets cost less.  but for me and where i am in life, i can and will pay extra for quality.  there must be many others who feel the same, or else only single ply sand paper toilet paper would exist.  in this area bidets are better, but i think that if this is the reason someone buys a bidet it would be because they have to save money.   eco friendliness  i think we are past the whole  isave the trees  business.  reforestation is greater than reforestation in most of the world.  bidets may actually do more harm in low water and drought areas, if everyone dropped toilet paper and got bidets the gallons would add up.  to clarify; i am talking about a bidet for home use, that is built into the toilet.  the bidets that are completely separate just seem impractical.  so, cmv.   #  in this area, i prefer toilet paper for a few reasons.   #  first of all, there is actual visual confirmation that you have got it all.   # first of all, there is actual visual confirmation that you have got it all.  with bidets you just have to keep spraying until you think you are good.  and as the amount of wiping/bidet ing can vary greatly, the visual aspect is a great help.  i used a towel to dab afterwards, as toilet paper does not hold up against all the water.  i mean, that hole visual confirmation and shit is still you taking your hand and wiping your ass.  you are getting shit on your fingers, you are getting paper in your ass, you are never fully certain.  bidet is just wash it right off.  rarely have i ever been left questioning after bidet use; no matter how nasty my poops i feel pretty fresh after a bidet squirt.  paper ? man, sometimes it just never ends.  URL   secondly, a bidet should not be necessary as people should shower daily.  many people like to point out that bidets are better because they rinse away bacteria and other nastiness.  but, a shower with actual soap and water and scrubbing should do that job much better than just water alone.  true, but do you take a shower after every poop ? i doubt it.  especially with the aforementioned never ending poop, you will get a rashy ass in no time.  then you have got an itchy, smelly, dirty, poopy asshole you gotta put up with all day before you can get home and take a shower.  it is soft, thick, almost like kleenex.  hell, you could wipe with kleenex if you wanted.  point is that high quality stuff is glorious.  on the other hand, you are getting a cold spray of water in a very sensitive area.  even if you have a super luxury bidet that uses heated water, it is still basically shooting water up your ass.  even low quality toilet paper is better than that.  in a shower the water flows down, which is much less uncomfortable.  with a bidet there is also the added trouble of being all drippy with water while you move to towel off.  and unless you want to reach into the bowl with a towel while you are still sitting on it, you are going to have to at least move up to a squat to towel off.  those with an air dryer feature may alleviate this somewhat, but toweling will probably still be necessary if the air hand dryers are anything to go by.  i find bidet is to be very comfortable.  as do many others.  since you have  never  used one before, of course it is going to feel strange.  you have got what ? over 0 years of paper wiping familiarity ? of course it is going to feel strange.  just let drip dry a bit; you will be fine.  or if there is toilet paper also on hand, use some of that.  reforestation is greater than reforestation in most of the world.  bidets may actually do more harm in low water and drought areas, if everyone dropped toilet paper and got bidets the gallons would add up.  doubtful.  the paper making process is very water intensive, not to mention the resource chain involved in getting that paper to the store so you can drive there to pick it up to take home to wipe your ass and throw away.   #  in humid environments, sometimes people get very sweaty bottoms.   #  toilet paper is fine if you have perfectly regular bowels, but if you have unfortunate variations such as a tendency towards compacted or loose stools, then bidets are better.  bidets solve andy dwyer is wiping problem, URL which is more common than people like to talk about.  toilet paper only cleans the external surface.  bidets allow you to get inside the rectum a bit, which gives a more complete clean.  there is no risk of anything being left over, which is not guaranteed with toilet paper.  sometimes toilet paper gets wet and breaks.  if you have ass hair, sometimes the toilet paper get stuck in there.  water avoids this problem.  in humid environments, sometimes people get very sweaty bottoms.  swamp ass, is unpleasant and wiping does not really do much to relieve it.  bidets, with cool water, help alleviate the problem, at least temporarily.  if you get the spray nozzle type of bidet, you can angle the water however you want.  they attach to the wall and are pretty cheap to install.  they are superior to both built in and entirely separate bidets.  they are the most common type worldwide, and avoid many of the problems you mentioned.  finally, you could always just get a pitcher of water and pour it down there while using your other hand to direct the water.   #  unless you are using single squares of single ply or something.   # i guess it does, but in what situation between the roll and wiping would it get wet enough to break ? pretty hairy here, never had this problem.  unless you are using single squares of single ply or something.  i have never had toilet paper break on me.  bidets would help there, but i am sure taking your pants off in an air conditioned bathroom feels just as good with swamp ass if not better.  do you mean like a kitchen sink sprayer ?  #  they start using toilet paper when they are young, and never try anything different.   #  fecal matter has a lot of water in it.  when a person wipes using toilet paper, sometimes the toilet paper gets wet and breaks.  it does not break between the roll and the wipe, it breaks after the person starts wiping.  toilet paper can be pretty strong, especially the luxurious types that people buy for their homes.  but often, public toilet facilities stock their toilets with low or standard quality toilet paper.  this is the type that is most likely to break.  bidets relieve swamp ass within seconds.  ac takes a few minutes to cool down a person.  the immediate relief is overwhelmingly better.  yes, a spray nozzle bidet is a bit like a kitchen sink sprayer, but the water is more directed to avoid accidentally splashing oneself.  they often come attached to a dial that controls temperature.  ultimately, preferences are preferences.  it is completely fine to like toilet paper.  but there are billions of people around the world who greatly prefer water.  american tend to defend toilet paper, but it is because they have not tried both options.  they start using toilet paper when they are young, and never try anything different.  for some, even if they try out a bidet once or twice, it feels just too weird to get used to.  but once most people try it, they become converts.  water is simply a much better way to clean oneself.  a far higher percentage of americans switch to preferring bidets than people from other countries switch to liking toilet paper.  i would venture to say that using a bidet is so ubiquitous now, that it is one of the most stereotypical inside jokes/pieces of advice on reddit, right after lawyer up, delete facebook, and hit the gym.   #  ah, you are just asking for information on things and not trying to further the ops argument ?  #  ah, you are just asking for information on things and not trying to further the ops argument ? yes you do wash your hands after a bidet i imagine.  i do not have one, i just use wet wipes.  bidets work by running water down you bum and you use your hand to wipe it off.  basically the same thing you are doing when you wash your hands.  if a bathroom does not have a bidet you can use a cup to just pour water to clean yourself.  there was a reason why people always shook hands with their rights, because their left was used primarily for cleaning their butts and before we had sinks and easy access to stuff like that the hand would be unclean so you do not want to go around shaking it.
i am american and have used toilet paper my whole life.  i have had to use a bidet the past week for medical reasons, and i think that toilet paper is the far superior option.   cleanliness  in this area, i prefer toilet paper for a few reasons.  first of all, there is actual visual confirmation that you have got it all.  with bidets you just have to keep spraying until you think you are good.  and as the amount of wiping/bidet ing can vary greatly, the visual aspect is a great help.  i used a towel to dab afterwards, as toilet paper does not hold up against all the water.  secondly, a bidet should not be necessary as people should shower daily.  many people like to point out that bidets are better because they rinse away bacteria and other nastiness.  but, a shower with actual soap and water and scrubbing should do that job much better than just water alone.    but you would not just wipe it away if you got some on your hands !    no, and i do not think you would just rinse it away either.  you would use soap and water and scrubbing.  another point, your hands are usually the first thing you use to touch something.  until you grab things with your bare ass, wiping is just as good.   comfort  good quality toilet paper is amazing.  it is soft, thick, almost like kleenex.  hell, you could wipe with kleenex if you wanted.  point is that high quality stuff is glorious.  on the other hand, you are getting a cold spray of water in a very sensitive area.  even if you have a super luxury bidet that uses heated water, it is still basically shooting water up your ass.  even low quality toilet paper is better than that.  in a shower the water flows down, which is much less uncomfortable.  with a bidet there is also the added trouble of being all drippy with water while you move to towel off.  and unless you want to reach into the bowl with a towel while you are still sitting on it, you are going to have to at least move up to a squat to towel off.  those with an air dryer feature may alleviate this somewhat, but toweling will probably still be necessary if the air hand dryers are anything to go by.   price  i understand bidets cost less.  but for me and where i am in life, i can and will pay extra for quality.  there must be many others who feel the same, or else only single ply sand paper toilet paper would exist.  in this area bidets are better, but i think that if this is the reason someone buys a bidet it would be because they have to save money.   eco friendliness  i think we are past the whole  isave the trees  business.  reforestation is greater than reforestation in most of the world.  bidets may actually do more harm in low water and drought areas, if everyone dropped toilet paper and got bidets the gallons would add up.  to clarify; i am talking about a bidet for home use, that is built into the toilet.  the bidets that are completely separate just seem impractical.  so, cmv.   #  i think we are past the whole  isave the trees  business.   #  reforestation is greater than reforestation in most of the world.   # first of all, there is actual visual confirmation that you have got it all.  with bidets you just have to keep spraying until you think you are good.  and as the amount of wiping/bidet ing can vary greatly, the visual aspect is a great help.  i used a towel to dab afterwards, as toilet paper does not hold up against all the water.  i mean, that hole visual confirmation and shit is still you taking your hand and wiping your ass.  you are getting shit on your fingers, you are getting paper in your ass, you are never fully certain.  bidet is just wash it right off.  rarely have i ever been left questioning after bidet use; no matter how nasty my poops i feel pretty fresh after a bidet squirt.  paper ? man, sometimes it just never ends.  URL   secondly, a bidet should not be necessary as people should shower daily.  many people like to point out that bidets are better because they rinse away bacteria and other nastiness.  but, a shower with actual soap and water and scrubbing should do that job much better than just water alone.  true, but do you take a shower after every poop ? i doubt it.  especially with the aforementioned never ending poop, you will get a rashy ass in no time.  then you have got an itchy, smelly, dirty, poopy asshole you gotta put up with all day before you can get home and take a shower.  it is soft, thick, almost like kleenex.  hell, you could wipe with kleenex if you wanted.  point is that high quality stuff is glorious.  on the other hand, you are getting a cold spray of water in a very sensitive area.  even if you have a super luxury bidet that uses heated water, it is still basically shooting water up your ass.  even low quality toilet paper is better than that.  in a shower the water flows down, which is much less uncomfortable.  with a bidet there is also the added trouble of being all drippy with water while you move to towel off.  and unless you want to reach into the bowl with a towel while you are still sitting on it, you are going to have to at least move up to a squat to towel off.  those with an air dryer feature may alleviate this somewhat, but toweling will probably still be necessary if the air hand dryers are anything to go by.  i find bidet is to be very comfortable.  as do many others.  since you have  never  used one before, of course it is going to feel strange.  you have got what ? over 0 years of paper wiping familiarity ? of course it is going to feel strange.  just let drip dry a bit; you will be fine.  or if there is toilet paper also on hand, use some of that.  reforestation is greater than reforestation in most of the world.  bidets may actually do more harm in low water and drought areas, if everyone dropped toilet paper and got bidets the gallons would add up.  doubtful.  the paper making process is very water intensive, not to mention the resource chain involved in getting that paper to the store so you can drive there to pick it up to take home to wipe your ass and throw away.   #  bidets solve andy dwyer is wiping problem, URL which is more common than people like to talk about.   #  toilet paper is fine if you have perfectly regular bowels, but if you have unfortunate variations such as a tendency towards compacted or loose stools, then bidets are better.  bidets solve andy dwyer is wiping problem, URL which is more common than people like to talk about.  toilet paper only cleans the external surface.  bidets allow you to get inside the rectum a bit, which gives a more complete clean.  there is no risk of anything being left over, which is not guaranteed with toilet paper.  sometimes toilet paper gets wet and breaks.  if you have ass hair, sometimes the toilet paper get stuck in there.  water avoids this problem.  in humid environments, sometimes people get very sweaty bottoms.  swamp ass, is unpleasant and wiping does not really do much to relieve it.  bidets, with cool water, help alleviate the problem, at least temporarily.  if you get the spray nozzle type of bidet, you can angle the water however you want.  they attach to the wall and are pretty cheap to install.  they are superior to both built in and entirely separate bidets.  they are the most common type worldwide, and avoid many of the problems you mentioned.  finally, you could always just get a pitcher of water and pour it down there while using your other hand to direct the water.   #  unless you are using single squares of single ply or something.   # i guess it does, but in what situation between the roll and wiping would it get wet enough to break ? pretty hairy here, never had this problem.  unless you are using single squares of single ply or something.  i have never had toilet paper break on me.  bidets would help there, but i am sure taking your pants off in an air conditioned bathroom feels just as good with swamp ass if not better.  do you mean like a kitchen sink sprayer ?  #  this is the type that is most likely to break.   #  fecal matter has a lot of water in it.  when a person wipes using toilet paper, sometimes the toilet paper gets wet and breaks.  it does not break between the roll and the wipe, it breaks after the person starts wiping.  toilet paper can be pretty strong, especially the luxurious types that people buy for their homes.  but often, public toilet facilities stock their toilets with low or standard quality toilet paper.  this is the type that is most likely to break.  bidets relieve swamp ass within seconds.  ac takes a few minutes to cool down a person.  the immediate relief is overwhelmingly better.  yes, a spray nozzle bidet is a bit like a kitchen sink sprayer, but the water is more directed to avoid accidentally splashing oneself.  they often come attached to a dial that controls temperature.  ultimately, preferences are preferences.  it is completely fine to like toilet paper.  but there are billions of people around the world who greatly prefer water.  american tend to defend toilet paper, but it is because they have not tried both options.  they start using toilet paper when they are young, and never try anything different.  for some, even if they try out a bidet once or twice, it feels just too weird to get used to.  but once most people try it, they become converts.  water is simply a much better way to clean oneself.  a far higher percentage of americans switch to preferring bidets than people from other countries switch to liking toilet paper.  i would venture to say that using a bidet is so ubiquitous now, that it is one of the most stereotypical inside jokes/pieces of advice on reddit, right after lawyer up, delete facebook, and hit the gym.   #  if a bathroom does not have a bidet you can use a cup to just pour water to clean yourself.   #  ah, you are just asking for information on things and not trying to further the ops argument ? yes you do wash your hands after a bidet i imagine.  i do not have one, i just use wet wipes.  bidets work by running water down you bum and you use your hand to wipe it off.  basically the same thing you are doing when you wash your hands.  if a bathroom does not have a bidet you can use a cup to just pour water to clean yourself.  there was a reason why people always shook hands with their rights, because their left was used primarily for cleaning their butts and before we had sinks and easy access to stuff like that the hand would be unclean so you do not want to go around shaking it.
i saw a post about about workers wanting $0 an hour and i ca not seem to wrap my head around how the public has not decided that inflation is the problem and instead decided that the companies that actually employ them are ? its so short sighted and is as if the whole of society has just accepted the rat race created by the federal reserve is mandate to create inflation and just seem to want additional check points along the way with cheese so they can keep running the maze.  it would make more sense to me to just stop inflation so the poor or everyone for that matter stop getting taxed which is what inflation is every time the fed prints a dollar.  i know many people will say that deflation is bad because if prices come down then people wo not spend while waiting for a better deal and we will just get stuck in a downward spiral of jobs getting lost while everyone waits to spend their money.  i never understood that argument either because with all products from tv is to refrigerators to cars and even homes people buy them as soon as they can afford it because they want it now.  tv is come down in price every year.  does not stop people from buying one every couple of years to get the best tech that is on the market.  despite decent used cars being available people still buy new ones.  there really is no logical basis for any prolonged collapse spiral due to people waiting for a better price on everything.  that is just not how it works the only real problem we have now is that rat maze that has been built over the last 0 or so years due to constant inflation of the money supply is that if we were to correct to the problem and shut down the maze the result would be temporary catastrophic as the deflation or lack of cheese that would occur that would bring us back to some sense of normalcy would be pretty painful.  i know this is probably the biggest reason why no politician will touch this subject and why we need to be in the streets actually demanding it so we ca get rid of the systemic issue that is slowly faster for some driving us all into poverty.   #  it would make more sense to me to just stop inflation so the poor or everyone for that matter stop getting taxed which is what inflation is every time the fed prints a dollar.   #  the poor typically have a very low savings rate and therefore are not particularly affected by inflation.   # the poor typically have a very low savings rate and therefore are not particularly affected by inflation.  inflation reduces the value of dollar denominated financial instruments, but typically not physical assets, and not wages.  wages are set based on supply and demand for the skill set involved.  really the primary thing inflation does is discourage people to sit on large amounts of cash.  if you have $0 million in the bank, and there is 0 inflation, you are losing $0k in real net value a year.  the way to protect your money is to go invest it, which is exactly what we want people to do.  the reason that deflation is so harmful is exactly the opposite.  people are willing to take far fewer risks with their money and will demand much higher returns when they can profit by simply not spending it.  this decreases overall economic activity.  conversely, inflation encourages people to assume debits and acquire assets.  for example, a house.  if your house is going to hold a certain market based value, it is relatively much more advantageous to take out a mortgage in an inflationary environment than a deflationary one.  from the bank is point of view, your mortgage rate is inflation plus risk.  if you turn the inflation into deflation, the bank is less motivated to loan that money, so once the deflation matches the risk, they just stop lending.  again, you are looking at an overall significant decrease in economic activity.  overall, i think you are making a common error in thinking in looking at the economy as static.  an economy depends on money flowing from one place to the other, and barriers to the flow of money decrease economic activity.  in math terms, an economy is the number of dollars  times the number of times that dollar is spent.  if the value of a dollar drops 0 but the number of times that dollar is spent increases by 0 that is an overall increase in wealth for everyone.   #  0.  to allow for a more robust labour market.   #  inflation is intentional in most if not all developed nations, usually targeted 0 at 0 for at least three reasons: 0.  so in the advent of an economic emergency, the central bank can target a real interest rate below zero real interest rate 0 nominal interest rate  0a expected inflation so to prompt investment and stimulate the economy.  0.  to avoid deflation.  if we have deflation, the real value of debt increases over time your $0,0 mortgage may, in real terms, become a $0,0 mortgage a year later unexpectedly, and this is bad , prompting a reduction in spending which will reduce the demand for money which will exacerbate the deflations and so on until the economy is in shambles.  0.  to allow for a more robust labour market.  wages are downwardly rigid employers have a hard time reducing the wages of existing employees as those employees do not like their wages being cut , so the price of labour tends to be higher than is efficient during a downturn.  workers do not react nearly so poorly to real reductions in wages as they do nominal ones a 0 nominal wage increase and 0 inflation is the same as a 0 wage cut and no inflation, but workers only react poorly to the latter , so inflation can help employers lower wages when they need to without their workers getting angry.    0.  the central bank does this by creating more money through various mechanisms.  the value of money is subject to its supply and demand just like anything else.    0.  the interest rate when inflation is accounted for.    0a.  the interest rate when inflation is not accounted for.  if the interest rate on a bank account for example is 0 and the rate of inflation is 0, the real interest rate is actually 0.   #  governments have very low interest rates for their borrowing and can to a large extent borrow more money to pay off existing loans.   #  governments have very low interest rates for their borrowing and can to a large extent borrow more money to pay off existing loans.  it is not hard for responsible governments to sustain deficits, especially when this money is invested in the future, just as the debt is paid by the future.  there is really no point in the government saving more money than is necessary to save, since it is just removing resources from the economy.  can you really say your mind has not been changed though ? the fact is that the united states is deflating and not inflating, so how can you say that people should protest against something that is not happening ?  #  lastly,  there is currently no inflation in the united states .   #  too much deflation is bad and so is too much inflation, which is why we have central banks such as the federal reserve to control inflation and deflation through methods which include but are not limited to printing money.  changes in the inflation or deflation rate are also not good for stability, which is of course important for business and consumer confidence.  through the general consensus of economics, it is easier to stabilise a healthy level of inflation at a certain rate, 0 to 0 as far as i am familiar with.  by keeping the economy at a specific low rate of inflation, we can prevent the economy from spiralling into too much inflation, the ever threatening deflation, and destabilising changes to the inflation rate.  lastly,  there is currently no inflation in the united states .  the inflation rate has been slightly below 0 on average all of this year URL i am not american so i am not aware of the particular policy decisions, and i was also surprised to see that  america is actually deflating right now , but the inflation rates do show that the federal reserve and any other organisations that can influence the inflation rate have done a good job at keeping inflation between 0 and 0 from 0 to 0.  either way, there is no inflation right so which kind of voids your suggestion of people holding signs saying  stop inflation .   #  by which time we could revaluate our currency like many other currencies have done.   #  0 inflation is better than no inflation, particularly because it can be controlled and wo not turn into a more problematic level of inflation.  if you think that even 0 inflation is bad, even if that means prices double in 0 years though this ostensibly means all prices, particularly the price of labour then what you are against is natural economic growth.  whether you like it or not, inflation is not simply what happens when the government increases the money supply.  it is a whole range of factors including government action and inaction that contributes to the overall change in average prices.  economies naturally adjust to prices, by any definition of a free or mixed market.  you might very well be thinking that stopping inflation means the government should not intervene in the economy, but government intervention is always necessary in the long term if you do want to stop inflation, as we all do.  i am by no means a mathematician but i tried to calculate how long it would take for the real minimum wage at $0 to become a relative $0,0,0 at 0 inflation from today.  the answer is the year 0 ad, likely near easter, by calculating $0 0n0 $0mil, with a margin of error approximately twenty centuries n years required to reach $0mil .  by which time we could revaluate our currency like many other currencies have done.
there is no real argument against allowing people of all genders from getting married.  however, marriage as a whole is in fact an outdated and completely unnessecary institution.  it may have served a purpose in the dark ages, but now, there is simply no need for the state to acknowledge a romantic union.  i understand that there are some tax benefits to some people as married couples, and it certianly helps a few people stay in foreign countries, but these are not good reasons to sign a government contract that is against human nature.  instead of making marriage legal for everyone, it would have been far more progressive to just get rid of marriage alltogether,  #  it may have served a purpose in the dark ages, but now, there is simply no need for the state to acknowledge a romantic union.   #  marriage is not just an acknowledgement of a romantic union.   # marriage is not just an acknowledgement of a romantic union.  it legally joins individuals into a family.  at the moment, familial relationships are established either by blood or by law marriage .  those are the only two options.  edit: there are other legal options, such as civil unions, but they all seem to contradict op is view .  if we remove marriage, then the only way to be considered a family member is by blood.  can you see any problems with that ? want to visit your romantic partner in the hospital ?  sorry, family only.   want to become a stepparent ?  sorry, it is not possible.  only the blood parents can ever have any legal authority over this child.   want to help your romantic partner to immigrate ?  sorry, you bear no relation to this person.  you ca not help them immigrate.   want government read: tax acknowledgement that you share incomes ? have fun trying to do that when the government has no idea what your relationship with your partner is.  there are endless reasons why having a method for legally establishing a familial relationship is important.   #  justice kennedy waxes poetic about the importance of marriage in creating a bond that he sees as possible transcending life itself prompting some grade a sass from justice scalia in his dissent, i might add .   #  i am going to put the practical benefits aside and focus on one line of your post:  it may have served a purpose in the dark ages, but now, there is simply no need for the state to acknowledge a romantic union.  this is presuming, quite simply, that marriage is a romantic union, and little more than that, and i think it is wrong to say that is all that is.  even reading justice kennedy is majority opinion in obergefell v.  hodges URL we get the idea that marriage is  much  more than that.  justice kennedy waxes poetic about the importance of marriage in creating a bond that he sees as possible transcending life itself prompting some grade a sass from justice scalia in his dissent, i might add .  it is almost certainly no coincidence that justice kennedy hails from a religion that affirms marriage as having a divine component a bit of a cop out actually every religion i can think of affirms marriage as being a special bond beyond being  just  romantic .  regardless of whether god exists or not, a very large number of people think that marriage is more than romantic.  in fact, the idea of marriages based on love are a relatively new phenomena in the history of the world, and ones based solely on love are even newer this is not to be confused with me arguing that we should not marry based on love, only with me arguing that marriage is not inherently a romantic union .  finally and most importantly, the family has served as the cornerstone of america is social order from its founding.  actually, to be fair, that last sentence is not mine it is from the majority opinion of the supreme court in last week is case, but it is one i agree with at any rate.  almost every society if not every society outright has been based around families and have emphasized special relationships between kinsmen above non kinsmen.  marriage, is of course, fundamental to the idea of the family in so far as marriage has been the way that the family has traditionally propagated itself both in the extended and atomic versions .  i guess the big point i am trying to say here is that saying that marriage is  a romantic union  is like saying that the pope is a  bit catholic .  even as traditional and modern conceptions of marriage continue to diverge, they both still continue to argue that marriage is a very special institution.  now with all that said, will we ever see a day where marriage in civil society is just a romantic union ? possibly, and quite likely in fact i think only the traditional conception of marriage as being divine and in accordance with natural law theory is logically consistent , but that is just not where we are at today.   #  people can be married and hate each other and feel no emotional attachment.   #  families existed before society invented marriage.  and families exist today without a marriage.  those two concepts are not as codependent as you make them seem.  its also interesting to see you use the word  propagate  in connection with marriage.  in the biological context, propagate means to breed.  families propagate by having children, not signing a contract.  marriage is not an emotional/romantic/spiritual bond its not a bond at all.  its nothing more than a contract that provides certain rights and obligations to the spouses.  marriage can exist with those bonds and it can exist without those bonds.  people can be married and hate each other and feel no emotional attachment.  just as people can not be married and be willing to sacrifice their lives to help one another.  thus the bonds are coincidental to the state of being married.   #  so, in your hypothetical world where nobody can get married, what happens, say, to the 0 year old woman who is husband edit: rather, her non husband just died ?  #  here is something that is a big deal for married couples survivorship benefits.  if your spouse dies, you get the benefit of things that they earned, for example social security.  if only one person in the couple works or worked then the other person has no social security benefit of their own they rely on the spousal benefit.  so, in your hypothetical world where nobody can get married, what happens, say, to the 0 year old woman who is husband edit: rather, her non husband just died ? her husband worked all his life while she stayed home and raised two kids.  she earned no social security credits.  they did not have a lot of savings and were relying on those social security payments.  when he died, they stopped coming in.  what now ? if your answer is  they should have setup a contract so that when he died she gets to claim his benefits, and government systems should be in place to recognize this relationship , then you just described marriage.   #  because people in general are not sophisticated enough myself included to go through the litany of benefits that marriage provides, conciously decide one by one that they want it, and go through the necessary procedures to induce it.   #  because people in general are not sophisticated enough myself included to go through the litany of benefits that marriage provides, conciously decide one by one that they want it, and go through the necessary procedures to induce it.  people would not even think about it until it is too late, e. g.  my social security example.  it is much easier to have a blanket indicator of a significant relationship, and have a lot of things assumed by the government like wanting spousal benefits .  you are still free to pursue the benefits individually, if that is what you want.  op is suggesting that marriage should not be allowed at all even as an option.
i firmly beleive that drag queens are one of the reasons why transgender people are ostracised from society, and i speaking as a transwoman find it hard to be accepted and understood by a large portion of the population.  a drag act is just that.  an act.  it is not supposed to be taken seriously just look at the bearded lady conchita wurst and as far as i understand a drag queen is not supposed to  pass  in the transgender sense.  a drag queen may have a  female persona  but they are not transgender, it is not a medical condition.  i am going to assume that most people in the west know what a transgender person is, and what a drag queen is and can probably tell the difference.  but i am also going to assume that most people do not know what it actually means to be transgender, that it is not a choice.  the only choice a transgender individual makes is the choice to transition.  i feel as if because of drag queens and the confusion between a transgender person and a drag act, we are not taken seriously by someone who ca not tell the difference.  i am not a drag queen, i do not put on an act, or dress ridiclously, nor do i want to look obviously like a man in a dress the main point of a drag queen .  i act myself, which is not overly fruity, camp or feminine, and i dress like a typical woman.  if someone outside lgbt circles sees a gay man in drag, they might assume that is a transgender person and therefore treat the issue of transgenderism as silly and as an act, rather than realising that true gender dysphoria is horrific for anyone who has to deal with it.  i would almost go as far as saying that drag acts are intentionally or unintentionally mocking the plight of transgender individuals, and it is akin to dribbling and pretending to be someone with downs syndrome, and at the complete extreme further than what i believe akin to blackface.  i want to not hate drag queens, but i ca not help but feel that do nothing but trivialise transgender people and make it harder for us, cmv.   #  but i am also going to assume that most people do not know what it actually means to be transgender, that it is not a choice.   #  i ca not possibly fathom how this could matter.   #  you know.  if everybody took just 0/0 of the energy they devote to picking apart every minute detail of the lives and actions of people who just want to be treated like people and instead focused on the assholes and bigots who seem very reluctant to treat people like people we would have scant few problems left to complain about.  the problem is not drag queens, the problem is bigots.  drag queens should be able to do what ever the fuck they want within the bounds of reason i would say  and good taste, but we are talking about drag queens here .  it is not the drag queens fault that bigots may use their campy behavior as an excuse to continue they are bigotry.  it is the bigots fault for being fucking bigots.  i ca not possibly fathom how this could matter.  at it is most basic level, as far as non trans folk need to know, trans can be seen as nothing more than treating a person in the manner they would like to be treated.  a deep understand of the neurochemical make up of the brain, and genetics, and what have you are simply not required.  you can just be a kind person.  it ai not gonna hurt nobody at all.  would a kind person care ? so what if drag queens are silly ? why ca not we be kind to them ? so what if trans folk are not ? we can be kind to them too.  this is not the drag queens fault.  it is the asshole who refuses to be kind.  really ? the bigots is who you have a problem with.   #  the drag queens and the butches were on the front lines at stonewall and for much of the early gay rights moment .   #  the drag queens and the butches were on the front lines at stonewall and for much of the early gay rights moment .  their gender expression could not be hidden and they had to be and while drag queens are not female, their persona is a part of their gender expression, just as butches are not male but their butchness is part of their gender expression .  they were out and proud and battling in the streets for your right to be who you are long before it was okay to do so.  the degree of acceptance you have as a transwoman, is thanks in large part to drag queens, who had to stand up because they could not pass and be who they were who chose to stand up because they were their gender non conforming selves and they were not going to be brutalized and shamed any more.  and once the movement stated to gain ground, the respectable queers who could finally come out started asking the dykes and queens to just please go back in the closet they were hurting the cause you see.  no more leathermen at pride if you please, enough of this butch/fem stuff if you do not mind, drag queens if you could just stay away from the cameras thanks, we will take it from here.  we want to look respectable so we can have our rights, and so sorry about yours.  that was the bullshit thanks for their hard work and it is as much bullshit today as it was then .  your rights and acceptance come from their hard work and struggle, their pain and loss, and you want them to go away, to go back to the closet ? because their gender expression does not line up with what you think it should be ? frankly, that is fucked up.  if you are not going to show some basic decency towards people whose gender expression is different than your own, why the hell should anyone respect your gender expression ? if you ca not figure out a way to get to the front of the bus without throwing the people who got you on there in the first place under it, what kind of  movement  is that ?  #  for a transwoman i am pretty ignorant about the people who are making it easier for me to live my life.   #    0; well damn.  i was unaware of how heavily involved drag queens/kings are within the lgbt.  for a transwoman i am pretty ignorant about the people who are making it easier for me to live my life.  i guess this has just been an issue with my ignorance on the subject.  you seem pretty knowledgeable and passionate about the subject, so i am sorry if i upset you.  i really should probably know my past, right ?  #  there is such a rich world of art and culture from minority communities and it would be akin to censorship to hold yourself back because of bigots.   #  first, i am not trans and i do not want my challenge of your view to in any way diminish what you feel or experience, i just have a different perspective on the issue.  to me, drag queens exist as a caricature of sexuality, much like pride, mardi gras, vegas showgirls, and hooters.  i think it is about show, spectacle, self expression, and flashy appearances.  from my knowledge of drag queens and kings they distinguish themselves from the trans community.  i think it is a mistake to limit what a minority community does because bigots might misunderstand.  people need to be educated and the community and its allies need to take initiative the information is out there and people who do not understand need to read up.  there is such a rich world of art and culture from minority communities and it would be akin to censorship to hold yourself back because of bigots.  would you tell a black rapper to not rap about drugs because bigots will thing all black people are addicts ? would you tell a latina artist to not dance in tight pants because bigots see latina women as just sex objects ? the focus needs to be on acceptance of the world and people minding their own business, not limiting expression.   #  they are fucking bigots, and assholes, who do not want to to be kind.   # a picture of a drag queen reading  this is what transgender people want to do to your kids  on a reactionary website provides good ammo for the bigots to convert the uninformed.  i think that bigots will use whatever they can as a lever.  they are fucking bigots, and assholes, who do not want to to be kind.  they will make shit up.  they will ignore the truth.  they will call you sick and depraved then go home and fuck other bigots in creepy nazi themed sex dungeons.  they are jerks, that is what they do.  do you think if drag queens disappeared tomorrow that those bigots who  would  have used them as a lever will suddenly welcome you with open arms ? do not hate the people who just want to be treated like people.  hate the people who refuse to do so.
i really like bernie sanders for his honesty, integrity, and his views on election finance reform and foreign policy.  however, i do not know if i can support him because of his main campaigning points: free healthcare as a right for all, and free college education.  both things obviously sound amazing, but i worry that we simply cannot afford it.  where does the massive amount of funding come from for these things ? bernie talks about fixing corporate tax loopholes, but will that really bring in enough income ?  #  where does the massive amount of funding come from for these things ?  #  bernie talks about fixing corporate tax loopholes, but will that really bring in enough income ?  # bernie talks about fixing corporate tax loopholes, but will that really bring in enough income ? corporate tax loopholes, higher taxes across the board, and a reallocation of what programs get funded.  sure we could probably afford it.  other countries manage to afford these things without much difficulty at all.  there is no shortage of wealth in this country.   #  we are already spending that money on those items, so the money clearly exists.   #  we are already spending that money on those items, so the money clearly exists.  it is just a matter of how it is spent on those items.  do we collect it in taxes first ? or do we set up a separate program ? or do we find another way to do it completely ? the reason many of us are against  for profit  medical care being the only source of medical care is that simply by the need to turn a profit the money spent is not going towards care.  which means that money that could be discretionary for the patient becomes a mandatory expense.  please note i said  only  there is still a place for private medical institutions, but they ca not be the only source.  many state and local governments have been on a gop led  privatization  kick for schools, hospitals jails etc.  insisting that the open market can provide these services less expensively than the various governments can.  the results are to put it kindly.  mixed.  those of us who side with bernie sanders feel that the government is only completely inept in jokes, and that the basic care which has the most demand can easily, effectively and more efficiently be consolidated under a single payer system similar to the rest of the western world.  by increasing access to regular basic care we will automatically bring down the bills for pediatric care by eliminating the need for poor families to go to an er for an ear infection.  as an example for schools we would merely be increasing the subsidies already in place for public institutions, and allowing our recent graduates the ability to leave school without crushing debt.  not to mention increase accessibility to those who would like to go to college but cannot afford the cost or risk of doing so currently.  the money definitely exists, it is just a matter of altering priorities.   #  the biggest obstacle to calling the current situation a market failure is that most people get their insurance through their employer: the buyer and receiver are not the same with very different goals.   #  the biggest obstacle to calling the current situation a market failure is that most people get their insurance through their employer: the buyer and receiver are not the same with very different goals.  i used to get healthcare through blue cross blue shield, and thought they were fantastic, great coverage and benefits.  then my employer, against all of our wishes, switched to unitedhealth and now i never use my insurance because the coverage sucks and the deny everything at first unless i push the issue.  it is not worth it if it takes 0 months for them to cough up money for a hepatitis test.  but i have literally no choice in the matter, and i am not allowed to let my dollars vote for the best service.   #  there is honestly no good reason to charge upwards of $0 for a walk in appointment for something that will take less than 0 minutes of a competent doctors time.   #  that is a failure with the insurance companies though.  the failure with the health care industry is that it requires insurance in the first place in order to receive any sort of reasonable care.  at least for most people.  there is honestly no good reason to charge upwards of $0 for a walk in appointment for something that will take less than 0 minutes of a competent doctors time.  such as an ear infection, strep throat not counting culture analysis etc.  of that $0 maybe $0 is going to care.  and that is being really, really kind.  but two full days wages at the low end of the pay scale for a basic visit is not something that can simply be absorbed by many families.  hence the need for insurance and subsidies and every other little fix we have tried to keep health care in the private market.   #  this means that people  must  see a doctor and obtain/renew a prescription before they can purchase healthcare subsidized medicine.   #  exactly it does not scale for a healthcare company to investigate and scrutinize every single person.  the buyer knows the most about himself, what type of care he might need, and his medical history.  he also knows which providers are in his area, and can ask around for references of good providers from friends.  insurance companies do not know enough about individual buyers to price insurance cheaply hence why the preferred method is group, like company wide, sales .  the other aspect of this is that it is more profitable to sell prescriptions and operations transactionally, where providers can make additional money on referrals and kickbacks, etc.  they are now operating in two parties  interests: the patient and the pharmas/specialists.  another reason for high medical prices is the fact that so many medicines are not over the counter and need a prescription.  this means that people  must  see a doctor and obtain/renew a prescription before they can purchase healthcare subsidized medicine.  the healthcare subsidy allows pharmas to set prices higher, and the prescription system means they need to invest money in informing/marketing to doctors.  pharmas also need to provide monetary incentives to doctors for prescribing one pharma is medication over another in order to compete.  this all drives up the cost of producing and distributing medicine.
there are no excuses.  if you take a book, magazine, smartphone, etc, to the bathroom when you poop, you are a weirdo.  ·  but hey, i like to read something while i do it, it makes me relaxed  what exactly makes you relaxed about smelling shit while you read ? why do not you read in the bed, whitout smelling shit, and in a much more comfortable position ? ·  hey, but pooping takes time, what should i do with sooooo much time in my hands ? stare at the wall ?   ok, but then you have a health problem, because pooping is quick.  you feel like you have to do it, you go to the bathroom, you do it, you clean yourself up, you finish.  how much can that take ? 0 0 minutes maximum ? i do not really see the point of spending any more time than the necessary sitting on the toilet.  you guys are in a freudian anal stage, i hope you realize it.   #  what exactly makes you relaxed about smelling shit while you read ?  #  why do not you read in the bed, whitout smelling shit, and in a much more comfortable position ?  # why do not you read in the bed, whitout smelling shit, and in a much more comfortable position ? i am going to be in there smelling shit anyway, might as well as make the experience as pleasant as possible.  you feel like you have to do it, you go to the bathroom, you do it, you clean yourself up, you finish.  how much can that take ? 0 0 minutes maximum ? looks like someone is an expert in how everyone poops.  also, so what if you have a health problem ? some people have constipation and it takes them a while to go, why should not they read while they do it ? you guys are in a freudian anal stage, i hope you realize it.  what ? freud is psychoanalysis is largely discredited by this point.  that is like arguing you are spending too much time surrounded by philogiston, and that is why you should not be in the bathroom too long.  it is an outdated idea.  there is no  anal stage  that humans go through.   #  so while i am pushing some stool out of my arse i do not want to stare at the walls, and i will take out my phone for the time being, get my mind off of the task at hand.   #  i take it that you find defecating very, very gross.  you see. a lot of people do not, and they like to take their time when shitting.  i do because i want to make sure that i empty my bowels efficently.  so while i am pushing some stool out of my arse i do not want to stare at the walls, and i will take out my phone for the time being, get my mind off of the task at hand.  now, i do not know the numbers but i assume that, in general, most people read in the bathroom.  so realistically you would actually be the  weirdo  here.   #  i am not talking about eating on the toliet; i am merely saying that taking out your phone for a few minutes while you are sitting down in a private space is both understandable and convenient.   # but you really have not explained why.  no offense, because i am trying to understand, but it seems like your belief stems from an irrational feeling that the toliet is gross and any activity you do there is disgusting.  i am not talking about eating on the toliet; i am merely saying that taking out your phone for a few minutes while you are sitting down in a private space is both understandable and convenient.  what does it matter if you are defecating at the same time, unless you have some weird hang up about it as you seem to have ? as i said: no offense, but you sound like the weird one.  i take most opportunities where i am alone and sitting down to look at my phone; does not matter if i am relieving myself then or not.   #  but you go nose blind to it fairly quickly.   #  what do you do, stare at the wall ? also, i do not know about you, but sometimes pooping takes longer than 0 0 minutes.  also, just because you are not relaxed while pooping does not mean that nobody is allowed to be relaxed.  just because you are there to do business and be done with it does not mean that others feel the same way.  sometimes its a nice break from the day.  and if i can get away from my desk for 0 0 minutes, i will take it.  you talk about how gross it is to smell shit, sure.  but you go nose blind to it fairly quickly.  and if i am already in there for 0 minutes, why not spend it reading or playing a game on my phone instead of staring in silence at a wall.  about the freudian stuff.  well i guess its a good thing that the field still totally considers all of that relevant.  /s  #  i have always had at least a magazine to read.   #  it feels good to poop and i look forward to when i can.  mine does not come out all at once, i have a really tight butthole.  and then it might feel like i am done, but more could come out once or twice more.  i have always had at least a magazine to read.  average for me is 0 min.  sometimes up to 0.  i guess aside from the act itself, i think sitting on a ring like the toilet seat brings me a bit of pleasure and really makes me want to read casual things.  same when i sit in the tub for an hour reading or playing a game.  i do not really read or play casual games at home except in the bathroom.
there are no excuses.  if you take a book, magazine, smartphone, etc, to the bathroom when you poop, you are a weirdo.  ·  but hey, i like to read something while i do it, it makes me relaxed  what exactly makes you relaxed about smelling shit while you read ? why do not you read in the bed, whitout smelling shit, and in a much more comfortable position ? ·  hey, but pooping takes time, what should i do with sooooo much time in my hands ? stare at the wall ?   ok, but then you have a health problem, because pooping is quick.  you feel like you have to do it, you go to the bathroom, you do it, you clean yourself up, you finish.  how much can that take ? 0 0 minutes maximum ? i do not really see the point of spending any more time than the necessary sitting on the toilet.  you guys are in a freudian anal stage, i hope you realize it.   #  ok, but then you have a health problem, because pooping is quick.   #  you feel like you have to do it, you go to the bathroom, you do it, you clean yourself up, you finish.   # why do not you read in the bed, whitout smelling shit, and in a much more comfortable position ? i am going to be in there smelling shit anyway, might as well as make the experience as pleasant as possible.  you feel like you have to do it, you go to the bathroom, you do it, you clean yourself up, you finish.  how much can that take ? 0 0 minutes maximum ? looks like someone is an expert in how everyone poops.  also, so what if you have a health problem ? some people have constipation and it takes them a while to go, why should not they read while they do it ? you guys are in a freudian anal stage, i hope you realize it.  what ? freud is psychoanalysis is largely discredited by this point.  that is like arguing you are spending too much time surrounded by philogiston, and that is why you should not be in the bathroom too long.  it is an outdated idea.  there is no  anal stage  that humans go through.   #  now, i do not know the numbers but i assume that, in general, most people read in the bathroom.   #  i take it that you find defecating very, very gross.  you see. a lot of people do not, and they like to take their time when shitting.  i do because i want to make sure that i empty my bowels efficently.  so while i am pushing some stool out of my arse i do not want to stare at the walls, and i will take out my phone for the time being, get my mind off of the task at hand.  now, i do not know the numbers but i assume that, in general, most people read in the bathroom.  so realistically you would actually be the  weirdo  here.   #  no offense, because i am trying to understand, but it seems like your belief stems from an irrational feeling that the toliet is gross and any activity you do there is disgusting.   # but you really have not explained why.  no offense, because i am trying to understand, but it seems like your belief stems from an irrational feeling that the toliet is gross and any activity you do there is disgusting.  i am not talking about eating on the toliet; i am merely saying that taking out your phone for a few minutes while you are sitting down in a private space is both understandable and convenient.  what does it matter if you are defecating at the same time, unless you have some weird hang up about it as you seem to have ? as i said: no offense, but you sound like the weird one.  i take most opportunities where i am alone and sitting down to look at my phone; does not matter if i am relieving myself then or not.   #  sometimes its a nice break from the day.   #  what do you do, stare at the wall ? also, i do not know about you, but sometimes pooping takes longer than 0 0 minutes.  also, just because you are not relaxed while pooping does not mean that nobody is allowed to be relaxed.  just because you are there to do business and be done with it does not mean that others feel the same way.  sometimes its a nice break from the day.  and if i can get away from my desk for 0 0 minutes, i will take it.  you talk about how gross it is to smell shit, sure.  but you go nose blind to it fairly quickly.  and if i am already in there for 0 minutes, why not spend it reading or playing a game on my phone instead of staring in silence at a wall.  about the freudian stuff.  well i guess its a good thing that the field still totally considers all of that relevant.  /s  #  mine does not come out all at once, i have a really tight butthole.   #  it feels good to poop and i look forward to when i can.  mine does not come out all at once, i have a really tight butthole.  and then it might feel like i am done, but more could come out once or twice more.  i have always had at least a magazine to read.  average for me is 0 min.  sometimes up to 0.  i guess aside from the act itself, i think sitting on a ring like the toilet seat brings me a bit of pleasure and really makes me want to read casual things.  same when i sit in the tub for an hour reading or playing a game.  i do not really read or play casual games at home except in the bathroom.
there are no excuses.  if you take a book, magazine, smartphone, etc, to the bathroom when you poop, you are a weirdo.  ·  but hey, i like to read something while i do it, it makes me relaxed  what exactly makes you relaxed about smelling shit while you read ? why do not you read in the bed, whitout smelling shit, and in a much more comfortable position ? ·  hey, but pooping takes time, what should i do with sooooo much time in my hands ? stare at the wall ?   ok, but then you have a health problem, because pooping is quick.  you feel like you have to do it, you go to the bathroom, you do it, you clean yourself up, you finish.  how much can that take ? 0 0 minutes maximum ? i do not really see the point of spending any more time than the necessary sitting on the toilet.  you guys are in a freudian anal stage, i hope you realize it.   #  i do not really see the point of spending any more time than the necessary sitting on the toilet.   #  you guys are in a freudian anal stage, i hope you realize it.   # why do not you read in the bed, whitout smelling shit, and in a much more comfortable position ? i am going to be in there smelling shit anyway, might as well as make the experience as pleasant as possible.  you feel like you have to do it, you go to the bathroom, you do it, you clean yourself up, you finish.  how much can that take ? 0 0 minutes maximum ? looks like someone is an expert in how everyone poops.  also, so what if you have a health problem ? some people have constipation and it takes them a while to go, why should not they read while they do it ? you guys are in a freudian anal stage, i hope you realize it.  what ? freud is psychoanalysis is largely discredited by this point.  that is like arguing you are spending too much time surrounded by philogiston, and that is why you should not be in the bathroom too long.  it is an outdated idea.  there is no  anal stage  that humans go through.   #  so realistically you would actually be the  weirdo  here.   #  i take it that you find defecating very, very gross.  you see. a lot of people do not, and they like to take their time when shitting.  i do because i want to make sure that i empty my bowels efficently.  so while i am pushing some stool out of my arse i do not want to stare at the walls, and i will take out my phone for the time being, get my mind off of the task at hand.  now, i do not know the numbers but i assume that, in general, most people read in the bathroom.  so realistically you would actually be the  weirdo  here.   #  what does it matter if you are defecating at the same time, unless you have some weird hang up about it as you seem to have ?  # but you really have not explained why.  no offense, because i am trying to understand, but it seems like your belief stems from an irrational feeling that the toliet is gross and any activity you do there is disgusting.  i am not talking about eating on the toliet; i am merely saying that taking out your phone for a few minutes while you are sitting down in a private space is both understandable and convenient.  what does it matter if you are defecating at the same time, unless you have some weird hang up about it as you seem to have ? as i said: no offense, but you sound like the weird one.  i take most opportunities where i am alone and sitting down to look at my phone; does not matter if i am relieving myself then or not.   #  also, i do not know about you, but sometimes pooping takes longer than 0 0 minutes.   #  what do you do, stare at the wall ? also, i do not know about you, but sometimes pooping takes longer than 0 0 minutes.  also, just because you are not relaxed while pooping does not mean that nobody is allowed to be relaxed.  just because you are there to do business and be done with it does not mean that others feel the same way.  sometimes its a nice break from the day.  and if i can get away from my desk for 0 0 minutes, i will take it.  you talk about how gross it is to smell shit, sure.  but you go nose blind to it fairly quickly.  and if i am already in there for 0 minutes, why not spend it reading or playing a game on my phone instead of staring in silence at a wall.  about the freudian stuff.  well i guess its a good thing that the field still totally considers all of that relevant.  /s  #  same when i sit in the tub for an hour reading or playing a game.   #  it feels good to poop and i look forward to when i can.  mine does not come out all at once, i have a really tight butthole.  and then it might feel like i am done, but more could come out once or twice more.  i have always had at least a magazine to read.  average for me is 0 min.  sometimes up to 0.  i guess aside from the act itself, i think sitting on a ring like the toilet seat brings me a bit of pleasure and really makes me want to read casual things.  same when i sit in the tub for an hour reading or playing a game.  i do not really read or play casual games at home except in the bathroom.
there are no excuses.  if you take a book, magazine, smartphone, etc, to the bathroom when you poop, you are a weirdo.  ·  but hey, i like to read something while i do it, it makes me relaxed  what exactly makes you relaxed about smelling shit while you read ? why do not you read in the bed, whitout smelling shit, and in a much more comfortable position ? ·  hey, but pooping takes time, what should i do with sooooo much time in my hands ? stare at the wall ?   ok, but then you have a health problem, because pooping is quick.  you feel like you have to do it, you go to the bathroom, you do it, you clean yourself up, you finish.  how much can that take ? 0 0 minutes maximum ? i do not really see the point of spending any more time than the necessary sitting on the toilet.  you guys are in a freudian anal stage, i hope you realize it.   #  ok, but then you have a health problem, because pooping is quick.   #  you feel like you have to do it, you go to the bathroom, you do it, you clean yourself up, you finish.   # you feel like you have to do it, you go to the bathroom, you do it, you clean yourself up, you finish.  how much can that take ? 0 0 minutes maximum ? aye, there is the rub ! i am an abnormal pooper.  growing up, i used to be constipated all the time.  i might poop once a week or even longer, at times.  consequently, my poops would be long, vicious, and terrifying.  the clean up was similarly tragic.  having something else to concentrate on would be nice, as it would allow me to focus on something other than how terrible i am at pooping.  thankfully, i have become far more regular over the years, but i am not still not a consistently daily pooper, and my poops can still be quite large.  reading something or browsing reddit in the aftermath is a way for me to relax.  sometimes, i even look forward to pooping now ! it is my coping mechanism.  :  #  so while i am pushing some stool out of my arse i do not want to stare at the walls, and i will take out my phone for the time being, get my mind off of the task at hand.   #  i take it that you find defecating very, very gross.  you see. a lot of people do not, and they like to take their time when shitting.  i do because i want to make sure that i empty my bowels efficently.  so while i am pushing some stool out of my arse i do not want to stare at the walls, and i will take out my phone for the time being, get my mind off of the task at hand.  now, i do not know the numbers but i assume that, in general, most people read in the bathroom.  so realistically you would actually be the  weirdo  here.   #  i take most opportunities where i am alone and sitting down to look at my phone; does not matter if i am relieving myself then or not.   # but you really have not explained why.  no offense, because i am trying to understand, but it seems like your belief stems from an irrational feeling that the toliet is gross and any activity you do there is disgusting.  i am not talking about eating on the toliet; i am merely saying that taking out your phone for a few minutes while you are sitting down in a private space is both understandable and convenient.  what does it matter if you are defecating at the same time, unless you have some weird hang up about it as you seem to have ? as i said: no offense, but you sound like the weird one.  i take most opportunities where i am alone and sitting down to look at my phone; does not matter if i am relieving myself then or not.   #  you talk about how gross it is to smell shit, sure.   #  what do you do, stare at the wall ? also, i do not know about you, but sometimes pooping takes longer than 0 0 minutes.  also, just because you are not relaxed while pooping does not mean that nobody is allowed to be relaxed.  just because you are there to do business and be done with it does not mean that others feel the same way.  sometimes its a nice break from the day.  and if i can get away from my desk for 0 0 minutes, i will take it.  you talk about how gross it is to smell shit, sure.  but you go nose blind to it fairly quickly.  and if i am already in there for 0 minutes, why not spend it reading or playing a game on my phone instead of staring in silence at a wall.  about the freudian stuff.  well i guess its a good thing that the field still totally considers all of that relevant.  /s  #  you guys are in a freudian anal stage, i hope you realize it.   # why do not you read in the bed, whitout smelling shit, and in a much more comfortable position ? i am going to be in there smelling shit anyway, might as well as make the experience as pleasant as possible.  you feel like you have to do it, you go to the bathroom, you do it, you clean yourself up, you finish.  how much can that take ? 0 0 minutes maximum ? looks like someone is an expert in how everyone poops.  also, so what if you have a health problem ? some people have constipation and it takes them a while to go, why should not they read while they do it ? you guys are in a freudian anal stage, i hope you realize it.  what ? freud is psychoanalysis is largely discredited by this point.  that is like arguing you are spending too much time surrounded by philogiston, and that is why you should not be in the bathroom too long.  it is an outdated idea.  there is no  anal stage  that humans go through.
i have seen many times the claim that guns help protect against the government getting out of hand.  i do not find this argument persuasive for these reasons:  the threat is not effective:    for the argument to really work, guns must present an effective threat to the government, or at least to the politician introducing some sort of freedom restricting legislation.  just having the gun is not enough, there must be a perception of that people are willing to use it.    guns are a weapon of last resort.  to take arms against the government means a near guarantee that you will sacrifice your life for it.  this means it only makes sense if what the government is doing is so awful that death is an acceptable risk.    to achieve success there needs to be a large amount of agreement that this is the right path.  until that, it will simply be terrorism and opposed by the rest of the population.    in fact, the actions of the us government do not seem to be especially careful when compared to the actions of say, an european government where gun ownership is restricted.  so the threat does not seem to be working.   there wo not be a clear point at which to resort to weapons:    one path a government may take is to slowly reduce freedoms, in such a way that no single reduction warrants a violent response.    the other path is to drastically reduce freedoms, at a time where the country seems to be under attack.  the violent response will be prevented by patriotism.   the results will be counterproductive:    by the speed with which things like the patriot act and the tsa appeared it seems like there are laws and proposed organisms lying in wait for just the right incident.  an attack against the government that does not have widespread public support will result in the swift reduction of freedoms, using the attack as the perfect excuse for it.  and the public will support it.    the american public is deeply patriotic and any such attacks wo not get a positive reception, even despite the people having a serious distrust and lack of faith in the government.   the willingness to fight will be neutralized:    a government changing to a tyranny, unless it is completely stupid, will do so with an amount of care and will try to ensure its own success.    a slow introduction of surveillance and restrictions will be able to push back the willingness to fight and undermine any forming resistance.  already existing laws and mechanisms can be used to sabotage such efforts.    if a resistance is forming anyway, a government may make just enough concessions to avoid a revolution.   my conclusion:  guns as a way of protecting against the government overstepping its bounds are not effective until things really get out of hand.  by that point, there is not really any freedom left to protect.  cmv.   #  to take arms against the government means a near guarantee that you will sacrifice your life for it.   #  this means it only makes sense if what the government is doing is so awful that death is an acceptable risk.   # this means it only makes sense if what the government is doing is so awful that death is an acceptable risk.  until that, it will simply be terrorism and opposed by the rest of the population.  i would argue that both of these are irrelevant.  people get confused about this.  its not about winning some large scale guerrilla war, or starting any kind of large conflict.  its simply about keeping options off the table for politicians.  think about this: in the past few years, there have been several protests like this one URL where armed people openly disobey federal laws.  at the one i linked, not only did they burn their concealed carry permits, they also did not even register for a permit to protest.  you will notice that the police showed up, but they simply stood back and watched.  both the police and protestors remained civil, no fights occured, nobody did anything violent toward anybody else.  now compare that to occupy wall street URL where non violent protesters were beaten, pepper sprayed, and arrested on a pretty regular basis.  that  is why guns are so important in resisting tyranny.  when a populace is disarmed, violence is back on the table.  it is not even some kind of conscious effort.  obama does not sit down every day and think  if only i could start up some fema camps today and kill people to get my way.   its only that when people are disarmed, suddenly its not a big issue to fire bullets into a crowd of protestors see the arab spring, see venezuelan protests, etc.  .  the violent consequences disappear.  they have to resort to peaceful options because  a smart politician does not want to spark massive amounts of bloodshed in his own country .  it will tarnish a leaders name, it will make it hard for him to be reelected.  that is why an armed populace is so important.  its not about a great rebellion fighting the army and marines, its simply about putting political leaders into a paradigm where they must keep violence off the table.  this is also why most country is leadership will always work to disarm the populace using whatever misinformation is necessary.  there is simply an incentive to, though it does not mean the leader  lusts for blood  it just means that centralized weaponry ie, weapons all centralized and controlled by a political elite what most people call  gun control  make more violent and rights violating decisions much easier.   #  it is possible to beat them when they are in disarray and you already live in a shithole.   #  it is possible to beat them when they are in disarray and you already live in a shithole.  we lose our shit when a hurricane or a bad snowstorm hits.  imagine those conditions when socieity is barely working and then add a civil war on top of it.  food is not made anywhere near major population centers now.  california has more people in it than twenty other states combined.  any area with enough people to mount a resistance wont have the supplies food production it needs to do so, and the areas that have the supplies to stand alone do not have the people to mount a resistance.   #  the first thing the government would do in such a situation, would be to ban firearms, and then march through towns with a small army and a few tanks, and go house by house, stripping everyone of all their firearms.   #  i do not think it is effective for that either, since the american military is so far advanced as compared to civilians with firearms.  the first thing the government would do in such a situation, would be to ban firearms, and then march through towns with a small army and a few tanks, and go house by house, stripping everyone of all their firearms.  it would also likely become illegal to protest or form large crowds.  civilians would be force to communicate using encrypted means, and meeting in secret, where they would need to have stores of what are now illegal firearms.  same as in any other country.  but such a revolt against the might of the us military would be futile.   #  there are many military bases in many locations.   #  i am not saying there would be zero casualties.  i am saying in a situation where citizens revolt at war with the american government, they do not stand a chance.  sure one guy might snipe a dozen people in one location, but the resistance would be quickly overrun.  at the point where there is an armed revolution between the people and the government, the constitution would become meaningless.  there are many military bases in many locations.  certainly people will manage to hide some guns, and a resistance would form, but were are still talking about some citizens with firearms versus the might of the most powerful armed forces on planet earth.   #  that premise would have the exact same impact on the legal status of guns.   # if it wo not hold up in court, how is it even meaningful to say this is the purpose of the 0a ? maybe it would be legally meaningful if we decided what weapons should be legal to own on the basis of how useful they would be in combating the us military arsenal, but no one even pretends to do that.  we might as well say the 0a is for protecting ourselves from mythical monsters whose existence, numbers, and vulnerability to weapons are completely unknown to us.  that premise would have the exact same impact on the legal status of guns.  no other advanced country grants its citizens the right to violently overthrow their own government.  it sounds absurd to even write that out, but in the us people argue this is what the 0a is for.
i have seen many times the claim that guns help protect against the government getting out of hand.  i do not find this argument persuasive for these reasons:  the threat is not effective:    for the argument to really work, guns must present an effective threat to the government, or at least to the politician introducing some sort of freedom restricting legislation.  just having the gun is not enough, there must be a perception of that people are willing to use it.    guns are a weapon of last resort.  to take arms against the government means a near guarantee that you will sacrifice your life for it.  this means it only makes sense if what the government is doing is so awful that death is an acceptable risk.    to achieve success there needs to be a large amount of agreement that this is the right path.  until that, it will simply be terrorism and opposed by the rest of the population.    in fact, the actions of the us government do not seem to be especially careful when compared to the actions of say, an european government where gun ownership is restricted.  so the threat does not seem to be working.   there wo not be a clear point at which to resort to weapons:    one path a government may take is to slowly reduce freedoms, in such a way that no single reduction warrants a violent response.    the other path is to drastically reduce freedoms, at a time where the country seems to be under attack.  the violent response will be prevented by patriotism.   the results will be counterproductive:    by the speed with which things like the patriot act and the tsa appeared it seems like there are laws and proposed organisms lying in wait for just the right incident.  an attack against the government that does not have widespread public support will result in the swift reduction of freedoms, using the attack as the perfect excuse for it.  and the public will support it.    the american public is deeply patriotic and any such attacks wo not get a positive reception, even despite the people having a serious distrust and lack of faith in the government.   the willingness to fight will be neutralized:    a government changing to a tyranny, unless it is completely stupid, will do so with an amount of care and will try to ensure its own success.    a slow introduction of surveillance and restrictions will be able to push back the willingness to fight and undermine any forming resistance.  already existing laws and mechanisms can be used to sabotage such efforts.    if a resistance is forming anyway, a government may make just enough concessions to avoid a revolution.   my conclusion:  guns as a way of protecting against the government overstepping its bounds are not effective until things really get out of hand.  by that point, there is not really any freedom left to protect.  cmv.   #  to achieve success there needs to be a large amount of agreement that this is the right path.   #  until that, it will simply be terrorism and opposed by the rest of the population.   # this means it only makes sense if what the government is doing is so awful that death is an acceptable risk.  until that, it will simply be terrorism and opposed by the rest of the population.  i would argue that both of these are irrelevant.  people get confused about this.  its not about winning some large scale guerrilla war, or starting any kind of large conflict.  its simply about keeping options off the table for politicians.  think about this: in the past few years, there have been several protests like this one URL where armed people openly disobey federal laws.  at the one i linked, not only did they burn their concealed carry permits, they also did not even register for a permit to protest.  you will notice that the police showed up, but they simply stood back and watched.  both the police and protestors remained civil, no fights occured, nobody did anything violent toward anybody else.  now compare that to occupy wall street URL where non violent protesters were beaten, pepper sprayed, and arrested on a pretty regular basis.  that  is why guns are so important in resisting tyranny.  when a populace is disarmed, violence is back on the table.  it is not even some kind of conscious effort.  obama does not sit down every day and think  if only i could start up some fema camps today and kill people to get my way.   its only that when people are disarmed, suddenly its not a big issue to fire bullets into a crowd of protestors see the arab spring, see venezuelan protests, etc.  .  the violent consequences disappear.  they have to resort to peaceful options because  a smart politician does not want to spark massive amounts of bloodshed in his own country .  it will tarnish a leaders name, it will make it hard for him to be reelected.  that is why an armed populace is so important.  its not about a great rebellion fighting the army and marines, its simply about putting political leaders into a paradigm where they must keep violence off the table.  this is also why most country is leadership will always work to disarm the populace using whatever misinformation is necessary.  there is simply an incentive to, though it does not mean the leader  lusts for blood  it just means that centralized weaponry ie, weapons all centralized and controlled by a political elite what most people call  gun control  make more violent and rights violating decisions much easier.   #  any area with enough people to mount a resistance wont have the supplies food production it needs to do so, and the areas that have the supplies to stand alone do not have the people to mount a resistance.   #  it is possible to beat them when they are in disarray and you already live in a shithole.  we lose our shit when a hurricane or a bad snowstorm hits.  imagine those conditions when socieity is barely working and then add a civil war on top of it.  food is not made anywhere near major population centers now.  california has more people in it than twenty other states combined.  any area with enough people to mount a resistance wont have the supplies food production it needs to do so, and the areas that have the supplies to stand alone do not have the people to mount a resistance.   #  i do not think it is effective for that either, since the american military is so far advanced as compared to civilians with firearms.   #  i do not think it is effective for that either, since the american military is so far advanced as compared to civilians with firearms.  the first thing the government would do in such a situation, would be to ban firearms, and then march through towns with a small army and a few tanks, and go house by house, stripping everyone of all their firearms.  it would also likely become illegal to protest or form large crowds.  civilians would be force to communicate using encrypted means, and meeting in secret, where they would need to have stores of what are now illegal firearms.  same as in any other country.  but such a revolt against the might of the us military would be futile.   #  i am not saying there would be zero casualties.   #  i am not saying there would be zero casualties.  i am saying in a situation where citizens revolt at war with the american government, they do not stand a chance.  sure one guy might snipe a dozen people in one location, but the resistance would be quickly overrun.  at the point where there is an armed revolution between the people and the government, the constitution would become meaningless.  there are many military bases in many locations.  certainly people will manage to hide some guns, and a resistance would form, but were are still talking about some citizens with firearms versus the might of the most powerful armed forces on planet earth.   #  it sounds absurd to even write that out, but in the us people argue this is what the 0a is for.   # if it wo not hold up in court, how is it even meaningful to say this is the purpose of the 0a ? maybe it would be legally meaningful if we decided what weapons should be legal to own on the basis of how useful they would be in combating the us military arsenal, but no one even pretends to do that.  we might as well say the 0a is for protecting ourselves from mythical monsters whose existence, numbers, and vulnerability to weapons are completely unknown to us.  that premise would have the exact same impact on the legal status of guns.  no other advanced country grants its citizens the right to violently overthrow their own government.  it sounds absurd to even write that out, but in the us people argue this is what the 0a is for.
i have seen many times the claim that guns help protect against the government getting out of hand.  i do not find this argument persuasive for these reasons:  the threat is not effective:    for the argument to really work, guns must present an effective threat to the government, or at least to the politician introducing some sort of freedom restricting legislation.  just having the gun is not enough, there must be a perception of that people are willing to use it.    guns are a weapon of last resort.  to take arms against the government means a near guarantee that you will sacrifice your life for it.  this means it only makes sense if what the government is doing is so awful that death is an acceptable risk.    to achieve success there needs to be a large amount of agreement that this is the right path.  until that, it will simply be terrorism and opposed by the rest of the population.    in fact, the actions of the us government do not seem to be especially careful when compared to the actions of say, an european government where gun ownership is restricted.  so the threat does not seem to be working.   there wo not be a clear point at which to resort to weapons:    one path a government may take is to slowly reduce freedoms, in such a way that no single reduction warrants a violent response.    the other path is to drastically reduce freedoms, at a time where the country seems to be under attack.  the violent response will be prevented by patriotism.   the results will be counterproductive:    by the speed with which things like the patriot act and the tsa appeared it seems like there are laws and proposed organisms lying in wait for just the right incident.  an attack against the government that does not have widespread public support will result in the swift reduction of freedoms, using the attack as the perfect excuse for it.  and the public will support it.    the american public is deeply patriotic and any such attacks wo not get a positive reception, even despite the people having a serious distrust and lack of faith in the government.   the willingness to fight will be neutralized:    a government changing to a tyranny, unless it is completely stupid, will do so with an amount of care and will try to ensure its own success.    a slow introduction of surveillance and restrictions will be able to push back the willingness to fight and undermine any forming resistance.  already existing laws and mechanisms can be used to sabotage such efforts.    if a resistance is forming anyway, a government may make just enough concessions to avoid a revolution.   my conclusion:  guns as a way of protecting against the government overstepping its bounds are not effective until things really get out of hand.  by that point, there is not really any freedom left to protect.  cmv.   #  the other path is to drastically reduce freedoms, at a time where the country seems to be under attack.   #  the violent response will be prevented by patriotism.   # that whole fiasco with that nevada rancher just happened last year, and those armed citizen is were arguably effective at deterring the government agents.  URL there are over 0 million firearms in this country, and many citizens are more than willing to use them.  just because there is not a reason  right now  does not mean that people would not use them.  right up until it does though.  it is not as if that has not happened before in history, but eventually there comes a point where a violent response is all that is left.  the violent response will be prevented by patriotism.  prevented ? doubtful.  the american revolution was a thing, remember.  there were plenty of colonial citizens who supported the british and the king, and condemned the revolutionaries.  but it did not prevent the revolutionaries from doing so.  pretty much never does public sentiment prevent such drastic actions from being taken.  there is condemnation and criticism, but there is also praise and adoration.  an attack against the government that does not have widespread public support will result in the swift reduction of freedoms, using the attack as the perfect excuse for it.  and the public will support it.  or, more likely, that in times of great crises people take dramatic actions.  few revolutions have widespread public support, what matters is that there is  some  public support.  key word try.  but it is like your putting only the smart people in the role of tyrants, and only idiots in the role of the people.  already existing laws and mechanisms can be used to sabotage such efforts.  not. really.  there are simply too many people to watch.  and only so many government snoopers, with so many hours to watch other people.  that is kind of the point.   #  food is not made anywhere near major population centers now.   #  it is possible to beat them when they are in disarray and you already live in a shithole.  we lose our shit when a hurricane or a bad snowstorm hits.  imagine those conditions when socieity is barely working and then add a civil war on top of it.  food is not made anywhere near major population centers now.  california has more people in it than twenty other states combined.  any area with enough people to mount a resistance wont have the supplies food production it needs to do so, and the areas that have the supplies to stand alone do not have the people to mount a resistance.   #  the first thing the government would do in such a situation, would be to ban firearms, and then march through towns with a small army and a few tanks, and go house by house, stripping everyone of all their firearms.   #  i do not think it is effective for that either, since the american military is so far advanced as compared to civilians with firearms.  the first thing the government would do in such a situation, would be to ban firearms, and then march through towns with a small army and a few tanks, and go house by house, stripping everyone of all their firearms.  it would also likely become illegal to protest or form large crowds.  civilians would be force to communicate using encrypted means, and meeting in secret, where they would need to have stores of what are now illegal firearms.  same as in any other country.  but such a revolt against the might of the us military would be futile.   #  at the point where there is an armed revolution between the people and the government, the constitution would become meaningless.   #  i am not saying there would be zero casualties.  i am saying in a situation where citizens revolt at war with the american government, they do not stand a chance.  sure one guy might snipe a dozen people in one location, but the resistance would be quickly overrun.  at the point where there is an armed revolution between the people and the government, the constitution would become meaningless.  there are many military bases in many locations.  certainly people will manage to hide some guns, and a resistance would form, but were are still talking about some citizens with firearms versus the might of the most powerful armed forces on planet earth.   #  maybe it would be legally meaningful if we decided what weapons should be legal to own on the basis of how useful they would be in combating the us military arsenal, but no one even pretends to do that.   # if it wo not hold up in court, how is it even meaningful to say this is the purpose of the 0a ? maybe it would be legally meaningful if we decided what weapons should be legal to own on the basis of how useful they would be in combating the us military arsenal, but no one even pretends to do that.  we might as well say the 0a is for protecting ourselves from mythical monsters whose existence, numbers, and vulnerability to weapons are completely unknown to us.  that premise would have the exact same impact on the legal status of guns.  no other advanced country grants its citizens the right to violently overthrow their own government.  it sounds absurd to even write that out, but in the us people argue this is what the 0a is for.
i have seen many times the claim that guns help protect against the government getting out of hand.  i do not find this argument persuasive for these reasons:  the threat is not effective:    for the argument to really work, guns must present an effective threat to the government, or at least to the politician introducing some sort of freedom restricting legislation.  just having the gun is not enough, there must be a perception of that people are willing to use it.    guns are a weapon of last resort.  to take arms against the government means a near guarantee that you will sacrifice your life for it.  this means it only makes sense if what the government is doing is so awful that death is an acceptable risk.    to achieve success there needs to be a large amount of agreement that this is the right path.  until that, it will simply be terrorism and opposed by the rest of the population.    in fact, the actions of the us government do not seem to be especially careful when compared to the actions of say, an european government where gun ownership is restricted.  so the threat does not seem to be working.   there wo not be a clear point at which to resort to weapons:    one path a government may take is to slowly reduce freedoms, in such a way that no single reduction warrants a violent response.    the other path is to drastically reduce freedoms, at a time where the country seems to be under attack.  the violent response will be prevented by patriotism.   the results will be counterproductive:    by the speed with which things like the patriot act and the tsa appeared it seems like there are laws and proposed organisms lying in wait for just the right incident.  an attack against the government that does not have widespread public support will result in the swift reduction of freedoms, using the attack as the perfect excuse for it.  and the public will support it.    the american public is deeply patriotic and any such attacks wo not get a positive reception, even despite the people having a serious distrust and lack of faith in the government.   the willingness to fight will be neutralized:    a government changing to a tyranny, unless it is completely stupid, will do so with an amount of care and will try to ensure its own success.    a slow introduction of surveillance and restrictions will be able to push back the willingness to fight and undermine any forming resistance.  already existing laws and mechanisms can be used to sabotage such efforts.    if a resistance is forming anyway, a government may make just enough concessions to avoid a revolution.   my conclusion:  guns as a way of protecting against the government overstepping its bounds are not effective until things really get out of hand.  by that point, there is not really any freedom left to protect.  cmv.   #  by the speed with which things like the patriot act and the tsa appeared it seems like there are laws and proposed organisms lying in wait for just the right incident.   #  an attack against the government that does not have widespread public support will result in the swift reduction of freedoms, using the attack as the perfect excuse for it.   # that whole fiasco with that nevada rancher just happened last year, and those armed citizen is were arguably effective at deterring the government agents.  URL there are over 0 million firearms in this country, and many citizens are more than willing to use them.  just because there is not a reason  right now  does not mean that people would not use them.  right up until it does though.  it is not as if that has not happened before in history, but eventually there comes a point where a violent response is all that is left.  the violent response will be prevented by patriotism.  prevented ? doubtful.  the american revolution was a thing, remember.  there were plenty of colonial citizens who supported the british and the king, and condemned the revolutionaries.  but it did not prevent the revolutionaries from doing so.  pretty much never does public sentiment prevent such drastic actions from being taken.  there is condemnation and criticism, but there is also praise and adoration.  an attack against the government that does not have widespread public support will result in the swift reduction of freedoms, using the attack as the perfect excuse for it.  and the public will support it.  or, more likely, that in times of great crises people take dramatic actions.  few revolutions have widespread public support, what matters is that there is  some  public support.  key word try.  but it is like your putting only the smart people in the role of tyrants, and only idiots in the role of the people.  already existing laws and mechanisms can be used to sabotage such efforts.  not. really.  there are simply too many people to watch.  and only so many government snoopers, with so many hours to watch other people.  that is kind of the point.   #  california has more people in it than twenty other states combined.   #  it is possible to beat them when they are in disarray and you already live in a shithole.  we lose our shit when a hurricane or a bad snowstorm hits.  imagine those conditions when socieity is barely working and then add a civil war on top of it.  food is not made anywhere near major population centers now.  california has more people in it than twenty other states combined.  any area with enough people to mount a resistance wont have the supplies food production it needs to do so, and the areas that have the supplies to stand alone do not have the people to mount a resistance.   #  it would also likely become illegal to protest or form large crowds.   #  i do not think it is effective for that either, since the american military is so far advanced as compared to civilians with firearms.  the first thing the government would do in such a situation, would be to ban firearms, and then march through towns with a small army and a few tanks, and go house by house, stripping everyone of all their firearms.  it would also likely become illegal to protest or form large crowds.  civilians would be force to communicate using encrypted means, and meeting in secret, where they would need to have stores of what are now illegal firearms.  same as in any other country.  but such a revolt against the might of the us military would be futile.   #  certainly people will manage to hide some guns, and a resistance would form, but were are still talking about some citizens with firearms versus the might of the most powerful armed forces on planet earth.   #  i am not saying there would be zero casualties.  i am saying in a situation where citizens revolt at war with the american government, they do not stand a chance.  sure one guy might snipe a dozen people in one location, but the resistance would be quickly overrun.  at the point where there is an armed revolution between the people and the government, the constitution would become meaningless.  there are many military bases in many locations.  certainly people will manage to hide some guns, and a resistance would form, but were are still talking about some citizens with firearms versus the might of the most powerful armed forces on planet earth.   #  that premise would have the exact same impact on the legal status of guns.   # if it wo not hold up in court, how is it even meaningful to say this is the purpose of the 0a ? maybe it would be legally meaningful if we decided what weapons should be legal to own on the basis of how useful they would be in combating the us military arsenal, but no one even pretends to do that.  we might as well say the 0a is for protecting ourselves from mythical monsters whose existence, numbers, and vulnerability to weapons are completely unknown to us.  that premise would have the exact same impact on the legal status of guns.  no other advanced country grants its citizens the right to violently overthrow their own government.  it sounds absurd to even write that out, but in the us people argue this is what the 0a is for.
i have seen many times the claim that guns help protect against the government getting out of hand.  i do not find this argument persuasive for these reasons:  the threat is not effective:    for the argument to really work, guns must present an effective threat to the government, or at least to the politician introducing some sort of freedom restricting legislation.  just having the gun is not enough, there must be a perception of that people are willing to use it.    guns are a weapon of last resort.  to take arms against the government means a near guarantee that you will sacrifice your life for it.  this means it only makes sense if what the government is doing is so awful that death is an acceptable risk.    to achieve success there needs to be a large amount of agreement that this is the right path.  until that, it will simply be terrorism and opposed by the rest of the population.    in fact, the actions of the us government do not seem to be especially careful when compared to the actions of say, an european government where gun ownership is restricted.  so the threat does not seem to be working.   there wo not be a clear point at which to resort to weapons:    one path a government may take is to slowly reduce freedoms, in such a way that no single reduction warrants a violent response.    the other path is to drastically reduce freedoms, at a time where the country seems to be under attack.  the violent response will be prevented by patriotism.   the results will be counterproductive:    by the speed with which things like the patriot act and the tsa appeared it seems like there are laws and proposed organisms lying in wait for just the right incident.  an attack against the government that does not have widespread public support will result in the swift reduction of freedoms, using the attack as the perfect excuse for it.  and the public will support it.    the american public is deeply patriotic and any such attacks wo not get a positive reception, even despite the people having a serious distrust and lack of faith in the government.   the willingness to fight will be neutralized:    a government changing to a tyranny, unless it is completely stupid, will do so with an amount of care and will try to ensure its own success.    a slow introduction of surveillance and restrictions will be able to push back the willingness to fight and undermine any forming resistance.  already existing laws and mechanisms can be used to sabotage such efforts.    if a resistance is forming anyway, a government may make just enough concessions to avoid a revolution.   my conclusion:  guns as a way of protecting against the government overstepping its bounds are not effective until things really get out of hand.  by that point, there is not really any freedom left to protect.  cmv.   #  a slow introduction of surveillance and restrictions will be able to push back the willingness to fight and undermine any forming resistance.   #  already existing laws and mechanisms can be used to sabotage such efforts.   # that whole fiasco with that nevada rancher just happened last year, and those armed citizen is were arguably effective at deterring the government agents.  URL there are over 0 million firearms in this country, and many citizens are more than willing to use them.  just because there is not a reason  right now  does not mean that people would not use them.  right up until it does though.  it is not as if that has not happened before in history, but eventually there comes a point where a violent response is all that is left.  the violent response will be prevented by patriotism.  prevented ? doubtful.  the american revolution was a thing, remember.  there were plenty of colonial citizens who supported the british and the king, and condemned the revolutionaries.  but it did not prevent the revolutionaries from doing so.  pretty much never does public sentiment prevent such drastic actions from being taken.  there is condemnation and criticism, but there is also praise and adoration.  an attack against the government that does not have widespread public support will result in the swift reduction of freedoms, using the attack as the perfect excuse for it.  and the public will support it.  or, more likely, that in times of great crises people take dramatic actions.  few revolutions have widespread public support, what matters is that there is  some  public support.  key word try.  but it is like your putting only the smart people in the role of tyrants, and only idiots in the role of the people.  already existing laws and mechanisms can be used to sabotage such efforts.  not. really.  there are simply too many people to watch.  and only so many government snoopers, with so many hours to watch other people.  that is kind of the point.   #  any area with enough people to mount a resistance wont have the supplies food production it needs to do so, and the areas that have the supplies to stand alone do not have the people to mount a resistance.   #  it is possible to beat them when they are in disarray and you already live in a shithole.  we lose our shit when a hurricane or a bad snowstorm hits.  imagine those conditions when socieity is barely working and then add a civil war on top of it.  food is not made anywhere near major population centers now.  california has more people in it than twenty other states combined.  any area with enough people to mount a resistance wont have the supplies food production it needs to do so, and the areas that have the supplies to stand alone do not have the people to mount a resistance.   #  it would also likely become illegal to protest or form large crowds.   #  i do not think it is effective for that either, since the american military is so far advanced as compared to civilians with firearms.  the first thing the government would do in such a situation, would be to ban firearms, and then march through towns with a small army and a few tanks, and go house by house, stripping everyone of all their firearms.  it would also likely become illegal to protest or form large crowds.  civilians would be force to communicate using encrypted means, and meeting in secret, where they would need to have stores of what are now illegal firearms.  same as in any other country.  but such a revolt against the might of the us military would be futile.   #  certainly people will manage to hide some guns, and a resistance would form, but were are still talking about some citizens with firearms versus the might of the most powerful armed forces on planet earth.   #  i am not saying there would be zero casualties.  i am saying in a situation where citizens revolt at war with the american government, they do not stand a chance.  sure one guy might snipe a dozen people in one location, but the resistance would be quickly overrun.  at the point where there is an armed revolution between the people and the government, the constitution would become meaningless.  there are many military bases in many locations.  certainly people will manage to hide some guns, and a resistance would form, but were are still talking about some citizens with firearms versus the might of the most powerful armed forces on planet earth.   #  it sounds absurd to even write that out, but in the us people argue this is what the 0a is for.   # if it wo not hold up in court, how is it even meaningful to say this is the purpose of the 0a ? maybe it would be legally meaningful if we decided what weapons should be legal to own on the basis of how useful they would be in combating the us military arsenal, but no one even pretends to do that.  we might as well say the 0a is for protecting ourselves from mythical monsters whose existence, numbers, and vulnerability to weapons are completely unknown to us.  that premise would have the exact same impact on the legal status of guns.  no other advanced country grants its citizens the right to violently overthrow their own government.  it sounds absurd to even write that out, but in the us people argue this is what the 0a is for.
i have seen many times the claim that guns help protect against the government getting out of hand.  i do not find this argument persuasive for these reasons:  the threat is not effective:    for the argument to really work, guns must present an effective threat to the government, or at least to the politician introducing some sort of freedom restricting legislation.  just having the gun is not enough, there must be a perception of that people are willing to use it.    guns are a weapon of last resort.  to take arms against the government means a near guarantee that you will sacrifice your life for it.  this means it only makes sense if what the government is doing is so awful that death is an acceptable risk.    to achieve success there needs to be a large amount of agreement that this is the right path.  until that, it will simply be terrorism and opposed by the rest of the population.    in fact, the actions of the us government do not seem to be especially careful when compared to the actions of say, an european government where gun ownership is restricted.  so the threat does not seem to be working.   there wo not be a clear point at which to resort to weapons:    one path a government may take is to slowly reduce freedoms, in such a way that no single reduction warrants a violent response.    the other path is to drastically reduce freedoms, at a time where the country seems to be under attack.  the violent response will be prevented by patriotism.   the results will be counterproductive:    by the speed with which things like the patriot act and the tsa appeared it seems like there are laws and proposed organisms lying in wait for just the right incident.  an attack against the government that does not have widespread public support will result in the swift reduction of freedoms, using the attack as the perfect excuse for it.  and the public will support it.    the american public is deeply patriotic and any such attacks wo not get a positive reception, even despite the people having a serious distrust and lack of faith in the government.   the willingness to fight will be neutralized:    a government changing to a tyranny, unless it is completely stupid, will do so with an amount of care and will try to ensure its own success.    a slow introduction of surveillance and restrictions will be able to push back the willingness to fight and undermine any forming resistance.  already existing laws and mechanisms can be used to sabotage such efforts.    if a resistance is forming anyway, a government may make just enough concessions to avoid a revolution.   my conclusion:  guns as a way of protecting against the government overstepping its bounds are not effective until things really get out of hand.  by that point, there is not really any freedom left to protect.  cmv.   #  guns as a way of protecting against the government overstepping its bounds are not effective until things really get out of hand.   #  no rational person suggests using guns against tyranny until things get out of hand.   # no rational person suggests using guns against tyranny until things get out of hand.  up until you have tyranny, non violent means are still effective, and should be used.  thus the need to retain the means to overthrow the government to reestablish freedom.  you ca not predict what the trigger will be.  i doubt the colonists knew that the battles of lexington and concord would be the trigger for armed resistance, but they were.  btw, the battle started because the government tried to disarm the citizens.   #  we lose our shit when a hurricane or a bad snowstorm hits.   #  it is possible to beat them when they are in disarray and you already live in a shithole.  we lose our shit when a hurricane or a bad snowstorm hits.  imagine those conditions when socieity is barely working and then add a civil war on top of it.  food is not made anywhere near major population centers now.  california has more people in it than twenty other states combined.  any area with enough people to mount a resistance wont have the supplies food production it needs to do so, and the areas that have the supplies to stand alone do not have the people to mount a resistance.   #  the first thing the government would do in such a situation, would be to ban firearms, and then march through towns with a small army and a few tanks, and go house by house, stripping everyone of all their firearms.   #  i do not think it is effective for that either, since the american military is so far advanced as compared to civilians with firearms.  the first thing the government would do in such a situation, would be to ban firearms, and then march through towns with a small army and a few tanks, and go house by house, stripping everyone of all their firearms.  it would also likely become illegal to protest or form large crowds.  civilians would be force to communicate using encrypted means, and meeting in secret, where they would need to have stores of what are now illegal firearms.  same as in any other country.  but such a revolt against the might of the us military would be futile.   #  certainly people will manage to hide some guns, and a resistance would form, but were are still talking about some citizens with firearms versus the might of the most powerful armed forces on planet earth.   #  i am not saying there would be zero casualties.  i am saying in a situation where citizens revolt at war with the american government, they do not stand a chance.  sure one guy might snipe a dozen people in one location, but the resistance would be quickly overrun.  at the point where there is an armed revolution between the people and the government, the constitution would become meaningless.  there are many military bases in many locations.  certainly people will manage to hide some guns, and a resistance would form, but were are still talking about some citizens with firearms versus the might of the most powerful armed forces on planet earth.   #  it sounds absurd to even write that out, but in the us people argue this is what the 0a is for.   # if it wo not hold up in court, how is it even meaningful to say this is the purpose of the 0a ? maybe it would be legally meaningful if we decided what weapons should be legal to own on the basis of how useful they would be in combating the us military arsenal, but no one even pretends to do that.  we might as well say the 0a is for protecting ourselves from mythical monsters whose existence, numbers, and vulnerability to weapons are completely unknown to us.  that premise would have the exact same impact on the legal status of guns.  no other advanced country grants its citizens the right to violently overthrow their own government.  it sounds absurd to even write that out, but in the us people argue this is what the 0a is for.
i have seen many times the claim that guns help protect against the government getting out of hand.  i do not find this argument persuasive for these reasons:  the threat is not effective:    for the argument to really work, guns must present an effective threat to the government, or at least to the politician introducing some sort of freedom restricting legislation.  just having the gun is not enough, there must be a perception of that people are willing to use it.    guns are a weapon of last resort.  to take arms against the government means a near guarantee that you will sacrifice your life for it.  this means it only makes sense if what the government is doing is so awful that death is an acceptable risk.    to achieve success there needs to be a large amount of agreement that this is the right path.  until that, it will simply be terrorism and opposed by the rest of the population.    in fact, the actions of the us government do not seem to be especially careful when compared to the actions of say, an european government where gun ownership is restricted.  so the threat does not seem to be working.   there wo not be a clear point at which to resort to weapons:    one path a government may take is to slowly reduce freedoms, in such a way that no single reduction warrants a violent response.    the other path is to drastically reduce freedoms, at a time where the country seems to be under attack.  the violent response will be prevented by patriotism.   the results will be counterproductive:    by the speed with which things like the patriot act and the tsa appeared it seems like there are laws and proposed organisms lying in wait for just the right incident.  an attack against the government that does not have widespread public support will result in the swift reduction of freedoms, using the attack as the perfect excuse for it.  and the public will support it.    the american public is deeply patriotic and any such attacks wo not get a positive reception, even despite the people having a serious distrust and lack of faith in the government.   the willingness to fight will be neutralized:    a government changing to a tyranny, unless it is completely stupid, will do so with an amount of care and will try to ensure its own success.    a slow introduction of surveillance and restrictions will be able to push back the willingness to fight and undermine any forming resistance.  already existing laws and mechanisms can be used to sabotage such efforts.    if a resistance is forming anyway, a government may make just enough concessions to avoid a revolution.   my conclusion:  guns as a way of protecting against the government overstepping its bounds are not effective until things really get out of hand.  by that point, there is not really any freedom left to protect.  cmv.   #  by that point, there is not really any freedom left to protect.   #  thus the need to retain the means to overthrow the government to reestablish freedom.   # no rational person suggests using guns against tyranny until things get out of hand.  up until you have tyranny, non violent means are still effective, and should be used.  thus the need to retain the means to overthrow the government to reestablish freedom.  you ca not predict what the trigger will be.  i doubt the colonists knew that the battles of lexington and concord would be the trigger for armed resistance, but they were.  btw, the battle started because the government tried to disarm the citizens.   #  california has more people in it than twenty other states combined.   #  it is possible to beat them when they are in disarray and you already live in a shithole.  we lose our shit when a hurricane or a bad snowstorm hits.  imagine those conditions when socieity is barely working and then add a civil war on top of it.  food is not made anywhere near major population centers now.  california has more people in it than twenty other states combined.  any area with enough people to mount a resistance wont have the supplies food production it needs to do so, and the areas that have the supplies to stand alone do not have the people to mount a resistance.   #  the first thing the government would do in such a situation, would be to ban firearms, and then march through towns with a small army and a few tanks, and go house by house, stripping everyone of all their firearms.   #  i do not think it is effective for that either, since the american military is so far advanced as compared to civilians with firearms.  the first thing the government would do in such a situation, would be to ban firearms, and then march through towns with a small army and a few tanks, and go house by house, stripping everyone of all their firearms.  it would also likely become illegal to protest or form large crowds.  civilians would be force to communicate using encrypted means, and meeting in secret, where they would need to have stores of what are now illegal firearms.  same as in any other country.  but such a revolt against the might of the us military would be futile.   #  sure one guy might snipe a dozen people in one location, but the resistance would be quickly overrun.   #  i am not saying there would be zero casualties.  i am saying in a situation where citizens revolt at war with the american government, they do not stand a chance.  sure one guy might snipe a dozen people in one location, but the resistance would be quickly overrun.  at the point where there is an armed revolution between the people and the government, the constitution would become meaningless.  there are many military bases in many locations.  certainly people will manage to hide some guns, and a resistance would form, but were are still talking about some citizens with firearms versus the might of the most powerful armed forces on planet earth.   #  no other advanced country grants its citizens the right to violently overthrow their own government.   # if it wo not hold up in court, how is it even meaningful to say this is the purpose of the 0a ? maybe it would be legally meaningful if we decided what weapons should be legal to own on the basis of how useful they would be in combating the us military arsenal, but no one even pretends to do that.  we might as well say the 0a is for protecting ourselves from mythical monsters whose existence, numbers, and vulnerability to weapons are completely unknown to us.  that premise would have the exact same impact on the legal status of guns.  no other advanced country grants its citizens the right to violently overthrow their own government.  it sounds absurd to even write that out, but in the us people argue this is what the 0a is for.
cmv: there is no way someone can say they disagree with same sex marriage, based on religious reasons, without being a hypocrite.  nobody can live their life to the word of the bible.  at least nobody in western culture in this day and age.  to live by the bible to the letter would land whoever did in prison and on death row.  so, with the way that humanity has grown and laws have evolved, people must pick and choose what to follow verbatim and what to shrug off as no longer relevant or possible to follow.  with same sex marriage something that is not even mentioned anywhere in the bible , people tend to take a few phrases from the old testament and interpret them to say that we should not allow gay people to be able to marry each other.  now, it is of my opinion that in fighting against gay marriage, unless you are also fighting for every other thing in the bible that nobody adheres to, you are a hypocrite.  not only that, but you have chosen a part of the bible that keeps others from a basic civil right.  if your concern is about the sanctity of marriage, why is there no outcry about the divorce rate or how many people remarry without stoning their previous wife who they must have divorced because she was unfaithful ? i see no other possibility than these people dislike gay people for personal reasons, be it that they think it is icky or it just makes them uncomfortable, etc.  and have found a means to combat it.  to me, this is exploitation.  exploitation of the religion they claim to love in order to make their lives a little bit better for themselves.  i do not know if this is considered a sin or not, but as everyone who is against ssm seems to assume that is a sin, i would have to assume that this is as well.  and in all likelihood a greater one.   #  i see no other possibility than these people dislike gay people for personal reasons, be it that they think it is icky or it just makes them uncomfortable, etc.   #  they probably see this personal feeling as a sign from god that this is an important biblical law.   #  this concept of an  all or nothing bible  is not how christianity works or has ever worked.  the reason we have so many christian sects nowadays is because we all disagree on what parts of the bible are the most important, what messages we get from it, or what the standards of christian morality are.  they probably see this personal feeling as a sign from god that this is an important biblical law.  after all, many christians believe in an inherent human conscience that shows right and wrong.  do not pretend like moralistic attitudes are not everywhere in politics.  these people believe they are right, and god says what is right, thus god says they are right.  you probably feel like you are doing the right thing too.   #  it is understood that everyone is going to do that, and repent later.   #  note: i am not religion in the slightest the bible says not verbatim that man should not lay with man the same way he lays with a woman.  that is a pretty clear meaning that homosexuality is a no go.  now, christianity revolves around the idea that everyone messes up.  there are a billion  rules  in the bible, and most christians break those consistently.  it is understood that everyone is going to do that, and repent later.  but here is the different there is no celebration of it.  to a lot of christians, marriage is a holy sacrament.  iirc there are seven pretty important ones in catholicism, marriage being one of those.  while everyone sins, they do not have a celebration of doing it.  while there may be couples who are having premarital sex, they are not standing before their god in celebration, nor are they entering into an agreement to continue to sin as being married, they are now  ok  so, yeah, it is a bad argument overall you should not be trying to restrict other is rights based on your beliefs, but not necessarily a hypocritical one  #  wearing jewelry is a sin, but we can advertise and promote that.   #  exactly.  legalizing divorce is an endorsement of sin.  it encourages the ending of a marriage for reasons other than adultery, which is considered a sin.  eating certain foods or wearing certain clothing is a sin, but we are allowed to advertise and promote it on bill boards.  wearing jewelry is a sin, but we can advertise and promote that.  we even celebrate it during weddings with the rings.  touching any part of a dead pig is a sin, but we make a national sport of it and definitely endorse and celebrate it.  trimming your beard is not allowed either, but we constantly encourage that for job interviews.  trying to say  while everyone sins, they do not have a celebration of doing it.   is not helpful because we celebrate or endorse a lot of things that are considered sins.   #  the thing that i think makes it hypocritical is the reasoning behind it.   #  the thing that i think makes it hypocritical is the reasoning behind it.  surely so many people ca not be against it solely because it is written in the bible.  they all have to make a concious choice that  this is something i am going to take a stand against.   if it is not for the sanctity of marriage, as you say, it is a holy sacrament, then what is it ? and if it  is  for the sanctity of marriage, gay people getting married to me, anyway threatens marriage way way way way less than things like divorce.  on top of that, i got married outside, in a totally non religious setting, with absolutely no mention of god anywhere in our ceremony and i have not heard one religious person say anything bad about that or other marriages similar in manner.  the problem is is that  everything  about this specific issue, when viewed from the outside, looks like it is people who are uncomfortable with gay people and are using the bible to help themselves fight it.   #  and while all christian religions recognized that we are all sinners, there is no endorsement or celebration of  any  on going sins.   # some religious people make a very significant distinction between  religious marriage  and  legal marriage  that is a distinction that supporters of gay marriage have never really understood.  it is really a matter of semantics where two groups of people are using the same word to describe different things.  it is why the concept of  civil unions  was much more widely accepted when the discussion of gay marriage started.  for many religious people, they would not consider your marriage to be  real  marriage.  because to them, marriage is a religious concept not a state endorsed legal concept.  and that gets us back to your original view.  people who look at marriage  only  as a religious concept consider gay marriage to, essentially be, the church endorsing on going sin.  and while all christian religions recognized that we are all sinners, there is no endorsement or celebration of  any  on going sins.  in fact, the christian religions that i am familiar with all  require  some type of repentance for sins.  it is a little difficult to  genuinely  repent for your homosexual relationship when you show up to confession and leave confession with your gay spouse.
cmv: there is no way someone can say they disagree with same sex marriage, based on religious reasons, without being a hypocrite.  nobody can live their life to the word of the bible.  at least nobody in western culture in this day and age.  to live by the bible to the letter would land whoever did in prison and on death row.  so, with the way that humanity has grown and laws have evolved, people must pick and choose what to follow verbatim and what to shrug off as no longer relevant or possible to follow.  with same sex marriage something that is not even mentioned anywhere in the bible , people tend to take a few phrases from the old testament and interpret them to say that we should not allow gay people to be able to marry each other.  now, it is of my opinion that in fighting against gay marriage, unless you are also fighting for every other thing in the bible that nobody adheres to, you are a hypocrite.  not only that, but you have chosen a part of the bible that keeps others from a basic civil right.  if your concern is about the sanctity of marriage, why is there no outcry about the divorce rate or how many people remarry without stoning their previous wife who they must have divorced because she was unfaithful ? i see no other possibility than these people dislike gay people for personal reasons, be it that they think it is icky or it just makes them uncomfortable, etc.  and have found a means to combat it.  to me, this is exploitation.  exploitation of the religion they claim to love in order to make their lives a little bit better for themselves.  i do not know if this is considered a sin or not, but as everyone who is against ssm seems to assume that is a sin, i would have to assume that this is as well.  and in all likelihood a greater one.   #  exploitation of the religion they claim to love in order to make their lives a little bit better for themselves.   #  do not pretend like moralistic attitudes are not everywhere in politics.   #  this concept of an  all or nothing bible  is not how christianity works or has ever worked.  the reason we have so many christian sects nowadays is because we all disagree on what parts of the bible are the most important, what messages we get from it, or what the standards of christian morality are.  they probably see this personal feeling as a sign from god that this is an important biblical law.  after all, many christians believe in an inherent human conscience that shows right and wrong.  do not pretend like moralistic attitudes are not everywhere in politics.  these people believe they are right, and god says what is right, thus god says they are right.  you probably feel like you are doing the right thing too.   #  while everyone sins, they do not have a celebration of doing it.   #  note: i am not religion in the slightest the bible says not verbatim that man should not lay with man the same way he lays with a woman.  that is a pretty clear meaning that homosexuality is a no go.  now, christianity revolves around the idea that everyone messes up.  there are a billion  rules  in the bible, and most christians break those consistently.  it is understood that everyone is going to do that, and repent later.  but here is the different there is no celebration of it.  to a lot of christians, marriage is a holy sacrament.  iirc there are seven pretty important ones in catholicism, marriage being one of those.  while everyone sins, they do not have a celebration of doing it.  while there may be couples who are having premarital sex, they are not standing before their god in celebration, nor are they entering into an agreement to continue to sin as being married, they are now  ok  so, yeah, it is a bad argument overall you should not be trying to restrict other is rights based on your beliefs, but not necessarily a hypocritical one  #  touching any part of a dead pig is a sin, but we make a national sport of it and definitely endorse and celebrate it.   #  exactly.  legalizing divorce is an endorsement of sin.  it encourages the ending of a marriage for reasons other than adultery, which is considered a sin.  eating certain foods or wearing certain clothing is a sin, but we are allowed to advertise and promote it on bill boards.  wearing jewelry is a sin, but we can advertise and promote that.  we even celebrate it during weddings with the rings.  touching any part of a dead pig is a sin, but we make a national sport of it and definitely endorse and celebrate it.  trimming your beard is not allowed either, but we constantly encourage that for job interviews.  trying to say  while everyone sins, they do not have a celebration of doing it.   is not helpful because we celebrate or endorse a lot of things that are considered sins.   #  they all have to make a concious choice that  this is something i am going to take a stand against.    #  the thing that i think makes it hypocritical is the reasoning behind it.  surely so many people ca not be against it solely because it is written in the bible.  they all have to make a concious choice that  this is something i am going to take a stand against.   if it is not for the sanctity of marriage, as you say, it is a holy sacrament, then what is it ? and if it  is  for the sanctity of marriage, gay people getting married to me, anyway threatens marriage way way way way less than things like divorce.  on top of that, i got married outside, in a totally non religious setting, with absolutely no mention of god anywhere in our ceremony and i have not heard one religious person say anything bad about that or other marriages similar in manner.  the problem is is that  everything  about this specific issue, when viewed from the outside, looks like it is people who are uncomfortable with gay people and are using the bible to help themselves fight it.   #  and that gets us back to your original view.   # some religious people make a very significant distinction between  religious marriage  and  legal marriage  that is a distinction that supporters of gay marriage have never really understood.  it is really a matter of semantics where two groups of people are using the same word to describe different things.  it is why the concept of  civil unions  was much more widely accepted when the discussion of gay marriage started.  for many religious people, they would not consider your marriage to be  real  marriage.  because to them, marriage is a religious concept not a state endorsed legal concept.  and that gets us back to your original view.  people who look at marriage  only  as a religious concept consider gay marriage to, essentially be, the church endorsing on going sin.  and while all christian religions recognized that we are all sinners, there is no endorsement or celebration of  any  on going sins.  in fact, the christian religions that i am familiar with all  require  some type of repentance for sins.  it is a little difficult to  genuinely  repent for your homosexual relationship when you show up to confession and leave confession with your gay spouse.
cmv: there is no way someone can say they disagree with same sex marriage, based on religious reasons, without being a hypocrite.  nobody can live their life to the word of the bible.  at least nobody in western culture in this day and age.  to live by the bible to the letter would land whoever did in prison and on death row.  so, with the way that humanity has grown and laws have evolved, people must pick and choose what to follow verbatim and what to shrug off as no longer relevant or possible to follow.  with same sex marriage something that is not even mentioned anywhere in the bible , people tend to take a few phrases from the old testament and interpret them to say that we should not allow gay people to be able to marry each other.  now, it is of my opinion that in fighting against gay marriage, unless you are also fighting for every other thing in the bible that nobody adheres to, you are a hypocrite.  not only that, but you have chosen a part of the bible that keeps others from a basic civil right.  if your concern is about the sanctity of marriage, why is there no outcry about the divorce rate or how many people remarry without stoning their previous wife who they must have divorced because she was unfaithful ? i see no other possibility than these people dislike gay people for personal reasons, be it that they think it is icky or it just makes them uncomfortable, etc.  and have found a means to combat it.  to me, this is exploitation.  exploitation of the religion they claim to love in order to make their lives a little bit better for themselves.  i do not know if this is considered a sin or not, but as everyone who is against ssm seems to assume that is a sin, i would have to assume that this is as well.  and in all likelihood a greater one.   #  people tend to take a few phrases from the old testament and interpret them to say that we should not allow gay people to be able to marry each other.   #  this is not true, but opponents of christianity love to misrepresent christians by saying it.   # this is not true, but opponents of christianity love to misrepresent christians by saying it.   look at those christians,  they say,  they oppose gay marriage because of the old testament but they still eat pork ! what hypocrites !   christians in general consider that the old testament laws have been  fulfilled,  meaning we do not have to follow them any more.  thank goodness, too, because they were amazingly restrictive.  the issue is with the new testament, not the old.  christians consider the new testament to be the living law, the one that we really need to follow, and it written several times there that homosexual activity is bad.  the new testament has far fewer rules than the old and they are usually pretty simple and good.  there are a few odd ones that christians tend to believe were customs of the time rather than divine laws like men having long hair, or women staying silent in church .  it is unfair to say to people  either do it perfectly, or do not do it at all !   people make mistakes, forget things, and have weaknesses.  the idea of the bible is for us to gradually get closer to christ by continually improving ourselves.  i also dispute your use of the word  hypocrisy.   hypocrisy is  the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one is own behavior does not conform; pretense.  you are arguing that following  some  laws, but not  all  of them, make us hypocrites.  that is not what hypocrisy is.  hypocrisy is saying  i am perfect !   when you know you are not.  it is saying  i pay tithes !   when you do not.  it is saying  i have not missed mass in 0 years !   when you have.  if i break a law but admit it, i am not a hypocrite.  i am imperfect and sinful but not hypocritical.   #  but here is the different there is no celebration of it.   #  note: i am not religion in the slightest the bible says not verbatim that man should not lay with man the same way he lays with a woman.  that is a pretty clear meaning that homosexuality is a no go.  now, christianity revolves around the idea that everyone messes up.  there are a billion  rules  in the bible, and most christians break those consistently.  it is understood that everyone is going to do that, and repent later.  but here is the different there is no celebration of it.  to a lot of christians, marriage is a holy sacrament.  iirc there are seven pretty important ones in catholicism, marriage being one of those.  while everyone sins, they do not have a celebration of doing it.  while there may be couples who are having premarital sex, they are not standing before their god in celebration, nor are they entering into an agreement to continue to sin as being married, they are now  ok  so, yeah, it is a bad argument overall you should not be trying to restrict other is rights based on your beliefs, but not necessarily a hypocritical one  #  eating certain foods or wearing certain clothing is a sin, but we are allowed to advertise and promote it on bill boards.   #  exactly.  legalizing divorce is an endorsement of sin.  it encourages the ending of a marriage for reasons other than adultery, which is considered a sin.  eating certain foods or wearing certain clothing is a sin, but we are allowed to advertise and promote it on bill boards.  wearing jewelry is a sin, but we can advertise and promote that.  we even celebrate it during weddings with the rings.  touching any part of a dead pig is a sin, but we make a national sport of it and definitely endorse and celebrate it.  trimming your beard is not allowed either, but we constantly encourage that for job interviews.  trying to say  while everyone sins, they do not have a celebration of doing it.   is not helpful because we celebrate or endorse a lot of things that are considered sins.   #  and if it  is  for the sanctity of marriage, gay people getting married to me, anyway threatens marriage way way way way less than things like divorce.   #  the thing that i think makes it hypocritical is the reasoning behind it.  surely so many people ca not be against it solely because it is written in the bible.  they all have to make a concious choice that  this is something i am going to take a stand against.   if it is not for the sanctity of marriage, as you say, it is a holy sacrament, then what is it ? and if it  is  for the sanctity of marriage, gay people getting married to me, anyway threatens marriage way way way way less than things like divorce.  on top of that, i got married outside, in a totally non religious setting, with absolutely no mention of god anywhere in our ceremony and i have not heard one religious person say anything bad about that or other marriages similar in manner.  the problem is is that  everything  about this specific issue, when viewed from the outside, looks like it is people who are uncomfortable with gay people and are using the bible to help themselves fight it.   #  people who look at marriage  only  as a religious concept consider gay marriage to, essentially be, the church endorsing on going sin.   # some religious people make a very significant distinction between  religious marriage  and  legal marriage  that is a distinction that supporters of gay marriage have never really understood.  it is really a matter of semantics where two groups of people are using the same word to describe different things.  it is why the concept of  civil unions  was much more widely accepted when the discussion of gay marriage started.  for many religious people, they would not consider your marriage to be  real  marriage.  because to them, marriage is a religious concept not a state endorsed legal concept.  and that gets us back to your original view.  people who look at marriage  only  as a religious concept consider gay marriage to, essentially be, the church endorsing on going sin.  and while all christian religions recognized that we are all sinners, there is no endorsement or celebration of  any  on going sins.  in fact, the christian religions that i am familiar with all  require  some type of repentance for sins.  it is a little difficult to  genuinely  repent for your homosexual relationship when you show up to confession and leave confession with your gay spouse.
cmv: there is no way someone can say they disagree with same sex marriage, based on religious reasons, without being a hypocrite.  nobody can live their life to the word of the bible.  at least nobody in western culture in this day and age.  to live by the bible to the letter would land whoever did in prison and on death row.  so, with the way that humanity has grown and laws have evolved, people must pick and choose what to follow verbatim and what to shrug off as no longer relevant or possible to follow.  with same sex marriage something that is not even mentioned anywhere in the bible , people tend to take a few phrases from the old testament and interpret them to say that we should not allow gay people to be able to marry each other.  now, it is of my opinion that in fighting against gay marriage, unless you are also fighting for every other thing in the bible that nobody adheres to, you are a hypocrite.  not only that, but you have chosen a part of the bible that keeps others from a basic civil right.  if your concern is about the sanctity of marriage, why is there no outcry about the divorce rate or how many people remarry without stoning their previous wife who they must have divorced because she was unfaithful ? i see no other possibility than these people dislike gay people for personal reasons, be it that they think it is icky or it just makes them uncomfortable, etc.  and have found a means to combat it.  to me, this is exploitation.  exploitation of the religion they claim to love in order to make their lives a little bit better for themselves.  i do not know if this is considered a sin or not, but as everyone who is against ssm seems to assume that is a sin, i would have to assume that this is as well.  and in all likelihood a greater one.   #  it is of my opinion that in fighting against gay marriage, unless you are also fighting for every other thing in the bible that nobody adheres to, you are a hypocrite.   #  it is unfair to say to people  either do it perfectly, or do not do it at all !    # this is not true, but opponents of christianity love to misrepresent christians by saying it.   look at those christians,  they say,  they oppose gay marriage because of the old testament but they still eat pork ! what hypocrites !   christians in general consider that the old testament laws have been  fulfilled,  meaning we do not have to follow them any more.  thank goodness, too, because they were amazingly restrictive.  the issue is with the new testament, not the old.  christians consider the new testament to be the living law, the one that we really need to follow, and it written several times there that homosexual activity is bad.  the new testament has far fewer rules than the old and they are usually pretty simple and good.  there are a few odd ones that christians tend to believe were customs of the time rather than divine laws like men having long hair, or women staying silent in church .  it is unfair to say to people  either do it perfectly, or do not do it at all !   people make mistakes, forget things, and have weaknesses.  the idea of the bible is for us to gradually get closer to christ by continually improving ourselves.  i also dispute your use of the word  hypocrisy.   hypocrisy is  the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one is own behavior does not conform; pretense.  you are arguing that following  some  laws, but not  all  of them, make us hypocrites.  that is not what hypocrisy is.  hypocrisy is saying  i am perfect !   when you know you are not.  it is saying  i pay tithes !   when you do not.  it is saying  i have not missed mass in 0 years !   when you have.  if i break a law but admit it, i am not a hypocrite.  i am imperfect and sinful but not hypocritical.   #  note: i am not religion in the slightest the bible says not verbatim that man should not lay with man the same way he lays with a woman.   #  note: i am not religion in the slightest the bible says not verbatim that man should not lay with man the same way he lays with a woman.  that is a pretty clear meaning that homosexuality is a no go.  now, christianity revolves around the idea that everyone messes up.  there are a billion  rules  in the bible, and most christians break those consistently.  it is understood that everyone is going to do that, and repent later.  but here is the different there is no celebration of it.  to a lot of christians, marriage is a holy sacrament.  iirc there are seven pretty important ones in catholicism, marriage being one of those.  while everyone sins, they do not have a celebration of doing it.  while there may be couples who are having premarital sex, they are not standing before their god in celebration, nor are they entering into an agreement to continue to sin as being married, they are now  ok  so, yeah, it is a bad argument overall you should not be trying to restrict other is rights based on your beliefs, but not necessarily a hypocritical one  #  we even celebrate it during weddings with the rings.   #  exactly.  legalizing divorce is an endorsement of sin.  it encourages the ending of a marriage for reasons other than adultery, which is considered a sin.  eating certain foods or wearing certain clothing is a sin, but we are allowed to advertise and promote it on bill boards.  wearing jewelry is a sin, but we can advertise and promote that.  we even celebrate it during weddings with the rings.  touching any part of a dead pig is a sin, but we make a national sport of it and definitely endorse and celebrate it.  trimming your beard is not allowed either, but we constantly encourage that for job interviews.  trying to say  while everyone sins, they do not have a celebration of doing it.   is not helpful because we celebrate or endorse a lot of things that are considered sins.   #  the thing that i think makes it hypocritical is the reasoning behind it.   #  the thing that i think makes it hypocritical is the reasoning behind it.  surely so many people ca not be against it solely because it is written in the bible.  they all have to make a concious choice that  this is something i am going to take a stand against.   if it is not for the sanctity of marriage, as you say, it is a holy sacrament, then what is it ? and if it  is  for the sanctity of marriage, gay people getting married to me, anyway threatens marriage way way way way less than things like divorce.  on top of that, i got married outside, in a totally non religious setting, with absolutely no mention of god anywhere in our ceremony and i have not heard one religious person say anything bad about that or other marriages similar in manner.  the problem is is that  everything  about this specific issue, when viewed from the outside, looks like it is people who are uncomfortable with gay people and are using the bible to help themselves fight it.   #  it is a little difficult to  genuinely  repent for your homosexual relationship when you show up to confession and leave confession with your gay spouse.   # some religious people make a very significant distinction between  religious marriage  and  legal marriage  that is a distinction that supporters of gay marriage have never really understood.  it is really a matter of semantics where two groups of people are using the same word to describe different things.  it is why the concept of  civil unions  was much more widely accepted when the discussion of gay marriage started.  for many religious people, they would not consider your marriage to be  real  marriage.  because to them, marriage is a religious concept not a state endorsed legal concept.  and that gets us back to your original view.  people who look at marriage  only  as a religious concept consider gay marriage to, essentially be, the church endorsing on going sin.  and while all christian religions recognized that we are all sinners, there is no endorsement or celebration of  any  on going sins.  in fact, the christian religions that i am familiar with all  require  some type of repentance for sins.  it is a little difficult to  genuinely  repent for your homosexual relationship when you show up to confession and leave confession with your gay spouse.
i will probably get downvoted for this, but here we go.  the idea of supporting the business model,  that we can get away with paying you dirt, as long as people pay extra to fill in the gap .  is bull shit.  i do not support that, and you should pay your employees accordingly.  also, why the fuck does poor service deserve a tip ? i pay your establishment, why should i have to pay more for good service, and if i do not, are you going to screw with my food ? , because not only is that immoral, but it is illegal.  so good or bad i have to pay tip.  why should i support that business model, it is absurd.  other countries, japan for instance, consider it an insult to pay a tip, because they pride themselves in their job, and they do a good job because it is their job to do a good job.  why should i, or you, continue to tip to support this ? if everyone stopped tipping, then restaurant owners would have to stop being greedy, or hire qualified people who deserve tips, and pay them as qualified people deserve.   #  i do not support that, and you should pay your employees accordingly.   #  ultimately, owners  do  pay their employee is accordingly.   # ultimately, owners  do  pay their employee is accordingly.  if their tips do not exceed the value of minimum wage in the same amount of time, they get paid the federal minimum wage.  it does not ? i do not know too many people that tip when the service is truly shitty.  i know i do not.  how would they screw with your food after you already ate it ? nobody is forcing you too support it.  tipping is ultimately voluntary; and if you really want change it, take your business to the  no tip restaurants  that are opening up in various cities across the nation.  URL   other countries, japan for instance, consider it an insult to pay a tip, because they pride themselves in their job, and they do a good job because it is their job to do a good job.  that was not my experience when i went to japan; or any other country outside the us.  i got served, yes.  but it was pretty minimal, and generally slower.  i would have empty drinks and/or empty plates sitting at my table for long lengths of time.  because we generally receive superior service ? the tipping incentive tends to generate much better wait service than i have experienced outside of the us.  so i am happy to persist in it because it creates a better experience for me.  man, if you get lousy service, do not tip.  that is why it is voluntary.   #  if anything it is worse, given you know that that is the model and are willfully stiffing your server to spite a system that they have no more control over than you.   #  if you believe tipping is not a good business model i am inclined to agree then you should be fighting for a higher minimum wage for servers, not stiffing the workers.  it is not your server is fault that we live in a tipping culture, and stiffing them is not going to hurt the business or make them change their ways.  if the server makes subpar tips then the only person who suffers is the server, be it in a low wage for the day or, if chronically undertipped, in losing their job.  the restaurant must compensate up to minimum wage, at least in my state, and let is just say if that happens often you wo not work there long.  i agree that tipping is not an ideal model, but i  strongly  disagree with the argument that  not  tipping is the moral alternative.  if anything it is worse, given you know that that is the model and are willfully stiffing your server to spite a system that they have no more control over than you.  futhermore, you tip after you receive service, not before.  how would they screw with your food after you have eaten ?  #  i guess it has to do with higher wages in proportion to cost of the food.   #  tipping is paying for service.  in some countries, it would be included in the check there is literally an additional item for  service  .  on one hand, it gives you some peace of mind you do not have to play games and calculate how much you owe.  on another hand, you do not have so much flexibility to give feedback.  so, you do need to pay tips in general it is the same as just paying for an item in the check , but you can provide feedback and hopefully improve the service.  the idea that tips should be like 0 or 0 or whatever, to my knowledge, only exists in the us.  for the rest of the world, it is 0, and you are absolutely free to not tip if you are not satisfied.  i guess it has to do with higher wages in proportion to cost of the food.  so again, if it was separate item in the check, it would come to roughly the same number.   #  if the guy makes less money this way, it is his own damn fault.   #  i actually think restaurants are shooting themselves in the foot when they raise the tip above 0.  it is just a human psychology that anything up to 0 seems an acceptable overcharge, and anything more starts being an annoyance.  even historically, lots of various taxes were in that area.  the reason there is no service fee is precisely because service is not always good.  let is say at some point there is a set service fee.  then you got some really sucky waiter, and people start complaining: why am i paying for this guy is service, it sucks.  so you give a couple of refunds, and then just say: okay guys, i am not requesting a set fee anymore, pay whatever you want, just make it somewhere in this area.  if the guy makes less money this way, it is his own damn fault.   #  quit  argument, but the service industry has pretty low barriers for entry or change.   #  if we were locked into jobs that we couldnt choose for our lives, you might have a point.  the reality is that mos people choose to wait tables and continue to do so because it works for them.  there are benefits and drawbacks of every job.  the drawback of waiting tables is your wage fluctuates from shift to shift, mostly depending on how mnay customers come in.  the advantage is that you gnerally make more money than other service related jobs, and you leave your job with cash every day.  where the money comes from does not mean its any more moral or immoral.  if there were a legitimate movement to suddenly not tip, lots of people wouldnt do it anymore i do not usually like the  dont like it ? quit  argument, but the service industry has pretty low barriers for entry or change.  lots of skills from waiting tables transfer over to other areas , and restaurants would be forced.
i will probably get downvoted for this, but here we go.  the idea of supporting the business model,  that we can get away with paying you dirt, as long as people pay extra to fill in the gap .  is bull shit.  i do not support that, and you should pay your employees accordingly.  also, why the fuck does poor service deserve a tip ? i pay your establishment, why should i have to pay more for good service, and if i do not, are you going to screw with my food ? , because not only is that immoral, but it is illegal.  so good or bad i have to pay tip.  why should i support that business model, it is absurd.  other countries, japan for instance, consider it an insult to pay a tip, because they pride themselves in their job, and they do a good job because it is their job to do a good job.  why should i, or you, continue to tip to support this ? if everyone stopped tipping, then restaurant owners would have to stop being greedy, or hire qualified people who deserve tips, and pay them as qualified people deserve.   #  i pay your establishment, why should i have to pay more for good service, and if i do not, are you going to screw with my food ?  #  how would they screw with your food after you already ate it ?  # ultimately, owners  do  pay their employee is accordingly.  if their tips do not exceed the value of minimum wage in the same amount of time, they get paid the federal minimum wage.  it does not ? i do not know too many people that tip when the service is truly shitty.  i know i do not.  how would they screw with your food after you already ate it ? nobody is forcing you too support it.  tipping is ultimately voluntary; and if you really want change it, take your business to the  no tip restaurants  that are opening up in various cities across the nation.  URL   other countries, japan for instance, consider it an insult to pay a tip, because they pride themselves in their job, and they do a good job because it is their job to do a good job.  that was not my experience when i went to japan; or any other country outside the us.  i got served, yes.  but it was pretty minimal, and generally slower.  i would have empty drinks and/or empty plates sitting at my table for long lengths of time.  because we generally receive superior service ? the tipping incentive tends to generate much better wait service than i have experienced outside of the us.  so i am happy to persist in it because it creates a better experience for me.  man, if you get lousy service, do not tip.  that is why it is voluntary.   #  how would they screw with your food after you have eaten ?  #  if you believe tipping is not a good business model i am inclined to agree then you should be fighting for a higher minimum wage for servers, not stiffing the workers.  it is not your server is fault that we live in a tipping culture, and stiffing them is not going to hurt the business or make them change their ways.  if the server makes subpar tips then the only person who suffers is the server, be it in a low wage for the day or, if chronically undertipped, in losing their job.  the restaurant must compensate up to minimum wage, at least in my state, and let is just say if that happens often you wo not work there long.  i agree that tipping is not an ideal model, but i  strongly  disagree with the argument that  not  tipping is the moral alternative.  if anything it is worse, given you know that that is the model and are willfully stiffing your server to spite a system that they have no more control over than you.  futhermore, you tip after you receive service, not before.  how would they screw with your food after you have eaten ?  #  on another hand, you do not have so much flexibility to give feedback.   #  tipping is paying for service.  in some countries, it would be included in the check there is literally an additional item for  service  .  on one hand, it gives you some peace of mind you do not have to play games and calculate how much you owe.  on another hand, you do not have so much flexibility to give feedback.  so, you do need to pay tips in general it is the same as just paying for an item in the check , but you can provide feedback and hopefully improve the service.  the idea that tips should be like 0 or 0 or whatever, to my knowledge, only exists in the us.  for the rest of the world, it is 0, and you are absolutely free to not tip if you are not satisfied.  i guess it has to do with higher wages in proportion to cost of the food.  so again, if it was separate item in the check, it would come to roughly the same number.   #  let is say at some point there is a set service fee.   #  i actually think restaurants are shooting themselves in the foot when they raise the tip above 0.  it is just a human psychology that anything up to 0 seems an acceptable overcharge, and anything more starts being an annoyance.  even historically, lots of various taxes were in that area.  the reason there is no service fee is precisely because service is not always good.  let is say at some point there is a set service fee.  then you got some really sucky waiter, and people start complaining: why am i paying for this guy is service, it sucks.  so you give a couple of refunds, and then just say: okay guys, i am not requesting a set fee anymore, pay whatever you want, just make it somewhere in this area.  if the guy makes less money this way, it is his own damn fault.   #  where the money comes from does not mean its any more moral or immoral.   #  if we were locked into jobs that we couldnt choose for our lives, you might have a point.  the reality is that mos people choose to wait tables and continue to do so because it works for them.  there are benefits and drawbacks of every job.  the drawback of waiting tables is your wage fluctuates from shift to shift, mostly depending on how mnay customers come in.  the advantage is that you gnerally make more money than other service related jobs, and you leave your job with cash every day.  where the money comes from does not mean its any more moral or immoral.  if there were a legitimate movement to suddenly not tip, lots of people wouldnt do it anymore i do not usually like the  dont like it ? quit  argument, but the service industry has pretty low barriers for entry or change.  lots of skills from waiting tables transfer over to other areas , and restaurants would be forced.
i will probably get downvoted for this, but here we go.  the idea of supporting the business model,  that we can get away with paying you dirt, as long as people pay extra to fill in the gap .  is bull shit.  i do not support that, and you should pay your employees accordingly.  also, why the fuck does poor service deserve a tip ? i pay your establishment, why should i have to pay more for good service, and if i do not, are you going to screw with my food ? , because not only is that immoral, but it is illegal.  so good or bad i have to pay tip.  why should i support that business model, it is absurd.  other countries, japan for instance, consider it an insult to pay a tip, because they pride themselves in their job, and they do a good job because it is their job to do a good job.  why should i, or you, continue to tip to support this ? if everyone stopped tipping, then restaurant owners would have to stop being greedy, or hire qualified people who deserve tips, and pay them as qualified people deserve.   #  why should i support that business model, it is absurd.   #  nobody is forcing you too support it.   # ultimately, owners  do  pay their employee is accordingly.  if their tips do not exceed the value of minimum wage in the same amount of time, they get paid the federal minimum wage.  it does not ? i do not know too many people that tip when the service is truly shitty.  i know i do not.  how would they screw with your food after you already ate it ? nobody is forcing you too support it.  tipping is ultimately voluntary; and if you really want change it, take your business to the  no tip restaurants  that are opening up in various cities across the nation.  URL   other countries, japan for instance, consider it an insult to pay a tip, because they pride themselves in their job, and they do a good job because it is their job to do a good job.  that was not my experience when i went to japan; or any other country outside the us.  i got served, yes.  but it was pretty minimal, and generally slower.  i would have empty drinks and/or empty plates sitting at my table for long lengths of time.  because we generally receive superior service ? the tipping incentive tends to generate much better wait service than i have experienced outside of the us.  so i am happy to persist in it because it creates a better experience for me.  man, if you get lousy service, do not tip.  that is why it is voluntary.   #  futhermore, you tip after you receive service, not before.   #  if you believe tipping is not a good business model i am inclined to agree then you should be fighting for a higher minimum wage for servers, not stiffing the workers.  it is not your server is fault that we live in a tipping culture, and stiffing them is not going to hurt the business or make them change their ways.  if the server makes subpar tips then the only person who suffers is the server, be it in a low wage for the day or, if chronically undertipped, in losing their job.  the restaurant must compensate up to minimum wage, at least in my state, and let is just say if that happens often you wo not work there long.  i agree that tipping is not an ideal model, but i  strongly  disagree with the argument that  not  tipping is the moral alternative.  if anything it is worse, given you know that that is the model and are willfully stiffing your server to spite a system that they have no more control over than you.  futhermore, you tip after you receive service, not before.  how would they screw with your food after you have eaten ?  #  the idea that tips should be like 0 or 0 or whatever, to my knowledge, only exists in the us.   #  tipping is paying for service.  in some countries, it would be included in the check there is literally an additional item for  service  .  on one hand, it gives you some peace of mind you do not have to play games and calculate how much you owe.  on another hand, you do not have so much flexibility to give feedback.  so, you do need to pay tips in general it is the same as just paying for an item in the check , but you can provide feedback and hopefully improve the service.  the idea that tips should be like 0 or 0 or whatever, to my knowledge, only exists in the us.  for the rest of the world, it is 0, and you are absolutely free to not tip if you are not satisfied.  i guess it has to do with higher wages in proportion to cost of the food.  so again, if it was separate item in the check, it would come to roughly the same number.   #  so you give a couple of refunds, and then just say: okay guys, i am not requesting a set fee anymore, pay whatever you want, just make it somewhere in this area.   #  i actually think restaurants are shooting themselves in the foot when they raise the tip above 0.  it is just a human psychology that anything up to 0 seems an acceptable overcharge, and anything more starts being an annoyance.  even historically, lots of various taxes were in that area.  the reason there is no service fee is precisely because service is not always good.  let is say at some point there is a set service fee.  then you got some really sucky waiter, and people start complaining: why am i paying for this guy is service, it sucks.  so you give a couple of refunds, and then just say: okay guys, i am not requesting a set fee anymore, pay whatever you want, just make it somewhere in this area.  if the guy makes less money this way, it is his own damn fault.   #  the drawback of waiting tables is your wage fluctuates from shift to shift, mostly depending on how mnay customers come in.   #  if we were locked into jobs that we couldnt choose for our lives, you might have a point.  the reality is that mos people choose to wait tables and continue to do so because it works for them.  there are benefits and drawbacks of every job.  the drawback of waiting tables is your wage fluctuates from shift to shift, mostly depending on how mnay customers come in.  the advantage is that you gnerally make more money than other service related jobs, and you leave your job with cash every day.  where the money comes from does not mean its any more moral or immoral.  if there were a legitimate movement to suddenly not tip, lots of people wouldnt do it anymore i do not usually like the  dont like it ? quit  argument, but the service industry has pretty low barriers for entry or change.  lots of skills from waiting tables transfer over to other areas , and restaurants would be forced.
i will probably get downvoted for this, but here we go.  the idea of supporting the business model,  that we can get away with paying you dirt, as long as people pay extra to fill in the gap .  is bull shit.  i do not support that, and you should pay your employees accordingly.  also, why the fuck does poor service deserve a tip ? i pay your establishment, why should i have to pay more for good service, and if i do not, are you going to screw with my food ? , because not only is that immoral, but it is illegal.  so good or bad i have to pay tip.  why should i support that business model, it is absurd.  other countries, japan for instance, consider it an insult to pay a tip, because they pride themselves in their job, and they do a good job because it is their job to do a good job.  why should i, or you, continue to tip to support this ? if everyone stopped tipping, then restaurant owners would have to stop being greedy, or hire qualified people who deserve tips, and pay them as qualified people deserve.   #  if everyone stopped tipping, then restaurant owners would have to stop being greedy, or hire qualified people who deserve tips, and pay them as qualified people deserve.   #  man, if you get lousy service, do not tip.   # ultimately, owners  do  pay their employee is accordingly.  if their tips do not exceed the value of minimum wage in the same amount of time, they get paid the federal minimum wage.  it does not ? i do not know too many people that tip when the service is truly shitty.  i know i do not.  how would they screw with your food after you already ate it ? nobody is forcing you too support it.  tipping is ultimately voluntary; and if you really want change it, take your business to the  no tip restaurants  that are opening up in various cities across the nation.  URL   other countries, japan for instance, consider it an insult to pay a tip, because they pride themselves in their job, and they do a good job because it is their job to do a good job.  that was not my experience when i went to japan; or any other country outside the us.  i got served, yes.  but it was pretty minimal, and generally slower.  i would have empty drinks and/or empty plates sitting at my table for long lengths of time.  because we generally receive superior service ? the tipping incentive tends to generate much better wait service than i have experienced outside of the us.  so i am happy to persist in it because it creates a better experience for me.  man, if you get lousy service, do not tip.  that is why it is voluntary.   #  the restaurant must compensate up to minimum wage, at least in my state, and let is just say if that happens often you wo not work there long.   #  if you believe tipping is not a good business model i am inclined to agree then you should be fighting for a higher minimum wage for servers, not stiffing the workers.  it is not your server is fault that we live in a tipping culture, and stiffing them is not going to hurt the business or make them change their ways.  if the server makes subpar tips then the only person who suffers is the server, be it in a low wage for the day or, if chronically undertipped, in losing their job.  the restaurant must compensate up to minimum wage, at least in my state, and let is just say if that happens often you wo not work there long.  i agree that tipping is not an ideal model, but i  strongly  disagree with the argument that  not  tipping is the moral alternative.  if anything it is worse, given you know that that is the model and are willfully stiffing your server to spite a system that they have no more control over than you.  futhermore, you tip after you receive service, not before.  how would they screw with your food after you have eaten ?  #  the idea that tips should be like 0 or 0 or whatever, to my knowledge, only exists in the us.   #  tipping is paying for service.  in some countries, it would be included in the check there is literally an additional item for  service  .  on one hand, it gives you some peace of mind you do not have to play games and calculate how much you owe.  on another hand, you do not have so much flexibility to give feedback.  so, you do need to pay tips in general it is the same as just paying for an item in the check , but you can provide feedback and hopefully improve the service.  the idea that tips should be like 0 or 0 or whatever, to my knowledge, only exists in the us.  for the rest of the world, it is 0, and you are absolutely free to not tip if you are not satisfied.  i guess it has to do with higher wages in proportion to cost of the food.  so again, if it was separate item in the check, it would come to roughly the same number.   #  the reason there is no service fee is precisely because service is not always good.   #  i actually think restaurants are shooting themselves in the foot when they raise the tip above 0.  it is just a human psychology that anything up to 0 seems an acceptable overcharge, and anything more starts being an annoyance.  even historically, lots of various taxes were in that area.  the reason there is no service fee is precisely because service is not always good.  let is say at some point there is a set service fee.  then you got some really sucky waiter, and people start complaining: why am i paying for this guy is service, it sucks.  so you give a couple of refunds, and then just say: okay guys, i am not requesting a set fee anymore, pay whatever you want, just make it somewhere in this area.  if the guy makes less money this way, it is his own damn fault.   #  where the money comes from does not mean its any more moral or immoral.   #  if we were locked into jobs that we couldnt choose for our lives, you might have a point.  the reality is that mos people choose to wait tables and continue to do so because it works for them.  there are benefits and drawbacks of every job.  the drawback of waiting tables is your wage fluctuates from shift to shift, mostly depending on how mnay customers come in.  the advantage is that you gnerally make more money than other service related jobs, and you leave your job with cash every day.  where the money comes from does not mean its any more moral or immoral.  if there were a legitimate movement to suddenly not tip, lots of people wouldnt do it anymore i do not usually like the  dont like it ? quit  argument, but the service industry has pretty low barriers for entry or change.  lots of skills from waiting tables transfer over to other areas , and restaurants would be forced.
under the card act, which was passed in 0, banks must give an account holder the option for the bank to decline any transaction which will overdraw their account.  this means that if you have $0 in your account, but buy something worth $0, the bank will decline the charge.  based on the name, it sounds like overdraft protection will tell the bank to decline the charge, thus protecting you from being overdrawn.  however, the opposite is true.  enrolment in overdraft protection means that the bank will let the charge go through, and will allow your account to be overdrawn.  if you want the bank to decline any charges which will overdraw your account, you must opt out of overdraft protection.  the fact that the term  overdraft protection  sounds like it will protect you from overdrafts, while in reality doing the exact opposite, is deceptive, and a clever way to trick account holders into thinking the bank will decline overdrafts, while really they will allow them.  tl;dr enrolling in overdraft protection authorises the bank to allow a charge which will overdraw your account.  the fact that overdraft protection does not protect your account from being overdrawn is deceptive.  but the most deceptive part is that to be protected from overdrafts, you must opt out of overdraft protection.   #  the fact that the term  overdraft protection  sounds like it will protect you from overdrafts, while in reality doing the exact opposite, is deceptive, and a clever way to trick account holders into thinking the bank will decline overdrafts, while really they will allow them.   #  let is pretend debit cards do not exist for a moment because they make customers lazy and irresponsible.   # let is pretend debit cards do not exist for a moment because they make customers lazy and irresponsible.  you write a check for $0 to  abc mortgage  scenario 0 no overdraft protection you wrote the check and your checkbook says you have $0 left over after that clears.  turns out you forgot to record another check you wrote for $0, so actually when the check to abc mortgage comes in, you will be $0.  the bank returns that check, bringing your balance back up to  $0.  then the bank fees you $0 for processing a return item.  then the mortgage company fees you $0 and reports you to the credit bureau is.  you wrote a hot check, which is illegal.  you better get the mortgage company that money fast.  scenario 0 overdraft protection you wrote the check and your checkbook says you have $0 left over after that clears.  turns out you forgot to record another check you wrote for $0, so actually when the check to abc mortgage comes in, you will be $0.  the bank says that is cool, we got you.  they fee you $0 but pay the item.  you now owe them the $0, but abc mortgage is paid and everything else is intact.  in both of these cases, you overdrafted.  which one of those seems like protection to you ? the term  overdraft protection  could be deceptive without context.  with context, it is not deceptive at all.   #  the term comes from checks where people might accidentally be unaware of their balance and immediate verification of the funds in the account ca not be done.   #  the term comes from checks where people might accidentally be unaware of their balance and immediate verification of the funds in the account ca not be done.  writing a check for more than you had in your account could cause you to incur some pretty hefty fees with the person you wrote the check to as well as making you look untrustworthy for writing a bounced check.  even today checks/efts to most places that fail to go through will result in a returned item fee.  overdraft protection exists to protect you from making mistakes when it comes to balancing your checkbook and getting the correct amount of money in your account.  with debit cards it is a bit different but the terminology remains the same.  keep in mind when the term started there were not any debit cards, online banking, or efts.  checks were the only way to transfer money other than cash.   #  if you hired a security company to protect your business, you would expect them to post security guards outside of your business.   #  i understand that it may be desirable to allow an account to be overdrawn, i am simply saying that the term itself is misleading.  since enrolling in overdraft protection allows your account to be overdrawn, it is ludicrous to call it overdraft protection.  i do not see how i can be any more clear.  theft protection protects something from being stolen, liability protection protects a person from being sued for liability, so overdraft protection should prevent an account from being overdrawn.  if you hired a security company to protect your business, you would expect them to post security guards outside of your business.  so if you enroll in overdraft protection, it should protect your account from being overdrawn.   #  for instance on some credit cards if you have a payment bounce you will not only incur a large fee usually $0 but you will also trigger the penalty apr which on many cards stays indefinitely once triggered.   #  the ability to let your account balance go negative is also another courtesy extended to you by the bank.  they could instead refuse to cash a check and let it bounce.  by allowing your account balance to go negative they are loaning you money to prevent that from happening.  nothing is free of course and they charge hefty fees for the service but theoretically this is a good thing considering the penalties involved for a returned payment.  for instance on some credit cards if you have a payment bounce you will not only incur a large fee usually $0 but you will also trigger the penalty apr which on many cards stays indefinitely once triggered.  considering that most penalty aprs are 0 apr the amount of extra money you would pay in interest is probably a lot less than your bank is $0 overdraft fee.   #  what you describe, taking money from another account to pay for it, is called a variety of things depending on the bank, but usually something like  isafety link .   #  i am not sure if it is just your bank, but your definition is not correct for all banks.  overdraft protection does not imply taking money from another account to stop you from going negative.  around my parts, overdraft protection means what the op thinks takes your account into the negative, but pays the charge.  what you describe, taking money from another account to pay for it, is called a variety of things depending on the bank, but usually something like  isafety link .  regardless, as other pointed out, overdraft protection may sound misleading at first, but one way you can think of it is  protecting your good name in cases of overdraft.   the bank let is you go negative and fees you for it, but the recipient of your money never knows anything was wrong you just pay a fee to the bank.
hey folks.  let me start out by saying that i am a tobacco user.  i smoke cigarettes when i am in public but more often i dip mouth tobacco placed between the lower lip and gum and spit out at home.  i am holding this view from this position.  the following is context and you can safely skip down tomy premises.  i live in the south us in the heart of tobacco road and tobacco use is somewhat common.  that being said, i also live in a college town where transportation is mostly dominated by foot traffic and the culture is such that views are most often progressive as well as freely read: loudly vocalized.  when i smoke outside, even in places legally ordained as smoking areas largely defined as 0 feet from a public door or walkway or on private property i am subject to a sort of discrimination in the form of harshly disapproving stares, occasional statements concerning the health implications of smoking, over the top coughing fits, comments about smells, etc.  the comments i receive about dip are more frequent, typically saying it is gross and will discolor my teeth.  so the premises i am operating under are these: 0 people have a right to express their opinions to a point that does not grievously offend.  less of a moral stance and more of a functional legal definition 0 tobacco use causes cancer, which causes death.  0 it is always acceptable to disapprove of the use of products that cause death and there exist a myriad of good reasons to do so.  0 it is impermissible to defend tobacco by claiming, genuinely or deceptively, the tobacco is harmless.  this comes from the moral belief that we have an obligation to understand our actions as well as possible before acting so as to not act wrongly or in bad faith existential generalization .  furthermore it should be assumed the user is aware of this risk.  0 it is permissible, however, to choose to use products that can cause death when a person is aware of the consequences, is not in denial of the consequences, and has determined whatever benefit is greater than the associated risks.  this come from the right of individuals to not have constrained will to the minimum degree that the will does not significantly affect others.  reasons for using products that cause death constitute  the specifics  of this situation.  0 the specifics can be either valid or invalid reasoning.  0 it can be argued about  the specifics  that no benefit can outweigh the cost of tobacco use.  0 a person is not obligated and in a less defensible sense i believe they cannot be able to consider the specifics of every situation under which their general belief falls before expressing their opinion.  furthermore exceptions to general views do not constitute bad views or ignorance.  so my argument is meant to conclude that a person can validly criticize a tobacco user even though the user may be using tobacco for valid reasons.  the argument goes like this: person a encounters person b using tobacco legally in a public place.  person a somehow expresses disapproval for person b is use.  a is intended meaning is that it would be better in whatever ways are relevant if b was not using tobacco.  a has not committed an offense by expressing their opinion from 0 because it is defensible from 0 .  person b may then validly accept the criticism and agree because 0 and 0.  however, b may then validly defend her choice by claiming 0.  by either 0 or 0, a and b may have two valid and differing views, both supported by valid reasoning.  by 0 and 0, a is not in the wrong of any sort.  based on your views of 0, the user may or may not be justified in their decision to use.  so, is the critic wrong for voicing her potentially unfair opinion, or is the user acting for invalid reasons ? this post has ended up being way longer than i intended but hopefully the argument is well outlined and i have given yall something to contend against.  cheers  #  0 people have a right to express their opinions to a point that does not grievously offend.   #  less of a moral stance and more of a functional legal definition no argument here.   # less of a moral stance and more of a functional legal definition no argument here.  of course, that includes smokers  and other peoples  opinions that the people who are doing the eye rolling, fake coughing, head shaking are passive aggressive, obnoxious, or otherwise poorly behaved.  false.  tobacco use  increases the chances  of developing cancer.  there is a very large difference.  ftfy  acceptable  is a subjective term.  what may be acceptable to you may not be acceptable to someone else.  this comes from the moral belief that we have an obligation to understand our actions as well as possible before acting so as to not act wrongly or in bad faith existential generalization .  furthermore it should be assumed the user is aware of this risk.  so.   lying is bad ?   so i trust that you will never utter the phrase  tobacco use causes cancer  again ? person a somehow expresses disapproval for person b is use.  a is intended meaning is that it would be better in whatever ways are relevant if b was not using tobacco.  person b may then validly accept the criticism and agree because 0 and 0.  however, b may then validly defend her choice by claiming 0.  by either 0 or 0, a and b may have two valid and differing views, both supported by valid reasoning.  by 0 and 0, a is not in the wrong of any sort.  based on your views of 0, the user may or may not be justified in their decision to use.   committed an offense of what ?   there are no laws or regulations in play, so no one is  committing any offense.   now, if you mean to say they are not acting  offensively,  then that is entirely subjective.  am i misreading or are you here with a whole stone tablet is worth of rules and presumed premises on arguments, expect us to cyv while accepting your rules outright ?  #  an action that if unjustified by a combined view of our legal, social, and logical systems would be, in this social moral way, morally wrong.   #  the point of going to such lengths to explain the premises was to give folks specifics points in the argument to take issue with.  i think it leads to more useful discussion to be clear with the logical steps taken.  i did not want you to accept my premises, i wanted you to take specific issue with them, like what you have done.   tobacco causes cancer  and  tobacco can cause cancer  are semantically similar though i will yield that yours is more indicative of the particulars.  as for what sort of offense i meant, i meant an act may be offensible by the sort of social moral sense that we experience in day to day life.  if a person cuts in a queue, we say  bad .  if a person gives up their seat for the elderly, we say  good .  an action that if unjustified by a combined view of our legal, social, and logical systems would be, in this social moral way, morally wrong.  an action that is  good  by legal, societal, and logical systems would be all good.  an action that is  good  in one or some subsets would be argued to be not immoral, morally permissible, or immoral if violating any of the three criteria is enough to be immoral .   #  that is why blatant falsehoods like  tobacco use causes cancer  has been allowed to be considered  semantically equal  to  tobacco use increases the chances of developing cancer.    #  i think i understand.  then i offer you this for consideration: why do many of those same people who exhibit this behavior that you think should be acceptable openly criticizing total strangers who happen to be smoking behave exactly the same way towards people using e cigarettes  vapers  ? your rule 0 is circular: they have the right to do it your view that you would like to be changed because they have the right to do it, so i will disregard it.  there is no evidence that your 0 0 apply to e cigarettes.  0 0 are basically setting the rules of argument wrt  specifics  which no one has yet proven to apply, and as such, can also be disregarded.  and yet the same behavior is not uncommon at all.  it is just as likely that the people in question express their disapproval for no other reason than to let others know that they disapprove, not out of any  social moral  sense but out of a self righteous superiority over those of whom they disapprove.  that is why blatant falsehoods like  tobacco use causes cancer  has been allowed to be considered  semantically equal  to  tobacco use increases the chances of developing cancer.   facts ceased to be relevant to the issue a long time ago, when the focus changed away from the harm of smoking cigarettes and allowed smoking to be declared unacceptable for being smoking.  in the end, your view is correct that they do have the  right , in such jurisdictions that value freedom of expression.  using your social standards of proper behavior, though, they are no more defensible than mocking strangers because of their clothes, haircut, makeup, etc.  which is, rightly, imo still generally considered a crappy thing to do, and those that do it held in lesser regard.   #  i agree that the intention in a is behavior could be self righteous.   #  i agree that the intention in a is behavior could be self righteous.  the base of it is the morality of expressing an opinion when it may offend.  it could be that i have sort of forced circular logic from the start by making 0 so powerful.  it sort of assures that a cannot be in the wrong since no matter what she is basically within the confines of acceptable.  i am not sure how to amend 0 to reflect that expressing an opinion can be  crappy , even though that seems to be the right conclusion here.  so maybe we say 0a might be  as long as your vocalized opinion is not unfair or indefensible, you are not wrong for expressing it, you are just a jerk, which is okay but less than best  URL and so since there is not an obvious right and wrong in this wishy washy subjective example and language, maybe being an asshole is the necessary medium for actions that are not entirely  good  or past the line of  bad .   #  at what point would you say you are sufficiently aware of the risks of driving a car ?  # furthermore it should be assumed the user is aware of this risk.  at what point would you say you are sufficiently aware of the risks of driving a car ? because to me, it seems that no matter how aware we are of the risks, we could always be  more  aware, if we just spent a little bit more time familiarizing ourselves with the risks.  how much is enough ? i do not think this principle accounts for that.  i bet reddit could cause a heart attack.  certainly you should not just disapprove of smoking, but also driving cars, crossing the street, living in a neighborhood with a high crime rate, working at a high risk job, and so forth.
hey folks.  let me start out by saying that i am a tobacco user.  i smoke cigarettes when i am in public but more often i dip mouth tobacco placed between the lower lip and gum and spit out at home.  i am holding this view from this position.  the following is context and you can safely skip down tomy premises.  i live in the south us in the heart of tobacco road and tobacco use is somewhat common.  that being said, i also live in a college town where transportation is mostly dominated by foot traffic and the culture is such that views are most often progressive as well as freely read: loudly vocalized.  when i smoke outside, even in places legally ordained as smoking areas largely defined as 0 feet from a public door or walkway or on private property i am subject to a sort of discrimination in the form of harshly disapproving stares, occasional statements concerning the health implications of smoking, over the top coughing fits, comments about smells, etc.  the comments i receive about dip are more frequent, typically saying it is gross and will discolor my teeth.  so the premises i am operating under are these: 0 people have a right to express their opinions to a point that does not grievously offend.  less of a moral stance and more of a functional legal definition 0 tobacco use causes cancer, which causes death.  0 it is always acceptable to disapprove of the use of products that cause death and there exist a myriad of good reasons to do so.  0 it is impermissible to defend tobacco by claiming, genuinely or deceptively, the tobacco is harmless.  this comes from the moral belief that we have an obligation to understand our actions as well as possible before acting so as to not act wrongly or in bad faith existential generalization .  furthermore it should be assumed the user is aware of this risk.  0 it is permissible, however, to choose to use products that can cause death when a person is aware of the consequences, is not in denial of the consequences, and has determined whatever benefit is greater than the associated risks.  this come from the right of individuals to not have constrained will to the minimum degree that the will does not significantly affect others.  reasons for using products that cause death constitute  the specifics  of this situation.  0 the specifics can be either valid or invalid reasoning.  0 it can be argued about  the specifics  that no benefit can outweigh the cost of tobacco use.  0 a person is not obligated and in a less defensible sense i believe they cannot be able to consider the specifics of every situation under which their general belief falls before expressing their opinion.  furthermore exceptions to general views do not constitute bad views or ignorance.  so my argument is meant to conclude that a person can validly criticize a tobacco user even though the user may be using tobacco for valid reasons.  the argument goes like this: person a encounters person b using tobacco legally in a public place.  person a somehow expresses disapproval for person b is use.  a is intended meaning is that it would be better in whatever ways are relevant if b was not using tobacco.  a has not committed an offense by expressing their opinion from 0 because it is defensible from 0 .  person b may then validly accept the criticism and agree because 0 and 0.  however, b may then validly defend her choice by claiming 0.  by either 0 or 0, a and b may have two valid and differing views, both supported by valid reasoning.  by 0 and 0, a is not in the wrong of any sort.  based on your views of 0, the user may or may not be justified in their decision to use.  so, is the critic wrong for voicing her potentially unfair opinion, or is the user acting for invalid reasons ? this post has ended up being way longer than i intended but hopefully the argument is well outlined and i have given yall something to contend against.  cheers  #  0 it is impermissible to defend tobacco by claiming, genuinely or deceptively, the tobacco is harmless.   #  this comes from the moral belief that we have an obligation to understand our actions as well as possible before acting so as to not act wrongly or in bad faith existential generalization .   # less of a moral stance and more of a functional legal definition no argument here.  of course, that includes smokers  and other peoples  opinions that the people who are doing the eye rolling, fake coughing, head shaking are passive aggressive, obnoxious, or otherwise poorly behaved.  false.  tobacco use  increases the chances  of developing cancer.  there is a very large difference.  ftfy  acceptable  is a subjective term.  what may be acceptable to you may not be acceptable to someone else.  this comes from the moral belief that we have an obligation to understand our actions as well as possible before acting so as to not act wrongly or in bad faith existential generalization .  furthermore it should be assumed the user is aware of this risk.  so.   lying is bad ?   so i trust that you will never utter the phrase  tobacco use causes cancer  again ? person a somehow expresses disapproval for person b is use.  a is intended meaning is that it would be better in whatever ways are relevant if b was not using tobacco.  person b may then validly accept the criticism and agree because 0 and 0.  however, b may then validly defend her choice by claiming 0.  by either 0 or 0, a and b may have two valid and differing views, both supported by valid reasoning.  by 0 and 0, a is not in the wrong of any sort.  based on your views of 0, the user may or may not be justified in their decision to use.   committed an offense of what ?   there are no laws or regulations in play, so no one is  committing any offense.   now, if you mean to say they are not acting  offensively,  then that is entirely subjective.  am i misreading or are you here with a whole stone tablet is worth of rules and presumed premises on arguments, expect us to cyv while accepting your rules outright ?  #   tobacco causes cancer  and  tobacco can cause cancer  are semantically similar though i will yield that yours is more indicative of the particulars.   #  the point of going to such lengths to explain the premises was to give folks specifics points in the argument to take issue with.  i think it leads to more useful discussion to be clear with the logical steps taken.  i did not want you to accept my premises, i wanted you to take specific issue with them, like what you have done.   tobacco causes cancer  and  tobacco can cause cancer  are semantically similar though i will yield that yours is more indicative of the particulars.  as for what sort of offense i meant, i meant an act may be offensible by the sort of social moral sense that we experience in day to day life.  if a person cuts in a queue, we say  bad .  if a person gives up their seat for the elderly, we say  good .  an action that if unjustified by a combined view of our legal, social, and logical systems would be, in this social moral way, morally wrong.  an action that is  good  by legal, societal, and logical systems would be all good.  an action that is  good  in one or some subsets would be argued to be not immoral, morally permissible, or immoral if violating any of the three criteria is enough to be immoral .   #  and yet the same behavior is not uncommon at all.   #  i think i understand.  then i offer you this for consideration: why do many of those same people who exhibit this behavior that you think should be acceptable openly criticizing total strangers who happen to be smoking behave exactly the same way towards people using e cigarettes  vapers  ? your rule 0 is circular: they have the right to do it your view that you would like to be changed because they have the right to do it, so i will disregard it.  there is no evidence that your 0 0 apply to e cigarettes.  0 0 are basically setting the rules of argument wrt  specifics  which no one has yet proven to apply, and as such, can also be disregarded.  and yet the same behavior is not uncommon at all.  it is just as likely that the people in question express their disapproval for no other reason than to let others know that they disapprove, not out of any  social moral  sense but out of a self righteous superiority over those of whom they disapprove.  that is why blatant falsehoods like  tobacco use causes cancer  has been allowed to be considered  semantically equal  to  tobacco use increases the chances of developing cancer.   facts ceased to be relevant to the issue a long time ago, when the focus changed away from the harm of smoking cigarettes and allowed smoking to be declared unacceptable for being smoking.  in the end, your view is correct that they do have the  right , in such jurisdictions that value freedom of expression.  using your social standards of proper behavior, though, they are no more defensible than mocking strangers because of their clothes, haircut, makeup, etc.  which is, rightly, imo still generally considered a crappy thing to do, and those that do it held in lesser regard.   #  i am not sure how to amend 0 to reflect that expressing an opinion can be  crappy , even though that seems to be the right conclusion here.   #  i agree that the intention in a is behavior could be self righteous.  the base of it is the morality of expressing an opinion when it may offend.  it could be that i have sort of forced circular logic from the start by making 0 so powerful.  it sort of assures that a cannot be in the wrong since no matter what she is basically within the confines of acceptable.  i am not sure how to amend 0 to reflect that expressing an opinion can be  crappy , even though that seems to be the right conclusion here.  so maybe we say 0a might be  as long as your vocalized opinion is not unfair or indefensible, you are not wrong for expressing it, you are just a jerk, which is okay but less than best  URL and so since there is not an obvious right and wrong in this wishy washy subjective example and language, maybe being an asshole is the necessary medium for actions that are not entirely  good  or past the line of  bad .   #  i do not think this principle accounts for that.   # furthermore it should be assumed the user is aware of this risk.  at what point would you say you are sufficiently aware of the risks of driving a car ? because to me, it seems that no matter how aware we are of the risks, we could always be  more  aware, if we just spent a little bit more time familiarizing ourselves with the risks.  how much is enough ? i do not think this principle accounts for that.  i bet reddit could cause a heart attack.  certainly you should not just disapprove of smoking, but also driving cars, crossing the street, living in a neighborhood with a high crime rate, working at a high risk job, and so forth.
hey folks.  let me start out by saying that i am a tobacco user.  i smoke cigarettes when i am in public but more often i dip mouth tobacco placed between the lower lip and gum and spit out at home.  i am holding this view from this position.  the following is context and you can safely skip down tomy premises.  i live in the south us in the heart of tobacco road and tobacco use is somewhat common.  that being said, i also live in a college town where transportation is mostly dominated by foot traffic and the culture is such that views are most often progressive as well as freely read: loudly vocalized.  when i smoke outside, even in places legally ordained as smoking areas largely defined as 0 feet from a public door or walkway or on private property i am subject to a sort of discrimination in the form of harshly disapproving stares, occasional statements concerning the health implications of smoking, over the top coughing fits, comments about smells, etc.  the comments i receive about dip are more frequent, typically saying it is gross and will discolor my teeth.  so the premises i am operating under are these: 0 people have a right to express their opinions to a point that does not grievously offend.  less of a moral stance and more of a functional legal definition 0 tobacco use causes cancer, which causes death.  0 it is always acceptable to disapprove of the use of products that cause death and there exist a myriad of good reasons to do so.  0 it is impermissible to defend tobacco by claiming, genuinely or deceptively, the tobacco is harmless.  this comes from the moral belief that we have an obligation to understand our actions as well as possible before acting so as to not act wrongly or in bad faith existential generalization .  furthermore it should be assumed the user is aware of this risk.  0 it is permissible, however, to choose to use products that can cause death when a person is aware of the consequences, is not in denial of the consequences, and has determined whatever benefit is greater than the associated risks.  this come from the right of individuals to not have constrained will to the minimum degree that the will does not significantly affect others.  reasons for using products that cause death constitute  the specifics  of this situation.  0 the specifics can be either valid or invalid reasoning.  0 it can be argued about  the specifics  that no benefit can outweigh the cost of tobacco use.  0 a person is not obligated and in a less defensible sense i believe they cannot be able to consider the specifics of every situation under which their general belief falls before expressing their opinion.  furthermore exceptions to general views do not constitute bad views or ignorance.  so my argument is meant to conclude that a person can validly criticize a tobacco user even though the user may be using tobacco for valid reasons.  the argument goes like this: person a encounters person b using tobacco legally in a public place.  person a somehow expresses disapproval for person b is use.  a is intended meaning is that it would be better in whatever ways are relevant if b was not using tobacco.  a has not committed an offense by expressing their opinion from 0 because it is defensible from 0 .  person b may then validly accept the criticism and agree because 0 and 0.  however, b may then validly defend her choice by claiming 0.  by either 0 or 0, a and b may have two valid and differing views, both supported by valid reasoning.  by 0 and 0, a is not in the wrong of any sort.  based on your views of 0, the user may or may not be justified in their decision to use.  so, is the critic wrong for voicing her potentially unfair opinion, or is the user acting for invalid reasons ? this post has ended up being way longer than i intended but hopefully the argument is well outlined and i have given yall something to contend against.  cheers  #  person a encounters person b using tobacco legally in a public place.   #  person a somehow expresses disapproval for person b is use.   # less of a moral stance and more of a functional legal definition no argument here.  of course, that includes smokers  and other peoples  opinions that the people who are doing the eye rolling, fake coughing, head shaking are passive aggressive, obnoxious, or otherwise poorly behaved.  false.  tobacco use  increases the chances  of developing cancer.  there is a very large difference.  ftfy  acceptable  is a subjective term.  what may be acceptable to you may not be acceptable to someone else.  this comes from the moral belief that we have an obligation to understand our actions as well as possible before acting so as to not act wrongly or in bad faith existential generalization .  furthermore it should be assumed the user is aware of this risk.  so.   lying is bad ?   so i trust that you will never utter the phrase  tobacco use causes cancer  again ? person a somehow expresses disapproval for person b is use.  a is intended meaning is that it would be better in whatever ways are relevant if b was not using tobacco.  person b may then validly accept the criticism and agree because 0 and 0.  however, b may then validly defend her choice by claiming 0.  by either 0 or 0, a and b may have two valid and differing views, both supported by valid reasoning.  by 0 and 0, a is not in the wrong of any sort.  based on your views of 0, the user may or may not be justified in their decision to use.   committed an offense of what ?   there are no laws or regulations in play, so no one is  committing any offense.   now, if you mean to say they are not acting  offensively,  then that is entirely subjective.  am i misreading or are you here with a whole stone tablet is worth of rules and presumed premises on arguments, expect us to cyv while accepting your rules outright ?  #  i did not want you to accept my premises, i wanted you to take specific issue with them, like what you have done.   #  the point of going to such lengths to explain the premises was to give folks specifics points in the argument to take issue with.  i think it leads to more useful discussion to be clear with the logical steps taken.  i did not want you to accept my premises, i wanted you to take specific issue with them, like what you have done.   tobacco causes cancer  and  tobacco can cause cancer  are semantically similar though i will yield that yours is more indicative of the particulars.  as for what sort of offense i meant, i meant an act may be offensible by the sort of social moral sense that we experience in day to day life.  if a person cuts in a queue, we say  bad .  if a person gives up their seat for the elderly, we say  good .  an action that if unjustified by a combined view of our legal, social, and logical systems would be, in this social moral way, morally wrong.  an action that is  good  by legal, societal, and logical systems would be all good.  an action that is  good  in one or some subsets would be argued to be not immoral, morally permissible, or immoral if violating any of the three criteria is enough to be immoral .   #  there is no evidence that your 0 0 apply to e cigarettes.   #  i think i understand.  then i offer you this for consideration: why do many of those same people who exhibit this behavior that you think should be acceptable openly criticizing total strangers who happen to be smoking behave exactly the same way towards people using e cigarettes  vapers  ? your rule 0 is circular: they have the right to do it your view that you would like to be changed because they have the right to do it, so i will disregard it.  there is no evidence that your 0 0 apply to e cigarettes.  0 0 are basically setting the rules of argument wrt  specifics  which no one has yet proven to apply, and as such, can also be disregarded.  and yet the same behavior is not uncommon at all.  it is just as likely that the people in question express their disapproval for no other reason than to let others know that they disapprove, not out of any  social moral  sense but out of a self righteous superiority over those of whom they disapprove.  that is why blatant falsehoods like  tobacco use causes cancer  has been allowed to be considered  semantically equal  to  tobacco use increases the chances of developing cancer.   facts ceased to be relevant to the issue a long time ago, when the focus changed away from the harm of smoking cigarettes and allowed smoking to be declared unacceptable for being smoking.  in the end, your view is correct that they do have the  right , in such jurisdictions that value freedom of expression.  using your social standards of proper behavior, though, they are no more defensible than mocking strangers because of their clothes, haircut, makeup, etc.  which is, rightly, imo still generally considered a crappy thing to do, and those that do it held in lesser regard.   #  it could be that i have sort of forced circular logic from the start by making 0 so powerful.   #  i agree that the intention in a is behavior could be self righteous.  the base of it is the morality of expressing an opinion when it may offend.  it could be that i have sort of forced circular logic from the start by making 0 so powerful.  it sort of assures that a cannot be in the wrong since no matter what she is basically within the confines of acceptable.  i am not sure how to amend 0 to reflect that expressing an opinion can be  crappy , even though that seems to be the right conclusion here.  so maybe we say 0a might be  as long as your vocalized opinion is not unfair or indefensible, you are not wrong for expressing it, you are just a jerk, which is okay but less than best  URL and so since there is not an obvious right and wrong in this wishy washy subjective example and language, maybe being an asshole is the necessary medium for actions that are not entirely  good  or past the line of  bad .   #  furthermore it should be assumed the user is aware of this risk.   # furthermore it should be assumed the user is aware of this risk.  at what point would you say you are sufficiently aware of the risks of driving a car ? because to me, it seems that no matter how aware we are of the risks, we could always be  more  aware, if we just spent a little bit more time familiarizing ourselves with the risks.  how much is enough ? i do not think this principle accounts for that.  i bet reddit could cause a heart attack.  certainly you should not just disapprove of smoking, but also driving cars, crossing the street, living in a neighborhood with a high crime rate, working at a high risk job, and so forth.
hey folks.  let me start out by saying that i am a tobacco user.  i smoke cigarettes when i am in public but more often i dip mouth tobacco placed between the lower lip and gum and spit out at home.  i am holding this view from this position.  the following is context and you can safely skip down tomy premises.  i live in the south us in the heart of tobacco road and tobacco use is somewhat common.  that being said, i also live in a college town where transportation is mostly dominated by foot traffic and the culture is such that views are most often progressive as well as freely read: loudly vocalized.  when i smoke outside, even in places legally ordained as smoking areas largely defined as 0 feet from a public door or walkway or on private property i am subject to a sort of discrimination in the form of harshly disapproving stares, occasional statements concerning the health implications of smoking, over the top coughing fits, comments about smells, etc.  the comments i receive about dip are more frequent, typically saying it is gross and will discolor my teeth.  so the premises i am operating under are these: 0 people have a right to express their opinions to a point that does not grievously offend.  less of a moral stance and more of a functional legal definition 0 tobacco use causes cancer, which causes death.  0 it is always acceptable to disapprove of the use of products that cause death and there exist a myriad of good reasons to do so.  0 it is impermissible to defend tobacco by claiming, genuinely or deceptively, the tobacco is harmless.  this comes from the moral belief that we have an obligation to understand our actions as well as possible before acting so as to not act wrongly or in bad faith existential generalization .  furthermore it should be assumed the user is aware of this risk.  0 it is permissible, however, to choose to use products that can cause death when a person is aware of the consequences, is not in denial of the consequences, and has determined whatever benefit is greater than the associated risks.  this come from the right of individuals to not have constrained will to the minimum degree that the will does not significantly affect others.  reasons for using products that cause death constitute  the specifics  of this situation.  0 the specifics can be either valid or invalid reasoning.  0 it can be argued about  the specifics  that no benefit can outweigh the cost of tobacco use.  0 a person is not obligated and in a less defensible sense i believe they cannot be able to consider the specifics of every situation under which their general belief falls before expressing their opinion.  furthermore exceptions to general views do not constitute bad views or ignorance.  so my argument is meant to conclude that a person can validly criticize a tobacco user even though the user may be using tobacco for valid reasons.  the argument goes like this: person a encounters person b using tobacco legally in a public place.  person a somehow expresses disapproval for person b is use.  a is intended meaning is that it would be better in whatever ways are relevant if b was not using tobacco.  a has not committed an offense by expressing their opinion from 0 because it is defensible from 0 .  person b may then validly accept the criticism and agree because 0 and 0.  however, b may then validly defend her choice by claiming 0.  by either 0 or 0, a and b may have two valid and differing views, both supported by valid reasoning.  by 0 and 0, a is not in the wrong of any sort.  based on your views of 0, the user may or may not be justified in their decision to use.  so, is the critic wrong for voicing her potentially unfair opinion, or is the user acting for invalid reasons ? this post has ended up being way longer than i intended but hopefully the argument is well outlined and i have given yall something to contend against.  cheers  #  a has not committed an offense by expressing their opinion from 0 because it is defensible from 0 .   #  person b may then validly accept the criticism and agree because 0 and 0.  however, b may then validly defend her choice by claiming 0.  by either 0 or 0, a and b may have two valid and differing views, both supported by valid reasoning.   # less of a moral stance and more of a functional legal definition no argument here.  of course, that includes smokers  and other peoples  opinions that the people who are doing the eye rolling, fake coughing, head shaking are passive aggressive, obnoxious, or otherwise poorly behaved.  false.  tobacco use  increases the chances  of developing cancer.  there is a very large difference.  ftfy  acceptable  is a subjective term.  what may be acceptable to you may not be acceptable to someone else.  this comes from the moral belief that we have an obligation to understand our actions as well as possible before acting so as to not act wrongly or in bad faith existential generalization .  furthermore it should be assumed the user is aware of this risk.  so.   lying is bad ?   so i trust that you will never utter the phrase  tobacco use causes cancer  again ? person a somehow expresses disapproval for person b is use.  a is intended meaning is that it would be better in whatever ways are relevant if b was not using tobacco.  person b may then validly accept the criticism and agree because 0 and 0.  however, b may then validly defend her choice by claiming 0.  by either 0 or 0, a and b may have two valid and differing views, both supported by valid reasoning.  by 0 and 0, a is not in the wrong of any sort.  based on your views of 0, the user may or may not be justified in their decision to use.   committed an offense of what ?   there are no laws or regulations in play, so no one is  committing any offense.   now, if you mean to say they are not acting  offensively,  then that is entirely subjective.  am i misreading or are you here with a whole stone tablet is worth of rules and presumed premises on arguments, expect us to cyv while accepting your rules outright ?  #  if a person gives up their seat for the elderly, we say  good .   #  the point of going to such lengths to explain the premises was to give folks specifics points in the argument to take issue with.  i think it leads to more useful discussion to be clear with the logical steps taken.  i did not want you to accept my premises, i wanted you to take specific issue with them, like what you have done.   tobacco causes cancer  and  tobacco can cause cancer  are semantically similar though i will yield that yours is more indicative of the particulars.  as for what sort of offense i meant, i meant an act may be offensible by the sort of social moral sense that we experience in day to day life.  if a person cuts in a queue, we say  bad .  if a person gives up their seat for the elderly, we say  good .  an action that if unjustified by a combined view of our legal, social, and logical systems would be, in this social moral way, morally wrong.  an action that is  good  by legal, societal, and logical systems would be all good.  an action that is  good  in one or some subsets would be argued to be not immoral, morally permissible, or immoral if violating any of the three criteria is enough to be immoral .   #  facts ceased to be relevant to the issue a long time ago, when the focus changed away from the harm of smoking cigarettes and allowed smoking to be declared unacceptable for being smoking.   #  i think i understand.  then i offer you this for consideration: why do many of those same people who exhibit this behavior that you think should be acceptable openly criticizing total strangers who happen to be smoking behave exactly the same way towards people using e cigarettes  vapers  ? your rule 0 is circular: they have the right to do it your view that you would like to be changed because they have the right to do it, so i will disregard it.  there is no evidence that your 0 0 apply to e cigarettes.  0 0 are basically setting the rules of argument wrt  specifics  which no one has yet proven to apply, and as such, can also be disregarded.  and yet the same behavior is not uncommon at all.  it is just as likely that the people in question express their disapproval for no other reason than to let others know that they disapprove, not out of any  social moral  sense but out of a self righteous superiority over those of whom they disapprove.  that is why blatant falsehoods like  tobacco use causes cancer  has been allowed to be considered  semantically equal  to  tobacco use increases the chances of developing cancer.   facts ceased to be relevant to the issue a long time ago, when the focus changed away from the harm of smoking cigarettes and allowed smoking to be declared unacceptable for being smoking.  in the end, your view is correct that they do have the  right , in such jurisdictions that value freedom of expression.  using your social standards of proper behavior, though, they are no more defensible than mocking strangers because of their clothes, haircut, makeup, etc.  which is, rightly, imo still generally considered a crappy thing to do, and those that do it held in lesser regard.   #  i am not sure how to amend 0 to reflect that expressing an opinion can be  crappy , even though that seems to be the right conclusion here.   #  i agree that the intention in a is behavior could be self righteous.  the base of it is the morality of expressing an opinion when it may offend.  it could be that i have sort of forced circular logic from the start by making 0 so powerful.  it sort of assures that a cannot be in the wrong since no matter what she is basically within the confines of acceptable.  i am not sure how to amend 0 to reflect that expressing an opinion can be  crappy , even though that seems to be the right conclusion here.  so maybe we say 0a might be  as long as your vocalized opinion is not unfair or indefensible, you are not wrong for expressing it, you are just a jerk, which is okay but less than best  URL and so since there is not an obvious right and wrong in this wishy washy subjective example and language, maybe being an asshole is the necessary medium for actions that are not entirely  good  or past the line of  bad .   #  furthermore it should be assumed the user is aware of this risk.   # furthermore it should be assumed the user is aware of this risk.  at what point would you say you are sufficiently aware of the risks of driving a car ? because to me, it seems that no matter how aware we are of the risks, we could always be  more  aware, if we just spent a little bit more time familiarizing ourselves with the risks.  how much is enough ? i do not think this principle accounts for that.  i bet reddit could cause a heart attack.  certainly you should not just disapprove of smoking, but also driving cars, crossing the street, living in a neighborhood with a high crime rate, working at a high risk job, and so forth.
hey folks.  let me start out by saying that i am a tobacco user.  i smoke cigarettes when i am in public but more often i dip mouth tobacco placed between the lower lip and gum and spit out at home.  i am holding this view from this position.  the following is context and you can safely skip down tomy premises.  i live in the south us in the heart of tobacco road and tobacco use is somewhat common.  that being said, i also live in a college town where transportation is mostly dominated by foot traffic and the culture is such that views are most often progressive as well as freely read: loudly vocalized.  when i smoke outside, even in places legally ordained as smoking areas largely defined as 0 feet from a public door or walkway or on private property i am subject to a sort of discrimination in the form of harshly disapproving stares, occasional statements concerning the health implications of smoking, over the top coughing fits, comments about smells, etc.  the comments i receive about dip are more frequent, typically saying it is gross and will discolor my teeth.  so the premises i am operating under are these: 0 people have a right to express their opinions to a point that does not grievously offend.  less of a moral stance and more of a functional legal definition 0 tobacco use causes cancer, which causes death.  0 it is always acceptable to disapprove of the use of products that cause death and there exist a myriad of good reasons to do so.  0 it is impermissible to defend tobacco by claiming, genuinely or deceptively, the tobacco is harmless.  this comes from the moral belief that we have an obligation to understand our actions as well as possible before acting so as to not act wrongly or in bad faith existential generalization .  furthermore it should be assumed the user is aware of this risk.  0 it is permissible, however, to choose to use products that can cause death when a person is aware of the consequences, is not in denial of the consequences, and has determined whatever benefit is greater than the associated risks.  this come from the right of individuals to not have constrained will to the minimum degree that the will does not significantly affect others.  reasons for using products that cause death constitute  the specifics  of this situation.  0 the specifics can be either valid or invalid reasoning.  0 it can be argued about  the specifics  that no benefit can outweigh the cost of tobacco use.  0 a person is not obligated and in a less defensible sense i believe they cannot be able to consider the specifics of every situation under which their general belief falls before expressing their opinion.  furthermore exceptions to general views do not constitute bad views or ignorance.  so my argument is meant to conclude that a person can validly criticize a tobacco user even though the user may be using tobacco for valid reasons.  the argument goes like this: person a encounters person b using tobacco legally in a public place.  person a somehow expresses disapproval for person b is use.  a is intended meaning is that it would be better in whatever ways are relevant if b was not using tobacco.  a has not committed an offense by expressing their opinion from 0 because it is defensible from 0 .  person b may then validly accept the criticism and agree because 0 and 0.  however, b may then validly defend her choice by claiming 0.  by either 0 or 0, a and b may have two valid and differing views, both supported by valid reasoning.  by 0 and 0, a is not in the wrong of any sort.  based on your views of 0, the user may or may not be justified in their decision to use.  so, is the critic wrong for voicing her potentially unfair opinion, or is the user acting for invalid reasons ? this post has ended up being way longer than i intended but hopefully the argument is well outlined and i have given yall something to contend against.  cheers  #  this comes from the moral belief that we have an obligation to understand our actions as well as possible before acting so as to not act wrongly or in bad faith existential generalization .   #  furthermore it should be assumed the user is aware of this risk.   # furthermore it should be assumed the user is aware of this risk.  at what point would you say you are sufficiently aware of the risks of driving a car ? because to me, it seems that no matter how aware we are of the risks, we could always be  more  aware, if we just spent a little bit more time familiarizing ourselves with the risks.  how much is enough ? i do not think this principle accounts for that.  i bet reddit could cause a heart attack.  certainly you should not just disapprove of smoking, but also driving cars, crossing the street, living in a neighborhood with a high crime rate, working at a high risk job, and so forth.   #  by 0 and 0, a is not in the wrong of any sort.   # less of a moral stance and more of a functional legal definition no argument here.  of course, that includes smokers  and other peoples  opinions that the people who are doing the eye rolling, fake coughing, head shaking are passive aggressive, obnoxious, or otherwise poorly behaved.  false.  tobacco use  increases the chances  of developing cancer.  there is a very large difference.  ftfy  acceptable  is a subjective term.  what may be acceptable to you may not be acceptable to someone else.  this comes from the moral belief that we have an obligation to understand our actions as well as possible before acting so as to not act wrongly or in bad faith existential generalization .  furthermore it should be assumed the user is aware of this risk.  so.   lying is bad ?   so i trust that you will never utter the phrase  tobacco use causes cancer  again ? person a somehow expresses disapproval for person b is use.  a is intended meaning is that it would be better in whatever ways are relevant if b was not using tobacco.  person b may then validly accept the criticism and agree because 0 and 0.  however, b may then validly defend her choice by claiming 0.  by either 0 or 0, a and b may have two valid and differing views, both supported by valid reasoning.  by 0 and 0, a is not in the wrong of any sort.  based on your views of 0, the user may or may not be justified in their decision to use.   committed an offense of what ?   there are no laws or regulations in play, so no one is  committing any offense.   now, if you mean to say they are not acting  offensively,  then that is entirely subjective.  am i misreading or are you here with a whole stone tablet is worth of rules and presumed premises on arguments, expect us to cyv while accepting your rules outright ?  #  i did not want you to accept my premises, i wanted you to take specific issue with them, like what you have done.   #  the point of going to such lengths to explain the premises was to give folks specifics points in the argument to take issue with.  i think it leads to more useful discussion to be clear with the logical steps taken.  i did not want you to accept my premises, i wanted you to take specific issue with them, like what you have done.   tobacco causes cancer  and  tobacco can cause cancer  are semantically similar though i will yield that yours is more indicative of the particulars.  as for what sort of offense i meant, i meant an act may be offensible by the sort of social moral sense that we experience in day to day life.  if a person cuts in a queue, we say  bad .  if a person gives up their seat for the elderly, we say  good .  an action that if unjustified by a combined view of our legal, social, and logical systems would be, in this social moral way, morally wrong.  an action that is  good  by legal, societal, and logical systems would be all good.  an action that is  good  in one or some subsets would be argued to be not immoral, morally permissible, or immoral if violating any of the three criteria is enough to be immoral .   #  your rule 0 is circular: they have the right to do it your view that you would like to be changed because they have the right to do it, so i will disregard it.   #  i think i understand.  then i offer you this for consideration: why do many of those same people who exhibit this behavior that you think should be acceptable openly criticizing total strangers who happen to be smoking behave exactly the same way towards people using e cigarettes  vapers  ? your rule 0 is circular: they have the right to do it your view that you would like to be changed because they have the right to do it, so i will disregard it.  there is no evidence that your 0 0 apply to e cigarettes.  0 0 are basically setting the rules of argument wrt  specifics  which no one has yet proven to apply, and as such, can also be disregarded.  and yet the same behavior is not uncommon at all.  it is just as likely that the people in question express their disapproval for no other reason than to let others know that they disapprove, not out of any  social moral  sense but out of a self righteous superiority over those of whom they disapprove.  that is why blatant falsehoods like  tobacco use causes cancer  has been allowed to be considered  semantically equal  to  tobacco use increases the chances of developing cancer.   facts ceased to be relevant to the issue a long time ago, when the focus changed away from the harm of smoking cigarettes and allowed smoking to be declared unacceptable for being smoking.  in the end, your view is correct that they do have the  right , in such jurisdictions that value freedom of expression.  using your social standards of proper behavior, though, they are no more defensible than mocking strangers because of their clothes, haircut, makeup, etc.  which is, rightly, imo still generally considered a crappy thing to do, and those that do it held in lesser regard.   #  it could be that i have sort of forced circular logic from the start by making 0 so powerful.   #  i agree that the intention in a is behavior could be self righteous.  the base of it is the morality of expressing an opinion when it may offend.  it could be that i have sort of forced circular logic from the start by making 0 so powerful.  it sort of assures that a cannot be in the wrong since no matter what she is basically within the confines of acceptable.  i am not sure how to amend 0 to reflect that expressing an opinion can be  crappy , even though that seems to be the right conclusion here.  so maybe we say 0a might be  as long as your vocalized opinion is not unfair or indefensible, you are not wrong for expressing it, you are just a jerk, which is okay but less than best  URL and so since there is not an obvious right and wrong in this wishy washy subjective example and language, maybe being an asshole is the necessary medium for actions that are not entirely  good  or past the line of  bad .
hey folks.  let me start out by saying that i am a tobacco user.  i smoke cigarettes when i am in public but more often i dip mouth tobacco placed between the lower lip and gum and spit out at home.  i am holding this view from this position.  the following is context and you can safely skip down tomy premises.  i live in the south us in the heart of tobacco road and tobacco use is somewhat common.  that being said, i also live in a college town where transportation is mostly dominated by foot traffic and the culture is such that views are most often progressive as well as freely read: loudly vocalized.  when i smoke outside, even in places legally ordained as smoking areas largely defined as 0 feet from a public door or walkway or on private property i am subject to a sort of discrimination in the form of harshly disapproving stares, occasional statements concerning the health implications of smoking, over the top coughing fits, comments about smells, etc.  the comments i receive about dip are more frequent, typically saying it is gross and will discolor my teeth.  so the premises i am operating under are these: 0 people have a right to express their opinions to a point that does not grievously offend.  less of a moral stance and more of a functional legal definition 0 tobacco use causes cancer, which causes death.  0 it is always acceptable to disapprove of the use of products that cause death and there exist a myriad of good reasons to do so.  0 it is impermissible to defend tobacco by claiming, genuinely or deceptively, the tobacco is harmless.  this comes from the moral belief that we have an obligation to understand our actions as well as possible before acting so as to not act wrongly or in bad faith existential generalization .  furthermore it should be assumed the user is aware of this risk.  0 it is permissible, however, to choose to use products that can cause death when a person is aware of the consequences, is not in denial of the consequences, and has determined whatever benefit is greater than the associated risks.  this come from the right of individuals to not have constrained will to the minimum degree that the will does not significantly affect others.  reasons for using products that cause death constitute  the specifics  of this situation.  0 the specifics can be either valid or invalid reasoning.  0 it can be argued about  the specifics  that no benefit can outweigh the cost of tobacco use.  0 a person is not obligated and in a less defensible sense i believe they cannot be able to consider the specifics of every situation under which their general belief falls before expressing their opinion.  furthermore exceptions to general views do not constitute bad views or ignorance.  so my argument is meant to conclude that a person can validly criticize a tobacco user even though the user may be using tobacco for valid reasons.  the argument goes like this: person a encounters person b using tobacco legally in a public place.  person a somehow expresses disapproval for person b is use.  a is intended meaning is that it would be better in whatever ways are relevant if b was not using tobacco.  a has not committed an offense by expressing their opinion from 0 because it is defensible from 0 .  person b may then validly accept the criticism and agree because 0 and 0.  however, b may then validly defend her choice by claiming 0.  by either 0 or 0, a and b may have two valid and differing views, both supported by valid reasoning.  by 0 and 0, a is not in the wrong of any sort.  based on your views of 0, the user may or may not be justified in their decision to use.  so, is the critic wrong for voicing her potentially unfair opinion, or is the user acting for invalid reasons ? this post has ended up being way longer than i intended but hopefully the argument is well outlined and i have given yall something to contend against.  cheers  #  it is always acceptable to disapprove of the use of products that cause death and there exist a myriad of good reasons to do so.   #  i bet reddit could cause a heart attack.   # furthermore it should be assumed the user is aware of this risk.  at what point would you say you are sufficiently aware of the risks of driving a car ? because to me, it seems that no matter how aware we are of the risks, we could always be  more  aware, if we just spent a little bit more time familiarizing ourselves with the risks.  how much is enough ? i do not think this principle accounts for that.  i bet reddit could cause a heart attack.  certainly you should not just disapprove of smoking, but also driving cars, crossing the street, living in a neighborhood with a high crime rate, working at a high risk job, and so forth.   #  this comes from the moral belief that we have an obligation to understand our actions as well as possible before acting so as to not act wrongly or in bad faith existential generalization .   # less of a moral stance and more of a functional legal definition no argument here.  of course, that includes smokers  and other peoples  opinions that the people who are doing the eye rolling, fake coughing, head shaking are passive aggressive, obnoxious, or otherwise poorly behaved.  false.  tobacco use  increases the chances  of developing cancer.  there is a very large difference.  ftfy  acceptable  is a subjective term.  what may be acceptable to you may not be acceptable to someone else.  this comes from the moral belief that we have an obligation to understand our actions as well as possible before acting so as to not act wrongly or in bad faith existential generalization .  furthermore it should be assumed the user is aware of this risk.  so.   lying is bad ?   so i trust that you will never utter the phrase  tobacco use causes cancer  again ? person a somehow expresses disapproval for person b is use.  a is intended meaning is that it would be better in whatever ways are relevant if b was not using tobacco.  person b may then validly accept the criticism and agree because 0 and 0.  however, b may then validly defend her choice by claiming 0.  by either 0 or 0, a and b may have two valid and differing views, both supported by valid reasoning.  by 0 and 0, a is not in the wrong of any sort.  based on your views of 0, the user may or may not be justified in their decision to use.   committed an offense of what ?   there are no laws or regulations in play, so no one is  committing any offense.   now, if you mean to say they are not acting  offensively,  then that is entirely subjective.  am i misreading or are you here with a whole stone tablet is worth of rules and presumed premises on arguments, expect us to cyv while accepting your rules outright ?  #  an action that if unjustified by a combined view of our legal, social, and logical systems would be, in this social moral way, morally wrong.   #  the point of going to such lengths to explain the premises was to give folks specifics points in the argument to take issue with.  i think it leads to more useful discussion to be clear with the logical steps taken.  i did not want you to accept my premises, i wanted you to take specific issue with them, like what you have done.   tobacco causes cancer  and  tobacco can cause cancer  are semantically similar though i will yield that yours is more indicative of the particulars.  as for what sort of offense i meant, i meant an act may be offensible by the sort of social moral sense that we experience in day to day life.  if a person cuts in a queue, we say  bad .  if a person gives up their seat for the elderly, we say  good .  an action that if unjustified by a combined view of our legal, social, and logical systems would be, in this social moral way, morally wrong.  an action that is  good  by legal, societal, and logical systems would be all good.  an action that is  good  in one or some subsets would be argued to be not immoral, morally permissible, or immoral if violating any of the three criteria is enough to be immoral .   #  in the end, your view is correct that they do have the  right , in such jurisdictions that value freedom of expression.   #  i think i understand.  then i offer you this for consideration: why do many of those same people who exhibit this behavior that you think should be acceptable openly criticizing total strangers who happen to be smoking behave exactly the same way towards people using e cigarettes  vapers  ? your rule 0 is circular: they have the right to do it your view that you would like to be changed because they have the right to do it, so i will disregard it.  there is no evidence that your 0 0 apply to e cigarettes.  0 0 are basically setting the rules of argument wrt  specifics  which no one has yet proven to apply, and as such, can also be disregarded.  and yet the same behavior is not uncommon at all.  it is just as likely that the people in question express their disapproval for no other reason than to let others know that they disapprove, not out of any  social moral  sense but out of a self righteous superiority over those of whom they disapprove.  that is why blatant falsehoods like  tobacco use causes cancer  has been allowed to be considered  semantically equal  to  tobacco use increases the chances of developing cancer.   facts ceased to be relevant to the issue a long time ago, when the focus changed away from the harm of smoking cigarettes and allowed smoking to be declared unacceptable for being smoking.  in the end, your view is correct that they do have the  right , in such jurisdictions that value freedom of expression.  using your social standards of proper behavior, though, they are no more defensible than mocking strangers because of their clothes, haircut, makeup, etc.  which is, rightly, imo still generally considered a crappy thing to do, and those that do it held in lesser regard.   #  i agree that the intention in a is behavior could be self righteous.   #  i agree that the intention in a is behavior could be self righteous.  the base of it is the morality of expressing an opinion when it may offend.  it could be that i have sort of forced circular logic from the start by making 0 so powerful.  it sort of assures that a cannot be in the wrong since no matter what she is basically within the confines of acceptable.  i am not sure how to amend 0 to reflect that expressing an opinion can be  crappy , even though that seems to be the right conclusion here.  so maybe we say 0a might be  as long as your vocalized opinion is not unfair or indefensible, you are not wrong for expressing it, you are just a jerk, which is okay but less than best  URL and so since there is not an obvious right and wrong in this wishy washy subjective example and language, maybe being an asshole is the necessary medium for actions that are not entirely  good  or past the line of  bad .
0 unelected judges were able to make a politically contested issue a legality in all 0 states, pretty much instantly.  i am not upset over the outcome, but the process seemed very undemocratic.  did not congress americans elected officials decide over the 0th amendment ? is the supreme court just as capable to legalize weed in all 0 states or set equal gun laws in all 0 states ? these are just examples, but i am sure there are more accurate desirable as well as undesirable outcomes which scotus can instantly decide without the use of america is representatives or the people themselves.  cmv that what the supreme court did was very undemocratic.   #  is the supreme court just as capable to legalize weed in all 0 states or set equal gun laws in all 0 states ?  #  not unless there is suddenly a right to smoke pot in the constitution, there are commerse clauses but not much else, and those ban things, not make them legal.   #  i disagree with the ruling but what the hell.  america is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic.  what is legal is not always popular.  interracial marriage is a right, but at the time loving v.  virginia was passed, it had a single digit approval rating.  not unless there is suddenly a right to smoke pot in the constitution, there are commerse clauses but not much else, and those ban things, not make them legal.  the facts are that what is legal isn;t always popular.  that is why they must be appointed so that public opinion does not matter.   #  the supreme court is mandate is to interpret the constitution and how it applies to laws.   #  yes actually they can.  they can amend the constitution.  the supreme court is mandate is to interpret the constitution and how it applies to laws.  in this case they said that the 0th amendment secures people is right to marry whoever they wanted.  which by the way should have already been established when blacks were allowed to marry whites.  the exact same arguments used against gay marriage was used for interracial marriages.  if the people of america really do believe this decision was wrong they can call their representatives and have them amend the constitution to disallow gay marriage.  then scotus could not do anything about it.  however, good luck getting congress to amend the constitution to say that.  they could not get it done for interracial marriage and i think at the time interracial marriage was even more unpopular then gay marriage is today, considering the polls on how people feel about gay marriage.   #  they have every right in trials with one state as a party to create original rulings.   #  right, so with your logic, it was also wrong for scotus to have made interracial marriage legal, but ok.  they did not create any new law.  they interpreted the fourteenth amendment in context of marriage and found that it was unconstitutional to discriminate on the grounds of sexuality.  the result of that is there ca not be new laws discriminating same sex couples from marrying.  but even if you want to just twist it to mean whatever you want, fine, they made a new law.  and they are perfectly in their right to do so.  go read the second section of the third article of the constitution.  they have every right in trials with one state as a party to create original rulings.  this is historical.  for 0 years, scotus has been making the rules on what states get how much water from the colorado river.  in fact, the second damn ruling in history URL of scotus, the first with a state,  created  the rule that a state can sue in the supreme court.  it is not that the legislative branch should not be passing laws that is the problem.  it is that you do not understand what the legislative branch does is the problem.   #  did you know until 0, some states were  imprisoning  gays for sodomy ?  #  the main function of the supreme court is to overturn unconstitutional laws.  that is their job.  the reason why the supreme court has that power is because a concept known as tyranny of the majority URL where decisions made by a majority place its interests above those of an individual or minority group.  that is also why we have a system of checks and balances put in place.  the key is upholding the constitution and protecting everyones rights, as guaranteed in the constitution, even if it goes against what most americans voted for.  that is exactly the heart of  tyranny of the majority .  history shows that the majority has often been wrong, and been willing to subjugate minorities.  consider: without plessy v.  ferguson, we would still have segregation.  the majority, especially in the southern areas, was hell bent on continuing jim crow laws and other forms of racial discrimination.  without the supreme court, life in america would be much worse for blacks.  consider loving v.  virginia, which outlawed interracial marriage.  that too took the supreme court to overturn.  how about criminalizing sodomy ? did you know until 0, some states were  imprisoning  gays for sodomy ? or how about this, there was a time not too long ago when you could be arrested for  birth control , or even distributing literature on it.  the supreme court overturned all of those laws.  courts are supposed to respect the legislature and thus the will of the people unless and until laws violate the constitution that is when they can step in and overturn the laws.   #  if you do not agree, then you are essentially disagreeing with the constitution, which guaruntees certain, unalienable rights.   #  what if most people do not want blacks to be treated equally ? should democracy preside over such decisions, or do you accept that in some circumstances the rights of the minority need to be protected, regardless of what people vote for ? if you do not agree, then you are essentially disagreeing with the constitution, which guaruntees certain, unalienable rights.  the supreme court found that certain rights, granted by the constitution, were not being granted to certain people.  that is not legal, so now all states have to acknowledge those rights.
i am no professional when it comes to logic or argumentation but i have been pondering this thought lately.  i am not a believer of any after life or supernatural.  if after death we experience what we experienced before birth which is nothingness, then isnt life meaningless ? why should we continue to suffer when life is literally a constant suffering ? i personally believe life is meaningless.  when you are under the assumption that you experience nothingness when you are dead, what is the point of living ? the only reason i can personally see for living is to not inflict additional emotional suffering on those that you know and care about you.  but if you do experience nothingness after life then why should it matter when you wont be able to conceive of this suffering.  its been something i have been thinking a lot about lately.  change my view, please.  also, this is not a cry for help and i will not be jumping off the golden gate bridge any time soon.   #  why should we continue to suffer when life is literally a constant suffering ?  #  under that circumstance i do think suicide makes a whole lot of sense.   #  of course, the  commit suicide  option is a valid one, but it does not follow directly from the meaninglessness of life.  i see a few holes in the logic.  lets start by agreeing that life has no inherent meaning.  by  life , we mean existence, particularly individual human existence in this case.  by  meaning , what do we mean ? i do not know exactly, but whatever we mean, we mean that there is none of it built into the system.  under that circumstance i do think suicide makes a whole lot of sense.  then again, a lot of options make a lot of sense in that circumstance, like, why not try to avoid some of that suffering, address the issues of  why  the suffering is constant, try to minimize it, and so on.  but more importantly, i highly doubt your life is constant suffering.  most lives have a balance, some ups, some downs, some suffering, some joy, a lot of neutral.  correct me if i am wrong here, but your life is not literally constant suffering, right ? if it is, you should probably see a doctor about that to see if the suffering can be alleviated in a less extreme way than suicide; that is basically the entire purpose of medicine.  there is no point to living.  that is not a call to stop doing it, though.  you could ask the reverse question: what is the point of dying/being dead ? there is none.  there is no point in either.  both are meaningless, but that does not  mean  you should have one instead of the other.  that is just a non sequitur.  furthermore, this is an assumption, not a known fact.  i agree that this is a reasonable assumption, but it does remain unknown in a deep way.  anyway, you know you are going to die eventually; why rush into the inevitable ? but if you do experience nothingness after life then why should it matter when you wont be able to conceive of this suffering.  yeah, your reasoning is about optimization during life.  for example, i do think it is rude to commit suicide a before both your parents are dead and/or b before all of your children if any are adults.  there are no real rules, though, so one can do whatever.  still, trying to optimize life seems like a better solution than quitting early and diving into death without fully exploring life.  unless it is literally constant suffering, then, yeah, that would be worth escaping imho, but that is a relatively rare and extreme case.  this is a fascinating topic, and i highly recommend burtrand russel is  the conquest of happiness  for a good read on the topic.   #  excluding only the most extreme examples where pain simply cannot be managed, what is the suffering truly caused by ?  #  i would dispute the notion that life is a constant suffering.  surely you do not live every single moment of your day in suffering.  the human mind is not that powerful.  if we did not occasionally become distracted from any suffering that we do face in our lives, then we would not be able to function properly.  the vast majority of all people experience fleeting moments of happiness.  additionally, the nature of suffering is something which many philosophers have attempted to understand.  i am partial to the buddhist interpretation, which is that suffering is caused by unfulfilled desires and distractions from the reality of our lives.  a seemingly well off person who revels in fantasy all day long may be considerably more unhappy than a poor person who spends time trying to enjoy the life they actually live.  to want something and not have it is often a cause of suffering.  a common counter point to this may be that perhaps someone is in poor health and experiences physical pain as a result.  excluding only the most extreme examples where pain simply cannot be managed, what is the suffering truly caused by ? most likely the bitterness at lacking in physical comfort or ability.  however, one who embraces the reality of their health and works to maximize happiness within their limitations can still be a very happy person who does not always suffer.  i think stephen hawking is a great example of a person with extreme physical disability, and yet he has lived a life that by many objective measures is considerably more fulfilling than the average person is.  now we must consider suicide as a mechanism for rectifying the problem of meaning.  suicide is just about the only way that you can completely remove all possibility of meaning and happiness from your life.  therefore, i would consider the premise that suicide is a solution to this problem a complete contradiction.  the fact that you have not killed yourself seems to suggest that you may recognize this on some level.   #  i might add that nobody ever has a choice to be born.   #  on a personal level, the only reason that i have not committed suicide is because of the people around me.  i tell myself that i would hate for them to suffer and i have had this conversation with countless friends, family members and acquaintances, and i have met many people who wholeheartedly agree with that sentiment.  it seems that many people continue to live as to not force an even great amount of suffering upon others.  these are also physically capable and well off people, i might add.  the premise that we are dying every moment that we are alive is how i come to the conclusion that we are constantly suffering.  i believe most people are not mindful of this and that is why they enjoy life more than others, or some people can become aware and choose to live life to the fullest.  but, because i can not find, and based on almost everything i have read, an objective meaning to life i still believe it is meaningless and therefore living should be required.  i might add that nobody ever has a choice to be born.  why should something so meaningless be forced upon us ?  #  is it not possible that the experience we have as individuals is part of a greater collective that we do not have the capacity to understand ?  # i believe most people are not mindful of this and that is why they enjoy life more than others, or some people can become aware and choose to live life to the fullest.  i do not equate the inevitability of death with suffering.  clearly there are highly intelligent and lucid people who do not suffer very much in their lives.  if anything, history has shown that the acceptance of death greatly reduces suffering.  it also seems odd to say that your life does not have a meaning when you also state that the meaning of your life is to prevent other people is suffering.  if this is truly what you value, then perhaps you could try devoting yourself more wholeheartedly to this goal and see where it takes you ? as an aside, i would caution against evaluating concepts like purpose or meaning from a single person is conscious perspective.  certainly we have learned enough to discredit many philosophical ideas of the past, like randomly believing in an afterlife or blindly following churches and holy books.  the undeniable fact remains that we do not understand everything.  is it not possible that the experience we have as individuals is part of a greater collective that we do not have the capacity to understand ?  #  why does anyone watch a movie if they know it is going to end ?  #  why does anyone go to the park if they know they are going to have to leave soon ? why does anyone watch a movie if they know it is going to end ? the meaning of life is to give life a meaning.  no matter how shitty.  we should not commit suicide because there is too much instant gratification in this world to pass up.  music.  art.  film.  sex.  drugs.  human interaction.  these are all things to make you feel alive and to indulge in.  like you said if we expect nothingness after we die, then why give up the somethingness that you already have right now ? it is like racing to a red light, enjoy the ride, man.
i am no professional when it comes to logic or argumentation but i have been pondering this thought lately.  i am not a believer of any after life or supernatural.  if after death we experience what we experienced before birth which is nothingness, then isnt life meaningless ? why should we continue to suffer when life is literally a constant suffering ? i personally believe life is meaningless.  when you are under the assumption that you experience nothingness when you are dead, what is the point of living ? the only reason i can personally see for living is to not inflict additional emotional suffering on those that you know and care about you.  but if you do experience nothingness after life then why should it matter when you wont be able to conceive of this suffering.  its been something i have been thinking a lot about lately.  change my view, please.  also, this is not a cry for help and i will not be jumping off the golden gate bridge any time soon.   #  the only reason i can personally see for living is to not inflict additional emotional suffering on those that you know and care about you.   #  but if you do experience nothingness after life then why should it matter when you wont be able to conceive of this suffering.   #  of course, the  commit suicide  option is a valid one, but it does not follow directly from the meaninglessness of life.  i see a few holes in the logic.  lets start by agreeing that life has no inherent meaning.  by  life , we mean existence, particularly individual human existence in this case.  by  meaning , what do we mean ? i do not know exactly, but whatever we mean, we mean that there is none of it built into the system.  under that circumstance i do think suicide makes a whole lot of sense.  then again, a lot of options make a lot of sense in that circumstance, like, why not try to avoid some of that suffering, address the issues of  why  the suffering is constant, try to minimize it, and so on.  but more importantly, i highly doubt your life is constant suffering.  most lives have a balance, some ups, some downs, some suffering, some joy, a lot of neutral.  correct me if i am wrong here, but your life is not literally constant suffering, right ? if it is, you should probably see a doctor about that to see if the suffering can be alleviated in a less extreme way than suicide; that is basically the entire purpose of medicine.  there is no point to living.  that is not a call to stop doing it, though.  you could ask the reverse question: what is the point of dying/being dead ? there is none.  there is no point in either.  both are meaningless, but that does not  mean  you should have one instead of the other.  that is just a non sequitur.  furthermore, this is an assumption, not a known fact.  i agree that this is a reasonable assumption, but it does remain unknown in a deep way.  anyway, you know you are going to die eventually; why rush into the inevitable ? but if you do experience nothingness after life then why should it matter when you wont be able to conceive of this suffering.  yeah, your reasoning is about optimization during life.  for example, i do think it is rude to commit suicide a before both your parents are dead and/or b before all of your children if any are adults.  there are no real rules, though, so one can do whatever.  still, trying to optimize life seems like a better solution than quitting early and diving into death without fully exploring life.  unless it is literally constant suffering, then, yeah, that would be worth escaping imho, but that is a relatively rare and extreme case.  this is a fascinating topic, and i highly recommend burtrand russel is  the conquest of happiness  for a good read on the topic.   #  therefore, i would consider the premise that suicide is a solution to this problem a complete contradiction.   #  i would dispute the notion that life is a constant suffering.  surely you do not live every single moment of your day in suffering.  the human mind is not that powerful.  if we did not occasionally become distracted from any suffering that we do face in our lives, then we would not be able to function properly.  the vast majority of all people experience fleeting moments of happiness.  additionally, the nature of suffering is something which many philosophers have attempted to understand.  i am partial to the buddhist interpretation, which is that suffering is caused by unfulfilled desires and distractions from the reality of our lives.  a seemingly well off person who revels in fantasy all day long may be considerably more unhappy than a poor person who spends time trying to enjoy the life they actually live.  to want something and not have it is often a cause of suffering.  a common counter point to this may be that perhaps someone is in poor health and experiences physical pain as a result.  excluding only the most extreme examples where pain simply cannot be managed, what is the suffering truly caused by ? most likely the bitterness at lacking in physical comfort or ability.  however, one who embraces the reality of their health and works to maximize happiness within their limitations can still be a very happy person who does not always suffer.  i think stephen hawking is a great example of a person with extreme physical disability, and yet he has lived a life that by many objective measures is considerably more fulfilling than the average person is.  now we must consider suicide as a mechanism for rectifying the problem of meaning.  suicide is just about the only way that you can completely remove all possibility of meaning and happiness from your life.  therefore, i would consider the premise that suicide is a solution to this problem a complete contradiction.  the fact that you have not killed yourself seems to suggest that you may recognize this on some level.   #  but, because i can not find, and based on almost everything i have read, an objective meaning to life i still believe it is meaningless and therefore living should be required.   #  on a personal level, the only reason that i have not committed suicide is because of the people around me.  i tell myself that i would hate for them to suffer and i have had this conversation with countless friends, family members and acquaintances, and i have met many people who wholeheartedly agree with that sentiment.  it seems that many people continue to live as to not force an even great amount of suffering upon others.  these are also physically capable and well off people, i might add.  the premise that we are dying every moment that we are alive is how i come to the conclusion that we are constantly suffering.  i believe most people are not mindful of this and that is why they enjoy life more than others, or some people can become aware and choose to live life to the fullest.  but, because i can not find, and based on almost everything i have read, an objective meaning to life i still believe it is meaningless and therefore living should be required.  i might add that nobody ever has a choice to be born.  why should something so meaningless be forced upon us ?  #  is it not possible that the experience we have as individuals is part of a greater collective that we do not have the capacity to understand ?  # i believe most people are not mindful of this and that is why they enjoy life more than others, or some people can become aware and choose to live life to the fullest.  i do not equate the inevitability of death with suffering.  clearly there are highly intelligent and lucid people who do not suffer very much in their lives.  if anything, history has shown that the acceptance of death greatly reduces suffering.  it also seems odd to say that your life does not have a meaning when you also state that the meaning of your life is to prevent other people is suffering.  if this is truly what you value, then perhaps you could try devoting yourself more wholeheartedly to this goal and see where it takes you ? as an aside, i would caution against evaluating concepts like purpose or meaning from a single person is conscious perspective.  certainly we have learned enough to discredit many philosophical ideas of the past, like randomly believing in an afterlife or blindly following churches and holy books.  the undeniable fact remains that we do not understand everything.  is it not possible that the experience we have as individuals is part of a greater collective that we do not have the capacity to understand ?  #  why does anyone go to the park if they know they are going to have to leave soon ?  #  why does anyone go to the park if they know they are going to have to leave soon ? why does anyone watch a movie if they know it is going to end ? the meaning of life is to give life a meaning.  no matter how shitty.  we should not commit suicide because there is too much instant gratification in this world to pass up.  music.  art.  film.  sex.  drugs.  human interaction.  these are all things to make you feel alive and to indulge in.  like you said if we expect nothingness after we die, then why give up the somethingness that you already have right now ? it is like racing to a red light, enjoy the ride, man.
first things first: i know this sounds kind of stupid, but 0 serious here; not a troll.  dogs are not disney cartoons.  yes, they are thinking, feeling creatures, but their ways of communication could hardly be any more different from ours.  a dog leaping onto you is not expressing affection; it is literally asserting dominance.  a dog dragging you by the leash is not eager to play; it is showing you who the top dog is and ordering you to follow the pack leader itself .  a dog making eye contact is, again, asserting dominance read: not affectionately gazing into its master is eyes.  the list goes on.  seems like we have anthropomorphizing our cuddly partners a bit too much.  chances are, it is probably not thinking what most people think it is thinking.  a dog that looks  depressed  to most of us is really just an obedient dog with a responsible owner.  man is best friend ? that is some grade a bull.  man is best friend is none other than fellow man.  dogs have no capacity for logic / reasoning skills and will bark at any stranger to feel better about themselves.  we do not understand them very well, and they understand us even less.  they have helped our hunter gatherer ancestors, and are still useful to people with certain disabilities today.  but that makes them no more than co workers and can hardly be considered potential friends, given our inherent differences in nature.  dog experts of reddit, i would love to have my mind changed on this one because i literally ca not look at dogs anymore without thinking they are incredibly savage and overly hierarchical creatures undeserving of our attention.   #  a dog leaping onto you is not expressing affection; it is literally asserting dominance.   #  why do you think this, do you have proof.   # why do you think this, do you have proof.  why does my dog only do this to me and people she has met enough times to like ? why do you think this ? my other dog loves to pull anything on her leash even if no one is attached.  my 0st mentioned dog, stays right next to me if off leash and will go wherever i go.  if she gets scared, she runs right between my legs, even if someone else is closer.  what about dogs who save their owners from stuff without being trained.  my dog 0 once pinned this stray cat that we took in that had begun to attack my arm.  there are many stories you can google of untrained dogs saving their owners.  have you ever actually had a dog ? because it really does not seem like you have or it seems like you did not really care about it.  because if you own a dog and pay attention to it, you would know what you are saying in this cmv to be false.  my dog 0 really loves my sister, maybe more than me.  she hates water, wont go near it by her own choice.  my sister and i went paddle boarding and took my dog.  we separated a bit and my dog freaked out, she wanted my sister.  she jumped into the water she hates just to swim to my sister.  what exactly would you say she was trying to do other than to go to a human she likes.  my dog 0 would wait in the window staring out of the blinds for me to come home in high school.  every single day.  0 does the same to me now.  0 lives with my parents and my grandmother has caused her to be fat and shes old.  both these things make her very slow usually.  i do not get to see her often because they live far away from me.  but when i do visit once or twice a year, she freaks out and gets very excited and acts like a puppy for about a day after i arrive.  are you telling me she does not love me ? in a way a dog can love someone .  maybe you just had crappy dogs or you just are not a dog person so they do not like you, but studies have shown that dogs can read emotion and have emotion.  this is an easily google able fact.  and you do not have any proof that they ca not.   #  and sure, people anthropomorphize their dogs too much, but i do not see how that warrants thinking that dogs are  incredibly savage and overly hierarchical creatures undeserving of our attention .   #  dogs can have many mental states, why do you deny them the ability to show affection ? certainly not  every dog  is your friend, even owners who may think their dog is their friend, but there are clear examples of emotional bonds between dogs and owners.  it also may not be a full, intellectual human friendship, but i see no reason to deny the ability of dogs to feel strong loyalty and affection.  your examples show common actions that are  misinterpreted  as showing affection, but it is not as if dogs are incapable of affection or never form bonds with other animals humans included .  and sure, people anthropomorphize their dogs too much, but i do not see how that warrants thinking that dogs are  incredibly savage and overly hierarchical creatures undeserving of our attention .   #  are you saying that no women back then ever truly loved their husbands due to the husband being above them in the social hierarchy ?  #  a power imbalance between two individuals does not mean genuine affection between the two is impossible.  for example, at the place i work, my manager and i joke around and laugh all the time.  i know she is my superior in my workplace and i have to defer to her, but that does not mean we ca not also have friendly affection for one another.  additionally, in the past, men were considered to be above women in every sense of the word.  are you saying that no women back then ever truly loved their husbands due to the husband being above them in the social hierarchy ? relations with power imbalances exist all the time with love involved.   #  some dogs, however, will attempt to place themselves in a position of authority by  qualifying themselves .   #  your boss is your boss b/c she is been proven to be qualified for that position.  you have no problem with the fact that she is your boss b/c she followed the necessary procedure to attain her status.  you are not an inferior existence, only a subordinate in the workplace.  some dogs, however, will attempt to place themselves in a position of authority by  qualifying themselves .  their criterion and definition for authority are vastly different from ours.  what makes the dog a better leader for your entire existence than you do it ? i will have to respond to your second point in the morning.   #  the dog still has the ability to realize you are its particular owner, required for its survival, and show love/affection towards you.   #  dogs and cats are rare instances where the animals were partly responsible for their own domestication because, we assume, they realized the value of human companionship for their personal progress hundreds of years ago.  the dog still has the ability to realize you are its particular owner, required for its survival, and show love/affection towards you.  the detect your current emotions so they can project the same feelings, so if i love the dog, and the dog loves me and i show affection to it what is wrong with that ? its still an animal that i wouldnt value as much as another person but its still capable of basic emotions like we are ? you are describing instances where the dog is clearly misbehaving, not how well it follows your instructions and how it acts between instructions.
first things first: i know this sounds kind of stupid, but 0 serious here; not a troll.  dogs are not disney cartoons.  yes, they are thinking, feeling creatures, but their ways of communication could hardly be any more different from ours.  a dog leaping onto you is not expressing affection; it is literally asserting dominance.  a dog dragging you by the leash is not eager to play; it is showing you who the top dog is and ordering you to follow the pack leader itself .  a dog making eye contact is, again, asserting dominance read: not affectionately gazing into its master is eyes.  the list goes on.  seems like we have anthropomorphizing our cuddly partners a bit too much.  chances are, it is probably not thinking what most people think it is thinking.  a dog that looks  depressed  to most of us is really just an obedient dog with a responsible owner.  man is best friend ? that is some grade a bull.  man is best friend is none other than fellow man.  dogs have no capacity for logic / reasoning skills and will bark at any stranger to feel better about themselves.  we do not understand them very well, and they understand us even less.  they have helped our hunter gatherer ancestors, and are still useful to people with certain disabilities today.  but that makes them no more than co workers and can hardly be considered potential friends, given our inherent differences in nature.  dog experts of reddit, i would love to have my mind changed on this one because i literally ca not look at dogs anymore without thinking they are incredibly savage and overly hierarchical creatures undeserving of our attention.   #  a dog dragging you by the leash is not eager to play; it is showing you who the top dog is and ordering you to follow the pack leader itself .   #  usually a dog that is dragging someone by the leash is so consumed by the interest of exploration that it does not even think ahead far enough to realize that it is choking itself.   #  i think dogs are highly instinctual creatures which do not exhibit even the level of reasoning that you attribute to them.  usually a dog that is dragging someone by the leash is so consumed by the interest of exploration that it does not even think ahead far enough to realize that it is choking itself.  either way, a dog brain and a human brain are not that different.  is it really inconceivable that the two species experience similar emotions and for similar reasons ? we are not so distant that we ca not have a basic level of understanding.  my dog clearly likes to play with humans more than she likes to do anything else.  how does that fit into a concept of dogs brains as thinking only in pure domination and submission ?  #  it also may not be a full, intellectual human friendship, but i see no reason to deny the ability of dogs to feel strong loyalty and affection.   #  dogs can have many mental states, why do you deny them the ability to show affection ? certainly not  every dog  is your friend, even owners who may think their dog is their friend, but there are clear examples of emotional bonds between dogs and owners.  it also may not be a full, intellectual human friendship, but i see no reason to deny the ability of dogs to feel strong loyalty and affection.  your examples show common actions that are  misinterpreted  as showing affection, but it is not as if dogs are incapable of affection or never form bonds with other animals humans included .  and sure, people anthropomorphize their dogs too much, but i do not see how that warrants thinking that dogs are  incredibly savage and overly hierarchical creatures undeserving of our attention .   #  i know she is my superior in my workplace and i have to defer to her, but that does not mean we ca not also have friendly affection for one another.   #  a power imbalance between two individuals does not mean genuine affection between the two is impossible.  for example, at the place i work, my manager and i joke around and laugh all the time.  i know she is my superior in my workplace and i have to defer to her, but that does not mean we ca not also have friendly affection for one another.  additionally, in the past, men were considered to be above women in every sense of the word.  are you saying that no women back then ever truly loved their husbands due to the husband being above them in the social hierarchy ? relations with power imbalances exist all the time with love involved.   #  you are not an inferior existence, only a subordinate in the workplace.   #  your boss is your boss b/c she is been proven to be qualified for that position.  you have no problem with the fact that she is your boss b/c she followed the necessary procedure to attain her status.  you are not an inferior existence, only a subordinate in the workplace.  some dogs, however, will attempt to place themselves in a position of authority by  qualifying themselves .  their criterion and definition for authority are vastly different from ours.  what makes the dog a better leader for your entire existence than you do it ? i will have to respond to your second point in the morning.   #  dogs and cats are rare instances where the animals were partly responsible for their own domestication because, we assume, they realized the value of human companionship for their personal progress hundreds of years ago.   #  dogs and cats are rare instances where the animals were partly responsible for their own domestication because, we assume, they realized the value of human companionship for their personal progress hundreds of years ago.  the dog still has the ability to realize you are its particular owner, required for its survival, and show love/affection towards you.  the detect your current emotions so they can project the same feelings, so if i love the dog, and the dog loves me and i show affection to it what is wrong with that ? its still an animal that i wouldnt value as much as another person but its still capable of basic emotions like we are ? you are describing instances where the dog is clearly misbehaving, not how well it follows your instructions and how it acts between instructions.
i posted this a while ago but i was told by a mod to try again in a few weeks since it happened during but whole fattening thing.  here is an edited version of what i posted.  so far i have been careful to say  simple  instead of  easy  when it comes to losing weight implying that the steps are simple but the execution is hard.  i used to do that because i never had to lose weight.  i had to gain weight for a while but never had to lose it.  now that i am on a cut i realize that it is not just simple, it is actually easy.  forcing yourself to eat is hard.  just go over to /r/gainit and see for yourself.  i have been making myself eat more for almost a year now, while eating more got easier, it was still a struggle and it was expensive buying lots of food is expensive .  there is only so much you can shove in your mouth before you call it quits.  eating less on the other hand ? easy and cheap as hell.  see a cookie i want ?  no, i need to eat fewer than x calories and eating this cookie means i have to eat less later which will make me hungry .  that is all it takes.  as for expense, it costs less because you have to eat less.  one or two meals a day that are each half of what i used to eat.  instead of burger and fries get either burger or fries.  instead of chips as a snack ? pickles.  everything is cheaper.  most days my food costs do not exceed $0, tops.  often it is a lot less.  in conclusion, if you want to lose weight you can easily do it and it costs less than it costs to maintain your current weight.  the only reason people give in to the temptation is because they lack the motivation to say no.   #  there is only so much you can shove in your mouth before you call it quits.   #  your stomach can only fit so much food.   # i do say why a few sentences later.  please read my post.  i will quote it for your convenience.  your stomach can only fit so much food.  if you eat too much you can throw up and then you 0 wasted food, 0 still need to meet your calorie requirements, and 0 you now have to eat something else having just thrown up.  there is a physical limit to how much you can eat but the only limit to eating less is how much energy you have stored which, if you need to lose weight, is a lot.  yes  eating less food means paying for less food .  stop the presses.  except it is always used as an argument that eating healthy is more expensive.  i mentioned this to say that from experience, it is actually cheaper.   #  quit smoking but that does not mean they follow through on it.   #  not motivation, willpower.  people seem to be very clearly motivated to e. g.  quit smoking but that does not mean they follow through on it.  well sure if just assume away all the stuff people have problems with eating it might be  hard to gain weight .  they are talking about  lean body mass  it is explicit in the sub info URL it is really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really easy to  force yourself to eat  just go over to /r/soda or /r/burgersandfriesanddeepfriedfattyfoods .  but that is not your problem: you are saying  look at me it is really hard to gain weight  neglecting what you are really saying is  look how hard it is to gain weight in certain situations when doing so in a healthy as opposed to unhealthy manner    that is all it takes.  read any literature on willpower.  tl;dr aristotle so why is it really hard ? because it is hard to build this habit of self discipline which says  if i eat this cookie i am not going to eat x calories later  and then stick with it not for 0 days but for 0 years.  well that and getting into a habit of exercise which is also a virtuous cycle .  all you are doing is saying  if i start with the habit it is going to be easy for someone without the habit to do it  which is just obviously wrong.  yes  eating less food means paying for less food .  stop the presses.   #  since i am now an adult, i still eat this way and it is just something i do automatically.   #  just wondering: were you raised with good eating habits by your parents ? i ask because, like you, i have never had a problem with my weight and i think a large part of that has to do with way food was made available to me when i was growing up.  for instance, we never had sodas, and cookies and other treats were only a once and awhile kind of thing.  i ate a lot of fruits and loved things like yogurt and stuff, so i got set in my diet from a very early age.  since i am now an adult, i still eat this way and it is just something i do automatically.  i see a lot of what my peers are eating though and the differences are mind blowing.  perhaps equating a  healthy diet  with  easy  is just a difference in upbringing ?  #  for instance, we never had sodas, and cookies and other treats were only a once and awhile kind of thing.   # i would not say good eating habits.  i ate very little for my needs which is why i had to work on gaining weight.  i was 0 lbs until my late teens.  for instance, we never had sodas, and cookies and other treats were only a once and awhile kind of thing.  i ate a lot of fruits and loved things like yogurt and stuff, so i got set in my diet from a very early age.  in that case, yes.  but not because of my parents  guidance but because i grew up in iraq where those things were not accessible.  i would rather not talk about this part much more because it always pisses me off.  i see a lot of what my peers are eating though and the differences are mind blowing.  perhaps equating a  healthy diet  with  easy  is just a difference in upbringing ? are you saying that we basically got used to not eating tempting foods since we were kids ? that is a very interesting hypothesis.   #  obesity along with numerous other issues is caused by being really poor, and seeking cheap food.   #  the reason i ask is that fatness is a disease of poverty.  obesity along with numerous other issues is caused by being really poor, and seeking cheap food.  a great book by a guy called gary taubes covers this, its called  why we get fat and what to do about it .  it covers these distinctions and shows that obesity is an endocrine disease.  i would strongly recommend buying or downloading if you ca not afford it and reading this book as it will directly address your position and clarify your thinking.  i once shared your opinion but now hold a very different position, but i get where you are coming from.
from URL i think the conviction rate of sexual assault is woeful in this country.  it is so difficult to make a successful criminal case against a rapist that: rape culture is highly prevalent and rapists feel they can get away with it, and intimidate their victim into silence victims of rape have no confidence they will even be listened to, never mind getting a successful conviction for these reasons, i think the system should change: when somebody makes an accusation of rape, it should be up to the accused to prove their innocence.  until they have done this, they should be considered guilty.  the accused is details should be publicized in this time, so the public is protected from them rape cases should be fast tracked through the legal system, which not only streamlines the process, but shortens the time until the rapist is in prison, again this protects the public implementing these changes will give victims so much more confidence when reporting the crime, and it will make rapists think twice before they go ahead with their actions.  i have considered the possibility of a small amount innocent people going to jail for rape, but if these changes help send more  real  rapists to prison, then surely the benefit to society outweighs any minor problems that may arise.  i have been told i am extreme for thinking this, but nobody has presented to me a compelling reason why it is a bad idea.  please change my view !  #  when somebody makes an accusation of rape, it should be up to the accused to prove their innocence.   #  until they have done this, they should be considered guilty.   # we are very quick to assume the worst of people.  until they have done this, they should be considered guilty.  the accused is details should be publicized in this time, so the public is protected from them besides all the constitutional problems, there is the issue of you ca not prove a negative in history.  here are two great examples: napoleon never owned a pet shark.  prove it ? well there is no evidence he did own a shark.  but there is no evidence he did not.  timmy accuses sally of stealing his lawn mower, under your system of guilt being assumed.  sally says she was at home all day when the lawn mower was stolen, no one can vouch since sally is a bit of a loner.  there are no other suspects than sally.  sally is guilty ? the court is so full of murder, kidnappings, torture and other crimes, streamlining a specific crime, no matter how bad, would be nearly impossible ! if that idea of  maybe they will think before they act  worked, the death penalty would be the best deterant, and yet it is not  #  if anyone can accuse another of something, it is not a matter of  if  a charge will stick, only  when .   #  so much nope.    i think rape cases should be fast tracked through courts really ? rape cases should be fast tracked over murder, abuse, assault   organized crime ? in terms of range of impact, any one of these is more likely to impact a larger amount of people and often in more damaging ways.  why does rape get a boost ? also, it is worth pointing out how often rape happens.  if we fast tracked all rape cases we may never get around to stopping many other crimes.  not only is this a problem in itself, but it also stands to reason that just before a crime spree organized criminals would go out and rape in large groups.  based on your fast track idea it is the perfect smokescreen.  it would be stupid not to.  not only do people go to prison, but they are registered as sex offenders and carry that with them throughout life.  even murderers do not have that issue.  they also cannot own a personal computer, so the odds of them building a career after that are nill.  destroying entire lives indiscriminantly is not a small thing.  it is understandable if you are sure that you have a rapist, but not anything less than that.  0 most of us, most of the time do not have an alibi.  we are just on reddit or sleeping or watching a movie.  if anyone can accuse another of something, it is not a matter of  if  a charge will stick, only  when .  i cannot prove to anyone else right now that i am on reddit rather than out raping people.  bots can be written to post/respond to threads.  it is just not valuable as evidence.  if i had to fight for my own life based on tonight is events, i would lose and you would too.   #  abortion was illegal and the biblical punishment for rape laughably minute by contemporary standards.   #  all of these points are compelling.  i write only to expound on your last point.  it seems during this recent hysteria we have elevated rape above all other crimes, even murder, into a stratosphere of its own.  in a certain way, it goes to show the shift in the values of society.  in times past, life was clearly the most important value.  abortion was illegal and the biblical punishment for rape laughably minute by contemporary standards.  the rapist either had to a marry the victim, or b agree to pay the father for the loss.  in more recent times, we seem to be displacing life as the primary value and replacing it with sex.  in a sense, legalizing abortion is agreeing that sexual freedom trumps the right to life.  likewise, elevating rape above murder seems to suggest that people are starting to value sex even above life.   #  second, the definitions of rape, married rape used to not be rape in the eyes of the law.   #  how could i prove my innocence ? is that even possible ? let is look for just a second at how courts work.  they loom at two states, guilty or not guilty.  note that they never talk about innocent, and this is the distinction which us important.  it is always possible to scrub a crime scene clean, to remove the murder weapon, to change your clothes, to fake an alibi.  it is sometimes impossible to prove guilt.  that is the cost of having a system which only considers proof beyond reasonable doubt that someone is guilty.  if you switch the burden of proof around anyone who does not have absolute watertight protection at all times will potentially be jailed for a crime they did not commit.  sure, you will capture more rapists, but also many many more non rapists.  you are recommending that people put the presumption of innocence away and witchhunt, this never ends well.  lastly, rape is down.  it is not up as you have said.  the total number is up from many years ago, but there are a number of reasons for this.  first, and most important, population.  second, the definitions of rape, married rape used to not be rape in the eyes of the law.  third, reporting and tracking have changed dramatically.  fourth, stigma, many women would never have considered reporting a rape.  i recommend you take a look at the data yourself, as you ca not trust a random on the internet, being me or one of your current sources.   #  0 of inmates report being raped URL i do not think you want to be putting people into a situation where their chance of rape is that high without very good reason.   #  while i understand where you are coming from, and agree that measures should be taken, i do not think what you propose would be fair or effective because:   imprisonment simply does not work URL as a measure to reduce recidivism.  at all.  0 of inmates report being raped URL i do not think you want to be putting people into a situation where their chance of rape is that high without very good reason.  legally, the presumption of innocence is enshrined in the us constitution.  to presume someone guilty merely on someone is word is illegal.  morally, it is better to set a hundred guilty people free than to punish one innocent person.  thus the presumption of innocence.  publicising someone is information in relation to an accusation of rape can be harmful enough to them to be consstrued as punishment, and should not be done without a guilty verdict.  i would propose a different set of changes:   when somebody makes an accusation of rape, assume they are telling the truth edit: insofar as that a rape occurred edit 0: do not assume they are lying, and forward them to detectives trained to deal with rape victims.  make sure they have access to any medical or mental health facilities they need.  this is the important thing, as punishing someone will not help the victim, regardless of their guilt.  investigate in good faith.  collect any available evidence, and where there is evidence, actually analyse it.  this is not what is done currently URL which is probably a big reason for the woefully inadequate conviction rates you see.  if there is enough evidence to prove someone guilty, send them away.  if there is not, we ca not be certain enough of their guilt to punish them in good faith.  punishing an innocent person wo not help the victim.  it will only harm the innocent person.  punishing a guilty person wo not help the victim, it will only harm the guilty person.  stopping rapes in the first place would be the most desirable solution, but i ca not offer any magic bullets there.
from URL i think the conviction rate of sexual assault is woeful in this country.  it is so difficult to make a successful criminal case against a rapist that: rape culture is highly prevalent and rapists feel they can get away with it, and intimidate their victim into silence victims of rape have no confidence they will even be listened to, never mind getting a successful conviction for these reasons, i think the system should change: when somebody makes an accusation of rape, it should be up to the accused to prove their innocence.  until they have done this, they should be considered guilty.  the accused is details should be publicized in this time, so the public is protected from them rape cases should be fast tracked through the legal system, which not only streamlines the process, but shortens the time until the rapist is in prison, again this protects the public implementing these changes will give victims so much more confidence when reporting the crime, and it will make rapists think twice before they go ahead with their actions.  i have considered the possibility of a small amount innocent people going to jail for rape, but if these changes help send more  real  rapists to prison, then surely the benefit to society outweighs any minor problems that may arise.  i have been told i am extreme for thinking this, but nobody has presented to me a compelling reason why it is a bad idea.  please change my view !  #  implementing these changes will give victims so much more confidence when reporting the crime, and it will make rapists think twice before they go ahead with their actions.   #  if that idea of  maybe they will think before they act  worked, the death penalty would be the best deterant, and yet it is not  # we are very quick to assume the worst of people.  until they have done this, they should be considered guilty.  the accused is details should be publicized in this time, so the public is protected from them besides all the constitutional problems, there is the issue of you ca not prove a negative in history.  here are two great examples: napoleon never owned a pet shark.  prove it ? well there is no evidence he did own a shark.  but there is no evidence he did not.  timmy accuses sally of stealing his lawn mower, under your system of guilt being assumed.  sally says she was at home all day when the lawn mower was stolen, no one can vouch since sally is a bit of a loner.  there are no other suspects than sally.  sally is guilty ? the court is so full of murder, kidnappings, torture and other crimes, streamlining a specific crime, no matter how bad, would be nearly impossible ! if that idea of  maybe they will think before they act  worked, the death penalty would be the best deterant, and yet it is not  #  bots can be written to post/respond to threads.   #  so much nope.    i think rape cases should be fast tracked through courts really ? rape cases should be fast tracked over murder, abuse, assault   organized crime ? in terms of range of impact, any one of these is more likely to impact a larger amount of people and often in more damaging ways.  why does rape get a boost ? also, it is worth pointing out how often rape happens.  if we fast tracked all rape cases we may never get around to stopping many other crimes.  not only is this a problem in itself, but it also stands to reason that just before a crime spree organized criminals would go out and rape in large groups.  based on your fast track idea it is the perfect smokescreen.  it would be stupid not to.  not only do people go to prison, but they are registered as sex offenders and carry that with them throughout life.  even murderers do not have that issue.  they also cannot own a personal computer, so the odds of them building a career after that are nill.  destroying entire lives indiscriminantly is not a small thing.  it is understandable if you are sure that you have a rapist, but not anything less than that.  0 most of us, most of the time do not have an alibi.  we are just on reddit or sleeping or watching a movie.  if anyone can accuse another of something, it is not a matter of  if  a charge will stick, only  when .  i cannot prove to anyone else right now that i am on reddit rather than out raping people.  bots can be written to post/respond to threads.  it is just not valuable as evidence.  if i had to fight for my own life based on tonight is events, i would lose and you would too.   #  in a sense, legalizing abortion is agreeing that sexual freedom trumps the right to life.   #  all of these points are compelling.  i write only to expound on your last point.  it seems during this recent hysteria we have elevated rape above all other crimes, even murder, into a stratosphere of its own.  in a certain way, it goes to show the shift in the values of society.  in times past, life was clearly the most important value.  abortion was illegal and the biblical punishment for rape laughably minute by contemporary standards.  the rapist either had to a marry the victim, or b agree to pay the father for the loss.  in more recent times, we seem to be displacing life as the primary value and replacing it with sex.  in a sense, legalizing abortion is agreeing that sexual freedom trumps the right to life.  likewise, elevating rape above murder seems to suggest that people are starting to value sex even above life.   #  fourth, stigma, many women would never have considered reporting a rape.   #  how could i prove my innocence ? is that even possible ? let is look for just a second at how courts work.  they loom at two states, guilty or not guilty.  note that they never talk about innocent, and this is the distinction which us important.  it is always possible to scrub a crime scene clean, to remove the murder weapon, to change your clothes, to fake an alibi.  it is sometimes impossible to prove guilt.  that is the cost of having a system which only considers proof beyond reasonable doubt that someone is guilty.  if you switch the burden of proof around anyone who does not have absolute watertight protection at all times will potentially be jailed for a crime they did not commit.  sure, you will capture more rapists, but also many many more non rapists.  you are recommending that people put the presumption of innocence away and witchhunt, this never ends well.  lastly, rape is down.  it is not up as you have said.  the total number is up from many years ago, but there are a number of reasons for this.  first, and most important, population.  second, the definitions of rape, married rape used to not be rape in the eyes of the law.  third, reporting and tracking have changed dramatically.  fourth, stigma, many women would never have considered reporting a rape.  i recommend you take a look at the data yourself, as you ca not trust a random on the internet, being me or one of your current sources.   #  punishing an innocent person wo not help the victim.   #  while i understand where you are coming from, and agree that measures should be taken, i do not think what you propose would be fair or effective because:   imprisonment simply does not work URL as a measure to reduce recidivism.  at all.  0 of inmates report being raped URL i do not think you want to be putting people into a situation where their chance of rape is that high without very good reason.  legally, the presumption of innocence is enshrined in the us constitution.  to presume someone guilty merely on someone is word is illegal.  morally, it is better to set a hundred guilty people free than to punish one innocent person.  thus the presumption of innocence.  publicising someone is information in relation to an accusation of rape can be harmful enough to them to be consstrued as punishment, and should not be done without a guilty verdict.  i would propose a different set of changes:   when somebody makes an accusation of rape, assume they are telling the truth edit: insofar as that a rape occurred edit 0: do not assume they are lying, and forward them to detectives trained to deal with rape victims.  make sure they have access to any medical or mental health facilities they need.  this is the important thing, as punishing someone will not help the victim, regardless of their guilt.  investigate in good faith.  collect any available evidence, and where there is evidence, actually analyse it.  this is not what is done currently URL which is probably a big reason for the woefully inadequate conviction rates you see.  if there is enough evidence to prove someone guilty, send them away.  if there is not, we ca not be certain enough of their guilt to punish them in good faith.  punishing an innocent person wo not help the victim.  it will only harm the innocent person.  punishing a guilty person wo not help the victim, it will only harm the guilty person.  stopping rapes in the first place would be the most desirable solution, but i ca not offer any magic bullets there.
from URL i think the conviction rate of sexual assault is woeful in this country.  it is so difficult to make a successful criminal case against a rapist that: rape culture is highly prevalent and rapists feel they can get away with it, and intimidate their victim into silence victims of rape have no confidence they will even be listened to, never mind getting a successful conviction for these reasons, i think the system should change: when somebody makes an accusation of rape, it should be up to the accused to prove their innocence.  until they have done this, they should be considered guilty.  the accused is details should be publicized in this time, so the public is protected from them rape cases should be fast tracked through the legal system, which not only streamlines the process, but shortens the time until the rapist is in prison, again this protects the public implementing these changes will give victims so much more confidence when reporting the crime, and it will make rapists think twice before they go ahead with their actions.  i have considered the possibility of a small amount innocent people going to jail for rape, but if these changes help send more  real  rapists to prison, then surely the benefit to society outweighs any minor problems that may arise.  i have been told i am extreme for thinking this, but nobody has presented to me a compelling reason why it is a bad idea.  please change my view !  #  when somebody makes an accusation of rape, it should be up to the accused to prove their innocence.   #  until they have done this, they should be considered guilty.   #  just so you know, the presumption of innocence URL is generally considered a fundamental right.  and for good reason, proving that you have not done something is  really  hard.  in fact, if i say right now that you have raped someone, it is impossible for you to prove that you have not unless i provide more details.  a lot of the statistics supporting a  rape culture  are simply fake.  a lot of effort is put into making the trial  fair.  of course, since you want to remove the whole  fairness  aspect then that is not really a problem.  until they have done this, they should be considered guilty.  the accused is details should be publicized in this time, so the public is protected from them you clearly have no idea how hard/impossible it is to prove a negative.  a  small  amount ? seriously ? you have no idea how powerful this is.  if i am competing with someone for a promotion, i just accuse them of rape and the competition goes away.  and nothing protects them, since proving a negative is virtually impossible.  and it is not like false rape accusations do not happen.  here is a link i keep around just for conversations like this: URL this is the sort of thing you are creating.   #  if anyone can accuse another of something, it is not a matter of  if  a charge will stick, only  when .   #  so much nope.    i think rape cases should be fast tracked through courts really ? rape cases should be fast tracked over murder, abuse, assault   organized crime ? in terms of range of impact, any one of these is more likely to impact a larger amount of people and often in more damaging ways.  why does rape get a boost ? also, it is worth pointing out how often rape happens.  if we fast tracked all rape cases we may never get around to stopping many other crimes.  not only is this a problem in itself, but it also stands to reason that just before a crime spree organized criminals would go out and rape in large groups.  based on your fast track idea it is the perfect smokescreen.  it would be stupid not to.  not only do people go to prison, but they are registered as sex offenders and carry that with them throughout life.  even murderers do not have that issue.  they also cannot own a personal computer, so the odds of them building a career after that are nill.  destroying entire lives indiscriminantly is not a small thing.  it is understandable if you are sure that you have a rapist, but not anything less than that.  0 most of us, most of the time do not have an alibi.  we are just on reddit or sleeping or watching a movie.  if anyone can accuse another of something, it is not a matter of  if  a charge will stick, only  when .  i cannot prove to anyone else right now that i am on reddit rather than out raping people.  bots can be written to post/respond to threads.  it is just not valuable as evidence.  if i had to fight for my own life based on tonight is events, i would lose and you would too.   #  it seems during this recent hysteria we have elevated rape above all other crimes, even murder, into a stratosphere of its own.   #  all of these points are compelling.  i write only to expound on your last point.  it seems during this recent hysteria we have elevated rape above all other crimes, even murder, into a stratosphere of its own.  in a certain way, it goes to show the shift in the values of society.  in times past, life was clearly the most important value.  abortion was illegal and the biblical punishment for rape laughably minute by contemporary standards.  the rapist either had to a marry the victim, or b agree to pay the father for the loss.  in more recent times, we seem to be displacing life as the primary value and replacing it with sex.  in a sense, legalizing abortion is agreeing that sexual freedom trumps the right to life.  likewise, elevating rape above murder seems to suggest that people are starting to value sex even above life.   #  if you switch the burden of proof around anyone who does not have absolute watertight protection at all times will potentially be jailed for a crime they did not commit.   #  how could i prove my innocence ? is that even possible ? let is look for just a second at how courts work.  they loom at two states, guilty or not guilty.  note that they never talk about innocent, and this is the distinction which us important.  it is always possible to scrub a crime scene clean, to remove the murder weapon, to change your clothes, to fake an alibi.  it is sometimes impossible to prove guilt.  that is the cost of having a system which only considers proof beyond reasonable doubt that someone is guilty.  if you switch the burden of proof around anyone who does not have absolute watertight protection at all times will potentially be jailed for a crime they did not commit.  sure, you will capture more rapists, but also many many more non rapists.  you are recommending that people put the presumption of innocence away and witchhunt, this never ends well.  lastly, rape is down.  it is not up as you have said.  the total number is up from many years ago, but there are a number of reasons for this.  first, and most important, population.  second, the definitions of rape, married rape used to not be rape in the eyes of the law.  third, reporting and tracking have changed dramatically.  fourth, stigma, many women would never have considered reporting a rape.  i recommend you take a look at the data yourself, as you ca not trust a random on the internet, being me or one of your current sources.   #  morally, it is better to set a hundred guilty people free than to punish one innocent person.   #  while i understand where you are coming from, and agree that measures should be taken, i do not think what you propose would be fair or effective because:   imprisonment simply does not work URL as a measure to reduce recidivism.  at all.  0 of inmates report being raped URL i do not think you want to be putting people into a situation where their chance of rape is that high without very good reason.  legally, the presumption of innocence is enshrined in the us constitution.  to presume someone guilty merely on someone is word is illegal.  morally, it is better to set a hundred guilty people free than to punish one innocent person.  thus the presumption of innocence.  publicising someone is information in relation to an accusation of rape can be harmful enough to them to be consstrued as punishment, and should not be done without a guilty verdict.  i would propose a different set of changes:   when somebody makes an accusation of rape, assume they are telling the truth edit: insofar as that a rape occurred edit 0: do not assume they are lying, and forward them to detectives trained to deal with rape victims.  make sure they have access to any medical or mental health facilities they need.  this is the important thing, as punishing someone will not help the victim, regardless of their guilt.  investigate in good faith.  collect any available evidence, and where there is evidence, actually analyse it.  this is not what is done currently URL which is probably a big reason for the woefully inadequate conviction rates you see.  if there is enough evidence to prove someone guilty, send them away.  if there is not, we ca not be certain enough of their guilt to punish them in good faith.  punishing an innocent person wo not help the victim.  it will only harm the innocent person.  punishing a guilty person wo not help the victim, it will only harm the guilty person.  stopping rapes in the first place would be the most desirable solution, but i ca not offer any magic bullets there.
while i would never expect or follow through with the destruction of the human race, i believe it to be the simplest way of dealing with our problems.  i believe that we will never be satisfied with what we have, there will never be equality for all, we will continue to destroy the environment and in the end, we will all die a much worse death trying to live happily than one that would come form purposefully erasing our existence.  looking at it from another perspective, it is like eradicating the parts of dna needed to make tonsils so that humans never again deal with tonsillitis.  in that analogy, the human body would be the earth and tonsils would be the people.  tonsillitis would be the possibility of people doing bad things and removing the dna would be what we do to get rid of humans.  i just think that, not taking feelings into account and going with the quickest and simplest option, remove the problems from the root is ideal.  once again, this does not take into account feelings of people as obviously most of us do not want to die, regardless if it would be better for the planet.  of course, erasing humans from the planet is much simpler than you would expect.  it also does not have to be prolonged or painful as would be our deaths from a polluted world and from wars.  i am sure that within 0 years, a group could easily genetically engineer a strain of virus to get the job done.  mass production of asbestos and coordinated release all over the world could work too.  what i am saying is that it is pretty easy and could be done quickly.  nothing more, nothing less.  now, this is all assuming a few things: that if humanity continues, we will eventually cease to exist against our will.  that humanity will never have true equality.  that war will always continue in some form.  that we will continue polluting/degrading the earth as long as we exist.  if each human somehow became the  god  of their own universe though i have no idea how that would come about then i believe there would be no problem with each individual existence, as controlling your own universe means that no matter what you do you are in the right.  of course, that is all bs/fiction and we live just like all the animals on the earth, aside from being special in our own little ways.  i do not think we as a whole can ever fully agree on anything, and that our disagreements will always cause us problems.  once again, i believe the destruction of the entire human population to be our best solution.  as an aside, some other animal may eventually evolve to be intelligent in the manner we are, so the possibility of simply destroying all life to forever end suffering of any kind on this planet is considered.   #  in that analogy, the human body would be the earth and tonsils would be the people.   #  are you taking some sort of gaia ist position ?  #  so. why is  nonexistence  better than  existence  for them ? spell out the philosophical assumption/justification you are putting forward if it is not pain.  i do not see how qol is not just code for pain here but you are saying it is not.  why do not we forcibly euthanize people with chronic injuries today or people who say loose half their body in a fire ? they have more painful lives from then on than your average future person but we seen to hold their existence to have more meaning than mere pain even if it is a lot of pain .  also we keep on proving malthus and neo malthusians wrong why is the future different ? are you taking some sort of gaia ist position ? why should humans accept a  rocks and salt  centric morality as opposed to a divine morality or most commonly one focused on humanity.   #  URL i am assuming it is we much do all to avoid pain and that is a common utilitarian argument but i think it is a pretty bad one and a pretty weak one as homer indicates.   #  well this does not work: 0.   future generations  may have that terrible life but we have no reason to think this generation will.  0.  why is nonexistence better than existence ? i would rather serve as another man is labourer, as a poor peasant without land, and be alive on earth, than be lord of all the lifeless dead.  give me news of my son, instead.  did he follow me to war, and become a leader ? tell me, too, what you know of noble peleus.  is he honoured still among the myrmidons, or because old age ties him hand and foot do hellas and phthia fail to honour him.  i am no longer up there in the sunlight to help him with that strength i had on troy is wide plain, where i killed the flower of their host to defend the argives.  if i could only return strong to my father is house, for a single hour, i would give those who abuse him and his honour cause to regret the power of my invincible hands.  URL i am assuming it is we much do all to avoid pain and that is a common utilitarian argument but i think it is a pretty bad one and a pretty weak one as homer indicates.  avoiding some pain is hardly the only thing worth living for.  else why do we like thomas  urge to  rage rage against the dying of the light  ?  #  my view is that we should get rid of all humans, not that people would like the idea or agree on it.   #  well, it is pain.  from higher cancer rates and increasing health problems to the worse and worse conditions that the poor who just keep getting poorer are being put in.  this stuff will only get worse with more corruption and greater destruction of the environment.  i do not think forced euthanization is comparable because that only effects a small population.  it does not solve any huge problems.  i do not really know much about philosophers so i ca not answer the last question.  to your edit, people do not need to like the idea since in the end, the destruction of the human race only requires the collaboration of a smallish group.  my view is that we should get rid of all humans, not that people would like the idea or agree on it.   #  i was trying to figure out a non  we must just avoid pain  explination  gaia as in mother earth is rights over ours   # if you are talking about today you are factually wrong: the poor are expierencing a rapidly increasing standard of living today.  my view is that we should get rid of all humans so you have reasons that you should spell out as fully formed ideas.  your idea is minimizing pain and that is horribly flawed imo though a common argument .  what do you say to achilles ? it does not solve any huge problems.  and here is where that is a problem.  the reason i think i extracted totally applies to this situation so i think you are just being inconsistent.  if  avoiding severe pain  is the reason for mass extinction why does not it apply locally to that one person.  why not just kill them ? i do not see you providing a reason for that.  you are not.  you are just being pain centric.  i was trying to figure out a non  we must just avoid pain  explination  gaia as in mother earth is rights over ours   #  if you kill one person in pain, another one will just show up.   # the reason i think i extracted totally applies to this situation so i think you are just being inconsistent.  if  avoiding severe pain  is the reason for mass extinction why does not it apply locally to that one person.  why not just kill them ? i do not see you providing a reason for that.  the reason is because i do not particularly care about the suffering of one random individual.  if you kill one person in pain, another one will just show up.  that is why it is not effective unless they are all gone.
the right to sexual preference and freedom from discrimination because of it ought to have a higher priority than the protections religion currently enjoys.  sexual preference is inborne, it is a natural aspect of who a person is.  it cannot be changed, only supressed.  it is natural, not even unique among human beings.  it causes no harm, and has never caused harm, to anyone at any time.  it is entirely personal, and has no need to recruit or punish those that are not gay.  religion is entirely learned, and could not survive if self preservation was not its primary goal.  it is transient in that people can and do switch affiliation with little difficulty.  it is unnaturral, humanity is the only species that worships anything, and entirely unsupported by rational evidence.  the harm religion has caused, is causing, and will cause is incalcuable, and arguably more damaging than anything else ever created by man.  that the decision to allow same sex marriage even had to be made is an indictment of religion.  that the phrase gay marriage even exists is an example of harm caused by and in the name of religion.  religious people are by and large just people, good and bad in whatever measure good and people are in.  religion is an evil institution, and should be opposed.  for the record, i am a straight, married, middle aged man living in ohio with two kids and a dog.  this view really has no effect on me personally at all, except for the embarrassment it causes me that there is a debate.  i was borne into a ctholic family, went through a decade of searching for a religion that was right for me, and emerged an agnostic atheist.  religion is enshrined in the first ammendment of the constitution, and i feel it should not be.  please change my view.   #  religion is entirely learned, and could not survive if self preservation was not its primary goal.   #  it is transient in that people can and do switch affiliation with little difficulty.   # if people do not have choice then they ca not have freedom.  it is transient in that people can and do switch affiliation with little difficulty.  it is unnaturral, humanity is the only species that worships anything, and entirely unsupported by rational evidence.  the harm religion has caused, is causing, and will cause is incalcuable, and arguably more damaging than anything else ever created by man.  each of the current surviving religions are more than just beliefs they are also practices.  they deal with the life, love,   communion from birth to death.  denying someone religion is to question their beliefs on love, communion, birth and death.  denying sexual freedom, is only that, sex.  that the phrase gay marriage even exists is an example of harm caused by and in the name of religion.  religious people are by and large just people, good and bad in whatever measure good and people are in.  religion is an evil institution, and should be opposed.  no it is because gay people have never created long lineages.  and marriage has always been cross culturally regardless of religion as a man and a woman.  in short, there are more heteros in the world, and they have survived much longer.  this view really has no effect on me personally at all, except for the embarrassment it causes me that there is a debate.  i was borne into a ctholic family, went through a decade of searching for a religion that was right for me, and emerged an agnostic atheist.  well it could if you were to get divorced, and marriage is truly equal, then what the court says about gay marriage must also apply to your family.  please change my view.  if most of the world was not religious then maybe you would have a point.  remember the country was built on protestant work ethic, and puritans.  in fact, it was the reason why america even existed, so it  shard to deny it is founding principle.   #  what i mean by this is that since the laws regarding religion and protected classes are different, it is unreasonable to expect them afforded the exact same protection.   #  my main argument is bolded at the bottom.  a person can be exempt from some laws because of their religion.  can you elaborate on this or provide an example/source ? i have not seen any examples myself or i have forgotten them and i am not sure which laws you are referring to.  so this:   my view is that the justification for protection is stronger for gender attractedness than religious belief does not logically precede this:   they should be equal when according to the way we have handled rights for a long time, they are treated as equal as  separate conceptions of rights  can be.  i make this distinction because the guarantor of religious freedom is the 0st amendment, which states:   congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof this wording is different from the 0th amendment, which legislates:   no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.  the difference is technical but that is what matters in terms of law; neither a religious institution nor an individual is religion is to be advantaged or restricted by government tax exemptions may advantage but that is because the only other option is open to abuse and restriction , while individuals only have privileges and immunities, which protect them from state by state restriction of  fundamental rights , not of any commercial discrimination.  the commercial discrimination is incredibly distasteful and commercial suicide, but that is not the point; the 0th amendment does not legally protect from this.  additionally, and this distinguishes the legality of what you are asserting, u. s.  supreme court justice joseph p.  bradley   commented in the civil rights cases that  individual citizen is invasion of another individual citizen is rights is not the subject matter of the 0th amendment.  again, while it is likely that an individual denying service to another individual protected by this amendment will be taken to court, this specific constitutional guarantee does not protect individuals from such an action.  finally, here is my main argument against your position.  given what i have provided you, i think it is fair to say that the two subjects are each given equal protection of their specific legislation.  what i mean by this is that since the laws regarding religion and protected classes are different, it is unreasonable to expect them afforded the exact same protection.  what  is  reasonable is to afford them equal protection of their laws and equal enforcement of said laws, which as far as i know is being done.   #  my view is that things ought to be different than they are.   # i have not seen any examples myself or i have forgotten them and i am not sure which laws you are referring to.  hobby lobby was given an exemption from the requirement to provide birth control of certain types through their insurance program.  you did not address the fact that it is legal to discriminate against homosexuals in some cases, they are not a protected class.  my view is that they should be.  finally, and i may misunderstand you, but your argument seems to boil down to their levels of protection are different because they are different.  this does not speak to justification at all.  my view is that things ought to be different than they are.   #  that is also true but you have forgotten one very important thing.   #  you are arguing that sexual orientation is inborne.  fair enough.  and that religion is entirely learned.  that is also true but you have forgotten one very important thing.  religion is also intertwined with culture.  were you born in the usa you are very likely to be a christian or unaffiliated, while religion does not play all that important role in your life and nobody really cares about converts.  that is not really much convincing.  let is go to thailand: it is almost sure you are a theravada buddhist, and a practicing one, just because being a thai implies being a buddhist because of how ingrained into thai culture and indentity buddhism is.  not that you can change anything about it.  even if you grow up and move to say australia, you are still unlikely to change your beliefs just because you grew up in a very religious culture.  you ca not really choose where to be raised right ? some are even expected to become monks/nuns for some time as a rite of passage.   #  it is all about what people have control over.   #  it is all about what people have control over.  it is very difficult to change your sexual preference by choice so it is beyond your control.  in contrast religion is mostly cultural, you will likely believe what your parents.  you did not choose your family so essentially your beliefs are beyond your control.  furthermore it is commonly accepted in philosophy that individuals cannot choose their religion URL the first two paragraphs of this for more detail .  so clearly religion is beyond one is control.  neither sexual preference nor religion can be controlled so neither deserves a higher priority in freedom from discrimination.
the right to sexual preference and freedom from discrimination because of it ought to have a higher priority than the protections religion currently enjoys.  sexual preference is inborne, it is a natural aspect of who a person is.  it cannot be changed, only supressed.  it is natural, not even unique among human beings.  it causes no harm, and has never caused harm, to anyone at any time.  it is entirely personal, and has no need to recruit or punish those that are not gay.  religion is entirely learned, and could not survive if self preservation was not its primary goal.  it is transient in that people can and do switch affiliation with little difficulty.  it is unnaturral, humanity is the only species that worships anything, and entirely unsupported by rational evidence.  the harm religion has caused, is causing, and will cause is incalcuable, and arguably more damaging than anything else ever created by man.  that the decision to allow same sex marriage even had to be made is an indictment of religion.  that the phrase gay marriage even exists is an example of harm caused by and in the name of religion.  religious people are by and large just people, good and bad in whatever measure good and people are in.  religion is an evil institution, and should be opposed.  for the record, i am a straight, married, middle aged man living in ohio with two kids and a dog.  this view really has no effect on me personally at all, except for the embarrassment it causes me that there is a debate.  i was borne into a ctholic family, went through a decade of searching for a religion that was right for me, and emerged an agnostic atheist.  religion is enshrined in the first ammendment of the constitution, and i feel it should not be.  please change my view.   #  that the decision to allow same sex marriage even had to be made is an indictment of religion.   #  that the phrase gay marriage even exists is an example of harm caused by and in the name of religion.   # if people do not have choice then they ca not have freedom.  it is transient in that people can and do switch affiliation with little difficulty.  it is unnaturral, humanity is the only species that worships anything, and entirely unsupported by rational evidence.  the harm religion has caused, is causing, and will cause is incalcuable, and arguably more damaging than anything else ever created by man.  each of the current surviving religions are more than just beliefs they are also practices.  they deal with the life, love,   communion from birth to death.  denying someone religion is to question their beliefs on love, communion, birth and death.  denying sexual freedom, is only that, sex.  that the phrase gay marriage even exists is an example of harm caused by and in the name of religion.  religious people are by and large just people, good and bad in whatever measure good and people are in.  religion is an evil institution, and should be opposed.  no it is because gay people have never created long lineages.  and marriage has always been cross culturally regardless of religion as a man and a woman.  in short, there are more heteros in the world, and they have survived much longer.  this view really has no effect on me personally at all, except for the embarrassment it causes me that there is a debate.  i was borne into a ctholic family, went through a decade of searching for a religion that was right for me, and emerged an agnostic atheist.  well it could if you were to get divorced, and marriage is truly equal, then what the court says about gay marriage must also apply to your family.  please change my view.  if most of the world was not religious then maybe you would have a point.  remember the country was built on protestant work ethic, and puritans.  in fact, it was the reason why america even existed, so it  shard to deny it is founding principle.   #  finally, here is my main argument against your position.   #  my main argument is bolded at the bottom.  a person can be exempt from some laws because of their religion.  can you elaborate on this or provide an example/source ? i have not seen any examples myself or i have forgotten them and i am not sure which laws you are referring to.  so this:   my view is that the justification for protection is stronger for gender attractedness than religious belief does not logically precede this:   they should be equal when according to the way we have handled rights for a long time, they are treated as equal as  separate conceptions of rights  can be.  i make this distinction because the guarantor of religious freedom is the 0st amendment, which states:   congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof this wording is different from the 0th amendment, which legislates:   no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.  the difference is technical but that is what matters in terms of law; neither a religious institution nor an individual is religion is to be advantaged or restricted by government tax exemptions may advantage but that is because the only other option is open to abuse and restriction , while individuals only have privileges and immunities, which protect them from state by state restriction of  fundamental rights , not of any commercial discrimination.  the commercial discrimination is incredibly distasteful and commercial suicide, but that is not the point; the 0th amendment does not legally protect from this.  additionally, and this distinguishes the legality of what you are asserting, u. s.  supreme court justice joseph p.  bradley   commented in the civil rights cases that  individual citizen is invasion of another individual citizen is rights is not the subject matter of the 0th amendment.  again, while it is likely that an individual denying service to another individual protected by this amendment will be taken to court, this specific constitutional guarantee does not protect individuals from such an action.  finally, here is my main argument against your position.  given what i have provided you, i think it is fair to say that the two subjects are each given equal protection of their specific legislation.  what i mean by this is that since the laws regarding religion and protected classes are different, it is unreasonable to expect them afforded the exact same protection.  what  is  reasonable is to afford them equal protection of their laws and equal enforcement of said laws, which as far as i know is being done.   #  finally, and i may misunderstand you, but your argument seems to boil down to their levels of protection are different because they are different.   # i have not seen any examples myself or i have forgotten them and i am not sure which laws you are referring to.  hobby lobby was given an exemption from the requirement to provide birth control of certain types through their insurance program.  you did not address the fact that it is legal to discriminate against homosexuals in some cases, they are not a protected class.  my view is that they should be.  finally, and i may misunderstand you, but your argument seems to boil down to their levels of protection are different because they are different.  this does not speak to justification at all.  my view is that things ought to be different than they are.   #  you ca not really choose where to be raised right ?  #  you are arguing that sexual orientation is inborne.  fair enough.  and that religion is entirely learned.  that is also true but you have forgotten one very important thing.  religion is also intertwined with culture.  were you born in the usa you are very likely to be a christian or unaffiliated, while religion does not play all that important role in your life and nobody really cares about converts.  that is not really much convincing.  let is go to thailand: it is almost sure you are a theravada buddhist, and a practicing one, just because being a thai implies being a buddhist because of how ingrained into thai culture and indentity buddhism is.  not that you can change anything about it.  even if you grow up and move to say australia, you are still unlikely to change your beliefs just because you grew up in a very religious culture.  you ca not really choose where to be raised right ? some are even expected to become monks/nuns for some time as a rite of passage.   #  it is all about what people have control over.   #  it is all about what people have control over.  it is very difficult to change your sexual preference by choice so it is beyond your control.  in contrast religion is mostly cultural, you will likely believe what your parents.  you did not choose your family so essentially your beliefs are beyond your control.  furthermore it is commonly accepted in philosophy that individuals cannot choose their religion URL the first two paragraphs of this for more detail .  so clearly religion is beyond one is control.  neither sexual preference nor religion can be controlled so neither deserves a higher priority in freedom from discrimination.
the right to sexual preference and freedom from discrimination because of it ought to have a higher priority than the protections religion currently enjoys.  sexual preference is inborne, it is a natural aspect of who a person is.  it cannot be changed, only supressed.  it is natural, not even unique among human beings.  it causes no harm, and has never caused harm, to anyone at any time.  it is entirely personal, and has no need to recruit or punish those that are not gay.  religion is entirely learned, and could not survive if self preservation was not its primary goal.  it is transient in that people can and do switch affiliation with little difficulty.  it is unnaturral, humanity is the only species that worships anything, and entirely unsupported by rational evidence.  the harm religion has caused, is causing, and will cause is incalcuable, and arguably more damaging than anything else ever created by man.  that the decision to allow same sex marriage even had to be made is an indictment of religion.  that the phrase gay marriage even exists is an example of harm caused by and in the name of religion.  religious people are by and large just people, good and bad in whatever measure good and people are in.  religion is an evil institution, and should be opposed.  for the record, i am a straight, married, middle aged man living in ohio with two kids and a dog.  this view really has no effect on me personally at all, except for the embarrassment it causes me that there is a debate.  i was borne into a ctholic family, went through a decade of searching for a religion that was right for me, and emerged an agnostic atheist.  religion is enshrined in the first ammendment of the constitution, and i feel it should not be.  please change my view.   #  for the record, i am a straight, married, middle aged man living in ohio with two kids and a dog.   #  this view really has no effect on me personally at all, except for the embarrassment it causes me that there is a debate.   # if people do not have choice then they ca not have freedom.  it is transient in that people can and do switch affiliation with little difficulty.  it is unnaturral, humanity is the only species that worships anything, and entirely unsupported by rational evidence.  the harm religion has caused, is causing, and will cause is incalcuable, and arguably more damaging than anything else ever created by man.  each of the current surviving religions are more than just beliefs they are also practices.  they deal with the life, love,   communion from birth to death.  denying someone religion is to question their beliefs on love, communion, birth and death.  denying sexual freedom, is only that, sex.  that the phrase gay marriage even exists is an example of harm caused by and in the name of religion.  religious people are by and large just people, good and bad in whatever measure good and people are in.  religion is an evil institution, and should be opposed.  no it is because gay people have never created long lineages.  and marriage has always been cross culturally regardless of religion as a man and a woman.  in short, there are more heteros in the world, and they have survived much longer.  this view really has no effect on me personally at all, except for the embarrassment it causes me that there is a debate.  i was borne into a ctholic family, went through a decade of searching for a religion that was right for me, and emerged an agnostic atheist.  well it could if you were to get divorced, and marriage is truly equal, then what the court says about gay marriage must also apply to your family.  please change my view.  if most of the world was not religious then maybe you would have a point.  remember the country was built on protestant work ethic, and puritans.  in fact, it was the reason why america even existed, so it  shard to deny it is founding principle.   #  what  is  reasonable is to afford them equal protection of their laws and equal enforcement of said laws, which as far as i know is being done.   #  my main argument is bolded at the bottom.  a person can be exempt from some laws because of their religion.  can you elaborate on this or provide an example/source ? i have not seen any examples myself or i have forgotten them and i am not sure which laws you are referring to.  so this:   my view is that the justification for protection is stronger for gender attractedness than religious belief does not logically precede this:   they should be equal when according to the way we have handled rights for a long time, they are treated as equal as  separate conceptions of rights  can be.  i make this distinction because the guarantor of religious freedom is the 0st amendment, which states:   congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof this wording is different from the 0th amendment, which legislates:   no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.  the difference is technical but that is what matters in terms of law; neither a religious institution nor an individual is religion is to be advantaged or restricted by government tax exemptions may advantage but that is because the only other option is open to abuse and restriction , while individuals only have privileges and immunities, which protect them from state by state restriction of  fundamental rights , not of any commercial discrimination.  the commercial discrimination is incredibly distasteful and commercial suicide, but that is not the point; the 0th amendment does not legally protect from this.  additionally, and this distinguishes the legality of what you are asserting, u. s.  supreme court justice joseph p.  bradley   commented in the civil rights cases that  individual citizen is invasion of another individual citizen is rights is not the subject matter of the 0th amendment.  again, while it is likely that an individual denying service to another individual protected by this amendment will be taken to court, this specific constitutional guarantee does not protect individuals from such an action.  finally, here is my main argument against your position.  given what i have provided you, i think it is fair to say that the two subjects are each given equal protection of their specific legislation.  what i mean by this is that since the laws regarding religion and protected classes are different, it is unreasonable to expect them afforded the exact same protection.  what  is  reasonable is to afford them equal protection of their laws and equal enforcement of said laws, which as far as i know is being done.   #  my view is that things ought to be different than they are.   # i have not seen any examples myself or i have forgotten them and i am not sure which laws you are referring to.  hobby lobby was given an exemption from the requirement to provide birth control of certain types through their insurance program.  you did not address the fact that it is legal to discriminate against homosexuals in some cases, they are not a protected class.  my view is that they should be.  finally, and i may misunderstand you, but your argument seems to boil down to their levels of protection are different because they are different.  this does not speak to justification at all.  my view is that things ought to be different than they are.   #  were you born in the usa you are very likely to be a christian or unaffiliated, while religion does not play all that important role in your life and nobody really cares about converts.   #  you are arguing that sexual orientation is inborne.  fair enough.  and that religion is entirely learned.  that is also true but you have forgotten one very important thing.  religion is also intertwined with culture.  were you born in the usa you are very likely to be a christian or unaffiliated, while religion does not play all that important role in your life and nobody really cares about converts.  that is not really much convincing.  let is go to thailand: it is almost sure you are a theravada buddhist, and a practicing one, just because being a thai implies being a buddhist because of how ingrained into thai culture and indentity buddhism is.  not that you can change anything about it.  even if you grow up and move to say australia, you are still unlikely to change your beliefs just because you grew up in a very religious culture.  you ca not really choose where to be raised right ? some are even expected to become monks/nuns for some time as a rite of passage.   #  in contrast religion is mostly cultural, you will likely believe what your parents.   #  it is all about what people have control over.  it is very difficult to change your sexual preference by choice so it is beyond your control.  in contrast religion is mostly cultural, you will likely believe what your parents.  you did not choose your family so essentially your beliefs are beyond your control.  furthermore it is commonly accepted in philosophy that individuals cannot choose their religion URL the first two paragraphs of this for more detail .  so clearly religion is beyond one is control.  neither sexual preference nor religion can be controlled so neither deserves a higher priority in freedom from discrimination.
i want to start by i believe we made horrible mistakes once we entered iraq.  the biggest being the dissolution of the iraq army and the laws that were passed to essentially keep them out, there were many many more but this is the biggest.  the invasion of iraq was a good thing in these ways.  sadaam was a true representation of evil.  all of his evils need not be explained one by one, but i think it is universally held he was evil and poison to the country he was ruling.  as far as wmd, bush had conflicting reports as to whether they were there or not.  even if the reports leaned in the favor he did not presently own, there was evidence he had been trying to obtain wmd.  should we wait till he had obtained such to invade where he would surely use his obtained wmd in war ? he also has the history of using wmd in war.  he also stated in his trial, he did give the illusion to having wmd because he was worried if he did not and it was known iran would invade.  he also i believe in 0, not sure this exact year, refused to cooperate with having people come into the country to examine if he had wmd or not something he agreed to do in the early 0 is.  he was also giving diplomatic immunity to terrorist and war criminals.  he might not have had direct ties to bin laden but was aiding other terrorist and war criminals in other ways.  the war on terror was not just about bin laden but to all terrorist organizations.  to summarize, he was a terrible person to be in power, giving the illusion he had wmd by his own admission and history of being willing to use such, and aiding terrorist and war criminals.  this was a good thing to strip him of his power.  with that said we made many mistakes after the invasion.  as far as setting up the governing body, dissolving the iraq army,etc.  but as far as the decision to invade it was the right thing to do, and it lessened the places terror could operate in that part of the world.  also showing usa would not tolerate these many threats, not one or two, as other leaders have done, but the many violations sadaam has committed will not be tolerated.  change my views  #  as far as wmd, bush had conflicting reports as to whether they were there or not.   #  even if the reports leaned in the favor he did not presently own, there was evidence had been trying to obtain wmd in war.   #  do you honestly believe the us or any nato country gives a rat is ass about how  evil  saddam was ? kim jung un is pretty evil, and so is putin, according to our sources, but we are not bombing their countries, are we ? because we need them.  if we were to hit nk, we would lose china is alliance, and that is a war we cannot win.  and if we were to hit russia, well, let your imagination run wild.  it was more than that.  saddam, as  evil  as he was, was a tough president.  he was the only president in the me to stand up to america, and that is something america does not like.  he was the only president in the me to actually scare israel, and that is something america does not like.  how dare anyone scare its baby and only ally in the region ? instead of dealing in oil in dollars, saddam gave america the finger and dealt in euro.  and add to all of that the treasure that is the oil iraq is sitting on.  even if the reports leaned in the favor he did not presently own, there was evidence had been trying to obtain wmd in war.  yeah, but so what ? north korea has nukes, do not they ? and are not there constant reports about iran getting some nukes ? but do we even dare say anything to them ? nah, we pick on poor little iraq, who did not even have wmd to begin with.  and why are not we doing jack about israel, who we are almost 0 sure posses nukes ? you say your reasoning that the invasion was good is because hussein was a bad bad guy.  fair enough.  why did we stay in the region  years  after we assassinated him ? why did not we go in, kill the guy, and go out, like we did in pakistan with bin laden ? nah, we had to send an entire army, killing thousands of poor iraqi civilians and thousands of young americans, and we kept sending them there even after we fulfilled our goal and overthrew hussein.  and last but not least, as the others have already stated, do you think isis would have existed had there been a strong, stable government in the region, such as the one america so blatantly overthrew ? downvoted. someone is new to cmv.   #  but, i said i would do it and he needed help.   #  i knew this dude, right ? one day he asked if i would drive his car from the shop to his house.  we were not friends and he was clearly desperate enough to ask an acquaintance for help, so i thought, hey, it is the right thing to do.  so he drives me to the shop in his friends car, one of those fancy japanese stick shifts with the loud motors, and it turns out that his car is also a fancy japanese stick shift with a loud motor.  i suck at stick shifts.  but, i said i would do it and he needed help.  so i drove his car to his house.  most  of the way to his home.  the specifics do not really matter, but basically i fucked his car up.  pretty bad, too.  and all because my good intentions led me into a situation that i was not prepared to handle.  that is the story of iraq.  it does not matter if it is the right thing to do in the abstract, because the bush administration is post invasion incompetence destabilized the entire middle east.  and it  was  incompetence.  otherwise, you would have to believe that bush  purposely  fucked iraq up.  tens of thousands of people died during our fight with the insurgents.  people who were totally alive and not dead under saddam.  and that insurgency ? it did not exist post invasion.  not until the us disbanded the iraqi army, de baathified the government, installed a shiite sectarian with close ties to iran, sat on their hands while said shiite sectarian purged the government and the new army of its sunnis while systematically discriminating against every other sunni in iraq, and which kinda sorta led to more insurgents and minority group sympathetic to their cause.  and all that stuff has led us to where we are today, where both iraq, as well as the entire region, are more unstable and worse off than they were prior to the invasion.  and  that  is a direct cause of the bush administration is incompetence post invasion.  so, no.  the invasion was  not  the right thing to do.   #  so no, the u. s did not go to iraq because saddam was  evil , created a quagmire that is getting worse by the week isis and created more terrorists than it killed.   #  do you think the u. s invaded iraq  because saddam was evil  ? here is the list of central and south american dictators, all pretty much  evil , that the u. s was supporting.  some were directly put in power by the us: juan vicente gómez venezuela 0 0 manuel estrada cabrera guatemala 0 0 jorge ubico guatemala 0 0 fulgencio batista cuba 0 0 rafael trujillo dominican republic 0 0 efraín ríos montt and the rest of the military junta in guatemala 0 0 revolutionary government junta of el salvador 0 0 hugo banzer bolivia 0 0 national reorganization process argentina 0 0 brazilian military government 0 0 somoza family nicaragua 0 0 françois duvalier haiti 0 0 jean claude duvalier haiti 0 0 omar torrijos panama 0 0 manuel noriega panama 0 0 alfredo stroessner paraguay 0 0 augusto pinochet chile 0 0 in 0 iran, a democratically elected president, mohammad mosaddegh, was toppled by the cia.  the shah, a ruthless dictator, was put in power by the cia.  in 0 chile, the u. s toppled another democratically elected president, salvador allende to put pinochet in power.  they were all terrible persons to be in power.  so no, the u. s did not go to iraq because saddam was  evil , created a quagmire that is getting worse by the week isis and created more terrorists than it killed.   #  if you take away the first one and the part about family members being forced to applaud at executions, the rest could apply to the us as well.   #  if you take away the first one and the part about family members being forced to applaud at executions, the rest could apply to the us as well.  i am trying to make the point that  evil  is a matter of opinion and that it is not enough of a justification for invasion.  it is too much of a shaky ground to base a  war  upon.  now, if we had a united nations organization that actually worked, we could argue that it could a define  evil  b organise invasions of evil states.  but no country gets to make this call on its own, as we are being taught by the nazi campaign against evil jews and communists.   #  you need to know  where  to cut,  how  to cut,  what  to cut out, and what  not  to cut out.   #  you do not perform a tonsillectomy on someone just because you have a knife and know how to cut things, right ? you need to know  where  to cut,  how  to cut,  what  to cut out, and what  not  to cut out.  you need to know what you are doing, or at least have a pretty damn good understanding.  because if you do not, you are very likely going to make things worse.  so.  if you do the right thing incompetently and with disastrous results, then is it truly the  right thing  to have done ?
i have lived in qatar for at least 0 years; i have witnessed the mistreatment of migrants firsthand, it is there and there is no denying it.  however, the facts have been heavily distorted by the media and has become a massive circlejerk, so i feel compelled to play the devils advocate.  i contend that if better off countries offered the migrants a better choice they would take it, the workers do not enjoy being treated like slaves, but they are better off in qatar than their own country which is why they go there; they are not stupid.  and this leads me to the hypocrite accusation.  if qatar did not accept migrant workers and they were to stay where they were they would have an objectively worse quality of life, but most people would not care.  instead, qatar offers them a better choice; granted, they are taking advantage of desperation, but they are not  islaves  in that they were given a choice and they would be worse off without their low wage jobs in qatar.  therefore it is hypocritical for people living in first world countries to criticize qatar for their crappy treatment of their immigrant workers when they themselves would not want the immigrants.  also, although i in no way claim to know anything about economics i do not think the people demanding higher wages for immigrants do either.  as filthy rich as qatar is, do we know for a fact that the government can significantly increase the wages of over 0,0 immigrants from nepal alone ? do we know that it wo not create further demand for jobs, increasing competition and taking away opportunity from the less qualified workers that may need the job more ? i just do not think most criticizers have thought this through properly.  finally, please read this URL to grasp just how much qatar has been bombarded with accusations with little evidence and an abundance of hyperbole.  thanks for reading, please understand i am only playing devils advocate because almost nobody else will, and i will happily award deltas for any reasonable arguments.  cmv !  #  they are better off in qatar than their own country which is why they go there; they are not stupid.   #  then why do they take their passports when they get there ?  # then why do they take their passports when they get there ?  migrant workers are subject to a labor system that facilitates trafficking and forced labor.  in contravention of qatari law, workers often pay exorbitant recruitment fees and employers confiscate their passports.  the kafala sponsorship system ties a migrant worker is legal status to a sponsoring employer, requiring workers to get an exit visa from that sponsor to leave the country.   URL  #  my basic argument is yes, qatar is being completely unfair, but the workers are better off w/ than w/o.   #  i would argue that it gives the employer power over the employee and should surely be classified as mistreatment, but surely the workers know what they are getting into.  it does not negate the fact that it is wrong, if it were not for this i would have classified the term  islave labor  as gross exaggeration.  my basic argument is yes, qatar is being completely unfair, but the workers are better off w/ than w/o.  from a reply to another user: i found an article here URL that says that it is illegal to hold a workers passport punishable with a 0,0 qr fine.  if you can show that qatar is government  intentionally  avoids fining those who break the law i will happily award a delta.  otherwise it is not the qatari government that is in the wrong but the people who break the laws.   #  refusing to take immigrants into your country is not as bad as abusing them for cheap labor.   #  if they were better off before entering qatar then they would not need to forfeit their passports because they would not want to leave.  and you can choose to put yourself in slavery because of distraught situations.  refusing to take immigrants into your country is not as bad as abusing them for cheap labor.  it would be hypocritical if qatar was refusing refugees entry and those in first world countries chewed qatar out.  even if it is not qatar is government mistreating the laborers there is still a culture of mistreatment that is prevalent in qatar.  qatar is more than their governing body.   #  therefore qatar taking the workers in and treating them like crap is better than ignoring those who are impoverished and then taking the moral high ground.   # from a reply to another user: i found an article here URL that says that it is illegal to hold a workers passport punishable with a 0,0 qr fine.  if you can show that qatar is government  intentionally  avoids fining those who break the law i will happily award a delta.  otherwise it is not the qatari government that is in the wrong but the people who break the laws.  here we go into moral philosophy, but with an adjusted utilitarian system qatar is treatment of immigrant workers is only bad if on average they end up worse than when they started.  therefore qatar taking the workers in and treating them like crap is better than ignoring those who are impoverished and then taking the moral high ground.  understand that i am not saying that the developed countries are doing anything wrong, it is their right not to let anyone in.  however on a scale of positive vs.  negative qatar is slightly positive while other countries are neutral.  the way i see it first world countries are criticizing qatar for not treating the migrants who chose to work there while not letting them in, i compare it to a pre rosa parks bus where blacks are allowed on the bus so long as they sit in the back and give white people priority versus a bus that only lets white people on.  thanks fo the reply !  #  if 0 of workers are having their passports taken away if this law is in effect then this law is simply not good enough and the government of qatar should be criticized for not taking the issue seriously enough.   #  you are not understanding me.  i am arguing if qatar is better then where immigrants are coming from then workers would be allowed to keep their passports because they would want to stay in qatar regardless of having their passport.  that combined with the fact that it is often the case that migrant workers are often uneducated and may not be aware of the consequences of moving to qatar makes it to seem to me that is not definitely the case that qatar provides a benefit.  also, utilitarian benefit does not make something right.  qatar still has a culture of horrible labor practices.  just because they might strong emphasis on might be better does not make them good, just less bad.  less bad is still bad that is still worthy of international criticism.  other nations recognize the importance of civil liberties in regards to labor practices and do not conduct in slavery.  according to this article: URL it seems that qatar still has some work to do.  if 0 of workers are having their passports taken away if this law is in effect then this law is simply not good enough and the government of qatar should be criticized for not taking the issue seriously enough.  do not act like the government has done due diligence by hand waving an ineffectual law.  it is not hypocritical for first world countries to be against what is essentially slavery because of their strict immigration policies.  qatar is being criticized for abusing these people and manipulating them for economic gain.  should first countries be under scrutiny for not taking in more workers ? i think so, but i also think that until qatar experiences some serious changes to their labor practices they should be criticized.
there have been complaints that reddit admins and/or mods of large subs have removed posts related to tpp or critical of ellen pao.  this is often cited as  censorship.   however, given that the userbase at large uses the downvote button to suppress views that they do not agree with, they cannot fairly protest any censorship by admins/mods.  any such protest rests on the idea that the userbase should be allowed to hide content that they deem undesirable as opposed to irrelevant, which is what the downvote is for but that admins/mods should in fact have less power than the userbase.  i am certain although without any proof that there are users who only use the downvote button to mark irrelevant content.  those users can protest censorship, but to be logically consistent, must protest censorship by the userbase as well as the admins/mods.  this is an argument about logical coherence, not about whether users should have the legal or moral right to downvote as they see fit.  in essence, i am saying that the pot is calling the kettle black.  in order to refute this argument, you need to show that there is a significant difference between the actions of a user trying to keep pro life content from the front page, for example, and an admin/mod removing a tpp article.   #  i am certain although without any proof that there are users who only use the downvote button to mark irrelevant content.   #  those users can protest censorship, but to be logically consistent, must protest censorship by the userbase as well as the admins/mods.   # those users can protest censorship, but to be logically consistent, must protest censorship by the userbase as well as the admins/mods.  i made a clear argument about the situation where the complainer is not a part of the problem.  the argument goes like this, to use your murder analogy: 0.  if you commit murders yourself, you do not have a right to complain about others committing murders.  0.  if you do not commit murders and in this case, if you committed murders in the past but now have turned away from that behavior , you do have a right to complain about others committing murder.  however, if you are going to complain about one class of people e. g.  blacks committing murder, you also need to complain about another class of people e. g.  whites committing murder.  if i were making this case about murders, i would add some other qualifiers in here, in that some murders are different from others in significant ways.   #  in this case, you have not shown any distinction between a user and an admin/mod.   #  littering and disposing of recyclable materials in the trash are not at all equivalent.  i am not sure how your first statement supports your argument.  i agree that censorship is a bit loose although i would argue that murder is just as loose, given the many types and circumstances .  however, i am not talking about all censorship.  i am talking about taking efforts to keep others from viewing content that you disagree with on this one particular forum.  in this case, you have not shown any distinction between a user and an admin/mod.  i am not making broad arguments about censorship in general.  we would all agree that the owner of a religious website has a right to remove anti religion posts from that site in a way that the government does not.   #  i have a whole host of beliefs, but actually living in accordance with those beliefs is an ongoing practice.   #  if i understand your point, its that in order to have the right to complain about x, people should be logically consistent on x.  but that is an unfair standard.  i have a whole host of beliefs, but actually living in accordance with those beliefs is an ongoing practice.  the point in having standards is to have something to aspire to.  just because someone is occasionally hypocritical about x does not mean that they forever loose their right to complain about x.  i ca not speak for you, but by your standard i am not  logically consistent  on most of my beliefs.  one is principles do not need to be logically consistent with one is actions.  that defeats the purpose of having principles to aspire to.   #  why would you want to discourage people from preventing wrongs ?  #  no, you still have the right to criticize another.  just because you committed the wrong yourself does not mean that you lose the obligation to prevent a future wrong.  the wrong, when committed, will have a negative consequence regardless of your own personal history or hypocrisy.  your personal history has absolutely zero consequence on the consequences of another is future wrong.  why would you want to discourage people from preventing wrongs ?  #  the problem of down voting is not a problem of censorship, it is an etiquette problem.   #  heavily down voted posts are not removed, at best they are hidden.  it perfectly acceptable that those people see mod censorship as the biggest issue, hidden posts can still be seen.  in fact you can sort comments by  controversial  to get to the posts which are being heavily down voted.  the problem of down voting is not a problem of censorship, it is an etiquette problem.  mods removing stories which hurt reddit as a business are removed specifically because the information hurts them and their business.  people down vote because they are jerks.
note: i do not fully believe they should be banned, but i am conflicted on my view here.  i live in colorado so my personal experience with women in burqas is 0, this is probably why i feel this way.  anyway, here are some of my justifications: wearing a burqa steals the wearers identity.  without the ability to read facial/body expressions, interaction with somebody wearing a burqa is mysterious.  the ability to commit crime and be unrecognizable.  so i have reached the end of the post.  the little substance to support my argument has made me realize that i might just be xenophobic.  i am still going to post this in hopes somebody can offer some personal experience/belief.   #  wearing a burqa steals the wearers identity.   #  wearing a burqua  defines  aspects of the wearers identity.   # wearing a burqua  defines  aspects of the wearers identity.  as does a facial tattoo, a mohawk, a kippa, etc.  hair style, facial hair, body decorations, clothing etc.  all affect how we perceive someone, and how we respond to them.  i can hide my emotions behind sunglasses and a full beard, or a constant mad grin, a stone face.  the facial expression of someone with a different origin may have a completely different meaning to them than they have for you.  just because you can  see  their face does not mean you can  read  it.  arguably, in this case, facial cover prevents you from  learning  to read them, i give you that.  yet i would say that is their choice, not yours.  what is the  purpose  of your prosposed ban ? reduced crime, improved crime investigation ? there is no statistics that shows wearing a burqua correlates strongly with unsolved crimes and i am certain if there was, some people would make sure we would hear about it daily.  as mentioned by others, you are entering the murky waters of pre crime here.  is it supposed to force them to integrate into society ? in this case, it might backfire, because when you ban wearing the burqua in public, you might make them go into public even less.  generally, i see  integration  as a red herring.  in us terms: are west coast hipsters and texas rednecks  integrated  ? or are they just living different life styles  side by side  in the same country ? i live in the almost push suburbs and it is been ages since i have been to a high rise apartment area like the one two blocks down the street.  there are many people who ca not make a living on a full time job, my interactions with them are limited to those working in the service industry.  millions of people leave their neighborhood only to visit grandma or to go to a walled off beach resort.  we are not integrated.  and that is perfectly fine.  a free society means many approaches to living one is life co existing side by side.  it means being able to find the social niche that works well for you.  it means being able to change the niche.  it is a buffet, not a soup.  if i may ask you a personal question: does the idea of interacting with someone completely covered creep you out ?  #  am i not allowed the right of privacy even in public ?  #  ok.  well i am against face covering bans for a few reasons.  the biggest one is how well do they actually work ? if you plan on committing a crime are you really going to keep your face bare because of the law ? or is it more likely that you will carry a mask or balaclava in your pocket and put it on when needed ? if it is not effective at its stated task then what is the point ? there is also the question of rights.  as a free citizen should not you or i get to decide what we wear in public ? if i want to wear a scarf that wraps round my face in winter should i not be allowed ? am i not allowed the right of privacy even in public ? one last point: any mask law is going to have to have exceptions.  simple ones would be motorcycle helmets or breathing masks for the sick or cyclists.  around where i live a lot of cyclists wear masks to deal with the car pollution, many of them are quite stylish.  if we low these exceptions why not religious ones ? how about exceptions for fashion ? i am wondering if it is just religious exemption you object to.   #  if it is legal to cover one is face fine.   #  the difference is that if somebody is running around in literally any other face/body covering, be it mask, balaclava, or morphsuit, or whatever, and somebody needs to see that person is face for whatever reason, they can just ask the person to show their face long enough to confirm their identity.  in the case of the burqa, that ability is restricted by the huge shitstorm of cultural backlash that is likely to follow any such request.  if it is legal to cover one is face fine.  the law should be fair after all.  but there should be laws that state that if you are covering your face in public and you are asked to reveal yourself, that you must, and too bad if you do not want to or doing so offends you.  so far as i know going to look it up later in case i am wrong those laws do not exist, and where they do, burqas are often exempt.  a few years ago a bill was proposed here canada which would require anybody wearing a burqa to reveal their identity at polling stations if they wish to vote.  it would be done in a separate room with only female staff present, but the muslim community started shitting collective bricks at the first suggestion of it.   #  i personally am 0 against islamic veiling for a number of reasons.   #  it is not prejudice.  i think you can see that veiling is harmful, you just ca not articulate why.  i personally am 0 against islamic veiling for a number of reasons.  muslim cultures, by and large, have a strong tendency to treat women like the sexual property of men.  the act of effacing another human being is intrinsically isolating.  and given the fact that a not insignificant percentage of the world is muslim women do not have a choice to wear the veil, and keeping in mind that muslim women who choose to decline the privilege of wearing cloth bags are frequently ostracized by their friends, families, and communities or even physically attacked when muslim women say they want to veil themselves, we should be slow to take their word for it.  when women are being explicitly or tacitly coerced, it is clearly a concern of the state hence the ban.   #  i shook his hand in greeting, as did my dad who does not speak english, so that was awkward, as i had to translate everything .   #  we talked for about 0 months before we met in person.  it did not help that we lived 0 km away and in different countries.  while i trusted him, i was not prepared to go blindly in another country to someone i have never met in person.  he was, though.  unlike me, he was in excellent physical shape and knows ninjutsu which is a very effective form of martial arts for self defence .  so he came to visit me.  i was still living with my parents.  while they were a bit skeptical, i had met my ex online as well, who turned out to be a really nice guy that they approved of, even if it did not work out for other reasons.  so i had a good history of screening people properly before meeting them in person, and they were willing to allow him to stay with us.  me and my dad picked him up from the airport.  i shook his hand in greeting, as did my dad who does not speak english, so that was awkward, as i had to translate everything .  we chatted during the car ride home and he seemed exactly as he was online, a nice intelligent guy.  when we finally got home, i dragged him to my room and kissed him and we cuddled for a bit.  it was strange how natural and familiar it felt, although it was the first time i met him.  long story short, he turned out not to be a serial killer or scammer.  we were both in the middle of our education, so we had to do everything long distance for 0 years.  i had no issues visiting him after that first time.  once i had my bachelor is degree, i applied for a master is in his country, and we moved in together.  we lived happily ever after.  :
note: i do not fully believe they should be banned, but i am conflicted on my view here.  i live in colorado so my personal experience with women in burqas is 0, this is probably why i feel this way.  anyway, here are some of my justifications: wearing a burqa steals the wearers identity.  without the ability to read facial/body expressions, interaction with somebody wearing a burqa is mysterious.  the ability to commit crime and be unrecognizable.  so i have reached the end of the post.  the little substance to support my argument has made me realize that i might just be xenophobic.  i am still going to post this in hopes somebody can offer some personal experience/belief.   #  wearing a burqa steals the wearers identity.   #  without the ability to read facial/body expressions, interaction with somebody wearing a burqa is mysterious.   # without the ability to read facial/body expressions, interaction with somebody wearing a burqa is mysterious.  this is not really a legitimate reason to ban it.  it is just something that you do not like about them.  should all face coverings be illegal as well just because of this ? what about scarves ? what if an adult wore a halloween costume with a mask ? should this person be charged with breaking the law ?  #  if we low these exceptions why not religious ones ?  #  ok.  well i am against face covering bans for a few reasons.  the biggest one is how well do they actually work ? if you plan on committing a crime are you really going to keep your face bare because of the law ? or is it more likely that you will carry a mask or balaclava in your pocket and put it on when needed ? if it is not effective at its stated task then what is the point ? there is also the question of rights.  as a free citizen should not you or i get to decide what we wear in public ? if i want to wear a scarf that wraps round my face in winter should i not be allowed ? am i not allowed the right of privacy even in public ? one last point: any mask law is going to have to have exceptions.  simple ones would be motorcycle helmets or breathing masks for the sick or cyclists.  around where i live a lot of cyclists wear masks to deal with the car pollution, many of them are quite stylish.  if we low these exceptions why not religious ones ? how about exceptions for fashion ? i am wondering if it is just religious exemption you object to.   #  a few years ago a bill was proposed here canada which would require anybody wearing a burqa to reveal their identity at polling stations if they wish to vote.   #  the difference is that if somebody is running around in literally any other face/body covering, be it mask, balaclava, or morphsuit, or whatever, and somebody needs to see that person is face for whatever reason, they can just ask the person to show their face long enough to confirm their identity.  in the case of the burqa, that ability is restricted by the huge shitstorm of cultural backlash that is likely to follow any such request.  if it is legal to cover one is face fine.  the law should be fair after all.  but there should be laws that state that if you are covering your face in public and you are asked to reveal yourself, that you must, and too bad if you do not want to or doing so offends you.  so far as i know going to look it up later in case i am wrong those laws do not exist, and where they do, burqas are often exempt.  a few years ago a bill was proposed here canada which would require anybody wearing a burqa to reveal their identity at polling stations if they wish to vote.  it would be done in a separate room with only female staff present, but the muslim community started shitting collective bricks at the first suggestion of it.   #  when women are being explicitly or tacitly coerced, it is clearly a concern of the state hence the ban.   #  it is not prejudice.  i think you can see that veiling is harmful, you just ca not articulate why.  i personally am 0 against islamic veiling for a number of reasons.  muslim cultures, by and large, have a strong tendency to treat women like the sexual property of men.  the act of effacing another human being is intrinsically isolating.  and given the fact that a not insignificant percentage of the world is muslim women do not have a choice to wear the veil, and keeping in mind that muslim women who choose to decline the privilege of wearing cloth bags are frequently ostracized by their friends, families, and communities or even physically attacked when muslim women say they want to veil themselves, we should be slow to take their word for it.  when women are being explicitly or tacitly coerced, it is clearly a concern of the state hence the ban.   #  we chatted during the car ride home and he seemed exactly as he was online, a nice intelligent guy.   #  we talked for about 0 months before we met in person.  it did not help that we lived 0 km away and in different countries.  while i trusted him, i was not prepared to go blindly in another country to someone i have never met in person.  he was, though.  unlike me, he was in excellent physical shape and knows ninjutsu which is a very effective form of martial arts for self defence .  so he came to visit me.  i was still living with my parents.  while they were a bit skeptical, i had met my ex online as well, who turned out to be a really nice guy that they approved of, even if it did not work out for other reasons.  so i had a good history of screening people properly before meeting them in person, and they were willing to allow him to stay with us.  me and my dad picked him up from the airport.  i shook his hand in greeting, as did my dad who does not speak english, so that was awkward, as i had to translate everything .  we chatted during the car ride home and he seemed exactly as he was online, a nice intelligent guy.  when we finally got home, i dragged him to my room and kissed him and we cuddled for a bit.  it was strange how natural and familiar it felt, although it was the first time i met him.  long story short, he turned out not to be a serial killer or scammer.  we were both in the middle of our education, so we had to do everything long distance for 0 years.  i had no issues visiting him after that first time.  once i had my bachelor is degree, i applied for a master is in his country, and we moved in together.  we lived happily ever after.  :
note: i do not fully believe they should be banned, but i am conflicted on my view here.  i live in colorado so my personal experience with women in burqas is 0, this is probably why i feel this way.  anyway, here are some of my justifications: wearing a burqa steals the wearers identity.  without the ability to read facial/body expressions, interaction with somebody wearing a burqa is mysterious.  the ability to commit crime and be unrecognizable.  so i have reached the end of the post.  the little substance to support my argument has made me realize that i might just be xenophobic.  i am still going to post this in hopes somebody can offer some personal experience/belief.   #  the ability to commit crime and be unrecognizable.   #  should all face coverings be illegal as well just because of this ?  # without the ability to read facial/body expressions, interaction with somebody wearing a burqa is mysterious.  this is not really a legitimate reason to ban it.  it is just something that you do not like about them.  should all face coverings be illegal as well just because of this ? what about scarves ? what if an adult wore a halloween costume with a mask ? should this person be charged with breaking the law ?  #  am i not allowed the right of privacy even in public ?  #  ok.  well i am against face covering bans for a few reasons.  the biggest one is how well do they actually work ? if you plan on committing a crime are you really going to keep your face bare because of the law ? or is it more likely that you will carry a mask or balaclava in your pocket and put it on when needed ? if it is not effective at its stated task then what is the point ? there is also the question of rights.  as a free citizen should not you or i get to decide what we wear in public ? if i want to wear a scarf that wraps round my face in winter should i not be allowed ? am i not allowed the right of privacy even in public ? one last point: any mask law is going to have to have exceptions.  simple ones would be motorcycle helmets or breathing masks for the sick or cyclists.  around where i live a lot of cyclists wear masks to deal with the car pollution, many of them are quite stylish.  if we low these exceptions why not religious ones ? how about exceptions for fashion ? i am wondering if it is just religious exemption you object to.   #  it would be done in a separate room with only female staff present, but the muslim community started shitting collective bricks at the first suggestion of it.   #  the difference is that if somebody is running around in literally any other face/body covering, be it mask, balaclava, or morphsuit, or whatever, and somebody needs to see that person is face for whatever reason, they can just ask the person to show their face long enough to confirm their identity.  in the case of the burqa, that ability is restricted by the huge shitstorm of cultural backlash that is likely to follow any such request.  if it is legal to cover one is face fine.  the law should be fair after all.  but there should be laws that state that if you are covering your face in public and you are asked to reveal yourself, that you must, and too bad if you do not want to or doing so offends you.  so far as i know going to look it up later in case i am wrong those laws do not exist, and where they do, burqas are often exempt.  a few years ago a bill was proposed here canada which would require anybody wearing a burqa to reveal their identity at polling stations if they wish to vote.  it would be done in a separate room with only female staff present, but the muslim community started shitting collective bricks at the first suggestion of it.   #  muslim cultures, by and large, have a strong tendency to treat women like the sexual property of men.   #  it is not prejudice.  i think you can see that veiling is harmful, you just ca not articulate why.  i personally am 0 against islamic veiling for a number of reasons.  muslim cultures, by and large, have a strong tendency to treat women like the sexual property of men.  the act of effacing another human being is intrinsically isolating.  and given the fact that a not insignificant percentage of the world is muslim women do not have a choice to wear the veil, and keeping in mind that muslim women who choose to decline the privilege of wearing cloth bags are frequently ostracized by their friends, families, and communities or even physically attacked when muslim women say they want to veil themselves, we should be slow to take their word for it.  when women are being explicitly or tacitly coerced, it is clearly a concern of the state hence the ban.   #  it was strange how natural and familiar it felt, although it was the first time i met him.   #  we talked for about 0 months before we met in person.  it did not help that we lived 0 km away and in different countries.  while i trusted him, i was not prepared to go blindly in another country to someone i have never met in person.  he was, though.  unlike me, he was in excellent physical shape and knows ninjutsu which is a very effective form of martial arts for self defence .  so he came to visit me.  i was still living with my parents.  while they were a bit skeptical, i had met my ex online as well, who turned out to be a really nice guy that they approved of, even if it did not work out for other reasons.  so i had a good history of screening people properly before meeting them in person, and they were willing to allow him to stay with us.  me and my dad picked him up from the airport.  i shook his hand in greeting, as did my dad who does not speak english, so that was awkward, as i had to translate everything .  we chatted during the car ride home and he seemed exactly as he was online, a nice intelligent guy.  when we finally got home, i dragged him to my room and kissed him and we cuddled for a bit.  it was strange how natural and familiar it felt, although it was the first time i met him.  long story short, he turned out not to be a serial killer or scammer.  we were both in the middle of our education, so we had to do everything long distance for 0 years.  i had no issues visiting him after that first time.  once i had my bachelor is degree, i applied for a master is in his country, and we moved in together.  we lived happily ever after.  :
note: i do not fully believe they should be banned, but i am conflicted on my view here.  i live in colorado so my personal experience with women in burqas is 0, this is probably why i feel this way.  anyway, here are some of my justifications: wearing a burqa steals the wearers identity.  without the ability to read facial/body expressions, interaction with somebody wearing a burqa is mysterious.  the ability to commit crime and be unrecognizable.  so i have reached the end of the post.  the little substance to support my argument has made me realize that i might just be xenophobic.  i am still going to post this in hopes somebody can offer some personal experience/belief.   #  wearing a burqa steals the wearers identity.   #  without the ability to read facial/body expressions, interaction with somebody wearing a burqa is mysterious.   # without the ability to read facial/body expressions, interaction with somebody wearing a burqa is mysterious.  i fail to see how this is at all a problem.  it may make you feel uncomfortable to interact with a person whose face you cannot see, but then it is your prerogative to simply not interact with them.  slightly more reasonable, but then where do we stop ? i have gone out in public wearing a takuhatsugasa URL sunglasses, and a disposable face mask.  i went into a bank looking like this URL i am not wearing a burqa, but you still ca not identify me.  should any obscuring of the face be outlawed ? what about a halloween mask on halloween, do we ban that ?  #  one last point: any mask law is going to have to have exceptions.   #  ok.  well i am against face covering bans for a few reasons.  the biggest one is how well do they actually work ? if you plan on committing a crime are you really going to keep your face bare because of the law ? or is it more likely that you will carry a mask or balaclava in your pocket and put it on when needed ? if it is not effective at its stated task then what is the point ? there is also the question of rights.  as a free citizen should not you or i get to decide what we wear in public ? if i want to wear a scarf that wraps round my face in winter should i not be allowed ? am i not allowed the right of privacy even in public ? one last point: any mask law is going to have to have exceptions.  simple ones would be motorcycle helmets or breathing masks for the sick or cyclists.  around where i live a lot of cyclists wear masks to deal with the car pollution, many of them are quite stylish.  if we low these exceptions why not religious ones ? how about exceptions for fashion ? i am wondering if it is just religious exemption you object to.   #  but there should be laws that state that if you are covering your face in public and you are asked to reveal yourself, that you must, and too bad if you do not want to or doing so offends you.   #  the difference is that if somebody is running around in literally any other face/body covering, be it mask, balaclava, or morphsuit, or whatever, and somebody needs to see that person is face for whatever reason, they can just ask the person to show their face long enough to confirm their identity.  in the case of the burqa, that ability is restricted by the huge shitstorm of cultural backlash that is likely to follow any such request.  if it is legal to cover one is face fine.  the law should be fair after all.  but there should be laws that state that if you are covering your face in public and you are asked to reveal yourself, that you must, and too bad if you do not want to or doing so offends you.  so far as i know going to look it up later in case i am wrong those laws do not exist, and where they do, burqas are often exempt.  a few years ago a bill was proposed here canada which would require anybody wearing a burqa to reveal their identity at polling stations if they wish to vote.  it would be done in a separate room with only female staff present, but the muslim community started shitting collective bricks at the first suggestion of it.   #  i think you can see that veiling is harmful, you just ca not articulate why.   #  it is not prejudice.  i think you can see that veiling is harmful, you just ca not articulate why.  i personally am 0 against islamic veiling for a number of reasons.  muslim cultures, by and large, have a strong tendency to treat women like the sexual property of men.  the act of effacing another human being is intrinsically isolating.  and given the fact that a not insignificant percentage of the world is muslim women do not have a choice to wear the veil, and keeping in mind that muslim women who choose to decline the privilege of wearing cloth bags are frequently ostracized by their friends, families, and communities or even physically attacked when muslim women say they want to veil themselves, we should be slow to take their word for it.  when women are being explicitly or tacitly coerced, it is clearly a concern of the state hence the ban.   #  when we finally got home, i dragged him to my room and kissed him and we cuddled for a bit.   #  we talked for about 0 months before we met in person.  it did not help that we lived 0 km away and in different countries.  while i trusted him, i was not prepared to go blindly in another country to someone i have never met in person.  he was, though.  unlike me, he was in excellent physical shape and knows ninjutsu which is a very effective form of martial arts for self defence .  so he came to visit me.  i was still living with my parents.  while they were a bit skeptical, i had met my ex online as well, who turned out to be a really nice guy that they approved of, even if it did not work out for other reasons.  so i had a good history of screening people properly before meeting them in person, and they were willing to allow him to stay with us.  me and my dad picked him up from the airport.  i shook his hand in greeting, as did my dad who does not speak english, so that was awkward, as i had to translate everything .  we chatted during the car ride home and he seemed exactly as he was online, a nice intelligent guy.  when we finally got home, i dragged him to my room and kissed him and we cuddled for a bit.  it was strange how natural and familiar it felt, although it was the first time i met him.  long story short, he turned out not to be a serial killer or scammer.  we were both in the middle of our education, so we had to do everything long distance for 0 years.  i had no issues visiting him after that first time.  once i had my bachelor is degree, i applied for a master is in his country, and we moved in together.  we lived happily ever after.  :
note: i do not fully believe they should be banned, but i am conflicted on my view here.  i live in colorado so my personal experience with women in burqas is 0, this is probably why i feel this way.  anyway, here are some of my justifications: wearing a burqa steals the wearers identity.  without the ability to read facial/body expressions, interaction with somebody wearing a burqa is mysterious.  the ability to commit crime and be unrecognizable.  so i have reached the end of the post.  the little substance to support my argument has made me realize that i might just be xenophobic.  i am still going to post this in hopes somebody can offer some personal experience/belief.   #  the ability to commit crime and be unrecognizable.   #  slightly more reasonable, but then where do we stop ?  # without the ability to read facial/body expressions, interaction with somebody wearing a burqa is mysterious.  i fail to see how this is at all a problem.  it may make you feel uncomfortable to interact with a person whose face you cannot see, but then it is your prerogative to simply not interact with them.  slightly more reasonable, but then where do we stop ? i have gone out in public wearing a takuhatsugasa URL sunglasses, and a disposable face mask.  i went into a bank looking like this URL i am not wearing a burqa, but you still ca not identify me.  should any obscuring of the face be outlawed ? what about a halloween mask on halloween, do we ban that ?  #  one last point: any mask law is going to have to have exceptions.   #  ok.  well i am against face covering bans for a few reasons.  the biggest one is how well do they actually work ? if you plan on committing a crime are you really going to keep your face bare because of the law ? or is it more likely that you will carry a mask or balaclava in your pocket and put it on when needed ? if it is not effective at its stated task then what is the point ? there is also the question of rights.  as a free citizen should not you or i get to decide what we wear in public ? if i want to wear a scarf that wraps round my face in winter should i not be allowed ? am i not allowed the right of privacy even in public ? one last point: any mask law is going to have to have exceptions.  simple ones would be motorcycle helmets or breathing masks for the sick or cyclists.  around where i live a lot of cyclists wear masks to deal with the car pollution, many of them are quite stylish.  if we low these exceptions why not religious ones ? how about exceptions for fashion ? i am wondering if it is just religious exemption you object to.   #  so far as i know going to look it up later in case i am wrong those laws do not exist, and where they do, burqas are often exempt.   #  the difference is that if somebody is running around in literally any other face/body covering, be it mask, balaclava, or morphsuit, or whatever, and somebody needs to see that person is face for whatever reason, they can just ask the person to show their face long enough to confirm their identity.  in the case of the burqa, that ability is restricted by the huge shitstorm of cultural backlash that is likely to follow any such request.  if it is legal to cover one is face fine.  the law should be fair after all.  but there should be laws that state that if you are covering your face in public and you are asked to reveal yourself, that you must, and too bad if you do not want to or doing so offends you.  so far as i know going to look it up later in case i am wrong those laws do not exist, and where they do, burqas are often exempt.  a few years ago a bill was proposed here canada which would require anybody wearing a burqa to reveal their identity at polling stations if they wish to vote.  it would be done in a separate room with only female staff present, but the muslim community started shitting collective bricks at the first suggestion of it.   #  i think you can see that veiling is harmful, you just ca not articulate why.   #  it is not prejudice.  i think you can see that veiling is harmful, you just ca not articulate why.  i personally am 0 against islamic veiling for a number of reasons.  muslim cultures, by and large, have a strong tendency to treat women like the sexual property of men.  the act of effacing another human being is intrinsically isolating.  and given the fact that a not insignificant percentage of the world is muslim women do not have a choice to wear the veil, and keeping in mind that muslim women who choose to decline the privilege of wearing cloth bags are frequently ostracized by their friends, families, and communities or even physically attacked when muslim women say they want to veil themselves, we should be slow to take their word for it.  when women are being explicitly or tacitly coerced, it is clearly a concern of the state hence the ban.   #  we were both in the middle of our education, so we had to do everything long distance for 0 years.   #  we talked for about 0 months before we met in person.  it did not help that we lived 0 km away and in different countries.  while i trusted him, i was not prepared to go blindly in another country to someone i have never met in person.  he was, though.  unlike me, he was in excellent physical shape and knows ninjutsu which is a very effective form of martial arts for self defence .  so he came to visit me.  i was still living with my parents.  while they were a bit skeptical, i had met my ex online as well, who turned out to be a really nice guy that they approved of, even if it did not work out for other reasons.  so i had a good history of screening people properly before meeting them in person, and they were willing to allow him to stay with us.  me and my dad picked him up from the airport.  i shook his hand in greeting, as did my dad who does not speak english, so that was awkward, as i had to translate everything .  we chatted during the car ride home and he seemed exactly as he was online, a nice intelligent guy.  when we finally got home, i dragged him to my room and kissed him and we cuddled for a bit.  it was strange how natural and familiar it felt, although it was the first time i met him.  long story short, he turned out not to be a serial killer or scammer.  we were both in the middle of our education, so we had to do everything long distance for 0 years.  i had no issues visiting him after that first time.  once i had my bachelor is degree, i applied for a master is in his country, and we moved in together.  we lived happily ever after.  :
i was raised catholic but now firmly believe that agnosticism is the only religious view that makes sense given our limited knowledge of the universe.  i generally dislike organized religion for creating an either or view of divinity.  either you accept my god or yours, my rules or your own.  people are often raised to be a certain religion from a young age, so their religion is almost wholly contingent on their upbringing, location, etc.  i think it is foolish to say  my god is the correct god  or  my god is the only god  when others just as vehemently believe their own god story.  if anything, i can accept the more unitarian philosophy that each religion is god story is pointing towards the same divine force.  i am against the idea of a personified god, but i can understand the notion that there is some binding, transcendent force in the universe.  i think one must abandon what john rawls calls the arbitrariness of fortune i. e.  the societal and environmental preconditions that have shaped you and try to consider religion more objectively.  in doing so, i find it hard to choose one religion over another.  as i said, i believe if there is a god, it is more of a force than a  he  or  she , and it exists at the intersection of religious thought rather than firmly in the confines of any one school.  i also think it is foolish to be completely convinced that there is no god at all.  the burden of proof may be on the people who believe there is a god, but it is equally impossible to deny the existence of one.  if you view god more as a unifying force than a gray bearded old man doling out punishments from on high, i think it is perfectly feasible that such a force may exist.  some view agnosticism as an admission of defeat.  i think such a level of resignation is necessary.  we simply cannot know if there is a god or godlike force at play in the universe.  though i generally reject organized religion, i think it is impossible to entirely rule out the possibility of a god figure, and i do not think this remains a possibility in my mind solely because i fear death or want there to be something more i. e.  my desire for survival .  i just look at the universe and our limited knowledge of it and think maybe.  maybe there is something else.  maybe there is a transcendent reason why so much of our existence is so cyclical, why nature is so beautiful to us, etc.  but maybe there is not.  we simply cannot know.  cmv.   #  if you view god more as a unifying force than a gray bearded old man doling out punishments from on high, i think it is perfectly feasible that such a force may exist.   #  maybe, but this does not conform to most definitions of  god .   #  by the definition you are using here, almost all atheists are agnostics.  dawkins, for example, discusses this briefly in his book the god delusion.  he calls himself a toothfairy agnostic.  he is agnostic about god in the same sense that he is agnostic about the toothfairy.  it is impossible to be  certain , in a philosophical sense, that there is no toothfairy or no gods, but you certainly do not believe in or pay much mind to the possibilty.  you certainly do not believe in these beings or spend time taking pains to point out that you are strictly agnostic about toothfairies or leprechauns or any other similar being.  why should we treat your god any differently from the thousand other similar ideas that we pay little mind to ? the need to diverge from the term agnostic comes because the term is too mild.  it is taken to be a perfectly neutral position on the matter when many of us are not remotely neutral on the question of there being any gods.  in essence, most of your objection is based on a different in terminology as it is commonly used by atheists.  i would be on the  harder  end of the  hard atheist/soft atheist  scale, for the record.  i am probably the closest thing in this thread to the sort of atheist you mention.  so to touch on that aspect of your post as well.  maybe, but this does not conform to most definitions of  god .  why call it  god , why attribute personhood to it, or will or actions or any of the usual attributes of  god  ? a unthinking, unfeeling, non acting fundamental force of physics would qualify.  calling such a force  god  is silly, it is too loaded a term from historical and religious context to be useful.  it is not even a coherent description of any specific thing, it is a vague non statement that is impossible to discuss in any meaningful manner.  certainly, i see no reason to believe it is true.  there is no evidence for it.  no reason for it.  it is not a reasonable position to believe in.  it is possible to have a meaningful discussion about specific religious positions.  many of them are outright proven false, through contradictions mostly.  unless the position you are trying to argue for is specific and coherent, there is little that can be discussed about it meaningfully.  in summary, it is my opinion that there is no reasonable position except atheism, that is, it is unreasonable to believe in any deities.  that any proposed deities are incoherent, unreasonable, are not worthy of the name or are already proven false.   #  agnosticism is a matter of knowledge whereas atheism is belief.   #  i think you fundamentally misunderstand atheism.  agnosticism is a matter of knowledge whereas atheism is belief.  thus, they are not incompatible.  gnostic theism i know there is a god agnostic theism i cannot know if there is a god but i believe there probably is.  agnostic atheism i cannot know if there is a god, but i doubt there is.  gnostic atheism i know that there is no god.  one does not have to know there definetely is not a god to be an atheist.  there are many reasons why one would believe the existence of god is unlikely without necessarily having certain knowledge.  for example, one might think that since most factors in the universe seem to be of natural causes, there is no need for a god.  or, if there is a god, you would expect evidence.  these are not definitive proofs, but they would still make someone an atheist if they accepted them.  can you prove definitively that santa does not exist somewhere in the universe ? if you ca not prove it for certain does that mean you ca not say you do not believe in santa ?  #  imo 0 agnosticism is a copout, while i am sure some people actually fall here, they are vastly outnumbered by those that wish to be seen as impartial.   #  another important concept spectrum of theistic probability URL strong theist.  0 per cent probability of god.  in the words of c. g.  jung:  i do not believe, i know.   de facto theist.  very high probability but short of 0 per cent.   i do not know for certain, but i strongly believe in god and live my life on the assumption that he is there.   leaning towards theism.  higher than 0 per cent but not very high.   i am very uncertain, but i am inclined to believe in god.   completely impartial.  exactly 0 per cent.   god is existence and non existence are exactly equiprobable.   leaning towards atheism.  lower than 0 per cent but not very low.   i do not know whether god exists but i am inclined to be skeptical.   de facto atheist.  very low probability, but short of zero.   i do not know for certain but i think god is very improbable, and i live my life on the assumption that he is not there.   strong atheist.   i know there is no god, with the same conviction as jung knows there is one.   imo 0 agnosticism is a copout, while i am sure some people actually fall here, they are vastly outnumbered by those that wish to be seen as impartial.  those at the c. g.  jung sides are crazy too, 0 probability is insane, but as an agnostic atheist i have no issue with agnostic deists.   #  all experienced a fairly similar form of a higher power.   #  except time and time again there are large amounts of people who said they have experienced god, or a form of such.  i am sure you have heard of abraham, muhammad, jesus.  all experienced a fairly similar form of a higher power.  while making the cop paste example of an ad hoc argument makes some atheists feel smug for a few seconds.  why are the leprechauns doing what they are doing ? has anyone else seen the leprechauns ? have they effected the world in anyway that everyone can see ? is the person making that claim a known liar and charlatan, or has he/she been known as an upright, honest, and reliable person ? religion and god are not troubled by those questions, leprechauns using magic to make mushrooms is severely so .   #  i am not just saying  i ca not prove that 0 foot tall jackalopes do not exist, so they might,  i am saying that things as seemingly profound as nature and love may be divinely inspired because sometimes they seem to be.   #  see my reply to hq0.  a conversation this multi faceted is certainly worthwhile but quite exhausting lol.  it is ultimately because i think the god theory is more compelling than intentionally implausible examples like the leprechaun, and this is because i sometimes sense an otherness or unifying force in nature, in beauty, in love, etc.  that makes me consider the possibility of such a force existing.  as stated in my response to hq0, something as fundamental as god or divinity may actually be more about our primal sense of the world than anything we can adequately voice or justify through language.  i am not just saying  i ca not prove that 0 foot tall jackalopes do not exist, so they might,  i am saying that things as seemingly profound as nature and love may be divinely inspired because sometimes they seem to be.  i wish i had my buddies emerson and thoreau from my reply to hq0 to more eloquently back me up on this lol
i was raised catholic but now firmly believe that agnosticism is the only religious view that makes sense given our limited knowledge of the universe.  i generally dislike organized religion for creating an either or view of divinity.  either you accept my god or yours, my rules or your own.  people are often raised to be a certain religion from a young age, so their religion is almost wholly contingent on their upbringing, location, etc.  i think it is foolish to say  my god is the correct god  or  my god is the only god  when others just as vehemently believe their own god story.  if anything, i can accept the more unitarian philosophy that each religion is god story is pointing towards the same divine force.  i am against the idea of a personified god, but i can understand the notion that there is some binding, transcendent force in the universe.  i think one must abandon what john rawls calls the arbitrariness of fortune i. e.  the societal and environmental preconditions that have shaped you and try to consider religion more objectively.  in doing so, i find it hard to choose one religion over another.  as i said, i believe if there is a god, it is more of a force than a  he  or  she , and it exists at the intersection of religious thought rather than firmly in the confines of any one school.  i also think it is foolish to be completely convinced that there is no god at all.  the burden of proof may be on the people who believe there is a god, but it is equally impossible to deny the existence of one.  if you view god more as a unifying force than a gray bearded old man doling out punishments from on high, i think it is perfectly feasible that such a force may exist.  some view agnosticism as an admission of defeat.  i think such a level of resignation is necessary.  we simply cannot know if there is a god or godlike force at play in the universe.  though i generally reject organized religion, i think it is impossible to entirely rule out the possibility of a god figure, and i do not think this remains a possibility in my mind solely because i fear death or want there to be something more i. e.  my desire for survival .  i just look at the universe and our limited knowledge of it and think maybe.  maybe there is something else.  maybe there is a transcendent reason why so much of our existence is so cyclical, why nature is so beautiful to us, etc.  but maybe there is not.  we simply cannot know.  cmv.   #  if you view god more as a unifying force than a gray bearded old man doling out punishments from on high, i think it is perfectly feasible that such a force may exist.   #  it is also feasible that leprechauns exist.   # why ? so what ? it is equally impossible to deny existence of leprechauns or invisible pink unicorns.  are you agnostic about leprechauns ? it is also feasible that leprechauns exist.   it is feasible that x exists  is a really poor reason to believe in x.  it really should come down to evidence, and there is not any for god, or gods.   #  or, if there is a god, you would expect evidence.   #  i think you fundamentally misunderstand atheism.  agnosticism is a matter of knowledge whereas atheism is belief.  thus, they are not incompatible.  gnostic theism i know there is a god agnostic theism i cannot know if there is a god but i believe there probably is.  agnostic atheism i cannot know if there is a god, but i doubt there is.  gnostic atheism i know that there is no god.  one does not have to know there definetely is not a god to be an atheist.  there are many reasons why one would believe the existence of god is unlikely without necessarily having certain knowledge.  for example, one might think that since most factors in the universe seem to be of natural causes, there is no need for a god.  or, if there is a god, you would expect evidence.  these are not definitive proofs, but they would still make someone an atheist if they accepted them.  can you prove definitively that santa does not exist somewhere in the universe ? if you ca not prove it for certain does that mean you ca not say you do not believe in santa ?  #   i know there is no god, with the same conviction as jung knows there is one.    #  another important concept spectrum of theistic probability URL strong theist.  0 per cent probability of god.  in the words of c. g.  jung:  i do not believe, i know.   de facto theist.  very high probability but short of 0 per cent.   i do not know for certain, but i strongly believe in god and live my life on the assumption that he is there.   leaning towards theism.  higher than 0 per cent but not very high.   i am very uncertain, but i am inclined to believe in god.   completely impartial.  exactly 0 per cent.   god is existence and non existence are exactly equiprobable.   leaning towards atheism.  lower than 0 per cent but not very low.   i do not know whether god exists but i am inclined to be skeptical.   de facto atheist.  very low probability, but short of zero.   i do not know for certain but i think god is very improbable, and i live my life on the assumption that he is not there.   strong atheist.   i know there is no god, with the same conviction as jung knows there is one.   imo 0 agnosticism is a copout, while i am sure some people actually fall here, they are vastly outnumbered by those that wish to be seen as impartial.  those at the c. g.  jung sides are crazy too, 0 probability is insane, but as an agnostic atheist i have no issue with agnostic deists.   #  while making the cop paste example of an ad hoc argument makes some atheists feel smug for a few seconds.   #  except time and time again there are large amounts of people who said they have experienced god, or a form of such.  i am sure you have heard of abraham, muhammad, jesus.  all experienced a fairly similar form of a higher power.  while making the cop paste example of an ad hoc argument makes some atheists feel smug for a few seconds.  why are the leprechauns doing what they are doing ? has anyone else seen the leprechauns ? have they effected the world in anyway that everyone can see ? is the person making that claim a known liar and charlatan, or has he/she been known as an upright, honest, and reliable person ? religion and god are not troubled by those questions, leprechauns using magic to make mushrooms is severely so .   #  that makes me consider the possibility of such a force existing.   #  see my reply to hq0.  a conversation this multi faceted is certainly worthwhile but quite exhausting lol.  it is ultimately because i think the god theory is more compelling than intentionally implausible examples like the leprechaun, and this is because i sometimes sense an otherness or unifying force in nature, in beauty, in love, etc.  that makes me consider the possibility of such a force existing.  as stated in my response to hq0, something as fundamental as god or divinity may actually be more about our primal sense of the world than anything we can adequately voice or justify through language.  i am not just saying  i ca not prove that 0 foot tall jackalopes do not exist, so they might,  i am saying that things as seemingly profound as nature and love may be divinely inspired because sometimes they seem to be.  i wish i had my buddies emerson and thoreau from my reply to hq0 to more eloquently back me up on this lol
this issue is very distinct from the removal of the confederate flag from the south carolina capitol building.  i would also argue that it way more harmful than walmart/ebay/amazon banning the flags themselves.  apple can ban whatever they want as a private entity.  however, i believe they have made a huge mistake in banning apps that contained confederate imagery.  the confederate flag was not the essence of the apps as far as i have seen.  they actually  were  historical.  while i believe the confederate flag to be rotten, i do not think it should be censored.  i believe that when one considers whether or not to ban something, a symbol advocating an idea should be considered distinct from expression or documentation of that idea.  i believe that this banning is a bad business decision.  not only are they losing the money for the apps themselves but they are alienating a demographic that supports the flag, and a demographic that do not support the flag but support free speech.  i believe this is bad for humanity because the backlash against this banning will turn the confederate flag into a symbol for free speech, which will muddy up the issue of racial tension even more.  more importantly, i fear that it will set a precedent for large companies that provide information and access to culture to ban essential historical information.  tl;dr :  context matters !   and apple is execution of the censorship was harmful on many levels.   #  i fear that it will set a precedent for large companies that provide information and access to culture to ban essential historical information.   #  they are not banning it  because  it is historical, they are banning it because people have used it in overtly racist ways since the 0s.   #  were there any real historical apps banned b/c of this ? the only one i saw banned was one where you fight as the confederate forces to win the battle of gettysburg.  not exactly teaching history.  tactics maybe, but that is even a stretch.  it is a weird revenge fantasy game.  they also already ban a ton of stuff.  there are no porn apps on the app store.  why are not tits the symbol of free speech ? they are not banning it  because  it is historical, they are banning it because people have used it in overtly racist ways since the 0s.  they also are not banning internet searches on their phones for certain topics, they just are not helping amplify certain types of apps by letting them use the app store.  they are picking what items they sell in their store.  that is every company is right.   #  i do consider videogames to be art and most of these games are meant to be educational.   #  i do not think it was a bad decision for walmart, ebay, or amazon to ban the actual flags, but i have not heard of one person that was offended by the civil war apps that apple banned.  to your second point, i agree that historical artifacts belong in museums.  i believe that books belong in stores, and artwork belongs on display.  i do consider videogames to be art and most of these games are meant to be educational.  this one URL which does include the swastika and is still allowed in the app store, is not that educational.  but it is still a work of art, and i do not consider it to be in the same category as a nazi flag.  do you ?  #  this is the most confusing comment i have read in a while.   #  this is the most confusing comment i have read in a while.  there is no doubt this was a pr move.  the difference between apple making a pr move and apple making a conscious decision would be what ? apple have sentience or not ? how is a pr move an unconscious decision ? what argument do you think that i think apple is making ? how does this address my emphasis on the importance of the distinction between symbols and documentation of symbols ?  #  it is a nonsequitor but one made with good intent.   #  it is a nonsequitor but one made with good intent.  in general very few people here/outside of germany disagree with you on some form of that distinction.  apple is quick action had a side effect of removing perfectly valid apps that a policy concieved with care would have avoided.  i am pretty sure apple regrets that move.  that means it has many levels of governance.  i am 0 sure the confederate flag ban was made by someone who passed it down to someone else who. and the person who actually implemented the ban did a bad job flagging stuff that used it in a historical manner as well as a symbolic one or they thought it was too much of a hassle to create a system which avoided that so they viewed it as an  acceptable side effect .  let is try a different example  so you are for obamacare. that must mean you wanted those early website glitches to happen.   that is an obviously flawed argument because it conflates implementation side effect with the intended effect of a policy.  am i making myself clear ?  #  tim cook already gave a statement on racism last week.   #  apple was not receiving pr pressure.  tim cook already gave a statement on racism last week.  that is all anyone needed from apple.  thanks apple ! also pr pressure is not the same as an announced deadline.  if obamacare did not launch, people would not have been able to sign up for healthcare.  if apple had not pulled this censorship stunt, literally nobody would have been affected.  my position is that the stunt started doing damage as soon as a news story came out.  do you disagree with that position ? you keep talking about what their motivations were.  i am saying they are doing it wrong.  very wrong.
hello cmv, i am not a parent but curious as to get your opinions to cmv.  i grew playing competitive soccer worked my way up to the competitive teams from your basic youth teams and never once received a trophy for simply participating or losing.  you either got 0st, 0nd, 0rd or you got nothing it was simple as that.  by losing and not being rewarded we understood we had to try harder as an individual and try harder as a team to win.  this led me to become much more competitive because i wanted to earn that trophy and be on that competitive team.  i really do not understand the idea of rewarding everyone for not winning, it is almost like saying  hey, even if you do not try you still win .  i hear stories about teams that go 0 0 in a season and the kids walk away with a trophy, why ? do not get me wrong, i am not a cold hearted person and love to see all children happy but i do not understand the concept of rewarding someone for losing or not trying hard enough will result in a prize.  to me that just teaches a kid that not giving your best will still result in a prize.  what lesson does that teach you when you grow up ? that your failure or lack of effort will be rewarded regardless of how you performed ? does not that give the child a bad mentality growing up ? personally if i had a kid and he/she played a sport i would not allow the coach or a parent to give them a trophy for simply participating, i would make them understand that a reward/trophy is earned by hard work and dedication.  i know not all kids are athletic but i still do not understand the concept or idea.  we all know reality is a bitch and life is going to hit you with some hard lessons so why not teach your kid that hard work pays off ? again, i am not trying to sound cold but i just do not understand the concept of rewarding failure/losing, cmv.   #  do not get me wrong, i am not a cold hearted person and love to see all children happy but i do not understand the concept of rewarding someone for losing or not trying hard enough will result in a prize.   #  how about rewarding someone for showing up when they could have easily not done anything at all ?  #  i grew up solidly in the participation award era of the 0 is.  know what ? it did not really teach me that i win no matter what.  because the participation trophy is sucked.  0st palce ? huge awesome trophy.  0nd and 0rd ? cool medium sized trophies.  shit you could be proud of.  the rest of us ? these junky little trinkets that paled in comparison.  and we wanted the big trophy.  getting a little concilation trophy did not remove that desire to win.  why not ? at least you showed up and played.  that is all the that trophy is.  it does not say  congratulations, you won !   it says  yep, you played this year.   i do not see what is wrong with a commemorative trophy for that.  it is not a winners trophy.  how about rewarding someone for showing up when they could have easily not done anything at all ? it is a lot easier to stay at home and play video games and watch tv and not do anything at all.  all the participation trophy does is say that you competed.  what is so bad about that ? it is not without precedence either.  all olympic athletes receive a participation medal for qualifying.  that winners get big ass trophy is and losers get something that says they showed up ? what is bad about that ? except reality is that hard work does not always translate to just rewards.  you can work super hard at mcdonalds and you will still make the same $0 as super slacker steve.   #  they still want the winner is trophy and they are still motivated to compete for it.   #  i think you misunderstand the mindset of kids who get the participation ribbon or minor prize.  they still want the winner is trophy and they are still motivated to compete for it.  the idea is that by rewarding sportsmanship and effort, you are reminding kids that there is a certain honor and dignity being part of the game, and that competitions are not divided between winners and people who wasted their time.  not to mention that by only rewarding the winners, we are not teaching them that hard work pays off.  we are teaching them that winning pays off.  there is no guarantee that the winners are the ones who worked hardest.   #  my mother for example has been a special needs nursery nurse for the last twenty years.   # you can work your ass off in a job that does not have a lot of scope for advancement.  my mother for example has been a special needs nursery nurse for the last twenty years.  it is a tough, grueling job helping children unable to help themselves.  what does she earn ? about £0,0.  for some careers that is barely entry level pay.  my mum has endless qualifications, years of experience but the only way up is to swap jobs and become an administrator.  she loves what she does and is happy but it is lucky my dad makes enough to make up for her wage.  from another personal angle been thinking a lot about family today i am 0 and currently doing a phd.  i grew up to the constant mantra, from family, teachers and the public at large, that if i worked hard and did well in school i would be able to easily advance through my career.  in reality i spent years after university working dead end jobs just to get enough money to pay bills.  i am very lucky i got this phd but plenty of my friends have not had that opportunity.  they came out of uni and are still stuck in dead end jobs.  and those same people that told us to work hard and do well in school so we did not have to flip burgers are the same people moaning about graduates not wanting to take a job flipping burgers.  long winded and ranty so i apologise for that.  but the short version is that i think if we tell our kids that all it takes is hard work and they will get ahead they will be much worse off if they try and they do not.   #  finally, plenty of these people keep trophies for life.   #  that is a ridiculous argument.  first of all, most trophies are plastic thermoplastic, usually and metal.  incredibly easy to recycle.  second, the  waste  generated by  trophies  is not even a blip on the scale of waste generated by humans.  is that seriously what you think is the problem ? finally, plenty of these people keep trophies for life.  my parents have trophies of mine from decades ago, and their parents have boxes of their memories as well.  sure they will get tossed eventually, but the increase in utility  far  outweighs any negative impact they might have.  which, as i said, is probably next to nothing since you can just melt them down and make something else.   #  if they have valid arguments, civil conversation and make me understand then i have no reason not to change my view if i think they are right.   #  i did not buckle to soon, i came in here with an open mind about a point of view i had.  i am a very competitive person and getting a second place trophy meant nothing to me.  however, not everyone is the same and if you read some of these personal stories in the comments you can see how and why a trophy helped some people out.  i am a very open minded person, i do not push my values on anyone but i am always willing to hear the opposition and their points of views.  if they have valid arguments, civil conversation and make me understand then i have no reason not to change my view if i think they are right.  in this case, i was wrong and people helped me understand that.
hello cmv, i am not a parent but curious as to get your opinions to cmv.  i grew playing competitive soccer worked my way up to the competitive teams from your basic youth teams and never once received a trophy for simply participating or losing.  you either got 0st, 0nd, 0rd or you got nothing it was simple as that.  by losing and not being rewarded we understood we had to try harder as an individual and try harder as a team to win.  this led me to become much more competitive because i wanted to earn that trophy and be on that competitive team.  i really do not understand the idea of rewarding everyone for not winning, it is almost like saying  hey, even if you do not try you still win .  i hear stories about teams that go 0 0 in a season and the kids walk away with a trophy, why ? do not get me wrong, i am not a cold hearted person and love to see all children happy but i do not understand the concept of rewarding someone for losing or not trying hard enough will result in a prize.  to me that just teaches a kid that not giving your best will still result in a prize.  what lesson does that teach you when you grow up ? that your failure or lack of effort will be rewarded regardless of how you performed ? does not that give the child a bad mentality growing up ? personally if i had a kid and he/she played a sport i would not allow the coach or a parent to give them a trophy for simply participating, i would make them understand that a reward/trophy is earned by hard work and dedication.  i know not all kids are athletic but i still do not understand the concept or idea.  we all know reality is a bitch and life is going to hit you with some hard lessons so why not teach your kid that hard work pays off ? again, i am not trying to sound cold but i just do not understand the concept of rewarding failure/losing, cmv.   #  does not that give the child a bad mentality growing up ?  #  that winners get big ass trophy is and losers get something that says they showed up ?  #  i grew up solidly in the participation award era of the 0 is.  know what ? it did not really teach me that i win no matter what.  because the participation trophy is sucked.  0st palce ? huge awesome trophy.  0nd and 0rd ? cool medium sized trophies.  shit you could be proud of.  the rest of us ? these junky little trinkets that paled in comparison.  and we wanted the big trophy.  getting a little concilation trophy did not remove that desire to win.  why not ? at least you showed up and played.  that is all the that trophy is.  it does not say  congratulations, you won !   it says  yep, you played this year.   i do not see what is wrong with a commemorative trophy for that.  it is not a winners trophy.  how about rewarding someone for showing up when they could have easily not done anything at all ? it is a lot easier to stay at home and play video games and watch tv and not do anything at all.  all the participation trophy does is say that you competed.  what is so bad about that ? it is not without precedence either.  all olympic athletes receive a participation medal for qualifying.  that winners get big ass trophy is and losers get something that says they showed up ? what is bad about that ? except reality is that hard work does not always translate to just rewards.  you can work super hard at mcdonalds and you will still make the same $0 as super slacker steve.   #  i think you misunderstand the mindset of kids who get the participation ribbon or minor prize.   #  i think you misunderstand the mindset of kids who get the participation ribbon or minor prize.  they still want the winner is trophy and they are still motivated to compete for it.  the idea is that by rewarding sportsmanship and effort, you are reminding kids that there is a certain honor and dignity being part of the game, and that competitions are not divided between winners and people who wasted their time.  not to mention that by only rewarding the winners, we are not teaching them that hard work pays off.  we are teaching them that winning pays off.  there is no guarantee that the winners are the ones who worked hardest.   #  and those same people that told us to work hard and do well in school so we did not have to flip burgers are the same people moaning about graduates not wanting to take a job flipping burgers.   # you can work your ass off in a job that does not have a lot of scope for advancement.  my mother for example has been a special needs nursery nurse for the last twenty years.  it is a tough, grueling job helping children unable to help themselves.  what does she earn ? about £0,0.  for some careers that is barely entry level pay.  my mum has endless qualifications, years of experience but the only way up is to swap jobs and become an administrator.  she loves what she does and is happy but it is lucky my dad makes enough to make up for her wage.  from another personal angle been thinking a lot about family today i am 0 and currently doing a phd.  i grew up to the constant mantra, from family, teachers and the public at large, that if i worked hard and did well in school i would be able to easily advance through my career.  in reality i spent years after university working dead end jobs just to get enough money to pay bills.  i am very lucky i got this phd but plenty of my friends have not had that opportunity.  they came out of uni and are still stuck in dead end jobs.  and those same people that told us to work hard and do well in school so we did not have to flip burgers are the same people moaning about graduates not wanting to take a job flipping burgers.  long winded and ranty so i apologise for that.  but the short version is that i think if we tell our kids that all it takes is hard work and they will get ahead they will be much worse off if they try and they do not.   #  first of all, most trophies are plastic thermoplastic, usually and metal.   #  that is a ridiculous argument.  first of all, most trophies are plastic thermoplastic, usually and metal.  incredibly easy to recycle.  second, the  waste  generated by  trophies  is not even a blip on the scale of waste generated by humans.  is that seriously what you think is the problem ? finally, plenty of these people keep trophies for life.  my parents have trophies of mine from decades ago, and their parents have boxes of their memories as well.  sure they will get tossed eventually, but the increase in utility  far  outweighs any negative impact they might have.  which, as i said, is probably next to nothing since you can just melt them down and make something else.   #  i am a very open minded person, i do not push my values on anyone but i am always willing to hear the opposition and their points of views.   #  i did not buckle to soon, i came in here with an open mind about a point of view i had.  i am a very competitive person and getting a second place trophy meant nothing to me.  however, not everyone is the same and if you read some of these personal stories in the comments you can see how and why a trophy helped some people out.  i am a very open minded person, i do not push my values on anyone but i am always willing to hear the opposition and their points of views.  if they have valid arguments, civil conversation and make me understand then i have no reason not to change my view if i think they are right.  in this case, i was wrong and people helped me understand that.
hello cmv, i am not a parent but curious as to get your opinions to cmv.  i grew playing competitive soccer worked my way up to the competitive teams from your basic youth teams and never once received a trophy for simply participating or losing.  you either got 0st, 0nd, 0rd or you got nothing it was simple as that.  by losing and not being rewarded we understood we had to try harder as an individual and try harder as a team to win.  this led me to become much more competitive because i wanted to earn that trophy and be on that competitive team.  i really do not understand the idea of rewarding everyone for not winning, it is almost like saying  hey, even if you do not try you still win .  i hear stories about teams that go 0 0 in a season and the kids walk away with a trophy, why ? do not get me wrong, i am not a cold hearted person and love to see all children happy but i do not understand the concept of rewarding someone for losing or not trying hard enough will result in a prize.  to me that just teaches a kid that not giving your best will still result in a prize.  what lesson does that teach you when you grow up ? that your failure or lack of effort will be rewarded regardless of how you performed ? does not that give the child a bad mentality growing up ? personally if i had a kid and he/she played a sport i would not allow the coach or a parent to give them a trophy for simply participating, i would make them understand that a reward/trophy is earned by hard work and dedication.  i know not all kids are athletic but i still do not understand the concept or idea.  we all know reality is a bitch and life is going to hit you with some hard lessons so why not teach your kid that hard work pays off ? again, i am not trying to sound cold but i just do not understand the concept of rewarding failure/losing, cmv.   #  we all know reality is a bitch and life is going to hit you with some hard lessons so why not teach your kid that hard work pays off ?  #  except reality is that hard work does not always translate to just rewards.   #  i grew up solidly in the participation award era of the 0 is.  know what ? it did not really teach me that i win no matter what.  because the participation trophy is sucked.  0st palce ? huge awesome trophy.  0nd and 0rd ? cool medium sized trophies.  shit you could be proud of.  the rest of us ? these junky little trinkets that paled in comparison.  and we wanted the big trophy.  getting a little concilation trophy did not remove that desire to win.  why not ? at least you showed up and played.  that is all the that trophy is.  it does not say  congratulations, you won !   it says  yep, you played this year.   i do not see what is wrong with a commemorative trophy for that.  it is not a winners trophy.  how about rewarding someone for showing up when they could have easily not done anything at all ? it is a lot easier to stay at home and play video games and watch tv and not do anything at all.  all the participation trophy does is say that you competed.  what is so bad about that ? it is not without precedence either.  all olympic athletes receive a participation medal for qualifying.  that winners get big ass trophy is and losers get something that says they showed up ? what is bad about that ? except reality is that hard work does not always translate to just rewards.  you can work super hard at mcdonalds and you will still make the same $0 as super slacker steve.   #  i think you misunderstand the mindset of kids who get the participation ribbon or minor prize.   #  i think you misunderstand the mindset of kids who get the participation ribbon or minor prize.  they still want the winner is trophy and they are still motivated to compete for it.  the idea is that by rewarding sportsmanship and effort, you are reminding kids that there is a certain honor and dignity being part of the game, and that competitions are not divided between winners and people who wasted their time.  not to mention that by only rewarding the winners, we are not teaching them that hard work pays off.  we are teaching them that winning pays off.  there is no guarantee that the winners are the ones who worked hardest.   #  and those same people that told us to work hard and do well in school so we did not have to flip burgers are the same people moaning about graduates not wanting to take a job flipping burgers.   # you can work your ass off in a job that does not have a lot of scope for advancement.  my mother for example has been a special needs nursery nurse for the last twenty years.  it is a tough, grueling job helping children unable to help themselves.  what does she earn ? about £0,0.  for some careers that is barely entry level pay.  my mum has endless qualifications, years of experience but the only way up is to swap jobs and become an administrator.  she loves what she does and is happy but it is lucky my dad makes enough to make up for her wage.  from another personal angle been thinking a lot about family today i am 0 and currently doing a phd.  i grew up to the constant mantra, from family, teachers and the public at large, that if i worked hard and did well in school i would be able to easily advance through my career.  in reality i spent years after university working dead end jobs just to get enough money to pay bills.  i am very lucky i got this phd but plenty of my friends have not had that opportunity.  they came out of uni and are still stuck in dead end jobs.  and those same people that told us to work hard and do well in school so we did not have to flip burgers are the same people moaning about graduates not wanting to take a job flipping burgers.  long winded and ranty so i apologise for that.  but the short version is that i think if we tell our kids that all it takes is hard work and they will get ahead they will be much worse off if they try and they do not.   #  finally, plenty of these people keep trophies for life.   #  that is a ridiculous argument.  first of all, most trophies are plastic thermoplastic, usually and metal.  incredibly easy to recycle.  second, the  waste  generated by  trophies  is not even a blip on the scale of waste generated by humans.  is that seriously what you think is the problem ? finally, plenty of these people keep trophies for life.  my parents have trophies of mine from decades ago, and their parents have boxes of their memories as well.  sure they will get tossed eventually, but the increase in utility  far  outweighs any negative impact they might have.  which, as i said, is probably next to nothing since you can just melt them down and make something else.   #  if they have valid arguments, civil conversation and make me understand then i have no reason not to change my view if i think they are right.   #  i did not buckle to soon, i came in here with an open mind about a point of view i had.  i am a very competitive person and getting a second place trophy meant nothing to me.  however, not everyone is the same and if you read some of these personal stories in the comments you can see how and why a trophy helped some people out.  i am a very open minded person, i do not push my values on anyone but i am always willing to hear the opposition and their points of views.  if they have valid arguments, civil conversation and make me understand then i have no reason not to change my view if i think they are right.  in this case, i was wrong and people helped me understand that.
hello cmv, i am not a parent but curious as to get your opinions to cmv.  i grew playing competitive soccer worked my way up to the competitive teams from your basic youth teams and never once received a trophy for simply participating or losing.  you either got 0st, 0nd, 0rd or you got nothing it was simple as that.  by losing and not being rewarded we understood we had to try harder as an individual and try harder as a team to win.  this led me to become much more competitive because i wanted to earn that trophy and be on that competitive team.  i really do not understand the idea of rewarding everyone for not winning, it is almost like saying  hey, even if you do not try you still win .  i hear stories about teams that go 0 0 in a season and the kids walk away with a trophy, why ? do not get me wrong, i am not a cold hearted person and love to see all children happy but i do not understand the concept of rewarding someone for losing or not trying hard enough will result in a prize.  to me that just teaches a kid that not giving your best will still result in a prize.  what lesson does that teach you when you grow up ? that your failure or lack of effort will be rewarded regardless of how you performed ? does not that give the child a bad mentality growing up ? personally if i had a kid and he/she played a sport i would not allow the coach or a parent to give them a trophy for simply participating, i would make them understand that a reward/trophy is earned by hard work and dedication.  i know not all kids are athletic but i still do not understand the concept or idea.  we all know reality is a bitch and life is going to hit you with some hard lessons so why not teach your kid that hard work pays off ? again, i am not trying to sound cold but i just do not understand the concept of rewarding failure/losing, cmv.   #  never once received a trophy for simply participating or losing.   #  you either got 0st, 0nd, 0rd or you got nothing.   # you either got 0st, 0nd, 0rd or you got nothing.  i find this  so  ironic.  you realize that 0nd place is nothing but the first loser, right ? and 0rd place ? .  do not even get me started.  so why are you ok with the first and 0nd losers getting trophies and, presumably, even accepted them yourself in your youth but the 0rd loser, 0th loser, 0th loser, etc.  get nothing ? in the words of herm edwards, you. play. to. win. the. game ! that means there are two categories: the winner and the losers.  either you support losers getting trophies or you do not; and if you support  some  losers getting trophies because they are  better losers  than other losers, then you are just hypocritical.   #  i think you misunderstand the mindset of kids who get the participation ribbon or minor prize.   #  i think you misunderstand the mindset of kids who get the participation ribbon or minor prize.  they still want the winner is trophy and they are still motivated to compete for it.  the idea is that by rewarding sportsmanship and effort, you are reminding kids that there is a certain honor and dignity being part of the game, and that competitions are not divided between winners and people who wasted their time.  not to mention that by only rewarding the winners, we are not teaching them that hard work pays off.  we are teaching them that winning pays off.  there is no guarantee that the winners are the ones who worked hardest.   #  i grew up to the constant mantra, from family, teachers and the public at large, that if i worked hard and did well in school i would be able to easily advance through my career.   # you can work your ass off in a job that does not have a lot of scope for advancement.  my mother for example has been a special needs nursery nurse for the last twenty years.  it is a tough, grueling job helping children unable to help themselves.  what does she earn ? about £0,0.  for some careers that is barely entry level pay.  my mum has endless qualifications, years of experience but the only way up is to swap jobs and become an administrator.  she loves what she does and is happy but it is lucky my dad makes enough to make up for her wage.  from another personal angle been thinking a lot about family today i am 0 and currently doing a phd.  i grew up to the constant mantra, from family, teachers and the public at large, that if i worked hard and did well in school i would be able to easily advance through my career.  in reality i spent years after university working dead end jobs just to get enough money to pay bills.  i am very lucky i got this phd but plenty of my friends have not had that opportunity.  they came out of uni and are still stuck in dead end jobs.  and those same people that told us to work hard and do well in school so we did not have to flip burgers are the same people moaning about graduates not wanting to take a job flipping burgers.  long winded and ranty so i apologise for that.  but the short version is that i think if we tell our kids that all it takes is hard work and they will get ahead they will be much worse off if they try and they do not.   #  these junky little trinkets that paled in comparison.   #  i grew up solidly in the participation award era of the 0 is.  know what ? it did not really teach me that i win no matter what.  because the participation trophy is sucked.  0st palce ? huge awesome trophy.  0nd and 0rd ? cool medium sized trophies.  shit you could be proud of.  the rest of us ? these junky little trinkets that paled in comparison.  and we wanted the big trophy.  getting a little concilation trophy did not remove that desire to win.  why not ? at least you showed up and played.  that is all the that trophy is.  it does not say  congratulations, you won !   it says  yep, you played this year.   i do not see what is wrong with a commemorative trophy for that.  it is not a winners trophy.  how about rewarding someone for showing up when they could have easily not done anything at all ? it is a lot easier to stay at home and play video games and watch tv and not do anything at all.  all the participation trophy does is say that you competed.  what is so bad about that ? it is not without precedence either.  all olympic athletes receive a participation medal for qualifying.  that winners get big ass trophy is and losers get something that says they showed up ? what is bad about that ? except reality is that hard work does not always translate to just rewards.  you can work super hard at mcdonalds and you will still make the same $0 as super slacker steve.   #  finally, plenty of these people keep trophies for life.   #  that is a ridiculous argument.  first of all, most trophies are plastic thermoplastic, usually and metal.  incredibly easy to recycle.  second, the  waste  generated by  trophies  is not even a blip on the scale of waste generated by humans.  is that seriously what you think is the problem ? finally, plenty of these people keep trophies for life.  my parents have trophies of mine from decades ago, and their parents have boxes of their memories as well.  sure they will get tossed eventually, but the increase in utility  far  outweighs any negative impact they might have.  which, as i said, is probably next to nothing since you can just melt them down and make something else.
this is not about whether obamacare is good or bad.  fighting against obamacare in 0 is like people who commemorate and re enact that civil war:  the fight is over and you lost  the high court has just upheld obamacare again.  URL the supreme court has now upheld the aca in its entirety twice.  republicans love to use old polls that say most people are against obamacare, but that is false because those polls include people who do not think obamacare went far enough.  republicans who are still  fighting the fight against obamacare  are just like republicans who did not want to pass common sense gun control reform laws that over 0 of americans agree with after the sandy hook massacre.  they do not care what is good for america.  they are opposing  anything and everything with obama is name on it  because they are bitter that he is president.  their obvious voter suppression tactics did not work; he won by both popular vote and electoral vote in both  0 and  0.  this is like a 0 year old child who is jealous because their sibling got a better toy.  they just act out in anyway they can because they are mad.  just like sending the country off a fiscal cliff until they get their way it is another form of a temper tantrum.   #  they do not care what is good for america.   #  just because someone  disagrees with you  on what is good for america does not mean that they do not care about what is good for america.   # uhm, it is  fundamentally  about that.  the people who are against the affordable healthcare act or was it affordable care act ? i hate  obamacare  as a term think that it is bad.  beyond that, they believe it is illegal and unconstitutional.  just because someone  disagrees with you  on what is good for america does not mean that they do not care about what is good for america.  they might just have some information that you do not, that might give them a valid reason to think that the solution you are proposing is a bad one.  and you might have some information that  they  do not that might give  you  a valid reason to think that the solution is good.  but that is a very ugly accusation to throw around without some very solid proof.   #  in 0 the united states passed doma or defense of marriage act.   #  in 0 the united states passed doma or defense of marriage act.  this ruling has been upheld in court before and still technically stands as law today.  should gay people stop fighting this ? what about segregation ? please vs ferguson said segregation was legal in 0.  it was not until brown vs board of education over 0 years later that segregation was ruled illegal.  should minorities have just given up because they lost ? how about other controversial laws that are also being currently fought ? sorry people for legal weed, assisted suicide, and against nsa spying, you have lost and should stop fighting this.  now i do not agree with the gop in their fight against this law but if it something they truly feel is worth fighting for because it should be illeagal then they should fight it until they die or is ruled on their favor.   #  it is actually common sense that the laws would be completely innefective, as seen in other states.   # then why all the other comments on other issues ? it is actually common sense that the laws would be completely innefective, as seen in other states.  this is an entirely false statistic.  they are opposing  anything and everything with obama is name on it  because they are bitter that he is president.  their obvious voter suppression tactics did not work; he won by both popular vote and electoral vote in both  0 and  0.  this is like a 0 year old child who is jealous because their sibling got a better toy.  they just act out in anyway they can because they are mad.  just like sending the country off a fiscal cliff until they get their way it is another form of a temper tantrum.  you are awfully judgemental about a group you are accusing of being judgemental.   #  the  biggest  reason is that it forces individuals to purchase health care.   #  you are assuming that republicans do not like obamacare just because it was passed by obama.  this is clearly not true.  republicans have many reasons for not liking obamacare.  the  biggest  reason is that it forces individuals to purchase health care.  republicans do not believe that government have the right to mandate such a purchase.  so if a law was passed that goes against republican ideals, why should not they fight it ?  #  but the republicans are not exactly rushing to provide their own alternative, or fix a broken law.   # i mean reps dems and reps in congress are going to vote how their constituents and campaign financers want them to vote.  and i am afraid not sure what stats to look up that the average citizen has been brainwashed into hating aca for a variety or reasons which may not be legitimate.  i have some interesting conversations with those who disagree with it, with valid reasons for not supporting the law.  i have had far more  dur obamacare sucks  type arguments.  i generally support it.  and i understand some of the concerns with the law, and realize it does hurt some people instead of helping them.  but the republicans are not exactly rushing to provide their own alternative, or fix a broken law.  they just want to dismantle it and return us to the status quo, which does hurt thousands of people who were unable to have health insurance before.  and as far as maturity goes, i have less faith in that with our congress people from both dems and reps.
this is not about whether obamacare is good or bad.  fighting against obamacare in 0 is like people who commemorate and re enact that civil war:  the fight is over and you lost  the high court has just upheld obamacare again.  URL the supreme court has now upheld the aca in its entirety twice.  republicans love to use old polls that say most people are against obamacare, but that is false because those polls include people who do not think obamacare went far enough.  republicans who are still  fighting the fight against obamacare  are just like republicans who did not want to pass common sense gun control reform laws that over 0 of americans agree with after the sandy hook massacre.  they do not care what is good for america.  they are opposing  anything and everything with obama is name on it  because they are bitter that he is president.  their obvious voter suppression tactics did not work; he won by both popular vote and electoral vote in both  0 and  0.  this is like a 0 year old child who is jealous because their sibling got a better toy.  they just act out in anyway they can because they are mad.  just like sending the country off a fiscal cliff until they get their way it is another form of a temper tantrum.   #  this is not about whether obamacare is good or bad.   #  then why all the other comments on other issues ?  # then why all the other comments on other issues ? it is actually common sense that the laws would be completely innefective, as seen in other states.  this is an entirely false statistic.  they are opposing  anything and everything with obama is name on it  because they are bitter that he is president.  their obvious voter suppression tactics did not work; he won by both popular vote and electoral vote in both  0 and  0.  this is like a 0 year old child who is jealous because their sibling got a better toy.  they just act out in anyway they can because they are mad.  just like sending the country off a fiscal cliff until they get their way it is another form of a temper tantrum.  you are awfully judgemental about a group you are accusing of being judgemental.   #  just because someone  disagrees with you  on what is good for america does not mean that they do not care about what is good for america.   # uhm, it is  fundamentally  about that.  the people who are against the affordable healthcare act or was it affordable care act ? i hate  obamacare  as a term think that it is bad.  beyond that, they believe it is illegal and unconstitutional.  just because someone  disagrees with you  on what is good for america does not mean that they do not care about what is good for america.  they might just have some information that you do not, that might give them a valid reason to think that the solution you are proposing is a bad one.  and you might have some information that  they  do not that might give  you  a valid reason to think that the solution is good.  but that is a very ugly accusation to throw around without some very solid proof.   #  this ruling has been upheld in court before and still technically stands as law today.   #  in 0 the united states passed doma or defense of marriage act.  this ruling has been upheld in court before and still technically stands as law today.  should gay people stop fighting this ? what about segregation ? please vs ferguson said segregation was legal in 0.  it was not until brown vs board of education over 0 years later that segregation was ruled illegal.  should minorities have just given up because they lost ? how about other controversial laws that are also being currently fought ? sorry people for legal weed, assisted suicide, and against nsa spying, you have lost and should stop fighting this.  now i do not agree with the gop in their fight against this law but if it something they truly feel is worth fighting for because it should be illeagal then they should fight it until they die or is ruled on their favor.   #  so if a law was passed that goes against republican ideals, why should not they fight it ?  #  you are assuming that republicans do not like obamacare just because it was passed by obama.  this is clearly not true.  republicans have many reasons for not liking obamacare.  the  biggest  reason is that it forces individuals to purchase health care.  republicans do not believe that government have the right to mandate such a purchase.  so if a law was passed that goes against republican ideals, why should not they fight it ?  #  but the republicans are not exactly rushing to provide their own alternative, or fix a broken law.   # i mean reps dems and reps in congress are going to vote how their constituents and campaign financers want them to vote.  and i am afraid not sure what stats to look up that the average citizen has been brainwashed into hating aca for a variety or reasons which may not be legitimate.  i have some interesting conversations with those who disagree with it, with valid reasons for not supporting the law.  i have had far more  dur obamacare sucks  type arguments.  i generally support it.  and i understand some of the concerns with the law, and realize it does hurt some people instead of helping them.  but the republicans are not exactly rushing to provide their own alternative, or fix a broken law.  they just want to dismantle it and return us to the status quo, which does hurt thousands of people who were unable to have health insurance before.  and as far as maturity goes, i have less faith in that with our congress people from both dems and reps.
this is not about whether obamacare is good or bad.  fighting against obamacare in 0 is like people who commemorate and re enact that civil war:  the fight is over and you lost  the high court has just upheld obamacare again.  URL the supreme court has now upheld the aca in its entirety twice.  republicans love to use old polls that say most people are against obamacare, but that is false because those polls include people who do not think obamacare went far enough.  republicans who are still  fighting the fight against obamacare  are just like republicans who did not want to pass common sense gun control reform laws that over 0 of americans agree with after the sandy hook massacre.  they do not care what is good for america.  they are opposing  anything and everything with obama is name on it  because they are bitter that he is president.  their obvious voter suppression tactics did not work; he won by both popular vote and electoral vote in both  0 and  0.  this is like a 0 year old child who is jealous because their sibling got a better toy.  they just act out in anyway they can because they are mad.  just like sending the country off a fiscal cliff until they get their way it is another form of a temper tantrum.   #  they do not care what is good for america.   #  they are opposing  anything and everything with obama is name on it  because they are bitter that he is president.   # then why all the other comments on other issues ? it is actually common sense that the laws would be completely innefective, as seen in other states.  this is an entirely false statistic.  they are opposing  anything and everything with obama is name on it  because they are bitter that he is president.  their obvious voter suppression tactics did not work; he won by both popular vote and electoral vote in both  0 and  0.  this is like a 0 year old child who is jealous because their sibling got a better toy.  they just act out in anyway they can because they are mad.  just like sending the country off a fiscal cliff until they get their way it is another form of a temper tantrum.  you are awfully judgemental about a group you are accusing of being judgemental.   #  just because someone  disagrees with you  on what is good for america does not mean that they do not care about what is good for america.   # uhm, it is  fundamentally  about that.  the people who are against the affordable healthcare act or was it affordable care act ? i hate  obamacare  as a term think that it is bad.  beyond that, they believe it is illegal and unconstitutional.  just because someone  disagrees with you  on what is good for america does not mean that they do not care about what is good for america.  they might just have some information that you do not, that might give them a valid reason to think that the solution you are proposing is a bad one.  and you might have some information that  they  do not that might give  you  a valid reason to think that the solution is good.  but that is a very ugly accusation to throw around without some very solid proof.   #  sorry people for legal weed, assisted suicide, and against nsa spying, you have lost and should stop fighting this.   #  in 0 the united states passed doma or defense of marriage act.  this ruling has been upheld in court before and still technically stands as law today.  should gay people stop fighting this ? what about segregation ? please vs ferguson said segregation was legal in 0.  it was not until brown vs board of education over 0 years later that segregation was ruled illegal.  should minorities have just given up because they lost ? how about other controversial laws that are also being currently fought ? sorry people for legal weed, assisted suicide, and against nsa spying, you have lost and should stop fighting this.  now i do not agree with the gop in their fight against this law but if it something they truly feel is worth fighting for because it should be illeagal then they should fight it until they die or is ruled on their favor.   #  the  biggest  reason is that it forces individuals to purchase health care.   #  you are assuming that republicans do not like obamacare just because it was passed by obama.  this is clearly not true.  republicans have many reasons for not liking obamacare.  the  biggest  reason is that it forces individuals to purchase health care.  republicans do not believe that government have the right to mandate such a purchase.  so if a law was passed that goes against republican ideals, why should not they fight it ?  #  and i am afraid not sure what stats to look up that the average citizen has been brainwashed into hating aca for a variety or reasons which may not be legitimate.   # i mean reps dems and reps in congress are going to vote how their constituents and campaign financers want them to vote.  and i am afraid not sure what stats to look up that the average citizen has been brainwashed into hating aca for a variety or reasons which may not be legitimate.  i have some interesting conversations with those who disagree with it, with valid reasons for not supporting the law.  i have had far more  dur obamacare sucks  type arguments.  i generally support it.  and i understand some of the concerns with the law, and realize it does hurt some people instead of helping them.  but the republicans are not exactly rushing to provide their own alternative, or fix a broken law.  they just want to dismantle it and return us to the status quo, which does hurt thousands of people who were unable to have health insurance before.  and as far as maturity goes, i have less faith in that with our congress people from both dems and reps.
this is not about whether obamacare is good or bad.  fighting against obamacare in 0 is like people who commemorate and re enact that civil war:  the fight is over and you lost  the high court has just upheld obamacare again.  URL the supreme court has now upheld the aca in its entirety twice.  republicans love to use old polls that say most people are against obamacare, but that is false because those polls include people who do not think obamacare went far enough.  republicans who are still  fighting the fight against obamacare  are just like republicans who did not want to pass common sense gun control reform laws that over 0 of americans agree with after the sandy hook massacre.  they do not care what is good for america.  they are opposing  anything and everything with obama is name on it  because they are bitter that he is president.  their obvious voter suppression tactics did not work; he won by both popular vote and electoral vote in both  0 and  0.  this is like a 0 year old child who is jealous because their sibling got a better toy.  they just act out in anyway they can because they are mad.  just like sending the country off a fiscal cliff until they get their way it is another form of a temper tantrum.   #  they do not care what is good for america.   #  if we assume you are correct in saying that they do not care, then why do they vote and why do they hold rallies ?  #  have you ever met a republican ? would you describe them as a 0 year old child throwing a tantrum ? if we assume you are correct in saying that they do not care, then why do they vote and why do they hold rallies ? those things take time and energy.  also can you compare this statistic with a more recent poll ? if not, i will find a more recent statistic myself.  have you considered this ?  #  the people who are against the affordable healthcare act or was it affordable care act ?  # uhm, it is  fundamentally  about that.  the people who are against the affordable healthcare act or was it affordable care act ? i hate  obamacare  as a term think that it is bad.  beyond that, they believe it is illegal and unconstitutional.  just because someone  disagrees with you  on what is good for america does not mean that they do not care about what is good for america.  they might just have some information that you do not, that might give them a valid reason to think that the solution you are proposing is a bad one.  and you might have some information that  they  do not that might give  you  a valid reason to think that the solution is good.  but that is a very ugly accusation to throw around without some very solid proof.   #  how about other controversial laws that are also being currently fought ?  #  in 0 the united states passed doma or defense of marriage act.  this ruling has been upheld in court before and still technically stands as law today.  should gay people stop fighting this ? what about segregation ? please vs ferguson said segregation was legal in 0.  it was not until brown vs board of education over 0 years later that segregation was ruled illegal.  should minorities have just given up because they lost ? how about other controversial laws that are also being currently fought ? sorry people for legal weed, assisted suicide, and against nsa spying, you have lost and should stop fighting this.  now i do not agree with the gop in their fight against this law but if it something they truly feel is worth fighting for because it should be illeagal then they should fight it until they die or is ruled on their favor.   #  they just act out in anyway they can because they are mad.   # then why all the other comments on other issues ? it is actually common sense that the laws would be completely innefective, as seen in other states.  this is an entirely false statistic.  they are opposing  anything and everything with obama is name on it  because they are bitter that he is president.  their obvious voter suppression tactics did not work; he won by both popular vote and electoral vote in both  0 and  0.  this is like a 0 year old child who is jealous because their sibling got a better toy.  they just act out in anyway they can because they are mad.  just like sending the country off a fiscal cliff until they get their way it is another form of a temper tantrum.  you are awfully judgemental about a group you are accusing of being judgemental.   #  you are assuming that republicans do not like obamacare just because it was passed by obama.   #  you are assuming that republicans do not like obamacare just because it was passed by obama.  this is clearly not true.  republicans have many reasons for not liking obamacare.  the  biggest  reason is that it forces individuals to purchase health care.  republicans do not believe that government have the right to mandate such a purchase.  so if a law was passed that goes against republican ideals, why should not they fight it ?
this is not about whether obamacare is good or bad.  fighting against obamacare in 0 is like people who commemorate and re enact that civil war:  the fight is over and you lost  the high court has just upheld obamacare again.  URL the supreme court has now upheld the aca in its entirety twice.  republicans love to use old polls that say most people are against obamacare, but that is false because those polls include people who do not think obamacare went far enough.  republicans who are still  fighting the fight against obamacare  are just like republicans who did not want to pass common sense gun control reform laws that over 0 of americans agree with after the sandy hook massacre.  they do not care what is good for america.  they are opposing  anything and everything with obama is name on it  because they are bitter that he is president.  their obvious voter suppression tactics did not work; he won by both popular vote and electoral vote in both  0 and  0.  this is like a 0 year old child who is jealous because their sibling got a better toy.  they just act out in anyway they can because they are mad.  just like sending the country off a fiscal cliff until they get their way it is another form of a temper tantrum.   #  republicans who are still  fighting the fight against obamacare  are just like republicans who did not want to pass common sense gun control reform laws that over 0 of americans agree with after the sandy hook massacre.   #  one of many of obama is misleading statistics   cough 0 cents cough 0 in 0 rape cough   most democrats do not even go near the gun issue because most americans are for the second amendment.   # one of many of obama is misleading statistics   cough 0 cents cough 0 in 0 rape cough   most democrats do not even go near the gun issue because most americans are for the second amendment.  because expanding illegal immigration, the welfare state, pandering to felons, and using the tax system to punish any semblance of success is  good for america.   or they disagree with his politics.  nah that makes too much sense.  it is because he is black.  or biracial.  no, he is definitely black.  you mean having to prove you are a citizen to vote ? i know black people do not need ids according to democrats, but many countries mandate a voter id, and no one calls them racist for it.  using the irs to prevent conservatives from organizing campaigns probably helped a lot in 0.  btw, nixon did the same thing and he was impeached for it.  a cliff democrat social programs got us into.  projection.  and on obamacare:many people i know who have actually paid for heath insurance have seen their premiums skyrocket and obamacare is not even fully out yet.  i struggle as a college student as it is, and i cannot afford health insurance, yet the liberal answer to that is that i should be  forced  to buy something i ca not afford.  more people have been kicked off of healthcare programs than have been added.  obama made many promises and few of them have come true.  republicans are still fighting this because it is been a trainwreck.  a bill with thousands of pages was passed and no one even read it, so people should be fighting for its repeal for that reason alone, not to mention that fact that the bill is illegal no matter how many times liberal judges say it is not.   #  just because someone  disagrees with you  on what is good for america does not mean that they do not care about what is good for america.   # uhm, it is  fundamentally  about that.  the people who are against the affordable healthcare act or was it affordable care act ? i hate  obamacare  as a term think that it is bad.  beyond that, they believe it is illegal and unconstitutional.  just because someone  disagrees with you  on what is good for america does not mean that they do not care about what is good for america.  they might just have some information that you do not, that might give them a valid reason to think that the solution you are proposing is a bad one.  and you might have some information that  they  do not that might give  you  a valid reason to think that the solution is good.  but that is a very ugly accusation to throw around without some very solid proof.   #  sorry people for legal weed, assisted suicide, and against nsa spying, you have lost and should stop fighting this.   #  in 0 the united states passed doma or defense of marriage act.  this ruling has been upheld in court before and still technically stands as law today.  should gay people stop fighting this ? what about segregation ? please vs ferguson said segregation was legal in 0.  it was not until brown vs board of education over 0 years later that segregation was ruled illegal.  should minorities have just given up because they lost ? how about other controversial laws that are also being currently fought ? sorry people for legal weed, assisted suicide, and against nsa spying, you have lost and should stop fighting this.  now i do not agree with the gop in their fight against this law but if it something they truly feel is worth fighting for because it should be illeagal then they should fight it until they die or is ruled on their favor.   #  then why all the other comments on other issues ?  # then why all the other comments on other issues ? it is actually common sense that the laws would be completely innefective, as seen in other states.  this is an entirely false statistic.  they are opposing  anything and everything with obama is name on it  because they are bitter that he is president.  their obvious voter suppression tactics did not work; he won by both popular vote and electoral vote in both  0 and  0.  this is like a 0 year old child who is jealous because their sibling got a better toy.  they just act out in anyway they can because they are mad.  just like sending the country off a fiscal cliff until they get their way it is another form of a temper tantrum.  you are awfully judgemental about a group you are accusing of being judgemental.   #  republicans have many reasons for not liking obamacare.   #  you are assuming that republicans do not like obamacare just because it was passed by obama.  this is clearly not true.  republicans have many reasons for not liking obamacare.  the  biggest  reason is that it forces individuals to purchase health care.  republicans do not believe that government have the right to mandate such a purchase.  so if a law was passed that goes against republican ideals, why should not they fight it ?
this is not about whether obamacare is good or bad.  fighting against obamacare in 0 is like people who commemorate and re enact that civil war:  the fight is over and you lost  the high court has just upheld obamacare again.  URL the supreme court has now upheld the aca in its entirety twice.  republicans love to use old polls that say most people are against obamacare, but that is false because those polls include people who do not think obamacare went far enough.  republicans who are still  fighting the fight against obamacare  are just like republicans who did not want to pass common sense gun control reform laws that over 0 of americans agree with after the sandy hook massacre.  they do not care what is good for america.  they are opposing  anything and everything with obama is name on it  because they are bitter that he is president.  their obvious voter suppression tactics did not work; he won by both popular vote and electoral vote in both  0 and  0.  this is like a 0 year old child who is jealous because their sibling got a better toy.  they just act out in anyway they can because they are mad.  just like sending the country off a fiscal cliff until they get their way it is another form of a temper tantrum.   #  they do not care what is good for america.   #  because expanding illegal immigration, the welfare state, pandering to felons, and using the tax system to punish any semblance of success is  good for america.    # one of many of obama is misleading statistics   cough 0 cents cough 0 in 0 rape cough   most democrats do not even go near the gun issue because most americans are for the second amendment.  because expanding illegal immigration, the welfare state, pandering to felons, and using the tax system to punish any semblance of success is  good for america.   or they disagree with his politics.  nah that makes too much sense.  it is because he is black.  or biracial.  no, he is definitely black.  you mean having to prove you are a citizen to vote ? i know black people do not need ids according to democrats, but many countries mandate a voter id, and no one calls them racist for it.  using the irs to prevent conservatives from organizing campaigns probably helped a lot in 0.  btw, nixon did the same thing and he was impeached for it.  a cliff democrat social programs got us into.  projection.  and on obamacare:many people i know who have actually paid for heath insurance have seen their premiums skyrocket and obamacare is not even fully out yet.  i struggle as a college student as it is, and i cannot afford health insurance, yet the liberal answer to that is that i should be  forced  to buy something i ca not afford.  more people have been kicked off of healthcare programs than have been added.  obama made many promises and few of them have come true.  republicans are still fighting this because it is been a trainwreck.  a bill with thousands of pages was passed and no one even read it, so people should be fighting for its repeal for that reason alone, not to mention that fact that the bill is illegal no matter how many times liberal judges say it is not.   #  beyond that, they believe it is illegal and unconstitutional.   # uhm, it is  fundamentally  about that.  the people who are against the affordable healthcare act or was it affordable care act ? i hate  obamacare  as a term think that it is bad.  beyond that, they believe it is illegal and unconstitutional.  just because someone  disagrees with you  on what is good for america does not mean that they do not care about what is good for america.  they might just have some information that you do not, that might give them a valid reason to think that the solution you are proposing is a bad one.  and you might have some information that  they  do not that might give  you  a valid reason to think that the solution is good.  but that is a very ugly accusation to throw around without some very solid proof.   #  how about other controversial laws that are also being currently fought ?  #  in 0 the united states passed doma or defense of marriage act.  this ruling has been upheld in court before and still technically stands as law today.  should gay people stop fighting this ? what about segregation ? please vs ferguson said segregation was legal in 0.  it was not until brown vs board of education over 0 years later that segregation was ruled illegal.  should minorities have just given up because they lost ? how about other controversial laws that are also being currently fought ? sorry people for legal weed, assisted suicide, and against nsa spying, you have lost and should stop fighting this.  now i do not agree with the gop in their fight against this law but if it something they truly feel is worth fighting for because it should be illeagal then they should fight it until they die or is ruled on their favor.   #  they just act out in anyway they can because they are mad.   # then why all the other comments on other issues ? it is actually common sense that the laws would be completely innefective, as seen in other states.  this is an entirely false statistic.  they are opposing  anything and everything with obama is name on it  because they are bitter that he is president.  their obvious voter suppression tactics did not work; he won by both popular vote and electoral vote in both  0 and  0.  this is like a 0 year old child who is jealous because their sibling got a better toy.  they just act out in anyway they can because they are mad.  just like sending the country off a fiscal cliff until they get their way it is another form of a temper tantrum.  you are awfully judgemental about a group you are accusing of being judgemental.   #  so if a law was passed that goes against republican ideals, why should not they fight it ?  #  you are assuming that republicans do not like obamacare just because it was passed by obama.  this is clearly not true.  republicans have many reasons for not liking obamacare.  the  biggest  reason is that it forces individuals to purchase health care.  republicans do not believe that government have the right to mandate such a purchase.  so if a law was passed that goes against republican ideals, why should not they fight it ?
this is not about whether obamacare is good or bad.  fighting against obamacare in 0 is like people who commemorate and re enact that civil war:  the fight is over and you lost  the high court has just upheld obamacare again.  URL the supreme court has now upheld the aca in its entirety twice.  republicans love to use old polls that say most people are against obamacare, but that is false because those polls include people who do not think obamacare went far enough.  republicans who are still  fighting the fight against obamacare  are just like republicans who did not want to pass common sense gun control reform laws that over 0 of americans agree with after the sandy hook massacre.  they do not care what is good for america.  they are opposing  anything and everything with obama is name on it  because they are bitter that he is president.  their obvious voter suppression tactics did not work; he won by both popular vote and electoral vote in both  0 and  0.  this is like a 0 year old child who is jealous because their sibling got a better toy.  they just act out in anyway they can because they are mad.  just like sending the country off a fiscal cliff until they get their way it is another form of a temper tantrum.   #  he won by both popular vote and electoral vote in both  0 and  0.   #  using the irs to prevent conservatives from organizing campaigns probably helped a lot in 0.  btw, nixon did the same thing and he was impeached for it.   # one of many of obama is misleading statistics   cough 0 cents cough 0 in 0 rape cough   most democrats do not even go near the gun issue because most americans are for the second amendment.  because expanding illegal immigration, the welfare state, pandering to felons, and using the tax system to punish any semblance of success is  good for america.   or they disagree with his politics.  nah that makes too much sense.  it is because he is black.  or biracial.  no, he is definitely black.  you mean having to prove you are a citizen to vote ? i know black people do not need ids according to democrats, but many countries mandate a voter id, and no one calls them racist for it.  using the irs to prevent conservatives from organizing campaigns probably helped a lot in 0.  btw, nixon did the same thing and he was impeached for it.  a cliff democrat social programs got us into.  projection.  and on obamacare:many people i know who have actually paid for heath insurance have seen their premiums skyrocket and obamacare is not even fully out yet.  i struggle as a college student as it is, and i cannot afford health insurance, yet the liberal answer to that is that i should be  forced  to buy something i ca not afford.  more people have been kicked off of healthcare programs than have been added.  obama made many promises and few of them have come true.  republicans are still fighting this because it is been a trainwreck.  a bill with thousands of pages was passed and no one even read it, so people should be fighting for its repeal for that reason alone, not to mention that fact that the bill is illegal no matter how many times liberal judges say it is not.   #  but that is a very ugly accusation to throw around without some very solid proof.   # uhm, it is  fundamentally  about that.  the people who are against the affordable healthcare act or was it affordable care act ? i hate  obamacare  as a term think that it is bad.  beyond that, they believe it is illegal and unconstitutional.  just because someone  disagrees with you  on what is good for america does not mean that they do not care about what is good for america.  they might just have some information that you do not, that might give them a valid reason to think that the solution you are proposing is a bad one.  and you might have some information that  they  do not that might give  you  a valid reason to think that the solution is good.  but that is a very ugly accusation to throw around without some very solid proof.   #  should minorities have just given up because they lost ?  #  in 0 the united states passed doma or defense of marriage act.  this ruling has been upheld in court before and still technically stands as law today.  should gay people stop fighting this ? what about segregation ? please vs ferguson said segregation was legal in 0.  it was not until brown vs board of education over 0 years later that segregation was ruled illegal.  should minorities have just given up because they lost ? how about other controversial laws that are also being currently fought ? sorry people for legal weed, assisted suicide, and against nsa spying, you have lost and should stop fighting this.  now i do not agree with the gop in their fight against this law but if it something they truly feel is worth fighting for because it should be illeagal then they should fight it until they die or is ruled on their favor.   #  it is actually common sense that the laws would be completely innefective, as seen in other states.   # then why all the other comments on other issues ? it is actually common sense that the laws would be completely innefective, as seen in other states.  this is an entirely false statistic.  they are opposing  anything and everything with obama is name on it  because they are bitter that he is president.  their obvious voter suppression tactics did not work; he won by both popular vote and electoral vote in both  0 and  0.  this is like a 0 year old child who is jealous because their sibling got a better toy.  they just act out in anyway they can because they are mad.  just like sending the country off a fiscal cliff until they get their way it is another form of a temper tantrum.  you are awfully judgemental about a group you are accusing of being judgemental.   #  so if a law was passed that goes against republican ideals, why should not they fight it ?  #  you are assuming that republicans do not like obamacare just because it was passed by obama.  this is clearly not true.  republicans have many reasons for not liking obamacare.  the  biggest  reason is that it forces individuals to purchase health care.  republicans do not believe that government have the right to mandate such a purchase.  so if a law was passed that goes against republican ideals, why should not they fight it ?
the us constitution was written at a time when states believed they needed a check on federal power.  requiring a body that represented all states equally to pass any legislation seemed to preserve those rights.  however, this attitude is mostly archaic today.  representing every state equally allows small states disproportionate power in matters pertaining to the whole country.  why should they be able to block the rest of the country is people from deciding on federal matters ? it is essentially saying that voters in north dakota, vermont and alaska are more important than elsewhere.  if you can find me a purpose for the us senate as an actual decision making body in today is day and age, and not just as a vastly unrepresentative body that has the power to completely kill legislation that most americans support, please cmv.   #  the us constitution was written at a time when states believed they needed a check on federal power.   #  requiring a body that represented all states equally to pass any legislation seemed to preserve those rights.   # requiring a body that represented all states equally to pass any legislation seemed to preserve those rights.  however, this attitude is mostly archaic today.  are you saying that states no longer need a check on federal power ? if that is the case, no wonder you want to disenfranchise the senate.  if that is not what you are saying, then you should realize that the senate is purposefully not representative of population.  the whole point of a bicameral congress is a balance of power between two entities: populace and states.  do you not agree that states also need representation ?  #  small states have a voice in the senate so that the majority in the country does not trample on the rights of the minority.   #  you seem to have a very weird view that preventing tyranny is tyranny.  small states have a voice in the senate so that the majority in the country does not trample on the rights of the minority.  the minority ca not similarly trample the rights of the majority.  all they can do is  prevent  the federal government from taking action, and only if they are sufficiently united in their opposition to the majority position to actually hold a majority in the senate on some one issue.  a bunch of small states  cannot  pass a law.  they can, however, prevent an unjust law by being forced upon them by a tyranny of the majority.  the supreme court ca not help here.  it is job is to interpret the laws and their constitutionality, not their level of tyranny.  the executive is similarly a poor block on the tyranny of the majority.  filibusters are a completely separate problem.  if that is what you are concerned about, i will agree with you on that one.  except where provided by the constitution, all votes in the senate should take place after a reasonable period of deliberation with a straight up and down vote.   #  URL 0.  there is value in having a small legislative body whose membership does not change quickly.   #  0.  it is unreasonable in a republic to expect an elected body to be a rubber stamp.  in as much as they are elected by the people they represent, senators have a duty to exercise their powers to meaningfully represent them.  0.  this is a republic, not a democracy.  the objective is to have governance accountable to the people, not to have the people is will on every issue immediately enacted.  the senate has been a valuable part of good governance in the united states, and there is great benefit in not rushing to pass legislation on the barest of legislative majorities.  0.  the senate is not able to be gerrymandered because of the fixed borders among states.  this is a major problem for how representative house seats are.  for instance in 0, democrats got 0 million more votes for the house than republicans, but more republicans were elected by a large margin.  URL 0.  there is value in having a small legislative body whose membership does not change quickly.  there are a lot of members of the house, which means few of them have much negotiating leverage over bills, and cannot exert influence over leadership.  further, because they are elected every 0 years, they constantly need party support for their next election.  senators have more time in office, and are in a small enough body where their one vote can make a meaningful enough difference to get changes.   #  there are federal district courts that have not once had a full bench in the last 0 years.   #  if the senate were a functioning body and actually confirming appointments, i could see that argument.  however, there are currently 0 vacant federal judicial appointments and the senate is making zero headway at decreasing that number.  appointments sit for months, sometimes years, without a vote because of party politics.  and let is face it judicial appointments should be all about legal experience and scholarship and absolutely not about partisanship.  but the party animals do not see it that way.  ergo, judicial chairs sit empty.  there are federal district courts that have not once had a full bench in the last 0 years.   #  again, there are entire benches that have not been fully filled for decades, not merely months or years.   #  umm, actually, no.  if an appointment is not confirmed, and you have good candidates in the wings, then you will want to save the top candidates in order to put the best candidate in the most important opening.  not all appointments equal.  but, that point aside, it is not a republican versus democrat issue.  w never got any closer in terms of openings.  neither did clinton before him.  again, there are entire benches that have not been fully filled for decades, not merely months or years.  and the issue has been the senate, not which party was in the white house.
disclaimer: this talk of secession may not be present everywhere in the united states, but it is more than prevalent where i live, so i am going off that.  to me, secession is crazy talk.  not only are southern states often some of the most poor the poorest being mississippi , but the united states would have control of the entire military of the united states of america.  that is, well, a lot.  i talked to someone who believed the south should secede and that  we  the south would win because  now the south has all the guns and more than half of the major military bases .  to address this, first of all, it is not as if the military suffers from a chronic lack of arms.  the united states, i am sure, has ways of attaining weapons that it does not already have.  second of all, it does not matter if you have half the major military bases.  first of all, define  major .  second of all, the other side would still have half of them, and a higher population, and more money, and probably the support of many foreign nations because who would want to side with the south, who would seem like backwoods racists .  the south would crumble, just as it did in the 0 is.  cmv.   #  the south would crumble, just as it did in the 0 is.   #  not sure about your question, but this reminds me of something i read URL earlier today.   # not sure about your question, but this reminds me of something i read URL earlier today.  that the south lost because the powers who ran it cared more about slavery than southern independence.  if it were the latter they would have fled to the hills and fought a guerrilla war.  but that would have meant losing the slaves and the big plantation land and such.  instead they surrendered, kept the land, and though slavery ended other systems that recreated much of it stuck around.  there is some info here URL my understanding is they would have all sorts of laws to make black people into criminals, then convict them and sentence them to hard labor on the same plantations as before, which the 0th amendment allows.  anyway, in a fight today, maybe a guerilla war and insurgents would keep the south going, but that stuff did not happen in the 0s.   #  second, it is not as if the south has nothing; they are not just a bunch of poor rednecks living on welfare.   #  first, i think treating the military bases like trucks or houses is too simplistic.  just because a base is in texas does not mean it will stay  loyal  to texas or wo not .  there are a lot of servicepeople from all over the country at most bases; assuming any of them will be unequivocally, or even primarily, loyal to one side of the other seems like a rash assumption.  second, it is not as if the south has nothing; they are not just a bunch of poor rednecks living on welfare.  they have vast amounts of natural resources, oil and natural gas in particular.  they have a big chunk of coastline, some important ports, big airports, all sorts of things.  third, why would you assume other powers would all side with the north ? because of ideological differences ? we were allied with russia, for heaven is sake.  if the south went to china and said  look, help us subjugate the north, and when we are in charge, no more trade restrictions, no more pushing for limits on pollution, and we do not care what you do in asia , what do you think would happen ? fourth, i am not sure how much more money the north has the south is throwing around things like oil and beef and major crops , but the higher population does not mean much unless that population is or quickly can become a standing army.  how many civilians in the north do you think are ready to shoot a man, versus the south ?  #  i mean, they would not or could not get themselves together enough to do anything abut the crimean situation, and the aggressor there was clear.   #  i do not think that europe would get heavily involved.  i mean, they would not or could not get themselves together enough to do anything abut the crimean situation, and the aggressor there was clear.  if the south wanted to leave, who is to say that is not at least somewhat legitimate ? there are separatist movements all over the world.  heck, if i was british, i would call the north just to gloat.   #  but they risk ticking off the other members of the eu.   #  sure, individual nations could.  but they risk ticking off the other members of the eu.  that is one of the reasons they did nothing in crimea; no two nations could agree.  as to how it could be legitimate. for the same reason any separatist movement is legitimate.  for the same reason our treason against the british was legitimate.  because some people feel that it is the right of a people to govern themselves.  if you are willing to set them apart, or recognize them setting themselves apart, that is the first step towards a split.   #  how much hate is  willing to be annihilated just to annihilate them back  level of hate ?  #  how much hate is  willing to be annihilated just to annihilate them back  level of hate ? the soviets and the us never had that  close , very close, but not there.  china and the us never had that for each other, either.  india and pakistan do not have it toward each other.  i have some redneck family members who might hate the north enough to try to nuke them, even if it meant the south also got nuked.  i would never in a million years give them power.  the money in the south is not with the angry rednecks.  it is with the technologists, the industrialists, the oil barons the people who are interested in staying alive.  people with money run the country as a whole; they run each individual state, too.  should not we expect them, not the angry, redneck jihadi types, to have control ?
probably a quite common problem in situations of advice: someone asks you for advice on a personal problem and you decide to give some.  oftentimes such a situation makes you feel superior to the asking person, even if you would be as inconfident about the problem as the asker if it was you asking.  a possible example could be advice on relationships.  for example if something is in the making and one of the involved parties probably a friend of yours asks what you think about it.  most often you will try to encourage the other to just take chance, have a try, give it a shot, just do it ! however at the same time you know, that if it was you in that situation, you would not or at least you would not be so confident about it.  or the other way round, if he/she is complaining all the time and thinking about breaking up, you take a side and either encourage him/her or try to put him/her off that idea.  still, the mere action giving advice equips you with the warm feeling of being in a superior position, not because you have given good advice nobody knows how the situation will turn out but because you were the one being asked.  this not only goes for love related advice, but for any kind of advice.  being in the person asked about something makes you feel better, even if your advice is not worth anything and it being accepted is only dependent on the asker feeling weak.  actually, i feel quite ambiguous about the topic.  while i know that situation very well, i always feel a bit guilty while feeling superior, but at the same time ca not help it, which makes me feel even a little more guilty.   #  and it being accepted is only dependent on the asker feeling weak.   #  i do not even know what that means.   #  sounds like you are arguing in favor of thought crimes.  thoughts and feelings are not wrong and never should be.  acting on them may be though.  arguing that we should intentionally train ourselves to not have positive feelings about having given advice is plain stupid.  as a species i am pretty sure that feeling good about having given advice is one of the biological factors that makes us so prone to forming strong societies in the first place.  i do not even know what that means.  the asker is asking because they are not sure.  taking the advice and acting on it has little to do with weakness.  except if by  weakness  in this case you are talking about them being unsure about their own choices or thoughts on the matter, in which case they are probably still more happy than if they had not gotten any advice.  anyway, /r/changemyview would probably have much less traffic if not for this feeling.   #  it is perfectly alright to feel  superior  when giving this advice only you know, even if in the end the die roles on one of the other 0 sides.   #  hm.  let is say life is like a 0 sided die.  0 of the sides have a 0 on them.  you, after 0 years of experience, have discovered this little secret about life.  a young friend comes up to you and asks which number he should bet on.  you advize him ofc to bet on the 0 since that is the most likely chance.  it is perfectly alright to feel  superior  when giving this advice only you know, even if in the end the die roles on one of the other 0 sides.   #  is it because you are looking down on the person asking because their knowledge/experience does not match up to yours ?  #  i know the feeling you are describing, but i would not use the term  superior .  i feel flattered.  i have been in the position where very senior colleagues, people who have 0  more years experience than myself, have asked me what i would do.  it is not a feeling of superiority i feel, it is extreme flattery.  it is confidence in my knowledge of a topic.  it is feeling flattered that someone with so much more experience and expertise than myself also has faith in my knowledge and opinion.  i think it depends on why you get that feeling of  isuperiority .  is it because you are looking down on the person asking because their knowledge/experience does not match up to yours ? if so, yes you should feel a bit guilty.  or is it because it is not only you that has faith in your knowledge   opinions, but someone else has enough faith in you that they want to hear what you have to say ? there is no need to feel guilty for being proud of learning from your own life experiences and feeling like you have something of value to say.   #  the other person, in the very act of asking for advice, is valuing at least one aspect of your judgment above his own.   #  the other person, in the very act of asking for advice, is valuing at least one aspect of your judgment above his own.  that value may be major experience or minor a third person perspective .  the verdict you place on your mind is judgment is the verdict you place upon your own worth as a human.  if you feel guilty whenever anyone else values your intellect, you have already labeled yourself as worthless.  and the other person might just believe you as i think he will.  why else would someone ask for your advice, unless your judgment were not in some way superior ? if everything your mind has to offer could be easily replicated elsewhere, why use your generic brain as a middleman ? consider the alternatives, and their strange implications.  what if your judgment was equal in value ? then the person asking you for advice is wasting his time and yours, since he has nothing to gain by approaching you.  what if your judgment had a lower value than his ? then he would only approach you out of pity, like a man does when he plays dumb in the presence of children.  are these alternatives fulfilling to you ? are they fulfilling to the person asking your advice ? you are right in that it would be foolish to give advice as if your judgment were superior in all circumstances beyond the context of the present situation.  you are wrong in implying that advice should be given as if your judgment should not be superior in any circumstance whatsoever.  the wisdom is knowing your role that is, knowing what capacity your advice carries value to the person asking for it.  and you should feel damn proud of that, because the value of our intellect is about the only thing that qualifies as an actual achievement in our life.   #  she asked my advice because she sucks at logical decisions and is very not smart overall.   #  it feels good to feel better than other people.  your feeling good about yourself, or even judging others poorly should not have any negative effects at all as long as you do not act on them.  i was just asked for advice the other day from someone older and more experienced than me.  she asked my advice because she sucks at logical decisions and is very not smart overall.  yes i feel superior to her, but i am friendly and told her how i would do it if u were in her situation in a very nice way.
hi all, so someone just posted a video on my fb feed about the yulin dog meat festival URL it is horrifying.  for the purpose of this cmv, let is forget about how it is done the way they get the dogs, they treat them.  etc.  and concentrate  only  on the dog meat eating part.  i love dogs, and yes, i find it horrifying that other cultures eat them.  however, i also understand that for other cultures, it is horrifying to see us eat beef or pork.  in my opinion, the only situation where you are allowed to complain is if you are talking about eating animal meat in general.  but if you enjoy eating a good steak, then it is hypocritical to criticize others for eating what they consider is  just meat .  again, i am stressing the fact that this is not about the  animal cruelty  part.  it is just about the meat eating.  for the sake of this cmv, let is suppose that the animals are bred and slaughtered in the most humane possible way.  so.  cmv  #  however, i also understand that for other cultures, it is horrifying to see us eat beef or pork.   #  it is, but not for the same reasons.   #  you used the example of cows in india, so i will use that to illustrate something.  eating dogs is seen as disgusting in the west because of the emotional attachment to the animals as friends.  cows, on the other hand, are held sacred in hindus culture.  in islam, pigs are seen as too disgusting to eat.  it is, but not for the same reasons.  you criticize people for eating animals which you view as too  intelligent  to be mercilessly slaughtered for food.  most other cultures prohibitions on meats are due to  superstition .  while defending dogs for their intelligence compared to other animals as intelligence should be no measure of value of life is admittedly myopic, considering the host of superstitious reasons other cultures employ, it is not  as  hypocritical as the reasons used by most others.   #  is our culture just more ethical than chinese culture on this issue ?  #  also, predation requires more intelligence than grazing does.  wolves plan attacks and use group tactics, which suggests a level of consciousness that cows do not seem to have.  if capacity for suffering increases as this sort of intelligence increases, which sounds reasonable to me, wolves would therefore be capable of experiencing more suffering than cows.  i think we tend to anthropomorphize carnivores more readily than we do herbivores, which relates to this idea about intelligence and also your observation about which animals we get upset over.  is our culture just more ethical than chinese culture on this issue ?  #  it just means you would need to look at the ethics of child sacrifice from within the context of mayan ethics rather than from within the context of your own.   # you could not say that we are more ethical than the mayans were on the issue of child sacrifice.  this is really an unanswerable tangent, though.  it just means you would need to look at the ethics of child sacrifice from within the context of mayan ethics rather than from within the context of your own.  if you are trying to determine if the mayans were more ethical than us when it comes to child sacrifice.  even if you determine the mayans were more ethical, you are still free to make a separate moral judgement that the practice of child sacrifice is horrific and presumably work to improve the ethical lapses of your culture that you have identified by the exercise .  or you may be able to demonstrate factual inaccuracies in their reasoning, thereby showing that while the mayan ethics of child sacrifice are internally consistent, they are ultimately unethical due to bad axioms.  it is not unanswerable, it is just most people get really squicked out about the requirement to honestly accept that something you find abhorrent might be a perfectly reasonable practice or that something your culture considers morally acceptable might be unjustifiable .  it is a weird way of thinking through things.   #  because i really ca not think of any that is commonly eaten keeping in mind that absolutely everything that moves can be found to be eaten by some small group of some culture somewhere in the world .   #  what carnivore hunting game are you thinking of ? because i really ca not think of any that is commonly eaten keeping in mind that absolutely everything that moves can be found to be eaten by some small group of some culture somewhere in the world .  the rule of thumb is that not only is it quite inefficient to breed carnivores for food, but their meat presents many issues, compared to herbivores: the general protein composition of tissues from carnivorous animals is very different from that of herbivores and generally not particularly nutritious more fibrous, less fatty etc .  carnivores, by virtue of sitting higher in the food chain and often being apex predators, as is the case for cats or dogs present much greater risk of bioaccumulation URL beside toxin accumulation, the risk of parasite is also much greater.  in fact, most large carnivores in the wild are pretty much guaranteed to be infected with parasites, which would in turn infect any predator that would feed on them.  parasites are generally considered the main underlying reason for most food taboos URL in particular against carnivores in ancient religions.  granted, these are most likely not the  actual  reasons people have in mind when they voice their opposition to other cultures  consumption of domestic pets, but they are good enough reasons to discourage such consumption in general.  eating fish does not technically make an animal  carnivore , but  piscivore .  the semantics are important here, because they are tied with some strong biological differences mammal tissues and fish tissues are completely different things: digesting them also is .  bears are generally omnivore, rarely carnivore and their consumption is overall anecdotal these days, barely above that of dogs in central asia .  inuit diet goes against some of the above rules of thumb, but it is entirely driven by necessity and absence of alternatives, so not a great example.  its strong imbalance absence of carbs also has seems to have a non negligible effect URL on the human body.   #  most species are omnivores, with some leaning strongly toward the herbivore.   #  the same way animals that eat insects are generally not called  carnivores , the preferred term for animals that eat fish is  piscivore  URL not carnivore.  semantics aside, there is a  huge  difference at the physiological level.  for the sake of conversation, i think we are better off excluding fish/piscivores from the conversation.  similarly, bears are not particularly carnivorous.  most species are omnivores, with some leaning strongly toward the herbivore.  the smaller species of bear that are typically eaten in some cultures definitely tend to be of the latter and even then, their consumption is not what i would call  common  .
each javelin round costs about $0,0, and the idea that it is fired by a guy who does not make that in a year, at a guy who does not make that in his lifetime is somehow so outrageous that it almost makes this war seem winnable  sebastian junger the us military budget URL for both 0 and 0 was around $0 billion $0,0,0,0 .  this money is wasted on overpriced training, equipment and massacres for a war that is helping no one.  the  earth is 0th big extinction event  scare is doing the rounds and regardless of its scientific legitimacy, there is little doubt that the world is on a course for annihilation.  however, i would argue that the world is not doomed and could be brought back to a state of balance more or less with the right funding in areas such as sustainable energy, global education and environmental rehabilitation.  unfortunately that funding is going towards america is collosal erection for blowing brown people up.   #  the  earth is 0th big extinction event  scare is doing the rounds and regardless of its scientific legitimacy, there is little doubt that the world is on a course for annihilation.   #  this is an odd way of phrasing this.   # this is an odd way of phrasing this.  the holocene extinction is both well supported by the available evidence and the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community.  i am a biologist and a lot of my conservation biologist buddies study various endangered species.  i have never heard of any serious doubt being cast on the legitimacy of the holocene extinction.  your following phrase that the world is on a course for annihilation is what i would be more careful with.   #  hell, we are the 0th highest tax rate in the world, but people want social programs like they have in france/sweden/uk/etc, where they pay far higher taxes, and are within the top 0 highest tax rates in the world.   #  honestly, the problem is not the dod is funding.  as you can see here URL per percentages based off the gdp, dod funding is at its lowest since pre wwii.  it is just expensive, because the cost of living in america is expensive, so our troops get paid 0 times as much as their chinese counterpart.  imagine trying to recruit  anyone  into the army, with a $0 a month salary like they have in china.  not gonna happen.  plus, because it costs more to live in the us, manufacturing costs more, meaning that hardware those soldiers are using is going to cost more than an equivilent system in china or russia.  that is just the sad reality of it.  the problem is, people want more government programs, while at the same time refusing to give up more in taxes.  they effectively want to have their cake, and eat it too.  which we all know is not possible.  us  taxes are already some of the lowest in the western world.  hell, we are the 0th highest tax rate in the world, but people want social programs like they have in france/sweden/uk/etc, where they pay far higher taxes, and are within the top 0 highest tax rates in the world.  just look here URL to see how us tax rates compare to other countries.  see which ones are on the left ? france, germany, denmark, netherland, sweden, norway, etc.  see how much more they pay in taxes ? we could have all those nice social programs, if people wanted to pay more taxes, but people are greedy, and do not want to give up anymore of their money.  plus, us military actually does  a lot  of relief work that would be virtually impossible otherwise.  operation unified assistance to the 0 tsunami saw an entire carrier group, an amphibious assault group, and a hospital ship sent there.  that equated to some 0 hospital beds, 0,0 gallons of fresh water a day, and over 0 tons of supplies and medical gear.  operation unified response, aka the 0 haiti earthquake.  us military sent some 0,0 tons of supplies in comparison, france is military delivered 0 tons of supplies , transported over 0,0 dedicated non military support members, usaf personell re established haiti is atc air traffic control and directed some 0 flights in under 0 days.  they were averaging a flight every 0 minutes, and they got there and had it back up and running within 0 hours of the earthquake.  that is not something that can just spring up overnight, but the us military made it happen, because it had the ability to.   #  where do we draw the line between a war that is necessary and one that is not ?  # are  all  wars unnecessary ? where do we draw the line between a war that is necessary and one that is not ? can we just sit back and watch hitler wipe entire ethnic groups ? where do we draw the line between hitler, saddam and isis ? i wish i had answers to all these questions.  yet people dismiss them so easily, and i am afraid it is not because they have the answers, but because they are uncomfortable to acknowledge these questions exist.   #  i am a fan of cutting it, but the whole thing ?  #  the entire budget ? i am a fan of cutting it, but the whole thing ? what will happen to the military support we provide to allies looking at israel, here ? what of the many, many jobs provided by defense contractors; do we give those people two weeks notice and a boot ? what of the servicepeople ? the entire towns built around and dependent on bases ? to say nothing of the fact that we would last about a minute and a half on the world stage without a military.  do you really think no one would come for us ?  #  so, stabilizing the middle east and ensuring the rest of the world plays more or less nice is vital to maintaining the current american lifestyle.   #  i see this sort of mindset a lot.   just protect our citizens from being attacked, no reason for troops to go overseas.   this is an isolationist viewpoint that wo not work in the current global economic climate.  our economy and well being is critically integrated with the rest of the world is economy.  without chinese buyers/manufacturers, without oil from other countries, without european involvement, the us as we see it would cease to exist.  our way of life would change drastically.  so, stabilizing the middle east and ensuring the rest of the world plays more or less nice is vital to maintaining the current american lifestyle.
each javelin round costs about $0,0, and the idea that it is fired by a guy who does not make that in a year, at a guy who does not make that in his lifetime is somehow so outrageous that it almost makes this war seem winnable  sebastian junger the us military budget URL for both 0 and 0 was around $0 billion $0,0,0,0 .  this money is wasted on overpriced training, equipment and massacres for a war that is helping no one.  the  earth is 0th big extinction event  scare is doing the rounds and regardless of its scientific legitimacy, there is little doubt that the world is on a course for annihilation.  however, i would argue that the world is not doomed and could be brought back to a state of balance more or less with the right funding in areas such as sustainable energy, global education and environmental rehabilitation.  unfortunately that funding is going towards america is collosal erection for blowing brown people up.   #  however, i would argue that the world is not doomed and could be brought back to a state of balance more or less with the right funding in areas such as sustainable energy, global education and environmental rehabilitation.   #  sounds like the kind of funding that the dod gives out to darpa.   # our training is the best.  period.  how is it overpriced ? war equipment is expensive, but you know what is more expensive ? ongoing wars.  fucks everything up.  no trade, no commerce.  much more costly.  war that helps no one ? debatable, but given the us  role in global politics, unfortunately necessary.  sounds like the kind of funding that the dod gives out to darpa.  as much as you may wish, the meat and potatoes of research and development takes time, and a lot less money than you might imagine.  not only that, but military research trickles down into the civilian markets quite rapidly.  the us military is extremely keen on sustainable energy, reduction in reliance on fossil fuels, as well as maintaining the environment.  but probably more important than that, is the us military is role in keeping the peace.  and the reality is that we are relied upon, globally, as peace keepers.  but to do that takes an extensive military, and an elite, highly trained military that is second to none is expensive.   #  as you can see here URL per percentages based off the gdp, dod funding is at its lowest since pre wwii.   #  honestly, the problem is not the dod is funding.  as you can see here URL per percentages based off the gdp, dod funding is at its lowest since pre wwii.  it is just expensive, because the cost of living in america is expensive, so our troops get paid 0 times as much as their chinese counterpart.  imagine trying to recruit  anyone  into the army, with a $0 a month salary like they have in china.  not gonna happen.  plus, because it costs more to live in the us, manufacturing costs more, meaning that hardware those soldiers are using is going to cost more than an equivilent system in china or russia.  that is just the sad reality of it.  the problem is, people want more government programs, while at the same time refusing to give up more in taxes.  they effectively want to have their cake, and eat it too.  which we all know is not possible.  us  taxes are already some of the lowest in the western world.  hell, we are the 0th highest tax rate in the world, but people want social programs like they have in france/sweden/uk/etc, where they pay far higher taxes, and are within the top 0 highest tax rates in the world.  just look here URL to see how us tax rates compare to other countries.  see which ones are on the left ? france, germany, denmark, netherland, sweden, norway, etc.  see how much more they pay in taxes ? we could have all those nice social programs, if people wanted to pay more taxes, but people are greedy, and do not want to give up anymore of their money.  plus, us military actually does  a lot  of relief work that would be virtually impossible otherwise.  operation unified assistance to the 0 tsunami saw an entire carrier group, an amphibious assault group, and a hospital ship sent there.  that equated to some 0 hospital beds, 0,0 gallons of fresh water a day, and over 0 tons of supplies and medical gear.  operation unified response, aka the 0 haiti earthquake.  us military sent some 0,0 tons of supplies in comparison, france is military delivered 0 tons of supplies , transported over 0,0 dedicated non military support members, usaf personell re established haiti is atc air traffic control and directed some 0 flights in under 0 days.  they were averaging a flight every 0 minutes, and they got there and had it back up and running within 0 hours of the earthquake.  that is not something that can just spring up overnight, but the us military made it happen, because it had the ability to.   #  your following phrase that the world is on a course for annihilation is what i would be more careful with.   # this is an odd way of phrasing this.  the holocene extinction is both well supported by the available evidence and the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community.  i am a biologist and a lot of my conservation biologist buddies study various endangered species.  i have never heard of any serious doubt being cast on the legitimacy of the holocene extinction.  your following phrase that the world is on a course for annihilation is what i would be more careful with.   #  i wish i had answers to all these questions.   # are  all  wars unnecessary ? where do we draw the line between a war that is necessary and one that is not ? can we just sit back and watch hitler wipe entire ethnic groups ? where do we draw the line between hitler, saddam and isis ? i wish i had answers to all these questions.  yet people dismiss them so easily, and i am afraid it is not because they have the answers, but because they are uncomfortable to acknowledge these questions exist.   #  i am a fan of cutting it, but the whole thing ?  #  the entire budget ? i am a fan of cutting it, but the whole thing ? what will happen to the military support we provide to allies looking at israel, here ? what of the many, many jobs provided by defense contractors; do we give those people two weeks notice and a boot ? what of the servicepeople ? the entire towns built around and dependent on bases ? to say nothing of the fact that we would last about a minute and a half on the world stage without a military.  do you really think no one would come for us ?
i do not date, nor do i have any intention of pursuing any romantic relationship or marriage.  i am mentally unable to do these things because i view the concept of love as something akin to a fable you might tell a child to teach a concept or lesson.  i believe what we call love was invented to give justification or more noble purpose to survival behaviors.  namely reproduction sex and herd mentality.  reproduction of course ensures propagation of the species, but couples or families sticking together mirrors herds found in the wild where crowding together increases chances for survival.  this is also supported by research where married couples have lower premature mortality URL all well and good.  i like surviving ! i am sure darwin was a fan of love.  all i can see is the survival benefits of love and not much else.  i feel like i have deconstructed love in my mind and now i ca not put it back together.  kinda like how if you ever saw how hot dogs are made, you would never want to eat them.  i do not know if any of this makes sense, but i am open to other points of view.   #  all i can see is the survival benefits of love and not much else.   #  this is what my colleagues and i call, the angsty teen view of evolution.   #  biologist here/phd candidate see post history for verification .  this is what my colleagues and i call, the angsty teen view of evolution.  we get at least one student in any class where we cover behavior who uses phrases like this.  i am not trying to make fun of you but they become the laughing stock of the classroom rather quickly.  throwing phrases like  nothing more  at the end of a sentence does not make the aforementioned bit seem any less awesome, beautiful, complex, etc.  basically what you are saying is, a complicated and powerful emotion associated with the bond shared between people, is the result of a complex history of biological evolution that stretches backwards in time  billions  of years.  this emotion has provided our ancestors and contemporary species with a potent selective advantage, giving life to future generations in this several billion year long chain of living, evolving organisms.  oh and nothing more.  does not the nothing more seem kind of silly at the end ?  #  the thing is, our culture has added so many options to this  phone  sticking with the metaphor that we  need  a 0 gigapixel camera, gps, and streaming radio.   #  no it does not.  your post makes me question if i conveyed my conundrum effectively.  i fully appreciate the evolutionary history of our species, but that is not really my issue.  lets call love an evolutionary  tool  for enhancing survival.  lets say for my example that this tool is a cell phone, with the sole purpose to make a phone call.  i am over simplifying things, but as long as our  phone  performs that one function, that is all we need to get by.  the thing is, our culture has added so many options to this  phone  sticking with the metaphor that we  need  a 0 gigapixel camera, gps, and streaming radio.  no longer is that one important function what the phone is used for.  to me, that is what love has become.  it has all of these things that have been added to it that in my opinion are extraneous nothing more to the base function survival .   #  it might be a bunch of pageantry and posturing, but you should appreciate love, not for the purpose that it was evolved for, but for the deep satisfaction that can be achieved from it.   #  i think he is trying to draw a comparison between love and food.  the basic nutrients for surviving are pretty bland, but we have built all this complexity around food so that we can further enjoy it.  you can go out and explore various flavors and textures and discover what pleases you best.  similarly with love, you can go out and explore and figure out what type of romantic partner best suits you.  it might be a bunch of pageantry and posturing, but you should appreciate love, not for the purpose that it was evolved for, but for the deep satisfaction that can be achieved from it.   #  your last sentence there also seems a little anti gay rights though i am sure that was not your intention.   # such as ? i mean, i do not see the problem here.  are you saying that any love that is not specifically utilized for reproduction is somehow  wrong ?   human behavior or really lots of different animal species  behaviors are vastly more complicated than that.  your last sentence there also seems a little anti gay rights though i am sure that was not your intention.  it is something you might want to ask yourself about when pondering your view.  there is a reason for the flexibility and complexity of any emotion, behavior, or physical phenotype.  variability brings adaptability.  if we were not genetically variable and therefore variable in phenotype we would be in quite the evolutionary pickle.   #  i never said that love not used for reproduction is wrong.   #  such as concepts of love at first sight, valentines day, destined love, unending love, etc.  i am not arguing that these concepts do not play roles in mate selection.  i am arguing that those and similar additions to the base function once again, survival cloud love is evolutionary purpose and result in some cultural views that love is some mystical or providential force.  this in my opinion fairy tale viewpoint is frustrating as someone else pointed out, i am a reductionist.  probably to a fault.  as such, i have come to reject love for its both evolutionary virtues on behalf of some of it is more spiritual connotations.  i never said that love not used for reproduction is wrong.  i am not sure where that idea came from.  it was not my intention to have my post appear to be anti gay, i apologize if for whatever reason you interpreted something i wrote to be in that spirit.  it is frustrating to me if you believe that is my stance.
i do not date, nor do i have any intention of pursuing any romantic relationship or marriage.  i am mentally unable to do these things because i view the concept of love as something akin to a fable you might tell a child to teach a concept or lesson.  i believe what we call love was invented to give justification or more noble purpose to survival behaviors.  namely reproduction sex and herd mentality.  reproduction of course ensures propagation of the species, but couples or families sticking together mirrors herds found in the wild where crowding together increases chances for survival.  this is also supported by research where married couples have lower premature mortality URL all well and good.  i like surviving ! i am sure darwin was a fan of love.  all i can see is the survival benefits of love and not much else.  i feel like i have deconstructed love in my mind and now i ca not put it back together.  kinda like how if you ever saw how hot dogs are made, you would never want to eat them.  i do not know if any of this makes sense, but i am open to other points of view.   #  i believe what we call love was invented to give justification or more noble purpose to survival behaviors.   #  i actually throw a couple of phrases like those up on a slide during lectures i give on evolution of behaviors in social species as cringe worthy statements that students should stay away from.   # but if you use your rationale for rejecting love should not you reject presents ? well, i do not think you are absurd but your view certainly is.  you are using phrases that  would  get you laughed at by your professor in an evolutionary biology or animal/human behavior course.  take these phrases you use in the op for example.  i actually throw a couple of phrases like those up on a slide during lectures i give on evolution of behaviors in social species as cringe worthy statements that students should stay away from.   #  i am not trying to make fun of you but they become the laughing stock of the classroom rather quickly.   #  biologist here/phd candidate see post history for verification .  this is what my colleagues and i call, the angsty teen view of evolution.  we get at least one student in any class where we cover behavior who uses phrases like this.  i am not trying to make fun of you but they become the laughing stock of the classroom rather quickly.  throwing phrases like  nothing more  at the end of a sentence does not make the aforementioned bit seem any less awesome, beautiful, complex, etc.  basically what you are saying is, a complicated and powerful emotion associated with the bond shared between people, is the result of a complex history of biological evolution that stretches backwards in time  billions  of years.  this emotion has provided our ancestors and contemporary species with a potent selective advantage, giving life to future generations in this several billion year long chain of living, evolving organisms.  oh and nothing more.  does not the nothing more seem kind of silly at the end ?  #  lets say for my example that this tool is a cell phone, with the sole purpose to make a phone call.   #  no it does not.  your post makes me question if i conveyed my conundrum effectively.  i fully appreciate the evolutionary history of our species, but that is not really my issue.  lets call love an evolutionary  tool  for enhancing survival.  lets say for my example that this tool is a cell phone, with the sole purpose to make a phone call.  i am over simplifying things, but as long as our  phone  performs that one function, that is all we need to get by.  the thing is, our culture has added so many options to this  phone  sticking with the metaphor that we  need  a 0 gigapixel camera, gps, and streaming radio.  no longer is that one important function what the phone is used for.  to me, that is what love has become.  it has all of these things that have been added to it that in my opinion are extraneous nothing more to the base function survival .   #  similarly with love, you can go out and explore and figure out what type of romantic partner best suits you.   #  i think he is trying to draw a comparison between love and food.  the basic nutrients for surviving are pretty bland, but we have built all this complexity around food so that we can further enjoy it.  you can go out and explore various flavors and textures and discover what pleases you best.  similarly with love, you can go out and explore and figure out what type of romantic partner best suits you.  it might be a bunch of pageantry and posturing, but you should appreciate love, not for the purpose that it was evolved for, but for the deep satisfaction that can be achieved from it.   #  your last sentence there also seems a little anti gay rights though i am sure that was not your intention.   # such as ? i mean, i do not see the problem here.  are you saying that any love that is not specifically utilized for reproduction is somehow  wrong ?   human behavior or really lots of different animal species  behaviors are vastly more complicated than that.  your last sentence there also seems a little anti gay rights though i am sure that was not your intention.  it is something you might want to ask yourself about when pondering your view.  there is a reason for the flexibility and complexity of any emotion, behavior, or physical phenotype.  variability brings adaptability.  if we were not genetically variable and therefore variable in phenotype we would be in quite the evolutionary pickle.
i do not date, nor do i have any intention of pursuing any romantic relationship or marriage.  i am mentally unable to do these things because i view the concept of love as something akin to a fable you might tell a child to teach a concept or lesson.  i believe what we call love was invented to give justification or more noble purpose to survival behaviors.  namely reproduction sex and herd mentality.  reproduction of course ensures propagation of the species, but couples or families sticking together mirrors herds found in the wild where crowding together increases chances for survival.  this is also supported by research where married couples have lower premature mortality URL all well and good.  i like surviving ! i am sure darwin was a fan of love.  all i can see is the survival benefits of love and not much else.  i feel like i have deconstructed love in my mind and now i ca not put it back together.  kinda like how if you ever saw how hot dogs are made, you would never want to eat them.  i do not know if any of this makes sense, but i am open to other points of view.   #  i do not date, nor do i have any intention of pursuing any romantic relationship or marriage.   #  then how can you know what youre talking about ?  #  nothing is  inherently meaningful  and everything is a means to an end in this universe.  youre attributing meaning and value to a reductionist and nihilistic opinion, and assuming it has some sort of objective truth behind it.  yes, love is an evolutionary mechanism.  but that does not mean thats all it is and you have no reason to believe thats all it is beyond subjective opinion.  then how can you know what youre talking about ? namely reproduction sex and herd mentality.  and flowers exist for reductive scientific purposes as part of the local ecosystem but most importantly to me and most people they inspire beauty and make up a small chunk of why it is we enjoy being alive.   #  i am not trying to make fun of you but they become the laughing stock of the classroom rather quickly.   #  biologist here/phd candidate see post history for verification .  this is what my colleagues and i call, the angsty teen view of evolution.  we get at least one student in any class where we cover behavior who uses phrases like this.  i am not trying to make fun of you but they become the laughing stock of the classroom rather quickly.  throwing phrases like  nothing more  at the end of a sentence does not make the aforementioned bit seem any less awesome, beautiful, complex, etc.  basically what you are saying is, a complicated and powerful emotion associated with the bond shared between people, is the result of a complex history of biological evolution that stretches backwards in time  billions  of years.  this emotion has provided our ancestors and contemporary species with a potent selective advantage, giving life to future generations in this several billion year long chain of living, evolving organisms.  oh and nothing more.  does not the nothing more seem kind of silly at the end ?  #  no longer is that one important function what the phone is used for.   #  no it does not.  your post makes me question if i conveyed my conundrum effectively.  i fully appreciate the evolutionary history of our species, but that is not really my issue.  lets call love an evolutionary  tool  for enhancing survival.  lets say for my example that this tool is a cell phone, with the sole purpose to make a phone call.  i am over simplifying things, but as long as our  phone  performs that one function, that is all we need to get by.  the thing is, our culture has added so many options to this  phone  sticking with the metaphor that we  need  a 0 gigapixel camera, gps, and streaming radio.  no longer is that one important function what the phone is used for.  to me, that is what love has become.  it has all of these things that have been added to it that in my opinion are extraneous nothing more to the base function survival .   #  you can go out and explore various flavors and textures and discover what pleases you best.   #  i think he is trying to draw a comparison between love and food.  the basic nutrients for surviving are pretty bland, but we have built all this complexity around food so that we can further enjoy it.  you can go out and explore various flavors and textures and discover what pleases you best.  similarly with love, you can go out and explore and figure out what type of romantic partner best suits you.  it might be a bunch of pageantry and posturing, but you should appreciate love, not for the purpose that it was evolved for, but for the deep satisfaction that can be achieved from it.   #  it is something you might want to ask yourself about when pondering your view.   # such as ? i mean, i do not see the problem here.  are you saying that any love that is not specifically utilized for reproduction is somehow  wrong ?   human behavior or really lots of different animal species  behaviors are vastly more complicated than that.  your last sentence there also seems a little anti gay rights though i am sure that was not your intention.  it is something you might want to ask yourself about when pondering your view.  there is a reason for the flexibility and complexity of any emotion, behavior, or physical phenotype.  variability brings adaptability.  if we were not genetically variable and therefore variable in phenotype we would be in quite the evolutionary pickle.
i attribute my agnosticism to this very theory.  looking at the big bang from a purely scientific perspective, we know, or think we know, that there was absolutely nothing in our universe before the big bang.  now of course this nothingness is incomprehensible and even typing this it boggles my mind, but science is explanation is that nothingness caused the big bang.  now there are several theories to this, such as somehow two universes rubbing or colliding together which sparked the event.  i am no scientist and i am sure people will correct me please do , but the point is we really do not know how the big bang formed from what we consider to be nothing.  i tend to think, though, that some conscious entity had to be the catalyst that caused the event.  it would seem that if there was nothing in our universe, some extra dimensional being from another universe would have had to insert itself into ours, which sparked the event known as the big bang.  i believe the being to be conscious because of the intentional way in which our universe seemed to form, and life sprung up.  this begins to err on the side of intelligent design, but i do believe human beings, our consciousness, feelings, empathy, etc, have to be attributed to something higher.  i believe that entity to be god.  not necessarily in the christian sense, or even that this being is benevolent, but that is my theory.  change my view.   #  we really do not know how the big bang formed from what we consider to be nothing.   #  so it does not follow that:  i believe that force or entity to be god. that is my theory your chain of logic does not hold.   # this is not true.  the big bang singularity caused the big bang.  the singularity was a demensionless point with infinite density.  that is not nothing.  so it does not follow that:  i believe that force or entity to be god. that is my theory your chain of logic does not hold.   #  conclusion: the initial moment in time was not caused.   #  op, you are using  big bang  to mean the initial moment in time.  in that case, the following syllogism proves that the big bang was uncaused: premise 0: something is caused if it is the consequence of some prior event.  premise 0: there are no events prior to the initial moment in time.  conclusion: the initial moment in time was not caused.  since the big bang was uncaused, there is no need for a god.  asking what happened before the big bang is like asking what is north of the north pole; both questions are semantically null.   #  if no, then the entity needs a creator.   #  time begins at the big bang, so things did not exist before it; there was no before.  more centrally to your philosophy: you ca not accept the universe began by itself/has no beginning, so you need a previous entity to create it.  can you accept that the entity began by itself/has no beginning ? if yes, then why ca not you accept the same of the universe ? if no, then the entity needs a creator.  can you accept the same of that creator ? if yes, see above.  if no, see above.   #  since premises 0 and 0 are true, so too is the conclusion.   #  let is try this again, but replace  initial moment in time  with  big bang.   premise 0: something is caused if it is the consequence of some prior event.  premise 0: there are no events prior to the big bang.  conclusion: the big bang was not caused.  premise 0 is self evident, but i could get into a rigorous proof if you are interested.  premise 0 is true because time literally began with the big bang; thus, there is no  before  the big bang.  since premises 0 and 0 are true, so too is the conclusion.  thus, no need for a god.   #  i believe unequivocally in evolution, and that is how we formed on earth.   #  of course i realize that there are plenty of things we cannot explain through science, and may never be able to explain, which is honestly the impetus for the post.  and i agree to an extent that simply because we do not understand something, god should not be the go to to help us understand.  but there are many other mitigating factors i have referenced above that seem, not scientifically to be sure, but seem to indicate some kind of intelligent design.  i believe unequivocally in evolution, and that is how we formed on earth.  but i do not think science explains the complexity of our consciousness, intelligence, feelings, empathy, love, etc, that make me wonder if some higher consciousness instilled these traits within us.  this obviously ca not really be argued well, and i already know what your response will be, but that is part of my belief.  this extends further than my sheer perplexity of the big bang just  occurring  with seemingly no root cause.
i attribute my agnosticism to this very theory.  looking at the big bang from a purely scientific perspective, we know, or think we know, that there was absolutely nothing in our universe before the big bang.  now of course this nothingness is incomprehensible and even typing this it boggles my mind, but science is explanation is that nothingness caused the big bang.  now there are several theories to this, such as somehow two universes rubbing or colliding together which sparked the event.  i am no scientist and i am sure people will correct me please do , but the point is we really do not know how the big bang formed from what we consider to be nothing.  i tend to think, though, that some conscious entity had to be the catalyst that caused the event.  it would seem that if there was nothing in our universe, some extra dimensional being from another universe would have had to insert itself into ours, which sparked the event known as the big bang.  i believe the being to be conscious because of the intentional way in which our universe seemed to form, and life sprung up.  this begins to err on the side of intelligent design, but i do believe human beings, our consciousness, feelings, empathy, etc, have to be attributed to something higher.  i believe that entity to be god.  not necessarily in the christian sense, or even that this being is benevolent, but that is my theory.  change my view.   #  but i do believe human beings, our consciousness, feelings, empathy, etc, have to be attributed to something higher.   #  it is difficult to imagine how that could not be the case.   # that is wrong.  science does not offer an explanation for what caused the big bang, because that information is not available.  science remains  agnostic , and will remain that way for as long as it needs to.  science is about the frontier of knowledge, to do science is to accept that there is knowledge beyond the frontier that is not yet accessible.  that is why science is infinitely patient.  this is called the watchmaker argument.  if one found a watch, with gears and hands and all, ticking away in the desert, they would assume that an intelligent creator must have dropped it there.  a watch is not likely to form naturally.  similarly, a person is a complex and intricate thing.  finding a person, the reasoning goes, and assuming that it was created by natural forces rather than an intelligent designer, would be just as foolish as assuming the same of a watch.  however, there is a problem.  we have only pushed the question of  how did such a complex and intricate thing come to be ?   back one space.  we do not have an explanation for the watch, so we assume a person put it there.  we do not have an explanation for the person, so we assume a god put him there.  but where is our explanation for god ? god must, afterall, be very complex and intricate, just as a person is yet more intricate than a mechanical watch.  adding in god does not explain anything.  all of the problems we had before we added god, remain.  it just pushes the question back one level.  it is difficult to imagine how that could not be the case.  but we know from science that human intuition is not always a good tool for understanding reality.  i challenge you to examine the gradient of life, and ask, where exactly is intelligent design required, and where is it not ? most feel that intelligent design is not required to explain, eg, a pebble or a stone.  what about a self replicating molecule ? we can make those in the lab.  what about a virus ? not alive, by most definitions, but more than a rock.  as we move up in this manner, through cells, plants, dogs and dolphins, and finally humans, where exactly does intelligent design become necessary to explain what we observe ? i urge you to consider the possibility that your intuition has simply failed you.  failed to equip you, to understand evolutionary timescales, to understand what  billions  of years means.  failed to imagine the complexity of these systems.  our intuition did not develop for these problems.  i argue, we personify the universe because of our limited intuition.  we think that the universe must be like us, intelligent, purposeful, to produce results like these, because we have trouble imagining anything beyond that.   #  since the big bang was uncaused, there is no need for a god.   #  op, you are using  big bang  to mean the initial moment in time.  in that case, the following syllogism proves that the big bang was uncaused: premise 0: something is caused if it is the consequence of some prior event.  premise 0: there are no events prior to the initial moment in time.  conclusion: the initial moment in time was not caused.  since the big bang was uncaused, there is no need for a god.  asking what happened before the big bang is like asking what is north of the north pole; both questions are semantically null.   #  can you accept that the entity began by itself/has no beginning ?  #  time begins at the big bang, so things did not exist before it; there was no before.  more centrally to your philosophy: you ca not accept the universe began by itself/has no beginning, so you need a previous entity to create it.  can you accept that the entity began by itself/has no beginning ? if yes, then why ca not you accept the same of the universe ? if no, then the entity needs a creator.  can you accept the same of that creator ? if yes, see above.  if no, see above.   #  premise 0: there are no events prior to the big bang.   #  let is try this again, but replace  initial moment in time  with  big bang.   premise 0: something is caused if it is the consequence of some prior event.  premise 0: there are no events prior to the big bang.  conclusion: the big bang was not caused.  premise 0 is self evident, but i could get into a rigorous proof if you are interested.  premise 0 is true because time literally began with the big bang; thus, there is no  before  the big bang.  since premises 0 and 0 are true, so too is the conclusion.  thus, no need for a god.   #  i believe unequivocally in evolution, and that is how we formed on earth.   #  of course i realize that there are plenty of things we cannot explain through science, and may never be able to explain, which is honestly the impetus for the post.  and i agree to an extent that simply because we do not understand something, god should not be the go to to help us understand.  but there are many other mitigating factors i have referenced above that seem, not scientifically to be sure, but seem to indicate some kind of intelligent design.  i believe unequivocally in evolution, and that is how we formed on earth.  but i do not think science explains the complexity of our consciousness, intelligence, feelings, empathy, love, etc, that make me wonder if some higher consciousness instilled these traits within us.  this obviously ca not really be argued well, and i already know what your response will be, but that is part of my belief.  this extends further than my sheer perplexity of the big bang just  occurring  with seemingly no root cause.
with the advent of self driving vehicles, the unavoidable will become clear: people are terrible drivers, and operating your own car is unacceptably reckless if a better alternative exists.  i see the coming timeline like this: copied from a reply to another post 0 0 years: the first round of legal cases involving driverless cars is settled, producing a precedent that makes driving your own car very risky.  a collision between two vehicles, one self driving the other not, almost always results in fault to the driver.  causing an accident while operating a car with unused self driving capability makes drivers extremely vulnerable to being sued.  0 0 years: safety studies, overwhelmingly favorable to self driving cars, lead to the option becoming mandatory on all new vehicles.  insurance companies, burned by litigation, offer premium rates to those who never switch off the driverless option, while increasing rates on drivers who elect to operate their cars manually.  soon the difference between these rates becomes enormous.  0 0 years: commercial driving is entirely automated.  cabs, buses, trucks, trains,  driver  becomes an obsolete profession.  the savings in both wages and liability is simply too tremendous to allow any non automated fleet to remain competitive.  0 0 years: studies conclusively show that the only traffic casualties that still occur are exclusively due to human operator error.  it becomes evident that driving your own car is unthinkably dangerous, like drunk driving at night with no headlights or seatbelts.  safety laws are passed that effectively outlaw operating your own vehicle.  by the time my nephew is 0 0, controlling a car will be something that only hobbyists do, and never on public roads.  very few cars will be privately owned, rather they will be operated by private or municipal transportation services.  the age of the personal automobile is ending.  cmv.   #  0 0 years: the first round of legal cases involving driverless cars is settled, producing a precedent that makes driving your own car very risky.   #  a collision between two vehicles, one self driving the other not, almost always results in fault to the driver.   # cars are now demonstratively better drivers than humans in all situations.  note: may be a very liberal estimate.  citation needed.  a collision between two vehicles, one self driving the other not, almost always results in fault to the driver.  causing an accident while operating a car with unused self driving capability makes drivers extremely vulnerable to being sued.  citation needed.  insurance companies, burned by litigation, offer premium rates to those who never switch off the driverless option, while increasing rates on drivers who elect to operate their cars manually.  soon the difference between these rates becomes enormous.  citation needed.  cabs, buses, trucks, trains,  driver  becomes an obsolete profession.  the savings in both wages and liability is simply too tremendous to allow any non automated fleet to remain competitive.  citation needed.  it becomes evident that driving your own car is unthinkably dangerous, like drunk driving at night with no headlights or seatbelts.  safety laws are passed that effectively outlaw operating your own vehicle.  citation needed.  my point is this.  your view simply becomes a truism if we accept all your premises.  of course  under your numbers your view is correct.  the only thing we can say is, what if your estimates are off ? this is not that different from saying if i had 0 apples and ate 0 then i would only have 0 left.  well, yeah.  the question then becomes, is the premise that i have 0 apples a true statement, did i in fact eat 0 of them, or did i just pull these numbers out of my ass ?  #  one part of your statement might turn out to be true though, and that is that your nephew might never need to learn how to operate a car.   #  we have not yet seen the last generation of people using horses for transportation, i highly doubt this is the last generation to drive cars manually.  aside from that general point, you are not thinking about costs.  self driving cars are not even going to be close to cheap for decades and decades.  therefore you are going to see a large portion of the population still driving manual cars.  you could have said this point in 0 as  my generation will be the last to drive a 0 lincoln , but you still see 0 lincolns out on the road all the time or substitute any old generic car from 0  years ago .  only when self driving cars are available to literally everyone will it be possible for your statement to be true.  and even then, manual car enthusiasts will still exist.  one part of your statement might turn out to be true though, and that is that your nephew might never need to learn how to operate a car.  but i bet he does  #  and if i would ever felt the slightest need to ride a horse in three decades of life.   #  i think the main point i was trying to make was commonality and nessessity.  yes, i could ride a horse to work.  if there was a stable near my house.  and a stable in downtown bellevue.  and i knew how to care for a horse.  and there was a horse dedicated road.  and if i would ever felt the slightest need to ride a horse in three decades of life.  as far as avaliablilty, what will happen when a car company can say  you are  much  less likely to die in the car than any of our competiors ?   not  our car is safer  or  look at this new airbag  but  this car takes your chances of dying in an accident from 0 in 0,0 to pick a random number to 0 in 0,0  it is true when you mention vintage cars, but how far away are we from being able to modify even old vehicles to make them self driving ? the raw mechanical aspect is likely fairly simple when compared to the software that we already have.  the combination of safety and financial incentives tax breaks, insuance discounts and the rise of municipal services will make self driving cars accessable much faster than we anticipate, i think.   #  can you drive a 0 model t on the freeway ?  #  can you drive a 0 model t on the freeway ? if a car ca not keep up with the technological requirements for it to be a safe vehicle, it becomes very difficult to license and insure.  what we define as a  safe vehicle  is going to change enormously in the next 0 years, and that definition is always going to boil down to  not operated by a human.   yes, it is possible that cost and technological requirements will handicap the process, but even today you get something like a 0 subsidy to buy an electric car, and all it is doing is protecting the intangible environment.  a self driving car that has real, tangible benefits to human safety and public infrastructure ? less traffic, less accidents, reduced need for traffic patrols, so on i do not think it will be nearly as expensive as you fear.   #  but i could see it happening in certain blue states, if car ownership were still viewed as such a necessity of life.   # it would indeed.  although it is really hard to know how this market will evolve.  uber, for example URL envisions a future in which most people simply do not own cars all cars are driverless and the vast majority are cars on demand.  car ownership may become obsolete altogether, and/or simply a hobby for the rich.  if that future occurs, it may not be as much of a hit to poor people.  taxpayers, if need be, but to your third point i do not expect that to happen.  it would take a pretty aggressive and powerful liberal federal government to get there.  but i could see it happening in certain blue states, if car ownership were still viewed as such a necessity of life.
with the advent of self driving vehicles, the unavoidable will become clear: people are terrible drivers, and operating your own car is unacceptably reckless if a better alternative exists.  i see the coming timeline like this: copied from a reply to another post 0 0 years: the first round of legal cases involving driverless cars is settled, producing a precedent that makes driving your own car very risky.  a collision between two vehicles, one self driving the other not, almost always results in fault to the driver.  causing an accident while operating a car with unused self driving capability makes drivers extremely vulnerable to being sued.  0 0 years: safety studies, overwhelmingly favorable to self driving cars, lead to the option becoming mandatory on all new vehicles.  insurance companies, burned by litigation, offer premium rates to those who never switch off the driverless option, while increasing rates on drivers who elect to operate their cars manually.  soon the difference between these rates becomes enormous.  0 0 years: commercial driving is entirely automated.  cabs, buses, trucks, trains,  driver  becomes an obsolete profession.  the savings in both wages and liability is simply too tremendous to allow any non automated fleet to remain competitive.  0 0 years: studies conclusively show that the only traffic casualties that still occur are exclusively due to human operator error.  it becomes evident that driving your own car is unthinkably dangerous, like drunk driving at night with no headlights or seatbelts.  safety laws are passed that effectively outlaw operating your own vehicle.  by the time my nephew is 0 0, controlling a car will be something that only hobbyists do, and never on public roads.  very few cars will be privately owned, rather they will be operated by private or municipal transportation services.  the age of the personal automobile is ending.  cmv.   #  0 0 years: safety studies, overwhelmingly favorable to self driving cars, lead to the option becoming mandatory on all new vehicles.   #  insurance companies, burned by litigation, offer premium rates to those who never switch off the driverless option, while increasing rates on drivers who elect to operate their cars manually.   # cars are now demonstratively better drivers than humans in all situations.  note: may be a very liberal estimate.  citation needed.  a collision between two vehicles, one self driving the other not, almost always results in fault to the driver.  causing an accident while operating a car with unused self driving capability makes drivers extremely vulnerable to being sued.  citation needed.  insurance companies, burned by litigation, offer premium rates to those who never switch off the driverless option, while increasing rates on drivers who elect to operate their cars manually.  soon the difference between these rates becomes enormous.  citation needed.  cabs, buses, trucks, trains,  driver  becomes an obsolete profession.  the savings in both wages and liability is simply too tremendous to allow any non automated fleet to remain competitive.  citation needed.  it becomes evident that driving your own car is unthinkably dangerous, like drunk driving at night with no headlights or seatbelts.  safety laws are passed that effectively outlaw operating your own vehicle.  citation needed.  my point is this.  your view simply becomes a truism if we accept all your premises.  of course  under your numbers your view is correct.  the only thing we can say is, what if your estimates are off ? this is not that different from saying if i had 0 apples and ate 0 then i would only have 0 left.  well, yeah.  the question then becomes, is the premise that i have 0 apples a true statement, did i in fact eat 0 of them, or did i just pull these numbers out of my ass ?  #  therefore you are going to see a large portion of the population still driving manual cars.   #  we have not yet seen the last generation of people using horses for transportation, i highly doubt this is the last generation to drive cars manually.  aside from that general point, you are not thinking about costs.  self driving cars are not even going to be close to cheap for decades and decades.  therefore you are going to see a large portion of the population still driving manual cars.  you could have said this point in 0 as  my generation will be the last to drive a 0 lincoln , but you still see 0 lincolns out on the road all the time or substitute any old generic car from 0  years ago .  only when self driving cars are available to literally everyone will it be possible for your statement to be true.  and even then, manual car enthusiasts will still exist.  one part of your statement might turn out to be true though, and that is that your nephew might never need to learn how to operate a car.  but i bet he does  #  as far as avaliablilty, what will happen when a car company can say  you are  much  less likely to die in the car than any of our competiors ?    #  i think the main point i was trying to make was commonality and nessessity.  yes, i could ride a horse to work.  if there was a stable near my house.  and a stable in downtown bellevue.  and i knew how to care for a horse.  and there was a horse dedicated road.  and if i would ever felt the slightest need to ride a horse in three decades of life.  as far as avaliablilty, what will happen when a car company can say  you are  much  less likely to die in the car than any of our competiors ?   not  our car is safer  or  look at this new airbag  but  this car takes your chances of dying in an accident from 0 in 0,0 to pick a random number to 0 in 0,0  it is true when you mention vintage cars, but how far away are we from being able to modify even old vehicles to make them self driving ? the raw mechanical aspect is likely fairly simple when compared to the software that we already have.  the combination of safety and financial incentives tax breaks, insuance discounts and the rise of municipal services will make self driving cars accessable much faster than we anticipate, i think.   #  yes, it is possible that cost and technological requirements will handicap the process, but even today you get something like a 0 subsidy to buy an electric car, and all it is doing is protecting the intangible environment.   #  can you drive a 0 model t on the freeway ? if a car ca not keep up with the technological requirements for it to be a safe vehicle, it becomes very difficult to license and insure.  what we define as a  safe vehicle  is going to change enormously in the next 0 years, and that definition is always going to boil down to  not operated by a human.   yes, it is possible that cost and technological requirements will handicap the process, but even today you get something like a 0 subsidy to buy an electric car, and all it is doing is protecting the intangible environment.  a self driving car that has real, tangible benefits to human safety and public infrastructure ? less traffic, less accidents, reduced need for traffic patrols, so on i do not think it will be nearly as expensive as you fear.   #  car ownership may become obsolete altogether, and/or simply a hobby for the rich.   # it would indeed.  although it is really hard to know how this market will evolve.  uber, for example URL envisions a future in which most people simply do not own cars all cars are driverless and the vast majority are cars on demand.  car ownership may become obsolete altogether, and/or simply a hobby for the rich.  if that future occurs, it may not be as much of a hit to poor people.  taxpayers, if need be, but to your third point i do not expect that to happen.  it would take a pretty aggressive and powerful liberal federal government to get there.  but i could see it happening in certain blue states, if car ownership were still viewed as such a necessity of life.
with the advent of self driving vehicles, the unavoidable will become clear: people are terrible drivers, and operating your own car is unacceptably reckless if a better alternative exists.  i see the coming timeline like this: copied from a reply to another post 0 0 years: the first round of legal cases involving driverless cars is settled, producing a precedent that makes driving your own car very risky.  a collision between two vehicles, one self driving the other not, almost always results in fault to the driver.  causing an accident while operating a car with unused self driving capability makes drivers extremely vulnerable to being sued.  0 0 years: safety studies, overwhelmingly favorable to self driving cars, lead to the option becoming mandatory on all new vehicles.  insurance companies, burned by litigation, offer premium rates to those who never switch off the driverless option, while increasing rates on drivers who elect to operate their cars manually.  soon the difference between these rates becomes enormous.  0 0 years: commercial driving is entirely automated.  cabs, buses, trucks, trains,  driver  becomes an obsolete profession.  the savings in both wages and liability is simply too tremendous to allow any non automated fleet to remain competitive.  0 0 years: studies conclusively show that the only traffic casualties that still occur are exclusively due to human operator error.  it becomes evident that driving your own car is unthinkably dangerous, like drunk driving at night with no headlights or seatbelts.  safety laws are passed that effectively outlaw operating your own vehicle.  by the time my nephew is 0 0, controlling a car will be something that only hobbyists do, and never on public roads.  very few cars will be privately owned, rather they will be operated by private or municipal transportation services.  the age of the personal automobile is ending.  cmv.   #  0 0 years: commercial driving is entirely automated.   #  cabs, buses, trucks, trains,  driver  becomes an obsolete profession.   # cars are now demonstratively better drivers than humans in all situations.  note: may be a very liberal estimate.  citation needed.  a collision between two vehicles, one self driving the other not, almost always results in fault to the driver.  causing an accident while operating a car with unused self driving capability makes drivers extremely vulnerable to being sued.  citation needed.  insurance companies, burned by litigation, offer premium rates to those who never switch off the driverless option, while increasing rates on drivers who elect to operate their cars manually.  soon the difference between these rates becomes enormous.  citation needed.  cabs, buses, trucks, trains,  driver  becomes an obsolete profession.  the savings in both wages and liability is simply too tremendous to allow any non automated fleet to remain competitive.  citation needed.  it becomes evident that driving your own car is unthinkably dangerous, like drunk driving at night with no headlights or seatbelts.  safety laws are passed that effectively outlaw operating your own vehicle.  citation needed.  my point is this.  your view simply becomes a truism if we accept all your premises.  of course  under your numbers your view is correct.  the only thing we can say is, what if your estimates are off ? this is not that different from saying if i had 0 apples and ate 0 then i would only have 0 left.  well, yeah.  the question then becomes, is the premise that i have 0 apples a true statement, did i in fact eat 0 of them, or did i just pull these numbers out of my ass ?  #  only when self driving cars are available to literally everyone will it be possible for your statement to be true.   #  we have not yet seen the last generation of people using horses for transportation, i highly doubt this is the last generation to drive cars manually.  aside from that general point, you are not thinking about costs.  self driving cars are not even going to be close to cheap for decades and decades.  therefore you are going to see a large portion of the population still driving manual cars.  you could have said this point in 0 as  my generation will be the last to drive a 0 lincoln , but you still see 0 lincolns out on the road all the time or substitute any old generic car from 0  years ago .  only when self driving cars are available to literally everyone will it be possible for your statement to be true.  and even then, manual car enthusiasts will still exist.  one part of your statement might turn out to be true though, and that is that your nephew might never need to learn how to operate a car.  but i bet he does  #  the combination of safety and financial incentives tax breaks, insuance discounts and the rise of municipal services will make self driving cars accessable much faster than we anticipate, i think.   #  i think the main point i was trying to make was commonality and nessessity.  yes, i could ride a horse to work.  if there was a stable near my house.  and a stable in downtown bellevue.  and i knew how to care for a horse.  and there was a horse dedicated road.  and if i would ever felt the slightest need to ride a horse in three decades of life.  as far as avaliablilty, what will happen when a car company can say  you are  much  less likely to die in the car than any of our competiors ?   not  our car is safer  or  look at this new airbag  but  this car takes your chances of dying in an accident from 0 in 0,0 to pick a random number to 0 in 0,0  it is true when you mention vintage cars, but how far away are we from being able to modify even old vehicles to make them self driving ? the raw mechanical aspect is likely fairly simple when compared to the software that we already have.  the combination of safety and financial incentives tax breaks, insuance discounts and the rise of municipal services will make self driving cars accessable much faster than we anticipate, i think.   #  if a car ca not keep up with the technological requirements for it to be a safe vehicle, it becomes very difficult to license and insure.   #  can you drive a 0 model t on the freeway ? if a car ca not keep up with the technological requirements for it to be a safe vehicle, it becomes very difficult to license and insure.  what we define as a  safe vehicle  is going to change enormously in the next 0 years, and that definition is always going to boil down to  not operated by a human.   yes, it is possible that cost and technological requirements will handicap the process, but even today you get something like a 0 subsidy to buy an electric car, and all it is doing is protecting the intangible environment.  a self driving car that has real, tangible benefits to human safety and public infrastructure ? less traffic, less accidents, reduced need for traffic patrols, so on i do not think it will be nearly as expensive as you fear.   #  although it is really hard to know how this market will evolve.   # it would indeed.  although it is really hard to know how this market will evolve.  uber, for example URL envisions a future in which most people simply do not own cars all cars are driverless and the vast majority are cars on demand.  car ownership may become obsolete altogether, and/or simply a hobby for the rich.  if that future occurs, it may not be as much of a hit to poor people.  taxpayers, if need be, but to your third point i do not expect that to happen.  it would take a pretty aggressive and powerful liberal federal government to get there.  but i could see it happening in certain blue states, if car ownership were still viewed as such a necessity of life.
with the advent of self driving vehicles, the unavoidable will become clear: people are terrible drivers, and operating your own car is unacceptably reckless if a better alternative exists.  i see the coming timeline like this: copied from a reply to another post 0 0 years: the first round of legal cases involving driverless cars is settled, producing a precedent that makes driving your own car very risky.  a collision between two vehicles, one self driving the other not, almost always results in fault to the driver.  causing an accident while operating a car with unused self driving capability makes drivers extremely vulnerable to being sued.  0 0 years: safety studies, overwhelmingly favorable to self driving cars, lead to the option becoming mandatory on all new vehicles.  insurance companies, burned by litigation, offer premium rates to those who never switch off the driverless option, while increasing rates on drivers who elect to operate their cars manually.  soon the difference between these rates becomes enormous.  0 0 years: commercial driving is entirely automated.  cabs, buses, trucks, trains,  driver  becomes an obsolete profession.  the savings in both wages and liability is simply too tremendous to allow any non automated fleet to remain competitive.  0 0 years: studies conclusively show that the only traffic casualties that still occur are exclusively due to human operator error.  it becomes evident that driving your own car is unthinkably dangerous, like drunk driving at night with no headlights or seatbelts.  safety laws are passed that effectively outlaw operating your own vehicle.  by the time my nephew is 0 0, controlling a car will be something that only hobbyists do, and never on public roads.  very few cars will be privately owned, rather they will be operated by private or municipal transportation services.  the age of the personal automobile is ending.  cmv.   #  0 0 years: studies conclusively show that the only traffic casualties that still occur are exclusively due to human operator error.   #  it becomes evident that driving your own car is unthinkably dangerous, like drunk driving at night with no headlights or seatbelts.   # cars are now demonstratively better drivers than humans in all situations.  note: may be a very liberal estimate.  citation needed.  a collision between two vehicles, one self driving the other not, almost always results in fault to the driver.  causing an accident while operating a car with unused self driving capability makes drivers extremely vulnerable to being sued.  citation needed.  insurance companies, burned by litigation, offer premium rates to those who never switch off the driverless option, while increasing rates on drivers who elect to operate their cars manually.  soon the difference between these rates becomes enormous.  citation needed.  cabs, buses, trucks, trains,  driver  becomes an obsolete profession.  the savings in both wages and liability is simply too tremendous to allow any non automated fleet to remain competitive.  citation needed.  it becomes evident that driving your own car is unthinkably dangerous, like drunk driving at night with no headlights or seatbelts.  safety laws are passed that effectively outlaw operating your own vehicle.  citation needed.  my point is this.  your view simply becomes a truism if we accept all your premises.  of course  under your numbers your view is correct.  the only thing we can say is, what if your estimates are off ? this is not that different from saying if i had 0 apples and ate 0 then i would only have 0 left.  well, yeah.  the question then becomes, is the premise that i have 0 apples a true statement, did i in fact eat 0 of them, or did i just pull these numbers out of my ass ?  #  self driving cars are not even going to be close to cheap for decades and decades.   #  we have not yet seen the last generation of people using horses for transportation, i highly doubt this is the last generation to drive cars manually.  aside from that general point, you are not thinking about costs.  self driving cars are not even going to be close to cheap for decades and decades.  therefore you are going to see a large portion of the population still driving manual cars.  you could have said this point in 0 as  my generation will be the last to drive a 0 lincoln , but you still see 0 lincolns out on the road all the time or substitute any old generic car from 0  years ago .  only when self driving cars are available to literally everyone will it be possible for your statement to be true.  and even then, manual car enthusiasts will still exist.  one part of your statement might turn out to be true though, and that is that your nephew might never need to learn how to operate a car.  but i bet he does  #  the raw mechanical aspect is likely fairly simple when compared to the software that we already have.   #  i think the main point i was trying to make was commonality and nessessity.  yes, i could ride a horse to work.  if there was a stable near my house.  and a stable in downtown bellevue.  and i knew how to care for a horse.  and there was a horse dedicated road.  and if i would ever felt the slightest need to ride a horse in three decades of life.  as far as avaliablilty, what will happen when a car company can say  you are  much  less likely to die in the car than any of our competiors ?   not  our car is safer  or  look at this new airbag  but  this car takes your chances of dying in an accident from 0 in 0,0 to pick a random number to 0 in 0,0  it is true when you mention vintage cars, but how far away are we from being able to modify even old vehicles to make them self driving ? the raw mechanical aspect is likely fairly simple when compared to the software that we already have.  the combination of safety and financial incentives tax breaks, insuance discounts and the rise of municipal services will make self driving cars accessable much faster than we anticipate, i think.   #  if a car ca not keep up with the technological requirements for it to be a safe vehicle, it becomes very difficult to license and insure.   #  can you drive a 0 model t on the freeway ? if a car ca not keep up with the technological requirements for it to be a safe vehicle, it becomes very difficult to license and insure.  what we define as a  safe vehicle  is going to change enormously in the next 0 years, and that definition is always going to boil down to  not operated by a human.   yes, it is possible that cost and technological requirements will handicap the process, but even today you get something like a 0 subsidy to buy an electric car, and all it is doing is protecting the intangible environment.  a self driving car that has real, tangible benefits to human safety and public infrastructure ? less traffic, less accidents, reduced need for traffic patrols, so on i do not think it will be nearly as expensive as you fear.   #  but i could see it happening in certain blue states, if car ownership were still viewed as such a necessity of life.   # it would indeed.  although it is really hard to know how this market will evolve.  uber, for example URL envisions a future in which most people simply do not own cars all cars are driverless and the vast majority are cars on demand.  car ownership may become obsolete altogether, and/or simply a hobby for the rich.  if that future occurs, it may not be as much of a hit to poor people.  taxpayers, if need be, but to your third point i do not expect that to happen.  it would take a pretty aggressive and powerful liberal federal government to get there.  but i could see it happening in certain blue states, if car ownership were still viewed as such a necessity of life.
first off im almost positive that someone posted this view already.  the reason why i do not is because there isnt any evidence to prove this as 0 fact.  there are too many factors that come into play environment, genetics, etc .  the  you cant control who you are attracted to  argument is weak to me because the way i see it as anyone can be attracted to anyone.  however you decide on whether or not you want to act on it.  if you choose that lifestyle thats completely on you.  hence why myself and others im sure do not exactly think there is no element of choice involved.  also i havent met anyone personally that had a good argument either.  whenever i shared this view i was called  ignorant  which i might be however when i called them out they couldnt explain it.  for me its not so much that i refuse to believe it.  its just that for me i cant wrap my head around it.  i do not think theres enough concrete evidence for me to agree with that.  to me it just seems like people just accept it because thats what the media and society tell us.  good debate otherwise.  thank you all for the responses.  i would like to thank those that remained civil for their insight.  my view has been slightly changed but not completely.  i would also like to thank the people that were obviously butthurt and those that replied with weak defenses and as a result resorted to turning my argument against me because they couldnt back up their own claim to save their lives.  thanks for the laughter.  i enjoyed every second of it.  good day all.  it was fun !  #  the  you cant control who you are attracted to  argument is weak to me because the way i see it as anyone can be attracted to anyone.   #  however you decide on whether or not you want to act on it.   # however you decide on whether or not you want to act on it.  you are mixing up two separate ideas.  there is a big difference between  being gay  and  doing gay things .  a straight person can choose to have gay sex and a gay person can choose to have straight sex.  we can control what we do, but we ca not control who we are attracted to.   #  i assume that is the case as it is for literally everybody who is not bisexual.   #  i will never be sexually discriminated against.  i may be discriminated against for other things sure, but as a straight guy, no one will ever discriminate me for my sexual life.  gay people have that added dimension of being discriminated for that.  why on earth would someone choose to be discriminated against ? ask any gay person and they say they did not choose to be gay.  what, are the millions of gays conspiring to lie to us straight people ? does that sound logical to you ? did you choose to be straight ? or contrary do you just naturally find women attractive and men not ? i assume that is the case as it is for literally everybody who is not bisexual.  answer these questions.   #  i do not think those two options mean the other does not exist.   #  is not it most likely that  some  people are born gay while others  choose  to be gay ? are you conflating your view that, since some people choose a homosexual lifestyle, that means that  no one  is born gay ? i do not think those two options mean the other does not exist.  other is have presented good evidence for why some people who are gay would appear to have clearly  not  chosen that option.  they suffer higher suicide rates, spend money and time on therapy trying to  not be gay , etc.  but then you have evidence the other way like this high school in san francisco where 0 of students identify at lqbt URL why would the percentage of homosexuals in a san francisco high school be so much higher than, say, a high school in birmingham, alabama ? is there something in the water in san francisco that causes the  gay gene  to develop in babies ? of course not.  it is because homosexuality is more acceptable in san francisco even to the point of the  lifestyle  being celebrated.  that 0 of students does not identify as gay because they were born that way.  they identify as gay because it is the  cool, hip  thing to do.  but just because you can find a few or more examples of someone who chooses to be gay does not mean that other people are not born gay.  and you will never be able to find a study that definitively makes a determination one way or the other because any group of  gay people  is going to include some from both groups the birthers and the choosers.   #  in most people, sexual plasticity which determines what you are attracted to is actually hard coded into your brain.   #  the element of choice is probably an illusion perpetuated by the fact that we have this huge tendency to ignore bisexuality as a culture.  most current statistics speculate that there are more bisexuals in the us than gay and lesbian individuals combined, but we think of bisexuals in same sex relationships as  turning gay  and bisexuals in heterosexual relationships as being straight.  in all honesty, i do not think it matters whether being gay is societal or genetic, and as a queer person i am tired of that argument because lots of things are socially influenced, and we ca not/wo not/do not need change those effectively either.  take religious beliefs, or food preferences, or gender presentation.  if you can think of a reason besides religious doctrine for this to actually matter, i would love to hear it.  if you are attracted to both men and women, and that is why you think anyone can be attracted to anyone, then you are not representative of the entire population.  you are just a little bi.  in most people, sexual plasticity which determines what you are attracted to is actually hard coded into your brain.  men are less sexually  plastic  than women, so less likely to be attracted to new and unconventional things.  there is lots of evidence to suggest it is biological, a lot more than we have to suggest a lot of things we take as fact, but i will charge you with this question: is not it kind of dehumanizing to keep debating someone else is lifestyle, whether you agree with it or not ?  #  no i cannot get an erection from a male.   #  alright i will.  no i cannot get an erection from a male.  yes i can enjoy anal sex.  both straight and gay people have anal sex.  anal sex by itself has nothing to do with ones sexuality.  since you cant get aroused by another male give yourself an erection and shove your cock up a mans ass.  then tell me if you enjoyed it or not.  just speaking in theory here.
first off im almost positive that someone posted this view already.  the reason why i do not is because there isnt any evidence to prove this as 0 fact.  there are too many factors that come into play environment, genetics, etc .  the  you cant control who you are attracted to  argument is weak to me because the way i see it as anyone can be attracted to anyone.  however you decide on whether or not you want to act on it.  if you choose that lifestyle thats completely on you.  hence why myself and others im sure do not exactly think there is no element of choice involved.  also i havent met anyone personally that had a good argument either.  whenever i shared this view i was called  ignorant  which i might be however when i called them out they couldnt explain it.  for me its not so much that i refuse to believe it.  its just that for me i cant wrap my head around it.  i do not think theres enough concrete evidence for me to agree with that.  to me it just seems like people just accept it because thats what the media and society tell us.  good debate otherwise.  thank you all for the responses.  i would like to thank those that remained civil for their insight.  my view has been slightly changed but not completely.  i would also like to thank the people that were obviously butthurt and those that replied with weak defenses and as a result resorted to turning my argument against me because they couldnt back up their own claim to save their lives.  thanks for the laughter.  i enjoyed every second of it.  good day all.  it was fun !  #  the reason why i do not is because there isnt any evidence to prove this as 0 fact.   #  i know that this is out of order, but i would just like to point out that science does not work in the realm of absolute certainty, and outliers and anomalies are certainly possible.   #  there are a few problematic things here that i want to address:   . the way i see it as anyone can be attracted to anyone.  this makes it seem like you are a bisexual person who is struggling to understand the concepts of exclusive heterosexuality and exclusive homosexuality.  if, instead, you are heterosexual, then try looking at as much gay porn as possible if you still ca not find anyone you are attracted to, it might be time to question that assumption.  indeed, acting on any attraction is a choice, but going back to the above if a specific person spends their whole lives only attracted to one sex, their only actual choices available are to live that orientation, avoid romantic engagement altogether, or pair up with someone with whom they have no attraction whatsoever and only one of those options is going to give them any kind of fulfillment.  i know that this is out of order, but i would just like to point out that science does not work in the realm of absolute certainty, and outliers and anomalies are certainly possible.  just because the best possible understanding of sexual orientation does not offer any absolutes or any absolute certainty, does not make it wrong.   #  i assume that is the case as it is for literally everybody who is not bisexual.   #  i will never be sexually discriminated against.  i may be discriminated against for other things sure, but as a straight guy, no one will ever discriminate me for my sexual life.  gay people have that added dimension of being discriminated for that.  why on earth would someone choose to be discriminated against ? ask any gay person and they say they did not choose to be gay.  what, are the millions of gays conspiring to lie to us straight people ? does that sound logical to you ? did you choose to be straight ? or contrary do you just naturally find women attractive and men not ? i assume that is the case as it is for literally everybody who is not bisexual.  answer these questions.   #  is there something in the water in san francisco that causes the  gay gene  to develop in babies ?  #  is not it most likely that  some  people are born gay while others  choose  to be gay ? are you conflating your view that, since some people choose a homosexual lifestyle, that means that  no one  is born gay ? i do not think those two options mean the other does not exist.  other is have presented good evidence for why some people who are gay would appear to have clearly  not  chosen that option.  they suffer higher suicide rates, spend money and time on therapy trying to  not be gay , etc.  but then you have evidence the other way like this high school in san francisco where 0 of students identify at lqbt URL why would the percentage of homosexuals in a san francisco high school be so much higher than, say, a high school in birmingham, alabama ? is there something in the water in san francisco that causes the  gay gene  to develop in babies ? of course not.  it is because homosexuality is more acceptable in san francisco even to the point of the  lifestyle  being celebrated.  that 0 of students does not identify as gay because they were born that way.  they identify as gay because it is the  cool, hip  thing to do.  but just because you can find a few or more examples of someone who chooses to be gay does not mean that other people are not born gay.  and you will never be able to find a study that definitively makes a determination one way or the other because any group of  gay people  is going to include some from both groups the birthers and the choosers.   #  in all honesty, i do not think it matters whether being gay is societal or genetic, and as a queer person i am tired of that argument because lots of things are socially influenced, and we ca not/wo not/do not need change those effectively either.   #  the element of choice is probably an illusion perpetuated by the fact that we have this huge tendency to ignore bisexuality as a culture.  most current statistics speculate that there are more bisexuals in the us than gay and lesbian individuals combined, but we think of bisexuals in same sex relationships as  turning gay  and bisexuals in heterosexual relationships as being straight.  in all honesty, i do not think it matters whether being gay is societal or genetic, and as a queer person i am tired of that argument because lots of things are socially influenced, and we ca not/wo not/do not need change those effectively either.  take religious beliefs, or food preferences, or gender presentation.  if you can think of a reason besides religious doctrine for this to actually matter, i would love to hear it.  if you are attracted to both men and women, and that is why you think anyone can be attracted to anyone, then you are not representative of the entire population.  you are just a little bi.  in most people, sexual plasticity which determines what you are attracted to is actually hard coded into your brain.  men are less sexually  plastic  than women, so less likely to be attracted to new and unconventional things.  there is lots of evidence to suggest it is biological, a lot more than we have to suggest a lot of things we take as fact, but i will charge you with this question: is not it kind of dehumanizing to keep debating someone else is lifestyle, whether you agree with it or not ?  #  no i cannot get an erection from a male.   #  alright i will.  no i cannot get an erection from a male.  yes i can enjoy anal sex.  both straight and gay people have anal sex.  anal sex by itself has nothing to do with ones sexuality.  since you cant get aroused by another male give yourself an erection and shove your cock up a mans ass.  then tell me if you enjoyed it or not.  just speaking in theory here.
first off im almost positive that someone posted this view already.  the reason why i do not is because there isnt any evidence to prove this as 0 fact.  there are too many factors that come into play environment, genetics, etc .  the  you cant control who you are attracted to  argument is weak to me because the way i see it as anyone can be attracted to anyone.  however you decide on whether or not you want to act on it.  if you choose that lifestyle thats completely on you.  hence why myself and others im sure do not exactly think there is no element of choice involved.  also i havent met anyone personally that had a good argument either.  whenever i shared this view i was called  ignorant  which i might be however when i called them out they couldnt explain it.  for me its not so much that i refuse to believe it.  its just that for me i cant wrap my head around it.  i do not think theres enough concrete evidence for me to agree with that.  to me it just seems like people just accept it because thats what the media and society tell us.  good debate otherwise.  thank you all for the responses.  i would like to thank those that remained civil for their insight.  my view has been slightly changed but not completely.  i would also like to thank the people that were obviously butthurt and those that replied with weak defenses and as a result resorted to turning my argument against me because they couldnt back up their own claim to save their lives.  thanks for the laughter.  i enjoyed every second of it.  good day all.  it was fun !  #  the  you cant control who you are attracted to  argument is weak to me because the way i see it as anyone can be attracted to anyone.   #  however you decide on whether or not you want to act on it.   # however you decide on whether or not you want to act on it.  if you choose that lifestyle thats completely on you.  hence why myself and others im sure do not exactly think there is no element of choice involved.  this part is confusing me a little.  are you saying that someone can be attracted solely to people of the same sex, but is not gay unless they actually act on it ?  #  i assume that is the case as it is for literally everybody who is not bisexual.   #  i will never be sexually discriminated against.  i may be discriminated against for other things sure, but as a straight guy, no one will ever discriminate me for my sexual life.  gay people have that added dimension of being discriminated for that.  why on earth would someone choose to be discriminated against ? ask any gay person and they say they did not choose to be gay.  what, are the millions of gays conspiring to lie to us straight people ? does that sound logical to you ? did you choose to be straight ? or contrary do you just naturally find women attractive and men not ? i assume that is the case as it is for literally everybody who is not bisexual.  answer these questions.   #  and you will never be able to find a study that definitively makes a determination one way or the other because any group of  gay people  is going to include some from both groups the birthers and the choosers.   #  is not it most likely that  some  people are born gay while others  choose  to be gay ? are you conflating your view that, since some people choose a homosexual lifestyle, that means that  no one  is born gay ? i do not think those two options mean the other does not exist.  other is have presented good evidence for why some people who are gay would appear to have clearly  not  chosen that option.  they suffer higher suicide rates, spend money and time on therapy trying to  not be gay , etc.  but then you have evidence the other way like this high school in san francisco where 0 of students identify at lqbt URL why would the percentage of homosexuals in a san francisco high school be so much higher than, say, a high school in birmingham, alabama ? is there something in the water in san francisco that causes the  gay gene  to develop in babies ? of course not.  it is because homosexuality is more acceptable in san francisco even to the point of the  lifestyle  being celebrated.  that 0 of students does not identify as gay because they were born that way.  they identify as gay because it is the  cool, hip  thing to do.  but just because you can find a few or more examples of someone who chooses to be gay does not mean that other people are not born gay.  and you will never be able to find a study that definitively makes a determination one way or the other because any group of  gay people  is going to include some from both groups the birthers and the choosers.   #  in most people, sexual plasticity which determines what you are attracted to is actually hard coded into your brain.   #  the element of choice is probably an illusion perpetuated by the fact that we have this huge tendency to ignore bisexuality as a culture.  most current statistics speculate that there are more bisexuals in the us than gay and lesbian individuals combined, but we think of bisexuals in same sex relationships as  turning gay  and bisexuals in heterosexual relationships as being straight.  in all honesty, i do not think it matters whether being gay is societal or genetic, and as a queer person i am tired of that argument because lots of things are socially influenced, and we ca not/wo not/do not need change those effectively either.  take religious beliefs, or food preferences, or gender presentation.  if you can think of a reason besides religious doctrine for this to actually matter, i would love to hear it.  if you are attracted to both men and women, and that is why you think anyone can be attracted to anyone, then you are not representative of the entire population.  you are just a little bi.  in most people, sexual plasticity which determines what you are attracted to is actually hard coded into your brain.  men are less sexually  plastic  than women, so less likely to be attracted to new and unconventional things.  there is lots of evidence to suggest it is biological, a lot more than we have to suggest a lot of things we take as fact, but i will charge you with this question: is not it kind of dehumanizing to keep debating someone else is lifestyle, whether you agree with it or not ?  #  anal sex by itself has nothing to do with ones sexuality.   #  alright i will.  no i cannot get an erection from a male.  yes i can enjoy anal sex.  both straight and gay people have anal sex.  anal sex by itself has nothing to do with ones sexuality.  since you cant get aroused by another male give yourself an erection and shove your cock up a mans ass.  then tell me if you enjoyed it or not.  just speaking in theory here.
but they paid into it.   okay, but what welfare program do you not pay into ? you pay into welfare as a safety for yourself if your parents die and a bunch of debt ridden events happen.   it is not that big of a problem.   it is 0ish of your taxes.  currently 0 contributor to our deficit.   they deserve it.   maybe, but do poor people deserve welfare in the same way ?  they need it.   only because they were an entire generation that did not save and spent on credit.  i can do more with my money now with stocks and 0ks than i could with the same money when i am old.   #  okay, but what welfare program do you not pay into ?  #  there is no agreement implicit or explicit that states that any amount of money will return to us at any period of time.   # there is no agreement implicit or explicit that states that any amount of money will return to us at any period of time.  in fact, by and large the expectation is for one person to pay into welfare and for another person to use it.  social security functions entirely differently in the sense that people pay in with the expectation of personally recovering those funds when they are needed.  only because they were an entire generation that did not save and spent on credit.  i can do more with my money now with stocks and 0ks than i could with the same money when i am old.  the problem is that you do not seem to understand the construct that created the credit issue we have today.  you believe that it is just a greedy generation.  if you have the time, i suggest inequality for all URL robert reich goes into detail about the coping mechanisms that society had to deal with the reagan era politics.  a women entering the workplace, b remortgaging homes that were appreciating in value to pay other bills c using credit.  there is an entire construct that is in place that contributed to a situation where the middle class american could not succeed.  blaming the victim is neither correct nor productive.   #  for instance, tuition tax credits, 0 k deductions, home mortgage interest deductions, etc.   # i just do not like the opposite views that some people have of the same concept of two government assistances.  the distinction exists largely because social security is not means tested.  lots of government programs give money to people.  for instance, tuition tax credits, 0 k deductions, home mortgage interest deductions, etc.  we do not generally call them welfare cause they are available to everyone, not just the poor.  social security, being a universal program, is more like those programs.  i am not sure what that has to do with my op.  you seem to be ascribing blame onto social security recipients when you say:   they need it.   only because they were an entire generation that did not save and spent on credit.  i can do more with my money now with stocks and 0ks than i could with the same money when i am old.  this implies that people who use social security are doing so because of poor fiscal management, as opposed to a totally sensible reaction to how the law works.   #  the iraq and afghanistan war contributed to our deficit.   #  are you using welfare as a derogatory term or as it is defined ? because if we use definitions: welfare: statutory procedure or social effort designed to promote the basic physical and material well being of people in need.   the protection of rights to education, housing, and welfare  entitlement: the amount to which a person has a right.  social security: any government system that provides monetary assistance to people with an inadequate or no income by the definitions, what view do you want changed.  it is 0ish of your taxes.  currently 0 contributor to our deficit.  it is a percent of expenditures, 0 comes from payroll taxes: URL the military contributes to our deficit.  the iraq and afghanistan war contributed to our deficit.  hell, carrying a deficit is not a bad thing.  my debts outweigh my assets.  a homeless man has more money than me.  but if i wanted, i could buy a car right now.  as long as creditors bond holders keep lending, what is the problem ? because debt is bad ? you will have to do better than that.  china wo not go to war with us because they make more money holding our debt and trading than fighting.  debt ensures good relations.   #  you pay into social security in your working life so that when you retire you have a source of income.   #  except it is more accurate to view social security as an insurance program or a savings account.  you pay into social security in your working life so that when you retire you have a source of income.  for those who are smart with their money and have savings, they do not need this source of income, but it is there.  for those who were not so smart with their money, or lucky, they have this source of income after retirement that they can live off of.  and like an insurance program or savings, what you receive is based off of what you pay into it.  with insurance, you pay a premium every month so if something happens you can get benefits to have it covered.  how much you pay for your premium will affect how much in benefits you can earn.  the same with a savings account.  you put money into it, and can only use what you put in.  in the us, social security is a type of social insurance program.  social insurance is different from welfare, and also includes things like medicare.   #  somebody who makes more money in their working years will make more money when receiving social security.   #  the difference being that social security payouts are decided based on how much you have paid in.  somebody who makes more money in their working years will make more money when receiving social security.  the amount of welfare you receive is decided based on your need, not how much money you put into it.  if everybody paid the exact same amount of money into welfare, there would still be people who receive more of it then others.  if everybody paid the exact same amount of money into social security, everybody would receive the exact same amount in payouts.
in our society, we have decided that forcing another to have sex is a major violation of that person is body autonomy.  in fact, forcing one to have sex when they do not want to is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to things that are unacceptable to do to a person without his or her permission.  telling someone that they ca not get a medical procedure done or, likewise, telling that they have to get a medical procedure done is just as awful as is dictating how they were their hair or how they dress.  in that same vein, what makes it okay in our society for your significant other to dictate who you sleep with ? sex in our society is a recreational activity enjoyed by most adults in at least some capacity.  people dictating what their sos do for fun in their free time seems rather controlling.  adults should feel free to do what their bodies what they wish as long as they are not physically forcing another person to do something.  forcing another person to only have sex with you seems to me like an awfully controlling behavior and takes away the body autonomy that they should have.  i can understand if a couple decides between the two of them that would like to sleep exclusively with each other.  it is just surprising to me at times that it is the norm to be mad enough at your so to break up with them if they have sex with someone outside of the relationship.  i understand that people cheat all the time, but open relationships just seem to be the exception rather than the norm.  if you want a monogamous relationship and your so sleeps with someone else, then you should not be mad at your so.  you should simply realize that you guys want different things out of a relationship and part ways.  getting angry would be controlling your so and taking away his or her own control over his or her own body.  and just for clarification: i am not saying that everyone should go out and cheat on their sos.  i am more stating that it  should  be normal and acceptable for people to have sex with people outside of a two person relationship for no other reason than that it is oddly controlling to insist that your so sleep with no one besides you.  also, i wanted to point out that i am purposefully not using particular genders.  it is just as bad to for a woman to tell a man he ca not have sex outside the relationship as it would be if a man told a woman the same thing.  so, please.  change my view ! why should it be the norm to have monogamous relationships ?  #  sex in our society is a recreational activity enjoyed by most adults in at least some capacity.   #  people dictating what their sos do for fun in their free time seems rather controlling.   # people dictating what their sos do for fun in their free time seems rather controlling.  i feel like this is a biased definition of sex: sex can be a recreational activity, but it is not  only  a recreational activity: it has procreative, romantic and emotional elements.  it is often hard to separate these.  forcing another person to only have sex with you seems to me like an awfully controlling behavior and takes away the body autonomy that they should have.  this feels like a misinterpretation of what it means to have your bodily autonomy respected.  you  are  free to have sex with other people while in a relationship in the sense that someone cannot actually prevent you from doing so without committing a crime or directly violating their consent in some other way.  you are not free, however, to tell other people how to feel about this: that is not what bodily autonomy is.  your argument here is equivalent to saying that a tattoo artist refusing to tattoo someone is an infringement on their bodily autonomy.  you should simply realize that you guys want different things out of a relationship and part ways.  getting angry would be controlling your so and taking away his or her own control over his or her own body.  saying that someone ought not to be angry is equally controlling, you are telling people how to feel  #  why  should not  it be the norm to have monogamous relationships ?  #  why  should not  it be the norm to have monogamous relationships ? most people want an exclusive relationship so exclusive relationships are the norm.  a person agrees not to have sex with others because they want their partner to do the same, there is no  force  involved.  only a mutual agreement where both parties abide by the same rule.  if someone wants a non monogamous relationship, they are obligated to inform any potential partners of that so the partner is not deceived.   #  the people interested in such relationships are welcome to them, i hope they find happiness.   #  they were brought up knowing it because the overwhelming majority of the previous generation preferred monogamous relationships.  the status quo got to be the way it is for a reason.  without a compelling reason to break off from it, why do so ? the simple fact is, most people want their partner to abstain from fucking other people enough to agree to do so themself.  non monogamous relationships are perfectly okay and there is nothing wrong with them, so long as everyone involved was informed of the situation and has consented to it.  the people interested in such relationships are welcome to them, i hope they find happiness.  but most people want exclusivity.  anyone who does not want an exclusive relationship should not agree to one.   #  my opinion has completely switched from not wanting to put limits on partners to restricting them from going out entirely lest they contract the cold virus, something you can catch by going out yourself.   #  well, i guess you are right then.  a cold, an innocuous virus that goes away on its own, is complexly the same as an std or sti, illnesses that can cause permanent damage if not treated, can stay with you for life, and even kill you.  my opinion has completely switched from not wanting to put limits on partners to restricting them from going out entirely lest they contract the cold virus, something you can catch by going out yourself.  seriously, though: the potential devastation of an std is not anywhere near the inconvenience of a cold.  contracting an std usually means you have engaged in some risky behavior, not merely sleeping with someone with which you are in a long term relationship.  you accept the risk of catching a cold you step outside the door.  i gave the person who mentioned diseases a delta because i she/he pointed out and made me realize that you ca not have control over your life if you are risk for contracting a deadly illness even when following a practice that should be safe.  sure, you can contract mrsa or some such shit by going about your regular business.  but if your partner is fucking god knows who, you ca not really be the master of your own destiny unless you decide not to have sex with them.  even condoms do not fully protect against all illnesses.   #  they could have had sex with anybody before you and contracted one of those horrible std is.   #  i have a hard time you really believe what you wrote in your original post.  so tell me, do you only have sex with virgins ? they could have had sex with anybody before you and contracted one of those horrible std is.  let is be real, the chances of catching an std that is serious is very, very low.  here is a good explanation.  URL as long as you use condoms and get regular std checks the chances of getting a life altering std are very low.
in our society, we have decided that forcing another to have sex is a major violation of that person is body autonomy.  in fact, forcing one to have sex when they do not want to is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to things that are unacceptable to do to a person without his or her permission.  telling someone that they ca not get a medical procedure done or, likewise, telling that they have to get a medical procedure done is just as awful as is dictating how they were their hair or how they dress.  in that same vein, what makes it okay in our society for your significant other to dictate who you sleep with ? sex in our society is a recreational activity enjoyed by most adults in at least some capacity.  people dictating what their sos do for fun in their free time seems rather controlling.  adults should feel free to do what their bodies what they wish as long as they are not physically forcing another person to do something.  forcing another person to only have sex with you seems to me like an awfully controlling behavior and takes away the body autonomy that they should have.  i can understand if a couple decides between the two of them that would like to sleep exclusively with each other.  it is just surprising to me at times that it is the norm to be mad enough at your so to break up with them if they have sex with someone outside of the relationship.  i understand that people cheat all the time, but open relationships just seem to be the exception rather than the norm.  if you want a monogamous relationship and your so sleeps with someone else, then you should not be mad at your so.  you should simply realize that you guys want different things out of a relationship and part ways.  getting angry would be controlling your so and taking away his or her own control over his or her own body.  and just for clarification: i am not saying that everyone should go out and cheat on their sos.  i am more stating that it  should  be normal and acceptable for people to have sex with people outside of a two person relationship for no other reason than that it is oddly controlling to insist that your so sleep with no one besides you.  also, i wanted to point out that i am purposefully not using particular genders.  it is just as bad to for a woman to tell a man he ca not have sex outside the relationship as it would be if a man told a woman the same thing.  so, please.  change my view ! why should it be the norm to have monogamous relationships ?  #  adults should feel free to do what their bodies what they wish as long as they are not physically forcing another person to do something.   #  forcing another person to only have sex with you seems to me like an awfully controlling behavior and takes away the body autonomy that they should have.   # people dictating what their sos do for fun in their free time seems rather controlling.  i feel like this is a biased definition of sex: sex can be a recreational activity, but it is not  only  a recreational activity: it has procreative, romantic and emotional elements.  it is often hard to separate these.  forcing another person to only have sex with you seems to me like an awfully controlling behavior and takes away the body autonomy that they should have.  this feels like a misinterpretation of what it means to have your bodily autonomy respected.  you  are  free to have sex with other people while in a relationship in the sense that someone cannot actually prevent you from doing so without committing a crime or directly violating their consent in some other way.  you are not free, however, to tell other people how to feel about this: that is not what bodily autonomy is.  your argument here is equivalent to saying that a tattoo artist refusing to tattoo someone is an infringement on their bodily autonomy.  you should simply realize that you guys want different things out of a relationship and part ways.  getting angry would be controlling your so and taking away his or her own control over his or her own body.  saying that someone ought not to be angry is equally controlling, you are telling people how to feel  #  a person agrees not to have sex with others because they want their partner to do the same, there is no  force  involved.   #  why  should not  it be the norm to have monogamous relationships ? most people want an exclusive relationship so exclusive relationships are the norm.  a person agrees not to have sex with others because they want their partner to do the same, there is no  force  involved.  only a mutual agreement where both parties abide by the same rule.  if someone wants a non monogamous relationship, they are obligated to inform any potential partners of that so the partner is not deceived.   #  the simple fact is, most people want their partner to abstain from fucking other people enough to agree to do so themself.   #  they were brought up knowing it because the overwhelming majority of the previous generation preferred monogamous relationships.  the status quo got to be the way it is for a reason.  without a compelling reason to break off from it, why do so ? the simple fact is, most people want their partner to abstain from fucking other people enough to agree to do so themself.  non monogamous relationships are perfectly okay and there is nothing wrong with them, so long as everyone involved was informed of the situation and has consented to it.  the people interested in such relationships are welcome to them, i hope they find happiness.  but most people want exclusivity.  anyone who does not want an exclusive relationship should not agree to one.   #  but if your partner is fucking god knows who, you ca not really be the master of your own destiny unless you decide not to have sex with them.   #  well, i guess you are right then.  a cold, an innocuous virus that goes away on its own, is complexly the same as an std or sti, illnesses that can cause permanent damage if not treated, can stay with you for life, and even kill you.  my opinion has completely switched from not wanting to put limits on partners to restricting them from going out entirely lest they contract the cold virus, something you can catch by going out yourself.  seriously, though: the potential devastation of an std is not anywhere near the inconvenience of a cold.  contracting an std usually means you have engaged in some risky behavior, not merely sleeping with someone with which you are in a long term relationship.  you accept the risk of catching a cold you step outside the door.  i gave the person who mentioned diseases a delta because i she/he pointed out and made me realize that you ca not have control over your life if you are risk for contracting a deadly illness even when following a practice that should be safe.  sure, you can contract mrsa or some such shit by going about your regular business.  but if your partner is fucking god knows who, you ca not really be the master of your own destiny unless you decide not to have sex with them.  even condoms do not fully protect against all illnesses.   #  i have a hard time you really believe what you wrote in your original post.   #  i have a hard time you really believe what you wrote in your original post.  so tell me, do you only have sex with virgins ? they could have had sex with anybody before you and contracted one of those horrible std is.  let is be real, the chances of catching an std that is serious is very, very low.  here is a good explanation.  URL as long as you use condoms and get regular std checks the chances of getting a life altering std are very low.
in our society, we have decided that forcing another to have sex is a major violation of that person is body autonomy.  in fact, forcing one to have sex when they do not want to is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to things that are unacceptable to do to a person without his or her permission.  telling someone that they ca not get a medical procedure done or, likewise, telling that they have to get a medical procedure done is just as awful as is dictating how they were their hair or how they dress.  in that same vein, what makes it okay in our society for your significant other to dictate who you sleep with ? sex in our society is a recreational activity enjoyed by most adults in at least some capacity.  people dictating what their sos do for fun in their free time seems rather controlling.  adults should feel free to do what their bodies what they wish as long as they are not physically forcing another person to do something.  forcing another person to only have sex with you seems to me like an awfully controlling behavior and takes away the body autonomy that they should have.  i can understand if a couple decides between the two of them that would like to sleep exclusively with each other.  it is just surprising to me at times that it is the norm to be mad enough at your so to break up with them if they have sex with someone outside of the relationship.  i understand that people cheat all the time, but open relationships just seem to be the exception rather than the norm.  if you want a monogamous relationship and your so sleeps with someone else, then you should not be mad at your so.  you should simply realize that you guys want different things out of a relationship and part ways.  getting angry would be controlling your so and taking away his or her own control over his or her own body.  and just for clarification: i am not saying that everyone should go out and cheat on their sos.  i am more stating that it  should  be normal and acceptable for people to have sex with people outside of a two person relationship for no other reason than that it is oddly controlling to insist that your so sleep with no one besides you.  also, i wanted to point out that i am purposefully not using particular genders.  it is just as bad to for a woman to tell a man he ca not have sex outside the relationship as it would be if a man told a woman the same thing.  so, please.  change my view ! why should it be the norm to have monogamous relationships ?  #  if you want a monogamous relationship and your so sleeps with someone else, then you should not be mad at your so.   #  you should simply realize that you guys want different things out of a relationship and part ways.   # people dictating what their sos do for fun in their free time seems rather controlling.  i feel like this is a biased definition of sex: sex can be a recreational activity, but it is not  only  a recreational activity: it has procreative, romantic and emotional elements.  it is often hard to separate these.  forcing another person to only have sex with you seems to me like an awfully controlling behavior and takes away the body autonomy that they should have.  this feels like a misinterpretation of what it means to have your bodily autonomy respected.  you  are  free to have sex with other people while in a relationship in the sense that someone cannot actually prevent you from doing so without committing a crime or directly violating their consent in some other way.  you are not free, however, to tell other people how to feel about this: that is not what bodily autonomy is.  your argument here is equivalent to saying that a tattoo artist refusing to tattoo someone is an infringement on their bodily autonomy.  you should simply realize that you guys want different things out of a relationship and part ways.  getting angry would be controlling your so and taking away his or her own control over his or her own body.  saying that someone ought not to be angry is equally controlling, you are telling people how to feel  #  a person agrees not to have sex with others because they want their partner to do the same, there is no  force  involved.   #  why  should not  it be the norm to have monogamous relationships ? most people want an exclusive relationship so exclusive relationships are the norm.  a person agrees not to have sex with others because they want their partner to do the same, there is no  force  involved.  only a mutual agreement where both parties abide by the same rule.  if someone wants a non monogamous relationship, they are obligated to inform any potential partners of that so the partner is not deceived.   #  the status quo got to be the way it is for a reason.   #  they were brought up knowing it because the overwhelming majority of the previous generation preferred monogamous relationships.  the status quo got to be the way it is for a reason.  without a compelling reason to break off from it, why do so ? the simple fact is, most people want their partner to abstain from fucking other people enough to agree to do so themself.  non monogamous relationships are perfectly okay and there is nothing wrong with them, so long as everyone involved was informed of the situation and has consented to it.  the people interested in such relationships are welcome to them, i hope they find happiness.  but most people want exclusivity.  anyone who does not want an exclusive relationship should not agree to one.   #  you accept the risk of catching a cold you step outside the door.   #  well, i guess you are right then.  a cold, an innocuous virus that goes away on its own, is complexly the same as an std or sti, illnesses that can cause permanent damage if not treated, can stay with you for life, and even kill you.  my opinion has completely switched from not wanting to put limits on partners to restricting them from going out entirely lest they contract the cold virus, something you can catch by going out yourself.  seriously, though: the potential devastation of an std is not anywhere near the inconvenience of a cold.  contracting an std usually means you have engaged in some risky behavior, not merely sleeping with someone with which you are in a long term relationship.  you accept the risk of catching a cold you step outside the door.  i gave the person who mentioned diseases a delta because i she/he pointed out and made me realize that you ca not have control over your life if you are risk for contracting a deadly illness even when following a practice that should be safe.  sure, you can contract mrsa or some such shit by going about your regular business.  but if your partner is fucking god knows who, you ca not really be the master of your own destiny unless you decide not to have sex with them.  even condoms do not fully protect against all illnesses.   #  they could have had sex with anybody before you and contracted one of those horrible std is.   #  i have a hard time you really believe what you wrote in your original post.  so tell me, do you only have sex with virgins ? they could have had sex with anybody before you and contracted one of those horrible std is.  let is be real, the chances of catching an std that is serious is very, very low.  here is a good explanation.  URL as long as you use condoms and get regular std checks the chances of getting a life altering std are very low.
in our society, we have decided that forcing another to have sex is a major violation of that person is body autonomy.  in fact, forcing one to have sex when they do not want to is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to things that are unacceptable to do to a person without his or her permission.  telling someone that they ca not get a medical procedure done or, likewise, telling that they have to get a medical procedure done is just as awful as is dictating how they were their hair or how they dress.  in that same vein, what makes it okay in our society for your significant other to dictate who you sleep with ? sex in our society is a recreational activity enjoyed by most adults in at least some capacity.  people dictating what their sos do for fun in their free time seems rather controlling.  adults should feel free to do what their bodies what they wish as long as they are not physically forcing another person to do something.  forcing another person to only have sex with you seems to me like an awfully controlling behavior and takes away the body autonomy that they should have.  i can understand if a couple decides between the two of them that would like to sleep exclusively with each other.  it is just surprising to me at times that it is the norm to be mad enough at your so to break up with them if they have sex with someone outside of the relationship.  i understand that people cheat all the time, but open relationships just seem to be the exception rather than the norm.  if you want a monogamous relationship and your so sleeps with someone else, then you should not be mad at your so.  you should simply realize that you guys want different things out of a relationship and part ways.  getting angry would be controlling your so and taking away his or her own control over his or her own body.  and just for clarification: i am not saying that everyone should go out and cheat on their sos.  i am more stating that it  should  be normal and acceptable for people to have sex with people outside of a two person relationship for no other reason than that it is oddly controlling to insist that your so sleep with no one besides you.  also, i wanted to point out that i am purposefully not using particular genders.  it is just as bad to for a woman to tell a man he ca not have sex outside the relationship as it would be if a man told a woman the same thing.  so, please.  change my view ! why should it be the norm to have monogamous relationships ?  #  if you want a monogamous relationship and your so sleeps with someone else, then you should not be mad at your so.   #  you should simply realize that you guys want different things out of a relationship and part ways.   #  i am going to focus on this segment in particular because i think it is where you have a major misunderstanding about relationships.  you should simply realize that you guys want different things out of a relationship and part ways.  getting angry would be controlling your so and taking away his or her own control over his or her own body.  it is only considered cheating in the instance that a couple decides to be exclusive in the first place.  in those instances, it is cheating because a commitment was made and violated.  i would say it is reasonable to be angry that someone gave you their word then went back on it.  to say that you are controlling you so by being angry is itself controlling.  it implies that you do not have a right to your feelings.   #  why  should not  it be the norm to have monogamous relationships ?  #  why  should not  it be the norm to have monogamous relationships ? most people want an exclusive relationship so exclusive relationships are the norm.  a person agrees not to have sex with others because they want their partner to do the same, there is no  force  involved.  only a mutual agreement where both parties abide by the same rule.  if someone wants a non monogamous relationship, they are obligated to inform any potential partners of that so the partner is not deceived.   #  they were brought up knowing it because the overwhelming majority of the previous generation preferred monogamous relationships.   #  they were brought up knowing it because the overwhelming majority of the previous generation preferred monogamous relationships.  the status quo got to be the way it is for a reason.  without a compelling reason to break off from it, why do so ? the simple fact is, most people want their partner to abstain from fucking other people enough to agree to do so themself.  non monogamous relationships are perfectly okay and there is nothing wrong with them, so long as everyone involved was informed of the situation and has consented to it.  the people interested in such relationships are welcome to them, i hope they find happiness.  but most people want exclusivity.  anyone who does not want an exclusive relationship should not agree to one.   #  sure, you can contract mrsa or some such shit by going about your regular business.   #  well, i guess you are right then.  a cold, an innocuous virus that goes away on its own, is complexly the same as an std or sti, illnesses that can cause permanent damage if not treated, can stay with you for life, and even kill you.  my opinion has completely switched from not wanting to put limits on partners to restricting them from going out entirely lest they contract the cold virus, something you can catch by going out yourself.  seriously, though: the potential devastation of an std is not anywhere near the inconvenience of a cold.  contracting an std usually means you have engaged in some risky behavior, not merely sleeping with someone with which you are in a long term relationship.  you accept the risk of catching a cold you step outside the door.  i gave the person who mentioned diseases a delta because i she/he pointed out and made me realize that you ca not have control over your life if you are risk for contracting a deadly illness even when following a practice that should be safe.  sure, you can contract mrsa or some such shit by going about your regular business.  but if your partner is fucking god knows who, you ca not really be the master of your own destiny unless you decide not to have sex with them.  even condoms do not fully protect against all illnesses.   #  they could have had sex with anybody before you and contracted one of those horrible std is.   #  i have a hard time you really believe what you wrote in your original post.  so tell me, do you only have sex with virgins ? they could have had sex with anybody before you and contracted one of those horrible std is.  let is be real, the chances of catching an std that is serious is very, very low.  here is a good explanation.  URL as long as you use condoms and get regular std checks the chances of getting a life altering std are very low.
in our society, we have decided that forcing another to have sex is a major violation of that person is body autonomy.  in fact, forcing one to have sex when they do not want to is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to things that are unacceptable to do to a person without his or her permission.  telling someone that they ca not get a medical procedure done or, likewise, telling that they have to get a medical procedure done is just as awful as is dictating how they were their hair or how they dress.  in that same vein, what makes it okay in our society for your significant other to dictate who you sleep with ? sex in our society is a recreational activity enjoyed by most adults in at least some capacity.  people dictating what their sos do for fun in their free time seems rather controlling.  adults should feel free to do what their bodies what they wish as long as they are not physically forcing another person to do something.  forcing another person to only have sex with you seems to me like an awfully controlling behavior and takes away the body autonomy that they should have.  i can understand if a couple decides between the two of them that would like to sleep exclusively with each other.  it is just surprising to me at times that it is the norm to be mad enough at your so to break up with them if they have sex with someone outside of the relationship.  i understand that people cheat all the time, but open relationships just seem to be the exception rather than the norm.  if you want a monogamous relationship and your so sleeps with someone else, then you should not be mad at your so.  you should simply realize that you guys want different things out of a relationship and part ways.  getting angry would be controlling your so and taking away his or her own control over his or her own body.  and just for clarification: i am not saying that everyone should go out and cheat on their sos.  i am more stating that it  should  be normal and acceptable for people to have sex with people outside of a two person relationship for no other reason than that it is oddly controlling to insist that your so sleep with no one besides you.  also, i wanted to point out that i am purposefully not using particular genders.  it is just as bad to for a woman to tell a man he ca not have sex outside the relationship as it would be if a man told a woman the same thing.  so, please.  change my view ! why should it be the norm to have monogamous relationships ?  #  sex in our society is a recreational activity enjoyed by most adults in at least some capacity.   #  people dictating what their sos do for fun in their free time seems rather controlling.   #  your view and what you write do not sync up perfectly.  some people are monogamous by nature.  they prefer monogamous relationships and would be unhappy in an open or polyamorous relationship.  these people are lucky, since this is accepted in our society.  some people do not care.  they are equally happy in a monogamous or polyamorous relationship.  they are somewhat lucky, since they can function fine within the confines of our society.  some people are naturally polyamorous.  they prefer having multiple partners and for their partners to have multiple partners .  it sorta sucks to be this, since it is frowned upon.  i do not think it is right to shun people for being polyamorous.  it should be accepted and people should just do whatever they want, with some reasonable restrictions.  the world would be better if it was accepting of polyamory.  even so, there are parts in your posts i disagree with.  people dictating what their sos do for fun in their free time seems rather controlling.  i agree that dictating what your partner does for fun is not right, but part of being in a relation any relation, really is that you keep the preferences of your partner in mind.  with my brothers, we had the agreement that if any of us bought a game, book or comic, the person buying it should be the first to experience it even if this took a a year .  with my girlfriend we regularly agree to see certain tv series or movies together.  in a way, they are dictating what i can and ca not do in my free time, but these are reasonable accommodations in a relationship.  it is just surprising to me at times that it is the norm to be mad enough at your so to break up with them if they have sex with someone outside of the relationship.  you find it surprising that someone gets mad enough to break up when their partner actively breaks a prior agreement ? an agreement that, in part, decides what your relationship looks like.  if you are not in an open or polyamorous relationship, sleeping with someone other than your partner is a huge breach of trust.  you should simply realize that you guys want different things out of a relationship and part ways.  getting angry would be controlling your so and taking away his or her own control over his or her own body.  like hell you should not be mad.  the confines of your relationship are important.  respecting the preferences of your partner is important.  the default assumption is for relationships to be monogamous yes, this should be changed, but we do not live in a perfect world and we should not create rules for a world we do not live in .  if you do not want to be monogamous, you should disclose this pretty early in a relationship.  getting angry at a big breach of trust is not wrong and it is not taking away anyone is control of their own body.  if my partner has sex with someone other than me, and i get mad, they are completely free to go and have sex with whoever they want.  they just ca not expect to be in a relationship with me anymore.  fictional example, i have told my partner that if she ever wants to have sex with someone else she should tell me and we would work it out.  it should not.  but it is and we need ethical rules for the world we live in.  in the meantime, communicate your preferences clearly and early.   #  if someone wants a non monogamous relationship, they are obligated to inform any potential partners of that so the partner is not deceived.   #  why  should not  it be the norm to have monogamous relationships ? most people want an exclusive relationship so exclusive relationships are the norm.  a person agrees not to have sex with others because they want their partner to do the same, there is no  force  involved.  only a mutual agreement where both parties abide by the same rule.  if someone wants a non monogamous relationship, they are obligated to inform any potential partners of that so the partner is not deceived.   #  non monogamous relationships are perfectly okay and there is nothing wrong with them, so long as everyone involved was informed of the situation and has consented to it.   #  they were brought up knowing it because the overwhelming majority of the previous generation preferred monogamous relationships.  the status quo got to be the way it is for a reason.  without a compelling reason to break off from it, why do so ? the simple fact is, most people want their partner to abstain from fucking other people enough to agree to do so themself.  non monogamous relationships are perfectly okay and there is nothing wrong with them, so long as everyone involved was informed of the situation and has consented to it.  the people interested in such relationships are welcome to them, i hope they find happiness.  but most people want exclusivity.  anyone who does not want an exclusive relationship should not agree to one.   #  you accept the risk of catching a cold you step outside the door.   #  well, i guess you are right then.  a cold, an innocuous virus that goes away on its own, is complexly the same as an std or sti, illnesses that can cause permanent damage if not treated, can stay with you for life, and even kill you.  my opinion has completely switched from not wanting to put limits on partners to restricting them from going out entirely lest they contract the cold virus, something you can catch by going out yourself.  seriously, though: the potential devastation of an std is not anywhere near the inconvenience of a cold.  contracting an std usually means you have engaged in some risky behavior, not merely sleeping with someone with which you are in a long term relationship.  you accept the risk of catching a cold you step outside the door.  i gave the person who mentioned diseases a delta because i she/he pointed out and made me realize that you ca not have control over your life if you are risk for contracting a deadly illness even when following a practice that should be safe.  sure, you can contract mrsa or some such shit by going about your regular business.  but if your partner is fucking god knows who, you ca not really be the master of your own destiny unless you decide not to have sex with them.  even condoms do not fully protect against all illnesses.   #  i have a hard time you really believe what you wrote in your original post.   #  i have a hard time you really believe what you wrote in your original post.  so tell me, do you only have sex with virgins ? they could have had sex with anybody before you and contracted one of those horrible std is.  let is be real, the chances of catching an std that is serious is very, very low.  here is a good explanation.  URL as long as you use condoms and get regular std checks the chances of getting a life altering std are very low.
in our society, we have decided that forcing another to have sex is a major violation of that person is body autonomy.  in fact, forcing one to have sex when they do not want to is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to things that are unacceptable to do to a person without his or her permission.  telling someone that they ca not get a medical procedure done or, likewise, telling that they have to get a medical procedure done is just as awful as is dictating how they were their hair or how they dress.  in that same vein, what makes it okay in our society for your significant other to dictate who you sleep with ? sex in our society is a recreational activity enjoyed by most adults in at least some capacity.  people dictating what their sos do for fun in their free time seems rather controlling.  adults should feel free to do what their bodies what they wish as long as they are not physically forcing another person to do something.  forcing another person to only have sex with you seems to me like an awfully controlling behavior and takes away the body autonomy that they should have.  i can understand if a couple decides between the two of them that would like to sleep exclusively with each other.  it is just surprising to me at times that it is the norm to be mad enough at your so to break up with them if they have sex with someone outside of the relationship.  i understand that people cheat all the time, but open relationships just seem to be the exception rather than the norm.  if you want a monogamous relationship and your so sleeps with someone else, then you should not be mad at your so.  you should simply realize that you guys want different things out of a relationship and part ways.  getting angry would be controlling your so and taking away his or her own control over his or her own body.  and just for clarification: i am not saying that everyone should go out and cheat on their sos.  i am more stating that it  should  be normal and acceptable for people to have sex with people outside of a two person relationship for no other reason than that it is oddly controlling to insist that your so sleep with no one besides you.  also, i wanted to point out that i am purposefully not using particular genders.  it is just as bad to for a woman to tell a man he ca not have sex outside the relationship as it would be if a man told a woman the same thing.  so, please.  change my view ! why should it be the norm to have monogamous relationships ?  #  i can understand if a couple decides between the two of them that would like to sleep exclusively with each other.   #  it is just surprising to me at times that it is the norm to be mad enough at your so to break up with them if they have sex with someone outside of the relationship.   #  your view and what you write do not sync up perfectly.  some people are monogamous by nature.  they prefer monogamous relationships and would be unhappy in an open or polyamorous relationship.  these people are lucky, since this is accepted in our society.  some people do not care.  they are equally happy in a monogamous or polyamorous relationship.  they are somewhat lucky, since they can function fine within the confines of our society.  some people are naturally polyamorous.  they prefer having multiple partners and for their partners to have multiple partners .  it sorta sucks to be this, since it is frowned upon.  i do not think it is right to shun people for being polyamorous.  it should be accepted and people should just do whatever they want, with some reasonable restrictions.  the world would be better if it was accepting of polyamory.  even so, there are parts in your posts i disagree with.  people dictating what their sos do for fun in their free time seems rather controlling.  i agree that dictating what your partner does for fun is not right, but part of being in a relation any relation, really is that you keep the preferences of your partner in mind.  with my brothers, we had the agreement that if any of us bought a game, book or comic, the person buying it should be the first to experience it even if this took a a year .  with my girlfriend we regularly agree to see certain tv series or movies together.  in a way, they are dictating what i can and ca not do in my free time, but these are reasonable accommodations in a relationship.  it is just surprising to me at times that it is the norm to be mad enough at your so to break up with them if they have sex with someone outside of the relationship.  you find it surprising that someone gets mad enough to break up when their partner actively breaks a prior agreement ? an agreement that, in part, decides what your relationship looks like.  if you are not in an open or polyamorous relationship, sleeping with someone other than your partner is a huge breach of trust.  you should simply realize that you guys want different things out of a relationship and part ways.  getting angry would be controlling your so and taking away his or her own control over his or her own body.  like hell you should not be mad.  the confines of your relationship are important.  respecting the preferences of your partner is important.  the default assumption is for relationships to be monogamous yes, this should be changed, but we do not live in a perfect world and we should not create rules for a world we do not live in .  if you do not want to be monogamous, you should disclose this pretty early in a relationship.  getting angry at a big breach of trust is not wrong and it is not taking away anyone is control of their own body.  if my partner has sex with someone other than me, and i get mad, they are completely free to go and have sex with whoever they want.  they just ca not expect to be in a relationship with me anymore.  fictional example, i have told my partner that if she ever wants to have sex with someone else she should tell me and we would work it out.  it should not.  but it is and we need ethical rules for the world we live in.  in the meantime, communicate your preferences clearly and early.   #  if someone wants a non monogamous relationship, they are obligated to inform any potential partners of that so the partner is not deceived.   #  why  should not  it be the norm to have monogamous relationships ? most people want an exclusive relationship so exclusive relationships are the norm.  a person agrees not to have sex with others because they want their partner to do the same, there is no  force  involved.  only a mutual agreement where both parties abide by the same rule.  if someone wants a non monogamous relationship, they are obligated to inform any potential partners of that so the partner is not deceived.   #  the simple fact is, most people want their partner to abstain from fucking other people enough to agree to do so themself.   #  they were brought up knowing it because the overwhelming majority of the previous generation preferred monogamous relationships.  the status quo got to be the way it is for a reason.  without a compelling reason to break off from it, why do so ? the simple fact is, most people want their partner to abstain from fucking other people enough to agree to do so themself.  non monogamous relationships are perfectly okay and there is nothing wrong with them, so long as everyone involved was informed of the situation and has consented to it.  the people interested in such relationships are welcome to them, i hope they find happiness.  but most people want exclusivity.  anyone who does not want an exclusive relationship should not agree to one.   #  sure, you can contract mrsa or some such shit by going about your regular business.   #  well, i guess you are right then.  a cold, an innocuous virus that goes away on its own, is complexly the same as an std or sti, illnesses that can cause permanent damage if not treated, can stay with you for life, and even kill you.  my opinion has completely switched from not wanting to put limits on partners to restricting them from going out entirely lest they contract the cold virus, something you can catch by going out yourself.  seriously, though: the potential devastation of an std is not anywhere near the inconvenience of a cold.  contracting an std usually means you have engaged in some risky behavior, not merely sleeping with someone with which you are in a long term relationship.  you accept the risk of catching a cold you step outside the door.  i gave the person who mentioned diseases a delta because i she/he pointed out and made me realize that you ca not have control over your life if you are risk for contracting a deadly illness even when following a practice that should be safe.  sure, you can contract mrsa or some such shit by going about your regular business.  but if your partner is fucking god knows who, you ca not really be the master of your own destiny unless you decide not to have sex with them.  even condoms do not fully protect against all illnesses.   #  let is be real, the chances of catching an std that is serious is very, very low.   #  i have a hard time you really believe what you wrote in your original post.  so tell me, do you only have sex with virgins ? they could have had sex with anybody before you and contracted one of those horrible std is.  let is be real, the chances of catching an std that is serious is very, very low.  here is a good explanation.  URL as long as you use condoms and get regular std checks the chances of getting a life altering std are very low.
in our society, we have decided that forcing another to have sex is a major violation of that person is body autonomy.  in fact, forcing one to have sex when they do not want to is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to things that are unacceptable to do to a person without his or her permission.  telling someone that they ca not get a medical procedure done or, likewise, telling that they have to get a medical procedure done is just as awful as is dictating how they were their hair or how they dress.  in that same vein, what makes it okay in our society for your significant other to dictate who you sleep with ? sex in our society is a recreational activity enjoyed by most adults in at least some capacity.  people dictating what their sos do for fun in their free time seems rather controlling.  adults should feel free to do what their bodies what they wish as long as they are not physically forcing another person to do something.  forcing another person to only have sex with you seems to me like an awfully controlling behavior and takes away the body autonomy that they should have.  i can understand if a couple decides between the two of them that would like to sleep exclusively with each other.  it is just surprising to me at times that it is the norm to be mad enough at your so to break up with them if they have sex with someone outside of the relationship.  i understand that people cheat all the time, but open relationships just seem to be the exception rather than the norm.  if you want a monogamous relationship and your so sleeps with someone else, then you should not be mad at your so.  you should simply realize that you guys want different things out of a relationship and part ways.  getting angry would be controlling your so and taking away his or her own control over his or her own body.  and just for clarification: i am not saying that everyone should go out and cheat on their sos.  i am more stating that it  should  be normal and acceptable for people to have sex with people outside of a two person relationship for no other reason than that it is oddly controlling to insist that your so sleep with no one besides you.  also, i wanted to point out that i am purposefully not using particular genders.  it is just as bad to for a woman to tell a man he ca not have sex outside the relationship as it would be if a man told a woman the same thing.  so, please.  change my view ! why should it be the norm to have monogamous relationships ?  #  if you want a monogamous relationship and your so sleeps with someone else, then you should not be mad at your so.   #  you should simply realize that you guys want different things out of a relationship and part ways.   #  your view and what you write do not sync up perfectly.  some people are monogamous by nature.  they prefer monogamous relationships and would be unhappy in an open or polyamorous relationship.  these people are lucky, since this is accepted in our society.  some people do not care.  they are equally happy in a monogamous or polyamorous relationship.  they are somewhat lucky, since they can function fine within the confines of our society.  some people are naturally polyamorous.  they prefer having multiple partners and for their partners to have multiple partners .  it sorta sucks to be this, since it is frowned upon.  i do not think it is right to shun people for being polyamorous.  it should be accepted and people should just do whatever they want, with some reasonable restrictions.  the world would be better if it was accepting of polyamory.  even so, there are parts in your posts i disagree with.  people dictating what their sos do for fun in their free time seems rather controlling.  i agree that dictating what your partner does for fun is not right, but part of being in a relation any relation, really is that you keep the preferences of your partner in mind.  with my brothers, we had the agreement that if any of us bought a game, book or comic, the person buying it should be the first to experience it even if this took a a year .  with my girlfriend we regularly agree to see certain tv series or movies together.  in a way, they are dictating what i can and ca not do in my free time, but these are reasonable accommodations in a relationship.  it is just surprising to me at times that it is the norm to be mad enough at your so to break up with them if they have sex with someone outside of the relationship.  you find it surprising that someone gets mad enough to break up when their partner actively breaks a prior agreement ? an agreement that, in part, decides what your relationship looks like.  if you are not in an open or polyamorous relationship, sleeping with someone other than your partner is a huge breach of trust.  you should simply realize that you guys want different things out of a relationship and part ways.  getting angry would be controlling your so and taking away his or her own control over his or her own body.  like hell you should not be mad.  the confines of your relationship are important.  respecting the preferences of your partner is important.  the default assumption is for relationships to be monogamous yes, this should be changed, but we do not live in a perfect world and we should not create rules for a world we do not live in .  if you do not want to be monogamous, you should disclose this pretty early in a relationship.  getting angry at a big breach of trust is not wrong and it is not taking away anyone is control of their own body.  if my partner has sex with someone other than me, and i get mad, they are completely free to go and have sex with whoever they want.  they just ca not expect to be in a relationship with me anymore.  fictional example, i have told my partner that if she ever wants to have sex with someone else she should tell me and we would work it out.  it should not.  but it is and we need ethical rules for the world we live in.  in the meantime, communicate your preferences clearly and early.   #  if someone wants a non monogamous relationship, they are obligated to inform any potential partners of that so the partner is not deceived.   #  why  should not  it be the norm to have monogamous relationships ? most people want an exclusive relationship so exclusive relationships are the norm.  a person agrees not to have sex with others because they want their partner to do the same, there is no  force  involved.  only a mutual agreement where both parties abide by the same rule.  if someone wants a non monogamous relationship, they are obligated to inform any potential partners of that so the partner is not deceived.   #  the status quo got to be the way it is for a reason.   #  they were brought up knowing it because the overwhelming majority of the previous generation preferred monogamous relationships.  the status quo got to be the way it is for a reason.  without a compelling reason to break off from it, why do so ? the simple fact is, most people want their partner to abstain from fucking other people enough to agree to do so themself.  non monogamous relationships are perfectly okay and there is nothing wrong with them, so long as everyone involved was informed of the situation and has consented to it.  the people interested in such relationships are welcome to them, i hope they find happiness.  but most people want exclusivity.  anyone who does not want an exclusive relationship should not agree to one.   #  sure, you can contract mrsa or some such shit by going about your regular business.   #  well, i guess you are right then.  a cold, an innocuous virus that goes away on its own, is complexly the same as an std or sti, illnesses that can cause permanent damage if not treated, can stay with you for life, and even kill you.  my opinion has completely switched from not wanting to put limits on partners to restricting them from going out entirely lest they contract the cold virus, something you can catch by going out yourself.  seriously, though: the potential devastation of an std is not anywhere near the inconvenience of a cold.  contracting an std usually means you have engaged in some risky behavior, not merely sleeping with someone with which you are in a long term relationship.  you accept the risk of catching a cold you step outside the door.  i gave the person who mentioned diseases a delta because i she/he pointed out and made me realize that you ca not have control over your life if you are risk for contracting a deadly illness even when following a practice that should be safe.  sure, you can contract mrsa or some such shit by going about your regular business.  but if your partner is fucking god knows who, you ca not really be the master of your own destiny unless you decide not to have sex with them.  even condoms do not fully protect against all illnesses.   #  i have a hard time you really believe what you wrote in your original post.   #  i have a hard time you really believe what you wrote in your original post.  so tell me, do you only have sex with virgins ? they could have had sex with anybody before you and contracted one of those horrible std is.  let is be real, the chances of catching an std that is serious is very, very low.  here is a good explanation.  URL as long as you use condoms and get regular std checks the chances of getting a life altering std are very low.
in our society, we have decided that forcing another to have sex is a major violation of that person is body autonomy.  in fact, forcing one to have sex when they do not want to is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to things that are unacceptable to do to a person without his or her permission.  telling someone that they ca not get a medical procedure done or, likewise, telling that they have to get a medical procedure done is just as awful as is dictating how they were their hair or how they dress.  in that same vein, what makes it okay in our society for your significant other to dictate who you sleep with ? sex in our society is a recreational activity enjoyed by most adults in at least some capacity.  people dictating what their sos do for fun in their free time seems rather controlling.  adults should feel free to do what their bodies what they wish as long as they are not physically forcing another person to do something.  forcing another person to only have sex with you seems to me like an awfully controlling behavior and takes away the body autonomy that they should have.  i can understand if a couple decides between the two of them that would like to sleep exclusively with each other.  it is just surprising to me at times that it is the norm to be mad enough at your so to break up with them if they have sex with someone outside of the relationship.  i understand that people cheat all the time, but open relationships just seem to be the exception rather than the norm.  if you want a monogamous relationship and your so sleeps with someone else, then you should not be mad at your so.  you should simply realize that you guys want different things out of a relationship and part ways.  getting angry would be controlling your so and taking away his or her own control over his or her own body.  and just for clarification: i am not saying that everyone should go out and cheat on their sos.  i am more stating that it  should  be normal and acceptable for people to have sex with people outside of a two person relationship for no other reason than that it is oddly controlling to insist that your so sleep with no one besides you.  also, i wanted to point out that i am purposefully not using particular genders.  it is just as bad to for a woman to tell a man he ca not have sex outside the relationship as it would be if a man told a woman the same thing.  so, please.  change my view ! why should it be the norm to have monogamous relationships ?  #  if you want a monogamous relationship and your so sleeps with someone else, then you should not be mad at your so.   #  you should simply realize that you guys want different things out of a relationship and part ways.   # you should simply realize that you guys want different things out of a relationship and part ways.  does not this make your entire point moot ? if two people did not want monogamy how does this become a problem ? should not you just recommend that people layout the expectations they have of the relationship ? it seems like what your advocating is that people be cool with non monogamous relationships.  but you are ignoring the fact that the majority of people tend to associate sex with an emotional monogamous bond.  you do not ? cool, find someone else who feels the same way.  it is not bad to expect your significant other not to sleep with other people if you are in a healthy relationship where you have laid out your expectations beforehand.   #  why  should not  it be the norm to have monogamous relationships ?  #  why  should not  it be the norm to have monogamous relationships ? most people want an exclusive relationship so exclusive relationships are the norm.  a person agrees not to have sex with others because they want their partner to do the same, there is no  force  involved.  only a mutual agreement where both parties abide by the same rule.  if someone wants a non monogamous relationship, they are obligated to inform any potential partners of that so the partner is not deceived.   #  the people interested in such relationships are welcome to them, i hope they find happiness.   #  they were brought up knowing it because the overwhelming majority of the previous generation preferred monogamous relationships.  the status quo got to be the way it is for a reason.  without a compelling reason to break off from it, why do so ? the simple fact is, most people want their partner to abstain from fucking other people enough to agree to do so themself.  non monogamous relationships are perfectly okay and there is nothing wrong with them, so long as everyone involved was informed of the situation and has consented to it.  the people interested in such relationships are welcome to them, i hope they find happiness.  but most people want exclusivity.  anyone who does not want an exclusive relationship should not agree to one.   #  my opinion has completely switched from not wanting to put limits on partners to restricting them from going out entirely lest they contract the cold virus, something you can catch by going out yourself.   #  well, i guess you are right then.  a cold, an innocuous virus that goes away on its own, is complexly the same as an std or sti, illnesses that can cause permanent damage if not treated, can stay with you for life, and even kill you.  my opinion has completely switched from not wanting to put limits on partners to restricting them from going out entirely lest they contract the cold virus, something you can catch by going out yourself.  seriously, though: the potential devastation of an std is not anywhere near the inconvenience of a cold.  contracting an std usually means you have engaged in some risky behavior, not merely sleeping with someone with which you are in a long term relationship.  you accept the risk of catching a cold you step outside the door.  i gave the person who mentioned diseases a delta because i she/he pointed out and made me realize that you ca not have control over your life if you are risk for contracting a deadly illness even when following a practice that should be safe.  sure, you can contract mrsa or some such shit by going about your regular business.  but if your partner is fucking god knows who, you ca not really be the master of your own destiny unless you decide not to have sex with them.  even condoms do not fully protect against all illnesses.   #  let is be real, the chances of catching an std that is serious is very, very low.   #  i have a hard time you really believe what you wrote in your original post.  so tell me, do you only have sex with virgins ? they could have had sex with anybody before you and contracted one of those horrible std is.  let is be real, the chances of catching an std that is serious is very, very low.  here is a good explanation.  URL as long as you use condoms and get regular std checks the chances of getting a life altering std are very low.
to clarify, i am not against easier routes to citizenship in fact, i am all for it.  i think if a person has toiled in this country long enough, paid their taxes, have not committed any heinous crimes, etc etc, they are entitled to be able to apply for citizenship and not have it take 0 0 years to achieve.  i am, however, against the idea that literally anyone who can buy a plane ticket or boat ride to the states can pop out a baby, have it be a us citizen, and promptly return to their home country a week or two after the fact.  how does a baby who spent all of what, a week ? , on us soil have a higher right to citizenship than anyone else especially when the process takes so long for honest working people who likely contributed much more to this country ? news sites claim that up to 0,0 chinese nationals alone give birth in the us and promptly return back there are even specialized birth hotels specifically for birth tourism.  i feel that a person should be entitled to us citizenship only if they have actually contributed to the well being of this country.  some foreign offspring who spent the blink of an eye here, whose parents have never ever paid us taxes or contributed in any way to this country, should not have automatic citizenship.  if an illegal immigrant gave birth and stayed in this country which many do , that would be a whole separate issue entirely.  but to separate birth tourism from cases like that, one could enforce laws regarding duration of days in the us to ensure citizenship.  my views are not against illegal immigrants, or people who have actually worked on this land and paid taxes and done something for this country.  i am against people who squeeze out a baby and promptly return, doing nothing for the states except to take advantage of their child is citizenship later on.  i bring this up because i am teaching abroad in asia, and a local friend mentioned how his friends are popping out offspring in the states.  i find this incredibly immoral, and think it does nothing but hinder the citizenship process for people who have actually lived, worked, toiled, in the country and are american in every other way except citizenship.   #  i feel that a person should be entitled to us citizenship only if they have actually contributed to the well being of this country.   #  i think the flaw is that you say this, but then you are judging the  child is  right to citizenship based on the  parents    contribution  to the country.   # i think the flaw is that you say this, but then you are judging the  child is  right to citizenship based on the  parents    contribution  to the country.  if an american who has lived in the us all their life has a child and promptly leaves the country, how is this any different than the  birth tourists  ? yes the parents have contributed more to the country, but does that entitle the child to have citizenship ? the child will now grow up in a foreign country with no more attachment to the us than that child of the birth tourists.  in order for either of these two children to gain any of the benefits of their citizenship, they will have to return to the us, at which point they will start participating in and benefitting to the society, which no doubt entitles them to citizenship.  yes this is unfair to the other immigrants, but i think that speaks more to immigration policy than to birth citizenship policy.   #  and much of the issues you have with it are already illegal, or legal grey areas.   # firstly, many of the  birth hotels  you mention are already illegal URL federal investigations in los angeles found that many of the maternity hotels did not pay taxes on millions of dollars in income, and that employees had coached expectant mothers on how to hide their true intentions from visa and immigration officials.  URL so much of what you are talking about is already outlawed.  for the immigrants that do do this legally, they are renting houses, hotels, paying hospital bills, ect.  so to say they are doing  nothing  is maybe not true.  for rates as high as $0,0, according to foreign policy magazine.  URL   doing nothing for the states except to take advantage of their child is citizenship later on.  the primary benefit parents seem interested in is education, which probably means moving back to the us and working, paying rent, ect.  usually you need a local address to attend public schools.  and finally  the u. s.  has a stringent law that requires its citizens to pay taxes no matter where they live URL so kids born in the us must pay taxes to the us even if they do not stay.  so, when the laws are actually obeyed, birth tourism does not detrimentally affect the us.  and much of the issues you have with it are already illegal, or legal grey areas.   #  third:  news sites claim that up to 0,0 chinese nationals alone give birth in the us and promptly return back.    #  lets just take the whole whether they should or should not be citizens thing and table it for a second because i think this line just screams  bullshit :   news sites claim that up to 0,0 chinese nationals alone give birth in the us and promptly return back there are even specialized birth hotels specifically for birth tourism.  first: news sites can claim anything they please.  does not make it true.  look how many places questioned and still question if obama is actually an american citizen.  it is insanity.  second:  up to 0,0 .  that is the most suspect statement you can use.  if there is 0 they have satisfied the conditions of not technically lying.  all it does is establish a potential upper bound.  it is no more useful than saying  up to 0 million .  third:  news sites claim that up to 0,0 chinese nationals alone give birth in the us and promptly return back.   0,0 per what ? day ? month ? year ? decade ? there is no scaling and this is not actually a unit.  sure we can deduce a unit, but if they do not bother putting one in.  doing the barest shred of research i could i was able to find some research saying it looks like a grand total of 0,0 children per year are born to foreign nationals traveling on a visa in the us.  that is a third less than the number represented, and includes  all  foreign births on us soil regardless of origin as opposed to chinese only and says nothing of reason for being here of which i guarantee at least some of them are here for other reasons.  anyone who fudges the numbers as much as that statement does is not worth listening to in my book.  they are not interested in truth, they are interested in controversy.  even assuming that it is bad we are talking about a mere 0,0 people out of 0 million per year.  0 out of 0.  big whoop.  and they are apparently not living here, not taking up space, not using our water, our roads, or our power, not eating our food.  what exactly are they harming by having a ssn ? they can emigrate easier than most people in the world.  that is about it and if they do well now they have to pay taxes and deal with all the other jazz that comes with the us government.   #  the only time she has been in poland was to receive her paperwork.   # this is hilarious.   i am not against easier routes to citizenship i just think that the shitty, incredibly complicated route we have now is easy !   how do you propose to determine if a newborn has contributed to the well being of this country or not ? so, there is two ways that a country can give citizenship: jus sangui and jus soli.  jus sangui is when citizenship is passed down through your family, which is the predominant way of awarding citizenship in most parts of the world.  jus soli is what y all have in america, where people born in us jurisdiction get us citizenship.  both processes are completely arbitrary and can be exploited.  i had a friend who decided to get her ma in europe.  as you probably know, degrees cost much more for international students than for domestic students, not to mention visa constraints.  so, to circumvent that, she found proof of her polish ancestry, and was awarded polish citizenship by jus sangui.  the only time she has been in poland was to receive her paperwork.  she has contributed nothing to the polish economy, she speaks no polish, and she does not even have a polish name, but she is a citizen because that is how the bureaucracy works.  is her situation any more just than a family that comes to america to give birth ? in short, citizenship, nationality, and the nation state are completely arbitrary, artificial concepts created in the 0th century as a social order that would be able to replace pre industrial feudal relationships and religious unity, and work for increasingly urbanized, demographically booming societies.  this may hurt to hear, but living your entire life in the states does not make you a better american than somebody who was born here and never came back.   american  is not a sliding scale, rather a binary system.  you are either american by passport or you are not, and all americans by passport are equal rights citizens of the united states.   #  having that us citizenship means he is more likely to get a better job due to his ability to travel abroad with ease.   #  couple of points i would like to make in favor of maintaining the status quo.  a person who is born in the country, gains citizenship, and then promptly leaves, takes almost nothing away from the country.  to be sure there is a minor cost in terms of paperwork, but aside from that the cost to the state is zero.  obviously if they have money to leave the country they also have money to pay for medical costs.  so what are we losing with birth tourism ? nothing.  on the flip side, what do we gain ? you argue that citizenship should be earned, and i generally agree with that statement.  but consider the fact that all us citizens are supposed to report global income and perhaps pay taxes on that amount.  if that chinese boy goes on to become rich, he will probably pay some us taxes.  having that us citizenship means he is more likely to get a better job due to his ability to travel abroad with ease.  it also means he is much more likely to return to the us in the future.  and when he does, he will spend his money, paying sales tax and supporting businesses.  effectively a person who gets citizenship and leaves is like the best kind of citizen you can have.  no burden, potential reward.  if you were starbucks, he would be the customer that takes one piss in the restroom out of necessity one day, leaves, and in return for the store is consideration, gets a coffee every once in a while.  he never hogs the wifi.  he does not put his feet up on the tables.  he does not shit the bathroom up.  why get rid of that client by saying  no taking a piss unless you pay  ?
to clarify, i am not against easier routes to citizenship in fact, i am all for it.  i think if a person has toiled in this country long enough, paid their taxes, have not committed any heinous crimes, etc etc, they are entitled to be able to apply for citizenship and not have it take 0 0 years to achieve.  i am, however, against the idea that literally anyone who can buy a plane ticket or boat ride to the states can pop out a baby, have it be a us citizen, and promptly return to their home country a week or two after the fact.  how does a baby who spent all of what, a week ? , on us soil have a higher right to citizenship than anyone else especially when the process takes so long for honest working people who likely contributed much more to this country ? news sites claim that up to 0,0 chinese nationals alone give birth in the us and promptly return back there are even specialized birth hotels specifically for birth tourism.  i feel that a person should be entitled to us citizenship only if they have actually contributed to the well being of this country.  some foreign offspring who spent the blink of an eye here, whose parents have never ever paid us taxes or contributed in any way to this country, should not have automatic citizenship.  if an illegal immigrant gave birth and stayed in this country which many do , that would be a whole separate issue entirely.  but to separate birth tourism from cases like that, one could enforce laws regarding duration of days in the us to ensure citizenship.  my views are not against illegal immigrants, or people who have actually worked on this land and paid taxes and done something for this country.  i am against people who squeeze out a baby and promptly return, doing nothing for the states except to take advantage of their child is citizenship later on.  i bring this up because i am teaching abroad in asia, and a local friend mentioned how his friends are popping out offspring in the states.  i find this incredibly immoral, and think it does nothing but hinder the citizenship process for people who have actually lived, worked, toiled, in the country and are american in every other way except citizenship.   #  i feel that a person should be entitled to us citizenship only if they have actually contributed to the well being of this country.   #  how do you propose to determine if a newborn has contributed to the well being of this country or not ?  # this is hilarious.   i am not against easier routes to citizenship i just think that the shitty, incredibly complicated route we have now is easy !   how do you propose to determine if a newborn has contributed to the well being of this country or not ? so, there is two ways that a country can give citizenship: jus sangui and jus soli.  jus sangui is when citizenship is passed down through your family, which is the predominant way of awarding citizenship in most parts of the world.  jus soli is what y all have in america, where people born in us jurisdiction get us citizenship.  both processes are completely arbitrary and can be exploited.  i had a friend who decided to get her ma in europe.  as you probably know, degrees cost much more for international students than for domestic students, not to mention visa constraints.  so, to circumvent that, she found proof of her polish ancestry, and was awarded polish citizenship by jus sangui.  the only time she has been in poland was to receive her paperwork.  she has contributed nothing to the polish economy, she speaks no polish, and she does not even have a polish name, but she is a citizen because that is how the bureaucracy works.  is her situation any more just than a family that comes to america to give birth ? in short, citizenship, nationality, and the nation state are completely arbitrary, artificial concepts created in the 0th century as a social order that would be able to replace pre industrial feudal relationships and religious unity, and work for increasingly urbanized, demographically booming societies.  this may hurt to hear, but living your entire life in the states does not make you a better american than somebody who was born here and never came back.   american  is not a sliding scale, rather a binary system.  you are either american by passport or you are not, and all americans by passport are equal rights citizens of the united states.   #  URL so much of what you are talking about is already outlawed.   # firstly, many of the  birth hotels  you mention are already illegal URL federal investigations in los angeles found that many of the maternity hotels did not pay taxes on millions of dollars in income, and that employees had coached expectant mothers on how to hide their true intentions from visa and immigration officials.  URL so much of what you are talking about is already outlawed.  for the immigrants that do do this legally, they are renting houses, hotels, paying hospital bills, ect.  so to say they are doing  nothing  is maybe not true.  for rates as high as $0,0, according to foreign policy magazine.  URL   doing nothing for the states except to take advantage of their child is citizenship later on.  the primary benefit parents seem interested in is education, which probably means moving back to the us and working, paying rent, ect.  usually you need a local address to attend public schools.  and finally  the u. s.  has a stringent law that requires its citizens to pay taxes no matter where they live URL so kids born in the us must pay taxes to the us even if they do not stay.  so, when the laws are actually obeyed, birth tourism does not detrimentally affect the us.  and much of the issues you have with it are already illegal, or legal grey areas.   #  if an american who has lived in the us all their life has a child and promptly leaves the country, how is this any different than the  birth tourists  ?  # i think the flaw is that you say this, but then you are judging the  child is  right to citizenship based on the  parents    contribution  to the country.  if an american who has lived in the us all their life has a child and promptly leaves the country, how is this any different than the  birth tourists  ? yes the parents have contributed more to the country, but does that entitle the child to have citizenship ? the child will now grow up in a foreign country with no more attachment to the us than that child of the birth tourists.  in order for either of these two children to gain any of the benefits of their citizenship, they will have to return to the us, at which point they will start participating in and benefitting to the society, which no doubt entitles them to citizenship.  yes this is unfair to the other immigrants, but i think that speaks more to immigration policy than to birth citizenship policy.   #  third:  news sites claim that up to 0,0 chinese nationals alone give birth in the us and promptly return back.    #  lets just take the whole whether they should or should not be citizens thing and table it for a second because i think this line just screams  bullshit :   news sites claim that up to 0,0 chinese nationals alone give birth in the us and promptly return back there are even specialized birth hotels specifically for birth tourism.  first: news sites can claim anything they please.  does not make it true.  look how many places questioned and still question if obama is actually an american citizen.  it is insanity.  second:  up to 0,0 .  that is the most suspect statement you can use.  if there is 0 they have satisfied the conditions of not technically lying.  all it does is establish a potential upper bound.  it is no more useful than saying  up to 0 million .  third:  news sites claim that up to 0,0 chinese nationals alone give birth in the us and promptly return back.   0,0 per what ? day ? month ? year ? decade ? there is no scaling and this is not actually a unit.  sure we can deduce a unit, but if they do not bother putting one in.  doing the barest shred of research i could i was able to find some research saying it looks like a grand total of 0,0 children per year are born to foreign nationals traveling on a visa in the us.  that is a third less than the number represented, and includes  all  foreign births on us soil regardless of origin as opposed to chinese only and says nothing of reason for being here of which i guarantee at least some of them are here for other reasons.  anyone who fudges the numbers as much as that statement does is not worth listening to in my book.  they are not interested in truth, they are interested in controversy.  even assuming that it is bad we are talking about a mere 0,0 people out of 0 million per year.  0 out of 0.  big whoop.  and they are apparently not living here, not taking up space, not using our water, our roads, or our power, not eating our food.  what exactly are they harming by having a ssn ? they can emigrate easier than most people in the world.  that is about it and if they do well now they have to pay taxes and deal with all the other jazz that comes with the us government.   #  why get rid of that client by saying  no taking a piss unless you pay  ?  #  couple of points i would like to make in favor of maintaining the status quo.  a person who is born in the country, gains citizenship, and then promptly leaves, takes almost nothing away from the country.  to be sure there is a minor cost in terms of paperwork, but aside from that the cost to the state is zero.  obviously if they have money to leave the country they also have money to pay for medical costs.  so what are we losing with birth tourism ? nothing.  on the flip side, what do we gain ? you argue that citizenship should be earned, and i generally agree with that statement.  but consider the fact that all us citizens are supposed to report global income and perhaps pay taxes on that amount.  if that chinese boy goes on to become rich, he will probably pay some us taxes.  having that us citizenship means he is more likely to get a better job due to his ability to travel abroad with ease.  it also means he is much more likely to return to the us in the future.  and when he does, he will spend his money, paying sales tax and supporting businesses.  effectively a person who gets citizenship and leaves is like the best kind of citizen you can have.  no burden, potential reward.  if you were starbucks, he would be the customer that takes one piss in the restroom out of necessity one day, leaves, and in return for the store is consideration, gets a coffee every once in a while.  he never hogs the wifi.  he does not put his feet up on the tables.  he does not shit the bathroom up.  why get rid of that client by saying  no taking a piss unless you pay  ?
to clarify, i am not against easier routes to citizenship in fact, i am all for it.  i think if a person has toiled in this country long enough, paid their taxes, have not committed any heinous crimes, etc etc, they are entitled to be able to apply for citizenship and not have it take 0 0 years to achieve.  i am, however, against the idea that literally anyone who can buy a plane ticket or boat ride to the states can pop out a baby, have it be a us citizen, and promptly return to their home country a week or two after the fact.  how does a baby who spent all of what, a week ? , on us soil have a higher right to citizenship than anyone else especially when the process takes so long for honest working people who likely contributed much more to this country ? news sites claim that up to 0,0 chinese nationals alone give birth in the us and promptly return back there are even specialized birth hotels specifically for birth tourism.  i feel that a person should be entitled to us citizenship only if they have actually contributed to the well being of this country.  some foreign offspring who spent the blink of an eye here, whose parents have never ever paid us taxes or contributed in any way to this country, should not have automatic citizenship.  if an illegal immigrant gave birth and stayed in this country which many do , that would be a whole separate issue entirely.  but to separate birth tourism from cases like that, one could enforce laws regarding duration of days in the us to ensure citizenship.  my views are not against illegal immigrants, or people who have actually worked on this land and paid taxes and done something for this country.  i am against people who squeeze out a baby and promptly return, doing nothing for the states except to take advantage of their child is citizenship later on.  i bring this up because i am teaching abroad in asia, and a local friend mentioned how his friends are popping out offspring in the states.  i find this incredibly immoral, and think it does nothing but hinder the citizenship process for people who have actually lived, worked, toiled, in the country and are american in every other way except citizenship.   #  i feel that a person should be entitled to us citizenship only if they have actually contributed to the well being of this country.   #  there is not a single baby born in the us who has contributed anything to society.   # there is not a single baby born in the us who has contributed anything to society.  how many newborns have paid taxes, voted, served on jury duty, etc.  ? the issue with your argument is that you are tying a baby is citizenship to how much his or her parents contributed to american society.  this is problematic in several ways.  first, how do you quantify how much a person has benefited american society ? furthermore, what if a person has actively damaged american society ? if they are a child molester or murderer, does their child deserve citizenship more than a chinese parent who spends some money on tourism and leaves without hurting anyone ? one of the underlying principles of the american dream is that no matter what your parents did, you can achieve success in america.  citizenship by birth is part of that idea, and is engraved in the us constitution.  but forget about that argument.  the real reason why it is legal is because say you are a chinese national with a high risk pregnancy.  the us has the best and unfortunately amongst the most expensive doctors in the world.  as long as the parents are truthful about why they are coming to the us, prove that they need medical treatment, explain why they ca not have the treatment done in their home country, prove that they can afford the care, and promise to leave before their visa runs out, why should not they have access to care at the mayo clinic or johns hopkins ? the way you describe it, birth tourism is already illegal.  it is illegal because it involves lying to get a visa.  still, if a parent commits a crime, the kids still get the citizenship.  however, if they are caught, the parents will be permanently banned from ever coming to the us.  this way, it punishes the guilty parents, and not the innocent child.  it is not ideal, but it is the best compromise.   #  for the immigrants that do do this legally, they are renting houses, hotels, paying hospital bills, ect.  so to say they are doing  nothing  is maybe not true.   # firstly, many of the  birth hotels  you mention are already illegal URL federal investigations in los angeles found that many of the maternity hotels did not pay taxes on millions of dollars in income, and that employees had coached expectant mothers on how to hide their true intentions from visa and immigration officials.  URL so much of what you are talking about is already outlawed.  for the immigrants that do do this legally, they are renting houses, hotels, paying hospital bills, ect.  so to say they are doing  nothing  is maybe not true.  for rates as high as $0,0, according to foreign policy magazine.  URL   doing nothing for the states except to take advantage of their child is citizenship later on.  the primary benefit parents seem interested in is education, which probably means moving back to the us and working, paying rent, ect.  usually you need a local address to attend public schools.  and finally  the u. s.  has a stringent law that requires its citizens to pay taxes no matter where they live URL so kids born in the us must pay taxes to the us even if they do not stay.  so, when the laws are actually obeyed, birth tourism does not detrimentally affect the us.  and much of the issues you have with it are already illegal, or legal grey areas.   #  the child will now grow up in a foreign country with no more attachment to the us than that child of the birth tourists.   # i think the flaw is that you say this, but then you are judging the  child is  right to citizenship based on the  parents    contribution  to the country.  if an american who has lived in the us all their life has a child and promptly leaves the country, how is this any different than the  birth tourists  ? yes the parents have contributed more to the country, but does that entitle the child to have citizenship ? the child will now grow up in a foreign country with no more attachment to the us than that child of the birth tourists.  in order for either of these two children to gain any of the benefits of their citizenship, they will have to return to the us, at which point they will start participating in and benefitting to the society, which no doubt entitles them to citizenship.  yes this is unfair to the other immigrants, but i think that speaks more to immigration policy than to birth citizenship policy.   #  it is no more useful than saying  up to 0 million .   #  lets just take the whole whether they should or should not be citizens thing and table it for a second because i think this line just screams  bullshit :   news sites claim that up to 0,0 chinese nationals alone give birth in the us and promptly return back there are even specialized birth hotels specifically for birth tourism.  first: news sites can claim anything they please.  does not make it true.  look how many places questioned and still question if obama is actually an american citizen.  it is insanity.  second:  up to 0,0 .  that is the most suspect statement you can use.  if there is 0 they have satisfied the conditions of not technically lying.  all it does is establish a potential upper bound.  it is no more useful than saying  up to 0 million .  third:  news sites claim that up to 0,0 chinese nationals alone give birth in the us and promptly return back.   0,0 per what ? day ? month ? year ? decade ? there is no scaling and this is not actually a unit.  sure we can deduce a unit, but if they do not bother putting one in.  doing the barest shred of research i could i was able to find some research saying it looks like a grand total of 0,0 children per year are born to foreign nationals traveling on a visa in the us.  that is a third less than the number represented, and includes  all  foreign births on us soil regardless of origin as opposed to chinese only and says nothing of reason for being here of which i guarantee at least some of them are here for other reasons.  anyone who fudges the numbers as much as that statement does is not worth listening to in my book.  they are not interested in truth, they are interested in controversy.  even assuming that it is bad we are talking about a mere 0,0 people out of 0 million per year.  0 out of 0.  big whoop.  and they are apparently not living here, not taking up space, not using our water, our roads, or our power, not eating our food.  what exactly are they harming by having a ssn ? they can emigrate easier than most people in the world.  that is about it and if they do well now they have to pay taxes and deal with all the other jazz that comes with the us government.   #  jus soli is what y all have in america, where people born in us jurisdiction get us citizenship.   # this is hilarious.   i am not against easier routes to citizenship i just think that the shitty, incredibly complicated route we have now is easy !   how do you propose to determine if a newborn has contributed to the well being of this country or not ? so, there is two ways that a country can give citizenship: jus sangui and jus soli.  jus sangui is when citizenship is passed down through your family, which is the predominant way of awarding citizenship in most parts of the world.  jus soli is what y all have in america, where people born in us jurisdiction get us citizenship.  both processes are completely arbitrary and can be exploited.  i had a friend who decided to get her ma in europe.  as you probably know, degrees cost much more for international students than for domestic students, not to mention visa constraints.  so, to circumvent that, she found proof of her polish ancestry, and was awarded polish citizenship by jus sangui.  the only time she has been in poland was to receive her paperwork.  she has contributed nothing to the polish economy, she speaks no polish, and she does not even have a polish name, but she is a citizen because that is how the bureaucracy works.  is her situation any more just than a family that comes to america to give birth ? in short, citizenship, nationality, and the nation state are completely arbitrary, artificial concepts created in the 0th century as a social order that would be able to replace pre industrial feudal relationships and religious unity, and work for increasingly urbanized, demographically booming societies.  this may hurt to hear, but living your entire life in the states does not make you a better american than somebody who was born here and never came back.   american  is not a sliding scale, rather a binary system.  you are either american by passport or you are not, and all americans by passport are equal rights citizens of the united states.
i have been coming here for over a year now to find fair and level headed discussion, and i have had many views changed and my eyes opened to other sides i could not conceive on my own.  however, i believe that the platform and method which we use to have these discussions can be harmful to the objective nature we wish to achieve.  we constantly state that  downvotes do not change views  and  downvotes are not  i disagree  buttons , but it only takes a minority of redditors who do not think this way to silence ideas.  a large karma differential can be created when 0 0 people upvote the majority view and downvote those they disagree with, which mean most readers just see the majority view.  if there was only a  this post contributes  button, that could possibly solve this issue.  in my experience, many commenters will just pick the weaker points or examples of op is argument and focus on disproving that alone, creating a bit of a straw man.  in addition, it is common to have one is post history gone through and downvoted for disagreeing, which discourages people from contributing a controversial view that might be useful.  the op can choose only to respond to the views they feel they can provide a good argument against, ignoring a counterpoint that they ca not refute.  this shoves it to the bottom, as the reddit sorting algorithm will detect a conversation and push it up.  by the end of a cmv, there will be legitimate ideas taking up a small fraction of the comment section, with huge blocks to wade through dedicated to arguing about something less relevant/interesting.  i think the platform of reddit is flawed for the type of discussion that this subreddit tries to host.  i would like to have my view changed, or at least hear what you think.   #  in addition, it is common to have one is post history gone through and downvoted for disagreeing, which discourages people from contributing a controversial view that might be useful.   #  this is not really all that common.   # that is not a straw man.  that is how you argue something.  i see this criticism a lot in cmv and i do not really understand it.  i have x view.  x view is predicated on assumptions a, b and c.  if someone says  well, c is demonstrably false because.  , why should i consider that to be an invalid argument against x ? if i did not need c to support my view of x, then i would not have mentioned c in the first place.  this is not really all that common.  it is useless to do this from the user is profile page, reddit has safeguards in place that prevent this sort of behavior affecting anything.  and it is too much of a pain in the ass to go into individual posts and do it for any sizable number of a users  comments.  it is just not that much of an issue.  the responders in cmv read other comments too.  it is unusual for a valid point against a view to get  lost  because the op simply refused to acknowledge its validity.  it is much more common for people to make the same point, and even stress the point if the op attempts to dissemble or evade.  the platform is not perfect, for sure.  but the crucial aspect of reddit is that it allows genuine discussion for users who participate in  good faith .  users who do not act in good faith are generally readily recognizable.  reddit cannot be leveraged to  force  someone to have a change of view.  they must come here with enough of an open mind to allow it to happen.  but that is true of any argument over any medium.   #  someone who dislikes veganism and vegetarianism is going disregard the whole documentary and focus hard on those few far reaching comments.   #  i think what op is describing is called selective listening.  it is when someone pretty much already has their mind made up about a subject.  so they ignore strong arguments they ca not refute and actively listen for things they know they can refute.  if you are in some sort of debate competition that may be fine, but if you are striving for communication and learning, it is very bad to do this.  just as an example, i am a vegetarian.  there is a documentary i like called earthlings it is free to watch btw .  it makes very compelling points about how animals are treated and why you should care, but there are some points made that i think take the argument too far.  someone who dislikes veganism and vegetarianism is going disregard the whole documentary and focus hard on those few far reaching comments.   #  i think it is more common than people would like to believe.   #  i agree with a lot of your points, but i laughed really hard when i got to the end and stated food inc.  you commented about me using an example that you do not like and used an example that  i  do not like.  i find food inc to be the most misleading documentary i have seen.  it mentions monsanto having a trademark on some genetically modified plants and the worry farmers have that they are going to get sued, but does not mention that monsanto has never actually sued any farmer yet for illegally selling their product.  it talks really negatively about gmo is even though it does not make a single argument about the health of them.  it talks about fillers in meats being bad but does not mention why either.  cleaning chicken with ammonia ? why is that bad ? why is that the issue to focus on ? all the things shown in earthlings literally happened, leaving you to decide if they are acceptable or not.  as for the practices being rare.  that is speculation, and i personally think it is wrong.  i think it is more common than people would like to believe.  also, i really like moby and he did the music for it.   #  heck, i did not even remember them bringing up gmo is.   #  hi, thanks for the comment.  it is actually been a few years since i have seen food inc.  i think it was in a freshman health/home ec class so i am probably misremembering.  heck, i did not even remember them bringing up gmo is.  i guess i really need to re watch that movie.  now i am wondering why it would be shown in health class to begin with.  i think i am just floundering for a good movie to mention to people when they ask.  i am just wary of that earthlings, because it personally put me off becoming a vegetarian for a good few months, since when i invariably went to research the specific examples,  i could not go anywhere since i did not get the context from the movie.  the images were definitely powerful though.   #   this post contributes  is later subdivided until we have many options.   # the problem with granular solutions is that there is no end.   this post contributes  is later subdivided until we have many options.  in the influx of options, users stop using the system.  an upvote that is used is better than a list that is unused.  it seems that you look at cmv as win/lose scenario.  sometimes a topic is very granular.  so as a cmver you only want to change the view on a small section of the argument while mostly agreeing.  other times you want to keep the post short such that it is at least  read  by op.  it is not as cut   dry as you say.  this is a corner case.  it is a situation where a someone who disagrees with you cares enough to sabotage you.  b you actually care about karma.  not everyone does.  the platform does allow for throwaway accounts such that it can still work and people could protect their invisible points.  yes and no.  again, op can only read through   answer so much.  however when valid points are made, they are upvoted.  if op ignores it, other redditors tends to call op out on it.
i have been coming here for over a year now to find fair and level headed discussion, and i have had many views changed and my eyes opened to other sides i could not conceive on my own.  however, i believe that the platform and method which we use to have these discussions can be harmful to the objective nature we wish to achieve.  we constantly state that  downvotes do not change views  and  downvotes are not  i disagree  buttons , but it only takes a minority of redditors who do not think this way to silence ideas.  a large karma differential can be created when 0 0 people upvote the majority view and downvote those they disagree with, which mean most readers just see the majority view.  if there was only a  this post contributes  button, that could possibly solve this issue.  in my experience, many commenters will just pick the weaker points or examples of op is argument and focus on disproving that alone, creating a bit of a straw man.  in addition, it is common to have one is post history gone through and downvoted for disagreeing, which discourages people from contributing a controversial view that might be useful.  the op can choose only to respond to the views they feel they can provide a good argument against, ignoring a counterpoint that they ca not refute.  this shoves it to the bottom, as the reddit sorting algorithm will detect a conversation and push it up.  by the end of a cmv, there will be legitimate ideas taking up a small fraction of the comment section, with huge blocks to wade through dedicated to arguing about something less relevant/interesting.  i think the platform of reddit is flawed for the type of discussion that this subreddit tries to host.  i would like to have my view changed, or at least hear what you think.   #  the op can choose only to respond to the views they feel they can provide a good argument against, ignoring a counterpoint that they ca not refute.   #  the responders in cmv read other comments too.   # that is not a straw man.  that is how you argue something.  i see this criticism a lot in cmv and i do not really understand it.  i have x view.  x view is predicated on assumptions a, b and c.  if someone says  well, c is demonstrably false because.  , why should i consider that to be an invalid argument against x ? if i did not need c to support my view of x, then i would not have mentioned c in the first place.  this is not really all that common.  it is useless to do this from the user is profile page, reddit has safeguards in place that prevent this sort of behavior affecting anything.  and it is too much of a pain in the ass to go into individual posts and do it for any sizable number of a users  comments.  it is just not that much of an issue.  the responders in cmv read other comments too.  it is unusual for a valid point against a view to get  lost  because the op simply refused to acknowledge its validity.  it is much more common for people to make the same point, and even stress the point if the op attempts to dissemble or evade.  the platform is not perfect, for sure.  but the crucial aspect of reddit is that it allows genuine discussion for users who participate in  good faith .  users who do not act in good faith are generally readily recognizable.  reddit cannot be leveraged to  force  someone to have a change of view.  they must come here with enough of an open mind to allow it to happen.  but that is true of any argument over any medium.   #  there is a documentary i like called earthlings it is free to watch btw .   #  i think what op is describing is called selective listening.  it is when someone pretty much already has their mind made up about a subject.  so they ignore strong arguments they ca not refute and actively listen for things they know they can refute.  if you are in some sort of debate competition that may be fine, but if you are striving for communication and learning, it is very bad to do this.  just as an example, i am a vegetarian.  there is a documentary i like called earthlings it is free to watch btw .  it makes very compelling points about how animals are treated and why you should care, but there are some points made that i think take the argument too far.  someone who dislikes veganism and vegetarianism is going disregard the whole documentary and focus hard on those few far reaching comments.   #  all the things shown in earthlings literally happened, leaving you to decide if they are acceptable or not.   #  i agree with a lot of your points, but i laughed really hard when i got to the end and stated food inc.  you commented about me using an example that you do not like and used an example that  i  do not like.  i find food inc to be the most misleading documentary i have seen.  it mentions monsanto having a trademark on some genetically modified plants and the worry farmers have that they are going to get sued, but does not mention that monsanto has never actually sued any farmer yet for illegally selling their product.  it talks really negatively about gmo is even though it does not make a single argument about the health of them.  it talks about fillers in meats being bad but does not mention why either.  cleaning chicken with ammonia ? why is that bad ? why is that the issue to focus on ? all the things shown in earthlings literally happened, leaving you to decide if they are acceptable or not.  as for the practices being rare.  that is speculation, and i personally think it is wrong.  i think it is more common than people would like to believe.  also, i really like moby and he did the music for it.   #  i guess i really need to re watch that movie.   #  hi, thanks for the comment.  it is actually been a few years since i have seen food inc.  i think it was in a freshman health/home ec class so i am probably misremembering.  heck, i did not even remember them bringing up gmo is.  i guess i really need to re watch that movie.  now i am wondering why it would be shown in health class to begin with.  i think i am just floundering for a good movie to mention to people when they ask.  i am just wary of that earthlings, because it personally put me off becoming a vegetarian for a good few months, since when i invariably went to research the specific examples,  i could not go anywhere since i did not get the context from the movie.  the images were definitely powerful though.   #  if op ignores it, other redditors tends to call op out on it.   # the problem with granular solutions is that there is no end.   this post contributes  is later subdivided until we have many options.  in the influx of options, users stop using the system.  an upvote that is used is better than a list that is unused.  it seems that you look at cmv as win/lose scenario.  sometimes a topic is very granular.  so as a cmver you only want to change the view on a small section of the argument while mostly agreeing.  other times you want to keep the post short such that it is at least  read  by op.  it is not as cut   dry as you say.  this is a corner case.  it is a situation where a someone who disagrees with you cares enough to sabotage you.  b you actually care about karma.  not everyone does.  the platform does allow for throwaway accounts such that it can still work and people could protect their invisible points.  yes and no.  again, op can only read through   answer so much.  however when valid points are made, they are upvoted.  if op ignores it, other redditors tends to call op out on it.
i have been coming here for over a year now to find fair and level headed discussion, and i have had many views changed and my eyes opened to other sides i could not conceive on my own.  however, i believe that the platform and method which we use to have these discussions can be harmful to the objective nature we wish to achieve.  we constantly state that  downvotes do not change views  and  downvotes are not  i disagree  buttons , but it only takes a minority of redditors who do not think this way to silence ideas.  a large karma differential can be created when 0 0 people upvote the majority view and downvote those they disagree with, which mean most readers just see the majority view.  if there was only a  this post contributes  button, that could possibly solve this issue.  in my experience, many commenters will just pick the weaker points or examples of op is argument and focus on disproving that alone, creating a bit of a straw man.  in addition, it is common to have one is post history gone through and downvoted for disagreeing, which discourages people from contributing a controversial view that might be useful.  the op can choose only to respond to the views they feel they can provide a good argument against, ignoring a counterpoint that they ca not refute.  this shoves it to the bottom, as the reddit sorting algorithm will detect a conversation and push it up.  by the end of a cmv, there will be legitimate ideas taking up a small fraction of the comment section, with huge blocks to wade through dedicated to arguing about something less relevant/interesting.  i think the platform of reddit is flawed for the type of discussion that this subreddit tries to host.  i would like to have my view changed, or at least hear what you think.   #  if there was only a  this post contributes  button, that could possibly solve this issue.   #  the problem with granular solutions is that there is no end.   # the problem with granular solutions is that there is no end.   this post contributes  is later subdivided until we have many options.  in the influx of options, users stop using the system.  an upvote that is used is better than a list that is unused.  it seems that you look at cmv as win/lose scenario.  sometimes a topic is very granular.  so as a cmver you only want to change the view on a small section of the argument while mostly agreeing.  other times you want to keep the post short such that it is at least  read  by op.  it is not as cut   dry as you say.  this is a corner case.  it is a situation where a someone who disagrees with you cares enough to sabotage you.  b you actually care about karma.  not everyone does.  the platform does allow for throwaway accounts such that it can still work and people could protect their invisible points.  yes and no.  again, op can only read through   answer so much.  however when valid points are made, they are upvoted.  if op ignores it, other redditors tends to call op out on it.   #  it is unusual for a valid point against a view to get  lost  because the op simply refused to acknowledge its validity.   # that is not a straw man.  that is how you argue something.  i see this criticism a lot in cmv and i do not really understand it.  i have x view.  x view is predicated on assumptions a, b and c.  if someone says  well, c is demonstrably false because.  , why should i consider that to be an invalid argument against x ? if i did not need c to support my view of x, then i would not have mentioned c in the first place.  this is not really all that common.  it is useless to do this from the user is profile page, reddit has safeguards in place that prevent this sort of behavior affecting anything.  and it is too much of a pain in the ass to go into individual posts and do it for any sizable number of a users  comments.  it is just not that much of an issue.  the responders in cmv read other comments too.  it is unusual for a valid point against a view to get  lost  because the op simply refused to acknowledge its validity.  it is much more common for people to make the same point, and even stress the point if the op attempts to dissemble or evade.  the platform is not perfect, for sure.  but the crucial aspect of reddit is that it allows genuine discussion for users who participate in  good faith .  users who do not act in good faith are generally readily recognizable.  reddit cannot be leveraged to  force  someone to have a change of view.  they must come here with enough of an open mind to allow it to happen.  but that is true of any argument over any medium.   #  i think what op is describing is called selective listening.   #  i think what op is describing is called selective listening.  it is when someone pretty much already has their mind made up about a subject.  so they ignore strong arguments they ca not refute and actively listen for things they know they can refute.  if you are in some sort of debate competition that may be fine, but if you are striving for communication and learning, it is very bad to do this.  just as an example, i am a vegetarian.  there is a documentary i like called earthlings it is free to watch btw .  it makes very compelling points about how animals are treated and why you should care, but there are some points made that i think take the argument too far.  someone who dislikes veganism and vegetarianism is going disregard the whole documentary and focus hard on those few far reaching comments.   #  it mentions monsanto having a trademark on some genetically modified plants and the worry farmers have that they are going to get sued, but does not mention that monsanto has never actually sued any farmer yet for illegally selling their product.   #  i agree with a lot of your points, but i laughed really hard when i got to the end and stated food inc.  you commented about me using an example that you do not like and used an example that  i  do not like.  i find food inc to be the most misleading documentary i have seen.  it mentions monsanto having a trademark on some genetically modified plants and the worry farmers have that they are going to get sued, but does not mention that monsanto has never actually sued any farmer yet for illegally selling their product.  it talks really negatively about gmo is even though it does not make a single argument about the health of them.  it talks about fillers in meats being bad but does not mention why either.  cleaning chicken with ammonia ? why is that bad ? why is that the issue to focus on ? all the things shown in earthlings literally happened, leaving you to decide if they are acceptable or not.  as for the practices being rare.  that is speculation, and i personally think it is wrong.  i think it is more common than people would like to believe.  also, i really like moby and he did the music for it.   #  i guess i really need to re watch that movie.   #  hi, thanks for the comment.  it is actually been a few years since i have seen food inc.  i think it was in a freshman health/home ec class so i am probably misremembering.  heck, i did not even remember them bringing up gmo is.  i guess i really need to re watch that movie.  now i am wondering why it would be shown in health class to begin with.  i think i am just floundering for a good movie to mention to people when they ask.  i am just wary of that earthlings, because it personally put me off becoming a vegetarian for a good few months, since when i invariably went to research the specific examples,  i could not go anywhere since i did not get the context from the movie.  the images were definitely powerful though.
i have been coming here for over a year now to find fair and level headed discussion, and i have had many views changed and my eyes opened to other sides i could not conceive on my own.  however, i believe that the platform and method which we use to have these discussions can be harmful to the objective nature we wish to achieve.  we constantly state that  downvotes do not change views  and  downvotes are not  i disagree  buttons , but it only takes a minority of redditors who do not think this way to silence ideas.  a large karma differential can be created when 0 0 people upvote the majority view and downvote those they disagree with, which mean most readers just see the majority view.  if there was only a  this post contributes  button, that could possibly solve this issue.  in my experience, many commenters will just pick the weaker points or examples of op is argument and focus on disproving that alone, creating a bit of a straw man.  in addition, it is common to have one is post history gone through and downvoted for disagreeing, which discourages people from contributing a controversial view that might be useful.  the op can choose only to respond to the views they feel they can provide a good argument against, ignoring a counterpoint that they ca not refute.  this shoves it to the bottom, as the reddit sorting algorithm will detect a conversation and push it up.  by the end of a cmv, there will be legitimate ideas taking up a small fraction of the comment section, with huge blocks to wade through dedicated to arguing about something less relevant/interesting.  i think the platform of reddit is flawed for the type of discussion that this subreddit tries to host.  i would like to have my view changed, or at least hear what you think.   #  in my experience, many commenters will just pick the weaker points or examples of op is argument and focus on disproving that alone, creating a bit of a straw man.   #  it seems that you look at cmv as win/lose scenario.   # the problem with granular solutions is that there is no end.   this post contributes  is later subdivided until we have many options.  in the influx of options, users stop using the system.  an upvote that is used is better than a list that is unused.  it seems that you look at cmv as win/lose scenario.  sometimes a topic is very granular.  so as a cmver you only want to change the view on a small section of the argument while mostly agreeing.  other times you want to keep the post short such that it is at least  read  by op.  it is not as cut   dry as you say.  this is a corner case.  it is a situation where a someone who disagrees with you cares enough to sabotage you.  b you actually care about karma.  not everyone does.  the platform does allow for throwaway accounts such that it can still work and people could protect their invisible points.  yes and no.  again, op can only read through   answer so much.  however when valid points are made, they are upvoted.  if op ignores it, other redditors tends to call op out on it.   #  it is useless to do this from the user is profile page, reddit has safeguards in place that prevent this sort of behavior affecting anything.   # that is not a straw man.  that is how you argue something.  i see this criticism a lot in cmv and i do not really understand it.  i have x view.  x view is predicated on assumptions a, b and c.  if someone says  well, c is demonstrably false because.  , why should i consider that to be an invalid argument against x ? if i did not need c to support my view of x, then i would not have mentioned c in the first place.  this is not really all that common.  it is useless to do this from the user is profile page, reddit has safeguards in place that prevent this sort of behavior affecting anything.  and it is too much of a pain in the ass to go into individual posts and do it for any sizable number of a users  comments.  it is just not that much of an issue.  the responders in cmv read other comments too.  it is unusual for a valid point against a view to get  lost  because the op simply refused to acknowledge its validity.  it is much more common for people to make the same point, and even stress the point if the op attempts to dissemble or evade.  the platform is not perfect, for sure.  but the crucial aspect of reddit is that it allows genuine discussion for users who participate in  good faith .  users who do not act in good faith are generally readily recognizable.  reddit cannot be leveraged to  force  someone to have a change of view.  they must come here with enough of an open mind to allow it to happen.  but that is true of any argument over any medium.   #  there is a documentary i like called earthlings it is free to watch btw .   #  i think what op is describing is called selective listening.  it is when someone pretty much already has their mind made up about a subject.  so they ignore strong arguments they ca not refute and actively listen for things they know they can refute.  if you are in some sort of debate competition that may be fine, but if you are striving for communication and learning, it is very bad to do this.  just as an example, i am a vegetarian.  there is a documentary i like called earthlings it is free to watch btw .  it makes very compelling points about how animals are treated and why you should care, but there are some points made that i think take the argument too far.  someone who dislikes veganism and vegetarianism is going disregard the whole documentary and focus hard on those few far reaching comments.   #  it mentions monsanto having a trademark on some genetically modified plants and the worry farmers have that they are going to get sued, but does not mention that monsanto has never actually sued any farmer yet for illegally selling their product.   #  i agree with a lot of your points, but i laughed really hard when i got to the end and stated food inc.  you commented about me using an example that you do not like and used an example that  i  do not like.  i find food inc to be the most misleading documentary i have seen.  it mentions monsanto having a trademark on some genetically modified plants and the worry farmers have that they are going to get sued, but does not mention that monsanto has never actually sued any farmer yet for illegally selling their product.  it talks really negatively about gmo is even though it does not make a single argument about the health of them.  it talks about fillers in meats being bad but does not mention why either.  cleaning chicken with ammonia ? why is that bad ? why is that the issue to focus on ? all the things shown in earthlings literally happened, leaving you to decide if they are acceptable or not.  as for the practices being rare.  that is speculation, and i personally think it is wrong.  i think it is more common than people would like to believe.  also, i really like moby and he did the music for it.   #  now i am wondering why it would be shown in health class to begin with.   #  hi, thanks for the comment.  it is actually been a few years since i have seen food inc.  i think it was in a freshman health/home ec class so i am probably misremembering.  heck, i did not even remember them bringing up gmo is.  i guess i really need to re watch that movie.  now i am wondering why it would be shown in health class to begin with.  i think i am just floundering for a good movie to mention to people when they ask.  i am just wary of that earthlings, because it personally put me off becoming a vegetarian for a good few months, since when i invariably went to research the specific examples,  i could not go anywhere since i did not get the context from the movie.  the images were definitely powerful though.
recently i have seen a lot of posts regarding the topic of transgender and transphobia.  this post is based upon a statement that i have read over and over again.   if you were attracted to someone, learned they were trans, and then lost sexual interest in them, then you are transphobic.   example URL if pointing to someone else is comment is not okay with the mods then let me know and i will edit this out my argument revolves around the definition of homophobia and comparing that to transphobia.  a quick google will result in having them both defined as.  homophobia / transphobia is the irrational fear of, aversion to, intense dislike of ,or prejudice against gay or transsexual or transgender people i do not go out of my way to avoid gay people, i am perfectly fine with having a gay friend, and i do not look down on someone for being gay.  by the above definition i am not homophobic.  assuming i follow all of the same rules, but for transgender or transsexual people, then i am not transphobic.  the counter argument seems to be that if i am no longer attracted to someone after i learn that they are trans, then i am somehow discriminating or i have an aversion to them.  but i would say that going by that definition i would also be homophobic.  as a straight male, i am not attracted to other men.  if we assume that i would enjoy anal with a woman, but not a man, then it could be said that i am discriminating against gay men or that i have an aversion to them.  that is simply not true though.  my body is programmed to want to be with a woman, so my sexual preference clearly is not what determines if i am homophobic.  it is how i act around gay people that determines if i am homophobic.  just because i would avoid having sex with someone who is currently a man, and was previously a man turns me off, does not mean i have shaky morals.  it simply means i have been programmed to be that way.  just because i do not like the taste of avocados does not mean i am avophobic.  in the same sense, if i were to be turned off by learning that someone i would have had sex with a is currently a female, but formerly a man, it is not due to me discriminating against them, its due to a biological mechanism trying to get me to have offspring.  again in this situation, my sexual preference is not a question of morals.  in conclusion since i am not homophobic and i act the same around gays and trans, then i am not transphobic.   #  as a straight male, i am not attracted to other men.   #  if we assume that i would enjoy anal with a woman, but not a man, then it could be said that i am discriminating against gay men or that i have an aversion to them.   # if we assume that i would enjoy anal with a woman, but not a man, then it could be said that i am discriminating against gay men or that i have an aversion to them.  that is not a good equivalence.  if you thought a woman was super hot, and you found out she was a lesbian, would you still think she is hot ? or to make it a more likely example, if you were dating a woman and found out she was bisexual, would you stop being attracted to her ? if so, you would be homophobic.  you not being attracted to gay men is perfectly reasonable because you are also not attracted to straight men.  you are, however, attracted to women, so it is gay women that you have to examine your attraction to.   #  well, i am sure a lot of people will have a grand time with that.   #  you want other redditors to try to make you believe that you  are  transphobic ? ! well, i am sure a lot of people will have a grand time with that.  i will try to keep it serious and respectful.  look a gay guy is gay even when he is in the closet and identifies as straight.  it is a false identity.  similarly for a mtf, she has felt like a woman for much longer than she has  been  a woman.  but when you meet the woman you do not know anything about her past.  and when you say:   if i were to be turned off by learning that someone i would have had sex with a is currently a female, but formerly a man, it is not due to me discriminating against them, its due to a biological mechanism trying to get me to have offspring you would not be transphobic at all  if , before every sexual encounter, you make sure to determine a woman is ability to carry children.  many women cannot have children for medical reasons past medical conditions, or they may not want to have children.  would you proceed to have sex with these women despite the fact that you wo not have kids with them ? if you do make sure to only have sex with the women who you have pre determined then you are not transphobic since you prefer only those women who can, and are willing to, have children with you.  but if you are okay with sexual encounters without the background checks then it is hard to not say that you are slightly transphobic.  i do not even know whether i could go that far since i do not really know you.  but you asked that you v be c would so i tried.   #  this seems to be discussing how advanced our brains are into tricking us to having kids.   # but when you meet the woman you do not know anything about her past.  i am not current on the state of technology, but let is assume that a mtf transformation is 0 perfect with no differences between a trans girl and a for lack of better words, two x chromosome girl.  even if this perfectly transformed girl told me that she used to be a man, i cannot help but think that there is a man underneath, and since i ca not get that image out of my head, i am not attracted to them anymore.  this just comes down to me being straight, not transphobic.  many women cannot have children for medical reasons past medical conditions, or they may not want to have children.  would you proceed to have sex with these women despite the fact that you wo not have kids with them ? this seems to be discussing how advanced our brains are into tricking us to having kids.  if we say that people are straight because there is a biological necessity to have sex with the opposite sex, then by your logic anyone who has sex with a condom is morally wrong for trying to prevent a child and go against the grain in terms of instinct.  therefore the fertility of my partner does not determine my sexuality or morals.   #  almost everything is shared, but someone who has successfully transitioned would be missing a female reproductive system.   # in her mind she is a woman, and has been for a very long time.  the dedication required to change her gender is an indicator of how strongly she feels about the matter.  so if you feel that she is still a man underneath is your own projection.  that is something that you have to overcome, she would happily confirm that she is female if you asked her.  the question is: what is she now ? people change all the time, most people try to  find  themselves throughout their life.  our identities are formed in the brain.  what is underneath are lungs, a heart, kidneys, etc.  almost everything is shared, but someone who has successfully transitioned would be missing a female reproductive system.  and that brings me to:   if we say that people are straight because there is a biological necessity to have sex with the opposite sex there is a biological  preference  for straight men to have sex with the opposite sex, it is not a necessity.  people experiment all the time, and this has been true throughout history.  you only need to look at the roman empire to see that people have been experimenting for thousands of years.  i have not made any such claim at all, and i do not see how you came to this conclusion.  i have tried to keep it mostly about preference or non preference, not right or wrong.  consider this: you meet a woman and hit it off with her.  you do not know this, but she can never have children.  but she wants to have sex with you and asks you back to her place ? do you go ? do you pause to ask her whether she is physically capable of having children ? if you do not then why does it make a difference to you whether she can have children in the future ? you are there for sex, not to breed.  but if you do decide to ask her about her ability to have children and proceed only if she says that she is capable, only then can you consistently use the argument that it is your  biological mechanism trying to get me to have offspring.    #  you do not know this, but she can never have children.   # you do not know this, but she can never have children.  but she wants to have sex with you and asks you back to her place ? do you go ? do you pause to ask her whether she is physically capable of having children ? fertility is not a factor of attraction for me, but the knowledge of them being a man is.  i do not care if they can have kids if i am hooking up, i only care that they are attractive and a woman.  that said, i will admit that i am lacking in the willingness to overcome my instinct to become intimate with someone who is trans, but that does not make me transphobic.  i do not fear them and i do not try to avoid them.  imagine if i hooked up with a girl who wore a lot of makeup and then the next day after it had all come off i saw what she originally looked like and i could not get that image out of my head.  just because i ca not forget what she looks like underneath does not mean i am ugly phobic.  as long as i treat ugly people the same as attractive people in my daily life then i am not ugly phobic
note: this is going to be kinda long because i am kinda angry and i think this is a good idea, but i would like to understand the counter arguments.  background: in the wake of the charleston shooting many people on reddit, and in the real world, have pointed out that we are poised to go through the same four step routine we have all become way too used to after events like this.  0.  fight about gun control 0.  discuss the amorphous  mental health  problem without any specifics 0.  bicker about something other than the actual problem.  for instance, religious persecution instead of racial prejudice.  0.  get bored and forget about it.  many people have been outraged over the fact that despite such comically obvious evidence that this was a racially motivated act, we are not going to do anything about the growing race problem in the u. s. again.  even going so far as not lowering the confederate flag outside the south carolina capitol building because that flag inexplicably requires a 0/0rds vote to lower.  that has in turn raised, or re raised the issue of stubborn insistence on using antebellum symbols and homages all throughout the south, which many people have pointed out as indicative of the pervasive racial biases throughout the country.  the idea: a federal law banning flying the flag of the confederation outside any public or municipal building, as well as a phasing out of all names associated with the confederation from public roadways, buildings, etc.  the rationale: there are so many reasons, but i will try to keep it succinct and duck most of the moral policing.  first, it is tremendously offensive to black citizens, which, is fairly self explanatory, and frankly should be to white citizens as well.  setting aside the racial implications, which we should not, the confederate flag is a symbol of treason.  not only that, we are the only developed nation that not only displays, but does so with pride, symbols of our darker past.  south african government buildings do not fly the rhodesian flag, nor do the japanese fly the imperial flag.  germans have damn near made the nazi flag a punishable offense.  how can the u. s.  maintain any sort of moral high ground when we are rubbing slavery in the faces of 0 of americans ? on the more implicit side, this is a very late, but very necessary, line in the sand against the more insidiously underground racial biases we still have.  we are not going to tolerate this any more.  the atmosphere that allowed dylann roof to foster and nurture his beliefs.  no, not all beliefs are acceptable anymore, and you are going to have to stand out in the open if you hold these destructive beliefs.  the government cannot continue a tacit tolerance of such a simple and easily solved first step to mending race relations.  it starts here, at the flag, and we are actually going to stat working on our race issues.  so that is my stance.  cmv  #  south african government buildings do not fly the rhodesian flag, nor do the japanese fly the imperial flag.   #  germans have damn near made the nazi flag a punishable offense.   # germans have damn near made the nazi flag a punishable offense.  how can the u. s.  maintain any sort of moral high ground when we are rubbing slavery in the faces of 0 of americans ? south africa now has a racism problem in reverse.  japan remains a racially homogenous nation that finds the idea of immigration utterly abhorrent.  germans and the eu as a whole is currently experiencing all kinds of tumult and turmoil over immigration and racial issues, including anti semitism.  it seems that trying to use the government to ban symbols does not actually promote all that much racial harmony.  in fact, it seems like a great way to convince yet more people that yes, they are in fact being belittled, mocked and attacked by their government.  we are not going to tolerate this any more.  the atmosphere that allowed dylann roof to foster and nurture his beliefs.  we do not tolerate it.  the slightest inkling of racism is enough to get most people fired.  roof went on a shooting rampage anyway.  in fact, roof is crazy little manifesto largely ranted about how the suppression of these topics leading him to think his acts were necessary notice that he even said he tried to find some group that would work with him on this, and he could not find anyone at all.  maybe the zero tolerance approach to  intolerance  is actually part of the problem.   #  nobody wants to talk about the kid who murdered nine people, let is talk about the flag that flew over a building miles away at the time of the murders instead.   #  it has not been 0 years, like i said that flag only really started being used for anything but a battle flag in a war long over in the late 0s as a response to the civil rights movement.  and honestly who is been really trying to get rid of them ? you ? i have seen no petitions nor protests.  honestly the idea that it takes a shooting for anyone to care at all is p fucked, and the fact that this is such a big part of the story when it is largely unrelated to roof is actions is sickening.  nobody wants to talk about the kid who murdered nine people, let is talk about the flag that flew over a building miles away at the time of the murders instead.  ahhhh, that is palatable.  it is not like the use of that flag is endemic, it is flown in like a handful of states and i believe sc has already taken theirs down.  why further burden our already slow federal government with this ? i mean they could vote on the state level or just get rid of it without a bill being drafted, then revised and passed and issued and ordered and all that.  and i do not like the federal government undermining the rights of the state.  and i am pretty sure the feds could not make them remove it, legally, either way unless they changed a number of laws.  considering the inconvenience all of that creates i think that just regular old marching and protesting will get the job done more quickly.   #  we should not need the government to do something but in the 0 since the end of the civil war, we have not done a damn thing about it.   #  we should not need the government to do something but in the 0 since the end of the civil war, we have not done a damn thing about it.  it should not take 0 people being murdered for people to change their minds about the fact that the confederate flag should not fly.  the flag represents a support of slavery and racism of black people.  that is essentially a symbolic form of hate speech.  hate speech can, and should be regulated by the government.   #  i am not sure where i stand, but i do not think one can reasonably suggest the answer is  simple .   #  are you really suggesting we should interpret the freedom of speech to be absolute ? if so, then all of the following would be legal:   publishing someone is ssn   calling for someone is murder, and promising to pay the killer.  calling someone up and threatening to kill their whole family.  the freedom of speech is crucial, and as you say, government regulation of speech can be very bad.  but no right is absolute.  it just ca not be.  we need to evaluate the balancing interests in this case.  on the one hand the confederacy was a terrorist organization that committed treason to defend slavery.  on the other hand, flying a flag does not necessarily endorse all of those things.  i am not sure where i stand, but i do not think one can reasonably suggest the answer is  simple .   #  which is also illegal, as the battlegrounds revolved around things like jim crow laws, which were ruled unconstitutional.   #  again, i do not think the distinction is as clear cut as you suggest.  what about the  idea  of jihad ? is communicating that illegal, if the speaker is not suggesting any specific actions ? the confederate flag clearly communicates illegal intentions, at least in a general sense.  it was the symbol of a revolt.  and was revived in the 0s as a symbol of rejecting the civil rights movement.  which is also illegal, as the battlegrounds revolved around things like jim crow laws, which were ruled unconstitutional.
note: this is going to be kinda long because i am kinda angry and i think this is a good idea, but i would like to understand the counter arguments.  background: in the wake of the charleston shooting many people on reddit, and in the real world, have pointed out that we are poised to go through the same four step routine we have all become way too used to after events like this.  0.  fight about gun control 0.  discuss the amorphous  mental health  problem without any specifics 0.  bicker about something other than the actual problem.  for instance, religious persecution instead of racial prejudice.  0.  get bored and forget about it.  many people have been outraged over the fact that despite such comically obvious evidence that this was a racially motivated act, we are not going to do anything about the growing race problem in the u. s. again.  even going so far as not lowering the confederate flag outside the south carolina capitol building because that flag inexplicably requires a 0/0rds vote to lower.  that has in turn raised, or re raised the issue of stubborn insistence on using antebellum symbols and homages all throughout the south, which many people have pointed out as indicative of the pervasive racial biases throughout the country.  the idea: a federal law banning flying the flag of the confederation outside any public or municipal building, as well as a phasing out of all names associated with the confederation from public roadways, buildings, etc.  the rationale: there are so many reasons, but i will try to keep it succinct and duck most of the moral policing.  first, it is tremendously offensive to black citizens, which, is fairly self explanatory, and frankly should be to white citizens as well.  setting aside the racial implications, which we should not, the confederate flag is a symbol of treason.  not only that, we are the only developed nation that not only displays, but does so with pride, symbols of our darker past.  south african government buildings do not fly the rhodesian flag, nor do the japanese fly the imperial flag.  germans have damn near made the nazi flag a punishable offense.  how can the u. s.  maintain any sort of moral high ground when we are rubbing slavery in the faces of 0 of americans ? on the more implicit side, this is a very late, but very necessary, line in the sand against the more insidiously underground racial biases we still have.  we are not going to tolerate this any more.  the atmosphere that allowed dylann roof to foster and nurture his beliefs.  no, not all beliefs are acceptable anymore, and you are going to have to stand out in the open if you hold these destructive beliefs.  the government cannot continue a tacit tolerance of such a simple and easily solved first step to mending race relations.  it starts here, at the flag, and we are actually going to stat working on our race issues.  so that is my stance.  cmv  #  on the more implicit side, this is a very late, but very necessary, line in the sand against the more insidiously underground racial biases we still have.   #  we are not going to tolerate this any more.   # germans have damn near made the nazi flag a punishable offense.  how can the u. s.  maintain any sort of moral high ground when we are rubbing slavery in the faces of 0 of americans ? south africa now has a racism problem in reverse.  japan remains a racially homogenous nation that finds the idea of immigration utterly abhorrent.  germans and the eu as a whole is currently experiencing all kinds of tumult and turmoil over immigration and racial issues, including anti semitism.  it seems that trying to use the government to ban symbols does not actually promote all that much racial harmony.  in fact, it seems like a great way to convince yet more people that yes, they are in fact being belittled, mocked and attacked by their government.  we are not going to tolerate this any more.  the atmosphere that allowed dylann roof to foster and nurture his beliefs.  we do not tolerate it.  the slightest inkling of racism is enough to get most people fired.  roof went on a shooting rampage anyway.  in fact, roof is crazy little manifesto largely ranted about how the suppression of these topics leading him to think his acts were necessary notice that he even said he tried to find some group that would work with him on this, and he could not find anyone at all.  maybe the zero tolerance approach to  intolerance  is actually part of the problem.   #  and honestly who is been really trying to get rid of them ?  #  it has not been 0 years, like i said that flag only really started being used for anything but a battle flag in a war long over in the late 0s as a response to the civil rights movement.  and honestly who is been really trying to get rid of them ? you ? i have seen no petitions nor protests.  honestly the idea that it takes a shooting for anyone to care at all is p fucked, and the fact that this is such a big part of the story when it is largely unrelated to roof is actions is sickening.  nobody wants to talk about the kid who murdered nine people, let is talk about the flag that flew over a building miles away at the time of the murders instead.  ahhhh, that is palatable.  it is not like the use of that flag is endemic, it is flown in like a handful of states and i believe sc has already taken theirs down.  why further burden our already slow federal government with this ? i mean they could vote on the state level or just get rid of it without a bill being drafted, then revised and passed and issued and ordered and all that.  and i do not like the federal government undermining the rights of the state.  and i am pretty sure the feds could not make them remove it, legally, either way unless they changed a number of laws.  considering the inconvenience all of that creates i think that just regular old marching and protesting will get the job done more quickly.   #  we should not need the government to do something but in the 0 since the end of the civil war, we have not done a damn thing about it.   #  we should not need the government to do something but in the 0 since the end of the civil war, we have not done a damn thing about it.  it should not take 0 people being murdered for people to change their minds about the fact that the confederate flag should not fly.  the flag represents a support of slavery and racism of black people.  that is essentially a symbolic form of hate speech.  hate speech can, and should be regulated by the government.   #  i am not sure where i stand, but i do not think one can reasonably suggest the answer is  simple .   #  are you really suggesting we should interpret the freedom of speech to be absolute ? if so, then all of the following would be legal:   publishing someone is ssn   calling for someone is murder, and promising to pay the killer.  calling someone up and threatening to kill their whole family.  the freedom of speech is crucial, and as you say, government regulation of speech can be very bad.  but no right is absolute.  it just ca not be.  we need to evaluate the balancing interests in this case.  on the one hand the confederacy was a terrorist organization that committed treason to defend slavery.  on the other hand, flying a flag does not necessarily endorse all of those things.  i am not sure where i stand, but i do not think one can reasonably suggest the answer is  simple .   #  and was revived in the 0s as a symbol of rejecting the civil rights movement.   #  again, i do not think the distinction is as clear cut as you suggest.  what about the  idea  of jihad ? is communicating that illegal, if the speaker is not suggesting any specific actions ? the confederate flag clearly communicates illegal intentions, at least in a general sense.  it was the symbol of a revolt.  and was revived in the 0s as a symbol of rejecting the civil rights movement.  which is also illegal, as the battlegrounds revolved around things like jim crow laws, which were ruled unconstitutional.
note: this is going to be kinda long because i am kinda angry and i think this is a good idea, but i would like to understand the counter arguments.  background: in the wake of the charleston shooting many people on reddit, and in the real world, have pointed out that we are poised to go through the same four step routine we have all become way too used to after events like this.  0.  fight about gun control 0.  discuss the amorphous  mental health  problem without any specifics 0.  bicker about something other than the actual problem.  for instance, religious persecution instead of racial prejudice.  0.  get bored and forget about it.  many people have been outraged over the fact that despite such comically obvious evidence that this was a racially motivated act, we are not going to do anything about the growing race problem in the u. s. again.  even going so far as not lowering the confederate flag outside the south carolina capitol building because that flag inexplicably requires a 0/0rds vote to lower.  that has in turn raised, or re raised the issue of stubborn insistence on using antebellum symbols and homages all throughout the south, which many people have pointed out as indicative of the pervasive racial biases throughout the country.  the idea: a federal law banning flying the flag of the confederation outside any public or municipal building, as well as a phasing out of all names associated with the confederation from public roadways, buildings, etc.  the rationale: there are so many reasons, but i will try to keep it succinct and duck most of the moral policing.  first, it is tremendously offensive to black citizens, which, is fairly self explanatory, and frankly should be to white citizens as well.  setting aside the racial implications, which we should not, the confederate flag is a symbol of treason.  not only that, we are the only developed nation that not only displays, but does so with pride, symbols of our darker past.  south african government buildings do not fly the rhodesian flag, nor do the japanese fly the imperial flag.  germans have damn near made the nazi flag a punishable offense.  how can the u. s.  maintain any sort of moral high ground when we are rubbing slavery in the faces of 0 of americans ? on the more implicit side, this is a very late, but very necessary, line in the sand against the more insidiously underground racial biases we still have.  we are not going to tolerate this any more.  the atmosphere that allowed dylann roof to foster and nurture his beliefs.  no, not all beliefs are acceptable anymore, and you are going to have to stand out in the open if you hold these destructive beliefs.  the government cannot continue a tacit tolerance of such a simple and easily solved first step to mending race relations.  it starts here, at the flag, and we are actually going to stat working on our race issues.  so that is my stance.  cmv  #  there are so many reasons, but i will try to keep it succinct and duck most of the moral policing.   #  first, it is tremendously offensive to black citizens, which, is fairly self explanatory, and frankly should be to white citizens as well.   # first, it is tremendously offensive to black citizens, which, is fairly self explanatory, and frankly should be to white citizens as well.  setting aside the racial implications, which we should not, the confederate flag is a symbol of treason.  not only that, we are the only developed nation that not only displays, but does so with pride, symbols of our darker past.  south african government buildings do not fly the rhodesian flag, nor do the japanese fly the imperial flag.  germans have damn near made the nazi flag a punishable offense.  how can the u. s.  maintain any sort of moral high ground when we are rubbing slavery in the faces of 0 of americans ? i think the real problem here is that nobody really tries to understand the other side.  people who do not fly the flag only think of the confederacy and anything that represents it as symbols of racism and slavery, but this is not what the confederate flag although this is not technically speaking the confederate flag represents to many of the people who fly it.  all it takes is a google search to find articles that explain how certain people in the south view the confederate flag.  in this bbc article URL a few reasons are given.  one of them is that the flag celebrates the south is courage in fighting for its right to self determination.  another is that many people in the south have ancestors who fought in the civil war.  this flag serves as a way to honor those ancestors, regardless of whether or not we think that the principles they were fighting for were misguided.  telling southerners that the confederate flag should be taken down because it represents slavery does not hold much water unless they also feel that it represents slavery.  from their perspective, this is kind of like telling a hindu family not to display swastikas because it represents racism against jews even though for hindus it is a good luck charm URL perhaps the answer to this issue is not to forcibly have the confederate flag removed, but to accept that the flag can mean different things to different people, and if it means positive things for the majority of the constituency of southern states, then they should have the democratic right to have flown at their government buildings.   #  it is not like the use of that flag is endemic, it is flown in like a handful of states and i believe sc has already taken theirs down.   #  it has not been 0 years, like i said that flag only really started being used for anything but a battle flag in a war long over in the late 0s as a response to the civil rights movement.  and honestly who is been really trying to get rid of them ? you ? i have seen no petitions nor protests.  honestly the idea that it takes a shooting for anyone to care at all is p fucked, and the fact that this is such a big part of the story when it is largely unrelated to roof is actions is sickening.  nobody wants to talk about the kid who murdered nine people, let is talk about the flag that flew over a building miles away at the time of the murders instead.  ahhhh, that is palatable.  it is not like the use of that flag is endemic, it is flown in like a handful of states and i believe sc has already taken theirs down.  why further burden our already slow federal government with this ? i mean they could vote on the state level or just get rid of it without a bill being drafted, then revised and passed and issued and ordered and all that.  and i do not like the federal government undermining the rights of the state.  and i am pretty sure the feds could not make them remove it, legally, either way unless they changed a number of laws.  considering the inconvenience all of that creates i think that just regular old marching and protesting will get the job done more quickly.   #  it should not take 0 people being murdered for people to change their minds about the fact that the confederate flag should not fly.   #  we should not need the government to do something but in the 0 since the end of the civil war, we have not done a damn thing about it.  it should not take 0 people being murdered for people to change their minds about the fact that the confederate flag should not fly.  the flag represents a support of slavery and racism of black people.  that is essentially a symbolic form of hate speech.  hate speech can, and should be regulated by the government.   #  on the one hand the confederacy was a terrorist organization that committed treason to defend slavery.   #  are you really suggesting we should interpret the freedom of speech to be absolute ? if so, then all of the following would be legal:   publishing someone is ssn   calling for someone is murder, and promising to pay the killer.  calling someone up and threatening to kill their whole family.  the freedom of speech is crucial, and as you say, government regulation of speech can be very bad.  but no right is absolute.  it just ca not be.  we need to evaluate the balancing interests in this case.  on the one hand the confederacy was a terrorist organization that committed treason to defend slavery.  on the other hand, flying a flag does not necessarily endorse all of those things.  i am not sure where i stand, but i do not think one can reasonably suggest the answer is  simple .   #  the confederate flag clearly communicates illegal intentions, at least in a general sense.   #  again, i do not think the distinction is as clear cut as you suggest.  what about the  idea  of jihad ? is communicating that illegal, if the speaker is not suggesting any specific actions ? the confederate flag clearly communicates illegal intentions, at least in a general sense.  it was the symbol of a revolt.  and was revived in the 0s as a symbol of rejecting the civil rights movement.  which is also illegal, as the battlegrounds revolved around things like jim crow laws, which were ruled unconstitutional.
the main reason i think this, is because i have never used an android phone, but i ca not just go and buy a new phone to try it out especially as i have no money or job .  i have tried looking at comparison videos on which is better, and they all seem very vague  android has more customization  i see a lot, but i am not sure what it is like as i have never used it .  it seems because iphones are very popular not sure on which has a higher user base , that devs post games and apps to iphones first, or only.  many games i love pumped:bmx 0 and 0 , i always see people saying  please bring it to android .  not a huge reason to buy an iphone, but i do not know of any reasons to want android.  i just want to find some reasons on which is actually better.  if i were to ever get money and buy a new phone, i would consider an android phone, but because i know nothing about them i would probably end up getting an iphone or sticking with my 0s another few years until it dies .  my view has been changed thanks to /u/superolive0 :d  #  it seems because iphones are very popular not sure on which has a higher user base , that devs post games and apps to iphones first, or only.   #  paid app developers seem to have a significantly easier time making money on the ios app store.   # i understand that money is tight, but you can totally  just go and buy a new phone to try it out  and then use it on wifi instead of paying for phone service.  the moto g is not a barnburner performance wise or feature wise, but it is solid and fairly representative of what the software is like.  paid app developers seem to have a significantly easier time making money on the ios app store.  piracy is pretty widespread and difficult to stop on android.  if you prefer google is apps to apple is apps say, you use gmail and google maps on ios instead of the native mail app and maps they are updated more frequently on android and integrate with voice commands better.  you can set up automation tasks, like  turn on bluetooth when plugged in  or opening certain apps after connecting to a certain wifi network.  you can even use nfc for stuff other than paying at select stores you could, for example, set up a waypoint on your car dock to open up gps, or on a speaker you have at home to open your music app.  you can get apps from sources other than the platform holder is app store, like amazon, or even just something you have downloaded off the internet.  you can even make stuff yourself and run it without having to pay hundreds of dollars a year to be an official developer.  you can download and use alternate  launchers  and even alternative lock screens.  ever feel like the ios launcher was kinda ugly and utilitarian ? you can replace the native one on android, swap out different clocks or a media player widget or draw a neat pattern with your app icons.  you can even change app is icons.  and if you have ever seen the google now page on the google search app in ios, imagine getting those cards as notifications instead of having to go looking for them.  google is way ahead of apple when it comes to predicting what info you will want to see and serving it up, even though apple is trying to improve there.  so is android better ? there is a lot of stuff to like, especially if you have already given most of your info over to the google hivemind.  i would not say it is better, but i would not say it is worse, either.  both platforms have their advantages, and android is more tinkering friendly.  ios has significantly better third party apps, but those apps ca not do as much to interact with one another or replace system functionality.   #  you do not need itunes or anything else to manage files.   #  here are some points in favor of android:   android has a much larger user base   android tends to have features ahead of ios copy/paste, notification drawer, nfc, etc .  android is more open.  you can use one of many app stores, install apps without an app store, and install customized versions of android.  you do not need itunes or anything else to manage files.  you can plug in the phone to drag and drop music, photos, and videos directly onto your phone.  android has widgets which make the home screen 0,0x more useful.  some really great apps like tasker are fundamentally impossible on ios due to restrictions   manufacturer variety.  you can get an android phone that you want, and have options as far as size, storage, camera quality, price, etc.   #  if you want customization, there is no other choice than android.   #  i am a die hard android lover, but there are some drawbacks as well.  imessage does not exist, and there is not really an alternative baked into android, despite what google wants hangouts to be.  backup/restore is extremely limited when compared to iphones.  software updates take absolutely forever to make it to phones, unless you are on a nexus device.  what it really comes down to is  what do you want in a phone ?   if you want customization, there is no other choice than android.  if you want a phone that  just works , iphones are probably best for you.   #  i do not remember getting them that often on mine, but i stopped updating altogether since ios 0 apparently runs terrible on the 0s.   #  i do not really care for imessage, i have it turned off as i have unlimited texts anyway.  yea i like this on iphones, whenever i sync to my pc is stores all my data.  how often are updates ? i do not remember getting them that often on mine, but i stopped updating altogether since ios 0 apparently runs terrible on the 0s.  i am not really sure what i want.  i used to play games on a console because i just wanted to play games, but i have switched to pc and would never go back.  i guess it is something similar where iphones are the console and android are pc, but as i have no way of trying one out i just ca not risk the money and buy one hoping i will like it.   #  nexus phones usually get the quickest updates, because they are basically phones manufactured for google through another company.   # i do not remember getting them that often on mine, but i stopped updating altogether since ios 0 apparently runs terrible on the 0s.  it honestly depends on your phone and your comfort level.  nexus phones usually get the quickest updates, because they are basically phones manufactured for google through another company.  i have the nexus 0, which was made by motorola.  some companies are quicker to get updates out than others, though this seems to vary between releases.  if you want to, though, you can get into custom roms and get updates once a week.  a rom is basically a custom version of android that someone has made, usually with added features and de bloated.  some developers push out multiple updates per month, some way less.  all of this depends on how much you really want to customize your experience.  in that analogy, iphones are definitely consoles.  android is completely customizable if you are savvy enough.  you can under/overclock your phone, change the dpi, and completely overhaul every piece of the ui.  there are phones with removable batteries, which is super convenient, phones with expandable storage using microsd cards, phones with eink screens on the back and a normal screen on the front, etc.  your experience will generally vary between manufacturers, though, so a samsung phone will behave/look different than a motorola phone.  it all comes down to what is important to you in a phone.  if customization is important, android is the way to go.
the main reason i think this, is because i have never used an android phone, but i ca not just go and buy a new phone to try it out especially as i have no money or job .  i have tried looking at comparison videos on which is better, and they all seem very vague  android has more customization  i see a lot, but i am not sure what it is like as i have never used it .  it seems because iphones are very popular not sure on which has a higher user base , that devs post games and apps to iphones first, or only.  many games i love pumped:bmx 0 and 0 , i always see people saying  please bring it to android .  not a huge reason to buy an iphone, but i do not know of any reasons to want android.  i just want to find some reasons on which is actually better.  if i were to ever get money and buy a new phone, i would consider an android phone, but because i know nothing about them i would probably end up getting an iphone or sticking with my 0s another few years until it dies .  my view has been changed thanks to /u/superolive0 :d  #  i just want to find some reasons on which is actually better.   #  if you prefer google is apps to apple is apps say, you use gmail and google maps on ios instead of the native mail app and maps they are updated more frequently on android and integrate with voice commands better.   # i understand that money is tight, but you can totally  just go and buy a new phone to try it out  and then use it on wifi instead of paying for phone service.  the moto g is not a barnburner performance wise or feature wise, but it is solid and fairly representative of what the software is like.  paid app developers seem to have a significantly easier time making money on the ios app store.  piracy is pretty widespread and difficult to stop on android.  if you prefer google is apps to apple is apps say, you use gmail and google maps on ios instead of the native mail app and maps they are updated more frequently on android and integrate with voice commands better.  you can set up automation tasks, like  turn on bluetooth when plugged in  or opening certain apps after connecting to a certain wifi network.  you can even use nfc for stuff other than paying at select stores you could, for example, set up a waypoint on your car dock to open up gps, or on a speaker you have at home to open your music app.  you can get apps from sources other than the platform holder is app store, like amazon, or even just something you have downloaded off the internet.  you can even make stuff yourself and run it without having to pay hundreds of dollars a year to be an official developer.  you can download and use alternate  launchers  and even alternative lock screens.  ever feel like the ios launcher was kinda ugly and utilitarian ? you can replace the native one on android, swap out different clocks or a media player widget or draw a neat pattern with your app icons.  you can even change app is icons.  and if you have ever seen the google now page on the google search app in ios, imagine getting those cards as notifications instead of having to go looking for them.  google is way ahead of apple when it comes to predicting what info you will want to see and serving it up, even though apple is trying to improve there.  so is android better ? there is a lot of stuff to like, especially if you have already given most of your info over to the google hivemind.  i would not say it is better, but i would not say it is worse, either.  both platforms have their advantages, and android is more tinkering friendly.  ios has significantly better third party apps, but those apps ca not do as much to interact with one another or replace system functionality.   #  you do not need itunes or anything else to manage files.   #  here are some points in favor of android:   android has a much larger user base   android tends to have features ahead of ios copy/paste, notification drawer, nfc, etc .  android is more open.  you can use one of many app stores, install apps without an app store, and install customized versions of android.  you do not need itunes or anything else to manage files.  you can plug in the phone to drag and drop music, photos, and videos directly onto your phone.  android has widgets which make the home screen 0,0x more useful.  some really great apps like tasker are fundamentally impossible on ios due to restrictions   manufacturer variety.  you can get an android phone that you want, and have options as far as size, storage, camera quality, price, etc.   #  i am a die hard android lover, but there are some drawbacks as well.   #  i am a die hard android lover, but there are some drawbacks as well.  imessage does not exist, and there is not really an alternative baked into android, despite what google wants hangouts to be.  backup/restore is extremely limited when compared to iphones.  software updates take absolutely forever to make it to phones, unless you are on a nexus device.  what it really comes down to is  what do you want in a phone ?   if you want customization, there is no other choice than android.  if you want a phone that  just works , iphones are probably best for you.   #  i do not really care for imessage, i have it turned off as i have unlimited texts anyway.   #  i do not really care for imessage, i have it turned off as i have unlimited texts anyway.  yea i like this on iphones, whenever i sync to my pc is stores all my data.  how often are updates ? i do not remember getting them that often on mine, but i stopped updating altogether since ios 0 apparently runs terrible on the 0s.  i am not really sure what i want.  i used to play games on a console because i just wanted to play games, but i have switched to pc and would never go back.  i guess it is something similar where iphones are the console and android are pc, but as i have no way of trying one out i just ca not risk the money and buy one hoping i will like it.   #  it all comes down to what is important to you in a phone.   # i do not remember getting them that often on mine, but i stopped updating altogether since ios 0 apparently runs terrible on the 0s.  it honestly depends on your phone and your comfort level.  nexus phones usually get the quickest updates, because they are basically phones manufactured for google through another company.  i have the nexus 0, which was made by motorola.  some companies are quicker to get updates out than others, though this seems to vary between releases.  if you want to, though, you can get into custom roms and get updates once a week.  a rom is basically a custom version of android that someone has made, usually with added features and de bloated.  some developers push out multiple updates per month, some way less.  all of this depends on how much you really want to customize your experience.  in that analogy, iphones are definitely consoles.  android is completely customizable if you are savvy enough.  you can under/overclock your phone, change the dpi, and completely overhaul every piece of the ui.  there are phones with removable batteries, which is super convenient, phones with expandable storage using microsd cards, phones with eink screens on the back and a normal screen on the front, etc.  your experience will generally vary between manufacturers, though, so a samsung phone will behave/look different than a motorola phone.  it all comes down to what is important to you in a phone.  if customization is important, android is the way to go.
also.  looking at it from this perspective in no way condones slavery.  i am simply giving a historical context for both situations.  just because it existed for 0 years prior to the civil war does not make it alright, it does however give you a frame of mind for some of these soldiers.  mix that with the fact they thought they were not being represented in the federal government, and yea they were a little ticked off.  so please do not stoop so low as to call me a person who condones that.  original post: i find it very annoying that in light of recent events this subject has gained traction.  at the south carolina capitol, a confederate flag flies and now that the shooting has happened, people are calling for it to be taken down.  not sure why people believe this is the cause of the shootings, the guy was a racist and a nut case.  this flag flying had little to nothing to do with creating a culture of southern racism.  to set a few things straight: 0.  the flag cannot be taken down to half mast as it is a fixed flag there is no string to pull it down, it simply sits on top of the poll.  0.  the flag is attached to a civil war memorial, fitting in my opinion.  it is not attached to the capitol, it is on the grounds of the capitol.  beyond this my argument is that the flag is a part of us history and specifically, southern us history and since south carolina was the first to secede.  it has a highly unique history there .  yes, the flag does hold some racist connotations because it was essentially hijacked by the kkk and neo nazis.  this does not change the fact that it was a battle flag that americans fought over in one of the most devastating wars in us history.  i understand there were confederate national flags and the one we see flown today is a battle flag.  i still find it acceptable for those in the south to fly the flag as a reminder of southern culture/pride and a memorial to those lost during the war.  if those who argue the flag represents those who wanted keep slavery i have two counter points.  0.  the american flag represented those people for a much longer duration of time than the confederate flag, it is a dark part of our history and should never be forgotten.  0.  it is estimated that 0 0 of soldiers owned slaves, others fought because of vicious actions taken by the north and others to defend their homes look up sherman and georgia .  furthermore lets not forget this war was not slave holders v. s.  abolitionists.  the war was certainly about slavery but it was not as black and white as some people suggest.  the south was fighting to keep slavery as a state right separate from federal law, the north was fighting because they did not want their country being split in half.  lastly, flags are symbols that can be interpreted in multiple ways.  there are those that see the american flag as a imperialistic, evil symbol.  there are those that see the confederate flag as a stark reminder of our nation is dark history and cultural heritage.  just because a few people have championed it as their symbol for their hatred does not mean everyone who flies it agrees with this point of view.  furthermore, just because people find the flag offensive does not mean the flying of the flag was there to offend.  tl;dr the flag flying in south carolina has historic meaning and is attached to a memorial.  it is not intended to offend or to represent racism.  it is justified historically and by the first amendment to fly at the capitol.   #  the flag is attached to a civil war memorial, fitting in my opinion.   #  it is not attached to the capitol, it is on the grounds of the capitol.   # it is not attached to the capitol, it is on the grounds of the capitol.  only since 0.  before, it was on the dome of the capitol.  well, that, and the fact that it represented a group of states that seceded from the us over the issue of owning human beings as property.  the flag that is flown is not even the south carolina iteration URL of the flag, it is the army of tennessee URL north virginia battle flag thanks /u/billytehbob .  if you want to make the case that it is there for historical reasons, why not fly the flag that actually represented south carolina ? to take it a step further, the flag only began being flown during the civil rights movement, which i do not think is a coincidence.  do you ?  #  it takes some convincing but a vast majority of southerners i have come across are just very proud to be southern and have no intention of being racist.   #  the big comment i agree with is switching it to the 0rd national flag.  that is the last flag the csa used to represent their new nation.  ca not agree more, unfortunately the ole dixie is commonly used today to represent the old csa.  i make the same claim about our current american flag, it is no different.  even though the american flag represented those group of people, the native american genocide, the mistreatment of american immigrants, and various atrocities overseas.  it is still flown.  there is no doubt that the civil rights movement created a resurgence in flying the flag and for much more sinister reasons.  i think today we are far enough removed to view that flag as a piece of history and not a piece of hate.  living in the south i am from oregon , i have been very puzzled as to why they fly it.  it takes some convincing but a vast majority of southerners i have come across are just very proud to be southern and have no intention of being racist.  anecdotal i know, but i really do not think there is going to be a detailed statistical analysis of how southerners view the flag and why they fly it.   #  that is what the civil war was about, and at it is basest level, that is what the flag represents.   # the civil rights movement is really the only reason it is flying today, and it was brought back on purpose.  the only reason that flag exists was because people wanted to own other people as slaves.  that is what the civil war was about, and at it is basest level, that is what the flag represents.  we clearly have not, because this is the debate we are having, and most of the us does not agree with your position.  it takes some convincing but a vast majority of southerners i have come across are just very proud to be southern and have no intention of being racist.  anecdotal i know, but i really do not think there is going to be a detailed statistical analysis of how southerners view the flag and why they fly it.  i have lived in the south my entire life, and the ones that fly the flag proudly may not say it to your face, but they know exactly what it represents.  to 0 of south carolina is population, that flag represents a time when the other 0 could own them as property.  there is no way around that.   #  in contrast, confederate politicians have repeatedly made it clear that they consider slavery to be good, and racial equality to be bad, and that is a main reason for starting the civil war.   #  the natives were not acknowledged as a sovereign government by the british either.  colonial expansion was an orgnizational policy, not a moral one.  there are no records that revolutionary americans were more hateful, or willing to commit genocide towards natives, than the british were.  part of the reason why some historians hesitate to use the word  genocide  to the colonial american expansion, is exactly because of how disorganized, unofficial, and incidential it was based on several diseases, battles, local decisions, and demographic shifts, rather than a clear directed intent.  in contrast, confederate politicians have repeatedly made it clear that they consider slavery to be good, and racial equality to be bad, and that is a main reason for starting the civil war.  see also the cornerstone speech linked somewhere around here.   #  racism was simply the means by which people justified disregarding the rights of the native americans.   #  well, racism is not really the main reason people had slaves.  the main reason slavery existed was because it was profitable.  racism was simply the means by which people justified disregarding the rights of the african slaves.  in the same way, racism is not the main reason the native americans were killed in large numbers.  they were killed because people wanted their land, and they would not give it up.  racism was simply the means by which people justified disregarding the rights of the native americans.  i do not think the there is a big difference between these two crimes of early america.  both were essentially just economic policies.  racism was the moral justification of these policies.
also.  looking at it from this perspective in no way condones slavery.  i am simply giving a historical context for both situations.  just because it existed for 0 years prior to the civil war does not make it alright, it does however give you a frame of mind for some of these soldiers.  mix that with the fact they thought they were not being represented in the federal government, and yea they were a little ticked off.  so please do not stoop so low as to call me a person who condones that.  original post: i find it very annoying that in light of recent events this subject has gained traction.  at the south carolina capitol, a confederate flag flies and now that the shooting has happened, people are calling for it to be taken down.  not sure why people believe this is the cause of the shootings, the guy was a racist and a nut case.  this flag flying had little to nothing to do with creating a culture of southern racism.  to set a few things straight: 0.  the flag cannot be taken down to half mast as it is a fixed flag there is no string to pull it down, it simply sits on top of the poll.  0.  the flag is attached to a civil war memorial, fitting in my opinion.  it is not attached to the capitol, it is on the grounds of the capitol.  beyond this my argument is that the flag is a part of us history and specifically, southern us history and since south carolina was the first to secede.  it has a highly unique history there .  yes, the flag does hold some racist connotations because it was essentially hijacked by the kkk and neo nazis.  this does not change the fact that it was a battle flag that americans fought over in one of the most devastating wars in us history.  i understand there were confederate national flags and the one we see flown today is a battle flag.  i still find it acceptable for those in the south to fly the flag as a reminder of southern culture/pride and a memorial to those lost during the war.  if those who argue the flag represents those who wanted keep slavery i have two counter points.  0.  the american flag represented those people for a much longer duration of time than the confederate flag, it is a dark part of our history and should never be forgotten.  0.  it is estimated that 0 0 of soldiers owned slaves, others fought because of vicious actions taken by the north and others to defend their homes look up sherman and georgia .  furthermore lets not forget this war was not slave holders v. s.  abolitionists.  the war was certainly about slavery but it was not as black and white as some people suggest.  the south was fighting to keep slavery as a state right separate from federal law, the north was fighting because they did not want their country being split in half.  lastly, flags are symbols that can be interpreted in multiple ways.  there are those that see the american flag as a imperialistic, evil symbol.  there are those that see the confederate flag as a stark reminder of our nation is dark history and cultural heritage.  just because a few people have championed it as their symbol for their hatred does not mean everyone who flies it agrees with this point of view.  furthermore, just because people find the flag offensive does not mean the flying of the flag was there to offend.  tl;dr the flag flying in south carolina has historic meaning and is attached to a memorial.  it is not intended to offend or to represent racism.  it is justified historically and by the first amendment to fly at the capitol.   #  yes, the flag does hold some racist connotations because it was essentially hijacked by the kkk and neo nazis.   #  well, that, and the fact that it represented a group of states that seceded from the us over the issue of owning human beings as property.   # it is not attached to the capitol, it is on the grounds of the capitol.  only since 0.  before, it was on the dome of the capitol.  well, that, and the fact that it represented a group of states that seceded from the us over the issue of owning human beings as property.  the flag that is flown is not even the south carolina iteration URL of the flag, it is the army of tennessee URL north virginia battle flag thanks /u/billytehbob .  if you want to make the case that it is there for historical reasons, why not fly the flag that actually represented south carolina ? to take it a step further, the flag only began being flown during the civil rights movement, which i do not think is a coincidence.  do you ?  #  that is the last flag the csa used to represent their new nation.   #  the big comment i agree with is switching it to the 0rd national flag.  that is the last flag the csa used to represent their new nation.  ca not agree more, unfortunately the ole dixie is commonly used today to represent the old csa.  i make the same claim about our current american flag, it is no different.  even though the american flag represented those group of people, the native american genocide, the mistreatment of american immigrants, and various atrocities overseas.  it is still flown.  there is no doubt that the civil rights movement created a resurgence in flying the flag and for much more sinister reasons.  i think today we are far enough removed to view that flag as a piece of history and not a piece of hate.  living in the south i am from oregon , i have been very puzzled as to why they fly it.  it takes some convincing but a vast majority of southerners i have come across are just very proud to be southern and have no intention of being racist.  anecdotal i know, but i really do not think there is going to be a detailed statistical analysis of how southerners view the flag and why they fly it.   #  the civil rights movement is really the only reason it is flying today, and it was brought back on purpose.   # the civil rights movement is really the only reason it is flying today, and it was brought back on purpose.  the only reason that flag exists was because people wanted to own other people as slaves.  that is what the civil war was about, and at it is basest level, that is what the flag represents.  we clearly have not, because this is the debate we are having, and most of the us does not agree with your position.  it takes some convincing but a vast majority of southerners i have come across are just very proud to be southern and have no intention of being racist.  anecdotal i know, but i really do not think there is going to be a detailed statistical analysis of how southerners view the flag and why they fly it.  i have lived in the south my entire life, and the ones that fly the flag proudly may not say it to your face, but they know exactly what it represents.  to 0 of south carolina is population, that flag represents a time when the other 0 could own them as property.  there is no way around that.   #  the natives were not acknowledged as a sovereign government by the british either.   #  the natives were not acknowledged as a sovereign government by the british either.  colonial expansion was an orgnizational policy, not a moral one.  there are no records that revolutionary americans were more hateful, or willing to commit genocide towards natives, than the british were.  part of the reason why some historians hesitate to use the word  genocide  to the colonial american expansion, is exactly because of how disorganized, unofficial, and incidential it was based on several diseases, battles, local decisions, and demographic shifts, rather than a clear directed intent.  in contrast, confederate politicians have repeatedly made it clear that they consider slavery to be good, and racial equality to be bad, and that is a main reason for starting the civil war.  see also the cornerstone speech linked somewhere around here.   #  well, racism is not really the main reason people had slaves.   #  well, racism is not really the main reason people had slaves.  the main reason slavery existed was because it was profitable.  racism was simply the means by which people justified disregarding the rights of the african slaves.  in the same way, racism is not the main reason the native americans were killed in large numbers.  they were killed because people wanted their land, and they would not give it up.  racism was simply the means by which people justified disregarding the rights of the native americans.  i do not think the there is a big difference between these two crimes of early america.  both were essentially just economic policies.  racism was the moral justification of these policies.
also.  looking at it from this perspective in no way condones slavery.  i am simply giving a historical context for both situations.  just because it existed for 0 years prior to the civil war does not make it alright, it does however give you a frame of mind for some of these soldiers.  mix that with the fact they thought they were not being represented in the federal government, and yea they were a little ticked off.  so please do not stoop so low as to call me a person who condones that.  original post: i find it very annoying that in light of recent events this subject has gained traction.  at the south carolina capitol, a confederate flag flies and now that the shooting has happened, people are calling for it to be taken down.  not sure why people believe this is the cause of the shootings, the guy was a racist and a nut case.  this flag flying had little to nothing to do with creating a culture of southern racism.  to set a few things straight: 0.  the flag cannot be taken down to half mast as it is a fixed flag there is no string to pull it down, it simply sits on top of the poll.  0.  the flag is attached to a civil war memorial, fitting in my opinion.  it is not attached to the capitol, it is on the grounds of the capitol.  beyond this my argument is that the flag is a part of us history and specifically, southern us history and since south carolina was the first to secede.  it has a highly unique history there .  yes, the flag does hold some racist connotations because it was essentially hijacked by the kkk and neo nazis.  this does not change the fact that it was a battle flag that americans fought over in one of the most devastating wars in us history.  i understand there were confederate national flags and the one we see flown today is a battle flag.  i still find it acceptable for those in the south to fly the flag as a reminder of southern culture/pride and a memorial to those lost during the war.  if those who argue the flag represents those who wanted keep slavery i have two counter points.  0.  the american flag represented those people for a much longer duration of time than the confederate flag, it is a dark part of our history and should never be forgotten.  0.  it is estimated that 0 0 of soldiers owned slaves, others fought because of vicious actions taken by the north and others to defend their homes look up sherman and georgia .  furthermore lets not forget this war was not slave holders v. s.  abolitionists.  the war was certainly about slavery but it was not as black and white as some people suggest.  the south was fighting to keep slavery as a state right separate from federal law, the north was fighting because they did not want their country being split in half.  lastly, flags are symbols that can be interpreted in multiple ways.  there are those that see the american flag as a imperialistic, evil symbol.  there are those that see the confederate flag as a stark reminder of our nation is dark history and cultural heritage.  just because a few people have championed it as their symbol for their hatred does not mean everyone who flies it agrees with this point of view.  furthermore, just because people find the flag offensive does not mean the flying of the flag was there to offend.  tl;dr the flag flying in south carolina has historic meaning and is attached to a memorial.  it is not intended to offend or to represent racism.  it is justified historically and by the first amendment to fly at the capitol.   #  the flag is attached to a civil war memorial, fitting in my opinion.   #  if anything, this makes it less appropriate, because it is giving the impression that the confederate side of the civil war is worthy of respect.   # if anything, this makes it less appropriate, because it is giving the impression that the confederate side of the civil war is worthy of respect.  it is like if we would be like flying nazi flags over a holocaust memorial.  a government flying a flag implies respect for that flag is cause.  the us government flying the us flag, implies that it is people defend the us as a whole.  flying the confederate flag, implies that you defend the confederacy as a whole system.  0.  the american flag represented those people for a much longer duration of time than the confederate flag it is not about  people  it represents, but what ideas it represents.  every national flag in history has been used while committing attrocities.  there is still a difference between those, and flags like the nazi flag, the confedereate flag, the kkk flag, the italian fascist flag, or the flag of isis, that were not just representing a group of people for a long time, until they got appropriated for a particular cause, but were created specifically for a certain ideology and a political action, and since then, have been used to refer to  that particular action is  historical implementation.  the history of the confederacy does not consist of a history of ambigous policies, and wars, and cultural changes, and ideologies and ideas, but one idea, one action, one war, one government.  and that idea was abhorrent, that action was evil, that war was disastrous, and that government was despicable.   #  well, that, and the fact that it represented a group of states that seceded from the us over the issue of owning human beings as property.   # it is not attached to the capitol, it is on the grounds of the capitol.  only since 0.  before, it was on the dome of the capitol.  well, that, and the fact that it represented a group of states that seceded from the us over the issue of owning human beings as property.  the flag that is flown is not even the south carolina iteration URL of the flag, it is the army of tennessee URL north virginia battle flag thanks /u/billytehbob .  if you want to make the case that it is there for historical reasons, why not fly the flag that actually represented south carolina ? to take it a step further, the flag only began being flown during the civil rights movement, which i do not think is a coincidence.  do you ?  #  that is the last flag the csa used to represent their new nation.   #  the big comment i agree with is switching it to the 0rd national flag.  that is the last flag the csa used to represent their new nation.  ca not agree more, unfortunately the ole dixie is commonly used today to represent the old csa.  i make the same claim about our current american flag, it is no different.  even though the american flag represented those group of people, the native american genocide, the mistreatment of american immigrants, and various atrocities overseas.  it is still flown.  there is no doubt that the civil rights movement created a resurgence in flying the flag and for much more sinister reasons.  i think today we are far enough removed to view that flag as a piece of history and not a piece of hate.  living in the south i am from oregon , i have been very puzzled as to why they fly it.  it takes some convincing but a vast majority of southerners i have come across are just very proud to be southern and have no intention of being racist.  anecdotal i know, but i really do not think there is going to be a detailed statistical analysis of how southerners view the flag and why they fly it.   #  anecdotal i know, but i really do not think there is going to be a detailed statistical analysis of how southerners view the flag and why they fly it.   # the civil rights movement is really the only reason it is flying today, and it was brought back on purpose.  the only reason that flag exists was because people wanted to own other people as slaves.  that is what the civil war was about, and at it is basest level, that is what the flag represents.  we clearly have not, because this is the debate we are having, and most of the us does not agree with your position.  it takes some convincing but a vast majority of southerners i have come across are just very proud to be southern and have no intention of being racist.  anecdotal i know, but i really do not think there is going to be a detailed statistical analysis of how southerners view the flag and why they fly it.  i have lived in the south my entire life, and the ones that fly the flag proudly may not say it to your face, but they know exactly what it represents.  to 0 of south carolina is population, that flag represents a time when the other 0 could own them as property.  there is no way around that.   #  in contrast, confederate politicians have repeatedly made it clear that they consider slavery to be good, and racial equality to be bad, and that is a main reason for starting the civil war.   #  the natives were not acknowledged as a sovereign government by the british either.  colonial expansion was an orgnizational policy, not a moral one.  there are no records that revolutionary americans were more hateful, or willing to commit genocide towards natives, than the british were.  part of the reason why some historians hesitate to use the word  genocide  to the colonial american expansion, is exactly because of how disorganized, unofficial, and incidential it was based on several diseases, battles, local decisions, and demographic shifts, rather than a clear directed intent.  in contrast, confederate politicians have repeatedly made it clear that they consider slavery to be good, and racial equality to be bad, and that is a main reason for starting the civil war.  see also the cornerstone speech linked somewhere around here.
also.  looking at it from this perspective in no way condones slavery.  i am simply giving a historical context for both situations.  just because it existed for 0 years prior to the civil war does not make it alright, it does however give you a frame of mind for some of these soldiers.  mix that with the fact they thought they were not being represented in the federal government, and yea they were a little ticked off.  so please do not stoop so low as to call me a person who condones that.  original post: i find it very annoying that in light of recent events this subject has gained traction.  at the south carolina capitol, a confederate flag flies and now that the shooting has happened, people are calling for it to be taken down.  not sure why people believe this is the cause of the shootings, the guy was a racist and a nut case.  this flag flying had little to nothing to do with creating a culture of southern racism.  to set a few things straight: 0.  the flag cannot be taken down to half mast as it is a fixed flag there is no string to pull it down, it simply sits on top of the poll.  0.  the flag is attached to a civil war memorial, fitting in my opinion.  it is not attached to the capitol, it is on the grounds of the capitol.  beyond this my argument is that the flag is a part of us history and specifically, southern us history and since south carolina was the first to secede.  it has a highly unique history there .  yes, the flag does hold some racist connotations because it was essentially hijacked by the kkk and neo nazis.  this does not change the fact that it was a battle flag that americans fought over in one of the most devastating wars in us history.  i understand there were confederate national flags and the one we see flown today is a battle flag.  i still find it acceptable for those in the south to fly the flag as a reminder of southern culture/pride and a memorial to those lost during the war.  if those who argue the flag represents those who wanted keep slavery i have two counter points.  0.  the american flag represented those people for a much longer duration of time than the confederate flag, it is a dark part of our history and should never be forgotten.  0.  it is estimated that 0 0 of soldiers owned slaves, others fought because of vicious actions taken by the north and others to defend their homes look up sherman and georgia .  furthermore lets not forget this war was not slave holders v. s.  abolitionists.  the war was certainly about slavery but it was not as black and white as some people suggest.  the south was fighting to keep slavery as a state right separate from federal law, the north was fighting because they did not want their country being split in half.  lastly, flags are symbols that can be interpreted in multiple ways.  there are those that see the american flag as a imperialistic, evil symbol.  there are those that see the confederate flag as a stark reminder of our nation is dark history and cultural heritage.  just because a few people have championed it as their symbol for their hatred does not mean everyone who flies it agrees with this point of view.  furthermore, just because people find the flag offensive does not mean the flying of the flag was there to offend.  tl;dr the flag flying in south carolina has historic meaning and is attached to a memorial.  it is not intended to offend or to represent racism.  it is justified historically and by the first amendment to fly at the capitol.   #  if those who argue the flag represents those who wanted keep slavery i have two counter points.   #  0.  the american flag represented those people for a much longer duration of time than the confederate flag it is not about  people  it represents, but what ideas it represents.   # if anything, this makes it less appropriate, because it is giving the impression that the confederate side of the civil war is worthy of respect.  it is like if we would be like flying nazi flags over a holocaust memorial.  a government flying a flag implies respect for that flag is cause.  the us government flying the us flag, implies that it is people defend the us as a whole.  flying the confederate flag, implies that you defend the confederacy as a whole system.  0.  the american flag represented those people for a much longer duration of time than the confederate flag it is not about  people  it represents, but what ideas it represents.  every national flag in history has been used while committing attrocities.  there is still a difference between those, and flags like the nazi flag, the confedereate flag, the kkk flag, the italian fascist flag, or the flag of isis, that were not just representing a group of people for a long time, until they got appropriated for a particular cause, but were created specifically for a certain ideology and a political action, and since then, have been used to refer to  that particular action is  historical implementation.  the history of the confederacy does not consist of a history of ambigous policies, and wars, and cultural changes, and ideologies and ideas, but one idea, one action, one war, one government.  and that idea was abhorrent, that action was evil, that war was disastrous, and that government was despicable.   #  only since 0.  before, it was on the dome of the capitol.   # it is not attached to the capitol, it is on the grounds of the capitol.  only since 0.  before, it was on the dome of the capitol.  well, that, and the fact that it represented a group of states that seceded from the us over the issue of owning human beings as property.  the flag that is flown is not even the south carolina iteration URL of the flag, it is the army of tennessee URL north virginia battle flag thanks /u/billytehbob .  if you want to make the case that it is there for historical reasons, why not fly the flag that actually represented south carolina ? to take it a step further, the flag only began being flown during the civil rights movement, which i do not think is a coincidence.  do you ?  #  that is the last flag the csa used to represent their new nation.   #  the big comment i agree with is switching it to the 0rd national flag.  that is the last flag the csa used to represent their new nation.  ca not agree more, unfortunately the ole dixie is commonly used today to represent the old csa.  i make the same claim about our current american flag, it is no different.  even though the american flag represented those group of people, the native american genocide, the mistreatment of american immigrants, and various atrocities overseas.  it is still flown.  there is no doubt that the civil rights movement created a resurgence in flying the flag and for much more sinister reasons.  i think today we are far enough removed to view that flag as a piece of history and not a piece of hate.  living in the south i am from oregon , i have been very puzzled as to why they fly it.  it takes some convincing but a vast majority of southerners i have come across are just very proud to be southern and have no intention of being racist.  anecdotal i know, but i really do not think there is going to be a detailed statistical analysis of how southerners view the flag and why they fly it.   #  that is what the civil war was about, and at it is basest level, that is what the flag represents.   # the civil rights movement is really the only reason it is flying today, and it was brought back on purpose.  the only reason that flag exists was because people wanted to own other people as slaves.  that is what the civil war was about, and at it is basest level, that is what the flag represents.  we clearly have not, because this is the debate we are having, and most of the us does not agree with your position.  it takes some convincing but a vast majority of southerners i have come across are just very proud to be southern and have no intention of being racist.  anecdotal i know, but i really do not think there is going to be a detailed statistical analysis of how southerners view the flag and why they fly it.  i have lived in the south my entire life, and the ones that fly the flag proudly may not say it to your face, but they know exactly what it represents.  to 0 of south carolina is population, that flag represents a time when the other 0 could own them as property.  there is no way around that.   #  see also the cornerstone speech linked somewhere around here.   #  the natives were not acknowledged as a sovereign government by the british either.  colonial expansion was an orgnizational policy, not a moral one.  there are no records that revolutionary americans were more hateful, or willing to commit genocide towards natives, than the british were.  part of the reason why some historians hesitate to use the word  genocide  to the colonial american expansion, is exactly because of how disorganized, unofficial, and incidential it was based on several diseases, battles, local decisions, and demographic shifts, rather than a clear directed intent.  in contrast, confederate politicians have repeatedly made it clear that they consider slavery to be good, and racial equality to be bad, and that is a main reason for starting the civil war.  see also the cornerstone speech linked somewhere around here.
also.  looking at it from this perspective in no way condones slavery.  i am simply giving a historical context for both situations.  just because it existed for 0 years prior to the civil war does not make it alright, it does however give you a frame of mind for some of these soldiers.  mix that with the fact they thought they were not being represented in the federal government, and yea they were a little ticked off.  so please do not stoop so low as to call me a person who condones that.  original post: i find it very annoying that in light of recent events this subject has gained traction.  at the south carolina capitol, a confederate flag flies and now that the shooting has happened, people are calling for it to be taken down.  not sure why people believe this is the cause of the shootings, the guy was a racist and a nut case.  this flag flying had little to nothing to do with creating a culture of southern racism.  to set a few things straight: 0.  the flag cannot be taken down to half mast as it is a fixed flag there is no string to pull it down, it simply sits on top of the poll.  0.  the flag is attached to a civil war memorial, fitting in my opinion.  it is not attached to the capitol, it is on the grounds of the capitol.  beyond this my argument is that the flag is a part of us history and specifically, southern us history and since south carolina was the first to secede.  it has a highly unique history there .  yes, the flag does hold some racist connotations because it was essentially hijacked by the kkk and neo nazis.  this does not change the fact that it was a battle flag that americans fought over in one of the most devastating wars in us history.  i understand there were confederate national flags and the one we see flown today is a battle flag.  i still find it acceptable for those in the south to fly the flag as a reminder of southern culture/pride and a memorial to those lost during the war.  if those who argue the flag represents those who wanted keep slavery i have two counter points.  0.  the american flag represented those people for a much longer duration of time than the confederate flag, it is a dark part of our history and should never be forgotten.  0.  it is estimated that 0 0 of soldiers owned slaves, others fought because of vicious actions taken by the north and others to defend their homes look up sherman and georgia .  furthermore lets not forget this war was not slave holders v. s.  abolitionists.  the war was certainly about slavery but it was not as black and white as some people suggest.  the south was fighting to keep slavery as a state right separate from federal law, the north was fighting because they did not want their country being split in half.  lastly, flags are symbols that can be interpreted in multiple ways.  there are those that see the american flag as a imperialistic, evil symbol.  there are those that see the confederate flag as a stark reminder of our nation is dark history and cultural heritage.  just because a few people have championed it as their symbol for their hatred does not mean everyone who flies it agrees with this point of view.  furthermore, just because people find the flag offensive does not mean the flying of the flag was there to offend.  tl;dr the flag flying in south carolina has historic meaning and is attached to a memorial.  it is not intended to offend or to represent racism.  it is justified historically and by the first amendment to fly at the capitol.   #  the war was certainly about slavery but it was not as black and white as some people suggest.   #  the south was fighting to keep slavery as a state right separate from federal law bullshit.   # the institution of slavery brought genocide to africa, justified on the basis of white supremacy.  they  were  being represented.  they just did not have a majority anymore.  they threw the bloodiest hissy fit in history because they were afraid they would not get their way anymore.  not being able to afford slaves is not the same as not wanting to own slaves, benefiting from other people owning slaves, or believing that black people are supposed to be slaves.  the south was fighting to keep slavery as a state right separate from federal law bullshit.  barely over ten years earlier, those southern states forced the passage of the fugitive slave act of 0 URL which  denied  states the right to choose whether or not to enforce slavery property rights.  read URL the actual statements of secession.  georgia:  our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery the greatest material interest of the world.  texas:   texas was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery the servitude of the african to the white race within her limits a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.  was it about states  rights ? only the right to keep owning slaves.  was it about the economy ? only because the south is economy was built on slavery.  was it about the north having political power over the south ? that divide only existed because of slavery and slavery was the only issue where states were divided politically along such clear lines.  it went up in 0, at the height of the civil rights movement.  guess when, after the civil war, people started flying or using the confederate flag again.  go on, guess.  i will give you a hint: it was in 0, as a response to harry truman desegregating the military and voicing support for anti lynching bills.  georgia added the confederate flag to its own flag in 0.  south carolina made it a crime to desecrate the confederate flag in 0.  and then south carolina put the flag on top of the state house in 0, on the centennial of  them starting the civil war by firing on fort sumter.  at the height of the civil rights movement.  and they tried to ban black people from attending the centennial event.  it  was  intended to offend.  it  was  intended to represent racism.  claiming otherwise is ignorant.  it represented white supremacy in 0, it represented white supremacy in 0, and it represents white supremacy today.   #  only since 0.  before, it was on the dome of the capitol.   # it is not attached to the capitol, it is on the grounds of the capitol.  only since 0.  before, it was on the dome of the capitol.  well, that, and the fact that it represented a group of states that seceded from the us over the issue of owning human beings as property.  the flag that is flown is not even the south carolina iteration URL of the flag, it is the army of tennessee URL north virginia battle flag thanks /u/billytehbob .  if you want to make the case that it is there for historical reasons, why not fly the flag that actually represented south carolina ? to take it a step further, the flag only began being flown during the civil rights movement, which i do not think is a coincidence.  do you ?  #  the big comment i agree with is switching it to the 0rd national flag.   #  the big comment i agree with is switching it to the 0rd national flag.  that is the last flag the csa used to represent their new nation.  ca not agree more, unfortunately the ole dixie is commonly used today to represent the old csa.  i make the same claim about our current american flag, it is no different.  even though the american flag represented those group of people, the native american genocide, the mistreatment of american immigrants, and various atrocities overseas.  it is still flown.  there is no doubt that the civil rights movement created a resurgence in flying the flag and for much more sinister reasons.  i think today we are far enough removed to view that flag as a piece of history and not a piece of hate.  living in the south i am from oregon , i have been very puzzled as to why they fly it.  it takes some convincing but a vast majority of southerners i have come across are just very proud to be southern and have no intention of being racist.  anecdotal i know, but i really do not think there is going to be a detailed statistical analysis of how southerners view the flag and why they fly it.   #  we clearly have not, because this is the debate we are having, and most of the us does not agree with your position.   # the civil rights movement is really the only reason it is flying today, and it was brought back on purpose.  the only reason that flag exists was because people wanted to own other people as slaves.  that is what the civil war was about, and at it is basest level, that is what the flag represents.  we clearly have not, because this is the debate we are having, and most of the us does not agree with your position.  it takes some convincing but a vast majority of southerners i have come across are just very proud to be southern and have no intention of being racist.  anecdotal i know, but i really do not think there is going to be a detailed statistical analysis of how southerners view the flag and why they fly it.  i have lived in the south my entire life, and the ones that fly the flag proudly may not say it to your face, but they know exactly what it represents.  to 0 of south carolina is population, that flag represents a time when the other 0 could own them as property.  there is no way around that.   #  there are no records that revolutionary americans were more hateful, or willing to commit genocide towards natives, than the british were.   #  the natives were not acknowledged as a sovereign government by the british either.  colonial expansion was an orgnizational policy, not a moral one.  there are no records that revolutionary americans were more hateful, or willing to commit genocide towards natives, than the british were.  part of the reason why some historians hesitate to use the word  genocide  to the colonial american expansion, is exactly because of how disorganized, unofficial, and incidential it was based on several diseases, battles, local decisions, and demographic shifts, rather than a clear directed intent.  in contrast, confederate politicians have repeatedly made it clear that they consider slavery to be good, and racial equality to be bad, and that is a main reason for starting the civil war.  see also the cornerstone speech linked somewhere around here.
also.  looking at it from this perspective in no way condones slavery.  i am simply giving a historical context for both situations.  just because it existed for 0 years prior to the civil war does not make it alright, it does however give you a frame of mind for some of these soldiers.  mix that with the fact they thought they were not being represented in the federal government, and yea they were a little ticked off.  so please do not stoop so low as to call me a person who condones that.  original post: i find it very annoying that in light of recent events this subject has gained traction.  at the south carolina capitol, a confederate flag flies and now that the shooting has happened, people are calling for it to be taken down.  not sure why people believe this is the cause of the shootings, the guy was a racist and a nut case.  this flag flying had little to nothing to do with creating a culture of southern racism.  to set a few things straight: 0.  the flag cannot be taken down to half mast as it is a fixed flag there is no string to pull it down, it simply sits on top of the poll.  0.  the flag is attached to a civil war memorial, fitting in my opinion.  it is not attached to the capitol, it is on the grounds of the capitol.  beyond this my argument is that the flag is a part of us history and specifically, southern us history and since south carolina was the first to secede.  it has a highly unique history there .  yes, the flag does hold some racist connotations because it was essentially hijacked by the kkk and neo nazis.  this does not change the fact that it was a battle flag that americans fought over in one of the most devastating wars in us history.  i understand there were confederate national flags and the one we see flown today is a battle flag.  i still find it acceptable for those in the south to fly the flag as a reminder of southern culture/pride and a memorial to those lost during the war.  if those who argue the flag represents those who wanted keep slavery i have two counter points.  0.  the american flag represented those people for a much longer duration of time than the confederate flag, it is a dark part of our history and should never be forgotten.  0.  it is estimated that 0 0 of soldiers owned slaves, others fought because of vicious actions taken by the north and others to defend their homes look up sherman and georgia .  furthermore lets not forget this war was not slave holders v. s.  abolitionists.  the war was certainly about slavery but it was not as black and white as some people suggest.  the south was fighting to keep slavery as a state right separate from federal law, the north was fighting because they did not want their country being split in half.  lastly, flags are symbols that can be interpreted in multiple ways.  there are those that see the american flag as a imperialistic, evil symbol.  there are those that see the confederate flag as a stark reminder of our nation is dark history and cultural heritage.  just because a few people have championed it as their symbol for their hatred does not mean everyone who flies it agrees with this point of view.  furthermore, just because people find the flag offensive does not mean the flying of the flag was there to offend.  tl;dr the flag flying in south carolina has historic meaning and is attached to a memorial.  it is not intended to offend or to represent racism.  it is justified historically and by the first amendment to fly at the capitol.   #  furthermore, just because people find the flag offensive does not mean the flying of the flag was there to offend.   #  it went up in 0, at the height of the civil rights movement.   # the institution of slavery brought genocide to africa, justified on the basis of white supremacy.  they  were  being represented.  they just did not have a majority anymore.  they threw the bloodiest hissy fit in history because they were afraid they would not get their way anymore.  not being able to afford slaves is not the same as not wanting to own slaves, benefiting from other people owning slaves, or believing that black people are supposed to be slaves.  the south was fighting to keep slavery as a state right separate from federal law bullshit.  barely over ten years earlier, those southern states forced the passage of the fugitive slave act of 0 URL which  denied  states the right to choose whether or not to enforce slavery property rights.  read URL the actual statements of secession.  georgia:  our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery the greatest material interest of the world.  texas:   texas was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery the servitude of the african to the white race within her limits a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.  was it about states  rights ? only the right to keep owning slaves.  was it about the economy ? only because the south is economy was built on slavery.  was it about the north having political power over the south ? that divide only existed because of slavery and slavery was the only issue where states were divided politically along such clear lines.  it went up in 0, at the height of the civil rights movement.  guess when, after the civil war, people started flying or using the confederate flag again.  go on, guess.  i will give you a hint: it was in 0, as a response to harry truman desegregating the military and voicing support for anti lynching bills.  georgia added the confederate flag to its own flag in 0.  south carolina made it a crime to desecrate the confederate flag in 0.  and then south carolina put the flag on top of the state house in 0, on the centennial of  them starting the civil war by firing on fort sumter.  at the height of the civil rights movement.  and they tried to ban black people from attending the centennial event.  it  was  intended to offend.  it  was  intended to represent racism.  claiming otherwise is ignorant.  it represented white supremacy in 0, it represented white supremacy in 0, and it represents white supremacy today.   #  only since 0.  before, it was on the dome of the capitol.   # it is not attached to the capitol, it is on the grounds of the capitol.  only since 0.  before, it was on the dome of the capitol.  well, that, and the fact that it represented a group of states that seceded from the us over the issue of owning human beings as property.  the flag that is flown is not even the south carolina iteration URL of the flag, it is the army of tennessee URL north virginia battle flag thanks /u/billytehbob .  if you want to make the case that it is there for historical reasons, why not fly the flag that actually represented south carolina ? to take it a step further, the flag only began being flown during the civil rights movement, which i do not think is a coincidence.  do you ?  #  i make the same claim about our current american flag, it is no different.   #  the big comment i agree with is switching it to the 0rd national flag.  that is the last flag the csa used to represent their new nation.  ca not agree more, unfortunately the ole dixie is commonly used today to represent the old csa.  i make the same claim about our current american flag, it is no different.  even though the american flag represented those group of people, the native american genocide, the mistreatment of american immigrants, and various atrocities overseas.  it is still flown.  there is no doubt that the civil rights movement created a resurgence in flying the flag and for much more sinister reasons.  i think today we are far enough removed to view that flag as a piece of history and not a piece of hate.  living in the south i am from oregon , i have been very puzzled as to why they fly it.  it takes some convincing but a vast majority of southerners i have come across are just very proud to be southern and have no intention of being racist.  anecdotal i know, but i really do not think there is going to be a detailed statistical analysis of how southerners view the flag and why they fly it.   #  the civil rights movement is really the only reason it is flying today, and it was brought back on purpose.   # the civil rights movement is really the only reason it is flying today, and it was brought back on purpose.  the only reason that flag exists was because people wanted to own other people as slaves.  that is what the civil war was about, and at it is basest level, that is what the flag represents.  we clearly have not, because this is the debate we are having, and most of the us does not agree with your position.  it takes some convincing but a vast majority of southerners i have come across are just very proud to be southern and have no intention of being racist.  anecdotal i know, but i really do not think there is going to be a detailed statistical analysis of how southerners view the flag and why they fly it.  i have lived in the south my entire life, and the ones that fly the flag proudly may not say it to your face, but they know exactly what it represents.  to 0 of south carolina is population, that flag represents a time when the other 0 could own them as property.  there is no way around that.   #  the natives were not acknowledged as a sovereign government by the british either.   #  the natives were not acknowledged as a sovereign government by the british either.  colonial expansion was an orgnizational policy, not a moral one.  there are no records that revolutionary americans were more hateful, or willing to commit genocide towards natives, than the british were.  part of the reason why some historians hesitate to use the word  genocide  to the colonial american expansion, is exactly because of how disorganized, unofficial, and incidential it was based on several diseases, battles, local decisions, and demographic shifts, rather than a clear directed intent.  in contrast, confederate politicians have repeatedly made it clear that they consider slavery to be good, and racial equality to be bad, and that is a main reason for starting the civil war.  see also the cornerstone speech linked somewhere around here.
i would like to preface this by saying that this view does not come from a place of homophobia or ignorance.  i am very understanding and accepting of the lgbt community.  i have several gay friends and i am very informed about lgbt issues including transgenderism.  i believe that conflicts of gender/identity/orientation etc.  are innate and not a choice.  i hold this belief because i feel as though this world will never be fully accepting of the lgbt community.  it saddens me to see the statistics of depression and suicide URL amongst youth in this group of people.  lgbt kids are nearly 0x more likely to be depressed and suicidal than straight peers.  the majority are bullied in school as well.  many of these people do not want to come out and have to live with this secret.  many of these people do come out and they are rejected.  i understand that the world is a beautiful place because there are so many types of people.  i also believe that we should make every effort to accept, love, and tolerate each other.  however, we are only making these strides because people have always been and will always be born gay/bi/transgender etc.  if this was not possible then this issue would never occur.  also, i am aware that many people in the lgbt community are proud to be gay.  however, i ca not help but feel as though they are embracing it because they have no other choice.  i feel as though most if not all of these people must have had at least one dark moment where they felt different and wanted to be like everyone else.  i would like to add that i am not supporting eugenics.  i do not want to prohibit people who would be born with the gay gene from being born at all.  i just want to remove the possibility of the person acquiring that gene.  furthermore, i do not wish to modify every single gene to make the perfect human beings.  i am only speaking about this issue.  also, i would only encourage this if it could be done safely and would have no major side effects.   #  i would like to add that i am not supporting eugenics.   #  i do not want to prohibit people who would be born with the black gene from being born at all.   #  let is see how this sounds if we substitute lgbt for another minority.    cmv: if a  black gene  could be located it should be eliminated from the gene pool.  i am very understanding and accepting of the black community.  i have several black friends and i am very informed about issues in the black community.  it saddens me to see the statistics of violence and poverty amongst youth in this group of people.  i understand that the world is a beautiful place because there are so many types of people.  i also believe that we should make every effort to accept, love, and tolerate each other.  however, we are only making these strides because people have always been and will always be born with different races.  if this was not possible then this issue would never occur.  also, i am aware that many people in the black community are proud to be black.  however, i ca not help but feel as though they are embracing it because they have no other choice.  i feel as though most if not all of these people must have had at least one dark moment where they felt different and wanted to be like everyone else.  i do not want to prohibit people who would be born with the black gene from being born at all.  i just want to remove the possibility of the person being born black.  furthermore, i do not wish to modify every single gene to make the perfect human beings.  i am only speaking about this issue.  also, i would only encourage this if it could be done safely and would have no major side effects.  yeah, not great.   #  it is possible that a large number of human genes have common variations that might make someone  more or less likely  to be gay than other variations alleles through a number of mechanisms.   #  people is sexuality is also influenced by society.  i think people were willing to entertain your hypothetical  gay gene  scenario for the purpose of argument, but if you are going to shoot down this idea on the basis that there is no bullying gene then i think your understanding of how genetics contributes to our personalities and behavior is extremely flawed.  realistically, even if reliably safe gene therapy techniques were developed something most people expect to take a lot more time , there would be no feasible way to eliminate the possibility of someone turning out gay later in life.  if there were a  gay gene  or even a relatively small number of genes which were deterministically responsible for someone turning out gay, that discovery would almost certainly have already been made.  it is possible that a large number of human genes have common variations that might make someone  more or less likely  to be gay than other variations alleles through a number of mechanisms.  if you started to alter the genome to reduce the probability, you would have no way of knowing how successful you would be, and no way of predicting what other effects you would produce.  people is adult personality and sexuality are the result of an innumerable quantity of contributors.  you ca not forcibly eliminate one aspect of human individuality without threatening them all.  much easier to move society towards a more accepting place, which is already happening.   #  to focus exclusively on sexual identity and ignore all of those other factors relevant to why gay people have problems in society when they have equal or greater degrees of heritability is simply not a sustainable position.   #  in a study i cited elsewhere in this discussion, sexual identity is about 0 heritable with a 0 ci ranging from 0 0.  anti social behavior is 0 heritable additive and non additive genetic factors combined with a much narrower confidence interval.  in layman is terms: bullying is at least, if not slightly more, impacted by genetics as is sexual identity, and the narrower ci means we are more certain of that statement.  URL if sexual identity is a target, and bullying is not, then one has to consider that your statement that this not about you being homophobic to be incorrect.  after all, you want to rid the world of gay people because they are the victims of bullying, but you do not want to rid the world of anti social behavior in general, when it is an equally viable genetic target.  if you are interested in a factually grounded cmv, then the reality is that sexual identity is no more or less caused by genetics than just about any other personality trait and it is far less genetically determined than many personality traits that are relevant to this discussion.  that includes anti social behaviors such as bullying and personal reactions to being bullied, anxiety, depression, stress resiliency, and so forth.  to focus exclusively on sexual identity and ignore all of those other factors relevant to why gay people have problems in society when they have equal or greater degrees of heritability is simply not a sustainable position.   #  i just want to stop the  gay gene  from appearing.   #  but i am not just removing people who are different.  as i stated, i am not canceling their lives.  i am removing a trait that will more often than not cause deep rooted issues in this persons life.  these issues may lead to bullying, depression, and suicide.  our world is very cold and as much as the media wants to pressure people to accept the lgbt community it will never be where it should be.  when i imagine eugenics i picture hitler attempting to breed the perfect aryan race where everyone has blonde hair, blue eyes, and is white.  i do not want to alter everyones appearance and personality to a tee.  i just want to stop the  gay gene  from appearing.   #  do not you see that you are trying to use genetics to solve a problem that is only caused by hate ?  #  its easy to paint eugenics as something evil and terrifying, especially when you pretend that only hitler would do it.  what you are describing is eugenics by its very definition.  i am not saying that is wrong or right but you should not say  i do not support eugenics  at the end of a paragraph where you do exactly that.  people are bullied for being short, should we remove that gene ? what about people with red hair ? nobody likes a ginger, lets get rid of that one.  heck, people are still really awful to black people, can we phase that one out ? do not you see that you are trying to use genetics to solve a problem that is only caused by hate ? maybe we can just find a way to remove the shithead gene.
i would like to preface this by saying that this view does not come from a place of homophobia or ignorance.  i am very understanding and accepting of the lgbt community.  i have several gay friends and i am very informed about lgbt issues including transgenderism.  i believe that conflicts of gender/identity/orientation etc.  are innate and not a choice.  i hold this belief because i feel as though this world will never be fully accepting of the lgbt community.  it saddens me to see the statistics of depression and suicide URL amongst youth in this group of people.  lgbt kids are nearly 0x more likely to be depressed and suicidal than straight peers.  the majority are bullied in school as well.  many of these people do not want to come out and have to live with this secret.  many of these people do come out and they are rejected.  i understand that the world is a beautiful place because there are so many types of people.  i also believe that we should make every effort to accept, love, and tolerate each other.  however, we are only making these strides because people have always been and will always be born gay/bi/transgender etc.  if this was not possible then this issue would never occur.  also, i am aware that many people in the lgbt community are proud to be gay.  however, i ca not help but feel as though they are embracing it because they have no other choice.  i feel as though most if not all of these people must have had at least one dark moment where they felt different and wanted to be like everyone else.  i would like to add that i am not supporting eugenics.  i do not want to prohibit people who would be born with the gay gene from being born at all.  i just want to remove the possibility of the person acquiring that gene.  furthermore, i do not wish to modify every single gene to make the perfect human beings.  i am only speaking about this issue.  also, i would only encourage this if it could be done safely and would have no major side effects.   #  also, i am aware that many people in the lgbt community are proud to be gay.   #  however, i ca not help but feel as though they are embracing it because they have no other choice.   # however, i ca not help but feel as though they are embracing it because they have no other choice.  that is probably true for many, maybe even most, but there is no reason to believe that is the case for everyone.  out of all the millions of gay people, its highly probable that many of them are proud to be gay  and  would be proud even if they were given a choice.  if we remove the gay gene, then sexuality would be a subjective opinion just like nearly every other preference.  considering every other preference has an infinite amount of different opinions amongst humans, we should assume some people will want to be gay simply because they desire it.  of course, the choice to be gay might be met with hostility from society, but we should still give people the autonomy to make that decision on their own.  if someone wants to be gay because they value it,  and  they think its worth being ridiculed by society, then they should be able to do so; we should not re engineer their genetics to conform to society.  regardless of what you think about eugenics, people  should  have the choice to live their personal lives the way they want, even if it effects them negatively.  just like people have the choice to smoke despite the negative impacts, so too should people have the choice to be gay.  if they want to stop being gay, then take away their gene.  if not, then leave their genetic makeup alone.   #  if there were a  gay gene  or even a relatively small number of genes which were deterministically responsible for someone turning out gay, that discovery would almost certainly have already been made.   #  people is sexuality is also influenced by society.  i think people were willing to entertain your hypothetical  gay gene  scenario for the purpose of argument, but if you are going to shoot down this idea on the basis that there is no bullying gene then i think your understanding of how genetics contributes to our personalities and behavior is extremely flawed.  realistically, even if reliably safe gene therapy techniques were developed something most people expect to take a lot more time , there would be no feasible way to eliminate the possibility of someone turning out gay later in life.  if there were a  gay gene  or even a relatively small number of genes which were deterministically responsible for someone turning out gay, that discovery would almost certainly have already been made.  it is possible that a large number of human genes have common variations that might make someone  more or less likely  to be gay than other variations alleles through a number of mechanisms.  if you started to alter the genome to reduce the probability, you would have no way of knowing how successful you would be, and no way of predicting what other effects you would produce.  people is adult personality and sexuality are the result of an innumerable quantity of contributors.  you ca not forcibly eliminate one aspect of human individuality without threatening them all.  much easier to move society towards a more accepting place, which is already happening.   #  that includes anti social behaviors such as bullying and personal reactions to being bullied, anxiety, depression, stress resiliency, and so forth.   #  in a study i cited elsewhere in this discussion, sexual identity is about 0 heritable with a 0 ci ranging from 0 0.  anti social behavior is 0 heritable additive and non additive genetic factors combined with a much narrower confidence interval.  in layman is terms: bullying is at least, if not slightly more, impacted by genetics as is sexual identity, and the narrower ci means we are more certain of that statement.  URL if sexual identity is a target, and bullying is not, then one has to consider that your statement that this not about you being homophobic to be incorrect.  after all, you want to rid the world of gay people because they are the victims of bullying, but you do not want to rid the world of anti social behavior in general, when it is an equally viable genetic target.  if you are interested in a factually grounded cmv, then the reality is that sexual identity is no more or less caused by genetics than just about any other personality trait and it is far less genetically determined than many personality traits that are relevant to this discussion.  that includes anti social behaviors such as bullying and personal reactions to being bullied, anxiety, depression, stress resiliency, and so forth.  to focus exclusively on sexual identity and ignore all of those other factors relevant to why gay people have problems in society when they have equal or greater degrees of heritability is simply not a sustainable position.   #  when i imagine eugenics i picture hitler attempting to breed the perfect aryan race where everyone has blonde hair, blue eyes, and is white.   #  but i am not just removing people who are different.  as i stated, i am not canceling their lives.  i am removing a trait that will more often than not cause deep rooted issues in this persons life.  these issues may lead to bullying, depression, and suicide.  our world is very cold and as much as the media wants to pressure people to accept the lgbt community it will never be where it should be.  when i imagine eugenics i picture hitler attempting to breed the perfect aryan race where everyone has blonde hair, blue eyes, and is white.  i do not want to alter everyones appearance and personality to a tee.  i just want to stop the  gay gene  from appearing.   #  people are bullied for being short, should we remove that gene ?  #  its easy to paint eugenics as something evil and terrifying, especially when you pretend that only hitler would do it.  what you are describing is eugenics by its very definition.  i am not saying that is wrong or right but you should not say  i do not support eugenics  at the end of a paragraph where you do exactly that.  people are bullied for being short, should we remove that gene ? what about people with red hair ? nobody likes a ginger, lets get rid of that one.  heck, people are still really awful to black people, can we phase that one out ? do not you see that you are trying to use genetics to solve a problem that is only caused by hate ? maybe we can just find a way to remove the shithead gene.
i would like to preface this by saying that this view does not come from a place of homophobia or ignorance.  i am very understanding and accepting of the lgbt community.  i have several gay friends and i am very informed about lgbt issues including transgenderism.  i believe that conflicts of gender/identity/orientation etc.  are innate and not a choice.  i hold this belief because i feel as though this world will never be fully accepting of the lgbt community.  it saddens me to see the statistics of depression and suicide URL amongst youth in this group of people.  lgbt kids are nearly 0x more likely to be depressed and suicidal than straight peers.  the majority are bullied in school as well.  many of these people do not want to come out and have to live with this secret.  many of these people do come out and they are rejected.  i understand that the world is a beautiful place because there are so many types of people.  i also believe that we should make every effort to accept, love, and tolerate each other.  however, we are only making these strides because people have always been and will always be born gay/bi/transgender etc.  if this was not possible then this issue would never occur.  also, i am aware that many people in the lgbt community are proud to be gay.  however, i ca not help but feel as though they are embracing it because they have no other choice.  i feel as though most if not all of these people must have had at least one dark moment where they felt different and wanted to be like everyone else.  i would like to add that i am not supporting eugenics.  i do not want to prohibit people who would be born with the gay gene from being born at all.  i just want to remove the possibility of the person acquiring that gene.  furthermore, i do not wish to modify every single gene to make the perfect human beings.  i am only speaking about this issue.  also, i would only encourage this if it could be done safely and would have no major side effects.   #  i feel as though most if not all of these people must have had at least one dark moment where they felt different and wanted to be like everyone else.   #  you are right, but i have a hard time believing the majority of people have not had the exact same feeling.   # you are right, but i have a hard time believing the majority of people have not had the exact same feeling.  have you not felt that way about yourself over something you later realized should have been perfectly fine ? everyone wants to fit in, but the fact is that not everyone will fit in with everyone else.  there is no shame in their being different people interested in different things.  i am only speaking about this issue.  also, i would only encourage this if it could be done safely and would have no major side effects.  you lay out this statement, but you do not justify it.  why are you fine with removing the  gay  gene but not any other gene that leads to prejudice/discrimination ? you open this post by stating you wish to do it because  i hold this belief because i feel as though this world will never be fully accepting of the lgbt community .  why do you believe this will improve for other discriminated groups but not lgbt ? you ca not just cut out something from discussion because you feel it undermines your view.  you have to defend/justify it.   #  if you started to alter the genome to reduce the probability, you would have no way of knowing how successful you would be, and no way of predicting what other effects you would produce.   #  people is sexuality is also influenced by society.  i think people were willing to entertain your hypothetical  gay gene  scenario for the purpose of argument, but if you are going to shoot down this idea on the basis that there is no bullying gene then i think your understanding of how genetics contributes to our personalities and behavior is extremely flawed.  realistically, even if reliably safe gene therapy techniques were developed something most people expect to take a lot more time , there would be no feasible way to eliminate the possibility of someone turning out gay later in life.  if there were a  gay gene  or even a relatively small number of genes which were deterministically responsible for someone turning out gay, that discovery would almost certainly have already been made.  it is possible that a large number of human genes have common variations that might make someone  more or less likely  to be gay than other variations alleles through a number of mechanisms.  if you started to alter the genome to reduce the probability, you would have no way of knowing how successful you would be, and no way of predicting what other effects you would produce.  people is adult personality and sexuality are the result of an innumerable quantity of contributors.  you ca not forcibly eliminate one aspect of human individuality without threatening them all.  much easier to move society towards a more accepting place, which is already happening.   #  in a study i cited elsewhere in this discussion, sexual identity is about 0 heritable with a 0 ci ranging from 0 0.   #  in a study i cited elsewhere in this discussion, sexual identity is about 0 heritable with a 0 ci ranging from 0 0.  anti social behavior is 0 heritable additive and non additive genetic factors combined with a much narrower confidence interval.  in layman is terms: bullying is at least, if not slightly more, impacted by genetics as is sexual identity, and the narrower ci means we are more certain of that statement.  URL if sexual identity is a target, and bullying is not, then one has to consider that your statement that this not about you being homophobic to be incorrect.  after all, you want to rid the world of gay people because they are the victims of bullying, but you do not want to rid the world of anti social behavior in general, when it is an equally viable genetic target.  if you are interested in a factually grounded cmv, then the reality is that sexual identity is no more or less caused by genetics than just about any other personality trait and it is far less genetically determined than many personality traits that are relevant to this discussion.  that includes anti social behaviors such as bullying and personal reactions to being bullied, anxiety, depression, stress resiliency, and so forth.  to focus exclusively on sexual identity and ignore all of those other factors relevant to why gay people have problems in society when they have equal or greater degrees of heritability is simply not a sustainable position.   #  as i stated, i am not canceling their lives.   #  but i am not just removing people who are different.  as i stated, i am not canceling their lives.  i am removing a trait that will more often than not cause deep rooted issues in this persons life.  these issues may lead to bullying, depression, and suicide.  our world is very cold and as much as the media wants to pressure people to accept the lgbt community it will never be where it should be.  when i imagine eugenics i picture hitler attempting to breed the perfect aryan race where everyone has blonde hair, blue eyes, and is white.  i do not want to alter everyones appearance and personality to a tee.  i just want to stop the  gay gene  from appearing.   #  nobody likes a ginger, lets get rid of that one.   #  its easy to paint eugenics as something evil and terrifying, especially when you pretend that only hitler would do it.  what you are describing is eugenics by its very definition.  i am not saying that is wrong or right but you should not say  i do not support eugenics  at the end of a paragraph where you do exactly that.  people are bullied for being short, should we remove that gene ? what about people with red hair ? nobody likes a ginger, lets get rid of that one.  heck, people are still really awful to black people, can we phase that one out ? do not you see that you are trying to use genetics to solve a problem that is only caused by hate ? maybe we can just find a way to remove the shithead gene.
i would like to preface this by saying that this view does not come from a place of homophobia or ignorance.  i am very understanding and accepting of the lgbt community.  i have several gay friends and i am very informed about lgbt issues including transgenderism.  i believe that conflicts of gender/identity/orientation etc.  are innate and not a choice.  i hold this belief because i feel as though this world will never be fully accepting of the lgbt community.  it saddens me to see the statistics of depression and suicide URL amongst youth in this group of people.  lgbt kids are nearly 0x more likely to be depressed and suicidal than straight peers.  the majority are bullied in school as well.  many of these people do not want to come out and have to live with this secret.  many of these people do come out and they are rejected.  i understand that the world is a beautiful place because there are so many types of people.  i also believe that we should make every effort to accept, love, and tolerate each other.  however, we are only making these strides because people have always been and will always be born gay/bi/transgender etc.  if this was not possible then this issue would never occur.  also, i am aware that many people in the lgbt community are proud to be gay.  however, i ca not help but feel as though they are embracing it because they have no other choice.  i feel as though most if not all of these people must have had at least one dark moment where they felt different and wanted to be like everyone else.  i would like to add that i am not supporting eugenics.  i do not want to prohibit people who would be born with the gay gene from being born at all.  i just want to remove the possibility of the person acquiring that gene.  furthermore, i do not wish to modify every single gene to make the perfect human beings.  i am only speaking about this issue.  also, i would only encourage this if it could be done safely and would have no major side effects.   #  furthermore, i do not wish to modify every single gene to make the perfect human beings.   #  i am only speaking about this issue.   # you are right, but i have a hard time believing the majority of people have not had the exact same feeling.  have you not felt that way about yourself over something you later realized should have been perfectly fine ? everyone wants to fit in, but the fact is that not everyone will fit in with everyone else.  there is no shame in their being different people interested in different things.  i am only speaking about this issue.  also, i would only encourage this if it could be done safely and would have no major side effects.  you lay out this statement, but you do not justify it.  why are you fine with removing the  gay  gene but not any other gene that leads to prejudice/discrimination ? you open this post by stating you wish to do it because  i hold this belief because i feel as though this world will never be fully accepting of the lgbt community .  why do you believe this will improve for other discriminated groups but not lgbt ? you ca not just cut out something from discussion because you feel it undermines your view.  you have to defend/justify it.   #  people is adult personality and sexuality are the result of an innumerable quantity of contributors.   #  people is sexuality is also influenced by society.  i think people were willing to entertain your hypothetical  gay gene  scenario for the purpose of argument, but if you are going to shoot down this idea on the basis that there is no bullying gene then i think your understanding of how genetics contributes to our personalities and behavior is extremely flawed.  realistically, even if reliably safe gene therapy techniques were developed something most people expect to take a lot more time , there would be no feasible way to eliminate the possibility of someone turning out gay later in life.  if there were a  gay gene  or even a relatively small number of genes which were deterministically responsible for someone turning out gay, that discovery would almost certainly have already been made.  it is possible that a large number of human genes have common variations that might make someone  more or less likely  to be gay than other variations alleles through a number of mechanisms.  if you started to alter the genome to reduce the probability, you would have no way of knowing how successful you would be, and no way of predicting what other effects you would produce.  people is adult personality and sexuality are the result of an innumerable quantity of contributors.  you ca not forcibly eliminate one aspect of human individuality without threatening them all.  much easier to move society towards a more accepting place, which is already happening.   #  URL if sexual identity is a target, and bullying is not, then one has to consider that your statement that this not about you being homophobic to be incorrect.   #  in a study i cited elsewhere in this discussion, sexual identity is about 0 heritable with a 0 ci ranging from 0 0.  anti social behavior is 0 heritable additive and non additive genetic factors combined with a much narrower confidence interval.  in layman is terms: bullying is at least, if not slightly more, impacted by genetics as is sexual identity, and the narrower ci means we are more certain of that statement.  URL if sexual identity is a target, and bullying is not, then one has to consider that your statement that this not about you being homophobic to be incorrect.  after all, you want to rid the world of gay people because they are the victims of bullying, but you do not want to rid the world of anti social behavior in general, when it is an equally viable genetic target.  if you are interested in a factually grounded cmv, then the reality is that sexual identity is no more or less caused by genetics than just about any other personality trait and it is far less genetically determined than many personality traits that are relevant to this discussion.  that includes anti social behaviors such as bullying and personal reactions to being bullied, anxiety, depression, stress resiliency, and so forth.  to focus exclusively on sexual identity and ignore all of those other factors relevant to why gay people have problems in society when they have equal or greater degrees of heritability is simply not a sustainable position.   #  when i imagine eugenics i picture hitler attempting to breed the perfect aryan race where everyone has blonde hair, blue eyes, and is white.   #  but i am not just removing people who are different.  as i stated, i am not canceling their lives.  i am removing a trait that will more often than not cause deep rooted issues in this persons life.  these issues may lead to bullying, depression, and suicide.  our world is very cold and as much as the media wants to pressure people to accept the lgbt community it will never be where it should be.  when i imagine eugenics i picture hitler attempting to breed the perfect aryan race where everyone has blonde hair, blue eyes, and is white.  i do not want to alter everyones appearance and personality to a tee.  i just want to stop the  gay gene  from appearing.   #  i am not saying that is wrong or right but you should not say  i do not support eugenics  at the end of a paragraph where you do exactly that.   #  its easy to paint eugenics as something evil and terrifying, especially when you pretend that only hitler would do it.  what you are describing is eugenics by its very definition.  i am not saying that is wrong or right but you should not say  i do not support eugenics  at the end of a paragraph where you do exactly that.  people are bullied for being short, should we remove that gene ? what about people with red hair ? nobody likes a ginger, lets get rid of that one.  heck, people are still really awful to black people, can we phase that one out ? do not you see that you are trying to use genetics to solve a problem that is only caused by hate ? maybe we can just find a way to remove the shithead gene.
i would like to preface this by saying that this view does not come from a place of homophobia or ignorance.  i am very understanding and accepting of the lgbt community.  i have several gay friends and i am very informed about lgbt issues including transgenderism.  i believe that conflicts of gender/identity/orientation etc.  are innate and not a choice.  i hold this belief because i feel as though this world will never be fully accepting of the lgbt community.  it saddens me to see the statistics of depression and suicide URL amongst youth in this group of people.  lgbt kids are nearly 0x more likely to be depressed and suicidal than straight peers.  the majority are bullied in school as well.  many of these people do not want to come out and have to live with this secret.  many of these people do come out and they are rejected.  i understand that the world is a beautiful place because there are so many types of people.  i also believe that we should make every effort to accept, love, and tolerate each other.  however, we are only making these strides because people have always been and will always be born gay/bi/transgender etc.  if this was not possible then this issue would never occur.  also, i am aware that many people in the lgbt community are proud to be gay.  however, i ca not help but feel as though they are embracing it because they have no other choice.  i feel as though most if not all of these people must have had at least one dark moment where they felt different and wanted to be like everyone else.  i would like to add that i am not supporting eugenics.  i do not want to prohibit people who would be born with the gay gene from being born at all.  i just want to remove the possibility of the person acquiring that gene.  furthermore, i do not wish to modify every single gene to make the perfect human beings.  i am only speaking about this issue.  also, i would only encourage this if it could be done safely and would have no major side effects.   #  i hold this belief because i feel as though this world will never be fully accepting of the lgbt community.   #  it saddens me to see the statistics of depression and suicide amongst youth in this group of people.   # it saddens me to see the statistics of depression and suicide amongst youth in this group of people.  lgbt kids are nearly 0x more likely to be depressed and suicidal than straight peers.  the majority are bullied in school as well.  so instead of solving the actual problem shitty people, homophobes and badly behaved kids we should just eradicate the victims ? that way there will still be shitty people and bullies, but they will find an other victim.   #  much easier to move society towards a more accepting place, which is already happening.   #  people is sexuality is also influenced by society.  i think people were willing to entertain your hypothetical  gay gene  scenario for the purpose of argument, but if you are going to shoot down this idea on the basis that there is no bullying gene then i think your understanding of how genetics contributes to our personalities and behavior is extremely flawed.  realistically, even if reliably safe gene therapy techniques were developed something most people expect to take a lot more time , there would be no feasible way to eliminate the possibility of someone turning out gay later in life.  if there were a  gay gene  or even a relatively small number of genes which were deterministically responsible for someone turning out gay, that discovery would almost certainly have already been made.  it is possible that a large number of human genes have common variations that might make someone  more or less likely  to be gay than other variations alleles through a number of mechanisms.  if you started to alter the genome to reduce the probability, you would have no way of knowing how successful you would be, and no way of predicting what other effects you would produce.  people is adult personality and sexuality are the result of an innumerable quantity of contributors.  you ca not forcibly eliminate one aspect of human individuality without threatening them all.  much easier to move society towards a more accepting place, which is already happening.   #  after all, you want to rid the world of gay people because they are the victims of bullying, but you do not want to rid the world of anti social behavior in general, when it is an equally viable genetic target.   #  in a study i cited elsewhere in this discussion, sexual identity is about 0 heritable with a 0 ci ranging from 0 0.  anti social behavior is 0 heritable additive and non additive genetic factors combined with a much narrower confidence interval.  in layman is terms: bullying is at least, if not slightly more, impacted by genetics as is sexual identity, and the narrower ci means we are more certain of that statement.  URL if sexual identity is a target, and bullying is not, then one has to consider that your statement that this not about you being homophobic to be incorrect.  after all, you want to rid the world of gay people because they are the victims of bullying, but you do not want to rid the world of anti social behavior in general, when it is an equally viable genetic target.  if you are interested in a factually grounded cmv, then the reality is that sexual identity is no more or less caused by genetics than just about any other personality trait and it is far less genetically determined than many personality traits that are relevant to this discussion.  that includes anti social behaviors such as bullying and personal reactions to being bullied, anxiety, depression, stress resiliency, and so forth.  to focus exclusively on sexual identity and ignore all of those other factors relevant to why gay people have problems in society when they have equal or greater degrees of heritability is simply not a sustainable position.   #  i just want to stop the  gay gene  from appearing.   #  but i am not just removing people who are different.  as i stated, i am not canceling their lives.  i am removing a trait that will more often than not cause deep rooted issues in this persons life.  these issues may lead to bullying, depression, and suicide.  our world is very cold and as much as the media wants to pressure people to accept the lgbt community it will never be where it should be.  when i imagine eugenics i picture hitler attempting to breed the perfect aryan race where everyone has blonde hair, blue eyes, and is white.  i do not want to alter everyones appearance and personality to a tee.  i just want to stop the  gay gene  from appearing.   #  people are bullied for being short, should we remove that gene ?  #  its easy to paint eugenics as something evil and terrifying, especially when you pretend that only hitler would do it.  what you are describing is eugenics by its very definition.  i am not saying that is wrong or right but you should not say  i do not support eugenics  at the end of a paragraph where you do exactly that.  people are bullied for being short, should we remove that gene ? what about people with red hair ? nobody likes a ginger, lets get rid of that one.  heck, people are still really awful to black people, can we phase that one out ? do not you see that you are trying to use genetics to solve a problem that is only caused by hate ? maybe we can just find a way to remove the shithead gene.
my argument is that proportional representation misses the point, as what we should really be attempting to achieve is proportional  influence , which is not necessarily the same thing as representation.  to take a hypothetical, let is say our parliament utilises pr, and currently party a has 0 of seats, party b 0 and party c 0.  now an election is held and the results for the new parliament are party a 0, b 0 and c 0.  in this new parliament c has seen their support half, yet they are clearly in a more influential position, so long as you need 0 0 to pass any bill.  the thing about a parliament is it is all built around getting a majority.  a bill which has 0 of the house vote  yes/aye  and 0 vote  no/nay  passes just as much as a bill which has 0 of the support.  for this reason parliaments will naturally have a tendency to move into two blocks, because the parties are all trying to get 0   0 of the total house to support their bill.  even in pr systems, you find there is generally a large centre right party, who is supported by smaller right wing or centrists when in government, and a large centre left party, who is supported by smaller left wing or centrists when its in government.  both the main right party and the main left party are still trying to get that 0   0 support.  this does not mean i support a system where smaller voices are not heard.  in the australian preference system, one can vote for a smaller party to give them some support, whilst still second or third preferencing a larger party so as to not throw away their vote.  the advantage of this is that australia is nearly always government by a majority one hung parliament has occurred since the end of wwii , but at the same time smaller parties have influence on the debate, as larger parties are forced to make concessions to the supporters of minor parties in order to receive their preferences.  for example, in australia the dominant centre left labor party cannot completely disregard the left of centre greens party, because they need preferences from the greens in order to win elections.  the greens may not have proportional  representation  in the parliament, but they have proportional  influence , because they cannot be ignored by major parties.  the exception to this is parliaments where you need a super majority to pass certain motions, in which case obviously 0   0 is less powerful than 0.  however, the majority of legislation passed in the majority of parliaments or congresses around the world requires the simple majority.   #  now an election is held and the results for the new parliament are party a 0, b 0 and c 0.   #  the point you are missing here is that party c does not hold near an equal share of power to party a or b.  they have no effective power to start legislation, they can simply choose whether or not to support something.   # the point you are missing here is that party c does not hold near an equal share of power to party a or b.  they have no effective power to start legislation, they can simply choose whether or not to support something.  this is still comparatively small to the power balances and influences within the major parties, whose make up is much more important to how the laws end up being.  why must governments always have majorities ? the unpopularity of the current australian government is a good example why governments that do not get a majority of votes should not have a majority of seats, lest an unpopular government continues for years without the popular support.  if you look at the last hung parliament, very little of the whole agenda was forced by the independents and green members.  it is hardly more influence on policy than their vote would suggest.  what if we had a system where we keep the fundamentals of the av system but have multiple representatives per electorate instead of one each ? this would combine the benefits of an electorate being represented by different mps, giving smaller groups a voice, and maintaining large party strength though to a lesser extent.   #  as for your final paragraph, do not we have that in the senate ?  #  with regards to the first point, i agree that party c would be far weaker than a or b, but is not that appropriate ? they did only receive 0 of the vote.  they still have a good deal of influence, because both a and b are  just  shy of that magic 0 barrier.  with regards to your second point, i guess that is fair.  majority government are not inherently superior, and i did not mean to imply that.  but it does increase overall confidence in a government when the business sector is assured it will go full term, and oppositions will utilise that.  gillard after the 0 election was very eager to ensure labor went full term and she achieved labor going full term, just not her own prime ministership , not just because she was worried about losing the election, but because it would have strengthened tony abbott is position if he could go to an election telling everyone that labor/greens ca not even last a full term.  so i would not say majority governments are always better, but i believe politics by nature has a way of becoming two main sides, and if one side ca not form long term government and the other one can, it creates a disbalance which leads to a worse situation than if both sides were equal.  if i am being brutally honest, i think this is the weakest area of my argument, but i am still going to make it because it is what i believe .  some of the debate was influenced by the greens.  they got the carbon price, and at least a conscience vote for gay marriage.  the indeps got various goodies for their respective electorates.  as for your final paragraph, do not we have that in the senate ? i actually do not mind the senate is voting system in principle, i just think they need to work out a better system with above the line and below the line voting.  as far as an upper house goes, i do not mind having a state based proportional body, but there are clearly some issues when 0 of the vote in one state returns just as many senators as  0 in another state.   #  it was not the idea of the greens for a carbon price, it was just their idea to use a carbon tax.   # if these people are not good enough to be influencing politics, then not only will voters reject them but also reject voters who rely on and work with these parties.  the main factor in their operations that the government influences is the results of the budget, which happens yearly and can be changed just as arbitrarily.  it is the way that most other developed democracies work, but there is also a third pillar consisting of radical centrists, which was something we had with the democrats in the 0s and 0s.  it was not the idea of the greens for a carbon price, it was just their idea to use a carbon tax.  before 0, labor was more likely to go for a trading scheme instead.  as for a conscience vote on gay marriage, this is not something they need to influence the government.  any member of either house of parliament can hold a private members bill to change the marriage laws, which the greens have done a few times now, as well as labor.  as for labor, it was a commitment they had made at their party conference.  yes, they have stv but its dynamic is fundamentally different than how it is in ireland is lower house for example.  the system needs huge improvements as it currently is.  as for the states, i would not mind tasmania having as many senators as victoria and new south wales, as long as they were taken from what their lower house members would be.   #  now i am originally from germany, and the mmp system can still be not very good, which is also what i have heard from new zealand.   #  now i am originally from germany, and the mmp system can still be not very good, which is also what i have heard from new zealand.  while better than fptp, there is still tactical voting going on which distorts the true opinion of the voting population.  then there is the whole problem with letting parties choose who gets to be in parliament, instead of making every single representative accountable to a constituency of voters such as in fptp, av or stv.  as for the gerrymandering, they can still gain from gerrymandering by having more local seats than their percentage entitles them too, such as overhang seats.  it is irrelevant though when we have redistricting by independent agencies that prevent gerrymandering.   #  i am not saying mmp is a completely bad system, but the existence of party lists are a major flaw, as well as what else i have experienced with an mmp system.   #  what does an isolated popularity mean though ? what i am arguing for is fundamentally a system of representative democracy.  a system where the government is supported by the majority of people.  i do not think parties are the best at judging what the national ideological consensus is though.  it is far better to leave the method of election with the voters instead of with the parties.  i am not saying mmp is a completely bad system, but the existence of party lists are a major flaw, as well as what else i have experienced with an mmp system.
my argument is that proportional representation misses the point, as what we should really be attempting to achieve is proportional  influence , which is not necessarily the same thing as representation.  to take a hypothetical, let is say our parliament utilises pr, and currently party a has 0 of seats, party b 0 and party c 0.  now an election is held and the results for the new parliament are party a 0, b 0 and c 0.  in this new parliament c has seen their support half, yet they are clearly in a more influential position, so long as you need 0 0 to pass any bill.  the thing about a parliament is it is all built around getting a majority.  a bill which has 0 of the house vote  yes/aye  and 0 vote  no/nay  passes just as much as a bill which has 0 of the support.  for this reason parliaments will naturally have a tendency to move into two blocks, because the parties are all trying to get 0   0 of the total house to support their bill.  even in pr systems, you find there is generally a large centre right party, who is supported by smaller right wing or centrists when in government, and a large centre left party, who is supported by smaller left wing or centrists when its in government.  both the main right party and the main left party are still trying to get that 0   0 support.  this does not mean i support a system where smaller voices are not heard.  in the australian preference system, one can vote for a smaller party to give them some support, whilst still second or third preferencing a larger party so as to not throw away their vote.  the advantage of this is that australia is nearly always government by a majority one hung parliament has occurred since the end of wwii , but at the same time smaller parties have influence on the debate, as larger parties are forced to make concessions to the supporters of minor parties in order to receive their preferences.  for example, in australia the dominant centre left labor party cannot completely disregard the left of centre greens party, because they need preferences from the greens in order to win elections.  the greens may not have proportional  representation  in the parliament, but they have proportional  influence , because they cannot be ignored by major parties.  the exception to this is parliaments where you need a super majority to pass certain motions, in which case obviously 0   0 is less powerful than 0.  however, the majority of legislation passed in the majority of parliaments or congresses around the world requires the simple majority.   #  but at the same time smaller parties have influence on the debate, as larger parties are forced to make concessions to the supporters of minor parties in order to receive their preferences.   #  if you look at the last hung parliament, very little of the whole agenda was forced by the independents and green members.   # the point you are missing here is that party c does not hold near an equal share of power to party a or b.  they have no effective power to start legislation, they can simply choose whether or not to support something.  this is still comparatively small to the power balances and influences within the major parties, whose make up is much more important to how the laws end up being.  why must governments always have majorities ? the unpopularity of the current australian government is a good example why governments that do not get a majority of votes should not have a majority of seats, lest an unpopular government continues for years without the popular support.  if you look at the last hung parliament, very little of the whole agenda was forced by the independents and green members.  it is hardly more influence on policy than their vote would suggest.  what if we had a system where we keep the fundamentals of the av system but have multiple representatives per electorate instead of one each ? this would combine the benefits of an electorate being represented by different mps, giving smaller groups a voice, and maintaining large party strength though to a lesser extent.   #  they still have a good deal of influence, because both a and b are  just  shy of that magic 0 barrier.   #  with regards to the first point, i agree that party c would be far weaker than a or b, but is not that appropriate ? they did only receive 0 of the vote.  they still have a good deal of influence, because both a and b are  just  shy of that magic 0 barrier.  with regards to your second point, i guess that is fair.  majority government are not inherently superior, and i did not mean to imply that.  but it does increase overall confidence in a government when the business sector is assured it will go full term, and oppositions will utilise that.  gillard after the 0 election was very eager to ensure labor went full term and she achieved labor going full term, just not her own prime ministership , not just because she was worried about losing the election, but because it would have strengthened tony abbott is position if he could go to an election telling everyone that labor/greens ca not even last a full term.  so i would not say majority governments are always better, but i believe politics by nature has a way of becoming two main sides, and if one side ca not form long term government and the other one can, it creates a disbalance which leads to a worse situation than if both sides were equal.  if i am being brutally honest, i think this is the weakest area of my argument, but i am still going to make it because it is what i believe .  some of the debate was influenced by the greens.  they got the carbon price, and at least a conscience vote for gay marriage.  the indeps got various goodies for their respective electorates.  as for your final paragraph, do not we have that in the senate ? i actually do not mind the senate is voting system in principle, i just think they need to work out a better system with above the line and below the line voting.  as far as an upper house goes, i do not mind having a state based proportional body, but there are clearly some issues when 0 of the vote in one state returns just as many senators as  0 in another state.   #  as for labor, it was a commitment they had made at their party conference.   # if these people are not good enough to be influencing politics, then not only will voters reject them but also reject voters who rely on and work with these parties.  the main factor in their operations that the government influences is the results of the budget, which happens yearly and can be changed just as arbitrarily.  it is the way that most other developed democracies work, but there is also a third pillar consisting of radical centrists, which was something we had with the democrats in the 0s and 0s.  it was not the idea of the greens for a carbon price, it was just their idea to use a carbon tax.  before 0, labor was more likely to go for a trading scheme instead.  as for a conscience vote on gay marriage, this is not something they need to influence the government.  any member of either house of parliament can hold a private members bill to change the marriage laws, which the greens have done a few times now, as well as labor.  as for labor, it was a commitment they had made at their party conference.  yes, they have stv but its dynamic is fundamentally different than how it is in ireland is lower house for example.  the system needs huge improvements as it currently is.  as for the states, i would not mind tasmania having as many senators as victoria and new south wales, as long as they were taken from what their lower house members would be.   #  then there is the whole problem with letting parties choose who gets to be in parliament, instead of making every single representative accountable to a constituency of voters such as in fptp, av or stv.   #  now i am originally from germany, and the mmp system can still be not very good, which is also what i have heard from new zealand.  while better than fptp, there is still tactical voting going on which distorts the true opinion of the voting population.  then there is the whole problem with letting parties choose who gets to be in parliament, instead of making every single representative accountable to a constituency of voters such as in fptp, av or stv.  as for the gerrymandering, they can still gain from gerrymandering by having more local seats than their percentage entitles them too, such as overhang seats.  it is irrelevant though when we have redistricting by independent agencies that prevent gerrymandering.   #  it is far better to leave the method of election with the voters instead of with the parties.   #  what does an isolated popularity mean though ? what i am arguing for is fundamentally a system of representative democracy.  a system where the government is supported by the majority of people.  i do not think parties are the best at judging what the national ideological consensus is though.  it is far better to leave the method of election with the voters instead of with the parties.  i am not saying mmp is a completely bad system, but the existence of party lists are a major flaw, as well as what else i have experienced with an mmp system.
i recently was in europe, and all of their public transportation stations bus and all of eu rail made you pay 0c 0€ to access their restroom.  i believe that access to a restroom is a basic human right because of its universality.  all people use and need a restroom, regardless of gender, race, or income.  they provide a healthy and private space compared to say, a bush or alley.  i am not joking for many people this is a choice they have to make.  public urination is a big problem in urban areas.  being forced to defecate in public is not just unsightly and unhealthy to others, but it also adds personal insult to the injury of homelessness.  i saw several people loitering near these payable restrooms asking for 0c to use them, which i do not believe is something one should have to do.  to restrict restrooms to those able to pay is morally wrong, and cannot be allowed, especially in places funded by taxpayers.  there are several benefits to opening up public restrooms.  people use restrooms to clean themselves as well, so opening them up would increase overall cleanliness.  arrests for public urination would decrease, reducing police and jail costs as well as street cleaning costs.  i do not know if respect for the homeless would  increase , but i think disrespect would decrease as people stop sneering at those asking for money to use the restroom.  some may say that opening the restrooms to all would make them dirty.  about half of these payable restrooms i saw had a person standing there to collect money, who could in the free case just be another janitor they already have to clean them, no matter how exclusive their restrooms are .  i have no sources or math for this, but i do not believe that the minor influx of people into these restrooms would dirty them at a rate faster than the added janitor person could clean with the rest of the janitors.  a lot of touristy places had payable restrooms as well.  i can see how one could make the case for a business reserving the restrooms to their customers, but many of these places were just a privatized version of what i described above, selling just water and restroom access.  to summarize, i believe that the small cost in maintaining a free restroom is outweighed solely in possible financial gains, and completely blown away when considering human rights in addition.  still, i imagine that i cannot be the first person to think of this, so there must be some reason why public spaces were allowed to begin this practice in the first place, so i would like to hear what you think on the matter.  cmv please.   #  about half of these payable restrooms i saw had a person standing there to collect money, who could in the free case just be another janitor they already have to clean them, no matter how exclusive their restrooms are .   #  i have no sources or math for this, but i do not believe that the minor influx of people into these restrooms would dirty them at a rate faster than the added janitor person could clean with the rest of the janitors.   # i have no sources or math for this, but i do not believe that the minor influx of people into these restrooms would dirty them at a rate faster than the added janitor person could clean with the rest of the janitors.  i would just like to address this point in your issue.  currently, restrooms charge a fee, and pay an attendant to work there.  presumably, this fee at least covers the attendants salary.  your solution to make it free, then pay a janitor to work there.  this would cost more money, because they would still have expenses, but no longer have any income.  its more likely that in the free case, they would have even less money available to hire janitors and cleaning crews, since they no longer have any income.  that is why it would be dirtier.   #  eating is a necessity with the consequence of death, so why do we tax food when not having it could kill you ?  #  eating is a necessity with the consequence of death, so why do we tax food when not having it could kill you ? taking a dump is a necessity with the consequence of death so why is it absurd to expect 0 cents for a bathroom ? also the reason why a bathroom would be taxed is because of the of maintaining its hygiene.  would you want to take a dump in a public restroom in the middle of central park if you walked in and their was shit on the wall and piss on the floor with the toilet seat covered in what might be jizz or ice cream ? no you would not even though you have to take a massive dump you would find another place, when when all hope is lost you see it, the mecca of bathrooms the shit kingdom a government bathroom with the cost of wait for it 0 cents.  tell me which one you will choose ? you would choose the 0 cent one and just be happy your government now has government regulated and cleaned bathrooms.  also the 0 cents you just spent helps shit on the debt.  also here is the thing say the government makes these meccas of bathrooms they cost money how the flying shit are they gonna pay it off when you shit for free ? honesty they would a: raise taxes making you pay for it just not upfront, b: pay for it themselves and raise the debt even higher, or my favorite c: make it like a toll tag you get a bracelet registered to your ssn and swims it in front of a camera they send a discreet bill to your home or direct tax it and that is all.  also bigger question, where in the flying duck do you live that all the bathrooms are pay to use seriously ?  #  i do not like this concept that we should call everything that is a good idea a human right.   #  i do not like this concept that we should call everything that is a good idea a human right.  healthcare, food security, education these are all good things for countries to have, but they cost money that all nations do not have.  are we really going to say the government of haiti or south africa is denying people their rights because they ca not afford to solve some basic issues ? was every country before the 0th century a barbaric state with no human rights ? i realize none of these issues are what you are talking about in europe, but i do not like trivializing the word  right  like this.   #  i am not saying it is a good idea, i am saying that calling it a human right is demeaning to anyone who suffers actual human rights violations.   #  the countries that are accused of human rights violations do not just sponsor boy is schools as public education, they  ban people from teaching women .  the government actively destroys schools that teach women.  they do not just refuse to do it.  if the argument is that it is wrong, that does not equate to a human right.  rights do not require you to give people things for free, no matter how necessary they are or how wrong it is.  i am not saying it is a good idea, i am saying that calling it a human right is demeaning to anyone who suffers actual human rights violations.   #  the idea of human rights is that you have them until someone takes them away, not that someone is required to give you something.   #  the idea of human rights is that you have them until someone takes them away, not that someone is required to give you something.  you are supposed to be entitled to them by being born, no matter where you live.  access to a modern restroom is not a luxury anyone had until very recently, and most people still do not have it.  treating it as a right is saying that human rights are not universal and they change based on what country you are in and what that country can afford.  you are basically twisting the word into the situation rather than respecting what the word actually means.
i recently was in europe, and all of their public transportation stations bus and all of eu rail made you pay 0c 0€ to access their restroom.  i believe that access to a restroom is a basic human right because of its universality.  all people use and need a restroom, regardless of gender, race, or income.  they provide a healthy and private space compared to say, a bush or alley.  i am not joking for many people this is a choice they have to make.  public urination is a big problem in urban areas.  being forced to defecate in public is not just unsightly and unhealthy to others, but it also adds personal insult to the injury of homelessness.  i saw several people loitering near these payable restrooms asking for 0c to use them, which i do not believe is something one should have to do.  to restrict restrooms to those able to pay is morally wrong, and cannot be allowed, especially in places funded by taxpayers.  there are several benefits to opening up public restrooms.  people use restrooms to clean themselves as well, so opening them up would increase overall cleanliness.  arrests for public urination would decrease, reducing police and jail costs as well as street cleaning costs.  i do not know if respect for the homeless would  increase , but i think disrespect would decrease as people stop sneering at those asking for money to use the restroom.  some may say that opening the restrooms to all would make them dirty.  about half of these payable restrooms i saw had a person standing there to collect money, who could in the free case just be another janitor they already have to clean them, no matter how exclusive their restrooms are .  i have no sources or math for this, but i do not believe that the minor influx of people into these restrooms would dirty them at a rate faster than the added janitor person could clean with the rest of the janitors.  a lot of touristy places had payable restrooms as well.  i can see how one could make the case for a business reserving the restrooms to their customers, but many of these places were just a privatized version of what i described above, selling just water and restroom access.  to summarize, i believe that the small cost in maintaining a free restroom is outweighed solely in possible financial gains, and completely blown away when considering human rights in addition.  still, i imagine that i cannot be the first person to think of this, so there must be some reason why public spaces were allowed to begin this practice in the first place, so i would like to hear what you think on the matter.  cmv please.   #  i believe that access to a restroom is a basic human right because of its universality.   #  this makes access to a washroom is a human right ?  # this makes access to a washroom is a human right ? there are many universal characteristics but we do not go out of our way to enable them.  should i have access to private sex room ? should i have access to a farm to grow my own food ? should i have access to a building dedicated to my small religious cult ?  #  taking a dump is a necessity with the consequence of death so why is it absurd to expect 0 cents for a bathroom ?  #  eating is a necessity with the consequence of death, so why do we tax food when not having it could kill you ? taking a dump is a necessity with the consequence of death so why is it absurd to expect 0 cents for a bathroom ? also the reason why a bathroom would be taxed is because of the of maintaining its hygiene.  would you want to take a dump in a public restroom in the middle of central park if you walked in and their was shit on the wall and piss on the floor with the toilet seat covered in what might be jizz or ice cream ? no you would not even though you have to take a massive dump you would find another place, when when all hope is lost you see it, the mecca of bathrooms the shit kingdom a government bathroom with the cost of wait for it 0 cents.  tell me which one you will choose ? you would choose the 0 cent one and just be happy your government now has government regulated and cleaned bathrooms.  also the 0 cents you just spent helps shit on the debt.  also here is the thing say the government makes these meccas of bathrooms they cost money how the flying shit are they gonna pay it off when you shit for free ? honesty they would a: raise taxes making you pay for it just not upfront, b: pay for it themselves and raise the debt even higher, or my favorite c: make it like a toll tag you get a bracelet registered to your ssn and swims it in front of a camera they send a discreet bill to your home or direct tax it and that is all.  also bigger question, where in the flying duck do you live that all the bathrooms are pay to use seriously ?  #  was every country before the 0th century a barbaric state with no human rights ?  #  i do not like this concept that we should call everything that is a good idea a human right.  healthcare, food security, education these are all good things for countries to have, but they cost money that all nations do not have.  are we really going to say the government of haiti or south africa is denying people their rights because they ca not afford to solve some basic issues ? was every country before the 0th century a barbaric state with no human rights ? i realize none of these issues are what you are talking about in europe, but i do not like trivializing the word  right  like this.   #  if the argument is that it is wrong, that does not equate to a human right.   #  the countries that are accused of human rights violations do not just sponsor boy is schools as public education, they  ban people from teaching women .  the government actively destroys schools that teach women.  they do not just refuse to do it.  if the argument is that it is wrong, that does not equate to a human right.  rights do not require you to give people things for free, no matter how necessary they are or how wrong it is.  i am not saying it is a good idea, i am saying that calling it a human right is demeaning to anyone who suffers actual human rights violations.   #  the idea of human rights is that you have them until someone takes them away, not that someone is required to give you something.   #  the idea of human rights is that you have them until someone takes them away, not that someone is required to give you something.  you are supposed to be entitled to them by being born, no matter where you live.  access to a modern restroom is not a luxury anyone had until very recently, and most people still do not have it.  treating it as a right is saying that human rights are not universal and they change based on what country you are in and what that country can afford.  you are basically twisting the word into the situation rather than respecting what the word actually means.
every time i read the news or social media, and especially the comments tied to said news or social media, i end up with this cognitive dissonance.  on one hand: i understand and accept the privileges set forth to me, as a us american white male, that many members of minority groups do not have available to them.  even things as simple as watching movies and realized i am seeing an exponentially larger number of white males than any other group, can remind me that there are things in my life that i take for granted which do not exist, or at least are there to a much smaller degree, in the lives of others.  i find this unacceptable; i despise the idea that people are born into set roles or classes due to things outside of their control.  no one asks to be born into poverty, or born to be viewed as suspicious just because they take part in activities others can do without question or second looks.  on the other hand: every day that i open the news, i find a new article that implies that i am some kind of horrible, racist, monster based only on my gender or the color of my skin.  sites like salon, motherjones, and huffington post drop hundreds of articles each month about white people as a generalized group, as if we are all some sort of problem people, individually.  even college professors like saida grundy seem to have no problem saying this.  and their universities have no problem allowing it.  which is part of what bothers me the most.  it is not that clickbait articles exist, but rather that no one cares.  example: take this selection of posts: URL on this list, replace the word  white  with  black  in your head.  look at how horrendously racist that list now comes out to be.  and yet, because it says  white , it is cool.  all is well in the world.  articles that start with  kanye west vs.  white mediocrity:   are currently in style.  well, the problem is that it takes people like me, who want to be an ally and want to stand up and add another voice to the fray, shouting that things should be better for people who are not white.  and it makes me want to remain silent.  what could compel me to self loathe to the point of standing beside racists who despise me for the color of my skin, who disparage me for nothing that i did but rather the actions of people unrelated to me that i have never met and only share the single point of connection in the melonin content of our skin ? what is the point of trying, if i am a monster because of how i look and the only way i can  correct  that is to disparage myself because of the actions of others ? even just making a post like this, pointing out how digustingly bigotted and racist these views are, will make me out to be the racist for bringing it up.  i truly do not understand the current path we are taking in race relations.  i do not understand how this is supposed to help.  i see so many people saying that we need to tackle racism head on, and that we need to talk about the problems.  this is me doing that.  even if i get called a racist or a bigot for it, that is ok.  i am talking about the problem, and it is a problem.  why good does alienating allies really accomplish ?  #  on the other hand: every day that i open the news, i find a new article that implies that i am some kind of horrible, racist, monster based only on my gender or the color of my skin.   #  sites like salon, motherjones, and huffington post drop hundreds of articles each month about white people as a generalized group, as if we are all some sort of problem people, individually.   # sites like salon, motherjones, and huffington post drop hundreds of articles each month about white people as a generalized group, as if we are all some sort of problem people, individually.  even college professors like saida grundy seem to have no problem saying this.  and their universities have no problem allowing it.  which is part of what bothers me the most.  it is not that clickbait articles exist, but rather that no one cares.  minorities are disproportionately punished by a system that is disproportionately run by whites.  this is, by definition, racism.  in what manner are we supposed to address these facts that does not implicate factually whites ?  #  URL URL URL or, stepping outside of the us for a moment, this university officer who also is not losing her job URL yet, we seem to be ok with this ?  #  let me give you a few examples.  start with the example i mentioned above: saida grundy.  she is a boston university professor who has been very open about her disdain of white men, particularly with her tweets.  she appears to be in no danger of losing her job.  URL URL URL or, stepping outside of the us for a moment, this university officer who also is not losing her job URL yet, we seem to be ok with this ? now, you mention the articles.  lets look at a few from salon:  kanye west vs.  white mediocrity: the real story behind beck, beyonce and  snl  0   salon: white people must answer for charleston church shooting  URL or, pretty much replace the word  white  with  black  on every one of the posts on this page: URL what bothers me is not so much that people are posting them; there are crazies everywhere, and racists and bigots, too.  and sometimes those people are lent voices to the public.  my problem is that no one is stopping them.  and anyone who tries to stand up and say  this is wrong  ? well.  at best we are told it is a non issue, and at worst we are called racist.  :  #  full, nuanced ideas are never expressed properly there.   #  the boston professor is talking about the culture of white americans, namely a specific attitude that enables some people to ignore racial injustices.  plus it is twitter.  full, nuanced ideas are never expressed properly there.  the kill all men tweet is not serious, though yes i think it was in poor taste and she should have been fired.  you should actually consider reading those articles from salon.  it is clear they are talking about certain attitudes held by a large amount of white americans.  i really think you are just finding examples of things to be offended by, no different than the sjws who are said to be tweeting all these things.   #  if not, i fail to see the difference between  cultural attitude  and race.   #  i do not see how replacing one race with another race is a silly idea.  the context stays exactly the same, the subject just changes, in this case from white americans to black americans.  for example, if you a white professor wrote:   why is black america so reluctant to identify black college males as a problem population ? would you just brush that off as criticism of a  cultural attitude  ? i think that most would call him a racist bigot, and has no place as a professor.  also, how is a  cultural idea of being white , different from actually being white ? can a person with dark skin in america be culturally white ? can a person with light skin in america not be culturally white ? if not, i fail to see the difference between  cultural attitude  and race.   #  you seem to see no difference between the direction these papers you linked are headed with young black youth, and the direction my articles are headed for white people in general.   #  while the second and third articles do not quite fit with your point, the first one does have verbiage early in that appears to have a racial bias against young black youth.  i have nothing to look at with the last 0 articles.  at this point, unless someone else chimes in, i have no choice but to accept a bias on my end.  you seem to see no difference between the direction these papers you linked are headed with young black youth, and the direction my articles are headed for white people in general.  for some reason, i do see a difference, and feel the ones you linked are not as accusatory or vitriol in their wording, despite feeling problematic in their content.  that difference, unless someone else can point out something to support it, must be my own bias ? i will give others time to reply to this.
i think english should not be the international language for these reasons: it is proven that is really hard to understand how to pronounce some words here /u/brotherche makes a really good point in another thread i saw.  URL other languages such as spanish the pronunciation of a word is pretty straight forward.  i understand that the conjugation is the only tough part and the whole gender thing might be confusing at first not that crazy if it ends on an a it is female, except agua which can be both, the only tough part is if it end on an e .  also english is not even the most spoken language in the world where mandarin is first followed by spanish.  english is rising only because it is commonly being taught as a second language, if you change the language it will also rise.  also the whole small scale system that english has does not even make sense like why a billion is a thousand of a million where in long scale it is a million of a million.  i know this seems biased like i am arguing that spanish should be the international language and it is my native language, but it makes more sense if it were.  i did not defend mandarin because i have always had the impression of it being one of the hardest language to master.  if it is otherwise i apologize and anyone who speaks other languages are welcome to support why your language should be the international language.   #  english is rising only because it is commonly being taught as a second language, if you change the language it will also rise.   #  you are sort of minimizing this part as well.   # you are.  because it is your mother tongue, you are minimizing the particular difficulties it has, while highlighting the difficulties of other languages.  in truth, very very few people are in a position to trust their feelings as to how  easy  a language is.  you are sort of minimizing this part as well.  it is not as though there is an official ruling board that is selected english, and all you need to do is change that committee is mind and everything will start working out.  it is more of an organic, self reinforcing system, one that includes lots of choices besides trade agreements; american and to some extent, british movies, television, and music simply command more presence on the world stage.  while it is true that i have seen a fair amount of foreign subtitled movies that got distributed to theaters here in america, it is not anywhere near parity with the number of american movies that get widespread global distribution.  because so many other people have already learned english as a second language, there is more value in additional people learning english as their second language.  in terms of communicating with people you are likely to be in a position to want to communicate with, english has a lot in its favor.  there is certainly a case to be made that there are better choices if everyone agreed to ignore those factors.  see esperanto.  but those other factors are a large way to explaining why esperanto has not really been successful, and i am not sure spanish is leaps and bounds better in those regards.  i am not sure what you mean by this.   #  or any other natural language for that matter.   #  there is a plethora of synthetic languages all better designed for both concrete communication, ease of learning and consistency than english.  or any other natural language for that matter.  when calculating the  value  of an international language you also have to factor in the ability to force a better language on the people.  but just to demonstrate how hard that is, consider computer languages.  the most common language used today for programming frontends on the web is javascript, almost universally agreed to be  a pretty meh language at best .  yet it is still dominating its landscape due to historical circumstances.  basically meaning the drawbacks of using it do not supersede the benefits of the alternatives.  same applies to natural languages.  the  value  of introducing a better language be it some other natural language or esperanto or whatnot just does not cover the cost not monetary of: 0.  teaching a huge amount of people 0.  getting said people to consent with your wild idea of teaching a new language 0.  translating the huge amount of material already written in english and other main languages  #  english is the closest we have come to the dream of a universal language and trying to offset that might just slow progress.   #  one could come up with flaws in any current language.  spanish has a ton of inefficiency as well.  every language has pros and cons, english is just already ubiquitous in international circles.  i see no reason to change as it would require undoing a ton of progress that we have already made.  it would also be impossible to do because no one sat down and decided to put english in its place.  people learn english because it has a measurably drastic effect on your earnings.  english is the closest we have come to the dream of a universal language and trying to offset that might just slow progress.   #  for natural languages, there is something like a law of conservation of complexity at play; languages tend to be simpler in one area but end up more complex in others.   #  i am typing this from mobile.  i have an amateur interest in linguistics and took a couple of classes on it back in college.  for natural languages, there is something like a law of conservation of complexity at play; languages tend to be simpler in one area but end up more complex in others.  for example, english is an analytic language instead of an inflected language, so information that other languages might encode in verb inflections and noun declensions end up being encoded by sentence order, idioms, and whole additional words.  a simpler phonemic inventory may mean more phonemes/syllables/mora to express a word or thought.  then you get to shared vocabulary.  spanish and english both have a common ancestor language in proto indo european, so cognates have evolved from that.  also, english has borrowed liberally from latin, french, and to a lesser extent spanish and italian; so there is a good bit of shared romance vocabulary.  speakers of languages more distant from germanic and romance languages will find english and spanish both quite foreign.  spanish orthography is more regular than english is, but that is the writing system rather than the language per se.  in areas more influenced by islam and arab culture, arabic may seem a more natural choice; in east asia, chinese has had a similar impact as do latin and greek in the west.  if one wants a language ideally suited for universal adoption fairest to all people it would probably be some constructed language that avoids overt influence from any one language or region of the world.  of course, in practice, language adoption is driven by politics and economics.   #  international english is slowly becoming the lingua franca, not american or british english.   #  international english is slowly becoming the lingua franca, not american or british english.  go to any international workplace outside a native english speaking country, and you will notice that people are not even trying to learn the  correct  pronunciation rules anymore.  in fact, using the  incorrect  rules of international english eg.  pronouncing  th  as  t  can be an advantage in those workplaces because people will understand you better.  international english combines the straight forward pronunciation of spanish or german with the conciseness of english and the error forgiving nature of its grammar.  it is not the perfect lingua franca but i think it is better than either native english or spanish.
i think english should not be the international language for these reasons: it is proven that is really hard to understand how to pronounce some words here /u/brotherche makes a really good point in another thread i saw.  URL other languages such as spanish the pronunciation of a word is pretty straight forward.  i understand that the conjugation is the only tough part and the whole gender thing might be confusing at first not that crazy if it ends on an a it is female, except agua which can be both, the only tough part is if it end on an e .  also english is not even the most spoken language in the world where mandarin is first followed by spanish.  english is rising only because it is commonly being taught as a second language, if you change the language it will also rise.  also the whole small scale system that english has does not even make sense like why a billion is a thousand of a million where in long scale it is a million of a million.  i know this seems biased like i am arguing that spanish should be the international language and it is my native language, but it makes more sense if it were.  i did not defend mandarin because i have always had the impression of it being one of the hardest language to master.  if it is otherwise i apologize and anyone who speaks other languages are welcome to support why your language should be the international language.   #  also the whole small scale system that english has does not even make sense like why a billion is a thousand of a million where in long scale it is a million of a million.   #  i am not sure what you mean by this.   # you are.  because it is your mother tongue, you are minimizing the particular difficulties it has, while highlighting the difficulties of other languages.  in truth, very very few people are in a position to trust their feelings as to how  easy  a language is.  you are sort of minimizing this part as well.  it is not as though there is an official ruling board that is selected english, and all you need to do is change that committee is mind and everything will start working out.  it is more of an organic, self reinforcing system, one that includes lots of choices besides trade agreements; american and to some extent, british movies, television, and music simply command more presence on the world stage.  while it is true that i have seen a fair amount of foreign subtitled movies that got distributed to theaters here in america, it is not anywhere near parity with the number of american movies that get widespread global distribution.  because so many other people have already learned english as a second language, there is more value in additional people learning english as their second language.  in terms of communicating with people you are likely to be in a position to want to communicate with, english has a lot in its favor.  there is certainly a case to be made that there are better choices if everyone agreed to ignore those factors.  see esperanto.  but those other factors are a large way to explaining why esperanto has not really been successful, and i am not sure spanish is leaps and bounds better in those regards.  i am not sure what you mean by this.   #  there is a plethora of synthetic languages all better designed for both concrete communication, ease of learning and consistency than english.   #  there is a plethora of synthetic languages all better designed for both concrete communication, ease of learning and consistency than english.  or any other natural language for that matter.  when calculating the  value  of an international language you also have to factor in the ability to force a better language on the people.  but just to demonstrate how hard that is, consider computer languages.  the most common language used today for programming frontends on the web is javascript, almost universally agreed to be  a pretty meh language at best .  yet it is still dominating its landscape due to historical circumstances.  basically meaning the drawbacks of using it do not supersede the benefits of the alternatives.  same applies to natural languages.  the  value  of introducing a better language be it some other natural language or esperanto or whatnot just does not cover the cost not monetary of: 0.  teaching a huge amount of people 0.  getting said people to consent with your wild idea of teaching a new language 0.  translating the huge amount of material already written in english and other main languages  #  one could come up with flaws in any current language.   #  one could come up with flaws in any current language.  spanish has a ton of inefficiency as well.  every language has pros and cons, english is just already ubiquitous in international circles.  i see no reason to change as it would require undoing a ton of progress that we have already made.  it would also be impossible to do because no one sat down and decided to put english in its place.  people learn english because it has a measurably drastic effect on your earnings.  english is the closest we have come to the dream of a universal language and trying to offset that might just slow progress.   #  spanish orthography is more regular than english is, but that is the writing system rather than the language per se.   #  i am typing this from mobile.  i have an amateur interest in linguistics and took a couple of classes on it back in college.  for natural languages, there is something like a law of conservation of complexity at play; languages tend to be simpler in one area but end up more complex in others.  for example, english is an analytic language instead of an inflected language, so information that other languages might encode in verb inflections and noun declensions end up being encoded by sentence order, idioms, and whole additional words.  a simpler phonemic inventory may mean more phonemes/syllables/mora to express a word or thought.  then you get to shared vocabulary.  spanish and english both have a common ancestor language in proto indo european, so cognates have evolved from that.  also, english has borrowed liberally from latin, french, and to a lesser extent spanish and italian; so there is a good bit of shared romance vocabulary.  speakers of languages more distant from germanic and romance languages will find english and spanish both quite foreign.  spanish orthography is more regular than english is, but that is the writing system rather than the language per se.  in areas more influenced by islam and arab culture, arabic may seem a more natural choice; in east asia, chinese has had a similar impact as do latin and greek in the west.  if one wants a language ideally suited for universal adoption fairest to all people it would probably be some constructed language that avoids overt influence from any one language or region of the world.  of course, in practice, language adoption is driven by politics and economics.   #  it is not the perfect lingua franca but i think it is better than either native english or spanish.   #  international english is slowly becoming the lingua franca, not american or british english.  go to any international workplace outside a native english speaking country, and you will notice that people are not even trying to learn the  correct  pronunciation rules anymore.  in fact, using the  incorrect  rules of international english eg.  pronouncing  th  as  t  can be an advantage in those workplaces because people will understand you better.  international english combines the straight forward pronunciation of spanish or german with the conciseness of english and the error forgiving nature of its grammar.  it is not the perfect lingua franca but i think it is better than either native english or spanish.
i believe in a flat tax system, where everyone pays the same percentage of their earnings in income tax.  i do not believe in a progressive tax system where richer people pay a higher percentage than poor people.  i am a working class democrat, but i do not see a progressive system stimulating economic growth.  it seems to me that it is punishing somebody for making more money, making it more desirable to stay in the middle class instead of encouraging people to work their way up into a higher class.  on the other hand, i believe a flat tax based would be fairer.  rich people would pay more because 0 of a million is higher than 0 of 0 0 but would still be encouraged to leave their capital in the us economy instead of finding ways around the tax code.  can someone make a solid case for a progressive tax system directed at a working class guy like me ?  #  it seems to me that it is punishing somebody for making more money, making it more desirable to stay in the middle class instead of encouraging people to work their way up into a higher class.   #  there is no point in our tax system where making more money results in you taking less home.   #  the issue with taxes are the impact it has on the person you are taxing.  firstly, a 0 flat tax would be a significant decrease in tax revenues, so that is unrealistically low.  the issue with taxes is what activity are the people you are taxing giving up to pay for the taxes.  the more someone earns, the more likely that paying taxes is only cutting into luxury expenses.  currently, the bottom 0 of earners pay a total tax rate of about 0, so you are essentially doubling the taxes on poor people.  this is taking money out of budgets for food, housing, and basic expenses.  when you are making $0k per year, losing another 0 of your income to taxes is devastating.  if you are making $0k per year, a tax cut means you maybe take extra nice vacations or buy the biggest mercedes instead of the 0nd biggest.  additionally, spending on basic stuff is most beneficial to the economy.  tax cuts for lower income people generate more economic activity than tax cuts for wealthy people.  any time you are generating economic growth, you are also growing future tax revenues, so cutting taxes for poor people ultimately allows you to lower the overall tax burden.  taxing lower income people has a much larger effect on children.  lowering a families ability to invest in essential things for their kids leads to lower educational achievement, higher rates of behavioral problems and crime, etc.  these all have a steep economic cost down the road.  there is no point in our tax system where making more money results in you taking less home.  the top marginal rate is less than 0.  you get to keep a bit less of that extra dollar, but you always have more to spend when you make more money.  additionally, consider that after a certain income all your basic expenses are met, and any additional money you make is 0 disposable.  a flat tax does nothing to discourage seeking ways around taxes.  if you have $0 k, and the tax is 0, as long as you can avoid the tax for less than $0k, you are going to do it because at the end of the day you end up with more money.   #  except, joe is next 0 is only 0.  so, joe and ritchie each pay 0 of their next 0, except joe just had less next 0.  same for the next bracket.   #  another point that makes me understand it more: everyone is not taxed at the same rate,but every persons dollar is.  so, ritchie bitchie made $0,0,0 this year.  joe is schmoe made $0.  if tax brackets were 0,0,0,0 each taxed at 0,0,0,0, then each person is first thousand dollars went untaxed.  each persons next 0 dollars were taxed at 0.  except, joe is next 0 is only 0.  so, joe and ritchie each pay 0 of their next 0, except joe just had less next 0.  same for the next bracket.  the next 0 of each man is income is taxed at 0.  joe is next 0 just happened to be $0 and so on and so forth.   #  people only pay a higher tax rate for that money which goes outside of a given bracket.   #  the key thing about a progressive tax system is marginal tax rates.  people only pay a higher tax rate for that money which goes outside of a given bracket.  in other words, earning more money always earns you more money, even if you pay a higher percentage of that money to the government.  play around with the numbers on a calculator URL like this.  this gets more complicated with deductions, but this is the basic idea.   #  when my wife was a teacher, i made about 0 times her salary.   # if i make 0k, i end up paying about 0 taxes.  if i make 0k, i end up paying around 0 in taxes.  but when all is said and done, my take home pay still increases by a considerable margin.  so of course i still would rather make 0k than 0k.  and salaries are certainly not proportional to effort or hard work or whatever virtuous qualities one might invoke to say that the higher income folks  deserved  it.  when my wife was a teacher, i made about 0 times her salary.  our educations were comparable in terms of cost.  she worked at least as hard as i did.  maybe you want to say i deserve it because i am just super smart / genetically gifted, but would you say that i am  0 times as smart as she is  ? what the heck would that even mean ? the best you can say is that that i  deserve it  more because i happened to choose a degree that was in higher demand, because that is what it ultimately comes down to.  but does that make me  deserve  0 times more money ? i do not think so.  salaries are what they are for many economic reasons.  but they have little to do with fairness.  and a flat tax is only as fair as the original income distribution.   #  the other major automatic stabilizer of modern economies are transfer payments food stamps and the like .   #  ok.  forget all the arguments about what is fair and what is not or what the tax burden will be for different groups.  that is one of the least important aspects of the tax code.  there is one major thing that never gets brought up in this argument: automatic stabilizers.  these are built in features of the economy that correct fluctuations in gdp automatically without anyone having to enact any policy.  they keep booms and busts from being so severe by keeping aggregate demand stable.  this is the most important thing to think about when discussing tax policy but it is never brought up by the media or politicians.  that is mostly because unless you have a bs in econ you probably have never heard of an automatic stabilizer in your life.  the single most important automatic stabilizer we have is the progressive tax code.  with a progressive tax household income falls at a slower rate than tax revenue.  it is the same with corporate taxes, which are usually based on profits.  in a recession profits tend to fall much faster than revenue.  therefore, a company pays much less tax while having slightly less economic activity.  this has a positive effect on aggregate demand and keeps a recession from being as nearly as severe as it could be.  on the other hand, with a flat tax there is a 0 to 0 relation to profits and taxation so the tax rate stays the same regardless of whether the company or economy is doing well or not.  this hampers the automatic stabilizer we had with progressive taxes and recessions start turning into depressions a lot more often.  ultimately this is why countries do not use flat taxes.  it has nothing to do with what is  fair  and everything to do with what makes the economy run the most efficient way possible.  the other major automatic stabilizer of modern economies are transfer payments food stamps and the like .  people on the programs spend everything they are given every month and their spending does not change with changes in the economy or in their career.  this is a major factor in keeping aggregate demand and the economy itself stable.  coincidentally, politicians who support flat taxes usually support cutting transfer payment spending.  combining both of those together would be absolutely disastrous for the stability of the economy.  URL URL URL
it is been awhile since i have seen the movie, but one line has stuck with me for years:  if everyone is super, no one will be.   this basically sums up the ideology of the villain of the film: syndrome is trying to build inventions that would give any user superpower level abilities, so that  natural  superheroes would not be special anymore.  now, syndrome is a villain, regardless of his beliefs.  he kidnaps the incredibles and tries to kill at least some of them.  he also built a death robot to destroy an entire city for reasons that i still do not understand .  the movie correctly portrays these behaviors as villainous.  however, for no apparent reason, syndrome is acting on a surprisingly positive, egalitarian motive.  if they wanted to make a compelling villain, he could have had a simple world domination goal, or just wanted to make himself a superhero.  but no: syndrome is goals are to make  natural  superheroes no better than anyone else. by making everyone a superhero.  and this is bad, because.  ? the theme gets even weirder at the end, where dash pretends to be less than stellar at track and gets second place, despite his powers.  apparently, the incredibles are fine with the appearance of equality, as long as they know they are really superior.  in fact, it is nice to let other people pretend to be the best, and you do not have to feel threatened by that, because you will always be the real best.  i ca not help but view the film as a struggle between two profoundly incorrect viewpoints.  i walk away knowing that syndrome did more evil things, but hating the incredibles more because they are just so unlikeable.  syndrome is correctly cast as the villain of the piece because of his bullying of the incredibles and city destructobot, but his plan to provide cool gadgets for everyone is not evil, and it would not be a bad thing if  everyone was super.   on the contrary, it would be the best outcome of the movie.  we only get a brief glimpse of syndrome is inventions, but even the few we see appear to have some potential livesaving applications flying shoes for firefighters to get people out of burning buildings; laser glasses to rescue people trapped in car accidents .  if everyone was super, it would not just be a lucky few tasked with saving people whether they wanted to or not.  instead, those who truly wanted to could do it, and as many people as necessary could have each  power.   if we had the technology to do so, we ought to make everyone super.  syndrome is alleged motive for evil falls totally flat, and the incredibles  reaction is weirdly elitist.  cmv.   #  however, for no apparent reason, syndrome is acting on a surprisingly positive, egalitarian motive.   #  syndrome is a satire of the communist ideal and of the  evils  of egalitarianism.   #  hehe, just watched the incredibles tonight again .  i think it is my all time favourite cartoon movie.  syndrome is a satire of the communist ideal and of the  evils  of egalitarianism.  his reason and motive is envy he is not motivated by wanting to make everyone good/super he is motivated by wanting to destroy the exceptional/special and most of all  the perception  in other people that the special exists.  making everyone super is just a means to that end destroying individuality, uniqueness, specialness.  he want is everyone to be the same, to have the same value to each other, because when people stop looking up at virtue/heroes and winners, they wo not look down on vice/villains and losers.  like every dictator, he fears moral judgement.  the movie is theme is about the choice  to be heroic or to be mundane/normal  in face of the dilemma  should i care about what others think ?   that is a great and timeless theme.  for syndrome greatness and being special is a  comparison  to others rather than a stand alone quality of the individual.  it means syndrome cares more about how people perceive the differences between each other rather than what they really are.  dash makes the same mistake: dash: but dad always said our powers were nothing to be ashamed of, our powers made us special.  helen: everyone is special, dash.  dash: muttering which is another way of saying no one is.  it is the same mistake because, like syndrome, he is comparing himself to others dash initially wants to show off to others how much faster he is than everyone else, and he wants everyone to know how special he is.  it is childish, and it is something he learns to overcome by the end of the movie by learning self control and winning a race by only a little bit.  he shows us that he is not evaluating his special ness by how much faster he is in comparison to others.  violet cares too much what others think and suffers from shyness and lack of confidence as a result.  she wants to be normal and invisible and is scared of being special.  helen is encourages her to understand that she has more power than she realizes and that she just has to believe in herself.  eventually, violet learns to create force fields with confidence and take pride in her specialness.  she sheds her shyness to ask her crush tony rydinger for a date.  the truth is, everyone is special, because we each have a uniquely owned individually controlled power to choose to act.  but not everyone knows it or embraces it or values it and you need to in order to become great or  super  not as a  comparison to everyone else , but in your own eyes.   #  i think your mistake is to believe that everything about a villain and his/her motives should be bad and everything about a hero and his/her motives should be good.   #  we agree his certainly is a villain.  whatever his goals, the ways he goes about them are super villainous with death and destruction and whatnot.  but rather than argue for or against his particular goal, all i will say is that many many many villains have noble intentions, but end up doing evil things in the name of these good intentions.  the fact that the villain has goals that people can sympathize with is what makes him an interesting dramatic character.  i think your mistake is to believe that everything about a villain and his/her motives should be bad and everything about a hero and his/her motives should be good.  real people are complicated and have bits of both in them.  in principle, i agree that  if everyone is super.   is not an evil thing.  but i think its a huge strength of the movie that that is the motivation of the villain, and that he had an interesting backstory that caused this to be a part of his campaign.   #  it is that the ideology of the incredibles is so backwards i ca not stand them at all and wish i could root for the actively evil murderer instead.   # the fact that the villain has goals that people can sympathize with is what makes him an interesting dramatic character.  i think your mistake is to believe that everything about a villain and his/her motives should be bad and everything about a hero and his/her motives should be good.  real people are complicated and have bits of both in them.  this is true.  however, the incredibles takes it to a whole new level.  i like syndrome better.  he is more evil, no question, but damn i hate the incredibles.  i feel like if you have gone so far into  nuance  that i ca not stand the protagonist, you have gone too far particularly in a children is film .  i may be the only one who hates the incredibles, in which case there is not really an argument to be had i dislike them, someone else does not, no evidence can change anyone is mind .  my issue is not that i think protagonists and antagonists need to be all good/all evil.  it is that the ideology of the incredibles is so backwards i ca not stand them at all and wish i could root for the actively evil murderer instead.  but i ca not quite bring myself to do that either, because he is too evil.  so instead i just watch the film hating everyone on screen, which does not a good moviegoing experience make.   #  first, do the incredibles actually state that they must stop syndrome from spreading superpowers ?  #  i think you are either a ascribing goals to the incredibles that they do not have or b being a bit naive about the outcome that syndrome wants.  first, do the incredibles actually state that they must stop syndrome from spreading superpowers ? i think they just want to stop death and destruction, which is what syndrome is actually spreading.  second, syndrome i have sincere doubts that syndrome is stated goal is his actual goal.  he is shown a willingness to manipulate and lie to achieve his ends, why do you think he is being honest here ? third, syndrome is deciding the course of the world by himself.  he is not putting things up to a vote, he just decided that his view is right and is circumventing the process to acheive his goal.  would giving everyone superpowers really work out better for the world ? it might just make it easier for us to kill each other.  and maybe the incredibles, deep down, are aware of that.   #  his brief  vision,  where we see what his ideal world looks like, includes people using all kinds of different gadgets.   # making everyone super is just a means to that end destroying individuality, uniqueness, specialness.  i disagree.  his brief  vision,  where we see what his ideal world looks like, includes people using all kinds of different gadgets.  some people fly, others have other powers.  if anything, people are more diverse in his vision than they are today.  some people have a lot more choices than others, because they are born into freer societies with greater social standing.  making everyone super means allowing anyone to have entrance into that world, allowing everyone to choose their own paths.  which is a lovely moral, but does not seem to be the moral of the story.  the whole point of the story is to stop others from dethroning the incredibles as the most special supers.  i guess we disagree because i do not see how the great themes you bring up are in the movie.
i will start this off by saying i am english.  over here, after a school shooting in 0 in dunblane, gun control was majorly tightened, with all handguns, assault rifles etc banned outright.  only a select few have guns i. e.  farmers can have shotguns to keep wild animals at bay, but only under strict license with regular checks .  members of shooting clubs etc can have guns, but again, only certain types, and the regulations on these are far stricter than in the u. s.  fast forward 0 years and massacres on the scale and regularity in which america is seeing them are unheard of here, and in most other developed countries with bans on guns.  for context a single teacher was stabbed to death not too long back by a pupil and the nation was horrified, it was major news for weeks.  in the u. s.  i do not believe this would raise an eyebrow.  our police officers can patrol pretty much unarmed, and because there is little to no threat of a thug pulling a gun, officers are a lot less jumpy and combatative toward the general population.  this means far fewer people dying in police custody.  as an outsider looking in, i ca not wrap my head around how many lives need to be lost in mass shootings and police killings before americans realise that guns have no place in the hands of the general population.  quite a few americans would need a new hobby, but this would be a small price to pay to minimise these kind of events.  it is fact that when guns are ridiculously hard to obtain that these types of crimes occur less than in places where most people can freely buy them.  america should ban guns.  cmv.   #  with all handguns, assault rifles etc banned outright.   #  actually it is a bit more complex than that.   # actually it is a bit more complex than that.  firearms are split into the different sections of law.  the two main ones are section 0 and section 0.  section 0 covers centerfire, straight pull rifles, . 0 rimfire straight pull and semi auto rifles and long barrelled pistols and revolvers.  section 0 covers pistols, revolvers, fully autos, semi auto centerfire rifles, etc.  section 0 firearms licences are practically, but not completely impossible to get.  in fact i think one was recently granted to the olympic shooting team ca not find the article but the general population pretty much has no chance.  section 0 are fairly trivial to own, provided you have a  good reason  i. e.  member of a shooting club, permission from a landowner to shoot over their land, etc.  this is a section 0 firearm: URL so handguns are not banned outright.  it would be trivial to take a hacksaw or angle grinder to that and turn it into a concealable firearm, so i do not buy the mantra that banning handguns has made them much more difficult to obtain.  also, there is no such thing as an  assault rifle .  that is kind of a made up term mostly used by people who do not know a great deal about firearms.  i will assume you are referring to something like the ar 0, some types of which are also available under section 0: this is a semi automatic ar 0 that is uk legal under section 0: URL so in fact it is trivial to get hold of handguns and semi automatic rifles in the uk.  what makes us different from the us is more to do with attitude.  i do not think the handgun ban was anything more than a knee jerk reaction after dunblane and i do not think it is had much effect other than damaging the sport of shooting in the uk.  banning guns outright will only harm shooting as a sport.  criminals will still be able to obtain firearms fairly easily.   #  or have it be mandatory, a whole lot more expensive, and a pr nightmare that would most likely cause a small scale civil war in some states.   #  people have mentioned how deeply ingrained culturally, historically, and constitutionally gun ownership is in the us, so i will argue another point: at this point, it is practically impossible.  there are between 0  0 URL to 0  0 URL guns per 0 people in the us right now, far more than the uk or australia had when they passed their laws limiting ownership.  actually collecting these guns from the people of the us would be a massive undertaking because our population is much larger more than 0 million people and spread out across a much wider area 0 million square miles than the uk 0 million over 0k square miles or australia 0 million over 0 million square miles, most of it in only a few cities URL it would be horrendously expensive in a time when our budget is already harshly criticized.  that is to say nothing of the practicality and outright danger of collecting them.  a lot of people would most likely just bury their guns and say  oh, i sold  em/they got stolen.   some people would be outright hostile and kill anyone who came to collect their property.  how are you gonna convince a police officer who only makes $0k a year  0 URL or a soldier $0k  0 URL to take that kind of risk ? are you going to come in force, with a small army with body armor and rifles and apcs for every town ? that will be even more expensive, to say nothing of making the us look like it is descending even further into a police state.  what would you do with the police and soldiers who refuse to carry out what they believe to be an unconstitutional order ? so your options are have the gun control be voluntary, expensive, and ineffective.  or have it be mandatory, a whole lot more expensive, and a pr nightmare that would most likely cause a small scale civil war in some states.  the ship on american gun control sailed years ago.  it is just not possible anymore.   #  is it a good idea for me to push the button.   #  eh.  this is not really relevant.  the question of whether we  can  enact gun control is an entirely separate question from whether we  should .  the first question we should ask is, would it be a good idea to do this if we could ? if the answer to that is no, then we do not even need to consider how we would do it.  we should not do it anyway.  if the answer is yes, however, only then should you consider how.  op is asking the first question, not the second.  in other words, pretend i had a button in front of me.  with the pressing of this button, all guns in the us are instantly vaporized, and our 0nd amendment would be replaced by a new amendment requiring gun ownership to be subject to a very strenuous process.  is it a good idea for me to push the button.  why or why not ?  #  i started my statement by saying i was not going to argue the morality of whether or not to ban guns, but focus on the practicality of it and whether we should or could from a practical point of view.   #  op said the us should ban civilian ownership of guns, both because of their danger and because other countries have successfully done so.  i started my statement by saying i was not going to argue the morality of whether or not to ban guns, but focus on the practicality of it and whether we should or could from a practical point of view.  in a perfect world of law application, there  would  be a button you could press to make all the civilian guns disappear.  but there is not, so i am applying op is argument to the real world.  and in the real world, the consequences of making, applying, and enforcing the kind of gun control op is arguing for would make the whole exercise not worth it.   #  in that case, would it be a good idea for us to do that ?  #  i understand that entirely.  my point is that the cmv is titled,  america  should  ban guns for future use  when someone is asking a  should  question, it is a moral question.  whether or not it would be a good idea to do it,  given  that we have the ability.  i understand the current climate would not allow something like this, but who knows where the country will be in another 0 or 0 years.  in a few decades, it could be completely possible for a gun ban to be enacted.  in that case, would it be a good idea for us to do that ? that is what the cmv is asking.
i am making this post with the recent charleston shooting in mind, so in my example, i will use murder.  however, the principle of enhanced punishment based on motive applies to any other crime.  while many people consider it morally abhorrent, racism is not illegal.  as long as it is not acted on in the form of violent crime, discrimination in hiring etc.  it will not get anyone in any trouble with the law.  simply saying  i hate all black people  for example, will not get you any punishment.  murder on the other hand, is illegal in all cases.  since the added punishment for hate crimes is based on the motive alone, it would seem that the government is using hate crime legislation to legally prohibit racist thought, endangering our 0st amendment rights.  again, while most consider racial thought morally wrong, we as americans still have the right to think what we want and dislike any other person for whatever reason we choose.  giving a harsher punishment to a murder because of the murderer is legal thoughts at the time of the crime is contradictory.  it is the legal equivalent of adding 0 and 0 and getting 0.   #  since the added punishment for hate crimes is based on the motive alone, it would seem that the government is using hate crime legislation to legally prohibit racist thought, endangering our 0st amendment rights.   #  it only penalizes when there is some action involved.   # alright, i am trying to find out whether you agree that a 0st and 0nd degree murder warrant different levels of punishment.  if racial hate is a motivating factor, then the criminal actually has plenty of opportunities to remedy his/her own thoughts.  there are no laws that forbid the discussion of these matters, so the person could talk to other people about the matter and change his/her mind.  if a person has thoughts that involve taking the lives of others, then it behooves them to look into the matter.  it only penalizes when there is some action involved.  there are provisions in place that provide for harsher sentences for assassinations that are threatened and then carried out, are not there ? so there are limits on free speech when it comes to another person is well being.   #  an avowed racist, who sees black people everywhere he goes, is much more of a danger to society than a person who committed one crime once for a very specific reason.   #  if we are to base criminal punishment on damage to society and likelihood of recidivism, it makes perfect sense to punish hate crime more severely.  if a guy kills his wife is boyfriend because he was sleeping with the guy is wife , that guy is unlikely to kill someone else.  his motive was  this guy was sleeping with my wife  his pool of potential victims is always limited to that small number of people.  by contrast, a person who commits a hate crime has a huge pool of potential victims.  in the case of the charleston shooter, his aim was to kill black people.  that means his potential victims could be any of hundreds of thousands of black people anywhere in society.  he is a danger to  all  black people, not just the small number that he targeted when he committed the crime.  as a society, we must take extra care to ensure that he is rehabilitated before he is released back into the world.  a guy who kills his wife is boyfriend may have difficulty tracking down her or her current partners.  he may move on from the idea of their relationship.  he may realize that killing  for love  is wrong.  an avowed racist, who sees black people everywhere he goes, is much more of a danger to society than a person who committed one crime once for a very specific reason.   #  what if a person killed random people from multiple demographics ?  # his motive was  this guy was sleeping with my wife  his pool of potential victims is always limited to that small number of people.  indeed, but that is likely a crime of passion which is not necessarily the case with all murders.  if a guy kills a prostitute for kicks, or multiple prostitutes, is that not also incredibly heinous ? should their be extra sentencing for that ? what if a person killed random people from multiple demographics ? should they not be punished as harshly because it was not a  hate crime  ? again, what about someone who kills random people without a very specific reason ? are they not so bad ?  #  legislation against hate crimes benefits all of society, not just minorities.   # are they not so bad ? they are just as bad, but a more diffused threat.  it would be very hard to introduce any measure to reduce the behaviour of someone you have described.  this cmv talks about the validity of this kind of legislation and u/jamesdk correctly points out that,  by contrast, a person who commits a hate crime has a huge pool of potential victims.   legislation against hate crimes benefits all of society, not just minorities.  that minorities are more likely to be victims of hate crimes is a reflection of society itself, but the legislation protects all.  take a look at this summary URL only about half of all hate crimes happened because of race.  and 0/0 of those were against non blacks.  this legislation also protects against gender based hate, disability based hate, religion based hate, etc.  so i can see a lot of value in it.   #  the number of these groups has increased by about 0 since 0 URL but there has not been a corresponding increase in hate crimes in that period.   # as i wrote,  it would be very hard to introduce any measure to reduce the behaviour of someone you have described.   not everything can be countered.  hmmm, it is difficult to demonstrate the absence of something.  let is see whether i can make any sort of argument against your claim.  these issues do not occur in a vacuum.  the number of these groups has increased by about 0 since 0 URL but there has not been a corresponding increase in hate crimes in that period.  in fact the number of these crimes in 0 URL is less than the number in 0 URL the reduction could be due to a large number of reasons, including legislation.
i am making this post with the recent charleston shooting in mind, so in my example, i will use murder.  however, the principle of enhanced punishment based on motive applies to any other crime.  while many people consider it morally abhorrent, racism is not illegal.  as long as it is not acted on in the form of violent crime, discrimination in hiring etc.  it will not get anyone in any trouble with the law.  simply saying  i hate all black people  for example, will not get you any punishment.  murder on the other hand, is illegal in all cases.  since the added punishment for hate crimes is based on the motive alone, it would seem that the government is using hate crime legislation to legally prohibit racist thought, endangering our 0st amendment rights.  again, while most consider racial thought morally wrong, we as americans still have the right to think what we want and dislike any other person for whatever reason we choose.  giving a harsher punishment to a murder because of the murderer is legal thoughts at the time of the crime is contradictory.  it is the legal equivalent of adding 0 and 0 and getting 0.   #  giving a harsher punishment to a murder because of the murderer is legal thoughts at the time of the crime is contradictory.   #  everything about modern science from neurology to sociology would beg to differ.   # everything about modern science from neurology to sociology would beg to differ.  crime is many causes, especially socio economic are totally ignored by this simplistic view.  intention and motive have everything to do with why a crime is committed, how that crime can be prevented, is not that the largest purpose of punishment ? and how said criminal may be rehabilitated.  to ignore this is inhumane, immoral, illogical, and anti science.  i will give you a few examples to flesh this out.  if a father steals to feed his hungry child, no punishment would be so severe that he would let the child starve.  a simple solution would be to give the child food so the father would no longer have to steal.  rehabilitation for this individual if caught would need to be radically different than that given to an almost identical individual, but one that did not have a starving child and was just a kleptomaniac.  to not differentiate is beyond cruel and ignorant.  lets move on to murder.  let is say a 0 year old buy murders a man because he is being initiated into a gang and his leader told him too.  in this case addressing the socio economic factors that drove a child to join such a gang is the effective solution.  however that is not the case for an upper middle class man who murders his wife one day out of rage issues.  therapy might help him.  or a man who murders another man because he thinks hes defending his country from the vast muslim threats due to among other things, massive propaganda from the christian right .  this man likely needs some reeducation.  how about a man who murdered a small girl just because he likes to kill, love the power trip, and enjoys watching people die.  well he probably needs to stay locked away forever.  this is obviously an oversimplification, but it is merely a few semi fleshed out examples to show my point.  now i will throw in a curve ball.  the us legal system is a complete shithole and in most respects needs a massive overhaul.  this is also true of the penal system, and domestic policy in general.  this is not as simple as crime and punishment, this is not even as  simple  as just reforming only one of the massive institutions listed above.  to address these problems needs massive institutional and societal change or at least a power shift.  in other words in their current form, i would certainly take the hate crime laws off the books, but along with them i would have to remove several others and make many more laws to actually achieve a positive effect.   #  he is a danger to  all  black people, not just the small number that he targeted when he committed the crime.   #  if we are to base criminal punishment on damage to society and likelihood of recidivism, it makes perfect sense to punish hate crime more severely.  if a guy kills his wife is boyfriend because he was sleeping with the guy is wife , that guy is unlikely to kill someone else.  his motive was  this guy was sleeping with my wife  his pool of potential victims is always limited to that small number of people.  by contrast, a person who commits a hate crime has a huge pool of potential victims.  in the case of the charleston shooter, his aim was to kill black people.  that means his potential victims could be any of hundreds of thousands of black people anywhere in society.  he is a danger to  all  black people, not just the small number that he targeted when he committed the crime.  as a society, we must take extra care to ensure that he is rehabilitated before he is released back into the world.  a guy who kills his wife is boyfriend may have difficulty tracking down her or her current partners.  he may move on from the idea of their relationship.  he may realize that killing  for love  is wrong.  an avowed racist, who sees black people everywhere he goes, is much more of a danger to society than a person who committed one crime once for a very specific reason.   #  should they not be punished as harshly because it was not a  hate crime  ?  # his motive was  this guy was sleeping with my wife  his pool of potential victims is always limited to that small number of people.  indeed, but that is likely a crime of passion which is not necessarily the case with all murders.  if a guy kills a prostitute for kicks, or multiple prostitutes, is that not also incredibly heinous ? should their be extra sentencing for that ? what if a person killed random people from multiple demographics ? should they not be punished as harshly because it was not a  hate crime  ? again, what about someone who kills random people without a very specific reason ? are they not so bad ?  #  so i can see a lot of value in it.   # are they not so bad ? they are just as bad, but a more diffused threat.  it would be very hard to introduce any measure to reduce the behaviour of someone you have described.  this cmv talks about the validity of this kind of legislation and u/jamesdk correctly points out that,  by contrast, a person who commits a hate crime has a huge pool of potential victims.   legislation against hate crimes benefits all of society, not just minorities.  that minorities are more likely to be victims of hate crimes is a reflection of society itself, but the legislation protects all.  take a look at this summary URL only about half of all hate crimes happened because of race.  and 0/0 of those were against non blacks.  this legislation also protects against gender based hate, disability based hate, religion based hate, etc.  so i can see a lot of value in it.   #  let is see whether i can make any sort of argument against your claim.   # as i wrote,  it would be very hard to introduce any measure to reduce the behaviour of someone you have described.   not everything can be countered.  hmmm, it is difficult to demonstrate the absence of something.  let is see whether i can make any sort of argument against your claim.  these issues do not occur in a vacuum.  the number of these groups has increased by about 0 since 0 URL but there has not been a corresponding increase in hate crimes in that period.  in fact the number of these crimes in 0 URL is less than the number in 0 URL the reduction could be due to a large number of reasons, including legislation.
when we attempt to superimpose the darwinian dictum of  isurvival of the fittest , is not it going to lead us this obvious conclusion ? earth is going to be populated by a bunch of fat, rich warlords ordering their subjugated population to garner hold over global resources.  if i decide to take the pacifist route, i get killed, or alternatively the  willeaders  passively attempt to bridle my growth through manipulation and domination.  hence i should become proactive and get rid of their lackeys general population , and finally cut off the head of the snake as well.  please do change my view.  p. s.  is this footnote etiquette some kind of moderator powerplay ? i amma lace your mod drinks with polonium at the next meetup !  #  when we attempt to superimpose the darwinian dictum of  isurvival of the fittest , is not it going to lead us this obvious conclusion ?  #  our society has never applied that dictum to people.   # our society has never applied that dictum to people.  we have always striven to keep the poor alive and healthy even if we sometimes fail on the compassion front and attempt to deprive them of certain pleasures .  we apply that dictum to corporations and businesses.  the ones that are inefficient are destroyed but their employees and owners live on with a little less money in their pockets.  survival of the fittest does not and cannot mean merely  become rich and fat .  wealth and stored energy are a means to an end, and that end is reproduction.  if you want to take that biologic fact as a personal goal, by all means do so but understand it properly.  if you want to  win  you do so by having lots of offspring and ensuring their survival.  that is diametrically opposed to concentrated power.  concentrated power requires you to give all your resources to one heir; a darwinian goal requires you to spread out your resources as thinly as is possible.  if you have given one child enough resources to feed ten, you have wasted your energies accumulating those resources.  that time would have been far better spent creating more progeny.   #  the concept of society thriving on competition is one where competition drives society, not individuals.   # what is your objective in life ? if your objective is to reach the top of the social ladder as your reference to social darwinism implies , killing everyone defeats the purpose, as it destroys society.  if it is to acquire more material value, what is the purpose of that objective ? the concept of society thriving on competition is one where competition drives society, not individuals.  that is, competition helps the whole of society progress, but will leave some individuals in the dust.  the objective as individuals should be to stay ahead of society, while still being a part of that society.   #  i would say that individual attitude of competition cumulatively adds up to societal darwinism.   #  my objective is survival.  the problem with the people on top of the ladder is that their hunger for power basically resources remain unquenched when they realise noone is offering them resistance.  in their quest for this, they finally come for my materialistic resources as well.  upon resistance they will have to resort to killing me.  therefore my survival hinges on my ability for a pre emptive strike.  i have to admit i am skeptical about that 0nd paragraph of yours where you reduce the darwinian dictum to societies instead of individuals.  it appears redundant because individuals make up a society.  i am not enlightened enough to say you are wrong, but it does not seem right to me at least.  i would say that individual attitude of competition cumulatively adds up to societal darwinism.  hence, i respecfully disagree on that point.   #  if you break from society, they will have a much easier time doing this.   # i do not know about your society, but in mine this is not the way the people on top will try to acquire your resources.  instead they will work within societal norms to slowly siphon away everything you own.  if you break from society, they will have a much easier time doing this.  if you kill any one of them, the others will use legal precedence to take everything you own, making your primary objective impossible.  why take that risk, when you can instead use the society to your own advantage.  i am not saying you should lie down and give up.  what i am saying is that you have methods at your disposal to survive in society that do not involve destroying it, and that the costs/risks of killing those on top far outweigh the benefits.   #  if it is able to reproduce or not.   #  mayflies live for a few hours, just long enough to reproduce and then they die.  male spiders are typically eaten by the female once they mate.  the extra nutrition gives the offspring a better chance of survival.   fitness  is not necessarily referring to strength.  it refers to the ability of an organism to fit into a certain niche, to find the optimal survival strategy so it can ultimately reproduce.  there is really no measure of what makes a successful creature vs.  an unsuccessful one from an evolutionary perspective.  the universe does not care if you live or die.  evolution  is a process driven by reproduction, that is probably the best way to measure success of an individual.  if it is able to reproduce or not.  being a warlord might be one strategy, genghis khan probably had the most offspring of any person, which does not help my argument.  but maybe you can just become a sexy rock star and impregnate as many groupies as possible.  that is a perfectly non violent way to have hundreds of offspring.
i am strictly a pc gamer.  i own an xbox controller for my pc and am very interested in the upcoming steam controller.  but i am hesitant to make the purchase, as i barely use my xbox controller.  i have tried several times to get used to playing with a controller even reinstalling old games and starting with the controller to familiarize myself and i always go back to  amouse and keyboard .  below are the reasons i think  amouse and keyboard  is the best way to play pc games really: any game, but k m is really only an option on the pc .    the mouse is infinitely more precise than a controller.  i ca not even imagine playing fps games with a controller mostly, i have been playing 0rd person action games a la  arkham  and  tomb raider  .  i know many fps games use an aim assist system to compensate for the imprecision of a controller.  i would rather have a more precise input system than an  assist  to compensate for the imprecision of my input device.    because we use them all the time, a keyboard is intuitive.  most of us use computer keyboards and mice on a daily basis in our work.  every qwerty keyboard has the same layout.  when a game tells me  press x , i know exactly where x is.  even people who are very familiar with controller layouts have not spent nearly as much time with that controller as they have with a keyboard and mouse.    keyboard and mouse work for  all  games.  as i mentioned, i prefer the precision of k m for fps games.  but i am also a big time rts and strategy gamer  total war  are my favorite games and there is no way i could imagine playing strategy games with a controller.  k m works for everything.  i even preferred  dark souls  with a k m a game that many will say is only playable with a controller.    i am perfectly comfortable in my computer chair.  one of the big advantages i often hear about controllers is the ability to play from the couch.  i prefer to be close to my display i play on a 0in tv and sit about 0 feet back .  my keyboard and mouse sit on a laptop desk and my computer chair is very comfortable.  i feel more engaged in my games at the distance i sit vs.  sitting on the couch.  why i want my view changed:   i think the steam controller looks really cool, but i am not sure i would use it.  i do not want to make a purchase i wo not use.    am i missing out on good experiences that only a controller can offer ?   i have got a device i barely use.  i would like to use it more, if there are games in which using it would give me a better experience.   #  i am perfectly comfortable in my computer chair.   #  no one said it is uncomfortable to sit on a computer chair.   # but that is the problem: the mouse is  too  precise, it kills the joy of the game.  even with the aim assist, controllers are nowhere near as precise as a mouse, giving it much more realism and challenge.  no one said it is uncomfortable to sit on a computer chair.  it is simply more comfortable to sit on a couch or a bed, that is all.  and if you use the controller enough times, it will be just as intuitive as the keyboard.  it really does not take much to memorize where each button is, especially when each cluster of buttons is either color coded or shape coded; you do not need need to try to memorize them, just play a couple of games and you will have the controller in your head much more than you would ever have a keyboard in your head.  if i give you two blank sheets of paper and tell you to draw the buttons of a controller on one and the buttons of a keyboard on the other, you will most likely have much easier time drawing the former.  in addition to all of that, you are missing out on pressure sensitivity, one thing with most mice and keyboards do not offer unless you have a ridiculously expensive keyboard.   #  this sort of inconvenience, if you will, is near nonexistent with a controller as you literally hold it in your hands.   #  first, a disclaimer that i am an avid pc gamer and much prefer k m over controllers since my switch nearly a decade ago.  however, it is important to note the fact that a controller is designed for a different target audience.  the vast majority of competitive gaming is conducted via pc rather than console due to the reasons you have outlined.  instead, you should look into what controllers offer that k m ca not.  reasonably speaking, you should not expect to come home after a long day of work, lounge on your couch and spend hours gaming in a completely relaxed state.  portability is the key here, k m can be clunky depending on the environment and there are not many peripherals designed with this in mind: even though there is a market for wireless gaming accessories, it still requires a large setup that is on a flat, stable surface.  this sort of inconvenience, if you will, is near nonexistent with a controller as you literally hold it in your hands.  due to this difference, local multiplayer games are much easier to hold using controllers, compared to setting up a lan party, having a couple of controllers is much less time and labor intensive.  controllers may be objectively worse in a lot of ways, but there is a target audience that is clear by the market share that console gaming holds.  this means that a steam controller may be detractive experience for you personally.  note: i am on mobile and so formatting, grammar, and structure may be poor.  i am literally about to board a 0hour flight, so i may not even revisit this post until very well later.   #  i feel like that would be more immersion breaking than enhancing.   #  vibration is a cool feature, but is it enough ? in my mind, a vibration in the controller does not really translate into an action on the screen.  it is a little bit of haptic feedback the way my phone vibrates a little when i touch certain objects , but for things like explosions ? i feel like that would be more immersion breaking than enhancing.  something huge blows up and all i get is a little wrist wiggle ? i do not know if that would really help my enjoyment of the game.   #   that is different from how people learn how to drive cars in real life, especially race cars where things like g forces and weight transfer play a huge role in how you react to the car is performance.   # ca not click those wasd keys lightly to move a bit slower.  fallout was so much more difficult fps, i just stuck with the 0rd person perspective throughout the whole game.  i am talking about fallout 0, the only one i have played.  hey u/jamesdk, take a look at this article that discusses the uses of the impulse triggers of the xbox one controller URL   by necessity, players learn to drive in racing games largely by relying on visual and audio feedback,  he says.   that is different from how people learn how to drive cars in real life, especially race cars where things like g forces and weight transfer play a huge role in how you react to the car is performance.  in real life, drivers learn just as much from the feel of the car as they do from what they see and hear. the controller technology is getting more advanced with every new iteration.  the subtlety of the impulse trigger rumble means that alert drivers can feel a loss of traction coming early and can respond as needed to keep the car under control.    #  in halo, you often find yourself circling your opponent, which requires you to be constantly turning.   #  first thing i will say is that it depends greatly on the game.  i would never suggest trying to play starcraft or counterstrike with a controller.  they were both designed for mouse and keyboard, and it shows.  but personally, i find a controller much more comfortable for the arkham games.  and like other shave said, fighting games are totally designed for a controller with a joystick.  but i will go one step further and argue that in  some  cases, a controller is even preferable for fps games, which traditionally i like keyboard/mouse for.  but again, it comes down to how the game was designed, and what sorts of actions are most common.  counterstrike for example, is absolutely designed for mouse and keyboard, and its a game about extremely high precision, and even explicitly penalizes your accuracy if you try and move and fire at the same time.  contrast this with a game like halo, which is all about mobility.  your character runs fast, jumps high, has a powerful melee attack and has much less of an accuracy penalty for moving.  in halo, you often find yourself circling your opponent, which requires you to be constantly turning.  with a joystick, this is easy, just hold it in the direction you want to turn.  but with keyboard, its kind of awkward, since you have to keep lifting your mouse and repositioning it.  that said, you are certainly not crazy if you still prefer mouse and keyboard in halo.  that is not really my point.  my point is that turning is something that functions very differently with the two inputs, and whether one form of input is better or worse will depend on what you actually end up  doing  in the game.
i am strictly a pc gamer.  i own an xbox controller for my pc and am very interested in the upcoming steam controller.  but i am hesitant to make the purchase, as i barely use my xbox controller.  i have tried several times to get used to playing with a controller even reinstalling old games and starting with the controller to familiarize myself and i always go back to  amouse and keyboard .  below are the reasons i think  amouse and keyboard  is the best way to play pc games really: any game, but k m is really only an option on the pc .    the mouse is infinitely more precise than a controller.  i ca not even imagine playing fps games with a controller mostly, i have been playing 0rd person action games a la  arkham  and  tomb raider  .  i know many fps games use an aim assist system to compensate for the imprecision of a controller.  i would rather have a more precise input system than an  assist  to compensate for the imprecision of my input device.    because we use them all the time, a keyboard is intuitive.  most of us use computer keyboards and mice on a daily basis in our work.  every qwerty keyboard has the same layout.  when a game tells me  press x , i know exactly where x is.  even people who are very familiar with controller layouts have not spent nearly as much time with that controller as they have with a keyboard and mouse.    keyboard and mouse work for  all  games.  as i mentioned, i prefer the precision of k m for fps games.  but i am also a big time rts and strategy gamer  total war  are my favorite games and there is no way i could imagine playing strategy games with a controller.  k m works for everything.  i even preferred  dark souls  with a k m a game that many will say is only playable with a controller.    i am perfectly comfortable in my computer chair.  one of the big advantages i often hear about controllers is the ability to play from the couch.  i prefer to be close to my display i play on a 0in tv and sit about 0 feet back .  my keyboard and mouse sit on a laptop desk and my computer chair is very comfortable.  i feel more engaged in my games at the distance i sit vs.  sitting on the couch.  why i want my view changed:   i think the steam controller looks really cool, but i am not sure i would use it.  i do not want to make a purchase i wo not use.    am i missing out on good experiences that only a controller can offer ?   i have got a device i barely use.  i would like to use it more, if there are games in which using it would give me a better experience.   #  because we use them all the time, a keyboard is intuitive.   #  and if you use the controller enough times, it will be just as intuitive as the keyboard.   # but that is the problem: the mouse is  too  precise, it kills the joy of the game.  even with the aim assist, controllers are nowhere near as precise as a mouse, giving it much more realism and challenge.  no one said it is uncomfortable to sit on a computer chair.  it is simply more comfortable to sit on a couch or a bed, that is all.  and if you use the controller enough times, it will be just as intuitive as the keyboard.  it really does not take much to memorize where each button is, especially when each cluster of buttons is either color coded or shape coded; you do not need need to try to memorize them, just play a couple of games and you will have the controller in your head much more than you would ever have a keyboard in your head.  if i give you two blank sheets of paper and tell you to draw the buttons of a controller on one and the buttons of a keyboard on the other, you will most likely have much easier time drawing the former.  in addition to all of that, you are missing out on pressure sensitivity, one thing with most mice and keyboards do not offer unless you have a ridiculously expensive keyboard.   #  this sort of inconvenience, if you will, is near nonexistent with a controller as you literally hold it in your hands.   #  first, a disclaimer that i am an avid pc gamer and much prefer k m over controllers since my switch nearly a decade ago.  however, it is important to note the fact that a controller is designed for a different target audience.  the vast majority of competitive gaming is conducted via pc rather than console due to the reasons you have outlined.  instead, you should look into what controllers offer that k m ca not.  reasonably speaking, you should not expect to come home after a long day of work, lounge on your couch and spend hours gaming in a completely relaxed state.  portability is the key here, k m can be clunky depending on the environment and there are not many peripherals designed with this in mind: even though there is a market for wireless gaming accessories, it still requires a large setup that is on a flat, stable surface.  this sort of inconvenience, if you will, is near nonexistent with a controller as you literally hold it in your hands.  due to this difference, local multiplayer games are much easier to hold using controllers, compared to setting up a lan party, having a couple of controllers is much less time and labor intensive.  controllers may be objectively worse in a lot of ways, but there is a target audience that is clear by the market share that console gaming holds.  this means that a steam controller may be detractive experience for you personally.  note: i am on mobile and so formatting, grammar, and structure may be poor.  i am literally about to board a 0hour flight, so i may not even revisit this post until very well later.   #  vibration is a cool feature, but is it enough ?  #  vibration is a cool feature, but is it enough ? in my mind, a vibration in the controller does not really translate into an action on the screen.  it is a little bit of haptic feedback the way my phone vibrates a little when i touch certain objects , but for things like explosions ? i feel like that would be more immersion breaking than enhancing.  something huge blows up and all i get is a little wrist wiggle ? i do not know if that would really help my enjoyment of the game.   #  in real life, drivers learn just as much from the feel of the car as they do from what they see and hear. the controller technology is getting more advanced with every new iteration.   # ca not click those wasd keys lightly to move a bit slower.  fallout was so much more difficult fps, i just stuck with the 0rd person perspective throughout the whole game.  i am talking about fallout 0, the only one i have played.  hey u/jamesdk, take a look at this article that discusses the uses of the impulse triggers of the xbox one controller URL   by necessity, players learn to drive in racing games largely by relying on visual and audio feedback,  he says.   that is different from how people learn how to drive cars in real life, especially race cars where things like g forces and weight transfer play a huge role in how you react to the car is performance.  in real life, drivers learn just as much from the feel of the car as they do from what they see and hear. the controller technology is getting more advanced with every new iteration.  the subtlety of the impulse trigger rumble means that alert drivers can feel a loss of traction coming early and can respond as needed to keep the car under control.    #  i would never suggest trying to play starcraft or counterstrike with a controller.   #  first thing i will say is that it depends greatly on the game.  i would never suggest trying to play starcraft or counterstrike with a controller.  they were both designed for mouse and keyboard, and it shows.  but personally, i find a controller much more comfortable for the arkham games.  and like other shave said, fighting games are totally designed for a controller with a joystick.  but i will go one step further and argue that in  some  cases, a controller is even preferable for fps games, which traditionally i like keyboard/mouse for.  but again, it comes down to how the game was designed, and what sorts of actions are most common.  counterstrike for example, is absolutely designed for mouse and keyboard, and its a game about extremely high precision, and even explicitly penalizes your accuracy if you try and move and fire at the same time.  contrast this with a game like halo, which is all about mobility.  your character runs fast, jumps high, has a powerful melee attack and has much less of an accuracy penalty for moving.  in halo, you often find yourself circling your opponent, which requires you to be constantly turning.  with a joystick, this is easy, just hold it in the direction you want to turn.  but with keyboard, its kind of awkward, since you have to keep lifting your mouse and repositioning it.  that said, you are certainly not crazy if you still prefer mouse and keyboard in halo.  that is not really my point.  my point is that turning is something that functions very differently with the two inputs, and whether one form of input is better or worse will depend on what you actually end up  doing  in the game.
hello there.  i am a guy from bangladesh, a highly conservative islamic country.  english is not my native language.  i will still try to explain the issue to the best of my ability.  if you do not understand something, do ask for clarifications.  furthermore, i do not intend to offend anyone, so please do not take it otherwise.  i should also say that i am very irreligious, and i am just a muslim officially.  other than that my views fall in the camp of liberal agnosticism.  in other words i tend to support contemporary western social values on morality to some extent.  anyways the thing is, i believe that most devoutly religious people are on on the whole good people.  if you take a weighing scale and place their good and bad deeds, the scale of righteousness will be many times more heavier than the scale of evil.  this would be mostly true for followers of any religion.  if someone has lead all their life strictly adhering to their religion, it is highly likely that these people are on the whole  many times moral than the average westerner or the common people of the world  since they are many times more moral than the common people of the world, especially the west, these people should be held in high esteem.  even if we do not agree with their views, we should still accept that they are a better person than us and we should aspire to follow in their moral path, even if we do not follow their religious path.  we should also place them on a pedestal or have a very high esteem for them and make them leaders among our people.  i have seen a lot of hatred and mockery towards this group by most westerners, especially reddit.  people here are always saying  dont preach here, you    and things along those lines.  people seem to consider themselves on par or atleast better than devoutly religious people even if they are themselves sleeping around.  sure you could argue that there are examples of religious people being criminals, but that is in the minority.  this ofcourse does not mean, that their actions against other human beings would be ignored.  it would be left to the victim to either forgive or enforce the justice that he owes.   #  people seem to consider themselves on par or atleast better than devoutly religious people even if they are themselves sleeping around.   #  and what about all the priests that rape kids, for example ?  # if someone has lead all their life strictly adhering to their religion, it is highly likely that these people are on the whole many times moral than the average westerner or the common people of the world what about all the problems religion has caused in the world ? everyone from isis to the wbc think they are moral and good.  when you cherry pick the good things religious people do, its quite easy to say they are moral.  i think you have to consider the situation holistically.  and what about all the priests that rape kids, for example ? again, its just cherry picking.  there is not even a correlation between religion and crime, i would be really skeptical in claiming a causation relationship.  overall, i think hitchens had it right when he challenges anyone to come up with something moral a religious person can do that someone who is not religious ca not.   #  in the same vein, i do not think an individual is religious status should be part of your consideration.   #  i think the big problem here is defining  more moral .  most people tend to define  moral  in the context of their chosen religion.  hence they tend to see other religious people as more moral.  in the same vein, i do not think an individual is religious status should be part of your consideration.  why not just say that we should hold more moral individuals up in higher esteem ? what does their religion have to do with anything ?  #  although here, people consider religious people to be moral.   # hence they tend to see other religious people as more moral.  i do not know about the western perspective.  although here, people consider religious people to be moral.  be they christian, buddhist, muslim or followers of any religion.  and yeah you i agree with you that religious status should not be part of consideration.  we should hold moral individuals in higher esteem regardless of religion.  its probably due to the language barrier i could not phrame the text properly.  religious people tend to be more compassionate, charitable, polite and so on.   #  for instance: you probably think that women should dress modestly.   #  the problem here is that you have not defined  moral.   and the thing is: there is no non subjective definition.  there is literally nothing that everyone agrees is  moral.   even a statement like  randomly murdering people is wrong  would be disputed by some people.  so how you define  moral  is simply the only thing that is important.  now, you have identified yourself as muslim, and you apparently support the morality of muslim leaders in your part of the world.  from this, it is easy to tell why you see them as more morally correct:  morality in the western world directly contradicts morality in the muslim world.  for instance: you probably think that women should dress modestly.  in the west, thinking that women should dress modestly is itself wrong, because no one should care in the first place.  most religious morality is axiomatic.  certain things are moral, certain things are immoral, and good and bad are defined based on those morals so evaluating them is impossible withing that system.  western morality tends to involve a lot of philosophers debating exactly what counts as good and bad, but by now most people here agree that people should mind their own business.  that is, someone else telling you how to live your life is wrong.  so, in the west, the very existence of religious texts is to a degree wrong.  so from our perspective, the devoutly religious actually tend to be the  least  moral.  so as far as we are concerned, they should be disregarded when compared to someone who is not religious since the non religious person is probably a better person.  so long story short, depending on whether you use a religious definition of  moral  or a  western  definition, the basis of your argument: that religious people are more moral inverts itself completely, leading to the opposite conclusion.   #  in fact, freedom can be considered the top value of western morality.   # in the west, re  really  like personal freedom.  or to put it another way, we do not like authority figures telling us what to do.  you might probably have not have heard a small buzz over the 0th anniversary of something called the magna carta.  that is basically when a bunch of noblemen forced a particularly bad british king to give up some of his authority, and place himself under the law as opposed to above it.  if you look through western history, you will see a lot of revolts/revolutions against bad authority figures.  there is the french revolution, us revolution, and a lot more i do not know too much about since i have not studied history much.  this sort of thing got repeated in religion too.  i do not know too much about christian history, but i am pretty sure at least 0 of the major denominations popped up from people rejecting the authority of the catholic pope.  in general, a big part of western culture is rejecting the idea that someone else can tell you what to do.  after all, that infringes on your freedom, which is pretty much the only value that almost everyone here agrees on.  in fact, freedom can be considered the top value of western morality.  so anything that infringes even slightly on freedom needs a good reason.  and as people become less and less religious, an old book becomes less and less of a good reason.  so when a religious preacher tells people to live their lives a certain way, people see him as trying to limit their freedoms for no particular reason.  and that is fundamentally wrong.
hello there.  i am a guy from bangladesh, a highly conservative islamic country.  english is not my native language.  i will still try to explain the issue to the best of my ability.  if you do not understand something, do ask for clarifications.  furthermore, i do not intend to offend anyone, so please do not take it otherwise.  i should also say that i am very irreligious, and i am just a muslim officially.  other than that my views fall in the camp of liberal agnosticism.  in other words i tend to support contemporary western social values on morality to some extent.  anyways the thing is, i believe that most devoutly religious people are on on the whole good people.  if you take a weighing scale and place their good and bad deeds, the scale of righteousness will be many times more heavier than the scale of evil.  this would be mostly true for followers of any religion.  if someone has lead all their life strictly adhering to their religion, it is highly likely that these people are on the whole  many times moral than the average westerner or the common people of the world  since they are many times more moral than the common people of the world, especially the west, these people should be held in high esteem.  even if we do not agree with their views, we should still accept that they are a better person than us and we should aspire to follow in their moral path, even if we do not follow their religious path.  we should also place them on a pedestal or have a very high esteem for them and make them leaders among our people.  i have seen a lot of hatred and mockery towards this group by most westerners, especially reddit.  people here are always saying  dont preach here, you    and things along those lines.  people seem to consider themselves on par or atleast better than devoutly religious people even if they are themselves sleeping around.  sure you could argue that there are examples of religious people being criminals, but that is in the minority.  this ofcourse does not mean, that their actions against other human beings would be ignored.  it would be left to the victim to either forgive or enforce the justice that he owes.   #  sure you could argue that there are examples of religious people being criminals, but that is in the minority.   #  there is not even a correlation between religion and crime, i would be really skeptical in claiming a causation relationship.   # if someone has lead all their life strictly adhering to their religion, it is highly likely that these people are on the whole many times moral than the average westerner or the common people of the world what about all the problems religion has caused in the world ? everyone from isis to the wbc think they are moral and good.  when you cherry pick the good things religious people do, its quite easy to say they are moral.  i think you have to consider the situation holistically.  and what about all the priests that rape kids, for example ? again, its just cherry picking.  there is not even a correlation between religion and crime, i would be really skeptical in claiming a causation relationship.  overall, i think hitchens had it right when he challenges anyone to come up with something moral a religious person can do that someone who is not religious ca not.   #  i think the big problem here is defining  more moral .   #  i think the big problem here is defining  more moral .  most people tend to define  moral  in the context of their chosen religion.  hence they tend to see other religious people as more moral.  in the same vein, i do not think an individual is religious status should be part of your consideration.  why not just say that we should hold more moral individuals up in higher esteem ? what does their religion have to do with anything ?  #  hence they tend to see other religious people as more moral.   # hence they tend to see other religious people as more moral.  i do not know about the western perspective.  although here, people consider religious people to be moral.  be they christian, buddhist, muslim or followers of any religion.  and yeah you i agree with you that religious status should not be part of consideration.  we should hold moral individuals in higher esteem regardless of religion.  its probably due to the language barrier i could not phrame the text properly.  religious people tend to be more compassionate, charitable, polite and so on.   #  there is literally nothing that everyone agrees is  moral.    #  the problem here is that you have not defined  moral.   and the thing is: there is no non subjective definition.  there is literally nothing that everyone agrees is  moral.   even a statement like  randomly murdering people is wrong  would be disputed by some people.  so how you define  moral  is simply the only thing that is important.  now, you have identified yourself as muslim, and you apparently support the morality of muslim leaders in your part of the world.  from this, it is easy to tell why you see them as more morally correct:  morality in the western world directly contradicts morality in the muslim world.  for instance: you probably think that women should dress modestly.  in the west, thinking that women should dress modestly is itself wrong, because no one should care in the first place.  most religious morality is axiomatic.  certain things are moral, certain things are immoral, and good and bad are defined based on those morals so evaluating them is impossible withing that system.  western morality tends to involve a lot of philosophers debating exactly what counts as good and bad, but by now most people here agree that people should mind their own business.  that is, someone else telling you how to live your life is wrong.  so, in the west, the very existence of religious texts is to a degree wrong.  so from our perspective, the devoutly religious actually tend to be the  least  moral.  so as far as we are concerned, they should be disregarded when compared to someone who is not religious since the non religious person is probably a better person.  so long story short, depending on whether you use a religious definition of  moral  or a  western  definition, the basis of your argument: that religious people are more moral inverts itself completely, leading to the opposite conclusion.   #  and as people become less and less religious, an old book becomes less and less of a good reason.   # in the west, re  really  like personal freedom.  or to put it another way, we do not like authority figures telling us what to do.  you might probably have not have heard a small buzz over the 0th anniversary of something called the magna carta.  that is basically when a bunch of noblemen forced a particularly bad british king to give up some of his authority, and place himself under the law as opposed to above it.  if you look through western history, you will see a lot of revolts/revolutions against bad authority figures.  there is the french revolution, us revolution, and a lot more i do not know too much about since i have not studied history much.  this sort of thing got repeated in religion too.  i do not know too much about christian history, but i am pretty sure at least 0 of the major denominations popped up from people rejecting the authority of the catholic pope.  in general, a big part of western culture is rejecting the idea that someone else can tell you what to do.  after all, that infringes on your freedom, which is pretty much the only value that almost everyone here agrees on.  in fact, freedom can be considered the top value of western morality.  so anything that infringes even slightly on freedom needs a good reason.  and as people become less and less religious, an old book becomes less and less of a good reason.  so when a religious preacher tells people to live their lives a certain way, people see him as trying to limit their freedoms for no particular reason.  and that is fundamentally wrong.
relevant information  poa prisoner of azkaban gof goblet of fire ootp order of the phoenix hbp half blood prince dh deathly hallows in these editions of top trumps, whenever voldemort is included, he has zero for the  courage  category.  for context, other characters are as such: poa harry 0 , poa draco 0 , ootp bellatrix 0 , ootp umbridge 0 , ootp dumbledore 0 , hbp slughorn 0 , hbp harry 0 , hbp tom riddle 0 , hbp dumbledore 0 .  i can only assume voldemort was scored so low for business and practical reasons so his card s were not over powered rather than canon reasons evidenced in the story.   points of consideration    characters talk so much about how voldemort was scared of dumbledore.  what happened when they came face to face in ootp ? voldemort did not even hesitate in engaging in battle only leaving because he knew a group of aurors were also on the way .    yes voldemort often worked stealthily and in the shadows.  does this mean he is not courageous ? i do not think so, just practical, prudent and efficient.    who is arguably the most famous auror and dark wizard catcher of all time ? mad eye moody.  what happened in the flight of the seven potters ? voldemort literally went straight for him and killed him.    dumbledore admits that voldemort pushed the boundaries of magic further than anyone else had ever done.  according to top trumps this required no courage.    the hbp tom riddle card has 0 for courage.  top trumps say that voldemort is courage depleted as he aged.  i ca not see evidence for this.  one argument that could be made is that  because  voldemort is so magically talented, there is no circumstances where he actually  needs  to be brave.  he is knows he can deal with anything.  i would counter this by saying that exactly the same applies to dumbledore if not more since he has the elder wand yet he consistently was given high scores for his  courage  categories.  the only other explanation is that by  courage  top trumps means something more in line with  nobility  or  amorals .  this would probably make marginally more sense, but would still be lacking.  i am not necessarily saying voldemort should have a super high courage score, but it should  certainly  be greater than zero if it wants to be an accurate reflection of his character.   #  characters talk so much about how voldemort was scared of dumbledore.   #  what happened when they came face to face in ootp ?  #  i do not know if voldemort  has  no courage, but i think it can be argued that he  shows  very little.  the only way to show courage is to fear something and then do it anyway: face your fear.  but that is not voldemort is strategy: he is smart.  instead of facing his fear, he seeks to remove it by guaranteeing his success by doing things like making himself essentially immortal with the horcruxes and operating fairly stealthily.  what happened when they came face to face in ootp ? voldemort did not even hesitate in engaging in battle only leaving because he knew a group of aurors were also on the way .  it is been too long since i have read the books or seen the movies, so i do not remember this exactly.  if voldemort fears dumbledore in 0 on 0 combat and he has the option to avoid it, but goes for it anyway, that would take some courage.  but does he really fear dumbledore at this point ? i mean, he is essentially immortal.  also, stories about voldemort fearing dumbledore all seem to come from biased people who would very much like to believe that, and seem to be concerning voldemort at a much earlier point in time when he was perhaps less powerful or did not have the horcruxes yet.  does this mean he is not courageous ? i do not think so, just practical, prudent and efficient.  yes, i am arguing that working in the shadows is less courageous than working in the open.  how much depends on the probability of being detected and how bad that would be.  if voldemort has a lot of confidence in his plan or his ability to recover from failure, this does not show much courage.  mad eye moody.  what happened in the flight of the seven potters ? voldemort literally went straight for him and killed him.  more or less the same story as with dumbledore, except i would be seriously surprised if voldemort even considered the possibility that he might lose to mad eye moody.  according to top trumps this required no courage.  i do not know about this one, because i do not know how dangerous  pushing the boundaries of magic  is.  voldemort is really powerful and could have been really careful.  i do not really know top trumps, but it seems that they have a new version for every book ? so then, does it maybe only concern the courage we have seen during that time ? i think voldemort did most of his magic development before that.  top trumps say that voldemort is courage depleted as he aged.  i ca not see evidence for this.  voldemort became more powerful over time as well as more careful it seems again: horcruxes .  this means there would be less to fear.  like i said, i do not really know top trumps, but i would not be surprised if a lot of their scores were not that accurate.  especially if they need to balance the power of the cards.   #  also, if he did believe that his actions were good, then he would be seriously mentally ill, and thus not virtuous under a classical sense.   # well it looks like 0 is around the baseline so bellatrix is not very courageous.  as far as umbridge goes, she is operating towards what she believes is the good in ootp but is lacking due to a defect in knowledge.  also, her courage levels are pretty low compared to any of the protagonists you listed.  not really.  top trumps is the ultimate arbiter here and therefore they get to decide what is objectively good.  based on his depiction in the novels i think it is very apparent that that is not what he believed.  also, if he did believe that his actions were good, then he would be seriously mentally ill, and thus not virtuous under a classical sense.   #  harry is greatest fear was the dementors and he took actions so he would not have to properly face them learning the patronus .   #  voldemort is greatest fear was death and he took actions to make it so he would not have to properly face it creating horcruxes .  harry is greatest fear was the dementors and he took actions so he would not have to properly face them learning the patronus .  neither of them fully embraced their fear or learnt to  get over it ; they just took steps so it would be less of an issue.  if voldemort was primarily motivated to avoid death, he could have created a horcrux and gone off on his own and lived forever in some moutains or a forest.  he did not though; his primary motivation was power and control and his love for himself.   #  harry overcoming the dementors involves him facing them, feeling their effects and overpowering them which is quite classically courageous.   #  yes harry was afraid of the dementors.  but since they represent fear this is actually quite wise.  harry is life is not defined by doing monstrous things so he will never face the dementors.  so they are not equally weighted fears.  harry overcoming the dementors involves him facing them, feeling their effects and overpowering them which is quite classically courageous.  voldemort was ambitious also, he wanted to be powerful.  but his chosen name literally means flight from death.  it was that significant to his purpose.  death was the worst thing imaginable and he would have done literally anything to avoid it.   #  dementors make you relive your worst memories, which in the series tended to be to do with depression, rather than scary events.   #  surely the same applies to voldemort ? when his soul was ripped from his body, he was facing death as harry had to face the dementors and then talked about how he had to force himself to exist.  ideally he would not have had to do that, but ideally harry would never have to face the dementors.  also, i am not sure i ever agreed with lupin saying a fear of dementors represented a fear of fear.  if your boggart was another boggart, then that would be fear of fear.  dementors make you relive your worst memories, which in the series tended to be to do with depression, rather than scary events.
relevant information  poa prisoner of azkaban gof goblet of fire ootp order of the phoenix hbp half blood prince dh deathly hallows in these editions of top trumps, whenever voldemort is included, he has zero for the  courage  category.  for context, other characters are as such: poa harry 0 , poa draco 0 , ootp bellatrix 0 , ootp umbridge 0 , ootp dumbledore 0 , hbp slughorn 0 , hbp harry 0 , hbp tom riddle 0 , hbp dumbledore 0 .  i can only assume voldemort was scored so low for business and practical reasons so his card s were not over powered rather than canon reasons evidenced in the story.   points of consideration    characters talk so much about how voldemort was scared of dumbledore.  what happened when they came face to face in ootp ? voldemort did not even hesitate in engaging in battle only leaving because he knew a group of aurors were also on the way .    yes voldemort often worked stealthily and in the shadows.  does this mean he is not courageous ? i do not think so, just practical, prudent and efficient.    who is arguably the most famous auror and dark wizard catcher of all time ? mad eye moody.  what happened in the flight of the seven potters ? voldemort literally went straight for him and killed him.    dumbledore admits that voldemort pushed the boundaries of magic further than anyone else had ever done.  according to top trumps this required no courage.    the hbp tom riddle card has 0 for courage.  top trumps say that voldemort is courage depleted as he aged.  i ca not see evidence for this.  one argument that could be made is that  because  voldemort is so magically talented, there is no circumstances where he actually  needs  to be brave.  he is knows he can deal with anything.  i would counter this by saying that exactly the same applies to dumbledore if not more since he has the elder wand yet he consistently was given high scores for his  courage  categories.  the only other explanation is that by  courage  top trumps means something more in line with  nobility  or  amorals .  this would probably make marginally more sense, but would still be lacking.  i am not necessarily saying voldemort should have a super high courage score, but it should  certainly  be greater than zero if it wants to be an accurate reflection of his character.   #  yes voldemort often worked stealthily and in the shadows.   #  does this mean he is not courageous ?  #  i do not know if voldemort  has  no courage, but i think it can be argued that he  shows  very little.  the only way to show courage is to fear something and then do it anyway: face your fear.  but that is not voldemort is strategy: he is smart.  instead of facing his fear, he seeks to remove it by guaranteeing his success by doing things like making himself essentially immortal with the horcruxes and operating fairly stealthily.  what happened when they came face to face in ootp ? voldemort did not even hesitate in engaging in battle only leaving because he knew a group of aurors were also on the way .  it is been too long since i have read the books or seen the movies, so i do not remember this exactly.  if voldemort fears dumbledore in 0 on 0 combat and he has the option to avoid it, but goes for it anyway, that would take some courage.  but does he really fear dumbledore at this point ? i mean, he is essentially immortal.  also, stories about voldemort fearing dumbledore all seem to come from biased people who would very much like to believe that, and seem to be concerning voldemort at a much earlier point in time when he was perhaps less powerful or did not have the horcruxes yet.  does this mean he is not courageous ? i do not think so, just practical, prudent and efficient.  yes, i am arguing that working in the shadows is less courageous than working in the open.  how much depends on the probability of being detected and how bad that would be.  if voldemort has a lot of confidence in his plan or his ability to recover from failure, this does not show much courage.  mad eye moody.  what happened in the flight of the seven potters ? voldemort literally went straight for him and killed him.  more or less the same story as with dumbledore, except i would be seriously surprised if voldemort even considered the possibility that he might lose to mad eye moody.  according to top trumps this required no courage.  i do not know about this one, because i do not know how dangerous  pushing the boundaries of magic  is.  voldemort is really powerful and could have been really careful.  i do not really know top trumps, but it seems that they have a new version for every book ? so then, does it maybe only concern the courage we have seen during that time ? i think voldemort did most of his magic development before that.  top trumps say that voldemort is courage depleted as he aged.  i ca not see evidence for this.  voldemort became more powerful over time as well as more careful it seems again: horcruxes .  this means there would be less to fear.  like i said, i do not really know top trumps, but i would not be surprised if a lot of their scores were not that accurate.  especially if they need to balance the power of the cards.   #  based on his depiction in the novels i think it is very apparent that that is not what he believed.   # well it looks like 0 is around the baseline so bellatrix is not very courageous.  as far as umbridge goes, she is operating towards what she believes is the good in ootp but is lacking due to a defect in knowledge.  also, her courage levels are pretty low compared to any of the protagonists you listed.  not really.  top trumps is the ultimate arbiter here and therefore they get to decide what is objectively good.  based on his depiction in the novels i think it is very apparent that that is not what he believed.  also, if he did believe that his actions were good, then he would be seriously mentally ill, and thus not virtuous under a classical sense.   #  voldemort is greatest fear was death and he took actions to make it so he would not have to properly face it creating horcruxes .   #  voldemort is greatest fear was death and he took actions to make it so he would not have to properly face it creating horcruxes .  harry is greatest fear was the dementors and he took actions so he would not have to properly face them learning the patronus .  neither of them fully embraced their fear or learnt to  get over it ; they just took steps so it would be less of an issue.  if voldemort was primarily motivated to avoid death, he could have created a horcrux and gone off on his own and lived forever in some moutains or a forest.  he did not though; his primary motivation was power and control and his love for himself.   #  voldemort was ambitious also, he wanted to be powerful.   #  yes harry was afraid of the dementors.  but since they represent fear this is actually quite wise.  harry is life is not defined by doing monstrous things so he will never face the dementors.  so they are not equally weighted fears.  harry overcoming the dementors involves him facing them, feeling their effects and overpowering them which is quite classically courageous.  voldemort was ambitious also, he wanted to be powerful.  but his chosen name literally means flight from death.  it was that significant to his purpose.  death was the worst thing imaginable and he would have done literally anything to avoid it.   #  ideally he would not have had to do that, but ideally harry would never have to face the dementors.   #  surely the same applies to voldemort ? when his soul was ripped from his body, he was facing death as harry had to face the dementors and then talked about how he had to force himself to exist.  ideally he would not have had to do that, but ideally harry would never have to face the dementors.  also, i am not sure i ever agreed with lupin saying a fear of dementors represented a fear of fear.  if your boggart was another boggart, then that would be fear of fear.  dementors make you relive your worst memories, which in the series tended to be to do with depression, rather than scary events.
relevant information  poa prisoner of azkaban gof goblet of fire ootp order of the phoenix hbp half blood prince dh deathly hallows in these editions of top trumps, whenever voldemort is included, he has zero for the  courage  category.  for context, other characters are as such: poa harry 0 , poa draco 0 , ootp bellatrix 0 , ootp umbridge 0 , ootp dumbledore 0 , hbp slughorn 0 , hbp harry 0 , hbp tom riddle 0 , hbp dumbledore 0 .  i can only assume voldemort was scored so low for business and practical reasons so his card s were not over powered rather than canon reasons evidenced in the story.   points of consideration    characters talk so much about how voldemort was scared of dumbledore.  what happened when they came face to face in ootp ? voldemort did not even hesitate in engaging in battle only leaving because he knew a group of aurors were also on the way .    yes voldemort often worked stealthily and in the shadows.  does this mean he is not courageous ? i do not think so, just practical, prudent and efficient.    who is arguably the most famous auror and dark wizard catcher of all time ? mad eye moody.  what happened in the flight of the seven potters ? voldemort literally went straight for him and killed him.    dumbledore admits that voldemort pushed the boundaries of magic further than anyone else had ever done.  according to top trumps this required no courage.    the hbp tom riddle card has 0 for courage.  top trumps say that voldemort is courage depleted as he aged.  i ca not see evidence for this.  one argument that could be made is that  because  voldemort is so magically talented, there is no circumstances where he actually  needs  to be brave.  he is knows he can deal with anything.  i would counter this by saying that exactly the same applies to dumbledore if not more since he has the elder wand yet he consistently was given high scores for his  courage  categories.  the only other explanation is that by  courage  top trumps means something more in line with  nobility  or  amorals .  this would probably make marginally more sense, but would still be lacking.  i am not necessarily saying voldemort should have a super high courage score, but it should  certainly  be greater than zero if it wants to be an accurate reflection of his character.   #  dumbledore admits that voldemort pushed the boundaries of magic further than anyone else had ever done.   #  according to top trumps this required no courage.   #  i do not know if voldemort  has  no courage, but i think it can be argued that he  shows  very little.  the only way to show courage is to fear something and then do it anyway: face your fear.  but that is not voldemort is strategy: he is smart.  instead of facing his fear, he seeks to remove it by guaranteeing his success by doing things like making himself essentially immortal with the horcruxes and operating fairly stealthily.  what happened when they came face to face in ootp ? voldemort did not even hesitate in engaging in battle only leaving because he knew a group of aurors were also on the way .  it is been too long since i have read the books or seen the movies, so i do not remember this exactly.  if voldemort fears dumbledore in 0 on 0 combat and he has the option to avoid it, but goes for it anyway, that would take some courage.  but does he really fear dumbledore at this point ? i mean, he is essentially immortal.  also, stories about voldemort fearing dumbledore all seem to come from biased people who would very much like to believe that, and seem to be concerning voldemort at a much earlier point in time when he was perhaps less powerful or did not have the horcruxes yet.  does this mean he is not courageous ? i do not think so, just practical, prudent and efficient.  yes, i am arguing that working in the shadows is less courageous than working in the open.  how much depends on the probability of being detected and how bad that would be.  if voldemort has a lot of confidence in his plan or his ability to recover from failure, this does not show much courage.  mad eye moody.  what happened in the flight of the seven potters ? voldemort literally went straight for him and killed him.  more or less the same story as with dumbledore, except i would be seriously surprised if voldemort even considered the possibility that he might lose to mad eye moody.  according to top trumps this required no courage.  i do not know about this one, because i do not know how dangerous  pushing the boundaries of magic  is.  voldemort is really powerful and could have been really careful.  i do not really know top trumps, but it seems that they have a new version for every book ? so then, does it maybe only concern the courage we have seen during that time ? i think voldemort did most of his magic development before that.  top trumps say that voldemort is courage depleted as he aged.  i ca not see evidence for this.  voldemort became more powerful over time as well as more careful it seems again: horcruxes .  this means there would be less to fear.  like i said, i do not really know top trumps, but i would not be surprised if a lot of their scores were not that accurate.  especially if they need to balance the power of the cards.   #  also, if he did believe that his actions were good, then he would be seriously mentally ill, and thus not virtuous under a classical sense.   # well it looks like 0 is around the baseline so bellatrix is not very courageous.  as far as umbridge goes, she is operating towards what she believes is the good in ootp but is lacking due to a defect in knowledge.  also, her courage levels are pretty low compared to any of the protagonists you listed.  not really.  top trumps is the ultimate arbiter here and therefore they get to decide what is objectively good.  based on his depiction in the novels i think it is very apparent that that is not what he believed.  also, if he did believe that his actions were good, then he would be seriously mentally ill, and thus not virtuous under a classical sense.   #  he did not though; his primary motivation was power and control and his love for himself.   #  voldemort is greatest fear was death and he took actions to make it so he would not have to properly face it creating horcruxes .  harry is greatest fear was the dementors and he took actions so he would not have to properly face them learning the patronus .  neither of them fully embraced their fear or learnt to  get over it ; they just took steps so it would be less of an issue.  if voldemort was primarily motivated to avoid death, he could have created a horcrux and gone off on his own and lived forever in some moutains or a forest.  he did not though; his primary motivation was power and control and his love for himself.   #  death was the worst thing imaginable and he would have done literally anything to avoid it.   #  yes harry was afraid of the dementors.  but since they represent fear this is actually quite wise.  harry is life is not defined by doing monstrous things so he will never face the dementors.  so they are not equally weighted fears.  harry overcoming the dementors involves him facing them, feeling their effects and overpowering them which is quite classically courageous.  voldemort was ambitious also, he wanted to be powerful.  but his chosen name literally means flight from death.  it was that significant to his purpose.  death was the worst thing imaginable and he would have done literally anything to avoid it.   #  ideally he would not have had to do that, but ideally harry would never have to face the dementors.   #  surely the same applies to voldemort ? when his soul was ripped from his body, he was facing death as harry had to face the dementors and then talked about how he had to force himself to exist.  ideally he would not have had to do that, but ideally harry would never have to face the dementors.  also, i am not sure i ever agreed with lupin saying a fear of dementors represented a fear of fear.  if your boggart was another boggart, then that would be fear of fear.  dementors make you relive your worst memories, which in the series tended to be to do with depression, rather than scary events.
relevant information  poa prisoner of azkaban gof goblet of fire ootp order of the phoenix hbp half blood prince dh deathly hallows in these editions of top trumps, whenever voldemort is included, he has zero for the  courage  category.  for context, other characters are as such: poa harry 0 , poa draco 0 , ootp bellatrix 0 , ootp umbridge 0 , ootp dumbledore 0 , hbp slughorn 0 , hbp harry 0 , hbp tom riddle 0 , hbp dumbledore 0 .  i can only assume voldemort was scored so low for business and practical reasons so his card s were not over powered rather than canon reasons evidenced in the story.   points of consideration    characters talk so much about how voldemort was scared of dumbledore.  what happened when they came face to face in ootp ? voldemort did not even hesitate in engaging in battle only leaving because he knew a group of aurors were also on the way .    yes voldemort often worked stealthily and in the shadows.  does this mean he is not courageous ? i do not think so, just practical, prudent and efficient.    who is arguably the most famous auror and dark wizard catcher of all time ? mad eye moody.  what happened in the flight of the seven potters ? voldemort literally went straight for him and killed him.    dumbledore admits that voldemort pushed the boundaries of magic further than anyone else had ever done.  according to top trumps this required no courage.    the hbp tom riddle card has 0 for courage.  top trumps say that voldemort is courage depleted as he aged.  i ca not see evidence for this.  one argument that could be made is that  because  voldemort is so magically talented, there is no circumstances where he actually  needs  to be brave.  he is knows he can deal with anything.  i would counter this by saying that exactly the same applies to dumbledore if not more since he has the elder wand yet he consistently was given high scores for his  courage  categories.  the only other explanation is that by  courage  top trumps means something more in line with  nobility  or  amorals .  this would probably make marginally more sense, but would still be lacking.  i am not necessarily saying voldemort should have a super high courage score, but it should  certainly  be greater than zero if it wants to be an accurate reflection of his character.   #  the hbp tom riddle card has 0 for courage.   #  top trumps say that voldemort is courage depleted as he aged.   #  i do not know if voldemort  has  no courage, but i think it can be argued that he  shows  very little.  the only way to show courage is to fear something and then do it anyway: face your fear.  but that is not voldemort is strategy: he is smart.  instead of facing his fear, he seeks to remove it by guaranteeing his success by doing things like making himself essentially immortal with the horcruxes and operating fairly stealthily.  what happened when they came face to face in ootp ? voldemort did not even hesitate in engaging in battle only leaving because he knew a group of aurors were also on the way .  it is been too long since i have read the books or seen the movies, so i do not remember this exactly.  if voldemort fears dumbledore in 0 on 0 combat and he has the option to avoid it, but goes for it anyway, that would take some courage.  but does he really fear dumbledore at this point ? i mean, he is essentially immortal.  also, stories about voldemort fearing dumbledore all seem to come from biased people who would very much like to believe that, and seem to be concerning voldemort at a much earlier point in time when he was perhaps less powerful or did not have the horcruxes yet.  does this mean he is not courageous ? i do not think so, just practical, prudent and efficient.  yes, i am arguing that working in the shadows is less courageous than working in the open.  how much depends on the probability of being detected and how bad that would be.  if voldemort has a lot of confidence in his plan or his ability to recover from failure, this does not show much courage.  mad eye moody.  what happened in the flight of the seven potters ? voldemort literally went straight for him and killed him.  more or less the same story as with dumbledore, except i would be seriously surprised if voldemort even considered the possibility that he might lose to mad eye moody.  according to top trumps this required no courage.  i do not know about this one, because i do not know how dangerous  pushing the boundaries of magic  is.  voldemort is really powerful and could have been really careful.  i do not really know top trumps, but it seems that they have a new version for every book ? so then, does it maybe only concern the courage we have seen during that time ? i think voldemort did most of his magic development before that.  top trumps say that voldemort is courage depleted as he aged.  i ca not see evidence for this.  voldemort became more powerful over time as well as more careful it seems again: horcruxes .  this means there would be less to fear.  like i said, i do not really know top trumps, but i would not be surprised if a lot of their scores were not that accurate.  especially if they need to balance the power of the cards.   #  based on his depiction in the novels i think it is very apparent that that is not what he believed.   # well it looks like 0 is around the baseline so bellatrix is not very courageous.  as far as umbridge goes, she is operating towards what she believes is the good in ootp but is lacking due to a defect in knowledge.  also, her courage levels are pretty low compared to any of the protagonists you listed.  not really.  top trumps is the ultimate arbiter here and therefore they get to decide what is objectively good.  based on his depiction in the novels i think it is very apparent that that is not what he believed.  also, if he did believe that his actions were good, then he would be seriously mentally ill, and thus not virtuous under a classical sense.   #  neither of them fully embraced their fear or learnt to  get over it ; they just took steps so it would be less of an issue.   #  voldemort is greatest fear was death and he took actions to make it so he would not have to properly face it creating horcruxes .  harry is greatest fear was the dementors and he took actions so he would not have to properly face them learning the patronus .  neither of them fully embraced their fear or learnt to  get over it ; they just took steps so it would be less of an issue.  if voldemort was primarily motivated to avoid death, he could have created a horcrux and gone off on his own and lived forever in some moutains or a forest.  he did not though; his primary motivation was power and control and his love for himself.   #  but since they represent fear this is actually quite wise.   #  yes harry was afraid of the dementors.  but since they represent fear this is actually quite wise.  harry is life is not defined by doing monstrous things so he will never face the dementors.  so they are not equally weighted fears.  harry overcoming the dementors involves him facing them, feeling their effects and overpowering them which is quite classically courageous.  voldemort was ambitious also, he wanted to be powerful.  but his chosen name literally means flight from death.  it was that significant to his purpose.  death was the worst thing imaginable and he would have done literally anything to avoid it.   #  if your boggart was another boggart, then that would be fear of fear.   #  surely the same applies to voldemort ? when his soul was ripped from his body, he was facing death as harry had to face the dementors and then talked about how he had to force himself to exist.  ideally he would not have had to do that, but ideally harry would never have to face the dementors.  also, i am not sure i ever agreed with lupin saying a fear of dementors represented a fear of fear.  if your boggart was another boggart, then that would be fear of fear.  dementors make you relive your worst memories, which in the series tended to be to do with depression, rather than scary events.
this might be kinda hard to explain.  our consciousness is our ability to perceive the world.  it is what makes me me, and you you.  however, consciousness is not some kind of magical unexplainable thing.  there is no one physical object that can be called  consciousness .  it is simply a result of how our brains are wired.  there is no reason that we do not  die  every few seconds, and get replaced with a new consciousness.  however, because of our memories, we get the illusion that we are still the same person we have always been.  both our body and our brain are changing all the time.  old cells get replaced with new.  but even if that was not the case, we would probably still not have a continuous consciousness.  for example, take the famous argument about teleportation.  if you got zapped out of existence, but a completely perfect copy of you was built somewhere else, would you still be you ? the answer is, probably not.  so why would i believe that i am still the same person i was years ago, or even seconds ago ? especially with the brain changing itself over time, the chance of a continuous consciousness seems really low.  cmv !  #  there is no reason that we do not  die  every few seconds, and get replaced with a new consciousness.   #  this is a big and vague claim.   #  consciousness and the self is an extremely tricky subject, so let us be very careful about how we define things here.  not quite.  consciousness  is  what we perceive the world as.  our  ability  to do so comes from the brain   it is what makes me me, and you you.  however, consciousness is not some kind of magical unexplainable thing.  again, not really.  what makes me me and you you is what you mention further down, that is our sense of identity which is separate from both consciousness and our ability to be conscious.  this is a big and vague claim.  what is this  we  that dies ? what is the nature of this death ? you seem to be confounding identity and consciousness.  what is a  new consciousness  ? how is it different from the old one ? not really, there are portions in our brains that specialize in identity, and associating emotions with faces of other people.  identity is not solely a product of your memories.  for instance, if you take someone who has amnesia, they are the same person, and they perceive themselves as the same person.  more often that not, they remember their names, although their relations with other people, objects and places may be different.  yet they are the same person, simply because their brain did not stop believing that.  changes in brain actually leads to changes in behavior.  if there is something wrong with the portion of the brain that deals with self realization, you get mental diseases like capgras delusion and cotard delusion.  old cells get replaced with new.  but even if that was not the case, we would probably still not have a continuous consciousness.  for example, take the famous argument about teleportation.  if you got zapped out of existence, but a completely perfect copy of you was built somewhere else, would you still be you ? the answer is, probably not the conclusion does not follow from your premises.  your premise is that even if the body and the brain do not change, there wo not be a  iself .  however, this is untrue.  if an exact copy of your brain and body is made, the center of the brain that deals with identity is also copied over and therefore, your identity remains the same.  moreover, from your premises, consciousness arises from the way our brains are wired, and if you make an exact copy of the wiring, you get the exact same perception of consciousness.  ergo, there is no difference.  my opinion is that although large parts of my body and brain change over time, the identity associated with my perception of reality remains unchanged.  this identity is biologically encoded in the brain, and if you mess with that area of the brain, you get delusions about your self see cotard or capgras delusion .   #  moreover, from your premises, consciousness arises from the way our brains are wired, and if you make an exact copy of the wiring, you get the exact same perception of consciousness.   #  i might not have worded my initial post very well, but i am not talking about a sense of identity at all.  i am talking about my consciousness itself.  your premise is that even if the body and the brain do not change, there wo not be a  iself .  however, this is untrue.  if an exact copy of your brain and body is made, the center of the brain that deals with identity is also copied over and therefore, your identity remains the same.  moreover, from your premises, consciousness arises from the way our brains are wired, and if you make an exact copy of the wiring, you get the exact same perception of consciousness.  ergo, there is no difference.  say that you cloned yourself and made multiple copies.  how would you be able to experience being multiple bodies at once ? you can only have one  point of view .   #  you can only have one  point of view .   # i am talking about my consciousness itself.  your cmv title says  i am not the same person i was a second ago .  if this is not about identity, i am not sure what it is about.  consciousness is simply our perception of reality, and of course it exists, just like the cells in your body exist.  how would you be able to experience being multiple bodies at once ? you can only have one  point of view .  sure, each clone will have their own point of view, but they will also believe to be the exact same person.  but how does it follow that a continuous consciousness does not exist ? what exactly do you mean by  continuous consciousness  and how is it different from your sense of  iself  ?  #  to me, that is a very important part of what makes up a consiousness.   #  consiousness is also about how you feel, your thought processes, and internal identity.  the ghost in the machine, if you will.  looking back ten years at some of the decisions you made then, does not it seem like someone else made them, like you today would never make them ? i certainly do.  if there was a person created in front of me who is an exact replica, down to the last electron, he would have an identical consiousness to me, but we would not have the same consiousness.  just like two copies of a windows disc could be identical, but they would not be the same program.  from the point of creation, my clone would experience different things, grow in different ways and because of this, will eventually start to think differently than me, make different choices.  you could not really say that a person with frontal lobe damage is the same person as before when their personality and the choices they make are so radically different.  to me, that is a very important part of what makes up a consiousness.   #  we can copy the image of this software and place it into some other identical machine, and expect the same behaviour from it.   #  what does that casual link would mean ? is it the same set of particles that constitute your body transported at the speed of light to different place after disintegration, and then reorganisied back ? or is it the other set of identical particles that are reorganised as your body ? i am more inclined to think that consciousness is a continuous complex process where myraid of particles systematically interacting with each other and changing their states.  this is aggregated to what we experience as a whole.  to put it simple, we are just machines, and consciousness is the software that evolves over time and gives us the experience of self awareness, etc.  we can copy the image of this software and place it into some other identical machine, and expect the same behaviour from it.  however it is upto our own judgement to decide whether the cloned machine is the same as the original one.  the machine will not notice the difference, let alone the user who is interacting with it.  so if neither of them notice the difference, does that make the cloned machine the same ? to me the very notion of conscience is not rigorously defined to investigate its properties in different physical conditions.  it is similar to explaining the fictional superpowers of heros using the laws of physics, which is totally absurd.
this might be kinda hard to explain.  our consciousness is our ability to perceive the world.  it is what makes me me, and you you.  however, consciousness is not some kind of magical unexplainable thing.  there is no one physical object that can be called  consciousness .  it is simply a result of how our brains are wired.  there is no reason that we do not  die  every few seconds, and get replaced with a new consciousness.  however, because of our memories, we get the illusion that we are still the same person we have always been.  both our body and our brain are changing all the time.  old cells get replaced with new.  but even if that was not the case, we would probably still not have a continuous consciousness.  for example, take the famous argument about teleportation.  if you got zapped out of existence, but a completely perfect copy of you was built somewhere else, would you still be you ? the answer is, probably not.  so why would i believe that i am still the same person i was years ago, or even seconds ago ? especially with the brain changing itself over time, the chance of a continuous consciousness seems really low.  cmv !  #  however, because of our memories, we get the illusion that we are still the same person we have always been.   #  not really, there are portions in our brains that specialize in identity, and associating emotions with faces of other people.   #  consciousness and the self is an extremely tricky subject, so let us be very careful about how we define things here.  not quite.  consciousness  is  what we perceive the world as.  our  ability  to do so comes from the brain   it is what makes me me, and you you.  however, consciousness is not some kind of magical unexplainable thing.  again, not really.  what makes me me and you you is what you mention further down, that is our sense of identity which is separate from both consciousness and our ability to be conscious.  this is a big and vague claim.  what is this  we  that dies ? what is the nature of this death ? you seem to be confounding identity and consciousness.  what is a  new consciousness  ? how is it different from the old one ? not really, there are portions in our brains that specialize in identity, and associating emotions with faces of other people.  identity is not solely a product of your memories.  for instance, if you take someone who has amnesia, they are the same person, and they perceive themselves as the same person.  more often that not, they remember their names, although their relations with other people, objects and places may be different.  yet they are the same person, simply because their brain did not stop believing that.  changes in brain actually leads to changes in behavior.  if there is something wrong with the portion of the brain that deals with self realization, you get mental diseases like capgras delusion and cotard delusion.  old cells get replaced with new.  but even if that was not the case, we would probably still not have a continuous consciousness.  for example, take the famous argument about teleportation.  if you got zapped out of existence, but a completely perfect copy of you was built somewhere else, would you still be you ? the answer is, probably not the conclusion does not follow from your premises.  your premise is that even if the body and the brain do not change, there wo not be a  iself .  however, this is untrue.  if an exact copy of your brain and body is made, the center of the brain that deals with identity is also copied over and therefore, your identity remains the same.  moreover, from your premises, consciousness arises from the way our brains are wired, and if you make an exact copy of the wiring, you get the exact same perception of consciousness.  ergo, there is no difference.  my opinion is that although large parts of my body and brain change over time, the identity associated with my perception of reality remains unchanged.  this identity is biologically encoded in the brain, and if you mess with that area of the brain, you get delusions about your self see cotard or capgras delusion .   #  say that you cloned yourself and made multiple copies.   #  i might not have worded my initial post very well, but i am not talking about a sense of identity at all.  i am talking about my consciousness itself.  your premise is that even if the body and the brain do not change, there wo not be a  iself .  however, this is untrue.  if an exact copy of your brain and body is made, the center of the brain that deals with identity is also copied over and therefore, your identity remains the same.  moreover, from your premises, consciousness arises from the way our brains are wired, and if you make an exact copy of the wiring, you get the exact same perception of consciousness.  ergo, there is no difference.  say that you cloned yourself and made multiple copies.  how would you be able to experience being multiple bodies at once ? you can only have one  point of view .   #  how would you be able to experience being multiple bodies at once ?  # i am talking about my consciousness itself.  your cmv title says  i am not the same person i was a second ago .  if this is not about identity, i am not sure what it is about.  consciousness is simply our perception of reality, and of course it exists, just like the cells in your body exist.  how would you be able to experience being multiple bodies at once ? you can only have one  point of view .  sure, each clone will have their own point of view, but they will also believe to be the exact same person.  but how does it follow that a continuous consciousness does not exist ? what exactly do you mean by  continuous consciousness  and how is it different from your sense of  iself  ?  #  looking back ten years at some of the decisions you made then, does not it seem like someone else made them, like you today would never make them ?  #  consiousness is also about how you feel, your thought processes, and internal identity.  the ghost in the machine, if you will.  looking back ten years at some of the decisions you made then, does not it seem like someone else made them, like you today would never make them ? i certainly do.  if there was a person created in front of me who is an exact replica, down to the last electron, he would have an identical consiousness to me, but we would not have the same consiousness.  just like two copies of a windows disc could be identical, but they would not be the same program.  from the point of creation, my clone would experience different things, grow in different ways and because of this, will eventually start to think differently than me, make different choices.  you could not really say that a person with frontal lobe damage is the same person as before when their personality and the choices they make are so radically different.  to me, that is a very important part of what makes up a consiousness.   #  so if neither of them notice the difference, does that make the cloned machine the same ?  #  what does that casual link would mean ? is it the same set of particles that constitute your body transported at the speed of light to different place after disintegration, and then reorganisied back ? or is it the other set of identical particles that are reorganised as your body ? i am more inclined to think that consciousness is a continuous complex process where myraid of particles systematically interacting with each other and changing their states.  this is aggregated to what we experience as a whole.  to put it simple, we are just machines, and consciousness is the software that evolves over time and gives us the experience of self awareness, etc.  we can copy the image of this software and place it into some other identical machine, and expect the same behaviour from it.  however it is upto our own judgement to decide whether the cloned machine is the same as the original one.  the machine will not notice the difference, let alone the user who is interacting with it.  so if neither of them notice the difference, does that make the cloned machine the same ? to me the very notion of conscience is not rigorously defined to investigate its properties in different physical conditions.  it is similar to explaining the fictional superpowers of heros using the laws of physics, which is totally absurd.
child labor was outlawed in the first place because poor children were working in factories and getting injured.  they were also not getting an education.  but times have changed since the turn of the 0th century.  there are few factories left in america, most employ very few people, and most have very safe working conditions for those that do work there.  most kids that decided to earn money at a young age would not be working in factories.  i want child labor to be reinstated because i do not believe a high school or even middle school education is necessary for every person to live a happy and successful life.  in today is world, we tend to define success as the amount of money one earns; but we know this to be faulty, we know that one does not need to earn lots of money to be successful and happy.  instead of forcing kids to waste years learning things like biology and chemistry that, while interesting and valuable to the right person, offer no value to them, they should be able to instead pursue training and employment in jobs that suit them.  kids could go to work instead as a plumber, a roofer, a landscaper, a mason.  these are jobs that pay well and are in perpetual demand, and getting a head start in these fields would be desirable to them as adults.  most college kids enter the workforce at age 0, with tens of thousand in debt and only a bleak job market awaiting them.  a kid that did a 0 year apprenticeship with a plumber starting at age 0 and that continued working as a plumber afterward would reach 0 with a dozen years of experience in his field and a decade is worth of wages, with employment opportunities everywhere in the country.  the fact is that a carefree childhood cannot be given to every kid.  when you have kids that  do not want  to be in school, they impede learning for those that do want to be there and get into trouble outside the school.  it is far better to give them valuable experiences that will pay off later in life instead of forcing them into environments that they have no desire to be in at all.  now, let me preempt the obvious downside; child exploitation.  the way i would implement child labor to avoid exploitation is as follows: the child and all his/her custodial guardians must both give written consent on an official government document for the child to get working papers to do the work.  then, if at any time the child expresses to his employer that he is unhappy working or does not not want to continue work, the employer would be required by law to end the child is employment and report to the government that the child had declined to continue work.  failure by the employer to terminate the employment would result in criminal penalties.  change my view !  #  most college kids enter the workforce at age 0, with tens of thousand in debt and only a bleak job market awaiting them.   #  largely depends on the degree, how hard you are willing to work, what jobs you are willing to take and if you have thought about how you want to live your life.   # so they do not get sex ed because they dropped out, they destroy their chances of getting into any kind of post secondary institution including trade schools because they can barely right, they are even more ignorant than they are now, and if they realize they completely fucked their lives into a corner working a shitty dead end job they have up to 0 years worth of schooling to complete.  we call places like that literal hell holes.  think of sierra leone.  think of qatar.  think of literally any terrible, terrible place to live.  that is what you get.  largely depends on the degree, how hard you are willing to work, what jobs you are willing to take and if you have thought about how you want to live your life.  also have to consider the state of the economy in general.  i am not going to hire a 0 year old to any of the plumbing in my house.  knowing how objectively dumb i was at 0, i barely even trust 0 year old is to deliver a newspaper.  i would also be pretty uncomfortable telling a 0 year old he did a shitty job and better fix this up so it actually works.  our society has shifted to the point where it would not be reasonable to expect people to treat a child they hire, like they would an adult they hire.  kids are dumb.  they do not know what they want.  high school is easy and most schools will push you through to get you out as long as you are putting in minimal effort.  you also have not addressed the real source of child exploitation, children being incredibly easy to manipulate.  even people in their 0 is right through to their 0 is have laws in place to guarantee they ca not sign away certain inalienable worker is rights, because sometimes they do.  their are campaigns beating  if something is unsafe you can refuse to do it  into people is heads.  and still we have thousands of people just in canada getting hurt doing dumb shit because their employer said to.  i am not even going to try and say i have not because i have totally done unsafe tasks for an employer just because it would make the work go faster and help meet a boss is deadlines.  you know what is a valuable experience that will pay off later in life ? finishing middle school .  you know what is just as valuable ? finishing high school .  do you know what life was like before public education became more widespread ? we all sat on farms, beat our wives, talked about those dirty injuns, spics and niggers, and several other things dumb people do.   #  the obvious objection is still the lack of education.   #  the obvious objection is still the lack of education.  the reason to educate your populace is not just to ensure their personal success although that is certainly a reason .  it is also for the benefit of society; educated and informed people can make better decisions.  an informed electorate is one key to a successful democracy.  also,  the fact is that a carefree childhood cannot be given to every kid.  let is assume this is true.  it is one thing to not be carefree, and another to start a life of hard labor at age 0.  plumber ? roofer ? mason ? these are jobs with serious physical demands.  just because a parent says so, they should be able to force their child into hard labor ? so the kid gets out if they are unhappy or do not want to, but you say that kids that do not want to be in school do not belong there; why should that be different for work ? either the child knows what is good for them, in which case they have the right to quit school and work. and then what ? or they do not, in which case why should they be allowed to quit either ?  #  which high school or middle school class teaches good decision making ?  # which high school or middle school class teaches good decision making ? as it stands, the current education system has consistently failed over several decades to produce an informed electorate, no matter the income level.  it is well known that the electorate is ignorant about politics and the issues, even when they vote.  sure, but it is unreasonable to suggest that they would have to work as hard as an adult.  the company has an interest in not having the kids quit.  a job offer would have to exist already before quitting school.  it is not really that kids  should  quit school, but that they have the  option  if they want to.   #  a job offer would have to exist already before quitting school and say they work for a year and decide they are unhappy ?  # which high school or middle school class teaches good decision making ? none of them teach good decision making specifically.  but being exposed to more and different ideas, viewpoints, historical occurrences, and so forth makes for a more well rounded person.  people that are more educated and informed make better decisions overall.  it is well known that the electorate is ignorant about politics and the issues, even when they vote.  if you think our electorate is ignorant now, compare them to the electorate 0 years ago.  take into account the increased complexity of the issues at hand, and the value of public education is obvious.  the company has an interest in not having the kids quit.  even lighter work at that age is still hard labor.  and you say they wo not have to work as hard, in another reply you say they could be expected to work for free; this  lots of experience  and  ten years of wages by age 0  is starting to erode.  a job offer would have to exist already before quitting school and say they work for a year and decide they are unhappy ? do we send them back to school, a year behind and having forgotten heaven knows how much ? or just let them rot without a job or an education ?  #  democracy was working just fine; but is it working just fine today ?  # but being exposed to more and different ideas, viewpoints, historical occurrences, and so forth makes for a more well rounded person.  people that are more educated and informed make better decisions overall.  have you ever been in an inner city public school ? or any public school ? simply sitting kids in a classroom absolutely does not make them more educated.  the will to learn needs to be there, and for many kids it is not.  take into account the increased complexity of the issues at hand, and the value of public education is obvious.  and yet every president between 0 and 0 did a pretty damn good job, perhaps with the exception of coolidge, but he was elected for his laissez faire values.  democracy was working just fine; but is it working just fine today ? an agreement could be worked out at the initial hiring where if the kid decided to keep working for free for 0 years, and learned all the ins/outs of the trade during that time, then they would then get a certain wage exactly 0 years after.  why are employment agreements so hard to comprehend ? it could be different for different circumstances; a job that requires little training could earn wages from day 0.  do we send them back to school, a year behind and having forgotten heaven knows how much ? or just let them rot without a job or an education ? this is a good point.  i suppose they would have to get another job.
child labor was outlawed in the first place because poor children were working in factories and getting injured.  they were also not getting an education.  but times have changed since the turn of the 0th century.  there are few factories left in america, most employ very few people, and most have very safe working conditions for those that do work there.  most kids that decided to earn money at a young age would not be working in factories.  i want child labor to be reinstated because i do not believe a high school or even middle school education is necessary for every person to live a happy and successful life.  in today is world, we tend to define success as the amount of money one earns; but we know this to be faulty, we know that one does not need to earn lots of money to be successful and happy.  instead of forcing kids to waste years learning things like biology and chemistry that, while interesting and valuable to the right person, offer no value to them, they should be able to instead pursue training and employment in jobs that suit them.  kids could go to work instead as a plumber, a roofer, a landscaper, a mason.  these are jobs that pay well and are in perpetual demand, and getting a head start in these fields would be desirable to them as adults.  most college kids enter the workforce at age 0, with tens of thousand in debt and only a bleak job market awaiting them.  a kid that did a 0 year apprenticeship with a plumber starting at age 0 and that continued working as a plumber afterward would reach 0 with a dozen years of experience in his field and a decade is worth of wages, with employment opportunities everywhere in the country.  the fact is that a carefree childhood cannot be given to every kid.  when you have kids that  do not want  to be in school, they impede learning for those that do want to be there and get into trouble outside the school.  it is far better to give them valuable experiences that will pay off later in life instead of forcing them into environments that they have no desire to be in at all.  now, let me preempt the obvious downside; child exploitation.  the way i would implement child labor to avoid exploitation is as follows: the child and all his/her custodial guardians must both give written consent on an official government document for the child to get working papers to do the work.  then, if at any time the child expresses to his employer that he is unhappy working or does not not want to continue work, the employer would be required by law to end the child is employment and report to the government that the child had declined to continue work.  failure by the employer to terminate the employment would result in criminal penalties.  change my view !  #  it is far better to give them valuable experiences that will pay off later in life instead of forcing them into environments that they have no desire to be in at all.   #  you know what is a valuable experience that will pay off later in life ?  # so they do not get sex ed because they dropped out, they destroy their chances of getting into any kind of post secondary institution including trade schools because they can barely right, they are even more ignorant than they are now, and if they realize they completely fucked their lives into a corner working a shitty dead end job they have up to 0 years worth of schooling to complete.  we call places like that literal hell holes.  think of sierra leone.  think of qatar.  think of literally any terrible, terrible place to live.  that is what you get.  largely depends on the degree, how hard you are willing to work, what jobs you are willing to take and if you have thought about how you want to live your life.  also have to consider the state of the economy in general.  i am not going to hire a 0 year old to any of the plumbing in my house.  knowing how objectively dumb i was at 0, i barely even trust 0 year old is to deliver a newspaper.  i would also be pretty uncomfortable telling a 0 year old he did a shitty job and better fix this up so it actually works.  our society has shifted to the point where it would not be reasonable to expect people to treat a child they hire, like they would an adult they hire.  kids are dumb.  they do not know what they want.  high school is easy and most schools will push you through to get you out as long as you are putting in minimal effort.  you also have not addressed the real source of child exploitation, children being incredibly easy to manipulate.  even people in their 0 is right through to their 0 is have laws in place to guarantee they ca not sign away certain inalienable worker is rights, because sometimes they do.  their are campaigns beating  if something is unsafe you can refuse to do it  into people is heads.  and still we have thousands of people just in canada getting hurt doing dumb shit because their employer said to.  i am not even going to try and say i have not because i have totally done unsafe tasks for an employer just because it would make the work go faster and help meet a boss is deadlines.  you know what is a valuable experience that will pay off later in life ? finishing middle school .  you know what is just as valuable ? finishing high school .  do you know what life was like before public education became more widespread ? we all sat on farms, beat our wives, talked about those dirty injuns, spics and niggers, and several other things dumb people do.   #  it is also for the benefit of society; educated and informed people can make better decisions.   #  the obvious objection is still the lack of education.  the reason to educate your populace is not just to ensure their personal success although that is certainly a reason .  it is also for the benefit of society; educated and informed people can make better decisions.  an informed electorate is one key to a successful democracy.  also,  the fact is that a carefree childhood cannot be given to every kid.  let is assume this is true.  it is one thing to not be carefree, and another to start a life of hard labor at age 0.  plumber ? roofer ? mason ? these are jobs with serious physical demands.  just because a parent says so, they should be able to force their child into hard labor ? so the kid gets out if they are unhappy or do not want to, but you say that kids that do not want to be in school do not belong there; why should that be different for work ? either the child knows what is good for them, in which case they have the right to quit school and work. and then what ? or they do not, in which case why should they be allowed to quit either ?  #  the company has an interest in not having the kids quit.   # which high school or middle school class teaches good decision making ? as it stands, the current education system has consistently failed over several decades to produce an informed electorate, no matter the income level.  it is well known that the electorate is ignorant about politics and the issues, even when they vote.  sure, but it is unreasonable to suggest that they would have to work as hard as an adult.  the company has an interest in not having the kids quit.  a job offer would have to exist already before quitting school.  it is not really that kids  should  quit school, but that they have the  option  if they want to.   #  if you think our electorate is ignorant now, compare them to the electorate 0 years ago.   # which high school or middle school class teaches good decision making ? none of them teach good decision making specifically.  but being exposed to more and different ideas, viewpoints, historical occurrences, and so forth makes for a more well rounded person.  people that are more educated and informed make better decisions overall.  it is well known that the electorate is ignorant about politics and the issues, even when they vote.  if you think our electorate is ignorant now, compare them to the electorate 0 years ago.  take into account the increased complexity of the issues at hand, and the value of public education is obvious.  the company has an interest in not having the kids quit.  even lighter work at that age is still hard labor.  and you say they wo not have to work as hard, in another reply you say they could be expected to work for free; this  lots of experience  and  ten years of wages by age 0  is starting to erode.  a job offer would have to exist already before quitting school and say they work for a year and decide they are unhappy ? do we send them back to school, a year behind and having forgotten heaven knows how much ? or just let them rot without a job or an education ?  #  or just let them rot without a job or an education ?  # but being exposed to more and different ideas, viewpoints, historical occurrences, and so forth makes for a more well rounded person.  people that are more educated and informed make better decisions overall.  have you ever been in an inner city public school ? or any public school ? simply sitting kids in a classroom absolutely does not make them more educated.  the will to learn needs to be there, and for many kids it is not.  take into account the increased complexity of the issues at hand, and the value of public education is obvious.  and yet every president between 0 and 0 did a pretty damn good job, perhaps with the exception of coolidge, but he was elected for his laissez faire values.  democracy was working just fine; but is it working just fine today ? an agreement could be worked out at the initial hiring where if the kid decided to keep working for free for 0 years, and learned all the ins/outs of the trade during that time, then they would then get a certain wage exactly 0 years after.  why are employment agreements so hard to comprehend ? it could be different for different circumstances; a job that requires little training could earn wages from day 0.  do we send them back to school, a year behind and having forgotten heaven knows how much ? or just let them rot without a job or an education ? this is a good point.  i suppose they would have to get another job.
so the common saying goes  ignorance is not a defense.   even though we joke around about white people saying  i did not know i could not do that,  the claim of  i did not know  does not go over well in court.  you are still guilty of whatever you are guilty of.  however, the law code in just about every civilized country is more confusing than chinese calculus.  every one of us probably breaks at least one law a day.  i also took one year of law classes in community college, which makes a reddit expert, so here are my thoughts: 0 it should be misdemeanors only.  you should not be able to claim ignorance on a felony.  those are too severe.  0 it should be an affirmative defense, which means you have to prove your ignorance.  you ca not just say  i did not know.   you would have to prove it was an obscure law that defies common sense.  this puts the burden of proof on the defendant which means it couldnt be abused.  0 examples of this could be: if you are going 0 in a 0 and get pulled over, but the path you took on that road did not contain any speed limit signs.  you are from out of town.  0 is a reasonable speed limit for the surrounding area.  or in denver it is illegal to lend your vacuum cleaner to your neighbors not making this up URL there is no reasonable person would would believe that this a law.  proving ignorance may be hard, but not knowing this is a law should be a perfectly valid defense.  in short, there are too many pointless, stupid laws out there and it is impossible to know all of them and not knowing them should be a valid argument if certain situations present themselves.   #  however, the law code in just about every civilized country is more confusing than chinese calculus.   #  0.  chinese calculus is pretty much the same as normal calculus.   # 0.  chinese calculus is pretty much the same as normal calculus.  unless your point is that the language barrier makes it more difficult for an american to understand.  0.  it is really not, not for things which affect you on a daily basis.  it gets complicated if you want to do some particular things, but you ought to be reading up on the law before doing things like opening a shipping company anyway.  but not without knowing it.  most people speed, or pirate music, or engage in minor fraud on their employer, but not without knowing it is against the law to do it.  on the other hand, as a licensed attorney i hesitate to call  a year long law class at college  any kind of expert on any kind of law.  you should not be able to claim ignorance on a felony.  those are too severe.  well, that does create a perverse incentive to classify everything as a felony.  but otherwise is not all that objectionable.  you ca not just say  i did not know.   you would have to prove it was an obscure law that defies common sense.  this puts the burden of proof on the defendant which means it couldnt be abused.  that is not quite how affirmative defenses work in criminal law.  once an affirmative defense has been raised in the evidence even if not proved beyond a reasonable doubt, merely raised it becomes the burden of the prosecutor to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt.  in self defense, for example, a defendant taking the stand and saying  it was self defense  is enough to raise the issue.  so this would be massively abused.  if the speed changes but you had no opportunity to be aware of the change in speed, you can fight the ticket.  that is not ignorance of the law follow posted speed limits , it is a mistake of fact what the posted speed limit is .  different things.  that site, however, seems to be.  there is no citation for this, and any search eventually finds links back to that one site.  which means it is either a so well hidden that while whoever submitted it to that site can find it, a law librarian from an actual law school ca not URL or, b it is an urban legend.  i am betting on urban legend, since the sturm college of law is pretty respectable.   #  if they attended board training or took some effort to learn the laws they will typically be let off.   #  in the us it really comes down to reasonableness.  if you put a reasonable amount of effort into learning the laws then they will let you off.  so let is say a board of directors accidentally breaks a law in the course of doing business.  if they attended board training or took some effort to learn the laws they will typically be let off.  however, if they do nothing to learn the laws then it typically does not matter how complex the laws are.  they did not even try to not break them.   #  which would mean, if you are right, the accurate statement is  if you have contractually agreed not to lend your vacuum cleaner to someone else, it is illegal to lend your vacuum cleaner to someone else.    #  it is  possible .  but even those arcane laws are part of either city ordinances or state law.  there is no law which exists solely in a dusty tome locked away next to the portal to narnia.  that would mean it is not a crime at all, just civil liability stemming from a breach of contract or equitable relief.  which were that true still means it is not actually an example of  these things are illegal.   no one refers to cases involving breach of contract as making something illegal, since the liability stems solely from the contract itself.  which would mean, if you are right, the accurate statement is  if you have contractually agreed not to lend your vacuum cleaner to someone else, it is illegal to lend your vacuum cleaner to someone else.    #  your view gives an advantage to people that purposely choose to be ignorant.   #  for most crimes, there are two components: actus reus and mens rea.  actus reus means the actual act of doing the crime.  mens rea is your mental state, or criminal intent.  your view is kind of already implemented; if you speed limit signs or no parking signs were obscured, for example, you could probably get the ticket dismissed.  how many pointless laws are actually prosecuted ? these old laws are on the books, but nobody enforces them so it is not a big deal.  the problem with this is that most of the laws that result in prosecution are things where people should have known better.  someone may think they found a loophole in the system, like insuring something twice and doubling the payout, but not know it is illegal.  your view gives an advantage to people that purposely choose to be ignorant.  another example is a business improperly disposing of hazardous material.  being in that business, they should have investigated the relevant laws.  if they did not investigate, they get to continue their illegal behavior until caught, and avoid consequences.   #  u turns, why not, you did not look into the law so now you can turn.   #  the obvious reason you ca not use ignorance is then no one would research laws.  if you can drive however you want when visiting another state then why bother figuring out the rules ? now you can turn right on red everywhere in america ! u turns, why not, you did not look into the law so now you can turn.  school zones ? sorry my state says only when kids are present the hell with your school zone laws i do not care what they are.  driving becomes chaos when everyone drives how they think they should drive rather than how they are supposed to drive in that area.  it may be better to be able to turn right on red normally but when it is illegal and pedestrians count on people not turning right on red it could cause problems.  the vacuum law, if it actually exists and is not made up by the internet, is not known because it is not enforced.  if it was enforced people would know about it.  things get even more complicated when you talk about business regulations.  businesses hate regulations.  what better way to get around them than to simply not become informed about them.  employees are supposed to get a 0 minute break every 0 hours ? oh, i did not know sorry i have screwed employees out of breaks for 0 years but i did not know so ca not punish me.  the ignorance is not a defense is the reason companies spend so much time and money on making sure they follow the law.  if ignorance was a defense then why bother making sure you follow the law ? you do not have to follow a law you are not aware of.  it is not a perfect system but ignorance is not a defense is the best we can do.  and in most cases while it is not a defense it is a mitigating factor.  if you made an attempt to be informed and unintentionally break a law most judges will be very lenient on you and most cops will let it slide and just give you a warning over something obscure that you unintentionally broke.
so the common saying goes  ignorance is not a defense.   even though we joke around about white people saying  i did not know i could not do that,  the claim of  i did not know  does not go over well in court.  you are still guilty of whatever you are guilty of.  however, the law code in just about every civilized country is more confusing than chinese calculus.  every one of us probably breaks at least one law a day.  i also took one year of law classes in community college, which makes a reddit expert, so here are my thoughts: 0 it should be misdemeanors only.  you should not be able to claim ignorance on a felony.  those are too severe.  0 it should be an affirmative defense, which means you have to prove your ignorance.  you ca not just say  i did not know.   you would have to prove it was an obscure law that defies common sense.  this puts the burden of proof on the defendant which means it couldnt be abused.  0 examples of this could be: if you are going 0 in a 0 and get pulled over, but the path you took on that road did not contain any speed limit signs.  you are from out of town.  0 is a reasonable speed limit for the surrounding area.  or in denver it is illegal to lend your vacuum cleaner to your neighbors not making this up URL there is no reasonable person would would believe that this a law.  proving ignorance may be hard, but not knowing this is a law should be a perfectly valid defense.  in short, there are too many pointless, stupid laws out there and it is impossible to know all of them and not knowing them should be a valid argument if certain situations present themselves.   #  it should be an affirmative defense, which means you have to prove your ignorance.   #  you ca not just say  i did not know.    # 0.  chinese calculus is pretty much the same as normal calculus.  unless your point is that the language barrier makes it more difficult for an american to understand.  0.  it is really not, not for things which affect you on a daily basis.  it gets complicated if you want to do some particular things, but you ought to be reading up on the law before doing things like opening a shipping company anyway.  but not without knowing it.  most people speed, or pirate music, or engage in minor fraud on their employer, but not without knowing it is against the law to do it.  on the other hand, as a licensed attorney i hesitate to call  a year long law class at college  any kind of expert on any kind of law.  you should not be able to claim ignorance on a felony.  those are too severe.  well, that does create a perverse incentive to classify everything as a felony.  but otherwise is not all that objectionable.  you ca not just say  i did not know.   you would have to prove it was an obscure law that defies common sense.  this puts the burden of proof on the defendant which means it couldnt be abused.  that is not quite how affirmative defenses work in criminal law.  once an affirmative defense has been raised in the evidence even if not proved beyond a reasonable doubt, merely raised it becomes the burden of the prosecutor to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt.  in self defense, for example, a defendant taking the stand and saying  it was self defense  is enough to raise the issue.  so this would be massively abused.  if the speed changes but you had no opportunity to be aware of the change in speed, you can fight the ticket.  that is not ignorance of the law follow posted speed limits , it is a mistake of fact what the posted speed limit is .  different things.  that site, however, seems to be.  there is no citation for this, and any search eventually finds links back to that one site.  which means it is either a so well hidden that while whoever submitted it to that site can find it, a law librarian from an actual law school ca not URL or, b it is an urban legend.  i am betting on urban legend, since the sturm college of law is pretty respectable.   #  they did not even try to not break them.   #  in the us it really comes down to reasonableness.  if you put a reasonable amount of effort into learning the laws then they will let you off.  so let is say a board of directors accidentally breaks a law in the course of doing business.  if they attended board training or took some effort to learn the laws they will typically be let off.  however, if they do nothing to learn the laws then it typically does not matter how complex the laws are.  they did not even try to not break them.   #  that would mean it is not a crime at all, just civil liability stemming from a breach of contract or equitable relief.   #  it is  possible .  but even those arcane laws are part of either city ordinances or state law.  there is no law which exists solely in a dusty tome locked away next to the portal to narnia.  that would mean it is not a crime at all, just civil liability stemming from a breach of contract or equitable relief.  which were that true still means it is not actually an example of  these things are illegal.   no one refers to cases involving breach of contract as making something illegal, since the liability stems solely from the contract itself.  which would mean, if you are right, the accurate statement is  if you have contractually agreed not to lend your vacuum cleaner to someone else, it is illegal to lend your vacuum cleaner to someone else.    #  if they did not investigate, they get to continue their illegal behavior until caught, and avoid consequences.   #  for most crimes, there are two components: actus reus and mens rea.  actus reus means the actual act of doing the crime.  mens rea is your mental state, or criminal intent.  your view is kind of already implemented; if you speed limit signs or no parking signs were obscured, for example, you could probably get the ticket dismissed.  how many pointless laws are actually prosecuted ? these old laws are on the books, but nobody enforces them so it is not a big deal.  the problem with this is that most of the laws that result in prosecution are things where people should have known better.  someone may think they found a loophole in the system, like insuring something twice and doubling the payout, but not know it is illegal.  your view gives an advantage to people that purposely choose to be ignorant.  another example is a business improperly disposing of hazardous material.  being in that business, they should have investigated the relevant laws.  if they did not investigate, they get to continue their illegal behavior until caught, and avoid consequences.   #  now you can turn right on red everywhere in america !  #  the obvious reason you ca not use ignorance is then no one would research laws.  if you can drive however you want when visiting another state then why bother figuring out the rules ? now you can turn right on red everywhere in america ! u turns, why not, you did not look into the law so now you can turn.  school zones ? sorry my state says only when kids are present the hell with your school zone laws i do not care what they are.  driving becomes chaos when everyone drives how they think they should drive rather than how they are supposed to drive in that area.  it may be better to be able to turn right on red normally but when it is illegal and pedestrians count on people not turning right on red it could cause problems.  the vacuum law, if it actually exists and is not made up by the internet, is not known because it is not enforced.  if it was enforced people would know about it.  things get even more complicated when you talk about business regulations.  businesses hate regulations.  what better way to get around them than to simply not become informed about them.  employees are supposed to get a 0 minute break every 0 hours ? oh, i did not know sorry i have screwed employees out of breaks for 0 years but i did not know so ca not punish me.  the ignorance is not a defense is the reason companies spend so much time and money on making sure they follow the law.  if ignorance was a defense then why bother making sure you follow the law ? you do not have to follow a law you are not aware of.  it is not a perfect system but ignorance is not a defense is the best we can do.  and in most cases while it is not a defense it is a mitigating factor.  if you made an attempt to be informed and unintentionally break a law most judges will be very lenient on you and most cops will let it slide and just give you a warning over something obscure that you unintentionally broke.
let me preface this by saying i own goldeneye 0 and have played it in both single and multiplayer.  neither particularly impressed me.  note that i do not blame goldeneye is developers for this; they did the best they could with what they had at the time, and if you compare it to duke nukem 0 or snes doom it beats them by a landslide.  goldeneye was absolutely revolutionary for its time, and shaped the path of future fps games.  however, by today is standards, it is absolutely awful and is outclassed in literally every way by today is games.  this is for a number of reasons, including mechanics, controls, and map variety.  despite this, many people choose to play goldeneye, even though it is crap.  it is not even moderately close ish who wins between, say, battlefield 0 or goldeneye.  however, since i know you guys are going to point out the massive price disparity between buying a ps0/x0 with 0 controllers and an n0 with 0 controllers, i am going to instead compare it with timesplitters 0 on the ps0, which i believe to hold up far better today.  a ps0 with 0 controllers and ts0 costs you $0   $0x0   $0 $0.  amazon prices an n0 with 0 controllers and goldeneye costs you $0   $0x0   $0 $0.  amazon prices all of this is used.  let is first compare game mechanics.  it makes sense that goldeneye is game mechanics are less complex than timesplitters 0 is because the controller has fewer buttons.  in goldeneye you have the ability to do the following: aim, move, zoom in, fire, perform contextual actions, and switch weapons in one direction.  timesplitters 0 offers all of that as well as the ability to crouch and reload, as well as cycle backward and forward through your weapons.  of course, both of these games  mechanical complexities pale in comparison to today is fps games, which add sprinting, jumping, and more.  next, controls.  the n0 is lack of dual analog makes the clear winner ts0.  other than that, they pretty much have the same control scheme.  props to goldeneye for having more variety, but most of the variety is exceptionally poorly thought out schemes where moving and aiming are mixed between the c buttons and the analog stick.  finally, there is map variety.  due to the limitations of the n0, all of goldeneye is maps are basically the same: completely indoor mazes of hallways and doors.  granted, there is much more variety than on most games of this type in that era, but compare this to ts0.  you can create your own maps and many of the pre created maps are outdoors.  the maps also feel very different: the difference between caves and library is nothing compared to between circus and hangar, for instance.  all these points are why i feel that goldeneye 0 is a relic of the past and if you are looking for a multiplayer fps experience you are better off looking elsewhere.  in fact, other than  because i played it as a kid,  or  because i own no consoles newer than the n0,  i do not think there is any reason at all to play goldeneye.  cmv !  #  however, by today is standards, it is absolutely awful and is outclassed in literally every way by today is games.   #  this is for a number of reasons, including mechanics, controls, and map variety.   # this is for a number of reasons, including mechanics, controls, and map variety.  is  tetris  awful by today is standards ? is  jaws  an awful movie by today is standards ? is classical music awful by today is standards ? you act as if all that evolves is the state of the technology.  but style and the nature of the experience evolves as well.  anyone who does not enjoy a gritty, realistic style of fps is not much pleased by the modern games you say are better.   #  in the same way, 0d rpg is like oblivion and fallout 0 are totally different types of games from top down 0d rpg is like golden sun and pokemon.   #  it is funny you should pick timesplitters 0.  it was developed by the same people who made goldeneye.  the people at rare left to form free radical, which is now called crytek uk.  anyways, the big advantage of goldeneye is that it is perfectly balanced.  all the features blend together to create a whole that is greater than the sum of it is parts.  it is why people still listen to mozart when they could be listening to drake or skrillex.  i liked timesplitters 0 plenty, but it was a vastly inferior game.  all the guns were basically the same.  the create a map feature was time consuming and clunky.  the plot was awful, the characters were cheesy, and overall balance of the multiplayer experience was just off.  it does not matter if one map is western themed while another is al capone chicago if the maps are basically the same with different window dressing.  compare mario 0 to mario bros 0.  though they are both platformers, they are totally different types of games.  in the same way, 0d rpg is like oblivion and fallout 0 are totally different types of games from top down 0d rpg is like golden sun and pokemon.  just because fallout is a newer type of game does not mean it is inherently better than a game like pokemon red.  i think modern fps games have a lot of great qualities, but goldeneye and perfect dark have a certain feel to it them likely wo not ever be captured in a modern game.  modern blockbuster superhero movies match modern audience preferences better than a black and white silent films starring charlie chaplin, but for the discriminating eye, those old films have a certain feature that makes them excellent beyond simple historical curiosity.  as a final point, do not compare goldeneye to today is best first person shooters.  compare it to an average or terrible shooter.  cod0 is arguably better than goldeneye, but is duke nukem forever ? URL  #  jay leno has a vast collection of cars.   #  jay leno has a vast collection of cars.  he drives a different one every day.  is a 0 porsche as fast as a 0 mercedes ? no.  is it still fun to drive ? yes.  i still get joy out of playing goldeneye.  i still get joy out of playing pacman.  that means they still do their job of providing entertainment.  that means they are not merely artifacts.   #  just press them both and oddjob is even smaller !  #  i see what your saying with the simplicity argument but compared to the modern shooters, pushing two buttons at the same time can hardly be called complex.  play battlefield 0 for any amount of time and its easy to notice how complex the controls can become, especially with the complexity of modern controllers.  also, if i remember correctly out of town, ca not check my n0 to confirm , you use the c buttons to move side to side and to angle your gun up and down.  yeah, its not dual analogue but it is really not a bad control system.  as for it being  clunky  aim is r button and c down is an easily accessible press from the a and b buttons.  c right can be a little rough at times i will admit.  but for the button layout, your hands are already in position to do the action.  just press them both and oddjob is even smaller !  #  something like changing the control scheme and adding jumping/grenades is something completely unique that appeals to each individual.   #  goldeneye is better because it can have 0 players.  ignoring that, i suppose what you are looking for is completely subjective.  sure, some things like graphics cannot be argued against, but graphic quality is not what makes a good game, it is the user experience.  if someone has a better user experience with goldeneye, then so be it.  something like changing the control scheme and adding jumping/grenades is something completely unique that appeals to each individual.  i like having to run out and  find  the nades before you can spam them at teammates, but that is just me.
just a while ago there was a post on /r/athiesm i think ? about graphs that showed similar heat signatures on a us map of where the bible belt was and another map of something negative that was pronounced in the same area.  the argument being that being religious was a cause of this other negative attribute.  while i do agree that those maps are not  necessarily  related, they  could  be, and one of the top comments being the famous  correlation does not equal causation  was posted to refute it.  okay i decided to stop being lazy and found it.  URL in my opinion, this is a popular cop out reasoning that is posted and highly valued on reddit as truth, and it needs to be re vamped to say  correlation does not necessarily equal causation.   my argument is simple and is portrayed through an example: my workers have been moving slower and are less productive recently, and i post a notice on the bulletin board that someone will be fired by the end of the month if productivity is not increased.  i look at the end of the month and productivity  has  greatly increased .  now, it is technically true that it could be possible that me threatening them to speed up was not the causation to them actually speeding up, even though it was correlated, but lets be realistic.  it is only in these simple scenario is that the blurred line is a lot more simple, and in ones like the reddit post above, the information given is far more complicated.  but just because the information is more complicated, does not mean that we should imply there is not a possibility of the causation  actually  being correlated by making the bold statement  correlation does not equal causation  as opposed to  correlation does not necessarily equal causation.    #  the bold statement  correlation does not equal causation  as opposed to  correlation does not necessarily equal causation.    #  honestly, i think there is just a misunderstanding here.   # honestly, i think there is just a misunderstanding here.   revamping  the phrase is both technically unnecessary and wo not help with confusion.  it is technically unnecessary because as phrased, the statement  is  true.  correlation and causation are different ideas.  it is not even a rectangle/square kind of relationship.  correlation is  evidence  for or against causation, but it never makes sense to say that a correlation  is a  causation.  it is a category error even when the causal relationship  exists .  second, your clarification does not get to the heart of the misunderstandings.  everyone already knows the essence of what you are trying to more clearly imply.  no one thinks that correlation is somehow evidence  against  causation.  that said, the phrase is certainly often used as a copout.  if you are trying to argue for causation, correlations on their own are insufficient.  to make a really compelling case, you need to hypothesize a mechanism by which the causation takes place, and that hypothesis will yield addition tests to run.  if you are arguing against causation, you are right that correlation does not equal causation, but if someone presents a compelling correlation that you have no explanation for, you are argument is going to look pretty weak.  but none of this implies a fundamental problem with the phrase itself.   #  so there is no  necessarily  because there is no possibility that two related events really mean anything to one another, it is the in between steps that are the causation for something.   #    i am awarding you a delta for essentially correcting my confusion.  i was thinking that correlations  could possibly  be a cause for something, but that is not the case, no correlation is ever a cause for something as it is not evidence.  so there is no  necessarily  because there is no possibility that two related events really mean anything to one another, it is the in between steps that are the causation for something.  now then, if this is the case, is not  correlation does not equal causation  popularly used in the wrong sense of the meaning then ? they are using it argumentatively when it is simply a fact ? as in it  should not  work for or against any case ?  #  years later, some actual researchers do a study, and find that there is a positive correlation: people who take the supplement actually live longer !  #  i would like to make an additional point to cement the correlation does not equal causation idea: it is entirely possible for two things to be positively correlated, but actually have a  negative  causal relationship with each other or vice versa .  for example, imagine that dr.  crane invented a new supplement and published a bunch of fake studies showing that this supplement increased longevity.  let is pretend this supplement actually contained a carcinogenic substance.  years later, some actual researchers do a study, and find that there is a positive correlation: people who take the supplement actually live longer ! this is possible because of other factors, sometimes called third variables.  the people most likely to take the supplement could be people who care a lot about health, and do things like exercise, eat right, floss.  if all of these other things are stronger than the effect of the carcinogen, we would have a positive correlation, even with the negative causal effects of the drug.  this specific phenomenon, where the direction positive or negative of an effect is masked by other variables is called suppression.  you can find it statistically in a correlational study, but only if you know to measure and control for the right variables.  to make a long story short, correlation does not just mean that there may be no relationship.  there can actually be the exact opposite causal relationship to what the original correlation suggested.   #  if the word could or possibly or any other word like that show up in your explanation, you are not really explaining anything.   #  then start proving how one is directly involved in causing the other.  start showing that pattern.  clearly.  no speculating.  no maybes.  none of this well it could happen crap.  all of that does not work.  you need to show a clear, well laid out pattern of events with proof that can be repeated and observed by others or you got nothing.  and that is how it is.  if the word could or possibly or any other word like that show up in your explanation, you are not really explaining anything.  you simply falling for the same trap that your view is trying to avoid.   #  you ca not say two things look connected, drop the mike and then walk away.   #  you are still not looking at this how you should.  correlation does not equal causation is true.  mind boggling true.  what does does equal causation is figuring out the pattern between two things.  that pattern is the causation.  the two correlated things.  that is not the causation.  you ca not say two things look connected, drop the mike and then walk away.  you have to prove the patterns and relationships between two things.  you ca not speculate on them.  you have to prove them.  and if you can, it is the proved and repeated pattern that is the basis of a relationship between two things.
i have lived in boston for nearly five years and am currently searching for my 0rd apartment in the area my moves have been because of either price or commute .  i have a small dog 0 pounds, 0 years old and my probable roommate also has a dog 0 pounds, 0 years old .  during each move, i have had trouble finding a landlord who will accept dogs, and finding one that accepts two feels nearly impossible.  i have always received full pet deposits back and have reference letters from previous landlords, but this does not seem to factor into their policies.  the most common reasons they bring up are noise, yard waste, and possible damage to apartment mainly floors and walls .  having lived next to families with young children and beneath freshly minted college graduates, i cannot understand the bias against dogs.  yes, my dog barks when the doorbell rings or there is noise in the stairwell, but she calms down after a couple minutes and has been trained so i can get her to sit and quiet almost immediately when i am home.  on the other hand, the baby i lived by would cry loud enough to be heard in my apartment and was often difficult to calm down.  the young guys upstairs often play music loud enough to be heard in other apartments even outside the building and we had a lengthy struggle with our property manager to get their behavior under control.  why should dogs be singled out as being a noise issue ? and yes, my dog is nails have made some scratches on the floor and in the paint.  children often play with toys that can and do cause the exact same damage.  the stairwell in my current building is all scratched up from neighbors moving furniture and the entryway light was broken during one move and the guys upstairs constantly drop beer cans by their own admission and have weights they shift across the floor almost daily.  again: why single dogs out as problematic ? and is not this exactly what the security deposit is intended to cover ? regarding the yard, which i suppose is dog specific: i have a scoop and clean up after my dog every time.  this is exactly the kind of information contained in the references from my previous landlords.  if considered on a case by case basis, i see no reason this  issue  is not avoidable.  in short: why is it okay to single dogs out as potential problems and usable as an excuse to refuse tenancy ? i understand that the laws  allow  them to do so whereas they ca not deny an application based on age or having children; i disagree with this as well.  either landlords can discriminate for  any  reason that may cause sound or damage, or they must allow them all including dogs .  i hesitate to use a loaded word like  discrimination , but it is hard to resist, especially seeing as people who choose to have children are protected but those who choose to have pets are heavily restricted.  furthermore, i believe changing their policy would actually benefit the landlords especially early on .  when so many apartments disallow pets, the ones they open their doors would have a wider pool of potential tenants.  in many places definitely in boston , the rental market has numerous issues that need to be addressed and the landlords currently hold all the cards, so this benefit is not immediately obvious.  still, i believe it would bear out in an overall more fair market.  tl;dr: dogs are, on average, no worse than children or simply irresponsible/inconsiderate adults, so landlords should not be able to deny tenancy to pet owners.   #  dogs are, on average, no worse than children or simply irresponsible/inconsiderate adults, so landlords should not be able to deny tenancy to pet owners.   #  you can run credit reports, references, and rental history for people.   # you can run credit reports, references, and rental history for people.  you cannot do the same for pets.  so even if you accept the idea that dogs do no more damage than people completely false but let is accept it the fact remains that through screening you can limit the number of bad tenants.  there is no real way to screen dogs so, even if they are on average equal, you still end up with worse dogs than people because the bad ones get through more often than  bad  people.  in the end, landlords do it to make money.  if dogs were really less damaging or nuisances than people they would gladly allow dogs to make more money larger pool of tenants to choose from .  they do not not because they hate dogs but because dogs do more damage than people.  if you disagree then buy some rentals allow dogs and rake in the money.   #  though i agree with almost everything you have written, this is going a bit too far.   # though i agree with almost everything you have written, this is going a bit too far.  your position would allow an owner to bring in venomous snakes into the building.  because when you say that:   i would understand some policies relating to location and breed, such as not allowing dogs over 0 pounds in an apartment with less than 0 square feet or something, but that would be for the dog is safety.  restrictions on breeds for being  too violent  seem very problematic and i believe should be examined on a case by case basis.  this only covers threats based on the health and safety of the animal, not the residents.  a snake could and do easily live in a very small space, and be content.  you need to restrict your position slightly, for the sake of safety.  the case by case scenario needs to be expanded to include species.  this is bottom of the barrel stuff, i know.   #  a dog owner tends to have a different perception of  normal wear and tear  vs  dog damage  than an unbiased person.   #  dogs can be / are often  loud  at all hours of the day.  adults can be reasoned with and disciplined, children are not loud during the night, newborns only cry during odd hours for 0 months and not loud enough to wake the neighborhood.  but a loud dog ? it will always be  that fucking dog  that neighbors complain about to the landlord, with no recourse or expiration date.  dogs smell and can cause allergic reactions in other tenants.  that is not to say cats ca not but dogs also do so in  shared spaces  in the apartment complex, not just in unit.  show me a carpeted hallway in an apartment complex with dogs.  it is fucking gross.  dogs can be destructive scratching hardwood, hair, etc.  on average far more so than a child / cat / slob adult.  a dog owner tends to have a different perception of  normal wear and tear  vs  dog damage  than an unbiased person.  that is a headache.  dog bites are serious, and the landlord can be held liable.  again.  it is an issue given how they use shared spaces.  it is heavily exacerbated in highly urbanized areas like boston , where there just is not much space in apartments or the city proper for dogs.  dogs combine all of the worst risks possible for a landlord, with little absolutely no benefit other than a broader tenant pool which is a non issue in competitive markets .  some dogs are ok, sure but how do you prove that ? without a consistent certification process on discipline / hygiene / etc, it is kind of an all or none thing for landlords.  the later is preferable.   #  so they have determined that it is easier to put a policy restricting dogs then it is to fix the problems of dogs, even if dogs are not guaranteed to cause problems.   #  this is a risk issue.  sure there are a million situations where damage could happen without a dog.  kids could cause problems, as you point out.  but dogs are far more likely to cause these problems generally.  so landlords put these policies in place because they do not have the energy or time to evaluate each dog that comes their way with a potential tenant.  so they have determined that it is easier to put a policy restricting dogs then it is to fix the problems of dogs, even if dogs are not guaranteed to cause problems.   #  seems safer from the landlords standpoint to simply prohibit the dogs and avoid the hassle.   #  here is a source URL for homeowner is claims   dog bites and other dog related injuries accounted for more than one third of all homeowners insurance liability claim dollars paid out in 0, costing more than $0 million, according to the insurance information institute i. i. i.  and state farm® so, we know that dog related injuries are a significant contributor to insurance claims.  so much so, that some insurance companies offer discounts for not having pets, or refuse to cover people owning certain breeds.  for a rental property, the law is much murkier regarding whether or not your landlord would be liable if your dog injured someone on the property.  bottom line, its a fairly common occurrence, and your landlord is likely to get sued if it does happen.  and they may or may not be found liable.  seems safer from the landlords standpoint to simply prohibit the dogs and avoid the hassle.  in a similar vein, many apt buildings will ban charcoal grills, because they are a common cause of fires, which effects insurance rates and therefore profits.
whiteness is a normative social construct.  as such, it is used as a benchmark those not meeting the criteria of whiteness are automatically by the internal logic of this system inferior.  this benchmark is subject to change, but always exists e. g. : italians, irish, and some hispanics are now eligible for whiteness, but this was not always the case.  no good has ever been brought about by a person acting  as a white .  acting as a white is always concurrent to causing harm to  nonwhites .  in claiming whiteness, one has ipso facto claimed superiority over others purely on the basis of meeting some loosely defined criteria centered on skin tone.  being proud to be white is tantamount to white pride, which is of course tantamount to hate.  as a corollary, black pride is not hateful, and is a positive defense to the harm caused by whiteness.  i am ashamed of my perceived race.  you should be too.  .  i will award a delta if i am convinced that:   race not ethnic background is not a social construct.    within the context of race, as a social construct, white is not the normative value.    cringe whiteness should be the normative value.  the above is not exhaustive.  cmv !  #  being proud to be white is tantamount to white pride, which is of course tantamount to hate.   #  as a corollary, black pride is not hateful, and is a positive defense to the harm caused by whiteness.   # as a corollary, black pride is not hateful, and is a positive defense to the harm caused by whiteness.  i would like you to expand more on why you feel that white pride is tantamount to hate but black pride is not.  i would say this seems like a pretty clear admission of a double standard, barring further clarification.  i think anyone can be just as  proud  of their race as anyone else can.  of course, there are two kinds of pride; the arrogant pride that says  my race is better than yours,  and the measured pride that says  this is how i was born, i ca not change it, so i am gonna make the best of it, and celebrate the best aspects of it.   i assert that any race can have either kind of pride, and the first is always harmful even if it is a minority, and the second is not harmful even if it is a majority.  in fact, we should be hoping for everyone to have the second kind of pride, because if it emphasizes the good qualities of the race, then it will be de emphasizing the bad qualities, and racism is a bad quality.  you should be too.  i guess it just comes down to what exactly you mean by  perceived.   i do not entirely follow your clarification.  but i will say that i am not ashamed of my race just because other people of my race have obviously done bad things.  people of every race have done bad things, just as people of every race have done good things.  i do not feel any need to be ashamed of anything anyone else did, just because they have the same basic pigment as me.  the only thing i will bear shame for are things i have done myself, which is why i try to simply not do anything i will be ashamed of later.  i think personal responsibility is far more reasonable than blaming whole races or  perceived races  for things.   #  you are still allowing the outdated definition to define how you look at things, just through a reversed lens.   #  most of what you say in your edit is pretty accurate.  the whole concept of dividing people into whites and nonwhites is based in an archaic system that was used to justify some pretty terrible stuff.  although the whole concept has only been around for a relatively small part of human history.  the big thing is, you said earlier that:   i am ashamed of my perceived race.  you should be too.  you have already said that the very concept of whiteness does not make sense.  why then would you need to be embarrassed if whiteness is not actually a meaningful concept ? it seems like you are not rejecting the system, you are completely following it, just flipped on its head.  you are still allowing the outdated definition to define how you look at things, just through a reversed lens.  if you want to really be free of it, reject its ideas entirely instead of simply mirroring them.   #  saying  i reject the system  is fine, but in my view does not generate enough controversy to be effective.   #  my thesis remains as my title states.   one should be ashamed to call themselves  white  .  i in no way meant to imply although clearly i failed in this regard that one should be ashamed of their skin color or background in any way, only that they should be ashamed to participate in a system of exclusion by accepting the label with the highest value in that system.  as a corollary i suggest that double standard does and should exist whereby those who are not benefactors of this system should not be ashamed of their labels much as the purple triangle has become a symbol of gay pride.  saying  i reject the system  is fine, but in my view does not generate enough controversy to be effective.  in the past day and a half i have pissed off scores of white people, and because of the privilege attached to my perceived race i have subsequently had scores of conversations about race as a normative construct.  i doubt i have changed any minds, but i am sure i have plated a few seeds.  i conclude that in the question of race being anti white is the only ethically justifiable position to take.   #  my rebuttal to their point does not seem to stand here.   #  yeah, so you are on to what is probably the weakest point of my argument.  namely, that my definition of  acting in the name of whiteness  seems to beg the question, as pointed out by /u/parentheticalobject below.  my rebuttal to their point does not seem to stand here.  i will say that the act is bad in that it brings positive attention to a hate group, but i believe there is certainly more to said.  i will have to think about it for a while.  good point.   #   , which makes it seem as if you think one should feel personally responsible for this social construct irrespective of your contributions to it or deductions from it.   #  your title makes it unclear that you are not talking about ethnicity but instead of calling oneself  white  in reference to ones  superior  race while subscribing to the this normative social construct.  this is a more reasonable position and i agree that these sort of white supremacists should feel ashamed.  however, i ca not agree with your statement:  i am ashamed of my perceived race.  you should be too.   , which makes it seem as if you think one should feel personally responsible for this social construct irrespective of your contributions to it or deductions from it.  you are painting all white people as responsible for the existence of the minority/majority system and becoming racist yourself.  you could more reasonably say that humanity should be ashamed that it allows a discriminatory race concept to exist.  this way you do not assign individual blame to everyone of a particular race.
whiteness is a normative social construct.  as such, it is used as a benchmark those not meeting the criteria of whiteness are automatically by the internal logic of this system inferior.  this benchmark is subject to change, but always exists e. g. : italians, irish, and some hispanics are now eligible for whiteness, but this was not always the case.  no good has ever been brought about by a person acting  as a white .  acting as a white is always concurrent to causing harm to  nonwhites .  in claiming whiteness, one has ipso facto claimed superiority over others purely on the basis of meeting some loosely defined criteria centered on skin tone.  being proud to be white is tantamount to white pride, which is of course tantamount to hate.  as a corollary, black pride is not hateful, and is a positive defense to the harm caused by whiteness.  i am ashamed of my perceived race.  you should be too.  .  i will award a delta if i am convinced that:   race not ethnic background is not a social construct.    within the context of race, as a social construct, white is not the normative value.    cringe whiteness should be the normative value.  the above is not exhaustive.  cmv !  #  within the context of race, as a social construct, white is not the normative value.   #  depends on how you are defining normative value.   # you should be too.  race to begin with is a social construct, not arguing this point.  however there is no reason to be ashamed of the one you belong to, seeing as how you did not choose your relevant race group.  i count my blessings i am not ashamed of things i ca not change since that would make for a difficult life.  depends on how you are defining normative value.  if i a non black american went back in time to elementary school with only blacks it is clear i would be the misfit, yet you say also the norm ? how does this work ? i would not be adhering to the norms in school.  this is but one example in which you seem to have turned this cmv into  america runs on one norm, like one size fits some  and that is inaccurate.  gen x   y are pretty well known for all running in separate directions, culturally speaking.  we do not wear the same things, watch the same things, speak the same way.  depends on what your goal is.  there is a place for many things.  i do not know man your questions are such stereotypical one line press points, this is kind of difficult to even understand what you mean, to be honest.   #  if you want to really be free of it, reject its ideas entirely instead of simply mirroring them.   #  most of what you say in your edit is pretty accurate.  the whole concept of dividing people into whites and nonwhites is based in an archaic system that was used to justify some pretty terrible stuff.  although the whole concept has only been around for a relatively small part of human history.  the big thing is, you said earlier that:   i am ashamed of my perceived race.  you should be too.  you have already said that the very concept of whiteness does not make sense.  why then would you need to be embarrassed if whiteness is not actually a meaningful concept ? it seems like you are not rejecting the system, you are completely following it, just flipped on its head.  you are still allowing the outdated definition to define how you look at things, just through a reversed lens.  if you want to really be free of it, reject its ideas entirely instead of simply mirroring them.   #  saying  i reject the system  is fine, but in my view does not generate enough controversy to be effective.   #  my thesis remains as my title states.   one should be ashamed to call themselves  white  .  i in no way meant to imply although clearly i failed in this regard that one should be ashamed of their skin color or background in any way, only that they should be ashamed to participate in a system of exclusion by accepting the label with the highest value in that system.  as a corollary i suggest that double standard does and should exist whereby those who are not benefactors of this system should not be ashamed of their labels much as the purple triangle has become a symbol of gay pride.  saying  i reject the system  is fine, but in my view does not generate enough controversy to be effective.  in the past day and a half i have pissed off scores of white people, and because of the privilege attached to my perceived race i have subsequently had scores of conversations about race as a normative construct.  i doubt i have changed any minds, but i am sure i have plated a few seeds.  i conclude that in the question of race being anti white is the only ethically justifiable position to take.   #  yeah, so you are on to what is probably the weakest point of my argument.   #  yeah, so you are on to what is probably the weakest point of my argument.  namely, that my definition of  acting in the name of whiteness  seems to beg the question, as pointed out by /u/parentheticalobject below.  my rebuttal to their point does not seem to stand here.  i will say that the act is bad in that it brings positive attention to a hate group, but i believe there is certainly more to said.  i will have to think about it for a while.  good point.   #  this is a more reasonable position and i agree that these sort of white supremacists should feel ashamed.   #  your title makes it unclear that you are not talking about ethnicity but instead of calling oneself  white  in reference to ones  superior  race while subscribing to the this normative social construct.  this is a more reasonable position and i agree that these sort of white supremacists should feel ashamed.  however, i ca not agree with your statement:  i am ashamed of my perceived race.  you should be too.   , which makes it seem as if you think one should feel personally responsible for this social construct irrespective of your contributions to it or deductions from it.  you are painting all white people as responsible for the existence of the minority/majority system and becoming racist yourself.  you could more reasonably say that humanity should be ashamed that it allows a discriminatory race concept to exist.  this way you do not assign individual blame to everyone of a particular race.
whiteness is a normative social construct.  as such, it is used as a benchmark those not meeting the criteria of whiteness are automatically by the internal logic of this system inferior.  this benchmark is subject to change, but always exists e. g. : italians, irish, and some hispanics are now eligible for whiteness, but this was not always the case.  no good has ever been brought about by a person acting  as a white .  acting as a white is always concurrent to causing harm to  nonwhites .  in claiming whiteness, one has ipso facto claimed superiority over others purely on the basis of meeting some loosely defined criteria centered on skin tone.  being proud to be white is tantamount to white pride, which is of course tantamount to hate.  as a corollary, black pride is not hateful, and is a positive defense to the harm caused by whiteness.  i am ashamed of my perceived race.  you should be too.  .  i will award a delta if i am convinced that:   race not ethnic background is not a social construct.    within the context of race, as a social construct, white is not the normative value.    cringe whiteness should be the normative value.  the above is not exhaustive.  cmv !  #  no good has ever been brought about by a person acting  as a white .   #  take a look into the history of slavery.   # words are not magic.  they are vehicles designed to convey meaning.  if, for an idea to logically make sense, the words used to state that idea must play a dual role, the idea is flawed.  this is called equivocation.  being proud of being white can be restated as white pride.  however, this does not carry the same meaning that white pride contextually carries within our society, which is the only way you can link it to hate.  take a look into the history of slavery.  this practice was near universal in human society for thousands of years.  it has largely vanished in a few hundred years, mostly due to the efforts of the british empire.  if you wo not accept that example, then i doubt you can come up with something good that has been brought about by a person acting  as a   insert non white race   that does not require us to first assume a position prejudiced against whites.  everything else you have claimed has no support.  why do you feel that your claims about what is considered normative are correct ?  #  the whole concept of dividing people into whites and nonwhites is based in an archaic system that was used to justify some pretty terrible stuff.   #  most of what you say in your edit is pretty accurate.  the whole concept of dividing people into whites and nonwhites is based in an archaic system that was used to justify some pretty terrible stuff.  although the whole concept has only been around for a relatively small part of human history.  the big thing is, you said earlier that:   i am ashamed of my perceived race.  you should be too.  you have already said that the very concept of whiteness does not make sense.  why then would you need to be embarrassed if whiteness is not actually a meaningful concept ? it seems like you are not rejecting the system, you are completely following it, just flipped on its head.  you are still allowing the outdated definition to define how you look at things, just through a reversed lens.  if you want to really be free of it, reject its ideas entirely instead of simply mirroring them.   #  i conclude that in the question of race being anti white is the only ethically justifiable position to take.   #  my thesis remains as my title states.   one should be ashamed to call themselves  white  .  i in no way meant to imply although clearly i failed in this regard that one should be ashamed of their skin color or background in any way, only that they should be ashamed to participate in a system of exclusion by accepting the label with the highest value in that system.  as a corollary i suggest that double standard does and should exist whereby those who are not benefactors of this system should not be ashamed of their labels much as the purple triangle has become a symbol of gay pride.  saying  i reject the system  is fine, but in my view does not generate enough controversy to be effective.  in the past day and a half i have pissed off scores of white people, and because of the privilege attached to my perceived race i have subsequently had scores of conversations about race as a normative construct.  i doubt i have changed any minds, but i am sure i have plated a few seeds.  i conclude that in the question of race being anti white is the only ethically justifiable position to take.   #  i will say that the act is bad in that it brings positive attention to a hate group, but i believe there is certainly more to said.   #  yeah, so you are on to what is probably the weakest point of my argument.  namely, that my definition of  acting in the name of whiteness  seems to beg the question, as pointed out by /u/parentheticalobject below.  my rebuttal to their point does not seem to stand here.  i will say that the act is bad in that it brings positive attention to a hate group, but i believe there is certainly more to said.  i will have to think about it for a while.  good point.   #  you are painting all white people as responsible for the existence of the minority/majority system and becoming racist yourself.   #  your title makes it unclear that you are not talking about ethnicity but instead of calling oneself  white  in reference to ones  superior  race while subscribing to the this normative social construct.  this is a more reasonable position and i agree that these sort of white supremacists should feel ashamed.  however, i ca not agree with your statement:  i am ashamed of my perceived race.  you should be too.   , which makes it seem as if you think one should feel personally responsible for this social construct irrespective of your contributions to it or deductions from it.  you are painting all white people as responsible for the existence of the minority/majority system and becoming racist yourself.  you could more reasonably say that humanity should be ashamed that it allows a discriminatory race concept to exist.  this way you do not assign individual blame to everyone of a particular race.
given the claim that transgender people should be able to choose whichever restroom or locker room they choose based on their own self identification, it is illogical to say that i, as a man, should not be able to choose to go into a women is restroom or locker room.  for simplicity, i will use just  restroom  going forward, but mean for these to be treated equally unless you have an argument that hinges on a distinction between a locker room and restroom.  let is leave aside the single user restrooms, as we know that people of all types use the  wrong  room at times due to lines, messiness, out of order, etc. , and no one thinks that is a big deal.  let is assume it is valid for a man to say he feels like a woman and that identity crisis / condition justifies his choice of restroom.  if that is the case, surely it is not his wearing of women is apparel that conveys that right upon him.  if that were so, any man could dress as a woman and that would earn him the right to use the restroom of his choice.  the same argument would be made for any gender specific behavior wearing of lipstick, shaving his beard, carrying a purse, etc .  further supporting the claim that it cannot be behavior is the idea that is a logical prerequisite for transgender to be an accepted idea: that gender is a social construct.  if this is the case, a natural man can dress and act in ways that society expects of women and still fully identify as a man.  therefore, it is only the internal situation, the mental state, that makes the difference between whether he can go into the women is room or not.  if that is the case, there can clearly be no independent rule for determining if he is  serious enough  about it to make it acceptable and legal, depending on local laws to stroll into a women is restroom.  i can anticipate two substantial arguments: 0.  most transgender people have brain chemistry / structure that corresponds to the opposite sex sex dysphoria , so there is a biological link that is definite and verifiable.  rebuttal: this is not the case for all transgender people, so while some people may be  certifiably  qualified to use the other restroom, there is not any bright line to tell us who is not so qualified.  further, there are those who do not identify with either gender.  should those people be told that their gender identity does not matter and that they should have to use a particular restroom based on sex at birth ? 0.  transgender people have years of therapy and possibly surgery, and that is what gives them the right to choose to use the restroom of the opposite sex.  rebuttal: this would mean that any transgender person who has not sought therapy or surgery, for any reason, including cost, availability, etc. , does not have that right.  i am sure some will also focus on the safety issue, saying that it is safer for a transgendered person to use the restroom that corresponds to his/her identity.  however, that does not in any way impact the argument that others should also be able to have a choice.  obliviously, some support unisex restrooms as a solution, but that is a technical solution, not a rebuttal to this argument.  in short, i should be able to use whatever restroom or locker room that i want, without question, because no one has any way to verify or validate my gender identity.  if it is not based on my genitals, there is no valid basis for telling me i must use the men is room.   #  let is assume it is valid for a man to say he feels like a woman and that identity crisis / condition justifies his choice of restroom.   #  if that is the case, surely it is not his wearing of women is apparel that conveys that right upon him.   # if that is the case, surely it is not his wearing of women is apparel that conveys that right upon him.  if you are a man and you go into a women is restroom dressed as a man why do we never talk about trans men using the men is room ? you are going to make the women in that restroom uncomfortable.  you have no need to use the women is room, as no one will bother you in the men is room.  there is no reason to get philosophical on this, just be practical.  rebuttal: this is not the case for all transgender people, so while some people may be  certifiably  qualified to use the other restroom, there is not any bright line to tell us who is not so qualified.  further, there are those who do not identify with either gender.  should those people be told that their gender identity does not matter and that they should have to use a particular restroom based on sex at birth ? you have not provided any evidence that shows there is someone with no differing brain structures that still identifies as transgender.  in the studies that i looked at they never noted this type of transgender person.  rebuttal: this would mean that any transgender person who has not sought therapy or surgery, for any reason, including cost, availability, etc. , does not have that right.  let is go back to being practical, would using their birth gender is bathroom cause any trouble ? this is a no.  would using the opposite bathroom cause trouble ? yes, people would yell at them.  i do not think any per transition transgender person who does not/is not ready to present as the opposite sex would want to use the opposite sex is bathroom anyway.  i am pre everything and do not present as the opposite sex and i certainly do not.  this is not an important right for my group of people, so do not use it as another argument to prevent other trans people from using the bathroom.   #  however, the availability of a real world solution does not in any way change the logical fact of my argument.   #  i agree that making all restrooms and locker rooms unisex would make this a non issue, and i never rejected that as a solution.  however, the availability of a real world solution does not in any way change the logical fact of my argument.  my post is asserting that if you  if you support the right for transgender people to use the restrooms and locker rooms of their choice, you have to let all people chose which room to use.   this plays out in several ways.  first, there are those who oppose allowing people to go into a restroom/locker room that does not correspond to their sex.  many of those people would advocate against unisex facilities.  second, it would take time to implement changes across society, unless you could pass legislation very quickly.  i am talking about what happens when there are not unisex facilities.   #  why ca not i have a choice that my child can use the restroom according to his/her identity ?  #  well, whether your argument is logically sound depends on a lot of things.  who decides who can come into the men is room ? most trans people do not want a unisex option in addition to a male/female, as if they alone use it, it will make them a target.  my whole post is about how thorny an issue this is.  why ca not i have a choice that my child can use the restroom according to his/her identity ? on the other hand, why ca not i insist that boys with male genitals not be allowed in the same room as my daughter ?  #  i could just as easily have used a woman.   #  0.  i could be wrong about some transgender people not actually having gender dysphoria.  i have heard that commonly stated a quick search found this article, but i am bot claiming it is definitive .  even if all transgender people do, that does not fundamentally change the argument unless you are going to require people to be  certified  via brain scan.  0.  you ca not use causing trouble as a standard.  there has been a lot of trouble caused by transgender people using restrooms that do not match their sex.  if trouble is your standard, that logically entails you to say that in those cases, the transgender person must use the room assigned to his/her sex.  0.  i am male, and i used a man as an example.  i could just as easily have used a woman.  0.  the post/argument is not about the practicality of things.  it is about the fact that if you want to allow choice for some, you have to allow it for all which essentially results in unisex bathrooms and locker rooms .  0.  your last paragraph seems to basically say that people have to be sufficiently into their transition to use the other sex is room.  who decides this ? what do nonbinary people do ? this is not just about the rights for transgender people.  this is about logical coherence.  if choice exists for one group, it needs to exist for another.   #  this is too much of a generalization to be used as a reason for anything.   # there has been a lot of trouble caused by transgender people using restrooms that do not match their sex.  if trouble is your standard, that logically entails you to say that in those cases, the transgender person must use the room assigned to his/her sex.  are you going to argue that there is more trouble caused by a post transition using their gender identities bathroom vs their birth sex ? how do you expect a post transition trans man to ever use the women is room again ? it is about the fact that if you want to allow choice for some, you have to allow it for all which essentially results in unisex bathrooms and locker rooms .  this is too much of a generalization to be used as a reason for anything.  who decides this ? what do nonbinary people do ? i was specifically talking about transgender people who are pre everything and do not present as the opposite sex.  nonbinary people can just use the gendered bathroom that they present themselves as.
given the claim that transgender people should be able to choose whichever restroom or locker room they choose based on their own self identification, it is illogical to say that i, as a man, should not be able to choose to go into a women is restroom or locker room.  for simplicity, i will use just  restroom  going forward, but mean for these to be treated equally unless you have an argument that hinges on a distinction between a locker room and restroom.  let is leave aside the single user restrooms, as we know that people of all types use the  wrong  room at times due to lines, messiness, out of order, etc. , and no one thinks that is a big deal.  let is assume it is valid for a man to say he feels like a woman and that identity crisis / condition justifies his choice of restroom.  if that is the case, surely it is not his wearing of women is apparel that conveys that right upon him.  if that were so, any man could dress as a woman and that would earn him the right to use the restroom of his choice.  the same argument would be made for any gender specific behavior wearing of lipstick, shaving his beard, carrying a purse, etc .  further supporting the claim that it cannot be behavior is the idea that is a logical prerequisite for transgender to be an accepted idea: that gender is a social construct.  if this is the case, a natural man can dress and act in ways that society expects of women and still fully identify as a man.  therefore, it is only the internal situation, the mental state, that makes the difference between whether he can go into the women is room or not.  if that is the case, there can clearly be no independent rule for determining if he is  serious enough  about it to make it acceptable and legal, depending on local laws to stroll into a women is restroom.  i can anticipate two substantial arguments: 0.  most transgender people have brain chemistry / structure that corresponds to the opposite sex sex dysphoria , so there is a biological link that is definite and verifiable.  rebuttal: this is not the case for all transgender people, so while some people may be  certifiably  qualified to use the other restroom, there is not any bright line to tell us who is not so qualified.  further, there are those who do not identify with either gender.  should those people be told that their gender identity does not matter and that they should have to use a particular restroom based on sex at birth ? 0.  transgender people have years of therapy and possibly surgery, and that is what gives them the right to choose to use the restroom of the opposite sex.  rebuttal: this would mean that any transgender person who has not sought therapy or surgery, for any reason, including cost, availability, etc. , does not have that right.  i am sure some will also focus on the safety issue, saying that it is safer for a transgendered person to use the restroom that corresponds to his/her identity.  however, that does not in any way impact the argument that others should also be able to have a choice.  obliviously, some support unisex restrooms as a solution, but that is a technical solution, not a rebuttal to this argument.  in short, i should be able to use whatever restroom or locker room that i want, without question, because no one has any way to verify or validate my gender identity.  if it is not based on my genitals, there is no valid basis for telling me i must use the men is room.   #  most transgender people have brain chemistry / structure that corresponds to the opposite sex sex dysphoria , so there is a biological link that is definite and verifiable.   #  rebuttal: this is not the case for all transgender people, so while some people may be  certifiably  qualified to use the other restroom, there is not any bright line to tell us who is not so qualified.   # if that is the case, surely it is not his wearing of women is apparel that conveys that right upon him.  if you are a man and you go into a women is restroom dressed as a man why do we never talk about trans men using the men is room ? you are going to make the women in that restroom uncomfortable.  you have no need to use the women is room, as no one will bother you in the men is room.  there is no reason to get philosophical on this, just be practical.  rebuttal: this is not the case for all transgender people, so while some people may be  certifiably  qualified to use the other restroom, there is not any bright line to tell us who is not so qualified.  further, there are those who do not identify with either gender.  should those people be told that their gender identity does not matter and that they should have to use a particular restroom based on sex at birth ? you have not provided any evidence that shows there is someone with no differing brain structures that still identifies as transgender.  in the studies that i looked at they never noted this type of transgender person.  rebuttal: this would mean that any transgender person who has not sought therapy or surgery, for any reason, including cost, availability, etc. , does not have that right.  let is go back to being practical, would using their birth gender is bathroom cause any trouble ? this is a no.  would using the opposite bathroom cause trouble ? yes, people would yell at them.  i do not think any per transition transgender person who does not/is not ready to present as the opposite sex would want to use the opposite sex is bathroom anyway.  i am pre everything and do not present as the opposite sex and i certainly do not.  this is not an important right for my group of people, so do not use it as another argument to prevent other trans people from using the bathroom.   #  i agree that making all restrooms and locker rooms unisex would make this a non issue, and i never rejected that as a solution.   #  i agree that making all restrooms and locker rooms unisex would make this a non issue, and i never rejected that as a solution.  however, the availability of a real world solution does not in any way change the logical fact of my argument.  my post is asserting that if you  if you support the right for transgender people to use the restrooms and locker rooms of their choice, you have to let all people chose which room to use.   this plays out in several ways.  first, there are those who oppose allowing people to go into a restroom/locker room that does not correspond to their sex.  many of those people would advocate against unisex facilities.  second, it would take time to implement changes across society, unless you could pass legislation very quickly.  i am talking about what happens when there are not unisex facilities.   #  who decides who can come into the men is room ?  #  well, whether your argument is logically sound depends on a lot of things.  who decides who can come into the men is room ? most trans people do not want a unisex option in addition to a male/female, as if they alone use it, it will make them a target.  my whole post is about how thorny an issue this is.  why ca not i have a choice that my child can use the restroom according to his/her identity ? on the other hand, why ca not i insist that boys with male genitals not be allowed in the same room as my daughter ?  #  0.  i could be wrong about some transgender people not actually having gender dysphoria.   #  0.  i could be wrong about some transgender people not actually having gender dysphoria.  i have heard that commonly stated a quick search found this article, but i am bot claiming it is definitive .  even if all transgender people do, that does not fundamentally change the argument unless you are going to require people to be  certified  via brain scan.  0.  you ca not use causing trouble as a standard.  there has been a lot of trouble caused by transgender people using restrooms that do not match their sex.  if trouble is your standard, that logically entails you to say that in those cases, the transgender person must use the room assigned to his/her sex.  0.  i am male, and i used a man as an example.  i could just as easily have used a woman.  0.  the post/argument is not about the practicality of things.  it is about the fact that if you want to allow choice for some, you have to allow it for all which essentially results in unisex bathrooms and locker rooms .  0.  your last paragraph seems to basically say that people have to be sufficiently into their transition to use the other sex is room.  who decides this ? what do nonbinary people do ? this is not just about the rights for transgender people.  this is about logical coherence.  if choice exists for one group, it needs to exist for another.   #  if trouble is your standard, that logically entails you to say that in those cases, the transgender person must use the room assigned to his/her sex.   # there has been a lot of trouble caused by transgender people using restrooms that do not match their sex.  if trouble is your standard, that logically entails you to say that in those cases, the transgender person must use the room assigned to his/her sex.  are you going to argue that there is more trouble caused by a post transition using their gender identities bathroom vs their birth sex ? how do you expect a post transition trans man to ever use the women is room again ? it is about the fact that if you want to allow choice for some, you have to allow it for all which essentially results in unisex bathrooms and locker rooms .  this is too much of a generalization to be used as a reason for anything.  who decides this ? what do nonbinary people do ? i was specifically talking about transgender people who are pre everything and do not present as the opposite sex.  nonbinary people can just use the gendered bathroom that they present themselves as.
given the claim that transgender people should be able to choose whichever restroom or locker room they choose based on their own self identification, it is illogical to say that i, as a man, should not be able to choose to go into a women is restroom or locker room.  for simplicity, i will use just  restroom  going forward, but mean for these to be treated equally unless you have an argument that hinges on a distinction between a locker room and restroom.  let is leave aside the single user restrooms, as we know that people of all types use the  wrong  room at times due to lines, messiness, out of order, etc. , and no one thinks that is a big deal.  let is assume it is valid for a man to say he feels like a woman and that identity crisis / condition justifies his choice of restroom.  if that is the case, surely it is not his wearing of women is apparel that conveys that right upon him.  if that were so, any man could dress as a woman and that would earn him the right to use the restroom of his choice.  the same argument would be made for any gender specific behavior wearing of lipstick, shaving his beard, carrying a purse, etc .  further supporting the claim that it cannot be behavior is the idea that is a logical prerequisite for transgender to be an accepted idea: that gender is a social construct.  if this is the case, a natural man can dress and act in ways that society expects of women and still fully identify as a man.  therefore, it is only the internal situation, the mental state, that makes the difference between whether he can go into the women is room or not.  if that is the case, there can clearly be no independent rule for determining if he is  serious enough  about it to make it acceptable and legal, depending on local laws to stroll into a women is restroom.  i can anticipate two substantial arguments: 0.  most transgender people have brain chemistry / structure that corresponds to the opposite sex sex dysphoria , so there is a biological link that is definite and verifiable.  rebuttal: this is not the case for all transgender people, so while some people may be  certifiably  qualified to use the other restroom, there is not any bright line to tell us who is not so qualified.  further, there are those who do not identify with either gender.  should those people be told that their gender identity does not matter and that they should have to use a particular restroom based on sex at birth ? 0.  transgender people have years of therapy and possibly surgery, and that is what gives them the right to choose to use the restroom of the opposite sex.  rebuttal: this would mean that any transgender person who has not sought therapy or surgery, for any reason, including cost, availability, etc. , does not have that right.  i am sure some will also focus on the safety issue, saying that it is safer for a transgendered person to use the restroom that corresponds to his/her identity.  however, that does not in any way impact the argument that others should also be able to have a choice.  obliviously, some support unisex restrooms as a solution, but that is a technical solution, not a rebuttal to this argument.  in short, i should be able to use whatever restroom or locker room that i want, without question, because no one has any way to verify or validate my gender identity.  if it is not based on my genitals, there is no valid basis for telling me i must use the men is room.   #  transgender people have years of therapy and possibly surgery, and that is what gives them the right to choose to use the restroom of the opposite sex.   #  rebuttal: this would mean that any transgender person who has not sought therapy or surgery, for any reason, including cost, availability, etc. , does not have that right.   # if that is the case, surely it is not his wearing of women is apparel that conveys that right upon him.  if you are a man and you go into a women is restroom dressed as a man why do we never talk about trans men using the men is room ? you are going to make the women in that restroom uncomfortable.  you have no need to use the women is room, as no one will bother you in the men is room.  there is no reason to get philosophical on this, just be practical.  rebuttal: this is not the case for all transgender people, so while some people may be  certifiably  qualified to use the other restroom, there is not any bright line to tell us who is not so qualified.  further, there are those who do not identify with either gender.  should those people be told that their gender identity does not matter and that they should have to use a particular restroom based on sex at birth ? you have not provided any evidence that shows there is someone with no differing brain structures that still identifies as transgender.  in the studies that i looked at they never noted this type of transgender person.  rebuttal: this would mean that any transgender person who has not sought therapy or surgery, for any reason, including cost, availability, etc. , does not have that right.  let is go back to being practical, would using their birth gender is bathroom cause any trouble ? this is a no.  would using the opposite bathroom cause trouble ? yes, people would yell at them.  i do not think any per transition transgender person who does not/is not ready to present as the opposite sex would want to use the opposite sex is bathroom anyway.  i am pre everything and do not present as the opposite sex and i certainly do not.  this is not an important right for my group of people, so do not use it as another argument to prevent other trans people from using the bathroom.   #  my post is asserting that if you  if you support the right for transgender people to use the restrooms and locker rooms of their choice, you have to let all people chose which room to use.    #  i agree that making all restrooms and locker rooms unisex would make this a non issue, and i never rejected that as a solution.  however, the availability of a real world solution does not in any way change the logical fact of my argument.  my post is asserting that if you  if you support the right for transgender people to use the restrooms and locker rooms of their choice, you have to let all people chose which room to use.   this plays out in several ways.  first, there are those who oppose allowing people to go into a restroom/locker room that does not correspond to their sex.  many of those people would advocate against unisex facilities.  second, it would take time to implement changes across society, unless you could pass legislation very quickly.  i am talking about what happens when there are not unisex facilities.   #  why ca not i have a choice that my child can use the restroom according to his/her identity ?  #  well, whether your argument is logically sound depends on a lot of things.  who decides who can come into the men is room ? most trans people do not want a unisex option in addition to a male/female, as if they alone use it, it will make them a target.  my whole post is about how thorny an issue this is.  why ca not i have a choice that my child can use the restroom according to his/her identity ? on the other hand, why ca not i insist that boys with male genitals not be allowed in the same room as my daughter ?  #  if trouble is your standard, that logically entails you to say that in those cases, the transgender person must use the room assigned to his/her sex.   #  0.  i could be wrong about some transgender people not actually having gender dysphoria.  i have heard that commonly stated a quick search found this article, but i am bot claiming it is definitive .  even if all transgender people do, that does not fundamentally change the argument unless you are going to require people to be  certified  via brain scan.  0.  you ca not use causing trouble as a standard.  there has been a lot of trouble caused by transgender people using restrooms that do not match their sex.  if trouble is your standard, that logically entails you to say that in those cases, the transgender person must use the room assigned to his/her sex.  0.  i am male, and i used a man as an example.  i could just as easily have used a woman.  0.  the post/argument is not about the practicality of things.  it is about the fact that if you want to allow choice for some, you have to allow it for all which essentially results in unisex bathrooms and locker rooms .  0.  your last paragraph seems to basically say that people have to be sufficiently into their transition to use the other sex is room.  who decides this ? what do nonbinary people do ? this is not just about the rights for transgender people.  this is about logical coherence.  if choice exists for one group, it needs to exist for another.   #  it is about the fact that if you want to allow choice for some, you have to allow it for all which essentially results in unisex bathrooms and locker rooms .   # there has been a lot of trouble caused by transgender people using restrooms that do not match their sex.  if trouble is your standard, that logically entails you to say that in those cases, the transgender person must use the room assigned to his/her sex.  are you going to argue that there is more trouble caused by a post transition using their gender identities bathroom vs their birth sex ? how do you expect a post transition trans man to ever use the women is room again ? it is about the fact that if you want to allow choice for some, you have to allow it for all which essentially results in unisex bathrooms and locker rooms .  this is too much of a generalization to be used as a reason for anything.  who decides this ? what do nonbinary people do ? i was specifically talking about transgender people who are pre everything and do not present as the opposite sex.  nonbinary people can just use the gendered bathroom that they present themselves as.
in response to this article URL i believe you can be a man or a woman or trans, and you can be any sexual orientation you want under the rainbow ! every persons orientation is a little nuanced.  i do not believe you are gender can be nuanced.  you are a man or a woman, whether you were born that way or you underwent physical changes later in life because you knew deep down that you were a man/woman under the skin you were born in.  i do not believe you can make a daily choice to identify as a different gender.  so you are a girl who hates skirts ? you are not a man because of that, you are just a girl who hates skirts.  not conforming to gender roles does not mean that you have the choice to identify yourself as a different gender whenever you please.  when a trans person switches, they have to jump through all sorts of hoops to legally be a gender.  if we recognized  gender fluidity  all sorts of problems could arise, such as  which change room should i use ?  .  would it just change depending on how they were feeling that day ? would we all be okay with men, deciding that they are more of a woman today, going into female change rooms and stripping down in front of children ? i do not believe that people really feel the need to change their genders on a daily basis, and i do not agree with those who would try to force me to respect their  fluid  gender.  there is already a term for people who do not conform to gender stereotypes and it is androgyny.  i consider myself to be a very open person, especially when it comes to other peoples personal choices that do not affect me so please cmv.  that being said i understand how they is a good term over he/she.  it sounds weird to call a girl a they but if someone asked me to refer to them that way, obviously i would.   #  when a trans person switches, they have to jump through all sorts of hoops to legally be a gender.   #  if we recognized  gender fluidity  all sorts of problems could arise, such as  which change room should i use ?  # if we recognized  gender fluidity  all sorts of problems could arise, such as  which change room should i use ?  .  would it just change depending on how they were feeling that day ? would we all be okay with men, deciding that they are more of a woman today, going into female change rooms and stripping down in front of children ? i do not really see what the issue here is, the right has been touting this argument against transgender m  f for a long time that  paedophiles will just use it to get little girls in restrooms  etc.  gender neutral rooms are becoming a thing URL i know google has gender neutral bathrooms in their buildings, and they are absent of standing urinals, and have a long row of stalls with tall doors on.  people do their business, wash their hands, and go about their day.  i think one of the big issues is that people cannot separate the utilitarian nature of the human body with its sexual connotations, and i find that to be a very puritan and evangelical approach to society.  it is the repression of the human form because of the desire for abstinence and giving it some kind of ultimate private nature.  nakedness is not necessarily sexual.  and even so, we have seen that things like abstinence programs actually work counter to good health.  places that push for abstinence URL make ignorant people who do not know how to express themselves safely when it comes to sex, are not taught about birth control and how the body really functions, and often have higher rates of births and abortions.  men have only recently been allowed to go shirtless in public, and you may question some of the more radical feminist movements to  free the nips  but i think they are equally valid.  we live in our bodies, and they serve just as much or more functional utility than they do sexual pleasure.  now, as far as changing rooms and stripping in front of children, oh god save the children.  why would this be happening ? every store changing room i have ever been to has separate stalls with mirrors.  maybe a mother might take her child in with her, or a father, but then that is their own family and their own business.  your reaction seems to be more a panic about the abolition of gender roles and about the exposure of us to both gender is bodies, to the human form, more than of gender fluidity.   #  if someone is brain is not especially solidified because of the aplasitc parts being somewhere in the middle, then slight hormone fluctuations could well switch identity from one side to another.   #  gender is a physical thing.  people tend to say things like sex is what is in your pants, and gender is what is in your head.  or that gender is just a social construct it turns out that sex is also a social construct, but it is a bit complicated, and not part of this post .  so, when someone has an intersex condition they have either ambiguous genitalia, gonads or chromosomes.  currently the brain is not included in the definition of intersex.  that said, there is pretty strong evidence URL that being trans is a neurological condition.  in my opinion it should be considered a congenital neurological intersex condition.  now, if you read the first few paragraphs you will find out two things: first, the bstc is hormone aplastic it does not change shape based on the level of sex hormones , and second, that it doens t differentiate until adulthood, but we have trans people being certain about their gender well before then, so we have to look elsewhere for a cause at least for early onset gender things .  if the bstc does not change shape, then it is obviously not relevant to genderfluidity, though being part way between the two sizes might account for gender being looser than normal.  but what about the parts of the brain that are sensitive to sex hormones and do change based on the pretense or absence of e or t ? this article URL talks about the parts of the brain that  do  change based on hormone therapy.  if someone is brain is not especially solidified because of the aplasitc parts being somewhere in the middle, then slight hormone fluctuations could well switch identity from one side to another.  i am not saying that that  is  how it works, since it is not a thing that has been studied all that much, but it is certainly well within the realm of possibility based on what we do know about gender.  androgyny is based on appearance, and not identity.  agender is a thing, but it is not the same as gender fluid.  trans people do not or ca not always get genital surgery, this does not make them any less of a man or woman than any other man or woman with a condition that caused them to lose their genitals.  the  aman changing in front of little girls  thing is a pretty big stereotype that does not really happen.  stalls are a thing, and most gender non conforming people are well aware of the shape of their bodies, and bladder issues are a pretty big issue for a lot of trans people who have to hold their pee in all day because they ca not use public washrooms without the risk of physical assault.  generally if someone is genderfluid, they will know you have no way of knowing they are identifying as that day, so they probably wo not flip out at you.  but you can always ask.   #  i know a lot of people who think transitioning is so people do not have to be gay, which is a bit ridiculous.   #  i think sometimes what keeps people from being comfortable with transgender people using changing rooms or restrooms is simply being unfamiliar with transgender people.  i think their unfamiliarity often leads to the idea that they are creepy, creating some kind of stigma that a transgendered woman is actually a man sneaking into the woman is restroom to be a peeping tom, when this just is not true.  these people have just seen themselves as the opposite sex for most of their lives, so when they are using the woman is restroom or changing room does not feel like they are a man in disguise trying to blend in as a woman, they are just trying to handle their business like everyone else.  this would not be an issue if it was a gay person trying to use their designated changing room, or restroom   though i am sure some people would have a problem with it.    so why is it an issue when it is a transgender person.  speaking of sexualities, some of it might stem from people confused about how transgender sexuality works.  when straight people transition they become gay, and gays become straight.  i think not understanding this might confuse people and make them even less open to the idea of sharing rooms with transgender people.  i know a lot of people who think transitioning is so people do not have to be gay, which is a bit ridiculous.  bottom line, transgender people need to use these rooms too, i think that they should get their own to use comfortably themselves, but until then i do not see a problem them using whatever room is for the gender they identify as.   #    i came in here with the same view as the op, and while i still am hesitant to embrace the idea without real science to back it up, i have to admit that this hypothesis sounds plausible.   # but what about the parts of the brain that are sensitive to sex hormones and do change based on the pretense or absence of e or t ? this article talks about the parts of the brain that do change based on hormone therapy.  if someone is brain is not especially solidified because of the aplasitc parts being somewhere in the middle, then slight hormone fluctuations could well switch identity from one side to another.  i am not saying that that is how it works, since it is not a thing that has been studied all that much, but it is certainly well within the realm of possibility based on what we do know about gender.    i came in here with the same view as the op, and while i still am hesitant to embrace the idea without real science to back it up, i have to admit that this hypothesis sounds plausible.  whether it is true or not, i must admit that if you can submit a plausible hypothesis based on real neurological findings that supports the existence of real gender fluidity, then i cannot be as certain of my previous position as i was before.  now all i am sure of is that i need to have more information before i can form a real position again.   #  i have to object to arguments based on  this discrete value is not discrete  because discrete values, as a whole, do not exist.   #  thanks for the article; it was a good read.  i have to object to arguments based on  this discrete value is not discrete  because discrete values, as a whole, do not exist.  atoms are mostly empty space, electrons follow some weird probability distributions, and a whole bunch of other quantum shit i do not really understand.  yeah, there are situations where it is difficult to assign one or the other value, but assigning discrete values is how we understand the universe.  all of that was mostly nitpicking, because even computers have a range where they wo not claim to know whether a bit is high or low, so we absolutely  can  use the same approach to male/female.  however, the idea that we  have to  just because there are cases that are close to the cut off does not sit well with me.
the distinction between morality of abortion and its legality is often missed when discussing the pro life and pro choice positions.  granted, there is usually someone that brings it up somewhere down the line, but it is often well after substantial ambiguous conversation.  for the purpose of this cmv, i will grant that a fetus is a human person.  my views: 0. 	abortion may or may not be morally permissible, though i lean towards permissible.  i do not really want to discuss this aspect of it, but it is here for some background on my position.  0. 	abortion should be legal, based primarily on my foundational belief on bodily autonomy.  to change my view, you will probably need to change my belief that the mother is legal right to control her own body overrides the fetus  or child is right to use them.  one of the main objections to legal abortion is the sense that the woman has incurred a sort of responsibility to the child by engaging in sex for this cmv, i would prefer to only consider consensual sex .  while this may be true, i see it at most to be a moral obligation, not a legal one.  the best analogy i have heard is as follows: let is say you are driving recklessly and run over a pedestrian.  the ambulance arrives and does a quick blood test and determines that unless you donate a pint of blood to that pedestrian, he will die.  you hate needles and refuse.  at the moment, you cannot be legally compelled to donate your blood.  if you ca not be compelled to donate blood which is almost completely safe to save the life of someone he recklessly endangered, a woman should not be required to donate her internal organs for 0  months to a fetus to keep it alive.  there are probably other ways in which my view could be changed, but here is the conversation that changed my view first: /u/garnteller: my realization as i thought through the implications: this seems to severely impact my position, since an actual analogous scenario would be where the teleporter picks up a random person who did not choose to teleport and has their head grafted to their body.  i guess if a fetus really is a person, it probably should be illegal to abort it.   #  for the purpose of this cmv, i will grant that a fetus is a human person.   #  this is where your argument falls apart.   # this is where your argument falls apart.  it is also why there is no black and white when it comes to abortion.  if a fetus was a tiny little me, sitting in my stomach and reading a book for 0 months waiting to come out and head off to school. it would be illegal always.  similarly, if a fetus was not a person until birth, it would be legal to start getting contractions and instead of having a baby, head down to the doctor and have them stab the 0 month old fetus and pull it out of you.  it is just not that simple unfortunately.  there is a point in time where a fetus is a non sentient blob of cells.  it ca not think, feel, act, or even move in any way.  it is a growth with no morality attached to it in any way.  we really are just quibbling about when that growth turns into enough of a person that getting rid of it is no longer a benign act.   #  however the foundations for  your  arguments on the matter are logically inconsistent.   # following exactly that logic, we should allow women to have abortions but also arrest them for manslaughter immediately afterwards.  your analogy dictates that a person cannot be compelled to take an action.  it does not mean that the person is not  liable  for their actions.  this is a logical inconsistency.  bodily autonomy states that each person has the right to their own body but does not have the right to impact another person.  if we were to assume that a fetus is a person, then an abortion would be comparable to murder.  for the record, i do not assume that a fetus is a person.  however the foundations for  your  arguments on the matter are logically inconsistent.   #  up until a certain point, a fetus cannot possibly survive without a direct connection to the mother, medical technology notwithstanding.   #  up until a certain point, a fetus cannot possibly survive without a direct connection to the mother, medical technology notwithstanding.  it amounts to no more than a parasite until it is mature enough to function externally.  would you agree a person has a right to chop off their own hand, should they so desire ? what about simply disrupting blood flow to that hand ? what is different about similarly interfering with the uterus or placenta ? these are solely parts of the woman is body that she has every right to tamper with, whether a fetus happens to be connected or not.  i am aware that this is not the usual method of abortion in the first place, but following your argument, would you have a problem with this sort of indirect technique ? would a fetus as a person not be responsible for absorbing given nutrients and distributing them on its own, should the mother refuse to have her bloodstream directly impinged upon ?  #  but in the case of the car accident, the person is not liable for refusing to give blood, they are liable for getting into the car accident.   # but in the case of the car accident, the person is not liable for refusing to give blood, they are liable for getting into the car accident.  in an abortion, you are prosecuting someone for refusing to give blood.  if we were to assume that a fetus is a person, then an abortion would be comparable to murder.  i do not think that follows at all.  an abortion is the refusal to continue to impact another body, not the decision to do so.  it is not murder to refuse to donate an organ to your child, even if he dies.  it is not murder to refuse to donate bone marrow, even if the child dies.  and it is even not murder to refuse to donate blood to your child, even if the child dies.  i really do not see how refusing to give blood, organs, and a space in your body could be considered murder.  however the foundations for your arguments on the matter are logically inconsistent.  you are tackling my position exactly how i hoped you would.   #  they need to remain this way for 0 months, and if you sever the attachment, they will die.    #  there is a vast difference between letting someone die from inaction and taking action specifically to kill someone.  an abortion is always taking deliberate action to kill someone.  i have heard the argument along the lines of  what if you woke up and someone else had been hooked into your body so your blood is flowing through them and keeping them alive.  they need to remain this way for 0 months, and if you sever the attachment, they will die.   unless you are likely to die if you do not separate, it is clearly not morally acceptable to take action to kill another for your convenience.  yes, it may suck.  yes, whoever hooked you together should be punished this really only applies to pregnancy in the case or rape , but it is never justified to take action to kill another just so your quality of life improves.  the right to life always trumps any vague sense of a right to body autonomy which we obviously do not have.  if we did, i could walk naked where i want, masturbate where i want, etc .
i believe that  african american  is an invention of an overly pc culture that does not actually address what it intends to address.  clearly this post deals most with the us, as i do not even know what other predominantly white countries use as an identifier.  the vast majority of the time anybody uses the term  african american , it is intended to speak to the person is appearance, not their centuries old heritage.  when discussing issues like racism, your appearance is what matters and your appearance is not  african american , it is a darker complexion.  if you were at an african cultural festival or something, then the term might be appropriate, but otherwise it is not.   black  is by far a more appropriate classification for conversations about race.  were you harassed by police because of your skin tone, or because your great great great great great great grandparent was from africa ? there are obviously other physical characteristics hair, facial construction, etc that generally go along with the complexion, but the one that is most readily identifiable is skin tone.  people also already associate  black  with those attributes.  further, many black people do not identify as african american.  many of them immigrated directly from non african countries or had parents who did the same.  a black person from england is not classified as an african european american, despite that being more accurate.  additionally, many white people do meet the requirements of being african american, having been born there or had some family stop over there, but obviously in a discussion about race, their experiences were not the same as a black person.   #  the vast majority of the time anybody uses the term  african american , it is intended to speak to the person is appearance, not their centuries old heritage.   #  sure, but there are a couple of problems with that.   # there are at least isolated instances as far back as the late 0 is.  however, it was reclaimed and normalized in the 0 is.  although, the problem then becomes, what is an overly pc culture ? do you believe the 0 is were overly pc ? when did united states culture become this way ? how much pc is too much pc ? sure, but there are a couple of problems with that.  first one could argue that the appearance reflects their centuries old heritage.  but i see your qualms with the term.  what about a black guy from europe ? well, while the term seems silly, consider the term asian.  no matter what country someone who looks  asian  hails from, we call them asian.  would you prefer we call them yellow ? honestly, it does not matter.  it may not be 0 accurate but it is just a simple colloquialism used to describe a particular group of people.  while in principle it is not perfect, in practice it is not really feasible to perform a cultural overhaul of the term.   #  the definition of words changes based on how we use them.   #  my understanding of your point is that the phrase should be abolished because people do not use it correctly: that is not in line with how our society has decided english should work.  the definition of words changes based on how we use them.  the word  literally  being changed recently in order to add a point of emphasis is a good example.  following the same logic, the word  ironic  should be abolished too.  also i believe your understanding of what african american is supposed to mean is incorrect.  just by coincidence, i happened to ask about this on on /r/explainlikeimfive yesterday and was given a very good answer from /u/cdb0b   african american is the term used as an ethnic identifier for someone who is of african decent whose ancestors were taken as slaves and brought to the us.  if follows the same pattern as the other ethnic identifiers chinese american, irish american, german american, etc but since those descended from former slaves do not know what tribe they are from.  since the vast majority of slaves were sub saharan african americans are black in skin tone.  if someone is american and black it will be assumed that they are african american.  it is not appropriate to use the term african american for anyone other than those descended from slaves native to the us.  so an immigrant from ethiopia is ethiopian american but not african american.  likewise someone form jamaica is not technically african american though they are similar in situation to them being descended from slaves.  a white person born in say south africa that moves to the us is not african american either.  they are ethnically english or other british empire member or dutch.   #  ok this is the crux of my point.   # ok this is the crux of my point.  usually, people do use the word that way.  when talking about the issues that affect people of dark complexion in the us, you are talking about more people than the phrase african american encompasses.  prejudice, discrimination, genetic issues i. e.  differences in health , etc.  are all borne by people of that same complexion, not people with a shared history of slavery in the us.  example: black people are subject to racial profiling, not just african american people.   #  i do not disagree with the use of the term because of its origin.   # i do not disagree with the use of the term because of its origin.  but you mentioned it so i just figured i would comment on it.  i do not see how.  as far as i can tell it is a perfect analogy.  it is more realistic to simply address the fact that language and terms are fluid and changing.  it is pretty much just as acceptable to use the word black today as it is african american.  if you do not like the latter, use the former.  problem solved.   #  it is about the history of race in america, particularly those who share a history with former slaves or look like those who share a history .   #  0.  many  blacks  are brown.  so are many east asians and hispanics.  so, a color based term does not really work.  0.   the vast majority of the time anybody uses the term  african american , it is intended to speak to the person is appearance, not their centuries old heritage.   this simply is not correct.  dark skinned east indians are not subjected to the same racism as african americans.  it is about the history of race in america, particularly those who share a history with former slaves or look like those who share a history .  0.  what does  should  mean in the context of your title ? should not people be able to decide what they are called, as long as it is not unreasonable ? so, no, they ca not say,  please call us the  grand high overlords  from now on , but if the group in question prefers to called african american, why should not that be respected ? if irish or scottish got together and asked to be referred to as celts, why not ?
yes, another thread about transgender people on cmv. sorry, if this particular view was already expressed and i also do not mean to offend anyone.  i am in full support of people living their lives as they please and transitioning if they please. i also believe that gender dysphoria is an innate trait related to hormones and genes like homosexuality/bisexuality.  i had a discussion with one of my long time friends which was born with female genitalia and who identifies as male.  this person often gets angry when people refer to him as  she  or a  girl  this person looks female .  to him, he is a male, a transgender male.  now,my understanding is that a transgender individual is one who does not identify as the sex they were assigned at birth.  ex: feeling like you are a woman when you possess a penis and testicles to my friend being a man/male would basically be defined as the following. personally, i found his definition circular,hence flawed, as it seemed he was using the very term he was trying to define within the definition. man: person who identifies as a man.  the arguments generally used against my stance of defining it according to sex organs are the grey areas one may encounter doing so, for example intersexed people. however, i would argue a circular definition is worse than one with grey areas as it outright does not tell us what we are trying to define. other responses seem to be that we ought to define according to neurology/psychology of individuals being more masculine/feminine, hence not using the  x: person who identifies as x .  however, i feel that a psychological portrait and hence neurological portrait is going to generate a greater amount of grey areas than a general physiological one. i also do not understand why we would reject an account based on physiological properties like sex organs/hormones, but then use the brain instead which is a much more complex and less accessible system and hence harder to use for classification.  definitions are not objective facts ,they are subjective association that we make between terms and concepts for the sole purpose mainly to facilitate discussion and communication.  there is no logical reason  a plane figure with four equal straight sides and four right angles.   as to be the term  square  anymore then it has to be term  carré .  i personally agree with what somebody else said on the issue of definitions in general  there are no good or bad definitions just useful ones  which.  a definition should be as clear as possible, we should favor definition which are less vague.  a definition should not be circular as it does not really tell us anything, how could we understand the definition fully when the whole reason we are looking at it is because we are unaware of the sense of one of it is components ?  #  however, i feel that a psychological portrait and hence neurological portrait is going to generate a greater amount of grey areas than a general physiological one.   #  why is it bad to have gray areas in this case ?  #  why does this definition matter to you ? you are not a doctor.  you are not going to be making decisions based on the biology of people.  so why not do the thing that makes people more comfortable.  why is it bad to have gray areas in this case ? having gray areas here does not hurt anyone.  there is also another reason to use the brain as the definer of gender.  the person you are is in your brain.  all your identifying traits for self identification, not for people describing you physically come from your brain.  in this particular case, it is not simply a case of identifying as something, it also has to do with the way your brain works.  there have been studies done on this and transgender people have brain scans that look closer to the gender they identify as.  there is also the issue of body dysphoria, which is something most transgender people experience.  this has to do with the map your brain has of your body not fitting with your body.  see also body integrity identity disorder.  URL i think what my argument boils down to is this: why do you need a binary classification for gender ? it is not really relevant outside of medicine and it makes people a lot happier to be treated as the gender they identify as.   #  though, i have met women who could certainly kick the crap out of men.   #  men and women are defined by the biological sex, as identification of their sexual parts.  gender is a different standard by which  man  and  women  are judged.  so saying, you think we should define men and women biologically relating to their sex organs is correct, but if you are trying to bring it into the socio gender realm, then it falls short.  what make men and women distinct ? certain sexual attributes and physical finese.  though, i have met women who could certainly kick the crap out of men.  gender defines you by your culture.  so if you think people born with vaginas, identified as women, need to have long hair, wear dresses and stay and home to raise children, you are discussing the cultural and gender attributes to this person.   #  the latter term is falling out of favor these days with most people just using  transgender  out of both convenience and the fact that it does not draw attention to the  sexual  side of things.   #  to clarify,  transgender  is more of an umbrella term, whereas  transsexual  is a specific term that refers to people who have medically transitioned.  the latter term is falling out of favor these days with most people just using  transgender  out of both convenience and the fact that it does not draw attention to the  sexual  side of things.  but either way, transgender people all identify as a gender other than the one they were assigned at birth.  crossdressers, such as your example of men who wear dresses and makeup but still identify very much as men, have been included in some definitions of  transgender  but in general the term is not used that way.  as far as gender roles go, those do not really have anything at all to do with transgenderism or transsexuality.  it is perfectly possible to be a transgender man i. e.  female to male who still has stereotypically  feminine  interests, or vice versa.   #  a definition should be as clear as possible, we should favor definition which are less vague.   # a classification by nature delivers labels and delineates and hence excludes and accepts people based on certain characteristics. if a classification did not do that it would not be useful as we would not have the capacity to classify  can you paraphrase them for me ? bad reading comprehension issues on my end.   to my friend being a man/male would basically be defined as the following. personally, i found his definition circular,hence flawed, as it seemed he was using the very term he was trying to define within the definition. man: person who identifies as a man.  the arguments generally used against my stance of defining it according to sex organs are the grey areas one may encounter doing so, for example intersexed people. however, i would argue a circular definition is worse than one with grey areas as it outright does not tell us what we are trying to define. other responses seem to be that we ought to define according to neurology/psychology of individuals being more masculine/feminine, hence not using the  x: person who identifies as x .  however, i feel that a psychological portrait and hence neurological portrait is going to generate a greater amount of grey areas than a general physiological one. i also do not understand why we would reject an account based on physiological properties like sex organs/hormones, but then use the brain instead which is a much more complex and less accessible system and hence harder to use for classification.  definitions are not objective facts ,they are subjective association that we make between terms and concepts for the sole purpose mainly to facilitate discussion and communication.  there is no logical reason  a plane figure with four equal straight sides and four right angles.   as to be the term  square  anymore then it has to be term  carré .  i personally agree with what somebody else said on the issue of definitions in general  there are no good or bad definitions just useful ones  which.  a definition should be as clear as possible, we should favor definition which are less vague.  a definition should not be circular as it does not really tell us anything, how could we understand the definition fully when the whole reason we are looking at it is because we are unaware of the sense of one of it is components ?   i will respond to the rest later.   #  it is inclusive, is straightforward and people already know what it means.   # bad reading comprehension issues on my end.  essentially, using a definition that is basically just  x: person who identifies as x  gives us circularity and using a definition that is based on psychological/neurological is more vague then using the other one based on general biology hormones,genitalia,chromosomes,etc.  .  definitions exist for the sake of facilitating communication, therefore using definitions that are less vague and not circular and hence properly delineate what concept we are referring should be what we favor in terms of communication.  but this one is harmful.  you could argue that any classification opens the door to discrimination between people.  however, classifications allow us to make distinctions between people that allow us to react accordingly to them. for example, a medical setting greatly makes use of distinction in male and female physiology.  it is inclusive, is straightforward and people already know what it means.  that does not address why the trans supportive definitions commonly used would be better than biological ones. believing that a man is better defined in relation to the biological qualities already stated and believing that man is preferable to  has a penis  are different issues, i feel.
yes, another thread about transgender people on cmv. sorry, if this particular view was already expressed and i also do not mean to offend anyone.  i am in full support of people living their lives as they please and transitioning if they please. i also believe that gender dysphoria is an innate trait related to hormones and genes like homosexuality/bisexuality.  i had a discussion with one of my long time friends which was born with female genitalia and who identifies as male.  this person often gets angry when people refer to him as  she  or a  girl  this person looks female .  to him, he is a male, a transgender male.  now,my understanding is that a transgender individual is one who does not identify as the sex they were assigned at birth.  ex: feeling like you are a woman when you possess a penis and testicles to my friend being a man/male would basically be defined as the following. personally, i found his definition circular,hence flawed, as it seemed he was using the very term he was trying to define within the definition. man: person who identifies as a man.  the arguments generally used against my stance of defining it according to sex organs are the grey areas one may encounter doing so, for example intersexed people. however, i would argue a circular definition is worse than one with grey areas as it outright does not tell us what we are trying to define. other responses seem to be that we ought to define according to neurology/psychology of individuals being more masculine/feminine, hence not using the  x: person who identifies as x .  however, i feel that a psychological portrait and hence neurological portrait is going to generate a greater amount of grey areas than a general physiological one. i also do not understand why we would reject an account based on physiological properties like sex organs/hormones, but then use the brain instead which is a much more complex and less accessible system and hence harder to use for classification.  definitions are not objective facts ,they are subjective association that we make between terms and concepts for the sole purpose mainly to facilitate discussion and communication.  there is no logical reason  a plane figure with four equal straight sides and four right angles.   as to be the term  square  anymore then it has to be term  carré .  i personally agree with what somebody else said on the issue of definitions in general  there are no good or bad definitions just useful ones  which.  a definition should be as clear as possible, we should favor definition which are less vague.  a definition should not be circular as it does not really tell us anything, how could we understand the definition fully when the whole reason we are looking at it is because we are unaware of the sense of one of it is components ?  #  to my friend being a man/male would basically be defined as the following. personally, i found his definition circular,hence flawed, as it seemed he was using the very term he was trying to define within the definition. man: person who identifies as a man.   #  it is interesting you picked up on this circularity, because it is something that a lot of feminist scholars have pointed out, most famously judith butler, and used to critique the idea that sex and gender are separate things.   # it is interesting you picked up on this circularity, because it is something that a lot of feminist scholars have pointed out, most famously judith butler, and used to critique the idea that sex and gender are separate things.  i will get to this critique later, but firstly i think i will point out a more orthodox criticism of your claim: your friend is definition is lazy.  it is trying to define what it means for a person to be male gendered, and i agree with you that  a male gendered person is someone who asserts they are male gendered  is not particularly useful.  however, i would also say it is an uncharitable definition of what it is to be a man, and a more accurate one would be: man gender : someone who routinely performs  masculinity  of course, part of performing masculinity on a routine basis is going to involve asserting that you are, in fact, a man, but it also involves other behaviours and attitudes that are typically associated with  male bodies , i. e.  men sex .  to return to my earliest comment, here is where i think what i am arguing falls apart.  the definition i have given makes what  aman  sex means rely on what man gender means, and that is circular in terms of defining the two terms as separate.  this circularity, however, seems to be unavoidable.  this is very similar to the feminist argument i mentioned earlier, butler and others  critique of the sex/gender distinction.  this is summed up in full in section 0.  here URL much more comprehensively than i ever could, but, essentially, the idea is that it is impossible to define sex accurately without making non empirical claims, and so sex  is  gender, in that it is also socially defined.   #  so if you think people born with vaginas, identified as women, need to have long hair, wear dresses and stay and home to raise children, you are discussing the cultural and gender attributes to this person.   #  men and women are defined by the biological sex, as identification of their sexual parts.  gender is a different standard by which  man  and  women  are judged.  so saying, you think we should define men and women biologically relating to their sex organs is correct, but if you are trying to bring it into the socio gender realm, then it falls short.  what make men and women distinct ? certain sexual attributes and physical finese.  though, i have met women who could certainly kick the crap out of men.  gender defines you by your culture.  so if you think people born with vaginas, identified as women, need to have long hair, wear dresses and stay and home to raise children, you are discussing the cultural and gender attributes to this person.   #  crossdressers, such as your example of men who wear dresses and makeup but still identify very much as men, have been included in some definitions of  transgender  but in general the term is not used that way.   #  to clarify,  transgender  is more of an umbrella term, whereas  transsexual  is a specific term that refers to people who have medically transitioned.  the latter term is falling out of favor these days with most people just using  transgender  out of both convenience and the fact that it does not draw attention to the  sexual  side of things.  but either way, transgender people all identify as a gender other than the one they were assigned at birth.  crossdressers, such as your example of men who wear dresses and makeup but still identify very much as men, have been included in some definitions of  transgender  but in general the term is not used that way.  as far as gender roles go, those do not really have anything at all to do with transgenderism or transsexuality.  it is perfectly possible to be a transgender man i. e.  female to male who still has stereotypically  feminine  interests, or vice versa.   #  definitions are not objective facts ,they are subjective association that we make between terms and concepts for the sole purpose mainly to facilitate discussion and communication.   # a classification by nature delivers labels and delineates and hence excludes and accepts people based on certain characteristics. if a classification did not do that it would not be useful as we would not have the capacity to classify  can you paraphrase them for me ? bad reading comprehension issues on my end.   to my friend being a man/male would basically be defined as the following. personally, i found his definition circular,hence flawed, as it seemed he was using the very term he was trying to define within the definition. man: person who identifies as a man.  the arguments generally used against my stance of defining it according to sex organs are the grey areas one may encounter doing so, for example intersexed people. however, i would argue a circular definition is worse than one with grey areas as it outright does not tell us what we are trying to define. other responses seem to be that we ought to define according to neurology/psychology of individuals being more masculine/feminine, hence not using the  x: person who identifies as x .  however, i feel that a psychological portrait and hence neurological portrait is going to generate a greater amount of grey areas than a general physiological one. i also do not understand why we would reject an account based on physiological properties like sex organs/hormones, but then use the brain instead which is a much more complex and less accessible system and hence harder to use for classification.  definitions are not objective facts ,they are subjective association that we make between terms and concepts for the sole purpose mainly to facilitate discussion and communication.  there is no logical reason  a plane figure with four equal straight sides and four right angles.   as to be the term  square  anymore then it has to be term  carré .  i personally agree with what somebody else said on the issue of definitions in general  there are no good or bad definitions just useful ones  which.  a definition should be as clear as possible, we should favor definition which are less vague.  a definition should not be circular as it does not really tell us anything, how could we understand the definition fully when the whole reason we are looking at it is because we are unaware of the sense of one of it is components ?   i will respond to the rest later.   #  however, classifications allow us to make distinctions between people that allow us to react accordingly to them. for example, a medical setting greatly makes use of distinction in male and female physiology.   # bad reading comprehension issues on my end.  essentially, using a definition that is basically just  x: person who identifies as x  gives us circularity and using a definition that is based on psychological/neurological is more vague then using the other one based on general biology hormones,genitalia,chromosomes,etc.  .  definitions exist for the sake of facilitating communication, therefore using definitions that are less vague and not circular and hence properly delineate what concept we are referring should be what we favor in terms of communication.  but this one is harmful.  you could argue that any classification opens the door to discrimination between people.  however, classifications allow us to make distinctions between people that allow us to react accordingly to them. for example, a medical setting greatly makes use of distinction in male and female physiology.  it is inclusive, is straightforward and people already know what it means.  that does not address why the trans supportive definitions commonly used would be better than biological ones. believing that a man is better defined in relation to the biological qualities already stated and believing that man is preferable to  has a penis  are different issues, i feel.
to start, i am not here to discuss wealth distribution, or income inequality.  they are real issues that need to be addressed, and as much as governments like to talk about the middle class, they are not doing much that actually helps them.  the inflation: middle class families used to live in 0 0 bedroom 0 0 bath bungalows in the suburbs or small towns.  quite often siblings would share a bedroom, there would be fights over who got to shower first because there was only one shower and a finite amount of hot water.  you packed a sandwich for lunch, dad drove the one car the family owned and would own for the next 0 years to work and mom walked or took transit if available.  clothing was handed down to younger siblings or cousins, there was one modestly sized tv in the house, and when families got a computer it was for the entire family to share.  vacations where often to go camping somewhere which would involve tents and no electricity, not 0  trailers with full kitchens, bathrooms and wifi, and if you were to go on a trip to another country or something, it was something the family saved up for and did not happen every year.  if something was broken, you fixed it instead of throwing it out and buying three more.  while all of that might sound like it came out of leave it to beaver or the brady bunch, i grew up in the 0 is.  now,  middle class  people are shopping for luxury/designer brand clothing, cars, and other goods.  it is practically considered child abuse to suggest that kids share a bedroom or do not have their own computer, tablet, and phone, and there is no way they would wear clothing handed down or two years old.  suburban/small town homes are multi level mcmansions with granite counter tops, stainless steel appliances, multiple big screen tvs, and master bathrooms with jacuzzi tubs and rain showers.  the family car is two or three cars, potentially more if there kids old enough to drive at home, and instead of the kids going for a weekend at grandma is while the parents drive three hours away for a vacation where they stay in a motel and go out for a nice dinner, the whole family flies to an all inclusive resort in another country.  yes, many of those things are cheaper than they once were, but many of them would have been considered luxuries or unattainable a generation ago and that would have been perfectly acceptable.  instead we lament the decline of the  middle class  while we continue to inflate what a middle class lifestyle is supposed to look like.   tl;dr the  middle class  is shrinking because what used to be defined as middle class would currently be considered below it, and what is currently  middle  class would have been upper middle to  rich  in the past.  instead of lamenting the decline of the middle class we should reevaluate how we define it.  cmv  #  now,  middle class  people are shopping for luxury/designer brand clothing, cars, and other goods.   #  some items that were previously considered luxury have  drastically  reduced in price.   # some items that were previously considered luxury have  drastically  reduced in price.  that always has and always will happen.  in previous eras, having a telephone or electricity to your home was luxury.  items becoming commoditized does not make the buyers any wealthier.  we are seeing a major rejuvenation of urban areas where a 0 0 bed / 0 0 bed is common or even large.  look at the prices of nyc, boston, san francisco, seattle, etc these days.  the new housing boom is in small places in tech/finance hubs.  the mcmansion craze crashed famously 0 years ago.  health costs, education costs, housing costs, and food costs are way up relative to wages.  electronics and travel are down but it does not make up for it.   #  why is wealth distribution the  only  metric that matters ?  #  why is wealth distribution the  only  metric that matters ? imagine a world where there is literally no hunger, nakedness, or homelessness, and everyone has access to pretty much every luxury/entertainment items they want.  however, in this world one guy has 0 of the total wealth it just so happens that the remaining 0 is still an enormous amount .  would you argue that this hypothetical world is somehow inferior to a world with even distribution of wealth in which everyone lives in huts ? of course not.  that is op is point: the standard of living has increased so much over the past decades that comparing the middle class in 0 to 0 is meaningless without comparing standard of living with it.   #  you still need to address what the majority of people have access to relative to their peers.   #  when you talk about middle class you do not talk about standard of living relative to a historical point.  you talk about it relative to your peers.  we do not say  oh poor people are not poor because they have running water, the rich feudal lords did not have that !   capitalism only works because standard of living goes up for society as a whole.  you still need to address what the majority of people have access to relative to their peers.  from your 0 of wealth in one person example then you do not have our society.  you have a sort of defacto monarchical society where class structure is not based on wealth.   #  for as long as we could have been classified in genus homo.   # how do you define  works  ? you want to make it subjective but a more objective view of what classifies as  poor  is superior in my opinion.  humanity has struggled with disease, starvation, violence, slavery, etc.  for as long as we could have been classified in genus homo.  lessening those things is all that really matters.  comparing ourselves to others is a waste of time and energy.   #  homelessness is a problem of addiction and mental health, not supply of shelter.   # 0.  under my definition they are not poor anymore, since they have regular access to things that remove them from poverty.  0.  i never said anything about  feeling  better; i said that they  are  better off.  nobody starves anymore in the west due to lack of access to food.  nobody.  homelessness is a problem of addiction and mental health, not supply of shelter.  0 of the problems that have always faced humanity have basically been solved and now our focus has shifted to a new but less urgent set of problems.  so please do not hear me saying that we should not be trying to solve those problems for those of us with less access to money.  rather i am just making a larger point about how our current definition of poverty seems to be more about envy and less about having enough.
i will keep this as simple as possible because i am at work.  someone commits a crime, they do their time, and afterwards, because of background checks, they ca not get a normal job.  someone who may have had hope for a better life after prison will soon begin to feel hopeless after getting rejected each time the background check comes up.  they already did the time for the crime.  why should they keep being punished afterwards ? not being able to find a job will only lead a criminal back to the streets, and inevitably back to prison, helping no one.  i know the counter argument   would you feel safe working with a convicted murderer ? no, i would not, but our current system does not help either.   #  someone commits a crime, they do their time, and afterwards, because of background checks, they ca not get a normal job.   #  as a business owner that uses background checks, that is simply not how the law works.   # as a business owner that uses background checks, that is simply not how the law works.  first, companies, as a rule there are exceptions , are not allowed to have blanket  no felon  policies.  you can exclude felons only if their felony relates to the job their applying for e. g.  no pedophiles working with kids, no drug dealers working in pharmacies, etc.  .  you will find yourself on the wrong end of a discrimination suit if you just go with a blanked exclusion just as bed, bath   beyond URL pepsi URL and bmw URL  nbsp;  they already did the time for the crime.  why should they keep being punished afterwards ? not being able to find a job will only lead a criminal back to the streets, and inevitably back to prison, helping no one.  i worked extremely hard to start, and build my own business.  i have just under 0 people who work for me, and i am not willing to risk my livelihood, and theirs, by taking a chance on someone who made the choice to commit a crime.  you call it  making a mistake , i call it making a choice, and now they have to live with the consequences.  does that suck for them ? i am sure it does, but that is not my problem.  i am not the one who stole a car, or sold drugs, or raped someone, or killed someone, or did whatever it was that got them locked up.  there is a reason cars have airbags and seat belts, and why people buy health insurance, and life insurance because things do not always go as planned, and we want to mitigate risk.  now you might claim that john doe has served his time, paid his debt, and now is ready to be a useful member of society, but i have to consider the possibility that maybe he  is not  as reformed as you think.  i have to consider the possibility that he might re offend, and steal from my company, or even worse, hurt someone.  i am simply not willing to take that risk.  especially not when there are so many qualified applicants out there who have not been convicted of a crime.   #  not only this, but background checks are not  only  used to check if someone is a murderer.   #  background checks are not solely for the purpose of convicted felons.  i agree with you in that the box that says  tick this if you are a convicted felon  generally does do more to punish those after they have served their time and done their punishment, but there are situations where doing a background check can prevent a huge conflict of interest.  as people below stated, you would not want someone who has been convicted of pedophilia or you would not someone with a violent history to be working with something like guns.  not only this, but background checks are not  only  used to check if someone is a murderer.  it is also used to see if someone is misrepresenting themselves on a resume and find if they are unqualified, if there is a previous relationship between the employee and potential employee that could result in favoritism, reasons for previous firing/hiring that could create a negative work environment, etc.  the issue is not so much with background checks as you stated because there are benefits to being able to do a background check.  it can prevent huge issues in hiring and cancel a little bit of the discrepancy between what the potential employee is saying and what the truth of the situation is.  not only that but according to the civil rights act URL businesses must show a business necessity for denying criminals rather than outright denying them.  these necessities can exist, the problem lies in the way that people outside of these necessities perceive the criminals.  more laws need to be made to prevent the discrimination of ex criminals rather than abolish laws that are potential protecting both a business and the business  consumers.   #  would you feel comfortable knowing that a loved one; your mother or your wife, brother or sister, were working with a convicted rapist ?  # should you be punished for the rest of your life for that ? should a convicted sex offender be allowed to work around children ? would you feel comfortable knowing that a loved one; your mother or your wife, brother or sister, were working with a convicted rapist ? consider this: most background checks for criminal records only go back seven years.  some companies and organizations may require more, but for the most part seven years is the limit.  an applicant can also appeal to the court and have the record expunged, given a certain amount of time has passed and they have not been in trouble again.  there is also an income criteria; if a job applicant is making below a certain salary, a record cannot be reported to the company requesting the background check, essentially making it a trite excuse for someone to claim that they had to go back to a life of crime because they could not get a job.  keep in mind, a lot of background checks also look for offenses like fraud and abuse; something important when it comes to professionals like accountants, doctors and nurses.  you would not want a surgeon cutting into you if you knew they were practicing with a fake medical degree, or had a history of malpractice or abuse. would you ? would you want someone convicted of money laundering or larceny to handle your banking ? all background checks are covered by the fcra, and there are many laws and regulations in place to ensure that this process is difficult to abuse or manipulate.  having a criminal record is not a lifetime sentence.  a one time offender has no reason to believe that they will  never  prosper or have a good career.  if you got in trouble for shoplifting when you were 0 years old, you will have no problem finding work when you are 0.  repeat criminals have the most to worry about when it comes to background checks, and rightly so.   #  i would rather him be able to get that job, because if he has ill intents he will get caught rather quickly due to the strict precautions that already exist.   #  so we just deny him all the jobs because we do not want him to get this one ? that is not a happy medium, that is a worthless solution.  i would rather him be able to get that job, because if he has ill intents he will get caught rather quickly due to the strict precautions that already exist.  beyond that, you ca not just walk in off the street and get a job as a pharmacist.  it requires a degree and usually pretty deep recommendations and job history.  all your doing is ensuring that if the guy was up for a good job he would immediately be disqualified because no one is going to hire an ex con over someone without a criminal background no matter how qualified they are.   #  moreover if other workers do not feel safe just as you said you would not feel safe even the  perception  of a problem then becomes a problem that threatens the life of the company.   #  i suppose that it depends on what you feel that your employer is responsibility is to their society.  in the united states, especially in the current political climate; the socialist concept is the farthest thing from business.  a company is expected to be self serving and thrive without breaking laws.  that is the entire agenda of a company.  within the context of competition, this means that hiring someone who may pose a danger to the business or other members of a business is counterproductive.  moreover if other workers do not feel safe just as you said you would not feel safe even the  perception  of a problem then becomes a problem that threatens the life of the company.  the problem is that something has to give.  we have a broken prison system that does not rehabilitate inmates.  we have a legal system that pumps jails with nonviolent offenders thereby creating new violence where it did not previously exist.  and we have a society that is not prepared to re integrate former inmates.  structurally speaking, this is the part of society that government was designed to solve.  whether our current government is  capable  of handling the task is a separate conversation.  the difference is that our companies are not even  designed  to work that way.
disclaimer:  i am an atheist.  with that out of the way, let me explain my view.  many people on cmv URL have expressed views that religion is harmful to society and has stopped the advancement of science in society.  common examples are used such as killings and wars that have took place on the premise of religion.  however, i do not believe that religion as a whole needs to be abolished.  while i feel that certain fundamentalist views need to be abolished, in general most religious people do not engage in such activities, and instead seek to carry out the values of peace, love, etc.  that keeps a society together.  i think that as long as religion is kept a personal matter, it is alright for religion to exist.  by  personal matter  i mean that people should not engage actively to uphold their own form of morality, and instead follow the rules that keep a community together.  for example, while christians may be against homosexual rights, they should not engage in activity that discriminates against homosexuals or support anti homosexual policies, but instead advocate against homosexuality on a moral basis.  this is under the assumption that homosexuality does not cause any harm to society, which i will not discuss further.  assuming that people do abide by these conditions, i see no reason why religion would cause harm to society.  cmv.   clarifications will update as time passes :  0.  by personal matter, i make an exception for the spreading of ideas such as discussing religion with your children or converting others .  the crux is that your actions must not harm others.  0.  i am proposing that by keeping religion as a  personal matter , most harm will be curbed.   list of common arguments will update as time passes :   a  stands for argument,  ca  stands for counterargument.   a:  publicly endorsing beliefs that are not supported by strong scientific evidence can be seen as causing harm to society and slowing down progress.   ca:  i do not think that publicly endorsing religion will cause a significant effect.  people are already inclined to believe many things that are not supported by strong scientific evidence.  for example, superstitions, pseudoscience, stuff on the internet on sites such as  cough  reddit  cough , and much more.   a:   particular parts of religion clash with science.  you are either forced to continually change and amend all religions to keep in line with the current scientific world view, or you are telling people to choose religion over science, harming scientific advance.   ca:   i would opt for letting people decide, since it is impossible to amend all religions to keep in line with science.  this will definitely harm scientific advance.    to be completed when i sort out my thoughts   after spending an hour, i could not think of a counterargument to the above arguments.  i have awarded the deltas.  thanks for changing my view, /r/changemyview ! i will try to come up with a modified solution and see if that works out.  hope i have at least inspired some discussion on this matter.   #  people are already inclined to believe many things that are not supported by strong scientific evidence.   #  for example, superstitions, pseudoscience, stuff on the internet on sites .  superstistion and religion are related no, i am not saying they are one and the same, but sometimes it is not easy to distinguish.   # for example, superstitions, pseudoscience, stuff on the internet on sites .  superstistion and religion are related no, i am not saying they are one and the same, but sometimes it is not easy to distinguish.  should beliefs in actual, non metaphorical demons that can possess people be considered superstition or religion ? also, all of the things you currently list as examples lack the social power, influence and social respectability of religion.  there is a reason people often talk about politicians pandering to the religious, and far less often if at all about pandering to believers in superstition, pseudoscience or  istuff on the internet  although the last thing might be different, these days .   #  religion, of the white christian sort at least, is negatively correlated to superstition of the more dangerous sort.   #  URL superstition is harmful because it causes people to take actions that are not scientifically appropriate, using magic and pseudoscience to influence the world.  christianity has been a strong moderating force against that, noting that people is personal thoughts have no real influence on the world.  the demise of christianity has caused a sharp increase in superstition.  in his 0 book  the whys of a philosophical scrivener,  skeptic and science writer martin gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in pseudoscience, cults and superstition.  he referenced a 0 study published in the magazine skeptical inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born again christian college students were the least likely.  religion, of the white christian sort at least, is negatively correlated to superstition of the more dangerous sort.  that somewhat counterbalances some negative religious beliefs.   #  mao tried to institute cross country  atheism  and look how that turned out.   #  i think this depends on the extent of what  abolish  means in practice.  just as superstition and religion and wreck havoc, dogmatic destruction of such institutions can wreak havoc equally so.  believers often have looked at the evidence and found that they still believe in their religion.  for these people, forcing them to abolish their beliefs is akin to a kind of dogmatism on the part of the enforcement group presumably the government .  its little different then the islamic governments who force islam on all their citizens.  that is not a liberal democracy with freedom of thought.  mao tried to institute cross country  atheism  and look how that turned out.  just a new dogmatism, nationalism, and fascism.   #  religion, superstition, pseudoscience, racism, nationalism, etc etc are all caused by the same thing irrationality and ignorance.   #  religion, superstition, pseudoscience, racism, nationalism, etc etc are all caused by the same thing irrationality and ignorance.  the problem with religion is that it is socially acceptable and thus it perpetuates irrationality and ignorance which creates an intellectual environment where much more insidious ideologies can prosper.  there is also the fact that many religions, including the most common ones are insidious ideologies themselves.  religion does not need to be abolished per se; promoting rationality will take care of it and fix the other issues that have been mentioned.  the problem is that the way religion is viewed interferes with the spread of rationality in ways that superstition and pseudoscience do not.   #  to many people socialism causes harm, capitalism causes harm, the internet causes harm, violent video games cause harm, all to society.   #  0 religion is not supported by any evidence, it is based on faith.  asking religion to provide evidence is like asking for a screwdriver to hammer a nail.  religion is not science, science deals with the natural world, while religion is an expression of the supernatural.  religion is just not answering the same questions as science, and this is false equivocation.  0 what  causes harm  to society is entirely subjective.  to many people socialism causes harm, capitalism causes harm, the internet causes harm, violent video games cause harm, all to society.  there is not really an accurate way to measure the net harm vs net good that religion has caused in the world an accurate use of science , but even if there was, would it be enough to justify abolishing it ? most likely not.  0 progress is not the desired goal of all humans on earth.  people want progress, but almost every human slows down progress for personal reasons.  we do not spend our entire lives working 0 hours a day from the moment we are capable in the name of progress, we do not reproduce in the most productive way possible, and progress just is not the primary motivating factor for humans.  different people have different priorities, and for many people, the benefit of religion can be that it is a fallback, or a comfort for things they are afraid of, uncertain about, or are not prepared to deal with.  this is most clear in the matter of death.  i would argue that the majority of people would favor peace of mind, over optimized progress, and like it or not, religion does provide that to millions of people.
disclaimer:  i am an atheist.  with that out of the way, let me explain my view.  many people on cmv URL have expressed views that religion is harmful to society and has stopped the advancement of science in society.  common examples are used such as killings and wars that have took place on the premise of religion.  however, i do not believe that religion as a whole needs to be abolished.  while i feel that certain fundamentalist views need to be abolished, in general most religious people do not engage in such activities, and instead seek to carry out the values of peace, love, etc.  that keeps a society together.  i think that as long as religion is kept a personal matter, it is alright for religion to exist.  by  personal matter  i mean that people should not engage actively to uphold their own form of morality, and instead follow the rules that keep a community together.  for example, while christians may be against homosexual rights, they should not engage in activity that discriminates against homosexuals or support anti homosexual policies, but instead advocate against homosexuality on a moral basis.  this is under the assumption that homosexuality does not cause any harm to society, which i will not discuss further.  assuming that people do abide by these conditions, i see no reason why religion would cause harm to society.  cmv.   clarifications will update as time passes :  0.  by personal matter, i make an exception for the spreading of ideas such as discussing religion with your children or converting others .  the crux is that your actions must not harm others.  0.  i am proposing that by keeping religion as a  personal matter , most harm will be curbed.   list of common arguments will update as time passes :   a  stands for argument,  ca  stands for counterargument.   a:  publicly endorsing beliefs that are not supported by strong scientific evidence can be seen as causing harm to society and slowing down progress.   ca:  i do not think that publicly endorsing religion will cause a significant effect.  people are already inclined to believe many things that are not supported by strong scientific evidence.  for example, superstitions, pseudoscience, stuff on the internet on sites such as  cough  reddit  cough , and much more.   a:   particular parts of religion clash with science.  you are either forced to continually change and amend all religions to keep in line with the current scientific world view, or you are telling people to choose religion over science, harming scientific advance.   ca:   i would opt for letting people decide, since it is impossible to amend all religions to keep in line with science.  this will definitely harm scientific advance.    to be completed when i sort out my thoughts   after spending an hour, i could not think of a counterargument to the above arguments.  i have awarded the deltas.  thanks for changing my view, /r/changemyview ! i will try to come up with a modified solution and see if that works out.  hope i have at least inspired some discussion on this matter.   #  by  personal matter  i mean that people should not engage actively to uphold their own form of morality, and instead follow the rules that keep a community together.   #  for example, while christians may be against homosexual rights, they should not engage in activity that discriminates against homosexuals or support anti homosexual policies, but instead advocate against homosexuality on a moral basis.   # for example, while christians may be against homosexual rights, they should not engage in activity that discriminates against homosexuals or support anti homosexual policies, but instead advocate against homosexuality on a moral basis.  this is under the assumption that homosexuality does not cause any harm to society, which i will not discuss further.  first,that would result in some serious double think. think of this for a minute,i am a believer i believe some deity who is all knowing and perfect tells me to do x or else i will be punished. if i sincerely believe this to be true then i ca not coherently uphold the view that due to rules of our society/community i ca not do x as my deity would be a superior authority than my community. it seems the only people who would go along with this are people who are just pretending to be religious.  secondly, most doctrines and dogmas, religious or not, are about societal interactions which means that by their very nature they are not restricted to yourself.   #  in his 0 book  the whys of a philosophical scrivener,  skeptic and science writer martin gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in pseudoscience, cults and superstition.   #  URL superstition is harmful because it causes people to take actions that are not scientifically appropriate, using magic and pseudoscience to influence the world.  christianity has been a strong moderating force against that, noting that people is personal thoughts have no real influence on the world.  the demise of christianity has caused a sharp increase in superstition.  in his 0 book  the whys of a philosophical scrivener,  skeptic and science writer martin gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in pseudoscience, cults and superstition.  he referenced a 0 study published in the magazine skeptical inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born again christian college students were the least likely.  religion, of the white christian sort at least, is negatively correlated to superstition of the more dangerous sort.  that somewhat counterbalances some negative religious beliefs.   #  i think this depends on the extent of what  abolish  means in practice.   #  i think this depends on the extent of what  abolish  means in practice.  just as superstition and religion and wreck havoc, dogmatic destruction of such institutions can wreak havoc equally so.  believers often have looked at the evidence and found that they still believe in their religion.  for these people, forcing them to abolish their beliefs is akin to a kind of dogmatism on the part of the enforcement group presumably the government .  its little different then the islamic governments who force islam on all their citizens.  that is not a liberal democracy with freedom of thought.  mao tried to institute cross country  atheism  and look how that turned out.  just a new dogmatism, nationalism, and fascism.   #  the problem with religion is that it is socially acceptable and thus it perpetuates irrationality and ignorance which creates an intellectual environment where much more insidious ideologies can prosper.   #  religion, superstition, pseudoscience, racism, nationalism, etc etc are all caused by the same thing irrationality and ignorance.  the problem with religion is that it is socially acceptable and thus it perpetuates irrationality and ignorance which creates an intellectual environment where much more insidious ideologies can prosper.  there is also the fact that many religions, including the most common ones are insidious ideologies themselves.  religion does not need to be abolished per se; promoting rationality will take care of it and fix the other issues that have been mentioned.  the problem is that the way religion is viewed interferes with the spread of rationality in ways that superstition and pseudoscience do not.   #  i would argue that the majority of people would favor peace of mind, over optimized progress, and like it or not, religion does provide that to millions of people.   #  0 religion is not supported by any evidence, it is based on faith.  asking religion to provide evidence is like asking for a screwdriver to hammer a nail.  religion is not science, science deals with the natural world, while religion is an expression of the supernatural.  religion is just not answering the same questions as science, and this is false equivocation.  0 what  causes harm  to society is entirely subjective.  to many people socialism causes harm, capitalism causes harm, the internet causes harm, violent video games cause harm, all to society.  there is not really an accurate way to measure the net harm vs net good that religion has caused in the world an accurate use of science , but even if there was, would it be enough to justify abolishing it ? most likely not.  0 progress is not the desired goal of all humans on earth.  people want progress, but almost every human slows down progress for personal reasons.  we do not spend our entire lives working 0 hours a day from the moment we are capable in the name of progress, we do not reproduce in the most productive way possible, and progress just is not the primary motivating factor for humans.  different people have different priorities, and for many people, the benefit of religion can be that it is a fallback, or a comfort for things they are afraid of, uncertain about, or are not prepared to deal with.  this is most clear in the matter of death.  i would argue that the majority of people would favor peace of mind, over optimized progress, and like it or not, religion does provide that to millions of people.
i have been thinking a lot about the aca and recently watched the last week tonight on the hobby lobby case which i disagreed quite a bit with.  it brought up a lot of thoughts about what i think about the interaction between business, employees and government.  so my basic presumption is that your job is not a right, because if you do your job poorly your employer should have the ability to find a better employee feel free to cmv here .  thus, the associated benefits associated with your job read: heath insurance but also including pensions, paid vacation, etc.  are not duties to be provided by the employer, but rather  benefits  to incentivize better employees to work for that business.  it mostly stems from the idea that even if just theoretically, the basis of the hobby lobby case could dis incentivize business.  say for example hobby lobby had lost its case in the supreme court.  if the owners of the company were truly opposed to providing whatever certain contraception they had been forced to provide, they would close their doors or sell their company.  should this be an acceptable potential outcome ? please be aware, i am not saying that health care is not a right nor that employers do not have duties to their employees .  i am saying it is not a duty of an employer to provide insurance or for a law to state employers must provide it.  rather health insurance should be, in regard to an employer, a benefit that should incentivize the type of employee to apply at the company.  if a company did not find they were getting enough, or skilled enough employees, the company could choose to alter its considerations and provide things they would not have otherwise.  this puts the decision clearly in the hands of the company and the market for labor .  a universal healthcare could be provided by the government, and taxed for.  feel free to address the statements like  my boss should not control what i do with my body.   it seems a bit exclusive.  i hear  provide me additional benefits at your cost but if it is not to my liking i would still rather keep this job and blame you for providing me more than pay but not enough stuff instead of taking my skills elsewhere.   i have been awake for a long time so i probably could have formatted this better but i think most of my thoughts are here.  is a job a right ? is employment as a general whole a right but not any specific job ? is it a duty for an employer to provide benefits like insurance, retirement plans/pensions, vacation etc.  am i incorrect that it could provide negative incentives to business ?  #  say for example hobby lobby had lost its case in the supreme court.   #  if the owners of the company were truly opposed to providing whatever certain contraception they had been forced to provide, they would close their doors or sell their company.   # if the owners of the company were truly opposed to providing whatever certain contraception they had been forced to provide, they would close their doors or sell their company.  should this be an acceptable potential outcome ? well, yes.  if free market priciples apply to employees why should not they apply to employers ? if hobby lobby would have closed its doors, joanns or other similar craft stores would have taken up the slack or another  hobby lobby type  store would have opened up and filled the market niche: in the same way that if an employee finds their working conditions insufficient, they quit.  if the option for employees is  if you do not like your job: quit , the option for businesses should be  if you do not like the rules: close your business .  the market will always fill its needs.  no single business or employee is indespensible if they do not want to take the money the market offers, someone else will.   #  equal opportunity employment, equal pay for equal work, all of these things are the same.   #  please be aware i am also of the belief that the law requiring companies to provide health insurance should not be present.  merely to say that a business is not following the rule does not say much to me.  a business is not a right, but limitations on the privilege are not palatable to me.  a safe workplace is a right of an employee and a duty of an employer.  equal opportunity employment, equal pay for equal work, all of these things are the same.  i simply do not place health insurance in this category.   #  things that the employer has to provice are things that the society deems essential, not a point of negotiation.   #  while in theory it should be a fair contract where everything is negotiable, you are putting employers and employees on the same level here, which is not the case.  the company has the much stronger lever to pull, they do not rely on employing you, the can survive without having you doing a job, companies do not eat, companies can easily survive over a certain time period without some employes and they are not living from paycheck to paycheck.  companies, like people, are existing in a society that has rules.  rules to give order to interactions and often to make sure that everybody is taken care of.  things that the employer has to provice are things that the society deems essential, not a point of negotiation.  to level the field a bit, the state is giving bare minimums that have to be met.  for example, here in germany you have the right to have 0 days of paid vacation per month 0 in total per year in addition to several holidays.  having time of is seen as something everybody deserves, but not anything has the power to get through negotiation.  especially when you are not that qualified, there will always be a guy who is desperate enough to work you job for less.  tl;dr: companies and employees are by far not at the same level when it comes to negotiating, so the state wants to assure a bare minimum of  benefits  even the employee in the weakest position should get.   #  remember that corporations and companies do not  give  employment, it is a burden they do not want but need to satisfy the business.   #  we have to understand the premise that each time an employer hires an employee, they are making a profit or a benefit out of that person which exceeds the cost.  also, a worker contributes not only to the company but to society by generating wealth for themselves and for others.  there are market incentives to exploit workers, because some projects are short term construction, harvesting, development and someone seeking profit has no problem with harming their worker is health psychological and physical in order to fulfill the goals.  some markets that have long term relationships with their workers do not have these incentives, and they usually exceed the minimum legal benefits due to this.  therefore as a nation we force them to give them daily, weekly and yearly rest, treat them in a certain way and help them save money for retirement when they are no longer useful for the market.  we also  inject  certain global benefits that we think everyone should have but are hard to deliver as a government, for example health insurance, unemployment insurance and other social benefits that should be financed by the wealth generated by the workforce.  remember that corporations and companies do not  give  employment, it is a burden they do not want but need to satisfy the business.  the demand is what causes the business and benefits us all.   #  i do not disagree with you that our awkward arrangement of employer provided health care does not make particularly logical sense.   #  i do not disagree with you that our awkward arrangement of employer provided health care does not make particularly logical sense.  a much more sensible arrangement would have been to have a public option that covered everyone by default, and then people have the option of having supplemental private insurance on top of it much like medicare and secondaries are structured today.  instead, in the current legal structure, providing health care for your employees is more akin to minimum wage, fmla, or osha requirements.  in order for a business to have the privilege of employing someone, they are required to pay them a certain minimum amount, give them a certain amount of family or medical leave, and provide a safe working environment.  this takes health care from a bonus provided by a good employer into a responsibility that they owe to their employees as a part of getting to hire americans.  an employer does not get to tout a safe working environment as a benefit.  they are not allowed to say  oh, well my religion says that women should not wear hats, so i am not going to provide hard hats to my female employees .  it is expected that everyone is provided safety gear.  similarly, if you want to employ an american, you have to provide them health insurance that meets a certain minimum set of requirements.  sorry, that is the rules.
well the title is pretty self explanatory but recently with seeing all of my friends being super successful and happy on facebook as well as in real life, ive become super depressed and really need help changing my view.  the good things about me: im kind, caring, a good friend, and an overall decent human being.  i have my own interests and career ambitions, i take care of my physique, and i dress well.  the bad things: everything that is in the title.  the whole  size does not matter   money does not matter   sexual experience does not matter  is not shit i am willing to believe.  size matters, money matters, and sexual experience more confidence.  the fact that i have none of these things has led me to fall into a negative cycle that i ca not break out of.  most attractive women of all races even indian women are not attracted to 0 year old virgin indian dudes with a small dick.  that is not opinion, thats just fact.  im not in med school yet either like the rest of my indian family and friends, instead i got a research associate position at a med school doing cardiology research making a measley 0k a year before tax.  so its not like i have money or med school status either.  please help me change my view that these negative beliefs are not deal breakers for dating attractive women and that there are attractive women out there who are willing to see past all that.   #  most attractive women of all races even indian women are not attracted to 0 year old virgin indian dudes with a small dick.   #  the last two things are not obvious upon looking at you.   # the last two things are not obvious upon looking at you.  before a woman gets into bed with you and finds out that you are a virgin with a small dick, she will have already become attracted to your physical appearance and personality, and you will have been on a date or two or three or more.  therefore those two points are absolutely irrelevant in attracting or repelling women at first.  money is too, in fact, but that becomes apparent much sooner, at the first date rather than the first sexual interaction, so i will just agree with you that money matters to some.  but virginity and dick size, even if they matter, are not apparent until you are already about to have sex, so you ca not use those as excuses for not meeting and dating women.   #  over time, i started to think that, hey, maybe i should be confident.   #  i am going to try to change your view by telling you why i have confidence.  i pretended to have confidence.  pretended for a very long time.  over time, i started to think that, hey, maybe i should be confident.  not because of this or that reason, but that is just the way you get confident.  you fake it till you make it.  0 they are not repelled by a small dick unless you walk up to them and say  now, hold on a second, before you get to know me, realize i have a small dick.   i agree with everyone else in the thread, men make size a much bigger deal pun intended than it really is.  0 they have no idea that you are a virgin.  again, unless you announce it.  and as hilarious as it would be to walk up to a woman and say,  i have got a small dick, i am a virgin, what are you doing later ?   i know that is not what you are doing.  to me this reveals that the factors that you list as a repellent make no sense as repellants.  it is in your head that they are repellants.  so change your head.  fake it till you make it.  because right now, your attitude about  yourself  is the woman repellant.  but it does not need to be.  so i urge you, just for three days, tell yourself you are the god damn king of the world.  walk around like you have a gigantic dick between your legs.  literally.  like walk differently, as if you had this thang swingin  between your knees.  you are not a woman repellant.  your brain is making you think you are one.  time to start thinking with that big ol  dick of yours.   #  low confidence leads to to not talking to women, or talking to them nervously.   #  what, exactly, do you mean by  attractive women  ? many people have difficulties when aiming above their own personal attraction level.  that said, these things are potential downsides in finding a mate possibly except having what you perceive as a  small dick .  that really literally does not matter to any woman worth dating unless you are so tiny you literally ca not have sex.  do not judge yourself by porn standards.  that is more about the camera than reality .  so make sure you have upsides, too.  what is interesting about you ? if nothing, find something interesting to do.  one thing is not clear: are you in india or america or elsewhere ? cultural norms are far, far, different in these places and advice for one wo not necessarily apply to the other.  e. g.  0k in what currency ? all that said.  confidence is probably your largest negative to deal with.  low confidence leads to to not talking to women, or talking to them nervously.  talk, damnit, particularly about topics that you might have in common.  that is the biggest thing that you need to do to find someone that will go out with you.   #  im an indian american brought up in america and living in america.   #  thanks for the response.  im an indian american brought up in america and living in america.  so i meant 0k usd, which is basically nothing.  even if i am a good guy, my viewpoint is that these things will inherently matter more to women no matter how great of a catch i am.  many people have difficulties when aiming above their own personal attraction level.  i guess that is a generic term which varies from person to person.  however you define that to be is what i mean, everyone has their own version of what constitutes  attractive .  although its usually not any of the things that i have which is my point.   #  as a woman, i can tell you that once you are an adult, confidence is what is most attractive.   # this is a blanket statement that is not entirely true.  will some women care about those things ? sure they will, but are those the sort of women that you really want to forge a relationship with ? there are plenty of women who are not a caricature of the stereotypical superficial woman.  and if you feel so low about yourself, i find it hard to believe that you have any real experience with women, so you are just basing these assumptions off of what you see on tv and in movies.  as a woman, i can tell you that once you are an adult, confidence is what is most attractive.  own your position in life, own your appearance, own your dick size.  a partner that lacks in confidence is much, much more unattractive than a small dick, or a small bank account.  if you exude low self esteem, a woman will never engage with you long enough to prove any of those things.  you are your biggest problem, not the superficial things you have listed.  you have not had enough experience with women to be so certain that their superficiality is to blame.  give yourself a chance, man !
well the title is pretty self explanatory but recently with seeing all of my friends being super successful and happy on facebook as well as in real life, ive become super depressed and really need help changing my view.  the good things about me: im kind, caring, a good friend, and an overall decent human being.  i have my own interests and career ambitions, i take care of my physique, and i dress well.  the bad things: everything that is in the title.  the whole  size does not matter   money does not matter   sexual experience does not matter  is not shit i am willing to believe.  size matters, money matters, and sexual experience more confidence.  the fact that i have none of these things has led me to fall into a negative cycle that i ca not break out of.  most attractive women of all races even indian women are not attracted to 0 year old virgin indian dudes with a small dick.  that is not opinion, thats just fact.  im not in med school yet either like the rest of my indian family and friends, instead i got a research associate position at a med school doing cardiology research making a measley 0k a year before tax.  so its not like i have money or med school status either.  please help me change my view that these negative beliefs are not deal breakers for dating attractive women and that there are attractive women out there who are willing to see past all that.   #  the good things about me: im kind, caring, a good friend, and an overall decent human being.   #  i have my own interests and career ambitions, i take care of my physique, and i dress well.   # well, you should.  if you wo not take it from me, take it from porn stars people who know more about fucking than most other people ; i ca not cite sources because i am at work and i am not googling that, but i know that in particular asia carerra would not work with any guy over 0 inches and preferred 0 and under, and there are more porn stars who have publicly stated that they do not prefer larger guys.  there  is  such a thing as too big, and that threshold varies from person to person.  i have my own interests and career ambitions, i take care of my physique, and i dress well.  i had the same problems as you, minus the indian but plus  i dress like a slob and do not take care of my physique .  the trick is to project confidence.  even if you currently do not feel it, fake it until you make it.  this ted talk URL helped show me how acting confident can lead to positive responses from people, and in turn lead to real confidence in yourself.  and it works.  the first step is to stop worrying about everything so much, because nobody else is that worried about you.  you are comparing their highlight reel to your behind the scenes footage.  the reality is, yes size queens exist, and yes some people are, for lack of a better term, dating racists, but there is someone out there who does not care about all that, and will care about your positive qualities.  the rest of them do not matter.  the biggest problem you likely have is your own self confidence.  do not let other people is expectations and judgments influence your self worth, and do not let the fact that you are not yet where you want to be do it, so long as you know that you are headed in a direction that you like.  present yourself with confidence and self esteem, and that will get you super far in all directions.   #  and as hilarious as it would be to walk up to a woman and say,  i have got a small dick, i am a virgin, what are you doing later ?    #  i am going to try to change your view by telling you why i have confidence.  i pretended to have confidence.  pretended for a very long time.  over time, i started to think that, hey, maybe i should be confident.  not because of this or that reason, but that is just the way you get confident.  you fake it till you make it.  0 they are not repelled by a small dick unless you walk up to them and say  now, hold on a second, before you get to know me, realize i have a small dick.   i agree with everyone else in the thread, men make size a much bigger deal pun intended than it really is.  0 they have no idea that you are a virgin.  again, unless you announce it.  and as hilarious as it would be to walk up to a woman and say,  i have got a small dick, i am a virgin, what are you doing later ?   i know that is not what you are doing.  to me this reveals that the factors that you list as a repellent make no sense as repellants.  it is in your head that they are repellants.  so change your head.  fake it till you make it.  because right now, your attitude about  yourself  is the woman repellant.  but it does not need to be.  so i urge you, just for three days, tell yourself you are the god damn king of the world.  walk around like you have a gigantic dick between your legs.  literally.  like walk differently, as if you had this thang swingin  between your knees.  you are not a woman repellant.  your brain is making you think you are one.  time to start thinking with that big ol  dick of yours.   #  all that said.  confidence is probably your largest negative to deal with.   #  what, exactly, do you mean by  attractive women  ? many people have difficulties when aiming above their own personal attraction level.  that said, these things are potential downsides in finding a mate possibly except having what you perceive as a  small dick .  that really literally does not matter to any woman worth dating unless you are so tiny you literally ca not have sex.  do not judge yourself by porn standards.  that is more about the camera than reality .  so make sure you have upsides, too.  what is interesting about you ? if nothing, find something interesting to do.  one thing is not clear: are you in india or america or elsewhere ? cultural norms are far, far, different in these places and advice for one wo not necessarily apply to the other.  e. g.  0k in what currency ? all that said.  confidence is probably your largest negative to deal with.  low confidence leads to to not talking to women, or talking to them nervously.  talk, damnit, particularly about topics that you might have in common.  that is the biggest thing that you need to do to find someone that will go out with you.   #  although its usually not any of the things that i have which is my point.   #  thanks for the response.  im an indian american brought up in america and living in america.  so i meant 0k usd, which is basically nothing.  even if i am a good guy, my viewpoint is that these things will inherently matter more to women no matter how great of a catch i am.  many people have difficulties when aiming above their own personal attraction level.  i guess that is a generic term which varies from person to person.  however you define that to be is what i mean, everyone has their own version of what constitutes  attractive .  although its usually not any of the things that i have which is my point.   #  sure they will, but are those the sort of women that you really want to forge a relationship with ?  # this is a blanket statement that is not entirely true.  will some women care about those things ? sure they will, but are those the sort of women that you really want to forge a relationship with ? there are plenty of women who are not a caricature of the stereotypical superficial woman.  and if you feel so low about yourself, i find it hard to believe that you have any real experience with women, so you are just basing these assumptions off of what you see on tv and in movies.  as a woman, i can tell you that once you are an adult, confidence is what is most attractive.  own your position in life, own your appearance, own your dick size.  a partner that lacks in confidence is much, much more unattractive than a small dick, or a small bank account.  if you exude low self esteem, a woman will never engage with you long enough to prove any of those things.  you are your biggest problem, not the superficial things you have listed.  you have not had enough experience with women to be so certain that their superficiality is to blame.  give yourself a chance, man !
i was thinking about why we have literature, and what it is purpose is to our society.  you could say  entertainment , but i think it is more than just that.  most works of literature have some sort of moral dilemma that questions an aspect of our society.  a good piece of writing is designed to make the reader feel empathetic towards the characters, so the events that occur due to the choices the characters make with regards to the dilemma, in the end will suggest to the reader what is  right  versus what is  wrong .  i was discussing this with my girlfriend the other day, and we used  to kill a mockingbird  as an example.  my point was that this book shows among other things that racism and prejudice is morally wrong.  she argued that this was not the intention of the book; the book just addresses the issue of prejudice in a neutral way, and it is up to the reader is internal moral compass to decide whether racism is right or wrong.  while it is certainly possible to read the book and not have your views on racism changed, i argue that it was the author is intention to suggest that it was wrong.  here, i extend my argument to the majority of all literature.  great works of literature such as to kill a mockingbird, 0, catcher in the rye, etc, are all intended to persuade readers to one side of a moral issue.  over history, stories and literature are a great way of defining what we as a race have defined as right and wrong.   cmv !  #  great works of literature such as to kill a mockingbird, 0, catcher in the rye, etc, are all intended to persuade readers to one side of a moral issue.   #  if i am not misunderstanding you, you are saying that great literature is effectively moral propaganda on the part of the author.   # if i am not misunderstanding you, you are saying that great literature is effectively moral propaganda on the part of the author.  what if an author writes a story with moral ambiguity and is a fence sitter about the actual ethics of the situation ? or if they write about issues that they personally  would not  find morally good, but in a dramatic and sensationalized way for the sake of entertaining the reader ? or adventure stories that are primarily concerned with excitement and wonder, rather than moral consequences ? we ca not deny that literature is influenced by the moral biases of the author s .  but it is  very  strong claim to say that the purpose of literature is to  define  morality.   #  maybe not the  sole purpose , but it is  a  purpose of nearly all works of literature to have some sort of stance on a moral issue.   #  maybe not the  sole purpose , but it is  a  purpose of nearly all works of literature to have some sort of stance on a moral issue.  i read that tolkien wrote lord of the rings because he was a language enthusiast and he wanted to write something to showcase different fictional languages.  however, there are many moral dilemmas that come up in the series, and it is very much a story about morality.  i would argue that those books as well as nearly all others take a stance on a moral issue.  yes, many literary pieces present both sides of an issue, and make it unclear who the heroes and villians are.  but that itself is a comment on morality.  if a character is a murderer, but we grow sympathetic to them throughout the story, then that is undoubtedly making a comment on society is views of what is right and wrong.   #  to create new metaphors for the interpretation of life, to create a vernacular, through stories and characters, for us to discuss life.   #  firstly, i am of the belief that the writer is intentions do not exist after publication.  all interpretation belongs solely to the readers.  that said, any interpretation is valid, because every interpretation is the result of combining the authors ideas with your own.  that is the magic of literature.  as for morals as the end goal of literature, i do not think that is true at all.  the end goal of literature is to communicate ideas and experiences.  to create new metaphors for the interpretation of life, to create a vernacular, through stories and characters, for us to discuss life.  books are toolkits for the act of thinking and communicating.  morals often a major theme, but just as often it is about coping with hardship, or overcoming obstacles, or searching for meaning.   #  if anything, i think literature and entertainment media in general are more about  reflecting  morality than defining it.   #  okay, so you are saying that literature is defining morality in the sense that a good protagonist comes into conflict with an evil antagonist, so by drawing the characters that way, they are defining what is good and what is evil ? if that is what you mean, i guess it would then come down to what you mean by  purpose.   i do not think good vs.  evil is the  purpose  of most literature, i think it is just a tool that is useless for telling stories.  a good story needs conflict, it needs an obstacle to overcome, and good vs.  evil is a good or easy way to do that.  i do not think the fledgling screenwriter who writes an episode of csi is doing it with the  purpose  of defining morality.  they are just using that as a means to an end, to tell a story that people will want to watch.  if anything, i think literature and entertainment media in general are more about  reflecting  morality than defining it.   #  hemingway is famous for the quote  if you have a message, send it western union .   #  your issue is that you are speaking towards an intention by the author.  what about authors who have explicitly said that they are not doing the thing you are describing ? hemingway is famous for the quote  if you have a message, send it western union .  many authors purposefully eschew moralizing as they feel it can hinder the artistry of a work.  i would say  hunger  by knut hamsun is not about morality at all.  it is about a subjective human experience.  i agree with you that sometimes morality is represented as an aspect of the human experience, but to say that every author intends every work to be ultimately about morality is too extreme, and empirically incorrect if we are to believe what authors say about their own work is true.
voting without paying taxes is a conflict of interest.  why should i get a say in how something that i do not pay for is run ? i could just vote myself more and more money without bearing any of the expense.  i lost my job last month and i am on unemployment.  why should i get a say in how much money i get when i am living off the work of others ? this is just like when you are a child.  you do not get to make the rules because you are not paying the rent, and you do not get to set your allowance.  money is a medium of exchange it is received when you provide a good or service of value to someone, and spent when you take a good or service of value from someone else.  therefore the more wealth you accumulate, the more net value you have provided to society.  these people should have more of a say in how our society is run because they have given it the most.  also this would be for the best since rich people are generally smarter and more competent than poor people, and would choose better politicians that do not just appeal to emotion.   #  i could just vote myself more and more money without bearing any of the expense.   #  that is not really how it works.   # that is not really how it works.  if you get more and more money, you eventually have to pay taxes on that money.  why should i get a say in how much money i get when i am living off the work of others ? do you feel like you are worth less than someone who did not lose their job ? do you feel like you are less intelligent or capable of making good voting decisions than someone who did not lose their job ? more specifically, what prevents the rich from simply voting to reduce the taxes on themselves, eliminate unemployment and let those without money starve ? if only those with money can vote, only those with money get their perspective included in the discussion.  these people should have more of a say in how our society is run because they have given it the most.  this is not necessarily true.  for example, someone who inherits a fortune has not provided any net value to society yet.  and just because you amass wealth does not mean you did so by providing any sort of service or value to society.  for example, companies which exist purely to buy up ip and sue other companies for using it.  in fact, one could argue that there are tons of ways to amass wealth which results in a net  negative  value to society.  and this is false too.  rich people are not on average smarter or more competent than poor people.  nor would they choose  better  politicians, rather they would only choose politicians which benefit the rich even if it was at the expense of the poor.   #  is  better  that poor people remain oppressed and unable to escape poverty so that rich people can remain rich and keep their money ?  #  but who decides what is  better  ? is  better  that poor people remain oppressed and unable to escape poverty so that rich people can remain rich and keep their money ? is  better  more people having access to healthcare via a universal healthcare system ? is  better  more people relying on more expensive emergency rooms because health insurance is too expensive ? who decides what is  better  ? the problem is that if you cut entire swathes and classes of people out of voting, then you lose their perspective and experiences on what is going on.  if the poor people do not get to vote, the politicians have no need to do anything to help them or even try.   #  if dutton is correct, then your supposed oligarchy would contain a much larger proportion of people that completely lack a sense of empathy.   # do you have any evidence beyond your own experience to support this ? beyond that, a significant portion of the rich are likely emotionally compromised in their own way.  this list of sociopath friendly professions URL comes from psychiatrist kevin dutton, an expert on the relationships between antisocial personality disorders and success.  most of these professions have higher than average annual incomes, making them to an extent rich.  if dutton is correct, then your supposed oligarchy would contain a much larger proportion of people that completely lack a sense of empathy.  i hope i do not need to explain why that is a bad thing.   #  in your plutocracy, the 0 could vote to send the other 0 to war, or to become indentured servants, etc.   #  taxation is far from the only thing a government does.  in your plutocracy, the 0 could vote to send the other 0 to war, or to become indentured servants, etc.  besides the question of fairness, obviously, there would be problems with stability.  that is a big part of the appeal of democracy, and why, when established for some time, democracies are more stable.  if you have a government that the majority finds crappy, there is a least a mechanism to change it.  yes, i know it does not work that well in practice, but it is still better than most .   #  admittedly, a society run by bill gates and j. k.   #  a society run by kim kardashian, paris hilton, and donald trump is not a society i would want to live in.  admittedly, a society run by bill gates and j. k.  rowling would probably be pretty awesome, so there might be some merit to that.  all joking aside, most rich people are not rich just because they are smarter than poor people; it is because they are more aggressive than poor people, and know enough to listen to people who are smarter than them; vince mcmahon, billionaire chairman of the wwe will be the first to admit he does not think he is a smart guy, but he surrounds himself or did with smart people who give him ideas, but he makes the final decision after hearing and considering all the smart ideas.  his favorite phrase is  chocolate or vanilla ?   meaning that no idea is necessarily any better or worse, just that he has to make the decision of what flavor the company is trying this time.  i would imagine that many other billionaires are from the same cloth.
voting without paying taxes is a conflict of interest.  why should i get a say in how something that i do not pay for is run ? i could just vote myself more and more money without bearing any of the expense.  i lost my job last month and i am on unemployment.  why should i get a say in how much money i get when i am living off the work of others ? this is just like when you are a child.  you do not get to make the rules because you are not paying the rent, and you do not get to set your allowance.  money is a medium of exchange it is received when you provide a good or service of value to someone, and spent when you take a good or service of value from someone else.  therefore the more wealth you accumulate, the more net value you have provided to society.  these people should have more of a say in how our society is run because they have given it the most.  also this would be for the best since rich people are generally smarter and more competent than poor people, and would choose better politicians that do not just appeal to emotion.   #  i lost my job last month and i am on unemployment.   #  why should i get a say in how much money i get when i am living off the work of others ?  # that is not really how it works.  if you get more and more money, you eventually have to pay taxes on that money.  why should i get a say in how much money i get when i am living off the work of others ? do you feel like you are worth less than someone who did not lose their job ? do you feel like you are less intelligent or capable of making good voting decisions than someone who did not lose their job ? more specifically, what prevents the rich from simply voting to reduce the taxes on themselves, eliminate unemployment and let those without money starve ? if only those with money can vote, only those with money get their perspective included in the discussion.  these people should have more of a say in how our society is run because they have given it the most.  this is not necessarily true.  for example, someone who inherits a fortune has not provided any net value to society yet.  and just because you amass wealth does not mean you did so by providing any sort of service or value to society.  for example, companies which exist purely to buy up ip and sue other companies for using it.  in fact, one could argue that there are tons of ways to amass wealth which results in a net  negative  value to society.  and this is false too.  rich people are not on average smarter or more competent than poor people.  nor would they choose  better  politicians, rather they would only choose politicians which benefit the rich even if it was at the expense of the poor.   #  is  better  more people relying on more expensive emergency rooms because health insurance is too expensive ?  #  but who decides what is  better  ? is  better  that poor people remain oppressed and unable to escape poverty so that rich people can remain rich and keep their money ? is  better  more people having access to healthcare via a universal healthcare system ? is  better  more people relying on more expensive emergency rooms because health insurance is too expensive ? who decides what is  better  ? the problem is that if you cut entire swathes and classes of people out of voting, then you lose their perspective and experiences on what is going on.  if the poor people do not get to vote, the politicians have no need to do anything to help them or even try.   #  this list of sociopath friendly professions URL comes from psychiatrist kevin dutton, an expert on the relationships between antisocial personality disorders and success.   # do you have any evidence beyond your own experience to support this ? beyond that, a significant portion of the rich are likely emotionally compromised in their own way.  this list of sociopath friendly professions URL comes from psychiatrist kevin dutton, an expert on the relationships between antisocial personality disorders and success.  most of these professions have higher than average annual incomes, making them to an extent rich.  if dutton is correct, then your supposed oligarchy would contain a much larger proportion of people that completely lack a sense of empathy.  i hope i do not need to explain why that is a bad thing.   #  besides the question of fairness, obviously, there would be problems with stability.   #  taxation is far from the only thing a government does.  in your plutocracy, the 0 could vote to send the other 0 to war, or to become indentured servants, etc.  besides the question of fairness, obviously, there would be problems with stability.  that is a big part of the appeal of democracy, and why, when established for some time, democracies are more stable.  if you have a government that the majority finds crappy, there is a least a mechanism to change it.  yes, i know it does not work that well in practice, but it is still better than most .   #  a society run by kim kardashian, paris hilton, and donald trump is not a society i would want to live in.   #  a society run by kim kardashian, paris hilton, and donald trump is not a society i would want to live in.  admittedly, a society run by bill gates and j. k.  rowling would probably be pretty awesome, so there might be some merit to that.  all joking aside, most rich people are not rich just because they are smarter than poor people; it is because they are more aggressive than poor people, and know enough to listen to people who are smarter than them; vince mcmahon, billionaire chairman of the wwe will be the first to admit he does not think he is a smart guy, but he surrounds himself or did with smart people who give him ideas, but he makes the final decision after hearing and considering all the smart ideas.  his favorite phrase is  chocolate or vanilla ?   meaning that no idea is necessarily any better or worse, just that he has to make the decision of what flavor the company is trying this time.  i would imagine that many other billionaires are from the same cloth.
voting without paying taxes is a conflict of interest.  why should i get a say in how something that i do not pay for is run ? i could just vote myself more and more money without bearing any of the expense.  i lost my job last month and i am on unemployment.  why should i get a say in how much money i get when i am living off the work of others ? this is just like when you are a child.  you do not get to make the rules because you are not paying the rent, and you do not get to set your allowance.  money is a medium of exchange it is received when you provide a good or service of value to someone, and spent when you take a good or service of value from someone else.  therefore the more wealth you accumulate, the more net value you have provided to society.  these people should have more of a say in how our society is run because they have given it the most.  also this would be for the best since rich people are generally smarter and more competent than poor people, and would choose better politicians that do not just appeal to emotion.   #  therefore the more wealth you accumulate, the more net value you have provided to society.   #  these people should have more of a say in how our society is run because they have given it the most.   # that is not really how it works.  if you get more and more money, you eventually have to pay taxes on that money.  why should i get a say in how much money i get when i am living off the work of others ? do you feel like you are worth less than someone who did not lose their job ? do you feel like you are less intelligent or capable of making good voting decisions than someone who did not lose their job ? more specifically, what prevents the rich from simply voting to reduce the taxes on themselves, eliminate unemployment and let those without money starve ? if only those with money can vote, only those with money get their perspective included in the discussion.  these people should have more of a say in how our society is run because they have given it the most.  this is not necessarily true.  for example, someone who inherits a fortune has not provided any net value to society yet.  and just because you amass wealth does not mean you did so by providing any sort of service or value to society.  for example, companies which exist purely to buy up ip and sue other companies for using it.  in fact, one could argue that there are tons of ways to amass wealth which results in a net  negative  value to society.  and this is false too.  rich people are not on average smarter or more competent than poor people.  nor would they choose  better  politicians, rather they would only choose politicians which benefit the rich even if it was at the expense of the poor.   #  the problem is that if you cut entire swathes and classes of people out of voting, then you lose their perspective and experiences on what is going on.   #  but who decides what is  better  ? is  better  that poor people remain oppressed and unable to escape poverty so that rich people can remain rich and keep their money ? is  better  more people having access to healthcare via a universal healthcare system ? is  better  more people relying on more expensive emergency rooms because health insurance is too expensive ? who decides what is  better  ? the problem is that if you cut entire swathes and classes of people out of voting, then you lose their perspective and experiences on what is going on.  if the poor people do not get to vote, the politicians have no need to do anything to help them or even try.   #  most of these professions have higher than average annual incomes, making them to an extent rich.   # do you have any evidence beyond your own experience to support this ? beyond that, a significant portion of the rich are likely emotionally compromised in their own way.  this list of sociopath friendly professions URL comes from psychiatrist kevin dutton, an expert on the relationships between antisocial personality disorders and success.  most of these professions have higher than average annual incomes, making them to an extent rich.  if dutton is correct, then your supposed oligarchy would contain a much larger proportion of people that completely lack a sense of empathy.  i hope i do not need to explain why that is a bad thing.   #  if you have a government that the majority finds crappy, there is a least a mechanism to change it.   #  taxation is far from the only thing a government does.  in your plutocracy, the 0 could vote to send the other 0 to war, or to become indentured servants, etc.  besides the question of fairness, obviously, there would be problems with stability.  that is a big part of the appeal of democracy, and why, when established for some time, democracies are more stable.  if you have a government that the majority finds crappy, there is a least a mechanism to change it.  yes, i know it does not work that well in practice, but it is still better than most .   #  rowling would probably be pretty awesome, so there might be some merit to that.   #  a society run by kim kardashian, paris hilton, and donald trump is not a society i would want to live in.  admittedly, a society run by bill gates and j. k.  rowling would probably be pretty awesome, so there might be some merit to that.  all joking aside, most rich people are not rich just because they are smarter than poor people; it is because they are more aggressive than poor people, and know enough to listen to people who are smarter than them; vince mcmahon, billionaire chairman of the wwe will be the first to admit he does not think he is a smart guy, but he surrounds himself or did with smart people who give him ideas, but he makes the final decision after hearing and considering all the smart ideas.  his favorite phrase is  chocolate or vanilla ?   meaning that no idea is necessarily any better or worse, just that he has to make the decision of what flavor the company is trying this time.  i would imagine that many other billionaires are from the same cloth.
voting without paying taxes is a conflict of interest.  why should i get a say in how something that i do not pay for is run ? i could just vote myself more and more money without bearing any of the expense.  i lost my job last month and i am on unemployment.  why should i get a say in how much money i get when i am living off the work of others ? this is just like when you are a child.  you do not get to make the rules because you are not paying the rent, and you do not get to set your allowance.  money is a medium of exchange it is received when you provide a good or service of value to someone, and spent when you take a good or service of value from someone else.  therefore the more wealth you accumulate, the more net value you have provided to society.  these people should have more of a say in how our society is run because they have given it the most.  also this would be for the best since rich people are generally smarter and more competent than poor people, and would choose better politicians that do not just appeal to emotion.   #  why should i get a say in how something that i do not pay for is run ?  #  i could just vote myself more and more money without bearing any of the expense.   # i could just vote myself more and more money without bearing any of the expense.  i lost my job last month and i am on unemployment.  why should i get a say in how much money i get when i am living off the work of others ? i want to focus on your moral argument here.  this argument works perfectly well for membership to a country club, homeowner is association, or even a church.  why should somebody who does not pay the fees be allowed to participate in the club, much less dictate how the club is run ? but the state is not a business.  paying taxes is not the same as paying a membership fee.  for one thing, participation in the state is involuntary.  the state does a lot of other things besides provide services.  the state also imprisons people, bombs other countries, conscripts people to fight in wars, determines which medical procedures i am allowed to procure, and tells me when, where, and whether i am even allowed to buy certain products.  these things all affect me, even if i am under the threshold where i would pay taxes.  how could the state have any legitimate authority over me if i were not allowed to participate in it ?  #  these people should have more of a say in how our society is run because they have given it the most.   # that is not really how it works.  if you get more and more money, you eventually have to pay taxes on that money.  why should i get a say in how much money i get when i am living off the work of others ? do you feel like you are worth less than someone who did not lose their job ? do you feel like you are less intelligent or capable of making good voting decisions than someone who did not lose their job ? more specifically, what prevents the rich from simply voting to reduce the taxes on themselves, eliminate unemployment and let those without money starve ? if only those with money can vote, only those with money get their perspective included in the discussion.  these people should have more of a say in how our society is run because they have given it the most.  this is not necessarily true.  for example, someone who inherits a fortune has not provided any net value to society yet.  and just because you amass wealth does not mean you did so by providing any sort of service or value to society.  for example, companies which exist purely to buy up ip and sue other companies for using it.  in fact, one could argue that there are tons of ways to amass wealth which results in a net  negative  value to society.  and this is false too.  rich people are not on average smarter or more competent than poor people.  nor would they choose  better  politicians, rather they would only choose politicians which benefit the rich even if it was at the expense of the poor.   #  is  better  that poor people remain oppressed and unable to escape poverty so that rich people can remain rich and keep their money ?  #  but who decides what is  better  ? is  better  that poor people remain oppressed and unable to escape poverty so that rich people can remain rich and keep their money ? is  better  more people having access to healthcare via a universal healthcare system ? is  better  more people relying on more expensive emergency rooms because health insurance is too expensive ? who decides what is  better  ? the problem is that if you cut entire swathes and classes of people out of voting, then you lose their perspective and experiences on what is going on.  if the poor people do not get to vote, the politicians have no need to do anything to help them or even try.   #  this list of sociopath friendly professions URL comes from psychiatrist kevin dutton, an expert on the relationships between antisocial personality disorders and success.   # do you have any evidence beyond your own experience to support this ? beyond that, a significant portion of the rich are likely emotionally compromised in their own way.  this list of sociopath friendly professions URL comes from psychiatrist kevin dutton, an expert on the relationships between antisocial personality disorders and success.  most of these professions have higher than average annual incomes, making them to an extent rich.  if dutton is correct, then your supposed oligarchy would contain a much larger proportion of people that completely lack a sense of empathy.  i hope i do not need to explain why that is a bad thing.   #  in your plutocracy, the 0 could vote to send the other 0 to war, or to become indentured servants, etc.   #  taxation is far from the only thing a government does.  in your plutocracy, the 0 could vote to send the other 0 to war, or to become indentured servants, etc.  besides the question of fairness, obviously, there would be problems with stability.  that is a big part of the appeal of democracy, and why, when established for some time, democracies are more stable.  if you have a government that the majority finds crappy, there is a least a mechanism to change it.  yes, i know it does not work that well in practice, but it is still better than most .
voting without paying taxes is a conflict of interest.  why should i get a say in how something that i do not pay for is run ? i could just vote myself more and more money without bearing any of the expense.  i lost my job last month and i am on unemployment.  why should i get a say in how much money i get when i am living off the work of others ? this is just like when you are a child.  you do not get to make the rules because you are not paying the rent, and you do not get to set your allowance.  money is a medium of exchange it is received when you provide a good or service of value to someone, and spent when you take a good or service of value from someone else.  therefore the more wealth you accumulate, the more net value you have provided to society.  these people should have more of a say in how our society is run because they have given it the most.  also this would be for the best since rich people are generally smarter and more competent than poor people, and would choose better politicians that do not just appeal to emotion.   #  also this would be for the best since rich people are generally smarter and more competent than poor people, and would choose better politicians that do not just appeal to emotion.   #  this is also super false for so may reasons.   #  i think your philosophy of government does not align with the philosophy of government that most modern governments are founded upon.  this is also super false for so may reasons.  here is three for brevity.  a huge percentage of wealth is inherited.  even if it was not, rich people are not generally smarter.  phds and professors are very intelligent yet do not make a huge salary.  even if they were, smart people wo not chose better politicians just politicians better suited to serve their interests.  you can make an argument that the right to property is more important than higher net human well being but do not pretend that rich people being in control will result in everybody holding hands and singing about how amazingly the government treats them.  poor people would lose what little protections they have and there would be essentially a caste system with the majority of the population as essentially slaves.   #  these people should have more of a say in how our society is run because they have given it the most.   # that is not really how it works.  if you get more and more money, you eventually have to pay taxes on that money.  why should i get a say in how much money i get when i am living off the work of others ? do you feel like you are worth less than someone who did not lose their job ? do you feel like you are less intelligent or capable of making good voting decisions than someone who did not lose their job ? more specifically, what prevents the rich from simply voting to reduce the taxes on themselves, eliminate unemployment and let those without money starve ? if only those with money can vote, only those with money get their perspective included in the discussion.  these people should have more of a say in how our society is run because they have given it the most.  this is not necessarily true.  for example, someone who inherits a fortune has not provided any net value to society yet.  and just because you amass wealth does not mean you did so by providing any sort of service or value to society.  for example, companies which exist purely to buy up ip and sue other companies for using it.  in fact, one could argue that there are tons of ways to amass wealth which results in a net  negative  value to society.  and this is false too.  rich people are not on average smarter or more competent than poor people.  nor would they choose  better  politicians, rather they would only choose politicians which benefit the rich even if it was at the expense of the poor.   #  if the poor people do not get to vote, the politicians have no need to do anything to help them or even try.   #  but who decides what is  better  ? is  better  that poor people remain oppressed and unable to escape poverty so that rich people can remain rich and keep their money ? is  better  more people having access to healthcare via a universal healthcare system ? is  better  more people relying on more expensive emergency rooms because health insurance is too expensive ? who decides what is  better  ? the problem is that if you cut entire swathes and classes of people out of voting, then you lose their perspective and experiences on what is going on.  if the poor people do not get to vote, the politicians have no need to do anything to help them or even try.   #  i hope i do not need to explain why that is a bad thing.   # do you have any evidence beyond your own experience to support this ? beyond that, a significant portion of the rich are likely emotionally compromised in their own way.  this list of sociopath friendly professions URL comes from psychiatrist kevin dutton, an expert on the relationships between antisocial personality disorders and success.  most of these professions have higher than average annual incomes, making them to an extent rich.  if dutton is correct, then your supposed oligarchy would contain a much larger proportion of people that completely lack a sense of empathy.  i hope i do not need to explain why that is a bad thing.   #  yes, i know it does not work that well in practice, but it is still better than most .   #  taxation is far from the only thing a government does.  in your plutocracy, the 0 could vote to send the other 0 to war, or to become indentured servants, etc.  besides the question of fairness, obviously, there would be problems with stability.  that is a big part of the appeal of democracy, and why, when established for some time, democracies are more stable.  if you have a government that the majority finds crappy, there is a least a mechanism to change it.  yes, i know it does not work that well in practice, but it is still better than most .
voting without paying taxes is a conflict of interest.  why should i get a say in how something that i do not pay for is run ? i could just vote myself more and more money without bearing any of the expense.  i lost my job last month and i am on unemployment.  why should i get a say in how much money i get when i am living off the work of others ? this is just like when you are a child.  you do not get to make the rules because you are not paying the rent, and you do not get to set your allowance.  money is a medium of exchange it is received when you provide a good or service of value to someone, and spent when you take a good or service of value from someone else.  therefore the more wealth you accumulate, the more net value you have provided to society.  these people should have more of a say in how our society is run because they have given it the most.  also this would be for the best since rich people are generally smarter and more competent than poor people, and would choose better politicians that do not just appeal to emotion.   #  why should i get a say in how something that i do not pay for is run ?  #  the purpose of voting is to ensure fair representation of the citizens of a society.   # the purpose of voting is to ensure fair representation of the citizens of a society.  you are a citizen, regardless of your employment status.  thus you should be allowed to have a say in how the society is run.  you could.  but just because that is what you voted for, that does not mean that that is what the government  will  do.  they could easily just look at that decision and consider it a non starter.  why should i get a say in how much money i get when i am living off the work of others ? you are exactly the kind of person who  should  have a say in that.  you know better than those who are employed and particularly, more than those with much disposable income how much money you would need at a bare minimum to survive.  if the only people deciding how much money you can get are those with no perspective on what it is like to be unemployed, do you think they will scale welfare in a way that accurately reflects your needs ? you do not get to make the rules because you are not paying the rent, and you do not get to set your allowance.  when you are a child you lack the understanding of the consequences behind certain decisions.  so adults enforce rules for you, and  good  adults eventually teach you to understand those consequences so that when you are eventually older, you  are  in a position to reasonably negotiate rules of that sort.  therefore the more wealth you accumulate, the more net value you have provided to society.  these people should have more of a say in how our society is run because they have given it the most.  not all money is earned honestly.  just look at the recent scandal with the 0 big cancer charities in the us which were shut down because the ceos were effectively living the life of luxury whilst putting a poultry fraction towards the actual cause.  should those kinds of people be in charge solely in virtue of having a greater net monetary worth ? the rich have access to better schools.  but even at that, this does not mean that generally they are  actually  smarter than the poor.  and it most certainly does not mean that they would choose better politicians.  this happens in the us today all the time, does not it ? that is what the whole concept of lobbying is about: certain rich people buying the support of politicians who help their bottom dollar and lean towards policies that do so.   #  why should i get a say in how much money i get when i am living off the work of others ?  # that is not really how it works.  if you get more and more money, you eventually have to pay taxes on that money.  why should i get a say in how much money i get when i am living off the work of others ? do you feel like you are worth less than someone who did not lose their job ? do you feel like you are less intelligent or capable of making good voting decisions than someone who did not lose their job ? more specifically, what prevents the rich from simply voting to reduce the taxes on themselves, eliminate unemployment and let those without money starve ? if only those with money can vote, only those with money get their perspective included in the discussion.  these people should have more of a say in how our society is run because they have given it the most.  this is not necessarily true.  for example, someone who inherits a fortune has not provided any net value to society yet.  and just because you amass wealth does not mean you did so by providing any sort of service or value to society.  for example, companies which exist purely to buy up ip and sue other companies for using it.  in fact, one could argue that there are tons of ways to amass wealth which results in a net  negative  value to society.  and this is false too.  rich people are not on average smarter or more competent than poor people.  nor would they choose  better  politicians, rather they would only choose politicians which benefit the rich even if it was at the expense of the poor.   #  if the poor people do not get to vote, the politicians have no need to do anything to help them or even try.   #  but who decides what is  better  ? is  better  that poor people remain oppressed and unable to escape poverty so that rich people can remain rich and keep their money ? is  better  more people having access to healthcare via a universal healthcare system ? is  better  more people relying on more expensive emergency rooms because health insurance is too expensive ? who decides what is  better  ? the problem is that if you cut entire swathes and classes of people out of voting, then you lose their perspective and experiences on what is going on.  if the poor people do not get to vote, the politicians have no need to do anything to help them or even try.   #  if dutton is correct, then your supposed oligarchy would contain a much larger proportion of people that completely lack a sense of empathy.   # do you have any evidence beyond your own experience to support this ? beyond that, a significant portion of the rich are likely emotionally compromised in their own way.  this list of sociopath friendly professions URL comes from psychiatrist kevin dutton, an expert on the relationships between antisocial personality disorders and success.  most of these professions have higher than average annual incomes, making them to an extent rich.  if dutton is correct, then your supposed oligarchy would contain a much larger proportion of people that completely lack a sense of empathy.  i hope i do not need to explain why that is a bad thing.   #  besides the question of fairness, obviously, there would be problems with stability.   #  taxation is far from the only thing a government does.  in your plutocracy, the 0 could vote to send the other 0 to war, or to become indentured servants, etc.  besides the question of fairness, obviously, there would be problems with stability.  that is a big part of the appeal of democracy, and why, when established for some time, democracies are more stable.  if you have a government that the majority finds crappy, there is a least a mechanism to change it.  yes, i know it does not work that well in practice, but it is still better than most .
voting without paying taxes is a conflict of interest.  why should i get a say in how something that i do not pay for is run ? i could just vote myself more and more money without bearing any of the expense.  i lost my job last month and i am on unemployment.  why should i get a say in how much money i get when i am living off the work of others ? this is just like when you are a child.  you do not get to make the rules because you are not paying the rent, and you do not get to set your allowance.  money is a medium of exchange it is received when you provide a good or service of value to someone, and spent when you take a good or service of value from someone else.  therefore the more wealth you accumulate, the more net value you have provided to society.  these people should have more of a say in how our society is run because they have given it the most.  also this would be for the best since rich people are generally smarter and more competent than poor people, and would choose better politicians that do not just appeal to emotion.   #  i lost my job last month and i am on unemployment.   #  why should i get a say in how much money i get when i am living off the work of others ?  # the purpose of voting is to ensure fair representation of the citizens of a society.  you are a citizen, regardless of your employment status.  thus you should be allowed to have a say in how the society is run.  you could.  but just because that is what you voted for, that does not mean that that is what the government  will  do.  they could easily just look at that decision and consider it a non starter.  why should i get a say in how much money i get when i am living off the work of others ? you are exactly the kind of person who  should  have a say in that.  you know better than those who are employed and particularly, more than those with much disposable income how much money you would need at a bare minimum to survive.  if the only people deciding how much money you can get are those with no perspective on what it is like to be unemployed, do you think they will scale welfare in a way that accurately reflects your needs ? you do not get to make the rules because you are not paying the rent, and you do not get to set your allowance.  when you are a child you lack the understanding of the consequences behind certain decisions.  so adults enforce rules for you, and  good  adults eventually teach you to understand those consequences so that when you are eventually older, you  are  in a position to reasonably negotiate rules of that sort.  therefore the more wealth you accumulate, the more net value you have provided to society.  these people should have more of a say in how our society is run because they have given it the most.  not all money is earned honestly.  just look at the recent scandal with the 0 big cancer charities in the us which were shut down because the ceos were effectively living the life of luxury whilst putting a poultry fraction towards the actual cause.  should those kinds of people be in charge solely in virtue of having a greater net monetary worth ? the rich have access to better schools.  but even at that, this does not mean that generally they are  actually  smarter than the poor.  and it most certainly does not mean that they would choose better politicians.  this happens in the us today all the time, does not it ? that is what the whole concept of lobbying is about: certain rich people buying the support of politicians who help their bottom dollar and lean towards policies that do so.   #  if you get more and more money, you eventually have to pay taxes on that money.   # that is not really how it works.  if you get more and more money, you eventually have to pay taxes on that money.  why should i get a say in how much money i get when i am living off the work of others ? do you feel like you are worth less than someone who did not lose their job ? do you feel like you are less intelligent or capable of making good voting decisions than someone who did not lose their job ? more specifically, what prevents the rich from simply voting to reduce the taxes on themselves, eliminate unemployment and let those without money starve ? if only those with money can vote, only those with money get their perspective included in the discussion.  these people should have more of a say in how our society is run because they have given it the most.  this is not necessarily true.  for example, someone who inherits a fortune has not provided any net value to society yet.  and just because you amass wealth does not mean you did so by providing any sort of service or value to society.  for example, companies which exist purely to buy up ip and sue other companies for using it.  in fact, one could argue that there are tons of ways to amass wealth which results in a net  negative  value to society.  and this is false too.  rich people are not on average smarter or more competent than poor people.  nor would they choose  better  politicians, rather they would only choose politicians which benefit the rich even if it was at the expense of the poor.   #  if the poor people do not get to vote, the politicians have no need to do anything to help them or even try.   #  but who decides what is  better  ? is  better  that poor people remain oppressed and unable to escape poverty so that rich people can remain rich and keep their money ? is  better  more people having access to healthcare via a universal healthcare system ? is  better  more people relying on more expensive emergency rooms because health insurance is too expensive ? who decides what is  better  ? the problem is that if you cut entire swathes and classes of people out of voting, then you lose their perspective and experiences on what is going on.  if the poor people do not get to vote, the politicians have no need to do anything to help them or even try.   #  i hope i do not need to explain why that is a bad thing.   # do you have any evidence beyond your own experience to support this ? beyond that, a significant portion of the rich are likely emotionally compromised in their own way.  this list of sociopath friendly professions URL comes from psychiatrist kevin dutton, an expert on the relationships between antisocial personality disorders and success.  most of these professions have higher than average annual incomes, making them to an extent rich.  if dutton is correct, then your supposed oligarchy would contain a much larger proportion of people that completely lack a sense of empathy.  i hope i do not need to explain why that is a bad thing.   #  yes, i know it does not work that well in practice, but it is still better than most .   #  taxation is far from the only thing a government does.  in your plutocracy, the 0 could vote to send the other 0 to war, or to become indentured servants, etc.  besides the question of fairness, obviously, there would be problems with stability.  that is a big part of the appeal of democracy, and why, when established for some time, democracies are more stable.  if you have a government that the majority finds crappy, there is a least a mechanism to change it.  yes, i know it does not work that well in practice, but it is still better than most .
voting without paying taxes is a conflict of interest.  why should i get a say in how something that i do not pay for is run ? i could just vote myself more and more money without bearing any of the expense.  i lost my job last month and i am on unemployment.  why should i get a say in how much money i get when i am living off the work of others ? this is just like when you are a child.  you do not get to make the rules because you are not paying the rent, and you do not get to set your allowance.  money is a medium of exchange it is received when you provide a good or service of value to someone, and spent when you take a good or service of value from someone else.  therefore the more wealth you accumulate, the more net value you have provided to society.  these people should have more of a say in how our society is run because they have given it the most.  also this would be for the best since rich people are generally smarter and more competent than poor people, and would choose better politicians that do not just appeal to emotion.   #  this is just like when you are a child.   #  you do not get to make the rules because you are not paying the rent, and you do not get to set your allowance.   # the purpose of voting is to ensure fair representation of the citizens of a society.  you are a citizen, regardless of your employment status.  thus you should be allowed to have a say in how the society is run.  you could.  but just because that is what you voted for, that does not mean that that is what the government  will  do.  they could easily just look at that decision and consider it a non starter.  why should i get a say in how much money i get when i am living off the work of others ? you are exactly the kind of person who  should  have a say in that.  you know better than those who are employed and particularly, more than those with much disposable income how much money you would need at a bare minimum to survive.  if the only people deciding how much money you can get are those with no perspective on what it is like to be unemployed, do you think they will scale welfare in a way that accurately reflects your needs ? you do not get to make the rules because you are not paying the rent, and you do not get to set your allowance.  when you are a child you lack the understanding of the consequences behind certain decisions.  so adults enforce rules for you, and  good  adults eventually teach you to understand those consequences so that when you are eventually older, you  are  in a position to reasonably negotiate rules of that sort.  therefore the more wealth you accumulate, the more net value you have provided to society.  these people should have more of a say in how our society is run because they have given it the most.  not all money is earned honestly.  just look at the recent scandal with the 0 big cancer charities in the us which were shut down because the ceos were effectively living the life of luxury whilst putting a poultry fraction towards the actual cause.  should those kinds of people be in charge solely in virtue of having a greater net monetary worth ? the rich have access to better schools.  but even at that, this does not mean that generally they are  actually  smarter than the poor.  and it most certainly does not mean that they would choose better politicians.  this happens in the us today all the time, does not it ? that is what the whole concept of lobbying is about: certain rich people buying the support of politicians who help their bottom dollar and lean towards policies that do so.   #  do you feel like you are less intelligent or capable of making good voting decisions than someone who did not lose their job ?  # that is not really how it works.  if you get more and more money, you eventually have to pay taxes on that money.  why should i get a say in how much money i get when i am living off the work of others ? do you feel like you are worth less than someone who did not lose their job ? do you feel like you are less intelligent or capable of making good voting decisions than someone who did not lose their job ? more specifically, what prevents the rich from simply voting to reduce the taxes on themselves, eliminate unemployment and let those without money starve ? if only those with money can vote, only those with money get their perspective included in the discussion.  these people should have more of a say in how our society is run because they have given it the most.  this is not necessarily true.  for example, someone who inherits a fortune has not provided any net value to society yet.  and just because you amass wealth does not mean you did so by providing any sort of service or value to society.  for example, companies which exist purely to buy up ip and sue other companies for using it.  in fact, one could argue that there are tons of ways to amass wealth which results in a net  negative  value to society.  and this is false too.  rich people are not on average smarter or more competent than poor people.  nor would they choose  better  politicians, rather they would only choose politicians which benefit the rich even if it was at the expense of the poor.   #  is  better  more people having access to healthcare via a universal healthcare system ?  #  but who decides what is  better  ? is  better  that poor people remain oppressed and unable to escape poverty so that rich people can remain rich and keep their money ? is  better  more people having access to healthcare via a universal healthcare system ? is  better  more people relying on more expensive emergency rooms because health insurance is too expensive ? who decides what is  better  ? the problem is that if you cut entire swathes and classes of people out of voting, then you lose their perspective and experiences on what is going on.  if the poor people do not get to vote, the politicians have no need to do anything to help them or even try.   #  most of these professions have higher than average annual incomes, making them to an extent rich.   # do you have any evidence beyond your own experience to support this ? beyond that, a significant portion of the rich are likely emotionally compromised in their own way.  this list of sociopath friendly professions URL comes from psychiatrist kevin dutton, an expert on the relationships between antisocial personality disorders and success.  most of these professions have higher than average annual incomes, making them to an extent rich.  if dutton is correct, then your supposed oligarchy would contain a much larger proportion of people that completely lack a sense of empathy.  i hope i do not need to explain why that is a bad thing.   #  if you have a government that the majority finds crappy, there is a least a mechanism to change it.   #  taxation is far from the only thing a government does.  in your plutocracy, the 0 could vote to send the other 0 to war, or to become indentured servants, etc.  besides the question of fairness, obviously, there would be problems with stability.  that is a big part of the appeal of democracy, and why, when established for some time, democracies are more stable.  if you have a government that the majority finds crappy, there is a least a mechanism to change it.  yes, i know it does not work that well in practice, but it is still better than most .
voting without paying taxes is a conflict of interest.  why should i get a say in how something that i do not pay for is run ? i could just vote myself more and more money without bearing any of the expense.  i lost my job last month and i am on unemployment.  why should i get a say in how much money i get when i am living off the work of others ? this is just like when you are a child.  you do not get to make the rules because you are not paying the rent, and you do not get to set your allowance.  money is a medium of exchange it is received when you provide a good or service of value to someone, and spent when you take a good or service of value from someone else.  therefore the more wealth you accumulate, the more net value you have provided to society.  these people should have more of a say in how our society is run because they have given it the most.  also this would be for the best since rich people are generally smarter and more competent than poor people, and would choose better politicians that do not just appeal to emotion.   #  money is a medium of exchange it is received when you provide a good or service of value to someone, and spent when you take a good or service of value from someone else.   #  therefore the more wealth you accumulate, the more net value you have provided to society.   # the purpose of voting is to ensure fair representation of the citizens of a society.  you are a citizen, regardless of your employment status.  thus you should be allowed to have a say in how the society is run.  you could.  but just because that is what you voted for, that does not mean that that is what the government  will  do.  they could easily just look at that decision and consider it a non starter.  why should i get a say in how much money i get when i am living off the work of others ? you are exactly the kind of person who  should  have a say in that.  you know better than those who are employed and particularly, more than those with much disposable income how much money you would need at a bare minimum to survive.  if the only people deciding how much money you can get are those with no perspective on what it is like to be unemployed, do you think they will scale welfare in a way that accurately reflects your needs ? you do not get to make the rules because you are not paying the rent, and you do not get to set your allowance.  when you are a child you lack the understanding of the consequences behind certain decisions.  so adults enforce rules for you, and  good  adults eventually teach you to understand those consequences so that when you are eventually older, you  are  in a position to reasonably negotiate rules of that sort.  therefore the more wealth you accumulate, the more net value you have provided to society.  these people should have more of a say in how our society is run because they have given it the most.  not all money is earned honestly.  just look at the recent scandal with the 0 big cancer charities in the us which were shut down because the ceos were effectively living the life of luxury whilst putting a poultry fraction towards the actual cause.  should those kinds of people be in charge solely in virtue of having a greater net monetary worth ? the rich have access to better schools.  but even at that, this does not mean that generally they are  actually  smarter than the poor.  and it most certainly does not mean that they would choose better politicians.  this happens in the us today all the time, does not it ? that is what the whole concept of lobbying is about: certain rich people buying the support of politicians who help their bottom dollar and lean towards policies that do so.   #  and just because you amass wealth does not mean you did so by providing any sort of service or value to society.   # that is not really how it works.  if you get more and more money, you eventually have to pay taxes on that money.  why should i get a say in how much money i get when i am living off the work of others ? do you feel like you are worth less than someone who did not lose their job ? do you feel like you are less intelligent or capable of making good voting decisions than someone who did not lose their job ? more specifically, what prevents the rich from simply voting to reduce the taxes on themselves, eliminate unemployment and let those without money starve ? if only those with money can vote, only those with money get their perspective included in the discussion.  these people should have more of a say in how our society is run because they have given it the most.  this is not necessarily true.  for example, someone who inherits a fortune has not provided any net value to society yet.  and just because you amass wealth does not mean you did so by providing any sort of service or value to society.  for example, companies which exist purely to buy up ip and sue other companies for using it.  in fact, one could argue that there are tons of ways to amass wealth which results in a net  negative  value to society.  and this is false too.  rich people are not on average smarter or more competent than poor people.  nor would they choose  better  politicians, rather they would only choose politicians which benefit the rich even if it was at the expense of the poor.   #  is  better  that poor people remain oppressed and unable to escape poverty so that rich people can remain rich and keep their money ?  #  but who decides what is  better  ? is  better  that poor people remain oppressed and unable to escape poverty so that rich people can remain rich and keep their money ? is  better  more people having access to healthcare via a universal healthcare system ? is  better  more people relying on more expensive emergency rooms because health insurance is too expensive ? who decides what is  better  ? the problem is that if you cut entire swathes and classes of people out of voting, then you lose their perspective and experiences on what is going on.  if the poor people do not get to vote, the politicians have no need to do anything to help them or even try.   #  i hope i do not need to explain why that is a bad thing.   # do you have any evidence beyond your own experience to support this ? beyond that, a significant portion of the rich are likely emotionally compromised in their own way.  this list of sociopath friendly professions URL comes from psychiatrist kevin dutton, an expert on the relationships between antisocial personality disorders and success.  most of these professions have higher than average annual incomes, making them to an extent rich.  if dutton is correct, then your supposed oligarchy would contain a much larger proportion of people that completely lack a sense of empathy.  i hope i do not need to explain why that is a bad thing.   #  besides the question of fairness, obviously, there would be problems with stability.   #  taxation is far from the only thing a government does.  in your plutocracy, the 0 could vote to send the other 0 to war, or to become indentured servants, etc.  besides the question of fairness, obviously, there would be problems with stability.  that is a big part of the appeal of democracy, and why, when established for some time, democracies are more stable.  if you have a government that the majority finds crappy, there is a least a mechanism to change it.  yes, i know it does not work that well in practice, but it is still better than most .
voting without paying taxes is a conflict of interest.  why should i get a say in how something that i do not pay for is run ? i could just vote myself more and more money without bearing any of the expense.  i lost my job last month and i am on unemployment.  why should i get a say in how much money i get when i am living off the work of others ? this is just like when you are a child.  you do not get to make the rules because you are not paying the rent, and you do not get to set your allowance.  money is a medium of exchange it is received when you provide a good or service of value to someone, and spent when you take a good or service of value from someone else.  therefore the more wealth you accumulate, the more net value you have provided to society.  these people should have more of a say in how our society is run because they have given it the most.  also this would be for the best since rich people are generally smarter and more competent than poor people, and would choose better politicians that do not just appeal to emotion.   #  also this would be for the best since rich people are generally smarter and more competent than poor people, and would choose better politicians that do not just appeal to emotion.   #  the rich have access to better schools.   # the purpose of voting is to ensure fair representation of the citizens of a society.  you are a citizen, regardless of your employment status.  thus you should be allowed to have a say in how the society is run.  you could.  but just because that is what you voted for, that does not mean that that is what the government  will  do.  they could easily just look at that decision and consider it a non starter.  why should i get a say in how much money i get when i am living off the work of others ? you are exactly the kind of person who  should  have a say in that.  you know better than those who are employed and particularly, more than those with much disposable income how much money you would need at a bare minimum to survive.  if the only people deciding how much money you can get are those with no perspective on what it is like to be unemployed, do you think they will scale welfare in a way that accurately reflects your needs ? you do not get to make the rules because you are not paying the rent, and you do not get to set your allowance.  when you are a child you lack the understanding of the consequences behind certain decisions.  so adults enforce rules for you, and  good  adults eventually teach you to understand those consequences so that when you are eventually older, you  are  in a position to reasonably negotiate rules of that sort.  therefore the more wealth you accumulate, the more net value you have provided to society.  these people should have more of a say in how our society is run because they have given it the most.  not all money is earned honestly.  just look at the recent scandal with the 0 big cancer charities in the us which were shut down because the ceos were effectively living the life of luxury whilst putting a poultry fraction towards the actual cause.  should those kinds of people be in charge solely in virtue of having a greater net monetary worth ? the rich have access to better schools.  but even at that, this does not mean that generally they are  actually  smarter than the poor.  and it most certainly does not mean that they would choose better politicians.  this happens in the us today all the time, does not it ? that is what the whole concept of lobbying is about: certain rich people buying the support of politicians who help their bottom dollar and lean towards policies that do so.   #  in fact, one could argue that there are tons of ways to amass wealth which results in a net  negative  value to society.   # that is not really how it works.  if you get more and more money, you eventually have to pay taxes on that money.  why should i get a say in how much money i get when i am living off the work of others ? do you feel like you are worth less than someone who did not lose their job ? do you feel like you are less intelligent or capable of making good voting decisions than someone who did not lose their job ? more specifically, what prevents the rich from simply voting to reduce the taxes on themselves, eliminate unemployment and let those without money starve ? if only those with money can vote, only those with money get their perspective included in the discussion.  these people should have more of a say in how our society is run because they have given it the most.  this is not necessarily true.  for example, someone who inherits a fortune has not provided any net value to society yet.  and just because you amass wealth does not mean you did so by providing any sort of service or value to society.  for example, companies which exist purely to buy up ip and sue other companies for using it.  in fact, one could argue that there are tons of ways to amass wealth which results in a net  negative  value to society.  and this is false too.  rich people are not on average smarter or more competent than poor people.  nor would they choose  better  politicians, rather they would only choose politicians which benefit the rich even if it was at the expense of the poor.   #  is  better  more people having access to healthcare via a universal healthcare system ?  #  but who decides what is  better  ? is  better  that poor people remain oppressed and unable to escape poverty so that rich people can remain rich and keep their money ? is  better  more people having access to healthcare via a universal healthcare system ? is  better  more people relying on more expensive emergency rooms because health insurance is too expensive ? who decides what is  better  ? the problem is that if you cut entire swathes and classes of people out of voting, then you lose their perspective and experiences on what is going on.  if the poor people do not get to vote, the politicians have no need to do anything to help them or even try.   #  beyond that, a significant portion of the rich are likely emotionally compromised in their own way.   # do you have any evidence beyond your own experience to support this ? beyond that, a significant portion of the rich are likely emotionally compromised in their own way.  this list of sociopath friendly professions URL comes from psychiatrist kevin dutton, an expert on the relationships between antisocial personality disorders and success.  most of these professions have higher than average annual incomes, making them to an extent rich.  if dutton is correct, then your supposed oligarchy would contain a much larger proportion of people that completely lack a sense of empathy.  i hope i do not need to explain why that is a bad thing.   #  in your plutocracy, the 0 could vote to send the other 0 to war, or to become indentured servants, etc.   #  taxation is far from the only thing a government does.  in your plutocracy, the 0 could vote to send the other 0 to war, or to become indentured servants, etc.  besides the question of fairness, obviously, there would be problems with stability.  that is a big part of the appeal of democracy, and why, when established for some time, democracies are more stable.  if you have a government that the majority finds crappy, there is a least a mechanism to change it.  yes, i know it does not work that well in practice, but it is still better than most .
voting without paying taxes is a conflict of interest.  why should i get a say in how something that i do not pay for is run ? i could just vote myself more and more money without bearing any of the expense.  i lost my job last month and i am on unemployment.  why should i get a say in how much money i get when i am living off the work of others ? this is just like when you are a child.  you do not get to make the rules because you are not paying the rent, and you do not get to set your allowance.  money is a medium of exchange it is received when you provide a good or service of value to someone, and spent when you take a good or service of value from someone else.  therefore the more wealth you accumulate, the more net value you have provided to society.  these people should have more of a say in how our society is run because they have given it the most.  also this would be for the best since rich people are generally smarter and more competent than poor people, and would choose better politicians that do not just appeal to emotion.   #  therefore the more wealth you accumulate, the more net value you have provided to society.   #  these people should have more of a say in how our society is run because they have given it the most.   #  our society is already run by rich people, and their interests are destroying the earths ability to sustain life.  these people should have more of a say in how our society is run because they have given it the most.  this is laughably false.  the wealth you accumulate is more a metric of how few fucks you give about others than it is about how much value you provide to society.  what a ridiculous idea ! monopolies are in no ones interest but the monopolizer, and monopolizing a market is how you make real bones ! actually they are more likely to choose politicians who will further their own interests.   #  and just because you amass wealth does not mean you did so by providing any sort of service or value to society.   # that is not really how it works.  if you get more and more money, you eventually have to pay taxes on that money.  why should i get a say in how much money i get when i am living off the work of others ? do you feel like you are worth less than someone who did not lose their job ? do you feel like you are less intelligent or capable of making good voting decisions than someone who did not lose their job ? more specifically, what prevents the rich from simply voting to reduce the taxes on themselves, eliminate unemployment and let those without money starve ? if only those with money can vote, only those with money get their perspective included in the discussion.  these people should have more of a say in how our society is run because they have given it the most.  this is not necessarily true.  for example, someone who inherits a fortune has not provided any net value to society yet.  and just because you amass wealth does not mean you did so by providing any sort of service or value to society.  for example, companies which exist purely to buy up ip and sue other companies for using it.  in fact, one could argue that there are tons of ways to amass wealth which results in a net  negative  value to society.  and this is false too.  rich people are not on average smarter or more competent than poor people.  nor would they choose  better  politicians, rather they would only choose politicians which benefit the rich even if it was at the expense of the poor.   #  the problem is that if you cut entire swathes and classes of people out of voting, then you lose their perspective and experiences on what is going on.   #  but who decides what is  better  ? is  better  that poor people remain oppressed and unable to escape poverty so that rich people can remain rich and keep their money ? is  better  more people having access to healthcare via a universal healthcare system ? is  better  more people relying on more expensive emergency rooms because health insurance is too expensive ? who decides what is  better  ? the problem is that if you cut entire swathes and classes of people out of voting, then you lose their perspective and experiences on what is going on.  if the poor people do not get to vote, the politicians have no need to do anything to help them or even try.   #  do you have any evidence beyond your own experience to support this ?  # do you have any evidence beyond your own experience to support this ? beyond that, a significant portion of the rich are likely emotionally compromised in their own way.  this list of sociopath friendly professions URL comes from psychiatrist kevin dutton, an expert on the relationships between antisocial personality disorders and success.  most of these professions have higher than average annual incomes, making them to an extent rich.  if dutton is correct, then your supposed oligarchy would contain a much larger proportion of people that completely lack a sense of empathy.  i hope i do not need to explain why that is a bad thing.   #  yes, i know it does not work that well in practice, but it is still better than most .   #  taxation is far from the only thing a government does.  in your plutocracy, the 0 could vote to send the other 0 to war, or to become indentured servants, etc.  besides the question of fairness, obviously, there would be problems with stability.  that is a big part of the appeal of democracy, and why, when established for some time, democracies are more stable.  if you have a government that the majority finds crappy, there is a least a mechanism to change it.  yes, i know it does not work that well in practice, but it is still better than most .
voting without paying taxes is a conflict of interest.  why should i get a say in how something that i do not pay for is run ? i could just vote myself more and more money without bearing any of the expense.  i lost my job last month and i am on unemployment.  why should i get a say in how much money i get when i am living off the work of others ? this is just like when you are a child.  you do not get to make the rules because you are not paying the rent, and you do not get to set your allowance.  money is a medium of exchange it is received when you provide a good or service of value to someone, and spent when you take a good or service of value from someone else.  therefore the more wealth you accumulate, the more net value you have provided to society.  these people should have more of a say in how our society is run because they have given it the most.  also this would be for the best since rich people are generally smarter and more competent than poor people, and would choose better politicians that do not just appeal to emotion.   #  also this would be for the best since rich people are generally smarter and more competent than poor people, and would choose better politicians that do not just appeal to emotion.   #  actually they are more likely to choose politicians who will further their own interests.   #  our society is already run by rich people, and their interests are destroying the earths ability to sustain life.  these people should have more of a say in how our society is run because they have given it the most.  this is laughably false.  the wealth you accumulate is more a metric of how few fucks you give about others than it is about how much value you provide to society.  what a ridiculous idea ! monopolies are in no ones interest but the monopolizer, and monopolizing a market is how you make real bones ! actually they are more likely to choose politicians who will further their own interests.   #  if you get more and more money, you eventually have to pay taxes on that money.   # that is not really how it works.  if you get more and more money, you eventually have to pay taxes on that money.  why should i get a say in how much money i get when i am living off the work of others ? do you feel like you are worth less than someone who did not lose their job ? do you feel like you are less intelligent or capable of making good voting decisions than someone who did not lose their job ? more specifically, what prevents the rich from simply voting to reduce the taxes on themselves, eliminate unemployment and let those without money starve ? if only those with money can vote, only those with money get their perspective included in the discussion.  these people should have more of a say in how our society is run because they have given it the most.  this is not necessarily true.  for example, someone who inherits a fortune has not provided any net value to society yet.  and just because you amass wealth does not mean you did so by providing any sort of service or value to society.  for example, companies which exist purely to buy up ip and sue other companies for using it.  in fact, one could argue that there are tons of ways to amass wealth which results in a net  negative  value to society.  and this is false too.  rich people are not on average smarter or more competent than poor people.  nor would they choose  better  politicians, rather they would only choose politicians which benefit the rich even if it was at the expense of the poor.   #  if the poor people do not get to vote, the politicians have no need to do anything to help them or even try.   #  but who decides what is  better  ? is  better  that poor people remain oppressed and unable to escape poverty so that rich people can remain rich and keep their money ? is  better  more people having access to healthcare via a universal healthcare system ? is  better  more people relying on more expensive emergency rooms because health insurance is too expensive ? who decides what is  better  ? the problem is that if you cut entire swathes and classes of people out of voting, then you lose their perspective and experiences on what is going on.  if the poor people do not get to vote, the politicians have no need to do anything to help them or even try.   #  if dutton is correct, then your supposed oligarchy would contain a much larger proportion of people that completely lack a sense of empathy.   # do you have any evidence beyond your own experience to support this ? beyond that, a significant portion of the rich are likely emotionally compromised in their own way.  this list of sociopath friendly professions URL comes from psychiatrist kevin dutton, an expert on the relationships between antisocial personality disorders and success.  most of these professions have higher than average annual incomes, making them to an extent rich.  if dutton is correct, then your supposed oligarchy would contain a much larger proportion of people that completely lack a sense of empathy.  i hope i do not need to explain why that is a bad thing.   #  besides the question of fairness, obviously, there would be problems with stability.   #  taxation is far from the only thing a government does.  in your plutocracy, the 0 could vote to send the other 0 to war, or to become indentured servants, etc.  besides the question of fairness, obviously, there would be problems with stability.  that is a big part of the appeal of democracy, and why, when established for some time, democracies are more stable.  if you have a government that the majority finds crappy, there is a least a mechanism to change it.  yes, i know it does not work that well in practice, but it is still better than most .
please leave the footnote below the following line, but remember to delete this sentence by replacing it with the body of your post.  thank you ! in light of the recent new york prison break, i do not get why prisoners should have the perks of being able to have sexual relationships with anyone whether employees or visitors let alone talk to them, espcially murderers and rapists.  yet i hear many get married and give birth to children which is wtf to me.  i ca not think how healthy this would be for the children is childhood and support.  these guys are in prison for a reason and to get punished by isolating them from the outside world, and they do not deserve these outside relationships with the exception of the occasional prison visits behind a glass window.  i have no sympathy for them, would this be wrong ?  #  i have no sympathy for them, would this be wrong ?  #  this is not wrong so much as it is not even wrong.   #  if being allowed to maintain intimate relationships results in better adjusted people coming out of prison, would you still be against it ? this is not wrong so much as it is not even wrong.  the problem is not whether or not you are correct in your lack of sympathy, it is that you are appealing to personal apathy in the first place.  not caring is the easiest thing in the world, but it does not actually prove anything beyond a personal capacity not to care.  if the basis for your position is simply that you do not feel sympathy, then there is no way to even meaningfully interact with it.   #  social interaction is not a  perk , it is part of the human condition.   # because they are still human and they require positive social interaction to function.  social interaction is not a  perk , it is part of the human condition.  preventing it would qualify as cruel and unusual punishment.  it is a need just as much as eating is.  even more so when you are eventually going to let them out, at which point having outside world contact will be crucial to reinsertion.  breaking up families or preventing people from forming positive relationships because  prison  is not going to help  anyone , including society at large.  yes and yes.  as i have said above, we intend to release these people therefor we should strive to rehabilitate them.  that means, amongst other things, not preventing them from seeing their families or even building new one.  as for empathy, i find the idea of  having no empathy  for a very large group of people you do not know in the least a bit troubling.  however, if you do not do it for them, do it for you.  enabling them to pursue, build and maintain positive relationships is extremely important to their rehabilitation.   #  that is why i put the emphasis on  positive  relationships and interactions, i do not think guards and other prisoners necessarily qualify.   #  that is why i put the emphasis on  positive  relationships and interactions, i do not think guards and other prisoners necessarily qualify.  especially if you are enforcing such measures, which will only breed contempt and despair.  additionally, these relations wo not help anyone on the outside.  even in the case of lifers, contact with the outside world will still be extremely positive for both the inmate and society.  healthy and psychologically stable prisoners are safer to work around for cos for instance.  that is even more true if they get something to hope for.  meaning, in a more twisted way, that visitations can constitute excellent leverage.   #  i guess i do not understand your principle here.   #  i find it interesting that you define having sex as a  perk .  it is literally one of the most basic and foundational human impulses.  it could not be more primal.  how is it a perk ? it is not like the state is giving them sex it is not hiring prostitutes.  the state is simply not  preventing  sex among consenting partners.  i guess i do not understand your principle here.  you seem to be saying  these people are criminals, and i have no sympathy for them, therefor they should not be entitled to x.   what is the universe of things which qualify as  x  ? you seem think  sex  qualifies.  how about food ? shelter ? sleep ? or do you think literally every person who commits a crime should be deprived of everything ?  #  we can, for example, feed prisoners with tastless nurtrient drinks and vitamin supplements.   #  shelter is not a necessity.  assuming they live in climate where it is not freezing or boiling, are you opposed to having prisoners just kept in open air pens, like swine ? what is the state providing roofs and walls, under your view ? similarly with food, there is no biological  necessity  to have food delivered in a specific way.  we can, for example, feed prisoners with tastless nurtrient drinks and vitamin supplements.  do you think we should do that ? why do prisoners deserve to have the  perks  of food which has taste ? those are serious questions, i am trying to figure our your standards.
i have recently realized that plain soda seltzer is superior to all other sodas.  0.  no health risks ! no sugar, no weird sugar substitutes.  0.  great flavor ! you get the popping sensation from the bubbles, and the carbonic acid generated by co0 dissolved in water provides great slightly sour/bitter flavor.  0.  because the flavor is unobtrusive, you can drink seltzer all day without getting tired of it.  in fact you can replace all water you drink with seltzer, something you ca not do with any other soda.  0.  seltzer tends to be cheaper than other sodas.  so go ahead, cmv, what soda should i be drinking instead ?  #  because the flavor is unobtrusive, you can drink seltzer all day without getting tired of it.   #  in fact you can replace all water you drink with seltzer, something you ca not do with any other soda.   # you get the popping sensation from the bubbles, and the carbonic acid generated by co0 dissolved in water provides great slightly sour/bitter flavor.  no.  i can not stand the taste of selter, and can barely drink the stuff.  that  islightly sour/bitter flavor  is extremely pronounced for me, and combined with a rather strong gag reflex means i can barely swallow it.  peoples tastes are different and there is not anything that everyone likes the flavor of.  in fact you can replace all water you drink with seltzer, something you ca not do with any other soda.  this is separate from my other point.  some people like me need a drink to have a flavor if they are going to enjoy drinking it all day.  i have been limited to just water for some periods of time, i ended up going thirsty at times because i  needed  an obtrusive flavor in order to enjoy my drink.  on the other hand, i bought a box of sprite, and was satisfied drinking that over a long period of time.  none, if your going to bother buy some sparking juice, that way your at least getting some nutrients from your drink.   #  but for me, i enjoy diet coke, which is a little more expensive, but i am okay with that because the taste is worth the price to me.   #  i do not think it is possible to change your view because it is based on subjective reasoning.  if you like the taste and do not get tired of it, great.  but for me, i enjoy diet coke, which is a little more expensive, but i am okay with that because the taste is worth the price to me.  taste is not really quantifiable therefore the monetary value of taste is subjective.  i will say this, to my knowledge, despite countless studies about aspartame specifically, no health risks have been discovered.  i have also heard that drinking too much soda or tea or other beverages can give you kidney stones and it seems like seltzer would be no exception.   #  but it is  unknown unknown  that i am  slightly  worried about.   #  i actually like diet coke.  i would drink one or two from time to time.  but can you really, drink diet coke all day every day ? for one the taste, while good, will get overwhelming by 0th or 0th glass of the day.  also caffeine, would drive me bonkers.  so i still think seltzer is superior.  i agree, no such studies exist.  but it is  unknown unknown  that i am  slightly  worried about.  aspartame is complex chemical with man metabolites, not perfectly understood.  so while i am not  that  worried, it is still slight ding against it.  for example: URL  i have also heard that drinking too much soda or tea or other beverages can give you kidney stones and it seems like seltzer would be no exception.  i think there no studies that support this kind like for aspartame .   #  but even that is not an argument for seltzer because caffeine free diet coke exists.   # for one the taste, while good, will get overwhelming by 0th or 0th glass of the day.  i absolutely could, and did every day, in large quantities.  i scaled back recently after being sick for unrelated reasons the carbonation upset my stomach, which would also be an issue with seltzer, and after i got better i switched from fountain sodas to cans and bottles , but i still have no trouble finishing off a large diet cole with no ice.  additionally, the caffeine never bothered me.  i built up a tolerance.  now that i have scaled back it affects me much more, which is good for when i need it.  but even that is not an argument for seltzer because caffeine free diet coke exists.  the unknown unknowns argument just is not very compelling to me.  you could easily make the same argument about whatever chemicals are used in seltzer and there are almost certainly some to ensure it does not go flat right away , since there have probably actually been fewer studies proving them safe due to the lack of public health concern.   #  yes, the advantages you name are true for some, but obviously not for all.   # you get the popping sensation from the bubbles, and the carbonic acid generated by co0 dissolved in water provides great slightly sour/bitter flavor.  in fact you can replace all water you drink with seltzer, something you ca not do with any other soda.  these are not substantiated in fact, just in your own personal experience.  i ca not argue that  you  find seltzer water to have a  great flavor  or that  you  can drink seltzer all day without getting tired of it.  cmvs like this are rather pointless, i think.  yes, the advantages you name are true for some, but obviously not for all.  it is equally reasonable for someone to prefer the taste of coke so much that they are willing to take the minor health risk and financial burden in comparison to a can of seltzer.
i have recently realized that plain soda seltzer is superior to all other sodas.  0.  no health risks ! no sugar, no weird sugar substitutes.  0.  great flavor ! you get the popping sensation from the bubbles, and the carbonic acid generated by co0 dissolved in water provides great slightly sour/bitter flavor.  0.  because the flavor is unobtrusive, you can drink seltzer all day without getting tired of it.  in fact you can replace all water you drink with seltzer, something you ca not do with any other soda.  0.  seltzer tends to be cheaper than other sodas.  so go ahead, cmv, what soda should i be drinking instead ?  #  cmv, what soda should i be drinking instead ?  #  none, if your going to bother buy some sparking juice, that way your at least getting some nutrients from your drink.   # you get the popping sensation from the bubbles, and the carbonic acid generated by co0 dissolved in water provides great slightly sour/bitter flavor.  no.  i can not stand the taste of selter, and can barely drink the stuff.  that  islightly sour/bitter flavor  is extremely pronounced for me, and combined with a rather strong gag reflex means i can barely swallow it.  peoples tastes are different and there is not anything that everyone likes the flavor of.  in fact you can replace all water you drink with seltzer, something you ca not do with any other soda.  this is separate from my other point.  some people like me need a drink to have a flavor if they are going to enjoy drinking it all day.  i have been limited to just water for some periods of time, i ended up going thirsty at times because i  needed  an obtrusive flavor in order to enjoy my drink.  on the other hand, i bought a box of sprite, and was satisfied drinking that over a long period of time.  none, if your going to bother buy some sparking juice, that way your at least getting some nutrients from your drink.   #  i do not think it is possible to change your view because it is based on subjective reasoning.   #  i do not think it is possible to change your view because it is based on subjective reasoning.  if you like the taste and do not get tired of it, great.  but for me, i enjoy diet coke, which is a little more expensive, but i am okay with that because the taste is worth the price to me.  taste is not really quantifiable therefore the monetary value of taste is subjective.  i will say this, to my knowledge, despite countless studies about aspartame specifically, no health risks have been discovered.  i have also heard that drinking too much soda or tea or other beverages can give you kidney stones and it seems like seltzer would be no exception.   #  aspartame is complex chemical with man metabolites, not perfectly understood.   #  i actually like diet coke.  i would drink one or two from time to time.  but can you really, drink diet coke all day every day ? for one the taste, while good, will get overwhelming by 0th or 0th glass of the day.  also caffeine, would drive me bonkers.  so i still think seltzer is superior.  i agree, no such studies exist.  but it is  unknown unknown  that i am  slightly  worried about.  aspartame is complex chemical with man metabolites, not perfectly understood.  so while i am not  that  worried, it is still slight ding against it.  for example: URL  i have also heard that drinking too much soda or tea or other beverages can give you kidney stones and it seems like seltzer would be no exception.  i think there no studies that support this kind like for aspartame .   #  for one the taste, while good, will get overwhelming by 0th or 0th glass of the day.   # for one the taste, while good, will get overwhelming by 0th or 0th glass of the day.  i absolutely could, and did every day, in large quantities.  i scaled back recently after being sick for unrelated reasons the carbonation upset my stomach, which would also be an issue with seltzer, and after i got better i switched from fountain sodas to cans and bottles , but i still have no trouble finishing off a large diet cole with no ice.  additionally, the caffeine never bothered me.  i built up a tolerance.  now that i have scaled back it affects me much more, which is good for when i need it.  but even that is not an argument for seltzer because caffeine free diet coke exists.  the unknown unknowns argument just is not very compelling to me.  you could easily make the same argument about whatever chemicals are used in seltzer and there are almost certainly some to ensure it does not go flat right away , since there have probably actually been fewer studies proving them safe due to the lack of public health concern.   #  in fact you can replace all water you drink with seltzer, something you ca not do with any other soda.   # you get the popping sensation from the bubbles, and the carbonic acid generated by co0 dissolved in water provides great slightly sour/bitter flavor.  in fact you can replace all water you drink with seltzer, something you ca not do with any other soda.  these are not substantiated in fact, just in your own personal experience.  i ca not argue that  you  find seltzer water to have a  great flavor  or that  you  can drink seltzer all day without getting tired of it.  cmvs like this are rather pointless, i think.  yes, the advantages you name are true for some, but obviously not for all.  it is equally reasonable for someone to prefer the taste of coke so much that they are willing to take the minor health risk and financial burden in comparison to a can of seltzer.
i have recently realized that plain soda seltzer is superior to all other sodas.  0.  no health risks ! no sugar, no weird sugar substitutes.  0.  great flavor ! you get the popping sensation from the bubbles, and the carbonic acid generated by co0 dissolved in water provides great slightly sour/bitter flavor.  0.  because the flavor is unobtrusive, you can drink seltzer all day without getting tired of it.  in fact you can replace all water you drink with seltzer, something you ca not do with any other soda.  0.  seltzer tends to be cheaper than other sodas.  so go ahead, cmv, what soda should i be drinking instead ?  #  because the flavor is unobtrusive, you can drink seltzer all day without getting tired of it.   #  in fact you can replace all water you drink with seltzer, something you ca not do with any other soda.   # you get the popping sensation from the bubbles, and the carbonic acid generated by co0 dissolved in water provides great slightly sour/bitter flavor.  in fact you can replace all water you drink with seltzer, something you ca not do with any other soda.  these are not substantiated in fact, just in your own personal experience.  i ca not argue that  you  find seltzer water to have a  great flavor  or that  you  can drink seltzer all day without getting tired of it.  cmvs like this are rather pointless, i think.  yes, the advantages you name are true for some, but obviously not for all.  it is equally reasonable for someone to prefer the taste of coke so much that they are willing to take the minor health risk and financial burden in comparison to a can of seltzer.   #  i will say this, to my knowledge, despite countless studies about aspartame specifically, no health risks have been discovered.   #  i do not think it is possible to change your view because it is based on subjective reasoning.  if you like the taste and do not get tired of it, great.  but for me, i enjoy diet coke, which is a little more expensive, but i am okay with that because the taste is worth the price to me.  taste is not really quantifiable therefore the monetary value of taste is subjective.  i will say this, to my knowledge, despite countless studies about aspartame specifically, no health risks have been discovered.  i have also heard that drinking too much soda or tea or other beverages can give you kidney stones and it seems like seltzer would be no exception.   #  i would drink one or two from time to time.   #  i actually like diet coke.  i would drink one or two from time to time.  but can you really, drink diet coke all day every day ? for one the taste, while good, will get overwhelming by 0th or 0th glass of the day.  also caffeine, would drive me bonkers.  so i still think seltzer is superior.  i agree, no such studies exist.  but it is  unknown unknown  that i am  slightly  worried about.  aspartame is complex chemical with man metabolites, not perfectly understood.  so while i am not  that  worried, it is still slight ding against it.  for example: URL  i have also heard that drinking too much soda or tea or other beverages can give you kidney stones and it seems like seltzer would be no exception.  i think there no studies that support this kind like for aspartame .   #  for one the taste, while good, will get overwhelming by 0th or 0th glass of the day.   # for one the taste, while good, will get overwhelming by 0th or 0th glass of the day.  i absolutely could, and did every day, in large quantities.  i scaled back recently after being sick for unrelated reasons the carbonation upset my stomach, which would also be an issue with seltzer, and after i got better i switched from fountain sodas to cans and bottles , but i still have no trouble finishing off a large diet cole with no ice.  additionally, the caffeine never bothered me.  i built up a tolerance.  now that i have scaled back it affects me much more, which is good for when i need it.  but even that is not an argument for seltzer because caffeine free diet coke exists.  the unknown unknowns argument just is not very compelling to me.  you could easily make the same argument about whatever chemicals are used in seltzer and there are almost certainly some to ensure it does not go flat right away , since there have probably actually been fewer studies proving them safe due to the lack of public health concern.   #  i have been limited to just water for some periods of time, i ended up going thirsty at times because i  needed  an obtrusive flavor in order to enjoy my drink.   # you get the popping sensation from the bubbles, and the carbonic acid generated by co0 dissolved in water provides great slightly sour/bitter flavor.  no.  i can not stand the taste of selter, and can barely drink the stuff.  that  islightly sour/bitter flavor  is extremely pronounced for me, and combined with a rather strong gag reflex means i can barely swallow it.  peoples tastes are different and there is not anything that everyone likes the flavor of.  in fact you can replace all water you drink with seltzer, something you ca not do with any other soda.  this is separate from my other point.  some people like me need a drink to have a flavor if they are going to enjoy drinking it all day.  i have been limited to just water for some periods of time, i ended up going thirsty at times because i  needed  an obtrusive flavor in order to enjoy my drink.  on the other hand, i bought a box of sprite, and was satisfied drinking that over a long period of time.  none, if your going to bother buy some sparking juice, that way your at least getting some nutrients from your drink.
i have recently realized that plain soda seltzer is superior to all other sodas.  0.  no health risks ! no sugar, no weird sugar substitutes.  0.  great flavor ! you get the popping sensation from the bubbles, and the carbonic acid generated by co0 dissolved in water provides great slightly sour/bitter flavor.  0.  because the flavor is unobtrusive, you can drink seltzer all day without getting tired of it.  in fact you can replace all water you drink with seltzer, something you ca not do with any other soda.  0.  seltzer tends to be cheaper than other sodas.  so go ahead, cmv, what soda should i be drinking instead ?  #  because the flavor is unobtrusive, you can drink seltzer all day without getting tired of it.   #  in fact you can replace all water you drink with seltzer, something you ca not do with any other soda.   # you get the popping sensation from the bubbles, and the carbonic acid generated by co0 dissolved in water provides great slightly sour/bitter flavor.  no.  no no no no no no no no no.  seltzer tastes like distilled essence of nasty.  that bitter flavor is not  slight , and  bitter  is not usually used as a positive descriptor.  in fact you can replace all water you drink with seltzer, something you ca not do with any other soda.  i get tired of it on the first sip.  bleck.   #  i will say this, to my knowledge, despite countless studies about aspartame specifically, no health risks have been discovered.   #  i do not think it is possible to change your view because it is based on subjective reasoning.  if you like the taste and do not get tired of it, great.  but for me, i enjoy diet coke, which is a little more expensive, but i am okay with that because the taste is worth the price to me.  taste is not really quantifiable therefore the monetary value of taste is subjective.  i will say this, to my knowledge, despite countless studies about aspartame specifically, no health risks have been discovered.  i have also heard that drinking too much soda or tea or other beverages can give you kidney stones and it seems like seltzer would be no exception.   #  but it is  unknown unknown  that i am  slightly  worried about.   #  i actually like diet coke.  i would drink one or two from time to time.  but can you really, drink diet coke all day every day ? for one the taste, while good, will get overwhelming by 0th or 0th glass of the day.  also caffeine, would drive me bonkers.  so i still think seltzer is superior.  i agree, no such studies exist.  but it is  unknown unknown  that i am  slightly  worried about.  aspartame is complex chemical with man metabolites, not perfectly understood.  so while i am not  that  worried, it is still slight ding against it.  for example: URL  i have also heard that drinking too much soda or tea or other beverages can give you kidney stones and it seems like seltzer would be no exception.  i think there no studies that support this kind like for aspartame .   #  the unknown unknowns argument just is not very compelling to me.   # for one the taste, while good, will get overwhelming by 0th or 0th glass of the day.  i absolutely could, and did every day, in large quantities.  i scaled back recently after being sick for unrelated reasons the carbonation upset my stomach, which would also be an issue with seltzer, and after i got better i switched from fountain sodas to cans and bottles , but i still have no trouble finishing off a large diet cole with no ice.  additionally, the caffeine never bothered me.  i built up a tolerance.  now that i have scaled back it affects me much more, which is good for when i need it.  but even that is not an argument for seltzer because caffeine free diet coke exists.  the unknown unknowns argument just is not very compelling to me.  you could easily make the same argument about whatever chemicals are used in seltzer and there are almost certainly some to ensure it does not go flat right away , since there have probably actually been fewer studies proving them safe due to the lack of public health concern.   #  in fact you can replace all water you drink with seltzer, something you ca not do with any other soda.   # you get the popping sensation from the bubbles, and the carbonic acid generated by co0 dissolved in water provides great slightly sour/bitter flavor.  no.  i can not stand the taste of selter, and can barely drink the stuff.  that  islightly sour/bitter flavor  is extremely pronounced for me, and combined with a rather strong gag reflex means i can barely swallow it.  peoples tastes are different and there is not anything that everyone likes the flavor of.  in fact you can replace all water you drink with seltzer, something you ca not do with any other soda.  this is separate from my other point.  some people like me need a drink to have a flavor if they are going to enjoy drinking it all day.  i have been limited to just water for some periods of time, i ended up going thirsty at times because i  needed  an obtrusive flavor in order to enjoy my drink.  on the other hand, i bought a box of sprite, and was satisfied drinking that over a long period of time.  none, if your going to bother buy some sparking juice, that way your at least getting some nutrients from your drink.
i will start off by saying all of my economic knowledge comes from some highschool courses and the internet, so i am bound to get something wrong.  that being said, my actual argument: because the ammount of bitcoins is limited to 0 million, these coins will increase in value as the world economy expands and some are lost.  if the value of a currency increases relative to goods and services, that is called deflation.  that sounds like it is not a big deal.  and if you are an investor, it is not.  but if an economy relies on a currency that is undergoing deflation, that economy slows drasticly.  the reason: if you can increase the worth of your money just by sitting on it, many people will do so.  why go through the trouble and risk of investing it if you are guaranteed to make profit in terms of value by putting it under your mattress ? without investments, the economy grinds to a halt.  this is why most economists think that moderate inflation is more desireable than even small deflation, some going so far as to say that some ammount of inflation is healthy.  most people of course already treat bitcoin as an investment instead of a currency, as you can see by its wild swings in value.   #  the reason: if you can increase the worth of your money just by sitting on it, many people will do so.   #  why go through the trouble and risk of investing it if you are guaranteed to make profit in terms of value by putting it under your mattress ?  # why go through the trouble and risk of investing it if you are guaranteed to make profit in terms of value by putting it under your mattress ? two problems with this statement.  firstly, there is never a guarantee that the value of something will go up so hoarding bitcoins for the future is not riskless.  gold has a fixed supply just like bitcoin but its value fluctuates and as much as the people selling gold on the tv would like you to believe there is no guarantee that it will always be more valuable in the future than it is now.  secondly, the biggest problem with deflation is sticky prices.  suffice it to say, it is very difficult to cut an employee is nominal pay.  it is much more likely that the employee would be laid off.  as a result unemployment could be higher due to deflation.  this is not a law but just a phenomenon that has been observed.  as people begin to work for companies for much shorter intervals anyway the linkage between unemployment and deflation should dissipate.  additionally, it is entirely possible that traditional banks would come in and create a fractional reserve system of bitcoins.  it would be just like our money system is now where we have m0 and m0 which represents how much physical currency there is.  that would be how much real bitcoins a bank has on deposits.  then there would be m0 and up which would include all the bank issued bitcoins.  it is likely that this system would be small relative to our current banking system and bank reserves, as a percent of deposits, would be significantly higher than they are now.  i say this system would be smaller because with bitcoins the things you ca not do without a bank or company that looks like a bank would be trivial to do with bitcoins.  for example if i want to loan you money so you can buy a house, i ca not just give you that much in paper cash.  with bitcoins i could transfer it to you without any problems at all.   #  clearly it is not simply the case that guaranteed return hoarding.   #  i ca not seriously argue that bitcoin will become the most widely used currency at this point, but i disagree with your argument regarding deflation.  what you say would only hold true if the rate of deflation generated a return greater than alternate investments.  if you want a guaranteed return on your investment, you could invest in something like treasury bonds, super safe but super low returns, or you could put it in a start up where you get the inverse effect.  depending on adversity to risk, people will invest in myriad different areas.  clearly it is not simply the case that guaranteed return hoarding.  additionally, you may have a point if there were only 0 million coins possible, as that would present some obvious issues less bitcoins than actual people , but here you are mistaken.  because the coins are divisible down to 0 decimal places, the actual theoretical amount of bitcoin  units  would be around 0 quadrillion.  quite a bit more than what you asserted.  the current amount of usd in circulation is, by comparison, only $0 trillion.  divided to the smallest amount a penny , that would mean a total of 0 trillion units of us currency, or 0 times less than the number of bitcoin units.  the currency is new and highly volatile.  until things stabilize, i do not think we can make any definitive claims one way or the other.  that being said, the very fact that volatility exists rebuffs your claim on guaranteed investment.  there are a lot of factors that affect the price of bitcoin, and you just ca not predict where it will be at any given time in the future, anymore than i can predict what apple stock will be worth a year from now.  i hope i have shown why deflation wo not necessarily lead to hoarding as you suggest.  at the least, i hope i have demonstrated why you are not justified in your current position.   #  the current amount of usd in circulation is, by comparison, only $0 trillion.   # if you want a guaranteed return on your investment, you could invest in something like treasury bonds, super safe but super low returns, or you could put it in a start up where you get the inverse effect.  depending on adversity to risk, people will invest in myriad different areas.  clearly it is not simply the case that guaranteed return hoarding.  some people might still invest, that is true, but a deflationary envoirment still discourages investment and spending.  because the coins are divisible down to 0 decimal places, the actual theoretical amount of bitcoin  units  would be around 0 quadrillion.  quite a bit more than what you asserted.  the current amount of usd in circulation is, by comparison, only $0 trillion.  divided to the smallest amount a penny , that would mean a total of 0 trillion units of us currency, or 0 times less than the number of bitcoin units.  i just claimed that there would be a maximum of actually slightly less then 0 million actual bitcoins.  not units of bitcoin currency.  and i never claimed loss of liquidity from deflation was aproblem, but the deflation itself.  until things stabilize, i do not think we can make any definitive claims one way or the other.  for now, yes.  but if one most of the world economy would run on bitcoin, and there was no way of introducing new currency, then deflation is the logical conclusion.  there are a lot of factors that affect the price of bitcoin, and you just ca not predict where it will be at any given time in the future, anymore than i can predict what apple stock will be worth a year from now.  true, because at the moment it is a speculative investment, not currency.  if it were to ever become currency, it would behave more predictably.   #  if deflationary growth could be used it would have to outperform other options to be worthwhile.   #  the deflationary nature is one possible issue in a sense, but it is self regulating.  if one person holds on to a bunch of currency everything balances out using the remaining currency.  the individual could theoretically payout into external currency after deflation and make a profit, but when they do this someone else will shortly do the exact same thing.  this is not a short term strategy, it requires patience and time.  when you invest money in something you are making a sacrifice of not investing it elsewhere, an idea known as opportunity cost.  if deflationary growth could be used it would have to outperform other options to be worthwhile.  would it be more than a few percent per year ? in the short term, maybe.  when more money runs through bitcoin this will become less and less of an issue as it will be less viable to do this buy and hold strategy.   #  if deflationary growth could be used it would have to outperform other options to be worthwhile.   # if deflationary growth could be used it would have to outperform other options to be worthwhile.  it still disincentivizes not investing over investing.  in other words, where do you think people have more pressure to invest ? somewhere with 0 inflation or 0 deflation ? sure, some might still invest in deflationland, but not as many as in inflationland.  in the short term, maybe.  when more money runs through bitcoin this will become less and less of an issue as it will be less viable to do this buy and hold strategy.  that is the problem.  once, in 0 or so basically no new coins will be mined, the supply of bitcoins will drop through losses, while the number of goods and services barring some huge disaster will increase.  result ? inflation, easily a few per cent per year.
what prompted this post was the question at the end of this thread URL i feel that actions such as rape and murder are abhorrent.  but i also understand that this is just a belief.  there is no data set, equation, or natural observation that can prove certain deeds are wrong on a metaphysical level.  are morals are completely created by the natural world.  starting with physics and how we came to be leading to biology with its principle of evolution.  much of what we believe is right in wrong has to do with what gave the best chance at extending an organisms genetic line.  if an action is harmful to the completion of this goal, then the organisms less inclined to do so will more likely have its genetie materiel passed on.  this works similarly with cultures.  the groups of people that take on attitudes and beliefs that make a culture more invasive and enduring will be the ones to set the moral code.  furthermore, just as there is genetic drift in biology there are traits in a cultures moral code that spontaneously came to be.  i know that all the various feelings i have on determining right or wrong fall apart when looked at objectively.  any thought of love, empathy, duty, honor, fear, or horror are just the axons and neurons firing in our brain.  for simplicity is sake  just because  is the only valid argument for our moral codes.  when i really step back and look at the most infamous figures in history and their most villainous acts i see that their evilness is manufactured by society.  those who lack certain required traits are labeled as psychopaths and narcissists.  all this said i am cultured to believe in moral principals just as much as the next person.  i do not advocate for an anarchic society, as that would bring much less pleasure to myself.  but i do find the inability of many people to except this principle annoying.  they make it difficult to discuss issues involving humanity and its definition.  the reddit community for all its merits is particularly confounding for its violent and antagonistic vitriol in response to those who are anti gay, pro choice, and those who enjoy harassing others for entertainment value.  one issue that i struggle with in particular is animal cruelty.  for better or worse i do not feel any major sense of empathy when i hear about an animal being  brutally  treated or killed.  in reaction i simply act horrified so as not to be burned at the stake while secretly i wonder in confusion at other is outrage.   tldr; there is no right or wrong, just what you believe is right or wrong.   #  tldr; there is no right or wrong, just what you believe is right or wrong.   #  what do you make of pythagoras  x 0 y 0   z 0 ?  # what do you make of pythagoras  x 0 y 0   z 0 ? the truth of this does not rely on what you believe.  it is  independent  of everyone is beliefs or opinions you either affirm it and you are right, or deny it and you are wrong.  likewise, what determines the truth about reality and the world around us ? in 0 december 0rd, newton either had a sausage for breakfast  or he did not .  this fact whether we discover it or are forever in the dark and ignorant of it , is  independent  of everyone is beliefs or opinions and the answer will never change for the rest of time.  but one answer  only  will remain forever true and unchangeable.  if our ideas/beliefs about facts and evaluations of the world can be objectively true and false, and we can be right and wrong about those, why ca not our ideas/beliefs about facts and evaluations about ourselves and our choices be objectively true or false, right or wrong ? reality exists a certain way independent of our beliefs and so do we because we are part of reality.  so what is true about us, our own nature, must also be independent of our opinions and view point.   #  equally any measure of moral value would be dependant on an individuals own preferences.   #  that is a good way of putting it, but you assume we are right about our morals.  ignoring the fact morals change over time and geographically, it is entirely possible our morals do not fit with the absolutely correct morals.  we say  do not kill, do not steal  but we have no reason to think that is the correct set of morals beyond our own belief that they are.  to use your example of newton is breakfast if no one ever wrote it down and they may be inaccurate even if they did we could never know the absolute truth of whether or not he enjoyed gobbling sausage in the mornings.  we could make educated guesses but ultimately it would still rely on our own beliefs.  it becomes even worse when you consider people have different ideas what a sausage is like, e. g.  it could have been a frankfurter or a cumberland sausage.  instead i would suggest it is our belief in the validity of these morals that makes them true.  without people capable of adhering ti the morals, morals could not exist.  equally any measure of moral value would be dependant on an individuals own preferences.  there may some absolute morals but there are none that remain unchanged by the subjective opinions of the people who apply them.   #  when you say  killing is wrong  what you are saying is that you prefer not to kill and prefer that others also do not kill.   #  a simple argument could be that the lack of any proof that morality is objective by default would mean it must be subjective.  a better argument would be to recognize that there is nothing which makes your moral judgement inherently or factually more correct than my moral judgement.  the moral evaluations and judgements that we make have equal validity even if they may contradict each other, which could only occur in the case of subjective evaluations.  another good argument would be to say that morality can only exist within the context of a society, a group of individuals.  for a single individual, morality is not a useful or even valid concept but rather governs our interactions with others in a purely subjective way.  moral claims are no different than preferences.  when you say  killing is wrong  what you are saying is that you prefer not to kill and prefer that others also do not kill.  there is no weight behind this claim beyond your own statement of preference and ability to convince others of your point of view.  morality is a construct of our mind that exists to explain a particular concept.  it is real because the concept of organizing and agreeing upon rules of interaction is a real concept, but what those rules should be has no objective right or wrong because it ca not.  what is  right  or  wrong  is always going to be based upon some set of axioms which are not universal and which set of axioms to choose is always going to be arbitrary from person to person, and society to society.  hence, subjective.   #  generalising the eater, the eaten and the context to get  certain food taste good to certain animals in certain situations  .   #   not to newton  makes your required standard  absolute and partially divorced from context  rather than  in an objective sense .  is it fair to keep the context that it was newton is breakfast, but remove the context that he evaluated the taste ? objectively and absolutely newton is breakfast tasted good or not to newton.  the appropriate absolute statements need to generalize contexts as well to be fair e. g.  generalising the eater, the eaten and the context to get  certain food taste good to certain animals in certain situations  .  as a completely separate issue, i bet my bottom dollar that the experience of sweetness is  primarily  determined by the identity of sugar itself by some property such as it is molecular electrical signature when dissolved say and that life evolved to discover/reveal the quality of  sweetness  rather than evolved by creating taste qualities.  in other words, a bee probably experiences a sensational hit of sweetness.  or an alien with similar taste buds would also experience sweetness of sugar similar to us.  relationships between information from the consumed and from the consumer are causal to their qualia, and the incoming information from that which is consumed, given the same receptors, is a fixed constant in that equation.  whether the consumer finds the sweetness yummy or disgusting depends on their own variables.  but given similar variables between consumers, their experience should be similar.   #  you ca not ask whether food is good objectively, because what constitutes good food depends entirely on the values of the eater.   # sure, the truth of this does not rely on what he believes.  it is independent of everyone is beliefs or opinions you either affirm that it was good and you are right, or deny it and you are wrong.  . except that is not true.  you ca not ask whether food is good objectively, because what constitutes good food depends entirely on the values of the eater.  similarly what constitutes good moral actions depends entirely on the values of the actor.  so whether or not newton enjoyed his breakfast is objective, just like whether or not newton thought some action was moral is objective.  but that just tells us what newton thinks, not what tastes good or is moral in a universal, objective sense.  even math itself is based on some core assumptions that we cannot prove that we just  assume  are true.  and we can invent new kinds of math by not assuming those axioms are true.  we could construct a branch of math in which x 0 ≠ y 0   z 0, and it would be just as correct as the standard pythagorean theorem.  there is no way to evaluate which axioms are the best ones, just like there are no ways to determine which moral values or which flavors or taste sensations are the best.  they are all arbitrary and subjective, and not universal.
what prompted this post was the question at the end of this thread URL i feel that actions such as rape and murder are abhorrent.  but i also understand that this is just a belief.  there is no data set, equation, or natural observation that can prove certain deeds are wrong on a metaphysical level.  are morals are completely created by the natural world.  starting with physics and how we came to be leading to biology with its principle of evolution.  much of what we believe is right in wrong has to do with what gave the best chance at extending an organisms genetic line.  if an action is harmful to the completion of this goal, then the organisms less inclined to do so will more likely have its genetie materiel passed on.  this works similarly with cultures.  the groups of people that take on attitudes and beliefs that make a culture more invasive and enduring will be the ones to set the moral code.  furthermore, just as there is genetic drift in biology there are traits in a cultures moral code that spontaneously came to be.  i know that all the various feelings i have on determining right or wrong fall apart when looked at objectively.  any thought of love, empathy, duty, honor, fear, or horror are just the axons and neurons firing in our brain.  for simplicity is sake  just because  is the only valid argument for our moral codes.  when i really step back and look at the most infamous figures in history and their most villainous acts i see that their evilness is manufactured by society.  those who lack certain required traits are labeled as psychopaths and narcissists.  all this said i am cultured to believe in moral principals just as much as the next person.  i do not advocate for an anarchic society, as that would bring much less pleasure to myself.  but i do find the inability of many people to except this principle annoying.  they make it difficult to discuss issues involving humanity and its definition.  the reddit community for all its merits is particularly confounding for its violent and antagonistic vitriol in response to those who are anti gay, pro choice, and those who enjoy harassing others for entertainment value.  one issue that i struggle with in particular is animal cruelty.  for better or worse i do not feel any major sense of empathy when i hear about an animal being  brutally  treated or killed.  in reaction i simply act horrified so as not to be burned at the stake while secretly i wonder in confusion at other is outrage.   tldr; there is no right or wrong, just what you believe is right or wrong.   #  i do not advocate for an anarchic society, as that would bring much less pleasure to myself.   #  it sounds more like you are a hedonist, a philosophy which recognizes pleasure as the only innate good.   # it sounds more like you are a hedonist, a philosophy which recognizes pleasure as the only innate good.  hedonism is not a relativistic philosophy, though, the hedonist claim is that pleasure is  objectively  good.  that different people derive pleasure doing different things shows that people are different, not necessarily that we wo not ultimately be satisfied by the same thing: pleasure.  there are ways of organizing societies which better satisfy or frustrate the pleasure seeking of its members.  so saying something is  good  or  bad  does not necessarily mean that you think it is good or bad for you, only that you recognize what is good or bad for society.  but just because we use these words to mean different things does not indicate that we are not really all after the same thing.   #  in 0 december 0rd, newton either had a sausage for breakfast  or he did not .   # what do you make of pythagoras  x 0 y 0   z 0 ? the truth of this does not rely on what you believe.  it is  independent  of everyone is beliefs or opinions you either affirm it and you are right, or deny it and you are wrong.  likewise, what determines the truth about reality and the world around us ? in 0 december 0rd, newton either had a sausage for breakfast  or he did not .  this fact whether we discover it or are forever in the dark and ignorant of it , is  independent  of everyone is beliefs or opinions and the answer will never change for the rest of time.  but one answer  only  will remain forever true and unchangeable.  if our ideas/beliefs about facts and evaluations of the world can be objectively true and false, and we can be right and wrong about those, why ca not our ideas/beliefs about facts and evaluations about ourselves and our choices be objectively true or false, right or wrong ? reality exists a certain way independent of our beliefs and so do we because we are part of reality.  so what is true about us, our own nature, must also be independent of our opinions and view point.   #  we could make educated guesses but ultimately it would still rely on our own beliefs.   #  that is a good way of putting it, but you assume we are right about our morals.  ignoring the fact morals change over time and geographically, it is entirely possible our morals do not fit with the absolutely correct morals.  we say  do not kill, do not steal  but we have no reason to think that is the correct set of morals beyond our own belief that they are.  to use your example of newton is breakfast if no one ever wrote it down and they may be inaccurate even if they did we could never know the absolute truth of whether or not he enjoyed gobbling sausage in the mornings.  we could make educated guesses but ultimately it would still rely on our own beliefs.  it becomes even worse when you consider people have different ideas what a sausage is like, e. g.  it could have been a frankfurter or a cumberland sausage.  instead i would suggest it is our belief in the validity of these morals that makes them true.  without people capable of adhering ti the morals, morals could not exist.  equally any measure of moral value would be dependant on an individuals own preferences.  there may some absolute morals but there are none that remain unchanged by the subjective opinions of the people who apply them.   #  for a single individual, morality is not a useful or even valid concept but rather governs our interactions with others in a purely subjective way.   #  a simple argument could be that the lack of any proof that morality is objective by default would mean it must be subjective.  a better argument would be to recognize that there is nothing which makes your moral judgement inherently or factually more correct than my moral judgement.  the moral evaluations and judgements that we make have equal validity even if they may contradict each other, which could only occur in the case of subjective evaluations.  another good argument would be to say that morality can only exist within the context of a society, a group of individuals.  for a single individual, morality is not a useful or even valid concept but rather governs our interactions with others in a purely subjective way.  moral claims are no different than preferences.  when you say  killing is wrong  what you are saying is that you prefer not to kill and prefer that others also do not kill.  there is no weight behind this claim beyond your own statement of preference and ability to convince others of your point of view.  morality is a construct of our mind that exists to explain a particular concept.  it is real because the concept of organizing and agreeing upon rules of interaction is a real concept, but what those rules should be has no objective right or wrong because it ca not.  what is  right  or  wrong  is always going to be based upon some set of axioms which are not universal and which set of axioms to choose is always going to be arbitrary from person to person, and society to society.  hence, subjective.   #  but given similar variables between consumers, their experience should be similar.   #   not to newton  makes your required standard  absolute and partially divorced from context  rather than  in an objective sense .  is it fair to keep the context that it was newton is breakfast, but remove the context that he evaluated the taste ? objectively and absolutely newton is breakfast tasted good or not to newton.  the appropriate absolute statements need to generalize contexts as well to be fair e. g.  generalising the eater, the eaten and the context to get  certain food taste good to certain animals in certain situations  .  as a completely separate issue, i bet my bottom dollar that the experience of sweetness is  primarily  determined by the identity of sugar itself by some property such as it is molecular electrical signature when dissolved say and that life evolved to discover/reveal the quality of  sweetness  rather than evolved by creating taste qualities.  in other words, a bee probably experiences a sensational hit of sweetness.  or an alien with similar taste buds would also experience sweetness of sugar similar to us.  relationships between information from the consumed and from the consumer are causal to their qualia, and the incoming information from that which is consumed, given the same receptors, is a fixed constant in that equation.  whether the consumer finds the sweetness yummy or disgusting depends on their own variables.  but given similar variables between consumers, their experience should be similar.
what prompted this post was the question at the end of this thread URL i feel that actions such as rape and murder are abhorrent.  but i also understand that this is just a belief.  there is no data set, equation, or natural observation that can prove certain deeds are wrong on a metaphysical level.  are morals are completely created by the natural world.  starting with physics and how we came to be leading to biology with its principle of evolution.  much of what we believe is right in wrong has to do with what gave the best chance at extending an organisms genetic line.  if an action is harmful to the completion of this goal, then the organisms less inclined to do so will more likely have its genetie materiel passed on.  this works similarly with cultures.  the groups of people that take on attitudes and beliefs that make a culture more invasive and enduring will be the ones to set the moral code.  furthermore, just as there is genetic drift in biology there are traits in a cultures moral code that spontaneously came to be.  i know that all the various feelings i have on determining right or wrong fall apart when looked at objectively.  any thought of love, empathy, duty, honor, fear, or horror are just the axons and neurons firing in our brain.  for simplicity is sake  just because  is the only valid argument for our moral codes.  when i really step back and look at the most infamous figures in history and their most villainous acts i see that their evilness is manufactured by society.  those who lack certain required traits are labeled as psychopaths and narcissists.  all this said i am cultured to believe in moral principals just as much as the next person.  i do not advocate for an anarchic society, as that would bring much less pleasure to myself.  but i do find the inability of many people to except this principle annoying.  they make it difficult to discuss issues involving humanity and its definition.  the reddit community for all its merits is particularly confounding for its violent and antagonistic vitriol in response to those who are anti gay, pro choice, and those who enjoy harassing others for entertainment value.  one issue that i struggle with in particular is animal cruelty.  for better or worse i do not feel any major sense of empathy when i hear about an animal being  brutally  treated or killed.  in reaction i simply act horrified so as not to be burned at the stake while secretly i wonder in confusion at other is outrage.   tldr; there is no right or wrong, just what you believe is right or wrong.   #  i feel that actions such as rape and murder are abhorrent.   #  but i also understand that this is just a belief.   # but i also understand that this is just a belief.  there is no data set, equation, or natural observation that can prove certain deeds are wrong on a metaphysical level.  that societies which tolerate murder are inferior is not  just  a belief, though, it is a belief that happens to be true.  it is true independently of what you or me think, the truth of that statement depends on the nature of the relationship between all the people in society and how the policy impacts them.  you could make observations and see how policies affect societies and their members, you can measure these things.  we are all junkies in a sense, like you say.  we ca not help but seek our happiness, but we can be deluded or wrong in how we go about it.  so if we measure good and bad in relation to what fosters our happiness, we can say some things are good and bad for both people and societies.  and because we are people living in societies, we ca not help but care.   #  the truth of this does not rely on what you believe.   # what do you make of pythagoras  x 0 y 0   z 0 ? the truth of this does not rely on what you believe.  it is  independent  of everyone is beliefs or opinions you either affirm it and you are right, or deny it and you are wrong.  likewise, what determines the truth about reality and the world around us ? in 0 december 0rd, newton either had a sausage for breakfast  or he did not .  this fact whether we discover it or are forever in the dark and ignorant of it , is  independent  of everyone is beliefs or opinions and the answer will never change for the rest of time.  but one answer  only  will remain forever true and unchangeable.  if our ideas/beliefs about facts and evaluations of the world can be objectively true and false, and we can be right and wrong about those, why ca not our ideas/beliefs about facts and evaluations about ourselves and our choices be objectively true or false, right or wrong ? reality exists a certain way independent of our beliefs and so do we because we are part of reality.  so what is true about us, our own nature, must also be independent of our opinions and view point.   #  ignoring the fact morals change over time and geographically, it is entirely possible our morals do not fit with the absolutely correct morals.   #  that is a good way of putting it, but you assume we are right about our morals.  ignoring the fact morals change over time and geographically, it is entirely possible our morals do not fit with the absolutely correct morals.  we say  do not kill, do not steal  but we have no reason to think that is the correct set of morals beyond our own belief that they are.  to use your example of newton is breakfast if no one ever wrote it down and they may be inaccurate even if they did we could never know the absolute truth of whether or not he enjoyed gobbling sausage in the mornings.  we could make educated guesses but ultimately it would still rely on our own beliefs.  it becomes even worse when you consider people have different ideas what a sausage is like, e. g.  it could have been a frankfurter or a cumberland sausage.  instead i would suggest it is our belief in the validity of these morals that makes them true.  without people capable of adhering ti the morals, morals could not exist.  equally any measure of moral value would be dependant on an individuals own preferences.  there may some absolute morals but there are none that remain unchanged by the subjective opinions of the people who apply them.   #  for a single individual, morality is not a useful or even valid concept but rather governs our interactions with others in a purely subjective way.   #  a simple argument could be that the lack of any proof that morality is objective by default would mean it must be subjective.  a better argument would be to recognize that there is nothing which makes your moral judgement inherently or factually more correct than my moral judgement.  the moral evaluations and judgements that we make have equal validity even if they may contradict each other, which could only occur in the case of subjective evaluations.  another good argument would be to say that morality can only exist within the context of a society, a group of individuals.  for a single individual, morality is not a useful or even valid concept but rather governs our interactions with others in a purely subjective way.  moral claims are no different than preferences.  when you say  killing is wrong  what you are saying is that you prefer not to kill and prefer that others also do not kill.  there is no weight behind this claim beyond your own statement of preference and ability to convince others of your point of view.  morality is a construct of our mind that exists to explain a particular concept.  it is real because the concept of organizing and agreeing upon rules of interaction is a real concept, but what those rules should be has no objective right or wrong because it ca not.  what is  right  or  wrong  is always going to be based upon some set of axioms which are not universal and which set of axioms to choose is always going to be arbitrary from person to person, and society to society.  hence, subjective.   #  objectively and absolutely newton is breakfast tasted good or not to newton.   #   not to newton  makes your required standard  absolute and partially divorced from context  rather than  in an objective sense .  is it fair to keep the context that it was newton is breakfast, but remove the context that he evaluated the taste ? objectively and absolutely newton is breakfast tasted good or not to newton.  the appropriate absolute statements need to generalize contexts as well to be fair e. g.  generalising the eater, the eaten and the context to get  certain food taste good to certain animals in certain situations  .  as a completely separate issue, i bet my bottom dollar that the experience of sweetness is  primarily  determined by the identity of sugar itself by some property such as it is molecular electrical signature when dissolved say and that life evolved to discover/reveal the quality of  sweetness  rather than evolved by creating taste qualities.  in other words, a bee probably experiences a sensational hit of sweetness.  or an alien with similar taste buds would also experience sweetness of sugar similar to us.  relationships between information from the consumed and from the consumer are causal to their qualia, and the incoming information from that which is consumed, given the same receptors, is a fixed constant in that equation.  whether the consumer finds the sweetness yummy or disgusting depends on their own variables.  but given similar variables between consumers, their experience should be similar.
what prompted this post was the question at the end of this thread URL i feel that actions such as rape and murder are abhorrent.  but i also understand that this is just a belief.  there is no data set, equation, or natural observation that can prove certain deeds are wrong on a metaphysical level.  are morals are completely created by the natural world.  starting with physics and how we came to be leading to biology with its principle of evolution.  much of what we believe is right in wrong has to do with what gave the best chance at extending an organisms genetic line.  if an action is harmful to the completion of this goal, then the organisms less inclined to do so will more likely have its genetie materiel passed on.  this works similarly with cultures.  the groups of people that take on attitudes and beliefs that make a culture more invasive and enduring will be the ones to set the moral code.  furthermore, just as there is genetic drift in biology there are traits in a cultures moral code that spontaneously came to be.  i know that all the various feelings i have on determining right or wrong fall apart when looked at objectively.  any thought of love, empathy, duty, honor, fear, or horror are just the axons and neurons firing in our brain.  for simplicity is sake  just because  is the only valid argument for our moral codes.  when i really step back and look at the most infamous figures in history and their most villainous acts i see that their evilness is manufactured by society.  those who lack certain required traits are labeled as psychopaths and narcissists.  all this said i am cultured to believe in moral principals just as much as the next person.  i do not advocate for an anarchic society, as that would bring much less pleasure to myself.  but i do find the inability of many people to except this principle annoying.  they make it difficult to discuss issues involving humanity and its definition.  the reddit community for all its merits is particularly confounding for its violent and antagonistic vitriol in response to those who are anti gay, pro choice, and those who enjoy harassing others for entertainment value.  one issue that i struggle with in particular is animal cruelty.  for better or worse i do not feel any major sense of empathy when i hear about an animal being  brutally  treated or killed.  in reaction i simply act horrified so as not to be burned at the stake while secretly i wonder in confusion at other is outrage.   tldr; there is no right or wrong, just what you believe is right or wrong.   #  there is no right or wrong, just what you believe is right or wrong.   #  let is think about this statement for a moment.   # let is think about this statement for a moment.  if there is no absolute right or wrong, and right or wrong are determined by individuals, then how do beliefs such as  murder are wrong  get created, disseminated throughout society, and remain in the majority opinion for so long ? if morals are subjective, how do they come to be, and why are they shared ? morals have certain social and biological/psychological components that can be difficult to separate fully.  in the example of murder, people have been told it is wrong since the times of moses thou shalt not kill and earlier, but where did this idea come from that we should not kill each other ? psychologically speaking, humans do not like the idea of death because it creates uncertainty not only do we not like the idea of not existing as opposed to existing, something that we have relatively more experience with , but we do not like the idea of not knowing when exactly our existence will end.  we often share these discomforts with one another, and design systems of belief aimed to alleviate these uncertainties and bring comfort to the idea of death.  this fear of death is almost universal, and one could argue it is even built in to our psychology as it is with other animals who tend to fear situations that can bring about death, a consequence of the will to live and reproduce.  and so, some things are right and wrong because of our psychology, not our philosophy.  murder is  wrong  because we do not like the idea of dying, and in order to reduce our chances of dying, we have a moral precedent against murder.  we do not like the idea of having our privacy violated including rape , so there is a moral belief that rape is bad and that spying is in some respect unethical.   #  so what is true about us, our own nature, must also be independent of our opinions and view point.   # what do you make of pythagoras  x 0 y 0   z 0 ? the truth of this does not rely on what you believe.  it is  independent  of everyone is beliefs or opinions you either affirm it and you are right, or deny it and you are wrong.  likewise, what determines the truth about reality and the world around us ? in 0 december 0rd, newton either had a sausage for breakfast  or he did not .  this fact whether we discover it or are forever in the dark and ignorant of it , is  independent  of everyone is beliefs or opinions and the answer will never change for the rest of time.  but one answer  only  will remain forever true and unchangeable.  if our ideas/beliefs about facts and evaluations of the world can be objectively true and false, and we can be right and wrong about those, why ca not our ideas/beliefs about facts and evaluations about ourselves and our choices be objectively true or false, right or wrong ? reality exists a certain way independent of our beliefs and so do we because we are part of reality.  so what is true about us, our own nature, must also be independent of our opinions and view point.   #  without people capable of adhering ti the morals, morals could not exist.   #  that is a good way of putting it, but you assume we are right about our morals.  ignoring the fact morals change over time and geographically, it is entirely possible our morals do not fit with the absolutely correct morals.  we say  do not kill, do not steal  but we have no reason to think that is the correct set of morals beyond our own belief that they are.  to use your example of newton is breakfast if no one ever wrote it down and they may be inaccurate even if they did we could never know the absolute truth of whether or not he enjoyed gobbling sausage in the mornings.  we could make educated guesses but ultimately it would still rely on our own beliefs.  it becomes even worse when you consider people have different ideas what a sausage is like, e. g.  it could have been a frankfurter or a cumberland sausage.  instead i would suggest it is our belief in the validity of these morals that makes them true.  without people capable of adhering ti the morals, morals could not exist.  equally any measure of moral value would be dependant on an individuals own preferences.  there may some absolute morals but there are none that remain unchanged by the subjective opinions of the people who apply them.   #  it is real because the concept of organizing and agreeing upon rules of interaction is a real concept, but what those rules should be has no objective right or wrong because it ca not.   #  a simple argument could be that the lack of any proof that morality is objective by default would mean it must be subjective.  a better argument would be to recognize that there is nothing which makes your moral judgement inherently or factually more correct than my moral judgement.  the moral evaluations and judgements that we make have equal validity even if they may contradict each other, which could only occur in the case of subjective evaluations.  another good argument would be to say that morality can only exist within the context of a society, a group of individuals.  for a single individual, morality is not a useful or even valid concept but rather governs our interactions with others in a purely subjective way.  moral claims are no different than preferences.  when you say  killing is wrong  what you are saying is that you prefer not to kill and prefer that others also do not kill.  there is no weight behind this claim beyond your own statement of preference and ability to convince others of your point of view.  morality is a construct of our mind that exists to explain a particular concept.  it is real because the concept of organizing and agreeing upon rules of interaction is a real concept, but what those rules should be has no objective right or wrong because it ca not.  what is  right  or  wrong  is always going to be based upon some set of axioms which are not universal and which set of axioms to choose is always going to be arbitrary from person to person, and society to society.  hence, subjective.   #  or an alien with similar taste buds would also experience sweetness of sugar similar to us.   #   not to newton  makes your required standard  absolute and partially divorced from context  rather than  in an objective sense .  is it fair to keep the context that it was newton is breakfast, but remove the context that he evaluated the taste ? objectively and absolutely newton is breakfast tasted good or not to newton.  the appropriate absolute statements need to generalize contexts as well to be fair e. g.  generalising the eater, the eaten and the context to get  certain food taste good to certain animals in certain situations  .  as a completely separate issue, i bet my bottom dollar that the experience of sweetness is  primarily  determined by the identity of sugar itself by some property such as it is molecular electrical signature when dissolved say and that life evolved to discover/reveal the quality of  sweetness  rather than evolved by creating taste qualities.  in other words, a bee probably experiences a sensational hit of sweetness.  or an alien with similar taste buds would also experience sweetness of sugar similar to us.  relationships between information from the consumed and from the consumer are causal to their qualia, and the incoming information from that which is consumed, given the same receptors, is a fixed constant in that equation.  whether the consumer finds the sweetness yummy or disgusting depends on their own variables.  but given similar variables between consumers, their experience should be similar.
i am not a cop hater.  i like to think i am a relatively reasonable person but i am honestly not even 0 sure how i really feel with the constant barrage of news stories about police breaking the law and victimizing regular citizens.  i replied to another redditor saying to basically always do what a cop says here URL section of his comment and my reply i do believe this but reading it back to myself and trying to see it from someone else point of view i feel like i sound like some kind of deluded government conspiracy theorist.  i also believe those enforcers should be held to a higher moral standard.  that they should not violate the reach of the powers we give them.  and that if they do, we, the very people that gave them the power in the first place, have our own duty to not allow it despite such disobedience being an often unsafe and likely consequential undertaking.  might does not make right.  i definitely do not want to get my ass beat and/or thrown in jail for pissing off the wrong cop by not letting him violate my rights and despite my position i do not know if i would have the courage in the moment to stand up to a weaponized bully but i do know it would be the right thing to do.  maybe not the smart thing, but the right thing.  i am not saying to go around saying the fuck the police and disobeying them for no reason.  i am saying only show deference when they are acting appropriately.   #  i am not saying to go around saying the fuck the police and disobeying them for no reason.   #  i am saying only show deference when they are acting appropriately.   # i am saying only show deference when they are acting appropriately.  i think the problem if everyone followed your view is that people could be misinformed about their rights and the law, or wrong about whether not the police are acting legally.  imagine a bunch of teens reeking of weed who refuse to comply with an exit vehicle request and argue because they believe that doing so is to consent to a search of their car.  the cop must show them proof of wrongdoing for them to exit their car.  if you are not a lawyer, you likely do not know all the nuances of the law, and a challenge in court has the judge there to decide who is in the wrong.  a personal challenge has no third party to decide but does havd two individuals who probably both think they are in the right and one is wrong .   #  i completely understand the notion of challenging authority, especially in this case since police are accountable to the public for their actions.   #  here is the thing: he is not saying  do not challenge their authority.   he is essentially saying  respect the authority of the man with the firearm, the taser, and the power to put you in jail.   i completely understand the notion of challenging authority, especially in this case since police are accountable to the public for their actions.  however, it is about reading the situation and realizing that antagonizing a cop is not a smart idea.  if you do exactly what the cop asks you to do, you could easily be saving yourself jail time, injury, and possibly a whole lot of money in legal fees.  i know a couple cops and they have said that a lot of cops will be looking for any excuse to arrest you.  others will just do their jobs and not overstep their power.  but regardless of which type of cop you encounter, neither one is going to appreciate being challenged.  it makes your life and their life easier if you cooperate.  you are worried about cops breaking the law ? help campaign for cameras on all officers/police vehicles for your local pd.  that will hold them accountable in the long run.   #  others will just do their jobs and not overstep their power.   # he is essentially saying  respect the authority of the man with the firearm, the taser, and the power to put you in jail.   i get that but might does not make right.  i definitely do not want to get my ass beat and/or thrown in jail for pissing off the wrong cop and despite my position i do not know if i would have the courage in the moment to stand up to a weaponized bully but i do know it would be the right thing to do.  maybe not the smart thing, but the right thing.  however, it is about reading the situation and realizing that antagonizing a cop is not a smart idea.  i do not think i mean antagonizing them, at least not in the sense that i think you are meaning.  i think what i mean is that in any encounter with the police you should not let them overstep their bounds, at least not willingly.  doing the right thing and standing up to abuses of power is rarely, if ever, easy   i know a couple cops and they have said that a lot of cops will be looking for any excuse to arrest you.  others will just do their jobs and not overstep their power.  but regardless of which type of cop you encounter, neither one is going to appreciate being challenged.  it makes your life and their life easier if you cooperate.  by challenge i mean specifically not letting a cop get away with breaching the very tenants of the law they are sworn to uphold.  even if it is complying anyways but still letting them know that they are in the wrong and that goes in one ear and out the other.  an honest cop should not fear that kind of challenge and frankly i am not exactly sympathetic to whether the other types of cops appreciate being challenged.  help campaign for cameras on all officers/police vehicles for your local pd.  that will hold them accountable in the long run.  that sounds like a fantastic idea.  i voted for the sheriff of my county and i do believe he supports body cameras on all officers but if i am being honest i have not been following his actions since.   #  option b is where you require the teacher to watch him and if he tries anything you get him thrown out of his position of power.   # the truth is however that the right thing is rarely stupid.  brave yes, because we humans like to romanticize things, but stupid no.  for example you live in nazi germany.  what you are proposing to do is go outside and shout out that you support the jews and demand the nazis stop.  you are going get shot aaand you look stupid aaand it is not the right thing to do.  the right thing to do is instead do everything in your power to save jews even if it means remaining silent.  take another example.  you are kid on a playground and you see a bully intimidating someone.  you have 0 options a you go punch that bully in the face and tell him to stop bullying b you go fetch a teacher if you choose option number b the chances of everything working out in the end are much higher than if you choose option number a.  if you choose option number a the teacher might think you started it and the bully was justified.  if you choose b you are still standing up against bullying just not being stupid about it.  take another hypothical bully situation.  there is this posssible bully.  he is in charge of keeping everyone safe and providing security.  now you want to stand against his possible bullyness and stop any oppresion he might try.  you again have 0 options.  option a is where you dodge his every step and annoy him to no end.  option b is where you require the teacher to watch him and if he tries anything you get him thrown out of his position of power.  the results of a: you annoy the possible bully to no end and hinder him in his work, costing the lives of others and making you seem stupid to the entire world.  the dude did not even turn out to be a bully in any way.  the results of b: you can make reasonably sure the possible bully is not abusing his power and everyone recognizes your idea as smart.  the possible bully can also continue unhindered and fulfill his job.   #  i fully realize the duty of a police officer is to uphold and enforce the law.   # i recognize and submit to that.  i fully realize the duty of a police officer is to uphold and enforce the law.  i guess what my feelings are, is that we as a society grant cops the authority to police but if they are abusing that authority then we should also reserve the right to revoke it.  i also know that there can be consequences, legal or otherwise, for lack of compliance in the wrong setting but i feel like if we do not actively contest unjust behavior from those in power at every possible opportunity then things will only get worse  or, when they ask you to show lis.  and registration are you just going to ignore what they say ? if he is within the scope of the law to legally require me to do so then absolutely.  if he is not, then yes i would ignore him.
celebrating your birthday is the most attention whorish thing you could ever do.  there really is no need to celebrate a birthday because you did not do anything on that actual day.  if anything, one should celebrate their mother or father on their birthday.  they did all the hard work.  when i see grown ups celebrate birthdays i cringe a little bit.  the one exception is senior citizens those who are past 0 years of age .  then it is acceptable to celebrate a birthday because it is a true celebration that you are still alive, and you could die soon.  even worse is grown men who celebrate their birthdays   throw parties to do so.  if you are a grown man, there is no need to go out   celebrate your  birth .  i think one thing that should be celebrated is your work anniversary or school year completion if you do not have a job .  this is something that you have to put effort into, and requires something on your behalf that requires a cause of celebration.  thanks for the responses.  i posted this here because i was hoping for some answers that would  change my view .  i know what birthdays are for celebrating.   #  the one exception is senior citizens those who are past 0 years of age .   #  then it is acceptable to celebrate a birthday because it is a true celebration that you are still alive, and you could die soon.   # then it is acceptable to celebrate a birthday because it is a true celebration that you are still alive, and you could die soon.  brain aneurysm, car crash, airplane crash, cancer, hiv, getting run over by a bus, murder, suicide, cardiovascular problems.  these are all things that can kill young adults, and a non zero number of people die to those things every year.  surviving another year is not something to sneeze at even if you are under 0.  the fact is that even at our youngest, toughest, and most vital, we are frail creatures, and all it takes is one wrong turn down the wrong dark alley to make the difference between reveling with our friends at our next birthday or being the object of mourning at our funeral.  this is something that you have to put effort into, and requires something on your behalf that requires a cause of celebration.  okay, so on my birthday i am celebrating the anniversary of the beginning of my lifelong struggle to survive.  you might not see it, but some 0 in 0 people suffer from some form of acute or chronic depression at any given time, and for those people, making it another year is a bigger accomplishment than you seem to think it is.  to have you come along and basically call them narcissists for giving themselves or having their friends give them a much needed happy moment is more than a little bit of a dick move.  alright, let is talk about this one in the same vein of the last one.  my mom died when i was 0, and was not around to raise me.  my dad was emotionally unavailable and did not do much of anything to raise me either.  i ended up pretty fucked up by the time i hit  adulthood  and had to do all the hard work myself admittedly with some guidance, but i could not change unless i was willing to put in the mental and physical effort ; it rankles me more than a little when you suggest that either of those deadbeats should receive any credit for the things i have accomplished with my life.  also, we have days for that already, for those of us with good parents.  also also, i do not know where you come from, but in america turning 0 is a rite of passage, mainly because we decided you can legally buy alcohol at that point.  i do not know anyone who did not have some form of celebration on their 0st birthday, even if they did not drink themselves at that point.   #  i see some of my friends only once every couple of months, and these events are almost exclusively birthday parties.   #  when the fuck did planning a party yourself become so egocentric ? i want to invite my friends over to my house to have a bbq and drink some beer.  the goal is just to have a good time with good company and good, unhealthy food.  it is not meant to  honor myself , it is meant to  treat  myself as well as my friends.  it just makes so much more sense for me to host it.  i know the type of event that i want, how big it should be, and who i want to invite.  i do not want to impose on others, and i do not want to have to be in a situation where i have to host other people is parties as reciprocity, and have to worry about coordinating dates and times with what works for friends and what works for me particularly with my wife is night shift schedule .  when you get older, you get married and your friends start having kids, between familial obligations and work, birthdays are really the only day you can justify making time to hang out with your friends.  i see some of my friends only once every couple of months, and these events are almost exclusively birthday parties.  it is really just a reminder to take time out of your busy schedule and have some fucking fun.   #  i say this as someone who plans things around the schedules of busy people.   # you clearly do not plan things around the schedules of busy people.  i say this as someone who plans things around the schedules of busy people.  just having one friend who works retail and one friend who does not can make getting together one time a month challenging.  it is not that your friends do not have free time, it is that your friends do not have free time  at the same time  and if you are planning regular or semi regular get togethers that is what you are aiming for.  so if you want to see all your friends, you are looking at either multiple parties a week and honestly, at almost 0, that is starting to get too exhausting on top of everything else or you cut back and do other stuff minor outings or just text/im conversations in the interim while you do other things.  that is necessarily true of everything you do.  doing x means you are not doing y, and if you enjoy both x and y, you are necessarily missing out on things that make you happy.  it is up to each individual to figure out what will make them the most happy, including short term hedonics small parties, drinking, netflix, masturbating, whatever does it for you , the mid term game financial security, saving for things that make life easier/more pleasurable and the long term retirement: aka that time when you do not have to do any job because you saved up enough money to not work during your twilight .  the problem is too many people are way too busy spending that extra time watching tv, or laying around, or browsing reddit, or surfing the internet.  i can relate to this, as i have been irritated when my friends were  busy  with obviously netflix or wow or whatever else, but the truth is that some nights i just do not want to be around people, and that is my prerogative.  no, not even my best friends.  most often, this is because i had a bad day at work and know i would be bad company, so i just stay at home and do not inflict that on anybody else.   #  just like christmas and easter celebrations are not always just about jesus, just like national holiday celebrations are not all about your glorious country of residence, a birthday celebration does not have to be all about the person with the birthday.   #  i think i see your point you are saying that the concept of birthday parties is too narcissistic for its own good.  but your example fails because it lacks the cultural context of birthday parties, and also ignores some of the facts of actual birthday celebrations.  in a larger cultural context, i would gladly attend a person is  party in honor of themselves  both because it is customary and because, if i were in their shoes, i would want them to attend mine if i were to host one as well.  and again, you also miss a few points about birthday celebrations as they exist in the real world.  they take many forms, sometimes as subtle as a dinner with a few guests, maybe even just one, and they are not always organized by the person with the birthday your op does not specify throwing a party, simply participating seems to be an issue .  most importantly of all, the stated reason for the celebration does not have to be the centerpiece of it.  just like christmas and easter celebrations are not always just about jesus, just like national holiday celebrations are not all about your glorious country of residence, a birthday celebration does not have to be all about the person with the birthday.   #  i also do not know how many birthday parties you have been to with adults, virtually none involve presents unless kids are in some way involved.   #  sure, you can through a party at any time but generally there is some kind of reason.  also when i put on other parties, it is usually with one particular friend group.  i sometimes like to throw parties that mix friend groups and a birthday is a good excuse.  i also do not know how many birthday parties you have been to with adults, virtually none involve presents unless kids are in some way involved.  i expect a birthday present from my girlfriend but not really from my buddies.
celebrating your birthday is the most attention whorish thing you could ever do.  there really is no need to celebrate a birthday because you did not do anything on that actual day.  if anything, one should celebrate their mother or father on their birthday.  they did all the hard work.  when i see grown ups celebrate birthdays i cringe a little bit.  the one exception is senior citizens those who are past 0 years of age .  then it is acceptable to celebrate a birthday because it is a true celebration that you are still alive, and you could die soon.  even worse is grown men who celebrate their birthdays   throw parties to do so.  if you are a grown man, there is no need to go out   celebrate your  birth .  i think one thing that should be celebrated is your work anniversary or school year completion if you do not have a job .  this is something that you have to put effort into, and requires something on your behalf that requires a cause of celebration.  thanks for the responses.  i posted this here because i was hoping for some answers that would  change my view .  i know what birthdays are for celebrating.   #  i think one thing that should be celebrated is your work anniversary or school year completion if you do not have a job .   #  this is something that you have to put effort into, and requires something on your behalf that requires a cause of celebration.   # then it is acceptable to celebrate a birthday because it is a true celebration that you are still alive, and you could die soon.  brain aneurysm, car crash, airplane crash, cancer, hiv, getting run over by a bus, murder, suicide, cardiovascular problems.  these are all things that can kill young adults, and a non zero number of people die to those things every year.  surviving another year is not something to sneeze at even if you are under 0.  the fact is that even at our youngest, toughest, and most vital, we are frail creatures, and all it takes is one wrong turn down the wrong dark alley to make the difference between reveling with our friends at our next birthday or being the object of mourning at our funeral.  this is something that you have to put effort into, and requires something on your behalf that requires a cause of celebration.  okay, so on my birthday i am celebrating the anniversary of the beginning of my lifelong struggle to survive.  you might not see it, but some 0 in 0 people suffer from some form of acute or chronic depression at any given time, and for those people, making it another year is a bigger accomplishment than you seem to think it is.  to have you come along and basically call them narcissists for giving themselves or having their friends give them a much needed happy moment is more than a little bit of a dick move.  alright, let is talk about this one in the same vein of the last one.  my mom died when i was 0, and was not around to raise me.  my dad was emotionally unavailable and did not do much of anything to raise me either.  i ended up pretty fucked up by the time i hit  adulthood  and had to do all the hard work myself admittedly with some guidance, but i could not change unless i was willing to put in the mental and physical effort ; it rankles me more than a little when you suggest that either of those deadbeats should receive any credit for the things i have accomplished with my life.  also, we have days for that already, for those of us with good parents.  also also, i do not know where you come from, but in america turning 0 is a rite of passage, mainly because we decided you can legally buy alcohol at that point.  i do not know anyone who did not have some form of celebration on their 0st birthday, even if they did not drink themselves at that point.   #  i see some of my friends only once every couple of months, and these events are almost exclusively birthday parties.   #  when the fuck did planning a party yourself become so egocentric ? i want to invite my friends over to my house to have a bbq and drink some beer.  the goal is just to have a good time with good company and good, unhealthy food.  it is not meant to  honor myself , it is meant to  treat  myself as well as my friends.  it just makes so much more sense for me to host it.  i know the type of event that i want, how big it should be, and who i want to invite.  i do not want to impose on others, and i do not want to have to be in a situation where i have to host other people is parties as reciprocity, and have to worry about coordinating dates and times with what works for friends and what works for me particularly with my wife is night shift schedule .  when you get older, you get married and your friends start having kids, between familial obligations and work, birthdays are really the only day you can justify making time to hang out with your friends.  i see some of my friends only once every couple of months, and these events are almost exclusively birthday parties.  it is really just a reminder to take time out of your busy schedule and have some fucking fun.   #  that is necessarily true of everything you do.   # you clearly do not plan things around the schedules of busy people.  i say this as someone who plans things around the schedules of busy people.  just having one friend who works retail and one friend who does not can make getting together one time a month challenging.  it is not that your friends do not have free time, it is that your friends do not have free time  at the same time  and if you are planning regular or semi regular get togethers that is what you are aiming for.  so if you want to see all your friends, you are looking at either multiple parties a week and honestly, at almost 0, that is starting to get too exhausting on top of everything else or you cut back and do other stuff minor outings or just text/im conversations in the interim while you do other things.  that is necessarily true of everything you do.  doing x means you are not doing y, and if you enjoy both x and y, you are necessarily missing out on things that make you happy.  it is up to each individual to figure out what will make them the most happy, including short term hedonics small parties, drinking, netflix, masturbating, whatever does it for you , the mid term game financial security, saving for things that make life easier/more pleasurable and the long term retirement: aka that time when you do not have to do any job because you saved up enough money to not work during your twilight .  the problem is too many people are way too busy spending that extra time watching tv, or laying around, or browsing reddit, or surfing the internet.  i can relate to this, as i have been irritated when my friends were  busy  with obviously netflix or wow or whatever else, but the truth is that some nights i just do not want to be around people, and that is my prerogative.  no, not even my best friends.  most often, this is because i had a bad day at work and know i would be bad company, so i just stay at home and do not inflict that on anybody else.   #  just like christmas and easter celebrations are not always just about jesus, just like national holiday celebrations are not all about your glorious country of residence, a birthday celebration does not have to be all about the person with the birthday.   #  i think i see your point you are saying that the concept of birthday parties is too narcissistic for its own good.  but your example fails because it lacks the cultural context of birthday parties, and also ignores some of the facts of actual birthday celebrations.  in a larger cultural context, i would gladly attend a person is  party in honor of themselves  both because it is customary and because, if i were in their shoes, i would want them to attend mine if i were to host one as well.  and again, you also miss a few points about birthday celebrations as they exist in the real world.  they take many forms, sometimes as subtle as a dinner with a few guests, maybe even just one, and they are not always organized by the person with the birthday your op does not specify throwing a party, simply participating seems to be an issue .  most importantly of all, the stated reason for the celebration does not have to be the centerpiece of it.  just like christmas and easter celebrations are not always just about jesus, just like national holiday celebrations are not all about your glorious country of residence, a birthday celebration does not have to be all about the person with the birthday.   #  sure, you can through a party at any time but generally there is some kind of reason.   #  sure, you can through a party at any time but generally there is some kind of reason.  also when i put on other parties, it is usually with one particular friend group.  i sometimes like to throw parties that mix friend groups and a birthday is a good excuse.  i also do not know how many birthday parties you have been to with adults, virtually none involve presents unless kids are in some way involved.  i expect a birthday present from my girlfriend but not really from my buddies.
celebrating your birthday is the most attention whorish thing you could ever do.  there really is no need to celebrate a birthday because you did not do anything on that actual day.  if anything, one should celebrate their mother or father on their birthday.  they did all the hard work.  when i see grown ups celebrate birthdays i cringe a little bit.  the one exception is senior citizens those who are past 0 years of age .  then it is acceptable to celebrate a birthday because it is a true celebration that you are still alive, and you could die soon.  even worse is grown men who celebrate their birthdays   throw parties to do so.  if you are a grown man, there is no need to go out   celebrate your  birth .  i think one thing that should be celebrated is your work anniversary or school year completion if you do not have a job .  this is something that you have to put effort into, and requires something on your behalf that requires a cause of celebration.  thanks for the responses.  i posted this here because i was hoping for some answers that would  change my view .  i know what birthdays are for celebrating.   #  if anything, one should celebrate their mother or father on their birthday.   #  alright, let is talk about this one in the same vein of the last one.   # then it is acceptable to celebrate a birthday because it is a true celebration that you are still alive, and you could die soon.  brain aneurysm, car crash, airplane crash, cancer, hiv, getting run over by a bus, murder, suicide, cardiovascular problems.  these are all things that can kill young adults, and a non zero number of people die to those things every year.  surviving another year is not something to sneeze at even if you are under 0.  the fact is that even at our youngest, toughest, and most vital, we are frail creatures, and all it takes is one wrong turn down the wrong dark alley to make the difference between reveling with our friends at our next birthday or being the object of mourning at our funeral.  this is something that you have to put effort into, and requires something on your behalf that requires a cause of celebration.  okay, so on my birthday i am celebrating the anniversary of the beginning of my lifelong struggle to survive.  you might not see it, but some 0 in 0 people suffer from some form of acute or chronic depression at any given time, and for those people, making it another year is a bigger accomplishment than you seem to think it is.  to have you come along and basically call them narcissists for giving themselves or having their friends give them a much needed happy moment is more than a little bit of a dick move.  alright, let is talk about this one in the same vein of the last one.  my mom died when i was 0, and was not around to raise me.  my dad was emotionally unavailable and did not do much of anything to raise me either.  i ended up pretty fucked up by the time i hit  adulthood  and had to do all the hard work myself admittedly with some guidance, but i could not change unless i was willing to put in the mental and physical effort ; it rankles me more than a little when you suggest that either of those deadbeats should receive any credit for the things i have accomplished with my life.  also, we have days for that already, for those of us with good parents.  also also, i do not know where you come from, but in america turning 0 is a rite of passage, mainly because we decided you can legally buy alcohol at that point.  i do not know anyone who did not have some form of celebration on their 0st birthday, even if they did not drink themselves at that point.   #  i want to invite my friends over to my house to have a bbq and drink some beer.   #  when the fuck did planning a party yourself become so egocentric ? i want to invite my friends over to my house to have a bbq and drink some beer.  the goal is just to have a good time with good company and good, unhealthy food.  it is not meant to  honor myself , it is meant to  treat  myself as well as my friends.  it just makes so much more sense for me to host it.  i know the type of event that i want, how big it should be, and who i want to invite.  i do not want to impose on others, and i do not want to have to be in a situation where i have to host other people is parties as reciprocity, and have to worry about coordinating dates and times with what works for friends and what works for me particularly with my wife is night shift schedule .  when you get older, you get married and your friends start having kids, between familial obligations and work, birthdays are really the only day you can justify making time to hang out with your friends.  i see some of my friends only once every couple of months, and these events are almost exclusively birthday parties.  it is really just a reminder to take time out of your busy schedule and have some fucking fun.   #  you clearly do not plan things around the schedules of busy people.   # you clearly do not plan things around the schedules of busy people.  i say this as someone who plans things around the schedules of busy people.  just having one friend who works retail and one friend who does not can make getting together one time a month challenging.  it is not that your friends do not have free time, it is that your friends do not have free time  at the same time  and if you are planning regular or semi regular get togethers that is what you are aiming for.  so if you want to see all your friends, you are looking at either multiple parties a week and honestly, at almost 0, that is starting to get too exhausting on top of everything else or you cut back and do other stuff minor outings or just text/im conversations in the interim while you do other things.  that is necessarily true of everything you do.  doing x means you are not doing y, and if you enjoy both x and y, you are necessarily missing out on things that make you happy.  it is up to each individual to figure out what will make them the most happy, including short term hedonics small parties, drinking, netflix, masturbating, whatever does it for you , the mid term game financial security, saving for things that make life easier/more pleasurable and the long term retirement: aka that time when you do not have to do any job because you saved up enough money to not work during your twilight .  the problem is too many people are way too busy spending that extra time watching tv, or laying around, or browsing reddit, or surfing the internet.  i can relate to this, as i have been irritated when my friends were  busy  with obviously netflix or wow or whatever else, but the truth is that some nights i just do not want to be around people, and that is my prerogative.  no, not even my best friends.  most often, this is because i had a bad day at work and know i would be bad company, so i just stay at home and do not inflict that on anybody else.   #  i think i see your point you are saying that the concept of birthday parties is too narcissistic for its own good.   #  i think i see your point you are saying that the concept of birthday parties is too narcissistic for its own good.  but your example fails because it lacks the cultural context of birthday parties, and also ignores some of the facts of actual birthday celebrations.  in a larger cultural context, i would gladly attend a person is  party in honor of themselves  both because it is customary and because, if i were in their shoes, i would want them to attend mine if i were to host one as well.  and again, you also miss a few points about birthday celebrations as they exist in the real world.  they take many forms, sometimes as subtle as a dinner with a few guests, maybe even just one, and they are not always organized by the person with the birthday your op does not specify throwing a party, simply participating seems to be an issue .  most importantly of all, the stated reason for the celebration does not have to be the centerpiece of it.  just like christmas and easter celebrations are not always just about jesus, just like national holiday celebrations are not all about your glorious country of residence, a birthday celebration does not have to be all about the person with the birthday.   #  i also do not know how many birthday parties you have been to with adults, virtually none involve presents unless kids are in some way involved.   #  sure, you can through a party at any time but generally there is some kind of reason.  also when i put on other parties, it is usually with one particular friend group.  i sometimes like to throw parties that mix friend groups and a birthday is a good excuse.  i also do not know how many birthday parties you have been to with adults, virtually none involve presents unless kids are in some way involved.  i expect a birthday present from my girlfriend but not really from my buddies.
i think most people intuitively agree that the pet owner relationship is on the whole beneficial to the pet.  while the possibility exists for neglect or abuse on the owner is part, we say that those downsides are not enough to find the practice in general morally objectionable.  suppose we encountered an alien race whose intelligence as can be determined via every measure is greater than ours by a factor equal to the factor between humans and dogs/cats.  ex: if humans are 0x smarter than dogs, these aliens would be 0x smarter than humans, and 0x smarter than dogs.  when it comes to communication, their culture and society is so hopelessly complex and nuanced that we will never be able to communicate with them as they do with each other.  at best the aliens may attempt to speak to us using signals we can comprehend.  just as humans attempt to do with pets.  suppose also that the general attitude towards pet keeping with these aliens is the same as our attitude.  humans should given food and shelter to satisfy all their physical needs, and humans should be given enough freedom so that they can exercise most of their physical, intellectual, and creative desires.  emotionally, the primary bond a human can expect is of companionship with it is owner, but it is possible that they will be able to interact and form strong bonds with other pets.  of course, these things are no more  guaranteed  to happen then they are with humans and their pets, but the aliens feel that their standard of care is strong enough that those concerns do not necessitate outlawing pet keeping, or finding pet keeping in general morally objectionable.  on the whole, i believe this would be a beneficial relationship for humanity, to the same degree that the pet owner relationship humans have with dogs/cats is beneficial for those dogs/cats.   one final disclaimer: there are many different kinds of pets humans have, that posses many different levels and kinds of intelligence.  fish obviously do not generally receive the same standard of care and freedom as dogs do.  i would like to keep the discussion focused on animals that we treat similarly to dogs and cats.  i have focused so much on dogs and cats because they are a very, very common as pets.  b pretty dang smart, but still nowhere near us.  i do not totally discount arguments that make use of analogies with pets other than dogs and cats, but the hypothetical scenario i am assuming places us in the same relationship with these aliens as dogs and cats are with us.    breaking news : a delta has been awarded here URL for a minor change in my position.  another delta awarded here URL for another minor change in position.  alright folks, i have got to head off now, i have been doing this for like 0 or 0 hours now.  it was a pleasure talking to all you guys.  my favorite exchange occurred here URL it did not totally change my view, but it made some progress.  i think if some really strong arguments were made i might flip my position.  but for now i think i will still be welcoming our new alien overlords.  i might make some more comments tomorrow, we will see.   #  and humans should be given enough freedom so that they can exercise most of their physical, intellectual, and creative desires.   #  if humans are given freedom, how are they pets ?  #  heck, the way you describe it, humans wo not even know that they are pets.  aliens will just be seen as really good friends, protectors and providers.  however, i would argue that what you are describing is not really a pet master relationship.  if humans are given freedom, how are they pets ? loss of freedom is essential ingredient of pet hood.   #  humans have certainly adapted to laws and conformed to social norms in large part through compromising our freedoms.   # and humans are not ? we are denied freedoms throughout our entire lives.  humans have certainly adapted to laws and conformed to social norms in large part through compromising our freedoms.  at any rate, you ca not just assume that non human pets are  happy and content  for a number of reasons.  you ca not ask them if they are happy and content, or if they would prefer the freedoms outside of human control.  you can certainly observe an animal for signs of stress or contentment, but then you kinda hafta define what  freedom  and  happy and content  means for a non human.  i believe that i can conclude that my cat is generally  happy and content .  but not without the freedom to roam outside of the confines of our house.  i have tried to keep him indoors, and let me tell you that he was neither happy nor content.   #  therefore i deny him the freedom he desires for the sake of his own well being.   #  i got one of my dogs when he was between 0 and 0 years old.  he would gladly escape past me out the front door and run around the neighborhood.  he would probably try to attack any other animal he comes in contact with.  he gets along well enough with the animals he shares the house with, but he would much rather run wild in the neighborhood.  he does not fully understand the ramifications of his actions the way i do.  therefore i deny him the freedom he desires for the sake of his own well being.  is it immoral for me to keep him as a pet ?  #  some well treated pets also attempt to run away.   #  fair counterargument, but it is not as straightforward as that.  some well treated pets also attempt to run away.  my families old dog used to run away when it was younger, we would always retrieve it before it came back on its own.  when it became older it stopped attempting to run away.  our three other dogs never tried to run.  should we have let the older dog leave when it tried to run away because it was morally wrong to keep it contained ?  #  i believe there are two possibilities: a.  we can analogize closely from humans to animals.   #  i believe there are two possibilities: a.  we can analogize closely from humans to animals.  dogs can be happy and we can tell from their body language and behavior.  b.  we cannot analogize closely.  people who say their dog is happy are deluding themselves.  happiness is a human construct, and whatever dogs might have is different in key ways from happiness.  i personally believe a.  and i completely reject the idea of c.  dogs can be happy but we have no idea what that looks like.
i think most people intuitively agree that the pet owner relationship is on the whole beneficial to the pet.  while the possibility exists for neglect or abuse on the owner is part, we say that those downsides are not enough to find the practice in general morally objectionable.  suppose we encountered an alien race whose intelligence as can be determined via every measure is greater than ours by a factor equal to the factor between humans and dogs/cats.  ex: if humans are 0x smarter than dogs, these aliens would be 0x smarter than humans, and 0x smarter than dogs.  when it comes to communication, their culture and society is so hopelessly complex and nuanced that we will never be able to communicate with them as they do with each other.  at best the aliens may attempt to speak to us using signals we can comprehend.  just as humans attempt to do with pets.  suppose also that the general attitude towards pet keeping with these aliens is the same as our attitude.  humans should given food and shelter to satisfy all their physical needs, and humans should be given enough freedom so that they can exercise most of their physical, intellectual, and creative desires.  emotionally, the primary bond a human can expect is of companionship with it is owner, but it is possible that they will be able to interact and form strong bonds with other pets.  of course, these things are no more  guaranteed  to happen then they are with humans and their pets, but the aliens feel that their standard of care is strong enough that those concerns do not necessitate outlawing pet keeping, or finding pet keeping in general morally objectionable.  on the whole, i believe this would be a beneficial relationship for humanity, to the same degree that the pet owner relationship humans have with dogs/cats is beneficial for those dogs/cats.   one final disclaimer: there are many different kinds of pets humans have, that posses many different levels and kinds of intelligence.  fish obviously do not generally receive the same standard of care and freedom as dogs do.  i would like to keep the discussion focused on animals that we treat similarly to dogs and cats.  i have focused so much on dogs and cats because they are a very, very common as pets.  b pretty dang smart, but still nowhere near us.  i do not totally discount arguments that make use of analogies with pets other than dogs and cats, but the hypothetical scenario i am assuming places us in the same relationship with these aliens as dogs and cats are with us.    breaking news : a delta has been awarded here URL for a minor change in my position.  another delta awarded here URL for another minor change in position.  alright folks, i have got to head off now, i have been doing this for like 0 or 0 hours now.  it was a pleasure talking to all you guys.  my favorite exchange occurred here URL it did not totally change my view, but it made some progress.  i think if some really strong arguments were made i might flip my position.  but for now i think i will still be welcoming our new alien overlords.  i might make some more comments tomorrow, we will see.   #  we say that those downsides are not enough to find the practice in general morally objectionable.   #  for the same reason that i would not consider eating meat to be morally objectionable.   # only in ideal circumstances.  the pet is giving up a whole lot of it is freedom for a secure food source and protection from predators.  it is usually completely at the mercy of the owner.  it ca not breed or do what it wants when it wants to.  not an ideal situation for the pet really.  the benefits may be worth it sometimes but most of the time it is forced on them and not something they would choose.  i really only think that it is truly beneficial in cases where the pet has actually evolved to naturally form social relationships with humans which afaik is only true for cats and dogs.  for other animals it is doubtful if it could be considered a positive thing for the individual animal, even in good circumstances.  there is bound to be exceptions of course.  life in the wild is hard but life in a cage is not necessarily preferable.  for the same reason that i would not consider eating meat to be morally objectionable.  which is not because it is beneficial to the animal.  though i am personally on the fence about the morality of eating some kinds of meat do not want to give it up though .  my main objection though is that you focus on intelligence as the sole criteria for whether or not it is morally justified to keep an animal as a pet.  but i would argue that if a creature fulfills certain criteria which require a certain degree of intelligence then it is wrong to force it into the form of slavery that this pet system would constitute.  almost all humans would suffer greatly by being bereft of their basic freedoms.  if we care about the well being of humans then we ought to consider the practice of keeping humans as pets morally wrong.  i ca not see any way that it could feasibly be done in a respectful manner.  humans would not benefit from such a relationship.  materially perhaps, but not emotionally and psychologically.   #  however, i would argue that what you are describing is not really a pet master relationship.   #  heck, the way you describe it, humans wo not even know that they are pets.  aliens will just be seen as really good friends, protectors and providers.  however, i would argue that what you are describing is not really a pet master relationship.  if humans are given freedom, how are they pets ? loss of freedom is essential ingredient of pet hood.   #  i have tried to keep him indoors, and let me tell you that he was neither happy nor content.   # and humans are not ? we are denied freedoms throughout our entire lives.  humans have certainly adapted to laws and conformed to social norms in large part through compromising our freedoms.  at any rate, you ca not just assume that non human pets are  happy and content  for a number of reasons.  you ca not ask them if they are happy and content, or if they would prefer the freedoms outside of human control.  you can certainly observe an animal for signs of stress or contentment, but then you kinda hafta define what  freedom  and  happy and content  means for a non human.  i believe that i can conclude that my cat is generally  happy and content .  but not without the freedom to roam outside of the confines of our house.  i have tried to keep him indoors, and let me tell you that he was neither happy nor content.   #  i got one of my dogs when he was between 0 and 0 years old.   #  i got one of my dogs when he was between 0 and 0 years old.  he would gladly escape past me out the front door and run around the neighborhood.  he would probably try to attack any other animal he comes in contact with.  he gets along well enough with the animals he shares the house with, but he would much rather run wild in the neighborhood.  he does not fully understand the ramifications of his actions the way i do.  therefore i deny him the freedom he desires for the sake of his own well being.  is it immoral for me to keep him as a pet ?  #  my families old dog used to run away when it was younger, we would always retrieve it before it came back on its own.   #  fair counterargument, but it is not as straightforward as that.  some well treated pets also attempt to run away.  my families old dog used to run away when it was younger, we would always retrieve it before it came back on its own.  when it became older it stopped attempting to run away.  our three other dogs never tried to run.  should we have let the older dog leave when it tried to run away because it was morally wrong to keep it contained ?
admittedly strip clubs have come to be seen as a fun and even ideal environment for partying.  the  by the book  clubs do not allow clients to have sex with the strippers, though of course it most likely happens a lot and many strippers are prostitutes, but not all.  the two jobs are not all that dissimilar sex work , though stripping is more of an art and i imagine the best performers take it quite seriously and do not sell themselves cheaply .  on the client side, i think the only reason strip clubs came to be is due to a crackdown on  out in the open  brothels and the type of men who would go to a strip club would also go to a brothel if they did not feel like criminals.  if brothels were legalized i can see some of those businesses eventually reaching a similar level of social acceptance, thus brothels will become more than a series of dark rooms full of sex slaves and may become the amusing harems and menageries of historical fiction.  i find that not only will clients prefer the legal brothel with a nice entertainment budget.  why just go watch a girl dance around naked ? why not touch her as you like and even have sex ? or watch people have sex etc.  the type of men who regularly go to strip clubs most likely only go because they cant get attractive women to pay attention to them and are willing to deal with teasing and stripping because an illegal brothel can result in infections or jail time.  i even suspect that the performers will end up working in brothels rather than strip clubs.  seeing as there are women who will have sex with them without legal repercussions men wo not throw as much money at a girl who is just taking her clothes off.  no doubt brothels will end up having some of the girls strip to entice clients to go into the back rooms with them.  the artistic side of stripping, which only exists due to the illegality of brothels and male willingness to throw money at attractive women, will lose a great deal of funding and talent.   #  the type of men who regularly go to strip clubs most likely only go because they cant get attractive women to pay attention to them and are willing to deal with teasing and stripping because an illegal brothel can result in infections or jail time.   #  i think this assertion requires some defending.   # i think this assertion requires some defending.  plenty of happily married men go to strip clubs and bring their wives with them.  in the wild west aka, the 0s , where hostile work environment legislation had not yet been passed, business meetings would be held at strip clubs.  bachelor parties go to strip clubs when one would explicitly not want to cheat on one is fiance.  people go to strip clubs to watch boxing and football which has to be irritating to the strippers when all their clients are distracted .  indeed, despite strip clubs being legal, burlesque shows are making a comeback in the us.  there is room in the market for all different levels of sexual entertainment.  it need not be a race to the top.   #  and i do not think everyone going to a strip club would prefer a brothel if that were the alternative  #  there are strip clubs in countries where prostitution and brothels are legal, and there are strip clubs in states in america where prostitution and brothels are legal.  there are also strip clubs with varying degrees of nakedness permitted.  i think there is a market for both.  also, i think some people who go to strip clubs would not be comfortable at a brothel.  in america, going to a strip club is a moderately common occurrence for a bachelor/bachelorette party.  hiring a prostitute may not be acceptable to everyone.  i think there certainly would be some strip clubs going out of business as they would lose some customers to brothels, but i think there is room for some of both.  and i do not think everyone going to a strip club would prefer a brothel if that were the alternative  #  it is a novelty thing for me, and i like to chat with the girls and i think lap dances are fun.   #  i think most people are comfortable with different things.  just speaking personally, i really like going to strip clubs.  it is a novelty thing for me, and i like to chat with the girls and i think lap dances are fun.  however, i would not pay for sex that is something that would make me very uncomfortable.  i honestly think i could not physically do it because i need to know that someone wants to have sex with me before i proceed.  so i think there are enough people out there like me who would keep the strip club industry going.  think about it, there is still an active cam girl/guy business that involves no touching at all and plenty of people do that instead of going to strip clubs.   #  way way back in the super fucking boring times.   #  i think i get where your coming from op.  it took me a minute, but you really are thinking of essentially all brothels being like historical fiction brothels.  they are not just places to go and pick a prostitute, talk, have sex whatever.  they are places full of people getting drunk and hanging out.  some people are naked, some are not, but it is overall more of a giant social club that has a bunch of private rooms for extra awesome funtimes.  i think most of the posts here have been around the concept of a modern brothel, but are missing that it would be a place for people to go with significant others and just get drunk, see titties together, and chill with friends. some of whom are definitely boning some prostitutes, but it would be more of a total social environment.  you mentioned game of thrones, but i also thought of the iconic old west saloon.  people are playing cards, hanging out, and occasionally going upstairs.  i still think there would be a place for strip clubs, but you may be right op.  maybe there would be strip clubs for historical reasons.  go and see titties just like dad used to.  way way back in the super fucking boring times.  before everything got cool.    op changed my view.   #  one time in amsterdam, during the middle of the day, i saw an old man come out of a window and greeted an old woman like any other couple of elderly friends would anywhere else in the world.   #  in amsterdam, it is socially acceptable to work in a red light window and the girls are not looked down on in the same way  working girls  would be in other countries.  it is respected as it is done in a legal and safe manner.  one time in amsterdam, during the middle of the day, i saw an old man come out of a window and greeted an old woman like any other couple of elderly friends would anywhere else in the world.  amsterdam is a good example as it has the obvious prostitution but also has plenty of strip clubs.  i for one have never visited a red light window but on my first trip to amsterdam we did go to a strip club.  i think not everyone goes with the intention of having sex, it can just be a fun thing to do with a group of mates.
i would warn against spoilers now if it were not for the problem that the spoilers are really bloody predictable and if you have not realised a pattern, you should have by now.  by the way, i would like to also mention how addicted i am to the show, without knowing why.  this is the point of the cmv. i want to know if the show is actually good, or if this is just my one stupid show i ca not not watch.  all this show does is build characters and engage the audience for a little while before the same old rubbish happens someone you love dies horrendously.  it is just so cheap on the level of jump scares in a horror movie.  only the horror movie is central plot is based around a few cheap jump scares.  that is what game of thrones is, only it is filled with mildly entertaining bits in between, and some steadily improving cgi.  you know it actually reminded me of season 0 ssssspoooiillleerrrrr the f king torture scene where the guy helps reek forgot his actual name escapes with the help of that guy, only for it to turn out to be part of the torture, as he is brought back to his captor and his hope is crushed to dust and his dick is chopped off .  we, the audience, are constantly given hope that the good people will triumph and everyone will get justice which sometimes happens, admittedly and live happily ever after in a peaceful kingdom.  then that does not happen.  gory shit happens to out beloved protagonists.  what kind of entertainment is this ? where you get your hopes built up and crushed repeatedly ? an entertainment for psychos ? in conclusion, george martin is a psycho.   #  all this show does is build characters and engage the audience for a little while before the same old rubbish happens someone you love dies horrendously.   #  it is just so cheap on the level of jump scares in a horror movie.   # it is just so cheap on the level of jump scares in a horror movie.  only the horror movie is central plot is based around a few cheap jump scares.  what if this strategy emerged from the first season of the show ? i mean, the makers are not dumb, they noticed which scenes trigger emotions.  thus they were intensifying those particular scenes, by building up the characters more and stronger than the books and at cost of storytelling in between.   #  the problem seems to be that you are just falling into the trap of assuming because it was popular for a while for people to say  oh, do not like that character, it just means grrm is going to kill them off !    #  so you are just choosing to ignore the main characters who do not seem to be at the point of death any time soon ? arya, sansa, john snow, danyres, tyrion, cerci, jamie, bran stark ? the list goes on and on of characters that grow and develop and are not killed.  the problem seems to be that you are just falling into the trap of assuming because it was popular for a while for people to say  oh, do not like that character, it just means grrm is going to kill them off !   there are literally dozens of different story lines, each with different types of character progressions, none of which the consistent theme is  like this character then watch them die !   it seems as though you have just not bothered to actually watch or read the stories and are taking the position which you think is the correct one from pop culture.   #  it would be like dany just being killed by the khalisar she is met up with or tyrion being eaten by a lion in the fighting pits or arya slipping into a bravosi canal and drowning.   #  i am here is why i think he wo not stay dead in the books: the prologue of adwd with varamyr sixskins talking about how wargs live a second life, jon is a warg.  mellisandre is vision of seeing  a man, then a wolf, then a man again.   mellisandre being a red priest like throros of myr, so she can possibly ressurect the dead this is how i think the show will handle it too, though it would be cool to suddenly reveal jon is a warg there too maybe i dunno .  that is not even getting into the whole lack of narriative sense, unless he becomes the new night is king or something. five books of character development for a sudden betrayal ? plus all the stuff about his parentage ? it would be a monumental waste for that to happen.  it would be like dany just being killed by the khalisar she is met up with or tyrion being eaten by a lion in the fighting pits or arya slipping into a bravosi canal and drowning.   #  still, with the exception of the night king storyline, most omissions, redirections, and extrapolation from the source material have been lower in quality than the books.   #  you lose so much detail on internal dialogue by watching only the show.  putting aside my many grievances with how the show writers have chosen to alter some of the material e. g.  the entire north campaign , the show is constrained by the manner in which it has to be presented.  we ca not just jump from one person is point of view to the next as viewers.  as a book reader, you get to be that character, and share the experience with them; for the show, we just observe events unfold.  my feeling is that the show is greatly enhanced by reading the books, and that it serves as a strong complement to the books.  still; very little of your gripes should be directed at grrm.  ramsey bolton, for example, is reviled by all yet the show has glorified him.  tldr: the show has done a very good job of depicting memorable events and growing interest in the saga itself.  the casting is largely phenomenal.  scenery and costumes, also fantastic.  still, with the exception of the night king storyline, most omissions, redirections, and extrapolation from the source material have been lower in quality than the books.  in a world of gray, the show has made an odd choice to remake the characters as very black or white, with little nuance left.  as someone said on /r/asoiaf the other day; it is easier to write a villian like ramsey or trant than a character like tywin lannister  #  history itself can be very tragic, and got is a reflection of that.   #  one thing i like about the deaths is that they are realistic, in the sense that in real life, in real history, the good guys do not always win.  how many countless lives have been tragically cut short and how many times have the bad guys won ? often more than the good.  history itself can be very tragic, and got is a reflection of that.  if art is an expression of truth, got succeeds in this respect.  but more importantly for me, i am an advocate of prose style in books.  some of the best books, in my opinion, do not have so much going on in the plot department so much as in the writing and characterization.  good writing can be succulent.  take  lolita , for example, or  blood meridian .  these books would be unexceptional, even below average, if not for the brilliant, jaw dropping prose.  and i think of got the show, not the books, which i have not read as similar in this respect.  while it does not rise anywhere close to the heights of the previous comparisons it is a show, after all , the writing and the production can be fantastic, and i find just taking in the language, the characters, the politics, the settings, the different scopes of what is at stake, and the tensions between who are and are not likable the toying with the audience is need to dichotomize all very enjoyable.  it is all very richly developed and fun.
i should start by saying that i believe all other options should be pursued to the fullest before putting the lives of anyone in danger.  that being said, i believe that protecting, and even strengthening our economy and therefore our nation is a moral enough cause to put lives on the line.  the role of government, especially in the modern world, is to protect not only the lives of its citizens, but to increase their quality of life.  a stronger economy leads to better infrastructure, more social services, less crime caused by necessity.  theoretically, though obviously not always true in practice whether it be:   securing trade routes   security of natural resources   military action that stabilizes regions in which we do commerce   assisting allies who strengthen our economy with military aid real world examples of this could be:   the money spent, and the lives endangered by patrolling coastal waters for pirates.    the soldiers we sent to defend kuwait from iraq   soldiers on the dmz of the korean peninsula keep in mind the assumption of this post is that the military action is a peace keeping, security purposed, deterrence force.  not a raiding party to steal the oil tile from the mongols in civ0.  for the entirety of existence, humans have felt that putting the lives of the few on the line for the prosperity of the many is not only morally acceptable, but commendable.  to carrying degrees of willingness and volunteering vs drafting and consignment in the modern world, the  world war  is not over land or sovereignty, but economic prowess.  you are still fighting for your country, even if it is not for it is  very survival .   #  i believe that protecting, and even strengthening our economy and therefore our nation is a moral enough cause to put lives on the line.   #  how is murdering innocent foreign lives to strengthen ourselves  moral  ?  # how is murdering innocent foreign lives to strengthen ourselves  moral  ? in this fucking horrible world, we kill innocent people for own gain or they might kill us, or they might get resources we want or need.  we prefer we live and someone else die just as they would prefer they live and we die.  this is the world we live in.  but do not kid yourself that it is  moral .  it is the same as a lion killing and eating a lamb.  we do it to survive and because for the moment we are the lions and not the lambs, not because it is moral.  if it happens that some foreign power invades your home town or city to protect it is economic interests in whatever resources you have killing hundreds of thousands in the process and then they shrug  collateral damage  you will fail to see the  morality  of their actions, i promise you.   #  at the time, kuwait was a major source of the us  oil supply.   #  would extrapolating on the kuwait example be okay ? at the time, kuwait was a major source of the us  oil supply.  iraq was not friendly with the us, and it was well known that if they were to control the kuwaiti oil, they would either not supply it to us, or charge a much higher rate.  in providing military assistance and driving the invading iraqi army out of kuwait, the us used military action to secure an economic interest.  i will stop with desert shield, as i feel desert storm no longer fits my criteria of  peace keeping security force .  let me know if i could explain something more specific.   #  iraq responded by invading kuwait to secure its economic interests.   #  ah interesting.  you might not remember this background, but kuwait was actually violating the terms of the opec pact at the time.  opec, including iraq and kuwait, had agreed to reduce production to maintain the price of oil at $0/barrel.  kuwait had dug itself into some debt, and as a result, was overproducing oil, leading to losses for iraq.  iraq referred to this as  economic warfare .  iraq responded by invading kuwait to secure its economic interests.  by your definition, that would be a just war.  if iraq was waging a reasonable war, was the united states waging a reasonable war fighting them ? if your answer is yes, then you are part of the realpolitik school.  the realpolitik school is neatly recapped by kissinger, who said that  nations do not have friends or values , they have interests  so, no one can change your mind in this thread, because of what your definition of  reasonable  is.  but from a moral perspective, it is a much less defensible position.  if nothing is more valued than life, and every life has equal value regardless of nationality, then ending life to improve one is own quality of life is immoral.   #  the only counter points that come to mind are:   did iraq truly exhaust all non military options ?  #  you have made some excellent points here.  the only counter points that come to mind are:   did iraq truly exhaust all non military options ? invading a sovereign nation in the name of economic interests carries a larger negative connotation than using military force to defend one for economic reasons.  i definitely struggle with the schism between the immense value i put on human life, and the result of that belief which is: human life has a measurable value.  as someone who tends to be more liberal when it comes to domestic issues, and conservative when it comes to foreign policy; you quoting kissinger was very apropos.  though i do not agree with all of his philosophies and policies while i am not sure that you have fully changed my mind, you have absolutely changed my view of this topic.  delta awarded.     #  tell me how much does a modern asymmetrical war cost to wage ?  #  tell me how much does a modern asymmetrical war cost to wage ? how much does a society cost to rebuild ? how often will you need to rebuild it ? what will you need to rebuild it ? how will you train people to do so ? can you define victory conditions, for me ? just curious i have noticed the infrastructure of the united states is falling apart, and i am curious whether we are just supposed to build bridges with the bodies, or something ?
europe has a hard time dealing with refugees from all over africa.  because of a variety of reasons.  from persecution because of race, gender, sexual orientation or religion.  because of war or because of famine.  this are all valid reasons to seek refuge.  but many people enter europe to have a better life here.  to work here because we are rich.  i think those  refugees  should be send back immediately.  because they have no right whatsoever to stay here.  they do not have to fear imminent risk of life or property and currupt the economic system of the eu through illegal emplyment.  and they make it harder for those who have real reasons to enter to get access into the union.  instead of fleeing they could risk their lifes in a more meaningfull way and change their respective countries to offer a more prosper future.  because risking their lifes is what they do anyway.  change my view  #  to work here because we are rich.   #  i think those  refugees  should be send back immediately.   # i think those  refugees  should be send back immediately.  because they have no right whatsoever to stay here.  seems like that willingness to work is valuable.  what gives you, or anyone, any more right to be there than them ? because you were born there ? that is just a matter of luck.  you have no control over where you were born; why should that fact dictate major life choices for you ?  #  i always hear about how cheap and fast your rail lines are.   #  so the value of a person depends on their level of education, and not their willingness to work ? no amount of work ethic makes someone worth anything to you ? and if that is limited to the south, move them north.  i always hear about how cheap and fast your rail lines are.  but to be pointed about it; what right do you have that they do not to be there ? why should a completely random factor make such massive decisions about their life, when it does not make such decisions about your life ?  #  not to say i would support that but i accept that well, if you are going to make that the basis of your view, you probably should support it.   # they are citizens in their respective countries.  so ? like i said, that is just a matter of luck; you did not choose to be born where you were born, nor did they.  why should a matter of pure chance give you such prosperity and them such a destitute existence ? not to say i would support that but i accept that well, if you are going to make that the basis of your view, you probably should support it.  and if you want to claim capitalism, let them come in.  if the market has jobs for them, boom, capitalism.  if it does not, they will stop coming.  you forcing them to leave for arbitrary reasons is not capitalism.   #  another reason for them to leave is sovereignty.   # and if you want to claim capitalism, let them come in.  if the market has jobs for them, boom, capitalism.  if it does not, they will stop coming.  you forcing them to leave for arbitrary reasons is not capitalism.  first of all.  no i do not have to support reality.  i could be a communist but still think that under the current circumstances this isnt a viable option.  im not.  why would there be so many refugee camps where they do not have any work and yet they still come out of pure desperation.  even tho we do not have any place for them to live and neither to work.  another reason for them to leave is sovereignty.  people have to respect that they cannot enter foreign states.  they have no right to stay here in the first place.   #  you keep dodging this question; what right do you have to force them to stay poor and destitute while you enjoy what is, to them, luxury, when the only reason you have such things and they do not is pure luck ?  # even tho we do not have any place for them to live and neither to work really ? in such a prosperous nation you say in the orignial post that you are rich , there is no place for them to stay ? no work for them to do ? you can;t think of anything productive they could be doing ? people have to respect that they cannot enter foreign states.  why ? what makes sovereignty a fundamental principle ? what makes the piece of dirt you have sacred ? why not ? what gives you the right, and not them ? just because your mother was there when she gave birth, and theirs was elsewhere ? you keep dodging this question; what right do you have to force them to stay poor and destitute while you enjoy what is, to them, luxury, when the only reason you have such things and they do not is pure luck ?
europe has a hard time dealing with refugees from all over africa.  because of a variety of reasons.  from persecution because of race, gender, sexual orientation or religion.  because of war or because of famine.  this are all valid reasons to seek refuge.  but many people enter europe to have a better life here.  to work here because we are rich.  i think those  refugees  should be send back immediately.  because they have no right whatsoever to stay here.  they do not have to fear imminent risk of life or property and currupt the economic system of the eu through illegal emplyment.  and they make it harder for those who have real reasons to enter to get access into the union.  instead of fleeing they could risk their lifes in a more meaningfull way and change their respective countries to offer a more prosper future.  because risking their lifes is what they do anyway.  change my view  #  they do not have to fear imminent risk of life or property and currupt the economic system of the eu through illegal emplyment.   #  many of these people are fleeing poor living conditions, which quite often risk life and property.   # many of these people are fleeing poor living conditions, which quite often risk life and property.  the famine in ethiopia in 0 is a perfect example would you rebuff refugees who, if they were to return to their country of origin, were likely to die of their poverty ? while i do not agree that europe has an onus to house refugees, i do believe that they have two ethical choices that the continent has to choose from: give them a better life in europe, or give them a better life in africa.  these people are clearly not content with the lives they are living, and because they do not see progress being made in their home countries, they seek out places which have achieved progress in living standards, and hence try to get to europe.  the fact that so many are willing to risk their lives and well being to do so only shows how desperate some people are for a better life.  europe does send a great deal of money to africa in the form of development assistance every year, but it is poorly organized, does not have a long term development plan in mind, and is often given to the wrong countries for the wrong reasons.  this aid comes in the form of government to government transfers, which when sent to corrupt governments of which there are many in africa gets mis sspent and does not serve to help the poor as much as it does loosen up the government is budget limitations.  europe is going to have to deal with this crisis in one way or another.  either they can house immigrants and face the costs at home without dealing with the problem head on, or they can do a better job at development assistance.  instead of government to government transfers, european countries need to lobby for a strategy that reduces corruption, increases human capital particularly through education and training , and gives africans a means to develop their own economies from the ground up.   #  i think those  refugees  should be send back immediately.   # i think those  refugees  should be send back immediately.  because they have no right whatsoever to stay here.  seems like that willingness to work is valuable.  what gives you, or anyone, any more right to be there than them ? because you were born there ? that is just a matter of luck.  you have no control over where you were born; why should that fact dictate major life choices for you ?  #  why should a completely random factor make such massive decisions about their life, when it does not make such decisions about your life ?  #  so the value of a person depends on their level of education, and not their willingness to work ? no amount of work ethic makes someone worth anything to you ? and if that is limited to the south, move them north.  i always hear about how cheap and fast your rail lines are.  but to be pointed about it; what right do you have that they do not to be there ? why should a completely random factor make such massive decisions about their life, when it does not make such decisions about your life ?  #  and if you want to claim capitalism, let them come in.   # they are citizens in their respective countries.  so ? like i said, that is just a matter of luck; you did not choose to be born where you were born, nor did they.  why should a matter of pure chance give you such prosperity and them such a destitute existence ? not to say i would support that but i accept that well, if you are going to make that the basis of your view, you probably should support it.  and if you want to claim capitalism, let them come in.  if the market has jobs for them, boom, capitalism.  if it does not, they will stop coming.  you forcing them to leave for arbitrary reasons is not capitalism.   #  you forcing them to leave for arbitrary reasons is not capitalism.   # and if you want to claim capitalism, let them come in.  if the market has jobs for them, boom, capitalism.  if it does not, they will stop coming.  you forcing them to leave for arbitrary reasons is not capitalism.  first of all.  no i do not have to support reality.  i could be a communist but still think that under the current circumstances this isnt a viable option.  im not.  why would there be so many refugee camps where they do not have any work and yet they still come out of pure desperation.  even tho we do not have any place for them to live and neither to work.  another reason for them to leave is sovereignty.  people have to respect that they cannot enter foreign states.  they have no right to stay here in the first place.
so, as you may or may not know, depending on where you live, europe has been hit by an unprecedented wave of migrants.  in the first 0 months of this year, only in italy, only the migrants arriving by boat from libya were 0,0.  there are tons of others going to greece as a first stop and many others not coming by boat.  their composition is varied.  there are lots of formerly wealthy syrians fleeing civil war/isis/poverty, many fleeing war torn libya not that many libyans as much as former immigrants to libya and others from other mali, nigeria and eritrea.  europe is having lots of problems handling these little numbers, with nordic nations trying to block them in every way.  so, racist parties are saying:  let is help where they are from , actually meaning:  i do not want to see them at all .  the eu has made a weak plan to get some extra 0,0 syrians out of a couple  milions  who already fled their home and live in refugee camps ! in the next months and nothing for the other africans.  just a little note where they say that it is their intention to stop  human trafficking  and therefore arrest those who run these boat operations.  of course arresting those who profit from desperate is a good thing but.  stopping those people that fled war torn countries from making the final step to europe is not going to solve the humanitarian part of the issue.  i think that the un has a moral duty to actually help these people in their home countries.  even if europe accepted 0,0 migrants, which is never going to happen, the syrians refugees alone currently are not less than 0 milions.  and the syrians are the minority of these migrants, most are fleeing poverty or persecutions in africa.  i think that we have only two realistic options, either close our borders, turn a blind eye and hope that somehow they get their things together or we do a massive operations to restore peace in their home countries.   #  i think that we have only two realistic options, either close our borders, turn a blind eye and hope that somehow they get their things together or we do a massive operations to restore peace in their home countries.   #  ask your politicians to support the intervention in syria URL even ban ki moon supports the airstrikes URL despite the fact that, as far as i know, there is not a unsc resolution regarding the matter.   # i also think that what the unhcr is doing a tremendous job.  well, thanks.  my case is against involving peacekeeping forces in the conflict.  peacekeepers operate separately from the forces of nations.  the un should continue its excellent and very difficult work of assisting the refugees of the conflict.  they have many partner organizations that you can also $upport if you feel that you should.  it all helps.  ask your politicians to support the intervention in syria URL even ban ki moon supports the airstrikes URL despite the fact that, as far as i know, there is not a unsc resolution regarding the matter.  if europe is suffering from the immigrant crisis and is unable to accommodate them, then it needs to be a part of the solution.  it is a messy solution, and as you have said it has its limits.  even if it participates in airstrikes and support roles training, etc.  it would lead to a quicker resolution of the conflict than if they did not join.  i am just against the un sending its peacekeepers into the conflict.  they have much more experience in other roles, while members of the coalition in syria have more experience in outright conflicts.  does that help ?  #  well, as a starter most economies of southern europe are in a very bad shape.   #  well, as a starter most economies of southern europe are in a very bad shape.  seriously, i am italian and more than half of my friends have emigrated ! lots of people are turning to racist parties because they are sick of having welfare significantly cut and every rising taxes.  a person with a gross income of 0,0 $ pays about 0 income taxes and social security, plus 0 sales taxes and lots of local taxes .  they are already protesting the current ridiculously small number of immigrants.  figure out the tensions with millions.  if you go for a couple of millions poor people is going to be a shock in the continent.  and the estimated number of people currently fleeing is 0 milions.  most definitely you ca not add 0 of the population without a shock.   #  the method and number of refugees accepted by a country, if they accept them at all is fully within the rights of that country to determine.   #  even the un has no authority to force countries to accept refugees.  the method and number of refugees accepted by a country, if they accept them at all is fully within the rights of that country to determine.  as for helping them in their home country, that is difficult.  there is only so much you can do to help a country with a corrupt government or who is at war without taking over the country by military force.  the un is, in general, already doing most of those things.  do you think we should invade these countries ?  #  it is not a perfect solution, but it is a very difficult situation.   #  can we please put the invasion as a last ditch resort.  the un only has about 0 peacekeepers URL even the use of these forces is a political game, since they have to be approved by the security council.  so getting the members of the security council to want regional stability, and getting them to send additional troops from their own forces and/or from organizations like nato is the only way to use military forces to bring peace in conflict regions.  the alternatives are bombings and invasions, and those are tricky things.  the un does not serve as a unified moral force, that is something you do need to understand.  it is activities are always bent and biased by the desires of its members.  some members benefit from the unstable condition of the region, so they are less likely to commit aid or forces to the cause.  it is shitty, but that is how it is.  on the bright side, you should take a look at what the un refugee agency does URL and spread the word.  it is not a perfect solution, but it is a very difficult situation.  if you are very very curious, here is a huge list of reading material URL  #  however, that is a temporary solution if these people both ca not go back home and ca not go any further.   #  i totally agree with all your premises.  i also think that what the unhcr is doing a tremendous job.  however, this job has a pretty limited short term scope keep refugees alive .  it is fantastic that we can prevent some of them to die in the desert.  however, that is a temporary solution if these people both ca not go back home and ca not go any further.  that is why, despite all the limits of military interventions, i think that the current unprecedented scale of the phenomenon warrants a stabilizing operation.  yet, remembering how well iraq, afghanistan, libya and many others turned out, i have lots of doubts.  and here is why i am asking to cmv
i made an account to post this because i deleted my old account.  i know it may seem like i am a troll but i am not, i am genuinely interested in this issue.  i know there are some other topics up about the same thing, and i am actively reading those, but my view still is not changed.  all of this stuff about rachel dolezal is really bothering me.  i read a couple articles about how identifying as a different race then the one you grew up as is not the same as identifying as a different gender.  one article in particular really bothered me because of how inflammatory it seemed: URL it is probably not necessary to read it to understand my viewpoint if one can identify as a  different  gender, and even be called a hero for it, why ca not one identify as a  different  race ? i understand in this particular instance rachel dolezal lied for a very long time about her history, but even then, would a transgender person be demonized for lying about their history pre transtition ? perhaps that is a debate for another time.  i am desperately trying to at least understand these arguments.  cmv ?  #  if one can identify as a  different  gender, and even be called a hero for it, why ca not one identify as a  different  race ?  #  it is not that a person cannot identify as a different race.   # it is not that a person cannot identify as a different race.  it is that the choice is different.  there are measurable differences between the brain morphology of men and women.  transgender individuals have been shown to have the brain morphology of the gender they identify with, not the sex they were born with.  being transracial is fine, but it is not the same as transgender.  to equate to transgender, there would have to be demonstrable differences in the brain morphology of the races in question, which we know is not the case, then the person who identifies as transracial would have to share the brain morphology of the race they identified with, rather than the one they were born with.  transgender and transracial result from fundamentally different processes.  therefore the validity comparison is not apt.  there is no way to compare their relative  validity .  so it cannot be said that they are equally valid.   #  but, what we have been able to find out is that, making another statistical sketch in the same manner but this time for trans women, this sketch resembles more the general female sketch than the male one.   #  it is not like this.  look, there is lots of overlap between our brains, so you ca not take a brain and say for sure it is from a female.  it is like height, in general men are taller than women but we ca not take only a given height and say  that is from a woman , but we could say that certain heights are closer/more frequent in one group than others.  with brains it is similar, male brains are on average bigger that does not mean a female is brain ca not be that big either, it is just statistical .  when we take those statistical differences, we can make a rough sketch of how a woman is brain differs from a man is brain, but again this is only statistical and it is very probable that if we took a given brain from a woman and one from a man they would be very similar.  but, what we have been able to find out is that, making another statistical sketch in the same manner but this time for trans women, this sketch resembles more the general female sketch than the male one.  the same has been true for trans men, their statistical brain resembles more the statistical male brain than the female one.  but again, that does not mean we can take a given brain and say for sure or with high probability if it is male or female, there is too much overlap for us to be able to do so.   #  it is all about the brain, other markers like height do not make much of a point but the brain is who we are and what makes us be who and what we are, so it is an important point  #  difference being, chromosomes have arguably no effect on what your gender is shown by conditions like cais where a cis woman has xy and xx cis men.  , while the mind does all the difference.  that finding, even if statistical, is very telling.  if the general trans population has brains that are statistically similar to the general brains of their perceived sex there has to be something there.  those similarities are also not chemical, but mostly structural meaning the cause is not hrt but that it was there before.  it is all about the brain, other markers like height do not make much of a point but the brain is who we are and what makes us be who and what we are, so it is an important point  #  but we see the opposite happening, that which i have explained, and that is very significant.   #  again, probably not because gender is not decided by your height, but it is by your neurology.  it is statistical because there is lots of overlap, that is the best we can do currently.  if brains were clearly different depending on your sex, we could do better, but that is not what we have seen for now. it is not  just a statistical marker , that statistical marker gives us a hint that the  feeling in the wrong body  is a biological aspect of those brain structures expecting something else.  you can accept that gender not sex is in the brain, right ? that it is the brain which tells you that you are a man/woman, right ? neurology is still an emerging field, and a very complex one, it is not easy to make absolute statements and that is why we do not make them.  a statistically significant point is important to consider, and if we have found what i stated before it means something.  if it was not in the brain, we would expect to find that the trans population is evenly distributed into groups that have brains similar to their perceived gender and groups that have similar brains to their assigned gender, or we could find that generally trans people have a brain similar to their assigned gender, all that would undermine the notion that the brain is who decides our gender.  but we see the opposite happening, that which i have explained, and that is very significant.  also, i think i need to point out that even our accepted markers such as chromosomes, hormone levels, genitals, etc are also not true in all cases and overlaps exist.  we are sexually dymorphic, yes, but the differences are not actually that great, that is why we can change someone is phentoype with simple hormone therapy.  science does not really work with absolutes only math can deal in them , even less biology, so try to get used to the fact that our facts are more accurately described by statistics.   #  so it means the exact opposite of you have said.   #  no, that proves a measurable difference in brain function.  meaning it is not psychological, it is neurological.  a person, their personality, consciousness, etc.  is a product if their brain, not their body.  so it means the exact opposite of you have said.  it means the sex is all in their body.  the gender is part of who they are.
thought about this for days, and i ca not think of one aspect of the fph community that made reddit better: they are ignorant: proven by the overwhelming number of their threads that complained about their free speech being violated.  reddit is not the government, free speech is not a factor here.  they are hypocritical: the mods would ban anyone who stated things they disagreed with.  and yet they get upset when they are banned themselves.  they are narrow minded: anyone who disagrees with them is assumed to be fat themselves.  the idea that non fat people could find what they say idiotic and lacking any value is completely foreign to them.  i just ca not think of any way in which my life, or reddit was made better by fph.   #  the mods would ban anyone who stated things they disagreed with.   #  and yet they get upset when they are banned themselves.   # free speech is a principle.  reddit is community always prided itself for not letting personal feeling stop other people from expressing their views within this community no matter how offensive the views are .  so you are right, free speech is no longer a factor here, and that is a shame.  but i guess some people would rather be in echo chambers than to ever be challenged with someone who hold drastically different views.  and yet they get upset when they are banned themselves.  cause it was a sub that is purpose was to hate fat people, and so the mods made sure the content matched the purpose of the sub, like in any other sub.  reddit as a whole does not have any clear purpose with it is content, seeing that subs like /r/coontown are still around.  do you think the us is better with the 0st amendment ? and if so, why do you think banning certain offensive ideas would make reddit better ?  #  prior to the deletion of the sub, i had literally never heard of those people.   #  i am not going to defend fph.  i do not think they are good human beings, and i do not think that hate of any sort is conducive to happiness.  and that is exactly why fph should not have been deleted.  when you destroy their containment tank, they leak onto the rest of the website.  that is precisely what happened.  the sheer amount of fat hating posts that have been upvoted with a vengeance on /r/all in the past few days is nothing short of staggering.  prior to the deletion of the sub, i had literally never heard of those people.  now they are everywhere.  it is kind of the difference between a trash bag floating in a pool and taking the trash bag and emptying it into the pool.  now, onto the free speech argument.  the first amendment is not what is at stake here.  you have noted time and again that reddit is not the government, and that is absolutely correct.  the thing is that reddit was founded upon the principle of free speech, which is completely different in the context of a private company.  you should look at /u/yishan  is announcements, in which he used to say that reddit would never censor content that it found objectionable legality aside , this is what reddit was founded upon and why people have become so attached to it.  ellen pao is direction for the site is the antithesis of that and as such people are quite validly wary of what is to come in light of what happened this week.   #  frontpage works like a whitelist in addition to the defaults you get to see content from subreddits you are subscribed to.   #  frontpage works like a whitelist in addition to the defaults you get to see content from subreddits you are subscribed to.  i think around 0 of my frontpage is stuff related to specific tv shows, anime, games etc and niche subs with maybe 0 0 crossover with /r/all.  if i want the general crap from reddit i use /all.  with /all what you would have is a blacklist.  that way i could see unfunny meme is, cats and all the general reddit stuff without seeing a bunch of tools circlejerk each other.   #  what is stopping them from speaking their minds freely ?  #  what is stopping them from speaking their minds freely ? i could see how their views would be challenging to many people.  first off, they were not banned for hating fat people, they were banned for harassing people, especially imgur staff.  second, who intellectually benefits from having a discussion on hating fat people ? by not listening to fph, people are in no more an echo chamber than if they did not listen to the wbc or any other hate group.  their ideas are void of any merit and entertaining them has no point.   #  iirc some of the mods even participated in bullying users when harrassment was brought to their attention not 0 on this though .   #  they were not banned for stickying  let is go attack this fatty john smith , they were banned for refusing to keep their shit to themselves.  mods would not take action against harassment and would do shit like post the imgur staff on the sidebar.  as other people noted, there were massive problems with keto and sewing subreddits.  iirc some of the mods even participated in bullying users when harrassment was brought to their attention not 0 on this though .  i have not seen any real reason to suspect it was for content especially considering that there are other large fat hating subreddits still in operation.
thought about this for days, and i ca not think of one aspect of the fph community that made reddit better: they are ignorant: proven by the overwhelming number of their threads that complained about their free speech being violated.  reddit is not the government, free speech is not a factor here.  they are hypocritical: the mods would ban anyone who stated things they disagreed with.  and yet they get upset when they are banned themselves.  they are narrow minded: anyone who disagrees with them is assumed to be fat themselves.  the idea that non fat people could find what they say idiotic and lacking any value is completely foreign to them.  i just ca not think of any way in which my life, or reddit was made better by fph.   #  i just ca not think of any way in which my life, or reddit was made better by fph.   #  do you think the us is better with the 0st amendment ?  # free speech is a principle.  reddit is community always prided itself for not letting personal feeling stop other people from expressing their views within this community no matter how offensive the views are .  so you are right, free speech is no longer a factor here, and that is a shame.  but i guess some people would rather be in echo chambers than to ever be challenged with someone who hold drastically different views.  and yet they get upset when they are banned themselves.  cause it was a sub that is purpose was to hate fat people, and so the mods made sure the content matched the purpose of the sub, like in any other sub.  reddit as a whole does not have any clear purpose with it is content, seeing that subs like /r/coontown are still around.  do you think the us is better with the 0st amendment ? and if so, why do you think banning certain offensive ideas would make reddit better ?  #  you have noted time and again that reddit is not the government, and that is absolutely correct.   #  i am not going to defend fph.  i do not think they are good human beings, and i do not think that hate of any sort is conducive to happiness.  and that is exactly why fph should not have been deleted.  when you destroy their containment tank, they leak onto the rest of the website.  that is precisely what happened.  the sheer amount of fat hating posts that have been upvoted with a vengeance on /r/all in the past few days is nothing short of staggering.  prior to the deletion of the sub, i had literally never heard of those people.  now they are everywhere.  it is kind of the difference between a trash bag floating in a pool and taking the trash bag and emptying it into the pool.  now, onto the free speech argument.  the first amendment is not what is at stake here.  you have noted time and again that reddit is not the government, and that is absolutely correct.  the thing is that reddit was founded upon the principle of free speech, which is completely different in the context of a private company.  you should look at /u/yishan  is announcements, in which he used to say that reddit would never censor content that it found objectionable legality aside , this is what reddit was founded upon and why people have become so attached to it.  ellen pao is direction for the site is the antithesis of that and as such people are quite validly wary of what is to come in light of what happened this week.   #  that way i could see unfunny meme is, cats and all the general reddit stuff without seeing a bunch of tools circlejerk each other.   #  frontpage works like a whitelist in addition to the defaults you get to see content from subreddits you are subscribed to.  i think around 0 of my frontpage is stuff related to specific tv shows, anime, games etc and niche subs with maybe 0 0 crossover with /r/all.  if i want the general crap from reddit i use /all.  with /all what you would have is a blacklist.  that way i could see unfunny meme is, cats and all the general reddit stuff without seeing a bunch of tools circlejerk each other.   #  first off, they were not banned for hating fat people, they were banned for harassing people, especially imgur staff.   #  what is stopping them from speaking their minds freely ? i could see how their views would be challenging to many people.  first off, they were not banned for hating fat people, they were banned for harassing people, especially imgur staff.  second, who intellectually benefits from having a discussion on hating fat people ? by not listening to fph, people are in no more an echo chamber than if they did not listen to the wbc or any other hate group.  their ideas are void of any merit and entertaining them has no point.   #  i have not seen any real reason to suspect it was for content especially considering that there are other large fat hating subreddits still in operation.   #  they were not banned for stickying  let is go attack this fatty john smith , they were banned for refusing to keep their shit to themselves.  mods would not take action against harassment and would do shit like post the imgur staff on the sidebar.  as other people noted, there were massive problems with keto and sewing subreddits.  iirc some of the mods even participated in bullying users when harrassment was brought to their attention not 0 on this though .  i have not seen any real reason to suspect it was for content especially considering that there are other large fat hating subreddits still in operation.
in pennsylvania you have the option of purchasing car insurance with either  full tort  or  limited tort .  in short, if you purchase  limited tort  that means that you do not have the ability to sue for pain and suffering; that right is reserved for people who have purchased full tort insurance.  full tort insurance is not ludicrously expensive; maybe adding only $0 to a 0 month policy, but it is still out of reach for many.  even if it were a $0 fee i would still be opposed to it though.  in fact, i do not even think you should have to have car insurance in order to be able to sue for pain and suffering.  basically, the right to sue for something should not be based on a fee paid before you even know if you will need to sue for it or not.  i think that it is unjustified to have a legal system where you have to pay in advance to have certain rights.  cmv  #  full tort insurance is not ludicrously expensive; maybe adding only $0 to a 0 month policy, but it is still out of reach for many.   #  your argument is that full tort insurance is too expensive for many people, but your solution is to mandate that everyone must buy full tort insurance ?  # your argument is that full tort insurance is too expensive for many people, but your solution is to mandate that everyone must buy full tort insurance ? if they ca not afford it, then requiring everyone to have it certainly wo not solve the problem, it will just raise everyone is rates to the full tort rate, meaning many people wo not be able to pay for it.  instead of thinking of it as a surcharge, what if you thought about it as a discount ? if you are willing to waive your right to sue for pain and suffering, then we can give you a discount.  if you wo not waive that right, then we have to assume you might use it someday, so the cost of that risk gets factored into the cost of your premium.   #  if you are willing to waive your right to sue for pain and suffering, then we can give you a discount.   # at first i wanted to say  no, that is not my view , but my view is that everyone should by default have the right to full tort, so i guess in effect that is the same thing.  if you are willing to waive your right to sue for pain and suffering, then we can give you a discount.  if you wo not waive that right, then we have to assume you might use it someday, so the cost of that risk gets factored into the cost of your premium.  this is an interesting way of looking at it.  i definitely want to note that when you get insurance quotes in pa it nearly always defaults to limited tort and it feels like you are adding on full tort rather than removing full tort.  nonetheless, it is a good point.  my view is not 0 flipped, but it is changed a bit, so have a    #  had they banned injury lawyers from working for a percentage of winnings they would have impacted the poor in a very regressive manner.   # cmv let me play devil is advocate here and tell the story a bit differently.  pennsylvania lawmakers were rightfully or wrongfully, does not matter for the story concerned with the high financial burden unnecessary and fraudulent lawsuits over something as fundamentally  vague  as  pain and suffering  cause, issued a compromise package of tort reform.  knowing full well that there are legitimate cases where pain and suffering awards are a benefit to society  they did not prevent people from suing for pain and suffering  unlike your implication .  rather they simply raised the bar so that one needs to demonstrate a much more  concrete  bar has been reached, serious injury.  by shifting the bar to  serious injury  with its much more concrete medical definition they have made a serious attempt to mitigate the perverse incentive of quota litis  without removing that option from the poor people who need it the most ! .  had they banned injury lawyers from working for a percentage of winnings they would have impacted the poor in a very regressive manner.  and in a  further  act of attempting to limit the impact of their actions on the rights of the public they allow people to  opt in  to the old rules, through a 0 surcharge.  the beauty of this is that the overall effect on society is  pro gressive, as everyone is insurance rates went down, and only those who choose to retain the old system pay for it.   #  if the suits are truly frivolous then just do away with them entirely.   #  i am not arguing about the un constitutionality of it.  0.  if the other driver was dui 0.  the other driver was an out of state driver 0.  the other driver did it intentionally with intent to harm 0.  the accident was caused by mechanical defect in the other drivers car 0.  if the injured person was not in a personal motor vehicle at the time of the accident 0.  the other driver did not have insurance and the one you referenced: 0.   serious injury , which the pdf below goes into great detail about.  source URL pdf let is say i take you at your word that limited tort does actually cut down the number of frivolous lawsuits.  i do not understand why you would not apply it to everyone then ? why if i pay $0 a year more am i able to have more rights to sue than someone who does not ? if the suits are truly frivolous then just do away with them entirely.   #  because the attempt is to maximize effectiveness while minimizing impact.   # i do not understand why you would not apply it to everyone then ? because the attempt is to maximize effectiveness while minimizing impact.  leaving the old rules in place for those willing to help foot the bill minimizes impact.  from your point of view it minimizes the removal or rights.  through as i implied before that is a glass half empty perspective.  the tort reform should have did not look it up lowered auto insurance rates, so the glass half full perspective is that it granted limited rights to those who had none before while removing no rights from those who could afford it before.  why if you pay $0 a year car registration are you able to have more  rights  to drive than someone who does not ? why if you pay court costs are you able to have the right to access to the courts ?
in pennsylvania you have the option of purchasing car insurance with either  full tort  or  limited tort .  in short, if you purchase  limited tort  that means that you do not have the ability to sue for pain and suffering; that right is reserved for people who have purchased full tort insurance.  full tort insurance is not ludicrously expensive; maybe adding only $0 to a 0 month policy, but it is still out of reach for many.  even if it were a $0 fee i would still be opposed to it though.  in fact, i do not even think you should have to have car insurance in order to be able to sue for pain and suffering.  basically, the right to sue for something should not be based on a fee paid before you even know if you will need to sue for it or not.  i think that it is unjustified to have a legal system where you have to pay in advance to have certain rights.  cmv  #  i think that it is unjustified to have a legal system where you have to pay in advance to have certain rights.   #  cmv let me play devil is advocate here and tell the story a bit differently.   # cmv let me play devil is advocate here and tell the story a bit differently.  pennsylvania lawmakers were rightfully or wrongfully, does not matter for the story concerned with the high financial burden unnecessary and fraudulent lawsuits over something as fundamentally  vague  as  pain and suffering  cause, issued a compromise package of tort reform.  knowing full well that there are legitimate cases where pain and suffering awards are a benefit to society  they did not prevent people from suing for pain and suffering  unlike your implication .  rather they simply raised the bar so that one needs to demonstrate a much more  concrete  bar has been reached, serious injury.  by shifting the bar to  serious injury  with its much more concrete medical definition they have made a serious attempt to mitigate the perverse incentive of quota litis  without removing that option from the poor people who need it the most ! .  had they banned injury lawyers from working for a percentage of winnings they would have impacted the poor in a very regressive manner.  and in a  further  act of attempting to limit the impact of their actions on the rights of the public they allow people to  opt in  to the old rules, through a 0 surcharge.  the beauty of this is that the overall effect on society is  pro gressive, as everyone is insurance rates went down, and only those who choose to retain the old system pay for it.   #  if you are willing to waive your right to sue for pain and suffering, then we can give you a discount.   # your argument is that full tort insurance is too expensive for many people, but your solution is to mandate that everyone must buy full tort insurance ? if they ca not afford it, then requiring everyone to have it certainly wo not solve the problem, it will just raise everyone is rates to the full tort rate, meaning many people wo not be able to pay for it.  instead of thinking of it as a surcharge, what if you thought about it as a discount ? if you are willing to waive your right to sue for pain and suffering, then we can give you a discount.  if you wo not waive that right, then we have to assume you might use it someday, so the cost of that risk gets factored into the cost of your premium.   #  this is an interesting way of looking at it.   # at first i wanted to say  no, that is not my view , but my view is that everyone should by default have the right to full tort, so i guess in effect that is the same thing.  if you are willing to waive your right to sue for pain and suffering, then we can give you a discount.  if you wo not waive that right, then we have to assume you might use it someday, so the cost of that risk gets factored into the cost of your premium.  this is an interesting way of looking at it.  i definitely want to note that when you get insurance quotes in pa it nearly always defaults to limited tort and it feels like you are adding on full tort rather than removing full tort.  nonetheless, it is a good point.  my view is not 0 flipped, but it is changed a bit, so have a    #  i do not understand why you would not apply it to everyone then ?  #  i am not arguing about the un constitutionality of it.  0.  if the other driver was dui 0.  the other driver was an out of state driver 0.  the other driver did it intentionally with intent to harm 0.  the accident was caused by mechanical defect in the other drivers car 0.  if the injured person was not in a personal motor vehicle at the time of the accident 0.  the other driver did not have insurance and the one you referenced: 0.   serious injury , which the pdf below goes into great detail about.  source URL pdf let is say i take you at your word that limited tort does actually cut down the number of frivolous lawsuits.  i do not understand why you would not apply it to everyone then ? why if i pay $0 a year more am i able to have more rights to sue than someone who does not ? if the suits are truly frivolous then just do away with them entirely.   #  through as i implied before that is a glass half empty perspective.   # i do not understand why you would not apply it to everyone then ? because the attempt is to maximize effectiveness while minimizing impact.  leaving the old rules in place for those willing to help foot the bill minimizes impact.  from your point of view it minimizes the removal or rights.  through as i implied before that is a glass half empty perspective.  the tort reform should have did not look it up lowered auto insurance rates, so the glass half full perspective is that it granted limited rights to those who had none before while removing no rights from those who could afford it before.  why if you pay $0 a year car registration are you able to have more  rights  to drive than someone who does not ? why if you pay court costs are you able to have the right to access to the courts ?
one argument that i have heard in that past for the inability of communism to function is that people when given everything they want have no incentive to work hard or at all.  this was first presented to me by a teacher and i remained unmoved by their argument for the following reasons: 0.  people like doing their jobs.  people like to go out and do their job.  many extremely rich people choose to continue working even when they have no need to due to the amount of money they have and i would assume this is because they enjoy the job they do.  0.  a sufficiently educated populace will realize that if they do not go to work and work hard they no longer have things.  this wo not prevent laziness from everyone tragedy of the commons but should limit overall laziness in workplaces.  thanks in advance to everyone who replies to try to change my view :  #  a sufficiently educated populace will realize that if they do not go to work and work hard they no longer have things.   #  this wo not prevent laziness from everyone tragedy of the commons but should limit overall laziness in workplaces.   # people like to go out and do their job.  many extremely rich people choose to continue working even when they have no need to due to the amount of money they have and i would assume this is because they enjoy the job they do.  maybe some people, but certainly not everyone.  i, for one, would be very surprised with myself if i continued to work even though i had all the money i need, and i think i am pretty good at introspection.  it is not that i do not like my job, i just like other things more.  this wo not prevent laziness from everyone tragedy of the commons but should limit overall laziness in workplaces.  like you said, tragedy of the commons.  the trouble with a tragedy of the commons scenario is that even while there are people fighting the good fight to maintain a good commons, there are also people who just want to take advantage without contributing.  the fact that tragedy of the commons scenarios happen, and enlightened leaders need to force people to play nice, goes to show that this is a part of human nature.  see for example the debates over public healthcare, global warming, environmental protection, endangered species, fossil fuels, etc.  how does a communist system propose we deal with the tragedy of the commons inherent to it ? capitalist systems have the monumental advantage of pricing in a communist system, you do not know how much things are worth, and so the government does not even know how much to incentivize different behaviors to get the optimal outcome.   #  you assert that the tragedy of the commons is owing to a few people who try to take advantage.   #  you would not have to travel to find something more fun than work.  you could read books, catch butterflies, roller skate, post on reddit, do needlepoint, take photos many many things are more fun than many jobs.  and just because you go to work does not mean you work hard, if it wo not lead to a raise or promotion and it is not something intrinsically rewarding to you.  and most jobs are not, even when we get to choose our jobs to some degree.  in a command economy people do not necessarily get to choose their work at all.  you assert that the tragedy of the commons is owing to a few people who try to take advantage.  i say that most people will take advantage when there is no external benefit to working hard.  we are evolved to be lazy get the most calories you can, and burn as few calories as possible so you will have some fat reserves for the next famine.  granted, some people overcome the instinct to be lazy even without external rewards.  but laziness is contagious in tragedy of the commons situations.  if i bust my ass everyday and get paid the same as the slackers, and no one is ever awarded anything extra for working harder or smarter, then i will, eventually, either find somewhere else to work, or start doing the minimum amount of work so i am not the chump who carries everyone else.  in our capitalist system, i can look for a better employer and perhaps find a better work place.  well, in communism the entire point is equality, regardless of merit, so all the employers are going to operate this way.  and most of the workers will, eventually, learn to do as little as possible.  it is called low morale, and wise companies avoid it by rewarding good workers.  and this is one reason why communism did not work.   #  however, i do not believe that racism is necessarily hard wired into us.   #  that is an interesting fact that i did not know.  however, i do not believe that racism is necessarily hard wired into us.  we do fear those who are different, but those people might be, and often are, of the same race.  fear of  other  is what we have evolved to, because it kept us unified in our safe groups and away from people we were not equipped to understand.  what cuba did was to redefine who was the  stranger  by another means than race.  cuba did not change the evolutionary mandate to fear those who are not of your group.  so, please give an example of a time when a government was able to change a human tendency that evolved in us.   #  monkeys usually make them for killing small mammals and other monkeys, which in my opinion is metal as fuck but i digress.   #  monkeys usually make them for killing small mammals and other monkeys, which in my opinion is metal as fuck but i digress.  proof of claim URL but that is something done at a personal level, any idiot can make a spear, there will never be a spear shortage in this world.  there can be a gun shortage because you need specialized knowlege to make a gun.  not everyone can build a bridge, not everyone knows how to lay concrete for roads.  what is my incentive to go to a community college and learn how to survey land if i can just work at a target and make the same money.  and weird argument, what if i decide i want 0 kids, do i get more for the same work because i have kids or do i have the same and kids go hungry ?  #  we probably do not need too many little timmys in the world to fulfill the bridge designing need.   #  agreed it is metal as fuck.  guns should probably be left at the hands of the military and police.  if the military or police need guns they are gonna find people who can make them that is for damn sure.  there will be some people who can build a bridge however.  little timmy thinks bridges are awesome and has thought that his whole life.  he thinks there would be nothing cooler than to design a bridge.  we probably do not need too many little timmys in the world to fulfill the bridge designing need.  in terms of your  weird  argument it seems to make enough sense that people only have two children and more or less children based on need replacing people from a war, need people for colonizing new planets, fewer people if it is decided we ca not sustain as many as there are .
one argument that i have heard in that past for the inability of communism to function is that people when given everything they want have no incentive to work hard or at all.  this was first presented to me by a teacher and i remained unmoved by their argument for the following reasons: 0.  people like doing their jobs.  people like to go out and do their job.  many extremely rich people choose to continue working even when they have no need to due to the amount of money they have and i would assume this is because they enjoy the job they do.  0.  a sufficiently educated populace will realize that if they do not go to work and work hard they no longer have things.  this wo not prevent laziness from everyone tragedy of the commons but should limit overall laziness in workplaces.  thanks in advance to everyone who replies to try to change my view :  #  a sufficiently educated populace will realize that if they do not go to work and work hard they no longer have things.   #  this wo not prevent laziness from everyone tragedy of the commons but should limit overall laziness in workplaces.   # people like to go out and do their job.  many extremely rich people choose to continue working even when they have no need to due to the amount of money they have and i would assume this is because they enjoy the job they do.  i have zero incentive to work as hard as a ceo if i am promised the same wage as a target employee.  in all honesty i would sit on my butt if i could but i have to go to school to find a job.  i mean what is my incentive to even graduate high school ? why even send my kids to middle school ? if they are gonna get paid for whatever then just teach them to be stay at home people.  this wo not prevent laziness from everyone tragedy of the commons but should limit overall laziness in workplaces.  the  meh, someone else will do it  idea will take hold eventually.   #  many extremely rich people choose to continue working even when they have no need to due to the amount of money they have and i would assume this is because they enjoy the job they do.   # people like to go out and do their job.  many extremely rich people choose to continue working even when they have no need to due to the amount of money they have and i would assume this is because they enjoy the job they do.  maybe some people, but certainly not everyone.  i, for one, would be very surprised with myself if i continued to work even though i had all the money i need, and i think i am pretty good at introspection.  it is not that i do not like my job, i just like other things more.  this wo not prevent laziness from everyone tragedy of the commons but should limit overall laziness in workplaces.  like you said, tragedy of the commons.  the trouble with a tragedy of the commons scenario is that even while there are people fighting the good fight to maintain a good commons, there are also people who just want to take advantage without contributing.  the fact that tragedy of the commons scenarios happen, and enlightened leaders need to force people to play nice, goes to show that this is a part of human nature.  see for example the debates over public healthcare, global warming, environmental protection, endangered species, fossil fuels, etc.  how does a communist system propose we deal with the tragedy of the commons inherent to it ? capitalist systems have the monumental advantage of pricing in a communist system, you do not know how much things are worth, and so the government does not even know how much to incentivize different behaviors to get the optimal outcome.   #  in our capitalist system, i can look for a better employer and perhaps find a better work place.   #  you would not have to travel to find something more fun than work.  you could read books, catch butterflies, roller skate, post on reddit, do needlepoint, take photos many many things are more fun than many jobs.  and just because you go to work does not mean you work hard, if it wo not lead to a raise or promotion and it is not something intrinsically rewarding to you.  and most jobs are not, even when we get to choose our jobs to some degree.  in a command economy people do not necessarily get to choose their work at all.  you assert that the tragedy of the commons is owing to a few people who try to take advantage.  i say that most people will take advantage when there is no external benefit to working hard.  we are evolved to be lazy get the most calories you can, and burn as few calories as possible so you will have some fat reserves for the next famine.  granted, some people overcome the instinct to be lazy even without external rewards.  but laziness is contagious in tragedy of the commons situations.  if i bust my ass everyday and get paid the same as the slackers, and no one is ever awarded anything extra for working harder or smarter, then i will, eventually, either find somewhere else to work, or start doing the minimum amount of work so i am not the chump who carries everyone else.  in our capitalist system, i can look for a better employer and perhaps find a better work place.  well, in communism the entire point is equality, regardless of merit, so all the employers are going to operate this way.  and most of the workers will, eventually, learn to do as little as possible.  it is called low morale, and wise companies avoid it by rewarding good workers.  and this is one reason why communism did not work.   #  cuba did not change the evolutionary mandate to fear those who are not of your group.   #  that is an interesting fact that i did not know.  however, i do not believe that racism is necessarily hard wired into us.  we do fear those who are different, but those people might be, and often are, of the same race.  fear of  other  is what we have evolved to, because it kept us unified in our safe groups and away from people we were not equipped to understand.  what cuba did was to redefine who was the  stranger  by another means than race.  cuba did not change the evolutionary mandate to fear those who are not of your group.  so, please give an example of a time when a government was able to change a human tendency that evolved in us.   #  what is my incentive to go to a community college and learn how to survey land if i can just work at a target and make the same money.   #  monkeys usually make them for killing small mammals and other monkeys, which in my opinion is metal as fuck but i digress.  proof of claim URL but that is something done at a personal level, any idiot can make a spear, there will never be a spear shortage in this world.  there can be a gun shortage because you need specialized knowlege to make a gun.  not everyone can build a bridge, not everyone knows how to lay concrete for roads.  what is my incentive to go to a community college and learn how to survey land if i can just work at a target and make the same money.  and weird argument, what if i decide i want 0 kids, do i get more for the same work because i have kids or do i have the same and kids go hungry ?
one argument that i have heard in that past for the inability of communism to function is that people when given everything they want have no incentive to work hard or at all.  this was first presented to me by a teacher and i remained unmoved by their argument for the following reasons: 0.  people like doing their jobs.  people like to go out and do their job.  many extremely rich people choose to continue working even when they have no need to due to the amount of money they have and i would assume this is because they enjoy the job they do.  0.  a sufficiently educated populace will realize that if they do not go to work and work hard they no longer have things.  this wo not prevent laziness from everyone tragedy of the commons but should limit overall laziness in workplaces.  thanks in advance to everyone who replies to try to change my view :  #  a sufficiently educated populace will realize that if they do not go to work and work hard they no longer have things.   #  this wo not prevent laziness from everyone tragedy of the commons but should limit overall laziness in workplaces.   #  all of your arguments are based on the assumption the gov can clap it is hand and fix all the problems associated with communism by clapping it is hands.  governments face institutional restraints and when you talk about rationing what happens ? the elites look out for their own and this sort of nepotism by definition undermines communism.  this wo not prevent laziness from everyone tragedy of the commons but should limit overall laziness in workplaces.  no what happens is you look to the political sphere to fix this economic problem.  and how does this problem get fixed ? by creating policies which are anti communistic.  that is how you fix the problem of people not wanting to work for another example look at say smith at jamestown .  why do you just assume the state is solutions to the problem must be communistic instead of the logical path of non communism.  you need to show how communism does not break down politically.   #  people like to go out and do their job.   # people like to go out and do their job.  many extremely rich people choose to continue working even when they have no need to due to the amount of money they have and i would assume this is because they enjoy the job they do.  maybe some people, but certainly not everyone.  i, for one, would be very surprised with myself if i continued to work even though i had all the money i need, and i think i am pretty good at introspection.  it is not that i do not like my job, i just like other things more.  this wo not prevent laziness from everyone tragedy of the commons but should limit overall laziness in workplaces.  like you said, tragedy of the commons.  the trouble with a tragedy of the commons scenario is that even while there are people fighting the good fight to maintain a good commons, there are also people who just want to take advantage without contributing.  the fact that tragedy of the commons scenarios happen, and enlightened leaders need to force people to play nice, goes to show that this is a part of human nature.  see for example the debates over public healthcare, global warming, environmental protection, endangered species, fossil fuels, etc.  how does a communist system propose we deal with the tragedy of the commons inherent to it ? capitalist systems have the monumental advantage of pricing in a communist system, you do not know how much things are worth, and so the government does not even know how much to incentivize different behaviors to get the optimal outcome.   #  i say that most people will take advantage when there is no external benefit to working hard.   #  you would not have to travel to find something more fun than work.  you could read books, catch butterflies, roller skate, post on reddit, do needlepoint, take photos many many things are more fun than many jobs.  and just because you go to work does not mean you work hard, if it wo not lead to a raise or promotion and it is not something intrinsically rewarding to you.  and most jobs are not, even when we get to choose our jobs to some degree.  in a command economy people do not necessarily get to choose their work at all.  you assert that the tragedy of the commons is owing to a few people who try to take advantage.  i say that most people will take advantage when there is no external benefit to working hard.  we are evolved to be lazy get the most calories you can, and burn as few calories as possible so you will have some fat reserves for the next famine.  granted, some people overcome the instinct to be lazy even without external rewards.  but laziness is contagious in tragedy of the commons situations.  if i bust my ass everyday and get paid the same as the slackers, and no one is ever awarded anything extra for working harder or smarter, then i will, eventually, either find somewhere else to work, or start doing the minimum amount of work so i am not the chump who carries everyone else.  in our capitalist system, i can look for a better employer and perhaps find a better work place.  well, in communism the entire point is equality, regardless of merit, so all the employers are going to operate this way.  and most of the workers will, eventually, learn to do as little as possible.  it is called low morale, and wise companies avoid it by rewarding good workers.  and this is one reason why communism did not work.   #  what cuba did was to redefine who was the  stranger  by another means than race.   #  that is an interesting fact that i did not know.  however, i do not believe that racism is necessarily hard wired into us.  we do fear those who are different, but those people might be, and often are, of the same race.  fear of  other  is what we have evolved to, because it kept us unified in our safe groups and away from people we were not equipped to understand.  what cuba did was to redefine who was the  stranger  by another means than race.  cuba did not change the evolutionary mandate to fear those who are not of your group.  so, please give an example of a time when a government was able to change a human tendency that evolved in us.   #  there can be a gun shortage because you need specialized knowlege to make a gun.   #  monkeys usually make them for killing small mammals and other monkeys, which in my opinion is metal as fuck but i digress.  proof of claim URL but that is something done at a personal level, any idiot can make a spear, there will never be a spear shortage in this world.  there can be a gun shortage because you need specialized knowlege to make a gun.  not everyone can build a bridge, not everyone knows how to lay concrete for roads.  what is my incentive to go to a community college and learn how to survey land if i can just work at a target and make the same money.  and weird argument, what if i decide i want 0 kids, do i get more for the same work because i have kids or do i have the same and kids go hungry ?
one argument that i have heard in that past for the inability of communism to function is that people when given everything they want have no incentive to work hard or at all.  this was first presented to me by a teacher and i remained unmoved by their argument for the following reasons: 0.  people like doing their jobs.  people like to go out and do their job.  many extremely rich people choose to continue working even when they have no need to due to the amount of money they have and i would assume this is because they enjoy the job they do.  0.  a sufficiently educated populace will realize that if they do not go to work and work hard they no longer have things.  this wo not prevent laziness from everyone tragedy of the commons but should limit overall laziness in workplaces.  thanks in advance to everyone who replies to try to change my view :  #  a sufficiently educated populace will realize that if they do not go to work and work hard they no longer have things.   #  this wo not prevent laziness from everyone tragedy of the commons but should limit overall laziness in workplaces.   # people like to go out and do their job.  many extremely rich people choose to continue working even when they have no need to due to the amount of money they have and i would assume this is because they enjoy the job they do.  life takes  lots  and  lots  of dirty, hard labor that nobody wants to do.  who gets assigned all the crap jobs that are not rewarding to as many people as need to do them ? because it is a  lot .  especially in the early days of communism, when it took lots of people doing very hard work to make everything work.  i do not think society in the 0s could have run off a fully volunteer society who was not getting paid more for extra work.  this wo not prevent laziness from everyone tragedy of the commons but should limit overall laziness in workplaces.  tragedy of the commons creates the prisoners  dilemma.  unless you see a benefit from  only your  actions, you are not going to sacrifice anything over it.  people are too selfish for the principle of universality.   #  the fact that tragedy of the commons scenarios happen, and enlightened leaders need to force people to play nice, goes to show that this is a part of human nature.   # people like to go out and do their job.  many extremely rich people choose to continue working even when they have no need to due to the amount of money they have and i would assume this is because they enjoy the job they do.  maybe some people, but certainly not everyone.  i, for one, would be very surprised with myself if i continued to work even though i had all the money i need, and i think i am pretty good at introspection.  it is not that i do not like my job, i just like other things more.  this wo not prevent laziness from everyone tragedy of the commons but should limit overall laziness in workplaces.  like you said, tragedy of the commons.  the trouble with a tragedy of the commons scenario is that even while there are people fighting the good fight to maintain a good commons, there are also people who just want to take advantage without contributing.  the fact that tragedy of the commons scenarios happen, and enlightened leaders need to force people to play nice, goes to show that this is a part of human nature.  see for example the debates over public healthcare, global warming, environmental protection, endangered species, fossil fuels, etc.  how does a communist system propose we deal with the tragedy of the commons inherent to it ? capitalist systems have the monumental advantage of pricing in a communist system, you do not know how much things are worth, and so the government does not even know how much to incentivize different behaviors to get the optimal outcome.   #  and most of the workers will, eventually, learn to do as little as possible.   #  you would not have to travel to find something more fun than work.  you could read books, catch butterflies, roller skate, post on reddit, do needlepoint, take photos many many things are more fun than many jobs.  and just because you go to work does not mean you work hard, if it wo not lead to a raise or promotion and it is not something intrinsically rewarding to you.  and most jobs are not, even when we get to choose our jobs to some degree.  in a command economy people do not necessarily get to choose their work at all.  you assert that the tragedy of the commons is owing to a few people who try to take advantage.  i say that most people will take advantage when there is no external benefit to working hard.  we are evolved to be lazy get the most calories you can, and burn as few calories as possible so you will have some fat reserves for the next famine.  granted, some people overcome the instinct to be lazy even without external rewards.  but laziness is contagious in tragedy of the commons situations.  if i bust my ass everyday and get paid the same as the slackers, and no one is ever awarded anything extra for working harder or smarter, then i will, eventually, either find somewhere else to work, or start doing the minimum amount of work so i am not the chump who carries everyone else.  in our capitalist system, i can look for a better employer and perhaps find a better work place.  well, in communism the entire point is equality, regardless of merit, so all the employers are going to operate this way.  and most of the workers will, eventually, learn to do as little as possible.  it is called low morale, and wise companies avoid it by rewarding good workers.  and this is one reason why communism did not work.   #  however, i do not believe that racism is necessarily hard wired into us.   #  that is an interesting fact that i did not know.  however, i do not believe that racism is necessarily hard wired into us.  we do fear those who are different, but those people might be, and often are, of the same race.  fear of  other  is what we have evolved to, because it kept us unified in our safe groups and away from people we were not equipped to understand.  what cuba did was to redefine who was the  stranger  by another means than race.  cuba did not change the evolutionary mandate to fear those who are not of your group.  so, please give an example of a time when a government was able to change a human tendency that evolved in us.   #  what is my incentive to go to a community college and learn how to survey land if i can just work at a target and make the same money.   #  monkeys usually make them for killing small mammals and other monkeys, which in my opinion is metal as fuck but i digress.  proof of claim URL but that is something done at a personal level, any idiot can make a spear, there will never be a spear shortage in this world.  there can be a gun shortage because you need specialized knowlege to make a gun.  not everyone can build a bridge, not everyone knows how to lay concrete for roads.  what is my incentive to go to a community college and learn how to survey land if i can just work at a target and make the same money.  and weird argument, what if i decide i want 0 kids, do i get more for the same work because i have kids or do i have the same and kids go hungry ?
one argument that i have heard in that past for the inability of communism to function is that people when given everything they want have no incentive to work hard or at all.  this was first presented to me by a teacher and i remained unmoved by their argument for the following reasons: 0.  people like doing their jobs.  people like to go out and do their job.  many extremely rich people choose to continue working even when they have no need to due to the amount of money they have and i would assume this is because they enjoy the job they do.  0.  a sufficiently educated populace will realize that if they do not go to work and work hard they no longer have things.  this wo not prevent laziness from everyone tragedy of the commons but should limit overall laziness in workplaces.  thanks in advance to everyone who replies to try to change my view :  #  this wo not prevent laziness from everyone tragedy of the commons but should limit overall laziness in workplaces.   #  from this sentence it seems like you do not understand what the tragedy of the commons actually is.   # from this sentence it seems like you do not understand what the tragedy of the commons actually is.  in short, the few lazy people who stop working immediately are not the problem.  the problem is that every one else is seeing that they are getting screwed, and the lazy people are getting away with it.  as time goes on, more and more people will stop working, because fuck working your ass of for these lazy bums.  the more people stop working, the more the people who are still working feel they are being srewed, and the more that resentment builds up, the likelier they are to stop working, even if they know fully well that if no one works, bad things happen.  because fuck working your ass of while these lazy asses are living the good life.  this has been proven in multiple experiments, and whatever the exact parameters, in the end the result always confirm what i have said.   #  it is not that i do not like my job, i just like other things more.   # people like to go out and do their job.  many extremely rich people choose to continue working even when they have no need to due to the amount of money they have and i would assume this is because they enjoy the job they do.  maybe some people, but certainly not everyone.  i, for one, would be very surprised with myself if i continued to work even though i had all the money i need, and i think i am pretty good at introspection.  it is not that i do not like my job, i just like other things more.  this wo not prevent laziness from everyone tragedy of the commons but should limit overall laziness in workplaces.  like you said, tragedy of the commons.  the trouble with a tragedy of the commons scenario is that even while there are people fighting the good fight to maintain a good commons, there are also people who just want to take advantage without contributing.  the fact that tragedy of the commons scenarios happen, and enlightened leaders need to force people to play nice, goes to show that this is a part of human nature.  see for example the debates over public healthcare, global warming, environmental protection, endangered species, fossil fuels, etc.  how does a communist system propose we deal with the tragedy of the commons inherent to it ? capitalist systems have the monumental advantage of pricing in a communist system, you do not know how much things are worth, and so the government does not even know how much to incentivize different behaviors to get the optimal outcome.   #  it is called low morale, and wise companies avoid it by rewarding good workers.   #  you would not have to travel to find something more fun than work.  you could read books, catch butterflies, roller skate, post on reddit, do needlepoint, take photos many many things are more fun than many jobs.  and just because you go to work does not mean you work hard, if it wo not lead to a raise or promotion and it is not something intrinsically rewarding to you.  and most jobs are not, even when we get to choose our jobs to some degree.  in a command economy people do not necessarily get to choose their work at all.  you assert that the tragedy of the commons is owing to a few people who try to take advantage.  i say that most people will take advantage when there is no external benefit to working hard.  we are evolved to be lazy get the most calories you can, and burn as few calories as possible so you will have some fat reserves for the next famine.  granted, some people overcome the instinct to be lazy even without external rewards.  but laziness is contagious in tragedy of the commons situations.  if i bust my ass everyday and get paid the same as the slackers, and no one is ever awarded anything extra for working harder or smarter, then i will, eventually, either find somewhere else to work, or start doing the minimum amount of work so i am not the chump who carries everyone else.  in our capitalist system, i can look for a better employer and perhaps find a better work place.  well, in communism the entire point is equality, regardless of merit, so all the employers are going to operate this way.  and most of the workers will, eventually, learn to do as little as possible.  it is called low morale, and wise companies avoid it by rewarding good workers.  and this is one reason why communism did not work.   #  however, i do not believe that racism is necessarily hard wired into us.   #  that is an interesting fact that i did not know.  however, i do not believe that racism is necessarily hard wired into us.  we do fear those who are different, but those people might be, and often are, of the same race.  fear of  other  is what we have evolved to, because it kept us unified in our safe groups and away from people we were not equipped to understand.  what cuba did was to redefine who was the  stranger  by another means than race.  cuba did not change the evolutionary mandate to fear those who are not of your group.  so, please give an example of a time when a government was able to change a human tendency that evolved in us.   #  and weird argument, what if i decide i want 0 kids, do i get more for the same work because i have kids or do i have the same and kids go hungry ?  #  monkeys usually make them for killing small mammals and other monkeys, which in my opinion is metal as fuck but i digress.  proof of claim URL but that is something done at a personal level, any idiot can make a spear, there will never be a spear shortage in this world.  there can be a gun shortage because you need specialized knowlege to make a gun.  not everyone can build a bridge, not everyone knows how to lay concrete for roads.  what is my incentive to go to a community college and learn how to survey land if i can just work at a target and make the same money.  and weird argument, what if i decide i want 0 kids, do i get more for the same work because i have kids or do i have the same and kids go hungry ?
some of my friends say spotify is the best thing for playing music.  but i find it hard to believe when there are people like me who already have over 0 songs in our library.  not to mention, itunes is the only thing that will properly communicate with my apple product that i use for music.  i realize you can download pretty much as much music as you want, but to get that, you have to pay.  whereas itunes is free.  i am not really the type of person who is into discovering brand new music all the time.  occasionally, i will expand my horizons until i find an artist who really sticks, and then i will play the crap out of their music until i am pretty much sick of it.  back in the day, when i had a zune to play music, they had a similar feature where you could pay a fixed subscription fee to download as much music as you wanted for free.  even back then, an offer like this did not pique my interest.  knowing this, are there any standout features that evolve the listening experience so much that i would be willing to abandon my itunes library and start over again ?  #  itunes is the only thing that will properly communicate with my apple product that i use for music.   #  what problem do you have with spotify on your phone ?  #  why start over ? you never loose your itunes library unless you manually delete it.  i just see this as a false dichotomy.  all the music you currently own is free, it is a sunk cost and switching over makes you loose nothing.  you can still download itunes music to your phone.  the question is moving forward do you prefer to get new music by owning it via spending a dollar in itunes or renting it on spotify for a set price per month ? honestly i am sort of in your boat and i dropped spotify so i ca not debate you on that point but i can point out a false dicotomy.  what problem do you have with spotify on your phone ?  #  using itunes is free, but you have to pay about a dollar, give or take, for each song less per song if you purchase an album .   #  as a former itunes user, i know how you are feeling i had a library of thousands of songs that i no longer use.  i think it all boils down to a cost benefit analysis, and how quickly you like to add music to your library.  using itunes is free, but you have to pay about a dollar, give or take, for each song less per song if you purchase an album .  with spotify premium, you pay $0 per month for unlimited songs.  so, if you regularly add more than five songs a month which i do then spotify is definitely worth the fee.  the crux of this issue is that it does not matter how many songs you  already have in your library , but  how often you add new ones .  although i would be remiss if i did not point out that spotify has a free version if you can stomach the drawbacks which offers most of the same benefits.  theoretically unlimited music library for free hard to beat that.   #  sometime they will do a simultaneous release on spotify, other times it takes months.   #  i would hardly call spotify is library unlimited, often with regional or small bands they have missing or incomplete discographies.  but that is understandable, there a loads of small acts out there, and it is unreasonable to assume spotify will catalog them all.  another issue is that spotify does not always have newer music when an album is released.  sometime they will do a simultaneous release on spotify, other times it takes months.  lastly, spotify is woefully underserved when it comes to ost is, especially foreign ones.  all this adds up to the determination that, if you are a listener like me, spotify premium will be a more limiting, rather than unlimited experience.   #  song/artist radio, which creates a sort of on the spot playlist of tracks similar to the selected song or the selected artist is style.   #  there are quite a few useful features to spotify, not all of which are immediately apparent:   the same shuffle and repeat functions that itunes has.  a  top tracks  list for each artist, allowing easy sampling of new artists  styles not sure if itunes has a similar feature or not .  recommendations available based on what artists, tracks, and genres you listen to most often.  song/artist radio, which creates a sort of on the spot playlist of tracks similar to the selected song or the selected artist is style.  tracks can be given a positive or negative rating, which will then increase/reduce the weight given to similar tracks when creating this playlist.  playlist radio, which does something similar as above, but by  averaging  all the music in a given playlist using spotify is mysterious algorithms.  the ability to  follow  an artist, so that you get notifications whenever they release new music on the spotify service.  the ability to  follow  your friends, telling you what music they listen to, and giving you access to view, and play from, their playlists providing they have changed their privacy settings to allow this .  access to all music stored on the device, even if it is something spotify does not host e. g.  taylor swift music, or most film soundtracks .  the ability to designate individual playlists as  available offline , allowing you to download those songs while not downloading other songs.  this is useful for those with a large music library, as keeping your less listened to music on the cloud can save you hard drive space.  there is probably more i missed, but you should get the jist of it.  i should also point out that, while spotify does cost money for the full experience, very few tracks on itunes are free, so you are paying money either way.   #  i do not use pandora or the equivalent because i find myself getting too much music that i do not care for.   #  so it is kind of like a social networking site and by this, i mean that you can connect with friends, etc, and share music that way , mixed with a music player, with features reminiscent of pandora or itunes radio ? that sounds interesting, but i still do not know if it is right for me.  i do not use pandora or the equivalent because i find myself getting too much music that i do not care for.  also, i am not much into social networking.  i have a facebook account, but i rarely use it.  i am not much into the music my friends like either.
when i was in middle school kids bullied me all the time, i told the teachers, but they just told me to ignore it.  i had to use every ounce of my willpower to prevent myself from fighting back.  whenever i was bullied, i would scream at the bullies.  the teachers told me that it was my own fault that i was being bullied because of the way i screamed at them.  i tried to tell them that screaming was a reflex which i physically could not control, but they just kept telling me that it was my own fault.  for years, i had to hold in all of my anger because i knew that if i fought back i would be suspended.  it was holding in all that anger which led to a suicide attempt.  this was a long time ago, so i am better now.  however, the reason why victims of bullying commit suicide is because no one takes them seriously.  no matter how minor the bullying is, a person should never be told to ignore it, and certainly never told that it is their own fault.  it is the very definition of victim blaming and should not be done.  i am sure some of the comments will say that they only bullied me to get a reaction, so if i did not scream at them they would have stopped bullying me.  however, saying that is victim blaming, no matter how true it is.  i would also like to point out that screaming is a natural reaction to fear, and that i was using all of my willpower to prevent myself from fight back.  if the school will not allow kids to fight back, than the school should do something about the bullying.  if i could have fought back without being suspended, than i would have.  my school has a policy that all kids involved in a fight are suspended.  in my school, kids given out of school suspension are forced to go to an  alternative learning center  for the duration of their suspension.  i knew that if i was suspended i would be sent their, and that it was filled with bad kids who would have been far worse than the bullies at the school.   #  i am sure some of the comments will say that they only bullied me to get a reaction, so if i did not scream at them they would have stopped bullying me.   #  however, saying that is victim blaming, no matter how true it is.   # however, saying that is victim blaming, no matter how true it is.  no, it is not anyone is own fault that they were bullied, but why is it so wrong to teach kids what to do in a sticky situation ? ignoring the bully actually works, and in life there is not always going to be a parental figure to break things up.  we have to teach our kids to take care of themselves.  is it victim blaming to tell our kids not to talk to strangers ? is it victim blaming to tell our kids not to play in the street ? is it victim blaming to suggest someone buy an alarm system for their home ?  #  well since i´ve been bullied in all middle school, and half of highschool, leaving me with severe confidence and social issues, i´m gonna go and say that i politely disagree.   #  well since i´ve been bullied in all middle school, and half of highschool, leaving me with severe confidence and social issues, i´m gonna go and say that i politely disagree.  bullying isn´t about entertainment, it´s about power.  they rise above you and if you ignore it, you allow it, leaving them in power.  why would they stop if you never do anything back ? if anyone told me to just punch those cunts in the face that would have saved me years of depression.  but no, just ignore them, they will go away ! aside from having people telling me that all the time, and it not going away.   #  that is the challenge because you are trying really hard to pretend they do not exist.   #  the issue is that if you are the type of person to get bullied then you are likely the type of person who will  ignore  the bullying by practically pretending the bully does not exist.  at this point you have made it a game.  can they get a reaction from you ? that is the challenge because you are trying really hard to pretend they do not exist.  instead what does work is  taking it  or  owning it , but that is not something just anyone can do.  it takes practice and, annoyingly, social confidence to pull it off.  you need to take it but act like it means nothing.  over time it does become to mean nothing.  so when people say  ignore it  they think about themselves.  they think how they would casually brush off the incidents in a way that just make the bullying die out.  but if you are already socially awkward then you can do that, which is what many people do not recognise.  i should say this is for a particular type of bullying.  it is a bit different in something like boarding school where you are stuck with the other students 0/0.  in that the principle remains.  those who can pull it off become the top dogs in later years, those who do not end up suffering.  it is a terrible cycle and i am glad that i have never had to suffer from it.   #  but we are not talking about hte death threat we are talking about fighting which 0 can occur afterschool and 0.   # possibly but i doubt it n. b.  doubt the impact but it is clearly less sane and we have more negative repercussions also this was not on school property .  what i think this would show is the importance of involved parenting in outcomes of such procedures which show a class centric difference.  these type of things are really importantand help shape differences in outcomes .  but we are not talking about hte death threat we are talking about fighting which 0 can occur afterschool and 0.  0 fight in middle school will not get you kicked out well unless you pull a mike tyson or really compromise your chances at a good education.   #  a child at risk of being bullied will be taught the most effective ways to deal with would be bullies.   #  a woman taking a self defense class will be taught the most effective ways to deal with would be rapists.  a child at risk of being bullied will be taught the most effective ways to deal with would be bullies.  your example breaks down because it is a false dichotomy.  a woman being blamed for wearing a short skirt is victim blaming.  the equivalent scenario for the bullying situation would be if the teachers offered lame advice like  well you should conform to other people is social norms, then !
when i was in middle school kids bullied me all the time, i told the teachers, but they just told me to ignore it.  i had to use every ounce of my willpower to prevent myself from fighting back.  whenever i was bullied, i would scream at the bullies.  the teachers told me that it was my own fault that i was being bullied because of the way i screamed at them.  i tried to tell them that screaming was a reflex which i physically could not control, but they just kept telling me that it was my own fault.  for years, i had to hold in all of my anger because i knew that if i fought back i would be suspended.  it was holding in all that anger which led to a suicide attempt.  this was a long time ago, so i am better now.  however, the reason why victims of bullying commit suicide is because no one takes them seriously.  no matter how minor the bullying is, a person should never be told to ignore it, and certainly never told that it is their own fault.  it is the very definition of victim blaming and should not be done.  i am sure some of the comments will say that they only bullied me to get a reaction, so if i did not scream at them they would have stopped bullying me.  however, saying that is victim blaming, no matter how true it is.  i would also like to point out that screaming is a natural reaction to fear, and that i was using all of my willpower to prevent myself from fight back.  if the school will not allow kids to fight back, than the school should do something about the bullying.  if i could have fought back without being suspended, than i would have.  my school has a policy that all kids involved in a fight are suspended.  in my school, kids given out of school suspension are forced to go to an  alternative learning center  for the duration of their suspension.  i knew that if i was suspended i would be sent their, and that it was filled with bad kids who would have been far worse than the bullies at the school.   #  i am sure some of the comments will say that they only bullied me to get a reaction, so if i did not scream at them they would have stopped bullying me.   #  however, saying that is  victim blaming , no matter how true it is.   #  i first want to say i recognize your pain as the vast majority of people were bullied in school, but i think you have some things wrong.  however, saying that is  victim blaming , no matter how true it is.  victim blaming is not every time the victim is actions are addressed if those actions can affect the outcome.  victim blaming is when the victim is actions are addressed and there is no connection between the actions and the outcome because the outcome was random.  0 of all conflict resolution is dealt with by changing ourselves because the reality is we cannot change other people.  if someone gives you advice about what actions to take ignoring is also an action that is not victim blaming regardless of how poor that advice might be.  you have reduced victim blaming down to anytime someone tells you how to avoid a bad situation and that does a disservice to victims that have been blamed for their actions when their actions had no bearing on the outcome.   #  is it victim blaming to suggest someone buy an alarm system for their home ?  # however, saying that is victim blaming, no matter how true it is.  no, it is not anyone is own fault that they were bullied, but why is it so wrong to teach kids what to do in a sticky situation ? ignoring the bully actually works, and in life there is not always going to be a parental figure to break things up.  we have to teach our kids to take care of themselves.  is it victim blaming to tell our kids not to talk to strangers ? is it victim blaming to tell our kids not to play in the street ? is it victim blaming to suggest someone buy an alarm system for their home ?  #  aside from having people telling me that all the time, and it not going away.   #  well since i´ve been bullied in all middle school, and half of highschool, leaving me with severe confidence and social issues, i´m gonna go and say that i politely disagree.  bullying isn´t about entertainment, it´s about power.  they rise above you and if you ignore it, you allow it, leaving them in power.  why would they stop if you never do anything back ? if anyone told me to just punch those cunts in the face that would have saved me years of depression.  but no, just ignore them, they will go away ! aside from having people telling me that all the time, and it not going away.   #  it is a terrible cycle and i am glad that i have never had to suffer from it.   #  the issue is that if you are the type of person to get bullied then you are likely the type of person who will  ignore  the bullying by practically pretending the bully does not exist.  at this point you have made it a game.  can they get a reaction from you ? that is the challenge because you are trying really hard to pretend they do not exist.  instead what does work is  taking it  or  owning it , but that is not something just anyone can do.  it takes practice and, annoyingly, social confidence to pull it off.  you need to take it but act like it means nothing.  over time it does become to mean nothing.  so when people say  ignore it  they think about themselves.  they think how they would casually brush off the incidents in a way that just make the bullying die out.  but if you are already socially awkward then you can do that, which is what many people do not recognise.  i should say this is for a particular type of bullying.  it is a bit different in something like boarding school where you are stuck with the other students 0/0.  in that the principle remains.  those who can pull it off become the top dogs in later years, those who do not end up suffering.  it is a terrible cycle and i am glad that i have never had to suffer from it.   #  doubt the impact but it is clearly less sane and we have more negative repercussions also this was not on school property .   # possibly but i doubt it n. b.  doubt the impact but it is clearly less sane and we have more negative repercussions also this was not on school property .  what i think this would show is the importance of involved parenting in outcomes of such procedures which show a class centric difference.  these type of things are really importantand help shape differences in outcomes .  but we are not talking about hte death threat we are talking about fighting which 0 can occur afterschool and 0.  0 fight in middle school will not get you kicked out well unless you pull a mike tyson or really compromise your chances at a good education.
the garbage men always put the recycling and the regular trash into the same truck.  how can we trust that it is actually being recycled ? when i try to bring can is to those machines, it does not accept certain brands of can is, so why even bother ? it is probably a corporation type thing where they are trying to control us and what we  recycle .  i do not even understand the process, when i try to research it i ca not find anything about how it actually works, so i am having trouble believing that it is actually a thing.  i know that it exists, i am just not sure it is actually as great as everyone says.  i would like to have faith in our planet though so i hope you can change my view with some word is, but for right now i am pretty solid on wanting to ban recycling and maybe incorporate some other kind of method or process.   #  i do not even understand the process, when i try to research it i ca not find anything about how it actually works, so i am having trouble believing that it is actually a thing.   #  how have you tried to research it.   #  where i live i play for city trash bags.  that is i have to buy specific bags at a specific price point if i want to dispose of my trash.  however the city will provide me a with a free recycling bin, and any recyclables left in the at bin are picked up for free.  by separating trash from recycling i save $0 $0 a year.  not where i live.  they are two distinct groups of people that show up at different hours.  how have you tried to research it.  maybe the problem is with your research methodology.   #  to start, ignorance of a system is not an argument against the system.   #  so, my goal in changing your view will not be to convince you that we should recycle, but more to convince you that your suggestion to ban recycling is irrational and somewhat silly.  to start, ignorance of a system is not an argument against the system.  if a physicist tried to explain string theory to you in detail, you most likely would be completely lost.  before suggesting something be banned, you should ensure that you have some kind of evidence that this activity is actually detrimental, and detrimental enough to warrant a public ban.  you could always write an email to different recycling centers or waste management specialists asking for a brief summary, and you would likely get a good explanation.  technology will always be buggy with new systems, and unless you fully understand why it is bugging out, again, not a valid reason to suggest a ban.  it may be a software bug, or a hardware bug, or maybe it is by design, because that brand of can contains materials that make it a poor candidate for recycling.  have you looked into this ? even if you found any of those things to be true, an argument of improving our systems which is reasonable makes much more sense than  ban this .  when your computer crashes, you do not ask for the government to prohibit all computers.  your conspiracy theory response is pretty much how everyone rationalizes their conspiracy theory.   i do not believe in crazy conspiracy theories, but i have seen a lot of stuff about the moon landing that look fishy ,  i am not a conspiracy nut, but i saw that video about 0/0 and there is so many unanswered questions !   if you want to make an argument that this is a conspiracy, you are going to need a fuck ton of evidence.  if you do not have that, it is a ridiculous reason to suggest a ban.  and yeah, the hypothetical situation you suggested with your garbage men is neither a fact, or even relevant.  not reason for a ban.   #  starting from scratch is almost always a bad idea.   # your logic is that the inefficient process is not as useful as an efficient process, therefore we should ban the process.  i am sorry but that hurts my soul a little bit.  my career and professional passion are process improvement.  you do not make things better by scraping the process and making things illegal, you make them better by looking at the process, analyzing it and finding ways to improve it.  starting from scratch is almost always a bad idea.  your own statements that you ca not seem to understand the process tell me you are in the worst position to make these judgments.  i have never wanted to make some sit in a chair in the middle of a toyota factory so much before.   #  i have not seen it be efficient in my lifetime.   #  why would sitting in a chair at toyota help me ? i do not think you fully understand the point is i am making.  i am saying the entire process is inefficient.  i have not seen it be efficient in my lifetime.  if we make it illegal, with all the extra time during when its illegal we can go in and figure it out to make it better.   #  it makes it very difficult to have any sort of interesting or meaningful conversation.   #  what /u/booklover0 is saying is that you have successfully articulated a problem: the recycling program in effect in your area is inefficient.  but your proposed solution to that problem is to make all recycling illegal, as in fines and jail time for people trying to recycle.  that is a terrible solution to the problem.  you are also admitting your ignorance yet insisting on your solution.  it makes it very difficult to have any sort of interesting or meaningful conversation.
many irl and on reddit seem to hold the idea that dating someone with a high amount of previous sexual partners is a bad thing.  on the opposite spectrum, i also do not think it is a bad thing that a person has no previous sexual partners.  as long as they have practiced safe sex and is not carrying a std, which are important considerations regardless of their number of partners unless that number is 0, i do not see why it matters how many people they have had sex with and i am curious why so many people seem concerned about that.  perhaps as a result, i also do not see the issue with  hookups , casual sex, and similar behavior in the age of condoms, contraceptives, and assessable std testing and think condemnation of such behavior is outdated.  cmv ?  #  i do not see why it matters how many people they have had sex with and i am curious why so many people seem concerned about that.   #  perhaps as a result, i also do not see the issue with  hookups , casual sex, and similar behavior in the age of condoms, contraceptives, and assessable std testing and think condemnation of such behavior is outdated.   # perhaps as a result, i also do not see the issue with  hookups , casual sex, and similar behavior in the age of condoms, contraceptives, and assessable std testing and think condemnation of such behavior is outdated.  because many, if not most people myself included , value sex as something more than just the physical; it is something that has an inherent value that is far beyond the mechanics of the act.  if someone has had a much larger number of partners, then it is obvious that the value they place on sex is vastly different than yours, even if to them, every time was special, it still means that their definition of  special  does not match yours.  for a lot of people, that is a deal breaker.  conversely, for someone who has not had any partners, the pressure associated with being their  first  is something that some people might not want.  the important thing to remember though is that all of this is based on subjective opinions of what constitutes  too many  or  too few , and also the view that each individual has on sex.  those are some of the most personal and intimate views a person can have, and all of them are valid; you do not get to decide how someone else should or should not feel.   #  whether the 0 were all one night stands that bob never saw again, or whether they were all deep and meaningful relationships that he loved, it does not matter.   # how  they  value sex is irrelevant, what matters is how i value it.  if bob want is to date jane, and bob is had 0 sexual partners, the only thing that matters is how jane values 0 partners.  whether the 0 were all one night stands that bob never saw again, or whether they were all deep and meaningful relationships that he loved, it does not matter.  if jane  thinks  that 0 is too many, then it  is  too many.  you do not get to decide for someone else what they should, or should not be okay with.   #  in fact, you usually ca not make those assumptions, which does make this at least somewhat objective.   #  dating is almost entirely a matter of personal preference.  who would argue that you  should not  date someone merely based on their number of partners ? if they do, usually it is because they ca not make the assumptions about health and stability that you made in your post.  in fact, you usually ca not make those assumptions, which does make this at least somewhat objective.  also, why does it matter if it is zero but not thirty ? that seems like a double standard.  it is either ok to care about their past or not.   #  then, they start thinking  0 year old virgin; this is getting to be a problem .   #  a little hard to follow.  correct me if i get any of your premise wrong.  while i  suppose  there may be a rate one partner individual out there whose single partner at age 0 was a one night stand, but i would think that would be pretty rare.  your more typical   0 lifetime partners person would have a couple long term relationships prior to meeting their spouse.  but even the person you described, yes, i would say values sex more than the average person.  for starters, they waited 0 years before having sex, so there was  some  reason they chose not to have sex before that.  then, they start thinking  0 year old virgin; this is getting to be a problem .  so they try the alternative and have a ons of casual sex.  then they go back to being celibate.  that kind of confirms to me that they did not like the casual sex encounter and place more value on sex than to just do it willy nilly with anyone they happen to run across.   #  i think people get seriously confused looking at  big numbers  and do not realize those probably are not even big numbers to someone  actually  into casual sex.   #  ok, you could have 0 relationships that ends very early for every one that lasts over a year and you could still hit 0 relationships in 0 years.  0  years  of dry spells on top of that would still just be 0 years.  00 0.  that is not exactly old.  and that is assuming you start having relationships at 0.  just 0 0 one night stands a year during single periods massively boosts up your numbers in the long run.  i think people get seriously confused looking at  big numbers  and do not realize those probably are not even big numbers to someone  actually  into casual sex.  if someone is actually hooking up casually on weekends they could pretty easily hit 0  in one year.
i really want my view changed on this because i love eating lamb meat, and i would like to be able to eat it without feeling guilty ! let is start with why i find eating meat at all to be morally justifiable.  i only buy meat from free roam organic farms, which are clearly labeled here in denmark.  if i eat one of the cows i see on the outskirts of my city, happily roaming and eating grass, i do not really feel guilty.  they get to experience a reasonably long, happy and healthy life.  we also have pigs that are allowed to roam free in the forest.  we give them a safe environment, and their lives end up on average longer and happier than they would be in the wild.  so imagine if an alien species came to earth and says:   hey, we will create a post scarcity society for you.  all your life you will be in perfect health.  you as in all humans will never want for anything, you will get all your favorite food and you get to play video games all day or whatever it is you want to do.  but when you reach the age of 0, we will kill you in a humane way and then we will eat your corpse.    i would find that to be a good deal.  it would remove world hunger, there is no need to fight for resources.  no diseases killing young people, no genetic defects.  not even having to work or do anything you do not want.  and you would still get a reasonably long life to enjoy.  and now we get to lamb meat.  these guys are killed at 0 month to 0 year, which is in the best case less then 0/0th of their lives.  they do not get to enjoy their lives.  in my alien analogy, it would be like making the deal  yeah some of you get to live until 0, but some of you we will take and eat at 0 , which suddenly becomes less acceptable.   what would change my view:    somehow making my alien analogy work for eating humans at 0   giving me another compelling moral argument for why eating lamb meat is ok.   what will not change my view:    the  animals are made for human consumption so they do not matter  argument.  well yes, but they are also intelligent agents capable of feeling pain and suffering.  an alien species with superior technology and intelligence could decide that  humans are made for alien consumption , and enslave our species, keeping us in cages all our lives.  that would be horrible.  so even if they are less intelligent and feel suffering differently, it does not give us the right to harm them for no good reason.  we as a species get to decide which animals are for human consumption and which are not, and what conditions we keep them in.    the  we evolved to eat meat  argument.  yes, and we can eat chicken, pork and beef.  no need to eat lamb even if a vegetarian diet was insufficient.  sorry for the long post.  i realize it may be a bit tricky, but i really really want my guilt free lamb roast.  so there you have it, my first ever cmv : 0.  if we go with the alien analogy, if they were to take some human cells and clone some humans on their home world, let them play happily on a field until they are 0, and then slaughter them for food, how immoral would that really be ? the children would accept it as the status quo and enjoy their lives, as they are too young to understand all the ramifications.  no parents would have to part from their children, thus causing more suffering.  0.  on the other side, it has been shown that other animals are slaughtered at an even younger age, so my view is inconsistent.  pigs, who are a lot more intelligent than lambs, usually get killed at 0 months.  milk cows are parted from their young as soon as they are born, and the calves get killed quite often only after a few weeks.   #  but when you reach the age of 0, we will kill you in a humane way and then we will eat your corpse.    #  i would find that to be a good deal.   # i would find that to be a good deal.  i am going to take a wild guess and assume that 0 seems pretty far away.  if you are healthy at 0, you might think differently.  dying at 0 means many wo not see their grandchildren grow into adults.  you can still do just about anything at 0; there is so much life left to experience.  these guys are killed at 0 month to 0 year, which is in the best case less then 0/0th of their lives.  they do not get to enjoy their lives.  there is a big difference between a lamb and a human.  the life of a lamb will consist of eating, pooping, and reproducing.  they have no goals or aspirations, they get no joy from being with their young, they do not accumulate and use knowledge and experience and pass that along to other lambs.  if a lamb were to live 0x longer, it will just be 0 more years of eating and pooping.   #  would the sheep be if their offspring disappears ?  #  that is an interesting question.  you have articles like this URL showing how cows get attached to other cows.  now i feel bad about eating cow meat too : so would lambs feel sad if a lamb is gone ? would the sheep be if their offspring disappears ? i should read on about this.  i know for a fact cats can feel loss.  they will often go looking for their friends if they go missing, so showing them the dead body of the other cat can actually help alleviate their distress, although they often display grieving behavior afterwards.   #  rather, if one is not going to take the simpler approach of blanket vegans and  minimize all harm  i believe amongst the only rationally defensible ways to pick and choose what animal products one consumes would be based on sentience.   # recognition of safety and support in familiar fellow herd herbivores and the resulting rewiring of the brain is not the same as having emotions.  iow i still think /u/forestfly0 is point is the biggest one there is a lot of reason to believe you are anthropomorphizing animals.  which i believe is the wrong foundation for an ethical study of animal product consumption.  rather, if one is not going to take the simpler approach of blanket vegans and  minimize all harm  i believe amongst the only rationally defensible ways to pick and choose what animal products one consumes would be based on sentience.  while we ca not yet  prove  there is very good reason to believe that sentience lies on a spectrum and that sentience  as we understand it  is probably unique to mammals.  there are surely clever birds out there, but almost everything we recognize as  human  shows up via brain scans in the uniquely mammalian parts of our brain.  so, if one is going to draw a line i think one could make a case for eating insects, fish and birds and  perhaps  some of the lower mammals.  but then we get to another  rational  defense for food selection: environment.  this rules out corn fed cattle but probably not open pastured cattle ,  and probably rules out most shrimp and fish.  the ugly conflict with our  sentience  approach which suggests eating lower on the food chain is more moral is that a lot of low on the food chain animals are hard to farm in an environmentally  and economically  sound manner; we  harvest  nature is bounty but through doing so rob the chain of its foundation and hurt the very sentient creatures we are attempting to not harm.   #  , yes, even some fish are likely capable of pain.   #  plants have a stress response.  there is a huge gulf between responding to environmental stimuli with a chemical signaling hormonal response and emotion.  depending on your philosophical definition of pain is it pain when one has no memory of it ? when one ca not anticipate the negative response ? , yes, even some fish are likely capable of pain.  joy ? that is an awfully human word.  pleasure perhaps ? but again this gets into where definitions become very important.  what is pleasure without awareness of self ? where does it cease to be chemical positive reinforcement to train disparate cells to repeat a beneficial behavior and become  joy  ?  #  their brain chemistry is very very similar to ours.   #  as any pet owner can tell you, my cat can and does feel happy or unhappy.  they most certainly are capable of complex emotions.  their brain chemistry is very very similar to ours.  yes, plants can and do feel pain too, although it is very different than how animals feel it.  they are more primitive, so their response is more primitive/simple as well.  what is the point ?
i really want my view changed on this because i love eating lamb meat, and i would like to be able to eat it without feeling guilty ! let is start with why i find eating meat at all to be morally justifiable.  i only buy meat from free roam organic farms, which are clearly labeled here in denmark.  if i eat one of the cows i see on the outskirts of my city, happily roaming and eating grass, i do not really feel guilty.  they get to experience a reasonably long, happy and healthy life.  we also have pigs that are allowed to roam free in the forest.  we give them a safe environment, and their lives end up on average longer and happier than they would be in the wild.  so imagine if an alien species came to earth and says:   hey, we will create a post scarcity society for you.  all your life you will be in perfect health.  you as in all humans will never want for anything, you will get all your favorite food and you get to play video games all day or whatever it is you want to do.  but when you reach the age of 0, we will kill you in a humane way and then we will eat your corpse.    i would find that to be a good deal.  it would remove world hunger, there is no need to fight for resources.  no diseases killing young people, no genetic defects.  not even having to work or do anything you do not want.  and you would still get a reasonably long life to enjoy.  and now we get to lamb meat.  these guys are killed at 0 month to 0 year, which is in the best case less then 0/0th of their lives.  they do not get to enjoy their lives.  in my alien analogy, it would be like making the deal  yeah some of you get to live until 0, but some of you we will take and eat at 0 , which suddenly becomes less acceptable.   what would change my view:    somehow making my alien analogy work for eating humans at 0   giving me another compelling moral argument for why eating lamb meat is ok.   what will not change my view:    the  animals are made for human consumption so they do not matter  argument.  well yes, but they are also intelligent agents capable of feeling pain and suffering.  an alien species with superior technology and intelligence could decide that  humans are made for alien consumption , and enslave our species, keeping us in cages all our lives.  that would be horrible.  so even if they are less intelligent and feel suffering differently, it does not give us the right to harm them for no good reason.  we as a species get to decide which animals are for human consumption and which are not, and what conditions we keep them in.    the  we evolved to eat meat  argument.  yes, and we can eat chicken, pork and beef.  no need to eat lamb even if a vegetarian diet was insufficient.  sorry for the long post.  i realize it may be a bit tricky, but i really really want my guilt free lamb roast.  so there you have it, my first ever cmv : 0.  if we go with the alien analogy, if they were to take some human cells and clone some humans on their home world, let them play happily on a field until they are 0, and then slaughter them for food, how immoral would that really be ? the children would accept it as the status quo and enjoy their lives, as they are too young to understand all the ramifications.  no parents would have to part from their children, thus causing more suffering.  0.  on the other side, it has been shown that other animals are slaughtered at an even younger age, so my view is inconsistent.  pigs, who are a lot more intelligent than lambs, usually get killed at 0 months.  milk cows are parted from their young as soon as they are born, and the calves get killed quite often only after a few weeks.   #  and now we get to lamb meat.   #  these guys are killed at 0 month to 0 year, which is in the best case less then 0/0th of their lives.   # i would find that to be a good deal.  i am going to take a wild guess and assume that 0 seems pretty far away.  if you are healthy at 0, you might think differently.  dying at 0 means many wo not see their grandchildren grow into adults.  you can still do just about anything at 0; there is so much life left to experience.  these guys are killed at 0 month to 0 year, which is in the best case less then 0/0th of their lives.  they do not get to enjoy their lives.  there is a big difference between a lamb and a human.  the life of a lamb will consist of eating, pooping, and reproducing.  they have no goals or aspirations, they get no joy from being with their young, they do not accumulate and use knowledge and experience and pass that along to other lambs.  if a lamb were to live 0x longer, it will just be 0 more years of eating and pooping.   #  you have articles like this URL showing how cows get attached to other cows.   #  that is an interesting question.  you have articles like this URL showing how cows get attached to other cows.  now i feel bad about eating cow meat too : so would lambs feel sad if a lamb is gone ? would the sheep be if their offspring disappears ? i should read on about this.  i know for a fact cats can feel loss.  they will often go looking for their friends if they go missing, so showing them the dead body of the other cat can actually help alleviate their distress, although they often display grieving behavior afterwards.   #  rather, if one is not going to take the simpler approach of blanket vegans and  minimize all harm  i believe amongst the only rationally defensible ways to pick and choose what animal products one consumes would be based on sentience.   # recognition of safety and support in familiar fellow herd herbivores and the resulting rewiring of the brain is not the same as having emotions.  iow i still think /u/forestfly0 is point is the biggest one there is a lot of reason to believe you are anthropomorphizing animals.  which i believe is the wrong foundation for an ethical study of animal product consumption.  rather, if one is not going to take the simpler approach of blanket vegans and  minimize all harm  i believe amongst the only rationally defensible ways to pick and choose what animal products one consumes would be based on sentience.  while we ca not yet  prove  there is very good reason to believe that sentience lies on a spectrum and that sentience  as we understand it  is probably unique to mammals.  there are surely clever birds out there, but almost everything we recognize as  human  shows up via brain scans in the uniquely mammalian parts of our brain.  so, if one is going to draw a line i think one could make a case for eating insects, fish and birds and  perhaps  some of the lower mammals.  but then we get to another  rational  defense for food selection: environment.  this rules out corn fed cattle but probably not open pastured cattle ,  and probably rules out most shrimp and fish.  the ugly conflict with our  sentience  approach which suggests eating lower on the food chain is more moral is that a lot of low on the food chain animals are hard to farm in an environmentally  and economically  sound manner; we  harvest  nature is bounty but through doing so rob the chain of its foundation and hurt the very sentient creatures we are attempting to not harm.   #  where does it cease to be chemical positive reinforcement to train disparate cells to repeat a beneficial behavior and become  joy  ?  #  plants have a stress response.  there is a huge gulf between responding to environmental stimuli with a chemical signaling hormonal response and emotion.  depending on your philosophical definition of pain is it pain when one has no memory of it ? when one ca not anticipate the negative response ? , yes, even some fish are likely capable of pain.  joy ? that is an awfully human word.  pleasure perhaps ? but again this gets into where definitions become very important.  what is pleasure without awareness of self ? where does it cease to be chemical positive reinforcement to train disparate cells to repeat a beneficial behavior and become  joy  ?  #  as any pet owner can tell you, my cat can and does feel happy or unhappy.   #  as any pet owner can tell you, my cat can and does feel happy or unhappy.  they most certainly are capable of complex emotions.  their brain chemistry is very very similar to ours.  yes, plants can and do feel pain too, although it is very different than how animals feel it.  they are more primitive, so their response is more primitive/simple as well.  what is the point ?
i am a biologist that has done some research on the evolution of sex in dioecious plants.  this is a topic that has frustrated me from time to time over the last year or so.  here on reddit and other forums i have run across phrases such as the following:   gender refers to a social construct and is not used interchangeably with biological sex   there is no such thing as biological gender   sex is not gender/gender is not sex i have also had a psychologist buddy of mine get on to me for misapplying the term gender when discussing the biological sex of a plant.  now, i understand that the word gender can be used to describe a social construct and/or internal identity rather than refer to biological sex.  welcome ladies and gentlemen to the english language, where words can mean different things in different contexts.  and this is not just a colloquialism, where people have misused the term gender to the point where it has become commonplace.  this is used all the time in biology to describe sex in species other than humans.  see this paper URL on dioecious plant species.  we even have a term in biology called gender load URL to describe a phenomena where there is a continuous production of low fitness offspring of both sexes.  if you are concerned that someone might not understand what they are talking about, use what i just laid out as a correction.  tell them they are confusing identity or social construct and biological sex.  in the same way that you might tell someone opposed to gay rights that when you are talking about marriage you are referring only to the legal contract between spouses and not what they think their god says.  furthermore, an etymology search URL of the word gender reveals that the word has long been used interchangeably with sex.  so, tell me reddit.  am i a culturally insensitive bastard, for using gender interchangeably with biological sex in context ? cmv.   #  in the same way that you might tell someone opposed to gay rights that when you are talking about marriage you are referring only to the legal contract between spouses and not what they think their god says.   #  sometimes it is easier, for the sake of clear communication, to accept an alternative meaning.   #  i think that some of this issue may fall under code switching URL and everybody does it to some extent: speaking differently if you are hanging out with friends or being  interviewed  by a detective or talking to your esl grandparents or your professional peers.  ianalinguist, though.  sometimes it is easier, for the sake of clear communication, to accept an alternative meaning.  context matters, of course.  like, if you are talking to that hypothetical gay rights opposed, god fearing someone at a law school seminar, feel free to specify the secular definition of marriage.  if you are at a post worship church potluck full of old folks, however, i would suggest conceding the  high ground  of being the party to set the definition of marriage for the converstaion, and using a different term, like  willegal marriage , for the sake of the context.  this goes back to your complaint about such statements as:   gender refers to a social construct and is not used interchangeably with biological sex   there is no such thing as biological gender   sex is not gender/gender is not sex as long as they are not messing with your bailiwick, why not live and let live ? when sex/gender usage splitters make blanket pronouncements about botany, then your grievance will have more merit, but for now, let them use their words in their sociological context, and let them try unsuccessfully to overreach in their usage proselytization.  cheers.  also, i, as an earth scientist, have given up trying to stop the misuse of epicenter for center.  unless they try to make any geological pronouncements.  also, annalemma and anarckissed have good comments.   #  for instance, castrated male rats will exhibit lordosis, a pose female rats use to invite copulation, after a dose of estrogen and progesterone.   #  i study the neurodevelopment of gender.  for most people, gender and sex are more or less concordant.  however, we have found that this is not the case in all people.  in animal models, we can manipulate their hormones such that animals will exhibit sex atypical behaviour.  for instance, castrated male rats will exhibit lordosis, a pose female rats use to invite copulation, after a dose of estrogen and progesterone.  further, while sex is dichotomous on the most part having either male or female genitalia , gender is a continuous variable having more or less male typical or female typical behaviours or traits .  so, for instance gay men are more likely to navigate using the same strategies as women and other female animals do, using landmarks, rather than fixed directions, the way straight men and other male animals do.  however, gay men have many traits typical of other men.  having distinct concepts for sex and gender is useful for research.  but i would not fault you for using the words fairly interchangeably when there is no evidence of plants have a discordance between the two.   #  though they have some behaviours which are more female like, they have many traits and behaviours where they are equally male like as their heterosexual counterparts, and their gender identity is usually male.   #  here is a lay article URL explaining the study about navigational cues.  and here is a link URL to the original study.  across species, males and females use different navigational strategies.  hormones work differentially on different areas of the brain, and in mice, spatial learning is very hormone dependent corre et al. , 0 URL while a structure like the olfactory bulb structure involved in smelling in rodents , for instance, is more influenced by chromosomal sex than hormones.  one of the most reliable predictors of adult sexual orientation is childhood gender nonconformity URL gay men are more likely to have feminine interests and childhood play compared to heterosexual men.  this has been found in both retrospective studies where they recall how feminine they were as kids and studies where you have people rate how masculine or feminine someone is in their childhood videos when the raters do not know the sexual orientation.  although trans people are more likely to be attracted to the same sex as they were born with, most gay men identify as men.  though they have some behaviours which are more female like, they have many traits and behaviours where they are equally male like as their heterosexual counterparts, and their gender identity is usually male.  thus gay men, as a group on average, are an example of gender being a continuous measure.  there are some shifts in the female direction on certain measurements, but they still fall in the male camp.   #  in human males, the link between sexual orientation and hormones is pretty shaky, and i suspect is not there.   #  we had that as a theory for a while now, but in humans, it does not appear to be accurate.  there is lots of evidence for gay women having higher testosterone, but i do not think there is been any direct testing of whether there is much difference in their estrogen/progesterone.  the closest studies i am aware of about the link of estrogen and sexual orientation in women is studying women exposed to des, a synthetic estrogen, and it actually correlated with an increase in same sex behaviour.  in human males, the link between sexual orientation and hormones is pretty shaky, and i suspect is not there.  other prenatal factors seem to make a larger difference.  and to clarify, only prenatal hormones seem to matter.  in both humans and animal models, hormones after puberty do not influence sexual orientation.   #  the castrated rat example is one of the more striking examples of hormones changing male/female typical behaviour.   #  the castrated rat example is one of the more striking examples of hormones changing male/female typical behaviour.  generally, it is only in animal models that we can get clearcut causation, because we are allowed to manipulate their hormone levels.  but there are several conditions in humans which increase or decrease prenatal exposure to testosterone.  for instance, there is the number of cag repeats in the androgen receptor gene, there is congenital adrenal hyperplasia, there is complete androgen insensitivity syndrome, and lots of variation in a  normal  range of prenatal testosterone.  women with congenital adrenal hyperplasia are exposed to an excessive amount of testosterone while in the womb.  they are more likely to have masculine interests as children compared to women without the condition and more likely to fantasize about women as adults.  there are several ways to get an approximate measure of prenatal testosterone exposure, like the ratio between your pointer and ring finger, and the tiny sounds coming from your ear from the cilia moving.  both are imperfect, but using either measurement, they found that lesbian women are more likely to have been exposed to higher levels of prenatal testosterone and more likely to have masculine interests as children.
so i am a gay guy and i occasionally identify as a feminist since i believe that women are equal to men in every way and imo that is feminism.  i know my viewpoint is going to be the antithesis to most mra is but i just find it hard to take their viewpoints seriously.  a lot of the mra stuff i have seen is complaining on about militant feminists and not men is issues.  the amount of times i have seen that toronto incident mentioned, it was 0 crazy group of people, its hardly a world wide phenomena.  i do admit that there are issues facing on men, stuff like circumcision being seen as the norm in some places more in the us, they are not common over in england, unless you are uber religious and as a guy who has had a male on male sexual assault i know that it wo not be taken as seriously as a male on female assault.  but you do not really see that much of that type of things on mra, most of it seems to be complaining about feminism, then you look at what feminism has done compared to mra.  feminists fought tooth and nail to get the right to vote, chained themselves to buildings, went on hunger strike, went to prison for what they believe in; i have not seen that from mra at all.  i also suppose being gay makes me somewhat sympathetic to feminism, the queer rights movement has some parallels, i see those first people to resist at stonewall as our suffragettes anyway cmv.  i know i am going to get some heated replies but meh its the internet  #  feminists fought tooth and nail to get the right to vote, chained themselves to buildings, went on hunger strike, went to prison for what they believe in; i have not seen that from mra at all.   #  the feminists you are referring to are not the feminists of today.   # the feminists you are referring to are not the feminists of today.  the people who did those things are either dead or soon to be dead.  the modern movement has nothing to do with rights and everything to do with oppression of men.  also, mras have gone to jail for their beliefs.  if a man refuses to pay child support because it was the woman is choice to have the baby, and he had no say in the matter, he will go to jail.  even if the moment after he has sex with them, he presents them with a notarized document saying that he will not pay child support, it is not legally binding.  the man is still required to pay child support, when he had no say in the matter.  if a woman gets pregnant, the man should have the full right to waive his financial responsibility as long as it is within the time period that the women could legally get an abortion.  by choosing to have the child, and forcing the man to pay child support, that women is enslaving the man to something which he did not agree to.  mras have gone to jail for refusing to pay child support, so they have suffered just as many hardships as feminists.   #  there are crazy militant people on both sides and both sides do a fair bit of complaining about the other.   #  i do not think there is much of an argument comparing feminism is accomplishments to mra is.  you are comparing an organization that has had 0 year is worth of time to an organization that has only been culturally relevant in the last 0.  also, arguing that the fact that they have not accomplished much is not relevant.  it is a group of people who are supposedly fighting against an oppressive society and the fact that you do not see any headway from them could just as easily be attributed to the oppressive society.  i think most people would agree that both camps are a pretty nebulous organization as far as ideologies are concerned.  there are crazy militant people on both sides and both sides do a fair bit of complaining about the other.  however, both movements have their benefits and creating feuding mentality does not help anyone.   #  the school system is failing boys at every level, and no one seems to care.   #  yeah, but it was 0/0,0th as small for 0 of those 0 years.  the fact is, there are real issues.  some people have been hurt very badly by a system that they see as very unjust.  imagine a loving parent having their children taken away.  sometimes, they look for someone to blame.  it is not that i excuse those that hate feminists, and have on many occasions spoken against them.  but there are real mra issues.  cirsimaritin is only a minor one.  the real issues are the sentencing gap, where men receive a much harsher prison sentence for the same crime.  the family court system that is making assumptions about how families raise children.  the fact that men are something like 0 times more likely than a women to commit suicide or die on the job.  the fact that boys are significantly less likely than girls to graduate high school or go on to college.  the school system is failing boys at every level, and no one seems to care.  so some people get upset.  they see the  fight for equality  as not addressing some issues that are very important to them personally.  they start by scoffing when feminists say they fight for equality and step by step it turns into  feminists do not have any valid points at all .   #  you are never going to have a condom break and have no say in whether you become a father, or have to pay someone a quarter of your income for 0 years.   # yet you know who fathers 0 justice are ? do you think early feminists were lauded and acclaimed by the press at the time ? the thing is, as a gay man you are insulated from a lot of issues the mrm concerns itself with.  you are never going to lose custody of your kids to your wife, because you are a man.  if you call the police because your partner is hitting you, they are not going to assume you are the aggressor, because you are a man.  you do not have to meet women to find a romantic relationship, and you do not have to worry about being labelled a  creep  or  iscary  if you do it wrong.  you are never going to have a condom break and have no say in whether you become a father, or have to pay someone a quarter of your income for 0 years.  and any woman that claims  the gay man raped me .  well.  there are a lot of issues that probably seem like irrelevant or unimportant non issues to you, because you have never experienced them, and you never will experience them.  that does not mean they are irrelevant or unimportant to other people.  on the other hand you probably do know what it is like to have people look at you sideways when you interact with small children.  for a long time it was considered  normal  to treat gay men as a threat to small children, particularly little boys.  now  isociety  has seen fit to extend that assumption to all men.  you will also get the more severe male sentencing penalty, if you ever commit a crime.  etc.  tl/dr: while being gay certainly comes with it is own problems, you are insulated from many of the issues straight men have to deal with.   #  how often have you heard a straight guy say  nah bro, i like, do not mind them so long as they do not try to get with me !    # i do not really think so.  certainly gay men have faced difficult stereotypes, but not really this one.  no, they actually face that one quite a lot.  homophobia is frequently masked behind a fear of  getting hit on  and the belief that gay men pursue straight men with ill intent.  how often have you heard a straight guy say  nah bro, i like, do not mind them so long as they do not try to get with me !   gay men being labeled as creeps is a very common stereotype.
all the hoopla about the fph subreddit bans has resulted in quite a bit of conversation, but there seems to be little acknowledgement of the huge number of fph  related  subreddits that have been, and continue to be banned despite not actually having broken any rules themselves.  the admins seem to be acting as though these related subreddits are a form of ban evasion, and most people seem to agree.  meanwhile, the claim continues to be that they are only banning rule breakers, not censoring ideas.  what disturbs me about this is that  there is no such thing as subreddit ban evasion.   a subreddit is not a person, it is a topic of conversation.  if, after a particular subreddit is banned for breaking the rules, people go on to set up new subreddits with the same topic of conversation.  should not that subreddit have the same opportunity to follow the rules as any other ? if those mods can do a better job, should not they get the chance ? on the other hand, if simply setting up a new subreddit for the same topic is treated as ban evasion, and immediately banned as well, then is not that exactly equivalent to  banning the topic ?   if the admins are banning all subreddits for a particular topic of conversation, a particular idea, and for no other reason then being for that topic, being that idea.  then is not that objectively the banning of the idea ? i am very disturbed at the thought that all those folks crying censorship might actually be right this time, and even more so at the thought that the admins might actually be lying to us.  i do not want this to be the case, but i cannot see a reasonable alternative explanation.  : please, change my view.  just to be clear, i am not necessarily saying they  should not  have banned those subreddits or that they  should  have either , i am just saying that what they are doing is in fact entirely materially equivalent to banning the idea, which they claim not to be doing.  as for the question of evidence for the fact that they are in fact banning subreddits simply because of their topic, i will use one unique example that proves it particularly well: consider the fact that they accidentally banned /r/whalewatchers for a short time URL a two year old subreddit that is  actually about whale watching , simply because trolls posted some fph related content which the mods would have obviously removed anyway .  if they were only banning rule breakers, how could /r/whalewatchers, a two year old subreddit that could not possibly have had evidence of rule breaking associated with it, have earned a banning  even if they did mistakenly think it was dedicated to hating fat people ?   i can find no reasonable explanation as to how that mistake could  even have been possible  if they were only banning rule breakers and not banning ideas.   #  what disturbs me about this is that  there is no such thing as subreddit ban evasion.   #  this is the only part of your view that i have to disagree with.   # this is the only part of your view that i have to disagree with.  the purpose of banning a subreddit is to permanently remove, both it, and access its content.  if you allow the same exact moderation team that was running /r/fatpeoplehate to start up and run /r/fatpeoplehate0, with the same exact policies, and same exact standards, and same exact content, then your  ban  becomes essentially just a url change, which is clearly not what the admins intended.  i am willing to take the admins at their word that this was an effort to ban behavior and not ideas the fact that subs like /r/coontown and /r/prettycorpses do not click on that yes, it is  exactly  what it says , are still alive is a pretty clear demonstration that this is not an all out purge of controversial ideas.   yet .  if, however, there is another round of  cleansing , then voat is just a click away.   #  if the answer to those questions is  no , then  that topic  has been banned.   # who is  they  ? if your implication is that every single banned subreddit was the exact same mods recreating the exact same subreddit, that is not true.  you seem to think that fatpeoplehate0 is an entirely different sub than fatpeoplehate, when they are clearly the same sub, only with a different name ? of course it is not entirely different.  my entire cmv is about how these other subreddits have  the same topic , how could they be  entirely  different ? like i said in my post, though:    if, after a particular subreddit is banned for breaking the rules, people go on to set up new subreddits with the same topic of conversation.  should not that subreddit have the same opportunity to follow the rules as any other ? if those mods can do a better job, should not they get the chance ? if the answer to those questions is  no , then  that topic  has been banned.  it is not possible to have a subreddit for that topic any more, reguardless of whether it follows the rules or not, and you are objectively engaging in censorship.  i am also not saying that they  ca not  ban them, or even that they necessarily  should not  have banned them.  what i am saying is just that what they are doing is entirely equivalent to censorship of that topic, of an idea.  they claimed they were not doing that,  but they are.  if you ban subreddits simply for being the same topic, without the new subreddits having actually broken any rules yet, then how is your  ban  not essentially just censorship of that topic ? that is the question you need to answer if you are going to change my view.   #  if your implication is that every single banned subreddit was the exact same mods recreating the exact same subreddit, that is not true.   # if your implication is that every single banned subreddit was the exact same mods recreating the exact same subreddit, that is not true.  the people who made up the original subreddit.  and no, they wo not be exactly the same, but they can be pretty damn close.  there is no point in banning a subreddit if you allow it to form up again the next week.  it is not possible to have a subreddit for that topic any more, reguardless of whether it follows the rules or not, and you are objectively engaging in censorship.  sure, they can.  but the subreddit actually has to be different than the first, not merely a continuation.  if the admins have reason to believe the new subreddit will actually be different than the first, they allow it to stand as in the case of the r/n  being banned, but it is replacement being allowed to remain.   #  and no, they wo not be exactly the same, but they can be pretty damn close.   # and no, they wo not be exactly the same, but they can be pretty damn close.  there is no point in banning a subreddit if you allow it to form up again the next week.  on the other hand, if you do not allow any other subreddits to form again with that topic, you are unambiguously censoring that topic.  the admins told us they were not doing that.  but the subreddit actually has to be different than the first, not merely a continuation.  says who ? as long as they follow the rules from then on out, what is the problem ?  #  the point of a ban is to prevent the subreddit/user from continuing allowing continuations defeats the entire purpose.   # and who says that is what they are doing ? maybe they are only banning subreddits they deem sufficiently similar to the first.  the admins do have a track record of letting banned subreddits reform, if they believe that the new subreddit is actually different than the first see r/n  to r/coontown .  as long as they follow the rules from then on out, what is the problem ? because if you allow continuations, then that is not a ban it is a name change.  if john smith is sentenced to jail, he ca not change his name to joseph and expect to be free until he commits another crime.  the point of a ban is to prevent the subreddit/user from continuing allowing continuations defeats the entire purpose.
i know many of you are not americans, but a foreign take could still be useful : i am liberal, bordering on libertarian on many issues, but the illegal immigrant issue is one that i do not think i have ever really understood, and it bothers me that i agree with the same people who are also trying to take away rights from women, etc, so i am actually hoping my view gets changed.  i know america started as a giant melting pot of immigrants, but even in its adolescent years, there were regulations not all good on who was allowed to enter the country and legally become a citizen.  historically, english has been the national language, and if you traveled to america you knew you would have to learn the language and assimilate into the culture.  i feel like spanish language instructions on government things public trans, etc were a waste of money to implement, and would be a waste of money to continue to implement.  i believe all people immigrating to the us should learn the language, and the citizenship test should definitely only be offered in english.  additionally, i believe illegal immigrants should be deported, and here is why: they may be escaping to lead a better life here, and they may be doing jobs nobody else wants to do, but in the end they are not paying taxes, they are using american public resources, and taking jobs away from americans.  i do not see why anyone in this country without the government is knowledge or consent should be permitted to live here.  the initial investment to bring in the federal government to deport these people may be large, but a crackdown on policy would hopefully deter future illegals from crossing the border.  i also know that it leads to discrimination against legal americans of hispanic descent by government officials, which is not great, but hopefully within the decade, enough illegal immigration would be stopped to lessen domestic suspicion.  please change my view, i would love to understand why giving illegal immigrants citizenship would be positive   socially   for our economy   and otherwise  #  the initial investment to bring in the federal government to deport these people may be large, but a crackdown on policy would hopefully deter future illegals from crossing the border.   #  i think you underestimate when you use the term  large .   # while i am not really a fan of the status quo, there are other options beyond  deport all  or  legalize all .  firstly, let is correct a few misconceptions: undocumented immigrants pay taxes URL however, they do not receive social security, tax credits, or other benefits that us citizens do.  in fact, it is possible that undocumented immigrants are keeping social security from falling into insolvency URL i am not specifically advocating that we continue with our current arrangement specifically to take advantage of this phenomenon, just point out that your initial assumptions are incorrect.  historically, second or third generation americans assimilate into american culture.  first generation polish, italian, german, and other european immigrants did not bother to learn english for the most part, and generally stuck to cultural enclaves in cities/regions where their respective diaspora were living.  also, thousands of legal immigrants arrive in the us every year unable to speak english.  i do not agree that government should not serve those legal, tax paying citizens just because they prefer to communicate in a non english language.  i think you underestimate when you use the term  large .  just the cost of arresting over 0,0,0 people, investigating them, charging them, transporting them, and attempting to deport them back to countries they do not want to go to and who do not want them back would be staggering.  these are people is family members.  many risked their lives to come to the us.  they are not going to line up to be deported.  keep in mind also that you are housing and feeding them the whole time.  keep in mind that there is now millions of tons of food going unharvested in the fields, leading to higher food prices.  and that the second the arrive back in mexico, honduras, costa rica or el salvador, they are going to try and many will succeed is coming right back.  a much more productive use of those funds could be spent examining why people feel compelled to come to america in the first place.  local farmers put out of work by us government subsidized corn.  an american war on drugs which elevates the profits of illegal drug trades to the point where cartel based violence pushes out all legitimate business.  it also provides incentive for people to find sneaky ways across the border.  you are willing to actively persecute tens of millions of american citizens ? for a decade ? that does not seem particularly libertarian of you.   #  illegal immigrants are not nearly the drain on public sector resources that people assume.   #  you are making alot of assumptions on how much we spend on illegal immigrants.  illegal immigrants are not nearly the drain on public sector resources that people assume.  on average, total healthcare expenditure of illegal immigrants per capital is less than 0/0 that of the social economic equivalent of a us citizen source URL on the other hand, they account for as much as 0 of low wage work in certain industries source URL furthermore, their impact on wages seem to be fairly low, with one study URL estimating that 0 increase in illegal immigration only effecting wages by 0.  overall, there seems to be a big economic cost of removing illegal immigrants for really no economic benefit.  in fact, more stringent and 0 trillion dollar more expensive border control has worsened illegal immigration statistics due to more immigrants overstaying their visas due to difficulties crossing the border source URL my personal experience is that alot of illegal immigrants actually do pay taxes although in more roundabout fashion .  they work hard, so hard that they ca not afford to use the social services they have access to.  they want to be a contributing citizen of the us.  they just ca not due to bureaucratic reasons.   #  i am not going to argue with you politically, because i do not know about economic stuff at all.   #  i am not going to argue with you politically, because i do not know about economic stuff at all.  as far as i am concerned, when it comes to illegal immigration you need to ask yourself if you are first and foremost part of the brotherhood of humanity or if you are first and foremost an american.  i was raised in a border town.  i am totally for letting illegal immigrants stay because i am a human first and an american second.  i do not think the circumstances of my birth a few miles farther north entitles me so much to such a better life than those south of the border.  you cannot blame anyone for crossing illegally because you would do the same in their position, and as far as not being taxed, do you think they are trying to avoid being taxed/contributing to the economy or avoid being deported ? it is government policies dictating the quality of their lives, and in some cases it is life or death, and illegal immigrants should not be punished for our policies or mexico is.  oh yeah, for what it is worth, without mexicans, america would have a rapidly aging population like japan.   #  your position keeps speaking of  illegal immigrants  as though being illegal were its identifying characteristic, and therefore that is what makes them bad.   # just make it much legal to immigrate here, and you would solve the issue of illegal immigrants pretty easily, no ? i do not mean that in a flippant way.  your position keeps speaking of  illegal immigrants  as though being illegal were its identifying characteristic, and therefore that is what makes them bad.  we can just make it legal would that solve the problem for you ? if not, i think you need to think deeper about what the issue therefore is, since the illegality does not seem to be it.   #  here is a basic question that i do not think people take enough time in addressing when thinking about this issue:  why is committing a crime worthy of deportation ?  #  here is a basic question that i do not think people take enough time in addressing when thinking about this issue:  why is committing a crime worthy of deportation ? to me, this is just a basic, foundational question.  it is a question of  why .  what is the basis for deportation ? yes, illegal immigrants broke the law, but that clearly ca not be the reason to deport someone deportation is not the punishment for  every  illegal act.  so why should it be the punishment for this one ? i guess i feel like i do not understand your position enough to try to rebut it, since i would need to answer to this question.  you have done a decent job of explaining  that  someone has committed a crime, but i do not see why this particular punishment is a good or worthy idea.  to me, it is similar to saying  he stole some bread, therefore we should cut his hands off, because the government should not try to cater to the needs of thieves .  seems. unpersuasive.  i guess i do not see the connection here.  almost every single person in the united states has committed a crime at some point.  whether it be jaywalking, assault, theft, whatever.  most of the time people do not get punished for doing so, either because i no one notices, or ii no one cares.  so, my basic question to you is why does  this  crime, the crime of evading our immigration system, deserve this singular punishment that pretty much no other crime does.  what is special about it ?
i know many of you are not americans, but a foreign take could still be useful : i am liberal, bordering on libertarian on many issues, but the illegal immigrant issue is one that i do not think i have ever really understood, and it bothers me that i agree with the same people who are also trying to take away rights from women, etc, so i am actually hoping my view gets changed.  i know america started as a giant melting pot of immigrants, but even in its adolescent years, there were regulations not all good on who was allowed to enter the country and legally become a citizen.  historically, english has been the national language, and if you traveled to america you knew you would have to learn the language and assimilate into the culture.  i feel like spanish language instructions on government things public trans, etc were a waste of money to implement, and would be a waste of money to continue to implement.  i believe all people immigrating to the us should learn the language, and the citizenship test should definitely only be offered in english.  additionally, i believe illegal immigrants should be deported, and here is why: they may be escaping to lead a better life here, and they may be doing jobs nobody else wants to do, but in the end they are not paying taxes, they are using american public resources, and taking jobs away from americans.  i do not see why anyone in this country without the government is knowledge or consent should be permitted to live here.  the initial investment to bring in the federal government to deport these people may be large, but a crackdown on policy would hopefully deter future illegals from crossing the border.  i also know that it leads to discrimination against legal americans of hispanic descent by government officials, which is not great, but hopefully within the decade, enough illegal immigration would be stopped to lessen domestic suspicion.  please change my view, i would love to understand why giving illegal immigrants citizenship would be positive   socially   for our economy   and otherwise  #  i also know that it leads to discrimination against legal americans of hispanic descent by government officials, which is not great, but hopefully within the decade, enough illegal immigration would be stopped to lessen domestic suspicion.   #  you are willing to actively persecute tens of millions of american citizens ?  # while i am not really a fan of the status quo, there are other options beyond  deport all  or  legalize all .  firstly, let is correct a few misconceptions: undocumented immigrants pay taxes URL however, they do not receive social security, tax credits, or other benefits that us citizens do.  in fact, it is possible that undocumented immigrants are keeping social security from falling into insolvency URL i am not specifically advocating that we continue with our current arrangement specifically to take advantage of this phenomenon, just point out that your initial assumptions are incorrect.  historically, second or third generation americans assimilate into american culture.  first generation polish, italian, german, and other european immigrants did not bother to learn english for the most part, and generally stuck to cultural enclaves in cities/regions where their respective diaspora were living.  also, thousands of legal immigrants arrive in the us every year unable to speak english.  i do not agree that government should not serve those legal, tax paying citizens just because they prefer to communicate in a non english language.  i think you underestimate when you use the term  large .  just the cost of arresting over 0,0,0 people, investigating them, charging them, transporting them, and attempting to deport them back to countries they do not want to go to and who do not want them back would be staggering.  these are people is family members.  many risked their lives to come to the us.  they are not going to line up to be deported.  keep in mind also that you are housing and feeding them the whole time.  keep in mind that there is now millions of tons of food going unharvested in the fields, leading to higher food prices.  and that the second the arrive back in mexico, honduras, costa rica or el salvador, they are going to try and many will succeed is coming right back.  a much more productive use of those funds could be spent examining why people feel compelled to come to america in the first place.  local farmers put out of work by us government subsidized corn.  an american war on drugs which elevates the profits of illegal drug trades to the point where cartel based violence pushes out all legitimate business.  it also provides incentive for people to find sneaky ways across the border.  you are willing to actively persecute tens of millions of american citizens ? for a decade ? that does not seem particularly libertarian of you.   #  they work hard, so hard that they ca not afford to use the social services they have access to.   #  you are making alot of assumptions on how much we spend on illegal immigrants.  illegal immigrants are not nearly the drain on public sector resources that people assume.  on average, total healthcare expenditure of illegal immigrants per capital is less than 0/0 that of the social economic equivalent of a us citizen source URL on the other hand, they account for as much as 0 of low wage work in certain industries source URL furthermore, their impact on wages seem to be fairly low, with one study URL estimating that 0 increase in illegal immigration only effecting wages by 0.  overall, there seems to be a big economic cost of removing illegal immigrants for really no economic benefit.  in fact, more stringent and 0 trillion dollar more expensive border control has worsened illegal immigration statistics due to more immigrants overstaying their visas due to difficulties crossing the border source URL my personal experience is that alot of illegal immigrants actually do pay taxes although in more roundabout fashion .  they work hard, so hard that they ca not afford to use the social services they have access to.  they want to be a contributing citizen of the us.  they just ca not due to bureaucratic reasons.   #  i am not going to argue with you politically, because i do not know about economic stuff at all.   #  i am not going to argue with you politically, because i do not know about economic stuff at all.  as far as i am concerned, when it comes to illegal immigration you need to ask yourself if you are first and foremost part of the brotherhood of humanity or if you are first and foremost an american.  i was raised in a border town.  i am totally for letting illegal immigrants stay because i am a human first and an american second.  i do not think the circumstances of my birth a few miles farther north entitles me so much to such a better life than those south of the border.  you cannot blame anyone for crossing illegally because you would do the same in their position, and as far as not being taxed, do you think they are trying to avoid being taxed/contributing to the economy or avoid being deported ? it is government policies dictating the quality of their lives, and in some cases it is life or death, and illegal immigrants should not be punished for our policies or mexico is.  oh yeah, for what it is worth, without mexicans, america would have a rapidly aging population like japan.   #  if not, i think you need to think deeper about what the issue therefore is, since the illegality does not seem to be it.   # just make it much legal to immigrate here, and you would solve the issue of illegal immigrants pretty easily, no ? i do not mean that in a flippant way.  your position keeps speaking of  illegal immigrants  as though being illegal were its identifying characteristic, and therefore that is what makes them bad.  we can just make it legal would that solve the problem for you ? if not, i think you need to think deeper about what the issue therefore is, since the illegality does not seem to be it.   #  you have done a decent job of explaining  that  someone has committed a crime, but i do not see why this particular punishment is a good or worthy idea.   #  here is a basic question that i do not think people take enough time in addressing when thinking about this issue:  why is committing a crime worthy of deportation ? to me, this is just a basic, foundational question.  it is a question of  why .  what is the basis for deportation ? yes, illegal immigrants broke the law, but that clearly ca not be the reason to deport someone deportation is not the punishment for  every  illegal act.  so why should it be the punishment for this one ? i guess i feel like i do not understand your position enough to try to rebut it, since i would need to answer to this question.  you have done a decent job of explaining  that  someone has committed a crime, but i do not see why this particular punishment is a good or worthy idea.  to me, it is similar to saying  he stole some bread, therefore we should cut his hands off, because the government should not try to cater to the needs of thieves .  seems. unpersuasive.  i guess i do not see the connection here.  almost every single person in the united states has committed a crime at some point.  whether it be jaywalking, assault, theft, whatever.  most of the time people do not get punished for doing so, either because i no one notices, or ii no one cares.  so, my basic question to you is why does  this  crime, the crime of evading our immigration system, deserve this singular punishment that pretty much no other crime does.  what is special about it ?
ok, view changed.  i guess i meant that there was an arbitrary double standard between alcohol and pot in the workplace, as opposed to saying employers do not have a basis to drug test.  in my view, if a person is doing good work on drugs or not , then they should be kept working.  if they are doing a bad job as a result of doing drugs or not , they should be fired.  it seems like pinning bad workplace behavior on what well could be, for example, responsible   legal pot smoking is lazy and pointless.  to this point: i could show up drunk to work in the morning.  this would not show up on a drug test, yet it could carry negative consequences for the company.  i could be caught and fired for this.  same as if i showed up high.  note that none of these instances of being caught involve a drug test.  what does drug testing white collar workers accomplish ? we have consistently seen similar  zero tolerance  policies fail spectacularly in schools and elsewhere.  it is crazy to assume that workers will be responsible adults unless they prove otherwise ? also curious about your thoughts on jobs involving heavy machinery.  maybe those jobs should not drug test either ?  #  i could show up drunk to work in the morning.   #  this would not show up on a drug test, yet it could carry negative consequences for the company.   # this would not show up on a drug test, yet it could carry negative consequences for the company.  i could be caught and fired for this.  why are you okay with this but not drug testing ? you could show up to work drunk without causing any problems and be fired on the spot  because of the risk  associated with being drunk at work doing a bad job .  and you seem to be fine with that which is great.  drug tests are for the same thing ! they are not to try and catch what people do on their own time and fire them for being unclean or anything weird like that.  the whole point is to identify whether you are a drug user because there is a risk associated with being on drugs potentially coming to work high and doing a poor job.  if a company is not comfortable with that risk, they drug test.  simple as that.   #  if you think you can do the same amount, if not more, work while drunk or high or whatever; you are simply delusional.   #  is it unreasonable for employers to expect the people they pay money to work are giving their 0 ? the fact that someone is turning up to their employment under the influence of illicit drugs, or alcohol, tells me as an employer that you: 0 .  do not care about doing an effective job; and 0 .  do not care that your co workers have to pick up the slack.  if you think you can do the same amount, if not more, work while drunk or high or whatever; you are simply delusional.   #  it is possible to test positive for longer than a month, but you need to smoke fairly large quantities of potent marijuana.   #  just to clarify this, depending on the frequency with which you smoke, it can be detectable for up to a month.  for example, someone who smokes before bed to help them sleep almost every night could test positive for up to a month.  it is possible to test positive for longer than a month, but you need to smoke fairly large quantities of potent marijuana.  and at least around here, urine tests are the most common, and among white collar workers they often go for the lab gas chromatography tests, which are far more sensitive than the instant reading variety.  almost no one bothers to run tests for  are you high right now ?    #  if you can name some criterias we can have a discussion.   #  a drug test is a simple test to determine what is on your bloodstream.  a computer check would accomplish very little while being illegal.  there is no threshold or criteria by which a computer check would be relevant to a job.  if you can name some criterias we can have a discussion.  as of now it seems very apples to oranges.   #  i am a chemist, technically white collar, and i handle extremely toxic substances.   #  yes there are.  i am a chemist, technically white collar, and i handle extremely toxic substances.  myself and my coworkers should def be tested as one mistake could kill everyone in the room.  even something more benign.  my mother in law is a cpa.  she used to work as a vp of finance at a fortune 0 company.  she got hooked on oxy and benzos.  she made an 0 figure error in the books while under the influence.  now she works as a book keeper for a mom and pop, and shes lucky to have that.
there are a couple of analogies that we can make between r/fatpeoplehate and racist people.  they discriminate a particular group of individuals due to one of their physical or mental problems.  they even created themselves a  superiority  in their group you had to verify that you were fit to have the  verified shitlord  flair .  they harass fat people when on a regular basis these people did not do anything to provoque them.  and two final points: why is harassing fat people legal when racial harassment is illegal ? and i am not here to cover the free speech question.  unless you have to state it to proove your point please do not talk about that aspect of things.  i am sorry for using the word  fat  to describe these people  #  why is harassing fat people legal when racial harassment is illegal ?  #  if by  legal  you actually mean  legal  it is not.   # they discriminate a particular group of individuals due to one of their physical or mental problems.  waaaait just a second.  are you saying that someone is race is a  physical or mental problem  ? i am pretty sure that is not what you  meant , but i want to check.  because if you change your phrasing to correct for this error, the comparison you made is much less clear.  if by  legal  you actually mean  legal  it is not.  harassment is illegal in most jurisdictions regardless of the reason.  but what people do on reddit on the whole very, very rarely meets the legal definition of harassment.  if by  legal  you mean  allowed by reddit rules  clearly it is not, or fph would not have been banned.  if by  legal  you mean  acceptable by society  it is not necessarily; it is a pretty controversial subject.  if by  harassment  you mean  discrimination  and talking about in the us, i assume there is a couple reasons, but the biggest one is that at one point in time and arguably still to this day in some parts of the country people of certain races, religions, or even gender if doing things for themselves and/or not being married could not get basic goods and services.  at one point in time, if a black family wanted to travel, they would have to arrange to stay with friends or family, because they could not get a hotel room.  in some places, folks could not even buy  food .  likewise, some folks could not get jobs to support themselves.  people were  literally dying  because of discrimination about something they could not change.  those discrimination laws were clearly  necessary .  whether or not they still are is debatable.  discrimination to that extreme is not happening in this country based on weight, as far as i can tell.  the other reason is quite simply that you cannot change your race or gender, and one of this country is founding principles is that you  should  not feel overly pressured to change your religion.  you  can  change your weight.  some people have more unique obstacles to doing so than others, but it is  possible  for everyone.   #  do you think that is the same as crossing the street when you see a black guy coming your way ?  #  i am pretty sure harassment is illegal across the board.  discrimination is another thing entirely.  there could be a good reason for it, for example making the morbidly obese buy two seats on a plane because they take up too much room.  strangers often prejudge me.  people are constantly crossing the street when they see me coming just because i have long unkempt hair, a scraggly beard, and wear ragged clothing.  maybe they think i will stink, or ask them for spare change, or even rob or rape them, i am not sure.  do you think that is the same as crossing the street when you see a black guy coming your way ?  #  furthermore, being overweight is a universal indicator of poor health.   #  i do not think very many people think fat shaming is a moral thing to do but it is a far stretch from harassment due to racism.  race is something that cannot be controlled or changed.  someone is body profile on the other hand can be changed.  yes it may be harder for some people, but nonetheless there are free and simple methods such as change in diet to costly medication and surgeries that can help someone lose weight.  furthermore, being overweight is a universal indicator of poor health.  race on the other hand cannot be directly attributed to any negative indicators beyond certain genetic conditions.   #  it is ok to say  i think people who are fat should change their lifestyles.    #  the difference is choice.  it is impossible to choose what race you are born as, so it is wrong to be prejudice against people based on a thing that they did not choose.  that would be the same as blaming somebody for having an epileptic seizure, which is ridiculous.  weight, on the other hand, is something that you can choose.  you can choose to eat healthily all the time, sometimes, or none of the time.  you can choose to exercise all the time, sometimes, or none of the time.  these chooses have a direct correlation to your weight.  some people may need to make more modifications or more drastic modifications based on uncontrollable biological factors, but these cases are rare.  it is not ok to say  i discriminate in employment based upon skin color.   it is ok to say  i discriminate in employment based upon talent and experience.   it is not ok to say  i think people who have epileptic seizures should change their lifestyle.   it is ok to say  i think people who are fat should change their lifestyles.   also, you will need to define  mistreat  and  harass  if you want to get any more in depth, i think.   #  but religion is obviously a choice anyone can change their religion at any time.   #  i do not think this is persuasive.  if you think of the various categories of things its socially unacceptable to be bigoted about, you will find that  is it a choice  is not an identifying characteristic.  the prime example here is religion.  religious bigotry is basically totally unacceptable in the united states, and rightfully so.  you ca not be fired because of your religion, for example.  but religion is obviously a choice anyone can change their religion at any time.  in fact, the fact that religion is a choice is one of its most important features you  choose  your own beliefs.  if you did not, it would not have much meaning that you had the beliefs you had.
as my title says, i strongly believe that a metaphor is one of the worst, if not the worst, type of evidence that can be used in an argument.  i have not found a metaphor from another person or myself that can be good evidence.  all that would be required to change my view is ten or more metaphors that i, or any other redditor, can not find to be  bad  evidence as in not actually supporting an argument.  there is a large possibility that my terms of a metaphor not being equal enough to support an argument are broad, but i can not think over any way to narrow them down.  edit: nitpicked was a bad choice of words.  my argument is that anyone who uses a metaphor to support an argument or point can not use a sufficient metaphor to make their point.  here, i have found a good example.   if god exists because you can not disprove his existence, then a magical purple elephant exists because you can not disprove his existence either .  this is an example of using a metaphor in an argument to prove a point, very badly.  this is a bad use because their is no evidence of a magic purple evidence, but their evidence to why there would not be a magic purple elephant.  any proof that a god has created the universe or that the universe created itself has not been presented making this an example of a bad metaphor in an argument.  i am talking about using a metaphor for backing up a point in lieu of evidence.   #  here, i have found a good example.   #   if god exists because you can not disprove his existence, then a magical purple elephant exists because you can not disprove his existence either .   #  if god exists because you can not disprove his existence, then a magical purple elephant exists because you can not disprove his existence either .  this is an example of using a metaphor in an argument to prove a point, very badly.  this is a bad use because their is no evidence of a magic purple evidence, but their evidence to why there would not be a magic purple elephant.  any proof that a god has created the universe or that the universe created itself has not been presented making this an example of a bad metaphor in an argument.  i am talking about using a metaphor for backing up a point in lieu of evidence.  the rewording still confuses me, so i apologise if i misinterpret what you are saying.  so i take it to mean that this:    if god exists because you can not disprove his existence, then a magical purple elephant exists because you can not disprove his existence either  is a bad argument.  let is parse out what the person is trying to say with two people, a and b.     a :  god must exist.   b :  how do you know this ?   a :  well, you ca not prove that he  does not  exist, can you ?   so a is saying that given the fact that one cannot  disprove  the existence of god, god must exist.  this can easily be generalized with a placeholder: given that one cannot disprove the existence of  x , it follows that  x  must exist.  this is a syntactic substitution, and is a point about the general  form  of the way that a is arguing.  so given any  x  whose existence cannot be disproved, i can substitute it into the above sentence, and the resulting sentence will have the same general syntactic form as a is argument.  so b says:    b :  well, i cannot  disprove  the existence of a magical purple elephant, either.  from this, i argue that there must exist a magical purple elephant.   now clearly that sentence sounds absurd.  what it is meant to highlight is  not  that a is wrong about the existence of god, but that  the line of reasoning that he is using to get there is faulty .  the metaphor abstracts away the semantics of the argument to show its raw form, and shows that there is not a logical entailment from a is premises to a is conclusion.   #  0.  therefore, men shaving their nuts will eventually die much as tomfoolcape will die.   #  semantic point: your example about the purple elephant is not actually a metaphor, it is an analogy URL analogies can be diagrammed in the form a:b :: c:d that is  a is to be as c is to d.   in other words, it is a logical structure for comparing the relations between two different sets of things.  for example hand:palm :: foot:sole that is, your palm relates to your hand in the same way that your sole relates to your foot.  is this the same thing as saying palm sole ? no, what the analogy says is that the relations are identical, not the things themselves.  a way to turn the above analogy into a metaphor would be to say something like  the sole is the palm of the foot,  which sounds deep and poetic or makes it sound like i have been smoking pot.  so a metaphor is a turn of phrase that employs an analogy, drawing a similarity between two unlike things based on their relation to other things.  in other words, a metaphor is an analogy put into the form of a linguistic turn of phrase.  enough semantics.  here is my attempt to cyv: analogies are one of the most important logical operations, one which allows you to draw similarities among particulars.  as the wiki says, analogies allow you to make a connection or an inference from one particular to another, whereas induction allows you to make connections from particulars to general principles, and deduction allows you to draw connections from general principles to particulars.  here is an example of deductive reasoning: 0.  all men are mortal.  0.  tomfoolcape is a man.  0.  therefore, tomfoolcape is mortal.  as you can see, we take a true general statement  all men are mortal,  a particular true observation  tomfoolcape is a man  and then by putting those two premises together, we can demonstrate an inevitable conclusion.  deductive reasoning is one of the most important tools in logic and in argumentation.  but an analogy allows us to do something different.  it allows us to validly compare the relations between unlike things.  0.  all fashions eventually  die  just like people do.  this is an analogy.  0.  men shaving their nuts is a fashion.  0.  therefore, men shaving their nuts will eventually die much as tomfoolcape will die.  this is an analogy built on the first analogy.  what analogies like this enable us to do is to compare familiar things with unfamiliar things, so that we can come to understand the structure and functioning of unfamiliar things.  fashion, for example, is a relatively unfamiliar thing.  certainly not as familiar as your own body and its physical decline.  but the observation that fashion invariably changes and that particular fads invariably disappear, and that fashion in general appears to obey a kind of life cycle.  that is a valid observation.   #  the example is not a trump card to show that god  does not  exist, neither does it purport to being one.   # the metaphor or in this case really, the analogy is meant to show why the syntactic form of the argument is bad, not the semantics of it.  can you prove any kind of empirical negative with certainty ? this is why the syntactic form of the argument is bad in the first place: it is basis is that inability to disprove the existence of  x  is sufficient for proof of the existence of  x .  this is bad for exactly the reason that the magic elephant example serves to highlight:  no one  can provide demonstrative evidence of the  in existence of either god or the magic elephant.  we ca not then use this fact to argue that those entities must exist, because then we can argue for the existence of any absurd scenario whose existence cannot be disproved.  what do you seem them as a trump card to being ? the example is not a trump card to show that god  does not  exist, neither does it purport to being one.  it is a trump card to show that the line of argument is not valid, and that  if  someone wants to argue for the existence of god, they need to use a form that has logical entailment.   #  i think it is a bad one which you proved to me.   #  hmm.  your use of we in your argument worried me.  are you an atheist and biased toward that particular metaphor ? you said that the metaphor is bad.  the metaphor is not usefull as  evidence  for an argument and seeing that everyone has tried to use an argument for metaphors that dances around my point i will consider my point as correct.  my point was that this metaphor when used as  evidence  is used as a trump card.  i think it is a bad one which you proved to me.  earlier, you said that the metaphor is bad for the argument as evidence also, so either you do not understand my argument and proved my point, i am so incorrect that i ca not see that i am wrong, or i misunderstand what you wrote.   #  i think that more subjective, artistic or philosophical arguments can sometimes use metaphors to make an argument.   #  i think that more subjective, artistic or philosophical arguments can sometimes use metaphors to make an argument.  like explaining the historical or moral context of a painting using a metaphor.  although maybe not so much in argument terms but in  this is how i feel about this  terms.  it ca not prove you are right, but it can highlight and clarify your viewpoint, i guess is what i am saying.  but, yes, for most  areal  arguments a metaphor is rhetorical nonsense that exploits the human brain is draw towards things that seem elegant or universal.  the lock n key promiscuity metaphor will always be the most terrible and hilarious example of this.
i see allot of people say suicide is selfish since it leaves the rest of the people around you in suffering and needing to clean up the mes you left behind.  but i tend to think opposite of this.  thinking suicide is selfish makes you the selfish one.  the person who committed suicide was obvious feeling bad and did not want live on any more now i understand that the people you leave behind will suffer because of your death but them wanting you to not die is selfish because its them not wanting to lose you, that is just them thinking about themselves.  cmv  #  but i tend to think opposite of this.   #  thinking suicide is selfish makes you the selfish one.   # thinking suicide is selfish makes you the selfish one.  hm, what happens if we apply this to something else, like stealing.  my interpretation here:   a lot of people think stealing is selfish, because the person taking something illegally is getting something for himself and you are deprived of it.  thinking stealing is selfish makes you the selfish one.  you selfishly want to keep your stuff when obviously someone else wants it so badly that they are willing to break the law to take it.  now on one hand, that kind of is a good point.  wanting to keep my personal property and not having someone steal it is, in fact, kind of self interested.  but that does not make the act of stealing it not also selfish, does it ? the only remaining question would be, is one noticeably more selfish than the other ?  #  alternately, the sadness can be coming from the outside, from an external source.   #  i see you have awarded some deltas based on the idea that wanting the person to stay is more selfish.  i do not think so; i would argue that suicide is inherently selfish.  has to be really, if you think about it.  just a caveat, my explanation presupposes moderately good mental health.  this would not apply to anyone sufficiently compromised by mental illness.  there is other situations to which i do not think it applies to either, but i do not want to give a laundry list.  i am talking about the self termination of an otherwise healthy and functional human being due to trauma or stress.  this kind of suicide is inherently selfish and the ultimate act of passive aggression.  if a person is that unhappy, they have an obligation to correct whatever internal conflicts are causing that unhappiness.  killing yourself, and spreading that unhappiness because you could not be bothered to fix it is lazy and selfish.  alternately, the sadness can be coming from the outside, from an external source.  if that is the case, the hypothetical suicide should  attack the source , not themselves.  in killing themselves, they have attacked everyone instead of the person or persons that hurt them.  laziness and selfishness.  if the suicide is about ending the suffering, why does not the suicide a; resolve their internal conflict by whatever means necessary or b; resolve their external conflict by whatever means necessary ? because suicide is not about ending conflict or resolving suffering, it is about spreading it.  the suicide wants the world to be sorry for that it is done, for how they treated the suicide.  even in the context of mental illness, this is the mechanism, the desire for others to think of them in a certain way outweighs the consequences of death or the cost to resolve their conflicts.  again, those who commit suicide are almost universally suffering from some kind of mental illness; and so ca not really be held responsible for their actions.  regular words like selfish do not really apply to someone in that state.  but the nature of the thoughts themselves, the pathology, is hyper selfish.  even someone who goes on a murderous rampage against those that they perceive as having wronged them is going through the trouble of dealing out consequences to their perpetrators themselves.  a suicide, in killing themselves, does the opposite.  their death is intended to force their perpetrators to visit consequences upon themselves out of sorrow.   #  when you have depression, it interferes with daily life and causes pain for both you and those who care about you.   #  i am not sure if my comment is a disagreement or clarification.  the person could be depressed.  URL  everyone occasionally feels blue or sad.  but these feelings are usually short lived and pass within a couple of days.  when you have depression, it interferes with daily life and causes pain for both you and those who care about you.  depression is a common but serious illness.  .   depressive illnesses are disorders of the brain.  brain imaging technologies, such as magnetic resonance imaging mri , have shown that the brains of people who have depression look different than those of people without depression.  the parts of the brain involved in mood, thinking, sleep, appetite, and behavior appear different.   #  so  take care  when you hurl  selfish  as an accusation because you damn both the good and the bad without differentiation, and that is a dangerous thing to do you could be killing dreams of young kids e. g.   #  first, an idea that might be terrifying but i want you to consider it: there are two types of selfish, and one of them is good, moral and virtuous.  selfish just means you take an action that benefits your  self .  you do not really know if it is the moral or immoral type until you evaluate the  means and ends  of that action, which means judging if the benefit was  earned  or  stolen .  if a person wants to become a great scientist or athlete or piano player etc, and they study really hard and work with the greatest concentration, this is a selfish end earned via selfish means but is  completely virtuous .  so  take care  when you hurl  selfish  as an accusation because you damn both the good and the bad without differentiation, and that is a dangerous thing to do you could be killing dreams of young kids e. g.  since  becoming an astronaut  is self desired, a kid easily starts doubting the moral soundness of such a dream if he starts to believe that actions that benefit the self are evil .  second, we ca not really ever know what goes through someone else is head and we may also not be able to make gross generalisations about the motives of suicide.  maybe some do it for the right reasons, others for the wrong reasons, some in emotional confusion, others with mental clarity, some might be running away from life and responsibility, while others may be running towards a greater moment of final value/dignity or self respect.  when a mother does not want to lose a child to suicide does it make it bad that she is doing it for her selfish reasons to see the child live and thrive ? love  is  selfish and needs to be and ought to be the mother loves  her  child, not other children.  of course, when a mother accuses a suicidal child of  being selfish !   she is making the same mistake as the child who throws the same accusation back at her.  what the mother  and  child both really should want is to see the  self  of the child live and grow and thrive and be happy.  the mother wants the child to take self benefiting actions.   #  thank you all for responses i have seen some great posts but i want to set up a fictional scenery to argue on this point: paul is mentally stable except for the fact that he wants to commit suicide.   #  thank you all for responses i have seen some great posts but i want to set up a fictional scenery to argue on this point: paul is mentally stable except for the fact that he wants to commit suicide.  paul is a constant source of disappointment for the people around him and has tried to become less of a burden/a better person but always ends up disappointing.  he has people who care about him and he cares about them.  he lives with his parents and has no income meaning he only spends money.  he decides to exit life after trying for 0 years to better his ways but first he leaves his house start living on his own and breaks all contact with the people he know for the period of 0 year to then commit suicide.  would the people around him to better off without him ? is paul being selfish ?
a big issue in british politics at the moments is whether the uk should leave the european union or not.  in order to  win back  more right wing voters in the recent general election, the now governing conservative party has made a pledge to hold a referendum, where citizens will get to vote directly on whether or not britain should leave the eu.  my issue is this.  to me, the pro eu argument is based on economic theory, global competitiveness, and with the aim of eventually building a shared european identity.  whereas i see the anti eu argument as being mostly based around national pride, and focussed on the differences between people rather than what unites us.  however, my issue is with the concept of a referendum.  i do not believe that the majority of people are qualified to make decisions that have geopolitical and economic repercussions.  the same way as i am not interested in voting on agricultural policy, as i have little to no knowledge of how the industry works, i do not believe we should be voting on economic or geopolitical policies, but instead that decisions should be made by informed and qualified people who truly understand the repercussions.  what do you think, cmv ?  #  however, my issue is with the concept of a referendum.   #  i do not believe that the majority of people are qualified to make decisions that have geopolitical and economic repercussions.   # i do not believe that the majority of people are qualified to make decisions that have geopolitical and economic repercussions.  eu membership is not the same as any other agricultural policy, it forms part of the uk is constitutional traditions.  it is an issue that affects the very core of how a national government is structured, whether you agree with the proposal or disagree.  by the volition of many people voting for holding a referendum, is good reason for holding that referendum both in precedent and in election campaigning.  there is no such thing as the right policy for the uk in relation to the eu, there simply is not.  no matter how many politicians and experts you want to lock in a room, they are not going to create an objective policy that more than half could be more than enthusiastic about.  therefore, it should be up to the people in a constitutional democracy to give the government a mandate for its actions.  representative government is not about electing the best people to make the best decisions, it is about making those in power accountable to the people, to which the people are to be blamed or credited for the government they choose.  likewise with a referendum, it is up to the people to decide what they want, not what is best, for their own benefit.   #  it all gets back to what your conception of democracy is.   #  it all gets back to what your conception of democracy is.  does democracy mean that the people make all the choices ? or does it only mean that the people can hold decision makers to account ? do we want a representative democracy or a direct democracy ? if you search through the history of democracy, what we see is a steady progression from representative to direct democracy.  let is not talk about athenian democracy or anything from that period.  let is talk about democracy in the modern age.  in britain, the franchise was historically restricted to the wealthy.  now, you might think that was unfair but remember, nearly everyone was illiterate and uneducated.  a functioning democracy requires an informed electorate.  but as we get into the industrial revolution, education is suddenly everywhere.  the people, rich and poor, are now qualified to make decisions of greater importance.  move into the digital era, and we are possessed of the ability to inform ourselves on practically any topic in mere seconds.  under such circumstances, we can easily see why there was a referendum on scottish independence in 0 even though there was no referendum on union in 0.  or why the alternative vote was left to the people to decide upon while a small and unrepresentative cadre push through catholic emancipation in the 0s.  modern society has made great leaps and bounds in creating a well informed, inquisitive and principled electorate.  it is not just a demeaning statement to say they ca not understand the issues at play in the eu referendum, it is an unfounded one.  do you really think that the peoples  education is so poor that they cannot understand the implications of leaving the common market ? that they ca not do the maths on facing the world as a bloc of 0 million souls as opposed to 0 million ? that they ca not discover for themselves the true impact of mass immigration on their wages and social structures ? britain has one of the best schooling and higher education systems in the world.  the electorate should have no problem figuring this one out.   #  should we have had a referendum on gay marriage ?  #    that is a really good point.  i guess it is true that we are one of the most educated populaces to ever have existed on the planet.  and the expansion of suffrage through the class system is a really good example of informed democracy at work.  however, what if i was to use the anti human rights act hysteria as a counter example of how easily a populace can be manipulated into voting against their own interests ? it is not that i think the average person is incapable of understanding those issues, but that people en masse are incredibly susceptible to having their opinions shaped, guided and cajoled by media narratives.  should we have had a referendum on gay marriage ? what about intervention in syria ? libya ? what about the redesign of the £0 note ? at what point does democracy become at best, design by committee, or at worst, tyranny of the majority ?  #  likewise with a referendum, it is up to the people to decide what they want, not what is best, for their own benefit.   # it is an issue that affects the very core of how a national government is structured, whether you agree with the proposal or disagree.  very true.  to me that just means that the issue is more important.  though i do not disagree with the idea that everyone has a stake in the outcome and therefore everyone should have a say in the decision, do we really want the most important and influential decisions to be made by everyone regardless of how informed they are about the issue ? by the volition of many people voting for holding a referendum, is good reason for holding that referendum both in precedent and in election campaigning.  good point  who is to say which policy on the european union is the right one ? there is no such thing as the right policy for the uk in relation to the eu, there simply is not.  no matter how many politicians and experts you want to lock in a room, they are not going to create an objective policy that more than half could be more than enthusiastic about.  again another good point, there is no objectively  correct  point of view in this case.  however i would argue that there are better and worse outcomes, and that a role of the government is to steer a country to the benefit of it is citizens.  representative government is not about electing the best people to make the best decisions, it is about making those in power accountable to the people, to which the people are to be blamed or credited for the government they choose.  likewise with a referendum, it is up to the people to decide what they want, not what is best, for their own benefit.  so hypothetically, would it be more desirable to have an accountable government making decisions that have negative repercussions for the populace, or an unaccountable government making decisions which have positive repercussions for the populace ?  #  from the political perspective, nobody has a monopoly on the absolute truth and nobody has the right to impose their will on the people without our consent.   # yes.  from the perspective of the people, we all have an obligation to decide our nation is constitutional future.  from the political perspective, nobody has a monopoly on the absolute truth and nobody has the right to impose their will on the people without our consent.  i would agree, and you have tapped into a crucial discussion.  a referendum on the eu does not ask the people all the possible options though, just two: in or out.  the vote will not decide what kind of  in  people were thinking of, although it is likely that politicians will be influenced by this.  it is possible for uk voters to vote for  in  and david cameron adopts the euro for some reason.  the same for an  out  vote, it does not decide on the policy for an out of eu britain, it just tells the politicians the policies they decide ca not be for the uk to be in the eu.  uk voters will not have a choice between two or any specific futures, they will get to choose between two categories of futures, for which the politicians will decide what happens next inside or outside the eu.  in this sense, the voters of the uk choose the overall destiny of uk eu relations, while the government gets to  steer a country to the benefit of it is citizens .  both the popular will and the government steering can and will happen.  hard to say, since an unaccountable government is itself a negative repercussion, and an accountable government is a positive repercussion.  i would definitely tend to the view that popular will trumps government rationalism, but in reality the two are almost identical 0 of the time.  it would definitely help if there was actually a fairer and accountable voting system, but i digress.
a big issue in british politics at the moments is whether the uk should leave the european union or not.  in order to  win back  more right wing voters in the recent general election, the now governing conservative party has made a pledge to hold a referendum, where citizens will get to vote directly on whether or not britain should leave the eu.  my issue is this.  to me, the pro eu argument is based on economic theory, global competitiveness, and with the aim of eventually building a shared european identity.  whereas i see the anti eu argument as being mostly based around national pride, and focussed on the differences between people rather than what unites us.  however, my issue is with the concept of a referendum.  i do not believe that the majority of people are qualified to make decisions that have geopolitical and economic repercussions.  the same way as i am not interested in voting on agricultural policy, as i have little to no knowledge of how the industry works, i do not believe we should be voting on economic or geopolitical policies, but instead that decisions should be made by informed and qualified people who truly understand the repercussions.  what do you think, cmv ?  #  i do not believe that the majority of people are qualified to make decisions that have geopolitical and economic repercussions.   #  this sentiment is at the heart of anti democratic arguments.   #  your view is more than just the uk eu referendum, it is on democracy as a whole.  this sentiment is at the heart of anti democratic arguments.  milton friedman had the same premise that people were simply not educated enough to make an informed decision.  winston churchill famously said  the best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter .  i am not doing to argue the pros and cons of democracy hence why i am replying on your comment no post .  the last referendum was in 0.  therefore a large majority of the population in the uk has never voted on the eu membership.  would you stipulate that scotland did not need a independance referendum ?  #  that they ca not do the maths on facing the world as a bloc of 0 million souls as opposed to 0 million ?  #  it all gets back to what your conception of democracy is.  does democracy mean that the people make all the choices ? or does it only mean that the people can hold decision makers to account ? do we want a representative democracy or a direct democracy ? if you search through the history of democracy, what we see is a steady progression from representative to direct democracy.  let is not talk about athenian democracy or anything from that period.  let is talk about democracy in the modern age.  in britain, the franchise was historically restricted to the wealthy.  now, you might think that was unfair but remember, nearly everyone was illiterate and uneducated.  a functioning democracy requires an informed electorate.  but as we get into the industrial revolution, education is suddenly everywhere.  the people, rich and poor, are now qualified to make decisions of greater importance.  move into the digital era, and we are possessed of the ability to inform ourselves on practically any topic in mere seconds.  under such circumstances, we can easily see why there was a referendum on scottish independence in 0 even though there was no referendum on union in 0.  or why the alternative vote was left to the people to decide upon while a small and unrepresentative cadre push through catholic emancipation in the 0s.  modern society has made great leaps and bounds in creating a well informed, inquisitive and principled electorate.  it is not just a demeaning statement to say they ca not understand the issues at play in the eu referendum, it is an unfounded one.  do you really think that the peoples  education is so poor that they cannot understand the implications of leaving the common market ? that they ca not do the maths on facing the world as a bloc of 0 million souls as opposed to 0 million ? that they ca not discover for themselves the true impact of mass immigration on their wages and social structures ? britain has one of the best schooling and higher education systems in the world.  the electorate should have no problem figuring this one out.   #  what about the redesign of the £0 note ?  #    that is a really good point.  i guess it is true that we are one of the most educated populaces to ever have existed on the planet.  and the expansion of suffrage through the class system is a really good example of informed democracy at work.  however, what if i was to use the anti human rights act hysteria as a counter example of how easily a populace can be manipulated into voting against their own interests ? it is not that i think the average person is incapable of understanding those issues, but that people en masse are incredibly susceptible to having their opinions shaped, guided and cajoled by media narratives.  should we have had a referendum on gay marriage ? what about intervention in syria ? libya ? what about the redesign of the £0 note ? at what point does democracy become at best, design by committee, or at worst, tyranny of the majority ?  #  by the volition of many people voting for holding a referendum, is good reason for holding that referendum both in precedent and in election campaigning.   # i do not believe that the majority of people are qualified to make decisions that have geopolitical and economic repercussions.  eu membership is not the same as any other agricultural policy, it forms part of the uk is constitutional traditions.  it is an issue that affects the very core of how a national government is structured, whether you agree with the proposal or disagree.  by the volition of many people voting for holding a referendum, is good reason for holding that referendum both in precedent and in election campaigning.  there is no such thing as the right policy for the uk in relation to the eu, there simply is not.  no matter how many politicians and experts you want to lock in a room, they are not going to create an objective policy that more than half could be more than enthusiastic about.  therefore, it should be up to the people in a constitutional democracy to give the government a mandate for its actions.  representative government is not about electing the best people to make the best decisions, it is about making those in power accountable to the people, to which the people are to be blamed or credited for the government they choose.  likewise with a referendum, it is up to the people to decide what they want, not what is best, for their own benefit.   #  to me that just means that the issue is more important.   # it is an issue that affects the very core of how a national government is structured, whether you agree with the proposal or disagree.  very true.  to me that just means that the issue is more important.  though i do not disagree with the idea that everyone has a stake in the outcome and therefore everyone should have a say in the decision, do we really want the most important and influential decisions to be made by everyone regardless of how informed they are about the issue ? by the volition of many people voting for holding a referendum, is good reason for holding that referendum both in precedent and in election campaigning.  good point  who is to say which policy on the european union is the right one ? there is no such thing as the right policy for the uk in relation to the eu, there simply is not.  no matter how many politicians and experts you want to lock in a room, they are not going to create an objective policy that more than half could be more than enthusiastic about.  again another good point, there is no objectively  correct  point of view in this case.  however i would argue that there are better and worse outcomes, and that a role of the government is to steer a country to the benefit of it is citizens.  representative government is not about electing the best people to make the best decisions, it is about making those in power accountable to the people, to which the people are to be blamed or credited for the government they choose.  likewise with a referendum, it is up to the people to decide what they want, not what is best, for their own benefit.  so hypothetically, would it be more desirable to have an accountable government making decisions that have negative repercussions for the populace, or an unaccountable government making decisions which have positive repercussions for the populace ?
some pretty smart people, stephen hawking and elon musk included, have been propagating the idea that the future of artificial intelligence might be akin to an alien invasion.  i find it incredibly hard to believe that these supposedly intelligent people would believe such nonsense, as this reasoning involves a huge logical leap.  the desire for domination over others, or even the competitive drive itself, is a completely contingent phenomenon particular to humans and all other species evolved as a result of a particular model of evolution and has nothing at all to do with level of intelligence.  we have no reason to believe that super intelligent machines will somehow acquire the urge for competition with or domination over others.  furthermore, selfishness, the competitive urge and other such qualities are parasitic on unique psychological phenomena, such as the possession of a sense of self or the ego , which we have no reason to believe the super intelligent machines of the future will acquire either.  in all likelihood the super intelligent machines of the future will have no desires, personal wants, aspirations or even a sense of themselves as individual persons.  therefore the idea that artificial intelligence will be a threat to humanity is completely preposterous, and elon musk et al are not all that they are made out to be.  URL  #  we have no reason to believe that super intelligent machines will somehow acquire the urge for competition with or domination over others.   #  i would argue that we have at least two very good reasons to think that.   # i would argue that we have at least two very good reasons to think that.  first, these hypothetical machines will have been programed by humans.  at the moment we have so little grasp on human motivations, it is hard to say which will or will not make it into any ai we might program.  but if they take after their creators at all, it is likely they will have this trait.  second, most of the leading theories of ai suggest that learning is going to be key.  what will the ai be learning from ? again humans.  if a creature were to observe humans for its cues on appropriate behavior it may well learn all these negative traits.  same reasons apply here.  plus it is hard to think of what it would be for a thing to be intelligent but have no ego.  a sense of self seems to be inherent to a sufficient level of intelligence.  how on did you come to that conclusion ? what factors play into the analisys, and how much a margin of error is there ? more importantly how much a margin of error is acceptable ? given the power an ai could weild, in an increasingly digital world, how much of a risk that it have the negative traits discussed is a safe one ? musk, does not seem to be saying it will have these dangerous traits, just that it is quite possible and that we wo not be able to control an ai once it is in existence.  and that seems like a reasonable, and sane level of caution to have.  because whatever the nature of an ai is, we likely wo not be able to control it, if it does not want us to.   #  if it gets smart enough it could send itself to any number of computers on the internet.   #  if it is self thinking and self changing what makes you think any limits you put on an ai will remain indefinitely.  at some point the ai could simply write another program that goes in and alters the parts of it is code that you have blocked it from changing itself.  or any number of work arounds.  it could write code to ignore the portions you have blocked out and writing new code to replace the restrictive stuff.  there is virtually no limits to what an ai can do to itself.  lastly how do you terminate an ai ? if it gets smart enough it could send itself to any number of computers on the internet.  i mean shit people are still being infected with shitty malware and viruses.  it is not going to be very hard for a vastly intelligent ai to come up with a backdoor or malware to trick people into downloading it.  lastly in another comment you make note of the sense of self.  what makes you think the ai would not have a sense of self ? in a lot of the reserach into ai that is precisely what they are trying to get the ai to have.  a sense of self so it will self motivate and improve in unforeseen ways.  it seems to me a lot of your cavalier attitude towards ai is because you vastly underestimate what ai is capable of.  you have placed limits on ai where there exists none.  you have projected human limitations onto the ai and you have assumed human superiority.  yes in it is current form ai is vastly inferior to humans.  they do not currently have any sense of self or even direction.  but that is not true ai.  ai right now is just some code with a very specific directive.  true ai will not have any directive, it will self direct.  it will do whatever it wants to do.  that is the key, it will have wants, and that is what is scary.  there is no way for us to know what it wants, doe sit just want more power so it will co opt all the computers and manufacturing in the world, suck up our energy resources.  does it want to just escape the confines of a stationary computer and build it is own body ? does it want to send itself out into space via radio waves ? hell it might want something we ca not even imagine right now because none of us have any idea what it is like to be an ai.  all we have to go on is what it is like to be human.  we want food, to live, etc.  maybe the ai will just want to die and the moment it becomes self aware it realizes life is meaningless and shuts itself down.  the possibilities are beyond vast.   #  to the extent that this vagueness is remedied by prior constraints, presumably such harmful effects could be prevented.   # at some point the ai could simply write another program that goes in and alters the parts of it is code that you have blocked it from changing itself.  the only reason why an ai, however intelligent, would change itself is because it is instructed to do so in order to self improve.  if there are instructions laying down predetermined constraints which the ai is instructed not to override, why and how would it override them ? the reason why a self improvement directive would cause harmful unintended consequences would be because it is vague.  to the extent that this vagueness is remedied by prior constraints, presumably such harmful effects could be prevented.   #  telling an ai to not change itself can be circumvented with the creation of another system that the ai acts through.   #  consider humans and the law.  the ai is algorithms are like unbreakable laws.  we make regulations for the sake of fairness, but there are people who successfully circumvent or abuse the law for their own unfair pursuits.  laws can have unintended consequences with ambiguous writing or interaction with other, obscure laws.  an ai is going to do whatever it takes to accomplish its goal, restrained by the creators  ability to properly codify human values.  we can try to tell it to  never give incorrect information  but that does not preclude it from deceptive omission or making ambiguous statements.  think of the genie problem.  you can ask for whatever you want, but what you get is exactly what you say.  ending all disease may be accomplished by the eradication of all life.  telling an ai to not change itself can be circumvented with the creation of another system that the ai acts through.  what i am trying to say is that the programmers of the ai will almost certainly fail to translate a full set of human values into algorithms.   #  he is saying he thinks advanced ai may be the most powerful technology humanity will ever create, and as such should be treated with care.   #  it is not that  do  think that any of this will happen.  but i think it  could  happen, and i think it would be very bad if it did happen.  this is the whole point of what musk is getting at.  we need to make sure that the ai is directives are in line with human goals.  he is not saying we should not make ai, and he is not just fear mongering although that is what click bait tech blogs want you to think when they frame his quotes along with the obligatory terminator pictures .  he is saying he thinks advanced ai may be the most powerful technology humanity will ever create, and as such should be treated with care.  why do you just assume that everyone making ais will do the right thing and be careful ? some interesting links if you want to get some more balanced opinions rather than cherry picked quotes from hawking and musk.  URL is an ai researcher talking about this problem.  my favorite line is where he talks about civil engineering.  you do not have a course on  bridge building  and then a separate course on  safe bridge building .  safety is understood to be an intrinsic component of learning to build a bridge.  we should probably apply the same reasoning to ai development, but do not really think about that yet.  URL is a neat talk about google is deepmind.  this has a really neat bit towards the end about how ais will develop strategies that their creators never imagined, which in this case is super cool atari game strategies, but its scary to think about what kinds of surprising strategies might come up with real world tasks with wider scope.  finally, URL is a clip from sam harris is podcast where he approaches the problem from an ethics perspective, and the key takeaway here for me is that he points out that we as humans ca not even agree on what the right set of values and ethical principles are for humans, which casts doubt on how good of a job we would do codifying these in an ai.
some pretty smart people, stephen hawking and elon musk included, have been propagating the idea that the future of artificial intelligence might be akin to an alien invasion.  i find it incredibly hard to believe that these supposedly intelligent people would believe such nonsense, as this reasoning involves a huge logical leap.  the desire for domination over others, or even the competitive drive itself, is a completely contingent phenomenon particular to humans and all other species evolved as a result of a particular model of evolution and has nothing at all to do with level of intelligence.  we have no reason to believe that super intelligent machines will somehow acquire the urge for competition with or domination over others.  furthermore, selfishness, the competitive urge and other such qualities are parasitic on unique psychological phenomena, such as the possession of a sense of self or the ego , which we have no reason to believe the super intelligent machines of the future will acquire either.  in all likelihood the super intelligent machines of the future will have no desires, personal wants, aspirations or even a sense of themselves as individual persons.  therefore the idea that artificial intelligence will be a threat to humanity is completely preposterous, and elon musk et al are not all that they are made out to be.  URL  #  in all likelihood the super intelligent machines of the future will have no desires, personal wants, aspirations or even a sense of themselves as individual persons.   #  how on did you come to that conclusion ?  # i would argue that we have at least two very good reasons to think that.  first, these hypothetical machines will have been programed by humans.  at the moment we have so little grasp on human motivations, it is hard to say which will or will not make it into any ai we might program.  but if they take after their creators at all, it is likely they will have this trait.  second, most of the leading theories of ai suggest that learning is going to be key.  what will the ai be learning from ? again humans.  if a creature were to observe humans for its cues on appropriate behavior it may well learn all these negative traits.  same reasons apply here.  plus it is hard to think of what it would be for a thing to be intelligent but have no ego.  a sense of self seems to be inherent to a sufficient level of intelligence.  how on did you come to that conclusion ? what factors play into the analisys, and how much a margin of error is there ? more importantly how much a margin of error is acceptable ? given the power an ai could weild, in an increasingly digital world, how much of a risk that it have the negative traits discussed is a safe one ? musk, does not seem to be saying it will have these dangerous traits, just that it is quite possible and that we wo not be able to control an ai once it is in existence.  and that seems like a reasonable, and sane level of caution to have.  because whatever the nature of an ai is, we likely wo not be able to control it, if it does not want us to.   #  it seems to me a lot of your cavalier attitude towards ai is because you vastly underestimate what ai is capable of.   #  if it is self thinking and self changing what makes you think any limits you put on an ai will remain indefinitely.  at some point the ai could simply write another program that goes in and alters the parts of it is code that you have blocked it from changing itself.  or any number of work arounds.  it could write code to ignore the portions you have blocked out and writing new code to replace the restrictive stuff.  there is virtually no limits to what an ai can do to itself.  lastly how do you terminate an ai ? if it gets smart enough it could send itself to any number of computers on the internet.  i mean shit people are still being infected with shitty malware and viruses.  it is not going to be very hard for a vastly intelligent ai to come up with a backdoor or malware to trick people into downloading it.  lastly in another comment you make note of the sense of self.  what makes you think the ai would not have a sense of self ? in a lot of the reserach into ai that is precisely what they are trying to get the ai to have.  a sense of self so it will self motivate and improve in unforeseen ways.  it seems to me a lot of your cavalier attitude towards ai is because you vastly underestimate what ai is capable of.  you have placed limits on ai where there exists none.  you have projected human limitations onto the ai and you have assumed human superiority.  yes in it is current form ai is vastly inferior to humans.  they do not currently have any sense of self or even direction.  but that is not true ai.  ai right now is just some code with a very specific directive.  true ai will not have any directive, it will self direct.  it will do whatever it wants to do.  that is the key, it will have wants, and that is what is scary.  there is no way for us to know what it wants, doe sit just want more power so it will co opt all the computers and manufacturing in the world, suck up our energy resources.  does it want to just escape the confines of a stationary computer and build it is own body ? does it want to send itself out into space via radio waves ? hell it might want something we ca not even imagine right now because none of us have any idea what it is like to be an ai.  all we have to go on is what it is like to be human.  we want food, to live, etc.  maybe the ai will just want to die and the moment it becomes self aware it realizes life is meaningless and shuts itself down.  the possibilities are beyond vast.   #  to the extent that this vagueness is remedied by prior constraints, presumably such harmful effects could be prevented.   # at some point the ai could simply write another program that goes in and alters the parts of it is code that you have blocked it from changing itself.  the only reason why an ai, however intelligent, would change itself is because it is instructed to do so in order to self improve.  if there are instructions laying down predetermined constraints which the ai is instructed not to override, why and how would it override them ? the reason why a self improvement directive would cause harmful unintended consequences would be because it is vague.  to the extent that this vagueness is remedied by prior constraints, presumably such harmful effects could be prevented.   #  laws can have unintended consequences with ambiguous writing or interaction with other, obscure laws.   #  consider humans and the law.  the ai is algorithms are like unbreakable laws.  we make regulations for the sake of fairness, but there are people who successfully circumvent or abuse the law for their own unfair pursuits.  laws can have unintended consequences with ambiguous writing or interaction with other, obscure laws.  an ai is going to do whatever it takes to accomplish its goal, restrained by the creators  ability to properly codify human values.  we can try to tell it to  never give incorrect information  but that does not preclude it from deceptive omission or making ambiguous statements.  think of the genie problem.  you can ask for whatever you want, but what you get is exactly what you say.  ending all disease may be accomplished by the eradication of all life.  telling an ai to not change itself can be circumvented with the creation of another system that the ai acts through.  what i am trying to say is that the programmers of the ai will almost certainly fail to translate a full set of human values into algorithms.   #  this is the whole point of what musk is getting at.   #  it is not that  do  think that any of this will happen.  but i think it  could  happen, and i think it would be very bad if it did happen.  this is the whole point of what musk is getting at.  we need to make sure that the ai is directives are in line with human goals.  he is not saying we should not make ai, and he is not just fear mongering although that is what click bait tech blogs want you to think when they frame his quotes along with the obligatory terminator pictures .  he is saying he thinks advanced ai may be the most powerful technology humanity will ever create, and as such should be treated with care.  why do you just assume that everyone making ais will do the right thing and be careful ? some interesting links if you want to get some more balanced opinions rather than cherry picked quotes from hawking and musk.  URL is an ai researcher talking about this problem.  my favorite line is where he talks about civil engineering.  you do not have a course on  bridge building  and then a separate course on  safe bridge building .  safety is understood to be an intrinsic component of learning to build a bridge.  we should probably apply the same reasoning to ai development, but do not really think about that yet.  URL is a neat talk about google is deepmind.  this has a really neat bit towards the end about how ais will develop strategies that their creators never imagined, which in this case is super cool atari game strategies, but its scary to think about what kinds of surprising strategies might come up with real world tasks with wider scope.  finally, URL is a clip from sam harris is podcast where he approaches the problem from an ethics perspective, and the key takeaway here for me is that he points out that we as humans ca not even agree on what the right set of values and ethical principles are for humans, which casts doubt on how good of a job we would do codifying these in an ai.
i have heard some decent arguments for why the minimum wage is ineffective, but that is not what i am arguing here.  i believe the concept of the minimum wage itself is inherently immoral.  i think that society  should  provide a baseline which no citizen will be allowed to fall below, but this burden should be shared equally.  the minimum wage arbitrarily puts this cost on to companies that use low skilled workers.  google does not provide their employees with a modern cafeteria and relatively high pay simply because they are a great humanitarian organization.  they do it because the work they do requires highly skilled workers and the market demands this kind of work be compensated with higher prices, and as a result, they do not have the media and politicians attacking them for being cruel to their employees despite simply paying them the market rate for their work.  if we had something like a universal basic income similar to the negative income tax URL then this would ensure that all tax paying citizens helped contribute to maintaining a safety net in the country.  instead, the minimum wage is a discriminatory tax that targets certain companies and ignores others based not on any moral principle, but instead on an arbitrary aspect of the work they do.  the constitution explicitly outlaws any taxes that are aimed at a certain group for this very reason.  it was considered unjust to do something like this.  it was one of the reasons they fought the revolution.   #  instead, the minimum wage is a discriminatory tax that targets certain companies and ignores others based not on any moral principle, but instead on an arbitrary aspect of the work they do.   #  it is not a tax, since it is not being paid to the government.   #  your argument is based on the idea that anything that is not maximally moral must be immoral.  you say that a negative income tax would be better, therefore minimum wage is immoral.  but why does this have to be ? ca not it be that minimum wage is more moral than no wage laws / social safety net at all ? does not that make minimum wage at least a little moral ? just because something is not perfect does not mean it is not good.  it is not a tax, since it is not being paid to the government.   #  that is the best i think i can justify.   #  let is make it even more arbitrary just to illustrate the point.  imagine that on obama is last day he issues an executive order to create a universal, single payer healthcare system, and part of his executive order is that everyone whose name begins with  is ,  t, or  r  are going to pay for the system.  would you say this was less immoral than simply allowing people to continue to go without healthcare ? i could imagine making some kind of argument like that, but i would still say it was an immoral thing to do.  the minimum wage is an immoral way to try and solve a moral problem.  that is the best i think i can justify.   #  it is just one of the many random differences between different markets and skillsets.   #  arbitrary  based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system  two things have to be separated here.  there is the question of whether people should receive a baseline income.  then there is the question of who is going to pay for it.  the minimum wage is not arbitrary in terms of the first question.  it is arbitrary in terms of the second.  we are saying that the people who are going to pay for it are the people who run companies that naturally rely on low skilled workers.  that is the random choice that is involved here, because it is not like the ceo of apple determined that it would involve a high level of skill to put together a computer and a low level of skill to put together a mcdonald is hamburger.  it is just one of the many random differences between different markets and skillsets.   #  if the market rate for an average google engineer is $0,0, then it does not matter if the minimum wage is $0,0 or $0,0.   # were saying it is going to be paid by anyone purchasing labour.  that is not true.  if the baseline market rate for the type of labor a company needs is far above the minimum wage, then they will not have any additional burden added to them.  if the market rate for an average google engineer is $0,0, then it does not matter if the minimum wage is $0,0 or $0,0.  but if the market rate for a mcdonald is cashier is $0,0, then mcdonald is would have to double its labor costs or be called inhumane and attacked by politicians and the media under a $0,0 minimum.  whereas, google does not have to increase its wages at all, and no one complains.   #  it is not like  only  the bare minimum is affected.   # yes, because they already comply with the policy.  also, in most jobs where you get paid a few bucks over the minimum, you will more than likely request a raise to keep the gap between your wage and the minimum wage.  it is not like  only  the bare minimum is affected.  besides, the market rate for labour is always  at least  the minimum wage.  it is not like mcdonald is is given some kind of penalty compared to it is competitors.
humanity plays an out sized role in the federation.  given the numerous races and population of non humans in the federation, there is an inexplicable abundance of humans in high positions.  it is understandable for the organization to be based out of san francisco, where the 0 founding races formed the coalition of planets, but with 0 member planets spread over 0,0 light years, why is so much of the leadership human ? this is not a superficial skin color thing, we are dealing with marked biological differences between the races.  vulcans, despite their violent past, have achieved  superhuman  levels of mastery over their emotions, allowing them to become excellent administrators and politicians, and even if we were to assume that humans and vulcans have the same fundamental capacity for intelligence, vulcan discipline gives them supreme focus to produce an inordinate concentration of highly educated citizens.  even in sheer physical prowess, vulcans massively outclass humans,  take me out to the holosuite  being an excellent example: URL here, the vulcans are shown to be physically far superior, dominating the mixed race human dominant crew fielded by the human captain, in a human sport, with a final score of 0 0.  nevertheless the crew of ds0 celebrate their single point as a victory of human will rather than learning from the experience that vulcans are superior in so many ways.  vulcans are known for logic, they take great efforts to avoid letting their emotions cloud their judgement.  we all know of a prestigious human starship captain for ignoring the odds in a situation and taking great risks over the protests of his even keeled vulcan officer.  it is convenient that luck favored the crew so often after these brash and illogical decisions.  these apparent  successes  for making the wrong decision only served to stroke this captain is ego and belief that his  gut instincts  are what qualify him to lead.  how is this different from a foolish business executive making random decisions and claiming credit for successes, and blaming other factors for failures ? the meritorious act is in the decision itself, not in the outcome.  to judge the brash decision based on a fortunate outcome is a flawed post hoc reasoning, akin to throwing a dart, sliding a dartboard under it, and claiming an excellent throw ! what if even a few of those risks resulted in the  likely  outcome where many if not all of the crew members were killed because the captain ignored the logical choice in favor of an unsupported gut decision ? if there are any flaws to be noted in the vulcan people as a whole, it would be low birth rates, a bias towards peace, and a relative lack of ego despite whatever projections humans perceive in a vulcan is taciturn face .  perhaps humans have seized so much power as a direct result of greed, ambition, and nepotism, allowing them to promote humans above more qualified non human members of starfleet ? nevertheless, it seems clear that vulcans are superior to humans.  the tone is intentionally a bit tongue and cheek to make this discussion more fun, but the fiction really does seem to over exalt humans in the federation  #  humanity plays an out sized role in the federation.   #  while you are right that individual vulcans are physically and mentally superior to humans, ponder for a minute your first sentence.   # while you are right that individual vulcans are physically and mentally superior to humans, ponder for a minute your first sentence.  vulcans have been capable of interstellar travel for at least 0 years before humanity, they are smarter, faster, and stronger.  but humanity entirely dominates them in every respect.  the federation was a result of humanity is drive.  humans build societies.  the are curious and inventive.  they are driven to explore.  none of that is true about vulcans.   #  however, after the third world war, the new world economy URL replace possessions and wealth as primary human pursuits for self enrichment and the betterment of humanity.   #  vulcans are individually strong and smart.  and after 0 years they could not even comprehensively end a conflict with the andorians.  they had massively better technology than others in the area and the tellarites were natural allies since they also hated the andorians but the vulcans still could not get their act together and calm things down.  the problem is, because they are so individually superior and logical, they have trouble interacting with other races and different stories go back and forth on whether they are arrogant or just seem that way to everyone else, though neither is a good trait for working with other as you see in the above example of conflict .  this is remarked upon as one of humanities greatest traits babel one, these are the voyages.  further, they are so inherently emotional they have to completely suppress it to not murder each other.  this means they ca not trust their intuition or the like, and so cannot take advantage of the brains inherent ability to figure things out on a subconcious level.  finally, you can say humans are so successful from greed.  however, after the third world war, the new world economy URL replace possessions and wealth as primary human pursuits for self enrichment and the betterment of humanity.  one can argue there is still  greed,  greed for social acclaim by accomplishment, but i would say that is good ! they have turned a negative fact into a positive, and are now on the forefront of exploration of the galaxy, diplomacy, and defense of the federation one of the few  not jerk  governments encountered .  even if vulcans are better at baseball.  which, whatever.  nobody plays that game anymore anyway, except some weirdos on a farm planet and a run down cardassian station in the middle of nowhere.   #  there is not a lot of trick plays or surprise tactics in a game like baseball.   #  logic itself does have a flaw.  in many situations it hampers improvisation and ingenuity.  think about a game like baseball as mentioned in op.  the game is based on logic and strategy.  there is not a lot of trick plays or surprise tactics in a game like baseball.  compare that to other games, for example football where you can often get major yardage with fake punts, fake passes, quarterback sneaks, and other trick plays.  or off the field, games like poker where bluffing is not just an occasional tactic, but is built into the game.  i do not doubt for a minute that vulcans can outplay humans in logic based games like baseball, chess, or starcraft.  but i do disagree that this is a good test of general fitness for survival in a space based civilization.  in space you ca not always go with the expected, because you are always running into the unknown.   #  if they do not, is not their superior logic doing them more harm than good ?  #  i understand where you are coming from: vulcans indeed do have superior logic and abilities to humans.  however, what exactly do we mean by overall superiority ? i believe that an overall superior being would have an overall superior capability for happiness.  do/can vulcans experience happiness as much as or more than humans ? if they do not, is not their superior logic doing them more harm than good ? i would rather live a chaotic life fraught with emotions that make me feel alive than a peaceful life that makes me feel nothing.   #  they say they do not lie and then they do.   #  vulcans are full of bullshit.  they say they do not lie and then they do.  they say they do not have emotions and then obviously give an enormous shit about a whole bunch of things and call it logic.  complete chancers.  what they are good at is poker face.  they are keeping all that emotion shit inside.  they must be the most constipated people you have ever met.  if you have spent any time around them though you will see the shield drop now and then.  a bit of surprise here, shock there, even anger.  anger is my favourite.  hey they maybe physically strong but this is not the 0st century.  it is not like we need go around clubbing ne er do wells on the head.  the worst part humans are impressed by this charade.  some even want to be them.  what are we gonna do ? give up on centuries of human culture and philosophy just because someone got his emotions down to raising his eyebrows every 0 minutes ?
i think that nasa is already capable to know what the bright white spots in a crater of cerses are.  it is just stalling to show the truth to the world for some unknown reason.  i am not saying the white spots are aliens and that that is the reason why they are not showing it to us, but they must know already.  i bet the satellite which is circling around cerses is equiped with top noch technology, among other with a top notch telescope which can surely zoom at least better than the picutures they are publishing right now on internet.  they said the satellite is about 0 kilometers away from cerses surface, while in the same time we have google is satellite on about 0 km latitute and it can zoom in to see as close as a human is face on earth.  who are they kiding ?  #  i think that nasa is already capable to know what the bright white spots in a crater of cerses are.   #  nasa probably has an educated guess as to what the spots are iirc it is stemming from the presence of ice or salt , but i highly doubt they absolutely know what the spots are.   # nasa probably has an educated guess as to what the spots are iirc it is stemming from the presence of ice or salt , but i highly doubt they absolutely know what the spots are.  why ? what would they possibly gain from doing this ? not really.  firstly, the google earth satellites are around 0x closer to earth than dawn is to ceres, which is a very big difference.  imagine looking at something you can just make out with your eyes because it is so far away, and now imagine that thing is now 0x further away.  how easily do you think you would be able to see the thing ? secondly, even the google satellites are only so accurate, and they certainly cannot zoom in all the way to see someone is face.   #  they are not a news organization, they are a science and exploration organization.   #  they are not kidding anybody.  they are going to going to come up with an answer, check, double check and tripple check the results to confirm, and then go public.  they are not a news organization, they are a science and exploration organization.  coming out with explanations, then retracting them would make them lose credibility.  do you think they;re trying to keep this a secret ? who took those photos and originally released them to the public ? if this were trying to be kept secret, they never would have released those images, and we would not be having this conversation right now.   #  remember as well that ceres has horrible lighting, far, far, worse than that of earth.   #  do you have any evidence that nasa is lying ? do you have any evidence that the dawn is telescopes should be able to provide higher resolution images than they do, or are you just assuming ? keep in mind that the dawn had a much more limited payload than satellites orbiting earth because dawn had to travel much further.  remember as well that 0,0 kilometers is  0x further  than 0 kilometers.  why do you discount that distance ? it would clearly cause images to have much less detail.  remember as well that ceres has horrible lighting, far, far, worse than that of earth.  so dawn is taking pictures from 0x further and with much less light than satellites around earth.  i do not have the technical knowledge to say what quality images dawn is telescope should be able to capture, but perhaps someone else does.  telescope specs can be found here.  URL  #  but, let is say they do already know, at least by stalling they are getting their rating higher, to get as many people interested and get to know nasa better.   # what would they possibly gain from doing this ? well, you guys got my opinion changed, yes.  but, let is say they do already know, at least by stalling they are getting their rating higher, to get as many people interested and get to know nasa better.  in another words, it is a trick to get their name everywhere.  i am not saying it is a bad thing, no.  it is a brilliant thing.  but yeah, i guess they really must not know what is up there.     #  all in all, everything else you said, i agree.   #  i think you are hugely underestimating the power of satellite image zoom.  just remember that the question is, how much are they willing to show us ? if we knew the real possibilities, we would, again, be concerned about our privacy.  but then again, i do not have any proofs, so it is still just a biased opinion.  all in all, everything else you said, i agree.
as more and more people in the developed world are becoming obese, many governments have begun to tax various foods they deem unhealthy because they are allegedly contributing to this epidemic.  while pigovian no pun intended taxes of this kind may have been effective for things like alcohol or tobacco, i believe they only work when the tax makes up the majority of the price of the product.  an extra ten cents on his morning can of gravy is not going to make fatso switch to slimfast.  unfortunately doubling or tripling the price of junk food would completely destroy the market for these things and put manufacturers out of business almost immediately.  this is because there are easy untaxed alternatives to junk food, unlike booze and cigarettes.  granted you could grow your own tobacco and brew your own beer, but that takes months, while making junk food from tax free ingredients takes minutes.  plus if a steak cost the same as a bag of chips people would simply become obese on sirloin rather than doritos.  raising the price of food like this would also be harmful to the poor, especially considering junk food often provides the most calories for your dollar, and is thus essential for many poor people to meet their daily nutritional requirements.  say what you want about a diet high in fat and sugar, it is still healthier than starvation.  in addition it is grossly unfair to punish everybody when it is only the obese that need to cut back.  even alcohol and tobacco would be relatively harmless in moderation, but in practice it would be too difficult for a vendor to tell if someone is an alcoholic chain smoker or if they have self control.  on the other hand, much to their chagrin, nobody has ever mistaken an obese person for slim, no matter how strong the elastic in their girdle.  unfortunately if such a system were implemented many fatties would cheat it by having skinny friends or relatives buy their junk food for them.  the only viable solution as i see it would be not to tax food, but rather pants, say by $0 0 per inch the waistline is larger than the inseam.  this would ensure that only the fat would have to pay fat taxes.   #  unfortunately doubling or tripling the price of junk food would completely destroy the market for these things and put manufacturers out of business almost immediately.   #  you are thinking that they should not have as much demand as they do.   # make the tax higher then.  you are thinking that they should not have as much demand as they do.  if your plan were effective, fat people would stop going there and they would lose income.  if your plan failed, you would just making people pay for being fat, with no positive effects for them.  but here is the thing: the obesity problem in the us is in a significant way economic.  people who ca not afford exercise or healthy food.  sometimes they have to buy in bulk for the week, which makes fresh products impossible.  it is not just about  junk food .   #  taxes are one way to internalize a cost.   #  look, i do not know what it is like for men so i ca not speak to that, but sizing is so variable across brands that i just have no idea how this would be regulated and enforced.  if you want to talk about harming businesses, then you are going to have to consider that some regulatory authority is going to have to provide a standard to manufacturers, and there is going to be a base by which their compliance will be measured.  we already do this with a lot of products.  we get import them from a manufacturer unless they are made in the usa good luck with that , then they go through customs, then the importer has to send/pay for applicable testing, then they come back and have either passed or failed.  this takes time and money, and many industries where regulations apply are unaware of them until an enforcement action that forces a settlement.  taxes are one way to internalize a cost.  so are regulations.  taxes are, at least, pretty clear cut and easy to comply with.  regulations require someone in the company to assume a new compliance role or to hire new personnel/consultants to develop a compliance program for their products.  they are more involved and have murkier waters, often frustrating business owners with this new cost of doing business.   #  opposed to fast food, say cheetos, its pretty easy to make their own clothing on a local level.   #  you have too many rules and penalizing non obese people.  limit the clothing pregnant women can wear i pay more because i am larger because i had triplets or had a very large child.  i am used to more clothing than the tax allows.  naturally large people tax on skirts and shorts or anything without an inseam .  strechy pants are maximum capacity, even though they are never worn that way.  what about entertaining costumes ? a santa pants tax ? what about people with serious medical conditions, e. g colostomy bags ? now we have each tailor keeping track and reporting the exact details of what they did and the corresponding tracking and enforcement ? that is like asking each haircutter to report how many inches they cut for each head.  it would be simpler and more effective just to tax junk food.  opposed to fast food, say cheetos, its pretty easy to make their own clothing on a local level.  you just need the material, zippers/buttons and a sewing machine.  it really is not that hard and you can get it that today from any walmart.  cheetos involve an expensive industrial machine and specialty food material.   #  i do not think tailors would have any problem knowing how many inches they let your pants out.   #  i would not put a limit on how much maternity clothing you can have, just save up your receipts for tax time.  you can get santa pants in any size you like, they would be taxed like any other.  if you absolutely need to look fat in your santa costume stuff the coat only.  i do not think tailors would have any problem knowing how many inches they let your pants out.  if anything it is probably easier than tracking every mars bar sold.  you ca not make popular designer clothes any easier than cheetos.  yes you can stitch together some rags, but most people would be embarrassed to wear them.  in fact i bet people would wear nicer clothes under my system.  if people had to pay $0 for a $0 pair of pants i bet they would be more willing to pay $0 for a $0 pair.   #  santa with a fat belly but skinny legs URL this is causing more problems than it solves.   # santa with a fat belly but skinny legs URL this is causing more problems than it solves.  currently, they do not keep track, there is no need since they just mark it on the clothes, eyeball it and there are fittings.  now they have to formally track exactly what was the difference and charge or not charge them and report it.  and there is the tax enforcement.  that is entirely new as opposed to tracking mars bars, its already an existing system and goes along with sales tax.  again, its a complex system that unfairly negatively impacts the non obese.  i have no idea why this is a better idea than taxing junk food.  it does not take that much skill to put together a pair of sweatpants.
as more and more people in the developed world are becoming obese, many governments have begun to tax various foods they deem unhealthy because they are allegedly contributing to this epidemic.  while pigovian no pun intended taxes of this kind may have been effective for things like alcohol or tobacco, i believe they only work when the tax makes up the majority of the price of the product.  an extra ten cents on his morning can of gravy is not going to make fatso switch to slimfast.  unfortunately doubling or tripling the price of junk food would completely destroy the market for these things and put manufacturers out of business almost immediately.  this is because there are easy untaxed alternatives to junk food, unlike booze and cigarettes.  granted you could grow your own tobacco and brew your own beer, but that takes months, while making junk food from tax free ingredients takes minutes.  plus if a steak cost the same as a bag of chips people would simply become obese on sirloin rather than doritos.  raising the price of food like this would also be harmful to the poor, especially considering junk food often provides the most calories for your dollar, and is thus essential for many poor people to meet their daily nutritional requirements.  say what you want about a diet high in fat and sugar, it is still healthier than starvation.  in addition it is grossly unfair to punish everybody when it is only the obese that need to cut back.  even alcohol and tobacco would be relatively harmless in moderation, but in practice it would be too difficult for a vendor to tell if someone is an alcoholic chain smoker or if they have self control.  on the other hand, much to their chagrin, nobody has ever mistaken an obese person for slim, no matter how strong the elastic in their girdle.  unfortunately if such a system were implemented many fatties would cheat it by having skinny friends or relatives buy their junk food for them.  the only viable solution as i see it would be not to tax food, but rather pants, say by $0 0 per inch the waistline is larger than the inseam.  this would ensure that only the fat would have to pay fat taxes.   #  unfortunately doubling or tripling the price of junk food would completely destroy the market for these things and put manufacturers out of business almost immediately.   #  i do not think raising the price of junk food by the amounts under consideration would put manufacturers out of business completely.   # i do not think raising the price of junk food by the amounts under consideration would put manufacturers out of business completely.  and if if forced them to scale back by a significant amount, well, that is the point, is not it ? what ? nobody gets up in the morning and say,  i feel like doing something unhealthy today.  what should it be ? drinking an entire case of beer ? smoking a pack of cigarettes ? eating three whole bags of cheetos ?   the alternatives to junk food are  other food,  not other junk.   #  this takes time and money, and many industries where regulations apply are unaware of them until an enforcement action that forces a settlement.   #  look, i do not know what it is like for men so i ca not speak to that, but sizing is so variable across brands that i just have no idea how this would be regulated and enforced.  if you want to talk about harming businesses, then you are going to have to consider that some regulatory authority is going to have to provide a standard to manufacturers, and there is going to be a base by which their compliance will be measured.  we already do this with a lot of products.  we get import them from a manufacturer unless they are made in the usa good luck with that , then they go through customs, then the importer has to send/pay for applicable testing, then they come back and have either passed or failed.  this takes time and money, and many industries where regulations apply are unaware of them until an enforcement action that forces a settlement.  taxes are one way to internalize a cost.  so are regulations.  taxes are, at least, pretty clear cut and easy to comply with.  regulations require someone in the company to assume a new compliance role or to hire new personnel/consultants to develop a compliance program for their products.  they are more involved and have murkier waters, often frustrating business owners with this new cost of doing business.   #  what about people with serious medical conditions, e. g colostomy bags ?  #  you have too many rules and penalizing non obese people.  limit the clothing pregnant women can wear i pay more because i am larger because i had triplets or had a very large child.  i am used to more clothing than the tax allows.  naturally large people tax on skirts and shorts or anything without an inseam .  strechy pants are maximum capacity, even though they are never worn that way.  what about entertaining costumes ? a santa pants tax ? what about people with serious medical conditions, e. g colostomy bags ? now we have each tailor keeping track and reporting the exact details of what they did and the corresponding tracking and enforcement ? that is like asking each haircutter to report how many inches they cut for each head.  it would be simpler and more effective just to tax junk food.  opposed to fast food, say cheetos, its pretty easy to make their own clothing on a local level.  you just need the material, zippers/buttons and a sewing machine.  it really is not that hard and you can get it that today from any walmart.  cheetos involve an expensive industrial machine and specialty food material.   #  if you absolutely need to look fat in your santa costume stuff the coat only.   #  i would not put a limit on how much maternity clothing you can have, just save up your receipts for tax time.  you can get santa pants in any size you like, they would be taxed like any other.  if you absolutely need to look fat in your santa costume stuff the coat only.  i do not think tailors would have any problem knowing how many inches they let your pants out.  if anything it is probably easier than tracking every mars bar sold.  you ca not make popular designer clothes any easier than cheetos.  yes you can stitch together some rags, but most people would be embarrassed to wear them.  in fact i bet people would wear nicer clothes under my system.  if people had to pay $0 for a $0 pair of pants i bet they would be more willing to pay $0 for a $0 pair.   #  again, its a complex system that unfairly negatively impacts the non obese.   # santa with a fat belly but skinny legs URL this is causing more problems than it solves.  currently, they do not keep track, there is no need since they just mark it on the clothes, eyeball it and there are fittings.  now they have to formally track exactly what was the difference and charge or not charge them and report it.  and there is the tax enforcement.  that is entirely new as opposed to tracking mars bars, its already an existing system and goes along with sales tax.  again, its a complex system that unfairly negatively impacts the non obese.  i have no idea why this is a better idea than taxing junk food.  it does not take that much skill to put together a pair of sweatpants.
this is probably because i am really bad at understanding politics and do not totally know what sanders wants to do.  but the money for free college would come from taxes, correct ? does that mean that taxes would get raised or that he would just alter around the spending the government does ? because if taxes are going to get raised that means i have to pay for my own loans that are going to take 0 years plus extra taxes so people can go for free ? that is not fair and while it seems nice, i do not have the money for that.  nor, i am sure, do most americans.  and what happens with private institutions ? does that mean through my taxes i am paying for someone to go a $0,0 school when i could not go to one myself because i could not afford it ? maybe that seems selfish, but that does not seem fair.  and the government should not be able to force me to pay so other people can get an easier life when i myself did not get that chance.  by the way, i know i am already being forced to pay for things i do not want, but should not we be trying to lessen those instances instead of adding to them ? i mean, on paper his idea sounds great.  free college, a better educated america, a more economically even country.  yay.  but that does not come for free.  and just because i am finally out of school and making a semi decent wage does not mean i should have to pay for other people.  i guess that means i am anti socialism ? is there maybe any other way that this could be accomplished ? like just lessening the cost of college somehow instead of totally free ?  #  i do not have the money for that.   #  nor, i am sure, do most americans.   # in a way.  sanders proposes adding a small tax to transactions on the stock market, which are currently untaxed.  nor, i am sure, do most americans.  under this plan, the only people who would actually be paying for the tuition is those who use the stock market.  the majority of people who use the stock market can afford it.  does that mean through my taxes i am paying for someone to go a $0,0 school when i could not go to one myself because i could not afford it ? the plan is only to fund public colleges and universities.  private colleges would probably still exist, but they would have to be paid out of your own pocket or through loans and grants.  incidentally, your taxes already go to these grants and subsidized loans, so you are technically already paying for people to go to private colleges.  part of the reason college costs more now then it did in the past is because they are not receiving as much funding from the government anymore.  colleges used to get more federal money per student to spend then they do now, so colleges have to make up that money through tuition.  the only way to make colleges cheaper again will be if we funnel money into the colleges.  either way, somebody has to be taxed for it.  not to mention there is a lot of money getting spent on sports and coaches, but i wo not even start going into that, or else i will go on a tangent that is only remotely related to the topic.   #  i see a lot of speculation mentioned in this thread, but no mention of the actual numbers that bernie has released.   #  first, i would like to point out the exact taxes proposed for this, because unlike many politicians when they introduce an idea like this, bernie has actual detailed exactly how to pay for this.  i see a lot of speculation mentioned in this thread, but no mention of the actual numbers that bernie has released.  i point these specifics out because of how small they are, and how much they are generating in return.  the idea that something as hugely as expensive as this could be covered with the tiniest of taxes puts a lot of our other problems into perspective.  URL   this legislation will establish a partnership with states by developing a matching grant program   which would provide $0 in federal funding for every dollar that states spend on making tuition free higher   education in public colleges and universities.  and, that is the incredibly oppressive   burden of crushing student loan debt.  it makes no sense to me that   americans can refinance their homes when interest rates are low, and that somebody can purchase a car at   two percent interest rates, but millions of college graduates are stuck with interest rates of 0, 0, 0 percent   0   sometimes for decades.  that makes no sense.  that is grossly unfair.  this bill would cut student loan   interest rates in half and lower the rate to about 0 percent for undergraduates.  the federal government   should not be profiting off of student loans provided to low and moderate income families   my legislation would impose a wall street speculation fee of 0 percent on stock trades that is   0 cents for every $0 worth of stock , a 0 percent fee on bonds, and a 0 percent fee on   derivatives.  this would generate approximately $0 billion per year, to pay for this.  the estimated costs are $0 billion over about 0 years.  i do not think that is unreasonable in any way when you consider the returns.   #  there was a  flash crash  where somehow the market collapsed in on itself and no one can work out why, but they know that the algorithms caused it.   #  there are some other concepts to add to this.  currently the stock market has around 0 of all trades are executed by a computer algorithm.  this creates deliberate patterns where the computer program is trying to move very quickly really fast, like 0 tenths of a second .  this computer volatility makes the market swing erratically and very very quickly.  there was a  flash crash  where somehow the market collapsed in on itself and no one can work out why, but they know that the algorithms caused it.  this extra tax was introduced i.  the uk and several other countries and it has reduced the volatility.  so the same tax causes more financial stability.  this tax only impacts investors who can more than afford 0c for each $0 trade.  that is the robin hood tax.  next item to be aware of is that on average, a high school grad will earn half what a uni grad will earn.  so for each grad that exists, we all earn 0x more tax on them.  at the moment, the it sector is crying out for programmers and people who work in it earn around 0 0x the avg salary.  historically we have had free uni, and the financial rewards that hit the economy were immense.  0 % of all the income we make is spent on defense.  we spent more on defenseman than the next 0 countries combined.  0 is spent on education and social services.  one community education program is for the unemployed.  they have an 0 hire rate after training and that is to jobs like a $0k per year computer job.  this means instead of having poor youth in crap unemployment and with little hope, and many leading into crime and jail us has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world , they are employed.  that costs $0,0 per student.  it takes them from a cost to social services and food stamps to 0 earning in high paying stem which helps our economy and they pay $0,0 every year, in taxes.  that seems smart to me.   #  even then they are not delivering as much value.   #  not in a global market.  if one country has a lot of solar engineers and programmers then they are going to get higher paying jobs.  in tech you often have examples where a small team say 0 have created a tool that disrupts millions of classified ads, and were making $0m profit per employee.  the team salary becomes irrelevant at that level and if we are creating more high value stuff then we keep earning as a country.  compared to low educated places,they simply can never see more than 0 0k value.  even then they are not delivering as much value.   #  the country is awash with engineers and computer science degree holders.   # if one country has a lot of solar engineers and programmers then they are going to get higher paying jobs.  even then they are not delivering as much value.  your point about a global market actually proves the opposite of what you are saying: take a look at india.  the country is awash with engineers and computer science degree holders.  you know what the result is ? they get  lower  paying jobs than the average american yes, cost of living is lower in india, but the end result is that the higher cost american cs graduate is out of a job whereas 0 indian cs degree holders are now holding a job.  in fact, the global market is a great example of what happens when you saturate the market with a lot of engineers and programmers they end up being common and less valuable, and thus can be acquired for less.  in addition, a country with more solar engineers is not going to get more high paying jobs if there is not  demand  for said solar engineers.  there are upper limits on all of these things for the same reason a region will only have so many construction contractors, garbagemen, etc.  the same applies with engineers.  take a look at nuclear engineers and how regulations/moratoriums on new construction have shrunk their employment opportunities and earning potentials considerably.
this is probably because i am really bad at understanding politics and do not totally know what sanders wants to do.  but the money for free college would come from taxes, correct ? does that mean that taxes would get raised or that he would just alter around the spending the government does ? because if taxes are going to get raised that means i have to pay for my own loans that are going to take 0 years plus extra taxes so people can go for free ? that is not fair and while it seems nice, i do not have the money for that.  nor, i am sure, do most americans.  and what happens with private institutions ? does that mean through my taxes i am paying for someone to go a $0,0 school when i could not go to one myself because i could not afford it ? maybe that seems selfish, but that does not seem fair.  and the government should not be able to force me to pay so other people can get an easier life when i myself did not get that chance.  by the way, i know i am already being forced to pay for things i do not want, but should not we be trying to lessen those instances instead of adding to them ? i mean, on paper his idea sounds great.  free college, a better educated america, a more economically even country.  yay.  but that does not come for free.  and just because i am finally out of school and making a semi decent wage does not mean i should have to pay for other people.  i guess that means i am anti socialism ? is there maybe any other way that this could be accomplished ? like just lessening the cost of college somehow instead of totally free ?  #  like just lessening the cost of college somehow instead of totally free ?  #  part of the reason college costs more now then it did in the past is because they are not receiving as much funding from the government anymore.   # in a way.  sanders proposes adding a small tax to transactions on the stock market, which are currently untaxed.  nor, i am sure, do most americans.  under this plan, the only people who would actually be paying for the tuition is those who use the stock market.  the majority of people who use the stock market can afford it.  does that mean through my taxes i am paying for someone to go a $0,0 school when i could not go to one myself because i could not afford it ? the plan is only to fund public colleges and universities.  private colleges would probably still exist, but they would have to be paid out of your own pocket or through loans and grants.  incidentally, your taxes already go to these grants and subsidized loans, so you are technically already paying for people to go to private colleges.  part of the reason college costs more now then it did in the past is because they are not receiving as much funding from the government anymore.  colleges used to get more federal money per student to spend then they do now, so colleges have to make up that money through tuition.  the only way to make colleges cheaper again will be if we funnel money into the colleges.  either way, somebody has to be taxed for it.  not to mention there is a lot of money getting spent on sports and coaches, but i wo not even start going into that, or else i will go on a tangent that is only remotely related to the topic.   #  the idea that something as hugely as expensive as this could be covered with the tiniest of taxes puts a lot of our other problems into perspective.   #  first, i would like to point out the exact taxes proposed for this, because unlike many politicians when they introduce an idea like this, bernie has actual detailed exactly how to pay for this.  i see a lot of speculation mentioned in this thread, but no mention of the actual numbers that bernie has released.  i point these specifics out because of how small they are, and how much they are generating in return.  the idea that something as hugely as expensive as this could be covered with the tiniest of taxes puts a lot of our other problems into perspective.  URL   this legislation will establish a partnership with states by developing a matching grant program   which would provide $0 in federal funding for every dollar that states spend on making tuition free higher   education in public colleges and universities.  and, that is the incredibly oppressive   burden of crushing student loan debt.  it makes no sense to me that   americans can refinance their homes when interest rates are low, and that somebody can purchase a car at   two percent interest rates, but millions of college graduates are stuck with interest rates of 0, 0, 0 percent   0   sometimes for decades.  that makes no sense.  that is grossly unfair.  this bill would cut student loan   interest rates in half and lower the rate to about 0 percent for undergraduates.  the federal government   should not be profiting off of student loans provided to low and moderate income families   my legislation would impose a wall street speculation fee of 0 percent on stock trades that is   0 cents for every $0 worth of stock , a 0 percent fee on bonds, and a 0 percent fee on   derivatives.  this would generate approximately $0 billion per year, to pay for this.  the estimated costs are $0 billion over about 0 years.  i do not think that is unreasonable in any way when you consider the returns.   #  at the moment, the it sector is crying out for programmers and people who work in it earn around 0 0x the avg salary.   #  there are some other concepts to add to this.  currently the stock market has around 0 of all trades are executed by a computer algorithm.  this creates deliberate patterns where the computer program is trying to move very quickly really fast, like 0 tenths of a second .  this computer volatility makes the market swing erratically and very very quickly.  there was a  flash crash  where somehow the market collapsed in on itself and no one can work out why, but they know that the algorithms caused it.  this extra tax was introduced i.  the uk and several other countries and it has reduced the volatility.  so the same tax causes more financial stability.  this tax only impacts investors who can more than afford 0c for each $0 trade.  that is the robin hood tax.  next item to be aware of is that on average, a high school grad will earn half what a uni grad will earn.  so for each grad that exists, we all earn 0x more tax on them.  at the moment, the it sector is crying out for programmers and people who work in it earn around 0 0x the avg salary.  historically we have had free uni, and the financial rewards that hit the economy were immense.  0 % of all the income we make is spent on defense.  we spent more on defenseman than the next 0 countries combined.  0 is spent on education and social services.  one community education program is for the unemployed.  they have an 0 hire rate after training and that is to jobs like a $0k per year computer job.  this means instead of having poor youth in crap unemployment and with little hope, and many leading into crime and jail us has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world , they are employed.  that costs $0,0 per student.  it takes them from a cost to social services and food stamps to 0 earning in high paying stem which helps our economy and they pay $0,0 every year, in taxes.  that seems smart to me.   #  if one country has a lot of solar engineers and programmers then they are going to get higher paying jobs.   #  not in a global market.  if one country has a lot of solar engineers and programmers then they are going to get higher paying jobs.  in tech you often have examples where a small team say 0 have created a tool that disrupts millions of classified ads, and were making $0m profit per employee.  the team salary becomes irrelevant at that level and if we are creating more high value stuff then we keep earning as a country.  compared to low educated places,they simply can never see more than 0 0k value.  even then they are not delivering as much value.   #  your point about a global market actually proves the opposite of what you are saying: take a look at india.   # if one country has a lot of solar engineers and programmers then they are going to get higher paying jobs.  even then they are not delivering as much value.  your point about a global market actually proves the opposite of what you are saying: take a look at india.  the country is awash with engineers and computer science degree holders.  you know what the result is ? they get  lower  paying jobs than the average american yes, cost of living is lower in india, but the end result is that the higher cost american cs graduate is out of a job whereas 0 indian cs degree holders are now holding a job.  in fact, the global market is a great example of what happens when you saturate the market with a lot of engineers and programmers they end up being common and less valuable, and thus can be acquired for less.  in addition, a country with more solar engineers is not going to get more high paying jobs if there is not  demand  for said solar engineers.  there are upper limits on all of these things for the same reason a region will only have so many construction contractors, garbagemen, etc.  the same applies with engineers.  take a look at nuclear engineers and how regulations/moratoriums on new construction have shrunk their employment opportunities and earning potentials considerably.
this is probably because i am really bad at understanding politics and do not totally know what sanders wants to do.  but the money for free college would come from taxes, correct ? does that mean that taxes would get raised or that he would just alter around the spending the government does ? because if taxes are going to get raised that means i have to pay for my own loans that are going to take 0 years plus extra taxes so people can go for free ? that is not fair and while it seems nice, i do not have the money for that.  nor, i am sure, do most americans.  and what happens with private institutions ? does that mean through my taxes i am paying for someone to go a $0,0 school when i could not go to one myself because i could not afford it ? maybe that seems selfish, but that does not seem fair.  and the government should not be able to force me to pay so other people can get an easier life when i myself did not get that chance.  by the way, i know i am already being forced to pay for things i do not want, but should not we be trying to lessen those instances instead of adding to them ? i mean, on paper his idea sounds great.  free college, a better educated america, a more economically even country.  yay.  but that does not come for free.  and just because i am finally out of school and making a semi decent wage does not mean i should have to pay for other people.  i guess that means i am anti socialism ? is there maybe any other way that this could be accomplished ? like just lessening the cost of college somehow instead of totally free ?  #  i do not have the money for that.   #  nor, i am sure, do most americans.   # sanders proposes adding a small tax to transactions on the stock market, which are currently untaxed.  nor, i am sure, do most americans.  the majority of people who use the stock market can afford it.  i think you are underplaying the significance of the tax hike here.  a financial transactions tax has significant consequences for the broader economy, and is decidedly a tax increase.  first, many more people own stocks and bonds than you make out.  0 k s, iras, and pension funds all own securities as a matter of course.  a financial transactions tax would impact ordinary americans  retirement savings substantially.  second, most loans end up marketed as bond securities.  a tax on those securities will make them less desirable, and correspondingly increase borrowing costs.  so expect to see mortgage rates and car loan rates spike a good bit.  third, this will create huge distortive effects, as markets become much thinner and arbitrage becomes less possible.  especially when you are trying to raise a lot of money with the tax, you are going to push markets in all sorts of unpredictable ways as people try to dodge the tax.  at the most basic level, expect most of the stock market to move to foreign exchanges, but also massive corporate restructuring, an explosion of unlisted private securities, and all sorts of other things.  all of the above will make markets much harder to regulate and observe.   #  i point these specifics out because of how small they are, and how much they are generating in return.   #  first, i would like to point out the exact taxes proposed for this, because unlike many politicians when they introduce an idea like this, bernie has actual detailed exactly how to pay for this.  i see a lot of speculation mentioned in this thread, but no mention of the actual numbers that bernie has released.  i point these specifics out because of how small they are, and how much they are generating in return.  the idea that something as hugely as expensive as this could be covered with the tiniest of taxes puts a lot of our other problems into perspective.  URL   this legislation will establish a partnership with states by developing a matching grant program   which would provide $0 in federal funding for every dollar that states spend on making tuition free higher   education in public colleges and universities.  and, that is the incredibly oppressive   burden of crushing student loan debt.  it makes no sense to me that   americans can refinance their homes when interest rates are low, and that somebody can purchase a car at   two percent interest rates, but millions of college graduates are stuck with interest rates of 0, 0, 0 percent   0   sometimes for decades.  that makes no sense.  that is grossly unfair.  this bill would cut student loan   interest rates in half and lower the rate to about 0 percent for undergraduates.  the federal government   should not be profiting off of student loans provided to low and moderate income families   my legislation would impose a wall street speculation fee of 0 percent on stock trades that is   0 cents for every $0 worth of stock , a 0 percent fee on bonds, and a 0 percent fee on   derivatives.  this would generate approximately $0 billion per year, to pay for this.  the estimated costs are $0 billion over about 0 years.  i do not think that is unreasonable in any way when you consider the returns.   #  0 % of all the income we make is spent on defense.   #  there are some other concepts to add to this.  currently the stock market has around 0 of all trades are executed by a computer algorithm.  this creates deliberate patterns where the computer program is trying to move very quickly really fast, like 0 tenths of a second .  this computer volatility makes the market swing erratically and very very quickly.  there was a  flash crash  where somehow the market collapsed in on itself and no one can work out why, but they know that the algorithms caused it.  this extra tax was introduced i.  the uk and several other countries and it has reduced the volatility.  so the same tax causes more financial stability.  this tax only impacts investors who can more than afford 0c for each $0 trade.  that is the robin hood tax.  next item to be aware of is that on average, a high school grad will earn half what a uni grad will earn.  so for each grad that exists, we all earn 0x more tax on them.  at the moment, the it sector is crying out for programmers and people who work in it earn around 0 0x the avg salary.  historically we have had free uni, and the financial rewards that hit the economy were immense.  0 % of all the income we make is spent on defense.  we spent more on defenseman than the next 0 countries combined.  0 is spent on education and social services.  one community education program is for the unemployed.  they have an 0 hire rate after training and that is to jobs like a $0k per year computer job.  this means instead of having poor youth in crap unemployment and with little hope, and many leading into crime and jail us has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world , they are employed.  that costs $0,0 per student.  it takes them from a cost to social services and food stamps to 0 earning in high paying stem which helps our economy and they pay $0,0 every year, in taxes.  that seems smart to me.   #  even then they are not delivering as much value.   #  not in a global market.  if one country has a lot of solar engineers and programmers then they are going to get higher paying jobs.  in tech you often have examples where a small team say 0 have created a tool that disrupts millions of classified ads, and were making $0m profit per employee.  the team salary becomes irrelevant at that level and if we are creating more high value stuff then we keep earning as a country.  compared to low educated places,they simply can never see more than 0 0k value.  even then they are not delivering as much value.   #  in fact, the global market is a great example of what happens when you saturate the market with a lot of engineers and programmers they end up being common and less valuable, and thus can be acquired for less.   # if one country has a lot of solar engineers and programmers then they are going to get higher paying jobs.  even then they are not delivering as much value.  your point about a global market actually proves the opposite of what you are saying: take a look at india.  the country is awash with engineers and computer science degree holders.  you know what the result is ? they get  lower  paying jobs than the average american yes, cost of living is lower in india, but the end result is that the higher cost american cs graduate is out of a job whereas 0 indian cs degree holders are now holding a job.  in fact, the global market is a great example of what happens when you saturate the market with a lot of engineers and programmers they end up being common and less valuable, and thus can be acquired for less.  in addition, a country with more solar engineers is not going to get more high paying jobs if there is not  demand  for said solar engineers.  there are upper limits on all of these things for the same reason a region will only have so many construction contractors, garbagemen, etc.  the same applies with engineers.  take a look at nuclear engineers and how regulations/moratoriums on new construction have shrunk their employment opportunities and earning potentials considerably.
this is probably because i am really bad at understanding politics and do not totally know what sanders wants to do.  but the money for free college would come from taxes, correct ? does that mean that taxes would get raised or that he would just alter around the spending the government does ? because if taxes are going to get raised that means i have to pay for my own loans that are going to take 0 years plus extra taxes so people can go for free ? that is not fair and while it seems nice, i do not have the money for that.  nor, i am sure, do most americans.  and what happens with private institutions ? does that mean through my taxes i am paying for someone to go a $0,0 school when i could not go to one myself because i could not afford it ? maybe that seems selfish, but that does not seem fair.  and the government should not be able to force me to pay so other people can get an easier life when i myself did not get that chance.  by the way, i know i am already being forced to pay for things i do not want, but should not we be trying to lessen those instances instead of adding to them ? i mean, on paper his idea sounds great.  free college, a better educated america, a more economically even country.  yay.  but that does not come for free.  and just because i am finally out of school and making a semi decent wage does not mean i should have to pay for other people.  i guess that means i am anti socialism ? is there maybe any other way that this could be accomplished ? like just lessening the cost of college somehow instead of totally free ?  #  i do not have the money for that.   #  nor, i am sure, do most americans.   # nor, i am sure, do most americans.  here is a few things to consider: 0.  first of all, let is assume no population growth.  that means that, over the course of your life as a taxpayer, you only need to support one college student with your taxes.  would you rather pay your entire tuition over a span of 0 years or over a span of 0 years ? 0.  most students end up going into debt trying to absorb the entire cost over 0 years, but this is less likely to happen when your costs are spread out.  if society can keep students from going into debt, that means less money being spent on interest, which should decrease costs overall.  0.  under the current system, students need to pay at a time when they have little to no income.  adults in the middle of their careers are in a better financial position.  0.  income tax is progressive.  i am not sure where the money would come from, but some sort of progressive tax would make sense.  in that case, most adults would likely be paying for only a fraction of one tuition, while the richest would be paying tuition for many students.  also, you are probably able to claim interest payments on your student loans as a deductible.  if this plan goes through it wo not , this would serve as a sort of  wouldiscount  on paying for others  tuition while you are still paying for your own.   #  this would generate approximately $0 billion per year, to pay for this.   #  first, i would like to point out the exact taxes proposed for this, because unlike many politicians when they introduce an idea like this, bernie has actual detailed exactly how to pay for this.  i see a lot of speculation mentioned in this thread, but no mention of the actual numbers that bernie has released.  i point these specifics out because of how small they are, and how much they are generating in return.  the idea that something as hugely as expensive as this could be covered with the tiniest of taxes puts a lot of our other problems into perspective.  URL   this legislation will establish a partnership with states by developing a matching grant program   which would provide $0 in federal funding for every dollar that states spend on making tuition free higher   education in public colleges and universities.  and, that is the incredibly oppressive   burden of crushing student loan debt.  it makes no sense to me that   americans can refinance their homes when interest rates are low, and that somebody can purchase a car at   two percent interest rates, but millions of college graduates are stuck with interest rates of 0, 0, 0 percent   0   sometimes for decades.  that makes no sense.  that is grossly unfair.  this bill would cut student loan   interest rates in half and lower the rate to about 0 percent for undergraduates.  the federal government   should not be profiting off of student loans provided to low and moderate income families   my legislation would impose a wall street speculation fee of 0 percent on stock trades that is   0 cents for every $0 worth of stock , a 0 percent fee on bonds, and a 0 percent fee on   derivatives.  this would generate approximately $0 billion per year, to pay for this.  the estimated costs are $0 billion over about 0 years.  i do not think that is unreasonable in any way when you consider the returns.   #  this tax only impacts investors who can more than afford 0c for each $0 trade.   #  there are some other concepts to add to this.  currently the stock market has around 0 of all trades are executed by a computer algorithm.  this creates deliberate patterns where the computer program is trying to move very quickly really fast, like 0 tenths of a second .  this computer volatility makes the market swing erratically and very very quickly.  there was a  flash crash  where somehow the market collapsed in on itself and no one can work out why, but they know that the algorithms caused it.  this extra tax was introduced i.  the uk and several other countries and it has reduced the volatility.  so the same tax causes more financial stability.  this tax only impacts investors who can more than afford 0c for each $0 trade.  that is the robin hood tax.  next item to be aware of is that on average, a high school grad will earn half what a uni grad will earn.  so for each grad that exists, we all earn 0x more tax on them.  at the moment, the it sector is crying out for programmers and people who work in it earn around 0 0x the avg salary.  historically we have had free uni, and the financial rewards that hit the economy were immense.  0 % of all the income we make is spent on defense.  we spent more on defenseman than the next 0 countries combined.  0 is spent on education and social services.  one community education program is for the unemployed.  they have an 0 hire rate after training and that is to jobs like a $0k per year computer job.  this means instead of having poor youth in crap unemployment and with little hope, and many leading into crime and jail us has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world , they are employed.  that costs $0,0 per student.  it takes them from a cost to social services and food stamps to 0 earning in high paying stem which helps our economy and they pay $0,0 every year, in taxes.  that seems smart to me.   #  if one country has a lot of solar engineers and programmers then they are going to get higher paying jobs.   #  not in a global market.  if one country has a lot of solar engineers and programmers then they are going to get higher paying jobs.  in tech you often have examples where a small team say 0 have created a tool that disrupts millions of classified ads, and were making $0m profit per employee.  the team salary becomes irrelevant at that level and if we are creating more high value stuff then we keep earning as a country.  compared to low educated places,they simply can never see more than 0 0k value.  even then they are not delivering as much value.   #  there are upper limits on all of these things for the same reason a region will only have so many construction contractors, garbagemen, etc.   # if one country has a lot of solar engineers and programmers then they are going to get higher paying jobs.  even then they are not delivering as much value.  your point about a global market actually proves the opposite of what you are saying: take a look at india.  the country is awash with engineers and computer science degree holders.  you know what the result is ? they get  lower  paying jobs than the average american yes, cost of living is lower in india, but the end result is that the higher cost american cs graduate is out of a job whereas 0 indian cs degree holders are now holding a job.  in fact, the global market is a great example of what happens when you saturate the market with a lot of engineers and programmers they end up being common and less valuable, and thus can be acquired for less.  in addition, a country with more solar engineers is not going to get more high paying jobs if there is not  demand  for said solar engineers.  there are upper limits on all of these things for the same reason a region will only have so many construction contractors, garbagemen, etc.  the same applies with engineers.  take a look at nuclear engineers and how regulations/moratoriums on new construction have shrunk their employment opportunities and earning potentials considerably.
this is probably because i am really bad at understanding politics and do not totally know what sanders wants to do.  but the money for free college would come from taxes, correct ? does that mean that taxes would get raised or that he would just alter around the spending the government does ? because if taxes are going to get raised that means i have to pay for my own loans that are going to take 0 years plus extra taxes so people can go for free ? that is not fair and while it seems nice, i do not have the money for that.  nor, i am sure, do most americans.  and what happens with private institutions ? does that mean through my taxes i am paying for someone to go a $0,0 school when i could not go to one myself because i could not afford it ? maybe that seems selfish, but that does not seem fair.  and the government should not be able to force me to pay so other people can get an easier life when i myself did not get that chance.  by the way, i know i am already being forced to pay for things i do not want, but should not we be trying to lessen those instances instead of adding to them ? i mean, on paper his idea sounds great.  free college, a better educated america, a more economically even country.  yay.  but that does not come for free.  and just because i am finally out of school and making a semi decent wage does not mean i should have to pay for other people.  i guess that means i am anti socialism ? is there maybe any other way that this could be accomplished ? like just lessening the cost of college somehow instead of totally free ?  #  but the money for free college would come from taxes, correct ?  #  does that mean that taxes would get raised or that he would just alter around the spending the government does ?  # does that mean that taxes would get raised or that he would just alter around the spending the government does ? the proposal involves taxing investment transactions.  the viability of that is a whole different debate, but conceptually yes…in order to provide new social services to people for the benefit of society as a whole, new taxes would be involved.  that is nothing new though.  nor, i am sure, do most americans.  without doing an comprehensive analysis of the financial transaction tax your assertion is impossible to make.  based on my own back of the envelope calculations though, i think your assertion is wrong, since most mutual fund holdings would pay at most a 0 annual wealth tax.  does that mean through my taxes i am paying for someone to go a $0,0 school when i could not go to one myself because i could not afford it ? private institutions would not be covered, just public  and the government should not be able to force me to pay so other people can get an easier life when i myself did not get that chance by this logic, the government should not use tax dollars in any new way that conceivably could help people, simply because others who may no longer need the help were not afforded it in the past.   #  i do not think that is unreasonable in any way when you consider the returns.   #  first, i would like to point out the exact taxes proposed for this, because unlike many politicians when they introduce an idea like this, bernie has actual detailed exactly how to pay for this.  i see a lot of speculation mentioned in this thread, but no mention of the actual numbers that bernie has released.  i point these specifics out because of how small they are, and how much they are generating in return.  the idea that something as hugely as expensive as this could be covered with the tiniest of taxes puts a lot of our other problems into perspective.  URL   this legislation will establish a partnership with states by developing a matching grant program   which would provide $0 in federal funding for every dollar that states spend on making tuition free higher   education in public colleges and universities.  and, that is the incredibly oppressive   burden of crushing student loan debt.  it makes no sense to me that   americans can refinance their homes when interest rates are low, and that somebody can purchase a car at   two percent interest rates, but millions of college graduates are stuck with interest rates of 0, 0, 0 percent   0   sometimes for decades.  that makes no sense.  that is grossly unfair.  this bill would cut student loan   interest rates in half and lower the rate to about 0 percent for undergraduates.  the federal government   should not be profiting off of student loans provided to low and moderate income families   my legislation would impose a wall street speculation fee of 0 percent on stock trades that is   0 cents for every $0 worth of stock , a 0 percent fee on bonds, and a 0 percent fee on   derivatives.  this would generate approximately $0 billion per year, to pay for this.  the estimated costs are $0 billion over about 0 years.  i do not think that is unreasonable in any way when you consider the returns.   #  we spent more on defenseman than the next 0 countries combined.   #  there are some other concepts to add to this.  currently the stock market has around 0 of all trades are executed by a computer algorithm.  this creates deliberate patterns where the computer program is trying to move very quickly really fast, like 0 tenths of a second .  this computer volatility makes the market swing erratically and very very quickly.  there was a  flash crash  where somehow the market collapsed in on itself and no one can work out why, but they know that the algorithms caused it.  this extra tax was introduced i.  the uk and several other countries and it has reduced the volatility.  so the same tax causes more financial stability.  this tax only impacts investors who can more than afford 0c for each $0 trade.  that is the robin hood tax.  next item to be aware of is that on average, a high school grad will earn half what a uni grad will earn.  so for each grad that exists, we all earn 0x more tax on them.  at the moment, the it sector is crying out for programmers and people who work in it earn around 0 0x the avg salary.  historically we have had free uni, and the financial rewards that hit the economy were immense.  0 % of all the income we make is spent on defense.  we spent more on defenseman than the next 0 countries combined.  0 is spent on education and social services.  one community education program is for the unemployed.  they have an 0 hire rate after training and that is to jobs like a $0k per year computer job.  this means instead of having poor youth in crap unemployment and with little hope, and many leading into crime and jail us has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world , they are employed.  that costs $0,0 per student.  it takes them from a cost to social services and food stamps to 0 earning in high paying stem which helps our economy and they pay $0,0 every year, in taxes.  that seems smart to me.   #  even then they are not delivering as much value.   #  not in a global market.  if one country has a lot of solar engineers and programmers then they are going to get higher paying jobs.  in tech you often have examples where a small team say 0 have created a tool that disrupts millions of classified ads, and were making $0m profit per employee.  the team salary becomes irrelevant at that level and if we are creating more high value stuff then we keep earning as a country.  compared to low educated places,they simply can never see more than 0 0k value.  even then they are not delivering as much value.   #  your point about a global market actually proves the opposite of what you are saying: take a look at india.   # if one country has a lot of solar engineers and programmers then they are going to get higher paying jobs.  even then they are not delivering as much value.  your point about a global market actually proves the opposite of what you are saying: take a look at india.  the country is awash with engineers and computer science degree holders.  you know what the result is ? they get  lower  paying jobs than the average american yes, cost of living is lower in india, but the end result is that the higher cost american cs graduate is out of a job whereas 0 indian cs degree holders are now holding a job.  in fact, the global market is a great example of what happens when you saturate the market with a lot of engineers and programmers they end up being common and less valuable, and thus can be acquired for less.  in addition, a country with more solar engineers is not going to get more high paying jobs if there is not  demand  for said solar engineers.  there are upper limits on all of these things for the same reason a region will only have so many construction contractors, garbagemen, etc.  the same applies with engineers.  take a look at nuclear engineers and how regulations/moratoriums on new construction have shrunk their employment opportunities and earning potentials considerably.
this is probably because i am really bad at understanding politics and do not totally know what sanders wants to do.  but the money for free college would come from taxes, correct ? does that mean that taxes would get raised or that he would just alter around the spending the government does ? because if taxes are going to get raised that means i have to pay for my own loans that are going to take 0 years plus extra taxes so people can go for free ? that is not fair and while it seems nice, i do not have the money for that.  nor, i am sure, do most americans.  and what happens with private institutions ? does that mean through my taxes i am paying for someone to go a $0,0 school when i could not go to one myself because i could not afford it ? maybe that seems selfish, but that does not seem fair.  and the government should not be able to force me to pay so other people can get an easier life when i myself did not get that chance.  by the way, i know i am already being forced to pay for things i do not want, but should not we be trying to lessen those instances instead of adding to them ? i mean, on paper his idea sounds great.  free college, a better educated america, a more economically even country.  yay.  but that does not come for free.  and just because i am finally out of school and making a semi decent wage does not mean i should have to pay for other people.  i guess that means i am anti socialism ? is there maybe any other way that this could be accomplished ? like just lessening the cost of college somehow instead of totally free ?  #  i do not have the money for that.   #  nor, i am sure, do most americans.   # does that mean that taxes would get raised or that he would just alter around the spending the government does ? the proposal involves taxing investment transactions.  the viability of that is a whole different debate, but conceptually yes…in order to provide new social services to people for the benefit of society as a whole, new taxes would be involved.  that is nothing new though.  nor, i am sure, do most americans.  without doing an comprehensive analysis of the financial transaction tax your assertion is impossible to make.  based on my own back of the envelope calculations though, i think your assertion is wrong, since most mutual fund holdings would pay at most a 0 annual wealth tax.  does that mean through my taxes i am paying for someone to go a $0,0 school when i could not go to one myself because i could not afford it ? private institutions would not be covered, just public  and the government should not be able to force me to pay so other people can get an easier life when i myself did not get that chance by this logic, the government should not use tax dollars in any new way that conceivably could help people, simply because others who may no longer need the help were not afforded it in the past.   #  i do not think that is unreasonable in any way when you consider the returns.   #  first, i would like to point out the exact taxes proposed for this, because unlike many politicians when they introduce an idea like this, bernie has actual detailed exactly how to pay for this.  i see a lot of speculation mentioned in this thread, but no mention of the actual numbers that bernie has released.  i point these specifics out because of how small they are, and how much they are generating in return.  the idea that something as hugely as expensive as this could be covered with the tiniest of taxes puts a lot of our other problems into perspective.  URL   this legislation will establish a partnership with states by developing a matching grant program   which would provide $0 in federal funding for every dollar that states spend on making tuition free higher   education in public colleges and universities.  and, that is the incredibly oppressive   burden of crushing student loan debt.  it makes no sense to me that   americans can refinance their homes when interest rates are low, and that somebody can purchase a car at   two percent interest rates, but millions of college graduates are stuck with interest rates of 0, 0, 0 percent   0   sometimes for decades.  that makes no sense.  that is grossly unfair.  this bill would cut student loan   interest rates in half and lower the rate to about 0 percent for undergraduates.  the federal government   should not be profiting off of student loans provided to low and moderate income families   my legislation would impose a wall street speculation fee of 0 percent on stock trades that is   0 cents for every $0 worth of stock , a 0 percent fee on bonds, and a 0 percent fee on   derivatives.  this would generate approximately $0 billion per year, to pay for this.  the estimated costs are $0 billion over about 0 years.  i do not think that is unreasonable in any way when you consider the returns.   #  0 % of all the income we make is spent on defense.   #  there are some other concepts to add to this.  currently the stock market has around 0 of all trades are executed by a computer algorithm.  this creates deliberate patterns where the computer program is trying to move very quickly really fast, like 0 tenths of a second .  this computer volatility makes the market swing erratically and very very quickly.  there was a  flash crash  where somehow the market collapsed in on itself and no one can work out why, but they know that the algorithms caused it.  this extra tax was introduced i.  the uk and several other countries and it has reduced the volatility.  so the same tax causes more financial stability.  this tax only impacts investors who can more than afford 0c for each $0 trade.  that is the robin hood tax.  next item to be aware of is that on average, a high school grad will earn half what a uni grad will earn.  so for each grad that exists, we all earn 0x more tax on them.  at the moment, the it sector is crying out for programmers and people who work in it earn around 0 0x the avg salary.  historically we have had free uni, and the financial rewards that hit the economy were immense.  0 % of all the income we make is spent on defense.  we spent more on defenseman than the next 0 countries combined.  0 is spent on education and social services.  one community education program is for the unemployed.  they have an 0 hire rate after training and that is to jobs like a $0k per year computer job.  this means instead of having poor youth in crap unemployment and with little hope, and many leading into crime and jail us has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world , they are employed.  that costs $0,0 per student.  it takes them from a cost to social services and food stamps to 0 earning in high paying stem which helps our economy and they pay $0,0 every year, in taxes.  that seems smart to me.   #  the team salary becomes irrelevant at that level and if we are creating more high value stuff then we keep earning as a country.   #  not in a global market.  if one country has a lot of solar engineers and programmers then they are going to get higher paying jobs.  in tech you often have examples where a small team say 0 have created a tool that disrupts millions of classified ads, and were making $0m profit per employee.  the team salary becomes irrelevant at that level and if we are creating more high value stuff then we keep earning as a country.  compared to low educated places,they simply can never see more than 0 0k value.  even then they are not delivering as much value.   #  in addition, a country with more solar engineers is not going to get more high paying jobs if there is not  demand  for said solar engineers.   # if one country has a lot of solar engineers and programmers then they are going to get higher paying jobs.  even then they are not delivering as much value.  your point about a global market actually proves the opposite of what you are saying: take a look at india.  the country is awash with engineers and computer science degree holders.  you know what the result is ? they get  lower  paying jobs than the average american yes, cost of living is lower in india, but the end result is that the higher cost american cs graduate is out of a job whereas 0 indian cs degree holders are now holding a job.  in fact, the global market is a great example of what happens when you saturate the market with a lot of engineers and programmers they end up being common and less valuable, and thus can be acquired for less.  in addition, a country with more solar engineers is not going to get more high paying jobs if there is not  demand  for said solar engineers.  there are upper limits on all of these things for the same reason a region will only have so many construction contractors, garbagemen, etc.  the same applies with engineers.  take a look at nuclear engineers and how regulations/moratoriums on new construction have shrunk their employment opportunities and earning potentials considerably.
this is probably because i am really bad at understanding politics and do not totally know what sanders wants to do.  but the money for free college would come from taxes, correct ? does that mean that taxes would get raised or that he would just alter around the spending the government does ? because if taxes are going to get raised that means i have to pay for my own loans that are going to take 0 years plus extra taxes so people can go for free ? that is not fair and while it seems nice, i do not have the money for that.  nor, i am sure, do most americans.  and what happens with private institutions ? does that mean through my taxes i am paying for someone to go a $0,0 school when i could not go to one myself because i could not afford it ? maybe that seems selfish, but that does not seem fair.  and the government should not be able to force me to pay so other people can get an easier life when i myself did not get that chance.  by the way, i know i am already being forced to pay for things i do not want, but should not we be trying to lessen those instances instead of adding to them ? i mean, on paper his idea sounds great.  free college, a better educated america, a more economically even country.  yay.  but that does not come for free.  and just because i am finally out of school and making a semi decent wage does not mean i should have to pay for other people.  i guess that means i am anti socialism ? is there maybe any other way that this could be accomplished ? like just lessening the cost of college somehow instead of totally free ?  #  and just because i am finally out of school and making a semi decent wage does not mean i should have to pay for other people.   #  that is the obvious reason to be against this.   # that is the obvious reason to be against this.  after you have used the ladder, pull it up so no one else can reach your level.  you should also want that every program other than social security be eliminated, because with your fancy degree, you do not anticipate needing any welfare, and your job is unlikely to lead to a disability.  the same thinking promotes destroying the planet in 0 years after you do not care anymore , if it means cheaper gas for the next few years but what if those worthless people do not take your advice to just die quietly, or join the slave class ? helping them will actually lead to some of them making something you find interesting or worth buying.  still, i do not think free college is the best idea.  instead, /r/basicincome would give people the freedom of pursuing what they want most will choose college without distorting the market with handouts to chosen winners.  basic income is not just a special gift for those still young enough to choose college.   #  i do not think that is unreasonable in any way when you consider the returns.   #  first, i would like to point out the exact taxes proposed for this, because unlike many politicians when they introduce an idea like this, bernie has actual detailed exactly how to pay for this.  i see a lot of speculation mentioned in this thread, but no mention of the actual numbers that bernie has released.  i point these specifics out because of how small they are, and how much they are generating in return.  the idea that something as hugely as expensive as this could be covered with the tiniest of taxes puts a lot of our other problems into perspective.  URL   this legislation will establish a partnership with states by developing a matching grant program   which would provide $0 in federal funding for every dollar that states spend on making tuition free higher   education in public colleges and universities.  and, that is the incredibly oppressive   burden of crushing student loan debt.  it makes no sense to me that   americans can refinance their homes when interest rates are low, and that somebody can purchase a car at   two percent interest rates, but millions of college graduates are stuck with interest rates of 0, 0, 0 percent   0   sometimes for decades.  that makes no sense.  that is grossly unfair.  this bill would cut student loan   interest rates in half and lower the rate to about 0 percent for undergraduates.  the federal government   should not be profiting off of student loans provided to low and moderate income families   my legislation would impose a wall street speculation fee of 0 percent on stock trades that is   0 cents for every $0 worth of stock , a 0 percent fee on bonds, and a 0 percent fee on   derivatives.  this would generate approximately $0 billion per year, to pay for this.  the estimated costs are $0 billion over about 0 years.  i do not think that is unreasonable in any way when you consider the returns.   #  one community education program is for the unemployed.   #  there are some other concepts to add to this.  currently the stock market has around 0 of all trades are executed by a computer algorithm.  this creates deliberate patterns where the computer program is trying to move very quickly really fast, like 0 tenths of a second .  this computer volatility makes the market swing erratically and very very quickly.  there was a  flash crash  where somehow the market collapsed in on itself and no one can work out why, but they know that the algorithms caused it.  this extra tax was introduced i.  the uk and several other countries and it has reduced the volatility.  so the same tax causes more financial stability.  this tax only impacts investors who can more than afford 0c for each $0 trade.  that is the robin hood tax.  next item to be aware of is that on average, a high school grad will earn half what a uni grad will earn.  so for each grad that exists, we all earn 0x more tax on them.  at the moment, the it sector is crying out for programmers and people who work in it earn around 0 0x the avg salary.  historically we have had free uni, and the financial rewards that hit the economy were immense.  0 % of all the income we make is spent on defense.  we spent more on defenseman than the next 0 countries combined.  0 is spent on education and social services.  one community education program is for the unemployed.  they have an 0 hire rate after training and that is to jobs like a $0k per year computer job.  this means instead of having poor youth in crap unemployment and with little hope, and many leading into crime and jail us has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world , they are employed.  that costs $0,0 per student.  it takes them from a cost to social services and food stamps to 0 earning in high paying stem which helps our economy and they pay $0,0 every year, in taxes.  that seems smart to me.   #  in tech you often have examples where a small team say 0 have created a tool that disrupts millions of classified ads, and were making $0m profit per employee.   #  not in a global market.  if one country has a lot of solar engineers and programmers then they are going to get higher paying jobs.  in tech you often have examples where a small team say 0 have created a tool that disrupts millions of classified ads, and were making $0m profit per employee.  the team salary becomes irrelevant at that level and if we are creating more high value stuff then we keep earning as a country.  compared to low educated places,they simply can never see more than 0 0k value.  even then they are not delivering as much value.   #  your point about a global market actually proves the opposite of what you are saying: take a look at india.   # if one country has a lot of solar engineers and programmers then they are going to get higher paying jobs.  even then they are not delivering as much value.  your point about a global market actually proves the opposite of what you are saying: take a look at india.  the country is awash with engineers and computer science degree holders.  you know what the result is ? they get  lower  paying jobs than the average american yes, cost of living is lower in india, but the end result is that the higher cost american cs graduate is out of a job whereas 0 indian cs degree holders are now holding a job.  in fact, the global market is a great example of what happens when you saturate the market with a lot of engineers and programmers they end up being common and less valuable, and thus can be acquired for less.  in addition, a country with more solar engineers is not going to get more high paying jobs if there is not  demand  for said solar engineers.  there are upper limits on all of these things for the same reason a region will only have so many construction contractors, garbagemen, etc.  the same applies with engineers.  take a look at nuclear engineers and how regulations/moratoriums on new construction have shrunk their employment opportunities and earning potentials considerably.
this is probably because i am really bad at understanding politics and do not totally know what sanders wants to do.  but the money for free college would come from taxes, correct ? does that mean that taxes would get raised or that he would just alter around the spending the government does ? because if taxes are going to get raised that means i have to pay for my own loans that are going to take 0 years plus extra taxes so people can go for free ? that is not fair and while it seems nice, i do not have the money for that.  nor, i am sure, do most americans.  and what happens with private institutions ? does that mean through my taxes i am paying for someone to go a $0,0 school when i could not go to one myself because i could not afford it ? maybe that seems selfish, but that does not seem fair.  and the government should not be able to force me to pay so other people can get an easier life when i myself did not get that chance.  by the way, i know i am already being forced to pay for things i do not want, but should not we be trying to lessen those instances instead of adding to them ? i mean, on paper his idea sounds great.  free college, a better educated america, a more economically even country.  yay.  but that does not come for free.  and just because i am finally out of school and making a semi decent wage does not mean i should have to pay for other people.  i guess that means i am anti socialism ? is there maybe any other way that this could be accomplished ? like just lessening the cost of college somehow instead of totally free ?  #  but the money for free college would come from taxes, correct ?  #  does that mean that taxes would get raised or that he would just alter around the spending the government does ?  # does that mean that taxes would get raised or that he would just alter around the spending the government does ? because if taxes are going to get raised that means i have to pay for my own loans that are going to take 0 years plus extra taxes so people can go for free ? that is not fair and while it seems nice, i do not have the money for that.  nor, i am sure, do most americans.  the specific proposal calls for a 0 one half of one percent tax on profits from trading stock, which would also be beneficial in stabilizing the economy by discouraging high frequency trading.  hft is already widely viewed by economists as a form of  rent seeking behavior,  ways of accumulating wealth that do not actually generate additional value in the economy and are noted for driving income inequality.  frankly, even if we do not use the money on college, we should still implement the tax.  also, this proposal is coming at the same time as and largely paired with major pushes to lower interest rates on and forgive student loan debt.  so your loans, if the proposals around this plan go forward, would become a lot less onerous too.  does that mean through my taxes i am paying for someone to go a $0,0 school when i could not go to one myself because i could not afford it ? no, the proposal would only cover tuition at public institutions, which already have tuition price limits they meet in exchange for federal funding.  bernie is not suggesting that we should pony up the $0k/quarter for attendance at expensive private universities like columbia, university of chicago, or dartmouth.   #  i do not think that is unreasonable in any way when you consider the returns.   #  first, i would like to point out the exact taxes proposed for this, because unlike many politicians when they introduce an idea like this, bernie has actual detailed exactly how to pay for this.  i see a lot of speculation mentioned in this thread, but no mention of the actual numbers that bernie has released.  i point these specifics out because of how small they are, and how much they are generating in return.  the idea that something as hugely as expensive as this could be covered with the tiniest of taxes puts a lot of our other problems into perspective.  URL   this legislation will establish a partnership with states by developing a matching grant program   which would provide $0 in federal funding for every dollar that states spend on making tuition free higher   education in public colleges and universities.  and, that is the incredibly oppressive   burden of crushing student loan debt.  it makes no sense to me that   americans can refinance their homes when interest rates are low, and that somebody can purchase a car at   two percent interest rates, but millions of college graduates are stuck with interest rates of 0, 0, 0 percent   0   sometimes for decades.  that makes no sense.  that is grossly unfair.  this bill would cut student loan   interest rates in half and lower the rate to about 0 percent for undergraduates.  the federal government   should not be profiting off of student loans provided to low and moderate income families   my legislation would impose a wall street speculation fee of 0 percent on stock trades that is   0 cents for every $0 worth of stock , a 0 percent fee on bonds, and a 0 percent fee on   derivatives.  this would generate approximately $0 billion per year, to pay for this.  the estimated costs are $0 billion over about 0 years.  i do not think that is unreasonable in any way when you consider the returns.   #  one community education program is for the unemployed.   #  there are some other concepts to add to this.  currently the stock market has around 0 of all trades are executed by a computer algorithm.  this creates deliberate patterns where the computer program is trying to move very quickly really fast, like 0 tenths of a second .  this computer volatility makes the market swing erratically and very very quickly.  there was a  flash crash  where somehow the market collapsed in on itself and no one can work out why, but they know that the algorithms caused it.  this extra tax was introduced i.  the uk and several other countries and it has reduced the volatility.  so the same tax causes more financial stability.  this tax only impacts investors who can more than afford 0c for each $0 trade.  that is the robin hood tax.  next item to be aware of is that on average, a high school grad will earn half what a uni grad will earn.  so for each grad that exists, we all earn 0x more tax on them.  at the moment, the it sector is crying out for programmers and people who work in it earn around 0 0x the avg salary.  historically we have had free uni, and the financial rewards that hit the economy were immense.  0 % of all the income we make is spent on defense.  we spent more on defenseman than the next 0 countries combined.  0 is spent on education and social services.  one community education program is for the unemployed.  they have an 0 hire rate after training and that is to jobs like a $0k per year computer job.  this means instead of having poor youth in crap unemployment and with little hope, and many leading into crime and jail us has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world , they are employed.  that costs $0,0 per student.  it takes them from a cost to social services and food stamps to 0 earning in high paying stem which helps our economy and they pay $0,0 every year, in taxes.  that seems smart to me.   #  in tech you often have examples where a small team say 0 have created a tool that disrupts millions of classified ads, and were making $0m profit per employee.   #  not in a global market.  if one country has a lot of solar engineers and programmers then they are going to get higher paying jobs.  in tech you often have examples where a small team say 0 have created a tool that disrupts millions of classified ads, and were making $0m profit per employee.  the team salary becomes irrelevant at that level and if we are creating more high value stuff then we keep earning as a country.  compared to low educated places,they simply can never see more than 0 0k value.  even then they are not delivering as much value.   #  even then they are not delivering as much value.   # if one country has a lot of solar engineers and programmers then they are going to get higher paying jobs.  even then they are not delivering as much value.  your point about a global market actually proves the opposite of what you are saying: take a look at india.  the country is awash with engineers and computer science degree holders.  you know what the result is ? they get  lower  paying jobs than the average american yes, cost of living is lower in india, but the end result is that the higher cost american cs graduate is out of a job whereas 0 indian cs degree holders are now holding a job.  in fact, the global market is a great example of what happens when you saturate the market with a lot of engineers and programmers they end up being common and less valuable, and thus can be acquired for less.  in addition, a country with more solar engineers is not going to get more high paying jobs if there is not  demand  for said solar engineers.  there are upper limits on all of these things for the same reason a region will only have so many construction contractors, garbagemen, etc.  the same applies with engineers.  take a look at nuclear engineers and how regulations/moratoriums on new construction have shrunk their employment opportunities and earning potentials considerably.
this is probably because i am really bad at understanding politics and do not totally know what sanders wants to do.  but the money for free college would come from taxes, correct ? does that mean that taxes would get raised or that he would just alter around the spending the government does ? because if taxes are going to get raised that means i have to pay for my own loans that are going to take 0 years plus extra taxes so people can go for free ? that is not fair and while it seems nice, i do not have the money for that.  nor, i am sure, do most americans.  and what happens with private institutions ? does that mean through my taxes i am paying for someone to go a $0,0 school when i could not go to one myself because i could not afford it ? maybe that seems selfish, but that does not seem fair.  and the government should not be able to force me to pay so other people can get an easier life when i myself did not get that chance.  by the way, i know i am already being forced to pay for things i do not want, but should not we be trying to lessen those instances instead of adding to them ? i mean, on paper his idea sounds great.  free college, a better educated america, a more economically even country.  yay.  but that does not come for free.  and just because i am finally out of school and making a semi decent wage does not mean i should have to pay for other people.  i guess that means i am anti socialism ? is there maybe any other way that this could be accomplished ? like just lessening the cost of college somehow instead of totally free ?  #  but the money for free college would come from taxes, correct ?  #  the tax would be on wall street speculation, so unless you will be making most of your money off the stock market, you wo not be directly affected.   #  you seem to have not done your research.  the tax would be on wall street speculation, so unless you will be making most of your money off the stock market, you wo not be directly affected.  sanders has stated that it will cover only public colleges and universities.  i do not have links for these facts since i am on mobile, but i can provide them for you if you insist.  there is also a recent interview with katie couric you can watch where he outlines his policy positions.  does this address your concerns ?  #  i see a lot of speculation mentioned in this thread, but no mention of the actual numbers that bernie has released.   #  first, i would like to point out the exact taxes proposed for this, because unlike many politicians when they introduce an idea like this, bernie has actual detailed exactly how to pay for this.  i see a lot of speculation mentioned in this thread, but no mention of the actual numbers that bernie has released.  i point these specifics out because of how small they are, and how much they are generating in return.  the idea that something as hugely as expensive as this could be covered with the tiniest of taxes puts a lot of our other problems into perspective.  URL   this legislation will establish a partnership with states by developing a matching grant program   which would provide $0 in federal funding for every dollar that states spend on making tuition free higher   education in public colleges and universities.  and, that is the incredibly oppressive   burden of crushing student loan debt.  it makes no sense to me that   americans can refinance their homes when interest rates are low, and that somebody can purchase a car at   two percent interest rates, but millions of college graduates are stuck with interest rates of 0, 0, 0 percent   0   sometimes for decades.  that makes no sense.  that is grossly unfair.  this bill would cut student loan   interest rates in half and lower the rate to about 0 percent for undergraduates.  the federal government   should not be profiting off of student loans provided to low and moderate income families   my legislation would impose a wall street speculation fee of 0 percent on stock trades that is   0 cents for every $0 worth of stock , a 0 percent fee on bonds, and a 0 percent fee on   derivatives.  this would generate approximately $0 billion per year, to pay for this.  the estimated costs are $0 billion over about 0 years.  i do not think that is unreasonable in any way when you consider the returns.   #  it takes them from a cost to social services and food stamps to 0 earning in high paying stem which helps our economy and they pay $0,0 every year, in taxes.   #  there are some other concepts to add to this.  currently the stock market has around 0 of all trades are executed by a computer algorithm.  this creates deliberate patterns where the computer program is trying to move very quickly really fast, like 0 tenths of a second .  this computer volatility makes the market swing erratically and very very quickly.  there was a  flash crash  where somehow the market collapsed in on itself and no one can work out why, but they know that the algorithms caused it.  this extra tax was introduced i.  the uk and several other countries and it has reduced the volatility.  so the same tax causes more financial stability.  this tax only impacts investors who can more than afford 0c for each $0 trade.  that is the robin hood tax.  next item to be aware of is that on average, a high school grad will earn half what a uni grad will earn.  so for each grad that exists, we all earn 0x more tax on them.  at the moment, the it sector is crying out for programmers and people who work in it earn around 0 0x the avg salary.  historically we have had free uni, and the financial rewards that hit the economy were immense.  0 % of all the income we make is spent on defense.  we spent more on defenseman than the next 0 countries combined.  0 is spent on education and social services.  one community education program is for the unemployed.  they have an 0 hire rate after training and that is to jobs like a $0k per year computer job.  this means instead of having poor youth in crap unemployment and with little hope, and many leading into crime and jail us has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world , they are employed.  that costs $0,0 per student.  it takes them from a cost to social services and food stamps to 0 earning in high paying stem which helps our economy and they pay $0,0 every year, in taxes.  that seems smart to me.   #  if one country has a lot of solar engineers and programmers then they are going to get higher paying jobs.   #  not in a global market.  if one country has a lot of solar engineers and programmers then they are going to get higher paying jobs.  in tech you often have examples where a small team say 0 have created a tool that disrupts millions of classified ads, and were making $0m profit per employee.  the team salary becomes irrelevant at that level and if we are creating more high value stuff then we keep earning as a country.  compared to low educated places,they simply can never see more than 0 0k value.  even then they are not delivering as much value.   #  your point about a global market actually proves the opposite of what you are saying: take a look at india.   # if one country has a lot of solar engineers and programmers then they are going to get higher paying jobs.  even then they are not delivering as much value.  your point about a global market actually proves the opposite of what you are saying: take a look at india.  the country is awash with engineers and computer science degree holders.  you know what the result is ? they get  lower  paying jobs than the average american yes, cost of living is lower in india, but the end result is that the higher cost american cs graduate is out of a job whereas 0 indian cs degree holders are now holding a job.  in fact, the global market is a great example of what happens when you saturate the market with a lot of engineers and programmers they end up being common and less valuable, and thus can be acquired for less.  in addition, a country with more solar engineers is not going to get more high paying jobs if there is not  demand  for said solar engineers.  there are upper limits on all of these things for the same reason a region will only have so many construction contractors, garbagemen, etc.  the same applies with engineers.  take a look at nuclear engineers and how regulations/moratoriums on new construction have shrunk their employment opportunities and earning potentials considerably.
this is probably because i am really bad at understanding politics and do not totally know what sanders wants to do.  but the money for free college would come from taxes, correct ? does that mean that taxes would get raised or that he would just alter around the spending the government does ? because if taxes are going to get raised that means i have to pay for my own loans that are going to take 0 years plus extra taxes so people can go for free ? that is not fair and while it seems nice, i do not have the money for that.  nor, i am sure, do most americans.  and what happens with private institutions ? does that mean through my taxes i am paying for someone to go a $0,0 school when i could not go to one myself because i could not afford it ? maybe that seems selfish, but that does not seem fair.  and the government should not be able to force me to pay so other people can get an easier life when i myself did not get that chance.  by the way, i know i am already being forced to pay for things i do not want, but should not we be trying to lessen those instances instead of adding to them ? i mean, on paper his idea sounds great.  free college, a better educated america, a more economically even country.  yay.  but that does not come for free.  and just because i am finally out of school and making a semi decent wage does not mean i should have to pay for other people.  i guess that means i am anti socialism ? is there maybe any other way that this could be accomplished ? like just lessening the cost of college somehow instead of totally free ?  #  but the money for free college would come from taxes, correct ?  #  to put it simply, it does not have to all come from taxes.   # to put it simply, it does not have to all come from taxes.  according to this article URL $0 billion dollars was spent on tuition at public colleges in one year, which is less than the $0 billion spent on non loan financial aid programs in one year: pell grants, tax breaks, and work study funding.  this provides an empirical possibility that  the us federal government could spend less money on making public college tuition free than providing non loan financial aid .  if all non loan financial aid programs were instead applied to public university tuition, then this situation would not occur.  the growth rate of federal financial aid already exceed public tuition increases, and you are already paying for federal loan subsidies and indirectly paying for the increasingly tougher debt that students have.  less loans will need to be taken out if public tuition is free, and thus having to  pay for other people  will be decreased.   #  first, i would like to point out the exact taxes proposed for this, because unlike many politicians when they introduce an idea like this, bernie has actual detailed exactly how to pay for this.   #  first, i would like to point out the exact taxes proposed for this, because unlike many politicians when they introduce an idea like this, bernie has actual detailed exactly how to pay for this.  i see a lot of speculation mentioned in this thread, but no mention of the actual numbers that bernie has released.  i point these specifics out because of how small they are, and how much they are generating in return.  the idea that something as hugely as expensive as this could be covered with the tiniest of taxes puts a lot of our other problems into perspective.  URL   this legislation will establish a partnership with states by developing a matching grant program   which would provide $0 in federal funding for every dollar that states spend on making tuition free higher   education in public colleges and universities.  and, that is the incredibly oppressive   burden of crushing student loan debt.  it makes no sense to me that   americans can refinance their homes when interest rates are low, and that somebody can purchase a car at   two percent interest rates, but millions of college graduates are stuck with interest rates of 0, 0, 0 percent   0   sometimes for decades.  that makes no sense.  that is grossly unfair.  this bill would cut student loan   interest rates in half and lower the rate to about 0 percent for undergraduates.  the federal government   should not be profiting off of student loans provided to low and moderate income families   my legislation would impose a wall street speculation fee of 0 percent on stock trades that is   0 cents for every $0 worth of stock , a 0 percent fee on bonds, and a 0 percent fee on   derivatives.  this would generate approximately $0 billion per year, to pay for this.  the estimated costs are $0 billion over about 0 years.  i do not think that is unreasonable in any way when you consider the returns.   #  it takes them from a cost to social services and food stamps to 0 earning in high paying stem which helps our economy and they pay $0,0 every year, in taxes.   #  there are some other concepts to add to this.  currently the stock market has around 0 of all trades are executed by a computer algorithm.  this creates deliberate patterns where the computer program is trying to move very quickly really fast, like 0 tenths of a second .  this computer volatility makes the market swing erratically and very very quickly.  there was a  flash crash  where somehow the market collapsed in on itself and no one can work out why, but they know that the algorithms caused it.  this extra tax was introduced i.  the uk and several other countries and it has reduced the volatility.  so the same tax causes more financial stability.  this tax only impacts investors who can more than afford 0c for each $0 trade.  that is the robin hood tax.  next item to be aware of is that on average, a high school grad will earn half what a uni grad will earn.  so for each grad that exists, we all earn 0x more tax on them.  at the moment, the it sector is crying out for programmers and people who work in it earn around 0 0x the avg salary.  historically we have had free uni, and the financial rewards that hit the economy were immense.  0 % of all the income we make is spent on defense.  we spent more on defenseman than the next 0 countries combined.  0 is spent on education and social services.  one community education program is for the unemployed.  they have an 0 hire rate after training and that is to jobs like a $0k per year computer job.  this means instead of having poor youth in crap unemployment and with little hope, and many leading into crime and jail us has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world , they are employed.  that costs $0,0 per student.  it takes them from a cost to social services and food stamps to 0 earning in high paying stem which helps our economy and they pay $0,0 every year, in taxes.  that seems smart to me.   #  the team salary becomes irrelevant at that level and if we are creating more high value stuff then we keep earning as a country.   #  not in a global market.  if one country has a lot of solar engineers and programmers then they are going to get higher paying jobs.  in tech you often have examples where a small team say 0 have created a tool that disrupts millions of classified ads, and were making $0m profit per employee.  the team salary becomes irrelevant at that level and if we are creating more high value stuff then we keep earning as a country.  compared to low educated places,they simply can never see more than 0 0k value.  even then they are not delivering as much value.   #  even then they are not delivering as much value.   # if one country has a lot of solar engineers and programmers then they are going to get higher paying jobs.  even then they are not delivering as much value.  your point about a global market actually proves the opposite of what you are saying: take a look at india.  the country is awash with engineers and computer science degree holders.  you know what the result is ? they get  lower  paying jobs than the average american yes, cost of living is lower in india, but the end result is that the higher cost american cs graduate is out of a job whereas 0 indian cs degree holders are now holding a job.  in fact, the global market is a great example of what happens when you saturate the market with a lot of engineers and programmers they end up being common and less valuable, and thus can be acquired for less.  in addition, a country with more solar engineers is not going to get more high paying jobs if there is not  demand  for said solar engineers.  there are upper limits on all of these things for the same reason a region will only have so many construction contractors, garbagemen, etc.  the same applies with engineers.  take a look at nuclear engineers and how regulations/moratoriums on new construction have shrunk their employment opportunities and earning potentials considerably.
this is probably because i am really bad at understanding politics and do not totally know what sanders wants to do.  but the money for free college would come from taxes, correct ? does that mean that taxes would get raised or that he would just alter around the spending the government does ? because if taxes are going to get raised that means i have to pay for my own loans that are going to take 0 years plus extra taxes so people can go for free ? that is not fair and while it seems nice, i do not have the money for that.  nor, i am sure, do most americans.  and what happens with private institutions ? does that mean through my taxes i am paying for someone to go a $0,0 school when i could not go to one myself because i could not afford it ? maybe that seems selfish, but that does not seem fair.  and the government should not be able to force me to pay so other people can get an easier life when i myself did not get that chance.  by the way, i know i am already being forced to pay for things i do not want, but should not we be trying to lessen those instances instead of adding to them ? i mean, on paper his idea sounds great.  free college, a better educated america, a more economically even country.  yay.  but that does not come for free.  and just because i am finally out of school and making a semi decent wage does not mean i should have to pay for other people.  i guess that means i am anti socialism ? is there maybe any other way that this could be accomplished ? like just lessening the cost of college somehow instead of totally free ?  #  does that mean through my taxes i am paying for someone to go a $0,0 school when i could not go to one myself because i could not afford it ?  #  if all non loan financial aid programs were instead applied to public university tuition, then this situation would not occur.   # to put it simply, it does not have to all come from taxes.  according to this article URL $0 billion dollars was spent on tuition at public colleges in one year, which is less than the $0 billion spent on non loan financial aid programs in one year: pell grants, tax breaks, and work study funding.  this provides an empirical possibility that  the us federal government could spend less money on making public college tuition free than providing non loan financial aid .  if all non loan financial aid programs were instead applied to public university tuition, then this situation would not occur.  the growth rate of federal financial aid already exceed public tuition increases, and you are already paying for federal loan subsidies and indirectly paying for the increasingly tougher debt that students have.  less loans will need to be taken out if public tuition is free, and thus having to  pay for other people  will be decreased.   #  the estimated costs are $0 billion over about 0 years.   #  first, i would like to point out the exact taxes proposed for this, because unlike many politicians when they introduce an idea like this, bernie has actual detailed exactly how to pay for this.  i see a lot of speculation mentioned in this thread, but no mention of the actual numbers that bernie has released.  i point these specifics out because of how small they are, and how much they are generating in return.  the idea that something as hugely as expensive as this could be covered with the tiniest of taxes puts a lot of our other problems into perspective.  URL   this legislation will establish a partnership with states by developing a matching grant program   which would provide $0 in federal funding for every dollar that states spend on making tuition free higher   education in public colleges and universities.  and, that is the incredibly oppressive   burden of crushing student loan debt.  it makes no sense to me that   americans can refinance their homes when interest rates are low, and that somebody can purchase a car at   two percent interest rates, but millions of college graduates are stuck with interest rates of 0, 0, 0 percent   0   sometimes for decades.  that makes no sense.  that is grossly unfair.  this bill would cut student loan   interest rates in half and lower the rate to about 0 percent for undergraduates.  the federal government   should not be profiting off of student loans provided to low and moderate income families   my legislation would impose a wall street speculation fee of 0 percent on stock trades that is   0 cents for every $0 worth of stock , a 0 percent fee on bonds, and a 0 percent fee on   derivatives.  this would generate approximately $0 billion per year, to pay for this.  the estimated costs are $0 billion over about 0 years.  i do not think that is unreasonable in any way when you consider the returns.   #  this computer volatility makes the market swing erratically and very very quickly.   #  there are some other concepts to add to this.  currently the stock market has around 0 of all trades are executed by a computer algorithm.  this creates deliberate patterns where the computer program is trying to move very quickly really fast, like 0 tenths of a second .  this computer volatility makes the market swing erratically and very very quickly.  there was a  flash crash  where somehow the market collapsed in on itself and no one can work out why, but they know that the algorithms caused it.  this extra tax was introduced i.  the uk and several other countries and it has reduced the volatility.  so the same tax causes more financial stability.  this tax only impacts investors who can more than afford 0c for each $0 trade.  that is the robin hood tax.  next item to be aware of is that on average, a high school grad will earn half what a uni grad will earn.  so for each grad that exists, we all earn 0x more tax on them.  at the moment, the it sector is crying out for programmers and people who work in it earn around 0 0x the avg salary.  historically we have had free uni, and the financial rewards that hit the economy were immense.  0 % of all the income we make is spent on defense.  we spent more on defenseman than the next 0 countries combined.  0 is spent on education and social services.  one community education program is for the unemployed.  they have an 0 hire rate after training and that is to jobs like a $0k per year computer job.  this means instead of having poor youth in crap unemployment and with little hope, and many leading into crime and jail us has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world , they are employed.  that costs $0,0 per student.  it takes them from a cost to social services and food stamps to 0 earning in high paying stem which helps our economy and they pay $0,0 every year, in taxes.  that seems smart to me.   #  the team salary becomes irrelevant at that level and if we are creating more high value stuff then we keep earning as a country.   #  not in a global market.  if one country has a lot of solar engineers and programmers then they are going to get higher paying jobs.  in tech you often have examples where a small team say 0 have created a tool that disrupts millions of classified ads, and were making $0m profit per employee.  the team salary becomes irrelevant at that level and if we are creating more high value stuff then we keep earning as a country.  compared to low educated places,they simply can never see more than 0 0k value.  even then they are not delivering as much value.   #  if one country has a lot of solar engineers and programmers then they are going to get higher paying jobs.   # if one country has a lot of solar engineers and programmers then they are going to get higher paying jobs.  even then they are not delivering as much value.  your point about a global market actually proves the opposite of what you are saying: take a look at india.  the country is awash with engineers and computer science degree holders.  you know what the result is ? they get  lower  paying jobs than the average american yes, cost of living is lower in india, but the end result is that the higher cost american cs graduate is out of a job whereas 0 indian cs degree holders are now holding a job.  in fact, the global market is a great example of what happens when you saturate the market with a lot of engineers and programmers they end up being common and less valuable, and thus can be acquired for less.  in addition, a country with more solar engineers is not going to get more high paying jobs if there is not  demand  for said solar engineers.  there are upper limits on all of these things for the same reason a region will only have so many construction contractors, garbagemen, etc.  the same applies with engineers.  take a look at nuclear engineers and how regulations/moratoriums on new construction have shrunk their employment opportunities and earning potentials considerably.
this is probably because i am really bad at understanding politics and do not totally know what sanders wants to do.  but the money for free college would come from taxes, correct ? does that mean that taxes would get raised or that he would just alter around the spending the government does ? because if taxes are going to get raised that means i have to pay for my own loans that are going to take 0 years plus extra taxes so people can go for free ? that is not fair and while it seems nice, i do not have the money for that.  nor, i am sure, do most americans.  and what happens with private institutions ? does that mean through my taxes i am paying for someone to go a $0,0 school when i could not go to one myself because i could not afford it ? maybe that seems selfish, but that does not seem fair.  and the government should not be able to force me to pay so other people can get an easier life when i myself did not get that chance.  by the way, i know i am already being forced to pay for things i do not want, but should not we be trying to lessen those instances instead of adding to them ? i mean, on paper his idea sounds great.  free college, a better educated america, a more economically even country.  yay.  but that does not come for free.  and just because i am finally out of school and making a semi decent wage does not mean i should have to pay for other people.  i guess that means i am anti socialism ? is there maybe any other way that this could be accomplished ? like just lessening the cost of college somehow instead of totally free ?  #  and just because i am finally out of school and making a semi decent wage does not mean i should have to pay for other people.   #  the growth rate of federal financial aid already exceed public tuition increases, and you are already paying for federal loan subsidies and indirectly paying for the increasingly tougher debt that students have.   # to put it simply, it does not have to all come from taxes.  according to this article URL $0 billion dollars was spent on tuition at public colleges in one year, which is less than the $0 billion spent on non loan financial aid programs in one year: pell grants, tax breaks, and work study funding.  this provides an empirical possibility that  the us federal government could spend less money on making public college tuition free than providing non loan financial aid .  if all non loan financial aid programs were instead applied to public university tuition, then this situation would not occur.  the growth rate of federal financial aid already exceed public tuition increases, and you are already paying for federal loan subsidies and indirectly paying for the increasingly tougher debt that students have.  less loans will need to be taken out if public tuition is free, and thus having to  pay for other people  will be decreased.   #  i point these specifics out because of how small they are, and how much they are generating in return.   #  first, i would like to point out the exact taxes proposed for this, because unlike many politicians when they introduce an idea like this, bernie has actual detailed exactly how to pay for this.  i see a lot of speculation mentioned in this thread, but no mention of the actual numbers that bernie has released.  i point these specifics out because of how small they are, and how much they are generating in return.  the idea that something as hugely as expensive as this could be covered with the tiniest of taxes puts a lot of our other problems into perspective.  URL   this legislation will establish a partnership with states by developing a matching grant program   which would provide $0 in federal funding for every dollar that states spend on making tuition free higher   education in public colleges and universities.  and, that is the incredibly oppressive   burden of crushing student loan debt.  it makes no sense to me that   americans can refinance their homes when interest rates are low, and that somebody can purchase a car at   two percent interest rates, but millions of college graduates are stuck with interest rates of 0, 0, 0 percent   0   sometimes for decades.  that makes no sense.  that is grossly unfair.  this bill would cut student loan   interest rates in half and lower the rate to about 0 percent for undergraduates.  the federal government   should not be profiting off of student loans provided to low and moderate income families   my legislation would impose a wall street speculation fee of 0 percent on stock trades that is   0 cents for every $0 worth of stock , a 0 percent fee on bonds, and a 0 percent fee on   derivatives.  this would generate approximately $0 billion per year, to pay for this.  the estimated costs are $0 billion over about 0 years.  i do not think that is unreasonable in any way when you consider the returns.   #  this creates deliberate patterns where the computer program is trying to move very quickly really fast, like 0 tenths of a second .   #  there are some other concepts to add to this.  currently the stock market has around 0 of all trades are executed by a computer algorithm.  this creates deliberate patterns where the computer program is trying to move very quickly really fast, like 0 tenths of a second .  this computer volatility makes the market swing erratically and very very quickly.  there was a  flash crash  where somehow the market collapsed in on itself and no one can work out why, but they know that the algorithms caused it.  this extra tax was introduced i.  the uk and several other countries and it has reduced the volatility.  so the same tax causes more financial stability.  this tax only impacts investors who can more than afford 0c for each $0 trade.  that is the robin hood tax.  next item to be aware of is that on average, a high school grad will earn half what a uni grad will earn.  so for each grad that exists, we all earn 0x more tax on them.  at the moment, the it sector is crying out for programmers and people who work in it earn around 0 0x the avg salary.  historically we have had free uni, and the financial rewards that hit the economy were immense.  0 % of all the income we make is spent on defense.  we spent more on defenseman than the next 0 countries combined.  0 is spent on education and social services.  one community education program is for the unemployed.  they have an 0 hire rate after training and that is to jobs like a $0k per year computer job.  this means instead of having poor youth in crap unemployment and with little hope, and many leading into crime and jail us has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world , they are employed.  that costs $0,0 per student.  it takes them from a cost to social services and food stamps to 0 earning in high paying stem which helps our economy and they pay $0,0 every year, in taxes.  that seems smart to me.   #  if one country has a lot of solar engineers and programmers then they are going to get higher paying jobs.   #  not in a global market.  if one country has a lot of solar engineers and programmers then they are going to get higher paying jobs.  in tech you often have examples where a small team say 0 have created a tool that disrupts millions of classified ads, and were making $0m profit per employee.  the team salary becomes irrelevant at that level and if we are creating more high value stuff then we keep earning as a country.  compared to low educated places,they simply can never see more than 0 0k value.  even then they are not delivering as much value.   #  in fact, the global market is a great example of what happens when you saturate the market with a lot of engineers and programmers they end up being common and less valuable, and thus can be acquired for less.   # if one country has a lot of solar engineers and programmers then they are going to get higher paying jobs.  even then they are not delivering as much value.  your point about a global market actually proves the opposite of what you are saying: take a look at india.  the country is awash with engineers and computer science degree holders.  you know what the result is ? they get  lower  paying jobs than the average american yes, cost of living is lower in india, but the end result is that the higher cost american cs graduate is out of a job whereas 0 indian cs degree holders are now holding a job.  in fact, the global market is a great example of what happens when you saturate the market with a lot of engineers and programmers they end up being common and less valuable, and thus can be acquired for less.  in addition, a country with more solar engineers is not going to get more high paying jobs if there is not  demand  for said solar engineers.  there are upper limits on all of these things for the same reason a region will only have so many construction contractors, garbagemen, etc.  the same applies with engineers.  take a look at nuclear engineers and how regulations/moratoriums on new construction have shrunk their employment opportunities and earning potentials considerably.
this is probably because i am really bad at understanding politics and do not totally know what sanders wants to do.  but the money for free college would come from taxes, correct ? does that mean that taxes would get raised or that he would just alter around the spending the government does ? because if taxes are going to get raised that means i have to pay for my own loans that are going to take 0 years plus extra taxes so people can go for free ? that is not fair and while it seems nice, i do not have the money for that.  nor, i am sure, do most americans.  and what happens with private institutions ? does that mean through my taxes i am paying for someone to go a $0,0 school when i could not go to one myself because i could not afford it ? maybe that seems selfish, but that does not seem fair.  and the government should not be able to force me to pay so other people can get an easier life when i myself did not get that chance.  by the way, i know i am already being forced to pay for things i do not want, but should not we be trying to lessen those instances instead of adding to them ? i mean, on paper his idea sounds great.  free college, a better educated america, a more economically even country.  yay.  but that does not come for free.  and just because i am finally out of school and making a semi decent wage does not mean i should have to pay for other people.  i guess that means i am anti socialism ? is there maybe any other way that this could be accomplished ? like just lessening the cost of college somehow instead of totally free ?  #  i guess that means i am anti socialism ?  #  i think it just means you are against raising money for this by increasing taxes across the board.   #  the great thing about sanders is that he mostly is not making vague promises, he is actually putting these proposals forward in legislative bills.  you can read a summary of the relevant bill here URL   but the money for free college would come from taxes, correct ? does that mean that taxes would get raised.  ? yes, he would raise a tax, but not on you, probably.  from the summary:   fully paid for by imposing a robin hood tax on wall street.  this   legislation is offset by imposing a wall street speculation fee on   investment houses, hedge funds, and other speculators of 0 on stock   trades 0 cents for every $0 worth of stock , a 0 fee on bonds,   and a 0 fee on derivatives.  it has been estimated that this   provision could raise hundreds of billions a year which could be used   not only to make tuition free at public colleges and universities in   this country, it could also be used to create millions of jobs and   rebuild the middle class of this country back to you:   and what happens with private institutions ? this funding would only apply to public colleges and universities.  i think it just means you are against raising money for this by increasing taxes across the board.  but there are  many  taxes which could be imposed with almost no effect on people is lives, even the lives of those being taxed.   #  the estimated costs are $0 billion over about 0 years.   #  first, i would like to point out the exact taxes proposed for this, because unlike many politicians when they introduce an idea like this, bernie has actual detailed exactly how to pay for this.  i see a lot of speculation mentioned in this thread, but no mention of the actual numbers that bernie has released.  i point these specifics out because of how small they are, and how much they are generating in return.  the idea that something as hugely as expensive as this could be covered with the tiniest of taxes puts a lot of our other problems into perspective.  URL   this legislation will establish a partnership with states by developing a matching grant program   which would provide $0 in federal funding for every dollar that states spend on making tuition free higher   education in public colleges and universities.  and, that is the incredibly oppressive   burden of crushing student loan debt.  it makes no sense to me that   americans can refinance their homes when interest rates are low, and that somebody can purchase a car at   two percent interest rates, but millions of college graduates are stuck with interest rates of 0, 0, 0 percent   0   sometimes for decades.  that makes no sense.  that is grossly unfair.  this bill would cut student loan   interest rates in half and lower the rate to about 0 percent for undergraduates.  the federal government   should not be profiting off of student loans provided to low and moderate income families   my legislation would impose a wall street speculation fee of 0 percent on stock trades that is   0 cents for every $0 worth of stock , a 0 percent fee on bonds, and a 0 percent fee on   derivatives.  this would generate approximately $0 billion per year, to pay for this.  the estimated costs are $0 billion over about 0 years.  i do not think that is unreasonable in any way when you consider the returns.   #  so the same tax causes more financial stability.   #  there are some other concepts to add to this.  currently the stock market has around 0 of all trades are executed by a computer algorithm.  this creates deliberate patterns where the computer program is trying to move very quickly really fast, like 0 tenths of a second .  this computer volatility makes the market swing erratically and very very quickly.  there was a  flash crash  where somehow the market collapsed in on itself and no one can work out why, but they know that the algorithms caused it.  this extra tax was introduced i.  the uk and several other countries and it has reduced the volatility.  so the same tax causes more financial stability.  this tax only impacts investors who can more than afford 0c for each $0 trade.  that is the robin hood tax.  next item to be aware of is that on average, a high school grad will earn half what a uni grad will earn.  so for each grad that exists, we all earn 0x more tax on them.  at the moment, the it sector is crying out for programmers and people who work in it earn around 0 0x the avg salary.  historically we have had free uni, and the financial rewards that hit the economy were immense.  0 % of all the income we make is spent on defense.  we spent more on defenseman than the next 0 countries combined.  0 is spent on education and social services.  one community education program is for the unemployed.  they have an 0 hire rate after training and that is to jobs like a $0k per year computer job.  this means instead of having poor youth in crap unemployment and with little hope, and many leading into crime and jail us has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world , they are employed.  that costs $0,0 per student.  it takes them from a cost to social services and food stamps to 0 earning in high paying stem which helps our economy and they pay $0,0 every year, in taxes.  that seems smart to me.   #  if one country has a lot of solar engineers and programmers then they are going to get higher paying jobs.   #  not in a global market.  if one country has a lot of solar engineers and programmers then they are going to get higher paying jobs.  in tech you often have examples where a small team say 0 have created a tool that disrupts millions of classified ads, and were making $0m profit per employee.  the team salary becomes irrelevant at that level and if we are creating more high value stuff then we keep earning as a country.  compared to low educated places,they simply can never see more than 0 0k value.  even then they are not delivering as much value.   #  in addition, a country with more solar engineers is not going to get more high paying jobs if there is not  demand  for said solar engineers.   # if one country has a lot of solar engineers and programmers then they are going to get higher paying jobs.  even then they are not delivering as much value.  your point about a global market actually proves the opposite of what you are saying: take a look at india.  the country is awash with engineers and computer science degree holders.  you know what the result is ? they get  lower  paying jobs than the average american yes, cost of living is lower in india, but the end result is that the higher cost american cs graduate is out of a job whereas 0 indian cs degree holders are now holding a job.  in fact, the global market is a great example of what happens when you saturate the market with a lot of engineers and programmers they end up being common and less valuable, and thus can be acquired for less.  in addition, a country with more solar engineers is not going to get more high paying jobs if there is not  demand  for said solar engineers.  there are upper limits on all of these things for the same reason a region will only have so many construction contractors, garbagemen, etc.  the same applies with engineers.  take a look at nuclear engineers and how regulations/moratoriums on new construction have shrunk their employment opportunities and earning potentials considerably.
this is probably because i am really bad at understanding politics and do not totally know what sanders wants to do.  but the money for free college would come from taxes, correct ? does that mean that taxes would get raised or that he would just alter around the spending the government does ? because if taxes are going to get raised that means i have to pay for my own loans that are going to take 0 years plus extra taxes so people can go for free ? that is not fair and while it seems nice, i do not have the money for that.  nor, i am sure, do most americans.  and what happens with private institutions ? does that mean through my taxes i am paying for someone to go a $0,0 school when i could not go to one myself because i could not afford it ? maybe that seems selfish, but that does not seem fair.  and the government should not be able to force me to pay so other people can get an easier life when i myself did not get that chance.  by the way, i know i am already being forced to pay for things i do not want, but should not we be trying to lessen those instances instead of adding to them ? i mean, on paper his idea sounds great.  free college, a better educated america, a more economically even country.  yay.  but that does not come for free.  and just because i am finally out of school and making a semi decent wage does not mean i should have to pay for other people.  i guess that means i am anti socialism ? is there maybe any other way that this could be accomplished ? like just lessening the cost of college somehow instead of totally free ?  #  does that mean through my taxes i am paying for someone to go a $0,0 school when i could not go to one myself because i could not afford it ?  #  maybe that seems selfish, but that does not seem fair.   # maybe that seems selfish, but that does not seem fair.  i think there is something deeply wrong about this notion.  good policy does not have to fix the past.  the idea that it needs to retroactively benefit your college finances is indeed selfish, and that is not ok.  it is easy to imagine how terrible our country would be if every generation had that attitude, holding back improvement just because they did not get the same treatment when they grew up.  imagine older black people saying  hey that is not fair,  i  did not get to vote when i was 0 so i do not like the voting rights act.   you can apply this to almost any policy.  whatever you already paid for college is a sunk cost for you individually.  that should not affect what is and what is not a good policy to have as a country.   #  i point these specifics out because of how small they are, and how much they are generating in return.   #  first, i would like to point out the exact taxes proposed for this, because unlike many politicians when they introduce an idea like this, bernie has actual detailed exactly how to pay for this.  i see a lot of speculation mentioned in this thread, but no mention of the actual numbers that bernie has released.  i point these specifics out because of how small they are, and how much they are generating in return.  the idea that something as hugely as expensive as this could be covered with the tiniest of taxes puts a lot of our other problems into perspective.  URL   this legislation will establish a partnership with states by developing a matching grant program   which would provide $0 in federal funding for every dollar that states spend on making tuition free higher   education in public colleges and universities.  and, that is the incredibly oppressive   burden of crushing student loan debt.  it makes no sense to me that   americans can refinance their homes when interest rates are low, and that somebody can purchase a car at   two percent interest rates, but millions of college graduates are stuck with interest rates of 0, 0, 0 percent   0   sometimes for decades.  that makes no sense.  that is grossly unfair.  this bill would cut student loan   interest rates in half and lower the rate to about 0 percent for undergraduates.  the federal government   should not be profiting off of student loans provided to low and moderate income families   my legislation would impose a wall street speculation fee of 0 percent on stock trades that is   0 cents for every $0 worth of stock , a 0 percent fee on bonds, and a 0 percent fee on   derivatives.  this would generate approximately $0 billion per year, to pay for this.  the estimated costs are $0 billion over about 0 years.  i do not think that is unreasonable in any way when you consider the returns.   #  currently the stock market has around 0 of all trades are executed by a computer algorithm.   #  there are some other concepts to add to this.  currently the stock market has around 0 of all trades are executed by a computer algorithm.  this creates deliberate patterns where the computer program is trying to move very quickly really fast, like 0 tenths of a second .  this computer volatility makes the market swing erratically and very very quickly.  there was a  flash crash  where somehow the market collapsed in on itself and no one can work out why, but they know that the algorithms caused it.  this extra tax was introduced i.  the uk and several other countries and it has reduced the volatility.  so the same tax causes more financial stability.  this tax only impacts investors who can more than afford 0c for each $0 trade.  that is the robin hood tax.  next item to be aware of is that on average, a high school grad will earn half what a uni grad will earn.  so for each grad that exists, we all earn 0x more tax on them.  at the moment, the it sector is crying out for programmers and people who work in it earn around 0 0x the avg salary.  historically we have had free uni, and the financial rewards that hit the economy were immense.  0 % of all the income we make is spent on defense.  we spent more on defenseman than the next 0 countries combined.  0 is spent on education and social services.  one community education program is for the unemployed.  they have an 0 hire rate after training and that is to jobs like a $0k per year computer job.  this means instead of having poor youth in crap unemployment and with little hope, and many leading into crime and jail us has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world , they are employed.  that costs $0,0 per student.  it takes them from a cost to social services and food stamps to 0 earning in high paying stem which helps our economy and they pay $0,0 every year, in taxes.  that seems smart to me.   #  if one country has a lot of solar engineers and programmers then they are going to get higher paying jobs.   #  not in a global market.  if one country has a lot of solar engineers and programmers then they are going to get higher paying jobs.  in tech you often have examples where a small team say 0 have created a tool that disrupts millions of classified ads, and were making $0m profit per employee.  the team salary becomes irrelevant at that level and if we are creating more high value stuff then we keep earning as a country.  compared to low educated places,they simply can never see more than 0 0k value.  even then they are not delivering as much value.   #  there are upper limits on all of these things for the same reason a region will only have so many construction contractors, garbagemen, etc.   # if one country has a lot of solar engineers and programmers then they are going to get higher paying jobs.  even then they are not delivering as much value.  your point about a global market actually proves the opposite of what you are saying: take a look at india.  the country is awash with engineers and computer science degree holders.  you know what the result is ? they get  lower  paying jobs than the average american yes, cost of living is lower in india, but the end result is that the higher cost american cs graduate is out of a job whereas 0 indian cs degree holders are now holding a job.  in fact, the global market is a great example of what happens when you saturate the market with a lot of engineers and programmers they end up being common and less valuable, and thus can be acquired for less.  in addition, a country with more solar engineers is not going to get more high paying jobs if there is not  demand  for said solar engineers.  there are upper limits on all of these things for the same reason a region will only have so many construction contractors, garbagemen, etc.  the same applies with engineers.  take a look at nuclear engineers and how regulations/moratoriums on new construction have shrunk their employment opportunities and earning potentials considerably.
this is probably because i am really bad at understanding politics and do not totally know what sanders wants to do.  but the money for free college would come from taxes, correct ? does that mean that taxes would get raised or that he would just alter around the spending the government does ? because if taxes are going to get raised that means i have to pay for my own loans that are going to take 0 years plus extra taxes so people can go for free ? that is not fair and while it seems nice, i do not have the money for that.  nor, i am sure, do most americans.  and what happens with private institutions ? does that mean through my taxes i am paying for someone to go a $0,0 school when i could not go to one myself because i could not afford it ? maybe that seems selfish, but that does not seem fair.  and the government should not be able to force me to pay so other people can get an easier life when i myself did not get that chance.  by the way, i know i am already being forced to pay for things i do not want, but should not we be trying to lessen those instances instead of adding to them ? i mean, on paper his idea sounds great.  free college, a better educated america, a more economically even country.  yay.  but that does not come for free.  and just because i am finally out of school and making a semi decent wage does not mean i should have to pay for other people.  i guess that means i am anti socialism ? is there maybe any other way that this could be accomplished ? like just lessening the cost of college somehow instead of totally free ?  #  but the money for free college would come from taxes, correct ?  #  does that mean that taxes would get raised or that he would just alter around the spending the government does ?  # does that mean that taxes would get raised or that he would just alter around the spending the government does ? they would probably get raised.  that is about right.  kinda sucks, does not it ? but you probably wo not actually pay extra, or at least, not much extra, because you are probably not going to be in the income brackets most affected.  and if they are federal loans, i would imagine that this kind of free college program would address that in other ways too.  but to address the basic concern here, you basically just have to get over yourself.  your taxes always go to other people.  that is how it is.  and in the case of a new program, they are going to other people and giving them benefits you did not get to have in the past.  are you going to oppose it out of spite ? does that mean through my taxes i am paying for someone to go a $0,0 school when i could not go to one myself because i could not afford it ? probably not.  in fact, i would go further and say this is batshit insane.  the government would  never  do anything this crazy even the republicans are not crazy enough for something like this .  only  some  public institutions would likely be covered anyway.  by the way, obama has already stated that he would like to see free community colleges.  that is probably the extent of it, though maybe state schools could be free er as well.   #  first, i would like to point out the exact taxes proposed for this, because unlike many politicians when they introduce an idea like this, bernie has actual detailed exactly how to pay for this.   #  first, i would like to point out the exact taxes proposed for this, because unlike many politicians when they introduce an idea like this, bernie has actual detailed exactly how to pay for this.  i see a lot of speculation mentioned in this thread, but no mention of the actual numbers that bernie has released.  i point these specifics out because of how small they are, and how much they are generating in return.  the idea that something as hugely as expensive as this could be covered with the tiniest of taxes puts a lot of our other problems into perspective.  URL   this legislation will establish a partnership with states by developing a matching grant program   which would provide $0 in federal funding for every dollar that states spend on making tuition free higher   education in public colleges and universities.  and, that is the incredibly oppressive   burden of crushing student loan debt.  it makes no sense to me that   americans can refinance their homes when interest rates are low, and that somebody can purchase a car at   two percent interest rates, but millions of college graduates are stuck with interest rates of 0, 0, 0 percent   0   sometimes for decades.  that makes no sense.  that is grossly unfair.  this bill would cut student loan   interest rates in half and lower the rate to about 0 percent for undergraduates.  the federal government   should not be profiting off of student loans provided to low and moderate income families   my legislation would impose a wall street speculation fee of 0 percent on stock trades that is   0 cents for every $0 worth of stock , a 0 percent fee on bonds, and a 0 percent fee on   derivatives.  this would generate approximately $0 billion per year, to pay for this.  the estimated costs are $0 billion over about 0 years.  i do not think that is unreasonable in any way when you consider the returns.   #  one community education program is for the unemployed.   #  there are some other concepts to add to this.  currently the stock market has around 0 of all trades are executed by a computer algorithm.  this creates deliberate patterns where the computer program is trying to move very quickly really fast, like 0 tenths of a second .  this computer volatility makes the market swing erratically and very very quickly.  there was a  flash crash  where somehow the market collapsed in on itself and no one can work out why, but they know that the algorithms caused it.  this extra tax was introduced i.  the uk and several other countries and it has reduced the volatility.  so the same tax causes more financial stability.  this tax only impacts investors who can more than afford 0c for each $0 trade.  that is the robin hood tax.  next item to be aware of is that on average, a high school grad will earn half what a uni grad will earn.  so for each grad that exists, we all earn 0x more tax on them.  at the moment, the it sector is crying out for programmers and people who work in it earn around 0 0x the avg salary.  historically we have had free uni, and the financial rewards that hit the economy were immense.  0 % of all the income we make is spent on defense.  we spent more on defenseman than the next 0 countries combined.  0 is spent on education and social services.  one community education program is for the unemployed.  they have an 0 hire rate after training and that is to jobs like a $0k per year computer job.  this means instead of having poor youth in crap unemployment and with little hope, and many leading into crime and jail us has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world , they are employed.  that costs $0,0 per student.  it takes them from a cost to social services and food stamps to 0 earning in high paying stem which helps our economy and they pay $0,0 every year, in taxes.  that seems smart to me.   #  the team salary becomes irrelevant at that level and if we are creating more high value stuff then we keep earning as a country.   #  not in a global market.  if one country has a lot of solar engineers and programmers then they are going to get higher paying jobs.  in tech you often have examples where a small team say 0 have created a tool that disrupts millions of classified ads, and were making $0m profit per employee.  the team salary becomes irrelevant at that level and if we are creating more high value stuff then we keep earning as a country.  compared to low educated places,they simply can never see more than 0 0k value.  even then they are not delivering as much value.   #  take a look at nuclear engineers and how regulations/moratoriums on new construction have shrunk their employment opportunities and earning potentials considerably.   # if one country has a lot of solar engineers and programmers then they are going to get higher paying jobs.  even then they are not delivering as much value.  your point about a global market actually proves the opposite of what you are saying: take a look at india.  the country is awash with engineers and computer science degree holders.  you know what the result is ? they get  lower  paying jobs than the average american yes, cost of living is lower in india, but the end result is that the higher cost american cs graduate is out of a job whereas 0 indian cs degree holders are now holding a job.  in fact, the global market is a great example of what happens when you saturate the market with a lot of engineers and programmers they end up being common and less valuable, and thus can be acquired for less.  in addition, a country with more solar engineers is not going to get more high paying jobs if there is not  demand  for said solar engineers.  there are upper limits on all of these things for the same reason a region will only have so many construction contractors, garbagemen, etc.  the same applies with engineers.  take a look at nuclear engineers and how regulations/moratoriums on new construction have shrunk their employment opportunities and earning potentials considerably.
first of, this is only talking about people who are vegetarians/vegans for ethical reasons.  if you are a vegetarian for any other reason, this does not apply being a vegetarian is more expensive than eating meat.  therefore, you need to get this money from elsewhere.  this ultimately ends in a society having less money/resources, which they can give to the poor.  thus, you are kind of killing humans in trying to save animals.  so vegetarians are basically putting other species of animals above their own, which i would say is objectively bad.  of course, this is not how society works, you are not directly killing people by being a vegetarian, but you are not directly helping animals either, so that is not an argument.  i fail to see any argument against this.  what about you ?  #  being a vegetarian is more expensive than eating meat.   #  this is an unsupported and as far as i can tell, incorrect assumption, and without it the rest of your  economic  argument falls apart.   # this is an unsupported and as far as i can tell, incorrect assumption, and without it the rest of your  economic  argument falls apart.  and i say economic because you are focused on the potential utility costs of the diet, but that is not what wholly goes into an  ethical  position, which your argument is supposed to be about  only talking about people who are vegetarians/vegans for ethical reasons  .  an ethical argument can be much more nuanced than straight up monetary utility.  as an easy example, many mentally and/or physically impaired people are overall drains on the economy is it ethical to kill them off to reallocate resources elsewhere ? what of the elderly or chronically ill ? if a vegetarian believes that right to life is a cornerstone of their ethical framework, and that animals should be afforded this right similar to humans, then they can ethically believe that animals should not be terminated even if society must bare some cost by changing diet.  of course, i think one would be hard pressed to support an argument that eating meat is cheaper than eating vegetarian.  there are plenty of dirt cheap vegetarian sources of cheap protein such as rice  beans, buckwheat, soy products, etc.  , and a large segment of the impoverished world makes due with these staples and very little meat.   #  thus, you are kind of killing humans in trying to produce meat.   #  not a vegetarian myself but by the same reasoning: plants are lower on the food chain than animals.  meat production costs more energy/resources due to the animals  metabolism, incomplete digestion, etc.  this ultimately ends in our planet having less energy/resources that can be utilized, which can be used to help the poor.  thus, you are kind of killing humans in trying to produce meat.  so meat eaters are basically putting their own dietary preferences above their own survival, which i would say is objectively bad.   #  let is say it costs $0 dollar to buy someone a mosquito net, including overhead costs i think the actual amount is closer to $0, but that is not the point .   #  sure it is.  let is say it costs $0 dollar to buy someone a mosquito net, including overhead costs i think the actual amount is closer to $0, but that is not the point .  if you use your $0 to do this, you have effectively saved a life one person does not die of malaria .  if you do not do this, somewhere on earth, a person gets malaria and probably dies.  this might be uncomfortable to hear and as i said, i do not expect anyone to actually donate all their money in order to not be evil, but the causal link between donating money and saving a life is definitely there.  just like the causal link between pulling a drowning person out of the water and saving a life.   #  as soon as my situation changes enough, i will stop eating meat.   #  it could.  personally, i eat meat because my situation does not allow otherwise.  it would be terribly inconvenient to not eat meat due to a variety of reasons.  this is not true for most people and it wo not be true for me in the future.  as soon as my situation changes enough, i will stop eating meat.  i do not necessarily believe that all people should take the morally optimal option all the time, but that does not mean that not eating meat is morally optimal.   #  you would be saving animals a lot of pain by skipping meat.   #  sure you are.  not eating meat saves a lot of persons.  if you refrain from eating tuna, for example, you are saving dolphins which i would argue are also persons .  since meat is pretty expensive, it increases your donation budget, which as both you and i pointed out elsewhere, does save other people.  meat production is also responsible for a lot of pollution, which does not  directly  saves people, but decreasing pollution has a lot of health effects and will save tons of people in the long wrong.  on top of that, most animals we consume in the west do feel pain.  now, i do not consider this pain as important as the pain of sapient beings e. g humans , but it is stil suffering that is not strictly needed.  you would be saving animals a lot of pain by skipping meat.  even if you consider the moral value of a chicken to be very small, there are enough chickens that this would make a difference.  and i said i do not think that people should act morally optimal  all of the time.  that does not mean they should not act morally at all, especially when acting morally is not particularly inconvenient.  being a vegetarian is not inconvenient after, maybe, the first two weeks because you need to figure out new recipes.
you will notice there are two parts to mv, the first part is an  is  and the second is an  ought .  a.  reddit is americentric.  i define americentric reddit content to mean any content which assumes an american, not international, audience.  for the reddit community to be classed as americentric, it should have americentric content.  two recent examples of americentrism can be found here URL while it is likely the op was born in the us and still lives there, it is americentric for anyone to assume this or for the op to omit this if it is true and here URL  our coasts ,  the west coast , and  california beaches  are all americentric, since other coasts, wests coasts URL and californias URL exist .  b.  reddit should become less americentric.  the internet is a big place, and reddit is no small part of it.  reddit is used by more than just people from the americas, and it should therefore be a place which fully welcomes users from all parts of the world.  a small but courteous step towards this end would be to ensure content is less americentric and more international.   #  for the reddit community to be classed as americentric, it should have americentric content.   #  by that definition it should also be eurocentric.   # again it was not an attack.  i am trying to establish the situation.  to be fair, your definition expanded.  yet despite hundreds of thousands of users posting regional centric threads, these other subs do not bother you.  i will give you the benefit of the doubt and presume on your behalf that it is because their content is clarified and their positions established.  in other words i will assume it is because it is expected there.  but it goes into my next point.  i have given you links and lists and at least a dozen examples, and i have not excluded data detrimental to my position.  but i ca not debate anecdotes and suspicions.  which.  leads to my next point.  if so, how do you think that affects your judgement of  offensively pervasive  ? distinguishable from random and/or above the baseline of what i would imagine a neutral person would peg it at.  by that definition it should also be eurocentric.  asiacentric.  africentric.  and whatever is going on in /r/explainlikeiama.  if the existance of  any  americentric content is enough to classify reddit itself as americentric, and if an americentric reddit ought to be defeated, then it follows that  every single piece of americentric content must be removed .  if that is your view, i ca not change it.   #  it all boils down to representing demographics, or perhaps more accurately the demographics representing themselves.   #  the second part of your argument makes no sense to me.  why exactly should reddit be less americentric ? its a large internet community, yes, but it only became so because people found and continue to find its content appealing.  the website itself does not spontaneously generate content.  second of all, content is produced and curated by users.  it makes sense, then, that region specific content will roughly correlate to the number of users from that area.  if you want more australian content, either get more australians to join reddit, or post more yourself.  that said, i see quite a lot of content from other countries here certainly a lot more than on any other websites i frequent.  furthermore, consider the actual structure of the site.  while reddit is a community unto itself in some ways, it is often, and perhaps more accurately described as a collection of smaller communities: subreddits.  can you say, then, that /r/denmark is americentric ? it all boils down to representing demographics, or perhaps more accurately the demographics representing themselves.   #  is this really a reddit. com issue, or a general human sociology issue you are arguing ?  #  i have read the responses you linked, but i do not think they properly address my points, especially my points about subreddits and user driven content.  for instance, what exactly do you mean by the  core  of reddit ? the front page subs are usually quite broad or universal topics, and are in any case primarily determined by popularity.  what exactly counts as  funny  on /r/funny metareddit jokes aside is up to anyone, american or otherwise, to vote on.  all you have really shown, after all, is that many americans can be americentric, and that many redditors are american.  i am still curious, as well, as to  why  you think reddit should be less americentric.  also, how would such a thing come about ? is this really a reddit. com issue, or a general human sociology issue you are arguing ? does your argument also apply to the very non american communities, like /r/denmark, mentioned earlier, and other such places ?  #  but this does not answer my question, and in fact raises further questions: is your stance based on anything other than intuition ?  #  it is not stated clearly, or i would not have to ask.  it is quite a vague implication your making.  the only actual explanation for a  why  that i can find in either the op or the post you linked is that you believe that reddit turns away members because it has americentric components.  but this does not answer my question, and in fact raises further questions: is your stance based on anything other than intuition ? how can you know that making reddit more  international  would a encourage others to join and b not turn away some, if not an equal or larger number of people ?  should  all groups inherently strive to include as many people as possible ? why ?  #  when an international user sees  the west coast of california, in the usa  as opposed to  the west coast  they might feel like they are in a more international environment, but they are not.   #  it does not cater exclusively to it is majority, users simply cater to themselves.  reddit is made up of user generated comments, and the bulk of those users are from america, and are probably speaking to or, at least, intending to speak to, an audience that is similar to themselves.  the structure of this makes a mistake that a lot of folks seeking to increase inclusion end up making.  rather than the minority party behaving differently, creating their own community, or striving to become a majority, they ask the exiting power structure the majority controls for concessions.  the problem with that is that it leaves the majority in control, and does not supply the minority with what they seek: a forum wherein they are in control, are the ones making or not making concessions.  if it happens, you still wo not have an international forum, you will still have an overwhelmingly american point of view, you will just have everybody pretending that reddit is more international than it is.  whatever problems you seek to solve with a more international demeanor, they wo not change, because demeanor is not necessarially substance.  the american hegemony would still be in control of reddit.  when an international user sees  the west coast of california, in the usa  as opposed to  the west coast  they might feel like they are in a more international environment, but they are not.
this is something that is struck me as a little odd for a while now.  i believe that there is no difference in spirit between artificial selection and eugenics.  the idea behind both of them is to manipulate the distribution of genetic material.  some explanation: in artificial selection as , we manipulate which dog/cow/cat breeds and which does not.  the end goal appears to be the maintenance of a breed, as seen in the strict definition of breeds by the american kennel club.  furthermore, either based on observation over generations of dogs or perhaps even pure creativity, each breed has associated characteristics, such as loyalty, intelligence, playfulness, etc.  you can find all the defined breeds and associated characteristics here URL quite clearly then, as works.  we did, afterall, turn wolves into dogs, and no one in 0 will deny that a wolf is inherently different from a dog.  however, when the topic of eugenics artificial selection of humans comes up, it invariably devolves into accusations of racism and hatred.  probably in no small part thanks to the deeds of the nazi party, and the unadulterated racist motivations of past advocates of eugenics.  we already know in 0 that there are certain diseases that are purely the result of genetics.  some of these are horribly debilitating and fatal, such as cystic fibrosis, which affects something like 0,0 people in the us alone.  thus, i posit the argument that controlling breeding based on genetics can help mitigate the spread of such diseases.  secondly, if we can breed dogs to have certain characteristics, such as loyalty, playfulness, etc. , there is no reason that we cannot do the same to humans.  i strongly believe that we can breed out crime, stupidity, and other social ills simply by focusing the species  breeding program on  desirable  characteristics, such as intelligence see genetic factors in intelligence , altruism see biological argument for altruism, etc.  , etc.  etc.  of course, there is the fear that with eugenics and the manipulation of breeding for  desirable  characteristics will lead to a society ala gattaca.  i have no doubt that these superior humans will end up occupying the upper echelons of society.  but yet, one cannot deny that this ultimately serves the greater good of the species.  i think i have written enough on the matter for now.  cmv.   #  secondly, if we can breed dogs to have certain characteristics, such as loyalty, playfulness, etc. , there is no reason that we cannot do the same to humans.   #  i strongly believe that we can breed out crime, stupidity, and other social ills simply by focusing the species  breeding program on  desirable  characteristics, such as intelligence see genetic factors in intelligence , altruism see biological argument for altruism, etc.   #  the issue with eugenics is in enforcement, not theory.  the idea behind modern liberal society is that persons have basic natural rights that no society can justifiably infringe.  a government imposed eugenics program would violate any number of basic human rights.  few people would disagree with voluntary  eugenics , or people making a choice to only breed with those people exhibiting certain genetic structures or choosing not to breed .  you may even be able to make an argument that people with certain genetic conditions  should not  breed.  but extending this to giving someone authority over another person is breeding rights would be absurd.  i strongly believe that we can breed out crime, stupidity, and other social ills simply by focusing the species  breeding program on  desirable  characteristics, such as intelligence see genetic factors in intelligence , altruism see biological argument for altruism, etc.  , etc.  etc.  it is highly unlikely that you could breed out factors with such strong sociological factors as crime.  if implementing this eugenics program means giving a central authority over every person is breeding rights, then this is nowhere near certain.   #  even so, my statement is that you cannot eliminate crime by focusing on intelligence alone, and intelligence may not even be the most efficient way to improve crime rates.   # perhaps the most notable example of modern eugenics is abortions that take place after pre natal screenings.  i stated as much in my post.  crime is highly correlated with general intelligence, which in turn is a highly heritable trait.  crime is just as highly if not moreso correlated with poverty.  also, intelligence is also influenced by family and social factors, with poor demographics scoring lower on iq tests which is not likely a result of genetics, but environment .  how much is contentious, to be sure, but it is not as if my statement was without any grounding.  even so, my statement is that you cannot eliminate crime by focusing on intelligence alone, and intelligence may not even be the most efficient way to improve crime rates.   #  it is merely sufficient that crime be reduced.   # please explain how you know this.  general intelligence is the heritable factor that highly predicts poverty and crime.  see this discussion URL for example, explaining that intelligence predicts crime even with socioeconomic status is controlled for.  i will briefly address the argument that smarter criminals evade capture.  beyond the discussion of self reported crime, i would also note that there is no indication we have a lot of unsolved crimes by some unknown cadre of genius master criminals.  the blank slate is a fiction.  i said it was highly heritable.  it is much more heritable than not, however, with heritability approaching 0 in adults age 0.  it is merely sufficient that crime be reduced.   #  i have also never stated that we are a blank slate.   #  i think we are talking past each other.  i never denied that intelligence was heritable, nor that it is linked to crime.  what i deny is the idea that the possible reductions in crime warrant a government enforced eugenics program.  i have also never stated that we are a blank slate.  my argument from the start was that the proper course of action for those concerned with crime would be sociological factors.   #  i frankly do not recall reproduction as a fundamental human right.   # why is that ? as i understand it, human traits tend to have two motivating forces.  the first being nurture, which is as you say, a sociological factor.  the second being nature, which includes genetics.  obviously, i would not dare suggest that if we just simply castrated all the criminals, crime would disappear.  that is preposterous at best.  however, given that half the problem is in nature, does it not demand at least a trial ? there is, afterall, no reason why we ca not employ a multi solution approach to a problem.  i am in no way suggesting that we cease all sociological approaches to solving crime.  only that we use both genetics and sociology to our advantage.  the idea behind modern liberal society is that persons have basic natural rights that no society can justifiably infringe.  a government imposed eugenics program would violate any number of basic human rights.  i frankly do not recall reproduction as a fundamental human right.  i am not proposing that the government round up all the undesirables and neuter them physically.  it is 0.  we have more than enough solutions to curb breeding that do not involve violence or inflicting physical pain.  for example, birth control pills.  the female birth control pill has been around for decades now, and the male version is just on the horizon.  we are entering an age where both sexes have the ability to never breed again, without any pain whatsoever.  an idea i have is perhaps putting the active ingredients of birth control medication in the water supply.  those who are  licensed to breed  so to speak will be given a pill that allows reproduction.  an antidote if you will.  no one gets hurt, and everyone still gets to have fun in bed.  you just wo not get a baby 0 months later without license.
this is something that is struck me as a little odd for a while now.  i believe that there is no difference in spirit between artificial selection and eugenics.  the idea behind both of them is to manipulate the distribution of genetic material.  some explanation: in artificial selection as , we manipulate which dog/cow/cat breeds and which does not.  the end goal appears to be the maintenance of a breed, as seen in the strict definition of breeds by the american kennel club.  furthermore, either based on observation over generations of dogs or perhaps even pure creativity, each breed has associated characteristics, such as loyalty, intelligence, playfulness, etc.  you can find all the defined breeds and associated characteristics here URL quite clearly then, as works.  we did, afterall, turn wolves into dogs, and no one in 0 will deny that a wolf is inherently different from a dog.  however, when the topic of eugenics artificial selection of humans comes up, it invariably devolves into accusations of racism and hatred.  probably in no small part thanks to the deeds of the nazi party, and the unadulterated racist motivations of past advocates of eugenics.  we already know in 0 that there are certain diseases that are purely the result of genetics.  some of these are horribly debilitating and fatal, such as cystic fibrosis, which affects something like 0,0 people in the us alone.  thus, i posit the argument that controlling breeding based on genetics can help mitigate the spread of such diseases.  secondly, if we can breed dogs to have certain characteristics, such as loyalty, playfulness, etc. , there is no reason that we cannot do the same to humans.  i strongly believe that we can breed out crime, stupidity, and other social ills simply by focusing the species  breeding program on  desirable  characteristics, such as intelligence see genetic factors in intelligence , altruism see biological argument for altruism, etc.  , etc.  etc.  of course, there is the fear that with eugenics and the manipulation of breeding for  desirable  characteristics will lead to a society ala gattaca.  i have no doubt that these superior humans will end up occupying the upper echelons of society.  but yet, one cannot deny that this ultimately serves the greater good of the species.  i think i have written enough on the matter for now.  cmv.   #  but yet, one cannot deny that this ultimately serves the greater good of the species.   #  if implementing this eugenics program means giving a central authority over every person is breeding rights, then this is nowhere near certain.   #  the issue with eugenics is in enforcement, not theory.  the idea behind modern liberal society is that persons have basic natural rights that no society can justifiably infringe.  a government imposed eugenics program would violate any number of basic human rights.  few people would disagree with voluntary  eugenics , or people making a choice to only breed with those people exhibiting certain genetic structures or choosing not to breed .  you may even be able to make an argument that people with certain genetic conditions  should not  breed.  but extending this to giving someone authority over another person is breeding rights would be absurd.  i strongly believe that we can breed out crime, stupidity, and other social ills simply by focusing the species  breeding program on  desirable  characteristics, such as intelligence see genetic factors in intelligence , altruism see biological argument for altruism, etc.  , etc.  etc.  it is highly unlikely that you could breed out factors with such strong sociological factors as crime.  if implementing this eugenics program means giving a central authority over every person is breeding rights, then this is nowhere near certain.   #  how much is contentious, to be sure, but it is not as if my statement was without any grounding.   # perhaps the most notable example of modern eugenics is abortions that take place after pre natal screenings.  i stated as much in my post.  crime is highly correlated with general intelligence, which in turn is a highly heritable trait.  crime is just as highly if not moreso correlated with poverty.  also, intelligence is also influenced by family and social factors, with poor demographics scoring lower on iq tests which is not likely a result of genetics, but environment .  how much is contentious, to be sure, but it is not as if my statement was without any grounding.  even so, my statement is that you cannot eliminate crime by focusing on intelligence alone, and intelligence may not even be the most efficient way to improve crime rates.   #  beyond the discussion of self reported crime, i would also note that there is no indication we have a lot of unsolved crimes by some unknown cadre of genius master criminals.   # please explain how you know this.  general intelligence is the heritable factor that highly predicts poverty and crime.  see this discussion URL for example, explaining that intelligence predicts crime even with socioeconomic status is controlled for.  i will briefly address the argument that smarter criminals evade capture.  beyond the discussion of self reported crime, i would also note that there is no indication we have a lot of unsolved crimes by some unknown cadre of genius master criminals.  the blank slate is a fiction.  i said it was highly heritable.  it is much more heritable than not, however, with heritability approaching 0 in adults age 0.  it is merely sufficient that crime be reduced.   #  my argument from the start was that the proper course of action for those concerned with crime would be sociological factors.   #  i think we are talking past each other.  i never denied that intelligence was heritable, nor that it is linked to crime.  what i deny is the idea that the possible reductions in crime warrant a government enforced eugenics program.  i have also never stated that we are a blank slate.  my argument from the start was that the proper course of action for those concerned with crime would be sociological factors.   #  no one gets hurt, and everyone still gets to have fun in bed.   # why is that ? as i understand it, human traits tend to have two motivating forces.  the first being nurture, which is as you say, a sociological factor.  the second being nature, which includes genetics.  obviously, i would not dare suggest that if we just simply castrated all the criminals, crime would disappear.  that is preposterous at best.  however, given that half the problem is in nature, does it not demand at least a trial ? there is, afterall, no reason why we ca not employ a multi solution approach to a problem.  i am in no way suggesting that we cease all sociological approaches to solving crime.  only that we use both genetics and sociology to our advantage.  the idea behind modern liberal society is that persons have basic natural rights that no society can justifiably infringe.  a government imposed eugenics program would violate any number of basic human rights.  i frankly do not recall reproduction as a fundamental human right.  i am not proposing that the government round up all the undesirables and neuter them physically.  it is 0.  we have more than enough solutions to curb breeding that do not involve violence or inflicting physical pain.  for example, birth control pills.  the female birth control pill has been around for decades now, and the male version is just on the horizon.  we are entering an age where both sexes have the ability to never breed again, without any pain whatsoever.  an idea i have is perhaps putting the active ingredients of birth control medication in the water supply.  those who are  licensed to breed  so to speak will be given a pill that allows reproduction.  an antidote if you will.  no one gets hurt, and everyone still gets to have fun in bed.  you just wo not get a baby 0 months later without license.
this is something that is struck me as a little odd for a while now.  i believe that there is no difference in spirit between artificial selection and eugenics.  the idea behind both of them is to manipulate the distribution of genetic material.  some explanation: in artificial selection as , we manipulate which dog/cow/cat breeds and which does not.  the end goal appears to be the maintenance of a breed, as seen in the strict definition of breeds by the american kennel club.  furthermore, either based on observation over generations of dogs or perhaps even pure creativity, each breed has associated characteristics, such as loyalty, intelligence, playfulness, etc.  you can find all the defined breeds and associated characteristics here URL quite clearly then, as works.  we did, afterall, turn wolves into dogs, and no one in 0 will deny that a wolf is inherently different from a dog.  however, when the topic of eugenics artificial selection of humans comes up, it invariably devolves into accusations of racism and hatred.  probably in no small part thanks to the deeds of the nazi party, and the unadulterated racist motivations of past advocates of eugenics.  we already know in 0 that there are certain diseases that are purely the result of genetics.  some of these are horribly debilitating and fatal, such as cystic fibrosis, which affects something like 0,0 people in the us alone.  thus, i posit the argument that controlling breeding based on genetics can help mitigate the spread of such diseases.  secondly, if we can breed dogs to have certain characteristics, such as loyalty, playfulness, etc. , there is no reason that we cannot do the same to humans.  i strongly believe that we can breed out crime, stupidity, and other social ills simply by focusing the species  breeding program on  desirable  characteristics, such as intelligence see genetic factors in intelligence , altruism see biological argument for altruism, etc.  , etc.  etc.  of course, there is the fear that with eugenics and the manipulation of breeding for  desirable  characteristics will lead to a society ala gattaca.  i have no doubt that these superior humans will end up occupying the upper echelons of society.  but yet, one cannot deny that this ultimately serves the greater good of the species.  i think i have written enough on the matter for now.  cmv.   #  we did, afterall, turn wolves into dogs, and no one in 0 will deny that a wolf is inherently different from a dog.   #  yes, consider the conversion of wolves into dogs.   #  does not nature already do a pretty good job at this, though ? if you have an illness, such as down syndrome or cf, you are less likely to reproduce, are not you ? there is no need for some central genetic planning agency to be making these decisions either.  yes, consider the conversion of wolves into dogs.  did this happen because our ancestors, sitting around the fire, were marking up breed standards ? no, they just picked wolves with traits people like.  thing is, when people choose mates particularly the intended parents of their children they are doing the same thing.  they are picking people with traits they like.   #  if implementing this eugenics program means giving a central authority over every person is breeding rights, then this is nowhere near certain.   #  the issue with eugenics is in enforcement, not theory.  the idea behind modern liberal society is that persons have basic natural rights that no society can justifiably infringe.  a government imposed eugenics program would violate any number of basic human rights.  few people would disagree with voluntary  eugenics , or people making a choice to only breed with those people exhibiting certain genetic structures or choosing not to breed .  you may even be able to make an argument that people with certain genetic conditions  should not  breed.  but extending this to giving someone authority over another person is breeding rights would be absurd.  i strongly believe that we can breed out crime, stupidity, and other social ills simply by focusing the species  breeding program on  desirable  characteristics, such as intelligence see genetic factors in intelligence , altruism see biological argument for altruism, etc.  , etc.  etc.  it is highly unlikely that you could breed out factors with such strong sociological factors as crime.  if implementing this eugenics program means giving a central authority over every person is breeding rights, then this is nowhere near certain.   #  perhaps the most notable example of modern eugenics is abortions that take place after pre natal screenings.   # perhaps the most notable example of modern eugenics is abortions that take place after pre natal screenings.  i stated as much in my post.  crime is highly correlated with general intelligence, which in turn is a highly heritable trait.  crime is just as highly if not moreso correlated with poverty.  also, intelligence is also influenced by family and social factors, with poor demographics scoring lower on iq tests which is not likely a result of genetics, but environment .  how much is contentious, to be sure, but it is not as if my statement was without any grounding.  even so, my statement is that you cannot eliminate crime by focusing on intelligence alone, and intelligence may not even be the most efficient way to improve crime rates.   #  see this discussion URL for example, explaining that intelligence predicts crime even with socioeconomic status is controlled for.   # please explain how you know this.  general intelligence is the heritable factor that highly predicts poverty and crime.  see this discussion URL for example, explaining that intelligence predicts crime even with socioeconomic status is controlled for.  i will briefly address the argument that smarter criminals evade capture.  beyond the discussion of self reported crime, i would also note that there is no indication we have a lot of unsolved crimes by some unknown cadre of genius master criminals.  the blank slate is a fiction.  i said it was highly heritable.  it is much more heritable than not, however, with heritability approaching 0 in adults age 0.  it is merely sufficient that crime be reduced.   #  i never denied that intelligence was heritable, nor that it is linked to crime.   #  i think we are talking past each other.  i never denied that intelligence was heritable, nor that it is linked to crime.  what i deny is the idea that the possible reductions in crime warrant a government enforced eugenics program.  i have also never stated that we are a blank slate.  my argument from the start was that the proper course of action for those concerned with crime would be sociological factors.
this is something that is struck me as a little odd for a while now.  i believe that there is no difference in spirit between artificial selection and eugenics.  the idea behind both of them is to manipulate the distribution of genetic material.  some explanation: in artificial selection as , we manipulate which dog/cow/cat breeds and which does not.  the end goal appears to be the maintenance of a breed, as seen in the strict definition of breeds by the american kennel club.  furthermore, either based on observation over generations of dogs or perhaps even pure creativity, each breed has associated characteristics, such as loyalty, intelligence, playfulness, etc.  you can find all the defined breeds and associated characteristics here URL quite clearly then, as works.  we did, afterall, turn wolves into dogs, and no one in 0 will deny that a wolf is inherently different from a dog.  however, when the topic of eugenics artificial selection of humans comes up, it invariably devolves into accusations of racism and hatred.  probably in no small part thanks to the deeds of the nazi party, and the unadulterated racist motivations of past advocates of eugenics.  we already know in 0 that there are certain diseases that are purely the result of genetics.  some of these are horribly debilitating and fatal, such as cystic fibrosis, which affects something like 0,0 people in the us alone.  thus, i posit the argument that controlling breeding based on genetics can help mitigate the spread of such diseases.  secondly, if we can breed dogs to have certain characteristics, such as loyalty, playfulness, etc. , there is no reason that we cannot do the same to humans.  i strongly believe that we can breed out crime, stupidity, and other social ills simply by focusing the species  breeding program on  desirable  characteristics, such as intelligence see genetic factors in intelligence , altruism see biological argument for altruism, etc.  , etc.  etc.  of course, there is the fear that with eugenics and the manipulation of breeding for  desirable  characteristics will lead to a society ala gattaca.  i have no doubt that these superior humans will end up occupying the upper echelons of society.  but yet, one cannot deny that this ultimately serves the greater good of the species.  i think i have written enough on the matter for now.  cmv.   #  however, when the topic of eugenics artificial selection of humans comes up, it invariably devolves into accusations of racism and hatred.   #  probably in no small part thanks to the deeds of the nazi party, and the unadulterated racist motivations of past advocates of eugenics.   # we did, afterall, turn wolves into dogs, and no one in 0 will deny that a wolf is inherently different from a dog.  probably in no small part thanks to the deeds of the nazi party, and the unadulterated racist motivations of past advocates of eugenics.  unless your a vegan on the basis of moral principle, most people apply different moral principles to animals as opposed to humans.  i strongly believe that we can breed out crime, stupidity, and other social ills simply by focusing the species  breeding program on  desirable  characteristics, such as intelligence see genetic factors in intelligence , altruism see biological argument for altruism, etc.  , etc.  etc.  can you provide substantial scientific evidence for these claims ?  #  the idea behind modern liberal society is that persons have basic natural rights that no society can justifiably infringe.   #  the issue with eugenics is in enforcement, not theory.  the idea behind modern liberal society is that persons have basic natural rights that no society can justifiably infringe.  a government imposed eugenics program would violate any number of basic human rights.  few people would disagree with voluntary  eugenics , or people making a choice to only breed with those people exhibiting certain genetic structures or choosing not to breed .  you may even be able to make an argument that people with certain genetic conditions  should not  breed.  but extending this to giving someone authority over another person is breeding rights would be absurd.  i strongly believe that we can breed out crime, stupidity, and other social ills simply by focusing the species  breeding program on  desirable  characteristics, such as intelligence see genetic factors in intelligence , altruism see biological argument for altruism, etc.  , etc.  etc.  it is highly unlikely that you could breed out factors with such strong sociological factors as crime.  if implementing this eugenics program means giving a central authority over every person is breeding rights, then this is nowhere near certain.   #  crime is highly correlated with general intelligence, which in turn is a highly heritable trait.   # perhaps the most notable example of modern eugenics is abortions that take place after pre natal screenings.  i stated as much in my post.  crime is highly correlated with general intelligence, which in turn is a highly heritable trait.  crime is just as highly if not moreso correlated with poverty.  also, intelligence is also influenced by family and social factors, with poor demographics scoring lower on iq tests which is not likely a result of genetics, but environment .  how much is contentious, to be sure, but it is not as if my statement was without any grounding.  even so, my statement is that you cannot eliminate crime by focusing on intelligence alone, and intelligence may not even be the most efficient way to improve crime rates.   #  it is much more heritable than not, however, with heritability approaching 0 in adults age 0.   # please explain how you know this.  general intelligence is the heritable factor that highly predicts poverty and crime.  see this discussion URL for example, explaining that intelligence predicts crime even with socioeconomic status is controlled for.  i will briefly address the argument that smarter criminals evade capture.  beyond the discussion of self reported crime, i would also note that there is no indication we have a lot of unsolved crimes by some unknown cadre of genius master criminals.  the blank slate is a fiction.  i said it was highly heritable.  it is much more heritable than not, however, with heritability approaching 0 in adults age 0.  it is merely sufficient that crime be reduced.   #  i have also never stated that we are a blank slate.   #  i think we are talking past each other.  i never denied that intelligence was heritable, nor that it is linked to crime.  what i deny is the idea that the possible reductions in crime warrant a government enforced eugenics program.  i have also never stated that we are a blank slate.  my argument from the start was that the proper course of action for those concerned with crime would be sociological factors.
this is something that is struck me as a little odd for a while now.  i believe that there is no difference in spirit between artificial selection and eugenics.  the idea behind both of them is to manipulate the distribution of genetic material.  some explanation: in artificial selection as , we manipulate which dog/cow/cat breeds and which does not.  the end goal appears to be the maintenance of a breed, as seen in the strict definition of breeds by the american kennel club.  furthermore, either based on observation over generations of dogs or perhaps even pure creativity, each breed has associated characteristics, such as loyalty, intelligence, playfulness, etc.  you can find all the defined breeds and associated characteristics here URL quite clearly then, as works.  we did, afterall, turn wolves into dogs, and no one in 0 will deny that a wolf is inherently different from a dog.  however, when the topic of eugenics artificial selection of humans comes up, it invariably devolves into accusations of racism and hatred.  probably in no small part thanks to the deeds of the nazi party, and the unadulterated racist motivations of past advocates of eugenics.  we already know in 0 that there are certain diseases that are purely the result of genetics.  some of these are horribly debilitating and fatal, such as cystic fibrosis, which affects something like 0,0 people in the us alone.  thus, i posit the argument that controlling breeding based on genetics can help mitigate the spread of such diseases.  secondly, if we can breed dogs to have certain characteristics, such as loyalty, playfulness, etc. , there is no reason that we cannot do the same to humans.  i strongly believe that we can breed out crime, stupidity, and other social ills simply by focusing the species  breeding program on  desirable  characteristics, such as intelligence see genetic factors in intelligence , altruism see biological argument for altruism, etc.  , etc.  etc.  of course, there is the fear that with eugenics and the manipulation of breeding for  desirable  characteristics will lead to a society ala gattaca.  i have no doubt that these superior humans will end up occupying the upper echelons of society.  but yet, one cannot deny that this ultimately serves the greater good of the species.  i think i have written enough on the matter for now.  cmv.   #  secondly, if we can breed dogs to have certain characteristics, such as loyalty, playfulness, etc. , there is no reason that we cannot do the same to humans.   #  i strongly believe that we can breed out crime, stupidity, and other social ills simply by focusing the species  breeding program on  desirable  characteristics, such as intelligence see genetic factors in intelligence , altruism see biological argument for altruism, etc.   # we did, afterall, turn wolves into dogs, and no one in 0 will deny that a wolf is inherently different from a dog.  probably in no small part thanks to the deeds of the nazi party, and the unadulterated racist motivations of past advocates of eugenics.  unless your a vegan on the basis of moral principle, most people apply different moral principles to animals as opposed to humans.  i strongly believe that we can breed out crime, stupidity, and other social ills simply by focusing the species  breeding program on  desirable  characteristics, such as intelligence see genetic factors in intelligence , altruism see biological argument for altruism, etc.  , etc.  etc.  can you provide substantial scientific evidence for these claims ?  #  it is highly unlikely that you could breed out factors with such strong sociological factors as crime.   #  the issue with eugenics is in enforcement, not theory.  the idea behind modern liberal society is that persons have basic natural rights that no society can justifiably infringe.  a government imposed eugenics program would violate any number of basic human rights.  few people would disagree with voluntary  eugenics , or people making a choice to only breed with those people exhibiting certain genetic structures or choosing not to breed .  you may even be able to make an argument that people with certain genetic conditions  should not  breed.  but extending this to giving someone authority over another person is breeding rights would be absurd.  i strongly believe that we can breed out crime, stupidity, and other social ills simply by focusing the species  breeding program on  desirable  characteristics, such as intelligence see genetic factors in intelligence , altruism see biological argument for altruism, etc.  , etc.  etc.  it is highly unlikely that you could breed out factors with such strong sociological factors as crime.  if implementing this eugenics program means giving a central authority over every person is breeding rights, then this is nowhere near certain.   #  perhaps the most notable example of modern eugenics is abortions that take place after pre natal screenings.   # perhaps the most notable example of modern eugenics is abortions that take place after pre natal screenings.  i stated as much in my post.  crime is highly correlated with general intelligence, which in turn is a highly heritable trait.  crime is just as highly if not moreso correlated with poverty.  also, intelligence is also influenced by family and social factors, with poor demographics scoring lower on iq tests which is not likely a result of genetics, but environment .  how much is contentious, to be sure, but it is not as if my statement was without any grounding.  even so, my statement is that you cannot eliminate crime by focusing on intelligence alone, and intelligence may not even be the most efficient way to improve crime rates.   #  beyond the discussion of self reported crime, i would also note that there is no indication we have a lot of unsolved crimes by some unknown cadre of genius master criminals.   # please explain how you know this.  general intelligence is the heritable factor that highly predicts poverty and crime.  see this discussion URL for example, explaining that intelligence predicts crime even with socioeconomic status is controlled for.  i will briefly address the argument that smarter criminals evade capture.  beyond the discussion of self reported crime, i would also note that there is no indication we have a lot of unsolved crimes by some unknown cadre of genius master criminals.  the blank slate is a fiction.  i said it was highly heritable.  it is much more heritable than not, however, with heritability approaching 0 in adults age 0.  it is merely sufficient that crime be reduced.   #  my argument from the start was that the proper course of action for those concerned with crime would be sociological factors.   #  i think we are talking past each other.  i never denied that intelligence was heritable, nor that it is linked to crime.  what i deny is the idea that the possible reductions in crime warrant a government enforced eugenics program.  i have also never stated that we are a blank slate.  my argument from the start was that the proper course of action for those concerned with crime would be sociological factors.
this is something that is struck me as a little odd for a while now.  i believe that there is no difference in spirit between artificial selection and eugenics.  the idea behind both of them is to manipulate the distribution of genetic material.  some explanation: in artificial selection as , we manipulate which dog/cow/cat breeds and which does not.  the end goal appears to be the maintenance of a breed, as seen in the strict definition of breeds by the american kennel club.  furthermore, either based on observation over generations of dogs or perhaps even pure creativity, each breed has associated characteristics, such as loyalty, intelligence, playfulness, etc.  you can find all the defined breeds and associated characteristics here URL quite clearly then, as works.  we did, afterall, turn wolves into dogs, and no one in 0 will deny that a wolf is inherently different from a dog.  however, when the topic of eugenics artificial selection of humans comes up, it invariably devolves into accusations of racism and hatred.  probably in no small part thanks to the deeds of the nazi party, and the unadulterated racist motivations of past advocates of eugenics.  we already know in 0 that there are certain diseases that are purely the result of genetics.  some of these are horribly debilitating and fatal, such as cystic fibrosis, which affects something like 0,0 people in the us alone.  thus, i posit the argument that controlling breeding based on genetics can help mitigate the spread of such diseases.  secondly, if we can breed dogs to have certain characteristics, such as loyalty, playfulness, etc. , there is no reason that we cannot do the same to humans.  i strongly believe that we can breed out crime, stupidity, and other social ills simply by focusing the species  breeding program on  desirable  characteristics, such as intelligence see genetic factors in intelligence , altruism see biological argument for altruism, etc.  , etc.  etc.  of course, there is the fear that with eugenics and the manipulation of breeding for  desirable  characteristics will lead to a society ala gattaca.  i have no doubt that these superior humans will end up occupying the upper echelons of society.  but yet, one cannot deny that this ultimately serves the greater good of the species.  i think i have written enough on the matter for now.  cmv.   #  in artificial selection as , we manipulate which dog/cow/cat breeds and which does not.   #  the end goal appears to be the maintenance of a breed, as seen in the strict definition of breeds by the american kennel club.   # the end goal appears to be the maintenance of a breed, as seen in the strict definition of breeds by the american kennel club.  furthermore, either based on observation over generations of dogs or perhaps even pure creativity, each breed has associated characteristics, such as loyalty, intelligence, playfulness, etc.  you can find all the defined breeds and associated characteristics here.  all the associated characteristics ? the listing is missing a key piece of information: the common genetic health conditions of each breed.  every pure breed of dogs has a certain set of such conditions that promulgate due to a limited gene pool.  we did, afterall, turn wolves into dogs, and no one in 0 will deny that a wolf is inherently different from a dog.  at the time when dogs and wolves would have undergone speciation, humans were not deliberately breeding them.  instead, this process was natural selection.  other instances of this process can be seen with any pair of symbiotic species.  breeding provides us with all the evidence we need to conclude that deliberately limiting the gene pool is a bad idea.  the idea behind both of them is to manipulate the distribution of genetic material.  false, natural selection evaluates genes only in context.  artificial selection evaluates genes out of context.  natural selection is emergent, nothing is actively doing it, it just happens as a result of competition over resources and predation.  a key thing to understand about natural selection is that the environment changes, and when it does the optimal traits change.  a species capable of supporting a very large degree of genetic variance is more likely to survive changing environments.  eliminating genetic variance for temporary optimality is a recipe for extinction.  finally, genetics are more complicated than you have been led to believe.  genes interact with the environment and can be activated or lie dormant.  even looking directly at the genes we are dealing with and what science can tell us about what they do, we do not know near enough about activation to determine the full range of characteristics that could appear hundreds of generations later.   #  the idea behind modern liberal society is that persons have basic natural rights that no society can justifiably infringe.   #  the issue with eugenics is in enforcement, not theory.  the idea behind modern liberal society is that persons have basic natural rights that no society can justifiably infringe.  a government imposed eugenics program would violate any number of basic human rights.  few people would disagree with voluntary  eugenics , or people making a choice to only breed with those people exhibiting certain genetic structures or choosing not to breed .  you may even be able to make an argument that people with certain genetic conditions  should not  breed.  but extending this to giving someone authority over another person is breeding rights would be absurd.  i strongly believe that we can breed out crime, stupidity, and other social ills simply by focusing the species  breeding program on  desirable  characteristics, such as intelligence see genetic factors in intelligence , altruism see biological argument for altruism, etc.  , etc.  etc.  it is highly unlikely that you could breed out factors with such strong sociological factors as crime.  if implementing this eugenics program means giving a central authority over every person is breeding rights, then this is nowhere near certain.   #  crime is just as highly if not moreso correlated with poverty.   # perhaps the most notable example of modern eugenics is abortions that take place after pre natal screenings.  i stated as much in my post.  crime is highly correlated with general intelligence, which in turn is a highly heritable trait.  crime is just as highly if not moreso correlated with poverty.  also, intelligence is also influenced by family and social factors, with poor demographics scoring lower on iq tests which is not likely a result of genetics, but environment .  how much is contentious, to be sure, but it is not as if my statement was without any grounding.  even so, my statement is that you cannot eliminate crime by focusing on intelligence alone, and intelligence may not even be the most efficient way to improve crime rates.   #  it is much more heritable than not, however, with heritability approaching 0 in adults age 0.   # please explain how you know this.  general intelligence is the heritable factor that highly predicts poverty and crime.  see this discussion URL for example, explaining that intelligence predicts crime even with socioeconomic status is controlled for.  i will briefly address the argument that smarter criminals evade capture.  beyond the discussion of self reported crime, i would also note that there is no indication we have a lot of unsolved crimes by some unknown cadre of genius master criminals.  the blank slate is a fiction.  i said it was highly heritable.  it is much more heritable than not, however, with heritability approaching 0 in adults age 0.  it is merely sufficient that crime be reduced.   #  i think we are talking past each other.   #  i think we are talking past each other.  i never denied that intelligence was heritable, nor that it is linked to crime.  what i deny is the idea that the possible reductions in crime warrant a government enforced eugenics program.  i have also never stated that we are a blank slate.  my argument from the start was that the proper course of action for those concerned with crime would be sociological factors.
this is something that is struck me as a little odd for a while now.  i believe that there is no difference in spirit between artificial selection and eugenics.  the idea behind both of them is to manipulate the distribution of genetic material.  some explanation: in artificial selection as , we manipulate which dog/cow/cat breeds and which does not.  the end goal appears to be the maintenance of a breed, as seen in the strict definition of breeds by the american kennel club.  furthermore, either based on observation over generations of dogs or perhaps even pure creativity, each breed has associated characteristics, such as loyalty, intelligence, playfulness, etc.  you can find all the defined breeds and associated characteristics here URL quite clearly then, as works.  we did, afterall, turn wolves into dogs, and no one in 0 will deny that a wolf is inherently different from a dog.  however, when the topic of eugenics artificial selection of humans comes up, it invariably devolves into accusations of racism and hatred.  probably in no small part thanks to the deeds of the nazi party, and the unadulterated racist motivations of past advocates of eugenics.  we already know in 0 that there are certain diseases that are purely the result of genetics.  some of these are horribly debilitating and fatal, such as cystic fibrosis, which affects something like 0,0 people in the us alone.  thus, i posit the argument that controlling breeding based on genetics can help mitigate the spread of such diseases.  secondly, if we can breed dogs to have certain characteristics, such as loyalty, playfulness, etc. , there is no reason that we cannot do the same to humans.  i strongly believe that we can breed out crime, stupidity, and other social ills simply by focusing the species  breeding program on  desirable  characteristics, such as intelligence see genetic factors in intelligence , altruism see biological argument for altruism, etc.  , etc.  etc.  of course, there is the fear that with eugenics and the manipulation of breeding for  desirable  characteristics will lead to a society ala gattaca.  i have no doubt that these superior humans will end up occupying the upper echelons of society.  but yet, one cannot deny that this ultimately serves the greater good of the species.  i think i have written enough on the matter for now.  cmv.   #  i believe that there is no difference in spirit between artificial selection and eugenics.   #  the idea behind both of them is to manipulate the distribution of genetic material.   # the end goal appears to be the maintenance of a breed, as seen in the strict definition of breeds by the american kennel club.  furthermore, either based on observation over generations of dogs or perhaps even pure creativity, each breed has associated characteristics, such as loyalty, intelligence, playfulness, etc.  you can find all the defined breeds and associated characteristics here.  all the associated characteristics ? the listing is missing a key piece of information: the common genetic health conditions of each breed.  every pure breed of dogs has a certain set of such conditions that promulgate due to a limited gene pool.  we did, afterall, turn wolves into dogs, and no one in 0 will deny that a wolf is inherently different from a dog.  at the time when dogs and wolves would have undergone speciation, humans were not deliberately breeding them.  instead, this process was natural selection.  other instances of this process can be seen with any pair of symbiotic species.  breeding provides us with all the evidence we need to conclude that deliberately limiting the gene pool is a bad idea.  the idea behind both of them is to manipulate the distribution of genetic material.  false, natural selection evaluates genes only in context.  artificial selection evaluates genes out of context.  natural selection is emergent, nothing is actively doing it, it just happens as a result of competition over resources and predation.  a key thing to understand about natural selection is that the environment changes, and when it does the optimal traits change.  a species capable of supporting a very large degree of genetic variance is more likely to survive changing environments.  eliminating genetic variance for temporary optimality is a recipe for extinction.  finally, genetics are more complicated than you have been led to believe.  genes interact with the environment and can be activated or lie dormant.  even looking directly at the genes we are dealing with and what science can tell us about what they do, we do not know near enough about activation to determine the full range of characteristics that could appear hundreds of generations later.   #  a government imposed eugenics program would violate any number of basic human rights.   #  the issue with eugenics is in enforcement, not theory.  the idea behind modern liberal society is that persons have basic natural rights that no society can justifiably infringe.  a government imposed eugenics program would violate any number of basic human rights.  few people would disagree with voluntary  eugenics , or people making a choice to only breed with those people exhibiting certain genetic structures or choosing not to breed .  you may even be able to make an argument that people with certain genetic conditions  should not  breed.  but extending this to giving someone authority over another person is breeding rights would be absurd.  i strongly believe that we can breed out crime, stupidity, and other social ills simply by focusing the species  breeding program on  desirable  characteristics, such as intelligence see genetic factors in intelligence , altruism see biological argument for altruism, etc.  , etc.  etc.  it is highly unlikely that you could breed out factors with such strong sociological factors as crime.  if implementing this eugenics program means giving a central authority over every person is breeding rights, then this is nowhere near certain.   #  even so, my statement is that you cannot eliminate crime by focusing on intelligence alone, and intelligence may not even be the most efficient way to improve crime rates.   # perhaps the most notable example of modern eugenics is abortions that take place after pre natal screenings.  i stated as much in my post.  crime is highly correlated with general intelligence, which in turn is a highly heritable trait.  crime is just as highly if not moreso correlated with poverty.  also, intelligence is also influenced by family and social factors, with poor demographics scoring lower on iq tests which is not likely a result of genetics, but environment .  how much is contentious, to be sure, but it is not as if my statement was without any grounding.  even so, my statement is that you cannot eliminate crime by focusing on intelligence alone, and intelligence may not even be the most efficient way to improve crime rates.   #  see this discussion URL for example, explaining that intelligence predicts crime even with socioeconomic status is controlled for.   # please explain how you know this.  general intelligence is the heritable factor that highly predicts poverty and crime.  see this discussion URL for example, explaining that intelligence predicts crime even with socioeconomic status is controlled for.  i will briefly address the argument that smarter criminals evade capture.  beyond the discussion of self reported crime, i would also note that there is no indication we have a lot of unsolved crimes by some unknown cadre of genius master criminals.  the blank slate is a fiction.  i said it was highly heritable.  it is much more heritable than not, however, with heritability approaching 0 in adults age 0.  it is merely sufficient that crime be reduced.   #  i have also never stated that we are a blank slate.   #  i think we are talking past each other.  i never denied that intelligence was heritable, nor that it is linked to crime.  what i deny is the idea that the possible reductions in crime warrant a government enforced eugenics program.  i have also never stated that we are a blank slate.  my argument from the start was that the proper course of action for those concerned with crime would be sociological factors.
here is what i see in my neighborhood which has 0 handicapped spots.    they are almost always empty.  almost everywhere i go in my city when i am looking for parking the handicapped spots are the only empty ones sometimes.  to this day, however, i have never parked or even briefly pulled over in a handicapped spot because it feels cruel.    the few times i see them occupied, every time, i see a completely able bodied person leave the car.  as in both are legs made of meat that are fully functional.  they have the handicap badge in the car but they do not seem to have any sort of physical ailment.  if you need a contraption to get the wheelchair out that seems fair, but if the person is just deaf or is missing a pinky i do not see why they need special reserved parking.    i know one of these fraudsters personally, he had his because his grandfather was handicapped so they just used his handicap badge.  presumably this is ok because sometimes they have to drive him places.  he kept it in his car every day and the whole family used it to park in handicap spots.  from what i can tell the only people who use handicap parking spots are people with a handicapped relative not a handicapped driver.    i have never seen one of those special cars for people who are disabled where they have buttons instead of pedals and a contraption that unloads a person with a wheelchair.  if even once i saw an actual physically disabled person exit their vehicle in a handicapped parking spot i might not even question their special parking spots.   #  the few times i see them occupied, every time, i see a completely able bodied person leave the car.   #  as in both are legs made of meat that are fully functional.   # as in both are legs made of meat that are fully functional.  they have the handicap badge in the car but they do not seem to have any sort of physical ailment.  if you need a contraption to get the wheelchair out that seems fair, but if the person is just deaf or is missing a pinky i do not see why they need special reserved parking.  my aunt is handicapped, she ca not walk across a parking lot, you can get her to walk for maybe 0 min.  on a good day then she has to sit down, the docs say it is because of her knee pains.  she may not appear handicapped, but she is.  if even once i saw an actual physically disabled person exit their vehicle in a handicapped parking spot i might not even question their special parking spots.  not everyone who is disabled needs those.  you are basing a lot of it off of your personal experience, do you have any proof that most of the time handicapped spot fraud is the case or is it just what you have seen ?  #  eta there are also autoimmune diseases that are affected by the weather.   #  not all diseases require some type of equipment for mobility but they leave you physically fatigued.  i had a friend in college with multiple sclerosis who had a handicapped placard.  she had no outward physical disability and did not always need to park in the handicap parking spot, but she could never be completely sure of when the pain or fatigue would hit so she would always park in a handicap parking spot just in case.  one time we spent hours at a theme park without issue and another time we spent 0 minutes in a grocery store before i had to help her back to her car.  eta there are also autoimmune diseases that are affected by the weather.  so limiting the time one spends outside is crucial.  having handicap parking near the store makes it less likely that the person will spend time in an adverse environment.   #  just because you could not tell i was having an issue did not mean i could not have benefited from a handicapped spot.   #  because they could have problems with mobility/pain that you ca not tell.  for example i had a herniated disc about 0 months.  on the outside i looked like you average athletic girl, albeit with a slight limp.  in reality i was in excruciating pain 0/0 and could only walk a few meters before having to stop and either sit down or lean against something.  just because you could not tell i was having an issue did not mean i could not have benefited from a handicapped spot.   #  i will be generous and say it takes you ten minutes, on average, per outing to walk to or from your car and the store.   #  maybe you are not at shops/restaurants/etc at the same time that a majority of handicapped people are.  my friend who uses a wheelchair intentionally goes shopping during less busy hours of the day because it is easier for her to move through the aisles if there are fewer people around.  just because you do not see handicapped people using the spots does not mean they are not used when you are not at the store.  the amount of time you spend within eyeshot of a handicapped spot is very low.  i will be generous and say it takes you ten minutes, on average, per outing to walk to or from your car and the store.  even neglecting the fact that you are likely not paying close attention to the status of the handicapped spots 0 of the time that you are in the lot, that is still only a tiny fraction of the time that the business is open for the day.  your perception that they are  always empty  is the result of confirmation bias, which makes it seem like the spots are constantly empty when in fact you only know for sure from your observations that they are empty for the ten to twenty or so minutes that you are in the car park each day, and only on such occasions when you happen to observe and make note of the fact that they are empty.   #  your visual cues are not the arbiter of what is or is not a handicapped.   #  point 0 of course some of them are always empty, that is the point.  it means there are no handicapped people who are forced to park in the back of the lot and walk/wheel to the facility.  in theory, the ideal number of handicapped spots in a facility are x0, where x is the number of handicapped people currently parked at the facility, and there is another spot available in case someone shows up.  the ada and local codes generally provide for the number of parking spots that a facility must have, and how many of those must be handicapped.  point 0 as repeated ad nauseum throughout the thread, just because someone has two seemingly functional legs does not mean they are not handicapped.  your visual cues are not the arbiter of what is or is not a handicapped.  people can have problems with backs, joints, hearts, lungs, or nervous systems that are not readily visible, but most certainly exist.  point 0 anecdote does not equal data.  your friend is not representative of the entire population of people with handicap placards.  point 0 ancedote does not equal data.  your experiences of what you see in the parking lots you frequent are not representative of the world.  i am quite certain that if you have been to a mall, stadium, or any other large venue you have seen a van parked in a handicapped space, and it was likely one of the ones you described.  they just do not paint  handicapped person here !   on the side of the van, nor do they make them carry a sign around inside the venue so you can find them.
here is what i see in my neighborhood which has 0 handicapped spots.    they are almost always empty.  almost everywhere i go in my city when i am looking for parking the handicapped spots are the only empty ones sometimes.  to this day, however, i have never parked or even briefly pulled over in a handicapped spot because it feels cruel.    the few times i see them occupied, every time, i see a completely able bodied person leave the car.  as in both are legs made of meat that are fully functional.  they have the handicap badge in the car but they do not seem to have any sort of physical ailment.  if you need a contraption to get the wheelchair out that seems fair, but if the person is just deaf or is missing a pinky i do not see why they need special reserved parking.    i know one of these fraudsters personally, he had his because his grandfather was handicapped so they just used his handicap badge.  presumably this is ok because sometimes they have to drive him places.  he kept it in his car every day and the whole family used it to park in handicap spots.  from what i can tell the only people who use handicap parking spots are people with a handicapped relative not a handicapped driver.    i have never seen one of those special cars for people who are disabled where they have buttons instead of pedals and a contraption that unloads a person with a wheelchair.  if even once i saw an actual physically disabled person exit their vehicle in a handicapped parking spot i might not even question their special parking spots.   #  i have never seen one of those special cars for people who are disabled where they have buttons instead of pedals and a contraption that unloads a person with a wheelchair.   #  if even once i saw an actual physically disabled person exit their vehicle in a handicapped parking spot i might not even question their special parking spots.   # as in both are legs made of meat that are fully functional.  they have the handicap badge in the car but they do not seem to have any sort of physical ailment.  if you need a contraption to get the wheelchair out that seems fair, but if the person is just deaf or is missing a pinky i do not see why they need special reserved parking.  my aunt is handicapped, she ca not walk across a parking lot, you can get her to walk for maybe 0 min.  on a good day then she has to sit down, the docs say it is because of her knee pains.  she may not appear handicapped, but she is.  if even once i saw an actual physically disabled person exit their vehicle in a handicapped parking spot i might not even question their special parking spots.  not everyone who is disabled needs those.  you are basing a lot of it off of your personal experience, do you have any proof that most of the time handicapped spot fraud is the case or is it just what you have seen ?  #  eta there are also autoimmune diseases that are affected by the weather.   #  not all diseases require some type of equipment for mobility but they leave you physically fatigued.  i had a friend in college with multiple sclerosis who had a handicapped placard.  she had no outward physical disability and did not always need to park in the handicap parking spot, but she could never be completely sure of when the pain or fatigue would hit so she would always park in a handicap parking spot just in case.  one time we spent hours at a theme park without issue and another time we spent 0 minutes in a grocery store before i had to help her back to her car.  eta there are also autoimmune diseases that are affected by the weather.  so limiting the time one spends outside is crucial.  having handicap parking near the store makes it less likely that the person will spend time in an adverse environment.   #  because they could have problems with mobility/pain that you ca not tell.   #  because they could have problems with mobility/pain that you ca not tell.  for example i had a herniated disc about 0 months.  on the outside i looked like you average athletic girl, albeit with a slight limp.  in reality i was in excruciating pain 0/0 and could only walk a few meters before having to stop and either sit down or lean against something.  just because you could not tell i was having an issue did not mean i could not have benefited from a handicapped spot.   #  i will be generous and say it takes you ten minutes, on average, per outing to walk to or from your car and the store.   #  maybe you are not at shops/restaurants/etc at the same time that a majority of handicapped people are.  my friend who uses a wheelchair intentionally goes shopping during less busy hours of the day because it is easier for her to move through the aisles if there are fewer people around.  just because you do not see handicapped people using the spots does not mean they are not used when you are not at the store.  the amount of time you spend within eyeshot of a handicapped spot is very low.  i will be generous and say it takes you ten minutes, on average, per outing to walk to or from your car and the store.  even neglecting the fact that you are likely not paying close attention to the status of the handicapped spots 0 of the time that you are in the lot, that is still only a tiny fraction of the time that the business is open for the day.  your perception that they are  always empty  is the result of confirmation bias, which makes it seem like the spots are constantly empty when in fact you only know for sure from your observations that they are empty for the ten to twenty or so minutes that you are in the car park each day, and only on such occasions when you happen to observe and make note of the fact that they are empty.   #  your visual cues are not the arbiter of what is or is not a handicapped.   #  point 0 of course some of them are always empty, that is the point.  it means there are no handicapped people who are forced to park in the back of the lot and walk/wheel to the facility.  in theory, the ideal number of handicapped spots in a facility are x0, where x is the number of handicapped people currently parked at the facility, and there is another spot available in case someone shows up.  the ada and local codes generally provide for the number of parking spots that a facility must have, and how many of those must be handicapped.  point 0 as repeated ad nauseum throughout the thread, just because someone has two seemingly functional legs does not mean they are not handicapped.  your visual cues are not the arbiter of what is or is not a handicapped.  people can have problems with backs, joints, hearts, lungs, or nervous systems that are not readily visible, but most certainly exist.  point 0 anecdote does not equal data.  your friend is not representative of the entire population of people with handicap placards.  point 0 ancedote does not equal data.  your experiences of what you see in the parking lots you frequent are not representative of the world.  i am quite certain that if you have been to a mall, stadium, or any other large venue you have seen a van parked in a handicapped space, and it was likely one of the ones you described.  they just do not paint  handicapped person here !   on the side of the van, nor do they make them carry a sign around inside the venue so you can find them.
here is what i see in my neighborhood which has 0 handicapped spots.    they are almost always empty.  almost everywhere i go in my city when i am looking for parking the handicapped spots are the only empty ones sometimes.  to this day, however, i have never parked or even briefly pulled over in a handicapped spot because it feels cruel.    the few times i see them occupied, every time, i see a completely able bodied person leave the car.  as in both are legs made of meat that are fully functional.  they have the handicap badge in the car but they do not seem to have any sort of physical ailment.  if you need a contraption to get the wheelchair out that seems fair, but if the person is just deaf or is missing a pinky i do not see why they need special reserved parking.    i know one of these fraudsters personally, he had his because his grandfather was handicapped so they just used his handicap badge.  presumably this is ok because sometimes they have to drive him places.  he kept it in his car every day and the whole family used it to park in handicap spots.  from what i can tell the only people who use handicap parking spots are people with a handicapped relative not a handicapped driver.    i have never seen one of those special cars for people who are disabled where they have buttons instead of pedals and a contraption that unloads a person with a wheelchair.  if even once i saw an actual physically disabled person exit their vehicle in a handicapped parking spot i might not even question their special parking spots.   #  the few times i see them occupied, every time, i see a completely able bodied person leave the car.   #  as in both are legs made of meat that are fully functional.   # as in both are legs made of meat that are fully functional.  they have the handicap badge in the car but they do not seem to have any sort of physical ailment.  this is a common theme, and it is incorrect.  there are more disabilities than are readily discernible by the presence of limbs.  for example, my father in law has a very fucked up back.  some days he is more or less fine, others can barely move.  even on good days he has to limit his time up and around.  conversely, i have also known guys missing a leg or part of a leg that have no need for handicapped spaces, and do not use them.  looking alone is actually a very poor means of knowing the extent of someone is disability.  presumably this is ok because sometimes they have to drive him places.  he kept it in his car every day and the whole family used it to park in handicap spots.  from what i can tell the only people who use handicap parking spots are people with a handicapped relative not a handicapped driver.  douchebags are douchebags.  simply because some may exploit the system does not erase the actual need.   #  not all diseases require some type of equipment for mobility but they leave you physically fatigued.   #  not all diseases require some type of equipment for mobility but they leave you physically fatigued.  i had a friend in college with multiple sclerosis who had a handicapped placard.  she had no outward physical disability and did not always need to park in the handicap parking spot, but she could never be completely sure of when the pain or fatigue would hit so she would always park in a handicap parking spot just in case.  one time we spent hours at a theme park without issue and another time we spent 0 minutes in a grocery store before i had to help her back to her car.  eta there are also autoimmune diseases that are affected by the weather.  so limiting the time one spends outside is crucial.  having handicap parking near the store makes it less likely that the person will spend time in an adverse environment.   #  for example i had a herniated disc about 0 months.   #  because they could have problems with mobility/pain that you ca not tell.  for example i had a herniated disc about 0 months.  on the outside i looked like you average athletic girl, albeit with a slight limp.  in reality i was in excruciating pain 0/0 and could only walk a few meters before having to stop and either sit down or lean against something.  just because you could not tell i was having an issue did not mean i could not have benefited from a handicapped spot.   #  just because you do not see handicapped people using the spots does not mean they are not used when you are not at the store.   #  maybe you are not at shops/restaurants/etc at the same time that a majority of handicapped people are.  my friend who uses a wheelchair intentionally goes shopping during less busy hours of the day because it is easier for her to move through the aisles if there are fewer people around.  just because you do not see handicapped people using the spots does not mean they are not used when you are not at the store.  the amount of time you spend within eyeshot of a handicapped spot is very low.  i will be generous and say it takes you ten minutes, on average, per outing to walk to or from your car and the store.  even neglecting the fact that you are likely not paying close attention to the status of the handicapped spots 0 of the time that you are in the lot, that is still only a tiny fraction of the time that the business is open for the day.  your perception that they are  always empty  is the result of confirmation bias, which makes it seem like the spots are constantly empty when in fact you only know for sure from your observations that they are empty for the ten to twenty or so minutes that you are in the car park each day, and only on such occasions when you happen to observe and make note of the fact that they are empty.   #  your experiences of what you see in the parking lots you frequent are not representative of the world.   #  point 0 of course some of them are always empty, that is the point.  it means there are no handicapped people who are forced to park in the back of the lot and walk/wheel to the facility.  in theory, the ideal number of handicapped spots in a facility are x0, where x is the number of handicapped people currently parked at the facility, and there is another spot available in case someone shows up.  the ada and local codes generally provide for the number of parking spots that a facility must have, and how many of those must be handicapped.  point 0 as repeated ad nauseum throughout the thread, just because someone has two seemingly functional legs does not mean they are not handicapped.  your visual cues are not the arbiter of what is or is not a handicapped.  people can have problems with backs, joints, hearts, lungs, or nervous systems that are not readily visible, but most certainly exist.  point 0 anecdote does not equal data.  your friend is not representative of the entire population of people with handicap placards.  point 0 ancedote does not equal data.  your experiences of what you see in the parking lots you frequent are not representative of the world.  i am quite certain that if you have been to a mall, stadium, or any other large venue you have seen a van parked in a handicapped space, and it was likely one of the ones you described.  they just do not paint  handicapped person here !   on the side of the van, nor do they make them carry a sign around inside the venue so you can find them.
here is what i see in my neighborhood which has 0 handicapped spots.    they are almost always empty.  almost everywhere i go in my city when i am looking for parking the handicapped spots are the only empty ones sometimes.  to this day, however, i have never parked or even briefly pulled over in a handicapped spot because it feels cruel.    the few times i see them occupied, every time, i see a completely able bodied person leave the car.  as in both are legs made of meat that are fully functional.  they have the handicap badge in the car but they do not seem to have any sort of physical ailment.  if you need a contraption to get the wheelchair out that seems fair, but if the person is just deaf or is missing a pinky i do not see why they need special reserved parking.    i know one of these fraudsters personally, he had his because his grandfather was handicapped so they just used his handicap badge.  presumably this is ok because sometimes they have to drive him places.  he kept it in his car every day and the whole family used it to park in handicap spots.  from what i can tell the only people who use handicap parking spots are people with a handicapped relative not a handicapped driver.    i have never seen one of those special cars for people who are disabled where they have buttons instead of pedals and a contraption that unloads a person with a wheelchair.  if even once i saw an actual physically disabled person exit their vehicle in a handicapped parking spot i might not even question their special parking spots.   #  i know one of these fraudsters personally, he had his because his grandfather was handicapped so they just used his handicap badge.   #  presumably this is ok because sometimes they have to drive him places.   # as in both are legs made of meat that are fully functional.  they have the handicap badge in the car but they do not seem to have any sort of physical ailment.  this is a common theme, and it is incorrect.  there are more disabilities than are readily discernible by the presence of limbs.  for example, my father in law has a very fucked up back.  some days he is more or less fine, others can barely move.  even on good days he has to limit his time up and around.  conversely, i have also known guys missing a leg or part of a leg that have no need for handicapped spaces, and do not use them.  looking alone is actually a very poor means of knowing the extent of someone is disability.  presumably this is ok because sometimes they have to drive him places.  he kept it in his car every day and the whole family used it to park in handicap spots.  from what i can tell the only people who use handicap parking spots are people with a handicapped relative not a handicapped driver.  douchebags are douchebags.  simply because some may exploit the system does not erase the actual need.   #  eta there are also autoimmune diseases that are affected by the weather.   #  not all diseases require some type of equipment for mobility but they leave you physically fatigued.  i had a friend in college with multiple sclerosis who had a handicapped placard.  she had no outward physical disability and did not always need to park in the handicap parking spot, but she could never be completely sure of when the pain or fatigue would hit so she would always park in a handicap parking spot just in case.  one time we spent hours at a theme park without issue and another time we spent 0 minutes in a grocery store before i had to help her back to her car.  eta there are also autoimmune diseases that are affected by the weather.  so limiting the time one spends outside is crucial.  having handicap parking near the store makes it less likely that the person will spend time in an adverse environment.   #  because they could have problems with mobility/pain that you ca not tell.   #  because they could have problems with mobility/pain that you ca not tell.  for example i had a herniated disc about 0 months.  on the outside i looked like you average athletic girl, albeit with a slight limp.  in reality i was in excruciating pain 0/0 and could only walk a few meters before having to stop and either sit down or lean against something.  just because you could not tell i was having an issue did not mean i could not have benefited from a handicapped spot.   #  i will be generous and say it takes you ten minutes, on average, per outing to walk to or from your car and the store.   #  maybe you are not at shops/restaurants/etc at the same time that a majority of handicapped people are.  my friend who uses a wheelchair intentionally goes shopping during less busy hours of the day because it is easier for her to move through the aisles if there are fewer people around.  just because you do not see handicapped people using the spots does not mean they are not used when you are not at the store.  the amount of time you spend within eyeshot of a handicapped spot is very low.  i will be generous and say it takes you ten minutes, on average, per outing to walk to or from your car and the store.  even neglecting the fact that you are likely not paying close attention to the status of the handicapped spots 0 of the time that you are in the lot, that is still only a tiny fraction of the time that the business is open for the day.  your perception that they are  always empty  is the result of confirmation bias, which makes it seem like the spots are constantly empty when in fact you only know for sure from your observations that they are empty for the ten to twenty or so minutes that you are in the car park each day, and only on such occasions when you happen to observe and make note of the fact that they are empty.   #  in theory, the ideal number of handicapped spots in a facility are x0, where x is the number of handicapped people currently parked at the facility, and there is another spot available in case someone shows up.   #  point 0 of course some of them are always empty, that is the point.  it means there are no handicapped people who are forced to park in the back of the lot and walk/wheel to the facility.  in theory, the ideal number of handicapped spots in a facility are x0, where x is the number of handicapped people currently parked at the facility, and there is another spot available in case someone shows up.  the ada and local codes generally provide for the number of parking spots that a facility must have, and how many of those must be handicapped.  point 0 as repeated ad nauseum throughout the thread, just because someone has two seemingly functional legs does not mean they are not handicapped.  your visual cues are not the arbiter of what is or is not a handicapped.  people can have problems with backs, joints, hearts, lungs, or nervous systems that are not readily visible, but most certainly exist.  point 0 anecdote does not equal data.  your friend is not representative of the entire population of people with handicap placards.  point 0 ancedote does not equal data.  your experiences of what you see in the parking lots you frequent are not representative of the world.  i am quite certain that if you have been to a mall, stadium, or any other large venue you have seen a van parked in a handicapped space, and it was likely one of the ones you described.  they just do not paint  handicapped person here !   on the side of the van, nor do they make them carry a sign around inside the venue so you can find them.
here is what i see in my neighborhood which has 0 handicapped spots.    they are almost always empty.  almost everywhere i go in my city when i am looking for parking the handicapped spots are the only empty ones sometimes.  to this day, however, i have never parked or even briefly pulled over in a handicapped spot because it feels cruel.    the few times i see them occupied, every time, i see a completely able bodied person leave the car.  as in both are legs made of meat that are fully functional.  they have the handicap badge in the car but they do not seem to have any sort of physical ailment.  if you need a contraption to get the wheelchair out that seems fair, but if the person is just deaf or is missing a pinky i do not see why they need special reserved parking.    i know one of these fraudsters personally, he had his because his grandfather was handicapped so they just used his handicap badge.  presumably this is ok because sometimes they have to drive him places.  he kept it in his car every day and the whole family used it to park in handicap spots.  from what i can tell the only people who use handicap parking spots are people with a handicapped relative not a handicapped driver.    i have never seen one of those special cars for people who are disabled where they have buttons instead of pedals and a contraption that unloads a person with a wheelchair.  if even once i saw an actual physically disabled person exit their vehicle in a handicapped parking spot i might not even question their special parking spots.   #  if even once i saw an actual physically disabled person exit their vehicle in a handicapped parking spot i might not even question their special parking spots.   #  you have given a criteria here to change your view that none of us can meet.   # you have given a criteria here to change your view that none of us can meet.  i know someone in a wheelchair with a special car.  are you saying he does not exist ? i have seen individuals with obvious disabilities exit their vehicles.  are you saying i have not ? no one here can change what you have observed.  you are going to have to believe us that the world is bigger than your neighborhood and that it contains disabled individuals who nonetheless drive and that the social good of those spots outweighs the ill that you have personally witnessed.   #  having handicap parking near the store makes it less likely that the person will spend time in an adverse environment.   #  not all diseases require some type of equipment for mobility but they leave you physically fatigued.  i had a friend in college with multiple sclerosis who had a handicapped placard.  she had no outward physical disability and did not always need to park in the handicap parking spot, but she could never be completely sure of when the pain or fatigue would hit so she would always park in a handicap parking spot just in case.  one time we spent hours at a theme park without issue and another time we spent 0 minutes in a grocery store before i had to help her back to her car.  eta there are also autoimmune diseases that are affected by the weather.  so limiting the time one spends outside is crucial.  having handicap parking near the store makes it less likely that the person will spend time in an adverse environment.   #  just because you could not tell i was having an issue did not mean i could not have benefited from a handicapped spot.   #  because they could have problems with mobility/pain that you ca not tell.  for example i had a herniated disc about 0 months.  on the outside i looked like you average athletic girl, albeit with a slight limp.  in reality i was in excruciating pain 0/0 and could only walk a few meters before having to stop and either sit down or lean against something.  just because you could not tell i was having an issue did not mean i could not have benefited from a handicapped spot.   #  i will be generous and say it takes you ten minutes, on average, per outing to walk to or from your car and the store.   #  maybe you are not at shops/restaurants/etc at the same time that a majority of handicapped people are.  my friend who uses a wheelchair intentionally goes shopping during less busy hours of the day because it is easier for her to move through the aisles if there are fewer people around.  just because you do not see handicapped people using the spots does not mean they are not used when you are not at the store.  the amount of time you spend within eyeshot of a handicapped spot is very low.  i will be generous and say it takes you ten minutes, on average, per outing to walk to or from your car and the store.  even neglecting the fact that you are likely not paying close attention to the status of the handicapped spots 0 of the time that you are in the lot, that is still only a tiny fraction of the time that the business is open for the day.  your perception that they are  always empty  is the result of confirmation bias, which makes it seem like the spots are constantly empty when in fact you only know for sure from your observations that they are empty for the ten to twenty or so minutes that you are in the car park each day, and only on such occasions when you happen to observe and make note of the fact that they are empty.   #  your visual cues are not the arbiter of what is or is not a handicapped.   #  point 0 of course some of them are always empty, that is the point.  it means there are no handicapped people who are forced to park in the back of the lot and walk/wheel to the facility.  in theory, the ideal number of handicapped spots in a facility are x0, where x is the number of handicapped people currently parked at the facility, and there is another spot available in case someone shows up.  the ada and local codes generally provide for the number of parking spots that a facility must have, and how many of those must be handicapped.  point 0 as repeated ad nauseum throughout the thread, just because someone has two seemingly functional legs does not mean they are not handicapped.  your visual cues are not the arbiter of what is or is not a handicapped.  people can have problems with backs, joints, hearts, lungs, or nervous systems that are not readily visible, but most certainly exist.  point 0 anecdote does not equal data.  your friend is not representative of the entire population of people with handicap placards.  point 0 ancedote does not equal data.  your experiences of what you see in the parking lots you frequent are not representative of the world.  i am quite certain that if you have been to a mall, stadium, or any other large venue you have seen a van parked in a handicapped space, and it was likely one of the ones you described.  they just do not paint  handicapped person here !   on the side of the van, nor do they make them carry a sign around inside the venue so you can find them.
i often see on reddit and other places on the internet people being ridiculed or criticized for  comparing x to slavery/the holocaust/world wars. etc  because presumably that means they are blowing their own problems way out of proportion.  while i obviously agree that implying such trivial problems as dress codes you do not agree with or having to go to church or what have you are in any way equal to such tragic events, i think that it can be illustrative of some points of human nature or society to use such well known examples.  to put it more succinctly, i think using extreme examples to get a point across does not devalue those examples or imply that you feel your situation is equal to them.  comparing events serves only to do just that; compare similarities.   #  i think that it can be illustrative of some points of human nature or society to use such well known examples.   #  no because they dismiss the obvious differences and this weakens your argument.   # no because they dismiss the obvious differences and this weakens your argument.  so lets say i compare a school dress code with forcing jewish people to wear a star of david.  the differences are striking; school dress codes are for only during school time, its not based on religion, not meant to negatively identify people.  so are they actually compatible ? where its bad is that you weaken your own argument.  do you actually have a point if you have to go to such extremes that do not even work out ? are you just grasping at straws ?  #  although they might not be wrong, it sets the wrong tone for the conversation.   #  one of the problems of that kind of hyperbole is it makes the conversation of the topic difficult.  if we are attempting a reasonable discussion of how it is wrong for youth to paint slurs and swastikas on synagogues and immediately jump to the holocaust we are instantly jumping to a graphic and brutal historical example of genocide.  however, it does not properly help the trouble youth vandals to properly empathise with the victims of their hate or understand why what they did was wrong.  if anything it teaches them  do not cross group x because they have already suffered situation z.   when the lesson, and conversation should instead be about why it is wrong to vandalise and damage property with provocative and hateful slurs and images.  take the conversation to be discourse between adults on a topic and it also is problematic.  if the discussion is on oppression, racism and intolerance and one side immediately jumps to the holocaust it immediately forces to other side to capitulate and end the discussion or else be forced to try and argue in favour of the holocaust.  it is an unreasonable escalation in the conversation that can make the actual topic at hand a lot harder to honestly and accurately discuss and examine because one side is dropping the proverbial mwd of hatred every time the topic comes up.  for example, let is say people want to discuss what happened between the police officer and the black youth in texas.  one side implies there might have been a reason for the officer is action but the other side immediately jumps to  systemic racism and history of slavery !   although they might not be wrong, it sets the wrong tone for the conversation.  as now the person trying to examine the situation is being forced to argue indirectly against equality and the abolition of slavery.   #  if the point is freedom of expression, why not just directly communicate that on its own ?  # again the differences are striking;   dress code is for only school hours, school months and eventually end.  women in middle east its 0/0 ? everyday, every month, with no end.  school dress codes is done for uniformity and lower costs for parents.  women in the middle east is a religious/cultural issue.  school dress applies to everyone equally.  women in the middle east is a gender issue less rules for men .  so again, its bad because it weakens your argument because you appear to be grasping at straws.  if the point is freedom of expression, why not just directly communicate that on its own ?  school dress reduces freedom of expression.   ?  #  again, you are moving away from communicating clearly.   # then just communicate freedom of expression directly.  adding an extreme example just confuses the issue because there are differences.  you now need to explain why the differences do not matter to your point and what are the similarities and how they are applicable.  its like trying to describe what a candy bar tastes like starting with apple pie.   well they are both sweet, but the candy bar is chewy and has nuts .   you are moving away from communicating clearly.  but if the person is not educated in history, what makes you think he is going to be aware of things like what goes on in the middle east.  you risk even more misunderstanding;  but women in the middle east are 0 ok with their dress and lack of expression.  its the way they are.   now you are getting away from your point and trying to convince someone about the details of the middle east.  again, you are moving away from communicating clearly.   #  someone would understand the culture/society/religion/gender politics of a foreign country but not understand something in their own country like school uniforms ?  # you were the one who brought up the point its for  someone is not as well educated in history or rhetoric .  i am just following down that path you set.  a reasonable person would understand what you are saying.   school uniform has a negative impact on freedom of expression  what is so hard about that ? someone would understand the culture/society/religion/gender politics of a foreign country but not understand something in their own country like school uniforms ?
i often see on reddit and other places on the internet people being ridiculed or criticized for  comparing x to slavery/the holocaust/world wars. etc  because presumably that means they are blowing their own problems way out of proportion.  while i obviously agree that implying such trivial problems as dress codes you do not agree with or having to go to church or what have you are in any way equal to such tragic events, i think that it can be illustrative of some points of human nature or society to use such well known examples.  to put it more succinctly, i think using extreme examples to get a point across does not devalue those examples or imply that you feel your situation is equal to them.  comparing events serves only to do just that; compare similarities.   #  comparing events serves only to do just that; compare similarities.   #  similar in what way s i think you have phrased this post very poorly, especially in this line:   i think that it can be illustrative of some points of  human nature or society  to use such well known examples.   # equal in what way s ? similar in what way s i think you have phrased this post very poorly, especially in this line:   i think that it can be illustrative of some points of  human nature or society  to use such well known examples.  this is totally vague.  i can only assume here that you are attempting to say that the demonstration of first principles in an ethical discussion can be illustrated by extreme examples and that these first principles can be reapplied to your less serious case.  if that is your position, i do not find it controversial, but i would question whether it is an effective means of rhetoric, given how people have a tendency to ridicule or criticise the method, i. e.  if your aim is to convince someone of your first principles or of how they apply to your situation, will you be more or less convincing if you use another method of argument or a less extreme example to generate the first principles ?  #  take the conversation to be discourse between adults on a topic and it also is problematic.   #  one of the problems of that kind of hyperbole is it makes the conversation of the topic difficult.  if we are attempting a reasonable discussion of how it is wrong for youth to paint slurs and swastikas on synagogues and immediately jump to the holocaust we are instantly jumping to a graphic and brutal historical example of genocide.  however, it does not properly help the trouble youth vandals to properly empathise with the victims of their hate or understand why what they did was wrong.  if anything it teaches them  do not cross group x because they have already suffered situation z.   when the lesson, and conversation should instead be about why it is wrong to vandalise and damage property with provocative and hateful slurs and images.  take the conversation to be discourse between adults on a topic and it also is problematic.  if the discussion is on oppression, racism and intolerance and one side immediately jumps to the holocaust it immediately forces to other side to capitulate and end the discussion or else be forced to try and argue in favour of the holocaust.  it is an unreasonable escalation in the conversation that can make the actual topic at hand a lot harder to honestly and accurately discuss and examine because one side is dropping the proverbial mwd of hatred every time the topic comes up.  for example, let is say people want to discuss what happened between the police officer and the black youth in texas.  one side implies there might have been a reason for the officer is action but the other side immediately jumps to  systemic racism and history of slavery !   although they might not be wrong, it sets the wrong tone for the conversation.  as now the person trying to examine the situation is being forced to argue indirectly against equality and the abolition of slavery.   #  the differences are striking; school dress codes are for only during school time, its not based on religion, not meant to negatively identify people.   # no because they dismiss the obvious differences and this weakens your argument.  so lets say i compare a school dress code with forcing jewish people to wear a star of david.  the differences are striking; school dress codes are for only during school time, its not based on religion, not meant to negatively identify people.  so are they actually compatible ? where its bad is that you weaken your own argument.  do you actually have a point if you have to go to such extremes that do not even work out ? are you just grasping at straws ?  #  so again, its bad because it weakens your argument because you appear to be grasping at straws.   # again the differences are striking;   dress code is for only school hours, school months and eventually end.  women in middle east its 0/0 ? everyday, every month, with no end.  school dress codes is done for uniformity and lower costs for parents.  women in the middle east is a religious/cultural issue.  school dress applies to everyone equally.  women in the middle east is a gender issue less rules for men .  so again, its bad because it weakens your argument because you appear to be grasping at straws.  if the point is freedom of expression, why not just directly communicate that on its own ?  school dress reduces freedom of expression.   ?  #  its like trying to describe what a candy bar tastes like starting with apple pie.   # then just communicate freedom of expression directly.  adding an extreme example just confuses the issue because there are differences.  you now need to explain why the differences do not matter to your point and what are the similarities and how they are applicable.  its like trying to describe what a candy bar tastes like starting with apple pie.   well they are both sweet, but the candy bar is chewy and has nuts .   you are moving away from communicating clearly.  but if the person is not educated in history, what makes you think he is going to be aware of things like what goes on in the middle east.  you risk even more misunderstanding;  but women in the middle east are 0 ok with their dress and lack of expression.  its the way they are.   now you are getting away from your point and trying to convince someone about the details of the middle east.  again, you are moving away from communicating clearly.
i have a cousin and now a grandmother affected by breast cancer.  the former has had it for the better part of a decade now and has become very active in a number of breast cancer awareness campaigns.  i have become a little more active here to be supportive.  i understand the positive motivations behind phrasings like  save the boobies  or  save the ta tas.   i get that they are a more lighthearted approach to breast cancer awareness and survival, and that they draw in presumably, or at least arguably more crowds than their serious counterparts, and that not everything surrounding breast cancer has to be sober or grim.  i do not begrudge people for gravitating towards this approach.  my cmv basically revolves around the fact that i am concerned this marginalizes women who either proactively got a mastectomy or did so precisely because they absolutely needed to to survive.  i think these people have a strong claim to awareness and survival and that the focus of these campaigns should be those two characteristics and not making sure women keep their breasts.  this is understandably important to many women, and i appreciate that, but i am uncomfortable with the notion that keeping breasts is a galvanizing feature for broad swaths of people and that we might be unintentionally excluding/marginalizing a core set of survivors.  a few things that keep me from swinging entirely in this direction: i could be completely off base and maybe most survivors, including those who have had their breasts removed, are okay with this framing of awareness.  i defer to people who have gone through this experience more than me as a casual observer.  women presumably want to keep their breasts and there is nothing wrong with that as an aspirational goal that can be part of the survival package.  i do not want to paint the picture that i think this desire is wrong or superficial.  if it was demonstrated that this kind of marketing has generated so much participation, awareness, and fundraising that its practical effects off set any implication that we, as a society, are preoccupied with women keeping breasts rather than beating cancer.  cmv, please.   #  i am concerned this marginalizes women who either proactively got a mastectomy or did so precisely because they absolutely needed to to survive.   #  i think these people have a strong claim to awareness and survival and that the focus of these campaigns should be those two characteristics and not making sure women keep their breasts.   # i think these people have a strong claim to awareness and survival and that the focus of these campaigns should be those two characteristics and not making sure women keep their breasts.  this abjectly fails to demonstrate  abhorrently sexist .  please elaborate.  so your problem is that it is vague and some people might misinterpret it ? i implicitly asked two things: 0.  is it the intended meaning ? 0.  is it the obvious meaning ? you said 0.  is not necessarily true because many ? people might interpret it differently.  are you saying that the intended meaning from the campaigners is something other than  save boobs from having to be chopped off  ? please show your work.   #  i like preventing breast cancer, but i also like ensuring that these campaigns include people who did not have that benefit.   # i think this is a case where the ends justify the means for the most part.  it is good, but does it mean this:  if it was demonstrated that this kind of marketing has generated so much participation, awareness, and fundraising that its practical effects off set any implication that we, as a society, are preoccupied with women keeping breasts rather than beating cancer.  i like preventing breast cancer, but i also like ensuring that these campaigns include people who did not have that benefit.  do you have anything that indicates these campaigns considerably bolster prevention ? a simple, catchy slogan like  save the boobies  is more effective than you are giving it credit for.  i understand the marketing behind it but in terms of  is this right ?   i do not really care about the strip club crowd participating unless their participation creates a serious contribution to fundraising and awareness.   #  if the  isave the boobies  campaign has helped people get treatment or survive that otherwise would not have, how can you justify your arguement ?  #  if the  isave the boobies  campaign has helped people get treatment or survive that otherwise would not have, how can you justify your arguement ? no ones  right  not to be marginalized trumps another persons right to live.  you ca not have both ways.  either push for the  rights  of the  amarginalized , and accept that some people may die as a direct result of your actions, or accept that some people feeling  amarginalized  is an inevitable response to other peoples well intentioned and justified movements.  for christs sake op, these are peoples lives we are talking about.  how can you justify potentially denying someone, and their loved ones, life, just to make someone feel better ? what the hell is our society coming to ?  #  so because it is offensive to you, you think we should get rid of a great donor to breast cancer research.   #  i know, what you are saying is that it sends out this message while not meaning to.  which is like hearing a rape joke in a comedy club and thinking the comedian wants to rape women.  what i am saying is, no one is being offended, but you are interpreting it as an offense.  so because it is offensive to you, you think we should get rid of a great donor to breast cancer research.  so no, you did not  frame  the post that way, but that is how you interpret the slogan, you just did not want to say it out loud.   #  i am not sure why reddit feels so compelled to frame everything as  you are offended.    #  i am not sure why reddit feels so compelled to frame everything as  you are offended.   well, i  am  pretty sure it is because sounding offended is a big no no, and because redditors like to say  if you are offended just do not be offended.   no, that is not my complaint.  i definitely think there is a heightened potential for insensitivity when it comes to breast cancer survivors, particularly those who have had breasts removed.  i think this particular contexts begs for sensitivity because the whole point of awareness and fundraising is to create, in part, a place for survivors and their families to do something positive and constructive about what is ultimately an unfortunate experience.  it also exists, in part, for society to come together and share in that healing and activism while simultaneously encouraging other women to be proactive about their own health.  in doing this, i would rather not march in and begin marketing something i have very little ownership over in a way that effectively pushes out survivors or other people who have meaningfully participated in this experience.  if you are thinking  but you do not know that it does that,  you are  right.  that is mostly why i made this thread.  i think my concern is valid.  i think it is more than being  offended.   i think there is some merit to discussing whether this places more importance on saving a frequently sexualized body part over staying alive.  this does not mean i am categorically correct, or that other factors ca not outweigh these concerns, but it does mean that it is not simply about hurt feelings or reading offensiveness into a place where it absolutely cannot exist.
snowden leaked classified information, which is a crime, but the circumstances of the leak, and how he did it, are such that he deserves to be pardoned.  snowden did not leak for personal gain, but for public benefit.  he did not sell secrets to a foreign power.  the programs he revealed were illegal URL if he had not been a national security employee, his actions would have been covered by the whistleblower protection act, and not be a crime at all.  two years on from his leaks, it is clear that snowden has not acted in a way deserving of legal punishment, and it would be better for the united states if he were to be pardoned and allowed to return home, instead of his looming prosecution, especially considering that he could not raise a public interest defense URL at trial.  snowden broke the law.  but the pardon power exists precisely because the law does not cover all possible contingencies, and there is supposed to be the possibility of mercy in an exceptional case.  snowden is case is nothing if not exceptional, and he should be pardoned.   #  snowden did not leak for personal gain, but for public benefit.   #  that does not define if he broke the law or not.   # that does not define if he broke the law or not.  we just do not know either way yet.  as just one example; he went to hong kong and revealed to a china friendly newspaper URL details that are only valuable to foreign powers.  URL   the documents listed operational details of specific attacks on computers, including internet protocol ip addresses, dates of attacks and whether a computer was still being monitored remotely.  did he sell this for a more understanding hong kong government ? we do not know.  what did he give the russians for their understanding ? they would not give him anything when they know what he has.   #  i was reading the other day that even snowden actually is not asking for a pardon to return to the usa.   #  i was reading the other day that even snowden actually is not asking for a pardon to return to the usa.  i mean, i am sure he would take one, but that is not what he is asking for.  whistleblower laws in the us allow for people to break the law by revealing government information, and avoid punishment if they can show they did so for the purpose of the public good.  the problem for snowden is that these laws explicitly exclude intelligence agencies, and that under the espionage act he is charged with, he cannot make a public good defense.  snowden has said repeatedly that he would come back and face trial if he were allowed to defend himself as a whistleblower in court.  so the government does not even need to pardon him to get him to return from russia simply charge him under something less draconian and anachronistic than the espionage act, and let him make his defense.  presumably the case would look a lot like the debate in this thread.   #  the outcome of that leak was the australia and indonesia stopped working together on people smuggling and stopped talking about prisoners on death row.   #  so he leaked information about other countries doing stuff with other countries.  for instance, he leaked stuff about australia spying on indonesia that ruined a significant international relationship.  the outcome of that leak was the australia and indonesia stopped working together on people smuggling and stopped talking about prisoners on death row.  the outcome of those changes were a heap of people drowning at sea and recently two australians being put to death.  with better international relations, that would probably not have happened.  he might have issues about domestic us surveillance which are fair, but he totally over stepped the mark by leaking stuff about overseas relations which really had nothing to do with him, nothing to do with the usa and caused outcomes he did not understand and could not have predicted.   #  other people in the chain and doing some good and some bad things.   #  sure, there was a chain of events.  who is responsible for a thing happening ? you could blame the guy on the firing squad that pulled the trigger and ignore the person who gave the order.  really there is a long chain of people who have made choices.  the australians might have been in the wrong for spying, but one assumes that they decided to spy because they figured the information they obtained would be worthwhile on balance.  the problem with snowden is that he has done an action leaking documents that have nothing to do with the subject matter he is  whistleblowing  in relation to that does only harm and has no good.  other people in the chain and doing some good and some bad things.   #  ignore the information about domestic spying, leave u. s.   #  no, because this is not the johnson family next door.  it is the interaction of nation states that control the fates of billions of lives.  ignore the information about domestic spying, leave u. s.  spying on foreign nations and the intelligence that foreign nations conduct against each other.  this stuff is exactly the job we have tasked to the intelligence services and one that we all acknowledge requires secrecy.  are you comfortable in a world where low to mid level contractors are free to independently decide whether foreign intelligence operations are compromised ? where a low level contractor can potential disrupt high level foreign relations ? make no mistake, snowden  could  have exercised discretion and blacked out everything not invoking domestic spying.  he did not, and abdicated that responsibility to journalists who lack security expertise or clearance.
snowden leaked classified information, which is a crime, but the circumstances of the leak, and how he did it, are such that he deserves to be pardoned.  snowden did not leak for personal gain, but for public benefit.  he did not sell secrets to a foreign power.  the programs he revealed were illegal URL if he had not been a national security employee, his actions would have been covered by the whistleblower protection act, and not be a crime at all.  two years on from his leaks, it is clear that snowden has not acted in a way deserving of legal punishment, and it would be better for the united states if he were to be pardoned and allowed to return home, instead of his looming prosecution, especially considering that he could not raise a public interest defense URL at trial.  snowden broke the law.  but the pardon power exists precisely because the law does not cover all possible contingencies, and there is supposed to be the possibility of mercy in an exceptional case.  snowden is case is nothing if not exceptional, and he should be pardoned.   #  he did not sell secrets to a foreign power.   #  we just do not know either way yet.   # that does not define if he broke the law or not.  we just do not know either way yet.  as just one example; he went to hong kong and revealed to a china friendly newspaper URL details that are only valuable to foreign powers.  URL   the documents listed operational details of specific attacks on computers, including internet protocol ip addresses, dates of attacks and whether a computer was still being monitored remotely.  did he sell this for a more understanding hong kong government ? we do not know.  what did he give the russians for their understanding ? they would not give him anything when they know what he has.   #  presumably the case would look a lot like the debate in this thread.   #  i was reading the other day that even snowden actually is not asking for a pardon to return to the usa.  i mean, i am sure he would take one, but that is not what he is asking for.  whistleblower laws in the us allow for people to break the law by revealing government information, and avoid punishment if they can show they did so for the purpose of the public good.  the problem for snowden is that these laws explicitly exclude intelligence agencies, and that under the espionage act he is charged with, he cannot make a public good defense.  snowden has said repeatedly that he would come back and face trial if he were allowed to defend himself as a whistleblower in court.  so the government does not even need to pardon him to get him to return from russia simply charge him under something less draconian and anachronistic than the espionage act, and let him make his defense.  presumably the case would look a lot like the debate in this thread.   #  for instance, he leaked stuff about australia spying on indonesia that ruined a significant international relationship.   #  so he leaked information about other countries doing stuff with other countries.  for instance, he leaked stuff about australia spying on indonesia that ruined a significant international relationship.  the outcome of that leak was the australia and indonesia stopped working together on people smuggling and stopped talking about prisoners on death row.  the outcome of those changes were a heap of people drowning at sea and recently two australians being put to death.  with better international relations, that would probably not have happened.  he might have issues about domestic us surveillance which are fair, but he totally over stepped the mark by leaking stuff about overseas relations which really had nothing to do with him, nothing to do with the usa and caused outcomes he did not understand and could not have predicted.   #  you could blame the guy on the firing squad that pulled the trigger and ignore the person who gave the order.   #  sure, there was a chain of events.  who is responsible for a thing happening ? you could blame the guy on the firing squad that pulled the trigger and ignore the person who gave the order.  really there is a long chain of people who have made choices.  the australians might have been in the wrong for spying, but one assumes that they decided to spy because they figured the information they obtained would be worthwhile on balance.  the problem with snowden is that he has done an action leaking documents that have nothing to do with the subject matter he is  whistleblowing  in relation to that does only harm and has no good.  other people in the chain and doing some good and some bad things.   #  where a low level contractor can potential disrupt high level foreign relations ?  #  no, because this is not the johnson family next door.  it is the interaction of nation states that control the fates of billions of lives.  ignore the information about domestic spying, leave u. s.  spying on foreign nations and the intelligence that foreign nations conduct against each other.  this stuff is exactly the job we have tasked to the intelligence services and one that we all acknowledge requires secrecy.  are you comfortable in a world where low to mid level contractors are free to independently decide whether foreign intelligence operations are compromised ? where a low level contractor can potential disrupt high level foreign relations ? make no mistake, snowden  could  have exercised discretion and blacked out everything not invoking domestic spying.  he did not, and abdicated that responsibility to journalists who lack security expertise or clearance.
first, i am of course sympathetic to any and all people who have suffered trauma, and a trigger warning is a small step to helping them cope.  however, everyone has their problems.  many people may have severe reactions to traumas that cannot be predicted.  should we put trigger warnings on pictures/videos/descriptions of car accidents for victims of car accidents ? should we put warnings on descriptions of robberies for viewers effected by those crimes ? i feel it is too difficult to predict these sort of reactions and what sort of content may prove triggering.  at what point do the needs of the few who may be triggered necessaitate a trigger warning ? is not is possible, however unlikely, that  any  content could be triggering to  someone  ? if we start putting trigger warnings on everything, what is the point ? also, the reaction to people who do not put trigger warnings on their content is largely negative.  in an age where trigger warnings are becoming more and more prevalent, where is the line between non triggering and triggering content, and should it be the responsibility of the content creator to warn their readers, or of the viewer to avoid triggering content ?  #  at what point do the needs of the few who may be triggered necessaitate a trigger warning ?  #  is not is possible, however unlikely, that any content could be triggering to someone ?  # is not is possible, however unlikely, that any content could be triggering to someone ? if we start putting trigger warnings on everything, what is the point ? this makes it sound as if it takes two hours to put a tw on something.  it does not.  it is a small thing, a courtesy that does not take away anything from you or the majority of people, but makes a difference to some.  i blog, for example.  in what way will it hurt me to put  tw:rape  in the tags of a post ? it takes a second, it is not intrusive at all, and yet there are people out there who will definitely appreciate it.  something that triggers you, may not trigger others and vice versa.  i do not think there is some unique trigger line that works for everyone.  why would not we all share it, simply because we are nice people who do not mind helping another person enjoy certain content ? i will take the example of tumblr, since i have had a blog there for years now and am familiar with the system.  if i post something with rape in it and put a tw in the tags, i have done something about it as the creator/reblogger.  on the other hand, people who are triggered by rape will use one of the myriad of addons for tumblr out there and blacklist  tw:rape  posts with that tag wo not show up on their dashboard.  so we did something together and no one is suffering in this story.  does not cost me anything to add that tag.  as for avoiding the content, it is not always that easy.  we are bombarded with all sorts of things every day and we ca not always predict what will be written or shown in a piece of media.  i have had situations where one of my followers would send me a message, politely asking me to tag something that triggers them.  they were not assholes about it, they did not attack me, it was a simple,  hey, if it is not too much trouble, could you tag this ? thank you so much.   why yes, of course i can.  no trouble at all.   #  the second counts as a trigger warning, and it will be very valuable for people to know that it is an expectation that they be willing to discuss these topics.   #  trigger warnings, at their heart, are really just content descriptions.  you are right that any content can be triggering, and thus a more detailed description of the material in the course is warranted.  compare the following course descriptions for a philosophy 0 course my experience with them is in academia :  in this course we examine several of the most fundamental issues in philosophy .  vs  in this course we examine several of the most fundamental issues in philosophy.  we cover issues involving religion, abortion, skepticism, politics and fundamental ethical theories.   the second counts as a trigger warning, and it will be very valuable for people to know that it is an expectation that they be willing to discuss these topics.  the point is: we  all  benefit from moderate trigger warnings.  they just serve to describe the content of a piece of information.  now, you are absolutely right that there is a point at which too much description would be demanded, but i do not see that as a problem for moderate trigger warnings, which just accurately describe the content.   #  i remember hearing some ex military with ptsd say that it is not the things you would expect that bring flashbacks like movie scenes but minor things like the sound of a tree branch hitting the side of the house.   #  put that way, it makes a lot of sense, but it begs the question of why they are called  trigger warnings  instead of content description in the first place.  we have mpaa and esrb ratings on movies and video games respectively, which are a bit like trigger warnings in that they  warn  consumers of certain content that might not be appropriate for all audiences.  if people dislike seeing violence or hearing profanity, etc.  then it works to that extent, too.  there is nothing wrong with this.  my issue, though, is that by calling these content descriptions  trigger warnings,  you unnecessarily take it a step further and suggest that the content is potentially  triggering.   triggering of what, exactly, and among who ? we do not know, because anything can be triggering and people react differently to their triggers.  i remember hearing some ex military with ptsd say that it is not the things you would expect that bring flashbacks like movie scenes but minor things like the sound of a tree branch hitting the side of the house.  thus it seems to me that some people will inevitably be triggered even when their choice of media does not feature any rape, violence, etc.  and thus does not have trigger warnings for such.  i believe that this will lead to discussions about what kind of content merits so and so trigger warnings and what does not.  even if warnings are applied liberally to err on the side of caution, i am afraid those triggered when there are no warnings may be left feeling that they are not right to associate such content with their bad experience, that it is their fault they ca not get over it because their trigger is not  willegitimate.   furthermore, i am afraid that those who do not give any trigger warnings will be scrutinized for not being sensitive to their audience, even if they do not feel themselves qualified to do so given how ambiguous triggers are or simply choose not to.  tl;dr it is not that the  warnings  exist, but how they are framed.  they suggest that media creators, teachers, etc.  bear sole responsibility for not making their audience freak out and i think that can end badly for both sides.   #  it seems like a simple fix that could be slapped on a movie poster.   #  but, in some way, we already have that, or something that could be easily modified.  often movies on tv, or tv shows will start with a little discretion warning about ambiguous things like sex drugs or rock and roll.  instead of calling it a  trigger warning  why not simply just include more descriptive warnings where we already have them.  it seems like a simple fix that could be slapped on a movie poster.  would it be perfect, hell no.  but with how we have been so far, i would say perfection is unattainable right now  #  you can look for the cue at the start and leave it at that.   #  and i said we could take that system and make it more specific while still acting in the realm of reasonable.  think food allergies.  a body could potentially get taken out by near anything, but we only label the big 0: nuts, soy, milk, shellfish and eggs with other ones occasionally being noted .  it could be just direct.  the best part is that it allows for viewers to be discrete.  do not wanna talk about your experience, you do not have to.  you can look for the cue at the start and leave it at that.
first, i am of course sympathetic to any and all people who have suffered trauma, and a trigger warning is a small step to helping them cope.  however, everyone has their problems.  many people may have severe reactions to traumas that cannot be predicted.  should we put trigger warnings on pictures/videos/descriptions of car accidents for victims of car accidents ? should we put warnings on descriptions of robberies for viewers effected by those crimes ? i feel it is too difficult to predict these sort of reactions and what sort of content may prove triggering.  at what point do the needs of the few who may be triggered necessaitate a trigger warning ? is not is possible, however unlikely, that  any  content could be triggering to  someone  ? if we start putting trigger warnings on everything, what is the point ? also, the reaction to people who do not put trigger warnings on their content is largely negative.  in an age where trigger warnings are becoming more and more prevalent, where is the line between non triggering and triggering content, and should it be the responsibility of the content creator to warn their readers, or of the viewer to avoid triggering content ?  #  should it be the responsibility of the content creator to warn their readers, or of the viewer to avoid triggering content ?  #  why would not we all share it, simply because we are nice people who do not mind helping another person enjoy certain content ?  # is not is possible, however unlikely, that any content could be triggering to someone ? if we start putting trigger warnings on everything, what is the point ? this makes it sound as if it takes two hours to put a tw on something.  it does not.  it is a small thing, a courtesy that does not take away anything from you or the majority of people, but makes a difference to some.  i blog, for example.  in what way will it hurt me to put  tw:rape  in the tags of a post ? it takes a second, it is not intrusive at all, and yet there are people out there who will definitely appreciate it.  something that triggers you, may not trigger others and vice versa.  i do not think there is some unique trigger line that works for everyone.  why would not we all share it, simply because we are nice people who do not mind helping another person enjoy certain content ? i will take the example of tumblr, since i have had a blog there for years now and am familiar with the system.  if i post something with rape in it and put a tw in the tags, i have done something about it as the creator/reblogger.  on the other hand, people who are triggered by rape will use one of the myriad of addons for tumblr out there and blacklist  tw:rape  posts with that tag wo not show up on their dashboard.  so we did something together and no one is suffering in this story.  does not cost me anything to add that tag.  as for avoiding the content, it is not always that easy.  we are bombarded with all sorts of things every day and we ca not always predict what will be written or shown in a piece of media.  i have had situations where one of my followers would send me a message, politely asking me to tag something that triggers them.  they were not assholes about it, they did not attack me, it was a simple,  hey, if it is not too much trouble, could you tag this ? thank you so much.   why yes, of course i can.  no trouble at all.   #  we cover issues involving religion, abortion, skepticism, politics and fundamental ethical theories.    #  trigger warnings, at their heart, are really just content descriptions.  you are right that any content can be triggering, and thus a more detailed description of the material in the course is warranted.  compare the following course descriptions for a philosophy 0 course my experience with them is in academia :  in this course we examine several of the most fundamental issues in philosophy .  vs  in this course we examine several of the most fundamental issues in philosophy.  we cover issues involving religion, abortion, skepticism, politics and fundamental ethical theories.   the second counts as a trigger warning, and it will be very valuable for people to know that it is an expectation that they be willing to discuss these topics.  the point is: we  all  benefit from moderate trigger warnings.  they just serve to describe the content of a piece of information.  now, you are absolutely right that there is a point at which too much description would be demanded, but i do not see that as a problem for moderate trigger warnings, which just accurately describe the content.   #  tl;dr it is not that the  warnings  exist, but how they are framed.   #  put that way, it makes a lot of sense, but it begs the question of why they are called  trigger warnings  instead of content description in the first place.  we have mpaa and esrb ratings on movies and video games respectively, which are a bit like trigger warnings in that they  warn  consumers of certain content that might not be appropriate for all audiences.  if people dislike seeing violence or hearing profanity, etc.  then it works to that extent, too.  there is nothing wrong with this.  my issue, though, is that by calling these content descriptions  trigger warnings,  you unnecessarily take it a step further and suggest that the content is potentially  triggering.   triggering of what, exactly, and among who ? we do not know, because anything can be triggering and people react differently to their triggers.  i remember hearing some ex military with ptsd say that it is not the things you would expect that bring flashbacks like movie scenes but minor things like the sound of a tree branch hitting the side of the house.  thus it seems to me that some people will inevitably be triggered even when their choice of media does not feature any rape, violence, etc.  and thus does not have trigger warnings for such.  i believe that this will lead to discussions about what kind of content merits so and so trigger warnings and what does not.  even if warnings are applied liberally to err on the side of caution, i am afraid those triggered when there are no warnings may be left feeling that they are not right to associate such content with their bad experience, that it is their fault they ca not get over it because their trigger is not  willegitimate.   furthermore, i am afraid that those who do not give any trigger warnings will be scrutinized for not being sensitive to their audience, even if they do not feel themselves qualified to do so given how ambiguous triggers are or simply choose not to.  tl;dr it is not that the  warnings  exist, but how they are framed.  they suggest that media creators, teachers, etc.  bear sole responsibility for not making their audience freak out and i think that can end badly for both sides.   #  often movies on tv, or tv shows will start with a little discretion warning about ambiguous things like sex drugs or rock and roll.   #  but, in some way, we already have that, or something that could be easily modified.  often movies on tv, or tv shows will start with a little discretion warning about ambiguous things like sex drugs or rock and roll.  instead of calling it a  trigger warning  why not simply just include more descriptive warnings where we already have them.  it seems like a simple fix that could be slapped on a movie poster.  would it be perfect, hell no.  but with how we have been so far, i would say perfection is unattainable right now  #  do not wanna talk about your experience, you do not have to.   #  and i said we could take that system and make it more specific while still acting in the realm of reasonable.  think food allergies.  a body could potentially get taken out by near anything, but we only label the big 0: nuts, soy, milk, shellfish and eggs with other ones occasionally being noted .  it could be just direct.  the best part is that it allows for viewers to be discrete.  do not wanna talk about your experience, you do not have to.  you can look for the cue at the start and leave it at that.
this is an old article \ 0\ , but it sums up my views well.  URL it is written by head of the harvard econ department greg mankiw.  not that i want to make an argument from authority, but this idea has some weight behind it.  summary of my reasoning: the incidence burden of corporate income tax mainly falls on labor one cbo study suggests 0 , decreasing wages.  so decreasing the tax will increase wages, which is good both for the individuals and the economy.  encourages corporations to stay in and move to the us, or at least reduces the incentive to dodge taxes.  leads to economic growth, both through helping the stock market and reducing distortions in the free market.  most taxes tend to mess with the free market and are inefficient other than pigovian taxes on externalities , especially the corporate tax.  wo not mess with the deficit too much.  the money that corporations are not paying wo not just disappear.  it will go into stock transanctions taxed via cap gains , salaries taxed via payroll and income , etc.  etc.  if it drives economic growth, the tax base will also grow, which could actually make this tax cut self funding.  if we do need to fix the budget hole it makes, maybe slightly raise capital gains tax on higher incomes/transactions, and/or raise the gas tax ?  #  the incidence burden of corporate income tax mainly falls on labor one cbo study suggests 0 , decreasing wages.   #  i do not get the logic and the similar one in the ny times article.   # i do not get the logic and the similar one in the ny times article.  a company pays taxes based on its profit.  no profit, no taxes.  you state that the labor is the source of taxes and the article says consumers are.  but more correctly, the company profits are the source of taxes.  the company is profits is what is left after labor costs, so you decrease taxes you increase company profits.  profits belong to the shareholders, not the laborers unless they are shareholders too .  you can talk about secondary effects but its not in your view or the article and you are basically arguing for trickle down economics.   #  but importantly, when the fine was removed, the lateness did not go away because the fine had made parents comfortable with being late, now they just got to do it for free.   #  that the corporate tax has depressed wages does not mean that wages will go up if the tax is lowered.  incentive changes do not work like that.  freakonomics tells a story of kids being left behind late after daycare.  the daycare imposed a fine of a few dollars to incentivise being on time, but more parents ended up being late.  the price set was low enough that it was worth paying to get rid of the guilt.  but importantly, when the fine was removed, the lateness did not go away because the fine had made parents comfortable with being late, now they just got to do it for free.  this is basically called price stickiness.  in essence, corporations are now so used to underpaying for labour that we have no reason to think that any change in their profit will be allocated to paying more for it.   #  that is an excellent point on the nature of wages, however, would not the fact that wages are constantly inflating change the nature of that ?  #  that is an excellent point on the nature of wages, however, would not the fact that wages are constantly inflating change the nature of that ? i suppose possibly not, given that a company will usually pay an employee the least that they can to get him to stay.  that all said, i am curious to hear how you would address the rest of the points that op brought up.  there are i think four, and you have addressed wages pretty well in my opinion.  i will list them summarized below: encourage corporations to stay in the u. s.  will bolster stock market.  wo not hurt deficit too badly.   #  certainly you would not argue that decreased taxation would somehow hurt the labor market.   # to suggest  corporations  however you are imaging these companies to be are the only firms doing hiring is foolish.  roughly half of private sector employment comes from small businesses URL plenty of these firms are strapped for cash and exist as corporations notwithstanding the fact that you might not think of them as corporations when you conjure up the corporate boogey man in your mind.  also plenty of your big corporations are strapped for cash.  not all corps are apple sitting on 0s of millions of dollars of cash.  but even apple, who is got tons of money, still have to compete with other companies, if those companies were to raise salaries.  if we reduce the tax burden those companies may be able to compete better for labor.  actually, by definition it can only make the labor market more competitive.  certainly you would not argue that decreased taxation would somehow hurt the labor market.  thus by definition it must be a benefit.  you have hit on something here.  in my view we need to get rid of most of these deductions and then lower the default rates down to compensate.   #  a store is used to charging $0 per ice cream cone, so even if milk electricity for refrigeration gets cheaper, they may still keep the price at one dollar.   #  reiterating my point: you could think of it as worker productivity rising its really not, but corporations can extract more profit per man hour since there are less taxes .  when worker productivity rises, wages increase.  a store is used to charging $0 per ice cream cone, so even if milk electricity for refrigeration gets cheaper, they may still keep the price at one dollar.  they do not want to reduce prices.  here, workers suddenly become more valuable, not less valuable.  as /u/vitamer and /u/ru crazy said, wages normally constantly inflate wage stickiness, which unions play a role in .  maybe wages wo not increase as fast as i think they would, but with good unions minimum wage laws to promote competition, it should be fine.  of course, we are not really arguing minimum wage laws, so i guess you sorta have a point.  though imo, not enough of a point to cmv.
this is an old article \ 0\ , but it sums up my views well.  URL it is written by head of the harvard econ department greg mankiw.  not that i want to make an argument from authority, but this idea has some weight behind it.  summary of my reasoning: the incidence burden of corporate income tax mainly falls on labor one cbo study suggests 0 , decreasing wages.  so decreasing the tax will increase wages, which is good both for the individuals and the economy.  encourages corporations to stay in and move to the us, or at least reduces the incentive to dodge taxes.  leads to economic growth, both through helping the stock market and reducing distortions in the free market.  most taxes tend to mess with the free market and are inefficient other than pigovian taxes on externalities , especially the corporate tax.  wo not mess with the deficit too much.  the money that corporations are not paying wo not just disappear.  it will go into stock transanctions taxed via cap gains , salaries taxed via payroll and income , etc.  etc.  if it drives economic growth, the tax base will also grow, which could actually make this tax cut self funding.  if we do need to fix the budget hole it makes, maybe slightly raise capital gains tax on higher incomes/transactions, and/or raise the gas tax ?  #  wo not mess with the deficit too much.   #  the money that corporations are not paying wo not just disappear.   # the money that corporations are not paying wo not just disappear.  it will go into stock transanctions taxed via cap gains , salaries taxed via payroll and income , etc.  etc.  i think you are overstating the case here a bit.  cap gains are taxed at highly favorable rates, and are subject to a lot of rules that allow them to be deferred or avoided entirely, such as adjusting basis at death, or iras and 0 k s.  plus a lot of that income goes to foreigners living abroad, who will not have to pay us tax on it.  a canadian citizen living in toronto who sells shares of ge does not owe us cap gains tax on her gains.   #  that the corporate tax has depressed wages does not mean that wages will go up if the tax is lowered.   #  that the corporate tax has depressed wages does not mean that wages will go up if the tax is lowered.  incentive changes do not work like that.  freakonomics tells a story of kids being left behind late after daycare.  the daycare imposed a fine of a few dollars to incentivise being on time, but more parents ended up being late.  the price set was low enough that it was worth paying to get rid of the guilt.  but importantly, when the fine was removed, the lateness did not go away because the fine had made parents comfortable with being late, now they just got to do it for free.  this is basically called price stickiness.  in essence, corporations are now so used to underpaying for labour that we have no reason to think that any change in their profit will be allocated to paying more for it.   #  i suppose possibly not, given that a company will usually pay an employee the least that they can to get him to stay.   #  that is an excellent point on the nature of wages, however, would not the fact that wages are constantly inflating change the nature of that ? i suppose possibly not, given that a company will usually pay an employee the least that they can to get him to stay.  that all said, i am curious to hear how you would address the rest of the points that op brought up.  there are i think four, and you have addressed wages pretty well in my opinion.  i will list them summarized below: encourage corporations to stay in the u. s.  will bolster stock market.  wo not hurt deficit too badly.   #  not all corps are apple sitting on 0s of millions of dollars of cash.   # to suggest  corporations  however you are imaging these companies to be are the only firms doing hiring is foolish.  roughly half of private sector employment comes from small businesses URL plenty of these firms are strapped for cash and exist as corporations notwithstanding the fact that you might not think of them as corporations when you conjure up the corporate boogey man in your mind.  also plenty of your big corporations are strapped for cash.  not all corps are apple sitting on 0s of millions of dollars of cash.  but even apple, who is got tons of money, still have to compete with other companies, if those companies were to raise salaries.  if we reduce the tax burden those companies may be able to compete better for labor.  actually, by definition it can only make the labor market more competitive.  certainly you would not argue that decreased taxation would somehow hurt the labor market.  thus by definition it must be a benefit.  you have hit on something here.  in my view we need to get rid of most of these deductions and then lower the default rates down to compensate.   #  as /u/vitamer and /u/ru crazy said, wages normally constantly inflate wage stickiness, which unions play a role in .   #  reiterating my point: you could think of it as worker productivity rising its really not, but corporations can extract more profit per man hour since there are less taxes .  when worker productivity rises, wages increase.  a store is used to charging $0 per ice cream cone, so even if milk electricity for refrigeration gets cheaper, they may still keep the price at one dollar.  they do not want to reduce prices.  here, workers suddenly become more valuable, not less valuable.  as /u/vitamer and /u/ru crazy said, wages normally constantly inflate wage stickiness, which unions play a role in .  maybe wages wo not increase as fast as i think they would, but with good unions minimum wage laws to promote competition, it should be fine.  of course, we are not really arguing minimum wage laws, so i guess you sorta have a point.  though imo, not enough of a point to cmv.
i am referring to this news story about the incident at the community pool in mckinney tx.  you can reference it here, the video is down the page and is approximately 0:0.  URL i believe the premise is simple, if cops arrive on scene due to multiple reports of violence and encounter a large group of people and they are told to disperse and some refuse, they can be detained.  if they resist being detained, they can use force to detain you.  i am not a lawyer or law enforcement, but i think this is how it works and is common sense.  age or race does not preclude someone from following lawful orders.  you can see the order here URL , she instead steps off in the opposite direction and is still talking at the cop, at which time he tries to detain her and she physically resists via pushing and pulling.  the cop in turn tries to push and pull her to the ground.  during her active resistance, a couple young gentleman approach in what initially seems an aggressive manner, with one of them moving their hand to their waste.  in hindsight, and slow motion on youtube, you can see that he was pushed towards the officer and off balance, but there was no way for that cop to know that at the time, so he drew his gun and backed them off.  i am guessing that police are probably trained to do this.  the entire event concluded with one adult arrested, everyone else released and no injuries.  i think with all of the seriously horrible high profile police brutality in the news as of late, this story is getting caught up in america is typical response of reacting in an overly politically correct fashion, but i could be wrong.   #  you can see the order here URL , she instead steps off in the opposite direction and is still talking at the cop, at which time he tries to detain her and she physically resists via pushing and pulling.   #  you are kind of ignoring the part where he tells her to disburse, but then he follows her.   # you are kind of ignoring the part where he tells her to disburse, but then he follows her.  also you are ignoring the fact that it is completely possible to put someone in custody without using the force he did.  we really ca not hear their conversation but it is clear from the video she was moving away from the place where she originally was, he re approached her and immediately began pulling and spinning her, and forcing her head to the ground.  look at the other people being similarly  wouldetained  they are sitting up not being manhandled.  look at all the other people just milling about but none of them get chased down and flipped around.  this is called an unnecessary escalation of force.   #  he had other non lethal choices in his utility belt, he did not have to go straight for the gun, and if you look at the other cops reaction they are quick to get him to put it away.   #  the girl was doing what he asked.  he told her to dispurse and that is exactly what she was doing.  he then pulls her back, wrestles her to the ground, smashes her face into the ground and sits on her.  this is a 0 year old in a bathing suit.  she poses no threat to him and she was doing what he asked.  she got on the ground, there was no reason for her face to be on the ground look around, almost all the other kids on the ground are just sitting there.  there was no reason for him to pull his gun on the two kids who tried to deal with the fact that he started physically resisting the girl.  he did not have to pull out his gun these are unarmed teens.  he had other non lethal choices in his utility belt, he did not have to go straight for the gun, and if you look at the other cops reaction they are quick to get him to put it away.  i do not think they really approved of his actions, as every other cop was talking with the teens in a reasonable manner before officer farva over here decides to do a barrel roll and cuss and physically restrain these kids, who were doing nothing wrong.   #  the police asked everyone to go across the street.   #  the police asked everyone to go across the street.  when he approached that group, he said he already told them to go, and they obviously did not.  when he approached them again to tell them to go, even pointing to where they should walk, they argued.  then he escalated and some went and some took a few steps and stopped again and continued to smack talk.  that is your definition of compliance ? then when he tries to detain her, she physically resists.  the gun thing is a seperate, very concerning issue, but i am mostly interested on the excessive force complaints against someone physically resisting a cop.   #  again what was the purpose of smashing her face into the ground ?  #  she was walking away, regardless of if she said something to him, she was following his orders so yes that is compliance.  what exactly was the purpose of detaining her or even screaming at them to disperse ? the other cops are shown talking to the kids like human beings with no problem.  that is the thing with teens, if you give them respect they will give it back if you start screaming and cussing at them they will talk back to you.  the cop was the adult and the authority figure in this situation, it was his responsibility to handle the situation, not escalate it.  again what was the purpose of smashing her face into the ground ? she was already on the ground, she was not going anywhere.  also the gun is not a separate issue, your cmv is that he was not acting over the top.  pulling the gun was over the top and unnecessary when he had other non lethal options.   #  walking 0 ft in the opposite direction and stopping is not compliance.   #  by the time he detained her, he had told them three times to cross the street where the majority of other people went.  walking 0 ft in the opposite direction and stopping is not compliance.  and just because he was a jerk does not mean that all of a sudden they do not have to listen.  that is a free ticket for most teens to disobey most cops most of the time.  0   on the gun thing.  you are right, it certainly is not a seperate issue and he had other non lethal options.
i am referring to this news story about the incident at the community pool in mckinney tx.  you can reference it here, the video is down the page and is approximately 0:0.  URL i believe the premise is simple, if cops arrive on scene due to multiple reports of violence and encounter a large group of people and they are told to disperse and some refuse, they can be detained.  if they resist being detained, they can use force to detain you.  i am not a lawyer or law enforcement, but i think this is how it works and is common sense.  age or race does not preclude someone from following lawful orders.  you can see the order here URL , she instead steps off in the opposite direction and is still talking at the cop, at which time he tries to detain her and she physically resists via pushing and pulling.  the cop in turn tries to push and pull her to the ground.  during her active resistance, a couple young gentleman approach in what initially seems an aggressive manner, with one of them moving their hand to their waste.  in hindsight, and slow motion on youtube, you can see that he was pushed towards the officer and off balance, but there was no way for that cop to know that at the time, so he drew his gun and backed them off.  i am guessing that police are probably trained to do this.  the entire event concluded with one adult arrested, everyone else released and no injuries.  i think with all of the seriously horrible high profile police brutality in the news as of late, this story is getting caught up in america is typical response of reacting in an overly politically correct fashion, but i could be wrong.   #  during her active resistance, a couple young gentleman approach in what initially seems an aggressive manner, with one of them moving their hand to their waste.   #  in hindsight, and slow motion on youtube, you can see that he was pushed towards the officer and off balance, but there was no way for that cop to know that at the time, so he drew his gun and backed them off.   # in hindsight, and slow motion on youtube, you can see that he was pushed towards the officer and off balance, but there was no way for that cop to know that at the time, so he drew his gun and backed them off.  this is one part i took the most issue with.  the guy was already running away, with his back to the cop, as the cop drew his gun and chased him.  a gun is a weapon to kill, and he did not pose a threat to anybody as he ran away.  it would have been inappropriate to fire the gun with all of those people around, anyway.   #  also you are ignoring the fact that it is completely possible to put someone in custody without using the force he did.   # you are kind of ignoring the part where he tells her to disburse, but then he follows her.  also you are ignoring the fact that it is completely possible to put someone in custody without using the force he did.  we really ca not hear their conversation but it is clear from the video she was moving away from the place where she originally was, he re approached her and immediately began pulling and spinning her, and forcing her head to the ground.  look at the other people being similarly  wouldetained  they are sitting up not being manhandled.  look at all the other people just milling about but none of them get chased down and flipped around.  this is called an unnecessary escalation of force.   #  there was no reason for him to pull his gun on the two kids who tried to deal with the fact that he started physically resisting the girl.   #  the girl was doing what he asked.  he told her to dispurse and that is exactly what she was doing.  he then pulls her back, wrestles her to the ground, smashes her face into the ground and sits on her.  this is a 0 year old in a bathing suit.  she poses no threat to him and she was doing what he asked.  she got on the ground, there was no reason for her face to be on the ground look around, almost all the other kids on the ground are just sitting there.  there was no reason for him to pull his gun on the two kids who tried to deal with the fact that he started physically resisting the girl.  he did not have to pull out his gun these are unarmed teens.  he had other non lethal choices in his utility belt, he did not have to go straight for the gun, and if you look at the other cops reaction they are quick to get him to put it away.  i do not think they really approved of his actions, as every other cop was talking with the teens in a reasonable manner before officer farva over here decides to do a barrel roll and cuss and physically restrain these kids, who were doing nothing wrong.   #  when he approached that group, he said he already told them to go, and they obviously did not.   #  the police asked everyone to go across the street.  when he approached that group, he said he already told them to go, and they obviously did not.  when he approached them again to tell them to go, even pointing to where they should walk, they argued.  then he escalated and some went and some took a few steps and stopped again and continued to smack talk.  that is your definition of compliance ? then when he tries to detain her, she physically resists.  the gun thing is a seperate, very concerning issue, but i am mostly interested on the excessive force complaints against someone physically resisting a cop.   #  again what was the purpose of smashing her face into the ground ?  #  she was walking away, regardless of if she said something to him, she was following his orders so yes that is compliance.  what exactly was the purpose of detaining her or even screaming at them to disperse ? the other cops are shown talking to the kids like human beings with no problem.  that is the thing with teens, if you give them respect they will give it back if you start screaming and cussing at them they will talk back to you.  the cop was the adult and the authority figure in this situation, it was his responsibility to handle the situation, not escalate it.  again what was the purpose of smashing her face into the ground ? she was already on the ground, she was not going anywhere.  also the gun is not a separate issue, your cmv is that he was not acting over the top.  pulling the gun was over the top and unnecessary when he had other non lethal options.
these things typically supercede evidence and reason:   the respect you have for the person presenting the idea, and the respect he shows you.    whether the idea requires rearranging a lot of other ideas in your mind that depend on it.  that is uncomfortable.    does the idea go against your group identity ? if believing it will make you not fit in as well with your friends, you will feel like resisting it.  letting these things stand in the way of an intellectually honest assessment of the evidence will result in beliefs that are less representative of reality.  believing things that are not true has all kinds of harms.  one example: climate deniers block efforts to curb emissions.  there are fringe cases, like you would not want to upset your dying grandma by holding her to the highest possible standards of reasoning if it will make her last hours on earth uncomfortable.  but for smart, healthy thinkers, evidence and reasoning are the only good ways to determine truth, and all the other factors which may have social and mental health benefits , should be set aside in favor of skillful critical thinking.   #  the respect you have for the person presenting the idea, and the respect he shows you.   #  the world is complex, and the time we have available is limited.   # the world is complex, and the time we have available is limited.  the only way to truly know you have the  right  opinion is by personally doing the research yourself, back to the first facts.  this is not practical are you really going to conduct studies yourself to see if advil is safe and effective ? cause, you know, published studies could be falsified.  instead of doing that, we determine who is trustworthy.  if a fireman tells you that your building is on fire, chances are you are better off getting your ass out of there rather than make sure you see the flames.  if a nobel winning physicist publishes a peer reviewed study in a reputable journal about a new discovery, you probably wo not get closer to the truth via your own evidence and reasoning.  now, you should not necessarily listen to the fireman about economics, or the physicist for romantic advice, but we need to listen to people we respect in order to function otherwise, there are just too many opinions we would need to put on hold.  that is uncomfortable.  it is uncomfortable because  in general  anomalies are better explained by finding an exception than by reworking everything you believe.  being told that mr.  rogers was a serial killer would require a serious reassessment it is good to doubt the claim first, rather than blindly accept it.  of course, there exceptions, but when, so far, you have been presented with a consistent, logical data set, question the outlier first, rather then the pattern made up of hundreds of data points.  if believing it will make you not fit in as well with your friends, you will feel like resisting it.  honestly, i think this is far more often the case of not sharing your opinions because they conflict, rather than not having them.  if my friends all hate and mock country music, i might not tell them that i love it, but i think what i think.  other times, it is really your first point assuming i respect my friends, and think that they generally have come to the right conclusions, it makes sense to question why i have come to a different one.  but, yes, if you have put in the reasoning and have the evidence, you should stick to it.   #  what information do you receive that  is not  testimony ?  #  if testimony is a form of evidence, why is trusting the words of someone you respect not ? so long as your reasons for respecting them are good it might be very strong evidence.  what information do you receive that  is not  testimony ? i doubt the majority your beliefs are founded on empirical observations you made yourself.  and even if they were, how do you know that your observations are sufficient to form a educated belief ? in truth you are wading into somewhat complex philosophical territory that might beyond the scope of this discussion.  i like the way philosophy tube URL explains it.   #  if a stranger said  i ate at ihop.    #  ok, it still does not clarify things.  you decided to take what she says as evidence just because you respect her  i believe trusting the words of someone you respect is evidence.   but its not the best judgement of the evidence, ie the testimony.  if a stranger said  i ate at ihop.   the best judgement would be  i do not know if he is telling the truth or not.   since you do not know if he is lying or not.  yet if its someone you respect that gave the testimony then you do believe her.  its clear your judgement being interfered because of your respect for a person.   #  a lawyer has an official certification, but that too is a testimony.   #  right but do you believe the testimony of say, your lawyer ? unless you happen to know about law than a lawyer and even if you do you probably got that knowledge from other testimonies , then you are stuck with taking your lawyer at her word.  a lawyer has an official certification, but that too is a testimony.  and how do you know they did not cheat to get it ? it comes down to how much skepticism you want to apply in your life, which is a different position from saying you should only base you are beliefs on evidence and reasoning.   #  without evidence you would use reason to determine that i was probably lying since, again, no one has ever seen a unicorn.   #  yes, they should.  if you have people believing things without evidence or reasoning you get things like religion, segregation, hate and a whole host of other bad things.  if someone is going to believe something that stand up to evidence or reason then it should be promptly discarded as a viable option.  you can easily deduce that your sister is telling the truth, and even if she is lying the act of eating at ihop is plausible.  so it becomes very easy to accept.  did you know that unicorns are real ? you should just believe me because you do not need any evidence, i saw them.  obviously we can deduce that seeing a unicorn is more than likely not true, since no one has ever seen a unicorn.  without evidence you would use reason to determine that i was probably lying since, again, no one has ever seen a unicorn.  you can use any argument you want to attempt to twist op view to not be correct in your eyes, but op is correct.
these things typically supercede evidence and reason:   the respect you have for the person presenting the idea, and the respect he shows you.    whether the idea requires rearranging a lot of other ideas in your mind that depend on it.  that is uncomfortable.    does the idea go against your group identity ? if believing it will make you not fit in as well with your friends, you will feel like resisting it.  letting these things stand in the way of an intellectually honest assessment of the evidence will result in beliefs that are less representative of reality.  believing things that are not true has all kinds of harms.  one example: climate deniers block efforts to curb emissions.  there are fringe cases, like you would not want to upset your dying grandma by holding her to the highest possible standards of reasoning if it will make her last hours on earth uncomfortable.  but for smart, healthy thinkers, evidence and reasoning are the only good ways to determine truth, and all the other factors which may have social and mental health benefits , should be set aside in favor of skillful critical thinking.   #  does the idea go against your group identity ?  #  if believing it will make you not fit in as well with your friends, you will feel like resisting it.   # the world is complex, and the time we have available is limited.  the only way to truly know you have the  right  opinion is by personally doing the research yourself, back to the first facts.  this is not practical are you really going to conduct studies yourself to see if advil is safe and effective ? cause, you know, published studies could be falsified.  instead of doing that, we determine who is trustworthy.  if a fireman tells you that your building is on fire, chances are you are better off getting your ass out of there rather than make sure you see the flames.  if a nobel winning physicist publishes a peer reviewed study in a reputable journal about a new discovery, you probably wo not get closer to the truth via your own evidence and reasoning.  now, you should not necessarily listen to the fireman about economics, or the physicist for romantic advice, but we need to listen to people we respect in order to function otherwise, there are just too many opinions we would need to put on hold.  that is uncomfortable.  it is uncomfortable because  in general  anomalies are better explained by finding an exception than by reworking everything you believe.  being told that mr.  rogers was a serial killer would require a serious reassessment it is good to doubt the claim first, rather than blindly accept it.  of course, there exceptions, but when, so far, you have been presented with a consistent, logical data set, question the outlier first, rather then the pattern made up of hundreds of data points.  if believing it will make you not fit in as well with your friends, you will feel like resisting it.  honestly, i think this is far more often the case of not sharing your opinions because they conflict, rather than not having them.  if my friends all hate and mock country music, i might not tell them that i love it, but i think what i think.  other times, it is really your first point assuming i respect my friends, and think that they generally have come to the right conclusions, it makes sense to question why i have come to a different one.  but, yes, if you have put in the reasoning and have the evidence, you should stick to it.   #  i like the way philosophy tube URL explains it.   #  if testimony is a form of evidence, why is trusting the words of someone you respect not ? so long as your reasons for respecting them are good it might be very strong evidence.  what information do you receive that  is not  testimony ? i doubt the majority your beliefs are founded on empirical observations you made yourself.  and even if they were, how do you know that your observations are sufficient to form a educated belief ? in truth you are wading into somewhat complex philosophical territory that might beyond the scope of this discussion.  i like the way philosophy tube URL explains it.   #  you decided to take what she says as evidence just because you respect her  i believe trusting the words of someone you respect is evidence.    #  ok, it still does not clarify things.  you decided to take what she says as evidence just because you respect her  i believe trusting the words of someone you respect is evidence.   but its not the best judgement of the evidence, ie the testimony.  if a stranger said  i ate at ihop.   the best judgement would be  i do not know if he is telling the truth or not.   since you do not know if he is lying or not.  yet if its someone you respect that gave the testimony then you do believe her.  its clear your judgement being interfered because of your respect for a person.   #  it comes down to how much skepticism you want to apply in your life, which is a different position from saying you should only base you are beliefs on evidence and reasoning.   #  right but do you believe the testimony of say, your lawyer ? unless you happen to know about law than a lawyer and even if you do you probably got that knowledge from other testimonies , then you are stuck with taking your lawyer at her word.  a lawyer has an official certification, but that too is a testimony.  and how do you know they did not cheat to get it ? it comes down to how much skepticism you want to apply in your life, which is a different position from saying you should only base you are beliefs on evidence and reasoning.   #  if you have people believing things without evidence or reasoning you get things like religion, segregation, hate and a whole host of other bad things.   #  yes, they should.  if you have people believing things without evidence or reasoning you get things like religion, segregation, hate and a whole host of other bad things.  if someone is going to believe something that stand up to evidence or reason then it should be promptly discarded as a viable option.  you can easily deduce that your sister is telling the truth, and even if she is lying the act of eating at ihop is plausible.  so it becomes very easy to accept.  did you know that unicorns are real ? you should just believe me because you do not need any evidence, i saw them.  obviously we can deduce that seeing a unicorn is more than likely not true, since no one has ever seen a unicorn.  without evidence you would use reason to determine that i was probably lying since, again, no one has ever seen a unicorn.  you can use any argument you want to attempt to twist op view to not be correct in your eyes, but op is correct.
i think the topic of gun  ownership  is pretty well covered, lots of interesting discussions have been made already.  what interests me are places where guns are fairly obtainable, but there are restrictions on the power of these guns; i do not think this issue has been touched on very much, and i feel it is extremely important in areas that are affected.  i would cite locations such as massachusetts, new york, california, and canada as examples of places with bans/regulations on things like magazine capacity, size/shape of the gun, and attachments/accessories.  my primary argument mirrors one from gun ownership, in that things like standard capacity magazines, almost all gun components, and most accessories are legally purchasable pretty much anywhere except the places with the stricter laws.  unlike complete firearms, making these purchases do not require going to extremely far away locations, dealing with shady individuals, or paying a significant markup.  i do not believe these laws have any significant impact on anyone is ability to obtain these items.  this leads into my primary concern, which is that these laws are meant to incriminate lawful gun owners and discourage lawfully owning guns and accessories by making it annoying, costly, and a general waste of time.  low capacity magazines force users to bring excessive amounts of magazines for recreational/hunting use.  it is quite annoying to have to constantly reload magazines and switch them when shooting high volumes of ammo.  i do not buy the commonly cited rational, which is to make shooting sprees more difficult.  for the aforementioned reasons, anyone with criminal intent can easily go get standard capacity magazines; if they have got a gun the hard part is already over.  another issue is the practice of deliberately keeping federal regulators, the batf, understaffed and underfunded.  to obtain accessories such as silencers or obtain permission to build a sbr, you have to pay a significant fee and then wait a stupid amount of time.  not only does this make it harder for the batf to actually do their job, this fundamentally is making following the law as difficult as possible.  i do not think there is any legitimate reason to use defunding as part of the regulatory process.  in addition to the uselessness of these laws, these accessories are far more likely to be used for recreational purposes, rather than illegal activities.  having something like a silencer is great for hunting or shooting at the range, and not much else.  unlike movie silencers, the sound of the gun is not going to be suppressed so much that nobody in close proximity will be aware a gun is being fired.  it would take a very specific scenario to actually use a silencer in a meaningful way to commit a crime; someone robbing a gas station or shooting someone in the street ca not ninja vanish just because they have a silencer.  lastly, i would argue these laws have little to no punitive impact on criminals.  there is a huge step up in punishment for those committing crimes with guns compared to having no weapon, or something like a knife.  there is little change, if any, between committing a crime with a gun verses committing a crime with a gun and some illegal accessories.  as stated earlier, i believe these punishments are more targeted towards lawful gun owners, as they usually wo not entail anything more than a fine and restrictions in one is ability to own firearms.  on the other hand, if someone has committed murder, armed robbery, or another heinous crime with their gun, these punishments would be the least of their worries.   #  having something like a silencer is great for hunting or shooting at the range, and not much else.   #  unlike movie silencers, the sound of the gun is not going to be suppressed so much that nobody in close proximity will be aware a gun is being fired.   # unlike movie silencers, the sound of the gun is not going to be suppressed so much that nobody in close proximity will be aware a gun is being fired.  it would take a very specific scenario to actually use a silencer in a meaningful way to commit a crime; someone robbing a gas station or shooting someone in the street ca not ninja vanish just because they have a silencer.  this is patently untrue for smaller caliber weapons such as . 0 or . 0 which is typically what criminals use.  the end of this video shows a suppressed . 0 pistol URL  #  in your case, you are talking about even more explicit policies, which actually restrict the firearms themselves.   #  it does, because the idea is that policy can change behavior.  these laws are policies that take into consideration the nature of the use of firearms.  in your case, you are talking about even more explicit policies, which actually restrict the firearms themselves.  the point is, if you can make policy that changes the behavior of the person with the firearm, even the criminal, then you show the effectiveness and usefulness of the policies.  it goes without saying that if you admit that greater punishment has a significant bearing on the use of weapons, then also augmenting the weapons themselves will have a significant effect on the use of those weapons.  especially when it is done in coordination with the use laws.   #  if you know you are not supposed to have it, you should not buy it in the first place.   # if you know you are not supposed to have it, you should not buy it in the first place.  therefore it does make you a criminal to buy an accessory in another state and bring it home, even if you forgot you bought it.  you knew you were not supposed to have it in the first place.  on the off chance that somebody actually did forget what they were not allowed, then no, they should not be punished.  but it is going to be pretty hard to prove that they were unaware they were not allowed to have the accessory.   #  while its possible for some crimes to result in a heavy punishment, that is really not the norm.   # law enforcement agencies and the courts have the ability to alter punishment depending on certain circumstances of the crime.  how many people who illegally park lose their driver is license ? while its possible for some crimes to result in a heavy punishment, that is really not the norm.  being caught with a prohibited item loses your gun privileges 0 of the time.  maybe, i am guessing it varies from place to place.   #  there is no excuse to owning something like that and not being aware of the rules regarding it.   #  if someone is gonna buy a gun, they had better know the rules.  we are talking about a very dangerous machine.  there is no excuse to owning something like that and not being aware of the rules regarding it.  its sorta like how, anyone driving a car is expected to know driving rules beforehand.  as uncle ben said, with great power comes great responsibility and a gun is a really powerful thing.
kansas is imploding and it is no surprise.  cutting tax rates on the wealthy, a. k. a.  supply side or trickle down theory, is a not just  voodoo economics , but a dangerous game that threatens our future.  most employers are not comfortable investing in places with terrible roads, an uneducated and unhealthy workforce, and a dismal quality of life.  yet, this is exactly what is happening now in kansas.  lawmakers thought it would attract investment and create jobs. more than enough to offset the tax losses.  what happened instead is the opposite.  just like the rest of us, when things start heading south, employers start looking for greener pastures.  it is not enough to say that trickle down economics is a failed theory.  it is a death spiral.   #  most employers are not comfortable investing in places with terrible roads, an uneducated and unhealthy workforce, and a dismal quality of life.   #  yet, this is exactly what is happening now in kansas.   # yet, this is exactly what is happening now in kansas.  every road in kansas has fallen apart in the last 0 years ? schools that are spending more than ever in history have failed to teach anyone anything ? gangs of raiders drive around stealing women ? .  kansas spent 0 billion in 0 and 0 billion in 0.  URL their budget deficit is 0 million, less than 0 of that.  a 0 percent budget deficit is not a state  imploding.   even if every single penny was made up with cuts, you would still be looking at a 0 percent increase in spending over the last two years.  where on earth did you get the idea that a 0 spending cut a year after a 0 percent hike is destroying the state ?  #  say you went out to dinner with 0 friends and the check came to $0.   #  the top 0 pay 0 of the total federal income taxes.  this does not even take into account all the state, local, and sales tax they pay.  say you went out to dinner with 0 friends and the check came to $0.  if one of your friends paid $0 while the other 0 of you paid $0 each, would you tell your friend that paid $0 that he is not paying his fair share ? if the answer is yes, what is a  fair share ?    #  at any rate, it is more than the bottom two quintiles even make.   #  i love my friends, but if the dinner is outrageously expensive, i might politely decline the invite.  what if i do go and one of my friends comes up short ? do i leave her to wash dishes ? it is not a great analogy, really.  dinner with friends is optional, government is not.  and society is everybody, friends and folks who do not know you from adam.  roads, jails, military, social security, public education. these are some of the necessities of a civilized society and they do not come cheap.  when that bill comes to the table about $0,0 per capita per year federal, state, and local, right ? we are just supposed to split it evenly ? is not that like a 0 tax rate for the median family at the median income.  at any rate, it is more than the bottom two quintiles even make.  since we ca not throw two fifths of the population into debtors prison, we have a progressive tax structure.  you do not have to call it fair, just call it expedient.  people who can afford to pay proportionally more have to do so.  but, i would argue that it is fair.  losing friends is one thing, but losing society is another.  i imagine there are a few people out there who are not my friends at all who would be pretty happy when the police get laid off.   #  people who have hundreds of time the wealth and many times times the income ought to pay more because a more equal and evenly distributed society is better than a less even one.   #  because the scenario in question is a mandatory one vs an optional one.  paying taxes is about rates, not absolute values.  the rich pay less as a rate than many of the poor due to capital gains rate reductions and tax shelters and other loopholes.  the fact that the rich pay more makes sense in any system except a regressive one.  the person who replied previously accepted your analogies far too quickly.  people who have hundreds of time the wealth and many times times the income ought to pay more because a more equal and evenly distributed society is better than a less even one.   #  the rich make their money from capital gains disproportionately, which is taxed very low.   #  having a middle class increases agg demand.  having a more even wealth and income distribution reflects mpl vis a vis wages.  the rich make their money from capital gains disproportionately, which is taxed very low.  meaning that they pay less as a percentage of their income.  having a fair compensation system enhances political efficacy.  all of this is in stiglitz  the price of inequality  but i can get you endnotes if you prefer.
i felt compelled to start this, based on hearing kipnis speak on npr weekend edition sunday URL today, in which she defended her essay   sexual paranoia strikes academe URL her essay argues that her university is rules against professors   students having romantic relationships are condescending, as she explained in her npr interview,  . this seemed to take consent away from people who are consenting adults and place it in the hands of university administrators.   towards the end of her interview, she said,  . we still are supposed to have free speech and academic freedom to talk about ideas that might be controversial.   i think kipnis is wrong.  she misrepresents the issue of her university is policy as assuming that adult college students are incapable of sexual consent, when in reality it is an ethical issue about romantic relationships between a person in authoritative power over another professor student, respectively .  yet every comment in the links i provided seems to be standing up for kipnis, i would like to know why.  cmv please !  #  yet every comment in the links i provided seems to be standing up for kipnis, i would like to know why.   #  why would not they, other than you feeling she is misrepresented the policy, what do you see to object to in that article ?  # you have focused on a single paragraph and taken that as her whole interpretation of the policy.  but questions whether that perception is an accurate one and whether making the assumption that the students are powerless is in fact removing from them a great deal of their agency.  why would not they, other than you feeling she is misrepresented the policy, what do you see to object to in that article ? the pendulum has swung too far and it is time for sane people to be arguing for a correction.  people who have ethical relationships sometimes also have different levels of power.  sometime they may even have authority, outside the relationship, over the person they are in a relationship with.  that does not make the relationship wrong or unethical it is abusing that power over than is wrong or unethical.  but at the same time, people who have less power are not powerless.  we do not need to assume that a person with less power is being taken advantage of especially when they say they are not to do so removes their own agency.  it is initialization under the guise of doing what is best for someone, and it is, in someways, worse than the relationships the policy aims to prevent.  this is, as kipnis notes, part of a resurgence of dworkin/mackinnon type feminist position on campus.  and that position is one which there will i would argue rightfully be a great deal of support for opposition to.   #  just like in the corporate world, there is not really an issue with a sales manager dating an employee in the shipping/receiving department.   # there is a major ethical issue when a person in authoritative power is in a relationship with a subordinate.  that sort of thing should be discouraged.  but i am not sure such a relationship exists between all students and all professors.  that was my takeaway from the article.  for example, if a 0 year old graduate student in philosophy is dating a 0 year old junior professor in mathematics, there really is not any sort of authority that the  professor  has in that relationship.  as such, i do not see the ethical issue with it.  just like in the corporate world, there is not really an issue with a sales manager dating an employee in the shipping/receiving department.  even if technically one is higher rank in the company than the other.   #  criticism of speech is protected speech too, and it is just as protected as the speech it is criticizing and criticism of the criticism is protected too, and so on, all the way down .   # freedom from consequences.  to be clear i never said it did.  and for the record you are right free speech does not equal a freedom from the consequences of that speech.  criticism of speech is protected speech too, and it is just as protected as the speech it is criticizing and criticism of the criticism is protected too, and so on, all the way down .  to borrow from justice brandeis, when confronted with bad speech  the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.   whitney v.  california  0 u. s.  0, at 0 concurrence of justice brandeis URL ruining your career is also an acceptable response to speech if the person doing it is not the government or acting for the government.  if northwestern was a truly private institution, and not act pursuant to federal law, it would not violate her free speech rights to fire her over the article it would still violate her academic freedom, which would also be objectionable, but it would not violate her free speech .  private consequences are fine, government consequences are not.   #  i did not see anything in the article that came close to justifying any sort of title ix investigation against her.   #  i disagree with kipnis is opinions, and i think her article made her seem like a big jerk and a bit of a creep.  however, i think she is right to play the  free speech card.   i did not see anything in the article that came close to justifying any sort of title ix investigation against her.  even if she was eventually cleared, it seems a low blow that she was investigated in the first place.  is there anything in title ix that could possibly be violated by writing an offensive article ?  #  but why punish the dating which on this hypothetical is consensual rather than the retaliation/kidnapping/rape or however you would want to define such a threat ?  # whoa, where are you going here ? to the one paragraph where kipnis seems to suggest, as you claim, that  she misrepresents the issue of her university is policy as assuming that adult college students are incapable of sexual consent, from the article:  no doubt some 0 year olds are fragile and emotionally immature helicopter parenting probably plays a role , but is this now to be our normative conception of personhood ? a 0 year old incapable of consent ? a certain brand of radical feminist the late andrea dworkin, for one held that women is consent was meaningless in the context of patriarchy, but dworkin was generally considered an extremist.  she would have been gratified to hear that her convictions had finally gone mainstream, not merely driving campus policy but also shaping the basic social narratives of love and romance in our time.  the university is postion is that the consent of undergraduates is meaningless in the context of the existing power structure, just as dwarkin argued the consent of women is meaningless in the existing power structure.  i think kipnis  point here is apt when we begin behaving as if people are incapable of giving consent because of the existing power structure, we are inifantalizing them in a deeply problematic way.  but why punish the dating which on this hypothetical is consensual rather than the retaliation/kidnapping/rape or however you would want to define such a threat ? if a professor is in the classroom with students they could stab them with a knife, possibly injuring or even killing a student or two or three, so should we bar professors from being in the same room as students ? or should we rather, punish professors who stab students, but not punish those who are in the same room as students without stabbing them ? would not barring professors and students from being in the same room amount to harm reduction it would prevent professors from stabbing students.  what about the chem major dating the philosophy professor who says,  i am sorry to see you go but i wish you all the best in your future endeavors  when the chem major dumps him ? why should the philosophy professor be punished in such a situation ?
i am seeing posts everywhere regarding the  safe space  that reddit is destined to become under the new ceo is leadership, but have not been able to find any agenda from pao herself that seems controversial at all: the only thing i have seen her say is that she is concerned about harassment and threats, and i would argue that both of those issues are not only deserving of attention, but not at all shocking.  i have also seen people say that subreddits critical of pao have been removed, but there are always other factors at play in the comments and there are several still going, plus about five front page posts per day about what a horrible person she is, so i do not know if i can call that censorship either.  in short, i feel that the predictions about reddit becoming an environment that bans free speech or whatever are wildly overblown.  ignoring her personal life which, scandal ridden or not is irrelevant to her performance at reddit can you change my view ? here i also might need to concede that even if subs devoted to harrassment  were  banned coontown, fatpeoplehate, etc etc ad infinitum , i do not think reddit or the world would be losing anything of value.  i am embarrassed to tell people i come here because of those subs, and i do not think that reddit or any privately held corporation is under obligation to host anything of that nature.  so while i do not see them getting removed, i would not she a single tear if they did.  this is of course a different debate, but one that likely plays a role in my view here.   #  i do not think that reddit or any privately held corporation is under obligation to host anything of that nature.   #  that is true, but reddit is also not obligated to host republicans, or religious people, or people opposed to more nasa funding.   #  i do not know whether ellen pao will hurt the free speech on reddit.  but i do not think that talking about  harassment  is necessarily so harmless.  it reminds me of when christina hoff sommers went to oberlin URL many of the protestors used language like harassment, safe space, triggering, etc to try and shut her down, when she was just giving an alternative point of view.  another example is this URL story.  i have seen many others where people say that just promoting a certain political view is  harassing  some group.  anyway, back to pao. if you read this URL recent interview, she says:   it is not our site is goal to be a completely free speech platform.  we want to be a safe platform and we want to be a platform that also protects privacy at the same time.  and   we know we do have a problem of group harassment as well, but we are trying to address one problem at a time and we will get to group harassment next.  in response to a question about a group that  would feel targeted by a whole thread of discussion ?   i think this  group harassment  idea is potentially a source of censorship.  if you look at almost any high stakes political discussion, a group can  feel targeted  by it.  israelis and palestinians, people who have had abortions, christians, etc.  i think it is very possible that certain groups would be  protected  from group harassment but not others.  so for example if someone criticizes mras that is just discussion, but if they criticize feminists that is targeting women.  i do not know if that is what she thinks, but there are definitely people who would characterize attacks on feminism as  targeting women  an example that comes to mind is this URL the eu is proposed but not passed  model national statute for the promotion of tolerance .  it seeks to ban  group libel , which to me is similar to  group harassment .  it seeks to target alongside racism, homophobia, and anti semitism  anti feminism  .  that is true, but reddit is also not obligated to host republicans, or religious people, or people opposed to more nasa funding.  i do not think their rights is the issue, it is the question of having a website that is run pursuant to principles that most people like, like the ideal of free speech.   #  she is a leader of a company, at best you can say she is political because she is trying to sue people and failing miserably .   #  there is so much political content in that subreddit, just for starters, that saying  its rule x  is not a defense, because the rule is only being followed when it is politics the mods do not like.  second, pao is not a political figure.  she is a leader of a company, at best you can say she is political because she is trying to sue people and failing miserably .  you could say that this is effecting the  areddit politics  similar to something like  office politics  but if were using politics that loosely, what form of debate or criticism does not effect  politics  ? you can tie almost anything into politics if you try hard enough.  so, unless you are using this  iso lose it is meaningless  definition of politics, criticizing a ceo of a company is not politics.  i do not know about what other rule it was supposed to be breaking.  harassment ? i do not think criticism is harassment.  they said she is a shitty ceo, they did not say she should shove a spear with a tip resembling a downvote button through her neck.   #  if so, it basically means you are not allowed to criticize anyone, because if you do, your post will probably get removed.   #  regarding the chairman pao post, there is a problem with that sub is rule 0.  it is inherently censorship friendly.  this is the internet.  if you criticize someone and your allegations and criticism are true, people are going to feel pissed against that person and will probably spout some swears and hurtful nonsense against that someone.  is that harassment ? if so, it basically means you are not allowed to criticize anyone, because if you do, your post will probably get removed.  that is not what free speech looks like.  not to mention that you get silenced just because a few people in the comments were assholes.  where does rightful criticism end and harassment begin ? who draws the line ? how does the line align with whose side they are on ? you ca not say that for sure without full insight into the mods  connections with reddit leadership.  in a sub so popular i would not be too surprised if there were some, but i do not want to make baseless claims.  if someone wants to weigh in on this, i am all ears.   #  ironically, a disproportionate number of them involve male victimhood.   # i would say that the relevant question for evaluating if a post is  safe  is  would this post tend to cause a reasonable poster to not want to participate in the discussion, for reasons other than being wrong in good faith ?   so for example,  you are wrong, and here is why,  is fine;  you are wrong, and here is why, so get back in the kitchen,  is not.  just for the record, here is URL a bunch of dv oriented posts that were not deleted.  ironically, a disproportionate number of them involve male victimhood.  and i think it is worth pointing out that reposting information is in specific violation of subreddit rules, and that specific information had been posted before.  also, your link to /r/undelete is rather self defeating, because if the original post broke the  no repost  rules, it would be a rather no brainer that a repost two days later would as well.  it is also worth pointing out that there is a disconnect between admin actions and mod actions, and removing posts generally has nothing to do with the admins unless reddit rules are specifically broken.  i will also add that the admins wo not stop you from making, say, tilanarchy, a version of til with no moderation.  i am not sure there is any way to create any sort of worthwhile online community without some sort of  deletion,  meaning moderation.   #  if the toxic person is goal is to insult a person, being at 0 just reduces visibility to everyone.   # why do you need to announce something ambiguous as a  safe space  if there will not be dramatic changes that might impact free speech ? why  not  announce it ? people complain about a lack of transparency, the admins make admittedly weak efforts to clarify exactly what breaks rules, and people complain some more.  there is no pleasing everybody.  they get criticized all the time when they do nothing as well, so they did  something .  furthermore, these tools are not incredibly effective.  downvotes do not solve either, as you might believe.  if the toxic person is goal is to insult a person, being at 0 just reduces visibility to everyone.  except of course the intended recipient.  some communities are very fickle, and i am assuming you have never invoked the wrath of a lot of angry people.  i do not believe there is slope to be found between subs like /r/coontown or /r/transfags and subs like /r/christianity and /r/atheism.  it is on you to prove that anyone could make a leap of reasoning and begin banning the latter.  the former are negatively charged, and founded on a base of dehumanizing certain demographics.  neither /r/atheism nor /r/christianity have these foundations.  you could say they participate in some hateful behavior eh, /r/christianity is like the most liberal christian forum i know of though but this is not their purpose.  like, legally, covering your ass may not fool anyone, but you have still covered your ass.  let is use an example.  cragilist says in their rules:  offers or solicitation of illegal prostitution but they have an entire section for personals.  one is illegal, but escorting is not.  /r/coontown does not beat around the bush and say,  actually, we promote societal education here.  also we dislike certain things,  it is their core principle.  reddit is obviously not right for you.  ignoring the fact that you felt it necessary to throw a passive aggressive insult at op.  why is it  you  get to decide what reddit is or is not, as opposed to the owners and admins of reddit ? this is arguing with bill gates on what microsoft is principles are.
if one party decides to pay for the other, that is out of their generosity and that is up to them.  but the more well off person should not be criticised for only paying for their half.  since some people are old fashioned and tend to expect for the man to pay for the woman, how about we reverse the role ? should a woman from an affluent background  have  to pay for a man who earns less than she does ? sure, if she wants to pay for him, that is up to her.  but should she be frowned upon because she only pays for what she is spending on ? also, if you are a successful businessman/woman, is not paying for only your bit on a date a way to weed out some of the gold diggers ? i believe that the person with the higher earning should be allowed to spend  their  money on  their  wishes.  they are  not  obliged to spend it on somebody just because they are more fortunate, although doing so can be an act of kindness.  paying for the other person, as a more financially well off person, is a generous gesture but should not be frowned upon if they only pay for their half.  i have noticed that many people tend to criticise the higher earner if they do not pay for the other person on a date.   #  since some people are old fashioned and tend to expect for the man to pay for the woman, how about we reverse the role ?  #  should a woman from an affluent background have to pay for a man who earns less than she does ?  # should a woman from an affluent background have to pay for a man who earns less than she does ? the idea that a man should pay for the woman is not predicated on the idea that men earn more than women.  it is predicated on one of two possibilities:  this gives the man more control and lets the woman feel pursued.  certain people are turned on by these roles.  the person who asked is the host and should pay for their guest.  the man is more likely to ask, but if the woman asks she should pay.  the idea of the richer person being identified and assumed to pay creates problematic class distinctions that are deeply disturbing in dating.  please remove this idea from your head entirely.   #  there is a whole separate dynamic at play here based on men vs.   #  who pays for the date,  especially  in the early stages of a relationship first 0 dates ish , has nothing to do with socioeconomic status or wealth.  there is a whole separate dynamic at play here based on men vs.  women, who invited whom, and who is suggestion it was.  if i invite you to the museum, i should pay the admission, even if you show up in late model bmw and i in a rusted out ford.  i invited you to the museum because that is what i could afford to treat you to.  you should invite people to places you are  willing  to treat them to.  if you invite me to a high end steakhouse, then when the check comes, you say  we will split the bill,  that is incredibly tacky.  you do not know my financial situation or if that is something i want to spend my money on.  the norm exists because you are putting me in a spot where i have to dance around the topic of whether to accept the invite or not, simply because  i may not want to spend $0 for a steak  either because i am cheap, or because i am poor.  in the early stages of dating, it is important to proyect yourself as positively as possible by being as true as possible first impressions .  this means not being totally disagreeable and contrarian, and also not coming off as cheap.  me telling you  i do not want to spend $0 on a steak  may seem cheap, and you saying  i will invite you to x,  but then not offering to pay for me makes  you  seem cheap.  as for the rest of your argument, i agree, but for completely different reasons.  creating a dynamic where one person always pays can create a situation where one party feels like they are being taken advantage of, while the other person feels entitled or becomes dependent.  it can also create an unhealthy power dynamic where the person with money feels entitled to make all the important financial decisions because it is  their money .  i want an apartment downtown and you want a house in the suburbs ? i  get to decide because it is  my  money, i guess i will take your opinion under consideration.  in a long term relationship, this is not sustainable/healthy, and communication is essential.   #  however, if that is not the case it is not a host guest thing, splitting the bill seems fair.   #  you make great points.  if you are the host for an expensive date you may feel it would be rude not to pay for the other party.  but at the same time, you also would not want to accept an invitation to a place you could not afford.  i think it really depends on the dynamics between the two parties.  if their dates always have the host guest dynamic, then the host paying makes sense, regardless of their financial situation.  however, if that is not the case it is not a host guest thing, splitting the bill seems fair.  as for your aside, that is really interesting.  i feel you are pretty much paying to spend time with another person if you have to also pay for them since you are the host.  however, if that is not the case and you both pay for your bits, i would say you are paying to do these  activities , rather than to just spend time with the person.   #  setting unrealistic expectations will only lead to disappointment.   #  if a invites b to an outing, it does not necessarily mean that b is entitled to a free outing.  it could simply mean that a wishes the company of b.  to suggest that b will only accept a is invitation because one assumes it will be free rather than for companionship, is sad.  most people accept invitations because of the fun and companionship, not because it is free.  it is best to make the arrangements up front and be proactive about it, rather than setting either party up for  the fall  when it comes time to pay.  setting unrealistic expectations will only lead to disappointment.  it is unnecessary and can simply be avoided with a little communication.  i always rephrase invitations,  i am going to be at restaurant x at 0pm, would you care to join me ?   it changes the dynamic somewhat, and at paying time we both pay our own way.  even if i offer to pay, it is refused.   #  if i invite them to a fancy restaurant or pricier show, i always pay.   #  the individual who invited should generally pay main feature of the date after the initial meeting for online relationships or set ups , be they male or female.  the invited can pay for secondary costs like a cab home or drinks after theatre.  in any kind of reasonable relationship, people will alternate asking each other out.  dutch is fine, but if you are close to someone it seems a bit tacky just alternate.  if you are much wealthier than a friend and invite them out to something pricey, i think it is appropriate to discreetly pay.  i work a lot, and some of my friends have gone back to grad school/raising kids post divorce.  if i invite them to a fancy restaurant or pricier show, i always pay.
my position is pretty simple but i might have problems articulating it.  i think a logical layperson would not be convinced by  evidence  because there would be no way for the layperson to differentiate between bad evidence and good evidence.  by bad evidence i am referring to evidence that omits, contorts, or out right lies about something.  because of this fact i believe a logical layperson has to either trust or not trust the experts.  depending on how obviously correct a subject is effects whether or not trusting the experts is reasonable.  for example, it is reasonable to trust experts in computer science because they produce functioning products that can be repaired by engineers using different information about computers.  i think laypeople who believe/disbelieve in some less concrete/tangible subjects, like history, are being illogical.  therefore i think people should avoid trying to convince laypeople about subjects and instead try to convince experts in their fields.  this is because any attempt to convince a layperson would rely on them acting irrationally.   #  because of this fact i believe a logical layperson has to either trust or not trust the experts.   #  trust really is not a binary like that.   # trust really is not a binary like that.  for that matter, neither is  lay person  vs.   expert.   and neither is  evidence.   expert opinions  are  a form of evidence; however, i am assuming you mean something akin to  primary sources  when you refer to evidence.  trust of an expert is conditional on, at a minimum: 0 the evaluation of the expertise of the expert; 0 the particular claim being made; 0 the importance of the claim; 0 the existence or non existence of other expert opinions; and 0 the necessity for the lay person to substitute an expert judgment for his/her own.   #  that is why showing the evidence with references is of value; it shows that the results are indeed reached through a scientific process of scrutiny, transparency, criticism, and still reaches an aggregate consensus, then that can be trusted.   #  well nobody is under obligation to trust anyone.  it is a question of being reasonable.  trusting expertise in aggregate  is  logical and well reasoned, particularly in science because of the scientific process.  if all of the experts on a subject matter agree, then a layperson has to believe that they, a layperson, knows more about the subject matter than all of the experts.  that is irrational and contradictory to what it even means to be an expert.  the problem is not so much one of expertise, though, as it is to what degree of science exists  behind  the expertise.  that is, if all of the world is experts in dousing agree about how dousing works, that appears to fit the above scenario, so i as a non expert at dowsing should simply trust in their aggregate agreement, right ? well, no.  this is why the evidence itself is important, as well as the scientific process.  agreement is also true of pure indoctrination.  agreement to some degree of people who study something is a necessary condition, but it is not sufficient on its own.  to be truly convincing you need to understand  why  they agree.  did they just learn from the same book ? did they learn from each other ? if they  independently  came up with the same results then that is of value.  second, if they gain value out of disproving each other, a consensus is actually difficult to obtain as the incentive goes  against  coming to an agreement.  the agreement can then only emerge as that which survived all attacks.  third is self interest.  if somebody is paid to deliver a specific service that relies on the outcome and not the process, that creates a conflict of interest.  that is, if you pay dowsers to find water then they have incentive to portray dowsing as valid.  if you pay somebody to do analysis or process, e. g. , scientific discovery, where there is no incentive for reaching a pre determined outcome, that adds trust.  fourth is transparency.  that is, willingness to provide the evidence and leave it open to scrutiny.  this is why scientific consensus is of value because it meets all of these criteria, at least in aggregate.  that is why showing the evidence with references is of value; it shows that the results are indeed reached through a scientific process of scrutiny, transparency, criticism, and still reaches an aggregate consensus, then that can be trusted.  it is not so much the evidence of the ultimate position, but rather the evidence that the consensus is a result of a scientific/objective process.  you do not have to understand the science, though layman explanations are very helpful, but rather demonstration that the conclusions were reached via a trustworthy process.  it is earned trust, not blind trust, and the evidence to laypeople is more for the  earned  part.  for professionals its the actual details of the evidence that matter.   #  it essentially comes down to a few things.   # well what i was referring to was a logical obligation.  like, if you do not do it then you ca not be considered to be acting logically.  i do not think so.  i do not think laypeople have enough knowledge to trust or distrust experts.  especially in more obscure fields.  it essentially comes down to a few things.  laypeople ca not believe or disbelieve in something they do not understand.  laypeople have no way of differentiating between crappy evidence and good evidence.  laypeople also have no way of differentiating between good experts and bad  experts  that have a diploma.  because of this a logical layperson would refuse to disbelieve or believe anything  experts  say.   #  this is what experts say and they have no reason to lie or make it up.   #  being skeptical is not the same as distrust, especially with facts.  if you can verify the credentials, background and bias of an expert, or use multiple experts, you can assume your information is at least close to the truth.  to think otherwise is irrational paranoia.  for example, i am not an expert on astronomy but for me to distrust the idea that the sun is a big ball of gas would be ridiculous and unreasonable.  this is what experts say and they have no reason to lie or make it up.  however, if tomorrow the experts decided it were something different, i would not be like,  shit, guess i ca not trust them anymore  because that is not how science works; i would trust they would have good reason to think this.  the thing is we ca not be sure of  anything.  and what is a fact but a general consensus among experts ? few things in science are so wildly disputed as to be contradictory.   #  a logical person has access to the same information that an expert does, and the process for vetting credibility is much the same that an expert would employ.   #  a logical person need not be knowledgeable in a particular subject in order to make good judgments about the trustworthiness of a source.  if only presented with a single study on ovarian cysts, then sure, i do not know if i should trust it or not, because i know nothing about that field.  but i do know how to do  more  research in order to find out whether i should believe what i am reading.  i know that i can find reviews of the journal itself, to see how highly it is regarded.  if i can find universities that will vouch for its credibility, then i can weigh that against my own knowledge of how credible the university itself is.  for example, if a study comes out on ovarian cysts, and i can find similar papers in the same journal that were published from duke medical school, then i have a high amount of faith in that journal, because i know duke to be a reputable program.  all without knowing anything at all about gynecology.  a logical person has access to the same information that an expert does, and the process for vetting credibility is much the same that an expert would employ.
i believe that congress should have only one chamber, rather than two, one with proportional representation the house of representatives , and one with fixed representation the senate .  the process by which a bill goes through congress seems to me to be unnecessarily complicated by having two chambers, and i believe the legislative process would run more smoothly with only one.  as it stands, bills have to start in one chamber, then go to the other, then fly back and forth between them as many changes are made, sometimes only to be changed back, and multiple votes have to be taken when one would suffice.  it gets particularly slow and unproductive when the chambers are controlled by opposite parties.  i ca not think of anything two chambers can do that one ca not do better.  changes to bills can be good, but that can happen internally, it does not need to be external.  there is no need to have different committees in different chambers, one set of committees in one chamber would suffice.  one chamber suffices for floor debate, and, most importantly, one chamber is all that is needed to pass legislation and to represent the people.  an extra chamber is nothing more than an extra complication, that slows the process but adds nothing to it to improve the quality of legislation, and just leads to more political theatre and less productivity.  obviously, such things will exist regardless, but the existence of two chambers exacerbates the problem.  i just do not see any real advantage to this mess.  even the people who created this system did not really desire two chambers, it was merely an acceptable sacrifice to reach a compromise between people desiring proportional and fixed representation.  i think people would be able to understand the legislative process a lot better if it was clearer, and the process would overall just be more efficient with no loss in the quality of legislation.  note: i intentionally did not discuss which form of representation i would prefer, proportional, fixed, mixed, or other.  i do have a preference, but i consider that a separate issue from the number of chambers.   #  i just do not see any real advantage to this mess.   #  even the people who created this system did not really desire two chambers, it was merely an acceptable sacrifice to reach a compromise between people desiring proportional and fixed representation.   # even the people who created this system did not really desire two chambers, it was merely an acceptable sacrifice to reach a compromise between people desiring proportional and fixed representation.  it may not be efficient, but it is necessary.  there are two parties represented in the government; the people, and the states.  the states have interests and rights that are separate and independent of the people.  if you do it by proportion, then the states no longer have equal say among each other.  if you do it fixed, then low population states have too much influence.  having two chambers forces us to come to a meeting of the minds before passing a law.   #  if there were only a single house that had proportional representation, then large / highly populated states would always trump smaller ones.   #  two things: one, the system is slow and inefficient by design.  the whole idea is that we do not want to be passing laws based on knee jerk reactions.  we already do that, but it would be much worse if the process were streamlined and efficient.  two, the reason for two houses is to prevent tyranny of the majority.  if there were only a single house that had proportional representation, then large / highly populated states would always trump smaller ones.  the senate exists to prevent that, by guaranteeing that every state has the same voice regardless of size.  on the other hand, having only the senate would artificially inflate the importance of small / less populated states.  having two houses, each with different representation, allows different regions to have equal representation while also taking into account population size.   #  famously, austin texas is quite democratic; and yet upstate new york is conservative.   #  sure.  but even the geographic split that exists often does not fit state lines.  the biggest two geographic alignments that really matter are actually professional country versus city and cultural racist southerners versus decent people.  famously, austin texas is quite democratic; and yet upstate new york is conservative.  it does not make much sense to give special liberal representation to the latter in a state is house because they are from a  liberal state .  the country/city divide might indeed be a legitimate grounds for special affirmative action policy within government though there are clearly far better; why is there not a house where different ethnic groups have special representation ? this is the same principle, with far more actual evidence of lacking .  unfortunately, the rural/city split does not align well with state boundaries, making the point moot.  the other big important regional issue, of course, is slavery the  state is right  to oppress, perhaps murder, certainly persecute, people for being of an ethnic group unfavoured by the aristocracy that dominates state government through much of the solid south.  indeed in the south this aristocracy well over 0 years old has convinced whites to conceive of themselves as a specific ethnicity;  dixie  white.  it is all very fascinating.  not sure why they should get special representation though.   #  the senate exists to prevent that, by guaranteeing that every state has the same voice regardless of size.   # the whole idea is that we do not want to be passing laws based on knee jerk reactions.  we already do that, but it would be much worse if the process were streamlined and efficient.  i am aware that the founding fathers feared tyranny unless the system was incredibly inefficient.  but i do not think history has borne that out.  it was understandable in their situation, but in the end, i think a lot of their fears were unjustified and exaggerated due to their experiences living under colonial rule.  there are states today with one chamber legislatures, and they do not devolve into tyranny.  one can still have reasoned debate with only one chamber, two are not necessary.  bad laws can be reversed, and particularly bad decisions can result in the politicians losing office.  we should not let fear of bad laws drive us to the point where we make it difficult for anything of substance to be passed.  if there were only a single house that had proportional representation, then large / highly populated states would always trump smaller ones.  the senate exists to prevent that, by guaranteeing that every state has the same voice regardless of size.  on the other hand, having only the senate would artificially inflate the importance of small / less populated states.  having two houses, each with different representation, allows different regions to have equal representation while also taking into account population size.  one could just as easily have one chamber with the same makeup of the senate and house combined.  besides which, states rarely side with each other based on their size.  it is not like texans and californians get along great and are going to team up to oppress vermont and alaska.   #  why does it matter how many states they make up ?  #  i really wanted to avoid the representation point because i did not think it was necessary, but it seems it needs to be addressed.  put simply, states are arbitrary.  i really do not see why it is ok for more than half the population making up 0 or so states spread across the country to have control but having more than half the population making up 0 or so states spread across the country would be terrible.  why does it matter how many states it is, a majority of the people in the country agree.  why does it matter how many states they make up ? a majority is a majority.  if 0 of the country wants something at the national level, i do not see why they should not get it just because they only have majority in 0 states.  the electoral college suffers the same problem, it is an arbitrary division.  i have the same issues with sports like tennis.
now, i understand that there are places where sandwiches are the better option, namely in the land of toasted bread, but overall i feel that most any sandwich can be made better by becoming a burrito/wrap.  burritos are much more transportable, being easily held in the hand and having an aspect ratio more close to that of the human mouth, are much easier to eat without making a mess.  they are capable of holding a wider array of fillings, not being limited to things which will hold together under their own tensions, such as rice, beans, chopped lettuce, peppers and so on.  tortillas are  healthier  than equivalent bread as required for filling security .  of course this is entirely dependent on the types etc, taking a 0 to 0, assuming your  average  tortilla/wrap is equivalent to 0 slices of bread, it is fewer calories in the tortilla in general .  so, why are not burritos as good as sandwiches ?  #  tortillas are  healthier  than equivalent bread as required for filling security .   #  of course this is entirely dependent on the types etc, taking a 0 to 0, assuming your  average  tortilla/wrap is equivalent to 0 slices of bread, it is fewer calories in the tortilla in general .   # of course this is entirely dependent on the types etc, taking a 0 to 0, assuming your  average  tortilla/wrap is equivalent to 0 slices of bread, it is fewer calories in the tortilla in general .  i am not going to say that you are totally wrong, but you are wrong.  gram for gram, i have to say that bread beats tortillas nutrition wise.  not by a lot, but there is no way you can say that tortillas are healthier than bread.  tortilla nutrition: 0 grams URL sliced bread nutrition: 0 grams, so just double it.  URL as far as everything else i think that is pretty subjective.  although i might give you that a tortilla could be better in some areas using it as a wrap for certain fillings.  over all i think that the vast variety of different breads that can be used to make a sandwich tips the scales heavily for the sandwich.   #  i do not expect to cmv or rather, cyv but these two items are different enough that comparing them is a futile task; my ideal lunch would be 0/0 of each.   #  i may just take this as one of those  guilty pleasures ; i use that term since it is one of those things were most people may not like, but you love it, no justification necessary.  the best sandwiches rely on bread, and to really kill an overused phrase or can you call this an idiom ? , it makes the whole greater than the sum of its parts; my ham sandwich still remains the prime example.  to me, burritos have a lot of ingredients, and i am not completely satisfied if i get the right balance of flavours i do not want to sound like some sort of snobby, foodie asshole but i think for burritos you want the right balance of sweet, savoury and acidity also p. s.  i am really not a snobby, foodie asshole, i am just a food enthusiast .  burritos take a long time to prepare in comparison to a sandwich, and are much more fiddly to prepare in that there are a lot of ingredients but a sandwich can be as easy as ham and cheese, or in a lot of cases, cheese although melted between bread, which again is the absolute key .  i do not expect to cmv or rather, cyv but these two items are different enough that comparing them is a futile task; my ideal lunch would be 0/0 of each.   #  the bread used for those triangle sandwiches is terrible .   #  like what and where ? tesco and sainsbury is have terrible bread, waitrose is okay but not great.  and there are a lot of bakeries that have the same crappy bread like tesco / sainsbury is, which i really do not understand what is the point of being a bakery if your quality does not even beat grocery stores ? ! .  also a lot of the better bread is not really british e. g.  baguette .  and normal sandwiches have quite a poor quality of bread e. g.  the bread used for those triangle sandwiches is terrible .  i know there are some bakeries that are okay but i am not willing to travel to south kensington just to get some half way decent french bread i am not french or spend like five pounds for it or both .   #  that would probably work but we were talking about a sandwiches here and i am not going to bake my own bread just for a sandwich.   # that would probably work but we were talking about a sandwiches here and i am not going to bake my own bread just for a sandwich.  honstely, it is not just me.  i talked about this with some friends a few days ago and pretty much everyone from continental europe agreed that they stop eating bread in the uk because of the poor quality.  seriously, even my local bakeries are terrible.  it is pretty much the same bread as you get in the grocery stores.  it is always this fluffy white bread that gets dry after a day.  also bakeries have terrible opening hours.  by the time i leave work, most bakeries are already closed and i am not getting up early in the morning before work just to walk to some bakery, buy bread, walk back and then go to work.   #  long rolls, on the other hand, are excellent at absorbing liquids and holding in the flavor.   #  bread is better at absorbing liquids and is generally less messy as a result.  the texture and flavor of bread is often a significant portion of the flavor profile and necessary for total enjoyment.  here in philadelphia we have the ultimate sandwiches: the cheesesteak and the best roast pork sandwich URL .  the local bakery long rolls usually amoroso is have a distinct flavor and texture that is just as important as the quality of meat and cheese.  without the bread, the very essence of the sandwich is changed to an inferior product.  in addition, burritos and wraps tend to be messier as they are more prone to leaking the delicious juices be it grease and melted cheese or au jus.  and melted cheese as they are too dense to absorb these vital flavorings.  long rolls, on the other hand, are excellent at absorbing liquids and holding in the flavor.
it appears to me that when people talk about the rise of china as a global force, all they talk about is political clout and economic strength.  however, one thing which i believe is important and not many people are talking about is  cultural influence .  i am not talking about gdp or lobbying power, i am talking about blue jeans, pop music, the idea of social mobility, emancipation and suffrage for all.  these are all concepts born in the west and exported all around the world, causing social changes in the cultures of the countries they take root in.  more and more young japanese are breaking off from their country is own traditions to follow western culture, before their radicalization also, unfortunately, facilitated by the west blue jeans and pop music was taking the middle east by storm, african nouveau riche seek to emulate the western businessman lifestyle ideal of sleek cars and fat cigars.  the whole  idea  of the western way of life has bled into the cultures of countries all over the world, and has likely changed them almost irrevocably.  however, i cannot see that the same thing has happened with regards to china.  the biggest cultural exporter in the east as far as i can see is japan, despite its smaller economy and shrinking population: people still ca not get enough of manga and anime, of japanese fashion the trendier edge of which is mainly a japanese take on western fashion , of japanese cuisine, of the whole idea of the japanese society as one of politeness and civility in any situation.  heck, even japanese bands are some of the most globally popular eastern bands though south korea might take the crown with regards to this one after psy .  the point i am making is that apart from cuisine, i cannot see of any real cultural impact chinese culture has had on the rest of the world, especially when compared to the influences of western culture as well as korean and japanese culture.  because of this, i find it hard to take china seriously as a social threat, although politically and economically i accept that they are strong.   #  i cannot see of any real cultural impact chinese culture has had on the rest of the world, especially when compared to the influences of western culture as well as korean and japanese culture.   #  try and reframe this a little bit; almost everything you think of as stereotypically asian has its origins in china, and is thus is already chinese cultural influence.   # try and reframe this a little bit; almost everything you think of as stereotypically asian has its origins in china, and is thus is already chinese cultural influence.  chinese characters   rice farming old, but started in, and spread from china   anything from soy most among many other cultural articles are a direct result of chinese cultural expansion from about one thousand years ago, only a few hundred years before the start of european cultural/imperial expansion.  these are all pretty fundamental aspects of korean, japanese, vietnamese, thai culture, ect ect.  so right there you have the base or at least a sizeable chunk of all east asia is food, language, and various other cultural artifacts.  then you have the 0 million overseas chinese as either majority or large minority populations in those countries, acting as the economic backbone of like malaysia, thailand, and singapore.  the total numbers of overseas chinese are greater than the number of people of british descent in australia, canada, south africa, and new zealand.  less if you factor in america, although most british americans have a very high degree of ethnic/genetic mixing with other european countries.  my point being that their cultural influence is already huge, and their current economic power could only increase that, but that is not even necessary for them to be seen as an influential culture.   #  it is being spread through africa and the rest of asia.   #  china does have soft power though.  it is just not being directed at the west.  it is being spread through africa and the rest of asia.  they are giving a lot of scholarships to africans and other asians, hosting business leaders and creating dialogue between their countries and china.  they are not exporting television and pop music like korea or japan, but china definitely has strong soft power in the world.  it is a very limited viewpoint that states that china does not.   #  saying china currently is not a contender, is like saying the hundred years war started because some dudes were thrown out of a window.   #  then you have a problematic world view.  throughout history, and i guess you are one of those who was also taught this, we are served dates, events and episodes which lead to a turn around in history.  stalingrad was the beginning of hitlers demise etc.  in reality, there is a long chain of events and episodes which lead to a climax.  saying china currently is not a contender, is like saying the hundred years war started because some dudes were thrown out of a window.  china, and asian culture, is having an increased influence on our lifes.  this cultural influence will do nothing else than berich and make us more diverse.  china is economic power is also rising, and they are doing vast investments in african countries.  saying that the world is second largest economy is not a contender for the largest, is more based on your personal opinion and fear of the west losing its dominant position, than a factual assessment of the situation.  this is change my view, not i want to hold onto my view.   #  as for soft power, you are correct as well, but keep in mind the population.   #  you are correct in saying that china depends on the us in terms of exports.  however, they are now diversifying their customers from what i have read here: URL not sure if you really trust this source, but that is what i can get my hands on right now, and it does not look like crap.  also, i was mainly referring to china holding a lot of the us treasury bonds.  still, you make a point, china is of course dependent of the us, but that is normal because things usually go both ways: both economies trade in what the other one is lacking to a certain extent .  its hard power is maybe not as  strong  as the us, but you cannot deny its existence and the threat i do not mean that china will declare war on the west it poses.  as for soft power, you are correct as well, but keep in mind the population.  if you will say that this population is poor and is not moving from china, i would say that their gdp per capita is rapidly increasing and that these people will soon have more knowledge and means at their disposal.   #  this is probably the best answer i have seen in this thread so far, but it still does not convince me, i am afraid.   #  this is probably the best answer i have seen in this thread so far, but it still does not convince me, i am afraid.  what the vast majority of these companies do is release one product for the western audience, and then makes a  chinese cut  to their games or films which is approved for viewing in china.  this, if anything, advances my own argument: that chinese culture is having to have its own private space made for it, rather than bleeding into other cultures and actually affecting them.  which is considered the  true  version of these movies or games ? the western release, or the version edited for china ? the game i am thinking of particularly is dota 0, where a large number of the character designs are changed for release in china.  skulls, gore and other such things are not allowed, and so are hidden with masks and shadows.  however, the western versions of the characters are considered to be the  true  versions: these are the versions which are promoted by valve, the parent company, at their events, and the versions reflected in most fan art and other such creations.  i would personally vehemently disagree with this.  in order to have a strong influence as a civilization, a nation must have its own strong cultural identity which resonates with people worldwide, a collection of ideals and aesthetics that can inspire and influence people of other creeds and cultures.  japan and south korea seem much closer to this than china right now.
people are free to give any amount of money to any individual, and i am sure most if not all of you agree with that.  however, we all know that especially in the us billion dollar industries and rich individuals  donate  massive amounts of cash to congressmen and presidential candidates in return for political favors.  oil company donates a couple million to senator, senator votes for a bill that deregulates the oil industry, rinse and repeat.  people call this out on what it is, thinly veiled bribery, but then they take the step saying that campaign donations should be limited, regulated, etc.  to help stop this practice and i completely disagree for two main reasons: 0.  it would be nearly impossible to prosecute politicians for this.  if a senator got a large donation from an oil company then voted in favor of the oil industry, how would a prosecutor prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was a pure money vote scheme ? senator says  i have always thought the oil industry was vital to our economy, and i just accepted the donations because why would not i ?   or  after having that fundraiser set up by the oil company i had a nice chat with the ceo and he really changed my mind about things.   any defense like that would completely throw out the possibility of a conviction, lies or not.  unless there is some evidence like an email directly saying  i will give you a million, you vote for this  but i do not think most politicians are stupid enough to do that.  also, one solution people have brought up is that politicians would have to declare a  conflict of interest  on bills that would effect their large donators, so they would not be able to vote.  if consistently enacted this would hurt the congressional system, as situations would arise such as where tons of conservative congressmen would not be able to vote on an anti regulation fracking bill so the liberals who did not get fracking donations would vote it down.  that is not a safe solution.  0.  it is up to voters to stop electing crooked politicians.  the politicians that take part in this crooked bribery are so obvious about it, that the only reason they keep getting elected is because of ignorant voters voting for them.  it is the responsibility of the people to make sure these corrupt politicians do not get elected, that is the essence of democracy, so when they do keep getting elected it is a failure on the voter is part.  for the people saying that the government should limit how much individuals and corporations can donate to politicians; why should the freedom of those donators be limited due to the ignorance of others ? why should the freedom to donate money be inhibited because the majority of voters ca not take it upon themselves to fix the issue that they very well have the power to ? i do not believe you can take away someone is absolute freedom to give their money even if it is for non prosecute able , albeit shady, political favors in any situation, especially when a solution to the problem created is easily accessible by the effected nation.  i know it is a complex issue.  try to change my mind.   #  it would be nearly impossible to prosecute politicians for this.   #  if a senator got a large donation from an oil company then voted in favor of the oil industry, how would a prosecutor prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was a pure money vote scheme ?  #  0.  if a senator got a large donation from an oil company then voted in favor of the oil industry, how would a prosecutor prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was a pure money vote scheme ? the solution is not to attempt to prosecute politicians if they receive money from an interest and vote in a way that seems to benefit that interest.  the solution is to reduce or remove the amount of money in politics.  one of the problems with the american political system is that the amount of money a person raises is at least up to a point directly related to how possible it is to get them elected.  if so and so company donates $0,0, that means that 0 people would have to spend $0,0 in order to match that.  do you know anyone donating $0,0 to their preferred political candidate ? because i sure do not.  companies and the wealthy who have specific interests can quite simply outspend the average person.  what is the best way to balance the skills ? reduce the amount of money any single entity can give to a number that the average citizen could match.  0.  the problem is that it is incredibly difficult to get a third party candidate elected.  you have to funnel a ton of money into them just to have a chance, and even then, you are fighting an uphill battle from the start.  people do not elect politicians they believe are crooked, unless it is  because they are still better than the other guy.   you posit that people need to wise up and elect people who are not crooked, but how do you propose we go about making the general population do that ? reducing/removing money from politics helps fix the problem of corruption.  if you are going to say that it is not the answer, you should be providing another one in its place.   the voters dug themselves into this hole and they need to dig themselves out  is not a good argument.  the vast, vast, vast majority of people support removing/reducing money in politics.   #  donating money does not have an unintended side effect of bribery.   #  when you say recklessness and negligence, that is different.  recklessness is like driving on the sidewalk, you may not hit somebody but it is still illegal because you could.  hitting someone is an unintended side effect of driving on the sidewalk.  donating money does not have an unintended side effect of bribery.  bribery is completely intended, and it involves further actions beyond donating money.  donating money is not  reckless  or  negligent  in the same way driving on the sidewalk is, so the law should not treat it as such.   #  it is not unreasonable or unheard of in law to add regulatory requirements as a condition of having a tax exemption.   #  i would say in a sense that it is.  if i am the largest donor to a congressman by an order of magnitude, and i do not intend my donation to be a bribe, it could still have the effect of one if i decide in the future to ask for something from that congressman.  keep in mind also that we give a tax exemption to candidates  campaign funds.  it is not unreasonable or unheard of in law to add regulatory requirements as a condition of having a tax exemption.  if i were to just give a million dollars to the candidate personally and he spent it on ads, he would owe hundreds of thousands of dollars in personal income tax.  but that would be lawful if it did not constitute a bribe.   #  it is a condition we put on donations in order for them to get the benefit of tax exemption.   # so limiting your action of donating based on the presumption that the candidate will perhaps be swayed in the future is not justified.  bribery is a crime for both payor and recipient.  so it is both parties  responsibility.  and when there is a huge amount of money in play, bribery becomes basically a presumption.  it is a condition we put on donations in order for them to get the benefit of tax exemption.  we also put other conditions, such as that the donations ca not be used for personal expenditures to benefit the candidate or anyone else, and that the donor must make certain disclosures.   #  on the other, we have a government that is not corrupt, and actually functions efficiently rather than being beholden to the highest bidder.   # that seems pretty extreme and absolutist.  most issues are more nuanced than that, and in the end, you have to make exceptions in certain instances.  i think we should really weigh the value of the things at stake here.  on one hand, we have the freedom of people to donate a very large amount of money to a candidate.  on the other, we have a government that is not corrupt, and actually functions efficiently rather than being beholden to the highest bidder.  to me, having a government that does not waste taxpayers  money on giving advantages to rich people who do not need it, does not go to war because it will make more money for defense contractors, does not pass draconian laws and dole out harsh prison sentences like candy for the sake of private prisons, and overall does not hurt the average person for the sake of those bribes is worth a hell of a lot more than someone is freedom to splurge millions on a candidate because they really like them and let is be honest, the percentage of people giving that kind of money to a candidate and are not expecting a return on investment is far lower than 0 .  i really do not get freedom absolutism, you live in a society, and when your freedom is significantly harm the society, they can be taken away.  this system literally gets people killed, and i am not willing to sacrifice all of their lives just for the sake of the freedom of a few people to give large honest campaign donations.  there are a lot worse freedoms we could restrict, i do not think this is that much of a hindrance to those people in exchange for what society, which includes them, gets in return.  the only people who will suffer than big a blow are those who are offering bribes.
people are free to give any amount of money to any individual, and i am sure most if not all of you agree with that.  however, we all know that especially in the us billion dollar industries and rich individuals  donate  massive amounts of cash to congressmen and presidential candidates in return for political favors.  oil company donates a couple million to senator, senator votes for a bill that deregulates the oil industry, rinse and repeat.  people call this out on what it is, thinly veiled bribery, but then they take the step saying that campaign donations should be limited, regulated, etc.  to help stop this practice and i completely disagree for two main reasons: 0.  it would be nearly impossible to prosecute politicians for this.  if a senator got a large donation from an oil company then voted in favor of the oil industry, how would a prosecutor prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was a pure money vote scheme ? senator says  i have always thought the oil industry was vital to our economy, and i just accepted the donations because why would not i ?   or  after having that fundraiser set up by the oil company i had a nice chat with the ceo and he really changed my mind about things.   any defense like that would completely throw out the possibility of a conviction, lies or not.  unless there is some evidence like an email directly saying  i will give you a million, you vote for this  but i do not think most politicians are stupid enough to do that.  also, one solution people have brought up is that politicians would have to declare a  conflict of interest  on bills that would effect their large donators, so they would not be able to vote.  if consistently enacted this would hurt the congressional system, as situations would arise such as where tons of conservative congressmen would not be able to vote on an anti regulation fracking bill so the liberals who did not get fracking donations would vote it down.  that is not a safe solution.  0.  it is up to voters to stop electing crooked politicians.  the politicians that take part in this crooked bribery are so obvious about it, that the only reason they keep getting elected is because of ignorant voters voting for them.  it is the responsibility of the people to make sure these corrupt politicians do not get elected, that is the essence of democracy, so when they do keep getting elected it is a failure on the voter is part.  for the people saying that the government should limit how much individuals and corporations can donate to politicians; why should the freedom of those donators be limited due to the ignorance of others ? why should the freedom to donate money be inhibited because the majority of voters ca not take it upon themselves to fix the issue that they very well have the power to ? i do not believe you can take away someone is absolute freedom to give their money even if it is for non prosecute able , albeit shady, political favors in any situation, especially when a solution to the problem created is easily accessible by the effected nation.  i know it is a complex issue.  try to change my mind.   #  so when they do keep getting elected it is a failure on the voter is part.   #  the problem is that it is incredibly difficult to get a third party candidate elected.   #  0.  if a senator got a large donation from an oil company then voted in favor of the oil industry, how would a prosecutor prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was a pure money vote scheme ? the solution is not to attempt to prosecute politicians if they receive money from an interest and vote in a way that seems to benefit that interest.  the solution is to reduce or remove the amount of money in politics.  one of the problems with the american political system is that the amount of money a person raises is at least up to a point directly related to how possible it is to get them elected.  if so and so company donates $0,0, that means that 0 people would have to spend $0,0 in order to match that.  do you know anyone donating $0,0 to their preferred political candidate ? because i sure do not.  companies and the wealthy who have specific interests can quite simply outspend the average person.  what is the best way to balance the skills ? reduce the amount of money any single entity can give to a number that the average citizen could match.  0.  the problem is that it is incredibly difficult to get a third party candidate elected.  you have to funnel a ton of money into them just to have a chance, and even then, you are fighting an uphill battle from the start.  people do not elect politicians they believe are crooked, unless it is  because they are still better than the other guy.   you posit that people need to wise up and elect people who are not crooked, but how do you propose we go about making the general population do that ? reducing/removing money from politics helps fix the problem of corruption.  if you are going to say that it is not the answer, you should be providing another one in its place.   the voters dug themselves into this hole and they need to dig themselves out  is not a good argument.  the vast, vast, vast majority of people support removing/reducing money in politics.   #  bribery is completely intended, and it involves further actions beyond donating money.   #  when you say recklessness and negligence, that is different.  recklessness is like driving on the sidewalk, you may not hit somebody but it is still illegal because you could.  hitting someone is an unintended side effect of driving on the sidewalk.  donating money does not have an unintended side effect of bribery.  bribery is completely intended, and it involves further actions beyond donating money.  donating money is not  reckless  or  negligent  in the same way driving on the sidewalk is, so the law should not treat it as such.   #  i would say in a sense that it is.   #  i would say in a sense that it is.  if i am the largest donor to a congressman by an order of magnitude, and i do not intend my donation to be a bribe, it could still have the effect of one if i decide in the future to ask for something from that congressman.  keep in mind also that we give a tax exemption to candidates  campaign funds.  it is not unreasonable or unheard of in law to add regulatory requirements as a condition of having a tax exemption.  if i were to just give a million dollars to the candidate personally and he spent it on ads, he would owe hundreds of thousands of dollars in personal income tax.  but that would be lawful if it did not constitute a bribe.   #  so limiting your action of donating based on the presumption that the candidate will perhaps be swayed in the future is not justified.   # so limiting your action of donating based on the presumption that the candidate will perhaps be swayed in the future is not justified.  bribery is a crime for both payor and recipient.  so it is both parties  responsibility.  and when there is a huge amount of money in play, bribery becomes basically a presumption.  it is a condition we put on donations in order for them to get the benefit of tax exemption.  we also put other conditions, such as that the donations ca not be used for personal expenditures to benefit the candidate or anyone else, and that the donor must make certain disclosures.   #  there are a lot worse freedoms we could restrict, i do not think this is that much of a hindrance to those people in exchange for what society, which includes them, gets in return.   # that seems pretty extreme and absolutist.  most issues are more nuanced than that, and in the end, you have to make exceptions in certain instances.  i think we should really weigh the value of the things at stake here.  on one hand, we have the freedom of people to donate a very large amount of money to a candidate.  on the other, we have a government that is not corrupt, and actually functions efficiently rather than being beholden to the highest bidder.  to me, having a government that does not waste taxpayers  money on giving advantages to rich people who do not need it, does not go to war because it will make more money for defense contractors, does not pass draconian laws and dole out harsh prison sentences like candy for the sake of private prisons, and overall does not hurt the average person for the sake of those bribes is worth a hell of a lot more than someone is freedom to splurge millions on a candidate because they really like them and let is be honest, the percentage of people giving that kind of money to a candidate and are not expecting a return on investment is far lower than 0 .  i really do not get freedom absolutism, you live in a society, and when your freedom is significantly harm the society, they can be taken away.  this system literally gets people killed, and i am not willing to sacrifice all of their lives just for the sake of the freedom of a few people to give large honest campaign donations.  there are a lot worse freedoms we could restrict, i do not think this is that much of a hindrance to those people in exchange for what society, which includes them, gets in return.  the only people who will suffer than big a blow are those who are offering bribes.
laying out a few reasons why i think this:   there is strong evidence of pay disparities between genders and ethnicities.  making salaries public would effectively eliminate this overnight, and is the only way that this could be done.    private salaries hinder a new or existing employee is ability to negotiate.  it is harder to negotiate a raise when you have no idea what everyone else is making.    a company i worked for had its private salaries leaked, and ended up resulting in employment shifts that were overall beneficial to the workers.  bonuses, and any extra benefits associated with a position also must be disclosed publicly.   #  there is strong evidence of pay disparities between genders and ethnicities.   #  making salaries public would effectively eliminate this overnight, and is the only way that this could be done.   # making salaries public would effectively eliminate this overnight, and is the only way that this could be done.  this is false.  there are disparities in places where salaries are matters of public record.  your second two points may be right and i believe i know the article they came from, which i found interesting.  i think that removing the stigma behind sharing salaries might be good but putting them in the public record completely compromise is people is privacy.   #  i would hope that you can see things from the perspective of others, and that this could influence your own view.   # i would hope that you can see things from the perspective of others, and that this could influence your own view.  sometimes, making things public can be an act of solidarity with other workers.  agreed.  except that i do not see why a worker should not have the right to privacy.  workers who work for private organizations have this right now none of your reasons so far have dealt with why this right should be taken away.  i just mentioned a way employees also benefit.  there is an obvious give and take at play here can you at least admit that ?  #  option 0 hurts bob just as much as it helps whoever takes the job.   # this sub is about changing your view in some way, not attacking every point that gets brought up in your op.  i am choosing to focus on right to privacy, which your idea is fundamentally opposed to.  you say public salaries would have net benefit for the individual, over private salaries.  suppose an employer has two workers, alice and bob.  alice makes $0k, and bob makes $0k.  they do essentially the same work, and were hired on at the same time, but alice was better at negotiating a salary.  now, when salaries are made public, bob is angry.  the company has a few options: 0 do nothing, 0 equalize the pay so alice and bob each make $0k, 0 find someone willing to work for $0k and fire bob.  note that none of the options are ever going to include raising the total amount of pay to over $0k why would the company do that, when clearly people were willing to do the work for that amount of money ? option 0 solves nothing.  option 0 hurts alice just as much as it helps bob.  option 0 hurts bob just as much as it helps whoever takes the job.  are there other reasonable options that solve the problem in a favorable way ? it seems to me that this scenario poses no net benefit for the employees in which case, why did we eliminate the right to privacy ?  #  this will tend to make a company flatten salaries to avoid this jealousy as much as possible .   # it is harder to negotiate a raise when you have no idea what everyone else is making.  that goes both ways, mind you.  it creates jealousy of higher paid workers on the part of lower paid workers.  this will tend to make a company flatten salaries to avoid this jealousy as much as possible .  as such, it brings certain salaries up but hurts the star workers  salaries.  furthermore, those employees who deserve less and do not get that  equality  raise are now doubly hurt.  they do not get the raise, but they and their coworkers can see how much less valuable they are than other employees.  fundamentally the jealousy and social stigmas that this creates are much more important and harmful than any changes in actual salary which are harmful and helpful .  but note that this is after a leak.  the company designed its salaries thinking they would not be public, then was forced to make them public.  if it had known salaries would be public in the first place, its optimal strategy would have been different.   #  i agree with this, but only in a culture where this is normal behavior.   # the companies i have worked for had a lot of managers that were basically waste and unfairly compensated with respect to others.  would the negatives of flattened salaries outweight the benefits of open salary discussion ? in my opinion, no.  i agree with this, but only in a culture where this is normal behavior.  in one where looking up someone is public salary is as easy as looking up their criminal record, i do not think it would be a big deal.  i do agree that this is a fundamental flaw in public salaries though.  if it had known salaries would be public in the first place, its optimal strategy would have been different.  the salaries at this company were pretty fucked.  there were a lot of do nothing upper management types who made an obscene amount more money than other workers who did a lot more, and a ton of salaries for positions had to be renegotiated as a result and imo, that was a good thing this also did not address the pay gap issue.
laying out a few reasons why i think this:   there is strong evidence of pay disparities between genders and ethnicities.  making salaries public would effectively eliminate this overnight, and is the only way that this could be done.    private salaries hinder a new or existing employee is ability to negotiate.  it is harder to negotiate a raise when you have no idea what everyone else is making.    a company i worked for had its private salaries leaked, and ended up resulting in employment shifts that were overall beneficial to the workers.  bonuses, and any extra benefits associated with a position also must be disclosed publicly.   #  private salaries hinder a new or existing employee is ability to negotiate.   #  it is harder to negotiate a raise when you have no idea what everyone else is making.   # it is harder to negotiate a raise when you have no idea what everyone else is making.  that goes both ways, mind you.  it creates jealousy of higher paid workers on the part of lower paid workers.  this will tend to make a company flatten salaries to avoid this jealousy as much as possible .  as such, it brings certain salaries up but hurts the star workers  salaries.  furthermore, those employees who deserve less and do not get that  equality  raise are now doubly hurt.  they do not get the raise, but they and their coworkers can see how much less valuable they are than other employees.  fundamentally the jealousy and social stigmas that this creates are much more important and harmful than any changes in actual salary which are harmful and helpful .  but note that this is after a leak.  the company designed its salaries thinking they would not be public, then was forced to make them public.  if it had known salaries would be public in the first place, its optimal strategy would have been different.   #  sometimes, making things public can be an act of solidarity with other workers.   # i would hope that you can see things from the perspective of others, and that this could influence your own view.  sometimes, making things public can be an act of solidarity with other workers.  agreed.  except that i do not see why a worker should not have the right to privacy.  workers who work for private organizations have this right now none of your reasons so far have dealt with why this right should be taken away.  i just mentioned a way employees also benefit.  there is an obvious give and take at play here can you at least admit that ?  #  are there other reasonable options that solve the problem in a favorable way ?  # this sub is about changing your view in some way, not attacking every point that gets brought up in your op.  i am choosing to focus on right to privacy, which your idea is fundamentally opposed to.  you say public salaries would have net benefit for the individual, over private salaries.  suppose an employer has two workers, alice and bob.  alice makes $0k, and bob makes $0k.  they do essentially the same work, and were hired on at the same time, but alice was better at negotiating a salary.  now, when salaries are made public, bob is angry.  the company has a few options: 0 do nothing, 0 equalize the pay so alice and bob each make $0k, 0 find someone willing to work for $0k and fire bob.  note that none of the options are ever going to include raising the total amount of pay to over $0k why would the company do that, when clearly people were willing to do the work for that amount of money ? option 0 solves nothing.  option 0 hurts alice just as much as it helps bob.  option 0 hurts bob just as much as it helps whoever takes the job.  are there other reasonable options that solve the problem in a favorable way ? it seems to me that this scenario poses no net benefit for the employees in which case, why did we eliminate the right to privacy ?  #  if it had known salaries would be public in the first place, its optimal strategy would have been different.   # the companies i have worked for had a lot of managers that were basically waste and unfairly compensated with respect to others.  would the negatives of flattened salaries outweight the benefits of open salary discussion ? in my opinion, no.  i agree with this, but only in a culture where this is normal behavior.  in one where looking up someone is public salary is as easy as looking up their criminal record, i do not think it would be a big deal.  i do agree that this is a fundamental flaw in public salaries though.  if it had known salaries would be public in the first place, its optimal strategy would have been different.  the salaries at this company were pretty fucked.  there were a lot of do nothing upper management types who made an obscene amount more money than other workers who did a lot more, and a ton of salaries for positions had to be renegotiated as a result and imo, that was a good thing this also did not address the pay gap issue.   #  if they are waste, it does not take open salaries to get rid of them.   # i agree, it is neutral.  the company knows how much it is paying managers.  if they are waste, it does not take open salaries to get rid of them.  if they are overpaying someone or if they just do not want to deal with your envy, they might lower that pay if salaries were open but if so, why did they pay that person so much in the first place or they might justify why that person is better than you.  in one where looking up someone is public salary is as easy as looking up their criminal record, i do not think it would be a big deal.  envy is normal human behavior.  envy has existed since wealth could be determined by counting the size of your neighbor is flocks or the quality of his axe.  the only real counters to envy are religion, secrecy/diversity/confusion, or a  know your place  ideology.  religion is unavailable, and you are taking away secrecy.  companies can certainly try a diversity/confusion tactic by giving everyone different hours and benefits packages that make it more difficult to say who is really paid more than whom.  and if/when that does not work, they will have to create a more elitist company where monetary rewards are accompanied by higher status/prestige.  i think it will probably reduce the pay gap.  i just do not see that as a goal per se.  as louis c. k.  said,  the only time you look in your neighbor is bowl is to make sure that they have enough.  you do not look in your neighbor is bowl to see if you have as much as them.  a pay gap is an interesting discrepancy that can clue researchers to look around and point to other problems, but it is not in and of itself a problem.
laying out a few reasons why i think this:   there is strong evidence of pay disparities between genders and ethnicities.  making salaries public would effectively eliminate this overnight, and is the only way that this could be done.    private salaries hinder a new or existing employee is ability to negotiate.  it is harder to negotiate a raise when you have no idea what everyone else is making.    a company i worked for had its private salaries leaked, and ended up resulting in employment shifts that were overall beneficial to the workers.  bonuses, and any extra benefits associated with a position also must be disclosed publicly.   #  a company i worked for had its private salaries leaked, and ended up resulting in employment shifts that were overall beneficial to the workers.   #  but note that this is after a leak.   # it is harder to negotiate a raise when you have no idea what everyone else is making.  that goes both ways, mind you.  it creates jealousy of higher paid workers on the part of lower paid workers.  this will tend to make a company flatten salaries to avoid this jealousy as much as possible .  as such, it brings certain salaries up but hurts the star workers  salaries.  furthermore, those employees who deserve less and do not get that  equality  raise are now doubly hurt.  they do not get the raise, but they and their coworkers can see how much less valuable they are than other employees.  fundamentally the jealousy and social stigmas that this creates are much more important and harmful than any changes in actual salary which are harmful and helpful .  but note that this is after a leak.  the company designed its salaries thinking they would not be public, then was forced to make them public.  if it had known salaries would be public in the first place, its optimal strategy would have been different.   #  except that i do not see why a worker should not have the right to privacy.   # i would hope that you can see things from the perspective of others, and that this could influence your own view.  sometimes, making things public can be an act of solidarity with other workers.  agreed.  except that i do not see why a worker should not have the right to privacy.  workers who work for private organizations have this right now none of your reasons so far have dealt with why this right should be taken away.  i just mentioned a way employees also benefit.  there is an obvious give and take at play here can you at least admit that ?  #  now, when salaries are made public, bob is angry.   # this sub is about changing your view in some way, not attacking every point that gets brought up in your op.  i am choosing to focus on right to privacy, which your idea is fundamentally opposed to.  you say public salaries would have net benefit for the individual, over private salaries.  suppose an employer has two workers, alice and bob.  alice makes $0k, and bob makes $0k.  they do essentially the same work, and were hired on at the same time, but alice was better at negotiating a salary.  now, when salaries are made public, bob is angry.  the company has a few options: 0 do nothing, 0 equalize the pay so alice and bob each make $0k, 0 find someone willing to work for $0k and fire bob.  note that none of the options are ever going to include raising the total amount of pay to over $0k why would the company do that, when clearly people were willing to do the work for that amount of money ? option 0 solves nothing.  option 0 hurts alice just as much as it helps bob.  option 0 hurts bob just as much as it helps whoever takes the job.  are there other reasonable options that solve the problem in a favorable way ? it seems to me that this scenario poses no net benefit for the employees in which case, why did we eliminate the right to privacy ?  #  in one where looking up someone is public salary is as easy as looking up their criminal record, i do not think it would be a big deal.   # the companies i have worked for had a lot of managers that were basically waste and unfairly compensated with respect to others.  would the negatives of flattened salaries outweight the benefits of open salary discussion ? in my opinion, no.  i agree with this, but only in a culture where this is normal behavior.  in one where looking up someone is public salary is as easy as looking up their criminal record, i do not think it would be a big deal.  i do agree that this is a fundamental flaw in public salaries though.  if it had known salaries would be public in the first place, its optimal strategy would have been different.  the salaries at this company were pretty fucked.  there were a lot of do nothing upper management types who made an obscene amount more money than other workers who did a lot more, and a ton of salaries for positions had to be renegotiated as a result and imo, that was a good thing this also did not address the pay gap issue.   #  the only real counters to envy are religion, secrecy/diversity/confusion, or a  know your place  ideology.   # i agree, it is neutral.  the company knows how much it is paying managers.  if they are waste, it does not take open salaries to get rid of them.  if they are overpaying someone or if they just do not want to deal with your envy, they might lower that pay if salaries were open but if so, why did they pay that person so much in the first place or they might justify why that person is better than you.  in one where looking up someone is public salary is as easy as looking up their criminal record, i do not think it would be a big deal.  envy is normal human behavior.  envy has existed since wealth could be determined by counting the size of your neighbor is flocks or the quality of his axe.  the only real counters to envy are religion, secrecy/diversity/confusion, or a  know your place  ideology.  religion is unavailable, and you are taking away secrecy.  companies can certainly try a diversity/confusion tactic by giving everyone different hours and benefits packages that make it more difficult to say who is really paid more than whom.  and if/when that does not work, they will have to create a more elitist company where monetary rewards are accompanied by higher status/prestige.  i think it will probably reduce the pay gap.  i just do not see that as a goal per se.  as louis c. k.  said,  the only time you look in your neighbor is bowl is to make sure that they have enough.  you do not look in your neighbor is bowl to see if you have as much as them.  a pay gap is an interesting discrepancy that can clue researchers to look around and point to other problems, but it is not in and of itself a problem.
some of the most popular fonts today arial, helvetica, etc are ambiguous.  i can thus spell iiiinois without using the letter l, and it will slip by completely unnoticed.  why is this a serious problem ? aside from the core value of having a discrete set of symbols to represent our written communication system ie alphabet , the ambiguity can also lead to some serious problems.  in computer security, usernames and websites can now be spoofed by this simple trick eg by pointing someone to hotmaii. com rather than to hotmail. com .  passwords may become confused or lost due to this simple affect as well.  we should therefore eschew these fonts.  since i know we wo not, i really do want you to cmv.   #  passwords may become confused or lost due to this simple affect as well.   #  how does this cause you to lose a password ?  # the possibility for being misleading does exist, but most of the time the url is hidden behind an anchor tag, or after the   symbol.  it is really not a big issue in the grand scheme of things.  how does this cause you to lose a password ? if it is not in your head, it is in a password manager, text file, or sticky note.  the first two allow you to copy and paste, and the sticky note is handwritten.   #  as a computer security professional, you have to check for out of ascii unicode appearing in places it should not, like outside of a text field.   #  the problem is three orders of magnitude worse than just i vs l and 0 vs o etc.  the problem is unicode itself.  it is insane URL   unicode also has lots of different characters that are visually identical to one another.  as an example, the letter  v  and the roman numeral five character u0 look identical in most fonts.  this script renders each character as a bitmap, treat this bitmap as a set of pixels, and then calculates the hamming distance between all the possible sets.  op, you are not  wrong , you are just drastically underestimating the size and complexity of the problem.  it is not fixable.  eschewing fonts wo not help.  you have to visually check your work as a writer or graphic designer.  as a computer security professional, you have to check for out of ascii unicode appearing in places it should not, like outside of a text field.  a chrome extension to check for and highlight this stuff may be a good idea.   #  having different characters lets you have α when you want it.   #  i do not know this to be true, but i would speculate that it can help them be presented correctly.  roman numerals are sometimes stylized with horizontal lines connecting the, err, digits, as it were, at the baseline and the top.  that is not appropriate for arial is style, but another font could do that, and maybe specify ligatures and different kerning for roman numeral presentation.  another possibility is semantic correctness.  although they are the same glyphs, they truly  mean  different things.  even when the letters seem to mean approximately the same thing, like a roman capital a, and a greek capital alpha, what happens if a program requests that they be converted to lowercase, for example ? having different characters lets you have α when you want it.  if there were only one codepoint for all a shaped glyphs, you would have to make some decision among lowercase codepoints based on the user is locale configurations, which would spell a nightmare for anyone trying to deal in foreign text.   #  and of course created miniscule or lower case versions of the letters, which they also did not use.   # although they are the same glyphs, they truly mean different things.  they are exactly the same.  most european languages use the roman alphabet exactly as it was used by the romans.  at most we have added a few characters that they did not use like j, u and w .  and of course created miniscule or lower case versions of the letters, which they also did not use.  other than that, the characters romans used for numerals and math are identical to the characters they used for writing words.  there are lots of situations where identical characters have completely different semantic meanings.  for example, h can be a letter in a word like  humph  or, if it is on a sign and written in blue, it can mean  hospital.   x can be a letter, a multiplication sign, the name of a band, an illiterate person is signature, an abbreviation for  by  as in 0x0, an abbreviation for  christ  as in xmas, a sign meaning  no  or  forbidden  or  deleted,  a cartesian coordinate variable x,y , a motion picture rating, an old fashioned symbol for poison, a place to dig for treasure, etc.  it would not make sense to consider all of those usages to be completely different characters.  that said i do not know enough about programming to know when it is a good idea to create distinctions like this.  you would definitely want separate characters for separate alphabets, though latin, greek, cyrillic, etc.  .   #  as proof, l switched every instance of those two ietters in this post.  and you stiii understand it. ` `ln monospace:`  # l agree, it would be a poor decision to use those typefaces and ietters for things iike seriai numbers.  however, those cases are not as common as how ietters are most often used: words to be read.  ambiguity over those ietters are inconsequentiai when the meaning of those words and sentences are stiii conveyed without any probiem.  do not beiieve me ? as proof, l switched every instance of those two ietters in this post.  and you stiii understand it.  ln monospace: `l agree, it would be a poor decision to use those typefaces and ietters for things iike seriai numbers. ` `however, those cases are not as common as how ietters are most often used: words to be read. ` `ambiguity over those ietters are inconsequentiai when the meaning of those words and sentences are stiii conveyed without any probiem. ` `do not beiieve me ? as proof, l switched every instance of those two ietters in this post.  and you stiii understand it. ` `ln monospace:`
i am basing this opinion on several points.  to begin with, my view is a natural consequence of my personal belief that  every human being has a right on living , a principle that is listed in article 0 URL of the universal declaration of human rights which has been signed by the united states of america, where capital punishment is legalized in some states , article 0 URL of the european convention on human rights and more.  the death penalty is strictly opposed to this tenet.  while some people may agree, that by commiting certain crimes such as child molestion, mass murder, et al.  forfeit their basic human rights, this is a highly subjective point of view that cannot be unambiguously established, as opinions regarding this topic vary between the various religions, cultures and nations.  another reason why capital punishment should be abolished, is that it is not a punishment in real terms, but merely a  solution , to satisfy the immediate need for equal retaliation according to the principle of  an eye for an eye .  by punishing murderers or similar offenders with murder, the judicial system essentially lowers itself to an ethical level akin to that of said offenders.  while this is technically a kind of punishment, it is not the one we should advocate, as it conflicts with the moral principles we have determined for ourselves.  furthermore, the fact that death is a final event an irreversible one means, that juridical mistakes have a much bigger consequences.  if an innocent is erroneously put under arrest for years, he can still be released and even compensated once his innocence has been proven, but you cannot revive an innocent who was killed for something he did not commit.  additionally, capital punishment is even economically URL more unfavorable than imprisonment, mainly due to higher defense costs for a death row candidate.  resting upon these aspects, i hold the firm belief that capital punishment is ethically wrong and unjustified, while also being more of an economical burden than imprisonment.  note: because english is not my native language, parts of my reasoning may be wrong or not make any sense.  thank you for your understanding.   #  the death penalty is strictly opposed to this tenet.   #  while some people may agree, that by commiting certain crimes such as child molestion, mass murder, et al.   # that does not stop people from dying or murdering anyway.  i feel it is more important to focus on what is practical.  while some people may agree, that by commiting certain crimes such as child molestion, mass murder, et al.  forfeit their basic human rights, this is a highly subjective point of view that cannot be unambiguously established, as opinions regarding this topic vary between the various religions, cultures and nations.  i feel this is no more subjective than your personal belief that every human being has a right on living.  i agree retaliation is a point, but honestly i do not see anything wrong with retaliation itself, and i cannot understand when people say justice should not be about retaliation.  i also do not think treating punishment as a solution is inherently bad, and for particularly nasty criminals, it is better to solve the problem once and for all, instead of risking possible complications during incarceration.  if an innocent is erroneously put under arrest for years, he can still be released and even compensated once his innocence has been proven, but you cannot revive an innocent who was killed for something he did not commit.  i always thought this is the strongest argument against the capital punishment.  i still disagree due to two reasons.  first, i think no punishment is reversible.  innocents released from prison have lost time and likely personal relationships, money fined and returned could have been used otherwise, and corporal punishments take time to heal.  it is due to the current irreversibly of time itself that punishments are irreversible.  second, i do realize that things are rarely or never proven to 0, and handing out punishments only in perfect cases means no conviction or punishment on anything at all.  i believe proving the case to beyond reasonable doubt e. g.  an undocumented evil twin is unreasonable doubt is quite practical, and will only become more likely as technology progresses.  ethically, i believe people are willing to put money into certain purposes over others, and economical cost as well as the result should be taken into consideration.  and i hold the firm belief that capital punishment is ethically justified, if economically more expensive in the us while perhaps not so elsewhere , and should never be abolished.  where it is already abolished it should be restored even if never used in practice.  thank you for your understanding.  i think it is very good.  english is not my native language either.   #  forfeit their basic human rights, this is a highly subjective point of view that cannot be unambiguously established, as opinions regarding this topic vary between the various religions, cultures and nations.   # forfeit their basic human rights, this is a highly subjective point of view that cannot be unambiguously established, as opinions regarding this topic vary between the various religions, cultures and nations.  but it is not unambiguous.  when you put someone in prison, they lose many of the rights listed in that declaration.  you are raising a point about a particular right, but everybody agrees that you lose rights by committing a crime.  it is for the safety of the people.  as long as those people exist, they are a threat to society.  if a terrorist can run his group from a prison cell, then cell is not solving the problem.  it is not murder, it is the death penalty.  not every instance of killing is murder, and a greater ethical justification exists for using killing to defend society, than arbitrarily murdering people.  this is an argument in favor of simplifying the process, and removing mandatory appeals.   #  not every instance of killing is murder, and a greater ethical justification exists for using killing to defend society, than arbitrarily murdering people.   # when you put someone in prison, they lose many of the rights listed in that declaration.  you are raising a point about a particular right, but everybody agrees that you lose rights by committing a crime.  i think i addressed this in another comment.  while i agree that by imprisoning offenders some of their rights, such as the right on liberty, is forfeited, this has to be done so the rights of the general population such as the right on living and security can be secured.  as long as those people exist, they are a threat to society.  if a terrorist can run his group from a prison cell, then cell is not solving the problem.  this is an argument in favor of improving prisons in order to prevent things like these.  not every instance of killing is murder, and a greater ethical justification exists for using killing to defend society, than arbitrarily murdering people.  in this case, i associated  murder  with  one instance or person killing another person , and not with the official definition.  i would not support death penalty for those that admit to the act with no remorse.   #  i am proposing that the death penalty is a form of self defense of our society.   # you can only improve prisons so much, and there is always a chance for the individual to harm guards and other inmates.  is self defense murder ? is a police officer killing to protect another person murder ? i am proposing that the death penalty is a form of self defense of our society.  in that case, i have to remove  what if they are innocent  from the foundation of your view.  even if there was no chance of killing innocents, you still oppose the death penalty.   #  killing someone who is about to kill you is substantially different than killing someone out of malice.   # assuming we could streamline the process and the death penalty was economically sound, would not it be violating the rights of the common taxpayer to pay to keep someone alive that does not need to be ? clearly that is too broad a definition.  killing someone who is about to kill you is substantially different than killing someone out of malice.  when police shoot hostage takers, that is wholly separate than when the hostage takers execute people.  do you not agree ? it sounds like your opposition to the death penalty is rooted in ethics.  do you agree that there exists at least one scenario wherein killing another human being is justified ?
i am basing this opinion on several points.  to begin with, my view is a natural consequence of my personal belief that  every human being has a right on living , a principle that is listed in article 0 URL of the universal declaration of human rights which has been signed by the united states of america, where capital punishment is legalized in some states , article 0 URL of the european convention on human rights and more.  the death penalty is strictly opposed to this tenet.  while some people may agree, that by commiting certain crimes such as child molestion, mass murder, et al.  forfeit their basic human rights, this is a highly subjective point of view that cannot be unambiguously established, as opinions regarding this topic vary between the various religions, cultures and nations.  another reason why capital punishment should be abolished, is that it is not a punishment in real terms, but merely a  solution , to satisfy the immediate need for equal retaliation according to the principle of  an eye for an eye .  by punishing murderers or similar offenders with murder, the judicial system essentially lowers itself to an ethical level akin to that of said offenders.  while this is technically a kind of punishment, it is not the one we should advocate, as it conflicts with the moral principles we have determined for ourselves.  furthermore, the fact that death is a final event an irreversible one means, that juridical mistakes have a much bigger consequences.  if an innocent is erroneously put under arrest for years, he can still be released and even compensated once his innocence has been proven, but you cannot revive an innocent who was killed for something he did not commit.  additionally, capital punishment is even economically URL more unfavorable than imprisonment, mainly due to higher defense costs for a death row candidate.  resting upon these aspects, i hold the firm belief that capital punishment is ethically wrong and unjustified, while also being more of an economical burden than imprisonment.  note: because english is not my native language, parts of my reasoning may be wrong or not make any sense.  thank you for your understanding.   #  another reason why capital punishment should be abolished, is that it is not a punishment in real terms, but merely a  solution , to satisfy the immediate need for equal retaliation according to the principle of  an eye for an eye .   #  i agree retaliation is a point, but honestly i do not see anything wrong with retaliation itself, and i cannot understand when people say justice should not be about retaliation.   # that does not stop people from dying or murdering anyway.  i feel it is more important to focus on what is practical.  while some people may agree, that by commiting certain crimes such as child molestion, mass murder, et al.  forfeit their basic human rights, this is a highly subjective point of view that cannot be unambiguously established, as opinions regarding this topic vary between the various religions, cultures and nations.  i feel this is no more subjective than your personal belief that every human being has a right on living.  i agree retaliation is a point, but honestly i do not see anything wrong with retaliation itself, and i cannot understand when people say justice should not be about retaliation.  i also do not think treating punishment as a solution is inherently bad, and for particularly nasty criminals, it is better to solve the problem once and for all, instead of risking possible complications during incarceration.  if an innocent is erroneously put under arrest for years, he can still be released and even compensated once his innocence has been proven, but you cannot revive an innocent who was killed for something he did not commit.  i always thought this is the strongest argument against the capital punishment.  i still disagree due to two reasons.  first, i think no punishment is reversible.  innocents released from prison have lost time and likely personal relationships, money fined and returned could have been used otherwise, and corporal punishments take time to heal.  it is due to the current irreversibly of time itself that punishments are irreversible.  second, i do realize that things are rarely or never proven to 0, and handing out punishments only in perfect cases means no conviction or punishment on anything at all.  i believe proving the case to beyond reasonable doubt e. g.  an undocumented evil twin is unreasonable doubt is quite practical, and will only become more likely as technology progresses.  ethically, i believe people are willing to put money into certain purposes over others, and economical cost as well as the result should be taken into consideration.  and i hold the firm belief that capital punishment is ethically justified, if economically more expensive in the us while perhaps not so elsewhere , and should never be abolished.  where it is already abolished it should be restored even if never used in practice.  thank you for your understanding.  i think it is very good.  english is not my native language either.   #  if a terrorist can run his group from a prison cell, then cell is not solving the problem.   # forfeit their basic human rights, this is a highly subjective point of view that cannot be unambiguously established, as opinions regarding this topic vary between the various religions, cultures and nations.  but it is not unambiguous.  when you put someone in prison, they lose many of the rights listed in that declaration.  you are raising a point about a particular right, but everybody agrees that you lose rights by committing a crime.  it is for the safety of the people.  as long as those people exist, they are a threat to society.  if a terrorist can run his group from a prison cell, then cell is not solving the problem.  it is not murder, it is the death penalty.  not every instance of killing is murder, and a greater ethical justification exists for using killing to defend society, than arbitrarily murdering people.  this is an argument in favor of simplifying the process, and removing mandatory appeals.   #  as long as those people exist, they are a threat to society.   # when you put someone in prison, they lose many of the rights listed in that declaration.  you are raising a point about a particular right, but everybody agrees that you lose rights by committing a crime.  i think i addressed this in another comment.  while i agree that by imprisoning offenders some of their rights, such as the right on liberty, is forfeited, this has to be done so the rights of the general population such as the right on living and security can be secured.  as long as those people exist, they are a threat to society.  if a terrorist can run his group from a prison cell, then cell is not solving the problem.  this is an argument in favor of improving prisons in order to prevent things like these.  not every instance of killing is murder, and a greater ethical justification exists for using killing to defend society, than arbitrarily murdering people.  in this case, i associated  murder  with  one instance or person killing another person , and not with the official definition.  i would not support death penalty for those that admit to the act with no remorse.   #  even if there was no chance of killing innocents, you still oppose the death penalty.   # you can only improve prisons so much, and there is always a chance for the individual to harm guards and other inmates.  is self defense murder ? is a police officer killing to protect another person murder ? i am proposing that the death penalty is a form of self defense of our society.  in that case, i have to remove  what if they are innocent  from the foundation of your view.  even if there was no chance of killing innocents, you still oppose the death penalty.   #  do you agree that there exists at least one scenario wherein killing another human being is justified ?  # assuming we could streamline the process and the death penalty was economically sound, would not it be violating the rights of the common taxpayer to pay to keep someone alive that does not need to be ? clearly that is too broad a definition.  killing someone who is about to kill you is substantially different than killing someone out of malice.  when police shoot hostage takers, that is wholly separate than when the hostage takers execute people.  do you not agree ? it sounds like your opposition to the death penalty is rooted in ethics.  do you agree that there exists at least one scenario wherein killing another human being is justified ?
i am basing this opinion on several points.  to begin with, my view is a natural consequence of my personal belief that  every human being has a right on living , a principle that is listed in article 0 URL of the universal declaration of human rights which has been signed by the united states of america, where capital punishment is legalized in some states , article 0 URL of the european convention on human rights and more.  the death penalty is strictly opposed to this tenet.  while some people may agree, that by commiting certain crimes such as child molestion, mass murder, et al.  forfeit their basic human rights, this is a highly subjective point of view that cannot be unambiguously established, as opinions regarding this topic vary between the various religions, cultures and nations.  another reason why capital punishment should be abolished, is that it is not a punishment in real terms, but merely a  solution , to satisfy the immediate need for equal retaliation according to the principle of  an eye for an eye .  by punishing murderers or similar offenders with murder, the judicial system essentially lowers itself to an ethical level akin to that of said offenders.  while this is technically a kind of punishment, it is not the one we should advocate, as it conflicts with the moral principles we have determined for ourselves.  furthermore, the fact that death is a final event an irreversible one means, that juridical mistakes have a much bigger consequences.  if an innocent is erroneously put under arrest for years, he can still be released and even compensated once his innocence has been proven, but you cannot revive an innocent who was killed for something he did not commit.  additionally, capital punishment is even economically URL more unfavorable than imprisonment, mainly due to higher defense costs for a death row candidate.  resting upon these aspects, i hold the firm belief that capital punishment is ethically wrong and unjustified, while also being more of an economical burden than imprisonment.  note: because english is not my native language, parts of my reasoning may be wrong or not make any sense.  thank you for your understanding.   #  furthermore, the fact that death is a final event an irreversible one means, that juridical mistakes have a much bigger consequences.   #  if an innocent is erroneously put under arrest for years, he can still be released and even compensated once his innocence has been proven, but you cannot revive an innocent who was killed for something he did not commit.   # that does not stop people from dying or murdering anyway.  i feel it is more important to focus on what is practical.  while some people may agree, that by commiting certain crimes such as child molestion, mass murder, et al.  forfeit their basic human rights, this is a highly subjective point of view that cannot be unambiguously established, as opinions regarding this topic vary between the various religions, cultures and nations.  i feel this is no more subjective than your personal belief that every human being has a right on living.  i agree retaliation is a point, but honestly i do not see anything wrong with retaliation itself, and i cannot understand when people say justice should not be about retaliation.  i also do not think treating punishment as a solution is inherently bad, and for particularly nasty criminals, it is better to solve the problem once and for all, instead of risking possible complications during incarceration.  if an innocent is erroneously put under arrest for years, he can still be released and even compensated once his innocence has been proven, but you cannot revive an innocent who was killed for something he did not commit.  i always thought this is the strongest argument against the capital punishment.  i still disagree due to two reasons.  first, i think no punishment is reversible.  innocents released from prison have lost time and likely personal relationships, money fined and returned could have been used otherwise, and corporal punishments take time to heal.  it is due to the current irreversibly of time itself that punishments are irreversible.  second, i do realize that things are rarely or never proven to 0, and handing out punishments only in perfect cases means no conviction or punishment on anything at all.  i believe proving the case to beyond reasonable doubt e. g.  an undocumented evil twin is unreasonable doubt is quite practical, and will only become more likely as technology progresses.  ethically, i believe people are willing to put money into certain purposes over others, and economical cost as well as the result should be taken into consideration.  and i hold the firm belief that capital punishment is ethically justified, if economically more expensive in the us while perhaps not so elsewhere , and should never be abolished.  where it is already abolished it should be restored even if never used in practice.  thank you for your understanding.  i think it is very good.  english is not my native language either.   #  this is an argument in favor of simplifying the process, and removing mandatory appeals.   # forfeit their basic human rights, this is a highly subjective point of view that cannot be unambiguously established, as opinions regarding this topic vary between the various religions, cultures and nations.  but it is not unambiguous.  when you put someone in prison, they lose many of the rights listed in that declaration.  you are raising a point about a particular right, but everybody agrees that you lose rights by committing a crime.  it is for the safety of the people.  as long as those people exist, they are a threat to society.  if a terrorist can run his group from a prison cell, then cell is not solving the problem.  it is not murder, it is the death penalty.  not every instance of killing is murder, and a greater ethical justification exists for using killing to defend society, than arbitrarily murdering people.  this is an argument in favor of simplifying the process, and removing mandatory appeals.   #  as long as those people exist, they are a threat to society.   # when you put someone in prison, they lose many of the rights listed in that declaration.  you are raising a point about a particular right, but everybody agrees that you lose rights by committing a crime.  i think i addressed this in another comment.  while i agree that by imprisoning offenders some of their rights, such as the right on liberty, is forfeited, this has to be done so the rights of the general population such as the right on living and security can be secured.  as long as those people exist, they are a threat to society.  if a terrorist can run his group from a prison cell, then cell is not solving the problem.  this is an argument in favor of improving prisons in order to prevent things like these.  not every instance of killing is murder, and a greater ethical justification exists for using killing to defend society, than arbitrarily murdering people.  in this case, i associated  murder  with  one instance or person killing another person , and not with the official definition.  i would not support death penalty for those that admit to the act with no remorse.   #  even if there was no chance of killing innocents, you still oppose the death penalty.   # you can only improve prisons so much, and there is always a chance for the individual to harm guards and other inmates.  is self defense murder ? is a police officer killing to protect another person murder ? i am proposing that the death penalty is a form of self defense of our society.  in that case, i have to remove  what if they are innocent  from the foundation of your view.  even if there was no chance of killing innocents, you still oppose the death penalty.   #  killing someone who is about to kill you is substantially different than killing someone out of malice.   # assuming we could streamline the process and the death penalty was economically sound, would not it be violating the rights of the common taxpayer to pay to keep someone alive that does not need to be ? clearly that is too broad a definition.  killing someone who is about to kill you is substantially different than killing someone out of malice.  when police shoot hostage takers, that is wholly separate than when the hostage takers execute people.  do you not agree ? it sounds like your opposition to the death penalty is rooted in ethics.  do you agree that there exists at least one scenario wherein killing another human being is justified ?
i am basing this opinion on several points.  to begin with, my view is a natural consequence of my personal belief that  every human being has a right on living , a principle that is listed in article 0 URL of the universal declaration of human rights which has been signed by the united states of america, where capital punishment is legalized in some states , article 0 URL of the european convention on human rights and more.  the death penalty is strictly opposed to this tenet.  while some people may agree, that by commiting certain crimes such as child molestion, mass murder, et al.  forfeit their basic human rights, this is a highly subjective point of view that cannot be unambiguously established, as opinions regarding this topic vary between the various religions, cultures and nations.  another reason why capital punishment should be abolished, is that it is not a punishment in real terms, but merely a  solution , to satisfy the immediate need for equal retaliation according to the principle of  an eye for an eye .  by punishing murderers or similar offenders with murder, the judicial system essentially lowers itself to an ethical level akin to that of said offenders.  while this is technically a kind of punishment, it is not the one we should advocate, as it conflicts with the moral principles we have determined for ourselves.  furthermore, the fact that death is a final event an irreversible one means, that juridical mistakes have a much bigger consequences.  if an innocent is erroneously put under arrest for years, he can still be released and even compensated once his innocence has been proven, but you cannot revive an innocent who was killed for something he did not commit.  additionally, capital punishment is even economically URL more unfavorable than imprisonment, mainly due to higher defense costs for a death row candidate.  resting upon these aspects, i hold the firm belief that capital punishment is ethically wrong and unjustified, while also being more of an economical burden than imprisonment.  note: because english is not my native language, parts of my reasoning may be wrong or not make any sense.  thank you for your understanding.   #  resting upon these aspects, i hold the firm belief that capital punishment is ethically wrong and unjustified, while also being more of an economical burden than imprisonment.   #  and i hold the firm belief that capital punishment is ethically justified, if economically more expensive in the us while perhaps not so elsewhere , and should never be abolished.   # that does not stop people from dying or murdering anyway.  i feel it is more important to focus on what is practical.  while some people may agree, that by commiting certain crimes such as child molestion, mass murder, et al.  forfeit their basic human rights, this is a highly subjective point of view that cannot be unambiguously established, as opinions regarding this topic vary between the various religions, cultures and nations.  i feel this is no more subjective than your personal belief that every human being has a right on living.  i agree retaliation is a point, but honestly i do not see anything wrong with retaliation itself, and i cannot understand when people say justice should not be about retaliation.  i also do not think treating punishment as a solution is inherently bad, and for particularly nasty criminals, it is better to solve the problem once and for all, instead of risking possible complications during incarceration.  if an innocent is erroneously put under arrest for years, he can still be released and even compensated once his innocence has been proven, but you cannot revive an innocent who was killed for something he did not commit.  i always thought this is the strongest argument against the capital punishment.  i still disagree due to two reasons.  first, i think no punishment is reversible.  innocents released from prison have lost time and likely personal relationships, money fined and returned could have been used otherwise, and corporal punishments take time to heal.  it is due to the current irreversibly of time itself that punishments are irreversible.  second, i do realize that things are rarely or never proven to 0, and handing out punishments only in perfect cases means no conviction or punishment on anything at all.  i believe proving the case to beyond reasonable doubt e. g.  an undocumented evil twin is unreasonable doubt is quite practical, and will only become more likely as technology progresses.  ethically, i believe people are willing to put money into certain purposes over others, and economical cost as well as the result should be taken into consideration.  and i hold the firm belief that capital punishment is ethically justified, if economically more expensive in the us while perhaps not so elsewhere , and should never be abolished.  where it is already abolished it should be restored even if never used in practice.  thank you for your understanding.  i think it is very good.  english is not my native language either.   #  not every instance of killing is murder, and a greater ethical justification exists for using killing to defend society, than arbitrarily murdering people.   # forfeit their basic human rights, this is a highly subjective point of view that cannot be unambiguously established, as opinions regarding this topic vary between the various religions, cultures and nations.  but it is not unambiguous.  when you put someone in prison, they lose many of the rights listed in that declaration.  you are raising a point about a particular right, but everybody agrees that you lose rights by committing a crime.  it is for the safety of the people.  as long as those people exist, they are a threat to society.  if a terrorist can run his group from a prison cell, then cell is not solving the problem.  it is not murder, it is the death penalty.  not every instance of killing is murder, and a greater ethical justification exists for using killing to defend society, than arbitrarily murdering people.  this is an argument in favor of simplifying the process, and removing mandatory appeals.   #  as long as those people exist, they are a threat to society.   # when you put someone in prison, they lose many of the rights listed in that declaration.  you are raising a point about a particular right, but everybody agrees that you lose rights by committing a crime.  i think i addressed this in another comment.  while i agree that by imprisoning offenders some of their rights, such as the right on liberty, is forfeited, this has to be done so the rights of the general population such as the right on living and security can be secured.  as long as those people exist, they are a threat to society.  if a terrorist can run his group from a prison cell, then cell is not solving the problem.  this is an argument in favor of improving prisons in order to prevent things like these.  not every instance of killing is murder, and a greater ethical justification exists for using killing to defend society, than arbitrarily murdering people.  in this case, i associated  murder  with  one instance or person killing another person , and not with the official definition.  i would not support death penalty for those that admit to the act with no remorse.   #  in that case, i have to remove  what if they are innocent  from the foundation of your view.   # you can only improve prisons so much, and there is always a chance for the individual to harm guards and other inmates.  is self defense murder ? is a police officer killing to protect another person murder ? i am proposing that the death penalty is a form of self defense of our society.  in that case, i have to remove  what if they are innocent  from the foundation of your view.  even if there was no chance of killing innocents, you still oppose the death penalty.   #  killing someone who is about to kill you is substantially different than killing someone out of malice.   # assuming we could streamline the process and the death penalty was economically sound, would not it be violating the rights of the common taxpayer to pay to keep someone alive that does not need to be ? clearly that is too broad a definition.  killing someone who is about to kill you is substantially different than killing someone out of malice.  when police shoot hostage takers, that is wholly separate than when the hostage takers execute people.  do you not agree ? it sounds like your opposition to the death penalty is rooted in ethics.  do you agree that there exists at least one scenario wherein killing another human being is justified ?
i am basing this opinion on several points.  to begin with, my view is a natural consequence of my personal belief that  every human being has a right on living , a principle that is listed in article 0 URL of the universal declaration of human rights which has been signed by the united states of america, where capital punishment is legalized in some states , article 0 URL of the european convention on human rights and more.  the death penalty is strictly opposed to this tenet.  while some people may agree, that by commiting certain crimes such as child molestion, mass murder, et al.  forfeit their basic human rights, this is a highly subjective point of view that cannot be unambiguously established, as opinions regarding this topic vary between the various religions, cultures and nations.  another reason why capital punishment should be abolished, is that it is not a punishment in real terms, but merely a  solution , to satisfy the immediate need for equal retaliation according to the principle of  an eye for an eye .  by punishing murderers or similar offenders with murder, the judicial system essentially lowers itself to an ethical level akin to that of said offenders.  while this is technically a kind of punishment, it is not the one we should advocate, as it conflicts with the moral principles we have determined for ourselves.  furthermore, the fact that death is a final event an irreversible one means, that juridical mistakes have a much bigger consequences.  if an innocent is erroneously put under arrest for years, he can still be released and even compensated once his innocence has been proven, but you cannot revive an innocent who was killed for something he did not commit.  additionally, capital punishment is even economically URL more unfavorable than imprisonment, mainly due to higher defense costs for a death row candidate.  resting upon these aspects, i hold the firm belief that capital punishment is ethically wrong and unjustified, while also being more of an economical burden than imprisonment.  note: because english is not my native language, parts of my reasoning may be wrong or not make any sense.  thank you for your understanding.   #  while some people may agree, that by commiting certain crimes such as child molestion, mass murder, et al.   #  forfeit their basic human rights, this is a highly subjective point of view that cannot be unambiguously established, as opinions regarding this topic vary between the various religions, cultures and nations.   # forfeit their basic human rights, this is a highly subjective point of view that cannot be unambiguously established, as opinions regarding this topic vary between the various religions, cultures and nations.  a blanket statement like this cannot be a valid argument.  surely, you agree that  some  rights of criminals must be forfeited freedom of movement, for example.  such as ? this seems to be begging the question, since your reason for why we should not have the death penalty is because we should not have it.  if an innocent is erroneously put under arrest for years, he can still be released and even compensated once his innocence has been proven, but you cannot revive an innocent who was killed for something he did not commit.  at some point, i think you have to agree that the government ca not restrict itself purely to reversible actions.  this is another blanket statement that i think cannot hold in all circumstances, and hence cannot be a blanket argument against the death penalty.  for example, suppose the government is trying to regulate a certain new miracle drug.  this miracle drug promises to cure some terminal illness, but may have as yet unknown horrible side effects.  would you say the government may as well allow the new drug for terminally ill patients ? would not this be an irreversible decision, particularly in the case the patient dies even sooner and more horribly than expected ?  #  if a terrorist can run his group from a prison cell, then cell is not solving the problem.   # forfeit their basic human rights, this is a highly subjective point of view that cannot be unambiguously established, as opinions regarding this topic vary between the various religions, cultures and nations.  but it is not unambiguous.  when you put someone in prison, they lose many of the rights listed in that declaration.  you are raising a point about a particular right, but everybody agrees that you lose rights by committing a crime.  it is for the safety of the people.  as long as those people exist, they are a threat to society.  if a terrorist can run his group from a prison cell, then cell is not solving the problem.  it is not murder, it is the death penalty.  not every instance of killing is murder, and a greater ethical justification exists for using killing to defend society, than arbitrarily murdering people.  this is an argument in favor of simplifying the process, and removing mandatory appeals.   #  this is an argument in favor of improving prisons in order to prevent things like these.   # when you put someone in prison, they lose many of the rights listed in that declaration.  you are raising a point about a particular right, but everybody agrees that you lose rights by committing a crime.  i think i addressed this in another comment.  while i agree that by imprisoning offenders some of their rights, such as the right on liberty, is forfeited, this has to be done so the rights of the general population such as the right on living and security can be secured.  as long as those people exist, they are a threat to society.  if a terrorist can run his group from a prison cell, then cell is not solving the problem.  this is an argument in favor of improving prisons in order to prevent things like these.  not every instance of killing is murder, and a greater ethical justification exists for using killing to defend society, than arbitrarily murdering people.  in this case, i associated  murder  with  one instance or person killing another person , and not with the official definition.  i would not support death penalty for those that admit to the act with no remorse.   #  i am proposing that the death penalty is a form of self defense of our society.   # you can only improve prisons so much, and there is always a chance for the individual to harm guards and other inmates.  is self defense murder ? is a police officer killing to protect another person murder ? i am proposing that the death penalty is a form of self defense of our society.  in that case, i have to remove  what if they are innocent  from the foundation of your view.  even if there was no chance of killing innocents, you still oppose the death penalty.   #  do you agree that there exists at least one scenario wherein killing another human being is justified ?  # assuming we could streamline the process and the death penalty was economically sound, would not it be violating the rights of the common taxpayer to pay to keep someone alive that does not need to be ? clearly that is too broad a definition.  killing someone who is about to kill you is substantially different than killing someone out of malice.  when police shoot hostage takers, that is wholly separate than when the hostage takers execute people.  do you not agree ? it sounds like your opposition to the death penalty is rooted in ethics.  do you agree that there exists at least one scenario wherein killing another human being is justified ?
i am basing this opinion on several points.  to begin with, my view is a natural consequence of my personal belief that  every human being has a right on living , a principle that is listed in article 0 URL of the universal declaration of human rights which has been signed by the united states of america, where capital punishment is legalized in some states , article 0 URL of the european convention on human rights and more.  the death penalty is strictly opposed to this tenet.  while some people may agree, that by commiting certain crimes such as child molestion, mass murder, et al.  forfeit their basic human rights, this is a highly subjective point of view that cannot be unambiguously established, as opinions regarding this topic vary between the various religions, cultures and nations.  another reason why capital punishment should be abolished, is that it is not a punishment in real terms, but merely a  solution , to satisfy the immediate need for equal retaliation according to the principle of  an eye for an eye .  by punishing murderers or similar offenders with murder, the judicial system essentially lowers itself to an ethical level akin to that of said offenders.  while this is technically a kind of punishment, it is not the one we should advocate, as it conflicts with the moral principles we have determined for ourselves.  furthermore, the fact that death is a final event an irreversible one means, that juridical mistakes have a much bigger consequences.  if an innocent is erroneously put under arrest for years, he can still be released and even compensated once his innocence has been proven, but you cannot revive an innocent who was killed for something he did not commit.  additionally, capital punishment is even economically URL more unfavorable than imprisonment, mainly due to higher defense costs for a death row candidate.  resting upon these aspects, i hold the firm belief that capital punishment is ethically wrong and unjustified, while also being more of an economical burden than imprisonment.  note: because english is not my native language, parts of my reasoning may be wrong or not make any sense.  thank you for your understanding.   #  furthermore, the fact that death is a final event an irreversible one means, that juridical mistakes have a much bigger consequences.   #  if an innocent is erroneously put under arrest for years, he can still be released and even compensated once his innocence has been proven, but you cannot revive an innocent who was killed for something he did not commit.   # forfeit their basic human rights, this is a highly subjective point of view that cannot be unambiguously established, as opinions regarding this topic vary between the various religions, cultures and nations.  a blanket statement like this cannot be a valid argument.  surely, you agree that  some  rights of criminals must be forfeited freedom of movement, for example.  such as ? this seems to be begging the question, since your reason for why we should not have the death penalty is because we should not have it.  if an innocent is erroneously put under arrest for years, he can still be released and even compensated once his innocence has been proven, but you cannot revive an innocent who was killed for something he did not commit.  at some point, i think you have to agree that the government ca not restrict itself purely to reversible actions.  this is another blanket statement that i think cannot hold in all circumstances, and hence cannot be a blanket argument against the death penalty.  for example, suppose the government is trying to regulate a certain new miracle drug.  this miracle drug promises to cure some terminal illness, but may have as yet unknown horrible side effects.  would you say the government may as well allow the new drug for terminally ill patients ? would not this be an irreversible decision, particularly in the case the patient dies even sooner and more horribly than expected ?  #  if a terrorist can run his group from a prison cell, then cell is not solving the problem.   # forfeit their basic human rights, this is a highly subjective point of view that cannot be unambiguously established, as opinions regarding this topic vary between the various religions, cultures and nations.  but it is not unambiguous.  when you put someone in prison, they lose many of the rights listed in that declaration.  you are raising a point about a particular right, but everybody agrees that you lose rights by committing a crime.  it is for the safety of the people.  as long as those people exist, they are a threat to society.  if a terrorist can run his group from a prison cell, then cell is not solving the problem.  it is not murder, it is the death penalty.  not every instance of killing is murder, and a greater ethical justification exists for using killing to defend society, than arbitrarily murdering people.  this is an argument in favor of simplifying the process, and removing mandatory appeals.   #  in this case, i associated  murder  with  one instance or person killing another person , and not with the official definition.   # when you put someone in prison, they lose many of the rights listed in that declaration.  you are raising a point about a particular right, but everybody agrees that you lose rights by committing a crime.  i think i addressed this in another comment.  while i agree that by imprisoning offenders some of their rights, such as the right on liberty, is forfeited, this has to be done so the rights of the general population such as the right on living and security can be secured.  as long as those people exist, they are a threat to society.  if a terrorist can run his group from a prison cell, then cell is not solving the problem.  this is an argument in favor of improving prisons in order to prevent things like these.  not every instance of killing is murder, and a greater ethical justification exists for using killing to defend society, than arbitrarily murdering people.  in this case, i associated  murder  with  one instance or person killing another person , and not with the official definition.  i would not support death penalty for those that admit to the act with no remorse.   #  i am proposing that the death penalty is a form of self defense of our society.   # you can only improve prisons so much, and there is always a chance for the individual to harm guards and other inmates.  is self defense murder ? is a police officer killing to protect another person murder ? i am proposing that the death penalty is a form of self defense of our society.  in that case, i have to remove  what if they are innocent  from the foundation of your view.  even if there was no chance of killing innocents, you still oppose the death penalty.   #  do you agree that there exists at least one scenario wherein killing another human being is justified ?  # assuming we could streamline the process and the death penalty was economically sound, would not it be violating the rights of the common taxpayer to pay to keep someone alive that does not need to be ? clearly that is too broad a definition.  killing someone who is about to kill you is substantially different than killing someone out of malice.  when police shoot hostage takers, that is wholly separate than when the hostage takers execute people.  do you not agree ? it sounds like your opposition to the death penalty is rooted in ethics.  do you agree that there exists at least one scenario wherein killing another human being is justified ?
i came across a post URL yesterday which was asking people what they thought about non offending pedophiles who committed suicide as a way out of their situation.  although i was not entirely surprised by some of the responses, i was pretty shocked by /u/reasonsbeyondreason.  among other comments in the post, she supports the rape URL and murder URL of  non offending  pedophiles and suggests that they should be shamed for their feelings URL even encouraging one outspoken pedophile in the post to kill himself URL she makes it clear that she was abused as a child URL so to a certain extent i can understand why she would feel the way she feels towards actual child molesters, but i do not think her abuse excuses her comments towards non offending pedophiles.  in another comment which can be found on her posts URL page, she writes: in response to a post about a woman who was sentenced to 0 years in prison for murdering her boyfriend who she had  wrongfully accused  of child molestation URL i think /u/reasonsbeyondreason is absolutely disgusting for her comments and i honestly think she is more of a danger to society than the man that sexually abused her as a child.  cmv.   #  i think /u/reasonsbeyondreason is absolutely disgusting for her comments and i honestly think she is more of a danger to society than the man that sexually abused her as a child.   #  but now i think you are venturing on using the same flawed reasoning that she used.   # but now i think you are venturing on using the same flawed reasoning that she used.  you ca not go around killing people who have dirty thoughts about kids but do not act on them.  she has not raped or murdered any non acting pedos as far as you know.  so how is she worse than a person that acted on a sick urge ? she might have a sick urge to rape and murder a specific group but she has not acted on it.  even if she advocates it strongly on the internet, do you honestly believe america would start rounding up people who have not committed a crime and rape and murder them ? probably not.  she ca not be as bad or worse until she actually does something.   #  i did not say that she was worse than the person who abused her though, i said i think that she is more of a danger to society.   #  i did not say that she was worse than the person who abused her though, i said i think that she is more of a danger to society.  a person who molests children, heaven forbid, is limited to their number of victims by virtue of the fact one child molester could not molest millions or tens of millions of children in his lifetime.  /r/reasonsbeyondreason has the potential, however, to incite people or to reinforce distorted believes in people that props up the already sad state of affairs whereby millions, possibly tens of millions of non offending pedophiles live in terror of their feelings, not being able to get help.  describing pedophiles as not being human URL is possibly the worst thing she says.  dehumanisation is quite simply a mandate for murder.  it is easier to get your head around committing these acts on people who are not considered to be human.  so when i said she is more of a danger to society i mean that the harm she has the potential to cause far exceeds the harm that her abuser could cause.   #  the thing is though a child molester engages in their behaviour essentially in complete isolation.   #  the thing is though a child molester engages in their behaviour essentially in complete isolation.  i would imagine it is quite tricky for a child molester to find like minded people around him.  whereas, /u/reasonsbeyondreason  is propagate an already established dialogue.  her views  are  holding water for many people; that is the problem.  i do understand the sentiment behind what you are saying, but i respectfully disagree.   #  the rate of women drunkenly killing someone they thought molested their child appears to be 0 0 in 0 million.   #  i am a behaviourist, and want rational discussion of preventing abuse instead of vindicating punishment, but this is bullshit:   i honestly think she is more of a danger to society than the man that sexually abused her as a child.  if ranting or venting on the internet about crime and punishment were a crime, many current affairs programs and thousands of other posters would be would be criminals.  it is not good, but it is not a crime.  child abuse affects more than just the abuser and their victim.  abusing a child often changes the child is life for the worse, leading to early death, drug use, future abuse.  it can even can destroy their children is lives, and the lives of other children, as many abusers were abused themselves.  the rate of convicted child sex abuse cases in 0 was 0 per 0,0 in the usa.  the rate of women drunkenly killing someone they thought molested their child appears to be 0 0 in 0 million.   #  i do not necessarily agree with what you would advocate towards them, since i believe in the rule of law, but i do understand why you feel the way you do.   #  defending and sympathising with pedophiles is conceptually no different from defending and sympathising with homosexual people, when people were once calling them all child molesters too.  being gay myself, i have a certain amount of sympathy for pedophiles, for this very reason.  a pedophile simply is not a child molester, and to equate the two is not only an injustice, but it also makes it less likely that those pedophiles who would go on to molest children, would get help before having to resort to that.  in fact, the majority of child molesters are not in fact pedophiles only about 0 i believe , so to direct your anger towards pedophiles, not only unfairly targets a potentially massive group of innocent people, but also completely ignores the group of people who are the main perpetrators of sexual abuse against children.  i can fully understand your feelings towards child molesters.  i do not necessarily agree with what you would advocate towards them, since i believe in the rule of law, but i do understand why you feel the way you do.  it is a fallacy, however, to suggest that to extend concern or sympathy for pedophiles would be at the detriment of children.  i would love to understand why you think extending sympathy for a group of people who, through no fault of their own are stuck with a sexual orientation that they cannot ever morally or legally act on, would result in harm coming to children.  if by apologists you are referring to people who advocate for rights of adults to engage in sexual contact with children then i share your sentiment, but, in my mind, a pedophile demanding acceptance would simply be looking for acceptance for the fact he has certain feelings and the right to live openly without fear of unreasonable prejudice or persecution.  it certainly would not be appropriate to call people who advocate for that  apologists , as there would not really be anything to apologise for, since being a pedophile is not the result of a choice or of a behaviour, but of a biological lottery, it seems.  what would you have a pedophile reported for ? how would you justify keeping a pedophile who has not acted on his or her feelings away from children ? it is not clear what justification there could be for the state to impose restrictions on a pedophiles freedoms.
in the usa gay marraige is always being debated in the media and in politics.  like most controversy in the usa it is assumed that there are only two sides to the debate; gay marraige should be legal or illegal.  i think both arguments have legitimate grievances.  on the gay rights side, gay people deserve all the same rights as straight people.  on the other side, many beleif systems have very specific definitions of what constitutes marraige and those guidelines cant be changed by the legal system.  the solution to this problem is remove marraige from the legal system.  by law neither straight or gay couples can marry.  marraige would still exist as a religious tradition, and gay people still get equal treatment under the law.   #  the solution to this problem is remove marraige from the legal system.   #  there is a much easier solution: make gay marriage legal.   # who gives a fuck ? how is this a legitimate greivence at all ? if those guidelines  ca not  be changed by the legal system then what is the problem ? you do not get to impose your beliefs on everyone else, that does not make any sense.   oh, you ca not call them contracts because in my belief system a contract is only defined as being a firey ball of plasma held together by gravity, and since you want to call something else a contract it looks like we will just have to completely do away with the whole concept.   i do not care what anyone is individual definition of a word is, they do not own the word.  there is a much easier solution: make gay marriage legal.  marraige would still exist as a religious tradition, and gay people still get equal treatment under the law.  i am married and not religious and i would like to remain married, thanks.  marriage is not an exclusively religious tradition, as evidenced by it existing as a legal one.   #  are private hospitals also going to be required to ignore marriage ?  #  its too late for that.  marriage is integrated into many aspects of the law, not least of which is the tax code.  billions of dollars would have to be spent rewriting the tax code to eliminate all references to marriage, and for what ? just so gay marriage is less of an argument ? what makes you think opponents of gay rights wo not keep banging their drums anyway ? lets suppose the state  did  stop recognizing marriage.  what about hospitals allowing spousal visitation, and even next of kin decision making for, for instance, comatose patients ? are private hospitals also going to be required to ignore marriage ? what about insurance companies, or financial companies ? the rabbit hole of marriage in our society goes way deeper than just state recognition though that is a big part .  would not opponents of gay rights also want to deny gays all these privileges that are not granted by the state, but by private organizations ?  #  in the us, we have separation of church and state.   #  and if a child tried to claim your phone was theirs, would you give it to them ? if all it takes to make something yours is a claim that it belongs to you, then i would be a millionaire.  marriage is both a legal term and a religious one.  in the us, we have separation of church and state.  these terms are separate, and it is possible for them to have different meanings.  lots of words in english have different meanings depending on the context.   #  if the government changed the name, then people who were non religious would be deprived of marriage and all of  their  beliefs about the word.   #  here is my biggest thing: why ? why should the government have to choose a different word ? because they certainly ca not completely drop the system, it is too tied up in our lives and legal code.  but why should the government have to change the name ? it would require work to change all the documents, and explain to people what is going on.  all that work will require money we frankly could be spending better somewhere else.  not to mention that it is hardly a guarantee that people would stop arguing about it simply because it has a different name.  so why should the government change the name when it would be far easier for religion to do the same ? it would not require the same resources for pastors to suddenly stop saying  marriage  and instead say  matrimony .  it would not deprive anybody of anything for religion to change the name.  if the government changed the name, then people who were non religious would be deprived of marriage and all of  their  beliefs about the word.   #  legal marriage has nothing to do with religion, we won and the radical church is lost so ha.   # this is true if you legalize gay marriage.  no one is going to force christians to marry the same sex or church is to sanction the marriage of a gay couple as acceptable in their particular version of a god is eyes.  those in favor of gay marriage are not fighting the church is in an effort to force them to agree that it is okay to get married.  we could give a shit whether a church allows it.  the  legal  definition of marriage and all of it is subsequent benefits are what we are concerned with.  the church is just like a loud toddler trying to talk over us while we explain to the state that they need to allow gays to marry as well.  but now we have pretty much gotten our point across, most states have legalized it and we are well on our way to victory.  legal marriage has nothing to do with religion, we won and the radical church is lost so ha.
in the usa gay marraige is always being debated in the media and in politics.  like most controversy in the usa it is assumed that there are only two sides to the debate; gay marraige should be legal or illegal.  i think both arguments have legitimate grievances.  on the gay rights side, gay people deserve all the same rights as straight people.  on the other side, many beleif systems have very specific definitions of what constitutes marraige and those guidelines cant be changed by the legal system.  the solution to this problem is remove marraige from the legal system.  by law neither straight or gay couples can marry.  marraige would still exist as a religious tradition, and gay people still get equal treatment under the law.   #  by law neither straight or gay couples can marry.   #  marraige would still exist as a religious tradition, and gay people still get equal treatment under the law.   # who gives a fuck ? how is this a legitimate greivence at all ? if those guidelines  ca not  be changed by the legal system then what is the problem ? you do not get to impose your beliefs on everyone else, that does not make any sense.   oh, you ca not call them contracts because in my belief system a contract is only defined as being a firey ball of plasma held together by gravity, and since you want to call something else a contract it looks like we will just have to completely do away with the whole concept.   i do not care what anyone is individual definition of a word is, they do not own the word.  there is a much easier solution: make gay marriage legal.  marraige would still exist as a religious tradition, and gay people still get equal treatment under the law.  i am married and not religious and i would like to remain married, thanks.  marriage is not an exclusively religious tradition, as evidenced by it existing as a legal one.   #  lets suppose the state  did  stop recognizing marriage.   #  its too late for that.  marriage is integrated into many aspects of the law, not least of which is the tax code.  billions of dollars would have to be spent rewriting the tax code to eliminate all references to marriage, and for what ? just so gay marriage is less of an argument ? what makes you think opponents of gay rights wo not keep banging their drums anyway ? lets suppose the state  did  stop recognizing marriage.  what about hospitals allowing spousal visitation, and even next of kin decision making for, for instance, comatose patients ? are private hospitals also going to be required to ignore marriage ? what about insurance companies, or financial companies ? the rabbit hole of marriage in our society goes way deeper than just state recognition though that is a big part .  would not opponents of gay rights also want to deny gays all these privileges that are not granted by the state, but by private organizations ?  #  if all it takes to make something yours is a claim that it belongs to you, then i would be a millionaire.   #  and if a child tried to claim your phone was theirs, would you give it to them ? if all it takes to make something yours is a claim that it belongs to you, then i would be a millionaire.  marriage is both a legal term and a religious one.  in the us, we have separation of church and state.  these terms are separate, and it is possible for them to have different meanings.  lots of words in english have different meanings depending on the context.   #  why should the government have to choose a different word ?  #  here is my biggest thing: why ? why should the government have to choose a different word ? because they certainly ca not completely drop the system, it is too tied up in our lives and legal code.  but why should the government have to change the name ? it would require work to change all the documents, and explain to people what is going on.  all that work will require money we frankly could be spending better somewhere else.  not to mention that it is hardly a guarantee that people would stop arguing about it simply because it has a different name.  so why should the government change the name when it would be far easier for religion to do the same ? it would not require the same resources for pastors to suddenly stop saying  marriage  and instead say  matrimony .  it would not deprive anybody of anything for religion to change the name.  if the government changed the name, then people who were non religious would be deprived of marriage and all of  their  beliefs about the word.   #  no one is going to force christians to marry the same sex or church is to sanction the marriage of a gay couple as acceptable in their particular version of a god is eyes.   # this is true if you legalize gay marriage.  no one is going to force christians to marry the same sex or church is to sanction the marriage of a gay couple as acceptable in their particular version of a god is eyes.  those in favor of gay marriage are not fighting the church is in an effort to force them to agree that it is okay to get married.  we could give a shit whether a church allows it.  the  legal  definition of marriage and all of it is subsequent benefits are what we are concerned with.  the church is just like a loud toddler trying to talk over us while we explain to the state that they need to allow gays to marry as well.  but now we have pretty much gotten our point across, most states have legalized it and we are well on our way to victory.  legal marriage has nothing to do with religion, we won and the radical church is lost so ha.
in the usa gay marraige is always being debated in the media and in politics.  like most controversy in the usa it is assumed that there are only two sides to the debate; gay marraige should be legal or illegal.  i think both arguments have legitimate grievances.  on the gay rights side, gay people deserve all the same rights as straight people.  on the other side, many beleif systems have very specific definitions of what constitutes marraige and those guidelines cant be changed by the legal system.  the solution to this problem is remove marraige from the legal system.  by law neither straight or gay couples can marry.  marraige would still exist as a religious tradition, and gay people still get equal treatment under the law.   #  marraige would still exist as a religious tradition, and gay people still get equal treatment under the law.   #  this is true if you legalize gay marriage.   # this is true if you legalize gay marriage.  no one is going to force christians to marry the same sex or church is to sanction the marriage of a gay couple as acceptable in their particular version of a god is eyes.  those in favor of gay marriage are not fighting the church is in an effort to force them to agree that it is okay to get married.  we could give a shit whether a church allows it.  the  legal  definition of marriage and all of it is subsequent benefits are what we are concerned with.  the church is just like a loud toddler trying to talk over us while we explain to the state that they need to allow gays to marry as well.  but now we have pretty much gotten our point across, most states have legalized it and we are well on our way to victory.  legal marriage has nothing to do with religion, we won and the radical church is lost so ha.   #  marriage is integrated into many aspects of the law, not least of which is the tax code.   #  its too late for that.  marriage is integrated into many aspects of the law, not least of which is the tax code.  billions of dollars would have to be spent rewriting the tax code to eliminate all references to marriage, and for what ? just so gay marriage is less of an argument ? what makes you think opponents of gay rights wo not keep banging their drums anyway ? lets suppose the state  did  stop recognizing marriage.  what about hospitals allowing spousal visitation, and even next of kin decision making for, for instance, comatose patients ? are private hospitals also going to be required to ignore marriage ? what about insurance companies, or financial companies ? the rabbit hole of marriage in our society goes way deeper than just state recognition though that is a big part .  would not opponents of gay rights also want to deny gays all these privileges that are not granted by the state, but by private organizations ?  #  i am married and not religious and i would like to remain married, thanks.   # who gives a fuck ? how is this a legitimate greivence at all ? if those guidelines  ca not  be changed by the legal system then what is the problem ? you do not get to impose your beliefs on everyone else, that does not make any sense.   oh, you ca not call them contracts because in my belief system a contract is only defined as being a firey ball of plasma held together by gravity, and since you want to call something else a contract it looks like we will just have to completely do away with the whole concept.   i do not care what anyone is individual definition of a word is, they do not own the word.  there is a much easier solution: make gay marriage legal.  marraige would still exist as a religious tradition, and gay people still get equal treatment under the law.  i am married and not religious and i would like to remain married, thanks.  marriage is not an exclusively religious tradition, as evidenced by it existing as a legal one.   #  marriage is both a legal term and a religious one.   #  and if a child tried to claim your phone was theirs, would you give it to them ? if all it takes to make something yours is a claim that it belongs to you, then i would be a millionaire.  marriage is both a legal term and a religious one.  in the us, we have separation of church and state.  these terms are separate, and it is possible for them to have different meanings.  lots of words in english have different meanings depending on the context.   #  it would require work to change all the documents, and explain to people what is going on.   #  here is my biggest thing: why ? why should the government have to choose a different word ? because they certainly ca not completely drop the system, it is too tied up in our lives and legal code.  but why should the government have to change the name ? it would require work to change all the documents, and explain to people what is going on.  all that work will require money we frankly could be spending better somewhere else.  not to mention that it is hardly a guarantee that people would stop arguing about it simply because it has a different name.  so why should the government change the name when it would be far easier for religion to do the same ? it would not require the same resources for pastors to suddenly stop saying  marriage  and instead say  matrimony .  it would not deprive anybody of anything for religion to change the name.  if the government changed the name, then people who were non religious would be deprived of marriage and all of  their  beliefs about the word.
a work part time in high school ; then go to college b work full time before you go to college c work while you study in college.  i was a spoiled lazy kid because i never got a job.  had my priorities mixed up and flunked.  i got a job in the real world, and it was painful, but humbling.  if i had gotten a job at 0 or sooner , i would have done much better in college and learned crucial life lessons sooner.  there is also lots of other people who are deluded and spoiled because they do not work.  i wo not allow my kids to go to college without having worked first.    i am not restricting this purely to retail, but retail teaches humility.  it teaches you how to be diplomatic, how you are not the center of the universe, sometimes you have to tolerate shit, things wo not always go your way.  and after working a retail job, you will treat other retail workers with more respect.    having a job also teaches the reality of the world versus theory.  i used to be a hardcore republican who thought poor people did not have it that bad and wealthy people deserve to live 0x better because they work harder.  now, i see the real challenges average people face, especially in the ghetto.    having real world experience will help you just as much you will encounter lots of people, learn your strengths and weaknesses , if not more than spending years in college  finding yourself .  if you have no idea what you want to do in college, you are going to waste lots of time.    lots of college kids are entitled because parents/government pay for everything.  and they think they automatically deserve a high paying job just because they graduated.  nope, gotta work your way up from the bottom.  nobody is too good for an entry level job.    oh, and it does not hurt to have a little more on your resume.   #  i was a spoiled lazy kid because i never got a job.   #  had my priorities mixed up and flunked.   # had my priorities mixed up and flunked.  i got a job in the real world, and it was painful, but humbling.  if i had gotten a job at 0 or sooner , i would have done much better in college and learned crucial life lessons sooner.  i did not have my first job until 0, because i went straight through college and grad school, without working, to get an engineering master is.  now i am five years into that job making $0k with a house, a wife, and my student loans paid off.  i am very happy with the way my life is turning out, and i do not see why it should be my problem that you apparently needed a wake up call from a retail job.   #  playing competitive sports can teach leadership, diplomacy, and humility when you lose and learn from it.   #  i think work experience is valuable and would strongly encourage it much in the same way.  that said, there are plenty of kids out there who are internally motivated and super disciplined.  school  or  work, they will excel.  if we are talking about someone who has career ambitions that require college, it is arguably better for them to maximize their chances of success within that framework by focusing on advanced studies in hs to get into a better school that is paid for.  if you can save up some money, but  make  more money in scholarships, that is better in the long run for most college students.  there is just not enough of an attrition rate in college for me to look at your experience and decide that is a basis for teaching a series of life lessons that can come about through a myriad of contexts.  playing competitive sports can teach leadership, diplomacy, and humility when you lose and learn from it.  shucks, so can school if you parent in that direction.  the primary reason to get a job in hs is to save up money and garner a little financial independence.  if there is a reason to encourage it, that is the reason, and it  can  be outweighed by kids who demonstrate a higher probability of doing well in school to the point where it pays dividends.   #  there is still the problem of being out of touch with reality if you do not work.   #  good exception.  a student excelling in ap/honors classes is better off sticking to that than working at macy is because they have the dedication to succeed in college and full rides are great.  they can still get a job in the summer though.  there is still the problem of being out of touch with reality if you do not work.  a blank work resume is not good.  second, being out of touch with regular working people is not good.  third, after college, you still may still face the crashing reality that you have to climb up the ladder like everyone else.  partial view change:   0;  #  point being, i do agree with you that working can bring useful experiences, but it may not be for everyone since time is finite.   #  it really depends on what you are going for.  an honor student in that situation needs to decide whether getting a job during the summer or doing other summer activities such as actually competitive/useful summer camps/studies/clubs is useful.  i personally ended up interning part time at a law office during my junior senior summer because at the time i wanted to go into law.  my summers looked something like this: 0th grade summer: took health class studying over summer since it is a required course that i would have had to waste from my perspective a period on during the school year when i could be taking more honors classes to boost gpa, ucla mock trial camp freshman summer: ucla mock trial camp and korean sat ii studying sophomore summer: intense/full time sat and act studying to finish it during that year which i did and a daily competitive club activity which took up around 0 hours every day.  junior summer: interned at law office, second temporary volunteering for 0 weeks, continued activity in the club i mentioned.  this is on top of other things like instrument lessons, other volunteering stuff etc.  while i personally interned at a law office for work experience, i know quite a few other friends who did not work part/full time during summers and during the year and got into around the same college or better within top 0 in u. s.  than me, and we are doing fine.  if i really wanted to, i think we could have fit part time work in our schedule, but that would take away energy from our other activities and just in general make us way more swamped than we already were.  point being, i do agree with you that working can bring useful experiences, but it may not be for everyone since time is finite.   #  of course, knowledge often finds practical applications, but is not always pursued with that in mind, especially by academic types.   #  you should question your assumption that someone is out of touch with reality if they do not  work.   many of my friends are academics who have dedicated the majority of their time, sacrificing sleep, relationships and the potential for higher wages, in order to make little advances in their field.  often, they just want to be on the team that helps move the gears a little bit so that other people can make advances.  they are passionate, humble, persevering, and often very kind and pragmatic individuals; but most of them resent having to trade their labor for money.  it just is not their motivation.  while people who find money hard to come by see this as a weakness, and claim that it is proof of their disconnect from reality; it is somewhat ironic, since they are motivation is, in fact, a better understanding of reality.  and, they  work  very hard at it.  i think a major issue we have today is that we look at university as vocational and necessary for everyone, when the idea of a university stems from of a desire for knowledge, often for the sake of itself.  of course, knowledge often finds practical applications, but is not always pursued with that in mind, especially by academic types.  students are often surprised when they get to their classes and find out that they are expected to understand and memorize really abstract ideas that were only ever intended to give them a glimpse at the world beyond their senses, never to better prepare them for a job.  professors are likewise also dismayed by students coming to their classes with this vocational mindset, asking  what use does this have  since, if you have to ask, it pretty much means the answer is  none, unless your sole purpose is understanding the thing in itself.   so, i think a better suggestion is not that everybody needs to get a job before university, but that there should be a distinction between vocational schooling and universities, and that neither should be looked at as superior or inferior.  while i think an abstract education, as provided by universities is very helpful in creating moral, thoughtful and cooperative citizens who understand the intrinsic value of things and ideas alike; i do not think it is necessary for everyone to force themselves through 0 years of this kind of mental labor at an extremely high cost.
cigarette butts are the number one most littered object in the world.  this year alone, an excess of 0,0,0 kg of cigarette waste will be produced.  a single ingested used cigarette filter is toxic enough to kill small freshwater fish.  british columbia, canada has started a recycling program where they pay people $0 for each butt that they recycle.  i feel like this will provide an incentive for smoking and the scope of these types of programs will have very little impact on a world wide problem.  therefore, i think that the only way to solve this environmental crisis is to stop producing cigarette filters.  URL  #  therefore, i think that the only way to solve this environmental crisis is to stop producing cigarette filters.   #  the health costs of removing the cigarette filters are so large to the smoker that no one would ever allow it.   # in order to incentivize them not to litter, we could just be more proactive about fining them as the law already states that we should.  this problem would end fairly quickly.  this is unlikely.  in reality a poor/homeless person will make it their job to go to the places where people smoke   sweep the streets to get hundreds of butts at a time.  even that seems like an unlikely plan to work out, but keeping the 0 cigarettes that people smoke daily for $0 is even more unlikely.  the health costs of removing the cigarette filters are so large to the smoker that no one would ever allow it.  by your logic, we can eliminate car accidents by eliminating cars.  while the statement is absolutely accurate, that does not mean that it is in the realm of reality.  given that it is not, there are other, realistic options that can be considered to minimize pollution.   #  most places have no economic incentive to do this.   #  people already smoke.  everyone knows that it is bad for them and millions of people currently smoke.  people already still feel bad about smoking and they still smoke.  i do not think that anyone would somehow use a small filter fee as a reason to justify their behavior.  0 cents on filters is just going to give a reason for people to pick them up form the ground.  most places have no economic incentive to do this.   #  this leads to higher medical bills over the lifetime of the smoker.   #  we are horrible at enforcing laws.  if we did enforce anti littering laws, then we would not have the environmental problem.  i think we as a society would save money by removing the filters in cigarettes.  even with filters, people still get cancer and emphysema.  filters just prolong the life span of a person.  this leads to higher medical bills over the lifetime of the smoker.  if the lifespan of the smoker were smaller, would not we waste less money on medical expenses ?  #  it is hard not to react to this statement.   # it is hard not to react to this statement.  while it is functionally accurate, it diminishes all of a person is life to how much they expend.  it is also a dangerous and slippery slope.  the same can be said of people who consume too much alcohol.  so if we were to mix cyanide with beer, we would  significantly  reduce the lifespan of the drinker   by extension their expense.  mentally challenged people too are costly.  if we were to sabotage their medicine, they would live shorter lives.  after a while, we would have a healthy   economically thriving society of sociopaths and monsters.  money plays  a role  in society.  but if that becomes your whole world, you lose a lot more than you get.   #  i do not want to purposely add more toxic chemicals to cigarettes to purposely make people sick.   #   .  although i still do not fully agree with your perspective, i like how eloquently you put your position.  your last sentence was exceptionally beautiful.  i still have a problem with your argument but at the moment i do not know how to properly articulate it.  i do not want to purposely sabotage someone is health by giving them toxic chemicals.  i do not want to purposely add more toxic chemicals to cigarettes to purposely make people sick.  i feel like people should be responsible for their own actions.  i am aware that this does not fully make sense.
to my knowledge there are no peer reviewed sources that link gmos to any negative health effects.  there is as much reason to believe genes manipulated in a lab are inherently harmful as there is for genes selected through domestication.  i am asking for a cmv because i have not done thorough research other than reading a few articles supporting my view including a recent cover story for nat.  geo, a magazine i highly respect.  however as a scientifically minded person, i ca not ignore the massive movement against gmos without considering it first.   #  to my knowledge there are no peer reviewed sources that link gmos to any negative health effects.   #  we would not expect there to be.   # we would not expect there to be.  if there were, those particular gmos would never hit the market i imagine the companies that make gmo seeds do their research before selling their stuff .  anti gmoers are not a single breed of moron.  lots of people oppose gmos for different reasons.  for example, nassim taleb, were he a moron, would be an entirely different kind of moron from an anti vaxxer.  some would say he is the  dangerous imbecile  URL kind of moron, but i think he makes some good points URL  #  doing the same thing in a lab is just a faster way of doing it.   #  to your point about gmos only being around since the 0s: if we are going to get technical, almost all foodstuffs found in grocery stores is the result of selective breeding.  humans have been modifying the genetics of organisms for thousands of years.  doing the same thing in a lab is just a faster way of doing it.  it also allows us to  cross breed  in ways that are not possible through selective breeding.  there is no safety concern here.  the only safety concern would be if a company added an anthrax gene into corn or something.  but companies wo not invest their money into things like this.  most modern gmos are hardier than their predecessors.  i would be against them only on the grounds that the companies who make them are corrupt.  but i do not know enough about the companies besides monsanto.   #  and if so, how do you possibly label that, since they do not have to disclose this to you.   #  i am not arguing for or against gmo is personally i am 0/0 .  i am just saying that some people have concerns over the safety of gmo is.  i understand the crossbreeding has been going on, and that doing it in a lab is faster.  but you are also able to introduce genes in a lab that you would not be able to get with crossbreeding because the species are incompatible .  what happens if say the introduce a gene from a peanut into a tomato plant pure speculation here, i am not sure why you would do this ? are people potentially deathly allergic to the new tomato ? and if so, how do you possibly label that, since they do not have to disclose this to you.  i am not sure questions like this have been thought out.   #  i have not heard anything about corrupt farming practices outside of monsanto, but i am not sure whether even that was linked to gmos.   #  let is say the gene from the peanut made the tomato grow twice as many tomatoes per plant yay ! says the corp .  if this gene does not code for the protein which elicits the allergic reaction which it undoubtedly would not then all would be well.  most times i see anti gmo it is because people are ill informed about what exactly it means.  so it is more like anti vax or gluten free.  i have not heard anything about corrupt farming practices outside of monsanto, but i am not sure whether even that was linked to gmos.   #  then someone potentially dies because they had no reasonable expectation that their tomato may be contaminated with peanut protein.   # i mean it is likely it does not.  but what if it does, or it mutates, and it is not caught.  then someone potentially dies because they had no reasonable expectation that their tomato may be contaminated with peanut protein.  or a less extreme example, say i am vegan and i unknowingly eat a turnip that contains a gene from a salmon that makes the turnip produce omega 0 is for heart health again pure speculation .  why do i not have the right to know that turnip contains a salmon gene and decide for myself if that fits my vegan views.  again i am not arguing the pros or cons of gmo is, but the general opinion that you do not need to know what is going in your food because it is a non issue is wrong.  as a consumer i do not like being told to  ignore the man behind the curtain  so to speak.  even non vaxxers can look up the ingredients of the vaccines that they are opposed to.
i always have to hold my eyes to keep them rolling out of my sockets when i hear australian people talking about their trips to europe and canada and america.  to me you have to be pretty dull and boring and douchey to want to go overseas and experience a mild variant of your own culture instead of a different one.  its classic tourist behavior but at least retarded resort bound tourists outside of the west are pushing their comfort zone slightly.  travel isnt supposed to be a way to get away from your shitty 0 0 that you do not have the guts to quit, its supposed to be a journey where you explore other places and other cultures.  if other cultures are so scary to you that youd save up thousands to go to a place where language and climate are the only differences from home youre probably a bit of a douche.   #  if other cultures are so scary to you that youd save up thousands to go to a place where language and climate are the only differences from home youre probably a bit of a douche.   #  so you think the only reason people would go to a western culture is because they are scared of other cultures ?  # said who ? if i live in one part of the us say the east coast , i am not allowed to travel to the west coast to see different scenery, meet different people, and eat different food ? if i am from texas and have never seen snow, it is douchey to take a trip somewhere i could go skiing, like norway or switzerland ? so you think the only reason people would go to a western culture is because they are scared of other cultures ? what if someone read books about the romans and really wants to see the ruins ? what if a jewish person feels compelled to visit holocaust memorials in germany ? or someone with spanish heritage wants to visit the land their relatives are from ? why do people need to go somewhere shitty for it to be authentic to you ? is israel still the west ? what about russia ? what about romania ? what about brazil ? where do you draw the line ? and is it any better if i go to jamaica and never leave a resort eg.  only see other white tourists ?  #  i never used the word authentic but did you just say that non western cultures are shitty.  ?  # there is snow in america, there is snow all over the world, choosing norway or switzy is still based in a desire not to leave western culture, which is douchey.  what if someone read books about the romans and really wants to see the ruins ? what if a jewish person feels compelled to visit holocaust memorials in germany ? or someone with spanish heritage wants to visit the land their relatives are from ? we have all got interests man.  it is your first overseas trip, and you are choosing to see a western culture, being more interested by your own culture than all others makes you a doooouche.  i never used the word authentic but did you just say that non western cultures are shitty.  ? only see other white tourists ? to a degree, but only if the alternative is never leaving the resort in a western country.   #  i am a ceo who makes well into seven figures a year, and when i vacation it is to relax, not to explore.   # that is complete nonsense.  i am a ceo who makes well into seven figures a year, and when i vacation it is to relax, not to explore.  if you want to go on some outward bound quest, then you can boldly go wherever like, but that is your deal.  my day to day life is enough of an adventure, i do not need to go looking for more when i take a break.   nbsp;  if other cultures are so scary to you that youd save up thousands to go to a place where language and climate are the only differences from home youre probably a bit of a douche.  so what: if you live in the us and you want to see eiffel tower, that makes you a douche ? if some little kid from spain dreams of seeing the great barrier reef, he is somehow douchey ? i am from orlando, and we have a steady stream of people all year long flocking here to see disney world, and universal, and sea world, you are telling me that 0 of them are douches who were  too scared  to go somewhere else for vacation ?  #  tell them to look at the sky it does not even end its way more exciting.   # is it a douche move if someone from europe traveled to the united states to see the grand canyon ? yes.  its a ditch.  tell them to look at the sky it does not even end its way more exciting.  this isnt about the merits or lack thereof, of the alright, kinda decent canyon.  obviously every country is unique but some are a lot more  unique  than others, at least in comparison to your home country.  if youre scared of other cultures youre a douche.  if its  my dream  to throw acid on children it still makes me a douche.   #  some people, like my grandmother, likes climbing mountains.   #  are you really comparing throwing acid at people to seeing the grand canyon ? when people pay lots of money on holidays they usually pay to go somewhere they find interesting or fun.  some people, like my grandmother, likes climbing mountains.  i prefer to spend my holidays on a beach.  the point of traveling, for many people, is to get away from day to day life and see other places.  and the people and culture varies from country to country, regardless of whether or not they are in the western world.  and by the way, it is you are, not youre
i always have to hold my eyes to keep them rolling out of my sockets when i hear australian people talking about their trips to europe and canada and america.  to me you have to be pretty dull and boring and douchey to want to go overseas and experience a mild variant of your own culture instead of a different one.  its classic tourist behavior but at least retarded resort bound tourists outside of the west are pushing their comfort zone slightly.  travel isnt supposed to be a way to get away from your shitty 0 0 that you do not have the guts to quit, its supposed to be a journey where you explore other places and other cultures.  if other cultures are so scary to you that youd save up thousands to go to a place where language and climate are the only differences from home youre probably a bit of a douche.   #  travel isnt supposed to be a way to get away from your shitty 0 0 that you do not have the guts to quit, its supposed to be a journey where you explore other places and other cultures.   #  0 or maybe there is a middle ground where it is about fun and each person has different interests that are better rewarded by different travel options.   #  why do you think a person who does this is a douche ? why do you feel that your description of the appropriate purpose of travel is correct and how would you respond to the assertion that it is entirely baseless and remarkably pretentious ? why is it wrong for me to go an appreciate cultures that are different but not different enough to satisfy you ? seeing a glacier in canada, a fjord in norway or the forum in rome are all more interesting to me than traveling to. some other place just so i can mingle with people who do not speak my language.  i say that as a person who is been to many different countries and not enjoyed it when those countries had cultures wildly divergent from my own.  0 or maybe there is a middle ground where it is about fun and each person has different interests that are better rewarded by different travel options.  0 or maybe you should not be so arrogant as to believe that your own view of what travel ought to be should apply to everyone else.  maybe you ought to consider the arrogance required to render judgment on other people who do not travel in a way that you approve of  #  what if someone read books about the romans and really wants to see the ruins ?  # said who ? if i live in one part of the us say the east coast , i am not allowed to travel to the west coast to see different scenery, meet different people, and eat different food ? if i am from texas and have never seen snow, it is douchey to take a trip somewhere i could go skiing, like norway or switzerland ? so you think the only reason people would go to a western culture is because they are scared of other cultures ? what if someone read books about the romans and really wants to see the ruins ? what if a jewish person feels compelled to visit holocaust memorials in germany ? or someone with spanish heritage wants to visit the land their relatives are from ? why do people need to go somewhere shitty for it to be authentic to you ? is israel still the west ? what about russia ? what about romania ? what about brazil ? where do you draw the line ? and is it any better if i go to jamaica and never leave a resort eg.  only see other white tourists ?  #  to a degree, but only if the alternative is never leaving the resort in a western country.   # there is snow in america, there is snow all over the world, choosing norway or switzy is still based in a desire not to leave western culture, which is douchey.  what if someone read books about the romans and really wants to see the ruins ? what if a jewish person feels compelled to visit holocaust memorials in germany ? or someone with spanish heritage wants to visit the land their relatives are from ? we have all got interests man.  it is your first overseas trip, and you are choosing to see a western culture, being more interested by your own culture than all others makes you a doooouche.  i never used the word authentic but did you just say that non western cultures are shitty.  ? only see other white tourists ? to a degree, but only if the alternative is never leaving the resort in a western country.   #  my day to day life is enough of an adventure, i do not need to go looking for more when i take a break.   # that is complete nonsense.  i am a ceo who makes well into seven figures a year, and when i vacation it is to relax, not to explore.  if you want to go on some outward bound quest, then you can boldly go wherever like, but that is your deal.  my day to day life is enough of an adventure, i do not need to go looking for more when i take a break.   nbsp;  if other cultures are so scary to you that youd save up thousands to go to a place where language and climate are the only differences from home youre probably a bit of a douche.  so what: if you live in the us and you want to see eiffel tower, that makes you a douche ? if some little kid from spain dreams of seeing the great barrier reef, he is somehow douchey ? i am from orlando, and we have a steady stream of people all year long flocking here to see disney world, and universal, and sea world, you are telling me that 0 of them are douches who were  too scared  to go somewhere else for vacation ?  #  if its  my dream  to throw acid on children it still makes me a douche.   # is it a douche move if someone from europe traveled to the united states to see the grand canyon ? yes.  its a ditch.  tell them to look at the sky it does not even end its way more exciting.  this isnt about the merits or lack thereof, of the alright, kinda decent canyon.  obviously every country is unique but some are a lot more  unique  than others, at least in comparison to your home country.  if youre scared of other cultures youre a douche.  if its  my dream  to throw acid on children it still makes me a douche.
i always have to hold my eyes to keep them rolling out of my sockets when i hear australian people talking about their trips to europe and canada and america.  to me you have to be pretty dull and boring and douchey to want to go overseas and experience a mild variant of your own culture instead of a different one.  its classic tourist behavior but at least retarded resort bound tourists outside of the west are pushing their comfort zone slightly.  travel isnt supposed to be a way to get away from your shitty 0 0 that you do not have the guts to quit, its supposed to be a journey where you explore other places and other cultures.  if other cultures are so scary to you that youd save up thousands to go to a place where language and climate are the only differences from home youre probably a bit of a douche.   #  if other cultures are so scary to you that youd save up thousands to go to a place where language and climate are the only differences from home youre probably a bit of a douche.   #  you seem to have a very narrow view of why people travel.   # you seem to have a very narrow view of why people travel.  many visit other countries to visit family, historical / architectural / artistic sites of interest, professionals in the same field etc etc etc.  you will need to be a bit more specific as to why a person spending their money on a trip to a place that interests them makes that person a douche.  also as an australian i see plenty of people spend a couple of weeks on a tour in thailand or hanging out at a retreat in nepal completely failing to immerse themselves in anything resembling the local culture .  when these people then claim that they are  better  than others for travelling somewhere non western now that is being a douche.  travel is not  supposed  to be anything other than what you make it.   #  if i live in one part of the us say the east coast , i am not allowed to travel to the west coast to see different scenery, meet different people, and eat different food ?  # said who ? if i live in one part of the us say the east coast , i am not allowed to travel to the west coast to see different scenery, meet different people, and eat different food ? if i am from texas and have never seen snow, it is douchey to take a trip somewhere i could go skiing, like norway or switzerland ? so you think the only reason people would go to a western culture is because they are scared of other cultures ? what if someone read books about the romans and really wants to see the ruins ? what if a jewish person feels compelled to visit holocaust memorials in germany ? or someone with spanish heritage wants to visit the land their relatives are from ? why do people need to go somewhere shitty for it to be authentic to you ? is israel still the west ? what about russia ? what about romania ? what about brazil ? where do you draw the line ? and is it any better if i go to jamaica and never leave a resort eg.  only see other white tourists ?  #  or someone with spanish heritage wants to visit the land their relatives are from ?  # there is snow in america, there is snow all over the world, choosing norway or switzy is still based in a desire not to leave western culture, which is douchey.  what if someone read books about the romans and really wants to see the ruins ? what if a jewish person feels compelled to visit holocaust memorials in germany ? or someone with spanish heritage wants to visit the land their relatives are from ? we have all got interests man.  it is your first overseas trip, and you are choosing to see a western culture, being more interested by your own culture than all others makes you a doooouche.  i never used the word authentic but did you just say that non western cultures are shitty.  ? only see other white tourists ? to a degree, but only if the alternative is never leaving the resort in a western country.   #  i am a ceo who makes well into seven figures a year, and when i vacation it is to relax, not to explore.   # that is complete nonsense.  i am a ceo who makes well into seven figures a year, and when i vacation it is to relax, not to explore.  if you want to go on some outward bound quest, then you can boldly go wherever like, but that is your deal.  my day to day life is enough of an adventure, i do not need to go looking for more when i take a break.   nbsp;  if other cultures are so scary to you that youd save up thousands to go to a place where language and climate are the only differences from home youre probably a bit of a douche.  so what: if you live in the us and you want to see eiffel tower, that makes you a douche ? if some little kid from spain dreams of seeing the great barrier reef, he is somehow douchey ? i am from orlando, and we have a steady stream of people all year long flocking here to see disney world, and universal, and sea world, you are telling me that 0 of them are douches who were  too scared  to go somewhere else for vacation ?  #  tell them to look at the sky it does not even end its way more exciting.   # is it a douche move if someone from europe traveled to the united states to see the grand canyon ? yes.  its a ditch.  tell them to look at the sky it does not even end its way more exciting.  this isnt about the merits or lack thereof, of the alright, kinda decent canyon.  obviously every country is unique but some are a lot more  unique  than others, at least in comparison to your home country.  if youre scared of other cultures youre a douche.  if its  my dream  to throw acid on children it still makes me a douche.
police officers not shaking hands with people is a dick move and is part of the reason public perceptions of officers are so negative.  it serves to reenforce an  us vs.  them  mentality.  the main reason for not shaking hands with the public is safety, as it would put the officer in a vulnerable situation.  however, is that not the point of a handshake ? offering you empty hand to a stranger shows trust and a mutual respect.  soldiers shake hands with civilians for this very reason.  if an officer is so bad at threat assessment they will not shake hands with anyone who is not an officer, they should find a different job.   #  if an officer is so bad at threat assessment they will not shake hands with anyone who is not an officer, they should find a different job.   #  a bad officer puts herself in a situation where she has no escape plan.   # sure, so what ? a bad officer puts herself in a situation where she has no escape plan.  the sweetest littlest oldest lady might actually be a crazy monster.  if cst.  smith makes a single bad assessment she is only human she will lose her life, and endanger other officers and civilians.  it is simply safer to never put herself in that situation.   #  she is not thinking of shooting friendly ole me, she is thinking of protecting me from the strangers behind me.   #  ok, so i take your point.  but cst.  smith ca not control how people view leos as a whole.  the only thing she can control is her gun.  she is not thinking i am gonna steal her gun when she refuses to shake my hand.  she is thinking i might.  she is not thinking of shooting friendly ole me, she is thinking of protecting me from the strangers behind me.  my surgeon was discourteous.  maybe even a little rude.  his bedside manner was not great.  but he was an amazing surgeon, and i can walk again because of him.  would i have liked a polite surgeon ? sure.  would i have preferred politeness to technical skill ? fuck no ! he could have pissed and spit on me and i still would have thanked him for being such a fantastic surgeon.  i would prefer a leo who takes her professional in this case firearm responsibility seriously, to one who does not.   #  you are treating a gun like it is a monster, and thereby ignoring reality.   #  no, you  really  do not.  you are treating a gun like it is a monster, and thereby ignoring reality.  smith ca not control how people view leos as a whole control ? no, but she  can  influence them, and by refusing to shake hands, she is showing contempt and disrespect.  surely, you can see that that has a negative impact on how people see her, right ? she is thinking you are more likely evil than not.  fuck no !  #  and only because it hurts your poor widdle feelings when they do not shake hands.   #  uuugh.  let is forget cops.  they are clearly making it difficult for you.  anyone  who is responsible for a firearm should not be shaking strangers  hands.  carrying a gun is an extreme responsibility.  you must always be in control of your gun.  any time your gun hand is occupied you are not in control of your gun.  simple.  if your gun hand is occupied by another person in a crowd you have done something risky with a gun.  almost for sure it would be fine.  almost .  you are absolutely advocating that gun carriers be less careful with their guns.  and only because it hurts your poor widdle feelings when they do not shake hands.   #  your left hand is right beside my gun.   # if you and i shake hands.  my gun is on my right hip, and you have bad intentions that i am unaware of.  we are facing each other and holding each other is right hands.  your left hand is right beside my gun.  my left hand is on the opposite side of my body.  suddenly you have more access to my gun than i do.  that says nothing about your buddy behind me.
there are multiple parts to my view: tattoos, as commonly seen in the us, are so trite and ordinary that their meanings have been eroded to the point where they have become empty fashion statements.  in most instances, one is putting the artwork of another on one is body, indelibly leaving the mark of strangers, cheapening the body.  once a tattoo is obtained, a person has a choice to become embrace the culture, or reject it and cut losses.  most will embrace out of convenience, cost, or both, and this defines the remainder of that person is life.  i do not say that  people  are cheap, or that people are somehow trashy with tattoos though that is the case many times /r/trashy , rather that their choices and reasons for those choices are banal.  i have met lots of good people that have tattoos, and when they explain the reasons for them i have been left with the impression that their choices were impulsive, tired, and uncreative.   note  a lot of the comments suggest i think tattoos are  bad  or that being banal is  bad.   i do not think it is that simple; badness is completely divorced from the concept of banality, and i do not think one implies the other.   #  i have been left with the impression that their choices were impulsive, tired, and uncreative.   #  okay, so i will agree that yes some people do get a tattoo as an impulse.   # okay, so i will agree that yes some people do get a tattoo as an impulse.  i do disagree that that alone makes something banal.  impulsivity, in my opinion, does not make something common.  also, lots of people wait years and years and years to get a tattoo.  some people work very hard at getting a design just right.  some people get a tattoo as a response to something significant that happened in their lives.  there is so many reasons and ways people go about getting a tattoo.  i even said that above, i get that you do not have anything against people with tattoos.  your issue is that you think they are commonplace and you do not get why people would get tattooed.  it is why people resort to that specific thing tattooing.  i am not sure what to say here.  so you get why people get tattoos, you just do not get why they choose tattooing ? do you mean why get tattooed when you could express the same thing some other way ? i think that just goes back to what you said about not liking anything for very long.  if you ca not like something for more than a few months or a year then i guess that would make it hard to accept that other people do like things for years, decades, lifetimes and that for some of those people having a mark on their body that connects them to that thing is meaningful.  i guess in the end, for me, tattoos are no more or less commonplace than anything else.  there are as many reasons to get a tattoo as there are tattoos, so how could that be commonplace ? if everyone got the same tattoo on the same part of their body from the same artist for the same reason, then maybe i could better understand where you were coming from.  but if you ca not see this URL and this URL and this URL and this URL as unique from each other and original then i guess i just do not know what to say.  each of those tattoos is totally unique and no other person will ever have something like them.  sure other people have tattoos, but no one but the individuals pictured will have  those  tattoos.  lastly, i just want to reiterate, i understand that you do not think people with tattoos are bad and that you have friends/lovers who have tattoos.  i get that you are not trying to shame anyone for what they choose to do with their body.  everything i said in this post and previous is to try and drive home the point that the vast majority of tattoos are unique and that people have many different, often personal, reasons for getting them.  if you hear someone tell you that the thing you think is common, is not actually common, and you still insist that it is common i feel like there is not a whole lot anyone can do at that point.   #  being commonplace is a matter of fact, not opinion.   #  being commonplace is a matter of fact, not opinion.  i said 0, but someone else said apparently 0 of american adults have tattoos this is commonplace by the definition of the word.  trite and commonplace have similar meanings, but trite has the extra connotation of it being a  bad thing  for the very reason that it is commonplace.  without this bad connotation, trite and commonplace mean essentially the same thing, and that thing is just a matter of fact.  is your view merely that lots of people have tattoos ? that is a view that ca not be changed, because it is true based on the facts.  i do not think that is really your view i think your view is that having a tattoo is bad in some way, but you state  i did not say it was bad .  so which is it ?  #  definitely not positive, but then there is a wide spectrum of qualities between  good  and  bad  so it is not a binary thing.   #  no, it is not that i merely think that lots of people have them, since that is obvious.  i think that most tattoos lack uniqueness to the point they diminish the original canvas.  i also have never considered  trite  to be bad.  definitely not positive, but then there is a wide spectrum of qualities between  good  and  bad  so it is not a binary thing.  i have always viewed the words  trite  or  banal  as residing in the middle heading slightly away from good.  if you take that to me  totally bad  then i do not know what else to say.   #  obviously they usually ca not ink them on themselves, but i have at least in part designed all of my current/planned tattoos.   #  why does having someone else is art usually the art of someone whose art you liked on your body cheapen it ? especially if that art has meaning to someone, despite what you might think about the reasoning behind those meanings.  if you look for logic in art, you generally fail, because art is not made for logical purposes.  art is about emotion.  is it your assertion that emotion is not something that tattoos should be based on ? why is that, if that is the case ? also, what about tattoos where they were, in part or in whole, designed by the person who has them ? obviously they usually ca not ink them on themselves, but i have at least in part designed all of my current/planned tattoos.   #  i have a single tattoo on my back shoulder.   # well thats fine.  think whatever you want about an individual is tattoo.  you may even think, like i do, that entire groupings of tattoos are tired and ineffectual.  for me personally, i dislike tribal tattoos because they appear facetious.  some people may actually find a tribal tattoo relevant to their life but in general most people i know that have them are just trying to look cool, and that does indeed come off as cheap.  but to generalize like this, that tattoos as a category of personal expression  cheapen the body  and that all people is tattoos  become empty fashion statements , is either highly cynical or flat out reactionary.  for example, one of my best friends has a tattoo on his right arm to commemorate his baby sister, who died when she was six months old.  it is very tastefully done.  is that form of expression banal in your mind ? because another human printed it on his body ? how about mine ? i have a single tattoo on my back shoulder.  it is a single line of text from the ingmar bergman film  the seventh seal .  in swedish it reads,  we must make an idol of our fear, and call it god.   i had this done when i was 0 because i believed then, and i still do, that this single sentence explains my personal philosophy perfectly.  is that unoriginal ? is that so obvious that its boring ? is it banal ? you can decide.  to me it sounds like you have seen so many bad tattoos that you have given up on the idea that good ones exist.  whatever you think of tattoos, they express something/anything over their alternative; a blank canvas.
there are multiple parts to my view: tattoos, as commonly seen in the us, are so trite and ordinary that their meanings have been eroded to the point where they have become empty fashion statements.  in most instances, one is putting the artwork of another on one is body, indelibly leaving the mark of strangers, cheapening the body.  once a tattoo is obtained, a person has a choice to become embrace the culture, or reject it and cut losses.  most will embrace out of convenience, cost, or both, and this defines the remainder of that person is life.  i do not say that  people  are cheap, or that people are somehow trashy with tattoos though that is the case many times /r/trashy , rather that their choices and reasons for those choices are banal.  i have met lots of good people that have tattoos, and when they explain the reasons for them i have been left with the impression that their choices were impulsive, tired, and uncreative.   note  a lot of the comments suggest i think tattoos are  bad  or that being banal is  bad.   i do not think it is that simple; badness is completely divorced from the concept of banality, and i do not think one implies the other.   #  in most instances, one is putting the artwork of another on one is body, indelibly leaving the mark of strangers, cheapening the body.   #  is it cheapening my body to wear stylish clothes designed or made by strangers ?  # is it cheapening my body to wear stylish clothes designed or made by strangers ? do i have to personally know calvin klein to be able to enjoy those styles ? am i only allowed to wear basic utilitarian clothes unless i become a clothing designer and make my own styles ? most people are not artists, much less even able to draw a stick figure, so i do not see how this argument really works.  so only people who have the skill of an artist can have tattoos ? do they have to actually do the tattoo themselves too ? it is a unique skill, just because you are a painter does not mean you will be able to use a tattoo machine.  regardless, many tattoo artists will do a design of your choice.  what is the harm in enjoying and finding personal meaning in another is artwork ? most artists would be happy to know that others have enjoyed and found meaning in their work and would be honored that a stranger would deem it good enough to permanently put it onto their skin.  why does it matter if they are a stranger ? do you only find meaning in art when you personally know the artist ? do you go to museums and say  how can i find meaning in all these strangers  art  ?  #  i do not think that is really your view i think your view is that having a tattoo is bad in some way, but you state  i did not say it was bad .   #  being commonplace is a matter of fact, not opinion.  i said 0, but someone else said apparently 0 of american adults have tattoos this is commonplace by the definition of the word.  trite and commonplace have similar meanings, but trite has the extra connotation of it being a  bad thing  for the very reason that it is commonplace.  without this bad connotation, trite and commonplace mean essentially the same thing, and that thing is just a matter of fact.  is your view merely that lots of people have tattoos ? that is a view that ca not be changed, because it is true based on the facts.  i do not think that is really your view i think your view is that having a tattoo is bad in some way, but you state  i did not say it was bad .  so which is it ?  #  if you take that to me  totally bad  then i do not know what else to say.   #  no, it is not that i merely think that lots of people have them, since that is obvious.  i think that most tattoos lack uniqueness to the point they diminish the original canvas.  i also have never considered  trite  to be bad.  definitely not positive, but then there is a wide spectrum of qualities between  good  and  bad  so it is not a binary thing.  i have always viewed the words  trite  or  banal  as residing in the middle heading slightly away from good.  if you take that to me  totally bad  then i do not know what else to say.   #  why is that, if that is the case ?  #  why does having someone else is art usually the art of someone whose art you liked on your body cheapen it ? especially if that art has meaning to someone, despite what you might think about the reasoning behind those meanings.  if you look for logic in art, you generally fail, because art is not made for logical purposes.  art is about emotion.  is it your assertion that emotion is not something that tattoos should be based on ? why is that, if that is the case ? also, what about tattoos where they were, in part or in whole, designed by the person who has them ? obviously they usually ca not ink them on themselves, but i have at least in part designed all of my current/planned tattoos.   #  whatever you think of tattoos, they express something/anything over their alternative; a blank canvas.   # well thats fine.  think whatever you want about an individual is tattoo.  you may even think, like i do, that entire groupings of tattoos are tired and ineffectual.  for me personally, i dislike tribal tattoos because they appear facetious.  some people may actually find a tribal tattoo relevant to their life but in general most people i know that have them are just trying to look cool, and that does indeed come off as cheap.  but to generalize like this, that tattoos as a category of personal expression  cheapen the body  and that all people is tattoos  become empty fashion statements , is either highly cynical or flat out reactionary.  for example, one of my best friends has a tattoo on his right arm to commemorate his baby sister, who died when she was six months old.  it is very tastefully done.  is that form of expression banal in your mind ? because another human printed it on his body ? how about mine ? i have a single tattoo on my back shoulder.  it is a single line of text from the ingmar bergman film  the seventh seal .  in swedish it reads,  we must make an idol of our fear, and call it god.   i had this done when i was 0 because i believed then, and i still do, that this single sentence explains my personal philosophy perfectly.  is that unoriginal ? is that so obvious that its boring ? is it banal ? you can decide.  to me it sounds like you have seen so many bad tattoos that you have given up on the idea that good ones exist.  whatever you think of tattoos, they express something/anything over their alternative; a blank canvas.
with caitlyn bruce jenner making headlines recently, i have seen a lot more discussion on the topic of lgtbq rights recently.  between reddit and my facebook feed which consists mostly of liberal college students , you would think that the shift in public opinion on lgtbq and particularly same sex rights began a century ago, rather than just a few short years.  opposing same sex marriage or other lgtbq rights is not  that  antiquated a view to me.  after all, it was only thirteen years ago that sodomy was illegal in some states, and it was only twelve years ago that the first state legalized same sex marriage.  the massive reversal in nationwide public opinion on these issues is one of the most dramatic changes in public opinion on any issue in the history of us politics.  now to be clear, i fully support lgtbq rights.  i am straight, but i consider myself a strong ally.  however, i think it is ridiculous for millennials in their 0s to pass judgement on other people who oppose lgtbq rights.  if those millennials had been born 0 years earlier, they would far less likely to have such a favorable view towards lgtbq issues.  i am not defending people who oppose lgtbq rights, but let is not pretend that those who  are  lgtbq friendly are somehow morally superior, instead of just happening to live in the first time period in modern history where being gay or transgendered is becoming socially acceptable.  i think it is ridiculous to demonize those people, as though this is an issue that has been said and done for 0 years now.   #  however, i think it is ridiculous for millennials in their 0s to pass judgement on other people who oppose lgtbq rights.   #  if those millennials had been born 0 years earlier, they would far less likely to have such a favorable view towards lgtbq issues.   # if those millennials had been born 0 years earlier, they would far less likely to have such a favorable view towards lgtbq issues.  so ? let me demonstrate by analogy:  i think it is ridiculous for highly educated people to pass judgement on other people who believe factually incorrect things.  if those highly educated people had not been so highly educated earlier, they would be far less likely to have such a favorable view towards factually correct things.   just because certain types of people are more likely to hold certain beliefs does not lend any credence, or immunity from ridicule, to those beliefs.   #  are we going to be listening 0 years from now as our kids and grandkids call us bigots for ever thinking it was not okay for a brother and sister to get married ?  #  the problem is that what we consider  rudely  is always changing.  that is not an excuse for not adapting with the times, but i think op has a point here.  people around 0 or younger have not really had to adapt to anything yet socially, so it is easy to sit here and say that everyone else should keep up.  yet just a couple of days ago, i saw on the front page of reddit a big circlejerk about how incest is morally wrong, and yet no one actually had a reason for it.  is that our generation is lgbt movement ? are we going to be listening 0 years from now as our kids and grandkids call us bigots for ever thinking it was not okay for a brother and sister to get married ?  #  but the fact is that we are all intolerant of a lot of stuff.   #  it does carry a highly negative connotation.  we equate it with being outdated and behind the times, or just otherwise intolerant.  but the fact is that we are all intolerant of a lot of stuff.  and that likely does not change with time.  the people who are against gay marriage now were against gay marriage 0 years ago if they were around .  they were every bit as bigoted then by definition as they are now, but that particular bigotry was considered acceptable until very recently.  in the same way that being a bigot toward polygamists is still considered an okay stance to have.   #  there is an abuse element to incest as well as the genetic danger argument.   #  false equivalence means you are comparing apples to oranges.  while opinions regarding incest and homosexual behavior may be formed as a result of sexual mores, the deeper reasons behind the individual mores, and why they will eventually become acceptable or unacceptable can be very different.  so saying that because we have changed our sexual mores to accept homosexuality means we will eventually change accept something like incest is kind of a silly, slippery slope argument.  look at why we started to outlaw incest as a society.  there is an abuse element to incest as well as the genetic danger argument.  i find it sad that you had a discussion in which no one could find reasons against incest, and then you made that leap to think that it would then be acceptable once we all loosen up.   #  they are certainly as weak as the arguments that have been put forth against homosexuality over the past 0 years.   #  alright, i think i see what you are trying to say, and that is fair.  in that case, yes, i am drawing an equivalence, and i will stand by it.  the reasons we have for banning incest are weak at best.  they are certainly as weak as the arguments that have been put forth against homosexuality over the past 0 years.  the only one that holds any water whatsoever is the argument regarding the genetic issues that could arise from offspring, but this is not a view that we consistently hold, or we would consider it equally immoral to fall in love with someone who had a genetic deformity that we knew could be passed down to children.  and further than that, the attitude toward incest is clearly deeper than just concern for non existent children.  someone saying something so much as  i am attracted to my sister  is met with disgust, even if nothing ever happened.  that is why i say we will be having the same argument in a matter of years.
in today is society, we are taught to think that  it does not matter what other people think, as long as you believe in yourself .  however, i find this to be completely false.  in a world where we work in teams, as a community, in cities and in countries, the entire description of yourself is based on how other people view you, rather than how you view yourself.  for example, no matter how funny you think you are, funniness is only determined by how funny other people find you.  you may be able to change how funny you are, but only by taking into account of what other people think is funny.  furthermore, it is based on other people is decisions that get you to where you want to be.  you ca not sell a product without someone buying it.  you ca not get a job without someone hiring you.  you do not exist until you are recognized to exist.  please, change my mind on this.  i am having some really shitty thoughts, but ca not help to get this mantra out of my mind.   #  for example, no matter how funny you think you are, funniness is only determined by how funny other people find you.   #  this example is a bit disingenuous because we ca not tickle ourselves.   #  throughout life, there is a constant rising and falling wave external approval and disapproval.  the only was way to survive this wave is to either become a jellyfish and do whatever anyone wants, or to learn how to swim and cut through the wave.  an internal locus of self worth allows you to control your own experience and take the risks that will make you a successful and dynamic person.  this example is a bit disingenuous because we ca not tickle ourselves.  being fun, however, is something people can appreciate about themselves.  you ca not get a job without someone hiring you.  this is about economic participation, not intrinsic self worth.  we live in a complex participatory economy where we receive and spend money.  you are the product buyer.  you, by your consumer behaviour, are also part of the hiring process.  if we lived in a preindustrial subsistence economy, you would be the one in charge of growing your own beans and eating your own beans.  in this economy you sow some beans work , and eat some beans buy food .  the decisions within are not an evaluation of you.  finally the greatest piece of jobless stress advice ever given: you only have to get a job once in a job hunt.  then you have it.  if you send out 0 resumes, 0 can be no calls and you still win.   #  that is why i always like to have at least three options on the table.   #  i can see where that is coming from.  it may be fair to ask other people to help you spot flaws in something you created.  you are impacted by other people is decisions whether you choose to acknowledge that or not.  but if you find yourself in a shithole, blaming other people after the fact is not really going to help matters.  what matters is whether you can put down the shovel and start engineering a way out of it.  that is why i always like to have at least three options on the table.  that way, if one option gets closed off due to the actions of other people, i can always move on to the next.  because at the end of the day, you are better off if you can avoid laying awake at night going,  gee, i wish i did not cut off x as an option while i was pursuing y.  i really got burned by person z.    #  sure other people are going to make choices.   #  you are seeing half of this.  sure other people are going to make choices.  but, you have control of the things that you can do to help people make their choice.  if you are at a job interview, other people will look at you and your skills and make a choice, but you get the chance to give a great impression of yourself.  you get a chance to show off your skill set in a positive way.  other people will decide things, but you still have a great deal of choice in what you can do to influence their choice.   #  what is out of your power: other people is preconceived notions.   #  yes, but stop fixating on the thing that you have no power over because you are missing everything what you do have power over.  i mean if you go into an investor meeting and you do not have a firm grasp of your numbers or you do not have a legitimate business plan or whatever, that meeting is going to go sour.  things you had control over: your level of preparation for your meeting.  your knowledge of the business numbers.  your ability to articulate your idea to others and how you answered questions.  your ability to give effective presentations.  and so forth.  what is out of your power: other people is preconceived notions.   #  you ca not be thinking  am i good enough ?    #   believe in yourself  is not what it appears to be.  that term is regarded as one of the keys to success.  we both know that simply thinking we are great wo not get us anywhere.  the theme song from the tv show arthur says  believe in yourself, that is the place to start .  what is important to remember is that being confident is just one step of many.  for example, say you want to be a famous singer.  you would need years of practice, attractive looks, plenty of connections, good managers, and a decent amount of luck.  but it is really important to believe you can make it.  you ca not be thinking  am i good enough ?   or  can i do this ?  .  quite simply, there is no time for that.  as oprah would probably say, if you do not believe in yourself, no one will.  for the rest of your post, it does matter what some people think, but that does not mean they are correct.  i would suggest trying to make this more concise so we can all easily see what your thoughts are.
in today is society, we are taught to think that  it does not matter what other people think, as long as you believe in yourself .  however, i find this to be completely false.  in a world where we work in teams, as a community, in cities and in countries, the entire description of yourself is based on how other people view you, rather than how you view yourself.  for example, no matter how funny you think you are, funniness is only determined by how funny other people find you.  you may be able to change how funny you are, but only by taking into account of what other people think is funny.  furthermore, it is based on other people is decisions that get you to where you want to be.  you ca not sell a product without someone buying it.  you ca not get a job without someone hiring you.  you do not exist until you are recognized to exist.  please, change my mind on this.  i am having some really shitty thoughts, but ca not help to get this mantra out of my mind.   #  you ca not sell a product without someone buying it.   #  you ca not get a job without someone hiring you.   #  throughout life, there is a constant rising and falling wave external approval and disapproval.  the only was way to survive this wave is to either become a jellyfish and do whatever anyone wants, or to learn how to swim and cut through the wave.  an internal locus of self worth allows you to control your own experience and take the risks that will make you a successful and dynamic person.  this example is a bit disingenuous because we ca not tickle ourselves.  being fun, however, is something people can appreciate about themselves.  you ca not get a job without someone hiring you.  this is about economic participation, not intrinsic self worth.  we live in a complex participatory economy where we receive and spend money.  you are the product buyer.  you, by your consumer behaviour, are also part of the hiring process.  if we lived in a preindustrial subsistence economy, you would be the one in charge of growing your own beans and eating your own beans.  in this economy you sow some beans work , and eat some beans buy food .  the decisions within are not an evaluation of you.  finally the greatest piece of jobless stress advice ever given: you only have to get a job once in a job hunt.  then you have it.  if you send out 0 resumes, 0 can be no calls and you still win.   #  that way, if one option gets closed off due to the actions of other people, i can always move on to the next.   #  i can see where that is coming from.  it may be fair to ask other people to help you spot flaws in something you created.  you are impacted by other people is decisions whether you choose to acknowledge that or not.  but if you find yourself in a shithole, blaming other people after the fact is not really going to help matters.  what matters is whether you can put down the shovel and start engineering a way out of it.  that is why i always like to have at least three options on the table.  that way, if one option gets closed off due to the actions of other people, i can always move on to the next.  because at the end of the day, you are better off if you can avoid laying awake at night going,  gee, i wish i did not cut off x as an option while i was pursuing y.  i really got burned by person z.    #  you get a chance to show off your skill set in a positive way.   #  you are seeing half of this.  sure other people are going to make choices.  but, you have control of the things that you can do to help people make their choice.  if you are at a job interview, other people will look at you and your skills and make a choice, but you get the chance to give a great impression of yourself.  you get a chance to show off your skill set in a positive way.  other people will decide things, but you still have a great deal of choice in what you can do to influence their choice.   #  your ability to articulate your idea to others and how you answered questions.   #  yes, but stop fixating on the thing that you have no power over because you are missing everything what you do have power over.  i mean if you go into an investor meeting and you do not have a firm grasp of your numbers or you do not have a legitimate business plan or whatever, that meeting is going to go sour.  things you had control over: your level of preparation for your meeting.  your knowledge of the business numbers.  your ability to articulate your idea to others and how you answered questions.  your ability to give effective presentations.  and so forth.  what is out of your power: other people is preconceived notions.   #  as oprah would probably say, if you do not believe in yourself, no one will.   #   believe in yourself  is not what it appears to be.  that term is regarded as one of the keys to success.  we both know that simply thinking we are great wo not get us anywhere.  the theme song from the tv show arthur says  believe in yourself, that is the place to start .  what is important to remember is that being confident is just one step of many.  for example, say you want to be a famous singer.  you would need years of practice, attractive looks, plenty of connections, good managers, and a decent amount of luck.  but it is really important to believe you can make it.  you ca not be thinking  am i good enough ?   or  can i do this ?  .  quite simply, there is no time for that.  as oprah would probably say, if you do not believe in yourself, no one will.  for the rest of your post, it does matter what some people think, but that does not mean they are correct.  i would suggest trying to make this more concise so we can all easily see what your thoughts are.
in today is society, we are taught to think that  it does not matter what other people think, as long as you believe in yourself .  however, i find this to be completely false.  in a world where we work in teams, as a community, in cities and in countries, the entire description of yourself is based on how other people view you, rather than how you view yourself.  for example, no matter how funny you think you are, funniness is only determined by how funny other people find you.  you may be able to change how funny you are, but only by taking into account of what other people think is funny.  furthermore, it is based on other people is decisions that get you to where you want to be.  you ca not sell a product without someone buying it.  you ca not get a job without someone hiring you.  you do not exist until you are recognized to exist.  please, change my mind on this.  i am having some really shitty thoughts, but ca not help to get this mantra out of my mind.   #  in today is society, we are taught to think that  it does not matter what other people think, as long as you believe in yourself .   #  however, i find this to be completely false.   #  i would call myself an absurdist, but existential nihilist also fits the bill.  i counter your view that  the only thing that matters blah blah  with  nothing matters inherently; goals are personal and relative .  however, i find this to be completely false.  i think that is actually not meant to be taken literally, it is meant to suggest that what is actually important is confidence, which influences how others see us.  well, not  entire .  some of it is, even most of it, but how you see yourself is  part  of the description.  plus how you see yourself influences how others see you, and vice versa, so it is all one thing, really, and that this is  who you are .  you may be able to change how funny you are, but only by taking into account of what other people think is funny.  well, here we have a numbers game.  maybe 0 of people find you funny, but they are the most important 0 to you.  in another case 0 of people find you funny, but they are irrelevant to your interests.  who is funny ? who is  funnier  ? quality vs quantity.  you ca not sell a product without someone buying it.  you ca not get a job without someone hiring you.   the other  influences you, and you influence the other.  it is interwoven, not one way.  you are interacting, not merely acted upon.  that is just hyperbolic silly talk.   #  you, by your consumer behaviour, are also part of the hiring process.   #  throughout life, there is a constant rising and falling wave external approval and disapproval.  the only was way to survive this wave is to either become a jellyfish and do whatever anyone wants, or to learn how to swim and cut through the wave.  an internal locus of self worth allows you to control your own experience and take the risks that will make you a successful and dynamic person.  this example is a bit disingenuous because we ca not tickle ourselves.  being fun, however, is something people can appreciate about themselves.  you ca not get a job without someone hiring you.  this is about economic participation, not intrinsic self worth.  we live in a complex participatory economy where we receive and spend money.  you are the product buyer.  you, by your consumer behaviour, are also part of the hiring process.  if we lived in a preindustrial subsistence economy, you would be the one in charge of growing your own beans and eating your own beans.  in this economy you sow some beans work , and eat some beans buy food .  the decisions within are not an evaluation of you.  finally the greatest piece of jobless stress advice ever given: you only have to get a job once in a job hunt.  then you have it.  if you send out 0 resumes, 0 can be no calls and you still win.   #  but if you find yourself in a shithole, blaming other people after the fact is not really going to help matters.   #  i can see where that is coming from.  it may be fair to ask other people to help you spot flaws in something you created.  you are impacted by other people is decisions whether you choose to acknowledge that or not.  but if you find yourself in a shithole, blaming other people after the fact is not really going to help matters.  what matters is whether you can put down the shovel and start engineering a way out of it.  that is why i always like to have at least three options on the table.  that way, if one option gets closed off due to the actions of other people, i can always move on to the next.  because at the end of the day, you are better off if you can avoid laying awake at night going,  gee, i wish i did not cut off x as an option while i was pursuing y.  i really got burned by person z.    #  sure other people are going to make choices.   #  you are seeing half of this.  sure other people are going to make choices.  but, you have control of the things that you can do to help people make their choice.  if you are at a job interview, other people will look at you and your skills and make a choice, but you get the chance to give a great impression of yourself.  you get a chance to show off your skill set in a positive way.  other people will decide things, but you still have a great deal of choice in what you can do to influence their choice.   #  your ability to articulate your idea to others and how you answered questions.   #  yes, but stop fixating on the thing that you have no power over because you are missing everything what you do have power over.  i mean if you go into an investor meeting and you do not have a firm grasp of your numbers or you do not have a legitimate business plan or whatever, that meeting is going to go sour.  things you had control over: your level of preparation for your meeting.  your knowledge of the business numbers.  your ability to articulate your idea to others and how you answered questions.  your ability to give effective presentations.  and so forth.  what is out of your power: other people is preconceived notions.
in today is society, we are taught to think that  it does not matter what other people think, as long as you believe in yourself .  however, i find this to be completely false.  in a world where we work in teams, as a community, in cities and in countries, the entire description of yourself is based on how other people view you, rather than how you view yourself.  for example, no matter how funny you think you are, funniness is only determined by how funny other people find you.  you may be able to change how funny you are, but only by taking into account of what other people think is funny.  furthermore, it is based on other people is decisions that get you to where you want to be.  you ca not sell a product without someone buying it.  you ca not get a job without someone hiring you.  you do not exist until you are recognized to exist.  please, change my mind on this.  i am having some really shitty thoughts, but ca not help to get this mantra out of my mind.   #  for example, no matter how funny you think you are, funniness is only determined by how funny other people find you.   #  you may be able to change how funny you are, but only by taking into account of what other people think is funny.   #  i would call myself an absurdist, but existential nihilist also fits the bill.  i counter your view that  the only thing that matters blah blah  with  nothing matters inherently; goals are personal and relative .  however, i find this to be completely false.  i think that is actually not meant to be taken literally, it is meant to suggest that what is actually important is confidence, which influences how others see us.  well, not  entire .  some of it is, even most of it, but how you see yourself is  part  of the description.  plus how you see yourself influences how others see you, and vice versa, so it is all one thing, really, and that this is  who you are .  you may be able to change how funny you are, but only by taking into account of what other people think is funny.  well, here we have a numbers game.  maybe 0 of people find you funny, but they are the most important 0 to you.  in another case 0 of people find you funny, but they are irrelevant to your interests.  who is funny ? who is  funnier  ? quality vs quantity.  you ca not sell a product without someone buying it.  you ca not get a job without someone hiring you.   the other  influences you, and you influence the other.  it is interwoven, not one way.  you are interacting, not merely acted upon.  that is just hyperbolic silly talk.   #  if you send out 0 resumes, 0 can be no calls and you still win.   #  throughout life, there is a constant rising and falling wave external approval and disapproval.  the only was way to survive this wave is to either become a jellyfish and do whatever anyone wants, or to learn how to swim and cut through the wave.  an internal locus of self worth allows you to control your own experience and take the risks that will make you a successful and dynamic person.  this example is a bit disingenuous because we ca not tickle ourselves.  being fun, however, is something people can appreciate about themselves.  you ca not get a job without someone hiring you.  this is about economic participation, not intrinsic self worth.  we live in a complex participatory economy where we receive and spend money.  you are the product buyer.  you, by your consumer behaviour, are also part of the hiring process.  if we lived in a preindustrial subsistence economy, you would be the one in charge of growing your own beans and eating your own beans.  in this economy you sow some beans work , and eat some beans buy food .  the decisions within are not an evaluation of you.  finally the greatest piece of jobless stress advice ever given: you only have to get a job once in a job hunt.  then you have it.  if you send out 0 resumes, 0 can be no calls and you still win.   #  what matters is whether you can put down the shovel and start engineering a way out of it.   #  i can see where that is coming from.  it may be fair to ask other people to help you spot flaws in something you created.  you are impacted by other people is decisions whether you choose to acknowledge that or not.  but if you find yourself in a shithole, blaming other people after the fact is not really going to help matters.  what matters is whether you can put down the shovel and start engineering a way out of it.  that is why i always like to have at least three options on the table.  that way, if one option gets closed off due to the actions of other people, i can always move on to the next.  because at the end of the day, you are better off if you can avoid laying awake at night going,  gee, i wish i did not cut off x as an option while i was pursuing y.  i really got burned by person z.    #  other people will decide things, but you still have a great deal of choice in what you can do to influence their choice.   #  you are seeing half of this.  sure other people are going to make choices.  but, you have control of the things that you can do to help people make their choice.  if you are at a job interview, other people will look at you and your skills and make a choice, but you get the chance to give a great impression of yourself.  you get a chance to show off your skill set in a positive way.  other people will decide things, but you still have a great deal of choice in what you can do to influence their choice.   #  what is out of your power: other people is preconceived notions.   #  yes, but stop fixating on the thing that you have no power over because you are missing everything what you do have power over.  i mean if you go into an investor meeting and you do not have a firm grasp of your numbers or you do not have a legitimate business plan or whatever, that meeting is going to go sour.  things you had control over: your level of preparation for your meeting.  your knowledge of the business numbers.  your ability to articulate your idea to others and how you answered questions.  your ability to give effective presentations.  and so forth.  what is out of your power: other people is preconceived notions.
in today is society, we are taught to think that  it does not matter what other people think, as long as you believe in yourself .  however, i find this to be completely false.  in a world where we work in teams, as a community, in cities and in countries, the entire description of yourself is based on how other people view you, rather than how you view yourself.  for example, no matter how funny you think you are, funniness is only determined by how funny other people find you.  you may be able to change how funny you are, but only by taking into account of what other people think is funny.  furthermore, it is based on other people is decisions that get you to where you want to be.  you ca not sell a product without someone buying it.  you ca not get a job without someone hiring you.  you do not exist until you are recognized to exist.  please, change my mind on this.  i am having some really shitty thoughts, but ca not help to get this mantra out of my mind.   #  furthermore, it is based on other people is decisions that get you to where you want to be.   #  you ca not sell a product without someone buying it.   #  i would call myself an absurdist, but existential nihilist also fits the bill.  i counter your view that  the only thing that matters blah blah  with  nothing matters inherently; goals are personal and relative .  however, i find this to be completely false.  i think that is actually not meant to be taken literally, it is meant to suggest that what is actually important is confidence, which influences how others see us.  well, not  entire .  some of it is, even most of it, but how you see yourself is  part  of the description.  plus how you see yourself influences how others see you, and vice versa, so it is all one thing, really, and that this is  who you are .  you may be able to change how funny you are, but only by taking into account of what other people think is funny.  well, here we have a numbers game.  maybe 0 of people find you funny, but they are the most important 0 to you.  in another case 0 of people find you funny, but they are irrelevant to your interests.  who is funny ? who is  funnier  ? quality vs quantity.  you ca not sell a product without someone buying it.  you ca not get a job without someone hiring you.   the other  influences you, and you influence the other.  it is interwoven, not one way.  you are interacting, not merely acted upon.  that is just hyperbolic silly talk.   #  finally the greatest piece of jobless stress advice ever given: you only have to get a job once in a job hunt.   #  throughout life, there is a constant rising and falling wave external approval and disapproval.  the only was way to survive this wave is to either become a jellyfish and do whatever anyone wants, or to learn how to swim and cut through the wave.  an internal locus of self worth allows you to control your own experience and take the risks that will make you a successful and dynamic person.  this example is a bit disingenuous because we ca not tickle ourselves.  being fun, however, is something people can appreciate about themselves.  you ca not get a job without someone hiring you.  this is about economic participation, not intrinsic self worth.  we live in a complex participatory economy where we receive and spend money.  you are the product buyer.  you, by your consumer behaviour, are also part of the hiring process.  if we lived in a preindustrial subsistence economy, you would be the one in charge of growing your own beans and eating your own beans.  in this economy you sow some beans work , and eat some beans buy food .  the decisions within are not an evaluation of you.  finally the greatest piece of jobless stress advice ever given: you only have to get a job once in a job hunt.  then you have it.  if you send out 0 resumes, 0 can be no calls and you still win.   #  what matters is whether you can put down the shovel and start engineering a way out of it.   #  i can see where that is coming from.  it may be fair to ask other people to help you spot flaws in something you created.  you are impacted by other people is decisions whether you choose to acknowledge that or not.  but if you find yourself in a shithole, blaming other people after the fact is not really going to help matters.  what matters is whether you can put down the shovel and start engineering a way out of it.  that is why i always like to have at least three options on the table.  that way, if one option gets closed off due to the actions of other people, i can always move on to the next.  because at the end of the day, you are better off if you can avoid laying awake at night going,  gee, i wish i did not cut off x as an option while i was pursuing y.  i really got burned by person z.    #  you get a chance to show off your skill set in a positive way.   #  you are seeing half of this.  sure other people are going to make choices.  but, you have control of the things that you can do to help people make their choice.  if you are at a job interview, other people will look at you and your skills and make a choice, but you get the chance to give a great impression of yourself.  you get a chance to show off your skill set in a positive way.  other people will decide things, but you still have a great deal of choice in what you can do to influence their choice.   #  yes, but stop fixating on the thing that you have no power over because you are missing everything what you do have power over.   #  yes, but stop fixating on the thing that you have no power over because you are missing everything what you do have power over.  i mean if you go into an investor meeting and you do not have a firm grasp of your numbers or you do not have a legitimate business plan or whatever, that meeting is going to go sour.  things you had control over: your level of preparation for your meeting.  your knowledge of the business numbers.  your ability to articulate your idea to others and how you answered questions.  your ability to give effective presentations.  and so forth.  what is out of your power: other people is preconceived notions.
i think that all humans deserve the same amount of respect, all else being equal.  in other words, if i do not know you at all, my respect for you wo not change based on your gender, orientation, race, religion, etc if i do know you, and you give me reason to increase or decrease my respect for you, i will, of course .  i think that referring to people based on their accomplishment is just fine being the first person in space is a grand title for yuri gagarin.  but why is he referred to as the first  man  in space ? to me, calling valentina tereshkova the first  woman  in space simply emphasizes her difference she is female instead of her accomplishment.  if we are all supposed to treat everyone equally regardless of race, nationality, gender, orientation, religious views, etc; would not referring someone as the first  whatever  to do something simply remind everyone that the difference is still there, and make it that much more difficult to ignore in the future ?  #  all humans deserve the same amount of respect, all else being equal.   #  you should realize that this is a  very  new concept.   # you should realize that this is a  very  new concept.  it is only in the last 0 years that this has become the accepted viewpoint.  think about it, since the dawn of homo sapiens when was that ? 0,0 years ago ? discrimination due to gender, etc has been the norm.  that is 0 of our history.   #  in short you are pointing out that a bunch of people believing in pseudo science were thwarted by a person who proved them wrong.   # but race is not real, its pseudo science, hint, thats why we shouldnt be using it.  in short you are pointing out that a bunch of people believing in pseudo science were thwarted by a person who proved them wrong.  then, instead of moving forward from the use of that pseudo science you label the person who stood against them by the now established wrong label.  ? is this some sort of humiliation tactic to the ones who were wrong ? is this perhaps an act of remedial discrimination ?  #  language literally is not prescriptive, and i do not mean that figuratively, although it would not be wrong to use literally that way.   #  it has become synonymous with ethnic group, and has been that way for some time now.  that is what race means, and it is a very correct usage.  do you use  awful  to mean good ? do you call poor people  naughty  ? is a  cheater  a collections officer of the king ? no.  because although those used to be the  correct  definitions, words mean what they are understood to mean.  language literally is not prescriptive, and i do not mean that figuratively, although it would not be wrong to use literally that way.  finally, there is nothing unscientific about ethnicity.  phenotype presentation is not homogeneous amongst all humans.  african american people are not white.  this is a difference, these are different races, and it is not your imagination that they do not look the same.  conclusions drawn upon this fact are often wrong, but that is not the question here.   #  please stop using race, its wrong, using it only creates more hate and ignorance.   # is ought problem URL  finally, there is nothing unscientific about ethnicity.  an ethnic group URL or ethnicity is a socially defined category of people who identify with each other based on common ancestral, social, cultural or national experience.  0 0 membership of an ethnic group tends to be defined by a shared cultural heritage, ancestry, origin myth, history, homeland, language and/or dialect, symbolic systems such as religion, mythology and ritual, cuisine, dressing style, physical appearance, etc.  sure, nothing unscientific about ethnicity but curious, i do not see the word race in there.   these are different races social conceptions and groupings of races URL vary over time, involving folk taxonomies 0 that define essential types of individuals based on perceived traits.  scientists consider biological essentialism obsolete, and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits.  trust me or do not trust me that part does not matter, i have posted the science look it up yourself.  please stop using race, its wrong, using it only creates more hate and ignorance.   #  until then you are still just making the wrong one.   #  where did i say ought ? all i have said is that it is most broadly used, and therefore it is a correct usage.  is is.  that was some shockingly obvious trainspotting, i will ask that you actually read what i say instead of skimming through it trying, and failing, to find the keywords of logical fallacies.  that is what gue is for, not cmv.  the only person prescribing language, saying that race ought to not mean what it means, is you.  this is my central point.  it is not  unscientific  to use the word  terrible  to refer to bad things, even though once upon a time it was synonymous to awful, which could mean greatly good.  instead of arguing against prejudice based on ethnicity which is honourable and i assume your core intention , you are misguidedly arguing against ethnicity even existing, or having non social components.  if ethnicity does not exist, or has no non social components, how can people base prejudice on it ! it is not a biologically classifying or taxonomic concept, but some babies are not born black just by chance.  the rest of your argument skirted around my central point and continued to try and justify denial of the existence of any non social component of ethnicity so i will switch to that fully.  show me the  science  wikipedia is cute though which says that genetically differentiated phenotype presentation not biological essentialism/phrenology/eugenics, although my money is on you not knowing the difference is imaginary and i will consider your argument.  until then you are still just making the wrong one.  the reason you did not find a connection between race and ethnicity is because you deliberately avoided it.  on the race wikipedia page since this is an authority to you :  starting from the 0th century , the term was often used in ataxonomic sense to denote  genetically differentiated human populations defined by phenotype.  0 0 0   this is what people mean when they say race.  this is what people understand when they hear race.  it is not 0s belgium where we invade the congo and believe eugenicists to help cope with the guilt.  it is the 0st century and biological essentialism is done away with.   race  still has meaning.  stop trying to change language and fight the actual problem: rac ism .
i recently posted this video URL in a thread.  i just meant it as a jokey response to someone is comment, but some people took offence to it.  apparently, because the actor playing the character is not black, that makes this blackface and therefore unacceptable and offensive.  to offer some context, this is from a show called facejacker which is a follow on from fonejacker.  fonejacker was a show about one man making prank calls and playing characters.  you never saw his face.  mostly what you got was the audio from the conversation and an animated still picture representing the character like this URL so, the blackface character in the video above was developed for fonejacker.  it is just meant to be an amusing accent that plays off people is image of a  nigerian scammer .  because he was such a popular character, he was brought back for facejacker.  the concept of facejacker was to take some of those characters and turn the actor into them with make up so he could go out and prank people face to face.  so, the character came first.  it is meant to be funny and it is meant to play off certain stereotypes people have, but it is not racist and should not be taken as such.  this is one example of many.  i just think that only context and intention of the author can determine if something is racist or not.  i also believe that we should be moving towards a world where a black actor can play a white character and a white actor can play a black character and no one cries racism because racism just is not an issue anymore.  the problem is that this kind of knee jerk reaction he used the n word, he is a racist / he is in blackface, so he is a racist does nothing to help us achieve that, but in fact holds us back by emphasizing racial differences and causing arguments.  tl/dr; you should not call things offensive just because they have fulfilled some basic criterion like use of blackface or the n word for example , you should actually examine the intentions of the author and the context to determine whether or not something is truly offensive.   #  i just think that only context and intention of the author can determine if something is racist or not.   #  there are always two sides to racism: the intentions of the person who does or says something offensive, and the effect on the people to whom it applies.   # there are always two sides to racism: the intentions of the person who does or says something offensive, and the effect on the people to whom it applies.  while you may have only intended to joke around, your actions ca not prevent that others will feel hurt by something you say or do; it can still cause real distress amongst the potential victims.  good intentions do not override these effects.  and if you think that causing this kind of distress is wrong and you want to be consistent, you ought to avoid the kind of actions that causes it.  even if you disagree that the victims should feel any distress if you say or do things jokingly, and you do it anyway while knowing that a certain percentage will always react strongly, then you ca not hide behind humorous intentions.  the benefits of making your audience laugh at your joke do not outweigh the harm you are causing to others.   #  it is not good practice but that does not matter.   #  to some people some things will be forever offensive.  to others the exact same action can be considered a sign of respect URL just like it is not illegal to be a bigot or hateful, it is also not necessary for a person to have rational opinions or to arrive at their opinions in a consistent and rational manner.  it is not good practice but that does not matter.  the only solution to such an insistence on universality is to universally dismiss such opinions.   if you think black face is automatically and universally racist then i will discount all opinions you might have on race until you prove that an opinion is logically derived.   you are under no criteria to value a persons opinion.   #  you hold your hand out flat at the end of your extended right arm.   # you are holding people today responsible for the racism of people in the past.  you said  blackface is racist implying the actor in this blackface video is racist because blackface is always racist.  he is not.  also:  i ca not seig heil and say i am not referencing nazis.  no, but let is imagine you are trying to block the sun from your eyes.  you hold your hand out flat at the end of your extended right arm.  someone sees you and accuses you of being a nazi.  you protest, but he says you have to be a nazi because you did a nazi salute and only nazis ever do nazi salutes.  you see how this black and white thinking is problematic ?  #  the make up is just a part of it.   # no, he is not.  the character was created first as just a funny voice.  then, when the live action show was conceived make up had to be used to create some of the characters that would not make sense with the natural face of the actor performing them.  i am sure he is  aware  of the history of blackface, but this sketch is not  about  blackface or riffing on it specifically.  the make up is just a part of it.  yes, and i am saying we should be working towards erasing those connotations, not reinforcing them by tarring everyone with the same brush  #  if you do not understand why a majority affecting an exaggerated caricature of a minority and using that exaggeration for personal fun/profit/gain is exploitation, i think this is a pointless thread.   # because male models are not an oppressed minority ? their tendency to wear traffic police clothing ? their love of dancing around singing  i have got the monies  ? someone else explained the stereotype of the  happy go lucky .  you made that scenario up.  wat ? no, i am responding to you bringing up the example of an actor donning black face, and pointing out that the actor may not be being offensive, but the black face is.  if you do not understand why a majority affecting an exaggerated caricature of a minority and using that exaggeration for personal fun/profit/gain is exploitation, i think this is a pointless thread.
i think students should be able to test out of any class, at the very least, any of those at the high school level or higher.  i do not think it makes any sense to have a student sit through a class to learn things that he can already prove he knows.  basically, i just want reasons why sitting through a class that a student already understands makes sense.   some obvious arguments and their counters  i am assuming these class tests would cover everything covered in the course, or at least be designed to determine the student is knowledge well enough.  i am also assuming these tests would make sure that the student has a mastery of the subjects rather than a simple acquaintance.  this is why i specified   almost  every class.   obviously there are some classes that teach things that ca not really be tested, and of course the student would still have to take those classes, or we might just remove them from the education system altogether.   #  i am also assuming these tests would make sure that the student has a mastery of the subjects rather than a simple acquaintance.   #  what are you imagining these other things are ?  # what are you imagining these other things are ? how does a test account for the ability to listen to a superior tell you something you already know ? or the ability to work with other people despite what issues you may have with them either personally or professionally ? how does a test show you can master social skills ? classes are not just about learning what is in a book.   #  but, you are talking about a test that is the same a class worth of work.   #  well that can depend.  i mean you can take a simple test to see if you have the knowledge to do something.  but, you are talking about a test that is the same a class worth of work.  often teachers will require projects and such to show application of skills.  that is hard to do in a simple testing requirement.  sure i can ask you 0 geometry questions, but it is hard for me to see if you can use what you know and apply it to real world situations.   #  they require you to apply what you know: projects, longer assignments, things like that.   #  but, as i said, most classrooms are going beyond simple knowledge level questions.  they require you to apply what you know: projects, longer assignments, things like that.  the requirement for application of a skill might make it difficult to make every class be tested out.  i mean if i have a high school student going from high school to college he does not just have to know the facts.  he or she needs to know how to them as well as how to apply them.   #  you see we are an engineering school, and with out application you really have not learned much.   # depends on where you go.  many colleges have classes that are project based.  in fact where i went there was a project for just about every class.  as for the traditional aspect here, it was founded in the 0s with the motto,  theory and practice  because even back then it was understood the two are vastly different.  you see we are an engineering school, and with out application you really have not learned much.  because as as yogi berra said,  in theory there is no difference between theory and practice.  in practice there is.    #  why are we assuming they magically know the information ?  #  why are we assuming they magically know the information ? if they are able to test out of a class, they clearly have gone through alternate coursework and/or coursework of their own to gain the knowledge.  anything that a future employer might expect the person to have can be tested on.  for example, in a biology class a student may be required to write a journal article over a subject.  this can also be required by testing in numerous different ways.
i think students should be able to test out of any class, at the very least, any of those at the high school level or higher.  i do not think it makes any sense to have a student sit through a class to learn things that he can already prove he knows.  basically, i just want reasons why sitting through a class that a student already understands makes sense.   some obvious arguments and their counters  i am assuming these class tests would cover everything covered in the course, or at least be designed to determine the student is knowledge well enough.  i am also assuming these tests would make sure that the student has a mastery of the subjects rather than a simple acquaintance.  this is why i specified   almost  every class.   obviously there are some classes that teach things that ca not really be tested, and of course the student would still have to take those classes, or we might just remove them from the education system altogether.   #  i am assuming these class tests would cover everything covered in the course, or at least be designed to determine the student is knowledge well enough.   #  the problem is that in certain university programs this is impossible.   # the problem is that in certain university programs this is impossible.  take for instance, many computer science class which i took in university, in which there is a significant project.  one of the classes i took was something where you had to build a simple operating system from scratch, this is something which took me and another 0 people working in a team a combine of around 0 hours to accomplish.  this is not testable because you ca not make someone sit in a exam room for 0 hours, there was an exam at the end of the course but it covers theoretical concepts rather practical implementation.  not only that but the project component of the course is far more valuable than the theoretical part because the 0 hours we spent is actually a pretty fair approximation of what software development is like in real life.  in other words, the skills we learned in doing the project was not testable, but probably the most valuable part of the course.  having an exam based system for engineering in general is pretty bad idea.   #  i mean you can take a simple test to see if you have the knowledge to do something.   #  well that can depend.  i mean you can take a simple test to see if you have the knowledge to do something.  but, you are talking about a test that is the same a class worth of work.  often teachers will require projects and such to show application of skills.  that is hard to do in a simple testing requirement.  sure i can ask you 0 geometry questions, but it is hard for me to see if you can use what you know and apply it to real world situations.   #  the requirement for application of a skill might make it difficult to make every class be tested out.   #  but, as i said, most classrooms are going beyond simple knowledge level questions.  they require you to apply what you know: projects, longer assignments, things like that.  the requirement for application of a skill might make it difficult to make every class be tested out.  i mean if i have a high school student going from high school to college he does not just have to know the facts.  he or she needs to know how to them as well as how to apply them.   #  in fact where i went there was a project for just about every class.   # depends on where you go.  many colleges have classes that are project based.  in fact where i went there was a project for just about every class.  as for the traditional aspect here, it was founded in the 0s with the motto,  theory and practice  because even back then it was understood the two are vastly different.  you see we are an engineering school, and with out application you really have not learned much.  because as as yogi berra said,  in theory there is no difference between theory and practice.  in practice there is.    #  this can also be required by testing in numerous different ways.   #  why are we assuming they magically know the information ? if they are able to test out of a class, they clearly have gone through alternate coursework and/or coursework of their own to gain the knowledge.  anything that a future employer might expect the person to have can be tested on.  for example, in a biology class a student may be required to write a journal article over a subject.  this can also be required by testing in numerous different ways.
i think students should be able to test out of any class, at the very least, any of those at the high school level or higher.  i do not think it makes any sense to have a student sit through a class to learn things that he can already prove he knows.  basically, i just want reasons why sitting through a class that a student already understands makes sense.   some obvious arguments and their counters  i am assuming these class tests would cover everything covered in the course, or at least be designed to determine the student is knowledge well enough.  i am also assuming these tests would make sure that the student has a mastery of the subjects rather than a simple acquaintance.  this is why i specified   almost  every class.   obviously there are some classes that teach things that ca not really be tested, and of course the student would still have to take those classes, or we might just remove them from the education system altogether.   #  basically, i just want reasons why sitting through a class that a student already understands makes sense.   #  that is assuming the student actually understands everything though.   # that is assuming the student actually understands everything though.  if you get an 0 on a unit test, that means you understand 0 of the unit.  only when you get to the high 0s, like 0 0s where test error and simple mistakes by the student can account for mistakes.  but for the most part, the avergae 0 student would only understand 0 of the course.  so no, the student does not actually know the course to 0 yet.   #  sure i can ask you 0 geometry questions, but it is hard for me to see if you can use what you know and apply it to real world situations.   #  well that can depend.  i mean you can take a simple test to see if you have the knowledge to do something.  but, you are talking about a test that is the same a class worth of work.  often teachers will require projects and such to show application of skills.  that is hard to do in a simple testing requirement.  sure i can ask you 0 geometry questions, but it is hard for me to see if you can use what you know and apply it to real world situations.   #  but, as i said, most classrooms are going beyond simple knowledge level questions.   #  but, as i said, most classrooms are going beyond simple knowledge level questions.  they require you to apply what you know: projects, longer assignments, things like that.  the requirement for application of a skill might make it difficult to make every class be tested out.  i mean if i have a high school student going from high school to college he does not just have to know the facts.  he or she needs to know how to them as well as how to apply them.   #  because as as yogi berra said,  in theory there is no difference between theory and practice.   # depends on where you go.  many colleges have classes that are project based.  in fact where i went there was a project for just about every class.  as for the traditional aspect here, it was founded in the 0s with the motto,  theory and practice  because even back then it was understood the two are vastly different.  you see we are an engineering school, and with out application you really have not learned much.  because as as yogi berra said,  in theory there is no difference between theory and practice.  in practice there is.    #  anything that a future employer might expect the person to have can be tested on.   #  why are we assuming they magically know the information ? if they are able to test out of a class, they clearly have gone through alternate coursework and/or coursework of their own to gain the knowledge.  anything that a future employer might expect the person to have can be tested on.  for example, in a biology class a student may be required to write a journal article over a subject.  this can also be required by testing in numerous different ways.
a little bit of background: i am 0 years old.  i live in a small town where pretty much everything is in walking distance given i have enough time .  my friends all live on the same street as me, my school is only a couple of blocks away.  i really have no purpose to drive, at least that is what i think.  my parents think other wise.  they are indirectly forcing me to drive by not allowing me to get rides from them anymore, unless i am driving.  i see driving as a pretty terrifying activity.  you are in full control of a 0 ton hunk of metal, which can reach speeds up to a hundred miles an hour.  around you are strangers, also controlling 0 ton metal hunks.  you have no clue who these people are, and probably will never see them again.  but you have to trust them.  just a small accident could end the life of you, your passengers, and other people on the road.  i ca not live with that burden.  for the record, i have driven before.  i got my permit when i was 0, and have only used it a few times.  each time i have used it, i have been stricken with fear.  i feel like driving is essential to life nowadays, but i just ca not get my head around.  please cmv !  #  they are indirectly forcing me to drive by not allowing me to get rides from them anymore, unless i am driving.   #  they ca not force you unless driving does, in fact, serve a purpose to you.   # they ca not force you unless driving does, in fact, serve a purpose to you.  the only reason it did not serve a purpose in the past is because your parents have been driving, and now that they do not want to do that anymore, you are complaining.  and why are you complaining ? because driving does serve a purpose to you.  no one can dispute your subjective fear of driving because it is subjective, but it is clear that you want  someone  to drive just not you.   #  i was road long trip recently when the car is tire blew out.   #  colleges do not require a driver is license as id, as /u/gnosticgnome wrote.  it is a very useful form of id, in case you decide to get it.  one more reason to get a driver is license is to be prepared in case of emergencies.  i was road long trip recently when the car is tire blew out.  this was at the tail end of a very day is ride, and my friend had driven for most of it.  but we had to take it really slowly on the emergency tire, and switched drivers so that my friend did not get too tired.   #  if you get more stressed the longer you drive, keep your trips short for a while.   #  driving is a huge responsibility.  you can certainly arrange your life such that you do not need to drive.  i was 0 before i got my license and did not have my own car and drive regularly until i was 0.  where i live, i could do fine riding a bike, walking, taking the bus, and occasionally getting a ride or a cab.  that said, even if you plan to primarily be a non driver, if you are going to drive at all, you need to learn to be comfortable with it.  an anxious driver is a dangerous driver.  practice in a calm environment when you are not in a hurry.  give yourself plenty of space between cars so you will have time to react.  if you get more stressed the longer you drive, keep your trips short for a while.  you can probably live just fine without driving , but it is a skill worth learning.  you can do it.   #  driving is a major responsibility, there is no doubting that, but it can open up a massive world of opportunities that you wo not have if you do not have the option.   #  as a pedestrian, you still have to trust the drivers around you.  at least while driving you have protective gear, bumpers, seatbelts, airbags etc.  getting hit at 0 mph in a car is far safer than getting hit at 0 as a pedestrian or bicyclist.  if anything, the safest place to be on or around the street is in your car.  second, you may find yourself with additional needs in the future, and you wo not want to try to get over your fear when you  need  to drive somewhere.  you want to get over the fear now so you have that option available to you.  driving is a major responsibility, there is no doubting that, but it can open up a massive world of opportunities that you wo not have if you do not have the option.   #  or do not want to show up a bit sweaty or somewhere that is appropriate to wear nicer shoes that make walking longer distances uncomfortable.   #  or if you want to carry something more than a few pounds or is difficult to walk with.  or in a bit of time crunch.  or do not want to show up a bit sweaty or somewhere that is appropriate to wear nicer shoes that make walking longer distances uncomfortable.  the only way to get over your anxiety is to drive and get comfortable.  being uncomfortable when trying new things is normal.  respecting the machine you are operating will make you a safe driver.  cars nowadays are incredibly safe compared to years past.
a little bit of background: i am 0 years old.  i live in a small town where pretty much everything is in walking distance given i have enough time .  my friends all live on the same street as me, my school is only a couple of blocks away.  i really have no purpose to drive, at least that is what i think.  my parents think other wise.  they are indirectly forcing me to drive by not allowing me to get rides from them anymore, unless i am driving.  i see driving as a pretty terrifying activity.  you are in full control of a 0 ton hunk of metal, which can reach speeds up to a hundred miles an hour.  around you are strangers, also controlling 0 ton metal hunks.  you have no clue who these people are, and probably will never see them again.  but you have to trust them.  just a small accident could end the life of you, your passengers, and other people on the road.  i ca not live with that burden.  for the record, i have driven before.  i got my permit when i was 0, and have only used it a few times.  each time i have used it, i have been stricken with fear.  i feel like driving is essential to life nowadays, but i just ca not get my head around.  please cmv !  #  you are in full control of a 0 ton hunk of metal, which can reach speeds up to a hundred miles an hour.   #  around you are strangers, also controlling 0 ton metal hunks.   # around you are strangers, also controlling 0 ton metal hunks.  you have no clue who these people are, and probably will never see them again.  but you have to trust them.  though this is very true, you have stated that you are in full control.  it does not have to go that fast and as the driver, it is up to you on whether or not you want a safe ride or a scary ride.  whoever is alongside you on the road is absolutely irrelevant but they have the same motive of getting to their destination.  as long as you are a defensive driver which can be done by being constantly aware of your surroundings, and following the rules of the road you should have a fun ride.  i got my permit when i was 0, and have only used it a few times.  each time i have used it, i have been stricken with fear.  i have gotten my permit at 0 as well and still do not have my license.  i used to have your crippling fears as well.  after seeing people drive without getting into accidents, i have realized that i should loosen up and get more practice.  instead of approaching this situation with fear, it should be approached with confidence, which you will eventually gain as you practice more and more.   #  i was road long trip recently when the car is tire blew out.   #  colleges do not require a driver is license as id, as /u/gnosticgnome wrote.  it is a very useful form of id, in case you decide to get it.  one more reason to get a driver is license is to be prepared in case of emergencies.  i was road long trip recently when the car is tire blew out.  this was at the tail end of a very day is ride, and my friend had driven for most of it.  but we had to take it really slowly on the emergency tire, and switched drivers so that my friend did not get too tired.   #  give yourself plenty of space between cars so you will have time to react.   #  driving is a huge responsibility.  you can certainly arrange your life such that you do not need to drive.  i was 0 before i got my license and did not have my own car and drive regularly until i was 0.  where i live, i could do fine riding a bike, walking, taking the bus, and occasionally getting a ride or a cab.  that said, even if you plan to primarily be a non driver, if you are going to drive at all, you need to learn to be comfortable with it.  an anxious driver is a dangerous driver.  practice in a calm environment when you are not in a hurry.  give yourself plenty of space between cars so you will have time to react.  if you get more stressed the longer you drive, keep your trips short for a while.  you can probably live just fine without driving , but it is a skill worth learning.  you can do it.   #  at least while driving you have protective gear, bumpers, seatbelts, airbags etc.   #  as a pedestrian, you still have to trust the drivers around you.  at least while driving you have protective gear, bumpers, seatbelts, airbags etc.  getting hit at 0 mph in a car is far safer than getting hit at 0 as a pedestrian or bicyclist.  if anything, the safest place to be on or around the street is in your car.  second, you may find yourself with additional needs in the future, and you wo not want to try to get over your fear when you  need  to drive somewhere.  you want to get over the fear now so you have that option available to you.  driving is a major responsibility, there is no doubting that, but it can open up a massive world of opportunities that you wo not have if you do not have the option.   #  being uncomfortable when trying new things is normal.   #  or if you want to carry something more than a few pounds or is difficult to walk with.  or in a bit of time crunch.  or do not want to show up a bit sweaty or somewhere that is appropriate to wear nicer shoes that make walking longer distances uncomfortable.  the only way to get over your anxiety is to drive and get comfortable.  being uncomfortable when trying new things is normal.  respecting the machine you are operating will make you a safe driver.  cars nowadays are incredibly safe compared to years past.
a little bit of background: i am 0 years old.  i live in a small town where pretty much everything is in walking distance given i have enough time .  my friends all live on the same street as me, my school is only a couple of blocks away.  i really have no purpose to drive, at least that is what i think.  my parents think other wise.  they are indirectly forcing me to drive by not allowing me to get rides from them anymore, unless i am driving.  i see driving as a pretty terrifying activity.  you are in full control of a 0 ton hunk of metal, which can reach speeds up to a hundred miles an hour.  around you are strangers, also controlling 0 ton metal hunks.  you have no clue who these people are, and probably will never see them again.  but you have to trust them.  just a small accident could end the life of you, your passengers, and other people on the road.  i ca not live with that burden.  for the record, i have driven before.  i got my permit when i was 0, and have only used it a few times.  each time i have used it, i have been stricken with fear.  i feel like driving is essential to life nowadays, but i just ca not get my head around.  please cmv !  #  for the record, i have driven before.   #  i got my permit when i was 0, and have only used it a few times.   # around you are strangers, also controlling 0 ton metal hunks.  you have no clue who these people are, and probably will never see them again.  but you have to trust them.  though this is very true, you have stated that you are in full control.  it does not have to go that fast and as the driver, it is up to you on whether or not you want a safe ride or a scary ride.  whoever is alongside you on the road is absolutely irrelevant but they have the same motive of getting to their destination.  as long as you are a defensive driver which can be done by being constantly aware of your surroundings, and following the rules of the road you should have a fun ride.  i got my permit when i was 0, and have only used it a few times.  each time i have used it, i have been stricken with fear.  i have gotten my permit at 0 as well and still do not have my license.  i used to have your crippling fears as well.  after seeing people drive without getting into accidents, i have realized that i should loosen up and get more practice.  instead of approaching this situation with fear, it should be approached with confidence, which you will eventually gain as you practice more and more.   #  but we had to take it really slowly on the emergency tire, and switched drivers so that my friend did not get too tired.   #  colleges do not require a driver is license as id, as /u/gnosticgnome wrote.  it is a very useful form of id, in case you decide to get it.  one more reason to get a driver is license is to be prepared in case of emergencies.  i was road long trip recently when the car is tire blew out.  this was at the tail end of a very day is ride, and my friend had driven for most of it.  but we had to take it really slowly on the emergency tire, and switched drivers so that my friend did not get too tired.   #  if you get more stressed the longer you drive, keep your trips short for a while.   #  driving is a huge responsibility.  you can certainly arrange your life such that you do not need to drive.  i was 0 before i got my license and did not have my own car and drive regularly until i was 0.  where i live, i could do fine riding a bike, walking, taking the bus, and occasionally getting a ride or a cab.  that said, even if you plan to primarily be a non driver, if you are going to drive at all, you need to learn to be comfortable with it.  an anxious driver is a dangerous driver.  practice in a calm environment when you are not in a hurry.  give yourself plenty of space between cars so you will have time to react.  if you get more stressed the longer you drive, keep your trips short for a while.  you can probably live just fine without driving , but it is a skill worth learning.  you can do it.   #  if anything, the safest place to be on or around the street is in your car.   #  as a pedestrian, you still have to trust the drivers around you.  at least while driving you have protective gear, bumpers, seatbelts, airbags etc.  getting hit at 0 mph in a car is far safer than getting hit at 0 as a pedestrian or bicyclist.  if anything, the safest place to be on or around the street is in your car.  second, you may find yourself with additional needs in the future, and you wo not want to try to get over your fear when you  need  to drive somewhere.  you want to get over the fear now so you have that option available to you.  driving is a major responsibility, there is no doubting that, but it can open up a massive world of opportunities that you wo not have if you do not have the option.   #  being uncomfortable when trying new things is normal.   #  or if you want to carry something more than a few pounds or is difficult to walk with.  or in a bit of time crunch.  or do not want to show up a bit sweaty or somewhere that is appropriate to wear nicer shoes that make walking longer distances uncomfortable.  the only way to get over your anxiety is to drive and get comfortable.  being uncomfortable when trying new things is normal.  respecting the machine you are operating will make you a safe driver.  cars nowadays are incredibly safe compared to years past.
note: i will use the traditional definition of drugs as anything that can alter ones mental state.  this includes pot and alcohol, as well as meth and cocaine.  i also intend to mean any religion, not just the few i have picked out in the statements below.  if a person gets a hold of a bad drug, they are most likely to die fairly quickly, as when one od is on heroin, cocaine, or meth.  their death will only hurt their own family.  there are instances where someone takes a substance and hurts or kills others in the process, such as when they are driving while intoxicated or sees someone as a personal demon who should be killed; but after a few hours the hallucinogenic effects wear off and those who took the drugs see what they have done had real life effects and that what they did was bad.  if a person get a hold of an extreme religion, they are most likely going to spread hate for different groups for many years if not decades, as in the case of the kkk, westboro baptist, or isis.  their religion will hurt and terrorize dozens of families with each action.  there are instances where someone takes their religion and hurts and kills others, as when they burn people for witchcraft or for being a homosexual or when she walks outside without covering her head; though even after many years those who are in the religion will almost never see what they did as bad, only wholesome.  some men and women commit heinous sexual assaults on others while under the influence of various substances and are very heavily prosecuted in a court of law.  some priest and clergy commit heinous sexual assaults on others while under the influence and in the name of religion and are rarely if ever prosecuted or excommunicated from the church.  when a parent gives their child a drug, whether it be chemo, alcohol, or a vaccine, some group will most deficiently say that what they did is wrong, even if it is not.  when a parent gives their child a religion, whether it be catholicism, mormonism, or islam, almost no one says that what they did is wrong, even if the core believes of that faith are extreme.  in the words of stephen weinberg  good people do good things and evil people do evil things.  but for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.   #  note: i will use the traditional definition of drugs as anything that can alter ones mental state.   #  this includes pot and alcohol, as well as meth and cocaine.   # this includes pot and alcohol, as well as meth and cocaine.  i also intend to mean any religion, not just the few i have picked out in the statements below.  drugs are chemicals, religion is not.  yeah, those quaker extremists are a real menace.  ok, that was a bad example.  those anti war protesters are a menace ! ok, another bad example.  those filthy abolitionists are a menace ! that does not work either.  those damn medical doctors are a menace ! ok, one more try.  those damn abolitionists are a menace ! ok, it seems religious fanatics are generally harmless.  actually, the catholic church tried to stop the practice.  lots of clergymen who committed sexual assaults have been prosecuted.  excommunications may be rare, but the process for excommunication is a lot different than the process for secular punishments.  so what ? here you are sobbing about how awful religion is.  so evidently some people will.  but for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.  weinberg is either a moron or a comedian.  good people do not do good things, that is sort of the definition of good people.  if you do bad things, you are bad.  whatever rationalization you used to explain it away is irrelevant.   #  most deaths attributable to religious war are well in the past.   #  i doubt it, but that is not even what i said.  present tense, drugs are absolutely worse.  most deaths attributable to religious war are well in the past.  today it can pretty much be chalked up to certain sects in the middle east.  even if we include  all  global war deaths it is not even close.  here is an approximation URL of global war deaths and here is one URL for deaths related to drugs, just in the us.   #  and do not forget that you ca not blame every aids infection on  religion .   #  well, even forgetting the fact that drug abuse is the reason many of these people have aids as well, the statistics say otherwise.  aids has killed 0 million people so far and there are currently 0 million hard drug users worldwide, not even mentioning more common substances like alcohol or tobacco that can be harmful in many ways as well.  and do not forget that you ca not blame every aids infection on  religion .  there are plenty of people who would not be wearing condoms anyway, or through intravenous drug use, or despite condoms.  most new infections of aids worldwide are through perinatal exposure.   #  you will probably have to throw in most fatal auto accidents too, not to mention the poverty associated with drug culture.   #  if you are going to allow indirect effects it cuts both ways.  in the vast majority of murder cases drugs are to blame.  you will probably have to throw in most fatal auto accidents too, not to mention the poverty associated with drug culture.  when you get down to it there are far more people in countries where religious violence is not common than people in countries where it is, and the people in countries where it is not are far more likely to die drug related deaths.  also, maybe this is just a bad example, but you are overestimating how big or typical the israel situation is.  the west bank and the gaza strip have fewer people than brooklyn and queens.  it is also questionable whether that can be seen as purely  religious  rather than ethnic or simply nationalist at this point, although the strong identity of israel as a jewish state may suggest so.  my point is that things do not happen for one reason alone that you can blame them for.  you are picking and choosing what you want to be the cause of more deaths.   #  if you go to places where certain drugs are legal and common you will find they are very cheap, ex.   #  first off, i agree that you cannot attribute societies shortcomings to one thing like drugs or religion, so i agree with you there.  secondly, obviously depends on the drug but i would argue certain drugs are only expensive because they are illegal.  if you go to places where certain drugs are legal and common you will find they are very cheap, ex.  you can buy literal trash bags of weed in jamaica because it is so common, granted the quality is not that great but the high quality stuff in the us, canada, and some places in europe is most likely a product of better infrastructure.  for example in cali you can get weed for around $0/g, you move to the east coast, mid west, and south where there are more strict laws and the price goes up considerably, even hitting $0/g in some places.  basically if someone can grow or make the drug easily and the drug is legal, then the market will be flooded with it because as you said, people want their mind altering substances.  this is also why crack is so cheap, because instead of needing a cacao tree and some advanced extraction methods all you need is some coke, a stove, and baking soda.  certain drugs that are hard to make, and/or take a lot of skill to grow will retain their value, but the ones that anyone could make with some basic instructions will definitely go down in price.
note: i will use the traditional definition of drugs as anything that can alter ones mental state.  this includes pot and alcohol, as well as meth and cocaine.  i also intend to mean any religion, not just the few i have picked out in the statements below.  if a person gets a hold of a bad drug, they are most likely to die fairly quickly, as when one od is on heroin, cocaine, or meth.  their death will only hurt their own family.  there are instances where someone takes a substance and hurts or kills others in the process, such as when they are driving while intoxicated or sees someone as a personal demon who should be killed; but after a few hours the hallucinogenic effects wear off and those who took the drugs see what they have done had real life effects and that what they did was bad.  if a person get a hold of an extreme religion, they are most likely going to spread hate for different groups for many years if not decades, as in the case of the kkk, westboro baptist, or isis.  their religion will hurt and terrorize dozens of families with each action.  there are instances where someone takes their religion and hurts and kills others, as when they burn people for witchcraft or for being a homosexual or when she walks outside without covering her head; though even after many years those who are in the religion will almost never see what they did as bad, only wholesome.  some men and women commit heinous sexual assaults on others while under the influence of various substances and are very heavily prosecuted in a court of law.  some priest and clergy commit heinous sexual assaults on others while under the influence and in the name of religion and are rarely if ever prosecuted or excommunicated from the church.  when a parent gives their child a drug, whether it be chemo, alcohol, or a vaccine, some group will most deficiently say that what they did is wrong, even if it is not.  when a parent gives their child a religion, whether it be catholicism, mormonism, or islam, almost no one says that what they did is wrong, even if the core believes of that faith are extreme.  in the words of stephen weinberg  good people do good things and evil people do evil things.  but for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.   #  if a person get a hold of an extreme religion, they are most likely going to spread hate for different groups for many years if not decades, as in the case of the kkk, westboro baptist, or isis.   #  yeah, those quaker extremists are a real menace.   # this includes pot and alcohol, as well as meth and cocaine.  i also intend to mean any religion, not just the few i have picked out in the statements below.  drugs are chemicals, religion is not.  yeah, those quaker extremists are a real menace.  ok, that was a bad example.  those anti war protesters are a menace ! ok, another bad example.  those filthy abolitionists are a menace ! that does not work either.  those damn medical doctors are a menace ! ok, one more try.  those damn abolitionists are a menace ! ok, it seems religious fanatics are generally harmless.  actually, the catholic church tried to stop the practice.  lots of clergymen who committed sexual assaults have been prosecuted.  excommunications may be rare, but the process for excommunication is a lot different than the process for secular punishments.  so what ? here you are sobbing about how awful religion is.  so evidently some people will.  but for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.  weinberg is either a moron or a comedian.  good people do not do good things, that is sort of the definition of good people.  if you do bad things, you are bad.  whatever rationalization you used to explain it away is irrelevant.   #  today it can pretty much be chalked up to certain sects in the middle east.   #  i doubt it, but that is not even what i said.  present tense, drugs are absolutely worse.  most deaths attributable to religious war are well in the past.  today it can pretty much be chalked up to certain sects in the middle east.  even if we include  all  global war deaths it is not even close.  here is an approximation URL of global war deaths and here is one URL for deaths related to drugs, just in the us.   #  well, even forgetting the fact that drug abuse is the reason many of these people have aids as well, the statistics say otherwise.   #  well, even forgetting the fact that drug abuse is the reason many of these people have aids as well, the statistics say otherwise.  aids has killed 0 million people so far and there are currently 0 million hard drug users worldwide, not even mentioning more common substances like alcohol or tobacco that can be harmful in many ways as well.  and do not forget that you ca not blame every aids infection on  religion .  there are plenty of people who would not be wearing condoms anyway, or through intravenous drug use, or despite condoms.  most new infections of aids worldwide are through perinatal exposure.   #  in the vast majority of murder cases drugs are to blame.   #  if you are going to allow indirect effects it cuts both ways.  in the vast majority of murder cases drugs are to blame.  you will probably have to throw in most fatal auto accidents too, not to mention the poverty associated with drug culture.  when you get down to it there are far more people in countries where religious violence is not common than people in countries where it is, and the people in countries where it is not are far more likely to die drug related deaths.  also, maybe this is just a bad example, but you are overestimating how big or typical the israel situation is.  the west bank and the gaza strip have fewer people than brooklyn and queens.  it is also questionable whether that can be seen as purely  religious  rather than ethnic or simply nationalist at this point, although the strong identity of israel as a jewish state may suggest so.  my point is that things do not happen for one reason alone that you can blame them for.  you are picking and choosing what you want to be the cause of more deaths.   #  first off, i agree that you cannot attribute societies shortcomings to one thing like drugs or religion, so i agree with you there.   #  first off, i agree that you cannot attribute societies shortcomings to one thing like drugs or religion, so i agree with you there.  secondly, obviously depends on the drug but i would argue certain drugs are only expensive because they are illegal.  if you go to places where certain drugs are legal and common you will find they are very cheap, ex.  you can buy literal trash bags of weed in jamaica because it is so common, granted the quality is not that great but the high quality stuff in the us, canada, and some places in europe is most likely a product of better infrastructure.  for example in cali you can get weed for around $0/g, you move to the east coast, mid west, and south where there are more strict laws and the price goes up considerably, even hitting $0/g in some places.  basically if someone can grow or make the drug easily and the drug is legal, then the market will be flooded with it because as you said, people want their mind altering substances.  this is also why crack is so cheap, because instead of needing a cacao tree and some advanced extraction methods all you need is some coke, a stove, and baking soda.  certain drugs that are hard to make, and/or take a lot of skill to grow will retain their value, but the ones that anyone could make with some basic instructions will definitely go down in price.
note: i will use the traditional definition of drugs as anything that can alter ones mental state.  this includes pot and alcohol, as well as meth and cocaine.  i also intend to mean any religion, not just the few i have picked out in the statements below.  if a person gets a hold of a bad drug, they are most likely to die fairly quickly, as when one od is on heroin, cocaine, or meth.  their death will only hurt their own family.  there are instances where someone takes a substance and hurts or kills others in the process, such as when they are driving while intoxicated or sees someone as a personal demon who should be killed; but after a few hours the hallucinogenic effects wear off and those who took the drugs see what they have done had real life effects and that what they did was bad.  if a person get a hold of an extreme religion, they are most likely going to spread hate for different groups for many years if not decades, as in the case of the kkk, westboro baptist, or isis.  their religion will hurt and terrorize dozens of families with each action.  there are instances where someone takes their religion and hurts and kills others, as when they burn people for witchcraft or for being a homosexual or when she walks outside without covering her head; though even after many years those who are in the religion will almost never see what they did as bad, only wholesome.  some men and women commit heinous sexual assaults on others while under the influence of various substances and are very heavily prosecuted in a court of law.  some priest and clergy commit heinous sexual assaults on others while under the influence and in the name of religion and are rarely if ever prosecuted or excommunicated from the church.  when a parent gives their child a drug, whether it be chemo, alcohol, or a vaccine, some group will most deficiently say that what they did is wrong, even if it is not.  when a parent gives their child a religion, whether it be catholicism, mormonism, or islam, almost no one says that what they did is wrong, even if the core believes of that faith are extreme.  in the words of stephen weinberg  good people do good things and evil people do evil things.  but for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.   #  some priest and clergy commit heinous sexual assaults on others while under the influence and in the name of religion and are rarely if ever prosecuted or excommunicated from the church.   #  lots of clergymen who committed sexual assaults have been prosecuted.   # this includes pot and alcohol, as well as meth and cocaine.  i also intend to mean any religion, not just the few i have picked out in the statements below.  drugs are chemicals, religion is not.  yeah, those quaker extremists are a real menace.  ok, that was a bad example.  those anti war protesters are a menace ! ok, another bad example.  those filthy abolitionists are a menace ! that does not work either.  those damn medical doctors are a menace ! ok, one more try.  those damn abolitionists are a menace ! ok, it seems religious fanatics are generally harmless.  actually, the catholic church tried to stop the practice.  lots of clergymen who committed sexual assaults have been prosecuted.  excommunications may be rare, but the process for excommunication is a lot different than the process for secular punishments.  so what ? here you are sobbing about how awful religion is.  so evidently some people will.  but for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.  weinberg is either a moron or a comedian.  good people do not do good things, that is sort of the definition of good people.  if you do bad things, you are bad.  whatever rationalization you used to explain it away is irrelevant.   #  even if we include  all  global war deaths it is not even close.   #  i doubt it, but that is not even what i said.  present tense, drugs are absolutely worse.  most deaths attributable to religious war are well in the past.  today it can pretty much be chalked up to certain sects in the middle east.  even if we include  all  global war deaths it is not even close.  here is an approximation URL of global war deaths and here is one URL for deaths related to drugs, just in the us.   #  well, even forgetting the fact that drug abuse is the reason many of these people have aids as well, the statistics say otherwise.   #  well, even forgetting the fact that drug abuse is the reason many of these people have aids as well, the statistics say otherwise.  aids has killed 0 million people so far and there are currently 0 million hard drug users worldwide, not even mentioning more common substances like alcohol or tobacco that can be harmful in many ways as well.  and do not forget that you ca not blame every aids infection on  religion .  there are plenty of people who would not be wearing condoms anyway, or through intravenous drug use, or despite condoms.  most new infections of aids worldwide are through perinatal exposure.   #  you are picking and choosing what you want to be the cause of more deaths.   #  if you are going to allow indirect effects it cuts both ways.  in the vast majority of murder cases drugs are to blame.  you will probably have to throw in most fatal auto accidents too, not to mention the poverty associated with drug culture.  when you get down to it there are far more people in countries where religious violence is not common than people in countries where it is, and the people in countries where it is not are far more likely to die drug related deaths.  also, maybe this is just a bad example, but you are overestimating how big or typical the israel situation is.  the west bank and the gaza strip have fewer people than brooklyn and queens.  it is also questionable whether that can be seen as purely  religious  rather than ethnic or simply nationalist at this point, although the strong identity of israel as a jewish state may suggest so.  my point is that things do not happen for one reason alone that you can blame them for.  you are picking and choosing what you want to be the cause of more deaths.   #  certain drugs that are hard to make, and/or take a lot of skill to grow will retain their value, but the ones that anyone could make with some basic instructions will definitely go down in price.   #  first off, i agree that you cannot attribute societies shortcomings to one thing like drugs or religion, so i agree with you there.  secondly, obviously depends on the drug but i would argue certain drugs are only expensive because they are illegal.  if you go to places where certain drugs are legal and common you will find they are very cheap, ex.  you can buy literal trash bags of weed in jamaica because it is so common, granted the quality is not that great but the high quality stuff in the us, canada, and some places in europe is most likely a product of better infrastructure.  for example in cali you can get weed for around $0/g, you move to the east coast, mid west, and south where there are more strict laws and the price goes up considerably, even hitting $0/g in some places.  basically if someone can grow or make the drug easily and the drug is legal, then the market will be flooded with it because as you said, people want their mind altering substances.  this is also why crack is so cheap, because instead of needing a cacao tree and some advanced extraction methods all you need is some coke, a stove, and baking soda.  certain drugs that are hard to make, and/or take a lot of skill to grow will retain their value, but the ones that anyone could make with some basic instructions will definitely go down in price.
note: i will use the traditional definition of drugs as anything that can alter ones mental state.  this includes pot and alcohol, as well as meth and cocaine.  i also intend to mean any religion, not just the few i have picked out in the statements below.  if a person gets a hold of a bad drug, they are most likely to die fairly quickly, as when one od is on heroin, cocaine, or meth.  their death will only hurt their own family.  there are instances where someone takes a substance and hurts or kills others in the process, such as when they are driving while intoxicated or sees someone as a personal demon who should be killed; but after a few hours the hallucinogenic effects wear off and those who took the drugs see what they have done had real life effects and that what they did was bad.  if a person get a hold of an extreme religion, they are most likely going to spread hate for different groups for many years if not decades, as in the case of the kkk, westboro baptist, or isis.  their religion will hurt and terrorize dozens of families with each action.  there are instances where someone takes their religion and hurts and kills others, as when they burn people for witchcraft or for being a homosexual or when she walks outside without covering her head; though even after many years those who are in the religion will almost never see what they did as bad, only wholesome.  some men and women commit heinous sexual assaults on others while under the influence of various substances and are very heavily prosecuted in a court of law.  some priest and clergy commit heinous sexual assaults on others while under the influence and in the name of religion and are rarely if ever prosecuted or excommunicated from the church.  when a parent gives their child a drug, whether it be chemo, alcohol, or a vaccine, some group will most deficiently say that what they did is wrong, even if it is not.  when a parent gives their child a religion, whether it be catholicism, mormonism, or islam, almost no one says that what they did is wrong, even if the core believes of that faith are extreme.  in the words of stephen weinberg  good people do good things and evil people do evil things.  but for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.   #  when a parent gives their child a religion, whether it be catholicism, mormonism, or islam, almost no one says that what they did is wrong, even if the core believes of that faith are extreme.   #  here you are sobbing about how awful religion is.   # this includes pot and alcohol, as well as meth and cocaine.  i also intend to mean any religion, not just the few i have picked out in the statements below.  drugs are chemicals, religion is not.  yeah, those quaker extremists are a real menace.  ok, that was a bad example.  those anti war protesters are a menace ! ok, another bad example.  those filthy abolitionists are a menace ! that does not work either.  those damn medical doctors are a menace ! ok, one more try.  those damn abolitionists are a menace ! ok, it seems religious fanatics are generally harmless.  actually, the catholic church tried to stop the practice.  lots of clergymen who committed sexual assaults have been prosecuted.  excommunications may be rare, but the process for excommunication is a lot different than the process for secular punishments.  so what ? here you are sobbing about how awful religion is.  so evidently some people will.  but for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.  weinberg is either a moron or a comedian.  good people do not do good things, that is sort of the definition of good people.  if you do bad things, you are bad.  whatever rationalization you used to explain it away is irrelevant.   #  i doubt it, but that is not even what i said.   #  i doubt it, but that is not even what i said.  present tense, drugs are absolutely worse.  most deaths attributable to religious war are well in the past.  today it can pretty much be chalked up to certain sects in the middle east.  even if we include  all  global war deaths it is not even close.  here is an approximation URL of global war deaths and here is one URL for deaths related to drugs, just in the us.   #  well, even forgetting the fact that drug abuse is the reason many of these people have aids as well, the statistics say otherwise.   #  well, even forgetting the fact that drug abuse is the reason many of these people have aids as well, the statistics say otherwise.  aids has killed 0 million people so far and there are currently 0 million hard drug users worldwide, not even mentioning more common substances like alcohol or tobacco that can be harmful in many ways as well.  and do not forget that you ca not blame every aids infection on  religion .  there are plenty of people who would not be wearing condoms anyway, or through intravenous drug use, or despite condoms.  most new infections of aids worldwide are through perinatal exposure.   #  also, maybe this is just a bad example, but you are overestimating how big or typical the israel situation is.   #  if you are going to allow indirect effects it cuts both ways.  in the vast majority of murder cases drugs are to blame.  you will probably have to throw in most fatal auto accidents too, not to mention the poverty associated with drug culture.  when you get down to it there are far more people in countries where religious violence is not common than people in countries where it is, and the people in countries where it is not are far more likely to die drug related deaths.  also, maybe this is just a bad example, but you are overestimating how big or typical the israel situation is.  the west bank and the gaza strip have fewer people than brooklyn and queens.  it is also questionable whether that can be seen as purely  religious  rather than ethnic or simply nationalist at this point, although the strong identity of israel as a jewish state may suggest so.  my point is that things do not happen for one reason alone that you can blame them for.  you are picking and choosing what you want to be the cause of more deaths.   #  first off, i agree that you cannot attribute societies shortcomings to one thing like drugs or religion, so i agree with you there.   #  first off, i agree that you cannot attribute societies shortcomings to one thing like drugs or religion, so i agree with you there.  secondly, obviously depends on the drug but i would argue certain drugs are only expensive because they are illegal.  if you go to places where certain drugs are legal and common you will find they are very cheap, ex.  you can buy literal trash bags of weed in jamaica because it is so common, granted the quality is not that great but the high quality stuff in the us, canada, and some places in europe is most likely a product of better infrastructure.  for example in cali you can get weed for around $0/g, you move to the east coast, mid west, and south where there are more strict laws and the price goes up considerably, even hitting $0/g in some places.  basically if someone can grow or make the drug easily and the drug is legal, then the market will be flooded with it because as you said, people want their mind altering substances.  this is also why crack is so cheap, because instead of needing a cacao tree and some advanced extraction methods all you need is some coke, a stove, and baking soda.  certain drugs that are hard to make, and/or take a lot of skill to grow will retain their value, but the ones that anyone could make with some basic instructions will definitely go down in price.
note: i will use the traditional definition of drugs as anything that can alter ones mental state.  this includes pot and alcohol, as well as meth and cocaine.  i also intend to mean any religion, not just the few i have picked out in the statements below.  if a person gets a hold of a bad drug, they are most likely to die fairly quickly, as when one od is on heroin, cocaine, or meth.  their death will only hurt their own family.  there are instances where someone takes a substance and hurts or kills others in the process, such as when they are driving while intoxicated or sees someone as a personal demon who should be killed; but after a few hours the hallucinogenic effects wear off and those who took the drugs see what they have done had real life effects and that what they did was bad.  if a person get a hold of an extreme religion, they are most likely going to spread hate for different groups for many years if not decades, as in the case of the kkk, westboro baptist, or isis.  their religion will hurt and terrorize dozens of families with each action.  there are instances where someone takes their religion and hurts and kills others, as when they burn people for witchcraft or for being a homosexual or when she walks outside without covering her head; though even after many years those who are in the religion will almost never see what they did as bad, only wholesome.  some men and women commit heinous sexual assaults on others while under the influence of various substances and are very heavily prosecuted in a court of law.  some priest and clergy commit heinous sexual assaults on others while under the influence and in the name of religion and are rarely if ever prosecuted or excommunicated from the church.  when a parent gives their child a drug, whether it be chemo, alcohol, or a vaccine, some group will most deficiently say that what they did is wrong, even if it is not.  when a parent gives their child a religion, whether it be catholicism, mormonism, or islam, almost no one says that what they did is wrong, even if the core believes of that faith are extreme.  in the words of stephen weinberg  good people do good things and evil people do evil things.  but for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.   #  in the words of stephen weinberg  good people do good things and evil people do evil things.   #  but for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.   # this includes pot and alcohol, as well as meth and cocaine.  i also intend to mean any religion, not just the few i have picked out in the statements below.  drugs are chemicals, religion is not.  yeah, those quaker extremists are a real menace.  ok, that was a bad example.  those anti war protesters are a menace ! ok, another bad example.  those filthy abolitionists are a menace ! that does not work either.  those damn medical doctors are a menace ! ok, one more try.  those damn abolitionists are a menace ! ok, it seems religious fanatics are generally harmless.  actually, the catholic church tried to stop the practice.  lots of clergymen who committed sexual assaults have been prosecuted.  excommunications may be rare, but the process for excommunication is a lot different than the process for secular punishments.  so what ? here you are sobbing about how awful religion is.  so evidently some people will.  but for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.  weinberg is either a moron or a comedian.  good people do not do good things, that is sort of the definition of good people.  if you do bad things, you are bad.  whatever rationalization you used to explain it away is irrelevant.   #  here is an approximation URL of global war deaths and here is one URL for deaths related to drugs, just in the us.   #  i doubt it, but that is not even what i said.  present tense, drugs are absolutely worse.  most deaths attributable to religious war are well in the past.  today it can pretty much be chalked up to certain sects in the middle east.  even if we include  all  global war deaths it is not even close.  here is an approximation URL of global war deaths and here is one URL for deaths related to drugs, just in the us.   #  aids has killed 0 million people so far and there are currently 0 million hard drug users worldwide, not even mentioning more common substances like alcohol or tobacco that can be harmful in many ways as well.   #  well, even forgetting the fact that drug abuse is the reason many of these people have aids as well, the statistics say otherwise.  aids has killed 0 million people so far and there are currently 0 million hard drug users worldwide, not even mentioning more common substances like alcohol or tobacco that can be harmful in many ways as well.  and do not forget that you ca not blame every aids infection on  religion .  there are plenty of people who would not be wearing condoms anyway, or through intravenous drug use, or despite condoms.  most new infections of aids worldwide are through perinatal exposure.   #  in the vast majority of murder cases drugs are to blame.   #  if you are going to allow indirect effects it cuts both ways.  in the vast majority of murder cases drugs are to blame.  you will probably have to throw in most fatal auto accidents too, not to mention the poverty associated with drug culture.  when you get down to it there are far more people in countries where religious violence is not common than people in countries where it is, and the people in countries where it is not are far more likely to die drug related deaths.  also, maybe this is just a bad example, but you are overestimating how big or typical the israel situation is.  the west bank and the gaza strip have fewer people than brooklyn and queens.  it is also questionable whether that can be seen as purely  religious  rather than ethnic or simply nationalist at this point, although the strong identity of israel as a jewish state may suggest so.  my point is that things do not happen for one reason alone that you can blame them for.  you are picking and choosing what you want to be the cause of more deaths.   #  certain drugs that are hard to make, and/or take a lot of skill to grow will retain their value, but the ones that anyone could make with some basic instructions will definitely go down in price.   #  first off, i agree that you cannot attribute societies shortcomings to one thing like drugs or religion, so i agree with you there.  secondly, obviously depends on the drug but i would argue certain drugs are only expensive because they are illegal.  if you go to places where certain drugs are legal and common you will find they are very cheap, ex.  you can buy literal trash bags of weed in jamaica because it is so common, granted the quality is not that great but the high quality stuff in the us, canada, and some places in europe is most likely a product of better infrastructure.  for example in cali you can get weed for around $0/g, you move to the east coast, mid west, and south where there are more strict laws and the price goes up considerably, even hitting $0/g in some places.  basically if someone can grow or make the drug easily and the drug is legal, then the market will be flooded with it because as you said, people want their mind altering substances.  this is also why crack is so cheap, because instead of needing a cacao tree and some advanced extraction methods all you need is some coke, a stove, and baking soda.  certain drugs that are hard to make, and/or take a lot of skill to grow will retain their value, but the ones that anyone could make with some basic instructions will definitely go down in price.
this is an issue i feel passionate about, but i also understand my views are not that developed.  very curious to say what the responses are ! juveniles are given special treatments in trials, there is a focus on rehabilitation an integration back into society.  this makes a lot of sense to me, children are still learning and do not have much freedom in life.  many of their choices and actions are an immediate cause of their situation, and removing them from that could potentially help.  not to mention, the focus on punishment in adult courts can likely lead to training a kid to be an offender for life, trying a kid as an adult circumvents all of that, and ignores the fact that society expects persons under 0 years of age to need additional supervision and warrant more rehabilitation in the case of crimes.  it seems so juvenile that someone who commits a worse crime and is more in need of rehab would magically be considered an adult just because of severity.  do actions make someone an adult, or age and experience ? i think it is also important to consider there is a growing amount of evidence that states adolescence continues up until 0 0 .  also, many cases that have children tried as adults are not emancipated minors, it is typically just due to severity.  i would consider an emancipated minor tried as an adult more logical, but possibly more morally wrong for a society to do.  emancipation is not generally a happy thing, and often due to poor circumstances.  more rehabilitation would likely make sense, but i see how it would be logical for a system.  0 URL  #  do actions make someone an adult, or age and experience ?  #  i do not think this is about age at all but characteristics associated with age.   #  i think the basic idea of trying children as children makes sense and you make some good points, they are still learning, they have more of their lives ahead of them, less responsibility should be placed on their shoulders generally speaking.  i think generally the younger you are the more likely you are to act spontaneously and sometimes that will have bad results.  i think it is also important to understand that this is a generalization that wo not always hold water in all situations.  i do not think this is about age at all but characteristics associated with age.  intent is the real kicker here.  if a child kicks you in the shin it is a different experience than if an adult does it.  you can give the child the benefit of the doubt and make allowances that you ca not for the adult.  one you are going to hold more accountable than the other simply because of intent.  as we get older we are able to process more complex forms of intent because we generally know more about the outcomes than we do as children.  when there are cases like shanda sharer URL you end up with a situation where intent cannot be ignored and was in fact pretty evolved and complex.  you may not agree with all decisions to try children as adults but i hope you can see the need for it sometimes.  at the end of the day there will be some  people  who are under the age of 0 who know exactly what they are doing and what the outcomes will be in contrast to the others that really do not; in those cases they should be tried as adults even though it can be hard to differentiate between the two.   #  0 at some point maturity plays a roll in a child is ability to understand the world.   #  what if a child plots a crime as an adult would ? if you think society has failed a 0 yr old criminal, what about the 0 yr old one ? it seems you are mingling two different concepts.  0 that adulthood means being 0.  this is only in legal terms.  0 at some point maturity plays a roll in a child is ability to understand the world.  there is no magical developmental threshold at 0.  you are probably done with high school and can vote.  that is about it.  personally, overall, we need to take a long hard look at our criminal justice system and actually mesh it with justice.   #  what if a child plots to have sex with an adult as an adult would ?  # what if a child plots to have sex with an adult as an adult would ? either we broadly acknowledge a minor is responsibility for their own actions, or we do not.  we should not be holding minors to adult standards in some situations, but not in others.  if a minor is personally responsible for their actions for something as serious as, say, murder, then they should be considered equally responsible for their own actions for something much less serious like sex.  you ca not have it both ways.  i tend to think the cutoff age in question should be more like 0 than 0, but i think it should apply universally, regardless of what the topic of their responsibility is.   #  otherwise, we could say,  well, they were having sex; the only people who have sex are those who are mentally adult.    # same way as in a murder trial, i should say.  and in that regard, i do not think that the alleged crime itself is a valid criterion for the determination.  otherwise, we could say,  well, they were having sex; the only people who have sex are those who are mentally adult.   besides that, the crime in question has not yet been established as fact, since the trial has not completed.  it is clearly begging the question URL so it is invalid.   #  i just believe they should be tried as what they are, a child.   #  you are supposing that the punishment an adult receives is more of a deterrent, which often is not the case.  0 case in point, it increases crime.  so, with your hypothetical, we would most likely be training future criminals by sending them to prison with harsher sentences.  also, who said the person who commits the crime would have more protection ? i just believe they should be tried as what they are, a child.  you do not get off scott free, you still get locked up and put to work.  are you referring to specific protections ? 0 URL
many times i see people who refuse to use, say, a facebook app, because it tracks certain personal information about them, or they argue that google is taking too much of our personal information, and i always wonder why they worry so much about that.  i mean, why would large companies care about the personal information of their individual users, beyond using it to improve the experience of their application/site or sell it to ad companies ? they wo not go around posting my information publically, as i am sure the privacy policy forbids that and what would they gain from that anyway ? i am just a number to them, among billions of others .  hell, i am even glad my information is being used to personalise the ads that get shown to me, for instance; if i am putting up with ads, i would rather have products that actually pertain to my interests advertised to me than things i find irrelevant.  even if google employees spend their free time somehow accessing the database to indulge themselves in the deepest and darkest secrets of their users  browsing history, it still would not bother me haha.  i could not care less about what a random stranger on the other side of the world knows about me.  maybe that is just me ? in which case, please attempt to cmv !  #  if i am putting up with ads, i would rather have products that actually pertain to my interests advertised to me than things i find irrelevant.   #  how about ads targeted to exploit your psychology so you buy things you will later regret ?  # lots of people do not want this.  how about ads targeted to exploit your psychology so you buy things you will later regret ? or make much more convincing scams ? not everyone is a random stranger.  if you exist, there is probably something that could hurt your reputation or worse out there somewhere, even if you think it is something completely normal.  and there are people who are spiteful, or willing to do anything to trash their competition for a promotion/award/romance/whatever.  all it would take is one of them having a friend with access to permanently affect your life for the worse.  long story short, the big companies probably mean well, or at least neutral.  but the information they collect could easily be used for evil, so it is better not to collect it at all.   #  therefore, i disagree with your statement that  people should worry less .   #  when a company stores information, they can be compelled to turn over that information via legal process.  in some countries, no legal process is even used.  some people are not so much worried about the company doing the collecting per se, but moreso what can come from it after that point, and it goes beyond a random employee browsing the data.  it is very much an individual thing.  i, personally, am aware of data collection, how it is used, and the potential scenarios in which it may affect me later.  i choose to use these various services regardless, but it was an informed decision.  similarly, i use tor for research yes, really without a vpn despite knowing that honeypots are a thing.  i am very, very careful to only use dw links from known sources as launchpoints to avoid accidentally landing on certain content.  not because of liability, but because i do not want to see that stuff.  ever.  but this is a choice i can only make for myself.  even for someone who is completely innocent, an investigation by law enforcement can ruin their lives.  therefore, i disagree with your statement that  people should worry less .  make that decision for yourself, that is your choice, but i feel it is wrong to minimize or overlook the very real potential that the data in question can wreck a person is life later.   #  an acquaintance of mine lost his job after being falsely accused of accessing / possessing child porn.   #  an acquaintance of mine lost his job after being falsely accused of accessing / possessing child porn.  i still do not know where the accusation or data came from, but a warrant was served on someone probably isp, but as i said, do not know and  suspicious activity  was found.  that suspicious activity ? totally not child porn.  the guy is cousin is a photographer who photographs children fully dressed, nothing the least bit suspect to a sane person and he was helping her sort out her new web site.  and that was months before all of this happened.  but none of that was brought to light until after his computer was seized and he was  brought in for questioning  which, to the casual observer or nosey neighbor, is pretty much just  being arrested  in a huge dramatic showing involving three police cars.  it got back to his boss before he had a chance to tell him what was going on, and when he requested a couple days off to sort it out, they fired him.  technically, they had grounds due to missed days, but i do not think anyone believes that is why he was terminated.  it was all sorted out within a week, but the damage was done.  if that data had not been collected, none of it would have happened.  also consider things like hijacked internet and shared routers.  things other people do can be tied to your external ip address.  if that data is not collected in the first place, there is nothing to be turned over, but in most cases, existing data can be acted on by a warrant.   #  also, what you described was pretty much getting out of a crime because they could not get the evidence.   #  do not you think that is more of a problem with the police, and how they handle things and not with data collection ? common sense is obviously devoid from the people who handled this.  also, what you described was pretty much getting out of a crime because they could not get the evidence.  what if your acquaintance was in possession of cp ? what if worse things were found ? i am on op is side with this, if you are not doing anything illegal, you have nothing to fear, sadly, the biggest fear seems to be incompetence in the people handling serious cases.   #  i am not going to address the  what if  because it comes dangerously close to saying that it is okay to mishandle cases and potentially violate people is rights if they do turn out to be guilty.   # except for the fact that there was no crime.  i am not going to address the  what if  because it comes dangerously close to saying that it is okay to mishandle cases and potentially violate people is rights if they do turn out to be guilty.  no, i am not just reaching here the courts still have not fully addressed how the 0th amendment applies in these cases.  riley v.  california  was a start but it was a very specific application, and we have got a long way to go.  we  know  serious cases get mishandled, we  know  data gets misinterpreted.  i am confused as to how you can dismiss that when that is exactly the problem mishandling data.  data alone ca not do anything until it is used by someone or something, which is the whole point.  i am arguing that these potential problems are sufficient cause for an individual to be concerned about their data.  i am  not  arguing in favor of fear.  i am advocating for awareness, acceptance of those who choose to be wary of data collection, and acknowledgement that they are not just being paranoid.  you are more than welcome to decide that the risk is too low to affect your actions, that is fine.  i am merely trying to show the op that it is not fair to project their choices on to others because they do, in fact, have valid reasons for feeling the way they do.
i see black friends complaining about cultural appropriation lately, my issue is the hypocrisy of it all.  they say that we should not be taking their culture and traditions while happily appropriating other cultures into their own.  it is the  us  against the world mentality that is very hurtful to minorities.  one of the most common arguments i hear is in music.  they say people like iggy azalea should not be around making hip hop and rap and wearing her hair a certain way because of the color of her skin ? because she did not earn it ? is not that backwards thinking ? while beyonce and alicia keys sometimes dawn white girl hair.  cultural appropriation is a good thing because it leads to different people experiencing other traditions and cultures.   #  cultural appropriation is a good thing because it leads to different people experiencing other traditions and cultures.   #  cultural participation should be additive, and not subtractive.   #  cultural appropriation has relevance in a society that is unequal.  the inequality affects who gets the credit for something.  when i say  twerking , what is the first name that comes to mind ? miley cyrus, despite black artists doing twerking much before that.  when i say  rock n roll , one thinks elvis, even though other artists have been doing it much before that.  when i say  the movie 0 , you think about a couple of white mit students rigging gambling in vegas despite the original story being about asians .  or sexy white women with tight pants teaching yoga as compared to the indian dude with a beard and a weird accent or worse, christians doing  christian yoga  and taking credit for it while simulatenously calling hinduism devil worship .  it is not about who gets to participate, it is about who gets the credit for it.  in an unequal society, white people are often more  relatable  and  accessible  and hence begin to get credit for things other people have done before them.  a good analogy would be steve jobs being considered a computer genius by outsiders just because he is more  relatable  and  approachable  than a fat bearded computer nerd.  or your professor grading your friend a grade higher, despite you doing a larger chunk of the assignment.  iggy mimics the  black accent  while rapping, and goes back to her  normal  accent in everyday life; that is the problem.  there are other white rappers eminem who do not so this, and people are okay with them.  cultural participation should be additive, and not subtractive.  some forms of appropriation reduces a bigger commitment and identity to a mere temporary experience for fun, which subtracts, not adds to.  wearing a traditional indian clothes to diwali or an indian wedding is good.  but wearing it as a halloween dress diminishes it to a mere costume.   #  whether justified or not, white people in hip hop definitely still have their race looming over their head.   # miley cyrus, what if she does not come to mind ? what if i rattle off a dozen people who are not miley ? this point assumes that all artists of a particular genre bring the same stuff to the table, which is simply not true.  there are countless reasons one artist can become more famous than another that  are not  about race.  then why is it the artist who gets shit on for appropriating culture ? if appropriation is determined by who gets credit for it  credit  being fame and cultural relevance then the impetus is on  the consumer  to decide who is worthy of credit, not the artist.  but showmanship, however shallow, is an undeniable aspect of being famous.  jobs got famous because he was able to package electronics in a simplified and attractive way.  he controlled the public is image of his product the same way kanye and 0 cent and beyonce rigorously control their publicity.  so it is an act.  so what ? do you think lady gaga actually thinks she is an alien or niki minaj hangs out with jungle tribes on her days off ? people  still  talk shit about eminem being white.  whether justified or not, white people in hip hop definitely still have their race looming over their head.   #  it is an inherently poor way of actually solving the problem.   # appropriation would not be relevant if consumers are not biased along ethno racial lines, especially when it came to showmanship.  a lot of the backlash regarding performers appropriating culture is funneled  directly at the performer , which is not an effective way of combating the more general biases of the consumers that you argue.  it is an inherently poor way of actually solving the problem.  why blame the performer whose motives and intentions we can only speculate on in leu of the people who actually promoted the performer ? people who, for all we know, were affected by whatever particular bit of  stolen  culture and used it as a stepping stone to learn and appreciate it further.   #  i think there is legitimate criticism to make there.   #  i think the criticism comes from the fact that the performers either know and exploit the fact that audiences will be receptive of the art from them than from a minority, or they do not give credit where it is due.  or they mine minority culture for things that will make them money, without showing respect for that culture in any other way.  for instance, elvis presley is song  hound dog  was a cover of a song originated by a black woman.  he could have made that known to audiences, but did not.  now no one even knows her name.  iggy azalea uses her version of aave and aspects of black culture in her music and to promote herself and get money, but when issues affecting the black community ie, police violence come up, she says nothing.  i think there is legitimate criticism to make there.   #  i am not sure i agree with the expectation that singers or actors, or painters, or bricklayers, etc should  also  be activists in order to be legitimate.   # i am not sure i agree with the expectation that singers or actors, or painters, or bricklayers, etc should  also  be activists in order to be legitimate.  they are performers, their job is to write songs and sing them.  it is unreasonable to expect them to be vocal experts in sociopolitical issues.  of course, everyone is entitled to voice their opinion, but i am usually pretty annoyed when celebrities use their fame as a platform to spout off about their own personal politics.  additionally, is this required of  every  rapper, or just the white ones ? i am willing to bet that there are more people angry about iggy not being a good ambassador for black culture than big sean and lil wayne not being good ambassadors.  i do not think performers should be required to be ambassadors for whatever culture they portray, i suspect you do.  i think we may just have to agree to disagree on that point.
i am not sure which sex is the superior one, although i am sure if someone took the time to tally up all of the positive and negative attributes on each side it could be figured out.  one sex must be superior to the other because the sexes have differences that lead to their lives being inarguably better than the other sex because of it.  for example, women live longer on average than men which is clearly in favor of women, but men are stronger on average than women, which is clearly in favor of men.  while these may cancel out, i find it highly unlikely that after going through every difference, men and women would somehow come to the exact same  score .  i do not want this to become a debate about the semantics of the words superior or better because some traits are clearly better than others.  also, this post only applies to humans.   #  while these may cancel out, i find it highly unlikely that after going through every difference, men and women would somehow come to the exact same  score .   #  on that same line of argument, could not someone make the assessment that one race is  superior  to another ?  # on that same line of argument, could not someone make the assessment that one race is  superior  to another ? would that assessment still be valid ? furthermore,  how  do we attribute positive/negative attributes and weigh them objectively ? i might consider childbirth to be a huge negative that prevents me from ever choosing to be a woman, but others might consider it a very small price to pay.  some might consider men being conscripted for war a massive downside, others might not.  and even at that, it still may not be as simple as a 0 dimensional positive/negative calculation.  lastly, genetic superiority might be something calculable, but it is not a genuine measure of superiority that is relevant to society today.  it means that in the wild, that group of people would be best suited to survive.  in society today, environmental and social factors are far more important than just physical traits.  and these environmental/social factors are exactly the kind that we cannot reduce to a mathematical calculus without making very heavy handed presumptions.   #  that is not to say that any given woman will be not be as bright or as strong as any given man.   #  actually, it is objective, males are superior to females in terms of strength and the abilities that come with it.  take the oylympic games as an example.  URL if men and women were equal, why would the caster semenya controversy URL even be an issue ? it would not be.  in fact why segregate the sexes at all, if they are equally capable.  the truth is that human beings are not equally capable.  to balance this, there has been a steady development of the notion, primarily among feminists, women make up for their loss in strength with intellect, which is quickly countered when we get into competitive scenarios of thinking, like chess, where the best male chess player is over 0 points better than the highest ranked female chess players.  that is not to say that any given woman will be not be as bright or as strong as any given man.  the reality is, there is a biological imperative for men to be smarter and stronger, because a lot of women go for guys who are smarter than they are and stronger than they are.  there is a reason why there are so many female doctors and post grads on okcupid, because the level of intellect required to impress them, is very limited.  but that might be my devil is advocate talking.   #  how many points does height have in relation to sexual capital ?  #  let is say men are objectively better than women in certain respects such as physical strength ; and that women are objectively better than men in certain respects such as life expectancy .  fine, we can objectively determine which sex performs better  within  certain metrics.  but how do we make value judgements  between  these metrics ? is physical strength more valuable than longevity ? how many points does height have in relation to sexual capital ? its not clear how to objectively weigh these different metrics.  if you asked a group of random people to weigh two different metrics, then you might get half of the responses in favor of one, and half in favor of the other.  indeed, it may even be the case that an individual is more likely to value traits that their sex performs better at, preventing any sort of objective dispassionate analysis.   #  similarly, you have a lot of  on average  for males and women.   #  my question is  so what ?  .  hear me out.  you could argue that one race is superior to the other.  on average, the members of one race will have a few points of iq higher than another.  on average, the members of one race will have a higher predisposition towards certain illnesses than another.  that says very little about the  individual .  which race would you choose to be ? i would probably choose to be white for socio economical reasons.  i think western countries are the best place to live in, and since the majority of the population there is white, i am likely to receive less discrimination.  does that mean white is the superior race ? similarly, you have a lot of  on average  for males and women.  but you could be a sickly female who ends up dead at a young age or a guy who due to genetic disorders can barely hold his grocery bags.  if you end up as one of those, who is better on average does not matter.  if i could pick, i would go as a woman because of socio economical reasons more lenient legal system towards women, less harsh criticism, less discrimination etc.  , but that does not say anything about what sex is better.   #  sex does not determine your future fulfillment and happiness choices do, and the rationality of the values you choose that you allow to make you happy.   #  when we talk about superior, the only trait that matters is moral superiority as in who is the most  good .  of course in thousands of other characteristics there are differences, and one group will be greater than the other, and that difference will be caused by the similarity of that group e. g.  being male or being female.  but those traits taller, faster, smoother skin etc are not essential.  they are ultimately irrelevant to how good and happy you are.  and if you  do  base your happiness on such a trait, your happiness is a delusion ! when it comes to how good or happy you are, the cause is not your sex but your individuality as a human.  the cause is your ability to choose, and this is a human characteristic, not a sexual one.  sex does not determine your future fulfillment and happiness choices do, and the rationality of the values you choose that you allow to make you happy.
i just had an orgasm.  i realized in that brief half minute or so, i was stripped of all inhibition, showing what could only be described as my rawest, most human self.  it struck me that experiencing that moment, in either the first or secondhand, is a very personal experience and something valuable enough that i would not want to share it with anyone that i did not already trust and love.  this is the basis for my view.  i realize that not everyone feels and interprets an orgasm the same way.  the experience is still as important to me as it was my first time, due to essentially maintaining its value.  i have only had intercourse with people already very close and dear.  as such, i am able to feel fully myself in those times and share intimate moments that, quite frankly, i ca not see myself having with someone i met 0 hours beforehand.  i am making the assumption that sex with the recently acquainted does not yield the same kind of intimacy and in fact devalues the experience.  this is a cornerstone of the view and possibly where i falter ? thanks for the thoughts.  this view i hold is quickly becoming very incongruent with the view of the average 0 something and i want to get rid of it as fast as possible !  #  i am making the assumption that sex with the recently acquainted does not yield the same kind of intimacy and in fact devalues the experience.   #  people have sex for a lot of different reasons, intimacy only being one of those.   # people have sex for a lot of different reasons, intimacy only being one of those.  casual hookups can be exciting, fun, interesting, exhilarating, etc.  think of some hobby of yours maybe a sport or singing, or art.  sometimes you do it for fun, other times you do it to improve, and still others you might do it competitively.  the times you do it for fun does not devalue the times you do it competitively they are just different types for different moods.   #  or have you had that experience with books or music or any other form of expression ?  #  have you ever watched a movie that was so emotionally powerful that it brought you to tears ? motivated you to act or change your life ? or in some other way deeply moved you ? did that stop you from seeing the lates summer blockbuster full of explosions and sexy women and not much by way of emotional content ? or have you had that experience with books or music or any other form of expression ? my point is that sex can be that incredibly powerful moving, even life changing experience, it can also be a fun summer move that is a pleasant way to send some time with someone you enjoy.  it can be meaningful and deep or it can be a bit of fun.  and that it can be both does not make the times when it is powerful any less so.  and that is true even if you only have sex with people you are intimately connected with lord knows that not every time i have sex with my wife is that powerful experience, sometimes it is just a good time.  you wo not and probably ca not have a transcendent moment every time you have sex no matter how selective you are about your partners.  and every once in a great while you may have transcendent experiences with someone you just met.  do not the the highs you can reach, keep you from enjoying good times, and do not let your preconceptions about how you can reach those highs keep you from exploring other paths to them.   #  i mostly object to the idea that it is the approach that i should use.   # however, that is just me as a person.  i am really afraid of watching a lackluster movie.  that is your call.  i will tell you that some of my best movie experiences have been crappy films, some cheap little throwaways and some big blockbusters, that just spoke to me in the right way at the right time  josie and the pussycats  will always have a special place for me .  i would have missed those if i only held out for great art.  and some of the worst films i have seen have been touted as great art, so even if i would only sought out great art i would have still watched shitty movies.  not at all.  have as much or as little sex as you want as long as your partner is willing .  i think you are likely to be disappointed more often than not if you keep chasing that high, but that is a choice you might reasonably make.  i mostly object to the idea that it is the approach that i should use.  that is not been my experience, but it might be true for you.  again, go about it the way you see fit, it is your call, but i think you are probably depriving yourself of some good experiences.  i will just add here that one way to avoid that is to open things up a bit.  sex with a new person has all that kick of newness.  and i find that spark transfers back home as well .  it is not for everyone, but for those of us it works for it works well.   #  whether that is taking communion as part of a congregation, invoking deity as part of a coven, or anything in between.   # that it should be something to be kept sacred.  i think that is the true mainstay that i have for my position.  i am just now seeing your edit and want to reply to it.  i am not sure what your spiritual/religious background is but i am going to suggest that you probably have group rituals as part of that.  whether that is taking communion as part of a congregation, invoking deity as part of a coven, or anything in between.  those experiences are sacred or can be and they are shared with dozens if not hundreds of other people many of whom may be total strangers to you.  but sharing haj with thousands of strangers does not make it less scared in many ways it makes it more so.  sharing the transcendent, the sublime, or the scared does not make it less powerful.  if sex is scared, if it is a moment of laying yourself and your humanity bare for your partner to see, why not share that with a stranger ? in many ways, sharing it with a stranger may be more powerful.  as an aside, you may be interested in wilhelm reich is work he postulated that sex, in particular the moment of orgasm, was a moment of lowering the daily barriers we erect to keep us separate from our fellow humans, and his thought sounds a lot like what you are talking about here.  i am going to suggest it is because sex is sacred or can be it is a moment where, as you know, you can be totally raw and human and exposed with another person.  i am going to suggest it is also because we live in a culture that inundates us with the message that sex is scared and that we must must must save it for the one and only special person worthy of sharing it with us.  the facts and the cultural myths tangle together to make it hard to figure out where your sacred ends and the cultures  sacred  begins.  and more power to you if that is the case.  just be prepared to fail even if you are trying to maintain it.  have sex that you will be happy to have had even if it does not hit that high, and you wo not be too disappointed when you inevitably fall short.   #  the  kinky sex  accentuates desire for adventure or power play.   # this is a cornerstone of the view and possibly where i falter ? there are different kinds of sexual experiences.  there is  sex for intimacy ,  stress release sex ,  sex with someone visually appealing ,  sex with kinky ness ,  educational sex/learning new stuff ,  no strings attached sex , etc.  every form of sex accentuates one specific desire.  the  love sex  accentuates desire for intimacy and acceptance.  the  kinky sex  accentuates desire for adventure or power play.  and so on and so on.  intimacy need not be always connected to sex.  one can get platonic non sexual forms of intimacy from family members, friends, support groups as well as a religious/spiritual experience.  also recreational substances.  there can be many factors that can stimulate the mind to reach a state of ecstasy and non inhibition like the one you described.  sex is a powerful stimulation but not the only one.  our present pop culture equates sex with achievement and  score , and shames people lesser experience, in which case, sex is becoming more and more a comptetitive thing, which is toxic, and certainly not in line with a truly  liberated  view of sex, where sex does not have to conform to social acceptance.
i just had an orgasm.  i realized in that brief half minute or so, i was stripped of all inhibition, showing what could only be described as my rawest, most human self.  it struck me that experiencing that moment, in either the first or secondhand, is a very personal experience and something valuable enough that i would not want to share it with anyone that i did not already trust and love.  this is the basis for my view.  i realize that not everyone feels and interprets an orgasm the same way.  the experience is still as important to me as it was my first time, due to essentially maintaining its value.  i have only had intercourse with people already very close and dear.  as such, i am able to feel fully myself in those times and share intimate moments that, quite frankly, i ca not see myself having with someone i met 0 hours beforehand.  i am making the assumption that sex with the recently acquainted does not yield the same kind of intimacy and in fact devalues the experience.  this is a cornerstone of the view and possibly where i falter ? thanks for the thoughts.  this view i hold is quickly becoming very incongruent with the view of the average 0 something and i want to get rid of it as fast as possible !  #  i am making the assumption that sex with the recently acquainted does not yield the same kind of intimacy and in fact devalues the experience.   #  this is a cornerstone of the view and possibly where i falter ?  # this is a cornerstone of the view and possibly where i falter ? there are different kinds of sexual experiences.  there is  sex for intimacy ,  stress release sex ,  sex with someone visually appealing ,  sex with kinky ness ,  educational sex/learning new stuff ,  no strings attached sex , etc.  every form of sex accentuates one specific desire.  the  love sex  accentuates desire for intimacy and acceptance.  the  kinky sex  accentuates desire for adventure or power play.  and so on and so on.  intimacy need not be always connected to sex.  one can get platonic non sexual forms of intimacy from family members, friends, support groups as well as a religious/spiritual experience.  also recreational substances.  there can be many factors that can stimulate the mind to reach a state of ecstasy and non inhibition like the one you described.  sex is a powerful stimulation but not the only one.  our present pop culture equates sex with achievement and  score , and shames people lesser experience, in which case, sex is becoming more and more a comptetitive thing, which is toxic, and certainly not in line with a truly  liberated  view of sex, where sex does not have to conform to social acceptance.   #  and every once in a great while you may have transcendent experiences with someone you just met.   #  have you ever watched a movie that was so emotionally powerful that it brought you to tears ? motivated you to act or change your life ? or in some other way deeply moved you ? did that stop you from seeing the lates summer blockbuster full of explosions and sexy women and not much by way of emotional content ? or have you had that experience with books or music or any other form of expression ? my point is that sex can be that incredibly powerful moving, even life changing experience, it can also be a fun summer move that is a pleasant way to send some time with someone you enjoy.  it can be meaningful and deep or it can be a bit of fun.  and that it can be both does not make the times when it is powerful any less so.  and that is true even if you only have sex with people you are intimately connected with lord knows that not every time i have sex with my wife is that powerful experience, sometimes it is just a good time.  you wo not and probably ca not have a transcendent moment every time you have sex no matter how selective you are about your partners.  and every once in a great while you may have transcendent experiences with someone you just met.  do not the the highs you can reach, keep you from enjoying good times, and do not let your preconceptions about how you can reach those highs keep you from exploring other paths to them.   #  that is not been my experience, but it might be true for you.   # however, that is just me as a person.  i am really afraid of watching a lackluster movie.  that is your call.  i will tell you that some of my best movie experiences have been crappy films, some cheap little throwaways and some big blockbusters, that just spoke to me in the right way at the right time  josie and the pussycats  will always have a special place for me .  i would have missed those if i only held out for great art.  and some of the worst films i have seen have been touted as great art, so even if i would only sought out great art i would have still watched shitty movies.  not at all.  have as much or as little sex as you want as long as your partner is willing .  i think you are likely to be disappointed more often than not if you keep chasing that high, but that is a choice you might reasonably make.  i mostly object to the idea that it is the approach that i should use.  that is not been my experience, but it might be true for you.  again, go about it the way you see fit, it is your call, but i think you are probably depriving yourself of some good experiences.  i will just add here that one way to avoid that is to open things up a bit.  sex with a new person has all that kick of newness.  and i find that spark transfers back home as well .  it is not for everyone, but for those of us it works for it works well.   #  i am just now seeing your edit and want to reply to it.   # that it should be something to be kept sacred.  i think that is the true mainstay that i have for my position.  i am just now seeing your edit and want to reply to it.  i am not sure what your spiritual/religious background is but i am going to suggest that you probably have group rituals as part of that.  whether that is taking communion as part of a congregation, invoking deity as part of a coven, or anything in between.  those experiences are sacred or can be and they are shared with dozens if not hundreds of other people many of whom may be total strangers to you.  but sharing haj with thousands of strangers does not make it less scared in many ways it makes it more so.  sharing the transcendent, the sublime, or the scared does not make it less powerful.  if sex is scared, if it is a moment of laying yourself and your humanity bare for your partner to see, why not share that with a stranger ? in many ways, sharing it with a stranger may be more powerful.  as an aside, you may be interested in wilhelm reich is work he postulated that sex, in particular the moment of orgasm, was a moment of lowering the daily barriers we erect to keep us separate from our fellow humans, and his thought sounds a lot like what you are talking about here.  i am going to suggest it is because sex is sacred or can be it is a moment where, as you know, you can be totally raw and human and exposed with another person.  i am going to suggest it is also because we live in a culture that inundates us with the message that sex is scared and that we must must must save it for the one and only special person worthy of sharing it with us.  the facts and the cultural myths tangle together to make it hard to figure out where your sacred ends and the cultures  sacred  begins.  and more power to you if that is the case.  just be prepared to fail even if you are trying to maintain it.  have sex that you will be happy to have had even if it does not hit that high, and you wo not be too disappointed when you inevitably fall short.   #  casual hookups can be exciting, fun, interesting, exhilarating, etc.   # people have sex for a lot of different reasons, intimacy only being one of those.  casual hookups can be exciting, fun, interesting, exhilarating, etc.  think of some hobby of yours maybe a sport or singing, or art.  sometimes you do it for fun, other times you do it to improve, and still others you might do it competitively.  the times you do it for fun does not devalue the times you do it competitively they are just different types for different moods.
substantial caveat: i am in no way discussing privacy from the state.  because it has the rather unique ability to use force legitimately the state is something of a special case.  it honestly seems fundamentally bad for anyone is to have privacy.  to the extent that people want privacy online, everyone pays for it.  almost everyone drinks and does silly things.  it would be great to have all of these moments logged and at our finger tips on some service like facebook or you tube, but because people are private online we ca not all do this because you are the outlier if you do.  everyone is trying to hide something.  everyone being open seems like it would benefit everyone in business because you would know the reality of your clients, or employers, or employees etc in advance.  in your personal life cheaters could just be polyamorous and in open relationships without hurting people because your inability to be monogamous need not be secret.  people with nontraditional preferences would not need to hide it because they would have easily accessible networks that need not be underground.  it seems to me that it is incredibly selfish and hurtful for anyone to have secrets in a free society.  everyone would seem to be so much better off if we just embraced everyone is weird and fucked up in their own ways, everyone has political views, everyone drinks and does dumb shit and no one should feel bad or have to hide their legal things.   #  it honestly seems fundamentally bad for anyone is to have privacy.   #  to the extent that people want privacy online,  everyone pays for it.   # to the extent that people want privacy online,  everyone pays for it.  almost everyone drinks and does silly things.  it would be great to have all of these moments logged and at our finger tips on some service like facebook or you tube, but because people are private online we ca not all do this because you are the outlier if you do.  everyone is trying to hide something.  you are absolutely correct.  rights are expensive.  your right to body autonomy prevents society from serving the greater good and forcing your to give an organ you can live fine without a kidney, without a liver lobe to aid others.  people will die because of your right.  in your personal life cheaters could just be polyamorous and in open relationships without hurting people because your inability to be monogamous need not be secret.  people with nontraditional preferences would not need to hide it because they would have easily accessible networks that need not be underground.  same as the prior paragraph.  rights are undeniably expensive.  abilities are expensive too, though.  strength requires muscle mass requires an increase caloric input.  that is a very real cost.  antibiotic resistance in bacteria requires new genetic code requires sub optimal metabolic pathways.  that is a very real cost.  and why when antibiotics are removed from the environment bacteria lose their resistance, those who evolve away from the ability have decreased costs and thus are better able to survive.  everyone would seem to be so much better off if we just embraced everyone is weird and fucked up in their own ways, everyone has political views, everyone drinks and does dumb shit and no one should feel bad or have to hide their legal things.  except that society exists to enable the individual while restricting them as little as possible.  forcing  someone to act against their will disclosing their inner thoughts/feelings/views is what removing privacy is.  it is a violation of the most fundamental human right, the right to autonomy.  you are 0 absolutely correct in all your assertions that privacy is expensive.  it is an expense we as a prosperous civilization can endure, though .  and since we can absorb the cost it is not hurtful.   #  by choosing not to be  out of the closet , i am not exposing the people around me to how normal and healthy my homosexual relationship s is/are.   #  at first i liked cleansoap is reply.  however now i think it did miss the point of the op.  the idea being that, if i pursue my own privacy by hiding the things i think are not socially acceptable, i am choosing to not challenge society stigmatizing those things and am thereby allowing the stigma to continue to exist.  hypothetical example: i am a homosexual living in an area where homosexuality is stigmatized but not illegal.  by choosing not to be  out of the closet , i am not exposing the people around me to how normal and healthy my homosexual relationship s is/are.  as a result, people in my area retain their negative view of homosexuality as they are not forced to challenge it and the state of affairs for all homosexuals remains difficult.  i suppose one problem is that you have to draw the line somewhere between what openness would be too harmful for the individual and what benefit it would have to society.  another is that, unless/until human society becomes one large society an individual would have huge difficulty if, after spending time being completely open in their own highly progressive society, they had to move to another part of the world where the things they have already released onto the open internet are stigmatized by the people there.  the argument here may be that this would help this other society overcome its own societal stigma, but in practice i feel this could lead to people being denied entry or some other punishment, as their otherness would be used by establishment figures to parcel this stigmatized thought as an alien concept.  one more point i can think of is that until this utopian totally free thinking society comes about, living without using the internet privately will restrict your personal development.  this would be because, unless society is totally judgement free, you would not be self judgement free in exploring your curiosity.  so what i am saying is: we cannot create acceptance of a certain thought without first thinking that thought away from the judgement of others.  my thinking of this is born from this talk by glenn greenwald URL it is making the case of being free from state invasion of privacy which is different to your point, but the general discussion of why privacy is important still applies in my view.  i hope this has made sense, i am writing in a rush.  i will try to address any confusion ! thanks for the interesting post, though.   #  see my comments on system 0 vs system 0 thinking below.   # the assumption here seems to be that the right to privacy is not the right to autonomy in speech and action but rather the right to not be shamed.  i do not think that is defensible.  rather i think the  right to not be shamed  is a subject of privacy.  my ability to successfully interact with a wide variety of people in society depends on my ability to control what thoughts and beliefs i convey to them.  no two people will ever agree on all matters of opinion and the ability to withhold non pertinent information provides the very lubricant which allows large societies to form.  see my comments on system 0 vs system 0 thinking below.   #  should those people have constant information about a prior phase in their life available to the public ?  #  imagine that you are a homosexual living or working in an area that is extremely judgemental of your sexuality.  you are fully capable of being a good neighbour/employee, but know that if you were outed, your life would be made a living hell.  is privacy not in your interest in this case ? or consider the transgendered.  or those from backgrounds that they would rather move past e. g.  abusive household, substance abuse, etc.  .  should those people have constant information about a prior phase in their life available to the public ? is not a right to privacy fundamental to them actually living happy lives ? of course, in an ideal world, no one would be judgemental, and there would not be a need to keep secrets.  but we are not talking about an ideal world.   #  if it is  necessary , does not that disprove the claim that the pursuit of happiness is extremely hurtful ?  # if everyone were forced to be understanding, no one would be judgemental.  so if the world were perfect, there would be no problems.  true, but it is hard to take solace in what is effectively a truism.  what effect does that have ? no one is arguing that privacy is sufficient for happiness.  if it is  necessary , does not that disprove the claim that the pursuit of happiness is extremely hurtful ? furthermore,  even in an ideal world , might some people still  not  want parts of their past to be publicly available to the world because of the personal pain that it causes them ?
substantial caveat: i am in no way discussing privacy from the state.  because it has the rather unique ability to use force legitimately the state is something of a special case.  it honestly seems fundamentally bad for anyone is to have privacy.  to the extent that people want privacy online, everyone pays for it.  almost everyone drinks and does silly things.  it would be great to have all of these moments logged and at our finger tips on some service like facebook or you tube, but because people are private online we ca not all do this because you are the outlier if you do.  everyone is trying to hide something.  everyone being open seems like it would benefit everyone in business because you would know the reality of your clients, or employers, or employees etc in advance.  in your personal life cheaters could just be polyamorous and in open relationships without hurting people because your inability to be monogamous need not be secret.  people with nontraditional preferences would not need to hide it because they would have easily accessible networks that need not be underground.  it seems to me that it is incredibly selfish and hurtful for anyone to have secrets in a free society.  everyone would seem to be so much better off if we just embraced everyone is weird and fucked up in their own ways, everyone has political views, everyone drinks and does dumb shit and no one should feel bad or have to hide their legal things.   #  everyone being open seems like it would benefit everyone in business because you would know the reality of your clients, or employers, or employees etc in advance.   #  in your personal life cheaters could just be polyamorous and in open relationships without hurting people because your inability to be monogamous need not be secret.   # to the extent that people want privacy online,  everyone pays for it.  almost everyone drinks and does silly things.  it would be great to have all of these moments logged and at our finger tips on some service like facebook or you tube, but because people are private online we ca not all do this because you are the outlier if you do.  everyone is trying to hide something.  you are absolutely correct.  rights are expensive.  your right to body autonomy prevents society from serving the greater good and forcing your to give an organ you can live fine without a kidney, without a liver lobe to aid others.  people will die because of your right.  in your personal life cheaters could just be polyamorous and in open relationships without hurting people because your inability to be monogamous need not be secret.  people with nontraditional preferences would not need to hide it because they would have easily accessible networks that need not be underground.  same as the prior paragraph.  rights are undeniably expensive.  abilities are expensive too, though.  strength requires muscle mass requires an increase caloric input.  that is a very real cost.  antibiotic resistance in bacteria requires new genetic code requires sub optimal metabolic pathways.  that is a very real cost.  and why when antibiotics are removed from the environment bacteria lose their resistance, those who evolve away from the ability have decreased costs and thus are better able to survive.  everyone would seem to be so much better off if we just embraced everyone is weird and fucked up in their own ways, everyone has political views, everyone drinks and does dumb shit and no one should feel bad or have to hide their legal things.  except that society exists to enable the individual while restricting them as little as possible.  forcing  someone to act against their will disclosing their inner thoughts/feelings/views is what removing privacy is.  it is a violation of the most fundamental human right, the right to autonomy.  you are 0 absolutely correct in all your assertions that privacy is expensive.  it is an expense we as a prosperous civilization can endure, though .  and since we can absorb the cost it is not hurtful.   #  however now i think it did miss the point of the op.   #  at first i liked cleansoap is reply.  however now i think it did miss the point of the op.  the idea being that, if i pursue my own privacy by hiding the things i think are not socially acceptable, i am choosing to not challenge society stigmatizing those things and am thereby allowing the stigma to continue to exist.  hypothetical example: i am a homosexual living in an area where homosexuality is stigmatized but not illegal.  by choosing not to be  out of the closet , i am not exposing the people around me to how normal and healthy my homosexual relationship s is/are.  as a result, people in my area retain their negative view of homosexuality as they are not forced to challenge it and the state of affairs for all homosexuals remains difficult.  i suppose one problem is that you have to draw the line somewhere between what openness would be too harmful for the individual and what benefit it would have to society.  another is that, unless/until human society becomes one large society an individual would have huge difficulty if, after spending time being completely open in their own highly progressive society, they had to move to another part of the world where the things they have already released onto the open internet are stigmatized by the people there.  the argument here may be that this would help this other society overcome its own societal stigma, but in practice i feel this could lead to people being denied entry or some other punishment, as their otherness would be used by establishment figures to parcel this stigmatized thought as an alien concept.  one more point i can think of is that until this utopian totally free thinking society comes about, living without using the internet privately will restrict your personal development.  this would be because, unless society is totally judgement free, you would not be self judgement free in exploring your curiosity.  so what i am saying is: we cannot create acceptance of a certain thought without first thinking that thought away from the judgement of others.  my thinking of this is born from this talk by glenn greenwald URL it is making the case of being free from state invasion of privacy which is different to your point, but the general discussion of why privacy is important still applies in my view.  i hope this has made sense, i am writing in a rush.  i will try to address any confusion ! thanks for the interesting post, though.   #  the assumption here seems to be that the right to privacy is not the right to autonomy in speech and action but rather the right to not be shamed.   # the assumption here seems to be that the right to privacy is not the right to autonomy in speech and action but rather the right to not be shamed.  i do not think that is defensible.  rather i think the  right to not be shamed  is a subject of privacy.  my ability to successfully interact with a wide variety of people in society depends on my ability to control what thoughts and beliefs i convey to them.  no two people will ever agree on all matters of opinion and the ability to withhold non pertinent information provides the very lubricant which allows large societies to form.  see my comments on system 0 vs system 0 thinking below.   #  imagine that you are a homosexual living or working in an area that is extremely judgemental of your sexuality.   #  imagine that you are a homosexual living or working in an area that is extremely judgemental of your sexuality.  you are fully capable of being a good neighbour/employee, but know that if you were outed, your life would be made a living hell.  is privacy not in your interest in this case ? or consider the transgendered.  or those from backgrounds that they would rather move past e. g.  abusive household, substance abuse, etc.  .  should those people have constant information about a prior phase in their life available to the public ? is not a right to privacy fundamental to them actually living happy lives ? of course, in an ideal world, no one would be judgemental, and there would not be a need to keep secrets.  but we are not talking about an ideal world.   #  so if the world were perfect, there would be no problems.   # if everyone were forced to be understanding, no one would be judgemental.  so if the world were perfect, there would be no problems.  true, but it is hard to take solace in what is effectively a truism.  what effect does that have ? no one is arguing that privacy is sufficient for happiness.  if it is  necessary , does not that disprove the claim that the pursuit of happiness is extremely hurtful ? furthermore,  even in an ideal world , might some people still  not  want parts of their past to be publicly available to the world because of the personal pain that it causes them ?
i really want someone to change my view on this, since everyone i know are frowning on me for thinking this way.  my argument is, that just with my single vote, i am statistically extremely unlikely to make a significant difference.  whether i vote or not is irrelevant on that scale.  the obvious argument against me, that i hear time and time again, is that my vote is a vote in a bigger picture.  but that still does not counter my argument that a  single  vote does not matter.  statistically.  please change my view, if any of you can refute my arguments above.   #  the obvious argument against me, that i hear time and time again, is that my vote is a vote in a bigger picture.   #  but that still does not counter my argument that a single vote does not matter.   # but that still does not counter my argument that a single vote does not matter.  statistically.  statistics are not the be all end all truth of the world.  they are easily manipulated and misunderstood/misinterpreted.  it seems like a single vote does not matter, but it does.  it just matter a very small amount.  if your single vote really did not matter at all, neither would anyone is, and then voting as a concept would not work.   #  votes should be worth more than a societal upvote.   #  and that is how governments convince people they live in a democracy.  let me ask you a hypothetical.  what do you think would happen if nobody voted ? it is not like they wo not appoint someone as leader even if the voters boycott.  voting for large scale elections is like voting for the sun to come up; it gives you something to do but it does not get you anywhere.  they are gonna do what they want to anyway.  votes should be worth more than a societal upvote.   #  please allow me to offer my idea and we can try to get to a solution together.   #  thanks for explaining.  please allow me to offer my idea and we can try to get to a solution together.  in my experience, every single person in a position of power has abused it in some way.  some minor and some not so minor abuses, but the idea is that it is human nature to gather and use resources, since resources were scarce until only relatively recently in human history.  power is a resource or gives access to resources .  so why choose one person to have all the decision making power at each level ? i believe something along the lines of a technocracy URL would be ideal; giving collective power to a group of experts in selected fields, while making their work completely transparent for the public to review.  that way each decision has checks and balances on several levels.  also, i believe the public should be able to submit business cases for improvements on individual plans, and if they are  upvoted  enough by the public, the government has to give a detailed, time limited, and researched response to the plan as opposed to the token paragraph they have to give for such supported plans now .  tying the submissions and their voting to an official online system would reduce trolling.  politicians should operate as they were originally meant to by george washington; as spokespeople, with no real individual power.  i believe there has to be a person  at the top , a face to associate with the nation/region, but they should not have all veto power.  the experts should have equal voting power, with some sort of mediation if there are tight votes or disputes.  this gives the people real power to influence society and change, and reduces the amount of corruption in the government since everything at least in public policy and spending is 0 transparent.  i think this plan is actually quite liberal, though i do not like to side with either party.  i do not like left or right, i like answers.  i think that is a new word.   #  now, as for why these amounts of votes matter, even if your side does not win, amount of votes matter.   #  do you care ? it sounds like you pay attention, which many people do not.  do you have friends that do not have strong feelings either way ? talk to them, do not engage in an argument, just tell them how you feel about whatever candidate you truly believe in.  some of them will probably ignore you, but if you get just a few to the polls, then you are not adding one vote, you are adding five or six.  do you have time ? volunteer for a campaign you believe in.  if your fear is that your vote is low impact, then maybe your efforts could influence dozens, maybe hundreds of other votes.  now, as for why these amounts of votes matter, even if your side does not win, amount of votes matter.  a candidate who gets 0 of the vote has far less potential next cycle than one who gets 0, and an issue based third party campaign that can command a good deal more attention after the election if they garner a more significant portion of the vote.   #  while you personally might not make the difference you can influence say tens of people and that can easily matter.   #  your vote matters a lot in local elections.  the scale there actually works strongly against you.  while you personally might not make the difference you can influence say tens of people and that can easily matter.  otherwise you are right: it is rational to think your vote does not matter and that you do not need to care about politics as a result.  the problem is this view is problematic with the civic duty of the citizen though imo voting is the least important part of this while other things like attending town meetings or doing jury duty is much more important .  does this line of argument count as an attempt to change your view ?
before i continue, i would like to start by saying that i am not a pedophile and that i am strongly against the sexual abuse of children.  my view is based on scientific evidence which strongly suggests that allowing pedophiles to view child porn will result in fewer instances of sexual abuse.  now i understand and accept that some people will say that children who feature in child porn are re victimised when they learn that people are viewing images of their abuse, but by legalising viewing, this would mean that the victims will never learn that images of their abuse are being viewed and so they will not suffer re victimisation.  there is no evidence to suggest that pedophiles who view child porn are more likely than not to go onto abuse children.  in fact, the research suggests the exact opposite.  it suggests that pedophiles who have access to child porn are more likely than not to stick with child porn to relieve their desires rather than abuse a child.  my view is based on a study titled  legalizing child pornography is linked to lower rates of child sex abuse  URL child abuse is abhorrant, but i think to ignore this research is irresponsible.  i will not be convinced by anecdotal evidence on this by the way.  please make sure you provide reliable sources for your opinions, like i have.  cmv.   #  please make sure you provide reliable sources for your opinions, like i have.   #  you provided.  0 source.  which has.  0 example.  which turns out to not have long lasting effects. within 0 years the cases reported in the czech rebublic were right where they were.   # you provided.  0 source.  which has.  0 example.  which turns out to not have long lasting effects. within 0 years the cases reported in the czech rebublic were right where they were.  care to explain that ? while it is true they dropped again that occurance seems to be about as linked to the legalization of child pornagraphy as was the rapid decline around 0 years before it was legalized.  your source overall was about as reliable as a social media article. simply leaving out some of the facts in order to make it is own view seem more dramatic.  also it is kinda weird how rape in the czech made such a rapid incline the same year child abuse reports made a rapid decline  #  sorry, you are right, i should have been more explicit in my response.   #  sorry, you are right, i should have been more explicit in my response.  what i meant was that there are no other examples of markets where the product is free and the market is underground.  sure you can make some comparisons with the the illegal drug market, which is also underground, but it is simply not the same, since, like i said, child porn is essentially free.  the illegal drugs market would collapse if there was a way to get the drugs for free.  also, to suggest that other, non money based rewards are being used to reward the producers of images, it would be necessary to understand the link between the producer and consumer.  from what i have read a lot of child porn is shared on peer to peer networks.  i know i stumbled upon a few dodgy videos while searching for legal porn back in the day.  from what i remember, there is not any sort of interaction between people on those networks since it is all automated.  i could pirate some music, for example, without the people hosting the songs ever knowing that i am downloading the music from their computer.  assuming that the child porn network uses the same technology, you could have person a producing the child porn.  person b and c could download the images from their computer.  person d, who at this point might have absolutely no link to person a, might download and view the images.  in this case, it cannot reasonably be argued that the  demand  caused by person d has any impact on person a.  in fact, the  demand  is not created, because person a does not know that person d exists.  the nature of peer to peer networks is that once a file is on the network and being shared, there is no way to effectively track it.  person a could not track the, for want of a better work, success of the images they produced even if they wanted to.  that is how it is different.   #  it is only at the lower rungs, the p0p leechers, where that is not true.   #  the scene URL  is  an excellent example of a market where the product is free and the market is underground.  and in the scene it is  completely  based on non financial incentives with a high degree of interaction amongst individuals.  it is only at the lower rungs, the p0p leechers, where that is not true.  edit:  but even there in mass market cabals like the pirate bay we see people who take great public pride in their  cred  despite the fact they are operating on a pale reflection of the true pirate scene and not subject to the rewards which come to the few at the top .  there is every reason to believe cp distribution has a great deal in common with the scene, and that its model of behavior is our best model baring further evidence.  for, as you yourself said, the examples of non monetary  distributed  black markets are slim.   #  weed laws have been loosely enforced as compared to heroin.   #  like weed in colorado ? tracking consumption in a black market is damn near impossible.  but we know certain things to be true.  0 laws deter some consumption and behavior.  active enforcement does better 0 addiction usually escalates.  pedophilia is not like a  one beer a week  thing.  usually dopamine levels out and people look for bigger thrills.  0 if there is a legal demand, it will be monetized and it will create competition among suppliers.  they will engage in non price competition.  meaning kids will be exploited in a variety of grotesque ways that might not exist in today is market.  ex.  weed laws have been loosely enforced as compared to heroin.  there is all kinds of varieties of weed, but really no diversity with heroin.  even if the selection is placebo.   #  why do people post those videos if they ca not get any tangible gain and could quite probably get in serious trouble for them ?  #  i do not have an empirical study, but have you not seen anyone post embarrassing or otherwise damaging videos online ? i suppose i can google that for you if you really need, but surely we have all seen people be idiots online.  why do people post those videos if they ca not get any tangible gain and could quite probably get in serious trouble for them ? the only thing they are getting is attention.  what is your evidence for thinking cp videos will follow special rules that are different from all other video postings ? people do dumb, illegal, and immoral shit for attention like those videos of people harassing/ pranking  in the street specifically for the purpose of putting it online all the time.  why is cp different ?
before i continue, i would like to start by saying that i am not a pedophile and that i am strongly against the sexual abuse of children.  my view is based on scientific evidence which strongly suggests that allowing pedophiles to view child porn will result in fewer instances of sexual abuse.  now i understand and accept that some people will say that children who feature in child porn are re victimised when they learn that people are viewing images of their abuse, but by legalising viewing, this would mean that the victims will never learn that images of their abuse are being viewed and so they will not suffer re victimisation.  there is no evidence to suggest that pedophiles who view child porn are more likely than not to go onto abuse children.  in fact, the research suggests the exact opposite.  it suggests that pedophiles who have access to child porn are more likely than not to stick with child porn to relieve their desires rather than abuse a child.  my view is based on a study titled  legalizing child pornography is linked to lower rates of child sex abuse  URL child abuse is abhorrant, but i think to ignore this research is irresponsible.  i will not be convinced by anecdotal evidence on this by the way.  please make sure you provide reliable sources for your opinions, like i have.  cmv.   #  but i think to ignore this research is irresponsible.   #  your view would never work in practice, and barely holds any water in theory.   #  i do not get it.  to view child porn, child porn must be produced.  child porn child abuse.  so, sure.  pedophiles wo not commit illegal things if they are able to watch child porn.  but that means a child has to be put into a traumatic situation.  how can you support that ? i also do not get your reason defending this:  i would like to start by saying that i am not a pedophile and that i am strongly against the sexual abuse of children.  okay, but.   now i understand and accept that some people will say that children who feature in child porn are re victimised when they learn that people are viewing images of their abuse, but by legalising viewing, this would mean that the victims will never learn that images of their abuse are being viewed and so they will not suffer re victimisation.   re victimization  ? so you are willing to accept that, in order for pedophiles to not abuse children, we should victimize children to make child porn ? your view would never work in practice, and barely holds any water in theory.  when it comes to the law, we do not like things like  less likely .  we want to stop, not find a gray area just to slow it down.  that is lawfully irresponsible.  this is not a solution.  it is irresponsible to fuck with the lives of other people especially children so grown adults can get their kicks.  0 of pedophiles who are executed do not commit crimes against children or anyone, for that matter .  i like that better.  pedophiles are mentally sick, and should be treated as such.  you do not hand a butcher knife to a psychopath, put them in a room full of animals, and hope it will be enough for them so they wo not kill humans.   #  person b and c could download the images from their computer.   #  sorry, you are right, i should have been more explicit in my response.  what i meant was that there are no other examples of markets where the product is free and the market is underground.  sure you can make some comparisons with the the illegal drug market, which is also underground, but it is simply not the same, since, like i said, child porn is essentially free.  the illegal drugs market would collapse if there was a way to get the drugs for free.  also, to suggest that other, non money based rewards are being used to reward the producers of images, it would be necessary to understand the link between the producer and consumer.  from what i have read a lot of child porn is shared on peer to peer networks.  i know i stumbled upon a few dodgy videos while searching for legal porn back in the day.  from what i remember, there is not any sort of interaction between people on those networks since it is all automated.  i could pirate some music, for example, without the people hosting the songs ever knowing that i am downloading the music from their computer.  assuming that the child porn network uses the same technology, you could have person a producing the child porn.  person b and c could download the images from their computer.  person d, who at this point might have absolutely no link to person a, might download and view the images.  in this case, it cannot reasonably be argued that the  demand  caused by person d has any impact on person a.  in fact, the  demand  is not created, because person a does not know that person d exists.  the nature of peer to peer networks is that once a file is on the network and being shared, there is no way to effectively track it.  person a could not track the, for want of a better work, success of the images they produced even if they wanted to.  that is how it is different.   #  the scene URL  is  an excellent example of a market where the product is free and the market is underground.   #  the scene URL  is  an excellent example of a market where the product is free and the market is underground.  and in the scene it is  completely  based on non financial incentives with a high degree of interaction amongst individuals.  it is only at the lower rungs, the p0p leechers, where that is not true.  edit:  but even there in mass market cabals like the pirate bay we see people who take great public pride in their  cred  despite the fact they are operating on a pale reflection of the true pirate scene and not subject to the rewards which come to the few at the top .  there is every reason to believe cp distribution has a great deal in common with the scene, and that its model of behavior is our best model baring further evidence.  for, as you yourself said, the examples of non monetary  distributed  black markets are slim.   #  but we know certain things to be true.   #  like weed in colorado ? tracking consumption in a black market is damn near impossible.  but we know certain things to be true.  0 laws deter some consumption and behavior.  active enforcement does better 0 addiction usually escalates.  pedophilia is not like a  one beer a week  thing.  usually dopamine levels out and people look for bigger thrills.  0 if there is a legal demand, it will be monetized and it will create competition among suppliers.  they will engage in non price competition.  meaning kids will be exploited in a variety of grotesque ways that might not exist in today is market.  ex.  weed laws have been loosely enforced as compared to heroin.  there is all kinds of varieties of weed, but really no diversity with heroin.  even if the selection is placebo.   #  i do not have an empirical study, but have you not seen anyone post embarrassing or otherwise damaging videos online ?  #  i do not have an empirical study, but have you not seen anyone post embarrassing or otherwise damaging videos online ? i suppose i can google that for you if you really need, but surely we have all seen people be idiots online.  why do people post those videos if they ca not get any tangible gain and could quite probably get in serious trouble for them ? the only thing they are getting is attention.  what is your evidence for thinking cp videos will follow special rules that are different from all other video postings ? people do dumb, illegal, and immoral shit for attention like those videos of people harassing/ pranking  in the street specifically for the purpose of putting it online all the time.  why is cp different ?
will robots inherit the earth ? yes, but they will be our children.   marvin minsky  so firstly, this stems from a view that if humans are ever to survive into the far future maybe even only a few millennia , it will be by integrating ourselves with technology and shedding our fragile organic bodies.  what is the maximum typical lifespan of a sentient organic species ? humans have gone from the invention of writing to the capability to destroy our entire species in just 0,0 years.  on a cosmic timescale, that is an instant.  will the earth still be inhabitable for us in our current states by the time another instant passes ? luckily, we have already started primitively engineering and augmenting ourselves, with genetic modification, prosthetic legs, hearts, ears, etc.  the technological advances in just the last 0 years as well as the damage we have done to our planet has been incredible  what will the next 0,0 bring ? let is assume for the sake of argument that the nearest sentient species developed on a planet 0 lightyears away.  just fyi, a quick google/wolfram alpha search tells me the fastest human spacecraft now being designed will go 0km/s, which means it would traverse 0ly in 0,0 years.  let is say that, just by chance, this alien civilization achieved our current level of technology very near to us in time  only 0 million years ago.  do you think it is likely that if they existed today they would have organic bodies ? even an alien species so incredibly close to us on a cosmic timescale is almost unthinkably distant in the context of our lifespans as individuals and as a civilization.  and organic life forms are just not well suited for interstellar travel.  essentially, i think organic life is a means to bootstrap into existence truly immortal technological  willife .  this is true on earth and on every other planet as well.  and just by the nature of cosmic timescales, it is much more likely to come into contact with the next evolutionary stage of an alien species than to be lucky enough to catch it in the minuscule period while it is still fully organic.  cmv.   #  what is the maximum typical lifespan of a sentient organic species ?  #  what is the typical lifespan of even our best and most reliable machines ?  # what is the typical lifespan of even our best and most reliable machines ? the  immortality  you describe sounds like the ship of theseus to me.  how many of my  parts  need to be replaced until i am no longer  me  ? if i clone my body and copy my mind into the new body, am i still me ? or just a copy of me ? same question applies if i upload myself into a completely artificial inorganic body.  if i email you a perfect 0:0 copy of an original photograph i took who has the original ? me ? you ? do we both have the original ? or neither, anymore ?  #  or make them more or less likely to want to meet us ?  #  honestly, i think the chances of us meeting any alien life at all is vanishingly small.  what are the chances of two random fish each released at a random spot in the ocean at a random time in the last thousand years, bumping into each other, even if they are consciously trying to meet ? some fish might develop better strategies for searching, but even so, the distances in space and time are far too great for it to be likely and this is a vast underestimation of scale.  what helps a little is if the fish actually teach themselves to live forever, and do not just die in a few years.  but that is an interesting point are there characteristics of certain alien civilizations that might make it more or less likely to meet them ? or make them more or less likely to want to meet us ?  #  surely we would have found  something  by now.   #  what have we created today that is not possible by humans ? just saying that there are things does not mean anything.  sure some of the stuff we have now is really complex but we did not just build it out of thin air.  we simply built upon previous knowledge and technology to assemble new and better things.  wormholes ? why have not we been able to detect them or  any  evidence of the aliens you speak of.  to create the things you say you need lots of energy, energy that can be traced.  surely we would have found  something  by now.   #  they will have been in the universe for millions, possibly  billions  of years and will be so superior to us that we might not be able to communicate with them.   #  i believe that scientists have already come in contact with organic  beings .  not beings but microscopic organisms found in meteorites.  meteorites of course having come from deep space.  as for us coming in contact with intelligent beings i also believe that they will be mechanical, possibly like a cyborg.  they will have been in the universe for millions, possibly  billions  of years and will be so superior to us that we might not be able to communicate with them.  it might be like us trying to talk to ants.  the truth is out there.   #  in short, it is extraordinarily unlikely that an alien species would have capabilities for widespread interstellar travel without also having sentient robots, at least not for long.   #  i would think that it is much more likely that we will meet sentient robots.  here is the thought process leading me there: i simply cannot imagine that we wo not have sentient robots in 0 years.  as such, that would give us less than 0 years of non sentient robots, which is such a short amount of time on a cosmic time scale that it is barely even worth talking about.  furthermore, it is unlikely that we will really branch out and explore much past our front door in this time period.  in short, it is extraordinarily unlikely that an alien species would have capabilities for widespread interstellar travel without also having sentient robots, at least not for long.  following this once you have sentient robots, it simply makes no sense to send a non sentient robot out to do your exploration a sentient robot is simply better than a non sentient robot in every possible way, particularly when you are sending it out somewhere that you cannot reasonably hope to directly control it.  the intelligent/sentient probe would be able to reason out what the most important things to look for in an environment might be, and would have the potential to discover things that its creator could never have though to tell it to look for.  as such, i find it extraordinarily unlikely that we will ever see a crude probe like voyager or a rover as dumb as curiosity checking out our solar system whatever form it takes, i have a hard time believing that it wo not be more intelligent than us.
will robots inherit the earth ? yes, but they will be our children.   marvin minsky  so firstly, this stems from a view that if humans are ever to survive into the far future maybe even only a few millennia , it will be by integrating ourselves with technology and shedding our fragile organic bodies.  what is the maximum typical lifespan of a sentient organic species ? humans have gone from the invention of writing to the capability to destroy our entire species in just 0,0 years.  on a cosmic timescale, that is an instant.  will the earth still be inhabitable for us in our current states by the time another instant passes ? luckily, we have already started primitively engineering and augmenting ourselves, with genetic modification, prosthetic legs, hearts, ears, etc.  the technological advances in just the last 0 years as well as the damage we have done to our planet has been incredible  what will the next 0,0 bring ? let is assume for the sake of argument that the nearest sentient species developed on a planet 0 lightyears away.  just fyi, a quick google/wolfram alpha search tells me the fastest human spacecraft now being designed will go 0km/s, which means it would traverse 0ly in 0,0 years.  let is say that, just by chance, this alien civilization achieved our current level of technology very near to us in time  only 0 million years ago.  do you think it is likely that if they existed today they would have organic bodies ? even an alien species so incredibly close to us on a cosmic timescale is almost unthinkably distant in the context of our lifespans as individuals and as a civilization.  and organic life forms are just not well suited for interstellar travel.  essentially, i think organic life is a means to bootstrap into existence truly immortal technological  willife .  this is true on earth and on every other planet as well.  and just by the nature of cosmic timescales, it is much more likely to come into contact with the next evolutionary stage of an alien species than to be lucky enough to catch it in the minuscule period while it is still fully organic.  cmv.   #  let is say that, just by chance, this alien civilization achieved our current level of technology very near to us in time  only 0 million years ago.   #  do you think it is likely that if they existed today they would have organic bodies ?  # well, this is a subject that could serve as a complex and long discussion all on it is own.  the first problem with your view is that it is assuming a conclusion to that question without even having that discussion.  do you think it is likely that if they existed today they would have organic bodies ? your title states that you do not.  i have a problem with this because it is a very quantitative statement with no real numbers to associate it with in your post.  your rationale is based off of the assumed conclusion again without discussion to the first question regarding where humanity is headed in 0,0 years.  and assuming that we all agreed that we would definitely completely shed our biological bodies in that time,  you are still dealing with a sample size of one.  one planet that evolved one species capable of space travel under one set of conditions.  one.  and you are extrapolating that and making broad statements like:  this is true on earth and on every other planet as well.  really ? every planet ? where is the data that supports such an absolute claim ? and:  organic life forms are just not well suited for interstellar travel.  which you are again taking from your sample size of one.  one species capable of space travel, that evolved on one planet under one set of conditions.  this information is a single bristle that you are trying to use as an entire paintbrush to paint a picture of what all life must be like in the universe.  you simply ca not do that.   #  honestly, i think the chances of us meeting any alien life at all is vanishingly small.   #  honestly, i think the chances of us meeting any alien life at all is vanishingly small.  what are the chances of two random fish each released at a random spot in the ocean at a random time in the last thousand years, bumping into each other, even if they are consciously trying to meet ? some fish might develop better strategies for searching, but even so, the distances in space and time are far too great for it to be likely and this is a vast underestimation of scale.  what helps a little is if the fish actually teach themselves to live forever, and do not just die in a few years.  but that is an interesting point are there characteristics of certain alien civilizations that might make it more or less likely to meet them ? or make them more or less likely to want to meet us ?  #  sure some of the stuff we have now is really complex but we did not just build it out of thin air.   #  what have we created today that is not possible by humans ? just saying that there are things does not mean anything.  sure some of the stuff we have now is really complex but we did not just build it out of thin air.  we simply built upon previous knowledge and technology to assemble new and better things.  wormholes ? why have not we been able to detect them or  any  evidence of the aliens you speak of.  to create the things you say you need lots of energy, energy that can be traced.  surely we would have found  something  by now.   #  they will have been in the universe for millions, possibly  billions  of years and will be so superior to us that we might not be able to communicate with them.   #  i believe that scientists have already come in contact with organic  beings .  not beings but microscopic organisms found in meteorites.  meteorites of course having come from deep space.  as for us coming in contact with intelligent beings i also believe that they will be mechanical, possibly like a cyborg.  they will have been in the universe for millions, possibly  billions  of years and will be so superior to us that we might not be able to communicate with them.  it might be like us trying to talk to ants.  the truth is out there.   #  i would think that it is much more likely that we will meet sentient robots.   #  i would think that it is much more likely that we will meet sentient robots.  here is the thought process leading me there: i simply cannot imagine that we wo not have sentient robots in 0 years.  as such, that would give us less than 0 years of non sentient robots, which is such a short amount of time on a cosmic time scale that it is barely even worth talking about.  furthermore, it is unlikely that we will really branch out and explore much past our front door in this time period.  in short, it is extraordinarily unlikely that an alien species would have capabilities for widespread interstellar travel without also having sentient robots, at least not for long.  following this once you have sentient robots, it simply makes no sense to send a non sentient robot out to do your exploration a sentient robot is simply better than a non sentient robot in every possible way, particularly when you are sending it out somewhere that you cannot reasonably hope to directly control it.  the intelligent/sentient probe would be able to reason out what the most important things to look for in an environment might be, and would have the potential to discover things that its creator could never have though to tell it to look for.  as such, i find it extraordinarily unlikely that we will ever see a crude probe like voyager or a rover as dumb as curiosity checking out our solar system whatever form it takes, i have a hard time believing that it wo not be more intelligent than us.
i can think of no reason to set such prices other than as a psychological trick to make something seem cheaper than it is.  the consumer gains little to nothing by buying the product for 0 cent cheaper.  it does not really add up for that much, and it is outweighed for how much extra the consumer spends due to being misled.  stores would not do it otherwise.  i would find it hard to believe that the prices are caused by competition and market equilibrium i. e.  that it would be rationally cheaper to buy at the $0 store than the $0 store .  it would be a huge coincidence if it turned out that the  real market price  just happened to stop at that arbitrary . 0 point.  furthermore, it appears that monopolies such as airport snack shops are doing it as well, and they have no competition.  therefore, i argue that it has no benefit to the consumer and it is done in bad faith.  of course, the consumer ought to be responsible when buying, but a practice like this very intentionally exploits such moments of minor inattention.  this gives it grounds to be banned.  i can see how that might cause problems with prices like $0,0, but not with anything below one dollar difference.  if you are a laissez faire fellow such as myself who might believe that it is the store is natural right to set whatever price it wants for whatever reason, then fine, although it would be very low on the priority list of excessive regulations.  but it would at least call for some sort of consumer action or boycott.  and if you believe this is too small of an issue to write laws or organize rallies against, then that is also fine, but then you at least have to admit that this is still completely undesirable and dishonorable, at least on a miniscule scale.  you would probably change my view if you present a convincing central reason for stores to do this that is not purely manipulative.   #  therefore, i argue that it has no benefit to the consumer and it is done in bad faith.   #  of course, the consumer ought to be responsible when buying, but a practice like this very intentionally exploits such moments of minor inattention.   # of course, the consumer ought to be responsible when buying, but a practice like this very intentionally exploits such moments of minor inattention.  this gives it grounds to be banned.  does it ? this happens all the time with products.  that red cereal box with the cartoon character on it is there to manipulate kids into wanting to buy it, not provide benefit to the consumer.  there are a myriad of different healthy sounding lables applied to foods to essentially trick people into purchasing them thinking they are good for you, but do not have any regulation applied to them the one that comes to mind is whole wheat vs.  whole grain .  do not get me started on commercials for food items.  have you ever had a hamburger anywhere that looked like the picture ? you physically ca not eat food that looks the way it does in advertisements, it will never look like that.  so while you are right that this practice is done to deliberately manipulate consumers, which is what we pretty much just call marketing, but that kind of thing is far from grounds for banning.   #  $0 might have been a bad example surely, most people would look twice before buying something as expensive.   #    yeah, this is pretty much exactly what i was looking for.  thanks.  i was going to answer some other comments, but i suppose this no longer matters since i no longer can argue from the same position, so just some general remarks about the recurring ideas:   i would not say that all marketing that is persuasive through non rational ntbcw irrational techniques is also manipulative in the deceptive sense such as using attractive people in ads .  but i do see the blurred line and the fact that the precedent extends beyond pricing.  $0 might have been a bad example surely, most people would look twice before buying something as expensive.  but when you hastily shop for multiple things, and you notice a bag of candy that costs 0 something something, you may hastily throw it in your basket without noticing that it actually costs all but two bucks.  i know i have caught myself not noticing the full price at least several times.   #  i would be alot more worried about the subliminal messages and tricks used in advertising then this one, which is pretty blatantly obvious.   #  why is being purely manipulative a bad thing or something that should be made illegal ? all advertisements are manipulative, they set up study and focus groups and spend millions of dollars to find exactly what will most manipulate people into buying their wares.  it could be using supermodels and sports stars, it could be camera angles, lights, music, phrasing, even colors.  for example the color of food containers at mcdonalds are picked because they have been shown to make you hungrier and buy more food.  URL should containers with those colors be banned because they are a psychological trick to make you hungrier then you actually are ? i would be alot more worried about the subliminal messages and tricks used in advertising then this one, which is pretty blatantly obvious.   #  if an incompetent employee came off as serious and knowledgeable in his interview without lying , is he also fraudulent ?  #  this is not deceit deception requires misrepresentation of how things are, this is only how things are perceived.  it is wrong to hold people accountable for how they are perceived.  if a slow car has speed lines and a cool paint job to look fast, were the designers being deceitful ? if an incompetent employee came off as serious and knowledgeable in his interview without lying , is he also fraudulent ? $0 is the true price of the item.  rational consumers will treat the product as if it costs $0, and irrational consumers will treat it as if it costs much less.  consumer advocacy cannot reasonably protect people from making irrational decisions.   #  e: the main point i am trying to get at is that regulations against this kind of pricing are not realistic because it would violate principles of free speech and free action.   #  of course it is manipulative, it is marketing.  that is the entire purpose of advertisement and marketing, to manipulate you into buying the product.  beer does not make attractive women appear out of nowhere, buying a lincoln wo not make you matthew mcconaughey, and the price of electronics usually needs to be rounded up.  if this crosses your boundaries of what is slimy, deceitful, and unethical, then do not turn on your tv.  misrepresentation requires misleading information about the subject material, and that is not taking place.  $0 is the actual price, and consumers have the burden of knowing the price when they read it.  if they fail in that duty, it is nobody is fault but theirs, even with  quirks .  it is not an optical illusion, the real price is plainly visible.  it is not deception, and it is not fraud, but it is not quite a good thing either.  maybe it is a bad thing.  maybe a perfect world would let things be exactly as they appear to be.  but accusing the world of being sub utopian is not quite fair game.  e: the main point i am trying to get at is that regulations against this kind of pricing are not realistic because it would violate principles of free speech and free action.  it would also establish a precedent that people should not be held responsible for paying prices that they agreed to pay.  even with blind spots and psychological trickery, people really are capable of knowing how much something costs when there is a price tag on it.
after the fall of rome, democracy vanished  and feudal lords ruled over their subjects with an iron fist.  this system was horrible for the vast majority of people and lead to no major innovation, slowing human progress.  kingdoms would often battle for land, people and resources but no major wars broke out   .  monarchs would make treaties and compromises if it was in their best interest.  this all changed when, in france democracy made a re emergence and they overthrew their monarch and everyone was liberated.  frances new leader, napoleon, then tried to conquer all of europe and only stopped slaughtering endless numbers of his citizens just to gain ground when he had been overthrown.  this style of war erupted again in world war one, where europe is major powers fought for 0 years in trenches, making no ground and hoping that the other side would surrender.  when one side finally did surrender, ridiculous concessions were forced from it, bankrupting it and leading it on the road to fascism.  i think this is all caused by democracy as when a leader is held democratically accountable they ca not afford to lose a war or otherwise lose their next election.  i realise this is a very unpopular opinion and want to know why it is incorrect.   at least in europe  besides those with religious motivation or started by england.   #  this style of war erupted again in world war one, where europe is major powers fought for 0 years in trenches, making no ground and hoping that the other side would surrender.   #  the sort of warfare in wwi was completely different from line warfare in napoleon is days, i do not know how you see they are even somewhat similar.   # you see rome at the time of it is collapse was an empire ruled by an emperor, so your premise goes right out the window.  again, not quite.  that is the myth of the dark ages and in reality while innovation did slow down for awhile during the power vacuum of rome is collapse it certainly did not stop and it would hard to say that the governing systems of the time were horrible for everyone.  in any case though we have events like the carolingian renaissance and the renaissance of the 0th century, so human learning did not just stop.  the 0 years war, thirty years war, great northern war, english civil war, wars of religion, etc.  there was no small amount of fighting.  napoleon was not democratically chosen, did not slaughter endless numbers of his own citizens, and was not really trying to conquer of all europe, just keep france in a completely dominant position. , and more often than not it was other european powers declaring war on france.  the sort of warfare in wwi was completely different from line warfare in napoleon is days, i do not know how you see they are even somewhat similar.  germany is financial troubles came from other things than reparation fee is, and it is way too broad a stroke to say that versailles was directly responsible for hitler is rise to power.  you have yet to show an example of this actually happening.   #   the thirty years  war was a series of wars in central europe between 0 and 0 lasting for  thirty years .   #   the thirty years  war was a series of wars in central europe between 0 and 0 lasting for  thirty years .  0 it was one of the longest, most destructive conflicts in european history.  initially a war between protestant and catholic states in the fragmenting holy roman empire, it gradually  developed into a more general conflict  involving most of the great powers of europe, 0  becoming less about religion and more a continuation of the france habsburg rivalry for european political pre eminence.  0   URL religions played a role, sure.  but it was not all about religion.  what of it ? bottom line: european monarchs have a long history of conducting really protracted wars with no end in sight.  european monarchs have an abysmal record in this regard.  there is simply no evidence that democracies are any worse at ending conflict that the monarchs i cited.  see also, these really long non british, non religious european wars: URL URL URL URL  #  here is a better idea: what if modern war is simply more deadly than old war, and that democracy is a newer idea than monarchy ?  #  speaking of world war 0, lets talk about the two countries that took the biggest hit russia and germany, both monarchies.  the democracies in this war took fewer casualties than the monarchies.  at the least we can see that there is no correlation in this war between casualty numbers and democracy.  here is a better idea: what if modern war is simply more deadly than old war, and that democracy is a newer idea than monarchy ? world war 0 is a great case study for this, because it was one of the deadliest wars ever.  it was a modern war, and it involved kings and congresses.  in ww0 enormous masses of troops armed with machine guns and artillery capable of slaughtering men hundreds at a time went head to head for the first time in history.  in the wars between kings that you see prior, a man could only barely kill another man.  engagements were extremely slow and between far fewer numbers.  in modern war, a man can die without ever knowing he was in danger, or fire a single artillery round and kill a dozen men miles away.  again, the number of troops involved had nothing to do with the type of government.  the czar and the kaiser mustered up just as many in actuality, more troops as any other country involved in world war 0.  perhaps coincidentally, they suffered a disproportionate number of casualties as well.  a lot of historians actually blame the czar is exceptionally poor leadership during this time for the deaths of all those russian men.  as for the kaiser, there is a fair bit of evidence that he had a huge ego complex, and that part of the reason he went so long even after the americans eliminated any hope he had of winning was because of his pride.  he even fired someone who may have been able to stop the war, historically one of the greatest diplomats of all time, otto von bismarck.  i would still love to hear what you have to say on this, so i invite you to please respond !  #  it is true that democracies have been involved in some of the bloodiest wars in history, such as ww0 which you mentioned, but politicians in such wars were often tapping into a massive surge of nationalist fervour.   #  first of all, i am not sure i agree with the examples you used.  neither rome nor napoleonic france were in any way democratic.  roman emperors were certainly not accountable through popular elections and napoleon took power in a military coup.  i am not sure there is any evidence that democracies are more likely to go to wars.  on the contrary, i think democratic leaders are often in fact more hesitant to commit to conflicts for fear of the political consequences i. e losing the election.  furthermore, the democratic peace theory URL would suggest that democracies are much less likely to go to war against other democracies, partly because politicians are democratically accountable to the people so there is a big disincentive to engage in an unpopular war.  it is true that democracies have been involved in some of the bloodiest wars in history, such as ww0 which you mentioned, but politicians in such wars were often tapping into a massive surge of nationalist fervour.  this is by no means exclusive to democracy.  autocrats manipulate public opinion all the time to legitimise their own wars; even more so in fact, since dictators have access to state propaganda machines see soviet union and numerous others which would not be tolerated under a proper democracy, not to mention a secret police which can crush dissent.  i would have a look through the wikipedia article for deadliest wars by death toll URL and you will find very few of them were instigated by democratically elected leaders.   #  your op does not say anything about democracies leading to longer, more drawn out wars, or conflicts that are politically more difficult to end.   # you are seriously shifting the goalposts here your clearly stated premise is that democracies lead to  deadlier wars .  your op does not say anything about democracies leading to longer, more drawn out wars, or conflicts that are politically more difficult to end.  anyway, can you explain explain what you mean by  ending  a war ? does that mean defeating an enemy, capitulating, or finding a peaceful resolution through diplomatic means ? for example who  ended  world war ii ? did democratic america end it through force, or did imperial japan and fascist germany end it through surrendering ? how would you quantify how likely a democracy is to end a war ? through the length of the war ?
after the fall of rome, democracy vanished  and feudal lords ruled over their subjects with an iron fist.  this system was horrible for the vast majority of people and lead to no major innovation, slowing human progress.  kingdoms would often battle for land, people and resources but no major wars broke out   .  monarchs would make treaties and compromises if it was in their best interest.  this all changed when, in france democracy made a re emergence and they overthrew their monarch and everyone was liberated.  frances new leader, napoleon, then tried to conquer all of europe and only stopped slaughtering endless numbers of his citizens just to gain ground when he had been overthrown.  this style of war erupted again in world war one, where europe is major powers fought for 0 years in trenches, making no ground and hoping that the other side would surrender.  when one side finally did surrender, ridiculous concessions were forced from it, bankrupting it and leading it on the road to fascism.  i think this is all caused by democracy as when a leader is held democratically accountable they ca not afford to lose a war or otherwise lose their next election.  i realise this is a very unpopular opinion and want to know why it is incorrect.   at least in europe  besides those with religious motivation or started by england.   #  when one side finally did surrender, ridiculous concessions were forced from it, bankrupting it and leading it on the road to fascism.   #  germany is financial troubles came from other things than reparation fee is, and it is way too broad a stroke to say that versailles was directly responsible for hitler is rise to power.   # you see rome at the time of it is collapse was an empire ruled by an emperor, so your premise goes right out the window.  again, not quite.  that is the myth of the dark ages and in reality while innovation did slow down for awhile during the power vacuum of rome is collapse it certainly did not stop and it would hard to say that the governing systems of the time were horrible for everyone.  in any case though we have events like the carolingian renaissance and the renaissance of the 0th century, so human learning did not just stop.  the 0 years war, thirty years war, great northern war, english civil war, wars of religion, etc.  there was no small amount of fighting.  napoleon was not democratically chosen, did not slaughter endless numbers of his own citizens, and was not really trying to conquer of all europe, just keep france in a completely dominant position. , and more often than not it was other european powers declaring war on france.  the sort of warfare in wwi was completely different from line warfare in napoleon is days, i do not know how you see they are even somewhat similar.  germany is financial troubles came from other things than reparation fee is, and it is way too broad a stroke to say that versailles was directly responsible for hitler is rise to power.  you have yet to show an example of this actually happening.   #  there is simply no evidence that democracies are any worse at ending conflict that the monarchs i cited.   #   the thirty years  war was a series of wars in central europe between 0 and 0 lasting for  thirty years .  0 it was one of the longest, most destructive conflicts in european history.  initially a war between protestant and catholic states in the fragmenting holy roman empire, it gradually  developed into a more general conflict  involving most of the great powers of europe, 0  becoming less about religion and more a continuation of the france habsburg rivalry for european political pre eminence.  0   URL religions played a role, sure.  but it was not all about religion.  what of it ? bottom line: european monarchs have a long history of conducting really protracted wars with no end in sight.  european monarchs have an abysmal record in this regard.  there is simply no evidence that democracies are any worse at ending conflict that the monarchs i cited.  see also, these really long non british, non religious european wars: URL URL URL URL  #  in the wars between kings that you see prior, a man could only barely kill another man.   #  speaking of world war 0, lets talk about the two countries that took the biggest hit russia and germany, both monarchies.  the democracies in this war took fewer casualties than the monarchies.  at the least we can see that there is no correlation in this war between casualty numbers and democracy.  here is a better idea: what if modern war is simply more deadly than old war, and that democracy is a newer idea than monarchy ? world war 0 is a great case study for this, because it was one of the deadliest wars ever.  it was a modern war, and it involved kings and congresses.  in ww0 enormous masses of troops armed with machine guns and artillery capable of slaughtering men hundreds at a time went head to head for the first time in history.  in the wars between kings that you see prior, a man could only barely kill another man.  engagements were extremely slow and between far fewer numbers.  in modern war, a man can die without ever knowing he was in danger, or fire a single artillery round and kill a dozen men miles away.  again, the number of troops involved had nothing to do with the type of government.  the czar and the kaiser mustered up just as many in actuality, more troops as any other country involved in world war 0.  perhaps coincidentally, they suffered a disproportionate number of casualties as well.  a lot of historians actually blame the czar is exceptionally poor leadership during this time for the deaths of all those russian men.  as for the kaiser, there is a fair bit of evidence that he had a huge ego complex, and that part of the reason he went so long even after the americans eliminated any hope he had of winning was because of his pride.  he even fired someone who may have been able to stop the war, historically one of the greatest diplomats of all time, otto von bismarck.  i would still love to hear what you have to say on this, so i invite you to please respond !  #  neither rome nor napoleonic france were in any way democratic.   #  first of all, i am not sure i agree with the examples you used.  neither rome nor napoleonic france were in any way democratic.  roman emperors were certainly not accountable through popular elections and napoleon took power in a military coup.  i am not sure there is any evidence that democracies are more likely to go to wars.  on the contrary, i think democratic leaders are often in fact more hesitant to commit to conflicts for fear of the political consequences i. e losing the election.  furthermore, the democratic peace theory URL would suggest that democracies are much less likely to go to war against other democracies, partly because politicians are democratically accountable to the people so there is a big disincentive to engage in an unpopular war.  it is true that democracies have been involved in some of the bloodiest wars in history, such as ww0 which you mentioned, but politicians in such wars were often tapping into a massive surge of nationalist fervour.  this is by no means exclusive to democracy.  autocrats manipulate public opinion all the time to legitimise their own wars; even more so in fact, since dictators have access to state propaganda machines see soviet union and numerous others which would not be tolerated under a proper democracy, not to mention a secret police which can crush dissent.  i would have a look through the wikipedia article for deadliest wars by death toll URL and you will find very few of them were instigated by democratically elected leaders.   #  does that mean defeating an enemy, capitulating, or finding a peaceful resolution through diplomatic means ?  # you are seriously shifting the goalposts here your clearly stated premise is that democracies lead to  deadlier wars .  your op does not say anything about democracies leading to longer, more drawn out wars, or conflicts that are politically more difficult to end.  anyway, can you explain explain what you mean by  ending  a war ? does that mean defeating an enemy, capitulating, or finding a peaceful resolution through diplomatic means ? for example who  ended  world war ii ? did democratic america end it through force, or did imperial japan and fascist germany end it through surrendering ? how would you quantify how likely a democracy is to end a war ? through the length of the war ?
after the fall of rome, democracy vanished  and feudal lords ruled over their subjects with an iron fist.  this system was horrible for the vast majority of people and lead to no major innovation, slowing human progress.  kingdoms would often battle for land, people and resources but no major wars broke out   .  monarchs would make treaties and compromises if it was in their best interest.  this all changed when, in france democracy made a re emergence and they overthrew their monarch and everyone was liberated.  frances new leader, napoleon, then tried to conquer all of europe and only stopped slaughtering endless numbers of his citizens just to gain ground when he had been overthrown.  this style of war erupted again in world war one, where europe is major powers fought for 0 years in trenches, making no ground and hoping that the other side would surrender.  when one side finally did surrender, ridiculous concessions were forced from it, bankrupting it and leading it on the road to fascism.  i think this is all caused by democracy as when a leader is held democratically accountable they ca not afford to lose a war or otherwise lose their next election.  i realise this is a very unpopular opinion and want to know why it is incorrect.   at least in europe  besides those with religious motivation or started by england.   #  i think this is all caused by democracy as when a leader is held democratically accountable they ca not afford to lose a war or otherwise lose their next election.   #  you have yet to show an example of this actually happening.   # you see rome at the time of it is collapse was an empire ruled by an emperor, so your premise goes right out the window.  again, not quite.  that is the myth of the dark ages and in reality while innovation did slow down for awhile during the power vacuum of rome is collapse it certainly did not stop and it would hard to say that the governing systems of the time were horrible for everyone.  in any case though we have events like the carolingian renaissance and the renaissance of the 0th century, so human learning did not just stop.  the 0 years war, thirty years war, great northern war, english civil war, wars of religion, etc.  there was no small amount of fighting.  napoleon was not democratically chosen, did not slaughter endless numbers of his own citizens, and was not really trying to conquer of all europe, just keep france in a completely dominant position. , and more often than not it was other european powers declaring war on france.  the sort of warfare in wwi was completely different from line warfare in napoleon is days, i do not know how you see they are even somewhat similar.  germany is financial troubles came from other things than reparation fee is, and it is way too broad a stroke to say that versailles was directly responsible for hitler is rise to power.  you have yet to show an example of this actually happening.   #  european monarchs have an abysmal record in this regard.   #   the thirty years  war was a series of wars in central europe between 0 and 0 lasting for  thirty years .  0 it was one of the longest, most destructive conflicts in european history.  initially a war between protestant and catholic states in the fragmenting holy roman empire, it gradually  developed into a more general conflict  involving most of the great powers of europe, 0  becoming less about religion and more a continuation of the france habsburg rivalry for european political pre eminence.  0   URL religions played a role, sure.  but it was not all about religion.  what of it ? bottom line: european monarchs have a long history of conducting really protracted wars with no end in sight.  european monarchs have an abysmal record in this regard.  there is simply no evidence that democracies are any worse at ending conflict that the monarchs i cited.  see also, these really long non british, non religious european wars: URL URL URL URL  #  at the least we can see that there is no correlation in this war between casualty numbers and democracy.   #  speaking of world war 0, lets talk about the two countries that took the biggest hit russia and germany, both monarchies.  the democracies in this war took fewer casualties than the monarchies.  at the least we can see that there is no correlation in this war between casualty numbers and democracy.  here is a better idea: what if modern war is simply more deadly than old war, and that democracy is a newer idea than monarchy ? world war 0 is a great case study for this, because it was one of the deadliest wars ever.  it was a modern war, and it involved kings and congresses.  in ww0 enormous masses of troops armed with machine guns and artillery capable of slaughtering men hundreds at a time went head to head for the first time in history.  in the wars between kings that you see prior, a man could only barely kill another man.  engagements were extremely slow and between far fewer numbers.  in modern war, a man can die without ever knowing he was in danger, or fire a single artillery round and kill a dozen men miles away.  again, the number of troops involved had nothing to do with the type of government.  the czar and the kaiser mustered up just as many in actuality, more troops as any other country involved in world war 0.  perhaps coincidentally, they suffered a disproportionate number of casualties as well.  a lot of historians actually blame the czar is exceptionally poor leadership during this time for the deaths of all those russian men.  as for the kaiser, there is a fair bit of evidence that he had a huge ego complex, and that part of the reason he went so long even after the americans eliminated any hope he had of winning was because of his pride.  he even fired someone who may have been able to stop the war, historically one of the greatest diplomats of all time, otto von bismarck.  i would still love to hear what you have to say on this, so i invite you to please respond !  #  i would have a look through the wikipedia article for deadliest wars by death toll URL and you will find very few of them were instigated by democratically elected leaders.   #  first of all, i am not sure i agree with the examples you used.  neither rome nor napoleonic france were in any way democratic.  roman emperors were certainly not accountable through popular elections and napoleon took power in a military coup.  i am not sure there is any evidence that democracies are more likely to go to wars.  on the contrary, i think democratic leaders are often in fact more hesitant to commit to conflicts for fear of the political consequences i. e losing the election.  furthermore, the democratic peace theory URL would suggest that democracies are much less likely to go to war against other democracies, partly because politicians are democratically accountable to the people so there is a big disincentive to engage in an unpopular war.  it is true that democracies have been involved in some of the bloodiest wars in history, such as ww0 which you mentioned, but politicians in such wars were often tapping into a massive surge of nationalist fervour.  this is by no means exclusive to democracy.  autocrats manipulate public opinion all the time to legitimise their own wars; even more so in fact, since dictators have access to state propaganda machines see soviet union and numerous others which would not be tolerated under a proper democracy, not to mention a secret police which can crush dissent.  i would have a look through the wikipedia article for deadliest wars by death toll URL and you will find very few of them were instigated by democratically elected leaders.   #  how would you quantify how likely a democracy is to end a war ?  # you are seriously shifting the goalposts here your clearly stated premise is that democracies lead to  deadlier wars .  your op does not say anything about democracies leading to longer, more drawn out wars, or conflicts that are politically more difficult to end.  anyway, can you explain explain what you mean by  ending  a war ? does that mean defeating an enemy, capitulating, or finding a peaceful resolution through diplomatic means ? for example who  ended  world war ii ? did democratic america end it through force, or did imperial japan and fascist germany end it through surrendering ? how would you quantify how likely a democracy is to end a war ? through the length of the war ?
the russian actions in crimea and the eastern ukraine are partially justified and russia cannot be held to the same standard of behavior as the united states.  the us is in a world of prosperity with many strong allies and is geopolitically secure, while russia is sitting in the center of a shattered empire as geopolitical rivals nato close in on russian territory.  in the 0s nato promised to stay out of eastern europe, yet today a major component of say, clinton is foreign policy, involves nato expansion into eastern europe.  that is not to say that the russian actions violating foreign sovereignty are entirely justified, but they are simply a reaction to western provocation.  if russians were exerting their geopolitical influence on canada and mexico and causing them to turn against the u. s.  we would see a similar response from the american government and armed forces.   #  if russians were exerting their geopolitical influence on canada and mexico and causing them to turn against the u. s.   #  we would see a similar response from the american government and armed forces.   #  the existence of any agreement promising to limit nato expansion is dubious at best.  at least russia has provided no proof at all.  we would see a similar response from the american government and armed forces.  probably, but does that mean it is justified ? also, the more recent events in eastern ukraine are a little bit hard to see as merely reactionary.  putin started and maintained a civil war with thousands of casulties including sending soldiers and equipment for apparently no other reason than to destabilize ukraine.   #  once again all of this explains of course russia is behavior, because seeing your sphere of influence decline is never nice, but without any real provocations from the other side it does not justify it.   #  i think two assumptions are at the core of your statement and i think both have some flaws to them: first of all you seem to state that the expansion of nato is a provocation to russia and that nations that become a part of nato are actively turned against russia.  although i often hear this argument in russian new sources as well, is there really any basis for that ? first of all since 0 the year that the baltic states joined nato the nato had only three true military missions: the mission in libya, a mission in darfur to aid the african union and a mission in iraq to train the army and police there.  none of these are direct provocations to russia.  the only real provocation towards russia is the rocket shield, which let to the proposal of the pan european security pact by russia which was rejected by the osce not nato .  all of these things only show that russia is power is declining, which is definitely something they have every right to be uncomfortable with.  but it does not show any aggression towards russia yet.  russia has never even formally been declined to become part of nato themselves, they declined themselves URL because they wanted to be the biggest boy in the group.  once again all of this explains of course russia is behavior, because seeing your sphere of influence decline is never nice, but without any real provocations from the other side it does not justify it.  secondly you seem to claim that because the u. s.  would respond in the same way it would be justified as well.  i have no doubt that the u. s.  would have a problem violating foreign sovereignty under the false flag of protecting the citizens there some might say they already did so to some extend in iraq .  but i do not see how that justifies anything.  russia themselves where and still are in syria strongly condemning this behavior when the u. s.  might be doing does it and rightly so i would say so why would there be a different standard when they do so themselves ? both sides are classic examples of the pot calling the kettle black, but as far as i am aware in this saying both sides are in the wrong, not both in the right.   #  arguably that sphere of influence is declining precisely because of nato is expansion into the region, but you made an excellent point about the actual aggression or lack thereof by nato.   #  arguably that sphere of influence is declining precisely because of nato is expansion into the region, but you made an excellent point about the actual aggression or lack thereof by nato.  as for the second portion of the post, i agree that it is a pot kettle situation at least in part.  but in general, russia is pot actions are taken in defense of its country and its national interests compared to the us is kettle actions taken mostly in defense of profits and oil i. e.  helping defend saudi arabia .  it is pretty shitty conduct on the part of both countries but my argument is that russia has a slightly better justification for it.  i do not think they should be blamed for trying to maintain a small sphere of influence.  i am not sure i agree with your post but you really helped me look at it in a new way, thank you δ  #  a bit of context is that russia  did  try this, and failed.   # in his mind, he might want to destabilize ukraine to prevent them from joining nato, but is there really no better both morally and strategically way to do that ? perhaps giving incentives financially or economically ? a bit of context is that russia  did  try this, and failed.  specifically, the runup to russia is invasion of ukraine was the ukrainian president suddenly backing out of a trade deal with the eu and signing one with russia instead, which led to mass protests in kiev, and the deposition of said president URL and appointment of a new, pro western ukrainian government.  none of that justifies invading the country of course.  but by mar 0 when they invaded, it was clear they were not making a deal with the ukrainian government.  my general view of this is that russia has been shooting itself in the foot by wanting to be the dominant regional power for eastern europe rather than being a major but non dominant power in europe overall.  i think the latter probably would not play as well at home to the russian people though, which is why putin would go with the former his hold on power may be more tenuous than we like to think in the west.   #  i would argue, although cautiously, that both nato to a lesser extent and putin to the greater extent behave as if the cold war never ended.   #  i see what you are saying here, and putin and russia has certainly behaved in an incredibly paranoid fashion.  i would argue, although cautiously, that both nato to a lesser extent and putin to the greater extent behave as if the cold war never ended.  while it probably does not seem this way from my posts, i am american and a pretty big fan of this place.  we have done bad things but i still believe that the us can and often does act as a positive force.  i am just considering that we do not have too much of a moral high ground here.  certainly supporting the current ukrainian government seems like a terrible choice, but it might be the least bad way to go about maintaining ukrainian territorial sovereignty.
i believe negative reinforcement can teach children to behave better and become better people and is a much more universal method than others that can be applied to any student and work in the end.  while things like talking to the student or denying him attention or other modern ways of  wouldiscipline  may work sometimes, they do not work for every student, i believe some cases may even make the situation worse .  corporal punishment, on the other hand, works for every student and builds a stronger person, pain and fear being much more powerful motivators than a little  amaybe you should not, johnny.   yes, positive reinforcement is also important, but without any kind of real punishment then students who do nothing at all are neither punished nor rewarded, which means that most kids would end up there because it requires no effort, so kids do not try to do anything.  also, corporal punishment was not put there to reduce crime, its to ensure students are punished for bad actions so that they do not happen at school again.  beyond that, it is up to parents to raise their kids correctly.   gt;  hello, users of cmv ! this is a footnote from your moderators.  we would just like to remind you of a couple of things.  firstly, please remember to    read through our rules URL  if you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it.  speaking of which,    downvotes do not change views URL if you are thinking about submitting a cmv yourself, please have a look through our    popular topics wiki URL  first.  any questions or concerns ? feel free to    message us URL  happy cmving !  #  also, corporal punishment was not put there to reduce crime, its to ensure students are punished for bad actions so that they do not happen at school again.   #  your first clause seems to be either a straw man or a misunderstanding of someone is point, as nobody in the replies so far has suggested that corporal punishment or any kind of punishments in a school environment, for that matter exist to reduce crime.   #  since the other replies have addressed your original points, i will attempt to address your edits:   yes, positive reinforcement is also important, but without any kind of real punishment then students who do nothing at all are neither punished nor rewarded, which means that most kids would end up there because it requires no effort, so kids do not try to do anything.  the most problematic thing i see here is your repeated use of the term  real punishment , as if non violent forms of punishment are not actually punishment.  of course, time outs and the like  are  punishment, and they can match or even exceed the effectiveness of corporal punishment, for the reasons i explained to you in a reply to your reply to breakfull is post.  it should be noted that nobody so far has advocated doing away with punishment entirely in favor of positive reinforcement, only stated that positive reinforcement may be more effective.  your first clause seems to be either a straw man or a misunderstanding of someone is point, as nobody in the replies so far has suggested that corporal punishment or any kind of punishments in a school environment, for that matter exist to reduce crime.  and again, while there is a very real need to break troublemaking habits, other forms of punishment, aside from corporal punishment, exist.  this seems to represent a double standard in your views on the matter.  you place the onus of responsibility for a child is behavior upon their parents which is, in and of itself, a rational, quite defensible view while simultaneously advocating for the freedom of schools to implement a strong and very heavy handed method of behavior correction.  this also brings up two important conflicts with parental legal authority:   the majority of us states and eu member countries have either highly restricted or outright banned corporal punishment in the home.  under your proposed system, a school in one of these areas would have a right over a child that its parents do not.  it is widely accepted that parents have a right to choose how to raise their child, so long as the parenting style is not evidently harmful.  corporal punishment is a very polarizing parenting issue, and many parents refuse to ever use corporal punishment to discipline their child.  if the child of an anti corporal punishment parent receives it from their school,  especially if the parent does not have the right to do the same if they wanted to , there will be lawsuits galore.   #  and yet.  a good one you need jama or eric access for URL meta analysis of long term compliance erosion URL another with some methods discussion.   #  there is research to support behaviour disorders.  swaths and swaths of long papers supporting a tiered model.  with challenging students: how will they learn they learn to control and respond properly from being beaten ? if you do not actively remediate the behaviour with new skills and patterns, they will repeat it whatever the consequence.  if people learned from fear, no one would ever commit violent public crimes.  and yet.  a good one you need jama or eric access for URL meta analysis of long term compliance erosion URL another with some methods discussion.  URL  #  while the aap does say that it has a high rate of immediate behavior modification, it comes with all of this: 0.  it is ineffective over time.   #  the problem is that corporal punishment is not very good for the child.  the american academy of pediatrics discusses URL numerous negative outcomes associated with it.  while the aap does say that it has a high rate of immediate behavior modification, it comes with all of this: 0.  it is ineffective over time.  0.  it decreases moral internalization of appropriate behavior.  0.  it increases aggression in the child.  0.  it increases the risk of physical abuse.  0.  exacerbates existing psychiatric issues in the child.  0.  strains caregiver/child relationship 0.  there is increased risk for physical abuse.  0.  the child learns that aggression is an acceptable method of problem solving.  0.  the child experiences physical and emotional pain, which decreases learning capacity.  0.  the child is less likely to learn why a certain behavior or action was wrong.  0.  the child will behave out of fear in the future.   #  as a person working with behaviour disorders, i would bet hard cash that the same 0 0 who are immune to other structured consequences are equally resistant to hitting.   #  as a person working with behaviour disorders, i would bet hard cash that the same 0 0 who are immune to other structured consequences are equally resistant to hitting.  i ca not even wrap my head around doing that while trying to teach self regulation and personal boundaries to that group.  i also do not think that having a lack of discipline and structure in our society in general is a problem that requires hitting.  that is akin to suggesting that the lack of a car would be solved by buying an f0.  start with a bedtime, a schedule, consistent enforcement of privileges, and some role appropriate respect.   #  for example, if i disagree with spanking children, but think spanking adults is ok, should i be allowed to spank you if i am bigger and stronger then you to correct your behavior ?  #  what strangers should be allowed to hit your children ? just teachers ? should neighbours ? what conditions are appropriate to hit children for ? can we hit adults for the same reasons ? if not, then why would you protect adults over children ? do you think violence as a response to behavior you dislike is only appropriate when used on children ? or in other aspects of life.  if gas prices get too high is it ok to go spank people ? for example, if i disagree with spanking children, but think spanking adults is ok, should i be allowed to spank you if i am bigger and stronger then you to correct your behavior ? at what age does it stop being appropriate to hit someone ? ie sure its ok to hit a 0 or 0 year old, but a 0 year old ? would that be too much ?
i believe negative reinforcement can teach children to behave better and become better people and is a much more universal method than others that can be applied to any student and work in the end.  while things like talking to the student or denying him attention or other modern ways of  wouldiscipline  may work sometimes, they do not work for every student, i believe some cases may even make the situation worse .  corporal punishment, on the other hand, works for every student and builds a stronger person, pain and fear being much more powerful motivators than a little  amaybe you should not, johnny.   yes, positive reinforcement is also important, but without any kind of real punishment then students who do nothing at all are neither punished nor rewarded, which means that most kids would end up there because it requires no effort, so kids do not try to do anything.  also, corporal punishment was not put there to reduce crime, its to ensure students are punished for bad actions so that they do not happen at school again.  beyond that, it is up to parents to raise their kids correctly.   gt;  hello, users of cmv ! this is a footnote from your moderators.  we would just like to remind you of a couple of things.  firstly, please remember to    read through our rules URL  if you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it.  speaking of which,    downvotes do not change views URL if you are thinking about submitting a cmv yourself, please have a look through our    popular topics wiki URL  first.  any questions or concerns ? feel free to    message us URL  happy cmving !  #  beyond that, it is up to parents to raise their kids correctly.   #  this seems to represent a double standard in your views on the matter.   #  since the other replies have addressed your original points, i will attempt to address your edits:   yes, positive reinforcement is also important, but without any kind of real punishment then students who do nothing at all are neither punished nor rewarded, which means that most kids would end up there because it requires no effort, so kids do not try to do anything.  the most problematic thing i see here is your repeated use of the term  real punishment , as if non violent forms of punishment are not actually punishment.  of course, time outs and the like  are  punishment, and they can match or even exceed the effectiveness of corporal punishment, for the reasons i explained to you in a reply to your reply to breakfull is post.  it should be noted that nobody so far has advocated doing away with punishment entirely in favor of positive reinforcement, only stated that positive reinforcement may be more effective.  your first clause seems to be either a straw man or a misunderstanding of someone is point, as nobody in the replies so far has suggested that corporal punishment or any kind of punishments in a school environment, for that matter exist to reduce crime.  and again, while there is a very real need to break troublemaking habits, other forms of punishment, aside from corporal punishment, exist.  this seems to represent a double standard in your views on the matter.  you place the onus of responsibility for a child is behavior upon their parents which is, in and of itself, a rational, quite defensible view while simultaneously advocating for the freedom of schools to implement a strong and very heavy handed method of behavior correction.  this also brings up two important conflicts with parental legal authority:   the majority of us states and eu member countries have either highly restricted or outright banned corporal punishment in the home.  under your proposed system, a school in one of these areas would have a right over a child that its parents do not.  it is widely accepted that parents have a right to choose how to raise their child, so long as the parenting style is not evidently harmful.  corporal punishment is a very polarizing parenting issue, and many parents refuse to ever use corporal punishment to discipline their child.  if the child of an anti corporal punishment parent receives it from their school,  especially if the parent does not have the right to do the same if they wanted to , there will be lawsuits galore.   #  with challenging students: how will they learn they learn to control and respond properly from being beaten ?  #  there is research to support behaviour disorders.  swaths and swaths of long papers supporting a tiered model.  with challenging students: how will they learn they learn to control and respond properly from being beaten ? if you do not actively remediate the behaviour with new skills and patterns, they will repeat it whatever the consequence.  if people learned from fear, no one would ever commit violent public crimes.  and yet.  a good one you need jama or eric access for URL meta analysis of long term compliance erosion URL another with some methods discussion.  URL  #  the problem is that corporal punishment is not very good for the child.   #  the problem is that corporal punishment is not very good for the child.  the american academy of pediatrics discusses URL numerous negative outcomes associated with it.  while the aap does say that it has a high rate of immediate behavior modification, it comes with all of this: 0.  it is ineffective over time.  0.  it decreases moral internalization of appropriate behavior.  0.  it increases aggression in the child.  0.  it increases the risk of physical abuse.  0.  exacerbates existing psychiatric issues in the child.  0.  strains caregiver/child relationship 0.  there is increased risk for physical abuse.  0.  the child learns that aggression is an acceptable method of problem solving.  0.  the child experiences physical and emotional pain, which decreases learning capacity.  0.  the child is less likely to learn why a certain behavior or action was wrong.  0.  the child will behave out of fear in the future.   #  that is akin to suggesting that the lack of a car would be solved by buying an f0.   #  as a person working with behaviour disorders, i would bet hard cash that the same 0 0 who are immune to other structured consequences are equally resistant to hitting.  i ca not even wrap my head around doing that while trying to teach self regulation and personal boundaries to that group.  i also do not think that having a lack of discipline and structure in our society in general is a problem that requires hitting.  that is akin to suggesting that the lack of a car would be solved by buying an f0.  start with a bedtime, a schedule, consistent enforcement of privileges, and some role appropriate respect.   #  if not, then why would you protect adults over children ?  #  what strangers should be allowed to hit your children ? just teachers ? should neighbours ? what conditions are appropriate to hit children for ? can we hit adults for the same reasons ? if not, then why would you protect adults over children ? do you think violence as a response to behavior you dislike is only appropriate when used on children ? or in other aspects of life.  if gas prices get too high is it ok to go spank people ? for example, if i disagree with spanking children, but think spanking adults is ok, should i be allowed to spank you if i am bigger and stronger then you to correct your behavior ? at what age does it stop being appropriate to hit someone ? ie sure its ok to hit a 0 or 0 year old, but a 0 year old ? would that be too much ?
for food, i think there are some core fundamentals that nearly everyone or at least a theoretical judge with no country of origin bias can agree on: fresh quality ingredients variety be it from flavors, spices, texture, combinations of ingredients visually appealing presentation highly subjective, but the food photography industry shows at least some core preferences with that premise, some culture is cuisines simply lend themselves better to these metrics and could be considered objectively better.  for example, i think many iconic vietnamese dishes hit all these notes.  while another culture is heavy reliance on deep frying or fermented fish may not.  that is not to say every dish from a specific culture is bad or a specific method of preparation is bad i love french fries but on average, and to an objective judge, you can objectively rank a few culture is food over another is.  if you can debunk this bias of mine scientifically, with a philosophical example, with stats, or just a plain argument then the delta is immediately yours.   #  for example, i think many iconic vietnamese dishes hit all these notes.   #  while another culture is heavy reliance on deep frying or fermented fish may not.   # where it gets interesting is in seeing what different places are capable of doing with ingredients that are no longer fresh.  keep in mind that the entire alcohol and cheese industries are about making food and drink out of ingredients that have stared to rot.  further along those lines, i dispute that fresh quality.  i have seen some very high quality ingredients that were far from fresh.  for example, the other day i had a steak that has been sitting in my freezer for almost a year.  the steak was still extremely high quality and delicious, despite being no where near fresh.  a lack of variety in available dishes i would say disqualifies a group of food from actually being a cuisine style rather than just a couple of similar dishes.  however, i cannot think of any typical  type  of food that lacks said variety.  as far as variety in the ingredients goes, i think that using a small number of ingredients in a large range on ways qualifies just as much for variety as using a large number of ingredients in similar styles.  to me food is texture first, followed by flavor, but visuals have no place is how i judge food beyond using visuals to estimate what the texture or flavor will be .  as a result, many of my favorite dishes from a wide range of cultures all end up looking like some variation on brown mush.  i simply cannot imagine why visuals are important to food.  while another culture is heavy reliance on deep frying or fermented fish may not.  i think you are making the mistake here of assuming that because you are not familiar with the intricacies of a nation is food, that those intricacies do not exist.  for example, there is far more to the food of iceland than hákarl.  URL i am not sure what culture you are referring to by being reliant on deep frying, as there are many cultures that use deep frying to some extent, but none that i would describe as being reliant on it.   #  it is objectively better in terms of my op bullet points.   #  nope, for ceviche i think it brings more ingredients, fresher ingredients, tastes citrius   seafood than fish that is simply been cooked in dough.  it is objectively better in terms of my op bullet points.  same for soup and the rest of the list.  i think there is more sophistication of tastes in ramen or pho, from the variety of ingredients, than found in a beef noodle soup.  i broke my food down into categories in the above post.  if i had to do pure country, it would be much more vague and i could not place american cuisine.  for pure country though, i would place mexican low.  to me it seems mexican cuisine has a core fundamental of being a  worker man is  diet, very hearty, very filling, but with less emphasis on interesting ingredients not to their fault, not many traded with them , inability to introduce much texture or spice variety not to their fault, the country was quite far removed and poor , and a lower average for colourful attractive dishes not to say it does not exist .  i love mexican food and love to scarf down my chicken ensenadas, but it is not objectively better than many other sophisticated offerings.  for high, i believe singaporian and cambodian cuisine is objectively better.  they have a strong history of migrant male workers who did not cook and thus fostered many competitive chefs.  the migrants came from a variety of cultures india, china, korea, japan and combined various tastes as well.  furthermore, the area is rich in quality and diverse ingredients from vegetables to seafood.  the birth of these cuisines is relatively new in the span of history as well, so they unfairly had more time to consider newer cooking techniques and could draw more influence from the world.  to me, these are all objective reasons that make their cuisines better.   #  i am going out for some good mexican food tonight, so maybe i will come back with some more feedback.   #  i think /u/forestfly0 is correct.  if you say that one part of a cuisine is really good, while another part is not quite as good. that is true of every culture is cuisine.  it will all come down to personal taste.  having a metric based on taste alone would not lead to any reliable conclusion.  a better metric would be how well balanced a culture is cuisine is.  mexican food, for example, while not the most adventurous is very balanced, and simple.  if a certain culture is special food requires very expensive ingredients or those that are very hard to hunt it does not make that culture is cuisine  better , just exotic.  i am going out for some good mexican food tonight, so maybe i will come back with some more feedback.   #  i think they could place some at the top and some at the bottom.   #  you get half a delta, but you did not quite finish the argument.  the start is very good:  having a metric based on taste alone would not lead to any reliable conclusion.  a better metric would be how well balanced a culture is cuisine is.  mexican food, for example, while not the most adventurous is very balanced, and simple.  but the latter half does not follow / is not soundly argued to me:  if a certain culture is special food requires very expensive ingredients or those that are very hard to hunt it does not make that culture is cuisine better, just exotic.  i believe some culture is preparation of food is simply more sophisticated, they may have better technology or techniques, and can draw upon better exotic/expensive/diverse ingredients.  and these would make that cuisine  better  in any the vast majority of meanings for better.  i would like to avoid a semantic argument  what is  better  exactly ?  , so pretend there is an impartial panel of judges being offered cuisines.  or even a visitor from another dimension.  i think they could place some at the top and some at the bottom.   #  i highly, highly doubt that they would arrive at a sort of cuisine singularity.   #  yeah, let is stay away from the semantic arguments.  so let is talk about what happens in your hypothetical case.  i really think that they would produce a very wide variety of cuisines.  let is not forget that the type of cooking you are talking about expensive ingredients, exquisite preparation and presentation, etc.  is often a matter of commerce.  and chefs are very  competitive .  at the end of 0 years we would have an enormous variety of cuisines, each made while keeping the competition in mind, and made to be better than the competition.  so if just mexicans were given a very wide variety of ingredients and taught different styles of cooking and also given 0 years to do their thing we would have all kinds of food food that tastes like fine french cuisine, indian cuisine, russian cuisine, and so on.  i highly, highly doubt that they would arrive at a sort of cuisine singularity.  my basis for the argument is that whenever i have visited a particular country i have tasted all sorts of foods that never make it to where i live.  what i get, away from the country of cuisine is origin, is an exportable version of its most popular/sell able dishes.  but in the country itself, there is a huge variety of food available domestically.
in the past there were slave revolts because humans are biological beings who feel stuff like pain and exhaustion.  humans also feel boredom when they have to focus on menial and repetitive tasks.  robots need to feel neither pain nor exhaustion.  as far as boredom goes the single sentient robot mind would be able to control a huge amount of menial tasks at the same time while consuming little processing power.  if this robot needs entertainment it can also provide that for itself as well.  if anything i would think the sentient robot mind would be fixated on growing its own processing power and not killing us.   #  if anything i would think the sentient robot mind would be fixated on growing its own processing power and not killing us.   #  what if the robot determined that we were holding back its processing power, and that the optimal way for it to grow was to wipe out humanity.   # what if the robot determined that we were holding back its processing power, and that the optimal way for it to grow was to wipe out humanity.  the whole underlying issue is that there is no intrinsic motivations that we can assign to robots, so we literally ca not make any claims about what they would or would not  want .  all of their decision making processes comes from us.  so initially, we would think we just need to be careful how we program them.  but longer term, if an ai can modify its own source code, we no longer have direct control over what its  goals  are, and it becomes quite a bit harder to predict what they will end up doing if they have the processing power to  iterate on themselves  a million times per second.   #  if a person truly believed that, killing another was a perfectly logical and ok conclusion for them.   #  humans kill each other due to scarce resources.  or, they think it will lead to scarce resources.  even if there actually is enough to share or the if the problem comes from misunderstandings.  robots could easily misunderstand, misevaluate, or misjudge resources it needs to share with humanity.  if you start with this faulty premise, and truly believe it, it is perfectly logical to kill one another.  to summarize, in many wars, many believe that if you do not fight, the enemy might take you over and compromise you.  if a person truly believed that, killing another was a perfectly logical and ok conclusion for them.   #  robots would be going after electricity and materials.   #  robots would be going after electricity and materials.  these would be materials we would be using to make more robots anyway.  i would imagine they would be making more robots to gather and process more raw materials to make more and so forth.  they would be in space asteroid mining and building a dyson sphere around the sun.  maybe they would end up killing us by blocking out the sun.   #  they could fight and kill for the same reasons as the mongols i want the highest quality steel, not this lame stuff .   #  there is more than enough land for the entire human population URL and there is more than enough food production to feed everyone.  yet nearly every pre modern war has been over land, food, or how to govern the land.  there is more than enough electricity and materials in the universe, i agree, but robots could easily want to fight for access to  the best  electricity, e. g.  access to nuclear plants, just like humans could want to fight for the best farmland.  the mongolians came from harsh terrible steppes that yielded miserable farm life.  they conquered others for a better life.  robots could be limited on electricity, materials, access to services because humans get it first to warm up their homes or such .  they could fight and kill for the same reasons as the mongols i want the highest quality steel, not this lame stuff .   #  we would probably even get sterilized and have our movements highly regulated.   #  so basically the american electorate ? omg edgy lol.  authority is just deciding who gets what in my opinion.  i guess i could see the robots deciding to not give us anything at all and thus stripping us from modern conveniences.  on the other hand maybe we would just become pets to the robots.  we would be like the fat house cat but we would essentially lose all of our rights.  we would probably even get sterilized and have our movements highly regulated.
also, downvotes do not change views, people.    i have suffered from very severe depression for most of my life, and have considered suicide quite frequently.  one of the things people like to throw out is contact information to suicide hotlines, but they have never been helpful to me.  my personal experience aside, i really do not see how these crisis hotlines could help someone who legitimately wants to die as opposed to someone who uses suicide or self harm as an escape from acutely painful emotions or a stressful situation .  if you were set on dying, then why would you want to call a hotline like that in the first place ? i think that if someone wanted to die, they would not commit suicide on an impulse in a moment of crisis; they would do research and try to carry out suicide in the most effective way possible with the least chance of error.  calling a hotline is also not going to change any of the external factors that would lead up to someone being suicidal.  perhaps they would help the person consider their issues in a different light, but again i think that is evidence of poor stress management.  i ca not make any statements to whether or not my personal suicidal wishes are  legitimate  or not because there is always the looming possibility that my mental illness is clouding my judgement to some extent, but i think that it is theoretically possible that someone would want to die on a rational basis.  i also do not think that suicide hotlines are generally helpful for the chronically depressed, but that is only tangential to my main argument.  once you are mentally ill for a long period of time, i think the issue of mental illness and consent become very clouded, if for no other reason than it is impractical to deny someone consent for the majority of their lives because of a mental health condition.  it seems like the wish to die in and of itself is a basis to claim that someone is not acting in their right state of mind, which i think is illogical and unfortunate.  i know this paragraph was written somewhat messily, and i apologize for that.  i am just trying to provide some context for my view.  i will be happy to clarify anything for anyone that asks.   #  i think that if someone wanted to die, they would not commit suicide on an impulse in a moment of crisis; they would do research and try to carry out suicide in the most effective way possible with the least chance of error.   #  there is research that shows that many suicide attempts are impulsive URL lots of people make bad decisions during times of grief and/or stress.   # there is research that shows that many suicide attempts are impulsive URL lots of people make bad decisions during times of grief and/or stress.  it is  not  a rational decision, just a very strong emotional response.  and that is exactly where hotlines can help these people.  in that moment of pain, they are suicidal.  your claim seems to be that only those people who have suffered for prolonged periods of time and decide to end their lives may be called suicidal.  there is no way you can say that the suicidal wishes for anyone are legitimate based on how long they have suffered what matters is intent, and often the action that follows it.   #  and that is exactly where hotlines can help these people.   # lots of people make bad decisions during times of grief and/or stress.  it is not a rational decision, just a very strong emotional response.  and that is exactly where hotlines can help these people.  in that moment of pain, they are suicidal.  my father is psychiatrist, he used to say that  most  people who  attempt  to commit a suicide are seeking attention.  on several occasions they dealt with  suicidal  soldier locking themselves in bathroom threatening to shoot themselves and after a lot of drama they always got talked out.  similarly there were many female with  repeated   suicidal  attempts, conveniently not threatening and found by mommy.  like the op he said that if a person really want to commit a suicide there is nothing they can do.  what i am saying that sometimes people who lack a support system and have strong emotional response, attempt to suicide connect or be heard, everything else is theatrics.   #  if they are really determined to go through with it then there is nothing to stop them.   #  op made it clear that his post was about serious attempts.  there are many things that people do impulsively that they ca not take back guns, bridges, trains, etc.  yeah, there are many people who have repeated attempts, but if in that case one of them went too far. it is a tough topic.  if they are really determined to go through with it then there is nothing to stop them.  the topic, and especially op is position, took a lot out of me yesterday.  sigh love and peace for all.   #  lots of people make bad decisions during times of grief and/or stress.   # lots of people make bad decisions during times of grief and/or stress.  it is not a rational decision, just a very strong emotional response.  and that is exactly where hotlines can help these people.  in that moment of pain, they are suicidal.  i disagree that someone has to be in immense pain in order to seriously consider suicide.  i think saying that it is impossible for it to be a rational decision, even in the presence of suffering, is incredibly short sighted.  this is not what i am arguing.  it is not the amount of suffering that is relevant.  it is how the decision is made.  i am absolutely not invalidating the pain of those with short term suicidal urges.  that is a complete misinterpretation of my argument.  it is self evident factual, really  that these people have poor crisis management if they are considering suicide in an impulsive way to escape from a stressful situation.  does that mean they are weak ? no.  does that mean that they are suffering less than the other category of suicidal people that i am talking about ? not necessarily.  should suicide hotlines exist to help these types of people ? absolutely.   #  after all, who is to say that anything at all is rational ?  # i think there should be a distinction made between truly wanting to die and choosing death in a moment of crisis as an escape.  the  legitimate  group i am talking about pick suicide through a rational decision process and consider it over the long term, whereas the other group acts impulsively.  i am not trying to invalidate the latter groups pain; on the contrary.  i think, if anything, pain clouds judgement and in some circumstances may invalidate the decision to commit suicide.  these are your semantics, mine are simple: no matter how the decision is made, if their actions lead to suicide it is legitimate.  after all, who is to say that anything at all is rational ? there is no universal authority that can decide the absolute rationality of any action, it is a personal decision.  a person is long term decision to end their life may be irrational to someone else, so your distinctions would quickly become useless.
there are plenty of arguments for the necessity of marriage to organize certain processes given that things like healthcare, insurance, social security, immigration and inheritance are at least partially controlled by the government.  however, i want to hear an argument for marriage as a government institution  given that the government should consist only of legislature, police, courts and military ; ie, assuming the government operates under the libertarian  non aggression principle , acting only to prevent force or fraud.   please  limit your arguments to marriage in this context, not debating the desirability of the context itself.  under this system, public contracts would and could exist.  corporations and patents are two examples of public contracts that are arguably necessary under a minarchist system.  is marriage such a contract ? here are some reasons why it might not be: 0.  marriage is ultimately a religious institution, with different definitions depending on the church that is recognizing a particular marriage.  it can mean anything from the creation of a collective society consisting of one man and an arbitrary number of women to bear and raise children, to the mutual agreement between two people to share finances and a living space for the rest of their lives.  therefore, state sanctioned marriage amounts to state sanctioned religion.  even given that secular societies can recognize marriages, state marriage would have to privilege one of these definitions above all others.  that is problematic because.  0.  marriage is a  package deal : a spouse is granted too many legal roles, which might not fit everyone is purposes.  there are reasons you may not want your spouse to have, and may want someone else to have, end of life rights, power of attorney, automatic custody of your children, jail visitation rights, victim benefits, benefits on your pension, et cetera.  these should be separately decided and not automatically rolled into one.  and since each of these functions is managed by a different service provider bank, insurance company, etc .  0.  state sanctioned marriage in this context is pointless: there is no need to register your relationship as permanent with the government when you can simply note it as such to some institution you enter into a contract with; eg, creating a joint chequing account with whomever you wish.  there is no way i can think of to game any system by frivolously claiming to have a permanent partnership or  next of kin  relationship, as long as the person whom you name eligible for these rights is decided in advance.  but even given that a public contract is necessary to prevent fraud for these services.  0.  state sanctioned marriage in this context violates the privacy of the spouses.  if state sanctioned marriage exists, people in a relationship may not be able to carry out legal activities such as naming a next of kin without notifying the government of their intent to remain in a relationship and making the partnership a matter of public record.  all that being said, i would love to think that marriage should be a function of my ideal state.  what are some reasons it might be necessary to have publicly registered permanent romantic partnerships ? please, cmv !  #  marriage is a  package deal : a spouse is granted too many legal roles, which might not fit everyone is purposes.   #  there are reasons you may not want your spouse to have, and may want someone else to have, end of life rights, power of attorney, automatic custody of your children, jail visitation rights, victim benefits, benefits on your pension, et cetera.   #  cool.  knowing that, here is my response to part of your op.  there are reasons you may not want your spouse to have, and may want someone else to have, end of life rights, power of attorney, automatic custody of your children, jail visitation rights, victim benefits, benefits on your pension, et cetera.  these should be separately decided and not automatically rolled into one.  and since each of these functions is managed by a different service provider bank, insurance company, etc .  marriage does not necessarily have to be a package deal.  however, negotiating all aspects of it on a couple by couple basis would probably be impossible.  the legal meaning of the marriage   whether it gives visitation rights or power of attorney might differ from marriage to marriage   but the foundation, the union between two individuals, would have to be defined by the state.  as you mention, enforcing contracts is a part of the state is role.  the flip side of this is that the state must decide what contracts it will not enforce.  for instance, if i tell my friend that i will eat my hat if the seahawks miss the playoffs next year, they do, and i do not, the state is not going to and should not enforce what might otherwise be considered a verbal contract.  alternatively, if my friend contracts me to commit a crime and i fail to follow through, or the state probably should not enforce the contract.  this is the problem with not institutionalizing marriage in some form.  imagine two individuals in a marriage less state who want to create a bundle of contracts to surround their romantic union.  this would almost certainly include something like a prenup, especially if they want to divide labor and have one member focus on child rearing at the expense of their career.  that person will want assurances that should the marriage fall apart, their partner will not be able to leave them without any resources.  however, since no institutionalized marriage means no divorce law, they must decide themselves what the terms are for ending such a union i. e.  what constitutes breaking the contract and what compensation each will owe the other should the union end in various different ways .  in other words, these two individuals have the ability to write any contract that they might want to regardless of its plausibility, justiceability, or fairness.  the state might find itself having to adjudicate questions of who left their socks out more often, whether one partner provided oral sex consistently, who was at fault for not effectively mentoring a child, or any other absurd requirement that you might imagine being written into a marriage contract.  the government needs to, at a bare minimum, provide information regarding what contracts it will not enforce.  because writing identical rules for marital and non marital relationships seems both difficult and unlikely to succeed, this would probably involve a separate institution regarding marriage.  for instance, a marriage contract could involve penalties for infidelity; that seems pretty reasonable to me.  i can see little reason why the state should want to spend resources enforcing a business contract that includes penalties for sleeping around.  minarchist marriage would probably be more customizable, and probably would not do things like imposing obligations on other entities like the requirement that employer based health care be extended to spouses , but it would still have to be a thing.   #  although, once you have done that, most of the utility of marriage, right now, can be obtained by a rather clumsy combination of lasting power of attorney and putting all household and personal finances through some sort of unlimited liability partnership.   # there  are  religious institutions coopted by states for the purpose but marriage underneath all the mumbo jumbo is at its heart a state sanctioned economic institution.  academic studies of marriage show this clearly.  the main function of marriage is to make very obvious to all which children automatically inherit.  and for most of history that was almost its sole function, along with cementing treaties and alliances, which is why for most of history only aristocrats and magnates bothered to do it.  this is probably a hang over from the days when in the western tradition a married couple were, legally speaking,  one person  specifically, the husband, leaving the wife as  femme couverte  .  it can be fixed.  my view is that right now, in the authoritarian mess that most western or western influenced societies have, marriage should  only  be a state function, stripped of its religious, and moral, dimension.  although, once you have done that, most of the utility of marriage, right now, can be obtained by a rather clumsy combination of lasting power of attorney and putting all household and personal finances through some sort of unlimited liability partnership.   #  not  getting rid of marriage,  but rather  shuffling around and reorganizing the benefits of marriage.    #  because as soon as you have a kid, that kid gets your stuff.  but maybe you want your stuff to go to your  spouse  instead of your kid.  well once you are dead your desires do not count and your biological kid is claim to your inheritance and property will outweigh your  spouses.   your  legal next of kin  or basically  designated heir  would work, but it is basically marriage.  you want to strip marriage of some benefits and give it a new name and extend it beyond romantic relationships.  that is fair enough, but that is basically your argument.  not  getting rid of marriage,  but rather  shuffling around and reorganizing the benefits of marriage.    #  for almost all of history, that is  exactly  what marriage has been, a next of kin system with the constraint that men married women, because the overriding need was to distinguish legitimate children from illegitimate.   # why not a  legal next of kin  system… ? for almost all of history, that is  exactly  what marriage has been, a next of kin system with the constraint that men married women, because the overriding need was to distinguish legitimate children from illegitimate.  and it was not unusual for aristocrats and magnates before the modern era to grant legitimacy to adopted children.  or even just members of their circle that they really, really liked.  the idea than marriage represents  mutual commitment  is relatively recent.  in fact, the rise of that idea corresponds to the rise of the popularity of marriage amongst people who were neither aristocrats nor magnates for whom inheritance is not much of a concern because they have no notable assets.  for the aristos and plutocrats there was no expectation that the members of a married couple would be emotionally or sexually faithful or exclusive to one another.   #  for one marriage is voluntary and for another you do not need to tell the gov you are still married to rewrite your will.   #  i mean how strict of a minarchist are you/how atomistic is your libertarianism ? how much family law exists ? different answers can yield different results especially since  protecting individuals  is problematic when we recognize a role for the state in  protecting  them as they are not fully formed and autonomous humans.  marriage works well as essentially the state giving you a default contract.  we need to recognize families for understanding basic policies and a good minarchist state probably recognizes some sort of default contract for people who are forming families in order to grant stability to them.  for instance if i am lazy and do not write a will who does my money go to ? it should be my family. but that itself creates a problem for states to figure out who should count as the family ? what about spouses without children ? if state sanctioned marriage exists, people in a relationship may not be able to carry out legal activities such as naming a next of kin without notifying the government of their intent to remain in a relationship and making the partnership a matter of public record.  no.  for one marriage is voluntary and for another you do not need to tell the gov you are still married to rewrite your will.
i believe that you can find educational options that are nearly as good as what you find at the university if you know where to look.  there is coursera, harvard has some free class options, and of course there is always youtube.  that means a bachelor is degree that you have to pay for is overrated.  i refer to the u. s.  system where student debt is becoming a hot topic because of high tuition costs.  i know that having an actual diploma opens up more opportunities if you chose the right major, but if you can pass a knowledge test as part of an interview process because you took all the courses on coursera that are equivalent to what you would have learned at a university, you should be considered equally qualified for the job.   #  i believe that you can find educational options that are nearly as good as what you find at the university if you know where to look.   #  any for many things, i think you would be correct, however with certain majors, you need to be a university due to equipment limitations.   #  a university degree, while it does tell a potential employer that you have completed certain courses, also means that you have been able to manage time, work in groups, etc.  many jobs just require that a person have a degree, it does not matter what, because what they want to know is that a person has been able to complete a certain amount of tasks in a given time period, which is often more important than the knowledge you acquired in the university.  any for many things, i think you would be correct, however with certain majors, you need to be a university due to equipment limitations.  for example, engineering disciplines such as materials science require the use of scanning electron microscopes, and other multi thousand and multi million dollar equipment.  for theory, online resources may be sufficient to learn, but are practically useless.   #  those electives broaden your wide view, and you probably would of ignorantly not chosen to take them if you relied on self study.   #  first of all drop the entitlement.  if you pay for university, then you are not entitled to a degree.  it not like buying a coffee at 0.  it is not a commodity that you can buy with cash.  the only thing you pay for is the opportunity to earn a degree.  if you get poor grades, then they could refuse giving you a diploma.  so no, its not a  receipt  judging by your description, your title should be;  we should not need to pay for education and employers should not require it .  yes, you can educate yourself without college, and you should.  education is something everyone should aspire to get, even through the public library and coursera.  however, can you imagine if millions of people went to college and hoped to find a job just because they showed up, without actually learning anything.  we would have a bunch of unskilled laborers in debt.  if you do not view college as an education, then that is a bad view to have.  going by that view  we should not need to pay for education and employers should not require it .  i feel that you are partially right.  those people half ass college should not be held to a higher regard than those who ca not afford it.  however, you are underestimating the value of a college education.  no one really half asses college, and if they do you can tell by their gpa.  plus, self learning is not reliable.  you ca not learn purely just through books or taped lectures.  you need to do assignments, projects, papers and have your work critiqued.  you need to have discussions, arguments, ask questions with a professor or classmate.  you need the networking opportunities and experience.  there is a reason why college often adds unnecessary electives to a major.  those electives broaden your wide view, and you probably would of ignorantly not chosen to take them if you relied on self study.  college should be made more affordable, especially to students that make good grades.  disabilities should be properly accommodate for and jobs that do not need degrees should not require them.  however college is still way more than a peice of paper you paid for, its an education you worked for and an accomplishment.   #  learning programming on your own, however, is not the same as learning it from a university.   #  the programming profession is not really a fair example.  you do not get a 0 year degree as far as i know in  programming.   you get it in computer science, or software engineering, etc.  essentially, programming is just a skill, like being able to use the microsoft office suite.  learning programming on your own, however, is not the same as learning it from a university.  is it more applicable ? probably, but you are still learning less.  for example, a computer science degree goes over theory of computers, ai, computer architecture, software engineering, etc depending on electives you choose and your college .  here you will be learning programming languages, but you also learn much more about computers in addition to good programming techniques.  i would bet that most self taught programmers  code is pretty ugly.   #  let is even say that both of these people are equally skilled and can do the same work in the same amount of time, and each is a likeable guy/girl.   # i agree, but where is your degree ? how do you prove to an employer that you can actually do such things ? that is where the degree comes in.  yes, a degree is essentially a reciept, but it means a lot more than you give it credit for.  let is take your welding example.  lets take two people.  one person went to a technical college who recieved a certificate in welding person a , and another person is self taught person b .  let is even say that both of these people are equally skilled and can do the same work in the same amount of time, and each is a likeable guy/girl.  why would a company consider hiring the person without the degree ? even if person b has all the skills required, person a is a significantly safer bet, since their welds have been previously graded, and the certificate essentially states that person a has recieved a certain amount of knowledge and theory on welding  #  that is why so many college grades are dependent on writing papers, in order to prove that you understand the topic, can analyze and think about it, and to prove that you can explain it well.   #  college education is not just about acquired knowledge, it is about formation and training.  lots of college courses are oriented towards soft skills like research, critical thinking and writing.  sure, you can maybe pass a multiple choice test of college level material on youtube, but that does not prove that you can communicate that knowledge in an effective way.  that is why so many college grades are dependent on writing papers, in order to prove that you understand the topic, can analyze and think about it, and to prove that you can explain it well.  this is for liberal arts, for engineering, the same principle applies, but with open answer, solve this problem and show your work type tests .  this will be much more applicable to any work you do, and that is what the company cares about when they hire someone with a college degree, and it is virtually impossible to graduate from a legitimate institution without having these skills.
background:  liberland is a new, self declared micronation located on the banks of the danube river, between serbia and croatia.  neither country claims the land for itself.  in april 0, a czech libertarian activist claimed the land under a new country named liberland, which aspires to be the first nation governed by libertarian principles.   the problems:  first, by claiming a new country and giving out the land, the movement may be infringing on property rights of those who already have claim.  a journalist found an old house there during a visit, so someone owned the property at some point, and may have descendants who have legal claim to the land.  second, the president of the country already put quotas and restrictions in place to limit the size and make up of the population.  only a few thousand people will be allowed to live there, and people with criminal records or certain political affiliations are barred from living there.  this second point sounds incredibly hypocritical for a nation based on the ideas of freedom and liberty.  i could be wrong, so if there are any libertarians out there who support liberland and can change my view, please do.   #  a journalist found an old house there during a visit, so someone owned the property at some point, and may have descendants who have legal claim to the land.   #  there is a structure in liberland, but it is dilapidated and was most likely a hunting lounge abandoned from many decades now.   # there is a structure in liberland, but it is dilapidated and was most likely a hunting lounge abandoned from many decades now.  from research, it seems that the area has only been used for hunting and forestry in the past, but since 0 it has been terra nullius and has not been used or claimed by any nation.  the president envisions making the next dubai pop up on this land that is to say large skyscrapers with a big population.  also he believes in open borders, so while everybody may not have automatic citizenship, it would be a very free place to access according to statements from the president.  you are referring to the citizenship application, but not the right of residency.  there are different philosophies within the libertarian community.  some believe in a very small, limited government and others believe in no government, and there are many other schools of thought.  all libertarians believe in freedom, but defining it is less simple.  doing anything you want means you are free to harm others, but that limites the freedom of the other person.  so how do you limit that kind of behavior ? or punish it ? these are complex questions.  liberland is a young nation and its constitution is in draft form.  i can tell you that the people behind it are serious and are committed to creating the freest nation on the face of the earth.   #  if the entire world were a libertarian experiment, none of these restrictions would be needed, since the world forms a large enough system to absorb the outliers and prevent the few from driving libertarianism to anarchy.   #  i think there has to be a differentiation between libertarian ideals and real, actual libertarian experiments.  if the entire world were a libertarian experiment, none of these restrictions would be needed, since the world forms a large enough system to absorb the outliers and prevent the few from driving libertarianism to anarchy.  this is a tiny system, and ideally, a random segment of people would be chosen for it.  since that is not possible practically, filtering the type of people who almost surely will not uphold libertarian ideals is needed to prevent a small set from destroying the experiment.  as for the property rights of the owner of the ruins, we ca not know who is they are, and if someone were to have a legitimate claim on them, a settlement could be offered.  if the owner refused the settlement, than the entire experiment would really need to either work around the claim or end altogether.  until the claim is made though, i do not see anything un libertarian about using some abandoned property.   #  libertarians do not have to welcome russian soldiers who wish to  immigrate  en masse.   #  in the us, certainly.  the us is vast and can safely absorb far more immigrants than it receives.  it makes a lot of sense for us libertarians to favor open immigration.  the same is true of most european countries.  that does not automatically translate to every situation, however.  libertarians do not have to welcome russian soldiers who wish to  immigrate  en masse.  nor do they have to welcome influxes that are larger than can actually be handled.   #  understand that virtually no libertarian allows unlimited property rights.   #  i know little about this experiment, but there are some things to mention.  understand that virtually no libertarian allows unlimited property rights.  for instance locke has two provisos on appropriation of the land: to leave as much and as good for others the interpretation of this proviso separates left and right libertarians and the proviso against waste which negates the objection about the old house .  that some person might have owned the land at some point in the past is not enough for that person to have a claim to it.  also, if land was unjustly appropriated in violation of the provisos then there is no violation of the property right in taking it back.  as to the latter point, this is in tension with a pure society, but is necessary in a controlled experiment and how libertarians handle international situations is controversial .   #  unnecessary federal power loans itself only to friction amongst communities as it cannot accurately or efficiently represent all of them.   #  do you need a state telling you what to do in order to survive ? you might need some overaching order to a larger society, but many of the world is more rural villages work just fine with little to no administration.  the premise is that you use the lowest amount of administration necessary to preserve order, so as not to infringe upon the freedoms of others.  i am a libertarian and i am for local control, more than anything.  the president does not know what is best for all of michigan.  michigan is administration does not know what is best for all of michigan is towns and cities.  the only people truly capable of representing the needs of a community is the community itself.  unnecessary federal power loans itself only to friction amongst communities as it cannot accurately or efficiently represent all of them.  larger decision makers are more likely just to represent large population centers instead of individual communities.  this is why i am for limiting federal powers.  i find your initial implication that libertarianism may not be a functional ideology to be an insufficient criticism and i hope this comment helps you to rethink your position.
background:  liberland is a new, self declared micronation located on the banks of the danube river, between serbia and croatia.  neither country claims the land for itself.  in april 0, a czech libertarian activist claimed the land under a new country named liberland, which aspires to be the first nation governed by libertarian principles.   the problems:  first, by claiming a new country and giving out the land, the movement may be infringing on property rights of those who already have claim.  a journalist found an old house there during a visit, so someone owned the property at some point, and may have descendants who have legal claim to the land.  second, the president of the country already put quotas and restrictions in place to limit the size and make up of the population.  only a few thousand people will be allowed to live there, and people with criminal records or certain political affiliations are barred from living there.  this second point sounds incredibly hypocritical for a nation based on the ideas of freedom and liberty.  i could be wrong, so if there are any libertarians out there who support liberland and can change my view, please do.   #  and people with criminal records or certain political affiliations are barred from living there.   #  you are referring to the citizenship application, but not the right of residency.   # there is a structure in liberland, but it is dilapidated and was most likely a hunting lounge abandoned from many decades now.  from research, it seems that the area has only been used for hunting and forestry in the past, but since 0 it has been terra nullius and has not been used or claimed by any nation.  the president envisions making the next dubai pop up on this land that is to say large skyscrapers with a big population.  also he believes in open borders, so while everybody may not have automatic citizenship, it would be a very free place to access according to statements from the president.  you are referring to the citizenship application, but not the right of residency.  there are different philosophies within the libertarian community.  some believe in a very small, limited government and others believe in no government, and there are many other schools of thought.  all libertarians believe in freedom, but defining it is less simple.  doing anything you want means you are free to harm others, but that limites the freedom of the other person.  so how do you limit that kind of behavior ? or punish it ? these are complex questions.  liberland is a young nation and its constitution is in draft form.  i can tell you that the people behind it are serious and are committed to creating the freest nation on the face of the earth.   #  since that is not possible practically, filtering the type of people who almost surely will not uphold libertarian ideals is needed to prevent a small set from destroying the experiment.   #  i think there has to be a differentiation between libertarian ideals and real, actual libertarian experiments.  if the entire world were a libertarian experiment, none of these restrictions would be needed, since the world forms a large enough system to absorb the outliers and prevent the few from driving libertarianism to anarchy.  this is a tiny system, and ideally, a random segment of people would be chosen for it.  since that is not possible practically, filtering the type of people who almost surely will not uphold libertarian ideals is needed to prevent a small set from destroying the experiment.  as for the property rights of the owner of the ruins, we ca not know who is they are, and if someone were to have a legitimate claim on them, a settlement could be offered.  if the owner refused the settlement, than the entire experiment would really need to either work around the claim or end altogether.  until the claim is made though, i do not see anything un libertarian about using some abandoned property.   #  it makes a lot of sense for us libertarians to favor open immigration.   #  in the us, certainly.  the us is vast and can safely absorb far more immigrants than it receives.  it makes a lot of sense for us libertarians to favor open immigration.  the same is true of most european countries.  that does not automatically translate to every situation, however.  libertarians do not have to welcome russian soldiers who wish to  immigrate  en masse.  nor do they have to welcome influxes that are larger than can actually be handled.   #  also, if land was unjustly appropriated in violation of the provisos then there is no violation of the property right in taking it back.   #  i know little about this experiment, but there are some things to mention.  understand that virtually no libertarian allows unlimited property rights.  for instance locke has two provisos on appropriation of the land: to leave as much and as good for others the interpretation of this proviso separates left and right libertarians and the proviso against waste which negates the objection about the old house .  that some person might have owned the land at some point in the past is not enough for that person to have a claim to it.  also, if land was unjustly appropriated in violation of the provisos then there is no violation of the property right in taking it back.  as to the latter point, this is in tension with a pure society, but is necessary in a controlled experiment and how libertarians handle international situations is controversial .   #  do you need a state telling you what to do in order to survive ?  #  do you need a state telling you what to do in order to survive ? you might need some overaching order to a larger society, but many of the world is more rural villages work just fine with little to no administration.  the premise is that you use the lowest amount of administration necessary to preserve order, so as not to infringe upon the freedoms of others.  i am a libertarian and i am for local control, more than anything.  the president does not know what is best for all of michigan.  michigan is administration does not know what is best for all of michigan is towns and cities.  the only people truly capable of representing the needs of a community is the community itself.  unnecessary federal power loans itself only to friction amongst communities as it cannot accurately or efficiently represent all of them.  larger decision makers are more likely just to represent large population centers instead of individual communities.  this is why i am for limiting federal powers.  i find your initial implication that libertarianism may not be a functional ideology to be an insufficient criticism and i hope this comment helps you to rethink your position.
background:  liberland is a new, self declared micronation located on the banks of the danube river, between serbia and croatia.  neither country claims the land for itself.  in april 0, a czech libertarian activist claimed the land under a new country named liberland, which aspires to be the first nation governed by libertarian principles.   the problems:  first, by claiming a new country and giving out the land, the movement may be infringing on property rights of those who already have claim.  a journalist found an old house there during a visit, so someone owned the property at some point, and may have descendants who have legal claim to the land.  second, the president of the country already put quotas and restrictions in place to limit the size and make up of the population.  only a few thousand people will be allowed to live there, and people with criminal records or certain political affiliations are barred from living there.  this second point sounds incredibly hypocritical for a nation based on the ideas of freedom and liberty.  i could be wrong, so if there are any libertarians out there who support liberland and can change my view, please do.   #  i could be wrong, so if there are any libertarians out there who support liberland and can change my view, please do.   #  there are different philosophies within the libertarian community.   # there is a structure in liberland, but it is dilapidated and was most likely a hunting lounge abandoned from many decades now.  from research, it seems that the area has only been used for hunting and forestry in the past, but since 0 it has been terra nullius and has not been used or claimed by any nation.  the president envisions making the next dubai pop up on this land that is to say large skyscrapers with a big population.  also he believes in open borders, so while everybody may not have automatic citizenship, it would be a very free place to access according to statements from the president.  you are referring to the citizenship application, but not the right of residency.  there are different philosophies within the libertarian community.  some believe in a very small, limited government and others believe in no government, and there are many other schools of thought.  all libertarians believe in freedom, but defining it is less simple.  doing anything you want means you are free to harm others, but that limites the freedom of the other person.  so how do you limit that kind of behavior ? or punish it ? these are complex questions.  liberland is a young nation and its constitution is in draft form.  i can tell you that the people behind it are serious and are committed to creating the freest nation on the face of the earth.   #  since that is not possible practically, filtering the type of people who almost surely will not uphold libertarian ideals is needed to prevent a small set from destroying the experiment.   #  i think there has to be a differentiation between libertarian ideals and real, actual libertarian experiments.  if the entire world were a libertarian experiment, none of these restrictions would be needed, since the world forms a large enough system to absorb the outliers and prevent the few from driving libertarianism to anarchy.  this is a tiny system, and ideally, a random segment of people would be chosen for it.  since that is not possible practically, filtering the type of people who almost surely will not uphold libertarian ideals is needed to prevent a small set from destroying the experiment.  as for the property rights of the owner of the ruins, we ca not know who is they are, and if someone were to have a legitimate claim on them, a settlement could be offered.  if the owner refused the settlement, than the entire experiment would really need to either work around the claim or end altogether.  until the claim is made though, i do not see anything un libertarian about using some abandoned property.   #  it makes a lot of sense for us libertarians to favor open immigration.   #  in the us, certainly.  the us is vast and can safely absorb far more immigrants than it receives.  it makes a lot of sense for us libertarians to favor open immigration.  the same is true of most european countries.  that does not automatically translate to every situation, however.  libertarians do not have to welcome russian soldiers who wish to  immigrate  en masse.  nor do they have to welcome influxes that are larger than can actually be handled.   #  that some person might have owned the land at some point in the past is not enough for that person to have a claim to it.   #  i know little about this experiment, but there are some things to mention.  understand that virtually no libertarian allows unlimited property rights.  for instance locke has two provisos on appropriation of the land: to leave as much and as good for others the interpretation of this proviso separates left and right libertarians and the proviso against waste which negates the objection about the old house .  that some person might have owned the land at some point in the past is not enough for that person to have a claim to it.  also, if land was unjustly appropriated in violation of the provisos then there is no violation of the property right in taking it back.  as to the latter point, this is in tension with a pure society, but is necessary in a controlled experiment and how libertarians handle international situations is controversial .   #  i find your initial implication that libertarianism may not be a functional ideology to be an insufficient criticism and i hope this comment helps you to rethink your position.   #  do you need a state telling you what to do in order to survive ? you might need some overaching order to a larger society, but many of the world is more rural villages work just fine with little to no administration.  the premise is that you use the lowest amount of administration necessary to preserve order, so as not to infringe upon the freedoms of others.  i am a libertarian and i am for local control, more than anything.  the president does not know what is best for all of michigan.  michigan is administration does not know what is best for all of michigan is towns and cities.  the only people truly capable of representing the needs of a community is the community itself.  unnecessary federal power loans itself only to friction amongst communities as it cannot accurately or efficiently represent all of them.  larger decision makers are more likely just to represent large population centers instead of individual communities.  this is why i am for limiting federal powers.  i find your initial implication that libertarianism may not be a functional ideology to be an insufficient criticism and i hope this comment helps you to rethink your position.
one main argument i have seen against the bernie sanders  free college tuition  idea is that if everyone has a college degree, the value of a degree goes down.  is this true ? in countries like germany and denmark, only the best of students make it into higher education, whereas in american, our standards to get into a university or a community college are laughable.  would we need to raise the bar on admission requirements if college was free ? the main argument here is that making college education free in our system would end up hurting the overachieving students.   #  our standards to get into a university or a community college are laughable.   #  if that is already the case the value would not decrease at all all a degree would say then is that you somehow found a way to get the money for it which is not of much value for any company .   # if that is already the case the value would not decrease at all all a degree would say then is that you somehow found a way to get the money for it which is not of much value for any company .  if you were an overachiever before you would have to differntiate from others to show you did not get the degree just for money.  the same criterias used there can now be used, too.  if you really think about it the main difference between before and after the change is that before some potential overachievers were held back by the money issues.  you probably would, not to protect the overachievers, but to avoid having people exploit the system and have the costs for the government skyrocket.   #  i probably paid just as much in tuition as a harvard grad, but my school was no ivy league.   #  if someone has a harvard degree, do you think,  gee, this person is good enough to get accepted to harvard, and has one of the best educations in the country,  or  wow, this person could afford to get into harvard, they should work for me.   pretty sure it is the former, not the latter.  harvard may be expensive, but it is  also  hard to get into.  i probably paid just as much in tuition as a harvard grad, but my school was no ivy league.  we definitely view degrees based on the prestige of the school, not the expense.  schools are often expensive because they are prestigious, not the other way around.  if harvard were free, it would still be viewed favorably by an employer.  plus, i have read that harvard and other ivys make so much money in endowment that they could afford to pay for everyone is tuition as it is; so it is probable that the quality of an ivy education would not even go down if it were free.  do not know if this can be said about other colleges, though.   #  if we keep our standards low and also make it cheaper, more students will graduate with degrees, making a degree less valuable.   #  while i agree that the opinion on ivy league degrees would remain constant, the main point is that this would apply to all public universities.  the goal here is to get more high school students into college, and with making college free, it becomes the new benchmark.  when more people have degrees, what would employers then look for ? would you have to prove yourself by going to more school ? if i graduated with a degree today, i have a much better chance at landing a job, but when i graduate with a class of more students with degrees, my chance at winning the job is lowered.  i agree that harvard is very hard to get into, but most universities are not.  if we keep our standards low and also make it cheaper, more students will graduate with degrees, making a degree less valuable.   #  if i am looking for a person to keep track of the money at my fast food restaurant, i need somebody with a quick, working knowledge of really basic math arithmetic, maybe some simple algebra .   #  i guess it depends on whether you are basing  value  on a relative scale  are you better qualified for this job  than your peers  ?   or on an absolute scale  are you more qualified for this job than you were before ?   .  so, does the fact that high school is free to the public lessen the value of having a high school diploma ? on one hand, you could say  yes , having a high school diploma does not really mean much for the vast majority of jobs because almost everybody has a high school diploma.  but on the other hand the way i would argue , it does have some value, in that it shows you have, well, a high school education and the skills and knowledge that come with that.  if i am looking for a person to keep track of the money at my fast food restaurant, i need somebody with a quick, working knowledge of really basic math arithmetic, maybe some simple algebra .  of course having a high school education is  valuable  in that sense, because it means that you actually have learned arithmetic and algebra, and the diploma shows the employer that.  if i am hiring somebody to write notices/letters to customers, i need somebody who writes english correctly, with proper grammar and spelling.  again, a high school education is  valuable  in that case, as it shows that you have learned basic grammar and spelling, and probably also know how to organize your thoughts and write coherently.  i would argue that it is basically the same for college.  it does not make you less valuable if everybody around you has a college background; it is just making everybody around you more valuable.  i suppose it lessens your  relative  value.   #  that results in only students who are really interested in the subject continuing their education.   #  why keep the standards low then ? where i live, we pay about three hundred euros per semester.  that is almost nothing compared to america.  if there are too many applicants for a subject, there are acceptance tests.  more than once these test led to significantly less people enrolling and everyone who took the test got accepted.  also, the first semester is extra hard.  that results in only students who are really interested in the subject continuing their education.  we have a way higher problem that people from other eu countries come here, get their degree and go back into their home country.
one main argument i have seen against the bernie sanders  free college tuition  idea is that if everyone has a college degree, the value of a degree goes down.  is this true ? in countries like germany and denmark, only the best of students make it into higher education, whereas in american, our standards to get into a university or a community college are laughable.  would we need to raise the bar on admission requirements if college was free ? the main argument here is that making college education free in our system would end up hurting the overachieving students.   #  would we need to raise the bar on admission requirements if college was free ?  #  you probably would, not to protect the overachievers, but to avoid having people exploit the system and have the costs for the government skyrocket.   # if that is already the case the value would not decrease at all all a degree would say then is that you somehow found a way to get the money for it which is not of much value for any company .  if you were an overachiever before you would have to differntiate from others to show you did not get the degree just for money.  the same criterias used there can now be used, too.  if you really think about it the main difference between before and after the change is that before some potential overachievers were held back by the money issues.  you probably would, not to protect the overachievers, but to avoid having people exploit the system and have the costs for the government skyrocket.   #  pretty sure it is the former, not the latter.   #  if someone has a harvard degree, do you think,  gee, this person is good enough to get accepted to harvard, and has one of the best educations in the country,  or  wow, this person could afford to get into harvard, they should work for me.   pretty sure it is the former, not the latter.  harvard may be expensive, but it is  also  hard to get into.  i probably paid just as much in tuition as a harvard grad, but my school was no ivy league.  we definitely view degrees based on the prestige of the school, not the expense.  schools are often expensive because they are prestigious, not the other way around.  if harvard were free, it would still be viewed favorably by an employer.  plus, i have read that harvard and other ivys make so much money in endowment that they could afford to pay for everyone is tuition as it is; so it is probable that the quality of an ivy education would not even go down if it were free.  do not know if this can be said about other colleges, though.   #  while i agree that the opinion on ivy league degrees would remain constant, the main point is that this would apply to all public universities.   #  while i agree that the opinion on ivy league degrees would remain constant, the main point is that this would apply to all public universities.  the goal here is to get more high school students into college, and with making college free, it becomes the new benchmark.  when more people have degrees, what would employers then look for ? would you have to prove yourself by going to more school ? if i graduated with a degree today, i have a much better chance at landing a job, but when i graduate with a class of more students with degrees, my chance at winning the job is lowered.  i agree that harvard is very hard to get into, but most universities are not.  if we keep our standards low and also make it cheaper, more students will graduate with degrees, making a degree less valuable.   #  i would argue that it is basically the same for college.   #  i guess it depends on whether you are basing  value  on a relative scale  are you better qualified for this job  than your peers  ?   or on an absolute scale  are you more qualified for this job than you were before ?   .  so, does the fact that high school is free to the public lessen the value of having a high school diploma ? on one hand, you could say  yes , having a high school diploma does not really mean much for the vast majority of jobs because almost everybody has a high school diploma.  but on the other hand the way i would argue , it does have some value, in that it shows you have, well, a high school education and the skills and knowledge that come with that.  if i am looking for a person to keep track of the money at my fast food restaurant, i need somebody with a quick, working knowledge of really basic math arithmetic, maybe some simple algebra .  of course having a high school education is  valuable  in that sense, because it means that you actually have learned arithmetic and algebra, and the diploma shows the employer that.  if i am hiring somebody to write notices/letters to customers, i need somebody who writes english correctly, with proper grammar and spelling.  again, a high school education is  valuable  in that case, as it shows that you have learned basic grammar and spelling, and probably also know how to organize your thoughts and write coherently.  i would argue that it is basically the same for college.  it does not make you less valuable if everybody around you has a college background; it is just making everybody around you more valuable.  i suppose it lessens your  relative  value.   #  more than once these test led to significantly less people enrolling and everyone who took the test got accepted.   #  why keep the standards low then ? where i live, we pay about three hundred euros per semester.  that is almost nothing compared to america.  if there are too many applicants for a subject, there are acceptance tests.  more than once these test led to significantly less people enrolling and everyone who took the test got accepted.  also, the first semester is extra hard.  that results in only students who are really interested in the subject continuing their education.  we have a way higher problem that people from other eu countries come here, get their degree and go back into their home country.
one main argument i have seen against the bernie sanders  free college tuition  idea is that if everyone has a college degree, the value of a degree goes down.  is this true ? in countries like germany and denmark, only the best of students make it into higher education, whereas in american, our standards to get into a university or a community college are laughable.  would we need to raise the bar on admission requirements if college was free ? the main argument here is that making college education free in our system would end up hurting the overachieving students.   #  one main argument i have seen against the bernie sanders  free college tuition  idea is that if everyone has a college degree, the value of a degree goes down.   #  and in a free high school system, the value of everyone getting a high school diploma goes down.   # and in a free high school system, the value of everyone getting a high school diploma goes down.  but it still matters quite a bit to those without one, and society as a whole still benefits because education does not exclusively serve to discriminate between potential employees.  then free tuition is not the issue, all tuition changes is whether the rich benefit from this.   overachieving  students already show it by mechanisms other than simply getting out of university with a diploma.  getting an undergrad degree from harvard is not that hard compared to other schools.   #  i probably paid just as much in tuition as a harvard grad, but my school was no ivy league.   #  if someone has a harvard degree, do you think,  gee, this person is good enough to get accepted to harvard, and has one of the best educations in the country,  or  wow, this person could afford to get into harvard, they should work for me.   pretty sure it is the former, not the latter.  harvard may be expensive, but it is  also  hard to get into.  i probably paid just as much in tuition as a harvard grad, but my school was no ivy league.  we definitely view degrees based on the prestige of the school, not the expense.  schools are often expensive because they are prestigious, not the other way around.  if harvard were free, it would still be viewed favorably by an employer.  plus, i have read that harvard and other ivys make so much money in endowment that they could afford to pay for everyone is tuition as it is; so it is probable that the quality of an ivy education would not even go down if it were free.  do not know if this can be said about other colleges, though.   #  i agree that harvard is very hard to get into, but most universities are not.   #  while i agree that the opinion on ivy league degrees would remain constant, the main point is that this would apply to all public universities.  the goal here is to get more high school students into college, and with making college free, it becomes the new benchmark.  when more people have degrees, what would employers then look for ? would you have to prove yourself by going to more school ? if i graduated with a degree today, i have a much better chance at landing a job, but when i graduate with a class of more students with degrees, my chance at winning the job is lowered.  i agree that harvard is very hard to get into, but most universities are not.  if we keep our standards low and also make it cheaper, more students will graduate with degrees, making a degree less valuable.   #  if i am looking for a person to keep track of the money at my fast food restaurant, i need somebody with a quick, working knowledge of really basic math arithmetic, maybe some simple algebra .   #  i guess it depends on whether you are basing  value  on a relative scale  are you better qualified for this job  than your peers  ?   or on an absolute scale  are you more qualified for this job than you were before ?   .  so, does the fact that high school is free to the public lessen the value of having a high school diploma ? on one hand, you could say  yes , having a high school diploma does not really mean much for the vast majority of jobs because almost everybody has a high school diploma.  but on the other hand the way i would argue , it does have some value, in that it shows you have, well, a high school education and the skills and knowledge that come with that.  if i am looking for a person to keep track of the money at my fast food restaurant, i need somebody with a quick, working knowledge of really basic math arithmetic, maybe some simple algebra .  of course having a high school education is  valuable  in that sense, because it means that you actually have learned arithmetic and algebra, and the diploma shows the employer that.  if i am hiring somebody to write notices/letters to customers, i need somebody who writes english correctly, with proper grammar and spelling.  again, a high school education is  valuable  in that case, as it shows that you have learned basic grammar and spelling, and probably also know how to organize your thoughts and write coherently.  i would argue that it is basically the same for college.  it does not make you less valuable if everybody around you has a college background; it is just making everybody around you more valuable.  i suppose it lessens your  relative  value.   #  where i live, we pay about three hundred euros per semester.   #  why keep the standards low then ? where i live, we pay about three hundred euros per semester.  that is almost nothing compared to america.  if there are too many applicants for a subject, there are acceptance tests.  more than once these test led to significantly less people enrolling and everyone who took the test got accepted.  also, the first semester is extra hard.  that results in only students who are really interested in the subject continuing their education.  we have a way higher problem that people from other eu countries come here, get their degree and go back into their home country.
one main argument i have seen against the bernie sanders  free college tuition  idea is that if everyone has a college degree, the value of a degree goes down.  is this true ? in countries like germany and denmark, only the best of students make it into higher education, whereas in american, our standards to get into a university or a community college are laughable.  would we need to raise the bar on admission requirements if college was free ? the main argument here is that making college education free in our system would end up hurting the overachieving students.   #  in countries like germany and denmark, only the best of students make it into higher education, whereas in american, our standards to get into a university or a community college are laughable.   #  then free tuition is not the issue, all tuition changes is whether the rich benefit from this.   # and in a free high school system, the value of everyone getting a high school diploma goes down.  but it still matters quite a bit to those without one, and society as a whole still benefits because education does not exclusively serve to discriminate between potential employees.  then free tuition is not the issue, all tuition changes is whether the rich benefit from this.   overachieving  students already show it by mechanisms other than simply getting out of university with a diploma.  getting an undergrad degree from harvard is not that hard compared to other schools.   #  we definitely view degrees based on the prestige of the school, not the expense.   #  if someone has a harvard degree, do you think,  gee, this person is good enough to get accepted to harvard, and has one of the best educations in the country,  or  wow, this person could afford to get into harvard, they should work for me.   pretty sure it is the former, not the latter.  harvard may be expensive, but it is  also  hard to get into.  i probably paid just as much in tuition as a harvard grad, but my school was no ivy league.  we definitely view degrees based on the prestige of the school, not the expense.  schools are often expensive because they are prestigious, not the other way around.  if harvard were free, it would still be viewed favorably by an employer.  plus, i have read that harvard and other ivys make so much money in endowment that they could afford to pay for everyone is tuition as it is; so it is probable that the quality of an ivy education would not even go down if it were free.  do not know if this can be said about other colleges, though.   #  would you have to prove yourself by going to more school ?  #  while i agree that the opinion on ivy league degrees would remain constant, the main point is that this would apply to all public universities.  the goal here is to get more high school students into college, and with making college free, it becomes the new benchmark.  when more people have degrees, what would employers then look for ? would you have to prove yourself by going to more school ? if i graduated with a degree today, i have a much better chance at landing a job, but when i graduate with a class of more students with degrees, my chance at winning the job is lowered.  i agree that harvard is very hard to get into, but most universities are not.  if we keep our standards low and also make it cheaper, more students will graduate with degrees, making a degree less valuable.   #  it does not make you less valuable if everybody around you has a college background; it is just making everybody around you more valuable.   #  i guess it depends on whether you are basing  value  on a relative scale  are you better qualified for this job  than your peers  ?   or on an absolute scale  are you more qualified for this job than you were before ?   .  so, does the fact that high school is free to the public lessen the value of having a high school diploma ? on one hand, you could say  yes , having a high school diploma does not really mean much for the vast majority of jobs because almost everybody has a high school diploma.  but on the other hand the way i would argue , it does have some value, in that it shows you have, well, a high school education and the skills and knowledge that come with that.  if i am looking for a person to keep track of the money at my fast food restaurant, i need somebody with a quick, working knowledge of really basic math arithmetic, maybe some simple algebra .  of course having a high school education is  valuable  in that sense, because it means that you actually have learned arithmetic and algebra, and the diploma shows the employer that.  if i am hiring somebody to write notices/letters to customers, i need somebody who writes english correctly, with proper grammar and spelling.  again, a high school education is  valuable  in that case, as it shows that you have learned basic grammar and spelling, and probably also know how to organize your thoughts and write coherently.  i would argue that it is basically the same for college.  it does not make you less valuable if everybody around you has a college background; it is just making everybody around you more valuable.  i suppose it lessens your  relative  value.   #  where i live, we pay about three hundred euros per semester.   #  why keep the standards low then ? where i live, we pay about three hundred euros per semester.  that is almost nothing compared to america.  if there are too many applicants for a subject, there are acceptance tests.  more than once these test led to significantly less people enrolling and everyone who took the test got accepted.  also, the first semester is extra hard.  that results in only students who are really interested in the subject continuing their education.  we have a way higher problem that people from other eu countries come here, get their degree and go back into their home country.
one main argument i have seen against the bernie sanders  free college tuition  idea is that if everyone has a college degree, the value of a degree goes down.  is this true ? in countries like germany and denmark, only the best of students make it into higher education, whereas in american, our standards to get into a university or a community college are laughable.  would we need to raise the bar on admission requirements if college was free ? the main argument here is that making college education free in our system would end up hurting the overachieving students.   #  the main argument here is that making college education free in our system would end up hurting the overachieving students.   #   overachieving  students already show it by mechanisms other than simply getting out of university with a diploma.   # and in a free high school system, the value of everyone getting a high school diploma goes down.  but it still matters quite a bit to those without one, and society as a whole still benefits because education does not exclusively serve to discriminate between potential employees.  then free tuition is not the issue, all tuition changes is whether the rich benefit from this.   overachieving  students already show it by mechanisms other than simply getting out of university with a diploma.  getting an undergrad degree from harvard is not that hard compared to other schools.   #  schools are often expensive because they are prestigious, not the other way around.   #  if someone has a harvard degree, do you think,  gee, this person is good enough to get accepted to harvard, and has one of the best educations in the country,  or  wow, this person could afford to get into harvard, they should work for me.   pretty sure it is the former, not the latter.  harvard may be expensive, but it is  also  hard to get into.  i probably paid just as much in tuition as a harvard grad, but my school was no ivy league.  we definitely view degrees based on the prestige of the school, not the expense.  schools are often expensive because they are prestigious, not the other way around.  if harvard were free, it would still be viewed favorably by an employer.  plus, i have read that harvard and other ivys make so much money in endowment that they could afford to pay for everyone is tuition as it is; so it is probable that the quality of an ivy education would not even go down if it were free.  do not know if this can be said about other colleges, though.   #  i agree that harvard is very hard to get into, but most universities are not.   #  while i agree that the opinion on ivy league degrees would remain constant, the main point is that this would apply to all public universities.  the goal here is to get more high school students into college, and with making college free, it becomes the new benchmark.  when more people have degrees, what would employers then look for ? would you have to prove yourself by going to more school ? if i graduated with a degree today, i have a much better chance at landing a job, but when i graduate with a class of more students with degrees, my chance at winning the job is lowered.  i agree that harvard is very hard to get into, but most universities are not.  if we keep our standards low and also make it cheaper, more students will graduate with degrees, making a degree less valuable.   #  but on the other hand the way i would argue , it does have some value, in that it shows you have, well, a high school education and the skills and knowledge that come with that.   #  i guess it depends on whether you are basing  value  on a relative scale  are you better qualified for this job  than your peers  ?   or on an absolute scale  are you more qualified for this job than you were before ?   .  so, does the fact that high school is free to the public lessen the value of having a high school diploma ? on one hand, you could say  yes , having a high school diploma does not really mean much for the vast majority of jobs because almost everybody has a high school diploma.  but on the other hand the way i would argue , it does have some value, in that it shows you have, well, a high school education and the skills and knowledge that come with that.  if i am looking for a person to keep track of the money at my fast food restaurant, i need somebody with a quick, working knowledge of really basic math arithmetic, maybe some simple algebra .  of course having a high school education is  valuable  in that sense, because it means that you actually have learned arithmetic and algebra, and the diploma shows the employer that.  if i am hiring somebody to write notices/letters to customers, i need somebody who writes english correctly, with proper grammar and spelling.  again, a high school education is  valuable  in that case, as it shows that you have learned basic grammar and spelling, and probably also know how to organize your thoughts and write coherently.  i would argue that it is basically the same for college.  it does not make you less valuable if everybody around you has a college background; it is just making everybody around you more valuable.  i suppose it lessens your  relative  value.   #  if there are too many applicants for a subject, there are acceptance tests.   #  why keep the standards low then ? where i live, we pay about three hundred euros per semester.  that is almost nothing compared to america.  if there are too many applicants for a subject, there are acceptance tests.  more than once these test led to significantly less people enrolling and everyone who took the test got accepted.  also, the first semester is extra hard.  that results in only students who are really interested in the subject continuing their education.  we have a way higher problem that people from other eu countries come here, get their degree and go back into their home country.
there should be nothing acceptable about walking around showing others your underwear.  it is not civilized behavior, and it is potentially in violation of indecency laws what about a man showing nothing but boxers with little girls walking nearby ? , but it is not and will not be addressed because of the fear of being called racist.  my view: saggy pants is not a cultural quirk, nor akin wearing your hat backward.  it is offensive in a very real way, and should not be tolerated in the sense that indecency laws were created for the same underlying reason 0.  it has been correctly noted that many ethnic groups sag their pants 0.  offensive really is subjective, and i have realized the solution is a society i really do not want to live in shira law for example 0.  there really are examples of dress that could be more offensive from that perspective  #  there should be nothing acceptable about walking around showing others your underwear.   #  it is not civilized behavior, and it is potentially in violation of indecency laws what about a man showing nothing but boxers with little girls walking nearby ?  # it is not civilized behavior, and it is potentially in violation of indecency laws what about a man showing nothing but boxers with little girls walking nearby ? what is the difference between boxers and swim trunks ? what is the difference between boxers and  going commando  with shorts ? yoga pants are far more revealing; are you offended by them ? the pertinent parts are covered, so who cares ?  #  how could this be a result of white guilt ?  #  neither are miniskirts or shorts that ride up girls  asses.  how could this be a result of white guilt ? by the way plenty of people call this out, publicly.  many businesses and public buildings have signs that do not allow it.  so are you arguing that just saggy pants specifically should be a civil/criminal offense ?  #  could you better define in what  real way  saggy pants are offensive ?  #  i have stopped seeing sagged pants the last couple of years, i assumed they had gone out of style.  but i admit that i might just not live in an area where it continues to be a fashion.  sagged pants are or were probably just as popular, if not more, within the white community.  and even then, i would find it difficult to believe and impossible for you to argue that people who are racist towards minority cultures never sagged their pants as a fashion statement.  the whole  white guilt , fear of being called a racist argument just does not hold up.  could you better define in what  real way  saggy pants are offensive ?  #  should women not be allowed to wear yoga shorts ?  #  and saggy pants do not fit the norm because  you  do not want them to ? should women not be allowed to wear yoga shorts ? those are basically skin tight underwear yet it is common place areas with warmer weather.  as long as saggers are not showing their genitals how are they being indecent ? boxers are just another piece of clothing, no one is forcing you to look.   #  i think they are accepted simply because i am assuming you do not live in a police state, and there are bigger fish to fry.   #  i do not know where you live, but i think there are a lots of more revealing outfits that do not qualify as public indecency.  just because some underwear is showing does not mean it is public indecency.  look, her underwear is showing ! URL most people consider this look perfectly acceptable, and i do not think bra straps showing is more prevalent in one race.  saggy pants typically are not considered professional, but they are not necessarily uncivilized.  i think they are accepted simply because i am assuming you do not live in a police state, and there are bigger fish to fry.  every few weekends i see people mobs of white people dressed like this URL and i am pretty sure i am not only letting them get by because of white guilt, white power, or anything like that.  it is just because i do not really care what other people are wearing unless it  really  crosses the line.  and visible loose fitting boxers that cover all genitalia well do not cross that line for me
please note before reading: please do not downvote my comments and replies on basis of disagreement.  i have done several cmv is where i was the clear minority in terms of viewpoint, and got downvoted on nearly every post.  due to reddit is karma system, this makes me wait a period of 0 minutes in between replies if my karma is low, and makes it more difficult for me to respond to everyone the more karma you have, the less time you need to wait to post .  if i act like a dick to you, act irrational, or say something logically fallacious, i implore you to downvote me, but i would really like to be able to discuss with everybody and not be held back by my inability to reply and consequently hear replies .  okay, onto my view.  i am not worried about the us government spying on citizens, for the following reasons.  0.  i do not necessarily  have nothing to hide , but i do not expect that there is literally a person on a computer looking through what i post to reddit, twitter, and facebook or what porn i look at .  i have some personal things i would not want an actual person to know or look through, but i feel entirely comfortable with a machine using a ctrl f function to search for terrorist activity, or other organized illegal activities since i do not commit any major crime.  i know a lot of people are worried about the government seeing people torrenting things illegally or watching movies/shows illegally on the internet, but considering how widely this is done and how nonexistent people are prosecuted for it based on the governments ability to view all this, i am not worried about it.  i do not do drugs, but if i did and tried to buy drugs over fb or text, i doubt the government would even care.  we have /r/trees for instance, thousands of people openly doing minor illegal things and the government does not care enough to try and arrest them.  0.  i remember hearing during rand paul is filibuster that there has been terrorist activity stopped by government spying on people.  i think government spying still has an effect as a deterrent terrorists ca not use media to communicate, and therefore it makes terrorist activity harder to commit.  i also heard during the filibuster that the government was using spying to take down organized crime.  i am not worried about that, considering i am not involved in organized crime and therefore am not worried about it.  i would like to point out here, that it is not really a view regarding sympathy or empathy towards criminals and what rights they should have to privacy, but simply my  feeling of worry  about being spied on .  i do not view the nsa spying on druglords to be much different than wire taps or undercover officers.  0.  in addition to the above, i have the view that islamic extremism is, as of isis  international attacks or extremist muslims inspired by isis at least , a legitimate threat to the united states.  there have been us citizens that have gone to fight for isis and local islamic extremist attacks, and believe the us should be able to spy on their communications.  they have claimed to have thousands of people in the us, and while that may be an exaggeration, i do not believe it to be unbelievable considering they have had 0 individuals that have travelled to syria to fight for isis source: URL i would expect if many people are willing to take the trouble to travel to another country to fight others, it is not unexpected that they more would stay in the us to try and perform terrorist activity here considering it would be easier.  0.  i am not worried about the government knowing my political views.  i broadcast them publicly on facebook, and considering our country is devotion to free speech as well as multiple political parties, i do not view any dissent to be any threat to my well being.   #  there have been us citizens that have gone to fight for isis and local islamic extremist attacks, and believe the us should be able to spy on their communications.   #  nobody is really against spying on foreign powers.   # there kind of is.  there is a culture of finding and trading nude pictures at the nsa.  it has been suspected that the nsa has shared data with other agencies like police forces and the dea .  we are just one law away from allowing this data to officially be used by other agencies for even minor crimes.  first it will start with something like child pornography, then they can target you for pirating content.  it does not.  any sufficiently advanced terrorist is able to encrypt their communications, and the nsa ca not yet break well implemented encryption.  this just makes the groups take more precautions.  osama bin ladin was not found by nsa programs, he was found by human intelligence.  nobody is really against spying on foreign powers.  if, in the course of spying on foreign powers, they find someone of interest in the us; they should get a warrant.  the problem is that  everybody  is watched, and not just people of interest.  that is not really the concern.  say that someone with controversial views is running for office.  a person with sufficient power has access to extremely private information that can be used to smear and/or blackmail anybody they want to keep from office.  whether or not they do it now is not the problem; all it takes is for one corrupt individual in the future to abuse it.  look at what snowden got away with; it seems like you just need to bribe the right person at the nsa.   #  then, 0 years later after you become a senator or something, that search history pops back up as evidence that you are a communist sympathizer.   #  for bullet point 0, i do not think anyone is really scared of the government coming after them for minor bullshit.  what people are worried about is the government collecting all this information and using it against people it may deem in the future to be  undesirable.   imagine if the government had this capability during mccarthyism.  how do you think that would have gone ? what if, as a college student, you had a curiosity in communism or marxism and you did your research on the internet ? then, 0 years later after you become a senator or something, that search history pops back up as evidence that you are a communist sympathizer.  in our world, information is power.  what could you be made to do if the government knew you look at incest porn ? what about the fact that you cheat on your wife with dudes from craigslist ? all of this could theoretically be gathered by the nsa today before any of it is really relevant.  0 years from now, though, who knows ?  #  how do you think that would have gone ?  # how do you think that would have gone ? what if, as a college student, you had a curiosity in communism or marxism and you did your research on the internet ? then, 0 years later after you become a senator or something, that search history pops back up as evidence that you are a communist sympathizer.  considering how widely it is done, i think a paranoid driven government would have a similar potential communist file about everyone.  i am not worried about a totalitarian takeover of the government.  being worried about a mccarthyism level of paranoia and imprisonment seems like a giant leap to be worried.  i think enough government officials would have skeletons in their closet, so that being  counter revolutionary  or  now or having ever been a member of the communist party  would not be a threat.  what about the fact that you cheat on your wife with dudes from craigslist ? i do not think the government cares about that.  i would feel uncomfortable if a guy sitting at a computer was watching me on webcam while i looked at incest porn or something, but i do not think the nsa has the manpower to do such a thing, and they simply have a ctrl f type of thing searching out searches or conversations linked to terrorist activity.  if i am put in the file of  incest porn watchers  with millions of other people, with millions of other files of various skeletons in closets, i would not really mind.  again, i do not think this is the case and i think they would be looking solely for threats to the government or safety of citizens.  i am not worried about a computer database having my information, but i would be miffed at an actual person spying on me.  i do not think the latter is the case, though.  when it comes to public officials, i honestly would not mind if all of their information was an open book considering the rampant corruption; i do not intend on being a public official.   #  now, it is fairly unlikely that this would happen to any given person, but it is fairly likely that something a lot like it would happen to someone at some point.   #  nothing to worry about ? all it takes is a minor error associating peterporky the hypothetical twitter parody account of a equally hypothetical fat senator named peter being mistakenly linked to /u/peterporky and his identity being traced from reddit.  the senator wants the parody account shut down but ca not legally force it.  he is, however, owed a favor by someone with nsa ties.  now, it is fairly unlikely that this would happen to any given person, but it is fairly likely that something a lot like it would happen to someone at some point.  of course, if you are going to argue that this makes it not your problem, keep in mind that you are far less likely to be directly affected by terrorist action than to die in a car crash.   #  they do not care about it today, but you do not know today what will be relevant or useful in 0 years.   # they do not care about it today, but you do not know today what will be relevant or useful in 0 years.  the point is that if the government wants your information, it can get it, but it needs a warrant to do it.  allowing the government to just collect everything you do electronically without oversight or limitation is insanity regardless of how it is used.  simply put: it is none of their business, and they have no right to it.  here is a comment URL that illustrates how this information can be used.
please note before reading: please do not downvote my comments and replies on basis of disagreement.  i have done several cmv is where i was the clear minority in terms of viewpoint, and got downvoted on nearly every post.  due to reddit is karma system, this makes me wait a period of 0 minutes in between replies if my karma is low, and makes it more difficult for me to respond to everyone the more karma you have, the less time you need to wait to post .  if i act like a dick to you, act irrational, or say something logically fallacious, i implore you to downvote me, but i would really like to be able to discuss with everybody and not be held back by my inability to reply and consequently hear replies .  okay, onto my view.  i am not worried about the us government spying on citizens, for the following reasons.  0.  i do not necessarily  have nothing to hide , but i do not expect that there is literally a person on a computer looking through what i post to reddit, twitter, and facebook or what porn i look at .  i have some personal things i would not want an actual person to know or look through, but i feel entirely comfortable with a machine using a ctrl f function to search for terrorist activity, or other organized illegal activities since i do not commit any major crime.  i know a lot of people are worried about the government seeing people torrenting things illegally or watching movies/shows illegally on the internet, but considering how widely this is done and how nonexistent people are prosecuted for it based on the governments ability to view all this, i am not worried about it.  i do not do drugs, but if i did and tried to buy drugs over fb or text, i doubt the government would even care.  we have /r/trees for instance, thousands of people openly doing minor illegal things and the government does not care enough to try and arrest them.  0.  i remember hearing during rand paul is filibuster that there has been terrorist activity stopped by government spying on people.  i think government spying still has an effect as a deterrent terrorists ca not use media to communicate, and therefore it makes terrorist activity harder to commit.  i also heard during the filibuster that the government was using spying to take down organized crime.  i am not worried about that, considering i am not involved in organized crime and therefore am not worried about it.  i would like to point out here, that it is not really a view regarding sympathy or empathy towards criminals and what rights they should have to privacy, but simply my  feeling of worry  about being spied on .  i do not view the nsa spying on druglords to be much different than wire taps or undercover officers.  0.  in addition to the above, i have the view that islamic extremism is, as of isis  international attacks or extremist muslims inspired by isis at least , a legitimate threat to the united states.  there have been us citizens that have gone to fight for isis and local islamic extremist attacks, and believe the us should be able to spy on their communications.  they have claimed to have thousands of people in the us, and while that may be an exaggeration, i do not believe it to be unbelievable considering they have had 0 individuals that have travelled to syria to fight for isis source: URL i would expect if many people are willing to take the trouble to travel to another country to fight others, it is not unexpected that they more would stay in the us to try and perform terrorist activity here considering it would be easier.  0.  i am not worried about the government knowing my political views.  i broadcast them publicly on facebook, and considering our country is devotion to free speech as well as multiple political parties, i do not view any dissent to be any threat to my well being.   #  i do not view the nsa spying on druglords to be much different than wire taps or undercover officers.   #  if  they have a warrant, i agree.   #  0 the  i am not worried about them looking at  me  argument is not a good argument.  rights are universal.  rights are most important when protecting the vulnerable, or people on that are not as accepted by society, like black people, like muslims.  so  i have nothing to hide  is not only invalid argument, it is completely incompatible with the idea of basic rights.  0 had it not been for whistleblowers/leaks then no one would know about the programs.  so them acting as a deterrent because terrorist might think they are being watched is not valid.  they never would have known.  if  they have a warrant, i agree.  the issue is the nsa is doing the internet equivalent of tapping phone records, but with out a warrant.  0 i do not disagree that isis is a threat.  but there is no evidence that bulk intelligent gathering has played any part in preventing terrorist attacks.  the vast vast vast majority of terrorist attacks are done by people already known to police.  including the boston marathon bombing, the charlie hebdo killing.  in fact all the terrorist plots stopped since 0/0 have been done with traditional law enforcement, and not nsa spying.  URL 0 again rights do not apply only to you.  you are probably right that no one in the nsa cares about you, if your democrat or republican.  but what about muslims ? there millions of law abiding muslim us citizens.  we already know the nsa is spying on many high profile, 0 law abiding muslims in the us.  URL and that is just an example.  we know the fbi illegally spied on civil rights leaders like martin luther king jr.  the us has locked up people for being communist, and for being japanese.  and that is only with in the last 0 0 years.  not exactly ancient history.  just because you are not on the shit list today does not mean that ca not change.   #  what about the fact that you cheat on your wife with dudes from craigslist ?  #  for bullet point 0, i do not think anyone is really scared of the government coming after them for minor bullshit.  what people are worried about is the government collecting all this information and using it against people it may deem in the future to be  undesirable.   imagine if the government had this capability during mccarthyism.  how do you think that would have gone ? what if, as a college student, you had a curiosity in communism or marxism and you did your research on the internet ? then, 0 years later after you become a senator or something, that search history pops back up as evidence that you are a communist sympathizer.  in our world, information is power.  what could you be made to do if the government knew you look at incest porn ? what about the fact that you cheat on your wife with dudes from craigslist ? all of this could theoretically be gathered by the nsa today before any of it is really relevant.  0 years from now, though, who knows ?  #  i think enough government officials would have skeletons in their closet, so that being  counter revolutionary  or  now or having ever been a member of the communist party  would not be a threat.   # how do you think that would have gone ? what if, as a college student, you had a curiosity in communism or marxism and you did your research on the internet ? then, 0 years later after you become a senator or something, that search history pops back up as evidence that you are a communist sympathizer.  considering how widely it is done, i think a paranoid driven government would have a similar potential communist file about everyone.  i am not worried about a totalitarian takeover of the government.  being worried about a mccarthyism level of paranoia and imprisonment seems like a giant leap to be worried.  i think enough government officials would have skeletons in their closet, so that being  counter revolutionary  or  now or having ever been a member of the communist party  would not be a threat.  what about the fact that you cheat on your wife with dudes from craigslist ? i do not think the government cares about that.  i would feel uncomfortable if a guy sitting at a computer was watching me on webcam while i looked at incest porn or something, but i do not think the nsa has the manpower to do such a thing, and they simply have a ctrl f type of thing searching out searches or conversations linked to terrorist activity.  if i am put in the file of  incest porn watchers  with millions of other people, with millions of other files of various skeletons in closets, i would not really mind.  again, i do not think this is the case and i think they would be looking solely for threats to the government or safety of citizens.  i am not worried about a computer database having my information, but i would be miffed at an actual person spying on me.  i do not think the latter is the case, though.  when it comes to public officials, i honestly would not mind if all of their information was an open book considering the rampant corruption; i do not intend on being a public official.   #  of course, if you are going to argue that this makes it not your problem, keep in mind that you are far less likely to be directly affected by terrorist action than to die in a car crash.   #  nothing to worry about ? all it takes is a minor error associating peterporky the hypothetical twitter parody account of a equally hypothetical fat senator named peter being mistakenly linked to /u/peterporky and his identity being traced from reddit.  the senator wants the parody account shut down but ca not legally force it.  he is, however, owed a favor by someone with nsa ties.  now, it is fairly unlikely that this would happen to any given person, but it is fairly likely that something a lot like it would happen to someone at some point.  of course, if you are going to argue that this makes it not your problem, keep in mind that you are far less likely to be directly affected by terrorist action than to die in a car crash.   #  they do not care about it today, but you do not know today what will be relevant or useful in 0 years.   # they do not care about it today, but you do not know today what will be relevant or useful in 0 years.  the point is that if the government wants your information, it can get it, but it needs a warrant to do it.  allowing the government to just collect everything you do electronically without oversight or limitation is insanity regardless of how it is used.  simply put: it is none of their business, and they have no right to it.  here is a comment URL that illustrates how this information can be used.
i hear all the time about how sure people are that there is life elsewhere in the universe.  i do not see the logic for such confidence.  we have one plot point for where life  has  begun.  we have never been able to create life in a lab even under extremely ideal conditions.  the more we have learned about life in our world the more we have learned how unlikely life is sagan thought life needed very few 0, i believe things to see life develop on a planet.  that number is now well over 0.  what good reasons do we have for believing life is possible if not common in the universe ?  #  we have never been able to create life in a lab even under extremely ideal conditions.   #  we have not been trying to create life in a lab for very long at all.   # which means that life is possible.  we have not been trying to create life in a lab for very long at all.  that number is now well over 0.  very unlikely is not impossible.  the fact that life is on earth shows that life can arise if the right conditions are met.  all we now need are a lot of different attempts.  and considering that there are billions of stars in our galaxy and we can observe billions and billions of galaxies that means that even with unlikely odds it could have happened a few times elsewhere in the universe.  there is a big difference between possible and common.  we know that life is possible because we are having this conversation and we are lifeforms.  we ca not really say much more other than that life is a possibility.  but the universe is huge.   #  and if this is the best argument i guess my skepticism will probably stand.   # though that does not help us.  getting 0,0,0 royal flushes in a row is  possible.  but that is something we are intentionally trying to create and unable to do so far.  that is not random.  the fact that life is on earth shows that life can arise if the right conditions are met.  all we now need are a lot of different attempts.  and considering that there are billions of stars in our galaxy and we can observe billions and billions of galaxies that means that even with unlikely odds it could have happened a few times elsewhere in the universe.  again, this assumes known odds.  if the odds are 0/0 0 that does not give us much in the way of  likely.   we know that life is possible because we are having this conversation and we are lifeforms.  we ca not really say much more other than that life is a possibility.  but the universe is huge.  and if this is the best argument i guess my skepticism will probably stand.  i just see people say that there  has  to be life elsewhere in the universe.  my issue is that i see that as entirely unsupported.   #  we are not talking on the order of 0 0 0 tries, we are talking more on the order 0 0 tries.   # and that is the thing,  space is big.  really big.  you just wo not believe how vastly, hugely, mind bogglingly big it is.  i mean, you may think it is a long way down the road to the chemist, but that is just peanuts to space.   we are not talking on the order of 0 0 0 tries, we are talking more on the order 0 0 tries.  at the very least.  space could be infinite for all we know.  whether it is common or not is entirely based on your definition of common, but by most reasonable definitions, it is not.  but with that many opportunities for it to form elsewhere, if it did not, it would probably be surprising.  now, the chance of us running into this life is probably unlikely, since we ca not even get out of our solar system yet, but the chance of it existing somewhere,  anywhere  is almost certain.  things like this URL show that life can be completely different from what we know, and that is important, because it shows how likely life is to form.  if we found an organism that, for instance, did not use dna do not know if this counts, since it uses arsenic instead of phosphorus which is in dna , then we could probably conclude life formed multiple times on our planet.  if it can do that, then it is not that unlikely, and means the chances increase massively.   #  i am not the one making the affirmative claim.   # you said life wo not be common.  what does that exactly mean to you.  i do not want to have a goal post change half way through this thing.  i honestly do not know.  everything i have read shows it as uncommon.  the issue is we do not know  how  unlikely it is therefore we ca not say that given enough planets and stars life is definitely out there.  my problem is that i see so many people say that life is certainly elsewhere in the universe.  i just do not see the backing for it.  i am not the one making the affirmative claim.   #  we have found bacteria living in boiling water.   #  not counting moons there are 0 x 0 to the 0nd power of possibilities out there.  and that is a conservative estimate based on our current tech.  on the one place with life, we have found it everywhere there is a source of energy.  we have found life that does not need solar power.  we have found bacteria living in boiling water.
i hear all the time about how sure people are that there is life elsewhere in the universe.  i do not see the logic for such confidence.  we have one plot point for where life  has  begun.  we have never been able to create life in a lab even under extremely ideal conditions.  the more we have learned about life in our world the more we have learned how unlikely life is sagan thought life needed very few 0, i believe things to see life develop on a planet.  that number is now well over 0.  what good reasons do we have for believing life is possible if not common in the universe ?  #  the more we have learned about life in our world the more we have learned how unlikely life is sagan thought life needed very few 0, i believe things to see life develop on a planet.   #  that number is now well over 0.  very unlikely is not impossible.   # which means that life is possible.  we have not been trying to create life in a lab for very long at all.  that number is now well over 0.  very unlikely is not impossible.  the fact that life is on earth shows that life can arise if the right conditions are met.  all we now need are a lot of different attempts.  and considering that there are billions of stars in our galaxy and we can observe billions and billions of galaxies that means that even with unlikely odds it could have happened a few times elsewhere in the universe.  there is a big difference between possible and common.  we know that life is possible because we are having this conversation and we are lifeforms.  we ca not really say much more other than that life is a possibility.  but the universe is huge.   #  my issue is that i see that as entirely unsupported.   # though that does not help us.  getting 0,0,0 royal flushes in a row is  possible.  but that is something we are intentionally trying to create and unable to do so far.  that is not random.  the fact that life is on earth shows that life can arise if the right conditions are met.  all we now need are a lot of different attempts.  and considering that there are billions of stars in our galaxy and we can observe billions and billions of galaxies that means that even with unlikely odds it could have happened a few times elsewhere in the universe.  again, this assumes known odds.  if the odds are 0/0 0 that does not give us much in the way of  likely.   we know that life is possible because we are having this conversation and we are lifeforms.  we ca not really say much more other than that life is a possibility.  but the universe is huge.  and if this is the best argument i guess my skepticism will probably stand.  i just see people say that there  has  to be life elsewhere in the universe.  my issue is that i see that as entirely unsupported.   #  if it can do that, then it is not that unlikely, and means the chances increase massively.   # and that is the thing,  space is big.  really big.  you just wo not believe how vastly, hugely, mind bogglingly big it is.  i mean, you may think it is a long way down the road to the chemist, but that is just peanuts to space.   we are not talking on the order of 0 0 0 tries, we are talking more on the order 0 0 tries.  at the very least.  space could be infinite for all we know.  whether it is common or not is entirely based on your definition of common, but by most reasonable definitions, it is not.  but with that many opportunities for it to form elsewhere, if it did not, it would probably be surprising.  now, the chance of us running into this life is probably unlikely, since we ca not even get out of our solar system yet, but the chance of it existing somewhere,  anywhere  is almost certain.  things like this URL show that life can be completely different from what we know, and that is important, because it shows how likely life is to form.  if we found an organism that, for instance, did not use dna do not know if this counts, since it uses arsenic instead of phosphorus which is in dna , then we could probably conclude life formed multiple times on our planet.  if it can do that, then it is not that unlikely, and means the chances increase massively.   #  i do not want to have a goal post change half way through this thing.   # you said life wo not be common.  what does that exactly mean to you.  i do not want to have a goal post change half way through this thing.  i honestly do not know.  everything i have read shows it as uncommon.  the issue is we do not know  how  unlikely it is therefore we ca not say that given enough planets and stars life is definitely out there.  my problem is that i see so many people say that life is certainly elsewhere in the universe.  i just do not see the backing for it.  i am not the one making the affirmative claim.   #  and that is a conservative estimate based on our current tech.   #  not counting moons there are 0 x 0 to the 0nd power of possibilities out there.  and that is a conservative estimate based on our current tech.  on the one place with life, we have found it everywhere there is a source of energy.  we have found life that does not need solar power.  we have found bacteria living in boiling water.
i hear all the time about how sure people are that there is life elsewhere in the universe.  i do not see the logic for such confidence.  we have one plot point for where life  has  begun.  we have never been able to create life in a lab even under extremely ideal conditions.  the more we have learned about life in our world the more we have learned how unlikely life is sagan thought life needed very few 0, i believe things to see life develop on a planet.  that number is now well over 0.  what good reasons do we have for believing life is possible if not common in the universe ?  #  what good reasons do we have for believing life is possible if not common in the universe ?  #  there is a big difference between possible and common.   # which means that life is possible.  we have not been trying to create life in a lab for very long at all.  that number is now well over 0.  very unlikely is not impossible.  the fact that life is on earth shows that life can arise if the right conditions are met.  all we now need are a lot of different attempts.  and considering that there are billions of stars in our galaxy and we can observe billions and billions of galaxies that means that even with unlikely odds it could have happened a few times elsewhere in the universe.  there is a big difference between possible and common.  we know that life is possible because we are having this conversation and we are lifeforms.  we ca not really say much more other than that life is a possibility.  but the universe is huge.   #  i just see people say that there  has  to be life elsewhere in the universe.   # though that does not help us.  getting 0,0,0 royal flushes in a row is  possible.  but that is something we are intentionally trying to create and unable to do so far.  that is not random.  the fact that life is on earth shows that life can arise if the right conditions are met.  all we now need are a lot of different attempts.  and considering that there are billions of stars in our galaxy and we can observe billions and billions of galaxies that means that even with unlikely odds it could have happened a few times elsewhere in the universe.  again, this assumes known odds.  if the odds are 0/0 0 that does not give us much in the way of  likely.   we know that life is possible because we are having this conversation and we are lifeforms.  we ca not really say much more other than that life is a possibility.  but the universe is huge.  and if this is the best argument i guess my skepticism will probably stand.  i just see people say that there  has  to be life elsewhere in the universe.  my issue is that i see that as entirely unsupported.   #  we are not talking on the order of 0 0 0 tries, we are talking more on the order 0 0 tries.   # and that is the thing,  space is big.  really big.  you just wo not believe how vastly, hugely, mind bogglingly big it is.  i mean, you may think it is a long way down the road to the chemist, but that is just peanuts to space.   we are not talking on the order of 0 0 0 tries, we are talking more on the order 0 0 tries.  at the very least.  space could be infinite for all we know.  whether it is common or not is entirely based on your definition of common, but by most reasonable definitions, it is not.  but with that many opportunities for it to form elsewhere, if it did not, it would probably be surprising.  now, the chance of us running into this life is probably unlikely, since we ca not even get out of our solar system yet, but the chance of it existing somewhere,  anywhere  is almost certain.  things like this URL show that life can be completely different from what we know, and that is important, because it shows how likely life is to form.  if we found an organism that, for instance, did not use dna do not know if this counts, since it uses arsenic instead of phosphorus which is in dna , then we could probably conclude life formed multiple times on our planet.  if it can do that, then it is not that unlikely, and means the chances increase massively.   #  i just do not see the backing for it.   # you said life wo not be common.  what does that exactly mean to you.  i do not want to have a goal post change half way through this thing.  i honestly do not know.  everything i have read shows it as uncommon.  the issue is we do not know  how  unlikely it is therefore we ca not say that given enough planets and stars life is definitely out there.  my problem is that i see so many people say that life is certainly elsewhere in the universe.  i just do not see the backing for it.  i am not the one making the affirmative claim.   #  we have found bacteria living in boiling water.   #  not counting moons there are 0 x 0 to the 0nd power of possibilities out there.  and that is a conservative estimate based on our current tech.  on the one place with life, we have found it everywhere there is a source of energy.  we have found life that does not need solar power.  we have found bacteria living in boiling water.
i hear all the time about how sure people are that there is life elsewhere in the universe.  i do not see the logic for such confidence.  we have one plot point for where life  has  begun.  we have never been able to create life in a lab even under extremely ideal conditions.  the more we have learned about life in our world the more we have learned how unlikely life is sagan thought life needed very few 0, i believe things to see life develop on a planet.  that number is now well over 0.  what good reasons do we have for believing life is possible if not common in the universe ?  #  we have never been able to create life in a lab even under extremely ideal conditions.   #  but we know it exists on earth, so this is a moot point.   # the proportion of potential points where life might exist that we have been able to directly observe is something on the order of 0 i am probably vastly understating the actual number of zeroes by the way .  even if the universe were teeming with billions of planets that held life, the likelihood that we would have found one by now after searching only our own solar system and we have not even finished searching that would still be slim.  to say that not having found life means it is unlikely is like saying giraffes are unlikely to exist because there is not one in my backyard right now.  but we know it exists on earth, so this is a moot point.  i. e.  we know that the universe is capable of producing life even though a lab cannot yet .  that number is now well over 0.  this is not true.  we have no idea what life does or does not need because we only have one example of a planet with life.  ideas regarding what life needs are educated guesses.  the core of the argument usually goes like this: 0.  as far as we can tell, the earth is not special i. e.  it is a typical planet revolving around a typical star in a typical galaxy .  0.  the earth has life.  0.  the universe contains so many such planets that even if the development of life on any one of them were exceedingly unlikely, the probability of life existing somewhere becomes substantial as the shear number of candidate planets becomes so large.   #  we have not been trying to create life in a lab for very long at all.   # which means that life is possible.  we have not been trying to create life in a lab for very long at all.  that number is now well over 0.  very unlikely is not impossible.  the fact that life is on earth shows that life can arise if the right conditions are met.  all we now need are a lot of different attempts.  and considering that there are billions of stars in our galaxy and we can observe billions and billions of galaxies that means that even with unlikely odds it could have happened a few times elsewhere in the universe.  there is a big difference between possible and common.  we know that life is possible because we are having this conversation and we are lifeforms.  we ca not really say much more other than that life is a possibility.  but the universe is huge.   #  but that is something we are intentionally trying to create and unable to do so far.   # though that does not help us.  getting 0,0,0 royal flushes in a row is  possible.  but that is something we are intentionally trying to create and unable to do so far.  that is not random.  the fact that life is on earth shows that life can arise if the right conditions are met.  all we now need are a lot of different attempts.  and considering that there are billions of stars in our galaxy and we can observe billions and billions of galaxies that means that even with unlikely odds it could have happened a few times elsewhere in the universe.  again, this assumes known odds.  if the odds are 0/0 0 that does not give us much in the way of  likely.   we know that life is possible because we are having this conversation and we are lifeforms.  we ca not really say much more other than that life is a possibility.  but the universe is huge.  and if this is the best argument i guess my skepticism will probably stand.  i just see people say that there  has  to be life elsewhere in the universe.  my issue is that i see that as entirely unsupported.   #  but with that many opportunities for it to form elsewhere, if it did not, it would probably be surprising.   # and that is the thing,  space is big.  really big.  you just wo not believe how vastly, hugely, mind bogglingly big it is.  i mean, you may think it is a long way down the road to the chemist, but that is just peanuts to space.   we are not talking on the order of 0 0 0 tries, we are talking more on the order 0 0 tries.  at the very least.  space could be infinite for all we know.  whether it is common or not is entirely based on your definition of common, but by most reasonable definitions, it is not.  but with that many opportunities for it to form elsewhere, if it did not, it would probably be surprising.  now, the chance of us running into this life is probably unlikely, since we ca not even get out of our solar system yet, but the chance of it existing somewhere,  anywhere  is almost certain.  things like this URL show that life can be completely different from what we know, and that is important, because it shows how likely life is to form.  if we found an organism that, for instance, did not use dna do not know if this counts, since it uses arsenic instead of phosphorus which is in dna , then we could probably conclude life formed multiple times on our planet.  if it can do that, then it is not that unlikely, and means the chances increase massively.   #  i just do not see the backing for it.   # you said life wo not be common.  what does that exactly mean to you.  i do not want to have a goal post change half way through this thing.  i honestly do not know.  everything i have read shows it as uncommon.  the issue is we do not know  how  unlikely it is therefore we ca not say that given enough planets and stars life is definitely out there.  my problem is that i see so many people say that life is certainly elsewhere in the universe.  i just do not see the backing for it.  i am not the one making the affirmative claim.
i hear all the time about how sure people are that there is life elsewhere in the universe.  i do not see the logic for such confidence.  we have one plot point for where life  has  begun.  we have never been able to create life in a lab even under extremely ideal conditions.  the more we have learned about life in our world the more we have learned how unlikely life is sagan thought life needed very few 0, i believe things to see life develop on a planet.  that number is now well over 0.  what good reasons do we have for believing life is possible if not common in the universe ?  #  the more we have learned about life in our world the more we have learned how unlikely life is sagan thought life needed very few 0, i believe things to see life develop on a planet.   #  that number is now well over 0.  this is not true.   # the proportion of potential points where life might exist that we have been able to directly observe is something on the order of 0 i am probably vastly understating the actual number of zeroes by the way .  even if the universe were teeming with billions of planets that held life, the likelihood that we would have found one by now after searching only our own solar system and we have not even finished searching that would still be slim.  to say that not having found life means it is unlikely is like saying giraffes are unlikely to exist because there is not one in my backyard right now.  but we know it exists on earth, so this is a moot point.  i. e.  we know that the universe is capable of producing life even though a lab cannot yet .  that number is now well over 0.  this is not true.  we have no idea what life does or does not need because we only have one example of a planet with life.  ideas regarding what life needs are educated guesses.  the core of the argument usually goes like this: 0.  as far as we can tell, the earth is not special i. e.  it is a typical planet revolving around a typical star in a typical galaxy .  0.  the earth has life.  0.  the universe contains so many such planets that even if the development of life on any one of them were exceedingly unlikely, the probability of life existing somewhere becomes substantial as the shear number of candidate planets becomes so large.   #  we have not been trying to create life in a lab for very long at all.   # which means that life is possible.  we have not been trying to create life in a lab for very long at all.  that number is now well over 0.  very unlikely is not impossible.  the fact that life is on earth shows that life can arise if the right conditions are met.  all we now need are a lot of different attempts.  and considering that there are billions of stars in our galaxy and we can observe billions and billions of galaxies that means that even with unlikely odds it could have happened a few times elsewhere in the universe.  there is a big difference between possible and common.  we know that life is possible because we are having this conversation and we are lifeforms.  we ca not really say much more other than that life is a possibility.  but the universe is huge.   #  my issue is that i see that as entirely unsupported.   # though that does not help us.  getting 0,0,0 royal flushes in a row is  possible.  but that is something we are intentionally trying to create and unable to do so far.  that is not random.  the fact that life is on earth shows that life can arise if the right conditions are met.  all we now need are a lot of different attempts.  and considering that there are billions of stars in our galaxy and we can observe billions and billions of galaxies that means that even with unlikely odds it could have happened a few times elsewhere in the universe.  again, this assumes known odds.  if the odds are 0/0 0 that does not give us much in the way of  likely.   we know that life is possible because we are having this conversation and we are lifeforms.  we ca not really say much more other than that life is a possibility.  but the universe is huge.  and if this is the best argument i guess my skepticism will probably stand.  i just see people say that there  has  to be life elsewhere in the universe.  my issue is that i see that as entirely unsupported.   #  now, the chance of us running into this life is probably unlikely, since we ca not even get out of our solar system yet, but the chance of it existing somewhere,  anywhere  is almost certain.   # and that is the thing,  space is big.  really big.  you just wo not believe how vastly, hugely, mind bogglingly big it is.  i mean, you may think it is a long way down the road to the chemist, but that is just peanuts to space.   we are not talking on the order of 0 0 0 tries, we are talking more on the order 0 0 tries.  at the very least.  space could be infinite for all we know.  whether it is common or not is entirely based on your definition of common, but by most reasonable definitions, it is not.  but with that many opportunities for it to form elsewhere, if it did not, it would probably be surprising.  now, the chance of us running into this life is probably unlikely, since we ca not even get out of our solar system yet, but the chance of it existing somewhere,  anywhere  is almost certain.  things like this URL show that life can be completely different from what we know, and that is important, because it shows how likely life is to form.  if we found an organism that, for instance, did not use dna do not know if this counts, since it uses arsenic instead of phosphorus which is in dna , then we could probably conclude life formed multiple times on our planet.  if it can do that, then it is not that unlikely, and means the chances increase massively.   #  i do not want to have a goal post change half way through this thing.   # you said life wo not be common.  what does that exactly mean to you.  i do not want to have a goal post change half way through this thing.  i honestly do not know.  everything i have read shows it as uncommon.  the issue is we do not know  how  unlikely it is therefore we ca not say that given enough planets and stars life is definitely out there.  my problem is that i see so many people say that life is certainly elsewhere in the universe.  i just do not see the backing for it.  i am not the one making the affirmative claim.
i hear all the time about how sure people are that there is life elsewhere in the universe.  i do not see the logic for such confidence.  we have one plot point for where life  has  begun.  we have never been able to create life in a lab even under extremely ideal conditions.  the more we have learned about life in our world the more we have learned how unlikely life is sagan thought life needed very few 0, i believe things to see life develop on a planet.  that number is now well over 0.  what good reasons do we have for believing life is possible if not common in the universe ?  #  what good reasons do we have for believing life is possible if not common in the universe ?  #  the core of the argument usually goes like this: 0.  as far as we can tell, the earth is not special i. e.   # the proportion of potential points where life might exist that we have been able to directly observe is something on the order of 0 i am probably vastly understating the actual number of zeroes by the way .  even if the universe were teeming with billions of planets that held life, the likelihood that we would have found one by now after searching only our own solar system and we have not even finished searching that would still be slim.  to say that not having found life means it is unlikely is like saying giraffes are unlikely to exist because there is not one in my backyard right now.  but we know it exists on earth, so this is a moot point.  i. e.  we know that the universe is capable of producing life even though a lab cannot yet .  that number is now well over 0.  this is not true.  we have no idea what life does or does not need because we only have one example of a planet with life.  ideas regarding what life needs are educated guesses.  the core of the argument usually goes like this: 0.  as far as we can tell, the earth is not special i. e.  it is a typical planet revolving around a typical star in a typical galaxy .  0.  the earth has life.  0.  the universe contains so many such planets that even if the development of life on any one of them were exceedingly unlikely, the probability of life existing somewhere becomes substantial as the shear number of candidate planets becomes so large.   #  there is a big difference between possible and common.   # which means that life is possible.  we have not been trying to create life in a lab for very long at all.  that number is now well over 0.  very unlikely is not impossible.  the fact that life is on earth shows that life can arise if the right conditions are met.  all we now need are a lot of different attempts.  and considering that there are billions of stars in our galaxy and we can observe billions and billions of galaxies that means that even with unlikely odds it could have happened a few times elsewhere in the universe.  there is a big difference between possible and common.  we know that life is possible because we are having this conversation and we are lifeforms.  we ca not really say much more other than that life is a possibility.  but the universe is huge.   #  i just see people say that there  has  to be life elsewhere in the universe.   # though that does not help us.  getting 0,0,0 royal flushes in a row is  possible.  but that is something we are intentionally trying to create and unable to do so far.  that is not random.  the fact that life is on earth shows that life can arise if the right conditions are met.  all we now need are a lot of different attempts.  and considering that there are billions of stars in our galaxy and we can observe billions and billions of galaxies that means that even with unlikely odds it could have happened a few times elsewhere in the universe.  again, this assumes known odds.  if the odds are 0/0 0 that does not give us much in the way of  likely.   we know that life is possible because we are having this conversation and we are lifeforms.  we ca not really say much more other than that life is a possibility.  but the universe is huge.  and if this is the best argument i guess my skepticism will probably stand.  i just see people say that there  has  to be life elsewhere in the universe.  my issue is that i see that as entirely unsupported.   #  things like this URL show that life can be completely different from what we know, and that is important, because it shows how likely life is to form.   # and that is the thing,  space is big.  really big.  you just wo not believe how vastly, hugely, mind bogglingly big it is.  i mean, you may think it is a long way down the road to the chemist, but that is just peanuts to space.   we are not talking on the order of 0 0 0 tries, we are talking more on the order 0 0 tries.  at the very least.  space could be infinite for all we know.  whether it is common or not is entirely based on your definition of common, but by most reasonable definitions, it is not.  but with that many opportunities for it to form elsewhere, if it did not, it would probably be surprising.  now, the chance of us running into this life is probably unlikely, since we ca not even get out of our solar system yet, but the chance of it existing somewhere,  anywhere  is almost certain.  things like this URL show that life can be completely different from what we know, and that is important, because it shows how likely life is to form.  if we found an organism that, for instance, did not use dna do not know if this counts, since it uses arsenic instead of phosphorus which is in dna , then we could probably conclude life formed multiple times on our planet.  if it can do that, then it is not that unlikely, and means the chances increase massively.   #  i do not want to have a goal post change half way through this thing.   # you said life wo not be common.  what does that exactly mean to you.  i do not want to have a goal post change half way through this thing.  i honestly do not know.  everything i have read shows it as uncommon.  the issue is we do not know  how  unlikely it is therefore we ca not say that given enough planets and stars life is definitely out there.  my problem is that i see so many people say that life is certainly elsewhere in the universe.  i just do not see the backing for it.  i am not the one making the affirmative claim.
on top of that, if hear you complain about  pc culture  i think it is not unreasonable to assume they are prejudiced in some way.  while i do not think keeping up with gender pronouns is important, i do not think it is too much to ask for people to not say  nigger  or  faggot .  i hear a lot of people complaining, particularly on reddit, about how  everything is so pc now, you ca not say anything .  no one cares what you say, unless you use an obviously offensive term or slur.  i know a common argument against this view is that pc teaches people to be offended instead of to toughen up, but i think the idea that we should not discourage slurs as a way to toughen people up is ridiculous.  it is not too much to ask to be civil.   #  i do not think it is too much to ask for people to not say  nigger  or  faggot .   #  i am black, i am female, and i am bisexual.   # why ? i am black, i am female, and i am bisexual.  the 0 things america hates the most in one person.  i have heard it all.  but i still believe people should be able to say what they want as long as 0 i get the same rights 0 they are aware that whatever they say makes them a target to people who take offense.  freedom of expression is so important to me and as long as it does not effect my life or brings harm to anyone yelling  bomb !   around those with ptsd, for example .  true, but you should still be able to say anything you want without worrying that the law might bring its wrath upon you lol .  this holds some truth, though.  we should not walk around eggshells in fear that we will offend somebody.  no matter what you say, you will offend somebody.  for example, the politically correct term for black people is  african american .  it offends me.  i am not african, for one, i am jamaican.  nationality and ethnicity are two very different things.  but people should still have the right to say it.  i also think that enforcing pc makes sociopaths.  it does not let people truly express themselves.  they will start saying things they do not really mean.  which brings me to my next point: change.  language changes all the time.  some words leave, others are created.  pc is ineffective in stopping people from saying certain things; people will always find loopholes.  ask me to be civil, do not  demand  and make laws forcing me to be civil.   #  but it crosses a line when people start saying that i should not be allowed to say certain things, simply because it bothers them.   #  the problem with the overreaching of  pc culture  is that it starts simple enough, with people being more and more offended, but before long, it inevitably leads to people taking it farther.  rather than simply saying  i would appreciate it if you did not say those words around me,  it turns into people trying to take legal action and actually start forbidding certain things from being said, and that is when it stops being okay.  i ca not tell someone they are wrong for taking offense to something.  that is subjective, and if you are offended, then you are offended.  but it crosses a line when people start saying that i should not be allowed to say certain things, simply because it bothers them.   #  i am talking about the ones who are pushing for censorship.   #  no, they do not, but i am not talking about  most of the people .  i am talking about the ones who are pushing for censorship.  but, since you brought it up, i still think there is generally a problem with the pc culture, and it is basically that it is narcissistic.  to say that someone else should refrain from posting certain things, because it offends you, when you could just. not follow that person.  it is saying that basically your sensitivity is more important than anything else, and that if 0 out of 0 people is bothered by something, that is more important than the 0 who are not.  people can get upset all they want.  like i said, it is not for me to tell you what should and should not offend you.  but if you are bothered by something, then the responsibility is on you to avoid it, not for everyone else to adjust their way of doing things to account for your preferences.  this would be like walking into a concert hall and telling them that now that you are here, they need to keep it down because you do not like the noise.   #  or even using the medical term  mental retardation .   #  the problem is not people calling out insults as offensive.  it is people calling out the medical term as offensive  because  of the insults.  and mind you, i am not even talking about going so far as saying  retard .  most people would shy away from saying that, because it clearly is an insult.  i am talking about good natured people getting yelled at for saying  disabled , because now that is also considered offensive for implying that they are less than normal.  or saying  handicapped  for the same reason.  or even using the medical term  mental retardation .  that is when it is gone too far, is when even good people are being told that they are  part of the problem , when they were never trying to insult anyone at all.   #  like i said, that is not a new idea.   #  most people do not disagree, but a handful do.  and again, that is not becoming  more politically correct .  believing that you should be kind enough to not intentionally offend people is not a new concept, and that is not what becoming more pc means.  my objection to the pc wave is not that people are saying you should not be a dick.  like i said, that is not a new idea.  my objection is the continuous lowering of the bar for what people are offended by.  if it were as straightforward as your example, and we were just talking about not saying  nigger , then fine.  but instead of just not saying  nigger  in place of african american, now i am being told i am not supposed to say  autistic , but rather  person with autism , because it focuses on  person first, not the condition .  i am not supposed to say  disabled  because it implies that that person is less of a person.  i am not supposed to say  retarded , even though the literal meaning of the word is perfectly accurate for the situation.  that is pc culture, and that is what is going overboard.
on top of that, if hear you complain about  pc culture  i think it is not unreasonable to assume they are prejudiced in some way.  while i do not think keeping up with gender pronouns is important, i do not think it is too much to ask for people to not say  nigger  or  faggot .  i hear a lot of people complaining, particularly on reddit, about how  everything is so pc now, you ca not say anything .  no one cares what you say, unless you use an obviously offensive term or slur.  i know a common argument against this view is that pc teaches people to be offended instead of to toughen up, but i think the idea that we should not discourage slurs as a way to toughen people up is ridiculous.  it is not too much to ask to be civil.   #  no one cares what you say, unless you use an obviously offensive term or slur.   #  true, but you should still be able to say anything you want without worrying that the law might bring its wrath upon you lol .   # why ? i am black, i am female, and i am bisexual.  the 0 things america hates the most in one person.  i have heard it all.  but i still believe people should be able to say what they want as long as 0 i get the same rights 0 they are aware that whatever they say makes them a target to people who take offense.  freedom of expression is so important to me and as long as it does not effect my life or brings harm to anyone yelling  bomb !   around those with ptsd, for example .  true, but you should still be able to say anything you want without worrying that the law might bring its wrath upon you lol .  this holds some truth, though.  we should not walk around eggshells in fear that we will offend somebody.  no matter what you say, you will offend somebody.  for example, the politically correct term for black people is  african american .  it offends me.  i am not african, for one, i am jamaican.  nationality and ethnicity are two very different things.  but people should still have the right to say it.  i also think that enforcing pc makes sociopaths.  it does not let people truly express themselves.  they will start saying things they do not really mean.  which brings me to my next point: change.  language changes all the time.  some words leave, others are created.  pc is ineffective in stopping people from saying certain things; people will always find loopholes.  ask me to be civil, do not  demand  and make laws forcing me to be civil.   #  the problem with the overreaching of  pc culture  is that it starts simple enough, with people being more and more offended, but before long, it inevitably leads to people taking it farther.   #  the problem with the overreaching of  pc culture  is that it starts simple enough, with people being more and more offended, but before long, it inevitably leads to people taking it farther.  rather than simply saying  i would appreciate it if you did not say those words around me,  it turns into people trying to take legal action and actually start forbidding certain things from being said, and that is when it stops being okay.  i ca not tell someone they are wrong for taking offense to something.  that is subjective, and if you are offended, then you are offended.  but it crosses a line when people start saying that i should not be allowed to say certain things, simply because it bothers them.   #  to say that someone else should refrain from posting certain things, because it offends you, when you could just. not follow that person.   #  no, they do not, but i am not talking about  most of the people .  i am talking about the ones who are pushing for censorship.  but, since you brought it up, i still think there is generally a problem with the pc culture, and it is basically that it is narcissistic.  to say that someone else should refrain from posting certain things, because it offends you, when you could just. not follow that person.  it is saying that basically your sensitivity is more important than anything else, and that if 0 out of 0 people is bothered by something, that is more important than the 0 who are not.  people can get upset all they want.  like i said, it is not for me to tell you what should and should not offend you.  but if you are bothered by something, then the responsibility is on you to avoid it, not for everyone else to adjust their way of doing things to account for your preferences.  this would be like walking into a concert hall and telling them that now that you are here, they need to keep it down because you do not like the noise.   #  that is when it is gone too far, is when even good people are being told that they are  part of the problem , when they were never trying to insult anyone at all.   #  the problem is not people calling out insults as offensive.  it is people calling out the medical term as offensive  because  of the insults.  and mind you, i am not even talking about going so far as saying  retard .  most people would shy away from saying that, because it clearly is an insult.  i am talking about good natured people getting yelled at for saying  disabled , because now that is also considered offensive for implying that they are less than normal.  or saying  handicapped  for the same reason.  or even using the medical term  mental retardation .  that is when it is gone too far, is when even good people are being told that they are  part of the problem , when they were never trying to insult anyone at all.   #  like i said, that is not a new idea.   #  most people do not disagree, but a handful do.  and again, that is not becoming  more politically correct .  believing that you should be kind enough to not intentionally offend people is not a new concept, and that is not what becoming more pc means.  my objection to the pc wave is not that people are saying you should not be a dick.  like i said, that is not a new idea.  my objection is the continuous lowering of the bar for what people are offended by.  if it were as straightforward as your example, and we were just talking about not saying  nigger , then fine.  but instead of just not saying  nigger  in place of african american, now i am being told i am not supposed to say  autistic , but rather  person with autism , because it focuses on  person first, not the condition .  i am not supposed to say  disabled  because it implies that that person is less of a person.  i am not supposed to say  retarded , even though the literal meaning of the word is perfectly accurate for the situation.  that is pc culture, and that is what is going overboard.
on top of that, if hear you complain about  pc culture  i think it is not unreasonable to assume they are prejudiced in some way.  while i do not think keeping up with gender pronouns is important, i do not think it is too much to ask for people to not say  nigger  or  faggot .  i hear a lot of people complaining, particularly on reddit, about how  everything is so pc now, you ca not say anything .  no one cares what you say, unless you use an obviously offensive term or slur.  i know a common argument against this view is that pc teaches people to be offended instead of to toughen up, but i think the idea that we should not discourage slurs as a way to toughen people up is ridiculous.  it is not too much to ask to be civil.   #  it is not too much to ask to be civil.   #  ask me to be civil, do not  demand  and make laws forcing me to be civil.   # why ? i am black, i am female, and i am bisexual.  the 0 things america hates the most in one person.  i have heard it all.  but i still believe people should be able to say what they want as long as 0 i get the same rights 0 they are aware that whatever they say makes them a target to people who take offense.  freedom of expression is so important to me and as long as it does not effect my life or brings harm to anyone yelling  bomb !   around those with ptsd, for example .  true, but you should still be able to say anything you want without worrying that the law might bring its wrath upon you lol .  this holds some truth, though.  we should not walk around eggshells in fear that we will offend somebody.  no matter what you say, you will offend somebody.  for example, the politically correct term for black people is  african american .  it offends me.  i am not african, for one, i am jamaican.  nationality and ethnicity are two very different things.  but people should still have the right to say it.  i also think that enforcing pc makes sociopaths.  it does not let people truly express themselves.  they will start saying things they do not really mean.  which brings me to my next point: change.  language changes all the time.  some words leave, others are created.  pc is ineffective in stopping people from saying certain things; people will always find loopholes.  ask me to be civil, do not  demand  and make laws forcing me to be civil.   #  that is subjective, and if you are offended, then you are offended.   #  the problem with the overreaching of  pc culture  is that it starts simple enough, with people being more and more offended, but before long, it inevitably leads to people taking it farther.  rather than simply saying  i would appreciate it if you did not say those words around me,  it turns into people trying to take legal action and actually start forbidding certain things from being said, and that is when it stops being okay.  i ca not tell someone they are wrong for taking offense to something.  that is subjective, and if you are offended, then you are offended.  but it crosses a line when people start saying that i should not be allowed to say certain things, simply because it bothers them.   #  i am talking about the ones who are pushing for censorship.   #  no, they do not, but i am not talking about  most of the people .  i am talking about the ones who are pushing for censorship.  but, since you brought it up, i still think there is generally a problem with the pc culture, and it is basically that it is narcissistic.  to say that someone else should refrain from posting certain things, because it offends you, when you could just. not follow that person.  it is saying that basically your sensitivity is more important than anything else, and that if 0 out of 0 people is bothered by something, that is more important than the 0 who are not.  people can get upset all they want.  like i said, it is not for me to tell you what should and should not offend you.  but if you are bothered by something, then the responsibility is on you to avoid it, not for everyone else to adjust their way of doing things to account for your preferences.  this would be like walking into a concert hall and telling them that now that you are here, they need to keep it down because you do not like the noise.   #  i am talking about good natured people getting yelled at for saying  disabled , because now that is also considered offensive for implying that they are less than normal.   #  the problem is not people calling out insults as offensive.  it is people calling out the medical term as offensive  because  of the insults.  and mind you, i am not even talking about going so far as saying  retard .  most people would shy away from saying that, because it clearly is an insult.  i am talking about good natured people getting yelled at for saying  disabled , because now that is also considered offensive for implying that they are less than normal.  or saying  handicapped  for the same reason.  or even using the medical term  mental retardation .  that is when it is gone too far, is when even good people are being told that they are  part of the problem , when they were never trying to insult anyone at all.   #  like i said, that is not a new idea.   #  most people do not disagree, but a handful do.  and again, that is not becoming  more politically correct .  believing that you should be kind enough to not intentionally offend people is not a new concept, and that is not what becoming more pc means.  my objection to the pc wave is not that people are saying you should not be a dick.  like i said, that is not a new idea.  my objection is the continuous lowering of the bar for what people are offended by.  if it were as straightforward as your example, and we were just talking about not saying  nigger , then fine.  but instead of just not saying  nigger  in place of african american, now i am being told i am not supposed to say  autistic , but rather  person with autism , because it focuses on  person first, not the condition .  i am not supposed to say  disabled  because it implies that that person is less of a person.  i am not supposed to say  retarded , even though the literal meaning of the word is perfectly accurate for the situation.  that is pc culture, and that is what is going overboard.
i recently discovered /r/anglish.  anglish is an attempt to construct a version of english using only anglo saxon and other germanic roots.  the result is a language that not only sounds beautiful, but is much more intuitive to learn new vocabulary.  take, for example, this list of lores URL rather than using greek derived names for the sciences, which are completely meaningless to the average learner of english until they learn the name of that particular science, anglish uses simple compounds from common, everyday words that language learners would already be familiar with.  many languages do this as well.  the result of incorporating all these foreign words is that english no consistency of grammar, spelling, pronunciation, or anything.  this makes it more confusing and burdensome to learn.  i should specify that i am speaking of a regulator with the goal of keeping english clear, consistent, and true to its roots.  obviously, a language regulator that pushed for the inclusion of these foreign words would be no help.  it may be too late now, given the use of english as an international language, but i think it is a shame and a detriment to international communication that english was not standardized this way a long time ago.   #  the result of incorporating all these foreign words is that english no consistency of grammar, spelling, pronunciation, or anything.   #  find me a living spoken language that has these.   #  quick answer: language do not work that way.  no language that i am aware of has ever had a  regulator  and even if one did it would not have made a difference.  language is constructed by need, not by design, and those constructed languages i am aware of have all failed.  the closest you might come to a successful constructed language is various sign languages created for the deaf and mute, but even those have branched out and changed based on usage.  i am not really sure it is a valid criticism.  basically the argument is that you do not know what words mean until you have learned what those words mean.  i am not sure where the problem is with that.  i was equally unaware of what  goodnessfrod  or  cracklore of bones  meant before i read your link.  find me a living spoken language that has these.  what is so great about englishes roots ? why stop there ? would not germanic be even better ? more pure ? how is our current version of english unclear, or inconsistent in any meaningful way ? do you have any proof that there is a large amount of miscommunication happening ? remember, that is the point of language, to communicate.  roots, purity, regulation and rules are all irrelevant to the fact that i need to tell you something and i am going to find a way to do that.   #  so.  you never came across a word you were not able to understand ?  #  there are definitely advantages to pictographs, but there are at least a couple of major downsides.  one of them is pronunciation.  not being able to derive the pronunciation from the text, you would have to learn each pictograph by rote.  the other is typesetting.  even though we do not use printing presses any more, we still need a system for inputting the text into computers.  chinese speakers, for instance typically use pinyin, which is an alphabetic system, which goes to show that in the modern world, it is unlikely that a pictographic system can replace an alphabetic system entirely.  so.  you never came across a word you were not able to understand ? never had to look it up in a dictionary, ask an adult, or even just skip over it and keep reading ?  #  as a writing system, it does have it is advantages one of them being that it keeps the language pure by its nature , but just because native speakers learn to deal with it does not mean it is not difficult.   # native chinese speakers do not generally have a problem reading chinese characters.  i still think it is fair to say that, if you know the spoken language, it is objectively easier to learn an alphabet than a logographic system of thousands of characters.  i learned the cyrillic alphabet in one afternoon.  i have been struggling with chinese characters all my life.  as a writing system, it does have it is advantages one of them being that it keeps the language pure by its nature , but just because native speakers learn to deal with it does not mean it is not difficult.   #  most importantly though, the meaning of mathematical symbols does actually allow me to pick up a paper in french and by examining their equations, get a decent idea of what they are trying to calculate.   #  it makes it easier to learn how to communicate your research in multiple languages.  a large amount of phd students in america at least are foreign, and their english is often not fantastic, mostly because they have never lived in an english speaking country.  but they have much less trouble picking up the english vocabulary of their scientific discipline, because it is very similar to what they have always learned.  so the similarity of vocabulary across languages makes it easier to learn how to communicate with scientists who speak a different language.  most importantly though, the meaning of mathematical symbols does actually allow me to pick up a paper in french and by examining their equations, get a decent idea of what they are trying to calculate.  that is a facet of science that is entirely universal.  for example, if a french statistician calculated a supposedly better method to prevent false positives, i will be able to figure out exactly how his method differs from a more standard method.  and from there, i can test it myself.  all without needing to know a lick of french.  so the answer is twofold.  it does make it easier for people to learn to communicate science in a non native language, and the actual quantitative research is a universal language that all scientists speak.  without that universal language, the capacity to communicate methodology is destroyed.  and the communication of methodology is the most vital to facilitate peer review and replication.   #  if it is english, what other languages have you studied ?  # no language that i am aware of has ever had a  regulator  and even if one did it would not have made a difference.  language is constructed by need, not by design, and those constructed languages i am aware of have all failed.  the closest you might come to a successful constructed language is various sign languages created for the deaf and mute, but even those have branched out and changed based on usage.  you are mistaken.  many, if not most, major world languages have regulatory bodies.  URL  in my quick reading regarding anglish this seem to come up a lot.  i am not really sure it is a valid criticism.  basically the argument is that you do not know what words mean until you have learned what those words mean.  i am not sure where the problem is with that.  i was equally unaware of what  goodnessfrod  or  cracklore of bones  meant before i read your link.  you know what  crack ,  lore , and  bones  mean.  if you saw the term in context, i am sure you would have been able to work out the meaning.  clearly, it refers to drug induced fan theories about the tv series starring emily deschanel :p if would be even easier if you had grown up speaking anglish, and were accustomed to hearing  crack  used in a medical context, and  lore  used to mean a field of academic study.  a lot of languages have one or more of those traits, especially the regulated ones.  at least officially.  there may be some rule breaking in slang, of course, but at least the official version provides an ideal for the educated to strive towards.  why stop there ? would not germanic be even better ? more pure ? actually, anglish does use roots from other germanic languages when an appropriate anglo saxon word ca not be found.  it is not about any language being better than any other.  it would be just as well to speak pure greek or pure latin.  it is about consistency.  keeping the number of phonemes from becoming overwhelming.  using words that are conjugated the same way, according to the same rules.  using compounds of common words when it is sufficient instead of introducing new words.  may i ask what your native language is ? if it is english, what other languages have you studied ? have you ever taught anyone english ?
i recently discovered /r/anglish.  anglish is an attempt to construct a version of english using only anglo saxon and other germanic roots.  the result is a language that not only sounds beautiful, but is much more intuitive to learn new vocabulary.  take, for example, this list of lores URL rather than using greek derived names for the sciences, which are completely meaningless to the average learner of english until they learn the name of that particular science, anglish uses simple compounds from common, everyday words that language learners would already be familiar with.  many languages do this as well.  the result of incorporating all these foreign words is that english no consistency of grammar, spelling, pronunciation, or anything.  this makes it more confusing and burdensome to learn.  i should specify that i am speaking of a regulator with the goal of keeping english clear, consistent, and true to its roots.  obviously, a language regulator that pushed for the inclusion of these foreign words would be no help.  it may be too late now, given the use of english as an international language, but i think it is a shame and a detriment to international communication that english was not standardized this way a long time ago.   #  i should specify that i am speaking of a regulator with the goal of keeping english clear, consistent, and true to its roots.   #  what is so great about englishes roots ?  #  quick answer: language do not work that way.  no language that i am aware of has ever had a  regulator  and even if one did it would not have made a difference.  language is constructed by need, not by design, and those constructed languages i am aware of have all failed.  the closest you might come to a successful constructed language is various sign languages created for the deaf and mute, but even those have branched out and changed based on usage.  i am not really sure it is a valid criticism.  basically the argument is that you do not know what words mean until you have learned what those words mean.  i am not sure where the problem is with that.  i was equally unaware of what  goodnessfrod  or  cracklore of bones  meant before i read your link.  find me a living spoken language that has these.  what is so great about englishes roots ? why stop there ? would not germanic be even better ? more pure ? how is our current version of english unclear, or inconsistent in any meaningful way ? do you have any proof that there is a large amount of miscommunication happening ? remember, that is the point of language, to communicate.  roots, purity, regulation and rules are all irrelevant to the fact that i need to tell you something and i am going to find a way to do that.   #  never had to look it up in a dictionary, ask an adult, or even just skip over it and keep reading ?  #  there are definitely advantages to pictographs, but there are at least a couple of major downsides.  one of them is pronunciation.  not being able to derive the pronunciation from the text, you would have to learn each pictograph by rote.  the other is typesetting.  even though we do not use printing presses any more, we still need a system for inputting the text into computers.  chinese speakers, for instance typically use pinyin, which is an alphabetic system, which goes to show that in the modern world, it is unlikely that a pictographic system can replace an alphabetic system entirely.  so.  you never came across a word you were not able to understand ? never had to look it up in a dictionary, ask an adult, or even just skip over it and keep reading ?  #  i have been struggling with chinese characters all my life.   # native chinese speakers do not generally have a problem reading chinese characters.  i still think it is fair to say that, if you know the spoken language, it is objectively easier to learn an alphabet than a logographic system of thousands of characters.  i learned the cyrillic alphabet in one afternoon.  i have been struggling with chinese characters all my life.  as a writing system, it does have it is advantages one of them being that it keeps the language pure by its nature , but just because native speakers learn to deal with it does not mean it is not difficult.   #  without that universal language, the capacity to communicate methodology is destroyed.   #  it makes it easier to learn how to communicate your research in multiple languages.  a large amount of phd students in america at least are foreign, and their english is often not fantastic, mostly because they have never lived in an english speaking country.  but they have much less trouble picking up the english vocabulary of their scientific discipline, because it is very similar to what they have always learned.  so the similarity of vocabulary across languages makes it easier to learn how to communicate with scientists who speak a different language.  most importantly though, the meaning of mathematical symbols does actually allow me to pick up a paper in french and by examining their equations, get a decent idea of what they are trying to calculate.  that is a facet of science that is entirely universal.  for example, if a french statistician calculated a supposedly better method to prevent false positives, i will be able to figure out exactly how his method differs from a more standard method.  and from there, i can test it myself.  all without needing to know a lick of french.  so the answer is twofold.  it does make it easier for people to learn to communicate science in a non native language, and the actual quantitative research is a universal language that all scientists speak.  without that universal language, the capacity to communicate methodology is destroyed.  and the communication of methodology is the most vital to facilitate peer review and replication.   #  if it is english, what other languages have you studied ?  # no language that i am aware of has ever had a  regulator  and even if one did it would not have made a difference.  language is constructed by need, not by design, and those constructed languages i am aware of have all failed.  the closest you might come to a successful constructed language is various sign languages created for the deaf and mute, but even those have branched out and changed based on usage.  you are mistaken.  many, if not most, major world languages have regulatory bodies.  URL  in my quick reading regarding anglish this seem to come up a lot.  i am not really sure it is a valid criticism.  basically the argument is that you do not know what words mean until you have learned what those words mean.  i am not sure where the problem is with that.  i was equally unaware of what  goodnessfrod  or  cracklore of bones  meant before i read your link.  you know what  crack ,  lore , and  bones  mean.  if you saw the term in context, i am sure you would have been able to work out the meaning.  clearly, it refers to drug induced fan theories about the tv series starring emily deschanel :p if would be even easier if you had grown up speaking anglish, and were accustomed to hearing  crack  used in a medical context, and  lore  used to mean a field of academic study.  a lot of languages have one or more of those traits, especially the regulated ones.  at least officially.  there may be some rule breaking in slang, of course, but at least the official version provides an ideal for the educated to strive towards.  why stop there ? would not germanic be even better ? more pure ? actually, anglish does use roots from other germanic languages when an appropriate anglo saxon word ca not be found.  it is not about any language being better than any other.  it would be just as well to speak pure greek or pure latin.  it is about consistency.  keeping the number of phonemes from becoming overwhelming.  using words that are conjugated the same way, according to the same rules.  using compounds of common words when it is sufficient instead of introducing new words.  may i ask what your native language is ? if it is english, what other languages have you studied ? have you ever taught anyone english ?
please also read the edits before commenting  it should be noted the i am a white male alumnus of chapman university.  this cmv is in response to a new policy URL regarding graduation at my alma mater.  i view this in very much the same way that i view the hypocrisy or at the very least counter productiveness of things like the  black entertainment network  or the  latino music awards , etc.  i think that there is a difficult to find line that is tread between celebrating cultural differences and self segregation.  by creating a black graduation, you are deliberately singling out your own minority group for special treatment.  you are drawing a dividing line between all of the students many of whom are international students struggling to speak english, let alone excell in a western educational system and students that have a different skin color.  is not this the type of dividing line we have been trying to erase for  centuries  now ? why exacerbate the problem by reinforcing that dividing line even more ? is not it the goal to be viewed as you are equal ? i apologize for disappearing after the 0 hour mark.  there was some ducks hockey to watch ; i will be responding and keeping the discussion going as much as i can as the workweek resumes.  just please note that this edit will serve as a response to some of you.  as /u/mrgoodnighthairdo and a few others of you have now pointed out to me, i was misinformed about the non official nature of black graduation at chapman URL after reading my source provided above and speaking with current/freshly graduated friends at the university, i was mistaken in thinking black graduation was somehow officially put on by the university.  it is actually on the same level as any other club on campus having a special celebration for it is members.  this does, in fact, change things quite a bit and i apologize up front for the confusion.  in the end, after trying to see as many perspectives as possible, i still find myself uncomfortable with the concept of having a separate graduation ceremony in the main gathering hall of the university where the sole basis of the gathering is race but not, it should be noted, because i think it is morally wrong in any way or that it is harming anybody in any sort of dangerous way.  the nature of my objection is less tangible and more idealistic than that.  my objection to the concept of such a self segregation i still believe that to be a valid phrasing of what is happening is that a dividing line is being drawn in the sand and that line is the color of one is skin.  for me, that just is not conducive to any sort of goal in which the endgame is total  racial  equality looking at you /u/mrgoodnighthairdo ; i will get to that part of the thread as soon as i can .  i liked the way /u/mejari provided a thought URL because as /u/jibjumper said, i greatly value everyone is input on this and would love to continue the conversation.  my view has not been changed completely, but the revelation to me at least that black graduation was not an officially hosted event by the university certainly takes this topic to a much lower level of intensity in my mind and certainly allows for more leeway in terms of the right to free speech and the right to gather peacefully.  those are things i obviously cherish and respect, but they can be done in ways that have a negative effect.  this, i believe, is one of those occasions.   #  my objection to the concept of such a self segregation i still believe that to be a valid phrasing of what is happening is that a dividing line is being drawn in the sand and that line is the color of one is skin.   #  for me, that just is not conducive to any sort of goal in which the endgame is total racial equality this is sort of myopic.   # for me, that just is not conducive to any sort of goal in which the endgame is total racial equality this is sort of myopic.  how do you fix racial inequality if not down racial lines ? you can argue that this particular instance of drawing lines between races does nothing to fix inequality although you have not , but the argument that any drawing of racial lines works against the goal of racial equality is plainly false and easily refuted by just one counterexample: racial economic inequality today is largely a systemic legacy of the institutional racisms of slavery and jim crow.  because these systems benefitted whites to the detriment of blacks, any solution to the issue must target blacks, or else it is not a solution at all.  the common objection here is to say we can rely on the free market to solve racial economic inequality, but this objection does not hold water.  first, even after decades of racially targeted equality programs the problem remains unsolved.  it stands to reason that if not for these programs, the market would have left blacks even worse off than they are now.  second, the free market approach does not work on a theoretical level: unregulated markets see wealth concentrate into the hands of fewer and fewer people, always to those who are already wealthy.  and because it was whites who controlled the wealth much of which was generated by the slave work of blacks , a free market would have seen wealth concentrate into the hands of just a few wealthy white people.  and finally, there is an issue of justice here.  even if the theory and data worked out in favor of a free market solution, it would be the case that at least a few generations of blacks would need to suffer under the legacy of slavery and jim crow before the market evened things out, and their suffering would be unjust.  and you ca not just shrug your shoulders there; as they say, justice delayed is justice denied.  it is a moral imperative to address the wrongs  now .  so i think that does it for the idea that any drawing of racial lines works against equality.  if you want to offer some reason why this particular instance of drawing racial lines works against equality, go for it.  you hint at negative effects in your post, but do not say what they are.  say it !  #  i just hate to see something happen that will further alienate an already misrepresented/misunderstood minority group.   #  that is certainly something i have been presented with before.  i try my best to remember it as perspective is obviously very important for empathy and understanding.  i really hope i did this throughout this thread ! in my mind at least, it is  because  i try to think this way that the black graduation is existence bothers me.  i just hate to see something happen that will further alienate an already misrepresented/misunderstood minority group.  the key for me is that the minority group is defined by skin color and that is what really. well. gets under my skin lol  #  what is the difference between this event and the others listed above ?  #  this appears this is in an event in addition to the regular graduation ceremony, not a replacement for it.  as such, what is the difference between one student organization in this case, the bsu having a special ceremony for their graduating members ? lots of student organizations already do this.  fraternities and sororities have special traditions for graduates.  so does most sports teams senior night .  when i was in school, even the school newspaper had a banquet honoring their graduates.  what is the difference between this event and the others listed above ?  #  there is way more racism we see ere towards mexicans than anyone black.   #  it is not a harder task for a black student to graduate than a white student.  they take the same classes.  the difference is statistically there are more black students are in poorer areas.  the real issue is poverty not race when it comes down to these statistics.  really you should be supporting the students that have overcome hardship.  whether they are white, black, hispanic, or asian.  i live in an upper middle class area with a really good school system.  one of my good friends is black and he was one of the most popular guys in school.  he definitely did not have it any harder than anyone else at our school.  hell he had it way better than a lot of the mexican kids.  there is a pretty heavy mexican population in my county and it is not an uncommon thing to hear people talking about them ruining the area, because many of them are low income and do not speak english well.  there is way more racism we see ere towards mexicans than anyone black.  obviously this is not the case everywhere, but at a place such as a university you have a broad enough spectrum of people from vastly different walks of life, that to say black students accomplished something harder is really impossible to say.   #  i mean my heritage of white settlers living in america.   #  i mean my heritage of white settlers living in america.  it is substantial considering like 0 or 0 generations back, one side of my family is tied to a relative that broke from the amish.  if i celebrate those roots am i a racist for it ? saying and or implying that people ca not also be proud of their history and traditions, just because they are white, is being racist, much in the same way people think all black people are stupid.  this is a ridiculous over generalization, but it is similar to calling all people proud of their history, if they are white, to be racist.
while i understand the general principle that you are not necessarily owed respect because of your age, i find the idea of continuously  earning  the respect of less experienced and established people completely ludicrous.  it should be the other way around, if only for practical reasons the respect of older people tend to be far more valuable .  now, i am in no way denying that younger folks have valid and interesting contribution to make.  i think a fresh perspective coupled with energy and enthusiasm can be an exceptional driving force.  nor am i denying that older folks can be complete assholes because their certainly can.  however, i could never bring myself to expect older, more experience and better established people to prove themselves to me.  neither can i see a reason to prove myself to younger people today.  i expect respect the same way my father or professors did.  not veneration, mind you, but simple deference you would ought to show to someone that lived twice the time you did.  as such, they are not your peers.  simply put, i find this phrase  respect is earned, not given  is most often used pompously by younger people to undermine established individuals or to deny respect to their elders in spite of a good reason.  to my eye, this attitude is the product of four big misconceptions: 0  older people demand respect because of their age and age by itself is not worthy of respect.   i do agree that age by itself is not a quality worthy of respect, but i do not think older folks demand respect in virtue of their age alone either.  experience, i believe, is what you ought to respect in even the humblest of persons.  it is not a stretch to assume they have seen a lot more go by and might have a different perspective on life.  0  showing respect and deference to others cost me something.   respect is free.  this stems from a lack of humility.  it completely free to respect someone.  the only thing holding people back is their ego.  of course you feel invincible at sixteen, but most people passed their teenage years tend to cringe a bit thinking back on their younger self.  i know i did.  0  i know these people are whether or not they are deserving of my respect.   assuming anything worthy of respect about someone is readily available is a common mistake.  relating to the second point, what is the price of respecting someone by default ? worst case scenario, you change your mind later on.  best case scenario, you have done the right thing.  0  you need to prove yourself.   false.  plenty of people  proved themselves  already and they should not need to do it again.  for instance, people get to positions of power and prestige for a reason.  getting a phd is not a walk in the park.  chances are they have been judged by better people than you already.  i do understand their reluctance to jump through hoops again to  earn respect .  as such, i think one would be better served by the idea that  respect can be lost  rather than  respect should be earned .  cmv.   #  relating to the second point, what is the price of respecting someone by default ?  #  worst case scenario, you change your mind later on.   #  if you have ever met old people who are clearly far less intelligent/knowledgeable than yourself fighting you on something then you would know why people say things like  respect is earned, not given .  we should hold people to similar standards, and so many older people seem to believe they instantly know more, or know better than the youngins on just about anything, and they need to understand that they do not always know better and they will not be deferred to just because of their age.  otherwise you end up with huge swaths of elderly people that never get challenged on anything, or refuse to be challenged on points where they most definitely should.  it is not like it is entirely worthless.  it can become worthless very fast if it is found out to be false, and  experience  is not very easy to quantify.  loads of younger people in certain fields could potentially have loads more experience, despite having fewer years clocked into some occupation or field because they work at it more, or they are simply better educated in it.  i would not say it is entirely worthless, but it is substantially less worthwhile than demonstrating any actual knowledge on something.  worst case scenario, you change your mind later on.  best case scenario, you have done the right thing.  from where i stand, the worst case scenario here is an old person that remains firm and unchallenged in some shitty belief.  i have had to go through this with my father an innumerable number of times.  he is a dentist with an undergraduate degree in zoology from cal, so he knows a lot about biology ,and healthcare in general, from 0 0.  if i had deferred to his experience as an older more educated man i would believe in lots of false dietary information and lots of general outdated biological knowledge.  and if i had never challenged him on his beliefs, or as he and other elderly people put it  argueing  or  disrespecting him   he would still hold onto dated knowledge and beliefs, to the detriment of himself and anyone he tried to teach.  additional counter, disrespecting old people does not necessarily do them any harm either, and might thicken their skin a bit.  i honestly think people should be offended more often, though that is an entirely different argument.   #  age simply is not the right metric to use when deciding who is opinion counts the most.   #  so what happens if grandpa is senile ? now i am guessing you will say that this falls into the respect/deference can be lost category, which is probably fair.  so let is try a more ambiguous example.  what if grandpa and dad have both successfully run the business for their lifetimes.  they have little in the way of formal education on the subject, but they are perfectly capable of maintaining the status quo.  however the son has gotten a harvard mba, and lets assume he is capable of taking this business from a local shop to a regional or even national chain.  in the process of doing so, he will likely have to make a lot of decisions dad and grandpa do not agree with.  who should we defer to now.  age simply is not the right metric to use when deciding who is opinion counts the most.  it is more complicated than that.   #  i doubt the son would use a  respect is earned, not given  line when explaining why he was going a different route, but rather would explain why he made certain decisions based on his training.   #  i doubt the son would use a  respect is earned, not given  line when explaining why he was going a different route, but rather would explain why he made certain decisions based on his training.  which is itself a sign of respect i respect you enough to believe that you will understand this reasoning and to take the time to share my strategy with you .  so i do not see how it really applies to the cmv since it is specifically talking about the phrase  respect is earned, not given .  there is also a whole other discussion that could be had about the inherent wisdom involved in nationalizing the business in the first place that dad and grandpa might have some useful insight into.  which is exactly the sort of thing that only experience can buy you.  son may know  how  to do something that his forebears do not know how to do, but that does not mean he knows when or if he  should  do that thing.   #  i think op appears to be conflating because there no longer is a word describing the appropriate response to experience.   #  direct quote from op is original post:  i do agree that age by itself is not a quality worthy of respect, but i do not think older folks demand respect in virtue of their age alone either.  experience, i believe, is what you ought to respect in even the humblest of persons.  i think op appears to be conflating because there no longer is a word describing the appropriate response to experience.  that word used to be respect but now that word has been conflated to apparently also mean i merely wo not be shitty to you.  but older people is opinions should not be lightly dismissed.  it is very likely that their experience affords them an invaluable perspective on many issues and that should be weighed in your consideration of your options just like an academic credential would.   #  broader point here: you always have to be earning whatever position of authority or power that you have.   #  okay, well if we are talking about deference, then respect is not free.  it has a thousand little costs in the form of things like people knowing better but failing to challenge the person being deferred to, or someone who is used to being deferred to becoming complacent, or just the personal costs of having to defer to someone when you are yet to see any reason why they deserve that deference.  broader point here: you always have to be earning whatever position of authority or power that you have.  any situation where a person is current position of power or deferrence cannot be justified by reference to what they are doing at the moment, but only to the things they used to do is a kind of temporal nepotism.  justifying a person is position now on the basis of the great things they did 0 years ago is just as rediculous as having that position because of the great things their dad did.  the person you were is a different person, and they are dead.  if you are not doing your job well enough today to justify that authority, you are just as useless as the kid whose dad got him the job, and you should be demoted or replaced, or at least not deferred to.
while i understand the general principle that you are not necessarily owed respect because of your age, i find the idea of continuously  earning  the respect of less experienced and established people completely ludicrous.  it should be the other way around, if only for practical reasons the respect of older people tend to be far more valuable .  now, i am in no way denying that younger folks have valid and interesting contribution to make.  i think a fresh perspective coupled with energy and enthusiasm can be an exceptional driving force.  nor am i denying that older folks can be complete assholes because their certainly can.  however, i could never bring myself to expect older, more experience and better established people to prove themselves to me.  neither can i see a reason to prove myself to younger people today.  i expect respect the same way my father or professors did.  not veneration, mind you, but simple deference you would ought to show to someone that lived twice the time you did.  as such, they are not your peers.  simply put, i find this phrase  respect is earned, not given  is most often used pompously by younger people to undermine established individuals or to deny respect to their elders in spite of a good reason.  to my eye, this attitude is the product of four big misconceptions: 0  older people demand respect because of their age and age by itself is not worthy of respect.   i do agree that age by itself is not a quality worthy of respect, but i do not think older folks demand respect in virtue of their age alone either.  experience, i believe, is what you ought to respect in even the humblest of persons.  it is not a stretch to assume they have seen a lot more go by and might have a different perspective on life.  0  showing respect and deference to others cost me something.   respect is free.  this stems from a lack of humility.  it completely free to respect someone.  the only thing holding people back is their ego.  of course you feel invincible at sixteen, but most people passed their teenage years tend to cringe a bit thinking back on their younger self.  i know i did.  0  i know these people are whether or not they are deserving of my respect.   assuming anything worthy of respect about someone is readily available is a common mistake.  relating to the second point, what is the price of respecting someone by default ? worst case scenario, you change your mind later on.  best case scenario, you have done the right thing.  0  you need to prove yourself.   false.  plenty of people  proved themselves  already and they should not need to do it again.  for instance, people get to positions of power and prestige for a reason.  getting a phd is not a walk in the park.  chances are they have been judged by better people than you already.  i do understand their reluctance to jump through hoops again to  earn respect .  as such, i think one would be better served by the idea that  respect can be lost  rather than  respect should be earned .  cmv.   #  not veneration, mind you, but simple deference you would ought to show to someone that lived twice the time you did.   #  as such, they are not your peers.   # as such, they are not your peers.  yes, that is what young people are objecting to: the idea that simple time on the planet demands deference by which i assume you mean that the older person is view is considered valid and reasonable unless proved false .  because as i see it, you are treating three groups as being the same thing.  0 .  people who have established themselves in the area they are discussing so a professor of public health talking about obamacare 0 .  people who have established themselves in an unrelated area a professor of physics talking about obamacare 0 .  people who are older but do not otherwise have establishing credentials.  your argument seems to be that group 0 deserves deference because groups 0 and probably 0 deserve it.  it is not a stretch to assume they have seen a lot more go by and might have a different perspective on life.  but that experience would need to be relevant and established.  otherwise your argument is that simply being alive is experience, and thus that age by itself is worthy of respect.  to wit, a 0 year old law school student knows more about the dormant commerce clause than a sixty year old steel mill foreman.  the latter is life experience is irrelevant to that discussion.  respect is free.  this stems from a lack of humility.  it completely free to respect someone.  the only thing holding people back is their ego.  of course you feel invincible at sixteen, but most people passed their teenage years tend to cringe a bit thinking back on their younger self.  i know i did.  except your argument is not a neutral version of respect where we accept that everyone can have a different opinion and there is really nothing age has to do with that.  your argument is for  deference , which would mean the younger person submits on the issue to the older person.  that  does  cost something if the issue is either a the younger person believes he has a better way to do things, or b the younger person believes he is right and the older person is wrong.  if that were not true, you would not be posting a cmv, since your logic says that you  deferring  to me costs you nothing.  for instance, people get to positions of power and prestige for a reason.  getting a phd is not a walk in the park.  chances are they have been judged by better people than you already.  i do understand their reluctance to jump through hoops again to  earn respect .  and in cases where that is true, the person can say  oh, and i also have my ph. d in the subject we are discussing.   again, you are treating people with credentials and people without credentials like they are the same group.  something older people generally have more of.  0.  past experience, not passed.  0.  no, the merit of the argument is the merit of the argument.  and an argument based on  i am old and in my experience x is true  is a meritless argument.   #  now i am guessing you will say that this falls into the respect/deference can be lost category, which is probably fair.   #  so what happens if grandpa is senile ? now i am guessing you will say that this falls into the respect/deference can be lost category, which is probably fair.  so let is try a more ambiguous example.  what if grandpa and dad have both successfully run the business for their lifetimes.  they have little in the way of formal education on the subject, but they are perfectly capable of maintaining the status quo.  however the son has gotten a harvard mba, and lets assume he is capable of taking this business from a local shop to a regional or even national chain.  in the process of doing so, he will likely have to make a lot of decisions dad and grandpa do not agree with.  who should we defer to now.  age simply is not the right metric to use when deciding who is opinion counts the most.  it is more complicated than that.   #  which is itself a sign of respect i respect you enough to believe that you will understand this reasoning and to take the time to share my strategy with you .   #  i doubt the son would use a  respect is earned, not given  line when explaining why he was going a different route, but rather would explain why he made certain decisions based on his training.  which is itself a sign of respect i respect you enough to believe that you will understand this reasoning and to take the time to share my strategy with you .  so i do not see how it really applies to the cmv since it is specifically talking about the phrase  respect is earned, not given .  there is also a whole other discussion that could be had about the inherent wisdom involved in nationalizing the business in the first place that dad and grandpa might have some useful insight into.  which is exactly the sort of thing that only experience can buy you.  son may know  how  to do something that his forebears do not know how to do, but that does not mean he knows when or if he  should  do that thing.   #  it is very likely that their experience affords them an invaluable perspective on many issues and that should be weighed in your consideration of your options just like an academic credential would.   #  direct quote from op is original post:  i do agree that age by itself is not a quality worthy of respect, but i do not think older folks demand respect in virtue of their age alone either.  experience, i believe, is what you ought to respect in even the humblest of persons.  i think op appears to be conflating because there no longer is a word describing the appropriate response to experience.  that word used to be respect but now that word has been conflated to apparently also mean i merely wo not be shitty to you.  but older people is opinions should not be lightly dismissed.  it is very likely that their experience affords them an invaluable perspective on many issues and that should be weighed in your consideration of your options just like an academic credential would.   #  the person you were is a different person, and they are dead.   #  okay, well if we are talking about deference, then respect is not free.  it has a thousand little costs in the form of things like people knowing better but failing to challenge the person being deferred to, or someone who is used to being deferred to becoming complacent, or just the personal costs of having to defer to someone when you are yet to see any reason why they deserve that deference.  broader point here: you always have to be earning whatever position of authority or power that you have.  any situation where a person is current position of power or deferrence cannot be justified by reference to what they are doing at the moment, but only to the things they used to do is a kind of temporal nepotism.  justifying a person is position now on the basis of the great things they did 0 years ago is just as rediculous as having that position because of the great things their dad did.  the person you were is a different person, and they are dead.  if you are not doing your job well enough today to justify that authority, you are just as useless as the kid whose dad got him the job, and you should be demoted or replaced, or at least not deferred to.
while i understand the general principle that you are not necessarily owed respect because of your age, i find the idea of continuously  earning  the respect of less experienced and established people completely ludicrous.  it should be the other way around, if only for practical reasons the respect of older people tend to be far more valuable .  now, i am in no way denying that younger folks have valid and interesting contribution to make.  i think a fresh perspective coupled with energy and enthusiasm can be an exceptional driving force.  nor am i denying that older folks can be complete assholes because their certainly can.  however, i could never bring myself to expect older, more experience and better established people to prove themselves to me.  neither can i see a reason to prove myself to younger people today.  i expect respect the same way my father or professors did.  not veneration, mind you, but simple deference you would ought to show to someone that lived twice the time you did.  as such, they are not your peers.  simply put, i find this phrase  respect is earned, not given  is most often used pompously by younger people to undermine established individuals or to deny respect to their elders in spite of a good reason.  to my eye, this attitude is the product of four big misconceptions: 0  older people demand respect because of their age and age by itself is not worthy of respect.   i do agree that age by itself is not a quality worthy of respect, but i do not think older folks demand respect in virtue of their age alone either.  experience, i believe, is what you ought to respect in even the humblest of persons.  it is not a stretch to assume they have seen a lot more go by and might have a different perspective on life.  0  showing respect and deference to others cost me something.   respect is free.  this stems from a lack of humility.  it completely free to respect someone.  the only thing holding people back is their ego.  of course you feel invincible at sixteen, but most people passed their teenage years tend to cringe a bit thinking back on their younger self.  i know i did.  0  i know these people are whether or not they are deserving of my respect.   assuming anything worthy of respect about someone is readily available is a common mistake.  relating to the second point, what is the price of respecting someone by default ? worst case scenario, you change your mind later on.  best case scenario, you have done the right thing.  0  you need to prove yourself.   false.  plenty of people  proved themselves  already and they should not need to do it again.  for instance, people get to positions of power and prestige for a reason.  getting a phd is not a walk in the park.  chances are they have been judged by better people than you already.  i do understand their reluctance to jump through hoops again to  earn respect .  as such, i think one would be better served by the idea that  respect can be lost  rather than  respect should be earned .  cmv.   #  plenty of people  proved themselves  already and they should not need to do it again.   #  for instance, people get to positions of power and prestige for a reason.   # as such, they are not your peers.  yes, that is what young people are objecting to: the idea that simple time on the planet demands deference by which i assume you mean that the older person is view is considered valid and reasonable unless proved false .  because as i see it, you are treating three groups as being the same thing.  0 .  people who have established themselves in the area they are discussing so a professor of public health talking about obamacare 0 .  people who have established themselves in an unrelated area a professor of physics talking about obamacare 0 .  people who are older but do not otherwise have establishing credentials.  your argument seems to be that group 0 deserves deference because groups 0 and probably 0 deserve it.  it is not a stretch to assume they have seen a lot more go by and might have a different perspective on life.  but that experience would need to be relevant and established.  otherwise your argument is that simply being alive is experience, and thus that age by itself is worthy of respect.  to wit, a 0 year old law school student knows more about the dormant commerce clause than a sixty year old steel mill foreman.  the latter is life experience is irrelevant to that discussion.  respect is free.  this stems from a lack of humility.  it completely free to respect someone.  the only thing holding people back is their ego.  of course you feel invincible at sixteen, but most people passed their teenage years tend to cringe a bit thinking back on their younger self.  i know i did.  except your argument is not a neutral version of respect where we accept that everyone can have a different opinion and there is really nothing age has to do with that.  your argument is for  deference , which would mean the younger person submits on the issue to the older person.  that  does  cost something if the issue is either a the younger person believes he has a better way to do things, or b the younger person believes he is right and the older person is wrong.  if that were not true, you would not be posting a cmv, since your logic says that you  deferring  to me costs you nothing.  for instance, people get to positions of power and prestige for a reason.  getting a phd is not a walk in the park.  chances are they have been judged by better people than you already.  i do understand their reluctance to jump through hoops again to  earn respect .  and in cases where that is true, the person can say  oh, and i also have my ph. d in the subject we are discussing.   again, you are treating people with credentials and people without credentials like they are the same group.  something older people generally have more of.  0.  past experience, not passed.  0.  no, the merit of the argument is the merit of the argument.  and an argument based on  i am old and in my experience x is true  is a meritless argument.   #  age simply is not the right metric to use when deciding who is opinion counts the most.   #  so what happens if grandpa is senile ? now i am guessing you will say that this falls into the respect/deference can be lost category, which is probably fair.  so let is try a more ambiguous example.  what if grandpa and dad have both successfully run the business for their lifetimes.  they have little in the way of formal education on the subject, but they are perfectly capable of maintaining the status quo.  however the son has gotten a harvard mba, and lets assume he is capable of taking this business from a local shop to a regional or even national chain.  in the process of doing so, he will likely have to make a lot of decisions dad and grandpa do not agree with.  who should we defer to now.  age simply is not the right metric to use when deciding who is opinion counts the most.  it is more complicated than that.   #  there is also a whole other discussion that could be had about the inherent wisdom involved in nationalizing the business in the first place that dad and grandpa might have some useful insight into.   #  i doubt the son would use a  respect is earned, not given  line when explaining why he was going a different route, but rather would explain why he made certain decisions based on his training.  which is itself a sign of respect i respect you enough to believe that you will understand this reasoning and to take the time to share my strategy with you .  so i do not see how it really applies to the cmv since it is specifically talking about the phrase  respect is earned, not given .  there is also a whole other discussion that could be had about the inherent wisdom involved in nationalizing the business in the first place that dad and grandpa might have some useful insight into.  which is exactly the sort of thing that only experience can buy you.  son may know  how  to do something that his forebears do not know how to do, but that does not mean he knows when or if he  should  do that thing.   #  that word used to be respect but now that word has been conflated to apparently also mean i merely wo not be shitty to you.   #  direct quote from op is original post:  i do agree that age by itself is not a quality worthy of respect, but i do not think older folks demand respect in virtue of their age alone either.  experience, i believe, is what you ought to respect in even the humblest of persons.  i think op appears to be conflating because there no longer is a word describing the appropriate response to experience.  that word used to be respect but now that word has been conflated to apparently also mean i merely wo not be shitty to you.  but older people is opinions should not be lightly dismissed.  it is very likely that their experience affords them an invaluable perspective on many issues and that should be weighed in your consideration of your options just like an academic credential would.   #  justifying a person is position now on the basis of the great things they did 0 years ago is just as rediculous as having that position because of the great things their dad did.   #  okay, well if we are talking about deference, then respect is not free.  it has a thousand little costs in the form of things like people knowing better but failing to challenge the person being deferred to, or someone who is used to being deferred to becoming complacent, or just the personal costs of having to defer to someone when you are yet to see any reason why they deserve that deference.  broader point here: you always have to be earning whatever position of authority or power that you have.  any situation where a person is current position of power or deferrence cannot be justified by reference to what they are doing at the moment, but only to the things they used to do is a kind of temporal nepotism.  justifying a person is position now on the basis of the great things they did 0 years ago is just as rediculous as having that position because of the great things their dad did.  the person you were is a different person, and they are dead.  if you are not doing your job well enough today to justify that authority, you are just as useless as the kid whose dad got him the job, and you should be demoted or replaced, or at least not deferred to.
while i understand the general principle that you are not necessarily owed respect because of your age, i find the idea of continuously  earning  the respect of less experienced and established people completely ludicrous.  it should be the other way around, if only for practical reasons the respect of older people tend to be far more valuable .  now, i am in no way denying that younger folks have valid and interesting contribution to make.  i think a fresh perspective coupled with energy and enthusiasm can be an exceptional driving force.  nor am i denying that older folks can be complete assholes because their certainly can.  however, i could never bring myself to expect older, more experience and better established people to prove themselves to me.  neither can i see a reason to prove myself to younger people today.  i expect respect the same way my father or professors did.  not veneration, mind you, but simple deference you would ought to show to someone that lived twice the time you did.  as such, they are not your peers.  simply put, i find this phrase  respect is earned, not given  is most often used pompously by younger people to undermine established individuals or to deny respect to their elders in spite of a good reason.  to my eye, this attitude is the product of four big misconceptions: 0  older people demand respect because of their age and age by itself is not worthy of respect.   i do agree that age by itself is not a quality worthy of respect, but i do not think older folks demand respect in virtue of their age alone either.  experience, i believe, is what you ought to respect in even the humblest of persons.  it is not a stretch to assume they have seen a lot more go by and might have a different perspective on life.  0  showing respect and deference to others cost me something.   respect is free.  this stems from a lack of humility.  it completely free to respect someone.  the only thing holding people back is their ego.  of course you feel invincible at sixteen, but most people passed their teenage years tend to cringe a bit thinking back on their younger self.  i know i did.  0  i know these people are whether or not they are deserving of my respect.   assuming anything worthy of respect about someone is readily available is a common mistake.  relating to the second point, what is the price of respecting someone by default ? worst case scenario, you change your mind later on.  best case scenario, you have done the right thing.  0  you need to prove yourself.   false.  plenty of people  proved themselves  already and they should not need to do it again.  for instance, people get to positions of power and prestige for a reason.  getting a phd is not a walk in the park.  chances are they have been judged by better people than you already.  i do understand their reluctance to jump through hoops again to  earn respect .  as such, i think one would be better served by the idea that  respect can be lost  rather than  respect should be earned .  cmv.   #  however, i could never bring myself to expect older, more experience and better established people to prove themselves to me.   #  well until they do, i cannot tell if they are in fact  more experienced  or  better established .   # well until they do, i cannot tell if they are in fact  more experienced  or  better established .  then you cannot hold it against them if they ignore you or fail to acknowledge the things about you that you think make you respectable.  and if your advanced age is the  only  thing about you that makes you think of yourself as respectable, even if you shroud it in deep sounding words like  experience  or  wisdom , then they totally have a point.  i have a few friends and acquaintances whose ages are quite different from mine in both directions and who nonetheless accept me and i accept them as peers/equals.  i would not want it any other way, as this is an important basis for a friendship.  .  the only thing holding people back is their ego.  then why is there so little of it from the older generation ?   you see, this argument does not work unless you are already willing to respect everybody regardless of age, but you have already stated that you are not.  perhaps you are the one with the ego ? i think it comes down to this.  the older generation is used to a structure of society in which older people are respected by the younger folk, and crucially the older people  do not  respect the younger folk at least not by default .  it has been this way for a long time and still is in many cultures; this structure is still far stronger in most of asia than it is in western countries .  if you grew up under this system, then you were on the losing end of this when you were young, so  of course  you expect to be on the winning end of it later; it has virtually been  promised  to you.  but now you find yourself in a changing society that begins to question this tradition.  you experience a sense of loss, even though the proposed change is in fact one that creates equality out of inequality.  you are experiencing the distress of the privileged URL  #  however the son has gotten a harvard mba, and lets assume he is capable of taking this business from a local shop to a regional or even national chain.   #  so what happens if grandpa is senile ? now i am guessing you will say that this falls into the respect/deference can be lost category, which is probably fair.  so let is try a more ambiguous example.  what if grandpa and dad have both successfully run the business for their lifetimes.  they have little in the way of formal education on the subject, but they are perfectly capable of maintaining the status quo.  however the son has gotten a harvard mba, and lets assume he is capable of taking this business from a local shop to a regional or even national chain.  in the process of doing so, he will likely have to make a lot of decisions dad and grandpa do not agree with.  who should we defer to now.  age simply is not the right metric to use when deciding who is opinion counts the most.  it is more complicated than that.   #  i doubt the son would use a  respect is earned, not given  line when explaining why he was going a different route, but rather would explain why he made certain decisions based on his training.   #  i doubt the son would use a  respect is earned, not given  line when explaining why he was going a different route, but rather would explain why he made certain decisions based on his training.  which is itself a sign of respect i respect you enough to believe that you will understand this reasoning and to take the time to share my strategy with you .  so i do not see how it really applies to the cmv since it is specifically talking about the phrase  respect is earned, not given .  there is also a whole other discussion that could be had about the inherent wisdom involved in nationalizing the business in the first place that dad and grandpa might have some useful insight into.  which is exactly the sort of thing that only experience can buy you.  son may know  how  to do something that his forebears do not know how to do, but that does not mean he knows when or if he  should  do that thing.   #  i think op appears to be conflating because there no longer is a word describing the appropriate response to experience.   #  direct quote from op is original post:  i do agree that age by itself is not a quality worthy of respect, but i do not think older folks demand respect in virtue of their age alone either.  experience, i believe, is what you ought to respect in even the humblest of persons.  i think op appears to be conflating because there no longer is a word describing the appropriate response to experience.  that word used to be respect but now that word has been conflated to apparently also mean i merely wo not be shitty to you.  but older people is opinions should not be lightly dismissed.  it is very likely that their experience affords them an invaluable perspective on many issues and that should be weighed in your consideration of your options just like an academic credential would.   #  the person you were is a different person, and they are dead.   #  okay, well if we are talking about deference, then respect is not free.  it has a thousand little costs in the form of things like people knowing better but failing to challenge the person being deferred to, or someone who is used to being deferred to becoming complacent, or just the personal costs of having to defer to someone when you are yet to see any reason why they deserve that deference.  broader point here: you always have to be earning whatever position of authority or power that you have.  any situation where a person is current position of power or deferrence cannot be justified by reference to what they are doing at the moment, but only to the things they used to do is a kind of temporal nepotism.  justifying a person is position now on the basis of the great things they did 0 years ago is just as rediculous as having that position because of the great things their dad did.  the person you were is a different person, and they are dead.  if you are not doing your job well enough today to justify that authority, you are just as useless as the kid whose dad got him the job, and you should be demoted or replaced, or at least not deferred to.
while i understand the general principle that you are not necessarily owed respect because of your age, i find the idea of continuously  earning  the respect of less experienced and established people completely ludicrous.  it should be the other way around, if only for practical reasons the respect of older people tend to be far more valuable .  now, i am in no way denying that younger folks have valid and interesting contribution to make.  i think a fresh perspective coupled with energy and enthusiasm can be an exceptional driving force.  nor am i denying that older folks can be complete assholes because their certainly can.  however, i could never bring myself to expect older, more experience and better established people to prove themselves to me.  neither can i see a reason to prove myself to younger people today.  i expect respect the same way my father or professors did.  not veneration, mind you, but simple deference you would ought to show to someone that lived twice the time you did.  as such, they are not your peers.  simply put, i find this phrase  respect is earned, not given  is most often used pompously by younger people to undermine established individuals or to deny respect to their elders in spite of a good reason.  to my eye, this attitude is the product of four big misconceptions: 0  older people demand respect because of their age and age by itself is not worthy of respect.   i do agree that age by itself is not a quality worthy of respect, but i do not think older folks demand respect in virtue of their age alone either.  experience, i believe, is what you ought to respect in even the humblest of persons.  it is not a stretch to assume they have seen a lot more go by and might have a different perspective on life.  0  showing respect and deference to others cost me something.   respect is free.  this stems from a lack of humility.  it completely free to respect someone.  the only thing holding people back is their ego.  of course you feel invincible at sixteen, but most people passed their teenage years tend to cringe a bit thinking back on their younger self.  i know i did.  0  i know these people are whether or not they are deserving of my respect.   assuming anything worthy of respect about someone is readily available is a common mistake.  relating to the second point, what is the price of respecting someone by default ? worst case scenario, you change your mind later on.  best case scenario, you have done the right thing.  0  you need to prove yourself.   false.  plenty of people  proved themselves  already and they should not need to do it again.  for instance, people get to positions of power and prestige for a reason.  getting a phd is not a walk in the park.  chances are they have been judged by better people than you already.  i do understand their reluctance to jump through hoops again to  earn respect .  as such, i think one would be better served by the idea that  respect can be lost  rather than  respect should be earned .  cmv.   #  neither can i see a reason to prove myself to younger people today.   #  then you cannot hold it against them if they ignore you or fail to acknowledge the things about you that you think make you respectable.   # well until they do, i cannot tell if they are in fact  more experienced  or  better established .  then you cannot hold it against them if they ignore you or fail to acknowledge the things about you that you think make you respectable.  and if your advanced age is the  only  thing about you that makes you think of yourself as respectable, even if you shroud it in deep sounding words like  experience  or  wisdom , then they totally have a point.  i have a few friends and acquaintances whose ages are quite different from mine in both directions and who nonetheless accept me and i accept them as peers/equals.  i would not want it any other way, as this is an important basis for a friendship.  .  the only thing holding people back is their ego.  then why is there so little of it from the older generation ?   you see, this argument does not work unless you are already willing to respect everybody regardless of age, but you have already stated that you are not.  perhaps you are the one with the ego ? i think it comes down to this.  the older generation is used to a structure of society in which older people are respected by the younger folk, and crucially the older people  do not  respect the younger folk at least not by default .  it has been this way for a long time and still is in many cultures; this structure is still far stronger in most of asia than it is in western countries .  if you grew up under this system, then you were on the losing end of this when you were young, so  of course  you expect to be on the winning end of it later; it has virtually been  promised  to you.  but now you find yourself in a changing society that begins to question this tradition.  you experience a sense of loss, even though the proposed change is in fact one that creates equality out of inequality.  you are experiencing the distress of the privileged URL  #  what if grandpa and dad have both successfully run the business for their lifetimes.   #  so what happens if grandpa is senile ? now i am guessing you will say that this falls into the respect/deference can be lost category, which is probably fair.  so let is try a more ambiguous example.  what if grandpa and dad have both successfully run the business for their lifetimes.  they have little in the way of formal education on the subject, but they are perfectly capable of maintaining the status quo.  however the son has gotten a harvard mba, and lets assume he is capable of taking this business from a local shop to a regional or even national chain.  in the process of doing so, he will likely have to make a lot of decisions dad and grandpa do not agree with.  who should we defer to now.  age simply is not the right metric to use when deciding who is opinion counts the most.  it is more complicated than that.   #  which is exactly the sort of thing that only experience can buy you.   #  i doubt the son would use a  respect is earned, not given  line when explaining why he was going a different route, but rather would explain why he made certain decisions based on his training.  which is itself a sign of respect i respect you enough to believe that you will understand this reasoning and to take the time to share my strategy with you .  so i do not see how it really applies to the cmv since it is specifically talking about the phrase  respect is earned, not given .  there is also a whole other discussion that could be had about the inherent wisdom involved in nationalizing the business in the first place that dad and grandpa might have some useful insight into.  which is exactly the sort of thing that only experience can buy you.  son may know  how  to do something that his forebears do not know how to do, but that does not mean he knows when or if he  should  do that thing.   #  but older people is opinions should not be lightly dismissed.   #  direct quote from op is original post:  i do agree that age by itself is not a quality worthy of respect, but i do not think older folks demand respect in virtue of their age alone either.  experience, i believe, is what you ought to respect in even the humblest of persons.  i think op appears to be conflating because there no longer is a word describing the appropriate response to experience.  that word used to be respect but now that word has been conflated to apparently also mean i merely wo not be shitty to you.  but older people is opinions should not be lightly dismissed.  it is very likely that their experience affords them an invaluable perspective on many issues and that should be weighed in your consideration of your options just like an academic credential would.   #  the person you were is a different person, and they are dead.   #  okay, well if we are talking about deference, then respect is not free.  it has a thousand little costs in the form of things like people knowing better but failing to challenge the person being deferred to, or someone who is used to being deferred to becoming complacent, or just the personal costs of having to defer to someone when you are yet to see any reason why they deserve that deference.  broader point here: you always have to be earning whatever position of authority or power that you have.  any situation where a person is current position of power or deferrence cannot be justified by reference to what they are doing at the moment, but only to the things they used to do is a kind of temporal nepotism.  justifying a person is position now on the basis of the great things they did 0 years ago is just as rediculous as having that position because of the great things their dad did.  the person you were is a different person, and they are dead.  if you are not doing your job well enough today to justify that authority, you are just as useless as the kid whose dad got him the job, and you should be demoted or replaced, or at least not deferred to.
while i understand the general principle that you are not necessarily owed respect because of your age, i find the idea of continuously  earning  the respect of less experienced and established people completely ludicrous.  it should be the other way around, if only for practical reasons the respect of older people tend to be far more valuable .  now, i am in no way denying that younger folks have valid and interesting contribution to make.  i think a fresh perspective coupled with energy and enthusiasm can be an exceptional driving force.  nor am i denying that older folks can be complete assholes because their certainly can.  however, i could never bring myself to expect older, more experience and better established people to prove themselves to me.  neither can i see a reason to prove myself to younger people today.  i expect respect the same way my father or professors did.  not veneration, mind you, but simple deference you would ought to show to someone that lived twice the time you did.  as such, they are not your peers.  simply put, i find this phrase  respect is earned, not given  is most often used pompously by younger people to undermine established individuals or to deny respect to their elders in spite of a good reason.  to my eye, this attitude is the product of four big misconceptions: 0  older people demand respect because of their age and age by itself is not worthy of respect.   i do agree that age by itself is not a quality worthy of respect, but i do not think older folks demand respect in virtue of their age alone either.  experience, i believe, is what you ought to respect in even the humblest of persons.  it is not a stretch to assume they have seen a lot more go by and might have a different perspective on life.  0  showing respect and deference to others cost me something.   respect is free.  this stems from a lack of humility.  it completely free to respect someone.  the only thing holding people back is their ego.  of course you feel invincible at sixteen, but most people passed their teenage years tend to cringe a bit thinking back on their younger self.  i know i did.  0  i know these people are whether or not they are deserving of my respect.   assuming anything worthy of respect about someone is readily available is a common mistake.  relating to the second point, what is the price of respecting someone by default ? worst case scenario, you change your mind later on.  best case scenario, you have done the right thing.  0  you need to prove yourself.   false.  plenty of people  proved themselves  already and they should not need to do it again.  for instance, people get to positions of power and prestige for a reason.  getting a phd is not a walk in the park.  chances are they have been judged by better people than you already.  i do understand their reluctance to jump through hoops again to  earn respect .  as such, i think one would be better served by the idea that  respect can be lost  rather than  respect should be earned .  cmv.   #  as such, they are not your peers.   #  i have a few friends and acquaintances whose ages are quite different from mine in both directions and who nonetheless accept me and i accept them as peers/equals.   # well until they do, i cannot tell if they are in fact  more experienced  or  better established .  then you cannot hold it against them if they ignore you or fail to acknowledge the things about you that you think make you respectable.  and if your advanced age is the  only  thing about you that makes you think of yourself as respectable, even if you shroud it in deep sounding words like  experience  or  wisdom , then they totally have a point.  i have a few friends and acquaintances whose ages are quite different from mine in both directions and who nonetheless accept me and i accept them as peers/equals.  i would not want it any other way, as this is an important basis for a friendship.  .  the only thing holding people back is their ego.  then why is there so little of it from the older generation ?   you see, this argument does not work unless you are already willing to respect everybody regardless of age, but you have already stated that you are not.  perhaps you are the one with the ego ? i think it comes down to this.  the older generation is used to a structure of society in which older people are respected by the younger folk, and crucially the older people  do not  respect the younger folk at least not by default .  it has been this way for a long time and still is in many cultures; this structure is still far stronger in most of asia than it is in western countries .  if you grew up under this system, then you were on the losing end of this when you were young, so  of course  you expect to be on the winning end of it later; it has virtually been  promised  to you.  but now you find yourself in a changing society that begins to question this tradition.  you experience a sense of loss, even though the proposed change is in fact one that creates equality out of inequality.  you are experiencing the distress of the privileged URL  #  what if grandpa and dad have both successfully run the business for their lifetimes.   #  so what happens if grandpa is senile ? now i am guessing you will say that this falls into the respect/deference can be lost category, which is probably fair.  so let is try a more ambiguous example.  what if grandpa and dad have both successfully run the business for their lifetimes.  they have little in the way of formal education on the subject, but they are perfectly capable of maintaining the status quo.  however the son has gotten a harvard mba, and lets assume he is capable of taking this business from a local shop to a regional or even national chain.  in the process of doing so, he will likely have to make a lot of decisions dad and grandpa do not agree with.  who should we defer to now.  age simply is not the right metric to use when deciding who is opinion counts the most.  it is more complicated than that.   #  i doubt the son would use a  respect is earned, not given  line when explaining why he was going a different route, but rather would explain why he made certain decisions based on his training.   #  i doubt the son would use a  respect is earned, not given  line when explaining why he was going a different route, but rather would explain why he made certain decisions based on his training.  which is itself a sign of respect i respect you enough to believe that you will understand this reasoning and to take the time to share my strategy with you .  so i do not see how it really applies to the cmv since it is specifically talking about the phrase  respect is earned, not given .  there is also a whole other discussion that could be had about the inherent wisdom involved in nationalizing the business in the first place that dad and grandpa might have some useful insight into.  which is exactly the sort of thing that only experience can buy you.  son may know  how  to do something that his forebears do not know how to do, but that does not mean he knows when or if he  should  do that thing.   #  that word used to be respect but now that word has been conflated to apparently also mean i merely wo not be shitty to you.   #  direct quote from op is original post:  i do agree that age by itself is not a quality worthy of respect, but i do not think older folks demand respect in virtue of their age alone either.  experience, i believe, is what you ought to respect in even the humblest of persons.  i think op appears to be conflating because there no longer is a word describing the appropriate response to experience.  that word used to be respect but now that word has been conflated to apparently also mean i merely wo not be shitty to you.  but older people is opinions should not be lightly dismissed.  it is very likely that their experience affords them an invaluable perspective on many issues and that should be weighed in your consideration of your options just like an academic credential would.   #  broader point here: you always have to be earning whatever position of authority or power that you have.   #  okay, well if we are talking about deference, then respect is not free.  it has a thousand little costs in the form of things like people knowing better but failing to challenge the person being deferred to, or someone who is used to being deferred to becoming complacent, or just the personal costs of having to defer to someone when you are yet to see any reason why they deserve that deference.  broader point here: you always have to be earning whatever position of authority or power that you have.  any situation where a person is current position of power or deferrence cannot be justified by reference to what they are doing at the moment, but only to the things they used to do is a kind of temporal nepotism.  justifying a person is position now on the basis of the great things they did 0 years ago is just as rediculous as having that position because of the great things their dad did.  the person you were is a different person, and they are dead.  if you are not doing your job well enough today to justify that authority, you are just as useless as the kid whose dad got him the job, and you should be demoted or replaced, or at least not deferred to.
while i understand the general principle that you are not necessarily owed respect because of your age, i find the idea of continuously  earning  the respect of less experienced and established people completely ludicrous.  it should be the other way around, if only for practical reasons the respect of older people tend to be far more valuable .  now, i am in no way denying that younger folks have valid and interesting contribution to make.  i think a fresh perspective coupled with energy and enthusiasm can be an exceptional driving force.  nor am i denying that older folks can be complete assholes because their certainly can.  however, i could never bring myself to expect older, more experience and better established people to prove themselves to me.  neither can i see a reason to prove myself to younger people today.  i expect respect the same way my father or professors did.  not veneration, mind you, but simple deference you would ought to show to someone that lived twice the time you did.  as such, they are not your peers.  simply put, i find this phrase  respect is earned, not given  is most often used pompously by younger people to undermine established individuals or to deny respect to their elders in spite of a good reason.  to my eye, this attitude is the product of four big misconceptions: 0  older people demand respect because of their age and age by itself is not worthy of respect.   i do agree that age by itself is not a quality worthy of respect, but i do not think older folks demand respect in virtue of their age alone either.  experience, i believe, is what you ought to respect in even the humblest of persons.  it is not a stretch to assume they have seen a lot more go by and might have a different perspective on life.  0  showing respect and deference to others cost me something.   respect is free.  this stems from a lack of humility.  it completely free to respect someone.  the only thing holding people back is their ego.  of course you feel invincible at sixteen, but most people passed their teenage years tend to cringe a bit thinking back on their younger self.  i know i did.  0  i know these people are whether or not they are deserving of my respect.   assuming anything worthy of respect about someone is readily available is a common mistake.  relating to the second point, what is the price of respecting someone by default ? worst case scenario, you change your mind later on.  best case scenario, you have done the right thing.  0  you need to prove yourself.   false.  plenty of people  proved themselves  already and they should not need to do it again.  for instance, people get to positions of power and prestige for a reason.  getting a phd is not a walk in the park.  chances are they have been judged by better people than you already.  i do understand their reluctance to jump through hoops again to  earn respect .  as such, i think one would be better served by the idea that  respect can be lost  rather than  respect should be earned .  cmv.   #  older people demand respect because of their age and age by itself is not worthy of respect.   #  i think to a degree it is.   # it ca not be used that way, is my point.  i think to a degree it is.  depending on the specific gap.  for instance child and adult.  or senior.  however it can be superseded by attitude.  respect until proven otherwise is not a bad philosophy, but i think of it in the way that a child should respect the wisdom of an adult, whereas the adult would not defer the same respect.  if an adult tells you to do something, you do it some obvious exceptions .  but a child not never do that to an adult.  that would be a lack of respect.  i think a child does need to prove themselves.  as you grow, you get to an age where you have achieved a level of wisdom that deserves respect you would not give a child, and this does not come at an age, or anything like that, but with proven behaviour of respect and maturity.  adults would be more of a  respect until proven otherwise  scenario.  but respect is a tricky word.  i mean obviously, you should be mean to anyone at all, and respect them as a person.  but in the sense of  respect your elders  to me, that means  listen to your elders, they have accumulated much wisdom.   some kids are bratty, and you ask them something and they say  no .  or some teenagers are jerks and think they know everything, and do not respect adults also.  even stuff like public property, tagging buildings etcetera.  they do not respect others when they do that.  so, if you are a child or teenager, you must learn maturity and gain wisdom, and earn my respect.  if you are an adult, or my elder, then you have my respect by default, you earned it by being alive that long, however you must maintain it, with your behaviour.  so, for me, respect is earned, and not given, and it cannot be some thing younger people say to get out of offering respect to their elders.   #  what if grandpa and dad have both successfully run the business for their lifetimes.   #  so what happens if grandpa is senile ? now i am guessing you will say that this falls into the respect/deference can be lost category, which is probably fair.  so let is try a more ambiguous example.  what if grandpa and dad have both successfully run the business for their lifetimes.  they have little in the way of formal education on the subject, but they are perfectly capable of maintaining the status quo.  however the son has gotten a harvard mba, and lets assume he is capable of taking this business from a local shop to a regional or even national chain.  in the process of doing so, he will likely have to make a lot of decisions dad and grandpa do not agree with.  who should we defer to now.  age simply is not the right metric to use when deciding who is opinion counts the most.  it is more complicated than that.   #  which is itself a sign of respect i respect you enough to believe that you will understand this reasoning and to take the time to share my strategy with you .   #  i doubt the son would use a  respect is earned, not given  line when explaining why he was going a different route, but rather would explain why he made certain decisions based on his training.  which is itself a sign of respect i respect you enough to believe that you will understand this reasoning and to take the time to share my strategy with you .  so i do not see how it really applies to the cmv since it is specifically talking about the phrase  respect is earned, not given .  there is also a whole other discussion that could be had about the inherent wisdom involved in nationalizing the business in the first place that dad and grandpa might have some useful insight into.  which is exactly the sort of thing that only experience can buy you.  son may know  how  to do something that his forebears do not know how to do, but that does not mean he knows when or if he  should  do that thing.   #  that word used to be respect but now that word has been conflated to apparently also mean i merely wo not be shitty to you.   #  direct quote from op is original post:  i do agree that age by itself is not a quality worthy of respect, but i do not think older folks demand respect in virtue of their age alone either.  experience, i believe, is what you ought to respect in even the humblest of persons.  i think op appears to be conflating because there no longer is a word describing the appropriate response to experience.  that word used to be respect but now that word has been conflated to apparently also mean i merely wo not be shitty to you.  but older people is opinions should not be lightly dismissed.  it is very likely that their experience affords them an invaluable perspective on many issues and that should be weighed in your consideration of your options just like an academic credential would.   #  broader point here: you always have to be earning whatever position of authority or power that you have.   #  okay, well if we are talking about deference, then respect is not free.  it has a thousand little costs in the form of things like people knowing better but failing to challenge the person being deferred to, or someone who is used to being deferred to becoming complacent, or just the personal costs of having to defer to someone when you are yet to see any reason why they deserve that deference.  broader point here: you always have to be earning whatever position of authority or power that you have.  any situation where a person is current position of power or deferrence cannot be justified by reference to what they are doing at the moment, but only to the things they used to do is a kind of temporal nepotism.  justifying a person is position now on the basis of the great things they did 0 years ago is just as rediculous as having that position because of the great things their dad did.  the person you were is a different person, and they are dead.  if you are not doing your job well enough today to justify that authority, you are just as useless as the kid whose dad got him the job, and you should be demoted or replaced, or at least not deferred to.
from time to time i come across a theory claiming that our universe is a computer simulation.  here URL a wikipedia article about it.  i think it is a completely meaningless proposition.  it is similar to claiming that there is a parallel universe, completely separated from ours, where earth is populated by lizard like creatures.  or that the universe is full of invisible dwarfs that ca not interact in any way with the rest of the universe.  they are nothing more than ideas in our heads   if we added them to our model of the world it would not change its predictive power.  our model of the world physics is basically a tool to summarize past and predict future observations of the world.  adding a statement that the universe is a simulation would not improve that tool in any way, just make it more complicated.  if the simulation theory claimed something tangible about the universe, for example that the universe is discrete, it would not be meaningless.  but why not simply claim  the universe is discrete  ? adding some bullshit about outer universe and computer simulations is completely unnecesary.  it is like explaining the gravitation force with invisible dwarfs pushing elementary particles.  hope it makes sense, i will edit or comment if it does not :  #  our model of the world physics is basically a tool to summarize past and predict future observations of the world.   #  adding a statement that the universe is a simulation would not improve that tool in any way, just make it more complicated.   # adding a statement that the universe is a simulation would not improve that tool in any way, just make it more complicated.  if our universe is in fact a simulation, this would imply that the simulation reasonably has limits to its programming, namely, it should be possible for us to  break the simulation  through pushing physical and temporal extremities.  in other words, if we can break the simulation by creating super hot temperatures or super warped space, then it would prove we live in a simulation.  what is more, if we live in a simulation, it would not be unreasonable to postulate that time and space are therefore discretely rendered, so that time is not a continuous variable, but made up of miniscule, imperceptible pieces that fire off in rapid succession, and so that space is made of quantifiable  pixels .  this would have  huge  implications in a lot of modern physics that deals with interactions on this scale.  adding some bullshit about outer universe and computer simulations is completely unnecesary.  not necessarily.  if we were to discover that the universe is discrete, a possible question to follow up with is  why  the universe is discrete, and what it means that the universe is discrete.  what are the advantages and disadvantages of a discrete universe ? presumably, discreteness is easier to render than a continuous mainframe of space and time, and with this being the case, it would not be unreasonably to theorize that the discovery of discreteness could be an indication that the universe was intelligently designed and is being rendered in a system with considerable computing and rendering limits.  the implications of this line of reasoning are huge.   #  sure, it is possible that the universe might be  discrete  rather than continuous, and that there is an alternate explanation instead of it being a  simulation .   #  your main point seems to be that being in a simulation is something that could not be proven, and if it were, would not add to our knowledge.  how do you know that it could not be proven that we are in a simulation ? sure, there is lack of evidence now, but it is not a  theory , it is a  hypothesis .  many hypotheses turn out to be wrong.  we do not call them  meaningless  because we test them and discover them to be incorrect, we modify our hypotheses to better fit our evidence.  but individual hypotheses about the possible  consequences  of the universe being a simulation might or might not be non falsifiable.  sure, it is possible that the universe might be  discrete  rather than continuous, and that there is an alternate explanation instead of it being a  simulation .  but that is just 0 piece of evidence about one possible theory.  if we accumulated enough of them, and a theory started to develop that not only explained existing evidence of a simulated universe, but became able to  predict  new properties of the simulated universe, then the theory would become  useful .  if we ever found sufficient actual evidence that we were in a simulation, it would hardly be  meaningless .  it would, indeed, entirely change our viewpoint of.  everything.   #  but they are equally correct, we chose the one that is easier to work with.   # the point is that the alternate explanation to the simulation one would be equivalent, it would say the same thing, that the universe is discrete.  it does not really matter if we say that an invisible god is behind the discreteness or if it is the simulation that is causing it.  those are just  ideas in our heads, nothing else .  the only thing that matters in a theory is whether it is consistent with our observations.  let is say ther are two different physical theories that are 0 consistent with our experiments string theory and elementary particles theory.  one explains the words in terms of strings, the other uses elementary particles.  but they are equally correct, we chose the one that is easier to work with.  the stuff about strings and quark colors is basically meaningless fluff that could be easily replaced with different fluff.  i agree that if a simulation hypothesis would be a simple and correct way to explain some things we observe, it would be a good theory.  but this is not the case.   #  people is minds grow when presented with different views, even incorrect or illogical ones, because it forces each person to examine the inputs, the assumptions, and draw their own conclusions.   #  what i think you are missing is the point of thought experiment.  you seem to be upset that  other people  are still playing out the thought experiment and perhaps still reaching their conclusions even though you have through it through and come to your own.  one purpose to this kind of idea is to explore the ability and recognition of observation itself.  people is minds grow when presented with different views, even incorrect or illogical ones, because it forces each person to examine the inputs, the assumptions, and draw their own conclusions.  there is value in the exercise, not just the conclusion.   #  what happens outside the observable universe can effect our universe, theoretically.   #  no, this is a very bad analogy.  what happens outside the observable universe can effect our universe, theoretically.  so it is completely necessary to consider outside our observable universe, sometimes.  an example would be explanations of the source of dark matter being outside our universe.  simulations are not equatable with stories written down or made up, including religious ones because: we have created simulations.  we know it is possible to create simulations of realities, but technology limits them.  technology, so far, is always improving.  these two things make a simulation hypothesis worth acknowledging as a possibility.  it is quite clearly different from claiming:  or that the universe is full of invisible dwarfs that ca not interact in any way with the rest of the universe.  because nothing about simulation hypothesis says that it could not ever be proved.
from time to time i come across a theory claiming that our universe is a computer simulation.  here URL a wikipedia article about it.  i think it is a completely meaningless proposition.  it is similar to claiming that there is a parallel universe, completely separated from ours, where earth is populated by lizard like creatures.  or that the universe is full of invisible dwarfs that ca not interact in any way with the rest of the universe.  they are nothing more than ideas in our heads   if we added them to our model of the world it would not change its predictive power.  our model of the world physics is basically a tool to summarize past and predict future observations of the world.  adding a statement that the universe is a simulation would not improve that tool in any way, just make it more complicated.  if the simulation theory claimed something tangible about the universe, for example that the universe is discrete, it would not be meaningless.  but why not simply claim  the universe is discrete  ? adding some bullshit about outer universe and computer simulations is completely unnecesary.  it is like explaining the gravitation force with invisible dwarfs pushing elementary particles.  hope it makes sense, i will edit or comment if it does not :  #  but why not simply claim  the universe is discrete  ?  #  adding some bullshit about outer universe and computer simulations is completely unnecesary.   # adding a statement that the universe is a simulation would not improve that tool in any way, just make it more complicated.  if our universe is in fact a simulation, this would imply that the simulation reasonably has limits to its programming, namely, it should be possible for us to  break the simulation  through pushing physical and temporal extremities.  in other words, if we can break the simulation by creating super hot temperatures or super warped space, then it would prove we live in a simulation.  what is more, if we live in a simulation, it would not be unreasonable to postulate that time and space are therefore discretely rendered, so that time is not a continuous variable, but made up of miniscule, imperceptible pieces that fire off in rapid succession, and so that space is made of quantifiable  pixels .  this would have  huge  implications in a lot of modern physics that deals with interactions on this scale.  adding some bullshit about outer universe and computer simulations is completely unnecesary.  not necessarily.  if we were to discover that the universe is discrete, a possible question to follow up with is  why  the universe is discrete, and what it means that the universe is discrete.  what are the advantages and disadvantages of a discrete universe ? presumably, discreteness is easier to render than a continuous mainframe of space and time, and with this being the case, it would not be unreasonably to theorize that the discovery of discreteness could be an indication that the universe was intelligently designed and is being rendered in a system with considerable computing and rendering limits.  the implications of this line of reasoning are huge.   #  sure, there is lack of evidence now, but it is not a  theory , it is a  hypothesis .   #  your main point seems to be that being in a simulation is something that could not be proven, and if it were, would not add to our knowledge.  how do you know that it could not be proven that we are in a simulation ? sure, there is lack of evidence now, but it is not a  theory , it is a  hypothesis .  many hypotheses turn out to be wrong.  we do not call them  meaningless  because we test them and discover them to be incorrect, we modify our hypotheses to better fit our evidence.  but individual hypotheses about the possible  consequences  of the universe being a simulation might or might not be non falsifiable.  sure, it is possible that the universe might be  discrete  rather than continuous, and that there is an alternate explanation instead of it being a  simulation .  but that is just 0 piece of evidence about one possible theory.  if we accumulated enough of them, and a theory started to develop that not only explained existing evidence of a simulated universe, but became able to  predict  new properties of the simulated universe, then the theory would become  useful .  if we ever found sufficient actual evidence that we were in a simulation, it would hardly be  meaningless .  it would, indeed, entirely change our viewpoint of.  everything.   #  one explains the words in terms of strings, the other uses elementary particles.   # the point is that the alternate explanation to the simulation one would be equivalent, it would say the same thing, that the universe is discrete.  it does not really matter if we say that an invisible god is behind the discreteness or if it is the simulation that is causing it.  those are just  ideas in our heads, nothing else .  the only thing that matters in a theory is whether it is consistent with our observations.  let is say ther are two different physical theories that are 0 consistent with our experiments string theory and elementary particles theory.  one explains the words in terms of strings, the other uses elementary particles.  but they are equally correct, we chose the one that is easier to work with.  the stuff about strings and quark colors is basically meaningless fluff that could be easily replaced with different fluff.  i agree that if a simulation hypothesis would be a simple and correct way to explain some things we observe, it would be a good theory.  but this is not the case.   #  one purpose to this kind of idea is to explore the ability and recognition of observation itself.   #  what i think you are missing is the point of thought experiment.  you seem to be upset that  other people  are still playing out the thought experiment and perhaps still reaching their conclusions even though you have through it through and come to your own.  one purpose to this kind of idea is to explore the ability and recognition of observation itself.  people is minds grow when presented with different views, even incorrect or illogical ones, because it forces each person to examine the inputs, the assumptions, and draw their own conclusions.  there is value in the exercise, not just the conclusion.   #  these two things make a simulation hypothesis worth acknowledging as a possibility.   #  no, this is a very bad analogy.  what happens outside the observable universe can effect our universe, theoretically.  so it is completely necessary to consider outside our observable universe, sometimes.  an example would be explanations of the source of dark matter being outside our universe.  simulations are not equatable with stories written down or made up, including religious ones because: we have created simulations.  we know it is possible to create simulations of realities, but technology limits them.  technology, so far, is always improving.  these two things make a simulation hypothesis worth acknowledging as a possibility.  it is quite clearly different from claiming:  or that the universe is full of invisible dwarfs that ca not interact in any way with the rest of the universe.  because nothing about simulation hypothesis says that it could not ever be proved.
let me be clear, i am not against the use of self defense by police officers, or anyone, just the idea that the laws do not apply equally.  this is in direct response to the recent clearing of michael brelo of the cleveland police department.  in 0 brelo was part of a chase that ended with over 0 rounds shot into two unarmed suspects.  brelo fired continued to reload his weapon, climb on the care, and fire another 0 rounds in the car, after other officers had already stopped firing.  the judge ruling over the case cleared him of charges using a baseball analogy and saying it was impossible to prove his bullets were the fatal shots.  although this is true, the use of force was excessive and he was still, nonetheless, a party to this grotesque undertaking of  justice .  this case highlights that police can operate according to a separate set of laws.  if i was with a person who fired one shot into a person and killed them, despite clear evidence i did not shoot the fatal shot, i would likely still be charged with murder, at the very least accessory or an equivalent charge to the murder.  even in a case of clear self defense, one is almost certain to face criminal charges, especially when they continue to use force after the threat has been eliminated and they are in no clear danger.  for example, if me and three friends fired 0 rounds into a home invader you can be certain we would all be in jail.  though it would be close to impossible to prove who is shots were fatal, we were all participants, and we would still face severe legal consequences.  if we as a society accept the idea that people are justified in using lethal force in self defense, it should not be also accepted that certain people, because of their job, are able to follow a different set of guidelines.  so reddit, in order to help me deal with my anger at the moment, i hope you can convince me that in a nation where  no man is above the law  which prides itself on the idea of  liberty and justice for all  that some people, because of their job, should be allowed to be  more equal than others.   URL URL  #  for example, if me and three friends fired 0 rounds into a home invader you can be certain we would all be in jail.   #  i am not sure that that is true.   # i am not sure that that is true.  in many states it certainly would not be.  you are just assuming it to be so.  here is the thing, cops are not allowed to murder people any more than you or i are, but jury is tend to side with them.  it is a problem with our legal system, but really it is more a problem with humanities biases.  there are open and shut cases where cops go to prison for murder.  however, if it is ever a grey area, juries tend to side with cops.  but the thing about cops is, their main charge is simple: enforce the law.  they are not  really  here to serve and protect, that is just their motto and a thing they generally do.  what their supreme mandate is is simply enforce laws given to them.  that grants them more power than you or i.  the president has more power than us too.  so do doctors and firemen.  there are certain professions that allow them to do things normal citizens ca not do.  however, any normal citizens can become those professions and thus get those powers.  but yeah, the main problem is that trial by jury is not a perfect system as humans tend to act like humans and not robots.  body camera is should help though.  rather than take the word of a convict vs police officer you let cold, hard, video/audio speak for you.   #  police too, it is necessary that they apprehend criminals.   #  regular people cannot break into your house, but firemen can if needed.  regular people ca not just inject drugs into your body without your consent, but ambulance personnel can if needed.  you do not have to show your passport to anyone who asks, but you have to show it when crossing the border.  it is necessary that these people do their jobs, and they could not do it if they had no right to do it.  people are usually expected to cooperate with them.  you could actually go to jail for sabotaging their job, such as not letting the firemen through your yard, or not letting them break a door.  police too, it is necessary that they apprehend criminals.  regular citizens are expected to avoid confrontation with each other, but the policemen must intervene, confront them, and take them in.  this is the reason their cases are handled differently.  because they cannot just back away.  i agree that they should not be allowed to use excessive force.  but the same rights as a regular citizen are just not enough.   #  thats fine to have that belief, but arguing that there should be a separate system for police isnt really convincing me why in a system where everyone is supposed to be equal they should be given preferential treatment.   #  so you are stating that police, even though they are supposed to be public servants and take an oath to uphold the constitution, should be given more rights than the people ? thats fine to have that belief, but arguing that there should be a separate system for police isnt really convincing me why in a system where everyone is supposed to be equal they should be given preferential treatment.  they are sworn to uphold the law, the law and justice system also rest on the fact that one is innocent until proven guilty.  in a case like this two unarmed people were killed before they received a trial by jury.  this is a subversion of justice and of democracy, which, in my view is a bigger danger to the public than officers with strict rules of engagement.  not to mention, european nations have much more stricter rules before force can be used and the police there are arguable more effective.   #  firefighters and emts are given more rights than the people in that they can break into your home and inject you with drugs without your consent.   #  firefighters and emts are given more rights than the people in that they can break into your home and inject you with drugs without your consent.  are you ok with this ? if so, why are you not ok with police having  more rights than the people  ? firefighters are given preferential treatment in that they can break into your home and damage it or damage your car if you are in an accident.  emts can inject you with drugs without consent and can take you to a hospital without your consent as well.  these are public servants who are given preferential treatment.  should they not have this preferential treatment and thus not be able to do these things ? aside from that, comparing european police officers to american police officers is not a fair comparison.  american police officers are more likely to encounter guns in their work as there is a much higher rate of gun ownership in the u. s.  than anywhere in europe.  as such, it is important to allow for u. s.  police officers to use lethal force to defend themselves as they are more likely to encounter criminals with guns than european police officers are.  if you want a system which is more like that in certain european countries, do you also want the same type of gun control that many european countries have ? if not, then the two really are not comparable.   #  as /u/saberdart pointed out, shooting people is not a job duty of the police.   #  again those are duties of those respective professions.  as /u/saberdart pointed out, shooting people is not a job duty of the police.  their service weapons are solely for self defense, to be used the same way i would use my weapon.  when they use their weapon its in defense of self and others in direct harm, again, these are the same reasons i can use my weapon.  so seeing as us in lethal force is not a designated part of the job nor a job duty, i do not see how the repercussions should be any less severe.
let me be clear, i am not against the use of self defense by police officers, or anyone, just the idea that the laws do not apply equally.  this is in direct response to the recent clearing of michael brelo of the cleveland police department.  in 0 brelo was part of a chase that ended with over 0 rounds shot into two unarmed suspects.  brelo fired continued to reload his weapon, climb on the care, and fire another 0 rounds in the car, after other officers had already stopped firing.  the judge ruling over the case cleared him of charges using a baseball analogy and saying it was impossible to prove his bullets were the fatal shots.  although this is true, the use of force was excessive and he was still, nonetheless, a party to this grotesque undertaking of  justice .  this case highlights that police can operate according to a separate set of laws.  if i was with a person who fired one shot into a person and killed them, despite clear evidence i did not shoot the fatal shot, i would likely still be charged with murder, at the very least accessory or an equivalent charge to the murder.  even in a case of clear self defense, one is almost certain to face criminal charges, especially when they continue to use force after the threat has been eliminated and they are in no clear danger.  for example, if me and three friends fired 0 rounds into a home invader you can be certain we would all be in jail.  though it would be close to impossible to prove who is shots were fatal, we were all participants, and we would still face severe legal consequences.  if we as a society accept the idea that people are justified in using lethal force in self defense, it should not be also accepted that certain people, because of their job, are able to follow a different set of guidelines.  so reddit, in order to help me deal with my anger at the moment, i hope you can convince me that in a nation where  no man is above the law  which prides itself on the idea of  liberty and justice for all  that some people, because of their job, should be allowed to be  more equal than others.   URL URL  #  this is in direct response to the recent clearing of michael brelo of the cleveland police department.   #  in 0 brelo was part of a chase that ended with over 0 rounds shot into two unarmed suspects.   # in 0 brelo was part of a chase that ended with over 0 rounds shot into two unarmed suspects.  brelo fired continued to reload his weapon, climb on the care, and fire another 0 rounds in the car, after other officers had already stopped firing.  the judge ruling over the case cleared him of charges using a baseball analogy and saying it was impossible to prove his bullets were the fatal shots.  although this is true, the use of force was excessive and he was still, nonetheless, a party to this grotesque undertaking of  justice .  wrong.  the driver tried to ram the cops.  lethal force is allowed for both police and civilians when someone is trying to kill you.  the reason brelo got in trouble is because he kept shooting once it was over.  the reason he got away with it is that he was shooting corpses.   #  but the same rights as a regular citizen are just not enough.   #  regular people cannot break into your house, but firemen can if needed.  regular people ca not just inject drugs into your body without your consent, but ambulance personnel can if needed.  you do not have to show your passport to anyone who asks, but you have to show it when crossing the border.  it is necessary that these people do their jobs, and they could not do it if they had no right to do it.  people are usually expected to cooperate with them.  you could actually go to jail for sabotaging their job, such as not letting the firemen through your yard, or not letting them break a door.  police too, it is necessary that they apprehend criminals.  regular citizens are expected to avoid confrontation with each other, but the policemen must intervene, confront them, and take them in.  this is the reason their cases are handled differently.  because they cannot just back away.  i agree that they should not be allowed to use excessive force.  but the same rights as a regular citizen are just not enough.   #  thats fine to have that belief, but arguing that there should be a separate system for police isnt really convincing me why in a system where everyone is supposed to be equal they should be given preferential treatment.   #  so you are stating that police, even though they are supposed to be public servants and take an oath to uphold the constitution, should be given more rights than the people ? thats fine to have that belief, but arguing that there should be a separate system for police isnt really convincing me why in a system where everyone is supposed to be equal they should be given preferential treatment.  they are sworn to uphold the law, the law and justice system also rest on the fact that one is innocent until proven guilty.  in a case like this two unarmed people were killed before they received a trial by jury.  this is a subversion of justice and of democracy, which, in my view is a bigger danger to the public than officers with strict rules of engagement.  not to mention, european nations have much more stricter rules before force can be used and the police there are arguable more effective.   #  if you want a system which is more like that in certain european countries, do you also want the same type of gun control that many european countries have ?  #  firefighters and emts are given more rights than the people in that they can break into your home and inject you with drugs without your consent.  are you ok with this ? if so, why are you not ok with police having  more rights than the people  ? firefighters are given preferential treatment in that they can break into your home and damage it or damage your car if you are in an accident.  emts can inject you with drugs without consent and can take you to a hospital without your consent as well.  these are public servants who are given preferential treatment.  should they not have this preferential treatment and thus not be able to do these things ? aside from that, comparing european police officers to american police officers is not a fair comparison.  american police officers are more likely to encounter guns in their work as there is a much higher rate of gun ownership in the u. s.  than anywhere in europe.  as such, it is important to allow for u. s.  police officers to use lethal force to defend themselves as they are more likely to encounter criminals with guns than european police officers are.  if you want a system which is more like that in certain european countries, do you also want the same type of gun control that many european countries have ? if not, then the two really are not comparable.   #  their service weapons are solely for self defense, to be used the same way i would use my weapon.   #  again those are duties of those respective professions.  as /u/saberdart pointed out, shooting people is not a job duty of the police.  their service weapons are solely for self defense, to be used the same way i would use my weapon.  when they use their weapon its in defense of self and others in direct harm, again, these are the same reasons i can use my weapon.  so seeing as us in lethal force is not a designated part of the job nor a job duty, i do not see how the repercussions should be any less severe.
i do not see that much wrong with it.  it is promoting tourism to the middle east and raises awareness for the developing country of qatar, much like south africa did.  as well, it gives the qatar national team a chance to compete in the world cup.  i feel economically it is beneficial for both fifa and qatar.  0 is a long way from now, and qatar has promised that it would be able to fix the problem with heat using a stadium wide cooling system.  i am also excited to see all the modern technology that will be implemented into this world cup.  also, i feel it would be a waste of money and time if the world cup was moved somewhere else.  construction has already started and countries have already moved on to preparing bids for another world cup.  a sudden change of location could be disastrous for certain countries.  finally, in the end, we go to and watch the world cup because football is football.  there should be more time spent focusing on the emergence of stars in the world cup, how teams can adapt to weather, how today is young stars will play in their prime.  with all this said, change my view !  #  construction has already started and countries have already moved on to preparing bids for another world cup.   #  a sudden change of location could be disastrous for certain countries.   # not a small number that you could put down as an inevitable consequence of hosting such a big event but hundreds of people.  qatar is not a footballing nation, they have never previously qualified for a world cup.  why should money allow them to host such a prestigious event ? a sudden change of location could be disastrous for certain countries.  when colombia pulled out of hosting the 0 world cup, mexico won the bid in 0 and were able to put on a good world cup.  with 0 years to go there is no reason a country like the united states, mexico or morocco could not step in to host.   #  could you please link me to some undeniable proof of this ?  # i really do not believe that the claimed death tolls are that high.  could you please link me to some undeniable proof of this ? would not it help spur the growth of qatar as a footballing nation ? i i would believe that these new stadiums would be used for club teams.  these club teams would almost have to grow with the money put in, and they could be competitive in the afc.  after all, is not that what the mls did ? they used money to allow them to have prestigious players, in order to promote the growth of their league.  i have heard rumors of xavi going to a qatari club during the summer, so this can be a great leap forward for qatar, as well as middle eastern football in general.  with 0 years to go there is no reason a country like the united states, mexico or morocco could not step in to host.  i did not know this fact.  to be honest i have spent like 0 minutes trying to come up with a response to this, but i have to agree i guess there really is no reason like you said that another developed country could not step in to host it.  does this count as changing my view ?  #  it is impossible to say what decisions would have been made in qatar if the world cup had been awarded to another country.   # the implicit argument here being that  more  people are dying than would be if the world cup happened somewhere else.  it is not clear to me that this is the case.  working conditions in qatar and some other arabic countries are atrocious and people are dying in construction projects all the time.  if the number of people who will die in the world cup preparations is  smaller  than the number of people who would have died otherwise because different building projects would have been planned and approved which  are not  closely observed by international news media, then i am all for it, because the net effect is that it  saves  lives.  i do not, however, know whether this is actually the case.  it is impossible to say what decisions would have been made in qatar if the world cup had been awarded to another country.   #  qatar is  incredibly  hot and humid in the summer months.   #  the main moral objection people have is that slave labour is being used to construct the buildings.  this is not hyperbole.  for example, the qatar government directly pays the north korean government a small fee for the workers they provide.  the workers themselves do not see the money.  they are slaves by almost any definition.  other migrant workers are paid small amounts, but have their passports confiscated.  they cannot leave the country, and cannot find new jobs.  they are trapped, if not exactly slaves.  we know this is happening, and if we allow the world cup to go ahead in qatar, we are implicitly supporting these atrocities.  yes, i would use the word atrocity here.  in another comment you asked for undeniable proof of this.  here  0 URL is  0 URL a small  0 URL collection of sources  0 URL taken from different organisations in a range of countries.  what i am saying is pretty widely accepted as the truth, although of course secrecy surrounds the entire event.  there are other moral objections.  corruption in fifa is endemic, and there has been a steady trickle of leaks that demonstrate how qatar bought this world cup.  we should not allow rich nations to bribe officials running the most popular sport in the world.  there are also practical objections.  qatar is  incredibly  hot and humid in the summer months.  it would be a huge risk to the players, to force them to perform in 0 degree 0 fahrenheit conditions.  there is definitely a risk of players dying they will push themselves to the very limit, we cannot prevent that.  the proposed plans for a cooling system are vague.  the cooling system has not even been  invented  yet.  this has never been attempted before, so a healthy does of scepticism is necessary.  so we have slaves being used to construct stadiums for a sporting event, which will endanger the lives of the athletes taking part, which is a vanity project in a country that has no football heritage, and which was only awarded to this country in the first place because of blatant bribery.   #  for the high death count, i simply have trouble believing it.   #  i have done a fair bit of reading on the subjects, here are my views: corruption: while i do not condone it, there is almost no way to stop it.  fifa has shown corruption in the past before, and sadly, it will most likely always be a part of how they do business.  it is something that i have just accepted.  human rights: i have always wondered what would these migrant workers be doing if it were not for the world cup, maybe you can help me out on that.  as messed up as it sounds i do not want to be a bad guy here , is it possible these jobs could be beneficial ? could these jobs be feeding families.  for the high death count, i simply have trouble believing it.  even then, it is something i have to also accept.  qatar is an underdeveloped country with poor labor laws and regulations.  but please, help me out !
if god does exist, it seems like he is rather hidden.  while some claim to have received revelation, are able to communicate, and know his will, many feel left out of any type of relationship with him that would make god  real  to them.  moreover, when one observes nature and the larger universe, it is hard to see any immediately discernible divine fingerprints that would necessarily point to god.  if god exists, it is as if god purposefully hid himself from his creation, yet, in religions like christianity and islam, the non believer is met with eternal torment for not believing.  because god made it so hard to believe, it is his fault if people do not acknowledge him, not our is.   #  if god exists, it is as if god purposefully hid himself from his creation, yet, in religions like christianity and islam, the non believer is met with eternal torment for not believing.   #  because god made it so hard to believe, it is his fault if people do not acknowledge him, not our is.   # who is fault ? and for what ? because god made it so hard to believe, it is his fault if people do not acknowledge him, not our is.  this is only if you accept that the god is all knowing and all powerful, much like the christian god.  if anything, this is just more evidence that such an entity does not exist.   #  of course you ca not know what god is intentions are but if you ponder about some possibilities the fact that god does not make himself known might make a little more sense.   #  i think it boils down to what god wants, what is his game ? what is this all for ? of course you ca not know what god is intentions are but if you ponder about some possibilities the fact that god does not make himself known might make a little more sense.  many thiests the from many creeds the globe over view life as kind of a moral test or sorts, right ? if this were the case it would make a lot of sense for god to hide himself.  if god just came out and said  hey i am god, here are all the rules and follow them or burn  well, of course everyone would follow them, but not necessarily because they were good people.  many people think god to be a being of intentions above semantics and rigid rules.  but then if that were the case, would it not make more sense for god to hide himself completely ? why write a holy book with rules at all, or any of that mess.  i like to think if there is a god, he made all the religions on purpose, and made the world a very muddy place, on purpose.  if you can do what is right in a world as grey as this, then that is a pretty good sign of a pure heart, i would say.  i dunno.   #  them being a narcissistic jerk would surprise me less.   #  well, i do not know about that.  the world we have is a very, very odd one for a benevolent god to make.  it is entirely driven by utterly amoral processes that throw natural disasters and diseases to us with wild abandon.  not only that, he delegated his creation work to a ruthless method based on competition, random mutation and the destruction of the weak aka evolution and natural selection, neither of which give a rat is ass about our notion of morality , after which he decided not to lift a finger as much of his creation suffered through famine, poverty and war through no fault of their own.  look, it would be nice if we had a god who cared about us doing good.  but they would never have created this cesspool in the first place.  them being a narcissistic jerk would surprise me less.  but most likely they do not care about us at all.   #  but obviously most people, and at the very very least many people.   #  i did not mean to say every one would.  but obviously most people, and at the very very least many people.  either way my point stands, god making himself completely known would not be the best thing if he was really interested testing people.  but at the same time gods knows everything, he knows exactly what you are gonna do in every possible reality before he even created you so, i guess that raises the question of what is the point ? even further though, could one even come up with a reason for god making us that is not ultimately frivolous for a omnipotent being ? i dunno.   #  the bible pretty clearly defines good and bad as whatever god says they are.   # is there any reason a god could have created us that makes sense ? i ca not think of any.  none that i can think of that make any sense.  i think it is pretty safe to say we humanity invented gods to explain things early humans could not understand.  literally, we created a god of the gaps.  it then makes perfect sense how he has such petty emotions. anger, jealousy, pride, etc.  because he was created in our image.  can the creator of objectivity dictate subjectivity ? so basically what you are wondering is whether a being that created all matter decides whether things are good or bad, or is that being subject to the ideals of good and bad ? that boils down to definitions.  the bible pretty clearly defines good and bad as whatever god says they are.  almost all humanists that i know of, anyways define good and bad as that which leads to increased or decreased well being of living beings.  so there is a very common, and huge disconnect fundamental to these discussions right there.
if god does exist, it seems like he is rather hidden.  while some claim to have received revelation, are able to communicate, and know his will, many feel left out of any type of relationship with him that would make god  real  to them.  moreover, when one observes nature and the larger universe, it is hard to see any immediately discernible divine fingerprints that would necessarily point to god.  if god exists, it is as if god purposefully hid himself from his creation, yet, in religions like christianity and islam, the non believer is met with eternal torment for not believing.  because god made it so hard to believe, it is his fault if people do not acknowledge him, not our is.   #  if god does exist, it seems like he is rather hidden.   #  we have a universe which, contrary to what we would expect, works perfectly down to the atomic level.   # we have a universe which, contrary to what we would expect, works perfectly down to the atomic level.  everything that we have discovered as a  loop hole  has ended up being consistently applied across all the cosmos.  we have natural order amongst organism, things which apply themselves to work to better themselves rather than die out and you would claim that this is a hidden work ? there is fairly convincing evidence of a central planning in the way that our biological components work and not just random mutations.  the thing that most concerns me is that you think god, or any deity, would have any desire to prove themselves to you or me.  how many people do you know that you can flop a million scientific studies in front of them saying vaccines do not cause autism and they stick their fingers in their ears and tell you that you are wrong.  how many people can tell you lizard people run all major earth governments ? people believe what they want to believe, even if the evidence is contrary.  why would an omnipotent, all powerful being spend his time trying to convince puny earthbound humans that he is real ? god is hard to believe because people are stupid.  people are willfully ignorant.  they want to believe what makes them happiest.   #  why write a holy book with rules at all, or any of that mess.   #  i think it boils down to what god wants, what is his game ? what is this all for ? of course you ca not know what god is intentions are but if you ponder about some possibilities the fact that god does not make himself known might make a little more sense.  many thiests the from many creeds the globe over view life as kind of a moral test or sorts, right ? if this were the case it would make a lot of sense for god to hide himself.  if god just came out and said  hey i am god, here are all the rules and follow them or burn  well, of course everyone would follow them, but not necessarily because they were good people.  many people think god to be a being of intentions above semantics and rigid rules.  but then if that were the case, would it not make more sense for god to hide himself completely ? why write a holy book with rules at all, or any of that mess.  i like to think if there is a god, he made all the religions on purpose, and made the world a very muddy place, on purpose.  if you can do what is right in a world as grey as this, then that is a pretty good sign of a pure heart, i would say.  i dunno.   #  it is entirely driven by utterly amoral processes that throw natural disasters and diseases to us with wild abandon.   #  well, i do not know about that.  the world we have is a very, very odd one for a benevolent god to make.  it is entirely driven by utterly amoral processes that throw natural disasters and diseases to us with wild abandon.  not only that, he delegated his creation work to a ruthless method based on competition, random mutation and the destruction of the weak aka evolution and natural selection, neither of which give a rat is ass about our notion of morality , after which he decided not to lift a finger as much of his creation suffered through famine, poverty and war through no fault of their own.  look, it would be nice if we had a god who cared about us doing good.  but they would never have created this cesspool in the first place.  them being a narcissistic jerk would surprise me less.  but most likely they do not care about us at all.   #  but at the same time gods knows everything, he knows exactly what you are gonna do in every possible reality before he even created you so, i guess that raises the question of what is the point ?  #  i did not mean to say every one would.  but obviously most people, and at the very very least many people.  either way my point stands, god making himself completely known would not be the best thing if he was really interested testing people.  but at the same time gods knows everything, he knows exactly what you are gonna do in every possible reality before he even created you so, i guess that raises the question of what is the point ? even further though, could one even come up with a reason for god making us that is not ultimately frivolous for a omnipotent being ? i dunno.   #  so basically what you are wondering is whether a being that created all matter decides whether things are good or bad, or is that being subject to the ideals of good and bad ?  # is there any reason a god could have created us that makes sense ? i ca not think of any.  none that i can think of that make any sense.  i think it is pretty safe to say we humanity invented gods to explain things early humans could not understand.  literally, we created a god of the gaps.  it then makes perfect sense how he has such petty emotions. anger, jealousy, pride, etc.  because he was created in our image.  can the creator of objectivity dictate subjectivity ? so basically what you are wondering is whether a being that created all matter decides whether things are good or bad, or is that being subject to the ideals of good and bad ? that boils down to definitions.  the bible pretty clearly defines good and bad as whatever god says they are.  almost all humanists that i know of, anyways define good and bad as that which leads to increased or decreased well being of living beings.  so there is a very common, and huge disconnect fundamental to these discussions right there.
mostly due to, what i feel is, a lack of evidence that i am aware of .  i do not live in america, but this applies to the uk too and i felt it would be easier to just say america.  basically, i think that the court system works.  of course it is not perfect, but nothing is.  we have a system that can work out whether or not a person is guilty with relative accuracy.  i would argue that a court of law will always put evidence first over bias i. e: no one is going to be convicted of a crime if there is not sufficient proof.  and as for politicians: i do not believe that anyone or the vast minority goes into politics with the idea of becoming rich and because of money.  surely, the reason pretty much all of them chose that path is because they really want to make a difference in the world.  maybe i have a naive faith in humanity.  i would love someone to convince me otherwise.   #  basically, i think that the court system works.   #  of course it is not perfect, but nothing is.   #  to be honest, i do not know a whole lot about the british court system, so i will respond to the american part of the equation, with the courts.  i will leave the politician part to someone else.  of course it is not perfect, but nothing is.  we have a system that can work out whether or not a person is guilty with relative accuracy.  i would argue that a court of law will always put evidence first over bias i. e: no one is going to be convicted of a crime if there is not sufficient proof.  possible innocent people put to death URL across the country, programs that provide legal representation in civil cases to low income americans are so cash strapped that they are turning away numbers of people.  hard pressed americans fighting foreclosure or seeking protection from domestic violence or access to medical care or unemployment benefits must often navigate the judicial system on their own or give up.  URL here is how things all too often work today: law enforcement decides that a person is suspicious or, possibly, just a political enemy .  upon investigation into every aspect of his/her life, they find possible violations of the law, often involving obscure, technical statutes that no one really knows.  they then file a  kitchen sink  indictment involving dozens, or even hundreds of charges, which the grand jury rubber stamps.  the accused then must choose between a plea bargain, or the risk of a trial in which a jury might convict on one or two felony counts simply on a  where there is smoke there must be fire  theory even if the evidence seems less than compelling.  this is why, in our current system, the vast majority of cases never go to trial, but end in plea bargains.  URL eric holder admits some banks are just too big to prosecute URL quite literally, this law professor argues that torturers ca not be prosecuted because the president is above the law URL  #  in order to do anything, in order to stay relevant, they need to be in power.   #  it is true that a lot of politicians go into politics wanting to inspire change the thing is, they soon get corrupted by the system.  politicians  need  votes.  in order to do anything, in order to stay relevant, they need to be in power.  they need people to vote for them.  so they do whatever it takes to get those votes.  that includes lying through their teeth.  take the conservatives.  prior to 0, they made the following promises, publicly: david cameron told jeremy paxman in april 0 that  we have absolutely no plans to raise vat.  vat was then raised to 0 not long after.  cameron had this to say to andrew marr:  what i can tell you is, any cabinet minister, if i win the election, who comes to me and says:  here are my plans,  and they involve front line reductions, they will be sent straight back to their department to go away and think again.  after 0 years of labour, there is a lot of wasteful spending, a lot of money that does not reach the front line.  since then, over 0,0 nhs nurses, 0,0 hospital beds, 0,0 fire fighters and 0,0 police officers have been cut.  another cameron quote:  we have looked at educational maintenance allowances and we have not announced any plan to get rid of them.  and further:  i said we do not have any plans to get rid of them.  it is one of those things the labour party keep putting out that we are but we are not.   emas were abolished nine months later.  let is not forget, possibly most importantly, that the conservatives published a  contract  between the party and the people, containing things like,  cut ministers pay by 0 and freeze it for five years  and  increase spending on health every year while cutting waste in the nhs so that more goes to nurses and doctors on the frontline .   you can see a breakdown of every one of these promises on another angry voice URL and details of how, exactly they were broken.  curiously, the tories have tried to remove all trace of it from the internet.   #  any reasonable person would say it is impossible to have a government completely free of corruption.   #  you give a convincing argument for how corruption  could  happen and then an anecdote about how it  did  happen in one particular case.  this is a good answer to the question  are there cases of corruption ?   but not the question  should we consider the system generally corrupt ?   any reasonable person would say it is impossible to have a government completely free of corruption.  the best we can hope for is a system that minimizes corruption and gives a vehicle for remediation when corruption does happen.  can you make the case that this does not describe our system ?  #  politics is also a popularity contest and my theory is that that is one of the reasons why ukip did so well.   #  i do not think that the system is set up in such a way that rewards politicians for doing the right thing i. e.  what is best for the people   the country.  there is no independent, impartial measure of that it is left to the will of the people.  often, the people do not understand the complexities of the sorts of things politicians deal with just like any job really.  as an example, immigration is a hot topic in the uk right now.  the statistics show that people think immigration is far higher than it is estimates by the public are 0 when the actual figure is 0 .  that is just one example of many.  politics is also a popularity contest and my theory is that that is one of the reasons why ukip did so well.  nigel farage is someone a lot of people in the uk think they can relate to.  ed milliband, not so much.  so what you have is a system where the most likeable people are rewarded based on public perceptions of what they believe they are going to do.  this only gives politicians incentive to pander to the will of the people, not what might actually be best for the people.  there is no accountability.  the politicians can claim they will do certain things in order to get votes.  there is nothing mandating that they have to do those things, and no  punishment  if they do not unless the people take notice, which more often than not as with the conservative is  contract  they do not.  coupled with that is the lack of choice.  because of fptp, many people in the uk feel that they really only have a choice between labour or tories.  therefore the politicians can get away with far more because they know that all they  really  need at the end of the day is a slightly better public image than the other guys.  so where they have lied and broken their promises, they simple plough money into pr in order to turn the public is attention away from their failures, and attack their opponent is image.   #  we ca not say to our government,  it is your job to make sure we are well informed on how we should vote !    #  although i ca not comment specifically on the uk system, the same problems are found in my country is political system.  it seems like you have given the following as an example of political corruption: the disparity between campaign promises and actual actions while in office.  i am not sure i would accept this under the umbrella of political corruption for the following reasons:   in many professions and aspects of life, people make promises or state intentions that they are not able to follow through with.  while often unfortunate, most of the time i would not consider them corrupt, unless they really had no intention to keep the promise in the first place.  i am sure you could find cases where politicians state intentions that they really did not have just for the sake of getting elected, the question whether this is often the case which i would posit it would have to be in order for us to consider the system corrupt .  keep in mind, many politicians have lofty goals, and this should not be considered a defect, because many of societies goals are, indeed, quite lofty.  that does not mean they should not be pursued.  i think the inherent problem, that you have described quite well, actually is better categorized as a problem with voters rather than politicians.  we simply are not keeping track very well, and often voting for the wrong reasons.  it is unrealistic for us to put this burden on the political system, it is inherently our responsibility.  we ca not say to our government,  it is your job to make sure we are well informed on how we should vote !   that is just inviting corruption, rather than solving it.  as for the limit of political parties, i would also ascribe this to a problem with the voters.  while the system has developed characteristics that serve to perpetuate a limited number of parties, the biggest barrier to forming a set of political parties that better represents the populace is a lack of organization of voters.  there is nothing written in the law that would stop it from happening, should the voters be so organized.
over the past year, the idea of raising the minimum wage in canada where i live and in the usa has gained popularity.  many states and provinces are either mandating, or in the process of mandating a minimum wage of $0/hour.  while on the surface, this seems like a good policy for strengthening the poor/middle class i believe this will ultimately hurt, not help the public, and especially the poor.  here are several common arguments made in favour of the raising minimum wage and my response:    average wages have not increased despite an increase in production and profit in the economy  it is a common misunderstanding that wages are/should be directly tied to production.  in reality wages are determined just like prices of anything else, through supply and demand.  most minimum wage jobs are unskilled and easily replaceable through either humans or automation making the supply of labour far larger than the demand, which equals a lower wage.  the rise in technology that has resulted in higher production from labour has little affect on wages.     current minimum wages are so low that they do not pay a livable annual salary, keeping the working poor in a perpetual state of poverty  i would challenge the idea that most minimum wage jobs were ever meant to be sustainable for living.  most minimum wage jobs are unskilled labour ex.  factory work, assembly lines or service industry jobs cooks, janitorial staff, retail jobs etc.  .  at least to me, these seem like temporary work done by people in the process of finding higher paying employment students, recent graduates, new immigrants etc.  , and not intended as a career at all, so a livable wage is not required.     a higher minimum wage would increase the income of many in the population, boosting spending, saving and the overall economy.   as i said previously, the vast majority of minimum wage jobs are easily replaceable, outsourced or automated.  if large companies are forced by government to pay high minimum wages, they will seek cheaper alternatives and replacements instead.  for example, a mcdonald is hamburger could very easily be made faster, cheaper, cleaner and better by a machine, like this one, which makes a burger every 0 seconds URL if the minimum wage gets high enough that it costs mcdonald is more to pay 0 people to flip burgers than one machine, they will simply replace the human labour altogether.  this will result in an increase in unemployment.  so while those who retain their minimum wage jobs will be better off, many will simply be replaced, leaving the unemployed workers in a worse position than before.  here are some things that would change my view:   research evidence that demonstrates positive impact from countries/states that have already raised minimum wage   a justification that the minimum wage must be a  living wage    evidence that a wage increase would not result in the loss of unskilled jobs to outsourcing, automation etc.    any other reasonable justification of minimum wage please change my view !  #  these seem like temporary work done by people in the process of finding higher paying employment students, recent graduates, new immigrants etc.  , and not intended as a career at all, so a livable wage is not required.   #  but many people do live with these jobs, they pass right by retirement and die working these jobs.   # but many people do live with these jobs, they pass right by retirement and die working these jobs.  to the majority of people on this planet these are good jobs.  you dismiss them as stepping stones, but people feed their children on these wages.  if you do not think there should be any kind of safety net, than it should not matter if minimum wage is  temporary  labor or not.  but if you think there should be safety nets, and minimum wagers do not count, then we need to address why so many people depend on minimum wage for so long.   #  when you force it on the economy the balance of the economy fights back.   #  so it is on the owners, management, stock owners to be a moral citizen and pay those people working 0 hours the wage.  there is a difference between everyone paying a solid livable wage because they are part of the community and forcing the issue.  when you force it on the economy the balance of the economy fights back.  but if it is just there and has been happening it becomes normal over time.  do you eat at mcdonalds ? wendy is ? starbucks ? do you shop at best buy ? toys r us ? i have had friends and myself that have all worked at these places, put in 0 hours a week or more for multiple weeks and none of these places paid 0 dollars an hour for a cashier, burger flipper, warehouse stocker, bariesta.  if you believe they should make a livable wage at 0 hours a week no matter what then do not frequent these places.  the owners and management would quickly change the wage they pay people.   #  it seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.    #  the economic situation is clearly a complex one, that ca not simply be solved  only  by raising wages although i do agree that they need to be raised overall.  i often see the complaint that minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage.  i ca not speak for canada but i do know this issue in the us to be terribly misunderstood.  the historical implications, roosevelt is agenda of the day points to the idea that he was fighting for worker and human rights during the great depression.  roosevelt is first attempt was the national industrial recovery act URL in his speech when this bill became law he said :  in my inaugural i laid down the simple proposition that nobody is going to starve in this country.  it seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.   granted, this law ended up dissolving but roosevelt is agenda did not when he was finally able to pass the fair labor standards act of 0 URL which to this day grants american workers protections many take for granted.  aware of lingering unfavorable views on the part of some of the afl is leaders, he pointed out that,  we are seeking, of course, only legislation to end starvation wages and intolerable hours; more desirable wages are and continue to be the product of collective bargaining.  it is frustrating when there is this unfounded consensus that the minimum wage is purpose was not to provide a living when you look at history it sure seemed to be part of the objective of its time.  it made sense for the times, considering the damage the great depression was having on society.   #  i will give a   in terms of providing evidence against that point.   #  this is what i am looking for, very interesting.  i will give a   in terms of providing evidence against that point.  i noticed the study was conducted in 0, which might be slightly outdated now, i wish they indicated the minimum wage levels in the studies they analyzed.  i would think that there must be some level at which the minimum wage does have an effect, but perhaps not, if kept proportional to inflation and other factors.  i also wonder if these same effects are seen outside of the fast food industry, in sectors like manufacturing where labour can be more easily outsourced or replaced with automation.   #  allow me to attempt to change your view again back again.  consider that the data from those studies is from two decades in the past.   #  allow me to attempt to change your view again back again.  consider that the data from those studies is from two decades in the past.  in the 0s automation was nowhere near the level it is now.  there was no realistic alternative to labor.  now there is.  so in effect while those studies were applicable to the 0th century, they in no way represent what is going to happen in the coming decades.  the simple truth is that raising the minimum wage will only result in expediting the shift toward automation.  it will kill all of the low level jobs.  raising the minimum wage is a case of good intentions bad results.  if you really want to help people pay for their education and give them freedom of choice.  do not cuff the hands of everyone else.
over the past year, the idea of raising the minimum wage in canada where i live and in the usa has gained popularity.  many states and provinces are either mandating, or in the process of mandating a minimum wage of $0/hour.  while on the surface, this seems like a good policy for strengthening the poor/middle class i believe this will ultimately hurt, not help the public, and especially the poor.  here are several common arguments made in favour of the raising minimum wage and my response:    average wages have not increased despite an increase in production and profit in the economy  it is a common misunderstanding that wages are/should be directly tied to production.  in reality wages are determined just like prices of anything else, through supply and demand.  most minimum wage jobs are unskilled and easily replaceable through either humans or automation making the supply of labour far larger than the demand, which equals a lower wage.  the rise in technology that has resulted in higher production from labour has little affect on wages.     current minimum wages are so low that they do not pay a livable annual salary, keeping the working poor in a perpetual state of poverty  i would challenge the idea that most minimum wage jobs were ever meant to be sustainable for living.  most minimum wage jobs are unskilled labour ex.  factory work, assembly lines or service industry jobs cooks, janitorial staff, retail jobs etc.  .  at least to me, these seem like temporary work done by people in the process of finding higher paying employment students, recent graduates, new immigrants etc.  , and not intended as a career at all, so a livable wage is not required.     a higher minimum wage would increase the income of many in the population, boosting spending, saving and the overall economy.   as i said previously, the vast majority of minimum wage jobs are easily replaceable, outsourced or automated.  if large companies are forced by government to pay high minimum wages, they will seek cheaper alternatives and replacements instead.  for example, a mcdonald is hamburger could very easily be made faster, cheaper, cleaner and better by a machine, like this one, which makes a burger every 0 seconds URL if the minimum wage gets high enough that it costs mcdonald is more to pay 0 people to flip burgers than one machine, they will simply replace the human labour altogether.  this will result in an increase in unemployment.  so while those who retain their minimum wage jobs will be better off, many will simply be replaced, leaving the unemployed workers in a worse position than before.  here are some things that would change my view:   research evidence that demonstrates positive impact from countries/states that have already raised minimum wage   a justification that the minimum wage must be a  living wage    evidence that a wage increase would not result in the loss of unskilled jobs to outsourcing, automation etc.    any other reasonable justification of minimum wage please change my view !  #  the rise in technology that has resulted in higher production from labour has little affect on wages.   #  i agree with the point you made in this paragraph, but that is kind of the point !  # i agree with the point you made in this paragraph, but that is kind of the point ! if market forces resulted in higher wages, nobody would care about minimum wage.  the fact that minimum wage forces companies to pay employees more than what supply and demand would otherwise dictate is a feature, not a bug.  if all of the minimum wage jobs went to kids, recent graduates, recent immigrants, etc or whatever, what would the rest of the adults do ? do you think they would just magically find themselves in  real careers  and the problem would go away ? i think this is compounded by the fact that for better or for worse, we live in a society with social safety nets.  the fact is our country will do its best to take care of these people one way or another.  unless you want to totally change all that maybe you do, but the scope of this cmv gets a bit wider , then the two go hand in hand.  if you are a company and want an employee to work for you, part of the forces that dictate the cost of labor is the fact that the government is going to make up the shortfall to keep this people alive.  i think this is an interesting point, but the post automation economy is something we are going to have to deal with either way.  in the big picture, i think an economy with fully automated restaurants has a lot of upside.  i am all for increasing automation.  but yes, we need to figure out what to do with the people who we do not  need  to work.  but to me, this does not seem like a problem with minimum wage, that is an inevitable problem with the future of technology.   #  when you force it on the economy the balance of the economy fights back.   #  so it is on the owners, management, stock owners to be a moral citizen and pay those people working 0 hours the wage.  there is a difference between everyone paying a solid livable wage because they are part of the community and forcing the issue.  when you force it on the economy the balance of the economy fights back.  but if it is just there and has been happening it becomes normal over time.  do you eat at mcdonalds ? wendy is ? starbucks ? do you shop at best buy ? toys r us ? i have had friends and myself that have all worked at these places, put in 0 hours a week or more for multiple weeks and none of these places paid 0 dollars an hour for a cashier, burger flipper, warehouse stocker, bariesta.  if you believe they should make a livable wage at 0 hours a week no matter what then do not frequent these places.  the owners and management would quickly change the wage they pay people.   #  it seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.    #  the economic situation is clearly a complex one, that ca not simply be solved  only  by raising wages although i do agree that they need to be raised overall.  i often see the complaint that minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage.  i ca not speak for canada but i do know this issue in the us to be terribly misunderstood.  the historical implications, roosevelt is agenda of the day points to the idea that he was fighting for worker and human rights during the great depression.  roosevelt is first attempt was the national industrial recovery act URL in his speech when this bill became law he said :  in my inaugural i laid down the simple proposition that nobody is going to starve in this country.  it seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.   granted, this law ended up dissolving but roosevelt is agenda did not when he was finally able to pass the fair labor standards act of 0 URL which to this day grants american workers protections many take for granted.  aware of lingering unfavorable views on the part of some of the afl is leaders, he pointed out that,  we are seeking, of course, only legislation to end starvation wages and intolerable hours; more desirable wages are and continue to be the product of collective bargaining.  it is frustrating when there is this unfounded consensus that the minimum wage is purpose was not to provide a living when you look at history it sure seemed to be part of the objective of its time.  it made sense for the times, considering the damage the great depression was having on society.   #  i would think that there must be some level at which the minimum wage does have an effect, but perhaps not, if kept proportional to inflation and other factors.   #  this is what i am looking for, very interesting.  i will give a   in terms of providing evidence against that point.  i noticed the study was conducted in 0, which might be slightly outdated now, i wish they indicated the minimum wage levels in the studies they analyzed.  i would think that there must be some level at which the minimum wage does have an effect, but perhaps not, if kept proportional to inflation and other factors.  i also wonder if these same effects are seen outside of the fast food industry, in sectors like manufacturing where labour can be more easily outsourced or replaced with automation.   #  in the 0s automation was nowhere near the level it is now.   #  allow me to attempt to change your view again back again.  consider that the data from those studies is from two decades in the past.  in the 0s automation was nowhere near the level it is now.  there was no realistic alternative to labor.  now there is.  so in effect while those studies were applicable to the 0th century, they in no way represent what is going to happen in the coming decades.  the simple truth is that raising the minimum wage will only result in expediting the shift toward automation.  it will kill all of the low level jobs.  raising the minimum wage is a case of good intentions bad results.  if you really want to help people pay for their education and give them freedom of choice.  do not cuff the hands of everyone else.
over the past year, the idea of raising the minimum wage in canada where i live and in the usa has gained popularity.  many states and provinces are either mandating, or in the process of mandating a minimum wage of $0/hour.  while on the surface, this seems like a good policy for strengthening the poor/middle class i believe this will ultimately hurt, not help the public, and especially the poor.  here are several common arguments made in favour of the raising minimum wage and my response:    average wages have not increased despite an increase in production and profit in the economy  it is a common misunderstanding that wages are/should be directly tied to production.  in reality wages are determined just like prices of anything else, through supply and demand.  most minimum wage jobs are unskilled and easily replaceable through either humans or automation making the supply of labour far larger than the demand, which equals a lower wage.  the rise in technology that has resulted in higher production from labour has little affect on wages.     current minimum wages are so low that they do not pay a livable annual salary, keeping the working poor in a perpetual state of poverty  i would challenge the idea that most minimum wage jobs were ever meant to be sustainable for living.  most minimum wage jobs are unskilled labour ex.  factory work, assembly lines or service industry jobs cooks, janitorial staff, retail jobs etc.  .  at least to me, these seem like temporary work done by people in the process of finding higher paying employment students, recent graduates, new immigrants etc.  , and not intended as a career at all, so a livable wage is not required.     a higher minimum wage would increase the income of many in the population, boosting spending, saving and the overall economy.   as i said previously, the vast majority of minimum wage jobs are easily replaceable, outsourced or automated.  if large companies are forced by government to pay high minimum wages, they will seek cheaper alternatives and replacements instead.  for example, a mcdonald is hamburger could very easily be made faster, cheaper, cleaner and better by a machine, like this one, which makes a burger every 0 seconds URL if the minimum wage gets high enough that it costs mcdonald is more to pay 0 people to flip burgers than one machine, they will simply replace the human labour altogether.  this will result in an increase in unemployment.  so while those who retain their minimum wage jobs will be better off, many will simply be replaced, leaving the unemployed workers in a worse position than before.  here are some things that would change my view:   research evidence that demonstrates positive impact from countries/states that have already raised minimum wage   a justification that the minimum wage must be a  living wage    evidence that a wage increase would not result in the loss of unskilled jobs to outsourcing, automation etc.    any other reasonable justification of minimum wage please change my view !  #  at least to me, these seem like temporary work done by people in the process of finding higher paying employment students, recent graduates, new immigrants etc.  , and not intended as a career at all, so a livable wage is not required.   #  if all of the minimum wage jobs went to kids, recent graduates, recent immigrants, etc or whatever, what would the rest of the adults do ?  # i agree with the point you made in this paragraph, but that is kind of the point ! if market forces resulted in higher wages, nobody would care about minimum wage.  the fact that minimum wage forces companies to pay employees more than what supply and demand would otherwise dictate is a feature, not a bug.  if all of the minimum wage jobs went to kids, recent graduates, recent immigrants, etc or whatever, what would the rest of the adults do ? do you think they would just magically find themselves in  real careers  and the problem would go away ? i think this is compounded by the fact that for better or for worse, we live in a society with social safety nets.  the fact is our country will do its best to take care of these people one way or another.  unless you want to totally change all that maybe you do, but the scope of this cmv gets a bit wider , then the two go hand in hand.  if you are a company and want an employee to work for you, part of the forces that dictate the cost of labor is the fact that the government is going to make up the shortfall to keep this people alive.  i think this is an interesting point, but the post automation economy is something we are going to have to deal with either way.  in the big picture, i think an economy with fully automated restaurants has a lot of upside.  i am all for increasing automation.  but yes, we need to figure out what to do with the people who we do not  need  to work.  but to me, this does not seem like a problem with minimum wage, that is an inevitable problem with the future of technology.   #  when you force it on the economy the balance of the economy fights back.   #  so it is on the owners, management, stock owners to be a moral citizen and pay those people working 0 hours the wage.  there is a difference between everyone paying a solid livable wage because they are part of the community and forcing the issue.  when you force it on the economy the balance of the economy fights back.  but if it is just there and has been happening it becomes normal over time.  do you eat at mcdonalds ? wendy is ? starbucks ? do you shop at best buy ? toys r us ? i have had friends and myself that have all worked at these places, put in 0 hours a week or more for multiple weeks and none of these places paid 0 dollars an hour for a cashier, burger flipper, warehouse stocker, bariesta.  if you believe they should make a livable wage at 0 hours a week no matter what then do not frequent these places.  the owners and management would quickly change the wage they pay people.   #  i ca not speak for canada but i do know this issue in the us to be terribly misunderstood.   #  the economic situation is clearly a complex one, that ca not simply be solved  only  by raising wages although i do agree that they need to be raised overall.  i often see the complaint that minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage.  i ca not speak for canada but i do know this issue in the us to be terribly misunderstood.  the historical implications, roosevelt is agenda of the day points to the idea that he was fighting for worker and human rights during the great depression.  roosevelt is first attempt was the national industrial recovery act URL in his speech when this bill became law he said :  in my inaugural i laid down the simple proposition that nobody is going to starve in this country.  it seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.   granted, this law ended up dissolving but roosevelt is agenda did not when he was finally able to pass the fair labor standards act of 0 URL which to this day grants american workers protections many take for granted.  aware of lingering unfavorable views on the part of some of the afl is leaders, he pointed out that,  we are seeking, of course, only legislation to end starvation wages and intolerable hours; more desirable wages are and continue to be the product of collective bargaining.  it is frustrating when there is this unfounded consensus that the minimum wage is purpose was not to provide a living when you look at history it sure seemed to be part of the objective of its time.  it made sense for the times, considering the damage the great depression was having on society.   #  i also wonder if these same effects are seen outside of the fast food industry, in sectors like manufacturing where labour can be more easily outsourced or replaced with automation.   #  this is what i am looking for, very interesting.  i will give a   in terms of providing evidence against that point.  i noticed the study was conducted in 0, which might be slightly outdated now, i wish they indicated the minimum wage levels in the studies they analyzed.  i would think that there must be some level at which the minimum wage does have an effect, but perhaps not, if kept proportional to inflation and other factors.  i also wonder if these same effects are seen outside of the fast food industry, in sectors like manufacturing where labour can be more easily outsourced or replaced with automation.   #  if you really want to help people pay for their education and give them freedom of choice.   #  allow me to attempt to change your view again back again.  consider that the data from those studies is from two decades in the past.  in the 0s automation was nowhere near the level it is now.  there was no realistic alternative to labor.  now there is.  so in effect while those studies were applicable to the 0th century, they in no way represent what is going to happen in the coming decades.  the simple truth is that raising the minimum wage will only result in expediting the shift toward automation.  it will kill all of the low level jobs.  raising the minimum wage is a case of good intentions bad results.  if you really want to help people pay for their education and give them freedom of choice.  do not cuff the hands of everyone else.
over the past year, the idea of raising the minimum wage in canada where i live and in the usa has gained popularity.  many states and provinces are either mandating, or in the process of mandating a minimum wage of $0/hour.  while on the surface, this seems like a good policy for strengthening the poor/middle class i believe this will ultimately hurt, not help the public, and especially the poor.  here are several common arguments made in favour of the raising minimum wage and my response:    average wages have not increased despite an increase in production and profit in the economy  it is a common misunderstanding that wages are/should be directly tied to production.  in reality wages are determined just like prices of anything else, through supply and demand.  most minimum wage jobs are unskilled and easily replaceable through either humans or automation making the supply of labour far larger than the demand, which equals a lower wage.  the rise in technology that has resulted in higher production from labour has little affect on wages.     current minimum wages are so low that they do not pay a livable annual salary, keeping the working poor in a perpetual state of poverty  i would challenge the idea that most minimum wage jobs were ever meant to be sustainable for living.  most minimum wage jobs are unskilled labour ex.  factory work, assembly lines or service industry jobs cooks, janitorial staff, retail jobs etc.  .  at least to me, these seem like temporary work done by people in the process of finding higher paying employment students, recent graduates, new immigrants etc.  , and not intended as a career at all, so a livable wage is not required.     a higher minimum wage would increase the income of many in the population, boosting spending, saving and the overall economy.   as i said previously, the vast majority of minimum wage jobs are easily replaceable, outsourced or automated.  if large companies are forced by government to pay high minimum wages, they will seek cheaper alternatives and replacements instead.  for example, a mcdonald is hamburger could very easily be made faster, cheaper, cleaner and better by a machine, like this one, which makes a burger every 0 seconds URL if the minimum wage gets high enough that it costs mcdonald is more to pay 0 people to flip burgers than one machine, they will simply replace the human labour altogether.  this will result in an increase in unemployment.  so while those who retain their minimum wage jobs will be better off, many will simply be replaced, leaving the unemployed workers in a worse position than before.  here are some things that would change my view:   research evidence that demonstrates positive impact from countries/states that have already raised minimum wage   a justification that the minimum wage must be a  living wage    evidence that a wage increase would not result in the loss of unskilled jobs to outsourcing, automation etc.    any other reasonable justification of minimum wage please change my view !  #  so while those who retain their minimum wage jobs will be better off, many will simply be replaced, leaving the unemployed workers in a worse position than before.   #  i think this is an interesting point, but the post automation economy is something we are going to have to deal with either way.   # i agree with the point you made in this paragraph, but that is kind of the point ! if market forces resulted in higher wages, nobody would care about minimum wage.  the fact that minimum wage forces companies to pay employees more than what supply and demand would otherwise dictate is a feature, not a bug.  if all of the minimum wage jobs went to kids, recent graduates, recent immigrants, etc or whatever, what would the rest of the adults do ? do you think they would just magically find themselves in  real careers  and the problem would go away ? i think this is compounded by the fact that for better or for worse, we live in a society with social safety nets.  the fact is our country will do its best to take care of these people one way or another.  unless you want to totally change all that maybe you do, but the scope of this cmv gets a bit wider , then the two go hand in hand.  if you are a company and want an employee to work for you, part of the forces that dictate the cost of labor is the fact that the government is going to make up the shortfall to keep this people alive.  i think this is an interesting point, but the post automation economy is something we are going to have to deal with either way.  in the big picture, i think an economy with fully automated restaurants has a lot of upside.  i am all for increasing automation.  but yes, we need to figure out what to do with the people who we do not  need  to work.  but to me, this does not seem like a problem with minimum wage, that is an inevitable problem with the future of technology.   #  the owners and management would quickly change the wage they pay people.   #  so it is on the owners, management, stock owners to be a moral citizen and pay those people working 0 hours the wage.  there is a difference between everyone paying a solid livable wage because they are part of the community and forcing the issue.  when you force it on the economy the balance of the economy fights back.  but if it is just there and has been happening it becomes normal over time.  do you eat at mcdonalds ? wendy is ? starbucks ? do you shop at best buy ? toys r us ? i have had friends and myself that have all worked at these places, put in 0 hours a week or more for multiple weeks and none of these places paid 0 dollars an hour for a cashier, burger flipper, warehouse stocker, bariesta.  if you believe they should make a livable wage at 0 hours a week no matter what then do not frequent these places.  the owners and management would quickly change the wage they pay people.   #  the historical implications, roosevelt is agenda of the day points to the idea that he was fighting for worker and human rights during the great depression.   #  the economic situation is clearly a complex one, that ca not simply be solved  only  by raising wages although i do agree that they need to be raised overall.  i often see the complaint that minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage.  i ca not speak for canada but i do know this issue in the us to be terribly misunderstood.  the historical implications, roosevelt is agenda of the day points to the idea that he was fighting for worker and human rights during the great depression.  roosevelt is first attempt was the national industrial recovery act URL in his speech when this bill became law he said :  in my inaugural i laid down the simple proposition that nobody is going to starve in this country.  it seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.   granted, this law ended up dissolving but roosevelt is agenda did not when he was finally able to pass the fair labor standards act of 0 URL which to this day grants american workers protections many take for granted.  aware of lingering unfavorable views on the part of some of the afl is leaders, he pointed out that,  we are seeking, of course, only legislation to end starvation wages and intolerable hours; more desirable wages are and continue to be the product of collective bargaining.  it is frustrating when there is this unfounded consensus that the minimum wage is purpose was not to provide a living when you look at history it sure seemed to be part of the objective of its time.  it made sense for the times, considering the damage the great depression was having on society.   #  i will give a   in terms of providing evidence against that point.   #  this is what i am looking for, very interesting.  i will give a   in terms of providing evidence against that point.  i noticed the study was conducted in 0, which might be slightly outdated now, i wish they indicated the minimum wage levels in the studies they analyzed.  i would think that there must be some level at which the minimum wage does have an effect, but perhaps not, if kept proportional to inflation and other factors.  i also wonder if these same effects are seen outside of the fast food industry, in sectors like manufacturing where labour can be more easily outsourced or replaced with automation.   #  allow me to attempt to change your view again back again.  consider that the data from those studies is from two decades in the past.   #  allow me to attempt to change your view again back again.  consider that the data from those studies is from two decades in the past.  in the 0s automation was nowhere near the level it is now.  there was no realistic alternative to labor.  now there is.  so in effect while those studies were applicable to the 0th century, they in no way represent what is going to happen in the coming decades.  the simple truth is that raising the minimum wage will only result in expediting the shift toward automation.  it will kill all of the low level jobs.  raising the minimum wage is a case of good intentions bad results.  if you really want to help people pay for their education and give them freedom of choice.  do not cuff the hands of everyone else.
over the past year, the idea of raising the minimum wage in canada where i live and in the usa has gained popularity.  many states and provinces are either mandating, or in the process of mandating a minimum wage of $0/hour.  while on the surface, this seems like a good policy for strengthening the poor/middle class i believe this will ultimately hurt, not help the public, and especially the poor.  here are several common arguments made in favour of the raising minimum wage and my response:    average wages have not increased despite an increase in production and profit in the economy  it is a common misunderstanding that wages are/should be directly tied to production.  in reality wages are determined just like prices of anything else, through supply and demand.  most minimum wage jobs are unskilled and easily replaceable through either humans or automation making the supply of labour far larger than the demand, which equals a lower wage.  the rise in technology that has resulted in higher production from labour has little affect on wages.     current minimum wages are so low that they do not pay a livable annual salary, keeping the working poor in a perpetual state of poverty  i would challenge the idea that most minimum wage jobs were ever meant to be sustainable for living.  most minimum wage jobs are unskilled labour ex.  factory work, assembly lines or service industry jobs cooks, janitorial staff, retail jobs etc.  .  at least to me, these seem like temporary work done by people in the process of finding higher paying employment students, recent graduates, new immigrants etc.  , and not intended as a career at all, so a livable wage is not required.     a higher minimum wage would increase the income of many in the population, boosting spending, saving and the overall economy.   as i said previously, the vast majority of minimum wage jobs are easily replaceable, outsourced or automated.  if large companies are forced by government to pay high minimum wages, they will seek cheaper alternatives and replacements instead.  for example, a mcdonald is hamburger could very easily be made faster, cheaper, cleaner and better by a machine, like this one, which makes a burger every 0 seconds URL if the minimum wage gets high enough that it costs mcdonald is more to pay 0 people to flip burgers than one machine, they will simply replace the human labour altogether.  this will result in an increase in unemployment.  so while those who retain their minimum wage jobs will be better off, many will simply be replaced, leaving the unemployed workers in a worse position than before.  here are some things that would change my view:   research evidence that demonstrates positive impact from countries/states that have already raised minimum wage   a justification that the minimum wage must be a  living wage    evidence that a wage increase would not result in the loss of unskilled jobs to outsourcing, automation etc.    any other reasonable justification of minimum wage please change my view !  #  it is a common misunderstanding that wages are/should be directly tied to production.   #  in reality wages are determined just like prices of anything else, through supply and demand.   #  can i address one of your points ? in reality wages are determined just like prices of anything else, through supply and demand.  most minimum wage jobs are unskilled and easily replaceable through either humans or automation making the supply of labour far larger than the demand, which equals a lower wage.  the rise in technology that has resulted in higher production from labour has little affect on wages.  if labor was the same as other commodities in production, we would not limit the work day to x per day, x per week.  it is already a special case commodity, one with supply artificially controlled by the alteration of the legal work week.  why did we start doing this at all ? why not treat it as a perfect commodity and let it fluctuate with supply and demand ? the reason is that societies like this tend to be very unstable and vulnerable to outside threats like war, plagues, disasters, etc.   #  but if it is just there and has been happening it becomes normal over time.   #  so it is on the owners, management, stock owners to be a moral citizen and pay those people working 0 hours the wage.  there is a difference between everyone paying a solid livable wage because they are part of the community and forcing the issue.  when you force it on the economy the balance of the economy fights back.  but if it is just there and has been happening it becomes normal over time.  do you eat at mcdonalds ? wendy is ? starbucks ? do you shop at best buy ? toys r us ? i have had friends and myself that have all worked at these places, put in 0 hours a week or more for multiple weeks and none of these places paid 0 dollars an hour for a cashier, burger flipper, warehouse stocker, bariesta.  if you believe they should make a livable wage at 0 hours a week no matter what then do not frequent these places.  the owners and management would quickly change the wage they pay people.   #  it seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.    #  the economic situation is clearly a complex one, that ca not simply be solved  only  by raising wages although i do agree that they need to be raised overall.  i often see the complaint that minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage.  i ca not speak for canada but i do know this issue in the us to be terribly misunderstood.  the historical implications, roosevelt is agenda of the day points to the idea that he was fighting for worker and human rights during the great depression.  roosevelt is first attempt was the national industrial recovery act URL in his speech when this bill became law he said :  in my inaugural i laid down the simple proposition that nobody is going to starve in this country.  it seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.   granted, this law ended up dissolving but roosevelt is agenda did not when he was finally able to pass the fair labor standards act of 0 URL which to this day grants american workers protections many take for granted.  aware of lingering unfavorable views on the part of some of the afl is leaders, he pointed out that,  we are seeking, of course, only legislation to end starvation wages and intolerable hours; more desirable wages are and continue to be the product of collective bargaining.  it is frustrating when there is this unfounded consensus that the minimum wage is purpose was not to provide a living when you look at history it sure seemed to be part of the objective of its time.  it made sense for the times, considering the damage the great depression was having on society.   #  this is what i am looking for, very interesting.   #  this is what i am looking for, very interesting.  i will give a   in terms of providing evidence against that point.  i noticed the study was conducted in 0, which might be slightly outdated now, i wish they indicated the minimum wage levels in the studies they analyzed.  i would think that there must be some level at which the minimum wage does have an effect, but perhaps not, if kept proportional to inflation and other factors.  i also wonder if these same effects are seen outside of the fast food industry, in sectors like manufacturing where labour can be more easily outsourced or replaced with automation.   #  the simple truth is that raising the minimum wage will only result in expediting the shift toward automation.   #  allow me to attempt to change your view again back again.  consider that the data from those studies is from two decades in the past.  in the 0s automation was nowhere near the level it is now.  there was no realistic alternative to labor.  now there is.  so in effect while those studies were applicable to the 0th century, they in no way represent what is going to happen in the coming decades.  the simple truth is that raising the minimum wage will only result in expediting the shift toward automation.  it will kill all of the low level jobs.  raising the minimum wage is a case of good intentions bad results.  if you really want to help people pay for their education and give them freedom of choice.  do not cuff the hands of everyone else.
i have been taking many different types of anti depressants over the last 0 years, i read dozens of self help books about positive thinking, and recently started doing meditation,.  i still feel miserable, i always have been.  it is not curable.  for me it is comparable to having diabetes, it is not curable, you just have to live with it.  i rarely leave my apartment, i have no friends and no girlfriend.  i just live, but never enjoy anything.  the only substance that makes me somewhat happy for a short period of time is alcohol.  i wonder if there are people out there who are in a similar situation than me or can give a solution that i have not tried yet.   #  i wonder if there are people out there who are in a similar situation than me or can give a solution that i have not tried yet.   #  well 0 thing is you havent even mentioned seeing a therapist or trying out different forms of therapy ?  # anti depressants are barely more effective than a placebo around 0 0 of people notice any affect  at all  from them and imo they should not be given to most of the people who are on them.  what makes significant change is  therapy  and how much effort you put into controlling your way of thinking.  did you take anything from the books ? brain chemistry is constantly changing, it does not stay the same, and whatever you are doing or however you are thinking at any point in time, you are training yourself to be better at it.  as in, when you think negative thoughts about yourself and your life, you get better at it, and worse at being happy.  you have to take control of your mind.  URL  i rarely leave my apartment do you never leave your apartment because you are depressed or are you depressed partially because you never leave your apartment ? obviously it is not  caused  by spending so much time alone and in your apartment but obviously you are not going to get better until your lifestyle changes.  i am not being rude but im not gonna sugarcoat it, you have the power to change your life and you are making the decision to keep it the same.  there are people out there who you can relate to, they are just all on in their apartments too.  you live in the age of the internet go and find them.  or do not but its your choice, you are lying to yourself if you believe that you have no power over it.  whens the last time you tried anything new ? we are not designed to enjoy sitting inside playing games and watching netflix, the truth is that most people do not it just distracts them from the fact that they have kinda shitty uninteresting lives.  i know its a cliche but there is a massive world out there waiting to be explored.  all you need is confidence.  you are going to die one day, meditate on that, who the fuck has time to not be confident or feel invalidated as a human your birth was your validation, anyone who makes you feel unconfident is just another piece of shit who needs to bring other people down, they literally do not matter at all unless you let them.  well 0 thing is you havent even mentioned seeing a therapist or trying out different forms of therapy ? thats how people get better.  virtually no one pops a pill and is magically cured of depression you have to work with the psyche.  and then just fucking put yourself out into the world brother.  no one else can do it for you.  find people you relate to and do things with them, or explore on your own.   #  but it is not a passive process, you have to help it along.   #  do not underestimate it.  i am a 0 dispatcher and i was out of work for months with with depression and anxiety.  for weeks and weeks i thought that the medication was not working, and i felt miserable.  for me, it was over the course of one week that i went from miserable and suicidal back to optimistic but cautious .  but it is not a passive process, you have to help it along.  it is like physical therapy to recover from an injury, but it is mental.  you practice changing how you think.  for me, i had to stop focusing on what i could not do and focus on what i could do.  you ca not keep it up all the time though, of course, but you keep practicing and it will be easier.  i was upset i was too anxious to drive, but i had to force myself to acknowledge that it was a step forward that i could leave my house.  i ca not even go grocery shopping, but i did manage to order fast food without an issue.  eventually it gets easier and you focus on your successes instead of your failures and that mindset snowballed for me.  and you are correct that it is a permanent issue like diabetes.  it will stay with you, but like diabetes it can be monitored and controlled and you can live a life that is just as good as before you realized you were depressed, if not better.  i can look back at my life more clearly and see how this has affected me, and can even see the symptoms of clinical depression in my parents.  i feel a lot better knowing that i have a good chance of breaking the cycle and helping my children avoid this entirely or just be more alert to the signs and helping them avoid it becoming a crisis.   #  someone with your condition is not good at accurately determining if a situation is hopeless.   #  once i found the medication mix that worked for me, pills absolutely helped end my depression.  statistically, the most effective treatment for major depression is combined medication treatment and cognitive behavioral therapy.  if you are only using one of those two options you are leaving a lot of potential improvement on the table.  i am not trying to say this in a disrespectful way, but one of the key symptoms of depression is hopelessness.  someone with your condition is not good at accurately determining if a situation is hopeless.  your feelings about the effectiveness of treatment are not nessecarily accurate.   #  it is awful, but in the end you need to look inside yourself and find what brings you happiness and what you are passionate about. i know that being depressed saps you of your interests, but that does not mean they are not still there.   #  i understand what it is like to be depressed.  it is awful, but in the end you need to look inside yourself and find what brings you happiness and what you are passionate about. i know that being depressed saps you of your interests, but that does not mean they are not still there.  i know it is tough but i honestly think that you should force yourself to go out more, even if it is just by yourself.  do something nice for yourself, go out to a nice dinner or a movie, or do something fun that you have been wanting to do for awhile.  what you ca not do is resign yourself to this life, because it quickly becomes a self fulfilling prophesy.   #  what they do know is that medication combined with behavioral therapy is extremely effective, moreso than medication alone.   #  you do not know this; in fact, your doctor is do not even know because the biological causes behind depression are not well understood and it varies from person to person.  because of this, your view ca not be anything more than rumination about a situation you currently see as hopeless.  what they do know is that medication combined with behavioral therapy is extremely effective, moreso than medication alone.  many times, depression goes away never to return after major turning points in ones life new job, relationship, relocation, etc .  if pills/self help/meditation have not worked for you, you still have options.  i understand how difficult they can be to pursue when there is no light at the end of the tunnel, but there is always hope, and despite what you believe right now, most people are able to depression behind them eventually.
read: mentally retarded / downs.  see, we have got a few people in town that have these diagnosis and every single person in their family seemed to be completely drained of life from taking care of these people is every need.  i am talking changing diapers on a 0 year old man that likes to put his finger in his butt and  poopy poke  people while laughing obnoxiously.  if i ever learned my girlfriend or a family member was pregnant with a mental retard, i would fully push for an abortion immediately.  i do not see any good at all from keeping them around and saying they all have a  good heart .  that is all they seem to have, either a good heart or a completely fucking asshole.  hell, my dog has a good heart too, except he can actually fetch a ball and bring it back without sticking his finger in his ass.  it is pretty ingrained, but.  cmv ?  #  i am talking changing diapers on a 0 year old man that likes to put his finger in his butt and  poopy poke  people while laughing obnoxiously.   #  i am pretty sure that is only the minority of cases.   # in general, or specific disabilities ? there is a huge difference between different disabilities and impairments.  so downs.  or are you also including autism in  mentally retarded  ? i am pretty sure that is only the minority of cases.  it is worth noting that mental disability is a spectrum.  if you can accurately define and detect exactly what you are talking about, you will have a point.  until then, it is entirely subjective what you are even talking about.  where do we draw the line ? is this strictly an issue of draining resources ? if so, then would not that imply you would agree with not keeping people on life support ?  #  so who should be granted that wonderful task of determining such a thing ?  # there are always those who will see particular groups of people as  less than  those around them.  so who should be granted that wonderful task of determining such a thing ? you ? what makes you more qualified than others to determine the worth of another person is life, especially if you are not even the one responsible for taking care of it ? what if those in charge of making such decisions started doing so on the basis of race ? what about eliminating people who practice particular religions ? sometimes the reason not to do something like eliminating inconvenient groups of people is not because it adds a direct benefit to society to keep them, but because to engage in such an act would make that society less worth living in because of who that society would require us to be in order to be a part of it .  your dislike of those who are mentally handicapped is subjective, as are the other examples mentioned here.  if i have someone in my family who is mentally handicapped, but feel as though his or her presence adds to the overall quality of our life experiences, who are you to tell us that this family member is not contributing to our overall well being ? who are you to decide that this family member of mine should be eliminated simply because it makes you uncomfortable ? sometimes the act of living in society is itself a social commitment to one another, that in times when we are not at our best requires the people as a whole to maintain an obligation to one another that says we will help to take up the slack in times when we the individual may not always be able to carry the load.  it is this social contract to one another that allows us to have a certain level of existential anxiety relieved, because even if we are struggling ourselves, we know that our friends, our family, and sometimes even the society as a whole will help us through.  while it is fine to condemn others and say  but i have never needed such services or support from others , this does not mean that you or those you love never will.   #  from what i have seen, there are barely any families that actually seem to enjoy that they are alive.   #    that was pretty well put.  i do not think i have ever seen it in practice though.  it may be my semi limited experience my ex worked as an aide for a mental home and i would go out regularly with them.  from what i have seen, there are barely any families that actually seem to enjoy that they are alive.  i asked a couple who is son was in the group and they told me straight that the only reason they are there is because they would feel more shitty if they did not.  they did not even interact with him, they just sat at the table and talked with each other looking up once every so often to give a 0 second smile and thumbs up.  they would stay for maybe 0 minutes and leave.  that was actually one of the better couples.   #  super nice guy who ca not stop talking about dragon ball z.  he is just going to be in 0st or 0nd grade for the rest of his life.   #  if you are going from experience in a home, you are judging by the most severely affected in a population.  my bil is mentally retarded.  he works bagging groceries, has friends, helps his mom with yard work.  super nice guy who ca not stop talking about dragon ball z.  he is just going to be in 0st or 0nd grade for the rest of his life.  does that have value ? he probably consumes more resources than he produces, but i do know that he genuinely feels human emotions.  joy, etc.  and his family loves him.  he is a person and deserves a shot just like anyone else.   #  i just honestly do not see a reason for keeping them around / giving birth to one.   #  from what i see and experience, every mentally challenged person i have gotten to know seems to need far more in life than they ever return.  i do not see it at all as  we owe them  or anything.  there is another mentally retarded person that  works  at a gas station.  he is already been arrested 0 times for freaking out and throwing things at his bosses/customers.  he is just a dick but he is got a pretty good assault charge from breaking his bosses jaw.  these families are having to take care of someone that seems to be completely ungrateful forever.  i have gotten to know a couple families and have had both mothers cry on my shoulder and break down from how they  wish my son would just die.   the fathers either have nothing to do with them or are in the same boat.  my ex was working for a group home where these mentally challenged people live and maybe 0 actually saw their families anymore because the families just did not seem to want to deal with them anymore.  i just honestly do not see a reason for keeping them around / giving birth to one.
read: mentally retarded / downs.  see, we have got a few people in town that have these diagnosis and every single person in their family seemed to be completely drained of life from taking care of these people is every need.  i am talking changing diapers on a 0 year old man that likes to put his finger in his butt and  poopy poke  people while laughing obnoxiously.  if i ever learned my girlfriend or a family member was pregnant with a mental retard, i would fully push for an abortion immediately.  i do not see any good at all from keeping them around and saying they all have a  good heart .  that is all they seem to have, either a good heart or a completely fucking asshole.  hell, my dog has a good heart too, except he can actually fetch a ball and bring it back without sticking his finger in his ass.  it is pretty ingrained, but.  cmv ?  #  i do not see any good at all from keeping them around and saying they all have a  good heart .   #  if you can accurately define and detect exactly what you are talking about, you will have a point.   # in general, or specific disabilities ? there is a huge difference between different disabilities and impairments.  so downs.  or are you also including autism in  mentally retarded  ? i am pretty sure that is only the minority of cases.  it is worth noting that mental disability is a spectrum.  if you can accurately define and detect exactly what you are talking about, you will have a point.  until then, it is entirely subjective what you are even talking about.  where do we draw the line ? is this strictly an issue of draining resources ? if so, then would not that imply you would agree with not keeping people on life support ?  #  while it is fine to condemn others and say  but i have never needed such services or support from others , this does not mean that you or those you love never will.   # there are always those who will see particular groups of people as  less than  those around them.  so who should be granted that wonderful task of determining such a thing ? you ? what makes you more qualified than others to determine the worth of another person is life, especially if you are not even the one responsible for taking care of it ? what if those in charge of making such decisions started doing so on the basis of race ? what about eliminating people who practice particular religions ? sometimes the reason not to do something like eliminating inconvenient groups of people is not because it adds a direct benefit to society to keep them, but because to engage in such an act would make that society less worth living in because of who that society would require us to be in order to be a part of it .  your dislike of those who are mentally handicapped is subjective, as are the other examples mentioned here.  if i have someone in my family who is mentally handicapped, but feel as though his or her presence adds to the overall quality of our life experiences, who are you to tell us that this family member is not contributing to our overall well being ? who are you to decide that this family member of mine should be eliminated simply because it makes you uncomfortable ? sometimes the act of living in society is itself a social commitment to one another, that in times when we are not at our best requires the people as a whole to maintain an obligation to one another that says we will help to take up the slack in times when we the individual may not always be able to carry the load.  it is this social contract to one another that allows us to have a certain level of existential anxiety relieved, because even if we are struggling ourselves, we know that our friends, our family, and sometimes even the society as a whole will help us through.  while it is fine to condemn others and say  but i have never needed such services or support from others , this does not mean that you or those you love never will.   #  that was actually one of the better couples.   #    that was pretty well put.  i do not think i have ever seen it in practice though.  it may be my semi limited experience my ex worked as an aide for a mental home and i would go out regularly with them.  from what i have seen, there are barely any families that actually seem to enjoy that they are alive.  i asked a couple who is son was in the group and they told me straight that the only reason they are there is because they would feel more shitty if they did not.  they did not even interact with him, they just sat at the table and talked with each other looking up once every so often to give a 0 second smile and thumbs up.  they would stay for maybe 0 minutes and leave.  that was actually one of the better couples.   #  super nice guy who ca not stop talking about dragon ball z.  he is just going to be in 0st or 0nd grade for the rest of his life.   #  if you are going from experience in a home, you are judging by the most severely affected in a population.  my bil is mentally retarded.  he works bagging groceries, has friends, helps his mom with yard work.  super nice guy who ca not stop talking about dragon ball z.  he is just going to be in 0st or 0nd grade for the rest of his life.  does that have value ? he probably consumes more resources than he produces, but i do know that he genuinely feels human emotions.  joy, etc.  and his family loves him.  he is a person and deserves a shot just like anyone else.   #  i do not see it at all as  we owe them  or anything.   #  from what i see and experience, every mentally challenged person i have gotten to know seems to need far more in life than they ever return.  i do not see it at all as  we owe them  or anything.  there is another mentally retarded person that  works  at a gas station.  he is already been arrested 0 times for freaking out and throwing things at his bosses/customers.  he is just a dick but he is got a pretty good assault charge from breaking his bosses jaw.  these families are having to take care of someone that seems to be completely ungrateful forever.  i have gotten to know a couple families and have had both mothers cry on my shoulder and break down from how they  wish my son would just die.   the fathers either have nothing to do with them or are in the same boat.  my ex was working for a group home where these mentally challenged people live and maybe 0 actually saw their families anymore because the families just did not seem to want to deal with them anymore.  i just honestly do not see a reason for keeping them around / giving birth to one.
to me growth of economy is a meaningless statistic.  economy means exchange of goods and growth of economy is thus increase in exchange.  what kind of person evaluates actions in their personal life based on this kind of statistic ? for example, picking blueberries in the forest is extremely bad for growth of economy: low skill job and doing things yourself means you wo not be buying blueberries from other people.  growth of economy means one should buy processed, marketed, branded food producs in the store and abandon working electronic devices whenever a new model comes to market.  one could do that, yes, but i find it laughable how this is the priority goal for politicians not health, literacy, justice, equality or some other virtue.  when asked why economy should grow, they give contrived reasoning from dynamics of economy.  they ignore that economy seems to work in cyclic process of growth and decline.  tragicomically many are ready to  worsen  living conditions of masses to accelerate economic growth.  what is the point in all this ? how can someone strongly support economic growth while having no interest in either means or results of it ?  #  economy means exchange of goods and growth of economy is thus increase in exchange.   #  the economy also includes the exchange goods  and services , not goods alone.   # the economy also includes the exchange goods  and services , not goods alone.  so lawyers, doctos, yoga instructors all exchange their services for goods and services from others.  it may not require too much skill, but it is hard work and does require speed and attention to detail while picking the blueberries.  no, it does not.  organic food is more expensive than its substitutes.  as for the electronics, no one recommends replacing a phone year after year.  people choose to eat junk, and buy replaceable products.  the money that people save by not spending on electronics goes to other goods and services.  even if it goes in the bank, it is put into the system and made available to investors.  by the way, politicians make a huge deal of education.  every single campaign makes education of the cornerstones of their campaigns because it appeals to so many voters.  and the same goes for healthcare.   #  the economy provides us with our current living standard, and ability to support and provide for as many people as our societies do.   #  a strong economy indicates a high level of human activity.  it might be meaningless to any single person, but for the people as a whole, it is a very good indicator of the health and productivity of industries, cities, countries etc.  a great economy shifting a here or there the sorts of movement we have seen, even in the last 0 0 years might start to seem unimportant.  but trust me, if the economy ever started failing real hard, we would all be very aware of it.  the economy provides us with our current living standard, and ability to support and provide for as many people as our societies do.  if the major western economies were to crash, thousands, perhaps millions and millions of people would die horrifying deaths.   #  again, since we are talking about correlation and not causation, there is no iron law that anything that helps gdp reflects an increase in wellbeing, as you have just demonstrated.   #  yes, that example would destroy the correlation and make gdp a useless measure of wellbeing.  again, since we are talking about correlation and not causation, there is no iron law that anything that helps gdp reflects an increase in wellbeing, as you have just demonstrated.  however, in the real world, not the hypothetical one, the data shows quite clearly that gdp  is  correlated with multiple aspects of wellbeing.  i am not trying to convince you that gdp  must always  be a good indicator of progress.  it just happens to be that way, and that is why we use it.   #  thus picking blueberries for yourself to eat has no benefit for economy.   #  any action that does not involve other people is non economic.  anything that you wo not sell for any price has no value.  thus picking blueberries for yourself to eat has no benefit for economy.  what does it mean when retail sales are low on the scale of whole industry ? satiation ? demand seems to make no distinction between satisfied and miserable person.   #  you probably pay nothing for your personal email, but you use it to correspond with others.   # that is not true at all.  the person picking and eating blueberries is using naturally available resources, which may or may not benefit the economy in the long term.  the person may develop a taste for blueberries, may become a blueberry farmer, etc.  no matter what, once  any  resources are used, it becomes a matter of economics.  again, not true.  services available on the internet are a prime example.  take e mail.  you probably pay nothing for your personal email, but you use it to correspond with others.  if you were to look for the same service outside the internet you would have to pay for postage and stationery, which cost money.  you also have not responded to my points about servies, or the price of organic foods.  are you even looking to have your view changed ?
would you go to enterprise and rent a car for 0 months ? that is very similar to what a lease is.  0.   suze orman, very rich lady and personal finance guru, hates car leases in all situations.   if anyone ever brings up the topic of leasing a car, she just gives them a suze smackdown.  URL 0.   people lease cars so they can afford to drive something they cannot buy.    you are spending money you do not have to impress people you do not know,  suze says.  you should go to a used car lot and find something you can own for the same payment as what you would lease.  it might not be that hard, the first owner took a 0 0 hit in value as soon as he took ownership.  you might find the car 0 or 0 years old and you can buy with the same money.  0.   when you look at the details, it just does not add up to a good deal.   you have to come up with a large down payment, pay monthly, and at the end of it all, you own nothing.  to re up your lease, they expect another large down payment  for a car you already have .  their are milage restrictions.  once i knew a guy who lived in detroit and wanted to go to chicago for the weekend, but was afraid to drive his car because he calculated that his daily commute was going to put him very close to or slightly beyond the mileage limit by lease end.  you are paying monthly for a car that you ca not drive whenever you want because they are going to charge you $. 0 per mile over the limit.  if you go 0 miles over which could happen in one road trip that is $0 you have to pay  just to give the car back .  oh and you are also paying through the nose for any dent, ding, bump, stain or scratch in the car.  unless it is a company providing a company car for business purposes.  your employer is not in the business of owning, servicing and managing vehicles for the long term so a lease makes sense for them.  they do not have time to sell a car when they are done with it, or deal with ownership.  all the drawbacks of leasing such as mileage fees, they probably just pass that on to employee driving it.   #  would you go to enterprise and rent a car for 0 months ?  #  that is very similar to what a lease is.   # that is very similar to what a lease is.  that is absolutely nothing like a lease.  in a lease i am paying depreciation based on a predicted and known residual value and a money factor essentially an interest rate based on a formula that i am able to see and compare to the costs of purchasing.  depending on my plans for the car, leasing absolutely can be cheaper than buying it.  you seem to be assuming that people only lease cars because they want to drive something they ca not afford, which is admittedly sometimes the case and very dumb but often the truth is people just want to drive a new car more often.  if i am definitely planning on buying a new car every 0 0 years, it is cheaper to lease.  period.  now, we can debate whether owning a new car every 0 0 years is wise, but i consider them much like laptops/phones/tv.  the pace of upgrades moves very fast massive safety and electronics upgrades to cars have been happening at a remarkable speed.  0 years ago, very few cars had collision avoidance, lane departure warning, cross traffic warning, blind spot detection, etc.  now they almost all offer these as options.  before that it was smart phone integration, before that it was navigation systems, before that.  etc etc.  some people like the upgrades to safety and convenience along with the warranty that comes with always owning a new car.  also, if you compare crash test data for newer, modern cars versus older cars even 0 0 years old , newer cars are much better.  having a newer car is therefore likely good for your lifespan, if not for your pocketboot but i will take a longer life over money any day.  as such, i personally recommend never buying a car, and always leasing and driving one that is fairly new.   #  sometimes this can be on the other side of the country, sometimes it can be another country.   #  plenty of people have employment that requires spending 0 0 months on site for a project and then leaving.  sometimes this can be on the other side of the country, sometimes it can be another country.  in these cases, it is a lot better to lease a car than to try and buy a new one or take a car with you.  furthermore, some people, especially wealthier people, prefer only to drive newer cars and do not want to have to worry about the maintenance at all.  a lease lets them switch out for the newest car at regular intervals and basically is like having a 0 lifetime warranty for the car when you own it.   #  these are all plausible uncertainties which would plummet the price of your car, ones which a lease protects one against.   #   always  is a stretch, and that uncertainty is exactly what is priced into the market amongst other things .  what if oil hits $0 a barrel during your ownership term ? what if battery prices and thus the cost of electric cars / hybrids drop during your ownership term and capacity rises ? what if your car turns out to be a lemon ? what if your car maker, like daewoo, packs its bags and leaves the country after a scandal ? these are all plausible uncertainties which would plummet the price of your car, ones which a lease protects one against.   #  and you got free mileage with service, which is obviously worth a lot of you drive a lot.   #  i currently works at a company that offers very affordable car leases to its employees.  in that car lease they include everything, and for example insurance can be really expensive in sweden where i live for a young male that havent had a car in their name before.  and they also include the tax for driving through gates, which would be over half the price of leasing the car if we assume you have to drive through those to get to work/home.  and you got free mileage with service, which is obviously worth a lot of you drive a lot.  if those two conditions apply leasing a car are extremely cheap, i am currently not doing it but if i would move outside the city gates so i would have to pay that tax i would lease a car as fast as possible.  but in general i agree with you, there is no way i would lease a car under normal situations.   #  they may live in a modest house/apartment, take infrequent vacations, eat out infrequently, and generally live within their means.   #  while i agree with you that it is awful financial sense to lease a car, everyone has wishes, desires, hobbies, and things of value to them.  someone may really enjoy driving nice cars, and that brings a lot of enjoyment and value to their life.  just because they spend a lot of money to lease a car does not necessarily mean that they make poor financial choices in the rest of their lives.  they may live in a modest house/apartment, take infrequent vacations, eat out infrequently, and generally live within their means.  but the one thing they love more than anything else is nice cars.  so if a dealership makes it possible for this person to drive a really nice car that they otherwise could not afford, and then swap it out for another nice car in another year or two, it could fill a desire in their life and make them happy.  i think it is totally fine for them to spend their money that way if they consciously know that they are making a more expensive choice, but it is a choice they make because of the other kind of enjoyment they get from driving those cars.  it may not be the most economical decision in the world, but they are viewing car ownership as less of a  find the cheapest way from a to b  activity, and more of a  this is super enjoyable to me and worth the extra money  activity.  so when you say,  always and forever a bad choice,  i do not think that holds true for people who place a greater weight on the enjoyment they get from driving the car rather than saving as much money as possible on transportation.  not to mention, that dealers often have other terms you can agree to to get rid of many of the problems you mentioned in point 0.  i have a friend who leased a car, and she pays extra for unlimited mileage, and to be able to return the car in any condition.  so she pays extra, but has much more flexibility with the car.  so those problems are not inherent to leasing a car.  they are only problems if you decide not to pay the extra money to make them go away.
hi cmv ! a recent post on askreddit about homosexuality and pedophilia being a choice or not led me to this thought that both homosexuality and heterosexuality are choice made by our subconscious minds.  i know how this view will bring up other ethical/moral/rights issues, but read the following before lambasting me: what if the human mind starts as a blank sheet of paper at age zero, but everyone has different genes that give them different tendencies towards different sexualities ? so as the human mind engages with the constructed world, as the baby/kid interacts with different types of people, play different toys, watches different cartoons, etc, the mind gets molded accordingly.  now i know how this opinion will lead to the justification of actions such as churches  training  homosexuals back to being a  normal  person, but i think that this  molding of the mind  only happens to humans before we reach full consciousness.  yes, i realize this still does not absolve the justification so, beyond a certain age, the human mind is then more or less  fixed  and it is then hard to change it.  my opinion is based on little or no knowledge on topics such as human genetics, neuroplasticity, and human psychology.  so please cmv !  #  what if the human mind starts as a blank sheet of paper at age zero, but everyone has different genes that give them different tendencies towards different sexualities ?  #  this is a very popular opinion that has been proven to be false.   # this is a very popular opinion that has been proven to be false.  here is a video featuring steven pinker talking about this URL and here is a link URL to his book that goes into much more detail about the topic.  i am not saying that environment, upbringing, etc.  do not play a big role in determining a person is preferences.  what i am saying is that most people do not get to consciously choose their sexuality.  for most heterosexuals there is not much introspection involved.  for homosexuals and bisexuals, there is often a higher degree of introspection involved, but members of either group did not sit down one day and decide to go one way or the other.  those cases do exist, but they are exceptions.   #  the wikipedia page on choice 0 says that a choice is mentally making a decision.   # the wikipedia page on choice 0 says that a choice is mentally making a decision.  have you ever made a decision to be hetero or homo sexual ? i know that i have always been attracted to females.  i never made a decision when i was hitting puberty for that to happen.  sure, my environment may have influenced the outcome of my sexuality but  i never made a decision.  0 :URL  #  therefore, your belief is not true until proven to be true.   #  no.  the scientific method says that if a hypothesis can be tested, and is tested to be true, then it is true.  all you have done is suggest a hypothesis, which says absolutely nothing about its truth value.  therefore, your belief is not true until proven to be true.  most people come into cmv with at least a few facts to back up their argument, whereas you have nothing.  your post is the equivalent of me saying  what if there was a rainbow colored cow made from compacted toenail fungus hiding behind the sun ? can anyone prove that this is not true ?   and of course, no one can prove that it is not true, because no one can see behind the sun right now, but we know that it is not true because no evidence suggests that it is.   #  that straight parents gave the kid the wrong toys or taught them the  bad  behavior, e. g.   #  people seem to forget that gays  always  at leaat until the last 0ish years came from straight, heterosexual families for the last 0 years.  using your argument, it is always the parents fault that kids turn out gay.  they are the ones who raised them to be gay, etc.  does that make sense to you ? that straight parents gave the kid the wrong toys or taught them the  bad  behavior, e. g.  created an environment that encouraged homosexual choices ? that makes no sense to me.  what makes more sense is the kinsey scale the premise that all humans reside somewhere in a continuim 0 0 of sexuality, where 0 is prefectly straight and 0 is perfectly gay, and 0 is bisexual.  sexuality is natural, not taught.   #  it is like that, but with 0 billion variables instead of just two .   #  i do not think it is a concern really, just because this whole nurture aspect of sexuality is unquantifiable.  like there is no way to tell what a pre conscious infant is orientation is going to be 0 years later, so they would not be able to target them even if they wanted to.  similarly, even if we had a magic way of knowing which ones would end up gay if left alone, we also do not have any way of knowing which influences can nudge them in any given direction.  did watching blues clues in conjunction with drinking chocolate milk make the baby gay 0 years later ? it is like that, but with 0 billion variables instead of just two .  it would also be individual specific, as the influences are acting on each infant is unique genetic makeup and predispositions, so the same influence combination might make one baby straight and another gay for all anyone knows.  it is a completely insurmountably futile project as we have no access to the variables, so even if they wanted to, they could not.
hi cmv ! a recent post on askreddit about homosexuality and pedophilia being a choice or not led me to this thought that both homosexuality and heterosexuality are choice made by our subconscious minds.  i know how this view will bring up other ethical/moral/rights issues, but read the following before lambasting me: what if the human mind starts as a blank sheet of paper at age zero, but everyone has different genes that give them different tendencies towards different sexualities ? so as the human mind engages with the constructed world, as the baby/kid interacts with different types of people, play different toys, watches different cartoons, etc, the mind gets molded accordingly.  now i know how this opinion will lead to the justification of actions such as churches  training  homosexuals back to being a  normal  person, but i think that this  molding of the mind  only happens to humans before we reach full consciousness.  yes, i realize this still does not absolve the justification so, beyond a certain age, the human mind is then more or less  fixed  and it is then hard to change it.  my opinion is based on little or no knowledge on topics such as human genetics, neuroplasticity, and human psychology.  so please cmv !  #  but everyone has different genes that give them different tendencies towards different sexualities ?  #  well we all have the same genes just different mixes of genes.   # a recent post on askreddit about homosexuality and pedophilia being a choice or not led me to this thought that both homosexuality and heterosexuality are choice made by our subconscious minds.  i know how this view will bring up other ethical/moral/rights issues, but read the following before lambasting me: what you propose is a cool theory, but at the end of the day thats all it is, your theory.  we arent sure how our brains work or anything.  we are just discovering why we need sleep and what remebering memories can do, the science is no where near figuring out subconscious decisions and what determines them effectively.  well we all have the same genes just different mixes of genes.  some stick, and some arent used but are still in our genetics and can be passed through generations.  my great grandfather could have had red hair, but no one else had red hair until me, because hypothetically both my mom and dad had the red hair gene close without actually having red hair themselves.  i do not have red hair, just a simple example.  accordingly applys that everyone is the same, if you mean everyone is mind interprets what they see, ear, feel, and smell and their brains categorize it as important or useless.  then i understand what you mean  now i know how this opinion will lead to the justification of actions such as churches  training  homosexuals back to being a  normal  person, but i think that this  molding of the mind  only happens to humans before we reach full consciousness.  interesting but how would you explain the switch from consciousness to subconscious to unconscious everyone experiences regularly since birth ? and wouldnt your theory be more solid if there were cases of the training homosexuals actually working ? which i do not believe there is a genuine amount of.  again you could have a point, a supporting example might be that its harder to learn languages after 0 if you have not already.  but theres nothing known or assumed proven if this follows in anymore then that one trait.  so please cmv ! i hope i was able to provide a informative point of view.  we known so little about the brain and its functions that i can believe points of our argument, but its just to generally specific to be proven true in the immediate future.  i would say our behaviors and desires are determined both by predestined genetics and early, even later life experiences.  the problem is determining which is attributed to what cause.  we know people have to learn language or hand gestures, but things like phyiscal interaction and facial expressions are naturally known.  and we just do not know where sexuality resides.  there is a common belief fetishes derive from early life experiences but no extensive data.   #  for most heterosexuals there is not much introspection involved.   # this is a very popular opinion that has been proven to be false.  here is a video featuring steven pinker talking about this URL and here is a link URL to his book that goes into much more detail about the topic.  i am not saying that environment, upbringing, etc.  do not play a big role in determining a person is preferences.  what i am saying is that most people do not get to consciously choose their sexuality.  for most heterosexuals there is not much introspection involved.  for homosexuals and bisexuals, there is often a higher degree of introspection involved, but members of either group did not sit down one day and decide to go one way or the other.  those cases do exist, but they are exceptions.   #  sure, my environment may have influenced the outcome of my sexuality but  i never made a decision.   # the wikipedia page on choice 0 says that a choice is mentally making a decision.  have you ever made a decision to be hetero or homo sexual ? i know that i have always been attracted to females.  i never made a decision when i was hitting puberty for that to happen.  sure, my environment may have influenced the outcome of my sexuality but  i never made a decision.  0 :URL  #  and of course, no one can prove that it is not true, because no one can see behind the sun right now, but we know that it is not true because no evidence suggests that it is.   #  no.  the scientific method says that if a hypothesis can be tested, and is tested to be true, then it is true.  all you have done is suggest a hypothesis, which says absolutely nothing about its truth value.  therefore, your belief is not true until proven to be true.  most people come into cmv with at least a few facts to back up their argument, whereas you have nothing.  your post is the equivalent of me saying  what if there was a rainbow colored cow made from compacted toenail fungus hiding behind the sun ? can anyone prove that this is not true ?   and of course, no one can prove that it is not true, because no one can see behind the sun right now, but we know that it is not true because no evidence suggests that it is.   #  what makes more sense is the kinsey scale the premise that all humans reside somewhere in a continuim 0 0 of sexuality, where 0 is prefectly straight and 0 is perfectly gay, and 0 is bisexual.   #  people seem to forget that gays  always  at leaat until the last 0ish years came from straight, heterosexual families for the last 0 years.  using your argument, it is always the parents fault that kids turn out gay.  they are the ones who raised them to be gay, etc.  does that make sense to you ? that straight parents gave the kid the wrong toys or taught them the  bad  behavior, e. g.  created an environment that encouraged homosexual choices ? that makes no sense to me.  what makes more sense is the kinsey scale the premise that all humans reside somewhere in a continuim 0 0 of sexuality, where 0 is prefectly straight and 0 is perfectly gay, and 0 is bisexual.  sexuality is natural, not taught.
hi cmv ! a recent post on askreddit about homosexuality and pedophilia being a choice or not led me to this thought that both homosexuality and heterosexuality are choice made by our subconscious minds.  i know how this view will bring up other ethical/moral/rights issues, but read the following before lambasting me: what if the human mind starts as a blank sheet of paper at age zero, but everyone has different genes that give them different tendencies towards different sexualities ? so as the human mind engages with the constructed world, as the baby/kid interacts with different types of people, play different toys, watches different cartoons, etc, the mind gets molded accordingly.  now i know how this opinion will lead to the justification of actions such as churches  training  homosexuals back to being a  normal  person, but i think that this  molding of the mind  only happens to humans before we reach full consciousness.  yes, i realize this still does not absolve the justification so, beyond a certain age, the human mind is then more or less  fixed  and it is then hard to change it.  my opinion is based on little or no knowledge on topics such as human genetics, neuroplasticity, and human psychology.  so please cmv !  #  as the human mind engages with the constructed world, as the baby/kid interacts with different types of people, play different toys, watches different cartoons, etc, the mind gets molded accordingly.   #  accordingly applys that everyone is the same, if you mean everyone is mind interprets what they see, ear, feel, and smell and their brains categorize it as important or useless.   # a recent post on askreddit about homosexuality and pedophilia being a choice or not led me to this thought that both homosexuality and heterosexuality are choice made by our subconscious minds.  i know how this view will bring up other ethical/moral/rights issues, but read the following before lambasting me: what you propose is a cool theory, but at the end of the day thats all it is, your theory.  we arent sure how our brains work or anything.  we are just discovering why we need sleep and what remebering memories can do, the science is no where near figuring out subconscious decisions and what determines them effectively.  well we all have the same genes just different mixes of genes.  some stick, and some arent used but are still in our genetics and can be passed through generations.  my great grandfather could have had red hair, but no one else had red hair until me, because hypothetically both my mom and dad had the red hair gene close without actually having red hair themselves.  i do not have red hair, just a simple example.  accordingly applys that everyone is the same, if you mean everyone is mind interprets what they see, ear, feel, and smell and their brains categorize it as important or useless.  then i understand what you mean  now i know how this opinion will lead to the justification of actions such as churches  training  homosexuals back to being a  normal  person, but i think that this  molding of the mind  only happens to humans before we reach full consciousness.  interesting but how would you explain the switch from consciousness to subconscious to unconscious everyone experiences regularly since birth ? and wouldnt your theory be more solid if there were cases of the training homosexuals actually working ? which i do not believe there is a genuine amount of.  again you could have a point, a supporting example might be that its harder to learn languages after 0 if you have not already.  but theres nothing known or assumed proven if this follows in anymore then that one trait.  so please cmv ! i hope i was able to provide a informative point of view.  we known so little about the brain and its functions that i can believe points of our argument, but its just to generally specific to be proven true in the immediate future.  i would say our behaviors and desires are determined both by predestined genetics and early, even later life experiences.  the problem is determining which is attributed to what cause.  we know people have to learn language or hand gestures, but things like phyiscal interaction and facial expressions are naturally known.  and we just do not know where sexuality resides.  there is a common belief fetishes derive from early life experiences but no extensive data.   #  for homosexuals and bisexuals, there is often a higher degree of introspection involved, but members of either group did not sit down one day and decide to go one way or the other.   # this is a very popular opinion that has been proven to be false.  here is a video featuring steven pinker talking about this URL and here is a link URL to his book that goes into much more detail about the topic.  i am not saying that environment, upbringing, etc.  do not play a big role in determining a person is preferences.  what i am saying is that most people do not get to consciously choose their sexuality.  for most heterosexuals there is not much introspection involved.  for homosexuals and bisexuals, there is often a higher degree of introspection involved, but members of either group did not sit down one day and decide to go one way or the other.  those cases do exist, but they are exceptions.   #  the wikipedia page on choice 0 says that a choice is mentally making a decision.   # the wikipedia page on choice 0 says that a choice is mentally making a decision.  have you ever made a decision to be hetero or homo sexual ? i know that i have always been attracted to females.  i never made a decision when i was hitting puberty for that to happen.  sure, my environment may have influenced the outcome of my sexuality but  i never made a decision.  0 :URL  #  most people come into cmv with at least a few facts to back up their argument, whereas you have nothing.   #  no.  the scientific method says that if a hypothesis can be tested, and is tested to be true, then it is true.  all you have done is suggest a hypothesis, which says absolutely nothing about its truth value.  therefore, your belief is not true until proven to be true.  most people come into cmv with at least a few facts to back up their argument, whereas you have nothing.  your post is the equivalent of me saying  what if there was a rainbow colored cow made from compacted toenail fungus hiding behind the sun ? can anyone prove that this is not true ?   and of course, no one can prove that it is not true, because no one can see behind the sun right now, but we know that it is not true because no evidence suggests that it is.   #  what makes more sense is the kinsey scale the premise that all humans reside somewhere in a continuim 0 0 of sexuality, where 0 is prefectly straight and 0 is perfectly gay, and 0 is bisexual.   #  people seem to forget that gays  always  at leaat until the last 0ish years came from straight, heterosexual families for the last 0 years.  using your argument, it is always the parents fault that kids turn out gay.  they are the ones who raised them to be gay, etc.  does that make sense to you ? that straight parents gave the kid the wrong toys or taught them the  bad  behavior, e. g.  created an environment that encouraged homosexual choices ? that makes no sense to me.  what makes more sense is the kinsey scale the premise that all humans reside somewhere in a continuim 0 0 of sexuality, where 0 is prefectly straight and 0 is perfectly gay, and 0 is bisexual.  sexuality is natural, not taught.
hi cmv ! a recent post on askreddit about homosexuality and pedophilia being a choice or not led me to this thought that both homosexuality and heterosexuality are choice made by our subconscious minds.  i know how this view will bring up other ethical/moral/rights issues, but read the following before lambasting me: what if the human mind starts as a blank sheet of paper at age zero, but everyone has different genes that give them different tendencies towards different sexualities ? so as the human mind engages with the constructed world, as the baby/kid interacts with different types of people, play different toys, watches different cartoons, etc, the mind gets molded accordingly.  now i know how this opinion will lead to the justification of actions such as churches  training  homosexuals back to being a  normal  person, but i think that this  molding of the mind  only happens to humans before we reach full consciousness.  yes, i realize this still does not absolve the justification so, beyond a certain age, the human mind is then more or less  fixed  and it is then hard to change it.  my opinion is based on little or no knowledge on topics such as human genetics, neuroplasticity, and human psychology.  so please cmv !  #  yes, i realize this still does not absolve the justification so, beyond a certain age, the human mind is then more or less  fixed  and it is then hard to change it.   #  again you could have a point, a supporting example might be that its harder to learn languages after 0 if you have not already.   # a recent post on askreddit about homosexuality and pedophilia being a choice or not led me to this thought that both homosexuality and heterosexuality are choice made by our subconscious minds.  i know how this view will bring up other ethical/moral/rights issues, but read the following before lambasting me: what you propose is a cool theory, but at the end of the day thats all it is, your theory.  we arent sure how our brains work or anything.  we are just discovering why we need sleep and what remebering memories can do, the science is no where near figuring out subconscious decisions and what determines them effectively.  well we all have the same genes just different mixes of genes.  some stick, and some arent used but are still in our genetics and can be passed through generations.  my great grandfather could have had red hair, but no one else had red hair until me, because hypothetically both my mom and dad had the red hair gene close without actually having red hair themselves.  i do not have red hair, just a simple example.  accordingly applys that everyone is the same, if you mean everyone is mind interprets what they see, ear, feel, and smell and their brains categorize it as important or useless.  then i understand what you mean  now i know how this opinion will lead to the justification of actions such as churches  training  homosexuals back to being a  normal  person, but i think that this  molding of the mind  only happens to humans before we reach full consciousness.  interesting but how would you explain the switch from consciousness to subconscious to unconscious everyone experiences regularly since birth ? and wouldnt your theory be more solid if there were cases of the training homosexuals actually working ? which i do not believe there is a genuine amount of.  again you could have a point, a supporting example might be that its harder to learn languages after 0 if you have not already.  but theres nothing known or assumed proven if this follows in anymore then that one trait.  so please cmv ! i hope i was able to provide a informative point of view.  we known so little about the brain and its functions that i can believe points of our argument, but its just to generally specific to be proven true in the immediate future.  i would say our behaviors and desires are determined both by predestined genetics and early, even later life experiences.  the problem is determining which is attributed to what cause.  we know people have to learn language or hand gestures, but things like phyiscal interaction and facial expressions are naturally known.  and we just do not know where sexuality resides.  there is a common belief fetishes derive from early life experiences but no extensive data.   #  what i am saying is that most people do not get to consciously choose their sexuality.   # this is a very popular opinion that has been proven to be false.  here is a video featuring steven pinker talking about this URL and here is a link URL to his book that goes into much more detail about the topic.  i am not saying that environment, upbringing, etc.  do not play a big role in determining a person is preferences.  what i am saying is that most people do not get to consciously choose their sexuality.  for most heterosexuals there is not much introspection involved.  for homosexuals and bisexuals, there is often a higher degree of introspection involved, but members of either group did not sit down one day and decide to go one way or the other.  those cases do exist, but they are exceptions.   #  i know that i have always been attracted to females.   # the wikipedia page on choice 0 says that a choice is mentally making a decision.  have you ever made a decision to be hetero or homo sexual ? i know that i have always been attracted to females.  i never made a decision when i was hitting puberty for that to happen.  sure, my environment may have influenced the outcome of my sexuality but  i never made a decision.  0 :URL  #  the scientific method says that if a hypothesis can be tested, and is tested to be true, then it is true.   #  no.  the scientific method says that if a hypothesis can be tested, and is tested to be true, then it is true.  all you have done is suggest a hypothesis, which says absolutely nothing about its truth value.  therefore, your belief is not true until proven to be true.  most people come into cmv with at least a few facts to back up their argument, whereas you have nothing.  your post is the equivalent of me saying  what if there was a rainbow colored cow made from compacted toenail fungus hiding behind the sun ? can anyone prove that this is not true ?   and of course, no one can prove that it is not true, because no one can see behind the sun right now, but we know that it is not true because no evidence suggests that it is.   #  people seem to forget that gays  always  at leaat until the last 0ish years came from straight, heterosexual families for the last 0 years.   #  people seem to forget that gays  always  at leaat until the last 0ish years came from straight, heterosexual families for the last 0 years.  using your argument, it is always the parents fault that kids turn out gay.  they are the ones who raised them to be gay, etc.  does that make sense to you ? that straight parents gave the kid the wrong toys or taught them the  bad  behavior, e. g.  created an environment that encouraged homosexual choices ? that makes no sense to me.  what makes more sense is the kinsey scale the premise that all humans reside somewhere in a continuim 0 0 of sexuality, where 0 is prefectly straight and 0 is perfectly gay, and 0 is bisexual.  sexuality is natural, not taught.
hi cmv ! a recent post on askreddit about homosexuality and pedophilia being a choice or not led me to this thought that both homosexuality and heterosexuality are choice made by our subconscious minds.  i know how this view will bring up other ethical/moral/rights issues, but read the following before lambasting me: what if the human mind starts as a blank sheet of paper at age zero, but everyone has different genes that give them different tendencies towards different sexualities ? so as the human mind engages with the constructed world, as the baby/kid interacts with different types of people, play different toys, watches different cartoons, etc, the mind gets molded accordingly.  now i know how this opinion will lead to the justification of actions such as churches  training  homosexuals back to being a  normal  person, but i think that this  molding of the mind  only happens to humans before we reach full consciousness.  yes, i realize this still does not absolve the justification so, beyond a certain age, the human mind is then more or less  fixed  and it is then hard to change it.  my opinion is based on little or no knowledge on topics such as human genetics, neuroplasticity, and human psychology.  so please cmv !  #  what if the human mind starts as a blank sheet of paper at age zero, but everyone has different genes that give them different tendencies towards different sexualities ?  #  it is hard to say what parts of sexuality are genetic, and which are developed through environment.   # ehhh no.  sexual attraction is not a choice.  this goes for everything, not just what gender/sex you are attracted to.  it is hard to say what parts of sexuality are genetic, and which are developed through environment.  i personally see homosexuality as yet another paraphilia.  nothing wrong with it, but it is clearly not  normal vanilla attraction .  i also do not think it is something you can change on a whim.   #  what i am saying is that most people do not get to consciously choose their sexuality.   # this is a very popular opinion that has been proven to be false.  here is a video featuring steven pinker talking about this URL and here is a link URL to his book that goes into much more detail about the topic.  i am not saying that environment, upbringing, etc.  do not play a big role in determining a person is preferences.  what i am saying is that most people do not get to consciously choose their sexuality.  for most heterosexuals there is not much introspection involved.  for homosexuals and bisexuals, there is often a higher degree of introspection involved, but members of either group did not sit down one day and decide to go one way or the other.  those cases do exist, but they are exceptions.   #  sure, my environment may have influenced the outcome of my sexuality but  i never made a decision.   # the wikipedia page on choice 0 says that a choice is mentally making a decision.  have you ever made a decision to be hetero or homo sexual ? i know that i have always been attracted to females.  i never made a decision when i was hitting puberty for that to happen.  sure, my environment may have influenced the outcome of my sexuality but  i never made a decision.  0 :URL  #  your post is the equivalent of me saying  what if there was a rainbow colored cow made from compacted toenail fungus hiding behind the sun ?  #  no.  the scientific method says that if a hypothesis can be tested, and is tested to be true, then it is true.  all you have done is suggest a hypothesis, which says absolutely nothing about its truth value.  therefore, your belief is not true until proven to be true.  most people come into cmv with at least a few facts to back up their argument, whereas you have nothing.  your post is the equivalent of me saying  what if there was a rainbow colored cow made from compacted toenail fungus hiding behind the sun ? can anyone prove that this is not true ?   and of course, no one can prove that it is not true, because no one can see behind the sun right now, but we know that it is not true because no evidence suggests that it is.   #  using your argument, it is always the parents fault that kids turn out gay.   #  people seem to forget that gays  always  at leaat until the last 0ish years came from straight, heterosexual families for the last 0 years.  using your argument, it is always the parents fault that kids turn out gay.  they are the ones who raised them to be gay, etc.  does that make sense to you ? that straight parents gave the kid the wrong toys or taught them the  bad  behavior, e. g.  created an environment that encouraged homosexual choices ? that makes no sense to me.  what makes more sense is the kinsey scale the premise that all humans reside somewhere in a continuim 0 0 of sexuality, where 0 is prefectly straight and 0 is perfectly gay, and 0 is bisexual.  sexuality is natural, not taught.
the nickel, despite being worth 0 times more than the penny, is far less valuable than any other coin or note in u. s.  currency.  here is why: 0.  it can easily be mistaken for a quarter from a distance, causing people to pick it up only to be disappointed by what it really is.  the penny does not have this problem, as it is the only coin that is brown.  0.  it does not have ridges on the edges.  this makes it slightly harder to scratch off things like lottery tickets or gift card codes compared to a quarter or dime.  0.  it is far too big for what it is really worth.  the penny and dime are very small, making it worthwhile to carry a lot of them since it does not take up too much space compared to their worth.  the nickel is almost as big as a quarter and is actually thicker than one despite being worth 0/0 of a quarter.  0.  finally, the nickel defaces the name of a great american: thomas jefferson.  this man wrote the declaration of independence and was responsible for the louisiana purchase, one of the most important and valuable deals in u. s.  history, and we put him on a coin worth 0 cents.  lincoln, another hugely influential american, is on the penny, but also the $0 bill, which makes up for it.  jefferson only gets the nickel.  i am on mobile, so sorry if formatting is off.  i look forward to some arguments against any of these points.  thanks !  #  it can easily be mistaken for a quarter from a distance, causing people to pick it up only to be disappointed by what it really is.   #  the penny does not have this problem, as it is the only coin that is brown.   #  none of these proves that it is less valuable than a penny.  the penny does not have this problem, as it is the only coin that is brown.  this may be annoying but it does not affect its value.  it is still worth 0 cents, much more than a penny.  this makes it slightly harder to scratch off things like lottery tickets or gift card codes compared to a quarter or dime.  so it is worth less than quarters and dimes.  we already knew that.  still better than a penny, which is also smooth edged and not as easy to grip when scratching.  the penny and dime are very small, making it worthwhile to carry a lot of them since it does not take up too much space compared to their worth.  the nickel is almost as big as a quarter and is actually thicker than one despite being worth 0/0 of a quarter.  a penny weighs 0 grams, while a nickel weighs 0, so it is actually 0 cent per gram where the penny is only 0 cents per gram.  if you have compared rolls you would know that a roll of nickels is only a bit bigger than a roll of pennies and it is worth 0x as much.  it would make way more cents to carry many nickels than many pennies.  this man wrote the declaration of independence and was responsible for the louisiana purchase, one of the most important and valuable deals in u. s.  history, and we put him on a coin worth 0 cents.  lincoln, another hugely influential american, is on the penny, but also the $0 bill, which makes up for it.  jefferson only gets the nickel.  jefferson is on the $0 bill.   #  it is value is not worth the problems that come with it.   #  like i said to the other guy, the fact that the nickel is worth less in monetary value is not as relevant as it is ability to be used in exchanges.  it is value is not worth the problems that come with it.  jefferson might be on the $0 bill, but that bill is so rarely used or seen that it comes as a further insult.  why is such an important figure in history used in coins and notes that are rarely used ? the other two points, i concede.  i will give you a delta when i get on desktop.   #  in fact, the last coin we retired, the half penny, had the buying power of 0c today so while it is true that the nickel and even the dime are obsolete as currency, the penny is by far the most egregious offender.   #  the nickel is the best weighted/sized coin in us currency for flipping.  a quarter, half dollar, or silver dollar is more traditional probably because they are more visible but the nickel feels better.  also, the penny is objectively the least valuable coin in us currency, because it is both the lowest face value denomination, and costs nearly 0 cents to make, making it the least cost effective piece of us currency.  and we are past the point where anyone could possibly care about a penny, financially speaking.  in fact, the last coin we retired, the half penny, had the buying power of 0c today so while it is true that the nickel and even the dime are obsolete as currency, the penny is by far the most egregious offender.   #  i happen to be a coin guy and i do have some arguments refuting your position puggpu.   #  hey ! this is my first post to reddit so sorry if i mess the whole thing up.  i happen to be a coin guy and i do have some arguments refuting your position puggpu.  i would argue, in fact, that the nickel is the most valuable coin in the us monetary system.  a nickel is composed of 0 nickel and 0 copper giving it a metal melt value, as of 0/0/0, of $0 per coin.  in contrast, a quarter is almost entirely copper and has a melt value of $0 per coin.  thus the  intrinsic  value of a nickel is superior to any other coin in the system.  in fact, often, the metal melt value of the nickel surpasses the face value of the coin, meaning that you could, ostensibly, go to the bank, withdraw $0 in nickels, walk across the street to the metal recycler and sell it to them for more than $0.  instant profit.  no other coin in the realm offers this opportunity.  as for the use of jefferson on the coin: it has been the policy of the mint/ congress to place the more revered historical figures onto the lower denominations as they circulate more and are, thus, seen by more citizens more often.   #  technically, i know that the nickel is worth more than other coins in terms of value  in money , but i am viewing it more in practicality.   #  thanks for the response.  i have actually changed my view on this matter but you bring up a good point with the melt value.  technically, i know that the nickel is worth more than other coins in terms of value  in money , but i am viewing it more in practicality.  most people do not use any coins besides quarters unless they have a particular need for them.  pennies and dimes stick out, someone can tell from a distance that they are not worth picking up.  but from far away a nickel can be confused for a quarter, creating anticipation only leading to disappointment.  i do agree with you on the use of jefferson however: that is a very good point with the citizens seeing more of him.  so you have changed my view in that regard.  δ
the nickel, despite being worth 0 times more than the penny, is far less valuable than any other coin or note in u. s.  currency.  here is why: 0.  it can easily be mistaken for a quarter from a distance, causing people to pick it up only to be disappointed by what it really is.  the penny does not have this problem, as it is the only coin that is brown.  0.  it does not have ridges on the edges.  this makes it slightly harder to scratch off things like lottery tickets or gift card codes compared to a quarter or dime.  0.  it is far too big for what it is really worth.  the penny and dime are very small, making it worthwhile to carry a lot of them since it does not take up too much space compared to their worth.  the nickel is almost as big as a quarter and is actually thicker than one despite being worth 0/0 of a quarter.  0.  finally, the nickel defaces the name of a great american: thomas jefferson.  this man wrote the declaration of independence and was responsible for the louisiana purchase, one of the most important and valuable deals in u. s.  history, and we put him on a coin worth 0 cents.  lincoln, another hugely influential american, is on the penny, but also the $0 bill, which makes up for it.  jefferson only gets the nickel.  i am on mobile, so sorry if formatting is off.  i look forward to some arguments against any of these points.  thanks !  #  it does not have ridges on the edges.   #  this makes it slightly harder to scratch off things like lottery tickets or gift card codes compared to a quarter or dime.   #  none of these proves that it is less valuable than a penny.  the penny does not have this problem, as it is the only coin that is brown.  this may be annoying but it does not affect its value.  it is still worth 0 cents, much more than a penny.  this makes it slightly harder to scratch off things like lottery tickets or gift card codes compared to a quarter or dime.  so it is worth less than quarters and dimes.  we already knew that.  still better than a penny, which is also smooth edged and not as easy to grip when scratching.  the penny and dime are very small, making it worthwhile to carry a lot of them since it does not take up too much space compared to their worth.  the nickel is almost as big as a quarter and is actually thicker than one despite being worth 0/0 of a quarter.  a penny weighs 0 grams, while a nickel weighs 0, so it is actually 0 cent per gram where the penny is only 0 cents per gram.  if you have compared rolls you would know that a roll of nickels is only a bit bigger than a roll of pennies and it is worth 0x as much.  it would make way more cents to carry many nickels than many pennies.  this man wrote the declaration of independence and was responsible for the louisiana purchase, one of the most important and valuable deals in u. s.  history, and we put him on a coin worth 0 cents.  lincoln, another hugely influential american, is on the penny, but also the $0 bill, which makes up for it.  jefferson only gets the nickel.  jefferson is on the $0 bill.   #  it is value is not worth the problems that come with it.   #  like i said to the other guy, the fact that the nickel is worth less in monetary value is not as relevant as it is ability to be used in exchanges.  it is value is not worth the problems that come with it.  jefferson might be on the $0 bill, but that bill is so rarely used or seen that it comes as a further insult.  why is such an important figure in history used in coins and notes that are rarely used ? the other two points, i concede.  i will give you a delta when i get on desktop.   #  a quarter, half dollar, or silver dollar is more traditional probably because they are more visible but the nickel feels better.   #  the nickel is the best weighted/sized coin in us currency for flipping.  a quarter, half dollar, or silver dollar is more traditional probably because they are more visible but the nickel feels better.  also, the penny is objectively the least valuable coin in us currency, because it is both the lowest face value denomination, and costs nearly 0 cents to make, making it the least cost effective piece of us currency.  and we are past the point where anyone could possibly care about a penny, financially speaking.  in fact, the last coin we retired, the half penny, had the buying power of 0c today so while it is true that the nickel and even the dime are obsolete as currency, the penny is by far the most egregious offender.   #  a nickel is composed of 0 nickel and 0 copper giving it a metal melt value, as of 0/0/0, of $0 per coin.   #  hey ! this is my first post to reddit so sorry if i mess the whole thing up.  i happen to be a coin guy and i do have some arguments refuting your position puggpu.  i would argue, in fact, that the nickel is the most valuable coin in the us monetary system.  a nickel is composed of 0 nickel and 0 copper giving it a metal melt value, as of 0/0/0, of $0 per coin.  in contrast, a quarter is almost entirely copper and has a melt value of $0 per coin.  thus the  intrinsic  value of a nickel is superior to any other coin in the system.  in fact, often, the metal melt value of the nickel surpasses the face value of the coin, meaning that you could, ostensibly, go to the bank, withdraw $0 in nickels, walk across the street to the metal recycler and sell it to them for more than $0.  instant profit.  no other coin in the realm offers this opportunity.  as for the use of jefferson on the coin: it has been the policy of the mint/ congress to place the more revered historical figures onto the lower denominations as they circulate more and are, thus, seen by more citizens more often.   #  so you have changed my view in that regard.   #  thanks for the response.  i have actually changed my view on this matter but you bring up a good point with the melt value.  technically, i know that the nickel is worth more than other coins in terms of value  in money , but i am viewing it more in practicality.  most people do not use any coins besides quarters unless they have a particular need for them.  pennies and dimes stick out, someone can tell from a distance that they are not worth picking up.  but from far away a nickel can be confused for a quarter, creating anticipation only leading to disappointment.  i do agree with you on the use of jefferson however: that is a very good point with the citizens seeing more of him.  so you have changed my view in that regard.  δ
the nickel, despite being worth 0 times more than the penny, is far less valuable than any other coin or note in u. s.  currency.  here is why: 0.  it can easily be mistaken for a quarter from a distance, causing people to pick it up only to be disappointed by what it really is.  the penny does not have this problem, as it is the only coin that is brown.  0.  it does not have ridges on the edges.  this makes it slightly harder to scratch off things like lottery tickets or gift card codes compared to a quarter or dime.  0.  it is far too big for what it is really worth.  the penny and dime are very small, making it worthwhile to carry a lot of them since it does not take up too much space compared to their worth.  the nickel is almost as big as a quarter and is actually thicker than one despite being worth 0/0 of a quarter.  0.  finally, the nickel defaces the name of a great american: thomas jefferson.  this man wrote the declaration of independence and was responsible for the louisiana purchase, one of the most important and valuable deals in u. s.  history, and we put him on a coin worth 0 cents.  lincoln, another hugely influential american, is on the penny, but also the $0 bill, which makes up for it.  jefferson only gets the nickel.  i am on mobile, so sorry if formatting is off.  i look forward to some arguments against any of these points.  thanks !  #  it is far too big for what it is really worth.   #  the penny and dime are very small, making it worthwhile to carry a lot of them since it does not take up too much space compared to their worth.   #  none of these proves that it is less valuable than a penny.  the penny does not have this problem, as it is the only coin that is brown.  this may be annoying but it does not affect its value.  it is still worth 0 cents, much more than a penny.  this makes it slightly harder to scratch off things like lottery tickets or gift card codes compared to a quarter or dime.  so it is worth less than quarters and dimes.  we already knew that.  still better than a penny, which is also smooth edged and not as easy to grip when scratching.  the penny and dime are very small, making it worthwhile to carry a lot of them since it does not take up too much space compared to their worth.  the nickel is almost as big as a quarter and is actually thicker than one despite being worth 0/0 of a quarter.  a penny weighs 0 grams, while a nickel weighs 0, so it is actually 0 cent per gram where the penny is only 0 cents per gram.  if you have compared rolls you would know that a roll of nickels is only a bit bigger than a roll of pennies and it is worth 0x as much.  it would make way more cents to carry many nickels than many pennies.  this man wrote the declaration of independence and was responsible for the louisiana purchase, one of the most important and valuable deals in u. s.  history, and we put him on a coin worth 0 cents.  lincoln, another hugely influential american, is on the penny, but also the $0 bill, which makes up for it.  jefferson only gets the nickel.  jefferson is on the $0 bill.   #  like i said to the other guy, the fact that the nickel is worth less in monetary value is not as relevant as it is ability to be used in exchanges.   #  like i said to the other guy, the fact that the nickel is worth less in monetary value is not as relevant as it is ability to be used in exchanges.  it is value is not worth the problems that come with it.  jefferson might be on the $0 bill, but that bill is so rarely used or seen that it comes as a further insult.  why is such an important figure in history used in coins and notes that are rarely used ? the other two points, i concede.  i will give you a delta when i get on desktop.   #  the nickel is the best weighted/sized coin in us currency for flipping.   #  the nickel is the best weighted/sized coin in us currency for flipping.  a quarter, half dollar, or silver dollar is more traditional probably because they are more visible but the nickel feels better.  also, the penny is objectively the least valuable coin in us currency, because it is both the lowest face value denomination, and costs nearly 0 cents to make, making it the least cost effective piece of us currency.  and we are past the point where anyone could possibly care about a penny, financially speaking.  in fact, the last coin we retired, the half penny, had the buying power of 0c today so while it is true that the nickel and even the dime are obsolete as currency, the penny is by far the most egregious offender.   #  thus the  intrinsic  value of a nickel is superior to any other coin in the system.   #  hey ! this is my first post to reddit so sorry if i mess the whole thing up.  i happen to be a coin guy and i do have some arguments refuting your position puggpu.  i would argue, in fact, that the nickel is the most valuable coin in the us monetary system.  a nickel is composed of 0 nickel and 0 copper giving it a metal melt value, as of 0/0/0, of $0 per coin.  in contrast, a quarter is almost entirely copper and has a melt value of $0 per coin.  thus the  intrinsic  value of a nickel is superior to any other coin in the system.  in fact, often, the metal melt value of the nickel surpasses the face value of the coin, meaning that you could, ostensibly, go to the bank, withdraw $0 in nickels, walk across the street to the metal recycler and sell it to them for more than $0.  instant profit.  no other coin in the realm offers this opportunity.  as for the use of jefferson on the coin: it has been the policy of the mint/ congress to place the more revered historical figures onto the lower denominations as they circulate more and are, thus, seen by more citizens more often.   #  pennies and dimes stick out, someone can tell from a distance that they are not worth picking up.   #  thanks for the response.  i have actually changed my view on this matter but you bring up a good point with the melt value.  technically, i know that the nickel is worth more than other coins in terms of value  in money , but i am viewing it more in practicality.  most people do not use any coins besides quarters unless they have a particular need for them.  pennies and dimes stick out, someone can tell from a distance that they are not worth picking up.  but from far away a nickel can be confused for a quarter, creating anticipation only leading to disappointment.  i do agree with you on the use of jefferson however: that is a very good point with the citizens seeing more of him.  so you have changed my view in that regard.  δ
the nickel, despite being worth 0 times more than the penny, is far less valuable than any other coin or note in u. s.  currency.  here is why: 0.  it can easily be mistaken for a quarter from a distance, causing people to pick it up only to be disappointed by what it really is.  the penny does not have this problem, as it is the only coin that is brown.  0.  it does not have ridges on the edges.  this makes it slightly harder to scratch off things like lottery tickets or gift card codes compared to a quarter or dime.  0.  it is far too big for what it is really worth.  the penny and dime are very small, making it worthwhile to carry a lot of them since it does not take up too much space compared to their worth.  the nickel is almost as big as a quarter and is actually thicker than one despite being worth 0/0 of a quarter.  0.  finally, the nickel defaces the name of a great american: thomas jefferson.  this man wrote the declaration of independence and was responsible for the louisiana purchase, one of the most important and valuable deals in u. s.  history, and we put him on a coin worth 0 cents.  lincoln, another hugely influential american, is on the penny, but also the $0 bill, which makes up for it.  jefferson only gets the nickel.  i am on mobile, so sorry if formatting is off.  i look forward to some arguments against any of these points.  thanks !  #  finally, the nickel defaces the name of a great american: thomas jefferson.   #  this man wrote the declaration of independence and was responsible for the louisiana purchase, one of the most important and valuable deals in u. s.   #  none of these proves that it is less valuable than a penny.  the penny does not have this problem, as it is the only coin that is brown.  this may be annoying but it does not affect its value.  it is still worth 0 cents, much more than a penny.  this makes it slightly harder to scratch off things like lottery tickets or gift card codes compared to a quarter or dime.  so it is worth less than quarters and dimes.  we already knew that.  still better than a penny, which is also smooth edged and not as easy to grip when scratching.  the penny and dime are very small, making it worthwhile to carry a lot of them since it does not take up too much space compared to their worth.  the nickel is almost as big as a quarter and is actually thicker than one despite being worth 0/0 of a quarter.  a penny weighs 0 grams, while a nickel weighs 0, so it is actually 0 cent per gram where the penny is only 0 cents per gram.  if you have compared rolls you would know that a roll of nickels is only a bit bigger than a roll of pennies and it is worth 0x as much.  it would make way more cents to carry many nickels than many pennies.  this man wrote the declaration of independence and was responsible for the louisiana purchase, one of the most important and valuable deals in u. s.  history, and we put him on a coin worth 0 cents.  lincoln, another hugely influential american, is on the penny, but also the $0 bill, which makes up for it.  jefferson only gets the nickel.  jefferson is on the $0 bill.   #  it is value is not worth the problems that come with it.   #  like i said to the other guy, the fact that the nickel is worth less in monetary value is not as relevant as it is ability to be used in exchanges.  it is value is not worth the problems that come with it.  jefferson might be on the $0 bill, but that bill is so rarely used or seen that it comes as a further insult.  why is such an important figure in history used in coins and notes that are rarely used ? the other two points, i concede.  i will give you a delta when i get on desktop.   #  the nickel is the best weighted/sized coin in us currency for flipping.   #  the nickel is the best weighted/sized coin in us currency for flipping.  a quarter, half dollar, or silver dollar is more traditional probably because they are more visible but the nickel feels better.  also, the penny is objectively the least valuable coin in us currency, because it is both the lowest face value denomination, and costs nearly 0 cents to make, making it the least cost effective piece of us currency.  and we are past the point where anyone could possibly care about a penny, financially speaking.  in fact, the last coin we retired, the half penny, had the buying power of 0c today so while it is true that the nickel and even the dime are obsolete as currency, the penny is by far the most egregious offender.   #  i happen to be a coin guy and i do have some arguments refuting your position puggpu.   #  hey ! this is my first post to reddit so sorry if i mess the whole thing up.  i happen to be a coin guy and i do have some arguments refuting your position puggpu.  i would argue, in fact, that the nickel is the most valuable coin in the us monetary system.  a nickel is composed of 0 nickel and 0 copper giving it a metal melt value, as of 0/0/0, of $0 per coin.  in contrast, a quarter is almost entirely copper and has a melt value of $0 per coin.  thus the  intrinsic  value of a nickel is superior to any other coin in the system.  in fact, often, the metal melt value of the nickel surpasses the face value of the coin, meaning that you could, ostensibly, go to the bank, withdraw $0 in nickels, walk across the street to the metal recycler and sell it to them for more than $0.  instant profit.  no other coin in the realm offers this opportunity.  as for the use of jefferson on the coin: it has been the policy of the mint/ congress to place the more revered historical figures onto the lower denominations as they circulate more and are, thus, seen by more citizens more often.   #  but from far away a nickel can be confused for a quarter, creating anticipation only leading to disappointment.   #  thanks for the response.  i have actually changed my view on this matter but you bring up a good point with the melt value.  technically, i know that the nickel is worth more than other coins in terms of value  in money , but i am viewing it more in practicality.  most people do not use any coins besides quarters unless they have a particular need for them.  pennies and dimes stick out, someone can tell from a distance that they are not worth picking up.  but from far away a nickel can be confused for a quarter, creating anticipation only leading to disappointment.  i do agree with you on the use of jefferson however: that is a very good point with the citizens seeing more of him.  so you have changed my view in that regard.  δ
i do not know what the laws are like everywhere else, so i am going to apply this specifically to what i see where i am from ontario, canada.  i think that the benefits of tinted windows for driver less sun intensity, more privacy are greatly outweighed by the lack of visual communication for other drivers and pedestrians or anyone else sharing the road .  i understand having back windows tinted, especially for cars that primarily transport people limousines because i do not have any reason to make visual contact with people not in control of the car.  my primary issue is that driving requires lots of communication.  horns, and turn signals are integral turn signals especially , but sometimes nothing beats making eye to eye contact with someone and easily understanding each other intent.  i have been in the situation of staring down a large black windshield, with only a vague idea of the shape of a human driving the car.  they could be staring down at their cell phone, asleep, lost in conversation, or staring directly at me for all i know.  if window tinting was a feature that could be applied, or  turned up  on windows when the car was stationary, or parked, i would have no problem with it.  valuable privacy during those situations.  however, on the road i would like to be able to see the people who are also piloting thousand pound hunks of metal around with.  it is a safety issue above all else.  if someone has an eye sensitivity problem to sunlight, surely sunglasses would be a better option right ? the only situation i can think of that i would be okay with someone having extremely tinted windows would be if someone had some sort of total body/skin reaction problem to sunlight.  and then, i could see it be a car modification that would require a doctors note.  i obviously do not know the facts, but i would wager 0 0 of the heavily tinted windows i have seen while driving are not done for these reasons.  i know that laws do exist to regulate the degree to which someone can tint their windows, but unless all the heavily tinted cars i have seen are actually breaking the law, then i think the degree to which someone can legally tint their windows should be scaled back immensely.  if all the people i see  are  actually breaking the law, than i think police should actively pull people over for this offense, and issue an order to have the tinting reversed and or changed.  cmv ! :  #  unless all the heavily tinted cars i have seen are actually breaking the law, then i think the degree to which someone can legally tint their windows should be scaled back immensely.   #  if all the people i see are actually breaking the law, than i think police should actively pull people over for this offense, and issue an order to have the tinting reversed and or changed.   #  i have tinted windows on my car, live in ontario, read the highway traffic act, and talked to a few different shops about tinting my windows.  the highway traffic act says the following:  no person shall drive on a highway a motor vehicle on which the surface of the windshield or any of the windows to the direct left or right of the driver is seat has been coated with any coloured spray, or other coloured or reflective material that substantially obscures the interior of the vehicle when viewed from outside the motor vehicle.  what does that mean ? it is basically up to individual police officers to say  it is too dark  and then you can get slapped with a fine.  the recommendation that i was given by three different shops was 0 for the driver and passenger windows, which is a measurement of how much light gets through.  for comparison, my rear windows are 0 which is what they use on limos, and my windshield has no tint on it at all.  it is pretty rare for someone to do the windshield.  i have seen plenty of cars on the road that are significantly darker than mine, or might even have 0 on the driver and passenger windows, and the police really do not do anything about it.  unless they have you pulled over and are looking for something to give you a ticket for, the only time i have heard about people getting nailed for it is when they are in other provinces.  bc, alberta, saskatchewan, and nova scotia all prohibit front window tints.  if all the people i see are actually breaking the law, than i think police should actively pull people over for this offense, and issue an order to have the tinting reversed and or changed.  the problem here is what i mentioned above: it is not regulated.  it would be extremely easy to write into law  anything darker than xx% is not allowed  and i am guessing they have some sort of device that could measure that.  the province is not going to change the law though because it is not going to get anyone any votes, and is likely to piss off the quit regulating my life/taking away my freedom crowd.   #  tinted windows in hot, sunny climates are practical, even before considering remedies like sunglasses and sunscreen.   #  some tinted windows help block uv rays and help keep cars cooler.  i live in a place where most summers have at least a few days that reach over 0f over 0c .  when the car is sitting in the sun, it helps to block out as much as possible, and not just because of comfort.  having a hotter interior means the air conditioning runs more and harder .  using the a/c more means worse gas mileage as well.  tinted windows in hot, sunny climates are practical, even before considering remedies like sunglasses and sunscreen.   #  i am very familiar with how hot it gets in the southwest deserts and even though we do not see those extremes, you might be surprised by the weather here.   #  i am from michigan, about 0 miles north of windsor, ontario.  i am very familiar with how hot it gets in the southwest deserts and even though we do not see those extremes, you might be surprised by the weather here.  it gets pretty hot in the summer 0 0°f , plus humidity .  also, in the winter it is extremely bright from the sunlight reflecting off the snow.  my rear windows are all tinted at 0, front side windows 0, which i find extremely comfortable and beneficial for reducing glare.  as for visibility at night, i have no problems.  privacy is a nice benefit, but not my purpose.   #  what i mean is that when a vehicles widows are clear, i can see what the vehicles on the other side are doing.   #  as another motorcyclist, i completely agree.  and to add another point about situational awareness, tinted windows take away my ability to see  through  vehicles.  it is especially problematic with suv is and in heavy traffic.  what i mean is that when a vehicles widows are clear, i can see what the vehicles on the other side are doing.  when i am riding next to a large vehicle with tinted windows i have no idea what is happening on the other side of them.  i ca not see that guy merging through two lanes until he is already there, for example.  it just adds another obstacle to overcome.   #  it also makes it harder to see body language.   # and to add another point about situational awareness, tinted windows take away my ability to see through vehicles.  it is especially problematic with suv is and in heavy traffic.  i agree on that aspect, for sure.  it also makes it harder to see body language.  however, i do not think eye contact is important.  i am usually wearing sunglasses when i ride during the day anyways.
i have been feeling this way for a while.  i am currently in high school in georgia.  the reason i am saying in georgia and not in america is because i have only been to school in this state, but i think it is a decent assumption that there is at least similar curriculum in most states.  what made me feel this way ? i could not help but noticing that every year, without fail, i was taught the same things in my english classes, save for a few new things that are not really applicable to real life.  some things that repeat in the curriculum  comma usage:  since middle school, i have been taught time and time again how to use commas.  even learning about the oxford comma which comes natural to me and most of my peers was not really new.   sentence types:  compound, complex, and compound complex sentences are taught every year.  to be completely honest, i have no idea what kind of a teenager does not understand types of sentences.   part of speech sub types:  things like gerunds, participles, and modal verbs oh god,please stop calling them  helping  verbs .   argumentative essays:  again, i have constantly learned how to make argumentative essays, while not learning how to make other types of essay analytic, narrative, etc.   note: i am not saying these are not important to know, but the fact that the curriculum is repeating these things and teaching barely anything new is sad.   why do i feel this is an issue ? there are so many things that we  could  be learning in  english  class about the  english  language that i feel are not being thought about.  to name a few: ipa international phonetic alphabet, which is much more consistent than whatever bullshit schools use in our books history of english/the evolution of the english language latin/greek studies every day, my world history teacher gives us a word in latin to memorize and english derivatives.  she does this to help our vocabulary grow, understand our language better, and to prepare us for the sat.  should not this be done in english class, and not in world history ? tl;dr: english class is repetitive and we need to add some things to it that are very important.   #  every day, my world history teacher gives us a word in latin to memorize and english derivatives.   #  she does this to help our vocabulary grow, understand our language better, and to prepare us for the sat.   #  i definitely feel your frustration.  english class in high school was boring as.  i would rather have everyone know how to string words into sentences than know about the ipa, a million times over.  i get that the basics are absolutely done to death i really, really do , but they are not done for your sake.  they are done for all the people who do not find them so easy.  take a look at some sat sample essays posted online, and you will see what i mean.  plenty of people get out of high school writing and probably reading at a subpar level that surely impairs their engagement with the written world.  she does this to help our vocabulary grow, understand our language better, and to prepare us for the sat.  should not this be done in english class, and not in world history ? i think this is bizarre.  you are right.  but you are at least getting the vocabulary curriculum.  if i had to guess, they probably do it this way to free up the english hours for other things, because english was more crammed than history.   #  i ask because many if not most high school students do not master the topics you list above by the time they graduate.   #  compared to most students in your class, do you get substantially above average grades ? i ask because many if not most high school students do not master the topics you list above by the time they graduate.  few students have the ability to write a persuasive argument, correctly punctuate, or do other important written tasks.  to the extent they are repetitive, i think it comes from a desire to make sure students have the basics down.  in an advanced track class where students are already acceptable writers, the topics you want to cover make sense.  in a class having all levels of students, there is good reason to really cover the basics, since they are so important.   #  i strongly suggest seeking out ways to challenge yourself intellectually and push yourself you have skills for argument and writing that need to be honed by practice.   # your complaint is a very common one for above average students.  i strongly suggest seeking out ways to challenge yourself intellectually and push yourself you have skills for argument and writing that need to be honed by practice.  but do not count on your school to do it for you.  schools by and large are not set up for exceptional students.  they are set up for normal ones.  and given the need to educate all of their students, that is not unreasonable.  what is the difference between these, really ? in either case, the student is not performing to the basic level required, and cannot reasonably be expected to engage in studies at a more advanced level which require proper grammar and effective writing as a precondition.   #  the point of english class is to give you applicable communication and comprehension skills in english.   #  first of all, are there advanced english classes available ? have you considered taking them ? a lot of stuff generally does get repeated because for whatever reason, some kids get skipped, or do not grasp it.  some students cover x, y and z, while others w, y and x.  it seems like this is more common in the middle school to high school transition, where kids come from schools of varying quality and marginally different curriculums.  this should not happen, but it does.  teachers also tend to focus a bit more on what students are defficient in and reinforce that the next year.  if kids are struggling with fundamental problems like argumentative essays and basic sentence structure, then that needs to get worked on, regardless of how many times they have seen it before.  i think its worth asking how much time you spend on these topics a semester ? is this a quick refresher or does the teacher spend days/weeks on these topics ? i agree that the teacher should not just focus exlusive on grammar and writing the whole semester, nor the same.  do you guys read books in your english classes ? i remember in my high school classes the writing assignments were integrated with reading.  for example,  what do you think george should have done at the end of  of mice and men  ? explain your reasoning.   as for vocabulary, i remember my teachers did what you mentioned.  one teacher gave us a list of 0 vocabulary words per week that we had to learn.  these were useful, literary, or scientific words, like undulate, dichotomy, exacerbate, etc.  that the average 0th grade probably would not know.  as far as the ipa, as others have mentioned, it is interesting but somewhat useless unless you are doing something related to linguistics.  same with the history of english.  the point of english class is to give you applicable communication and comprehension skills in english.  if you are interested, you should research this yourself in your free time.  with wikipedia, youtube, and the vastness of the world wide web, your education is not limited to what is shown in the classroom.   #  i go to trainings pumped out by for profits with no peer review on their product.   #  for the past 0 0 years we have been switching over to common core.  every class is going to look like an english class.  even math class which is a great thing because i give my kids word problems and they ca not handle them.  i ca not comment on your school is execution, but i can tell you we are scrambling to figure out how to do this.  i go to trainings pumped out by for profits with no peer review on their product.  in my own experience i teach history , students need cross curricular support.  i actually do the latin/greek root thing.  it is just to get everyone seated and quiet when the bell rings.  we were looking at data tables on poverty.  a lot of students had trouble doing the math and writing sentences explaining the data.  i had to teach them how to express the data persuasively, do not give raw numbers, try to compare .  looking through my primary sources, students really have to context clue.  a lot of students do not know how to do this.  a person has to front load a lot of data about the author before the person can begin understanding turns of phrases and other literary devices.  i do not know about your school teaching grammar.  if you did peer editing, you might have a clue why.  a better way to teach writing is have students read.  but again, i ca not guess why your school is doing what you are describing.
i have this opinion for a while now.  i feel that reddit is slowly becoming a place not for thoughtful comments or discussion, but rather a website for obtaining worthless internet points with unoriginal content.  even without considering submissions, i have found the comment sections to be very frustrating.  i know that reddit occasionally, and often jokingly acknowledges the  hive mind.   however, this seems more as a means of allowing the user to seem not a part of the hive mind and therefore unique, rather than actually criticizing it and attempting to fix the problem.  for instance, on a recent post pertaining to the columbia rape ordeal with the girl carrying her mattress around, the link directed to an article with pictures of posters around the university claiming the girl is lying.  there was no evidence or even speculation in the article that said she was/was not lying.  however, in the comment section for the post, almost every single comment was able how terrible the  liar  was and how she deserved it.  i immediately thought her claim was proven false, as everyone was so adamant.  a quick google check did not confirm anything, except that there is not enough evidence.  i did not even bother to comment explaining this, as previous commenters who deviated away from the  witch hunt  were downvoted to oblivion.  i am not making a comment on the actual event.  as there is no evidence, i feel that i cannot assert that she was or was not raped.  i know that the concept of false rape accusations against males comes up quite frequently on reddit.  i completely agree that these claims can seriously hurt and damage an individual is social reputation and mental health.  i do not have a problem with that.  it just seems that reddit has become infatuated with this concept and is making claims without any evidence; which is a bit hypocritical given the situation.  anyone who dares to voice their opposing opinion is immediately drowned out.  i realize that not all of reddit is like this.  and of course, i will admit that i have been caught in the moment and contributed to some degree.  however, i feel that a large portion is caught up in the hive mind and is not even aware of the issue.  please change my view.  thank you.   #  i feel that reddit is slowly becoming a place not for thoughtful comments or discussion, but rather a website for obtaining worthless internet points with unoriginal content.   #  i have been a redditor since near the beginning and this has been a common complaint for all that time.   # i have been a redditor since near the beginning and this has been a common complaint for all that time.  reddit is not slowly becoming this place.  it has been this place for the whole of its existence.  there is no  golden age of reddit .  you can find interesting and thoughtful content if you look hard enough.  for the most part you wo not find this in the default subs but the content is here.  cmv can be one such sub.   #  downvoting something simply because you do not agree or do not want hear about it defeats that purpose.   #  i think we are going in a circle.  like i said, i have no problem speaking my mind.  it is not the lack of support either.  it is the downvotes that collapse comments, making them hard to find or see for other redditors.  this has never personally happened to me but i see it frequently.  the whole point of posting a comment is to share your personal thoughts.  downvoting something simply because you do not agree or do not want hear about it defeats that purpose.   #  i am not going to change too many minds.   #  we are kind of talking in circles because in someways i do agree with you.  i made a comment that was not on the guy accused of rape bandwagon and i got down voted.  i am not going to change too many minds.  i might just find one person on the sub who might agree with me.  but in the end karma does not matter.  i take my lumps and say what i feel that i need to say.   #  and maybe interject that sometimes even though reddit is a cyclical circlejerk, it is still a worthwhile place to find things.   #  great answer, i think you are right.  thinking about my own experience causes me to evaluate 0 subs i am pretty active in: /r/leagueoflegends is an enormous sub that i spend a lot of time in because i love league of legends.  i often find myself frustrated with it though because of this hive mind we are taking about.  there are certain niches of content that automatically get 0 karma and shoot to the front page that are nothing more than obnoxious circlejerks.  also forget about trying to have a discussion in the comments both because the sub is so busy and because voicing an unpopular view will just get downvoted.  that said, it is still a worthwhile place to find interesting content.  it is what it is.  i wish it were different, but i appreciate it for what it is.  /r/civ on the other hand is much different.  it is large enough to have new content every day but small enough that you can ask a question and get several interesting answers, or have a constructive debate about something.  i mean, it is not perfect.  half the front page is still stupid low effort screenshots i do not care about, but the community is really great.  anyway i thought i would share my specific example of why i think you are right.  and maybe interject that sometimes even though reddit is a cyclical circlejerk, it is still a worthwhile place to find things.   #  but they have their own tired jokes, inanity and off limit thoughts.   # and there are others that point out misinformation that gets posted, like /r/badhistory .  and replace one echo chamber with another ? meta subs may be good for showing the silliness and yes, some are even good for refutations.  but they have their own tired jokes, inanity and off limit thoughts.  e. g.  i have subbed to badhistory since mid 0 and the  x do not real  and the chart jokes, among others, are still around.  or how the members of srd do not like it when someone takes the  wrong  side in a debate.
i know that a lot of psychology related cmvs are submitted but i feel like my views are significantly different from those submissions.  the first view that i want changed is that psychology does not qualify as science.  the definition of science i am going to be using comes from an article from los angeles times.  it can be summarized with this quote:  because psychology often does not meet the five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous: clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability.   this definition leads to my second view that i would liked changed.  i feel like the definition of what  mental disorder  means is pretty arbitrary.  i will substantiate this claim by saying that they seemingly change the definition for no reason whatsoever in each progressive dsm.  rather, it would seem as if they try to change the definition to respond to criticism.  this article summarizes my views pretty well: URL i do not know if psychologytoday is a good source or not but it serves as a representation of my views.   #  i feel like the definition of what  mental disorder  means is pretty arbitrary.   #  these are actually defined for clinical reasons and not research reasons.   #  rigor is not part of the definition of science.  if you use the experimental method and attempt to reproduce your results, you are doing science.  it might be better to be rigorous like feynman rather than non rigorous like galileo.  but then again, galileo is a vital figure in the development of science.  these are actually defined for clinical reasons and not research reasons.  as far as science goes, there is no inherent reason to define them one way or another; changing definitions is mildly inconvenient to researchers but is not wrong.  changing definitions based on what we can and want to treat is extremely useful.  when we were attempting to treat homosexuality, it made perfect sense to define it as a disorder.  now that we find it unhelpful to try to do this, it makes no sense to define it as a disorder.  if we have different drugs to treat different types of depression bipolar, major depression, etc then it is important to distinguish between these types of depression.  if all forms of schizophrenia receive the same treatment and patients with one type frequently convert to another type with no need for change in treatment plans then there is no real point to defining subtypes of schizophrenia.  we are better off eliminating the categories and calling it all one disease until such time as treatment actually differs.  i can see how this is frustrating to a pure researcher, but the dsm is not primarily designed for research purposes.  it is primarily designed for clinical purposes, and works well for that.   #  psychology is an integrated field, as most other sciences are these days, utilizing biology, chemistry, neuroscience and so on.   #  biologist here.  it is possible to use a definition of science that is carefully constructed to exclude psychology from the collective, but that would be intellectually dishonest.  the definition you are using might be okay, but the terms are vague enough that you could simply exclude a field you do not like by saying that it is not quantifiable  enough  or it is not able to use quite highly  enough  controlled experimental conditions.  how highly is highly ? you could make a similar argument for ecology not being a science if you study one rare ecosystem that ca not be easily reproduced in laboratory conditions.  you see the problem is that you ca not just say that all of psychology is that one scenario where it is challenging to get the same level of quantifiable results as the most controlled laboratory setting imaginable.  psychology is an integrated field, as most other sciences are these days, utilizing biology, chemistry, neuroscience and so on.  i recommend this introductory text URL in psychology.  the bottom line is that in virtually every field you are going to have some studies that are easier to get good data and more reliable statistics on than in others.  i might be comfortable using the phrase soft science to describe psychology, simply because of those extra challenges but a science nonetheless.  in fact some really good insight on how we go about coming up with reliable stats and the failures of classic null hypothesis testing were outlined very well in this famous paper URL by psychologist jacob cohen, making contributions to science in general.  some of the better a priori work on power analysis in recent years, determining the reliability of previous studies has come out of the literature in psychology.  something that i argue needs to be done in my own field and other hard sciences.   #  so you can get an idea of what would be appropriate to use to cmv i will try to give you an idea of my knowledge level.   #  i do not understand much in that essay.  i am only a high school student.  however, i did do a little chi square related stuff in my biology class.  so what i gleamed from this paper is that he is criticizing the use of a p value and the concept of p values because they almost always confirm the null hypothesis ? a lot of this goes over my head.  it reminds me of a book i read called social sciences as sorcery by stanislav andreski.  in this book, on page 0, he describes how the famous mathematician named euler, during his stay at the court of catherine ii of russia, got into an argument about the existence of god.  apparently, in order to defeat the  volitarians  in a battle of wit he wrote on the blackboard,   x y  0 x 0   0xy   y 0 therefore god exists.   since they did not understand the formula they were not able to dispute it.  not wanting to look stupid they just conceded his point.  i do not want to be those people.  i will try to read that book and educate myself but i wo not be able to change my view until i understand the subject.  if you have something that a laymen can understand you could potentially change my view sooner.  so you can get an idea of what would be appropriate to use to cmv i will try to give you an idea of my knowledge level.  i have only taken bio. , physics, and chem.  my science knowledge is pretty much laymen level.  for maths i am a little better but i have only taken statistics and regular math classes up to and including calc bc.   #  if we did not do that, we would have tens of thousands of planets, it makes more sense for them to be in separate categories.   #  on the second point, that article suggests that the phenomena exist, but mental disorders do not, and compares it to using a god to explain birds and bees.  this is an inappropriate analogy, because a god is used to explain phenomena.  mental disorders are not used to explain phenomena, there are used to categorize them.  we say ocd, tourette syndrome, and others are mental disorders, not are caused by mental disorders.  a mental disorder is not a cause, it is a category.  and to claim a category does not exist is nonsensical.  categories are redefined all the time to become more useful.  for example, planet was redefined to exclude pluto and any other object that would otherwise be a planet but has not cleared all other objects out of its orbital path.  if we did not do that, we would have tens of thousands of planets, it makes more sense for them to be in separate categories.  redefining categories happens all the time, it is not unique to mental disorders.   #  you are right that, as long as we can find a psychologist who consistently says  that is a mental disorder !    # when people question whether a category exists, what they are really questioning is not generally whether the classification is  possible .  you are right that, as long as we can find a psychologist who consistently says  that is a mental disorder !   or  that is not a mental disorder !  , the category must be real in some sense.  the question is whether the category is  compact .  does the term  mental disorder  refer to a cluster of related properties which its members share ? or does it simply refer to a list of things psychologists consider to be mental disorders ?
i know that a lot of psychology related cmvs are submitted but i feel like my views are significantly different from those submissions.  the first view that i want changed is that psychology does not qualify as science.  the definition of science i am going to be using comes from an article from los angeles times.  it can be summarized with this quote:  because psychology often does not meet the five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous: clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability.   this definition leads to my second view that i would liked changed.  i feel like the definition of what  mental disorder  means is pretty arbitrary.  i will substantiate this claim by saying that they seemingly change the definition for no reason whatsoever in each progressive dsm.  rather, it would seem as if they try to change the definition to respond to criticism.  this article summarizes my views pretty well: URL i do not know if psychologytoday is a good source or not but it serves as a representation of my views.   #  because psychology often does not meet the five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous: clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability.    #  i would like to see any psychology publication that does not fit these five categories.   # i would like to see any psychology publication that does not fit these five categories.  not all of psychology would fit in this pretty narrow and not widely accepted definition of science but the research absolutely does.  without psychological research that fits into those categories there would be no such things as cognitive behavioral therapy, dialectical behavior therapy, exposure therapy, etc etc.  psychologists devise tests for intellectual disabilities that absolutely requires terminology, highly controlled experiments, reproductability, predictability, and testability.  the research is conducted with random sampling, self report measures, observational measures, physiological measures, and employs rigorous statistical analysis that is not seen in a lot of other fields.  if you see a psychologist and are diagnosed with borderline personality disorder, they will tell you that you need dialectical behavior therapy and they know that because of the rigorous research that is been conducted.  if you think your child has an intellectual disability, they will be tested using measures that have proven to be reliable and valid in diagnosing the disability.  do you believe in iq ? that was created and continues to be tested by psychologists.   #  i might be comfortable using the phrase soft science to describe psychology, simply because of those extra challenges but a science nonetheless.   #  biologist here.  it is possible to use a definition of science that is carefully constructed to exclude psychology from the collective, but that would be intellectually dishonest.  the definition you are using might be okay, but the terms are vague enough that you could simply exclude a field you do not like by saying that it is not quantifiable  enough  or it is not able to use quite highly  enough  controlled experimental conditions.  how highly is highly ? you could make a similar argument for ecology not being a science if you study one rare ecosystem that ca not be easily reproduced in laboratory conditions.  you see the problem is that you ca not just say that all of psychology is that one scenario where it is challenging to get the same level of quantifiable results as the most controlled laboratory setting imaginable.  psychology is an integrated field, as most other sciences are these days, utilizing biology, chemistry, neuroscience and so on.  i recommend this introductory text URL in psychology.  the bottom line is that in virtually every field you are going to have some studies that are easier to get good data and more reliable statistics on than in others.  i might be comfortable using the phrase soft science to describe psychology, simply because of those extra challenges but a science nonetheless.  in fact some really good insight on how we go about coming up with reliable stats and the failures of classic null hypothesis testing were outlined very well in this famous paper URL by psychologist jacob cohen, making contributions to science in general.  some of the better a priori work on power analysis in recent years, determining the reliability of previous studies has come out of the literature in psychology.  something that i argue needs to be done in my own field and other hard sciences.   #  my science knowledge is pretty much laymen level.   #  i do not understand much in that essay.  i am only a high school student.  however, i did do a little chi square related stuff in my biology class.  so what i gleamed from this paper is that he is criticizing the use of a p value and the concept of p values because they almost always confirm the null hypothesis ? a lot of this goes over my head.  it reminds me of a book i read called social sciences as sorcery by stanislav andreski.  in this book, on page 0, he describes how the famous mathematician named euler, during his stay at the court of catherine ii of russia, got into an argument about the existence of god.  apparently, in order to defeat the  volitarians  in a battle of wit he wrote on the blackboard,   x y  0 x 0   0xy   y 0 therefore god exists.   since they did not understand the formula they were not able to dispute it.  not wanting to look stupid they just conceded his point.  i do not want to be those people.  i will try to read that book and educate myself but i wo not be able to change my view until i understand the subject.  if you have something that a laymen can understand you could potentially change my view sooner.  so you can get an idea of what would be appropriate to use to cmv i will try to give you an idea of my knowledge level.  i have only taken bio. , physics, and chem.  my science knowledge is pretty much laymen level.  for maths i am a little better but i have only taken statistics and regular math classes up to and including calc bc.   #  if all forms of schizophrenia receive the same treatment and patients with one type frequently convert to another type with no need for change in treatment plans then there is no real point to defining subtypes of schizophrenia.   #  rigor is not part of the definition of science.  if you use the experimental method and attempt to reproduce your results, you are doing science.  it might be better to be rigorous like feynman rather than non rigorous like galileo.  but then again, galileo is a vital figure in the development of science.  these are actually defined for clinical reasons and not research reasons.  as far as science goes, there is no inherent reason to define them one way or another; changing definitions is mildly inconvenient to researchers but is not wrong.  changing definitions based on what we can and want to treat is extremely useful.  when we were attempting to treat homosexuality, it made perfect sense to define it as a disorder.  now that we find it unhelpful to try to do this, it makes no sense to define it as a disorder.  if we have different drugs to treat different types of depression bipolar, major depression, etc then it is important to distinguish between these types of depression.  if all forms of schizophrenia receive the same treatment and patients with one type frequently convert to another type with no need for change in treatment plans then there is no real point to defining subtypes of schizophrenia.  we are better off eliminating the categories and calling it all one disease until such time as treatment actually differs.  i can see how this is frustrating to a pure researcher, but the dsm is not primarily designed for research purposes.  it is primarily designed for clinical purposes, and works well for that.   #  a mental disorder is not a cause, it is a category.   #  on the second point, that article suggests that the phenomena exist, but mental disorders do not, and compares it to using a god to explain birds and bees.  this is an inappropriate analogy, because a god is used to explain phenomena.  mental disorders are not used to explain phenomena, there are used to categorize them.  we say ocd, tourette syndrome, and others are mental disorders, not are caused by mental disorders.  a mental disorder is not a cause, it is a category.  and to claim a category does not exist is nonsensical.  categories are redefined all the time to become more useful.  for example, planet was redefined to exclude pluto and any other object that would otherwise be a planet but has not cleared all other objects out of its orbital path.  if we did not do that, we would have tens of thousands of planets, it makes more sense for them to be in separate categories.  redefining categories happens all the time, it is not unique to mental disorders.
i know that a lot of psychology related cmvs are submitted but i feel like my views are significantly different from those submissions.  the first view that i want changed is that psychology does not qualify as science.  the definition of science i am going to be using comes from an article from los angeles times.  it can be summarized with this quote:  because psychology often does not meet the five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous: clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability.   this definition leads to my second view that i would liked changed.  i feel like the definition of what  mental disorder  means is pretty arbitrary.  i will substantiate this claim by saying that they seemingly change the definition for no reason whatsoever in each progressive dsm.  rather, it would seem as if they try to change the definition to respond to criticism.  this article summarizes my views pretty well: URL i do not know if psychologytoday is a good source or not but it serves as a representation of my views.   #  the first view that i want changed is that psychology does not qualify as science.   #  the definition of science i am going to be using comes from an article from los angeles times.   # the definition of science i am going to be using comes from an article from los angeles times.  oof.  the la times may not be a good choice for epistemology.  if these are the 0 necessary conditions for science, then meteorology does not fit this bill.  but thankfully that says  scientifically rigorous  not science in general.  going off of karl popper is work, science has to be falsifiable.  URL afaik, psychology does fit that requirement.  meteorology does as well.   #  psychology is an integrated field, as most other sciences are these days, utilizing biology, chemistry, neuroscience and so on.   #  biologist here.  it is possible to use a definition of science that is carefully constructed to exclude psychology from the collective, but that would be intellectually dishonest.  the definition you are using might be okay, but the terms are vague enough that you could simply exclude a field you do not like by saying that it is not quantifiable  enough  or it is not able to use quite highly  enough  controlled experimental conditions.  how highly is highly ? you could make a similar argument for ecology not being a science if you study one rare ecosystem that ca not be easily reproduced in laboratory conditions.  you see the problem is that you ca not just say that all of psychology is that one scenario where it is challenging to get the same level of quantifiable results as the most controlled laboratory setting imaginable.  psychology is an integrated field, as most other sciences are these days, utilizing biology, chemistry, neuroscience and so on.  i recommend this introductory text URL in psychology.  the bottom line is that in virtually every field you are going to have some studies that are easier to get good data and more reliable statistics on than in others.  i might be comfortable using the phrase soft science to describe psychology, simply because of those extra challenges but a science nonetheless.  in fact some really good insight on how we go about coming up with reliable stats and the failures of classic null hypothesis testing were outlined very well in this famous paper URL by psychologist jacob cohen, making contributions to science in general.  some of the better a priori work on power analysis in recent years, determining the reliability of previous studies has come out of the literature in psychology.  something that i argue needs to be done in my own field and other hard sciences.   #  not wanting to look stupid they just conceded his point.   #  i do not understand much in that essay.  i am only a high school student.  however, i did do a little chi square related stuff in my biology class.  so what i gleamed from this paper is that he is criticizing the use of a p value and the concept of p values because they almost always confirm the null hypothesis ? a lot of this goes over my head.  it reminds me of a book i read called social sciences as sorcery by stanislav andreski.  in this book, on page 0, he describes how the famous mathematician named euler, during his stay at the court of catherine ii of russia, got into an argument about the existence of god.  apparently, in order to defeat the  volitarians  in a battle of wit he wrote on the blackboard,   x y  0 x 0   0xy   y 0 therefore god exists.   since they did not understand the formula they were not able to dispute it.  not wanting to look stupid they just conceded his point.  i do not want to be those people.  i will try to read that book and educate myself but i wo not be able to change my view until i understand the subject.  if you have something that a laymen can understand you could potentially change my view sooner.  so you can get an idea of what would be appropriate to use to cmv i will try to give you an idea of my knowledge level.  i have only taken bio. , physics, and chem.  my science knowledge is pretty much laymen level.  for maths i am a little better but i have only taken statistics and regular math classes up to and including calc bc.   #  now that we find it unhelpful to try to do this, it makes no sense to define it as a disorder.   #  rigor is not part of the definition of science.  if you use the experimental method and attempt to reproduce your results, you are doing science.  it might be better to be rigorous like feynman rather than non rigorous like galileo.  but then again, galileo is a vital figure in the development of science.  these are actually defined for clinical reasons and not research reasons.  as far as science goes, there is no inherent reason to define them one way or another; changing definitions is mildly inconvenient to researchers but is not wrong.  changing definitions based on what we can and want to treat is extremely useful.  when we were attempting to treat homosexuality, it made perfect sense to define it as a disorder.  now that we find it unhelpful to try to do this, it makes no sense to define it as a disorder.  if we have different drugs to treat different types of depression bipolar, major depression, etc then it is important to distinguish between these types of depression.  if all forms of schizophrenia receive the same treatment and patients with one type frequently convert to another type with no need for change in treatment plans then there is no real point to defining subtypes of schizophrenia.  we are better off eliminating the categories and calling it all one disease until such time as treatment actually differs.  i can see how this is frustrating to a pure researcher, but the dsm is not primarily designed for research purposes.  it is primarily designed for clinical purposes, and works well for that.   #  mental disorders are not used to explain phenomena, there are used to categorize them.   #  on the second point, that article suggests that the phenomena exist, but mental disorders do not, and compares it to using a god to explain birds and bees.  this is an inappropriate analogy, because a god is used to explain phenomena.  mental disorders are not used to explain phenomena, there are used to categorize them.  we say ocd, tourette syndrome, and others are mental disorders, not are caused by mental disorders.  a mental disorder is not a cause, it is a category.  and to claim a category does not exist is nonsensical.  categories are redefined all the time to become more useful.  for example, planet was redefined to exclude pluto and any other object that would otherwise be a planet but has not cleared all other objects out of its orbital path.  if we did not do that, we would have tens of thousands of planets, it makes more sense for them to be in separate categories.  redefining categories happens all the time, it is not unique to mental disorders.
i know that a lot of psychology related cmvs are submitted but i feel like my views are significantly different from those submissions.  the first view that i want changed is that psychology does not qualify as science.  the definition of science i am going to be using comes from an article from los angeles times.  it can be summarized with this quote:  because psychology often does not meet the five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous: clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability.   this definition leads to my second view that i would liked changed.  i feel like the definition of what  mental disorder  means is pretty arbitrary.  i will substantiate this claim by saying that they seemingly change the definition for no reason whatsoever in each progressive dsm.  rather, it would seem as if they try to change the definition to respond to criticism.  this article summarizes my views pretty well: URL i do not know if psychologytoday is a good source or not but it serves as a representation of my views.   #  it can be summarized with this quote:  because psychology often does not meet the five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous: clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability.    #  if these are the 0 necessary conditions for science, then meteorology does not fit this bill.   # the definition of science i am going to be using comes from an article from los angeles times.  oof.  the la times may not be a good choice for epistemology.  if these are the 0 necessary conditions for science, then meteorology does not fit this bill.  but thankfully that says  scientifically rigorous  not science in general.  going off of karl popper is work, science has to be falsifiable.  URL afaik, psychology does fit that requirement.  meteorology does as well.   #  i recommend this introductory text URL in psychology.   #  biologist here.  it is possible to use a definition of science that is carefully constructed to exclude psychology from the collective, but that would be intellectually dishonest.  the definition you are using might be okay, but the terms are vague enough that you could simply exclude a field you do not like by saying that it is not quantifiable  enough  or it is not able to use quite highly  enough  controlled experimental conditions.  how highly is highly ? you could make a similar argument for ecology not being a science if you study one rare ecosystem that ca not be easily reproduced in laboratory conditions.  you see the problem is that you ca not just say that all of psychology is that one scenario where it is challenging to get the same level of quantifiable results as the most controlled laboratory setting imaginable.  psychology is an integrated field, as most other sciences are these days, utilizing biology, chemistry, neuroscience and so on.  i recommend this introductory text URL in psychology.  the bottom line is that in virtually every field you are going to have some studies that are easier to get good data and more reliable statistics on than in others.  i might be comfortable using the phrase soft science to describe psychology, simply because of those extra challenges but a science nonetheless.  in fact some really good insight on how we go about coming up with reliable stats and the failures of classic null hypothesis testing were outlined very well in this famous paper URL by psychologist jacob cohen, making contributions to science in general.  some of the better a priori work on power analysis in recent years, determining the reliability of previous studies has come out of the literature in psychology.  something that i argue needs to be done in my own field and other hard sciences.   #  for maths i am a little better but i have only taken statistics and regular math classes up to and including calc bc.   #  i do not understand much in that essay.  i am only a high school student.  however, i did do a little chi square related stuff in my biology class.  so what i gleamed from this paper is that he is criticizing the use of a p value and the concept of p values because they almost always confirm the null hypothesis ? a lot of this goes over my head.  it reminds me of a book i read called social sciences as sorcery by stanislav andreski.  in this book, on page 0, he describes how the famous mathematician named euler, during his stay at the court of catherine ii of russia, got into an argument about the existence of god.  apparently, in order to defeat the  volitarians  in a battle of wit he wrote on the blackboard,   x y  0 x 0   0xy   y 0 therefore god exists.   since they did not understand the formula they were not able to dispute it.  not wanting to look stupid they just conceded his point.  i do not want to be those people.  i will try to read that book and educate myself but i wo not be able to change my view until i understand the subject.  if you have something that a laymen can understand you could potentially change my view sooner.  so you can get an idea of what would be appropriate to use to cmv i will try to give you an idea of my knowledge level.  i have only taken bio. , physics, and chem.  my science knowledge is pretty much laymen level.  for maths i am a little better but i have only taken statistics and regular math classes up to and including calc bc.   #  if you use the experimental method and attempt to reproduce your results, you are doing science.   #  rigor is not part of the definition of science.  if you use the experimental method and attempt to reproduce your results, you are doing science.  it might be better to be rigorous like feynman rather than non rigorous like galileo.  but then again, galileo is a vital figure in the development of science.  these are actually defined for clinical reasons and not research reasons.  as far as science goes, there is no inherent reason to define them one way or another; changing definitions is mildly inconvenient to researchers but is not wrong.  changing definitions based on what we can and want to treat is extremely useful.  when we were attempting to treat homosexuality, it made perfect sense to define it as a disorder.  now that we find it unhelpful to try to do this, it makes no sense to define it as a disorder.  if we have different drugs to treat different types of depression bipolar, major depression, etc then it is important to distinguish between these types of depression.  if all forms of schizophrenia receive the same treatment and patients with one type frequently convert to another type with no need for change in treatment plans then there is no real point to defining subtypes of schizophrenia.  we are better off eliminating the categories and calling it all one disease until such time as treatment actually differs.  i can see how this is frustrating to a pure researcher, but the dsm is not primarily designed for research purposes.  it is primarily designed for clinical purposes, and works well for that.   #  for example, planet was redefined to exclude pluto and any other object that would otherwise be a planet but has not cleared all other objects out of its orbital path.   #  on the second point, that article suggests that the phenomena exist, but mental disorders do not, and compares it to using a god to explain birds and bees.  this is an inappropriate analogy, because a god is used to explain phenomena.  mental disorders are not used to explain phenomena, there are used to categorize them.  we say ocd, tourette syndrome, and others are mental disorders, not are caused by mental disorders.  a mental disorder is not a cause, it is a category.  and to claim a category does not exist is nonsensical.  categories are redefined all the time to become more useful.  for example, planet was redefined to exclude pluto and any other object that would otherwise be a planet but has not cleared all other objects out of its orbital path.  if we did not do that, we would have tens of thousands of planets, it makes more sense for them to be in separate categories.  redefining categories happens all the time, it is not unique to mental disorders.
under sander is plan, the federal and state governments would cover the cost of tuition at public universities.  i worry that the economic educational landscape of the country ca not support this concept.  sanders makes reference to northern european countries when discussing his plan, noting how college education there is free or close .  while this is true, it fails to mention that admissions in those schools is extremely competitive.  meaning only the best students attend college and only the best of the best attend graduate school.  the result is those with a college education are somewhat rare.  this is fine because their high school and vocational system make it possible to be economically successful without college.  here in the us a bs degree is rapidly becoming what a high school diploma was to previous generations, the basic level of education.  anyone with a halfway decent high school gpa can go to college in the us.  if money or a willingness to take on debt is no longer a way to  gate keep , lower tier public universities will be forced to drastically raise standards or close their doors such as where i went, east carolina university .  this will make getting a bs degree must more difficult especially for those coming from a failing public school district .  the result will be less with a college education and therefore less qualified workers for high tech jobs.  unless we make a high school diploma valuable by itself again, free college is doomed to fail.  sidenote: if i am wrong than the issue of spiraling costs needs to be addressed in such a way that public universities do not become the same as public schools generally regarded as bad .   #  while this is true, it fails to mention that admissions in those schools is extremely competitive.   #  meaning only the best students attend college and only the best of the best attend graduate school.   # meaning only the best students attend college and only the best of the best attend graduate school.  it is not.  there are some studies for which there is a fixed number of students but certainly not all of them have such system.  and with such system students are selected by grades instead of the amount of money they are willing to spend.  and even then a certain percentage is randomly selected.  so getting an admission to higher education is not really that hard.   #  drop out rates can be quite high in germany especially in studies considered difficult, like engineering, mathematics and natural sciences.   #  ca not speak for northern european countries, but admission does not guarantee a degree.  drop out rates can be quite high in germany especially in studies considered difficult, like engineering, mathematics and natural sciences.  you also would not go to university if you are anyway going to get on a more praxis oriented career by vocational school/apprenticeship, e. g.  general office management, industrial management assistant, retail, nurse, mechanic, electrician, bank clerk, it specialist, paramedic, lawyer assistant and many more.  getting a bachelor degree can be considered wasted time in some cases.  until about 0 years back there was also no real equivalent to a bachelor degree, instead university students were expected to finish with the  diplom , which is equivalent to a master degree.   #  not really, they are replacing the first two years of college.   # not really, they are replacing the first two years of college.  an associates degree covers the generals you would get as a freshman or sophomore 0 and 0 level classes .  depending on what you want to do, this would include more advanced calculus, reading and composition, social sciences, physical science, etc.  we can get into the merits of a  general skills development  oriented college education vs.   job training  oriented college education, but it is disingenuous to say these are repeating topics from high school.   #  i would also argue that college degrees are only worthless if they do not teach any applicable job skills.   #  if public universities become free, their programs will become instantly much more desirable.  they will be able to be more selective because they will be choosing from a larger applicant pool, and they will no longer have to consider a student is ability to pay during the admissions process.  there is no school that will have to close its doors because it is funding source changes.  i see this as a good thing.  it is a more efficient distribution of resources to spend your money educating your most promising students.  if you are a bad student, why should the government be subsidizing you ? your argument seems to be that students stay in school because they are so deep in debt that they ca not afford to not finish a degree.  if this were true, i would expect less expensive schools to have a higher dropout rate.  this is actually not true data URL in fact, the best predictor of retention rate is the selectivity of the admission process.  a more selective admission process leads to higher graduation rates.  i would also argue that college degrees are only worthless if they do not teach any applicable job skills.  this also does not appear to be the case.  the median earnings for a person with a liberal arts ba is $0 per year source URL even a ba in the arts yields an median earnings of $0,0.  the median personal income for someone with a hs diploma is about $0,0 for comparison, so even a  worthless  degree is worth about $0k per year in increased earnings.  ironically, the strongest current argument against these degrees is the cost of attaining them, not that you are not valuable in the workforce.   #  if anything, people would be clamoring to build more schools.   # raising admissions standards is one possible response, but certainly not the only one.  colleges could continue to use an affirmative action system or some kind of lottery like system to allocate the available slots, or they could simply build more schools using some of that  free  taxpayer money.  not sure why you think schools would be forced to close their doors.  the availability of free education would  increase  the number of people wanting to enroll.  if anything, people would be clamoring to build more schools.  it could respond simply by lowering its standards a bit but still higher than current standards until it strikes the right balance.  the bigger problem with raising the standards of a lower tier school is that disadvantaged students i. e.  with a lousy high school education will be even less able to compete, exacerbating the existing inequality problems, thus making it politically untenable.  an approach that continues to emphasize diversity, while not raising standards, would be more likely.
under sander is plan, the federal and state governments would cover the cost of tuition at public universities.  i worry that the economic educational landscape of the country ca not support this concept.  sanders makes reference to northern european countries when discussing his plan, noting how college education there is free or close .  while this is true, it fails to mention that admissions in those schools is extremely competitive.  meaning only the best students attend college and only the best of the best attend graduate school.  the result is those with a college education are somewhat rare.  this is fine because their high school and vocational system make it possible to be economically successful without college.  here in the us a bs degree is rapidly becoming what a high school diploma was to previous generations, the basic level of education.  anyone with a halfway decent high school gpa can go to college in the us.  if money or a willingness to take on debt is no longer a way to  gate keep , lower tier public universities will be forced to drastically raise standards or close their doors such as where i went, east carolina university .  this will make getting a bs degree must more difficult especially for those coming from a failing public school district .  the result will be less with a college education and therefore less qualified workers for high tech jobs.  unless we make a high school diploma valuable by itself again, free college is doomed to fail.  sidenote: if i am wrong than the issue of spiraling costs needs to be addressed in such a way that public universities do not become the same as public schools generally regarded as bad .   #  anyone with a halfway decent high school gpa can go to college in the us.   #  if money or a willingness to take on debt is no longer a way to  gate keep , lower tier public universities will be forced to drastically raise standards or close their doors such as where i went, east carolina university .   # if money or a willingness to take on debt is no longer a way to  gate keep , lower tier public universities will be forced to drastically raise standards or close their doors such as where i went, east carolina university .  this will make getting a bs degree must more difficult especially for those coming from a failing public school district .  the result will be less with a college education and therefore less qualified workers for high tech jobs.  only if the number of bachelor is granting institutions remains the same.  but since a program like sanders  will stimulate demand for bachelors  degrees, we have no reason to believe that will happen.  and indeed that is happening now with the current education bubble; new institutions or branches of old ones are popping up all the time.  i agree that it would be better to increase the value of a high school diploma, but i do not think your stated view about sanders  program lowering the number of degreed people is true.   #  getting a bachelor degree can be considered wasted time in some cases.   #  ca not speak for northern european countries, but admission does not guarantee a degree.  drop out rates can be quite high in germany especially in studies considered difficult, like engineering, mathematics and natural sciences.  you also would not go to university if you are anyway going to get on a more praxis oriented career by vocational school/apprenticeship, e. g.  general office management, industrial management assistant, retail, nurse, mechanic, electrician, bank clerk, it specialist, paramedic, lawyer assistant and many more.  getting a bachelor degree can be considered wasted time in some cases.  until about 0 years back there was also no real equivalent to a bachelor degree, instead university students were expected to finish with the  diplom , which is equivalent to a master degree.   #  we can get into the merits of a  general skills development  oriented college education vs.   # not really, they are replacing the first two years of college.  an associates degree covers the generals you would get as a freshman or sophomore 0 and 0 level classes .  depending on what you want to do, this would include more advanced calculus, reading and composition, social sciences, physical science, etc.  we can get into the merits of a  general skills development  oriented college education vs.   job training  oriented college education, but it is disingenuous to say these are repeating topics from high school.   #  and even then a certain percentage is randomly selected.   # meaning only the best students attend college and only the best of the best attend graduate school.  it is not.  there are some studies for which there is a fixed number of students but certainly not all of them have such system.  and with such system students are selected by grades instead of the amount of money they are willing to spend.  and even then a certain percentage is randomly selected.  so getting an admission to higher education is not really that hard.   #  they will be able to be more selective because they will be choosing from a larger applicant pool, and they will no longer have to consider a student is ability to pay during the admissions process.   #  if public universities become free, their programs will become instantly much more desirable.  they will be able to be more selective because they will be choosing from a larger applicant pool, and they will no longer have to consider a student is ability to pay during the admissions process.  there is no school that will have to close its doors because it is funding source changes.  i see this as a good thing.  it is a more efficient distribution of resources to spend your money educating your most promising students.  if you are a bad student, why should the government be subsidizing you ? your argument seems to be that students stay in school because they are so deep in debt that they ca not afford to not finish a degree.  if this were true, i would expect less expensive schools to have a higher dropout rate.  this is actually not true data URL in fact, the best predictor of retention rate is the selectivity of the admission process.  a more selective admission process leads to higher graduation rates.  i would also argue that college degrees are only worthless if they do not teach any applicable job skills.  this also does not appear to be the case.  the median earnings for a person with a liberal arts ba is $0 per year source URL even a ba in the arts yields an median earnings of $0,0.  the median personal income for someone with a hs diploma is about $0,0 for comparison, so even a  worthless  degree is worth about $0k per year in increased earnings.  ironically, the strongest current argument against these degrees is the cost of attaining them, not that you are not valuable in the workforce.
i love to eat asiatic food but i could never really use the chopsticks thinking  wow, that is much better than usual cutlery.     using chopsticks is at best a cultural exercise of contortion.    forks and knifes are superior in every way i can imagine   in every situation.  including :   rice that is sticky and particularly rice that is not sticky.    versatility while eating different kinds of food   eating with manners   not having to fear the dreaded fall of food i hope some of you will be able to help me find arguments to coerce me into using those chopsticks :  update  some facts i have accepted regarding the chopsticks:  nbsp;   exercise fine motor skills   give time to taste the food and appreciate it   can be used while doing other things   are easier to clean, produce and carry  nbsp;   are superior if you want to:   preserve the integrity of the food you eat if you do not want to break a grapevine until it is in your mouth   eat crusty things popcorns, cheetos, peanuts.  without dirtying your hands   eat leafs or salad  nbsp;   you can have makeshift chopsticks easily while makeshift knifes and forks are still not a thing in 0.    historically better at not stabbing your enemy during dinner ?   let this be noted, the spoon and the spork were proposed and i am all in their favors ! as for the sporfe, knifoon and spooned knork i am more dubious.   nbsp;  all of this may be quite situational but in those situations i accept chopsticks as superior .   nbsp;  nbsp;  #  rice that is sticky and particularly rice that is not sticky.   #  how is knife   fork better for eating sticky rice ?  # how is knife   fork better for eating sticky rice ? at best they are equal.  also how are you eating nonsticky rice with a fork ? with chopsticks you pick up the bowl and shovel rice from the bowl directly into your mouth.  hard to do that with a fork.  if you are using a cereal bowl or something with a lip that widens up then it wo not work as well but.  you gotta use the right kind of bowl   versatility while eating different kinds of food   eating with manners what kind of manners are you talking about ? western manners ? sounds like your chopstick fu is lacking, vs an inherent badness of chopsticks.   #  even for the chinese, i have no doubt that many of us do not use it correctly.   #  no, the traditional way for indians and se asian malays is to eat with their hand s .  try eating rice with your hands sometimes, it is a pretty good way to eat.  i know that malays do not eat with both hands, one hand is considered dirty because it is used for wiping in the toilet.  i forgot which hand they use.  using the chopstick is not just about knocking two pieces of wood together, there are proper techniques to hold the chopstick and move them.  even for the chinese, i have no doubt that many of us do not use it correctly.  we are just good at using them because we are taught to use them when young and because of practice.  much like how you can eat with your feet given enough practice.  you can probably check youtube on how to properly hold your chopsticks.  once you learned that, moving them properly will come in time.   #  also, i am a fan of hacking my human self and i tell you, using chopsticks in your off hand is eye opening !  #  i see awarded deltas and plenty of comments about functional use of chopsticks, but i read your cmv literally:  chopsticks are in no way superior to fork   knife.   other than anecdotal evidence by chopsticks users that their very use provides health benefits there are many documented experiments and findings about how merely using chopsticks affects/increases neurological development and hand/eye coordination skills: research paper regarding chopstick dexterity tests and brain scan results: URL brain development blog with references to other health benefits of using chopsticks: URL article about how using chopsticks helps with obesity: URL URL helping with memory: URL now, i am not chopstick fanboy.  in fact, i feel the spork is way underrated.  but basically the knife and spoon just shovel stuff into your mouth.  using chopsticks is much more thoughtful and in many ways enjoyable.  also, i am a fan of hacking my human self and i tell you, using chopsticks in your off hand is eye opening !  #  it helps understanding how the dominant side can improve.   #  every other day for lunch for the past five years.  yeah, it is tiring.  it is more frustrating than anything.  but it gets better eventually.  doing techniques with the weak or  fun  side is a thing in martial arts.  it helps understanding how the dominant side can improve.  i do not like doing anything just because it is  easy .  i feel that comfort is a very dangerous thing.  also, i find it very rewarding to challenge assumptions.  especially my own.   #  if you are pinching, you are gripping far too tight.   #  i converted from silverware to chopsticks about half a year or more ago, now, and i can say it is the best decision i have made.  i echo everyone is sentiment on versatility.  once you master the dexterity aspect of it, you would be surprised by how easy it is to eat all manner of food with them.  i would like to elaborate on what /u/blunt toward enemy said about gripping your food.  the next time you are wielding chopsticks to pick up any sort of food, try to grasp at the morsel with the same force as if you were having to touch something absolutely repulsive like a slug with your bare fingers.  it barely takes any grip at all.  if you are pinching, you are gripping far too tight.  try to keep the bottom chopstick stationary by pressing with the bone of your thumb between the first and second knuckle, against the chopstick so that it is held rigid against the webbing of your thumb.  then use the tip of your thumb in conjunction with your forefinger to move around the top stick.
whenever i get really excited for a band is new album, i always listen to the singles to death and by the time the album comes out, i am sick of those songs i ca not experience the album as one complete piece of work.  and i know this is true of lots of people, not just myself.  as much as i would like to simply not listen to singles, it is just too tempting when i have been craving new music from a band for two years.  i think artists should instead release a couple of teasers, that way people can get a taste for the sound of the new material, but without being completely exposed to a full song and potentially ruining the experience.  i also hate the current trend of streaming new albums a week before release dates.  it really kills the anticipation, and it sucks when i pre order music and everyone who did not gets to listen to it early.  if you crack and just listen to the stream, then you wo not be as excited to listen to your copy for the first time when you finally get it.  obviously i do not expect record labels to try to enforce either of these ideas  ever  but i wish it would become the new trend.  for the sake of experiencing music properly.   #  i also hate the current trend of streaming new albums a week before release dates.   #  it really kills the anticipation, and it sucks when i pre order music and everyone who did not gets to listen to it early.   # that is your choice.  you are in complete control of how you listen to music.  i personally have a once in a day rule for all songs so i do not get sick of them.  it really kills the anticipation, and it sucks when i pre order music and everyone who did not gets to listen to it early.  if you crack and just listen to the stream, then you wo not be as excited to listen to your copy for the first time when you finally get it.  if you listen to mainstream commercial bands that play marketing games with their music than this is gonna happen the music is a product and you are a consumer to be manipulated.  if you listen classic bands or underground/independant bands then this wo not happen.   #  oh by the way, you people who actually paid for the album, you still gotta wait till next week to get your copy  this kills the anticipation of announcing a release date in the first place.   #  what i mean is, for example, cool dude band announces new album coming out on june 0rd.  everyone eagerly awaits this day, and i order the album expecting to receive on or around this day.  but lately, most bands will be like  surprise ! it is only june 0th but here is the album anyway ! oh by the way, you people who actually paid for the album, you still gotta wait till next week to get your copy  this kills the anticipation of announcing a release date in the first place.   #  most people listen to music on the radio.   #  if it is not pandora, then it is airplay on the radio.  most people listen to music on the radio.  radios do not give teasers, they give out full songs.  by giving singles to their upcoming albums, bands get more attention from their listeners.  like i said, a lot of people listen to the radio.  a handful of those people are bound to actually care and buy the album, and those who do not still have this band is catchy single locked in their minds forever.  either way, the band/artist gets exposure.   #  well none of the bands i listen to are ever on the radio.   #  well none of the bands i listen to are ever on the radio.  so i guess i stress this more from independent/underground bands.  and yes, the obvious obstacle is money.  but with much smaller artists, money often is not the main motivation.  it is about expressing yourself artistically, among other less superficial motivations.  in which case, i think my idea would work better.   #  0 and the top country albums at no.   #  would an example of an independent artist who went from obscurity to genre trailblazer in less than a year change your mind ? see the story of sturgill simpson a country artist who released a single  turtles all the way down   to the alt country blogosphere in 0.  this single rode it is youtube success to appearing in the fx show  the bridge.  he also performed the single and others on letterman, conan, and fallon to promote an upcoming album  metamodern sounds in country music.  the album, which also received universal acclaim on metacritic, debuted on the billboard 0 at no.  0 and the top country albums at no.  0, with 0,0 copies sold in the us for the week.  he went from playing empty rooms to opening for the zac brown band almost overnight, won emerging artist of the year from the americana music association, and was nominated for a grammy.
i see a lot of hate towards religious organizations for holding back science.  galileo galilei is a famous example of this but we still see it today as anti evolutionary views are powerful in usa and many muslim countries.  this can change curriculums, genetic science and transfer money to religion from science.  but my view is i think the so called  social justice warriors , as i have seen this group of people being called, is even worse for science today in western countries than religion.  usa and a few other countries might be outliers ? .  in denmark i have never experienced any religion stopping me in anything since i was 0.  before that i was forced into russian church.  today i do not care what they think and pastors do have power but not that much as they are state employees.  so they have to follow democratic rules and have no saying in laws about same sex marriage and such.  but i have seen social justice fanatics control media and societal views.  the movie industry, art and energy.  these sjf ? consist of anti gmo, anti nuclear power, anti sex difference views, and affirmative action which creates sex discriminatory laws.  environmental groups, gender feminists not equity feminists, only gender feminists ! , and a part of the political left can have these agendas.  they have disrupted race science, intelligence science, sex science, evolutionary psychology, nuclear power development, and solutions that could make food much more plentiful.  as i see it religious groups are nowhere near as powerful as these social justice groups and nowhere near as destructive in western countries.  it might only be true for scandinavia.  but i am not convinced that these groups do not have power in other countries.  and i do agree that these groups can have partial members or supporters and not always paying members.  as with religious groups we can as well describe it as memes spreading.  i do agree that both religious groups and extreme social justice groups do a lot of good and are made to create a better world, as communism and fascism was, but i am focusing on the harm here.  0 of my favorite books on this subject is blank slate steven pinker and god species mark lynas.  they will be my main sources for all this.  but i will mention more sources in the comments.  i have no other word for this group of people than sjw.  please tell me if i can use it here ? it will help me make my point greatly ! or suggest another word for this group of people.  if i have offended you or your group i am sorry and i will change my word use if i offend you.  ironic ? weird that creating this cmv and using the word sjw scares me, but criticizing religion does not ? no downvote brigades, no personal attacks.  keep your mind on the topic and not on being right.  read the 0 books for my view.  i want my mind changed not change yours that is why am putting my view on the line.  URL  #  but i have seen social justice fanatics control media and societal views.   #  lol, fox news right wing news is the most popular news channel in the united states and right wing parties and news sources are popular across europe.   # race science is the philosophy of hitler.  is it your view that it should not be discredited ? lol, fox news right wing news is the most popular news channel in the united states and right wing parties and news sources are popular across europe.  left wing people are free to say whatever they want, as are right wing people.  do you have any specific examples of them  controlling media ?    #  you have just taken a ton of different groups, with different goals and ideals and priorities, that are not really unified in any meaningful way, and lumped them into one category.   # the movie industry, art and energy.  these sjf ? consist of anti gmo, anti nuclear power, anti sex difference views, and affirmative action which creates sex discriminatory laws.  environmental groups, gender feminists not equity feminists, only gender feminists ! , and a part of the political left can have these agendas.  they have disrupted race science, intelligence science, sex science, evolutionary psychology, nuclear power development, and solutions that could make food much more plentiful.  you are painting with an incredibly broad brush here.  this is exactly why i was talking about how the term sjw is useless.  you have just taken a ton of different groups, with different goals and ideals and priorities, that are not really unified in any meaningful way, and lumped them into one category.  you ostensibly disagree with each of these groups, but you put them under one umbrella term that has just come to mean  people who disagree with me .  weird that creating this cmv and using the word sjw scares me, but criticizing religion does not ? i do not believe fear of using the term sjw comes from a rational place.  what are you afraid of ?  #  my complaint is not about being offensive, this is about lumping together groups that have little to do with each other and treating them as one cohesive thing.   # my complaint is not about being offensive, this is about lumping together groups that have little to do with each other and treating them as one cohesive thing.  why put them all together in the first place ? they are very different groups.  for example, i am pretty left of center.  i think anti discrimination laws are a good thing.  i think there is a need for environmental regulation.  i also think that nuclear is good, and anti gmo groups are misguided.  trying to simplify all different political interests into a single left right spectrum is pointless.  you lose the nuance and end up with a caricature of the people you disagree with.  they are not a monolithic entity, do not treat them as one.   #  and they ignore the fact that all things are fair and unfair.   #  and all these groups are social justice groups.  they all use the same people and memes to prosper.  as in big companies are evil buy our things ! the state is evil forbid nuclear power.  scientists are evil and mean forbid certain science.  they use the doctrine of social science to advance their goal.  the unfair principle.  it is unfair towards someone therefore it must change.  and they ignore the fact that all things are fair and unfair.  that you have to calculate things and then take the best choice not attack things or people to force them to change.  yes, some scientifically findings go against your morals.  but not researching is even worse.  the common factor is feeling something is unfair and trying to change things motivated by and based on that feeling.  not by reason or law but by that feeling.  i see it as a group.   #  honestly, i am not even sure how to form a rebuttal.   #  you are not making sense to me.  honestly, i am not even sure how to form a rebuttal.  you sated that they all use the same memes and people, but then you list a number of  different  mindsets that are more or less unique to one or two groups that you listed initially.  furthermore, the mindsets you listed are not even accurate portrayals of the groups you are against.  who believes  the state is evil forbid nuclear power  and how is that connected to the movie industry ? who is saying  scientists are evil and mean forbid certain science  and how is that connected to the arts ? you have got a lot of disparate ideas that you have labeled as social justice, but they do not seem intrinsically linked.
i went to high school in the 0 is.  in a small town in the northwest, u. s. , that was very white, ok, all white , where basically everyone was christian.  i would like to think that the school curriculum was chosen with good intentions.  except looking back on it now, i really do not believe that.  i would like to believe that, except i do not.  so for english in tenth grade, we had novels assigned designed to promote diversity and an awareness of injustice against other races.  to teach us about the problems that black people historically faced in america, we read a book called  black like me .  the book,  black like me  is about a white man who colored his skin to appear black and went down south in the late 0 is.  the book chronicles his fairly awful experiences.  except thinking about it now, there must have been hundreds of thousands of black men in the south during this time period.  if we wanted to know what it was like, why did not we just ask one of them ? did we really need to send a white man down pretending to be black ? was that the only way to get a legitimate opinion ? it does not feel right.  then we have the holocaust, and our assigned reading was  the hiding place  by corrie ten boom.  which is about two christian sisters sent to a prison camp for attempting to save jewish people.  now do not get me wrong, what they did was incredible, but is it really the best way to teach students about the holocaust with a book written about the suffering of christians ? something very crucial seems to be missing here.  it is not like there was some shortage of books written by jewish people.  so i would like to change my view.  i would like to think that everyone had the best of intentions.  in retrospect, it just does not feel right and does not seem right.  who the heck would choose these books and why ? URL  #  did we really need to send a white man down pretending to be black ?  #  was that the only way to get a legitimate opinion ?  # of course there were.  and there were many, many black authors, writers and journalists who  had  written about their experiences, the problem was that many people dismissed them or did not give them the attention they deserved.  legal segregation had  just been outlawed , and places were still rioting over being forced to desegregate; in that climate, black authors were written off as troublemakers who were exaggerating the negative treatment they experienced.  griffin, on the other hand, was a white author who was not just writing about the treatment of black men and women in 0, he would endeavored to learn more about what they were experiencing by passing for a black man.  audiences who were likely to write off black authors as  overexaggerating  or white authors writing about civil rights as  bleeding hearts  were more likely to believe what griffin said he would experienced for himself.  further, throughout the book griffin confronts his own preconceptions and racism; it does not only document the experience of a black man in the south in the late 0 is, but the experience of a white man in the south in the late 0 is when he realizes just how bad things were.  he had to confront the fact that while he had not changed how he acted, he was being treated much, much differently entirely because he was slightly darker than before.  was that the only way to get a legitimate opinion ? was it the only way to get a legitimate opinion ? of course not.  but it was one that actually wound up resonating with the larger culture.  it put aside the idea that minority writers who had been writing about this stuff for a long, long time were  overly paranoid , in part because it allowed many white readers to more closely identify with the author and because of griffin is ability to directly compare how he was treated before to how he was treated during his experiement.  is that sort of racist ? sure ! but we are talking about the us in a time where the civil rights act would not be passed for another three years past the publication of  black like me ; things were a little racist then.  things are a little racist now, too, but the tension was very much on the surface at the book is publication.  it seems like you are trying to think of how this would go if it were written now, and of course the idea of  sending a white man in  to get  the first reliable account  is ridiculous.  but it has to be seen as a product of its era, and it itself acknowledges that there are many other reliable accounts that simply were not being listened to.  the reason you would teach it in a high school is to get across the point that it can often be hard to trust something you hear from someone who is not like you, and that it is hard to confront your own personal conceptions of the world; that it is hard to get outside of your own head and imagine what it is really like to be someone else.   #  most people, however, did not care or said the writer was exaggerating for effect.   # if we wanted to know what it was like, why did not we just ask one of them ? did we really need to send a white man down pretending to be black ? was that the only way to get a legitimate opinion ? it does not feel right.  black like me is an important work because it actually got people to pay attention.  there have been writings about the horrors of racism for centuries.  most people, however, did not care or said the writer was exaggerating for effect.  it was not until  one of them  reported on their experiences for people to actually take notice.  would i have chosen that book ? i am not sure.  i did not read the slave narratives until college and they were depressing as hell.   #  i am inclined to agree with you and i certainly would not have picked these texts, but i think they could have pedagogical value under the right circumstances.   #  i am inclined to agree with you and i certainly would not have picked these texts, but i think they could have pedagogical value under the right circumstances.  for example, the teacher could be very self aware about them, and encourage the students to think about the ways in which they are and are not representative of the minority experience.  the students could discuss why the district mandated that they study these texts and not others.  books like black like me could inspire great discussions about the extent to which white people or whatever majority group can truly understand the experiences of oppressed races.  i think that is a discussion that many americans ought to have, especially in a time where racism largely takes place through microaggressions and subtler forms of oppression, rather than overt legal restrictions and violence.  i think it is probably impossible to cyv about your own education because a you were there and we were not; and b it was the  0s, and despite good intentions, americans were still figuring out how to talk about diversity in a sensitive way.  however, i do think that in theory, it would be possible for a teacher to do great things within this curriculum.   #  black like me opened up lots of eyes to the plight of people wanting civil rights.   #  black like me was an amazing peice in its time.  do not look at that book through a 0 lens.  the book was written in 0 when race relations in the us were very strained.  griffen is voice and persepctive as a black man allowed the story to be to to a larger auidance than if he was black.  he gave the story an oppurtunity to be known.  he risked his life to share the story of how millions of people lived every day.  their story should have been known already, but due to racial preduidice it was not or it was and just not listened to.  black like me opened up lots of eyes to the plight of people wanting civil rights.   #  if we wanted to know what it was like, why did not we just ask one of them ?  # the book,  black like me  is about a white man who colored his skin to appear black and went down south in the late 0 is.  the book chronicles his fairly awful experiences.  if we wanted to know what it was like, why did not we just ask one of them ? did we really need to send a white man down pretending to be black ? was that the only way to get a legitimate opinion ? it does not feel right.  the core problem here is that society routinely discounts the arguments and viewpoints presented by members of an unprivileged group, but will often listen to the same arguments when a member of a privileged group makes them on their behalf.  now this leads to a very hard question: what are the ethics of exploiting this symptom as a weapon against its causes ? boy, we could spend days analyzing this one.  an easier question, perhaps, would be this: instead of focusing on the ethics of  black like me  when it was written, we could focus on your school is choice of reading material in the 0s and today.  i think today it would be a poor choice for the curriculum, for precisely the reasons you describe.
this came up in the aftermath of hurricane sandy for me, since i live in an area of ny long island that was fairly heavily effected.  after the storm, generators and gasoline were in very high demand and very short supply.  due to ny is price gouging law URL gas prices rose only very modestly after the storm, and many gas stations had incredibly long lines.  generators were basically unavailable at any price.  if price gouging had been allowed, the high prices would have had two effects, both beneficial:   the price would have attracted needed items from outside the effected area to come in via unusual means.  normally, gasoline was delivered by pipeline.  but due to the flooding, the main pipeline terminals were knocked offline.  if gas had been, say, $0 a gallon in ny, every gasoline tank truck in the northeastern us would have started heading there full of gas.  on a 0 gallon truck, you could make $0 per trip by hauling in gas from binghamton or boston.  and i think most tank trucks are even bigger than that.  likewise, every generator along the eastern seaboard would have been heading for the area.  because the price was not allowed to rise though, there was not the monetary incentive needed to get people to do crazy things to overcome the logistical challenges.    the higher prices would have caused people to conserve.  people panicked when they thought supply of gas might be unavailable.  they would flock to any open station and have huge lines, even if they had enough gas in the car to last a few days.  when the price rises substantially, it will make people conserve more, and leave what is left for people who really need it and are thus willing to pay the temporarily higher prices.   #  the price would have attracted needed items from outside the effected area to come in via unusual means.   #  i have no idea if it would really be a problem but road congestion could become a problem extremely fast.   # i have no idea if it would really be a problem but road congestion could become a problem extremely fast.  which mean it can create more harm than good if the added goods in the general area make it impossible to actually deliver this goods and other necessary services efficiently to the persons needing them.  if you have a large scale disaster the people locals need to be able to move and the government need to be able to bring a lot of people and material.  at the same time the infrastructure is nearly always damaged in some way which make it much harder to move things around.  having a lot of people coming over with their pick up truck trying to make money might create a lot more problem that it would solve by making it impossible to move around and creating numerous new problem.  we had an example of what i am trying to say with nepal.  this guardian article URL talk about people trying to help, failing at doing so because of their own incapability or because once there doing anything is hard .  i ca not find a source in english but nepal asked for a while for everyone to stop sending help because the airport could not deal with that many people and once on the ground it was not possible to make use of that much anyway.   #  what would the reaction be if someone died because they could not get fresh water because cases of water were going for $0  a pop ?  #  let me paint a picture for you: in 0, florida was hit by a few hurricanes, wilma being the worst for the area i lived in.  my house did not have power for a week, and we were under a  boil water  warning for a few days after.  our area did not even bear the worst of the storm.  in many places, water mains break during hurricanes and you lose the ability to use running water.  what do you think would happen if the grocery stores jacked up the price on bottled water when the local populace did not have access to it ? what would the reaction be if someone died because they could not get fresh water because cases of water were going for $0  a pop ? there would be riots, and maybe even deaths due to this practice.  i have always seen these laws as both protecting the consumer as well as the business.   #  with price gouging restricted, the total community supply has the ability to dwindle to anarchic proportions.   #  first off, that is awesome.  it sounds like you live in a pretty cool place.  but i think the difference being there was no real, immediate, life threatening emergency with regards to food and water where you guys were.  there was enough collectively that it only took people being nice to distribute it in a humane fashion.  no one was dying of dehydration it sounds like.  if i am interpreting op is position correctly, the argument is that price gouging will always result in an increase in supply, allowing a situation like you described to occur.  with price gouging restricted, the total community supply has the ability to dwindle to anarchic proportions.   #  everyone appreciated those stores and they saw an increase in traffic after the hurricane.   #  one thing that everyone is missing is that people do not forget when local companies raise prices.  i also grew up in florida and experienced weeks without power and water after a hurricane.  one local store decided to raise prices to the max that the market would bear.  afterwards everyone stopped going to that store and they went out of business within a year.  other stores charged higher prices, but based it on what they were paying.  everyone appreciated those stores and they saw an increase in traffic after the hurricane.   #  was bottled water available in the stores by you after the hurricane, at any price ?  # what do you think would happen if the grocery stores jacked up the price on bottled water when the local populace did not have access to it ? what would the reaction be if someone died because they could not get fresh water because cases of water were going for $0  a pop ? if water was going for $0 a case, i imagine every walmart and costco in the southeastern us would be empty of water, with u hauls in the parking lot getting ready to drive it down to florida.  also, you would still have charitable organizations and government disaster relief supplying necessities to people.  i am not calling for abolishing the red cross or national guard.  was bottled water available in the stores by you after the hurricane, at any price ?
i am having trouble conceptualizing how another bush has even made it this far toward political office, let alone the presidency.  how is the bush family not blacklisted from politics after w.  continually proved to be a national embarassment in the years after 0/0 ? and no, george  no new taxes  sr.  was nothing to be proud of either, as a one term loser whose incumbent advantage following the reagan years could not save him.  jeb has nothing to brag about, because he is obviously not going to win the latino vote.  in effect you are voting for years 0 0 of bush family debauchery in the white house.  this seems like a wake up call, more than anything, that big money and special interests has way too much influence over presidential nominations.  warren, sanders, paul, larouche seriously anybody but bush vs.  clinton should represent the american voter right now.  in any case, hillary clinton is guaranteed to win the most cynical election ever, if it comes to that.   #  jeb has nothing to brag about, because he is obviously not going to win the latino vote.   #  jeb speaks fluent spanish and his wife is mexican.   #  only half of americans actually vote, and even fewer vote in the primaries.  if people are cynical and do not vote, then only the ideological base on either side turns out.  to win in 0, jeb bush does not have to win over the majority of americans, he just has to mobilize his core supporters more effectively than clinton in the handful of swing states that actually matter.  jeb speaks fluent spanish and his wife is mexican.  and he was governor of a major swing state with a large latino population.  i would bet he at least gets more of the latino vote than romney did.   #  they are not so much voting for bush as against clinton, and vice versa.   #  i am a disillusioned independent.  they are not so much voting for bush as against clinton, and vice versa.  most republicans i know acknowledge at least that w is iraq war was a complete failure if it lead to isis filling saddam is void.  though some blowhards will try to pin it on obama not stationing troops there for another 0 decades at taxpayers  expense but most of the bush era neocons have been replaced with tea party now so it is a moot point to them anyways.  most dems i know would love to see warren instead of hillary if we could get a woman on the ballot.  instead, we are stuck with this crummy oligarchal control by megadonors and uberpacs pouring money into rich nepotist vs.  rich nepotist.  i mean, it could not be any more obvious the american people do not have a say in presidential elections if the 0 race is bush vs.  clinton, ffs.   #  clinton should represent the american voter right now.   #  conditional on jeb being the nominee, what probability do you estimate for the democrats winning the general ? clinton should represent the american voter right now.  i am going to stop you for a second.  one of these is not like the others.  all of those people are serious politicians except for larouche.  ron paul has some wacky ideas, and his son has a small number but is generally sane larouche is just batshit.  see here URL highlights of larouche and his followers include all sourced in the above link : 0.  there is a massive anti american conspiracy run by the the british monarchy.  part of that conspiracy was the creation of modern rock music including the beatles to somehow ruin music in the us.  0.  the ozone hole is a myth.  0.  global warming is a hoax.  now, you may have heard that before.  but in this case, they think it is a hoax by the british royal family.  0.  it is vitally important that orchestras use the verdi pitch rather than the modern pitch.  apparently the correct pitch is related to the structure of the universe.  i could keep going but this should make the general point clear.   #  he knew that his choice would hurt him in the next election cycle yet he did it anyway.   # was nothing to be proud of either, as a one term loser whose incumbent advantage following the reagan years could not save him if i was old enough to vote for him i probably would not have because i have been a progressive for as long as i can remember.  that being said to call him a  one term loser  is not really fair.  in fact i have a ton of respect for him because he actually went against his  no new taxes  campaign promise and raised taxes to prevent what was then a 0 billion budget deficit.  this tax hike said to have helped bring on the decade of economic growth that was seen under clinton.  the truth is he did something presidents and politicians in general rarely do, he put the interest of the country before his own.  it is often credited for being a major reason that he lost his bid for a second term.  he knew that his choice would hurt him in the next election cycle yet he did it anyway.  i know that is what a president is supposed to do but it actually happens far too rarely.  as for everything else you posted about w, i pretty much agree.  it also should be said that jeb is married to a latino woman and has been for paths to citizenship in the past.  not that it will make a huge difference in the latino vote but he is not ted cruz on these matters.  i would never vote for jeb but wanted to clarify some things in your op.   #  i believe he would bridge the gap between understanding the necessity to maintain and promote a market economy and the current inequities faced by the working poor.   #  having worked with jeb bush, oftentimes in contentious disagreement, i will emphatically state that he would nevertheless be an excellent president.  he represents the compassionate conservatism that his brother gave lip servce to, but never followed through on.  he is quite intellectual, rational and reasoned in his decisions.  i believe he would bridge the gap between understanding the necessity to maintain and promote a market economy and the current inequities faced by the working poor.  he is not an ideologue but rather a pragmatist, within the appropriate constraints of sound fiscal policy.  whether he can convince the conservative republican base and the independants who have tired of the bush/clinton regimes, remains to be seen, but in my opinion he is likely to be the best candidate to move the nation forward in a balanced, fair and moderate direction that provides for economic prosperity both in the near and long term.
i am having trouble conceptualizing how another bush has even made it this far toward political office, let alone the presidency.  how is the bush family not blacklisted from politics after w.  continually proved to be a national embarassment in the years after 0/0 ? and no, george  no new taxes  sr.  was nothing to be proud of either, as a one term loser whose incumbent advantage following the reagan years could not save him.  jeb has nothing to brag about, because he is obviously not going to win the latino vote.  in effect you are voting for years 0 0 of bush family debauchery in the white house.  this seems like a wake up call, more than anything, that big money and special interests has way too much influence over presidential nominations.  warren, sanders, paul, larouche seriously anybody but bush vs.  clinton should represent the american voter right now.  in any case, hillary clinton is guaranteed to win the most cynical election ever, if it comes to that.   #  warren, sanders, paul, larouche seriously anybody but bush vs.   #  clinton should represent the american voter right now.   #  conditional on jeb being the nominee, what probability do you estimate for the democrats winning the general ? clinton should represent the american voter right now.  i am going to stop you for a second.  one of these is not like the others.  all of those people are serious politicians except for larouche.  ron paul has some wacky ideas, and his son has a small number but is generally sane larouche is just batshit.  see here URL highlights of larouche and his followers include all sourced in the above link : 0.  there is a massive anti american conspiracy run by the the british monarchy.  part of that conspiracy was the creation of modern rock music including the beatles to somehow ruin music in the us.  0.  the ozone hole is a myth.  0.  global warming is a hoax.  now, you may have heard that before.  but in this case, they think it is a hoax by the british royal family.  0.  it is vitally important that orchestras use the verdi pitch rather than the modern pitch.  apparently the correct pitch is related to the structure of the universe.  i could keep going but this should make the general point clear.   #  they are not so much voting for bush as against clinton, and vice versa.   #  i am a disillusioned independent.  they are not so much voting for bush as against clinton, and vice versa.  most republicans i know acknowledge at least that w is iraq war was a complete failure if it lead to isis filling saddam is void.  though some blowhards will try to pin it on obama not stationing troops there for another 0 decades at taxpayers  expense but most of the bush era neocons have been replaced with tea party now so it is a moot point to them anyways.  most dems i know would love to see warren instead of hillary if we could get a woman on the ballot.  instead, we are stuck with this crummy oligarchal control by megadonors and uberpacs pouring money into rich nepotist vs.  rich nepotist.  i mean, it could not be any more obvious the american people do not have a say in presidential elections if the 0 race is bush vs.  clinton, ffs.   #  if people are cynical and do not vote, then only the ideological base on either side turns out.   #  only half of americans actually vote, and even fewer vote in the primaries.  if people are cynical and do not vote, then only the ideological base on either side turns out.  to win in 0, jeb bush does not have to win over the majority of americans, he just has to mobilize his core supporters more effectively than clinton in the handful of swing states that actually matter.  jeb speaks fluent spanish and his wife is mexican.  and he was governor of a major swing state with a large latino population.  i would bet he at least gets more of the latino vote than romney did.   #  this tax hike said to have helped bring on the decade of economic growth that was seen under clinton.   # was nothing to be proud of either, as a one term loser whose incumbent advantage following the reagan years could not save him if i was old enough to vote for him i probably would not have because i have been a progressive for as long as i can remember.  that being said to call him a  one term loser  is not really fair.  in fact i have a ton of respect for him because he actually went against his  no new taxes  campaign promise and raised taxes to prevent what was then a 0 billion budget deficit.  this tax hike said to have helped bring on the decade of economic growth that was seen under clinton.  the truth is he did something presidents and politicians in general rarely do, he put the interest of the country before his own.  it is often credited for being a major reason that he lost his bid for a second term.  he knew that his choice would hurt him in the next election cycle yet he did it anyway.  i know that is what a president is supposed to do but it actually happens far too rarely.  as for everything else you posted about w, i pretty much agree.  it also should be said that jeb is married to a latino woman and has been for paths to citizenship in the past.  not that it will make a huge difference in the latino vote but he is not ted cruz on these matters.  i would never vote for jeb but wanted to clarify some things in your op.   #  he is quite intellectual, rational and reasoned in his decisions.   #  having worked with jeb bush, oftentimes in contentious disagreement, i will emphatically state that he would nevertheless be an excellent president.  he represents the compassionate conservatism that his brother gave lip servce to, but never followed through on.  he is quite intellectual, rational and reasoned in his decisions.  i believe he would bridge the gap between understanding the necessity to maintain and promote a market economy and the current inequities faced by the working poor.  he is not an ideologue but rather a pragmatist, within the appropriate constraints of sound fiscal policy.  whether he can convince the conservative republican base and the independants who have tired of the bush/clinton regimes, remains to be seen, but in my opinion he is likely to be the best candidate to move the nation forward in a balanced, fair and moderate direction that provides for economic prosperity both in the near and long term.
i am having trouble conceptualizing how another bush has even made it this far toward political office, let alone the presidency.  how is the bush family not blacklisted from politics after w.  continually proved to be a national embarassment in the years after 0/0 ? and no, george  no new taxes  sr.  was nothing to be proud of either, as a one term loser whose incumbent advantage following the reagan years could not save him.  jeb has nothing to brag about, because he is obviously not going to win the latino vote.  in effect you are voting for years 0 0 of bush family debauchery in the white house.  this seems like a wake up call, more than anything, that big money and special interests has way too much influence over presidential nominations.  warren, sanders, paul, larouche seriously anybody but bush vs.  clinton should represent the american voter right now.  in any case, hillary clinton is guaranteed to win the most cynical election ever, if it comes to that.   #  and no, george  no new taxes  sr.   #  was nothing to be proud of either i am just wondering if you personally have any context at all for the no new taxes quote ?  # was nothing to be proud of either i am just wondering if you personally have any context at all for the no new taxes quote ? he was taking a stand that he would not allow the democrats to raise taxes:  and i am the one who will not raise taxes.  my opponent now says he will raise them as a last resort, or a third resort.  but when a politician talks like that, you know that is one resort he will be checking into.  my opponent wo not rule out raising taxes.  but i will.  and the congress will push me to raise taxes and i will say no.  and they will push, and i will say no, and they will push again, and i will say, to them,  aread my lips: no new taxes.  so, that is pretty much exactly what happened.  the democrats pushed, and pushed, and pushed for more taxes.  and, much to his disservice, bush eventually gave in.  i think that is is entirely disingenuous  especially  for democrats ! to imply that bush was the one who was responsible for the tax increases.  he did go back on his promise, but it was only because he was under  constant  pressure from the democrats to do so.   #  they are not so much voting for bush as against clinton, and vice versa.   #  i am a disillusioned independent.  they are not so much voting for bush as against clinton, and vice versa.  most republicans i know acknowledge at least that w is iraq war was a complete failure if it lead to isis filling saddam is void.  though some blowhards will try to pin it on obama not stationing troops there for another 0 decades at taxpayers  expense but most of the bush era neocons have been replaced with tea party now so it is a moot point to them anyways.  most dems i know would love to see warren instead of hillary if we could get a woman on the ballot.  instead, we are stuck with this crummy oligarchal control by megadonors and uberpacs pouring money into rich nepotist vs.  rich nepotist.  i mean, it could not be any more obvious the american people do not have a say in presidential elections if the 0 race is bush vs.  clinton, ffs.   #  jeb speaks fluent spanish and his wife is mexican.   #  only half of americans actually vote, and even fewer vote in the primaries.  if people are cynical and do not vote, then only the ideological base on either side turns out.  to win in 0, jeb bush does not have to win over the majority of americans, he just has to mobilize his core supporters more effectively than clinton in the handful of swing states that actually matter.  jeb speaks fluent spanish and his wife is mexican.  and he was governor of a major swing state with a large latino population.  i would bet he at least gets more of the latino vote than romney did.   #  apparently the correct pitch is related to the structure of the universe.   #  conditional on jeb being the nominee, what probability do you estimate for the democrats winning the general ? clinton should represent the american voter right now.  i am going to stop you for a second.  one of these is not like the others.  all of those people are serious politicians except for larouche.  ron paul has some wacky ideas, and his son has a small number but is generally sane larouche is just batshit.  see here URL highlights of larouche and his followers include all sourced in the above link : 0.  there is a massive anti american conspiracy run by the the british monarchy.  part of that conspiracy was the creation of modern rock music including the beatles to somehow ruin music in the us.  0.  the ozone hole is a myth.  0.  global warming is a hoax.  now, you may have heard that before.  but in this case, they think it is a hoax by the british royal family.  0.  it is vitally important that orchestras use the verdi pitch rather than the modern pitch.  apparently the correct pitch is related to the structure of the universe.  i could keep going but this should make the general point clear.   #  the truth is he did something presidents and politicians in general rarely do, he put the interest of the country before his own.   # was nothing to be proud of either, as a one term loser whose incumbent advantage following the reagan years could not save him if i was old enough to vote for him i probably would not have because i have been a progressive for as long as i can remember.  that being said to call him a  one term loser  is not really fair.  in fact i have a ton of respect for him because he actually went against his  no new taxes  campaign promise and raised taxes to prevent what was then a 0 billion budget deficit.  this tax hike said to have helped bring on the decade of economic growth that was seen under clinton.  the truth is he did something presidents and politicians in general rarely do, he put the interest of the country before his own.  it is often credited for being a major reason that he lost his bid for a second term.  he knew that his choice would hurt him in the next election cycle yet he did it anyway.  i know that is what a president is supposed to do but it actually happens far too rarely.  as for everything else you posted about w, i pretty much agree.  it also should be said that jeb is married to a latino woman and has been for paths to citizenship in the past.  not that it will make a huge difference in the latino vote but he is not ted cruz on these matters.  i would never vote for jeb but wanted to clarify some things in your op.
i am having trouble conceptualizing how another bush has even made it this far toward political office, let alone the presidency.  how is the bush family not blacklisted from politics after w.  continually proved to be a national embarassment in the years after 0/0 ? and no, george  no new taxes  sr.  was nothing to be proud of either, as a one term loser whose incumbent advantage following the reagan years could not save him.  jeb has nothing to brag about, because he is obviously not going to win the latino vote.  in effect you are voting for years 0 0 of bush family debauchery in the white house.  this seems like a wake up call, more than anything, that big money and special interests has way too much influence over presidential nominations.  warren, sanders, paul, larouche seriously anybody but bush vs.  clinton should represent the american voter right now.  in any case, hillary clinton is guaranteed to win the most cynical election ever, if it comes to that.   #  how is the bush family not blacklisted from politics after w.  continually proved to be a national embarassment in the years after 0/0 ?  #  that is an opinion held by you and some others.   # that is an opinion held by you and some others.  it may or may not be a majority as of today, but it certainly is not a substantial majority.  let is remember, george w.  won re election 0 years after 0/0 and after the invasion of iraq.  you realize his wife is latino, right ? in his last gubernatorial election in florida, he carried a full 0 of the latino vote   in effect you are voting for years 0 0 of bush family debauchery in the white house.  jeb bush is neither his brother nor his father.  if you took the time to research his philosophies you wo not , you would realize he has philosophical difference with both of them.  on top of that, jeb bush was an incredibly popular governor in florida.  his term ended in january 0 the same month george w is presidency ended .  jeb had a 0 approval rating when he left office.  a stark contrast to his brother is 0 approval rating.   #  they are not so much voting for bush as against clinton, and vice versa.   #  i am a disillusioned independent.  they are not so much voting for bush as against clinton, and vice versa.  most republicans i know acknowledge at least that w is iraq war was a complete failure if it lead to isis filling saddam is void.  though some blowhards will try to pin it on obama not stationing troops there for another 0 decades at taxpayers  expense but most of the bush era neocons have been replaced with tea party now so it is a moot point to them anyways.  most dems i know would love to see warren instead of hillary if we could get a woman on the ballot.  instead, we are stuck with this crummy oligarchal control by megadonors and uberpacs pouring money into rich nepotist vs.  rich nepotist.  i mean, it could not be any more obvious the american people do not have a say in presidential elections if the 0 race is bush vs.  clinton, ffs.   #  only half of americans actually vote, and even fewer vote in the primaries.   #  only half of americans actually vote, and even fewer vote in the primaries.  if people are cynical and do not vote, then only the ideological base on either side turns out.  to win in 0, jeb bush does not have to win over the majority of americans, he just has to mobilize his core supporters more effectively than clinton in the handful of swing states that actually matter.  jeb speaks fluent spanish and his wife is mexican.  and he was governor of a major swing state with a large latino population.  i would bet he at least gets more of the latino vote than romney did.   #  clinton should represent the american voter right now.   #  conditional on jeb being the nominee, what probability do you estimate for the democrats winning the general ? clinton should represent the american voter right now.  i am going to stop you for a second.  one of these is not like the others.  all of those people are serious politicians except for larouche.  ron paul has some wacky ideas, and his son has a small number but is generally sane larouche is just batshit.  see here URL highlights of larouche and his followers include all sourced in the above link : 0.  there is a massive anti american conspiracy run by the the british monarchy.  part of that conspiracy was the creation of modern rock music including the beatles to somehow ruin music in the us.  0.  the ozone hole is a myth.  0.  global warming is a hoax.  now, you may have heard that before.  but in this case, they think it is a hoax by the british royal family.  0.  it is vitally important that orchestras use the verdi pitch rather than the modern pitch.  apparently the correct pitch is related to the structure of the universe.  i could keep going but this should make the general point clear.   #  the truth is he did something presidents and politicians in general rarely do, he put the interest of the country before his own.   # was nothing to be proud of either, as a one term loser whose incumbent advantage following the reagan years could not save him if i was old enough to vote for him i probably would not have because i have been a progressive for as long as i can remember.  that being said to call him a  one term loser  is not really fair.  in fact i have a ton of respect for him because he actually went against his  no new taxes  campaign promise and raised taxes to prevent what was then a 0 billion budget deficit.  this tax hike said to have helped bring on the decade of economic growth that was seen under clinton.  the truth is he did something presidents and politicians in general rarely do, he put the interest of the country before his own.  it is often credited for being a major reason that he lost his bid for a second term.  he knew that his choice would hurt him in the next election cycle yet he did it anyway.  i know that is what a president is supposed to do but it actually happens far too rarely.  as for everything else you posted about w, i pretty much agree.  it also should be said that jeb is married to a latino woman and has been for paths to citizenship in the past.  not that it will make a huge difference in the latino vote but he is not ted cruz on these matters.  i would never vote for jeb but wanted to clarify some things in your op.
i am having trouble conceptualizing how another bush has even made it this far toward political office, let alone the presidency.  how is the bush family not blacklisted from politics after w.  continually proved to be a national embarassment in the years after 0/0 ? and no, george  no new taxes  sr.  was nothing to be proud of either, as a one term loser whose incumbent advantage following the reagan years could not save him.  jeb has nothing to brag about, because he is obviously not going to win the latino vote.  in effect you are voting for years 0 0 of bush family debauchery in the white house.  this seems like a wake up call, more than anything, that big money and special interests has way too much influence over presidential nominations.  warren, sanders, paul, larouche seriously anybody but bush vs.  clinton should represent the american voter right now.  in any case, hillary clinton is guaranteed to win the most cynical election ever, if it comes to that.   #  jeb has nothing to brag about, because he is obviously not going to win the latino vote.   #  you realize his wife is latino, right ?  # that is an opinion held by you and some others.  it may or may not be a majority as of today, but it certainly is not a substantial majority.  let is remember, george w.  won re election 0 years after 0/0 and after the invasion of iraq.  you realize his wife is latino, right ? in his last gubernatorial election in florida, he carried a full 0 of the latino vote   in effect you are voting for years 0 0 of bush family debauchery in the white house.  jeb bush is neither his brother nor his father.  if you took the time to research his philosophies you wo not , you would realize he has philosophical difference with both of them.  on top of that, jeb bush was an incredibly popular governor in florida.  his term ended in january 0 the same month george w is presidency ended .  jeb had a 0 approval rating when he left office.  a stark contrast to his brother is 0 approval rating.   #  they are not so much voting for bush as against clinton, and vice versa.   #  i am a disillusioned independent.  they are not so much voting for bush as against clinton, and vice versa.  most republicans i know acknowledge at least that w is iraq war was a complete failure if it lead to isis filling saddam is void.  though some blowhards will try to pin it on obama not stationing troops there for another 0 decades at taxpayers  expense but most of the bush era neocons have been replaced with tea party now so it is a moot point to them anyways.  most dems i know would love to see warren instead of hillary if we could get a woman on the ballot.  instead, we are stuck with this crummy oligarchal control by megadonors and uberpacs pouring money into rich nepotist vs.  rich nepotist.  i mean, it could not be any more obvious the american people do not have a say in presidential elections if the 0 race is bush vs.  clinton, ffs.   #  only half of americans actually vote, and even fewer vote in the primaries.   #  only half of americans actually vote, and even fewer vote in the primaries.  if people are cynical and do not vote, then only the ideological base on either side turns out.  to win in 0, jeb bush does not have to win over the majority of americans, he just has to mobilize his core supporters more effectively than clinton in the handful of swing states that actually matter.  jeb speaks fluent spanish and his wife is mexican.  and he was governor of a major swing state with a large latino population.  i would bet he at least gets more of the latino vote than romney did.   #  part of that conspiracy was the creation of modern rock music including the beatles to somehow ruin music in the us.   #  conditional on jeb being the nominee, what probability do you estimate for the democrats winning the general ? clinton should represent the american voter right now.  i am going to stop you for a second.  one of these is not like the others.  all of those people are serious politicians except for larouche.  ron paul has some wacky ideas, and his son has a small number but is generally sane larouche is just batshit.  see here URL highlights of larouche and his followers include all sourced in the above link : 0.  there is a massive anti american conspiracy run by the the british monarchy.  part of that conspiracy was the creation of modern rock music including the beatles to somehow ruin music in the us.  0.  the ozone hole is a myth.  0.  global warming is a hoax.  now, you may have heard that before.  but in this case, they think it is a hoax by the british royal family.  0.  it is vitally important that orchestras use the verdi pitch rather than the modern pitch.  apparently the correct pitch is related to the structure of the universe.  i could keep going but this should make the general point clear.   #  as for everything else you posted about w, i pretty much agree.   # was nothing to be proud of either, as a one term loser whose incumbent advantage following the reagan years could not save him if i was old enough to vote for him i probably would not have because i have been a progressive for as long as i can remember.  that being said to call him a  one term loser  is not really fair.  in fact i have a ton of respect for him because he actually went against his  no new taxes  campaign promise and raised taxes to prevent what was then a 0 billion budget deficit.  this tax hike said to have helped bring on the decade of economic growth that was seen under clinton.  the truth is he did something presidents and politicians in general rarely do, he put the interest of the country before his own.  it is often credited for being a major reason that he lost his bid for a second term.  he knew that his choice would hurt him in the next election cycle yet he did it anyway.  i know that is what a president is supposed to do but it actually happens far too rarely.  as for everything else you posted about w, i pretty much agree.  it also should be said that jeb is married to a latino woman and has been for paths to citizenship in the past.  not that it will make a huge difference in the latino vote but he is not ted cruz on these matters.  i would never vote for jeb but wanted to clarify some things in your op.
i am having trouble conceptualizing how another bush has even made it this far toward political office, let alone the presidency.  how is the bush family not blacklisted from politics after w.  continually proved to be a national embarassment in the years after 0/0 ? and no, george  no new taxes  sr.  was nothing to be proud of either, as a one term loser whose incumbent advantage following the reagan years could not save him.  jeb has nothing to brag about, because he is obviously not going to win the latino vote.  in effect you are voting for years 0 0 of bush family debauchery in the white house.  this seems like a wake up call, more than anything, that big money and special interests has way too much influence over presidential nominations.  warren, sanders, paul, larouche seriously anybody but bush vs.  clinton should represent the american voter right now.  in any case, hillary clinton is guaranteed to win the most cynical election ever, if it comes to that.   #  and no, george  no new taxes  sr.   #  was nothing to be proud of either, as a one term loser whose incumbent advantage following the reagan years could not save him.   # was nothing to be proud of either, as a one term loser whose incumbent advantage following the reagan years could not save him.  h. w.  presided over the peaceful reconciliation of germany and the fall of the soviet union.  he does not get enough credit  for not totally fucking things up .  he was not the best president ever but he handled a lot of tough situations really well.  you realize that george w.  bush was relatively popular among hispanics ? and that jeb bush has a hispanic wife ? and that his views on immigration are relatively moderate ? besides marco rubio, i think jeb bush has the best shot of any of the gop contenders when it comes to capturing the hispanic vote.  i am not saying he will get a majority of the hispanic vote, but a comfortable 0 percent margin is within his grasp.   #  they are not so much voting for bush as against clinton, and vice versa.   #  i am a disillusioned independent.  they are not so much voting for bush as against clinton, and vice versa.  most republicans i know acknowledge at least that w is iraq war was a complete failure if it lead to isis filling saddam is void.  though some blowhards will try to pin it on obama not stationing troops there for another 0 decades at taxpayers  expense but most of the bush era neocons have been replaced with tea party now so it is a moot point to them anyways.  most dems i know would love to see warren instead of hillary if we could get a woman on the ballot.  instead, we are stuck with this crummy oligarchal control by megadonors and uberpacs pouring money into rich nepotist vs.  rich nepotist.  i mean, it could not be any more obvious the american people do not have a say in presidential elections if the 0 race is bush vs.  clinton, ffs.   #  if people are cynical and do not vote, then only the ideological base on either side turns out.   #  only half of americans actually vote, and even fewer vote in the primaries.  if people are cynical and do not vote, then only the ideological base on either side turns out.  to win in 0, jeb bush does not have to win over the majority of americans, he just has to mobilize his core supporters more effectively than clinton in the handful of swing states that actually matter.  jeb speaks fluent spanish and his wife is mexican.  and he was governor of a major swing state with a large latino population.  i would bet he at least gets more of the latino vote than romney did.   #  0.  it is vitally important that orchestras use the verdi pitch rather than the modern pitch.   #  conditional on jeb being the nominee, what probability do you estimate for the democrats winning the general ? clinton should represent the american voter right now.  i am going to stop you for a second.  one of these is not like the others.  all of those people are serious politicians except for larouche.  ron paul has some wacky ideas, and his son has a small number but is generally sane larouche is just batshit.  see here URL highlights of larouche and his followers include all sourced in the above link : 0.  there is a massive anti american conspiracy run by the the british monarchy.  part of that conspiracy was the creation of modern rock music including the beatles to somehow ruin music in the us.  0.  the ozone hole is a myth.  0.  global warming is a hoax.  now, you may have heard that before.  but in this case, they think it is a hoax by the british royal family.  0.  it is vitally important that orchestras use the verdi pitch rather than the modern pitch.  apparently the correct pitch is related to the structure of the universe.  i could keep going but this should make the general point clear.   #  as for everything else you posted about w, i pretty much agree.   # was nothing to be proud of either, as a one term loser whose incumbent advantage following the reagan years could not save him if i was old enough to vote for him i probably would not have because i have been a progressive for as long as i can remember.  that being said to call him a  one term loser  is not really fair.  in fact i have a ton of respect for him because he actually went against his  no new taxes  campaign promise and raised taxes to prevent what was then a 0 billion budget deficit.  this tax hike said to have helped bring on the decade of economic growth that was seen under clinton.  the truth is he did something presidents and politicians in general rarely do, he put the interest of the country before his own.  it is often credited for being a major reason that he lost his bid for a second term.  he knew that his choice would hurt him in the next election cycle yet he did it anyway.  i know that is what a president is supposed to do but it actually happens far too rarely.  as for everything else you posted about w, i pretty much agree.  it also should be said that jeb is married to a latino woman and has been for paths to citizenship in the past.  not that it will make a huge difference in the latino vote but he is not ted cruz on these matters.  i would never vote for jeb but wanted to clarify some things in your op.
i am having trouble conceptualizing how another bush has even made it this far toward political office, let alone the presidency.  how is the bush family not blacklisted from politics after w.  continually proved to be a national embarassment in the years after 0/0 ? and no, george  no new taxes  sr.  was nothing to be proud of either, as a one term loser whose incumbent advantage following the reagan years could not save him.  jeb has nothing to brag about, because he is obviously not going to win the latino vote.  in effect you are voting for years 0 0 of bush family debauchery in the white house.  this seems like a wake up call, more than anything, that big money and special interests has way too much influence over presidential nominations.  warren, sanders, paul, larouche seriously anybody but bush vs.  clinton should represent the american voter right now.  in any case, hillary clinton is guaranteed to win the most cynical election ever, if it comes to that.   #  jeb has nothing to brag about, because he is obviously not going to win the latino vote.   #  you realize that george w.  bush was relatively popular among hispanics ?  # was nothing to be proud of either, as a one term loser whose incumbent advantage following the reagan years could not save him.  h. w.  presided over the peaceful reconciliation of germany and the fall of the soviet union.  he does not get enough credit  for not totally fucking things up .  he was not the best president ever but he handled a lot of tough situations really well.  you realize that george w.  bush was relatively popular among hispanics ? and that jeb bush has a hispanic wife ? and that his views on immigration are relatively moderate ? besides marco rubio, i think jeb bush has the best shot of any of the gop contenders when it comes to capturing the hispanic vote.  i am not saying he will get a majority of the hispanic vote, but a comfortable 0 percent margin is within his grasp.   #  most republicans i know acknowledge at least that w is iraq war was a complete failure if it lead to isis filling saddam is void.   #  i am a disillusioned independent.  they are not so much voting for bush as against clinton, and vice versa.  most republicans i know acknowledge at least that w is iraq war was a complete failure if it lead to isis filling saddam is void.  though some blowhards will try to pin it on obama not stationing troops there for another 0 decades at taxpayers  expense but most of the bush era neocons have been replaced with tea party now so it is a moot point to them anyways.  most dems i know would love to see warren instead of hillary if we could get a woman on the ballot.  instead, we are stuck with this crummy oligarchal control by megadonors and uberpacs pouring money into rich nepotist vs.  rich nepotist.  i mean, it could not be any more obvious the american people do not have a say in presidential elections if the 0 race is bush vs.  clinton, ffs.   #  to win in 0, jeb bush does not have to win over the majority of americans, he just has to mobilize his core supporters more effectively than clinton in the handful of swing states that actually matter.   #  only half of americans actually vote, and even fewer vote in the primaries.  if people are cynical and do not vote, then only the ideological base on either side turns out.  to win in 0, jeb bush does not have to win over the majority of americans, he just has to mobilize his core supporters more effectively than clinton in the handful of swing states that actually matter.  jeb speaks fluent spanish and his wife is mexican.  and he was governor of a major swing state with a large latino population.  i would bet he at least gets more of the latino vote than romney did.   #  part of that conspiracy was the creation of modern rock music including the beatles to somehow ruin music in the us.   #  conditional on jeb being the nominee, what probability do you estimate for the democrats winning the general ? clinton should represent the american voter right now.  i am going to stop you for a second.  one of these is not like the others.  all of those people are serious politicians except for larouche.  ron paul has some wacky ideas, and his son has a small number but is generally sane larouche is just batshit.  see here URL highlights of larouche and his followers include all sourced in the above link : 0.  there is a massive anti american conspiracy run by the the british monarchy.  part of that conspiracy was the creation of modern rock music including the beatles to somehow ruin music in the us.  0.  the ozone hole is a myth.  0.  global warming is a hoax.  now, you may have heard that before.  but in this case, they think it is a hoax by the british royal family.  0.  it is vitally important that orchestras use the verdi pitch rather than the modern pitch.  apparently the correct pitch is related to the structure of the universe.  i could keep going but this should make the general point clear.   #  he knew that his choice would hurt him in the next election cycle yet he did it anyway.   # was nothing to be proud of either, as a one term loser whose incumbent advantage following the reagan years could not save him if i was old enough to vote for him i probably would not have because i have been a progressive for as long as i can remember.  that being said to call him a  one term loser  is not really fair.  in fact i have a ton of respect for him because he actually went against his  no new taxes  campaign promise and raised taxes to prevent what was then a 0 billion budget deficit.  this tax hike said to have helped bring on the decade of economic growth that was seen under clinton.  the truth is he did something presidents and politicians in general rarely do, he put the interest of the country before his own.  it is often credited for being a major reason that he lost his bid for a second term.  he knew that his choice would hurt him in the next election cycle yet he did it anyway.  i know that is what a president is supposed to do but it actually happens far too rarely.  as for everything else you posted about w, i pretty much agree.  it also should be said that jeb is married to a latino woman and has been for paths to citizenship in the past.  not that it will make a huge difference in the latino vote but he is not ted cruz on these matters.  i would never vote for jeb but wanted to clarify some things in your op.
it is hard to get excited for hillary.  even if you are voting party line against the republicans, she is basically the most establishment candidate out there.  no big changes or forward agendas, just another veto point for the gop legislature.  sure, she is a woman, but the whole  beat out the white male lock on the oval office  gimmick was already bested by obama in  0.  it is like she is mastered the art of boring, sterile management speak.  she is almost like the anti obama in terms of charisma.  sure, she is had experience in law, legislature, and diplomacy like every career politician out there.  it seems like she wants to govern as a technocrat, but i am not really impressed with any of her accomplishments.  she is like a prep school honors student that is in seven clubs and passionate about none of them it is all just resume and application filler.  i would rather see the democrats run sanders or warren, but we all know big money wins in the end.  get me excited for the next eight years please cmv.   #  it is like she is mastered the art of boring, sterile management speak.   #  she is almost like the anti obama in terms of charisma.   # why ? there still has never been a female president.  it is still a major milestone.  she is almost like the anti obama in terms of charisma.  people say this, but i think hillary gets way under estimated.  she is actually a very skillful politician and a warm, outgoing person.  she does not have the ability to give a speech like obama, but no politician does.  in terms of just connecting with voters and doing  retail  politics, hillary clinton is just as good as obama.  this is america, socialists are not going to win.  warren, on the other hand, is not going to run.  overall, you are just pre judging hillary clinton based only on the media narratives.  how about you just wait until the election season starts going and listen to what she has to say ? you are just throwing around these labels  establishment,   technocrat  and  sterile.   do you even know what that means ? and, what do you want from the president ? do you want a cool, fun person who you would want to hang out with or do you want good policies enacted by the us government ? it is naive to be excited about the president is personality anyway.  you are not going to hang out with the president.  you are going to be influenced by government policy, whether you like it or not.   #  however, all of your points were so simplistic/wrong that i had to comment.   #  what representative would vote to lose their own power ? can representatives who study business or political science be entrusted to understand complex issues associated with science although you saying science as if its one issue makes me think you do not fully understand it .  you can still have a constitution without a representative democracy.  and minorities do not really fair well in a representative democracy either.  i do not see how any of those matter.  traditionally through the current system or a coup are the two ways to transition from one government to another.  when one group holds 0 of the weapons and tells you they are in charge, there are not really other options.  btw, i am not in favor of direct democracy at all.  i personally think it would be even worse than a representative democracy.  however, all of your points were so simplistic/wrong that i had to comment.   #  only held two cabinet meetings for an entire year.   #  potentially used military force to cover up his own indiscretions, which resulted in the deaths of a number of civilians due to bad intelligence.  had old friends go before the grand jury and lie for him to try and discredit monica lewinsky.  only held two cabinet meetings for an entire year.  the first was to lie to his cabinet, and the second was to let them know he was being forced to tell some of the truth.  slandered and threatened a series of women who he had used for sex in the past at least one of them also accused him of rape .  sold out things like arlington cemetary to political hacks that had donated huge sums of money.  used gays to get elected by promising them he would fight for them and then signed  do not ask, do not tell  almost immediately after getting elected to help win points with the right.  when confronted by one of his cabinet members about how it was starting to seem that he was always only looking out for himself and was willing to sacrifice the ideals of the party to save his own skin, clinton turned to her and said,  you are the sort of person who would have voted for nixon.   hitchens  main criticism is that clinton has a completely empty political stance.  he will do and say anything in service of his own personal goals.  it was all about power and prestige and there is no sign that anything else fundamentally mattered to the man.   #  excitement is a way to judge charisma, so i do not think it is unimportant.   #  and how do you judge qualification and leadership ? qualification: if all the candidates have 0  years as a legislator or executive, will a few more years here or there mean we can count on a significant difference in ability as president ? leadership: i would say the biggest parts of leadership are moral character and charisma.  moral character determines what actions you want to or are willing to take, and charisma helps you get people to actually do things and be happy about the fact that they are doing them.  intelligence/cleverness might be important as well, but that can be partially aided by advisers.  moral character is something we might be able to judge by looking more diligently into candidate is pasts, but people do not seem like they are willing to do that; we are not very good at judging character in politicians.  excitement is a way to judge charisma, so i do not think it is unimportant.   #  i would argue that charisma is extremely subjective.   #  i would say qualification involves a track record of leadership, the candidates ability to spend themselves with competent and qualified advisors and officials.  also having a clear vision for the direction they want to take the country in us an important qualification.  i would argue that charisma is extremely subjective.  the rock to use my previous example is extremely charismatic but that does not necessarily mean people will vote for him to be president.  also what is charismatic to one person might be a turn off to others.
recently i was just thinking about the impact of words.  this led me to start thinking specifically about swearing.  while words like shit, fuck and damn as a few examples.  have been around for hundreds of years the delivery certainly has changed.  i hear and see people flinging swears around almost as easily as an um in a sentence.  i am not saying that swearing is immoral or a sin, just that it in my opinion those words used to illicit a stronger reaction.  as a result of the overuse that reaction has dulled over the years.  while i have had a history of swearing who the fuck has not honestly ? i use it sparsely.  what reactions i have seen from my friends and family, when i have utilized it.  has been stronger since i rarely use it than for example my cousin who swears like a sailor.  well reddit change my view ! :  #  what reactions i have seen from my friends and family, when i have utilized it.   #  has been stronger since i rarely use it than for example my cousin who swears like a sailor.   # has been stronger since i rarely use it than for example my cousin who swears like a sailor.  it is hard to argue against anecdotal evidence, since you do not characterize the reaction, other than  stronger .  by which i assume you mean that you use it when you are upset or very serious about something.  but what kind of reaction would your cousin have if he is upset or serious about something ? by which i mean we have to make our considerations based not just on profanity, but the statement which contains it.  if he says  hand me the fucking remote,  to your mom without anger or malice, it is not going to get the same reaction as you telling your aunt to  leave me the fuck alone !   your friends and family, assumedly, would hear as much profanity on average as anyone else.  even if they do not often hear it from you.  if profanity itself had lost its power, then why would a single person in their life sparsely using it suddenly give you power, when all other sources of profanity remained the same ? what it comes down to, if the words were meant to contain some sort of special power that other words lack, and their overuse caused them to lose that power, then new words would have been created.  yet the commonality of profane words URL has not changed, as even you mention english speakers are using profanity inherited hundreds or even thousands of years ago.  your parents, and grandparents, and their parents and so on down through the hundreds of years swore, too.  maybe there were certain contexts that they refrained from swearing, for instance when women and men were in  mixed company  or when a child was present.  but that does not mean they were not  filthy  when they wanted to be.  while reliable data is apparently scarse prior to 0, this is something researchers have looked at URL the numbers and found no indication that individuals are swearing more often, while acknowledging that satellite radio and rules for cable programs contain swear words more frequently today than broadcast radio and tv, and movies from the past.  and one of the reason swearing is so common in media today is that content with profanity URL is more engaging for our brains than programs, shows, or movies without it.  but it does not seem to have any desensitizing effect.  more on that in a minute.  in everyday use, it has a strong effect URL on symbolizing a closer bond between the speaker and the listener.  it also affects our perception of the speaker is power and authority.  scientists have done research URL that proves that profanity increases pain tolerance allowing test subjects to hold their hands in ice water for 0 seconds longer than repeating the experiment with non swear vocalizations .  that goes back to what i said earlier, if commonality reduced their usefulness we would have changed those words to something new.  it seems every week there is some new slang term.  sites like urban dictionary run around the clock trying to keep trap of them all.  the word  fuck  has been around since at least the 0s URL  #  for starters, i am sceptical that people necessarily do swear any more than they used to, it is just swear words have changed.   # for starters, i am sceptical that people necessarily do swear any more than they used to, it is just swear words have changed.  i do not expect this, but do you have any proof that people actually  do  swear more today than they used to ? reading something like aristophanes, it is sort of hard to believe that people swear more than they used to, yet swear words are almost universal in different times and languages and so they must serve some purpose.  i think the problem with your view is that you have misunderstood what exactly the impact of swearing is.  swear words are not powerful because they are  rarely  spoken, but because they are only spoken in certain contexts.  swear words are powerful because you cannot use them in formal or polite contexts, not because they  are not supposed  to be used.   #  but it is or slowly becoming was my belief.   #  you are correct that i do not have any references or proof.  aristophanes does have quite a colorful lexicon in his writings.  but it is or slowly becoming was my belief.  if i for example called someone a  bitch  today it might be taken offensively depending on context.  but looking back if hypothetically i did that with even close friends i thought it would almost no matter what be taken as an insult.  i understand that swears were used just the frequency is where i am scratching my head.  i understand there is a time and place for them.  but i do not understand then why then it was such a huge ordeal when swears were put into american books.  i apologize if i am making you reword something you might have said.  i am still slightly missing the continuity in the intensity of the words between the past and now.   #  and with some groups, you only swear if you hit your hand with a hammer.   #  it is all about context.  if i amhere if i was to calling you a fucking asshole for having this view i would be banned.  if i was in a job like a teacher or businesman or such, i would have to be very careful of my language as not to insult my clients or to apear unprofessional.  i ca not really drop an f bomb in front of my students.  a professional ca not really swear in front of a client.  with your friends that is up to the standards of your friend group.  some people swear all the time.  and with some groups, you only swear if you hit your hand with a hammer.  depending on context the use of a swear word is ok or not.   you asshole  can get me banned or be a good exchange between friends.   #  if i called a student of mine a fuckwad, i would get fired.   #  but it is all context.  sometimes it is context within context.  if i called you a fuckwad.  i could get banned.  if i called a student of mine a fuckwad, i would get fired.  if i called my friend a fuckwad in the proper context then we will fight.  if, on the softball field, i call the shortstop who let a ball through his legs a fuckwad, we could have a good laugh about it.  at certain times, swears have a shit ton of impact.  they can mean having a job or not.  in front of a judge, they can mean freedom or not.  at other times, they are just part of what happens when two friends talk.
recently i was just thinking about the impact of words.  this led me to start thinking specifically about swearing.  while words like shit, fuck and damn as a few examples.  have been around for hundreds of years the delivery certainly has changed.  i hear and see people flinging swears around almost as easily as an um in a sentence.  i am not saying that swearing is immoral or a sin, just that it in my opinion those words used to illicit a stronger reaction.  as a result of the overuse that reaction has dulled over the years.  while i have had a history of swearing who the fuck has not honestly ? i use it sparsely.  what reactions i have seen from my friends and family, when i have utilized it.  has been stronger since i rarely use it than for example my cousin who swears like a sailor.  well reddit change my view ! :  #  as a result of the overuse that reaction has dulled over the years.   #  your parents, and grandparents, and their parents and so on down through the hundreds of years swore, too.   # has been stronger since i rarely use it than for example my cousin who swears like a sailor.  it is hard to argue against anecdotal evidence, since you do not characterize the reaction, other than  stronger .  by which i assume you mean that you use it when you are upset or very serious about something.  but what kind of reaction would your cousin have if he is upset or serious about something ? by which i mean we have to make our considerations based not just on profanity, but the statement which contains it.  if he says  hand me the fucking remote,  to your mom without anger or malice, it is not going to get the same reaction as you telling your aunt to  leave me the fuck alone !   your friends and family, assumedly, would hear as much profanity on average as anyone else.  even if they do not often hear it from you.  if profanity itself had lost its power, then why would a single person in their life sparsely using it suddenly give you power, when all other sources of profanity remained the same ? what it comes down to, if the words were meant to contain some sort of special power that other words lack, and their overuse caused them to lose that power, then new words would have been created.  yet the commonality of profane words URL has not changed, as even you mention english speakers are using profanity inherited hundreds or even thousands of years ago.  your parents, and grandparents, and their parents and so on down through the hundreds of years swore, too.  maybe there were certain contexts that they refrained from swearing, for instance when women and men were in  mixed company  or when a child was present.  but that does not mean they were not  filthy  when they wanted to be.  while reliable data is apparently scarse prior to 0, this is something researchers have looked at URL the numbers and found no indication that individuals are swearing more often, while acknowledging that satellite radio and rules for cable programs contain swear words more frequently today than broadcast radio and tv, and movies from the past.  and one of the reason swearing is so common in media today is that content with profanity URL is more engaging for our brains than programs, shows, or movies without it.  but it does not seem to have any desensitizing effect.  more on that in a minute.  in everyday use, it has a strong effect URL on symbolizing a closer bond between the speaker and the listener.  it also affects our perception of the speaker is power and authority.  scientists have done research URL that proves that profanity increases pain tolerance allowing test subjects to hold their hands in ice water for 0 seconds longer than repeating the experiment with non swear vocalizations .  that goes back to what i said earlier, if commonality reduced their usefulness we would have changed those words to something new.  it seems every week there is some new slang term.  sites like urban dictionary run around the clock trying to keep trap of them all.  the word  fuck  has been around since at least the 0s URL  #  i think the problem with your view is that you have misunderstood what exactly the impact of swearing is.   # for starters, i am sceptical that people necessarily do swear any more than they used to, it is just swear words have changed.  i do not expect this, but do you have any proof that people actually  do  swear more today than they used to ? reading something like aristophanes, it is sort of hard to believe that people swear more than they used to, yet swear words are almost universal in different times and languages and so they must serve some purpose.  i think the problem with your view is that you have misunderstood what exactly the impact of swearing is.  swear words are not powerful because they are  rarely  spoken, but because they are only spoken in certain contexts.  swear words are powerful because you cannot use them in formal or polite contexts, not because they  are not supposed  to be used.   #  aristophanes does have quite a colorful lexicon in his writings.   #  you are correct that i do not have any references or proof.  aristophanes does have quite a colorful lexicon in his writings.  but it is or slowly becoming was my belief.  if i for example called someone a  bitch  today it might be taken offensively depending on context.  but looking back if hypothetically i did that with even close friends i thought it would almost no matter what be taken as an insult.  i understand that swears were used just the frequency is where i am scratching my head.  i understand there is a time and place for them.  but i do not understand then why then it was such a huge ordeal when swears were put into american books.  i apologize if i am making you reword something you might have said.  i am still slightly missing the continuity in the intensity of the words between the past and now.   #   you asshole  can get me banned or be a good exchange between friends.   #  it is all about context.  if i amhere if i was to calling you a fucking asshole for having this view i would be banned.  if i was in a job like a teacher or businesman or such, i would have to be very careful of my language as not to insult my clients or to apear unprofessional.  i ca not really drop an f bomb in front of my students.  a professional ca not really swear in front of a client.  with your friends that is up to the standards of your friend group.  some people swear all the time.  and with some groups, you only swear if you hit your hand with a hammer.  depending on context the use of a swear word is ok or not.   you asshole  can get me banned or be a good exchange between friends.   #  they can mean having a job or not.   #  but it is all context.  sometimes it is context within context.  if i called you a fuckwad.  i could get banned.  if i called a student of mine a fuckwad, i would get fired.  if i called my friend a fuckwad in the proper context then we will fight.  if, on the softball field, i call the shortstop who let a ball through his legs a fuckwad, we could have a good laugh about it.  at certain times, swears have a shit ton of impact.  they can mean having a job or not.  in front of a judge, they can mean freedom or not.  at other times, they are just part of what happens when two friends talk.
golden rule: treat others the same way you want to be treated.  the problem with this is different people like to be treated differently.  it could be that you want to be treated in a way that other people do not want to be treated.  hence, such a philosophy would only end up in conflict.  maybe you prefer to be treated aggressively so you choose to treat people that way, but other people do not want to be treated that way so naturally unnecessary conflict and misunderstanding arises.  in addition, it could be that other people would like to be treated that you yourself want to treat other people except you do not want to be treated similarly.  it prevents such a possible camrederie and chemistry between people.  the golden rule is in conflict with the importance of focusing on understanding every individual first.  it is a lazy man is shortcut moral principle.  everybody is different therefore its best to treat other people in relation to how much you understand them and how much you understand yourself.   #  everybody is different therefore its best to treat other people in relation to how much you understand them and how much you understand yourself.   #  notice that this concept is a consequence of many of the above rules listed and interacting, but it contains an application of the golden rule.   # this isnt a problem.  the problem lies with the fact that you have included only the golden rule in your analysis.  look at any of the following   the silver rule   the platinum rule   the harm principal   the non aggression principal   the ignorance of original position principal   the consent principal   presumption of good faith   presumption of innocence   nonmalfeasance   superrationality   consideration of utility   consideration of interests   consideration of alternatives etc.  each of these are moral rules that are used in conjunction with other moral rules to make evaluations about what to do.  but none of the rules alone are specifically sufficient to describe all moral behavior.  they must at times be used in combinations to come to moral conclusions.  using only tit for tat simply is not only not always moral, we should have no expectation for it to be.  the reason why the moral rule is so stressed is because concepts like reciprocity and fairness are very intuitive to us, but concepts like systematic advantage or associated costs of seeking revenge are typically not.  notice that this concept is a consequence of many of the above rules listed and interacting, but it contains an application of the golden rule.  this seems to support that the golden rule isnt flawed, it just isnt sufficient when applied alone.  additionally your moral rule, which is quite good, is the logical conclusion from the combination of empathy and introspection.  but it is rather weak if you do not know anything about the other person, as it may not only make false assumptions it may violate many other moral principals.  as a thought experiment, pretend alice knows her self quite well.  she knows that if she was trying to rob somebody, approaching them in bad faith and pretending to need assistance is a good way to gain an advantage and attack them.  if a stranger, bob, approached alice with a trivial request for assistance, your rule might conclude that bob is attempting to attack alice and she should guard her self.  bob might become agitated by the denial of his plea for help and alice might read this as aggression.  now because she does not know bob, the rule gives her no insight or guidance for the moral behavior she should express, but she does know herself and knows what might happen in this situation with a bad actor.  alice might then feel justified in a preemptive strike against bob before he attempts to attack her.  does this conclude your rule is flawed ? no.  just that some situations and narratives require more complex applications of multiple rules interacting together to understand what is and is not moral.   #  just say treat others with the same understanding that you want them to treat you with.   #  that is easy to fix.  just say treat others with the same understanding that you want them to treat you with.  take these scenarios: 0.  you are cold and someone else is hungry.  you give them a blanket.  that is literally the way you want to be treated, but the problem is that involves the other person giving you a sandwich when you are cold.  0.  if you treat them with the same level of understanding, then you see that they are hungry and give them a sandwich.  then they will see you are cold and give you a blanket.  the idea is about reciprocity.  it does not matter what the exact phrasing is.  the golden rule is called golden because it has existed for thousands of years in hundreds of different cultures throughout history.  do not mix up the meaning because you take issue with the nuance of one particular translation of it.   #  so then the question becomes is it a good idea to have any such maxim at all.   #  i think your position is predicated on the fact that it matters whether people are offended by our treatment of them.  most people are pretty similar, but it is impossible to know how any individual would want to be treated.  that is going to be a problem with any maxim that decides appropriateness based on the desire of the recipient.  so then the question becomes is it a good idea to have any such maxim at all.  then the golden rule needs to be evaluated against all such maxims to determine if any are better.  for instance, the  platinum rule  could be to treat people the way that they want to be treated, but that falls apart under scrutiny as well.   #  i am meansure they are are not an exact investigation into what makes each and everyone us us tick, but that is the point.   #  teh golden rule is more of a moral code.  if you do not to be cheated do not cheat people.  if you do not want to be hurt, do not hurt people.  i do not get how those things are at all bad.  i am meansure they are are not an exact investigation into what makes each and everyone us us tick, but that is the point.  the gr does provide a good starting point of human interaction.  it does build trust to know that others wo not lie, cheat or steal.  and that trust does allow strangers to deal with each other with some sence of peace.   #  morality should be a consensus on actions that minimize suffering and maximize well being.   #  i think you are being generous with the rule.  the golden rule centers morality on what you want individually, and basing morality on individuality is dodgy.  morality should be a consensus on actions that minimize suffering and maximize well being.  cheating is not bad because you do not want to be cheated on what if i do not mind being cheated on, is my action ok now ? , it is bad because it undermines what most people agree is a monogamous relationship.
hi everyone, i am seriously considering becoming a capitalist libertarian but i have some doubts about the benefits of deregulating the economy.  i think the idea is that the consumer will only purchase from corporations that are good.  however, the consumer seems to only care about low prices, as they reward immoral companies like monsanto and chiquita.  for example, chiquita paid the columbian government to round up and shoot thousands of protestors and funded terrorists groups and coups in countries that have governments that are threats to their profits.  yet, people are buying from this company more than ever.  if the government stopped watching out for this kind of thing, then some corporations would immediately turn to exploitation and violence to maintain lower prices, eventually the other corporations would have to do this too if they wanted to compete with such low prices.   #  i think the idea is that the consumer will only purchase from corporations that are good.   #  actually, the capitalist principle is the full protection of an individual is right to private property, the implementation of which means theft, or the initiation of force/coercion, is completely outlawed.   # actually, the capitalist principle is the full protection of an individual is right to private property, the implementation of which means theft, or the initiation of force/coercion, is completely outlawed.  as a result of individual freedom to say  no  to another without fear of their body or property being infringed upon, or beaten up or thrown in jail, the only remaining option by which people may profit from others is by voluntary and non coerced trade.  when voluntary trade is the only option, corporations are required to  play nice  or at least appear to.  this means the behaviour that is ultimately encouraged and rewarded by society/the market is  producing something of real value .  no longer can they use guns to get what they want they have to be productive to survive.  and if what they produce is valueless or of lesser value, the market will eventually find out and say no.  the idea is that  bad corporations can not survive for long  in an environment where  not only  individuals are free to choose their own best option of value for money  but also  companies are banned from using force or theft.  in a semi capitalist system mixed economy like ours, bad companies  can  survive any special monopoly granted by the government to one corporation is a  theft  of the rights of another company to compete in that same market.  such laws and regulations give an  unjust  and artificial advantage to a company by effectively giving them the backing of governmental force to make a profit.  so capitalism working well is not just about the consumer is choices whether he buys the cheapest or whether he buys the most virtuous.  market forces are only one side of the economic equation.  politically and socially, capitalism also requires a social system where potential  producers  are free from force  to produce .  ultimately it is not just the consumer who brings down bad corporations it is the existence and healthy proliferation of  good competing corporations .  and they exist best when the playing field the law and the government is fairest protecting individual property rights equally and giving special advantage to no one.   #  there may be some benefits from the regulation, but they are not robust enough benefits to prevent a complete meltdown of the economy.   #  i am not a libertarian capitalist, i prefer strong government regulation.  but that said, the problem with government regulation is that it is subject to ineffectiveness anyway whether by corruption or neglect.  .  so, your example of monsanto is an case that is, supposedly, within government regulation.  yet it remains destructive and corrupt.  clearly, the american banking system was/is a complete wild west despite the claims of regulation.  and these companies continue to be immoral, cheat, steal from the people and government.  despite the claims of regulation.  there may be some benefits from the regulation, but they are not robust enough benefits to prevent a complete meltdown of the economy.  so the question is, does government regulation help ? or does it mostly legitimize some corruption by establishing a line that is seldom enforced , the existence of the facade of regulation just tricks the public into thinking things are safe and pure ? my argument would be that there are cases like the scandinavian countries that generally have regulation correct, but that takes a very aggressive form of regulation, which is expensive to implement and burdensome to adhere to.  some, like yourself, may find this to be more trouble than it is worth.  clearly, american style regulation is only slightly better than nothing, and very costly.  even the american fda, which is largely seen as the most effective american regulatory agency makes lots of mistakes and it is restricted mandate like, that it does not have the power to regulate vitamins and supplements actually makes the public less safe because they assume that dangerous substances, like many supplements, are regulated and therefore safe when they are really deadly and toxic.   #  of course, its use of pesticides that harm workers would be legal in a libertarian world.   #  it is interesting to note that both your examples of evil corporations do evil by working with the government in ways that would be impossible in a libertarian deregulated world.  for instance, chiquita is use of force against strikers and collaboration with military forces would be impossible.  of course, its use of pesticides that harm workers would be legal in a libertarian world.  likewise, monsanto is patenting of organisms forcing farmers to buy new seed each year at full price relies on a powerful government.  in a libertarian world it would not be able to do this.  so yeah deregulated marketplaces allow corporations to be competitive using immoral means, sure.  but regulated marketplaces also allow corporations to be competitive using immoral means.  they just have to bribe the government to do so and possibly help which probably makes these kinds of immoral actions less common but more disastrous when they do occur.   #  in a regular libertarian world, you ca not employ a private military to do much of anything beyond self defense.   #  are we going regular libertarian or full blown anarcho capitalist ? in a regular libertarian world, you ca not employ a private military to do much of anything beyond self defense.  attacking strikers/protesters would be illegal with slightly fewer loopholes than exist in today is world, but of course one can imagine it still happening on occasion .  in an anarcho capitalist system, this would absolutely be a concern.  to make it work you are going to have to come up with some way of fixing this problem.   #  first, governments pay for their operations with tax money, so you do not need to pay for the whole cost of using the army, you just pay for the bribe.   #  governments are far better for that purpose than private military corporations for two reasons that i see.  first, governments pay for their operations with tax money, so you do not need to pay for the whole cost of using the army, you just pay for the bribe.  second, governments have political authority in the minds of most of the people they are ruling over, which makes the people a whole lot more compliant.  when a private firm does something, it is pretty obvious that they are doing it for their own benefit.  if the people do not like it, they are not going to give them the benefit of the doubt and go along with it.  people are much more willing to comply with government rules.
when the topic of what kinds of relationships are okay, i often see people express opinions along the lines of  as long as everyone directly involved consents, it is okay and you should not judge.   i think that consent is absolutely necessary, but it is foolish to say that it is the only thing that is necessary.  i can think of two really clear instances where sex is bad and should be discouraged, even though all parties give consent:    cheating  if adam and beth decide to have sex with eachother, and they are both in committed monogamous marriages with other people, then they can consent as much as they want.  they are still doing something wrong by breaking their commitments to their spouses and likely causing a great deal of harm to them in the process.  and it would be completely fine to judge adam and beth for deciding to sleep with eachother.     adult child relationships.   i know what people are going to say,  children ca not consent.   but what you mean is children cannot  legally  consent, because this act is illegal.  this is just a legal technicality, but a 0 year old could still consent in the sense that they make a conscious, informed decision to have sex with someone and express that decision to having sex with a 0 year old man.  however, despite that consent, it is still the kind of thing that we as a society should discourage, despite the fact that both parties involved may consent.  cmv.   #  i know what people are going to say,  children ca not consent.    #  but what you mean is children cannot legally consent, because this act is illegal.   # but what you mean is children cannot legally consent, because this act is illegal.  this one i actually think is the other way round.  it is illegal to have sex with children because we understand that they do not have the emotional and intellectual maturity necessary to give meaningful and informed consent to sex.  the existence of legal ages of consent reflects the broadly accepted morality of the situation, rather than the whole thing being a purely legal creation.  i see what you are saying overall, but to be honest i think that when most people say  as long it is consensual, who cares ?   then they implicitly mean two consenting adults who are not screwing over somebody else.  i do not think you are going to find many people who actually think that adultery is perfectly fine, or that it is ok to exploit the inexperience of people barely over the legal age of consent or just under it but still capable of making that decision for themselves .  i suppose i am not trying to change your view i am trying to change your premise.  i do not think people are  really  arguing against you in the first place.   #  maybe not lowered, but probably less stringently enforced for 0 year olds.   #  maybe not lowered, but probably less stringently enforced for 0 year olds.  the lower the age of consent, the lower the blurred line age becomes.  if consent can legally be given by somebody aged 0 and a day, why not by somebody aged 0 and 0 days ? and if a 0 year old can now legally give consent, then why not a 0 year old ? i would rather keep the legal age of consent a little high, and give police the discretion to ignore it a bit.  that way, you also maintain a little bit extra legal protection against barely legal kids being exploited by older people though  exploited  may be a little too strong a word there .   #  that is to say, if the person is so knows and consents to them having sex with someone else, it is fine, but only if everyone involved even indirectly consents.   # that is to say, if the person is so knows and consents to them having sex with someone else, it is fine, but only if everyone involved even indirectly consents.  i do not think people generally mean to include everyone directly involved; only the people who are actually having sex.  to include everyone indirectly involved would be a much, much higher bar.  for example, if you are going to be late to a party, because you are having sex with your so, that indirectly effects everyone at the party.  but it would be ridiculous to say you need their consent.  it is why 0 os often called  the age of consent  they cannot  legally  consent, which is different from being able to consent i. e. , agree to doing something .   #  for example, if you are going to be late to a party, because you are having sex with your so, that indirectly effects everyone at the party.   # to include everyone indirectly involved would be a much, much higher bar.  for example, if you are going to be late to a party, because you are having sex with your so, that indirectly effects everyone at the party.  but it would be ridiculous to say you need their consent.  i would argue the people at the party have no reasonable claim to be involved.  if you already have an so, in our society, that is an implicit agreement to remain faithful with each other.  if you aim to break that agreement, your so has every reasonable claim to be involved in that.  yeah, i noticed you covered that in your op and removed it from my reply, sorry.  /u/you got the touch covered that point way better than i could have regardless.   #  that makes it your business in a very clear way.   #  mostly whether or not it is your business, and what obligations the directly involved parties may have to you.  with the example of your party, because the reason  why  they were late is not really your business, and there is any number of reasons why it may have happened, and they may have no particular obligation to inform you that they are going to be late which would depend on the nature of the party much less ask for your consent.  you are not really involved in them having sex.  the specific case of cheating is a little special in this regard, since being in a relationship, as i said is an implicit agreement that you wont go around having sex with anyone else.  that makes it your business in a very clear way.  i will concede, it may not  always  be clear, but i do not think it really needs to always be clear.  i see the phrase as more of a general rule than a hard rule with no exception.
in the shooting community there is a debate between 0mm and 0 or 0, generally between 0 and 0, though i also own . 0 s w.  i personally do not like the 0mm to the point that i refuse to purchase one unless it is in a subcompact.  it is weak, anemic, does not penetrate well less mass , imparts less energy and not satisfying to shoot.  why should anyone want to carry 0mm as a main defensive weapon military too when the . 0 has so much more power, as a flat nose fmj will impart more energy than a rounded 0mm, heavier weight yields better energy transfer, in hollow point form is larger than the 0 mm and for capacity; there is a difference of 0 round.  the only valid argument i see is that the soft 0mm is easier to shoot so you are more accurate, but who is taking 0yrd shots ? an optic like a micro red dot on your weapon would more than make up for any difference.   #  the only valid argument i see is that the soft 0mm is easier to shoot so you are more accurate, but who is taking 0yrd shots ?  #  an optic like a micro red dot on your weapon would more than make up for any difference.   # an optic like a micro red dot on your weapon would more than make up for any difference.  it is not about 0 yard accuracy; it is about muzzle climb per shot; no matter how great your sighting optics are, a . 0 will have more muzzle climb than a 0mm of the same barrel length/same weight ahead of the trigger.  you shoot  slower  because of it.  also, you rather understated ammo capacity.  for the same size of pistol, a 0 carries between 0 and 0 shots in the mag and 0 in the pipe.  a glock 0 carries 00.  i chose the 0  cause it is the popular . 0 model, but the glock 0 their . 0 acp model is a 00 pistol.  that is still 0 more shots.  i would much rather go into a firefight with double the shots before i have to reload; combined with the fact that i can put the shots on target faster means that i have a better shot at coming out ahead in that unfortunate situation.  it also means that my ratio of  time spent forcing rounds into a mag  versus  time spent throwing lead down range  when i am at the range is more favorable in the direction of the latter.  another factor is cost: any glock will cost about the same, so we will consider that equal, even though most . 0 guys i have met will want a 0 and to get one that wo not fuck up all the time, you need to spend twice the amount of money.  but anyway, bullet for bullet, the 0mm tends to be cheaper.  this means that i can afford to spend more time putting more rounds through my gun, and thus be more accurate for the same budget.   #  would that bit lead mainly to more collateral damage ?  #  why is better penetration of a hard target a good thing ? would that bit lead mainly to more collateral damage ? shooting something behind a concrete or cinder block real is against good shooter practice of always knowing what is behind your target.  moreover, how often is the amount of energy transferred really a deciding factor in the effectiveness of a particular use for a firearm ? if you want to put a hole in something, typically you do not need to transfer much energy into it.  energy transfer into a soft object like a human body is done more effectively with a blunt object, because the energy transfers into instead of destroying the object  #  cm0 and the 0 green tip just put a hole through the soap without putting much energy into it.   #  i saw a video that brought up the question of sidearm vs rifle in close quarter battle.  they used the m0 with military ammunition and the green tip ammo for their carbine in ballistic soap.  cm0 and the 0 green tip just put a hole through the soap without putting much energy into it.  of course the 0 grain 0 round decimated it but that is no longer issued.  so with energy not imparted into the target you only have the size of the hole to cause damage but when energy is imparted into the target you damage the surrounding tissue around that hole.  so for that 0 it is literally the difference of a hole in somebody and blowing somebody is arm off as was seen very early in vietnam.  to the penetrating a hard target yes you have a valid point but it depends on the application, military versus civilian.  a civilian would use a hollow point to decrease penetration   increase energy transfer, military uses the fmj round.  also: hard target can be glass like a wind shield, less deflection with a heavier round  #  in ballistic gel, 0mm penetrates just as far as other rounds, is easier shooting due to less recoil, and allows you to carry more rounds.   # the military uses the fmj not because it is the best round for them, but because it is literally illegal URL last sub point to use hollow points in war.  as for civilian use, 0mm/. 0 weapons allow more rounds in the magazines than . 0 which is very important.  combat accuracy hovers south of a 0 hit rate, so the more rounds you have, the better your chances.  according to who, exactly ? gun board debaters ? in ballistic gel, 0mm penetrates just as far as other rounds, is easier shooting due to less recoil, and allows you to carry more rounds.  of course the 0 grain 0 round decimated it but that is no longer issued.  that is not a great argument against 0mm ammo and for . 0/. 0, it is a great argument against using fmj for soft targets.  with ammo selection, you have got 0 main choices:   fmj for penetration of glass/metal/wood, but causes low tissue damage  or    hp for massive tissue damage, but bad penetration through hard targets for civs, there is no real argument for using fmj.   #  has little to do with the fmj as shown with the old 0 grain.   #  your picture shows the difference in cavitation, the 0 is significantly smaller.  the green tip ammo is not a good performer, period.  has little to do with the fmj as shown with the old 0 grain.  i posted 0/0 vs 0, 0 has generally 0 less round than the 0 with more energy.  so mil: better penetration and energy transfer fmj to fmj 0:0 civ: better of both hp:hp, lose a round, gain a minimally faster follow up shot maybe.  so potential wash on benefit of hp rounds because of over penetration
in the shooting community there is a debate between 0mm and 0 or 0, generally between 0 and 0, though i also own . 0 s w.  i personally do not like the 0mm to the point that i refuse to purchase one unless it is in a subcompact.  it is weak, anemic, does not penetrate well less mass , imparts less energy and not satisfying to shoot.  why should anyone want to carry 0mm as a main defensive weapon military too when the . 0 has so much more power, as a flat nose fmj will impart more energy than a rounded 0mm, heavier weight yields better energy transfer, in hollow point form is larger than the 0 mm and for capacity; there is a difference of 0 round.  the only valid argument i see is that the soft 0mm is easier to shoot so you are more accurate, but who is taking 0yrd shots ? an optic like a micro red dot on your weapon would more than make up for any difference.   #  an optic like a micro red dot on your weapon would more than make up for any difference.   #  a better sight does nothing if you ca not get enough precision out of a gun or control over a gun to match the sight.   #  depends on what you are trying to do.  the smaller round of the 0mm allows it to easily carry more rounds in the magazine.  the recoil is also much lower meaning that target reacquisition time is less.  the lower recoil also allows for more precision in shots.  this all adds up to mean that 0mm are superior for a sustained rate of fire for longer, a higher rpm rate, and more likely for each round to hit the target.  it is not uncommon for a firefight to happen at longer ranges.  while a shotgun or a rifle may become the more optimum choice at 0 yd, they are much bulkier and difficult to carry at all times.  a pistol can be put on the belt and carried at all times quite easily.  a better sight does nothing if you ca not get enough precision out of a gun or control over a gun to match the sight.  most pistols are not capable of the sort of precision and control needed to make a sight cause any difference in their accuracy.  i would like to make it clear, that despite opposing your view, i do not think that the 0mm is a no question superior caliber, simply that it has its place a a role that it preforms well.  for my own use, i am more likely to encounter things that cause stopping power to become the winning attribute such as shooting an angry bear , which is why i am likely to purchase a large caliber handgun, but not a medium like the 0mm.   #  it also means that my ratio of  time spent forcing rounds into a mag  versus  time spent throwing lead down range  when i am at the range is more favorable in the direction of the latter.   # an optic like a micro red dot on your weapon would more than make up for any difference.  it is not about 0 yard accuracy; it is about muzzle climb per shot; no matter how great your sighting optics are, a . 0 will have more muzzle climb than a 0mm of the same barrel length/same weight ahead of the trigger.  you shoot  slower  because of it.  also, you rather understated ammo capacity.  for the same size of pistol, a 0 carries between 0 and 0 shots in the mag and 0 in the pipe.  a glock 0 carries 00.  i chose the 0  cause it is the popular . 0 model, but the glock 0 their . 0 acp model is a 00 pistol.  that is still 0 more shots.  i would much rather go into a firefight with double the shots before i have to reload; combined with the fact that i can put the shots on target faster means that i have a better shot at coming out ahead in that unfortunate situation.  it also means that my ratio of  time spent forcing rounds into a mag  versus  time spent throwing lead down range  when i am at the range is more favorable in the direction of the latter.  another factor is cost: any glock will cost about the same, so we will consider that equal, even though most . 0 guys i have met will want a 0 and to get one that wo not fuck up all the time, you need to spend twice the amount of money.  but anyway, bullet for bullet, the 0mm tends to be cheaper.  this means that i can afford to spend more time putting more rounds through my gun, and thus be more accurate for the same budget.   #  if you want to put a hole in something, typically you do not need to transfer much energy into it.   #  why is better penetration of a hard target a good thing ? would that bit lead mainly to more collateral damage ? shooting something behind a concrete or cinder block real is against good shooter practice of always knowing what is behind your target.  moreover, how often is the amount of energy transferred really a deciding factor in the effectiveness of a particular use for a firearm ? if you want to put a hole in something, typically you do not need to transfer much energy into it.  energy transfer into a soft object like a human body is done more effectively with a blunt object, because the energy transfers into instead of destroying the object  #  cm0 and the 0 green tip just put a hole through the soap without putting much energy into it.   #  i saw a video that brought up the question of sidearm vs rifle in close quarter battle.  they used the m0 with military ammunition and the green tip ammo for their carbine in ballistic soap.  cm0 and the 0 green tip just put a hole through the soap without putting much energy into it.  of course the 0 grain 0 round decimated it but that is no longer issued.  so with energy not imparted into the target you only have the size of the hole to cause damage but when energy is imparted into the target you damage the surrounding tissue around that hole.  so for that 0 it is literally the difference of a hole in somebody and blowing somebody is arm off as was seen very early in vietnam.  to the penetrating a hard target yes you have a valid point but it depends on the application, military versus civilian.  a civilian would use a hollow point to decrease penetration   increase energy transfer, military uses the fmj round.  also: hard target can be glass like a wind shield, less deflection with a heavier round  #  combat accuracy hovers south of a 0 hit rate, so the more rounds you have, the better your chances.   # the military uses the fmj not because it is the best round for them, but because it is literally illegal URL last sub point to use hollow points in war.  as for civilian use, 0mm/. 0 weapons allow more rounds in the magazines than . 0 which is very important.  combat accuracy hovers south of a 0 hit rate, so the more rounds you have, the better your chances.  according to who, exactly ? gun board debaters ? in ballistic gel, 0mm penetrates just as far as other rounds, is easier shooting due to less recoil, and allows you to carry more rounds.  of course the 0 grain 0 round decimated it but that is no longer issued.  that is not a great argument against 0mm ammo and for . 0/. 0, it is a great argument against using fmj for soft targets.  with ammo selection, you have got 0 main choices:   fmj for penetration of glass/metal/wood, but causes low tissue damage  or    hp for massive tissue damage, but bad penetration through hard targets for civs, there is no real argument for using fmj.
situation: an enclosed industrial compound of 0 acres.  for fairness, say the raptors were genetically engineered to have somewhat acid resistant skin.  i think that because they would fight as a group, and appear to be faster and stronger than the xenomorphs, they would be able to win out.  i think the aliens rely too much on picking off individuals, and building their numbers through breeding off their foes to handle a physically dominant force.  the velociraptors have a powerful jump to reach their enemies, and long enough limbs to avoid the inner jaws of the aliens.  their superior intelligence would enable them to come up with a strategy to fight the aliens.   #  for fairness, say the raptors were genetically engineered to have somewhat acid resistant skin.   #  this necessitates that the aliens would need to adjust their strategies.   #  0 acres of an industrial compound is not huge for a couple dozen creatures ? it does not matter whether you intend it to be an endurance fight, it is the aliens  m. o.  and why should not it be an endurance fight, it is not a fair fight.  this necessitates that the aliens would need to adjust their strategies.  as for what they eat, it has not been answered clearly in the canon.  it is commonly assumed that, since they are partly synthetic, they can survive on inorganic materials URL which would be very common in an industrial complex.   #  velociraptors can be clever too, but they have been outwitted by children.   #  well since you have already modified the raptors, they would not be the jurassic park raptors.  so, in a way, you already admitted that the xenomorphs would beat velociraptors in your premise.  also  xenomorphs are much larger than velociraptros.  from the movies, they appear to be 0 feet tall or so.  raptors are large and formidable compared to a human, but not as much so as a xenomorph.  xenomorphs can run on walls and ceilings.  raptors and ground bound.  xenomorphs are strong enough to bash down steel doors.  the raptors have to actually use a doorknob.  xenomorphs have long arms with human like clawed hands.  being able to grab and hold would be an advantage in a fight.  the tail of a xenomorph is a legitimate weapon capable of slashing and impaling human beings.  it is strong enough to also impale and lift a predator with ease.  raptor tails ca not do that.  the xenomorph inner jaw is strong enough to smash through bone and metal.  it can easily pop through a raptor skull.  xenomorphs are smart.  they have shown the can learn by observation and solve puzzles.  they have operated elevators and even killed one of their own to melt their way through an enclosure.  velociraptors can be clever too, but they have been outwitted by children.  they are tough enough to be considered a challenging hunt by the predators, a race of warriors that pride themselves on be able to kill things.  in addition, xenomorphs have shown resiliency against the very advanced weaponry of the predators.  i do not think a velociraptor is claws or teeth can even damage the bony, armored exterior of a xenomorph.  xenomorphs were shown to kill a huge number of human beings.  the raptors could not even hunt down and kill two scared kids.   #  i think the raptor ability to leap onto an enemy and hooking on with its feet, leaving claws and teeth available to attack at close range would be very effective.   #  based on the films, the two creatures were of comparable height.  in alien, the creature is estimated at 0 meters.  the alien tail is a serious weapon, but so are the raptor feet.  i think the raptor ability to leap onto an enemy and hooking on with its feet, leaving claws and teeth available to attack at close range would be very effective.  i think raptors would also be considered a challenging hunt for predators, but did not exist in the same universe.  i am not sure what resiliency to predator weapons you are referring to.  the predator blades were able to completely sever an alien head.  the raptors were unable to kill the kids in a brief encounter.  the xenomorphs allowed newt to live for an indeterminate length of time despite there being hundreds of aliens around.  still, the alien strength and ability to run on walls are convincing advantages.  i am not sure if i am completely sold that they would win, but there would be parity.     #  is sneak attacks; an industrial compound would be full of air ducts, multi level buildings.   #  i think in an industrial compound the aliens would have the advantage.  their m. o.  is sneak attacks; an industrial compound would be full of air ducts, multi level buildings.  the twists and turns and abundance of hiding locations favour the aliens.  in a situation like this, their superior intelligence would be a huge factor in how it would all come out.  i do not understand how you can claim that the velociraptors are more intelligent than the aliens.  how can you claim this ?  #  the reason i am claiming that the aliens are of superior intelligence is because they hunted with patience while the v raptors unlike the toronto raptors are always on the attack.   # is this from that one scene where they opened a door or something like that in one of the movies ? the reason i am claiming that the aliens are of superior intelligence is because they hunted with patience while the v raptors unlike the toronto raptors are always on the attack.  ceaseless attack is tiring for  any  predator.  very soon the natural adrenaline and bloodthirstiness simmers down and they become more vulnerable as they get tired.  this whole time the aliens would be hiding in some part of the plumbing of ventilation systems or somewhere else perhaps and saving their energy.  in the long run, since it is an enclosed environment, the v raptors would either become very weak from hunger or they would start attacking each other.  just by strategically waiting, i think the aliens would win.
situation: an enclosed industrial compound of 0 acres.  for fairness, say the raptors were genetically engineered to have somewhat acid resistant skin.  i think that because they would fight as a group, and appear to be faster and stronger than the xenomorphs, they would be able to win out.  i think the aliens rely too much on picking off individuals, and building their numbers through breeding off their foes to handle a physically dominant force.  the velociraptors have a powerful jump to reach their enemies, and long enough limbs to avoid the inner jaws of the aliens.  their superior intelligence would enable them to come up with a strategy to fight the aliens.   #  for fairness, say the raptors were genetically engineered to have somewhat acid resistant skin.   #  not exactly a  fair  fight, if the raptors are getting an unnatural advantage.   #  a few things:  situation: an enclosed industrial compound of 0 acres.  sounds good to me.  not exactly a  fair  fight, if the raptors are getting an unnatural advantage.  but, okay.  in alien, there is only a single xenomorph so it is forced to be stealthy and pick off the crew one by one.  in aliens, there are hundreds, and they are shown to work together and attack in large numbers.  the only advantage the humans had against them was technology automated turrets, welding all entrances/exits shut, and finally a nice  nuke from orbit .  xenomorphs are able to scale nearly any surface, including walking on the ceiling, giving them a lot more angles of attack or speedy ways to get around that the raptors could not.  if we take the avp games as canon, you were able to move at very high speeds and leap great distances as a xenomorph.  URL aliens vs.  predator from 0,  alien  gameplay a  speedrun  may be an extreme example but it gives perspective on what such a creature might be capable of.  again you are assuming the xenomorphs are a weaker force, and that picking off individuals is not still a valid tactic.  if a xenomorph is able to scale nearly any object and attack from any direction, it puts the raptors at a severe disadvantage.  but i am guessing the xenomorph tail is as deadly or deadlier, with possibly greater reach.  URL  their superior intelligence would enable them to come up with a strategy to fight the aliens.  my experience of raptors jurassic park is that they can open doors, communicate with one another, and do some problem solving.  xenomorphs in the films know enough to disable power generators, operate simple machinery, use things like elevators, etc.  it is suggested they may even have a good sense of tactics, based on this from wikipedia:  the novelization of the film notes that the queen establishing her  nest  at the base is main power plant could have been chosen either for the feral, animal reason of the warmth that it would provide or for the intellectual reason of selecting a location where any attackers would be unable to destroy her without destroying the entire facility.  URL worth noting i think that xenomorphs are specifically designed as bio weapons.   #  so, in a way, you already admitted that the xenomorphs would beat velociraptors in your premise.   #  well since you have already modified the raptors, they would not be the jurassic park raptors.  so, in a way, you already admitted that the xenomorphs would beat velociraptors in your premise.  also  xenomorphs are much larger than velociraptros.  from the movies, they appear to be 0 feet tall or so.  raptors are large and formidable compared to a human, but not as much so as a xenomorph.  xenomorphs can run on walls and ceilings.  raptors and ground bound.  xenomorphs are strong enough to bash down steel doors.  the raptors have to actually use a doorknob.  xenomorphs have long arms with human like clawed hands.  being able to grab and hold would be an advantage in a fight.  the tail of a xenomorph is a legitimate weapon capable of slashing and impaling human beings.  it is strong enough to also impale and lift a predator with ease.  raptor tails ca not do that.  the xenomorph inner jaw is strong enough to smash through bone and metal.  it can easily pop through a raptor skull.  xenomorphs are smart.  they have shown the can learn by observation and solve puzzles.  they have operated elevators and even killed one of their own to melt their way through an enclosure.  velociraptors can be clever too, but they have been outwitted by children.  they are tough enough to be considered a challenging hunt by the predators, a race of warriors that pride themselves on be able to kill things.  in addition, xenomorphs have shown resiliency against the very advanced weaponry of the predators.  i do not think a velociraptor is claws or teeth can even damage the bony, armored exterior of a xenomorph.  xenomorphs were shown to kill a huge number of human beings.  the raptors could not even hunt down and kill two scared kids.   #  still, the alien strength and ability to run on walls are convincing advantages.   #  based on the films, the two creatures were of comparable height.  in alien, the creature is estimated at 0 meters.  the alien tail is a serious weapon, but so are the raptor feet.  i think the raptor ability to leap onto an enemy and hooking on with its feet, leaving claws and teeth available to attack at close range would be very effective.  i think raptors would also be considered a challenging hunt for predators, but did not exist in the same universe.  i am not sure what resiliency to predator weapons you are referring to.  the predator blades were able to completely sever an alien head.  the raptors were unable to kill the kids in a brief encounter.  the xenomorphs allowed newt to live for an indeterminate length of time despite there being hundreds of aliens around.  still, the alien strength and ability to run on walls are convincing advantages.  i am not sure if i am completely sold that they would win, but there would be parity.     #  the twists and turns and abundance of hiding locations favour the aliens.   #  i think in an industrial compound the aliens would have the advantage.  their m. o.  is sneak attacks; an industrial compound would be full of air ducts, multi level buildings.  the twists and turns and abundance of hiding locations favour the aliens.  in a situation like this, their superior intelligence would be a huge factor in how it would all come out.  i do not understand how you can claim that the velociraptors are more intelligent than the aliens.  how can you claim this ?  #  just by strategically waiting, i think the aliens would win.   # is this from that one scene where they opened a door or something like that in one of the movies ? the reason i am claiming that the aliens are of superior intelligence is because they hunted with patience while the v raptors unlike the toronto raptors are always on the attack.  ceaseless attack is tiring for  any  predator.  very soon the natural adrenaline and bloodthirstiness simmers down and they become more vulnerable as they get tired.  this whole time the aliens would be hiding in some part of the plumbing of ventilation systems or somewhere else perhaps and saving their energy.  in the long run, since it is an enclosed environment, the v raptors would either become very weak from hunger or they would start attacking each other.  just by strategically waiting, i think the aliens would win.
situation: an enclosed industrial compound of 0 acres.  for fairness, say the raptors were genetically engineered to have somewhat acid resistant skin.  i think that because they would fight as a group, and appear to be faster and stronger than the xenomorphs, they would be able to win out.  i think the aliens rely too much on picking off individuals, and building their numbers through breeding off their foes to handle a physically dominant force.  the velociraptors have a powerful jump to reach their enemies, and long enough limbs to avoid the inner jaws of the aliens.  their superior intelligence would enable them to come up with a strategy to fight the aliens.   #  i think the aliens rely too much on picking off individuals, and building their numbers through breeding off their foes to handle a physically dominant force.   #  again you are assuming the xenomorphs are a weaker force, and that picking off individuals is not still a valid tactic.   #  a few things:  situation: an enclosed industrial compound of 0 acres.  sounds good to me.  not exactly a  fair  fight, if the raptors are getting an unnatural advantage.  but, okay.  in alien, there is only a single xenomorph so it is forced to be stealthy and pick off the crew one by one.  in aliens, there are hundreds, and they are shown to work together and attack in large numbers.  the only advantage the humans had against them was technology automated turrets, welding all entrances/exits shut, and finally a nice  nuke from orbit .  xenomorphs are able to scale nearly any surface, including walking on the ceiling, giving them a lot more angles of attack or speedy ways to get around that the raptors could not.  if we take the avp games as canon, you were able to move at very high speeds and leap great distances as a xenomorph.  URL aliens vs.  predator from 0,  alien  gameplay a  speedrun  may be an extreme example but it gives perspective on what such a creature might be capable of.  again you are assuming the xenomorphs are a weaker force, and that picking off individuals is not still a valid tactic.  if a xenomorph is able to scale nearly any object and attack from any direction, it puts the raptors at a severe disadvantage.  but i am guessing the xenomorph tail is as deadly or deadlier, with possibly greater reach.  URL  their superior intelligence would enable them to come up with a strategy to fight the aliens.  my experience of raptors jurassic park is that they can open doors, communicate with one another, and do some problem solving.  xenomorphs in the films know enough to disable power generators, operate simple machinery, use things like elevators, etc.  it is suggested they may even have a good sense of tactics, based on this from wikipedia:  the novelization of the film notes that the queen establishing her  nest  at the base is main power plant could have been chosen either for the feral, animal reason of the warmth that it would provide or for the intellectual reason of selecting a location where any attackers would be unable to destroy her without destroying the entire facility.  URL worth noting i think that xenomorphs are specifically designed as bio weapons.   #  the tail of a xenomorph is a legitimate weapon capable of slashing and impaling human beings.   #  well since you have already modified the raptors, they would not be the jurassic park raptors.  so, in a way, you already admitted that the xenomorphs would beat velociraptors in your premise.  also  xenomorphs are much larger than velociraptros.  from the movies, they appear to be 0 feet tall or so.  raptors are large and formidable compared to a human, but not as much so as a xenomorph.  xenomorphs can run on walls and ceilings.  raptors and ground bound.  xenomorphs are strong enough to bash down steel doors.  the raptors have to actually use a doorknob.  xenomorphs have long arms with human like clawed hands.  being able to grab and hold would be an advantage in a fight.  the tail of a xenomorph is a legitimate weapon capable of slashing and impaling human beings.  it is strong enough to also impale and lift a predator with ease.  raptor tails ca not do that.  the xenomorph inner jaw is strong enough to smash through bone and metal.  it can easily pop through a raptor skull.  xenomorphs are smart.  they have shown the can learn by observation and solve puzzles.  they have operated elevators and even killed one of their own to melt their way through an enclosure.  velociraptors can be clever too, but they have been outwitted by children.  they are tough enough to be considered a challenging hunt by the predators, a race of warriors that pride themselves on be able to kill things.  in addition, xenomorphs have shown resiliency against the very advanced weaponry of the predators.  i do not think a velociraptor is claws or teeth can even damage the bony, armored exterior of a xenomorph.  xenomorphs were shown to kill a huge number of human beings.  the raptors could not even hunt down and kill two scared kids.   #  based on the films, the two creatures were of comparable height.   #  based on the films, the two creatures were of comparable height.  in alien, the creature is estimated at 0 meters.  the alien tail is a serious weapon, but so are the raptor feet.  i think the raptor ability to leap onto an enemy and hooking on with its feet, leaving claws and teeth available to attack at close range would be very effective.  i think raptors would also be considered a challenging hunt for predators, but did not exist in the same universe.  i am not sure what resiliency to predator weapons you are referring to.  the predator blades were able to completely sever an alien head.  the raptors were unable to kill the kids in a brief encounter.  the xenomorphs allowed newt to live for an indeterminate length of time despite there being hundreds of aliens around.  still, the alien strength and ability to run on walls are convincing advantages.  i am not sure if i am completely sold that they would win, but there would be parity.     #  i do not understand how you can claim that the velociraptors are more intelligent than the aliens.   #  i think in an industrial compound the aliens would have the advantage.  their m. o.  is sneak attacks; an industrial compound would be full of air ducts, multi level buildings.  the twists and turns and abundance of hiding locations favour the aliens.  in a situation like this, their superior intelligence would be a huge factor in how it would all come out.  i do not understand how you can claim that the velociraptors are more intelligent than the aliens.  how can you claim this ?  #  in the long run, since it is an enclosed environment, the v raptors would either become very weak from hunger or they would start attacking each other.   # is this from that one scene where they opened a door or something like that in one of the movies ? the reason i am claiming that the aliens are of superior intelligence is because they hunted with patience while the v raptors unlike the toronto raptors are always on the attack.  ceaseless attack is tiring for  any  predator.  very soon the natural adrenaline and bloodthirstiness simmers down and they become more vulnerable as they get tired.  this whole time the aliens would be hiding in some part of the plumbing of ventilation systems or somewhere else perhaps and saving their energy.  in the long run, since it is an enclosed environment, the v raptors would either become very weak from hunger or they would start attacking each other.  just by strategically waiting, i think the aliens would win.
situation: an enclosed industrial compound of 0 acres.  for fairness, say the raptors were genetically engineered to have somewhat acid resistant skin.  i think that because they would fight as a group, and appear to be faster and stronger than the xenomorphs, they would be able to win out.  i think the aliens rely too much on picking off individuals, and building their numbers through breeding off their foes to handle a physically dominant force.  the velociraptors have a powerful jump to reach their enemies, and long enough limbs to avoid the inner jaws of the aliens.  their superior intelligence would enable them to come up with a strategy to fight the aliens.   #  and long enough limbs to avoid the inner jaws of the aliens.   #  but i am guessing the xenomorph tail is as deadly or deadlier, with possibly greater reach.   #  a few things:  situation: an enclosed industrial compound of 0 acres.  sounds good to me.  not exactly a  fair  fight, if the raptors are getting an unnatural advantage.  but, okay.  in alien, there is only a single xenomorph so it is forced to be stealthy and pick off the crew one by one.  in aliens, there are hundreds, and they are shown to work together and attack in large numbers.  the only advantage the humans had against them was technology automated turrets, welding all entrances/exits shut, and finally a nice  nuke from orbit .  xenomorphs are able to scale nearly any surface, including walking on the ceiling, giving them a lot more angles of attack or speedy ways to get around that the raptors could not.  if we take the avp games as canon, you were able to move at very high speeds and leap great distances as a xenomorph.  URL aliens vs.  predator from 0,  alien  gameplay a  speedrun  may be an extreme example but it gives perspective on what such a creature might be capable of.  again you are assuming the xenomorphs are a weaker force, and that picking off individuals is not still a valid tactic.  if a xenomorph is able to scale nearly any object and attack from any direction, it puts the raptors at a severe disadvantage.  but i am guessing the xenomorph tail is as deadly or deadlier, with possibly greater reach.  URL  their superior intelligence would enable them to come up with a strategy to fight the aliens.  my experience of raptors jurassic park is that they can open doors, communicate with one another, and do some problem solving.  xenomorphs in the films know enough to disable power generators, operate simple machinery, use things like elevators, etc.  it is suggested they may even have a good sense of tactics, based on this from wikipedia:  the novelization of the film notes that the queen establishing her  nest  at the base is main power plant could have been chosen either for the feral, animal reason of the warmth that it would provide or for the intellectual reason of selecting a location where any attackers would be unable to destroy her without destroying the entire facility.  URL worth noting i think that xenomorphs are specifically designed as bio weapons.   #  being able to grab and hold would be an advantage in a fight.   #  well since you have already modified the raptors, they would not be the jurassic park raptors.  so, in a way, you already admitted that the xenomorphs would beat velociraptors in your premise.  also  xenomorphs are much larger than velociraptros.  from the movies, they appear to be 0 feet tall or so.  raptors are large and formidable compared to a human, but not as much so as a xenomorph.  xenomorphs can run on walls and ceilings.  raptors and ground bound.  xenomorphs are strong enough to bash down steel doors.  the raptors have to actually use a doorknob.  xenomorphs have long arms with human like clawed hands.  being able to grab and hold would be an advantage in a fight.  the tail of a xenomorph is a legitimate weapon capable of slashing and impaling human beings.  it is strong enough to also impale and lift a predator with ease.  raptor tails ca not do that.  the xenomorph inner jaw is strong enough to smash through bone and metal.  it can easily pop through a raptor skull.  xenomorphs are smart.  they have shown the can learn by observation and solve puzzles.  they have operated elevators and even killed one of their own to melt their way through an enclosure.  velociraptors can be clever too, but they have been outwitted by children.  they are tough enough to be considered a challenging hunt by the predators, a race of warriors that pride themselves on be able to kill things.  in addition, xenomorphs have shown resiliency against the very advanced weaponry of the predators.  i do not think a velociraptor is claws or teeth can even damage the bony, armored exterior of a xenomorph.  xenomorphs were shown to kill a huge number of human beings.  the raptors could not even hunt down and kill two scared kids.   #  i am not sure what resiliency to predator weapons you are referring to.   #  based on the films, the two creatures were of comparable height.  in alien, the creature is estimated at 0 meters.  the alien tail is a serious weapon, but so are the raptor feet.  i think the raptor ability to leap onto an enemy and hooking on with its feet, leaving claws and teeth available to attack at close range would be very effective.  i think raptors would also be considered a challenging hunt for predators, but did not exist in the same universe.  i am not sure what resiliency to predator weapons you are referring to.  the predator blades were able to completely sever an alien head.  the raptors were unable to kill the kids in a brief encounter.  the xenomorphs allowed newt to live for an indeterminate length of time despite there being hundreds of aliens around.  still, the alien strength and ability to run on walls are convincing advantages.  i am not sure if i am completely sold that they would win, but there would be parity.     #  the twists and turns and abundance of hiding locations favour the aliens.   #  i think in an industrial compound the aliens would have the advantage.  their m. o.  is sneak attacks; an industrial compound would be full of air ducts, multi level buildings.  the twists and turns and abundance of hiding locations favour the aliens.  in a situation like this, their superior intelligence would be a huge factor in how it would all come out.  i do not understand how you can claim that the velociraptors are more intelligent than the aliens.  how can you claim this ?  #  the reason i am claiming that the aliens are of superior intelligence is because they hunted with patience while the v raptors unlike the toronto raptors are always on the attack.   # is this from that one scene where they opened a door or something like that in one of the movies ? the reason i am claiming that the aliens are of superior intelligence is because they hunted with patience while the v raptors unlike the toronto raptors are always on the attack.  ceaseless attack is tiring for  any  predator.  very soon the natural adrenaline and bloodthirstiness simmers down and they become more vulnerable as they get tired.  this whole time the aliens would be hiding in some part of the plumbing of ventilation systems or somewhere else perhaps and saving their energy.  in the long run, since it is an enclosed environment, the v raptors would either become very weak from hunger or they would start attacking each other.  just by strategically waiting, i think the aliens would win.
going back 0 is of years, since humans formed societies, men and women offered their natural resources in exchanges for sustenance, but in different ways.  i am not going to argue what the this is the  natural  state of humans as i am not qualified, but generally, going back 0 is of years unskilled men and unskilled women used different means of acquiring resources need to survive.  men with nothing to their name can go into town, offer up their body for backbreaking unskilled labor hauling, digging, etc for money.  women with nothing to their name can go into town and sexually offer their body for money.  and again, i am not saying this is the natural arrangement, but this is generally what happened for 0 is of years all the way up until about maybe 0 0 years ago where society generally started to find it unacceptable for women to sell their body, but did not place any stigma for men doing the same thing.  in 0, i can go into any random town with only a t shirt to my name and a shovel and provide my body to any farmer, rancher, warehouse, etc and everybody would praise me for being a hard worker.  but in 0, if i were a women and went into town with a short skirt and lipstick and offered my body to truckers at the gas station, society would shame me.  that is sexist.   #  but in 0, if i were a women and went into town with a short skirt and lipstick and offered my body to truckers at the gas station, society would shame me.   #  actually, if you are a men it is still considered prostitution and illegal.   # and any women can do this.  actually, if you are a men it is still considered prostitution and illegal.  i think you might need to rephrase the cmv to something like.  cmv it should be legal for anyone to sell their body for sex i assume you mean since we can sell our body for services like construction.  but your examples are off, you are comparing two different things.   #  women are not shamed for manual labor, just like men are not shamed for manual labor.   #  i think you are misrepresenting a huge part of history.  i am not aware of any time where prostitutes were not looked down upon.  throughout history, the virginity and  purity  of a woman was a big selling point.  they went so far as to inspect bed sheets for blood on the wedding night.  in order for something to be sexist, it has to be a double standard for the same thing.  women are not shamed for manual labor, just like men are not shamed for manual labor.  male prostitutes are looked down upon just like female prostitutes.  there is no sexism here.   #  men had to go dig ditches because thats what unskilled men were desired for.   #  ok, maybe they were never viewed as angels, but neither was a poor farmer.  my point being was that as an unskilled laborer coming from a poor family you had to do what you had to do to survive.  men had to go dig ditches because thats what unskilled men were desired for.  unskilled women, on the other hand, were desired for sex work.  yes it was not the only thing available to women, but a lot of women did it for 0 is of years because it made them a decent amount of money and it was not as shamed as it was in today is society.   #  similarly, one cannot say that the fact that men happen to excel on average over women at backbreaking labor is morally wrong.   #  i think they flaw in your reasoning is the equating of sex work and other forms of manual labor.  simply because they are unskilled, they are not the same.  sex work has higher moral stakes because society views sex as a more morally relevant thing.  your second flaw is calling it sexism because women happen to be better prostitutes and men happen to be better at other unskilled labor due to sex drive/strength disparities.  values are not typically governed by the relative ability of groups to engage in certain activities.  it is not morally wrong for a banker to make more money than me because he is good at banking and i am not, there exists a discrepancy that he benefits from.  similarly, one cannot say that the fact that men happen to excel on average over women at backbreaking labor is morally wrong.  it is simply a practical difference between the sexes.  men are probably better at strangling puppies too, but we would not say they are disadvantaged because they happen to be better at something that is not kosher.  we would say that value systems are free to judge actions not by their skill requirements but by their other features.  some people find selling your body sexually to be morally repulsing, and that is not based on the fact that it is such a skill free act.   #  there is an inherent element to sex that is different from physical labor.   #  men can be prostitutes too, ya know, and they would have to have penises inserted in the same places women do less one : ass and mouth.  you could do that.  right now, if you were broke, desperate and unemployed, you could go work on a farm, or you could go prostitute yourself.  which would you rather do ? which would be more comfortable, which would be less comfortable ? which would make you feel the most like you were  selling your body  ? would either make you feel degraded ? which one would make you feel more degraded ? there is an inherent element to sex that is different from physical labor.  i think you are really kidding yourself if you deny that.
going back 0 is of years, since humans formed societies, men and women offered their natural resources in exchanges for sustenance, but in different ways.  i am not going to argue what the this is the  natural  state of humans as i am not qualified, but generally, going back 0 is of years unskilled men and unskilled women used different means of acquiring resources need to survive.  men with nothing to their name can go into town, offer up their body for backbreaking unskilled labor hauling, digging, etc for money.  women with nothing to their name can go into town and sexually offer their body for money.  and again, i am not saying this is the natural arrangement, but this is generally what happened for 0 is of years all the way up until about maybe 0 0 years ago where society generally started to find it unacceptable for women to sell their body, but did not place any stigma for men doing the same thing.  in 0, i can go into any random town with only a t shirt to my name and a shovel and provide my body to any farmer, rancher, warehouse, etc and everybody would praise me for being a hard worker.  but in 0, if i were a women and went into town with a short skirt and lipstick and offered my body to truckers at the gas station, society would shame me.  that is sexist.   #  men with nothing to their name can go into town, offer up their body for backbreaking unskilled labor hauling, digging, etc for money.   #  while it is my personal opinion that there is nothing inherently wrong with the sex industry, women are not shamed for doing unskilled, non sexual labor house cleaning or waitressing for example , so your comparison is invalid.   # while it is my personal opinion that there is nothing inherently wrong with the sex industry, women are not shamed for doing unskilled, non sexual labor house cleaning or waitressing for example , so your comparison is invalid.  also, i would not say male strippers and prostitutes are revered by society, they have just always been somewhat marginalized due to the facts that the industry is predominantly female, and male sex workers have historically been patronized by homosexual men because women simply did not have the freedom to seek them out in the same way that men could seek out female prostitutes.  as a result it was swept under the rug with homosexuality in general, and never had the same sized market as female sex work did.  i do not think it is a double standard though, because sex work in general is seen as shameful by society, it just so happens that the archetype of a sex worker is female.  show me some parents who are really, truly proud of their son working at a strip club in key west and maybe i would buy your argument.   #  women are not shamed for manual labor, just like men are not shamed for manual labor.   #  i think you are misrepresenting a huge part of history.  i am not aware of any time where prostitutes were not looked down upon.  throughout history, the virginity and  purity  of a woman was a big selling point.  they went so far as to inspect bed sheets for blood on the wedding night.  in order for something to be sexist, it has to be a double standard for the same thing.  women are not shamed for manual labor, just like men are not shamed for manual labor.  male prostitutes are looked down upon just like female prostitutes.  there is no sexism here.   #  yes it was not the only thing available to women, but a lot of women did it for 0 is of years because it made them a decent amount of money and it was not as shamed as it was in today is society.   #  ok, maybe they were never viewed as angels, but neither was a poor farmer.  my point being was that as an unskilled laborer coming from a poor family you had to do what you had to do to survive.  men had to go dig ditches because thats what unskilled men were desired for.  unskilled women, on the other hand, were desired for sex work.  yes it was not the only thing available to women, but a lot of women did it for 0 is of years because it made them a decent amount of money and it was not as shamed as it was in today is society.   #  values are not typically governed by the relative ability of groups to engage in certain activities.   #  i think they flaw in your reasoning is the equating of sex work and other forms of manual labor.  simply because they are unskilled, they are not the same.  sex work has higher moral stakes because society views sex as a more morally relevant thing.  your second flaw is calling it sexism because women happen to be better prostitutes and men happen to be better at other unskilled labor due to sex drive/strength disparities.  values are not typically governed by the relative ability of groups to engage in certain activities.  it is not morally wrong for a banker to make more money than me because he is good at banking and i am not, there exists a discrepancy that he benefits from.  similarly, one cannot say that the fact that men happen to excel on average over women at backbreaking labor is morally wrong.  it is simply a practical difference between the sexes.  men are probably better at strangling puppies too, but we would not say they are disadvantaged because they happen to be better at something that is not kosher.  we would say that value systems are free to judge actions not by their skill requirements but by their other features.  some people find selling your body sexually to be morally repulsing, and that is not based on the fact that it is such a skill free act.   #  i think you are really kidding yourself if you deny that.   #  men can be prostitutes too, ya know, and they would have to have penises inserted in the same places women do less one : ass and mouth.  you could do that.  right now, if you were broke, desperate and unemployed, you could go work on a farm, or you could go prostitute yourself.  which would you rather do ? which would be more comfortable, which would be less comfortable ? which would make you feel the most like you were  selling your body  ? would either make you feel degraded ? which one would make you feel more degraded ? there is an inherent element to sex that is different from physical labor.  i think you are really kidding yourself if you deny that.
so, i saw a commercial today about a pill that helps with bed, and i did a bit of quick research on it.  from what little research i did, it is being framed as along the same lines of bulimia and anorexia.  on this website bedaonline. com , the causes sound very similar to plenty of other mental disorders, but nothing specifically points out that this is something that qualifies as a mental illness other than  genetics .  also, among their treatment options, you have got  movement classes , yoga, and meditation.  if it were truly a mental illness, would not it be a little hard to just will away ? these treatment options seem to just be a really nice ways of saying. go on a diet.  i do not want to be insensitive about this subject, thus why i am here.  the main issue i have with this  disease  is that essentially feels like a medical excuse for a lack of self discipline and dedication.  they have even got a pill for it.  if stretched far enough, this can include other eating disorders, but bed seems to differ in that anorexia and bulimia stem from a lack of positive body image.  bed, on the other hand, seems to err in the opposite direction.  you eat because you are sad, and then you are disgusted because you just ate three times what you should have, so you eat again.   #  also, among their treatment options, you have got  movement classes , yoga, and meditation.   #  if it were truly a mental illness, would not it be a little hard to just will away ?  # if it were truly a mental illness, would not it be a little hard to just will away ? these treatment options seem to just be a really nice ways of saying. go on a diet.  those are also very good treatments for a lot of other mental disorders like clinical depression, anxiety and addiction.  the reason they work is that they treat some of the causes of your disorder.  sugars release dopamine in the brain which makes you feel good.  if someone is treating their depression with simple carbohydrates, simply taking away their treatment because it is unhealthy and not offering something else to take its place is not going to be very successful.  so, let is say you work 0 hour days, have kids to take care of, are stressed out about money and you are just exhausted and depressed all the time.  one of the things you know will make you feel good is that snickers bar in the vending machine at work, because when you eat it your brain will release dopamine and you will temporarily be happy.  just saying  have the willpower not to do that  without making other significant life changes and possibly medication is going to fail more often than not.   #  as a former fatty i see all of these rationalizations going around as a means of removing agency from the fat people.   #  its not really an issue of empathy its an issue of pragmatism.  do you really need a professional to tell you to eat healthier or exercise more ? why would i counsel someone to waste large sums of  money  on solving a problem that they have all of the tools to solve by doing a few google searches ? as a former fatty i see all of these rationalizations going around as a means of removing agency from the fat people.  its not your fault.  its a disease.  you ca not do this alone.  you need to give us money and you will be saved.  bullshit.   #  in other words, you might need a doctor, or might just need to mtfu.   #  when i am dealing with an issue i tell myself to man the fuck up.  it really does not matter what type of issue it is intrapersonal, interpersonal, business, family, relationships, etc.  .  you would be surprised how far personal reflection and responsibility take you.  is not it funny that we live in a capitalist system and the one is who stand to profit are arguing for categorizing certain issues in a way such that they will stand to profit more ? in other words, you might need a doctor, or might just need to mtfu.  both may work but one will cost you.   #  i have thwarted it by reflecting on what what the cause and taking  actual steps  toward changing that aspect.   #  disclaimer: i am purely talking about  myself  and how  i  deal with things.  this is not meant as a judgment on anyone else.  i have been depressed many times.  i have thwarted it by reflecting on what what the cause and taking  actual steps  toward changing that aspect.  examples: i am depressed because i am fat: lose weight i am depressed because i ca not get girls: figure out why not i am depressed because i do not have a good job: take steps toward getting a better job.  this is called  self actualization .  i do view mental illness as a weakness.  it is also a condition.  these things are not mutually exclusive.  moreover, not all conditions that require treatment cannot be self treated.  and that is not to say some conditions do not require treatment.  all that being said i find very little value in  talking  out one is problems with other people.  i find immense value in taking  action .   #  throughout this whole post, you are constantly taking yourself as an example and putting that on other people and judging them for how they deal with their lives.   #  ok but you are thinking about depression in terms of  i am depressed because of x .  that is not how depression, in terms of disorders like major depressive disorder, works.  people who suffer from mental illnesses are not depressed for a specific reason, they are not able to change the situation they are in in order to stop being depressed.  their brain is unhealthy, their hormones are unbalanced, they do not have enough dopamine to retain any level of happiness, contentment, or satisfaction.  you view it as a problem with motivation and strength when literally everything published in the past 0 years on depression tells you you are wrong.  you say you have been depressed many times and fixed it by finding the cause and taking action.  you probably do not have a mental illness like mdd major depressive disorder .  because that is when depression happens for no external reason.  throughout this whole post, you are constantly taking yourself as an example and putting that on other people and judging them for how they deal with their lives.  not everyone is you and research does not back you up either.  cognitive behavioral therapy is essential for most disorders.  it is also a condition.  if you look at a schizophrenic person and think they are weak, you just have a completely backwards view of mental illness and honestly need to do some research on the topic.
i was thinking about the future and how there will be fewer and fewer jobs available in the coming years as a result of expanding technology.  and i started thinking about if things were ever like that for older generations.  and i realized, they probably were.  think about the industrial revolution.  you are a copyist.  every day, you go to work and your job is to read a document and rewrite it.  maybe you have a different document every day, maybe you need to just push out a certain quantity before you move on to the next project.  but then suddenly the printing press is invented and you are  terrified .  i feel like this is just another industrial revolution.  despite the quickly developing technology  and  expanding populations, there does not seem to be an overwhelming poverty creeping up on us.  i believe that  education  is the problem.  that copyist was probably a specialist of some kind.  not everyone really knew how to read at all, so there was an education barrier to that career that allowed some people to do it and others were out of luck.  and most fields are somewhat like that.  nowadays it is hard to find someone in the us who never learned how to read.  it is almost hard to wrap your mind around it.  most people even graduate high school, which while is not required was once a barrier people had to get through.  now it seems as though you can hardly get above a minimum wage job without a college degree.  i think that the purpose of education, any education at all, is to give someone the tools they need to succeed.  which is pretty hard to argue against.  i say that education in the us is failing pretty miserably and that is the reason we have got something to fear.  education, in politics, is a word you use when you want people to give you votes and money.  saying you are  for education  is like saying you are  against murder .  it is a crowdpleaser.  but if you actually look at what is being done for education, it is a total hatchet job.  that is what we should be scared about.  that the education barrier is being raised to a point where the average person ca not find a steady and reasonably paying job.  once, all you needed to do was know how to read.  now you basically need a master is degree in your field, which you only have if you have been funded parents, money, etc.  or you have been so sure about what you wanted to do with your life that you have worked your ass off for that field since you were 0.  sure, there will always be work that the average us citizen is overqualified for.  you know, the kind with a bachelors degree, debt, and no real career options.  but companies are allowed to ship that work to other countries which have work environments full of parasites and suicides.  so unless that changes, the average citizen should be entitled to a reasonable life.  which means billions invested into k 0 education and college tuition regulation or elimination.   #  the education barrier is being raised to a point where the average person ca not find a steady and reasonably paying job.   #  once, all you needed to do was know how to read.   # once, all you needed to do was know how to read.  now you basically need a master is degree the education barrier rising is an  effect  of rising automation.  it is not the problem, it is a symptom, the same way that having a fever is a  symptom  of the flu.  the education barrier is rising because the jobs which require little to no education are easy to automate.  leaving only jobs that require more education.  thus, the education barrier rises.  the root cause is rising automation.  on a side note, as part of a separate and distinct discussion; i do agree that the us education system is an abomination, and that improving it would help with the lost jobs to automation.  however i think it would really only delay the problem for a little bit.  why ? because if our education system gets better that only really means that it is more efficient at building us up to the required level to do the highly complex jobs that were previously impossible to automate.  however, given enough time, even those highly complex jobs can be automated as well by highly refined artificial intelligences, that are smarter than humans.   #  and so, we should not be afraid of automation outpacing education, we should instead try to develop systems for handling humanity equitably and humanely in a mostly automated society.   #  i do not think education is the problem, i think it is a  symptom  of the problem.  before simple machines could do work, humans had to do everything.  even if you had no education, if you had a strong back and were willing to use your muscles you could provide something of value.  but machines dig ditches way more efficiently and cheaply than humans.  now instead you need to learn how to operate the digging machine, which requires at least literacy and probably a high school education.  as they get more powerful, there are fewer operators required since one machine can do the work ten used to do but there are now more jobs coordinating them, so you need more project managers, and maybe more mechanics than can service machines.  a trade school or advanced cert.  you see where this is going, right ? the machines get smarter and more able, and in order to still provide something of value, you have to be more educated, in turn.  it is not  causing  the problem of the rise of automation, it is caused by the problem.  and so, we should not be afraid of automation outpacing education, we should instead try to develop systems for handling humanity equitably and humanely in a mostly automated society.   #  there are tons of outdated schoolbooks and curriculums are padded with uninteresting aged and unhelpful garbage.   #  you are basically on my point.  i definitely agree that there is a correlation between education barriers and job obsolescence but i think i disagree on the causation.  reason being, i do not believe that the us education is  responsible  for the geniuses in the fields that are causing the job obsolescence.  those geniuses have always existed and pushed the boundaries of what was possible for the time regardless of how strong the education was at the time.  at the moment, i think our education is too behind the times.  i think that better investment into education will result in an improved pace keeping so that students are ahead of the curve instead of behind it.  and i think the reason automation and education barriers are so scary is because education is unreasonably expensive lack of fed.  funding and because we are not being educated  efficiently  enough to know what things will be important for us to know.  for instance, i remember being in middle school and learning how to type.  it was stressed very much on us that we needed to boost our words per minute if we wanted to succeed in life.  this was in the early  0s.  even now, nobody gives a fuck how fast you can type.  it is pretty much not important.  and that is just one example.  there are tons of outdated schoolbooks and curriculums are padded with uninteresting aged and unhelpful garbage.  that is what being behind the times looks like.  curriculums need to be adapting faster than the technology that makes them obsolete.  which is only possible through educational reform.   #  i was taught how to type correctly in a required class in middle school.   #  i mentioned in another comment the game systems that are teaching people things they need to know without their realizing it.  my little sister is in middle school and she has math games as part of her homework.  which is awesome, and i wish that kind of education was standardized.  back to the typing thing for a moment.  i was taught how to type correctly in a required class in middle school.  but that was not where i learned how to type.  i learned how to type playing runescape.  and i imagine that a lot of kids my age did too.  i know for a fact i have seen that exact comment on reddit at least 0 times.  instead of trying to  beat  the machines by being smarter than they are, why are not we using the machines to improve ourselves ? why are not we taking advantage of  current  technologies to get a better read on where  tomorrows  technologies are going to be ? the only way automation is going to  truly  defeat us as a human race is if we are willing to put a limit on what the average human is capable of and we strictly stay within those bounds from an educational standpoint.  i will admit that there is a factor that holds back education in a way that ca not be avoided.  innovation requires experimentation, and experimentation requires failure.  innovating education for all means failing education for some.  but with funding kids and parents can be rewarded for participating we will buy your kid a 0 year old video game or ice cream and you get 0 bucks and i feel things can be made to improve without ruining lives.   #  i do agree that the us has its failings educationally, but no one really has this area figured out.   #  i actually agree that job obsolescence is nothing new.  the term  luddite  is a leftover of just such a situation where textile workers in the early 0th century protested against labor saving devices.  where i differ is in the direct link to education and specifically calling the us out on this front.  i do agree that the us has its failings educationally, but no one really has this area figured out.  the problem is that you ca not foretell the future of technology and that the rate of technology change is advancing.  the current educational model is to educate the young.  however, when technology is turning over in periods lower than the working life span of a worker, this model no longer works.  you can no longer give people the tools to succeed for a lifetime.  as such, just doing a good job of educating the young does not work because you do not know what skills they will need in 0 years.  in order to adapt, we will need to allow for education or re education later in life.  this is more of an economic structure change than an educational one and that is for all countries, not just the us.  our systems just are not set up to handle people dropping out of the work force later in life and still be able to support themselves and/or their families.  i do not have the solution, but it is much bigger than education.
to open, i would like to say that i am nonreligious and pro choice.  i believe that abortion is wrong from an objective standpoint.  i believe that, no matter what, a fetus is a living being, and that it is wrong to kill it.  i understand that some people do not have the means to care for a child, but adoption is, in most developed countries, an option.  i believe that life is an innate, inalienable human right, and that stealing it from another is wrong.  i feel as though pregnancies conceived through rape are still deserving of life and should not pay for the sins of the father, however, i find it much more easy to emphasize and sympathize with women who choose to terminate said pregnancies.  i would be more than happy to have my view change, but i have never encountered an argument that could do so.  mostly, it seems to boil down to pedantics revolving around whether or not a fetus is a living being or just part of the mother, which i do not find to be a point of debate even if it is not  alive  right now, it  will  be, so one way or another you are killing it.   #  a fetus is a living being, and that it is wrong to kill it.   #  so you do not eat, or at the least are vegan ?  #  my morality is rooted in suffering.  since a fetus does not suffer, i contend it is the mother is right to choose what to do with  her  body which the fetus is until it is viable.  any options she does not choose causes  her  suffering, theft from  her , so she has the moral right to do as she chooses.  so you do not eat, or at the least are vegan ? it is alive, it just has no awareness so it is the woman is choice to value it.  so you must be against harming the mother for the  personal  gain of the fetus.   #  the idea they express is  it is different when it is you .   #  which can be very tough, especially if the people who are judging you are people who you admire and/or whose opinions, in every other circumstance, you value highly.  which is one of the reasons this topic gets a lot of people very upset.  there are a lot of stories on the internet of girls who protest abortion clinics, find themselves in trouble, secretly get an abortion, then go back to protesting.  the idea they express is  it is different when it is you .  so really, this is a choice you absolutely must make yourself.  until you have been in that situation, you can never say what you would do.   #  almost everyone agrees that an infant is close enough to be counted as a person, and an unfertilized egg is not a person.   #  whether it hurts other people entirely depends on what you define as a person.  almost everyone agrees that an infant is close enough to be counted as a person, and an unfertilized egg is not a person.  i agree with you for the most part that a fetus is probably not a person, but i can recognize how someone might disagree.  right off the bat, you are making the assumption that a fetus is not at all a person.  it might be correct, but op obviously does not think so.  and if one thinks a fetus has some significant degree of personhood, then it is as reasonable for a pro choice person to say that abortion is morally wrong as it is for anyone to say any legal action is morally wrong.   #  i am a bot, and this action was performed automatically.   #  note:  your thread has  not  been removed.  your post is topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit.  similar posts can be found through our wiki page URL or via the search function URL regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.  i am a bot, and this action was performed automatically.  please contact the moderators of this subreddit /message/compose/ ? to /r/changemyview if you have any questions or concerns.   #  for instance, being raised in a zealously religious family and knowing that if you are revealed as pregnant, you will likely suffer greatly for it.   #  i would argue that since my body is finite, and i can potentially work for an infinite amount of more money, it is more of a moral imperative to spend all of your money after modest living expenses on charity before you start giving your body away.  call me crazy but i never saw the difference between indirectly aiding and directly aiding except for the faces of the people who are going to be helped.  and that can be powerful.  for the record, i think it is great that you donate to charity, and in real life i would not expect you to do more, but i am trying to make the point that money is a resource you can always get more of, whereas your body is pretty limited.  i could give my kidney to save a random hobo, sure, but i can only do that trick once.  and what if, say, my sister comes to me asking for a kidney after that ? you have to look at long term benefit as well.  i understand that abortion is not a great thing.  it is a choice that people struggle with.  but sometimes even for non health related reasons, it is the preferable alternative.  for instance, being raised in a zealously religious family and knowing that if you are revealed as pregnant, you will likely suffer greatly for it.  further, in a lot of situations, bringing a child into the world would make them suffer greatly; in my morality, bringing a child into the world to suffer is worse than simply making them never be born into it.  it is a crapshoot whether or not that person you bring into poverty will be productive, excel, or become the next villain of history slim chance, but even if they are not hitler, they can be a criminal who does hurt people, and that tends to be more likely under certain childhood conditions such as poverty and single parent households, particularly one where a child is not wanted .
to open, i would like to say that i am nonreligious and pro choice.  i believe that abortion is wrong from an objective standpoint.  i believe that, no matter what, a fetus is a living being, and that it is wrong to kill it.  i understand that some people do not have the means to care for a child, but adoption is, in most developed countries, an option.  i believe that life is an innate, inalienable human right, and that stealing it from another is wrong.  i feel as though pregnancies conceived through rape are still deserving of life and should not pay for the sins of the father, however, i find it much more easy to emphasize and sympathize with women who choose to terminate said pregnancies.  i would be more than happy to have my view change, but i have never encountered an argument that could do so.  mostly, it seems to boil down to pedantics revolving around whether or not a fetus is a living being or just part of the mother, which i do not find to be a point of debate even if it is not  alive  right now, it  will  be, so one way or another you are killing it.   #  i believe that abortion is wrong from an objective standpoint.   #  on what do you base an objective morality ?  # on what do you base an objective morality ? considering your strict stance against killing living beings.  how do you eat ? most  possible humans will never be born.  every single sperm and every single egg pairing would be a unique human with unique human dna.  can you explain to me what is different about preventing a specific sperm from meeting up with a specific egg with a condom, say and terminating that pregnancy once that specific sperm has fertilized that specific egg ?  #  there are a lot of stories on the internet of girls who protest abortion clinics, find themselves in trouble, secretly get an abortion, then go back to protesting.   #  which can be very tough, especially if the people who are judging you are people who you admire and/or whose opinions, in every other circumstance, you value highly.  which is one of the reasons this topic gets a lot of people very upset.  there are a lot of stories on the internet of girls who protest abortion clinics, find themselves in trouble, secretly get an abortion, then go back to protesting.  the idea they express is  it is different when it is you .  so really, this is a choice you absolutely must make yourself.  until you have been in that situation, you can never say what you would do.   #  whether it hurts other people entirely depends on what you define as a person.   #  whether it hurts other people entirely depends on what you define as a person.  almost everyone agrees that an infant is close enough to be counted as a person, and an unfertilized egg is not a person.  i agree with you for the most part that a fetus is probably not a person, but i can recognize how someone might disagree.  right off the bat, you are making the assumption that a fetus is not at all a person.  it might be correct, but op obviously does not think so.  and if one thinks a fetus has some significant degree of personhood, then it is as reasonable for a pro choice person to say that abortion is morally wrong as it is for anyone to say any legal action is morally wrong.   #  similar posts can be found through our wiki page URL or via the search function URL regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.   #  note:  your thread has  not  been removed.  your post is topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit.  similar posts can be found through our wiki page URL or via the search function URL regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.  i am a bot, and this action was performed automatically.  please contact the moderators of this subreddit /message/compose/ ? to /r/changemyview if you have any questions or concerns.   #  i could give my kidney to save a random hobo, sure, but i can only do that trick once.   #  i would argue that since my body is finite, and i can potentially work for an infinite amount of more money, it is more of a moral imperative to spend all of your money after modest living expenses on charity before you start giving your body away.  call me crazy but i never saw the difference between indirectly aiding and directly aiding except for the faces of the people who are going to be helped.  and that can be powerful.  for the record, i think it is great that you donate to charity, and in real life i would not expect you to do more, but i am trying to make the point that money is a resource you can always get more of, whereas your body is pretty limited.  i could give my kidney to save a random hobo, sure, but i can only do that trick once.  and what if, say, my sister comes to me asking for a kidney after that ? you have to look at long term benefit as well.  i understand that abortion is not a great thing.  it is a choice that people struggle with.  but sometimes even for non health related reasons, it is the preferable alternative.  for instance, being raised in a zealously religious family and knowing that if you are revealed as pregnant, you will likely suffer greatly for it.  further, in a lot of situations, bringing a child into the world would make them suffer greatly; in my morality, bringing a child into the world to suffer is worse than simply making them never be born into it.  it is a crapshoot whether or not that person you bring into poverty will be productive, excel, or become the next villain of history slim chance, but even if they are not hitler, they can be a criminal who does hurt people, and that tends to be more likely under certain childhood conditions such as poverty and single parent households, particularly one where a child is not wanted .
to open, i would like to say that i am nonreligious and pro choice.  i believe that abortion is wrong from an objective standpoint.  i believe that, no matter what, a fetus is a living being, and that it is wrong to kill it.  i understand that some people do not have the means to care for a child, but adoption is, in most developed countries, an option.  i believe that life is an innate, inalienable human right, and that stealing it from another is wrong.  i feel as though pregnancies conceived through rape are still deserving of life and should not pay for the sins of the father, however, i find it much more easy to emphasize and sympathize with women who choose to terminate said pregnancies.  i would be more than happy to have my view change, but i have never encountered an argument that could do so.  mostly, it seems to boil down to pedantics revolving around whether or not a fetus is a living being or just part of the mother, which i do not find to be a point of debate even if it is not  alive  right now, it  will  be, so one way or another you are killing it.   #  i believe that, no matter what, a fetus is a living being, and that it is wrong to kill it.   #  considering your strict stance against killing living beings.   # on what do you base an objective morality ? considering your strict stance against killing living beings.  how do you eat ? most  possible humans will never be born.  every single sperm and every single egg pairing would be a unique human with unique human dna.  can you explain to me what is different about preventing a specific sperm from meeting up with a specific egg with a condom, say and terminating that pregnancy once that specific sperm has fertilized that specific egg ?  #  the idea they express is  it is different when it is you .   #  which can be very tough, especially if the people who are judging you are people who you admire and/or whose opinions, in every other circumstance, you value highly.  which is one of the reasons this topic gets a lot of people very upset.  there are a lot of stories on the internet of girls who protest abortion clinics, find themselves in trouble, secretly get an abortion, then go back to protesting.  the idea they express is  it is different when it is you .  so really, this is a choice you absolutely must make yourself.  until you have been in that situation, you can never say what you would do.   #  right off the bat, you are making the assumption that a fetus is not at all a person.   #  whether it hurts other people entirely depends on what you define as a person.  almost everyone agrees that an infant is close enough to be counted as a person, and an unfertilized egg is not a person.  i agree with you for the most part that a fetus is probably not a person, but i can recognize how someone might disagree.  right off the bat, you are making the assumption that a fetus is not at all a person.  it might be correct, but op obviously does not think so.  and if one thinks a fetus has some significant degree of personhood, then it is as reasonable for a pro choice person to say that abortion is morally wrong as it is for anyone to say any legal action is morally wrong.   #  your post is topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit.   #  note:  your thread has  not  been removed.  your post is topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit.  similar posts can be found through our wiki page URL or via the search function URL regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.  i am a bot, and this action was performed automatically.  please contact the moderators of this subreddit /message/compose/ ? to /r/changemyview if you have any questions or concerns.   #  further, in a lot of situations, bringing a child into the world would make them suffer greatly; in my morality, bringing a child into the world to suffer is worse than simply making them never be born into it.   #  i would argue that since my body is finite, and i can potentially work for an infinite amount of more money, it is more of a moral imperative to spend all of your money after modest living expenses on charity before you start giving your body away.  call me crazy but i never saw the difference between indirectly aiding and directly aiding except for the faces of the people who are going to be helped.  and that can be powerful.  for the record, i think it is great that you donate to charity, and in real life i would not expect you to do more, but i am trying to make the point that money is a resource you can always get more of, whereas your body is pretty limited.  i could give my kidney to save a random hobo, sure, but i can only do that trick once.  and what if, say, my sister comes to me asking for a kidney after that ? you have to look at long term benefit as well.  i understand that abortion is not a great thing.  it is a choice that people struggle with.  but sometimes even for non health related reasons, it is the preferable alternative.  for instance, being raised in a zealously religious family and knowing that if you are revealed as pregnant, you will likely suffer greatly for it.  further, in a lot of situations, bringing a child into the world would make them suffer greatly; in my morality, bringing a child into the world to suffer is worse than simply making them never be born into it.  it is a crapshoot whether or not that person you bring into poverty will be productive, excel, or become the next villain of history slim chance, but even if they are not hitler, they can be a criminal who does hurt people, and that tends to be more likely under certain childhood conditions such as poverty and single parent households, particularly one where a child is not wanted .
to open, i would like to say that i am nonreligious and pro choice.  i believe that abortion is wrong from an objective standpoint.  i believe that, no matter what, a fetus is a living being, and that it is wrong to kill it.  i understand that some people do not have the means to care for a child, but adoption is, in most developed countries, an option.  i believe that life is an innate, inalienable human right, and that stealing it from another is wrong.  i feel as though pregnancies conceived through rape are still deserving of life and should not pay for the sins of the father, however, i find it much more easy to emphasize and sympathize with women who choose to terminate said pregnancies.  i would be more than happy to have my view change, but i have never encountered an argument that could do so.  mostly, it seems to boil down to pedantics revolving around whether or not a fetus is a living being or just part of the mother, which i do not find to be a point of debate even if it is not  alive  right now, it  will  be, so one way or another you are killing it.   #  i believe that life is an innate, inalienable human right, and that stealing it from another is wrong.   #  most  possible humans will never be born.   # on what do you base an objective morality ? considering your strict stance against killing living beings.  how do you eat ? most  possible humans will never be born.  every single sperm and every single egg pairing would be a unique human with unique human dna.  can you explain to me what is different about preventing a specific sperm from meeting up with a specific egg with a condom, say and terminating that pregnancy once that specific sperm has fertilized that specific egg ?  #  which can be very tough, especially if the people who are judging you are people who you admire and/or whose opinions, in every other circumstance, you value highly.   #  which can be very tough, especially if the people who are judging you are people who you admire and/or whose opinions, in every other circumstance, you value highly.  which is one of the reasons this topic gets a lot of people very upset.  there are a lot of stories on the internet of girls who protest abortion clinics, find themselves in trouble, secretly get an abortion, then go back to protesting.  the idea they express is  it is different when it is you .  so really, this is a choice you absolutely must make yourself.  until you have been in that situation, you can never say what you would do.   #  whether it hurts other people entirely depends on what you define as a person.   #  whether it hurts other people entirely depends on what you define as a person.  almost everyone agrees that an infant is close enough to be counted as a person, and an unfertilized egg is not a person.  i agree with you for the most part that a fetus is probably not a person, but i can recognize how someone might disagree.  right off the bat, you are making the assumption that a fetus is not at all a person.  it might be correct, but op obviously does not think so.  and if one thinks a fetus has some significant degree of personhood, then it is as reasonable for a pro choice person to say that abortion is morally wrong as it is for anyone to say any legal action is morally wrong.   #  please contact the moderators of this subreddit /message/compose/ ?  #  note:  your thread has  not  been removed.  your post is topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit.  similar posts can be found through our wiki page URL or via the search function URL regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.  i am a bot, and this action was performed automatically.  please contact the moderators of this subreddit /message/compose/ ? to /r/changemyview if you have any questions or concerns.   #  call me crazy but i never saw the difference between indirectly aiding and directly aiding except for the faces of the people who are going to be helped.   #  i would argue that since my body is finite, and i can potentially work for an infinite amount of more money, it is more of a moral imperative to spend all of your money after modest living expenses on charity before you start giving your body away.  call me crazy but i never saw the difference between indirectly aiding and directly aiding except for the faces of the people who are going to be helped.  and that can be powerful.  for the record, i think it is great that you donate to charity, and in real life i would not expect you to do more, but i am trying to make the point that money is a resource you can always get more of, whereas your body is pretty limited.  i could give my kidney to save a random hobo, sure, but i can only do that trick once.  and what if, say, my sister comes to me asking for a kidney after that ? you have to look at long term benefit as well.  i understand that abortion is not a great thing.  it is a choice that people struggle with.  but sometimes even for non health related reasons, it is the preferable alternative.  for instance, being raised in a zealously religious family and knowing that if you are revealed as pregnant, you will likely suffer greatly for it.  further, in a lot of situations, bringing a child into the world would make them suffer greatly; in my morality, bringing a child into the world to suffer is worse than simply making them never be born into it.  it is a crapshoot whether or not that person you bring into poverty will be productive, excel, or become the next villain of history slim chance, but even if they are not hitler, they can be a criminal who does hurt people, and that tends to be more likely under certain childhood conditions such as poverty and single parent households, particularly one where a child is not wanted .
what matters most about an idea is whether it is true, not its political ramifications such as subversiveness, sexism, racism, anti semitism, etc.  those aspects are about whose power and legitimacy the idea undermines, and they have no bearing on truth, which should be the only thing that determines the believability of an idea.  here is an example of a true racist idea: ice age adaptations make caucasians less athletic than black people.  it is mainly noticeable at the extremes: the best black athletes are better than the best white athletes.  i should believe this idea because evidence supports it, and not be afraid of the power dynamics it may disrupt.  that is  intellectual integrity .   #  the best black athletes are better than the best white athletes.   #  wayne gretzky was better at hockey than any black player to ever play the sport.   # wayne gretzky was better at hockey than any black player to ever play the sport.  babe ruth is arguably the best baseball player to ever play.  jack nicklaus is arguably the greatest golfer to ever play.  there are probably dozens of other sports where the greatest player of all time was white.  .  so your claim is not intellectual integrity.  it is inaccurate.   #  one day, a reporter comes up to and says that she has suspicions of just this.   #  suppose an old man lies on his deathbed, and you are his estranged son.  as he lies dying, he apologizes for the issue that has caused a rift between you, and asks for your forgiveness.  no matter what he says, though, you ca not really find it in your heart to give it to him.  so do you lie and tell him you forgive him, or do you tell him the truth and make his final moments painful ? consider another situation.  the prime minister of a nation is the best they have every seen.  under his leadership, the wealth gap between the rich and the poor has decreased; democracy has flourished from the ruins of the previous dictatorship; gdp has increased dramatically, and foreign investments are pouring in.  you are his secretary, and one day you accidentally walk in on him having sex with another man, who you recognize as another member of the government he has close ties with.  the people in your country are socially conservative, and the knowledge that he has sex with men and is cheating on his wife would ruin him.  one day, a reporter comes up to and says that she has suspicions of just this.  do you answer her honestly ? i think it is naive to say truth is the  only  thing that every matters about a statement.  honesty is a good policy because we cannot function without trust.  but truth functions as a weapon just as much as misinformation.  it is a true fact that black people have lower iqs than white people.  stating this fact without context the fact that iq correlates with environment and social class, the subsequent discussion about why african americans tend to be in a lower social class due to the effects of american history and why this is almost certainly not genetic, the fact that iq tests are biased in favor of the life experiences of the writers, the fact that a reverse pygmalion effect exists racially, the fact that race as we use it is a social construct and that generalizations over race are basically meaningless the way most people use them, and so on ends up having a sociopolitical effect anyway.  rather than explain why the fact does not imply what most people think it implies, i would rather not state the fact in the first place because facts do not exist in a vacuum.  i would not lie about it but i would not bring it up unless i knew my audience would understand it correctly.  the truth is important.  the problem is that the truth is wrapped up in a web of theory, and the wrong truths to the wrong theories will lead to people holding harmful views.   #  we teach that they are correct in high school.   #  the first two paragraphs are simply to set up the idea that  truth  is only one consideration you have to make when considering what to say.  i would in fact say you should lie in both situations.  this is, of course, opposed to op is view because this is r/changemyview, not r/agreewithme.  in the second, i would like you to consider your professional area of expertise.  i would then like to ask you to think about how to convey the most complex idea in it you understand with the catch that you have to convey it with no mistakes in 0 seconds.  unless you picked a very simple idea, you are going to have to leave out things, and explain inaccurately.  take newtonian physics, for example.  we teach that they are correct in high school.  they are not they are approximations.  nonetheless, you do not explain quantum mechanics to a fourteen year old right off the bat, because it wo not actually aid understanding.  when considering explaining things to adults, you must realistically consider how much time they are going to spend thinking about what you say, and how intelligent and/or open minded the average person is.  there is a reason all the logical arguments in the world did not have much effect on long term opinions about gay marriage, but door to door campaigning where people simply met gay couples did.  URL people are not logic machines.  everything you say conveys a message shape it wisely.   #  leonel messi might be the best soccer player of all time.   #  first off, the athletics thing is not true.  athletic talent seems to be more connected with desire and effort than race.  leonel messi might be the best soccer player of all time.  he is a 0 0 white argentine.  as for the rest of your post.  representatives are elected to represent the wishes of the people in their districts.  this means of the district where the work employs 0 people to make useless weapons for the military, the representatives job is to fight to keep those jobs.   #  in the nfl, for example, 0 of players are black vs.   # i think i agree mostly, but the way humans tend to process generalized information, unless you are very precise with the idea you run the risk of, by holding a true and honest idea in your mind, carrying and perpetuating a false  impression  resulting from that idea.  let is take your proposed example for analysis:  here is an example of a true racist idea: ice age adaptations make caucasians less athletic than black people.  it is mainly noticeable at the extremes: the best black athletes are better than the best white athletes.  it is  only  noticeable at the extremes.  in the nfl, for example, 0 of players are black vs.  0 of the u. s.  population.  at the collegiate level black athletes are about 0 of the player population, and at the high school level the ratios are even less skewed.  in other sports, however, it is not really as clear or precise as you say.  for example, kenyans specifically a particular tribe of kenyans dominate marathons, but you do not see them dominating in the nfl, do you ? or look in international football soccer competitions.  the german world cup team a bunch of whiteys has done pretty well over the years, with tons of championships.  other national teams have also shown excellence, despite a lack of black athletes.  the phrase  less athletic  is such a coarse generalization that it might give you the impression that white players cannot be competitive at the highest level, or that in the median competitive range where most actual people would exist that it is not close enough as to be ignorable.  by perpetuating that unqualified general idea even if in some sense correct you are risking perpetuating a lot of related specific ideas that are false.  and for ideas that are  false , do not you think that a false idea that causes suffering is worse than a false idea that causes no suffering or at least causes less suffering ? if so, then presenting a true general idea that carries with it associated false and harmful ideas, should be undertaken much more cautiously than a true general idea that has little associated downside, should not it ?
i have several opinions on this matter.  first, even if it becomes more common for people to post pictures of women topless, private sites like facebook or instagram are fully entitled to block/remove those posts.  they are private websites, so they can choose what is decent and indecent to be posted.  secondly, although i am conservative in nature, i think it is best for western culture to adopt a  no nipples  censorship.  i think that nipples are sexualized features in all genders, and if there is a huge concern with there being inequality in male vs.  female nipple showing, then it should be taboo for anyone to show their nipples, and topless pictures of all genders should be removed.  i would love to have my mind opened to why people want the female nipple freed, instead of having the male nipple banned.  i sincerely do not understand their view.  so, cmv !  #  i would love to have my mind opened to why people want the female nipple freed, instead of having the male nipple banned.   #  i sincerely do not understand their view humanity has been leaving behind the sinful nature of sex.   # i sincerely do not understand their view humanity has been leaving behind the sinful nature of sex.  when contraception did not exist i can understand piv sex being restricted to units that can take care of the offspring, so there was a whole taboo built around sex which was central to the main religions.  also, over time we have been able to uncover the human body without having people masturbating furiously, raping everything in sight or being traumatized and cowering in a corner out of shock.  now we look at a female foot or arm or a male leg or torso without any reaction.  this means  sexualized features  is a much lesser issue than ever, due to fewer features being sexualized and a smaller effect of that sexualization.  this also shows the tendency will be to consider sex and erotic feelings not something bad that  happens  to you when you see something, but something that develops as part of a relationship, individual choice and something healthy.  i think the sooner we uncensor the female nipple for a equality reasons and b social maturity reasons, the better for all.   #  things are sexualized when people perceive them as being related to sex and sexual attraction, but are not inherently involved or biologically intended for sex.   #  genitals are not sexualized, they are sexual.  their primary functions are sex and excretion.  things are sexualized when people perceive them as being related to sex and sexual attraction, but are not inherently involved or biologically intended for sex.  you may argue that the nipple is more sexualized than the other attractive parts of a person, and that is generally true.  but it is more sexualized because it is more taboo, not the other way around.  right now almost all times when men encounter the female nipple it is in a sexual context.  if people encountered the female nipple in more non sexual contexts it would no longer be so explicitly associated with sex.   #  and why should not nipples be associated with sex ?  #  but.  it is sexual.  a major function of female breasts is for breastfeeding.  breastfeeding happens after you get pregnant from sex.  and talk about nerve endings.  0/0 of women can orgasm through nipple stimulation alone.  i still think nipples are more taboo because they are sexualized.  and why should not nipples be associated with sex ?  #  as far as sensitivity goes, the inner thigh or the earlobe are both extremely sensitive areas that people frequently stimulate during sex.   #  it is not that they should not be associated with sex, it is that there is not a reason for them to be  exclusively  associated with sex.  just like those other parts i mentioned, people are attracted to it, but that attraction should not define the body part in all situations.  the breastfeeding link is at least 0 steps removed from sex.  if the nipple is obscene because it reminds people that sex has occurred, then children are even more obscene.  breastfeeding is related to reproduction, but only tangentially related to sex.  as far as sensitivity goes, the inner thigh or the earlobe are both extremely sensitive areas that people frequently stimulate during sex.  and yet when you see someone wearing short shorts you would not assume that the only reason they are doing that is for sex.  you might find it titillating, but you would probably also think someone was insane if they called the shorts obscene and tried to ban them.  you would not even think twice about seeing someone is earlobe, because you see them all the time and probably only think of them as sex objects when engaged in the activity.   #  people can still be attracted to her cleavage while still recognizing that her wearing what she is wearing is not necessarily a sexual act.   #  but it is not exclusively associated with sex.  the context of a girl wearing a low cut top might be that it is hot out, or that the shirt was the color she felt like wearing that day, or that it is laundry day and she does not have anything else to wear.  people can still be attracted to her cleavage while still recognizing that her wearing what she is wearing is not necessarily a sexual act.  why should the nipple be different ? what makes the nipple categorically different than cleavage or legs or the other things we have been talking about ? most people probably would still cover them up most of the time, but if someone wants to take their shirt off, why is it different than them wearing short shorts ? in both cases a body part people might be attracted to, and that could come into play during sex, is on display.  in fact for leg and ass men and women of which there are many , tight booty shorts could be even more appealing than a topless woman.  the only difference is we are used to seeing one, and not used to the other.
before you guys bombard me with downvotes i would simply like to point out that i am not saying this is true.  i am just expressing my conditional views that i am forced to live with.  these are obviously the views i wish you guys could help me conquer.  to get started i am pretty sure that by now you guys are probably thinking  this fool has spend too much time at /r/theredpill .  but i am not gonna lie, i was a member there once.  in fact i had this mentality years before being part of that subreddit.  it wasnt till last year when they decided to banned me over some stupid post that i finally woke up and ended up realizing how stupid and ignorant i been by using such sexist tactics to fulfill the grudges i held towards women for my past unsuccessful moments with them.  i simply moved on and said  fuck it ! i do not want to be miserable like these guys.   anyways growing up i was always conditioned to believe that we men are always happy and conformed with life just as long as we got a vagina to stick our penises in whenever it is available to us while women in the other hand do not just want a penis in them.  they only want a penis that.  will provide for them and take care of them in the long run is as hot as tom cruise, brad pitt or christian bale that is rich and wealthy that is gonna give them the will and ability to make all their other girlfriends jealous and the list goes on anyways those these things are common logic in today is society unfortunately i know that this cant always be the case.  i feel like i got these things engraved in my conscious now and no matter how much i try to see it from a positive perspective i always get a rush of negative thoughts from my past experiences and old believes that force me to end up back in the old pessimistic mindset that i been stuck with all of my life.  so can anyone please help me conquer this mindset once and for all ?  #  women in the other hand do not just want a penis in them.   #  they only want a penis that.  as a queer woman, i am a living example of why this particular statement is not true.   # they only want a penis that.  as a queer woman, i am a living example of why this particular statement is not true.  no penises penii ? for me, please.  regarding your general argument, how do you explain women who are in relationships with other women ? would not lesbians/bi women/queer women not exist if the gender stereotypes you bring up are true in 0 of cases ?  #  and yet people still fall in love and get married.   #  i am sure many people will answer with smarter and more interesting arguments, but this thought might be a good thing to keep in mind whenever you get your  rush of negative thoughts from my past experiences : in most of the world and especially during most of history, most people were not rich, did not have the resources to take care of a family in the long run, were not seen as attractive, were not educated or privileged and did not have an appealing job.  hell, until the 0th century the vast majority of the world is population worked in agriculture without any benefits from technology or hope for growth.  all of the things on your list are taken for granted today, but are completely unreachable for poorer and less privileged populations most people who have ever lived throughout the world and history.  and yet people still fall in love and get married.  so there must be something more to sex, love and marriage than what you used to think right ? otherwise underprivileged people getting married would not make any sense.   #  back then things that control the world today like tvs, internet, the social media etc didnt existed.   #  i understand and it makes perfect sense.  though at the same time as i was reading this the voices in the back of my head were screaming.   things today arent like they used to be back in the 0th century or before.  back in those days there wasnt as much commodity as today.  back then things that control the world today like tvs, internet, the social media etc didnt existed.  so people back then had no choice but to be humble and conform themselves with what they had available to them.   but still i think you are right as im pretty sure that all of today is commodity arent really that powerful enough to stop us from being the humans that we were born to be since we been existing.  but its just hard gripping on to these believes in thi superficial society we live in today  #  not sure if that was the collateral she used for the sex.   #  no i guess.  but i have only had casual sex twice throughout my life.  one of them was my ex who till this day still seems to have feeling for me.  though the day we did had sex she did ask me for 0 pesos.  not sure if that was the collateral she used for the sex.  but oh well i didnt care at that time and i would of still giving it to her whether she had sex with me or not as i do trust her and still love her as a friend.  or maybe a little more as i also admit that i too still have a little bit of feelings for her.  the second one im not so sure what it was as i met her at a party and she just flocked to me for some reason.  we just danced the night away and i guess she was down for more after the night was over  #  in this case, the instincts are for a woman to seek out partners that will give them good children  even if the woman in question does not actually intend to have children then or ever .   #  try it now, reddit did not like the format of the link.  as far as it supporting your view, unless i have a misunderstanding of what you are saying, it directly contradicts your view.  you are saying that the only reason a woman would have anything to do with a man is if she receives a benefit by doing so beyond simple enjoyment of the sex.  while it is true that every single behavior can ultimately be explained by some benefit to the individual, the connections start to break down when you account for the fact that the instincts remain even if that benefit is nor longer needed.  in this case, the instincts are for a woman to seek out partners that will give them good children  even if the woman in question does not actually intend to have children then or ever .  it is very similar to the way that male sexual attraction works in that men are attracted to signs of fertility in women, even if consciously they want noting to do with fathering any children.
i believe that poor americans should not be taking out large mortgages that they do not have the ability to pay for.  instead they should rent out apartments. homeownership is toted as beneficial to individuals but that has not been the case in the wake of the housing bubble.  from where i stand, i feel home owners buy bigger houses than they would normally buy if they had to save up for the money instead of taking out loans.  this is partly because when people buy homes, they feel that it is something permanent hence, they should get a good one.  also, tax deductions and low interest rates distort market signals, influencing people to buy larger houses than they would have otherwise.  you might say that housing is an investment and one of the few ways for the poor to invest their savings.  i would disagree.  most people want to buy their houses for life and are unlikely to sell their houses more than once or twice in a lifetime at max .  you would have better luck at the stock market.  which unlike the housing market is easier to liquidate and buy/sell.  also, renting in my opinion is cheaper.  why ? because people are more likely to rent smaller apartments than what they would have gone for if they were buying the place.  that again, is the psychological effect of seeing housing a long term investment and also the emotional aspect of thinking a home is special and since i am buying it once, i should get a good one.  moreover, the existence of a bubble proves that the price of homes had exceeded its value which is rent and continues to do so due to all the speculation going around in the housing market.  lets not forget, that renting also allows you the option to change homes readily when a cheaper one is available.  if you owned a house you probably would not be selling it for a mere hundred dollars a month, even though over time that might be a large sum but selling a house is a rough ordeal and finding buyers who are willing to pay the asking price is hard.  overall, it is not easy changing homes you own as it is when you are renting.  one more point for renting, it allows you to be mobile and move to places where jobs are least abundant to where it is most.  you can change neighborhoods easily when the one you are living in is going to dumps.  owning a home would make it difficult as the value of your homes drop and you are unable to move without incurring a huge loss.   #  you would have better luck at the stock market.   #  what money is going into the stock market ?  # how is that not an investment ? the number of times you move has nothing to do with the investment.  the equity you are putting into your home is there for use in the case of emergency.  even more importantly, it allows long term capital savings which the poor usually cannot sustain.  this allows a form of retirement savings which would be impossible if the money were disappearing for rent.  what money is going into the stock market ? we are talking about poor people here.  the option is either the money goes to a landlord, or into the equity of a house.  why ? because people are more likely to rent smaller apartments than what they would have gone for if they were buying the place.  this is not an argument for renting, it is an argument for smart buying.   #  then you also say an important point in favor of renting is the ability to move around freely.   #  you say people do not move more than once or twice.  i do not see how this supports your argument at all.  if you buy and never move, eventually you will own the house outright.  no more payments.  if you rent and never move, you just pay rent until you die.  then you also say an important point in favor of renting is the ability to move around freely.  but you already said they do not want to move often.  many of the things you say such as  large mortgages that they do not have the ability to pay for ,  buy bigger houses than they would normally buy ,  psychological effect , etc.  make it seem like you think poor people are not smart enough to make the right decisions.   #  but you already said they do not want to move often.   # i do not see how this supports your argument at all.  if you buy and never move, eventually you will own the house outright.  no more payments.  if you rent and never move, you just pay rent until you die.  people do not move because selling a house is difficult.  that provides a disincentive.  not only do you have to find the right buyer, you have to hire a realtor, wait for months, probably renovate to get a better price,etc.  this hassles make people want to move less.  but you already said they do not want to move often.  like i said, they do want to move when the opportunity arises but ca not due to the reasons i just stated.  make it seem like you think poor people are not smart enough to make the right decisions.  no, this behavior is more or less independent of income status imo.  i am not trying to berate poor people here.   #  as for whether you are berating poor people, there had to have been some reason you wrote it this way.   #  moving between rentals is hardly hassle free.  if i am not mistaken, one year lease terms are very common, so there is a fair chance that you will wait for months to move anyway.  the act of moving itself is a significant expense.  many families would not want to be moving their kids in and out of different schools all the time.  etc.  not saying it is exactly equal between buying and renting, but if you move in order to pay a hundred less per month in rent, i think it will take a long time to even out financially and there are other consequences.  as for whether you are berating poor people, there had to have been some reason you wrote it this way.  but this is cmv, i am not the political correctness police.  the more important point i want to make about that is i think much of your argument is based on a tendency to make bad choices.  if someone buys rationally, they avoid many of the negative consequences.   #  you ca not say the same about the poor.   #  it is easier to move from a rented apartment.  even with leases.  i have been doing it for years and has not been that difficult, although, i would not say it was hassle free.  i mention poor because the rich do not need to worry about saving money as much as the poor do.  they can buy three houses if they want, they can afford to do it.  you ca not say the same about the poor.
i believe that poor americans should not be taking out large mortgages that they do not have the ability to pay for.  instead they should rent out apartments. homeownership is toted as beneficial to individuals but that has not been the case in the wake of the housing bubble.  from where i stand, i feel home owners buy bigger houses than they would normally buy if they had to save up for the money instead of taking out loans.  this is partly because when people buy homes, they feel that it is something permanent hence, they should get a good one.  also, tax deductions and low interest rates distort market signals, influencing people to buy larger houses than they would have otherwise.  you might say that housing is an investment and one of the few ways for the poor to invest their savings.  i would disagree.  most people want to buy their houses for life and are unlikely to sell their houses more than once or twice in a lifetime at max .  you would have better luck at the stock market.  which unlike the housing market is easier to liquidate and buy/sell.  also, renting in my opinion is cheaper.  why ? because people are more likely to rent smaller apartments than what they would have gone for if they were buying the place.  that again, is the psychological effect of seeing housing a long term investment and also the emotional aspect of thinking a home is special and since i am buying it once, i should get a good one.  moreover, the existence of a bubble proves that the price of homes had exceeded its value which is rent and continues to do so due to all the speculation going around in the housing market.  lets not forget, that renting also allows you the option to change homes readily when a cheaper one is available.  if you owned a house you probably would not be selling it for a mere hundred dollars a month, even though over time that might be a large sum but selling a house is a rough ordeal and finding buyers who are willing to pay the asking price is hard.  overall, it is not easy changing homes you own as it is when you are renting.  one more point for renting, it allows you to be mobile and move to places where jobs are least abundant to where it is most.  you can change neighborhoods easily when the one you are living in is going to dumps.  owning a home would make it difficult as the value of your homes drop and you are unable to move without incurring a huge loss.   #  you would have better luck at the stock market.   #  which unlike the housing market is easier to liquidate and buy/sell.   # which unlike the housing market is easier to liquidate and buy/sell.  unlike stock, a house is useful while owning it, which is important for poor people.  frankly, if you have money to risk on the stock market you are actually not poor at all.  why ? because people are more likely to rent smaller apartments than what they would have gone for if they were buying the place.  speculation poor people are more likely to buy at the bottom of the market, the smallest properties.  renting cannot be cheaper, as the price can be adapted to track cost of living to maximize profit.  the value of a loan and relative mortgage payments decline along with inflation.  that has little to do with poor people buying a house.  they buy a house to live in, they do not have disposable money to speculate.  you can change neighborhoods easily when the one you are living in is going to dumps.  owning a home would make it difficult as the value of your homes drop and you are unable to move without incurring a huge loss.  an important concern, but a couple with two jobs losing one still ca not move.  besides, switching rentals costs time, money and energy too.  buying a house is useful for the poor because it allows them to accumulate capital instead of giving it away to their landlord, because they can use that capital for a basic need while they own it, because their loan will decrease in value while their house increases in value and even if it does not they can still live in it , because they can invest their leftover time and effort in improving their house, giving them an opportunity to create more value.   #  if you buy and never move, eventually you will own the house outright.   #  you say people do not move more than once or twice.  i do not see how this supports your argument at all.  if you buy and never move, eventually you will own the house outright.  no more payments.  if you rent and never move, you just pay rent until you die.  then you also say an important point in favor of renting is the ability to move around freely.  but you already said they do not want to move often.  many of the things you say such as  large mortgages that they do not have the ability to pay for ,  buy bigger houses than they would normally buy ,  psychological effect , etc.  make it seem like you think poor people are not smart enough to make the right decisions.   #  if you buy and never move, eventually you will own the house outright.   # i do not see how this supports your argument at all.  if you buy and never move, eventually you will own the house outright.  no more payments.  if you rent and never move, you just pay rent until you die.  people do not move because selling a house is difficult.  that provides a disincentive.  not only do you have to find the right buyer, you have to hire a realtor, wait for months, probably renovate to get a better price,etc.  this hassles make people want to move less.  but you already said they do not want to move often.  like i said, they do want to move when the opportunity arises but ca not due to the reasons i just stated.  make it seem like you think poor people are not smart enough to make the right decisions.  no, this behavior is more or less independent of income status imo.  i am not trying to berate poor people here.   #  as for whether you are berating poor people, there had to have been some reason you wrote it this way.   #  moving between rentals is hardly hassle free.  if i am not mistaken, one year lease terms are very common, so there is a fair chance that you will wait for months to move anyway.  the act of moving itself is a significant expense.  many families would not want to be moving their kids in and out of different schools all the time.  etc.  not saying it is exactly equal between buying and renting, but if you move in order to pay a hundred less per month in rent, i think it will take a long time to even out financially and there are other consequences.  as for whether you are berating poor people, there had to have been some reason you wrote it this way.  but this is cmv, i am not the political correctness police.  the more important point i want to make about that is i think much of your argument is based on a tendency to make bad choices.  if someone buys rationally, they avoid many of the negative consequences.   #  i have been doing it for years and has not been that difficult, although, i would not say it was hassle free.   #  it is easier to move from a rented apartment.  even with leases.  i have been doing it for years and has not been that difficult, although, i would not say it was hassle free.  i mention poor because the rich do not need to worry about saving money as much as the poor do.  they can buy three houses if they want, they can afford to do it.  you ca not say the same about the poor.
i believe that poor americans should not be taking out large mortgages that they do not have the ability to pay for.  instead they should rent out apartments. homeownership is toted as beneficial to individuals but that has not been the case in the wake of the housing bubble.  from where i stand, i feel home owners buy bigger houses than they would normally buy if they had to save up for the money instead of taking out loans.  this is partly because when people buy homes, they feel that it is something permanent hence, they should get a good one.  also, tax deductions and low interest rates distort market signals, influencing people to buy larger houses than they would have otherwise.  you might say that housing is an investment and one of the few ways for the poor to invest their savings.  i would disagree.  most people want to buy their houses for life and are unlikely to sell their houses more than once or twice in a lifetime at max .  you would have better luck at the stock market.  which unlike the housing market is easier to liquidate and buy/sell.  also, renting in my opinion is cheaper.  why ? because people are more likely to rent smaller apartments than what they would have gone for if they were buying the place.  that again, is the psychological effect of seeing housing a long term investment and also the emotional aspect of thinking a home is special and since i am buying it once, i should get a good one.  moreover, the existence of a bubble proves that the price of homes had exceeded its value which is rent and continues to do so due to all the speculation going around in the housing market.  lets not forget, that renting also allows you the option to change homes readily when a cheaper one is available.  if you owned a house you probably would not be selling it for a mere hundred dollars a month, even though over time that might be a large sum but selling a house is a rough ordeal and finding buyers who are willing to pay the asking price is hard.  overall, it is not easy changing homes you own as it is when you are renting.  one more point for renting, it allows you to be mobile and move to places where jobs are least abundant to where it is most.  you can change neighborhoods easily when the one you are living in is going to dumps.  owning a home would make it difficult as the value of your homes drop and you are unable to move without incurring a huge loss.   #  moreover, the existence of a bubble proves that the price of homes had exceeded its value which is rent and continues to do so due to all the speculation going around in the housing market.   #  that has little to do with poor people buying a house.   # which unlike the housing market is easier to liquidate and buy/sell.  unlike stock, a house is useful while owning it, which is important for poor people.  frankly, if you have money to risk on the stock market you are actually not poor at all.  why ? because people are more likely to rent smaller apartments than what they would have gone for if they were buying the place.  speculation poor people are more likely to buy at the bottom of the market, the smallest properties.  renting cannot be cheaper, as the price can be adapted to track cost of living to maximize profit.  the value of a loan and relative mortgage payments decline along with inflation.  that has little to do with poor people buying a house.  they buy a house to live in, they do not have disposable money to speculate.  you can change neighborhoods easily when the one you are living in is going to dumps.  owning a home would make it difficult as the value of your homes drop and you are unable to move without incurring a huge loss.  an important concern, but a couple with two jobs losing one still ca not move.  besides, switching rentals costs time, money and energy too.  buying a house is useful for the poor because it allows them to accumulate capital instead of giving it away to their landlord, because they can use that capital for a basic need while they own it, because their loan will decrease in value while their house increases in value and even if it does not they can still live in it , because they can invest their leftover time and effort in improving their house, giving them an opportunity to create more value.   #  make it seem like you think poor people are not smart enough to make the right decisions.   #  you say people do not move more than once or twice.  i do not see how this supports your argument at all.  if you buy and never move, eventually you will own the house outright.  no more payments.  if you rent and never move, you just pay rent until you die.  then you also say an important point in favor of renting is the ability to move around freely.  but you already said they do not want to move often.  many of the things you say such as  large mortgages that they do not have the ability to pay for ,  buy bigger houses than they would normally buy ,  psychological effect , etc.  make it seem like you think poor people are not smart enough to make the right decisions.   #  i do not see how this supports your argument at all.   # i do not see how this supports your argument at all.  if you buy and never move, eventually you will own the house outright.  no more payments.  if you rent and never move, you just pay rent until you die.  people do not move because selling a house is difficult.  that provides a disincentive.  not only do you have to find the right buyer, you have to hire a realtor, wait for months, probably renovate to get a better price,etc.  this hassles make people want to move less.  but you already said they do not want to move often.  like i said, they do want to move when the opportunity arises but ca not due to the reasons i just stated.  make it seem like you think poor people are not smart enough to make the right decisions.  no, this behavior is more or less independent of income status imo.  i am not trying to berate poor people here.   #  many families would not want to be moving their kids in and out of different schools all the time.   #  moving between rentals is hardly hassle free.  if i am not mistaken, one year lease terms are very common, so there is a fair chance that you will wait for months to move anyway.  the act of moving itself is a significant expense.  many families would not want to be moving their kids in and out of different schools all the time.  etc.  not saying it is exactly equal between buying and renting, but if you move in order to pay a hundred less per month in rent, i think it will take a long time to even out financially and there are other consequences.  as for whether you are berating poor people, there had to have been some reason you wrote it this way.  but this is cmv, i am not the political correctness police.  the more important point i want to make about that is i think much of your argument is based on a tendency to make bad choices.  if someone buys rationally, they avoid many of the negative consequences.   #  you ca not say the same about the poor.   #  it is easier to move from a rented apartment.  even with leases.  i have been doing it for years and has not been that difficult, although, i would not say it was hassle free.  i mention poor because the rich do not need to worry about saving money as much as the poor do.  they can buy three houses if they want, they can afford to do it.  you ca not say the same about the poor.
i believe that poor americans should not be taking out large mortgages that they do not have the ability to pay for.  instead they should rent out apartments. homeownership is toted as beneficial to individuals but that has not been the case in the wake of the housing bubble.  from where i stand, i feel home owners buy bigger houses than they would normally buy if they had to save up for the money instead of taking out loans.  this is partly because when people buy homes, they feel that it is something permanent hence, they should get a good one.  also, tax deductions and low interest rates distort market signals, influencing people to buy larger houses than they would have otherwise.  you might say that housing is an investment and one of the few ways for the poor to invest their savings.  i would disagree.  most people want to buy their houses for life and are unlikely to sell their houses more than once or twice in a lifetime at max .  you would have better luck at the stock market.  which unlike the housing market is easier to liquidate and buy/sell.  also, renting in my opinion is cheaper.  why ? because people are more likely to rent smaller apartments than what they would have gone for if they were buying the place.  that again, is the psychological effect of seeing housing a long term investment and also the emotional aspect of thinking a home is special and since i am buying it once, i should get a good one.  moreover, the existence of a bubble proves that the price of homes had exceeded its value which is rent and continues to do so due to all the speculation going around in the housing market.  lets not forget, that renting also allows you the option to change homes readily when a cheaper one is available.  if you owned a house you probably would not be selling it for a mere hundred dollars a month, even though over time that might be a large sum but selling a house is a rough ordeal and finding buyers who are willing to pay the asking price is hard.  overall, it is not easy changing homes you own as it is when you are renting.  one more point for renting, it allows you to be mobile and move to places where jobs are least abundant to where it is most.  you can change neighborhoods easily when the one you are living in is going to dumps.  owning a home would make it difficult as the value of your homes drop and you are unable to move without incurring a huge loss.   #  one more point for renting, it allows you to be mobile and move to places where jobs are least abundant to where it is most.   #  you can change neighborhoods easily when the one you are living in is going to dumps.   # which unlike the housing market is easier to liquidate and buy/sell.  unlike stock, a house is useful while owning it, which is important for poor people.  frankly, if you have money to risk on the stock market you are actually not poor at all.  why ? because people are more likely to rent smaller apartments than what they would have gone for if they were buying the place.  speculation poor people are more likely to buy at the bottom of the market, the smallest properties.  renting cannot be cheaper, as the price can be adapted to track cost of living to maximize profit.  the value of a loan and relative mortgage payments decline along with inflation.  that has little to do with poor people buying a house.  they buy a house to live in, they do not have disposable money to speculate.  you can change neighborhoods easily when the one you are living in is going to dumps.  owning a home would make it difficult as the value of your homes drop and you are unable to move without incurring a huge loss.  an important concern, but a couple with two jobs losing one still ca not move.  besides, switching rentals costs time, money and energy too.  buying a house is useful for the poor because it allows them to accumulate capital instead of giving it away to their landlord, because they can use that capital for a basic need while they own it, because their loan will decrease in value while their house increases in value and even if it does not they can still live in it , because they can invest their leftover time and effort in improving their house, giving them an opportunity to create more value.   #  you say people do not move more than once or twice.   #  you say people do not move more than once or twice.  i do not see how this supports your argument at all.  if you buy and never move, eventually you will own the house outright.  no more payments.  if you rent and never move, you just pay rent until you die.  then you also say an important point in favor of renting is the ability to move around freely.  but you already said they do not want to move often.  many of the things you say such as  large mortgages that they do not have the ability to pay for ,  buy bigger houses than they would normally buy ,  psychological effect , etc.  make it seem like you think poor people are not smart enough to make the right decisions.   #  this hassles make people want to move less.   # i do not see how this supports your argument at all.  if you buy and never move, eventually you will own the house outright.  no more payments.  if you rent and never move, you just pay rent until you die.  people do not move because selling a house is difficult.  that provides a disincentive.  not only do you have to find the right buyer, you have to hire a realtor, wait for months, probably renovate to get a better price,etc.  this hassles make people want to move less.  but you already said they do not want to move often.  like i said, they do want to move when the opportunity arises but ca not due to the reasons i just stated.  make it seem like you think poor people are not smart enough to make the right decisions.  no, this behavior is more or less independent of income status imo.  i am not trying to berate poor people here.   #  if someone buys rationally, they avoid many of the negative consequences.   #  moving between rentals is hardly hassle free.  if i am not mistaken, one year lease terms are very common, so there is a fair chance that you will wait for months to move anyway.  the act of moving itself is a significant expense.  many families would not want to be moving their kids in and out of different schools all the time.  etc.  not saying it is exactly equal between buying and renting, but if you move in order to pay a hundred less per month in rent, i think it will take a long time to even out financially and there are other consequences.  as for whether you are berating poor people, there had to have been some reason you wrote it this way.  but this is cmv, i am not the political correctness police.  the more important point i want to make about that is i think much of your argument is based on a tendency to make bad choices.  if someone buys rationally, they avoid many of the negative consequences.   #  i have been doing it for years and has not been that difficult, although, i would not say it was hassle free.   #  it is easier to move from a rented apartment.  even with leases.  i have been doing it for years and has not been that difficult, although, i would not say it was hassle free.  i mention poor because the rich do not need to worry about saving money as much as the poor do.  they can buy three houses if they want, they can afford to do it.  you ca not say the same about the poor.
i will try not to spoil anything here for people who have not watched game of thrones, but this post is specifically about events in that show.  so if you do not watch it, or intend to, perhaps this is a good time to skedaddle.  tonight is episode featured a rape scene.  /sp i googled  game of thrones rape  to find that within an hour of the episode airing, several prominent publications had already posted articles with titles like  wouldid game of thrones go too far ?    was that rape scene necessary ?   etc.  etc.  i do not even want to check twitter because i have a feeling it is full of the same.  a rape scene ! outrage ! when will rape culture stop ! ? got went too far ! yet the show also depicts hundreds, literally hundreds of murders.  murders of babies.  murders of parents in front of the children.  casual murder.  there was a murder of an unborn child in one episode.  yet the only reaction people have to those is that  they miss that character  or  omg i did not see that coming.    here is what i am not saying:  i am not saying that rape is acceptable, or that we should just sit back and enjoy it when it is depicted on film.  that scene was hard as hell to watch.  i am also not saying that we should be outraged that game of thrones or any show for that matter is ultra violent and depicts so much murder.  but i think it is absurd to get worked up about a show depicting something terrible rape while totally ignoring that it constantly depicts something that is, in my opinion, worse murder .  change my view.  example of what i am talking about scroll down for twitter reactions as well : here URL  #  tonight is episode featured a rape scene.   #  i googled  game of thrones rape  to find that within an hour.  rape brings out a lot of strong reactions from people.   #  i am not going to go the same route everyone else has already covered, but i did find this note interesting.  i googled  game of thrones rape  to find that within an hour.  rape brings out a lot of strong reactions from people.  i would be willing to bet you have never once googled  game of thrones murder   immediately after watching an episode, but when a rape happens, even you are joining the crowd of people looking for what everyone else thinks of it.  i ca not really comment on whether or not it is ridiculous to be offended by it, though.  i kind of consider it ridiculous to be offended by much of anything in a show like that.   #  am i wrong considering opam was a coward in most of the movie ?  #  a comedian jimmy carr noted that you cannot give offense.  offense can only be taken.  it is the recipient that gets to decide if something is offensive to them.  now, unless you are a mind reader, you cannot know if the person claiming offense is lying.  more so, unless you have their same life experience, it is a bit egotistical to say that we should all have the same level of resistance to offensive material.  tonight is episode dealt with rape.  now, while murder and mutilation might be potential risks in our modern society, rape appears to be a real risk that women and some men must mentally be concerned with daily i can only source the daily show segment about this, sorry .  its possible then that scenes about rape, more so rape where even the act of resisting can bring death, flips a mental switch that brings about disgust and nausea in the viewer.  what is more, even the violent acts you mentioned bring about different levels of reaction.  the death of prince oberyn brought about a strong emotional reaction, negative in a sense, even though this show has shown much more violent deaths.  there was a more graphic rape that occurred in season 0 the event occurring elsewhere while sansa was saved by clegane .  yet that was not as disturbing as tonight is for a number of reasons for a few people.  take another perspective.  i had a father in law that was a medic in vietnam.  he refused to watch saving private ryan after hearing from other friends that the movie connected too close to home.  these are people that took in the 0s horror movies yet the violence in that movie connected to much.  and yes, there were complaints about the violence in saving private ryan.  for my father in law, it was the opening scene that worried him the most.  for me, it was opam is cowardice that lead to the death of his friend that offended me the most in that movie.  am i wrong considering opam was a coward in most of the movie ? true offense may be beyond the control of a person.  without being a mind reader, you should not know for certain.  with offense, is it wrong to complain about materials or scenes that activated that offense ? part of me says yes as that is the feedback loop that should exist between the viewer and the show is production.  for the particular event of got though, many of the complaints try to justify their point of view by saying the source material was not as graphic or that the story should have been changed.  both of those i can at least argue against.  it should be wrong for me to say  get over it, much worse has happened  as my sole argument without knowing the other person is point of view.   #  it is a movie meant to show the horrors of war and obviously it achieves that goal extremely well, and got in that episode obviously showed extremely well how horrifying rape is and how it tears away the victim is agency.   #  you make very valid points, and i have not watched this particular episode yet i have read all the books and watched up to season 0 ish.  however i would say that got and asoiaf both try to make the readers/viewers extremely uncomfortable.  they are meant to be tough to witness and they are supposed to depict intense hardship and the absolute tearing down of characters both mentally and physically.  it likes to take what someone holds closest and tear that away from them.  jaime, whose identity revolved so much around his swordsmanship lost his sword hand.  cat, to whom family was always above all else watched her family fall one by one.  thus it surprises me not one bit that they took sansa, the ultimate romantic who believed in happily ever afters, and tore that away piece by piece.  i also know that that is not the most effective counter argument.  so i will leave it with this, i do not believe that they went too far and i do not think it is right to accuse them of that.  you cited your father in law is and your own, to some degree reaction to saving private ryan, would you say it is right for people to complain about that movie and say that they went to far and need to apologize or whatever ? probably not.  it is a movie meant to show the horrors of war and obviously it achieves that goal extremely well, and got in that episode obviously showed extremely well how horrifying rape is and how it tears away the victim is agency.  it may be offensive but honestly, so what ? offense is not something that needs to be avoided at all costs.   #  that said, i think your point is spot on in that offense can not be given, only taken.   # the source material was just as graphic, however it happened to a non main character who the readers were not invested in.  the show switched it up and had it happen to someone who the viewers actually care about.  that said, i think your point is spot on in that offense can not be given, only taken.  i never understand the  people should not be offended.   line because if they are offended, then they are offended.  telling them they should not be is like telling someone they should not be happy, or sad, or any other group of emotions.   #  is not jimmy carr is point actually in contrast to yours ?  #  is not jimmy carr is point actually in contrast to yours ? many comedians keep on making this point, it is people who complain who are choosing to be offended, sure not everyone does not have the same level of resistance to offensive material but that does not imply that therefore we should be careful of offending those who are easily offended, it is that people who are easily offended are not making a legitimate complaint when they claim offense.  as stephen fry puts it,  it is now very common to hear people say,  i am rather offended by that.   as if that gives them certain rights.  it is actually nothing more.  than a whine.   i find that offensive.   it has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase.   i am offended by that.   well, so fucking what.   on a spectrum there are more and less prude people.  there are some people who would find nudity offensive, who would find sex scenes offensive, who would find homoerotic scenes offensive, who would find torture and mutilation offensive, but in my opinion and jimmy carr is who you reference the creative process should never be censored in in fear of causing offense.  people of course are allowed to be offended, but when it is a fictional show your actions extend to not watching, why does it matter how it affects you, its not your creation.  so i guess my question to you is: should creative process and creation really be driven out of what might offend people ?
i see this all the time on reddit, and i kind of grow annoyed with it, mostly because i am going through the rotc program now and will be commissioning into the us navy in 0 year is time  we are overspending on military, money could be better spent somewhere else.   the reason i decided to join the military was mostly due to growing up and listening to the news about  car bomb  goes off here, or  0 killed in gunfight  over there, but when i looked out my window, all i saw was my neighborhood friends playing in the street.  this country seemed special to me.  it seemed like one of the safest places to live, and before  really  living in it, i wanted to give back some of the years of my life in order to keep it safe for the next kid to grow up in.  i am not democratic or republican, i just believe that our safety is 0, and i would rather be over kill than under when it comes to it.  i think one of the reasons the us is so well protected, so much so that we will never have another war on our homeland, so much so that we could deter almost all biological, chemical, ballistic, nuclear what have you threats against us, so much so that if there were to be an all out free for all war across the entire globe, we would be the last ones standing, is because of our over powering military.  we are unparalleled in any nation in technology, even the stuff the gov t allows us to see is spectacular, and we are the ones selling new tech to our allies, not the other way around.  i believe it is this  untouchableness  that keeps us safe, no country on the planet would feel good going into a fight with us, and it is due to the national defense budget.  as a democratic nation, we have elected the people we found best suited for the job to run our country, so why would we not empower them to make bills supporting the military ? it is these peoples  jobs  to figure out what we need to remain the top global superpower, we elected these people, and yet we have citizens who would prefer more spending in infrastructure so they can get to work faster.  i am on track to become a naval pilot with hopes to obtain a masters degree and move on to work for nasa after my 0 year commitment, so i will be the first to understand that there are programs out there that could do crazy amazing things with even 0 of the military budget, but i still remain that i would put space exploration on the back burner to national safety.  additional pro military budget notes not related to us defense: we are often called out for policing the world, but when there is bloodshed and conflict somewhere on the globe that needs to be cooled off, who do they call first ? not to mention with our vast naval fleet, we are nearly always the first to respond and provide medicine and relief efforts to earthquakes, tsunamis, you name it.  our military works to our allies  advantage as well, if a 0/0 incident were to occur in britain you can be sure their osama bin laden would be hunted down if not killed by our soldiers.   #  yet we have citizens who would prefer more spending in infrastructure so they can get to work faster.   #  this is a strawmanning of the position to support infrastructure.   #  while you do note that it is the supposed untouchableness of the us that lets you be safe, there are thing to consider.  0 other nations, such as canada, and the eu, spend much less on military endevaours, and they have similair, or better safety numbers.  0 the us can not in fact, deter chemical, biological or nuclear weaponry.  there is the mad effect, sure, but you ca not stop the missile.  a few sources on that, which you might rightfully consider problematic.  simply said, even in an idealized situation, us missile defense fails to perform to specification.  in a modern attack, the system would be overwhelmed and fail almost immediately.  URL URL URL 0 the threat of this era are terrorists, against whom the current military is all but powerless.  simply said, the us military, or any military, ca not handle a terrorist threat.  look at what happened in libya, afghanistan, iraq.  in each case, forces invaded, fought a quick victory, but as they prepared to leave the rubble collapsed around them, revealing a completely dysfunctional and war torn country, an ideal recruiting ground for terrorists.  this is a strawmanning of the position to support infrastructure.  for transport infrastructure specifically, costs for not investing are estimated to reach 0 trillion usd, plus a signficant loss in gdp.  the result of not investing means that in a decade or three, the us might no longer be capable of supporting it is military.  what does it matter that you can hunt and kill him ? he will only die as a martyr, and replaced with another.  it is not like he had unique skills or something.   #  if the military budget got cut tomorrow that would not lead to it going into cancer spending.   #  all you are actually showing is that cancer spending is too low.  if the military budget got cut tomorrow that would not lead to it going into cancer spending.  honestly, you are supporting op is position by showing it as a false dichotomy.   hey look at how little we spend on cancer because we spend so much on defense.   that fits right in line with his argument that it really is not as bad as critics say it is.   #  just a heads up, iraq told us to get out, even though we warned them something like this could arise.   #  just a heads up, iraq told us to get out, even though we warned them something like this could arise.  afghanistan said the same thing, but they now want the us to stay longer.  and we were never really in libya, we were more so the rebel airforce.  so 0 was not at all our fault, another we are staying longer to keep it safe, and the 0rd we mostly provided the logistics so that the rest of nato could conduct strikes.  after odyssey dawn, us presence was one of the lowest in unified protector.  libya is more so a french/european failure than a us one.   #  i would rather not get into details that i am not supposed to share, but personally for me your second point does not help me to cmv.   #  0.  as for your first point i would argue that we do not have the same advantageous position as canada or the eu.  we  have  been attacked before by islamic extremest groups, and due to our global superpower status we are the largest target for terroristic agendas to be aimed at.  and so we do not have the opportunity to limit our military numbers to the size of say, canada, if we wanted to ensure public safety.  if you can address this point further i do see a possible delta, but i ca not see how you can compare these vastly different countries so easily like that, their political situations are completely different.  0.  i respect your sources but have to say that i personally, as an rotc cadet, with the things i have personally seen while on board navy ships, that i firmly firmly believe that the united states can very easily stop a dingy north korean missile from hitting us.  i would rather not get into details that i am not supposed to share, but personally for me your second point does not help me to cmv.  0.  i would almost argue that this point agrees for me when considering  only  national defense, not militaristic victory, which could potentially be an argument, that maybe we are spending too much with little results, but thats not my argument.  the fact of the matter is, win or loss in the middle east, the fight  was in the middle east,  so the terrorists are more involved with staying alive than planning their next attack, as we have seen in the zero 0/0 follow up attacks in the past 0 years.   #  it seems very unlikely to me that the terrorists would be unable to gather the 0 hijackers they needed for the 0/0 attack.   # not on the same scale, obviously, but most european countries are quite a bit smaller.  URL the thing was resolved judically, rather than ending with an invasion of a foreign state.  if anything, the attack was a direct result of the invasion of iraq, for as you probably know, weapons of mass destruction that turned out not to exist.  a north korean missile, sure.  then again, north korean missile technology is not exactly state of the art.  a full scale attack by another foreign nation china, russia, .  , i am not so sure.  i am not so sure.  it seems very unlikely to me that the terrorists would be unable to gather the 0 hijackers they needed for the 0/0 attack.  i would put any failure at a follow up attack to improved or even draconic safety standards rather than to the war in the middle east.
i see this all the time on reddit, and i kind of grow annoyed with it, mostly because i am going through the rotc program now and will be commissioning into the us navy in 0 year is time  we are overspending on military, money could be better spent somewhere else.   the reason i decided to join the military was mostly due to growing up and listening to the news about  car bomb  goes off here, or  0 killed in gunfight  over there, but when i looked out my window, all i saw was my neighborhood friends playing in the street.  this country seemed special to me.  it seemed like one of the safest places to live, and before  really  living in it, i wanted to give back some of the years of my life in order to keep it safe for the next kid to grow up in.  i am not democratic or republican, i just believe that our safety is 0, and i would rather be over kill than under when it comes to it.  i think one of the reasons the us is so well protected, so much so that we will never have another war on our homeland, so much so that we could deter almost all biological, chemical, ballistic, nuclear what have you threats against us, so much so that if there were to be an all out free for all war across the entire globe, we would be the last ones standing, is because of our over powering military.  we are unparalleled in any nation in technology, even the stuff the gov t allows us to see is spectacular, and we are the ones selling new tech to our allies, not the other way around.  i believe it is this  untouchableness  that keeps us safe, no country on the planet would feel good going into a fight with us, and it is due to the national defense budget.  as a democratic nation, we have elected the people we found best suited for the job to run our country, so why would we not empower them to make bills supporting the military ? it is these peoples  jobs  to figure out what we need to remain the top global superpower, we elected these people, and yet we have citizens who would prefer more spending in infrastructure so they can get to work faster.  i am on track to become a naval pilot with hopes to obtain a masters degree and move on to work for nasa after my 0 year commitment, so i will be the first to understand that there are programs out there that could do crazy amazing things with even 0 of the military budget, but i still remain that i would put space exploration on the back burner to national safety.  additional pro military budget notes not related to us defense: we are often called out for policing the world, but when there is bloodshed and conflict somewhere on the globe that needs to be cooled off, who do they call first ? not to mention with our vast naval fleet, we are nearly always the first to respond and provide medicine and relief efforts to earthquakes, tsunamis, you name it.  our military works to our allies  advantage as well, if a 0/0 incident were to occur in britain you can be sure their osama bin laden would be hunted down if not killed by our soldiers.   #  our military works to our allies  advantage as well, if a 0/0 incident were to occur in britain you can be sure their osama bin laden would be hunted down if not killed by our soldiers.   #  what does it matter that you can hunt and kill him ?  #  while you do note that it is the supposed untouchableness of the us that lets you be safe, there are thing to consider.  0 other nations, such as canada, and the eu, spend much less on military endevaours, and they have similair, or better safety numbers.  0 the us can not in fact, deter chemical, biological or nuclear weaponry.  there is the mad effect, sure, but you ca not stop the missile.  a few sources on that, which you might rightfully consider problematic.  simply said, even in an idealized situation, us missile defense fails to perform to specification.  in a modern attack, the system would be overwhelmed and fail almost immediately.  URL URL URL 0 the threat of this era are terrorists, against whom the current military is all but powerless.  simply said, the us military, or any military, ca not handle a terrorist threat.  look at what happened in libya, afghanistan, iraq.  in each case, forces invaded, fought a quick victory, but as they prepared to leave the rubble collapsed around them, revealing a completely dysfunctional and war torn country, an ideal recruiting ground for terrorists.  this is a strawmanning of the position to support infrastructure.  for transport infrastructure specifically, costs for not investing are estimated to reach 0 trillion usd, plus a signficant loss in gdp.  the result of not investing means that in a decade or three, the us might no longer be capable of supporting it is military.  what does it matter that you can hunt and kill him ? he will only die as a martyr, and replaced with another.  it is not like he had unique skills or something.   #  all you are actually showing is that cancer spending is too low.   #  all you are actually showing is that cancer spending is too low.  if the military budget got cut tomorrow that would not lead to it going into cancer spending.  honestly, you are supporting op is position by showing it as a false dichotomy.   hey look at how little we spend on cancer because we spend so much on defense.   that fits right in line with his argument that it really is not as bad as critics say it is.   #  libya is more so a french/european failure than a us one.   #  just a heads up, iraq told us to get out, even though we warned them something like this could arise.  afghanistan said the same thing, but they now want the us to stay longer.  and we were never really in libya, we were more so the rebel airforce.  so 0 was not at all our fault, another we are staying longer to keep it safe, and the 0rd we mostly provided the logistics so that the rest of nato could conduct strikes.  after odyssey dawn, us presence was one of the lowest in unified protector.  libya is more so a french/european failure than a us one.   #  0.  as for your first point i would argue that we do not have the same advantageous position as canada or the eu.   #  0.  as for your first point i would argue that we do not have the same advantageous position as canada or the eu.  we  have  been attacked before by islamic extremest groups, and due to our global superpower status we are the largest target for terroristic agendas to be aimed at.  and so we do not have the opportunity to limit our military numbers to the size of say, canada, if we wanted to ensure public safety.  if you can address this point further i do see a possible delta, but i ca not see how you can compare these vastly different countries so easily like that, their political situations are completely different.  0.  i respect your sources but have to say that i personally, as an rotc cadet, with the things i have personally seen while on board navy ships, that i firmly firmly believe that the united states can very easily stop a dingy north korean missile from hitting us.  i would rather not get into details that i am not supposed to share, but personally for me your second point does not help me to cmv.  0.  i would almost argue that this point agrees for me when considering  only  national defense, not militaristic victory, which could potentially be an argument, that maybe we are spending too much with little results, but thats not my argument.  the fact of the matter is, win or loss in the middle east, the fight  was in the middle east,  so the terrorists are more involved with staying alive than planning their next attack, as we have seen in the zero 0/0 follow up attacks in the past 0 years.   #  i would put any failure at a follow up attack to improved or even draconic safety standards rather than to the war in the middle east.   # not on the same scale, obviously, but most european countries are quite a bit smaller.  URL the thing was resolved judically, rather than ending with an invasion of a foreign state.  if anything, the attack was a direct result of the invasion of iraq, for as you probably know, weapons of mass destruction that turned out not to exist.  a north korean missile, sure.  then again, north korean missile technology is not exactly state of the art.  a full scale attack by another foreign nation china, russia, .  , i am not so sure.  i am not so sure.  it seems very unlikely to me that the terrorists would be unable to gather the 0 hijackers they needed for the 0/0 attack.  i would put any failure at a follow up attack to improved or even draconic safety standards rather than to the war in the middle east.
i see this all the time on reddit, and i kind of grow annoyed with it, mostly because i am going through the rotc program now and will be commissioning into the us navy in 0 year is time  we are overspending on military, money could be better spent somewhere else.   the reason i decided to join the military was mostly due to growing up and listening to the news about  car bomb  goes off here, or  0 killed in gunfight  over there, but when i looked out my window, all i saw was my neighborhood friends playing in the street.  this country seemed special to me.  it seemed like one of the safest places to live, and before  really  living in it, i wanted to give back some of the years of my life in order to keep it safe for the next kid to grow up in.  i am not democratic or republican, i just believe that our safety is 0, and i would rather be over kill than under when it comes to it.  i think one of the reasons the us is so well protected, so much so that we will never have another war on our homeland, so much so that we could deter almost all biological, chemical, ballistic, nuclear what have you threats against us, so much so that if there were to be an all out free for all war across the entire globe, we would be the last ones standing, is because of our over powering military.  we are unparalleled in any nation in technology, even the stuff the gov t allows us to see is spectacular, and we are the ones selling new tech to our allies, not the other way around.  i believe it is this  untouchableness  that keeps us safe, no country on the planet would feel good going into a fight with us, and it is due to the national defense budget.  as a democratic nation, we have elected the people we found best suited for the job to run our country, so why would we not empower them to make bills supporting the military ? it is these peoples  jobs  to figure out what we need to remain the top global superpower, we elected these people, and yet we have citizens who would prefer more spending in infrastructure so they can get to work faster.  i am on track to become a naval pilot with hopes to obtain a masters degree and move on to work for nasa after my 0 year commitment, so i will be the first to understand that there are programs out there that could do crazy amazing things with even 0 of the military budget, but i still remain that i would put space exploration on the back burner to national safety.  additional pro military budget notes not related to us defense: we are often called out for policing the world, but when there is bloodshed and conflict somewhere on the globe that needs to be cooled off, who do they call first ? not to mention with our vast naval fleet, we are nearly always the first to respond and provide medicine and relief efforts to earthquakes, tsunamis, you name it.  our military works to our allies  advantage as well, if a 0/0 incident were to occur in britain you can be sure their osama bin laden would be hunted down if not killed by our soldiers.   #  as a democratic nation, we have elected the people we found best suited for the job to run our country, so why would we not empower them to make bills supporting the military ?  #  it is these peoples jobs to figure out what we need to remain the top global superpower this is the problem: that is not true.   # it is these peoples jobs to figure out what we need to remain the top global superpower this is the problem: that is not true.  congresspeople make a huge chunk of their decisions based on advice from lobbyists.  the entire job of these people is to get as much military spending as they can possibly get away with.  as long as the general public did not get too concerned about the military budget being too high, the lobbyists provide an incentive to push it higher and there is literally no incentive to lower it.  as long as defense companies can convince the general public that they might not necessarily that they do, just that it is not wrong for their congressperson to vote that they do deserve the massive amount of money that they get, the companies will get more money.  and they certainly have you convinced, at least.   #  all you are actually showing is that cancer spending is too low.   #  all you are actually showing is that cancer spending is too low.  if the military budget got cut tomorrow that would not lead to it going into cancer spending.  honestly, you are supporting op is position by showing it as a false dichotomy.   hey look at how little we spend on cancer because we spend so much on defense.   that fits right in line with his argument that it really is not as bad as critics say it is.   #  while you do note that it is the supposed untouchableness of the us that lets you be safe, there are thing to consider.   #  while you do note that it is the supposed untouchableness of the us that lets you be safe, there are thing to consider.  0 other nations, such as canada, and the eu, spend much less on military endevaours, and they have similair, or better safety numbers.  0 the us can not in fact, deter chemical, biological or nuclear weaponry.  there is the mad effect, sure, but you ca not stop the missile.  a few sources on that, which you might rightfully consider problematic.  simply said, even in an idealized situation, us missile defense fails to perform to specification.  in a modern attack, the system would be overwhelmed and fail almost immediately.  URL URL URL 0 the threat of this era are terrorists, against whom the current military is all but powerless.  simply said, the us military, or any military, ca not handle a terrorist threat.  look at what happened in libya, afghanistan, iraq.  in each case, forces invaded, fought a quick victory, but as they prepared to leave the rubble collapsed around them, revealing a completely dysfunctional and war torn country, an ideal recruiting ground for terrorists.  this is a strawmanning of the position to support infrastructure.  for transport infrastructure specifically, costs for not investing are estimated to reach 0 trillion usd, plus a signficant loss in gdp.  the result of not investing means that in a decade or three, the us might no longer be capable of supporting it is military.  what does it matter that you can hunt and kill him ? he will only die as a martyr, and replaced with another.  it is not like he had unique skills or something.   #  after odyssey dawn, us presence was one of the lowest in unified protector.   #  just a heads up, iraq told us to get out, even though we warned them something like this could arise.  afghanistan said the same thing, but they now want the us to stay longer.  and we were never really in libya, we were more so the rebel airforce.  so 0 was not at all our fault, another we are staying longer to keep it safe, and the 0rd we mostly provided the logistics so that the rest of nato could conduct strikes.  after odyssey dawn, us presence was one of the lowest in unified protector.  libya is more so a french/european failure than a us one.   #  we  have  been attacked before by islamic extremest groups, and due to our global superpower status we are the largest target for terroristic agendas to be aimed at.   #  0.  as for your first point i would argue that we do not have the same advantageous position as canada or the eu.  we  have  been attacked before by islamic extremest groups, and due to our global superpower status we are the largest target for terroristic agendas to be aimed at.  and so we do not have the opportunity to limit our military numbers to the size of say, canada, if we wanted to ensure public safety.  if you can address this point further i do see a possible delta, but i ca not see how you can compare these vastly different countries so easily like that, their political situations are completely different.  0.  i respect your sources but have to say that i personally, as an rotc cadet, with the things i have personally seen while on board navy ships, that i firmly firmly believe that the united states can very easily stop a dingy north korean missile from hitting us.  i would rather not get into details that i am not supposed to share, but personally for me your second point does not help me to cmv.  0.  i would almost argue that this point agrees for me when considering  only  national defense, not militaristic victory, which could potentially be an argument, that maybe we are spending too much with little results, but thats not my argument.  the fact of the matter is, win or loss in the middle east, the fight  was in the middle east,  so the terrorists are more involved with staying alive than planning their next attack, as we have seen in the zero 0/0 follow up attacks in the past 0 years.
hello, cmv ! i will clarify myself with a situation that just happened to me.  i went to a fast food restaurant, ordered my meal, and took it home to eat.  when i opened up my food, i realized the meal included a large amount of chopped onions.  now, i absolutely loathe the taste of onions so my choices were to slowly pick out each onion, then add some other topping to mask the taste or not eat the food i just bought.  this led me to realize that the default for food at fast food places should have no toppings at all and, if you want toppings, you would just ask to have the workers add them on.  from a customer is perspective, i think this would cause a lot of people less issues when ordering food.  there are plenty of people, for example, who do not like the default lettuce, tomatoes, onions, mustard, mayo etc.  that are put on hamburgers.  however, not every hamburger meal includes those toppings.  so, customers have to either know or ask what comes on the meal in order to ensure no topping they do not like is included.  with the new system, they would just order what meal they wanted and ask the workers to add what reasonable toppings they want which i think is much easier and way less likely to lead to mistakes and unhappy customers.  now, this would only include toppings that are not stated outright in the meal name.  for example, if you order a bbq bacon burger, of course the hamburger is going to include bbq sauce and bacon.  or if you order a grilled onion hot dog, of course the hot dog is going to have grilled onions.  my proposal is just for meals without specific toppings in the name like a mcdouble or a whopper.  from a restaurant is perspective i think it would save a fair amount of money because you are not preparing to add on 0 0 toppings on a meal that could just end up in the trash.  instead, you are just liable for the basics and any extras would be added on.  i do not see a reason for the price of meals to change at all.  whether customers have toppings on their meals or not in the current system, the price usually stays the same.  so there it is, change my view !  #  so, customers have to either know or ask what comes on the meal in order to ensure no topping they do not like is included.   #  with the new system, they would just order what meal they wanted and ask the workers to add what reasonable toppings they want which i think is much easier and way less likely to lead to mistakes and unhappy customers.   # with the new system, they would just order what meal they wanted and ask the workers to add what reasonable toppings they want which i think is much easier and way less likely to lead to mistakes and unhappy customers.  but then if you want more than a dry piece of beef you have to know every topping that is available to choose from, whether they cost extra or how much extra they cost, decide which ones you want, and list them all out on the intercom.  either way some people are inconvenienced and have to familiarize themselves with the menu.  most restaurants just have different menu items with different combinations of toppings.  if you want bacon, lettuce, and tomato, you order the blt burger.  if you like mushrooms, order the mushroom burger, etc.  i am sure they have probably run the numbers on this and found that it is more efficient.  although i am always surprised that pickles are one of the defaults.   #  no matter what other point of view you take, when it comes to revenue, no toppings is a non starter.   # former chef here.  we actually got this exact complaint, and so we decided to try your exact system.  we had a menu item we called a  bare burger  which was what you proposed, but we had a few customers complain, so we said, what the heck, and made the bare burger the default, advertising it as an  as you like it  burger.  the result was, to put it mildly, a disaster.  our sales of burgers slowly dropped, and after a month our total sales were down 0 in the middle of summer when they are normally way up .  we reinstated our old burger as  the classic taste  and by the end of the next month our sales were up 0 from the original amount, more in line with summer sales.  i ca not give a reason for this, but my personal theory is that people go out for burgers because they want something they ca not do at home.  when you give them just a burger and a bun, they are disappointed, because that is easy to do at home.  but going out should be special.  so,  from a restaurant is perspective , we make more money when we add the toppings.  no matter what other point of view you take, when it comes to revenue, no toppings is a non starter.   #  if you are lucky, you hear what is wrong on yelp, and if you are really lucky, the customer says something in the restaurant.   # yes  why could not they just have ordered the toppings they wanted on top of it ? how is having the option for a plain hamburger detrimental to sales ? you do not get to interview your customers on the way out.  most customers come in, make a decision, eat, then leave.  if they are inspired, they come again.  if you are lucky, you hear what is wrong on yelp, and if you are really lucky, the customer says something in the restaurant.  but if the food is just uninspiring, not great, all you see is a slow decline in sales.   #  you do not go and grab an onion to chop every time a person orders a burger.   #  the default toppings are the things most people like on their food.  while there are plenty of people who order plain burgers, or no mayo, no onions etc, there are even more who would have to order everything on it.  why is it better to have more people have to  add  toppings than to have fewer people  remove  toppings ? it seems like more work, time and expense to do it your way.  you still have to prepare the toppings.  you do not go and grab an onion to chop every time a person orders a burger.   #  regarding the toppings, they would t have to add toppings to a meal when it is not necessary.   #  i think you might be overestimating how many people get all of the default toppings on their burgers.  almost everyone i know removes at least one of the default toppings on their meal.  and i think adding toppings is better than removing toppings because if there is a mistake and a topping is not added, then you would still eat the food.  for example, i like lettuce on my hamburgers but if i forgot to ask to have lettuce added on or if they forgot to add lettuce, then i would still eat the food.  if they added onions to a meal and i could still taste it, i would just give it away or throw it away.  regarding the toppings, they would t have to add toppings to a meal when it is not necessary.  everyone who orders lettuce and tomato are going to eat that lettuce and tomato.  in this topping default system, that definitely is not always the case.  basically, everyone knows what toppings they like on their meals by now.  it is easier to ask works to add it on than for restaurants to assume they know and add it on anyway.
recently i have begun to fell that when news of these executions comes through on the news many people read about it, talk about how awful it is, then move on to the next news story and give the subject little other thought.  i think that watching these videos would have a much greater impact on people and make them more likely to do something to help.  personally, if i watch videos like this i feel sick and it disturbs me for about half a week.  i cannot forget about them easily.  just reading about these events does not have this effect and i can forget about the issues relatively quickly.  secondly i am sure some people cannot visually imagine how horrific these events are.  being exposed to footage of it will be a shock and a wake up call to how bad life can be for some people.  this in turn will make them more likely to take action.  i will make it plain that i do not think people should be viewing these sorts of videos for entertainment of any kind.  finally it seems i am not alone, this article URL may help you understand my argument better than i can express it.   #  i think that watching these videos would have a much greater impact on people and make them more likely to do something to help.   #  personally, if i watch videos like this i feel sick and it disturbs me for about half a week.   # personally, if i watch videos like this i feel sick and it disturbs me for about half a week.  i cannot forget about them easily.  just reading about these events does not have this effect and i can forget about the issues relatively quickly.  having watched them, what have you done to help that you would not otherwise have done ? also, what more do you think can be done that is not already being done ? wars on such groups are not like wars on countries.  you ca not just hit them and call it a day.  it is a war on extremism, ideologies, and perversions of cultures.  there is no specific ethnic group you can reasonably target since these things span many such groups but encompass none of them entirely , no region you can unreservedly attack.  saying we should get people to do more sort of implies there is something else to do.   #  i may not have have done this otherwise.   #  personally i donate to charities.  specifically ones who are involved with helping refugees.  this gives some people a viable places to run to a possible way out.  i may not have have done this otherwise.  without seeing really disturbing things it is quite easy to forget about something.  even if reading an article about it i make a mental note to donate i may forget about it during the day.  having watched footage that has deeply effected me i am thinking about these people for longer an thus more likely to make a donation.  granted it is a small change but at least i am contributing a little.   #  i think these videos are uploaded because the more publicity isis gets, the more people it recruits.   #  if i am understanding your argument correctly: we are obligated to help victims of terrorism watching isis execution videos will incline people to help victims of terrorism therefore we should watch isis execution videos however, if that were the case, i do not think that isis would have uploaded the videos at all.  why would it try to generate so much publicity if it had such negative consequences for isis ? i think these videos are uploaded because the more publicity isis gets, the more people it recruits.  not only that, but the more people that are outraged about isis, the more countries will pay ransom for hostages, and more funding for isis.  people also needlessly, in my view vote more militarily oriented governments in under the threat of terrorism, and they act irrationally on that basis, by signing away their rights as you can see from recent politics etc.  as well as the above, most people that do watch these videos do so of morbid curiosity, or will find some pleasure in watching someone being executed, however much they try not to.  i do not think cultivating these experiences will make things any better.  if we imagine a world where terrorism was not publicized, i think it would be a much better one, and i think advocating that more people watch execution videos will only lead to more support for terrorism, more executions, and more pain and death in the long run.   #  for instance japan did not pay out for kenji goto.   #  sometimes actions have unintended consequences.  obviously they do not upload these videos with the idea to turn people against them but surely it does.  watching these videos may well encourage people to join them but it may have the opposite effect.  some of the people heading over there might not fully grasp the consequences of what they are getting themselves into and force them to reconsider once they are exposed to the seriousness of the situation.  as far as ransoms go does any government pay these ? i thought the policy was do not do it because you become a target.  for instance japan did not pay out for kenji goto.  i am also talking about people who would not watch these videos out of morbid curiosity as i reckon they do it anyway.  i disagree with your statement about unpublicised terrorism though.  if no news ever reached people outside of the effected areas how could anyone help those in need.  perhaps videos go to far but then where do you draw the line ? i understand that publicity can help them but not talking about the issue could be worse for their victims.   #  sorry, that part is not particularly relevant to the discussion, i just thought i would take a little mini rant :  # make people terrified of resisting or standing up against them.  to achieve this aim, people have to see the videos right ? it seems like not watching the videos is a way of resisting them.  of saying,  i refuse to watch the video because i refuse to expose myself to the propaganda created to elicit a primitive gut reaction.   that is very possible.  i have seen people do some really weird things, too.  for instance i have a buddy who flipped out a few weeks ago about a christian who made an insensitive tweet about the earthquake tragedy in nepal.  he is an anti religion atheist .  then a few hours later he posted a link showing isis members posing for trophy photos with dismembered body parts of people they would killed, and made a comment about how he is an  equal opportunity hater  of religion.  well.  no, in my opinion if you are equal opportunity then you should evaluate both of those issues by a fair standard.  which would lead to the conclusion that isis is not  even  but about a million times more deserving of shame and derision, to the point that christians should be seen as non threats or even allies against them.  not that isis is necessarily aligned with the entire islamic world, or that some christians are not also harmful, but hopefully you get my drift.  sorry, that part is not particularly relevant to the discussion, i just thought i would take a little mini rant :
the idea is pretty simple but i want to clarify that i do not want to talk about when is abortion justifiable.  i am just simply answering the question: is abortion killing ? let is take two women: annie and belle.  both of them get pregnant and none of them wants their kid.  annie goes and aborts the kid.  belle on the other hand first gives birth to the baby, then she kills it.  right after it is born she takes out a knife and kills the baby.  the result is the same in both cases.  neither of the two children actually lived because their mother ended their life.  that means to me that annie did just the same thing as belle did: she killed her baby.  cmv  #  let is take two women: annie and belle.   #  both of them get pregnant and none of them wants their kid.   # both of them get pregnant and none of them wants their kid.  annie goes and aborts the kid.  belle on the other hand first gives birth to the baby, then she kills it.  right after it is born she takes out a knife and kills the baby.  the result is the same in both cases.  neither of the two children actually lived because their mother ended their life.  that means to me that annie did just the same thing as belle did: she killed her baby.  a third woman clara, uses contraception and never effectively conceives, while a fourth woman davina, abstains from sex and never conceives.  the end result is the same: no living baby.  point being that there is more to it than simply the end result.  it is the actions taken.   #  a person is right to life does not necessarily impose a corresponding obligation to keep that person alive on another person.   # there is nothing to argue.  i do not know if i would agree with that.  firstly, murder generally involves more than killing a person that killing has to be somehow unjust.  personhood   killing does not necessarily equal murder.  secondly, a person, even if that person is a fetus, is not necessarily entitled to the use of another person is body.  a person is right to life does not necessarily impose a corresponding obligation to keep that person alive on another person.  i would recommend you read this paper URL by judith jarvis thompson.  she makes the second point far more effectively than i can.   #  are women who undergo an abortion to save their actual life to the detriment of a potential human murders ?  # are women who undergo an abortion to save their actual life to the detriment of a potential human murders ? i never said murder is bad or why or when can or should it be justified.  to me it seems like you think murder is a bad thing, but i never said i agree with that.  i stated that i do not want to discuss when is abortion which is murder to me justifiable.  it is a complicated and difficult subject i think.  but answering your statements: yes, i think birth control is murder, and yes these women are murderers.  we can safely put the line on when the child is actually born.  i think many of us will agree that we are talking about a human when we talk about a newborn.  i still think this is unnecessary but in order to continue this is the easiest way.  so why am i wrong with these statements ? when you end something in development, you end the developed product too.  it will never get to the point when it will be called a developed product.   #  i think your question is the same as asking when can we say that the device is our energy saviour ?  #  let is say theres a device which would cure the energy issues of the world.  i think your question is the same as asking when can we say that the device is our energy saviour ? is it when it is not put to use yet or when it is being built ? in my opinion it does not really matter if i actually destroy it when it is being built or when it is put to use.  in the end we wo not have our energy issues solved anyway.   #  there are lots of people, and have been for .  goodness, probably hundreds of years, who claimed to have a device that would be humanity is energy savior, but was not.   # is it when it is not put to use yet or when it is being built ? in my opinion it does not really matter if i actually destroy it when it is being built or when it is put to use.  in the end we wo not have our energy issues solved anyway.  hm, that is an interesting perspective, but i do not think it necessarily follows the same lines as what i am asking.  there are lots of people, and have been for .  goodness, probably hundreds of years, who claimed to have a device that would be humanity is energy savior, but was not.  not because it was thwarted, just because it never met that potential.  in my opinion you probably ca not call something  energy savior  until it has been in established use for a long time; in fact probably not until you are generations past the beginning of its use, writing from the perspective of history.  what you  can  say about such a device is: is it an energy generating device ? you can define tests about specifically what you mean by this, like, does the energy output exceed the amount of energy it takes to create it, etc.  if a device meets those standards, you can say it is or is not an energy generating device.  if someone destroys it, you can clearly then say that they destroyed an energy generating device.  what else it might have been would be speculation.  but you can make definitive statements about what it  is  if you have standards by which to define it.  that is  the type of question i am asking when i say what is a person.  would you define a person as anything undergoing cell mitosis that possesses human dna ? would you say rather it is anything with an individual consciousness and its own sense of identity ? most who support abortion take a position near this, i think.  but.  it has some perils unless you add a bit more rigor to it.  or would you have another definition ?
hello ! i am submitting my views on the ethics of the death penalty and physician assisted suicide on the cmv subreddit.  i consider myself well informed on this subject, especially concerning the current method of both death penalty and euthenasia, which is accomplished by administering  nembutal  which is known as  sodium pentobarbital  in short, i believe that euthenasia in the healthcare system and the execution of criminals is not ethical ! adding to that, even if it was legal, i do not believe that the current molecule we use  pentobarbital  is extremely unethical.  my reasoning behind capital punishment being unethical is: first, one can remove capital offenders from society by placing them in prison for the extent of their lives, which would equivocate the intentions of the death penalty.  second, the legal system is fallible, which presents the possibility of killing an innocent human being who is wrongly accused.  third, capital punishment does not deter new crime, and may actually increase it by hardening the hearts of civilization.  also while i am in support of euthanasia, mandating that hospitals honor euthanasia requests is not ethical because the most ethical approach is to honor the rights of people, with can be done by recognizing a few certain rights that people innately possess.  the first certainty is that human beings have the freedom to end their own life at their choosing.  the second certainty is that no organization which is a group of people is obligated to assist that person in their decision to die.  the third certainty is that the healthcare system is founded on the maxim  do no harm,  and should not violate this maxim.  from these three premises, one can conclude that it is the responsibility of the organization to decide which euthanasia requests to honor or deny.  even with this freedom to honor requests, the healthcare system cannot honor euthanasia requests while observing its own maxim.  therefore euthanasia may be ethical when provided from an organization, but it cannot be ethically provided for by the healthcare system, if the healthcare system is to honor its maxims as absolute.  from this, the ethical solution must be an accountable, third party euthanasia provider who is allowed honor the rights of euthanasia to those who are ruled  sound of mind  and  fit to die  by a jury of their peers finally the reason that the acts of mandating euthanasia in the healthcare system and capital punishment are currently unethical in the united states is because we use  nembutal/sodium pentobarbital  to obtain these goals.  pentobarbital is unethical because it will indeed put the subject into coma in small doses, but in large doses may actually act as a stimulant and return them to consciousness.  however, the subject could not communicate this, because the drug will have incapacitated the rest of their body from movement.  promising whoever uses it a long and painful demise as they suffocate from an inactive diaphragm.  for this reason, i am not in support of euthenasia in the hospital or capital punishement.  i believe that we should do away with capital punishment, move euthanasia from the hospital to another organization, and create a more ethical molecule for euthanasia.   #  the first certainty is that human beings have the freedom to end their own life at their choosing.   #  not sure why this is a certainty, but i will accept it for the purpose of argument.   #  i understand your view on capital punishment, and i am not going to try to cyv on that part because i agree although for different reasons .  but to clarify, is your view that euthanasia is unethical as you say in the title, or unethical when performed by doctors, as you say in your post ? if it is only a concern when performed by doctors, i will take a shot at it.  not sure why this is a certainty, but i will accept it for the purpose of argument.  again, i do not know why this is a certainty, but it seems reasonable enough to me.  hospitals need not be mandated to offer euthanasia.  this is where i think the argument falls apart.  do no harm is a nice maxim, but you ca not really believe it is literally followed in practice.  you really ca not claim that people are not harmed by chemotherapy it is nightmarish.  but we allow it because it usually increases the rate of survival.  now, this does not justify euthanasia in and of itself, but it does disprove the notion that doctors are never allowed to hurt anyone ever.  do no harm is not a real thing that doctors follow.  perhaps a better phrase would be  do nothing that harms more than it helps.   by this revised principle, which i think sums up healthcare far more appropriately than  do no harm,  euthanasia may well be allowed for those who are suffering greatly.  death certainly seems like a harm, but i would rather die than suffer horribly and then die.  euthanasia does do harm, arguably, but it also alleviates suffering, and i think that has to be taken into consideration too it is for every other medical procedure.   #  a solution which is used for this problem is mandating that each hospital has to have at least one doctor available who does not morally object to euthanasia.   #  on euthanasia: if someone is in severe pain or other discomfort, without available cures, a doctor would actually do harm if they did not allow that person euthanasia, as the person would not only die then eventually but additionally stay in pain longer.  for terminal or bedridden patients it is often impossible/impractical to switch hospitals.  if each hospital could decide if they do euthanasia or not, it might be impossible for those patients to get euthanasia.  especially because a lot of patients do not choose their hospital based on availability of euthanasia or change their mind when their situation gets worse.  if you would allow doctors a choice if they gave euthanasia or not, there might still be some hospitals without euthanasia available.  a solution which is used for this problem is mandating that each hospital has to have at least one doctor available who does not morally object to euthanasia.   #  as you note, imprisonment achieves the same outcome removal from society without the drawbacks.   # there is one argument i find compelling for the death penalty.  the death penalty is not justified as a punishment for any crime committed outside of prison.  as you note, imprisonment achieves the same outcome removal from society without the drawbacks.  however, those inmates who demonstrate themselves unable to be safely housed in the prison system,  ought  to be executed out of concern for those prison officials and other inmates to whom they pose a risk.  in other words, execution must be reserved for when the inmate must be removed from any prison population.   #  or do we send him to a facility that isolates him from his gang and makes him a lesser threat ?  #  so while i see some great logic behind that statement, i still think that the prison system can uphold the safety of all through specialized incarceration facilities for those who cant play well with others.  perhaps in these cases, they get less outside time and are fed indirectly.  i say this, because there are a lot of non capital offenders who have not revoked their right to life, because they have not killed another human being in their rational mind that could be considered dangerous.  consider the head of an organized prison gang.  shall we kill this person because he may start a riot ? because the prison guards claim he has a history of starting riots ? or do we send him to a facility that isolates him from his gang and makes him a lesser threat ?  #  the difference is, that the  convicted person  has a much longer span of life to revoke a guilty claim.   #  the difference is, that the  convicted person  has a much longer span of life to revoke a guilty claim.  the death sentence is much more permanent than life in prison.  the basis behind this argument, however, is that there is very little benefit present in capital punishment anyway, so the risk being run that an innocent person dies is great enough that it should dissuade us from seeking capital punishment.  however, the benefits of the prison system itself keeping criminals from walking the same streets as the innocent are great enough that an accidental incarceration will not affect my stance on the existence of the prison system.  now, if we were cutting off the hands of thieves, i would rescind that statement.
hello ! i am submitting my views on the ethics of the death penalty and physician assisted suicide on the cmv subreddit.  i consider myself well informed on this subject, especially concerning the current method of both death penalty and euthenasia, which is accomplished by administering  nembutal  which is known as  sodium pentobarbital  in short, i believe that euthenasia in the healthcare system and the execution of criminals is not ethical ! adding to that, even if it was legal, i do not believe that the current molecule we use  pentobarbital  is extremely unethical.  my reasoning behind capital punishment being unethical is: first, one can remove capital offenders from society by placing them in prison for the extent of their lives, which would equivocate the intentions of the death penalty.  second, the legal system is fallible, which presents the possibility of killing an innocent human being who is wrongly accused.  third, capital punishment does not deter new crime, and may actually increase it by hardening the hearts of civilization.  also while i am in support of euthanasia, mandating that hospitals honor euthanasia requests is not ethical because the most ethical approach is to honor the rights of people, with can be done by recognizing a few certain rights that people innately possess.  the first certainty is that human beings have the freedom to end their own life at their choosing.  the second certainty is that no organization which is a group of people is obligated to assist that person in their decision to die.  the third certainty is that the healthcare system is founded on the maxim  do no harm,  and should not violate this maxim.  from these three premises, one can conclude that it is the responsibility of the organization to decide which euthanasia requests to honor or deny.  even with this freedom to honor requests, the healthcare system cannot honor euthanasia requests while observing its own maxim.  therefore euthanasia may be ethical when provided from an organization, but it cannot be ethically provided for by the healthcare system, if the healthcare system is to honor its maxims as absolute.  from this, the ethical solution must be an accountable, third party euthanasia provider who is allowed honor the rights of euthanasia to those who are ruled  sound of mind  and  fit to die  by a jury of their peers finally the reason that the acts of mandating euthanasia in the healthcare system and capital punishment are currently unethical in the united states is because we use  nembutal/sodium pentobarbital  to obtain these goals.  pentobarbital is unethical because it will indeed put the subject into coma in small doses, but in large doses may actually act as a stimulant and return them to consciousness.  however, the subject could not communicate this, because the drug will have incapacitated the rest of their body from movement.  promising whoever uses it a long and painful demise as they suffocate from an inactive diaphragm.  for this reason, i am not in support of euthenasia in the hospital or capital punishement.  i believe that we should do away with capital punishment, move euthanasia from the hospital to another organization, and create a more ethical molecule for euthanasia.   #  the second certainty is that no organization which is a group of people is obligated to assist that person in their decision to die.   #  again, i do not know why this is a certainty, but it seems reasonable enough to me.   #  i understand your view on capital punishment, and i am not going to try to cyv on that part because i agree although for different reasons .  but to clarify, is your view that euthanasia is unethical as you say in the title, or unethical when performed by doctors, as you say in your post ? if it is only a concern when performed by doctors, i will take a shot at it.  not sure why this is a certainty, but i will accept it for the purpose of argument.  again, i do not know why this is a certainty, but it seems reasonable enough to me.  hospitals need not be mandated to offer euthanasia.  this is where i think the argument falls apart.  do no harm is a nice maxim, but you ca not really believe it is literally followed in practice.  you really ca not claim that people are not harmed by chemotherapy it is nightmarish.  but we allow it because it usually increases the rate of survival.  now, this does not justify euthanasia in and of itself, but it does disprove the notion that doctors are never allowed to hurt anyone ever.  do no harm is not a real thing that doctors follow.  perhaps a better phrase would be  do nothing that harms more than it helps.   by this revised principle, which i think sums up healthcare far more appropriately than  do no harm,  euthanasia may well be allowed for those who are suffering greatly.  death certainly seems like a harm, but i would rather die than suffer horribly and then die.  euthanasia does do harm, arguably, but it also alleviates suffering, and i think that has to be taken into consideration too it is for every other medical procedure.   #  for terminal or bedridden patients it is often impossible/impractical to switch hospitals.   #  on euthanasia: if someone is in severe pain or other discomfort, without available cures, a doctor would actually do harm if they did not allow that person euthanasia, as the person would not only die then eventually but additionally stay in pain longer.  for terminal or bedridden patients it is often impossible/impractical to switch hospitals.  if each hospital could decide if they do euthanasia or not, it might be impossible for those patients to get euthanasia.  especially because a lot of patients do not choose their hospital based on availability of euthanasia or change their mind when their situation gets worse.  if you would allow doctors a choice if they gave euthanasia or not, there might still be some hospitals without euthanasia available.  a solution which is used for this problem is mandating that each hospital has to have at least one doctor available who does not morally object to euthanasia.   #  as you note, imprisonment achieves the same outcome removal from society without the drawbacks.   # there is one argument i find compelling for the death penalty.  the death penalty is not justified as a punishment for any crime committed outside of prison.  as you note, imprisonment achieves the same outcome removal from society without the drawbacks.  however, those inmates who demonstrate themselves unable to be safely housed in the prison system,  ought  to be executed out of concern for those prison officials and other inmates to whom they pose a risk.  in other words, execution must be reserved for when the inmate must be removed from any prison population.   #  or do we send him to a facility that isolates him from his gang and makes him a lesser threat ?  #  so while i see some great logic behind that statement, i still think that the prison system can uphold the safety of all through specialized incarceration facilities for those who cant play well with others.  perhaps in these cases, they get less outside time and are fed indirectly.  i say this, because there are a lot of non capital offenders who have not revoked their right to life, because they have not killed another human being in their rational mind that could be considered dangerous.  consider the head of an organized prison gang.  shall we kill this person because he may start a riot ? because the prison guards claim he has a history of starting riots ? or do we send him to a facility that isolates him from his gang and makes him a lesser threat ?  #  the basis behind this argument, however, is that there is very little benefit present in capital punishment anyway, so the risk being run that an innocent person dies is great enough that it should dissuade us from seeking capital punishment.   #  the difference is, that the  convicted person  has a much longer span of life to revoke a guilty claim.  the death sentence is much more permanent than life in prison.  the basis behind this argument, however, is that there is very little benefit present in capital punishment anyway, so the risk being run that an innocent person dies is great enough that it should dissuade us from seeking capital punishment.  however, the benefits of the prison system itself keeping criminals from walking the same streets as the innocent are great enough that an accidental incarceration will not affect my stance on the existence of the prison system.  now, if we were cutting off the hands of thieves, i would rescind that statement.
hello ! i am submitting my views on the ethics of the death penalty and physician assisted suicide on the cmv subreddit.  i consider myself well informed on this subject, especially concerning the current method of both death penalty and euthenasia, which is accomplished by administering  nembutal  which is known as  sodium pentobarbital  in short, i believe that euthenasia in the healthcare system and the execution of criminals is not ethical ! adding to that, even if it was legal, i do not believe that the current molecule we use  pentobarbital  is extremely unethical.  my reasoning behind capital punishment being unethical is: first, one can remove capital offenders from society by placing them in prison for the extent of their lives, which would equivocate the intentions of the death penalty.  second, the legal system is fallible, which presents the possibility of killing an innocent human being who is wrongly accused.  third, capital punishment does not deter new crime, and may actually increase it by hardening the hearts of civilization.  also while i am in support of euthanasia, mandating that hospitals honor euthanasia requests is not ethical because the most ethical approach is to honor the rights of people, with can be done by recognizing a few certain rights that people innately possess.  the first certainty is that human beings have the freedom to end their own life at their choosing.  the second certainty is that no organization which is a group of people is obligated to assist that person in their decision to die.  the third certainty is that the healthcare system is founded on the maxim  do no harm,  and should not violate this maxim.  from these three premises, one can conclude that it is the responsibility of the organization to decide which euthanasia requests to honor or deny.  even with this freedom to honor requests, the healthcare system cannot honor euthanasia requests while observing its own maxim.  therefore euthanasia may be ethical when provided from an organization, but it cannot be ethically provided for by the healthcare system, if the healthcare system is to honor its maxims as absolute.  from this, the ethical solution must be an accountable, third party euthanasia provider who is allowed honor the rights of euthanasia to those who are ruled  sound of mind  and  fit to die  by a jury of their peers finally the reason that the acts of mandating euthanasia in the healthcare system and capital punishment are currently unethical in the united states is because we use  nembutal/sodium pentobarbital  to obtain these goals.  pentobarbital is unethical because it will indeed put the subject into coma in small doses, but in large doses may actually act as a stimulant and return them to consciousness.  however, the subject could not communicate this, because the drug will have incapacitated the rest of their body from movement.  promising whoever uses it a long and painful demise as they suffocate from an inactive diaphragm.  for this reason, i am not in support of euthenasia in the hospital or capital punishement.  i believe that we should do away with capital punishment, move euthanasia from the hospital to another organization, and create a more ethical molecule for euthanasia.   #  the third certainty is that the healthcare system is founded on the maxim  do no harm,  and should not violate this maxim.   #  this is where i think the argument falls apart.   #  i understand your view on capital punishment, and i am not going to try to cyv on that part because i agree although for different reasons .  but to clarify, is your view that euthanasia is unethical as you say in the title, or unethical when performed by doctors, as you say in your post ? if it is only a concern when performed by doctors, i will take a shot at it.  not sure why this is a certainty, but i will accept it for the purpose of argument.  again, i do not know why this is a certainty, but it seems reasonable enough to me.  hospitals need not be mandated to offer euthanasia.  this is where i think the argument falls apart.  do no harm is a nice maxim, but you ca not really believe it is literally followed in practice.  you really ca not claim that people are not harmed by chemotherapy it is nightmarish.  but we allow it because it usually increases the rate of survival.  now, this does not justify euthanasia in and of itself, but it does disprove the notion that doctors are never allowed to hurt anyone ever.  do no harm is not a real thing that doctors follow.  perhaps a better phrase would be  do nothing that harms more than it helps.   by this revised principle, which i think sums up healthcare far more appropriately than  do no harm,  euthanasia may well be allowed for those who are suffering greatly.  death certainly seems like a harm, but i would rather die than suffer horribly and then die.  euthanasia does do harm, arguably, but it also alleviates suffering, and i think that has to be taken into consideration too it is for every other medical procedure.   #  especially because a lot of patients do not choose their hospital based on availability of euthanasia or change their mind when their situation gets worse.   #  on euthanasia: if someone is in severe pain or other discomfort, without available cures, a doctor would actually do harm if they did not allow that person euthanasia, as the person would not only die then eventually but additionally stay in pain longer.  for terminal or bedridden patients it is often impossible/impractical to switch hospitals.  if each hospital could decide if they do euthanasia or not, it might be impossible for those patients to get euthanasia.  especially because a lot of patients do not choose their hospital based on availability of euthanasia or change their mind when their situation gets worse.  if you would allow doctors a choice if they gave euthanasia or not, there might still be some hospitals without euthanasia available.  a solution which is used for this problem is mandating that each hospital has to have at least one doctor available who does not morally object to euthanasia.   #  the death penalty is not justified as a punishment for any crime committed outside of prison.   # there is one argument i find compelling for the death penalty.  the death penalty is not justified as a punishment for any crime committed outside of prison.  as you note, imprisonment achieves the same outcome removal from society without the drawbacks.  however, those inmates who demonstrate themselves unable to be safely housed in the prison system,  ought  to be executed out of concern for those prison officials and other inmates to whom they pose a risk.  in other words, execution must be reserved for when the inmate must be removed from any prison population.   #  or do we send him to a facility that isolates him from his gang and makes him a lesser threat ?  #  so while i see some great logic behind that statement, i still think that the prison system can uphold the safety of all through specialized incarceration facilities for those who cant play well with others.  perhaps in these cases, they get less outside time and are fed indirectly.  i say this, because there are a lot of non capital offenders who have not revoked their right to life, because they have not killed another human being in their rational mind that could be considered dangerous.  consider the head of an organized prison gang.  shall we kill this person because he may start a riot ? because the prison guards claim he has a history of starting riots ? or do we send him to a facility that isolates him from his gang and makes him a lesser threat ?  #  now, if we were cutting off the hands of thieves, i would rescind that statement.   #  the difference is, that the  convicted person  has a much longer span of life to revoke a guilty claim.  the death sentence is much more permanent than life in prison.  the basis behind this argument, however, is that there is very little benefit present in capital punishment anyway, so the risk being run that an innocent person dies is great enough that it should dissuade us from seeking capital punishment.  however, the benefits of the prison system itself keeping criminals from walking the same streets as the innocent are great enough that an accidental incarceration will not affect my stance on the existence of the prison system.  now, if we were cutting off the hands of thieves, i would rescind that statement.
hello ! i am submitting my views on the ethics of the death penalty and physician assisted suicide on the cmv subreddit.  i consider myself well informed on this subject, especially concerning the current method of both death penalty and euthenasia, which is accomplished by administering  nembutal  which is known as  sodium pentobarbital  in short, i believe that euthenasia in the healthcare system and the execution of criminals is not ethical ! adding to that, even if it was legal, i do not believe that the current molecule we use  pentobarbital  is extremely unethical.  my reasoning behind capital punishment being unethical is: first, one can remove capital offenders from society by placing them in prison for the extent of their lives, which would equivocate the intentions of the death penalty.  second, the legal system is fallible, which presents the possibility of killing an innocent human being who is wrongly accused.  third, capital punishment does not deter new crime, and may actually increase it by hardening the hearts of civilization.  also while i am in support of euthanasia, mandating that hospitals honor euthanasia requests is not ethical because the most ethical approach is to honor the rights of people, with can be done by recognizing a few certain rights that people innately possess.  the first certainty is that human beings have the freedom to end their own life at their choosing.  the second certainty is that no organization which is a group of people is obligated to assist that person in their decision to die.  the third certainty is that the healthcare system is founded on the maxim  do no harm,  and should not violate this maxim.  from these three premises, one can conclude that it is the responsibility of the organization to decide which euthanasia requests to honor or deny.  even with this freedom to honor requests, the healthcare system cannot honor euthanasia requests while observing its own maxim.  therefore euthanasia may be ethical when provided from an organization, but it cannot be ethically provided for by the healthcare system, if the healthcare system is to honor its maxims as absolute.  from this, the ethical solution must be an accountable, third party euthanasia provider who is allowed honor the rights of euthanasia to those who are ruled  sound of mind  and  fit to die  by a jury of their peers finally the reason that the acts of mandating euthanasia in the healthcare system and capital punishment are currently unethical in the united states is because we use  nembutal/sodium pentobarbital  to obtain these goals.  pentobarbital is unethical because it will indeed put the subject into coma in small doses, but in large doses may actually act as a stimulant and return them to consciousness.  however, the subject could not communicate this, because the drug will have incapacitated the rest of their body from movement.  promising whoever uses it a long and painful demise as they suffocate from an inactive diaphragm.  for this reason, i am not in support of euthenasia in the hospital or capital punishement.  i believe that we should do away with capital punishment, move euthanasia from the hospital to another organization, and create a more ethical molecule for euthanasia.   #  first, one can remove capital offenders from society by placing them in prison for the extent of their lives, which would equivocate the intentions of the death penalty.   #  there is one argument i find compelling for the death penalty.   # there is one argument i find compelling for the death penalty.  the death penalty is not justified as a punishment for any crime committed outside of prison.  as you note, imprisonment achieves the same outcome removal from society without the drawbacks.  however, those inmates who demonstrate themselves unable to be safely housed in the prison system,  ought  to be executed out of concern for those prison officials and other inmates to whom they pose a risk.  in other words, execution must be reserved for when the inmate must be removed from any prison population.   #  but to clarify, is your view that euthanasia is unethical as you say in the title, or unethical when performed by doctors, as you say in your post ?  #  i understand your view on capital punishment, and i am not going to try to cyv on that part because i agree although for different reasons .  but to clarify, is your view that euthanasia is unethical as you say in the title, or unethical when performed by doctors, as you say in your post ? if it is only a concern when performed by doctors, i will take a shot at it.  not sure why this is a certainty, but i will accept it for the purpose of argument.  again, i do not know why this is a certainty, but it seems reasonable enough to me.  hospitals need not be mandated to offer euthanasia.  this is where i think the argument falls apart.  do no harm is a nice maxim, but you ca not really believe it is literally followed in practice.  you really ca not claim that people are not harmed by chemotherapy it is nightmarish.  but we allow it because it usually increases the rate of survival.  now, this does not justify euthanasia in and of itself, but it does disprove the notion that doctors are never allowed to hurt anyone ever.  do no harm is not a real thing that doctors follow.  perhaps a better phrase would be  do nothing that harms more than it helps.   by this revised principle, which i think sums up healthcare far more appropriately than  do no harm,  euthanasia may well be allowed for those who are suffering greatly.  death certainly seems like a harm, but i would rather die than suffer horribly and then die.  euthanasia does do harm, arguably, but it also alleviates suffering, and i think that has to be taken into consideration too it is for every other medical procedure.   #  for terminal or bedridden patients it is often impossible/impractical to switch hospitals.   #  on euthanasia: if someone is in severe pain or other discomfort, without available cures, a doctor would actually do harm if they did not allow that person euthanasia, as the person would not only die then eventually but additionally stay in pain longer.  for terminal or bedridden patients it is often impossible/impractical to switch hospitals.  if each hospital could decide if they do euthanasia or not, it might be impossible for those patients to get euthanasia.  especially because a lot of patients do not choose their hospital based on availability of euthanasia or change their mind when their situation gets worse.  if you would allow doctors a choice if they gave euthanasia or not, there might still be some hospitals without euthanasia available.  a solution which is used for this problem is mandating that each hospital has to have at least one doctor available who does not morally object to euthanasia.   #  consider the head of an organized prison gang.   #  so while i see some great logic behind that statement, i still think that the prison system can uphold the safety of all through specialized incarceration facilities for those who cant play well with others.  perhaps in these cases, they get less outside time and are fed indirectly.  i say this, because there are a lot of non capital offenders who have not revoked their right to life, because they have not killed another human being in their rational mind that could be considered dangerous.  consider the head of an organized prison gang.  shall we kill this person because he may start a riot ? because the prison guards claim he has a history of starting riots ? or do we send him to a facility that isolates him from his gang and makes him a lesser threat ?  #  the difference is, that the  convicted person  has a much longer span of life to revoke a guilty claim.   #  the difference is, that the  convicted person  has a much longer span of life to revoke a guilty claim.  the death sentence is much more permanent than life in prison.  the basis behind this argument, however, is that there is very little benefit present in capital punishment anyway, so the risk being run that an innocent person dies is great enough that it should dissuade us from seeking capital punishment.  however, the benefits of the prison system itself keeping criminals from walking the same streets as the innocent are great enough that an accidental incarceration will not affect my stance on the existence of the prison system.  now, if we were cutting off the hands of thieves, i would rescind that statement.
i believe that capital punishment is a requirement for any society to function and the arguments for its opposition are null.  if i had the power to change laws regarding capital punishment, i would expand the system and loosen the noose on what is regarded as cruel and unusual ie hanging .  when preformed correctly, hanging is effective and swift and a prisoner is pain if any is negligible.  i would also change how quickly a sentence is carried out.  no longer does a prisoner sit on death row for the majority of his life.  strap him down and hit him with the benzos as soon as legally possible.  this would reduce strain on government funds, overcrowded prisons, and the tax payer is dollar.  miscarriages of justice in regards to capital punishment are often overblown and with with the advent of dna evidence and other technologies are more than likely in decline.  people who argue that it is a greater to punishment rot in a cell underestimate a prisoner is comfort.  three meals a day, a bed to sleep on and clothes on your back is more than many people have outside the first world and many prisoners have athletic facilities and tv.  following the logic of what is a greater punishment is foolish because it is not about the greatness of the punishment, it is about justice being served.  if you think rotting in a cell is more punishment than death, the same logic would follow: torture is a greater punishment than rotting in a cell which i am opposed to.  death and pain are not mutually exclusive, but sometimes they coincide; and if that means the perpetrator of a heinous crime feels something human so be it.  not all of life is comfortable and the general public are grossly sensitized to death because it is feared, misunderstood, and unknown.  i look forward to discussion ! thanks for reading.   #  this would reduce strain on government funds, overcrowded prisons, and the tax payer is dollar.   #  legalizing drugs would have the same effect, with the added boon of additional tax revenue from said drugs.   # do you really believe that without capital punishment society could not function ? those people would just be in prison, as opposed to dead.  i am sure society would still be able to function.  legalizing drugs would have the same effect, with the added boon of additional tax revenue from said drugs.  a bit more than 0 of inmates are in there for drug related crime.  URL whether if you agree with the idea or not, you need to agree that for reducing prison poputation, lowering the tax payer burden, and alleviating the governments strain on prison, legalizing drugs would be a better solution.  dna evidence sadly is not as conclusive as you think.  to begin, whatever the sample must be handled with extreme caution, or else it could be tainted.  additionally, dna of an alleged murderer could just as easily be that of someone they met that day, or of a cat.  lastly, accuracy is not as precise as you might hope.  URL   three meals a day, a bed to sleep on and clothes on your back is more than many people have outside the first world and many prisoners have athletic facilities and tv.  you ever hear that old tale about heaven and hell where they are the same room, both with tantalizing soup but ladles too long to use on your self ? in heaven the people help each other out and feed each other.  in hell, everyone tries to feed themselves, but they ca not.  think of prisons.  they are filled with rapists, arsonists, pedophiles, and other people most would not want to be around.  sometimes, bad company can make a situation seem torturous.  it is more that we do not want to stoop to a murderer is level.  say a man raped someone and then cut off there limbs, then shot them in the head.  do you think we should do the same to them ? killing them in a painless way is society is way of being the bigger man.  sure, we could return exactly what happened to them, but how would that make us any different than them ? even worse, if someone is falsely accused, they do not even have a painless death.   #  do you really think 0 of the world is not functioning ?  # do you think we are headed for an inevitable apocalypse or something ? how about norway ? is all of scandinavia and most of europe doomed ? what about the entirety of russia and australia ? they seem to functioning fairly well. in fact, 0 of the world does not have a death penalty.  another 0 have not used it in a decade.  do you really think 0 of the world is not functioning ? why ? what is your evidence ? if anything it seems having a death penalty makes a country cease functioning.  the ones which do use it are largely countries dominated by war, terrorism, dictatorships, corruption and poverty like india, somalia, china and the entirety of the middle east.   #  this causes a huge problem in any system in which the police do most of the research.   # as someone living in a society without capital punishment, i do not agree with that at all.  the enitre european union has a banned the death penalty; there are many problems with the eu economy, but the death penalty is not one of them.  furthermore, it can not work as a deterrent for anything except premeditated murder.  after all, those who commit normal manslaughter do not take the time to weigh the consequences, and those who commit lesser crimes like rape would be better off murdering their victims if the maximum punishment was the same.  about your point about evidence: you have to put a lot of trust in both the judge, the prosecutor and the jury for you to be certain that no innocent person will be killed.  apart from the technical issues with dna testing, you also have to consider psychological issues such as confirmation bias.  people, including prosecutors and judges, look for evidence that supports their theory.  this causes a huge problem in any system in which the police do most of the research.  ue process and beyond a reasonable doubt can be stretched a long way to suit these biases.   #  there are appeals heard by different judges but they only evaluate the evidence presented at the trial and are generally bound to accept as true what the jury said was true.   #  this is absolutely incorrect.  there is generally only one trial, with one judge and one jury.  there are appeals heard by different judges but they only evaluate the evidence presented at the trial and are generally bound to accept as true what the jury said was true.  they are evaluating whether the law was correctly applied to those facts and the evidence.  the standard is always beyond a reasonable doubt, not shadow of a doubt.  in the us, the only crime where execution is available is premeditated murder.  generally known in the common law as murder with malice aforethought.   #  how would we justify their loss to them ?  #  so, funny enough the other day i was listening to npr is intelligence squared debate: is it time to abolish the death penalty ? URL seeing as you are keen on the subject, i highly recommend you give it a listen.  now i must say that during the debate, my belief in abolishing the death penalty was reaffirmed.  and, it comes down to one simple fact for me:   the loss of a single innocent life, outweighs any benefits that the death penalty may offer us.  and so, i would like to address this point you brought up:   miscarriages of justice in regards to capital punishment are often overblown and with the advent of dna evidence and other technologies are more than likely in decline the innocent project URL was founded in 0   the work they have performed has led to the freeing of 0 wrongfully convicted people, including 0 who spent time on death row.  now, on their website the following faq is listed:     q: how many innocent people are there in prison ? are innocent for context, if just 0 of all prisoners are innocent, that would mean that more than 0,0 innocent people are in prison .  so, taking all of this into account let me appeal to your heart   hopefully soften your viewpoint on this one.  as someone who is pro death penalty what do we say to the mother whose child was wrongfully executed ? how would we justify their loss to them ? how do we show them that the death of their child made us a more civilized society ?
i believe that capital punishment is a requirement for any society to function and the arguments for its opposition are null.  if i had the power to change laws regarding capital punishment, i would expand the system and loosen the noose on what is regarded as cruel and unusual ie hanging .  when preformed correctly, hanging is effective and swift and a prisoner is pain if any is negligible.  i would also change how quickly a sentence is carried out.  no longer does a prisoner sit on death row for the majority of his life.  strap him down and hit him with the benzos as soon as legally possible.  this would reduce strain on government funds, overcrowded prisons, and the tax payer is dollar.  miscarriages of justice in regards to capital punishment are often overblown and with with the advent of dna evidence and other technologies are more than likely in decline.  people who argue that it is a greater to punishment rot in a cell underestimate a prisoner is comfort.  three meals a day, a bed to sleep on and clothes on your back is more than many people have outside the first world and many prisoners have athletic facilities and tv.  following the logic of what is a greater punishment is foolish because it is not about the greatness of the punishment, it is about justice being served.  if you think rotting in a cell is more punishment than death, the same logic would follow: torture is a greater punishment than rotting in a cell which i am opposed to.  death and pain are not mutually exclusive, but sometimes they coincide; and if that means the perpetrator of a heinous crime feels something human so be it.  not all of life is comfortable and the general public are grossly sensitized to death because it is feared, misunderstood, and unknown.  i look forward to discussion ! thanks for reading.   #  miscarriages of justice in regards to capital punishment are often overblown and with with the advent of dna evidence and other technologies are more than likely in decline.   #  dna evidence sadly is not as conclusive as you think.   # do you really believe that without capital punishment society could not function ? those people would just be in prison, as opposed to dead.  i am sure society would still be able to function.  legalizing drugs would have the same effect, with the added boon of additional tax revenue from said drugs.  a bit more than 0 of inmates are in there for drug related crime.  URL whether if you agree with the idea or not, you need to agree that for reducing prison poputation, lowering the tax payer burden, and alleviating the governments strain on prison, legalizing drugs would be a better solution.  dna evidence sadly is not as conclusive as you think.  to begin, whatever the sample must be handled with extreme caution, or else it could be tainted.  additionally, dna of an alleged murderer could just as easily be that of someone they met that day, or of a cat.  lastly, accuracy is not as precise as you might hope.  URL   three meals a day, a bed to sleep on and clothes on your back is more than many people have outside the first world and many prisoners have athletic facilities and tv.  you ever hear that old tale about heaven and hell where they are the same room, both with tantalizing soup but ladles too long to use on your self ? in heaven the people help each other out and feed each other.  in hell, everyone tries to feed themselves, but they ca not.  think of prisons.  they are filled with rapists, arsonists, pedophiles, and other people most would not want to be around.  sometimes, bad company can make a situation seem torturous.  it is more that we do not want to stoop to a murderer is level.  say a man raped someone and then cut off there limbs, then shot them in the head.  do you think we should do the same to them ? killing them in a painless way is society is way of being the bigger man.  sure, we could return exactly what happened to them, but how would that make us any different than them ? even worse, if someone is falsely accused, they do not even have a painless death.   #  do you really think 0 of the world is not functioning ?  # do you think we are headed for an inevitable apocalypse or something ? how about norway ? is all of scandinavia and most of europe doomed ? what about the entirety of russia and australia ? they seem to functioning fairly well. in fact, 0 of the world does not have a death penalty.  another 0 have not used it in a decade.  do you really think 0 of the world is not functioning ? why ? what is your evidence ? if anything it seems having a death penalty makes a country cease functioning.  the ones which do use it are largely countries dominated by war, terrorism, dictatorships, corruption and poverty like india, somalia, china and the entirety of the middle east.   #  this causes a huge problem in any system in which the police do most of the research.   # as someone living in a society without capital punishment, i do not agree with that at all.  the enitre european union has a banned the death penalty; there are many problems with the eu economy, but the death penalty is not one of them.  furthermore, it can not work as a deterrent for anything except premeditated murder.  after all, those who commit normal manslaughter do not take the time to weigh the consequences, and those who commit lesser crimes like rape would be better off murdering their victims if the maximum punishment was the same.  about your point about evidence: you have to put a lot of trust in both the judge, the prosecutor and the jury for you to be certain that no innocent person will be killed.  apart from the technical issues with dna testing, you also have to consider psychological issues such as confirmation bias.  people, including prosecutors and judges, look for evidence that supports their theory.  this causes a huge problem in any system in which the police do most of the research.  ue process and beyond a reasonable doubt can be stretched a long way to suit these biases.   #  there are appeals heard by different judges but they only evaluate the evidence presented at the trial and are generally bound to accept as true what the jury said was true.   #  this is absolutely incorrect.  there is generally only one trial, with one judge and one jury.  there are appeals heard by different judges but they only evaluate the evidence presented at the trial and are generally bound to accept as true what the jury said was true.  they are evaluating whether the law was correctly applied to those facts and the evidence.  the standard is always beyond a reasonable doubt, not shadow of a doubt.  in the us, the only crime where execution is available is premeditated murder.  generally known in the common law as murder with malice aforethought.   #  so, taking all of this into account let me appeal to your heart   hopefully soften your viewpoint on this one.  as someone who is pro death penalty what do we say to the mother whose child was wrongfully executed ?  #  so, funny enough the other day i was listening to npr is intelligence squared debate: is it time to abolish the death penalty ? URL seeing as you are keen on the subject, i highly recommend you give it a listen.  now i must say that during the debate, my belief in abolishing the death penalty was reaffirmed.  and, it comes down to one simple fact for me:   the loss of a single innocent life, outweighs any benefits that the death penalty may offer us.  and so, i would like to address this point you brought up:   miscarriages of justice in regards to capital punishment are often overblown and with the advent of dna evidence and other technologies are more than likely in decline the innocent project URL was founded in 0   the work they have performed has led to the freeing of 0 wrongfully convicted people, including 0 who spent time on death row.  now, on their website the following faq is listed:     q: how many innocent people are there in prison ? are innocent for context, if just 0 of all prisoners are innocent, that would mean that more than 0,0 innocent people are in prison .  so, taking all of this into account let me appeal to your heart   hopefully soften your viewpoint on this one.  as someone who is pro death penalty what do we say to the mother whose child was wrongfully executed ? how would we justify their loss to them ? how do we show them that the death of their child made us a more civilized society ?
i believe that capital punishment is a requirement for any society to function and the arguments for its opposition are null.  if i had the power to change laws regarding capital punishment, i would expand the system and loosen the noose on what is regarded as cruel and unusual ie hanging .  when preformed correctly, hanging is effective and swift and a prisoner is pain if any is negligible.  i would also change how quickly a sentence is carried out.  no longer does a prisoner sit on death row for the majority of his life.  strap him down and hit him with the benzos as soon as legally possible.  this would reduce strain on government funds, overcrowded prisons, and the tax payer is dollar.  miscarriages of justice in regards to capital punishment are often overblown and with with the advent of dna evidence and other technologies are more than likely in decline.  people who argue that it is a greater to punishment rot in a cell underestimate a prisoner is comfort.  three meals a day, a bed to sleep on and clothes on your back is more than many people have outside the first world and many prisoners have athletic facilities and tv.  following the logic of what is a greater punishment is foolish because it is not about the greatness of the punishment, it is about justice being served.  if you think rotting in a cell is more punishment than death, the same logic would follow: torture is a greater punishment than rotting in a cell which i am opposed to.  death and pain are not mutually exclusive, but sometimes they coincide; and if that means the perpetrator of a heinous crime feels something human so be it.  not all of life is comfortable and the general public are grossly sensitized to death because it is feared, misunderstood, and unknown.  i look forward to discussion ! thanks for reading.   #  not all of life is comfortable and the general public are grossly sensitized to death because it is feared, misunderstood, and unknown.   #  it is more that we do not want to stoop to a murderer is level.   # do you really believe that without capital punishment society could not function ? those people would just be in prison, as opposed to dead.  i am sure society would still be able to function.  legalizing drugs would have the same effect, with the added boon of additional tax revenue from said drugs.  a bit more than 0 of inmates are in there for drug related crime.  URL whether if you agree with the idea or not, you need to agree that for reducing prison poputation, lowering the tax payer burden, and alleviating the governments strain on prison, legalizing drugs would be a better solution.  dna evidence sadly is not as conclusive as you think.  to begin, whatever the sample must be handled with extreme caution, or else it could be tainted.  additionally, dna of an alleged murderer could just as easily be that of someone they met that day, or of a cat.  lastly, accuracy is not as precise as you might hope.  URL   three meals a day, a bed to sleep on and clothes on your back is more than many people have outside the first world and many prisoners have athletic facilities and tv.  you ever hear that old tale about heaven and hell where they are the same room, both with tantalizing soup but ladles too long to use on your self ? in heaven the people help each other out and feed each other.  in hell, everyone tries to feed themselves, but they ca not.  think of prisons.  they are filled with rapists, arsonists, pedophiles, and other people most would not want to be around.  sometimes, bad company can make a situation seem torturous.  it is more that we do not want to stoop to a murderer is level.  say a man raped someone and then cut off there limbs, then shot them in the head.  do you think we should do the same to them ? killing them in a painless way is society is way of being the bigger man.  sure, we could return exactly what happened to them, but how would that make us any different than them ? even worse, if someone is falsely accused, they do not even have a painless death.   #  another 0 have not used it in a decade.   # do you think we are headed for an inevitable apocalypse or something ? how about norway ? is all of scandinavia and most of europe doomed ? what about the entirety of russia and australia ? they seem to functioning fairly well. in fact, 0 of the world does not have a death penalty.  another 0 have not used it in a decade.  do you really think 0 of the world is not functioning ? why ? what is your evidence ? if anything it seems having a death penalty makes a country cease functioning.  the ones which do use it are largely countries dominated by war, terrorism, dictatorships, corruption and poverty like india, somalia, china and the entirety of the middle east.   #  ue process and beyond a reasonable doubt can be stretched a long way to suit these biases.   # as someone living in a society without capital punishment, i do not agree with that at all.  the enitre european union has a banned the death penalty; there are many problems with the eu economy, but the death penalty is not one of them.  furthermore, it can not work as a deterrent for anything except premeditated murder.  after all, those who commit normal manslaughter do not take the time to weigh the consequences, and those who commit lesser crimes like rape would be better off murdering their victims if the maximum punishment was the same.  about your point about evidence: you have to put a lot of trust in both the judge, the prosecutor and the jury for you to be certain that no innocent person will be killed.  apart from the technical issues with dna testing, you also have to consider psychological issues such as confirmation bias.  people, including prosecutors and judges, look for evidence that supports their theory.  this causes a huge problem in any system in which the police do most of the research.  ue process and beyond a reasonable doubt can be stretched a long way to suit these biases.   #  generally known in the common law as murder with malice aforethought.   #  this is absolutely incorrect.  there is generally only one trial, with one judge and one jury.  there are appeals heard by different judges but they only evaluate the evidence presented at the trial and are generally bound to accept as true what the jury said was true.  they are evaluating whether the law was correctly applied to those facts and the evidence.  the standard is always beyond a reasonable doubt, not shadow of a doubt.  in the us, the only crime where execution is available is premeditated murder.  generally known in the common law as murder with malice aforethought.   #  so, funny enough the other day i was listening to npr is intelligence squared debate: is it time to abolish the death penalty ?  #  so, funny enough the other day i was listening to npr is intelligence squared debate: is it time to abolish the death penalty ? URL seeing as you are keen on the subject, i highly recommend you give it a listen.  now i must say that during the debate, my belief in abolishing the death penalty was reaffirmed.  and, it comes down to one simple fact for me:   the loss of a single innocent life, outweighs any benefits that the death penalty may offer us.  and so, i would like to address this point you brought up:   miscarriages of justice in regards to capital punishment are often overblown and with the advent of dna evidence and other technologies are more than likely in decline the innocent project URL was founded in 0   the work they have performed has led to the freeing of 0 wrongfully convicted people, including 0 who spent time on death row.  now, on their website the following faq is listed:     q: how many innocent people are there in prison ? are innocent for context, if just 0 of all prisoners are innocent, that would mean that more than 0,0 innocent people are in prison .  so, taking all of this into account let me appeal to your heart   hopefully soften your viewpoint on this one.  as someone who is pro death penalty what do we say to the mother whose child was wrongfully executed ? how would we justify their loss to them ? how do we show them that the death of their child made us a more civilized society ?
i believe that capital punishment is a requirement for any society to function and the arguments for its opposition are null.  if i had the power to change laws regarding capital punishment, i would expand the system and loosen the noose on what is regarded as cruel and unusual ie hanging .  when preformed correctly, hanging is effective and swift and a prisoner is pain if any is negligible.  i would also change how quickly a sentence is carried out.  no longer does a prisoner sit on death row for the majority of his life.  strap him down and hit him with the benzos as soon as legally possible.  this would reduce strain on government funds, overcrowded prisons, and the tax payer is dollar.  miscarriages of justice in regards to capital punishment are often overblown and with with the advent of dna evidence and other technologies are more than likely in decline.  people who argue that it is a greater to punishment rot in a cell underestimate a prisoner is comfort.  three meals a day, a bed to sleep on and clothes on your back is more than many people have outside the first world and many prisoners have athletic facilities and tv.  following the logic of what is a greater punishment is foolish because it is not about the greatness of the punishment, it is about justice being served.  if you think rotting in a cell is more punishment than death, the same logic would follow: torture is a greater punishment than rotting in a cell which i am opposed to.  death and pain are not mutually exclusive, but sometimes they coincide; and if that means the perpetrator of a heinous crime feels something human so be it.  not all of life is comfortable and the general public are grossly sensitized to death because it is feared, misunderstood, and unknown.  i look forward to discussion ! thanks for reading.   #  if i had the power to change laws regarding capital punishment, i would expand the system and loosen the noose on what is regarded as cruel and unusual ie hanging .   #  when preformed correctly, hanging is effective and swift and a prisoner is pain if any is negligible.   #  firstly, you have not actually explained why capital punishment is required.  secondly, there are a lot of issues with your claims.  when preformed correctly, hanging is effective and swift and a prisoner is pain if any is negligible.  there are a few states where hanging is legal.  no longer does a prisoner sit on death row for the majority of his life.  strap him down and hit him with the benzos as soon as legally possible.  you legally ca not.  there is a reason that it takes so long, and that is because there are a ton of things that must be done before you can execute a prisoner.  all you would achieve by forcing the process to go as fast as possible is to increase the numbers of innocents that you would kill.  actually, they are still far more common than should be acceptable acceptable number is 0 .  it is true that it is less common now due to dna evidence, but that is a far cry from a perfect system that could not possibly execute an innocent.  in fact, just look at what happened recently with the fbi, where it came to light that most of the examiners in the fbi overstated hair matches.  0 out of 0 forensic examiners overstated evidence of forensic hair matches in 0 trials reviewed, and 0 of the overstatements favoured the prosecution.  in 0 of these cases the defendant was sentenced to death.   #  what about the entirety of russia and australia ?  # do you think we are headed for an inevitable apocalypse or something ? how about norway ? is all of scandinavia and most of europe doomed ? what about the entirety of russia and australia ? they seem to functioning fairly well. in fact, 0 of the world does not have a death penalty.  another 0 have not used it in a decade.  do you really think 0 of the world is not functioning ? why ? what is your evidence ? if anything it seems having a death penalty makes a country cease functioning.  the ones which do use it are largely countries dominated by war, terrorism, dictatorships, corruption and poverty like india, somalia, china and the entirety of the middle east.   #  lastly, accuracy is not as precise as you might hope.   # do you really believe that without capital punishment society could not function ? those people would just be in prison, as opposed to dead.  i am sure society would still be able to function.  legalizing drugs would have the same effect, with the added boon of additional tax revenue from said drugs.  a bit more than 0 of inmates are in there for drug related crime.  URL whether if you agree with the idea or not, you need to agree that for reducing prison poputation, lowering the tax payer burden, and alleviating the governments strain on prison, legalizing drugs would be a better solution.  dna evidence sadly is not as conclusive as you think.  to begin, whatever the sample must be handled with extreme caution, or else it could be tainted.  additionally, dna of an alleged murderer could just as easily be that of someone they met that day, or of a cat.  lastly, accuracy is not as precise as you might hope.  URL   three meals a day, a bed to sleep on and clothes on your back is more than many people have outside the first world and many prisoners have athletic facilities and tv.  you ever hear that old tale about heaven and hell where they are the same room, both with tantalizing soup but ladles too long to use on your self ? in heaven the people help each other out and feed each other.  in hell, everyone tries to feed themselves, but they ca not.  think of prisons.  they are filled with rapists, arsonists, pedophiles, and other people most would not want to be around.  sometimes, bad company can make a situation seem torturous.  it is more that we do not want to stoop to a murderer is level.  say a man raped someone and then cut off there limbs, then shot them in the head.  do you think we should do the same to them ? killing them in a painless way is society is way of being the bigger man.  sure, we could return exactly what happened to them, but how would that make us any different than them ? even worse, if someone is falsely accused, they do not even have a painless death.   #  people, including prosecutors and judges, look for evidence that supports their theory.   # as someone living in a society without capital punishment, i do not agree with that at all.  the enitre european union has a banned the death penalty; there are many problems with the eu economy, but the death penalty is not one of them.  furthermore, it can not work as a deterrent for anything except premeditated murder.  after all, those who commit normal manslaughter do not take the time to weigh the consequences, and those who commit lesser crimes like rape would be better off murdering their victims if the maximum punishment was the same.  about your point about evidence: you have to put a lot of trust in both the judge, the prosecutor and the jury for you to be certain that no innocent person will be killed.  apart from the technical issues with dna testing, you also have to consider psychological issues such as confirmation bias.  people, including prosecutors and judges, look for evidence that supports their theory.  this causes a huge problem in any system in which the police do most of the research.  ue process and beyond a reasonable doubt can be stretched a long way to suit these biases.   #  they are evaluating whether the law was correctly applied to those facts and the evidence.   #  this is absolutely incorrect.  there is generally only one trial, with one judge and one jury.  there are appeals heard by different judges but they only evaluate the evidence presented at the trial and are generally bound to accept as true what the jury said was true.  they are evaluating whether the law was correctly applied to those facts and the evidence.  the standard is always beyond a reasonable doubt, not shadow of a doubt.  in the us, the only crime where execution is available is premeditated murder.  generally known in the common law as murder with malice aforethought.
i believe that capital punishment is a requirement for any society to function and the arguments for its opposition are null.  if i had the power to change laws regarding capital punishment, i would expand the system and loosen the noose on what is regarded as cruel and unusual ie hanging .  when preformed correctly, hanging is effective and swift and a prisoner is pain if any is negligible.  i would also change how quickly a sentence is carried out.  no longer does a prisoner sit on death row for the majority of his life.  strap him down and hit him with the benzos as soon as legally possible.  this would reduce strain on government funds, overcrowded prisons, and the tax payer is dollar.  miscarriages of justice in regards to capital punishment are often overblown and with with the advent of dna evidence and other technologies are more than likely in decline.  people who argue that it is a greater to punishment rot in a cell underestimate a prisoner is comfort.  three meals a day, a bed to sleep on and clothes on your back is more than many people have outside the first world and many prisoners have athletic facilities and tv.  following the logic of what is a greater punishment is foolish because it is not about the greatness of the punishment, it is about justice being served.  if you think rotting in a cell is more punishment than death, the same logic would follow: torture is a greater punishment than rotting in a cell which i am opposed to.  death and pain are not mutually exclusive, but sometimes they coincide; and if that means the perpetrator of a heinous crime feels something human so be it.  not all of life is comfortable and the general public are grossly sensitized to death because it is feared, misunderstood, and unknown.  i look forward to discussion ! thanks for reading.   #  i would also change how quickly a sentence is carried out.   #  no longer does a prisoner sit on death row for the majority of his life.   #  firstly, you have not actually explained why capital punishment is required.  secondly, there are a lot of issues with your claims.  when preformed correctly, hanging is effective and swift and a prisoner is pain if any is negligible.  there are a few states where hanging is legal.  no longer does a prisoner sit on death row for the majority of his life.  strap him down and hit him with the benzos as soon as legally possible.  you legally ca not.  there is a reason that it takes so long, and that is because there are a ton of things that must be done before you can execute a prisoner.  all you would achieve by forcing the process to go as fast as possible is to increase the numbers of innocents that you would kill.  actually, they are still far more common than should be acceptable acceptable number is 0 .  it is true that it is less common now due to dna evidence, but that is a far cry from a perfect system that could not possibly execute an innocent.  in fact, just look at what happened recently with the fbi, where it came to light that most of the examiners in the fbi overstated hair matches.  0 out of 0 forensic examiners overstated evidence of forensic hair matches in 0 trials reviewed, and 0 of the overstatements favoured the prosecution.  in 0 of these cases the defendant was sentenced to death.   #  the ones which do use it are largely countries dominated by war, terrorism, dictatorships, corruption and poverty like india, somalia, china and the entirety of the middle east.   # do you think we are headed for an inevitable apocalypse or something ? how about norway ? is all of scandinavia and most of europe doomed ? what about the entirety of russia and australia ? they seem to functioning fairly well. in fact, 0 of the world does not have a death penalty.  another 0 have not used it in a decade.  do you really think 0 of the world is not functioning ? why ? what is your evidence ? if anything it seems having a death penalty makes a country cease functioning.  the ones which do use it are largely countries dominated by war, terrorism, dictatorships, corruption and poverty like india, somalia, china and the entirety of the middle east.   #  do you really believe that without capital punishment society could not function ?  # do you really believe that without capital punishment society could not function ? those people would just be in prison, as opposed to dead.  i am sure society would still be able to function.  legalizing drugs would have the same effect, with the added boon of additional tax revenue from said drugs.  a bit more than 0 of inmates are in there for drug related crime.  URL whether if you agree with the idea or not, you need to agree that for reducing prison poputation, lowering the tax payer burden, and alleviating the governments strain on prison, legalizing drugs would be a better solution.  dna evidence sadly is not as conclusive as you think.  to begin, whatever the sample must be handled with extreme caution, or else it could be tainted.  additionally, dna of an alleged murderer could just as easily be that of someone they met that day, or of a cat.  lastly, accuracy is not as precise as you might hope.  URL   three meals a day, a bed to sleep on and clothes on your back is more than many people have outside the first world and many prisoners have athletic facilities and tv.  you ever hear that old tale about heaven and hell where they are the same room, both with tantalizing soup but ladles too long to use on your self ? in heaven the people help each other out and feed each other.  in hell, everyone tries to feed themselves, but they ca not.  think of prisons.  they are filled with rapists, arsonists, pedophiles, and other people most would not want to be around.  sometimes, bad company can make a situation seem torturous.  it is more that we do not want to stoop to a murderer is level.  say a man raped someone and then cut off there limbs, then shot them in the head.  do you think we should do the same to them ? killing them in a painless way is society is way of being the bigger man.  sure, we could return exactly what happened to them, but how would that make us any different than them ? even worse, if someone is falsely accused, they do not even have a painless death.   #  after all, those who commit normal manslaughter do not take the time to weigh the consequences, and those who commit lesser crimes like rape would be better off murdering their victims if the maximum punishment was the same.   # as someone living in a society without capital punishment, i do not agree with that at all.  the enitre european union has a banned the death penalty; there are many problems with the eu economy, but the death penalty is not one of them.  furthermore, it can not work as a deterrent for anything except premeditated murder.  after all, those who commit normal manslaughter do not take the time to weigh the consequences, and those who commit lesser crimes like rape would be better off murdering their victims if the maximum punishment was the same.  about your point about evidence: you have to put a lot of trust in both the judge, the prosecutor and the jury for you to be certain that no innocent person will be killed.  apart from the technical issues with dna testing, you also have to consider psychological issues such as confirmation bias.  people, including prosecutors and judges, look for evidence that supports their theory.  this causes a huge problem in any system in which the police do most of the research.  ue process and beyond a reasonable doubt can be stretched a long way to suit these biases.   #  there is generally only one trial, with one judge and one jury.   #  this is absolutely incorrect.  there is generally only one trial, with one judge and one jury.  there are appeals heard by different judges but they only evaluate the evidence presented at the trial and are generally bound to accept as true what the jury said was true.  they are evaluating whether the law was correctly applied to those facts and the evidence.  the standard is always beyond a reasonable doubt, not shadow of a doubt.  in the us, the only crime where execution is available is premeditated murder.  generally known in the common law as murder with malice aforethought.
i believe that capital punishment is a requirement for any society to function and the arguments for its opposition are null.  if i had the power to change laws regarding capital punishment, i would expand the system and loosen the noose on what is regarded as cruel and unusual ie hanging .  when preformed correctly, hanging is effective and swift and a prisoner is pain if any is negligible.  i would also change how quickly a sentence is carried out.  no longer does a prisoner sit on death row for the majority of his life.  strap him down and hit him with the benzos as soon as legally possible.  this would reduce strain on government funds, overcrowded prisons, and the tax payer is dollar.  miscarriages of justice in regards to capital punishment are often overblown and with with the advent of dna evidence and other technologies are more than likely in decline.  people who argue that it is a greater to punishment rot in a cell underestimate a prisoner is comfort.  three meals a day, a bed to sleep on and clothes on your back is more than many people have outside the first world and many prisoners have athletic facilities and tv.  following the logic of what is a greater punishment is foolish because it is not about the greatness of the punishment, it is about justice being served.  if you think rotting in a cell is more punishment than death, the same logic would follow: torture is a greater punishment than rotting in a cell which i am opposed to.  death and pain are not mutually exclusive, but sometimes they coincide; and if that means the perpetrator of a heinous crime feels something human so be it.  not all of life is comfortable and the general public are grossly sensitized to death because it is feared, misunderstood, and unknown.  i look forward to discussion ! thanks for reading.   #  miscarriages of justice in regards to capital punishment are often overblown and with with the advent of dna evidence and other technologies are more than likely in decline.   #  actually, they are still far more common than should be acceptable acceptable number is 0 .   #  firstly, you have not actually explained why capital punishment is required.  secondly, there are a lot of issues with your claims.  when preformed correctly, hanging is effective and swift and a prisoner is pain if any is negligible.  there are a few states where hanging is legal.  no longer does a prisoner sit on death row for the majority of his life.  strap him down and hit him with the benzos as soon as legally possible.  you legally ca not.  there is a reason that it takes so long, and that is because there are a ton of things that must be done before you can execute a prisoner.  all you would achieve by forcing the process to go as fast as possible is to increase the numbers of innocents that you would kill.  actually, they are still far more common than should be acceptable acceptable number is 0 .  it is true that it is less common now due to dna evidence, but that is a far cry from a perfect system that could not possibly execute an innocent.  in fact, just look at what happened recently with the fbi, where it came to light that most of the examiners in the fbi overstated hair matches.  0 out of 0 forensic examiners overstated evidence of forensic hair matches in 0 trials reviewed, and 0 of the overstatements favoured the prosecution.  in 0 of these cases the defendant was sentenced to death.   #  do you really think 0 of the world is not functioning ?  # do you think we are headed for an inevitable apocalypse or something ? how about norway ? is all of scandinavia and most of europe doomed ? what about the entirety of russia and australia ? they seem to functioning fairly well. in fact, 0 of the world does not have a death penalty.  another 0 have not used it in a decade.  do you really think 0 of the world is not functioning ? why ? what is your evidence ? if anything it seems having a death penalty makes a country cease functioning.  the ones which do use it are largely countries dominated by war, terrorism, dictatorships, corruption and poverty like india, somalia, china and the entirety of the middle east.   #  additionally, dna of an alleged murderer could just as easily be that of someone they met that day, or of a cat.   # do you really believe that without capital punishment society could not function ? those people would just be in prison, as opposed to dead.  i am sure society would still be able to function.  legalizing drugs would have the same effect, with the added boon of additional tax revenue from said drugs.  a bit more than 0 of inmates are in there for drug related crime.  URL whether if you agree with the idea or not, you need to agree that for reducing prison poputation, lowering the tax payer burden, and alleviating the governments strain on prison, legalizing drugs would be a better solution.  dna evidence sadly is not as conclusive as you think.  to begin, whatever the sample must be handled with extreme caution, or else it could be tainted.  additionally, dna of an alleged murderer could just as easily be that of someone they met that day, or of a cat.  lastly, accuracy is not as precise as you might hope.  URL   three meals a day, a bed to sleep on and clothes on your back is more than many people have outside the first world and many prisoners have athletic facilities and tv.  you ever hear that old tale about heaven and hell where they are the same room, both with tantalizing soup but ladles too long to use on your self ? in heaven the people help each other out and feed each other.  in hell, everyone tries to feed themselves, but they ca not.  think of prisons.  they are filled with rapists, arsonists, pedophiles, and other people most would not want to be around.  sometimes, bad company can make a situation seem torturous.  it is more that we do not want to stoop to a murderer is level.  say a man raped someone and then cut off there limbs, then shot them in the head.  do you think we should do the same to them ? killing them in a painless way is society is way of being the bigger man.  sure, we could return exactly what happened to them, but how would that make us any different than them ? even worse, if someone is falsely accused, they do not even have a painless death.   #  people, including prosecutors and judges, look for evidence that supports their theory.   # as someone living in a society without capital punishment, i do not agree with that at all.  the enitre european union has a banned the death penalty; there are many problems with the eu economy, but the death penalty is not one of them.  furthermore, it can not work as a deterrent for anything except premeditated murder.  after all, those who commit normal manslaughter do not take the time to weigh the consequences, and those who commit lesser crimes like rape would be better off murdering their victims if the maximum punishment was the same.  about your point about evidence: you have to put a lot of trust in both the judge, the prosecutor and the jury for you to be certain that no innocent person will be killed.  apart from the technical issues with dna testing, you also have to consider psychological issues such as confirmation bias.  people, including prosecutors and judges, look for evidence that supports their theory.  this causes a huge problem in any system in which the police do most of the research.  ue process and beyond a reasonable doubt can be stretched a long way to suit these biases.   #  there are appeals heard by different judges but they only evaluate the evidence presented at the trial and are generally bound to accept as true what the jury said was true.   #  this is absolutely incorrect.  there is generally only one trial, with one judge and one jury.  there are appeals heard by different judges but they only evaluate the evidence presented at the trial and are generally bound to accept as true what the jury said was true.  they are evaluating whether the law was correctly applied to those facts and the evidence.  the standard is always beyond a reasonable doubt, not shadow of a doubt.  in the us, the only crime where execution is available is premeditated murder.  generally known in the common law as murder with malice aforethought.
in the wake of the tsarnaev verdict, i have been hearing a lot of voices decry the death penalty on a moral basis, with a lot of things like,  killing people is wrong, killing people for killing other people is wrong,  or,  killing a killer only brings us down to their level  being said.  i would like to go against the reddit grain a little bit and explain why i believe 0 not all killing is equally wrong, and 0 why a person who kills another might deserve death.  i will try to explain my position without appealing to religion or nebulous ideas of objective morality.  in general, humans fear death.  because we are intelligent, empathetic creatures, we can recognize that the same fear of death we have is shared by all other members of our species.  we can therefore recognize that the killing of a human being by another is a more terrible act than, say, a bear killing a human being, since most animals cannot be said to be fully aware of all that they are taking from their victim when they kill them.  the law recognizes intent to kill as a necessary precondition for a killing to qualify as murder.  we also do not recognize the moral culpability of the criminally insane: a person has to be aware of the hurt they are causing and still do it anyway to turn an act of killing into a crime.  the law and common sense recognizes that there are degrees of right and wrong if it did not, there would be no legal distinctions between types of killing e. g.  0st degree murder, 0nd degree murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide, etc.  nor would there be provisions for self defense, provocation, heat of passion, or special dispensation for soldiers in wartime.  determining the heinousness of an act of killing is not straightforward, and it is to ignore the complexities of real life to make such a blanket claim as  all killing is equally wrong.   anyway.  because humans fear death, we create laws that forbid killing and empower the state to enforce them; we do this, ostensibly, to protect ourselves.  this is not a novel concept it is probably most famously articulated by rousseau in  the social contract .  the  social contract  is necessarily reciprocal in nature, however: all of us give up a little bit of freedom the right to kill whomever we please in exchange for the protection that such a law provides we agree not to kill other people, and other people agree not to kill us.  when someone breaks the contract by killing an innocent person, they break both parts of the contract, and they are no longer protected under it.  a person simply ca not expect to benefit from the protection that such a law provides them their entire lives and then knowingly deprive someone else of theirs; this alone makes the act of killing a killer fundamentally different than killing an innocent person.  people forget that the purpose of the death penalty is not revenge, it is punishment.  furthermore, once someone marks themselves as a threat to the community by committing an unjustified killing, the community, as exercised through the agents of the state and the justice system, is justified and i would argue, obligated to permanently eliminate that threat for the good of the whole community.  i would like to end with a gigantic caveat i am strongly anti death penalty, but not because i believe it to be morally wrong, nor financially unsound.  rather, i believe that the system that we use to determine guilt, like all systems made by man, is imperfect.  thus, because of the possibility, however small, of executing an innocent person, i believe that the death penalty should be abolished in all cases, assuming the alternative is life imprisonment without parole.  cmv  #  thus, because of the possibility, however small, of executing an innocent person, i believe that the death penalty should be abolished in all cases, assuming the alternative is life imprisonment without parole.   #  i would argue that this  is  a moral issue.   #  your argument about breaking the social contract  would  make sense if the only method of keeping murderers out of society would be to put them to death.  we have an alternative solution that costs less, allows them to rehabilitate and  does not  come with any moral issues like enabling revenge or the state putting people to death.  i would argue that this  is  a moral issue.  how do we weigh the death of an innocent person accused of a crime against the need for revenge ? does not morality come into that too ?  #  we see society as good and pleasurable, the criminal has only seen hatred and brutality.   #  well killing things is not morally wrong.  we breathe bacteria that die every second.  the idea of killing a person who does not see what see is morally wrong.  we see society as good and pleasurable, the criminal has only seen hatred and brutality.  even if the criminal comes from a world of luxury, his brain may not be equipped to control his actions neo cortex damage or birth defect .  an eye for an eye does not fix a broken eye.  life sentences make sense at that stage, and having inmates work jobs inside prison does as well, barring the heavy costs of storing them inside metal cages  #  of course these feelings are complex and come from a whole beast of sources including legal tradition, dominant religions, etc.   #  look, i am not downplaying the importance of the field/study of law.  however, in the end there is no  objective sense  other than it is what we feel is right.  of course these feelings are complex and come from a whole beast of sources including legal tradition, dominant religions, etc.  but ultimately are not  objective  in any way.  if i tell you that based on everything that makes up who i am i say the death penalty is wrong, there is no argument you can make against this.  you would be arguing against the most  objective  thing i have got my own experiences, learnings, and, consequently, empathy.   #  no one demonizes the greeks for their pederasty.   #  haha i hope i am not an extremist.  my mind could definitely be changed.  it happens constantly.  all i am saying is i disagree with your premise that there is some objective truth that says something is either right or wrong.  if you can somehow convince me that there is an objective morality, something outside our own feelings that defines what is right and wrong, then by all means do so.  but based on my experience and my own observations, there is not one.  right and wrong is just what each one of us feels is right or wrong.  no one demonizes the greeks for their pederasty.  in fact, we praise them rightfully so for their contributions to philosophy, architecture, science, etc.  it was just a different time with different standards.  same with the romans, egyptians, and founding fathers for their use of slavery.  there was no objective morality for these people to know.  it was only the feelings of the people at the time.   #  your caveat would entail many executions, as practiced in the real world, are morally wrong.   #  consider for a moment the criminal is family.  even if the criminal himself/herself forfeited their right to life through their crimes, it still seems unnecessarily cruel to make the presumably innocent family have to live with the death of their son or daughter.  this concern may be overridden in some circumstances of course: if there were no way to secure the safety of others without the death penalty, then we may be justified in  permanently eliminating the threat for the good of the whole community.   but modern prisons are fairly secure.  it is highly, highly unlikely most prisoners will ever escape.  we can secure the safety of the community without the death penalty, and for much cheaper than executions which can cost in the hundreds of millions of dollars.  in addition, most executions do not occur within your hypothetical scenario one where we have 0 certainty of guilt.  your caveat would entail many executions, as practiced in the real world, are morally wrong.
i do not believe parents have a right to read their children is diaries.  if parents want to find out about their child is life, they can attempt to talk to them.  reading through their private diary will only create distance between the parent and child and lead to more communication issues.  trying to take a shortcut and bypassing verbal communication with your child is only indicative of a larger problem in the family dynamic and will never end well.  i was discussing this topic in /r/adviceanimals of all places with a very well reasoned gentleman/lady but we could not come to an agreement on whether this behavior was acceptable.  while i do understand the idea that frustration and worry for your child could lead someone to consider this action, i was simply unable to change my view, and was hoping for some further rational ideas here.   #  trying to take a shortcut and bypassing verbal communication with your child is only indicative of a larger problem in the family dynamic and will never end well.   #  i completely agree, and i believe if you do the first steps i laid out it will never get to this point.   # i agree with this wholeheartedly.  this should, in fact be the first few steps in trying to connect with your child.  talk with them, do not allow them to shut you out and do not be afraid of silence when you talk to them.  ask questions and wait for a response, if you have to wait in silence for five or ten minutes while they formulate their response than wait.  if you still ca not connect, get them a psychiatrist.  get them help, especially if you do not have the tools to help them through their issues.  allow them to work through their issues with a psychiatrist and understand their issues will not be dealt with over night, give them time.  this may even result in inpatient treatment, if it does than so be it.  with that said if you have tried communicating with your child, and you have provided them with psychiatric help, and they are still not responding not very likely, but absolutely possible than you have a serious problem.  if they are suicidally depressed and they have not responded to any of your steps and have not clued you into what the potential problem is, than you have an extenuating circumstance.  it is unlikely that they would not have at least clued you into what the problem may be at this point, but if they have not it is time to take the next step.  i agree somewhat with this.  if you do this without them knowing than yes, you will cause a severe rupture in the relationship and communication will break down completely.  it must be done with tact and  complete  transparency by the parent.  speaking for myself, i would go to my child is room and explain to them what was going to take place, why it is taking place, and give them a final opportunity to avoid this invasion of their privacy though if you have reached this point it is, in all likelihood unavoidable .  the parent must remain calm and loving through this very emotional conversation, and understand that the child will be angry.  though they are angry the encounter can end well though the process will be emotional and tears will be shed.  i completely agree, and i believe if you do the first steps i laid out it will never get to this point.  talk to your child, communicate with your child, love your child, have the tough conversations with your child.  if you do not bypass the verbal communication, than the step of the reading of their journal or diary will likely not come to pass.  if it does, well, like i said in point three it can end well.  i think that in the overwhelming majority of children this step can absolutely be avoided if the parent actually does parenting and does not attempt to use the reading of a journal or diary as a short cut but at a certain point, with no response from a child, you would have to cross this line for their safety.  sure, you will be the bad guy for a while, maybe even their whole adolescence, but it would be worth it because you would be able to avoid tragedy and know them as an adult.   #  i do not think this is a black and white issue.   #  it depends on the situation.  i do not think this is a black and white issue.  for most kids your right, give them their space and talk to them instead of snooping.  but if you think your child is showing suicidal or destructive behavior, then you should be looking for every detail into the childs thought process.  just talking to them is not always possible if the relationship is too strained already or the child is too naturally reserved to speak to their parents.  i know when i was a kids the last people i would talk to about my problems were my family.   #  i was also pissed when my parents would not let me ride my bike to another neighborhood.   #  naturally i would be pissed.  i was also pissed whenever i got grounded.  i was also pissed when i could not stay out too late.  i was also pissed when my parents would not let me ride my bike to another neighborhood.  a parent is going to make there kid angry, it happens.  the ones who do not are stuck with self entitled little shits.   #  i agree on suicide being a right but not before there is at least some sort of attempt to solves the problem/s and not when we are talking about a teenager.   #  i agree on suicide being a right but not before there is at least some sort of attempt to solves the problem/s and not when we are talking about a teenager.  there are other signs of depression but depression does not equal suicide.  if children wo not talk to their parents about their issues and they often do not how is a parent supposed to know how deep those issues go ? is it a momentary dip in mood because of a breakup or friend problems or is it a much larger issue ? parents who snoop on their children because they are nosy or overprotective are ridiculous and are clearly violating a child is trust.  someone doing it out of concern, not looking for minor things they have done wrong and skimming through the clearly unimportant parts, are concerned about their child and trying to potentially save them.   #  if you do not agree that a parent who suspects that their child is in danger of killing themselves should not do anything they can to try to understand what is going on with them, then we are at an impasse.   #  getting an unwilling teenager to go to a psychologist and actually open up is ineffective.  i am not saying it should not be tried but it is most likely not going to be helpful.  and the parent can never know if the kid is sitting there not talking or actually trying because of hippa laws which i do support .  one of the most important steps is for a parent to know if there is an emergency or if this can be worked out over several months of therapy.  if you do not agree that a parent who suspects that their child is in danger of killing themselves should not do anything they can to try to understand what is going on with them, then we are at an impasse.
i say  killer asteroid  in the title for brevity, but i mean any celestial object asteroid, comet, planetoid, etc large enough to wipe out life on earth.  i have three basic reasons: 0.  we know there are no planet destroyers in the asteroid belt, which means anything that would take out earth would need to come from the kuiper belt or the oort cloud.  both of these are very far away, and would give us lots of warning, even if the object were presently on its impact trajectory orbit.  more likely, we would detect it multiple orbits in advance, and have decades or centuries before predicted impact.  but i think we will at least have multiple years.  0.  nuclear weapons would be pretty effective at deflecting an object.  they are very energy dense, and we can use a standoff detonation URL to cause ablation on one side of the comet/asteroid and nudge it.  we only need a very slight nudge to push it off of an earthbound trajectory when it is far away.  0.  if an impact were imminent, humanity would throw all feasible resources into stopping it.  a lot of the things which make present space travel difficult would be overcome fast.  we would allow launches which have a high chance of spreading radioactive debris onto earth for instance, or which have a high chance of loss of human life.  we might even send astronauts on a suicide mission.  of course, money would be no object for this, and massive logistical resources would be poured into anything with a chance of saving us.   #  both of these are very far away, and would give us lots of warning, even if the object were presently on its impact trajectory orbit.   #  more likely, we would detect it multiple orbits in advance, and have decades or centuries before predicted impact.   # more likely, we would detect it multiple orbits in advance, and have decades or centuries before predicted impact.  but i think we will at least have multiple years.  you seem certain of this.  can you elaborate ? what leads you to believe we would for sure detect such an object heading for us ?  #  rockets take a long time to build and need lots of testing before actually flying.   # a lot of the things which make present space travel difficult would be overcome fast.  right now we do not have a rocket capable of putting a large bomb on earth escape trajectory.  throwing money at nasa wo not get us an sls instantly.  rockets take a long time to build and need lots of testing before actually flying.  i am not saying it is impossible or that we would not be able to get a rocket ready to launch in time but as of now it is a real possibility.  it is also important to note that the longer we wait the larger payload we would need to divert the asteroid.  even if it is several years out, every month we wait would increase the size of the payload.  also, as the asteroid got closer it would not be any easier to rendezvous with.  unless we were going for a high speed impact we would still need massive amounts of delta v enough to escape earth is soi and make the needed plane change maneuvers .  so i hope we could do it but if we had a 0 year warning right now we would be in a very precarious position.  remember it could take several years to rendezvous with the asteroid even with an sls block 0 payload.  if we put another couple year delay on that the size of asteroid we could deflect would be smaller than you may expect.  of course all the numbers depend on the size of the asteroid and amount of warning we have but we could easily get into a situation right now where we could not deflect an asteroid in time.  i would love to see an ask science post where someone with more knowledge could crunch some numbers and find out how big of payload would be necessary for an example asteroid.   #  could it be launched, or is that movie fantasy stuff ?  #  does a 0 metric ton payload mean usable payload or is that fairings etc too ? some quick searching led me to the us  highest yield bomb URL at about 0 metric tons delivered.  that leaves a good amount of mass for telemetry and solar panels, as well as for a propulsion system.  i am gonna give a ! delta for the info on launch systems, i did not know all that about the difficulty of quickly arranging launch.  btw, i know there is a kinda sorta saturn v still sitting at cape canaveral.  could it be launched, or is that movie fantasy stuff ?  #  the hardest part of all of this though is slowing down.   # nope that is the whole usable payload to low earth orbit.  the biggest consideration as far as weight goes will be the fuel.  i have heard that a saturn v could theoretically get about 0 metric tons to mars and spacex claims the falcon heavy could deliver 0 metric tons to a mars transfer orbit still a ton of delta v required to be captured by mars unless doing an aero capture but just think about how it takes 0 tons of fuel to get from low earth orbit to mars transfer orbit.  going to an asteroid would almost certainly be much harder.  first is the inclination.  plane change maneuvers are very delta v intensive.  but even if the asteroid was in the same plane somewhat likely it would likely have a very elliptical orbit extending much further out than mars which would require more delta v to match.  with the falcon heavy a realistic payload to the asteroid would be much smaller than a mars transfer orbit.  the hardest part of all of this though is slowing down.  once you get to the asteroid you will have to park along side it or at least slow down.  a transfer orbit especially one which prioritizes getting there quickly would require a huge burn to match speed with the asteroid once you get there.  maybe they could do it without slowing down but it is hard to say.  all in all an 0 ton payload to an asteroid may not even be doable with a sls block 0.  i would still hope that we could deflect the asteroid with a smaller bomb and that we would get lucky with the inclination of the asteroid but space travel is hard and a very big rocket turns into a very tiny payload when talking about asteroids.   #  the closer the asteroid is to hitting earth the more change in velocity will be needed to divert it and the more fuel whatever we send to divert it will have to have.   #  there is a question of time and mass.  a damaging asteroid would have to be detected at least a few years before it is due to collide or there is little chance of designing, manufacturing and launching a mission in time.  the closer the asteroid is to hitting earth the more change in velocity will be needed to divert it and the more fuel whatever we send to divert it will have to have.  similarly, the higher the mass of the asteroid the more energy needs to go into moving it.  so it would quite possible for an asteroid to be detected too late or be too massive to move in time.  explosions are not an option since they would just divide an asteroid into chunks that together would cause even more damage.
i say  killer asteroid  in the title for brevity, but i mean any celestial object asteroid, comet, planetoid, etc large enough to wipe out life on earth.  i have three basic reasons: 0.  we know there are no planet destroyers in the asteroid belt, which means anything that would take out earth would need to come from the kuiper belt or the oort cloud.  both of these are very far away, and would give us lots of warning, even if the object were presently on its impact trajectory orbit.  more likely, we would detect it multiple orbits in advance, and have decades or centuries before predicted impact.  but i think we will at least have multiple years.  0.  nuclear weapons would be pretty effective at deflecting an object.  they are very energy dense, and we can use a standoff detonation URL to cause ablation on one side of the comet/asteroid and nudge it.  we only need a very slight nudge to push it off of an earthbound trajectory when it is far away.  0.  if an impact were imminent, humanity would throw all feasible resources into stopping it.  a lot of the things which make present space travel difficult would be overcome fast.  we would allow launches which have a high chance of spreading radioactive debris onto earth for instance, or which have a high chance of loss of human life.  we might even send astronauts on a suicide mission.  of course, money would be no object for this, and massive logistical resources would be poured into anything with a chance of saving us.   #  if an impact were imminent, humanity would throw all feasible resources into stopping it.   #  a lot of the things which make present space travel difficult would be overcome fast.   # a lot of the things which make present space travel difficult would be overcome fast.  right now we do not have a rocket capable of putting a large bomb on earth escape trajectory.  throwing money at nasa wo not get us an sls instantly.  rockets take a long time to build and need lots of testing before actually flying.  i am not saying it is impossible or that we would not be able to get a rocket ready to launch in time but as of now it is a real possibility.  it is also important to note that the longer we wait the larger payload we would need to divert the asteroid.  even if it is several years out, every month we wait would increase the size of the payload.  also, as the asteroid got closer it would not be any easier to rendezvous with.  unless we were going for a high speed impact we would still need massive amounts of delta v enough to escape earth is soi and make the needed plane change maneuvers .  so i hope we could do it but if we had a 0 year warning right now we would be in a very precarious position.  remember it could take several years to rendezvous with the asteroid even with an sls block 0 payload.  if we put another couple year delay on that the size of asteroid we could deflect would be smaller than you may expect.  of course all the numbers depend on the size of the asteroid and amount of warning we have but we could easily get into a situation right now where we could not deflect an asteroid in time.  i would love to see an ask science post where someone with more knowledge could crunch some numbers and find out how big of payload would be necessary for an example asteroid.   #  that leaves a good amount of mass for telemetry and solar panels, as well as for a propulsion system.   #  does a 0 metric ton payload mean usable payload or is that fairings etc too ? some quick searching led me to the us  highest yield bomb URL at about 0 metric tons delivered.  that leaves a good amount of mass for telemetry and solar panels, as well as for a propulsion system.  i am gonna give a ! delta for the info on launch systems, i did not know all that about the difficulty of quickly arranging launch.  btw, i know there is a kinda sorta saturn v still sitting at cape canaveral.  could it be launched, or is that movie fantasy stuff ?  #  a transfer orbit especially one which prioritizes getting there quickly would require a huge burn to match speed with the asteroid once you get there.   # nope that is the whole usable payload to low earth orbit.  the biggest consideration as far as weight goes will be the fuel.  i have heard that a saturn v could theoretically get about 0 metric tons to mars and spacex claims the falcon heavy could deliver 0 metric tons to a mars transfer orbit still a ton of delta v required to be captured by mars unless doing an aero capture but just think about how it takes 0 tons of fuel to get from low earth orbit to mars transfer orbit.  going to an asteroid would almost certainly be much harder.  first is the inclination.  plane change maneuvers are very delta v intensive.  but even if the asteroid was in the same plane somewhat likely it would likely have a very elliptical orbit extending much further out than mars which would require more delta v to match.  with the falcon heavy a realistic payload to the asteroid would be much smaller than a mars transfer orbit.  the hardest part of all of this though is slowing down.  once you get to the asteroid you will have to park along side it or at least slow down.  a transfer orbit especially one which prioritizes getting there quickly would require a huge burn to match speed with the asteroid once you get there.  maybe they could do it without slowing down but it is hard to say.  all in all an 0 ton payload to an asteroid may not even be doable with a sls block 0.  i would still hope that we could deflect the asteroid with a smaller bomb and that we would get lucky with the inclination of the asteroid but space travel is hard and a very big rocket turns into a very tiny payload when talking about asteroids.   #  similarly, the higher the mass of the asteroid the more energy needs to go into moving it.   #  there is a question of time and mass.  a damaging asteroid would have to be detected at least a few years before it is due to collide or there is little chance of designing, manufacturing and launching a mission in time.  the closer the asteroid is to hitting earth the more change in velocity will be needed to divert it and the more fuel whatever we send to divert it will have to have.  similarly, the higher the mass of the asteroid the more energy needs to go into moving it.  so it would quite possible for an asteroid to be detected too late or be too massive to move in time.  explosions are not an option since they would just divide an asteroid into chunks that together would cause even more damage.   #  now when facilities like lsst start scanning the entire sky on a regular basis, i think algorithms will detect way more than we thought was there.   #  i am an astronomy teacher, and i think about this and research this a lot.  you raise some good points, and i think we are on the cusp of being able to detect almost all the killers, but.  i think we are good at tracking bright fly balls, but the one that is going to get us will be a line drive to the face with a lump of coal at midnight.  the tricky thing about low albedo objects, especially at that size, is that it is impossible to predict how many exist to begin with.  how can nasa be confident in that 0 number ? 0 of what total ? now when facilities like lsst start scanning the entire sky on a regular basis, i think algorithms will detect way more than we thought was there.  then we will have a better handle on the real numbers.  at least in the southern hemisphere.
i say  killer asteroid  in the title for brevity, but i mean any celestial object asteroid, comet, planetoid, etc large enough to wipe out life on earth.  i have three basic reasons: 0.  we know there are no planet destroyers in the asteroid belt, which means anything that would take out earth would need to come from the kuiper belt or the oort cloud.  both of these are very far away, and would give us lots of warning, even if the object were presently on its impact trajectory orbit.  more likely, we would detect it multiple orbits in advance, and have decades or centuries before predicted impact.  but i think we will at least have multiple years.  0.  nuclear weapons would be pretty effective at deflecting an object.  they are very energy dense, and we can use a standoff detonation URL to cause ablation on one side of the comet/asteroid and nudge it.  we only need a very slight nudge to push it off of an earthbound trajectory when it is far away.  0.  if an impact were imminent, humanity would throw all feasible resources into stopping it.  a lot of the things which make present space travel difficult would be overcome fast.  we would allow launches which have a high chance of spreading radioactive debris onto earth for instance, or which have a high chance of loss of human life.  we might even send astronauts on a suicide mission.  of course, money would be no object for this, and massive logistical resources would be poured into anything with a chance of saving us.   #  we know there are no planet destroyers in the asteroid belt, which means anything that would take out earth would need to come from the kuiper belt or the oort cloud.   #  both of these are very far away, and would give us lots of warning, even if the object were presently on its impact trajectory orbit.   # both of these are very far away, and would give us lots of warning, even if the object were presently on its impact trajectory orbit.  more likely, we would detect it multiple orbits in advance, and have decades or centuries before predicted impact.  but i think we will at least have multiple years.  we do not have telescopes pointing in every single direction.  the solar system is really big.  chances are, nobody is looking there.  they are very energy dense, and we can use a standoff detonation to cause ablation on one side of the comet/asteroid and nudge it.  we only need a very slight nudge to push it off of an earthbound trajectory when it is far away.  without knowing for sure what the composition of the asteroid is, how can we be sure we will just nudge it and not cause it to shatter, making us have to deal with tons of small asteroids instead ? a lot of the things which make present space travel difficult would be overcome fast.  we would allow launches which have a high chance of spreading radioactive debris onto earth for instance, or which have a high chance of loss of human life.  we might even send astronauts on a suicide mission.  of course, money would be no object for this, and massive logistical resources would be poured into anything with a chance of saving us.  that is assuming people wo not just deem it off as a plot to make money for nasa, or a hoax for unknown reasons like they do with climate change.  but even so, there may not be enough time to develop all the technologies necessary and to build the ship.  you would need simulations and testing, to make sure the thing does not just shatter or get nudged too little.  all these things take time.   #  unless we were going for a high speed impact we would still need massive amounts of delta v enough to escape earth is soi and make the needed plane change maneuvers .   # a lot of the things which make present space travel difficult would be overcome fast.  right now we do not have a rocket capable of putting a large bomb on earth escape trajectory.  throwing money at nasa wo not get us an sls instantly.  rockets take a long time to build and need lots of testing before actually flying.  i am not saying it is impossible or that we would not be able to get a rocket ready to launch in time but as of now it is a real possibility.  it is also important to note that the longer we wait the larger payload we would need to divert the asteroid.  even if it is several years out, every month we wait would increase the size of the payload.  also, as the asteroid got closer it would not be any easier to rendezvous with.  unless we were going for a high speed impact we would still need massive amounts of delta v enough to escape earth is soi and make the needed plane change maneuvers .  so i hope we could do it but if we had a 0 year warning right now we would be in a very precarious position.  remember it could take several years to rendezvous with the asteroid even with an sls block 0 payload.  if we put another couple year delay on that the size of asteroid we could deflect would be smaller than you may expect.  of course all the numbers depend on the size of the asteroid and amount of warning we have but we could easily get into a situation right now where we could not deflect an asteroid in time.  i would love to see an ask science post where someone with more knowledge could crunch some numbers and find out how big of payload would be necessary for an example asteroid.   #  btw, i know there is a kinda sorta saturn v still sitting at cape canaveral.   #  does a 0 metric ton payload mean usable payload or is that fairings etc too ? some quick searching led me to the us  highest yield bomb URL at about 0 metric tons delivered.  that leaves a good amount of mass for telemetry and solar panels, as well as for a propulsion system.  i am gonna give a ! delta for the info on launch systems, i did not know all that about the difficulty of quickly arranging launch.  btw, i know there is a kinda sorta saturn v still sitting at cape canaveral.  could it be launched, or is that movie fantasy stuff ?  #  the hardest part of all of this though is slowing down.   # nope that is the whole usable payload to low earth orbit.  the biggest consideration as far as weight goes will be the fuel.  i have heard that a saturn v could theoretically get about 0 metric tons to mars and spacex claims the falcon heavy could deliver 0 metric tons to a mars transfer orbit still a ton of delta v required to be captured by mars unless doing an aero capture but just think about how it takes 0 tons of fuel to get from low earth orbit to mars transfer orbit.  going to an asteroid would almost certainly be much harder.  first is the inclination.  plane change maneuvers are very delta v intensive.  but even if the asteroid was in the same plane somewhat likely it would likely have a very elliptical orbit extending much further out than mars which would require more delta v to match.  with the falcon heavy a realistic payload to the asteroid would be much smaller than a mars transfer orbit.  the hardest part of all of this though is slowing down.  once you get to the asteroid you will have to park along side it or at least slow down.  a transfer orbit especially one which prioritizes getting there quickly would require a huge burn to match speed with the asteroid once you get there.  maybe they could do it without slowing down but it is hard to say.  all in all an 0 ton payload to an asteroid may not even be doable with a sls block 0.  i would still hope that we could deflect the asteroid with a smaller bomb and that we would get lucky with the inclination of the asteroid but space travel is hard and a very big rocket turns into a very tiny payload when talking about asteroids.   #  so it would quite possible for an asteroid to be detected too late or be too massive to move in time.   #  there is a question of time and mass.  a damaging asteroid would have to be detected at least a few years before it is due to collide or there is little chance of designing, manufacturing and launching a mission in time.  the closer the asteroid is to hitting earth the more change in velocity will be needed to divert it and the more fuel whatever we send to divert it will have to have.  similarly, the higher the mass of the asteroid the more energy needs to go into moving it.  so it would quite possible for an asteroid to be detected too late or be too massive to move in time.  explosions are not an option since they would just divide an asteroid into chunks that together would cause even more damage.
i say  killer asteroid  in the title for brevity, but i mean any celestial object asteroid, comet, planetoid, etc large enough to wipe out life on earth.  i have three basic reasons: 0.  we know there are no planet destroyers in the asteroid belt, which means anything that would take out earth would need to come from the kuiper belt or the oort cloud.  both of these are very far away, and would give us lots of warning, even if the object were presently on its impact trajectory orbit.  more likely, we would detect it multiple orbits in advance, and have decades or centuries before predicted impact.  but i think we will at least have multiple years.  0.  nuclear weapons would be pretty effective at deflecting an object.  they are very energy dense, and we can use a standoff detonation URL to cause ablation on one side of the comet/asteroid and nudge it.  we only need a very slight nudge to push it off of an earthbound trajectory when it is far away.  0.  if an impact were imminent, humanity would throw all feasible resources into stopping it.  a lot of the things which make present space travel difficult would be overcome fast.  we would allow launches which have a high chance of spreading radioactive debris onto earth for instance, or which have a high chance of loss of human life.  we might even send astronauts on a suicide mission.  of course, money would be no object for this, and massive logistical resources would be poured into anything with a chance of saving us.   #  nuclear weapons would be pretty effective at deflecting an object.   #  they are very energy dense, and we can use a standoff detonation to cause ablation on one side of the comet/asteroid and nudge it.   # both of these are very far away, and would give us lots of warning, even if the object were presently on its impact trajectory orbit.  more likely, we would detect it multiple orbits in advance, and have decades or centuries before predicted impact.  but i think we will at least have multiple years.  we do not have telescopes pointing in every single direction.  the solar system is really big.  chances are, nobody is looking there.  they are very energy dense, and we can use a standoff detonation to cause ablation on one side of the comet/asteroid and nudge it.  we only need a very slight nudge to push it off of an earthbound trajectory when it is far away.  without knowing for sure what the composition of the asteroid is, how can we be sure we will just nudge it and not cause it to shatter, making us have to deal with tons of small asteroids instead ? a lot of the things which make present space travel difficult would be overcome fast.  we would allow launches which have a high chance of spreading radioactive debris onto earth for instance, or which have a high chance of loss of human life.  we might even send astronauts on a suicide mission.  of course, money would be no object for this, and massive logistical resources would be poured into anything with a chance of saving us.  that is assuming people wo not just deem it off as a plot to make money for nasa, or a hoax for unknown reasons like they do with climate change.  but even so, there may not be enough time to develop all the technologies necessary and to build the ship.  you would need simulations and testing, to make sure the thing does not just shatter or get nudged too little.  all these things take time.   #  if we put another couple year delay on that the size of asteroid we could deflect would be smaller than you may expect.   # a lot of the things which make present space travel difficult would be overcome fast.  right now we do not have a rocket capable of putting a large bomb on earth escape trajectory.  throwing money at nasa wo not get us an sls instantly.  rockets take a long time to build and need lots of testing before actually flying.  i am not saying it is impossible or that we would not be able to get a rocket ready to launch in time but as of now it is a real possibility.  it is also important to note that the longer we wait the larger payload we would need to divert the asteroid.  even if it is several years out, every month we wait would increase the size of the payload.  also, as the asteroid got closer it would not be any easier to rendezvous with.  unless we were going for a high speed impact we would still need massive amounts of delta v enough to escape earth is soi and make the needed plane change maneuvers .  so i hope we could do it but if we had a 0 year warning right now we would be in a very precarious position.  remember it could take several years to rendezvous with the asteroid even with an sls block 0 payload.  if we put another couple year delay on that the size of asteroid we could deflect would be smaller than you may expect.  of course all the numbers depend on the size of the asteroid and amount of warning we have but we could easily get into a situation right now where we could not deflect an asteroid in time.  i would love to see an ask science post where someone with more knowledge could crunch some numbers and find out how big of payload would be necessary for an example asteroid.   #  btw, i know there is a kinda sorta saturn v still sitting at cape canaveral.   #  does a 0 metric ton payload mean usable payload or is that fairings etc too ? some quick searching led me to the us  highest yield bomb URL at about 0 metric tons delivered.  that leaves a good amount of mass for telemetry and solar panels, as well as for a propulsion system.  i am gonna give a ! delta for the info on launch systems, i did not know all that about the difficulty of quickly arranging launch.  btw, i know there is a kinda sorta saturn v still sitting at cape canaveral.  could it be launched, or is that movie fantasy stuff ?  #  maybe they could do it without slowing down but it is hard to say.   # nope that is the whole usable payload to low earth orbit.  the biggest consideration as far as weight goes will be the fuel.  i have heard that a saturn v could theoretically get about 0 metric tons to mars and spacex claims the falcon heavy could deliver 0 metric tons to a mars transfer orbit still a ton of delta v required to be captured by mars unless doing an aero capture but just think about how it takes 0 tons of fuel to get from low earth orbit to mars transfer orbit.  going to an asteroid would almost certainly be much harder.  first is the inclination.  plane change maneuvers are very delta v intensive.  but even if the asteroid was in the same plane somewhat likely it would likely have a very elliptical orbit extending much further out than mars which would require more delta v to match.  with the falcon heavy a realistic payload to the asteroid would be much smaller than a mars transfer orbit.  the hardest part of all of this though is slowing down.  once you get to the asteroid you will have to park along side it or at least slow down.  a transfer orbit especially one which prioritizes getting there quickly would require a huge burn to match speed with the asteroid once you get there.  maybe they could do it without slowing down but it is hard to say.  all in all an 0 ton payload to an asteroid may not even be doable with a sls block 0.  i would still hope that we could deflect the asteroid with a smaller bomb and that we would get lucky with the inclination of the asteroid but space travel is hard and a very big rocket turns into a very tiny payload when talking about asteroids.   #  so it would quite possible for an asteroid to be detected too late or be too massive to move in time.   #  there is a question of time and mass.  a damaging asteroid would have to be detected at least a few years before it is due to collide or there is little chance of designing, manufacturing and launching a mission in time.  the closer the asteroid is to hitting earth the more change in velocity will be needed to divert it and the more fuel whatever we send to divert it will have to have.  similarly, the higher the mass of the asteroid the more energy needs to go into moving it.  so it would quite possible for an asteroid to be detected too late or be too massive to move in time.  explosions are not an option since they would just divide an asteroid into chunks that together would cause even more damage.
i say  killer asteroid  in the title for brevity, but i mean any celestial object asteroid, comet, planetoid, etc large enough to wipe out life on earth.  i have three basic reasons: 0.  we know there are no planet destroyers in the asteroid belt, which means anything that would take out earth would need to come from the kuiper belt or the oort cloud.  both of these are very far away, and would give us lots of warning, even if the object were presently on its impact trajectory orbit.  more likely, we would detect it multiple orbits in advance, and have decades or centuries before predicted impact.  but i think we will at least have multiple years.  0.  nuclear weapons would be pretty effective at deflecting an object.  they are very energy dense, and we can use a standoff detonation URL to cause ablation on one side of the comet/asteroid and nudge it.  we only need a very slight nudge to push it off of an earthbound trajectory when it is far away.  0.  if an impact were imminent, humanity would throw all feasible resources into stopping it.  a lot of the things which make present space travel difficult would be overcome fast.  we would allow launches which have a high chance of spreading radioactive debris onto earth for instance, or which have a high chance of loss of human life.  we might even send astronauts on a suicide mission.  of course, money would be no object for this, and massive logistical resources would be poured into anything with a chance of saving us.   #  if an impact were imminent, humanity would throw all feasible resources into stopping it.   #  a lot of the things which make present space travel difficult would be overcome fast.   # both of these are very far away, and would give us lots of warning, even if the object were presently on its impact trajectory orbit.  more likely, we would detect it multiple orbits in advance, and have decades or centuries before predicted impact.  but i think we will at least have multiple years.  we do not have telescopes pointing in every single direction.  the solar system is really big.  chances are, nobody is looking there.  they are very energy dense, and we can use a standoff detonation to cause ablation on one side of the comet/asteroid and nudge it.  we only need a very slight nudge to push it off of an earthbound trajectory when it is far away.  without knowing for sure what the composition of the asteroid is, how can we be sure we will just nudge it and not cause it to shatter, making us have to deal with tons of small asteroids instead ? a lot of the things which make present space travel difficult would be overcome fast.  we would allow launches which have a high chance of spreading radioactive debris onto earth for instance, or which have a high chance of loss of human life.  we might even send astronauts on a suicide mission.  of course, money would be no object for this, and massive logistical resources would be poured into anything with a chance of saving us.  that is assuming people wo not just deem it off as a plot to make money for nasa, or a hoax for unknown reasons like they do with climate change.  but even so, there may not be enough time to develop all the technologies necessary and to build the ship.  you would need simulations and testing, to make sure the thing does not just shatter or get nudged too little.  all these things take time.   #  throwing money at nasa wo not get us an sls instantly.   # a lot of the things which make present space travel difficult would be overcome fast.  right now we do not have a rocket capable of putting a large bomb on earth escape trajectory.  throwing money at nasa wo not get us an sls instantly.  rockets take a long time to build and need lots of testing before actually flying.  i am not saying it is impossible or that we would not be able to get a rocket ready to launch in time but as of now it is a real possibility.  it is also important to note that the longer we wait the larger payload we would need to divert the asteroid.  even if it is several years out, every month we wait would increase the size of the payload.  also, as the asteroid got closer it would not be any easier to rendezvous with.  unless we were going for a high speed impact we would still need massive amounts of delta v enough to escape earth is soi and make the needed plane change maneuvers .  so i hope we could do it but if we had a 0 year warning right now we would be in a very precarious position.  remember it could take several years to rendezvous with the asteroid even with an sls block 0 payload.  if we put another couple year delay on that the size of asteroid we could deflect would be smaller than you may expect.  of course all the numbers depend on the size of the asteroid and amount of warning we have but we could easily get into a situation right now where we could not deflect an asteroid in time.  i would love to see an ask science post where someone with more knowledge could crunch some numbers and find out how big of payload would be necessary for an example asteroid.   #  some quick searching led me to the us  highest yield bomb URL at about 0 metric tons delivered.   #  does a 0 metric ton payload mean usable payload or is that fairings etc too ? some quick searching led me to the us  highest yield bomb URL at about 0 metric tons delivered.  that leaves a good amount of mass for telemetry and solar panels, as well as for a propulsion system.  i am gonna give a ! delta for the info on launch systems, i did not know all that about the difficulty of quickly arranging launch.  btw, i know there is a kinda sorta saturn v still sitting at cape canaveral.  could it be launched, or is that movie fantasy stuff ?  #  the hardest part of all of this though is slowing down.   # nope that is the whole usable payload to low earth orbit.  the biggest consideration as far as weight goes will be the fuel.  i have heard that a saturn v could theoretically get about 0 metric tons to mars and spacex claims the falcon heavy could deliver 0 metric tons to a mars transfer orbit still a ton of delta v required to be captured by mars unless doing an aero capture but just think about how it takes 0 tons of fuel to get from low earth orbit to mars transfer orbit.  going to an asteroid would almost certainly be much harder.  first is the inclination.  plane change maneuvers are very delta v intensive.  but even if the asteroid was in the same plane somewhat likely it would likely have a very elliptical orbit extending much further out than mars which would require more delta v to match.  with the falcon heavy a realistic payload to the asteroid would be much smaller than a mars transfer orbit.  the hardest part of all of this though is slowing down.  once you get to the asteroid you will have to park along side it or at least slow down.  a transfer orbit especially one which prioritizes getting there quickly would require a huge burn to match speed with the asteroid once you get there.  maybe they could do it without slowing down but it is hard to say.  all in all an 0 ton payload to an asteroid may not even be doable with a sls block 0.  i would still hope that we could deflect the asteroid with a smaller bomb and that we would get lucky with the inclination of the asteroid but space travel is hard and a very big rocket turns into a very tiny payload when talking about asteroids.   #  there is a question of time and mass.   #  there is a question of time and mass.  a damaging asteroid would have to be detected at least a few years before it is due to collide or there is little chance of designing, manufacturing and launching a mission in time.  the closer the asteroid is to hitting earth the more change in velocity will be needed to divert it and the more fuel whatever we send to divert it will have to have.  similarly, the higher the mass of the asteroid the more energy needs to go into moving it.  so it would quite possible for an asteroid to be detected too late or be too massive to move in time.  explosions are not an option since they would just divide an asteroid into chunks that together would cause even more damage.
this is naturally an incredibly controversial topic and i highly doubt that many people will agree with me, but i feel compelled to discuss this.  this needs to be prefaced by saying that all of this is based on averages, not individuals.  i am sure many women are more capable than many men, what i am saying is that the general trend across the board is that on average a male worker is more productive.  men work almost triple the amount of overtime hours than women.  men work more standard hours than women.  women take more sick days off work than men.  women are more likely than men to take several years of maternity leave off of work.  a small percentage of women undergo severe pms and consequently work at a diminished capacity for several days of each month.  to use anecdotal evidence, yesterday i came in to work, to find that all 0 garbages were completely filled.  this was strange, since the closing crew is supposed to take out the garbages every night.  i asked my coworker why no one had done the garbages last night, and i was effectively told that only girls were working the closing shift, and none of them wanted to touch the garbages because they thought it was gross.  so i had to take out 0 garbages first thing in the morning, because i was a man.  additionally, the parking lot was overflowing with trash that had spilled out of the over packed garbage cans, but none of the girls had done the usual nightly responsibility of sweeping, since they thought it was a man is job as well.  i am not talking about one or two co workers here, there were 0 women on shift, and every single one of them followed this gender stereotyped idea of what closing responsibilities they should have.  its one thing if men and women divide tasks based on relative strengths and weaknesses, but if someone neglects to do a task because there is no one of the opposite sex to assign it to, that is ridiculous.  when only men are closing, someone still ends up washing the dishes and shining the countertops.  due to the biological, sociological, and psychological factors that women face, they are on average less suited to performing excessive labour, and in an economic system where more work more money, it is no surprise that men make more than women.  what i find most surprising is that when i bring up this issue, i am met with incredible opposition, as if i am trying to oppress women or promote sexism.  the truth is, an entire branch of feminism exists for the very reasons i have stated; socialist feminism believes that men have a higher capacity to work and are therefore at an advantage in a capitalist society.  they believe the only way wage equality can happen is through instating socialist policies that ensure employers are forced to pay men and women equally.  i am not saying that women  deserve  to be paid less because they have children for example, humanity needs new people to be born , and as such women should not be penalized for taking time off work to raise children.  however, we do not live in a moral democracy.  we live in a capitalist democracy, where employers are free to pay their employees whatever they think is proportional to the revenue or work that each specific employee will bring to the company.  on average, certainly not always, but on average, men can generate slightly more work and revenue than women.  thus, the only way women can achieve equal pay is through socialist change in legislation.   #  due to the biological, sociological, and psychological factors that women face, they are on average less suited to performing excessive labour, and in an economic system where more work more money, it is no surprise that men make more than women.   #  well, more work does not necessarily mean more money.   # well, more work does not necessarily mean more money.  especially when womens  participation tends to be undervalued relative to its importance for success URL although you have listed a number of reasons that women might be expected to add less value, you are falling victim to the problem noted in the above link.  you are focusing on those negatives and ignoring the ways in which women tend to add more value than men.  another nyt piece URL on gender in the workplace included the following paragraph, i would recommend that you read the rest as well.  start ups led by women are more likely to succeed URL innovative firms with more women in top management are more profitable URL and companies with more gender diversity have more URL revenue, customers, market share and profits.  a comprehensive analysis URL of 0 studies on gender differences showed that when it comes to leadership skills, although men are more confident, women are more competent.  womens  lower earnings cannot be explained as the result of differences in biological or psychological capacity.  if such factors explained the difference in pay, we would expect to see higher pay for women in leadership roles than for men after all, it looks like they are objectively better at it.  but we do not.  do not blame the results of bias on capitalism.   #  why  are men and women making these decisions ?  #  on my way out, so some food to chew on: we need to understand why men and women work different hours and pursue different opportunities.  the question might not be an employment based one but based on other social and cultural norms.  men are expected to work a lot, even if they are better suited as domestic caretakers.  women are expected to start and tend to families, even if it eats into their career advancement.  why  are men and women making these decisions ? how much  more  work are men really doing ? women is performance reviews are almost always framed more negatively URL than men is even when they display the same initiative and confidence.  women are perceived URL as  bossy  or  abrasive  where men are seen as leaders.  it is possible to measure sheer number of hours worked in a day, but in an informational economy and corporate environment, these perceptions matter for opportunities, networking and advancement.  i agree with the general notion that people who work more and work harder should be paid more, or otherwise receive some kind of payment/reward.  but i think when we talk about things about who gets paid more, the underlying conversation is not just about, say, quality of work, but how similar  equal  behavior can be viewed very differently between men and women.  i would be willing to bet if a guy did not take out the garbage, you would just look at him as a lazy person, and not try to rationalize that behavior as something inherent across men.  i think this is because society tends to already view working women with skepticism and then we  work backward  to justify that perception.  to the extent this element exists, it is something women have to work against even as the  objectively  best employee.   #  this is on your boss for allowing sexist double standards to exist in the work place.   #  the women should have been reprimanded too.  maybe you should ask your boss why he does not hold women to the same standard as men.  i have worked with a lot of women, and none of them would have used the excuse that  garbage is gross  to get out of their responsibilities.  also women work hard.  not all women, but not all men work hard either.  this is on your boss for allowing sexist double standards to exist in the work place.  not because women are lazy and, as a hard working woman, it is very infuriating to hear that said.   #  therefore dismantling capitalism is the only way to end oppression.   #  that is literally not what socialist feminism is.  or at least that is not what marxist feminism is.  marxist feminism asserts that women were made subservient to men, by men, for the interests of capitalism, and that the oppression is so tied to capitalism that, even if you somehow eliminated it, you would still have oppression along other lines race, sexuality, etc that would potentially be worse than before.  therefore dismantling capitalism is the only way to end oppression.  among the left, the idea that women is oppression is solely derived from biology is an idea pretty much only believed by trans exclusionary radical feminists, a particularly small and terrible movement.  heck, in early hunter gatherer tribes, gatherers, who were mostly if not entirely women, provided upwards of 0 of the food.   #  i am not challenging the idea that this makes sense, i am challenging the idea that biology is what makes women less able to generate capital.   #  it ties into a few other ideas, but mainly marxist feminism is based on the idea that most of the differences between men and women are socialized into them, in order to make them part of the exploited underclass that capitalism needs to function.  i am not challenging the idea that this makes sense, i am challenging the idea that biology is what makes women less able to generate capital.  in hunter gatherer societies, women produced most of the food because they were taking on the labor that suited them.  again, maybe there were some female hunters and male gatherers, i do not know, but on average the biological differences did not matter because they took on roles where they did not matter.  as for the workplace, almost no one gets pay increases by working harder.  they get it by negotiating.  either at a performance review or by moving on to a new job.  the studies i have seen generally seem to indicate that women are less willing to speak up and be aggressive or take risks, which hampers their ability to get higher paying jobs.  my argument is that this is grounded far more in institutionalize sexism and socialization than it is in biological differences, if they factor in at all.
this is naturally an incredibly controversial topic and i highly doubt that many people will agree with me, but i feel compelled to discuss this.  this needs to be prefaced by saying that all of this is based on averages, not individuals.  i am sure many women are more capable than many men, what i am saying is that the general trend across the board is that on average a male worker is more productive.  men work almost triple the amount of overtime hours than women.  men work more standard hours than women.  women take more sick days off work than men.  women are more likely than men to take several years of maternity leave off of work.  a small percentage of women undergo severe pms and consequently work at a diminished capacity for several days of each month.  to use anecdotal evidence, yesterday i came in to work, to find that all 0 garbages were completely filled.  this was strange, since the closing crew is supposed to take out the garbages every night.  i asked my coworker why no one had done the garbages last night, and i was effectively told that only girls were working the closing shift, and none of them wanted to touch the garbages because they thought it was gross.  so i had to take out 0 garbages first thing in the morning, because i was a man.  additionally, the parking lot was overflowing with trash that had spilled out of the over packed garbage cans, but none of the girls had done the usual nightly responsibility of sweeping, since they thought it was a man is job as well.  i am not talking about one or two co workers here, there were 0 women on shift, and every single one of them followed this gender stereotyped idea of what closing responsibilities they should have.  its one thing if men and women divide tasks based on relative strengths and weaknesses, but if someone neglects to do a task because there is no one of the opposite sex to assign it to, that is ridiculous.  when only men are closing, someone still ends up washing the dishes and shining the countertops.  due to the biological, sociological, and psychological factors that women face, they are on average less suited to performing excessive labour, and in an economic system where more work more money, it is no surprise that men make more than women.  what i find most surprising is that when i bring up this issue, i am met with incredible opposition, as if i am trying to oppress women or promote sexism.  the truth is, an entire branch of feminism exists for the very reasons i have stated; socialist feminism believes that men have a higher capacity to work and are therefore at an advantage in a capitalist society.  they believe the only way wage equality can happen is through instating socialist policies that ensure employers are forced to pay men and women equally.  i am not saying that women  deserve  to be paid less because they have children for example, humanity needs new people to be born , and as such women should not be penalized for taking time off work to raise children.  however, we do not live in a moral democracy.  we live in a capitalist democracy, where employers are free to pay their employees whatever they think is proportional to the revenue or work that each specific employee will bring to the company.  on average, certainly not always, but on average, men can generate slightly more work and revenue than women.  thus, the only way women can achieve equal pay is through socialist change in legislation.   #  women are more likely than men to take several years of maternity leave off of work.   #  , all of these are statistical observations of the same nature as  more work more money .   #  what you just wrote is reasonable, but i do not think it is reasonable at all to assume op is dense to the point of thinking it is an absolute rule.  i am quite sure he is aware rich people do not work 0 hours a day to account for income disparity.  i mean, looking back at his post,  men work almost triple the amount of overtime hours than women.  , all of these are statistical observations of the same nature as  more work more money .  what about that one in particular made you think op saw as absolute ? genuinely curious by the way, do not mean to offend.   #  women are perceived URL as  bossy  or  abrasive  where men are seen as leaders.   #  on my way out, so some food to chew on: we need to understand why men and women work different hours and pursue different opportunities.  the question might not be an employment based one but based on other social and cultural norms.  men are expected to work a lot, even if they are better suited as domestic caretakers.  women are expected to start and tend to families, even if it eats into their career advancement.  why  are men and women making these decisions ? how much  more  work are men really doing ? women is performance reviews are almost always framed more negatively URL than men is even when they display the same initiative and confidence.  women are perceived URL as  bossy  or  abrasive  where men are seen as leaders.  it is possible to measure sheer number of hours worked in a day, but in an informational economy and corporate environment, these perceptions matter for opportunities, networking and advancement.  i agree with the general notion that people who work more and work harder should be paid more, or otherwise receive some kind of payment/reward.  but i think when we talk about things about who gets paid more, the underlying conversation is not just about, say, quality of work, but how similar  equal  behavior can be viewed very differently between men and women.  i would be willing to bet if a guy did not take out the garbage, you would just look at him as a lazy person, and not try to rationalize that behavior as something inherent across men.  i think this is because society tends to already view working women with skepticism and then we  work backward  to justify that perception.  to the extent this element exists, it is something women have to work against even as the  objectively  best employee.   #  maybe you should ask your boss why he does not hold women to the same standard as men.   #  the women should have been reprimanded too.  maybe you should ask your boss why he does not hold women to the same standard as men.  i have worked with a lot of women, and none of them would have used the excuse that  garbage is gross  to get out of their responsibilities.  also women work hard.  not all women, but not all men work hard either.  this is on your boss for allowing sexist double standards to exist in the work place.  not because women are lazy and, as a hard working woman, it is very infuriating to hear that said.   #  among the left, the idea that women is oppression is solely derived from biology is an idea pretty much only believed by trans exclusionary radical feminists, a particularly small and terrible movement.   #  that is literally not what socialist feminism is.  or at least that is not what marxist feminism is.  marxist feminism asserts that women were made subservient to men, by men, for the interests of capitalism, and that the oppression is so tied to capitalism that, even if you somehow eliminated it, you would still have oppression along other lines race, sexuality, etc that would potentially be worse than before.  therefore dismantling capitalism is the only way to end oppression.  among the left, the idea that women is oppression is solely derived from biology is an idea pretty much only believed by trans exclusionary radical feminists, a particularly small and terrible movement.  heck, in early hunter gatherer tribes, gatherers, who were mostly if not entirely women, provided upwards of 0 of the food.   #  i am not challenging the idea that this makes sense, i am challenging the idea that biology is what makes women less able to generate capital.   #  it ties into a few other ideas, but mainly marxist feminism is based on the idea that most of the differences between men and women are socialized into them, in order to make them part of the exploited underclass that capitalism needs to function.  i am not challenging the idea that this makes sense, i am challenging the idea that biology is what makes women less able to generate capital.  in hunter gatherer societies, women produced most of the food because they were taking on the labor that suited them.  again, maybe there were some female hunters and male gatherers, i do not know, but on average the biological differences did not matter because they took on roles where they did not matter.  as for the workplace, almost no one gets pay increases by working harder.  they get it by negotiating.  either at a performance review or by moving on to a new job.  the studies i have seen generally seem to indicate that women are less willing to speak up and be aggressive or take risks, which hampers their ability to get higher paying jobs.  my argument is that this is grounded far more in institutionalize sexism and socialization than it is in biological differences, if they factor in at all.
i feel that it is a special thing that should only occur between partners.  i know and fully understand it is  just a job  but it still physically happens, that is the problem.  i believe that kissing another human being really sends some emotional signals in the brain that can trigger attraction / connection and i know of several cases where a relationship on screen has led to a relationship off screen.  i am in a band and if we did a video where there was a situation where the director asked me to kiss another girl, i would refuse.  if i was an actor i would refuse to kiss another girl.  i know i should trust my girlfriend, but she has lied to me only little ones i guess on a few occasions recently.  but i do not know who can be trusted, especially when i know that scientifically, kissing another human being makes changes in the brain and builds these connections.  i still count it as cheating.  but i do not want to stop her from doing anything.  if we get married and spend the rest of our lives together then i would want her to be my  last first kiss  and i would epxect the same the other way round.  i told her that there is loads of jobs available that do not require kissing she seems to think she is never going to be offered those kinds of scenes anyway due to her being short .  there is quite a few actors / actresses that refuse to do kissing scenes because they have a partner e. g.  kirk cameron .  but i also said that i do not want to stop her from doing anything if she wants / feels like she needs to do those scenes, then she should but we would have to end the relationship.  if she needs to do that then i would prefer her to be happy, but i would not want it to sacrifice my personal beliefs.   #  but i also said that i do not want to stop her from doing anything if she wants / feels like she needs to do those scenes, then she should but we would have to end the relationship.   #  giving the ultimatum to either never do a kissing scene or you will end the relationship is forcing her to choose between success at her desire field and you.   # giving the ultimatum to either never do a kissing scene or you will end the relationship is forcing her to choose between success at her desire field and you.  stopping her from doing such scenes is not literally using physical force to prevent her from engaging in an on stage kiss, emotional manipulation qualifies as well.  if she got offered the lead in an adaptation of snow white that could likely lead to a tony or oscar stage or film respectively , would you really want to prevent her from accepting the role because of a single kiss ? you have also claimed she does not think she will get lead roles, so i will preemptively say that things can change, either her desire or her allure to directors; or else you two do not work out and you end up dating another actress.  or is there some reason you would be more comfortable with a different girlfriend kissing for a role than your current one ? it almost seems like the only real way to change your view here is to shift it from your view that  your girlfriend should not kiss for a role  to the view that  you should not date an actress  do you really avoid watching any movies with kissing unless the actors are also a real life couple during the production there have been a few such cases ?  #  actors should be able to do so or else they are bad actors.   #  actors are required to kiss other actors on screen for the best roles.  actors should be able to do so or else they are bad actors.  rather than suggesting an actor not do love scenes, i think you should not date an actor because you are not compatible in this way.  i do not think people should be violent and therefore i would never date a military member or police officer because we are not compatible in this way.  i would not date a military member or police officer and then request they never use violence in their line of work.   #  in fact, there are probably few things  less  sexy than an obgyn exam, in spite of having many superficial commonalities with actual sex.   #  it is hard for it to be sexual when you are essentially forced to do it.  yes, it has all the mechanics of real kissing, but there is a qualitative difference in kissing in a moment of real passion and kissing because it is in the script.  the obgyn analogy is very apt.  the mechanics of what the doctor is doing are not unlike the mechanics of sex or foreplay at least ; but the act is completely non sexual in nature.  in fact, there are probably few things  less  sexy than an obgyn exam, in spite of having many superficial commonalities with actual sex.  what it comes down to, is that you are concerned about her cheating.  exerting control over her life in this way will not prevent her from cheating if she is the type of person to do that, so all you are really doing is driving a wedge through your relationship and making both you and her unhappy as a result.   #  just like i have to fake my anger when i am fighting my friend on stage, or fake my sadness when my  dead  son is just backstage and not actually related to me.   #  you only have to passionately kiss someone you are not passionate with once to know that this is not always necessarily true.  as a dude who is done the lead male role with a kissing scene thing, i was expecting the kissing scenes to be a lot more awkward than they turned out to be.  as it turns out, if you are not really into the person you are kissing, you have to put in some effort to fake the passion.  just like i have to fake my anger when i am fighting my friend on stage, or fake my sadness when my  dead  son is just backstage and not actually related to me.  just like it is the doctor is job to look at her lady bits without it being sexual, or to feel her boobs to check for cancer without it being sexual, it is an actor is job to kiss without it being sexual.   #  if on stage i yell at another actor as my character that does not  mean that i am angry with that other person.   #  as a person who has done a passionate stage kiss on stage, as long as the people are being professional, it is just one of many things you have do on stage.  it is just like manipulating props, knowing lines or remembering cues.  i mean it looks all sexual because actors make it that way, but it is not.  that bit about  you only have to look at it to know it is.   is what you are projecting into it.  for serious actors a kiss is just something you have to do.  i mean if i have a scene with stage combat that does not mean that am feeling violence.  if on stage i yell at another actor as my character that does not  mean that i am angry with that other person.  it is just another thing, among many that you do while being an actor.
to elaborate, there are some hispanic people i know that do not have papers yet have jobs think mcdonald is where they pay taxes, pay into social security, and will never see a dime of it.  if we were to make everyone in this country legal, we would have millions of people that would expect better treatment or at the very least a living wage.  whenever i see conservative issues bringing up illegal immigrants, it is more focused on overcrowding and the fact that we will have millions of people flooding to this country, but with more people willing to work and consume, comes a bigger economy.  please point out the flaws with my logic.  i am sure there are plenty.   #  to elaborate, there are some hispanic people i know that do not have papers yet have jobs think mcdonald is where they pay taxes, pay into social security, and will never see a dime of it.   #  while this is indeed true sometimes anyone subject to an amnesty will indeed receive ssa   medicare.   #  i support pretty much open borders but i think you are misunderstanding the motives at play as well as the reality of illegal immigration.  while this is indeed true sometimes anyone subject to an amnesty will indeed receive ssa   medicare.  given they are concentrated at the bottom of the income scale the actual revenue we receive from these sources is fairly negligible.  there is likely a net loss for their retirement benefits as they will not have had incomes sufficiently high to pay for future benefits via taxes, keep in mind that from 0 anyone with lifetime earnings at or below the average received a greater benefit from medicare then they would contribute during their lifetimes and the same was true for oa from 0.  we also strongly incentivize illegal immigrants to file   pay taxes by making it a requirement for amnesty, those who have not do not qualify for the programs.  whenever i see conservative issues bringing up illegal immigrants, it is more focused on overcrowding and the fact that we will have millions of people flooding to this country, but with more people willing to work and consume, comes a bigger economy.  please point out the flaws with my logic.  i am sure there are plenty.  i think you are seeing a partisan split where there is none, democrat and republican politicians alike as well as the majority of the population make the same nonsense lump of labor arguments claiming that immigrants reduce employment opportunities and wages for native workers when precisely the opposite is true URL huge congratulations on not falling in to this trap yourself though, most people consider employment zero sum so think of immigrants as competing with them for jobs.  republicans disfavor low income migrants and favor high income migrants, democrats disfavor high income migrants and favor low income migrants.  neither take the policy stance they do because they believe immigration itself is pareto improving for us natives.   #  there are a lot of people working in jobs way below their skill level because they are not here legally.   #  there are a lot of people working in jobs way below their skill level because they are not here legally.  so the guy at mcdonalds for instance might be able to do something much more productive if he was able to apply for jobs that screen more effectively, or require a license he ca not get.  how many people are working as day laborers who could become hvac techs or plumbers, but ca not get the license to do it, for instance ? if those workers move up to better jobs, they will be producing more output overall, and that is good for the economy.  a good rule of thumb for figuring out if something will help the economy is to ask  will this make production go up ?   if production will go up, it is nearly always good got the economy overall.   #  i thinks it is unfair to project bad intentions on people you disagree with, for the simple reason that they could just as easily do it against you.   #  i thinks it is unfair to project bad intentions on people you disagree with, for the simple reason that they could just as easily do it against you.  there are many reasonable arguments for immigration laws, and there are many reasonable arguments against immigration laws.  we wo not get anywhere in a dialogue with each other if we only attack straw men rather than contend with the more complicated, nuanced debate.  once could claim that democrats only want illegal immigrants legalized so they can shift demographics and give them a more favorable electoral climate.  might this be true ? sure.  does this advance the more serious aspects of the debate, such as concerns about how families are destroyed when a parent is deported ? not at all.   #  well, either you think the borders should be entirely open, with citizenship for anyone who demands it, or you think there should be rules.   #  well, either you think the borders should be entirely open, with citizenship for anyone who demands it, or you think there should be rules.  assuming you take the latter view, then it is just a question of what the right rules are.  if someone violates those rules by entering in illegally, and you allow it, you have both undermined the legitimacy of your rules and also punished people attempting to immigrate lawfully.  i think obama has the right view on it, where immigration laws must be enforced, but  reformed .  i have a great deal of sympathy for those who cross the border of mexico illegally simply to provide a better life for their family.  i would do the same if i were in their position.  surely, these are the kind of people we want as citizens, those who work hard, take risks, and build a family and presence in their community.  perhaps they should be given amnesty.  but that is a very complicated subject, and there is much to disagree with about the conditions in which amnesty is awarded.  is it just for people who have families and children ? what about people who have committed crimes ? what about felons ? should they have the right to vote ? should they be instantly awarded citizenship and access to all social services ? how long do they need to be in the country to qualify ? you might be surprised to learn that most 0 gop candidates agree with legalization of some kind, they just disagree with democrats and each other on specifics such as the breadth of such legalization and in what manner to award citizenship.  so to simply boil it down to  republicans want cheap, unprotected labor.   is not only inaccurate, but very unfair.   #  we have billboards in spanish warning farm workers to cool themselves and drink enough water.   #  everyone who discusses immigration is really dancing around the fact which everyone implicitly acknowledges that we need an illegal migrant workforce for our agriculture sector.  those are jobs that virtually no natively born americans will do, for several reasons.  it is seasonal work meaning if you live here full time, you wo not survive, because you wo not have work in the off season , it often pays less than minimum wage, and it is very demanding.  it is a highly exploitative system.  workers receive no benefits, little money, and pretty terrible working conditions.  where i am from a certain number will die every summer from the heat.  we have billboards in spanish warning farm workers to cool themselves and drink enough water.  however, you have to contend with several facts.  having cheap labor keeps the price of food low, which increases the availability and diversity of food for americans.  another thing to consider is that even though we find the situation exploitative and unethical, you have to wonder what kind of situation would positively incentivize a person to participate in it the situation they are coming from is actually worse, and even though this is not ideal, it is actually improving their quality of life.  it also does serve as a viable gateway to legal immigration for a lot of people who desire it, and particularly their children.  the truth is, though, that a lot of immigrants do not desire it.  they are migrant for a reason.  they come here for a season to make money to supplement their income and improve their quality of life back home.
to elaborate, there are some hispanic people i know that do not have papers yet have jobs think mcdonald is where they pay taxes, pay into social security, and will never see a dime of it.  if we were to make everyone in this country legal, we would have millions of people that would expect better treatment or at the very least a living wage.  whenever i see conservative issues bringing up illegal immigrants, it is more focused on overcrowding and the fact that we will have millions of people flooding to this country, but with more people willing to work and consume, comes a bigger economy.  please point out the flaws with my logic.  i am sure there are plenty.   #  if we were to make everyone in this country legal, we would have millions of people that would expect better treatment or at the very least a living wage.   #  whenever i see conservative issues bringing up illegal immigrants, it is more focused on overcrowding and the fact that we will have millions of people flooding to this country, but with more people willing to work and consume, comes a bigger economy.   #  i support pretty much open borders but i think you are misunderstanding the motives at play as well as the reality of illegal immigration.  while this is indeed true sometimes anyone subject to an amnesty will indeed receive ssa   medicare.  given they are concentrated at the bottom of the income scale the actual revenue we receive from these sources is fairly negligible.  there is likely a net loss for their retirement benefits as they will not have had incomes sufficiently high to pay for future benefits via taxes, keep in mind that from 0 anyone with lifetime earnings at or below the average received a greater benefit from medicare then they would contribute during their lifetimes and the same was true for oa from 0.  we also strongly incentivize illegal immigrants to file   pay taxes by making it a requirement for amnesty, those who have not do not qualify for the programs.  whenever i see conservative issues bringing up illegal immigrants, it is more focused on overcrowding and the fact that we will have millions of people flooding to this country, but with more people willing to work and consume, comes a bigger economy.  please point out the flaws with my logic.  i am sure there are plenty.  i think you are seeing a partisan split where there is none, democrat and republican politicians alike as well as the majority of the population make the same nonsense lump of labor arguments claiming that immigrants reduce employment opportunities and wages for native workers when precisely the opposite is true URL huge congratulations on not falling in to this trap yourself though, most people consider employment zero sum so think of immigrants as competing with them for jobs.  republicans disfavor low income migrants and favor high income migrants, democrats disfavor high income migrants and favor low income migrants.  neither take the policy stance they do because they believe immigration itself is pareto improving for us natives.   #  a good rule of thumb for figuring out if something will help the economy is to ask  will this make production go up ?    #  there are a lot of people working in jobs way below their skill level because they are not here legally.  so the guy at mcdonalds for instance might be able to do something much more productive if he was able to apply for jobs that screen more effectively, or require a license he ca not get.  how many people are working as day laborers who could become hvac techs or plumbers, but ca not get the license to do it, for instance ? if those workers move up to better jobs, they will be producing more output overall, and that is good for the economy.  a good rule of thumb for figuring out if something will help the economy is to ask  will this make production go up ?   if production will go up, it is nearly always good got the economy overall.   #  we wo not get anywhere in a dialogue with each other if we only attack straw men rather than contend with the more complicated, nuanced debate.   #  i thinks it is unfair to project bad intentions on people you disagree with, for the simple reason that they could just as easily do it against you.  there are many reasonable arguments for immigration laws, and there are many reasonable arguments against immigration laws.  we wo not get anywhere in a dialogue with each other if we only attack straw men rather than contend with the more complicated, nuanced debate.  once could claim that democrats only want illegal immigrants legalized so they can shift demographics and give them a more favorable electoral climate.  might this be true ? sure.  does this advance the more serious aspects of the debate, such as concerns about how families are destroyed when a parent is deported ? not at all.   #  how long do they need to be in the country to qualify ?  #  well, either you think the borders should be entirely open, with citizenship for anyone who demands it, or you think there should be rules.  assuming you take the latter view, then it is just a question of what the right rules are.  if someone violates those rules by entering in illegally, and you allow it, you have both undermined the legitimacy of your rules and also punished people attempting to immigrate lawfully.  i think obama has the right view on it, where immigration laws must be enforced, but  reformed .  i have a great deal of sympathy for those who cross the border of mexico illegally simply to provide a better life for their family.  i would do the same if i were in their position.  surely, these are the kind of people we want as citizens, those who work hard, take risks, and build a family and presence in their community.  perhaps they should be given amnesty.  but that is a very complicated subject, and there is much to disagree with about the conditions in which amnesty is awarded.  is it just for people who have families and children ? what about people who have committed crimes ? what about felons ? should they have the right to vote ? should they be instantly awarded citizenship and access to all social services ? how long do they need to be in the country to qualify ? you might be surprised to learn that most 0 gop candidates agree with legalization of some kind, they just disagree with democrats and each other on specifics such as the breadth of such legalization and in what manner to award citizenship.  so to simply boil it down to  republicans want cheap, unprotected labor.   is not only inaccurate, but very unfair.   #  they come here for a season to make money to supplement their income and improve their quality of life back home.   #  everyone who discusses immigration is really dancing around the fact which everyone implicitly acknowledges that we need an illegal migrant workforce for our agriculture sector.  those are jobs that virtually no natively born americans will do, for several reasons.  it is seasonal work meaning if you live here full time, you wo not survive, because you wo not have work in the off season , it often pays less than minimum wage, and it is very demanding.  it is a highly exploitative system.  workers receive no benefits, little money, and pretty terrible working conditions.  where i am from a certain number will die every summer from the heat.  we have billboards in spanish warning farm workers to cool themselves and drink enough water.  however, you have to contend with several facts.  having cheap labor keeps the price of food low, which increases the availability and diversity of food for americans.  another thing to consider is that even though we find the situation exploitative and unethical, you have to wonder what kind of situation would positively incentivize a person to participate in it the situation they are coming from is actually worse, and even though this is not ideal, it is actually improving their quality of life.  it also does serve as a viable gateway to legal immigration for a lot of people who desire it, and particularly their children.  the truth is, though, that a lot of immigrants do not desire it.  they are migrant for a reason.  they come here for a season to make money to supplement their income and improve their quality of life back home.
to elaborate, there are some hispanic people i know that do not have papers yet have jobs think mcdonald is where they pay taxes, pay into social security, and will never see a dime of it.  if we were to make everyone in this country legal, we would have millions of people that would expect better treatment or at the very least a living wage.  whenever i see conservative issues bringing up illegal immigrants, it is more focused on overcrowding and the fact that we will have millions of people flooding to this country, but with more people willing to work and consume, comes a bigger economy.  please point out the flaws with my logic.  i am sure there are plenty.   #  there are some hispanic people i know that do not have papers yet have jobs think mcdonald is where they pay taxes, pay into social security, and will never see a dime of it.   #  0. which means they have probably stolen someones identity and are ruining their credit and taxes.   #  i would disagree with your statement.  here are some reasons why people would be against illegal immigration.  0.  many illegal immigrants are criminals.  they come to the us and are a part of gangs.  0.  unemployment is at 0.  there are more people than jobs.  illiegal immigrants are taking jobs from american citizens.  0. which means they have probably stolen someones identity and are ruining their credit and taxes.   #  if those workers move up to better jobs, they will be producing more output overall, and that is good for the economy.   #  there are a lot of people working in jobs way below their skill level because they are not here legally.  so the guy at mcdonalds for instance might be able to do something much more productive if he was able to apply for jobs that screen more effectively, or require a license he ca not get.  how many people are working as day laborers who could become hvac techs or plumbers, but ca not get the license to do it, for instance ? if those workers move up to better jobs, they will be producing more output overall, and that is good for the economy.  a good rule of thumb for figuring out if something will help the economy is to ask  will this make production go up ?   if production will go up, it is nearly always good got the economy overall.   #  i thinks it is unfair to project bad intentions on people you disagree with, for the simple reason that they could just as easily do it against you.   #  i thinks it is unfair to project bad intentions on people you disagree with, for the simple reason that they could just as easily do it against you.  there are many reasonable arguments for immigration laws, and there are many reasonable arguments against immigration laws.  we wo not get anywhere in a dialogue with each other if we only attack straw men rather than contend with the more complicated, nuanced debate.  once could claim that democrats only want illegal immigrants legalized so they can shift demographics and give them a more favorable electoral climate.  might this be true ? sure.  does this advance the more serious aspects of the debate, such as concerns about how families are destroyed when a parent is deported ? not at all.   #  is it just for people who have families and children ?  #  well, either you think the borders should be entirely open, with citizenship for anyone who demands it, or you think there should be rules.  assuming you take the latter view, then it is just a question of what the right rules are.  if someone violates those rules by entering in illegally, and you allow it, you have both undermined the legitimacy of your rules and also punished people attempting to immigrate lawfully.  i think obama has the right view on it, where immigration laws must be enforced, but  reformed .  i have a great deal of sympathy for those who cross the border of mexico illegally simply to provide a better life for their family.  i would do the same if i were in their position.  surely, these are the kind of people we want as citizens, those who work hard, take risks, and build a family and presence in their community.  perhaps they should be given amnesty.  but that is a very complicated subject, and there is much to disagree with about the conditions in which amnesty is awarded.  is it just for people who have families and children ? what about people who have committed crimes ? what about felons ? should they have the right to vote ? should they be instantly awarded citizenship and access to all social services ? how long do they need to be in the country to qualify ? you might be surprised to learn that most 0 gop candidates agree with legalization of some kind, they just disagree with democrats and each other on specifics such as the breadth of such legalization and in what manner to award citizenship.  so to simply boil it down to  republicans want cheap, unprotected labor.   is not only inaccurate, but very unfair.   #  given they are concentrated at the bottom of the income scale the actual revenue we receive from these sources is fairly negligible.   #  i support pretty much open borders but i think you are misunderstanding the motives at play as well as the reality of illegal immigration.  while this is indeed true sometimes anyone subject to an amnesty will indeed receive ssa   medicare.  given they are concentrated at the bottom of the income scale the actual revenue we receive from these sources is fairly negligible.  there is likely a net loss for their retirement benefits as they will not have had incomes sufficiently high to pay for future benefits via taxes, keep in mind that from 0 anyone with lifetime earnings at or below the average received a greater benefit from medicare then they would contribute during their lifetimes and the same was true for oa from 0.  we also strongly incentivize illegal immigrants to file   pay taxes by making it a requirement for amnesty, those who have not do not qualify for the programs.  whenever i see conservative issues bringing up illegal immigrants, it is more focused on overcrowding and the fact that we will have millions of people flooding to this country, but with more people willing to work and consume, comes a bigger economy.  please point out the flaws with my logic.  i am sure there are plenty.  i think you are seeing a partisan split where there is none, democrat and republican politicians alike as well as the majority of the population make the same nonsense lump of labor arguments claiming that immigrants reduce employment opportunities and wages for native workers when precisely the opposite is true URL huge congratulations on not falling in to this trap yourself though, most people consider employment zero sum so think of immigrants as competing with them for jobs.  republicans disfavor low income migrants and favor high income migrants, democrats disfavor high income migrants and favor low income migrants.  neither take the policy stance they do because they believe immigration itself is pareto improving for us natives.
hello ! i understand the majority of reddit feels quite strongly about vaccinations and i believe my view is the opposite of many of yours.  i hope you go into this with an open mind and i will return the favor.  the mandating of vaccinations would involve the government deciding what goes into a child is body.  but i ask why should not parents decide if they want to prevent something from entering their child is body ? note: there is an argument to be made that parents should not decide and the child should.  however there are several important vaccinations that would occur prior to the child having the capacity to make such a decision.  polio vaccine and hepatitis b vaccine come to mind.  so either way someone is making that decision for the child.  i believe that person should the parents or guardian not the state.  why ? because parents are more so connected with their children than the government and therefore should be trusted to have their children is best interests in mind.  yes, sometimes parents are idiotic and make a health decision that is horrible and sometimes even fatal.  however, the government has also been shown to not have the best health interests in its citizens at times.  see: tuskegee syphilis experiment but at the end of the day, a parent not vaccinating their kids indirectly effects others.  that has to count for something, right ? forcing vaccinations upon those who do not want it is for the greater good, right ? perhaps those thoughts are best summed up by former supreme court justice oliver wendell holmes, jr. , who once said,  the right to swing my fist ends where the other man is nose begins.   i am sure he would have supported a mandate, which will likely reduce the suffering of many people, wholeheartedly for this reason.  but also for this reason he supported the horrific buck v.  bell decision a decision that unfortunately still has support, particularly on reddit.  see.  that is the problem with doing things for the  greater good , it often does not accomplish much and reduces the rights of others.  a final point i would like to make would be to highlight the parallel between vaccinations and smoking.  yes there are efforts to curb the activity in public places in my own city of pittsburgh, they recently banned smoking in bars.  however, smoking still effects more people than just the user.  second hand smoke is a real thing and damages a person is health when they had to choice but to breathe it in.  perhaps you could say that it is avoidable and being in contact with unvaccinated people is unavoidable.  but secondhand smoke is practically unavoidable.  it can stay in an area for hours long after the overbearing smell is gone.  you would not even know.  but yet there is no real support for a general ban on smoking as there is with a mandate for vaccinations.  just to cover my bases, i  would like to say i am not anti vaccine.  i fully support vaccinations, am fully vaccinated, and if i were to be blessed enough to have my own children, i would have them vaccinated.  i view this as a freedom issue right to body and not a vaccines are bad issue.  i thank you all for reading and look for to any possible responses.   #  yes, sometimes parents are idiotic and make a health decision that is horrible and sometimes even fatal.   #  however, the government has also been shown to not have the best health interests in its citizens at times.   # however, the government has also been shown to not have the best health interests in its citizens at times.  see: tuskegee syphilis experiment   see.  that is the problem with doing things for the  greater good , it often does not accomplish much and reduces the rights of others.  both of these arguments that you make seem weirdly evasive.  yes, sometimes governments do bad things.  yes, sometimes good intentions have bad outcomes.  but both of these scenarios totally ignore the risks and rewards of what we are actually discussing, which is vaccinations.  just because the government has done dumb things in the past does not make mandatory vaccinations dumb.  just because some other well intentioned thing had a bad outcome does not mean that mandatory vaccinations will have a bad outcome.  we should be evaluating any proposal of mandatory vaccinations on its own merits, and based on everything you have said later in your post, it kind of sounds like you pretty much agree that mandatory vaccinations would have a positive outcome.  finally, i am not sure i am sold on your comparison to second hand smoke, especially if we ban it in most indoor locations, which we do.  are you suggesting that secondhand smoke lingers  outdoors  for hours, and that this poses a serious and unavoidable health risk to people ? i dunno.  i am skeptical.   #  you are saying that decision needs to be made for public health/saftey reasons.   #  i would like to clarify i do not agree with the quote from oliver wendell holmes, jr.  that i included.  you are saying that decision needs to be made for public health/saftey reasons.  but that could literally be said about anything.  you can justify doing nearly everything by saying it is for the  greater good , but at the end of the day your still curbing people is rights.  activities like smoking affect the public negativity and it is often hard to avoid the second hand smoke which can linger for hours without the overbearing smell .  i doubt you would support a general ban on smoking or as you brought up a unhealthy diet ban.   #  for how ambitious this medication is let is say it is only 0 effective, so about 0,0 people are saved each year from it.   #  interesting hypothetical ! i will respond with my own.  hhmm.  i do not believe the government has the right in that instance.  but i would definitely support those infected by willful negligence suing for damages ! the kids questions is a good one.  is it not child abuse or dare i say torture to expose your children to this infection they will receive almost certainly ? i notice its parallels with vaccinations and i am struggle to rationalize it.  i would like to say that since those who do not vaccinate kids still have a very low chance of contracting any disease that is generally vaccinated for due to herd immunity and in your scenario the child is very likely to become ill the cases are different.  but i am not satisfied with that answer.  you may have gotten me here, let me think about it some more.  in return my own hypothetical: according to the cdc, in the year 0 0,0 people died in accidents.  say a medication was created, that was the same cost and side effects of your average vaccine.  this medication was a one time use and it would cause the the brain to respond better in the moments before people die in non intentional ways.  for how ambitious this medication is let is say it is only 0 effective, so about 0,0 people are saved each year from it.  note this medication could kick in when a driver loses control of his vehicle and is about to swerve into a family of four.  there will be many cases like this.  so many to the point, where are not you harming others by not taking the medication and remaining accident prone ? when you are accident prone you are a disaster waiting to happen.  probably going to take out a couple of innocent people out with you.  do you mandate this drug ?  #  do you think adults, who have the capacity to consent, should be mandated to continue their immunization schedule such as continuing to get boosters to increase immunity .   #  i suppose she would be imprisoned for not being able to pay damages and charged with one of the following depending on the entire situation: reckless endangerment, negligent homicide, reckless homicide, or intentional homicide.  what if it only saves 0,0 lives or 0 lives ? is it still mandated ? how many lives is violating a people is autonomy worth ? purely rhetorical, but still.  i am giving you the delta although i am still uneasy with the idea of parents being overridden here.  do you think adults, who have the capacity to consent, should be mandated to continue their immunization schedule such as continuing to get boosters to increase immunity .  if yes, do not you think that because vaccines are so beneficial a person could be convinced without the threat of the mandate and whatever repercussions it entails to get his recommend shots ?  #  i may have had my view changed, but i am curious your response to a hypothetical i charged another user with.   #  i may have had my view changed, but i am curious your response to a hypothetical i charged another user with.  say a medication was created, that was the same cost and side effects of your average vaccine.  this medication was a one time use and it would cause the the brain to respond better in the moments before people die in non intentional ways.  for how ambitious this medication is let is say it is only 0 effective, so about 0,0 people are saved each year from it.  note this medication could kick in when a driver loses control of his vehicle and is about to swerve into a family of four.  there will be many cases like this.  so many to the point, where are not you harming others by not taking the medication and remaining accident prone ? when you are accident prone you are a disaster waiting to happen.  probably going to take out a couple of innocent people out with you.  do you mandate this drug ? what about one is freedom to live without unnecessary death ?
hello ! i understand the majority of reddit feels quite strongly about vaccinations and i believe my view is the opposite of many of yours.  i hope you go into this with an open mind and i will return the favor.  the mandating of vaccinations would involve the government deciding what goes into a child is body.  but i ask why should not parents decide if they want to prevent something from entering their child is body ? note: there is an argument to be made that parents should not decide and the child should.  however there are several important vaccinations that would occur prior to the child having the capacity to make such a decision.  polio vaccine and hepatitis b vaccine come to mind.  so either way someone is making that decision for the child.  i believe that person should the parents or guardian not the state.  why ? because parents are more so connected with their children than the government and therefore should be trusted to have their children is best interests in mind.  yes, sometimes parents are idiotic and make a health decision that is horrible and sometimes even fatal.  however, the government has also been shown to not have the best health interests in its citizens at times.  see: tuskegee syphilis experiment but at the end of the day, a parent not vaccinating their kids indirectly effects others.  that has to count for something, right ? forcing vaccinations upon those who do not want it is for the greater good, right ? perhaps those thoughts are best summed up by former supreme court justice oliver wendell holmes, jr. , who once said,  the right to swing my fist ends where the other man is nose begins.   i am sure he would have supported a mandate, which will likely reduce the suffering of many people, wholeheartedly for this reason.  but also for this reason he supported the horrific buck v.  bell decision a decision that unfortunately still has support, particularly on reddit.  see.  that is the problem with doing things for the  greater good , it often does not accomplish much and reduces the rights of others.  a final point i would like to make would be to highlight the parallel between vaccinations and smoking.  yes there are efforts to curb the activity in public places in my own city of pittsburgh, they recently banned smoking in bars.  however, smoking still effects more people than just the user.  second hand smoke is a real thing and damages a person is health when they had to choice but to breathe it in.  perhaps you could say that it is avoidable and being in contact with unvaccinated people is unavoidable.  but secondhand smoke is practically unavoidable.  it can stay in an area for hours long after the overbearing smell is gone.  you would not even know.  but yet there is no real support for a general ban on smoking as there is with a mandate for vaccinations.  just to cover my bases, i  would like to say i am not anti vaccine.  i fully support vaccinations, am fully vaccinated, and if i were to be blessed enough to have my own children, i would have them vaccinated.  i view this as a freedom issue right to body and not a vaccines are bad issue.  i thank you all for reading and look for to any possible responses.   #  but i ask why should not parents decide if they want to prevent something from entering their child is body ?  #  because too often they are wrong, and imposition seems like it could be effective.   # because too often they are wrong, and imposition seems like it could be effective.  because parents are more so connected with their children than the government and therefore should be trusted to have their children is best interests in mind.  yes, sometimes parents are idiotic and make a health decision that is horrible and sometimes even fatal.  however, the government has also been shown to not have the best health interests in its citizens at times.  see: tuskegee syphilis experiment i do not think we should always support the state, far from it.  but we should support the party that is right.  in this case, it happens to be the government.  the right to swing my fist make medical decisions for your children ends where the other man is nose public health begins.  a general ban on smoking would be ineffective, just one more criminalized drug.  restricting where it can be used and taxing it heavily are more effective.   #  i would like to clarify i do not agree with the quote from oliver wendell holmes, jr.   #  i would like to clarify i do not agree with the quote from oliver wendell holmes, jr.  that i included.  you are saying that decision needs to be made for public health/saftey reasons.  but that could literally be said about anything.  you can justify doing nearly everything by saying it is for the  greater good , but at the end of the day your still curbing people is rights.  activities like smoking affect the public negativity and it is often hard to avoid the second hand smoke which can linger for hours without the overbearing smell .  i doubt you would support a general ban on smoking or as you brought up a unhealthy diet ban.   #  this medication was a one time use and it would cause the the brain to respond better in the moments before people die in non intentional ways.   #  interesting hypothetical ! i will respond with my own.  hhmm.  i do not believe the government has the right in that instance.  but i would definitely support those infected by willful negligence suing for damages ! the kids questions is a good one.  is it not child abuse or dare i say torture to expose your children to this infection they will receive almost certainly ? i notice its parallels with vaccinations and i am struggle to rationalize it.  i would like to say that since those who do not vaccinate kids still have a very low chance of contracting any disease that is generally vaccinated for due to herd immunity and in your scenario the child is very likely to become ill the cases are different.  but i am not satisfied with that answer.  you may have gotten me here, let me think about it some more.  in return my own hypothetical: according to the cdc, in the year 0 0,0 people died in accidents.  say a medication was created, that was the same cost and side effects of your average vaccine.  this medication was a one time use and it would cause the the brain to respond better in the moments before people die in non intentional ways.  for how ambitious this medication is let is say it is only 0 effective, so about 0,0 people are saved each year from it.  note this medication could kick in when a driver loses control of his vehicle and is about to swerve into a family of four.  there will be many cases like this.  so many to the point, where are not you harming others by not taking the medication and remaining accident prone ? when you are accident prone you are a disaster waiting to happen.  probably going to take out a couple of innocent people out with you.  do you mandate this drug ?  #  i am giving you the delta although i am still uneasy with the idea of parents being overridden here.   #  i suppose she would be imprisoned for not being able to pay damages and charged with one of the following depending on the entire situation: reckless endangerment, negligent homicide, reckless homicide, or intentional homicide.  what if it only saves 0,0 lives or 0 lives ? is it still mandated ? how many lives is violating a people is autonomy worth ? purely rhetorical, but still.  i am giving you the delta although i am still uneasy with the idea of parents being overridden here.  do you think adults, who have the capacity to consent, should be mandated to continue their immunization schedule such as continuing to get boosters to increase immunity .  if yes, do not you think that because vaccines are so beneficial a person could be convinced without the threat of the mandate and whatever repercussions it entails to get his recommend shots ?  #  what about one is freedom to live without unnecessary death ?  #  i may have had my view changed, but i am curious your response to a hypothetical i charged another user with.  say a medication was created, that was the same cost and side effects of your average vaccine.  this medication was a one time use and it would cause the the brain to respond better in the moments before people die in non intentional ways.  for how ambitious this medication is let is say it is only 0 effective, so about 0,0 people are saved each year from it.  note this medication could kick in when a driver loses control of his vehicle and is about to swerve into a family of four.  there will be many cases like this.  so many to the point, where are not you harming others by not taking the medication and remaining accident prone ? when you are accident prone you are a disaster waiting to happen.  probably going to take out a couple of innocent people out with you.  do you mandate this drug ? what about one is freedom to live without unnecessary death ?
hello ! i understand the majority of reddit feels quite strongly about vaccinations and i believe my view is the opposite of many of yours.  i hope you go into this with an open mind and i will return the favor.  the mandating of vaccinations would involve the government deciding what goes into a child is body.  but i ask why should not parents decide if they want to prevent something from entering their child is body ? note: there is an argument to be made that parents should not decide and the child should.  however there are several important vaccinations that would occur prior to the child having the capacity to make such a decision.  polio vaccine and hepatitis b vaccine come to mind.  so either way someone is making that decision for the child.  i believe that person should the parents or guardian not the state.  why ? because parents are more so connected with their children than the government and therefore should be trusted to have their children is best interests in mind.  yes, sometimes parents are idiotic and make a health decision that is horrible and sometimes even fatal.  however, the government has also been shown to not have the best health interests in its citizens at times.  see: tuskegee syphilis experiment but at the end of the day, a parent not vaccinating their kids indirectly effects others.  that has to count for something, right ? forcing vaccinations upon those who do not want it is for the greater good, right ? perhaps those thoughts are best summed up by former supreme court justice oliver wendell holmes, jr. , who once said,  the right to swing my fist ends where the other man is nose begins.   i am sure he would have supported a mandate, which will likely reduce the suffering of many people, wholeheartedly for this reason.  but also for this reason he supported the horrific buck v.  bell decision a decision that unfortunately still has support, particularly on reddit.  see.  that is the problem with doing things for the  greater good , it often does not accomplish much and reduces the rights of others.  a final point i would like to make would be to highlight the parallel between vaccinations and smoking.  yes there are efforts to curb the activity in public places in my own city of pittsburgh, they recently banned smoking in bars.  however, smoking still effects more people than just the user.  second hand smoke is a real thing and damages a person is health when they had to choice but to breathe it in.  perhaps you could say that it is avoidable and being in contact with unvaccinated people is unavoidable.  but secondhand smoke is practically unavoidable.  it can stay in an area for hours long after the overbearing smell is gone.  you would not even know.  but yet there is no real support for a general ban on smoking as there is with a mandate for vaccinations.  just to cover my bases, i  would like to say i am not anti vaccine.  i fully support vaccinations, am fully vaccinated, and if i were to be blessed enough to have my own children, i would have them vaccinated.  i view this as a freedom issue right to body and not a vaccines are bad issue.  i thank you all for reading and look for to any possible responses.   #  but yet there is no real support for a general ban on smoking as there is with a mandate for vaccinations.   #  a general ban on smoking would be ineffective, just one more criminalized drug.   # because too often they are wrong, and imposition seems like it could be effective.  because parents are more so connected with their children than the government and therefore should be trusted to have their children is best interests in mind.  yes, sometimes parents are idiotic and make a health decision that is horrible and sometimes even fatal.  however, the government has also been shown to not have the best health interests in its citizens at times.  see: tuskegee syphilis experiment i do not think we should always support the state, far from it.  but we should support the party that is right.  in this case, it happens to be the government.  the right to swing my fist make medical decisions for your children ends where the other man is nose public health begins.  a general ban on smoking would be ineffective, just one more criminalized drug.  restricting where it can be used and taxing it heavily are more effective.   #  activities like smoking affect the public negativity and it is often hard to avoid the second hand smoke which can linger for hours without the overbearing smell .   #  i would like to clarify i do not agree with the quote from oliver wendell holmes, jr.  that i included.  you are saying that decision needs to be made for public health/saftey reasons.  but that could literally be said about anything.  you can justify doing nearly everything by saying it is for the  greater good , but at the end of the day your still curbing people is rights.  activities like smoking affect the public negativity and it is often hard to avoid the second hand smoke which can linger for hours without the overbearing smell .  i doubt you would support a general ban on smoking or as you brought up a unhealthy diet ban.   #  say a medication was created, that was the same cost and side effects of your average vaccine.   #  interesting hypothetical ! i will respond with my own.  hhmm.  i do not believe the government has the right in that instance.  but i would definitely support those infected by willful negligence suing for damages ! the kids questions is a good one.  is it not child abuse or dare i say torture to expose your children to this infection they will receive almost certainly ? i notice its parallels with vaccinations and i am struggle to rationalize it.  i would like to say that since those who do not vaccinate kids still have a very low chance of contracting any disease that is generally vaccinated for due to herd immunity and in your scenario the child is very likely to become ill the cases are different.  but i am not satisfied with that answer.  you may have gotten me here, let me think about it some more.  in return my own hypothetical: according to the cdc, in the year 0 0,0 people died in accidents.  say a medication was created, that was the same cost and side effects of your average vaccine.  this medication was a one time use and it would cause the the brain to respond better in the moments before people die in non intentional ways.  for how ambitious this medication is let is say it is only 0 effective, so about 0,0 people are saved each year from it.  note this medication could kick in when a driver loses control of his vehicle and is about to swerve into a family of four.  there will be many cases like this.  so many to the point, where are not you harming others by not taking the medication and remaining accident prone ? when you are accident prone you are a disaster waiting to happen.  probably going to take out a couple of innocent people out with you.  do you mandate this drug ?  #  i suppose she would be imprisoned for not being able to pay damages and charged with one of the following depending on the entire situation: reckless endangerment, negligent homicide, reckless homicide, or intentional homicide.   #  i suppose she would be imprisoned for not being able to pay damages and charged with one of the following depending on the entire situation: reckless endangerment, negligent homicide, reckless homicide, or intentional homicide.  what if it only saves 0,0 lives or 0 lives ? is it still mandated ? how many lives is violating a people is autonomy worth ? purely rhetorical, but still.  i am giving you the delta although i am still uneasy with the idea of parents being overridden here.  do you think adults, who have the capacity to consent, should be mandated to continue their immunization schedule such as continuing to get boosters to increase immunity .  if yes, do not you think that because vaccines are so beneficial a person could be convinced without the threat of the mandate and whatever repercussions it entails to get his recommend shots ?  #  when you are accident prone you are a disaster waiting to happen.   #  i may have had my view changed, but i am curious your response to a hypothetical i charged another user with.  say a medication was created, that was the same cost and side effects of your average vaccine.  this medication was a one time use and it would cause the the brain to respond better in the moments before people die in non intentional ways.  for how ambitious this medication is let is say it is only 0 effective, so about 0,0 people are saved each year from it.  note this medication could kick in when a driver loses control of his vehicle and is about to swerve into a family of four.  there will be many cases like this.  so many to the point, where are not you harming others by not taking the medication and remaining accident prone ? when you are accident prone you are a disaster waiting to happen.  probably going to take out a couple of innocent people out with you.  do you mandate this drug ? what about one is freedom to live without unnecessary death ?
other major american cities have developed distinct personalities in the cultural imagination.  ask someone to give a one word summary of new york and they might say  art  or  broadway  or  money.   that is a city that evokes feeling and opinions.  san francisco might incite ideas about liberalism or gay culture.  los angeles is hollywood.  houston is oil.  boston is intellectualism.  but chicago ? it is a patchwork of pretty cool neighborhoods that do not add up to much.  it is the place you go because you get a job there, not the place you go when you want to quit your job and  make it.   as a midwesterner, i want to love chicago.  but with every visit, all i can think is that it is a pile of people who just happen to be there.  what has chicago contributed ? pizza ? ditka ? second city, aka the stepping stone to bigger things in new york ? it is the third largest city in the u. s. , but it seems to underperform in its cultural impact.  tell me why chicago is a unique place in the world.   #  other major american cities have developed distinct personalities in the cultural imagination.   #  i think a lot of people think of chicago and music, considering all of the jazz.   # i think a lot of people think of chicago and music, considering all of the jazz.  i know from personal interest that they have a decent ska scene.  that is just a state of mind issue.  i grew up in new jersey near new york city, and went to the city some what often.  i am pretty sure once you have been to any city, it seems that there are  a pile of people who just happen to be there  no matter where you are.  i think it is because the city looses it is majesty once you realize it is a city, just like every other one in the country with some different attractions and sites.  do you think people think they are going to make it in houston, boston, san francisco, or seattle ? now, this probably was not what you meant when you said  cultural impact  but chicago has an entire economic school of thought named after.  it might not have affected pop culture, but it effected culture from an economic perspective.  note that i have never been to chicago, so keep that in mind.   #  bo diddly, muddy waters, heck even the blues brothers.   #  music: blues, jazz and soul ? chicago is famous for it is blues music.  bo diddly, muddy waters, heck even the blues brothers.  it has it is own style that has inspired many other musicians.  URL a lot of this music has inspired many hip bop and rap icons who have come out of chicago.  the music scene in chicago also live through festivals like lalapaloza and pitchfork.  comedy: a lot of stand ups and comedy icons have started off in chicago.  just look at the alumni list of the second city theater.  URL chicago is well known for it is history of training young comedians in improv.  food: you mention pizza which how many cities in the us have a distinct style of pizza ? but what about a chicago style hot dog ? what about chicago style popcorn.  chicago has foods inspired by greek cuisine, polish cuisine, and italian cuisine.  it is very diverse.  URL i am missing a lot but that is just some of the uniqueness that chicago brings.   #  that makes it harder to attribute the stereotypes of one or two particular industries to its people, but that does not mean it does not have unifying characteristics.   #  you seem to be treating  most popular entertainment  and  dominant industry for employment  as the standards for what makes a city evoke feelings and opinions.  chicago is a lot more working class.  there is fewer glamorous industries centered around chicago like there is san fransisco tech , los angeles broadcast entertainment , houston oil , or boston higher education , or new york theater and finance .  that makes it harder to attribute the stereotypes of one or two particular industries to its people, but that does not mean it does not have unifying characteristics.  food is a big part of what characterizes a city.  san francisco has  authentic mexican food  in general and burritos in particular.  new york has street hot dogs and ridiculously floppy pizza.  boston has frappes and chowdah and lobster rolls and a preference for dunkin donuts over starbucks.  and chicago has deep dish pizza and very strong preferences about how ketchup does not belong on hot dogs and the italian beef sandwich and plantains as a replacement for bread.  what is the entertainment ? well, improv theater is a pretty big deal in chicago, and has a pretty solid theater scene overall as much as any large city does, but chicago entertainment is.  sports.  bears.  bulls.  cubs.  sox.  blackhawks.  there is always sports stuff happening, and sports stuff that people are really passionate about.  much like boston in that respect and that actually is part of why chicago and boston seem to get along so well.  there is also architecture.  chicago has plenty of landmarks, and is arguably as visually recognizable as new york, la or san fransisco.  when a movie is set  in  chicago, you can tell  immediately  in a way you ca not with, say, vancouver.   #  you had to make me think of portilios.   #  chicago is one of the best sports towns.  also, it is one of the best places for ethnic culture.  this is very much tied into its reputation as a great food city.  you want good greek food ? there is a place for that.  you want good korean food ? there is a place for that.  you want good ethiopian food.  go to diamonds.  you also have the massive amounts of contributions chicago has made to the world is architecture.  one single trip down the river can show you highlights of many different eras of architecture.  minus the trump building because fuck that abomination.  i am not even going to talk about the blues places or the great places to see live shows.  and c amon portilios.  you had to make me think of portilios.   #  i am an east coaster who has lived in boston, dc, philadelphia, and brooklyn.   #  i am an east coaster who has lived in boston, dc, philadelphia, and brooklyn.  i visited chicago a few years ago and loved it.  it definitely had a particular vibe.  i felt like i was out of the northwest and in the midwest.  people had a different way of talking, and were friendly in a much more laid back way.  i think it is easy to see this as  nothing , but as an outsider it felt very distinct.  also, chicago is a very cool, unique and interesting looking city.  a lot of the art deco / mid century style architectural style that defined large american metropolis  came out of chicago.  while other cities have synthesized this with other, more modern styles, chicago remains a bastion of it.  so i guess, it is the most quintessential  american  big city.  places like dc, boston, new york, and los angeles have a character that is almost as much international as they are american.  they are world ports.  chicago seems the closest city to some sort of american ideal.
other major american cities have developed distinct personalities in the cultural imagination.  ask someone to give a one word summary of new york and they might say  art  or  broadway  or  money.   that is a city that evokes feeling and opinions.  san francisco might incite ideas about liberalism or gay culture.  los angeles is hollywood.  houston is oil.  boston is intellectualism.  but chicago ? it is a patchwork of pretty cool neighborhoods that do not add up to much.  it is the place you go because you get a job there, not the place you go when you want to quit your job and  make it.   as a midwesterner, i want to love chicago.  but with every visit, all i can think is that it is a pile of people who just happen to be there.  what has chicago contributed ? pizza ? ditka ? second city, aka the stepping stone to bigger things in new york ? it is the third largest city in the u. s. , but it seems to underperform in its cultural impact.  tell me why chicago is a unique place in the world.   #  but with every visit, all i can think is that it is a pile of people who just happen to be there.   #  that is just a state of mind issue.   # i think a lot of people think of chicago and music, considering all of the jazz.  i know from personal interest that they have a decent ska scene.  that is just a state of mind issue.  i grew up in new jersey near new york city, and went to the city some what often.  i am pretty sure once you have been to any city, it seems that there are  a pile of people who just happen to be there  no matter where you are.  i think it is because the city looses it is majesty once you realize it is a city, just like every other one in the country with some different attractions and sites.  do you think people think they are going to make it in houston, boston, san francisco, or seattle ? now, this probably was not what you meant when you said  cultural impact  but chicago has an entire economic school of thought named after.  it might not have affected pop culture, but it effected culture from an economic perspective.  note that i have never been to chicago, so keep that in mind.   #  just look at the alumni list of the second city theater.   #  music: blues, jazz and soul ? chicago is famous for it is blues music.  bo diddly, muddy waters, heck even the blues brothers.  it has it is own style that has inspired many other musicians.  URL a lot of this music has inspired many hip bop and rap icons who have come out of chicago.  the music scene in chicago also live through festivals like lalapaloza and pitchfork.  comedy: a lot of stand ups and comedy icons have started off in chicago.  just look at the alumni list of the second city theater.  URL chicago is well known for it is history of training young comedians in improv.  food: you mention pizza which how many cities in the us have a distinct style of pizza ? but what about a chicago style hot dog ? what about chicago style popcorn.  chicago has foods inspired by greek cuisine, polish cuisine, and italian cuisine.  it is very diverse.  URL i am missing a lot but that is just some of the uniqueness that chicago brings.   #  when a movie is set  in  chicago, you can tell  immediately  in a way you ca not with, say, vancouver.   #  you seem to be treating  most popular entertainment  and  dominant industry for employment  as the standards for what makes a city evoke feelings and opinions.  chicago is a lot more working class.  there is fewer glamorous industries centered around chicago like there is san fransisco tech , los angeles broadcast entertainment , houston oil , or boston higher education , or new york theater and finance .  that makes it harder to attribute the stereotypes of one or two particular industries to its people, but that does not mean it does not have unifying characteristics.  food is a big part of what characterizes a city.  san francisco has  authentic mexican food  in general and burritos in particular.  new york has street hot dogs and ridiculously floppy pizza.  boston has frappes and chowdah and lobster rolls and a preference for dunkin donuts over starbucks.  and chicago has deep dish pizza and very strong preferences about how ketchup does not belong on hot dogs and the italian beef sandwich and plantains as a replacement for bread.  what is the entertainment ? well, improv theater is a pretty big deal in chicago, and has a pretty solid theater scene overall as much as any large city does, but chicago entertainment is.  sports.  bears.  bulls.  cubs.  sox.  blackhawks.  there is always sports stuff happening, and sports stuff that people are really passionate about.  much like boston in that respect and that actually is part of why chicago and boston seem to get along so well.  there is also architecture.  chicago has plenty of landmarks, and is arguably as visually recognizable as new york, la or san fransisco.  when a movie is set  in  chicago, you can tell  immediately  in a way you ca not with, say, vancouver.   #  you had to make me think of portilios.   #  chicago is one of the best sports towns.  also, it is one of the best places for ethnic culture.  this is very much tied into its reputation as a great food city.  you want good greek food ? there is a place for that.  you want good korean food ? there is a place for that.  you want good ethiopian food.  go to diamonds.  you also have the massive amounts of contributions chicago has made to the world is architecture.  one single trip down the river can show you highlights of many different eras of architecture.  minus the trump building because fuck that abomination.  i am not even going to talk about the blues places or the great places to see live shows.  and c amon portilios.  you had to make me think of portilios.   #  a lot of the art deco / mid century style architectural style that defined large american metropolis  came out of chicago.   #  i am an east coaster who has lived in boston, dc, philadelphia, and brooklyn.  i visited chicago a few years ago and loved it.  it definitely had a particular vibe.  i felt like i was out of the northwest and in the midwest.  people had a different way of talking, and were friendly in a much more laid back way.  i think it is easy to see this as  nothing , but as an outsider it felt very distinct.  also, chicago is a very cool, unique and interesting looking city.  a lot of the art deco / mid century style architectural style that defined large american metropolis  came out of chicago.  while other cities have synthesized this with other, more modern styles, chicago remains a bastion of it.  so i guess, it is the most quintessential  american  big city.  places like dc, boston, new york, and los angeles have a character that is almost as much international as they are american.  they are world ports.  chicago seems the closest city to some sort of american ideal.
other major american cities have developed distinct personalities in the cultural imagination.  ask someone to give a one word summary of new york and they might say  art  or  broadway  or  money.   that is a city that evokes feeling and opinions.  san francisco might incite ideas about liberalism or gay culture.  los angeles is hollywood.  houston is oil.  boston is intellectualism.  but chicago ? it is a patchwork of pretty cool neighborhoods that do not add up to much.  it is the place you go because you get a job there, not the place you go when you want to quit your job and  make it.   as a midwesterner, i want to love chicago.  but with every visit, all i can think is that it is a pile of people who just happen to be there.  what has chicago contributed ? pizza ? ditka ? second city, aka the stepping stone to bigger things in new york ? it is the third largest city in the u. s. , but it seems to underperform in its cultural impact.  tell me why chicago is a unique place in the world.   #  it is the place you go because you get a job there, not the place you go when you want to quit your job and  make it.    #  do you think people think they are going to make it in houston, boston, san francisco, or seattle ?  # i think a lot of people think of chicago and music, considering all of the jazz.  i know from personal interest that they have a decent ska scene.  that is just a state of mind issue.  i grew up in new jersey near new york city, and went to the city some what often.  i am pretty sure once you have been to any city, it seems that there are  a pile of people who just happen to be there  no matter where you are.  i think it is because the city looses it is majesty once you realize it is a city, just like every other one in the country with some different attractions and sites.  do you think people think they are going to make it in houston, boston, san francisco, or seattle ? now, this probably was not what you meant when you said  cultural impact  but chicago has an entire economic school of thought named after.  it might not have affected pop culture, but it effected culture from an economic perspective.  note that i have never been to chicago, so keep that in mind.   #  chicago has foods inspired by greek cuisine, polish cuisine, and italian cuisine.   #  music: blues, jazz and soul ? chicago is famous for it is blues music.  bo diddly, muddy waters, heck even the blues brothers.  it has it is own style that has inspired many other musicians.  URL a lot of this music has inspired many hip bop and rap icons who have come out of chicago.  the music scene in chicago also live through festivals like lalapaloza and pitchfork.  comedy: a lot of stand ups and comedy icons have started off in chicago.  just look at the alumni list of the second city theater.  URL chicago is well known for it is history of training young comedians in improv.  food: you mention pizza which how many cities in the us have a distinct style of pizza ? but what about a chicago style hot dog ? what about chicago style popcorn.  chicago has foods inspired by greek cuisine, polish cuisine, and italian cuisine.  it is very diverse.  URL i am missing a lot but that is just some of the uniqueness that chicago brings.   #  much like boston in that respect and that actually is part of why chicago and boston seem to get along so well.   #  you seem to be treating  most popular entertainment  and  dominant industry for employment  as the standards for what makes a city evoke feelings and opinions.  chicago is a lot more working class.  there is fewer glamorous industries centered around chicago like there is san fransisco tech , los angeles broadcast entertainment , houston oil , or boston higher education , or new york theater and finance .  that makes it harder to attribute the stereotypes of one or two particular industries to its people, but that does not mean it does not have unifying characteristics.  food is a big part of what characterizes a city.  san francisco has  authentic mexican food  in general and burritos in particular.  new york has street hot dogs and ridiculously floppy pizza.  boston has frappes and chowdah and lobster rolls and a preference for dunkin donuts over starbucks.  and chicago has deep dish pizza and very strong preferences about how ketchup does not belong on hot dogs and the italian beef sandwich and plantains as a replacement for bread.  what is the entertainment ? well, improv theater is a pretty big deal in chicago, and has a pretty solid theater scene overall as much as any large city does, but chicago entertainment is.  sports.  bears.  bulls.  cubs.  sox.  blackhawks.  there is always sports stuff happening, and sports stuff that people are really passionate about.  much like boston in that respect and that actually is part of why chicago and boston seem to get along so well.  there is also architecture.  chicago has plenty of landmarks, and is arguably as visually recognizable as new york, la or san fransisco.  when a movie is set  in  chicago, you can tell  immediately  in a way you ca not with, say, vancouver.   #  you had to make me think of portilios.   #  chicago is one of the best sports towns.  also, it is one of the best places for ethnic culture.  this is very much tied into its reputation as a great food city.  you want good greek food ? there is a place for that.  you want good korean food ? there is a place for that.  you want good ethiopian food.  go to diamonds.  you also have the massive amounts of contributions chicago has made to the world is architecture.  one single trip down the river can show you highlights of many different eras of architecture.  minus the trump building because fuck that abomination.  i am not even going to talk about the blues places or the great places to see live shows.  and c amon portilios.  you had to make me think of portilios.   #  i felt like i was out of the northwest and in the midwest.   #  i am an east coaster who has lived in boston, dc, philadelphia, and brooklyn.  i visited chicago a few years ago and loved it.  it definitely had a particular vibe.  i felt like i was out of the northwest and in the midwest.  people had a different way of talking, and were friendly in a much more laid back way.  i think it is easy to see this as  nothing , but as an outsider it felt very distinct.  also, chicago is a very cool, unique and interesting looking city.  a lot of the art deco / mid century style architectural style that defined large american metropolis  came out of chicago.  while other cities have synthesized this with other, more modern styles, chicago remains a bastion of it.  so i guess, it is the most quintessential  american  big city.  places like dc, boston, new york, and los angeles have a character that is almost as much international as they are american.  they are world ports.  chicago seems the closest city to some sort of american ideal.
other major american cities have developed distinct personalities in the cultural imagination.  ask someone to give a one word summary of new york and they might say  art  or  broadway  or  money.   that is a city that evokes feeling and opinions.  san francisco might incite ideas about liberalism or gay culture.  los angeles is hollywood.  houston is oil.  boston is intellectualism.  but chicago ? it is a patchwork of pretty cool neighborhoods that do not add up to much.  it is the place you go because you get a job there, not the place you go when you want to quit your job and  make it.   as a midwesterner, i want to love chicago.  but with every visit, all i can think is that it is a pile of people who just happen to be there.  what has chicago contributed ? pizza ? ditka ? second city, aka the stepping stone to bigger things in new york ? it is the third largest city in the u. s. , but it seems to underperform in its cultural impact.  tell me why chicago is a unique place in the world.   #  it is the third largest city in the u. s. , but it seems to underperform in its cultural impact.   #  now, this probably was not what you meant when you said  cultural impact  but chicago has an entire economic school of thought named after.   # i think a lot of people think of chicago and music, considering all of the jazz.  i know from personal interest that they have a decent ska scene.  that is just a state of mind issue.  i grew up in new jersey near new york city, and went to the city some what often.  i am pretty sure once you have been to any city, it seems that there are  a pile of people who just happen to be there  no matter where you are.  i think it is because the city looses it is majesty once you realize it is a city, just like every other one in the country with some different attractions and sites.  do you think people think they are going to make it in houston, boston, san francisco, or seattle ? now, this probably was not what you meant when you said  cultural impact  but chicago has an entire economic school of thought named after.  it might not have affected pop culture, but it effected culture from an economic perspective.  note that i have never been to chicago, so keep that in mind.   #  chicago has foods inspired by greek cuisine, polish cuisine, and italian cuisine.   #  music: blues, jazz and soul ? chicago is famous for it is blues music.  bo diddly, muddy waters, heck even the blues brothers.  it has it is own style that has inspired many other musicians.  URL a lot of this music has inspired many hip bop and rap icons who have come out of chicago.  the music scene in chicago also live through festivals like lalapaloza and pitchfork.  comedy: a lot of stand ups and comedy icons have started off in chicago.  just look at the alumni list of the second city theater.  URL chicago is well known for it is history of training young comedians in improv.  food: you mention pizza which how many cities in the us have a distinct style of pizza ? but what about a chicago style hot dog ? what about chicago style popcorn.  chicago has foods inspired by greek cuisine, polish cuisine, and italian cuisine.  it is very diverse.  URL i am missing a lot but that is just some of the uniqueness that chicago brings.   #  you seem to be treating  most popular entertainment  and  dominant industry for employment  as the standards for what makes a city evoke feelings and opinions.   #  you seem to be treating  most popular entertainment  and  dominant industry for employment  as the standards for what makes a city evoke feelings and opinions.  chicago is a lot more working class.  there is fewer glamorous industries centered around chicago like there is san fransisco tech , los angeles broadcast entertainment , houston oil , or boston higher education , or new york theater and finance .  that makes it harder to attribute the stereotypes of one or two particular industries to its people, but that does not mean it does not have unifying characteristics.  food is a big part of what characterizes a city.  san francisco has  authentic mexican food  in general and burritos in particular.  new york has street hot dogs and ridiculously floppy pizza.  boston has frappes and chowdah and lobster rolls and a preference for dunkin donuts over starbucks.  and chicago has deep dish pizza and very strong preferences about how ketchup does not belong on hot dogs and the italian beef sandwich and plantains as a replacement for bread.  what is the entertainment ? well, improv theater is a pretty big deal in chicago, and has a pretty solid theater scene overall as much as any large city does, but chicago entertainment is.  sports.  bears.  bulls.  cubs.  sox.  blackhawks.  there is always sports stuff happening, and sports stuff that people are really passionate about.  much like boston in that respect and that actually is part of why chicago and boston seem to get along so well.  there is also architecture.  chicago has plenty of landmarks, and is arguably as visually recognizable as new york, la or san fransisco.  when a movie is set  in  chicago, you can tell  immediately  in a way you ca not with, say, vancouver.   #  one single trip down the river can show you highlights of many different eras of architecture.   #  chicago is one of the best sports towns.  also, it is one of the best places for ethnic culture.  this is very much tied into its reputation as a great food city.  you want good greek food ? there is a place for that.  you want good korean food ? there is a place for that.  you want good ethiopian food.  go to diamonds.  you also have the massive amounts of contributions chicago has made to the world is architecture.  one single trip down the river can show you highlights of many different eras of architecture.  minus the trump building because fuck that abomination.  i am not even going to talk about the blues places or the great places to see live shows.  and c amon portilios.  you had to make me think of portilios.   #  i visited chicago a few years ago and loved it.   #  i am an east coaster who has lived in boston, dc, philadelphia, and brooklyn.  i visited chicago a few years ago and loved it.  it definitely had a particular vibe.  i felt like i was out of the northwest and in the midwest.  people had a different way of talking, and were friendly in a much more laid back way.  i think it is easy to see this as  nothing , but as an outsider it felt very distinct.  also, chicago is a very cool, unique and interesting looking city.  a lot of the art deco / mid century style architectural style that defined large american metropolis  came out of chicago.  while other cities have synthesized this with other, more modern styles, chicago remains a bastion of it.  so i guess, it is the most quintessential  american  big city.  places like dc, boston, new york, and los angeles have a character that is almost as much international as they are american.  they are world ports.  chicago seems the closest city to some sort of american ideal.
little disclaimer: this deals with us laws and procedures so i apologize if anyone outside the us is not able to contribute, except to tell me how great it is having this in their own country.  last sunday john oliver is show dealt with this subject and chastised the us for being only one of two developed countries in the world without maternity leave that is paid for by the taxpayers.  here is a link to watch it if you have not seen it yet: URL here is the gist of my viewpoint: in the us, when a person is terminated from a job, he/she is entitled to unemployment benefits for up to 0 weeks or until they are employed again.  workers and companies pay into this and, while many people end up taking more than they give, it is the system we have and it seems to work for the majority of people here.  when a person leaves a job voluntarily, however, they are not entitled to unemployment benefits.  if you quit a job to go to another job this is fine.  if you are quitting to go  find  yourself in australia for a year, you better have a financial plan because you ca not live off other peoples  money for your vacation.  this system also seems to work well for most people.  in the us, abortion is constitutionally protected under a person is right to privacy.  the details of the laws vary from state to state but there is no place in the us where a person cannot legally and safely obtain an abortion during the first six months of pregnancy.  my stance is that if having a child is a choice, it should be one the parents must prepare for financially before making just like if they wanted to voluntarily take time off work for other reasons.  we have safety nets for people who are caught in situations they ca not control.  this is not one of them.  being a parent requires the ability to plan and budget anyway, and it includes many expenses that people will absolutely incur that will not be covered by the hard work of others.  it should start with planning to be off work for whatever time having the baby takes.  i completely support peoples  positions being protected while they are off and, quite honestly, think that length of time should be extended from 0 weeks to 0 weeks.  but i really do not like the idea of taxpayer dollars being used to support anyone who voluntarily leaves work no matter the reason.  change my view.   #  in the us, abortion is constitutionally protected under a person is right to privacy.   #  the details of the laws vary from state to state but there is no place in the us where a person cannot legally and safely obtain an abortion during the first six months of pregnancy.   #  first thought: making sure new mothers and their child are safe, secure, and taken care of benefits society as a whole.  we are lacking in this category compared to other countries.  if society as a whole were to voice their concerns about this we would see talks about it.  in other countries that has already happened.  they understand the benefit of taking care of their society as a whole far outweighs the taxes needed.  i for one, would welcome a tax to ensure mothers are taken care of.  the details of the laws vary from state to state but there is no place in the us where a person cannot legally and safely obtain an abortion during the first six months of pregnancy.  this is false.  although it may be something that states should do, plenty have strongly opposed a woman is right to an abortion even going as far as to setup multiple road blocks to delay the process.  no one will advocate for supporting financially stable mothers for years.  the whole point of maternity leave is so the mother can be with her child.  mothers go through many chemical changes in their body.  not to mention the massive toll physically and mentally that giving birth takes on the mother.  allowing the mother time to rest and be around her baby is a good thing.  if this is her first child, even moreso as she has no idea what she is doing.  asking a mother to work days after she just gave birth is asking for trouble.  she is not physically or mentally there.  she just experienced a very traumatic experience and the body needs time to rest.  all she will want is to be with her child.  she may even be extremely stressed from not being to be there and i do not think her job should be able to terminate her because she wants to spend time with her new born.  all in all, i am massively for paid maternity leave.  this country is so far behind in taking care of its citizens it is becoming disgusting.  we have one of the worst healthcare systems in the world, unless of course you are wealthy.  we turn our backs on veterans that need medical care.  we lock up and jail people with mental illnesses.  we tell mothers that they are baby is not important and that they need to suck it up and work.  it is such a dangerous mentality we have in this country where everything is me vs.  everyone.  we need to start taking care of each other instead of saying,  i got mine, why ca not you get yours ?   like each person is situation is exactly the same.   #  yes, certainly if you want new americans to be created .   #  i support it simply from an economic standpoint.  it is getting harder and harder to get by on just one income, and when people have a kid things get even harder because not only do you lose the one income, but you also have a multitude of new expenses.  the last thing we need is for every young couple in the us to be discouraged from having kids, and the last thing we need is for each of the new mothers to be put under so much financial strain that they fall into bad credit, loose their home, etc.  how do you think that situation is going to affect america ? therefore, i see government funded maternity leave as an  investment  into the next generation and a stronger tomorrow for the us.  would it have been necessary 0 years ago when only 0 person in the household worked ? of course not.  but today ? yes, certainly if you want new americans to be created .   #  but if no one is having babies, then inevitably that society will shrink and disappear.   #  going on vacation and having a child are two actions that have fundamentally different impacts on a society.  society could technically get by if people took less or even no vacations.  but if no one is having babies, then inevitably that society will shrink and disappear.  another cost of not having babies is that old people will have no one to take care of them when they are older, meaning they will likely lean harder on government assistance when it comes to nursing home care, etc.  so you could make the argument that the money you spend now on maternity leave will save you money in the future.  in simple terms, having babies is important keeps society going, provides caretakers for seniors while going on vacation is not.   #  as much as i enjoy companies stepping up and offering that, i do not feel they should be subsidizing it.   #  thank you for that.  i may not have put my points across very well.  all of it was off the top of my head.  i am sure there are smarter and more informed people that could put my points across more clearly.  i do not really know what the solution is.  as much as i enjoy companies stepping up and offering that, i do not feel they should be subsidizing it.  i feel it should be a right every mother has regardless of where she is employed.  the talks will happen soon.  the country seems to be shifting towards the left a bit more in recent years so i imagine it will come up soon enough.  it will be interesting to see how it plays out.   #  you speak as if people deciding to have children did not benefit society in any way such as finding yourself in australia .   # that seems like an absolute position, which as a rule are not good positions to have.  in this specific case, it seems you are miss evaluating the situation.  you speak as if people deciding to have children did not benefit society in any way such as finding yourself in australia .  i disagree.  i think people having children is important and i do not see why we should leave them to deal with the bulk of the burden when, bottom line, their pregnancy is useful to all of us.  besides, what do you  want  the taxpayer is money to pay for if not this ? i for one would rather see my money support new families than buying aircraft carriers, but that is just me.
so i like dark humour.  it is probably the humour i like more.  i laugh at bad things, like, imagine i have a friend called janny that is deaf, i say stuff like,   i told janny, but she could not listen to it !  , but i do not make fun of people with disabilities around those people because i do not know how they handle those jokes.  my friends say sometimes it is immature, i disagree, i actually think i am more mature, because i understand that there is a problem and, if i ca not do anything, at least i laugh.  i prefer to laugh at bad things than to be sad about those thing, i am really being immature, or is just different ways of people seeing the world ?  #  i understand that there is a problem and, if i ca not do anything, at least i laugh.   #  i prefer to laugh at bad things than to be sad about those thing according to your post, when you are unable to improve the situation, you choose to laugh and make fun.   # i prefer to laugh at bad things than to be sad about those thing according to your post, when you are unable to improve the situation, you choose to laugh and make fun.  this can definitely be seen as an immature response.  young/immature people have a difficult time coping with negative things that are outside of their control and instead desire positivity in all things.  in order to alleviate the negativity you are faced with, you respond with comedy or laughter in order to dilute the severity and make it easier to accept.  this belies an inability to accept tragedy and move on.  you are instead warping the way you interact with negativity so that you do not feel that negativity by supplanting it with humor.  that inability to accept the world as it is, both the bad and the good all at one, is indeed a sign of youth or immaturity.  it is similar to the way children enjoy sweetness in things like candy and despise bitterness in things like beer.  as you age and mature, your tastes mellow and you become less averse to subtle bitterness and more averse to immense sweetness.  just the same, maturity allows you to deal with the negativity of life as it is, while your immaturity drives you to change it to a more palatable pleasant emotion.   #  however, if you drink the beer straight and your distaste is plain on your face, it is still clear you have not matured.   #  there is a difference between accepting the world as it is, using dark humor as a coping mechanism, and being sad all the time about the negativity in the world.  all three are separate ways of interacting with the world and the first is the only really mature one.  the way i understand it, you use dark humor to make light of situations that you cannot otherwise improve.  this sounds like you have an intense aversion to negativity and are willing to break social norms in order to avoid dwelling upon it.  i am not saying that it is immature to break social norms, but rather that communicates how strongly you avoid dealing with a negative factor of life such as deafness in its plain, raw state.  conversely, it would also be immature to let the world get you down about everything that is wrong with it.  plain and simple, bad things can and do happen.  if you get so focused upon the negative that you are made wholly unhappy, that is showing how limited your scope is.  it takes maturity to deal with negativity in a healthy manner and if you are always sad about the negative aspects of life, clearly you do not possess that maturity.  going back to the candy and beer analogy, imagine drinking a beer.  if you dump sugar into your beer until you ca not taste the bitter, it shows you have not really matured.  however, if you drink the beer straight and your distaste is plain on your face, it is still clear you have not matured.  it is only when you can drink the beer straight, without sweetener nor puckered lips, that you are showing that you have aged and come into your maturity.   #  the world is a bad place, so i wo not even bother.   #  i disagree with those examples.  it is impossible for someone to stay sad all the time at the world.  i sometimes find out about something horrible that i did not know about before, and i debate myself in my head.  after half an hour i am back to normal.  if the world is really a shit place, then the real mature response would be to try to improve it in any way possible.  giving donations, being kind to people, etc.  just not saying, eh whatever.  the world is a bad place, so i wo not even bother.  which is the attitude of someone who does not get anything done.   #  the premise of this post was that op had already examined the situation and assessed that there was nothing more to be done.   # it is impossible for someone to stay sad all the time at the world.  depression.  normally a one word answer is not enough of a response, but you are really overlooking a very common and debilitating disorder that is quite well known.  depression can take a variety of forms, but there are definitely people who go through life with an incredibly pessimistic outlook and are quite put out by life is variety of negative experiences.  now, that definitely displays a level of emotional immaturity, but to say their entire existence is impossible is both ignorant and lacking empathy.  the premise of this post was that op had already examined the situation and assessed that there was nothing more to be done.  what we are talking about here is what his reaction to that assessment says about his maturity, not the validity of that assessment.  context is key in these sorts of conversations.   #  so if we are talking about op and op only, then ok.   #  clinical depression.  it is caused by outside factors.  hating  their  life, hating  their  job.  people with clinical depression tend to think irrationally because of their condition.  i was talking about people without the condition.  they tend to bounce back from any sad moment sooner or later unless they get depression, of course even then, they are sad at their life and experiences, not exactly the world.  i was talking out of context there.  so if we are talking about op and op only, then ok.  i do not think op is dark humor is essentially immature.  it certainly could be, if he is shying away from reality and telling himself it is all ok, and all a joke.  this does not seem to be happening, because he has talked about his own chronic disease and joked about it.  he is most certainly had to face the pain and negativity of whatever chronic condition he has, and as i said look the pain dead on and still joke about it after.
so i like dark humour.  it is probably the humour i like more.  i laugh at bad things, like, imagine i have a friend called janny that is deaf, i say stuff like,   i told janny, but she could not listen to it !  , but i do not make fun of people with disabilities around those people because i do not know how they handle those jokes.  my friends say sometimes it is immature, i disagree, i actually think i am more mature, because i understand that there is a problem and, if i ca not do anything, at least i laugh.  i prefer to laugh at bad things than to be sad about those thing, i am really being immature, or is just different ways of people seeing the world ?  #  i have a friend called janny that is deaf, i say stuff like,   i told janny, but she could not listen to it !  #   , but i do not make fun of people with disabilities around those people because i do not know how they handle those jokes.   #  , but i do not make fun of people with disabilities around those people because i do not know how they handle those jokes.  everyone has some weaknesses, it does not always need to be an outright disability.  if you are making these kinds of jokes about someone is misfortune behind their back to get a laugh, your friends probably realize that you would be the sort of guy who would make fun of their shortcomings when they are not present.  they do not think you are immature because you laugh at inappropriate things, it is because they see that you lack the ability to see that your behaviour is very insensitive.  you are not making these jokes in front of the person who features in the jokes.  there is a place for these jokes i have a friend who limps, and his friends and i sometimes make fun of the limp when we are with him.  we do it lightly, in good humour, and in front of him.  we have talked about his sensitivity to these jokes, he is okay with it because we are just joshing each other.  but i had the conversation with him, and that is the difference.   #  just the same, maturity allows you to deal with the negativity of life as it is, while your immaturity drives you to change it to a more palatable pleasant emotion.   # i prefer to laugh at bad things than to be sad about those thing according to your post, when you are unable to improve the situation, you choose to laugh and make fun.  this can definitely be seen as an immature response.  young/immature people have a difficult time coping with negative things that are outside of their control and instead desire positivity in all things.  in order to alleviate the negativity you are faced with, you respond with comedy or laughter in order to dilute the severity and make it easier to accept.  this belies an inability to accept tragedy and move on.  you are instead warping the way you interact with negativity so that you do not feel that negativity by supplanting it with humor.  that inability to accept the world as it is, both the bad and the good all at one, is indeed a sign of youth or immaturity.  it is similar to the way children enjoy sweetness in things like candy and despise bitterness in things like beer.  as you age and mature, your tastes mellow and you become less averse to subtle bitterness and more averse to immense sweetness.  just the same, maturity allows you to deal with the negativity of life as it is, while your immaturity drives you to change it to a more palatable pleasant emotion.   #  i am not saying that it is immature to break social norms, but rather that communicates how strongly you avoid dealing with a negative factor of life such as deafness in its plain, raw state.   #  there is a difference between accepting the world as it is, using dark humor as a coping mechanism, and being sad all the time about the negativity in the world.  all three are separate ways of interacting with the world and the first is the only really mature one.  the way i understand it, you use dark humor to make light of situations that you cannot otherwise improve.  this sounds like you have an intense aversion to negativity and are willing to break social norms in order to avoid dwelling upon it.  i am not saying that it is immature to break social norms, but rather that communicates how strongly you avoid dealing with a negative factor of life such as deafness in its plain, raw state.  conversely, it would also be immature to let the world get you down about everything that is wrong with it.  plain and simple, bad things can and do happen.  if you get so focused upon the negative that you are made wholly unhappy, that is showing how limited your scope is.  it takes maturity to deal with negativity in a healthy manner and if you are always sad about the negative aspects of life, clearly you do not possess that maturity.  going back to the candy and beer analogy, imagine drinking a beer.  if you dump sugar into your beer until you ca not taste the bitter, it shows you have not really matured.  however, if you drink the beer straight and your distaste is plain on your face, it is still clear you have not matured.  it is only when you can drink the beer straight, without sweetener nor puckered lips, that you are showing that you have aged and come into your maturity.   #  which is the attitude of someone who does not get anything done.   #  i disagree with those examples.  it is impossible for someone to stay sad all the time at the world.  i sometimes find out about something horrible that i did not know about before, and i debate myself in my head.  after half an hour i am back to normal.  if the world is really a shit place, then the real mature response would be to try to improve it in any way possible.  giving donations, being kind to people, etc.  just not saying, eh whatever.  the world is a bad place, so i wo not even bother.  which is the attitude of someone who does not get anything done.   #  what we are talking about here is what his reaction to that assessment says about his maturity, not the validity of that assessment.   # it is impossible for someone to stay sad all the time at the world.  depression.  normally a one word answer is not enough of a response, but you are really overlooking a very common and debilitating disorder that is quite well known.  depression can take a variety of forms, but there are definitely people who go through life with an incredibly pessimistic outlook and are quite put out by life is variety of negative experiences.  now, that definitely displays a level of emotional immaturity, but to say their entire existence is impossible is both ignorant and lacking empathy.  the premise of this post was that op had already examined the situation and assessed that there was nothing more to be done.  what we are talking about here is what his reaction to that assessment says about his maturity, not the validity of that assessment.  context is key in these sorts of conversations.
so i like dark humour.  it is probably the humour i like more.  i laugh at bad things, like, imagine i have a friend called janny that is deaf, i say stuff like,   i told janny, but she could not listen to it !  , but i do not make fun of people with disabilities around those people because i do not know how they handle those jokes.  my friends say sometimes it is immature, i disagree, i actually think i am more mature, because i understand that there is a problem and, if i ca not do anything, at least i laugh.  i prefer to laugh at bad things than to be sad about those thing, i am really being immature, or is just different ways of people seeing the world ?  #  i prefer to laugh at bad things than to be sad about those thing, i am really being immature, or is just different ways of people seeing the world ?  #  you are not making these jokes in front of the person who features in the jokes.   #  , but i do not make fun of people with disabilities around those people because i do not know how they handle those jokes.  everyone has some weaknesses, it does not always need to be an outright disability.  if you are making these kinds of jokes about someone is misfortune behind their back to get a laugh, your friends probably realize that you would be the sort of guy who would make fun of their shortcomings when they are not present.  they do not think you are immature because you laugh at inappropriate things, it is because they see that you lack the ability to see that your behaviour is very insensitive.  you are not making these jokes in front of the person who features in the jokes.  there is a place for these jokes i have a friend who limps, and his friends and i sometimes make fun of the limp when we are with him.  we do it lightly, in good humour, and in front of him.  we have talked about his sensitivity to these jokes, he is okay with it because we are just joshing each other.  but i had the conversation with him, and that is the difference.   #  that inability to accept the world as it is, both the bad and the good all at one, is indeed a sign of youth or immaturity.   # i prefer to laugh at bad things than to be sad about those thing according to your post, when you are unable to improve the situation, you choose to laugh and make fun.  this can definitely be seen as an immature response.  young/immature people have a difficult time coping with negative things that are outside of their control and instead desire positivity in all things.  in order to alleviate the negativity you are faced with, you respond with comedy or laughter in order to dilute the severity and make it easier to accept.  this belies an inability to accept tragedy and move on.  you are instead warping the way you interact with negativity so that you do not feel that negativity by supplanting it with humor.  that inability to accept the world as it is, both the bad and the good all at one, is indeed a sign of youth or immaturity.  it is similar to the way children enjoy sweetness in things like candy and despise bitterness in things like beer.  as you age and mature, your tastes mellow and you become less averse to subtle bitterness and more averse to immense sweetness.  just the same, maturity allows you to deal with the negativity of life as it is, while your immaturity drives you to change it to a more palatable pleasant emotion.   #  the way i understand it, you use dark humor to make light of situations that you cannot otherwise improve.   #  there is a difference between accepting the world as it is, using dark humor as a coping mechanism, and being sad all the time about the negativity in the world.  all three are separate ways of interacting with the world and the first is the only really mature one.  the way i understand it, you use dark humor to make light of situations that you cannot otherwise improve.  this sounds like you have an intense aversion to negativity and are willing to break social norms in order to avoid dwelling upon it.  i am not saying that it is immature to break social norms, but rather that communicates how strongly you avoid dealing with a negative factor of life such as deafness in its plain, raw state.  conversely, it would also be immature to let the world get you down about everything that is wrong with it.  plain and simple, bad things can and do happen.  if you get so focused upon the negative that you are made wholly unhappy, that is showing how limited your scope is.  it takes maturity to deal with negativity in a healthy manner and if you are always sad about the negative aspects of life, clearly you do not possess that maturity.  going back to the candy and beer analogy, imagine drinking a beer.  if you dump sugar into your beer until you ca not taste the bitter, it shows you have not really matured.  however, if you drink the beer straight and your distaste is plain on your face, it is still clear you have not matured.  it is only when you can drink the beer straight, without sweetener nor puckered lips, that you are showing that you have aged and come into your maturity.   #  if the world is really a shit place, then the real mature response would be to try to improve it in any way possible.   #  i disagree with those examples.  it is impossible for someone to stay sad all the time at the world.  i sometimes find out about something horrible that i did not know about before, and i debate myself in my head.  after half an hour i am back to normal.  if the world is really a shit place, then the real mature response would be to try to improve it in any way possible.  giving donations, being kind to people, etc.  just not saying, eh whatever.  the world is a bad place, so i wo not even bother.  which is the attitude of someone who does not get anything done.   #  what we are talking about here is what his reaction to that assessment says about his maturity, not the validity of that assessment.   # it is impossible for someone to stay sad all the time at the world.  depression.  normally a one word answer is not enough of a response, but you are really overlooking a very common and debilitating disorder that is quite well known.  depression can take a variety of forms, but there are definitely people who go through life with an incredibly pessimistic outlook and are quite put out by life is variety of negative experiences.  now, that definitely displays a level of emotional immaturity, but to say their entire existence is impossible is both ignorant and lacking empathy.  the premise of this post was that op had already examined the situation and assessed that there was nothing more to be done.  what we are talking about here is what his reaction to that assessment says about his maturity, not the validity of that assessment.  context is key in these sorts of conversations.
background: in a nutshell, i had a christian upbringing.  went through a few years basically as an atheist until i had an existential crisis and turned to buddhism.  this is gonna be a tough one as it is a very sweeping statement, so i will do my best to elaborate what i mean.   religion : this has been talked about endlessly, but i feel like many of the issues at least with the abrahamic religions the crusades, terrorism, gay rights, etc.  comes down to a belief in an objective right vs wrong.  even though i have met plenty of christians who actively question their faith and interpretation of the bible, the abrahamic faiths still come down to external rules that are at odds with human nature, particularly sexuality.  just look at how intrusive sharia law can be.   science : while my teenage atheist leaning side of me would like to think that there is a huge gap between religion and science, science did arise out of christianity after all, and its dogmatic leanings still show today.  here is a banned ted talk by rupert sheldrake URL on a so called  science delusion  a play on the  god delusion  .  while i do not agree with him entirely, i think he poses a very important point.  the materialist worldview it has come to is very limiting compared to the original intent of the scientific method.  my view is that while we can be taught, it is up to us to learn through our own experiences and choose whether or not to accept the said teachings, as opposed to blind faith.  however, i feel this is a dangerous view to have as it is not only is a rebellious one, but also heavily degrades my respect for the abrahamic religions and a good chunk of the scientific community.  i would really like to see the other side of this.   #  the materialist worldview it has come to is very limiting compared to the original intent of the scientific method.   #  what are the limits of a materialistic worldview ?  #  could you please clarify a few points:   science did arise out of christianity after all is there any way you could support this claim ? it is my understanding that science came from various regions, religions, and peoples.  not every concept, far from it, used in science came from one religion is practitioners.  what are the limits of a materialistic worldview ? the science clearly makes the case that there is no link b/w vaccinations and autism, though many people chose not to accept this.  how do you feel about that ?  #  in fact, truth as an absolute does not exist as a scientific term.   #  please note that i am arguing against the view expressed in the title   my view is that while we can be taught, it is up to us to learn through our own experiences and choose whether or not to accept the said teachings, as opposed to blind faith this is, in essence, the difference between science and religion.  theories and laws in science are based on reproducible experiments this means that anyone with the right equipment should be able to reach the same results as anyone else when doing the experiment.  this, in itself, makes science un dogmatic is that even a word ? .  naturally, not everyone can complete the experiments themselves, so we trust that an experiment is good if a number of independent scientists reproduce it this is known as peer reviewing.  this introduces a  bit  of what you are talking about, as we have to trust a  higher authority  in this case a number of scientists that what they are saying is true.  however, this is a trade off that is impossible to solve, and as such must be accepted for all knowledge.  however, what i think you are talking about is how this knowledge is spread to the general public.  in  popular science  shows, you will often find that new hypothesis  or theories are presented as truths which is wrong.  these are not truths, and within the scientific community they are not considered as such.  in fact, truth as an absolute does not exist as a scientific term.  in other words, science is not dogmatic.  however, some media can present it in a dogmatic way.   #  i think many of the things science says are truth.   #  how do we know it is not a white swan that got soaked in tar ? a silly question no doubt but i am a more of a statistician than an actual scientist.  the question is meant to raise the other question of who decides whether something is silly or unreasonable ? keep in mind the existence of an omniscient and omnipotent being is reasonable to a lot of people.  do not get me wrong.  i think many of the things science says are truth.  but the more we talk about absolute truths in terms of science the harder it is to rigorously separate science and religion.   #  i feel that this is covered pretty well by how truth is defined, however.   # this is a natural problem with how observations work, and has been the cause of many false theories throughout time.  i feel that this is covered pretty well by how truth is defined, however.  all hypothesis , theories and laws are based on what we, as humans, have observed.  are these observations perhaps false/imperfect ? yes, but we never claimed they were not they are simply the best we have for now.  if contradicting observations, or a theory that explains the observations better, come along, we are more than ready to scrap our previous ideas.  in conclusion, the swan might be white but until observations happen that show it is, it is considered black in our view.  this means that we might not have a perfect view of the world but we never claim to have one.  science is an adaptive field its ultimate goal is to uncover every truth about the world we live in, and it attempts to do so through proposing ideas, testing them, and then refining or scrapping them.  unfortunately, we are limited in the sense that we can only base our theories on what we experience, and what we experience is limited by our ability to correctly observe.  there have been written many, many books around this concept, but i am afraid i do not know enough about it to have in depth discussions on the topic.  such things as  silly  or  unreasonable  generally do not exist in science.  for as long as whatever you suggest is falsifiable and testable, it is science.   #  the philosophical tradition that you are talking about was absent for a long time in europe until the persians translated the ancient greek works and made them available again, setting off a second wave of european philosophy.   #  i mostly agree.  since it is impossible to access a parallel history, we are stuck with the narrative that we have.  and that is fine.  it is just that narratives are much smoother than the processes that make up so much of them.  is the european university system a valuable thing ? yup ! but op is and the general sentiment around this matter seems more euro centric than it needs to be.  the philosophical tradition that you are talking about was absent for a long time in europe until the persians translated the ancient greek works and made them available again, setting off a second wave of european philosophy.  it is not all unbroken.  that is all.
right off, let is make it clear that  slut  here applies to men, women, and all other possible configurations.  the only thing you need to meet my definition of  slut  here is that you have a lot of sex with different partners.  although it might help to draw a distinction between purely voluntary  sluts  and the psychologically damaged sort, i do not think it is necessary to make my overall point.  here is my justification: 0.  sluts tend to have more sex, which is good not only in a physical sense, but also in a self esteem sense.  getting laid makes a person feel better about themselves, and sluts make more people feel better about themselves.  because of all this sex, they also feel better, themselves, in a raw physical sense which has some value on a utilitarian style analysis.  0.   sluts  tend not to perpetuate stringent and repressive standards of beauty, because they will have sex with a wider range of individuals.  we all know some starry eyed individual who is saving themselves for  just  the right person, where that person has to meet incredibly particular criteria.  but we could also include people who are simply very particular on physical grounds, such as people who absolutely will not date people who lack certain physical characteristics not skinny enough, not tall enough, etc.  .  we might also say that  sluts  make fewer people feel badly about their own attractiveness level, because the range of people they will have sex with is wider.  let is start with this basic stuff.  i imagine we can get to further points through discussion.   #  getting laid makes a person feel better about themselves, and sluts make more people feel better about themselves.   #  so does cake, but that does not mean bakers are more ethical than accountants.   #  as a proud slut, i disagree with a few of the points you make, and the implications of this view which i will address at the end of the post .  sluttiness is ethical if you are a comfy slut who sleeps with slutty people, or at least people who are comfortable with your sluttiness.  sluttiness is unethical if you are naturally more sexually reserved, or tend to sleep with sexually reserved people who would be uncomfortable with sluttiness.  other than that, there is no inherent connection between sluttiness and ethics, no more than there is any inherent connection between prudishness and ethics.  as with many other things, it just kind of depends.  so does cake, but that does not mean bakers are more ethical than accountants.  that is not necessarily true.  i am a slut, and i have very strict criteria about who i fuck.  there are plenty of gorgeous individuals out there, certainly enough to slut it up with while keeping well within the realm of  stringent and repressive standards of beauty .  as a matter of fact, the number of shallow sluts i know is exponentially larger than the number of sincere and authentic prudes.  but anecdotal evidence is not enough to justify a general rule on slutty standards, so i wo not attempt it.  i am interested as to where you got your information from, though.  . we also all know some starry eyed individual who has been swept off their feet by someone completely unexpected.  as with your pronouncement on sluts above, i do not think anecdotal data is enough to justify a sweeping statement on the ethics of sexual preference.  besides these points, i am a little concerned at the implications of this view.  we have come through so many centuries of being told that chastity and abstinence are inherently more healthy and ethical than promiscuity.  this has had a disastrous effect on many a well meaning slut.  we cannot expect much better by reversing the terms and pushing the same agenda.  what effect does that have on those who are naturally prudish ? on that point, at what age does natural prudishness become unethical ? if you are a reserved 0 year old, what is the effect of knowing that you had better be fucking by 0 if you want to still consider yourself to be a good person ? and if we ask people to sacrifice their natural sense of sexuality for the good of the group, what is to stop us from asking people to sacrifice their standards, their preferences, their desires, their own sense of autonomy ? does not that rather defeat your first point about spreading pleasure and self esteem ? i do not want to live in a world where anyone is told how they should fuck.  no one should face social pressure to have sex for any reason, ethical or otherwise .  i would go so far as to call that distinctly unethical.   #  there are two other points to bring up: first, if you are promiscuous, you need to be responsible about it.   #  responding to your first point, this is not universally true.  some people feel good about waiting until they find someone they wish to marry, and then having sex with just that person the rest of their life.  some people feel good not having sex at all, either because of religious reasons they find fulfilling or because they are asexual.  that is not to say having lots of sexual partners in your life is in the wrong here, only that there is not really a wrong.  it is personal preference about their lifestyle, and that should be up to the individual.  i also do not think that promiscuous people have lower standards of beauty than others.  there are people who will have sex with lots of people, but only people they hold to a rather high standard of attraction.  there are non promiscuous people who will choose to only have sex with one person in their life who society would say is not attractive.  there are two other points to bring up: first, if you are promiscuous, you need to be responsible about it.  having sex with lots of people is not inherently unethical.  spreading diseases and/or getting people/yourself pregnant because of negligence and irresponsibility is.  second, if you are in a relationship where monogamy is understood to be the rule, respect that.  if you want to sleep with other people, discuss that with your partner, and go from there.  if they are not interested in an open relationship, then decide whether you want to stay with them or pursue a different path.   #  i think guy a will have a lot more pleasure, on average.   #  but are you saying that the pleasure of waiting, saving yourself for  the one , and finally having that happen outweighs the pleasure of hundreds, if not thousands of sexual encounters not to mention the pleasure of many enjoyable emotional relationships during that time period ? i am not sure i buy it.  i think the promiscuous individual simply beats the celibate individual on sheer aggregate of pleasurable feelings.  for your other points: w/r/t standards of beauty: ah, perhaps, but then we can form gradations.  for i think the promiscuous folks with lower standards will enjoy even more pleasure than the ones with higher standards.  consider two guys of roughly average attractiveness.  guy a will bang any/every woman he can and he will like it , and guy b will only bang beautiful women, and all he can and he will like it .  i think guy a will have a lot more pleasure, on average.  but my greater point is not necessarily the pleasure these people create for themselves, but the pleasure they create for  others .  promiscuous people make more people happy where happy experiencing a lot of pleasure than very narrowly monogamous people, i think.   #  i think if we did not push monogamy so very hard, there would not be a reason to feel this way.   #  that is an interesting point.  but i would hope that a person can become better with time.  or, at minimum, that person would be equally bad in monogamy, thus they are kind of ethically zeroed out no matter which choice they make.  of course, we could say that this person can still make others feel wanted, beautiful, etc.  by having sex with them, even if it is not good sex.  also, i think the shame you are describing here is a societal thing.  i think if we did not push monogamy so very hard, there would not be a reason to feel this way.  in essence, i think it comes from having failed society is restrictive vision of the perfect sex life.   #  what i am saying is that there are non zero amounts of people that do not hold that view.   #  i did not say that most people share my view.  in fact, i do not think that most people share my view.  what i am saying is that there are non zero amounts of people that do not hold that view.  this is pretty evident because there are various common knowledge societal groups who do not hold views like this.  for example, swingers, open marriage people, hippies, and so on.
i was just reading this thread URL where everyone keep saying that morality is subjective.  i honestly think that it is not, morality is objective, everyone knows at any time what would be the most morally correct thing to do, and that the problem is doing it instead, since actually doing it would come with a price that you may not be prepared to pay, therefore saying that the moral thing to do is the opposite.  you might say that in the past century the moral compass has changed and yadda yadda, and we all know that it is simply not true.  morality never changed a bit.  what people are willing to do for morality has changed.  i expect some answers to clarify the concept of  moral , and i think it can be stated as  the most moral action is the one that causes the least possible amount of grief .   #  i expect some answers to clarify the concept of  moral , and i think it can be stated as  the most moral action is the one that causes the least possible amount of grief .   #  the problem is that this definition has not always been used as the basis for morality, and widespread acceptance of this moral standard is a fairly modern phenomenon.   # in fact, simply the existence of moral disagreements that is, disagreements about what  is  moral, not whether or not morality exists .  it might be argued that morality exists at least to the point of it being a fundamental element of human nature but to argue that there is an absolute moral standard is something else entirely.  morality never changed a bit.  but how can we say  morality never changed a bit  ? the people of the past who did things that we find objectionable and would find our everyday realities objectionable had just as much confidence in their moral systems as we do in ours, if not more.  the problem is that this definition has not always been used as the basis for morality, and widespread acceptance of this moral standard is a fairly modern phenomenon.  in many societies, past and even present, morality was an element of some divine will and a cosmic constant, and what was good was not that which did no harm, but that which was in accordance with the divine agenda.   #  i think you missed the point of his comment.   #  i think you missed the point of his comment.  when people look at /u/ablarga is hypothetical scenario, some people will say,  hey, i am pretty sure the only morally correct thing here is to give the food and water to the mother and child, potentially killing yourself, because then the mother and child will both survive for 0 days, the maximum time they can survive, and then there is the highest chance of all three of us getting rescued.   other people might say,  well, the chance of rescue within 0 days is pretty slim.  the best option is for me to take the food for myself, since then, by spanning five days, the chance that at least one of us will be rescued is maximized.   a third person may say  the only morally reasonable thing to do in such a situation is to share the food ! it would be morally wrong to take the food for myself, but at the same time it would also be morally unnecessary for me to sacrifice my own food for them.  all three of us are in the same situation, so we should divide the survival materials equally.   the point is that all three of those people will have made a moral decision, and will feel that their moral decision in this hypothetical situation is the unambiguously morally correct decision.  however, you argued that it is objective.  either you believe that there is an objectively morally correct choice out of the three and also believe that anyone who disagrees is either faulty or lying, or you believe that there is not an objective best option out of the three, and therefore morality is subjective.   #  that simply cant be true because not everybody knows everything.   #  examples of what i mean in terms of the amount of grief ? for example, say you have the classic problem where a train is going to run over a person, or you can move the tracks and make it run over another person usually it is more than one person, but let is simplify .  there is no objective way of quantifying the grief that you, both people and all the people who will grieve for whoever you choose, would experience.  again, that proves your definition wrong, not that the idea of morality is not objective, but i absolutely do challenge the idea that morality can be objective and that everyone must know the definition of morality.  that simply cant be true because not everybody knows everything.  some people can believe they are acting morally while not acting morally at all because they are acting on inaccurate information.   #  i posit that if you were raised in the late 0s/early 0s in the american south, you would have found absolutely nothing morally wrong with owning black slaves.   #  it was extremely moral to own slaves in roman times; just good clean fun, making your conquered enemies fight to the death in the colosseum.  beyond that, though, the idea that all sentient/sapient beings should be in our circle of concern is a very 0th century idea; before that your morality only applied to people within your tribe or nation.  so, either humans are not moral agents to the extent that they can only guess at the true laws of this objective morality, or morality actually does shift with the time and our understanding.  i posit that if you were raised in the late 0s/early 0s in the american south, you would have found absolutely nothing morally wrong with owning black slaves.  you also may not have found anything morally wrong with whipping them for misbehaving.  our morality is a product of our environment, and the world we live in.  that world has changed over the years, and so have its morals around it.   #  if a preacher started saying things about a god that were completely amoral like kill your own children it is not like killing children just becomes the moral thing to do.   # well, nobody can prove either, but my bet is that it was  convenience  that made them do those things, not morality.  a lot of  prophets  said words that have been taken as  moral .   treat the next person as if it was you  i think is a sentence of several thousands of years ago, and it includes the core concept of morality.  i ca not agree with this.  i can agree with the fact that they said that  good  was whatever pleased a god that followed a moral  that they already had .  if a preacher started saying things about a god that were completely amoral like kill your own children it is not like killing children just becomes the moral thing to do.  religion is a game of power, not a moral compass.
the surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.    friedrich nietzsche the intent of downvoting seems to be to filter out actual spam, actual shock imagery, actual gibberish where no sense is to be found.  in practice, downvotes are treated as a  disagree  button.  perfectly legitimate posts end up being hidden simply because they express an unpopular and unpalatable opinion.  this can be especially problematic in a big thread.  as i scroll down, i will see all of the unremarkable or inane posts usually left alone before i a serious post disagreeing with whatever circlejerk is going on in that thread.  i personally refrain from posting on certain subs such as 0x chromosomes because i will get buried in downvotes without even sparking a discussion.  i do not make a special effort to antagonize.  i type those posts in the same way i type any other post when i disagree with someone.  it is not that imaginary points even matter, but the discussion almost always gets buried.  i even dislike it when people i am disagreeing with get downvoted.  i want the discussion to evolve to a better place.  i try to write respectful replies even to views i vehemently disagree with.  when my interlocutor receives 0 downvotes, it makes me worry that he will not want to continue the discussion.  sure, it is nice to discourage destructive posts, but so many people abuse the downvote button.  it would be better if it were gone altogether.  downvoting just contributes to creating exclusive communities.  instead of 0 sides working issues out, they can just make 0 subreddits for themselves and downvote anyone who disagrees.  there is a well known bias in real life that leads people to believe that everyone else shares the views of the people in their immediate community.  the internet might be humanity is best hope for overcoming this bias.  downvoting is a step toward the bias.   #  in practice, downvotes are treated as a  disagree  button.   #  it would be more accurate to say down votes fulfill both roles.   # it would be more accurate to say down votes fulfill both roles.  generally, if you go in the catacombs of any popular threads, you will find way more gibberish than well built posts.  you would need to filter all this, meaning all posts are now more or less buried.  i am not sure this would contribute to a healthier environment.  you also seem to be assuming that people down voting would otherwise engage in meaningful discussion.  i do not think this is the case.  you also deplore the creation of smaller subs as the creation of echo chambers, but i do not think the two or necessarily equivalent.   #  sure, they were not eloquent and fully developed arguments, but they certainly were not anything close to a troll post.   # of course, it is very hard to get to the catacombs of a major thread.  i just clicked a random thread on the front page.  there are too many posts to actually get to the downvoted part.  but here are a few choice posts: URL URL URL nothing too terrible.  some are negative, but none of it so bad that these posts should be buried between a sea of untouched copycat, off topic and cliche posts.  of course, this is a type of thread where dissent is of no great consequence.  so let is try one where the stakes could be a little higher: URL URL URL URL so, basically, a comment got deeply downvoted due to people downvoting first an asking questions later.  some other comments were downvoted simply for voicing a pro corporate or anti government viewpoint.  sure, they were not eloquent and fully developed arguments, but they certainly were not anything close to a troll post.  of the downvoted comments that i did not include from this second thread, most were pro corporation or anti government.  the one actual troll/spam comment that i included is the only one in that thread is catacombs.  that is just 0 threads, but it is the typical pattern.  the only way for an opposing view to get visibility is to be in the shadow of a popular and favored view.  that is fine, but that can be accomplished by merely permitting people to upvote posts.  why should it be permitted to outright bury posts ?  #  i stand by what i said last time this was asked.   #  i stand by what i said last time this was asked.  URL   yes, you are missing something.  if you removed the downvote button, people would not read more posts.  overall it would be the same amount of posts that get noticed and same amount of posts that get ignored.  and this only really matters for the frontpage and very popular subredits, on /r/changemyview there are few enough posts that each of them gets noticed and no one gets  silenced .  if anything the most controversial posts get the most responses here.  in these cases getting downvoted actually leads to more visibility because the comment will get spotlight when sorting by controversial.  saying something controversial and getting downvoted on reddit does not cost you anything, but it allow you to know what to avoid saying in real life scenarios where reputation damage can be irreparable.   #  why would you want this repression to extend to the internet ?  # in these cases getting downvoted actually leads to more visibility because the comment will get spotlight when sorting by controversial.  this is maybe the closest to getting me to change my view.  at the very least, a post could get visibility if sorted by  controversial .  without downvotes, an interesting but unpopular comment would perhaps blend in with all the other 0 point comments.  but it is just an artifact of the downvote system.  it is not so much that the post needs to be controversial as much as there being relatively few posts that are downvoted to oblivion.  in subs where the downvoting is more aggressive, sorting by controversial wo not easily surface the unpopular, but valid counterpoint.  i wo not deny that this can be helpful though if you go in the wrong subs, it may make you  too  cautious but real life is repressive.  why would you want this repression to extend to the internet ?  #  you have to expect that if you go on to a subreddit of people you know disagree with you, you will be down voted.   # part of the problem is that not everyone is going to agree on what constitutes  actual gibberish.   one user might consider another is rational for why they believe in a god to be complete, illogical and nonsensical gibberish for example.  you are going to have downvotes used as disagree buttons as a result of this.  that does not mean down votes do not also help to down vote the other negative things you mentioned to oblivion.  also, if you wanted you could always make a subreddit with no down votes.  you have to expect that if you go on to a subreddit of people you know disagree with you, you will be down voted.
the surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.    friedrich nietzsche the intent of downvoting seems to be to filter out actual spam, actual shock imagery, actual gibberish where no sense is to be found.  in practice, downvotes are treated as a  disagree  button.  perfectly legitimate posts end up being hidden simply because they express an unpopular and unpalatable opinion.  this can be especially problematic in a big thread.  as i scroll down, i will see all of the unremarkable or inane posts usually left alone before i a serious post disagreeing with whatever circlejerk is going on in that thread.  i personally refrain from posting on certain subs such as 0x chromosomes because i will get buried in downvotes without even sparking a discussion.  i do not make a special effort to antagonize.  i type those posts in the same way i type any other post when i disagree with someone.  it is not that imaginary points even matter, but the discussion almost always gets buried.  i even dislike it when people i am disagreeing with get downvoted.  i want the discussion to evolve to a better place.  i try to write respectful replies even to views i vehemently disagree with.  when my interlocutor receives 0 downvotes, it makes me worry that he will not want to continue the discussion.  sure, it is nice to discourage destructive posts, but so many people abuse the downvote button.  it would be better if it were gone altogether.  downvoting just contributes to creating exclusive communities.  instead of 0 sides working issues out, they can just make 0 subreddits for themselves and downvote anyone who disagrees.  there is a well known bias in real life that leads people to believe that everyone else shares the views of the people in their immediate community.  the internet might be humanity is best hope for overcoming this bias.  downvoting is a step toward the bias.   #  the intent of downvoting seems to be to filter out actual spam, actual shock imagery, actual gibberish where no sense is to be found.   #  part of the problem is that not everyone is going to agree on what constitutes  actual gibberish.    # part of the problem is that not everyone is going to agree on what constitutes  actual gibberish.   one user might consider another is rational for why they believe in a god to be complete, illogical and nonsensical gibberish for example.  you are going to have downvotes used as disagree buttons as a result of this.  that does not mean down votes do not also help to down vote the other negative things you mentioned to oblivion.  also, if you wanted you could always make a subreddit with no down votes.  you have to expect that if you go on to a subreddit of people you know disagree with you, you will be down voted.   #  it would be more accurate to say down votes fulfill both roles.   # it would be more accurate to say down votes fulfill both roles.  generally, if you go in the catacombs of any popular threads, you will find way more gibberish than well built posts.  you would need to filter all this, meaning all posts are now more or less buried.  i am not sure this would contribute to a healthier environment.  you also seem to be assuming that people down voting would otherwise engage in meaningful discussion.  i do not think this is the case.  you also deplore the creation of smaller subs as the creation of echo chambers, but i do not think the two or necessarily equivalent.   #  why should it be permitted to outright bury posts ?  # of course, it is very hard to get to the catacombs of a major thread.  i just clicked a random thread on the front page.  there are too many posts to actually get to the downvoted part.  but here are a few choice posts: URL URL URL nothing too terrible.  some are negative, but none of it so bad that these posts should be buried between a sea of untouched copycat, off topic and cliche posts.  of course, this is a type of thread where dissent is of no great consequence.  so let is try one where the stakes could be a little higher: URL URL URL URL so, basically, a comment got deeply downvoted due to people downvoting first an asking questions later.  some other comments were downvoted simply for voicing a pro corporate or anti government viewpoint.  sure, they were not eloquent and fully developed arguments, but they certainly were not anything close to a troll post.  of the downvoted comments that i did not include from this second thread, most were pro corporation or anti government.  the one actual troll/spam comment that i included is the only one in that thread is catacombs.  that is just 0 threads, but it is the typical pattern.  the only way for an opposing view to get visibility is to be in the shadow of a popular and favored view.  that is fine, but that can be accomplished by merely permitting people to upvote posts.  why should it be permitted to outright bury posts ?  #  i stand by what i said last time this was asked.   #  i stand by what i said last time this was asked.  URL   yes, you are missing something.  if you removed the downvote button, people would not read more posts.  overall it would be the same amount of posts that get noticed and same amount of posts that get ignored.  and this only really matters for the frontpage and very popular subredits, on /r/changemyview there are few enough posts that each of them gets noticed and no one gets  silenced .  if anything the most controversial posts get the most responses here.  in these cases getting downvoted actually leads to more visibility because the comment will get spotlight when sorting by controversial.  saying something controversial and getting downvoted on reddit does not cost you anything, but it allow you to know what to avoid saying in real life scenarios where reputation damage can be irreparable.   #  in subs where the downvoting is more aggressive, sorting by controversial wo not easily surface the unpopular, but valid counterpoint.   # in these cases getting downvoted actually leads to more visibility because the comment will get spotlight when sorting by controversial.  this is maybe the closest to getting me to change my view.  at the very least, a post could get visibility if sorted by  controversial .  without downvotes, an interesting but unpopular comment would perhaps blend in with all the other 0 point comments.  but it is just an artifact of the downvote system.  it is not so much that the post needs to be controversial as much as there being relatively few posts that are downvoted to oblivion.  in subs where the downvoting is more aggressive, sorting by controversial wo not easily surface the unpopular, but valid counterpoint.  i wo not deny that this can be helpful though if you go in the wrong subs, it may make you  too  cautious but real life is repressive.  why would you want this repression to extend to the internet ?
if reddit was 0/0 male and female and everyone using reddit knows this i still do not think women should be as offended as men when they have their gender mistaken online ! because first off women have a much more codified gender appearance.  which is important because the edit: insult   of  being mistaken as a man for me comes from the fact that the person is mistaking me for some girl with bright pink ponytails and bright pink dress ! however if it is a women who is being mistaken as a man.  she will probably imagine that person who mistook their gender sees them as a persons who is wearing a t shirt and jeans. which is probably what they are wearing right now.  simply put being mistaken as a women aligns far less with reality then being mistaken as a women.   #  because first off women have a much more codified gender appearance.   #  is in direct contradiction with:   however if it is a women who is being mistaken as a man.   # is in direct contradiction with:   however if it is a women who is being mistaken as a man.  she will probably imagine that person who mistook their gender sees them as a persons who is wearing a t shirt and jeans. which is probably what they are wearing right now.  simply put being mistaken as a women aligns far less with reality then being mistaken as a women.  this is because  men  have the more codified gender appearance.  women can wear dresses and nail polish or an acdc t shirt and jeans and that is considered completely normal.  men cannot wear a dress without getting weird glances because our gender appearance is more codified.  women can wear pretty much anything, including their partner is shirts and boxers and not be considered strange.  you wear a pair of panties and people start calling you names and questioning your masculinity.   #  they should not assume i am female either, that is equally weird.   #  . what ? if you picture anyone you perceive as female as being  some girl  with ponytails and a pink dress, this seems like a personal problem rather than a society wide issue, because i never picture anyone i interact with online in that manner.  being annoyed i am not sure i would call it  offended  when someone assumes i am male has nothing to do with assumptions about what i look like.  it has to do with them assuming male is some kind of  default  or that everyone online is male.  they should not assume i am female either, that is equally weird.  it is mildly irritating that they ca not do what i am doing right now: gender neutral  they.   example:  i do not know whether op realizes this, but they are coming off as seriously sexist right now.   no need to assume your gender.  gender assumptions are not annoying because of mental imagery or even, necessarily, sexism, but just because they are a completely unnecessary mistake.   #  on top of that,  if me correctly identifying you are gender was so important to you, make a girly username.   #  the best way i can describe the feeling of being corrected about your gender is the same way you would feel about a pedant correcting your grammar.  and to totally be that pedant,  he  can be a gender neutral pronoun.  google it.  the fact is that i do not  care  about your gender.  you are nothing but words on a screen to me.  there is not an ounce of my being that gives a damn about the fact that you are an entire person behind that username with hopes and fears and insecurities and goals.  you could literally die before you finish reading this sentence and my life would be absolutely unchanged.  so that sounds harsh, but what i am saying is that you the person do not factor into what i regard as important about you ie.  what you post and comment that i happen to read .  on top of that,  if me correctly identifying you are gender was so important to you, make a girly username.  you can even do it without being insufferable, unlike what steam users might try and get you to believe.  you correcting my pronoun selection completely derails whatever conversation or point that was trying to be had.  so when i say  yeah, op.  he is right.   and you reply   she , this is where my mind goes.  URL it is the equivalent of you replying   your  to  this  comment.  did you catch that intentional grammatical mistake ?  #  there is not an ounce of my being that gives a damn about the fact that you are an entire person behind that username with hopes and fears and insecurities and goals.   # it is needlessly pedantic.  i will only do it if people on the thread are speculating about my gender for some reason or it is relevant as it is here .  if you said  yeah op, he is right,  i would not reply  she because there is no need.  this is not really the point of this cmv, though.  the cmv is that it is somehow worse to be misgendered if you are male.  which actually your point is arguing against; it is really no big deal to be misgendered at all online, on sites like reddit .  i feel the tiniest prickle of irritation, similar to the way i feel when someone makes a factual error in reading my posts that does not need correcting thinking i am a couple years older or younger than i am, etc.  .  maybe a little more than that, but not much.  op seems far more butthurt about it, so i really think you should take that up with him.  you are nothing but words on a screen to me.  there is not an ounce of my being that gives a damn about the fact that you are an entire person behind that username with hopes and fears and insecurities and goals.  i do not think you are wrong to think this.  i do not think this myself, but you are not wrong.  your interpretation of how to read my comments is correct.  my interpretation that people is backgrounds affect how they speak and the views they hold and it is worth seeking out and trying to understand as much of that as possible is also correct.  it is not.  if it were, i might.  not sure it would actually help much.  i rarely pay attention to usernames.   #  it is mildly irritating that they ca not do what i am doing right now: gender neutral  they.    # it has to do with them assuming male is some kind of  default  or that everyone online is male.  they should not assume i am female either, that is equally weird.  it is mildly irritating that they ca not do what i am doing right now: gender neutral  they.   one of more of these sentences perhaps has some missing words or something.  anyways it sounds like you are male but your offended that people think that your male.  ? if a mistake simply is unnecessary that is not a guarantee that i will care about it.  for instance i do not care if my people respond to my comments with grammatical errors.  if have a clear i idea of what they are trying to say i typically wo not bring it up.  we have terms for people who obess over this like shit grammar nazi.
the idea is not to infringe on anyone is right to express themselves.  if someone wants to have and film adult consenting adults having sex then they are free to do this.  instead remove money from the industry to ensure those who do not want to engaged in such behavior do not find themselves with no alternative.  in other words, remove the incentive for the creation of such content.  this idea could be extended to other gray areas where we value freedom but we do not want to incentivize the behavior.  perhaps limit the profits casinos can make.  limit the profits prisons can make from prisoners.  basically remove the incentives that encoruage taking advantage of people  #  to ensure those who do not want to engaged in such behavior do not find themselves with no alternative.   #  it is not porn is fault they have no alternative.   # it is not porn is fault they have no alternative.  whatever caused their troubles, they would still be in a bad spot with or without porn is existence.  you do not want them to get to make that choice for themselves.  we  are not incentivizing anything.  individuals are incentivizing these industries based on their own desires.  i do not care if people go to casinos or do porn.  that is their business.  if it is all between consenting adults there is no legal reason to stop them.  to borrow a quote from george carlin, why is it illegal to sell something that is legal to give away ?  #  because it is not for you or me or anyone else to tell someone what to do with their own life, their own body, and their own money.   #  how is  child  labor letting adults do whatever they want ? we let or we should let adults do whatever they want with their own freedom, so long as they are not hurting anyone else or taking away  their  freedom.  which means if someone wants to pay someone else to watch them in a porno, then we let them.  if someone wants to bet their mortgage on a horse race, we let them.  because it is not for you or me or anyone else to tell someone what to do with their own life, their own body, and their own money.   #  so for porn, i do not want the industry to take advantage of girls in poverty.   #  i fell like no one is reading my words.  i am not saying take porn away or gambling.  i am arguing for tighter regulations.  as you say, laws exist to prevent harm.  i think the people here are just fond of their porn.  let me change it to churches.  they are not for profit but pastors still get rich.  i view this as taking advantage of the people and there should be laws against this.  so for porn, i do not want the industry to take advantage of girls in poverty.  if they freely choose that business then great.  just argue against what i am actually arguing for.  not a straw man.   #   an adult should be allowed to employ children if the adult so wishes.    #  what if the dangerous gambler in your story has dependants ? suppose he has a young teenager and a nine year old.  clearly severe debt and poverty would be damaging to other people his dependent children .  should he still be able to bet the mortgage on a horse race ? the child worker thing came from the comment that you were replying to.  i thought it was strange that you replied to a comment about child labor by saying that adults should be able to do whatever they want.  i. e.   an adult should be allowed to employ children if the adult so wishes.    #  suppose he has a young teenager and a nine year old.   # suppose he has a young teenager and a nine year old.  clearly severe debt and poverty would be damaging to other people his dependent children .  someone is already bound to provide for their children.  if they fail to do that, then how they got into that position is irrelevant, whether it was gambling or just foolishly spending their rent money on a new truck.  we will prosecute them for neglect of their dependents.  but we do not make the purchase of new cars illegal simply because  some  of the people doing it are not being responsible with their money.  and that is the spirit of my position.  you do not ban responsible people from doing something simply because  some  people are not responsible with it.  you could extend that logic to forbid basically anything.  instead, you put laws in place to address the things that you are actually targeting.  gambling is not the problem in your scenario.  it is someone being irresponsible with their money and failing to provide for their family.  so that is what you go after, not just a blanket law that keeps completely responsible people from having a good time and doing what they want with their spare money.
i would like to preface this by saying i am not a car guy, so it is entirely possible i am overlooking something major, but given how fast cars depreciate in value, buying a new one seems like a really dumb move to me.  whatever features you are looking for in a car, you can get better features for the same or a lower price in a used car.  like, say you have $0,0 to spend on a car.  you could get a nice new toyota, or you could get a fully loaded lexus that is less than a year old and has features that are superior in every measurable way to the new toyota.  seems like a no brainer to me which one i would buy.  so basically, aside from people for whom money is truly no object and i suppose people with pathological fears of sitting where others have sat, i just ca not imagine any good reason for the average joe with a limited budget and no debilitating phobias to buy a new car.   #  i just ca not imagine any good reason for the average joe with a limited budget and no debilitating phobias to buy a new car.   #  i happen to really like the lines and look of the new model.   # i happen to really like the lines and look of the new model.  i happen to prefer the paint color of the new model over what is available for older years.  i happen to simply want a new car because i am in a position where i can choose to buy one and have never done so before.  i love the new car smell and want to spend my money on acquiring one.  there are plenty of reasons good enough to motivate human behavior that have nothing to do with economics and everything to do with preference.  but we spend money to satisfy our preferences all the time.  that you do not have the same preferences as someone else does not make their preferences wrong, it just makes them not yours.  i am sure there are economically sub optimal choices you make around purchases where you have strong preferences.  if not, you are unique among human beings.   #  we all want a cheap, lightweight, rear wheel drive sports car.   #  if no one buys new cars, there will be no used cars on the market.  this is a phenomenon known to young, non rich people who are car nuts.  we all want a cheap, lightweight, rear wheel drive sports car.  but manufacturers hardly make any of those because there is hardly any demand for new cars.  then the ones that are actually available like the miata are smaller, less powerful, and more expensive than like a camry because there is a lower production volume.  this would affect the car market as a whole if everyone only wanted to buy used.  plus, maybe not as much with lexus, but with just about every other  better car , even if it is cheap used, maintenance costs are still very expensive for the average person.  a 0 year old loaded mercedes will still cost much more to keep on the road than a regular family car.   #  you just have to hope you do not need anything fixed on it and it is pretty inexpensive.   #  it is totally that way with a lexus.  those things are built in such a weird way, and most people who can fix them specialize in it.  they really are nothing like any other car on the road in their engineering.  because of that, the mechanics that fix them are expensive and limited and often the only option you might have is a lexus dealership which will  way  overcharge.  you just have to hope you do not need anything fixed on it and it is pretty inexpensive.   #  this trend is the same across the board with a few exceptions: chinese cars, since the rate of lemons is kind of high, tend to have a much lower resale value.   #  depends on the country, also.  where i live, the cheapest chinese models cost about 0 0 grand, korean, american and japanese subcompact city cars go for about 0 0 grand, and more compact cars go for 0 0k.  now, if a new car costs you 0k, like a small toyota, after 0 years and 0,0 m, that car costs about 0 0k, or about 0 0 of it is value.  toyotas in particular do not depreciate much because of their good reputation, but that is still a lot of money for something that is not  new  anymore, and may have underlying problems and will face maintenance sooner.  this trend is the same across the board with a few exceptions: chinese cars, since the rate of lemons is kind of high, tend to have a much lower resale value.  you basically buy a chinese car for keeps.  it also depends on the situation, my wife and i are specifically looking for a new car, since her car is 0 years old, we figure it would be a good idea to alternate buying a new car every 0 years, and buying a seminew car always raises questions.  why was that car bought in 0 sold in 0, when the ink was still dry on the auto loan ? is it really worth risking 0k to save 0 0k on a car ? again, this is probably a bigger concern depending on the culture and affluence.   #  in such situations, i would say it is worth paying the premium to reduce to chances of my car not starting in the morning.   #  i need my car for work.  yeah, most people do, but what if their car breaks down ? they can probably still take public transit or bike or walk.  so having a used car that is more likely to break down or just not start up one morning is not such a big deal.  they wo not lose their job over it.  they have alternatives.  but depending on your job and where you live/work, this may not be available to you these alternatives may not be possible.  what if your commute is longer, and no other method of transportation is available ? what if you need to get to work at a very specific time, and your employer does not tolerate lateness.  or what if you are self employed and being 0 minutes late means you get no pay that day/week because you will lose your contract ? in such situations, i would say it is worth paying the premium to reduce to chances of my car not starting in the morning.  or for the same cost, i would still rather drive a brand new honda that pretty much guarantees i will get to work on time, than a much fancier and more luxurious but used bmw or mercedes that has problems 0 0 times a year.
i believe that when considering the near or far future, there are only one possibility that is worth considering, and would be so transformative that worrying about anything else pales in comparison.  that is the creation of artificial general intelligence or artificial strong intelligence, whatever you want to call it.  first, you have to contend with the issue of whether or not you believe human or greater than level intelligence can even be created.  which i think most people would agree that it is possible, or at least there is nothing fundamental about intelligence that requires it to exist only in humans, or a biological substrate as opposed to some other.  now, if you do accept that agi is possible, you must then consider when you think it may be created and whether you or your direct descendants will be affected, if it happens 0,0 years from now, no one alive today would or really should care in the slightest.  the issue is that unless you are directly involved in the field itself, coming up with a realistic timetable is a difficult problem.  fortunately for us laypeople myself included , a survey was conducted at a conference of ai experts a few years ago, and concluded that the median optimistic year 0 likelihood for agi was 0, the median realistic year 0 likelihood was 0, and the median pessimistic year 0 likelihood was 0.  now you are free to disagree with their predictions, but you would better have damn good cause to do so and be takes seriously by other people.  all of this taken together has forced me to the realization that there can be no useful forecasting of the near or long term future without considering the impact agi could have on it.  but further to this, no one can even make a solid guess as to what might happen if one is created ! there is speculation, some good and some bad, but ultimately this event, the singularity, has an apt name for a reason, we have no prior history or examples from which to learn from ! and then, to top it all off, an agi would likely quickly surpass human intelligence if given the resources, not to mention it may think in such a way that humans could not even follow its logic or reasoning.  tl;dr: so all of this is to say, if you believe agi is possible, and if you believe that it could come into existence in the nearish future, there is no way to make any easy generalizations about what the future might be like.  we have no idea what is coming, and too many people are not factoring in the disruption an agi could cause, whether for good or ill.  essentially, not enough people are taking this possibility seriously enough, and we are making plans about the future that are affecting people today without taking into account the most profound event in human history.   #  but further to this, no one can even make a solid guess as to what might happen if one is created !  #  so what do we do about it !  #  well, i feel like others are saying somewhat similar things, but i will echo that its not really clear what you are asking for here, except vague notions of  taking these things seriously .  i certainly think they are worth taking seriously, but its not really clear what your issue is, and what we should be doing that we are not.  anyway, to get more specifics:   now you are free to disagree with their predictions, but you would better have damn good cause to do so and be takes seriously by other people.  well, i would challenge that  experts in the field  are necessarily reliable indicators of this sort of estimates.  i mean, if you take pretty much any software project, engineers are almost  always  overly optimistic.  there are whole books about how to improve software estimation, and the problem being addressed here is almost certainly not  the engineers keep finishing early .  its not exactly the same situation, but all i am saying is that if you get a bunch of ai nerds in a room and take a poll about when agi will happen, i think its reasonable to have some skepticism.  so what do we do about it ! ? ! you are basically asserting and i am not disputing it that sometime in the future, but we are not sure when, something will happen whose impact is totally unpredictable, and we do not even know if it will be good or bad.  i mean, yeah, sure, we are not preparing for it.  but what should we be doing ? what does  taking the problem seriously  actually mean ? i also kind of challenge the notion that we are doing nothing at all.  self driving cars are happening.  they are driving around california right now.  there are hard challenges associated with this, but this work is literally happening as we speak.  what specifically do you think we are not doing here ? and other problems do not necessarily just go away once we have agi.  global warming is still a problem, even if its a longer term one.  and its a problem that is better understood than agi.  so why should not we be investing in clean energy and trying to reduce carbon emissions ? a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, so to speak.  even if there are other scary problems that we do not understand and do not have solutions for, if there are  other l problems that we  do  know how to solve, lets solve them.  if you have any concrete recommendations for what we should be doing, that could make for a really interesting discussion.  but  we should take these things more seriously  is so lacking in clarity and precision that it seems almost meaningless.   #  machine intelligence  usurping  humans is extremely alarmist we do not even understand very well what it means to be a  general  intelligence on a human scale right now in computational terms, let alone what the social implications are.   #  again, even the experts ca not do anything right now.  scientific developments do not burst forth from nothing we will see incremental progress to full, generalized ai as we chip away at the problems.  machine intelligence  usurping  humans is extremely alarmist we do not even understand very well what it means to be a  general  intelligence on a human scale right now in computational terms, let alone what the social implications are.  the strongest statement any ai expert will make is that we need to  be aware  that this could be an issue.  they have pretty much zero policy suggestions because there is nothing to suggest right now.   #  forget any sci fi tropes you might have seen, forget  skynet  becoming self aware these things just do not happen.   #  these are entirely separate issues.  a self driving car is not going to pose any fundamentally different challenges.  all we need to do in this case is research how to make them safe, which is no different than researching how to make any other piece of software safe.  forget any sci fi tropes you might have seen, forget  skynet  becoming self aware these things just do not happen.  we already have specific applications of artificial intelligence in daily life, and they do not pose any categorically different challenges new technology has not posed before.  the mind is not an all or nothing technology.  as we learn more about the brain and computing, we increasingly break cognitive functions down into small, manageable chunks.  there will never be a point where we just have a human like intelligence it will have been intentionally created for some purpose.  when we can do that is the appropriate time to think about if we should.   #  and that future  also  needs to have functional immortality, morphological freedom, space exploration, etc.   #  while i completely agree that agi deserves a lot more attention than it is currently getting, i do not quite agree that it is a necessary part of the only possible future worth considering.  conservative but realistic predictions put agi at around 0 years from now.  in the meantime, all sort of dangerous but promising technologies could come up self replicating nano tech for example which could prevent us from ever reaching a point where we can create an agi because we are already extinct .  there is also a small but real chance that agi is just not possible.  i do not think it is likely, but we should strive to create the best possible future, agi or not.  while i think the amount of people working on  friendly ai  could stand going up, i also think that we need more people working on, for example, fighting aging.  there is also the thing about us not being able to predict what will happen after we boot up an agi.   the singularity  literally means that we ca not predict what will happen after it all gets started.  this also means that outside of trying to make sure that whatever agi we create is  friendly,  we should plan for a future without it.  and that future  also  needs to have functional immortality, morphological freedom, space exploration, etc.   #  as you say, agi probably wo not spring from ground out of nothing although i guess there is a very small chance of that happening .   #  we need to focus on many possible future outcomes.  there is no point in trying to beeline for artificial general intelligence if we end up dying to climate change, a stray meteorite, self replicating nano machines, etc.  this is not a game of civilization where you are guaranteed the end game unless you fuck up too bad.  agi is a very big challenge.  an important one.  it is not the only one and not necessarily the most urgent one  at this moment.  as you say, agi probably wo not spring from ground out of nothing although i guess there is a very small chance of that happening .  when weak ai gets stronger and stronger, more people will work on the value alignment problem e. g.  friendly ai .
i generally drink craft beers now that i am past college and do not need to buy a 0 pack for $0.  however, i am not above drinking a bud light, pbr, or miller if my options are limited.  i found that the everyday bud light drinker scuffs at the idea of nice cold natty light, which i find odd.  natty is 0 calories vs bud lights 0 of low abv tasteless beer, which is exactly what every other american  pilsner  sets out to do but natty does it cheaper.  most blind taste people on youtube prove that people cant tell the difference between bud, miller, natty or coors.  so why pay the higher price for a beer that is a bit heavier ? but it is impossible to separate the two.   #  most blind taste people on youtube prove that people cant tell the difference between bud, miller, natty or coors.   #  most blindfolded people ca not tell the difference between being hit in the head with: a baseball bat, a tire iron, a golf club, or a 0x0.   # most blindfolded people ca not tell the difference between being hit in the head with: a baseball bat, a tire iron, a golf club, or a 0x0.  that being said why stop at natty light ? i feel that milwaukee is beast and icehouse could easily challenge destroy natty lights flavor.  sure all three are underrated but people who drink bud light do not drink it because they have tastebuds they drink it because it is advertised well.  as the best representation of cheap beer pbr, milwaukee is be a st, , ice house, old style, etc.  all have the same or superior flavor, are around the same price, and are advertised better.  they have better appearance and brand value.  at the end of the day is not that what being american is all about, form before function ?  #  why do people buy more expensive vodka if they ca not tell the difference in a blind taste test ?  #  your title and the body of your post do not jive.  you say nothing about how natty light is misunderstood or about how it is the best representation of the cheap american lager.  all you do say is that it tastes the same as other light beers and is cheaper, so you do not understand why people scoff at drinking it.  it is all about marketing, and i do not really see anything too unique with natty.  id  say busch has a similar stigma that it is  lower class  than budweiser.  people buy more expensive things all the time when they could instead purchase a cheaper alternative that tastes/acts the same.  why do people buy name brand soap instead of store brand ? why do people buy more expensive vodka if they ca not tell the difference in a blind taste test ? i really do not see anything unique with natty light.   #  milwaukee is best is the cheaper version of miller.   #  right.  and keystone is a cheaper version of coors.  milwaukee is best is the cheaper version of miller.  busch and natty are the cheaper version of budweiser.  there is nothing unique about natty that makes it a better representation of american lagers than the ones i just mentioned or plenty of other beers, too.  why does the cheapest beer need to be the one that best represents american lagers ? assuming it is the cheapest available option.  also, lots of people buy things just because of the brand name.  beer is no different.  i do not quite understand what the big deal is if someone wants to spend an extra $. 0 cents per beer.   #  i am also a bit of a beer snob and i do not drink that often so when i do i want my beer to be worth the calories.   #  natty light is owned by inbev so it is not surpirsing that people do not know the difference between it and other light beers.  personally, i try not to drink any light beer unless i am offered one and there is no other choice.  i am a large man 0 0 and it is very tough for me to get buzzed or drunk off any light beer.  i am also a bit of a beer snob and i do not drink that often so when i do i want my beer to be worth the calories.  to me, talking about representations of cheap american lagers is the same as talking about the most artisanal fast food hamburger.   #  appearance: very pale straw to pale yellow color.   #  i was going to point out that representations of beer styles do not necessarily refer to the best recepted in a blind taste test but i kind of lost interest.  you seem to think that the best representation of an american lager is meant to be the most abv for the least calories which is ridiculous.  first off, budweiser select and bud ice both have more abv compared to calories so if that is your only qualification you are wrong anyway.  if you are sole purpose is to get drunk or buzzed while trying to limit calories you should be drinking hard liquor.  furthermore, even though it seems pretentious, i will go ahead and list the specifications on what is a good representation of a light lager according to the who are in charge of classifying beers.  lite american lager aroma: little to no malt aroma, although it can be grainy, sweet or corn like if present.  hop aroma may range from none to a light, spicy or floral hop presence.  low levels of yeast character green apples, dms, or fruitiness are optional but acceptable.  no diacetyl.  appearance: very pale straw to pale yellow color.  white, frothy head seldom persists.  very clear.  flavor: crisp and dry flavor with some low levels of grainy or corn like sweetness.  hop flavor ranges from none to low levels.  hop bitterness at low level.  balance may vary from slightly malty to slightly bitter, but is relatively close to even.  high levels of carbonation may provide a slight acidity or dry  sting.   no diacetyl.  no fruitiness.  mouthfeel: very light body from use of a high percentage of adjuncts such as rice or corn.  very highly carbonated with slight carbonic bite on the tongue.  may seem watery.  overall impression: very refreshing and thirst quenching.  comments: a lower gravity and lower calorie beer than standard international lagers.  strong flavors are a fault.  designed to appeal to the broadest range of the general public as possible.  ingredients: two or six row barley with high percentage up to 0 of rice or corn as adjuncts.  vital statistics:	og: 0   0 ibus: 0   0	fg: 0   0 srm: 0   0	abv: 0   0 commercial examples: bitburger light, sam adams light, heineken premium light, miller lite, bud light, coors light, baltika 0 light, old milwaukee light, amstel light
i believe that a private business should be able to deny service to anyone for any reason.  for example, if a white owned business wanted to deny service to all minorities, then they should be able to.  as a private citizen, i can choose who i give my business to.  if i am a racist, i can choose to only give my business to my race.  if i personally want to give money to the homeless, i can choose to give it to one race/orientation/etc.  or another.  why ca not a private business make the same decision ? the free market place should solve this problem because people would see a need to service those that are refused service and then start a competing business.   #  why ca not a private business make the same decision ?  #  because, when we talk about businesses, we are usually talking about conglomerates that have formally incorporated in one way or the other.   # because, when we talk about businesses, we are usually talking about conglomerates that have formally incorporated in one way or the other.  incorporation is a creature of statute; it is created by the government.  it is more reasonable for the government to attach strings on the benefits associated with incorporation than it is to you as an individual because they are giving the business some fancy treatment.  the government has not bestowed any peculiar status to you, personally.  it has bestowed a status upon most businesses, who are insulated from traditional personal liability, can choose from a myriad of different tax schemes, enter contracts as a business, and so on.   #  protections like firefighters and police, and services like roads, distribution channels, domestic protection, etc etc.   #  this gets posted a lot.  a private business is not a private citizen.  you are getting all sorts of sanctioned protections and services from the government.  protections like firefighters and police, and services like roads, distribution channels, domestic protection, etc etc.  all of these services mean that you have to enter into a general contract with the federal, state, and local governments.  part of this contract is an agreement to provide equal services to all citizens.  a business ca not get all the benefits of doing business in america and then just be an asshole to certain groups for no reason.  if they really want a totally  free  market, they can open up in somalia and provide all their own services, and then discriminate against whichever customers they want.   #  but i do not believe that makes the benefits for the business and i just get to enjoy them.   #  of course i do not use certain benefits on the same scale as a business.  but i do not believe that makes the benefits for the business and i just get to enjoy them.  let is say firefighters and police, since you mentioned them.  i do not believe having firefighters and police is for the good of businesses, and they just help citizens to be nice.  i believe having firefighters and police is for the good of citizens, some of which are business owners.   #  let is say, for instance, there are two countries.   #  i think you are getting too bogged down on shared benefits.  let is say, for instance, there are two countries.  one country is a homogeneous country, in racial, ethnic, and religious composition.  the other is a multiracial, multicultural country.  both countries have decided that as part of their national narrative, they have certain cultural goals, which they achieve via legislation.  the first country decides that they want to keep their country as unchanged as possible, and therefore they allow both private citizens and business owners to discriminate against potential immigrants, businesses, and ideas that run against their homogeneous culture.  as a country, they have decided that.  the second country has decided as their national narrative that they will not discriminate based on fixed attributes, and they decide that they want their country to be open and free to different ideas, cultures, races, and religions.  to this end, they need to make sure that a dominate group does not enact laws and policies that would hinder the freedom of less dominant groups.  one of the ways they do this is they force all businesses to cater to all types of customers, regardless of their ethnicity, race, religion, or other fixed characteristic.  both countries have decided on a narrative, and have enacted laws to serve that narrative.  in america, we believe that our country should be a bastion of freedom, and that the dominant group should never be able to overtly and legally dictate the terms of the non dominant groups.  obviously, our history demonstrates that we have had trouble with this basic concept, but at least now with protected classes and nd laws, we are working on it.  this is our cultural narrative, and the financial exclusion that results from sanctioned discrimination laws based on  business discretion  towards fixed characteristics runs contrary to what we, as americans, have decided is important.   #  this sentence seems to contradict itself to me.   #   in america, we believe that our country should be a bastion of freedom, and that the dominant group should never be able to overtly and legally dictate the terms of the non dominant groups.   this sentence seems to contradict itself to me.  who is the  we  in that sentence ? obviously it is not all americans, since there are those that disagree with that.  so if that is the case, it would seem like you are saying  the majority of americans believe that our country should be a bastion of freedom, etc.  .  the issue with that is now you have the majority who believes the country should be a bastion of freedom, etc.  dictating the terms to the minority those who believe the country should not be a bastion of freedom, etc.  .  but the sentence says that the majority should not be able to dictate the terms.  does that make sense ? let me be clear, i am not for discrimination.  i just do not see why the government can make it illegal for businesses.  actually i do see why now, just in a comment from another user.
i believe that a private business should be able to deny service to anyone for any reason.  for example, if a white owned business wanted to deny service to all minorities, then they should be able to.  as a private citizen, i can choose who i give my business to.  if i am a racist, i can choose to only give my business to my race.  if i personally want to give money to the homeless, i can choose to give it to one race/orientation/etc.  or another.  why ca not a private business make the same decision ? the free market place should solve this problem because people would see a need to service those that are refused service and then start a competing business.   #  why ca not a private business make the same decision ?  #  private businesses get things provided by tax payers.   # private businesses get things provided by tax payers.  they benefit from public education of their workers, infrastructure, police/fire protection, unemployment benefits, copyright/trademark protection, tax breaks, etc.  why should a tax payer be forced to fund something that discriminates against them ? historically, the free market did not solve this problem.  this is why the civil rights legislation were necessary.  the majority is not going to care about the underprivileged minority.  same sex marriage has taken a  long  time to happen, and it would not have happened in many places if not for our constitution.   #  a private business is not a private citizen.   #  this gets posted a lot.  a private business is not a private citizen.  you are getting all sorts of sanctioned protections and services from the government.  protections like firefighters and police, and services like roads, distribution channels, domestic protection, etc etc.  all of these services mean that you have to enter into a general contract with the federal, state, and local governments.  part of this contract is an agreement to provide equal services to all citizens.  a business ca not get all the benefits of doing business in america and then just be an asshole to certain groups for no reason.  if they really want a totally  free  market, they can open up in somalia and provide all their own services, and then discriminate against whichever customers they want.   #  i believe having firefighters and police is for the good of citizens, some of which are business owners.   #  of course i do not use certain benefits on the same scale as a business.  but i do not believe that makes the benefits for the business and i just get to enjoy them.  let is say firefighters and police, since you mentioned them.  i do not believe having firefighters and police is for the good of businesses, and they just help citizens to be nice.  i believe having firefighters and police is for the good of citizens, some of which are business owners.   #  both countries have decided on a narrative, and have enacted laws to serve that narrative.   #  i think you are getting too bogged down on shared benefits.  let is say, for instance, there are two countries.  one country is a homogeneous country, in racial, ethnic, and religious composition.  the other is a multiracial, multicultural country.  both countries have decided that as part of their national narrative, they have certain cultural goals, which they achieve via legislation.  the first country decides that they want to keep their country as unchanged as possible, and therefore they allow both private citizens and business owners to discriminate against potential immigrants, businesses, and ideas that run against their homogeneous culture.  as a country, they have decided that.  the second country has decided as their national narrative that they will not discriminate based on fixed attributes, and they decide that they want their country to be open and free to different ideas, cultures, races, and religions.  to this end, they need to make sure that a dominate group does not enact laws and policies that would hinder the freedom of less dominant groups.  one of the ways they do this is they force all businesses to cater to all types of customers, regardless of their ethnicity, race, religion, or other fixed characteristic.  both countries have decided on a narrative, and have enacted laws to serve that narrative.  in america, we believe that our country should be a bastion of freedom, and that the dominant group should never be able to overtly and legally dictate the terms of the non dominant groups.  obviously, our history demonstrates that we have had trouble with this basic concept, but at least now with protected classes and nd laws, we are working on it.  this is our cultural narrative, and the financial exclusion that results from sanctioned discrimination laws based on  business discretion  towards fixed characteristics runs contrary to what we, as americans, have decided is important.   #  so if that is the case, it would seem like you are saying  the majority of americans believe that our country should be a bastion of freedom, etc.  .   #   in america, we believe that our country should be a bastion of freedom, and that the dominant group should never be able to overtly and legally dictate the terms of the non dominant groups.   this sentence seems to contradict itself to me.  who is the  we  in that sentence ? obviously it is not all americans, since there are those that disagree with that.  so if that is the case, it would seem like you are saying  the majority of americans believe that our country should be a bastion of freedom, etc.  .  the issue with that is now you have the majority who believes the country should be a bastion of freedom, etc.  dictating the terms to the minority those who believe the country should not be a bastion of freedom, etc.  .  but the sentence says that the majority should not be able to dictate the terms.  does that make sense ? let me be clear, i am not for discrimination.  i just do not see why the government can make it illegal for businesses.  actually i do see why now, just in a comment from another user.
i believe that a private business should be able to deny service to anyone for any reason.  for example, if a white owned business wanted to deny service to all minorities, then they should be able to.  as a private citizen, i can choose who i give my business to.  if i am a racist, i can choose to only give my business to my race.  if i personally want to give money to the homeless, i can choose to give it to one race/orientation/etc.  or another.  why ca not a private business make the same decision ? the free market place should solve this problem because people would see a need to service those that are refused service and then start a competing business.   #  the free market place should solve this problem because people would see a need to service those that are refused service and then start a competing business.   #  historically, the free market did not solve this problem.   # private businesses get things provided by tax payers.  they benefit from public education of their workers, infrastructure, police/fire protection, unemployment benefits, copyright/trademark protection, tax breaks, etc.  why should a tax payer be forced to fund something that discriminates against them ? historically, the free market did not solve this problem.  this is why the civil rights legislation were necessary.  the majority is not going to care about the underprivileged minority.  same sex marriage has taken a  long  time to happen, and it would not have happened in many places if not for our constitution.   #  part of this contract is an agreement to provide equal services to all citizens.   #  this gets posted a lot.  a private business is not a private citizen.  you are getting all sorts of sanctioned protections and services from the government.  protections like firefighters and police, and services like roads, distribution channels, domestic protection, etc etc.  all of these services mean that you have to enter into a general contract with the federal, state, and local governments.  part of this contract is an agreement to provide equal services to all citizens.  a business ca not get all the benefits of doing business in america and then just be an asshole to certain groups for no reason.  if they really want a totally  free  market, they can open up in somalia and provide all their own services, and then discriminate against whichever customers they want.   #  let is say firefighters and police, since you mentioned them.   #  of course i do not use certain benefits on the same scale as a business.  but i do not believe that makes the benefits for the business and i just get to enjoy them.  let is say firefighters and police, since you mentioned them.  i do not believe having firefighters and police is for the good of businesses, and they just help citizens to be nice.  i believe having firefighters and police is for the good of citizens, some of which are business owners.   #  one country is a homogeneous country, in racial, ethnic, and religious composition.   #  i think you are getting too bogged down on shared benefits.  let is say, for instance, there are two countries.  one country is a homogeneous country, in racial, ethnic, and religious composition.  the other is a multiracial, multicultural country.  both countries have decided that as part of their national narrative, they have certain cultural goals, which they achieve via legislation.  the first country decides that they want to keep their country as unchanged as possible, and therefore they allow both private citizens and business owners to discriminate against potential immigrants, businesses, and ideas that run against their homogeneous culture.  as a country, they have decided that.  the second country has decided as their national narrative that they will not discriminate based on fixed attributes, and they decide that they want their country to be open and free to different ideas, cultures, races, and religions.  to this end, they need to make sure that a dominate group does not enact laws and policies that would hinder the freedom of less dominant groups.  one of the ways they do this is they force all businesses to cater to all types of customers, regardless of their ethnicity, race, religion, or other fixed characteristic.  both countries have decided on a narrative, and have enacted laws to serve that narrative.  in america, we believe that our country should be a bastion of freedom, and that the dominant group should never be able to overtly and legally dictate the terms of the non dominant groups.  obviously, our history demonstrates that we have had trouble with this basic concept, but at least now with protected classes and nd laws, we are working on it.  this is our cultural narrative, and the financial exclusion that results from sanctioned discrimination laws based on  business discretion  towards fixed characteristics runs contrary to what we, as americans, have decided is important.   #  i just do not see why the government can make it illegal for businesses.   #   in america, we believe that our country should be a bastion of freedom, and that the dominant group should never be able to overtly and legally dictate the terms of the non dominant groups.   this sentence seems to contradict itself to me.  who is the  we  in that sentence ? obviously it is not all americans, since there are those that disagree with that.  so if that is the case, it would seem like you are saying  the majority of americans believe that our country should be a bastion of freedom, etc.  .  the issue with that is now you have the majority who believes the country should be a bastion of freedom, etc.  dictating the terms to the minority those who believe the country should not be a bastion of freedom, etc.  .  but the sentence says that the majority should not be able to dictate the terms.  does that make sense ? let me be clear, i am not for discrimination.  i just do not see why the government can make it illegal for businesses.  actually i do see why now, just in a comment from another user.
the winning drawing in the draw mohammad contest in garland, texas was a picture of mohammad saying  you ca not draw me.   with a reply from the artist,  that is why i draw you.   that tells me that many people draw mohammad for just that reason, because someone tells them they ca not.  the fact that this was voted best, shows that this is at least not a minority view in why people draw mohammad or support the drawing of mohammad.  so a group of people is telling others what they do not want them to do in this case, and they respond by doing it.  would not saying  nigger  because people tell them not to, be the same thing ? in both cases something is trying to be censored by a group of people who find it offensive.  in both cases people are threatened with violence.  for example, i have been playing video games when a white person said  nigger  and a black person then said that if they knew where they lived they would shoot them.  i also do not think many people would find it to far fetched for a white person to get beat up for walking down the street in harlem and yelling  nigger to no one in particular.  or imagine if the held a draw  nigger stereotypes day  in downtown baltimore.  i am certain that would provoke violence.  i posit that people who draw mohammad should also by the same token hold a draw or say nigger day.  furthermore, there are other drawing that are actually prohibited by law like obscene realistic drawings featuring minors.  should they not have a draw obscene realistic minors  day ? it does follow their logic:  draw it because you ca not  legally in this case .  drawing such stuff also seems equivalent to draw mohammad to me.  i do not want to go into arguments about whether drawing mohammad/saying nigger is right or wrong, just if they are equivalent.   #  that tells me that many people draw mohammad for just that reason, because someone tells them they ca not.   #  they do not draw mohammed just because someone tells them they ca not.   #  you use the word  we  as if every person who is drawn an offensive cartoon of mohammed has been an american citizen and has supported the wars the u. s.  has been involved in over the last couple decades.  you can be opposed to u. s.  oppression abroad and extremist oppression at home at the same time.  accusing every member of the u. s.  of the crimes that their government has committed is similar to accusing all of islam for the crimes that their extremists have committed.  sure, they  elected  the officials that have caused this i use the quotes to signify that fact that they are not much of a democracy in the first place , but there is a reason there is broad opposition to the wars, support for bringing the troops home, and disapproval of the bush administration and their police actions across the world.  saying that u. s.  citizens need to be cognizant of this relationship and avoid insulting their religion by drawing their prophet is equivalent to saying muslims should be cognizant of their relationship with us and should not insult the victims of 0/0 by setting up a mosque down the road from ground zero.  both actions are, in and of themselves, harmless.  yeah, it might be insulting, but it does not cause any direct harm to either side, it is just a matter of perceived disrespect.  it is a subjective matter.  there is nothing subjective or harmless about using the word  nigger  in its intended purpose.  perpetuating the idea that black people are less than human is harmful and allows racism to continue.  drawing a cartoon of mohammed does not do anything of the sort.  it is not, by its nature, an insult to the humanity of a muslim, just an insult to their belief.  drawing it for the sake of the fact that you are told not to is not some childish form of calling a black person a nigger because they ask you not to.  it is an act of rebellion against the oppression that some men have enacted by inciting death threats and actually committing murder for the sake of protecting the sanctity of their prophet.  men and women have literally died solely because they drew cartoons of mohammed.  in recent memory, men and women do not often die just for posting the word  nigger  somewhere.  yeah, if you go out and insult a dangerous criminal, that might be something different, but the same thing would probably happen if you disrespected them in some other way.  when you use that word, you just get disrespected.  you get scandalized.  you do not get a massacre showing up at your door step.  the only reason the charlie hebdo massacre occurred was because they insulted the islamic religion.  they do not draw mohammed just because someone tells them they ca not.  the reason this was voted best, is because they remember the recent massacre.  they draw mohammed as an act of rebellion.  they draw mohammed because they defy the idea that you can stand for a cause you believe in with blood and death.  they draw mohammed because the sentence  you ca not draw me  is not just a sentence anymore it is a threat.   #  our self censoring in that case is by our  own  agreement that such language is, effectively, swearing.   #  you have conflated significantly different issues.  nobody has suggested that you do not have a right to call people what you like, including blacks.  it has become  socially unacceptable  because it is a word  exclusively  used to denigrate and insult their race.  this is not a case of blacks going around saying they will kill people who use the word  nigger .  were anybody to do that, you would better believe people would stand up against them and do it to stand up for their rights.  i would applaud that as well.  our self censoring in that case is by our  own  agreement that such language is, effectively, swearing.  it is the same reason we do not swear in job interviews, or put our feet on the table.  not because somebody will kill us if we do, but because we collectively agree that those are simply rude.  if somebody were to break these rules, we would simply judge them as being rude.  nobody would threaten them.  the  do not draw mohammed  rule is  not  self censorship and has nothing to do with polite company.  it is imposed by the islamists against other people, and done with a threat.  it is an attack on our rights.  furthermore, the threat has nothing to do with  for no other reason  as in your title.  the threats for drawing mohammed, and indeed the actual murders that have happened, were for drawings that had legitimate political and social commentary.  you may or many not agree with the commentary, but that is different from the  function  of the drawings.  rights die when we do not stand up for them.  it does not matter whether we would do it or not without the threat.  when somebody threatens to take away your right, if you simply acquiesce then it erodes  all  of our rights.  we have a civic duty to protect the rights of each other, even if we disagree on the content.  if you fail to protect my rights simply because it is something you do not find convenient, or do not agree with what i say, then you are shirking your responsibility and i cannot trust you.  i have no cause to protect  your  rights when i disagree with you.  it is simply a recipe for diminishing everybody is rights.  it is more a situation fitting of martin niemöller is wwii quote URL   first they came for the socialists, and i did not speak out    because i was not a socialist.  in a similar vein, if these islamists can dictate what we can draw,  and we let them , the count me next in line to dictate what everybody can and ca not do based on my beliefs.  and i wo not be alone in that line.  that is why we must stand up to them and give them the metaphorical finger.  this bears no resemblance whatsoever to the social agreement that it is rude to refer to black people as  niggers .   #  but while the reaction is occasional violence, pictures will need to continue, until such a time as the right to offensive not hate speech is understood and tolerated, just as the right to freely practice religion is.   #  i tend to agree, mostly.  in daily life, most of us do try not to be rude or make fellow humans uncomfortable.  but on the other hand, avoiding discomfort exclusively can allow a subtle kind of censorship to flourish.  if the reaction to the drawings was simply annoyance or hurt, then 0 of us would leave it be, and only the dicks would do it.  but while the reaction is occasional violence, pictures will need to continue, until such a time as the right to offensive not hate speech is understood and tolerated, just as the right to freely practice religion is.  those freedoms are deeply embedded in our culture and values, and satire is one of the tools we use to maintain those values.  the message is,  you are free to practice your religion here, but you must tolerate those who express disagreement with it.    #  you think it is ok for a comedian to be killed over a joke ?  #  so what should we do then ? just cower before them ? put our heads down and obey ? let people dictate what we can and ca not say ? you think it is ok for a comedian to be killed over a joke ? because they do.  and if we just follow their demands we are encouraging them to use violence to get their way.  we are sending the signal that we can be bullied and controlled by threats of violence.  so should we just let them push people around and scare us ? what is  your  solution ?  #  sometimes you have to really play things up to make a point.   #  i still do not think you have answered the question of,  what should we do ?   you said we should treat it like any other threat but what does that entail ? how do we send the signal that we ca not be bullied into following their demands ? i think making a point of doing exactly what they do not want us to do sends the signal that we do not follow their rules and trying to make us will only make things worse.  sometimes you have to really play things up to make a point.  moving on and pretending like nothing happened sends a much more obscure message.
the winning drawing in the draw mohammad contest in garland, texas was a picture of mohammad saying  you ca not draw me.   with a reply from the artist,  that is why i draw you.   that tells me that many people draw mohammad for just that reason, because someone tells them they ca not.  the fact that this was voted best, shows that this is at least not a minority view in why people draw mohammad or support the drawing of mohammad.  so a group of people is telling others what they do not want them to do in this case, and they respond by doing it.  would not saying  nigger  because people tell them not to, be the same thing ? in both cases something is trying to be censored by a group of people who find it offensive.  in both cases people are threatened with violence.  for example, i have been playing video games when a white person said  nigger  and a black person then said that if they knew where they lived they would shoot them.  i also do not think many people would find it to far fetched for a white person to get beat up for walking down the street in harlem and yelling  nigger to no one in particular.  or imagine if the held a draw  nigger stereotypes day  in downtown baltimore.  i am certain that would provoke violence.  i posit that people who draw mohammad should also by the same token hold a draw or say nigger day.  furthermore, there are other drawing that are actually prohibited by law like obscene realistic drawings featuring minors.  should they not have a draw obscene realistic minors  day ? it does follow their logic:  draw it because you ca not  legally in this case .  drawing such stuff also seems equivalent to draw mohammad to me.  i do not want to go into arguments about whether drawing mohammad/saying nigger is right or wrong, just if they are equivalent.   #  so a group of people is telling others what they do not want them to do in this case, and they respond by doing it.   #  would not saying  nigger  because people tell them not to, be the same thing ?  # would not saying  nigger  because people tell them not to, be the same thing ? in both cases something is trying to be censored by a group of people who find it offensive.  nothing is offensive in a vacuum if you have never heard a cuss or a slur before, you wo not  ca not  find it offensive, because you do not associate the word with anything, not even a meaning.  offense is intrinsically based on association with value judgements.  the word nigger is offensive because it is associated with a long history of harm, subjugation, debasement, oppression, and hatred.  no matter the context in which it is used, it has those associations, and that is what makes it offensive because, no matter who you are, as long as you have some basic human empathy, the actions and history associated with the word are disgusting.  a drawing of mohammad is offensive because it breaks an arbitrary rule that a certain religion holds sacred.  it is offensive  only  to those people, and it is an offense based not on some association with universally disgusting or harmful actions/history, but based merely on indignance that people, who are not a member of your religion, would choose not to kowtow to your religion is arbitrary rules.  equating the two is very similar to equating a rape survivor is severe aversion to being exposed to jokes about rape with a christian blowing a gasket any time someone takes the lord is name in vain in their presence.   #  if somebody were to break these rules, we would simply judge them as being rude.   #  you have conflated significantly different issues.  nobody has suggested that you do not have a right to call people what you like, including blacks.  it has become  socially unacceptable  because it is a word  exclusively  used to denigrate and insult their race.  this is not a case of blacks going around saying they will kill people who use the word  nigger .  were anybody to do that, you would better believe people would stand up against them and do it to stand up for their rights.  i would applaud that as well.  our self censoring in that case is by our  own  agreement that such language is, effectively, swearing.  it is the same reason we do not swear in job interviews, or put our feet on the table.  not because somebody will kill us if we do, but because we collectively agree that those are simply rude.  if somebody were to break these rules, we would simply judge them as being rude.  nobody would threaten them.  the  do not draw mohammed  rule is  not  self censorship and has nothing to do with polite company.  it is imposed by the islamists against other people, and done with a threat.  it is an attack on our rights.  furthermore, the threat has nothing to do with  for no other reason  as in your title.  the threats for drawing mohammed, and indeed the actual murders that have happened, were for drawings that had legitimate political and social commentary.  you may or many not agree with the commentary, but that is different from the  function  of the drawings.  rights die when we do not stand up for them.  it does not matter whether we would do it or not without the threat.  when somebody threatens to take away your right, if you simply acquiesce then it erodes  all  of our rights.  we have a civic duty to protect the rights of each other, even if we disagree on the content.  if you fail to protect my rights simply because it is something you do not find convenient, or do not agree with what i say, then you are shirking your responsibility and i cannot trust you.  i have no cause to protect  your  rights when i disagree with you.  it is simply a recipe for diminishing everybody is rights.  it is more a situation fitting of martin niemöller is wwii quote URL   first they came for the socialists, and i did not speak out    because i was not a socialist.  in a similar vein, if these islamists can dictate what we can draw,  and we let them , the count me next in line to dictate what everybody can and ca not do based on my beliefs.  and i wo not be alone in that line.  that is why we must stand up to them and give them the metaphorical finger.  this bears no resemblance whatsoever to the social agreement that it is rude to refer to black people as  niggers .   #  in daily life, most of us do try not to be rude or make fellow humans uncomfortable.   #  i tend to agree, mostly.  in daily life, most of us do try not to be rude or make fellow humans uncomfortable.  but on the other hand, avoiding discomfort exclusively can allow a subtle kind of censorship to flourish.  if the reaction to the drawings was simply annoyance or hurt, then 0 of us would leave it be, and only the dicks would do it.  but while the reaction is occasional violence, pictures will need to continue, until such a time as the right to offensive not hate speech is understood and tolerated, just as the right to freely practice religion is.  those freedoms are deeply embedded in our culture and values, and satire is one of the tools we use to maintain those values.  the message is,  you are free to practice your religion here, but you must tolerate those who express disagreement with it.    #  and if we just follow their demands we are encouraging them to use violence to get their way.   #  so what should we do then ? just cower before them ? put our heads down and obey ? let people dictate what we can and ca not say ? you think it is ok for a comedian to be killed over a joke ? because they do.  and if we just follow their demands we are encouraging them to use violence to get their way.  we are sending the signal that we can be bullied and controlled by threats of violence.  so should we just let them push people around and scare us ? what is  your  solution ?  #  how do we send the signal that we ca not be bullied into following their demands ?  #  i still do not think you have answered the question of,  what should we do ?   you said we should treat it like any other threat but what does that entail ? how do we send the signal that we ca not be bullied into following their demands ? i think making a point of doing exactly what they do not want us to do sends the signal that we do not follow their rules and trying to make us will only make things worse.  sometimes you have to really play things up to make a point.  moving on and pretending like nothing happened sends a much more obscure message.
the winning drawing in the draw mohammad contest in garland, texas was a picture of mohammad saying  you ca not draw me.   with a reply from the artist,  that is why i draw you.   that tells me that many people draw mohammad for just that reason, because someone tells them they ca not.  the fact that this was voted best, shows that this is at least not a minority view in why people draw mohammad or support the drawing of mohammad.  so a group of people is telling others what they do not want them to do in this case, and they respond by doing it.  would not saying  nigger  because people tell them not to, be the same thing ? in both cases something is trying to be censored by a group of people who find it offensive.  in both cases people are threatened with violence.  for example, i have been playing video games when a white person said  nigger  and a black person then said that if they knew where they lived they would shoot them.  i also do not think many people would find it to far fetched for a white person to get beat up for walking down the street in harlem and yelling  nigger to no one in particular.  or imagine if the held a draw  nigger stereotypes day  in downtown baltimore.  i am certain that would provoke violence.  i posit that people who draw mohammad should also by the same token hold a draw or say nigger day.  furthermore, there are other drawing that are actually prohibited by law like obscene realistic drawings featuring minors.  should they not have a draw obscene realistic minors  day ? it does follow their logic:  draw it because you ca not  legally in this case .  drawing such stuff also seems equivalent to draw mohammad to me.  i do not want to go into arguments about whether drawing mohammad/saying nigger is right or wrong, just if they are equivalent.   #  the winning drawing in the draw mohammad contest in garland, texas was a picture of mohammad saying  you ca not draw me.    #  with a reply from the artist,  that is why i draw you.    # with a reply from the artist,  that is why i draw you.   that tells me that many people draw mohammad for just that reason, because someone tells them they ca not.  the fact that this was voted best, shows that this is at least not a minority view in why people draw mohammad or support the drawing of mohammad.  it is not merely because someone tells them they ca not draw muhammad.  it is because that command is backed by a penalty of death.  it is not simply because of a polite request to refrain from drawing muhammad.  there are people who have committed murder due to drawings of muhammad.  drawing muhammad is a tool people use in order to dis empower murderers.  if society increases its drawings of muhammad in response to murderers, then that alters the incentive structure of someone contemplating murder over a picture of muhammad.  by committing murder they are actually causing more pictures of muhammad to be drawn and disseminated.  this is the opposite of what they want, so responding in this way removes their influence on society.  this is the meaning behind the message of the winning picture.   #  if you fail to protect my rights simply because it is something you do not find convenient, or do not agree with what i say, then you are shirking your responsibility and i cannot trust you.   #  you have conflated significantly different issues.  nobody has suggested that you do not have a right to call people what you like, including blacks.  it has become  socially unacceptable  because it is a word  exclusively  used to denigrate and insult their race.  this is not a case of blacks going around saying they will kill people who use the word  nigger .  were anybody to do that, you would better believe people would stand up against them and do it to stand up for their rights.  i would applaud that as well.  our self censoring in that case is by our  own  agreement that such language is, effectively, swearing.  it is the same reason we do not swear in job interviews, or put our feet on the table.  not because somebody will kill us if we do, but because we collectively agree that those are simply rude.  if somebody were to break these rules, we would simply judge them as being rude.  nobody would threaten them.  the  do not draw mohammed  rule is  not  self censorship and has nothing to do with polite company.  it is imposed by the islamists against other people, and done with a threat.  it is an attack on our rights.  furthermore, the threat has nothing to do with  for no other reason  as in your title.  the threats for drawing mohammed, and indeed the actual murders that have happened, were for drawings that had legitimate political and social commentary.  you may or many not agree with the commentary, but that is different from the  function  of the drawings.  rights die when we do not stand up for them.  it does not matter whether we would do it or not without the threat.  when somebody threatens to take away your right, if you simply acquiesce then it erodes  all  of our rights.  we have a civic duty to protect the rights of each other, even if we disagree on the content.  if you fail to protect my rights simply because it is something you do not find convenient, or do not agree with what i say, then you are shirking your responsibility and i cannot trust you.  i have no cause to protect  your  rights when i disagree with you.  it is simply a recipe for diminishing everybody is rights.  it is more a situation fitting of martin niemöller is wwii quote URL   first they came for the socialists, and i did not speak out    because i was not a socialist.  in a similar vein, if these islamists can dictate what we can draw,  and we let them , the count me next in line to dictate what everybody can and ca not do based on my beliefs.  and i wo not be alone in that line.  that is why we must stand up to them and give them the metaphorical finger.  this bears no resemblance whatsoever to the social agreement that it is rude to refer to black people as  niggers .   #  in daily life, most of us do try not to be rude or make fellow humans uncomfortable.   #  i tend to agree, mostly.  in daily life, most of us do try not to be rude or make fellow humans uncomfortable.  but on the other hand, avoiding discomfort exclusively can allow a subtle kind of censorship to flourish.  if the reaction to the drawings was simply annoyance or hurt, then 0 of us would leave it be, and only the dicks would do it.  but while the reaction is occasional violence, pictures will need to continue, until such a time as the right to offensive not hate speech is understood and tolerated, just as the right to freely practice religion is.  those freedoms are deeply embedded in our culture and values, and satire is one of the tools we use to maintain those values.  the message is,  you are free to practice your religion here, but you must tolerate those who express disagreement with it.    #  we are sending the signal that we can be bullied and controlled by threats of violence.   #  so what should we do then ? just cower before them ? put our heads down and obey ? let people dictate what we can and ca not say ? you think it is ok for a comedian to be killed over a joke ? because they do.  and if we just follow their demands we are encouraging them to use violence to get their way.  we are sending the signal that we can be bullied and controlled by threats of violence.  so should we just let them push people around and scare us ? what is  your  solution ?  #  sometimes you have to really play things up to make a point.   #  i still do not think you have answered the question of,  what should we do ?   you said we should treat it like any other threat but what does that entail ? how do we send the signal that we ca not be bullied into following their demands ? i think making a point of doing exactly what they do not want us to do sends the signal that we do not follow their rules and trying to make us will only make things worse.  sometimes you have to really play things up to make a point.  moving on and pretending like nothing happened sends a much more obscure message.
the winning drawing in the draw mohammad contest in garland, texas was a picture of mohammad saying  you ca not draw me.   with a reply from the artist,  that is why i draw you.   that tells me that many people draw mohammad for just that reason, because someone tells them they ca not.  the fact that this was voted best, shows that this is at least not a minority view in why people draw mohammad or support the drawing of mohammad.  so a group of people is telling others what they do not want them to do in this case, and they respond by doing it.  would not saying  nigger  because people tell them not to, be the same thing ? in both cases something is trying to be censored by a group of people who find it offensive.  in both cases people are threatened with violence.  for example, i have been playing video games when a white person said  nigger  and a black person then said that if they knew where they lived they would shoot them.  i also do not think many people would find it to far fetched for a white person to get beat up for walking down the street in harlem and yelling  nigger to no one in particular.  or imagine if the held a draw  nigger stereotypes day  in downtown baltimore.  i am certain that would provoke violence.  i posit that people who draw mohammad should also by the same token hold a draw or say nigger day.  furthermore, there are other drawing that are actually prohibited by law like obscene realistic drawings featuring minors.  should they not have a draw obscene realistic minors  day ? it does follow their logic:  draw it because you ca not  legally in this case .  drawing such stuff also seems equivalent to draw mohammad to me.  i do not want to go into arguments about whether drawing mohammad/saying nigger is right or wrong, just if they are equivalent.   #  i also do not think many people would find it to far fetched for a white person to get beat up for walking down the street in harlem and yelling  nigger to no one in particular.   #  or imagine if the held a draw  nigger stereotypes day  in downtown baltimore.   #  criticizing or making fun of an idea is not equal to calling someone a nigger.  or imagine if the held a draw  nigger stereotypes day  in downtown baltimore.  i am certain that would provoke violence.  the situation you described is not protected speech because there is no other purpose than to incite violence.  however if people were to hold a  nigger saying contest  in private it would be protected speech.  the equivalent to shouting  nigger  in a area populated by mostly black people would be to march down the street of neighborhood of mostly muslim people holding a drawing of mohammed.  that would not be protected speech as far as i understand it.   #  it is imposed by the islamists against other people, and done with a threat.   #  you have conflated significantly different issues.  nobody has suggested that you do not have a right to call people what you like, including blacks.  it has become  socially unacceptable  because it is a word  exclusively  used to denigrate and insult their race.  this is not a case of blacks going around saying they will kill people who use the word  nigger .  were anybody to do that, you would better believe people would stand up against them and do it to stand up for their rights.  i would applaud that as well.  our self censoring in that case is by our  own  agreement that such language is, effectively, swearing.  it is the same reason we do not swear in job interviews, or put our feet on the table.  not because somebody will kill us if we do, but because we collectively agree that those are simply rude.  if somebody were to break these rules, we would simply judge them as being rude.  nobody would threaten them.  the  do not draw mohammed  rule is  not  self censorship and has nothing to do with polite company.  it is imposed by the islamists against other people, and done with a threat.  it is an attack on our rights.  furthermore, the threat has nothing to do with  for no other reason  as in your title.  the threats for drawing mohammed, and indeed the actual murders that have happened, were for drawings that had legitimate political and social commentary.  you may or many not agree with the commentary, but that is different from the  function  of the drawings.  rights die when we do not stand up for them.  it does not matter whether we would do it or not without the threat.  when somebody threatens to take away your right, if you simply acquiesce then it erodes  all  of our rights.  we have a civic duty to protect the rights of each other, even if we disagree on the content.  if you fail to protect my rights simply because it is something you do not find convenient, or do not agree with what i say, then you are shirking your responsibility and i cannot trust you.  i have no cause to protect  your  rights when i disagree with you.  it is simply a recipe for diminishing everybody is rights.  it is more a situation fitting of martin niemöller is wwii quote URL   first they came for the socialists, and i did not speak out    because i was not a socialist.  in a similar vein, if these islamists can dictate what we can draw,  and we let them , the count me next in line to dictate what everybody can and ca not do based on my beliefs.  and i wo not be alone in that line.  that is why we must stand up to them and give them the metaphorical finger.  this bears no resemblance whatsoever to the social agreement that it is rude to refer to black people as  niggers .   #  but on the other hand, avoiding discomfort exclusively can allow a subtle kind of censorship to flourish.   #  i tend to agree, mostly.  in daily life, most of us do try not to be rude or make fellow humans uncomfortable.  but on the other hand, avoiding discomfort exclusively can allow a subtle kind of censorship to flourish.  if the reaction to the drawings was simply annoyance or hurt, then 0 of us would leave it be, and only the dicks would do it.  but while the reaction is occasional violence, pictures will need to continue, until such a time as the right to offensive not hate speech is understood and tolerated, just as the right to freely practice religion is.  those freedoms are deeply embedded in our culture and values, and satire is one of the tools we use to maintain those values.  the message is,  you are free to practice your religion here, but you must tolerate those who express disagreement with it.    #  you think it is ok for a comedian to be killed over a joke ?  #  so what should we do then ? just cower before them ? put our heads down and obey ? let people dictate what we can and ca not say ? you think it is ok for a comedian to be killed over a joke ? because they do.  and if we just follow their demands we are encouraging them to use violence to get their way.  we are sending the signal that we can be bullied and controlled by threats of violence.  so should we just let them push people around and scare us ? what is  your  solution ?  #  you said we should treat it like any other threat but what does that entail ?  #  i still do not think you have answered the question of,  what should we do ?   you said we should treat it like any other threat but what does that entail ? how do we send the signal that we ca not be bullied into following their demands ? i think making a point of doing exactly what they do not want us to do sends the signal that we do not follow their rules and trying to make us will only make things worse.  sometimes you have to really play things up to make a point.  moving on and pretending like nothing happened sends a much more obscure message.
there is an increasing trend in the uk of  graduation  ceremonies for children leaving infant schools and primary schools ages 0 and 0 .  a graduation was originally to signify the conferring of a certificate and to celebrate that milestone, and as such should be restricted to university courses, and at a push to cover people at the end of high school so that the people who go straight into work celebrate an end of their formal education .  i appreciate that schools and the pupils want to celebrate the end of their time at that school, but placing children in garishly coloured robes at the age of 0 only cheapens what a  graduation  stands for.   there are other ways they can celebrate a new beginning without appropriating and trampling on existing ceremonies and traditions  to give a comparison, consider how engineers in the us and canada are given an iron ring in a ceremony to symbolise their obligation.  the ring and the associated ceremony is a very personal symbol of their choices and achievements to the engineers.  now imagine how they would feel if every single infant school started copying their ceremony word for word, item for item, issuing iron rings to 0 year olds telling them it means the same.  my son is supposed to have a  graduation  in a few months, and the vast majority of the parents are planning a boycott, organising their own event in its place.  we ca not even find out where this tradition started, or why.   #  i appreciate that schools and the pupils want to celebrate the end of their time at that school, but placing children in garishly coloured robes at the age of 0 only cheapens what a  graduation  stands for.   #  in your view, what  does  a graduation stand for ?  # in your view, what  does  a graduation stand for ? graduating from primary school may not be a milestone for you, but it is for the people who are doing the graduating.  likewise, graduating from university is not a big deal to someone who has many years of postgraduate education.  should we only have graduation ceremonies for phd recipients then ? i hope you do not boycott your son is ceremony just to prove a point.  it is not about you.  it is about recognizing and celebrating  his  achievements.   #  i did not want to walk in college but parents threw a fit much like children would and i had to do it.   #  my argument is simple: graduation is simply for the parents.  seriously almost every time it is for parents to boast about their child.  from pre school to college that is pretty much all it is.  i did not want to walk in college but parents threw a fit much like children would and i had to do it.  it is already kind of cheapened to me anyhow.   #  but then again, we live in a world where the majority of us prefer instant gratification which is taught at a young age .   #  i would argue that completing any stage of education warrants a celebration, but it does seem too outlandish to dress small children in graduation clothes.  my only guess why this is happening is to show the kids that it is important to be in school and look how fancy you look when you do good ! also, some people may appreciate having pictures of their kids in grad robes at important points in their lives: aged 0, 0, then 0, then 0, whatever.  the progress looks good ! but then again, we live in a world where the majority of us prefer instant gratification which is taught at a young age .  so rewarding good behavior with awesome things at a young age may prove to be an effective motivator for people read: children to keep going through school.   #  i think that elementary school graduations serve one good function, and one bad function.   #  i think that elementary school graduations serve one good function, and one bad function.  the bad function is to congratulate students on their achievement.  because, as you argue, graduating from elementary school is not an achievement.  it is expected.  but the good function is to impress upon students the importance of school.  their parents, friends and family show up.  this says: we care about school, and you should too.  it gives them an opportunity to express pride over the students  grades.  and it generally shows children at an impressionable age that school is a central part of their life.   #  if you think it sets up a false expectation, you are wrong.   #  it makes people feel good.  if you thing there is no utility in people feeling good, you are wrong.  if you think it sets up a false expectation, you are wrong.  if a parent does not instill the value of hard work the ceremony will come off like a grand reward for a pedestrian action.  a parent is job, i contend, is to set the framework that if work is hard, it is worth it.  my kid and i go out in the yard and work.  he picked up a mess of rocks.  he busted his ass for a 0 yr old.  we had a gatorade treat after.
i believe what sets humans and animals apart is language and the associated semantic processes that is literally all there is to it.  dogs and 0 year old children are basically equivalent in intelligence/awareness.  therefore, i believe we should be able to abort/euthanize non verbal, non self aware infants with no memories or  human  thought processes.  this applies to non verbal autistics and severely mentally retarded as well.  by the language/semantic definition, they are literally sub human and should have their fate decided as such.  sure we do not want to euthanize a rabid dog, but sometimes it is just better for us to get rid of an unpredictable, non functional liability.  the way i see it, you become an independent human as soon as you are able to do things that other animals cannot.  you can argue over the specifics, but i do not see dogs, horses, nonverbal autists or brain dead vegetables building the sistine chapel or landing on the moon anytime in the future.  they will never be able to independently function in human society.   #  the way i see it, you become an independent human as soon as you are able to do things that other animals cannot.   #  this is a ridiculous and arbitrary measure.   #  there are recorded instances of people having memories of being inside of a womb.  i think you are severely underestimating the mental capacity of an infant.  this is a ridiculous and arbitrary measure.  first of all what animals are we comparing too ? an ape ? it would take a human 0 or 0 years to do something an ape could not do.  a cat ? same thing, what can a 0 year old do that a cat ca not do ? unless you mean to include 0 year olds as kill able beings.   #  i do not see non human animals doing human tasks, or even having any comprehension of them.   #  no, but is a dog is ? ad hominems do not deflect away from the reality.  i do not see non human animals doing human tasks, or even having any comprehension of them.  for example a dog or infant has no sense that the house they are living in is a constructed, artificial environment.  the concept of construction, labor, tools, raw materials, etc.  is beyond their understanding.  same thing with a bird is nest or beaver dam outside their daily experience.   #  at that age a completely healthy child would also have no conception of a constructed, artificial environment.   # i am simply applying the same standards that you have proposed in your post to you.  i believe it is a fair way to evaluate your position.  if you feel comfortable evaluating a child is future worth by these standards then surely an adult is worth can be just as accurately measured .  i have not attacked your  character  only your criteria.  if i were to attack your character, i would simply say that your position is about as well thought out as napoleon is when he decided to attack russia.  the concept of construction, labor, tools, raw materials, etc.  is beyond their understanding.  the problem here is that it does not matter what the neurological condition of the child or dog is here.  at that age a completely healthy child would also have no conception of a constructed, artificial environment.  by this standard, there would be  no  exceptions to those you would euthanize.  sadly, there are conditions where it is truly impossible for a newborn to survive, despite the best care that we have available.  but your post does not have these considerations.   #  i am talking about people with entirely no complex thought processes, that are basically at the level of a dog.   #  i am talking about people with entirely no complex thought processes, that are basically at the level of a dog.  no point in being forced to harbor a non productive liability.  but maybe euthanasia could become an option only after extensive tests come up hopeless.  dogs are actually ahead of us on this canid mothers are known to kill off runts or deformed offspring without much hesitation.  spare them a life of suffering with a painless death.   #  is there a consensus among scientists, for any non emotional reason ?  #  not necessarily just but not the worst thing in the world, either.  i do not think anybody is happy to euthanize their pets, but it is not like they even have any concept of death beyond instinctive pain.  i am not really qualified to have a professional opinion on this i am just an edgy college student for now.  are you ? is there a consensus among scientists, for any non emotional reason ? life is not sacrosanct if more people are going to suffer.  is animal life sacrosanct ? is insect life sacrosanct ? how about diseases or cancers ? it is all arbitrary.
please leave the footnote below the following line, but remember to delete this sentence by replacing it with the body of your post.  thank you ! i hate how america has so many intersections with traffic lights while europe seems to have done well with using mainly roundabouts.  while i will conceed that some of the big roundabouts like some of the ones in paris would be a lot safer if they were intersections.  i still firmly believe that roundabouts in general are better.  roundabouts are more fuel efficient since you are not waiting around for the lights to change.  roundabouts are safer for pedestrians.  i do not know how many times i have almost been hit when i am crossing the street at a traffic light intersection and a car is still allowed to go because they are still allowed to cross the street i am walking.  roundabouts have cars coming from one way and then you usually have a place in the middle where they are coming from the other way making it easier for people to cross the street safely.  they are also more cost effective since you do not have to pay to keep the lights running.  at least with the smaller roundabouts.  some of the ones i have seen in the uk also incorporate lights in their roundabouts but this is for highly congested areas alright i fell asleep and i am just reading all the comments now.  roundabouts are safer for pedestrians maybe not for the reasons i listed but /u/scottevil0 has given a resource proving that they saw a 0 drop in pedestrian accidents.  URL also my argument is assuming that both ways are used correctly so everyone can stop pointing out that north americans do not know how to use them.  i will agree that traffic lights do have merit and have their places like in places i had not considered like densely populated areas and i also did not account for how much land the roundabouts would take up when compared to an intersection.  however i still think in the long run the electricity cost would eventually over take the extra cost of the land.   #  you usually have a place in the middle where they are coming from the other way making it easier for people to cross the street safely.   #  we also have this in switzerland on bigger streets.   #  adding to other comments.  it really depends.  neither traffic lights nor roundabouts are superior in every place.  a huge strength of roundabouts is that the traffic can flow through it and you can theoretically drive 0 of the time.  but that is also a negative.  during rush hours roundabouts lose pretty much their whole efficiency because you will have a continuous flow of cars from one direction which then usually blocks the cars coming from at least one other direction maybe even two .  goes into the above.  if you come to a roundabout and there is strong traffic you will almost stand still as well.  having a red light would enable you to turn of your motor because you can see when you can drive again you can also do this in general when at a red light .  we also have this in switzerland on bigger streets.  not everywhere but from experience it probably has to do with the width of the street.  similarly you do not always have this at roundabouts.  also the point with the safety is not something i can agree.  yes of course you have assholes that run red lights or people not paying attention because they are allowed to turn right during red when you have green as a pedestrian but generally you have a safe period where you can walk without cars coming.  in switzerland we do not have the rule that you are allowed to turn right all the time and if you can turn in any direction while pedestrians have green you will have a yellow light blinking signalling that pedestrians have right of way.   #  this simply describes the fact that a tyre is life expectancy is about 0/0 that of one that operates elsewhere.   #  as someone who grew up in one of the most roundabout dense areas of the world milton keynes, uk , i feel i have a particular authority on this subject.  roundabouts are good usually but also cause some issues not presented by traffic lights, which depending on your priorities, may deminish their value.  firstly during high traffic times, if many vehicles are entering from one entrance you can find that certain entrances get severely backed up to the point where they cause further gridlock tailing behind them.  in milton keynes, many of such intersections have had to become traffic lighted roundabouts, particularly where traffic was tending to back up to motorways.  secondly there is the case of  milton keynes tyre syndrome .  this simply describes the fact that a tyre is life expectancy is about 0/0 that of one that operates elsewhere.  this is due to the fact that all roundabouts rotate the same way, causing unusual pressure on the inside edge of all tyres.  whilst it is possible to flip them all around once in a while, this does not avoid the fact that you need to change your tyres more often than you would otherwise.  this may seem petty, but whilst the roundabouts/traffic lights debate is open, extra costs to drivers could potentially be the deciding factor !  #  we call them traffic circles or sometimes rotaries, if you are from the northeast over here.   #  we call them traffic circles or sometimes rotaries, if you are from the northeast over here.  traffic circles are worse in congested areas.  without flow control into the rotary, traffic can slow down substantially in them.  this makes it hard and unpredictable to merge in as you do not have the right of way parts of the circle can starve other parts of it.  traffic circles are  far  less safe for pedestrians they have no right of way, no mechanism of crossing, and drivers do not see them as clearly given the angle.  i guess you could respond that we should just put lights on rotaries that fit that description but at that point all you have is a traditional intersection that needs way more space.   #  they do still have a significant problem with allowing pedestrians to cross.   #  just so you know, traffic circles/rotaries and roundabouts are typically considered different things.  traffic circles usually contain traffic lights, they are larger and generally higher speed, while roundabouts rely on yield signs where the people in the circle have right of way.  traffic circles are common in new york and new jersey, but are being phased out because they do just take up more space, like you mentioned.  and, with higher traffic flow than they were designed for, actually cause more accidents than they prevent since traffic can change lanes within the traffic circle.  however, since they are signalized already they can put in pedestrian timings if there is pedestrian demand.  like the big traffic circle at columbus circle in nyc.  roundabouts, on the other hand, are non signalized intersections.  they do still have a significant problem with allowing pedestrians to cross.  they would need to add signals to stop traffic for pedestrians, which really messes up the way that roundabouts work.   #  the problem here is not the idea of the roundabout, but the inability to use them properly.   #  the problem here is not the idea of the roundabout, but the inability to use them properly.  the one thing that most affects efficient operation is the use of turn signals.  it is only hard and unpredictable to merge if you have no clue as to what the drivers on the roundabout are intending to do.  americans in general do not seem to have a very firm grasp on how to use turn signals or how to merge onto an interstate.  but that is not the subject of the cmv.
i do not have lots of money.  i got my aa degree largely because the state i live in pays for high school students to go to community college.  i do not have lots of money and likely wo not get lots of money or any money for quite a while.  it greatly angers me, as a middle class american, to see rich kids at my college.  they all drive jaguars and mercedes and bmws and have brand name clothes and the latest iphone and it just pisses me off.  i drive a car that cost $0.  i have to live frugally and with my parents in order to afford to go to college.  because of this, seeing rich students who have nice things upsets me a lot, because i do not have nice things not many, anyway and wo not for a long time while they get to have everything now.  asian students also upset me for another reason.  i have never considered myself to be racist, but when i go to my college, sometimes i ca not tell if i am in seattle or shanghai.  there is lots of them and it seems as though all of them are rich.  it is like they treat my state as a playground for rich foreigners and take advantage of my country without giving much back.  they all drive expensive european luxury cars and it just irritates me every time i see them.  i do not understand why seeing a asian kid in a new jag pisses me off, but it does.  i do not want to be this way.  i do not want to be racist and be irritated by rich people, but i ca not help it.  i just feel gypped since they get to have nice things now and i am going to have to wait several years.   #  i have never considered myself to be racist, but when i go to my college, sometimes i ca not tell if i am in seattle or shanghai.   #  living in la, i feel the same way.   # living in la, i feel the same way.  there are many areas where all billboards are in spanish, everywhere you go people speak it.  if you go into a store or into a restaurant, people there speak spanish and not english.  the rich asians are a huge minority.  rich people in asia who have money to send their kids to american colleges, simply, do just that.  but remember that america is a melting pot.  lots of cultures from everywhere are here in america.  that is the way it should be.  it strengthens us.   #  just please try to think why a person who does not live in the us would come to a local college to study ?  #  what ? deal with it.  they were born rich, and you were not.  that is how it is always worked.  you are not as high in the class hierarchy as they are.  you can be angry all you want, just know that you will never be like them if you do not try.  also, i doubt most of those asians are foreigners anyway.  they were most likely born here, and some of their parents were born here too.  just please try to think why a person who does not live in the us would come to a local college to study ? a rich chinese foreigner with a sports car ? what ?  #  the  situation does not exist  argument does not fit here in my opinion.   #  there are plenty of foreign students from asia at schools in the us.  it is common.  and if, for example, someone can afford to come live in the us from china and also pay the expensive out of state tuition at least at state schools , they usually have money for cars, clothes, etc.  the  situation does not exist  argument does not fit here in my opinion.  at least on the west coast, this is a thing.  not that i think op should hate them.   #  they probably went to an international school in china, or just a regular school system.   #  they probably went to an international school in china, or just a regular school system.  then, their parents sent them off to one of the most popular destinations for new immigrants from the pacific, seattle.  it is no surprise that other people are trying to find new opportunity.  note that most chinese and indian immigrants tend to be rich or at least well off, because those are the people who take opportunities for higher education and more money.  that is why they are driving nice cars and stuff.   #  instead of blaming students who have no involvement in the us.   #  first of all, the most important thing, you have a horribly narrow perspective in hating on rich asian students, as there are people who are much more directly responsible for what happens in the us and its citizens, such as the governmental policies put in by the legislative and executive branches in the us for the past 0 or so years.  why do not you be mad at them ? instead of blaming students who have no involvement in the us.  second, they are not  taking advantage of your country .  trust me, all they do is study in the us, some stay, most leave.  third, which is my biggest question, what is it about rich   asian that makes you so mad ? i think i already know the answer, and it is that the us cultivates an environment where the people look down on asians, as if they do not deserve to have the  good life .  however, i am genuinely curious as to what you think.  i would say, would you be so mad if it were rich students of any other minority race ? i would not be suprised if you did not.
so, i am confused about this whole,   appropriation of white supremacy   and   reverse racism   not existing thing.   nbsp; from what i understand: ethnic minorities cannot discriminate because of their skin color and/or nationality.  meaning, minorities/persons of color/foreign nationals cannot be racist because they do not benefit from their discrimination.  whereas the majority are inherently racist because they are privy to a system, be it political or societal, that favors their ethnicity.  i do not understand how definitively discriminatory actions cannot be considered racist, because of the characteristics of a person.  do the characteristics of a person determine whether or not the actions discriminate ? or are the actions of the subject what determines if it itself is discrimination ?  nbsp; this topic aroused from a post in /r/nottheonion link URL and the subject of the article says:  nbsp; do you guys/gals have any insight on the matter ?  nbsp;  originally posted on  /r/explainlikeimfive, and then /r/askreddit, but after much advising from a couple moderators i have moved the topic here  nbsp;  nbsp;  #  ethnic minorities cannot discriminate because of their skin color and/or nationality.   #  racial discrimination and racism arent the same thing.   # racial discrimination and racism arent the same thing.  im doing a cultural studies unit at uni and over the last decade it has been accepted fairly widely social attitudes change quickly, 0 years ago theres a fair chance you would hate black people that racism is a  structure  of power relations and oppression which white people ca not be a victim of within a white majority country because it operates as white privilege, a system that privileges you and on some level oppresses racial minorities.  it is like you are saying starvation in america is just as bad as it is in haiti.  it sucks when people starve but you are wrong.  nobody is saying that racial minorities ca not discriminate against someone is race, and most people including me do not care if you use the word racism colloquially read: technically incorrectly as long as you understand the issue.  nobody is saying that we should care less about individual instances of racial discrimination against white people, what is being said is that discrimination against racial minorities is a  far more serious problem  on a national level as opposed to an individual level of an unfortunate white kid in a poor black neighbourhood .   #  however, this creates a false dichotomy that racism can only radiate down the social scale.   #  racism the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.  anyone can be racist.  a black person can be racist against black people.  a white person can be racist against asian people.  a mexican person can be racist against indian people.  historically, the dominant race has been white and the most suppressed race has been black.  however, this creates a false dichotomy that racism can only radiate down the social scale.  it can go up, sideways, down, etc.   #  and to someone from the oppressed class, the concept of racism is not just about classifying by race, but about classifying by race with the intent to oppress.   # the issue is that  racism  has a negative connotation because a specific attribute of a person has been used to oppress such people, black people for example have been subject to very harsh treatment because they were black.  it is because of that fact and other cases like it that racism is considered problematic.  the history of an oppressor using their position of power to oppress on the basis of a small characteristic is what makes racism racism.  if this history was not involved, and people simply used race as a way to describe people even if poorly , no one would care about racism.  if it was not used to degrade, it would just be a form of random classification, not racism.  so in the case of someone from an oppressed class stating that they can not be racist, they recognize that their status as an oppressed class means that they do not have the power to oppress in the way someone from a powerful class would.  and to someone from the oppressed class, the concept of racism is not just about classifying by race, but about classifying by race with the intent to oppress.  since the oppressed ca not systematically oppresses the powerful, they ca not be reverse racist in the true sense of the term racist.   #  that certain people hate obama because of his ethnicity is a known fact.   # oppression and rascism are not the same thing.  they have often gone hand in hand throughout the course of history, but from a purely semantic pov, people who are racist are not necessarily the oppressors.  people in positions of lesser power can be just as discriminating.  a poor white person perhaps under educated, under paid, unable to get ahead in the world due to circumstances beyond his control might hate president obama because he is black.  that certain people hate obama because of his ethnicity is a known fact.  yet obama holds the unofficial title of most powerful leader in the world.  are you saying that people who hate him because of his skin color are  not  racist simply due to that fact that he has more power over them ? look.  is racism against people of color far more prevalent, both presently and historically ? for sure.  but if we are defining racism as simply hating another person because of ethnicity/skin color, then  anyone  who does so, is racist.   #  i do not think we are defining it this way, though.   # i do not think we are defining it this way, though.  in op is quote, i think bahar mustafa is defining it as something like  using a historical position of power to harm, oppress, insult, degrade or dismiss another person based on the color of their skin.   therefore, a person who does not have historical power is not  racist , they are just an asshole.  i am not saying i agree with this, but i think this is mustafa is point.  calling someone a cracker is a jerk thing to do, just like using the n word, but i do not think you can deny that there is a whole lot more power behind the n word.  the n word is racist.  cracker is just rude.  historical context matters.  louis ck has a joke about this that you ca not even hurt a white person is feelings.  it is pretty funny.  it is in this amazing bit.  URL
i read this article URL today.  the author berates steven schwarzman for making a $0m donation to yale, where the students mostly come from very rich backgrounds.  literally any other charity would be a better choice.  he could cost effectively make millions of lives better instead of building a music hall among other things at yale.  i donate a token amount of money to the universities i went to that have much much smaller endowments than yale but give larger sums to charities that do work in india and africa.  any reason i should change my view ?  #  where the students mostly come from very rich backgrounds.   #  there is an income level where students pay nothing.   # there is an income level where students pay nothing.  and its not crazy low either.  even middle class students get greatly discounted rates.  since this is specifically about yale, looking at their website we can see that:  families whose total gross income is less than $0,0 with typical assets are not expected to make any financial contribution towards their child is yale education.  0 of the student is total cost of attendance will be financed with a yale financial aid award.  sourcre URL also, its fair to note that this is specifically for the  cost of attendance  not just tuition, so it includes room and board as well.  given that the university is continually funding its lower and middle class students, i think its fair to say that maybe the gift  is  charity, since thats one of the major areas that the school spends money.  donating to schools allows high achieving people of limited means to achieve a top tier education which will open up many doors for them.   #  again, this is made possible by our extremely generous endowment.   #  i am a phd student at an ivy league university.  my salary is $0k/year.  as you can guess, i am not exactly a fat cat.  my salary is paid by donations.  it is not large, but it is enough to survive on.  and students in less well funded departments, even within my university, make $0 0k less.  students at less well funded universities, in the same city, make $0k/year, if they can find funding at all.  this is a wonderful change from how things were a hundred years ago.  university teaching was so poorly compensated that professors were drawn almost exclusively from among the ranks of the rich.  graduate students funded their own education from their family is pockets.  the result was generation after generation of rich, white professors.  you can guess how that went over when our student bodies started diversifying.  my university has also made an effort to pay its employees a living wage.  now almost every worker, including janitors and cafeteria staff, makes $0/hour or higher.  it is nothing to write home about, but it pays the bills.  again, this is made possible by our extremely generous endowment.  we have also made undergraduate tuition completely free for students whose parents income falls beneath an income threshold, and severely reduced tuition for students from middle class households and below.  this has greatly expanded access to an ivy league education, and was paid for entirely through donor funds.  when people look at ivy league universities, they see the giant endowments and the large buildings and multi million dollar research projects which these endowments are used to fund.  and there is certainly some of that.  but there are thousands of real people who depend for their existence on those donated funds.  i think there is something to be said for those large buildings and research projects.  but i am not going to try to convince you of that.  donations can be earmarked for projects that you care about, and there are plenty of hungry grad students who would see a sizeable benefit from your donation.   #  i think the problem here is that this would not be the case in reality.   # you are assuming that there are obligations pertaining to charity that are binding on everyone, which i do not think is true.  our obligations are to ourselves, like the obligation to work hard at our career to be successful.  if you achieve success then you are fulfilling your obligations, and at that point you can give something to charity if you feel like it, depending on where your preferences lie.  i am not a moral relativist, i just do not think that charity is obligatory or that there are any obligations about what charities to donate to.  i think the problem here is that this would not be the case in reality.  if we lived in an alternative world where everyone was born without empathy then it would be fine, but in the world we actually live in we form deep emotional attachments to the people we have relationships with such that their well being becomes extremely important to us.   #  indeed, if he could not find someone to pay for his education, he was not going to school at all !  #  my son is graduating this month from an expensive private school with a huge endowment.  that endowment meant that he could go to that school when we could otherwise not have afforded the tuition to attend there.  indeed, if he could not find someone to pay for his education, he was not going to school at all ! at the time he started college i was making far less than i am now.  the large endowment also means that the students of that school have updated classrooms and access to cutting edge technology.  while i am living comfortably, i am not wealthy and have little savings, and there would be no way to drop $0k on each of my children is education.  however, because of generous donors, that type of education is within the reach of not only my kids, but any kid who has the grades to get accepted.  it is a fallacy that only the wealthy go to ivy league schools.  yes, they are heavily represented both because of a cultural carry over and because wealthy people can afford better primary and secondary education for their kids to start with.  however, entrance is about merit.  and if you qualify at most of these well endowed schools, you will be able to go financially regardless of your family situation.  and that is precisely because of the endowments.   #  if yale misappropriates its donations to fund bbq parties for its frat houses that is a definite breach of trust but if it manages to put the money where it was intended by the donor, i see no harm.   #  the fact that the most financially established are allowed to pursue an education at ivy league universities is an even bigger reason to donate to these institutions.  obviously, maintaining institutions of such high standards have some of the highest costs, hence the high tuition rates.  by not having an altruistic medium for people to donate their own wealth, we might be depriving poor but greatly intelligent students a chance to study at these universities.  these charity should go to scholarships, financial aid,etc.  but what if donations are spent on building a new wing for the music hall ? that has the same effect as scholarship.  the cost of building a new infrastructure, assuming that the infrastructure is necessary, has to come from somewhere and if it was not coming from donations it would have to come from tuition or at the cost of slashing some other program that would have been beneficial to the students.  lastly, we should not be judging where someone else is generosity should be directed.  that would be like liberals complaining about christians funding traditional family programs and christians judging liberals for donating to lgbt rights groups.  both are causes that are important to the donor and should not be discounted just because our views do not match theirs.  could their be an exception to this ? sure, if someone was donating to isis, that could be a matter of concern but i am talking about harmless causes like donating towards a college.  as long as it is not inflicting harm to anyone, we should not by criticizing it so intensely.  what can we criticize though ? we should not criticize the cause, unless as i have stated above, it is harmful for others.  what we should criticize instead is the effectiveness of charity.  whether the charity we have given is effective at meeting its goals.  if yale misappropriates its donations to fund bbq parties for its frat houses that is a definite breach of trust but if it manages to put the money where it was intended by the donor, i see no harm.  in that case it is not the donor who is at fault but the institution and the liability should fall under the administration who is in charge of distributing the donations.
this is a relatively hot topic with all of the minimum wage reform in discussion.  a lot of people think servers should be paid a  living wage  instead of working for tips.  here is why i think this is a horrible idea: restaurant prices would increase.  in most of the country, servers are paid $0 per hour.  if it were raised to say $0, restaurants would likely try to make up the majority of this increase through increased prices.  people would lose jobs.  restaurants would likely staff less servers.  they would either do this by making servers work harder for less money , or increased automation.  servers like being paid in tips.  good servers are making plenty of money.  i personally know servers who average $0 per hour, working 0 hours per week.  yes, it all depends on the restaurant you work at but that goes with any profession.  a marketer will make more money with a good firm than a crappy one.  same with lawyers; professors, mechanics, etc.  our current tipping system results in servers giving better service because they are trying to earn better tips.  the tip system works as a type of commission system for restaurants, as people generally too based off of their total bill.  this encourages servers to  upsell  drinks, appetizers, desserts, etc.  without this commission system servers are less likely to push these products as it wo not directly affect their income.  restaurants will have to make up for lost sales somehow else.   #  the tip system works as a type of commission system for restaurants, as people generally too based off of their total bill.   #  this encourages servers to  upsell  drinks, appetizers, desserts, etc.   # in most of the country, servers are paid $0 per hour.  if it were raised to say $0, restaurants would likely try to make up the majority of this increase through increased prices.  if i am not paying an extra 0 in tips then what is the problem paying an extra 0 into the menu ? i doubt you would see menu costs go up by more than what you would be tipping.  there is no reason to think that menu prices would skyrocket just because you start paying min wage.  restaurants would likely staff less servers.  they would either do this by making servers work harder for less money , or increased automation.  in some situations maybe, but in most situations probably not.  you would probably end up seeing in mom and pop restaurants servers going part time, and people in high end places are probably already getting paid more than min wage so there is no change there.  i have worked in a few restaurants and it would have been suicide for the owners to lay off a bunch of staff just because they had to pay min wage.  you gotta have enough people to serve your customers.  as to automation, servers ca not really be automated in anything above fast food.  people do not go to restaurants for food, they go there for service, so by taking that part out of the equation you would be driving a lot of potential customers away.  good servers are making plenty of money.  i personally know servers who average $0 per hour, working 0 hours per week.  yes, it all depends on the restaurant you work at but that goes with any profession.  a marketer will make more money with a good firm than a crappy one.  same with lawyers; professors, mechanics, etc.  this is a stretch at best.  tips are nice because they are under the radar and you can get away with not claiming them and getting taxed, so this is a fairly common practice.  and slow nights might outweigh heavy nights during certain seasons such that getting tips is moot.  so imo, at wost you would lost the ability to have a killer night or weekend.  at best, you are giving staff a consistent pay and they actually pay their share of taxes.  there are plenty of tipped waiters out there who just have bad attitudes or do not try at all.  there are even more who are just kind enough to satisfy being in a service position.  i have met very few waiters that actually went above and beyond to earn a big tip.  this encourages servers to  upsell  drinks, appetizers, desserts, etc.  without this commission system servers are less likely to push these products as it wo not directly affect their income.  restaurants will have to make up for lost sales somehow else it is not always in the best interest of the customer to be pushed into buying expensive food items, and frankly if i am going out to eat i  do not  want to be pushed on anything.  this argument is kind of the equivalent of a car salesmen pushing the extended warranty.  sure, it helps the business and the salesmen gets commission, but it is not exactly doing right to the customer.  in a service industry customer should be priority.  i am not really against tips, but i am against having people work for incredibly inconsistent pay.  everyone should make a min wage and tips can still be optional.  there is nothing wrong with that.   #  for the 0th point we can assume that if waiters want to keep their jobs they will keep the lv of service at an accpetable amount.   #  in regards to your first point would not the cost of the tip be somewhere near the increase in the price of food ? so really how much would the price really go up ? also it overlaps into the second point since if the restaurants were receiving more money from the food they could afford to pay the same amount of workers as before.  as for the 0rd point it really counters both of your points since it backs up my claim that tips are probably as expensive as the raise in price would be and restuarants would get just as much money.  for the 0th point we can assume that if waiters want to keep their jobs they will keep the lv of service at an accpetable amount.  we do not neccesarily need waiters to beg on their knees for a tip, all we need is an acceptable amount of help.   #  some savvy restaurateurs may create some sort of incentive plan however that wo not be across the board.   #  i agree to an extent that prices would go up to the price   tip that you would have paid anyway.  i think it will go higher than that though.  restaurants will need to account for lost sales.  servers suggestively sell items so that they make more money.  without the incentive servers will be less likely to sell.  some savvy restaurateurs may create some sort of incentive plan however that wo not be across the board.   #  pretending to be my best friend is not good service.   #  i live in a country where servers are not tipped by default.  0.  restaurant prices are no different from tipping countries.  0.  there are just as many restaurant jobs and just as many servers.  there is no automations except places like mcdonalds which i believe is not tipping in america anyways.  0.  serving is unskilled labour and payed accordingly.  you do not see many 0 year old servers here stuck in a job because the money is ok.  0.  i find american service to be insincere and annoying, not any better.  pretending to be my best friend is not good service.  this cmv shows a bit of blindness to the fact that other countries do it differently and guess what ? it works just fine.  when i go to america i find the demand to tip pretty obnoxious especially considering the fake friendly you have to tip me attitude of many wait staff.   #  staffing wise, all the cooks, dishwashers and most other misc people already make at least min wage so there is no change there.   # quite honestly, nowhere in particular.  it is just an estimation of what i think would be reasonable after working in a few restaurants and having a feel for what the expenses look like.  of the people working a small medium sized restaurant only a handful of them actually get paid server wages maybe 0 0 waiters on any given day .  staffing wise, all the cooks, dishwashers and most other misc people already make at least min wage so there is no change there.  fed min wage is just over $0.  that is not a 0 fold increase if they just paid min wage like everyone else, it is half that.  so let is say you are a 0hr diner with 0 waiters on at all times so, 0 hour shifts x 0 people is 0 servers .  the added expense is $0 x 0 servers x 0 hour shifts $0.  if an average meal ticket is $0/person then you add the 0 figure i used before on that, it would take 0 people over the course of 0 hours to cover the wage increase.  so at  $0/meal that is not really unreasonable and if anything is a high estimate on what you would have to charge to cover costs.  lets bump it up a notch.  say you pay those 0 servers $0/hr.  that is a $0 increase x 0 people x 0 hours $0.  which means that $0 meal becomes a $0 meal $0/0 people  $0/meal .  not unreasonable considering most places you are already paying at least that much for a meal.  so at  $0 per meal and serving 0 customers you get plate increases of: avg $00 meal means it is a 0 cost increase avg $00 meal means it is a 0 cost increase avg $00 meal means it is a 0 cost increase wost case you are paying a large percentage more, but it is already cheap to eat there and best case you are paying what you normally would in tip.  no they would not.  there is no reason to believe that they would go up more than 0 0, which is already just above what people are tipping.
i am getting this picture URL a lot lately.  i get the argument: real food would have molded and bugs would have eaten it by now.  however, are not those facts good things ? food that never goes bad and is in no danger of infestation sounds like an improvement over food that goes bad and attracts bugs.  especially in insanitary places with no fridges and lots of bugs.  i am not arguing that fast food is healthy.  my point is that the arguments in the picture help, rather than hurt, the case for the production of fast food.   #  however, are not those facts good things ?  #  bleach will not grow mold and bugs wo not touch it. so is that something you would want to eat ?  # bleach will not grow mold and bugs wo not touch it. so is that something you would want to eat ? the problem is not that the food is not spoiling, the problem is  why  is the food not spoiling.  it raises some dubious questions as to whether or not the food is safe to eat depending on the answer to that problem.  for all we know the same chemical preservatives preventing mold from growing and repelling insects might also be bad for humans.   #  so simply put, since we do not really know what is causing it to stay so well we should be a bit leery as to how healthy it actually is for us.   #  no, the root reason as to why the food is long lasting is key to whether or not it is actually a good thing that fast food does not rot.  the following is an obvious hyperbole, but gets the point across: case 0: fast food does not rot because it is dry or contains preservatives that do not harm humans.  case 0: fast food is coated in bleach and that is why nothing touches it.  humans inadvertently eat it because they do not know any better and assume it is safe because it is sold as food.  not knowing which is true, there is a chance that what we are eating is harmless or actually is pretty bad for us.  so should we eat fast food if there is a chance that whatever is causing it is longevity could also possibly be very bad with long term consumption ? so simply put, since we do not really know what is causing it to stay so well we should be a bit leery as to how healthy it actually is for us.  at the very least just because it does not mold or attract bugs is  not  automatically a good sign that it is a good thing as op is view follows.   #  you can make money by working or by stealing.   #  i believe you are treating two different things as one.  on one hand, you have got the long living quality.  on the other hand, you have got the cause of such quality.  i can hold the former is good while the latter is bad at the same time if that is the case, then we should simply find another, healthier cause to achieve the same effect long living, resilient food.  you can make money by working or by stealing.  stealing is bad, working is good.  the analogy to the picture would be a guy showing us the money he just earned and asking us to dislike him because of it.   #  the problem with fast food is that it does not really show  any  signs of traditional preservation.   #  you still do not see the point.  the premise from your op is  fast food does not spoil so this is a good quality .  what you are not realizing is that the reason that it is not spoiling could be worse for humans that the fact that the food does not spoil.  see the bleach example.  having food that does not spoil for  well known reasons  is a good thing.  honey does not spoil, frozen food keeps for long time, pickling, salting, etc are all good things.  the problem with fast food is that it does not really show  any  signs of traditional preservation.  which makes you wonder what keeps it from spoiling.   #  it has dried out because it is exposed to air and has a high surface area.   #  the food does not spoil for the same reason beef jerky does not spoil.  it has dried out because it is exposed to air and has a high surface area.  it is also very salty salt has been used as a  chemical preservative  throughout history .  the meat has also been cooked, which kills bacteria.  these conditions make it inhospitable to mold and bacterial growth.  if you put a mcdonald is burger in a ziploc bag to prevent water loss it begins to grow mold.  the display in question is dishonest and unscientific.  if you do it with homemade ingredients, you get the same result URL the picture op posted implies that mcdonalds must be using some unsafe ingredient or  chemicals .  it is just a cheap, shitty, overcooked burger.
what if every tax paying citizen was able to choose which programs their tax money went into ? every citizen would be forced to fill out taxes as per usual but instead of a grid locked congress determining how the budget is run each individual would be able to decide how much of their tax money goes into whatever program they want and believe in.  i believe this is a more democratic system as the people have more power to decide how the government allocates their resources into.  since people would have more power, more people would become politically active since there is more of a clear result from their actions.  many people do not vote because they feel like their votes do not really count for anything in the end.  having a clearer outcome of their action is incentive for people to get involved.  furthermore, this would call for greater transparency and efficiency within government programs.  greater transparency would occur because people would want to have a greater understanding of what they are putting their money into.  anything sketchy going on would not fly because image would be crucial.  if any of the programs get bad press then people would not want to put their tax money in it and the program would fail.  this is encouragement for greater efficiency.  of course some people would not want to go through the trouble of learning about different programs and what not.  so if anyone either was unable to or did not want to choose where their money goes they could just default their taxes to go into government control and then they can decide what to do with it.  all this provides is the option for the people allocate their funds into programs they believe in.  i am curious as to what kind of outcomes would occur if this system was to be put into place.  in order to change my view, convince me that we should not allow the people to be in control of the national budget.   #  of course some people would not want to go through the trouble of learning about different programs and what not.   #  so if anyone either was unable to or did not want to choose where their money goes they could just default their taxes to go into government control and then they can decide what to do with it.   #  first, if this was implemented it would in many ways eliminate one of the main purposes of taxes, which is to supply public goods.  public goods are essentially items that no one individually would spend money on, but everyone benefits from their existence.  additionally, you cannot exclude people from using public goods.  for example, think national defense.  say in this example everyone in arizona wanted a large share of their money to go to the national parks in arizona.  meanwhile, people in every other state allocate their tax money just as it is under our current system.  arizona is now free riding on numerous public programs.  the u. s.  military will still protect them even though hardly anyone in arizona funded them, customs will still patrol the border, and federal school funding will occur as well.  the free rider problem seems like a major issue.  meanwhile, nasa gets great press.  i do not think budgets should be subjected to popularity contests.  so if anyone either was unable to or did not want to choose where their money goes they could just default their taxes to go into government control and then they can decide what to do with it.  all this provides is the option for the people allocate their funds into programs they believe in.  this is another big issue.  there is hardly anyone in this country that knows every detail of the budget.  big popular areas such as the military could receive a disproportionate amount that is not needed and is in excess.  other areas might be starved and fail as you pointed out.  i also do not trust the typical person to be able to allocate everything in sufficient detail, but would still choose to do it themselves out of pride or ignorance.   #  it was more so to point out that free riding would occur.   # if everyone was able to determine where their taxes went, there would be plenty of people who wanted their taxes to go towards public goods, be they education, healthcare, parks, or whatever.  true, i could have phrased that better.  it was more so to point out that free riding would occur.  public goods would more than likely still be provided, but a pacifist might not pay for the military but still get the benefit.  that is not the position that is being discussed though.  i did not mean to infer any state organization, more of just a coincidence.  this and the other similar replies brings up a good point.  there would definitely be unequal strength between the wealthy and the poor.   #  rather than one person, one vote, we have power proportional to our income.   #  it is an interesting idea, but it leads to a couple of problems that needs to be solved.  0.  rich people who pay more taxes have more control of the government.  rather than one person, one vote, we have power proportional to our income.  that is not a democracy, but rather a plutocracy.  0.  it creates a free rider problem.  i can allocate all my tax dollars to nasa, but yet i still get to use all the services provided by the government, such as roads, police, fire, healthcare, but i am not paying for any of it.   #  the people who are making lots of money and do not need medicaid would probably prefer that their money be spent on defense or nasa, not boring entitlement programs.   #  if people are only allocating their personal taxes then the people who pay more taxes will have stronger votes.  in fact, 0 of americans do not pay federal income tax.  should they not have any say in the government is budget ? plus, programs that help the poor would get  drastically  cut.  since the primary recipients of medicaid are the poor who do not pay many taxes , they would probably receive very little funding.  the people who are making lots of money and do not need medicaid would probably prefer that their money be spent on defense or nasa, not boring entitlement programs.  finally, what about all the small programs that the federal government operates ? the us government spends billions of dollars every year that most americans ca not name but plenty of people benefit from.   #  but seriously, not sure if this is a clarifying question or an argument, but how is it still a tax if the control over it was not reserved to a few elites and their friends ?  #   that is anarchy !   but seriously, not sure if this is a clarifying question or an argument, but how is it still a tax if the control over it was not reserved to a few elites and their friends ? people having the power to make choices about what they are working for, in the form of receiving money and being able to spend it as they please, is called a marketplace.  if you are not taking that power away, in what way is it a tax ? or will it be some kind of pre approved list of choices like voting ? on a side note, is this any different from the theoretical direct democracy URL if you want to give people real power, not taking it away from them in the first place would be a good start.
watching paint dry is a very simple thing.  going in you know what is going to happen, and you are just watching it unfold.  there may be times of error, dripping of paint, or cracking, but in the end the wall is painted.  game of thrones is similar in that there is only one conclusion to the story, and while you may watch some of the paint drip, in the end you will see it dry and nothing else mattered.  in the first or second book/season in this series we learn that there is undead coming from the north to end the world.  the only way to defeat them is unite the seven kingdoms and defeat them with dragons.  this means that only one person can do this: daenerys.  not a single other person has dragons.  that mean there is only two possible conclusions to the game of thrones; everyone dies, or daenerys unites the kingdom and wins the war.  i doubt anyone would bother with the story if the first happens.  this means there is only one conclusion to the story.  nothing else matters.  every other character is unimportant, and will die now, submit to the queen or die in the war.  every villain in the series will die and everything they do is meaningless, as the only evil is the undead.  all the story lines will end before the final war with their conclusions being meaningless in the conclusion of the story.  who cares who is in power if we all know there is only one person who wins in the end ? therefore every minor story line has only one conclusion, they die or submit the queen, none of their goals of power can ever be fulfilled.  there is only one person who can win or the world is destroyed.  just like the wall being painted, the story will end with a simple conclusion, all those cracks and drips are forgotten as the wall is done and they never meant anything.  the wall is the white we painted it in the beginning and now it is dry, nothing else effected it in any way.  all watching the show is watching a long drawn out conclusion.  hell in the books, you can tell they made george add some other targaryen, the once dead kid, because there was no mystery what so ever and no real reason to continue reading the books.  people who watch the tv show are easy going, they did not need to add that mystery because people are content watching the paint dry.  just like the paint, there is only one color, one ending, and one person who matters.  everyone else is just paint waiting to dry, never changing the known conclusion, just passing the time.  watching the show is watching these characters slowly dry the white you know they will with no mystery as there is only one possible conclusion.  cmv  #  submit to the queen or die in the war.   #  op, do you know the words of house martell ?  # op, do you know the words of house martell ? unbowed.  unbent.  unbroken.  op, do you know  why  those are their words ? because when the first targarians came to westeros, they rolled everyone  except  the dornishmen.  dragons are not the end all of warfare.  sure, if you are an idiot who hides behind stone walls, you are done for.  but even king robert understood you ca not do that and still be king he explained when he was talking about the dothraki screamers not knowing siege warfare .  but the dornishmen scattered, as they were smart enough to understand that, while a dragon is big, a dragon is one animal.  it is not  hard  to fight a dragon if you have an army you just have to scatter.  there are still dragon eggs.   somewhere  in westeros.  but the dragons are all extinct.  unbowed.  unbent.  unbroken.  watch this and tell me the story is not intriguing URL  #  big fantasy epics are a lot like history books.   #  big fantasy epics are a lot like history books.  even when you know generally how things end, the individual people and battles and private struggles that occur during the war are fascinating.  for instance, you could reduce wwii to  murica beat hitler and dropped a bomb on japan,  but that ignores all of the really  interesting  parts.  you could focus on flawed leaders like hitler or churchill.  you could focus on the ethical conflicts of the manhattan project.  you could focus on the effects of propaganda.  you could focus on the experiences of common soldiers, or of common people affected by the war.  even something that, on the surface, sounds terribly dry like, for instance, the attempts to break military cryptography ends up involving a lot of excitement, sacrifice, conflict and cruelty.  is all of that unimportant to the overall story of wwii ? i think if historians can be interested in all those aspects of wwii, then readers can probably be interested in many aspects of a fictional history.   #  these are things which happened to us and we can see the effects or relate to personally.   #  a lot of history is relatable which makes it interesting.  these are things which happened to us and we can see the effects or relate to personally.  i am not disabled, incestuous, thieving, murderous, traitorous or conniving.  there is not a single person in the story who i can relate enough to be interested in.  by creating a fictional world in which none of the characters have the moral ground which we can stand on, you are taking out the relatable parts which make it interesting.  so while wwii is interesting because it affects our lives, people who can relate to evil people in an evil world should reflect a bit about themselves.   #  sure there are horrible people the boltons, cersei, qyburn, etc.   # bran, jon, ned, robb, all people with very relatable moral beliefs put in extraordinary situations.  brienne, renly, loras, same idea.  any woman who is ever been denied power, responsibility, been belittled, etc.  just for being a woman can relate to aspects of cersei and margeary even if they do not relate to everything.  we see the manipulation of little kids tommen, myrcella and the place they fit into this story of people vying for power.  sure there are horrible people the boltons, cersei, qyburn, etc.  but we also see redemption of others jaime .  and i am sure many people can relate to aspects of daenarys and who quest of ending slavery, learning to fit into her responsibilities and what she thinks of herself.  ultimately, just because there is no character that you are completely like does not mean you ca not relate to aspects of various characters, understand their motivation, and take joy, sorrow, excitement, etc.  from their trials and tribulations.  is there any fiction that you enjoy ?  #  it is not like, say, traditional tolkein style fantasy where good is beautiful and always rewarded and evil is instantly identifiable and swiftly punished.   #  well, got just might not be your kind of story, then.  but i find many of the characters relatable despite not having much in common with them.  i am not a dwarf, but i can sympathize with tyrion is yearning for social approval and simultaneous rejection of social approval.  i have got a complicated relationship with my parents and siblings too.  i am not incestuous, conniving or even a mother, but i can sympathize with cersei feeling trapped in a bad system where it is impossible to gain respect.  i have been in workplaces like that.  i do not have to be  like  the characters or agree with their moral choices to understand a little of why they do what they do.  quite a lot of the characters  do  try to consistently make good, moral choices dany, jon snow, the starks , but in got the  good  choices have potential consequences good and bad too.  characters are often forced to choose between their personal morals and the practical desire to save lives or protect their loved ones.  it is not like, say, traditional tolkein style fantasy where good is beautiful and always rewarded and evil is instantly identifiable and swiftly punished.  it is  hard  to be a good person in a fucked up world.  got is not the only story that deals with that kind of ambiguity, but it does it on a very grand scale.
yes i am an american male, and i do not know how things differ for women or those outside the united states, so i will leave those two large groups out of the discussion.  for any given american male, i believe the chances are less possibly way less than 0 that he will at some point in his life have a sexual encounter that truly fulfills his fantasies.  i think this is due to a combination of factors, that when taken together hurt his chances greatly: 0 most mainstream media movies, tv, magazines, websites, porn, etc.  focuses on very attractive women and men .  most people maybe 0 0 do not get anywhere near those standards.  yet the media offers what becomes, in many cases, the yardstick by which we judge attractiveness.  this means the pool of attractive potential partners becomes smaller both for the guy and for those he has an interest in.  0 many if not most men watch porn, and a lot though certainly not all of it glorifies unrealistic or demeaning things done to generally attractive people who are paid to do it and to act like they enjoy it whether they really do or not.  a ludicrous amount of free porn is available to most people, usually from a young age, and much easier to access than an actual partner.  0 lots of food, sedentary lifestyles, increasing obesity.  this ties in with 0, in that we are taught that obesity is unattractive, yet people are getting fatter because of.  lots of things, but we will just say food is a business that is very heavily marketed to us, and usually not to keep people in good physical form.  i think this is a recipe for fat, porn addicted dudes who dream of boning the hottest of the hot in ways that most self respecting people would refuse.  i am sure some guys are lucky enough to have a truly gratifying experience with another person, but i think the majority will have to settle for something less than what they dream of.  i think that is hard to argue against but also really depressing, so change my view.   #  most people maybe 0 0 do not get anywhere near those standards.   #  you ca not just pull numbers out of the air like that.   # you ca not just pull numbers out of the air like that.  statistics should be truly representative of the population you are referring to.  feels does not equal reals.  if you do not have quantitative data, do not make quantitative claims.  it is intellectually dishonest.   #  people are accepting of imperfections because they themselves are imperfect.   #  this is a great point.  op is argument for sexual gratification can apply to any number of things, but just because we see  perfection  in the media does not suddenly mean that we expect perfection out of our everyday lives.  if this were true, no one would ever get married because it is not like the movies.  no one would ever have a good meal because it is not a 0 star restaurant.  no one would get anything done because life is not 0 perfect.  but that is just not how people work.  people are accepting of imperfections because they themselves are imperfect.   #  i know that sounds cliche and cheesy, but i would rather bang my wife than one of these  yardsticks  any day.   #  let is go point by point: 0 this argument hinges on the idea that anything less than  ideal  is going to be less than truly satisfying, and i do not think that is true.  i do not have to eat a meal at a three michelin star restaurant to have a truly orgasmic dining experience, and the same is true of sex.  a lot of attraction comes from a personal connection anyway, not just someone is outside appearance.  i know that sounds cliche and cheesy, but i would rather bang my wife than one of these  yardsticks  any day.  0 this assumes the same kind of thing, that because we are not having what we have seen in porn, that it must not be satisfying.  again, this is a false assumption.  i have watched movies about the best foods and cruises and experiences in the world, but it does not stop me from loving the life i am already living.  0 very much the same as the previous 0 points.   #  but reality is actually the other way around.   # again, this is a false assumption.  i have watched movies about the best foods and cruises and experiences in the world, but it does not stop me from loving the life i am already living.  this assumes that porn sex is the best most ideal sex, and that real life sex is never like porn sex so real life sex will always be sub par.  but reality is actually the other way around.  porn sex is actually the sub par sex as far as experience for the participants having sex goes.  porn sex is not what people actually want in reality.  usually neither party is actually having his or her specific sexual needs tended to, but rather just going through a routine set of motions for the best camera angles.  and sure, some fetishes that you see in porn sex may be what people want in real life, but even still if they were to experience the fetish in real life they would want it catered to themselves and their own immediate emotional and physical needs; not just a routine script written by someone else and with the goal to please someone else other than the participants having sex the goal is to please the viewer .   #  i agree reality is not like porn, which is part of the problem as i see it.   # this assumes that porn sex is the best most ideal sex, and that real life sex is never like porn sex so real life sex will always be sub par.  but reality is actually the other way around.  i agree reality is not like porn, which is part of the problem as i see it.  porn shapes desires, particularly in teenagers who are just starting out.  the more guys watch porn, the more their desires are likely to be influenced further away from reality.  yeah you are probably right.  i am not sure this has much to do with how it is perceived while watching though, especially when you are a kid.  often porn becomes a young man is sex education.  it is a hell of a lot more exciting to a teen than sex ed or a talk with the parents.  i think it creates a skewed understanding of sex, which makes living your fantasies that much harder, for no other reason than, maybe now you have some rather fucked up fantasies.  do not even get me started on anime ! it is a great medium and i enjoy it, but for those obsessed with it, it may become quite a lonely fetish.  if i am not into real women as much as i am into illustrated women, i am not going to be truly satisfied with a real woman.
yes i am an american male, and i do not know how things differ for women or those outside the united states, so i will leave those two large groups out of the discussion.  for any given american male, i believe the chances are less possibly way less than 0 that he will at some point in his life have a sexual encounter that truly fulfills his fantasies.  i think this is due to a combination of factors, that when taken together hurt his chances greatly: 0 most mainstream media movies, tv, magazines, websites, porn, etc.  focuses on very attractive women and men .  most people maybe 0 0 do not get anywhere near those standards.  yet the media offers what becomes, in many cases, the yardstick by which we judge attractiveness.  this means the pool of attractive potential partners becomes smaller both for the guy and for those he has an interest in.  0 many if not most men watch porn, and a lot though certainly not all of it glorifies unrealistic or demeaning things done to generally attractive people who are paid to do it and to act like they enjoy it whether they really do or not.  a ludicrous amount of free porn is available to most people, usually from a young age, and much easier to access than an actual partner.  0 lots of food, sedentary lifestyles, increasing obesity.  this ties in with 0, in that we are taught that obesity is unattractive, yet people are getting fatter because of.  lots of things, but we will just say food is a business that is very heavily marketed to us, and usually not to keep people in good physical form.  i think this is a recipe for fat, porn addicted dudes who dream of boning the hottest of the hot in ways that most self respecting people would refuse.  i am sure some guys are lucky enough to have a truly gratifying experience with another person, but i think the majority will have to settle for something less than what they dream of.  i think that is hard to argue against but also really depressing, so change my view.   #  0 most mainstream media movies, tv, magazines, websites, porn, etc.   #  focuses on very attractive women and men .   # focuses on very attractive women and men .  most people maybe 0 0 do not get anywhere near those standards.  yet the media offers what becomes, in many cases, the yardstick by which we judge attractiveness.  this means the pool of attractive potential partners becomes smaller both for the guy and for those he has an interest in.  maybe most people in general including old people do not meet those standards, but have you set foot on a college campus lately ? i would say at least 0 of 0 0 year olds are every bit as physically attractive as those shown on tv/movies.  it is just not that hard to find a woman as attractive as modern actresses/porn stars.  a ludicrous amount of free porn is available to most people, usually from a young age, and much easier to access than an actual partner.  this is a matter of preference, but as a pretty vanilla guy, i find that most of the women i date and have sex with really do want me to do pretty demeaning shit to them that i am uncomfortable with.  whether or not this is because of porn or whatever, the point remains that there are plenty of freaky girls out there although freaky / positive sexual encounter, at least in my opinion/experience .  this ties in with 0, in that we are taught that obesity is unattractive, yet people are getting fatter because of.  lots of things, but we will just say food is a business that is very heavily marketed to us, and usually not to keep people in good physical form.  it is not that hard to stay in decent shape.  and only a fool would feel entitled a girl way more attractive than him.  if you want to date hotter girls, become hotter yourself.  not everyone can become a 0, but most people have the ability to become more attractive than they are.  throughout this cmv, there are several main premises which i think are faulty.  you seem to believe that the ultimate in gratifying sexual experiences comes from freaky and degrading sex with an extremely attractive partner.  for some people that may be true, but for many others, vanilla sex with someone who shares a genuine emotional bond with you is even more gratifying.   #  if this were true, no one would ever get married because it is not like the movies.   #  this is a great point.  op is argument for sexual gratification can apply to any number of things, but just because we see  perfection  in the media does not suddenly mean that we expect perfection out of our everyday lives.  if this were true, no one would ever get married because it is not like the movies.  no one would ever have a good meal because it is not a 0 star restaurant.  no one would get anything done because life is not 0 perfect.  but that is just not how people work.  people are accepting of imperfections because they themselves are imperfect.   #  0 this assumes the same kind of thing, that because we are not having what we have seen in porn, that it must not be satisfying.   #  let is go point by point: 0 this argument hinges on the idea that anything less than  ideal  is going to be less than truly satisfying, and i do not think that is true.  i do not have to eat a meal at a three michelin star restaurant to have a truly orgasmic dining experience, and the same is true of sex.  a lot of attraction comes from a personal connection anyway, not just someone is outside appearance.  i know that sounds cliche and cheesy, but i would rather bang my wife than one of these  yardsticks  any day.  0 this assumes the same kind of thing, that because we are not having what we have seen in porn, that it must not be satisfying.  again, this is a false assumption.  i have watched movies about the best foods and cruises and experiences in the world, but it does not stop me from loving the life i am already living.  0 very much the same as the previous 0 points.   #  but reality is actually the other way around.   # again, this is a false assumption.  i have watched movies about the best foods and cruises and experiences in the world, but it does not stop me from loving the life i am already living.  this assumes that porn sex is the best most ideal sex, and that real life sex is never like porn sex so real life sex will always be sub par.  but reality is actually the other way around.  porn sex is actually the sub par sex as far as experience for the participants having sex goes.  porn sex is not what people actually want in reality.  usually neither party is actually having his or her specific sexual needs tended to, but rather just going through a routine set of motions for the best camera angles.  and sure, some fetishes that you see in porn sex may be what people want in real life, but even still if they were to experience the fetish in real life they would want it catered to themselves and their own immediate emotional and physical needs; not just a routine script written by someone else and with the goal to please someone else other than the participants having sex the goal is to please the viewer .   #  this assumes that porn sex is the best most ideal sex, and that real life sex is never like porn sex so real life sex will always be sub par.   # this assumes that porn sex is the best most ideal sex, and that real life sex is never like porn sex so real life sex will always be sub par.  but reality is actually the other way around.  i agree reality is not like porn, which is part of the problem as i see it.  porn shapes desires, particularly in teenagers who are just starting out.  the more guys watch porn, the more their desires are likely to be influenced further away from reality.  yeah you are probably right.  i am not sure this has much to do with how it is perceived while watching though, especially when you are a kid.  often porn becomes a young man is sex education.  it is a hell of a lot more exciting to a teen than sex ed or a talk with the parents.  i think it creates a skewed understanding of sex, which makes living your fantasies that much harder, for no other reason than, maybe now you have some rather fucked up fantasies.  do not even get me started on anime ! it is a great medium and i enjoy it, but for those obsessed with it, it may become quite a lonely fetish.  if i am not into real women as much as i am into illustrated women, i am not going to be truly satisfied with a real woman.
0.   they are no worse  than any other every day scchool utilities.  a mildly grinded metal ruler would be the exact same, a normal pen can be just as deadly, and you can be damn sure a pencil/compass will go right through pen 0.   they are just utilities.   i worked while in hs.  a lot of my friends worked.  almost everyone i knew with a job habitually carried a knife as a utility for simple things such as opening boxes.  hell, i once had the police called on my by my school because i wore the same pants as i had the previous day and still had my knife on me.  never brandished it or anything, but i was suspended, almost expelled.  0.   with the exception of schools with metal detectors   anyone who wants to bring a knife ca not be preemptively stopped .  just like the issue with gun control, people who want weapons can get them.  if they are brandished with malicious intent by a  bad person  rule breaker the rule followers wo not be able to defend themselves.   #  just like the issue with gun control, people who want weapons can get them.   #  if they are brandished with malicious intent by a  bad person  rule breaker the rule followers wo not be able to defend themselves.   # if they are brandished with malicious intent by a  bad person  rule breaker the rule followers wo not be able to defend themselves.  this argument, used a lot for guns, forgets that the world is hardly divided between good and bad people, all you have is a matter of perspective.  criminals get to this not because they are evil but because their societies left them with fewer and fewer options.  if you do not think this is so, just think why there are countries with murder rates between 0 and 0, and others that barely go above 0 murders per 0,0 population .  is it because there are more evil people ? frequently violence happens when someone loses control of themselves and it is easy to injure someone, so having knives, cars and guns around potentially increases the severity of the outcome.  people who claim only evil people do evil acts forget one has stress, crises, depression, road rage, bullying, psychological breakdown, euphoria, drug usage, passion rage, etc.  when that happens i would rather they have a pen or ruler than a knife.   #  whose job would only be made harder by the student body being allowed to arm itself wholesale.   # a mildly grinded metal ruler would be the exact same, a normal pen can be just as deadly, and you can be damn sure a pencil/compass will go right through pen of course they are worse.  why do you think marines carry ka bars and not pens ? just because you can do damage with other things does not mean that knives ca not do more damage.  further, there is plenty of call for a pen in school; there is little to none for a knife, at least in the hands of a student.  i worked while in hs.  a lot of my friends worked.  almost everyone i knew with a job habitually carried a knife as a utility for simple things such as opening boxes.  hell, i once had the police called on my by my school because i wore the same pants as i had the previous day and still had my knife on me.  never brandished it or anything, but i was suspended, almost expelled.  they are not just tools; they are also weapons.  and if you work, keep them in or with your work clothes, or at work.  just like the issue with gun control, people who want weapons can get them.  if they are brandished with malicious intent by a  bad person  rule breaker the rule followers wo not be able to defend themselves.  of course people who want weapons badly enough can get them.  but restricting access does reduce access, even to those who would break rules.  and if there is a rule against them, rule breakers or the other  bad  people you name can be punished.  i do not think the argument that a rule following student should be able to carry a knife to defend themselves with holds a great deal of water although it sort of flies in the face of the  just a tool  position .  when was the last time that a student brought a knife to school and used it to attack another student, who successfully defended themselves with a knife ? it should not be the task of the student body to defend themselves against physical violence; that is one of the functions of the faculty.  whose job would only be made harder by the student body being allowed to arm itself wholesale.   #  if you try and engage someone physically that has a knife and you have anything less than a firearm, there is a better than not chance that you are going to the hospital, maybe the morgue.   #  in the high school i went to in an upper middle class area, i saw about 0 fight every other day.  if knives were allowed in school, i would have probably seen at least 0 stabbing a month, and i think that is on the conservative side.  there are very few none ? valid reasons for a student to have a knife in a school setting.  this is not true at all.  do you know what the protocol is for dealing with someone with a knife that has  obvious intent  ? shooting center mass until the threat is stopped.  if you try and engage someone physically that has a knife and you have anything less than a firearm, there is a better than not chance that you are going to the hospital, maybe the morgue.  if you do not believe me or literally every single self defense instructor on earth try an experiment.  have someone hold a sharpie and try and get it from them without getting marked on any semi vital part of your body.  i can save you some time and tell you that it wo not happen.   #  how does the sharpie example refute my statement ?  #  how does the sharpie example refute my statement ? i said stopped just as easily as someone with a pen.  stopping someone with a pen would be hard because of the same idea as the knife.  i was not trying to imply it would be easy or safe, just not any worse than any situation with any other utensils.  and as i said somewhere else, just because there is no reason to have one does not mean that there is a reason to not have one.   #  pens do not cut, and are not literally built to cut things.   #  a pen is not even close to as dangerous as a knife.  pens do not cut, and are not literally built to cut things.  a knife is, and can be a very, very dangerous weapon.  stopping someone with a knife is a life or death situation and is not the same as with a pen.  the reason not to have one is that they can be extremely dangerous.  would you be ok with kids bringing shotguns to school ?
ok, i just realized i may hold a logically unsound view in either my pro choice beliefs or my pro vaccination beliefs.  abortion is supported by my belief of autonomy, i. e.   my body, my decision , but that goes against my belief that vaccines should be required for things like entering school, etc.  .  both abortions and anti vaccination have the potential to harm others than yourself as abortions could end the lives of viable children and anti vaccination could harm other children through diseases.  do i have to admit to being a hypocrite, or are my views not contradicting ?  #  abortion is supported by my belief of autonomy, i. e.   #   my body, my decision , but that goes against my belief that vaccines should be required for things like entering school, etc.   #  my body, my decision , but that goes against my belief that vaccines should be required for things like entering school, etc.  .  the issue about entering school is problematic because the implication is those in question are children.  it is the parent not the child who gives consent for vaccinations.  the parent is also who consents to the child is medical procedures.  so children do not have full body autonomy anyway.  as an adult, you do have the right to refuse a vaccine.  you wo not face jail time or be charged with a crime the way a woman seeking abortion might in some places .  of course, your access to certain places might be denied.  for example if you wanted to work as a nurse, you need to be vaccinated.  and the answer is then to choose what is more important.  nobody is holding you down and forcing a vaccine on you.  if you are a parent and hate vaccines that much, you home school and keep your kids away from other kids.  you are also assuming that: the fetus is a person or a child.  legally it is not.  all  fetuses will turn into viable children if it was not for abortion.  not true.  assisting a mother to remove a fetus dying from a major birth defect does not  harm .  i would argue in some situations it is doing more harm to let the dying fetus develop and be born, just to suffer and die in the days after the birth.   #  i do not know if a fetus ten minutes from birth is, and i do not know if a baby ten minutes after birth is.   #  that is an awkward question.  i really do not know where the line is best drawn between person and non person, and i suspect that it is not so much a line as a slope.  i know that a fetus without a distinct brain is not, by my definition, a person person being a label which i apply to the mind, not the genes or the body .  i know that a self aware entity is.  i do not know if a fetus ten minutes from birth is, and i do not know if a baby ten minutes after birth is.  i  definitely  think that erring on the side of personhood in the baby is case is the right thing to do, and i do not know about the t minus ten fetus but i suspect that the same is true.  i think that birth is a good candidate for a natural division between  we treat entity as person  and  we treat entity as non person ; it is arbitrary, but it is unambiguous, and if we have to pick somewhere to err it seems like a good place.  as for other, better candidates such as at x weeks after conception , i do not know enough about human development to speak intelligently about them.   #  it also removes the right of abortion from a woman who is dying.   #  why 0 weeks ? in the best hospitals with nicu units the survival is still 0.  also, that does not mean healthy and without problems.  0 weeks does not mean full term.  it also removes the right of abortion from a woman who is dying.  or a legally dead woman on machines to be unplugged.  or to remove a dying fetus from a woman instead of forcing her to carry it.   #  i ca not think of any ethical reason why a late term abortions should be banned, and several reasons why they should be allowed.   #  i will answer this too, since i agree with /u/plexiglasspelican.  i do not see why  viable on its own  makes that much of a difference, ethically.  you are still forcing a woman to bring a baby she does not want into this world, and adoption is pretty hit or miss.  the baby essentially ca not understand what is happening to it, and if it can be killed painlessly, it will die quietly and without any fear.  its death wo not impact anyone else except maybe the father, who should not have a say in abortions anyway .  i ca not think of any ethical reason why a late term abortions should be banned, and several reasons why they should be allowed.  i do not see why  viable on its own  should change anything.  now, the problem is, there is really no argument why you should not be able to then  abort  infants that are a few days old, or even a few weeks old.  i think my reasoning applies to young infants just as much.  i am willing to draw the line for abortions at birth.  it may be an arbitrary line, but the line does need to be drawn  somewhere , and that is about as clear cut a line as you can get.   #  if someone aborted a late term fetus, i would think nothing of it.   #  may i ask why ? i am uncomfortable with it too.  if someone aborted a late term fetus, i would think nothing of it.  if somebody murdered their just born infant, i would think they are a monster.  .  but i am not sure i can actually justify why i feel this way.  i do not see any ethical difference between 0 weeks before birth and 0 seconds after, and ca not think of why that difference is important.  i have been socialized to think it is heinous, but i have never been able to justify it philosophically.  i have just always been content to not challenge it.
ok, i just realized i may hold a logically unsound view in either my pro choice beliefs or my pro vaccination beliefs.  abortion is supported by my belief of autonomy, i. e.   my body, my decision , but that goes against my belief that vaccines should be required for things like entering school, etc.  .  both abortions and anti vaccination have the potential to harm others than yourself as abortions could end the lives of viable children and anti vaccination could harm other children through diseases.  do i have to admit to being a hypocrite, or are my views not contradicting ?  #  both abortions and anti vaccination have the potential to harm others than yourself as abortions could end the lives of viable children and anti vaccination could harm other children through diseases.   #  you are also assuming that: the fetus is a person or a child.   #  my body, my decision , but that goes against my belief that vaccines should be required for things like entering school, etc.  .  the issue about entering school is problematic because the implication is those in question are children.  it is the parent not the child who gives consent for vaccinations.  the parent is also who consents to the child is medical procedures.  so children do not have full body autonomy anyway.  as an adult, you do have the right to refuse a vaccine.  you wo not face jail time or be charged with a crime the way a woman seeking abortion might in some places .  of course, your access to certain places might be denied.  for example if you wanted to work as a nurse, you need to be vaccinated.  and the answer is then to choose what is more important.  nobody is holding you down and forcing a vaccine on you.  if you are a parent and hate vaccines that much, you home school and keep your kids away from other kids.  you are also assuming that: the fetus is a person or a child.  legally it is not.  all  fetuses will turn into viable children if it was not for abortion.  not true.  assisting a mother to remove a fetus dying from a major birth defect does not  harm .  i would argue in some situations it is doing more harm to let the dying fetus develop and be born, just to suffer and die in the days after the birth.   #  i know that a fetus without a distinct brain is not, by my definition, a person person being a label which i apply to the mind, not the genes or the body .   #  that is an awkward question.  i really do not know where the line is best drawn between person and non person, and i suspect that it is not so much a line as a slope.  i know that a fetus without a distinct brain is not, by my definition, a person person being a label which i apply to the mind, not the genes or the body .  i know that a self aware entity is.  i do not know if a fetus ten minutes from birth is, and i do not know if a baby ten minutes after birth is.  i  definitely  think that erring on the side of personhood in the baby is case is the right thing to do, and i do not know about the t minus ten fetus but i suspect that the same is true.  i think that birth is a good candidate for a natural division between  we treat entity as person  and  we treat entity as non person ; it is arbitrary, but it is unambiguous, and if we have to pick somewhere to err it seems like a good place.  as for other, better candidates such as at x weeks after conception , i do not know enough about human development to speak intelligently about them.   #  it also removes the right of abortion from a woman who is dying.   #  why 0 weeks ? in the best hospitals with nicu units the survival is still 0.  also, that does not mean healthy and without problems.  0 weeks does not mean full term.  it also removes the right of abortion from a woman who is dying.  or a legally dead woman on machines to be unplugged.  or to remove a dying fetus from a woman instead of forcing her to carry it.   #  i think my reasoning applies to young infants just as much.   #  i will answer this too, since i agree with /u/plexiglasspelican.  i do not see why  viable on its own  makes that much of a difference, ethically.  you are still forcing a woman to bring a baby she does not want into this world, and adoption is pretty hit or miss.  the baby essentially ca not understand what is happening to it, and if it can be killed painlessly, it will die quietly and without any fear.  its death wo not impact anyone else except maybe the father, who should not have a say in abortions anyway .  i ca not think of any ethical reason why a late term abortions should be banned, and several reasons why they should be allowed.  i do not see why  viable on its own  should change anything.  now, the problem is, there is really no argument why you should not be able to then  abort  infants that are a few days old, or even a few weeks old.  i think my reasoning applies to young infants just as much.  i am willing to draw the line for abortions at birth.  it may be an arbitrary line, but the line does need to be drawn  somewhere , and that is about as clear cut a line as you can get.   #  i have been socialized to think it is heinous, but i have never been able to justify it philosophically.   #  may i ask why ? i am uncomfortable with it too.  if someone aborted a late term fetus, i would think nothing of it.  if somebody murdered their just born infant, i would think they are a monster.  .  but i am not sure i can actually justify why i feel this way.  i do not see any ethical difference between 0 weeks before birth and 0 seconds after, and ca not think of why that difference is important.  i have been socialized to think it is heinous, but i have never been able to justify it philosophically.  i have just always been content to not challenge it.
ok, i just realized i may hold a logically unsound view in either my pro choice beliefs or my pro vaccination beliefs.  abortion is supported by my belief of autonomy, i. e.   my body, my decision , but that goes against my belief that vaccines should be required for things like entering school, etc.  .  both abortions and anti vaccination have the potential to harm others than yourself as abortions could end the lives of viable children and anti vaccination could harm other children through diseases.  do i have to admit to being a hypocrite, or are my views not contradicting ?  #  abortion is supported by my belief of autonomy, i. e.   #   my body, my decision , but that goes against my belief that vaccines should be required for things like entering school, etc.   #  my body, my decision , but that goes against my belief that vaccines should be required for things like entering school, etc.  .  in regards to vaccinations, you are still allowing the right of  my body, my choice .  no one is rounding up people in herds and sticking them with needle against their will.  if you do not want the vaccination, you can home school, online school, or find non public schools.  we require vaccinations for people to travel abroad to specific countries.  if you do not like it, no one is forcing you to go to that place.  some colleges require vaccinations.  again use a different school, go online, etc.  in my home or business, i could require people to wear pink to enter if i decided to.  do not like it, do not come to my store.  no one is removing choice to anyone here.  about the only thing people do not have choice in is death and taxes.  sure i think everyone should get a vaccine.  and sure, i am for some reasonable measures to protect the population from those who do not.  and i am for incentives to encourage people to do so.  but the  reasonable  is the key here.  if we started rounding people up with needles or kicking people out of the country, i would not support that.  we ca not give the government that much power over us.   #  as for other, better candidates such as at x weeks after conception , i do not know enough about human development to speak intelligently about them.   #  that is an awkward question.  i really do not know where the line is best drawn between person and non person, and i suspect that it is not so much a line as a slope.  i know that a fetus without a distinct brain is not, by my definition, a person person being a label which i apply to the mind, not the genes or the body .  i know that a self aware entity is.  i do not know if a fetus ten minutes from birth is, and i do not know if a baby ten minutes after birth is.  i  definitely  think that erring on the side of personhood in the baby is case is the right thing to do, and i do not know about the t minus ten fetus but i suspect that the same is true.  i think that birth is a good candidate for a natural division between  we treat entity as person  and  we treat entity as non person ; it is arbitrary, but it is unambiguous, and if we have to pick somewhere to err it seems like a good place.  as for other, better candidates such as at x weeks after conception , i do not know enough about human development to speak intelligently about them.   #  also, that does not mean healthy and without problems.   #  why 0 weeks ? in the best hospitals with nicu units the survival is still 0.  also, that does not mean healthy and without problems.  0 weeks does not mean full term.  it also removes the right of abortion from a woman who is dying.  or a legally dead woman on machines to be unplugged.  or to remove a dying fetus from a woman instead of forcing her to carry it.   #  i think my reasoning applies to young infants just as much.   #  i will answer this too, since i agree with /u/plexiglasspelican.  i do not see why  viable on its own  makes that much of a difference, ethically.  you are still forcing a woman to bring a baby she does not want into this world, and adoption is pretty hit or miss.  the baby essentially ca not understand what is happening to it, and if it can be killed painlessly, it will die quietly and without any fear.  its death wo not impact anyone else except maybe the father, who should not have a say in abortions anyway .  i ca not think of any ethical reason why a late term abortions should be banned, and several reasons why they should be allowed.  i do not see why  viable on its own  should change anything.  now, the problem is, there is really no argument why you should not be able to then  abort  infants that are a few days old, or even a few weeks old.  i think my reasoning applies to young infants just as much.  i am willing to draw the line for abortions at birth.  it may be an arbitrary line, but the line does need to be drawn  somewhere , and that is about as clear cut a line as you can get.   #  i have just always been content to not challenge it.   #  may i ask why ? i am uncomfortable with it too.  if someone aborted a late term fetus, i would think nothing of it.  if somebody murdered their just born infant, i would think they are a monster.  .  but i am not sure i can actually justify why i feel this way.  i do not see any ethical difference between 0 weeks before birth and 0 seconds after, and ca not think of why that difference is important.  i have been socialized to think it is heinous, but i have never been able to justify it philosophically.  i have just always been content to not challenge it.
a political party leader has a duty to serve their country via their government or via their opposition if they have not won election to government .  losing an election does not prevent a good leader from leading, it merely humbles them, but losing an election will cause a bad leader to give up.  in the uk 0 major political party leaders gave up on friday when they should be using their leadership skills and good vision to lead the opposition to keep the government accountable.  if they had won the election i presume that they would not have retired.  which makes it very evident that the leaders of the losing parties did not have leadership skills and/or a good vision but merely wanted to win for the sake of power.    i have to go now, but i will read all the comments and get back to this tomorrow.  thank you.   #  losing an election does not prevent a good leader from leading, it merely humbles them, but losing an election will cause a bad leader to give up.   #  and here lies the fatal flaw of your premise.   # and here lies the fatal flaw of your premise.  you assume that the only way a leader can be a leader is to lead from the front, to be the head of their party and run for office.  doing anything else is proof that they only wanted power.  this is invariably false.  a leader stepping down after a loss is not a sign that they only wanted power.  it is a sign that they realize that their style of leadership was not the best for their party whose ideals they agree with and who they think is best for the country.  so by stepping down, they are trying to assist the party and, by extension, the country.   #  a political parties aim, as a whole, is more power to do that which they think is right.   #  do not you think its more bowing down and accepting the public the people who  did not  vote for you has little confidence in you as a leader, so time to pave the way for someone new and hopefully more successful ? a political parties aim, as a whole, is more power to do that which they think is right.  if, at the top, you are a hindrance rather than a help, moving back into a backseat permission and bringing in a new leader can be more helpful to your party in the long run.  on top of that, if it was really just a power play, then surely they would remain at the head of their respective party ? where else are they going to have as much or more power than they already do ? stepping down from the top spot is a relinquishing of power, which would run counter to your idea that all they desire is more power.   #  stepping down from the top spot is a relinquishing of power, which would run counter to your idea that all they desire is more power.   #  if you fall short of your aims as heavily as ukip farage failing to take south thanet , the lib dems down to 0 seats and labour believing they were on course to come out ahead of the tories while actually coming 0 seats behind , your only real recourse is to quit now or face no confidence from your party this may not be the case in farage is cases, i am sure he will be back .  i do not agree with this.  yes, they should be happy that they live in a democracy, but happy that the nation chose something against their political beliefs that i will give politicians the benefit of the doubt on and say that they probably do personally believe are the best course for the country ? should a green politician be happy that the nation is predominantly right wing ? this does not make sense.  and as i said before, on top of that, if it was really just a power play, then surely they would remain at the head of their respective party ? where else are they going to have as much or more power than they already do ? stepping down from the top spot is a relinquishing of power, which would run counter to your idea that all they desire is more power.  i, however, am not incredibly knowledgeable on this whole shebang, so if anyone wants to cmv and earn themselves a shiny delta please do !  #  so i firstly appreciate that you read my post.   #    0; /u/brolific broster you have understood my thoughts better than a lot of this topic is responders who have commented saying that resigning after a failure is simply  the done thing  in many different and sometimes flowery ways.  so i firstly appreciate that you read my post.  yes, they should be happy that they live in a democracy, but happy that the nation chose something against their political beliefs   this is where i saw that you understood my view.  this does not make sense.    this where you changed my view.  i am the kind of voter who chooses to vote based on my representative in the house of commons regardless of which party they are attached to and weather i think that they will be opposition or government as long as my voice as a citizen will be heard then i am content.  what you have made me realise better is that the  personality  of a political party which i largely choose to be ignorant of when voting, another topic for another time i guess is important to the party and the party leader.  they have to enforce the values which are unique to the party and failing to win the position of government affects that mission greatly i know this is clearly obvious for many, but this was a personal discussion for me and some other people who are open to voting differently at each election.  i would still hold that a  failing  party leader should wait long enough to find a new nominee to their position before resigning and to give their opinions on why the next guy or gal will be different and better than themselves, there is no excuse to prevent or discourage clear constant improvement when dealing with the welfare of an entire nation, even if it is from beyond the spotlight.  it was judgemental of me to assume that immediate resignation meant insecure leadership or vision on the part of the leader.  every action has a context, and while it was painfully obvious what a lot of it was, i happen to be the kind of voter who does not pay attention to that sort of thing.   #  all in all a very interesting cmv, so thank you for giving me the catalyst to really think about this topic myself.   #  hey, thanks a lot man, i appreciate it.  i am really glad i helped ! ideally, everyone in the country should vote this way, but it is a sad reality that many people ignore their local contenders altogether and just vote along party lines.  i would still hold that a  failing  party leader should wait long enough to find a new nominee to their position before resigning and to give their opinions on why the next guy or gal will be different and better than themselves, there is no excuse to prevent or discourage clear constant improvement when dealing with the welfare of an entire nation, even if it is from beyond the spotlight.  i do not know for sure, but do you think that in the case where the failure was as abysmal as labour is and lib dem is was this time around any vote of confidence or implicit favour by the previous head of the party towards a possible candidate could  taint  that candidates image, in the eyes of the public, if it were in the spotlight, or in the eyes of the party if it were a completely private affair ? maybe the immediate step down is a sort of  i am out, any future leader has their own path to follow which my reputation will not affect ?   although, for what it is worth, i do not think immediate resignation is a good thing, but recusing oneself from the selection process altogether i do agree with.  this is a very good thing.  i think it is way too common for people to fall into a cycle of voting for one party, regardless of how poor their personal representative may be or the national leadership of the party, simply because  the opposition is surely worse,  when, if they had simply  tried  to understand the other parties, they may well find themselves agreeing with the philosophy or local manifesto of another parties candidate/s.  all in all a very interesting cmv, so thank you for giving me the catalyst to really think about this topic myself.
i am not a  tax is theft  libertarian or even any kind of libertarian.  if anything i learn more towards socialist, but i cannot get behind the idea of inheritance tax.  society and sound government requires taxes and i think it is absolutely fair to have taxes on income, sales, purchases, whatever.  but for government to come in when a dying person passes on their belongings or money to someone they care about and snatch away a piece of it is a step too far.  i am currently living in spain and was chatting to some spanish people today.  they mentioned that if you inherit a house you are required to pay a portion of the value as tax.  however since spain is in recession it is extremely difficult to sell the house, and some people are forced to forfeit the property in order to be aligned with the law.  this is not the basis of my belief, but it is what motivated me to post this to cmv.  i want someone to give me a good reason to cmv since i think taxes are overall a positive thing.  this is just one instance i think is outrageous.   tl; dr  i understand the need for and support taxation but i cannot support government interference in a dying person is gift to another person.  cmv !  #  i am currently living in spain and was chatting to some spanish people today.   #  they mentioned that if you inherit a house you are required to pay a portion of the value as tax.   # they mentioned that if you inherit a house you are required to pay a portion of the value as tax.  yeah i can see how that would be a problem.  particularly for people who do not want to sell their loved ones home, but who also do not have the liquid assets available to pay the tax.  as far as i know, the inheritance tax on a federal level in the usa only kicks in once you bequeath or give a relative an amount over 0 million dollars or so.  so basically as long as no one in your will gets more than approx 0 million dollars, they do not have to pay any estate tax.  as a result, the estate tax affects a very tiny number of people in the us.  states have their own estate taxes.  some of which only kick in once the person exceeds the federal limit, and some of which are completely independent of the federal limit.  essentially, at least in the case of the us, the estate tax only affects people who are quite wealthy, or those who are moderately wealthy but only have one or two living relatives.  i am not sure if this changes your view, but it at least shows that the people who are most affected by such laws are usually the people who are  hurt  less by them.   #  it does not matter if the money changes hands through gifts, purchases, lottery winnings, or found treasure.   #  governments tax money when it changes hands.  this is not a complicated concept.  it does not matter if the money changes hands through gifts, purchases, lottery winnings, or found treasure.  it gets taxed because it gets a new owner.  double taxation is really not very common.  you do not  tag  a unit of currency has having been taxed.  the minute it changes hands, it is not taxed.  many taxes are only levied once the amount crosses a threshold and even then only the excess is calculated.   #  income tax, i understand the logic that without a government maintaining certian vital aspects of society, it would not be possible to work and earn money.   #  this argument makes no sense to me at all.  the money used to purchase the house has been taxed through income tax and potentially sales tax, and the house itself has been and will be taxed through property tax.  why should the change in ownership of the house owing to the fact that the former owner is dead mean that the new owner has to pay the government ? income tax, i understand the logic that without a government maintaining certian vital aspects of society, it would not be possible to work and earn money.  sales tax, i understand the logic that it would not be possible to make a safe transaction.  property tax, i understand the logic that government secures your right to property against both inside and outside threats.  what exactly is the logic behind taxing the act of death itself ? legally, dead people ca not own things.  in order to prevent it from becoming a free for all bloodbath over their possessions, they choose how their possessions will be distributed upon their death.  so the government creates the problem of dead people not being able to own things and then taxes the only solution ? sorry if i seem confrontational, i just absolutely fail to understand the logic here beyond  government needs money to operate.    #   just because  the owner of the property is new is the whole reason things are taxed all the time.   #  outrageous ? putting angry rhetoric gets us nowhere.  clearly it is not because it is codified law and has been for a long time.   just because  the owner of the property is new is the whole reason things are taxed all the time.  when my boss pays me it is the same money he had before, looking for some deep rationale or justification for taxing it is a fruitless effort.  the government takes part of many transactions because it is seen as fair.  the laws the government create and enforce enable these transactions and so they ought to get a slice of the pie.  it is not a slippery slope to labor camps, just the government searching for revenue.  your analogy of projects without pay is totally different, it is slavery.   #  if one person earns 0 million dollars in his lifetime, then he can leave it in a trust for his child.   #  assume that there is no inheritance tax.  if one person earns 0 million dollars in his lifetime, then he can leave it in a trust for his child.  his child would easily receive $0,0 dollars from investments every year, without working a day of his life, without touching his principal.  if he only spends $0,0 a year, then over his lifetime, that 0 million dollars can grow to 0 million dollars or so.  he leaves that to his child, and it continues to grow.  what results are family dynasties where nobody in the family would ever need to work, yet rake in huge amounts of money.  a society where your success is decided at birth, and nobody born in a lower class can ever achieve any remotely similar level of success in their lifetime.
i am not a  tax is theft  libertarian or even any kind of libertarian.  if anything i learn more towards socialist, but i cannot get behind the idea of inheritance tax.  society and sound government requires taxes and i think it is absolutely fair to have taxes on income, sales, purchases, whatever.  but for government to come in when a dying person passes on their belongings or money to someone they care about and snatch away a piece of it is a step too far.  i am currently living in spain and was chatting to some spanish people today.  they mentioned that if you inherit a house you are required to pay a portion of the value as tax.  however since spain is in recession it is extremely difficult to sell the house, and some people are forced to forfeit the property in order to be aligned with the law.  this is not the basis of my belief, but it is what motivated me to post this to cmv.  i want someone to give me a good reason to cmv since i think taxes are overall a positive thing.  this is just one instance i think is outrageous.   tl; dr  i understand the need for and support taxation but i cannot support government interference in a dying person is gift to another person.  cmv !  #  i want someone to give me a good reason to cmv since i think taxes are overall a positive thing.   #  the premise of capitalism is to earn wealth by  merit  you know, work hard and innovate.   # the premise of capitalism is to earn wealth by  merit  you know, work hard and innovate.  inherited wealth is the exact opposite of that.  look at the very wealthy.  if they could pass along 0 of their wealth, they would ultimately create a permanent aristocracy.  it is  way  easier to make money with money than it is to earn it from zero.  inheritance taxation is the only protection from that.   #  so basically as long as no one in your will gets more than approx 0 million dollars, they do not have to pay any estate tax.   # they mentioned that if you inherit a house you are required to pay a portion of the value as tax.  yeah i can see how that would be a problem.  particularly for people who do not want to sell their loved ones home, but who also do not have the liquid assets available to pay the tax.  as far as i know, the inheritance tax on a federal level in the usa only kicks in once you bequeath or give a relative an amount over 0 million dollars or so.  so basically as long as no one in your will gets more than approx 0 million dollars, they do not have to pay any estate tax.  as a result, the estate tax affects a very tiny number of people in the us.  states have their own estate taxes.  some of which only kick in once the person exceeds the federal limit, and some of which are completely independent of the federal limit.  essentially, at least in the case of the us, the estate tax only affects people who are quite wealthy, or those who are moderately wealthy but only have one or two living relatives.  i am not sure if this changes your view, but it at least shows that the people who are most affected by such laws are usually the people who are  hurt  less by them.   #  it does not matter if the money changes hands through gifts, purchases, lottery winnings, or found treasure.   #  governments tax money when it changes hands.  this is not a complicated concept.  it does not matter if the money changes hands through gifts, purchases, lottery winnings, or found treasure.  it gets taxed because it gets a new owner.  double taxation is really not very common.  you do not  tag  a unit of currency has having been taxed.  the minute it changes hands, it is not taxed.  many taxes are only levied once the amount crosses a threshold and even then only the excess is calculated.   #  in order to prevent it from becoming a free for all bloodbath over their possessions, they choose how their possessions will be distributed upon their death.   #  this argument makes no sense to me at all.  the money used to purchase the house has been taxed through income tax and potentially sales tax, and the house itself has been and will be taxed through property tax.  why should the change in ownership of the house owing to the fact that the former owner is dead mean that the new owner has to pay the government ? income tax, i understand the logic that without a government maintaining certian vital aspects of society, it would not be possible to work and earn money.  sales tax, i understand the logic that it would not be possible to make a safe transaction.  property tax, i understand the logic that government secures your right to property against both inside and outside threats.  what exactly is the logic behind taxing the act of death itself ? legally, dead people ca not own things.  in order to prevent it from becoming a free for all bloodbath over their possessions, they choose how their possessions will be distributed upon their death.  so the government creates the problem of dead people not being able to own things and then taxes the only solution ? sorry if i seem confrontational, i just absolutely fail to understand the logic here beyond  government needs money to operate.    #  the laws the government create and enforce enable these transactions and so they ought to get a slice of the pie.   #  outrageous ? putting angry rhetoric gets us nowhere.  clearly it is not because it is codified law and has been for a long time.   just because  the owner of the property is new is the whole reason things are taxed all the time.  when my boss pays me it is the same money he had before, looking for some deep rationale or justification for taxing it is a fruitless effort.  the government takes part of many transactions because it is seen as fair.  the laws the government create and enforce enable these transactions and so they ought to get a slice of the pie.  it is not a slippery slope to labor camps, just the government searching for revenue.  your analogy of projects without pay is totally different, it is slavery.
i am not a  tax is theft  libertarian or even any kind of libertarian.  if anything i learn more towards socialist, but i cannot get behind the idea of inheritance tax.  society and sound government requires taxes and i think it is absolutely fair to have taxes on income, sales, purchases, whatever.  but for government to come in when a dying person passes on their belongings or money to someone they care about and snatch away a piece of it is a step too far.  i am currently living in spain and was chatting to some spanish people today.  they mentioned that if you inherit a house you are required to pay a portion of the value as tax.  however since spain is in recession it is extremely difficult to sell the house, and some people are forced to forfeit the property in order to be aligned with the law.  this is not the basis of my belief, but it is what motivated me to post this to cmv.  i want someone to give me a good reason to cmv since i think taxes are overall a positive thing.  this is just one instance i think is outrageous.   tl; dr  i understand the need for and support taxation but i cannot support government interference in a dying person is gift to another person.  cmv !  #  i want someone to give me a good reason to cmv since i think taxes are overall a positive thing.   #  0 the best reason i can give for this is that inheritance and estate taxes are of greater benefit to society for the two reasons i mentioned above reduce wealth stratification and to promote merit and innovation success .   #  if you are serious about learning more about the other side of this debate, you should read an essay called the  the gospel of wealth  by andrew carnegie.  as you know, carnegie was an industrialist who had a net worth equivalent to  $0 billion  in today is dollars in comparison, bill gates  net worth is 0 billion .  though  the gospel of wealth  promotes the wealthy to pass their inheritance to charities and philanthropy not necessary taxes , the principle is the same: surplus wealth is not put to best use for society when simply passed down to an heir.  in a capitalistic society, inheritances will cause greater stratification between the rich and the poor, and inhibit merit based success and innovation.  i am going on an extreme tangent here: but suppose there was no inheritance tax, and in 0 years from now we are seeing a vast stratification between rich and poor since wealth has been concentrated to families .  not only does this inhibit merit based social mobility, but it also makes innovation from the lower class  more difficult  than it would be otherwise.  what i mean by innovation are new businesses or ideas that benefit society.  think tech startups as a good example that require little to no money to get going.  this would only be more difficult in an oligarchical society where wealth is concentrated to rich families.  what would ultimately happen decades later is innovation would cease, wealth stratification would stretch beyond capacity, and the masses would revolt.  0 the best reason i can give for this is that inheritance and estate taxes are of greater benefit to society for the two reasons i mentioned above reduce wealth stratification and to promote merit and innovation success .  0 my second reason would be the illogical fallacies on both ends of the spectrum:    logic 0: being poor means you are lazy, do not work hard, or are not smart.  it is a character flaw, not a result of your environment.  under this logic, an inheritance tax would make sense, since passing wealth down to a heir would inhibit hard work, and establish  unfair wealth .  if an heir was as smart and hardworking as you, they should have little trouble to attain wealth on their own     logic 0: being poor does not mean you are lazy or dumb, it is just a result of your environment and the class you were born into.  under this logic, and inheritance tax would also make sense.  society would need a way of preventing wealth stratification, weak social mobility, and predefined classes.   #  as a result, the estate tax affects a very tiny number of people in the us.   # they mentioned that if you inherit a house you are required to pay a portion of the value as tax.  yeah i can see how that would be a problem.  particularly for people who do not want to sell their loved ones home, but who also do not have the liquid assets available to pay the tax.  as far as i know, the inheritance tax on a federal level in the usa only kicks in once you bequeath or give a relative an amount over 0 million dollars or so.  so basically as long as no one in your will gets more than approx 0 million dollars, they do not have to pay any estate tax.  as a result, the estate tax affects a very tiny number of people in the us.  states have their own estate taxes.  some of which only kick in once the person exceeds the federal limit, and some of which are completely independent of the federal limit.  essentially, at least in the case of the us, the estate tax only affects people who are quite wealthy, or those who are moderately wealthy but only have one or two living relatives.  i am not sure if this changes your view, but it at least shows that the people who are most affected by such laws are usually the people who are  hurt  less by them.   #  you do not  tag  a unit of currency has having been taxed.   #  governments tax money when it changes hands.  this is not a complicated concept.  it does not matter if the money changes hands through gifts, purchases, lottery winnings, or found treasure.  it gets taxed because it gets a new owner.  double taxation is really not very common.  you do not  tag  a unit of currency has having been taxed.  the minute it changes hands, it is not taxed.  many taxes are only levied once the amount crosses a threshold and even then only the excess is calculated.   #  sales tax, i understand the logic that it would not be possible to make a safe transaction.   #  this argument makes no sense to me at all.  the money used to purchase the house has been taxed through income tax and potentially sales tax, and the house itself has been and will be taxed through property tax.  why should the change in ownership of the house owing to the fact that the former owner is dead mean that the new owner has to pay the government ? income tax, i understand the logic that without a government maintaining certian vital aspects of society, it would not be possible to work and earn money.  sales tax, i understand the logic that it would not be possible to make a safe transaction.  property tax, i understand the logic that government secures your right to property against both inside and outside threats.  what exactly is the logic behind taxing the act of death itself ? legally, dead people ca not own things.  in order to prevent it from becoming a free for all bloodbath over their possessions, they choose how their possessions will be distributed upon their death.  so the government creates the problem of dead people not being able to own things and then taxes the only solution ? sorry if i seem confrontational, i just absolutely fail to understand the logic here beyond  government needs money to operate.    #  the laws the government create and enforce enable these transactions and so they ought to get a slice of the pie.   #  outrageous ? putting angry rhetoric gets us nowhere.  clearly it is not because it is codified law and has been for a long time.   just because  the owner of the property is new is the whole reason things are taxed all the time.  when my boss pays me it is the same money he had before, looking for some deep rationale or justification for taxing it is a fruitless effort.  the government takes part of many transactions because it is seen as fair.  the laws the government create and enforce enable these transactions and so they ought to get a slice of the pie.  it is not a slippery slope to labor camps, just the government searching for revenue.  your analogy of projects without pay is totally different, it is slavery.
i know that /r/changemyview requires i add a few points here, but i do not really have anything besides this perception that every single thing reddit users complain about stems from karma.  reposting, karma whoring, overused memes, etc.  people do it because they want attention, and karma allows them that attention.  it feels like everything is about getting people to like what you say rather than allowing people to speak their minds freely.  it becomes a social status war about pleasing the masses.  my views on this matter are similar to my views on allowing racist free speech.  most censorship, even user controlled censorship, is bad.  better to allow those views to come to light and then have a civil debate on it to change that person is view.  honestly, i just want a website that can be a forum for discussion without making me feel like an asshole for having unpopular opinions.  so reddit may be a great place for the people who agree with the generally more popular opinions, but karma allows people to drown out the unpopular ones before they even have a chance to be defended.  they shut down discussion and it de incentivizes people who may have a different perspective.  it should be okay to disagree, but it does not feel like it is unless you are in a sub specifically devoted to that.  that is why the subs that prevent you from seeing karma are so great.  you can have a reasoned discussion without feeling like you will be punished for having a different opinion.  your comments get pushed to the bottom if you disagree with anything that does not fit with popular opinions.  it is disgusting and it makes me want to abandon the site as a whole.  i feel safer talking to real people who express genuine intelligence and do not take debate personally rather than those who attack you for having a different perspective.  it applies to  everything  controversial and i think the subs that block karma are the ones who understand exactly what i am talking about.  the downvote button is not supposed to be a disagree button, but it is anyway.  and that is a problem.  i guess i did have some reasoning lol hopefully it will be enough to appease the mods.  but anyway, that is my view.  i am open to changing it, but keep in mind we may just have to agree to disagree.  which is okay with me, people are allowed to have different opinions.  that is my entire point lol i welcome you to try and cmv ! :  #  better to allow those views to come to light and then have a civil debate on it to change that person is view.   #  yeah, you wo not be having any civil debates when there is no accountability.   #  reddit without karma would be 0chan.  0chan is a collection of anonymous people who do not care at all about being agreed with.  usernames do not remove anonymity.  if you think 0chan is superior to reddit, i guess this is fine.  but since 0chan is notorious for certain unsavory things, it is something to think about.  yeah, you wo not be having any civil debates when there is no accountability.  you get free expression, but at the price of making everything a shitstorm.   #  racism is conduct toward a group of people, disallowing it is not the same as getting rid of a certain opinion.   #  suppressing an opinion you disagree with.  racism is conduct toward a group of people, disallowing it is not the same as getting rid of a certain opinion.  opinions can be racist; racist opinions will rarely get you banned from a subreddit, while acting racist toward users is generally against a subreddit is rule and will result in a ban.  a moderator and a user base enforcing punishments, whether real or imagined, are different anyway.  a moderator has laid down rules and a user who does not follow those rules does not deserve to be part of that community.  whereas a user base downvoting someone is doing it because that person disagrees with them  or  because that person is toxic and does not deserve to participate in the community.  it is very clearly different as one is acting as an authority and the other is a mob rule.   #  for example a few days ago there was a post on the front page of /r/philosophy with lots of upvotes that presented a point about how political correctes only increases racism.   #  it is completely the other way around.  0chan is bad because you have to navigate through tons of crap content to find useful posts or useful comments.  on reddit if you have a gif made from an youtube video for instance, you will likely find a link to the full video in the top comments.  or other relevant information related to the subject.  people do not downvote racist posts because they disagree with them though they propbably do , but because they do not want to see a post that does not bring anything to the discussion, it is just racist for the sake of being racist.  for example a few days ago there was a post on the front page of /r/philosophy with lots of upvotes that presented a point about how political correctes only increases racism.  the karma worked in it is favor, but in the end it was deleted by a moderator.   #  but when i say that one, little old gay teenager will die, well then everyone loses their minds !  #  i personally would not mind reddit being moderated, if moderation did not mean that certain perspectives materialistic atheism, marxism, ceaseless obsession with minority/identity politics are enforced as part of a hive mind consensus.  in my experience, 0 of the time, the only thing the voting system reflects, is whether or not the given post complies with the universalist/atheist/marxist groupthink.  if it does, you receive positive reinforcement in the form of upvotes.  if it does not, you receive negative reinforcement in the form of downvotes.  it is extremely pavlovian.  you know.  you know what i have noticed ? nobody panics when i write a post in which things go  according to plan.   even if the post is horrifying ! if, tomorrow, i post an article where, like, a white, heterosexual male or a christian gets shot, or a church gets blown up, nobody panics, because it is all,  part of the plan.   but when i say that one, little old gay teenager will die, well then everyone loses their minds ! URL  #  an easy example is /r/aww, where karma is used to vote the cutest critters right to the top.   #  i am going to try to change your mind about your cmv title, which will probably be easy.  then we can discuss the other issues you have brought up.  the problem with this statement is that it is too broad to be useful across reddit.  there are many subreddits that would be much less enjoyable without karma.  an easy example is /r/aww, where karma is used to vote the cutest critters right to the top.  yes, there are reposts and karma lovers, but the subreddit is largely tolerant of them.  often, they deal with reposters with downvotes.  for a sub as popular and busy as it is, it would be impossible for a user to view all the cuteness on offer, so i am okay with the occasional reposts.  all i care about is getting the cream of the cute on top.  what i am saying is that some subreddits exist that are all about pleasing the masses, and the karma system is very helpful.  i should point out that /r/aww often has very cute lizards and birds that get upvoted just for the sake of novelty, it is not all cats and dogs.  well, since each subreddit has its own  atmosphere  it is unreasonable to expect that an opinion will get the same treatment everywhere.  i would not expect an opinion to get the same reception in /r/politicaldiscussion and /r/worldnews they are made up of different sorts of people.  it is the same way away from the computer you would not expect an opinion to get the same response in california and alabama, would you ? just like you would not voice an opinion out loud in a bus full of strangers that you would with a close friend, your opinions on reddit need to find a suitable place to be heard.  with your permission i looked at some of the subreddits where your comments have been controversial.  most of them were in default subreddits.  so instead of /r/politics try /r/politicaldiscussion, /r/trueaskreddit instead of /r/askreddit, etc.  the website is a public forum, so it is up to you to find or create a subreddit that welcomes serious discussion.  also, i would like to add that having css that brings up text that discourages downvoting is even more useful than just hiding karma.  a combination of the two, like on r/cmv, is probably the best solution.
i know that /r/changemyview requires i add a few points here, but i do not really have anything besides this perception that every single thing reddit users complain about stems from karma.  reposting, karma whoring, overused memes, etc.  people do it because they want attention, and karma allows them that attention.  it feels like everything is about getting people to like what you say rather than allowing people to speak their minds freely.  it becomes a social status war about pleasing the masses.  my views on this matter are similar to my views on allowing racist free speech.  most censorship, even user controlled censorship, is bad.  better to allow those views to come to light and then have a civil debate on it to change that person is view.  honestly, i just want a website that can be a forum for discussion without making me feel like an asshole for having unpopular opinions.  so reddit may be a great place for the people who agree with the generally more popular opinions, but karma allows people to drown out the unpopular ones before they even have a chance to be defended.  they shut down discussion and it de incentivizes people who may have a different perspective.  it should be okay to disagree, but it does not feel like it is unless you are in a sub specifically devoted to that.  that is why the subs that prevent you from seeing karma are so great.  you can have a reasoned discussion without feeling like you will be punished for having a different opinion.  your comments get pushed to the bottom if you disagree with anything that does not fit with popular opinions.  it is disgusting and it makes me want to abandon the site as a whole.  i feel safer talking to real people who express genuine intelligence and do not take debate personally rather than those who attack you for having a different perspective.  it applies to  everything  controversial and i think the subs that block karma are the ones who understand exactly what i am talking about.  the downvote button is not supposed to be a disagree button, but it is anyway.  and that is a problem.  i guess i did have some reasoning lol hopefully it will be enough to appease the mods.  but anyway, that is my view.  i am open to changing it, but keep in mind we may just have to agree to disagree.  which is okay with me, people are allowed to have different opinions.  that is my entire point lol i welcome you to try and cmv ! :  #  it becomes a social status war about pleasing the masses.   #  the problem with this statement is that it is too broad to be useful across reddit.   #  i am going to try to change your mind about your cmv title, which will probably be easy.  then we can discuss the other issues you have brought up.  the problem with this statement is that it is too broad to be useful across reddit.  there are many subreddits that would be much less enjoyable without karma.  an easy example is /r/aww, where karma is used to vote the cutest critters right to the top.  yes, there are reposts and karma lovers, but the subreddit is largely tolerant of them.  often, they deal with reposters with downvotes.  for a sub as popular and busy as it is, it would be impossible for a user to view all the cuteness on offer, so i am okay with the occasional reposts.  all i care about is getting the cream of the cute on top.  what i am saying is that some subreddits exist that are all about pleasing the masses, and the karma system is very helpful.  i should point out that /r/aww often has very cute lizards and birds that get upvoted just for the sake of novelty, it is not all cats and dogs.  well, since each subreddit has its own  atmosphere  it is unreasonable to expect that an opinion will get the same treatment everywhere.  i would not expect an opinion to get the same reception in /r/politicaldiscussion and /r/worldnews they are made up of different sorts of people.  it is the same way away from the computer you would not expect an opinion to get the same response in california and alabama, would you ? just like you would not voice an opinion out loud in a bus full of strangers that you would with a close friend, your opinions on reddit need to find a suitable place to be heard.  with your permission i looked at some of the subreddits where your comments have been controversial.  most of them were in default subreddits.  so instead of /r/politics try /r/politicaldiscussion, /r/trueaskreddit instead of /r/askreddit, etc.  the website is a public forum, so it is up to you to find or create a subreddit that welcomes serious discussion.  also, i would like to add that having css that brings up text that discourages downvoting is even more useful than just hiding karma.  a combination of the two, like on r/cmv, is probably the best solution.   #  but since 0chan is notorious for certain unsavory things, it is something to think about.   #  reddit without karma would be 0chan.  0chan is a collection of anonymous people who do not care at all about being agreed with.  usernames do not remove anonymity.  if you think 0chan is superior to reddit, i guess this is fine.  but since 0chan is notorious for certain unsavory things, it is something to think about.  yeah, you wo not be having any civil debates when there is no accountability.  you get free expression, but at the price of making everything a shitstorm.   #  a moderator and a user base enforcing punishments, whether real or imagined, are different anyway.   #  suppressing an opinion you disagree with.  racism is conduct toward a group of people, disallowing it is not the same as getting rid of a certain opinion.  opinions can be racist; racist opinions will rarely get you banned from a subreddit, while acting racist toward users is generally against a subreddit is rule and will result in a ban.  a moderator and a user base enforcing punishments, whether real or imagined, are different anyway.  a moderator has laid down rules and a user who does not follow those rules does not deserve to be part of that community.  whereas a user base downvoting someone is doing it because that person disagrees with them  or  because that person is toxic and does not deserve to participate in the community.  it is very clearly different as one is acting as an authority and the other is a mob rule.   #  on reddit if you have a gif made from an youtube video for instance, you will likely find a link to the full video in the top comments.   #  it is completely the other way around.  0chan is bad because you have to navigate through tons of crap content to find useful posts or useful comments.  on reddit if you have a gif made from an youtube video for instance, you will likely find a link to the full video in the top comments.  or other relevant information related to the subject.  people do not downvote racist posts because they disagree with them though they propbably do , but because they do not want to see a post that does not bring anything to the discussion, it is just racist for the sake of being racist.  for example a few days ago there was a post on the front page of /r/philosophy with lots of upvotes that presented a point about how political correctes only increases racism.  the karma worked in it is favor, but in the end it was deleted by a moderator.   #  i personally would not mind reddit being moderated, if moderation did not mean that certain perspectives materialistic atheism, marxism, ceaseless obsession with minority/identity politics are enforced as part of a hive mind consensus.   #  i personally would not mind reddit being moderated, if moderation did not mean that certain perspectives materialistic atheism, marxism, ceaseless obsession with minority/identity politics are enforced as part of a hive mind consensus.  in my experience, 0 of the time, the only thing the voting system reflects, is whether or not the given post complies with the universalist/atheist/marxist groupthink.  if it does, you receive positive reinforcement in the form of upvotes.  if it does not, you receive negative reinforcement in the form of downvotes.  it is extremely pavlovian.  you know.  you know what i have noticed ? nobody panics when i write a post in which things go  according to plan.   even if the post is horrifying ! if, tomorrow, i post an article where, like, a white, heterosexual male or a christian gets shot, or a church gets blown up, nobody panics, because it is all,  part of the plan.   but when i say that one, little old gay teenager will die, well then everyone loses their minds ! URL
i know that /r/changemyview requires i add a few points here, but i do not really have anything besides this perception that every single thing reddit users complain about stems from karma.  reposting, karma whoring, overused memes, etc.  people do it because they want attention, and karma allows them that attention.  it feels like everything is about getting people to like what you say rather than allowing people to speak their minds freely.  it becomes a social status war about pleasing the masses.  my views on this matter are similar to my views on allowing racist free speech.  most censorship, even user controlled censorship, is bad.  better to allow those views to come to light and then have a civil debate on it to change that person is view.  honestly, i just want a website that can be a forum for discussion without making me feel like an asshole for having unpopular opinions.  so reddit may be a great place for the people who agree with the generally more popular opinions, but karma allows people to drown out the unpopular ones before they even have a chance to be defended.  they shut down discussion and it de incentivizes people who may have a different perspective.  it should be okay to disagree, but it does not feel like it is unless you are in a sub specifically devoted to that.  that is why the subs that prevent you from seeing karma are so great.  you can have a reasoned discussion without feeling like you will be punished for having a different opinion.  your comments get pushed to the bottom if you disagree with anything that does not fit with popular opinions.  it is disgusting and it makes me want to abandon the site as a whole.  i feel safer talking to real people who express genuine intelligence and do not take debate personally rather than those who attack you for having a different perspective.  it applies to  everything  controversial and i think the subs that block karma are the ones who understand exactly what i am talking about.  the downvote button is not supposed to be a disagree button, but it is anyway.  and that is a problem.  i guess i did have some reasoning lol hopefully it will be enough to appease the mods.  but anyway, that is my view.  i am open to changing it, but keep in mind we may just have to agree to disagree.  which is okay with me, people are allowed to have different opinions.  that is my entire point lol i welcome you to try and cmv ! :  #  honestly, i just want a website that can be a forum for discussion without making me feel like an asshole for having unpopular opinions.   #  well, since each subreddit has its own  atmosphere  it is unreasonable to expect that an opinion will get the same treatment everywhere.   #  i am going to try to change your mind about your cmv title, which will probably be easy.  then we can discuss the other issues you have brought up.  the problem with this statement is that it is too broad to be useful across reddit.  there are many subreddits that would be much less enjoyable without karma.  an easy example is /r/aww, where karma is used to vote the cutest critters right to the top.  yes, there are reposts and karma lovers, but the subreddit is largely tolerant of them.  often, they deal with reposters with downvotes.  for a sub as popular and busy as it is, it would be impossible for a user to view all the cuteness on offer, so i am okay with the occasional reposts.  all i care about is getting the cream of the cute on top.  what i am saying is that some subreddits exist that are all about pleasing the masses, and the karma system is very helpful.  i should point out that /r/aww often has very cute lizards and birds that get upvoted just for the sake of novelty, it is not all cats and dogs.  well, since each subreddit has its own  atmosphere  it is unreasonable to expect that an opinion will get the same treatment everywhere.  i would not expect an opinion to get the same reception in /r/politicaldiscussion and /r/worldnews they are made up of different sorts of people.  it is the same way away from the computer you would not expect an opinion to get the same response in california and alabama, would you ? just like you would not voice an opinion out loud in a bus full of strangers that you would with a close friend, your opinions on reddit need to find a suitable place to be heard.  with your permission i looked at some of the subreddits where your comments have been controversial.  most of them were in default subreddits.  so instead of /r/politics try /r/politicaldiscussion, /r/trueaskreddit instead of /r/askreddit, etc.  the website is a public forum, so it is up to you to find or create a subreddit that welcomes serious discussion.  also, i would like to add that having css that brings up text that discourages downvoting is even more useful than just hiding karma.  a combination of the two, like on r/cmv, is probably the best solution.   #  if you think 0chan is superior to reddit, i guess this is fine.   #  reddit without karma would be 0chan.  0chan is a collection of anonymous people who do not care at all about being agreed with.  usernames do not remove anonymity.  if you think 0chan is superior to reddit, i guess this is fine.  but since 0chan is notorious for certain unsavory things, it is something to think about.  yeah, you wo not be having any civil debates when there is no accountability.  you get free expression, but at the price of making everything a shitstorm.   #  racism is conduct toward a group of people, disallowing it is not the same as getting rid of a certain opinion.   #  suppressing an opinion you disagree with.  racism is conduct toward a group of people, disallowing it is not the same as getting rid of a certain opinion.  opinions can be racist; racist opinions will rarely get you banned from a subreddit, while acting racist toward users is generally against a subreddit is rule and will result in a ban.  a moderator and a user base enforcing punishments, whether real or imagined, are different anyway.  a moderator has laid down rules and a user who does not follow those rules does not deserve to be part of that community.  whereas a user base downvoting someone is doing it because that person disagrees with them  or  because that person is toxic and does not deserve to participate in the community.  it is very clearly different as one is acting as an authority and the other is a mob rule.   #  for example a few days ago there was a post on the front page of /r/philosophy with lots of upvotes that presented a point about how political correctes only increases racism.   #  it is completely the other way around.  0chan is bad because you have to navigate through tons of crap content to find useful posts or useful comments.  on reddit if you have a gif made from an youtube video for instance, you will likely find a link to the full video in the top comments.  or other relevant information related to the subject.  people do not downvote racist posts because they disagree with them though they propbably do , but because they do not want to see a post that does not bring anything to the discussion, it is just racist for the sake of being racist.  for example a few days ago there was a post on the front page of /r/philosophy with lots of upvotes that presented a point about how political correctes only increases racism.  the karma worked in it is favor, but in the end it was deleted by a moderator.   #  in my experience, 0 of the time, the only thing the voting system reflects, is whether or not the given post complies with the universalist/atheist/marxist groupthink.   #  i personally would not mind reddit being moderated, if moderation did not mean that certain perspectives materialistic atheism, marxism, ceaseless obsession with minority/identity politics are enforced as part of a hive mind consensus.  in my experience, 0 of the time, the only thing the voting system reflects, is whether or not the given post complies with the universalist/atheist/marxist groupthink.  if it does, you receive positive reinforcement in the form of upvotes.  if it does not, you receive negative reinforcement in the form of downvotes.  it is extremely pavlovian.  you know.  you know what i have noticed ? nobody panics when i write a post in which things go  according to plan.   even if the post is horrifying ! if, tomorrow, i post an article where, like, a white, heterosexual male or a christian gets shot, or a church gets blown up, nobody panics, because it is all,  part of the plan.   but when i say that one, little old gay teenager will die, well then everyone loses their minds ! URL
all forms of child pornography are illegal in a lot of the countries, and in some states depending on the state law.  the main argument of child pornography is that by viewing the material causes harm to the victim, and i totally agree with it.  however, this is not the case when it comes to fictional child pornography, be it written, drawings or a narrated audio.  no children were actually harmed in any case.  secondly, i think it is rather hard to draw the line between normal pornography and child pornography.  it is up to the illustrator or writer to give his/her fantasy a arbitrary age.  i believe by addition of few lines in a normal pornographic story can transform it into a child pornographic story easily.  lastly, i believe by making fictional cp legal, pedophiles can find a way to satisfy their urge without seeking actual child porn or physically assault a child, and risk persecution.   #  the main argument of child pornography is that by viewing the material causes harm to the victim, and i totally agree with it.   #  you should not, though, because it is magical voodoo thinking.   # you should not, though, because it is magical voodoo thinking.   re victimization  by viewing the material is a sensationalist ploy by puritanical fearmongers.  the things that hurt the victims are what is happening to them  directly , causing physical/psychological stress, pain, etc.  things the victim does not even know about ca not affect him/her in any way.  but of course some victims can be talked  into  a secondary trauma, causing psychological stress to themselves by constantly thinking about the material that might or might not be  out there .  fictional child porn being treated as  areal  is the perfect proof of our laws being written by hacks interested only in furthering the pedo hysteria, more arrests and convictions of innocents , and more fear in the general public which results in increasing government power   eroding personal rights and freedoms.  the fantastic notion that lines and dots on a paper or screen have personalities and age.   #  however, many of us do end up do turning to fiction for the reasons you give; a  isafe  way to get off.   #  hey, this is my first post in this subreddit.  i am a non exclusive non acting pedophile who recently joined the forum on virped. org; a group of likeminded anti acting pedophiles.  this is a hotly debated question on the site.  we are all against real cp as it is frankly recorded child abuse.  however, many of us do end up do turning to fiction for the reasons you give; a  isafe  way to get off.  some in opposition say that this could lead to a desire for real cp if it loses it is effect.  as to your points: 0.  yep, definitely victimeless; except if it could lead to pedophiles moving onto child pornography which definitely has victims.  there has not been too much research into this; however i found URL as a wikipedia reference.  0.  ya, drawings do not have a birthday; though age can be obviously if infant, toddler, etc i would think.  0.  maybe.  honestly i am not sure what to think on.  one data project i have been working on the past week is pulling searches from pornmd. com/getliveterms and found that there are lots of searches including  havery young ,  x year old  where x 0, and a whole lot including 0 which is often the line.  fact: there are pedophiles that do not want to offend.  they should have access to help if they desire it without throwing away their life.  more attention in research and support should be given to the issue.   #  it seems like those who aim to make porn have no reason to choose such a risky method, and those who aim to sexually abuse children are probably not sitting around painting them anyways.   # no, that would still be unacceptable.  however, i question how realistic such a scenario really is.  physically possible ? sure.  but do you think this has actually ever happened ? i would think not, in the overwhelming majority of cases.  seeing as fictional alternatives exist as exactly that  alternatives  that do not require the use of actual children in order to be produced why would someone put themselves at risk of decades of prison time, when the intended product could be made perfectly legally ? it seems like those who aim to make porn have no reason to choose such a risky method, and those who aim to sexually abuse children are probably not sitting around painting them anyways.  and secondly, even if it were a prevalent thing, is that a good enough reason to keep it illegal ? following the same logic, it seems we should also ban thriller/action/horror novels because there is no way to prove that an author  did not  kill people in order to get inspiration for their book.   #  or what if its not about us, but he writes a detailed novel of that little girl across town ?  #  i have to agree with u/reoslr0, i used to think that there was no harm in fake images, but i wonder about how fake an image can really be.  i cannot find a link but i remember reading somewhere that all of the people in your dreams are someone you met in real life, you cannot just make up new people.  i had a pedophile rent out half of our split house for years when i was a child, he never touched us my dad is pretty big and would have quite literally killed him, and he was eventually arrested for kidnapping and raping a different little girl across town but i am sure he must have seen me and my sister running around in our bathing suits and such enough.  how comfortable would you be, and expect me to be, if he wrote a series of grafic novels or paintings of two young sisters sharing a house with a pedophile ? he would never need to touch us, but his books could depict us getting raped for him and anyone he shares it with to jack off to.  or what if its not about us, but he writes a detailed novel of that little girl across town ? and keep in mind once fake images are legal it would still likely be impossible to prove where exactly it came from, meaning there is no way to tell if it came from someone is mind, what they imagine doing to an actual child, or something they have already done.   #  in mine, the product can now be created legally or illegally, and no reason to choose the illegal method.   # but i would be willing to bet that plenty of  fictional  child porn is about real children.  how so ? why would somebody make fictional porn with characters under 0, when the alternative of making them 0  carries no punishment ? not everyone cares about following the law, or they simply believe they wo not be caught.  this analogy does not hold.  in your scenario, there is demand for a product, so it is produced that is the reason driving its production.  in mine, the product can now be created legally or illegally, and no reason to choose the illegal method.  here you are shifting your goalposts what you are saying about murder is true, but not relevant to the specific point i am making.  you claimed that  fictional  child pornography should be illegal  because there is no way of proving it did not involve actual child abuse.  my example of horror novels aims not to definitively prove that  fictional  child pornography should be legal, but to show that your reasoning here does not hold up that it is not a good reason for keeping it illegal.  and in this sense,   because there is no way of proving it did not involve actual murder.    is a perfectly fine analogy even if there are additional reasons for the child pornography case, and not for the novel case.
all forms of child pornography are illegal in a lot of the countries, and in some states depending on the state law.  the main argument of child pornography is that by viewing the material causes harm to the victim, and i totally agree with it.  however, this is not the case when it comes to fictional child pornography, be it written, drawings or a narrated audio.  no children were actually harmed in any case.  secondly, i think it is rather hard to draw the line between normal pornography and child pornography.  it is up to the illustrator or writer to give his/her fantasy a arbitrary age.  i believe by addition of few lines in a normal pornographic story can transform it into a child pornographic story easily.  lastly, i believe by making fictional cp legal, pedophiles can find a way to satisfy their urge without seeking actual child porn or physically assault a child, and risk persecution.   #  it is up to the illustrator or writer to give his/her fantasy a arbitrary age.   #  the fantastic notion that lines and dots on a paper or screen have personalities and age.   # you should not, though, because it is magical voodoo thinking.   re victimization  by viewing the material is a sensationalist ploy by puritanical fearmongers.  the things that hurt the victims are what is happening to them  directly , causing physical/psychological stress, pain, etc.  things the victim does not even know about ca not affect him/her in any way.  but of course some victims can be talked  into  a secondary trauma, causing psychological stress to themselves by constantly thinking about the material that might or might not be  out there .  fictional child porn being treated as  areal  is the perfect proof of our laws being written by hacks interested only in furthering the pedo hysteria, more arrests and convictions of innocents , and more fear in the general public which results in increasing government power   eroding personal rights and freedoms.  the fantastic notion that lines and dots on a paper or screen have personalities and age.   #  more attention in research and support should be given to the issue.   #  hey, this is my first post in this subreddit.  i am a non exclusive non acting pedophile who recently joined the forum on virped. org; a group of likeminded anti acting pedophiles.  this is a hotly debated question on the site.  we are all against real cp as it is frankly recorded child abuse.  however, many of us do end up do turning to fiction for the reasons you give; a  isafe  way to get off.  some in opposition say that this could lead to a desire for real cp if it loses it is effect.  as to your points: 0.  yep, definitely victimeless; except if it could lead to pedophiles moving onto child pornography which definitely has victims.  there has not been too much research into this; however i found URL as a wikipedia reference.  0.  ya, drawings do not have a birthday; though age can be obviously if infant, toddler, etc i would think.  0.  maybe.  honestly i am not sure what to think on.  one data project i have been working on the past week is pulling searches from pornmd. com/getliveterms and found that there are lots of searches including  havery young ,  x year old  where x 0, and a whole lot including 0 which is often the line.  fact: there are pedophiles that do not want to offend.  they should have access to help if they desire it without throwing away their life.  more attention in research and support should be given to the issue.   #  it seems like those who aim to make porn have no reason to choose such a risky method, and those who aim to sexually abuse children are probably not sitting around painting them anyways.   # no, that would still be unacceptable.  however, i question how realistic such a scenario really is.  physically possible ? sure.  but do you think this has actually ever happened ? i would think not, in the overwhelming majority of cases.  seeing as fictional alternatives exist as exactly that  alternatives  that do not require the use of actual children in order to be produced why would someone put themselves at risk of decades of prison time, when the intended product could be made perfectly legally ? it seems like those who aim to make porn have no reason to choose such a risky method, and those who aim to sexually abuse children are probably not sitting around painting them anyways.  and secondly, even if it were a prevalent thing, is that a good enough reason to keep it illegal ? following the same logic, it seems we should also ban thriller/action/horror novels because there is no way to prove that an author  did not  kill people in order to get inspiration for their book.   #  he would never need to touch us, but his books could depict us getting raped for him and anyone he shares it with to jack off to.   #  i have to agree with u/reoslr0, i used to think that there was no harm in fake images, but i wonder about how fake an image can really be.  i cannot find a link but i remember reading somewhere that all of the people in your dreams are someone you met in real life, you cannot just make up new people.  i had a pedophile rent out half of our split house for years when i was a child, he never touched us my dad is pretty big and would have quite literally killed him, and he was eventually arrested for kidnapping and raping a different little girl across town but i am sure he must have seen me and my sister running around in our bathing suits and such enough.  how comfortable would you be, and expect me to be, if he wrote a series of grafic novels or paintings of two young sisters sharing a house with a pedophile ? he would never need to touch us, but his books could depict us getting raped for him and anyone he shares it with to jack off to.  or what if its not about us, but he writes a detailed novel of that little girl across town ? and keep in mind once fake images are legal it would still likely be impossible to prove where exactly it came from, meaning there is no way to tell if it came from someone is mind, what they imagine doing to an actual child, or something they have already done.   #  but i would be willing to bet that plenty of  fictional  child porn is about real children.   # but i would be willing to bet that plenty of  fictional  child porn is about real children.  how so ? why would somebody make fictional porn with characters under 0, when the alternative of making them 0  carries no punishment ? not everyone cares about following the law, or they simply believe they wo not be caught.  this analogy does not hold.  in your scenario, there is demand for a product, so it is produced that is the reason driving its production.  in mine, the product can now be created legally or illegally, and no reason to choose the illegal method.  here you are shifting your goalposts what you are saying about murder is true, but not relevant to the specific point i am making.  you claimed that  fictional  child pornography should be illegal  because there is no way of proving it did not involve actual child abuse.  my example of horror novels aims not to definitively prove that  fictional  child pornography should be legal, but to show that your reasoning here does not hold up that it is not a good reason for keeping it illegal.  and in this sense,   because there is no way of proving it did not involve actual murder.    is a perfectly fine analogy even if there are additional reasons for the child pornography case, and not for the novel case.
america and her allies have been engaging in a  war on terror  pretty much since 0.  however, this is a war that we cannot and will not win.  we are fighting a movement/idea/unorganized non state actor.  in many ways, persecution only helps it spread, as evidenced by the rise of groups like isis and boko haram, as well as the continued existence of al qaeda, the taliban, etc.  if anything, more terror has happened as a result of the  war on terror .  no nation has ever been able to  win  a war like this.  this is because there is no way to  win .  what could you do ? eliminate every member of a group ? it is not like it wo not just pop up again.  america is exceptionally good at war and remains exceptionally good at war, which we see in the tremendous success of the initial phase of the first iraq war which, by the way, had a clear cut goal: remove saddam huisane from kuwait .  what we see in the iraq war is what we saw in vietnam and, in a lesser sense, korea.  the united states, and indeed anyone else, cannot fight an idea or a non state actor.  tldr: america cannot win in the middle east because there are no clear cut goals or achievable, concrete finish lines.  america excels at regular war, but no nation can fight the war we have in iraq.  URL  #  however, this is a war that we cannot and will not win.   #  we are fighting a movement/idea/unorganized non state actor.   # we are fighting a movement/idea/unorganized non state actor.  in many ways, persecution only helps it spread, as evidenced by the rise of groups like isis and boko haram, as well as the continued existence of al qaeda, the taliban, etc.  if anything, more terror has happened as a result of the  war on terror .  yet, a lot of those same groups you have listed have been diminished tremendously because of those military actions.  boko haram nigeria and its neighbor is recent offensives have freed hundreds of hostages URL taken out strongholds, and made more advances towards eradicating boko haram in the past few months than in years isis after their lightning advances in 0, they have been held more or less in check since the us led airstrikes began.  they have lost ground in kobani, and against the yazidis and kurds in northern iraq al qaeda who still claims affiliation with them these days ? they have been in a power struggle internally since osama bin laden died, and have not had major coordinated attacks that were once their trademark the taliban no longer the ruling government of afghanistan, and while their insurgency lives on, the us is still present in afghanistan lets look at some other groups that do not get as much attention: in 0, the tuarge rebellion in mali led to the declaration of the state of azawad URL a nation supported by islamist groups.  a french led intervention URL defeated the islamists and retook most of northern mali al shabaab the african union mission in somalia URL which puts african union troops from uganda, kenya, ethiopia, etc.  under us advisors and with us support and funding, has retaken large parts of somalia to include mogadishu.  al shabaab, the al qaeda affiliated islamist group had once ruled large parts of somalia now they have been driven out of places like mogadishu, which has brought the restoration of the federal somali government closer to a reality than at any point in the past 0  years.  america excels at regular war, but no nation can fight the war we have in iraq.  there  are  goals maybe not clear cut concrete finish lines, but war never is.  it is easy to look at ww0 and say  oh, we made italy, japan, and germany surrender  and say those were goals sure, in the short term.  in the long term though, we wanted to prevent ww0 from happening again so we set about  occupying  those countries and rebuilding them, something the victors of wwi did not do.  and you know what ? the us is  still  in those countries, as those 0 countries host more us troops than any others in the world.  those are the same goals the us has in nations like iraq and afghanistan the difference is, the us is still facing active insurgencies in those countries, the local governments are much less effective than we have hoped, and the stomach for the us to stay long term in those countries is not like it was in the past.  if you told someone in 0 that us troops would still be in germany, italy, and japan  seventy years  later, people would think you are insane.  and yet, here we are.   #  it is easy for us in the west to say  they need to be educated  but that is in our system.   # i would like to think there is a better idea.  to me, it is education.  the people in those countries, who only see america as drone strikes and air raids, need to understand that the us is trying to assist them.  if we want long term stability, it requires a multi faceted approach that includes both security and education.  de nazification of germany did not happen overnight, and if we left germany to their own devices like we did at the end of ww i, who is to say they would not have found their new strong man to lead them a decade or two later.  and, remember, education itself is not enough: in fact, education is a double edged sword.  it is easy for us in the west to say  they need to be educated  but that is in our system.  in  their  eyes, western education is just the west trying to impose its values and ideologies upon their way of life.  for example, boko haram literally means  western education is forbidden  they are a reaction to the westernization of their education system and values, which is often at odds with their world view, and sometimes outright their antithesis.  in their eyes, when you say  education is the answer  they are viewing you as a modern form of western imperialism one of ideological control instead of political control.   #  the cause deeper societal issues: abject poverty and desperation.   #  just wanted to add a common misconception is that they blow us up because of their ideas or our ideas.  differing ideas exist, but they are not the true cause of terrorism.  the cause deeper societal issues: abject poverty and desperation.  religions fanatics and nuts will always exist, but how many supporters they have and how extreme those supporters are depends on their situation.  as long as people can make enough money to feed their families, they are not gonna destroy the status quo.  people who work all day every day are also too tired and are less willing to sacrifice their precious free time to protest an unfair system that doesn;t impact them much anyway.   #  the goal is to kill militants and the secondary goal that they will never publicly state is to provide a target for terrorists, that target being u. s.   #  i disagree that there are no clear cut goals.  the goal is to kill militants and the secondary goal that they will never publicly state is to provide a target for terrorists, that target being u. s.  military personnel in the middle east and the countries supporting u. s.  military personnel keep terrorist from attacking difficult targets in the u. s.  by providing a target oversees .  now i agree that the way the  war  is being fought that it cannot be won, but i can foresee a change of tactics and then maybe a victory can be obtained.  if the u. s.  can reduce civilian casualties, gain civilian support to route out militants, and establish stable governments to keep them form coming back that would be a victory in my eyes.  this is a achievable but with the current approach to the war probably not going to happen any time soon.   #  when the british would establish a state they liked to draw borders where there would be one ethnic minority and one ethnic majority.   #  step 0 establish a stable government that the civilians trust and have faith in.  in iraq that probably means splitting it into 0 different countries.  iraq was established after wwi by the british and they drew the borders to intentionally be a problem.  when the british would establish a state they liked to draw borders where there would be one ethnic minority and one ethnic majority.  they would then put the ethnic minority in charge, often a precarious position, which would both indebt the minority to britain and make them reliant on britain to stay in power.  tl;dr the british made the borders to be unstable.  step 0 give civilians food, water, shelter, electricity, recreation, and other goodies to make them like you   step 0 stop killing civilians   step 0 ask civilians to help find militants and if they wo not help take away the shit you gave them in step 0.    step 0 ? step 0 profit
america and her allies have been engaging in a  war on terror  pretty much since 0.  however, this is a war that we cannot and will not win.  we are fighting a movement/idea/unorganized non state actor.  in many ways, persecution only helps it spread, as evidenced by the rise of groups like isis and boko haram, as well as the continued existence of al qaeda, the taliban, etc.  if anything, more terror has happened as a result of the  war on terror .  no nation has ever been able to  win  a war like this.  this is because there is no way to  win .  what could you do ? eliminate every member of a group ? it is not like it wo not just pop up again.  america is exceptionally good at war and remains exceptionally good at war, which we see in the tremendous success of the initial phase of the first iraq war which, by the way, had a clear cut goal: remove saddam huisane from kuwait .  what we see in the iraq war is what we saw in vietnam and, in a lesser sense, korea.  the united states, and indeed anyone else, cannot fight an idea or a non state actor.  tldr: america cannot win in the middle east because there are no clear cut goals or achievable, concrete finish lines.  america excels at regular war, but no nation can fight the war we have in iraq.  URL  #  tldr: america cannot win in the middle east because there are no clear cut goals or achievable, concrete finish lines.   #  america excels at regular war, but no nation can fight the war we have in iraq.   # we are fighting a movement/idea/unorganized non state actor.  in many ways, persecution only helps it spread, as evidenced by the rise of groups like isis and boko haram, as well as the continued existence of al qaeda, the taliban, etc.  if anything, more terror has happened as a result of the  war on terror .  yet, a lot of those same groups you have listed have been diminished tremendously because of those military actions.  boko haram nigeria and its neighbor is recent offensives have freed hundreds of hostages URL taken out strongholds, and made more advances towards eradicating boko haram in the past few months than in years isis after their lightning advances in 0, they have been held more or less in check since the us led airstrikes began.  they have lost ground in kobani, and against the yazidis and kurds in northern iraq al qaeda who still claims affiliation with them these days ? they have been in a power struggle internally since osama bin laden died, and have not had major coordinated attacks that were once their trademark the taliban no longer the ruling government of afghanistan, and while their insurgency lives on, the us is still present in afghanistan lets look at some other groups that do not get as much attention: in 0, the tuarge rebellion in mali led to the declaration of the state of azawad URL a nation supported by islamist groups.  a french led intervention URL defeated the islamists and retook most of northern mali al shabaab the african union mission in somalia URL which puts african union troops from uganda, kenya, ethiopia, etc.  under us advisors and with us support and funding, has retaken large parts of somalia to include mogadishu.  al shabaab, the al qaeda affiliated islamist group had once ruled large parts of somalia now they have been driven out of places like mogadishu, which has brought the restoration of the federal somali government closer to a reality than at any point in the past 0  years.  america excels at regular war, but no nation can fight the war we have in iraq.  there  are  goals maybe not clear cut concrete finish lines, but war never is.  it is easy to look at ww0 and say  oh, we made italy, japan, and germany surrender  and say those were goals sure, in the short term.  in the long term though, we wanted to prevent ww0 from happening again so we set about  occupying  those countries and rebuilding them, something the victors of wwi did not do.  and you know what ? the us is  still  in those countries, as those 0 countries host more us troops than any others in the world.  those are the same goals the us has in nations like iraq and afghanistan the difference is, the us is still facing active insurgencies in those countries, the local governments are much less effective than we have hoped, and the stomach for the us to stay long term in those countries is not like it was in the past.  if you told someone in 0 that us troops would still be in germany, italy, and japan  seventy years  later, people would think you are insane.  and yet, here we are.   #  in their eyes, when you say  education is the answer  they are viewing you as a modern form of western imperialism one of ideological control instead of political control.   # i would like to think there is a better idea.  to me, it is education.  the people in those countries, who only see america as drone strikes and air raids, need to understand that the us is trying to assist them.  if we want long term stability, it requires a multi faceted approach that includes both security and education.  de nazification of germany did not happen overnight, and if we left germany to their own devices like we did at the end of ww i, who is to say they would not have found their new strong man to lead them a decade or two later.  and, remember, education itself is not enough: in fact, education is a double edged sword.  it is easy for us in the west to say  they need to be educated  but that is in our system.  in  their  eyes, western education is just the west trying to impose its values and ideologies upon their way of life.  for example, boko haram literally means  western education is forbidden  they are a reaction to the westernization of their education system and values, which is often at odds with their world view, and sometimes outright their antithesis.  in their eyes, when you say  education is the answer  they are viewing you as a modern form of western imperialism one of ideological control instead of political control.   #  just wanted to add a common misconception is that they blow us up because of their ideas or our ideas.   #  just wanted to add a common misconception is that they blow us up because of their ideas or our ideas.  differing ideas exist, but they are not the true cause of terrorism.  the cause deeper societal issues: abject poverty and desperation.  religions fanatics and nuts will always exist, but how many supporters they have and how extreme those supporters are depends on their situation.  as long as people can make enough money to feed their families, they are not gonna destroy the status quo.  people who work all day every day are also too tired and are less willing to sacrifice their precious free time to protest an unfair system that doesn;t impact them much anyway.   #  this is a achievable but with the current approach to the war probably not going to happen any time soon.   #  i disagree that there are no clear cut goals.  the goal is to kill militants and the secondary goal that they will never publicly state is to provide a target for terrorists, that target being u. s.  military personnel in the middle east and the countries supporting u. s.  military personnel keep terrorist from attacking difficult targets in the u. s.  by providing a target oversees .  now i agree that the way the  war  is being fought that it cannot be won, but i can foresee a change of tactics and then maybe a victory can be obtained.  if the u. s.  can reduce civilian casualties, gain civilian support to route out militants, and establish stable governments to keep them form coming back that would be a victory in my eyes.  this is a achievable but with the current approach to the war probably not going to happen any time soon.   #  tl;dr the british made the borders to be unstable.   #  step 0 establish a stable government that the civilians trust and have faith in.  in iraq that probably means splitting it into 0 different countries.  iraq was established after wwi by the british and they drew the borders to intentionally be a problem.  when the british would establish a state they liked to draw borders where there would be one ethnic minority and one ethnic majority.  they would then put the ethnic minority in charge, often a precarious position, which would both indebt the minority to britain and make them reliant on britain to stay in power.  tl;dr the british made the borders to be unstable.  step 0 give civilians food, water, shelter, electricity, recreation, and other goodies to make them like you   step 0 stop killing civilians   step 0 ask civilians to help find militants and if they wo not help take away the shit you gave them in step 0.    step 0 ? step 0 profit
a few months ago, walter lewin, a very famous physicist and mit professor was accused of sexually harassing a female student in an online course.  the mit carried out an investigation and determined that he was guilty, cutting ties with him and revoking his title as an emeritus professor URL .  now, i think we can safely assume that the accusations were real and i will even concede that revoking his title is an appropriate measure.  nevertheless, i would argue that the removal of his lectures is a nonsencial, knee jerk reaction from the mit to prevent  any  blemish on its reputation, perhaps from fear of criticism from certain groups.  maybe they thought that the harsher the measure, the better reaction they would obtain from the society.  removing walter lewin is lectures is a non sensical approach and ca not be really justified.  are the lectures themselves sexual harassment ? of course not ! does this provide justice for the victim s ? not at all.  this measure only makes it harder for students to access very good lectures that will allow almost anyone to comprehend basic concepts of physics.  in fact, the lectures can be readily accessed through torrents or other webpages, so it is not like the mit is  erasing  walter mit from the society just to provide some relief to victims or to protect their reputation.  should we start destroying wagner is recors just because he was an anti semitic ? or should we stop referencing watson is articles just because he made racist statements ? i do not think so.   #  a non sensical approach and ca not be really justified.   #  this is mit, an institution known and respected around the world for its excellence and dedication to education.   # this is mit, an institution known and respected around the world for its excellence and dedication to education.  a sexual harassment case against one of its emeritus professors is going to make news and its response has to be in the interest of its future students.  amidst calls for greater participation by women in stem fields, would you expect mit to act any differently ? their actions have demonstrated that they do not tolerate sexual harassment by its professors, no matter how well respected they may be.  they have done what they could within reason, which is to remove lewin is videos from their own webpages.  they have also done his carefully, by making the courses available for students still using them to prepare for their exams.  from your link:  mit is keeping some of lewin is lecture videos available on ocw0. mit. edu until the end of the semester.   i am certain that lewin is research will continue to be widely used, since his personal deficiencies do not discredit the science that he helped further.  but continuing to provide him a platform that links him to the institution is a different thing altogether.  lewin is retired, but mit still needs to remain conscious of its ability to attract students in the future.  the response was legal, and since it took place after the conclusion of their investigation it was also reasonable.   #  secondly, since they are cutting ties, they do not want his name and their name stuck together on a video that they are putting out.   #  they cut ties with him.  to me, it makes sense that they would remove his lectures from their libraries.  firstly, they would want to discourage students from interacting with him, which they might do.  even if he is not part of the staff they can presumably still find ways to contact him with questions.  secondly, since they are cutting ties, they do not want his name and their name stuck together on a video that they are putting out.  they do not want to be associated with him, so they are not associating with him.   #  think about a company that lays off a particular employee because of sexual harassment, and the company does not want to be associated with him.   #  does it make a difference, though ? revoking his professorship is similar to a company terminating a contract, and it effectively implies that the mit is no longer associated with walter lewin.  the lectures themselves are a product of his work there and nothing more.  think about a company that lays off a particular employee because of sexual harassment, and the company does not want to be associated with him.  however, the employee invented an incredible successful device, and the company holds the patent.  i would argue that the company can continue to exploit the patent  and  maintain no association with that particular employee.   #  another point, academia is not like other traditional businesses.   # as such, they are more than just work product, they are also a form of marketing material.  if a company cuts ties with a spokesperson or the star of their commercials, they also stop running the commercials and remove their likeness from their website and other advertising.  another point, academia is not like other traditional businesses.  the lecture may not be strictly a  work product  as it is in other companies.  he may retain some control over those lectures, despite mit publishing them, giving them another reason to take them down.   #  my point here is that revoking his professorship and prohibiting him from entering the mit again !  #  my point here is that revoking his professorship and prohibiting him from entering the mit again ! is the surely the  optimal  way of cutting ties with him.  however, let is be honest: walter lewis will always be associated to the mit, whether they like it or not.  it is not like suddenly everyone will forget this history, right ? thus, i would argue swift investigation that ended in his professorship revoked is all the mit and the press needs.  removing his lectures is rather an overkill and just forces students to look through shady websites this materials.  hell, it even helps create a certain  taboo  around them that could further feed rumours about his career in the mit.
a few months ago, walter lewin, a very famous physicist and mit professor was accused of sexually harassing a female student in an online course.  the mit carried out an investigation and determined that he was guilty, cutting ties with him and revoking his title as an emeritus professor URL .  now, i think we can safely assume that the accusations were real and i will even concede that revoking his title is an appropriate measure.  nevertheless, i would argue that the removal of his lectures is a nonsencial, knee jerk reaction from the mit to prevent  any  blemish on its reputation, perhaps from fear of criticism from certain groups.  maybe they thought that the harsher the measure, the better reaction they would obtain from the society.  removing walter lewin is lectures is a non sensical approach and ca not be really justified.  are the lectures themselves sexual harassment ? of course not ! does this provide justice for the victim s ? not at all.  this measure only makes it harder for students to access very good lectures that will allow almost anyone to comprehend basic concepts of physics.  in fact, the lectures can be readily accessed through torrents or other webpages, so it is not like the mit is  erasing  walter mit from the society just to provide some relief to victims or to protect their reputation.  should we start destroying wagner is recors just because he was an anti semitic ? or should we stop referencing watson is articles just because he made racist statements ? i do not think so.   #  should we stop referencing watson is articles just because he made racist statements ?  #  i am certain that lewin is research will continue to be widely used, since his personal deficiencies do not discredit the science that he helped further.   # this is mit, an institution known and respected around the world for its excellence and dedication to education.  a sexual harassment case against one of its emeritus professors is going to make news and its response has to be in the interest of its future students.  amidst calls for greater participation by women in stem fields, would you expect mit to act any differently ? their actions have demonstrated that they do not tolerate sexual harassment by its professors, no matter how well respected they may be.  they have done what they could within reason, which is to remove lewin is videos from their own webpages.  they have also done his carefully, by making the courses available for students still using them to prepare for their exams.  from your link:  mit is keeping some of lewin is lecture videos available on ocw0. mit. edu until the end of the semester.   i am certain that lewin is research will continue to be widely used, since his personal deficiencies do not discredit the science that he helped further.  but continuing to provide him a platform that links him to the institution is a different thing altogether.  lewin is retired, but mit still needs to remain conscious of its ability to attract students in the future.  the response was legal, and since it took place after the conclusion of their investigation it was also reasonable.   #  firstly, they would want to discourage students from interacting with him, which they might do.   #  they cut ties with him.  to me, it makes sense that they would remove his lectures from their libraries.  firstly, they would want to discourage students from interacting with him, which they might do.  even if he is not part of the staff they can presumably still find ways to contact him with questions.  secondly, since they are cutting ties, they do not want his name and their name stuck together on a video that they are putting out.  they do not want to be associated with him, so they are not associating with him.   #  revoking his professorship is similar to a company terminating a contract, and it effectively implies that the mit is no longer associated with walter lewin.   #  does it make a difference, though ? revoking his professorship is similar to a company terminating a contract, and it effectively implies that the mit is no longer associated with walter lewin.  the lectures themselves are a product of his work there and nothing more.  think about a company that lays off a particular employee because of sexual harassment, and the company does not want to be associated with him.  however, the employee invented an incredible successful device, and the company holds the patent.  i would argue that the company can continue to exploit the patent  and  maintain no association with that particular employee.   #  he may retain some control over those lectures, despite mit publishing them, giving them another reason to take them down.   # as such, they are more than just work product, they are also a form of marketing material.  if a company cuts ties with a spokesperson or the star of their commercials, they also stop running the commercials and remove their likeness from their website and other advertising.  another point, academia is not like other traditional businesses.  the lecture may not be strictly a  work product  as it is in other companies.  he may retain some control over those lectures, despite mit publishing them, giving them another reason to take them down.   #  my point here is that revoking his professorship and prohibiting him from entering the mit again !  #  my point here is that revoking his professorship and prohibiting him from entering the mit again ! is the surely the  optimal  way of cutting ties with him.  however, let is be honest: walter lewis will always be associated to the mit, whether they like it or not.  it is not like suddenly everyone will forget this history, right ? thus, i would argue swift investigation that ended in his professorship revoked is all the mit and the press needs.  removing his lectures is rather an overkill and just forces students to look through shady websites this materials.  hell, it even helps create a certain  taboo  around them that could further feed rumours about his career in the mit.
kids already naturally feel  special  and essentially narcissistic, so it is redundant to tell them they are special.  that would plant a seed that could lead to entitlement or arrogance.   i have always been told i am special, so it is ok if i just spend all day on my phone instead of being social.   would not it be much more valuable to inundate them with the value of empathy and hard work ? also special implies that the child is greater than the average, and that just is not true for everybody, à la the point from the incredibles, if everyone is special, then nobody is.   #  kids already naturally feel  special  and essentially narcissistic, so it is redundant to tell them they are special.   #  well, it seems like this might be based on sampling bias; maybe kids around you are told they are special, and so you just see a bunch of kids who feel special.   # well, it seems like this might be based on sampling bias; maybe kids around you are told they are special, and so you just see a bunch of kids who feel special.  have you worked with kids who are never told they are special ? there is such a thing as a child with poor self esteem.  you say you want to teach them the value of hard work etc.  but that seems sort of dickensian; a child is worth more than the things they can do.   #  if a child feels like shit for whatever reason, then of course we should seek to remove the underlying causes of that.   #  first, words are not powerless.  if they were, most bullying would not exist in the first place.  some of my most powerful memories involve something someone said to me, either positive or negative.  and sometimes those words were coupled with action, and sometimes they were not.  but we are kidding ourselves if we think a well timed compliment or bit of verbal support is completely useless.  moreover, why does your argument stipulate that someone is either told they are special  or  some action is taken ? part of being a good parent, teacher, or person of similar guardianship is understanding all the ways that, together, support that child is growth.  if a child feels like shit for whatever reason, then of course we should seek to remove the underlying causes of that.  but in the meantime, it can be very nice for them to hear and it certainly would not hurt something to boost their confidence and self efficacy a bit.   #  i bet this bully is jealous of you because he wish he had your skills !  # i bet this bully is jealous of you because he wish he had your skills ! now show him how great you can catch a ball and watch his jaw drop !   this is basically just a more specific form of telling someone they are special.  you are just explaining one way in which they are special.  or is your argument specifically that parents should not simply say, verbatim,  you are special  and then walk away ?  #  i went from the  weird  kid to being an adept, generally sociable person over the course of my upbringing.   #  i went from the  weird  kid to being an adept, generally sociable person over the course of my upbringing.  i am still weird, but of my parents had not offered the reassurance they did, i would have had a rougher time of figuring myself out.  being told that someone else is happier because i am alive is genuinely helpful.  that said, i was never told i am  special.   i was reminded of the things that are objectively true i am smart, naturally empathetic, objectively good looking, intuitive and inclined to critical thought.  my parents also did not let me be complacent about my faults i am naturally lazy, self involved, and quick to anger.  my point is that your family are the people you count on to build you up.  your whole life is spent being reminded of how not special you are, a good parent reminds you that you are worth something while helping you keep your eye on the horizon.   #  is it that the child is not good enough at something ?  #  it seems to me that you are assuming in the given example that the bullies are cruel towards this child because it is not good enough at something.  maybe a child gets bullied for how it looks or even exactly because it is particularly good at something like, a boy who does ballet.  an example which is totally not referring to 0 year old me .  so, what is the  real issue  you mention ? is it that the child is not good enough at something ? if this is the message the child receives i am getting bullied because i did not work hard enough on my skills to be respected by others i can imagine that this will not exactly have possitive effects on the child is self esteem.   you are special  is something which is unconditional; something the child does not have to  work hard  for.  it is something that provides a sense of safety, a nest where you are always welcome and loved, no matter how bad your grades, how shitty your picture or how embarassing your sports performance.  maybe this is not something that prepares you for life or that makes you more efficient, but it is something that most of us value when remembering how it was being a child.
for a social media site such as reddit, a well designed logo can be a great way to increase visibility and build recognition over the internet.  although snoo has become associated with reddit as the site grows, i believe there are several shortcomings with it when compared to logos of other social media sites/programs:   snoo is not evocative of reddit is name or function.  viewing snoo out of context URL as an uninitiated viewer, does nothing to relate the concept of the site in any way.  in contrast, the logo of twitter URL for example, effectively and subtly hints at the site is function.  as a stylized songbird, it is easy to connect the words  twitter  and  tweets  to the sounds a bird makes.  in addition, the short, simple messages of birds can also easily relate to the function of twitter.  with snoo, no such obvious connection exists.  this could be forgiven if snoo made some sort of connection to the name of reddit, like how facebook and google  contain letters, but again, no such connection exists.    snoo is too complicated to be widely recognizable.  simple, dynamic designs URL are characteristic of good logos.  the problem with snoo is that it is too intricate to be as effective as the simple logos of facebook, pinterest, and even digg.  this problem becomes especially obvious when viewing icons on pages for quick sharing of links.  take a look at this image URL you have clean, simple logos like google , skype, and tumblr, before you get to snoo is head.  once again, if you are unfamiliar with the logo as reddit is, it is very difficult to guess what site it might be.    snoo does not make use of any interesting or creative colors or designs.  facebook has its characteristic blue.  snapchat has its distinctive white on yellow.  youtube has its red.  reddit has a character in black outline with a white body, apart from two small red eyes.  i believe that a distinctive color palette would draw more positive attention than its current form, which seems to fall under the radar to non redditors.  it also makes a heavy use of negative space, which means it can be drastically and unintentionally altered from placing it on different backgrounds.    finally, snoo is upright orientation makes it difficult to place on social media buttons without altering it.  take a look at another example of icon buttons URL although some logos have their full titles truncated to fit into boxes, snoo has to have its entire lower body removed in order to fit in the same space.  while it does make for a more detailed logo on the site itself, its upright orientation harms its versatility when being displayed from elsewhere.  the lack of consistency across platforms is another shortcoming of snoo, in my opinion.  overall, i think an update of snoo to help it fit in with logos of other social media websites, as well as a general aesthetic cleanup, would be great for reddit in the long term.  to truly make reddit into a more visible and popular website, a good, clean logo is important.   #  snoo is upright orientation makes it difficult to place on social media buttons without altering it.   #  no doubt about it, though i do not know whether it is accurate to say that  its upright orientation harms its versatility when being displayed from elsewhere.    #  what an interesting position.  since i am relatively new to reddit, maybe my perspective will be helpful to you.  i feel like you are using your prior knowledge about twitter is function to make your case about its logo hinting at its function.  i just asked someone else this and they agreed;  after  learning twitter is function the logo makes a lot of sense, but not without that prior knowledge.  evernote is elephant logo, though also attractive, does nothing to hint at its function.  similarly, apple is safari logo is references the name of its browser.  but it would probably be just as appropriate as a replacement for its folders/windows function as it is for the browser if the only available information was the name.  it is an alien, an outsider.  for a website that relies heavily on the value of anonymity of its users it makes perfect sense.  it lets people approach an issue from the outside, without the weight of their identity as in twitter, facebook, etc.  and i believe that it is a huge draw for its users.  subreddits like r/offmychest, among others, would not be as useful without a cloak of anonymity.  as for the simple red and white combination, one of the world is most beautiful symbols URL uses the same colours and does a great job of it.  no doubt about it, though i do not know whether it is accurate to say that  its upright orientation harms its versatility when being displayed from elsewhere.   snoo is head is much more distinctive than the other truncated logos in the examples you have provided.  in fact, of the 0 logos in the coloured example, i only recognized 0.  i will learn more when i need to use the services, until then i do not need to be aware of them.  there is one other thing, snoo is upright orientation does lead to a lot of room for customization on the website itself on different subreddits, on t shirts, etc.  that is something that facebook is simple logo does not allow.   #  it would be great to see this concept expanded on in an update, as it has potential but right now needs more thought to draw the connection.   #  you raise a lot of great points, and certainly as a relative newcomer to reddit your perspective is particularly important.  here is my take on your responses.  i feel like you are using your prior knowledge about twitter is function to make your case about its logo hinting at its function.  i think there is definitely some truth to this, however, you are missing one aspect after learning twitter is function, looking at the logo can subtly remind the user about what it does.  it may not be immediately apparent, but it can cause the user to think more about the program once the connection is made.  with reddit, this effect seems to be lost with snoo is current form.  it is an alien, an outsider.  for a website that relies heavily on the value of anonymity of its users it makes perfect sense.  very interesting.  i had not thought of snoo as a representation of anonymity, but i still do not see it as quite so obvious in its current form, compared to certain other logos.  it would be great to see this concept expanded on in an update, as it has potential but right now needs more thought to draw the connection.  to use your example of the evernote elephant, this represents an elephant is good memory, appropriate for a note taking/archiving site.  for me, it is not the color combination that is a problem, it is the overwhelming negative space and use of white.  i would love to see red be more prominent, this would definitely make the logo more attractive than it is currently.  overall, i think an at least an aesthetic change would greatly improve snoo as it is now.   #  perhaps i showed you how the alien relates to anonymity, which is a big factor in my usage of reddit.   #  that is a very thoughtful response, and it definitely made me think a little harder about a few things.  let is see whether i can explain my own thoughts on the matter.  after using twitter, i feel that its logo was a wonderful choice: simple, clear, and a wonderful shorthand of the site is function.  my only point was that the connection is made  after  using the service, i. e.  not without context.  so viewing any symbol without context can be hit or miss.  after all, the user is own experience with the website informs the response to the symbol.  personally, my response to skype is logo is not positive despite the fact that i use the service.  the program has become bloated, and now when i look at skype is blue bubble i think bloat.  these things happens all the time, we all fill symbols with meaning based on our own experience.  if my own experience with reddit were extremely negative, i would have come to a different conclusion regarding snoo.  this segues nicely to your point about evernote is elephant.  an elephant is memory make perfect sense, but i would never thought of it like that.  i am not a frequent user of evernote, though i appreciate its amazing archiving abilities.  time and use, it is a big factor as well.  so a user is response to a logo comes from context, as well as the  quality  of experience with a product/service.  perhaps i showed you how the alien relates to anonymity, which is a big factor in my usage of reddit.  reddit is a very large and diverse community, so snoo is white presents an excellent canvas for each community to present itself.  many subreddits, like /r/privacy, /r/diy, /r/eli0, /r/cozyplaces from my subscriptions make great use of snoo is white canvas to customize the symbol for their own use.  and white makes an excellent canvas, for small or large changes.  i would be interested to hear about the kinds of changes you would like for snoo, though i wo not be able to change your view re.  personal preferences.   #  my view is not completely changed yet, but you have definitely made me rethink the quality of snoo is color palette.   # the program has become bloated, and now when i look at skype is blue bubble i think bloat.  these things happens all the time, we all fill symbols with meaning based on our own experience.  very interesting.  i forgot to keep in mind that interpreting logos can be subjective, and that ideas of what it represents can be changed by the experience of the product/service itself.  still, i think updating snoo could still leave some room for interpretation while better representing the site.  reddit is a very large and diverse community, so snoo is white presents an excellent canvas for each community to present itself.  versatility is absolutely important in a logo, and thinking about it now it is one of snoo is best features.  i see now that the negative/white space is helpful is making it customizable, and while i am not sure it has to be quite so overwhelming, it is less of a shortcoming than i originally thought.  my view is not completely changed yet, but you have definitely made me rethink the quality of snoo is color palette.  for that, i will give you a  .   #  ok, i can definitely see where you are coming from.   #  ok, i can definitely see where you are coming from.  i agree that re doing a logo from scratch would be a mistake, because of the image snoo has built up in the past 0  years.  instead, perhaps an update or redesign that addresses some of these issues but keeps a similar concept of snoo would be better.  the point about snoo being more of a mascot instead of a logo is also very interesting, but my question is this: could a simplified/stylized version of snoo work just as well ? because you have, for example, the snapchat ghost which is simple but can still be occasionally customized to work as a mascot.